The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome, Chapter 8 – Chapter 11
CHAP. VIII. The seuenth Argument, drawne from the nature and condicion of a will, or legacie.
NO legacie bequeathed by the last will and testament, confirmed by the death of the testator, ought to bee withheld from any legatarie, that is person, to whom it is bequeathed:
The Cup in the Eucharist is a legacie, bequeathed by Christs last will and testament to all true beleeuers capable thereof:
Therefore the Cup in the Eucharist ought not to be withheld from any true beleeuer capable thereof.
The proposition is the Apostles, Gal. 3. 15. A mans testiment, if it be confirmed, no man disanulleth, or addeth thereunto: and Heb. 9. 7. A …estament is of force after men are dead.
The assumption is part of the words of Christs institution, Luk. 22. 20. This cup is the new Testament in my blood. Christ calleth it his Testament, or last legacie, as aQuia ea quae vl… adicuntur, maximè ab amicis recedentibus, magis mem…iae commend…ntur; pias… tim quia tunc magis inflammatur offectus ad amic…s: ea ver… ad quae magis afficimur, profundius animo imprimunar.Aquinas par. 3. qu. 73. art. 50. truly noteth, Because those things which are spoken last, especially by friends departing, doe stick faster in the memorie, by reason that the affections are then most inflamed to our friends, and those things wherewith we are more affected, make a deeper impression in the mind.
This whole argument is confirmed by Iansenius, who meeting with an answer, that seemes to be made to this argument, directly impugneth it. The answer giuen by Bellar. and others is: The legacie bequeathed, is not bread, nor wine, but the body and blood of our Lord; both which are giuen vnderunder one kind, as well as vnderunder both: the difference is, that they which drinke of the Cup, receiue the legacie as it were in two paiments, they who doe not drinke, receiue the same legacy in one paiment. This answer is substantially refuted by Iansenius in Liturge. bNon solum rei sacramentariae, sed etiam signaculorum habuit ratione….lib. 4. and 7. and thereby the former argument very much strengthned. First, saith he, the answer were to some purpose, if Christ by will had disposed onelyonly of the things signified in the Sacrament; but Christ in his legacie had respect not onelyonly to the thing signified, but also to the signe, for the manifestation of his Passion, and representation of his death.
Secondly, hee acutely and truly obserueth, that the will of the testator might be satisfied, in giuing the whole legacie at once, or twise, if it were of the nature of monie, which may bee payd in one great piece, or in many small amounting to the same value: But cNec res sacramentales perplures formas diuidi, nec Ecclesiae arbitrio sub vnam contrahi. Ex Chamiero.it is not so in the Sacrament, saith he, the thing signified by the Sacrament cannot by the discretion of the Church be deuided into more formes, nor be cōtracted in one. It is not in the powre of the Church, to make the body alone to be vnderunder the forme of bread; nor the blood alone vnderunder the forme of wine; nor both of them together vnderunder one forme, or kinde. Therefore, as when a man bequeatheth to any by his wil one thousand pound in coyne, and one thousand pound in ancient plate of such a making; he that paieth the whole legacie, either in coyne onelyonly, or in plate onelyonly, violates the will, because though he may giuegive the valew, yet hee giues not the thing in specie bequethed; so although it should be granted, which yet is not, that the Priest giueth to the people the body & blood of Christ in the bread; yet hee violates the will of the testator, because he giueth it not so as it may be drunke, or in the forme of wine. Whence I conclude, that what the Apostle saith: No man offereth to the will of a man; The Gal 3. 15.Romanists offer to the last will and testament of God our Lord: and therefore are guiltie not onelyonly of greuious sacriledge, but also of grand fraud and impietie, in violating the Testament of our Sauiour, and deceiuing the people of a most pretious legacie bequeathed by him vntounto them.
CHAP. IX. The eight Argument drawne from the end of the Sacrament.
THis Sacrament ought in such wise to be receiued by al Communicants, that thereby the death of Christ may be represented and shewed forth:
But without partaking of the Cup, it cannot bee so receiued, that thereby Christs death may be represented and shewed forth:
Therefore without pertaking of the Cup, it ought not to be receiued by any Communicants.
The proposition is the Apostles. 1. Cor. 11. 28. As often as you eate this bread, and drinke this Cup, you shew forth the Lords death, till he come againe.
The assumption is euident to sense and reason: to sense for the breaking of bread representeth in no wise the effusiō of bloud: to reason for blood which is contained in the body and vaines, no way sheweth the killing or bloodie death of the partie; but the blood, if it be at all in the bread (which we denie,) it can be there no otherwise, as themselues confesse, then by concomitancie, as contained in, not seuered from the body: as inclosed in, not shed out of the veines. Therefore if it should be granted to our aduersaries, that the blood might be receiued in the bread by it selfe: yet by such receiuing, Christs death by the effusion of his blood for vsus, could in no wise be represented, or shewed forth; which yet is acknowledged to be the principall end of the celebration of this Sacrament.
