God himself ‖ Levit. 17.10,11 For it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls The life of the Beast which was given and accepted by God for the life of the Offender that was forfeited by the Law was supposed to be in the Blood as 't is there added the life of the flesh is in the blood and therefore the Blood of the Sacrifice was poured out and so given to God at the Altar the peculiar vertue and atonement of Christs Sacrifice is attributed to his Blood We have redemption through his blood * Eph. 1.7 We are justified by his blood †Rom. 5.9 In whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of sins ‖ Coloss 1.14 And without shedding of blood either under the Law or under the Gospel there was no remission to be had * Heb. 9.22 Now for Christians to partake and Communicate of that Blood in the Sacrament which was shed and sacrificed for them and by which they have atonement and expiation of Sins this is a peculiar favour and singular priviledge which Christ has vouchsafed to Christians and which he takes notice of at his Institution of this Sacrament Drink ye all of it for this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for you for the remission of sins The Author of the Treatise de caenâ Domini in the Works of St. Cyprian ‖ Nova est hujus Sacramenti doctrina scholae Evangelicae hoc primum Magisterium protalerunt doctore Christo primum haec mundo innotuit disciplina ut biberent sanguinem Christiani cujus esum legis antiquae auctoritas districtissimè interdicit Lex quippe esum sanguinis prohibet Evangelicum praecipit ut bibatur has remarked this as first brought in by Christ and as a new thing belonging to the Sacrament of the Gospel That Christians should drink Blood which the old Law did absolutely forbid but this says he the Gospel commands and St. Chrysostome †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homil. 18. in 2 Cor. observes It is not now as it was formerly when the Priest ate of that which the People might not partake of but now one Body and one Cup is offered to all So it was it seems in his time and they had not then learnt the way of drinking the Blood by eating the Body which now they pretend to do in the Church of Rome we do say they partake of the Blood and the Body both together for the Blood is in the Body and necessarily joyned with it but besides that this depends upon that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Doctrine of Transubstantiation upon which this and a great many other things are built when it is yet too heavy and ruinous to bear its own weight yet this cannot here do the business for we are to drink the Blood and not to eat it that is we are to partake of it as separated from the Body as shed for us or else it is not a Sacramental partaking of it we are to receive Christ's Body as it was a Sacrifice for us but it was not a Sacrifice but as the Blood was poured out and separated from it and we cannot any other way partake of the Sacrificial Blood which is to be drunk by all Christians 5. It is a most groundless fancy and an Opinion perfectly precarious to suppose the Apostles were made Priests at our Saviour's Institution of the Sacrament by those words Hoc facite and that they received the Cup onely as Priests None of the Ancients who write upon this Sacrament or upon these words of its Institution ever thought so nor did it ever enter into the head of any man till a few late School-men invented this new subtilty that they might have something to say against the clearest cause and to shift off if they could the plainest Evidence in the World and though they now generally take up with this Sophistical Evasion which Monsieur Boileau †Creavit instituit Sacerdotes his verbis hoc facite p. 189. insists upon yet some of the wisest men among them are ashamed of it Estius owns that this appears not at all solid nor agreable to ancient Interpreters * Nobis parum solidum videtur nec apud veteres interpretes Dist 12. §. 11. and confesses that Hoc facite belongs to the common People eating and drinking of this Sacrament and that St. Paul refers it to them ‖ Et Paulus 1 Cor. 11. illud facere etiam ad plebem refert edenter bibentem de hoc Sacramento quando ait hoc facite quotiescunque Suarez acknowledges it is not convincing †Hoc argumenti genus per se non convincere Disp 74. Tom. 3. And Alfonsus à Castro * Contra haeres Tit. Euch. p. 99. would not make use of it because he says it does not appear whether those words were spoken by Christ before or after he gave the Eucharist to the Apostles and he rather thinks after and that they took it not as Priests * Ib. He was aware of a difficulty if the Apostles took the Cup onely as Priests and by the right of Priests at the first Institution then it would be contrary to that to have any but Priests receive the Cup And then why is it ever given to the Laiety as it is sometimes by the Pope's favour and concession if it belong onely to Priests and the Priests onely have right to it from the first Institution because the Apostles received it only as Priests But so inconsistent are they to their own Principles that they do not give the Cup even to their Priests unless when they themselves Consecrate and Officiate None but the Minister Conficiens is to receive that though never so many other Priests be by so much at variance are they between this their pretence and their own practice and so do they fight even with their own shadows if the Apostles received the Cup as Priests Why then do not all Priests receive it as well as the Priest who Consecrates if onely he that Consecrates be to receive it then by this rule the Apostles should not have received it at the first Institution for they did not then Consecrate Christ was then alone the Minister Conficiens and so according to them he ought onely to have received it and not the Apostles and yet 't is most probable that Christ did not himself receive either the Cup or the Bread so that if they will keep close to this whimsical Notion of theirs the Minister Conficiens is not to receive at all but to Consecrate and give to the other Priests that are present but further if the Apostles were made Priests by those words Hoc facite which they so earnestly contend and spend so much Critical learning to show that facere signifies to Sacrifice
we cannot be properly said to do that or to receive Christ or his Body and Blood Sacramentally but this way Though the Body and Blood of Christ therefore should be both in one Species and both received by one Species yet this would not be the eating the Body and the drinking the Blood for as one of their own Popes Innocent the Third says and Durandus from him Neither is the Blood drunk under the Species of Bread nor the Body eaten under the Species of Wine for as the Blood is not eaten nor the Body drank so neither is drunk under the Species of Bread nor eat under the Species of Wine * Nec sanguis sub specie panis nec Corpus sub specie vini bibitur aut comeditur quia sicut nec sanguis comeditur nec Corpus bibitur ita neutrum sub species panis bibitur aut sub specie vini comeditur Durand Rational l. 4. c. 42. And therefore though they should be both received according to them by one Species yet they would not be both eat and drank that is received Sacramentally eating and drinking are distinct things and both belong to the Sacrament and though eating and drinking spiritually be as de Meaux says The same thing †P. 184. and both the one and the other is to believe Yet eating and drinking Sacramentally are not but are to be two distinct outward actions that are to go along in the Sacrament with our inward Faith. This Doctrine of Concomitancy and of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ together in that gross manner which is believed in the Roman Church does quite spoile the Sacramental reception of Christ's Body and Bloud for according to that they can never be received separate and apart no not by the two Species but they must be always received together in either of them so that though by the Institution the Species of Bread seems particularly to contain or rather give the Body and the Species of Wine the Bloud and as St. Paul says ‖ 1 Cor. 10.16 The bread which we bless is it not the communion of the body of Christ and the cup which we bless is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ Yet hereby either of them is made the Communion of both and it is made impossible to receive them asunder as Christ instituted and appointed and as is plainly implied by eating and drinking and seems to be the very nature of a Sacramental reception But Fourthly This Concomitancy makes us to receive Christ's Body and Bloud not as sacrificed and shed for us upon the Cross but as they are now living and both joyned together in Heaven whereas Christ's Body and Bloud is given in the Sacrament not as in the state of life and glory but as under the state of death for so he tells us This is my body which is given for you that is to God as a Sacrifice and Oblation and This is my blood which is shed for the remission of sins So that we are to take Christ's Body in the Sacrament as it was crucified for us and offered up upon the Cross and his Bloud as it was shed and poured out not as joyned with his Body but as separated from it the Vertue of Christ's Body and Bloud cometh from his Death and from its being a Sacrifice which was slain and whose Blood was poured out for to make expiation for our Sins and as such we are to take Christ's Body and Bloud that is the vertue and benefits of them in the Sacrament for as de Meaux says * P. 311. This Body and this Blood with which he nourisheth and quickneth us would not have the vertue if they had not been once actually separated and if this separation had not caused the violent Death of our Saviour by which he became our Victim So neither will it have that vertue in the Sacrament if the Body be not taken as broken and sacrificed and the Bloud as shed or poured out and both as separated from one another De Meaux owns We ought to have our living Victim under an image of Death otherwise we should not be enlivened †P. 312. I do not well understand the meaning of a living Victim for though Christ who was our Victim is alive yet he was a Victim onely as he died so that a living Victim is perhaps as improper a phrase as a dead Animal If we are to receive Christ then in the Sacrament as a Victim or Sacrifice we are to receive him not as living but as dead I would not have de Meaux or any else mistake me as if I asserted that we received a dead Body a dead flesh a carcase as he calls it ‖ P. 309. in the Sacrament for he knows we do not believe that we receive any real flesh or any proper natural Body at all but onely the mystical or sacramental Body of Christ or to speak plainer the true and real Vertue of Christ's Body and Bloud offered for us and we are not onely to have this under an image of death that is to have the two Species set before us to look upon but we are to receive it under this image and to eat the Body as broken and the Bloud as poured out and so to partake of Christ's death in the very partaking of the Sacrament de Meaux speaks very well when he says * P. 312. The Vertue of Christ's Body and his Blood coming from his Death he would conserve the image of his Death when he gave us them in his holy Supper and by so lively a representation keep us always in mind to the cause of our Salvation that is to say the Sacrifice of the Cross But how is this image of his Death conserved in his holy Supper if Christ be there given not as dead but living Concomitancy does rather mind us of Christ's Resurrection when his Body was made alive again and reunited to his Soul and to his Divinity than of his death when it was divided and separated from them and it makes us not to partake of Christ's Body as crucified upon the Cross but as glorified in Heaven as it is so indeed Christ's body cannot be divided from his bloud and his whole humanity soul and body are always united with his Divinity but we do not take it as such in the Sacrament but as his body was sacrificed and flain and wounded and his bloud as shed and separated from it They who can think of a crucified Saviour may think of receiving him thus in the Sacrament without horrour de Meaux owns That this mystical separation of Christ's body and bloud ought to be in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice †P. 180 181. And why not then as it is a Sacrament is there any more horror to have Christ's body thus consecrated then thus eaten and received The words of consecration he says do renew mystically as by a spiritual Sword together with
