God himself Thus the Jewish Church might settle the time of Vespers on which their Sabbaths and Feasts were to begin the evening being to them the beginning of the next day so they might appoint also the manner of observing the new Moons thus they might also settle the times of the Three Sacrifices the Daily the Sabbatical and the Paschal when they were all to be offered the same day upon one Altar and determine which of them should be offered first though God himself had not determined it But could they take away any one of these Sacrifices which God had commanded upon a pretence that the other were sufficient without it could they have neglected either the New Moons or the Evening-Oblations which God had appointed because they might appoint what God had not done namely the manner of observing them because they could regulate several things relating to the Law and necessary to the observance of it which God had not determined could they therefore void the Law it self or transgress and violate it in any of those things which God had particularly appointed Thus the Christian Church may order many things relating to Divine Worship and even to the Sacraments themselves which no Law of Christ has ordered or determined as the time the place the outward form and manner of administring them and yet these as de Meaux says Are absolutely necessary for the observation of the Divine Law which cannot be observed without some of those circumstances thus as to Baptism it may appoint it to be performed by sprinkling or dipping because neither of those are commanded by the word Baptize but onely washing with Water as I have shewn before against de Meaux but to do this in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is absolutely necessary because this is commanded though whether with that form I baptize thee or Be thou baptised which is used in the Greek Church is indifferent Thus as to the Eucharist the Church may command it to be taken kneeling or standing which was an ancient posture of receiving it it may use such a form of words in the consecrating the Elements and in blessing the Bread and Wine or another for it is plain one was not always used and St. Gregory tells us That the Apostles consecrated onely with Lord's Prayer †Epist 63. ad Syr. It may use such a sort of Bread and Wine or another for no particular sort is commanded but it is necessary to bless and to give both because both are instituted and both are commanded and the Ministers who are the Stewards of the Mysteries of God ‖ 1 Cor. 4.1 these alone have the ordinary power of blessing and distributing them to the people but they may do this by the hands of the Deacons or by suffering the people to take them and divide them among themselves Such things as these which de Meaux offers to us as great difficulties are onely indifferent things left undetermined by the Divine Law in which the Church has a power to appoint what it thinks most proper for decency and order and edification and thus the greatest knots with which he designed to entangle us are easily resolved and untied and yet not any one of the Divine Laws are in the least loosened or dissolved One of the greatest things he urges for the necessity of Tradition and the Practice of the Church is the Baptism of Infants for which he says we can produce nothing from Scripture but must be forced to resolve it wholly into Tradition as to that I am not willing to begin another Controvesie with him here and therefore shall onely send him to Bellarmine for his satisfaction who proves Infant Baptism from Scripture * Bellarmin de Sacram. Baptismi c. 8 9. as well as from Tradition and says It may be clearly gathered from Scripture it self †Tamen id colligitur satis apertè ex Scripturis But if it were not does it follow because the Church may make a Law which is not contained in Scripture that therefore it may break a Law which is and because it may appoint some things which God has left indifferent that therefore it may forbid what he has absolutely commanded 2. Other instances produced by de Meaux relate not onely to matters Ecclesiastical but to those that were Civil or at least mixt and so belonging to the Power of the Magistrate as the Lex Talionis and the prohibition of Marriage with the Moabites and Ammonites The Civil Magistrate was to see all possible Justice done by the one according to God's own command and it was a commendable act in him to prevent all mischief that might have come by the other though this was done without a Divine Precept by a general Power vested in the Magistrate or a particular and immediate direction perhaps given by God to Esdras and Nehemiah But how these can any way serve de Meaux I cannot imagine in the present Controversie unless he would prove the Magistrate not bound to execute the Lex Talionis at all or that the Jews might have dispensed with the Law in Deuteronomy which forbad Marriages with the Canaanites because upon the same ground and reason they forbad those also with the Ammonites and Moabites afterwards 3. Some cases he mentions were excused upon the account of necessity which when it is notorious and unavoidable dispences with a positive Law. Thus David's eating the Shewbread which it was not lawful but for the Priests ordinarily to eat is approved by our Saviour Matth. 