faithfull wife was like to be debarred of the comfort of receiuing the Sacrament and drinking of the Lords Cup. Tert. then is cleere for the Laietie communicating in both kinds And so is Origen Anno. 230. Origen in 16. Hom. on Numb maketh this question What people is it that is accustomed to drinke blood and he answereth the faithfull people the Christian people heareth these things and embraceth him who saith vnlesse you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his blood you haue no life in you For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drinke indeed Marke the ingemination The people the faithfull people heareth these things c. Therefore in Origens time it was the peoples vse and custome to drinke the blood of Christ. Papists answer Bellarmine loc sup cita saith to this testimonie of Origen that the people did drinke but they had no command so to doe It was their vse it was not Christs precept Secondly hee saith the people might haue such a vse or custome to drinke at the Lords supper though euery one dranke not but some onely The Refutation I need not refell this answer because Bellarmine granteth all that for which I produce this testimonie that the practise of the Church in Origens time goeth for vs and his mincing the matter that some of the people might drinke not all and that they dranke it by custome not by law no way healpeth his bad cause For first Origen in this very place alleageth Christs precept for this practise of the faithfull people Iohn 6. vnlesse ye drinke my blood you haue no life in you Secondly in the end of this homily he turneth his speech not to some of this people but to his audience and thus concludeth Thou therefore art the true people of Israel who knowest to drink the blood and hast learned to eat the flesh of the Word of God and to take a draught of the blood of that grape which is of the true vine those branches of which the father purgeth The euidence of this truth is like the light of the morning it groweth cleerer and cleerer For Origen is cleerer in this point then Tertullian and Cyprian is yet cleerer then Origen Anno. 250. Cyprian that learned Bishop of Carthage and blessed Martyr of Christ Iesus not onely deliuereth but propugneth our assertion by a forcible argument epist. 54. How doe wee inuite them Gods people to shed their blood for Christ in the confession of his name if when they set forth to fight for him we denie them his blood how shall wee fit them for the Cup of Martyrdome if before we admit them not by right of Communion to drinke of the Lords Cup in his Church in his 63. epistle Because some men out of ignorance or simplicitie in sanctifying the Cup of the Lord and ministring it to the people doe not that which Iesus Christ our Lord and God the Author and Institutor of this Sacrifice did and taught I thought it both a matter of religion and necessity to acquaint you herewith by letters that if any yet bee held in that error the light of truth being now discouered vnto him hee might returne vnto the roote and beginning of our Lords institution Papists answere Bellarmine in his answere to Saint Cyprian makes good the Poets obseruation Qui semel verecundiae limites transiuerit hunc grauiter impudentem esse oportet he that hath once passed the bounds of modesty he must be stoutely impudent and arme his forehead with brasse for here he is not content to slight this allegation as he did the former but is bold to challenge it for an euidence on his owne side This place saith hee rather maketh for our opinion then against it for Saint Cyprian speaketh of certaine Christians that fell in time of persecution from the profession of the true faith and were therefore excommunicated by the Bishops whom Saint Cyprian exhorteth in regard of the eminent persecution to restore these weake Christians to their former right and interest which they had in the Lords body The right therefore of the Laietie to Communicate is giuen by the Priests and taken away by them Now if the Priests or Prelates may for certaine crimes take the right of Communicating from the Laietie they may also dispose of the manner of Communicating vnder one kinde To the second testimony he answereth that Cyprian in that place handleth not the poynt whether the Cup ought to bee deliuered to the people or no but if it bee deliuered vnto them hee will haue it deliuered not in water onely but wine mingled with water And this he saith Christ taught vs. The Refutation Neither of these answeres will beare scale both of them are to light by many graines the first of these is liable to these exceptions First it is impertinent for we bring the testimony to prooue the practise of the Primitiue Church concerning the Laieties participating the Cup But Bellarmine craftily waues that poynt and questioneth by what right the people did Communicate Admit that which is most falfe that the Bishop or Priest gaue the people all the right they had to the Cup yet they had it and vsed it their practise therefore maketh for vs. Secondly it is inconsequent for first when a'man is Excommunicated and hath lost his right to the Lords Table a Bishop vpon the parties submission and sorrow for his sin and humble intreatie may restore him to his right againe and set him where he was yet this prooueth not that the Laietie had their originall right of Communicating from them as a Bishop may vpon iust cause suspend a Lay man or Cleargie from the Communion so he may also exclude him from hearing of the word and publike prayer yet no man will hence conclude that the Laietie or Priest haue no right at all to come into the Church and to pray and to heare Gods word but from the Bishop Albeit Cyprian in his owne Church and any other Bishop in his Diocesse may admit or reiect some particular persons vpon iust cause from the Communion yet it will not from hence follow that the Bishop of Rome may take away either the Cup or the Bread from Gods people in all Churches Thirdly it is no good inference that because the Bishop may depriue a man of the whole Sacrament vpon some causes viz. for a great crime or high misdemeanor that therefore he may depriue him of a part of it without any fault at all as the Romanists doe the Laietie in generall Fourthly a Bishop may dispence with his owne censures or reuoke them but he cannot dispence with Gods law To suspend a man from the whole Communion if the delinquent deserue it is agreeable to Christs and the Apostles discipline but to admit him to one part of the Sacrament and not to the other is a manifest violation of Christs ordinance who instituted this Sacrament in two kinds and
the people otherwise one would haue serued This custome the Pope dislikes not for that the Cup was giuen to the Laiety but because in the first institution Christ gaue but one Cup to all his Disciples The same Pope afterward thus resolueth the question touching the leprous Communicants with whom the sound could not with safety drinke in the same Cup As for leapers if they be belieuers let them not be depriued if the participation of our Lords body and blood but by no meanes let them bee at the same Table or participate together with them that are cleane Anno. 780. Alcuinus in his book of diuine duties instanceth in some who were not fit to communicate euery day because they had no purpose to leaue their sinnes To these saith he Saint Austine thus speaketh I like well of your humility that you presume not to approach to the body and blood of Christ but it were better that you would depart from your iniquities and being made cleare by repentance would take the body and blood of Christ. Papists answer Cardinall Bellarmine for want of a better aduentureth vpon this answer that indeede these Fathers say that the blood of Christ is taken by or with the mouth but they say not that it ought to be drunken with the mouth of the body or taken vnder the forme of wine Reply The Hart as often as he is wounded flyes to his old Dictamus and Bellarm. to this distinction to heale himselfe but none of this herbe here groweth there is no ground for it For first the Fathers alleadged speake of the body and blood of Christ as distinct things and therefore not as of one inuolued in the other by the doctrine of Concomitancy to approach vnto to take the body of Christ and his blood or the creature of bread and wine sacramentally changed into Christs body and blood as Beda speaketh is not to take bread onely and wine by I know not what consequence or the body onely in specie and the blood by Concomitancy Secondly could this answer be appliable to other generall sentences of the Fathers yet not to these in which there is expresse mention made of the Chalice of powring out the blood of Christ and taking it as drinke and therfore vnder the forme of wine And who are they that so receiue it The Laietie as wel as the Priests vnlesse none but Priests are faithful Christians or all lepers excommunicate or suspended persons are to bee taken for Priests Beda reacheth the Cup to the faithful indifferently and Gregory to penitents after confession and contrition of what ranck so euer Yea leapers are not excluded simply but secluded that they might not infect the sound by drinking together with them SECT IX The practise of the Church from 800. to 900. Anno 800. CHarles the Great in his booke as the Inscription beareth of Images testifieth that in his time not onely frequently but dayly Christians participated of Christs body and blood He affirmeth that sins are remitted by the holy Ghost or by the blood of Christ which is taken of vs in the Sacrament and was shed for vs for the remission of sinnes That he means by vs the Laiety as well as the Clergy is euidēt First because himself was a Lay man and therefore necessarily in vs includes those of his owne ranke and order Secondly because he speakes of all their communicating who receiue the remission of sinnes by the effusion of Christs blood for them and these I am sure are not the Priests onely Thirdly because in the fourth booke c. 14. hee speaketh expresly of the faithfull in generall whereby the people must needs be vnderstood as well as the Priests His words are the mystery of the body and blood of Christ is dayly receiued by the faithfull in the Sacrament Anno 820. Paschasius Rathertus Abbot of Corbie who was the first that euer wrote of purpose and at large of the truth of Christs body and blood in the sacrament if we may belieue Bellarmine is full and direct against the Church of Rome in the point of their halfe communion O man saith he as often as thou drinkest of this Cup or eatest of this bread thou mayest not thinke that thou drinkest other blood then that which was shed for thee and for all for the remission of our sinnes And againe The blood is well ioyned to the flesh because neither the flesh without the blood nor the blood without the flesh is rightly communicated For the whole man which consists of two substances is redeemed and therefore fed together both with the flesh of Christ and his blood Had he liued in our dayes and professedly wrote against our moderne Papists he could not in more expresse words haue impugned the Romish Glosse vpon the words of our Sauiour viz. drinke yee all of this that is all Priests then he doth cap. 15. He alone it is saith he who breaketh this bread by the hands of his Ministers distributeth it to beleiuers saying take ye ad drinke all of this as well Ministers as the rest of the faithfull this is the Cup of the blood of the new and euerlasting Testament Anno 830. Amalarius praefat in liber 3. de Offic. Eccles affirmeth that the benediction of Bishops or Priests without Chaunters Readers or any other is sufficient to blesse the bread and wine wherewith the people might be refreshed to their soules health as it was wont to be done in the first times by the Apostles themselues Quot verba tot fulmina so many words so many thunderbolts to strike downe dead the Popes sacrilegious heresie If the bread and wine were blest for the refection of the people then not of the Priests onely if this refectiō was for the health of their soules who dare deny it them If this was the manner of blessing and administring the Sacrament vsed by the Apostles themselues by what authority at this day doth the Church of Rome alter it Anno 835. Rabanus Maurus Bishop of Mentz teacheth vs that the Lord would haue the Sacrament of his body and blood to bee receiued by the mouth of the faithfull and made their food that by that visible worke the inuisible effect of the Sacrament might bee shewed For as the materiall food outwardly nourisheth the body and maketh it quicke and liuely so the Word of God within nourisheth and strengtheneth the soule Men may haue this temporall life without this meate and drinke but they cannot haue the eternall because this meate signifies the eternall societie or communion of the Head with the members Who soeuer saith he eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood he abides in me and I in him Wherefore of necessity we must take his body and blood that we may abide in him and be made members of his body In these passages this learned Bishop euery way stops the mouth of our aduersaries They
together in a sop or bread dipt in wine therefore we ought in like manner to administer the Sacrament in both kindes seuerally and not by intinction or sopping the bread in the wine Who seeth not that this Canon of the Councell is a two edged sword cutting off Concomitancie on the one side as well as intinction on the other and giuing as deepe a wound to the late Councell of Constance inioyning the mutilation of the Sacrament as to the ancient Councell of Toures inioyning the confusion of it by the infusion of the bread into the Cup. The second answere doth vanish to nothing the Councell in deed spake of that time wherein the Communion of both kindes was free For so it had been from the time of the Apostles and continued in the Romane Church till the Councell of Constance and in the Greeke Church till this day The greater wrong is offered by the Romanists to the Laietie from whom they haue taken the Cup after so many hundred yeeres possession If any such thing had been attempted in the time of this Councell at Bracara they would haue been as earnest or more earnest against this abuse then they were against that in their time which was farre lesse for of the two it is better to receiue the bread dipt in the wine then the bread and no wine at all The Councell doth not ground it selfe vpon any supposed dispensation of the Church for the Laieties Communion in both kindes as Bellarmine surmiseth but vpon the institution of Christ and the example of the Apostles which in their iudgement ought to preuaile against any sanction of Councell or custome of any place whatsoeuer to the contrarie SECT XII The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 1100. to 1200. Anno 1101. IVo in his collections out of the writings of the ancient for the present vse of the Church in his seuenth Chapter relateth a sentence out of Saint Ambrose to our purpose The Blood is a witnesse of a diuine benefit in a figure whereof we receiue the mysticall Cup for the preseruation of our body and soule To them to wit the Iewes water flowed out of the Rocke to thee blood out of Christ the water quenched their thirst for on howre the blood of Christ washeth thee for euer And in his 31. chapter he reciteth a decree of Pope Syluerius Euery Lords day in the Lent all besides Excommunicate persons or such as doe publike penance