before they ate the Bread as before they drank the Wine If we do suppose they did receive the Bread into their hands before those words were pronounced by our Saviour which is the most that can be yet they could not eat it before they were And so this fine and subtle Hypothesis which they have invented to deprive the Laiety of the Cup will deprive them of the Bread too and will in its consequence and by the same train of arguing tend to take away the whole Sacrament from the People and make it peculiar to the Priests as some of the Jewish Sacrifices were and the People shall not at all partake of the Altar but it shall be reserved as a peculiar right and priviledge of the Priests to which the Laity ought not to pretend because the Apostles took the Sacrament only as Priests and were made Priests fore they either ate the Bread or drank the Wine this would make a greater difference and distinction between the Priests and the Laiety and tend more to preserve the honour and esteem of one above the other Which is the great reason they themselves give and no doubt a true one for their taking away the Cup from the People and I don't question but so great a Wit and so eloquent an Artist in pleading as the Bishop of Meaux is who can say a great deal for any cause be it never so bad may with as good grounds and as great a shew of reason justifie if he please the taking away the whole Sacrament from the Laiety as the Cup and may to this purpose improve and advance this notion of the Apostles receiving both kinds as Priests to prove the Laiety have a right to neither and may take off the necessity of both parts as well as one by pretending that the real effect and vertue of the Sacrament is received some other way by the Sacrifice of the Mass or by Spiritual Manducation or by some thing else without partaking any of the Symbols as well as without partaking all of them as Christ has appointed for if the effect and vertue of the Sacrament depend upon Christs Institution then both are necessary if it may be had without keeping to that then neither is so but of this afterwards when we come to examine his grounds and reasons I shall make some Reflections upon our Saviours Institution of this Sacrament and offer some considerations against these pretences and Sophistries of our Adversaries 1. I would ask them whither those words of our Saviour Do this in remembrance of me do not belong to all Christians as well as to the Apostles if they do not then where is there any command given to Christians for to receive the Sacrament either in both or in one kind Where is there any command at all for Christians to Celebrate or come to the Lords Supper or to observe this Christian Rite which is the peculiar mark and badge of our Profession and the most solemn part of Christian Worship Those words surely contain in them as plain a Command and as direct an Obligation upon all Christians to perform this Duty to the end of the World as they did upon the Apostles at that time or else we must say with the Socinians That the Sacrament was onely a temporary Rite that belonged onely to the Apostles and was not to continue in the Church or be observed by all Christians in all Ages But St. Paul says * 1 Cor. 11.26 we do hereby shew or declare the Lord's death till he come by this solemn way of eating Bread broken and Wine poured out we are to remember Christ who dyed for us and is gone into Heaven till he come again when we shall live with him and enjoy his Presence for ever Christ has given a command to all Christians to do this and they are to Do this in remembrance of him they are as much obliged to this as the Apostles were and the command does as much belong to the People to receive the Sacrament as to the Apostles or to their Successors to give it them The Apostles and Christian Priests are hereby commanded to do their parts which is not onely to receive but to dispence and distribute the Sacrament and the People or Christian Laiety are commanded to do theirs which is to receive it The Apostles are to do that which Christ did to Bless the Bread and breake it and give it to be eaten to bless the Cup and give it to be drunk by the Communicants and the Communicants are to eat the Bread and drink the Cup and if they do not both of them do this that belongs to them and perform those proper parts of their Duty which are here commanded them they are both guilty of an unexcusable disobedience to this plain command of Christ Do this in remembrance of me No body ever denyed that those words and this command of Christ belonged to the Apostles but to say they belong to them alone and not to all Christians is to take away the Command and Obligation which all Christians have to receive the Holy Supper 2. This command of Christ as it obliges all Christians to receive the Sacrament the Laiety as well as the Clergy so it obliges them to receive it in both kinds and as it obliges the Clergy to give the People the Sacrament so it obliges them to give it in both kinds for the command of Doing this in remembrance of Christ belongs as much to one kind as the other and is as expresly added concerning the Cup as concerning the Bread for so it is in St. Paul ‖ beyond all contradiction and to the unanswerable confusion of our Adversaries who would pretend it belongs only to the Bread Bellarmine observing these words in St. Luke to be added only after the giving of the Bread for they are in neither of the two other Evangelists falls into a mighty triumph and into a most Religious fit of