this half Communion the sequel of the former Article of Real presence and acknowledges that without the establishing of the one the other cannot be defended so p. 322 323. We see then what goodly fruit the Romish Real Presence has brought forth to the great and just offence of Christian people in denying them the Cup besides other goodly sequels of it as Adoration and Circumgestation It is not Real Presence truly granted no not such as the Romanists will acknowledge to be true that gives a ground for half Communion or makes it defensible for they grant as we see here p. 123. the Lutherans convinced of this mystery i. e. to believe a true Real Presence but cannot say they are convinced of this sequel or that it follows then may the Communion be delivered in one kind there being other Reasons from the Institution of this Sacrament and our Saviours purpose therein which forbid it as we shall see by what follows To the first Argument from the Institution which is carefully to be observed Halse Communion against the Institution he answers I. that the accidentary circumstances of the first institution are to be distinguished from the substance and essence of the Sacrament This is alwayes to be held not the former p. 324. This we admit only note he reckons the giving it then to Priests only among the accidentary circumstances of the first institution II. he answers that the entire substance of the Sacrament is under each kinde he means both body and blood are under each kinde we shall see asterward how farr that is true But be it so that both body and blood are under each yet is not that the whole substance of the Sacrament which stands in the outward part Bread and Wine as well as the inward or spiritual part the body and blood nor is the Institution held to if the body and blood be given but in one kinde And notwithstanding that he reckoned the giving it at first to Priests only among the Accidentary circumstances of the Institution here he tells us All that can be gathered from the bare words of Institution is that it is to be consecrated and received by Priests Mr. Spencer may say what he will and yet adde a greater untruth such as were the Apostles who were then made Priests p. 325. If then made Priests let him shew us what words what imposition of hands or other Ceremonies were there for that purpose Was our Saviour then conferring orders or instituting the Eucharist or could he with the same words actions and ceremonies institute and administer two several Sacraments Do this he said and that is all they can pretend to but if by this the Disciples were made Priests then they doing what our Saviour did must also ordain others so oft as they administer the Eucharist Now the whole importance of that precept Do this concerns the whole company Priest and people as is plain by 1 Cor. 11.25 26. And it is generally held by the Ancients that the Disciples then represented the whole Church or company of faithfull and that they received orders or Priesthood after his resurrection Jo. 20.22 Lastly the Church of Rome gives not the Sacrament in both kinds to Priests when they are not Conficientes consecrators or administers of it as the Disciples then were not but leaving this senseless assertion and novel device of our Saviours making them Priests when he said do this let us come to the main viz. the whole substance of the Sacrament under each kind He that receives under one kinde saith Mr. Spencer receives a true Sacrament Whether the whole substance of the Sacrament be in one kinde p. 326. He that receives may we say according to the Romish Church in one kinde he does not receive a true Sacrament or not the true Sacrament because not the outward part truly and wholly as it was purposed and appointed at the Institution so that definition which he gives here may pass for a compleat definition of a Sacrament in general but is not compleatly used when applied only to one of the kinds or outward parts of this Sacrament For there is as he noted p. 324. something particular in this Sacrament not the particular he there notes that the whole substance may be received in each kinde but that it stands in two kinds or signs or outward Elements both which together make the compleat sign of the spiritual grace signified and exhibited in this Sacrament each signe apart cannot represent and exhibit the whole spiritual grace of this Sacrament He acknowledges a different grace conferred here A different grace conferred in each kinde one of spiritual meat the other of spiritual drink only he will have both in each kinde p. 327. Which is as much as to say the effect of drink is shewen and exhibited by the meat we eat and the effect of meat by the drink we take so with equal absurdity to say that the blood shed is shewen by the blood in the Veins of unshed for so it s given with the body under one kinde and that the blood is drunk when we eat the flesh For though it be true that he who receives Christ by faith receives whole Christ and by that mouth of faith eats his flesh and drinks his blood is really made partaker of his body given and his blood shed for him thus without the Sacrament and when we come to receive him in the Sacrament the same act of faith receiving him in one kinde as under the bread can and doth at the same time receive also his blood Totum Christum not Totum Christi or whole Christ yet does he not receive his blood sacramentally as blood shed and so not all of Christ or Christ wholly Thus by reason of the act of faith he that receives but in one kinde out of necessity may be assured that he is not defrauded of the participation of Christs blood shed but he cannot be so assured that wilfully receives but in one kinde because though there is a concomitancy of flesh and blood in Christs body as to the natural condition of it yet not a concomitancy of his flesh and bloodshed as to the Sacramental consideration of them which therefore are set out in the Sacrament apart by two several elements Also because such a one being a Transgressor of our Saviours Institution and enemy to his own comfort falls short of the benefit thereof Therefore the Church of England had cause to say though not to the purpose he would have it p. 326. in the distribution of the bread The body of our Lord preserve thy and then adding the Cup to say there also preservethy and this conformably as to our Saviours Institution so to his saying Except ye eat and drink Jo 6.53 and to the Apostle in what he received from the Lord 1 Cor. 11.28 This Author is forced to confess that if by a compleat sign be meant a full and express
and leave it to the Church of Rome to draw Gods example his sometime inflicting punishment after forgiveness to their own advantage and make a General Rule of it for themselves to practise by CHAP. VII Of the Real Presence THis Controversy about the Sacrament of the holy Eucharist the Romanists we finde State of the Controversy had rather dispute under the Title of Real presence then of Transubstantiation Whereas First I do not observe that the Ancients expressed the being of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist by the word presence but rather by affirming it to be his body blood And in the time of Bertram's Pascasius and so down to Berengarius the question was how it is his body and this more consonant to Scripture exprestion This is my body this is my blood Secondly Seeing we admit the old saying praesentiam credimus modum nescimus We believe the presence know not the mode or manner it is needless for them to dispute about the presence unless they adde the mode which they have defined Transubstantiation For the Arguments that make against Transubstantiation conclude also though not against all real presence yet against theirs Their Council also having defined in the first Canon that the body and blood of Christ are really and substantially contained in the Eucharist which speaks a presence does in the next Canon define that which concerns the mode the not remaining of the substance of Bread and Wine together with the body and blood of our Lord. Durand proves the remaining of the substances of Bread and Wine In 4. sent dist 11. qu. 1. together with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be possible and albeit he adheres to the way of Transubstantiation yet he grants that other way to be pressed with fewer difficulties It is indeed most evident that he who denies Transubstantiation does not therefore deny a Real presence nor does the remaining of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament exclude the real