(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dialog cum Tryph. We are charged by some with Atheism says Athenagoras who measure Religion only by the way of sacrifices and what do ye tell me of sacrifices which God wanteth not though we ought to bring him an unbloody sacrifice and to offer him a rational Worship (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanag Legat. pro Christ where the rational worship explains the meaning of the unbloody sacrifice Tertullian in his Apologetic answering that charge That Christians did not sacrifice for the Emperours it follows says he by the same reason we do not sacrifice for others because neither do we do it for our selves (e) Pro Imperatoribus sacrisi la non penatis sequitur ut eadem ratione pro allis non racrificemus quia nec pro nobis ipsis Tertull. Apologet. adversus gentes c. 10. but in answer to this he declares how Christians prayed for the Emperour c. 30. and in another place he says they sacrificed for the Emperors health that is with a pure prayer as God has commanded (f) Sacrificamus pro salute Tmperatoris i. e. purâ prece sicut Deus praecepit Idem ad Scapul and I offer to God says he in the same Apologetic speaking against other sacrifices a rich and a greater sacrifice then he commanded the Jews Prayer from a chast body from an innocent soul proceeding from the Holy Spirit (g) Ei offero opimam majorem hostiam quam ipse mandavit orationem de carne pudicâ de ammâ innocenti de Spiritu sancto profectam Ib. Apol. c. 30. This is the Host to be offered says Minutius Felix a good mind a pure soul a sincere conscience these are our sacrifices these are the sacred things of God in answer to their not having Altars and Shrines (h) Cum sit litabilis hostia bonus animus pura mens sincera conscientia haec nostra sacrificia haec Dei sacra sunt Minuc Octav. Sc. delubra aras non habemus Ib. which objection made also by Celsus is after the same manner replyed to by Origen Our Altars are the mind of every one that is righteous from whence is truly sent up sweet smelling sacrifices to wit Prayers from a pure conscience (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen contra Celsum l. 8. p. 389. Lactantius when he proposes to speak of sacrifice shows how unsuitable any external one is to God and that the proper sacrifice to him is praise and an hymn blessing alone is his sacrifice we ought therefore to sacrifice unto God by word the chief way of worshipping God is Thanksgiving out of the mouth of a just man directed to God (k) Nunc di sacrificio ipso pauca dicemus sacrificium laus hymnus hujus sacrificium sola benedictio verbo ergo sacrificari oportet Deo summus igitur colendi Dei ritus est ex ore justi hominis ad Deum directa laudatio Lactantius de wero cultu l. 6. §. 25. Could those excellent Advocates for Christianity have no other ways assoiled the charge drawn up against them that they had no sacrifices like all other Religions but by flying to such spiritual and improper sacrifices as Praise and Thanksgiving this plainly demonstrates that they had no proper and visible sacrifice which indeed in so many express words they deny when the word sacrifice was understood strictly and properly (l) Quid ergo sacrificia censetis nulla esse omnino facienda nulla Arnob. disput adversus Gent. l. 7. Had they so accounted the sacrifice of the Mass as our Adversaries do now this might have been given in as the Christian sacrifice instead of all others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clemens Alexandrin Strom. l. 7. p. 707. Par. and yet it is strange they scarce ever mention the Eucharist in those discourses of theirs wherein if it had been a sacrifice it had been most proper and pertinent to have spoke of it and the sacrifice of a man under the species of bread and wine had outdone all the Jewish and most of the Heathen sacrifices and had been a full answer to the objection as it was made by them but say our Adversaries they would not speak of so great a mystery as the Eucharist to unbelievers which they were used to conceal even to Catechumens that were not yet perfectly initiated into the Christian Rites but surely they would not have told a downright lye and denyed that they had any proper sacrifices had the Eucharist been one as we see they did neither did they keep the service of the Eucharist so secret as not to let the Heathens be acquainted with it as is plain from Justin Martyrs Apology where he largely discourses of its whole performance to Antoninus the Emperour (a) Apolog. 2. versus finem and to take off this little subterfuge of our Adversaries I shall adde one thing more on this head which shows beyond all dispute that the Primitive Church had no such opinion of the Eucharists being a sacrifice and that is the same charge of Julian the Apostate who very well understood Christianity and had been a Reader of it in the Church who notwithstanding objected the same thing to the Christians with the Jews and Heathens namely that they had no Sacrifices and that they did not erect altars to sacrifice upon to God (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Julian apud Cyril Alexand contra Jul. l. 10. p. 343. He knew too well the Mysteries of their Religion so as not to be ignorant that the Eucharist was a proper sacrifice had it really been believed to be so by the Church at that time and Cyril's answer to him plainly shows that it was not for he owns the charge and pleads only that we have spiritual and mental sacrifices which are much better (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. p. 345. and instead of Sheep and Oxen and the like visible sacrifices we offer says he for a sweet savour Faith Hope Charity Righteousness and Praise (d,) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. but not a tittle of offering the sacrifice of the Mass which would have been greatly to the purpose had there been any such thing and there was no reason to have refused the mentioning it to Julian who had once been a Christian and so must certainly have known it had there been any such thing in the Christian Church 2. When the Fathers do call the Eucharist a sacrifice they adde such Epithets and Phrases to it as do quite spoil the Roman notion of it for they call it a spiritual sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 't is in Eusebius (a,) Demon ftrat Evangel l. 5. c. 3. Cyril of Hierusalem (b,) Mystagog Catech. 5. Theodoret (c,) Histor Relig and others besides the Greek Liturgies and the Apostolick Constitutions where the word spiritual is generally added to it Now a spiritual sacrifice they must own