ought to receiue the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ. Anno 1105. Zacharias Crysopolitanus applieth the sprinkling of the dore posts with the blood of the Lambe in Exodus to the Sacrament of Christs blood he saith We sprinkle our body and soule with the blood of Christ because the blood of the Lambe sprinkled vpon both the posts of the house freed the Hebrewes And againe The reall and Sacramentall eating of Christ are ioyned when receiuing in the bread that which hung vpon the tree and receiuing in the Cup that which flowed from his side our soules attaine vnto the eating of the bread of life Anno 1110. Odo Cameracensis in expounding the holy Canon affirmeth that vnder the shape and taste of bread and wine we eate and drinke the very substance of Christs body and blood Anno 1120. Rupertus enforcing the necessity of receiuing the sacrament concludes vpon our Sauiours words in Saint Iohn that euery man ought to communicate in both kinds for the repast of his soule as well as his body lest any man should thinke saith he that he hath recouered by faith alone the life of his body and soule without the visible meat and drink of the body blood of Christ and consequently needs not the sacrament Christ repeates the same thing againe touching the eating his flesh and drinking his blood thereby vndoubtedly testifying that he doth not truly beleeue whosoeuer dispiseth to eate and to drink For although thou bee a faithfull man and professe thy selfe to be a Catholick if thou refuse to eat and to drinke of this visible meat and drinke euen by this that thou presumest that this meat and drinke is not necessary to thee thou cuttest thy selfe off from the societie of the members of Christ which is the Church But I inferre that all lay Papists that haue bin instructed by the Fathers of the Councels of Constance and Trent presume that it is not necessary for them to receiue the visible drinke whereof Rupertus speaketh Therefore by Rupertus his conclusion they cut themselues off from the Church And though they are men of a Catholike profession which he speakes of yet they are not true beleeuers In the same Booke and Chapter We saith he that is the Church are that earth which openeth his mouth and faithfully drinketh the blood of Christ. And in his third booke de operibus Spiritus Sancti et 20. cap. he saith in specie panis et vini sanctus Sanctorum est et in omnibus electis qui ad fide eius veniunt idem efficit quod in illa specie qua perpendit in cruce id est remisssionem peccatorum that is the Holy of holies is in forme of bread and wine and to all the elect who come to the faith of him he worketh remission of sinnes as he did in that shape in which he hung vpon the Crosse. Anno 1130. Bern. in his 3. Serm. one Palme Sunday maketh the sacrament of Christs body and blood the Christians foode and alimonie Touching the sacrament of Christs body and blood saith hee there is no man who knoweth not that this so singular a foode was on that day first exhibited on that day commended and commanded to bee frequently receiued Anno 1135. Algerus doth not barely affirme that the sacrament was instituted at first and ought to be administred in both kinds but he confirmeth it strongly by the testimonie of Saint Austine And Pope Gelatius first in his fifth Chapter he positiuely deliuereth the necessitie of communicating in both kinds in these words Because we so liue by meate and drink that we can want neither of them Christ would haue them both in his sacrament least if either should be wanting by that imperfect taking of life and not entire an imperfect life might seeme to be signified In his 8. chap. more at large he vnfoldeth the mysterie that lyeth in the communicating in both kinds There is nothing found in the creature saith he whereby more fitly and neerly life may be represented then by blood which is the seate of the soule in which that it may be signified that our bodies and soules ought to be vnited and made conformable to Christs body and soule the body and blood of Christ are both taken together of the faithfull that by taking whole Christs body and soule the whole man in body and soule might be quickned in as much as the flesh of Christ as I haue said is
Ignatius onely to prooue the practise of the Primitiue Church and thus much Bellarmine confesseth whereupon I adde that this confessed practise of the Primitiue Church was grounded on our Lords precept drinke you all of this for the Church so neere Christ cannot bee supposed to haue swarued any way from his institution by adding any thing vnto it or taking away from it certainely Ignatius and the Churches wherein he bore sway obserued the order and practise of Saint Iohn his master and if Saint Iohn administred the Cup in all Churches to the people so did the rest of the Apostles for they varied not from Christ or among themselues in celebrating the Lords Supper And what the Apostles did ioyntly no Christian doubteth but they did by the direction of the holy Ghost according to our Lords will and commandement And thus wee see this example amounteth to a precept and the practise in Ignatius his time ought to bee a president for all future times SECT II. Testimonies of the Practise of the Christian Churches in the second Age. From 100. to 200. Anno Dom. 150. IVstin Martyr in his second apologie thus writeth They which are called Deacons among vs giue to euery one that is present of the consecrated Bread and Wine And when he hath related the whole manner of the celebration of the Eucharist as it were to preuent a cauill that might be made and is now made by Papists the Martyr heere sheweth the practise of the Church but maketh no mention of the precept of our Sauiour as that they did so in deed but were not bound so to doe he further addeth for the close as they report that Iesus commanded them or as they haue deliuered vnto vs Iesus his command giuen vnto them Bellarmine his answere Bellarmine repineth at this so expresse a testimony of so ancient a Father and so renowned a Martyr and therefore laboureth to disparage it some way or other Si non aliqu â nocuisset mortuus esset Yet all that he saith to it is but this that those last words of the Martyr which mentioneth Christs precept belong not to the Communion but to the Consecration The Refutation This solution will no way beare water First it is euident to any that reads the whole place that Iustin Martyrs words wherein he mentioneth Christs precept belongeth both to the Consecration and to the Communion For after he had spoken of the Communion he subioyneth these words And therefore they cannot bee seuered from the Communion The series or method of the passage in Iustin is thus hauing rehearsed the words of the Institution This is my body doe this in remembrance of me and this Cup is the new Testament drinke you all of this he addeth and he commanded that they onely should participate as had been before washed in the lauer of Regeneration and lead such a life as Christ prescribed them These words that they onely should participate clearely conuince the Cardinall and demonstrate that Iustin Martyr extendeth Christs command both to the Consecration and to the Commumunion it selfe which in Christs precept cannot be deuided both being enioyned in this one precept doe this in remembrance of me that is Consecrate and Communicate Secondly howsoeuer the Cardinall by any tricke of sophistrie shall dismember the whole sentence and pull these words As Christ commanded from the rest and refer them to which part of the sentence he pleaseth yet he can neuer smoother the light of truth shining in these words The Deacons deliuer or minister to euery one of the consecrated bread and wine The practice then of those times maketh for vs against the Church of Rome The Deacons then as the Ministers now deliuered the Sacrament to the people in both kindes Anno. 152. Laurence Deacon to Pope Sixtus cryed out to him as hee was led to his Martyrdome Whether goest thou father without thy sonne whether hastest thou Priest without thy Leuite try whether thou hast chosen a fit minister to whom thou hast committed the dispensation of our Lords blood Wilt thou denie me to bee a copartner with thee in the effusion of thy blood who hast made me a copartner with thee in the celebration of our Lords blood This giueth such light to Iustin Martyrs words and so fully accordeth with them that Tiletanus the defender of the councell of Trent confesseth that it is manifest that in this age the vse of both kinds was common to all Anno 180. Saint Irenaeus Bishop of Lions and Martyr in the fourth booke against heresies and 34. cha proueth the resurrection of the flesh and eternall life by an argument drawne from the faithfulls eating Christs flesh in the Eucharist and he presseth his argument in this manner How doe they viz. the heretiques say that the flesh should be vtterly corrupted and neuer rise againe which is nourished with the body and blood of Christ and a little after Our bodies by participating the Eucharist or Sacrament of our Lords supper are not now corruptible or shall not vtterly be corrupted and come to nothing because they haue the hope of theresurrection Irenaeus speaketh of all Christians people as well as Priests for all faithfull Christians haue hope of a blessed resurrection and he saith that they are nourished with the bodie and blood of Christ by participating of the Sacrament of his supper Papists answer The Romanists seeke to auoyde these and the like passages by their doctrine of concomitancie auerring that the blood of Christ is not seuered from his body and consequently that the Laietie take the blood in the body and are nourished therewith to eternall life and this say they is all that can bee gathered from Irenaeus his words They are nourished with the blood of Christ which they receiue together with his body not with the blood of Christ which they take by it selfe in the Cup. The Refutation This answer of theirs is weake and insufficient First because it is built on a weake and ruinous foundation viz. the reall and carnall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament vnder the accidents of bread and wine which I haue else where by Scriptures and Fathers refelled See the fisher caught in his owne net part 2. That the doctrine of concomitancie is builded vpon the reall and carnall presence is not denied by the Romanists for they make the one the ground of the other Secondly albeit wee should grant that the Laiety in some sence receiue the blood of Christ in the bread yet they receiue it not so as Christ commandeth for they receiue it not by drinking No man drinketh in eating or eateth in Drinking Thirdly the blood of Christ which wee receiue in the Sacrament we receiue not as subsisting in his veines or as being a part of or ioyned vnto his body but as shed for vs In which quality and manner it is impossible to receiue the blood of Christ together with and in the body by naturall
concomitancy Fourthly whatsoeuer becommeth of the deuice of concomitancy our aduersaries therwith cannot shift off Irenaeus For in his fifth booke and second Chapter hee speaketh distinctly of the Cup and declareth his meaning to be that the faithfull are made partakers of eternall life by drinking Christs blood mystically in the Chalice He confirmed the Chalice or Cup which is a creature to be his blood shed for vs wherewith our blood is nouvished and a little after when the mingled Cup and bread broken receiueth the Word of God that is the benediction or consecration it is made the Eucharist or Sacrament of Christs body and blood how then doe they the heretiques denie that our flesh is capable of the gift of God which is eternall life sith it is nourished with Christs body and blood and is a member From these passages of Irenaeus thus I collect his argument All they that in the Sacrament of the Lord Supper eate of the bread and drinke of the Cup consecrated are nourished by Christs body and blood to eternal life All faithfull Christians or worthy communicants eate of the bread and drinke of the consecrated Cup Therefore all faithfull Christians or worthy communicants are nourished by Christs body and blood to eternall life If the aduersarie will haue the assumption restrained to Priests onely he must needs in like manner restraine the conclusion to Priests only which is little lesse then heresie Irenaeus his intent and drift in that place is to confirme all the faithfull in the doctrine of the resurrection and therfore his medium must be vniuersall and such as holds as well for the Christian people as for the Priest Anno. 190. Clemens Alexandrinus stromatum lib. 1. when they distribute the Eucharist as the manner is they giue to euery one of the people a part or portion therof Now that the Eucharist includeth the Cup as well as the bread hee declareth himselfe in expresse words paedagog li. 2. cap. 2. The mingling of the drinke and of the water and the word is called the Eucharist and a little before to drinke the blood of Iesus is to be partaker of the Lords incorruption stromatum lib. 4 Melchizedeke sanctified bread and wine for a type of the Eucharist not bread onely but bread and wine is the Eucharist and of this euery one of the people participated in his time therefore all dranke of the Cup. Bellarmines answer Bellarmine cauilleth at the last passage saue one viz. where Clemens saith to drinke Christs blood is to bee partaker of his incorruption First he saith it doth not follow that because he that drinketh Christs blood hath immortality or incorruption therefore hee that drinketh it not hath not incorruption for he may haue it otherwise namely by the bodie Secondly he saith that Christs blood giueth incorruption or immortall life not because it is drunke but because it is taken Now it is truly taken of them who communicate in one kind onely because the blood is not seuered from the body which they partake of The refutation This answer of Cardinall Bellarmine is many wayes defectiue First when we gaue him three wounds he applieth a plaister but to one of them and it is too narrow for that too hee cunningly silenceth our strong allegations out of Clemens and singleth out one of the weakest Secondly that passage of Clemens to which alone hee would seeme to say something hee saith indeed nothing For if the drinking of Christs blood bee a meanes to attaine our Lords incorruption or immortality as Bellar out of Clemens confesseth although he denyeth it to be the onely means why should the people be depriued of this means Our argument out of Clemens standeth thus None ought to be depriued of the meanes of attaining our Lords incorruption and immortality But the drinking of Christs blood is the meanes to attaine immortallitie Therefore none ought to bee depriued of the vse of the Cup I meane none that are fit guests for the Lords table Thirdly Clemens saith not to take Christs blood but to drinke it is to partake of incorruption And therefore albeit Christs blood might bee otherwise participated then by drinking of the Cup this satisfieth not Clemens his intention and scope who speaketh expressely of taking of it in this manner viz. by drinking Fourthly Bellarmine in his answer beggeth the question For he supposeth that Christs blood is taken in the bread as his body in the Cup which I haue before refuted out of Innocentius SECT III. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 200. to 300. Anno. 210. FIrst Tertullian in his booke of the resurrection of the flesh cap. 8. speaking of the practise of Christians in generall and not Ecclesiasticke onely saith The flesh feedeth vpon the body and blood of Christ that the soule may be fatted as it were of God Papists answere Cardinall Bellarmine shifteth of this sentence of Tertullian by tithing minte and cummim nicely distinguishing betweene feeding vpon Christs blood drinking it The people may and do feede vpon Christs blood though they drinke it not but eate it or take it by way of meat vnder the forme of bread The refutation This nicity will not serue the turne First because Tertullian speaketh of the body and blood of Christ as distinct things saying corpore et sanguine Now the blood taken as a distinct thing from the body cannot bee fed vpon but by drinking we feed vpon the blood of Christ in the Sacrament as shed for vs and therefore necessarily as seuered from the body And how is it possible to take blood or feede vpon it as shed and seuered from the body without drinking of it All faithfull Christians in Tertullian his time fed vpon Christs blood as distinguished from the body they dranke it therefore Why then doth Tertullian vse the Verbe vesci signifying to feed vpon not bibere signifying to drinke The reason is euident because hee speaketh of the partaking of both the body and the blood which he could not expresse by the word Drinke because wee drinke not the body he vseth therefore a common word Vesci to feed which may be applied to both acts eating and drinking namely eating the body and drinking the blood Feeding is as the Genus to both and may bee affirmed of both For which cause Tertullian speaking of both made choice of it rather then of the Verbe bibere which could not agree to Corpore though it were proper to sanguine Secondly Tertullian himselfe elsewhere maketh mention of the Cup giuen to the Laietie and not only to Lay men but women also Tertul. ad vxorem lib. 2. c. 6. shall the Lords Table heare any thing or haue to doe with the Tauerne or with hell from whose hands shall she desire the Sacramentall bread of whose Cup shall she participate He speaketh of a Christian woman married to an infidell and sheweth the inconueniencie of such a match whereby the
