A manuel of controversies clearly demonstrating the truth of Catholique religion by texts of Holy Scripture, councils of all ages, Fathers of the first 500 yeers, common sense and reason, and fully answering the principal objections of Protestants and all other sectaries / by H.T.

ARTICLE XII. Of Communion under one kind.

OUr Tenet is, That there is no ne∣cessity for the Laity to communi∣cate under both kinds, but that it is lawfull for them to do it either under one or both, as the Church of God appoints: which we prove thus.

The first Argument.

Ma. If to communicate under one kind only be sufficient for the Laities obtaining everlast∣ing life; then it is not necessary for them to communicate under both.

Mi. But to communicate under ono kind onely is sufficient for the Laities obtaining everlast∣ing life:

Cons. Therefore it is not necessary for them to communicate under both.

The major is proved; Because that, with∣out which a thing may be had, is not absolute∣ly necessary for obtaining it.

The minor is proved by, This is a bread com∣ing down from heaven, that if any one eat of it, he dies not, S. John 6. 50. He that eateth of this bread shall live for ever, vers. 52. If any one eateth me, the same shall also live by me, vers. 58. You hear eating only will suffice.

A second Argument.

• 1. If Christ himself and his Disciples gave the Sacrament under one kind, then it is lawful also for us to give it under one kind.
• 2. But Christ himself and his Disciples did sometimes give it under one kind:
• 3. Therfore it is lawful also for us to give it under one kind.

The major is manifest, because their actions are our examples and best warrants.

The minor is proved: And it came to pass•• whilest he (Christ) sate at the table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake and did reach it to them, and their eyes were opened, and they knew him, and he vanished out of their sig••••, S. Luke last, verse 30.

And they were pers••vering in the doctrine of the Apostles, and the communication of the break∣ing of bread and prayer▪ Acts 2. v. 42. And in the first of the Sabbath, when they were assembled to break dread, &c. Acts 20. 17. A plain Synaxis; Here is no cup in any of these places, which

are all expounded of the Sacrament, by S. Au∣stin, l. 49. de cons••ns. Evangel. c. 25. Venerable Bede, and Theophylact on the said places.

A Third Argument.

• 1. If the whole substance and essence of the Sacrament with all the ends thereof be had under one kinde, both are not necessary to salvation.
• 2. But the whole substance and essence of the Sacrament with all the ends thereof, is had under on kinde.

Therefore both are not necessary to salvati∣on.

The major is proved, because the pr••••ise in∣stitution of a thing infers not a necessity of doing or receiving the whole, when the end of the institution may be obtained by a part only; for example; God instituted all kinds of meats for mans s••stenance, yet neither any one particular man, nor the whole collection of men are bound to eat all kinds of meates, but so much only as is sufficient to sustaine them; so God ordain'd marriage for the holy propagation of mankinde, yet all men are not bound to marry, because mankinde may suffi∣ciently be propagated without this or that particular mans marrying.

The minor is proved, because, under one

kinde, there is the matter, the bread, there is the forme, the words of consecration; there is the signe of Christs unity with the faithfull, many graines making one paste; there is the thing signified, the body and blood of Christ and divine grace, there is a memory of his death and passion, the bread divided from the cup, to signifie how his body and blood were divided for us on the cross, and hence it was that after the consecration of either kinde, he recommended to us the memory of his death and passion; to shew that either was a suffi∣cient memorial thereof, 1. Cor. 11. 24. 25. And finally by receiving under one kind we are spiritually nourished, made partakers of the merits of Christ, and fast united to him▪ For we are one bread, one body, all that do participate of one bread, 1 Cor. 10. 13. which is all that ap∣pertains to the substance, essence, or ends of of this Sacrament.

A fourth Argument.

• 1. That which is not commanded either in the written, or unwritten Word of God, is no divine precept.
• 2. But the Laities Communion under both kinds is not commanded either in the writ∣ten or unwritten Word of God.
• Therefore the Laities Communion under both kinds is no divine precept; and 'tis lawful

• for them to communicate under one, or both, according as the Church appoints.

The major is manifest by the very termes.

The minor is proved by the solution of all such objections as shall be brought out of the Scripture to the contrary: And as for the un∣written Word, which is Apostolicall Traditi∣on, let these ensuing testimonies be heard.

Fathers for this point.

In the second Age S. Dionysius asserts the Communion of Infants under one kind, l. de Eccles. Hierarch c. ult. prope finem. See also c. 4.

