The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome, Chapter 11 · Section 9
SECT. IX. The practise of the Church from 800. to 900.
Anno 800.
CHarles the Great in his booke (as the Inscription beareth) of Images, testifieth, that Lib. 3. cap. 6.in his time not onelyonly frequently, but dayly, Christians participated of Christs body and blood. He affirmeth, that sins are remitted by ePer sanguinem Christi, quia nobis in sacramento sumitur, et pro nobis effusus. est.the holy Ghost, or by the blood of Christ, which is taken of vsus in the Sacrament, and was shed for vsus, for the remission of sinnes. That he means by vsus, the Laiety, as well as the Clergy, is euidēt. First, because himself was a Lay man; and therefore necessarily, in vsus, includes those of his owne ranke and order. Secondly, because he speakes of all their communicating, who receiue the remission of sinnes by the effusion of Christs blood for them; and these I am sure, are not the Priests onelyonly. Thirdly, because in the fourth booke c. 14. hee speaketh expresly of the faithfull in generall: whereby the people must needs be vnderstood, as well as the Priests. His words are: the mystery of the fCorporis, & sanguinis Christi mysterium quotidie à fidelibus sumitur.body and blood of Christ is dayly receiued by the faithfull in the Sacrament.
Anno 820.
Paschasius Rathertus, Abbot of Corbie, who was the first that euer wrote of purpose, and at large, of the truth of Christs body gBel. de scripter. Eccles. ad ann. 820. Hic auctor primus suit, qui seriò & copiosè scripsit de veritate corporis & sanguinis. Pasdecor. & sang. dom. ca. 15.and blood in the sacrament (if we may belieue Bellarmine) is full and direct against the Church of Rome in the point of their halfe communion. O man, saith he, as often as thou drinkest of this Cup, or eatest of this bread, thou mayest not thinke, that thou drinkest other blood, then that which was shed hCap. 1 9.for thee, and for all for the remission of our sinnes. And againe; The blood is well ioyned to the flesh, because iNec caro sine sanguine, nec sanguis sine carne iure communicatur.neither the flesh without the blood, nor the blood without the flesh is rightly communicated. For the whole man, which consists of two substances, is redeemed; and therefore fed together both with the flesh of Christ, and his blood. Had he liued in our dayes, and professedly wrote against our moderne Papists, he could not in more expresse words hauehave impugned the Romish Glosse vponupon the words of our Sauiour, viz. drinke yee all of this: that is, all Priests, then he doth. cap. 15. He alone it is, saith he, who breaketh this bread, & by the hands of his Ministers distributeth it to beleiuers, saying, take ye ad drinke all of this, as well Ministers, as the rest kBibite ex hoc omnes, tam ministri, quàm reliqui credentes.of the faithfull; this is the Cup of the blood of the new and euerlasting Testament.
Anno 830.
Amalarius, praefat. in liber. 3. de Offic. Eccles. affirmeth, that the benediction of Bishops, or Priests without Chaunters, Readers, or any other, is sufficient to blesse the bread and wine, wherewith the people might be lAd benedicendum panem & vinum, quo populus reficeretur ad animarum salutem.refreshed to their soules health, as it was wont to be done in the first times by the Apostles themselues. Quot verba, tot fulmina; so many words, so many thunderbolts to strike downe dead the Popes sacrilegious heresie. If the bread and wine were blest for the refection of the people, then not of the Priests onelyonly; if this refectiō was for the health of their soules, who dare deny it them? If this was the manner of blessing and administring the Sacrament vsed by the Apostles themselues, by what authority at this day doth the Church of Rome alter it?
