The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome, Chapter 15 – Chapter 16
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 vsus beleeue, that their halfe Communion was in vse in the Primitiue Church. The Manichees, Answer to certaine questions. Sect. 5.saith Fisher, liued in Rome, and other places, shrowding themselues amongst Catholicks, went to their Churches, receiued the Sacrament publikely with thē, vnderunder the sole forme of bread: yet they were not noted, nor then discerned from Catholicks. A manifest signe, saith he, that Communiō vnderunder one kind was publikly in the Church permitted. For how could the Manichees still refusing the Cup, hauehave beene hidden amongst those antient Christians, if they had bin perswaded, as now Protestants are, that receiuing one kind onelyonly 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 lSozomen. Eccles. hist. lib. 1.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 vnderunder one kind onelyonly. For by receiuing that one forme, this woman would hauehave perswaded her husband, that shee had communicated with him; else, if both kindes had beene ministred, shee would hauehave practised fome other shift, for the auoyding of the Cup, which had not beene so easie. foreign; 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 vponupon 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 eueryevery 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 vsus in the forge of reason. The first reason they shape in this wise:
mFisher in his answer to certaine questions propounded by King Iames his Maiestie. Point. 7.If whole Christ Body, Blood, Soule, and Diuinity are vnderunder the forme of bread, the Laietie are no way wronged by denying them the Cup:
But whole Christ is vnderunder 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 vnderunder 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, vnderunder the Answ. 1.forme of bread: which we deny; and consequently this argument, from concomitancie, is of no force. The words, This is my body, being rightly expounded by Austine, Tertullian, Theodoret, and many other of the ancients to be no other, then, this bread is a signe, a figure, or a sacrament of my body, not this bread is turned substantially into my body, or vnderunder this is contained my very body, flesh & bones. Where Christs naturall humane body is, there wee grant his blood, and soule, and diuinitie are. But, That his body, is now in heauen, Acts 3. not in any place vponupon the earth; much lesse in eueryevery place, where the Masse is celebrated.
Secondly, although we grant, that the body of Christ cannot really bee seuered from his blood, yet the signes of his body, and blood are really seuered: if wee speake of sacramentall Communion, the Apostle teacheth vsus, that the bread, which wee break, is the Communion of Christs body, and the Cup, which wee blesse, is the Communion of his blood: neither can wee truly and properly, say, the Bread is the Communion of his blood. nAlexand. Hal. 3. pa…t. q. 11. membr. 2. art. 4. Corpus non est sacramentaliter sub specie vi…i, nec sanguis sacramentaliter sub specie panis. Ergo vt sacramentaliter sumatur totus Christus, necesse est, vt sumatur sub duabus speciebus.And therefore they that communicate in bread onelyonly, doe not sacramentally communicate his blood.
Thirdly, should we liberally grant vntounto our aduersaries, that by the receiuing the body of Christ in the bread, we consequently receiue the blood also, which since his Passion was neuer seuered from his body: yet will it not hence follow, that we drinke the blood of Christ in eating the bread: but Christ commanded vsus expresly, to drinke his blood, which cannot possibly be done by communicating in bread only, no though we should admit of the carnall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament, and the doctrine of concomitancie also.
Retortion.
Lastly, this Argument may bee retorted vponupon our aduersaries in this manner:
Whosoeuer receiueth Christ in the Sacrament, ought to receiue whole Christ, to wit, his body, and blood:
But the body and blood of Christ cannot be receiued but by communicating in both kinds:
Therefore all that receiue Christ in the Sacrament, ought to communicate in both kinds.
The Proposition is our aduersaries, the Assumption also is inferred from their owne Tenets. They deliuer this rule, that the Sacraments Vid. supra. Arg. 2.effect, and exhibit that, and that onelyonly, which they signifie: But the bread signifieth onelyonly the body of Christ, and the wine his blood: hee therefore that will receiue whole Christ, as he is exhibited vntounto vsus in the Sacrament, must necessarily communicate in both kinds.
