Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 2 · Part 68
Hesk.The eyght and sixtieth Chapter, proueth the same receipt vnderunder one kinde to be lawfull, by the auncient practise of the Church.
Before these substantiall proues come in, he taketh vponupon him to aunswer the obiections of the aduersaries.Fulke. And first of the Bohemnians, who vsed that place out of the sixt of S. Iohn, Except you eat the fleshe of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, you shall hauehave no life in you. These & such like textes out of that Chapter, must needes be inuincible argumentes against the Papistes, which holde that those sayinges are to bee vnderstoode of the sacrament, first and principally. And otherwise, for as much as the Lordes supper is a seale and sacrament of that doctrine and participation of the fleshe and bloude of our sauiour Christ, which he there teacheth: we may necessarily gather, yt seeing he ioyneth eating and drinking in ye thing, we may not omitt either of them in the signe.
And where as ye Papistes would shift off that matter with their concomitans of bloud with the bodie, it will not serue, seeing he requireth drinking, as necessarily as eating, euen as he is a perfect foode: and therefore, is not meate without drinke, but both meate and drinke.
Therefore, diuerse counsels, and specially Bracarense tertium Capitul. 1. and it is in the decrees De Con. Dis. 2. cum omne, as it reformed many corruptions, that were crept into the Church about the ministration of the cup, so this was one, which they reproued, that they vsed to dippe the breade in the cup, and so deliuer it to the people. Illud verò quod pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt eucharistiam populis, nec hoc probatum ex Euangelio testimonium receperunt, vbi Apostolis corpus suum commendauit & sanguinem, Seorsim enim panis & seorsim calicis commendatio memoratur. Nam intinctū panem alijs Christum praebuisse non legimus, excepto illo tantùm discipulo, quem intincta buccella magistri proditorem ostenderet, non quae sacramenti huius institutionem signaret. That also is to be condemned, that to make perfect the communion, they deliuer to the people, the sacrament dipped in the cupp, neither hauehave they receiued this testimonie brought out of the Gospell, where he deliuered to his Apostles both his bodie & his bloud, for seuerally of the breade, and seuerally of the cupp, the deliuerie is mentioned. For we read not that Christ gaue dipped bread to others, except that disciple only, whome the dipped soppe shewed to be the traitour of his maister, but did not set forth the institution of this sacrament. Note here the iudgement of this Counsell, that the institution of Christ is to be obserued. Secondly, that they are condemned, that receiue not the testimonie of that first institution, as an onelyonly rule to followe in the ministration of the sacrament, as the Papistes do. Thirdly, that the bloud must not be deliuered in the bread, and the body in the cuppe, but seuerally the breade, and seuerally the cup must be deliuered. Fourthly, that the communion is not perfect, without both kindes, which euen they confessed, that dipped the bread in the wine, and so gaue it foorth. Fiftly, consider if this Counsel could not allowe the ioyning of both kinds in one soppe, what would they hauehave thought of taking one kinde cleane away?
But to follow Maister Heskins. The second obiection, and that presseth him hardest, is the saying of Gelasius bishop of Rome: That the diuision of one and the same mysterie cannot be done without great sacriledge. To auoyde this most manifest and cleare authoritie, he thinketh it sufficient to shewe, that the decree was made against other heretiques, namely, the Manichees & Eutychians, as though it were sacriledge in one kinde of heretiques, and lawful in an other. He saith, the Manichees, to cloake their heresie, would dissemblingly receiue the breade, and would not receiue the cup, bicause they held that Christ had but a fantasticall body, without bloud. And the Eutychians ioyned with them, which receiued the breade as a sacrament of the diuine body of Christe, in which was no bloud.
