in Joh. p. 112 113. or hearkening to her Councils and Instructions by eating and by drinking of them Thus Wisdom cryeth in the Streets saith Solomon Come eat of my Bread and drink of my Wine that I have mingled Prov. ix 5. that is Go in the way of understanding v. 6. Eat you that which is good and let your Soul delight it self in Fatness that is Isa lv 2. Incline your Ear hear and your Soul shall live And by the Son of Syrach Wisdom is introduced speaking thus They that eat me shall yet be hungry and they that drink me shall yet be thirsty Ecclus xxiv 21. i. e. He that obeys me v. 22. Hence Philo the Jew informs us That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Joh. vi v. 51. to eat is a Symbol of Spiritual nourishment Add to this that of Mr. Leightfoot That the Talmudists make frequent mention of eating the Messiah and thereby understand only their being made partakers of his Benefits And that of Clemens of Alexandria upon that passage of St. Paul I have fed you with Milk Strom. l. 5. p. 579. and not with strong Meat viz. Milk is the rudiments of Faith or the Doctrines of the Catechism the first nourishment of the Soul strong meat a comtemplation which makes us to discern the divine power and essence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these Contemplations are the Flesh and Blood of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meat and drink of the divine Word is the knowledge of the divine Essence Thirdly Observe that from these Metaphors our Lord proceeds to that contained in these words objected by the Roman Doctors v. 51. The Bread which I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the Life of the World that is It is my Body which I will give up unto death that by it the world may have life which is a greater Benefit exceedingly than that which you received from that Manna which Moses gave you in the Wilderness or from that meat with which I did so lately fill your Bodies The Jews taking these words in a gross sence as if our Lord had promised to give his real Flesh to be swallowed down their Throats and eaten by them as they had eaten Bread the day before and as their fore Fathers had eaten Manna in the Wilderness exclaimed against him as promising a thing absurd inhumane and imposible saying How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat to this our Saviour Answers v. 53. in words still more expressive of his violent and bloody Death for the salvation of Mankind viz. Except you eat my Flesh and drink my Blood c. Now these words are by some conceived to import thus much Vnless you with the Mouth of your Bodies do eat my real and corporeal Flesh and drink my proper Blood you cannot have eternal Life Having premised these Observations I shall now proceed to shew both from this Chapter and from other Reasons that our Lord spake not here of oral and corporeal eating of his natural Flesh and drinking of his proper Blood but only of doing of these things spiritually and that not only in the celebration of that Sacrament which by our Lord was Instituted for the remembrance of his Death and Passion but generally believing that by his Death and Passion he became the Saviour of the World and purchased Pardon and Salvation for all that heartily believed in him and would sincerely yield Obedience to his precepts And 1. Against the gross and for the spiritual Interpretation of these words I argue from the 51. v. thus The Flesh which Christ here promised to give for the Life of the World is the same with the Bread of God that cometh down from Heaven and giveth Life unto the World v. 33. for so we learn expresly from these words I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven if any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever and the Bread which I will give is my Flesh that I will give for the Life of the World. And again having said He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life v. 54. and he that eateth me shall live by me v. 57. he adds immediately This is the Bread which came down from Heaven and he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever Now our Lord hath expresly taught us that the eating of this Bread of Life imported only our believing on him v. 35. as hath already been made evident from our second Observation therefore the eating of his Flesh doth certainly import the same spiritual Action Moreover we are only to eat of Christ as Flesh in that importance of the Phrase in which we are to eat of Christ as Bread for as Christ saith he will give Flesh to eat so doth he say he will give Bread to eat as he saith He that eateth of my Flesh shall live for ever so he saith He that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever but none can say that Christ was or could properly be Bread or eaten by the Mouth as such wherefore he being only figuratively and spiritually Bread could only figuratively and spiritually be eaten as Bread if therefore in the same importance only we are to eat his Flesh that also is to be eaten in a spiritual Sence 2. From these words v. 52. How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat 't is evident the Jews conceived that our Lord promised to give them his proper Flesh to eat and swallow down their Throats as they had done the Bread with which he fed them And it on all hands is agreed that they mistook the sence of Christ's words and fansied such a meaning of them as he did not intend but had our Lord intended the corporeal eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood 't is certain that it must be swallowed down their Throats as properly as was the Bread which they had eaten and therefore no Man who maintaineth this corporeal eating of Christ's Flesh to be intended here can suitably to his Opinion say That they imposed a false sence upon our Saviour's words since from this sence it does inevitably follow that Christ intended that his humane Flesh should properly be eaten and their words signifie no more Add to this one Consideration which shews what apprehensions the Fathers of the first Three Centuries had of this eating of the Flesh of Christ viz. when 't was objected to them by the Heathens that they did eat Man's Flesh they constantly in their Apologies reject the accusation as the vilest calumny and as a most abominable thing sufficient to discover that the Author of such an institution must be some wicked Damon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We Christians saith Apol. 2. p. 70. 1. 50. Justin Martyr do not own the eating of humane flesh it is an infamous thing and falsly is reported of us This is saith Ad Authol l. 3. p. 119 126. Theophilus the most wicked and inhumane of