beleeued not to bee without blood and dead but liuing and quickning whence it is that Saint Agustine saith that neither the flesh with out the blood nor the blood without the flesh is rightly taken Also Gelatius writeth to Maioricus and Iohn Bishops in this manner We vnderstand that some taking a portion of Christs body abstaine from the Cup of his sacred blood to whom our commandement is that either they partake the sacrament intirely and receiue both or be kept from both Anno 1136. Hugo de Sancto Victore yeeldeth a like reason of the full and intire communicating in both kinds Therefore saith hee the sacrament is taken in both kinds that thereby a double effect might bee signified For it hath force as Saint Ambrose saith to preserue both body and soule In the same termes hath Halensis Sum. Theol. par 3. num 29. art 4. Anno 1140. Peter Lumbard Mag. sentent propoundeth this question Why is the sacrament receiued vnder a double forme or kind sith whole Christ is in either kind He answereth That thereby it might be signified that Christ tooke the whole nature of man that he might redeeme the whole Anno. 1150. Petrus Cluniacensis Epist. lib. 1. Though hee fight against the truth one way and woundeth the Albigenses yet he fighteth for it another way and giueth a deeper wound to the Trent Fathers and all that content themselues with an halfe communion That men might not onely learne by words saith he but haue a sensible feeling by deeds that they cannot liue vnlesse they bee ioyned and vnited to Christ after the manner of carnall food and life they receiue the body of Christ and drinke the blood of Christ. And a little after to signifie that for this cause he would giue his flesh to all to eat it and his blood to all to drinke it he draweth a similitude from Manna that fell in the wildernesse In this yeere of our Lord also Vincentius relates of one Tundanus a profane person in his former life that being suddenly strucken from heauen hee called for the body of our Lord which when hee had taken and drunke the wine he began to praise God in these words O Lord thy mercie is greater then mine iniquitie In this same Age Antoninus writes in his Chronicles that the Normans the morning before they fought with the Danes receiued the Communion of Christs body and blood Anno 1170. Gratian rehearseth many ancient Canons and Constitutions for communicating in both kinds which because they haue been handled before I here let passe The Papists answer The onely answer which I find to our allegations out of the Fathers in this Age is Cardinall Bellarmines who indeuoureth to put a glosse vpon Saint Bernards words on this wise Vnder the forme of bread the entire nourishment or compleat foode of Christs body and blood is contained Wherefore our Lord saith he commanded that foode to bee often taken but he commandeth not that it should bee taken in both kinds Refutation S. Ierome saith it is the part of a bad Physition omnibus oculi morbis vno collyrio mederi to applie but one eye-salue to all manner of diseases of the eyes Yet such a Physition is Bellarmine he hath but one salue for all diseases and that hath no vertue it in at all in effect To the saluing of all the testimonies of the ancient Fathers opposed against him hee applieth onely this medicamentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of concomitancie whatsoeuer the Fathers speake of receiuing the body and blood and the entire food of our soules he would make vs beleeue they intend nothing against their halfe Communion For as he accounteth the blood is neuer seuered from the body and the blood is vnder the forme of bread Hee therefore who taketh the bread taketh the body blood of Christ and consequently communicateth intirely But besides that this proposition of his hath beene heretofore refuted I adde first in generall that albeit we should admit that in the iudgement of the Fathers in this Age the blood of Christ were with the body and with the forme of bread yet there is no Cup nor Wine in the bread no drinking in eating no powring out of the wine or blood into the mouthes of the faithfull Of which the writers of this Age speake so expresly that those of our aduersaries who haue not rubbed hard their foreheads neuer so much as offer to make answer to these testimonies but haue held it the wisest course neuer to take notice of them Secondly for Saint Bernard in particular his words haue relation to the Institution of Christ saying The entire foode of the body and blood of Christ was that day first exhibited nay at our Lords last supper there was wine as well as bread And this Vasquez the Iesuite ingeniously confesseth howsoeuer it cut the throat of his fellow Iesuites answer Bernard saith he speakes plainely of the other part of nourishment which is taken by way of drinke vnder the forme of wine What then Doth Vasquez freely giue vs Saint Bernard Not so but deuiseth another euasion to wit that communicating in both kinds for the entire repast of the soule is commanded to the whole Church not to euery particular beleeuer Defumo in flammas Vasq. to auoide the smoke that put out Bellarmine his eyes falls into the fire For that which is inioyned the whole Church is necessarily inioined euery saithfull The words of our Sauior Drinke ye all c. are euidently a command to each particular For so the Apostles vnderstood him and dranke euery one of them of that Cup and not any one or more in the name and behalfe of all the rest Doubtlesse as euery man must liue by himselfe so he must also in his owne person and by himselfe receiue the entire food of life the body and blood of Christ. SECT XIII The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 1200. to 3000. Anno. 1229. ABbas Vrspergensis writing of the besieging of Damiata saith that the souldiers before they scaled the wooden tower made confession of their sins and receiued the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord. The like Antoninus writeth of the Normans in William the Conquerors time and Matthew Paris of the English in King Heralds time and William Rufus Neither was that custome as yet controld in that age nor an hundred yeeres after as in due place shall be shewed Anno 1236. Durandus Mimatensis in expresse tearmes affirmeth that he who receiues the Hoste only doth not receiue the whole sacrament sacramentally For although the blood of Christ bee in the consecrated Hoste hee speaketh according to the schooles in these times yet it is not there sacramentally because the bread signifieth the body not the blood the wine signifieth the blood and not the body In regard therefore that the sacrament is not compleat in one kind according to the signe
continued vntill the middle of this age gaue a full testimony vnto the truth But those who liued after spake partely in the language of Canaan and partly in the language of Ashdod Halensis saith that the lay people for the most part communicated in both kinds Lynwood that in greater Churches they did so Aquinas that in some Churches they did and in some they did not For by this time according to the Greeke prouerbe Serpens genuit serpentem vt fieret Draco One Serpent hath begot another that from them both a Dragon might issue The error of transubstantiation had begotten the error of concomitancie and from both these at length issued out their hereticall sacrilege or sacrilegious heresie in defending the practise of their halfe Communion SECT XIIII The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 1300. to 1400. IN this Age when this sacrilegious error like a Gangreene had spred ouer a great part of the Latine Churches God stirred vp many learned Chirons and Machaeons knowne by the nick-names of Walldenses Lollards Wickliffests to applie a soueraigne remedie vnto it And they Deo secundante wrought great cures vpon this Cancer in England France and Bohemia In other parts of Europe the people were so intoxicated with the golden Cup of the whore of Babylon that they willingly suffered the Priests to keepe away from them the Lords Cup. Yet in this Centurie if wee adde to the sounder Diuines or Doctors in the Latine Church the iudgement and practise of the whole Greeke Church the entire Communion wil carry it away from the halfe by more then halfe the voyces of Christendome Anno 1301. The custome of communicating in both kinds was not abolished in the beginning of this age but was retained in certaine places especially in Monasteries vntill the yeere of our Lord 1300. and more Thus writeth Cassander Anno 1320. Petrus de Palude saith that in his time the custome was in many Churches that the faithfull communicated in both kinds and hee backeth this his testimonie with a solid reason There ought saith he to be a double matter in this sacrament to wit meat and drink because the effect of this Sacrament ought to be represented perfectly by the matter thereof in a manner agreeable to the things naturall For sacraments effect that which they signifie but the effect of this sacrament is a perfect refection or repast of the soule therfore the matter representing it ought to bee a perfect refection of the body which is not but by meate and drinke This argument of Peter of the F◅n hath so farre sunke our aduersaries that to this day they cannot by all their sophistry get out of the boggs Anno 1341. Clemens 6. in his Bull to the King of England granteth him the vse of the Cup ad gratiae augmentum to the increase of grace Anno 1360. Richard Archbishop of Armach thus wardeth off a blow of the Armenians when the Armenian heretique obiected against him vnlesse you eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his blood you haue no life in yon Hee answereth that this speech of our Sauiour if it bee taken as spoken of sacramentall drinking ought to be vnderstood with this qualification to wit That it is necessarie to obtaine spirituall life that a man receiue both at sometime or bee willing to receiue and be ready so farre as it is in his power Anno 1372. Besides these written testimonies wee haue engrauen I meane the inscriptions of Chalices or Communion Cups called Ministerales because they serued for the people Vadianus writeth of a cup in the Abbie of Sangall that weighed 70. markes in siluer without doubt saith he for the vse of the people at the publique C◅mmunion Gretser censureth the writings of Pelichdorfius against the poore men of Lyons in this manner This author saith he doth refute in the first part of this work the poore men of Lyons but with some such arguments as ring not well in the purified eares of Catholiques I am sure this argument drawne from great siluer chalices some of them with pipes for the Laiety to sucke out the consecrated wine ring not well in the purified eares of Romane Catholiques For not onely Rhenanus out of Conradus Pellicanus relateth a constitution amongst the Carthusians whereby they are forbid to haue any pretious vessels or plate besides a siluer chalice and a pipe wherewith the Laietie may suck the blood of our Lord but also Caietan maketh mention of them and their vse to this purpose and Cassander very much taxeth Eccius for that he writeth that he neuer read of the Laieties Communion in both kinds in the Roman Church saue only in the story of S. Laurence his life It is strange saith he that a man of so excellent a memorie as Eccius should forget the ministeriall Chalices whereof there is euer and anon mention made in the Romane Pontificall which were so called because the blood of Christ was out of thē ministred to the people In most places for feare of shedding the blood of Christ in deliuering it to the people there were siluer pipes put into the Chalices that in the peoples drinking or rather sucking the blood of Christ not so much as a droppe might be spilt These Chalices were not onely in vse in this Age but a 1000. yeeres before in Saint Cyprians time if we may beleeue Cardinall Caietan who ingeniously confesseth that they were so called from their vse in the Church which was to serue the people Thus he commenteth vpon Thomas This custome saith hee continued not onely in the time of that Martyr whom Cyprian thought fit to bee forearmed with the Lords Cup but also in the time of the peace of the Church For we reade not onely of basons but also of ministeriall Chalices made for this vse a For why were they called ministeriall but because they serued not to offer the blood of Christ but to minister it to the people Anno 1390. The custome was in France to administer the whole Supper not in the middle of the Church but in Chappels This saith Francis the first I heard of old men who affirmed that this had been the manner in France for 120. yeeres before SECT XV. The testimonies of the practice of the Church from 1400. to 1500. IOhn Hus and Hiero. of Prage by the books of Wickliffe were brought vnto the knowledge of the truth And as in other points they concluded for that holyfaith which we at this day professe against the errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome so in this they were most earnest and so preuailed in the Kingdome of Bohemia that from the time of the effusion of their blood for the testimonie of the Gospell vntill this day the Cup of the new Testament in Christs blood hath beene deliuered to the people in these parts and the entire Communion preserued Anno 1410.
