The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome, Chapter 11 · Section 4
SECT. IIII. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 300. to 400.
Anno. 314.
IN the councel held at Ancyra, Deacons that had sacificed vntounto Idols, are forbidden to exercise any sacred function: and in particular, nec panem, nec calicem, foreign; not to offer or deliuer bread or the Chalice. The Chalice then by their Deacons was deliuered; to whom, but to the people? for Priests administer to Deacons, but Deacons neuer to Priests.
Anno. 316.
In the Councell held at Neo-Caeserea can. 13. country Priests are forbidden in the presence of a Bishop, or the Priest of the citie, to deliuer the sanctified bread or Cup to any. Here we see the Cup as well as the bread was deliuered at the communion; the words are, nec panem, nec calicem porrigere.
Anno 325.
In the acts of the kforeign.Councell of Nice, set out by Gelasius Cyzicenus, we hauehave a most expresse testimonie of the beleife and practise of the Church in that flowrishing age. Let vsus vnderstand by faith, that in that holy Supper the Lambe of God, that takes away the sinnes of the world, is offered without blood by the Priests, and that wee taking his pretious body and blood, doe verily beleeue, that they are symboles, or pleadges of our resurrection.
Anno. 337.
lQuod pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt eucharistiam populo; nec hoc prolatū ex Euā gelio testimonium receper…nt. Vbi Apostolis corpus suum commendauit, & sanguinem. seorsum enim panis, & seorsum calicis commendatio memoratur.Iulius the first, as we read in Gratian de conse. dist. 2. condemneth the practise of such, who gaue the people a bit of bread dipped in wine for the whole Communion, alleaging against this corrupt custome, the practise of our Sauiour, who when he commended his body and blood to the Apostles, he commended the bread and the Cup apart. This ancient Pope concludes from our Sauiours practise, that the people ought to receiue the holy elements of bread and wine a part, & consequently, that it is not sufficient to giuegive them the bread dipped. Now if it be not sufficient to giuegive them the bread dipped in the wine, Iulius would hauehave held it much lesse sufficient to giuegive them drie bread. If our Sauior, as he rightly conceiueth, enioyned; that all ought to partake of the elements apart, certainly hee enioyned, that the people should receiue both, and not bread onelyonly, or wine onelyonly by concomitancie.
Anno 340.
Athanasius in his second Apology maketh it plainer, that the vndeniable custome in his age was for the people to receiue the Cup. This saith he, is the vse of this Cup and no other: in this Cup you lawfully or of right drinke before, or to the Laity. This you hauehave receiued for an Ecclesiastical Cannon; mforeign.it belongs to you alone to drink the blood of Christ before the Laietie.
Anno 355.
nHaec accepta & hausta id efficiunt, vt & nos in Christo, & in nobis Christꝰ sit.Hilarius Pictauiensis de trinitate lib. 8. writeth thus. There is no place left of doubting cōcerning the truth of Christs flesh and blood; for both by our Lords owne profession, and our faith, it is truly flesh, and truly blood; and these being taken and drunke, doe worke this effect, that Christ is in vsus, and wee in Christ; Saint Hilarie spake of all Christians, and saith, that they receiue the flesh of Christ, & hauriunt: that is, take a draught of his blood, which cannot bee without partaking the Cup. For although the doctrine of concomitancie were admitted, whereby our aduersaries suppose, that the people take the blood of Christ in the body: yet certainely there they cannot haurire sanguinem, take a draught of blood, or drinke it, because it is not there in a liquid forme, or so that it may be sucked, or drunke.
Anno 365.
oforeign, &c.Cyril. Catechesi Mystagogicâ 4. VnderUnder the forme of bread, Christs body is giuen vntounto thee, that taking the body and blood of Christ, thou maist be of one body and blood with him. And a little after; After thou hast pforeign.participated of the body of Christ, draw neere also to the cup of his blood.
Anno. 366.
Macarius Egyptius. hom. 27. By offering bread and wine in the Church, he gaue vsus a patterne to take his body and blood.
Anno 370.
