of Communion So that though Christ be really present by his Spirit and the real Vertue and Efficacy of his Body and Bloud be given in the Sacrament yet his natutural Body is by no means present there either by Transubstantiation or by any other way unintelligible to us as the Translatour would insinuate so that all those consequences which he or others would willingly draw from the Real Presence of Christ's natural Body in the Sacrament as believed by us do fall to the ground and I doubt he or I shall never be so happy as to make up this great breach between the two Churches however willing we may be to do it but instead of making a Reconciliation between them which is impossible as long as the Doctrines of each of them stand as they do I shall endeavour to defend that Article of the Church of England which not onely Modern Novellists as the Translatour calls those who are not for his Real Presence and his Reconciling way but the most learned and ancient Protestants who have been either Bishops Priests or Deacons in our Church have owned and subscribed namely That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian Men †Article 30 th ADVERTISEMENT The Reader is desired to Correct the small Errata of the Press without a particular Account of them A DISCOURSE OF THE Communion in One Kind THE Controversie about the Communion in One Kind is accounted by a late French Writer upon that Subject one of the chiefest and most capital Controversies in Christian Religion * Cum haec quaestio ac Controversia visa sit semper in Religione Christianâ praecipua ac capitalis Boileau de praecepto divino Commun sub utrâque specie p. 217. I suppose he means that is in difference between the Reformed and the Church of Rome it is indeed such a Case as brings almost all other matters between us to an issue namely to this Point Whether the Church may give a Non obstante to the Laws of Christ and make other Laws contrary to his by vertue of its own Power and Prerogative If it may in this case it may in all others and therefore it is the more considerable Question because a great many others depend upon the Resolution of it When it had been thus determined in the Council of Constance yet a great many were so dis-satisfied namely the Bohemians to have the Cup taken from them that the Council of Basil was forced upon their importunity to grant it them again and at the Council of Trent it was most earnestly prest by the Germans and the French by the Embassadors of those Nations and by the Bishops that the People might have the Cup restored to them The truth in this cause and the advantage seems to be so plain on the side of the Reformation that as it required great Authority to bear it down so it calls for the greatest Art and Sophistry plausibly to oppose it One would think the case were so evident that it were needless to say much for it and impossible to say any thing considerable against it but it is some mens excellency to shew their skill in a bad cause and Monsieur de Meaux has chosen that Province to make an experiment of his extraordinary Wit and Learning and to let us see how far those will go to perplex and intangle the clearest Truth He has mixt a great deal of boldness with those as it was necessary for him when he would pretend that Communion in one kind was the Practice of the Primitive Church and that it was as effectual as in both and that the Cup did not belong to the substance of the Institution but was wholly indifferent to the Sacrament and might be used or not used as the Church thought fit How horribly false and erronious those Pleas of his are the following Discourse will sufficiently make out and though he has said as much and with as much artifice and subtilty as is possible in this cause yet there being another Writer later then him †Boileau de praecepto divino commun Sub utrâque specie Paris 1685. who denys that there is any Divine Precept for Communion in both kinds and who hath designedly undertaken the Scripture part of this Controversie which Monsieur de Meaux has onely here and there cunningly interwoven in his Discourse I resolve to consider and examine it as it lies in both those Authors and though I have chosen my own method to handle it which is First from Scripture then from Antiquity and lastly from the Reasonings and Principles made use of by our Adversaries yet I shall all along have a particular regard to those two great men and keep my eye upon them in this Treatise so as to pass by nothing that is said by either of them that has any strength or show in it for my design is to defend the Doctrine of our own Church in this matter which our Adversaries have thought fit to attaque and to fall upon not with their own but the borrowed forces of the Bishop of Meaux whose great name and exploits are every-where famous and renowned but since we have all Christian Churches in the World except the Roman to be our seconds in this Cause we shall not fear to defend them and our selves and so plain a Truth against all the cunning and Sophistry of our Adversaries though it be never so artificially and drest after the French Mode We will begin with Scripture which ought to be our onely Rule not onely in matters of Faith which should be founded upon nothing less than a Divine Revelation but in matters of pure positive and arbitrary Institution as the Sacraments are for they depend merely upon the will and pleasure the mind and intention of him that appointed them and the best and indeed the onely way to know that is by recurring to his own Institution as we know the mind of a Testator by going to his last Will and Testament and by consulting that do best find how he has ordered those things that were of his own free and arbitrary disposal And by this way we shall find that the Church of Rome by taking away the Cup has plainly violated the Institution of our blessed Saviour and deprived the People of a considerable part of that Legacy which he bequeathed to them Let us lay therefore before us the Institution of our Saviour as we find it in the three Evangelists and in St. Paul as he received it of the Lord. Matthew 26.26 27 28. Mark 14.22 23 24. Luke 22.19 20. 1 Corinthians 11.23 24 25. JESUS took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the disciples and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all
