The Papists.
[error 123] CHristians (say they) are not bound by any commaundement of GOD to receiue the sacrament in both kinds, Concil. Trident. sess. 21. can. 1. And whosoeuer saith, that the Church hath erred or done amisse, in decreeing that lay men and the Clergie not saying Masse, should receiue in the one kinde, that is bread onely: Or that it is lawfull for them to communicate in both, con∣trary to the determination of the Church: let him bee accursed, Concil. Tri∣dent. sess. 21. can. 2. Rhemist. Iohn. 6. sect. 11. Bellarmin. lib. 4. de Eucharist. cap. 20.
Argum. 1. Christ is all and whole in euery parte of the sacrament, his blood by a certaine concomitance is in the bread, & his flesh by the like conco∣mitance is in the cup, for otherwise Christ should be deuided: But euery spirit, sayth the Apostle, that dissolueth Iesus, is of God, 1. Iohn. 4.3. Wherefore hee that receiueth in one kinde, is as well partaker of whole Christ, and of the full grace and effect of the sacrament, as if hee receiued in both, Bellarmin. cap. 21.
Ans. 1. We denie any such concomitance of the blood and flesh of Christ in the sacrament: for he is not in his carnall presence with his very flesh and blood there included, as we haue shewed before: the bread and wine are signes Page 469 onely of his body and blood, and therefore Christ is not diuided, they being the signes onely and not the thing signified.
2 The place alleadged out of Saint Iohn is greatly abused and corrupted by them, while they choose rather to follow their olde blinde latine translati∣on, then the authenticall Greeke text: the words in the originall are, Euery spirite that confesseth not Iesus Christ: not, euery spirite that dissolueth: And this may appeare to bee the true reading, by the opposition in the former verse, Euery spirite that confesseth Iesus, is of GOD: therefore this is the best reading, Euery spirite that confesseth not Iesus: as being set opposite and contrarie to the other verse. Againe, the Rhemists vnderstand this place after their owne reading, of the dissoluing of the humanitie and diuinitie of Christ: not of any such separation of the flesh and blood of Christ, as Bel∣larm. supposeth.
3 This their deuice of concomitance ouerthwarteth the institution of Christ: For he sayth, the bread is his body, the wine his blood: but by their rule, the bread is his blood, and the wine his bodie. And be it graunted, that the blood of Christ is in the bread, yet how can any man be sayd to drink it in bread? We vse to eate bread, not to drink bread: his blood therefore cannot be there, because it cannot be drunke there.
Argum. 2. Luk. 24.30. Christ brake bread to his disciples, Act. 2.42. the Apostles brake bread: Ergo, to communicate in one kinde is grounded vp∣on the example of Christ and his Apostles, Bellarmin. lib. 4. de Eucharist. 24. Rhemist. Iohn. 6.11. And Christ sayth, Whosoeuer shall eate this bread, shall liue for euer, Iohn 6.58. Ergo, it is sufficient to receiue in one kinde.
Answer: 1. To the two first places, we say, that it is not necessary to vnderstand the breaking of bread in the sacrament: but the vsuall bread ra∣ther, which was accustomed in their daylie repasts and feasts after thankes∣giuing to be broken. Or, if we take it for the sacrament, the breaking of bread is by a Synecdoche taken for the whole mysterie, as it is an vsuall phrase of speech in scripture: for otherwise wee will conclude as well, that Christ and the Apostles did but consecrate in one kinde, which they holde for a great absurditie, as that the other receiued but in one kinde: But their opi∣nion is, that although the people must communicate in one kinde onely, yet the Priest must consecrate both, Rhemist. annotat. Iohn. 6. sect. 11.
2 To the second place wee answere: First it is not vnderstoode of the sacramentall eating of Christ, but of the spirituall manducation of him, which may be done without a sacrament: For whosoeuer eateth this bread, shall liue for euer: but whosoeuer eateth the sacrament, shall not liue for euer. Secondly, seeing the eating and drinking of Christ are so often ioyned in this chapter, as vers. 53.55.56. they might well know, that drinking is here to be vnderstoode, though it be not expressed.
Argum. 3. In many countries there is no wine to bee had, as in the cold Northerly countreies: and therefore they cannot communicate according Page 470 to the institution: whereupon that there might be an vniformitie in all Chur∣ches, it is most meete that where wine may bee had, they should notwith∣standing be content to receiue it in one kinde, Bellarmin. cap. 28. Also there may arise much inconuenience in graunting the cuppe to the people, as in spilling and sheading the wine, which after consecration is the blood of Christ, Rhemist. annot. Iohn 6. sect. 11.
Answ. 1. As in some countries there is no wine to bee had, so wee finde that in certaine places and regions of the world there is no bread, such as Christ vsed,* made of wheate or the like grayne: as in some places amongst the West Indians, they haue a certaine kinde of bread made of rootes called Cazabi, as Benzo witnesseth. Wherefore by this reason of vniformitie, wee should not communicate at all, either in bread or wine, seeing that as some countreyes are destitute of wine, so other are of bread: but all this not withstanding, the sacrament may be duely administred in all places in both kindes: and where they haue neither bread nor wine, neither can possibly prouide them, they may safely vse such other elements, as doe stand them in the like stead: as in the place of bread, that which commeth nearest to the vse thereof: and for wine, some other precious liquor, that is to be had, as in Russia in stead of wine they vse a certaine drink like vnto that which we call Metheglen.
2 As for the other reasons of the inconueniences in spilling the wine, sha∣king the cuppe, the hanging of it on mens beards, & other such friuolous al∣legations: as they were no let or hinderance, why Christ notwithstanding did not institute the sacrament in both kindes, and the Church accordingly obser∣ued it, as we reade, the Corinthians did communicate in both kindes: so ought they to bee no reason, why Christians should not receiue in both kindes nowe.