S. qforeign.Basil in his 289. epistle to Patricia exhorts her frequently to participate the Sacrament of Christs body and blood, saying, It is good and profitable eueryevery day to participate the holy body and blood of Christ. And in his moralls, chap. 22. hee propoundeth this question: what is the proper foreign.dutie of a Christian? and he answereth immediately; to hauehave no spot, or wrincle in his Conscience, to be holy and vnblameable, and so to eate the body, and drinke the blood of Christ. Our aduersaries doe well to conceale this testimonie of Saint Basil, because it is so direct and full to the point, that it admits not any collourable answer. He saith, that it is the proper dutie of a Christian; and therefore not of a Priest onelyonly, not to eate Christs body onelyonly and receiue his blood (by concomitancie) but expresly to drinke it: and this hee teacheth to be as necessarie a duty of all Christians, as to clense themselues from sinne and to be holy and vndefiled.
Anno. 372.
yforeign.Gregory Nazianzen, surnamed the Diuine, S. Basils bosome friend in his 42. oration inuites all to drinke the blood of Christ, who look for life by him, without any doubting or shamefast feare: Eat his body, and drinke his blood, if thou desirest life: and in his second oration he testifieth, that his sister Gorgonia, after she had Communicated, *foreign.laid vp some part of the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. With what face then can our aduersaries deny the Cup to Lay men, when the ancient Church deliuered it vsually to religious women, such as were Patricia, and Gorgonia?
Anno 375.
Ambrose in his fifth booke de sacramentis chap. 1. elegantly applieth Moses his striking the rocke, and the water flowing out thereupon to the holy communion, saying, see the mystery, Moses, that is a Prophet, the Rod, that is Gods word, the Priest with the Word of God toucheth the rock, and the water floweth, and the people of God drinke it. zTangit sacerdos calicem, & redundat aqua in calicesaliens in vitam aeternam, & bibit populus Dei, qui Dei gratiam consequutus est.The Priest therefore toucheth the Cup, and there aboundeth in the Cup water springing to eternall life; and the people of God drinketh, and obtaineth the grace of God. The same S. Ambrose, as Theoderet writes in his fifth booke of Ecclesiasticall storie, and 17. chap. repelleth the Emperor Theodosius from the Communion with these words: uQuomodo venerandum eius sanguinem ori ad mouebis, qui furore irae iubente tantum sanguinis tam in iquè effudist…?How darest thou take into thy hands, sprinckled with blood, the holy body of Christ? How presumest thou to lift vp his dreadfull blood to thy mouth, who in thy rage hast spilt vniustly so much blood? Wee see in Saint Ambroses time, that both Prince and people communicated in both kinds: albeit Theodosius at this time were deseruedly suspended from the participating of Christs body, as well as his blood: Yet after hee had cleansed his bloody hands with penitent teares, he was admitted to the blessed Sacrament, and he receiued both the blessed Body, and the holy Cup into his hands.
Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in his answer to this our allegation out of Theodoret, saith, We confesse, that both kinds hauehave been sometimes giuen to x Fatemur datam aliquando vtramque speciem Laicis, sed negamus id iure diuino mandatum.the Laietie, but we denie, that it is so commanded by Gods Law. A poore and miserable euasion. For first many of the ancients, whom wee hauehave before alleadged, doe not onelyonly testifie the practise of their times, but vrge diuine precept for it.
Secondly, they indifferently exhort the Laietie, as well as the Clergie to the Communion in both kinds, and vrge a like necessitie for both: but the Papists themselues confesse, that the Cleargie, who administer the Communion, are bound by the Law of God to communicate in both kinds; and sith Sacraments may not be administred to any without order and command from him, who instituted them, questionlesse, the ancient Church would neuer hauehave vsually administred the Cup to the Laietie with the bread, if they had not conceiued, that Christs words, Drinke ye all of this, belonged to them as well as to the Cleargie.
