obligatory, which it found establish'd before in most Places by Cuftom. As appears from the Preface to it's Decree. Seff. 14. whereby it was render'd every where uniform. But let that be as it will, if our Difpute is to be decided by the Practice of the primitive Church you certainly lofe your Caufe. I go upon two Prin ciples, which no Proteftant will deny. 1. That the Commands of Chrift cannot be reversed or violated upon any Pretence whatever. And 2. That adminif tring half a Sacrament is a Sacrilege, which no Neceffity can excufe. From thefe two Principles I infer that it was the undoubted Judgment of the primitive Church, that Adminiftring the Sacrament in one or both Kinds is a Matter of Difcipline only; whence it follows, that the Council of Conftance could legally forbid Lay-communion in both Kinds, tho the contrary was practifed in the primitive Church. G. But, My Lord, how can we know the Judg ment of the Church but from her Practice? If there fore Lay communion in both Kinds was generally practifed, as you own it was, in the primitive Church must we not conclude she Judg'd the Practice of it Neceffary? L. Sr, you may conclude she Judg'd it lawful, which no Body denies. But the Queftion is, whether she did not Judge Communion in one Kind as lawful as in bath? The Question is, whether it was her Judgment, that there is a pofitive Command of Chrift which obliges all to receive the Sacrament in both Kinds, and that it is mutilated when it is received in one Kind only? Finally the Question is, whether it was not the Judgment of the primitive Church, that to receive in one or both Kinds is a Thing indif ferent in itself? If so, then she could not Judge both, Kinds Neceffary. Now here you have her Judgment pofitively against you, if that may be certainly known by her Prac rice. For it appears from undoubted Facts, that in the primitive Ages the Sacrament was received fometimes in both Kinds, fometimes in one. I need not prove the former, and the latter is manifeft from three undeniable Inftances: For I omit feveral others for Brevity's Sake. I. In the Communion of Infants, who were allow'd to drink of the Cup without Receiving the confecrated Hoft. Cyp. L. de Lapfis. 2. In Dom stick Com munions: The Faithful being permitted by Reason of the Perfecutions to carry confecrated Hoff's, but not the confecrated Wine to their own House for private Communions. Tertul. L. 2. ad Uxorem. Cap. 5. and Cyp. Lib. de Lapfis. 3. in the Manner frequently used of Adminiftring the Sacrament to the Sick. Euf. L. 6. Hift. C. 44. pag. 246. St Ambrose himself received it in that Manner when he was upon the Point of Death, as is recorded in the Hiftory of his Life. From these undeniable Inftances of Communions in one Kind practifed in the primitive Church I infer it was her Judgment, 1. That Communion in one Kind is not forbid by Chrift, whofe Laws cannot be violated upon any Pretence whatsoever. 2. That the Sacrament is not mutilated by it; for then it would be S4crilege to receive it in one Kind, which the Primitive Church would not have fuffer'd. 3. That neither the Teftament of Chrift is violated, nor the Faithful deprived of any Part of our Saviour's Legacy; both which are Impieties, which the primitive Church would have abhor'd. Whence I conclude again, that Receiving in one or both Kinds was regarded by the primitive Church as a Point of Difcipline only; which therefore the Church has full Authority to change at any Time for juft Reasons. Now, if you defire to know the Reasons, that induced the Church to forbid the Cup to the Laity you may find them in the Catechifm ad Parochos de Euch. Sacram. Sect. 70. But the chief was to prevent even cafual and involuntary Prophanations by Spilling any Drops of the confecrated Wine: which was almost unavoidable in a great Croud of Communi cants. G. My Lord, I leave it to yourself, whether « the Reafons in that Catechism be not Childish; or « are of Weight to maim the Inftitution of Chrift. «n pag. 172. « L. Sr, your groundlefs Clamour about our Mai ming the Inftitution of Chrift deferves that Compli ment much better, as I have fufficiently shew'd. But