dwelleth in me c. (e) Necesse habemus sumere corpus sanguinem ejus ut in ipso maneamus ejus corporis membra simus De inst cler l. 1. cap. 31. wherefore 't is necessary that we should take the Body and Blood of Christ that we may dwell in him and be his Members Whosoever worthily eateth the Body and the Blood of Christ shews that he is in God and God in him And we saith (f) Lib. 2. f. 55. b. Guitmund who take the Communion of this Holy Bread and Cup are made one Body with Christ. Theophylact upon the Tenth to the Corinthians adds That which he saith is this That which is in the Cup is that which flowed from his side and (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ad v. 16. by participation of it we communicate with that is we are united to Christ That Men might not only learn by words saith (h) Ed. Erasm p. 217. Petrus Cluniacensis that they cannot live unless they be joined and united to Christ after the manner of carnal Food and Life they receive the Body of Christ and drink the Blood of Christ. We saith (i) Et nos Jesa Christo Jesus Christus nobis unitate foederatur inenarrabili c. De coena Domini f. 320. b. St. Bernard by the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ are joined in an ineffable Vnity to Christ and Christ to us as he said He that eateth my Flesh and drinks my Blood abidethin me and I in him § 2 2. This will be further evident from those Expressions in which they say That the receiving of the Cup is necessary for the Remission of Sins for without this Remission there is no Salvation When thou receivest saith St. Ambrose What saith the Apostle to thee As often as we eat this Bread and drink this Cup we shew forth the Lord's Death if we shew forth his Death we shew forth the Remission of Sins and (k) Si quotiescunque effunditur sanguis in remissionem peccatorum funditur debeo illum semper accipere ut semper mihi peccata dimittantur qui semper pecco semper debeo habere medicinam De Sacr. l. 4. c. 6. l. 5. cap. 3. if as often as this Blood is poured forth it is done for the Remission of Sins I ought always to receive it that my Sins may always be forgiven for as oft as thou drinkest thou receivest Remission of Sins Now this Passage being cited and approved by many others in the following Ages and extant in the (l) Dist 2. c. 14. Can. de consecrat Canon Law it will be needless to cite more Authors to this purpose only let it be noted that to receive the Blood shed for the Remission of our Sins is to drink of it saith St. Ambrose and well he might no other way of receiving the Blood shed for the Remission of Sins being then known than that of drinking the Sacramental Cup. § 3 3. They do expresly teach That the Sacramental eating and drinking is ordinarily necessary to eternal Life (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 42. Without any doubting or shamefaced fear eat Christ's Body and drink his Blood saith Nazianzen if thou desirest Life Gregory Nyssen condemns Eunomius for asserting That the Mystical Symbols did not confirm our Piety But we saith he who have learned from the Holy Scriptures That unless a Man be born again of Water c. and that he who eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood shall live for ever (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 2. contr Eunom p. 704. We believe that our Salvation is corroborated by the Mystical Rites and Symbols (o) In Levit. qu. 47. This Blood all Men are exhorted to drink who would have Life saith St. Austin Charles the Great confuting the vain Imaginations of the Second Nicene Council and comparing the sacred Blood with Images speaks thus (p) L. de Imag. 2. c. 27. Seeing without the participation of this Blood no Man can be saved whereas all Orthodox Persons may be saved without the observation of Images It is manifest that they are by no Man of a sound Mind to be compared or equalled to so great a Mystery Alcuin the Master of Charles the Great saith We must know that it is not lawful to offer the Cup of the Lord's Blood unmixed with Water for Wine was in the Mystery of our Redemption when Christ said I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the Vine and the Water with Blood flowing from his side shewed the Wine pressed out of the true Vine of his Flesh with Water (q) Haec enim sunt Sacramenta Ecclesiae sine quibus ad vitam non intratur De Celeb. Miss p. 88. for these are the Sacraments of the Church without which we cannot enter into Life (r) De Officiis Eccles l. 3. c. 26. Amalarius saith the same And our Lord saith (s) De Instit Cler. l. 1. c. 31. Rabanus Maurus having pronounced concerning his Body and Blood that his Flesh is Meat indeed and his Blood Drink indeed and that he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life he therefore hath not that Life who eateth not that Bread and drinketh not that Blood for although Men who are not in his Body by Faith may have that Life in this World which is Temporal they can never have that Eternal Life which is promised to the Saints Christ saith (t) Fol. 216. b. Petrus Cluniacensis gives his Flesh and Blood to be eaten and drunken that as it is discerned that without carnal Meat and drink none can pass through this temporal Life so it may be believed that without this spiritual Meat and Drink none can obtain eternal Life for how could he better commend himself to the World to be the Life of Men than by Example of those things in which Man's Life consists and therefore the Wisdom of God decreed to give his Flesh to Men to eat and his Blood to drink in the species of those things when he saith I am the Way the Truth and the Life c. we learn by hearing that he is Eternal Life but when he saith except you eat my Flesh c. we learn by eating that he is the Eternal Life of Men. That Men therefore might not only learn by Words but more familiarly by Deeds that they cannot Live except they be united to him they take the Body they drink the Blood in the likeness of Food not given by or taken from any other but Christ to shew this he signified that he would give to all Men his Flesh to eat and his Blood to drink And truly if any Doctrine can deserve to be suspected as new strange and incongruous to the Analogy of Faith it must be this That the Cup of Life the Cup of Blessing which we bless the Cup of Salvation which we take according to our Lord 's own Institution and