nor would St. Cyprian or the Bishops who ordained in Council that no offerings should be made for him who appointed a Clergy-Man Executor to his Will have inflicted so severe a punishment upon so small a fault had they thought this would have deprived his soul of a true and real propitiation for his sins nor would blotting out of the Diptychs have been so commonly put in use had this been consigning the soul to the punishments of another World. There was therefore no such thing meant as our Adversaries would now draw from that ancient custom of Oblations for the Dead and yet that this quickly degenerated into superstition and has been farther improved in aftertimes and is now come to very great perfection in the Roman Church we willingly own that the first beginnings of this were lay'd in this unscriptural custom as the Worship of Saints was from the Anniversary memory of the Martyrs is not to be denyed But corruptions in Religion like Diseases in the body might proceed at first from very small causes but by neglect and carelessness grow oftentimes very great and dangerous especially when the Physicians that should have cured them thought it for their purpose and interest rather to heighten and increase them 10. The sacrifice of the Mass must either be unnecessary or else must reflect on the sacrifice of the Cross if it be not necessary for obtaining the pardon and remission of any sin or for the relief of any spiritual want and necessity for which there has been no provision made by the sacrifice of the cross then it is wholly useless unprofitable if it be necessary for any such purpose then the sacrifice of the cross is not perfect and sufficient for all those ends but requires this sacrifice of the Mass to make up what is lacking and behind of the sufferings of Christ upon the cross which is a great diminution to the infinite value of them It is impossible to avoid these inconveniences for if the merit of the cross be so great as to expiate all manner of sin and to take away all kinds of punishment that are due to it and to supply all the spiritual wants and necessities whatever of all Christians then what possible need can there be of any other sacrifice And if Christs sacrifice once offered upon the cross can do all this why should there be any new offering or any reiteration of the same sacrifice when by being once offered it hath done the whole business that it can do were it offered never so often but if there be any kinds of sins which because they are dayly committed by us therefore require a dayly sacrifice as they pretend to be offered for them which implyes that the constant and abiding vertue of the cross cannot reach them which is yet as efficacious to all Christians now as the first day it was offered or as it could be if it were offered every day by Christ himself or if there be any such temporal remains of punishment after the eternal guilt of them is pardoned which are not discharged by Christs sacrifice upon the Cross but there is this small hand-Writing still however against us and continues uncancelled notwithstanding the Death of Christ then we are not perfectly redeemed from all punishment and from the whole Curse of the Law by the sacrifice of the cross but there is something more necessary to deliver and save us if not from Hell yet from Purgatory and whatever Christ has done for us yet the Mass sacrifice must still help us not as an instrument of Religion to work upon us and make us better but as a sacrifice to God to prevail with him to free us from punishment or else we are in a miserable condition which is the true contrivance of the sacrifice of the Mass that necessarily renders it very injurious to the most perfect and sufficient sacrifice of the cross I might add many other Errors belonging to this Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass such as saying their Masses in an unknown Tongue putting confidence in the meer opus operatum offering up Masses to the honour of the Saints and the like but those do more properly fall under other heads of controversie and are the peculiar subjects of other Treatises that are written on purpose upon those matters for though these all run into this Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass which is the great Lake into which most of the Popish Errors empty themselves yet the first head and rise of them is not from hence and so I shall not take them in here The Mass sacrifice contains in it a whole Legion of Errors but 't is only the principal one which I have endeavoured by this Discourse to cast out and that is its being a proper and truly propitiatory sacrifice which I have shown to be founded upon two monstrous Errours to have no true foundation in Scripture nor no just claim to Antiquity but to be plainly contrary to both those and to be in it self very absurd and Vnreasonable which is enough in conscience against any one Doctrine or any Church that maintains it however Infallible they may both of them pretend to be if this be clearly and strongly made out