The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome, Chapter 11 · Section 11
SECT. XI. The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 1000. to 1100.
IN this age the Bishops of Rome were so busie about transubstantiating the bread into the body of Christ, that they suffered the laiety to goe cleere away with the Cup, and gaue them no publique check or controule for it, till the Councel of Constance held 400. yeeres after. Of which hereafter in his due place.
Anno 1002.
Fulbertus Carnotensis confesseth with the Fathers of the former Age, though in a higher, and more affected straine, Put forth the palate of d Fulb. de 3. capitibus. Exere palatum fidei, dilata fa…es spe…, viscera charitatis extente, & same panem vitae interioris hominis alimoniam: s… nihilomnius vinum, non ser dido calcatore calcatum, sed torquilare crucis expressum.faith; enlarge the Iawes of thy hope; extend the bowels of Charity, and receiue the bread of life, the food of the inward man; take also the wine not troden out by feete of a nasty husbandman, but crusht out of the wine-presse of the crosse.
Anno 1014.
Bruno Abbas Richen-angiensis speaketh to the point, as Fulbertus; eSer. de purifi. Maria. Christi non solum pane quotidie vescimur, sed & sanguine potamur, &c. Idem de Miss. Vini poculo in mysterie sanguinis Christi potamur.we also, though most unworthie, doe not onelyonly eate daily the bread of Christ, when we take the foode of his flesh from the table of his Altar, but also drinke his blood.
Anno 1050.
fforeign. in 1. Cor. cap. 10.Oecumenius ascribes our spirituall vnion with Christ our Head to the participating of his blood in the Sacrament; the blood of Christ, saith he, by partaking thereof, ioynes vsus to Christ, as members to the head. And the same Father, commenting vponupon the eleuenth Chapter, schooleth rich men for disdayning to admit the poore to their table, whom Christ admits as wel as them to his, to partake both of his body foreign. Oecam. in 1. Cor. cap. 11.and blood: If the Lord, saith he, sets his body and blood on his table, and in the Chalice, as well before the poore, as before thee, dost thou dare to driue them from thy table in dispite and contempt?
Anno 1060.
gDe verit. Eu char. lib. pri. Ipsi, qui sumimus communionem huius sancti panis, & Calicis, vnum Christi corpus efficimur.Guitmundus ioines with Oecumenius, in assigning our Communion at the Lords Table, to be an especiall meanes of vnion with Christ. And they both speake of all faithfull Christians indifferently, without distinction of Priest and people, who are one in Christ. we, saith this Author, who receiue the Communion of this holy bread and Cup, are made one body of Christ.
Anno 1061.
hDesacra. Eucha. Dum frangitur hostia, dum sanguis de calice in ora fidelium funditur. Et post: Quorum alterum quod dum frangitur, & in populi salutem diuiditur, alterum verò effusum de calice ab ore fidelium sumitur, mors eius in cruce, sanguis eius de latere emanans fi guratur.Lanfranck, sometime Archbishop of Canterbury, deliuering a rule touching all Sacraments, saith, Sacraments they are alwayes a likenesse of those things, whereof they are sacraments; as in the sacrament about which we contend, when the Hoste is broken, & the blood powred out of the Cup, and into the mouth of the faithfull, what is signified else, but the sacrificing of the body of our Lord vponupon the Crosse.
Anno 1070.
iIn 10. cap. 1. ad Cor. Nonne vos pudet Corinthij, cum ad Idolorum calicem ab hoc Christi decurritis poculo, qui vos ab Idolis liberauit?Theophilact reproues the Corinthians out of Saint Paul, for leauing the Lords Cup, and running to drink with the Idolaters of the wine offered to Idols; Are not you ashamed, O you Corrinthians to run to the Idoles cup from Christs Cup, who hath freed you from Idols? And in his comment vponupon 11. chap. hee reproues as sharply those, who tooke delight in drinking alone, and quassing by themselues, kEt in cap. 11. Quo pacto solus perpetans debaccharis, praesertim cum tremendus hic calix pari cunctis conditione sit traditus?How dost thou take thy cup alone, considering, that the dreadfull Chalice is alike deliuered vntounto all?
