Concerning the Sacrament of the Lords Supper When Bread or Wine is Wanting

A Case of Conscience Resolved, touching the Sacramental Elements, when both cannot be had, or not Received: Or a discussion of the doubt, in several cases, what is to be done when either of the Elements of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, cannot be had, or (through infirmity or Antipathy) cannot be taken: occasioned by the particular case ensuing.

D ^r . EDMUND MAINWARING (the Chancellor of Chester ) his Letter concerning the Case.

SIR, The case of conscience (as in your Nephews Letter it is put to you, and in yours to me) concerning the young woman, I conceive to be this,

Hereupon, you require my resolution, what is to be done? concerning which I say, First it is a very rare thing for one (borne and bread where bread is daily food) not by infirmity, but by Antipathy, to be so indisposed to make use of that fundamental nourishment, as not to be able to take so much as a crumb, though it were to receive the Sacrament of the Supper of the Lord: I have read only of one before now, whose dislike of bread was like unto hers.

Secondly, taking the case as it is, deliberation is requisite concerning three opinions especially.

The first of those who hold, that if the Sacrament cannot be administered, and received in both kinds (according to the institution of our Savior) it is wholly to be forborne: the learned Bishop of Bath and Wells expresseth his opinion to that purpose thus, Seeing the Sacraments have necessitatem, non medij, sed praecepti, as it is a foul fault to contemn the Elements (when they may be had:) So when they may not be had, it were better to want the Sacrament, then to use Elements of our own choice: God can supply to our use (saith he) rem Sacramenti, sine Sacramento, in case of necessity, who happily will not be so gracious, if we be so presumptuous as to prescribe.

The second opinion is of those, who think that in defect of the Elements, prescribed and used by our Savior at his last Supper, others which are analogical to them may be taken, as for bread (which they would have to be rather of Wheat then Barley, or of any other grain, but by no mean of Oats, against which there is an especial prohibition, that with bread of Oats, there be no Consecration) they allow not only that which is made of corn, but of other materials; of which (in divers Authors) we meet with many sorts of bread made of Almonds and sugar, bread made of honey and raysons, and of aromatical ingredients, bread of Turneps, bread of Battara roots, used in the Islands of Moratay, bread of Wall-nuts; but the most of these for necessity, where bread of corn is either not at all, or not in a competent quantity to be had, and if this opinion admit of other materials, as far as necessity suggesteth supply, it may proceed to the approbation of Arcadian bread, made of Acorns, which would little beseem the Lord's Table: for as Pearls must not be cast before Swine (as our Savior saith) so of that which is fittest to be cast before them, as Acorns, none should (as I conceive) offer to make such pearls, as is the bread of that holy banquet.

The like we say, of the poor and miserable bread (at the siege of Sancerre in France) made of flaxseed, nut-shells and straw, so much more unmeet for such a service as it is more unworthy then the other. And as for bread, so if there be no wine to be had, they hold it lawful to use other liquor, as Methegline (so Melancthon resolved for the Russian Church) or the Juice of Raysons (as for India upon the like defect) others have concluded, and as there the Communion of the Nestorian Christians is administered, or any other liquor, of familiar use, though it be water: so Beza (putting the question touching America) maketh Answer; and he doth it, in the name of Calvin, and others of the Presbytery of the Church of Geneva, as consonant both to very good reason, and to the counsel of Christ, which he delivereth with such confidence of the sufficiency of such a supply, that he chargeth those with superstition, who so depend upon the Symbole of wine, that if they may not have it, they will deprive themselves of the other part of the Sacrament: and he assureth the receiver, that there is no doubt of it, but by such an Administration of the Sacrament, he receiveth the blood of Christ, as well as if the Sacrament were with wine delivered unto him. But this liberty without great caution might prove very scandalous: for

First, by receding so far from the Institution, some might take occasion of such a presumption, as is condemned in the third Counsel of Bracara, anno 669. which was to bring milk for wine to the Communion, or clusters of grapes, which is wine virtually, and materially somewhat else, which should not be be added to the Institution, as Aquinas well enough hath resolved: and there were some so fond, or rather mad, as to bring bread and cheese into the mysteries of Religion: who therefore are worthily branded with a name and note of heresy, by Epiphanius, and Augustine many hundred years agone.

Secondly, for the limitation, or rather limited allowance of Beza in case of necessity, as (according to the degree of it) it maketh as much variation in bread, as is between Almonds and Acorns; so for drink, some necessities have come down as low as from wine to urine. Rabshakeh threatened the Jews. Isaiah 36.12. That he would bring them to such an extremity, but he did but threaten it, but it fell out so indeed, among the Cretenses, upon the siege of Cecilius Metellus, for they were driven to drink both their own, and the urine of their beasts: and so (as Valerius Maximus said) did rather torture then satisfy their appetites, if the case of necessity be such, as degrades a man's appetite to the Aliment of beasts, or (as in this case) below it, doubtless it is much better to forbear the Sacrament, then to administer it in such Elements, as suite neither with the sweetness, nor with the dignity of such an excellent mystery.