Paschasius what do we else but declare the Lord's Death This do saith (t) In 1 Cor. xi Anselm that is drink this Cup in remembrance of me as oft as you drink it that you may never drink it without the Memory of my Passion but may have in mind that I suffered Death for you Therefore saith the Apostle our Lord said This should be done in commemoration of him for as oft as you shall eat this Bread of Life and shall-drink this Cup of eternal Salvation you shall shew forth that is shall represent the Death Christ suffered for us till he comes to Judgment (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In 1 Cor. xi v. 25. By the Cup thou dost celebrate the commemoration of our Lord's Death saith Theophylact. (x) L. 2. cap. 8. Algerus in answer to this Question Why the Bread is consecrated into the Flesh and the Wine into the Blood apart saith This was done because the Custom prevailed in the Church from Christ himself who consecrated and gave his Blood not for division of the Substance but for distinction of the Figure that whilst the Bread is grinded by the Teeth it might signifie Christ's Body broken in his Passion and whilst the Wine is poured into the Mouth of the Faithful it might signifie Christ's Blood shed from his Side nor is the Body and Blood said to be apart as if the Body were without the Blood or the blood divided from the Body but it is so said in memory of his Passion because in the Sacrament we ought to shew forth the Death of Christ When the Bread of the Lord that is the Body of the Lord is eaten saith (y) De Sacra edit Erasm fol. 212. Petrus Cluniacensis when the Cup of the Lord that is the Blood of the Lord is drunk the Death of the Lord is shewed forth that is it is then represented What he did saith (z) Comment in vi Joh. Rupertus that we well know we do in Commemoration of his Death viz. Eat his Flesh and to drink his Blood. And surely when two things are equally designed and set apart by Christ for the commemoration of his Passion when they are equally apt and proper to shew forth and bring to our remembrance the thing they were designed to signifie when Christ and his Apostles do command both should be done in prosecution of that end when the Fathers do with one voice declare without the least disparity distinction or limitation that both concurr unto that end And lastly when one naturally doth import and shew the breaking of Christ's Body on the Cross the other doth as naturally signifie shew forth and bring to our remembrance his Blood shed and separated from his Body and in both these consists the Passion of our Lord to say our Saviour's Passion is wholly and entirely represented by the Reception of one of the two Species only is to reflect unworthily upon the Wisdom of our Lord's Institution of them both and his command to do both in order to the shewing forth his Death and evidently to contradict the plain Assertions and the concurring Judgment of the Church of Christ that by drinking and receiving into our Mouths this Cup this Blood we do and ought to declare signifie represent commemorate and shew forth Christ's Death Secondly Christians saith (a) L. 2. q. 99. Art. 1. thomas Aquinas are sanctified by the Sacraments of Christ and therefore what is done to the injury of Christian People pertinet ad irreverentiam rei sacrae unde rationabiliter Sacrilegium dicitur is Sacrilege because it appertaineth to the irreverence of a sacred thing To Sacrilege saith (b) Q. 99. p. 1146. Becamus is referred omnis injuria omnisque abusio Sacramentorum all injury and abuse of the Sacraments and this is evident even from the drift of the Commandment Thou shalt not steal for that for bids in reference to temporal concerns omne nocumentum quod homini injustè infertur in rebus exterioribus All hurt done to them in external Things In reference to spirituals it therefore must for bid all spiritual hurt or injury Men suffer by the detaining of things spiritual from them Now surely if Christians can be hurt orinjured they must be so when they by others are deprived of the means of Grace and of Sanctification and spiritual Blessings Now of these say the fathers Christians are deprived as oft as they are thus deprived of the Cup of Blessing For they constantly affirm That the eating of the Bread and drinking of the Cup did tend to the Sanctification both of Soul and Body (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paedag. l. 2. c. 2. p. 151. The Temperature of both the drink and the word saith Clemens of Alexandria is called the Eucharist of which they who by Faith are made partakers are sanctified in Body and Soul. In the New Covenant saith Cyril of Jerusalem there is the Heavenly Bread and the Cup of Salvation sanctifying the Soul and Body (d) Catech. Mystag 5. p. 245. Come to the Cup and receiving of the Blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be thou sanctified Who can express saith (e) Et Sacrosanctum vivifici corporis sanguinis sui Mysterium Membris suis tribuere quibus corpus suum quod est Ecclesia pascitur In Psal vi poenit Gregory the greatness of that Mercy by which Mankind was redeemed with the Effusion of Christ's precious Blood and The sacred Mystery of his Life-giving Body and Blood was given to his Members by which the Church his Body is fed and made to drink is washed and sanctified The super substantial Bread and the Cup consecrated by solemn Benediction (f) Ad totius hominis vitam salutemque proficit Apud Cypr. p. 39 40. doth profit to the Life and the Salvation of the whole Man saith Arnoldus Carnotensis the Bread is Meat the Blood is Life the Bread for fitness of Nourishment the Blood for efficacy of giving Life Moreover this is written with a Sun-Beam in the Church's Liturgies in which they call the Cup received after the Body (g) Const Clem. l. 8. c. 13. Lit. S Petri p. 26. Lit. Greg. p. 22. Marc. p. 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Cup of Life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Cup of everlasting Salvation In which they declare that Christ Blessing the Cup (h) Lit. Chrysost p. 1001. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and filling it with the Holy Ghost said Drink ye all of this and said it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fulness of the Holy Spirit that it was the Blood of the New Testament shed for many (i) Lit. St. Marc. p. 47. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and distributed for the Remission of Sins in which they order the Deacon when he hath received it to say This hath touched my Lips and will take away mine iniquities and purge away my Sin and in which they lastly pray That (k) Lit.