such a manner with a promise of such graces and benefits to those who perform it aright to think he will grant the same benefits to those who perform it otherwise than he has appointed and to venture to make a change and alteration from what he positively ordered and yet think to partake of the same benefits another way without any such outward means and without any Sacraments at all for they are wholly in his own free disposal and he is not tied to any outward means nor to such particular means as the Sacraments are but since he has thought fit to make them the ordinary means of conveying those benefits to us we cannot ordinarily hope for the one without the other thus we cannot expect the vertue and benefit of Baptism without the outward ceremony of washing and without observing that in such a way as Christ has appointed i. e. washing with Water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost neither can we receive the inward grace and vertue of the Eucharist without taking that Sacrament as Christ hath appointed and commanded it for all Sacraments would loose their worth and value their esteem and reverence and would not be necessary to be observed according to the Divine Institution if without the observance of that we had any just grounds to hope for the vertue and benefits of them there is therefore all the reason in the World to fear that God to preserve the integrity of his own Institution and the force and authority of his own Laws will deny the inward Grace and Vertue of the Sacrament to those who wilfully violate and transgress the outward observance of it in such a way as he has appointed Has not Christ annexed the inward Grace and Vertue of the Sacrament to the outward Sign If he have and we do not receive the outward Sign as he has appointed how can we then hope to receive the inward Grace What is it that makes such an outward sign or ceremony as a Sacrament be a means of conveying such spiritual Grace and Vertue and exibiting such inward benefits to our minds It is not any physical power or natural vertue which they have in themselves it is not the washing with a little Water can cleanse the Soul or the eating a little Bread and drinking a little Wine can nourish and strengthen it but it is the Divine Power of Christ who by his Institution has given such a spiritual and inward vertue to such outward signs and visible actions and made these the means and instruments of conveying and exhibiting such grace and vertue and real benefits to us all the power and efficacy they have to do this is owing purely to the Divine Institution and wholly depends upon that if therefore we do not observe the Institution how can we expect the benefit that comes wholly from that and if Christ by the Institution has annexed the grace and vertue and benefit of the Sacrament to both kinds which he has plainly done by instituting of both how can we then hope to receive it by one contrary to the Institution and how can we be assured that we loose nothing and are deprived of nothing by taking one onely and that this is as good and sufficient as taking of both There is nothing appears from the will and pleasure of him that instituted both upon which the whole vertue of them does entirely depend from whence we can gather any such thing it rather appears from thence that both are necessary because bothare instituted de Meaux therefore does not fetch it from thence but from the nature of the thing it self from the inseperableness of that grace which is given in the Sacrament and from the impossibility in the thing to have it otherwise Christ says he cannot seperate the vertue of the Sacrament nor effect that any other grace should accompany his Blood shed than that same in the ground and substance which accompanies his Body immolated †P. 182. But Christ can annex the vertue of the Sacrament to the whole Sacrament and not to any part of it and he can effect that the grace of his Body and Blould should accompany or belong to both the eating his Body and drinking his Blood and not to the doing one of these without the other contrary to his command and institution although the grace be inseparable so that the grace annexed to the Body be no other than that which is annexed to the Blood ‖ P. 3. yet this grace may not be given till both the Body and Blood are received as Bellarmine expresly says it may not in the case of the Priests taking both kinds till the whole sumption of both Species is performed and finished * Possit etiam dici Eucharistiam sub specie panis non conferre gratiam nisi totâ sumptione Eucharistiae absolutâ quia cum sumitur utraque species non censetur absoluta sumptio nisi cum sumta est utraque species ideò Eucharistiam sub specie panis conferre quidem gratiam sed non ante sumptionem alterius speciei Bellarm. de Sacram. Euch. l. 4. c. 23. and if it may not be so in the case of the Priest why not also in all other Communicants unless Christ have made and declared it otherwise which he has not what will it then signifie if as de Meaux says It be impossible to separate in the application the effect of Christ's Bloud from that of his Body †P. 182. If the effect of these be not applied till they are both received and there be no application of the effect as we cannot be assured there is without the receiving of both But did Christ then says he suspend the effect which his Body was to produce until such time as the Apostles had received the Bloud in the first institution of this Sacrament and in the internal between their taking the Bread and the Cup I answer they did not receive the grace of the Sacrament till they had received the whole Sacrament because the grace and effect was annexed to the whole and not to any part of it and therefore the effect may not onely be suspended till the whole is taken but even utterly lost without receiving the whole It is a little too nice and curious to enquire what are the precise moments in which we receive this grace of the Sacrament or any other ordinance as well as what is the particular manner in which we do receive it as whether all at once or by part or whether the effect be given in such a minute or suspended till the next In return to de Meaux's question I might as well ask him whether the effect of the Body is given when 't is just put into the mouth or when the species is chewed there or when it is swallowed down and comes into the stomack or whether it be suspended till all this is done So in Baptism which he will needs have to be
commanded by Christ and anciently practised by immersion Was the grace of it given when part of the body was dipt or the whole immerged and then whether when the body was under water or when it was raised out of it and when this was performed by Trine Immersion as 't is commanded in the Apostolic Canons †Canon 50. was the effect of it suspended till the last immersion was over so in the Jews eating of their Sacrifices whereby they were made partakers of the Altar and had the vertue of those applied to them as we by feeding on the Christian Sacrifice do partake of the vertue of that Was this done by the first bit they ate of them or was the half the vertue applied when they had ate half or was the whole suspended till the whole was eaten By these questions I hope de Meaux may see the vain subtilty and folly of his own which he thinks is so much to the purpose and does the business of proving the effect of the Sacrament to be given by one Species either before or without the other when the effect depends besides other things upon the whole action and the whole performance and the receiving of both of them When there is a conveyance of a thing by some visible ceremony which consists of several parts and several actions as suppose the conveying an Estate by Deed there is to be the setting of a Hand and the putting of a Seal and the delivery of it and something given and received as Livery and Seizin and the like all those things which the Law requires to be done as a form of passing and transferring of a right from one and receiving it by another these are all to be done before the thing is truly and legally and rightly conveyed The Sacraments he knows are outward tokens and visible pledges and solemn rites and ceremonies of Christ's conveying and our receiving his Body and Bloud and all the effects and benesits of them and till all that the Law of Christ appoints to be done in them according to his command and institution be truly and fully performed we do not ordinarily receive nor can we pretend a right to those things which they are designed to convey to us which I think is a plain illustration of the thing and takes off all the vain and nice subtilties of de Meaux about this matter but yet I shall offer something further concerning it First The Grace of the Sacrament which God has annexed to both and not to one Species though it be not to be seperated so that one Species should have a peculiar and distinct vertue proper to that which does not belong to both of them as there were not two distinct vertues in the Sacrifice and the pouring out the Blood of the Sacrifice but one expiatory vertue by the Sacrifice whose Blood was poured out yet this Grace is given in different measures and degrees so that however confidently de Meaux determines P. 179 184. P. 7. 5. 161. That the whole Grace and the entire Fruit of the Sacrament is received by one Species as well as both and that one has always the same efficacy of vertue that both so that we loose nothing by taking one Species onely but that Communion under one is as good and sufficient as under both Yet this is contrary to the opinion of the learned men even of his own Church Vasquez expresly declares the contrary Their opinion says he seemed always more probable to me who say that there is greater fruit of grace received from both kinds than from one onely and therefore that they who take the Cup do attain a new increase of Grace * Probabilior sententia mihi semper visa est eorum qui dicunt majorem frugem gratiae ex utrâque specie hujus Sacramenti quà m ex alterâ tantùm percipi ac proinde cos qui calicem sumunt novum augmentum gratiae consequi Vasquez in Tert. disp 215. c. 2. And he cites several other Writers of the Roman Communion as agreeing with him in this and even one of their own Popes Clement the sixth who granting the Communion of both kinds to one of our English Kings does it with this particular reason set down in his Bull That it might be for the augmentation of Grace †Vt ad Gratiae augmentum sub utrâque specie communicaret Ib. Alexander Alensis said the same before Vasquez namely That the Sumption under both kinds which was that which our Lord delivered was more complete and more efficacious ‖ Sumptio sub utrâque specie quem modam samendi tradidit Dominus est majoris efficaciae complementi Alexand. Alens in 4 sent quest 53. and although he defends and asserts that the Sumption under one is sufficient yet that under both he acknowledges is of greater merit * Licet ill a sumtio quae est in accipien do sub unâ specie sufficiat illa tamen quae est sub duabus est majoris meriti Ib. Suarez tells us This was the opinion of many Catholics That there was more Grace given by both Species than by one alone and grave men says he relate that this was held by most of the Fathers who were present in the Council of Trent and therefore that Council speaks very cautiously and onely says that the Faithful by communicating onely in one kind are deprived of no Grace necessary to Salvation †Fuit multorum Catholicorum opinio plus gratiae dari per duas species quam per unam tantùm Quam viri graves referunt tenuisse plures ex Patribus qui Concilio Tridentino affuerunt ideo idem Concilium cautè dixisse fideles eo quòd communicent sub unâ tantùm specie nullâ Gratiâ ad salutem necessariâ defraudari Suarez Tom. 3. in Tert. Disp 63. So that it seems they may by their own tacit confession be deprived of some grace that is very useful and beneficial to a Christian or of some degree of that Sacramental Grace which is given by both Species and not by one If it were no more than this which themselves own yet 't is pitty sure that Christians should be deprived of that but they can never assure Christians that they are not deprived of all even of that which is necessary to Salvation So far as the Grace of the Sacrament is so because this necessary Grace is annexed not to one kind but to both and the taking the species of Wine is as necessary to receive that by Christ's Institution as the species of Bread for no reason can be imagined why the one should give onely the necessary Grace and the other onely the additional Men must make too bold with the Grace of God and the Grace of the Sacrament who think to give it as they please and to part and divide it as they think fit by their presumptuous and ungrounded fancies and do not wholly depend upon his will