SECT. III.
The second reason is this.
oBell. de sacra. Euch. lib. 4. c. 24.If the whole nature and essence of a Sacrament be found in one kinde, the Romanists Communion in bread onelyonly is not a maimed, or imperfect, but an entire Sacrament.
But the whole nature, and essence of a Sacrament is found in one kinde:
Therefore the Romanists communicating in bread onelyonly, is not a mained, or imperfect, but an entire Sacrament.
That the whole nature, and essence of a Sacrament is found in either kind by it selfe, Bellarmine endeauoreth thus to make euident, There are but two things required essentially to a Sacrament, a signe, and a thing signified: both which are found in one kind; first, a signe, to wit, bread; secondly, the thing signified, to wit, the inward nourishment of the soule, and the representation of the vnion of the faithful with Christ, and among themselues.
The answer.
First, there is a double essence of the sacrament, Answ. 1.the generall essence, which makes it a sacrament in generall, and the specificall essence, which makes it in speciall, Baptisme, or the Lords Supper. To bee a visible, and effectuall signe of inuisible sanctifying grace is sufficient to proue a sacrament in generall: but not to proue the Lords Supper; the entire definition whereof is, a Sacrament of the new Testament, sealing vntounto vsus the perfect nourishment of our soules, by the participation of the sacred elements of bread and wine.
Secondly, there are two sorts, or parts essentiall, 2or integrall. For example; the essentiall parts of a man are animal rationale; the integrall parts are legges and armes, and other members. In like manner, in the Sacrament, besides the essentiall parts, which pBel. loco supracitat species panis & vini non tam essentiales, quam integrales partes huiu… sacramenti videntur.Bellarmine will hauehave to bee the signe and the thing signified, there are integrall parts, to wit, the elements of bread and wine, of which if either be wanting, the sacrament may be as truly called a maimed or vnperfect Sacrament, as a man that wants an arme, or legge, is truly called a maimed, or vnperfect man, though he hauehave in him the essentiall parts of a man intirely, to wit, animal his Genus, and rationale, his difference.
Thirdly, although in the Romane halfe Communion there be a signe, and a thing signified; yet neither is there the whole signe, nor the whole signification; not the whole signe, because bread is but a part of the signe, representing Christs body, and not his blood; not the whole signification, which is such an entire refection and nourishment of the soule, as bread and wine are of the body.
Retortion.
Lastly, this Argument, as the former, may be retorted vponupon the aduersary.
The Lords Supper is the Sacrament of Christs body and blood:
The bread is not the Sacrament of Christs body and blood;
Therefore bread alone is not the Lords Supper.
Or in this wise:
The Lords Supper essentially includeth and signifieth such a perfect refection, and nourishment of the soule, as bread and wine are of the body:
Communicating in one kind neither includeth, nor signifieth such refection:
Therefore communicating in one kind is not the Lords Supper, nor containeth in it the whole nature, and essence of this Sacrament.
SECT. IIII.
The third Argument of our aduersaries, drawne from reason, is an off-spring of the two former.
If the faithfull receiue as much benefit by communicating in one kind, as in both, they hauehave no cause to complaine of the Church, for the restraining of them from the Cup:
But the faithfull receiue as much benefit by communicating in one kind, as in both:
Therefore they hauehave no cause to complaine of the Church, for the restraining of them from the Cup,
That they receiue as much benefit by communicating in one kind, as in both, it seemes to follow necessarily vponupon the two former supposalls; that whole Christ is in each kind, and that the whole essence of the Sacrament is found in either.
The answer.
First, the two props of this Argument being Answ. 1.before taken away, it must needes fall to the ground: neither is whole Christ contained vnderunder one kind, neither in it is preserued the whole essence of the Sacrament. Therefore questionlesse the fruit of the halfe Communion, if it be any at all, cannot bee equall to the fruit of the whole.