against them as has been Attempted in this Treatise FINIS Books Sold by Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil A Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host as it is Taught and Practiced in the Church of Rome Wherein an Answer is given to T. G. on that Subject And to Monsieur Boleau 's late Book De Adoratione Eucharist A Discourse of the Communion in One Kind In Answer to a Treatise of the Bishop of Meaux 's of Communion of both Species An Answer to a Book Entituled Reason and Authority Or the Motives of a Late Protestant's Reconciliation to the Catholick Church Together with a brief Account of Augustine the Monk and Conversion of the English A Request to Roman Catholicks To Answer the Queries upon these their following Tenets Sect. 1. Their Divine Service in an Vnknown Tongue 2. Their taking away the Cup from the People 3. Their with-holding the Scriptures from the Laicks 4. The Adoration of Images 5. The Invocation of Saints and Angels 6. The Doctrine of Merit 7. Purgatory 8. Their Seven Sacraments 9. Their Priests Intention in Baptism 10. The Limbo of unbaptized Infants 11. Transubstantiation 12. The Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass 13. Private Masses 14. The Sacrament of Penance 15. The Sacrament of Marriage with the Clergies Restraint therefrom 16. Their Sacrament of extream Vnction 17. Tradition 18. That Thred-bare Question Where was your Church before Luther 19. The Infallibility of the Pope with his Councils 20. The Pope's Supremacy 21. The Pope's Deposing Power 22. Their Vncharitableness to all other Christians
at Prayers upon their Knees or that the Papists worship the Priest himself before whom they Kneel in their Confessions or that on Ashwednesday they adore the holy Ashes as they call them and on Palm-sunday the holy Boughs which they do not pretend to do because they Kneel when they are given them as well as that we Worship the Eucharist or the Mystical Elements when we receive them Kneeling and disavow any such thing and declare it to be Idolatry to be abhorr'd of all faithful Christians But is it Idolatry to Worship Christ Or to Worship the Body of Christ tho not for it self yet for the sake of the Divine Nature to which it is always hypostatically united No by no means I know no Hereticks tho they denied Christs Divinity but yet were for Worshipping him the old Arrians and the late Socinians but how justifiably when they believe him but a meer man or only a more excellent Creature they and the Church of Rome are both concerned to defend and to clear it if they can of Idolatry As to the Worship of the Flesh tho Nestorius could not do this according to his Principles as St. Cyrill and the Council of Ephesus argue against him nor could the Ebionites nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of old yet I know none but some of their School-men dispute now of Adoring the Flesh or Humane Nature of Christ which however it be in our minds is never in truth abstracted from his Divinity But we will not at all trouble our selves with those parts of the Science of controversie nor shall we stand upon any of those things Well then why may not Christ and his Body be adored in the Sacrament if they are proper Objects of Adorations No doubt but they may be adored in this Sacrament in the Sacrament of Baptism too and in all the Offices of the Christian Religion wherein we pray to Christ and Kneel before him and exercise the devout acts of the mind toward him put our trust and hope in him and expect Salvation from him and devote our selves in all Subjection to him and bow both our Souls and our Bodies and give all both internal and external Worship to him this Adoration we give to Christ who is God blessed for ever and who sits at the right hand of God the Father And the very same the Papists give to the Sacrament to the Host and the consecrated Elements the most Sovereign and Absolute and highest Degree of Religious Worship that is due to God whose creatures those Elements are or to Christ himself who commanded us to receive them in remembrance of him But it is only Christ say they whom we Worship in the Sacrament whom we adore as being present there with his Body in the Host and not the Host or the Sacrament it self so a great many of them would fain bring off the matter or at least colour and disguise it Bellarmine a Lib. 4. de Eucharist c. 29. Quicquid sit de modo loquendi status quaestionis non est nisi an Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu latriae when he had entangled himself with the distinctions of Worshipping the Sacrament whether formally or materially would extricate himself by thus stating the matter and reducing it to this question Whether Christ be to be adored in the Eucharist And St. Clara b St. Clara Deus Natura Gratia p. 308. Nota bene non dicit Concilium Tridentinum Sacramentum sed Christum in Sacramento latria adorandum would reconcile the dispute with this Observation Nota benè Mark this the Council of Trent does not say that the Sacrament is to be adored but Christ in the Sacrament I wonder so great a man as Cassander c Adoratio non ad exterius signune quod exterius videtur sed ad ipsam rem veritatem quae interius creditur referenda Cassand Consult de Adorat Euchar. should say Unless with a design to condemn the thing That the Adoration is not to be given to the outward sign which is seen but is to be referr'd to the thing it self and to that which is truly and inwardly believed But Reconcilers who will attempt the vain project of Accommodation must do with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as Apelles did with Antigonus his face they must draw but one part but half