For Beza his allowance of water, in case of necessity, I like it the worse, not only for that (as it is a kind of drink, it is fitter for beasts then for men) but for that, such as anciently did administer in water, instead of wine, were branded as heretics, (by the orthodox Doctors) under the name of Aquarij: though they did it not of schismatical presumption (as those whom the Council of Bracara condemned for their innovation) but in their zeal to sobriety. Against these, S ^t . Cyprian pleadeth very earnestly, in his epistle to Cecilius. I deny not, but that there is difference, betwixt using water (without necessity, as they did) and of necessity, when wine could not be had, which is the case wherein Beza, and his brethren did allow it: whose opinion is since taken up by Polanus, and set down (almost in the same words) though he name him not. Yet their great affection to sobriety, was somewhat to excuse them, and perhaps very near as much, as the mere want of wine might excuse some others, if they should follow Calvinus, Beza and Polanus their indifferency, for using water instead thereof: for though wine could not be had, other liquor (of nearer operation to it) in most places may be had. And albeit ordinarily, those Countries which have no vines, might be provided of wine enough for the Sacrament as Aquinas confesseth (which we take not only for the Priests, as he hath it, and so no necessity to dispence with the Priests of Norway, to consecrate in one kind only, as Pope Innocentius the VIII. is said to have done, but for the Laity also) yet if there should be such want of wine, as in the year 1237. there was in Alsatia, when a quart of wine was 16. times dearer then it was, but the year before, especially such a want, as was in the year 604. which was general almost throughout the world, when with the coldness of the winter that went before, their Vines were killed, I conceive (with humble submission to the judgment of the Church) that rather then we of England should generally want the Sacrament, until new Vines had brought forth new increase, we might well receive the Sacrament, in some of the better sort of our usual drinks, but not in water only: though that were mingled in the sacred Cup, at the consecration (as Cyprian confidently affirmeth) and others more warilie deliver, upon probable conjecture, and that for these two reasons.

First, because (as S ^t . Cyprian showeth) the drink of the Sacrament must be a drink of some vigor, as able (as water is not) to inebriate, though not in so small a quantity, as is commonly taken by every single receiver.

Secondly, our Savior consecrated the Sacrament not simply in wine (as it was wine) but in wine and water (as the usual drink of that Country (as Beer or Ale is with us) as Aquinas conceiveth (and no man contradicteth him in it, nor do I know any reason why any one should do so.) And upon these reasons, it might (if the Church gave way unto it) be warantable enough rather to make a supply, where there is an unexpected failing of wine, at a great Communion, with some other liquor analogical to it, then to send many away with half the Sacrament.

If it be said, that in case of want of wine, [Object.] to take common drink, would bring the Sacrament down to a common and contemptible conceit, as by dealing the Sacramental bread out of a common Basket, some people took a loathing of the communion: as was objected against the Vicar of Ratsdale in the conference at Hampton Court.

It may be answered first, that no such ill effect, hath been observed, in the places where wine is (by custom) the common drink of the Country: as in Judea, France, &c.

Secondly, That the Sacrament of Baptism, [Answ. 2] is received in a more ordinary and common element by far: for what is more common then water? whereof every beast may drink, and wherein he may set his foot? and yet is Baptism generally received, as an holy and honorable ordinance.

Thirdly, [Answ. 3] for that scandal at distribution of the bread of the Sacrament out of a basket. I say,

It consisted chiefly in this, that the Minister suffered (as in the Conference is said) each man, to put his hand into the basket, and to take his own part of the bread.

In that (being but a private Minister) he made an Innovation for the worse, and withal a kind of schism from other Churches. But if there had been Authority for carrying the bread in such a basket, it had been no prejudice to the dignity of the Sacrament, nor to his discretion that so used it, nor had such scandal ensued upon it: Saint Jerome highly commendeth Exuperius (Bishop of Toulouse) for his great charity, and mortification, and for his great estate also, and yet (saith he) he carried the Lord's body in a wicker basket, and his blood in a glass. Meaning the materials of the sacrament, bread and wine. The reason why this good man carried the Sacrament, in such mean vessels (whereof the Reader may have some scruple by the way) was not out of any contempt, or disrespect of it; but that thereby he might the better drive the sin of covetousness out of the Church (as Jerome implieth) when he saith (in the same place, and the next words after) that he excommunicated avarice out of the Church, but this but by the way.