Inftit Cler. l. 1. c. 31. Rabanus Maurus saith It is not lawfull to offer any other thing in the Sacraments than that which our Lord himself appointed and by his Example taught us to do § 2 2dly Some in the Church did frequently attempt the alteration of Christ's Institution by giving to the People the Bread dipp'd in the sacred Blood for a Compleat Communion but against these Innovators in the Fourth Century Pope Julius opposed himself laying down this for his Rule That it was by no means lawful for any to recede from our Lord's Institution Practice and Example His Words are these (g) Audivimus enim quosdam Schismatica ambitione detentos contra divinos ordines Apostolicas institutiones intinctam Eucharistiam populis pro complemento Communionis porrigere Quod quam fit Evangelicae Apostolicae doctrinae contrarium consuetudini Ecclesiasticae adversum non difficile ab ipso fonte veritatis probatur a quo ordinata ipsa Sacramentorum mysteria processerunt Ubi Apostolis corpus suum commendavit sanguinem seorsum enim panis seorsum calicis commendatio memoratur Concil Tom. 2. p. 525 526. We have heard that some persons being guilty of Schismatical Ambition do against the divine Orders and Apostolical Institution deliver to the People the Eucharist dipp'd in the Blood for an intire Communion How contrary these things are to the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine and opposite to the Ecclesiastical Custom it is not hard to prove from the Fountain of Truth from whom the Institution of these Sacramental Mysteries proceeded for they have no Testimony from the Gospel for this where Christ commended his Body and Blood to his Disciples for there is recorded the commendation of his Body and Blood apart The Council of (h) Eadem habet Concil Bracarense Tom. 6. p. 562 563. Braga in the Seventh Centary in the very same words condemns this Practice blaming them who for the whole Communion delivered to the People a piece of Bread dipp'd in the Consecrated Wine Which Custom how contrary say they it is to the Doctrine of the Gospel and the Practice of the Church we may learn 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. (i) Ut populus plene possit communicare cap. 19. Micrologus saith It is not Authentick that some dip the Body of Christ and distribute it so dipp'd for a full Communion for the Roman Order contradicts it for in the day of Preparation it commands that the Wine not consecrated should be consecrated by the Lord's Prayer and the mixture of the Lord's Body with the Blood that the People may fully Communicate which would be a superfluous Command if the Lord's Body dipp'd in the Cup the day before and preserved would suffice to Communicate the People with And therefore Pope Julius * Julius quoque Papa seorsim panem seorsim calicem juxta dominicam Institutionem sumenda docet Idem ibid. writing to the Bishops of Aegypt doth wholly forbid this Intinction and teacheth that the Bread and the Cup should be both taken apart according to our Lord's Institution Humbertus in his Disputation against the Greeks saith thus That you are wont to take the Holy Bread of life eternal in a Spoon dipped in the Cup what can you offer for it (k) Neque enim ipse Dominus panem in Caiice vini intrivit sic Apostolis dedit sed sicut Sancta Romana Ecclesia usque nunc observat panem integrum benedixit fractum fingulis particulatim distribuit dicens Accipite comedite hoc est corpus meum quibus postquam coenatus est calicem porrexit dicens Bibite ex eo omnes Quam Reverendam Angelis hominibus institutionem prima scilicet Ecclefia usque ad haec moderna tempora sicut ab Apostolis recepit fideliter retinuit Apud Baron Tom. 11. p. 971. for our Lord did not thus dip Bread in the Cup of Wine and so give it to his Apostles saying Take and eat this in a Spoon This is my Body but as the Roman Church even to this day observes he blessed the whole Bread and distributed it being broken to every one apart saying Take and eat This is my Body to whom he also after Supper reached forth the Cup saying Drink ye all of this which Institution to be revered by Men and Angels Holy Zion the first Church even to this Day as it received from the Apostles so doth it faithfully retain it And then having cited a long passage from the Church of Jerusalem he adds Hence is it clearer than the light that the holy Church of Jerusalem did of old observe the same Rite of the divine Sacrifice which the holy Roman Church ceaseth not hitherto to observe for we lay upon the Holy Altars thin Cakes of Flour prepared whole and sound and Communicate with the People of them being after consecration broken and then we are made to drink of the Cup of Wine and liquid Blood for we find Bread sopp'd was delivered by Christ to none but the Traytor Judas to signifie that he was to betray him Again he having said That Christ delivered the Bread and Wine apart and that the Church of Christ religiously observed his Institution adds That (l) Nec potest fieri ut quilibet convenientius aut verius commendare praevaluisset Sacrosanctum Mysterium fidei quam ipse qui tradidit seipsum pro nobis oblationem Ibid. p. 974. it could not be that any one should prevail to commend this Holy Mystery of Faith more conveniently or truly than he who delivered himself an Oblation and a Sacrifice of a Sweet Odor to God for us the immaculate Lamb of God who taketh away the Sins of the World to whom the most perfect knowledge of any Man being compared is the highest Ignorance In the Year of our Lord 1118. Pope Paschal the Second writes an Epistle to Pontius Abbot of Clun after this wise (m) Ep. 32. de non porrigenda Communione intincta Concil Tom. 10. p. 656. Blessed Cyprian writing to Caecilian saith That when any thing is required by God's Inspiration and Command it is necessary that the faithful Servant should obey his Lord and he will be excused of all Men that he assumeth nothing arrogantly to himself nor may any other thing be done by us than what our Lord first did for us Therefore in taking the Body and the Blood of Christ according to the same St. Cyprian Let the tradition of our Lord be kept nor let us recede by any humane and novel Institution from that which our Lord both commanded and did for we know that the Bread was delivered by our Lord apart and the Wine apart which Custom we teach and require to be observed perpetually in the Church excepting only in the Case of Infants and Infirm Persons who cannot receive