of it that so they may Artificially conceal its deformed and its blind side That all these do so I shall show by stating the Controversie carefully and truly which is the chiefest thing in this dispute for they love to hide their own Doctrines as much as they can and they cunningly contrive most of them with a back door to slip out at privately and upon occasion The Council of Trent has in this as in other things used art and not spoke out in one place as it does in another that so we may mistake half its words for its full meaning as Bellarmine and others were willing to do or at least to have others do so In its sixth Canon on the Eucharist it only says a Concil Trident. Can. 6. De Euchar. si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum Vnigenitum Dei filium non esse cultu Latriae etiam externo adorandum anathema sit If any one shall say that Christ the only begotten Son of God is not to be adored with the external Worship of Latria in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist let him be accursed Who will not say in those general words that Christ is to be adored with outward and inward Worship both not only in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist but of Baptism too and in every Christian Office and in every Prayer and solemn Invocation of him either publick or private But they mean a great deal more than all this by Worshipping Christ in the Sacrament and in as plain words they say b Ib. 13. Sess c. 5. That the Sacrament it self is to be adored that whatever it be which is something besides Christ even according to them which is placed in the Patin and upon the Altar which the Priest holds in his hands and lifts up to be seen this very thing is to be adored There is no doubt says the Council c Ib. Nullus dubitandi locus relinquitur quin omnes Christi fideles pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto latriae custum qui vero Deo debetur huic sanctissimo Sacramento in Veneratione adhibeant neque enim minus est adorandum quod fuerit a Christo Domino ut sumatur institutum but that all faithful Christians according to the custom always received in the Catholick Church ought to give Supreme and Sovereign Worship which is due to God himself to the most Holy Sacrament in their Worship of it for it is never the less to be adored tho it was instituted of Christ to be received That which is to be received which is to
Comestionem substantiae corporis Christi non esse naturalem so might the Egyptians have said too if they had pleased tho how they can otherwise eat him 't is hard to understand but only in the heretical sense of Spiritual and Sacramental Eating unless they will at the same time say They do not eat him truly and naturally and yet do eat him so and they are so used to Contradictions in this point that I don't know whether they will make any more Bones of this than of the rest or of the substantial Body of a man himself when they have got so large a Faith or rather so large a Swallow But how is it that ye do not eat him after a natural and carnal manner and yet it is a carnal Body that ye so much contend for and that ye really and truly eat and 't is a Carnal mouth and throat he is put into and sometimes a very foul and wicked one And yet this must by this carnal way eat the very Body of Christ as well as the most faithful But we do not grind this Body with our Teeth nor chew him in our Mouths as our other Food nor digest him in our Stomachs nor cast him out into the draught if ye do not as ye pretend being ashamed of the most shameful and abominable Consequences of it and yet a very great many among you have owned all that z Retract Bereng sub Nicol. 2 in Concil Rom. Verum corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi sensualiter non solum Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri Sic Gualt Abbaud apud Boil p. 177. as not knowing how it could be otherwise and how if this eating be Spiritual and Sacramental Christs presence may not be so too which is the Heresie on the other side a Iste in omnibus veritatem subtrahit dum asserit omnia fieri sc fractionem attritionem corporis Christi in Eucharistia non substantia sed in specie visibili forma panis Sacramento tantum Gualter adversus Abailard apud Boil 179. and ye seem to make strange Monsters of your selves that have spiritual Teeth and can spiritually and not naturally eat a natural and a carnal Body and if ye do not thus eat it as ye eat other meat when ye take it into your Mouths and into your Stomacks and do every thing to it that you do to your other food which is as like eating as if it were very true and natural eating and if it be not Bread which is thus eaten when it is just as like other Bread as is possible then it is certainly the most phantastick Food and the most phantastick way of eating it that can be imagined then there must be a new way of eating which is not eating and a new way for a Body to be present and yet not present as a Body and I will add there must certainly be then a new understanding which is no understanding that can understand or believe all this But further ye have found it necessary for your purpose of Adoring the Host to keep the Body of Christ confined to it and inclosed in it as a Prisoner till the Species corrupt and so the prison is as it were opened and the Body let loose and when that is gone whether ye think it be the Species or the Substance of Bread that corrupts I would gladly know and surely then when the Body is gone there is no need of such a miracle to keep the Accidents without a Subject if it be Bread what think ye of this sudden Transmutation from Bread to Flesh and from Flesh to Bread again and this latter without any words from the Priest but since Christs Body must be so permanently in the Host not only in the act and use of the Sacrament but at all other times ye are then forced to own that as it is eaten in the Communion as well by those who have no faith as by the most faithful Christians so if any other Animals should happen to eat the Host taking it no doubt heretically for meer Bread that yet they truly take the Body of Christ and eat it after some manner or other but whether it be after a natural manner in them or no I don't know how you have resolved but most of the Schoolmen have agreed that Scandalous question b An mus vel Porcus vel canis comedens hostiam suscipit corpus Christi Bishop Jewels reply Artic. 