12.4 not upon the account of Tradition or the judgement of the High-Priest but the extream hunger which he and his Companions were then pressed with and which made it lawful for them them to eat of the hallowed Bread when there was no other to be procured But did this make it lawful afterwards for the High-Priest or the Sanhedrim to have made the holy Bread always common to others when there was no such necessity Thus if some Christians lived in a Country where it was impossible to have any Wine this might excuse them from taking the Cup but does this justifie the making a general Law to take away the Cup when there is no such necessity for it and the same may be said of many other like instances 4. In other cases when a Law was founded upon a particular reason the ceasing of that made the Law to cease which was wholly grounded upon it as in the prohibition of eating Bloud and things strangled and Meats offered to Idols this being to avoid giving any scandal to the Jews at that time when the reason of it ceased so did the Law and it is not so much Tradition which makes it void as those general sayings of Christ and the Apostle that nothing which enters in at the mouth defiles the man and that whatever is sold in the shambles may be eat without asking any question for conscience sake As to the Jews defending
those Persons wholly of this who violate his Institution and who receive not both species as he has appointed and commanded team 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 with twelve persons and those sitting or lying upon Beds as the Jews used to do at Meals for the same thing which Christ bids them do may be done the same Sacramental Action performed in another place at another time with fewer or more persons and those otherwise postured or situated but it cannot be the same Sacrament or same Action if Bread be not blessed and eaten if Wine be not blessed and drunken as they were both then blessed by Christ and eaten and drunk by his Apostles The doing of these is not a circumstance but the very thing it self and the very substance and essence of the Sacrament for without these we do not do what Christ did whereas we may do the very same thing which he did without any of those circumstances with which he did it Thus in the other Sacrament of Baptism or washing with water whether that be done by washing the whole body in immersion or by washing a part of the Body in sprinkling is but a circumstance that is not necessary or essential to Baptism but to wash with Water is the very thing in which Baptism consists and the very substance of the Sacrament which is essential and unalterable the quantity of Water with which we wash is not no more is the quantity of Bread and Wine which we eat and drink in the Sacrament but eating Bread and drinking Wine is as essential to the Eucharist as washing with Water is to Baptism Monsieur de Meaux betrays the great weakness of his Cause and his own inability to defend it when to take off the Argument from the Institution he says * P. 168. We do not give the Lord's Supper at Table or during Supper as Jesus Christ did neither do we regard as necessary many other things which he observed And when he recurs to Baptism †P. 173. as if by not using immersion we did not observe the Institution of that Sacrament when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so plainly signifies washing with water without plunging or immerging as Mark 7.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except they are washed or baptized when they return from the Market they eat not and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washings of Pots and of Cups Mark 7.4.8 and in the washing of the dead and divers washings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Jews Hebrews 9.10 which were without any plunging or immerging as is sufficiently made out by all Authors against the Anabaptists A great man must be mightily put to his shifts when he is fain to use such poor cavils and such little evasions as these against a plain command and a clear Institution where to drink is as evidently commanded as to eat and where it is equally commanded to do both and where it appears that doing both those in remembrance of Christ make up the very substance and essence of what was done and commanded by him in the Institution The matter of the Sacraments is certainly of the substance of them Why else might we not Baptize without Water as well as perform the Eucharist without Bread and Wine This the Schools are unanimously agreed in and this was the Argument of St. Cyprian against the Aquarii who used Water instead of Wine of Pope Julius against other Hereticks who used Milk and of Thomas Aquinas against the Artotyritae who offered Bread and Cheese together in this Sacrament they tell them that †Excluduntur per hoc quod Christus hoc Sacramentum instituit in pane Aquinas Part 3. Quest 24. Christ Instituted this Sacrament in another Element ‖ Nulli lac sed panem tantùm calicem sub hoc Sacramento noscimus dedisse Julius P. apud Gratian de