life Because eternall life is promised to eating hee may prooue beleeuing alone to be sufficient to saluation without partaking the Sacrament at all by eating or drinking because eternall life is promised vnto beleeuing Eternall life is promised to beleeuing as blessednes is in the fifth of Matthew to pouertie and to meekenesse and to puritie in heart and to godly sorrow and to hungring and thirsting for righteousnesse and to peace making and to patience Not that each of these vertues are sufficient of themselues alone to saluation or to make a man happy but that they are speciall meanes to make men happy and altogether with faith make a man most blessed Fourthly this argument of Bellarmine may bee retorted against him thus Our Sauiour here speakes of such eating whereby eternall life may be attained But eternall life cannot be attained by eating exclusiuely that is eating without drinking as Christ in this very Chapter three seuerall times teacheth vs vers 53. Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood yee haue no life in you And vers 54. and 56. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life and dwelleth in me and I in him Therefore Christ in the places alleaged by Bellarmine speaketh not of eating exclusiuely but of such eating as is necessarily accompanied with drinking And consequently if these Texts are meant of the Sacrament they proue that we ought to communicate in both kinds To the second place alleaged by Bellarmine out of Ioh. 6. 11. we say First that there are three sorts of signes signes of Gods wrath and such are prodigious euents signes of his power and such are Miracles lastly signes of his grace and such are Sacraments The multiplying of the loaues in the place alleaged is to bee ranked amongst the second sort of signes and not the last It was a miraculous signe not a mysticall signe Secondly if it be granted that this action of Christs was mysticall and prefigured some thing besides the corporall refection of the people yet questionlesse it had no reference to the bread in the Lords Supper For that as Saint Paul teacheth represents vnto vs that we are all one bread and one body because we partake of one bread whereof the multiplication of the loaues in S. Iohn could bee no type but rather on the contrary Moreouer in that place of Saint Iohn there is mention of fishes multiplied which can haue no affinitie with the Sacrament of our Lords Supper And this if Bellarmine had well considered it would haue made him as mute as a fish in this argument Thirdly the edge of this argument may bee retorted vpon our aduersaries thus The multiplying of the loaues Ioh. 6. without multiplying the wine doth no more prooue that wee may communicate in bread alone then the multiplying or miraculous supplying of wine without the like supplying of bread Ioh. 2. in Cana of Galily prooueth that wee may communicate in wine onely But the multiplying or miraculous supplying of wine by turning water into it without any miraculous supplie of bread prooueth not that we may Communicate in wine or in the blood of Christ onely for such an halfe Communion the Church of Rome condemneth Therefore the multiplying of the loaues in S. Iohn maketh nothing for the popish halfe-Communion in bread onely SECT 3. To the third place out of the 24. of S. Luke the 30. and 31. verses We say first that the bread which Christ there brake was common bread and not the Sacrament as may be prooued both by the circumstances of the text and the confession of our Aduersaries In the Text wee finde no words of consecration of the Bread or the Cup no command to reiterate that action of Christ. The place was a common Inne the Disciples came thither to receiue common foode and to lodge there that night they met not together for the Sacrament nor reade we of any prayers before or preparation meete for receiuing of so holy and heauenly a mystery and therefore some Papists doubt of it as Iansenius whether the Bread here was Transubstantiated or no. There are some saith hee who thinke that our Lord here gaue vnto the Disciples vnder the forme of bread his owne body as he did to the Apostles in his last Sâ—…pper and hence they would draw a certaine argument to show that it is lawfull to deliuer and receiue the Sacrament of the Eucharist in one kinde onely Howbeit although that opinion be not certaine nor very likely to be true yet as all the actions of Christ contained in them something mysticall and hidden so doubtlesse this action of Christ signified some holy thing Iansenius somewhat lyspeth He durst doe no other wayes for fearing of hauing his tongue clipt But the more antient Papists speake the truth plainely Dionysius Carthusianus thus paraphraseth vpon the place of Saint Luke It came to passe as he sate downe that is rested and eate with them hee tooke bread and blessed it yet he turned it not into his body as in his last Supper but as the manner is he blessed the meate thereby teaching vs to blesse our meate and drinke or giue thankes beforeour meales Widford in his booke against Wickliffe comes off roundly I say saith he that it appeares not in the Text or in the Glosse Luk. 24. or by the antient Fathers that the bread which Christ brake after his resurrection at Euen before his Disciples was consecrated bread or that it was sacramentall or turned into his body Iustinianê° a later commentator of great note amongst the Papists vpon the by in a parenthesis before he was aware discouereth the truth and concurreth with Widford and Carthusian For expounding those words of Saint Paul The bread which wee breake c. he vnderstandeth here not a simple or ordinary breaking such as that was whereof Saint Luke maketh mention whereby the necessity of the hungry was prouided for but a holy breaking belonging to the Sacrament of the Eucharist Our aduersaries are very loth that this weapon should bee so wrested out of their hands and therefore they tugge hard for it Hesselius catcheth at the benediction mentioned before the breaking of the bread which he will haue to be the consecrating of it Maldonate layeth hold on the consequence to wit the opening of the Disciples eyes in the breaking of the bread which saith he could not be done but by the vertue of the Eucharist Iansenius and Bellarme alleage Austine Beda and Theophylact who in their iudgement seeme to shrowde the Sacrament of the Eucharist vnder the forme of bread at Emaus But these mistes are easily dispelled To Hesselius his coniecture we answer that Christ neuer brake or eate bread but hee blessed it before Matth. 14. 19. He tooke the fiue loaues and two fishes and he looking vp to heauen hee blessed and brake and gaue the loaues to his Disciples c. Likewise Matth. 15. 36.