tremendous Mysteries and this Prayer or Thanksgiving is used for them all ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Petr in Biblioth Patr. Blessed be God who has vouchsafed us to partake of his immaculate Body and his most precious Bloud That under the name of St. James after the Prayer of the Priest that the holy Spirit coming and sanctifying the Elements would make them become the Body and Blood of Christ that they may be effectual to all that receive them for remission of Sins †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lytur Jacob. Ib. which word all supposes more than the Priest who Consecrates represents the Deacons after the communion of the Clergy as taking up both the Patens and the Chalices to give to the people ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and after they had received of both the Deacons and the People both give thanks to Christ because he has vouchsafed them to partake of his Body and of his Blood * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. The Lyturgy which bears the name of St. Mark describes the Priest as praying for all those who were to communicate that they might be worthy to receive of those good things which were set before them the immaculate Body and the precious Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Chrst †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Marcl Ib. and using these words in his Prayer of Consecration over the Elements That they may become available to all those who partake of them to Faith Sobriety ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and Christian Vertues Which had bin very improper if none but himself had bin to partake of them So that whatever Antiquity and whatever Authority may be allowed to those Lyturgies who go under the names of those Apostolic Saints the advantage of them is wholly for the Communion in one kind And those Churches who used these Lyturgies and so probably ascribed these Names to them as Hierusalem that of St. James Alexandria that of St. Mark these must be acknowledged to have given the Communion in both kinds as anciently and as certainly as it can be proved or may be supposed that they used these Lyturgies But to come to the more Authentic Lyturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom which are now used in the Greek Churches though both the time and the Authors of these may be very questionable yet with all their present Additions and Interpolations there is a manifest proof in both of them for the Communion in both kinds In the former the Priest thus prays for himself and all the Communicants that we all who partake of one Bread and one Cup may be united together into the Communion of one holy Spirit and that none of us may be partakers of the Body or Bloud of Christ to judgement or condemnation * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Easil so that it was plain he did not communicate of the Bread or Cup alone nor was alone partaker of the Body or Bloud of Christ in another Prayer he mentions the people expresly and begs of Christ that he would vouchsafe by his great power to give unto them his pure Bloud and by them that is by the Priests to all the People †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. And as the Priest thus prays for the People and for others before the Communion so he offers up a Thanksgiving for them afterwards in these words We give thee thanks O Lord our God for the participation of thy holy pure and heavenly Mysteries which thou hast given us to the benefit sanctification and health both of our Souls and Bodies Do thou O Lord of all things grant unto us that this may be the partaking of the Body and Bloud of Christ to our sincere Faith ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. In the Lyturgie of St. Chrysostom the Priest having prayed God to make this Bread the precious Body of Christ * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Chrysost Savil. Edit Tom. 6. which is an expression the Church of Rome will by no means allow and that which is in the Cup his Blood †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. that so they may become to those who partake of them for the cleansing of the Soul the remission of Sins ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and the like And having used that Prayer Vouchsafe to give us this pure Body and Blood and by us to all the people He gives the Deacons both the Bread and Wine and uses particular expressions at the giving of each As this hath touched thy Lips and will take away thy Sins and purge away thy Wickedness * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and then afterwards the Deacon having the Cup speaks to the people to draw nigh in the fear of God and in Charity †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. And though there is no particular description of their Communion as there is of the Deacons yet this is onely an Argument that it was the same and had it been different no doubt there would have been an account of it but after all the Priest makes a general Thanksgiving in the name of all Blessing God that he has vouchsafed us this day his heavenly and immortal Mysteries ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. p. 1003. To confirm this observation of the Communion in both kinds from the Lyturgy of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom Cassander in his Lyturgies tells us * Lyturgia Aethiopum sententia orationum ordine actionis fere cum Graecorum Chrysost Basilii Lyturgiis convenit Lyturg. per G. Cassand That the Lyturgie of the Aethiopians agrees with these two both in the prayers and the orders of the performance and in this the people as he informs us pray towards the conclusion That God would bless them who have received the sacred Body and the precious Blood †Populus sub finem benedic nos Domine servos tuos qui sanctum corpus pretiosum sanguinem sumpsimus Benedictus sit qui aedit sanctum corpus pretiosum sanguinem Gratia sit Domino qui dedit nobis corpus suum sanctum pretiosum sanguinem suum Ib. and blessed be God who has given us his sacred Body and precious Bloud And again Thanks be to God who has given us his sacred Body and precious Blood. As to the Lyturgies of the Latins which they call Missals they have received such Additions and Corrections at Rome as was necessary to make them sute with the present Opinions and Practices of that Church but yet we have many of those which have escaped that usage and which contain the Communion in both kinds as appears by the Codices Sacramentorum publisht at Rome by Thomasius where the Gelasian Form that is older than the Gregorian speaks of the Priests communicating alike with the sacred Orders and with all the People ‖ Post haec Communicat sacerdos cum ordinibus sacris cum omni populo P.
