A DEMONSTRATION THAT THE Church of Rome AND HER COUNCILS HAVE ERRED BY SHEWING That the COUNCILS of Constance Basil and Trent have in all their Decrees touching Communion in one Kind contradicted the Received Doctrine of the Church of Christ WITH AN APPENDIX In ANSWER to The XXI Chapter of the Author of A Papist Misrepresented and Represented LONDON Printed by J. Leake for Awnsham Churchill at the Black-Swan in Ave-Mary-Lane MDCLXXXVIII IMPRIMATUR Apr. 11. 1688. Guil. Needham THE PREFACE TO THE READER The Contents of the Preface This Discourse plainly overthrows all the Foundations of the Romish Faith shewing 1. That the Romish Councils and the Church of Rome cannot be the sole authentick Interpreters of Scripture or the true Judges of Tradition § 1. 2ly That they were not assisted by the Holy Ghost in making this Decree touching Communion in one King § 2. 3ly That the Councils of Constance Basil and Trent were not true General Councils or that such Councils must be subject unto Error § 3. 4ly That there is no Certainty of the Romish Faith by oral Tradition § 4. 5ly That these Councils ridiculously do assert That they made their Decrees touching Communion in one King consulting the Advantage and Salvation of Christian People § 5. 6ly That the Decrees of the Councils of Pisa Constance and Basil concerning the Superiority of a Genral Council over the Pope and their Authority to decree matters of Faith without him must be allowed to be valid or we can have no Assurance of the Validity and Infallibility of any of their Councils § 6. BY way of Preface to this Discourse I shall endeavour briefly and plainly to demonstrate 1. That it plainly overthroweth all the Certainty of the Romish Faith and that if they have made these Definitions and Decrees in opposition to the plain Sence of Scripture and the Interpretations of it by the Holy Fathers and to the full Tradition of the Church in former Ages these their received Councils cannot be by Gods Appointment the Judges of our Controversies the authentick Interpreters of Scripture or assisted by the Holy Ghost in making these Decisions nor can they be Assertors of or Adherers to primitive Tradition but rather plain Desertors of it And First Whereas they challenge as their undoubted Right Authority to be the sole authentick Interpreters of the Sence of Scripture and the true Judges of the Tradition of the Church of Christ Hence we may learn what excellent Interpreters they are of Scripture and Tradition For whereas the Trent Council hath in General defined that it belongeth to the Church alone (a) Sess 4. Judicare de vero sensu interpretatione Sanctarum Scripturarum To judge of the true sence and meaning of the Holy Scriptures And particularly That being taught by the Holy Spirit (b) Sess 21. c. 1. Atque ipsius Ecclesiae judicium consuetudinem secuta And following the Judgment and Custom of the Church she made the forementioned Decrees touching Communion in one Kind Secondly Whereas the Council of Constance saith That they made their Decrees concerning the same Matter (c) Sess 13. Plurium doctorum tam divini quam humani juris deliberatione praehabitâ After mature Deliberation had with many Doctors skilful both in divine and humane Laws And lastly whereas the Council of Basil hath declared That they determined the same Matter (d) Sess 30. Post diligentem perscrutationem divinarum Scripturarum sacrorumque Canonum doctrinarum à Sanctis patribus Doctoribus traditarum in hac Synodo longis temporibus habitam After a diligent Search made in this Synod for a long time of holy Scriptures of the sacred Canons and of the Doctrines delivered by the holy Fathers I say Whereas they do expresly and confidently pretend these things I think it will be evident from this Discourse That in those Matters they plainly have decreed against the clear and formerly received Sence of Scriptures against the Doctrines delivered by the Holy Fathers and by the sacred Canons and against the Judgment and Custom of the Church of God in former Ages So that if it belong unto the Church alone to judge of the true Sense and Meaning of the Holy Scriptures these Councils and those Churches which have embraced their Interpretations of the Scriptures concerned in this Dispute could not be the Church Representative or Catholick but falsly did and do pretend to these Titles If it belong unto the Church to teach us what is Tradition they who assert these things as suitable to the Doctrines delivered by the Holy Fathers and to the Judgment of the Church cannot deserve that Title § 2 Again Thirdly Whereas the Trent Council saith That in making these Decrees she was (e) Ipsa Synodus à Spiritu Sancto qui est Spiritus sapientiae intellectus Spiritus consilii pietatis edocta Sess 21. c. 1. Ibid. Instructed by the Holy Ghost who is the Spirit of Wisdom and of Understanding of Counsel and of Pieyt whereas the Council of Constance and of Basil in making their Decrees touching this Article Declare they were a Holy General Synod in Spiritu Sancto legitimè congregata Met rightly together in the holy Ghost Hence it is evident that 1. They falsly pretended to the Assistance of the Holy Spirit who being the spirit of Truth the Inditer of the Sacred Scripture would not assist them to determine contrary to the Truth delivered there and being also the Spirit promised to assist his Church and guide her true and living Members into all saving Truth could not assist them to Decree against the Practice and the Judgment of the Church of Christ for a Thousand years 2. Hence also it must follow that these Councils tho as to these Definitions they are own'd as truly General by the whole Church of Rome were not true General Councils or that true General Councils confirmed by the Pope and owned by the whole Church of Rome may erre in Matters of Faith in the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and in their Judgment of Tradition 3. And whereas our late Roman Disputants have laid the whole Certainty of their Faith upon the Infallibility of oral Tradition §. 4. Mr. G. Mr. M. delivering to them the same Doctrine to day which was delivered yesterday and so up to the time of our Saviour it must be as evident they have no Certainty of Roman Faith as it is evident from this and other late Treatises That they have varied from the Tradition of the Church in the Practice of latin Service the Veneration of Images and the Substraction of the Cup and we desire nothing more of the most wavering Persons than that they would not go over to that Church till they see greater Evidence that they have never varied from what was once taught and delivered in the Church of Christ than these Discourses offer to evince that they have actually done it § 5 4. Moreover hence we
as certainly true and necessary and therefore fear not any Retortions of this Nature from our Adversaries Had I designed any thing of that Nature I would more cpiously have insisted on those Arguments from Scripture whence that conclusion can alone be made and which I therefore have so briefly touched upon because I was so happily prevented in that matter by the unanswerable Treatise on this Subject against the Bishop of Meaux with which I was unwilling to interfere but finding that the forementioned Bishop had with great confidence appealed for this matter to the constant practice and to the Principles of the Primitive Church P. 160 161. and told us That the constant Practices of the Primitive Church received with universal approbation from the Origin of Christianity till the time of the Council of Constance do invincibly demonstrate that the Council did but follow the Tradition of All Ages when it defined That the Communion under one kind was as good and sufficient as under both with many other things of a like nature in which he is also followed by the late Writers of the same Communion And finding also that the once exploded Blackloists were again admitted to plead the infallibility of the Roman Church from practical Tradition and that this was done upon the strength of these two Propositions 1. J. S. That the Church of Rome hath always held close to Tradition and received still her Doctrine by Tradition from the Father to the Son from the first to the second and so to the present Age. 2. That she could not mistake the sense of Tradition in particular points In contradiction to these confident Assertions I have here shewed by confronting the Doctrines and Sayings of the Fathers to the express Determinations of their Councils 1. That the present Church of Rome hath varied in this matter from Antiquity both in Doctrine and Practice and that Tradition plainly contradicts all their Assertions and Decrees relating to it And therefore that all her late Defenders are much mistaken or which is worse would lead others into a known Error when they undertake to perswade them that the practice of their Church in denying the Cup to the Laity and to Priests non-conficient is warranted by Tradition and Primitive Practice and by the Principles on which they builded that pretended Practice 2. That in this particular Point she hath either actually mistaken the Sence of Tradition or actually devidated from Tradition And seeing whether she does not differ from or agree with the Primitive Belief and Practice in this Article is a matter of Fact and so may be determined by the Testimony of good Witnesses of what was practised and believed in their Times and by plain Allegations of matter of Fact without Infallibility In plain reason and from her own avowed Principles it follows that her Authority in saying she does not differ from the Tradition of the Ancients and much more in asserting That she hath always held to it and therefore could not mistake the Sence of it can be of no force against plain evidence of Fact to the contrary If then the difference betwixt the Belief and Practice of the Ancients and of the present Church of Rome in this matter be evident as I think I have made it it must be owned that the present received Tradition of that Church can be no certain Rule of Truth and no sure Argument that such was the Tradition of the Primitive Church since in this Controversie she hath actually varied from the Tradition of the Ancients And thus far 1. and no farther would I be thought to drive the Argument drawn from the Citations of the Ancients The Right or Authority claimed by that Church will be best judged of by other Intrinsick Arguments which ought to have the greater force when it appears that Prescription is against our Adversaries Only I cannot but admire why the Trent Council should found their Power of making such a Change in our Lord 's Institution on those words of the Aposlte 1 Cor. iv 1 (t) Id autem Apostolus non obscure visus est innuisse cum ait sic nos existimet c. Sess 21. c. 2. But let a Man account of us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dispensatores mysteriorum Dei as Ministers of Christ and Stewards of the Mysteries of God. Since in that very place it is immediately added That of a Steward it is required that he be found Faithful that is saith (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Locum Chrysostom that he do not usurp Authority over the things of his Lord but administer them as a Steward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it belongeth to a Steward to administer or distribute well to the Family the things committed to his hands And St. Basil (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haec ipsis integra custodiat Tom. 2. de vera ac pia fide p. 385. b. saith It is the property of a faithful Minister whatsoever things are committed to him by his Lord to distribute them to his fellow Servants and to preserve them for him without Adulteration or Deceit or purely and entirely saith the Latin. 