The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome, Chapter 11 · Section 5
SECT. V. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 400. to 500.
Anno 410.
ABout the beginning of the fifth Age, God raysed vp that golden Tapour in the Church, Saint Austin, by whose light, as wee may discouer other errors and abuses of the Church of Rome: so this their mutilation of the Sacrament, and defrauding Gods people of one part of this Supper. This Author in his dialogue to Orosius, quest. 49. he interprets the blood of Abel, the blood of Christ, which, saith a Sanguis Abel significat sanguinem Christi, quo accepto, vniuersa Ecclesia dicit, Amen. Dum potatur sanguinem Christi, dicit, Amen. Non soùm nemo probibetur, sed omnes ad bibendum exhortantur, qui volunt habere vitam.he, when the whole Church receiueth, it saith, Amen. For what a cry maketh the whole Church, when after she hath dranke the blood of Christ, cryeth, Amen? And in his 57. question vponupon Leuiticus, he not onelyonly testifies, that the people did drinke of Christs blood, but that they ought to doe so, if they expect life from him. What is the meaning of this, saith he, that the people are forbidden to eat of the blood of the sacrifices, which were offered for sinn, if by those sacrifices this sacrifice was signified, in which there is trueremission of sinnes? and yet not onelyonly no man is forbidden to take the blood of this sacrifice for nourishment, but on the contrary all men, who desire life, are exhorted to drinke it.
Papists answer.
bNon vim sacit in modo bibendi, sed in ipsa sumptione songuinis, quodidem efficit, siue sumatur per modum cibi, siue per modum potus.Bellarmine de sacra. Eucharistiae. lib. 4. cap. 26. answereth, that the force of Saint Austines reason consisteth not in the manner of drinking, but in the taking of the blood, which produceth the same effect, whither it bee taken as meat, or drinke.
Refutation.
Saint Austin in that place obserueth a difference between the precepts of the old, and the precepts of the new testament; that in the old, blood was forbidden so much as to bee eaten with the flesh; but in the new it is commanded to be drunke, euen by it selfe, and so the force of his reason ab oppositis stands not onelyonly in some way taking blood for sustenance, but euen in the manner of taking it, euen by drinke.
Secondly, whereinsoeuer the force of Saint Austines reason stands, his words, which wee alleage, are expresly for taking it by cEstius. Omnes ferè patres tesantur, fideles bibere sanguinem Christi, vt Tertul. Orig. Cyprian. & Aug. in Psal. 94. & 96 Ser. 59. de verbis Domini. homil. 27. & tract. 31. 38. 40. & 45. in Iohan.drinking. For he saith not, as Bellarmine will hauehave him; all who desire life, are exhorted to take Christs blood for sustenance, or to feed vponupon it. But they are exhorted to drinke it. The people therefore, if they looke for life by Christ, they must drinke his blood, which they cannot doe, if the Priest deny the Cup.
Anno. 420.
dA fidelibus in panis & vini sacramento quotidie manducatur, & bibitur.Eusebius Emissenus in his Homily vponupon Palme-Sunday, speakes of the faithfulls communicating in both kinds, as of a daily and frequent practice. As then our Lord liued, and spake, and yet was eaten by his Disciples, and drunke; so now he remaines whole and vncorrupted, and yet is daily drunke and eaten by the faithfull. I beleeue, no Romish Priest will bee so impudent, as to restraine beleeuers to Priests onelyonly. If the Layetie are not to be reckoned in the number of fideles, or belieuers, they may not eat Christ in the Sacrament of bread; and if they are fideles, or beleeuers, then they vsually, nay, daily drinke his blood in the Sacrament of wine, as well as eate his flesh in the Sacrament of bread.
Anno 430.
Theodoret in his Dialogue, called Atreptus, foreign.cap. 11. allotteth to all the faithfull an equall share in the Lords Supper: one mysticall Table is prepared for all, from which all beleeuers take vntounto themselues an equall portion. And in his Comment on the second Chapter of the first to the Corinthians, hee obserueth a difference betweene ordinary suppers, and the Lords Supper: fIllius enim, ex aequo omnes sunt particip…s, hîc autem alius esurit, alius vero ebrius est.Of that, viz. the Lords Table, all are equally partakers: but here, viz. in common suppers, one is hungry, and another is drunke: Hee saith not, he drinkes; but is drunke, blaming him for two reasons; first, that he drinkes alone; secondly, that gEt quod solus bibit.he is drunke. If the Layetie drank not of the Lords Table, they did not equally participate with the Priests. And if in Theodorets time the Priests did drinke alone, as now they doe at the Romane Masse; Theodoret could not herein hauehave differenced them from common and prophane tables: so that at the one all eate and drinke alike, at the other, one is satisfied, and another is hungry; one is thirsty, and another drinketh alone, and is drunke.
Anno 431.
Cyrillus of Alexandria, Glaphyr. lib. 2. writeth thus; As long as we are in this world, wee will communicate with Christ by his holy flesh, and precious blood. Communicatio sanctae carnis, atque item poculū ex salutari ipsius sanguine, &c. The communicating his holy flesh, and the Cup of his holy blood hath in it a confession of Christs death: by the participating in these things in this world we commemorate Christs death.
Anno. 450.