neuer so free from corruption For at the very first when it was purest it was by many nay infinite degrees inferior to the Originall But that we may not digresse from the point proposed vnto vs touching Communion in both kinds here I promise you that in discussing this question I will alleage no text of Scripture wherein our English Translation agreeth not both with the Originall Greeke and the Latine vulgar That I may therefore know what to impugne I desire you to set downe the state of the question as you meane to hold it M. Euerard I beleeue that wheresoeuer the body of Christ is there is also his blood by concomitancie and consequently that the Church though it giue not the Cup to the Laietie yet it giueth them the blood of Christ which they participate in and with his body Secondly I deny not that the Laietie may receiue in both kinds if the Church giue them leaue but they are not bound by Christs Institution so to receiue It is sufficient that they receiue in one D. Featly We teach and beleeue that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper according to Christs Institution ought to be administred in both kinds as well to the Laietie as to the Cleargie M. Euerard Let the Scriptures bee interpreted by the consent of Fathers and practise of the Primitiue Church D. Featly I assent vnto this condicion especially in this point wherein the continuall practise of the Church is vndoubtedly for vs as also the cleare and expresse letter of Scripture And this I prooue First by the words of the Institution Matth. 26. 28. Drinke yee all of this For this is the blood of the new Testament which was shed for many Christ commandeth the same to drinke whom he commandeth to eate But he commandeth the Laiety to eate the bread Therefore also to drinke of the Cup. And Againe He commandeth those to drinke for whom his blood was shed saying drinke yee all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament shed for many But Christs blood was shed for the people as well as for the Priests Therefore the people are to drinke as well as the Priests By the words of our Sauiour Iohn 6. 53. Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood yee haue no life in you This Text is alleaged by Bellarmine and most Papists as a strong proofe of the reall presence of Christs body and blood in the Sacrament And if that you grant that these words are to be vnderstood of the Sacrament you must needes confesse they require all people as well as Priests to receiue the Communion in both kinds to wit to eate the flesh of the Sonne of Man vnder the forme of bread and drinke his blood vnder the forme of wine Thirdly By the words of Saint Paul 1. Corinth 11. 28. Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of that Bread and drinke of that Cup. Here the Apostle inuiteth all to drinke of the Cup who are to examine themselues saying Let a man examine c. and so let him drinke But the Laietie as well as the Cleargie are bound to examine themselues nay the Laietie in some respect are more bound to examin themselues because most commonly they are more ignorant in this holy mystery Fourthly by the practise of the Primitiue Church For which it shall suffice for the present to produce the testimonies of 1. Ignatius epist. ad Phil. speaking of the administring of the Sacrament saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Bread is broken vnto all and one Cup is distributed vnto all 2. Cyprian epist. 54. How shall wee make them fit for the Cup of Martyrdome if we doe not first admit them into the Church to drinke the Cup of the Lord by the right of Communication Here Saint Cyprian speaketh of the Laietie who are to suffer martyrdome for Christ and not Priests onely and he saith they haue a right to Communicate in the Cup therefore the Church of Rome doth them wrong to debarre them from it Againe the same Cyprian in his 2 booke and 3. epistle Why doe some not doe that our Lord did and taught in sanctifying the Cup and administring it to the people Thirdly S. August quaest 57. in Leuiticum All men are exhorted to drinke the blood of Christ who desire to haue life I hope you will not deny that the Laietie desire to haue life and therefore by Saint Augustines inference they are inuited to the Cup. Fourthly Gelatius de consecratione dist 2. Let them receiue the Sacrament intirely or let thē be kept from them intirely Because the diuision of one and the selfe same mystery cannot be without great sacrilege Saint Gregory hom 22. in Euangelia speaking to the people his auditors saith You haue learned what is the blood of the Lambe not by hearing but by drinking it And in his fourth booke of dialogues q The blood of Christ is powred not into the hands but into the mouthes of the faithfull M. Euerard Master Euerard here produced for the Romish opinion diuers practises of the ancient Church as the sending the bread a farre off to the sicke and not the Cup the denying the Cup to all those who had eaten meates offered vnto Idols He answered in Generall to the allegations aboue mentioned that either Christ commanded not the Communion in both kinds determinately but either in one or in the other or if he enioyned both yet this precept of his was dispensable by the Church In fine saith hee you cannot expect that I should answer all the places you haue cited at once and on the sudden D. Featly These instances which you alleage of the practise of the Primitiue Church are either false or impertinent as I will shew when I am to answer For dispencing with Christs precept I say that no mortall man can dispence with the precept of God As for the crauing time to answer my former allegations take what time will and you answer them one by one M. Euerard Dispute then syllogistically D. Feately If Christ command the Laietie to take the Cup as well as the bread they that take away the Cup from them doe ill But Christ commanded the Laietie to take the Cup as well as the Bread Therefore they that take away the Cup from them doe ill M. Euerard I deny the sequell of the Maior D. Featly The sequel of the Maior cannot be denied for they certainely doe ill that transgresse Christs Commandement Therefore if Christ command all to receiue the Cup as well as the Bread they that take away the Cup doe ill M. Euerard Christ commands not all to drinke of the Cup that eate of the bread D. Featly I proue he doth by the words of the Institution Matth. 26. 28. Drinke yee all of this He saith not of the bread Eate all of this though his meaning was that all should eate But he saith
Cup giuen them The proposition cannot be denyed the relation is so neere betweene drinking and the Cup none drinke but by taking the Cup none taketh the Cup in the Lords Supper but hee drinketh Spirituall drinking indeed may bee without a materiall Cup or Chalice but corporall and sensible such as is drinking in the Sacrament which is a visible signe cannot be without the Cup. The assumption may be collected if not out of Saint Iohn 6. 53. and 56. vnlesse you drinke my blood you haue no life in you and hee that drinketh my blood dwelleth in me because some Iudicious Diuines vnderstand those texts of Spirituall and not Sacramentall drinking yet most euidently out of other texts of Scripture which by consent of all diuines either directly point vnto or manifestly allude to drinking in the Sacrament As the 1. Cor. 11. 28. So let him drinke of that Cup vers 29. Whosoeuer drinketh vnworthily drinketh damnation vnto himself And 1. Cor. 10. 4. All did drinke that same spirituall drinke and vers 21. Ye cannot drinke the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of deuils and 1. Cor. 12. 13. we are all made to drinke into one spirit Besides Mat. 26. 28. Drinke you al of this of which before in the first argument This whole argument is confirmed by Pope Innocent himselfe one of the learnedest of all the Popes and best studied in this argument In his fourth booke of the Mysteries of the masse c. 21. The blood of Christ is not said to be drunke vnder the forme of bread as neither to bee eaten vnder the forme of wine but wee inferre all faithfull Christians are inuited by Christs precept and the vndeniable practise of the Apostolike Churches not onely to participate of Christs blood in some manner as the Romanists conceiue they may doe in eating the flesh but truly and properly to drinke it but sacramentally And therefore albeit we should admit that the blood of Christ might in some sort be taken together with the bodie because now since his resurrection and ascention they are neuer seuered but where his body is locally and really there is his blood also yet this doth not satisfie Christs command who requireth that we distinctly Drinke of the Cup or wine which he calleth his blood Mat. 26. 28. and that we drinke his blood Iohn 6. 53. which most of our learned aduersaries vnderstand properly of drinking Christs blood really present as they belieue in the Sacrament Were his blood really present as they suppose in the bread by the words of consecration turned into his body yet certainely in eating the body they cannot be said to drinke his blood for eating is not drinking neither can any man possible imagine true reall and proper drinking of any thing which is not sub liquidâ formâ as Christs blood cannot bee sub forma panis vnder the forme of bread which is drie and solid CHAP. VII The sixt Argument drawne à pari WHatsoeuer is sacriledge in the Priest can not but be sacriledge in the people also To communicate in one kind onely viz. by taking the bread and not the cup is sacriledge in the priest Therefore to communicate in one kinde onely can be no other then sacriledge or as bad in the people The proposition needs no proofe for as adulterie and simonie and other crimes alter not their nature by whomsoeuer they be committed so neither doth sacriledge The same sinne I grant may be more grieuious and scandalous in one then in the other but magis minus non variant speciem agrauating circumstances make a graduall not a specificall difference in sinne The assumption wee finde in the Canon law De Consecr dist 2. The priests must not receiue the body without the blood This is the title of the Canon the reason followes in the body of the Canon because the diuision of one and the same mysterie cannot be without great sacriledge as also in that burning Taper of Louaine Tapperus and the Iesuite 〈◊〉 Suarez This whole argument is confirmed by Aquinas Bonauenture Alfonsus and Vasques Aquin. part 3. quest 80. art 12. It is requisite or agreeable in regard of the Sacrament it selfe that both bee taken viz. the body and the blood because in both consisteth the perfection of this Sacrament And Bonauenture in 4. dist 11. part 2. art 1. quest 2. Both the species or kindes are of the integrity or perfection of the Sacramēt because the thing signified by the sacramēt is expressed in neither kind by it self but in both together Alfonsus aduersus hereses The Priest is bound by this law that as often as he celebrates this Sacrament that he neither consecrate the bread without the wine nor take one of the formes or kinds without the other because although Christ bee whole and entire vnder either kinds yet either kind by it selfe doth not signifie or represent whole Christ but the species or forme of bread doth signifie the flesh onely the species or forme of wine doth represent the blood onely and exhibite the memorie of it alone Whence it comes to passe that if he should consecrate the bread alone or receiue the bread alone consecrated he should represent onely the memorie of that oblation whereby Christ offered his body but there should bee made no commemoration at all of his blood shed and offered for vs because the species or forme of bread although it containe the blood yet it represents not the blood nor makes any memorie or commemoration thereof And Vasques tom 3. in 3. disp 215. cap. 2. num 5. The sacrament is instituted vnder a double forme or in two kinds not onely as an vnbloodie sacrifice of Christs Crosse but also as a Sacrament From these testimonies of Papists of eminent note they infer against themselues If both kinds be requisite to the integritie of the Sacrament as well the people as the Priest in communicating in one kinde mutilate the Sacrament and deuide one and the selfe same mysterie as Gelasius speaketh If the Priest in receiuing the bread onely signifie not whole Christ nor represent the memory of his blood shed for vs as Alfonsus teacheth neither doe the people in so cōmunicating either receiue whole Christ or celebrate the memorie of his blood shed vpon the Crosse and offered for vs to which end especially this Sacrament was instituted Lastly if the Sacrament were instituted vnder a double forme or in two kinds not onely as a sacrifice representing Christs Sacrifice on the Crosse but also as a Sacrament as Vasquez determineth the point then doubtlesse it may no more be diuided as a Sacrament then as a sacrifice and he is as well guiltie of sacriledge who takes away one part of the Sacrament as hee who takes away one part of the Sacrifice If they answer that though the Sacrament was instituted in two kinds yet that it is really intire in one because the body is not now without
