The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome, Chapter 11 · Section 3
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 onelyonly, saith: yCaro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur, vt anima de Deo saginetur.The flesh feedeth vponupon the body and blood of Christ, that the soule may be fatted, as it were of God.
Papists answere.
zLoc. sup. cit. Tert. Dixit nos sanguine vesci, non sanguinem bibere, vescimur autem sanguine, cum sumimus per modum cibi, sub specie panis.Cardinall Bellarmine shifteth of this sentence of Tertullian: by tithing minte and cummim, nicely distinguishing betweene feeding vponupon Christs blood, & drinking it. The people may and do feede vponupon Christs blood, though they drinke it not, but eate it, or take it by way of meat, vnderunder 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 vponupon, but by drinking: we feed vponupon the blood of Christ in the Sacrament as shed for vsus; and therefore necessarily as seuered from the body. And how is it possible, to take blood, or feede vponupon it as shed and seuered from the body, without drinking of it? All faithfull Christians in Tertullian his time fed vponupon Christs blood, as distinguished from the body; they dranke it therefore. Why then doth Tertullian vse the Verbe, vesci, signifying to feed vponupon, & 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 aDe cuius m… desiderabit, de cuius poculo participabit? &c.vxorem lib. 2. c. 6. shall the Lords Table heare any thing, or hauehave 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 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. bQuis est iste populus, qui in vsu habet sanguinem bibere? &c. populus fidelis populus Christianus audit hac, & amplectitur eum, qui dicit, nisi manducaveritis carnem filij hominis, &c.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 hauehave 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.
cRespondeo, habet in vsu, non praecepto. Secundo, vt vsum eum habeat populus Christianus, non necesse est, vt singuli de populo bibant, sed satis est, si in ecclesia aliqui sint, qui id faciant.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 hauehave such a vse or custome, to drinke at the Lords supper, though eueryevery one dranke not, but some onelyonly.
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 vsus; 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 hauehave 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; dTu ergo es verus populus Israel, quiscis sanguinem bibere, & nosti carnem verbi Dei commedere, & …vae sanguinem illius, qua est ex vera vite, & illis palmitibus, quos pate purgat, …rire.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 onelyonly deliuereth but propugneth our assertion by a forcible argument. eQuomodo prouocamus eos in confessione nominis sanguinem suum effundere, si ijs militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamur aut quomodo ad martyrij poculum idoneos facimus, si non eos priùs ad bibendum in Ecclesia poculum iure communionis admittimus?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 *Quoniam quidam vel ignoranter, vel simpliciter in calice Dominico sanctificando & plebi ministrando hoc non faciunt, quod Iesus Christꝰ Dominus & Deus noster docuit, & fecit, &c.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 vntounto him; hee might returne vntounto 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 fLoc. supr. cit. Respondeo, hoc loco confirmatur potiùs, qùam infirmatur nostra sententia. Loquitur enim de lapsis, quibus ab Episcopis oblatum erat ius communionis: & hortatur, vt ijs restituatur, iminente persecutione; ius ergo Laicorum ad Communicandum à Sacerdotibus datur, & tollitur; & si prelati possunt ob crimina tollere, possunt ordinare de modo Communicandi sub vnica specie. Bellarm. loc. sup. citato. Non agit eo loco Cyprianus, opor…ne calicem prebere, an non? sed tantum, si ministretur, vt ex vine misto, non ex aqua solâ constet; & hoc dicit dominum docuisse.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 vnderunder 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 vntounto them, hee will hauehave it deliuered not in water onelyonly, but wine mingled with water. And this he saith, Christ taught vsus.
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 vsus.
Secondly, it is inconsequent: for first, when a'man is Excommunicated, and hath lost his right to the Lords Table, a Bishop vponupon 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 vponupon 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 hauehave 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 vponupon 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 vponupon 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 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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.