" uniform, and no appearance of difference in the Scripture, or in the primitive church: so that though the canon mentions only the priest, yet it must, by the same reason, mean all; there being at that time no difference known. 3. It is called sacrilege to divide one and the same mystery; meaning, that to receive one without the other, is to divide the body from the blood (for the dream of concomitancy was not then found out), and therefore the title of the canon is thus expressed; Corpus Christi sine ejus sanguine sacerdos non debet accipere;" and that the so doing, viz. by receiving one without the other, cannot be without sacrilege. 4. Now suppose at last, that the priests only are concerned in this canon, yet even then also they are abundantly reproved, because even the priests in the church of Rome (unless they consecrate) communicate but in one kind. 5. It is also remarkable, that although in the church of Rome there is great use made of the distinction, of its being sometime 'a sacrifice,' sometime only 'a sacrament,' as friar Anthony Mondolphus said in the council of Trent, yet the arguments, by which the Roman doctors do usually endeavour to prove the lawfulness of the half-communion, do destroy this distinction, viz. that of Christ's ministering to the disciples at Emmaus, and St. Paul in the ship in which either there is no proof or no consecration in both kinds, and consequently no sacrifice: for there is mention made only of blessing the bread,' for they received that which was blessed; and therefore either the consecration was imperfect, or the reception was entire. To this purpose also the words of St. Ambrose are severe, and speak clearly of communicants without distinction of priest and people: which distinction, though it be in this article nothing to the purpose, yet I observe it to prevent such trifling cavils, which my adversaries put me often to fight with. His words are these: "He (viz. the apostle St. Paul) saith, that he is unworthy of the Lord, who otherwise celebrates the mystery than it was delivered by him. For he cannot be devout, that presumes otherwise than it was given by the author: therefore he before admonishes, that according to the order delivered, the mind of him that comes to the eucharist of our Lord, be devout; for there is a judgment. to come, that as every one comes, so he may render an account in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ: because they who come without the discipline of the delivery (or tradition), and of conversation, are guilty of the body and blood of our Lord." One of my adversaries P says, these words of St. Ambrose are to be understood only of the priest: and it appears so, by the word 'celebrat,' not 'recipit;' he that' celebrates' otherwise than is delivered by Christ. To this I answer, that first it is plain, and St. Ambrose so expresses his meaning, to be of all that receive it, for so he says, "that the mind of him that cometh to the eucharist of our Lord, ought to be devout." 2. It is an ignorant conceit, that St. Ambrose by celebrat,' means the priest only, because he only can celebrate. For however the church of Rome does now almost impropriate that word to the priest, yet in the primitive church it was no more than 'recipit' or 'accedit ad eucharistiam,' which appears not only by St. Ambrose's expounding it so here, but in St. Cyprian, speaking to a rich matron," Locuples et dives Dominicum celebrare te credis, et corban omnino non respicis?" "Dost thou, who art rich and opulent, suppose that you celebrate' the Lord's supper (or sacrifice), who regardest not the poor man's basket?" Celebrat' is the word, and receive' must needs be the signification: and so it is in St. Ambrose; and therefore I did, as I ought, translate it so. 3. It is yet objected, that I translate "aliter quam ab eo traditum est,"" otherwise than he appointed;" whereas it should be, "otherwise than it was given by him." And this surely is a great matter, and the gentleman is very subtle. But if he be asked, whether or no Christ appointed it to be done as he did, to be given as he gave it; I suppose this deep and wise note of his will just come to nothing. But ab eo traditum est,' of itself signifies, ‘appointed; for this he delivered not only by his hands, but by his commandment of Hoc facite;' that was his appointment.' Now that all this relates to the whole institution and doctrine of Christ in this matter, and therefore to the duplication of the elements, the reception of the chalice, as well • In Corinth. xi. Indignum dicit esse Domino, qui aliter mysterium celebrat quam ab co traditum est. Non enim potest devotus esse, qui aliter præsumit quam datum est ab auctore. Ideoque præmonet, ut secundum ordinem traditum devota mens sit accedentis ad eucharistiam Domini: quoniam futurum est judicium, ut quemadmodum accedit unusquisque, reddat causas in die Domini Jesu Christi : quia sine disciplinà traditionis et conversationis qui accedunt, rei sunt eorporis et sanguinis Domini. Serm. 1. de Eleemos. A. L. p. 4. as the consecrated bread, appears, 1. By the general terms, "qui aliter mysterium celebrat," "he that celebrates otherwise than Christ delivered." 2. These words are a commentary upon that of St. Paul, "He that eats this bread, and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." Now hence St. Ambrose, arguing that all must be done, as our Lord delivered, says also 'that the bread must be eaten, and the cup drunk, as our Lord delivered and he that does not do both, does not do what our Lord delivered.' 