presence or communication of the body and blood of Christ but cleares it of many Difficulties and needless miracles which must accompany the way of Transubstantiation and makes a fairer interpretation of the words This is my body This is my blood According to S. Pauls explication The bread which we break is communion of c. 1 Cor. 10. to let us understand where there is a due participation of this Bread broken and this Cup blessed there is a real participation of the body and blood of our Saviour Let the Romanists take away their mode of Transubstantiation which as we shall see by the following discourse is pressed with so many difficulties infers so many inconveniencies and we will not quarrel with them about a Real presence or participation of Christs Body and Blood believing such a one is afforded as is fitting and necessary to all the ends and purposes of the Sacrament Now for the Arguments of Protestants which equally serve against Transubstantiation and against their Real presence Mr. Spencer sets them down in this order with his answers to them The first is from the contexture of the words That the substance of Fread remains as we have them in three Evangelists and in S. Paul 1 Cor. 11. that Jesus took bread blessed it brake and gave to his Disciples which shews plainly he brake and gave what he took and blessed true bread not the species only His Answer is a denial that our Saviour gave what he took and blessed the same substance of bread and for a pretence of this denial he complains of our translation or addition of the word it to blessed brake and gave which is not in the Original Greek nor the Latine and upon this silly exception makes an invective against the cunning which Protestants use in their Translations pa. 194 195. But he that knows any thing in those languages Greek and Latine finds they are not forced to repeat the pronoun it as our English is in which there would be else but an imperfect sense and when it is not expressed in the other Languages it must be implied to give a subject to those transitive verbs blessed brake gave And if to make the sense perfect we ask what did he bless break and give the subject first mentioned still must be meant unless the change be expressed in the story or made evident to the sense this rule he must grant or else nothing can be certain in such contextures of Scripture-language It is said 2 Sam. 23.16 They drew water and took and brought to David So the Greek Latine and Hebrew the English renders took it and brought it Will he say this is a fraud and falsification as he complains here But that he may see and acknowledge how answerable the manner of speech in the one is to the other It follows David said of it or of that Water is not this the blood of these men answerable to these sacramental speeches of the Text in hand but of this manner of speech more hereafter The second part of his answer is by denying the Consequence A Rule to be observed in change of substanâ—â—s therefore he gave the same in substance which he took the bread which he took being changed as he will have it into his body which he gave as when in Gallilee the Water was turned into Wine it could not be thence proved that as the servants filled the Vessels with natural Water so they drew and carried and the Master of the feast drank natural water But this is answered by the Rule above The subject first mentioned must still be meant unless the change be expressed in the story or made evident to sense Now we have it not either in the story of the institution of this Sacrament or elsehwere expressed that our Saviour would or did change the very bread into his very body neither doth the effect or change sensibly appear therefore it must follow that what he took and blessed the same also for substance he gave As for those words this is my body they do not expresly speak a substantial change but more sutable to the purpose of the Sacrament admit another meaning like as Davids speech above mentioned did and many other such figurative speeches in Scripture do And for his instance of the Water turned into Wine Joh. 2. the story expresly speaks and the senses evidently shewed then there was a change and therefore though it follows not as to that story they filled water therefore they drew and carried and drank water yet here it does follow that as he took bread and blessed it so he brake bread and gave it when neither the story nor the sense shewed such a change of the subject The Second objection which he pretends Protestants do make Of breaking the bread which proves substance remaining is of his own framing and so may easily be answered by him But thus I may object what he cannot answer What our Saviour
manner how it is made so or how that body and blood are present in the sacrament But the Romanists cannot agree what is the subject of the proposition or what is meant by this cannot agree about the words of consecration the more general opinion is the false one which places it in these words This is my body making them operative to their transubstantiation whereas the Ancients placed the Consecration in oratione invocatione not so much in the pronouncing these words as in prayer and Invocation and so our Saviours blessing and giving thanks belongs to the Consecration as well as his saying this is my body And Mr. Spencer however he would have this saying of our Saviours so clear for Transubstantiation knows that some School-men and others of their Doctors have spoken plainly that the Scripture and that saying of our Saviours in particular does not infer Transubstantiation without the definition of their Church and indeed the different opinions in the explaining of it or drawing it to that purpose speaks as much The next thing remarkable is the objection of S. Called bread after Consecration Pauls calling it often bread after Consecration 1 Cor. 11. to which Mr. Spencer returns these pitiful answers 1. He helps himsef of his old instance of the Water made Wine Jo. 2. and called Water after for it is said v. 9. tasted the water that was made wine pag. 251. But the Text speaks also plainly that it was not water but made wine 2. S. Paul saith not it is common or natural bread Nor will the Protestants say so therefore with them when S. Paul calls it Bread before and after Consecration though the name bread be the same yet the signification is not the same So the Catholicks may give saith he the same answer that before Consecration bread in Saint Paul is natural bread after supernatural spiritual divine bread p. 252 253. This is but a slender disguise which any eye that can distinguish substances from qualities may see thorow for as we deny it is common or mere natural bread after consecration so we affirm it is substantial bread bread to be eaten So oft as ye eat this bread 1 Cor. 11. and therefore although the Protestants allow such a change in the bread notwithstanding S. Paul calls it bread before and after Consecration yet will not the change which the Romanists make consist with S. Pauls calling it bread for they take away the whole substance and nature of bread and leave nothing but the species or qualities of Bread to supply the uses of the Sacrament And what if our Saviour termeth himself bread Jo. 6. which at first sight is a figurative speech S. Paul cannot be so answered when he calls that which was truly bread bread still nor they excused who seek to help themselves by figures when the Sacramental bread is called bread viz. what it is indeed and allow no figure when it is called his body viz. what it is in signification and exhibition He concludes It can no more be gathered from its being termed bread by S. Paul that it is natural substantial bread then it can be gathered from the Canon of our Mass that we believe it to be the substance of bread because it is often called Bread in the same Canon after Consecration p. 252. There are many passages in the Canon of your Mass which did not alter with the times and may confute your novelties and reprove your not believing according to that Canon speaking yet the Ancient language and belief It cannot be gathered by the Canon of your Mass so far as is ancient what ye do believe but what ye ought The inforcement of the former objection A farther enforcement of the same If by the word bread often repeated S. Paul should understand flesh he would have warned the people to believe it so though the senses shewed it bread he would not have joyned himself to the report of the senses against the perswasion of faith calling it alwayes bread without any explication He answers