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 tell 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
then they were twice made Priests at the same time for those words were said by our Saviour as St. Paul Witnesses not onely after giving the Bread but repeated again also after the Cup so that the Apostles were doubly Consecrated and the Character of Priests was twice Imprinted upon them at the same time which is another difficulty with which they must be encumbred according to their own principles for though this Opinion be wholly Imaginary yet like the Night-mare 't is a real weight lying upon them and I shall leave them to sweat under it and get it off as well as they can 6. Whatever be the effects and benefits which we receive by partaking of this Blessed Sacrament they depend upon the Institution of it and are not ordinarily to be had without observing of that I say ordinarily because Cases of Necessity dispence with positive precepts as if a sick man cannot swallow the Bread about which there is a Provision in the Eleventh Council of Toledo if the natural Infirmity of anothers Stomack be such that he cannot drink Wine which the French Discipline speaks of and which Monsieur de Meaux †P. 181. makes an Objection against them if the place be such that no Wine is to be had or procured as in Norway where Pope Innocent the Eighth allowed them to Celebrate without Wine in those extraordinary Cases God has not so tied the inward Grace to the outward Signe but that he can give it without it as if a Catechumen willing and desirous of Baptism die without it because he could not have it yet the Church has always supposed he may have the benefit of it and so I charitably hope that the Pious and Religious Laiety in the Church of Rome shall have the benefit of the Blood of Christ though they are deprived of it in the Sacrament and through the meer fault of their Governours and of their Priests are excluded from it and forced to violate the Divine Institution which is all that Calixtus and others which Monsieur de Meaux ‖ P. 277. is willing to take advantage of charitably allow as not being willing to exclude any one for Salvation for what he cannot help but this is no manner of prejudice to the cause that we defend and no excuse in the World for breaking the Institution of Christ and altering his positive precept without any necessity for though God can give the inward Grace and no doubt but he will do it in extraordinary Cases without the Sacrament without either the whole or any part of it yet he will not ordinarily do this nor is it ordinarily to be had or to be expected without keeping to that Institution by vertue of which God has annexed and promised such inward vertues and benefits to such outward signs and holy Symbols and Ceremonies which he himself has appointed and therefore though God if he had pleased might have annexed the whole vertue and effect of the Sacrament to the eating the Bread or to the drinking the Wine alone or might have given it without either of them yet he having by the Institution appointed both parts of the Sacrament hath annexed the grace and vertue to both and not to one only Monsieur de Meaux will needs have the whole fruit and vertue and essential effect of the Sacrament to be given by one species which is the great principle he goes upon which I shall more fully examine afterwards but if the vertue and essential effect depend upon the Institution and it can depend upon nothing else and if both species be instituted by Christ as I have shown then the vertue and effect depends upon both species and not upon one Monsieur de Meaux asks Whether in the very moment the Body of our Lord is received all the effects be not likewise received * P. 328. I answer No because all that is required in the Institution is not then received He farther asks Whether the blood can add any thing essential I answer Yes because that also is in the Institution if one of the Apostles had stopt our Saviour when he had given them the Bread and told them this was his Body and askt him this very question I ask whither he thinks this would have hindred him from going on with the Cup because they had already received the whole vertue and effect of the Sacrament without that and nothing essential could be added by that Christ it seems by the Institution did go on to the Cup after he had given the other species and to say he did not give any essential vertue or efficacy by the Cup is an unwarrantable boldness and blasphemous impudence which may as well deny that he gave any by the Bread this is to make the Cup a very empty signe and naked figure devoid of all inward vertue and efficacy and to serve as de Meaux would have it onely for Representation and a more full and express Signification * P. 176. in which he joyns us to the Cup with those his Adversaries who have the meanest thoughts of the Sacrament and indeed it is to make the Cup wholly superfluous and unnecessary as to the conveying or exhibiting any real Vertue or inward Grace which is to be received thereby and as Monsieur de Meaux is forced to own when he answers that demand to what purpose then was the Institution of both species ‖ P. 179. to make it only a more full Image and Representation of the Sacrifice of Christ but not to give us any of the vertue or efficacy of it Christ he says cannot separate the vertue or effect that any other Grace should accompany his blood then the same in ground and substance which accompanys his body †P. 182. but he can make the whole Vertue and Grace accompany and depend upon both the Sacramental Body and Sacramental Blood together and so he has done by his Institution according to which the Sacramental Grace is not to be expected ordinarily without both but he may deprive those Persons wholly of this who violate his Institution and who receive not both species as he has appointed and commanded tehm which is a very dreadful consideration which should make men afraid to dare to alter any such thing as Christ's own Institution upon which the whole vertue of the Sacraments does depend 7. 'T is from the Institution of the Sacrament that we know what belongs to the substance of it and is essential to it and what is onely circumstantial and accidental I own there were several things even at the Institution of it by Christ which were onely circumstantials as the place where the time when the number of persons to whom the posture in which he gave it for all these are plainly and in their own nature circumstantial matters so that no body can think it necessary or essential to the Sacrament that it be Celebrated in an upper Room at night after Supper onely
ut illud invadere desiderare in mente habere De la Cerda Not. in locum p. 634. Even to Women it seems who I suppose were no Priests Origen upon the Book of Numbers says We drink the bloud of Christ Sacramentally in the Eucharist as well as Spiritually by believing his Doctrine * Bibere dicimur sanguinem Christi non solùm Sacramentorum ritu se cum sermones ejus recipimus Quis est iste populus qui in usu habet sanguinem bibere Origent homil 16. in Num. When he had before asked What people drink of Bloud St. Cyprian admonishes Christians to prepare themselves for the hardest encounters as the Souldiers of Christ Considering that for this very purpose they every day drink the Cup of Christ's Bloud that so they may also shed their bloud for Christ. Gravior nunc ferocior pugna imminet ad quam parare debent milites Christi considerantes idcirco se quotidiè calicem sanguinis Christi bibere ut possint ipsi propter Christum sanguinem fundere Ep. 58. ad plebem Thiberitanam Edit Oxon. And he pleads for giving the Communion to the lapsed upon this very account to arm and fortifie them for farther tryals and persecutions How can we teach or provoke them to shed their bloud for the confession of Christ if we deny them the Bloud of Christ ‖ Nam quomodo docemus aut provocamus eos in confessione nominis sanguinem suum fundere si eis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamus aut quomodo ad Martyrii poculum idoneos facimus si non eos prius ad bibendum in Ecclesiâ poculum Domini jure communionis admittimus Ep. 57. ad Cornel. Or how can we make them fit for the Cup of Martyrdom if we do not first admit them to drink the Cup of the Lord in the Church by the right of Communion The excellent Epistle * Ep. 63. Caecilio fratri of that Holy Martyr against those who out of a principle of abstaining wholly from Wine or lest they should by the smell of Wine which they had drunk in the Morning-Sacrifices discover themselves to be Christians used Water in the Eucharist instead of Wine Simili modo calicem quod si à Domino praecipitur ab Apostolo ejus hoc idem confirmatur traditur hoc faciamus quod fecit Dominus invenimus non observari a nobis quod mandatum nisi eadem quae Dominus fecit nos quoque faciamus calicem Dom. pari ratione miscentes à divino Magisterio non recedamus Ib. Quod nos obandire facere oportet quod Christus fecit faciendum esse mandavit Ib. is so full a demonstration that the Wine ought always to be taken in the Sacrament and that Christ's Institution and Command could not otherwise be observed that there needs no other Arguments but what that great Man there uses to shew the necessity of Christians Communicating in both the Species of Bread and Wine Quare si solus Christus audiendus est non debemus attendere quod alius ante nos faciendum putaverit sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit Ib. Quomodo autem de creaturâ vitis notum vinum cum Christo in regno patris bibemus si in sacraficio Dei Patris Christi vinum non offerimus nec calicem Domini dominicâ traditione miscemus Ib. Christ says he gave the Cup and we are to do that which Christ did and ought by no means to depart from what was commanded by Christ and delivered by the Apostles upon any custom or pretence whatsoever How shall we drink says he of the fruit of the Vine with Christ in the Kingdom of his Father if we do not now offer the Wine in the Sacrifice and mingle the Cup of the Lord as he delivered it to us And that this Wine was drunk by all Christians is plain from that fear which some had lest by their drinking it in the morning they should smell of it * Nisi in sacrificiis matutinis hoc quis veretur ne per saporem vini redoleat sanguinem Christi Ib. p. 155. and so discover themselves to the Heathens It was then it seems a mark to know Christians by That they did smell of the bloud of Christ which if they had done as the Papists now do they need not have been afraid of But to proceed to others who though they speak less of this then St. Cyprian yet speak plainly of Christians taking the Bloud as well as the Body Athanasius speaking of the Cup says It belongs to the Priests of right to give this to the People †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apolog 2. St. Basil in one of his Epistles says It is good and profitable to Communicate every day of the Body and Bloud of Christ ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. ad Caesar And speaking of the peculiar Vertues of Christians asks What is proper to those that eat the Bread and drink the Cup of the Lord * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Moral denoting that to belong to all Christians St. Chrysostom in his Oratorian manner speaks of Christians as being all Died and Purpled with the Bloud of Christ †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Sacerdot l. 3. And thus compares all Christians in general with the Israelites As thou eatest the Body of Christ so did they Manna as thou drinkest the Bloud of Christ so did they Water out of the Rock ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Homil. 23. in 1 Cor. And in another place he expresly observes what I have taken notice of before That 't is not now as under the Jewish Law where the Priest partook of several things from the Altar which the People did not There is no difference between the Priest and the People when we come to receive the Holy Mysteries for one Body and one Cup is offered to all †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. in Homil. 18. in 2 Cor. St Hierom says The Priests serve the Eucharist and divide the Bloud of the Lord among the People * Sacerdotes Eucharisticae serviunt sanguinem Domini populis ejus dividunt Hieron in Sophon c. 2. And upon occasion speaks of some loose and vitious Women who yet would not abstain from the bloud of Christ ‖ Ebrietati sacrilegium copulantes aiunt Absit ut ego me à Christi sanguine abstineam Id. Ep. ad Eustoch So that this it is plain was taken by the Women St. Austin to the newly Baptized Christians says That in all their tryals and their time of being Catechumens they did approve themselves that they might eat the Lord's Body and drink the Cup * Vt cum seipsos probaverint tunc de mensâ Domini manducent de calice bibant August de fide Oper And speaking of the prohibition of Blood to the Jews because
