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
his Blood * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. The Lyturgy which bears the name of St. Mark describes the Priest as praying for all those who were to communicate that they might be worthy to receive of those good things which were set before them the immaculate Body and the precious Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Chrst †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Marci Ib. and using these words in his Prayer of Consecration over the Elements That they may become available to all those who partake of them to Faith Sobriety ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and Christian Vertues Which had bin very improper if none but himself had bin to partake of them So that whatever Antiquity and whatever Authority may be allowed to those Lyturgies who go under the names of those Apostolic Saints the advantage of them is wholly for the Communion in one kind And those Churches who used these Lyturgies and so probably ascribed these Names to them as Hierusalem that of St. James Alexandria that of St. Mark these must be acknowledged to have given the Communion in both kinds as anciently and as certainly as it can be proved or may be supposed that they used these Lyturgies But to come to the more Authentic Lyturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom which are now used in the Greek Churches though both the time and the Authors of these may be very questionable yet with all their present Additions and Interpolations there is a manifest proof in both of them for the Communion in both kinds In the former the Priest thus prays for himself and all the Communicants that we all who partake of one Bread and one Cup may be united together into the Communion of one holy Spirit and that none of us may be partakers of the Body or Bloud of Christ to judgement or condemnation * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Basil so that it was plain he did not communicate of the Bread or Cup alone nor was alone partaker of the Body or Bloud of Christ in another Prayer he mentions the people expresly and begs of Christ that he would vouchsafe by his great power to give unto them his pure Bloud and by them that is by the Priests to all the People †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. And as the Priest thus prays for the People and for others before the Communion so he offers up a Thanksgiving for them afterwards in these words We give thee thanks O Lord our God for the participation of thy holy pure and heavenly Mysteries which thou hast given us to the benefit sanctification and health both of our Souls and Bodies Do thou O Lord of all things grant unto us that this may be the partaking of the Body and Bloud of Christ to our sincere Faith ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. In the Lyturgie of St. Chrysostom the Priest having prayed God to make this Bread the precious Body of Christ * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Chrysost Savil. Edit Tom. 6. which is an expression the Church of Rome will by no means allow and that which is in the Cup his Blood †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. that so they may become to those who partake of them for the cleansing of the Soul the remission of Sins ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and the like And having used that Prayer Vouchsafe to give us this pure Body and Blood and by us to all the people He gives the Deacons both the Bread and Wine and uses particular expressions at the giving of each As this hath touched thy Lips and will take away thy Sins and purge away thy Wickedness * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and then afterwards the Deacon having the Cup speaks to the people to draw nigh in the fear of God and in Charity †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. And though there is no particular description of their Communion as there is of the Deacons yet this is onely an Argument that it was the same and had it been different no doubt there would have been an account of it but after all the Priest makes a general Thanksgiving in the name of all Blessing God that he has vouchsafed us this day his heavenly and immortal Mysteries ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. p. 1003. To confirm this observation of the Communion in both kinds from the Lyturgy of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom Cassander in his Lyturgies tells us * Lyturgia Aethiopum sententia orationum ordine actionis fere cum Graecorum Chrysost Basilii Lyturgiis convenit Lyturg. per G. Cassand That the Lyturgie of the Aethiopians agrees with these two both in the prayers and the orders of the performance and in this the people as he informs us pray towards the conclusion That God would bless them who have received the sacred Body and the precious Blood †Populus sub finem benedic nos Domine servos tuos qui sanctum corpus pretiosum sanguinem sumpsimus Benedictus sit qui dedit sanctum corpus pretiosum sanguinem Gratia sit Domino qui dedit nobis corpus suum sanctum pretiosum sanguinem suum Ib. and blessed be God who has given us his sacred Body and precious Bloud And again Thanks be to God who has given us his sacred Body and precious Blood. As to the Lyturgies of the Latins which they call Missals they have received such Additions and Corrections at Rome as was necessary to make them sute with the present Opinions and Practices of that Church but yet we have many of those which have escaped that usage and which contain the Communion in both kinds as appears by the Codices Sacramentorum publisht at Rome by Thomasius where the Gelasian Form that is older than the Gregorian