the Reasons given by the Catechifm can only appear Childish to thofe, who either believe not a Word of the Body and Blood of Chrift being received verily and indeed in the Sacrament; or tho they do believe it have Consciences of fo large a Size, as not be much concern'd about Prophanations. One of the Reafons given by the Catechism for Taking away the Cup is because fome Conftitutions can neither endure the fmell nor Taft of Wine. This I prefume you take to be a very Childish one. But the French Proteftants did. not think it fo. For in their Synod at Poitiers An. 1560. they decreed [Ch. 13. Art. 7. of the Lord's Supper that the Bread of our Lord's Supper ought to be administer'd to thofe, who cannot drink Wine. This I think is a good Proteftant Tef= timony, that Receiving the Communion in one Kind is neither Sacrilege, nor Mangling the Sacrament, nor a Violation of any Divine Precept. For if it were, no Neceffity could excufe it; and they who could not receive both Kinds, would be obliged to receive neiher the one nor the other. 5. 40, » G. Tis certain, My Lord, there must be no Comparison made betwixt the Body and Blood of Chrift as to Preference, or which is most valua »ble. But our. Redemption is oftner attributed in holy Scripture to his Blood than to his Body. We → are faved by the Blood Propitiation through his 33 Blood By the Sprinkling of his Blood ----- &c. pag. 172. 173. ---- that L. Here again, Sr, who will not imagine you believe as firmly as any Papift in the World, the Body and Blood of Christ are really and truly prefent in the Sacrament? For we must either fuppofe this to be your Belief, or that you ate the greatest Diffembler imaginable of your Faith. Either therefore you believe the Body and Blood of Chrift to be prefent in the Sacrament, or you do not. If not, all you fay now is rank Diffimulation and Hypocrify; fince you both fpeak of it and argue from it as if you did. But if you do believe it, you must renounce common Senfe to say we can receive the living Body of Chrift without receiving his Blood: and if his living Body cannot be received without his Blood (as furely it cannot) what can be more impertinently quoted than the abovesaid three Texts, even tho they had a Reference to the Euchari? Whereas they are manifeftly spoken of the Blood of Christ as shed upon the Croß for our Redemption. But his Attributing Life everlasting, that is, the whole Fruit of the Sacrament to Eating alone Joh. 6. . 58. comes I think fomewhat clofer up to the Purpose. §. 41 Some fophiftical Remarks upon the 6th of St John 6. M answer'd. Y Lord, we take not this as fpoke of the Sacrament, but of Faith in Christ here « exprefs'd by Eating; that is fpiritually, as himself ec explains it v. 63. it is the Spirit that quickneth, the s Flesh profiteth nothing. The Words that I speak unto you, « they are Spirit, and they are Life. pag. 173. « L. Sr, I have fully explain'd the true Meaning of this Text in our Difpute concerning Tranfubftantiation (S. 25.) fo if you have any Thing more to fay, I am ready to give you full Satisfaction. --- my G. But let us now fuppofe, thofe Words, if « any Man eat this Bread he shall live for ever. And, « the Bread I will give is my Flesh, which I will give te for the Life of the World. Let us, I fay, fuppofe « them to be understood of the Sacrament as you « do, you will find the Blood join'd with the Flesh in « the next Words. v. 54. Except you eat the Flesh of c the Son of Man, and drink his Blood as before « quoted. And again, . ss. Whofo eateth Flesh se and drinketh my Blood and . 56. For my Flesh « is Meat indeed, and my Blood is drink indeed, and *. 52. be that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood. «e Is not the Blood here named with the Flesh? But ce if it were not there are a hundred Places, as I « now observed, where the Blood of Chrift is named «< as cleansing, as Redeeming us, &c. without any men- «‹ tion of his Flesh or Body. Are they therefore exclu- « ded? This is fuch a Sort of Reafoning, as if I invite « you to eat with me you must have no Drink to your Dinner, because it is not named, pag. 173. 174. " II. Part. Kk |