2. The Second thing which I desire may be considered is That nothing in the following Citations can be urged against the Church of England as Erroneous in this Matter Art. 6. For since she professeth to admit nothing as necessary to be believed but what is either expressed in or fairly deducible from Scripture and that it is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike Art. 34. How can in reflect upon her that S. Cyprian for Example held it necessary to mix the Wine with Water or that others have held it necessary to use Unleavened Bread c. All that her Sons are in this Case obliged to is only to give fair and satisfactory Reasons why these things are not necessary which they are both able and willing to do whereas if a disagreement between the present Church of Rome and the Primitive Christians be once proved against them in any of their Articles all their fine Pleas for the certainty of their Traditions Mr. M. Quest of Quest p. 395 396 397. the Infallibility of their Councils as proceeding upon Tradition and meeting only to consult about the Tradition of the Church diffused and all the Prejudices they advance against the Protestants from the present Tradition of their Church must be confessedly vain and Sophistical And the attending to this difference of Principles in each Church will shew how much the Testimonies of the Ancients do affect the one and how little they concern the other and so will prevent the Objections of an Vnwary and the Cavils of a captious Reader THE INTRODUCTION Shewing what the Councils of Constance Basil and Trent have determined touching Communion in one kind THOUGH in many other Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome she contradicteth the plainest Evidence of
Lateranensi ultimo Bellar. de Concil l. 1. c 7. de Concil partim Reprobatis and of no Authority Why are they stiled Concilia Reprobata Reprobated Councils by the greatest Part of Roman Catholicks in reference to some of these things which they profess to have decided under this Majestick Character Why is it yet left free for any Romanist to reject their Authority and Decrees in many Matters Moreover if they were true General Councils representing the whole Church and assisted by the Holy Ghost either such Councils must have erred in what they have decreed as matter of Faith and therefore cannot be Infallible and then the whole Church Representative and Councils assisted by the Holy Ghost may erre in matters of Faith or if they did not erre it must be matter of Faith That a General Council is superior to the Pope Secondly That General Councils may infallibly determine matters of Faith without him yea against him Thirdly That the pertiancious Resisters of this Doctrine were Hereticks and therefore that Eugenius the 4th Julius the 2d Leo the 10th and the 5th Lateran Council were Heretical If they did not know the Truth of what they thus assert how shall private Persons be able to discern what such Assemblies and so many Universities and Churches throughout the World consenting with them and owning them as such could not discern That is how shall they know when Councils are truly General when they truly represent the Church Catholick and they are assisted by the Holy Ghost Was not this one of their Decrees That for the future Quilibet in R. Pontificem eligendus Every one that was to be chosen Pope should in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost with Heart and Mouth Profess to God Almighty and to blessed Peter firmy to believe and hold as long as he lived the holy Catholick Faith according to the Traditions of the Apostles the general Councils and in particular of the general Councils of Lateran Lyons Vienna Constance and Basil and to keep that Faith to a tittle unchanged (a) Consil Const Sess 39. Basil Sess 23.37 Et usque ad animam sanguinem confirmare defensare praedicare And to preach confirm and defend it with their Life and Blood Did not the following Popes till after the Time of Eugenius the 4th make this Profession Yea were not the Inquisitors of Hereticks obliged by the Council of Constance to enquire of any who lay under Suspicion of Heresy (b) Vtrum credaet teneat asserat quod quodlibet Concilium Generale etiam Constantinense Vniversalem Ecclesiam repraesentet Item utrum credat quod illud quod Sacrum Concilium Constantienense Vniversalem Ecclesiam Repraesentans approbavit approbat in favorem fidei salutem animarum quod hoc est abuniversis Christi fidelibus approbandum tenendum Et quòd condemnavit condemnat esse fidei bonis moribus contrarium hoc ab eisdem esse tenendum pro condemnato credendum asserendum Sess 45. apud Binium Tom. 7. p. 1124. Whether he believed held and asserted That every general Council and particularly that of Constance represents the Universal Church and whether he believed that what that Council representing the whole Church approved in favour of Faith and the welfare of Souls was to be approved by all the Faithful and what it condemned as contrary to Faith and good Manners was as such to be condemned And after this Profession of these Popes this Inquisition made by all concerned to find out and prosecute Persons suspected of Heresy could they be doubtful whether these Councils were truly General or no Would they condemn Men of Heresy for not believing these Articles if they themselves did not believe them What Hppes can private Persons have that they shall surely know when Councils represent the Church and are accepted by it if the Agreement of so many Nations so many Universities so many Cardinals Arch-Bishops Bishops Divines and Doctors the Profession of so many Popes the Practice of so many Inquisitors do not prove that these Councils were once accepted by the Church Again Was there any Scripture or Tradition of the Church which plainly taught the contrary if not there can be none now and so no Man can hve just Cause from Scripture or Tradition to doubt the Infallibility of these Councils That they represented the whole Church and were assisted by the Holy Ghost That they were above the Pope and Representatives of the Church Catholick without Dependance on him If either plain Scripture or Tradition contradicted these their Assertions and Determinations then must these great Assemblies and all the Universities Nations and Churches which owned them as true general Councils be accounted ignorant of what plain Scripture or Tradition delivered touching a Matter of Faith of so great Import to the Vnion the Peace and Reformation of the Church and why then may not others be ignorant of other Matters plain in Scripture or Tradition without Peril why may we not suppose or at the least suspect That other Councils less numerous have been so Again These Councils of Constance and Basil have declared and decreed That (a) Concil Basil Sess 2. apud Bin. To. 8. p. 22. Sess 18. p. 55. general Councils have Authority immediately from Christ which every one of whatsoever State or Dignity though it be Papal is obliged to obey in things pertaining to Faith the Extirpation of the said Schism and the general Reformation of the Church in its Head and Members That the Pope himself is bound to stand to the Declaration and Definition of these Councils Whatsoever Christian saith the (b) Sess 45. Council of Constance refuseth to profess That he believes asserts and holds this he shall be proceeded against as one suspected of Heresy This saith the Council of Basil is (c) Sess 33. p. 95. Veritas fidei Catholicae A Truth belonging to the Catholick Faith and whosoever pertinaciously resists it censendus est Haereticus Is to be deemed an Heretick It is an Article of Faith which cannot be neglected say they Sine interitu saluts Without the Loss of Salvation They also decreed That it was not in the Power of the Pope to dissolve prorogue or transfer a general Council to another place without the Consent of the said Council And this Decree is also stiled (a) Ibid. Sess 33. p. 59. Sess 38. p. 101. An Article of Faith which he who pertinaciously doth resist is to be deemed an Heretick They also urge in Confirmation of these Decrees 1. That they were established by Martin the Fifth confirming the Decrees of the Council of Constance and by Eugenius the Fourth confirming that of Basil and particularly that of the Eighth Session That (b) P. 33. during that Council there could be no general Council assembled elsewhere and that if any one presumed to make or erect another Assembly under the Name of a general Council assembled