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little of the Sacrament which is the thing he is said to send signifie onely Bread or the solid part or does it not rather signifie a little of both the Species which make the Sacrament as it plainly does in Justin Martyr who speaking of that Sacramental Food under both kinds says this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called by us the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‖ Apolog. 2. And why might not he give him a little Wine as well as a little Bread and why may we not suppose that the liquour he was to moisten the Bread in was the Wine And not as Valesius without any grounds puts in his Translation Water I believe it is a thing strange and unheard of in Antiquity to mix the Eucharistic Bread with meer Water and so take it infused in Water without any Wine Monsieur de Meaux who says the Custom of mixing the two species together was not in use till after-Ages not in public I own but in private it might will be more hard put to it to shew the custom of mixing the Species of Bread with Water and this was so mixt with some liquor that it was rather fluid than solid and so was said to be infused or poured into his mouth * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. That the Wine was used to be carried to the sick as well as the Bread is plain from Justin Martyr if those who were absent from the Public Communion were as it is probable the sick for to them the Deacons carried the very same that they gave to those that were present without any manner of difference †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Martyr Apolog. 2. as is plain from that fore-quoted place in his second Apology And St. Hierom relates of Exuperius Bisnop of Tholouse that he carried the Body of our Lord in a Basket and the Bloud in a Vessel of Glass ‖ Qui corpus Domini canistre vimineo sanguinem portat in vitro Ep. ad Rustic Monach. after he had sold the rich Utensils and Plate of the Church to relieve the Poor and redeem Captives And the Council of Tours thought the Wine so necessary as well as the Bread that it commands that the Bread be always dipped in the Cup that so the Priest may truly say the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ avail unto thee for the remission of Sins and to eternal Life This Cassander * Ego sane demonstare possum etiam infirmis plenum corporis sanguinis Sacramentum dispensatum certè in promtu est Capitulum Turonensis Concilii quod ab Ivone Reginone Burchardo anducitur quo jubetur ut Eucharistia quae in viaticum è vitâ excedentium reservatur intincta sit in Calicem D ◠ut Presbyter veraciter possit dicere Corpus sanguis D ni nostri Jesu Christi prosit tibi in vitam aeternam Cassand Dialog apud Calixt p. 5. produces as a demonstration that the Communion of the Sick used to be in both kinds and the reason which is there given for this is so considerable that it plainly shews that both Species were necessary to make it a true Sacrament and that neither the Body and Bloud of Christ nor the vertue and benefit of them could be given without both and this forces de Meaux to confess †p. 52. after all his shifts and artifices that in effect it is true that in some sense to be able to call it the Body and the Bloud the two Species must be given And further from hence also the whole Doctrine of Transubstantiation and Concomitancy grounded upon it whereby they suppose the Body and Bloud of Christ to be in either of the Species is wholly overthrown and destroyed but this by the by as to Serapion it is strange that the Priest should not rather have sent him the Wine alone if he had intended him but one Species that being more fit to be received and more proper to enter the parcht throat of an agonizing man as de Meaux speaks then the Bread however moistened and therefore it was provided both by the Cannons of some Councils ‖ Concil Carthag 4. Toled 11. and the Decrees of some Popes * Paschal 2. Vrban 2. that in cases of extraordinary necessity which dispence with positive Precepts the sick and dying who could not swallow the Bread might Communicate onely with the Wine but to give them onely Bread as de Meaux would have it in both his Instances of Serapion and St. Ambrose who were both a dying and not to give them the more proper Species of Wine was very strange if they had designed them but one onely Species without the other But I pass to consider St. Ambrose by it self Paulinus who wrote his Life relates this of his Death That Honoratus Bishop of Verceills being to visit him in the night whilst he was at his repose he heard this Voice three times Rise stay not he is a dying He went down and gave him the Body of our Lord and the Saint had no sooner received it but he gave up the Ghost So that it seems he died and received only one kind but who can help that if he did if he died before he could receive the other as it is probable from the History he did If the Roman Priests did like Honoratus give onely the Bread to those who when they have received it die before they can take the Cup this would be a very justifiable excuse and needs no great Authority to defend it but if they will undertake to prove that St. Ambrose had time enough to have received the Cup as well as the Bread before he died which they must meerly by supposing some thing more than is in the History then by the very same way I will prove that he did receive the Cup and that that by a Syneckdoche is to be understood as well as the Bread by the Body of Christ which he is there said to receive And I am sure I have a better argument for this than they can have against it or than these two Instances of Serapion and St. Ambrose are for the custom of Communicating the Sick in one kind and that is a full proof of a contrary custom for their Communicating in both I confess I cannot produce any very ancient testimonies for this because in the first Ages the faithful who used to receive the Communion very frequently in public it being in its self and its own nature a true part of public Worship did seldom or never take it upon their Death beds in private †Vide Dallaeum de Cult l. 4. c. 3. and therefore they who give us an account of the death of several very pious and devout Christians as Athanasius of St. Antony Gregory Nazianzen of Athanasius of his own Father and of his Sister Gorgonia yet they never mention any thing of their receiving the Sacrament at their deaths no more
Species contains both the Body and Bloud together and so conveys the whole vertue of both which is truely Superstition as having no foundation in Scripture or in the Institution of Christ which gives the Sacrament its whole vertue and and annexs it not to one but to both Species And whatever the Superstition be Gelasius declares it is Sacriledge to divide the Mystery or to take one Species without the other the reason which he gives against taking one kind is general and absolute because the Mystery cannot be divided without Sacriledge so that however our Adversaries may assoile themselves from the Superstition in Gelasius they can never get off from the Sacriledge How wide these conjectures from Pope Leo and Gelasius are from the mark which de Meaux aims at I shall let him see from one of his own Communion whose knowledge and judgement in antiquity was no way inferiour to his own and his honesty much greater who thus sums up that matter against one that would have strained and perverted it to the same use that de Meaux does Conjectura vero quam adfert ex Leonis Sermone Gelasii decreto prorsus contrarium evincit nam ex iis manifestè constat horum Pontificum temporibus Communionem non nisi in utrâque specie in Ecclesiâ usitatam fuisse Quomodo enim Manichaei hâc notâ deprehenderentur quod ingredientes Ecclesiam percepto cum reliquis corpore Domini à sanguine Redemptionis abstinerent nisi calix Dominici sanguinis distributus fuisset quomodo superstitionis convincerentur qui sumptâ Dominici corporis portione à calice sacrati cruoris abstinerent nisi calix ille sacrati cruoris omnibus 〈◊〉 Ecclesiâ fuisset oblatus non igitar ut quidam existimant novo decreto utriusque speciei usum hi sanctissimi Pontifices edixerunt sed eos qui solennem hunc receptum calicis sumendi morem neglexerunt ille ut heresis Manichaeae affines notandos evitandos bic ad usitatatam integri Sacramenti perceptionem compellendos aut ab omni prorsus Communione arcendos censuit Nam Catholicis novo decreto non opus erat qui receptam integra Sacramenta percipiendi consuetudinem religiosè servabant Cassand de Com. sub utrâque p. 1026. The Conjecture says he which he makes from the Sermon of Pope Leo and the Decrees of Gelasius does wholly evince the contrary to what he pretends for from them it manifestly appears that in the time of these two Popes the Communion was onely used in both kinds for how should the Manichees be known by this mark that when they came to the Churches they abstained from the Bloud of our Redemption after they had with others taken the Body of the Lord unless the Cup of the Lord had been distributed and how should they be convicted of Superstition who took a portion of the Lord's Body and abstained from the Cup unless the Cup of his sacred Bloud had been offered to all in the Church These holy Popes did not therefore as some imagine appoint the use of both Species by a new Decree but those who neglected this solemn and received custom of taking the Cup one of these Popes would have them avoided and markt as those who were a-kin to the Manichean Heresie the other would have them compelled to the accustomed perception of the entire Sacrament or else to be wholly kept from all Communion for there was need of no new Decree for the Catholics who did Religiously observe the received custom of taking the Sacrament entirely that is in both kinds There needs much better Arguments to prove the Public Communion in the Church to have been ever in one kind than such improbable Guesses and forced Conjectures whereby plain and full evidences are rackt and tortured to get that out of them which is contrary to their whole testimony sense and meaning Let us enquire then whether any particular instances can be given as matters of fact which will make it appear that the Church ever used onely one kind in its Public Communions this de Meaux attempts to shew in the last place and as the strongest evidence he can rally up for his otherwise vanquisht cause He brings both the Latine and Greek Church to his assistance though the latter he owns appears not