Yet I confess (though I thus plead) when I was once unhappily put to a Non plus for Wine in the administration of the Sacrament (by the Churchwardens default) I durst not piece up the defect, with any ordinary drink, because I wanted the direction of Authority to induce me unto it: so that I incline to conform to a third opinion, which is a kind of Medium betwixt those two, Viz. neither to substitute other elements (as Calvin, Beza, Polanus and others would have it:) nor wholly to forbear or debar others from the receipt of the Sacrament, as some other Protestants have conceived most convenient, when bread and wine, or either of them, cannot be had: but if there be either an Antipathy against either kind, or want of either, to be content with that which may be had and taken: and this is the Judgment, not only of Papists, as of Bellarmine (besides many more) concluding so, in the case of such as are abstemious, & cannot abide the taste of wine: but of many Protestants also, of whom he nameth Brenz only, and blameth Melanchthon for too much boldness, in resolving on the contrary part, for the Russians, that (wanting wine) they might have the Communion in Methegline, asking who gave him Authority to change the matter of the Sacrament. But it would be a harder question, able to pose the learnedst Pope, to ask who gave him, or the Council of Constance or Trent authority, to rob all the Laity of the Christian world of half their right in the holy Sacrament: But besides Brenz, there be many more that so resolve; for as the reformed Churches in France, in twenty several Synods have confirmed this Canon for the Communion.

Pastors ought to Administer the bread of the holy Supper, unto them that are not able to drinkwine, they having made a Protestation, that they do it not in contempt, and framing themselves to drink (so far as they shall be able) Namely, they shall take the cup in their hand, to prevent scandal.

Which Constitution, I account of more weight, because it is not like they did either not know, or not consider the decisions of Geneva, before mentioned: and it is worthy our observation in two points especially.

That the Communion may be received in one kind, in case of necessity, when both cannot be had or not received: for then to take the one in deed, the other in desire, may suffice, which seemeth to be the Judgment of Bishop Andrew's (who since his death hath been styled a stupendous oracle) in his Answer to Cardinal Bellarmine, as Doctor Feately understandeth him: though (to mine apprehension) he carrieth his conceit indifferently, betwixt receiving in one kind, and supplying the defect of one Element with some other thing, in case of Antipathy, or other extreme necessity, which he calleth an Iron necessity. In which case, he saith the Sacrament was made for man, not man for the Sacrament: So that when the man cannot yield to the Sacrament, that should (in some sort) yield to him: and that may be meant two ways:

Either by supplying one kind by some other thing analogical unto it, of which we have spoken before: Or,

Secondly, by tempering one kind so with another, as to make it fit to be relished, and swallowed: as by soaking the bread in liquor, as in case of old Serapion, who could not let down dry bread: which soaking (by the Council of Towers ) was allowed to sick Communicants: but afterwards, when (out of case of necessity) it was used by some; it was severely condemned by a Canon, in the 3. Council of Bracara. anno 669. and as Gratian citeth it by a decree of Pope Julius, Anno 340.

Or thirdly, by taking the one kind Re, the other Voto, the one kind in deed, the other in desire: which I most approve of: for First, in such a case, he that receiveth one kind, receiveth Christ, and with Christ, both his body and blood, so that though he have not the Integrity of the Sacrament (for the outward Elements) he may have the essence and efficacy of it: and though it be imperfect in respect of the sensible materials, yet it is better to have it imperfect, then not at all: as it is better to have a piece of a book, of Canonical Scripture, or but a verse, if he can have no more, then none at all. Besides it seemeth hard measure, to debar any from their participation of both parts of the Sacrament, because God hath enabled them to partake but of one, especially if they much desire it, and be inclined to scruples and discomforts, if they be kept without it.

If it be objected, that Gelasius (who was one of the better sort of the Bishops of Rome, for he lived about the year 492) required either an entire Communion in both kinds, or a forbearance of both, and held the division of the one from the other, no less then a grand sacreledge: I answer, he speaketh this, of such as (by Superstition) refused the Communion of the Cup, not of such as would, but could not have both, or receive both. It seemeth rather sacreledge to withhold from them their Sacred right in one part of the Sacrament, because they are deprived of means to enjoy the other.

But Saint Augustine said, the word and the element must make up the Sacrament; without the element then no Sacrament: but he said it not in the Plural number [Elements] but in the singular: and he speaketh it particularly, of the Sacrament of Baptism, in his Eighth tractate upon Saint John.

The second observable point in that Canon of the French Church is, that when it is so received, all scandal and offense must be carefully declined: for if the party cannot drink wine, he must yet take the Cup into his hand (as before hath been said) and profess a willingness to do it, and thereby he professeth his judgment, and consent with the Church, against several heresies, condemning and denying the lawful use of wine, as the Severeani, who held that Satan and the Earth were the Parents of wine: and of the Tatiani, who (because the Lord findeth fault with the people, by the Prophet Amos, that gave the Nazarites wine to drink) thence conceived that he condemned wine altogether: as Jerome observeth upon that text. Amos 2. verse. 12 and of the Manachees, who accounted wine the beginning of darkness, yet forbare not to eat the grapes from whence it was pressed: of the Turks, who pretended a prohibition from heaven, by an Angel, against the drinking of wine, of the Aquarij, who refused it upon pretence of more sobriety, and especially of the Papists, who deny the necessary use of it to the Laity, by virtue of Christ's Institution. Lastly, hereby they profess against scandal or offense unto the congregation; by doing otherwise then they do.

Imprimatur,