Blood. § 6 Isidore Hispalensis saith in Allusion to the Words of Wisdom That Christ the Wisdom of God hath built him an House the Church in which he hath slain the Sacrifices of his Body in which he hath mingled the Wine of his Blood in the Cup of the divine Sacrament and prepared his Table that is the Altar of the Lord when sending forth his Servants the Apostles and Teachers to the Foolish that is to all Nations that knew not the true God he saith unto them (g) Dixit eis venite comedite panem meum bibite vinum quod miscui vobis id est Sancti corporis escam sumite poculum sanguinis sacri percipite De Gent. vocat cap. 26. Come eat my Bread and drink my Wine which I have mingled that is take ye the Meat of my sacred Body and receive the Cup of my sacred Blood. His Command therefore according to Isidore was by his Apostles sent to all Nations and to the Foolish among them to drink the Cup of his sacred Blood. The Council held at Braga in the same Century speaking of those who delivered to the People a piece of Bread dipp'd in the Wine for the whole Communion confutes this Practice by recurring not only to the Custom of the Church but also to the Doctrine of the Gospel and the Command of Christ for say they (h) Quidam in Sacrificiis Domini Eucharistam vino madidam pro complemento communionis credunt populis porrigendam Quod quam sit Evangelicae Apostolicae Doctrinae contrarium non difficile ab ipso fonte veritatis probabitur a quo ordinata ipsa Sacramentorum Mysteria processerunt Seorsim enim panis seorsim calicis commemoratio memoratur Concil To. 6. p. 563. how Repugnant this Practice is to the Doctrine of the Gospel and Custom of the Church may easily be proved from the Fountain of Truth who gave the Cup by it self saying Drink ye all of this as he took the Bread by it self saying Take eat c. Hence then we learn That the Fountain of Truth commanded and the Doctrine of the Gospel requireth That all the People should receive the Cup and that they should receive it ordinarily apart from the Bread. Regino quotes from venerable Bede these Words (i) Postquam infirmus sacra Unctione fuerit delibutus statim corpore sanguine Domini recreandus est ut de cujus vita temporali desperatur vivificari in anima vita aeterna mereatur ait enim Dominus qui manducat c. Proinde Sancti Canones praecipiunt ut nulli fideli in extremis posito Communio denegetur De Eccles Disc l. 1. c. 119. p. 77. § 7 When the infirm Person hath been anointed he presently is to be refreshed with the Body and Blood of our Lord that he may deserve to be quickned with Life Eternal in his Soul when his corporal Life is despaired of for our Lord saith He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal Life and unless you eat you shall have no Life in you And hence the sacred Canons command that the Communion should be denyed to none of the Faithful in the Close of this Life Where we learn 1. What was then understood by the Word Communion viz. the receiving of both Species the Body and the Blood and how these Species were to be received viz. The Flesh was to be eaten and the Blood to be drunk 2. Why they were to be both received viz. Because of our Lords Sayings John vi And 3ly We also learn for Confutation of Mr. Condom's first pretended Practice of the Church That the Sick were to receive the Body and the Blood and that the Canons of the Church required that they should not be withheld from them Zacharias Chrysopolitanus cites from the same Bede these Words (k) Hinc est quod ait Bibite ex hoc omnes ore corde ut sitis participes passionis meae Monotess p. 306. Hence it is that he saith Drink ye all of this both with the Heart and with the Mouth that ye may be Partakers of my Passion § 8 Paschasius Rathertus saith It is Christ alone who breaketh this Bread and distributeth it to Believers by the Hands of his Ministers (l) Similiter calicem porrigit eis dicens accipite hibite ex hoc omnes tam ministri quam reliqui credentes cap. 15. saying Take ye and drink ye all of this as well Ministers as the rest of the Faithful This is the Blood of the new and everlasting Testament Cassander informs us That the Gloss called expositio quadruplicis Missae expounds the Words thus (m) Ex hoc scilicet Calice sanguinis omnes scilicet sine personarum acceptione De Com. sub utraque specie p. 1043. Drink ye of this Cup of Blood All without exception of Persons Hincmarus Remensis having cited the same Words adds (n) Tom. 2. p. 90. Haec dixit dicit This he said then and this he saith now All plainly contradicting the R. Gloss and Mr. Condom's Exposition That these Words Drink ye all of this were only spoken to and concern'd only the Apostles Lanfranck § 9. Arch-bishop of Canterbury speaks thus to Berengarius If thou couldest with Christian Caution understand these things which ought to be understood literally and spiritually (o) Proculdubio crederes quod universalis Ecclesia credit praedicares quod Apostolica Doctrina in tota mandi latitudine praedicandum instituit carnem scilicet sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi ore corpore ore cordis hoc est corporaliter spiritualiter manducari bibi De Sacr. Euch. f. 131 132. thou wouldest without doubt believe that which the universal Church believes thou would-est publish what the Doctrine of the Apostles hath appointed to be published through the World viz. That the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is to be eaten and drunken both by the Mouth and Body and by the Mouth of the Heart that is both bodily and spiritually And Anselm his Successor in the same See saith We ought to eat and drink this Sacrament two ways (p) Ore cordis ore Corporis Com. in 1 Cor. 11. with the Mouth of the Heart and of the Body The doing both these things the drinking of the Blood of Jesus with our Mouths is that which ought to be done that which the Doctrine of the Apostles hath appointed to be published Pope Paschal writes to Pontius Abbot of Clun §. 10. thus (q) Scribens ad Caecilium B. Cyprianus ait quando aliquid Deo inspirante mandante praecipitur necesse est domino servus fidelis obtemperet excusatus apud omnes quod nihil sibi arroganter assumat ne aliud fiat a nobis quam quod pro nobis Dominus prior fecit igitur in sumendo corpore sanguine Domini juxta eundem Cyprianum Dominicatraditio servetur necab
all of this Here then §. 12. besides what hath already been observed from these Passages we farther learn 1. That every Order of Believers ought to receive of the Lords Body and of his precious Blood apart That they ought to drink this Cup with the Mouth of the Body 2. That the Tradition of our Lord is to be observed and not departed from by reason of any humane and novel Institution 3. That the Apostles commanded these things to be observed that the Doctrine of the Gospel and the Custom of the Church require the Cup should be received apart Interim autem dum ab eo in hoc mundo peregrinamur Corpore sanguine ejus in via pascimur sicut Apostolis suis hoc Mysterium in coena ultima ante mortem suam tradidit nobis sequentibus frequentandum per eos mandavit Guitm de Sacram. lib. 3. fol. 91. b. that this the universal Church believes and the Doctrine of the Apostles hath appointed this to be published throughout the world that the Blood of our Lord Jesus is to be drunk by the mouth of the Body that the Gospel commands it should be drunk that the Apostolical Statutes commanded both to be celebrated in the Church that God himself ordered that we should all drink out of one Cup and that this is required by the inspiration and command of God that Christ said Eat me Drink me that he exhorted all Men to drink of his Blood that he sent forth his Apostles and Teachers to invite them to drink of the Wine that he had mingled and to receive the Cup of his sacred Blood that he commanded these things that he so appointed it to be observed and that we drink of the blood of Christ by his command 4. That the command Drink ye all of this was by Christ directed as well unto the People as the Ministers to all without exception that what Christ did he commanded his followers to do what he distributed to them he would have them distribute to others and that in the Primitive Church all communicated because Christ said to his Apostles Drink ye all of this 5. That by receiving of both kinds they shewed forth Christ's Death and this is as much as any Protestant hath said or needs to say CHAP. II. The Contents Whereas these Councils take upon them to Decree this Sacrament shall be celebrated otherwise than by their own confession it was instituted by Christ The Fathers in the general assert That this Mystery ought not to be celebrated otherwise than it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles §. 1. When some delivered the Bread dipp'd in the consecrated Cup as a compleat Communion they condemned this practice as varying from the Institution and from the practice of the Church §. 2. They condemned the offering on the Altar other things besides Bread Wine and Water for the same Reasons §. 3. They condemned the using Wine not mixed with Water on the same account §. 4. They condemned the celebration of this Mystery in consecrated Bread and Water only from the same grounds §. 5. Inferences against Communion in one kind from the premises §. 6. SEcondly Sess 13. Sess 21. c. 3. whereas the Councils of Constance and of Trent confess That Christ instituted this venerable Sacrament under both species and so delivered it to his Apostles and that the Primitive Church did practise suitably unto this Institution and yet deny that there lies any Obligation on Christians from this Institution or this practice to administer it or to receive it in both kinds Sess 21. cap. 2. asserting they have power as dispensatores Mysteriorum Dei Dispensers of the Mysteries of God to make this change in the Administration of this Sacrament whereas I say these are the bold Assertions of the forementioned Councils in opposition to them the Sayings of the Fathers are very clear and pregnant in which they plainly shew they thought themselves and all that bare the Name of Christians obliged to observe the Institution of the Sacrament which by the Confessions of the Councils of Trent and Constance was in both kinds and in the distribution of it to do as Christ the Author of it did viz. to give both species apart to the Communicants which came to be partakers of this Holy Sacrament And § 1 1. The Author which passeth under the Name of Ambrose in his Comment on these words He that eateth this Bread or drinks this Cup unworthily c. saith thus (a) Indignum dicit esse domino qui aliter mysterium celebrat quam ab eo traditum est non enim potest devotus esse qui aliter praesumit quam datum est ab Authore In locum He pronounces him unworthy of the Lord who otherwise doth celebrate this Mystery than it was delivered by him for he cannot be devout who presumes to do it otherwise then it was given by the Author And this good Rule in after-Ages was approved of and even transcribed by the Ritualists and by the Commentators on the same place (b) Indigne dicit i. e ordine non observato viz. qui aliter Mysterium illud celebrat vel sumit quam traditum est a sanctis patribus Haym in locum p. 130. He eats unworthily saith Haymo that is not observing order who either celebrates or takes that Mystery otherwise than it was delivered by the Holy Fathers St. Anselm in his Comment on the same Chapter saith That St. Paul reproved the Corinthians because they did not well observe what he had delivered touching this matter he having delivered to them what the Lord delivered to him and therefore that which they ought to retain reverently and inviolably adding That (c) Qui aliter mysterium celebrat quam a Christo traditum est Ibid. he eats and drinks unworthily who either celebrates or receives that Mystery otherwise than it was delivered by our Lord. The Gloss cites the same words from Ambrose Aquinas from the Gloss He is unworthy saith Hugo who celebrates the Mystery otherwise than by Christ it was delivered And he saith Lyra is unworthy (d) Qui non observat ritum a Christo institutum Ibid. who observes not the Custom instituted by Christ Gregory the Third condemns the placing Two or Three Cups upon the Altar at once as being not agreeable to the practice of our Lord. For saith he (e) In missarum solenniis observandum est quod dominus noster Jesus Christus Sanctis suis distribuit discipulis accepit enim calicem dedit eis dicens Hic est calix Novi Testamenti in meo sanguine hoc facite quotiescunque sumitis Ep. ad Bonifacium In the Solemnities of the Mass that is to be observed which our Lord Jesus gave to his Disciples for he took the Cup and gave it to them saying This is the Cup of the New Testament in my Blood this do as often as you take it And (f) De