speaks of the Priests communicating alike with the sacred Orders and with all the People ‖ Post haec Communicat sacerdes cum ordinibus sacris cum omni populo P. 199. without any difference and all along mentions both the Symbols by the words Sacramenta Mysteria Dona in the plural number and concludes with this Prayer That as many as have taken the Body and Blood of Christ may be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace * Vt quotquot ex hâc altaris partici patione sacrosanctum silii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione caelesti gratiâ repleamur p. 198. The three other are lately published by Mabillon and were used very anciently in the Gallican Church before that Nation had received the Roman Office in all which also there are plain evidences for the Communion in both kinds in the old Gothic one after the Lord's Prayer follows this †Libera nos à malo Domine Christe Jesu Corpus tuum pro nobis crucifixum edimus sanguinem sanctum tuum bibimus fiat nobis corpus sanctum tuum ad salutem
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
as truely the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament though they used not those words of Consecration which the Latines now do and the Latines had them both as truly in the Missa Parascues in which as Strabo says they used the old simple manner of Communion as much as on any other days De Meaux must either deny that Consecration of the Elements may be truly performed by that simple and ancient way which will be to deny the Apostolic and first Ages to have had any true Consecration or else he must own this to be a true one The Roman Order says not onely the Wine is Consecrated which it does in more places then one but that it is fully and wholly Consecrated so that the people may be confirmed by it ‖ Vt ex eadem sacro vase confirmetur populus quia vinum etiam non consecratum sed sanguine Domini commixtum sanctificatur per omnem modum Ord. Rom. a phrase often used in Ecclesiastical Writers for partaking of the Cup and entire Sacrament Amalarius thinks this to be so true a Consecration that he says * Qui juxta ordinem libelli per commixtionem panis vini consecrat vinum non observat traditionem Ecclesiae de quâ dicit Innocentius isto biduo Sacramenta penitùs non celebrari Amalar. Fortunat. de Eccles Offic. l. 1. c. 15. Edit Hittorp He who according to the order of that Book Consecrates the Wine by the commixtion of the Bread and Wine does not observe the Tradition of the Church of which Innocent speaks that on these two days Friday and Saturday before Easter no Sacraments at all should be Celebrated So that he complains of it because such a Consecration is used on that day The Author of the Book of Divine Offices under the name of Alcuinus †De hâc autem Communicatione utrum debeat fieri suprà relatum est Sanctificatur autem vinum non consecratum per sanctificatum panem Alcuini lib. de Off. div p. 253. Ib. makes a question whether there ought to be such a Communion but says expresly that the Vnconsecrated Wine is sanctified by the sanctified Bread. Micrologus says the same in the place produced before that it is Consecrated by Prayer as well as mixture with the Body and he gives this as a reason against Intinction in that Chapter ‖ C. 19. In parascene vinum non consecratum cum Doninicâ oratione Dominici corporis immissione jubet consecrare ut populus plenè possit communicare quod utique superfluo praeciperet si intinctum Dominicum à priore die corpus servaretur ita intinctum populo ad Communicandum sufficere videretur that the Wine is Consecrated on that day so that the people might fully Communicate to shew that it would not have been sufficient as he thinks to have had the Bread dipt in the Wine the day before and so kept and I suppose he was of de Meaux's mind that the Wine was not so fit to be kept for fear of that change which might happen to it even from one day to the next but he is so far from Communion in one kind that in that very Chapter against Intinction he mentions Pope Julius his Decree * Julius Papa bujusmodi intinctionem penitus prohibet seorsùm panem seorsùm calicem juxta Dominicam institutionem sumenda docet which forbids that and commands the Bread to be given by it self and the Wine by it self according to Christ's Institution and likewise the Decree of Gelasius †Vnde beatus Gelasius excommunicari illos praecepit quicunque sumpto corpore Dominico à calicis participatione se abstinerent nam ipse in eodem decreto asserit bujusmodi Sacramentorum divisio sine grandi sacrilegio provenire non potest Ib. Microlog in these words He commanded those to be Excommunicated who taking the Lord's Body abstained from the participation of the Cup And he asserts says he in the same Decree that this division of the Sacraments could not be without great Sacriledge So that this man could not be a favourer of Communion in one kind or an asserter that the Good Friday Communion was such When ever this Communion came into the Latine Church for it was not ancient to have any Communion on those two days on which Christ died and was buried yet it will by no means serve the purpose of de Meaux for Communion in the Church in one kind for it is plain this Communion was in both and it was the belief of the Church and of all those who writ upon the Roman Order except Hugo de St. Victore who is very late and no older than the twelfth Century when Corruptions were come to a great height that the Communion on that day was full and entire as well with the Bread which was reserved the day before as with the Wine which was truly Consecrated on that and held to be so by the opinion of them all Of the Office of the Presanctified in the Greek Church The Lyturgy of the Presanctified