Catholic Devotion admiring the wonderful Providence of GOD * Mirabilis est providentia Dei in sanctis literis nam ut non haberent haeretici justam excusationem sustulit eis omnem tergiversando occasionem Nam Lucas illud Hoc facite posuit post datum Sacramentum Sub specie panis post datum autem calicem illud non repetivit ut intelligeremus jussisse Dominum ut sub specie panis omnibus distribueretur Sacramentum sub specie autem vini non utrem Bellarm. de Sacram. Euchar. l. 4. c. 25. that to take away all Heretical Tergiversation this should so happen that it might be plainly understood that the Wine was not to be given to all and that this command did not belong to that but onely to the Bread But this shews how over-hasty he was to catch at any thing though by the plainest mistake in the World that might help him in his straights and how over-glad to find any thing that might seem to favour and relieve him in his
distressed cause and how his zeal and forwardness out run not onely his judgement but even his memory for if he had but turned to St. Paul and had but thought of this passage in him where he addes these very words Do this in remembrance of me to the Cup as well as to the Bread it would have quite spoiled his mighty Observation and made him ashamed of it and not have suffered him to be guilty of so horrid a flip But the Bishop of Meaux espied this †P. 255. as it is hard to miss it and what way has he to put by the force of those words which so undeniably belong to the Cup as well as the Bread He says They import onely a conditional order to do this in remembrance of Christ as often as one shall do it and not an order absolute to do it But does not this conditional order imply an absolute one to do it often and virtually forbid the not doing it at all if he had gone on but to the very next verse would he not have found that St. Paul gives the same conditional order concerning eating the Bread as both here and there concerning drinking the Cup As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew forth or do ye shew forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord's death till he come And do not those words though spoke conditionally of the Bread yet absolutely order the eating of it when we received the Sacrament if they do as sure no body will deny then they as well absolutely order the drinking the Cup too when we do so Affirmative precepts such as this is oblige us not absolutely at all times as when ye pray when ye fast are onely conditional commands but yet they import an absolute command to perform those duties and when we do so to perform them so as Christ has appointed us to do and thus we have an absolute precept in the Gospel to receive the Sacrament which he is very willing we should not have ‖ P. 256. and when we do so we are to receive it as Christ commanded we should by eating Bread and drinking Wine and doing both those in remembrance of him 3. Christ's own Institution had there been no such particular Commands to Drink as well as to Eat and to Do both in remembrance of him I say his own Institution of the Sacrament both by Bread and Wine should suffice methinks to show us what we should do when we Celebrate the same Sacrament that he did namely use both Bread and Wine and eat and drink it as was done then if it be the same Sacrament that he celebrated with his Disciples why do not we celebrate it as he did why should we not observe his own Institution but without any order from him and contrary to what he did leave out part of it and that part of it which is as considerable and as remarkable in his Institution as the other If from the bare Institution of Christ all Christians are bound to receive this Sacrament which surely they are then from thence they are bound as much to drink the Cup as to eat the Bread for both are equally instituted If the Institution for of that I speak now as 't is in St. Matthew and St. Mark without the additional command of Do this if that do not oblige to drink the Cup neither does it oblige to eat the Bread for that is no more in the Institution then the other And if the Church has such a power as to take away the Cup notwithstanding the Institution it may have a power to take away the Bread too notwithstanding the Institution for the one is as much in the Institution as the other and if the Cup be not an Essential part of the Sacrament which is the other thing they say and which the Bishop of Meaux insists on which I shall examine afterwards then neither is the Bread so far as appears by the Institution and so neither of them may be necessary and both of them may be taken away notwithstanding Christ's own Institution of both Which though it be the most presumptuous boldness and the most horrid Sacriledge that can be yet shall I say no more to it at present but what St. Cyprian does upon the like case of those who would omit the Wine in the Sacrament and use water instead of it ‖ Quod si nec minimademandatis Christi licet solvere quanto magis tam magna tam grandia tam ad ipsum dominicae passionis nostrae Redemptionis Sacramentum pertinentia fas non est infringere aut in aliud quam quod divinitùs institutum sit humanâ institutione mutare Cyprian ep 63. ad Caecilium But if it be not lawful to loose any one of the least Commands of Christ how much more is it not lawful to infringe so great and so weighty ones and such as the very Sacrament of our Lord's Passion and our Redemption and to change it by Humane Institution into quite another thing then what it is by Divine Institution 4. The reason added by our Saviour to his Institution and Command of Drink ye all of it * Matth. 