« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
head, the gentleman had spoken to the purpose. But here these wafers are two entire wafers, separate the one from the other; bodies intermedial put between; and that which is here is not there; and yet of each of them it is affirmed, that it is Christ's body; that is, of two wafers, and of two thousand wafers, it is at the same time affirmed of every one that it is Christ's body. Now if these wafers are substantially not the same, not one, but many; and yet every one of these many is substantially and properly Christ's body, then these bodies are many, for they are many of whom it is said, Every one distinctly, and separately, and in itself, is Christ's body. 2. For his comparing the presence of Christ in the wafer, with the presence of God in heaven, is spoken without common wit or sense; for does any man say that God is in two places, and yet be the same one God? Can God be in two places that cannot be in one? Can he be determined and numbered by places, that fills all places by his presence? or is Christ's body in the sacrament, as God is in the world, that is repletivè,' filling all things alike, spaces void and spaces full, and there where there is no place, where the measures are neither time nor place, but only the power and will of God. This answer, besides that it is weak and dangerous, is also to no purpose, unless the church of Rome will pass over to the Lutherans and maintain the ubiquity of Christ's body. Yea, but St. Austin' says of Christ "ferebatur in manibus suis," &c. "he bore himself in his own hands:" and what then? Then though every wafer be Christ's body, yet the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies for then there would be two bodies of Christ, when he carried his own body in his hands.'-To this I answer, that concerning St. Austin's mind we are already satisfied, but that which he says here is true, as he spake and intended it; for by his own rule, the similitudes and figures of things are oftentimes called by the names of those things whereof they are similitudes: Christ bore his own body in his own hands, when he bore the sacrament of his body; for of that also it is true, that it is truly his body in a sacramental, spiritual, and real manner, that is, to all intents and purposes of the Holy Spirit of God. According to the words of St. Austin cited by P. Lombard: "We call that the body of
1 in Ps. xxxiii.
Christ, which, being taken from the fruits of the earth, and consecrated by mystic prayer, we receive in memory of the Lord's passion; which when by the hands of men it is brought on to that visible shape, it is not sanctified to become so worthy a sacrament, but by the Spirit of God working invisibly."-If this be good catholic doctrine, and if this confession of this article be right, the church of England is right; but then when the church of Rome will not let us alone in this truth and modesty of confession, but impose what is unknown in antiquity and Scripture, and against common sense, and the reason of all the world; she must be greatly in the wrong. But as to this question, I was here only to justify the Dissuasive; I suppose these gentlemen may be fully satisfied in the whole inquiry, if they please to read a book I have written on this subject entirely, of which hitherto they are pleased to take no great notice.
Of the Half-Communion.
WHEN the French ambassador in the council of Trent, A. D. 1561, made instance for restitution of the chalice to the laity, among other oppositions the Cardinal St. Angelo answered; 'that he would never give a cup full of such deadly poison to the people of France, instead of a medicine, and that it was better to let them die, than to cure them with such remedies." The ambassador being greatly offended, replied; that it was not fit to give the name of poison to the blood of Christ, and to call the holy apostles poisoners, and the fathers of the primitive church, and of that which followed for many hundred years, who with much spiritual profit have ministered the cup of that blood to all the people: this was a great and a public, yet but a single person, that gave so great offence.
One of the greatest scandals that ever was given to Christendom, was given by the council of Constance'; which
8 Lib. 3. de Trin. c. 4. in fine P. Lombard dist. 11. lib. 4. ad finem lit. C. Christ's Real and Spiritual Presence in the Sacrament, against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation: printed at London by R. Royston. ¡ Sess. 13.
having acknowledged that Christ administered this venerable sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine, and that in the primitive church this sacrament was received of the faithful under both kinds, yet the council not only condemns them as heretics, and to be punished accordingly, who say it is unlawful to observe the custom and law of giving it in one kind only; but under pain of excommunication forbids all priests to communicate the people under both kinds. This last thing is so shameful and so impious, that A. L. directly denies that there is any such thing: which if it be not an argument of the self-conviction of the man, and a resolution to abide in his error, and to deceive the people even against his knowledge, let all the world judge: for the words of the council's decree, as they are set down by Carranza, at the end of the decree, are these; "Item præcipimus, sub pœna excommunicationis, quod nullus presbyter communicet populum sub utraque specie panis et vini." I need say no more in this affair to affirm it necessary to do in the sacraments what Christ did, is called heresy; and to do so is punished with excommunication. But we who follow Christ, hope we shall communicate with him, and then we are well enough; especially since the very institution of the sacrament, in both kinds, is a sufficient commandment to minister and receive it in both kinds. For if the church of Rome upon their supposition only, that Christ did barely institute confession, do therefore urge it as necessary, it will be a strange partiality, that the confessed institution by Christ of the two sacramental species, shall not conclude them as necessary, as the other upon an unproved supposition. And if the institution of the sacrament in both kinds be not equal to a command, then there is no command to receive the bread, or indeed, to receive the sacrament at all: but it is a mere act of supererogation, that the priests do it at all, and an act of favour and grace, that they give even the bread itself to the laity.