Anno. 390.
xDominica caena omnibus debet esse communis, &c.Hierome vponupon the eleuenth of the 1. Cor. The Lords Supper ought to be cōmon to all, because Christ equally deliuered the Sacraments to all his disciples, who were there present. It is to be noted, that he vseth the word Sacraments in the plurall number, speaking onelyonly of the Lords Supper; whereby it is euident, that by Sacraments hee vnderstandeth the elements bread, and wine and from Christs example enforceth, that they be equally deliuered to all communicants. The same Saint Hierome speaketh yet more expresly of the Laietie, receiuing the Cup from the Priest in the Eucharist, in his comment on the 3. chap. of Zephanie; yQui sanguinem Domini populo …ius diuidunt.the Priests also, who administer the Eucharist, & deuide the blood of the Lord to his people, commit wickednes against the Law, To which allegation Cardinall Bellarmine zBell. de sac. Eucha. lib. 4. cap. 26. Respondeo, nihil no…i audimus.answereth nothing, but we heare no newes. It is true we heare no newes out of Saint Ieroms mouth. For all the fathers aboue alleadged testifie as much; and this Bellarmine is for ced to grant. Durum telum necessitas; ignoscite. If he could hauehave coyned any new answer, wee should hauehave had somewhat else from him, then, Nihil noui audimus, but seeing hee brings nothing new to impeach our argument, I need not to adde any new confirmation.
Anno 398.
In the fourth councell of Carthage it is ordered, that if any penitent desire the peace of the Church, when he lyeth on his death bed, if it bee beleeued, that he will presently depart, that the Church peace be giuen vntounto him by laying on of hands, and vt ori eius effundatur Eucharistia, and that the Sacrament be powred into his mouth.
Anno 399.
Saint Chrysostome in his 18. homily, in the 2. epist. to the Corinth. makes it a cleere case, that the people by the new law hauehave as good interest to the entire Sacrament, as the Priest, Sometimes, or in some things there is no difference betweene foreign.the people and the Priest, as in the participation of the dreadfull mysteries: for all are equally admitted vntounto them. In the time of the old testament it was not lawfull for the people to eat of those things of which the Priests did eate; but it is not so now; for one body is offered to all, and one Cup.
The Papists answer.
Bellarmine answereth, that the difference which Saint Chrysostome obserues betweene the sacrifices of the old and new Testament was, that the sacrifice of the old was deuided into parts, and could not bee entirely taken by any one, and hence it came to passe, saith he, that some receiued a greater, and some a lesse portion; and for the most part, the Priests part was the greatest: but this our Sacrament is giuen intirely to eueryevery one, neither hath the Priest more then the Lay people, although the symboles are more or greater in the Communion of the Priests, then of the people.
Refutation.
This slight colour of answer is easily washed away: for
First, Saint Chrysostome in the originall Greek hath no word signifying parts, or diuision into parts, but saith, foreign, &c. that the Priest fed on other things, and that the Laietie might not feed vponupon the same: as for example; The laitie might not at all eat of the shew bread, and in the sacrifices the people might not eate of the same, specie, or numero, which the Priest eate. For the Law expresly set downe what belonged to the Priest to eate, and what to the people: but in the new Testament it is not so: for the people may eat of the bread, which the Priest eateth, and drinke also of the same Cup. This is euidently Saint Chrysostomes meaning.
Secondly, although it is true which Bellarmine saith, that the whole Sacrament is eaten by eueryevery Communicant; yet this must be vnderstood of the integrity of the thing signified, and of the essence of that signe, not of the integrity of the quantitie of the outward elements. For no one man eateth the whole loafe, or quantity of bread, that is consecrated, nor drinketh the whole measure of wine, that is sanctified, but a portion onelyonly. Herein then the difference is not betweene the Priests of the old Law, and the Priests of the new, that the Priests of the old Law might eate but a part of the Sacrifice, but the Priests of the new might eat the whole. For if we speake of the thing signified, both receiued the whole, if of the signes, neither receiues the whole, that is, the entire quantity of the thing offered. The difference was in this, according to S. Chrysostome, that the people simply might not eat of those things, of which the Priest might, but in the new testament the people may eat of all that the Priests may.
Lastly, although we should admit of Bellarmines answer touching the condition of the Priest and people of the old law, and the new; that they of the old fed of the sacrifice apart, each hauing their seuerall portions appointed for them; but that the Prists and people of the new, receiued the sacrament entirely, the Priest entirely, and the people entirely, which in some sence is true: yet this no way satisfieth the words of Saint Chrysostome: who saith expresly, that one Cup as well as one bread is set before all people, as well as Priests, and that according to Christs institution in the new testament.