26.28 for this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for you as in St. Luke for many as in St. Matthew and St. Mark for the remission of sins This shews the Cup not onely to have a peculiar use as well as the Bread and a particular mistical relation to his Blood shed or poured out but that it belongs to all those to drink of it for whom Christ's Blood was shed who are to have remission of sins by it and who have a right to the new Covenant which Christ has purchased and establisht in his Blood which I suppose are the Christian Laiety as well as the Priests though I do not think with Bellarmine †Dispute de Euch. l. 4. that all Turks and Infidels ought to have the Cup because Christ's Blood was shed for them too but I presume he will not say they have the same right to it or interest in it that Christians have and yet I own they ought as much to have the Cup as they ought to turn Christians that is they ought to do both But yet first I think to become Christians and be Baptized before they have ordinarily a right either to Christ's Blood or to the Sacrament and it must seem very strange and grate very much upon all Christian ears to have it said that Turks and Infidels have a right to the Cup and Blood of Christ as well as Christians from this reason here of our Saviour to his Disciples concerning which it is I think very observable that to partake of the Sacrificial Blood and to drink that Sacramentally which was shed for the expiation of our Sins is a peculiar and extraordinary priviledge allowed to Christians The Jews were forbid all blood for this reason given by
Priests by those words Hoc facite as well as they After the recital of the Institution in which he observes no difference between the Priests and Laics he tells the Faithful of the Church of Corinth that as often as they did eat this Bread and drink this Cup they shewed forth the Lord's death till he come So that they who were to shew forth Christ's death as well as the Priests were to do it both by eating the Bread and drinking the Cup and indeed one of them does not shew forth his death so well as both for it does not shew his Blood separated from his Body He goes on to shew'um the guilt of unworthy eating and drinking for he all along joyns both those Acts as a phrase signifying the Communion and he expresly uses it no less than four times in that Chapter But in some Copies say they instead of and he uses the particle or in the 27 v. Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink this cup unworthily and here Monsieur Boileau would gladly find something for either Eating or Drinking without doing both which is such a shift and cavil as nothing would make a man catch at but such a desperate cause as has nothing else to be said for it If the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or were used in that place instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet he has but little skil either in Greek or Latine Authors who knows not that it is the commonest thing in both to use that disjunctive for a copulative as to Abraham or his seed for to Abraham and his seed ‖ Ro. 4.13 Of which it were easie to give innumerable instances both in the Bible and profane History The Apostle having used the copulative in all other Verses and all along in this Chapter and having joyned eating and drinking cannot be supposed here to use a disjunctive and to separate them but after all there are Copies of as great Credit and Authority for the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though I think no such weight bears upon the difference of these particles as to make it worth our while to examine them for if the Apostles did disjoyn them it was onely to lay a greater Emphasis upon the guilt of unworthy eating and drinking which though they both go together yet are both very great Sins and I see no manner of consequence that because a man may both eat and drink unworthily that therefore he should onely eat and not drink at all or that the Apostles supposed it lawful to eat without drinking or drink without eating But the Apostolical practice and the Institution of our Saviour for Communion in both kinds though it be very plain and clear in Scripture and being founded upon so full a Command and a Divine Institution I know no Power in the Church to alter it or vary from it yet it will be further confirmed and strengthened by the Universal Practice of the whole Christian Church and of the purest Ages after the Apostles and by the general consent of Antiquity for a thousand years and more after Christ in which I shall prove the Eucharist was always given to all the Faithful who came to the public Worship and to the Communion in both kinds without any difference made between the Priests and the Laiety as to this matter which was a thing never heard of in Antiquity nor ever so much as mentioned in any Author till after the Twelfth Century in which wretched times of Ignorance and Superstition the Doctrine of Transubstantiation being newly brought in struck men with such horror and Superstitious Reverence of the sacred Symbols which they believed to be turned into the very substance of Christ's Body and Blood that they begun to be afraid of taking that part which was fluid and might be spilt each drop of which they thought to be the same blood that flowed out of the side of Christ and the very substantial Blood that was running in his