of Prague no longer to neglect or be content without the Communion of the Cup without which they could not be saved and so multitudes were promted to receive in both kinds and importunate with the Council of Basil to have it allow'd Many Heretics as he saith rejoicing that they had found an Article grounded upon Scripture whereby either the ignorance or impiety of the Church of Rome might be discover'd I have given in this Story to shew of how great consequence in the judgment of the Bohemians this Text was to prove even the necessity of receiving the Sacrament in both kinds and therefore let me hear your Answer Phil. Bellarmin takes notice of all these Circumstances and gives three Answers to that Text Except ye eat the flesh c. His first Answer is this a Lib. 4. De Sacram Euch. c. 25. vim hujus praecepti in re quae sumitur non in modo sunendi consistere Sumuntur tam corpus quam sanguis sub qualibet specie The weight of this Precept doth lie in the receiving the flesh and blood of Christ and not in the manner of receiving it Now the body and blood of Christ are truly receiv'd in either kind whole Christ being communicated in the bread as also in the Cup and therefore the People are not depriv'd of the vertue of the Sacrament and shall live by it Theoph. The Text expresly speaks of drinking his Blood and that you cannot pretend to do by receiving and eating his Flesh only in the Sacrament altho his Blood and Soul be there also according to your Opinion by concomitancy Of which we shall say more hereafter Phil. If you stand so much upon the letter of the Text which seems to imply the receiving of Christs Flesh and Blood distinctly one by eating and the other by drinking then we answer ou another way That in Holy Scripture many times b In Script conjunctio accipitur pro disjunctiva the copulative is put for a disjunctive as when Peter said to the impotent Man at Solomons Porch Acts 3. 6. Silver and Gold have I none the meaning is he had neither Silver nor Gold for either would have suffic'd for an Alms. And if the Text be so Interpreted it will not hurt us Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man or drink his blood c. Theoph. This is to make of Gods Word a Nose of Wax to put the Holy Scripture out of Joint to help a broken Cause This way would serve a Jesuit in another case of Conscience Is any one scrupulous of rebelling against his Prince The Father will satisfie him with that of Solomon Fear God or honor the King if you do one you may omit the other But what God hath join'd let not Man put asunder saith our Blessed Savior Never turn a Copulative into a Disjunctive Phil. Well If these two Answers do not please Bellarmin will sit you with a third There are many Precepts in Holy Scripture which are given to all and yet are design'd to be observ'd only by some as that Blessing upon Mankind at first Encrease and multiply and yet all Men are not oblig'd to Marry and get Children And so this saying of our Savior If ye eat not the flesh of the Son of Man c. it is spoken to the Church Universal and yet if observ'd by some it sufficeth The Priest taking the Sacrament in both kinds shall convey Life thro Christ unto his whole Church Theoph. This Answer is not unlike the two former if twisted together all are not worth a rush they only publish to the World the Objection is unanswerable and so rather then they would be silent they would put their Ciphers together without one tittle of sense and reason to make them significant Phil. This is a quick way to answer an Argument or Reply by saying it is insignificant and so dismiss it Theoph. If I omit any thing that is material I desire no favor I know I shall hear of it with both Ears for those of your side are used to give no Quarter Mean while I will follow my intended course and shew in the next place how your half Communion is against the end of Christs Instituting the Sacrament Phil. Christ instituted these Holy Mysteries to confer Grace to the worthy Receivers to feed them with the Celestial Food of his pretious Body and Blood to convey unto their Souls remission of sins So much the words of Institution imply Take eat This is my Body which is given for you and drink ye all of this for this is my Blood of the New Testament which was shed for many for remission of sins Now all this is communicated as well under one kind as under both for whole Christ his Body and Blood and his Divinity is exhibited under the Species of Bread For Christ expresly saith It is my Body and if so it is his Blood and Life and Divine Nature also For Christ now liveth for ever and the Union between his Soul and Body is indissoluble wheresoever one is the other must be by a necessary concomitancy And then for the God-head of Christ since the great Mystery of his Incarnation that can never be separated from the humane Soul and Body which he assumed into one Person and subsistence with Himself So the Council of Trent hath determin'd a Sess 13 c. 3. Statim post Consecrationem verum Domini nostri corpus verumque sang una cum Divinit existere sub specie panis vini c. Immediatly after the Consecration the very Body and Blood of our Lord do exist under the Species of Bread and wine together with his Soul and Divinity The Body indeed subsists under the Species of Bread and the Blood under the Species of Wine by vertue of the words of Consecration but by virtue of a Natural Connexion whereby the parts of Christs humane Nature are since his Resurrection for ever inseparably united under the Species of Bread there is likewise the Blood of Christ and under the Species of Wine his Body and his Soul under both as also his Divinity by reason of the Hypostatical Vnion And therefore the Council concludes b Veriss est tantundem sub alterutra specie atque sub utraque contineri totus integer Christus That as much is contain'd under either Species as under both even whole Christ intirely Theoph. This is a new Model of Divinity which was about two hundred Years in fashioning and preparing by their sworn Servants the School-men for the Fathers of Trent to make use of to under-prop the declining State of the Church of Rome But I pray tell me Why did our Blessed Savior so distinctly say of the Bread This is my Body and of the Cup This is my Blood c. if in either kind both Body and Blood are included and receiv'd Phil. The Council as you have heard before answers this exactly a Ibid. Corpus