Anno 835.
mLib. 1. de instit. Cleri. cap. 31 Maluit Dominus cor poris & sanguinis sui sacramentum sidelium ore percipi, &c.Rabanus Maurus, Bishop of Mentz teacheth vsus, that the Lord would hauehave the Sacrament of his body and blood to bee receiued by the mouth of the faithfull, and made their food; that by that visible worke, the inuisible effect of the Sacrament might bee shewed. For as the materiall food outwardly nourisheth the body, and maketh it quicke and liuely, so the Word of God within nourisheth, and strengtheneth the soule. nTemporalem vitam sine isto cibo & potu habere possunt homines, aeternam habere omnino non possunt, quapropter necesse habemus sumere corpus & sanguinem eius.Men may hauehave this temporall life without this meate and drinke, but they cannot hauehave the eternall, because this meate signifies the eternall societie, or communion of the Head with the members. Who soeuer (saith he) eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, he abides in me, and I in him. Wherefore of necessity we must take his body and blood, that we may abide in him, and be made members of his body. In these passages this learned Bishop eueryevery way stops the mouth of our aduersaries. They cannot say, that he speakes of Priests only; for he speakes of all faithfull, that either are already, or are to bee made members of Christs body. Neither can they shift off this passage, as they doe some others, by granting, that the people may, but denying, that they ought to communicate in both kinds. For he presseth very farre the necessitie of thus communicating, without which he supposeth neither communion with Christ, nor eternall life can be obtained. Neither lastly, can they euade by their doctrine of concomitancy, saying, that the people participate of the blood in the body, when they receiue the consecrated Hoste. For he speaketh distinctly of eating and drinking, bread and drinke, and sacraments, in the plurall number, which cannot possibly be vnderstood of participating the bread onelyonly, or communicating in one kind after the Popish manner.
Anno 840.
oIn Apoc. ca. 2. in Ecclesia quotidie fideles comedunt Christi corpus, & sanguinem bibunt.Haymo Bishop of Halberstat, relateth the manner of the faithfull to hauehave been in his time, daily to eate the body of Christ, and to drinke his blood; and paraphrasing vponupon these words of the Apostle, 1. Cor. cap. 10. The Cup which we blesse, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? He saith, the Cup is called the pAppellatur calix communicatio, quasi participatio; quia omnes communicant ex illo, partemque sumunt ex sanguine Domini, quem continet in se.Communion, because all communicate of it, and partake of the blood of the Lord, which it containeth in it. Surely if the word fidelis, or faithfull carryeth not the Layetie, yet the word omnes, or all, must needs; the faithfull then, and all of them in Haymoes time, were as well admitted to the Cup, as to the bread.
Anno 849.
Valafridus Strabo speaking of the suspension De verb. Eccl. ca. 17. Ab ipsis sacramentis Ecclesiastico suspendantur iudicio, ne indignè ea percipientes reatu maiori involuantur, vt Iudas.of scandalous persons from the Communion, calleth the Lords Supper Sacraments in the plurall number, in regard of the two elements, or kinds in which it is administred. Those, saith he, that wander from the members of Christ by the enormity, or faeditie of capitall crimes, by the iudgement of the Church are suspended from the q Sacraments, lest by the vnworthy receiuing them, they should be entangled in a greater guilt, as Iudas. Here by capitall offenders, to vnderstand Priests, were a capitall offence; as if they alone were the greatest offenders in the Church, and to hauehave the rod of Ecclesiasticall censures to bee spent vponupon them onelyonly. Therefore the Romanists, will they, nill they, to saue themselues from the lash, must put the capitall offender vponupon the Laiety, and consequently confesse, that they, who for their crimes were at some times suspended from the Sacraments, were ordinarily, when they were free from such crimes, admitted to both the Sacraments, (as Strabo calleth them) that is, both the elements, the wine as well as the bread. For the same Strabo in his twentieth Chapter stirreth vp himselfe, and all good Christians to the continuall participating of the rQuantum mentis, velcorporis grauiores maculae non obsistunt, panem & sanguinem dominicum, quibus sine viuere non possumus, iugiter ambiamus.body and blood of Christ, without which we cannot liue, so far forth, as some greater blots or blemishes in body or mind do not withhold, or hinder from it.
Anno. 868.