Veins and now by a miraculous way was conveyed into the Chalice Hence at first they used Pipes and Quils to suck it out of the Cup and some used intinction or dipping of the Bread in the Wine and afterwards the same superstition increasing they came to leave off and abstaine wholly from drinking the Cup which was reserved onely to the more sacred lips of the Priests who were willing to be hereby distinguisht from the more unworthy and prophane Laiety The Council of Constance first made this a Law in the Year 1415 which was before a new and superstitious custom used only in some few places and got by degrees into some particular Churches of the Latine Communion for it never was in any other nor is to this day of which we have the first mention in Thomas Aquinas who lived in the Thirteenth Age and who speaks of it thus faintly in his time * In aliquibus Ecclesiis servatur ut solus sacerdos communicetsanguine reliqui vero Corpore Comment in Johan c. 6. v. 53. In some Churches it is observed that onely the Priest Communicates of the blood and others of the Body †In quibusdam Ecclesiis observatur sum p. 3. q. 80. In quibusdam in Aliquibus Ecclesiis shows that it was then but creeping into a few particular Churches and very far from being generally observed in the Western Parts And that it was quite otherwise in the whole Primitive Church for above a thousand years who in all their assemblies kept to our Saviour's Institution of both kinds and never varied from what Christ and his Apostles had commanded and delivered to them as the Church of Rome now does I shall fully prove that so according to Vincentius Lirinensis his rule against all manner of Heresies the truth may be establisht First ‖ Primo scilicet divinae legis auctoritate tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholice traditione by the authority of a divine Law and then by the Tradition of the Catholic Church which Tradition being well made out does more fully explain the Law and shew the necessity of observing it The Universal practice of the Catholic Church being a demonstration how they understood it contrary to the new Sophistry of our Adversaries and how they always thought themselves obliged by it And because none are more apt to boast of Tradition and the name of the Catholic Church upon all accounts than these men I shall more largely shew how shamefully they depart from it in this as they do indeed in all other points of Controversie between us and how they set up the Authority of their own private Church in opposition to the Universal as well as to the Laws of Christ and Practice of the Apostles Their Communion in one kind is such a demonstration of this that we need no other to prove this charge upon them and as I have showed this to be contrary to the Institution and command of Christ
which he was to be delivered it was at this time he would leave us his Body given for us Does the time or the hour then belong to the Institution does this appertain to the essence of it and is it not as plainly and evidently a circumstance as night or noon is a circumstance to eating and drinking Does the command of Christ Do this belong to that or to the other circumstances of doing it when the same thing the same Sacramental action may be done without them is not this a plain rule to make a distinction between the act it self and the circumstances of performing it Because there were a great many things done by Jesus Christ in this Mystery which we do not believe our selves obliged to do such as being in an upper Room lying upon a Bed and the like which are not properly things done by Christ so much as circumstances of doing it for the thing done was taking Bread and Wine and blessing and distributing them does therefore Christ's command Do this belong no more to eating and drinking than it does to those other things or rather circumstances with which he performed those is drinking as much a circumstance as doing it after supper if it be earing may be so too Monsieur de Meaux is ashamed to say this but yet 't is what he aims at for else the Cup will necessarily appear to belong to the Sacrament as an essential and consequently an indispensible part of it and this may be plainly known to be so from the words of Christ and from Scripture without the help of Tradition though that also as I have shewn does fully agree with those but they are so plain as not to need it in this case Eating and drinking are so plainly the essential part of the Sacrament and so clearly distinguisht from the other circumstances in Scripture that St. Paul always speaks of those without any regard to the other The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ the Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ * 1 Cor. 10.16 For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's death till he come †1 Cor. 11.26,27,28,29 Whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup unworthily Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup for he that eateth and drinketh So that he must be wilfully blind who cannot see from Scripture what is essential to this Sacrament from what is not But Monsieur de Meaux thinks to find more advantage in the other Sacrament of Baptism and therefore he chiefly insists upon that under this head and his design is to make out that immersion or plunging under Water is meant and signified by the word Baptize in which he tells us the whole World agree ‖ P. 168. and that this is the onely manner of Baptizing we read of in the Scriptures and that