existit sub specie panis sang sub specie vini vi verborum a 〈…〉 vi naturalis connexionis concomitantiae c. By the words of Consecration the Bread is chang'd only into the Body of Christ and so the Wine into his Blood but then by a natural connexion and concomitancy each kind includes the other The Body and Blood and Soul and God head of Christ are inseparable Theoph. But why did Christ Institute the Sacrament in both kinde if to receive in one kind be as beneficial to the Soul Phil. The Essence of the Sacrament b Lib. 4. de Euchar. c. 22. Species panis vini nâ—n tam essentiales quam integrales partes sunt as Bellarmin shews is communicated in one kind to wit the Body and Blood of Christ but as to the integrity both are necessary Theoph. You shall never find a School-man without a nice Distinction to salve the matter However hereby you acknowledg the Sacrament in one kind to be maim'd and imperfect wanting one of the integral parts But I will not intangle the Discourse with such Niceties You know our Blessed Savior expresseth one end of the Sacrament That in remembrance of him it should be given and received And Paul shews in what regard chiefly Christ is commemorated in the Sacrament as he was Crucified For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye shew the Lords death till he come 1 Cor. 11. 26. Now you all grant that the representation of Christs death is made by both kinds in the Sacrament The Bread and Wine apart represents Christ Blood separated from his Body Breaking of Bread signifies how Christs Body was wounded and bruis'd and broken So Paul renders the words of Christs Institution 1 Cor. 11. 24. This is my Body which is broken for you and therefore the Sacrament should be given in both kinds for a sensible representation of Christs death Phil. The Church holds the commemoration of Christs death exactly in the Sacrifice of the Mass and this belongs only to the Priest who of necessity must consecrate Bread and Wine and receive both for this very reason That he may so represent Christs death and offer up his Body and Blood in Sacrifice his Body as crucified and his Blood shed So a great Doctor of our Church c Lib. 6. Advers haereses Mem. Dominicae mortis agit Sacerdes in altari non pop quaprop Sacerd. quoties celebrat non consecrat unam si eciem sine alterâ c. Alphonsus de Casiro The Priest commemorates Christ death upon the Altar and not the People receiving the Sacrament And therefore saith he the Priest of necessity must consecrate both kinds and receive them because altho Christ is wholy contain'd in one kind yet by one he is not signified and represented for the Species of Bread only signifies and represents his Body and that of Wine his Blood c. Theoph. We will not examine this new Doctrine of Alphonsus and the Schools touching whole Christ in each Species c. but we will take his Concession That one kind doth not signifie or represent whole Christ and his Death and Passion and therefore such as are bound to remember and shew the death of Christ his Sacrifice upon the Cross and the Work of our Redemtion by his Blood shedding they must of necessity receive the Sacrament in both kinds apart Phil. What will you conclude thence seeing he hath told you that the Priest is concern'd and not the People to hold the remembrance of Christs death in the Sacrament which he daily performs in the Office of the Mass Theoph. But what care we what Alphonsus hath told us or any of your New Doctors seeing S t Paul affirms the contrary For writing to all the Saints of the Church of Corinth he expresly tells them As oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye shew the Lords death till he come And doubtless as all Christians are concern'd to keep a thankful remembrance of Christ and of his Passion so we must do it as he hath appointed by receiving the Sacrament in both kinds for only so as you have heard his Death and Blood-shedding is represented to the Life The Elements apart shewing how his Blood was separated from his Body breaking of Bread shewing how his Body was bruis'd and broken In this respect we may believe S t Paul said to the Galathians That even before their eyes Jesus Christ had been evidently set forth crucified among them Gal. 3. 1. Phil. This suits Bellarmines Observation well that the People may see Christs Death represented in both kinds upon the Altar and one separate from the other and so hold the commemoration of his Passion altho they do not communicate in both kinds and he observes the Eye is the quicker sense to affect and raise our Meditation rather then the Touch or Tast Theoph. Notwithstanding the subtle Observation of your Doctors you shall give us leave to follow Christs direction to receive the Sacraments in both kinds in remembrance of him and we will believe the Apostle That by eating this Bread and drinking this Cup we shew the Lords death and not by seeing the Wafers and the Cup upon the Altar And withal the Sacrament is call'd the Lords Supper wherein he Feasts our Souls with his Flesh that is Meat indeed and with his Blood which is Drink indeed Now to complete a Feast there must be Meat and Drink Esculenta Poculenta And one of your Doctors saith a Franciscus à Victoria de Euch. qu 87. Non est perfecta refectio sub unica specie Vnder one kind of the Sacrament is no perfect refection Phil. These things hold in Natural Food and Refections but not in Spiritual Hunger and thirst in Grace are not distinct Appetites but have the same Objects as Blessed are they which do bunger and thrist after righteousness Matth. 