This whole argument is confirmed by … bus Reihing, who ingeniously acknowledgeth, that in the Encheridion, which he wrote when he was a Iesuite against the doctrine of the dAraneorum oper. cap. 21. In Enchiridij mei editione argumentum hoc dissimulaui, quòd ac solide responso desperaui.reformed Churches, he cōcealed this obiection of the Protestants; because hee despaired euer to giuegive a satisfactorie answer thereunto. It may be, that wits, if they be put vponupon the rack, may finde out euasions for any argument; but a true solution, on which a man may settle his conscience, no Papist can euer giuegive. For if the Priest be bound to consecrate, and receiue the wine a part, because otherwise hee should not represent the effusion of Christs blood: by the same reason, all Communicants that receiue the Sacrament, ought to take the wine apart, being mystically Christs blood, as well as the Priests: because they in their eating and drinking are commanded to shew forth, and declare Christs death, as the Apostle teacheth vsus. Neither can it be said, that this manner of receiuing, to shew forth Christs death, was necessary onelyonly, till such time as the Church in the Councell of Constance had otherwise ordained; for the Apostles Canon extendeth to Christs second comming; e1. Cor. 11. 26.As oft, saith hee, as you eate this Bread, and drinke this Cup, you shall shew forth Christs death, till he come againe. Therefore till his second d…ng, euen to the end of the world, this Iniunction is of force.
CHAP. X. The tenth Argument, drawne from the example of Saint Paul, and the Corinthians.
THat which Saint Paul deliuered from Christ to the Corinthians, touching the administration of the Eucharist, ought perpetually to bee obserued in the Church:
But S. Paul from Christ deliuered to the Corinthians the communicating of the faithfull in both kinds:
Therefore the communicating of the faithfull in both kinds, ought perpetually to be obserued (in the administration of the Eucharist) in the Church.
The Proposition is vncontroleabl…; because an example of the Apostle, and the Primitiue Churches, hauing warrant from Christs word, is a safe president to all succeeding Churches.
The Assumption is contained in the 1. Cor. 11. from verse the 23. to the 29. I receiued of the Lord, that which I deliuered vntounto you, &c. After this preface, hee relateth this institution of the Sacrament in both kinds, vers. 24, 25. and from the 26. to the 29. hee teacheth in what manner they ought to communicate in both kinds, and how they ought to fit and prepare themselues thereunto. S. Pauls authority, writing by diuine inspiration, ought to sway with all religious Christians: how much more when it is backed, and seconded with some Command, Precept, Order, or at least, Warrant from Christ himselfe? That which I deliuered vntounto you, saith he, I receiued from the Lord; and therefore you may safely follow, what not I, but the Lord hath prescribed.
This whole Argument is confirmed by Becanus, who confesseth, that the Apostle deliuered the Communion in both kinds; fBecanus. fateor vtramque speciem à Christe institutam esse: fateor vtramque ab Apostolo traditam.I confesse that both kinds were instituted by Christ; I confesse that both were deliuered by the Apostle. gAntiqua consuetudo à temporibus Apostolorum fuit in ecclesia sub vtraque specie communicandi: in hac assertione nulla est controuersia.Tollet vponupon the sixth of Iohn saith; There is no question of it. It was an ancient custome obserued in the Church from the times of the Apostles, to communicate in both kinds. In this assertion there is no controuersie at all. No controuersie at all indeed; for it is the Protestants plea generally, and the Romanists themselues admit of it; but yet come in with a strange non obstante. See the Councell of Constance, sess. 13. hDeclarat, decernit, & definit, quòd licèt Christus post coenam instituerit, & suis discipulis administrauit sub vtra que specie panis & vini hoc venerabile sacramentum, &c. & licet in Primitiuâ Ecclesia huiusmodi sacramentum reciperetur sub vtraque specie.The Synod declareth, decrees, and defines, that although Christ after supper instituted, and administred to his Disciples this venerable Sacrament in both kinds, viz. of bread and wine; and though this Sacrament were receiued in both kinds in the Primitiue Church; Hoc tamen non obstante; notwithstanding all this, the Councell giues order to the Contrary. The Prince by his Prerogatiue sometimes in his Proclamations appoints and commands in some particular, Acts to bee done contrary to some former Statute, or Act; but wee neuer reade of a non obstante against the Kings Prerogatiue; how much lesse against the expresse Command and Law of the King of Kings? Wherfore this Councel deserueth to be branded for euer, either with the infamous name of non obstantiense Concilium, which Luther giues it, or In-constantiense, for breaking their publike faith giuen to Iohn Hus, and Ierome of Prage, and burning those blessed Martyrs, because they were not able to confute them.
CHAP. XI. The eleuenth Argument, drawne from the vniforme, and constant practice of the Catholike Church in all ages.
THe words vsed in the institution, Drink you all of this, ought to be expounded according to the vniforme and constant practise of the Catholike Christian Church:
But the constant and vniforme practise of the Catholike Church extendeth them to the Laytie, as well as to the Clergy:
Therefore the words of the institution extend to the Laiety, as well as to the Clergy.
The Proposition was assented vntounto by Master Euerard, in the Conference held with him: neither, thinke I, any Christian will sticke at it, who seriously weigheth Christs promises to his Church, to leade her by his Spirit into all truth; to be with her vntounto the end of the world; to build her vponupon a rocke, against which hell gates should neuer preuaile;
The Assumption can no otherwise so certainely be prooued as by induction, and particular instances in eueryevery Age; which, God willing, shall be brought, and made good, against the aduersaries exceptions, in the Sections following.