Anno 1080.
lCom. in 11. cap. prio. ad Corinth. Duebus modis manducare & bibere hoc sacramentum, ore cordis, & ore corporis.Anselme, Archbishop of Canterbury, speaking of Christians in general, deliuereth a double manner of participating the Sacrament, both spiritually, and Corporally: we ought, saith he, to eat and drinke this sacrament two manner of wayes, with the mouth of the heart, and with the mouth of the body. And vponupon 1. Cor. and Cap. 10. *Idem Ansel. Ad tuitionem corporis, & animae sacramenta eius percipimus: quia sanguis pro anima nostra effusus est.All we, saith he, who partake of one bread, and one Cup, are made one body.
Anno 1090.
mConsuetudinis est, Eucharistiam nulli, nisi intinctam dari; quod nec ex dominica institutione, nec ex sanctionibus authenticis reperitur assumptum &c.Hildebertus Cenomanensis, together with Burcardus, Micrologus, and Humbertus de silua candida, relate and aproue that Canon of the third Councell of Brachara, which condemneth the deliuering the bread sopt in the wine to the Laietie for the whole Communion; It is the manner, saith Hildebertus, in your monasteries to giuegive the sacramentall bread to none, but dipt in the wine, which Custome we find is not taken either from the Lords institution, nor out of authenticall constitutions. If you looke into Matthew, Marke, and Luke, you shall finde the bread deliuered by it selfe, and the wine by it selfe; neither doe we read, that Christ deliuered bread dipt vntounto any, but that disciple, whom by giuing him a sop, he declared to be the betrayer of his Master.
The Papists answer.
This Canon of the Councell of Bracara confirmed by so many witnesses, Burchard, lib. 5. cap. 1. Gratian, de consecratione, dist. 2. Micrologus de Ecclesiasticis obseruationibus. cap. 19. and Lambertus de Silua candida, lib. cont. Graec. calumnias. Cardinall Bellarmine could not any waies baulk with credit; therefore he sets his braine vponupon the racke for a double answer. The first is, that the nBell. de sacra. Euch lib. 4. cap. 16. Concilium prohibet intinctionem, &c. non tamen addit, debere dari vtramque speciem.Councel indeed forbids the dipping of the bread, vponupon this ground, that our Lord gaue not bread dipt, or sopt in the wine: neither can any such o dipping be proued by any testimonie, or example of scriptures: yet, saith he, the Councell doth not adde, that both kinds ought to be giuen to the Laietie. Secondly, he saith, oPraeterea, si hoc concilium diceret, responderemus, loqui de eo tempore, quo libera erat communio sub vtraque specie, &c.If the Councell should hauehave said so, wee would hauehave answered, that the Councell speakes of that time, in which it was free for the Laietie to communicate in both kinds. For then if any desired both kinds, the Councell commandeth, that both be giuen vntounto them, to wit, bread and wine a part, and not a sop of bread dipt in the wine.
The Refutation.
These answeres are like the apples of Sodome, which fall to ashes, if you touch them. The first thus presently dissolueth: the Councell of Bracara doth as well command Commnion in both kindes, as forbid receiuing the bread dipt in wine for the intire Communion: for thus standeth the argument. In administring the Sacrament, wee ought to doe as Christ did, and no otherwaies: but Christ at his last Supper deliuered first bread by it selfe, and then wine, and not bread and wine together in a sop, or bread dipt in wine: therefore we ought in like manner to administer the Sacrament in both kindes seuerally, and not by intinction, or sopping the bread in the wine. Who seeth not, that this Canon of the Councell is a two edged sword, cutting off Concomitancie on the one side, as well as intinction on the other: and giuing as deepe a wound to the late Councell of Constance, inioyning the mutilation of the Sacrament; as to the ancient Councell of Toures, inioyning the confusion of it, by the infusion of the bread into the Cup. The second answere doth vanish to nothing: the Councell in deed spake of that time, wherein the Communion of both kindes was free. For so it had been from the time of the Apostles, and continued in the Romane Church, till the Councell of Constance: and in the Greeke Church till this day. The greater wrong is offered by the Romanists to the Laietie, from whom they hauehave taken the Cup after so many hundred yeeres possession. If any such thing had been attempted in the time of this Councell at Bracara, they would hauehave been as earnest, or more earnest against this abuse, then they were against that in their time, which was farre lesse; for of the two, it is better to receiue the bread dipt in the wine, then the bread, and no wine at all. The Councell doth not ground it selfe vponupon any supposed dispensation of the Church, for the Laieties Communion in both kindes, as Bellarmine surmiseth, but vponupon the institution of Christ, and the example of the Apostles, which in their iudgement ought to preuaile against any sanction of Councell, or custome of any place whatsoeuer to the contrarie.