5. 6. And we read how our Blessed Savior entertain'd the multitudes in the Wilderness with the Loaves without Wine or Water Theoph. Those are pretty subtleties for Jesuits but our Blessed Savior Instituting his Sacraments for all Believers as well Idiots as Learned design'd to confirm their Faith in Spiritual Truths by sensible Signs and therefore chose those two Elements of Bread and Wine to represent unto us that as these naturally nurish the Body so should his Body and Blood exhibited in the Sacrament in a Spiritual manner nurish the Soul And therefore you would do well to leave the Signs and the Sacrament complete and not deprive your ignorant People of such Helps Representations Your own School-men acknowledg the Sacrament to be maim'd and imperfect as to the Sacramental part and the signification without both kinds a Part. 3. qu. 80. Art 12. Exparte Sacramenti convenit quod utrum que sumi 〈…〉 in utroque perfectio c. Nullo modo debet corpus sumi sine sane Tho. Aquinus determines That in regard to
half Communion IN THE CHURCH of ROME Theoph. SIR I am much obliged to you for your kind and civil Entertainment and much more for that freedom of Discourse which your great Moderation hath allow'd me when somtimes in the defence of Truth and through a flaming Zeal that you should recover it I have neglected the Ceremonies of Friendship to hold the substance I have not sought so much to please as to convince you Phil. Truth is a Jewel which all are concern'd to purchase and hold fast but where this Tresure is to be found is the great Question I have bin diligent in the search and the Providence of God as I believe hath not been wanting in conducting me unto the Catholic Church the great Repository of Divine Truths Theoph. Doubtless the Holy Catholic Church is so the Truth it self hath promis'd to be with her unto the end of the World The Catholic Church will alwaies hold the Catholic Faith and by this Rule we judg particular National Churches to be true Members of the Church Catholic as they hold the Catholic Faith Phil. I mean the Roman Catholic Church whose Faith as Peters cannot fail and which hath alwaies laid a just claim to be the Catholic Church wherein the Truths of God and Eternal Life are conserv'd as her peculiar Tresure and none who do not communicate with her can share in them Theoph. That which you call a just claim will in its due place appear a most intolerable Usurpation and such as make the Catholic Church and the Roman Church to be reciprocal terms of the same amplitude and extent have forfeited their Logic and their Reason together The Church of Rome at best was a part and Member of the Church Catholic and now since thro her manifold Corruptions she hath well-nigh forfeited that Interest lo with an unparallel'd Insolence she flies at all and prescribes to the name of Catholic more solicitously perhaps out of a jealousie the Catholic Church should totally exclude her and out of a consciousness she hath deserv'd it But this digression would usher in a large Controversie besides our present purpose and I design first to insist upon the manifold Errors of your Church one after another as our occasions will permit and then if you please we will dispute the Point Whether the Church of Rome can be the only true Catholic Church which has so many ways departed from the Catholic Doctrine Phil. Your confidence Theophilus is no proof Theoph. I hope it shall appear to you and to the World that my Reasons and my Proofs have made me confident You may remember a second obvious Exception which I propos'd against the practice of the Church of Rome was her half Communion in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Her denying the Cup unto the Laiety If you please we will now take it into Consideration Phil. Most willingly For I find a great noise and clamor is rais'd about it and the Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome is proclaim'd out of the Pulpit and the Press and from some appearances of Truth your severe Imputations and Calumnies pass for currant with the undiscerning multitude Theoph. These appearances of Truth as you are pleas'd to call them are no less then Demonstrations carrying so much Light and Evidence in them that even the undiscerning multitude in reading the Holy Scriptures are able at first sight to discover the incongruity of your Practice with the Rule how teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men you evidently transgress the commands of God Phil. This Artifice of yours and Industry to court the People into a prejudice against us is to me a Demonstration that you put no great confidence in the merits of your Cause Do not so peremtorily conclude before you have enter'd upon the Proof Theoph. I will prove your giving the Bread in the Holy Communion and not the Cup unto the People to be against the Institution of Christ the end of the Sacrament the practice of the Apostles and of the Church Catholic for twelve-hundred Years Phil. You have propos'd a good Method of Discourse and I desire you would follow it Theoph. First our Blessed Savior immediatly before his Passion instituted the Sacrament and gave it to the Disciples present in both kinds as three Evangelists record Matth. 