The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome, Chapter 11 · Section 1
SECT. I. Testimonies of the practise of the Christian Church in the first Age.
From Christs Ascension to the first 100. yeeres following.
AFter the writings of the blessed Apostle Saint Paul, whose testimonie in the ninth argument is discussed, I alleadge for the practise of the Church in this first age Dionysius Areopagita, Martialis Lemouicensis, Clemens Romanus, and Ignatius Antiochenus. For albeit I assent thus farre to our learned Critickes, that these Authors are not altogether currant; there is some drosse in Ignatius, more in Martialis, and most of all in Clemens: and Dionysius is vndoubtedly post-natus 300. yeeres at lest yonger then his age is set in the Romane register; yet for the reasons following, I thought fit to produce these Authors, and ranke them in the first age. First, because our aduersaries vsually so ranke them, and alleage them against vsus for fathers of the first age; and surely if their testimonies bee good and ancient, when they seeme to make against vsus, they are to bee accounted as good and ancient, when they make for vsus.
Secondly, because we cannot make authors, but must take such as we finde, these are the only authors that are extant, out of whom testimonies may be alleadged for this first age. Therefore as the sage Senatour of Capua, when the people vponupon a iust distaste giuen by the Magistrates, had a purpose at once to casheere them all, aduised them: Before you remoue these, choose fitter in their places; and when diuers were named vntounto them, and they could like of none, in the end hee perswaded them to keepe the old officers, till they could agree to name better in their roomes: so I would desire our Critikes to name vsus more approued authors in this age, then these are, and if they can name none, then to let these hold their places, and the estimation they hauehave had for many hundred yeeres.
Thirdly, because I hold it no good Topick, to argue à parte ad totum, affirmatiuely in this manner. There are some false passages, or corruptions in an author: therefore the author is spurious, and of no credit. If we may thus fillip off ancient Writers, wee shall hauehave but a few left. If there are (as no doubt there bee) diuers dead boughes & superfluous stemmes in these Writers of so long standing: let our Criticks prune them off, not cut the trees downe by the roots. Poliat lima, non exterat, saith Fabius, let the pluimer smooth the timber & cut of the rugged knobs, not grate or weare out the heart of it. Volo nasutum, non polyposum. Fourthly, because the testimonies I cite out of these authors, were neuer questioned, much lesse proued to be taken for good by the aduersarie, vntill he can disproue them, according to the rule of the Ciuill law: supponitur esse bonus, qui non probatur esse malus, he is supposed to be an honest man, who was neuer proued otherwise. To cal in then these ancients in that order, as commonly they go:* Postquam rogauit, vt castè distribuat, & ij qui Sacramentis participaturi sunt, dignè sumant, pane qui opertus erat & integer, ape…o, & in multas partes fracto, & vnico cal…ce diniso inter omnes, quod vnum est, signis multiplicat, & distribuit.
First, Anno 70.
Dionysius Areopagita in his booke of Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie. chap. 5. relateth the practise of the Church in his time on this manner. z After the Priest hath prayed, that he may holyly distribute, and that they that are to partake of the Sacraments, may receiue it worthily: discouering the bread, that before was couered, and breaking it into many pieces, and diuiding one Cup among all, he multiplieth that in the signes, which is but one, and distributeth it.
Anno. 80.
The second, Martialis kHonorabatis sacerdotes, qui decipienant vos suis sacrificijs, quae mutis & surdis statuis offerebant, quae nec se, nec vos iuuare poterant; nunc autem multò magis sacerdotes Dei omnipotentis, qui vitam vobis tribuunt in calice, & pane viuo, honorare debetis.Lenoricensis, who stileth himselfe a seruant of God, and an Apostle of Iesus Christ, in his epistle ad Burdigal. writeth thus: You heretofore honored the priests, which deceiued you with their sacrifices, which they offered to dumbe and deafe images, that neither could helpe you, nor themselues: but now much more you ought to honour the Priests of Almighty God, who minister life vntounto you in the Cup, and liuing Bread. By this argument of Martials, the Romish Priests, that giuegive the people but an halfe Communion, should lose halfe of the honour due vntounto Gods Priests, if not the whole. For thus out of Martials premises I conclude. Those, and none but those Priests are to be honoured and reuerenced, who administer life to the people in the Cup:
The Romish Priests administer not life to the people in the Cup:
Therefore they are not to bee reuerenced, or honoured.
Anno 92.
Thirdly, Clemens lforeign.in his second booke of Constitutions, 57. chap. thus enioyneth: after the offering of the sacrifice, let eueryevery order a part receiue the body of our Lord, and his pretious blood.
Anno 100.
Fourthly, Ignatius, the Scholer of Saint Iohn the Euangelist, Bishop of Antioch and Martyr, in his Epistle to the Philadelphians, enforceth an argument to vnity from the Communion: I exhort you to imbrace one faith, one manner of preaching, and vse of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: for the flesh of our Lord Iesus is one, and his blood one that was shed for vsus, there is one bread also broken for all, *foreign.and one Cup distributed vntounto all.