In the third Age Tertullian tels us, it was then a custome to carry the Eucharist home to their houses for private Communion (••. ad Ʋ∣xorem) which could be done but under one kind, because Chalices were not permitted to be in Lay▪ mens houses. S. Athanasius Apol. 2. cont. Arianos.

In the same Age S. Cyprian affirms, it was gi∣ven to Infants and to the Sick in one kind on∣ly. Serm. d•• lapsis num. 10.

In the fourth Age S. Ambrose asserts▪ They kept the Eucharist after con••ecration, and that his brother Satyrus in a shipwrack was mira∣culously delivered from the waters, by having the Eucharist tied about his neck in a stole. O∣rat▪ de obitu Satyri.

In the same Age Eusebius testifies; They were wont to send the Sacrament by Sea into far countries, l. 5. Histor. which could not be done but under one kind.

In the fifth Age S. Austin teaches the pra∣ctice of communion under one kind for in∣fants. L. advers. Julian. Pelag. c. 4. prope finem. & tom. 2. Epist. 106. post medium.

In the same Age it was so indifferent a thing for the Laity to communicate either un∣der one or both kinds, that the Manichees (who held Christ had no true bloud, and that wine was the gall of the Devil, and therfore would not receive the cup) lurked among Ca∣tholikes, by communicating under the form of bread only, and could not be distinguished from them, till Pope Leo the first made a spe∣cial Edict, commanding all the Laity to re∣ceive once a year under both kinds, and that at the publike Communion of Easter, by which means he detected the said Manichees, and excluded them from the Catholike Com∣munion. See Leo Serm. 4 de Quadrages. and Baronius A••••als An. 490. num. 21, 22.

The Council of Clarem••nt under Pope Ʋ••∣ban. 2. decreed against an abusive custome of dipping the bread in the cup, That no man should communicate of the Altar, unlesse he took the bread apart, and the cup in like manner; un∣lesse through necessity or caution (as in case of sick

and infants) Can. 28. An. Dom. 1095.

The Council of Constance has decreed a∣gainst all such as rashly presume to say, That Christian people ought to receive the Sacrament under both kind, &c. That as the custome of the Layties receiving under the form of bread onely, had been lawfully brought in for avoiding some dangers and scandalls, and very long observed, &c. so it ought to be held for a Law, which it is not law∣full to reject, without the Churches authority. Sess. 13. 14. An. Dom 1415. The Council of Basil has defined the same, Sess. 30.

Objections solved.

Ob. DRink ye all of this, S. Matth. 26.

Answ. That was only spoken to the Apostles, whom he made Priests, none else were present; And they all drank, S. Mark 14. That those words concerned not the Layty, but the Apostles only▪ appears in S. Luke, who has exprest it thus; Take ye and d••vide it amongst you, S. Luke 22. 17.

Ob. Do this for a commemo••ation of me, S Luke c. 22. 1 Cor. 11.

Answ. By those words Christ made his A∣postles Priests, and gave them power to con∣secrate his Body & Bloud, as he had there done, which cannot appertain to the Laity; unlesse perhaps you would have them Priests also, and

then we shall have Priests enough. Besides, S. Luke has those words after the consecrati∣on of the bread immediatly, not after the con∣secration of the Cup, & S. Paul has them abso∣lutely after the consecration of the bread, but conditionally onely after the consecration of the cup, and with limitation Do this as oft as y•• shall drink, in commemoration of me, both which circumstances rather evince a non-necessity of communion under both kinds, then otherwise.

Ob. Christ ordained it in both kinds.

Answ. True; but precise institution, as hath been proved, obliges not all men to do all that was instituted: Besides, it was instituted not only for a Sacrament, but a sacrifice; and so I grant both kinds are requisite to make a per∣fect representation of the body and bloud of Christ, as actually divided on the cross; and therfore Priests have a command to receive it both kinds, but not the Laity, to whom it ap∣pertains not to sacrifice.

Ob. Ʋnlesse ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his bloud, you shall have no life in you.

Answ. Such as deny the reall presence of Christs body in the Eucharist, say, that Chap∣ter concerns not oral and sacramental, but on∣ly mental, and spiritual communion; and so nothing to your purpose. But to such as al∣low the real presence with us, I answer, This imports a command obliging the whole

Church, but not each particular man, and so it is fulfilled by the whole Church, by Priests re∣ceiving in both kinds, and by the Laity recei∣ving in one, or both, as it is appointed.