Christ's discipline must also think themselves obliged to observe the same Tradition and Example in ministring the Cup and Censure in like manner those who do it not They who teach that not the Custom of Man but the Truth of God was to be followed could never have approved of the plea from Custom used by the Church of Rome for defalcation of the Cup. And lastly they who looked upon the Institution as a Command and all these sayings of St. Cyprian as Rules to be fulfilled and followed in the whole institution of our Lord must also think it a Command to minister the Cup unto the People and that those Rules of Cyprian did bind them so to do I therefore shall conclude this Chapter with that saying of Algerus * Quis audet excipere quod ipse non excepit aut quis audit prohibere quod ipse in Sacramento suo non prohibuit sed ipse faciens nos hoc ipsum facere praecepit cum dicit Hoc facite convenienter subaudiatur quod Ego quis aeque competenter subaudire audeat sed non de hoc unde ego item si mutandum est fermentato azymum mutetur etiam quolibet alio liquore vinum si enim vinum recipitur cur azymum refutetur cum sicut ex azymo sic ex vino Christus vetus pascha finierit novum inchoaverit utrumque nobis in Sacramento suo aeque celebrandum tradiderit Algerus de Sacram. Euch. lib. 2. c. 10. fol. 84. b. 85. a. In the case of unleavened Bread. Who dares except what Christ excepted not or forbid what he in his Sacraments did not forbid but doing it himself commanded us to do the same thing when he saith do this we are conveniently to understand this which I do but who dares also to understand this but do it not of that which I do it Moreover if Vnleavened Bread be to be changed for Leavened let the Wine also be changed for any other liquor for as our Lord Christ finished the Old Passover and began the New with Vnleavened Bread so did he also do it with Wine and delivered both to us to be equally celebrated in this Sacrament CHAP. III. The Contents In opposition to the Decree of the Trent Council asserting that they who receive in one kind only are not deprived of any Grace necessary to Salvation The Fathers declare 1. That it is necessary to partake of the Cup in order to our Vnion to Christ §. 1. For the Remission of Sins §. 2. For the obtainment of Eternal Life §. 3. An inference from this last Particular to shew the falshood of one Anathema pronounced by the Trent Council §. 4. IT is sure some prejudice against this Novel Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome some ground to scruple and suspect the lawfulness of the substraction of the Cup that it bears such a manifest repugnance to our Lord's institution and to that Repetition of it which St. Paul delivered as a thing carefully to be observed a Tradition to be retained by the Church of Corinth and by attendance to which all their miscarriages in reference to the Celebration of that Mystery were to be corrected That all the Fathers of the Church above a Thousand Years conceived themselves obliged by virtue of this Institution to Minister both species to the People That they on all occasions rose up with such an holy Zeal against those persons who in lesser matters presumed to vary from this Institution condemned all humane Institutions which receded from it and punish'd all Offenders in this kind But such hath been the Providence of God in reference to this Affair such the discourses of the Antients with respect unto this subject that there is scarcely any other Position advanced by these Councils in favour of this Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome which they do not directly overthrow or in plain words condemn almost as fully as any Protestant can do For Thirdly Sess 21. cap. 3. Sess 13. Can. 3. Whereas it is defined by the Trent Council that they are not deprived of any Grace necessary to Salvation who receive one kind only and that it cannot be doubted without prejudice to the Christian Faith but that Communion in one kind only is sufficient to Salvation The Fathers do in opposition to these Assertions plainly and frequently declare That it is necessary to Salvation for Christians in the general to drink Christi's Blood in the Sacrament This will be evident 1. From these Expressions in which the Fathers do declare it necessary not only to partake of the Bread but also of the Cup in order to that Vnion with Christ which sure is necessary to Salvation and this they generally gather from those words of Christ Joh. vi 56. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him The Doctrine of blessed Paul saith Cyril of Jerusalem is sufficient to aford us full satisfaction touching the Holy Mysteries of which being made partakers we become of the same body and blood with Christ for so he saith that our Lord Jesus taking Bread and giving Thanks he brake and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat this is my Body and taking the Cup and giving Thanks he said Take and drink for this is my Blood for in the type of Bread the Body and in the type of Wine the Blood is given to thee (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech. Myst 4. p. 237. That partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ thou maist be of one Body and Blood with him for so we are made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bearers of Christ his Body and Blood being received into our members (b) Haecaccepta hausta id efficiunt ut nos in Christo Christus in nobis sit De Trin. l. 8. p. 166. Those things being taken and drank saith Hilary produce this effect that Christ is in us and we in Christ and how natural this Vnity is he himself tēacheth saying He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him Cyril of Alexandria on these words saith That (c) In Joh 6.56 our Lord here shews the great profitableness of this work for as if one join Wax to Wax he will see one part within the other so he that receives the Flesh of our Saviour Christ and drinks his Blood is as he saith found one with him So mixed with and in him that he is found in Christ and Christ again in him Oecumenius upon these words The Cup of Blessing is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ saith thus You know what I say (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ed. Gr. p. 444. for his Blood knits us to Christ as Members to the Head by the participation of it This Meat and Drink saith Rabanus Maurus signifies the eternal society of the Head and Members He that drinketh saith he my Blood and eateth my Flesh
of the Cup on that account Isidore Peleusiota in the same Age extolling the Sacerdotal Order saith That by their means we are regenerated (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 2. Ep. 52. and made partakers of the divine Mysteries without which no Man can attain the Heavenly rewards as is apparent from the Heavenly Oracles now saying That unless a Man be born again c. and anon Vnless we eat c. we have no life in us Which Argument he seems to have borrowed from St. Chrysostom who saith (g) Hom. 3. de Sacerd. tom 6. p. 16. l. 38. If none can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven who is not born again of Water c. If he that doth not eat the Flesh of the Lord and drink his Blood is deprived of Eternal Life and all these things are not otherwise communicated but by the Hands of the Priest who can without these Men avoid the Fire of Hell or enjoy the Crowns laid up in Heaven Amphilochius saith (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Vit. Basil c. 17. p. 221. It is impossible that any one should be saved unless he be regenerated by Baptism and made partaker of the Life-giving Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Christ (i) De Ecclesiast Officiis l. 1. de Sacrificio c. 18. Isidore Hispalensis cites and approves that passage of (k) Timendum est ne dum qui abstentus seperatur a Christi corpore procul remaneat a salute comminante ipso vel dicente Nisi ederitis carnem filii hominis biberitis sanguinem ejus non habebitis vitam in vobis Cypr. de Orat. Dom. p. 147. Et Raban Maur. de institut Cler. l. 1. c. 31. St. Cyprian in his Treatise on the Lord's Prayer It is to be feared least any one being long separated from the Body of Christ should be far from Salvation Christ having said Vnless you eat c. Hincmarus Remensis saith That Christ spoke those words of his Body and Blood inviting his Servants to his Table that l Locutus est nobis de corpore sanguine suo commendans talem escam talem potum Nisi manducaveritis c. haec sunt Sacramenta Ecclesiae sine quibus ad vitam quae vera vita est non intratur Tom. 2. p. 92. this and Baptism are the Sacraments of the Church without which we cannot enter into true Life (m) Habet vitam aeternam hanc ergo non habet qui istum panem non manducat nec istum sanguinem bibit nam temporalem vitam sine illo habere homines possunt aeternam vero omnino non possunt August Tract 26. in Joh. p. 229. Sinc isto cibo potu Raban M. de instit Cler. l. 1.31 Rabanus speaks thus The Truth saith My Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed Men may have temporal Life without this Meat and Drink eternal they can never have Which Words he borrowed from St. Austin's Comment on the Sixth of John. Regino cites this passage from the Capitulars of Charles the Great That (n) De Eccl. discipl l. 1. can 195. great discretion is to be used as to the Receiving of the Body and Blood of Christ for care is to be taken least being deferred too long it tend to the Destruction of the Soul our Lord having said Vnless you eat c. (o) Quasi quodam jurejurando protestatur dicens Amen Amen c. Apud Baron Tom. 11. p. 1007. Humbert in his Disputation against the Greeks saith That Christ restified with an Oath that without this refection that Life which is Christ cannot be had saying Verily I say unto you except c. The Flesh is taken by it self saith Lanfranck and the Blood by