26. 26. As they were eating Jesus took Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said Take eat this is my Body ver 27. He took the Cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it for this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for remission of sins So we read in Mark 14. 22 23. and he expresly testifieth of the Cup That he gave it to them and they all drank of it Saint Luke after the same manner And adds moreover the command of Christ This do in remembrance of me Luke 22. 19. Phil. I pray observe how that command is given only when the Disciples receiv'd the Bread and not when they took the Cup. The Words are these He took Bread and gave thanks and brake it and gave unto them saying This is my Body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me Likewise also the Cup after Supper saying This Cup is the New Test ament in my Blood which is shed for you ver 20. And a Tom. 3. Lib. 4. cap. 25. de Sacramento Eucharistâ— ut intelligeremus c. Bellarmin observes it as an instance of Gods wonderful Providence to make Heretics unexcusable And that we may understand it was the command of Christ that the Sacrament should be distributed to all under the species of Bread but not so under the species of Wine Theoph. S t Luke saith Likewise also the Cup Intimating the same Institution for one and for the other Phil. We are not much concern'd in your gloss upon the Text. Theoph. But you are in S t Pauls who declares That after the same manner he took the Cup when he had supped saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood 1 Cor. 11. 25. the very Words of S t Luke And then expresly adds the words of command of our Lord Christ This do as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me Now what say you to the word of command given by Christ to do this in remembrance of him as well when he gave the Cup as when he distributed the Bread unto the Disciplos Phil. Bellarmin observes a difference b Ibid. Post panis consecrationem absolute penitur post calicem cum conditione This do in remembrance of me is put absolutely even in S t Pauls relation after the Consecration of the Bread but after the Cup it is repeated with a Condition â—his do as often as you drink it in remembrance of one not intimating that the Cup must of necessity be given or taken but if it be given or receiv'd it should be done in
the Sacrament both kinds are necessary for the perfection of the Sacrament consists in both and therefore by no means the Priest that consecrates must receive the Body of Christ without the Blood b Exparte sumentium req summa rea cautela But in regard to the Receivers reverence and caution must be had least any undecencies should happen whereof the greatest danger is in receiving the Cup least the Wine be spilt And so after the like sort Bonaventure Phil. c Ib. ad 3. In persona omnium sang ossert sumit Aquinas there tells you how the Priest offers and takes the Cup in the behalf of the People And so in the Priests communicating the Sacrament retains its perfection in the Peoples communicating in one kind it retains its reverence and due caution least any thing should happen irreverently Theoph. We shall hereafter consider your great Reasons why you with-hold the Cup from the Laity At present I will follow my design and shew that the practice both of the Apostles and of the Church for twelve hundred Years was to administer the Sacrament unto the People in both kinds as our Savior gave the Cup unto the Apostles S t Mark expresly saith They all drank of it Mark 14. 23. so they administred the Cup unto the Saints Phil. You have been already shew'd that they receiv'd the Sacrament at our Saviors hands as Apostles and Priests and so they had the Cup. Theoph. Not so for they Communicated then as Receivers and as the common People for our Blessed Savior was the Priest in that Administration This some of your own Doctors affirm for as when our Blessed Savior was Baptized by John he condescended to represent the Person of a Disciple and John was the Master in that Scene so when he gave the Sacrament to his Disciples he was the Priest and they as the People receiving in both kinds for a standing Rule and Example unto all Posterity Phil. a Vivendum Legibus non exemplis We must live by Laws and not by Example as the Lawyers wisely determine in all Cases Theoph. I had thought our Blessed Saviors Example had been a Law and Rule to Christians in such things as fall within the compass of their imitation Learn of me saith our Blessed Savior for I am meek and lowly of heart But moreover the Apostles then receiving the Sacrament in both kinds had express command hoc facite so to give the Sacrament unto others as he had don to them Phil. When you Comment upon a Text it shall not fail to speak your sense and do your work But what will you say if our Savior himself administred the Sacrament in one kind I hope this Practice and Example will satisfie you Theoph. Let me hear the Instance and I will give my Answer Phil. In Emaus he gave the Sacrament unto those two Disciples with whom he communed in the way And S t Luke observes Immediatly their eies were opened and they knew him Luke 24. 