for the most part very favourable to Communion under one Species but yet this manner of Communicating is practised however and consecrated too by the Tradition of both Churches If it be but practiced in both Churches this will go a great way to make it a Practice of the Catholic Church though neither of those Churches singly nor both of them together do make the Catholic But let us see how this is practiced in those two great though particular Churches Why in the Office of Good-Friday in the Latine Church and the Office of the Greek Church every day in Lent except Saturday and Sunday at those times it seems these two Churches have the Communion onely in one kind as appears by their public Offices if they have it so at those times at other times then I suppose they have it in both or else how come those particular times and those particular Offices to be singled out and remarked as distinct and different from all the rest then generally and for the most part the Public Communion is to be in both kinds according to the Tradition of both those Churches and then surely this Tradition which is thus consecrated by both the Churches is violated by the Roman Of the Mass on Good-Friday in the Roman Church But the Priest himself who officiates takes but in one kind in the Missa Parasceues as they call it or the Mass on Good-Friday as appears by the Office this custom then will shew that the Priest himself or the Minister Conficiens may receive onely in one kind in the Public Communion as well as the People which I think they ordinarily think unlawful and call it Sacriledge if he should ordinarily do so and if I remember Bellarmine himself says * Sacerdotibus utriusque speciei Sumptio necessaria est ex parte Sacramenti nam quia Sacramentum sub duplici specie institutum est utraque species necessariò ab aliquibus sumenda est Bellarm. de Euchar. c. 4. c. 23. The Sumption of both Species is necessary for the Priest who officiates as it is a Sacrament as well as a Sacrifice for since the Sacrament was Instituted under both kinds it is necessary that both kinds be taken by some-body to make it a Sacrament This Communion then of the Priest in one kind must be no Sacrament and the Missa Parasceues must be a very imperfect one and I think themselves are pleased so to call it it must be but equivocally call'd a Mass as Cardinal de Bona phrases it †Missam illam non nisi aequivocè ita dici Bona rer Lyturg. l. 1. c. 15. and consequently such an unusual and extraordinary
and imperfect Communion as this will be no good president nor an instance of any weight and authority to justifie the practice of Public Communion in one kind But after all perhaps there may be a great mistake and this Mass on Good-Friday though it be very different from all others yet may not be a Communion in one kind but in both and so may that in the Greek Church in the Lyturgy of the Presanctified which is used on most days in Lent and then we may relieve the Church of Rome from the difficulty of the Priests Communicating but in one kind and vindicate both the Churches in great measure from being guilty of such an irregular practice contrary to the general practice of the whole Church and to the institution of Christ this cannot to this day be laid to the Greek Church who never uses the Communion in one kind neither privately nor publickly nor could it be charged upon the Roman till long after this particular Mass on Good-Friday was used in it which it is plain it was in the eleventh Age from the Ordo Romanus Amulatius Alcuinus Rupertus Tuiriensis and others but there is no manner of proof that the Public Communion in one kind was brought into the Church of Rome till the thirteenth Century when it came by degrees into some particular Churches as Thomas Aquinas informs us and was afterwards established by a general Decree in the Council of Constance The Mass therefore on Good-Friday though it was a singular and different Office from all others they not thinking it fit for I know not what reasons to make a formal Consecration of Christ's Body on the same day he died but to Celebrate the Communion with what was thus consecrated the day before yet it was not wholly in the one species of Bread but in that of Wine too as is plain from the Office it self and from those Authors who have wrote upon it Corpus Domini quod pridiè remansit ponentes in patenam Subdiaconus teneat calicem cum vino non consecrato alter Subdiaconus patenam cum corpore Domini quibus tenentibus accipit unus Presbyter prior patenam alter calicem defertur super altare nudatum Ordo Romanus p. 75. ex Edit Hittorp The Bread which was Consecrated the day before was brought by the Sub Deacon and a Calice of unconsecrated Wine by another Sub-Deacon and the Priest sets them both together upon the Altar then after some Prayers and particularly the Lord's Prayer he takes the consecrated Bread ‖ Sumit de Sanctâ ponit in calicem Sanctificatur autem vinum non consecratum per sactificatum panem communicant omnes cum silentio Ib. and puts into the Calice and so the unconsecrated Wine is sanctified by the sanctified Bread and then they all Communicate with silence They Communicated with the Bread and the Wine thus mixed together and so their Communion this day was not in one kind But this Wine says de Meaux was not truely Consecrated this Sanctification of the unconsecrated Wine by the mixture of the Body of our Lord cannot be that true Consecration by which the Wine is changed into the Bloud I cannot tell whether it be such a Consecration that does that in his sense but it may be as true a Sacramental Consecration of the Elements for all that not onely by vertue of the mixture and by way of contact as some explain it * Allter in Romano Ordine legitur ut contactu Dominici corporis integra fiat Communio Cassand de Com. sub utr p. 1027. Concil Araus primum but by the solemnity of the action and by all the Religious circumstances that attend it and especially by those Prayers and Thanksgivings which were then used as in Micrologus 't is clearly and plainly exprest †Vinum non consecratum cum Dominicâ Oratione Dominici Corporis immissione jubet consecrare Microlog de Ecclesiast Observ c. 19. in Edit Hittorp p. 742. that the Wine is Consecrated with the Lords Prayer and the Immission of the Lord's Body And why will not de Meaux allow that a true Consecration may be made by those words and prayers as well as by those formal words This is my Body when it is made out beyound all contradiction both by Dallee and Albertinus that the Primitive Church did not Consecrate by those words but by a Prayer and their own St. Gregory says ‖ Apostolos solâ Dominicâ prece praemissâ consecrasse Sacramenta distribnisse Greg. l. 7. Ep. 63. ad Syr. That the Apostles Consecrated the Sacrament only with the Lord's Prayer Which was used here and particularly observed to be so by Micrologus as that whereby the Wine was consecrated so that all Monsieur de Meaux's labour is vain to shew that the Consecration could not be without words And that it cannot enter into the mind of a man of sense that it could ever be believed in the Church the Wine was consecrated without words by the sole mixture of the Body The Consecration might be made without those very formal words now used in the Roman Missal as it was by Prayer in the Primitive Church Walafridus Strabo observes concerning this very Office on Good-Friday that it was agreeable to the more ancient and simple way of the Communion of the first Christians which was performed only with the use of the Lord's Prayer and some commemoration of Christ's Passion * Et relatio majorum est ita primis temporibus Missas fieri solitas sicut modo in Parasceue Paschae communicationem facere solemus i. e. prâmissâ Oratione Dominicâ sicut ipse Dominus noster praecepit commemoratione passionis ejus adhibita Walagrid Strabo de rebus Eccles c. 22. p. 680. Edit Hittorp and yet he did not question but the Consecration was truly made by that simple manner and it did so far enter into the minds of the men of sense that were in those times that they all did believe that the Wine was truly consecrated this way for so says expresly the Ordo Romanus the ancient Ceremonial as he calls it of that Church the Wine is sanctified and there is no difference between that and consecrated that I know of and it is plain they both mean the same thing there for it calls the consecrated Body the sanctified Body †Sanctificatur vinum non consecratumper sanctificatum panem and I know not what Sanctification of another nature that can be which is not Consecration or Sanctifing it to a holy and Sacramental use indeed this may not so well agree with the Doctrine and Opinion of Transubstantiation which requires the powerful and almighty words of This is my Body this is my Bloud to be pronounced over the Elements to convert them into Christ's natural Flesh and Blood but it agrees as well with the true notion of the Sacrament and the Primitive Christians no doubt had
is essential to the Eucharist but the receiving both of them is because they are both commanded and instituted and both of them are the matter of that Sacrament as much as Water is of Baptism in a word without those we cannot do what Christ did and commanded to be done though we may without the other circumstances with which he did them which I think is a very plain way to distinguish the one from the other though de Meaux is so unwilling to see it The second principle of de Meaux is That to distinguish what appertains or does not appertain to the substance of a Sacrament we must regard the essential effect of that Sacrament But must we regard nothing else must we not regard the outward part as well as the inward and does not that appertain to the substance of a Sacrament as well as the other I confess the word substance which de Meaux uses is equivocal and ambiguous for it may signifie either the outward part of it as 't is a sacred sign or symbol and so the matter and form does appertain to the substance oressence of it or it may signifie the inward grace and vertue which is also of the substance of the Sacrament as 't is the thing signified and it is not onely one but both of these that do appertain to the substance of the Sacrament or to speak more clearly and plainly that make it a Sacrament If de Meaux understands nothing else by the substance of the Sacrament but the essential effect of it then his words are confused and run together and he had as good have put it thus That to distinguish what appertains or does not appertain to the essential effect of the Sacrament we must regard the essential effect of the Sacrament Which though it had not been sense yet he had better told us his meaning by it but surely there is something else that does plainly belong to the substance of the Sacrament besides the essential effect 't is strange that de Meaux the Treasury of Wisdom the Fountain of Eloquence the Oracle of his Age as he is stiled by the Translator but who like the Oracles of old too often doubles and equivocates that so great a man should not either understand or consider the plain nature of a Sacrament so as to account the external and visible part to belong to the essence or substance of it as well as the internal or the essential effect Does not every Catechism tell us that the Sacrament is made up of these two parts of the Res Terrena and Caelestis as Irenaeus * L. 4. calls it the Esca Corporalis and Spiritualis as St. Ambrose †De Myst the Sacramentum or outward Sign and Res Sacramenti as St. Austin ‖ De Consec dist 2. and must we not have regard to both these without which we destroy the very nature of a Sacrament as well as to one The very essence or substance if de Meaux pleases of the Sacrament of Baptism lies in the outward washing the body with Water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is the outward form of it without which it was declared null as well as in the cleansing the Soul and we must regard the one as well as the other though St. Peter tells us 1 Pet. 3.21 It is not the putting away the filth of the flesh whereby baptism saveth us but the answer of a good conscience towards God. Yet still we are to observe the outward ceremony and may know by another way namely from the