Concerning the Eutychians, there might bee some such fantasie, if they ioyned with the Manichees in this point, which presently I doe not remember that I hauehave read. But concerning the Manichees, it is certaine, there was an other cause of their refusall of the cup, bicause they condemned all drinking of wine. And of them it seemeth, that Leo spake, Serm. 4. de quadra. which M. Heskins rehearseth. Abducunt se &c. They withdrawe them selues from the sacrament of the health of man, and as they deny Christe our Lorde to be borne in the veritie of our flesh, so they doe not beleeue, that he did verily die, and rise againe, and therefore they condemne the day of our health and of our gladnesse, with the sadnesse of their fasting. And when to couer their infidelitie, they are so bold to be present at our mysteries, they so temper them selues in the communion of the sacraments, that sometimes they are more safely hidden. With vnworthy mouth they receiue the body of Christe, but the bloud of our redemption they altogether refuse to drinke: which thing we will your holinesse to vnderstand for this cause, that suche kinde of men may be knowne to you and by these tokens, and that they whose sacrilege and dissimulation shall be found out being noted and bewrayed, by the Priestly authoritie, may be banished the societie of the Saints. This M. Hes. confesseth to be spoken against the Manichees. And I wold he would further note, that Leo chargeth them with dissimulation ioyned with sacriledge, which yet is more tollerable, then the Papistes open impudencie and violent sacriledge. But here he noteth a plaine place for the proclamer, in that Leo saith: with vnworthy mouth they receiue the body of Christe, but that Leo so calleth ye sacrament of the body of Christ, which after a certaine manner is the body of Christe, and not simply or absolutely, it appeareth by that which followeth imediatly, that those heretiques refuse to receiue the bloud of our redemption, whereby hee meaneth the cup and the sacrament of his bloud, for if hee should not meane the outward sacramentes, but the body and bloud of Christ indeed, how could his body be receiued without his bloud? Therefore it is manifest hee speaketh of the signes and not of the things signified euen by their owne rule of concomitance.
And nowe followeth the whole saying of Gelasius, Comperimus autem &c. We hauehave found out of a certaintie, that certaine men after they hauehave receiued a portion of the holy body, do abstaine from the cup of the holy bloud, who (bicause I knowe not by what superstition they are taught to be withholden) let them without all doubt receiue the whole sacramentes, or else let them bee forbidden from the whole. For the diuision of one and the same mysterie, can not be done without great sacriledge. Maister Heskins to shift off this place, saith, it was written against the Manichees. But that is altogether vnlike, for then Gelasius would not hauehave saide, he knewe not by what superstition they were led, for he knewe well the blasphemies of the Manichees. Wherefore it is certaine, they were other such superstitious people, as the Papistes be nowe. But if it were written against the Manichees, the Papistes following their steppes, shall gaine nothing, but proue them selues to ioyne with the Manichees.
Secondly Maister Heskins saith, the diuision of one mysterie, is not the diuiding of the cuppe from the breade, but of the body of Christ from his bloud, which the Manichees did. Although hee bee worthie to be knocked in the head with a mall, that will not vnderstand Gelasius, to speake of the sacrament, yet there is no shadowe of reason to shrowde him most impudently affirming the contrarie. For the Manichees did not diuide the body of Christe from his bloud, but vtterly denyed him to hauehave either body or bloud. Againe, when hee saide immediately before, that they should eyther receiue the whole sacramentes, or abstaine from the whole, hee addeth this for a reason. For the diuision (sayth hee) of one and the same mysterie, can not bee done without greate sacriledge. Hee therefore that denyeth him to speake one title of diuiding the one kinde from the other, is woorthie to bee diuided in peeces, and to hauehave his partes with hypocrites, where shall bee weeping and gnashing of teeth. But as though he had not passed impudencie her selfe alreadie, hee falleth on rayling against the proclamer, that had not brought foorth past halfe a score wordes of this place, suppressing the rest for very shame, they make so much against him. Surely, in all reasonable mens consciences, what so euer hee left out of this place, hee left the aduauntage of his owne cause, and no title againste him.
But let vsus see here what Maister Heskins, a man of inuention passing Sinon the Gręcian, hath gathered out of it. There bee two thinges in this place plainely taught: The first is, the reall presence of Christes body and bloud, in that he so reuerently calleth the sacrament vnderunder one kinde, the portion of the Lords body, and the other he calleth the cup of the holy bloud. For the spiritual bloud is not contained in external or material vessels. No syr, but the sacramēt of his natural bloud is, wherof he speaketh: as it is manifest by the words immediatly before, the portion of the Lords body, for his natural body is not broken into portions, but the bread which is a sacrament thereof, is broken, and therby is shewed, what wicked men receiue both in this saying of Gelasius, & in the other of Leo, not the naturall body of Christe, which cannot be receiued in portions, but a portion of the sacramental bread, which is therfore called the body of Christ, bicause it is so indeed to them that receiue it worthily, & is consecrated to that vse, that it may be the cōmunication of the body of Christ. And as it hath ben often shewed, sacraments beare the names of the very things wherof they are sacramēts. The second thing that he teacheth (saith M. Hes.) is, that he calleth not these two kindes, Sacramentum, a sacrament, but, Sacramenta, sacramentes, in the plural number signifying therby, that each of them is a whole sacrament. O new Diuinitie! thē ye Papistes hauehave eight sacraments. But are you such a prudent gatherer M. Hes? it appeareth you wil lease none aduantage for the taking vp. I commend you. But for all yt, doth not your Authour Leo call both kindes sacramentum a sacrament? and that is more (for it is too too childish, to reason of the singular number) doth not Gelasius call the sacrament in both kindes, Vnum idémque mysterium, one and the same mysterie? And when he vseth ye plural number, the ground of your Achillean argument, doth he not say, Integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur. Let them take the whole sacramentes, or else let them be kept from the whole, signifying, that they which tooke the bread onelyonly, tooke but halfe the sacramentes, and none took the whole, but they that tooke the cup also.
