difference in the Scripture or in the Primitive Church so that though the Canon mentions only the Priest yet it must by the same reason mean all there being at that time no difference known 3. It is call'd sacriledge to divide one and the same mystery meaning that to receive one without the other is to divide the body from the bloud for the dream of concomitancy was not then found out and therefore the title of the Canon is thus express'd Corpus Christi sine ejus sanguine sacèrdos non debet accipere and that the so doing viz. by receiving one without the other cannot be without sacriledge 4. Now suppose at last that the Priests only are concern'd in this Canon yet even then also they are abundantly reprov'd because even the Priests in the Church of Rome unless they consecrate communicate but in one kind 5. It is also remarkable that although in the Church of Rome there is great use made of the distinction of its being sometime a sacrifice sometime only a sacrament as Friar Ant. Mondolphus said in the Council of Trent yet the arguments by which the Roman Doctors do usually endeavour to prove the lawfulness of the half communion do destroy this distinction viz. that of Christs ministring to the Disciples at Emaus and S. Paul in the Ship in which either there is no proof or no consecration in both kinds and consequently no sacrifice for there is mention made only of blessing the bread for they receiv'd that which was blessed and therefore either the consecration was imperfect or the reception was intire To this purpose also the words of S. Ambrose are severe and speak clearly of communicants without distinction of Priest and People which distinction though it be in this article nothing to the purpose yet I observe it to prevent such trifling cavils which my Adversaries put me often to fight with His words are these He viz. the Apostle S. Paul saith In Corinth 11. Indignum dicet esse Domino qui alitèr mysterium celebrat quam ab eo traditum est Non enim potest devotus esse qui aliter praesumit quam datum est ab Authore Ideóque praemonet ut secundum ordinem traditum devota mens sit accedentis ad Eucharistiam Domini quoniam futurum est judicium ut quemadmodum accedit unusquisque veddat causas in Die Domini Jesu Christi quia sine disciplinâ traditionis conversationis qui accedunt rei sunt corporis sanguinis Domini that he is unworthy of the Lord who otherwise celebrates the mystery than it was deliver'd by him For he cannot be devout that presumes otherwise than it was given by the Author Therefore he before admonishes that according to the order delivered the mind of him that comes to the Eucharist of our Lord be devout for there is a judgment to come that as every one comes so he may render an account in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ because they who come without the discipline of the delivery or tradition and of conversation are guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord. One of my Adversaries says these words of S. Ambrose are to be understood only of the Priest A. L. p 4. and it appears so by the word celebrat not recipit he that celebrates otherwise than is delivered by Christ. To this I answer that first it is plain and S. Ambrose so expresses his meaning to be of all that receive it for so he says that the mind of him that cometh to the Eucharist of our Lord ought to be devout 2. It is an ignorant conceit that S. Ambrose by celebrat means the Priest only because he only can celebrate For however the Church of Rome does now almost impropriate that word to the Priest yet in the Primitive Church it was no more than recipit or accedit ad Eucharistiam which appears not only by S. Ambrose his expounding it so here Serm. 1. de eleemos but in S. Cyprian speaking to a rich Matron Locuples dives Dominicum celebrare te credis corban omnino non respicis Doest thou who art rich and opulent suppose that you celebrate the Lords Supper or sacrifice who regardest not the poor mans basket Celebrat is the word and receive must needs be the signification and so it is in S. Ambrose and therefore I did as I ought translate it so 3. It is yet objected that I translate aliter quam ab eo traditum est otherwise than he appointed whereas it should be otherwise than it was given by him And this surely is a great matter and the Gentleman is very subtle But if he be ask'd whether or no Christ appointed it to be done as he did to be given as he gave it I suppose this deep and wise note of his will just come to nothing But ab eo traditum est of it self signifies appointed for this he deliver'd not only by his hands but by his commandment of Hoc facite that was his appointment Now that all this relates to the whole institution and doctrine of Christ in this matter and therefore to the duplication of the Elements the reception of the chalice as well as the consecrated bread appears first by the general terms qui aliter mysterium celebrat he that celebrates otherwise than Christ delivered 2. These words are a Commentary upon that of Saint Paul He that eats this bread and drinks the Cup of the Lord Unworthily is guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. Now hence S. Ambrose arguing