Institution that that does appertain to the substance of it else with the Quakers and Socinians we may leave off all Sacraments and all the positive and outward ceremonies of Christianity and onely regard the essential effect and invisible grace of them which they also pretend to have without the visible sign As washing with water does appertain to the substance of Baptism so does eating Bread and drinking Wine appertain to the substance of the Eucharist and we must regard those which are the true matter of this Sacrament as well as the essential effect of it else how were the Aquarii that used Water and others that used Milk reproved so severely by St. Cyprian and Pope Julius if the keeping to the outward Elements which Christ has instituted and appointed be not as well to be regarded as the inward and essential effect and if these do not appertain to the substance of the Sacrament and could not be easily known and distinguisht from the other circumstances of the Sacrament by other means than by regard to the essential effect which they might hope to partake of without them DeMeaux is so wholly taken up with the essential Effect and entire Fruit and the inseparable Grace of the Sacrament with which words he hopes to blind and amuse his Reader and therefore he drops them almost in half the Pages of his Book that he takes not due care nor is much concerned about the outward and visible part of the Sacrament which he knows is so grosly violated and shamefully mangled and mutilated in his Church and yet this is so considerable that 't is not a true Sacrament without it and Gelasius plainly calls the dividing of the outward part of the Sacrament the dividing of the Mystery and to be plain with him and to give the killing blow to his cause and to all the artifical slights with which he fences and defends it and as he speaks For once to stop the mouth of these Cavillers I shall lay down this principle that the essential effect or inward substance of the Sacrament is not ordinarily to be received or partaken without receiving and partaking the external part or the outward substance of it which is instituted and appointed by Christ And by this plain principle which I have made use of before and shall further strengthen and confirm all that he says about receiving the Grace and Vertue and essential Effect of the Sacrament by one kind will be quite taken off and destroyed but because this is the great Plea and the fundamental reasoning which he every-where uses in his Book I shall therefore fully consider it under these two Questions 1. Whether the same Grace Vertue and Benefit do not belong to one Species or be not given by one Species which is by both 2. Whether one Species containing both Christ's Body and Blood by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and consequently the person of Christ whole and entire by the Doctrine of Concomitancy do not contain and give whole Christ and so the whole substance and thing signified of the Sacrament I. Whether the same Grace Vertue and Benefit be not given by one Species as by both This de Meaux every-where asserts and 't is the foundation he all along goes upon but is it not strange presumption when God has been pleased to appoint such a Religious Rite and Sacramental Action to be performed in
and pleasure for the receiving of it and that way and manner which he himself has appointed Others there are who though they defend the Communion in one kind yet speak very doubtingly about that question Whether more spiritual fruit or more grace be not received by both than by one Salmeron says It is a difficult question because we have nothing from the Ancients whereby we can decide it ‖ Dissicilis sane quaestio propterea quod ex antiquis quicquam vix habemus unde possimus eam decidere Salmer de Euch. no truly the question and the reason of it which is their practice is too late and novel to have any thing produced for it out of Antiquity So that those Doctors who speak of this matter have had various opinions about it * Vt propterea Doctores qui de hac reloqunti sunt in varias iverint sententias Ib. Some saw there was no reason for it and that it was perfectly precarious and ungrounded but others thought it necessary to defend their Communion in one kind Bellarmine himself owns that this is not so certain for divers have different sentiments concerning it neither does the Council openly define it †Haec propositio non est adeo certa de hâc enim variè sentiunt Theologi neque Concilium eam apertè definire videtur Bellar. de Euch. But de Meaux has done it very positively and definitively contrary to many learned men in his own Church and without any warrant from the Council of Trent or any other Secondly To make the whole Grace and Vertue and entire Fruit of the Sacrament to be given by one Species is to render the other wholly useless and superfluous as to the conveying any real vertue or benefit to him that receives it When the Priest has taken the Species of Bread and has by that fully received the whole Grace and entire Fruit of the Sacrament what can he further receive by the Cup and what benefit can he have by it De Meaux will by no means have the effect of the Body suspended till the Bloud is received ‖ P. 3. though Bellarmine is willing it should * De Euch. l. 4. c. 23. But if it be so to the Priests why may it not likewise to the people and if the Priests receive any benefit by the Cup which they would not have without it why may not the people also For they have not yet declared that I know of that the Priest is to receive more grace by the Sacrament than the people What a meer empty Cup must the Priest then receive void of all grace and vertue after he has taken the Species of Bread which has before given him the whole and entire fruit and grace of the Sacrament to which the Cup can add nothing at all It must be then as utterly fruitless to him as the Wine of ablution is to the Laiety and if it be so inconsiderable they need not methinks be so afraid of the Laymens spilling it or dipping their Beards and Whiskers in it but it is still the very natural and true Blood of Christ if it be so 't is strange that it should have no true and essential vertue belonging to it surely Christ's Bloud is never without that nor ought any to have so mean and low an opinion of it Why did Christ give the Cup to the Apostles as part of the Sacrament if they had received the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament before and if so soon as they had received his Body at the same instant they received the whole grace that accompanied that and his Blood too Christ if he did not suspend the effect of the Blood till it was taken must have prevented it and given it before it was Christ no doubt might have given the whole grace and effect of the Sacrament by one Species if he had pleased but if he had done that he would not have given the other nor should we have had two Species Instituted by him if he had restrained the effect of those two to one onely When Christ has appointed two and gave two himself for men to come and argue that one alone may give the whole good of both because the Grace of both is the same and inseparable from either and because Christ did not suspend the effect of one till he gave the other and that 't is impossible he should separate the effect of his Bloud from that of his Body this is to argue at all adventures against what is known from what is secret and uncertain against the plain will of Christ from his power and against what he has done from what he might do and is to set up a precarious and ungrounded Hypothesis of our own from the nature of the thing when the thing itself is purely arbitrary and positive and depends wholly upon Christ's will and pleasure If Christ himself has appointed two Species in the Sacrament to convey the whole and entire vertue of the Sacrament to worthy receivers as he seems plainly to have done by instituting both and giving both to his Apostles and commanding both how groundless and arrogant is it in any to say That one is sufficient to give this and that both are not necessary to this end without knowing any thing further of Christ's will about it and when they believe as de Meaux does †P. 130. That Jesus Christ has equally instituted both parts Yet notwithstanding to make one unnecessary to the giving any real vertue and benefit and to dare to affirm as de Meaux does ‖ P. 4. That the receiving the Blood is not necessary for the grace of the Sacrament or the ground of the Mystery Let me then ask what it is necessary for and why it was equally instituted with the other De Meaux gives not a plain answer to that but tells us That the Eucharist has another quality namely that of a Sacrifice * P. 179. and for this reason both Species are always consecrated that so they may be offered to God and a more lively representation may be made of Christ's death But this is no answer to the question for I do not ask why they are necessary as the Eucharist is a Sacrifice which it is not in a proper sence though it be not my business to shew that here but as it is a Sacrament Why did Christ institute both Species in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament and why did he give both Species to his Apostles He did not give these to them as a Sacrifice for as such if it were so it was to be onely offered up to God but he gave both the Species to his Disciples and why did he do this if the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament was given by one and why does the Priest receive both as well as offer both to God He does not receive them as a Sacrifice but as a Sacrament And why is
the Sumption of both necessary to him as the Eucharist is a Sacrament which Bellarmine says it is upon that very account †Sacerdotibus utriusque speciei Sumptio necessaria est ex parte Sacramenti Bellarm. de Euch. c. 4. If the taking of one be sufficient to convey the whole grace and vertue of both and the other be not necessary for this end All these questions will return upon de Meaux though the Eucharist were a Sacrifice and as to that I shall onely ask him this question Whether Christ did as truly and properly offer up his Body and Blood as a Sacrifice to God when he instituted this Sacrament as he did upon the Cross If he did and therefore two Species were necessary though if his Body and Blood be both together in one that might be sufficient why needed he then to have afterwards offered up himself upon the Cross when he had as truly offered up his Body and Blood before in the Eucharist If two Species are necessary to make a full representation of Christ's death and to preserve a perfect image of his Sacrifice upon the Cross and by the mystical seperation of his Body and Blood in the Eucharist to represent how they were really separated at his death why are they not then necessary as de Meaux says They are not to the ground of the Mystery Is not the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament designed to do all this and to be such a Remembrance of Christ and a shewing forth the Lord's death till he come as the Scripture speaks And do not they in great measure destroy this by giving the Sacrament in one kind without this mystical separation of Christ's Body and Blood and without preserving such a sacramental Representation of it as Christ has appointed But says de Meaux The ultimate exactness of representation is not requisite ‖ P. 175. This I confess for then the eating the Flesh and drinking the Bloud of a man as some Heretics did of an Infant might more exactly represent than Bread and Wine but such a representation as Christ himself has appointed and commanded this is requisite and when he can prove that Christ has commanded Immersion in Baptism to represent the cleansing of the Soul as he has done taking Bread broken and Wine poured out in the Eucharist to represent his Death I will own that to be requisite in answer to his § 11. There ought to be also an expression of the grace of the Sacrament which is not found in one Species alone for that is not a full expression of our perfect nourishment both by meat and drink and if the Sacraments onely exhibit what they represent which is an Axiom of the School-men then as one kind represents our spiritual nourishment imperfectly so it exhibits it imperfectly but however if the whole grace and vertue of the Sacrament be given by one Species the other must be wholly superfluous and unnecessary as to the inward effect and so at most it must be but a meer significant sign void of all grace as de Meaux indeed makes it though the name of a sign as applied to the Sacrament is so hard to go down with them at other times when he says of the species of Wine That the whole fruit of the Sacrament is given without it and that this can adde nothing thereunto but onely a more full expression of the same Mystery * P. 185. II. The second question I proposed to consider was Whether one Species containing both Christ's Body and Blood by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and consequently the person of Christ whole and entire by the Doctrine of Concomitancy do not contain and give whole Christ and so the whole substance and thing signified of the Sacrament This de Meaux and all of them pleade That each Species contains Jesus Christ whole and entire †P. 306. §. 