But nowe for the practise of the Primitiue Church to hauehave receiued in one kinde: he saith, that in time of persecution, the Priest deliuered them of the sacrament wrapped in fine linnen clothes to carie home with them, and to receiue it secretly by them selues, and this could bee none other, but the sacrament vnderunder the fo…ne of breade. Admit it were so, that they caried home the sacrament, yet it followeth not, but they might as well carie the wine in a faire pot, as they caried the breade in a faire cloth. And although Tertulliā writing to his wife, name bread only, yet doth it not followe, but that he comprehendeth the cup also. The wordes of Tertullian are before rehearsed and answered, Lib. 1. cap. 24. & 27.
Next is brought in Basil. Episto. ad Caesareant patriciam. Illud autem &c. As for that to be a grieuous thing in the times of persecution, any man to be inforced to receiue the communion with his owne hand, the Priest or Deacon not being present, it is more then nedeth to proue, for bicause the same thing is by a long custome, and by the very vse of things established. For all they that in the wildernesse lead a solitarie life, where there is no Priest, keeping the communion at home, communicate of them selues. But in Alexandria and Ae…ypt, eueryevery one of the people for the most part, hauehave the communion in their owne house. For when the Priest doth consecrate the sacrifice and distribute it, we must well beleeue to participate and receiue it. For in the Church the Priest giueth part, and he that taketh it receiueth it with all libertie, and putteth it to his mouth with his owne hand It is therfore the same thing in vertue, whether a man take one part of the Priest, or many parts together. Of the credite and authoritie of this Epistle, which being cited in the name of Saint Basil, is not to be found in all his workes, I hauehave spoken before sufficiently, as also of the reseruation of the sacrament gathered out of it in the first booke cap. 27. But for the communion in one kinde, I see nothing that he saith, sauing that Maister Heskins gathereth, that Such small portions of wine will not be kept in those hote countries conueniently in their own kind such long time, as they were forced to reserue the sacrament in the wildernes and else where. But I aunswere him, that such strong wine as they hauehave in those hote countries, will bee kept longer from sowring, then the breade will bee from moulding, and therefore his gathering is altogether fond & ridiculous. But now you shall heare a more plaine testimoine for this receipt vnderunder one kinde, if you will hearken to S. Cyprian. He is cited In sermone de Lapsis, a long saying & to litle, yea to no purpose at all. Praesente ac teste meipso, &c. Heare what came to passe, my selfe beeing present and witnesse. The parentes of a childe flying by chaunce, while for feare they tooke no good aduisement leaft their young daughter vnderunder the cherishing of a nource, the nource brought her so left, vntounto the Magistrates. They before an Idole where the people were gathered, because for her age she could yet eate no flesh, gaue vntounto her bread mixed with wine, which remained also of the sacrifice of them that perish. Afterwarde the mother receiued her daughter. But the litle mayde could no more speake and declare the offence, that was committed, then vnderstand it before and forbidde it. Through ignorance therfore it fell out that her mother brought her in with her, whyle we were sacrificing. But truely the girle beeing among the Saintes, not abiding our prayer and supplication, sometime was constrained to crie out, sometime with vehement greefe of minde was tossed here and there, euen as though a tormentor compelled her, the ignorant soule, by such tokens as she could, acknowledged the conscience of her fact in those yong and tender yeres. But after the solemnities beeing accomplished, the Deacon began to offer the cup to them that were present, and when the rest had receiued, and her place was next, the little one by the instinct of Gods Maiestie, turned away her face, pressed her mouth with her lippes stopped, refused the cuppe. Yet the Deacon persisted, and though it were against her will, powred in somewhat of the sacrament of the cuppe. Then followed belking and vomite. In a bodie, and a mouth that was defiled, the Eucharistie could not remaine. The drinke sanctified in the bloud of our Lord, brake out of her polluted bowels, &c. Out of this Historie, Maister Heskins