24. See Burchard de Correct Miss upon those Questions De vino in calice congelato de musca vel aranea vel veneno mixto cum sanguine de vomitu post receptionem Sacramenti Quando cadit corpus Christi Quando cadit sanguis Christi fol. 51 52. in the Affirmative Whether if a Mouse or a Hig or a Dog eat the Host they do partake of Christs Body Or as Thomas Aquinas your most Angelick Doctor says consequently to this Opinion of yours c Alter derogaret veritati corporis Christi p. 3. qu. 79. It would otherwise derogate from the truth of this Sacrament and Christs presence in it So that wherever the Species are there is always Christs Body and whatever happens to them happens to that also If they fall to the ground Christs Body does so to and so if they lie in a hollow Tooth or hang but in the least crum or drop upon a Communicants Beard there according to their principles they and the Body must be worshipt with Latria and if they be in a Mouse or Flies body that has got to them the adorable Object still goes with the Species till they be corrupted and whither the Species be corrupted or no if they be poysoned as they have somtimes been or whether Christ be there with the Accidents of the Poyson I can't tell but when the Species are in the pix he is as fast there as he ever was in his Sepulcher and to all appearance as dead and senseless and if the Species be Burnt or Gnawn or vomited out of the Stomack before they are corrupted all these misfortunes belong as truly to Christs Body as to them and so worse indignities may be thus offered every day to Christ glorious Body than ever were offered to it in its state of Humility and Contempt upon Earth when it was Spit upon and Scourged and Pierced and Crucified by the Jews But Good God! that men should think to Honour and Adore Christ and his Body by thus exposing them to the danger of the vilest Abuses that humane reason should be so decayed and besotted as to believe and defend such palpable Absurdities that Christianity should be so shamefully and abominably exposed to all the World by such an extravagant Doctrine and such an obnoxious practice and unreasonable Idolatry as this is God Almighty open all our Eyes that we may not be given up to blindness of Mind and darkness of Understanding
the Bodies of all Christians unless the Resurrection of the Body belong onely to the Priests as well as the Cup. Tertullian upon the Resurrection says the same with Irenaeus Our flesh is fed with the body and bloud of Christ * Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur Tertul. de Resur carnis And in his Book to his Wife he speaks of her taking the Cup in two several places †Dâ—â—câ—jus manu desiderabit dè cujus poculo participabit Id. ad uxor l. 2. c. 6. De cibo de poculo invadere desiderare in mente habere Id. c. 4. Upon one of which a very learned Critic of the Roman Church who owns those places to belong to the Communion has made this observation to our hands At that time the Supper of the Lord was Celebrated in both Species ‖ Sub utrâque specie illo tempore convivium Domini cerebratur quod tantâ aviditate arripiebatur ut illud invadere desiderare in mente habere De la Cerda Not. in locum p. 634. Even to Women it seems who I suppose were no Priests Origen upon the Book of Numbers says We drink the bloud of Christ Sacramentally in the Eucharist as well as Spiritually by believing his Doctrine * Bibere dicimur sanguinem Christi non solùm Sacramentorum ritu se cum sermenes ejus recipimus Quis est iste populus qui in usa habet sanguinem bibere Origent homil 16. in Num. When he had before asked What people drink of Bloud St. Cyprian admonishes Christians to prepare themselves for the hardest encounters as the Souldiers of Christ Considering that for this very purpose †Gravior nunc ferocior pugna immicet ad quam parare debent milites Christi considerantes idcirco se quotidiè calicem sanguinis Christi bibere ut possint ipsi propter Christum sanguinem fundere Ep. 58. ad plebem Thiberitanam Edit Oxon. they every day drink the Cup of Christ's Bloud that so they may also shed their bloud for Christ. And he pleads for giving the Communion to the lapsed upon this very account to arm and fortifie them for farther tryals and persecutions How can we teach or provoke them to shed their bloud for the confession of Christ if we deny them the Bloud of Christ ‖ Nam quomodo docemus aut provocamus eos in confessione nominis sanguinem suum fundere si eis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamus aut quomodo ad Martyrit poculum idoneos facimus si non eos prius ad bibendum in Ecclesiâ poculum Domini jure communionis admittimus Ep. 57. ad Cornel. Or how can we make them fit for the Cup of Martyrdom if we do not first admit them to drink the Cup of the Lord in the Church by the right of Communion The excellent Epistle * Ep. 63. Caecilio fratri of that Holy Martyr against those who out of a principle of abstaining wholly from Wine or lest they