31. And it follows in that Chapter ver 35. He was known of them in breaking of Bread This wonderful effect shews it was the Sacrament and yet we read only of one kind which he consecrated and gave unto them The Text saith v. 30. He took Bread and blessed it and brake and gave unto them the Ceremonies exactly which our Savior usd in his consecration of the Sacrament Theoph. This will not prove what you desire That our Savior now gave the Sacrament to these two Disciples for these Circumstances of giving Thanks or Blessing or breaking of Bread were usual at ordinary Meals whereof we have a full proof in the Acts of the Apostles We read there cap. 27. how in a great Tempest the Soldiers and Marirers and Prisoners in all 276 Souls in the Ship had fasted fourteen days we may suppose so long they had made no setting Meals and Paul being assured from God of all their safety he exhorted them to be comforted and to take some meat for their health sake and when he had thus spoken he took Bread and gave thanks to God and when he had broken it he began to eat ver 35. Here you have the same Ceremonies of taking of Bread and blessing and breaking and yet doubtless it was a common refection sure the Apostle did not give the Sacrament to so many Infidels in the thip Phil. The Case is not the same neither the Expressions For in Luke the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He blessed the same which our Savior usd in the Institution of the Sacrament But in your Instance it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He gave thanks only said Grace before a Meal Theoph. Your Criticisin will help you little You know the Sacrament is call'd the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very word which Paul used Phil. But those two at Emaus were Disciples and such a notable Miracle ensuing that their eies were open to know Christ at that instant in breaking of Bread this proves it was the Sacrament they receiv'd Theoph. That was an accidental Dispensation Our Blessed Savior upon their importunity turned with them into the Inn sat down to eat and immediatly before he vanish'd out of their sight he was pleas'd to discover himself unto them Phil. a L 3. de cons Evangelist c. 15. Facta est permissio usque ad Sacramentum panis ut unitate corp ejus participatâ removeri intellig impedimentum inimici ut Christus possit agnosci S t Augustin affirms it was the Sacrament and tells us That thro the power of the divel their eies were holden not to know Christ who was pleas'd to permit it until they came to the Sacrament of Bread that we should understand all impediments of the enemy against knowing of Christ shall be remov'd when we are united to his Body Theoph. In this Passage Augustin doth not clearly assert what you would have him but according to his usual Expressions elsewhere calling any mystical thing by the name of Sacrament he calls this Sacramentum panis because it had a mystical signification being accompanied with that notable Circumstance of the Disciples eies being open'd to know him And the allegorical or mystical signification is this That such as in the Church receive the Sacrament devoutly shall have their understandings open'd to know the Lord Christ more perfectly But I can demonstrate to the Doctors of your Church from their own Principles That our Blessed Savior did not give the Sacrament to his two Disciples at Emaus because he did not pronounce those words which make the Sacrament and change the Bread into his Body viz. This is my Body which you maintain to be the essential words of Consecration The others of blessing and breaking Bread and giving to them being but circumstances in comparison Again he did not consecrate in both kinds which your Doctors also account necessary to the Sacrament That the Priest should consecrate Bread and Wine and
right of the People to the Sacrament c. and your answer supposeth an offence whereupon the right may be taken away But Bellarmin speaks absolutly Jus Laicorum c. The right the People have to the Sacrament is from the Priests concession I thought it had bin from Christs Institution and command And Bellarmins Inference is insufferable that as the Church and the â—ishops have power to keep Offenders from the Sacrament altogether so can they dispose of and give the Sacrament under one kind or both as they think fit And the absurdity appears herein Christ hath given power to his Church to Excommunicate Offenders but not to alter his Institution of the Sacrament If we had not found it written we could not believe a Man of Learning should make such Inferences absurd and irreligious Phil. If you like not this Answer you may his second Thoughts c Ib. Habuissent certe ex censuet illius temp ergo cum sit contr consuet introducta non habent amplius jus illud That if in Cyprians time the people had a right to demand the Cup they had it certainly from the custom of that time and therefore seeing now another Custom is introduc'd and a Law made for the Sacrament in one kind they have no claim or right to the other Theoph. 'T is horrible insolence in Bellarmin to assert That if the People had a right to claim the Cup certainly they deriv'd it from Custom and to take no notice at all of Christs Institution and the Apostles Tradition and Practice And that he should presume to ballance the custom of so many former Ages of the Church with a custom not many Ages introduc'd and withal not to allow one grain unto all we read of both kinds in the Holy Scripture to turn the Scale And why doth he take so great pains to answer the Testimonies which we bring out of the Fathers for the giving of the Sacrament in both kinds seeing he might cut all off with this stupendious Solution It was the custom of so many Ages to receive the Communion in both kinds it is our custom to receive the Communion in one kind But notwithstanding this compendious answer of your Doctor I will go on to prove the practice of the Church to give the Cup and then I will make the Inference a Hom. 6. in Numeros dicam vobis quis sit Pop. qui in usu habet sang bibere non solum Sacr. ritu c. Origen gives a full Testimony on our side I will