in the Greek Church will afford as little assistance if not much less to de Meaux's Opinion of Public Communion in one kind then the Missa Parasceues we see has done in the Latine the Greeks do not think fit solemnly to Consecrate the Eucharist which is a Religious Feast of Joy upon those days which they appoint to Fasting Mortification and Sadness and therefore during the whole time of Lent they Consecrate onely upon Saturdays and Sundays on which they do not fast and all the other five days of the Week they receive the Communion in those Elements which are Consecrated upon those two days which they therefore call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presanctified The antiquity of this observation cannot be contested as de Meaux says seeing it appears not in the sixth Age as he would have it but in the seventh whereas the beginning of the Latin Office on Good-Friday is very uncertain and there is no evidence for it till towards the ninth Century In a Council held under Justinian in the Hall of the Imperial Palace at Constantinople called therefore in Trullo An. 686 there is a Canon which commands that on all days of Lent except Saturday and Sunday and the day of the Annunciation the Communion be made of the Presanctified there was long before a Canon in the Council of Laodicea which forbad any Oblation to be made in Lent but upon those days viz. The Sabbath and the Lord's Day but that says nothing of the Presanctified nor of any Communion on the other days but let it be as ancient as they please although it be a peculiar Office which is neither in the Lyturgy of St. Basil or St. Chrysostom but is to be found by it self in the Bibliotheca Patrum where it is translated by Genebrardus it is most abominably false that it was onely the Bread which
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
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
see if any such matter is to be found in them which I confess will be very surprizing if they be As to the first St. Luke tells us Chap. 24. That the same day Christ was risen two of the Disciples the name of one of which was Cleophas going to Emmaus a Village near to Hierusalem Christ as they were Communing together about him and his Resurrection drew near and went along with them and discourst to them about those things as a person unknown and going into a House and sitting at meat with them he took bread and blessed it and brake and gave to them v. 30. Here say they Christ gave the Sacrament and gave it onely in Bread for he took bread and blessed and brake and gave to them which are the very words used at his giving his last Supper But must Christ always be supposed to give the Sacrament whenever he took bread and blessed and brake it and gave it to others Then he did so when he filled the five thousand with five Loaves and two Fishes for then he looked up to heaven and blessed and brake the loaves and gave them to others Mark 6.41 Mat. 14.19 And so he did when he filled four thousand at another time he took the seven loaves and gave thanks and brake and gave to his disciples to set before them Mark 8.6 Here though he blessed the Bread and gave thanks as was always the custom of Pious and Religious Men at their ordinary meals and though he brake the Bread which is a Jewish phrase for distributing and giving it yet it cannot in the least be pretended that in any of these places he gave the Sacrament nor is there any manner of reason to suppose he did so at Emmaus with these Disciples but to satisfie them of the truth of himself and his Resurrection he took meat with them as he did afterwards with the Eleven Apostles and by his behaviour at Table and by his form of Blessing which was probably the same he used at other times and by thus seeing and conversing with him more intimately at Table they came to understand who it was and their eyes were opened and they knew him or as is v. 35. he was known to them in breaking of bread that is in eating with him not that any thing miraculous or extraordinary was here shewn by Christ or wrought upon them any more than was to the Apostles afterwards to whom he shewed himself likewise and took meat with them to give them full satisfaction that it was the same person who was Crucified and who was risen with the same Body he had before or if they were illuminated and their eyes open'd in an extraordinary manner at that time yet it was not necessary this should be done by the Sacrament of all the vertues of which the opening mens eyes and curing them of Infidelity is the least to be ascribed to it since it is onely to be taken by those who do believe and whose eyes are opened before though this may sometimes be applyed to it by way of Allegory and allusion as it is by St. Austine Theophylact and others who make the Pool of Bethesda and the curing of the Lame and the Leprous by a word to be as much Sacramental as they do this that is to have some signification or resemblance to Spiritual things But there is not one Father or ancient Interpreter who does plainly affirm that Christ did here give the Sacrament to those Disciples at Emmaus The Bread which Christ blessed was no more truly made a Sacrament thereby than the House of Cleophas was dedicated into a Church by Christ's presence and Divine Discourses there which yet it might be according to St. Hierom's words without any administring of the Sacrament of which that place quoted out of him makes no mention Boileau p. 192. But if it must be supposed without any Authority and without any Reason that Christ did here give the Sacrament it must also be granted that he did something more than is related in that short account which is there given he must not onely have blessed and brake