it self not without a certain Mystery though in another Sence whole Christ is said to be eaten viz. By spiritual desire of eternal Life and Meditation of his Passion (p) Utraque comestio necessaria utraque fructuosa altera indiget alterius ut boni aliquid operetur hinc in Evangelio legitur nisi manducaveritis c. De Sacr. Euch. p. 126 127. both these Comestions are necessary for hence it is read in the Gospel that unless we eat c. (q) Comment in 6. Joh. Rupertus Tuitiensis saith That least any Man should think he hath recovered by Faith alone the Life of his Body and Soul without the visible meat and drink of the Body and Blood of Christ and consequently needs not the Sacrament Christ repeats the same thing again touching the eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood by this undoubtedly testifying that he doth not truly believe whosoever despiseth to eat and to drink for although thou be a Faithful Man and profess thy self to be a Catholick if thou refusest to eat of this visible Meat and Drink even by this that thou presumest that this Meat and Drink is not necessary to thee thou cuttest thy self off from the Society of the Members of Christ which is the Church § 4 Now if that sence which the constant interpretation of the Fathers hath put upon these words from the Fifth to the Twelfth Century be owned by Romanists the consequence is unavoidable that it is necessary to Salvation to receive the Sacrament under both kinds for they who do receive the Body only may be said well to eat the Flesh of Christ because they take something by way of Meat but they cannot be said to drink his Blood as here our Lord requireth them to do since they take nothing by way of drink The privation of Life is here connected with the neglect of Drinking as much as with the neglect of Eating since therefore eating the drinking are distinct Actions he cannot properly be said to drink who only eats and therefore must neglect what by the Fathers descants on these Words is necessary to life eternal Moreover since on this sole account they constantly did minister the Cup to little Children as Roman Catholicks confess they ministred both the Bread and Cup to Children capable of receiving both as the Church History attests it follows that they held it necessary to Salvation in conformity to these Sayings of our Lord recorded by St. John that both should be received by all Christians capable of taking both Species And therefore in condemning this Doctrine Sess 21. can 4. and that with an Anathema the Fathers of the Trent Council must have virtually Anathematized the whole Church of Christ for Nine whole Centuries and by renouncing of this Interpretation so generally received the Doctors of the Roman Church must at least seem to us to violate that Oath Jaramentum professionis fidei a Pio 4. editum which they have taken never to interpret or own any sence of Scripture Nisi juxta unanimem consensum Patrum but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers CHAP. IV. The Contents In opposition to that Determination of the Trent Council That a true or an
of our Redemption which therefore we make known to your Holiness that such Men may be known to you by these Tokens and that by the Sacerdotal Authority they may be expelled from the Communion of Saints whose Sacrilegious Simulation is thus found out for blessed Paul hath well admonished the Church of God of such Men saying We beseech you Brethren that you mark them who cause Divisions and Offences contrary to the Doctrine which you have received and avoid them Where evident it is that the Practice of the Manichees in Receiving of the Body of the Lord in the Christian Mysteries that so they might dissemble their Infidelity is called Simulation and their declining to drink the Blood of our Redemption is that which made this Simulation to be Sacrilegious 2dly Here it is also evident that in St. Leo's days to eat the Body of our Lord or to receive it and to drink his Blood were look'd upon as two distinct things one of which might be done without the other the Body being taken when the Blood of our Redemption was not which wholly overthrows the Doctrine of Concomitance on which this Sacrilege is founded 3ly Observe that Leo would have such persons expelled from the Communion of Saints for this Sacrilegious Simulation That 4ly He makes the declining of the Cup at any time a mark sufficient to discern these Sacrilegious Persons and a cause sufficient for their Exclusion from the Communion of Saints whereas had others at any time been permitted in the Church-Assemblies to Communicate in Bread alone for any other Reason this mark had been no certain indication of a Manichee to Priest or People since being caught they might pretend that they had formerly received the Cup but now abstained for some special cause approved by the Church The Faithful therefore must have then generally Communicated at all times or else the Manichee could not be certainly discovered by one Dry Communion Moreover Pope Gelasius did by a Law condemn this half Communion as a great Sacrilege (b) Non esse sumendum Corpus Domini sine Calice Gelasius Majorico Johanni Episcopis apud Ivon decret part 2. cap. 8 9. Comperimus quod quidam in eadem Regione sumpta tantum Corporis Sacri portione a Calice Sacri cruoris abstineant qui proculdubio quoniam nescio quâ superstitione docentur obstringi aut integra Sacramenta accipiant aut ab integris arceantur quia divisio unius ejusdem Mysteril sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest provenire We have found saith he that some in the same Country having taken only a portion of the Holy Body abstain from the Cup of the Holy Blood who because I know not by what Superstition they are said to be bound ought without doubt to receive the entire Mysteries or to be driven from both for the division of one and the self same Mystery cannot happen without great Sacrilege Where note 1. That this Law respecteth not Priests only for as (c) Ad A. D. 496. Sect. 20. Baronius observes This is no mention in the Law of the Priest Sacrificing or of any other of that Order whence saith he it is evident that what is generally spoken here ought not to be restrained to them Moreover Cassander doth assure us That in his Old Manuscript this was the Title of this Decree That (d) Quod nulli liceat absque sanguinis participatione solius carnis Communionem percipere P. 19. p. 1106. it was not lawful for any one N. B. to Receive the Communion of the Flesh without partaking of the Blood. In Ivo the Title of it runs thus That the Body of our Lords is not to be taken without the Cup. (e) Excommunicari illos praecipit quicunque sumpto corpore dominico a calicis participatione se abstinerent Nam ut ipse in eodem decreto asserit hujusmodi Sacramentorum divisio sine grandi Sacrilegio provenire non poterit Microl. Cap. 19. Micrologus saith That P. Gelasius commanded that they should be Excommunicated quicunque whosoever they were that having taken the Body of our Lord abstained from the Cup. (f) Prop. 23. p. 579. Radulphus de Rivo transcribes the very words of Micrologus and both of them give the same reason of this precept viz. For as he in the same Decree asserts such a division of the Sacraments cannot come to pass without great Sacrilege Now from these Testimonies it is evident 1. That from the Tenth to the Fourteenth Century it was esteemed an unlawful and Sacrilegious thing for any that were capable of both to receive the Bread without partaking of the Cup. Yea Sacrilege is by them declared to be inseparable from such a divisio of this Mystery It therefore must according to the judgment of Pope Gelasius and of the following Ages who approved of his Decree be inseparable from the constant practice of the Church of Rome since te times of the Council of Constance 2. Whereas the R. Doctors say this Decree was made against the Manichees who held Wine in abomination and therefore did refuse the Cup and so concerns them only who refuse upon a like account to drink of it It is observable that neither Gelasius himself nor any who have since that time took notice of this Law have told us that it was peculiarly made against the Manichees who abstained from drinking of the Cup for the formantioned reason but they without Exception declare that by this Law it was not lawful for any one to receive the Flesh without the Cup and that whosoever did so was by virtue of it to be Excommunicated And hence (g) L. 2. c. 8. Algerus in the Twelfth Century cites this Decree to prove that the Bread is separately to be consecrated into the Flesh and the Wine into the Blood of Christ and that both are to be received by the Faithful And they had reason to speak thus generally of it for that this Law of P. Gelasius was not directed against the Manichean Heresie may be made evident from numerous considerations For 1. had this Pope made this Law against the Manichees there can be no reason imagined why he as well as Leo should not mention them 2ly That Expression in the body of this Law that he knew not by what Superstition they were bound up cannot filty be applied to the Manichees for it was doubtless a matter well known to Gelasius why the Manichees refused the Cup and not unto Gelasius only but to all the People For Leo who preceded him had taken care that not only (h) Omnia quae tam in Scripturis quam in occultis traditionibus suis habent profana vel turpia ut nosset populus quid refugeret aut vitaret oculis Christianae plebis certa manifestatione probavimus Decret Leonis P. c. 6. Collect. à Dionysio exiguo apud Justel p. 224. All the profane and filthy things which were in their Writings but also that the things contained in their