that all must be done as our Lord delivered says also that the bread must be eaten and the cup drunk as our Lord delivered and he that does not do both does not do what our Lord delivered 3. The conclusion of S. Ambrose is full to this particular They are guilty of the body and bloud of Christ who came without the discipline of the delivery and of conversation that is they who receive without due preparation and not after the manner it was delivered that is under the differing symbols of bread and wine To which we may add that observation of Cassander Disp. 5. de sacra coena and of Vossius that the Apostles represented the persons of all the faithful Christ saying to them take eate he also said Drink ye all of this he said not Eat ye all of this and therefore if by vertue of these words Drink ye all of this the Laity be not commanded to drink it can never be proved that the Laity are commanded to eat Omnes is added to bibite but it is not expresly added to Accipite Comedite Lib. de corp sang Domini cap. 15. and therefore Paschasius Radbertus who lived about eight hundred and twenty years after Christs incarnation so expounds the precept without any haesitation Bibite ex hoc omnes i. e. tam Ministri quam reliqui credentes Drink ye all of this as
well they that Minister as the rest of the believers And no wonder since for their so doing they have the example and institution of Christ by which as by an irrefragable and undeniable argument the Ancient Fathers us'd to reprove and condemn all usages which were not according to it For saith Saint Cyprian If men ought not to break the least of Christs commandments Epist. 63. how much less those great ones which belong to the Sacrament of our Lords passion and redemption or to change it into any thing but that which was appointed by him Now this was spoken against those who refus'd the hallowed wine but took water instead of it and it is of equal force against them that give to the Laity no cup at all but whatever the instance was or could be S. Cyprian reproves it upon the only account of prevaricating Christs institution The whole Epistle is worth reading for a full satisfaction to all wise and sober Christians Ab eo quod Christus Magister praecepit gessit humana novella institutione decedere by a new and humane institution to depart from what Christ our Master commanded and did that the Bishops would not do tamen quoniam quidam c. because there are some who simply and ignorantly In calice Dominico sanctificando plebi ministrando non hoc faciunt quod Jesus Christus Dominus Deus noster sacrificii hujus author Doctor fecit docuit c. In sanctifying the cup of the Lord and giving it to the people do not do what Jesus Christ did and taught viz. they did not give the cup of wine to the people therefore S. Cyprian calls them to return ad radicem originem traditionis Dominicae to the root and original of the Lords delivery Now besides that S. Cyprian plainly says that when the chalice was sanctified it was also ministred to the people I desire it be considered whether or no these words do not plainly reprove the Roman doctrine and practice in not giving the consecrated chalice to the people Do they not recede from the root and original of Christs institution Do they do what Christ did Do they teach what Christ taught Is not their practice quite another thing than it was at first Did not the Ancient Church do otherwise than these men do And thought themselves oblig'd to do otherwise They urg'd the doctrine and example of our Lord and the whole Oeconomy of the Mystery was their warrant and their reason for they always believed that a peculiar grace and vertue was signified by the symbol of wine and it was evident that the chalice was an excellent representment and memorial of the effusion of Christs bloud for us and the joyning both the symbols signifies the intire refection and nourishment of our souls bread and drink being the natural provisions and they design and signifie our redemption more perfectly the body being given for our bodies and the bloud for the cleansing our souls the life of every animal being in the bloud and finally this in the integrity signifies and represents Christ to have taken body and soul for our redemption For these reasons the Church of God always in all her publick communions gave the chalice to the people for above a thousand years This was all I would have remarked in this so evident a matter but that I observed in a short spiteful passage of E. W. Pag. 44. a notorious untruth spoken with ill intent concerning the Holy Communion as understood by Protestants The words are these seeing the fruit of Protestant Communion is only to stir up faith in the receiver I can find no reason why their bit of bread only may not as well work that effect as to taste of their wine with it To these words 1. I say that although stirring up faith is one of the Divine benefits and blessings of the Holy Communion yet it is falsely said that the fruit of the Protestant Communion is only to stir up faith For in the Catechism of the Church of England it is affirmed that the body and bloud of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lords Supper and