the bread and given it to them but he must have done it with those words This is my body which they say are always necessary to the true Consecration of this Sacrament And if he may be supposed to have used those though they are not mentioned which is a good argument to prove it was not the Sacrament but onely an ordinary Meal then we may as well suppose that at the same time he used Wine too though that is not mentioned and though we have no account of any Drink which yet we cannot but think they had at that Supper let it be what it will eating together and sitting at meat includes and supposes drinking too though there is no particular or express mention of it As in the 2. Second place in those several instances out of the Acts of the Apostles wherein it is said of the first Converts to Christianity that they continued in breaking of Bread and in Prayer †Acts 2.42 and in breaking Bread from house to house ‖ Acts 2.46 and that they came together on the first day of the Week to break Bread * Acts 20.7 which I am willing to allow may be meant of the Sacrament though a great many Learned men think they belong to the charitable and friendly way of living among those first Christians who had all things in common and who came to eat together at the same time that they came to pray and contrived these daily meetings for Worship and Refreshment in the same house for greater conveniency Yet that they did not drink together as well as eat and that by an usual Synecdoche both those are not included in the Phrase of breaking of Bread is not to be imagined Bread was a word by which not onely amongst the Jews but all Nations all manner of food and nourishment necessary to life was signified as being the most considerable part of it so that we mean this when we pray for our daily Bread and when we say a man wanteth Bread and so to break our Bread to the hungry Isa 58.7 and by the young childrens asking bread and no man breaketh it unto them Lament 4.4 the same is imported To break Bread was an usual Hebrew expression for giving all manner of food as appears by those instances so that when Bread which is but one part of food is expressed yet the other is included and meant also as when Christ went into the house of one of the chief Pharises to eat bread Luke 14.1 we cannot suppose that he had only such a dry Banquet as not to drink with him too and when Joseph told the Steward of his house that he should prepare an entertainment for his brethren for they are to eat with me at noon Gen. 43.16 hodie sunt mecum comesturi as in the vulgar he did not I
suppose think they were not to drink with him too and that he was not to provide Wine as well as other Victuals neither did Joseph's own Brethren suspect he would send them away dry and thirsty when they onely heard that they should eat bread there v 25. Notwithstanding this alone is mentioned yet they met with plenty of Wine too as may be seen at the latter end of the Chapter where in the vulgar Latin it is said Biberunt inebriati sunt cum eo The Greeks thought Wine and Drinking so considerable a part of the Feast that they called the whole from that one part 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet when they thus drank together at their Entertainments they did no doubt eat too though if we will as strictly insist upon the phrase and not allow a Synecdoche here as well as in the Jewish one of breaking or eating Bread we must make their Feasts to be all of Liquids and the other all of Solids But the phrase is so clear and so usual that nothing could make men deny its being so but their being willing to stick to any thing however weak and little it be that seems in the least to favour a bad cause which is forced to call in the help of a Phrase used in a short History and that against its usual meaning to combat with a plain Command and clear Institution I would only ask these Gentlemen and Monsi Boileau with whom I am especially concerned whither he does not think the first Christians when they met together to break Bread allowing thereby it was to receive the Sacrament did not also at the same time feast together at their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether those were not joyned with the Sacrament and whethese also are not meant here and included in their breaking of Bread together Which I think he or any one versed in Antiquity will not deny And if so he must either say that at those Love-feasts they used no Wine or Drink because none is expresly mentioned here though it is plain they did in the Church of Corinth even to excess or else that this Jewish phrase of breaking Bread is to be here taken as it is in other places by a Synecdoche for both eating and drinking together and that either at the Lord's Table or at any other But in the 3. Third place I have an undeniable Argument to prove either that this must be so meant or else that the Sacrament cannot be meant either in these places or any other where there is onely mention of Bread without Wine For it is universally owned by all the Popish Writers as well as by all others that to the making a Sacrament there ought to be both the Species Consecrated though they are not both given So that in this says Boileau †Hoc enim convenit nobis cum Protestantibus semper debere sacerdotes Eucharistiam conficere sub utraque specie p. 207. we agree with the Protestants that the Priests always ought to Consecrate the Eucharist in both kinds and Monsieur de Meaux ‖ P. 182. when he pretends that he finds upon several occasions in Antiquity the Body given without the Blood and the Blood given without the Body which I shall examine by and by yet confesses that never one of them was Consecrated without the other and it would be Sacriledge