It is not said, unlesse every one, &c. but un∣lesse ye eat, &c. So when Christ said, Go ye teaching all nations, baptizing them, &c. he did not command every particular Apostle to teach and baptize all Nations (that were im∣possible) but that it should be done among them, according to their several allotments. So in the old Scripture we read, Ye shall cir∣cumcise the flesh of your fore-skin, Gen. 17. 11. And let every one take a lamb &c. the whole mul∣titude ••f the sons of Israel shall sacrifice it, Ex∣od. 12. 3, 6. These were precepts obliging the whole Synagogue, but not each particular man; every one was not bound to circum••ise, but such only as were deputed for that office; nor was every one obliged to sacrifice the lamb, but only the father or chief of every family. The reason of this is given us by S. Austin, Because the morall pr••cepts of Christ oblige all and each particular man of the same state or calling his sacramental precepts not so; but the whole mul••itude onely, according to their different callings and capacities. That nothing can be pro∣ved out of this Chapter, for the necessity of communion in both kinds, is evident, because in three or foure speciall texts it affirms one

kind to be sufficient to salvation, verse 50, 52, 58.

Ob. Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup, for he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damna∣tion to himself, 1 Cor. 11. 28, You hear S. Paul injoyns both.

Answ. This probation, or trial of our selves is necessary for all sorts of men, and at all times, as often as they communicate, and therfore he extends his speech to all, as wel Priests as Laicks; That he knew it to be lawful for the Laity to receive under one kind onely (if holy Church should so command) is evi∣dent by the precedent verse, in which he sayes, For whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink this cup of our Lord unworthily▪ (the Greek word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) he shall be guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord, vers. 27. And after the consecrati∣on of the bread he sayes absolutely, Do this for a commemoration of me: But after the conse∣cration of the cup, he sayes, Do y•• this (not absolutely, but with a limitation) as often as ye shall drink, for a commemoration of me, vers. 26. so to intimate, that it was not necessary for all sorts of Communicants, or at all times, to re∣ceive the cup.

Ob. By denying them the cup, you rob the Laity of the bloud of Christ.

Answ. No; there is both body and bloud,

whole Christ under either kind: his body and bloud cannot be now divided; for he is now immortal and impassible, he cannot die nor suffer any more, Rom. 6. And as the Church heretofore commanded the Laity to receive in both kinds, so to exclude the Manich••es (who held the cup to be unlawfull, and not the bloud of Christ, but the gall of the Devil) from the communion of the faithful; so now she com∣mands them to receive under the form of bread only, to exclude and detect such here∣tikes as hold that whole Christ is not under ei∣ther kind.

Ob. The cup is the Legacie of Christ to his Church, and therfore belongs to all.

Answ. No, it is a part of his Will or Testa∣ment, and the Will is not his Legacy. His Le∣gacy was everlasting life. That being justified by grace we may be heires according to hope of ever∣lasting life, Rom. 8. 17. Or if you will needs have the cup a Legacy, at least it was but a part of his Legacy, and appertains not to all by a∣ny precept or necessity, but to those onely to whom the Overseers of his Will (the Pastors of the Church) have been appointed to deli∣ver it.

Ob. S. Cyprian says, The Law forbids the eating of bloud, the Gospel commands it, de Coena Dom.

Ans. This is against, not for you. He speaks of eating, not of drinking; if you will have it

understood of drinking, I answer, it commands Priests, but not the Laity.

Ob. S. Austin sayes, All that will have life are exhorted to drink bloud, q. 57. in Levit.

Answ. Counsel is no command, and you must note here, that whensoever the Fathers say the Laity have a right to the cup, & ought to receive it, they speak of times in which the Church so appointed and commanded, which is not against us.

Ob. The Priest receiving in both kinds, re∣ceives but one whole Sacrament: Therefore both kinds belong to the integrity of the Sa∣crament.

Answ. I grant the antecedent, but distin∣guish the consequence, therfore both kinds be∣long to the integrity of the Sacrament, and make but one whole Sacrament, when they are taken together, and ordered to one refection, I grant; of necessity, always, or when they are taken apart, I deny. For so either kind is an en∣tire and perfect Sacrament of it self. So many dishes of meat, if eaten of together & ordered to one refreshing, make but one meal, but eat∣en of at several times, and ordered to divers refections, they make several whole meales. Christ ordained both kinds, and left it in the power of his Church, to make them one or two distinct matters of the Sacrament, as the necessity of times and persons should require.