he can shew by the Acts of Councils and by ancient Rituals that for thirteen hundred years the whole Church Baptized after this manner as much as it was possible * P. 171. If it be so than it seems there is not only Scripture but Tradition for it which is the great principle he takes so much pains to establish And what then shall we have to say to the Anabaptists to whom de Meaux seems to have given up that cause that he may defend 〈◊〉 other of Communion in one kind for his aim in all this is to make immersion as essential to Baptism as eating and drinking to the Lord's Supper and if Scripture and Tradition be both so fully for it I know not what can be against it but de Meaux knows some Gentlemen who answer things as best pleases them P. 299. the present difficulty transports them and being pressed by the objection they say at that moment what seems most to disentangle them from it without much reflecting whether it agree I do not say with truth but with their own thoughts The Institution of the Eucharist in Bread and Wine and the command to do this which belonged to both eating and drinking lay very heavy upon him and to ease himself of those which he could not do if it were always necessary to observe what Christ instituted and commanded he was willing to make Baptism by dipping to be as much commanded and instituted as this though it be not now observed as necessary either by those of the Church of Rome or the Reformed and besides his arguments to prove that from Scripture he makes an universal Tradition of the Church which he pretends all along in his Book is against Communion in both kinds and which is the great thing he goes upon yet to be for this sort of Baptism no less than 1300 years So that neither the law in Scripture nor Tradition as it explains that law is always it seems to be observed which is the thing ought openly to be said for Communion in one kind The Cause it self demands this and we must not expect that an errour can be defended after a consequent manner ‖ Ib. But is Scripture and Tradition both for Baptism by immersion Surely not the word Baptize in which the command is given signifies only to wash in general and not to plung all over as I have already shewn in this Treatise †P. 21. and as all Writers against the Anabaptists do sufficiently make out to whom I shall refer the Reader for further satisfaction in that Controversie which it is not my business to consider at present and so much is de Meaux out about Tradition being so wholly and universally for Baptism by immersion that Tertullian plainly speaks of it by intinction ‖ Omne praeterea cunctationis tergiversationis erga pâ—…nitentiam vitiâ—… praesumâ—… intiuctionis importat Tertul. de paenit Cap. 6. and by sprinkling * Quis enim tibi tam insidae paenitentiae viro aspergiuem unam cujuslibet aquae comm odabit Ib. reprehending those who presumed upon pardon to be obtained by Baptism without repentance and S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Magnus determines That the form of Baptism by aspersion is as good and valid as by immersion and confirms this by several examples and instances of the Jewish Purifications †Aspergam super vos aquam mundam Ezech. 36.25 non erit mundus quoniam aqua aspersionis non est super eum sparsa Num. 19.19 Aqua aspersionis purificatio est Num. 19.9 unde apparet aspersionem quoque aquae instar salutaris lavacri obtinere Cypr Ep. 96. Edit Oxon. which were onely by sprinkling It is not the manner of washing nor the quantity or the sort of Water but onely washing with Water which is essential to Baptism and unalterable and so it is not the sort of Bread or Wine or the manner of receiving them that
the Sumption of both necessary to him as the Eucharist is a Sacrament which Bellarmine says it is upon that very account †Sacerdotibus utriusque speciei Sumptio necessaria est ex parte Sacramenti Bellarm. de Euch. c. 4. If the taking of one be sufficient to convey the whole grace and vertue of both and the other be not necessary for this end All these questions will return upon de Meaux though the Eucharist were a Sacrifice and as to that I shall onely ask him this question Whether Christ did as truly and properly offer up his Body and Blood as a Sacrifice to God when he instituted this Sacrament as he did upon the Cross If he did and therefore two Species were necessary though if his Body and Blood be both together in one that might be sufficient why needed he then to have afterwards offered up himself upon the Cross when he had as truly offered up his Body and Blood before in the Eucharist If two Species are necessary to make a full representation of Christ's death and to preserve a perfect image of his Sacrifice upon the Cross and by the mystical seperation of his Body and Blood in the Eucharist to represent how they were really separated at his death why are they not then necessary as de Meaux says They are not to the ground of the Mystery Is not the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament designed to do all this and to be such a Remembrance of Christ and a shewing forth the Lord's death till he come as the Scripture speaks And do not they in great measure destroy this by giving the Sacrament in one kind without this mystical separation of Christ's Body and Blood and without preserving such a sacramental Representation of it as Christ has appointed But says de Meaux The ultimate exactness of representation is not requisite ‖ P. 175. This I confess for then the eating the Flesh and drinking the