says Valentia * Si enim una species absque alterâ conficiatur Sacrilegium committitur De usu Sacram. c. 13. if one Species were Consecrated without the other and after they are Consecrated Bellarmine †Sacerdotibus utriusque speciei sumptio necessariaestex parte Sacramenti de Euch. c. 4. owns That the sumption of both Species is necessary to the Priests who Consecrate and that upon the account of its being a Sacrament as well it seems as both ought to be Consecrated to make it a Sacrifice Now in all these places of the Disciples at Emmaus of those in the Acts of St. Paul at Troas which is another but too slight to be particularly considered there is no mention of any thing but breaking Bread not one word said of any other Species either as consecrated or as received by any one So that if these places do prove any thing for Communion in one kind they prove as much for Consecration in one kind and for the sumption of one kind even by the Priest that consecrates So that as it was wisely declared in the Council of Trent ‖ Soave's History of the Coun. of Trent l. 6. These places and the reasons from them must be laid aside because by them it would be concluded that it was not Sacriledge to Consecrate one kind without the other which is contrary to all the Doctors and meaning of the Church and overthroweth the distinction of the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice and as it is a Sacrament So that Monsieur Boileau's strongest Argument is too high charged and recoils upon himself and his own Church and his friends are obliged to take it out of his hands least he do more harm to them by it than execution upon his enemy But he is a bold man that dare face the mouth of a Cannon who dare undertake to prove the Communion in one kind out of the eleventh Chapter of St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians which is such a perfect demonstration against it that a man must out-face the Sun who offers at any such thing St. Paul as the best and truest means to correct the abuses got into the Church of Corinth about the Eucharist recurs to the Institution which he received from Christ himself and which he delivered to the Church of Corinth in which there is so full an account of both the species and such a command of both as is sufficient to shew the Apostolical practice conformable to the Institution of Christ and to let us see what Tradition they left in their Churches about it Had there been any difference between the Priests and the Peoples receiving the Bread and Wine St. Paul who wrote to the Laiety would no doubt have taken notice of it and told them their respective duties but he delivers the Institution to them just as Christ did to his Apostles says not a tittle of their not being to receive the Cup but on the contrary adds that command to it which is in none of the Evangelists Do this in remembrance of me Gives not the least intimation that this was given to the Apostles as Priests or that they were made Priests then but what is observable does not so much as mention the Apostles or take any notice of the persons that were present at the Institution and to whom the words Do this were spoken So that so far as appears from him they might be spoken to other Disciples to ordinary Laics nay to the women who might be present at this first Sacrament as well as the Apostles and so must have been made
the whole People with great Reverence and without any tumult or noise The Bishop gives the Bread saying The Body of Christ and he that receives it sayes Amen The Deacon gives the Cup and says The Blood of Christ the Cup of Life and he that drinks it says Amen And when they have all Communicated both men and women the Deacons take the remainders and carry them into the Pastophory or Vestry St. Dennis the Areopagite I put after all these because I doubt not but that the Book under his name was later than any of them there is this passage of Celebrating the Eucharist in those Books of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy the Priest praying that all who partake of the Sacrament may do it worthily The Bread which was covered and whole he uncovers and divides into many parts and the one Cup he divides to all ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dyonys Eccles Hierar c. 3. p. 103. and afterwards he speaks particularly of the Priests first taking himself that which he gave to others * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and mentions nothing else taken by him then what the others do partake of I shall to these add the famous Ordo Romanus which de Meaux calls the antient Ceremonial of the Roman Church neither the time nor the Author of it is certainly known it concerns not me to inquire whether it belong to the Eighth or the Eleventh Age which is upon other accounts a dispute between the Reformed and Roman Divines I suppose it to be made at several times and to have had several Additions made to it by several Popes one after another for all Missals and Eucharistic formes were at first very short and afterwards increased by further compositions Pope Gregory who had the greatest hand in it speaks of one Scholasticus who composed the Prayer to be said over the Oblation †Vt precem quam Scholasticus composuerat super oblationem diceremus Greg. l. 7. ep 64. before him who that Scholasticus was Strabo and Berno and the other Writers upon the Ordo Romanus have owned themselves ignorant and other Learned men have anxiously enquired the Learned Colomesius thinks it as clear as the light that this was Pope Gelasius ‖ Ex quo meridianâ luce clariùs patet quis fuerit Scholasticus ille Gregorio M. l. 7. ep 64. laudatus Colomesius in Paralipom ad Chartophyl Eccles verb. Gelasius But whoever were