said to the same Drinke yee all of this to whom before he said Take eate this is my body Fifthly and lastly if it were sufficient reason to redeliuer the Cup in these times to the Laietie who haue been deseruedly depriued of it namely to arme them against eminent persecution why should not the faithfull people of God especially those who neuer incurred the censure of Excommunication or suspension be much rather admitted to drinke of the Cup to arme them against as great or greater conflicts of temptations The sinnew of Saint Cyprians reason is in the word militaturis Those that are to fight the Lords battels are to be strengthened thereunto by taking the Cup of Saluation or drinking the Lords Blood But I assume all Christians in all ages were are and shall be militantes or militaturi such as haue fought doe fight or shall against their ghostly and bodily enemies therefore according to Saint Cyprians military discipline they are to be strengthened and armed thereunto by participating of the Lords Cup. The answere of Bellarmine to the second testimony of Saint Cyprians 63. Epistle commeth not home to the marke by many bowes for albeit the maine scope of that Epistle be to prooue the necessitie of administring the Sacrament in Wine against the corrupt custome of the Aquarij certaine heretikes that administred it in meere water yet on the by he discouereth the practise of the Church in his time to Communicate in both kinds and in the words alleaged be expresly faith that the Cup was ministred or deliuered to the people which is all we produce this passage for SECT IIII. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 300. to 400. Anno. 314. IN the councel held at Ancyra Deacons that had sacificed vnto Idols are forbidden to exercise any sacred function and in particular nec panem nec calicem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to offer or deliuer bread or the Chalice The Chalice then by their Deacons was deliuered to whom but to the people for Priests administer to Deacons but Deacons neuer to Priests Anno. 316. In the Councell held at Neo-Caeserea can 13. country Priests are forbidden in the presence of a Bishop or the Priest of the citie to deliuer the sanctified bread or Cup to any Here we see the Cup as well as the bread was deliuered at the communion the words are nec panem nec calicem porrigere Anno 325. In the acts of the Councell of Nice set out by Gelasius Cyzicenus we haue a most expresse testimonie of the beleife and practise of the Church in that flowrishing age Let vs vnderstand by faith that in that holy Supper the Lambe of God that takes away the sinnes of the world is offered without blood by the Priests and that wee taking his pretious body and blood doe verily beleeue that they are symboles or pleadges of our resurrection Anno. 337. Iulius the first as we read in Gratian de conse dist 2. condemneth the practise of such who gaue the people a bit of bread dipped in wine for the whole Communion alleaging against this corrupt custome the practise of our Sauiour who when he commended his body and blood to the Apostles he commended the bread and the Cup apart This ancient Pope concludes from our Sauiours practise that the people ought to receiue the holy elements of bread and wine a part consequently that it is not sufficient to giue them the bread dipped Now if it be not sufficient to giue them the bread dipped in the wine Iulius would haue held it much lesse sufficient to giue them drie bread If our Sauior as he rightly conceiueth enioyned that all ought to partake of the elements apart certainly hee enioyned that the people should receiue both and not bread onely or wine onely by concomitancie Anno 340. Athanasius in his second Apology maketh it plainer that the vndeniable custome in his age was for the people to receiue the Cup. This saith he is the vse of this Cup and no other in this Cup you lawfully or of right drinke before or to the Laity This you haue receiued for an Ecclesiastical Cannon it belongs to you alone to drink the blood of Christ before the Laietie Anno 355. Hilarius Pictauiensis de trinitate lib. 8. writeth thus There is no place left of doubting cōcerning the truth of Christs flesh and blood for both by our Lords owne profession and our faith it is truly flesh and truly blood and these being taken and drunke doe worke this effect that Christ is in vs and wee in Christ Saint Hilarie spake of all Christians and saith that they receiue the flesh of Christ hauriunt that is take a draught of his blood which cannot bee without partaking the Cup. For although the doctrine of concomitancie were admitted whereby our aduersaries suppose that the people take the blood of Christ in the body yet certainely there they cannot haurire sanguinem take a draught of blood or drinke it because it is not there in a liquid forme or so that it may be sucked or drunke Anno 365. Cyril Catechesi Mystagogicâ 4. Vnder the forme of bread Christs body is giuen vnto thee that taking the body and blood of Christ thou maist be of one body and blood with him And a little after After thou hast participated of the body of Christ draw neere also to the cup of his blood Anno. 366. Macarius Egyptius hom 27. By offering bread and wine in the Church he gaue vs a patterne to take his body and blood Anno 370. S. Basil in his 289. epistle to Patricia exhorts her frequently to participate the Sacrament of Christs body and blood saying It is good and profitable euery day to participate the holy body and blood of Christ. And in his moralls chap. 22. hee propoundeth this question what is the proper dutie of a Christian and he answereth immediately to haue no spot or wrincle in his Conscience to be holy and vnblameable and so to eate the body and drinke the blood of Christ. Our aduersaries doe well to conceale this testimonie of Saint Basil because it is so direct and full to the point that it admits not any collourable answer He saith that it is the proper dutie of a Christian and therefore not of a Priest onely not to eate Christs body onely and receiue his blood by concomitancie but expresly to drinke it and this hee teacheth to be as necessarie a duty of all Christians as to clense themselues from sinne and to be holy and vndefiled Anno. 372. Gregory Nazianzen surnamed the Diuine S. Basils bosome friend in his 42. oration inuites all to drinke the blood of Christ who look for life by him without any doubting or shamefast feare Eat his body and drinke his blood if thou desirest life and in his second oration he testifieth that his sister Gorgonia after she had Communicated laid vp some part of the
the thing offered The difference was in this according to S. Chrysostome that the people simply might not eat of those things of which the Priest might but in the new testament the people may eat of all that the Priests may Lastly although we should admit of Bellarmines answer touching the condition of the Priest and people of the old law and the new that they of the old fed of the sacrifice apart each hauing their seuerall portions appointed for them but that the Prists and people of the new receiued the sacrament entirely the Priest entirely and the people entirely which in some sence is true yet this no way satisfieth the words of Saint Chrysostome who saith expresly that one Cup as well as one bread is set before all people as well as Priests and that according to Christs institution in the new testament SECT V. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 400. to 500. Anno 410. ABout the beginning of the fifth Age God raysed vp that golden Tapour in the Church Saint Austin by whose light as wee may discouer other errors and abuses of the Church of Rome so this their mutilation of the Sacrament and defrauding Gods people of one part of this Supper This Author in his dialogue to Orosius quest 49. he interprets the blood of Abel the blood of Christ which saith he when the whole Church receiueth it saith Amen For what a cry maketh the whole Church when after she hath dranke the blood of Christ cryeth Amen And in his 57. question vpon Leuiticus he not onely testifies that the people did drinke of Christs blood but that they ought to doe so if they expect life from him What is the meaning of this saith he that the people are forbidden to eat of the blood of the sacrifices which were offered for sinn if by those sacrifices this sacrifice was signified in which there is trueremission of sinnes and yet not onely no man is forbidden to take the blood of this sacrifice for nourishment but on the contrary all men who desire life are exhorted to drinke it Papists answer Bellarmine de sacra Eucharistiae lib. 4. cap. 26. answereth that the force of Saint Austines reason consisteth not in the manner of drinking but in the taking of the blood which produceth the same effect whither it bee taken as meat or drinke Refutation Saint Austin in that place obserueth a difference between the precepts of the old and the precepts of the new testament that in the old blood was forbidden so much as to bee eaten with the flesh but in the new it is commanded to be drunke euen by it selfe and so the force of his reason ab oppositis stands not onely in some way taking blood for sustenance but euen in the manner of taking it euen by drinke Secondly whereinsoeuer the force of Saint Austines reason stands his words which wee alleage are expresly for taking it by drinking For he saith not as Bellarmine will haue him all who desire life are exhorted to take Christs blood for sustenance or to feed vpon it But they are exhorted to drinke it The people therefore if they looke for life by Christ they must drinke his blood which they cannot doe if the Priest deny the Cup. Anno. 420. Eusebius Emissenus in his Homily vpon Palme-Sunday speakes of the faithfulls communicating in both kinds as of a daily and frequent practice As then our Lord liued and spake and yet was eaten by his Disciples and drunke so now he remaines whole and vncorrupted and yet is daily drunke and eaten by the faithfull I beleeue no Romish Priest will bee so impudent as to restraine beleeuers to Priests onely If the Layetie are not to be reckoned in the number of fideles or belieuers they may not eat Christ in the Sacrament of bread and if they are fideles or beleeuers then they vsually nay daily drinke his blood in the Sacrament of wine as well as eate his flesh in the Sacrament of bread Anno 430. Theodoret in his Dialogue called Atreptus cap. 11. allotteth to all the faithfull an equall share in the Lords Supper one mysticall Table is prepared for all from which all beleeuers take vnto themselues an equall portion And in his Comment on the second Chapter of the first to the Corinthians hee obserueth a difference betweene ordinary suppers and the Lords Supper Of that viz. the Lords Table all are equally partakers but here viz. in common suppers one is hungry and another is drunke Hee saith not he drinkes but is drunke blaming him for two reasons first that he drinkes alone secondly that he is drunke If the Layetie drank not of the Lords Table they did not equally participate with the Priests And if in Theodorets time the Priests did drinke alone as now they doe at the Romane Masse Theodoret could not herein haue differenced them from common and prophane tables so that at the one all eate and drinke alike at the other one is satisfied and another is hungry one is thirsty and another drinketh alone and is drunke Anno 431. Cyrillus of Alexandria Glaphyr lib. 2. writeth thus As long as we are in this world wee will communicate with Christ by his holy flesh and precious blood Communicatio sanctae carnis atque item poculū ex salutari ipsius sanguine c. The communicating his holy flesh and the Cup of his holy blood hath in it a confession of Christs death by the participating in these things in this world we commemorate Christs death Anno. 450. Leo the Great Bishop of Rome in his fourth Sermon de quadragessima giues it as a character or marke to descry the Manichees by that at the Sacrament they would eate of the bread but in no wise drinke of the wine They viz. the Manichees so carry themselues at the Communion that they may more safely lye hid they take the body of Christ into their vnworthy mouthes but altogether they refuse to drinke the blood of their redemption which I would haue your Holinesse know that you may set a mark vpon these men in whomsoeuer you find such sacrilegious simulation you discouer them that by Priestly authoritie they may be driuen from the society of the Saints Here Leo both a Bishop of Rome and a great Clarke makes it sacriledge and heresie to receiue Christs body in the Sacrament and to refuse to drinke his blood Anno. 451. In the generall Councell of Chalcedon act 10. there is an accusation brought in against Iba the Bishop of Edessa that in some Church in his Diocesse at the Commemoration of the holy Martyrs there was but a little wine and that corrupt and sowre prouided for the Altar to bee sanctified and distributed to the people This generall Councell was counted to represent the whole Christian Church whereby it appeares that at the time of this Councell the Cup was giuen through the whole Christian world to
participating of the blood of the Lord. Papists answere If our aduersaries here flie to their old starting hole that by all here all Priests are meant and not all Communicants they may be stopped by that which Hincmarus writeth in the life of this Rhemigius that he gaue a Chalice for the peoples vse with this Motto Hauriat hinc populus vitam de sanguine sacro Iniecto aeternus quem fudit vulnere Christus Rhemigius reddit Domino sua vota Sacerdos Rhemigius Priest that gaue this Cup Prai'th that in it the people sup And still draw life from flowing blood Out of Christs side as of a flood Let it bee noted that hee saith not hauriat hinc clerus but populus not let the Priest but let the people out of this Cup draw life from the holy blood which Christ shed out of his wounds Whereby it appeareth euidently that this Chalice was giuen by the Archbishop for the peoples vse at great and solemne Communions and not for the Priests in their priuate Masses if any such were in Rhemigius his dayes Anno 580. Greg. Turonens de glor Martyr li. 1. ca. 10. relateth a miraculous accident that fel out by occasion of a Iewes child comming with other children to the Communion of Christs body and blood I am sure these children were not Priests that said Masse and if children were admitted to the holy Cup much more men of riper yeeres Papists answer This was an abuse to let children come to the Communion who cannnot examine themselues and therefore from this abusiue coustome no good rule may be drawne The Refutation I allow not of the coustome of admitting children to the Communion in the Church or giuing it them at home though it be more antient then most of the new Articles of the Romish Creede coined by Pope Pius the fourth in his Bull. but I make a true inference though from an erroneous practise as the Apostle doth from a custome among the Corinthians who were baptized for the dead Doubtlesse if the Laietie in those dayes had been kept from the holy Cup children neuer had been admitted to drink of it For no man can imagine that the Church would giue little infants that priuiledge which they denied their parents Anno 537. In the second Councell of Toledo Can. 7. It is ordained throughout all the Countries of Spaine and Gallicia for the confirmation of the new conuersion of the people from Arianisme that before the participation of the body and blood of Christ corporis sanguinis communicationem according to the manner of the Easterne Churches all the Congregation shall with an audible voyce rehearse the most holy Articles of the Christian faith Anno 597. In the third Councel held at Toledo in the reigne of Recaredus c. 2. It is decreed that the people shall first make profession of their faith and so exhibite their hearts purified by faith to receiue Christs body and blood Doth not this Councell speake in the Protestant language that the people are to receiue Christs blood as well as his body and both by faith or which is all one in their hearts purified by faith How neere commeth this to the forme at this day in vse in our Church Feed on him in thy heart by faith I find no exception taken by any Papist at this testimony and therefore there needs no ward where no blow is so much as offered SECT VII Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 600. to 700. Anno. 600. IT was truly spoken of Constantine that hee was Praeteritis melior venientibus auctor Better then his predecessors and a good president to those that succeded him But on the contrary we may say of Gregory the Great that hee was Praeteritis peior yet venientibus auctor that he was bad in comparison of his predecessors but good in comparison of his successours For he was the worst of the good Popes and the best of the euill It was this Pope who sent Austine the Monke into England to propagate the Christian faith who in some places sowed in others watred the seede all ready sowne which was wholesome yet somewhat smutty and such as needed to be washed and clensed from superstition He much stikled for Gregorie his masters authoritie and brought in some customes and ceremonies that sauour rancke to those that are Emunctae naris yet the faith hee preached was for substance the same which the reformed Churches embrace at this day as in my answer to the Iesuites threefold challenge I haue made it appeare And as in other controuersies of greater moment so in this he is cleerely ours Homil. 