Consecr that he did not give Milk but Bread and Wine in this Sacrament and that * Admonitos nos scias ut in calice offerendo Traditio observetur neque aliquid fiat à nobis quà m quod pro nobis Dominus prior fecerit nemini fas est ab eo quod Christus Magister precepit gessit humanâ novellâ institutione decedere they ought to observe the Divine Tradition neither ought any thing to be done but what was first done by our Lord for it is not lawful for any by any Humane and Novel Institution to depart from what Christ our Master commanded and did and that this was a sufficient confutation of them that they did not do that which our Lord Jesus Christ the Author and Teacher of this Sacrifice both did and Taught ‖ Non hoc faciunt quod Jesus Christus Dominus Deus noster Sacrificis hujus Auctor Doctor fecit docuit Cypr. Ep. 63. They all suppose it necessary to use the Elements which Christ used and appointed and that because of his Institution by which it plainly appears what belongs to the Essence and Substance of this Sacrament to wit Eating of Bread and drinking Wine blessed in remembrance of Christ It must be a very strange thing sure to make these to be but circumstances in the Sacrament and to doubt whether they do belong to the substance and essence of it and to pretend that we cannot know this from the Institution Monsieur de Meaux could not have done this in earnest had he not considered the cause he was to defend more than the Institution of Christ in which no man that will not shut his eyes but must see what belongs to the Essence and Substance of the Sacrament It is no less boldness to say as Monsieur Boileau ‖ P. 191. and others do though de Meaux was too wise to offer any such thing in all his Book That Christ himself varied from his own Institution after his Resurrection and gave the Sacrament to some of the Disciples at Emmaus under the one Species of Bread. And that the Apostles after his Ascension and the sending of the Spirit upon them Celebrated the Eucharist together with the whole Multitude of Believers onely in Bread. It will be very strange if the Apostles the very first time they
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 benefits 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 â—â—e 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 onley 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 eos 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 modum sumendi 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 illa sumtio quae est in accipiendo 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
is certainly as easie to know what Christ instituted and what he commanded as to know this and consequently what belongs to the essence of the Sacrament without which it would not be such a Sacrament as Christ celebrated and appointed as to know what it is to eat and to drink and yet Monsieur de Meaux is pleased to make this the great difficulty P. 239 257 349. To know what belongs to the essence of the Sacrament and what does not and to distinguish what is essential in it from what is not And by this means he endeavour to darken what is as clear as the light and so to avoid the plainest Institution and the clearest Command The Institution says he does not suffice since the question always returns to know what appertains to the essence of the Institution Jesus Christ not having distinguisht them Jesus Christ instituted this Sacrament in the evening at the beginning of the night in which he was to be delivered it was at this time he would leave us his Body given for us Does the time or the hour then belong to the Institution does this appertain to the essence of it and is it not as plainly and evidently a circumstance as night or noon is a circumstance to eating and drinking Does the command of Christ Do this belong to that or to the other circumstances of doing it when the same thing the same Sacramental action may be done without them is not this a plain rule to make a distinction between the act it self and the circumstances of performing it Because there were a great many things done by Jesus Christ in this Mystery which we do not believe our selves obliged to do such as being in an upper Room lying upon a Bed and the like which are not properly things done by Christ so much as circumstances of doing it for the thing done was taking Bread and Wine and blessing and distributing them does therefore Christ's command Do this belong no more to eating and drinking than it does to those other things or rather circumstances with which he performed those is drinking as much a circumstance as doing it after supper if it be eating may be so too Monsieur de Meaux is ashamed to say this but yet 't is what he aims at for else the Cup will necessarily appear to belong to the Sacrament as an essential and consequently an indispensible part of it and this may be plainly known to be so from the words of Christ and from Scripture without the help of Tradition though that also as I have shewn does fully agree with those but they are so plain as not to need it in this case Eating and drinking are so plainly the essential part of the Sacrament and so clearly distinguisht from the