Bellarmine his first Answer.
Bellarmine is put to a miserable plunge in his answer to this allegation. First, he saith, in the Latine nBell. de sacr. Eucharist. lib. 4. cap. 26. In Latinis codicibus non habetur; vnus calix omnibus distributus; sed vnus calix totius Ecclesiae. nec multum fidendum Graecis codicibus.copies the words of Ignatius are not as we cite them; There is one Cup distributed vntounto all: but there is one Cup of the whole Church: and though the Greeke copies reade as we do, yet he saith, that much credit is not to be giuen to them.
The Refutation.
Against this answer I reply:
First, that if we may not trust the Greeke editions of Ignatius, much lesse may we trust the Latine translations; especially since of late they are come into hucksters hands. To appeale from a translation to the originall is vsuall: but to appeale from the originall to a translation is a thing vnheard of. This is to make the brooke or streame to bee purer then the fountaine or spring. The Poet teacheth Bellarmine another lesson:
Dulciùs ex ipso fonte bibuntur aquae.
Ignatius, as it is well knowne, wrote in Greeke, and therefore vnlesse Bellarmine can proue, that other Greeke copies agree with his Latine translation, and not with ours, he speaketh nothing to the purpose: for a translation is of no credit further, then it agrees with the *And howsoeuer Bellarmine may produce some Latine copy, that translateth the words of Ignatius, as Bellarmine sets them downe, vnus Calix totius Ecclesiae; yet Uitlemeus, and diuers other Latine copies following the original verbatim, render them thus, vnus calix omnibus distributus, that is, One Cup distributed vntounto all.originall.
Secondly, euen Bellarmines corrupt translation maketh against the Church of Rome, and prooueth, that the practice in Ignatius his time was for the whole Church to communicate in both kinds: for why else calleth he it, Calicem totius Ecclesiae, The Cup of the whole Church? Ignatius there speakes not of the possession, but of the vse of the Cup: and if the Priests onelyonly had dranke of it, hee would hauehave called it the Priests Cup: but in terming it the Cup of the whole Church, he plainely signifieth, that the whole Church vsed it in the celebration of the Lords Supper.
Bellarmine, his second answere.
Secondly, oRespondeo, Ignatium vim facere in vnitate calicis, non vniuersalitate bibentium.Bellarmine saith, that the force of Ignatius his argument consisteth in the vnitie of the Cup, and not in the vniuersalitie of them that drinke, for he exhorteth there to vnitie.
The Refutation.
First, Ignatius exhorts there all to vnitie, because all eate of one bread, and drinke of one cup. His argument therefore standeth both in the vniuersalitie of them that drinke, and the vnitie of the Cup: and it may be thus reduced into forme.
All that eate of one bread, and drinke of one holy Cup, in remembrance of one body offered, and one blood shed for all, ought to embrace vnitie:
But all you of the Church of Philadelphia (people as well as Priests) eate of one bread, and drinke of one holy Cup, in memory of one body offered, and one blood of Christ shed for you all:
Therefore all you of the Church of Philadelphia ought to embrace vnitie, and godly louelove.
If the pinch, or straine of the argument were in vnitie only, it would not hold; for if some onelyonly dranke of this Cup, and not others, this should rather make more for a diuision, then for vnitie; it is the communion of more in one, that Ignatius layeth for the ground of his argument, enforcing vnitie.
Secondly, howsoeuer the argument stands, it makes no great matter; sith we insist not so much vponupon the argument it selfe, as vponupon that his expresse affirmation; That one Cup in his time was giuen vntounto all. This assertion alone sufficiently prooueth the practise of the Church in his time.
Bellarmine his third answere.
Thirdly, pRespondeo, nihil ex his verbis elici, nisi fuisse vsum illo temp… re, cum pauci erant Christiani, vt omnibus daretur potus calicis, sed hoc exemplum est, non praeceptum.Bellarmine saith, that nothing can be inforced from these words of Ignatius, but that it was the vse in that time, when there were but few Christians to giuegive the Cup vntounto all: but this is an example, it is no precept: so the Cardinall.
The Refutation.
First, it is not true, which he here affirmeth; that there were but few Christians in Ignatius his time: for all histories of those times, and the Epistles of Ignatius testifie the contrary, and in this very Church of Philadelphia, the holy Ghost testifieth, Apoc. 3. 8. That there were many Christians. Behold, I hauehave set before thee an open dore, and no man shall shut it, &c.
Secondly, though the Primitiue Church were not of that large extent, as the Church in suceeding ages: yet the authoritie of the Church in that age, in which the Apostles liued, and their immediate successors, is farre greater, then in any later age.
Thirdly, in this last answere the Cardinall yeeldeth vsus the cause; for we cite these words of Ignatius onelyonly 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 hauehave swarued any way from his institution, by adding any thing vntounto 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.