here by his former impertinency of the spiritual food of the soul call'd bread and Christs flesh called bread Io. 6. which first was not a joyning with the report of our senses but telling us what we must believe it to be in effect and so understand it was a figurative speech And secondly this that S. Paul calls bread was substantial bread before consecration and his calling it still bread shews it continued so still tells us we must believe it to be so still unless he had admonisht us of the change into flesh His retorting upon the Protestants is vain If S. Paul by this word bread so often repeated should understand a Sacrament or Mystery as it is believed among Christians were he not to be blamed for holding the people in error seeing he knew that sense and reason giveth evidence that it is usual and common bread c. p. 255. and in anger concluds Protestants bring Arguments fitter for Infidels then Christians ibid. But there was no cause for him to be so moved seeing there is a great difference between our argument or Reasoning and his as much as between this is not bread and this is not common bread It is not true that reason as he saith giveth evidence that it is common bread sense may because it cannot discern between holy and common but he that can use his reason as all that know any thing belonging to Sacraments or Religion knows also by what he hears and sees said and done for the consecrating or setting apart the elements for holy use that it is not common bread The Apostle also saies enough to take off that mistake or errour by calling it this bread and this Cup of the Lord and threatning judgment unto the unworthy receiver as guilty of the Lords body and because they discern not the Lords body which is enough to exclude all conceit of it as of common bread though not to infer it is no more bread but the very body as he would have it concluded from those expressions of the Apostle p. 255. Nor does his similitude come home A subject saith he cannot be said to be guilty of the body and blood of the King that receives not his signet with that reverence as becomes a subject ibid. I say this comes not home as any may see that knows what a great difference there is between moral signes or tokens and sacramental for these are not only significant and representative but exhibitive and communications of the thing signified and in them offered they carry it along with them and therefore he is guilty of the body and blood who receives this Sacrament unworthily To omit his needless discourse of the fruit of the Vine mentioned in the Gospel Their impertinent instances they bring to parallel it It is familiar with Romish writers in answer to S. Pauls calling it bread after consecration to use the help of such speeches
Dust thou art because made of Dust and the serpent call'd a Rod because made of Aarons Rod and the wine call'd water Jo. 2.9 because made of water so the body of our Lord by S. Paul call'd bread because made of it yet dare not stand to it when we reply The former things are call'd so because of the same matter remaining in the thing made which was in that of which it is made but not so in this making of Christs body which was but once made and that of the seed or blood of the blessed Virgin Mr. Spencer being put to speak to this point goes backward and forward he acknowledges p. 266. by reason of the subject which remains common to both in philosophy call'd Materia prima the first matter Adam was called Dust and the Serpent a Rod and acknowledges p. 269. that our Saviours body cannot be said to be so made of bread and therefore must acknowledge those former usual instances to be impertinent This is backward Now see how he strives forward to maintain the speech made of bread The body of Christ succeeds to the substance of bread under the same Accidents and so issues from it as the day issues from the night as from the terme from which it begins to be as one may say ex nocte fit Dies the day is made of the night so ex pane fit corpus Christi Christs body is made of bread as it is mysteriously in this Sacrament and therefore might be called bread after consecration p. 269. Therefore it might be called Wherefore because forsooth it is made of it as the day of the night but he should have said as the day is called night because it succeeds end comes in place of it as the body of Christ according to their Tenet doth instead or place of the bread and he might have bethought himself whether ever any man call'd Day Night or whether this be not translocation or succession rather then Transubstantiation and whether for such a supposed translocation the body of Christ can be called bread as we see S. Paul often asserting bread after Consecration He has some streins of invention in the pages following as this That the flesh of Christ at least in some part was made of bread he means by way of nourishment from the bread our Saviour did eat but not knowing how to make use of this impertinency in this question he lets it fall But the compleat reason of Catholicks saith he why S Paul calls the Sacrament bread after the consecration Their pretended Reason why S. Paul calls it Bread so oft is because the flesh of Christ into which the bread is changed is put under the species of bread which gives occasion of giving it the same denomination it had before p. 272. What had before that denomination of bread the species or the flesh of Christ neither surely such careless expressions he every where takes hold of when they fall from his Adversary and can spend whole pages against them But this compleat reason was no reason to S. Paul neither did it give him any occasion of giving it still the same denomination of bread for then he had joyned with the report of sense against faith and had deceived them in bidding them eat that bread if nothing but species of bread remained For albeit things set out to sight only may bear the names of the things they are like yet not when proposed for use which requires the substance of the things as eating does you may say of things painted this is bread these are grapes but if you say of them take and eat this is bread these are grapes you mock those that you invite to eat Which shews also the impertinency of Bellarmines instance of the brazen serpent bearing the denomination of serpent from the outward likeness to enforce this compleat reason for that serpent was only for sight to be looked on not for stinging But this is all the reason the Romanists can give and these poor species the form colour smell appearance of bread must help them at every turn they must stand for substance when there is occasion must be the visible part or signe of the Sacrament must be broken eaten nourish what not As for those sayings I am the Vine I am the Door I need not follow him in examining the differences he seeks out between them and this is my body but thus far they be appliable to our purpose that they were figurative speeches yet was our Saviour truly so that is what a Door or Vine is in their kinde and uses such was our Saviour spiritually indeed and in truth So what the bread and wine is to the corporal effects being eaten and drunk that the body and blood of our Saviour taken by faith is spiritually Omnem essectum quem materialis cibus potus quoad vi tam agunt corporalem hoc idem quoad vitam spiritualem hoc Sacramentum operatur Concil Floren. and to the spiritual effect it is the very expression of their Council of Flerence and as the Sacramental Bread and Wine are really offered and given so is the body and blood of our Saviour in the Sacrament really and to all the purposes of the Sacrament given and communicated to them that have faith to receive it for this the Sacramental bread after consecration is called and made to us the body of Christ or as St. Paul expresses it is the communication of his body Upon occasion of shewing difference between Christs saying my flesh is bread and his saying this is my body he has something which may seem in part to make reply to that which was presently delivered Bread saith he of the first saying cannot signifie true and material bread bu in the other by my body is signified the real natural body of Christ 281. What does he infer That by bread in the Protestant doctrine is signified real material bread which cannot be his body p. 282. We grant that when our Saviour said this is my body he meant his true natural body which was broken and given for us but why cannot it be said truly of real and material bread after consecration this bread is my body It cannot indeed be properly said so but may after the use of Sacramental speeches as when said that rock was Christ by rock is meant the real and natural rock out of which the water flowed and by partaking thereof they were really made partakers of the spiritual drink much more in the Sacrament of the New Testament the Bread may be truly called the body of Christ because in the due partaking thereof we are made partakers not only of the spiritual effects of Christs death but also of his very body and blood bringing along with it those spiritual effects and graces which is that St. Paul saith the bread is the communion or communication of the body of Christ the manner we know not as we said above of