the Authors of it and whensoever it was composed as we now have it it is sufficient to my purpose that the Communion is there distributed in both kinds and the manner of it is thus prescribed * Deinde venit Archidiaconus cum calice ad cornu altaris refuso parum in calicem de scypho inter manus acolyti accedunt primùm Episcopi ad sedem ut commmunicent de manu Pontificis secundum ordinem sed Presbyteri omnes ascendunt ut communicent ad altare Episcopus autem primus accipit calicem de manu Archidiaconi stat in cornu altaris ut confirmet sequentes ordines Deinde Archidiacono accepto de manu illis ealice refundit in scypho tradit calicem subdiacano regionario qui tradit ei pugillarem cum quo comfirmet populum Quos dum confirmaverit Postea Episcopi communicant populum post eos Diaconi confirmant Presbyteri jussu Pontificis communicant populum ipsi vicissim comfirmant nam mox ut Pontifex caeperit communicare populum psallunt usque dum communicato omni populo etiam in parte mulierum Ordo Romanus p. 6. Edit Hittorp Paris Then cometh the Arch-deacon with the Cup at the side of the Altar and pouring a little into the Chalice out of the Flaggon in the hands of the Acolyte the Bishops first come to their Seat that they may Communicate from the hand of the Pope according to their order and the Presbyters also ascend to the Altar that they may Communicate the Bishop first takes the Cup from the hand of the Arch-deacon and stands at the side of the Altar that he may confirm the following orders then the Arch-deacon taking the Chalice from his hand pours it again into the Flaggon and gives the Cup to the regionary Sub-deacon who gives him a hollow Pipe with which he may confirm the people Whom when he hath confirmed afterwards the Bishops communicate the people and after them the Deacons confirm them the Priests by the command of the Pope communicate the people and they also confirm them for as soon as the Pope begins to communicate the people the Antiphone begins and they sing till all the people have communicated even on the womens side However Rome has thought fit of late to depart from their own Ordo Romanus yet there is a very remarkable story of one of their own Popes Pope Martin the Fifth who after the Council of Constance did in a solemn Office at Easter Communicate the people in both kinds according to the Roman Order which was not so alter'd and changed at that time as it was afterwards Cassander in his Consultatio †Martinus Sanctus etiam post tempora Constantiensis synodi in solenni Paschae officio juxta praescriptum ordinis Romani universum populum corpore sanguine D ◠communicasse legitur Consult de Com. subutr and Lindanus in his Panoplia ‖ Martinus ipse P R 5. utramque legitur Romae administrasse speciem quod non de Diacono Pontificis Administro accipiendum est sed ut populo Lindan Panoplia l. 4. c. 56. are both positive Witnesses for this matter of Fact which is not onely considerable in it self but a clear Argument of the late change and alteration both of the old Roman Practice and the old Roman Order 2. The most ancient Lyturgies that are described and Celebrate the Communion in both kinds So That * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the name of St. Peter represents all the people as partaking of the divine pure heavenly quickning tremendous Mysteries and this Prayer or Thanksgiving is used for them all ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyturg. Petr in Biblioth Patr. Blessed be God who has vouchsafed us to partake of his immaculate Body and his most precious Bloud That under the name of St. James after the Prayer of the Priest that the holy Spirit coming and sanctifying the Elements would make them become the Body and Blood of Christ that they may be effectual to all that receive them for remission of Sins †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lytur Jacob. Ib. which word all supposes more than the Priest who Consecrates represents the Deacons after the communion of the Clergy as taking up both the Patens and the Chalices to give to the people ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. and after they had received of both the Deacons and the People both give thanks to Christ because he has vouchsafed them to partake of his Body and of
does Eusebius ‖ De vitâ Constant l. 3. c. 46. in his History of the Death of Helena the most zealous Mother of Constantine but so soon as Christians came to receive the Sacrament as the most comfortable Viaticum at their deaths which was not till after-Ages then by whatever instances it appears that they received it at all it appears also that they received it in both kinds and it is plain that among the numerous examples of this nature which are to be found in Bede and Surius and the Writers of the Saints Lives there is not one to be produced to the contrary else no doubt the learned Bishop of Meaux who picks up every thing that seems to make for his purpose and who was fain to content himself with those two insignificant ones of Serapion and St. Ambrose would not have omitted them I shall mention some few in opposition to those two of his of those who according to St. Austine's advice * Quoties aliqua infirmitas supervenerit Corpus sanguinem Christi ille qui aegrotat accipiat Sermo 215 de Tempore When they were sick did partake both of the Body and of the Bloud of Christ contrary to what they would have Paulinus report of St. Ambrose to St. Austine himself that he did onely receive the Body And the first shall be that of Valentinus of Pavia in the fifth Century †Ante obitum propriis manibus accepit corporis sanginis Domini Sacramentum Surius August 4. who before his death took with his own hands the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. The second that of Elpidius as it is in the next Century reported by Gregory the Great ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregorii Dialog 616. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That calling his Brethren and standing in the midst of them he took the Body and the Blood of the Lord and continuing in prayer gave up the Ghost And he mentions this no less then of three others in the same Dialogues and in his Office for Visiting the Infirm after Prayers and other things then says he * Deinde communicet eum corpore sanguine Domini Gregor Sacram Visit infirm Let the Priest Communicate him with the Body and Bloud of Christ. In the same Age the Writer of St. Vedastus his Life says †Sacrosancto Corporis sanguinis Domini Viatico confirmatus obiit Alcuin in vit Vedast He died being confirmed with the most sacred Viaticum of the Body and Blood of Christ. And the same also of Richarius very near in the same words Isidore the famous Bishop of Sevil Received with a profound sigh the Body and Bloud of the Lord and died presently after ‖ Corpus sanguinem Domini cum prosundo gemitu suscepit Redemptus de obit Isidor And to go down no lower than the next Age Bede then reports of Ceadda a British Bishop That he fortified his departure with the perception of the Body and Bloud of our Lord seven days before * Obitum suum Dominici Corporis sanguinis perceptione septimo ante mortem die munivit Bed. Hist Angl. l. 4. And the same of St. Cuthbert Who received from him the most wholsome Sacraments of Christ's Body and Bloud †Acceptis à me Sacramentis salutaribus Dominici Corporis Sanguinis Id. in vit Cuthberti And thus did that glorious Prince Charles the Great make his pious exit Commanding his most familiar Priest Hiltibald to come unto him and give him the Sacraments of the Lord's Body and Bloud ‖ Jussit familiarissimum Pontisicem suum Hiltibaldum venire ad se ut ei Sacramenta Dominici Corporis Sanguinis tribueret Eginhard vit Caroli Mag. And the same universal Custom and Practice I might bring down to all those other Ages that succeed till a new Doctrine of the Sacrament brought in a new Practice by degrees but I cannot omit one in the Eleventh Age though it has a Legendary Miracle joyned with it 't is an account Damianus * Presbyterum quendam Cumanae Ecclesie Eucharistium detulisse aegroto illum mox cum in Ecclesiam rediens aliquantulum Dominici sanguinis comperisset remansisse in calice Peri Damian Opusc gives of a Priest Who had carried the Eucharist to a sick person and by negligence brought back and left in the Cup a little of the Bloud of the Lord So that it is plain nowithstanding the fear either of keeping or spilling they carried the Wine with them to the sick as well as the Bread and Communicated them with both And now if we adde to these the Decree of Pope Paschal the Second forbidding to mix the Sacramental Elements but to give them seperately and distinctly unless to young Children and to the Sick which exception makes it unquestionable that both were then given to the Sick and the fore-mentioned Canon of the Council of Tours which is in Burchard Ivo and Regino commanding the Bread to be dipt in the Wine that the Priest may truely say to the sick The Body and Bloud of Christ be profitable to thee these being all laid together make it clear beyond all contradiction that the Communion of the Sick was not as de Meaux pretends in one kind but in both and as a parting blow upon this point I shall onely offer that observation of their own learned Menardus †Cum communicat infirmus quem vis morbi non ad tantam virium imbecillitatem adduxit dicitur utrâque formâ Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat te in vitam aeternam sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi redimat te in vitam aeternam quae distinctam sumptionem indicant at dum communicat infirmus qui ingravari caeperit unica tantum formula recitatur in hunc modum Corpus Sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam Menard notae in Greg. Sacram. p. 379 380. from an ancient Mass in his Notes upon the Sacramentary of St. Gregory that in case the sick person was in a condition to receive the Elements separately then this form was used The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ keep thee to eternal Life The Bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thee to eternal Life which says he shews a distinct Sumption If he was in such weakness and extremity as to have them given mixt then it was said The Body and Bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Soul to Eternal Life which as well shews a Sumption of both the Elements though in a different manner according to the different state of the sick person Communion of Infants The Communion of Infants is the next custom alledged by this Author it was a very ancient and almost universal practice of the Church to give the Eucharist to little Children as soon as they were Baptized thinking it to be as necessary to their Salvation as Baptism and that they were as