30. Trid. Sess 43. cap. 3. these Councils jointly have determined That by force of that natural Connexion and Concomitance which is betwixt the parts of Christ's raised Body Christ's Body is entire under the Species of Wine and his Blood under the Species of Bread it being firmly to be believed and in no wise doubted that the whole Body and Blood of Christ is contained as well under the Species of Bread as under that of Wine and not the Flesh only under the Species of Bread nor the Blood only under the Species of Wine This whosoever shall deny let him be Anathema saith the Trent Council whosoever being learned will not declare upon Oath that he believeth and asserts this Doctrine of Concomitance he must suffer as an (a) Sess 13. can 1. Partinaciter dicentes oppositum tanquam haeresin sunt arcendi puniendi Sess 45. apud Bin. Tom. 7. p. 1124. Heretick saith the Council of Constance And yet this Doctrine which cannot be denied without incurring an Anathema nor disbelieved without the Crime of Heresie is in it self absurd and plainly contrary to Scripture and to Reason and that it was unquestionably unknown to all the Ancient Fathers and the whole Church of Christ is very easie to demonstrate That this Doctrine is absurd that it doth not expound but rather doth expose our Saviour's Institution to the derision of Men of Reason and Consideration will be evident from these following Arguments For § 1 1. This Novelty apparently destroys the energy of the words used in the Institution of this Sacred Ordinance in which our Lord when he had given his Body broken to his own Disciples and they had actually received it saith of the following Cup Drink ye all of this Matth. xxvi 27 28. for this is the blood of the New-Testament shed for you Whereas if he knew any thing of this Concomitance he must know also they had received this blood of the New-Testament already and therefore might have spared his Cup and Reason both This do as oft as you drink it came too late for they had done what he commanded in effect before he bid them do it Sess 13. c. 3. Tantundem sub alterutrâ specie atque sub utraque continetur as much is contained under either Species as under both saith the Trent Council i. e. whole and entire Christ his Body Blood his Soul and his Divinity and so as much as is delivered in and as much Grace conveighed by the Reception of one Species as both For I suppose that by participation of Christ in this entire manner we have entirely the Grace of the Sacrament Why therefore did our Lord institute the other Species so perfectly unnecessary to conveigh any thing of Christ or of his Grace unto us Why did he bless the Cup and blessing said with like Solemnity and with express injunction Drink ye all of this Or why did he permit his Church for a whole Thousand Years to give his Members a thing which might be oft of a pernicious influence to them who did receive it unworthily but could be of no spiritual advantage to them who did receive it worthily since after we have taken worthily the consecrated Body we have taken as much as when we have received the Blood also Mr. Condom sets down this as their Principle Treat of Communion in both Kinds p. 327. That he who hath received the Bread of Life has no need of receiving the sacred Blood seeing he has received together with the Bread of Life the whole Substance of the Sacrament and together with that Substance the whole essential virtue of the Eucharist Now from this Principle it follows with the clearest evidence that it was needless for our Saviour to have said to his Disciples after they had received the Bread of Life Drink ye all of this Cup. That his Institution of the Cup to be received after the Bread of Life was a needless Institution that the Church was imployed in a needless Action for a Thousand Years when she distributed the Cup to all Believers That when our Saviour said Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood of the New-Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins he gave a needless reason of a needless Action exhorting them to do what they had wholly done already to the end here assigned by him of the drinking of it And can that Principle be true which casts such horrid Imputations on the Commands the Institution and the Reason of that Institution assigned by our Blessed Lord and on the constant Practice of the whole Church of Christ And indeed this new Capricio of Concomitance cannot well be thought of by a Roman Doctor but presently this Question stares him in the Face To what purpose then was the Institution of both Species they being conscious to themselves that the very natural and obvious Conclusion from it would be this That our Lord's Institution of both Species was to no purpose they therefore have invented a new Reason of the necessity of Consecrating both the Species apart Mr. Condom ibid. p. 179 180. viz. That the Separation once made upon the Cross of our Lord's Body and Blood might never cease to appear on the Holy Table Now is it not wonderful that Christ should stablish a continual representation of the separation of his Blood from his Body by Species which he commands us to believe contain his Body and his Blood united What a pretty Mystery do these Men make of the sacred Institution of our Lord. Bread and Wine never cease to appear unto our Senses and yet we must not believe this Appearance but by Faith believe there is no such thing the same Faith teacheth me that our Lord's Body and Blood are united there and yet I must believe our Lord designed the continual representation of them there as separate where Faith informs me there is no such thing Secondly This Doctrine of Concomitance seems even to ridicule our Saviour's words and make them run to this effect I say unto you This is my Body broken not by way of representation only but substantially so and yet I know my Body neither is substantially broken in this Sacrament nor can it ever be so I bid you take this Cup and to encourage you to do so I say This is my Blood shed or separated from my Body and yet I know that there is always in this Sacrament such a Concomitance as renders it impossible my Blood should be thus separated as I say it is But notwithstanding I institute a Mystery which by some broken Accidents of Bread annihilated or some few colours or bare Species of Wine without a subject shall give some faint resemblance of my Body broken and my Blood shed for you This is my broken Body that is under these broken Accidents of Bread lyeth my Body whole and united to my Blood and therefore not my Body broken for you This is my Blood shed
for you that is under this empty shew of Wine lieth my Blood united to my Body and so my Blood not shed and whether hoc est corpus thus interpreted doth not make Nonsence of the words let the considerate Reader judge § 2 Thirdly If there be such a necessary Concomitance in the Sacrament then must each part of the Sacrament exhibit whole and entire Christ with all his Benefits and consequently the depriving the Laity of one part or Species of the Sacrament must be the depriving them of whole Christ and all his benefits Now then in doing this either they are deprived of some spiritual Benefit or not if the first then must the Romanists be Sacrilegious because they do deprive the people of some spiritual Benefit from those sacred Mysteries they formerly received and that agreeably unto the Institution of our Lord and the common practice of the Church for a Thousand Years If the receiving of the Chalice worthily be of any advantage to Souls then he who does not receive it is a looser and he by whom they are deprived of this spiritual Good must be a Sacrilegious person If it be said that no spiritual Benefit can accrue to them by drinking of the Cup then must it be asserted that albeit a Man receive entire Christ worthily yet may he never be the better for it and what is this but to esteem the Blood of the Covenant thus received an unholy thing § 3 Fourthly had our Lord taught Concomitance his Institution of this Sacrament had been the Institution of a thing directly contrary to the Law of Moses viz. The eating of Flesh with the Blood and then it must have ministred offence to the Apostles and the first Jewish Converts who were all strict observers of that Law. Since then we do not find that the Apostles the Jewish Converts or even the Sects of Nazeranes and Ebionites did ever scruple the receiving of the Sacrament on this account we may presume our Saviour taught no such Concomitance § 4 To conclude should we admit of this imagination it would not free the Romanists from the Imputation of an half Sacrament though it would from delivering of half Christ For feeing a Sacrament is an outward visible sign it follows evidently he who hath but half of the outward visible signs hath but half of the Sacrament and consequently an half Sacrament He that receives only the Bread receives only the Sacrament of the Body and not the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ and so receives not an entire Sacrament § 5 That the Fathers of the Church till the Tenth Century knew and believed nothing of this Doctrine of Concomitance as it is evident from many of their Testimonies cited in this Discourse so may it fully be evinced from the received Customs of the Church of Christ And First this may be proved from that received Custom mentioned in all the Liturgies both of the Eastern and the Western Churches which was to bite or break a piece of the consecrated Bread and putting it into the Cup to say these words (b) Fiat commixtio consecratio corporis Sanguinis Domini nostri Ordo Rom. apud Cassandr p. 112 119. Let there be made a mixture and a consecration of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ For though (c) Durant de rit Eccl. l. 2. c. 52. Durantus and (d) Bona rerum Liturg. l. 2. c. 16. p. 814. Bona do in conformity to the New Doctrine of Transubstantiation carefully remark that the Priest doth not thus speak as if those things were then united which before were separated and that they made no mixture of our Lord's Body and his Blood according to their real essences but only according to their Sacramental Species yet do the Liturgies refuse this Subterfuge and their Expositors sufficiently confute this uncouth Gloss for they do never speak of a Commixtion of the Sacramental Species but always of the Body and Blood of Christ They pray that this Commixtion and Consecration may avail to their (e) In vitam aeternam Ord. Rom. eternal Salvation which cannot be expected from the Sacramental Species but only from the real Body and the Blood. Albinus Flaccus doth inform us That this Commixtion is made (f) Ut calix Domini totam plenltudinem contineat Sacramenti Cap. de celebr Miss p. 93. that the Cup of the Lord may contain the whole fulness of the Sacrament as it were by the Copulation of the same Mystery This is not done in vain saith (g) De Eccles Offic. l. 3. c. 3. Amalarius for corporal Life consists of Flesh and Blood whilst these two continue in Man his Spirit or Life continues In that Office is shewn that the blood shed for our Souls and the flesh dead for our Body return to their proper Substance and that the New Man Christ is made lively by the quickening Spirit that he who died for us and rose again can die no more (h) Per particulam oblata immissae in calicem ostendit Christi corpus quod jam resurrexit a mortuis De inst Cleric c. ult Rabanus Maurus in like manner saith That the particle consecrated thus put into the Chalice shews that the Body of Christ is now risen from the Dead (i) Ad designandam corporis animae conjunctionem in resurrectione Christi cap. 17. Micrologus saith That this mixture is made to signifie the Conjunction of the Soul and Body of Christ in the Resurrection and that the particle put into the Chalice signifies the Body of our Lord risen from the dead Now they who say this mixture was made that the Cup might contain the fulness of the Sacrament did not believe that the Cup before contained the Sacrament compleatly as it must do if it contained the Body before And they who say That this is done to shew that the Body of Christ is now alive and risen from the dead and that this mixture therefore sheweth this because it joineth or uniteth Flesh and Blood did not believe they were before united by Concomitance And as our Lord by consecrating the Wine after he had distributed the Bread and bidding them all drink thereof because it was the Blood of the New Testament declared sufficiently that he did not conceive that his Disciples had received already that same Blood he Consecrated that they might receive it Even so these Christians who mixed the Consecrated particle of our Lord's Body with his Blood that so the Union of both in which our Saviour's Life consisted might be represented sufficiently declare they did not think his Flesh and Blood were by Concomitance before united Secondly This will be farther evident from that known Custom of the Church which was to mix the Bread and Wine that so when they Communicated Infants or infirm persons who could not swallow down the Bread alone they might truly say The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ profit thee to