gathereth two thinges. First, that the sacrament in that time was ministred to infantes which was in deede a great abuse, contrarie to the worde of God. Secondly, that this childe receiued onelyonly the cup, which is false, for though she was not so troubled at the receipt of the bread, yet it followeth not that she receiued no bread, but contrariwise Cyprian saith, the Eucharistie (by whiche wordes the fathers alwayes vnderstand the whole sacrament) could not remaine in her bodie. And whereas he reasoneth foolishly, that if she had receiued the bread, she should like wise hauehave beene troubled: he must vnderstand, that when God worketh a miracle, he taketh times and occasions at his pleasure. And it is like he would not discouer her pollution that come by bread and wine, before she had receiued both bread and wine as the sacrament. If I should vrge vponupon this place, as the scoole men doe, whether this that was vomited, was the bloud of Christ, and what should be done with it, or what was done with it in this storie, I should trouble him more then he could easily answere.
Another tale he telleth out of Sozomenus. Eccl. hist. lib. 8. Cap. 5. Ioanne Constantinopolitanum, &c. When Iohn Chrysostome did very well gouerne the Church of Constantinople, a certeine man of the Macedonian heresie, had a wife of the same opinion. When this man had heard Iohn teaching what was to bee thought of God, he praysed his doctrine, and exhorted his wife to be of the same minde with him. But when she did more obey the words of noble women, then his conuersation, and after many admonitions her husband had profited nothing: Except (quod he) thou be a cōpaniō with me in Diuine matters, thou shalt not be hereafter a partaker of liuing with me. When the woman heard this, & promised her consent dissemblingly, she cōmunicated the matter with a certeyne maide seruant, which shee iudged to be trustie vntounto her, and vseth her seruice to deceiue her husband. And about the time of the mysteries, (they that be receiued to them know what I say) she keping that she had receiued, fell downe as though she would pray. Her maide, standing by, giueth her priuily, that which she brought in her hand with her, which thing, when it was put to her teeth, it congeled into a stone. The woman beeing astonnied fearing least any euil should happen to her, for that thing whiche came to passe from God, made hast to the Bishop, and bewraying her selfe, sheweth the stone, hauing yet vponupon it, the markes of her bit, and shewing an vnknowen matter, and a wonderful colour, and also desiring pardon with teares, promised that she would agree with her husband. And if this matter seeme to any man to be incredible, this stone is a witnesse which is kept to this day among the Iewels of the Churche of Constantinople. If this storie be true, as it is no article of our beleefe, yet proueth it not, that the communion was ministred in bread only, to all the rest, that would receiue the cuppe, although I wote not what was turned into a stone, before the time came she should receiue the cuppe. If M. Heskins will vrge, she could not hauehave any thing to conuey into her mouth in steede of the wine, I answere, she might easily counterfet the drinking, by kissing the cuppe, and so letting it passe from her, without tasting thereof. Wherefore this is but a blind and vnreasonable coniecture of Maister Heskins, that the sacrament was ministred in one kinde, because she that had dissembled in the receipt of one kinde, was punished with depriuation from both kindes.
The last reason he vseth, Is that it is testified by learned men, that the manner of receiuing vnderunder one kinde, which is vsed in all the Latine Church vponupon good Friday, on which day the priest receiueth the hoste consecrated vponupon maundie Thursday, hath been so vsed from the primitiue Church. But what learned men they be, except such as him selfe, and what proofes they hauehave of this vsage, he sayeth not so much as halfe a word. The whole matter standeth vponupon his owne credite. But if he, and all the learned of that side, should fast from good Friday vntill they hauehave shewed proofe of such an vse in ye primitiue church, (not as they vse to fast in Lent,) but from all manner of nourishment, there would not one learned Papist be left aliue on gang Monday to shew what proofes they hauehave found. Thou hast seene (Reader) what his reasons and authorities are, iudge of the answers according to thy discretion.
¶ The end of the second Booke.