shew you who are the People who are accustomed to drink Blood not only in the Sacrament but in hearing the word of God Phil. b Ib. In usu habet non praecepto Bellarmines answer to this Testimony is short and full They are accustomed but not commanded Theoph. c De Caena Domini Lex prohibet ejus sang Evangelium praecipit ut bibatur Cyprian shews the Precept as well as the use The Law saith he forbids to eat with the Blood but the Gospel commands that we should drink it Phil. d Praecipit ut bibatur at non ab omnibus Bellarmin answers The Gospel commands that the Blood of Christ should be drank but not by all Theoph. Christs words are Drink ye all of this And e Qu. 17. in Levit. ad bibendum sang omnes exhortantur qui volunt habere vitam Augustin saith All are exhorted to drink this Blood who will have life In the fourth Century the Fathers of the Greek and Latin Church are all for us f Epist 289. ad Patriciam Caesariam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Basil the Great writing to a great Lady tells her It is good to Communicate every day and to partake of the holy Body and Blood g Regulâ— 80. c. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Again elsewhere he puts the Quest What is proper for a Christian And he gives the Answer To cleanse himself from all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit and perfect Holiness in the fear of the Lord and so to eat the Body of Christ and drink his Blood h Oratione 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Greg. Nazianzen gives advice Without doubting eat the Body and drink the Blood if thou desirest Life i Homil. 18. in 2. ad Cornith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysostom hath a memorable Passage to our purpose I can shew you saith he where the Priest differs not from the People when we enjoy the dreadful Mysteries for we are all alike vouchsaf'd them One Body and one Cup propos'd to all Phil. k Bellarmin shews how Chrysostom understands the thing that is Communicated and not the Signs and so all receive whole Christ altho under the Species of Bread Theoph. Seeing there is express mention made of one Cup offered to all you cannot understand thereby receiving Christs Blood only by Ib. Rom Sacramenti c. concomitancy with the Body of Christ under the Species of Bread And whereas Bellarmin faith Both the Priest and People did eat of the same Sacrifice under the Law and therefore the difference between us under the Gospel and them could not herein consist That as well the People as the Priest equally share in the Sacrament I answer that in the Peace-offering he that brought it had his part as the Priest his but they were different heterogenial parts the wave-breast and heave-shoulder were the Priests share Lev. 7. 34. whereof he that brought the Offering did not eat And so the Shew-bread belong'd to the Priest to eat and not to the People Now at the Lords Table there is a clear parity between Priest and People alike partaking of homogenial things eating the same Bread and drinking the same Cup. And this was Chrysostoms design to shew in these words a Ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Not as under the Law the Priest eat some things and the People other and it was not lawful for the People to partake of those things which were assign'd to the Priest Phil. b Ib. Manifeste patet c. Bellarmin shews plainly the custom in Chrysostoms time to receive in one kind by a miraculous Instance related out of Sozomens History Lib. 8. Of an heretical Woman who would dissemble Catholic Communion and received the Bread in Chrysostoms Church but kept it by her and eat common Bread which her Maid brought with her and it became a stone in her mouth Now saith Bellarmin If she must also have receiv'd the Cup How could her first jugling about the Bread concele her Theoph. Such Legends as these prove little If truth she might think in the throng to escape the Cup or else set her lips to the Cup and drink nothing and so Bellarmins manifeste patet is manifeste latet in a sinking Cause he laieth hold of every Reed to support it Other Testimonies we have out of Chrysostom c Hom. 23. in I ad Cor. 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. comparing the Jews Sacraments and Mysteries with ours he saith As thou eatest the Lords Body so did the Jews eat Manna as thou drinkest the Blood of Christ so they water out of the Rock Another out of the 32 d Homily upon S t Matthew near the end exciting to love he saith We have all one Table spread before us we all drink of the same Liquor and not only so but out of the same Cup. Ambrose saith d Mi◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If as often as Christs Blood is poured out in the Sacrament it is shed for remission of sins I must alwaies receive it that my sins may be always forgiven He seems to imply that if we stand in need of remission of sins we must take the Cup of Salvation e De Sacramentis l. 4. c. 6. Debeo illum semper accipere ut sensperper mihi pecc dimittantur Again speaking mystically of the Priests of the Gospel he saith The Priest by the word of God toucheth the rock and the waters flow and the Lords people drink f Ib. l 5. c. 1. Verbo Dei tangit petram fluit aqua bibit populus Dei thereof a Theodoreti hist. lib 5. c. 18. Quâ audaciâ poculum sang pretiosi ere tuo participabis c. Again his Speech to Theodosius the Emperor when he came to receive the Sacrament after that great slaughter of many thousands committed by his command at Thessalonica proves our Point With what confidence canst thou receive with thy mouth the Cup of Christs pretious Blood with such blood-guiltiness c. Phil. b Lib. 4. c. 26. Fatemur datam utramque speciem in aliq locis sed non Jure Divino Bellarmin answers to these Testimonies of the Fathers That in some places the Sacrament was administred to the People in both kinds but not by any Divineright Theoph. 