But besides this, it is not to be endured that the church of Rome only binds her subjects to observe the decree of abstaining from the cup 'jure humano,' and yet they shall be bound jure divino,' to believe it to be just, and specially since the causes of so scandalous an alteration are not set down in the decree of any council; and those which are set
* Lugduni. A. D. 1600. apud Horatium Cardon. p. 440.
down by private doctors, besides that they are no record of the church, they are ridiculous, weak, and contemptible. But as Granatensis' said in the council of Trent, This affair can neither be regulated by Scripture nor traditions (for surely it is against both), but by wisdom;' wherein because it is necessary to proceed to circumspection, I suppose the church of Rome will always be considering, whether she should give the chalice or no; and because she will not acknowledge any reason sufficient to give it, she will be content to keep it away without reason: and, which is worse, the church of Rome excommunicates" those priests that communicate the people in both kinds; but the primitive church excommunicates them that receive but in one kind. It is too much that any part of the church should so much as in a single instance administer the holy sacrament otherwise than it is in the institution of Christ; there being no other warrant for doing the thing at all, but Christ's institution, and therefore no other way of learning how to do it, but by the same institution by which all of it is done. And if there can come a case of necessity (as if there be no wine, or if a man cannot endure wine), it is then a disputable matter, whether it ought or not to be omitted; for if the necessity be of God's making, he is supposed to dispense with the impossibility: but if a man alters what God appointed, he makes to himself a new institution; for which, in this case, there can be no necessity, nor yet excuse. But suppose either one or other; yet so long as it is, or is thought, a case of necessity, the thing may be hopefully excused, if not actually justified; and because it can happen but seldom, the matter is not great: let the institution be observed always where it can. But then, in all cases of possibility, let all prepared Christians be invited to receive the body and blood of Christ according to his institution; or if that be too much, at least let all them that desire it, be permitted to receive it in Christ's way: but that men are not suffered to do so, that they are driven from it, that they are called heretic for saying it is their duty to receive it as Christ gave it and appointed it, that they should be excommunicated for desiring to communicate in Christ's
I A. D. 1562.
Vide Preface to the Dissuasive, part 1. canon Comperimus de Consecrat.
blood, by the symbol of his blood, according to the order of him that gave his blood; this is such a strange piece of Christianity, that it is not easy to imagine what antichrist can do more against it, unless he take it all away. I only desire those persons, who are here concerned, to weigh well the words of Christ, and the consequents of them: "He that breaketh one of the least of my commandments, and shall teach men so," and what if he compel men so? "shall be called the least in the kingdom of God."
To the canon last mentioned it is answered, that the canon speaks not of receiving the sacrament by the communicants, but of the consummating the sacrifice by the priest. To this I reply, 1. That it is true that the canon was particularly directed to the priests, by the title which themselves put to it; but the canon meddles not with the consecrating or not consecrating in one kind, but of receiving; for that is the title of the canon. The priest ought not to 'receive' the body of Christ without the blood; and in the canon itself, "comperimus autem, quod quidam, sumpta corporis sacri portione, à calice sacrati cruoris abstineant." By which it plainly appears, that the consecration was entire; for it was 'calix sacrati cruoris,' 'the consecrated chalice,' from which out of a fond superstition some priests did abstain; the canon therefore relates to the sumption or receiving, not the sacrificing (as these men love to call it) or consecration; and the sanction itself speaks indeed of the reception of the sacrament, but not a word of it as it is, in any sense, a sacrifice; "aut integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur." So that the distinction of 'sacrament' and 'sacrifice' in this question will be of no use to the church of Rome. For if Pope Gelasius (for it was his canon) knew nothing of this distinction, it is vainly applied to the expounding of his words; but if he did know of it, then he hath taken that part which is against the church of Rome; for of this mystery, as it is a sacrament, Gelasius speaks, which therefore must relate to the people as well as the priest. And this canon is to this purpose quoted by Cassander". And, 2. No man is able to shew that ever Christ appointed one way of receiving to the priest, and another to the people. The law was all one, the example the same, the rule is simple and
In Consult. de Sacra Commun.