follow with them The text saith not they rest presently after death that 's his first exception The present blessedness of them that dy in the Lord. and he pretends for it Mat. 5.3 where the poor in spirit are called Blessed and and yet in their misery but blessed because the kingdome of heaven belonged to them pa 181. It is true that hope in this life makes blessed but the blessedness of the next life stands in fruition according to the measures God has appointed But the force of the Argument stands not on the Term Blessed but the reason their dying in the Lord and resting from their Labours for dying in the Lord and sleeping in Christ are all one and that sleeping does necessarily infer that the Rest begins at death as the sleep doth and little comfort would it be if they went not presently to Rest for what joy is it to be taken from the Labours of this life to go to worse again that which enforces this presently is their works following them that they follow them for reward he grants pa. 182. that they follow them not at a distance but presently if the reason of giving the reward after Labours cease do not evince it the expression here may for it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follow them which might be at some distance but more then the translation expresses it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follow with them that is immediately As Rev. 6.8 Death is described sitting on a horse going out to destroy and Hades followed with him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is immediately as Hades or the invisible state to which the soul goes follows immediately upon death More to confirm this presently going to rest or some blessed condition after death in the next place of Scripture His second exception is like the talking of a man in his dream that we mistake the word Labours which here is not taken saith he for all labours but the labours and persecutions of this life or that they cease from their good works pa. 182. But if the endeavours of good works were here meant by labours then reason and the comfort intended by this Text would infer that those labours being at an end the service performed the reward should immediately follow the warfare and combate being ended some Prize or Crown should be received and so indeed their works following them or with them does imply but here instead of receiving reward or rest the Combatant that has laboured and conquered is carried to the house of Correction delivered up to certain torments And take the labours here for sufferings of this life as they must and to the excluding of sufferings and torments after then is the Romish Purgatory excluded which wholly perverts the intent and scope of the Scripture spoken for their comfort and allows them no more in this Rest then the wicked have when they dy a freedome from the labours of this life leaving them only hope of coming out after some time The next place is 2 Cor. 5.1 For we know that if the earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved we have a building of God a house not made with hands eternal in heaven Here again he tels us we are mistaken for the words say not they go presenly after death into that heavenly house The same again proved pa. 183. But surely the Apostles argument here for comfort against the dissolution of this house must imply a present entring into the other or into some part of it also the word uncloathing which is in death must imply a cloathing with that house v. 2. The Apostle desired to be cloathed upon without uncloathing which shall be the condition of all just persons of the last age that are taken alive at the last day no Romish Purgatory can be for them but if that cloathing upon were denied to them of the Apostles age as it was so that it came to an uncloathing the Apostle had said little to their comfort in telling them of their house from heaven if he had not implied that upon their uncloathing they should be received into it but that contrarily they should first go to a house below and there suffer in the next region to hell exquisit torments for many years Also the opposition he makes between at home in the body absent from the Lord v. 6. and absent from the body and present with the Lord v. 8. plainly shews the denial of the one inferrs the other if absent from the body then present with the Lord and so the application which our Saviour makes of the wisdome of the unjust Steward Luc. 16.8 that when ye fail there is this dissolving or going out of the body they may receive you into everlasting habitations ther 's the heavenly house a present reception is necessarily implied even as the Steward meant to be provided of a place to receive him as soon as he should be turned out of his Lords house The next place is Wisd 3.1 The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God and no torment shall touch them The word Torment here is misunderstood saith he Why so Righteoâ—â— souls aâ—â—â—â— Death 〈◊〉 from Tâ—â—ment because it is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a torment that malefactors or suspected to be so are put to to make them confess the truth Now no such torment shall touch the righteous for God has sufficiently tried them and proved them and found them worthy of God v. 5. which is a plain place for merits pa. 184. If he loose one thing by this Text he will catch at another If it make against Purgatory he will have it make for merits Well if it be so plain for merits he must wring them out of the word worthy which being * cap. 5. num 8. objected above in the point of merits was answered too But as for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which concerns Purgatory let the original use or strict importance of the word be it what it will the Text excludes all pains by saying no torment and what matters it if they that go to Purgatory suffer not the pain upon the like account of question and examination as suspected persons so that indeed they suffer the like as Malefactors do It would be mockery and not comfort to tell them they shall suffer not under that name but as much And to suffer this now that they are come from under the hands and volence of their enemies against which this is their comfort into the hands of God which the Text puts as the reason why no torment can touch them and thus to be handled there and that after God had proved and found them worthy of himself as this chapter v. 5. hath it how can this stand with the goodness of God or the intent of this Text which is spoken for their comfort But he will demonstrate Purgatory to be expressed in Scripture as much as Trinity 〈◊〉