Bloud of a man as some Heretics did of an Infant might more exactly represent than Bread and Wine but such a representation as Christ himself has appointed and commanded this is requisite and when he can prove that Christ has commanded Immersion in Baptism to represent the cleansing of the Soul as he has done taking Bread broken and Wine poured out in the Eucharist to represent his Death I will own that to be requisite in answer to his § 11. There ought to be also an expression of the grace of the Sacrament which is not found in one Species alone for that is not a full expression of our perfect nourishment both by meat and drink and if the Sacraments onely exhibit what they represent which is an Axiom of the School-men then as one kind represents our spiritual nourishment imperfectly so it exhibits it imperfectly but however if the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament be given by one Species the other must be wholly superfluous and unnecessary as to the inward effect and so at most it must be but a meer significant sign void of all grace as de Meaux indeed makes it though the name of a sign as applied to the Sacrament is so hard to go down with them at other times when he says of the species of Wine That the whole fruit of the Sacrament is given without it and that this can adde nothing thereunto but onely a more full expression of the same Mystery * P. 185. II. The second question I proposed to consider was Whether one Species containing both Christ's Body and Blood by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and consequently the person of Christ whole and entire by the Doctrine of Concomitancy do not contain and give whole Christ and so the whole substance and thing signified of the Sacrament This de Meaux and all of them pleade That each Species contains Jesus Christ whole and entire †P. 306. §. 9. so that we have in his Flesh his Blood and in his Blood his Flesh and in either of the two his Person whole and entire and in both the one and the other his blessed Soul with his Divinity whole and entire so that there is in either of the Species the whole substance of the Sacrament and together with that substance the whole essential vertue of the Eucharist ‖ P. 327. according to these Principles of the Roman Church I am not here to dispute against those nor to shew the falseness and unreasonableness of that which is the ground of them and which if it be false destroys all the rest I mean Transubstantiation whereby they suppose the Bread to be turn'd into the very natural Body of Christ with Flesh Bones Nerves and all other parts belonging to it and the Wine to be turned into the very natural substance of his Bloud and since this Flesh is not a dead Flesh it must have the Blood joyned with it and even the very Soul and Divinity of Christ which is always Hypostatically united to it and so does necessarily accompany it and the Body with Christ's Soul and Divinity must thus likewise ever accompany his Blood To which prodigious Doctrine of theirs as it relates to the Communion in one kind I have these things to say 1. It does so confound the two Species and make them to be one and the same thing that it renders the distinct consecration of them to be not onely impertinent but senceless For to what purpose or with what sense can the words of Consecration be said over the Bread This is my Body and those again over the Wine This is my Blood If upon the saying of them by the Priest the Bread does immediately become both the Body and Blood of Christ and the Wine both his Blood and his Body too this is to make the Bread become the same thing with the Wine and the Wine the same thing with the Bread and to make onely the same thing twice over and to do that again with one form of words which was done before with another for upon repeating the words This is my Body Christ's Body and Blood are both of them immediately and truly present and when they are so what need is there of the other form This is my Blood to make the same thing present again which was truly present before It matters not at all in this case whether they be present by vertue of the consecration or by vertue of Concomitancy for if they be truly present once what need they be present again if they become the same thing after the first form of Consecration which they do after the second why do they become the same thing twice or what need is there of another form of words to make the Wine become that which the Bread was before they hold it indeed to be Sacriledge not to consecrate both the Species but I cannot see according to this principle of theirs why the consecrating of one Species should not be sufficient when upon the consecration