Christ i. e. Sacramentally and Vertually In the Ordo Romanus and in the Canon of the Mass it self (c) Te igitur Clementissime Pater per Jesum Christum Filium tuum Dominum nostrum supplices rogamus at petimus ut accepta habeas benedicas haec dona haec munera haec Sancta Sacrificia illibata in primis quae tibi offerimus Hanc igitur oblationem servitutis nostrae sed cunctae familiae taae quaesumus Domine ut placatus accipias Quam Oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaesumus benedictam escriptam ratam rationabilem acceptabilemque facere digneris ut nobis curpus sanguis fiat dilectissimi fiui tui Domini mostri Jesu Christi Ordo Romanus p. 62. Edit Hittorp Canon Missae there is this prayer over the oblations that God would accept and bless these Gifts these Presents these Holy and undefiled sacrifices which we offer to thee c. and another to the same purpose said by their Priest with his hand stretched over the oblata This oblation therefore of our service and of thy whole Family we beseech thee O Lord mercifully to receive c. And again This oblation O Lord we beseech thee to make blessed c. signing upon the oblata That it may be to us the body and blood of thy dearest Son our Lord Jesus Christ All these prayers over the oblations whereby they are presented to God are made before Consecration so that the oblations which are here called Holy and pure Sacrifices are thought worthy of that Name before they are become the Body and Blood of Christ and so made a proper sacrifice in the present sense of the Church of Rome the Canon of the Mass is Older then their New doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass and affords plain evidence for applying the name of sacrifice to the Eucharist upon the account of those offerings and oblations that were made there 2. The Eucharist is called a sacrifice by the Ancients upon the account of those religious Acts and Pious Exercises which are there performed by the devout Communicants and which are called sacrifices both in Scripture and in the Fathers thus our Prayers may be as well a morning as an evening sacrifice Ps 141.2 And therefore as Irenaeus says speaking of the Eucharist God would have us continually offer a gift at his Altar to wit our Prayers and Oblations which are directed to the heavenly Altar †Vult nos quoque sine intermissione offerre munus ad altareâ—est ergo altare in coelis illucenim preces oblationes nostrae diriguntur Iren. l. 4. advers Haers c. 33. though they are made at the Earthly So our Praises and Thanksgivings which are then raised to the highest pitch when we have the greatest instance of the Divine Love offered to our minds are that sacrifice which we are then to offer to God giving thanks to his name Heb. 13.15 Namely for that Miracle of kindness Christ dying for us from which the Eucharist has its name and for which reason it is called a sacrifice of Praise in the Ordo Romanus †Memento Domine samulorum famularumque tuarum omnium circumadstantium quorum tibi fides cognita est nota devotio qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis prose suisque omnibus pro Redemptione animarum sucrum pro spe salutis c. tibique reddunt vota sua Ordo Romanus p. 62. viz. for our Redemption and hope of Salvation and also for those vows which we then render unto God when we present our bodies a living sacrifice holy and acceptable unto God Rom. 12.1 as the Apostle speaks and as St. Austin expresses it the Church is then offered to God and is made one body in Christ when we are made to drink into one Spirit 1 Cor. 12.13 and this is the sacrifice of Christians (b) Hoc est sacrificium Christianorum multi unum corpus sumus in Christo quod etiam sacramento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat Ecclesia ubi ei demonstratur quod in eâ oblatione quam offert ipsa offeratur August Civitate Del l. 10. c. 6. not only a sacrifice of Praise as 't is called by Eusebius (c) Demonstrat l. 1. c. 10. St. Basil (d) Liturg. St. Austin (e) Ad Pet. Diac. c. 9. and other Fathers whereby we offer up unto God the calves of our lips in the Scripture phrase but wherein we offer and present unto God our selves our souls and bodies to be a reasonable holy and lively sacrifice unto him and though we are unworthy to offer unto him any sacrifice yet beseech him to accept this our bounden duty and service according to the Prayer of our Church in its excellent office of the Communion Melchior Canus in his Defence of the sacrifice of the Mass has unawares confest this Truth That Christ did only offer up at his last Supper a sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving For to give thanks says he after the Jewish manner and take the Cup into his hands and lift it up is truly to offer a sacrifice of Thanksgiving When Christ therefore said Do this he plainly commanded his Apostles that what they saw him do they should do also by offering up a sacrifice of Eucharist that is of giving of Thanks (f) Ritu quippe JudaiÌ„so gratias agere calicem in manibus accipiendo levando vere est hostiam gratiarum actionis offerre Quùm itaque dixit Dominus hoc facite planè jussit Apostolis ut quod ipsum facere cernebant id queque illi farerent Eucharistiae hoc est gratiarum actionis hostiam exblbendo Canus in locis Theolog. l. 12. p. 806. and he expresly speaks against Christs offering up a Mass-sacrifice for sin then when the day of the bloody sacrifice was now near and the very hour approaching and when their general sacrifice was nigh by which it pleased the Father to forgive all sins (g) Christum in caenâ sacrificium non pro peceato quidem sed gratiarum tamen actionis obtulisse quod cum sacrificii cruenti dies instaret jam planè aut certè jam appropinquaret hora non oportebat hostiam in caenâ pro peccato Mysticam exhibere cum impenderet generalis hosiia illa in quâ Patri complacuit omnia peccata resolvi Ib. p. 834. which is to make the Eucharist what we are willing to own it a sacrifice of Thanksgiving and is in a few words to cut the very throat of their Cause as to this Controversie 3. The Eucharist is called a sacrifice as it is both a Commemoration and a Representation of Christs sacrifice upon the Cross so 't is a commemorative and representative sacrifice as we call that a bloody Tragedy which only represents a Murder and we give the name of the thing to that which is but the resemblance and likeness of it The Jews called that the Passover which was but a memorial of it