other circumstances in Scripture that St. Paul always speaks of those without any regard to the other The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ the Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ * 1 Cor. 10.16 For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's death till he come †11.26 27 28 29. Whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup unworthily Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup for he that eateth and drinketh So that he must be wilfully blind who cannot see from Scripture what is essential to this Sacrament from what is not But Monsieur de Meaux thinks to find more advantage in the other Sacrament of Baptism and therefore he chiefly insists upon that under this head and his design is to make out that immersion or plunging under Water is meant and signified by the word Baptize in which he tells us the whole World agree ‖ P. 168. and that this is the onely manner of Baptizing we read of the Scriptures and that he can shew by the Acts of Councils and by ancient Rituals that for thirteen hundred years the whole Church Baptized after this manner as much as it was possible * P. 171. If it be so than it seems there is not only Scripture but Tradition for it which is the great principle he takes so much pains to establish And what then shall we have to say to the Anabaptists to whom de Meaux seems to have given up that cause that he may defend the other of Communion in one kind for his aim in all this is to make immersion as essential to Baptism as eating and drinking to the Lord's Supper and if Scripture and Tradition be both so fully for it I know not what can be against it P. 299. but de Meaux knows some Gentlemen who answer things as best pleases them the present difficulty transports them and being pressed by the objection they say at that moment what seems most to disentangle them from it without much reflecting whether it agree I do not say with truth but with their own thoughts The Institution of the Eucharist in Bread and Wine and the command to do this which belonged to both eating and drinking lay very heavy upon him and to ease himself of those which he could not do if it were always necessary to observe what Christ instituted and commanded he was willing to make Baptism by dipping to be as much commanded and instituted as this though it be not now observed as necessary either by those of the Church of Rome or the Reformed and besides his arguments to prove that from Scripture he makes an universal Tradition of the Church which he pretends all along in his Book is against Communion in both kinds and which is the great thing he goes upon yet to be for this sort of Baptism no less than 1300 years So that neither the law in Scripture nor Tradition as it explains that law is always it seems to be observed which is the thing ought openly to be said for Communion in one kind The Cause it self demands this and we must not expect that an errour can be defended after a consequent manner ‖ Ib. But is Scripture and Tradition both for Baptism by immersion Surely not the word Baptize in which the command is given signifies only to wash in general and not to plung all over as I have already shewn in this Treatise †P. 21. and as all Writers against the Anabaptists do sufficiently make out to whom I shall refer the Reader for further satisfaction in that Controversie which it is not my business to consider at present and so much is de Meaux out about Tradition being so wholly and universally for Baptism by immersion that Tertullian plainly speaks of it by intinction ‖ Omne praeterea cunctationis tergiversationis erga paenitentiam vitium praesumtio intinctionis importat Tertul. de paenir Cap. 6. and by sprinkling * Quis enim tibi tam infidae paenitentiae
viro asperginem unam cujuslibet aquae commodabit Ib. reprehending those who presumed upon pardon to be obtained by Baptism without repentance and S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Magnus determines That the form of Baptism by aspersion is as good and valid as by immersion and confirms this by several examples and instances of the Jewish Purifications †Aspergam super vos aquam mundam Ezech. 36.25 non erit mundus quoniam aqua aspersionis non est super eum sparsa Num. 19.19 Aqua aspersionis purificatio est Num. 19.9 unde apparet aspersionem quoque aquae instar salutaris lavacri obtinere Cypr Ep. 96. Edit Oxon. which were onely by sprinkling It is not the manner of washing nor the quantity or the sort of Water but onely washing with Water which is essential to Baptism and unalterable and so it is not the sort of Bread or Wine or the manner of receiving them that 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 or essence 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 Consecdist 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 * 1 Pet. 3.21 though St. Peter tells us 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 De Meaux 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 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 both are 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 absolatâ 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