which we drink of Worthily is not needful to conferr Life Salvation or spiritual Blessing on the worthy Receiver of it That in all the Liturgies of the Ancient Church they should pray constantly that they who worthily Received this Cup might be filled thereby with all spiritual Benediction and heavenly Grace that in their Discourses on this Subject they should exhort the People after they had received the Bread to drink this Cup for their Sanctification for the remission of Sins for the obtaining Life and tell them it was necessary to be drunk of for all the ends here mentioned and yet believe it was not needful to conferr Grace and spiritualy Blessings on them And 4ly This they do generally prove from the Fifth Century by that known passage of our Lord Except you eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man you have no Life in you (u) Tom. 1. p. 580. Tom. 2. p. 431. St. Basil is express unto this purpose saying That the Baptized person ought to be nourished with the food of Eternal Life and that the communication of the Body and Blood of Christ is necessary to Eternal Life And proving both from these words Verily I say unto you except you eat c. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life St. Chrysostom upon this Text speaks thus Because they had said before it was impossible to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood. (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 2. p. 748. He here shews not only that it is not impossible but that it is very necessary and therefore introduceth these words He that eateth my flesh c. He continually speaks of the Mysteries shewing the necessity of the thing and that it always ought to be done Against the Pelagians saith P. Gelasius (y) Dominus Jesus contra Pelagianos coelefti voce pronunciat Qui non manducaverit c. Ubi utique neminem videmus exemptum nec ausus est aliquis dicere parvulum sine hoc Sacramento salutari ad aeternam vitam posse produci Ep. vniv Episc per Nicaenum Concil Tom. 4. p. 1177 1178. our Lord pronounceth that he who eateth not the Flesh of the Son of Man and drinks his Blood hath no Life in him where we see none exempt nor dares any say that an Infant can obtain Eternal Life without this Sacrament It is not only said Except a Man be born again of Water c. but unelss He eat and drink c. and that this is spoken of Eternal Life none can doubt because many who receive not this Sacrament have this present Life St. Austin Asserts above Twenty times the absolute necessity that Infants should partake of Christ's Body and drink his Blood by reason of these words (z) Omnino parvulorum salvator est Christus omnino nisi ab illo redimantur peribunt quum sine carne ejus sanguine vitam habere non possunt hoc sensit hoc credidit hoc didicit hoc docuit Joannes Tom. 7. l. 1. contra Jul. Pelag. ed. Frob. p. 949. Christ saith he is altogether the Saviour of Infants and unless they be redeemed by him they will utterly perish seeing without his Flesh and Blood they cannot have Life This St. John thought and believed learned and taught And again (a) An dicente Christo Si non manducaveritis c. dicturus fueram parvulum habiturum vitam qui sine isto Sacramento finiisset hanc vitam Ibid. l. 3. c. 1. p 991. d. 992. a. when Christ saith Vnless you eat his Flesh and drink his Blood you have no life in you can I say the Child can have Life who ends his Life without that Sacrament And a third time He having said Vnless you eat c. and he that eats my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life (b) Quo igitur vitam regni coelorum promittitis parvulis non renatis ex aqua spiritu Sancto non cibatis carne neque potatis sanguine Christi Where the Marginal Note is Eucharistia parvulis sub utraque specie Tom. 7. contr Pelag. Hypognost c. 5. p. 1405. b. c. How is it that you Pelagians promise the Kingdom of Heaven to Children not born of Water and the Spirit not fed with the Flesh of Christ nor having drunk of his Blood which was shed for the Remission of their Sins Behold he that is not Baptized and he that is deprived of the Vital Cup and Bread is divided from the Kingdom of Heaven And of what Sacrament he conceives our Saviour to have spoken in these words he more expresly tells us saying (c) Dominum audiamus non quidem hoc de Sacramento sancti lavacri dicentem sed de Sacra mento sacrae mensae suae quo nemo nisi rite baptizatus accedit Nisi manducaveritis c. Tom. 7. l. de peccat Meritis Remiss c. 19. p. 666. Let us hear our Lord speaking not of the Sacrament of Baptism N. B. but of the Sacrament of his Holy Table to which none comes who is not rightly Baptized Except you eat and drink c. What do we farther seek for Dares any Body say this Sentence belongeth not to Children or that they can have Life in themselves without the Participation of the Body and the Blood of Christ But he that saith this doth not attend that if that Sentence comprehends not all so that they cannot have Life without the Body and the Blood of Christ those of Riper Years are not obliged to regard it And to refer you to the (d) Vide Dallaeum de Cult Latin. l. 5. cap. 3. Margin for the rest his Conclusion is this (e) Siergo ut tot tanta divina testimonia concinant nec salus nec vita aeterna fine baptismo corpore sanguine Domini cuiquam speranda est frustra fine his promittitur parvulis Lib. 1. de peccat Meritis Remiss c. 24. p. 670. If then so many divine Testimonies accord in saying That neither Salvation nor Life eternal is by any to be hoped for without Baptism and the Body and the Blood of our Lord they art in vain promised to Children without them Now here it is to be admired that Men of Sence and of Integrity should say St. Austin speaks all this of such a participation of the Flesh and Blood of Christ as may be had in Baptism when he not only speaks in divers of these places first of the Sacrament of Baptism and after of the Supper of the Lord but sometimes of this Sacrament by way of distinction from that of Baptism sometimes of the Sacrament of the Lord's Table and of that eating and drinking of Christ's Body and Blood quod per corpus geritur which is done by the Body And when this Text from the Fifth to the Twelfth Century was by the Fathers still interpreted of the Lord's Supper and Children were admitted to that Sacrament and to the drinking
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