should by the smell of Wine which they had drunk in the Morning-Sacrifices Simili modo calicem quod si à Domino praecipitur ab Apostoloejus hoc idem confirmatur traditur hoc faciamus quod fecit Dominus invenimus non observari a nobis quod mandatum nisi eadem quae Dominus fecit nos quoque faciamus calicem Dom. pari ratione miscentes à divine Magisterio non recedamus Ib. Quod nos obandire facere oportet quod Christus fecit faciendum esse mandavit Ib. discover themselves to be Christians used Water in the Eucharist instead of Wine is so full a demonstration that the Wine ought always to be taken in the Sacrament and that Christ's Institution and Command could not otherwise be observed that there needs no other Arguments but what that great Man there uses to shew the necessity of Christians Communicating in both the Species of Bread and Wine Christ Quare si solus Christus audiendus est non debemus attendere quod alius ante nos faciendum putaverit sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prier fecerit Ib. Quomodo autem de creaturâ vitis novum vinum cum Christo in regno patris bibemus si in sacraficio Dei Patris Christi vinum non offerimus nec calicem Domini dominicâ traditione miscemus Ib. says he gave the Cup and we are to do that which Christ did and ought by no means to depart from what was commanded by Christ and delivered by the Apostles upon any custom or pretence whatsoever How shall we drink says he of the fruit of the Vine with Christ in the Kingdom of his Father if we do not now offer the Wine in the Sacrifice and mingle the Cup of the Lord as he delivered it to us And that this Wine was drunk by all Christians is plain from that fear which some had lest by their drinking it in the morning they should smell of it * Nisi in sacrificiis matutinis hoc quis veretur ne per saporem vini redoleat sanguinem Christi Ib. p. 155. and so discover themselves to the Heathens It was then it seems a mark to know Christians by That they did smell of the bloud of Christ which if they had done as the Papists now do they need not have been afraid of But to proceed to others who though they speak less of this then St. Cyprian yet speak plainly of Christians taking the Bloud as well as the Body Athanasius speaking of the Cup says It belongs to the Priests of right to give this to the People †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apolog 2. St. Basil in one of his Epistles says It is good and profitable to Communicate every day of the Body and Bloud of Christ ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. ad Caesar And speaking of the peculiar Vertues of Christians asks What is proper to those that eat the Bread and drink the Cup of the Lord * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Moral denoting that to belong to all Christians St. Chrysostom in his Oratorian manner speaks of Christians as being all Died and Purpled with the Bloud of Christ †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Sacerdot l. 3. And thus compares all Christians in general with the Israelites As thou eatest the Body of Christ so did they Manna as thou drinkest the Bloud of Christ so did they Water out of the Rock ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Homil. 23. in 1 Cor. And in another place he expresly observes what I have taken notice of before That 't is not now as under the Jewish Law where the Priest partook of several things from the Altar which the People did not There is no difference between the Priest and the People when we come to receive the Holy Mysteries for one Body and one Cup is offered to all †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Id. in Homil. 18. in 2 Cor. St Hierom says The Priests serve the Eucharist and divide the Bloud of the Lord among the People * Sacerdotes Eucharisticae serviunt sanguinem Domini populis ejus dividunt Hieron in Sophon c. 2. And upon occasion speaks of some loose and vitious Women who yet would not abstain from the bloud of Christ ‖ Ebâ—â—â—tati sacrilegium copulantes aiunt Absit ut ego me à Christi sanguine abstineam Id Ep. ad Eustoch So that this it is plain was taken by the Women St. Austin to the newly Baptized Christians says That in all their tryals and their time of being Catechumens they did approve themselves that they might eat the Lord's Body and drink the Cup * Vt cum seipsos probaverint tunc de mensâ Domini manducent de calice bibant August de fide Oper And speaking of the prohibition of Blood to the Jews because it was offer'd in Sacrifice but from taking the Bloud of the Sacrifice of our Lord no one says he is not onely forbidden but all are exhorted to drink of it who will have Life †Ab hujus sacrificii sanguine in alimeatum sumendo non solum nemo prohibetur sed ad bibendum omnes exhortantur qui volunt habere vitam Id. in Levit. qu. 57. I might easily bring down the like clear authorities of ancient Writers much lower even to the times of the very Schoolmen who are the first that ever mention any thing about the Communion in one kind But that I may not over-load my self or my Reader I shall onely offer one or two more of much later date but yet more considerable to our Adversaries at least because they believed Transubstantiation but had not it seems improved it into that consequence which Superstition afterwards did of Communicating in one kind Paschasius Ratbertus Abbot of Corbey was the very Parent of Transubstantiation and the first founder of that Doctrine in the Ninth Century yet in the same Book in which he broaches that new Opinion he fully and plainly asserts the old Practice of the Communion in both kinds The Priest says he consecrates by the power of Christ and performs the part of