that our souls are strengthened and refreshed by the body and bloud of Christ as our bodies are by the bread and wine and that of stirring up our faith is not at all mentioned So ignorant so deceitful or deceiv'd is E. W. in the doctrine of the Church of England But then as for his foolish sarcasm calling the hallowed Element a bit of bread which he does in scorn he might have considered that if we had a mind to find fault whenever his Church gives us cause that the Papists wafer is scarce so much as a bit of bread it is more like Marchpane than common bread and besides that as Salmeron acknowledges anciently Salmer in 11. Cor. 10. disp 17. pag. 138. Olim ex pane uno sua cuique particula frangi consueverat that which we in our Church do was the custom of the Church out of a great loaf to give particles to every communicant by which the Communication of Christs body to all the members is better represented Durand ration Divin offic l. 4. c. 53. and that Durandus affirming the same thing says that the Grecians continue it to this day besides this I say the Author of the Roman order says Cassander took it very ill Cassand liturg c. 27. Sect. Et cum mensa that the loaves of bread offered in certain Churches for the use of the sacrifice should be brought from the form of true bread to so slight and slender a form which he calls Minutias nummulariarum oblatarum scraps of little penies or pieces of money and not worthy to be called bread being such which no Nation ever used at their meals for bread But this is one of the innovations which they have introduc'd into the religious Rites of Christianity and it is little noted they having so many greater changes to answer for But it seems this Section was too hot for them they loved not much to meddle with it and therefore I shall add no more fuel to their displeasure but desire the Reader who would fully understand what is fit to be said in this Question Lib. 2. Chap. 3. Rule 9. to read it in a book of mine which I called Ductor dubitantium or the Cases of Conscience only I must needs observe that it is an unspeakable comfort to all Protestants when so manifestly they have Christ on their side in this Question against the Church of Rome To which I only add that for above 700. years after Christ it was esteemed sacriledge in the Church of Rome to abstain from the Cup and that in the ordo Romanus the Communion is always describ'd with the Cup how it is since and how it comes to be so is too plain But it seems the Church hath power to dispense in this
a Dove because if this be model'd into a right proposition nihil supponit there is no subject in it for it cannot in this case be said This Dove is no common Dove but this which is like a Dove is not a common Dove and these persons which look like men are not common men And the rule for this and the reason too is Non entis nulla sunt praedicata To which also this may be added that in the proposition as C. Perron expresses it the negation is not the adjective but the substantive part of the praedicate It is no common Dove where the negative term relates to the Dove not to common It is no Dove and the words not common are also aequivocal and as it can signifie extraordinary so it can signifie Natural But if the subject of the proposition be something real then the consequent is good as if you bring a Pigeon from Japan all red you may say This is no common Pigeon and your argument is still good therefore it is a Pigeon So if you take sugred bread or bread made of Indian wheat you saying this is no common bread do mean it is extraordinary or unusual but it is bread still and so if it be said this bread is Eucharistical it will follow rightly therefore this is bread For in this case the praedicate is only an infinite or Negative term but the subject is suppos'd and affirm'd And this is also more apparent if the proposition be affirmative and the terms be not infinite as it is in the present case This bread is Eucharistical I have now I suppose clear'd the words of Justin M. and expounded them to his own sense and the truth but his sense will further appear in other words which I principally rely upon in this quotation For speaking that of the Prophet Isai Panis dabitur ei aqua ejus fidelis he hath these words It appears sufficiently That in this prophecy he speaks of bread which our Lord Christ hath deliver'd to us to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a memorial that he is made a body for them that believe in him for whose sake he was made passible and of the Cup which for the recordation of his bloud he delivered to them to do that is give thanks or celebrate the Eucharist These are the words of Justin Where 1. According to the first simplicity of the primitive Church he treates of this mystery according to the style of the Evangelists and S. Paul and indeed of our Blessed Lord himself commanding all this whole mystery to be done in memory of him 2. If S. Justin had meant any thing of the new fabric of this mystery he must have said Pag. 296. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bread made his body though this also would not have done their work for them but when he says he gave the bread only for the remembrance of his being made a body the bread must needs be the sign figure and representation of that body 3. Still he calls it bread even then when Christ gave it still it is wine when the Eucharist is made when the faithful have given thanks and if it be bread still we also grant it to be Christs body and then there is a figure and the thing figured the one visible and the other invisible and this is it which I affirmed to be the sense of Iustin Martyr Oratio 2. in Pascha And it is more perfectly explicated by Saint Greg. Naz. calling the Paschal Lamb a figure of a figure of which I shall yet give an account in this Section But to make this yet more clear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We do not receive these as common bread or common drink but as by the word of God Jesus Christ our Lord was made flesh and for our salvation had flesh and bloud so are we taught that that very nourishment on which by the prayers of his word thanks are given by which our flesh and bloud are nourished by change is the flesh and bloud of the incarnate Iesus Here S. Justin compares the consecration of the Eucharist by prayer to the incarnation of Christ the thing with the thing to shew it is not common bread but bread made Christs body he compares not the manner of one with the manner of the other as Cardinal Perron would fain have it believed * Sic solemâ—â— loqui ficut panis est vita corporis ita verbum Dei est vita animae Non scil eundem conversionis aut nutriendi modum connot ando sed similem analogicum effectum â—triusque nutrimenti observando for if it were so it would not only destroy an article of Christian faith but even of the Roman too for if the changes were in the same manner then either the man is Transubstantiated into God or else the bread is not Transubstantiated into Christs body but the first cannot be because it would destroy the hypostatical Union and make Christ to be one nature as well as one person but for the latter part of the Dilemma viz. that the bread is not Transubstantiated whether it be true or false it cannot be affirmed from hence and therefore the Cardinal labours to no purpose and without consideration of what may follow But now these words make very much against the Roman hypothesis and directly proves the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the consecrated bread that is after it is consecrated to be natural nourishment of the body and therefore to be Christs body only spiritually and Sacramentally unless it can be two substances at the same time Christs body and bread in the Natural sense which the Church of Rome at this day will not allow and if it were allowed it would follow that Christs body should be Transubstantiated into our body and suffer the very worst changes which in our eating and digestion and separation happen to common bread This argument relies upon the concurrent testimony of many of the ancient Fathers besides Iustin Martyr Lib. 4. c. 34. lib. 5. c. 2. especially S. Irenaeus and certainly destroys the whole Roman article of Transubstantiation for if the Eucharistical bread nourishes the body then it is still the substance of bread for accidents do not nourish and quantity or quality is not the subject or term of Nutrition but reparation of substance by a substantial change of one into another But of this enough Eusebius is next alledged in the Dissuasive but his words though pregnant and full of proof against the Roman hypothesis are by all the Contra-scribers let alone A. L. only one of them says that the place of the quotation is not rightly mark'd for the first three chapters are not extant well but the words are and the last chapter is which is there quoted and to the 10. chapter the Printer should have more carefully attended and not omit the Cypher which I suppose he would if he had foreseen he should
be not so gross and dull as that of the Capharnaites yet it was as false as unreasonable and as impossible And be the occasion of the words what they are or can be yet upon this occasion S. Austin spake words which as well confute the Roman error as the Capharnaitical For it is not only false which the men of Capernaum dreamt of but the antithesis to this is that which S. Austin urges and which comes home to our question I have commended to you a sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you But because S. Austin was the most diligent expounder of this mystery among all the Fathers I will gratifie my Adversary or rather indeed my Unpraejudicate Readers by giving some other very clear and unanswerable evidences of the doctrine of S. Austin agreeing perfectly with that of our Church At this time after manifest token of our liberty hath shin'd in the resurrection of our Lord Iesus Christ De doctr Christ. lib. 3. cap. 9. we are not burdened with the heavy operation of signs but some few instead of many but those most easie to be done and most glorious to be understood and most pure in their observation our Lord himself and the Apostolical discipline hath delivered such is the sacrament of Baptism and the celebration of the body and bloud of our Lord which when every one takes he understands whether they