3. The conclusion of St. Ambrose is full to this particular: "They are guilty of the body and blood of Christ, who come without the discipline of the delivery and of conversation;" that is, they who receive without due preparation, and not after the manner it was delivered, that is, under the differing symbols of bread and wine. To which we may add that observation of Cassander', and of Vossius; that the apostles represented the persons of all the faithful, and Christ saying to them, Take and eat,' he said also, Drink ye all of this;' he said not, Eat ye all of this ;' and therefore if by virtue of these words, Drink ye all of this,' the laity be not commanded to drink, it can never be proved that the laity are commanded to eat; 'omnes' is added to 'bibite,' but it is not expressly added to 'accipite et comedite;' and therefore Paschasius Radbertus, who lived about eight hundred and twenty years after Christ's incarnation, so expounds the precept without any hesitation, "Bibite ex hoc omnes, i. e. tam ministri quam reliqui credentes," "Drink ye all of this, as well they that minister, as the rest of the believers."-And no wonder, since for their so doing they have the example and institution of Christ; by which as by an irrefragable and undeniable argument, the ancient fathers used to reprove and condemn all usages which were not according to it. For saith St. Cyprian', "If men ought not to break the least of Christ's commandments, how much less those great ones, which belong to the sacrament of our Lord's passion and redemption, or to change it into any thing but that which was appointed by him?" Now this was spoken against those who refused the hallowed wine, but took water instead of it; and it is of equal force against them, that give Disp. 5. de Sacra Cœna. Lib. de Corp. et Sang. Domini, cap. 15. Epist. 63. to the laity no cup at all; but whatever the instance was or could be, St. Cyprian reproves it upon the only account of prevaricating Christ's institution. The whole epistle is worth reading for a full satisfaction to all wise and sober Christians: "Ab eo quod Christus magister et præcepit et gessit, humana et novella institutione decedere," "By a new and human institution to depart from what Christ our master commanded and did ;" that the bishops would not do: "tamen quoniam quidam," &c. "because there are some who simply and ignorantly," "in calice Dominico sanctificando et plebi ministrando non hoc faciunt quod Jesus Christus Dominus et Deus noster, sacrificii hujus auctor et doctor, fecit et docuit," &c. "in sanctifying the cup of the Lord, and giving it to the people, do not do what Jesus Christ did and taught, viz. they did not give the cup of wine to the people;" therefore St. Cyprian calls them to return "ad radicem et originem traditionis Dominicæ," "to the root and original of the Lord's delivery." Now besides that St. Cyprian plainly says, that when the chalice was sanctified, it was also ministered to the people; I desire it to be considered, whether or no these words do not plainly reprove the Roman doctrine and practice, in not giving the consecrated chalice to the people: do they not recede from the root and original of Christ's institution? Do they do what Christ did? Do they teach what Christ taught? Is not their practice quite another thing than it was at first? Did not the ancient church do otherwise than these men do? and thought themselves obliged to do otherwise? They urged the doctrine and example of our Lord, and the whole economy of the mystery was their warrant and their reason: for they always believed, that a peculiar grace and virtue were signified by the symbol of wine; and it was evident that the chalice was an excellent representment and memorial of the effusion of Christ's blood for us, and the joining both the symbols signifies the entire refection and nourishment of our souls, bread and drink being the natural provisions; and they design and signify our redemption more perfectly, the body being given for our bodies, and the blood for the cleansing our souls, the life of every animal being in the blood: and finally, this, in the integrity, signifies and represents Christ to have taken body and soul for our redemption. For these reasons the church of God always, in all her public communions, gave the chalice to the people for above a thousand years.' This was all I would have remarked in this so evident a matter, but that I observed, in a short spiteful passage of E. W. p. 44, a notorious untruth, spoken with ill intent concerning the holy communion as understood by Protestants. The words are these; "Seeing the fruit of Protestant communion is only to stir up faith in the receiver, I can find no reason why their bit of bread only, may not as well work that effect, as to taste of their wine with it." To these words, 1. I say, that although stirring up faith is one of the divine benefits and blessings of the holy communion, yet it is falsely said, that the fruit of the Protestant communion is only to stir up faith. For in the catechism of the church of England it is affirmed, that "the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lord's supper: and that our souls are strengthened and refreshed by the body and blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread and wine," and that of stirring up our faith is not at all mentioned: so ignorant, so deceitful, or deceived, is E. W., in the doctrine of the church of England. But then, as for his foolish sarcasm, calling the hallowed elements a bit of bread,' which he does in scorn; he might have considered, that if we had a mind to find fault whenever his church gives us cause, that the Papist's wafer is scarce so much as a bit of bread,' it is more like marchpane than common bread, and besides that (as Salmeron " acknowledges) anciently, "olim ex pane uno sua cuique particula frangi consueverat," that which we in our church do, was the custom of the church; out of a great loaf to give particles to every communicant, by which the communication of Christ's body to all the members is better represented; and that Durandus, affirming the same thing, says that the Grecians continue it to this day; besides this, I say, the author of the Roman order (says Cassander') took it very ill, that the loaves of bread, offered in certain churches for the use of the sacrifice, should be brought from the form of true bread to so slight and slender a form, which he calls' minutias nummulariarum oblatarum,'' scraps of little pennies," a Salmer. in 2 Cor. x. disp. 17. p. 183. |