as Gregory de Valentia owns they must This Worship saies he belongs after a certain manner to the species as when the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is worshipt in the humanity which he assumed the Divine Worship belongs also to the created Humanity Pertinet per accidens suo quodam modo ea veneratio ad Species quemadmodum suo modo etiam hoc ipso quod adoratur Divinum verbum in humanitate assumptâ pertinet ejusmodi Divinus cultus ad illam humanitatem creatam secundario neque in hoc est aliqua Idololatria must be also united to Christ Valentia Disput 6. Quaest 11. de ritu oblat Eucharist the same way that his Humanity is united to his Divinity so as to become with that one entire object of Worship as the Species are according to them with Christ in the Eucharist that is they must become one suppositum or one Person with Christ This is so weighty a difficulty as makes the greatest Atlas's of the Roman Church not only sweat but sink under it Valentia a De Idol l. 2. c. 5. owns the wonderful Conjunction the Species have with Christ but denies their being hypostatically united to him but then how are they to be worshipt Since it is owned by him and the Schoolmen that the very Humanity of Christ is to be worshipt only upon the account of its hypostatical Union and tho God be very nearly and intimately present in other Creatures yet they are not to be worshipt notwithstanding that presence because they do not make one suppositum or hypostasis with him or are not hypostatically united to him Bellarmine being pincht on this side removes the burden to t'other that is as sore and can as little bear it Christ says he b Longe aliter est Christus in Eucharistia in aliis rebus Deus Nam in Eucharistia unum tantum Suppositum est idque Divinum caeteraque omnia ad illud pertinent cum illo unum quid faciunt licet non eodem modo Bellar. de Euch. l. 4. c. 30. is much otherwise in the Eucharist than God is in other things for in the Eucharist there is but one only suppositum and that Divine all other things there present belong to and make one thing with that If they do so then sure they are hypostatically united with Christ as T. G's learned Adversary charges upon Bellarmine from this place if they make but one suppositum with him and but one with him let it be in what manner it will they must be hypostatically united to him Bellarmines Licet non eodem modo tho not after the same manner is both unintelligible and will not at all help the matter 't is only a Confession from him that at the same time that he says they are hypostatically united to Christ and make one suppositum with him and one object of Worship that he does not know how this can be and that his thoughts are in a great streight about it so that he doubts they are not hypostatically united at the same time that he yet saies they are so for this is no way imposed upon him as T. G. saies notwithstanding his non eodem modo If in the Incarnation of Christ one should say That the Soul and Body of Christ are both united to his Divinity but that both were not united after the same manner but the Soul in such a manner as being a Spirit and the Body in another yet so that both made but one Suppositum with it and that Divine and that all his humane Nature belong'd to that and made one with that tho not after the same manner would not this be still an owning the hypostatical Union between Christs Divinity and his Soul and Body and so must the other be between Christs Divinity and his Body and the Species if they make one Suppositum and are as they hold to be worshipt as such Thus I have taken care to give you their Doctrine and state the Case with some exactness tho I am sensible with too much length but that is the way to shorten the Controversie and by this means I have cut off their common retreats and stopt up those little lurking holes they generally run to and in which they are wont to Earth themselves As that they worship only Christ in the Sacrament or Christ under the accidents of Bread and Wine and that 't is only Christ or the Body of Christ with which his Divinity is always present is the formal object of their Adoration in the Sacrament and that their Worship is given to that and not to the consecrated Elements or to the remaining Species of Bread and Wine it appears from their own Doctrine and Principles to be quite otherwise and if we take them at their own words they are sufficient to bear witness against them and condemn them of Idolatry but this will be found to be much greater and grosser when the whole foundation of this Doctrine of theirs of the Worship of the Host proves upon Examination to be false and one of the most thick and unreasonable Errors in the World to wit the belief of Transubstantiation or that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are converted into the natural and substantial Body and Blood of Christ so that there remains nothing of the substance of the Bread and Wine after Consecration but only the Flesh and Blood of Christ corporally present under the Species and Accidents of Bread and Wine If this Doctrine be true it will in great measure discharge them from the guilt of Idolatry for then their only fault will be their joyning the Species which how thin and ghostly soever they be yet are Creatures together with Christ as one Object of Worship and unless they alter their Doctrine on this point from what it is now I see not how they can justifie their worshipping with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Worship due only to God not only the adorable substance of Christs Body but the very Veils and Symbols under which they suppose that to lye and yet when they teach as they do the adoring of the Sacrament they must adore the visible and outward part of it as well as the invisible Body of Christ for without the remaining Species it would not according to them be a Sacrament and they have not gone so far yet I think as to deny that there are any remaining Species and that our senses do so far wholly deceive us that when we see something there is really nothing of a visible Object And the same Object which is visible is adorable too according to them If Christs Body were substantially present in the Sacrament tho it were lawful to adore it as there present but by no means either the substance or Species of Bread with it yet it is much to be doubted whether it were a duty or necessary to do so It would be present so like a Prince in Incognito
have Consecrated the Eucharist in such a Tempest in an unconsecrated place and at Sea where according to Cassander ‖ Lyturgic c. 34. Haec Missa sicca i. e. sine consecratione communicatione etiam navalis seu nautica dicitur eò quòd in loco fluctuante vacillante ut in mari flaminibus quibus in locis plenam missam celebrandam non putant In libello ordinis Missae secundum usum Romanae Ecclesiae they are not permitted to use Consecration nor to have the full Mass but onely what he calls the Missa sicca and the Missa Navalis and it is plain Baronius with whose Authority I am now urging de Meaux is of the mind that the faithful did carry the two Species in their Vessel for he says so expresly in so many words * In Navi portasse Navigantes Christi Corpus Sanguinem Baron Annal. an 404. n. 32. There is no getting off the plain and evident Authority of these two great men for receiving the Eucharist in both kinds Monsieur de Meaux though he heaves a little yet cannot but sink under it and it makes him confess That these passages may very well prove that the Bloud was not refused to the faithful to carry with them if they required it but can never prove that they could keep it any long time since that Nature it self opposes it So that if Nature be not against keeping the Wine Custom and Authority it seems are for it and I dare say that Nature will suffer the Wine to be kept as long as the Bread however they who are such friends to Miracles and have them so ready at every turn especially in the Sacrament have no reason methinks to be so afraid of Nature Monsieur de Meaux passes next to the Public Communion in the Church Of Public Communion in the Church And if he can prove that to have been in one kind he has gained his main point however unsuccessfully he has come off with the rest though we see all his other pretences are too weak to be defended and we have destroyed I think all his out-works yet if he can but maintain this great fort he saves the Capitol and preserves the Romish Cause He has used I confess all imaginable stratagems to do it and has endeavoured to make