But it may be said the Actions in the Sacrament are visible True yet this will not salve the matter notwithstanding the explication he makes pa. 227. which is but a handsome disguise Hence saith he appears that the very same body which was given and that very blood that was shed for us remaining in its own proper substance but after an invisible manner by reason of the visible actions puts us in remembrance of the same body blood and person so many years agoe given shed crucified nay but those visible actions seen in the Sacrament seeing they pass not upon the body which they fix under the species in place of the substantiall bread for that body of Christ they grant is impassible do tell us the body cannot be by reason of them a remembrance of it selfe seeing also that body is invisible those actions cannot appear to be terminated upon it therefore it cannot be made a Sacrament or sacramental remembrance for what is so must by the senses instruct and minde us of the thing represented and not seen so that according to this Romish phansy the species and nothing else must be the sacrament and sacramental remembrance and in them must all those sacramental actions be terminated which absurdity shews the necessity of substantial Bread remaining even upon this account also of sacramental representation and remembrance not excluding as I said a true presence of Christs body and blood but the Romish mode of presence by transubstantiation which takes away the substantial element of the sacrament The next objection he sets down thus The Cup called the New Testament The Cup is called by our Saviour the New Testament for that it was a holy signe of the New Testament pa. 230. This is carelesly set down but let us see what he saith to it instead of giving a direct answer he first challenges any Protestant to produce any clear text of Scripture where that reason mentioned in the objection is alledged but if he had fully set down the objection the force of it as we shall see presently would have extorted this to be the reason why it is called the New Testament which must needs be a figurative speech and therefore implying it to be the signe Sacrament or seal of the New Testament confirmed in his blood secondly in stead of a direct answer he gives us a needless discourse of the signification of the New Testament and then answers I deny that by New Testament is understood a signe of the New Testament but truly and really the New Testament it self 233. this is a careless mistake for New Testament in the objection is taken for that which is truly the New Testament it self nor does it imply that by New Testament is understood the signe of the New Testament but that the verb is which couples this and the new Testament together is put for significat signifies or is the signe Thirdly from Exod. 24.8 where the Testament of God with the Israelites was confirmed with blood and the like saying used This is the blood of the testament which the Lord hath made with you it must be real blood not a signe or figure of it which is here called the blood of the Testament for such a solemn Testament required no less but rather more then that in Exodus to be confirmed with true blood pa. 235 236. This is true but here 's his failing first that the true blood by which our Saviours Testament was confirmed and to which that in Exodus and all other sprinklings of blood under the Law referred was the blood shed on the Cross as the Apostle plainly shews in the Epistle to the Hebr. whereas this Author refers it to the blood in the Sacrament which is not the confirmation of the Testament but by reference to the blood on the Cross Secondly he gives us no direct sense of the proposition this Cup is the new Testament in my blood to exempt it from that figurative manner of speech which we contend our Saviour used throughout this Sacrament He acknowledges it to be in the Canon of the Masse and they say it dayly in saying the Masse and could not but know that the necessity of a figurative speech to be admitted in that proposition was the intent and force of the former objection yet gives us no account of it knowing that if a figure be admitted here why not in this is my body And if the words were operative there for turning the bread into his body why not here for transubstantiating the Cup or that which was in it into the New Testament If it be replied that Sâ— â—â—ke and St. Pauls words must be interpreted by St. Matthews this is my blood of the new Testament first it is more probable those other were the words our Saviour spake because of the agreement of Saint Luke and St. Paul and because St. Paul saith he delivered what he received of the Lord 1 Cor. 11.23 The Canon of the Masse also retains the same words Secondly they cannot be reduced to Saint Matthews words without a figure for they must then sound thus this Cup is my blood of the new Testament but saith Mr. Spencer our Saviour never said this cup is my blood no more then he said this bread is my body pa. 238. And this in abhorrence of the figurative speech that must be admitted in saying this bread is my body and answerably in saying this Cup is my blood yet in the same place he acknowledges our Saviour said this Cup is the New Testament and is willing to overlook the most apparent figurative speech in it notwithstanding that the force of the objection rested chiefly upon it and provoked him to a direct answer The next objects to them their disagreement about the word this Disagreement of Romanists about the words of consecration This is my body in our Saviours saying this is my body 24.1 where note briefly that declining the explication of this is for this shall become or shall be transubstantiated for then saith he by this must be understood bread yet pag. 243. being to answer for one of their opinions that saith by the word this is signified nothing present he grants by this is signified nothing present precisely in that moment when the word this was pronounced but present after consecration what is this but to put the word is upon the future after Consecration And what is that but shall be And who ever heard that the word is properly taken as they will have it here should not precisely signifie the present time or existence Or who ever heard that the pronoun this should not be demonstrative Or signifie nothing in that moment present when our Saviour held up bread and said this Nor is this disagreement about the mode as among the Protestants for they agree about the subject and predicate of this Proposition that by this is meant bread by body the true body of Christ only differ about the
honours him whose Image it is he that contemns the Emperours Statue seems to do him injury c. Thus the Cardinal and no more thinking every one would imagine the application of this concerned the Images of Christ and the Saints that the honour or contempt done to the Image would redound to the Prototype but the words before and after plainly shew that the Fathers intent there is to apply it not to material but living Images poor men especially to whom if any do wrong God takes it as done to himself as if do good to them Christ takes it as done to himself as Mat. 25.40 and to stir them up to charity Quot inter Imagines Christi ambulamus Ambr. ibid. how many Images of Christ saith he do we daily walk among and so have opportunity of doing good But it is usual with the Romanists where ever they meet with this Instance of honour redounding to Emperors or Kings when done to their Statues or with that General saying the honour done to the Image redounds to the Prototype they lay hold on it as an argument for Image-worship This they learn from their Nicone Council which after the Seventh Age laid the foundation of this Image-worship There besides many misapplications of Scripture and Fathers this is one And Athanasius Basil and Chrysost ancient and learned Fathers pretended who did indeed in proving the Son to be worshiped with the Father because he was his express Image use that Instance of honour done to the Emperors Image and that General saying of honour done to the Image redounding to the Prototype as most plainly appears in St. Basil Bas de Spiritu Sanct. cap. 18. Now what boldness is this to transfer to the worship of material Images that which the Fathers spake of Christ the Image of the Father because to the illustrating of it they took instance from the Civil worship One place more I must take notice of which the Cardinal alledges and truly out of St. Bel. l. 2. de Imag. c. 12. Prostrata ante Crucem quasi pendentem Dominum cerneret adorabat Hierom concerning Paula That lying prostrate before the Cross as if she had seen the Lord hanging there she adored We must consider Paula is here visiting those very places at Jerusalem where our Saviour suffered and was buried and if she was more then ordinarily affected and made such outward expressions of it as St. Hierom relates of her it is not much to be marvelled at Ingressa sepulchrum osculabatur ore Lambebat Hieronym in vita Paulae Going into the Sepulchre she kissed the stone which the Angel had removed and licked the place where our Saviours body laid So before the Cross she lay prostrate adoring the Lord that hung upon it This may be done without giving the Cross it self any Worship as above noted in the like place out of St. Gregory If Paula transported in affection did exceed she is not therein an example to us St. Hierom doth not say she gave worship to the Cross or that it was her practise thus in her devotions to lie prostrate before the sign but only tels us how she was affected in those very places I will conclude with the dangerous inconveniences of this Image-worship Complaints of the inconveniences of this Romish practise which even their own Authors complain of Images at first brought in for better remembrance of the History and to teach ignorant people what they could not read after once they began to be worshiped became ill Teachers of those rude Scholars who could not well distinguish what and how they worshiped Polydore speaking of it complains thus To such a madness is it come Many of the Ruder and ignorant sort Polyd de Invent. Rerum l. 6. c. 13. Eò insaniae de ventum est Permulti rudiores stultitiâ stultitiam cumulantes Illi qui talem proventum metunt so worship that they trust in them more then in Christ or the Saints represented by them And adding folly to folly they offer gold and silver unto the Images And that they may be the better enticed to do it They that reap the profit by it the cunning Priests hang up some of those Gifts and offerings to be seen * Cassand in Artic. 