9. so that we have in his Flesh his Blood and in his Blood his Flesh and in either of the two his Person whole and entire and in both the one and the other his blessed Soul with his Divinity whole and entire so that there is in either of the Species the whole substance of the Sacrament and together with that substance the whole essential vertue of the Eucharist ‖ P. 327. according to these Principles of the Roman Church I am not here to dispute against those nor to shew the falseness and unreasonableness of that which is the ground of them and which if it be false destroys all the rest I mean Transubstantiation whereby they suppose the Bread to be turn'd into the very natural Body of Christ with Flesh Bones Nerves and all other parts belonging to it and the Wine to be turned into the very natural substance of his Bloud and since this Flesh is not a dead Flesh it must have the Blood joyned with it and even the very Soul and Divinity of Christ which is always Hypostatically united to it and so does necessarily accompany it and the Body with Christ's Soul and Divinity must thus likewise ever accompany his Blood To which prodigious Doctrine of theirs as it relates to the Communion in one kind I have these things to say 1. It does so confound the two Species and make them to be one and the same thing that it renders the distinct consecration of them to be not onely impertinent but senceless For to what purpose or with what sense can the words of Consecration be said over the Bread This is my Body and those again over the Wine This is my Blood If upon the saying of them by the Priest the Bread does immediately become both the Body and Blood of Christ and the Wine both his Blood and his Body too this is to make the Bread become the same thing with the Wine and the Wine the same thing with the Bread and to make onely the same thing twice over and to do that again with one form of words which was done before with another for upon repeating the words This is my Body Christ's Body and Blood are both of them immediately and truly present and when they are so what need is there of the other form This is my Blood to make the same thing present again which was truly present before It matters not at all in this case whether they be present by vertue of the consecration or by vertue of Concomitancy for if they be truly present once what need they be present again if they become the same thing after the first form of Consecration which they do after the second why do they become the same thing twice or what need is there of another form of words to make the Wine become that which the Bread was before they hold it indeed to be Sacriledge not to consecrate both the Species but I cannot see according to this principle of theirs why the consecrating of one Species should not be sufficient when upon the consecration
of that it immediately becomes both Christ's Body and Blood and what reason is there for making the same Body and Blood over again by another consecration They might if they pleased say over the Bread alone Hoc est Corpus meum hoc est sanguis meus This is my Body and this is my Bloud for they believe it is so upon the saying those words Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body And if it be so as soon as the words are pronounced they may as truly affirm it to be both as one What does it signifie to say they are both present by Concomitancy does not Concomitancy always go along with the Consecration is there any space between the Consecration and the Concomitancy is not the one as quick and sudden as the other and can it be said over the Species of Bread This is my Body before it can be as truly said This is my Blood why therefore may not they be both said together Nay it may be as truly said by vertue of this Doctrine not only This is my Body and Blood but this is my Soul and my Divinity for though they will not say it is made all those yet it becomes all those and truly is all those by this Concomitancy upon the Consecration and it may be said to be all those as soon as it is consecrated and at the same time that those words are spoke There being a distinct Consecration of Christ's Body and Bloud in the Sacrament if Christ's Body and Bloud be really present there by vertue of the words of Consecration yet they ought to be as distinctly present as they are distinctly consecrated that is the Body present in the species of Bread and the Blood in the species of Wine for else they are not present according to the Consecration so that this Concomitancy by which they are present together does quite spoile the Consecration by which they are present asunder and so confounds the two Species as to make them become both the same thing after they are consecrated and renders the consecration of one of them to be without either use or sense 2. It makes the distinct Sumption of both the Species to be vain and unnecessary to any persons to the Priests or to any others to whom the Pope has sometimes granted them and even to the Apostles and all the first Christians who received both for if the one contains the very same thing with the other and gives the very same thing what need is there of having or of taking both that is of taking the very same thing twice over at the same time If one Species contain Jesus Christ whole and entire his Body Bloud Soul and Divinity and all these are given by one Species what can be desired more as de Meaux says Then Jesus Christ himself and what then can the other Species give but the same thing is Jesus Christ with whole Humanity and Divinity to be thus taken over and over and to be taken twice at the same time if he be why not several times more and if he were so this might be done by taking several times the same Species since one Species contains the same as both even the whole substance and the whole essential effect of the Sacrament and the very person of Jesus Christ himself This does so alter the nature of the Sacrament by which we have a continual nourishment conveyed to our Souls and receive the Grace and Spirit of Christ by fresh and daily recruits and in several measures and degrees every time we Communicate that it makes it not onely to no purpose for any person to take more than one Species at once but to take the Sacrament more than once all his whole life for what need he desire more who has received together with the humanity of Jesus Christ his Divinity also whole and entire †P. 314. and if he has received that once there is no reason for receiving it again for this as it renders the Grace and Substance of the Sacrament Indivisible as de Meaux often pleades so it renders it Infinite to which nothing can be ever added by receiving it never so often and if we thus make this Sacrament to give the very Body and Bloud of Christ and so the whole and entire Person of Christ and his whole Humanity and his whole Divinity instead of giving the spiritual Graces and Vertues of Christ's Body and Bloud we then make every Communicant to receive all that by one single Communion which he can ever receive by never so many thousands and we make all persons to receive this alike however different the preparations and dispositions of their minds are and even the most wicked and vile wretches must receive not onely Christ's Body and Blood but even his Soul and his Divinity and his whole and entire Person for though the spiritual graces and vertues may be given in different measures and degrees and in different proportions according to the capacity of the receiver yet the Humanity and Divinity of Christ which is whole and entire in each Species never can Thirdly If Christ's Body and Bloud were thus always joyned together in the Sacrament and were both contained in one Species yet this would not be a true Sacramental reception of them for to make that they ought to be taken as separate and divided from one another his Body from his Blood and his Bloud from his Body and not as conjoyned or mixt together this was the way and manner which Christ himself appointed and this is the onely way by which we can be said to eat his Body and to drink his Blood and as they own they ought to be thus consecrated so they ought also to be thus received for I cannot understand why they might not be as well consecrated together as received together and why it would not be as true a Sacrament with such a Consecration as with such a Sumption nay I think the Consecration this way would have more sense in it than the Sumption for it is nothing so odd and strange to suppose the Bread to be turned into the Body and Bloud of Christ as to suppose that by eating that we both eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ to make eating and drinking the same thing or to say we drink by eating and eat by drinking are very unaccountable and unintelligible expressions so that Concomitancy does wholly confound those two Sacramental Phrases and Sacramental Actions But is it not enough says de Meaux ‖ P. 323. for a Christian to receive Jesus Christ is it not a Sacrament where Jesus Christ is pleased to be in person But Jesus Christ is not received in the Sacrament in any other manner but by receiving his Body and Bloud nor is it his Person he bids us receive but his Body and Bloud and the way by which we are to receive them is by eating the one and drinking the other and
that Tradition would excuse them from a Divine Law. All the instances which Monsieur de Meaux heaps up are very short of proving that and though I have examined every one of them except that pretended Jewish Tradition of Praying for the Dead which is both false and to no purpose yet it was not because there was any strength in them to the maintaining his sinking Cause but that I might take away every slender prop by which he endeavours in vain to keep it up and drive him out of every little hole in which he strives with so much labour to Earth himself when after all his turnings and windings he finds he must be run down If any instance could be found by de Meaux or others of any Tradition or any Practice of a Church contrary to a Divine Institution and to a plain Law of God they would deserve no other answer to be returned to it but what Christ gave to the Pharisees in the like case Why do ye transgress the commandment of God by your tradition ‖ Mat. 15.3 Our Saviour did not put the matter upon this issue Whether the Tradition by which they explained the Law so as to make it of none effect was truly ancient and authentic and derived to them from their fore-Fathers but he thought it sufficient to tell them that it made void and was contrary to a Divine Law. There is no Tradition nor no Church which has ever broke so plain a Law and so shamefully violated a Divine Institution as that which has set up Communion in One Kind the true reason why it did so was not Tradition no that was not so much as pretended at first for the doing of it but onely some imaginary dangers and inconveniencies which brought in a new custom contrary to ancient Tradition These were the onely things insisted on in its defence at first the danger of spilling the Wine and the difficulty of getting it in some places and the undecency of Laymens dipping