Secondly, the consequence of this Argument is not found: For neither the onelyonly, nor the principle thing to be regarded in the Sacrament, is our benefit, but Gods glorie, and the testification of our obedience to his Ordinance. Therefore, albeit it were granted, that the people lost nothing by the taking away the Cup from them, yet they hauehave iust cause to complaine of the Church of Rome, for the violation of Christs Institution, and hindring them from discharging their whole duety in communicating in both kinds, according to his commandement.
Thirdly, vnworthy Receiuers receiue no benefit at all by the Communion, but eate and drinke their owne damnation. qAmbr. in 1. ad Corinth. cap. 11. Indignus est Domino, qui aliter mysterium celebrat, quàm ab eo traditum est.And Saint Ambrose pronounceth him to be an vnworthy Receiuer, who celebrates these mysteries otherwayes, then the Lord hath appointed: Therefore they amongst the Papists, who consent to this violation of Christs Institution, and mutilation of the Sacrament, may expect no benefit at all by this their sacrilegious practice; much lesse may they looke to share equally with them, who communicate entirely, according to Christs commandement.
Fourthly, rHalensis part. 3. qu. 11. membro. artic. 4. sumptio sub vtraque specie minoris est efficaciae, & complementi. Vasquez in 3. Tho. q. 80. art. 12. probabilior sententia mihi semper visa est, maiorem fructum gratiae ex vtraque specie huius sacramenti, quàm ex altera tantùm percipi. Ita docet Halensis, Gasper Consaluus. quam sententiam absolutè secutus est Clemens sextus in Bulla ad Regem Angliae, Anno 1346. quâ illi concessit, vt ad gratiae augmentum in vtraque specie communicaret. Aegidius de Coninck Iesuita. Etsi plus gratiae conferat sumptio vtriusque speciei; dicimus tamen meritò hoc Ecclesiam non curare, quaest. 10. art. 12. in lib. 4. sent.although each Element represent Christ vntounto vsus, yet not so fully, or expressely, as both together. Therefore this argument, as all the former, may be retorted vponupon the aduersarie.
The efficacie of Sacraments is answerable to their significancie: for they effect that, which they signifie, &c.
But the significancie of one Element is not equall to the significancie of both.
Therefore the efficacie of one Element, is not equall to the efficacie of both. Which conclusion is assented vntounto both by Halensis, and Vasquez, Gasper Consaluus, and Clemens the sixth.
SECT. V.
The fourth Argument our aduersaries thus frame:
The Sacrament of the Lords Supper …ught to be administred, that all faithfull people may communicate.
(All cannot receiue in both kinds, exempli gratia: Abstemij, whose stomack cannot brooke wine; and Nazarites, who made a vow against drinking of wine.) But all faithfull people cannot communicate in both kinds:
Therefore it ought not to be administred in both kinds.
The answer.
First, this Argument toucheth not the point in question: for wee finde no fault with the Church of Rome, for her indulgence in this kinde, but for her sacrilege; not for her dispensing with them, that cannot receiue in both kinds, but for prohibiting them that can, and desire it.
Secondly, Lawes, as rDe leg. & Senat. consult.Pomponius obserueth, Prouide for those things, that happen commonly, or for the most part, and not for such things as happen to few, or seldome. A man can scarce finde one in a Kingdome, that hath such an Antipathy to Wine, that he cannot indure so small a quantitie of some kinde of Wine, as may suffice for the Communion. And I beleeue our aduersaries can hardly name now a Christian Nazarite … the world. And is it any way reasonable, out of respect to so few, to make a generall law for the restraint of the Cup from the Laietie? Is there any reason, that the disabilitie of so few, should preiudice the right of all the rest of Gods people? Some Priests hauehave at some times so weake stomackes, that they cannot taste wine, and some both of the Laietie and Cleargie, through infirmitie of stomacke, or drought in the throat in hot diseases, cannot swallow downe the bread; will they therefore make a generall law to take away the Cup from the Priests, or the bread from both?