up his want of strength with subtlety and intrigue He will not pretend it was a constant custom to have the Public Communion in one kind but that it was free for Christians to receive either both Species or one only in the Church it self and in their solemn Assemblies and that they did this on some particular days and occasions as in the Latine Church on Good-Friday and almost all Lent in the Greek Now though we have made it out that the whole Catholic Church did generally in their Public Communions use both kinds yet if they left it free to Christians to receive one or both as they pleased or to receive sometimes both and sometimes one this if it can be proved will shew that they thought Communion in one might be lawful and sufficient and that it was not necessary to be in both Let us therefore see what evidence there is for any such thing for it looks very strangely that the Church in all its Lyturgies in all the accounts of celebrating the Communion should always use both kinds to all that partook of the Sacrament and yet leave it free to Christians to receive it in one if they pleased and that on some few days they should give the same Sacrament in a quite different manner then they used at all other times this if it be true must be very odd and unaccountable and unless there be very full and evident proof of it we may certainly conclude it to be false What cloud of witnesses then does de Meaux bring to justifie this what names of credit and authority does he produce for it Why not one not so much as a single testimony against the universal suffrage of the whole Church and of the most learned of our Adversaries who all agree in this truth That the Public Communion was in both kinds for above a thousand years Is there any one Writer in all the Ten nay Twelve Centuries who plainly contradicts it any one between the Apostles and Thomas Aquinas who says it was the Custom of the Catholic Church or any part of it to Communicate onely in one kind Nay can de Meaux shew any particular persons or any sort of Christians that ever were in the World before the thirteenth Age that were against both kinds and received onely in one except the Manichees a sort of vile and abominable Hereticks who are the onely Instances in Antiquity for Communion in one kind These men believing Christ not to have really shed his Blood but onely in phantasm and appearance would not take the Sacrament of his Bloud and by the same reason neither should they have taken that of his Body and thinking Wine not to be the Creature of God the Father of Christ but of the Devil or some evil Principle or bad Spirit and so calling it the Gall of the Dragon they had a general abhorrence from it and so would not receive it in the Sacrament Pope Leo heard that several of these were at Rome and that to cover their infidelity and skulk more securely Cum ad tegendam infidelitatem suam nostris audeant interesse mysteriis ita in Sacramentorum Communione se temperant ut interdum tutiùs lateant ore indigno Christi Corpus accipiunt Sanguinem autem Redemptionis nostrae haurire omnino declinant Quod ideo vestram volumus scire sanctitatem ut vobis hujusmodi homines his manisestentur indiciis quorum deprehema fuerit sacrilega simulatio notati proditi à sanctorum societate sacerdotali auctoritate pellantur Leo Sermo 4 de Quadrag they came to the public Assemblies and were present at the very Sacrament but yet they did so order themselves at the Communion that so they might the more safely hide themselves and be undiscovered They take with their unworthy mouth the Body of Christ but they refused to drink his Blood this he gave notice of to his Roman Congregation that so these men might be made manifest to them by these marks and tokens that their sacrilegious disimulation being apprehended they might be markt and discovered and so expelled or excommunicated from the society of the Faithful by the Priestly Authority Now how can all this which shews plainly that the Communion at Rome was in both kinds be turned to the advantage of Communion in one this requires the slight and the dexterity of Monsieur de Meaux and 't is one of the most artificial fetches that ever were It is the onely argument which he has to prove that the Public Communion was not in both kinds This remark upon the words of Pope Leo and upon the Decree of Gelasius which
bread and Wine they have no subject matter for a sacrifice for 't is not the bread and wine which they pretend to offer nor the bare species and accidents of those nor can they call them a proper propitiatory sacrifice but 't is the very natural body and blood of Christ under the species of bread and wine or together with them for they with the species make one entire subject for sacrifice and one entire object for Adoration as they are forced to confess †Panis corpus Domini Vinum sanguis Domini non sunt duo sacrificia sed unum neque enim offerimus corpus Domini absolutè sed offerimus corpus Domini in specie panis Bellarm de Miss l. 1. c. 37. So that according to their own principles they must both sacrifice and adore something in the Eucharist besides the very body and blood of Christ which is a difficulty they will never get off but I design not to press them with that now but Transubstantiation upon which their sacrifice of the Mass is founded is so great a difficulty that it bears down before it all sense and reason and only makes way for Church Authority to tryumph over both Their wisest men have given up Scripture for it and frankly confest it were not necessary to believe it without the determination of the Church and if so then without the Churches determination there had been no foundation it seems for the sacrifice of the Mass for there can be none for that without Transubstantiation and 't is very strange that a sacrifice should be thus founded not upon Scripture or a Divine institution but only in effect upon the Churches declaration and should have no true bottom without that as according to those men it really has not But Transubstantiation is a Monster that startles and affrights the boldest Faith if the Church be not by to encourage and support it 't is too terrible to be looked upon in its self without having a thick mist of Church Authority and Infallibility first cast before a mans eyes and then if there were not a strange and almost fascinating power in such principles one would think it impossible that any man who has both eyes and brains in his head should believe a Wafer were the body of a man or that a crum of bread were a fleshly substance they do not indeed believe them to be both but they believe one to be the other which is the same thing there is nothing can expose such a doctrine for nothing can be more uncouth and extravagant then itsself it not only takes away all evidence of sense upon which all truth of miracles and so of all Revelation does depend but it destroys all manner of certainty and all the principles of truth and knowledge it makes one body be a thousand or at least be at the same time in a thousand places by which means the least atome may fill the whole World Again it makes the parts of a body to penetrate one another by which means all the matter of the whole World may be brought to a single point it makes the whole to be no greater then a part and one part to be as great as the whole thus it destroys the nature of things and makes a body to be a spirit and an accident to be a substance and renders every thing we see or taste to be only phantasm and