In a Councell held at Wormes vnderunder Lewis the second, we find a Canon to this purpose: sCan. 36. Si vir viduam duxerit, quae ex priori marito filiam babuit, & cum eadem filia postmodum concubuerit, coniugium modis omnibus diffoluatur; & vir ille poenitentiae subiaceat sanctionibus: vt per trien… tēpus á corpore Domini nost. Ies. Christ. suspendatur, & sanguine.If any man shall marry a widow, which had a daughter by her former husband, and shall after lye with this her daughter; let that marriage by all meanes be dissolued, and let that man vndergoe the pennance of the Church, so that for three yeeres he be suspended from the body of Iesus Christ, and his blood. He who vponupon a special reason is debard from the Communion of the body and blood of Christ, and that for a certain time, must needs be supposed before that time to hauehave beene admitted to communicate in both kinds, and after his penance of three yeeres done, cannot be denied againe admittance to the Lords Table. I desire then to know, what incestuous crime all the Laiety vnderunder the Papacy hauehave committed, that for these two hundred yeeres, euer since the Councell of Constance, they hauehave suspended them from the Sacrament of Christs blood.
Anno. 869.
tReg. in Chro. ad an. 869. Communionem corporis & sanguinis Domini de manu pontificis sumpsit, & post: Corpus & sanguis Domnostri lesi Christi prosit tibi in vitam aeternam.Regino discribeth the manner of Pope Adrians deliuering the Communion to King Lotharius and his followers in both kindes, then which we cannot desire a nobler president, or fairer euidence of the custome of the Church in that Age; Thus then Regino; The Pope inuites the king to the Lords Table, taking the body and blood of our Lord in his hands; the King takes the body and blood of our Lord at the hands of the Pope: Then the Bishop turning himselfe to the followers of the King, deliuers the Communion to each of them in these words: If thou hast not shewed thy selfe a fauourer, or an abbetter of King Lothar. in the obiected crime of adulterie, neither hast giuen thy consent thereunto, neither hast communicated with Waldrand, and other persons excommunicated by the Apostolick See, let the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ be healthfull to thee vntounto eternall life.
Anno 875.
uQuòd in Ecclesia ore fidelium sumitur corpus Cbristi & sanguis, quaerit vestrae magnitudinis excelientia, in mysterio fiat, an inveritate? & postea: Interius si consideres, non iam liquor vini, sed sanguis Christi fidelium mentibus & sapit, dum gustatur, & agnoscitur, dum conspicitur, & probatur dum odoratur.Bertramus, or as some write his name Ratramus, in his booke of the body and blood of Christ, dedicated to Carolus Caluus, writeth thus: you demand, whether the body of Christ and his blood which in the Church are receiued, by, or with the mouth of the faithfull, be his body and blood mystically, or in truth? And a little after he resolueth thus; If yee looke inwardly, it is not the liquor of wine, but the blood of Christ, which is tasted by the minds of the faithfull, when it is drunke, and acknowledged, when it is seene, and liked, when it is smelt vntounto.
This Bertram speaks so plainely through this whole booke for the entire Communion, and against the Popish carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament, that the Romish Inquisitors were in a quandary, what to doe with this Author, whither quite to prohibite the reading of him, or to deuise some colourable excuse and euasion for such passages in him, as hold no good quarter with their Trent Faith.
Papists answer to the testimonies of the writers alleadged in this former Age.
Before most of these testimonies, our aduersaries draw Timanthes his courtain, and answer them with silence. OnelyOnly to Paschasius and Haymo, Cardinall Bellarmine pretends to giuegive an answer; either because for shame hee could do no lesse, being so often vpraided with them: or because like a new Alcumist, he hoped out of the iron that wounded him, to draw an oyle to cure the wound of his cause. To the testimonie out of Paschasius, his answer, like Cerberus, consists of three heads. First, he *Bel. lib. 4. de sacra. Christ. cap. 26. Primum est, locum istum videri corruptum, secundò obseruandum est, non exponere Pasch. verba Domini, vt sunt apud Matheum. Tertiò obseruandum est, verba Paschasij sententiae nostrae plurimum sauere; significant enim bibendum esse Domini sanguinem, sed in specie panis.saith, that the place in Paschasius seemes to be corrupted. Secondly, he saith, that Paschasius doth not expound the words of our Lord, as they are in Matthew, but as they seeme to be spoken of Christ, when the sacrament is administred in the Church. His reason is; In the institution of the Sacrament, there were no other Ministers present distinguished from other beleeuers: and therfore Christs words, as they were vttered then, no way admitteth Paschasius explication, Drinke ye all of this, as well Ministers as other beleeuers. Thirdly, hee saith, that the words of Paschasius make much for the opinion of the Romish Church. For they signifie, that Christs blood is to bee drunk, but vnderunder the forme of bread, not vnderunder the forme of wine, As for Haymo, hee answers him with a short come-off, saying, He spake of the *Respondeo, loquitur iste author (vt supra diximus Ignatium, & Chrysostomum) de vnitate calicis. Significat enim eos, qui sanguinem Domini sumunt, ex vno colice sumere.vnity of the Chalice; and that his meaningis, that they that receiue the blood of the Lord, receiue out of one Cup.