to remember That Christ shed his Blood for them and by that Blood shed confirmed the New Covenant to them and since Christ hath appointed the drinking of this Cup and this alone to be the memorial of his Blood shed all Christians capable of doing so must be obliged when they do Sacramentally Commemorate these Mercies to drink of this Cup. And this demonstratively follows from the ensuing words Vers 26 Do this as oft as you drink it in remembrance of me for as often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew the Lord's death till he come for they do manifest that as well by drinking of the Cup as eating of the Bread the Lord's Death is shewed and that until his second coming both these things are to be done in order to that end And since these words are not the words of Christ but of St. Paul who speaks here of the whole Church of Corinth the words preceeding Do this as oft as you shall drink it in remembrance of me must belong also to all the Members of that Church because of the connective Particle which joins the 25th and 26th Verses and makes it necessary that the same persons should be spoken to in the words This do c. and in the following words For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup. And if this was the Duty of the whole Church of Corinth it must be equally the Duty of the whole Church of Christ there being no peculiar reason why the Church of Corinth should be obliged to drink this Cup in order to these ends more than all other Christian Churches And when our Lord hath taken so great Care to tell us That the Bread is his broken Body and therefore is to be eaten in remembrance of him i. e. of his Body broken that the Cup is the New-Tastament in his Blood and therefore is to be drank in remembrance of his Blood shed for us When his Apostle doth as distinctly say 1 Cor. x. 16. The Bread which we break is the Communion of the Body of Christ the Cup which we bless is the Communion of the Blood and neither of them have hinted in the least that the Cup is the Communion of his Body or the Bread of his Blood but by a particular and separate institution distribution and signification ascribed to them have strogly insinuated the contrary for men after all this to say one of these Species will suffice for the Bread is as well the blood shed as the broken Body and the participation of it is the Communion of the Blood of Christ and that by the partaking of it we do as well remember and shew forth the shedding of his Blood upon the Cross as by the partaking of the Cup is to my apprehension an affront offered to our dear Lord and to the Wisdom of the Holy Ghost In Answer to these Arguments some of the Roman Doctors are pleased to say that this Discourse of the Apostle imports only a conditional Order to do this in Remembrance of Jesus Christ as often as one shall do it and not an order absolutely to do it To this I Answer 1st He who not only doth command us at the celebration of the Sacrament to remember his Blood shed but also Institutes a sign for the memorial of it and doth command us to use this sign because it is appointed to be the memorial of it commands us when we receive the Sacrament to receive that sign for he who wills the end must will the means which he hath instituted for the accomplishing that end but this doth Christ for he institutes a Cup of Wine to represent his Blood shed he saith Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood shed this I command you to do in remembrance of me He therefore doth command us when we receive the Sacrament to receive this sign which in his Institution of this Sacrament he appointed as the means of this remembrance 2dly He who commands us to drink this Cup as oft as we drink it in remembrance of him because we do by drinking of it shew forth the Lords Death till he come commands us to do it as oft as we receive the Sacrament seeing as oft as we receive the Sacrament we shew forth the Lord's Death but Christ saith the Apostle did lay upon us this command for this very Reason saying Do this as oft as you shall drink it in nomembrance of me for as often as you shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew forth the Lord's Death till he come 3dly Where there is parity of Reason there the command may very well be deemed of equal latitude and extent for ratio legis est lex where there is equal reason to command there may we reasonably suppose the will of the Law-giver to be equal in commanding but ther is equal reason why our Lord should absolutely command the drinking of the Cup in remembrance of his Blood shed as why he absolutely should say touching the eating of the Bread Do this in remembrance of me the one being as much the Symbol of his Blood shed as is the other of his broken Body and the one shewing forth his Death as much as doth the other we therefore have no cause to doubt but that he equally intended the doing both in order to this end § 3 Second That it doth not appear either from the words of our Saviour Joh. vi or from the practice of himself or his Disciples that he left this practice indifferent will be made evident from an impartial consideration both of our Saviour's words and of his practice and first to clear up the true meaning of our Lord's Discourse in the Sixth Chapter of St. John Let it be observed First That our Lord 's mystical Expressions of labouring for the Meat that doth not perish of eating the true Bread from Heaven are by himself plainly expounded to import only the believing on him or the embracing of him as their Prophet and their Saviour for when he had exhorted them to labour for the meat that did not perish he tells them v. 29. That this was to believe on him that God had sent when he had told them v. 35. That he was the Bread from Heaven he immediately adds He that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth in me shall never thirst Having said that he was he Bread which cometh down from Heaven and giveth Life unto the World v. 33. He confirms this Expression v. 40. by these words This is the Will of my Father that every one that seeth the Son and believeth on him should have eternal Life And again v. 47. Verily verily I say unto you he that believeth on me hath everlasting Life I am that Bread of Life Secondly Observe that nothing was more common among the Eastern Nations than to express the Actions of believing embracing and obeying the words of Wisdom Vide Leight Hor. Hebr.