appearance and though the World seems crouded with solids yet according to that it may be all but species and shadow and superficies So big is this opinion with absurdities and inconsistencies and contradictions and yet these must all go down and pass into an Article of Faith before there can be any foundation for the sacrifice of the Mass and let any one judge that has not lost his judgment by believing Transubstantiation what a strange production that must be which is to be the genuine of-spring of such a doctrine It is not my province nor must it be my present task to discourse at large of that or to confute the little sophistries with which it is thought necessary to make it outface the common reason of mankind There never was any paradox needed more straining to defend it nor any Sceptical principle but would bear as fair a wrangle on its behalf there is a known Treatise has so laid this cause on its back that it can never be able to rise again and though after a long time it endeavours a little to stir and heave and sruggle yet if it thereby provokes another blow from the same hand it must expect nothing less then its mortal wound I pass to the next Error and Mistake upon which the sacrifice of the Mass is founded and that is this that our blessed Saviour did at his last Supper when he celebrated the Communion with his Disciples offer up his body and blood to his Father as a true propitiatory sacrifice before he offered it as such upon the Cross This they pretend and are forced to do so to establish their sacrificing in the Mass for they are only to do that in the Sacrament they own which Christ himself did and which he commanded his Apostles to doe and if this sacrifice had not its institution and appointment at that time it never had any at all as they cannot but grant Let us then enquire whether Christ did thus sacrifice himself and offer up his body and blood to God at his last Supper Is there any the least colour or shadow of any such thing in any of the accounts that is given of this in the three Evangelists or in St. Paul The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread and gave thanks or blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying take eat this is my Body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me after the same manner also he took the Cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins Is here any mention or any intimation of offering up any thing to God Was not the bread and the cup and what he called his body and his blood given to his Disciples to be eaten and drank by them and was any thing else done with them is there any thing like an offering or a sacrificing of them yes say they Christ there calls it his body which is broken and his blood which is shed in the present tense therefore the one must be then broken and the other shed So indeed it is in the Original Greek though in the Vulgar Latin it is in the future tense and so it is also put in their Missal sanguis qui effundetur this is my Blood which shall be shed and is it not usual to put the present tense instead of the future when that is so near
upon his servant chosen into the Presbytery by the vote and judgment of all the Clergy and fill him with the spirit of Grace and Wisdom to help and govern the people with a pure heart that he may be filled with healing operations and instructive discourse and may teach the people with all meekness and may serve God sincerely with a pure understanding and a willing Soul and may perform the sacred and pure Offices for the people through Jesus Christ And this with laying on of hands is all the Form of Ordination which is so anciently prescribed St. Denis who is falsly called the Areopagite but was a Writer probably of the fifth Century before the Council of Calcedon he has acquainted us with much the like manner of Ordination in that time * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionys Hierarch Eccles c. 5. The Priest kneeling before the Altar with the Holy Bible and the Bishops hand over his head was consecrated with holy Prayers Only there was then added the sign of the cross and the kiss of peace but no such thing as the receiving of power to offer sacrifice and to celebrate Masses for the living and the dead This was a thing unheard of in the ancient Church either Greek or Latin neither was it brought into the Latin till about the year 1000 as is confest by Morinus * de sacris Ordinat pars 3. c. 6. nor is it to this day used in the Greek In that age of Ignorance and Superstition when Transubstantiation and a great many other Errors and Corruptions crept into the Latin Church this new Form of Ordination was set up and the Priests had a new power given them and a new work put upon them which was to sacrifice and say Masses for the quick and dead which had it been agreeable to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and had there been any such opinion then of the Mass-sacrifice as there is now in the Roman Church there would no doubt have been the same forme of Ordination or something like this would have been specified in the consecration of a priest They now make this the great and proper office of the priest and these words with the delivery of the holy Vessels or sacred Instruments is made the very matter and form of the Sacrament of Orders and it is made a charge by them against our Ordinations that we want this essential part of priesthood which is to offer sacrifice but since the primitive Church had no such Form as is fully made out by Morinus a man of great Learning and Credit among themselves who has made a great collection of the most antient Ordinale's to show this and there is no such thing now in the Greek Churches as appears from Habertus on the Greek Pontifical we have hereby not only a full defence of our own Orders without any such Form but a plain demonstration of the novelty of that in the Roman Church and consequently of that Doctrine which is brought in by it or perhaps was the occasion of it of the sacrifice of the Mass 4. It is in it self unreasonable and absurd and has a great many gross Errors involved in it As 1. It makes an external visible sacrifice of a thing that is perfectly invisible so that the very matter and substance of the sacrifice which they pretend to offer is not seen or perceived by any of the senses for 't is Christs body and not the Bread and Wine which is the subject-matter and the sacrifice it self Now this is the strangest sacrifice that ever was in the World a visible oblation of an invisible thing had the Jews offered their sacrifices in this manner they had offered nothing at all and had Christ thus offered himself to God upon the cross only in phantasm and appearance as some Hereticks would have had him and not in the visible substance of his body it would have been only a phantastick sacrifice and we had been redeemed by a shadow 'T is contrary to the nature of all proper sacrifices to have the thing offered not to be seen and not visibly presented to God an invisible sacrifice may as well have an invisible Altar and an invisible Oblation and an invisible Priest for why the one should be more visible then the other I cannot imagine Bellarmines definition of a sacrifice is this which we are very willing to allow of but how it agrees to the sacrifice of the mass I cannot see * Sacrificium est oblatio externa facta soli Deo quâ ad agnitionem bumanae insirmitatis professionem divinae Majestatis à legitimo Ministro res aliqua sensibilis