22. in Euang. he mystically applieth the blood of the Pascall Lambe striken vpon both posts of the doore to the participation of Christs blood in the Eucharist saying The blood is then put on both posts when is taken or drawne in both by or with the mouth of the body and of the heart In the fourth of his dialogues if his c. 58. His body is taken whose flesh is broken and diuided for the peoples saluation his blood is not now powred out vpon the hands of infidels but into the mouths of the faithfull If with any coulour the aduersaries might restraine fideles to the Priests onely yet the word populi going before will enforce them to vnderstand this passage as well of the people as Priests if not the people more especially who are named expresly and not the Priests Papists answer I answer saith Bellarmine that Gregorie and Bede say that Christs blood is taken with the mouth of the body but we denie that they say that it ought to be drunken with the mouth of the body or to be taken vnder the forme of wine Refutation This answer of the Cardinall can argue no lesse in him then either supine negligence or a cauterized conscience For S. Gregorie in the words immediately preceding those aboue alleaged expressely speaketh of drinking Christs blood saying quòd sit sanguis Christi non audiendo sed bibendo didicistis What is meant by the blood of Christ you haue learned not by hearing but by drinking Had he not in expresse words mentioned drinking yet the phrases he vseth hauritur and perfunditur that Christs blood is shed and taken as a draught demonstrates that he speaketh not of partaking Christs blood as it is ioyned to his body and enclosed in his veines but as seuered from it And if the Cardinall himselfe had not been drunke with the Cup of the wine of Babylon he would neuer haue denied that Saint Gregory speaketh of drinking Christs blood vnder the forme of wine when hee vseth that very word u Potat Quis exponere queat quantae fuit miserationis sacratissim â praeciosi sanguinis effusione genus humanum redimere sacrosanctum viuifici corporis sanguinis sui mysterium membris suis tribuere cuius perceptione corpus suum quod est Ecclesia pascitur
potatur abluitur sanctificatur Who can expresse how great mercie it was by that most holy effusion of his pretious blood to redeeme mankind and to giue to his members the most holy mysterie of his quickning body and blood by the partaking whereof his body which is the Church is nourished as with meat and drinke is washed and sanctified These and other passages of Gregory are so cleare and bright that they dazeled the eies of Estius a great Parisian Doctor who handling this question professedly acknowledgeth that Saint Gregory among other fathers is expresly for the Commmunion in both kinds Anno Dom. 620. The Seruice Booke commonly called Ordo Romanus The Romane order set forth by Gregory or vnder Pope Gregory with his allowance sufficiently discouereth the present practise of the Romane Church in their dry Masses to be a disorder and shamefull abuse For there they may reade and blush to reade in the Rubricke these formes set downe at the Communion Wee humbly beseech thee that wee which haue taken the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ thy Sonne may be filled with grace and heauenly benediction and after the Communion Let thy body O Lord which we haue taken and thy blood which we haue drunke sticke to our bowels that no blot of sinne may remaiue in vs who haue beene refreshed by these pure and holy mysteries Anno 630. Saint Isidore as in other things so in this treadeth his master Gregories steps de diuin of fic lib. 1. c. 15. The fourth prayer is brought in for the kisse of peace vt omnes that all being reconciled by charitie may ioyne in the worthie participation of Christs body and blood omnes all People therefore as well as Priests vnlesse they will haue the people to be out of charity all that are in charity must communicate together in the mistery of Christs body and blood But Gods people are or ought to be in charity and therefore to be admitted by Saint Isidores rule as well to the Cup as to the bread at the Lords Table Anno. 633. In the fourth Councell of Toledo Can. 6. All the people are appointed one good fryday to aske pardon for their sinnes that being clensed by the compunction of repentance they may be thought fit one Easter day to receiue the sacrament of Christs body and blood And in the seuenth Canon it is appointed that after the Lords prayer and the blessing of the people the Sacrament of Christs body and blood bee receiued after this manner the Priest and Leuite is to communicate before the Altar the rest of the Clergie in the Quire the rest of the people without the Quire See also 57. Canon Anno 675. In the eleuenth Councell held at Toledo the fathers determine that such who receiued the Cup in extemity of sicknesse but refused the bread because in regard of the drines of their throat they could not swallow it downe should not therefore bee cut off from Christs body The decree runneth thus The infirmity of humane nature in the very passage out of this life is accustomed to be oppressed in such sort with drought that the sick are not able to take downe any meat to refresh them no nor scarse any drop of drinke to strengthen them which thing we haue obserued in the departure of many who desiring the wished foode of the holy Communion to sustaine them in their last iourney haue yet cast away the Eucharist giuen them by the Priest not out of infidelitie but because they could not swallow any thing down beside a small draught of the holy Cup such as these therefore ought not to bee separated from the body of Christ. The Councell speaketh of the Laiety refusing bread at the Priests hands which they could not take downe and yet receiuing the Cup and in this case of necessitie the Councell dispenceth with their refusing the bread but findeth no fault with them for taking the Cup. Nay vpon that point excuseth them from infidelitie and saueth them from excommunication How doth this Councel clash and crosse shins as it were with the Councel of Constance and Trent In these the people are condemned for taking the Cup in that they are acquitted for it In them the Priest is censured that giueth them the Cup in this the people are absolued from censure in refusing the bread because they Communicate in the Cup. In the same yeere in the Councell at Braccara they are blamed that ministred not wine to the people in the Sacrament but either milke or grapes Can. 2. Non expressum vinum in sacramento dominici calicis offerre sed lac pro vino dedicare aut oblatis vuis populo communicare In the same Councell they are blamed also Qui intinctam Eucharistiam populis pro complemento communionis porrigerent Who deliuered to the people a piece of bread dipt in wine for the whole Communion which custome how repugnant it is to the doctrine of the Gospell and custome of the Church may easily be proued from the fountaine of truth who gaue the Cut by it selfe saying Drinke yee all of this as he tooke the bread by it selfe saying Take eat c. SECT VIII The Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 700. to 800. IN this age wee haue foure concurrent witnesses and contestatours beyond all exception Beda Greg. 2. Greg. 3. Alcumus We will produce them in order And first Venerable Beda Anno 720. Venerable Beda the honour of England and mirrour of his time witnesseth as followeth Christ washeth vs daily from our sins in his blood when the memory of his passion is celebrated or recounted at the Altar where the creatures of bread and wine by the vnspeakable sanctification of the Spirit are changed into the Sacrament of his flesh and blood and therby his body blood is not powred out by the hands of Infidels to their destruction but is receiued or is taken by or into the mouth of the faithful to saluation In this testimony I note first that he teacheth not a substantiall change of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ but a sacramentall onely agreeable to the harmony of Protestants Confession Se condly that Beda either alludes vnto or transcribes herein the words of S. Gregory aboue alleaged which I haue there proued to be most pregnant to our purpose Anno 726. Gregory 2. in his Epistle of Images to Leo Isaurus A man that hath sinned and confessed after they haue well chastened and punished him with fasting let them impart vnto him the pretious body of our Lord and giue him his holy blood to drinke Anno 731. Gregory 3. in his former Epistle to Boniface forbiddeth at the Lords Table more then one Cup to be vsed saying It is not a fitting thing to put two or three Chalices on the Altar No doubt the reason why more Chalices were put on the Altar was for the vse of
cannot say that he speakes of Priests only for he speakes of all faithfull that either are already or are to bee made members of Christs body Neither can they shift off this passage as they doe some others by granting that the people may but denying that they ought to communicate in both kinds For he presseth very farre the necessitie of thus communicating without which he supposeth neither communion with Christ nor eternall life can be obtained Neither lastly can they euade by their doctrine of concomitancy saying that the people participate of the blood in the body when they receiue the consecrated Hoste For he speaketh distinctly of eating and drinking bread and drinke and sacraments in the plurall number which cannot possibly be vnderstood of participating the bread onely or communicating in one kind after the Popish manner Anno 840. Haymo Bishop of Halberstat relateth the manner of the faithfull to haue been in his time daily to eate the body of Christ and to drinke his blood and paraphrasing vpon these words of the Apostle 1. Cor. cap. 10. The Cup which we blesse is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ He saith the Cup is called the Communion because all communicate of it and partake of the blood of the Lord which it containeth in it Surely if the word fidelis or faithfull carryeth not the Layetie yet the word omnes or all must needs the faithfull then and all of them in Haymoes time were as well admitted to the Cup as to the bread Anno 849. Valafridus Strabo speaking of the suspension of scandalous persons from the Communion calleth the Lords Supper Sacraments in the plurall number in regard of the two elements or kinds in which it is administred Those saith he that wander from the members of Christ by the enormity or faeditie of capitall crimes by the iudgement of the Church are suspended from the q Sacraments lest by the vnworthy receiuing them they should be entangled in a greater guilt as Iudas Here by capitall offenders to vnderstand Priests were a capitall offence as if they alone were the greatest offenders in the Church and to haue the rod of Ecclesiasticall censures to bee spent vpon them onely Therefore the Romanists will they nill they to saue themselues from the lash must put the capitall offender vpon the Laiety and consequently confesse that they who for their crimes were at some times suspended from the Sacraments were ordinarily when they were free from such crimes admitted to both the Sacraments as Strabo calleth them that is both the elements the wine as well as the bread For the same Strabo in his twentieth Chapter stirreth vp himselfe and all good Christians to the continuall participating of the body and blood of Christ without which we cannot liue so far forth as some greater blots or blemishes in body or mind do not withhold or hinder from it Anno. 868. In a Councell held at Wormes vnder Lewis the second we find a Canon to this purpose If any man shall marry a widow which had a daughter by her former husband and shall after lye with this her daughter let that marriage by all meanes be dissolued and let that man vndergoe the pennance of the Church so that for three yeeres he be suspended from the body of Iesus Christ and his blood He who vpon a special reason is debard from the Communion of the body and blood of Christ and that for a certain time must needs be supposed before that time to haue beene admitted to communicate in both kinds and after his penance of three yeeres done cannot be denied againe admittance to the Lords Table I desire then to know what incestuous crime all the Laiety vnder the Papacy haue committed that for these two hundred yeeres euer since the Councell of Constance they haue suspended them from the Sacrament of Christs blood Anno. 869. Regino discribeth the manner of Pope Adrians deliuering the Communion to King Lotharius and his followers in both kindes then which we cannot desire a nobler president or fairer euidence of the custome of the Church in that Age Thus then Regino The Pope inuites the king to the Lords Table taking the body and blood of our Lord in his hands the King takes the body and blood of our Lord at the hands of the Pope Then the Bishop turning himselfe to the followers of the King deliuers the Communion to each of them in these words If thou hast not shewed thy selfe a fauourer or an abbetter of King Lothar in the obiected crime of adulterie neither hast giuen thy consent thereunto neither hast communicated with Waldrand and other persons excommunicated by the Apostolick See let the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ be healthfull to thee vnto eternall life Anno 875. Bertramus or as some write his name Ratramus in his booke of the body and blood of Christ dedicated to Carolus Caluus writeth thus you demand whether the body of Christ and his blood which in the Church are receiued by or with the mouth of the faithfull be his body and blood mystically or in truth And a little after he resolueth thus If yee looke inwardly it is not the liquor of wine but the blood of Christ which is tasted by the minds of the faithfull when it is drunke and acknowledged when it is seene and liked when it is smelt vnto This Bertram speaks so plainely through this whole booke for the entire Communion and against the Popish carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament that the Romish Inquisitors were in a quandary what to doe with this Author whither quite to prohibite the reading of him or to deuise some colourable excuse and euasion for such passages in him as hold no good quarter with their Trent Faith Papists answer to the testimonies of the writers alleadged in this former Age. Before most of these testimonies our aduersaries draw Timanthes his courtain and answer them with silence Onely to Paschasius and Haymo Cardinall Bellarmine pretends to giue an answer either because for shame hee could do no lesse being so often vpraided with them or because like a new Alcumist he hoped out of the iron that wounded him to draw an oyle to cure the wound of his cause To the testimonie out of Paschasius his answer like Cerberus consists of three heads First he saith that the place in Paschasius seemes to be corrupted Secondly he saith that Paschasius doth not expound the words of our Lord as they are in Matthew but as they seeme to be spoken of Christ when the sacrament is administred in the Church His reason is In the institution of the Sacrament there were no other Ministers present distinguished from other beleeuers and therfore Christs words as they were vttered then no way admitteth Paschasius explication Drinke ye all of this as well Ministers as other beleeuers Thirdly hee saith that the words of Paschasius make much