would in all probability have been to this effect Whatsoever appearance there may be of inhumanity absurdness and impossibility in eating of thy natural Flesh and drinking of thy Blood yet we believe it because thou hast said it who art Truth it self and who art able to make good thy words we therefore hearing nothing of this tendance from him we may conclude that he knew nothing of this import of them And 2. observe that he thought it sufficient to say We belive thou art the Christ which if our Lord spake here of Oral Manducation was nothing to the purpose but if he only spake of spiritual eating of him was the very thing which was designed by our Lord in this Discourse and which he spake of in those words which so much offended others We therefore conclude with Clemens of Alexandria That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Paedag. lib. 1. cap. 6. pag. 100. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. ibid. pag. 104 105. when our Lord said Eat my Flesh and drink my Blood he allegorically meant the drinking of Faith and of the Promises and that our Lord is by way of Allegory to those that believe in him Meat Flesh and Nourishment and Bread and Blood. With Tertullian That De Resur Carn cap. 36 37. our Lord all along urged his intent by Allegory calling his word flesh as being to be hungred after that we might have Life auditu devorandus ruminandus intellectu fide digerendus to be devoured by the Ear ruminated upon by the mind and by Faith digested With Origen That Bibere autem dicimur sanguinem ejus verusest citanquam mundo 73. we are said to drink his Blood when we receive his words in which Life consists that his flesh is meat indeed and his blood drink indeed because he feedeth all Mankind with the flesh and blood of his word as with pure meat and drink With Ubi supra Eusebius That his Words andDoctrines are Flesh and Blood. With Arhanasius That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 1. pag. 979. the words which Christ spake were not carnal but spiritual for how many could his Body have sufficed for Meat that it should be made the Food of the whole World. With St. Austin Tract 25. in Johan Tom. 9. p. 218. Tract 26. p. 223 Vt quid paras dentes ventrem crede manducasti credere enim in eum hoc est manducare panem vivum why providest thou Teeth and a Belly believe and thou hast eaten for to believe in him is to eat the living Bread. And lastly with Licet in Myfterio possit intelligi tamen verius Corpus Chrifti sanguis ejus sermo scripturarum est In Psal 147. fol. 94. a. St. Jerom In the truest Sence the Body and the Blood of Christ is the Word and Doctrine of the Scripture Caro Christi sanguis ejus in auribus nostris infunditur the flesh and blood of Christ is poured into our Ears We say in the Language of Origen Hom. 7. in Levit. ibid. Si filii estis Ecclesiae agnoscite quia figurae sunt si enim sedundum literam sequaris If you are Sons of the Church own these things to be Figures for if you follow the Letter this very saying Except you eat the Flesh is a killing Letter In the words of Ubi supra Eusebius pronounced in the name of Christ do not think that I speak of that Flesh with which I am compassed as if you must eat of that neither imagine that I command you to drink of my sensible and bodily Blood but understand well that the words that I have spoken to you they are Spirit and Life for as St. Austin saith touching the Exposition of Scripture Phrases De Doctrin Chriftiana li. 3. cap. 16. If the saying be preceptive either forbiding a wicked Action or commanding that which is good it is no figurative Speech but if it seems to command any wickedness or to forbid what is profitable and good it is figurative This saying Except you eat c. seems to command a wicked thing it is therefore a figure enjoining us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord and sweetly and profitably to remember that his Flesh was wounded and Crucified for us 2. § 4. Luc. xxiv 30. I should proeed Secondly to shew That it doth not appear from the practice of Christ himself in breaking Bread and giving it unto Two Disciples at Emaus nor from the practice of this Disciples Acts ij 42. who are said to have continued in breaking of Bread and who were gathered together to break Bread Acts xx 7. that both our Lord and his Disciples communicated in one ikind only But these Pretensions have been so fully answered by a late excellent Discourse of Communion in one kind in Answer to the Bishop of Meaux from Pag. 22 to 28 that it is superfluous further to insist upon them especially seeing the Author of the Li 6. pag. 486. History of the Trent Council hath informed us that 't was the Judgment of some of the Fathers there That all these places must be laid aside as impertinent to this matter or insufficient to prove that for which they are produced because had they concerned the Eucharist they must have been Instances not only of taking but also of consecrating the Holy Sacrament in one kind and so by them it would be concluded that it was not sacrilege to consecrate one kind without the other which say they is contrary to all the Doctors and the meaning of the Church and overthroweth the distinction of the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice and as it is a Sacrament 3. Waving this therefore I proceed Thirdly to shew § 5. that it was the Custom of the Church to give the Sacrament to the Sick and to Infants capable of receiving of it in both kinds And 1. Whereas J.L. doth with true Romish confidence affirm That all ancient Writers do attest that it was the custom to give this Sacrament under one kind to the Sick the contrary is extreamly evident not only by the instances collected by the learned De Cultu Lat. l. 5. c. 11. p. 641 642. Dally of Sick Persons who communicated in both kinds from the 4th to the 10th Century but also from the Canons of the whole Church of Christ for in the third Century St. Cyprian and the Presbyters of Rome inform us That they had agreed that Si urgere exitus ceperit Ep. 18. Si premi infirmitate aliqua periculo coeperint Ep. 19. si de Saeculo excederint Ep. 20. item Ep. 30 31. if the lapsed Penitents were indangered by sickness and they were nigh to Death's door they should be admitted to the peace of the Church and that they should be relieved in the thing which they desired How was it that they did relieve the infirm when death approached even the same way that they did the strong Ep. 57. Protectione sanguinis corporis Christi With the protection