Thirdly, for Nazarites, if there be any in the Church, they are to bee taught, that there Euangelicall liberty releaseth them of the strict rigour of their legall vow, and that our Sauiours command, Drinke ye all of this, is a sufficient warrant for them to drinke of the sacramentall wine at the Lords Table, though they drinke no wine else where. Saint Iames the Brother of our Lord, though as Saint tHier. in Catal. Viror. illust.Hierome writeth of him, he kept strictly the Nazarites vowe in abstaining from wine, and strong drinke at other times; yet he was amongst the twelue at Christs last Supper. And Saint Marke testifieth that all dranke of the Cup; and for such, whose stomacks cannot away with the smalest quantitie of wine, it may be sufficient for them to take the Cup into their hands, and shew their desire; or they may hauehave a Cup by themselues of wine so allayed with water, as their stomackes may brooke; as the fathers in the Counsell of Towers ordered to giuegive to sicke folke bread sopt in wine, because they were not able to take downe dry bread.
Lastly, this Argument is both answered, and retorted in the Conference.
SECT. VI.
The first and last Argument, which our aduersaries draw from reason, may be thus formed:
The Sacrament ought to be so administred, that all inconueniences in the celebration thereof may be preuented.
But many inconueniences cannot be preuented, vnlesse the Cup be with-held from the Laietie:
Therefore in the administration of the Sacrament, the Cup ought to be with-held from the Laietie.
The inconueniences, which they pretend to arise from the publicke vse of the Chalice, are summed vp by M. Harding, art. 2. diuis. 8. viz. irreuerence of so high a Sacrament, whereof Christian people in the beginning had a marueilous care and regard; the loathsomenesse of many, that cannot brooke the taste of wine; the difficulties of getting wine in countries neere situated to the North pole; and impossibility of keeping it long.
The answer.
First, inconueniences in a matter of indifference, may be pondered and put in the other Answ. 1.scale against the commodities in the thing in question; and if the inconueniences be such, as cannot be preuented, and they are greater, and more in number, then the profits, or aduantages that are like to grow vponupon the vse of it, in this case wisedome aduiseth to take away a thing, that is not necessary: I say, if the vn-auoydable inconueniences exceede the certaine profits thereby. But in religious duties, which cannot be omitted, without violation of Gods Law, and Christs Ordinance, inconueniences must not turne the ballance: onelyonly we must take all the care that may be, to preuent such inconueniences: Which though they be neuer so many, yet are they rather to beindured, then Gods absolute Command disobeyed, or Christs Institution corrupted.
Secondly, Christ and his Apostles, and the Christian Churches throughout all the world, 2for twelue hundred yeeres, foresaw the inconueniences which our aduersaries now pretend: yet they thought it not fit in regard of them, to violate Christs Institution by restraining the Cup to the Cleargie onelyonly: For they, as wee hauehave proued by abundant testimonies, generally and ordinarily gaue the Cup to the Laietie, as well as the Bread.
Thirdly, if they would from these wants and impediments inferre, that some fauourable 3course should be taken, and dispensation granted to such, as cannot taste wine, or liue in such countries where wine cannot be got: we would not much striue with them. Wee censure not the Priests in Russia, who for want of wine, vsed to consecrate in Methegling, nor call Innocentius the eigth into question, howsoeuer now many Papists condemne him for it, for dispensing with the Priests in Norway to consecrate without wine. That which in this question we charge the Church of Rome with, is a manifest transgression of Christs Ordinance, and a generall prohibition of giuing the Cup to the Laietie, where wine may be had, and the communicants are able and willing to drinke, if the Priests will admit them. As some Lay men cannot brook wine, so at some times the Priests through some disease after drinking of the Cup, may be enforced to cast it vp. And as the peoples hands may shake in taking of the Cup, and so spill a drop: so may the Priests also: And as some Countries hauehave no wine, so, if we may beleeue Strabo, and Arianus, and many later Geographers also, some Countries hauehave no bread. Yet the Church of Rome her selfe neuer thought it fit, in regard of such few Instances, and rare accidents, to make a generall law, either to depriue the Priests of the vse of the Cup, or the Laietie of the vse of the bread.