their Beards in it These were the mighty reasons which Gerson brought of old against the Heresie as he calls it of Communicating in both Kinds †Tractatus Magistri Johannis de Gerson contra haeresin de communionae Laicorum sub utraque specie as if it were a new Heresie to believe that Wine might be spilt or that men wore Beards or as if the Sacrament were appointed only for those Countreys where there were Vines growing De Meaux was very sensible of the weakness and folly of those pretences though they are the pericula and the scandala meant by the Council of Constance and therefore he takes very little notice of them and indeed he has quite taken away all their arguments against the particular use of the Wine because he all along pleades for either of the Species and owns it to be indifferent which of them so ever is used in the Sacrament But I have shewn that both of them are necessary to make a true Sacrament because both are commanded and both instituted and both of them equally belong to the matter of the Sacrament and so to the essence of it and both are ordinarily necessary to the receiving the inward Grace and Vertue of the Sacrament because that is annext to both by the Institution and cannot warrantably be expected without both To conclude therefore Communion in One Kind is both contrary to the Institution and to the Command of Christ and to the Tradition and Practice of the Primitive Church grounded upon that Command and is no less in it self than a sacrilegious dividing and mangling of the most sacred Mystery of Christianity a destroying the very Nature of the Sacrament which is to represent the Death of Christ and his Blood separated from his Body a lessening the signification and reception of our compleat and entire spiritual Nourishment whereby we are Sacramentally to eat Christ's Body and drink his Bloud an unjust depriving the People of that most pretious Legacy which Christ left to all of them to wit His Sacrificial Bloud which was shed for us and which it is the peculiar priviledge of Christians thus mystically to partake of and lastly a robbing them of that Grace and Vertue and Benefit of the Sacrament which belongs not to any part but to the whole of it and cannot ordinarily be received without both kinds O that God would therefore put it into the hearts of those who are most concerned not to do so much injury to Christians and to Christianity and not to suffer any longer that Divine Majesty which is the great Foundation of all Spiritual Grace and Life to be tainted and poysoned with so many corruptions as we find it is above all other parts of Christianity And O that that blessed Sacrament which was designed by Christ to be the very Bond of Peace and the Cement of Unity among all Christians and to make them all one Bread and one Body may not by the perversness of men and the craft of the Devil be made a means to divide and separate them from each other and to break that Unity and Charity which it ought to preserve FINIS A CATALOGUE of some Discourses sold by Brabazon Aylmer at the three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil 1. A Perswasive to an Ingenuous Tryal of Opinions in Religion 2. The Difference of the Case between the Separation of the Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 3. A Discourse about the Charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking us the Question Where was our Religion before Luther 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith being an Answer to Three Questions I. How far we must depend on the Authority of the Church for the true Sence of Scripture II. Whether a vissible Succession from Christ to this day makes a Church which has this vissible Succession an Infallible Interpreter of Scripture and whether no Church which has not this visible Succession can teach the true Sence of Scripture III. Whether the Church of England can make out such a visible Succession 5. A Discourse concerning a Guide in matters of Faith with Respect especially to the Romish pretence of the Necessity of such a one as is Infallible 6. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be Received and what Tradition is to be Rejected 7. A Discourse concerning the Unity of the Catholick Church maintained in the Church of England 8. A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with Respect to the Errours and Corruptions of the Church of Rome In two Parts 9. A Discourse concerning the Object of Religious Worship or a Scripture-Proof of the Unlawfulness of giving any Religious Worship to any other Being besides the one Supream God. 10. A Discourse against Transubstantiation 11. A Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host as it is Taught and Practised in the Church of Rome Wherein an Answer is given to T. G. on that Subject and to Monsieur Bocleau's late Book de Adoratione Eucharistiae Paris 1685. 12. A Discourse concerning Invocation of Saints 13. A Discourse concerning the Devotions of the Church of Rome 14. A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue 15. A Discourse concerning Auricular Confession as it is Prescribed by the Council of Trent and Practised in the Church of Rome With a Postscript on occasion of a Book lately printed in France called Historia Confessionis Auricularis 16. A Discourse concerning the Worship of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints with an Account of the Beginnings and Rise of it amongst Christians In Answer to Monsieur de Meaux's Appeal to the Fourth Age in his Exposition and his Pastoral Letter 17. A Discourse of the Communion in One Kind in Answer to the Bishop of Meaux's Treatise of Communion under both Species Lately Translated into English
intended to dissemble and keep private but as to their Practice it would have been but the same with others and so they could not have been found out or discovered by that But it was taken notice of at the last says de Meaux that these Heretics did it out of affectation insomuch that the holy Pope St. Leo the Great would that those who were known as such by this mark should be expelled the Church How does it appear that their affectation was taken notice of or that they did it out of that does Pope Leo say any thing of this but onely points at their Practice without so much as intimating their reason Was their affectation the mark by which the Pope would have them known As de Meaux slighly but not honestly makes him speak by putting those words of his as relating to his own that went before whereas in Leo they relate not to the doing it outof affectation for he speaks not a word of that but meerly to the not drinking the Bloud This was the onely mark by which they were known as such by these indicia these marks and tokens of not drinking the Bloud they were to be known and discovered and made manifest according to the words of St. Leo by their visible Practice not by their Opinion or their Affectation and for this they were to be expelled the Society of Christians because they refused to drink the Bloud of our Redemption without regard to their private or particular reasons which St. Leo takes no notice of These cunning and dissembling Heretics to cover their dissimulation and infidelity and hide themselves the better which was it seems their main end and design might take the Cup but yet not drink of it nor tast the least drop of Wine and for this cause there must have been time and a particular vigilance to discern these Heretics from amongst the Faithful and not because there was a general liberty to receive one or both Species as de Meaux pretends That liberty is a very strange thing which has no manner of evidence for it which Pope Leo says nothing of but the quite contrary namely that the Body and Bloud were both received in the Communion and which if it had been allowed as it would have bred infinite confusion in the Church so the Manichees might have made use of it to their wicked purpose of receiving onely in one kind The continuance of this fraud and dissimulation either in the Manichees or some other Heretics and superstitious Christians for it does not appear who they were caused a necessity at last in the time of Pope Gelasius to make an express Order and Decree against the sacrilegious dividing of the Sacrament and the taking of one Species without the other And let us now come to consider that as it is in Gratian's Decree Comperimus autem quod quidam sumptâ tantummodò corporis sacri portione à calice Sacrati cruoris abstineant qui proculdubiò quoniam nescio quâ superstitione docentur astringi aut integra Sacramenta percipiaâ—… aut ab integris arceantur quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest pervenire Gratian. decret 3. pars dist 2. We find says he that some taking onely a portion of the Body abstain from the Cup of the holy Bloud which persons because they seem to adhere to I know not what superstition let them either take the Sacraments entirely or else be wholly kept from them because the division of one and the same Mystery cannot be without great Sacriledge Can any thing be more plain or more full than this against mangling and dividing the blessed Sacrament and against taking it in one kind is it possible to put by such a home-thrust against it as this is and will it not require great art to turn this into an argument for Communion in one kind which is so directly against it Surely the substance of words and arguments must be annihilated and transubstantiated into quite another thing before this can be done Let us see another tryal of Monsieur de Meaux's skill Gelasius says he was obliged to forbid expresly to Communicate any other ways then under both Species A signe that the thing was free before and that they would not have thought of making this Ordinance but to take from the Manicheans the means of deceiving Was it then free till the time of Pope Gelasius to receive either in one or both kinds does any such thing appear in the whole Christian Church or is there any instance of any one Public Communion without both kinds is a Decree of a Church-Governour upon a particular occasion against particular Heretics and superstitious Persons new rose up and persuant to a general Law of Christianity and the Custom of the whole Church is that a sign the thing was free before Then it was free for Christians not to come to the Sacrament at all before such and such Councils and Bishops commanded them to come at such times Then it was free for the Priests who minister'd to receive but in one kind before this Decree of Gelasius for 't is to those it is refer'd in Gratian where the title of it is The Priest ought not to receive the Body of Christ without the Bloud †Corpus Christi fine ejus sanguine sacerdos non debet accipere Ib. Though there is no mention of the Priest in the Decree neither was there in the title in the ancient MSS Copies as Cassander assures us ‖ Ep. 19. and it seems plainly to concern neither the Priest nor the Faithful who by a constant and universal custom received in both kinds but onely those superstitious persons who were then at Rome and for I know not what reason refused the Cup and though there was a particular reason to make this Decree against them yet there needed no reason to make a Decree for the Faithful who always Communicated in both kinds and it is plain from hence did so in the time of Gelasius The motive inducing this Pope to make this Decree was because he found that some did not receive the Blood as well as the Body and the reason why they did not was some either Manichean or other Superstition so that this Decree I own was occasioned by them and particularly relates to them and shews that they herein differed from the Faithful not onely in their superstition but in the practice too but to say that he forbad this practice onely in respect of such a Superstition going along with it and that he did not forbid the Practice it self which was the effect of it is so notoriously false that the Decree relates wholly to the Practice and as to the Superstition it does not inform us what it was or wherein it consisted no doubt it must be some Superstition or other that hinders any from taking the Cup the superstitious fear of spilling Christ's Blood or the superstitious belief that one