Christ between God and the People he offers their Prayers and Oblations to God and what he hath obtained of God he renders to them by the body and bloud of Christ which he distributes to every one of them ‖ Caeterum sacerdos quia vices Christi visibili specie inter Deum populum agere videtur infert per manûs Angeli vota populi ad Deum refert Vota quidem offert munera refert autem imperata per Corpus sanguinem distribuit singnlis Paschas de Corpore sanguine Domini c. 12. Those Singuli must be the People whose Prayers the Priest offered and to whom he distributed the Bloud as well as the Body of Christ and to shew further that the Bloud was given in the Sacrament not to the Priest onely but to the People he most expresly says That when Christ gives the Sacrament by the hands of the Ministers he says also by them Take and drink ye all of this as well Ministers as all the rest that believe This is the cup of my bloud of the new and everlasting testament * Et ideo hic solus est qui frangit hunc panem per manus ministrorum distribuit credentibus dicens Accipite bibete ex hoc omnes tam Ministri quam reliqui credeates hic est calix sanguinis mei novi aeterni testamenti Ib. c. 15. Then which words there could nothing have been said that does more directly destroy the late pretence of our Adversaries of the Cup 's being given and belonging onely to the Priests or Ministers and not to all the Faithful or the Reliqui Credentes But he still goes further as to this matter and makes the partaking of the Bloud to be necessary to Salvation in another Chapter It is manifest says he †Constat igitur liquet omnibus quòd in hâc mortali vitâ sine cibo potu non vivitur sic itaque ad illam aeternam non pervenitur nisi duobus istis ad immortalitatem nutriatur Ib. c. 19. that in this mortal life we cannot live without meat and drink so therefore likewise can we not come to eternal life unless we are spiritually nourisht with those two unto Immortality and speaks of the Cup in the very next words To him I shall add Algerus a very zealous defender of Paschasius his Doctrine of Transubstantiation and as heartily agreeing with him in the practice and necessity of Communicating in both kinds Because says he we live by meat and drink that we can want neither therefore Christ would have them both in his Sacrament ‖ Vnde etiam quia potu clod ita vivimus ut alterntro carere nequeumus ntrumque in Sacramento suo esse voluit Algerus de Sacramento l. 2. c. 5. And as he redeemed both our body and our soul by his body and blood so he argues * Nos qui corpore animâ perieramus corpus per corpus animam per animam Christus redimens simul corpus sanguis sumitur à fidelibus ut sumpto corpore animâ Christi totus homo vivificetur Ib. c. 8. we ought to partake both of his body and of his blood that our whole man may be quickned by both Then he quotes St. Austin and Gelasius for the taking of both Species †Vnde ut ait Augustinus nec caro sine sanguine nec sanguis sine carne jure communicatur Item Gelasius Majorico Joanni Episcopis Comperimus quòd quidam sumptâ tantùm corporis portione à calice sacri cruoris abstineant qui proculdubiò aut integra Sacramenta accipiant aut ab Integris arceantur quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire Ib. c. 8. From whence as St. Austin says neither the flesh is rightly Communicated without the blood nor the blood without the flesh So also Gelasius to Majoricus and John Bishops We find that some taking onely the part of the body abstain from the Cup of the holy bloud who ought unquestionably either to take the whole Sacrament or to be kept wholly from it because the division of one and the same Sacrament cannot be without grand Sacriledge He that had this Belief and these Arguments for it could not but be a great enemy to the Mutilated and Sacrilegious Communion in one kind however great a friend he was to Transustantiation and his authority and his words are the more remarkable because he lived in the Twelfth Century which makes him as a great many others then were which I could produce an undeniable Evidence that that corruption was not brought into the Latine Church till the next Age against which we have
the Sumption for it is nothing so odd and strange to suppose the Bread to be turned into the Body and Bloud of Christ as to suppose that by eating that we both eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ to make eating and drinking the same thing or to say we drink by eating and eat by drinking are very unaccountable and unintelligible expressions so that Concomitancy does wholly confound those two Sacramental Phrases and Sacramental Actions But is it not enough says de Meaux ‖ P. 323. for a Christian to receive Jesus Christ is it not a Sacrament where Jesus Christ is pleased to be in person But Jesus Christ is not received in the Sacrament in any other manner but by receiving his Body and Bloud nor is it his Person he bids us receive but his Body and Bloud and the way by which we are to receive them is by eating the one and drinking the other and 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