permanens ritu mystico consecratur transmutatur Bellarm. de Miss l. 1. c. 2. A sacrifice is an external Oblation made to God alone whereby for the acknowledging of humane infirmity and owning of the Divine Majesty some sensible and permanent thing is by a lawful Minister and by a Mastic Rite consecrated and changed Now Christs Body and Blood being the res sacrificii the matter of the sacrifice and that being offered to God I cannot understand how that is a res sensibilis a sensible thing in the Eucharist and therefore how according to him it is a sacrifice so necessary is it for a great man to blunder in a bad cause when he must either weigh in a false ballance or whatever he says will quickly be found light 2. It makes a proper sacrifice without a proper sacrificing Act the Consumption and Destruction of the sacrifice was always necessary as well as the offering and bringing it to the Altar and without this it was not properly given to God but kept to themselves as much as it was before if it were not either poured out or burnt or slain which was parting with the thing and transferring it wholly to God this consumption is so Essential to all sacrifices that Bellarmine puts it into the definition of a sacrifice * ut supra and says †ad verum sacrificium requâ—ritur ut id quod offertur Deo in sacrificium plane destruatur Id. de Miss l. 1 c. â— that to a true sacrifice it is required that that which is offered to God in sacrifice be plainly destroyed But how will this now belong to Christs body in the sacrifice of the Mass Is that destroyed there is not that the sacrifice and is not that now in a Glorious impassible State that can suffer no destruction Bellarmine is in a sad plunge to get out here and let us see how he throws himself about but sticks fast still in the mire By consecration says he the thing which is offered is ordained to a true real and outward change and desiruction which was necessary to the being of a sacrifice for by consecration the Body of Christ receives the Form of food but food is for eating and by this it is ordained for change and destruction Is the Body of Christ then
and to the belief of Lies as most Idolaters generally were but may it please him who is the God of Truth to bring into the way of Truth all such as have erred and are deceived in this or any other matter in which charitable and constant Prayer of our Church which is much better than Cursing and Anathematizing its Adversaries I hope as well as its Friends will not refuse to joyn with it FINIS ADVERTISEMENT THere are several mistakes of the Press but most of them are so Plain and Obvious that it is hoped that every Reader will immediately see and correct them without any trouble and without any particular account of them Five Sermons of Contentment one of Patience and one of Resignation to the Will of God By Isaac Barrow D. D. late Master of Trinity Colledg in Cambridg Never Published before in Octavo Printed for Brabazon Aylmer Licensed Aug. 3. 1686. A DISCOURSE OF THE Communion in One Kind IN ANSWER TO A TREATISE OF THE BISHOP of MEAVX's OF Communion under both Species Lately Translated into English LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil MDCLXXXVII AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE of the Publisher THe Translatour of the Bishop of Meaux's Book of Communion under both Species having told us why he made choice of this Author whom he stiles The Treasury of Wisdom the Fountain of Eloquence the Oracle of his Age and in brief to speak all in a word the Great James formerly Bishop of Condom now of Meaux Having thus brought forth this great Champion of the Roman Church he makes a plain Challenge with him to us of the Church of England in these words If this Author write Reason he deserves to be believed if otherwise he deserves to be confuted By this I perceived he expected that we should be so civil as to take notice of so great a Man as the Bishop of Meaux or any thing that bears his Name and not let it pass unregarded by us after it was for our benefit as he tells us made English and besides I did not know but some unwary persons among us might believe the reason he writes however bad and therefore I thought he deserved to be confuted and ought by no means to go without the civility and complement of an English Answer This I doubt not might have been very well spared had the Publisher been pleased to have gone on a little further with his Work of Translating and obliged us who are strangers to the French Tongue with one of those Answers which are made to de Meaux's Book in that Language but since he has not thought fit to do that I must desire him to accept of such Entertainment as our Country will afford him though it is something hard that we must not only treat our Friends at home but have as many Strangers as they please put upon us But we who cannot Translate so well as others which is a much easier part than to Write at ones own charge must beg leave of our French Adversaries if we sometimes speak to them in plain English and the Bishop of Meaux must excuse me if Truth has sometimes made me otherwise answer him then if I were a Curé in his own Diocess Whoever has so great an opinion of the Bishop of Meaux's Vertue and Learning as to take matter of Fact upon his word which the Translatour's mighty Commendations were designed no doubt to beget in his Reader must believe the Communion in One Kind was the Practice of the Primitive and the Catholic Church which if it were true would be a very great if not sufficient excuse for the Roman This the Bishop asserts with all the confidence in the World and this his Book is designed to make out and whoever will not believe it must necessarily question either the Learning of this great Man or else his Sincerity I shall not dare to do the former but his late Pastoral Letter has given too much reason to suspect the latter He that can now tell the World That there has been no Persecution in France and that none has suffered violence either in their Persons or their Estates there for their Religion may be allowed to say That the Primitive Church had the Communion but in one Kind a great while ago But the one of these matters of Fact deserves more I think to be confuted than the other I suppose it was for the sake of the Author that the Translatour chose this subject of Communion in One kind though he says It is a point peradventure of higher concern than any other now in debate between Papists and Protestants this being the main Stone of Offence and Rock of Scandal and it having been always regarded since the Reformation as a mighty eye-sore and alledged as one sufficient Cause of a voluntary departure and separation from the Pre-existent Church of Rome When this Pre-existent Church of Rome fell into her Corrupt Terrestrial and Vnchristian State among other Corruptions this was one that gave just offence and was together with many more the Cause of our separating from it That it gave the Eucharist but in one kind contrary to Christ's Institution and took away the Cup of Christ's precious Bloud from the People But yet this point of highest concern is in the judgement of the Translatour but a bare Ceremony and upon the whole matter the difference herein between the Church of England and the Roman seems to him reducible in great measure to meer Form and Ceremony If it be then I hope it may be easily compromized and agreed for I assure him I am as little as he for making wider Divisions already too great nor do I