all Crimes objected to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we partake of humane flesh it is not possible we should be guilty of so vile a thing Amongst us there is no eating of Man's flesh saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Contr. Graec. p. 162. Tatian you are false witnesses who say this of us No Man saith Legat. p. 38. Athenagoras who is not mad can charge us with this thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for we may not eat humane flesh It is the Calumny of the Devil saith P. 32. Minutius You may be ashamed to object it to us Christians saith Apol. cap. 9. Tertullian whereas had they received this as an Article of Christian Faith that they did daily eat the Flesh of the Man Christ and thought that this Discourse not only taught but even obliged them so to do I know not with what Truth or what Sincerity they could without all limitation or exception not only have denied but even detested the doing so But that which puts it without dubt that Christians in the Primitive Ages had no apprehension that Christ by this Discourse had taught them that his proper flesh and Blood was to be eaten in the Sacrament is the memorable History of Sanctus and Blandina two Christian Martyrs written by Iraenene Bishop of Lions and preserved to us in In 1 Pet. ii 12. p. 149. g. a. Oecumenius thus That the Heathens having apprehended the Servants of Christians Catechized and using force with them that from them they might learn something secret the Servants having nothing to say that might be pleasing to their Tormentors in as much as they had heard from their Masters that the Holy Sacrament was the Body and Blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they thinking that it had indeed been flesh and blood told this to the Inquisitors who apprehending 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if the Christians had done that very thing gave notice of it to other Heathens and they endeavoured by torments to force the May tyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess it to whom Blandina readily and boldly answered saying How should they endure these things who so fast as not to enjoy lawful Flesh This I say is a clear indication that the Ancient Christians did not believe that in this Sacrament they did eat Christ's proper flesh and blood or that our Lord did here require them to do so for if they had thus thought how could Irenaeus have represented it as a plain mistake both in these Servants and these Heathens to think the Sacrament was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 really Christ's flesh and blood and that the Christians by receiving of it did really eat Flesh and Blood How could he have introduced Blandina refuting this Imagination had it been the Sentiment of the then Church of Christ since by so doing she must have rejected one great Article of Christian Faith How lastly could Oecumenius have inserted these words into his Commentary without endeavouring to sweeten and explain and reconcile them to the Doctrine of the proper Manducation of Christ's Flesh and Blood. Again since that this Doctrine came into the world that is since it was broached first by Paschasius in the Ninth Century the Assertors of it give two Reasons why though we corporally eat that very Flesh which suffered on the Cross and drink that very Blood which was then shed corporeally yet is that Flesh and Blood concealed from our outward Senses under the shape of Bread and Wine The first is this C. 13. Al. 36. Vt ridiculum nullum fiat Paganis quod cruorem occisi hominis bibamus that we might not be ridiculous to the Pagans by eating humane Flesh and drinking the Blood of a slain Man for this saith he would make our Religion execrable and cause them to condemn the Christians as the vilest of Men And again should the shape of Flesh appear it would be C. 37. Perfidis execratio execrable to the Heathens 'T is thus concealed saith Alger l. 2. c. 3. f. 15. b. Algerus Ne infidelibus pateat eorum Blasphemiis vilescat Least it should appear to Infidels and lie open to their Blasphemies and least they should judge us inhumane and cruel as being eaters and drinkers of humane Flesh and Blood. Secondly Least Christians perceiving things raw and bloody should be filled with horrour saith P. 133. b. Lanfrank least if the Faithful should perceive the Colour and the taste of Flesh and Blood humana pietas abhorreret humane piety should abhorr the Action saith L. 2. c. 3. Algerus Should it appear thus saith P. 224. Hugo Lingonenesis Rarius in terris esset qui hoc non abhorreret There would be scarce a Man on Earth that would not abhorr it It would saith P. 215. h. Petrus Cluniacensis Fidem laedere vel ad scandalum quorumlibet possit corda movere Be prejudicial to the Faith and scandalize the Minds of all Men. The profit of the receiving the Sacrament would be hindred saith Impediretur perceptionis ejus commoditas pro humani corporis comedendi horrore injecto L. 1. c. 7. l. 1. c. 16. algerus by the horror of eating humane flesh quoniam Christum vorari dentibus fas non est for it is not lawful to devour Christ with the Teeth Now let us in the fear of God consider whether that Sence of Scripture is to be received which makes that certainly to be believed by the eye of Faith which if it werre perceived by the Eye of Sense would render our Religion Ridiculous and execrable to the Pagan World which did we see our selves but ready to perform what actually we do we should utterly abhorr to do and should be horribly scandalized at our own Actions which did Men see us do they could not but esteem us cruel and inhumane Since that the Heathens have understood this is become an Article of Christian Faith do they not open their Mouths in Blasphemies against us as freely as if they saw us eat and drink Glorist's flesh and blood corporeally Did not Apud Dionys Carth. in Sent. 4. Dist 10. Art. 1. Averroes declare in the 12th Century He found no Sect more foolish than the Christians because they ate the very God they worshipped Doth not Apud Hotting Hist Eccl. Saec. 16. Part. 2. p. 160. Achmed Ben Edris say We use Christ worse than did the Jews because it is more Savage to eat his flesh and drink his blood than only to procure his Death Do not the Monsieur la Boulay Voyag part 1. c. 10. p. 21. Mahometans point at us saying There goes a God-eater And doth not then this their Doctrine render their Religion as plainly Execrable and Ridiculous to the Heathen world as if they saw them eat of humane flesh and drink of humane blood 3. The 53. v. affords two further Arguments in Refutation of the corporeal sence of these Expressions 1. That it follows plainly from it that the Thief upon the Cross and all the pious and
purging themselves from the neglect of both Why doth he make them with as much care to plead We did not leave the meat as we left not the Cup of the Lord Having thus shewed the custom of this Age I shall consider what is from St. Cyprian suggested to the contrary viz. that he relates That the solemnities being ended the Deacon who presented the Holy Cup to the Faithful being to give it to a Child Pag. 67. she turned away her face as not able to support so great Majesty she shut her Mouth and refused the Chalice and when the Deacon had forced some of it into her Mouth she could not retain it in those defiled Entrails so great was the power and Majesty of our Lord. Whence it is argued that she received the Cup only Now to give a clear and satisfactory Answer to this Objection it will be necessary to reflect a little upon the Customs of these times as V. Gr. 1. The business of the Deacon which was not to administer the Bread but when the Priest or Bishop had administred that to follow with the Cup. So the Apostolical Constitutions order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 8. c. 13. Let the Bishop give the Oblation saying The Body of Christ And the Deacon let him hold the Cup and giving it let him say The Blood of Christ the Cup of Life and accordingly here this happened faith St. Cyprian Ubi Calicem Diaconus offere praesentibus coepit P. 132. When the Deacon began to distribute the Cup to them that were present and is it then to be admired that here is no mention made of the Body if hence it follows That no Body was distributed to this Child it also follows that no Body was given to the rest of the Faithful then present for there is no more mention made of the Body given to them than of the Body given to the Child Nor could S. Cyprian regularly speak of it when discoursing of the Deacon who then ministred the Cup only 2. Note Secondly That the Children received in the Rank of the Women so the same Constitutions speaking of that order in which the Encharist was to be received saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Amongst the Women let the Diaconesses the Virgins and the Widows Receive and then the Children and this was doubtless ordered so that the Women might take care of their Children and assist them in Receiving Ibid. accordingly this Child comes in the Arms of its Mother and when she had Received Locus ejus advenit Came the time for the Child to Receive too 3. Note thirdly That the Bread was not then put into the Mouth as it is now in the R. Church but it was given into the Hand