Refutation.
The threefold answer of Bellarmine to Paschasius, is not like a threefold cable that cannot be broken, but rather like a rustie twisted wyer-string, that breakes with the least strayne. First, he beareth vsus in hand, that the place in Paschasius seemes to be corrupted. Corrupted? By whom? by Papists? Surely they would neuer hauehave corrupted this text to make against themselues: by Protestants? That cannot be. for no Protestants hauehave set forth Paschasius, for ought we find, or hauehave had any thing to doe in that Edition of Paschasius, which we cite. Besides, in all the ancient impressions of Paschasius, and the Manu-scripts, that hauehave come to our sight, the words are found as we cite them. Yea but Iohn of Louane suspects, that the copies are faulty, and that, bibite, is put for, edite, Drinke yee, for eat ye: why so? because the words going before are, he distributeth the bread by the hands of his ministers to the beleeuers, saying, Take yee, and drinke yee all of this. This reason like a rope of sand, hath no coherence at all. For though Pascasius spake of bread, yet to proue that Christ is he, who alone by his Ministers distributeth the sacrament, he rehearseth the words of the institution both concerning the Bread, and the Cup; neither can, bibite, or drink you in Paschasius be put for edite, eate ye, but must stand as it doth; drinke yee. For the words immediately following in Paschasius are, for this is the new and eternall Testament. Now what a ridiculous inference were it, if we read the words, as Iohn of Louane would hauehave vsus: take, eate this, for this is the Cup of the blood of the new and euerlasting testament? Bellarmine his second answer is as absurd as his first. For Paschasius his words make more strongly for vsus, and against himself, if Paschasius expound the words, Drinke ye all of this, as they seeme to bee spoken by Christ, not at the first Institution, but afterwards, whensoeuer the sacrament is administred in the Church; If now also, whensoeuer the sacrament is administred in the Church, Christ commandeth, drink ye all of this, that is with Paschasius glosse, all Ministers, & other beleeuers; it followeth, that all other beleeuers, as well as Ministers, ought now by Christs command to drinke of the cup. Thirdly, as Bellarmine his first answer is against the text of Paschasius, and his second against himselfe, so his third is against common sence. How can blood bee drunke vnderunder the forme of bread? if we speake of drinking siguratiuely by faith, this kind of drinking the Romanists explode. If he speake of drinking properly with the mouth, eueryevery suckling is able to confute the Cardinall, who know by meere sense, that nothing cā be drunk, but that which is moist, and of liquid substance? Nay, the Cardinal discourseth like a man that had drank too deep of the wine, forgetting in this page, what he said in the former. There he saith, that the fathers doe not say, that Christs blood is to be drunke of the people by the mouth of the body, but here he saith, that other beleeuers, as well as Ministers, by Christs command ought to drinke it, but after a manner neuer heard of before, to drinke it vnderunder the forme of bread.
Now for his answer to Haymo pari facilitate reijcitur, quâ profertur, tis as easy to be reiected, as vrged. For first, the Cardinal corrupteth the text of Haymo: hee saith not, the Cup is the Communion, because all drinke of that one Cup, the word one is not in Haymo. Admit it were; this no way disapointeth our allegation out of Haymo. For still this word omnes, or al, remaines. And be it out of one Cup, or more, Haymo saith expresly, that all did partake of it, and receiued of the blood of Christ contained in it. If all, then the people, as well as the Priests.