approve of the Spirit of those who tear Christ's seamless Garment for a meer Form and Ceremony but we who are sometimes thought fit to be called Heretics and to be Censured and Anathematized as differing in Essential matters from the Church of Rome at other times are made such good Friends to it that we differ but very little and there is nothing but Form and Ceremony between us But what is to Accomodate this matter and Reconcile this difference between the two Churches Why the Doctrine of the Real Presence in which Both Churches he says agree that Christ our Saviour is truly really wholly yea and substantially present in the Sacrament This is to close up the difference not onely of Communion in one kind but of the Adoration of the Sacrament and the Sacrifice of Mass too in the Translatour's judgement But does the Church of England then agree with the Roman in the Real Presence of Christ's natural Body and Bloud in the Sacrament Does it not expresly say the contrary namely That the natural Body and Bloud of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here and that it is against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one * Rubric after Office
of Communion So that though Christ be really present by his Spirit and the real Vertue and Efficacy of his Body and Bloud be given in the Sacrament yet his natutural Body is by no means present there either by Transubstantiation or by any other way unintelligible to us as the Translatour would insinuate so that all those consequences which he or others would willingly draw from the Real Presence of Christ's natural Body in the Sacrament as believed by us do fall to the ground and I doubt he or I shall never be so happy as to make up this great breach between the two Churches however willing we may be to do it but instead of making a Reconciliation between them which is impossible as long as the Doctrines of each of them stand as they do I shall endeavour to defend that Article of the Church of England which not onely Modern Novellists as the Translatour calls those who are not for his Real Presence and his Reconciling way but the most learned and ancient Protestants who have been either Bishops Priests or Deacons in our Church have owned and subscribed namely That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian Men †Article 30 th ADVERTISEMENT The Reader is desired to Correct the small Errata of the Press without a particular Account of them A DISCOURSE OF THE Communion in One Kind THE Controversie about the Communion in One Kind is accounted by a late French Writer upon that Subject one of the chiefest and most capital Controversies in Christian Religion * Cum haec quaestio ac Controversia visa sit semper in Religione Christianâ praecipua ac capitalis Boileau de praecepto divino Commun sub utrâque specie p. 217. I suppose he means that is in difference between the Reformed and the Church of Rome it is indeed such a Case as brings almost all other matters between us to an issue namely to this Point Whether the Church may give a Non obstante to the Laws of Christ and make other Laws contrary to his by vertue of its own Power and Prerogative If it may in this case it may in all others and therefore it is the more considerable Question because a great many others depend upon the Resolution of it When it had been thus determined in the Council of Constance yet a great many were so dis-satisfied namely the Bohemians to have the Cup taken from them that the Council of Basil was forced upon their importunity to grant it them again and at the Council of Trent it was most earnestly prest by the Germans and the French by the Embassadors of those Nations and by the Bishops that the People might have the Cup restored to them The truth in this cause and the advantage seems to be so plain on the side of the Reformation that as it required great Authority to bear it down so it calls for the greatest Art and Sophistry plausibly to oppose it One would think the case were so evident that it were needless to say much for it and impossible to say any thing considerable against it but it is some mens excellency to shew their skill in a bad cause and Monsieur de Meaux has chosen that Province to make an experiment of his extraordinary Wit and Learning and to let us see how far those will go to perplex and intangle the clearest Truth He has mixt a great deal of boldness with those as it was necessary for him when he would pretend that Communion in one kind was the Practice of the Primitive Church and that it was as effectual as in both and that the Cup did not belong to the substance of the Institution but was wholly indifferent to the Sacrament and might be used or not used as the Church thought fit How horribly false and erronious those Pleas of his are the following Discourse will sufficiently make out and though he has said as much and with as much artifice and subtilty as is possible in this cause yet there being another Writer later then him †Boileau de praecepto divino commun Sub utrâque specie Paris 1685. who denys that there is any Divine Precept for Communion in both kinds and who hath designedly undertaken the Scripture part of this Controversie which Monsieur de Meaux has onely here and there cunningly interwoven in his Discourse I resolve to consider and examine it as it lies in both those Authors and though I have chosen my own method to handle it which is First from Scripture then from Antiquity and lastly from the Reasonings and Principles made use of by our Adversaries yet I shall all along have a particular regard to those two great men and keep my eye upon them in this Treatise so as to pass by nothing that is said by either of them that has any strength or show in it for my design is to defend the Doctrine of our own Church in this matter which our Adversaries have thought fit to attaque and to fall upon not with their own but the borrowed forces of the Bishop of Meaux whose great name and exploits are every-where famous and renowned but since we have all Christian Churches in the World except the Roman to be our seconds in this Cause we shall not fear to defend them and our selves and so plain a Truth against all the cunning and Sophistry of our Adversaries though it be never so artificially and drest after the French Mode We will begin with Scripture which ought to be our onely Rule not onely in matters of Faith which should be founded upon nothing less than a Divine Revelation but in matters of pure positive and arbitrary Institution as the Sacraments are for they depend merely upon the will and pleasure the mind and intention of him that appointed them and the best and indeed the onely way to know that is by recurring to his own Institution as we know the mind of a Testator by going to his last Will and Testament and by consulting that do best find how he has ordered those things that were of his own free and arbitrary disposal And by this way we shall find that the Church of Rome by taking away the Cup has plainly violated the Institution of our blessed Saviour and deprived the People of a considerable part of that Legacy which he bequeathed to them Let us lay therefore before us the Institution of our Saviour as we find it in the three Evangelists and in St. Paul as he received it of the Lord. Matthew 26.26 27 28. Mark 14.22 23 24. Luke 22.19 20. 1 Corinthians 11.23 24 25. JESUS took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the disciples and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all