of the Receiver to eat at leasure of it whilst the Bishop or Priest went on distributing as is acknowledged by the learned Vid Dallaeum de cult lat l. 5. c. 2. Doctors of the Church of Rome and proved by innumerable Testimonies of the Ancients Now it is not to be conceived that they who had a reverence for the Holy Sacrament would put it into the Hands of little Children who might let it fall or throw it away or that the Priest should stay till he could make the Child eat or swallow it down but rather that he should give it to the Mother from whose Hands the Child more likely would receive it and who could better chew it for and put it down his Throat This being so the Bread might be given to the Mother for the Child to eat at leasure and the Priest take no notice of her refusal to receive it but then because the Cup was by the Deacon to be received again into his hands to be distributed to otehrs he must stay till the Child had participated and so he must endeavour to make it drink of it And this I verily believe is the whole Truth touching this instance which therefore is no proof at all that both the Symbols were not offer'd or distributed to this Child but only that she had not eaten of the Bread given to her Mother for her use before the Deacon followed with the Cup. Nor can this reasonably be questioned if we consider how constantly the Tradition of the Church informs us in all the following Centuries that Children received in both kinds For To omit the passage in the Apostolick Constitutions where they are reckoned amongst those who received the Eucharist when without any distinction or exception the Bishop separately gave the Bread and the Deacon the Cup to all Dionysius in the Fourth Century informs us That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phot. c. 177. Eccles Hier. c. 7. p. 360 361. little Children did partake of the most holy Symbols of the divine Communion And Theodorus Bishop of Mopsuestia expresly notes That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they gave to Infants the Communion of the immaculate Body for the Remission of Sins where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 400. Photius adds That he invented many absurd things that he might solve the question of those that asked Why do Children partake of the Holy Mysteries in the plural and that he might have found out better Solutions of that question and given better accounts of that Custom then he did he therefore Synecdochically spake of the Receiving both these Mysteries The passages of St. Austin in the fifth Century are very numerous in which he both asserts it as an universal Practice that little Children did partake of the Body and the Blood of Christ and also saith that without eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood they could not have eternal Life But having produced these already I only add his Testimony that Innocentius P. sine Baptismo Christi sine participatione corporis sanguinis Christi vitam non habere parvulos dicit Contra duas Ep. Pelag. l. 2. c. 4. Pope Innocent the First declared That Infants could not have Life without the participation of the Body and the Blood of Christ. To proceed now in farther confirmation of our Assertion There is no better proof nor better interpreter of a Custom than the Custom it self nothing which more demonsrates that a Custom comes from the first Ages than when it is seen to continue successively to the last This of communicating little Children not under the Species of Wine only but of Bread also or of both is evidently such for in the 6th Century De glor Martyr l. c. 10. Gregory of Tours makes mention of a Jewish Child coming with other Children to the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood. In the 7th Century the Concil Tom. 6. p. 552. 11th Council of Toledo excuses those from censure qui Eucharistiam receptam in tempore infantiae rejecerunt who in their Infancy have cast out the Bread received into their Mouths In the 8th Century we are informed by Charles the Great that this was then the general Custom of the Church of God for against the Doctrine of the Second
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
Scripture and Tradition as in the bowing down to Images the Celebration of the Mass in Latin where it is a Tongue unknown to the Generality of them that hear it yet in none of them hath she so openly affronted and defied both the Institutions of the H. Scripture and the continual Practice and declaration of the Church of Christ as in her practice of the Substraction of the Cup from Lay Communicants and in the Propositions Assertions and Decrees she hath established to excuse that practice In that of Honorary Worship of the Images of Saints her second Nicene Council doth very frequently though say the Fathers met at Frankford * Praefat. p. 10. very impudently pretend to Apostolical Tradition The Trent Council usher in their Decree concerning the Honour and Veneration to be imparted to them with an insinuation that it is made juxta Catholicae Apostolicae Ecclesiae usum à primaevis Christianae Religionis temporibus receptum †Sess 25. According to the use of the Catholick and Apostolick Church received from the first Ages of Christianity But when they come to settle as a Law this Defalcation of the Cup they do it without any of these colours or pretences yea with confessed deviation both from our Saviour's Institution and Tradition and from the constant practice of the first and purest Ages of his Church Declaring and defining as the Trent Council doth That (a) Sess 21. c. 1 2. although our Redeemer and our Lord in his Last Supper did institute this venerable Sacrament and deliver it to the Apostles in both species yet (b) Ibid. Can. 2. if any person say the Holy Catholick Church was not by just causes and reasons moved to give it to the Laity and Priests not consecrating in one species only let him be accursed And as the Council of Constance doth That * Quod licet in primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie tamen haec consuetudo viz. communicandi Laicos tantummodo sub specie panis habenda est pro lege quam non licet reprobare Concil Constant Sess 13. although in the Primitive Church the Sacrament was received by the Faithful under both species yet is the Custom of receiving it by Lay-Men and by Priests not consecrating to be received as a Law. That these Decrees are evidently repugnant to the institution of our Lord and Saviour and to the practice of the whole Church of Christ for above a Thousand Years hath been proved beyond all possibility of contradiction in a late excellent Treatise in Answer to a Discourse of Mr. Condom on this Subject That the same Decrees and almost every proposition declaration and assertion which have been advanced and invented by the General Councils of Constance Basil and of Trent in favour of them are manifestly opposite and repugnant to the received Traditions of the Church of Christ and to the Sence and the Expressions of the Fathers of the Christian Church I undertake by God's Assistance in the ensuing Pages to demonstrate by shewing First What these Councils have determined in this matter And Secondly What hath in contradiction to them been asserted and declared by the Fathers which flourished in the Church of God. Now the Church of Rome hath by the Councils of Constance Basil and Trent declared and defined as followeth 1. First (c) Sancta Synodus declarat docet nullo divino praecepto Laicos Clericos non conficientes obligari ad Eucharistiae Sacramentum sub utraque specie sumendum Syn. Trid. Sess 21. c. 1. That the Laicks and Priests who do not consecrate are not obliged by divine Precept to receive the Sacrament in both kinds That (d) Et cap. 3. though Christ in his Last Supper instituted this veverable Sacrament under the species of Bread and Wine yeet do not that institution and delivery bind all the Faithful by the Law of Christ to receive both species and that they who assert the contrary speak rashly and presumptuously 2. That (e) Neque nullo pacto dubitari posse salva fide quin illis alterius speciei communio ad salutem sufficiat Ibid. Et Sess 13. Can. 3. it cannot be doubted without prejudice to the Christian Faith but that Communion in one kind only is sufficient to Salvation Whosoever doth affirm the contrary to either of these Declarations saith the Trent Council let him be Anathema 3. That (f) Sancta mater Ecclesia gravibus justis causis adducta hanc consuetudinem sub altera specie communicandi approbavit pro lege habendum decrevit quam reprobare aut sine Ecclesiae authoritate pro libito mutare non licet Concil Trid. Sess 21. c. 2. the Church of Christ for just and weighty reasons hath approved the Communion of Laicks and Priests not consecrating under one kind only and hath defined it for a Law That (g) Concilium S. Generale Constantiense in Spirite Sancto legitime congregatum declarat decernit definit quod licet Christus post coenam instituerit suis Discipulis administraverit sub untraque specie panis vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum similiter quod licet in primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie tamen haec consuetudo ad evitandum aliqua pericula c scandalaest rationabiliter introducta quod a conficientibus sub utraque specie a Laicis tantummodo sub specie panis suscipiatur unde cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia Sanctis Patribus rationabiliter introducta diutissime observata sit habenda est pro lege quam non licet reprobare aut sine Ecclesiae authoritate pro libitu mutare Concil Constant Sess 13. although Christ himself did minister this venerable Sacrament to his Disciples in both kinds the species of Bread and Wine and though it was so received by the Faithful in the Primitive Church yet the contrary Custom that the Priests who do consecrate should receive in both kinds and the Laity should receive only the species of Bread was rationally introduced and is to be received as a Law which none must change or reject at his pleasure without the Authority of the Church 4. That to say that it is (h) Quapropter dicere hanc consuetudinem aut legem observare sit sacrilegum aut illicitum censeri debet erroneum pertinaciter asserentes oppositum praemissorum tanquam Haeretici arcendi sunt graviter puniendi Ibid. Sacrilegious or unlawful to observe this Law or Custo is to be deemed Erroneous and they who pertinaciously do so assert are to be punished and driven from the Church as Hereticks they acting damnably who endeavour to reprove this custom as Sacrilegious That (i) Quod nullus Presbyter sub poena excommunicationis communicet populum sub utraque specie panis vini Item ipsa Sancta Synodus decernit declarat super ista