bread and Wine they have no subject matter for a sacrifice for 't is not the bread and wine which they pretend to offer nor the bare species and accidents of those nor can they call them a proper propitiatory sacrifice but 't is the very natural body and blood of Christ under the species of bread and wine or together with them for they with the species make one entire subject for sacrifice and one entire object for Adoration as they are forced to confess †Panis corpus Domini Vinum sanguis Domini non sunt duo sacrificia sed unum neque enim offerimus corpus Domini absolutè sed offerimus corpus Domini in specie panis Bellarm de Miss l. 1. c. 37. So that according to their own principles they must both sacrifice and adore something in the Eucharist besides the very body and blood of Christ which is a difficulty they will never get off but I design not to press them with that now but Transubstantiation upon which their sacrifice of the Mass is founded is so great a difficulty that it bears down before it all sense and reason and only makes way for Church Authority to tryumph over both Their wisest men have given up Scripture for it and frankly confest it were not necessary to believe it without the determination of the Church and if so then without the Churches determination there had been no foundation it seems for the sacrifice of the Mass for there can be none for that without Transubstantiation and 't is very strange that a sacrifice should be thus founded not upon Scripture or a Divine institution but only in effect upon the Churches declaration and should have no true bottom without that as according to those men it really has not But Transubstantiation is a Monster that startles and affrights the boldest Faith if the Church be not by to encourage and support it 't is too terrible to be looked upon in its self without having a thick mist of Church Authority and Infallibility first cast before a mans eyes and then if there were not a strange and almost fascinating power in such principles one would think it impossible that any man who has both eyes and brains in his head should believe a Wafer were the body of a man or that a crum of bread were a fleshly substance they do not indeed believe them to be both but they believe one to be the other which is the same thing there is nothing can expose such a doctrine for nothing can be more uncouth and extravagant then itsself it not only takes away all evidence of sense upon which all truth of miracles and so of all Revelation does depend but it destroys all manner of certainty and all the principles of truth and knowledge it makes one body be a thousand or at least be at the same time in a thousand places by which means the least atome may fill the whole World Again it makes the parts of a body to penetrate one another by which means all the matter of the whole World may be brought to a single point it makes the whole to be no greater then a part and one part to be as great as the whole thus it destroys the nature of things and makes a body to be a spirit and an accident to be a substance and renders every thing we see or taste to be only phantasm and appearance and though the World seems crouded with solids yet according to that it may be all but species and shadow and superficies So big is this opinion with absurdities and inconsistencies and contradictions and yet these must all go down and pass into an Article of Faith before there can be any foundation for the sacrifice of the Mass and let any one judge that has not lost his judgment by believing Transubstantiation what a strange production that must be which is to be the genuine of-spring of such a doctrine It is not my province nor must it be my present task to discourse at large of that or to confute the little sophistries with which it is thought necessary to make it outface the common reason of mankind There never was any paradox needed more straining to defend it nor any Sceptical principle but would bear as fair a wrangle on its behalf there is a known Treatise has so laid this cause on its back that it can never be able to rise again and though after a long time it endeavours a little to stir and heave and sruggle yet if it thereby provokes another blow from the same hand it must expect nothing less then its mortal wound I pass to the next Error and Mistake upon which the sacrifice of the Mass is founded and that is this that our blessed Saviour did at his last Supper when he celebrated the Communion with his Disciples offer up his body and blood to his Father as a true propitiatory sacrifice before he offered it as such upon the Cross This they pretend and are forced to do so to establish their sacrificing in the Mass for they are only to do that in the Sacrament they own which Christ himself did and which he commanded his Apostles to doe and if this sacrifice had not its institution and appointment at that time it never had any at all as they cannot but grant Let us then enquire whether Christ did thus sacrifice himself and offer up his body and blood to God at his last Supper Is there any the least colour or shadow of any such thing in any of the accounts that is given of this in the three Evangelists or in St. Paul The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread and gave thanks or blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying take eat this is my Body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me after the same manner also he took the Cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins Is here any mention or any intimation of offering up any thing to God Was not the bread and the cup and what he called his body and his blood given to his Disciples to be eaten and drank by them and was any thing else done with them is there any thing like an offering or a sacrificing of them yes say they Christ there calls it his body which is broken and his blood which is shed in the present tense therefore the one must be then broken and the other shed So indeed it is in the Original Greek though in the Vulgar Latin it is in the future tense and so it is also put in their Missal sanguis qui effundetur this is my Blood which shall be shed and is it not usual to put the present tense instead of the future when that is so near