may be referr'd that he may give them veneration not with carnal service but with a spiritual liberty For as to follow the letter and to take the signs for the things signified by them is a servile infirmity so to interpret the signs unprofitably is an evil wandring error But he that understands not what the sign signifies but yet understandeth it to be a sign is not press'd with servitude But it is better to be press'd with unknown signs so they be profitable than by expounding them unprofitably to thrust our necks into the yoke of slavery from which they were brought forth All this S. Austin spake concerning the sacramental signs the bread and the wine in the Eucharist and if by these words he does not intend to affirm that they are the signs signifying Christs body and bloud let who please to undertake it make sense of them for my part I cannot To the same purpose are these other words of his Epist. 23. Christ is in himself once immolated and yet in the sacrament he is sacrificed not only in the solennities of Easter but every day with the people Neither indeed does he lye who being ask'd shall answer that he is sacrificed For if the sacraments have not a similitude of those things of which they are sacraments they were altogether no sacraments but commonly for this similitude they take the names of the things themselves sicut ergo secundum quendam modum c. As therefore after a certain manner the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ the sacrament of the bloud of Christ is the bloud of Christ so the sacrament of faith viz. Baptism is faith Christ is but once immolated or sacrificed in himself but every day in the sacrament that properly this in figure that in substance this in similitude that naturally this sacramentally and spiritually But therefore we call this mystery a sacrifice as we call the Sacrament Christs body viz. by way of similitude or after a certain manner for upon this account the names of the things are imputed to their very figures This is S. Austins sense which indeed he frequently so expresses Now I desire it may be observed that oftentimes when S. Austin speaking of the Eucharist calls it the body and blood of Christ he oftentimes adds by way of explication that he means it in the Sacramental figurative sense but when ever he calls it the figure or the Sacrament of Christs body he never offers to explain that by any words by which he may signifie such a real or natural being of Christs body there as the Church of Rome dreams of but he ought not neither would he have given offence or Umbrage to the Church by any such incurious and loose handling of things if the Church in his age had thought of it otherwise than that it was Christs body in a Sacramental sense Though I have remark'd all that is objected by A. L. yet E. W. is not satisfied with the quotation out of Greg. Naz. not but that he acknowledges it to be right P. 41. Orat. 2. in pascha Jam verò paschlis participes erimus nunc quidem adhuc typicè tametsi apertiùs licet quam in veteri legale siquidem pascha nec enim dicere verebor figurae figurae erat obscurior for he sets down the words in Latin but they conclude nothing against Transubstantiation Why so because though the Paschal was a type of a type a figure of a figure yet in S. Gregories sense Christ concealed under the species of bread may be rightly called a figure of its own self more clearly hereafter to be shewed us in heaven To this pitiful answer the reply is easie S. Gregory clearly enough expresses himself that in the immolation of the Passeover Christ was figured that in the Eucharist he still is figured there more obscurely here more clearly but yet still but typically or in figure nunc quidem adhuc typice here we are partakers of him typically Afterwards we shall see him perfectly meaning in his Fathers Kingdom So that the Saint affirms Christ to be receiv'd by us in the Sacrament after a figurative or typical manner and therefore not after a substantial as that is oppos'd to figurative Now of what is this a type of himself to be more clearly seen in heaven hereafter It is very true it is so for this whole ceremony and figurative ritual receiving of Christs body here does prefigure our more excellent receiving and enjoying him hereafter but then it follows that the very proper substance of Christs body is not here for figure or shadow and substance cannot be the same to say a thing that is present is a figure of it self hereafter is to be said by no man but him that cares not what he says Lib. de Synod Nemo est sui ipsius imago saith S. Hilary and yet if it were possible to be otherwise yet it is a strange figure or sign of a thing that what is invisible should be a sign of what is visible De Euchar. l. 2. c. 15. Sect. est igitur tertia Bellarmine being greatly put to it by the Fathers calling the Sacrament the figure of Christs body says it is in some sense a figure of Christs body on the Cross and here E. W. would affirm out of Naz. that it is a figure of Christs body glorified Now suppose both these dreamers say right then this Sacrament which whether you look forwards or backwards is a figure of Christs body cannot be that body of which so