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
Life Eternal for that this Decree of the Council of Tours That the Sacred Oblation given to such persons should be dipped in the Blood of Christ that so the Priest who gave it to them might truly say to the infirm Person The Body and Blood of Christ profit thee c. was observed in the Church from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century we learn from (k) Quae sacra oblatio intincta debet esse in sanguine Christi ut veraciter possit Presbyter dicere infirmo corpus sanguis domini proficiat tibi c. Regino de Eccles Discipl l. 1. cap. 70. Proficiat tibi in remissionem peccatorum vitam aeternam Jvo Decret part 2. cap. 19. Burch l. 5. c. 9. Regino Ivo and Burchardus who all make mention of this Canon as a Law which was observed in their times That this practice was used though not with Approbation in the Fourth Century even in the Administration of this Sacrament in publick is evident from the Condemnation of it by (l) Concil Tom. 2. p. 528. P. Julius A. D. 336. in these words We have heard that some possessed with a Schismatical Ambition do deliver to the people the Eucharist dip'd for a compleat Communion which thing how contrary it is to the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine and how repugnant to the Custom of the Church it is not hard to prove from the Fountain of Truth from whom proceeded the appointment of the Mysteries of the Sacrament For this they have not received from the Gospel where Christ commended his Body and his blood to his Disciples for there the commendation of the Bread apart and of the Cup apart is rehearsed nor do we read that Christ gave Bread dipp'd to any but to that Disciple whom he would shew to be the betrayer of his Master by the sop dip'd This saith (m) Cap. 19. Micrologus is the prohibition of Julius the Thirty fourth Pope writing to the Bishops of Egypt Thirdly This will be farther evident from this Consideration That the Fathers do certainly speak of the Consecrated Bread and Wine as of Two Sacraments and that as really distinct as are the Sacraments of Baptism and Chrism This we may learn from all those numerous passages in which they are still stiled by the Fathers of the Western Church Sacramenta Mysteria Sacramenta Coelestia divina Mysteria The Sacraments and Mysteries in the Plural the heavenly Sacraments and divine Mysteries and by the Eastern Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy Gifts the divine Mysteries the Holy Sacraments c. Thus do the Greeks speak of them to this very day thus did the celebrated Writers of the West speak and write of them till the Eleventh Century when Transubstantiation began to be established and with it the Doctrine of Concomitance The Sacraments saith (n) Sunt autem Sacramenta Baptismum chrisma corpus sanguis Orig. l. 6. c. 19. Raban M. de Inst Cler. l. 1. c. 24. Pasch cap. 9. Isidore Hispalensis are Baptism and Chrism the Body and the Blood of Christ which are therefore called Sacraments because under the veil of Corporeal things the divine Virtue doth more secretly work the Salvation of those Sacraments Which words are borrowed from Pope Gregory and are repeated by Paschasius only with this addition These are the Sacraments of the Church of Christ Rabanus Maurus hath the same words and having discoursed of Baptism and Chrism he proceeds thus Because we above discoursed as much as God enabled us of Two Sacraments Baptism and Chrism (o) De Inst Cler. l. 1. c. 31. superest ut de reliquis duobus id est Corpore Sanguine Domini diligentius investigemus It remains that we discoi se of the Two other Sacraments viz. The Body and the Blood of Christ Whence first we learn that then the Sacraments were not accounted Seven as they are now at Rome but only Four or rather Two Chrism being held as one with Baptism and the Body and Blood of Christ being as to the Species in which it was to be celebrated double which Species were therefore called Sacraments by Gregory saith (p) In 4. Sent. dist 12. Art. 2. q. 2. Bonaventure yet are they but one Sacrament by virtue of the Institution and end for which both are design'd viz. The Vnion of the body Mystical Now they who do so often speak of both these Species as Sacraments the Sacraments of the Church and as Two Sacraments because they have their distinct operations towards the health or the Salvation of those who worthily Receive them and both conduced to the Union of the Mystical Body of the Lord could not imagine that by virtue of that Concomitance of which they never speak one word of syllable the virtue of both Species was contained in and was intirely conveighed by one alone For they must be supposed to hold the Cup a Sacrament of our Lord's Institution and therefore not superfluous that it was Sacrae rei Signum a Sign of a thing Sacred which did conveigh the Grace it signified and operated to the Salvation of those who worthily Received it after they had received the Body and which conduced unto the Union of the Body Mystical to their head Christ Jesus They lastly must conceive that to deprive Christ's Members of the Cup was to deprive them of one Sacrament And Fourthly this appears from those sayings of the Fathers which attribute a distinct effect unto the several species (q) Caro salvatoris pro salute corporis sanguis vero pro anima nostra effusus est In 1 Cor. xi p. 270. The Flesh of Christ was delivered saith St. Ambrose for the Salvation of the Body and the Blood was poured out for our Souls c. (r) Haym in 1 Cor. xi p. 129. Anselm ibid. Haymo and Anselm use the same words with a little variation saying That we receive the Sacraments for safety of the Body and Soul for the Flesh was offered for the Salvation of the Body and the Blood shed for our Souls that both our substances might receive the inheritance of Eternal Life (s) L. 4. dist 11. Quare sub duplici specie Peter Lombard (t) Decret p. 2. c. 7. Ivo Carnotensis (u) Tom. 5. c. 6. Hugo de Sancto Victore and (x) Sum. Theol. part 3. num 29. Art. 9. Alexander of Hales cite the very words of Ambrose to prove the same thing And Fifthly This will be farther evident from those Fathers who assert That the Body is given under the one the Blood under the other Species This Cyril of Jerusalem informs those whom he Catechised That (y) Catech. Myst 4. p. 237. in the Species of Bread is given the Body of Christ and in the Species of Wine his Blood. The (z) Lit. Chrysost Tom. 6. p. 998. Liturgies do in like manner pray That God would make this Bread the precious body of Christ and that which is in the Cup