21. Cassander gives us many other complaints made by Gerson and Gabriel Biel of the poor simple people led on hereby to superstitious if not Idololatrical misconceits and practises But enough of this SECT IV. Of Justification BY that which was said above Chap. IV. Romanists make a confused work of this doctrine It may in some measure appear what a confused work the Romanists make of this doctrine of Justification and with what difference from St. Pauls meaning and from his way of handling it For first to settle the Justification of a Sinner upon inhaerent righteousness they confound Justification and Sanctification Decret c. 7. Non est sola remissio peccaâ—orum sed etiam Sanctificatio The Trent Decree saith It is not only Remission of Sins but also Sanctification Justification indeed and Sanctification go together yet are they to be distinguished as very different Acts and communications of divine grace the Apostle distinguished them expresly saying * 1 Cor. 6.11 1 Cor. 1.30 but ye are sanctified but ye are justified and who is made unto us Righteousness and Sanctification Secondly Remission delotion of sin They deny not that Remission of Sin is Justification but confound that Remission which according to Scripture and Fathers stands in the forgiveness of the offence and punishment with the actual deletion or expunging of the stain and corruption of sin that is in us which is another thing from Remission and forgiveness And when Scripture expresseth Remission by blotting out or deletion as Isa 43.25 Psal 51.9 it is the blotting our sins out of Gods Book of remembrance not out of the tables of our heart It is as much as God will remember them no more no more impute or lay them to our charge As for the blotting or purging the stain and corruption of Sin out of the Soul though it be not done by Remission but by another act of grace yet we grant it is done with Remission in the justifying of a sinner and inhaerent Righteousness by which that stain of sin is done out and the dominion of sin broken is wrought in the Soul together with the righteousness of Justification Thirdly The first and second Justification Having made a distinction of their Justification into First and Second That by inhaerent habitual Righteousness This by actual or continuance in well-doing they usually confound their first second Justification in the proving or commending their doctrine of Justification by Works And when they are put to it in plain terms to speak what they mean by Justification by works they restrain it to that which they call the second Justification in the explaining whereof the Council of
place so much urged by the Romanist for a semblance of Purgatory must have another meaning then that they would put upon it Cypr. â—p 52. ad Antonian The place is this It is one thing to stand as a Penitent for pardon another thing to come to glory One thing to be cast into prison Aliud est ad veniam staâ— re and not come thence till the utmost farthing be payed a not her thing presently to receive the reward of their faith and vertue pro peccatis longo dâ—lore â—â—uciatuâ— emunderi purgari diu igne pendere in die judicii ad sententiam Domini One thing to be cleansed by suffering a long grief for sins and to be purged a great while by fire another thing to have all a mans sins purged away by the passion of Martyrdom One thing with suspence to expect the sentence of the Lord in the day of judgment another thing to be presently crowned of the Lord. The objectors of this place were they not so ready to phansie a Purgatory meant where ever they finde mention made of a Prison or last Farthing or Fire might easily see those phrases and expressions to be used with reference to the severity of Ecclesiastical satisfactions and pennance to which they that fell the Lapsi either by Adultery or renouncing through fear the Christian Faith were put to The occasion upon which he spoke it was an objection made against the receiving of those that fell in time of persecution that if such savour were shewen them and Ecclesiastical discipline let loose we should have no Confessors or Martyrs He answers * Nam Maechis à nobis poenitentiae tempus conceditur pax datur Non tamen ideirco virginitas in Ecclesia desicit We give peace to Adulterer's after their time of pennance fulfilled and yet Virginity fails not in the Church but flourisheth then followes that place as affording reason for their receiving of penitents from the severity they are put to and the great difference between their Condition and the happiness of those that have continued constant or proved Confessors and martyrs And therefore he expresses that severity with which the Lapsi were handled in a reference to the Martyrs sufferings and priviledge That they stood long desiring pardon before they could be restored to former state that they were as Men held in prison till they made full satisfaction that they were put to a great Torment in the shame and grief of their pennance and the anxious sollicitude of obtaining what they desired And lastly as to the Sentence and Judgment of the Lord there is a great difference between them and the Confessors or other Just persons who without suspence and such solicitude expect the sensence of the Lord for that Pendere ad sententiam Domini is spoken either of the Time while they are under Ecclesiastical Censures during which time they continue in great perplexity and suspence as to the sentence of the Lord till they be reconciled to the Church which often was deferred to the time of their Death or else it is spoken in relation to a more severe scrutiny and examination which they shall undergoe at their appearing before the Lord and not have that ready admittance which Confessors and other Just persons that needed not their repentance shall finde being admitted without delay readily Sine cunctatione as St. Cyprian speaks of them or without judgment to grace and favour Sine judicio ad graâ—iam as Ambr. on the first Psal vers 5. whereas the other shall be held under a scrutiny examination an opening of their failing and denials quis pudor quae consusio what shame then and confusion of face saith St. Ambrose there when all shall be laid open or when taken in that which thou taughtest others should not do Thus sometimes some Fathers speak of those that dye in a salvable condition through faith and repentance though late as distinguishable from those that died Martyrs or having repented betimes had lived long in a constant course of Christian profession and careful performance of righteousness St. Ambrose thus * Ambr. de bono Mortis c. 12. When that day comes the day of death they go to their Redeemer to the bosome of Abraham yet * ibid. c. 10. elsewhere he seems to defer it to the Resurrection according to the first opinion of the Ancients delivered above Unless we take that going to Abrahams bosome generally for a state of blessed Rest and be that where it will either below or in Heaven yet their going thither presently upon death excludes Purgatory Dionysius in his Eccles Dionys Eccl. Hier. c. 7. parte 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierarchy speaking of those that dye in the Lord transmits them presently to a Christ-like Rest Nazianzen in the death of his brother Caesarius towards the end of his oracioâ— saith Every good soul loosed of the body Nazien in Epitaphio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 goes presently to the state of bliss which he there describes such as he believed â—â—s brother was gone to And which is to be noted he brings in the former Assertion thus I believe the sayings of the wise Every good soul being loosed c. and for the Purgatien mark the Parenthesis he there puts in Eo quod tenebras effundebat purgato deposito vel quo verbo ca res appellanda sit Nazian ibid. that which did cause darkness being purged and deposed which must be by death or separation from body or by what word that thing is to be called I know not Chrysost Chrys in Mat homil 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus This present life is subject to many sorrows and troubles but no such thing saith he is spoken in Scripture of the future but there all grief flies away and * Chrys ad Philip. Serm. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elsewhere speaking of Sinners and Righteous he saith of these being gone from hence they are with Christ face to face as the Apostle 2 Cor. 5.7 saith being absent from the body we are present with the Lord Chrys ad Hebr. ser 4. And in another place he asks what mean the Lamps and Hymns and Prayers viz. at the Funeral of the Dead but as signs of joy to tell us The Lord has crowned him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and has him with him And in his 61. hom in Joan. he saith of the righteous man dying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he goes away with the Angels alluding to Lazarus his Soul carried by Angels into Abrams Bosom All this and often thus he speaks of the Just man opposed to the Sinner that dies in his sins without Repentance for he usually divides All men into these two sorts but such righteous Men the Church of Rome sends to Purgatory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphanius Epiph. Haer. 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Heresie
the Cardinal turns into shall be incorruptible because he could not say they are now truly and indeed incorruptible So that according to this Father the Argument would stand thus As our bodies now are incorruptible not because they are so according to nature and substance but in as much as they have the hope of a resurrection so the Bread is the body of Christ not because changed in nature and substance but in as much as by the grace of consecration it is the communion of his body Tertullian had to do with Marcion and such Hereticks that denied Christ had a true and solid body And he proves the contrary by Bread the figure of his body Tertul. contra Marcion lib. 4. c. 40. Non fuisset figura nisi veritatis esset corpus both in the Old Testament and in the Eucharist Now saith he it could not be the figure of his body if his body were not a true body And if there be force in this Reason then should Marcion supposing Transubstantiation have great advantage upon a phantastical figure that had no substance of bread but only the Accidents and appearances and upon such a phantastical mode of a Body Si proprereas panem sibi corpus sinxit quia corporis carebat veritate Tert. ibid. as the Romish doctrine puts our Saviours body into Also the words following If he took bread as those Hereticks said to make it his body because he wanted a true body then it would follow that Bread was given and crucified for us These words I say do necessarily suppose the substance of Bread to remain for how could that be said if the Bread also should want the truth of a body remaining only in shew and appearance which would much have confirmed Marcion in his misbelief of the reality of Christs body of which there should be so phantastical a figure or sign This is so evident and convincing that Beatus Rhenanus in his Annotations acknowledges Tertullian of this judgment That Bread is so the figure of Christs body that it still remains the same in substance as it was before Add to this what he saith elsewhere Tertul. de anima c. 17. Sensus non falli circa objecta ne hinc aliquid procuretur Haereticis de Christo phantasma credentibus Non est gustus Discipulorum Iudificatus The senses are not deceived in their own objects lest thereby something of advantage might be yielded to the Hereticks making but a phantasm of Christ The tast of the disciples was not deceived when in the marriage of Cana they drank wine made of Water nor was the Feeling of Thomas abused when he put his finger in our Saviours side Nor are our senses may we say abused or deceived when they tell us this is true bread which is in the Sacrament Theodoret had to do with the Eutychian Hereticks that held our Saviours humanity swallowed up in the Divine Nature for which they made Argument from the Sacrament Theod. Dâ—â— al. 2. That even as the Symbols or Elements were after consecration changed into another thing for such was the common phrase of that Time when speech was of the Sacrament so is the humane Nature or body of the Lord after assumption changed into the divine substance This Argument had been unanswerable had Transubstantiation been then the Doctrine of the Church But Theodoret answers him that makes this Argument Thou art taken in thy own Net for the Symbols do not go out of their proper nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but remain in ther former substance and figure and shape That the words Nature and Substance must be here taken properly and not confounded as in the Romanists irrational answer they are with the Accidents or Species of the Bread and Wine is clearly evinced both by the absurdity of putting Substance for Accidents and by the very reason of the Argument here made which supposeth Nature and Substance properly taken on the Eutychian part and so must be meant in Theodorets Reply to the plain exclusion of a Substantial change The like demonstration is made by Gelasius in his * In Biblioth Patrum To. 5. parte 3. Book of the two Natures of Christ against Eutyches Nestorius Of which Book the †Bel. de Euch. l. 2. c. 27. Idem prorsùs docet quod Theodoretus ad eandem rem confirmandam Cardinal acknowledgeth that Gelasius taught the same with Theodoret and for confirming of the very same thing It being familiar with the Catholick writers of those Times to use the instance of the Eucharist against the Eutychian Heresie which did necessarily infer the remaining of the substance of the Elements to shew the remaining of the humane Nature of Christ after its assumption Nay before that Heresie appeared some of the Ancients did make use of the same Instance arguing from the Union of the two Natures in Christ to shew the Sacramental Union as they that wrote against Eutyches did from the Sacrament borrow a demonstration or illustration for the two Natures united in our Saviour Christ Justin Martyr saith thus We take these not as common bread or common drink Just Apol. 2. ad Anton. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but even as Jesus Christ being made Flesh by the Word of God had flesh and bloud for our salvation * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So we learn also that the meat or food which by the prayer of his Word is blessed and made an Eucharist by which our flesh and bloud through the change of it are nourished is the flesh and bloud of the same incarned Jesus Here is Bread though not common bread after consecration and Bread remaining in Substance for it nourishes our bodies by a change into our flesh and it must answer to our Saviours flesh remaining in substance after the Incarnation notwithstanding that it is made the body of Christ so far as the reason and purpose of the Eucharist requires St. Cyprian or the Author of that Sermon de Coena of the Lords Supper saith Even as in the Person of Christ Sicut in persona Christi Humanitas apparebat latebat Divinitas ità sacro visibili divina se ineffabiliter infundit essentia the humanity appeared and the Divinity laid hid So doth the divine essence ineffably insinuate itself into the visible sacred Element This place is cited for a Real Presence by the Cardinal but he should have considered it cannot be such a Real Presence as will serve his turn For the substantial presence of the visible outward element is equally proved by this saying of the Father and a dangerous thing it is to make the bread and wine remain as the Cardinal doth in shew and appearance only which renders this instance of the Sacrament held altogether useless against those Hereticks which held our Saviours body or humanity was but such in appearance only not substance Thus the Fathers that dealt with Hereticks were bound to speak