'T is enough for us at present to prove the practice of the Church and that he confesseth c In Malach. c. 2. Sacerdotes Euch. conficiunt sang Domini populo distrib Jerome saith The Priests consecrate the Eucharist and distribute the Blood of Christ unto the People And to this Bellarmin confidently answers Nihil novi This is no news It is in truth no news to hear the Fathers witnessing that the Cup was given to the People Where do they say the Bread was given without the Cup Phil. You shall find we have sufficient proofs of that out of Antiquity Theoph. Such manifest Proofs as Bellarmin brought but now Legends and reservations and half proofs but I will suspend my judgment till you offer them and I go on to shew the Testimonies of every Age in this Point altho I may weary your patience and mine own d Decret part 2. causa 33. q. 3. c. 37. Dum frangitur hostia dum sang de calice in or a fidelium funditur Ib. c 36. Ibi vos estis in mensa c. Gratian hath collected several Passages out of S t Augustin and the Sentences of Prosper While the Host is broken and the Blood is poured out of the Cup into the mouths of the Faithful Again Ye are together with us at the Table and in the Cup we drink together because we live together This evidently shews both kinds distinctly and apart distributed to all the Communicants the Priest and People eating and drinking together at the Lords Table as all were partakers of the same Spiritual Life In the fifth Century we have a full proof before the fourth General Council of the Communion given in both kinds Samuel and other Priâ—sts put in Articles into the Council of Calcedon against Ibas Bishop of Edessa the 9 th Article was this That upon complaint he had neglected to punish some Officers e Bin. Tom. 3. Concil part 2. Conc. Chalced. Actione 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. who upon a great Festival had provided but little Wine and that not good for the Sacrament to be distributed unto the People so that at the time of administring the Cup they were constrain'd to send for more to the Tavern and when that sufficed not the Bishop gave a nod to those that administred the Bread to come up to the Altar and for bear giving the Body of Christ because there was not Wine enough to come after This ample Testimony proves the Cup was of necessity given to the People and that the Bread could not be given without the Cup for they who delivered the Bread were commanded to cease because for want of Wine others could not follow them with the Cup. And this the whole Council approv'd admitting the Charge against the Bishop never answering more Romano That the People might receive the Body without the Cup. This agrees well with that saying ascrib'd to S t Augustin a Alâ—erus l. 2. c. 8. De Sacramente nec carâ— sine sang nec sang sine carne jure communicatur by Algerus a Benedictine Monk Neither can the Flesh be of right distributed without the Blood nor the Blood without the Flesh Phil. b Lib. 4. c. 26. Ea sent non est Aug. at Paschasii Bellarmin saith It is not the saying of Augustin but of Paschasius Theoph. We will not dispute that But what saith he to the words themselves For Bellarmin acknowledgeth the Testimony of either to be good Phil. He saith They speak not of the signs but of the thing signified The Body and Blood of Christ and they are alwaies communicated together by a concomitancy Theoph. This is the usual shift but it helps him nothing For in this sense one cannot be given without the other But the words say c Non jure communicatur One without the other cannot of right be communicated implying that injuriously it might be Phil. Bellarmin applies those words non jure communicatur to the Persons receiving not to the things received d Non jure commun qui sentit unum accipi sine al 〈…〉 They ought not of right to communicate who think they can receive the Body of Christ without his Blood Theoph. This is an Application at random against the scope and the express construction of the words but you shall never find him without an Answer somthing he will say to amaze the People But I proceed About this time Pope Leo the first makes a Decree That some Manichees should be observed strictly who dissembling Church-Communion with Catholics would come to the Sacrament and receive the Bread but not the Wine because they esteemed Wine a Creature of the Devil e Vt vobis hujusmodi homines ex his manifestâ—tur indiciis Now by this mark he would have them discovered if they refused to receive the Cup and so cast out of the Church Not long after f Bin. Tom. 3. In not is advitam Gelasii Aut Sacramenta integra percipiant aut ab integris arceantur c.
a Qui proprio sanguine laverunt si qua habuerunt peccata The Martyrs if they had any sins have washt them away with their own Blood The Blessed Apostle tells us 1 Joh. 1. The Blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all unrighteousness Immediatly before these words which Bellarmin quotes S. Ambrose hath this passage b Infirma est caro mens aegra ad Medici sedem non potest debile explicare vestigium The flesh is weak the mind sick and feter'd with the chains of sin and so we cannot creep to the Physician but must call upon the Angels and Martyrs c. Where do you read in H. Scripture that the sick to wit the sinner cannot come to Christ the Physitian did he not come to call sinners to invite the weary and heavy laden to come to him and find rest you shall hear other Fathers generally contradicting this Doctrine of Ambrose and the Holy Scripture