Fourthly, for the matter of irreuerence, if any through carelesnesse or contempt, spill a 4drop of the consecrated wine, or let fall a crum of bread, he ought to bee punished for it. And if hee amend not his fault, to bee denyed the Communion. But if such a thing fall out through infirmitie, or by some casualtie against a mans will, it is no irreuerence at all. And for the difficulty of getting wine in the Northerne parts, especially where Vines grow not, we answer, that wine is easier to be gotten, thē Balsamum, which the Romish Church vseth in confirmation. For Vines grow in many Countries, and that in great aboundance: True Balsamum but in one. Yet the Church of Rome, in regard of this difficulty in getting it, will by no meanes suffer, that their Sacrament to be administred without it. Yet their Chrisme is a meere humane inuention, but wine in the Lords Supper is Christs ordniance. But what do they pretend impediments, that are not, and surmise difficulties against common experience? He is but a stranger in Geography, who knoweth not, that by the benefit of Nauigation, store of wines are brought into those parts, where no vines grow. In the reformed Churches in England, Scotland, Denmarke, Norway, and the other regions situated neerer the North-Pole, the Sacrament is administred in both kindes, and neuer yet any complaint was heard of the difficulty, much lesse of the impossibility of prouiding wine for the Communiō. Surely if there may be had wine for the Priest, their may be had also for the people. Who euer heard of Merchants, that transported wine in so smal quātity, that there might be a draught for the Priest, and none for the people? If there be none for the Priests, how can they consecrate without facrilege, according to their owne Canon?
Lastly, this argument, as all the former, may be thus retorted vponupon them.
The Councell of Basil yeelded the vse of the Cup to the Bohemians; and the whole Councell of Trent reserued it to the Pope to grant the vse of the Cup to all the Germanes; and the Pope assented thereunto vponupon certaine conditions, notwithstanding all the former inconueniences. Therefore it is not inconueniency they stand vponupon. But the true cause why they at this day with hold the Cup, is either obstinacy, lest they should seeme to yeeld any thing to the Reformed Churches, and acknowledge their former error, or pride to maintaine a prerogatiue of their Priests aboue the people. Which, as I shewed before out of Saint Chrysostome, ought to be none in partaking the dreadfull mysteries.
To conclude, howsoeuer they pretend in this their erroneous practise, like u Aesop, to remoue that stone, at which all that came into the Bath, stumbled at; yet in truth they rather resemble Aesop in some thing of another nature. For as he was accused to hauehave stolne away a piece of holy plate, that was found among his carriages, from the Temple of Apollo at Delphi; so these grand Aesops, and Coyners of Fables, whereby they delude the simple people, are clearely conuinced of sacrilege, in taking away the Chalice from the Lords Supper. For they hauehave taken away the Cup of blessing from the people, and in stead thereof, offer the Whore of Babylons cup of abomination.
CHAP. XVI. The contradictions of our aduersaries in this Question noted, and the whole Truth for vsus deliuered out of their owne mouthes.
IT was the manner of the Roman Emperors in their Triumphs amongst other spectacles, to exhibite to the people ludos gladiatorios Fencers playing their Prizes, fighting not with foiles, but at sharpe, till they had killed one another. In like manner, in the conclusion of this Discourse, for the better adorning and setting forth of the Tryumph of Truth, I hauehave thought not vnfitting to present vntounto the Readers view, Quaedam Gladiatorū paria some certaine couples of the professed Champions, and defenders of the Romane cause, bickering one with another in such manner, that by their sharpe weapons of euident contradictions, they must needes wound on another, euen to the death of their cause.