Leo the Great, Bishop of Rome, in his fourth Sermon de quadragessima, giues it as a character or marke, to descry the Manichees by; that at the Sacrament they would eate of the bread, but in no wise drinke of the wine. hIta in sacramenti communione se temperant, vt interdum tutiùs lateant, ore indigno Christi corpus accipiunt, sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurire omnino declinant.They, viz. the Manichees, so carry themselues at the Communion, that they may more safely lye hid: they take the body of Christ into their vnworthy mouthes, but altogether they refuse to drinke the blood of their redemption, which I would hauehave your Holinesse know, that you may set a mark vponupon these men, & in whomsoeuer you find such sacrilegious simulation, you discouer them, that by Priestly authoritie they may be driuen from the society of the Saints. Here Leo, both a Bishop of Rome, and a great Clarke, makes it sacriledge, and heresie, to receiue Christs body in the Sacrament, and to refuse to drinke his blood.
Anno. 451.
In the generall iforeign.Councell of Chalcedon, act. 10. there is an accusation brought in against Iba the Bishop of Edessa, that in some Church in his Diocesse, at the Commemoration of the holy Martyrs, there was but a little wine, and that corrupt and sowre, prouided for the Altar to bee sanctified, and distributed to the people. This generall Councell was counted to represent the whole Christian Church, whereby it appeares, that at the time of this Councell, the Cup was giuen through the whole Christian world to the Laiety, and that the administring of the Sacrament to the people without wine, was held a profanation of the Lords Supper: for which cause that Bishop was seuerely taxed.
Anno 453.
kRegnum Dei, vt docti intelligunt, Ecclesia est, in quaquotidie bibit sanguinem suum Christus per sanctos suos, tanquam caput in membris suis.Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons in his questions vponupon Matthew implyeth, that all holy men in generall, and true members of Christ in his time dranke our Redeemers blood in the Sacrament. His words are; The Kingdome of God, as the learned vnderstand it, is the Church, in which Christ daily drinketh his owne blood by his Saints, as the Head in his members.
Anno 492.
Among the Decrees of ancient Popes collected by Gratian, we finde that sentence of Gelasius, which I hauehave set in the frontispiece of this booke, Grat. de consecra. dist. 2. cap. Comperimus. lAut integra sacramenta, percipiunt aut ab integris arceantur.We find that some receiuing a portion of Christs holy Body, abstaine from the Cup of his sacred blood: which because they doe out of I know not what superstition, we comand, that either they receiue the entire Sacraments, or that they be entirely withheld from them, because the diuision of one and the selfe-same mysterie cannot be without grand sacriledge. In this Decree of Gelasius, first, we are to note, that it is a Papall decision ex Cathedra; That the elements in the Lords Supper must bee taken ioyntly. This Gelasius determineth not as a priuate man, but as a Pope ex Cathedra, and therefore all Papists are bound to beleeue, that hee did not, nor could not erre in this decree.
Secondly, it is to bee noted, that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not entire without the Cup, which quite ouerthroweth our aduersaries new fancy of concomitancy.
Thirdly, it is to bee noted, that hee defineth the withholding the Cup from any Communicant, or deuiding the holy mysterie, by halfe communicating, not onelyonly to bee sacriledge, but to be grand sacriledge, or the greatest sacriledge that can bee committed. For grande is more then magnum, or graue, and it signifieth sacriledge in the highest degree.
Papists answer.
Gratian, or his glosse in the title to this Decree would beare vsus in hand, that this Decree concerneth the *Itarespondet Aquinas, part. 3. q. 80. & Thomistae passim.Priests only, and not the Laiety. For a Priest to consecrate, or to offer the bread without the wine, or after they hauehave consecrated both, to participate but of one, this Gelasius forbids, say they; but not the Layetie to communicate in one kind onelyonly. Cardinall Bellarmine addes a second answer; that this Canon was made against the Manichees, and Priscillianists, who refused the Cup in the Sacrament, partly because they held wine in an abomination, partly because they beleeued not, that Christ had true blood in him. These, saith Bellarmine, in token and testimony that they had reformed their former errour, are commanded to receiue the Sacrament in both kinds, or else not at all to be admitted vntounto the Communion.
The Refutation.
Neither of these wards will beare off the blow. For first, it is not likely, that Gelasius made this decree against the Manichees, or Priscillianists: for then hee would not hauehave said, Quia nescio quâ superstitione astricti tenentur: that is, that they were intangled in I know not what superstition; but rather, Quia nota haeresi astricti tenentur: that is, they doe it, because they are intangled in a knowne heresie.
Secondly, admit that the Manichees, and Priscillianists occasioned this decree; yet this decree is backed with a generall reason, which forbids all to Communicate in one kind only, vnderunder the perill of grand Sacrilege.
Thirdly, Gratians euasion will no way saue the Laietie harmelesse, or acquit them of Sacrilege: where of the Priest by this decree, say they, is made guiltie: For that which is Sacrilege in the Priest, cannot be Religion in the people. Gelasius saith not, that the Sacrilege consisteth in the diuision of one and the selfe same sacrifice, but in the diuision of one and the selfe same mysterie. Now the selfe same mystery, or Sacrament is diuided as well in the halfe Communion of the people, as of the Priest.
Lastly, it is euident, that the decree concerneth the Communicants, and not the Priests Conficients, or administring. For the word arceantur, that is, let them be kept from, or driuen from the entire Sacrament, must needs be meant of the people. For the people suspend not the Priests from the Sacrament, but the Priests, or Bishops the people. Here Master Euerard is locked fast with a like paire of fetters to those, which Campian makes for Protestants. As he saith, Patres, so I say, Papas admittis? Captus es; exludis? Nullus es. Doe you allow of the Popes decissions? You are then taken. Doe you disallow of them? You are no body in the opinion of your owne selues. If you subscribe to the determination of two Popes, Leo, and Gelasius, you must confesse your selfe guilty of Sacrilege: if you subscribe not to them, of heresie. Vtrum horum mauis, accipe.