much more yet this is the usual pretence for Saints Invocation and Intercession That we are unworthy of our selves to draw neer to an Holy God to put up our supplications to him of which more hereafter herein S. Ambrose contradicts what he hath piously commented upon the first chap. of the Epistle to the Rom. in the 4 chap. of his Commentary c Solent miserâ uti excusatione per istos posse ire ad Deum ut per Comites ad Reg. This is the miserable excuse saith he that by Angels and Saints we may have access to God being unworthy of our selves to come unto him as we go to the King by his Courtiers For which he answers d Ideo per Tribunos Comites itur ad Regem quia homo est c. Ad Deum a. promerendum qui omnium novit merita suffragatore opus non est sed mente devotâ Therefore we come to the King by his Tribunes and Officers because the King is a man and must receive information from others but to obtain the favor of God who knoweth all mens deserts we need no suffragants but a devout mind whensoever such a one calls upon Him he will answer him Nothing could be more directly oppos'd to your usuall plea for the Invocation of Saints The same Father in his book de Isaac Anima cap. 5 tells us from the third chap. of Canticles and the third vers e Anima quae Deum quaerit transit custodes enim sunt mysteria quae etiam Ang. concupiscunt videre That a Soul seeking God passeth by the keepers for there are mysteries which the Angels them selves desire to looke into Phil. Do you then follow S. Ambrose's direction in one place and I will take his advise in the other Bellarmin brings the testimony of many other Fathers of the later Ages of the Church and I must confess I am almost tired in following him especially seeing you so dextriously shift him off Gregory Nyssen speaks home to the point in the latter end of his Oration opon Theodorus a Martyr thus We want many benefits doe thou become our Legat with the King of Heaven Thou art not ignorant of humane necessities procure peace for us That we have bin safe and sound hitherto we ascribe it to thee If you want more assistance take in the quire of your Brethren the Martyrs The praiers of many Saints wash away the sins of Nations and People In the like manner he speaks in his Panegyricks of another Martyr Theoph. This is sufficient to your purpose you need look no further But I pray tell me do you take him for an Orator or Divine in these passages Is it possible he should in earnest ascribe the preservation of the Faithfull all along unto this Martyr hope for security from him for the future and never take into consideration the divine protection Is it good Divinity to say That the praiers of the Just wash away the guilt of Nations and People and never mention the Blood of Christ and his effectuall Intercession Phil. That is to be suppos'd as the principall the Blessed Saints may be instrumentall in these Blessings Theoph. What you suppose is one thing and what he expresseth another But it is neither good Philosophie nor Divinity to intitle the effect unto the Instruments and leave out the principall Agent Should I make such an harangue to an Artists Tooles give them all the honor of the excellent work he would reckon me besides my wits and himself put besides his due commendation praise Phil. You ask Questions instead of giving Answers But I have now concluded to favor you and not overlade you with innumerable testimonies The Authority of the later Fathers perhaps you will except against in this point Such as Bede and Anselme Bernard Damascene the Elder I have hitherto produc'd and yet there remaine two of the Greek Church and two of the Latin Church whose Authorities I will urge out of Bellarmin in confirmation of this point then I shall give you respite The Greek Fathers are Chrysostome and Theodoret the Latin Jerom and Augustin Theoph. You have made a noble choise herein you much oblige me whilst your wisdom and your zeal do prompt you to urge the most effectuall testimonies on your side that you determine to let the others passe which cheifly serve to fill up a number Phil. Bellarmin quotes an eminent passage out of a Homil. 66 ad pop Antioch Chrysostom but we easier find it in his 26 Homilie upon the second Epistle to the Corinthians from whence we suppose the Homilie was collected it is in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that Homilie The words out of Chrysostom are these He that weareth purple goes and salutes the sacred bodies and laying aside his state b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. stands praying unto the Saints that they would appear before God in his behalf He that weareth the Diadem beesecheth the Tent-maker and Fisherman being dead to become his Advocates Theoph. This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a passage whereunto we find not a second like it in all the works of Chrysostom Bellarmine refers to other pâ—â—ces of this Father but according to his accoustum'd manner without truth and reason It is strange therefore if he were of the opinion the practice in his daies was usual to pray to the Saints before their shrines that any where else he should not speak of it and therefore I must tell you that the originall Greek doth not altogether warrant Bellarmin's translation but equally admits another which will fall short of his proof For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well signifies standing in need of the Saints Intercession as praying for it and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He wants their protection Now we may stand in need and may reap the benefit of the Saints supplications in Heaven for the people of God here on earth yet have no warrant to call upon