A papist mis-represented and represented, or, A twofold character of popery the one containing a sum of the superstitions, idolatries, cruelties, treacheries, and wicked principles of the popery which hath disturb'd this nation above an hundred and fifty years, fill'd it with fears and jealousies, and deserves the hatred of all good Christians : the other laying open that popery which the papists own and profess, with the chief articles of their faith, and some of the principle grounds and reasons, which hold them in that religion / by J.L. one of the Church of Rome ; to which is added, a book entituled, The doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome, truly represented, in answer to the aforesaid book by a Prote

XXI. Of Communion in one kind. (Book 21)

FOR our better proceeding in this Controversie, I shall set down the State of it as clearly as I can.

1. The Question is not, Whether the first Institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist by Jesus Christ, were in one kind, or two; for all confess it was under both kinds.

2. It is not. Whether both kinds are not still necessary for the due Celebration of it; for it is granted that both kinds are ne∣cessary to be upon the Altar, or else there could be no compleat Sacrifice.

3. It is not, Whether the People may be wholly excluded from both kinds, and so the Sacrifice only remain: for they grant that the People are bound to communicate in one kind.

4. It is not concerning any peculiar and extraordinary Cases, where no Wine is to be had, or there be a particular Aversion to it, or any such thing, where positive Institutions may be rea∣sonably presumed to have no force: But concerning the publick and solemn Celebration, and participation of it in the Christian Church.

5. It is not concerning the meer disuse or neglect of it, But concerning the lawfulness of Excluding the People from both Kinds, by the Churches Prohibition, notwithstanding the Insti∣tution of it by Christ in both kinds, with a Command to keep up the Celebration of it to his Second Coming.

Here now consists the point in Controversie, Whether the Church being obliged to keep up the Institution in both kinds, be not equally obliged to distribute both as our Saviour did, to as many as partake of it? Our Author not denying the Institu∣tion, or the continuance of it, saith, Our Saviour left it indiffe∣rent to receive it in one kind, or both. And that is the point to be examined.

1. He saith, Christ delivered it to his Apostles, who only were then present, and whom he made Priests just before: yet he gave

no command that it should be so received by all the Faithful.

But were not the Apostles all the Faithful then present? I pray in what capacity did they then receive it? As Priests? How did they receive the Bread before the hoc facite? As Priests or as faithful? It is ridiculous to suppose the hoc facite changed their capacity; and if ••t did, it only relates to consecrating, and not to receiving: but if Christ gave it only to the Apostles as Priests, then for all that I can see, the People are not at all con∣cerned in one kind or other; but it was intended only for Priests: If the people be concerned, how came they to be so? Where is there any command but what refers to the first Institution? And it had been more plausible, according to this Answer, to exclude the People wholly, than to admit them to one kind, and to debar them the other.

2. Christ attributes the obtaining Life Everlasting, the end of the Institution, sometimes to receiving under both kinds, sometimes under one, John 6.51, 57, 58. He could not easily have thought of any thing more against himself; for our Saviour there makes it as necessary to drink his Blood, as to eat his Flesh, Verily, ve∣rily,* 1.1 I say unto you, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink his Blood, ye have no Life in you: If this be under∣stood of the Sacrament, as he saith, How is it possible for him to make the Cup indifferent? Unless it be indifferent whether the People be saved or not.

3. Christ himself administred the Sacrament to some of his Dis∣ciples under one kind only, Luke 24.30. But is he sure Christ did then administer the Sacrament to them? Or that if he did, the Cup was not implied, since breaking of Bread, when taken for an ordinary Meal in Scripture, doth not exclude drinking at it? But S. Augustin, he saith, (l. 49. de Consensu Evangel.) under∣stands that place of the Sacrament. If he doth, it cannot be where he saith; for S. Augustin wrote but Four Books of that Subject: but l. 3.25. he doth say something towards it; yet S. Augustin in another place supposes that these Disciples did both eat and drink. The Disciples did not know him, but in the breaking of Bread;* 1.2 and truly he that doth not eat and drink Iudgment to him∣self, doth in the breaking of Bread own Christ. Whe••e it is plain, that he applies both, to the breaking of Bread here spoken of.

4. He saith, it was the Custom of the Primitive Christians to give it under one kind to Children, the Sick, and to Men in a Iourney. I would he had produced his Authorities to prove these things; for I can bring several to prove the direct contrary as to Children, and sick P••rsons, and Travellers, and not only ancient Writers, but the most Learned of their own Church. And there∣fore I cannot but wonder to find him saying, This was attested by all ancient Writers, and modern Historians. But I have ever found those have been most mistaken, who produce all Writers and Hi∣storians; when it may be, there is not one that speaks home to the business. At least, we have here none mentioned, and there∣fore none to examine; and it would be too hard a task to search All.

5. He adds to this extravagancy, in saying, That Receiving in one or both kinds, was indifferent for the ••irst four hundred years; when the contrary is so manifest, that the most ingenious of their own Writers confess it. If any Persons did carry home one kind (which is very questionable; for Baronius and Albaspinaeus say, they carried both kinds) to receive it in times of Persecution, at what season they thought fit afterwards; This ought not to be set up against the general and constant Rule of the Church; which is attested, not only by Cassander, and such like, but even by Salmero, Ruardus Tapperus, and Lindanus, who make no scru∣ple of saying, the publick Celebration in the Primitive Church was in both kinds. But then, how is it possible for us to judge better, what they thought themselves bound to do, than what they constantly observed in all their publick Celebrations? The Church is not accountable for the particular Fancies or S••perstiti∣ons of Men; but what was observed in all publ••ck Offices, we have reason to think the Church thought it self obliged so to do, out of regard to the Institution of Christ. And to shew how Un••versal this Observation was in the Church, those who give ac∣count of the Eastern Church say, That the Greeks, Nestorians,* 1.3 Armenians, Maronites, Cophtites and Abyssins, do all observe it still, viz. That the publ••ck Communicants do partake of both kinds. And not one of all these Churches, but think themselves bound to observe it, out of regard to the Institution of Christ; and why then should any think the Pr••m••tive Church thought it in∣different?

6. The first Precept of receiving under both kinds, was given to the Faithful by Pope Leo, A. D. 443. and confirmed by G••l••sius, A. D. 490. This is a great mistake, for Leo gave no Precept ab••ut it; but only told the People how they might certainly dis∣cover the Manichees, for they would conform in other things, but they would not taste of the Wine; which argued, that all other Communicants did then partake in both kinds. Gelasius not only confirms the Custom then used, but he saith, That it is Sacriledge to divide that Holy Mystery. And sur••ly he did not account Sacriledge an indifferent thing.

* 1.47. Lastly he saith, That those who receive in one kind are truly Partakers of the whole Sacrament. This is a new way of Concomitancy; we used to hear of Whole Christ under either Species, and that Whole Christ was therefore received; but how comes it to be the whole Sacrament which consists of two di∣stinct Parts? And if it be a Sacrifice, the Blood must be separa∣ted from the Body, else the Blood of Christ is not considered as sh••d, and so the Notion of the Sacrifice will be lost: Which is our next Head.

Notes

• * 1.1

  S. John 6.51.
• * 1.2

  Tract. 2. in Epist. S. Joh.
• * 1.3

  Cotovic. Itiner. Hierosolymit. l. 2. c. 6.

  Histoir. Cri∣tique, p. 14.
• * 1.4

  p. 52.