capable of the one as the other and therefore the Council of Trent which has condemned all those who say the Eucharist is necessary for Infants has herein determined against the general sence and practice of the Church and put no less men than St. Austin and Innocent a Pope of their own notwithstanding his Infallibility who were notoriously of this Opinion under an Anathema which how they can reconcile with their other principles of following Tradition and of the Churches Infallibility in all Ages I shall leave to them to consider and make out if they can But as to our present question when the Communion was thus given to Infants I utterly deny that it was onely in one kind I cannot indeed produce so many proofs that it was in both as in the Sick because there was not so much occasion in any History to make mention of the one as the other but that which was the very ground and foundation of this Practice of Communicating Infants and the reason why they thought it necessary to their Salvation namely those words of our Saviour John 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you these do suppose an equal necessity to drink the Bloud as to eat the Flesh and to do both as well as one And hence St. Austine who denys as he says all Catholics do with him That Infants can have Life without partaking of the Eucharist expresses it in such words as suppose plainly their partaking of both kinds viz. * Parvulos sine cibo carnis Christi sanguinis potu vitam non habituros sine participatione corporis sanguinis Domini Ep. 106. Their distinct eating the flesh and drinking the bloud of Christ as other Authors also do who mention this very thing in relation to Infants †Non cibatis carne neque potatis sanguine Christi Hipogn l. 5. Corporis Dominici edulio ac sanguinis haustu satiatos Liber Catoh magni de Imag. c. 27. and Pope Paschal the Second who in the eleventh Century allows the mixing the two species for Infants by this means appoints them to take both and supposes it an original custom to do so and if we had nothing else yet the remaining custom in the Greek and Eastern and in all Churches that still continue the Communion of Infants to Communicate them in both kinds is as full an evidence of this as can be expected And de Meaux has not been able to offer any one example to the contrary but that poor one out of St. Cyprian which if it proves any thing it proves that the whole Christian Assembly received onely the Cup in their public and solemn Meetings as well as the Infant he mentions which he is not so hardy as to venture to say nor dare any one that understands any thing of St. Cyprian's time but the Story he would improve to his purpose is this ‖ Cyprian de Lapsis p. 132. Edit Oxon. A Child who had been carried by its Nurse to an Idol Temple and had there tasted of a little Bread and Wine that was Sacrificed this was afterwards brought by its Mother who knew nothing of this matter to the Christian Assembly and there it discovered the strange misfortune had befallen to it For all the time of the Prayers it was in great trouble and uneasiness it cried and tost and was impatient as if it had been in a fit and an agony and seemed to confess that by its actions which it could not by words thus it continued whilst the Solemn Offices were performed and towards the end of them when the Deacon bringing the Cup about to all the rest at last came to that it turned away its face and kept its lips close and would not receive it but the Deacon poured in a little into its mouth against its will which it quickly brought up again not being able to retain what was so holy and sacred in its impure and polluted stomack This was a miraculous and extraordinary warning to others not to partake with any part of the Idol Worship or Offerings which they were in that time greatly tempted to and for this purpose St. Cyprian relates the thing of his own knowledge he being an eye-Witness of it But Monsieur de Meaux would have this serve to shew that the Child had the Cup onely given to it there being no mention of the Bread and therefore that it received but in one kind and consequently that it was the custom for Infants to receive but in one kind in St. Cyprian's time if so then it was the custom also for all Christians in their Religious Assemblies to receive onely in one kind for St. Cyprian mentions nothing at all of the Bread in this place given to the rest any more than to the Child and if de Meaux or any one that pretends to any thing of Learning will assert this That in St. Cyprian's time Christians in the public Communion received but one Species and that this Species was that of Wine I 'll willingly give them this instance of the Child and take them up upon the other where I am sure I have all the learned men that ever read St. Cyprian or understand any thing of Antiquity on my side But why does not St. Cyprian mention any thing of the Bread if that were then given to the Child or others Because he had no reason to do it in this short relation which was not to give an account of all that was then done by the Christians in their Religious Offices but onely of this accident which happened to the Child at that time it being his business in that Discourse to deter men from joyning in the Pagan Idolatry from the terrible Judgements of God upon several who had done this and after this remarkable instance of the Child he relates another of a man who had received the Bread in the Sacrament * Sacrisicio à sacerdote cetebrato partem cum caeteris ausus est latenter accipere sanctum Domini edere contrectare non potuit cinerem ferre se apertis manibus invenit Cyp. Ib. de Laps so that they received that it seems as well as the Wine which was as miraculously turned into Ashes But why was not the Child as much disturbed at the receiving the Bread if that was given it as at the receiving the Wine Why so it was during the whole time of being there at the Prayers and at the whole Solemnity it was under the same trouble agitation and discomposure but most remarkably at the end and conclusion of all when it had taken the whole Sacrament If the other Christians received the other part of the Sacrament though it be not mentioned so might this child and as I think none will from hence attempt to shew that all Christians were then deprived of the Bread so it is plain they all had the Cup and that the Children
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