this point For he professeth that it were more conuenient the Communion were administred vnder both kinds then vnder one alone and that the Communion vnder both kinds is more agreeable to the Institution and fulnesse thereof and to the example of Christ and to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church Artiâ—… 15. Eccius though in short and briefe tearmes yet comes home to the question saying Wee confesse it was the vse in the Primitiue Church to administer in both kinds to the Laiety For the generalitie of this custome if antient Records had failed vs wee haue enough in the writings of moderne Papists to conuince the denyers therof Suarez saith somewhat to this point Slotanus presumes further and saith more and Salmeron goes beyond him and saith enough and yet Alphonsus exceedes him and saith more then enough Suarez The Christian people were wâ—…t frequently to communicate vnder both kinds Frequently they might communicate yet but in few places There Slotanus addes We doe not deny that the custome of communicating in both kinds was obserued in very many Churches and continued so not onely in the time of persecution and martyrdome but also in the peaceable daies of the Church This custome might be in very many Churches yet not generall therefore Salmeron addes further We doe ingeniously and openly confesse that it was a generall custome to giue the Communion to the Laiety in both kinds as the manner is at this day among the Greekes and was in antient time among the Corinthians and in Africa Generall the custome might be yet not vniuersall without exception and in all places Therefore to put the matter out of all question Alphonsus a Castro addes yet further We beleeue it is not against Christs Institution to giue the Communion to the Layetie in both kinds For we learne out of the writings of many Saints that in old time this was the practise for many ages amongst all Catholikes For the continuance of this custome which was the last point what more pregnant testimonies can we desire then these following of Cassander Soto and Gregory de Valentia Cassander and Tapperus witnesseth for one thousand yeeres in these words Touching the administration of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist it is euident enough that the Easterne Church euen vnto this day or that the Westerne or Romane Church for one thousand yeeres after Christ and more in the solemne and ordinary distribution of the Sacrament deliuered both the kinds of bread and wine to all the members of Christs Church which is manifest by innumerable testimonies of antient Writers both Greeke and Latine Tapperus calleth it a custome of longest continuance Soto witnesseth thus for twelue hundred yeeres and more not onely amongst the heretikes but also among the Catholikes the manner of giuing the Communion to the Layetie in both kinds for a long time was of force in somuch as it was not vtterly abolished in the dayes of Aquinas Now Aquinas by Bellarmines exact calculation was borne in the yeere of our Lord 1224. and died in the yeere 1274. Betweene the birth of Aquinas and the Councell of Constance there passed 90. yeeres which time Greg. de Valentia after a sort giues vs ouer and aboue We doe not deny saith he that both kinds were antiently administred to the people as appeares out of S. Paul Cyprian Athanasius Hierome and others And truly when the contrary custome of communicating vnder one kind onely began in some Churches it appeares not but it began not to bee a generall custome in the Latine Church much before the Councell of Constance Nor then neither For Tapperus saith that in some Churches they vsed both kinds euen vnto the Councell of Constance Who seeth not in the frequency and pregnancy of these testimonies out of the mouth of our aduersaries the obseruation of Budaeus to be verified that such is the force of truth that she breakes out of mens mouthes against their wills and stealing amongst lyes is perceiued by the hearers when the speakers think they haue her safe enough in their owne power CHAP. XII The Papists Arguments drawne from Scripture answered and retorted SECT 11. THe first argument vrged by our aduersaries for their halfe Communion is drawn from the types and figures of the old Testament I will propound it in Bellarmines owne words that they may not cauill as they vse to doe that wee marre their arguments in relating them Thus Bellarmine disputeth against vs Most of the figures of the Eucharist in the old Testament signifie eating vnder one kind it is not therefore probable that Christ would command the eating of both kinds For that which is figured ought to answer the figure The first figure was of the Tree of life in the midst of Paradise which Paschasius in his booke of the body of our Lord chap. 7. teacheth to haue been a type of the Sacrament of the Eucharist but it was manifest there was no drinke ioyned to that Tree The second figure was of the Paschall Lambe Exodus the 12. The third figure Manna Exodus 26. The fourth was shew-bread Exodus 25. The fifth the sacrifices in which the flesh was eaten but the blood was not drunke To this Argument we say First that these figures were types of Christ himselfe and not necessarily or properly of the Sacrament of the new Testament For types are shadowes representing the substance and the body not properly other types Christ interpreteth Manna to be himselfe Ioh. 6. I am the true bread that came downe from heauen S. Paul calleth Christ our Paschall Lambe and saith The Rocke that followed them was Christ. And S. Iohn Apoc. 2. by eating of the Tree of life in the Paradise of God vnderstandeth not the sacramentall eating which cannot be in heauen where there are no sacred elements but the spirituall feeding on the flesh of the Sonne of God Secondly if we admit that the types and figures of the old Law were representations of the Sacrament of the new we answer then that the types and figures of the old Testament must be equally compared with the Sacrament of the new part of them must be referred to the part of these For example the Shew-bread and Manna and the flesh of the Lambe and the Tree of life prefigured one part or kind in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to wit the Bread and the Riuers of Paradise and the Waters that Flowed from the Rocke and the Drinke-offerings and the striking the blood of the Lambe vpon the doore-postes represented the mysticall effusion and drinking of Christs blood in the Sacrament There was no drinking of the Tree of life but there was drinking of the Riuers of Paradise there was no drinking of Manna or of the Shew-bread but there was drinking of the Waters that issued out of the Rocke at Horeb. And S. Paul testifieth of the Hebrewes 1. Cor. 10. vers
that meane while had been kept it would haue been dead in the Pixe Hugo Card. saith Christs Passion is the truth and the Sacrament is a figure of the same Therfore when the truth is come the figure giueth place Consider we the weight of these reasons The Apostles fled sixteene hundred yeeres agoe on Good-Friday therefore we must not now on that day consecrate the elements or communicate in both kinds On Good-Friday Christ suffered his blood then was seuered from the body Therefore now wee must not receiue his body and blood on that day Christs Passion was on that day therefore wee must neuer receiue the figure thereof on that day 2. Concerning the custome of the Greeke Church It is true that the Greeke Church in Lent vsed to consecrate onely vpon Saterday and Sunday and on the other dayes of the weeke they did communicate ex praesanctificatis of the presanctified formes which had been consecrated the Saterday or Sunday before as may be gathered out of the 49. Canon of the Councell of Laodocea and 52. Canon of the Councell in Trullo Sed quid ad rhombum we dispute not of the Communion of things before consecrated but of the communion of both kinds Such no doubt was this communion of the Greekes as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or praesanctificata in the plurall number doth implie It is not called by Balsamo vpon the 52. Canon of the sixth Councell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not a communion of presanctified bread but of presanctified mysteries This headlesse arrow therefore as all the former may be thus headed and shot backe vpon our aduersaries Retortion If the Communion of presanctified elements were in both kindes this Rite of the Greeke Church no way suporteth but quite ouerthroweth the Romish halfe Communion in one kind only But the communion of presanctified elements of the Greeke Church was in both kinds Ergo this Rite of the Greeke Church no way supporteth but quite ouerthroweth the Romish halfe Communion in one kinde onely That this Communion in the Greeke Church was in both kinds wee need no better euidence then the Seruice-booke or Office of the Greeke Church wherein we reade that after the Priest hath sanctified the bread he powreth wine and water into the sacred Cup and rehearseth the accustomed words in the Liturgie it self called Liturgia praesanctificatorum The dreadfull mysteries are named in the plurall number And that al that communicated receiued in both kinds it appeares by the forme of thankesgiuing there set downe We giue thanks to thee O God the Sauiour of all for all thy benefits which thou hast bestowed vpon vs and in speciall for that thou hast vouch safed to make vs partakers of the body and blood of thy Christ. CHAP. XV. The arguments of Papists drawne from reason answered and retorted SECT I. OVr aduersaries are driuen to rake hell for arguments and to begge proofes from damned hereticks such as were the Manichees From whose dissembling at the Lords Supper our equiuocating Iesuits would make vs beleeue that their halfe Communion was in vse in the Primitiue Church The Manichees saith Fisher liued in Rome and other places shrowding themselues amongst Catholicks went to their Churches receiued the Sacrament publikely with thē vnder the sole forme of bread yet they were not noted nor then discerned from Catholicks A manifest signe saith he that Communiō vnder one kind was publikly in the Church permitted For how could the Manichees still refusing the Cup haue beene hidden amongst those antient Christians if they had bin perswaded as now Protestants are that receiuing one kind onely is sacrilege The like argument Master Harding draweth from a tricke of Leger demaine vsed by a cunning housewife who made her husband beleeue that shee receiuing the bread from the Priest stooped downe as if she had prayed but receiued of her seruant standing by her somewhat that shee had brought for her from home which shee had no sooner put into her mouth but it hardned into a stone If this seeme to any incredible saith Sozomen that stone is a witnesse which to this day is kept amongst the Iewels of the Church of Constantinople By this stone it is cleere saith Master Harding the Sacrament was then ministred vnder one kind onely For by receiuing that one forme this woman would haue perswaded her husband that shee had communicated with him else if both kindes had beene ministred shee would haue practised fome other shift for the auoyding of the Cup which had not beene so easie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an ill egge of an ill bird a loose inference of a lewd practise As if the Manichees in Rome or this woman in Constantinople might not pitisare sip and make as if they drank and yet let not a drop go downe or as if this their fraud was not discouered Howsoeuer these disembled it is certaine out of Saint Leo in his 4. Sermon of Lent and Saint Chrysostome 18. Homile vpon the second to the Corinthians that the faithful people of Rome and Constantinople receiued the Communion in both kinds For Saint Leo in the place aboue alleaged giueth this as a marke to discrie Manichees from other Christian people intruding amongst them at the Lords Table by refusing to drink the blood of Christ with them And Saint Chrysostome saith expresly that there is no difference betwixt Priest and people in participating the dreadfull mysteries Therefore as the Priest in Constantinople and euery where else in his time receiued the Communion in both kindes so did the people SECT II. To leaue these absurd inferences of the Papists from the vngodly practise of hereticks I come now in the last place to batter and breake in pieces such weapons as they hammer against vs in the forge of reason The first reason they shape in this wise If whole Christ Body Blood Soule and Diuinity are vnder the forme of bread the Laietie are no way wronged by denying them the Cup But whole Christ is vnder the forme of bread to wit his Body Blood Soule and Diuinity Therefore the Laiety are not wronged by denying them the Cup. That whole Christ is vnder the forme of bread they proue by the vnseparable vnion of the body and blood of Christ c. Since his ascention his body now in heauen is a liue body and therfore hath his blood in his veines and is informed and glorified by a most excellent soule Therfore Christ cannot say truly that a body voyd of blood sence and soule is his body but soule life and blood must needs follow and concomitate his body wheresoeuer it bee Therefore when the Priest in the person of Christ or rather Christ by the mouth of the Priest saith This is my body the meaning must bee a liuing body with blood in the veines The answer First the doctrine of naturall Concomitancie presupposeth the naturall body of Christ to bee substantially and carnally vnder