we cannot be properly said to do that or to receive Christ or his Body and Blood Sacramentally but this way Though the Body and Blood of Christ therefore should be both in one Species and both received by one Species yet this would not be the eating the Body and the drinking the Blood for as one of their own Popes Innocent the Third says and Durandus from him Neither is the Blood drunk under the Species of Bread nor the Body eaten under the Species of Wine for as the Blood is not eaten nor the Body drank so neither is drunk under the Species of Bread nor eat under the Species of Wine * Nec sanguis sub specie panis nec Corpus sub specie vini bibitur aut comeditur quia sicut nec sanguis comeditur nec Corpus bibitur ita neutrum sub species panis bibitur aut sub specie vini comeditur Durand Rational l. 4. c. 42. And therefore though they should be both received according to them by one Species yet they would not be both eat and drank that is received Sacramentally eating and drinking are distinct things and both belong to the Sacrament and though eating and drinking spiritually be as de Meaux says The same thing †P. 184. and both the one and the other is to believe Yet eating and drinking Sacramentally are not but are to be two distinct outward actions that are to go along in the Sacrament with our inward Faith. This Doctrine of Concomitancy and of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ together in that gross manner which is believed in the Roman Church does quite spoile the Sacramental reception of Christ's Body and Bloud for according to that they can never be received separate and apart no not by the two Species but they must be always received together in either of them so that though by the Institution the Species of Bread seems particularly to contain or rather give the Body and the Species of Wine the Bloud and as St. Paul says ‖ 1 Cor. 10.16 The bread which we bless is it not the communion of the body of Christ and the cup which we bless is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ Yet hereby either of them is made the Communion of both and it is made impossible to receive them asunder as Christ instituted and appointed and as is plainly implied by eating and drinking and seems to be the very nature of a Sacramental reception But Fourthly This Concomitancy makes us to receive Christ's Body and Bloud not as sacrificed and shed for us upon the Cross but as they are now living and both joyned together in Heaven whereas Christ's Body and Bloud is given in the Sacrament not as in the state of life and glory but as under the state of death for so he tells us This is my body which is given for you that is to God as a Sacrifice and Oblation and This is my blood which is shed for the remission of sins So that we are to take Christ's Body in the Sacrament as it was crucified for us and offered up upon the Cross and his Bloud as it was shed and poured out not as joyned with his Body but as separated from it the Vertue of Christ's Body and Bloud cometh from his Death and from its being a Sacrifice which was slain and whose Blood was poured out for to make expiation for our Sins and as such we are to take Christ's Body and Bloud that is the vertue and benefits of them in the Sacrament for as de Meaux says * P. 311. This Body and this Blood with which he nourisheth and quickneth us would not have the vertue if they had not been once actually separated and if this separation had not caused the violent Death of our Saviour by which he became our Victim So neither will it have that vertue in the Sacrament if the Body be not taken as broken and sacrificed and the Bloud as shed or poured out and both as separated from one another De Meaux owns We ought to have our living Victim under an image of Death otherwise we should not be enlivened †P. 312. I do not well understand the meaning of a living Victim for though Christ who was our Victim is alive yet he was a Victim onely as he died so that a living Victim is perhaps as improper a phrase as a dead Animal If we are to receive Christ then in the Sacrament as a Victim or Sacrifice we are to receive him not as living but as dead I would not have de Meaux or any else mistake me as if I asserted that we received a dead Body a dead flesh a carcase as he calls it ‖ P. 309. in the Sacrament for he knows we do not believe that we receive any real flesh or any proper natural Body at all but onely the mystical or sacramental Body of Christ or to speak plainer the true and real Vertue of Christ's Body and Bloud offered for us and we are not onely to have this under an image of death that is to have the two Species set before us to look upon but we are to receive it under this image and to eat the Body as broken and the Bloud as poured out and so to partake of Christ's death in the very partaking of the Sacrament de Meaux speaks very well when he says * P. 312. The Vertue of Christ's Body and his Blood coming from his Death he would conserve the image of his Death when he gave us them in his holy Supper and by so lively a representation keep us always in mind to the cause of our Salvation that is to say the Sacrifice of the Cross But how is this image of his Death conserved in his holy Supper if Christ be there given not as dead but living Concomitancy does rather mind us of Christ's Resurrection when his Body was made alive again and reunited to his Soul and to his Divinity than of his death when it was divided and separated from them and it makes us not to partake of Christ's Body as crucified upon the Cross but as glorified in Heaven as it is so indeed Christ's body cannot be divided from his bloud and his whole humanity soul and body are always united with his Divinity but we do not take it as such in the Sacrament but as his body was sacrificed and flain and wounded and his bloud as shed and separated from it They who can think of a crucified Saviour may think of receiving him thus in the Sacrament without horrour de Meaux owns That this mystical separation of Christ's body and bloud ought to be in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice †P. 180 181. And why not then as it is a Sacrament is there any more horror to have Christ's body thus consecrated then thus eaten and received The words of consecration he says do renew mystically as by a spiritual Sword together with