properly and distinctly and did so as we have seen We will add to these First Origen speaking by way of distinction Orig. in Mat. 15.17 Ille cibus quisanctificatur per juxtà id quod habet Materiale in Secessum mittitur and therefore exactly to the point That food saith he that is sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer according to the Material part of it there 's his distinction goes into the belly and is sent into the draught The Cardinal is here driven to their poor shift of interpreting the Material part of that food by the Visible Accidents of it Secondly St. Ambrose his saying is remarkable speaking of the Elements That they be what they were Ambr. de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. Vt sint quae erant in aliud commutentur and yet be changed into another thing that is made the Body and Bloud of the Lord. The Cardinal makes two impertinent answers First that some read it Vt quae erant in aliud commutentur that the things which were be turned into another thing and this he approves as consonant to that which St. Ambrose speaks in his Book de Initiandis Ambr. de Init. c. 9. Sermo qui potuit ex nihil◠facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt mutare in id qued non erant That Word which could make of nothing that which was not so in the Creation can it not change those things that were into that which they were not So in the Sacrament But the purpose of the Father in this place is different from what it was in the former here he shews the possibility of this change in the Sacrament by that of the Creation arguing a majori ad minus from the greater work to the less it being a greater work to make a thing out of nothing then out of that which was and so in that respect it was fitting to say ea quae sunt those things that are be changed into what they were not But in the former place it was his purpose to shew the greatness of this work or change in the Sacrament above that of the Creation for which it was necessary to say ut sint quae erant that they be what they were for though it be a greater work to make a thing out of nothing as Wine created then to make it out of that which was before as Wine out of water Joh. 2. yet is it a greater work then that of Creation to make or change things into another thing and yet those things to remain what they were as in the Sacrament Quantò magis est operatorius ut sint quae erant How much more operative is that word saith he that they be what they were and yet changed into another thing The Cardinal therefore in his second answer retires to his old shift saying that the outward Accidents remain what they were But he might have remembred that sint and erant are Verbs Substantives and when spoken of bodies as here simply and without the adjection of qualities or Accidents attributed to them must mean the substantial being of such bodies Or if the Cardinal had inquired what are changed into another thing he would have found those things that are what they were but those things cannot be the outward Accidents of Bread and Wine for they are not changed into that other thing i.e. the Body and Bloud of Christ Or lastly had he considered the purpose of St. Ambrose he might easily have observed it was necessary for him to say of the substances of Bread and Wine that they are what they were I might add many Testimonies out of St. Aug. which upon the consideration of the nature of a Sacrament and upon other Reasons and occasions speak punctually to the same purpose that the visible signs or outward Elements remain in their former substance and yet are the body and bloud of Christ so far as the reason and purpose of that Sacrament requires But these which I have alledged may suffice SECT VIII Of Communion in one kinde IN the state of this Controversie we find two points asserted by the Romanists as appears by what said above Ch. VIII I. That it may be so administred to the People when it may be done otherwise or that the People may be forbidden to receive it otherwise II. That such a receiving is a compleat Communion The Scriptures that concern this Controversie were examined above And for the Doctrine and Practise of the Catholick Church we will only add some Generals which will clear the point on the Protestants side I. The confession of the Romish writers granting the use of receiving in both kindes continued from our Saviours time many ages throughout the Church As may be seen in the Council of Constance in Alphons de Castro Soto Costerius Tolet. II. In answering to the Testimonies of the Fathers asserting Communion in both kindes we finde the Cardinal and so the rest of them forced to acknowledge the use and practise Bel. de Euchar l. 4. c. 26. and content to say Those Testimonies do not speak a Necessity it should be so Now that it should be so where it can be so necessarily follows upon our Saviours precept Drink ye all of this the Disciples that did all drink representing then the whole company of the faithful as the Fathers frequently assert and upon the force of his Institution and Example and the answerable practice of the Catholick Church in the succeeding Ages For if so what Church or Age following shal think it self at liberty to do otherwise III. In proving those false Assertions but necessary for the Romanists to hold viz. * Bel. de Euchar. l. 4. c. 22. 33. That the whole Reason of the Sacrament is contained in one kinde and That there is not greater profit received by communion in both kindes then in one we finde the Cardinal cannot alledge One Father nor rise higher then Thomas Aquinas IV. As they cannot bring one Sentence of any Ancient Father commending or allowing their half Communion so the Instances they give us for it are impertinent and unconcluding far from proving the People may be held from receiving in both or made to believe they have a compleat Communion in One. A Collection of such Instances we finde in the * Bel. in defens Apolog contra Regem Jacobum c. 13. in l. 4. de Euch. c. 24. Cardinal The chief of them are these following I. The breaking of Bread often mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles and sometimes signifying the Sacrament What then They gave it to the people in one kinde only because one only is mentioned If this be a good argument as to the administration it will be good also as to the Consecration they consecrated it in one kinde only because one only is mentioned But if the Romanists count it Sacriledge as indeed it is so to consecrate they might think it Sacriledge also wilfully so to administer it II. Intinct◠The custom of giving the Bread dipped in the Wine for a whole Sacrament What then therefore it is not necessary that both kinds should be given severally But by this expedient we see they thought it necessary to give both Also this was only used in some places and it seems at first to be found out for Communicating Infants and sick persons that could not well swallow it dry And afterward this custom was rejected and forbidden III. The carrying of one kind to the sick viz. Communio Aegrorum Bread only But where both could both were carried it was necessity if in one and better one then neither and an incompleat Communion Communio Presanctificatorum then none at all IV. The Communion of the preconsecrated Elements when as one day in the Passion Week they used to receive in one kinde But this was not from the beginning 2. Not held a compleat Communion but a consuming of the remainder os the preconsecrated Bread the Wine being all consumed or made an end of the day before 3. From this usage to conclude a liberty of abstinence from the Wine in celebration of the Sacrament is unreasonable 4. The Priest did that day receive but one kinde therefore it might be likewise concluded that it was or may be the practise of the Church to have the Priest as well as the people confined to receive in one kinde Microl. in Biblioth Patrum c. 19. de vitanda intinctione Non est Authenticum c. ut populus plenè communicare possit I will only add what Micrologus saith in his Ecclesiast Observations where the Title of his 19. chapt is Of avoiding Intinction or giving the Host dipped It is not Authentick faith he which some do giving it dipped for the completion of a Communion and that the Wine or other Species is to be given he means severed from the other that the people may fully and compleatly communicate Also he there tels us that Julius the first Bishop of Rome writing to certain Aegyptian Bishops forbids that usage and enjoyns that both kindes be received severally Scorsùm panem scorsùm Calicem And that Gelasius Bishop of Rome puts them under censure of Excommunication who abstain from the Cup having received the body of our Lord and in the same Decree defines it Sacriledge to do so This is also in Gratian. Decr. part 3. de Consecratione And this enough to convince the boldness of the Romish Church in doing contrary to all this and yet asserting her Doctrine and Practise to be Catholick Deo Gloria THE END