Lay-man that communicateth in one kind recipit gratiam 4. receiueth grace but in 4. degrees Nugnus in 3. partem Thom. quest 80. art 12. Thus hauing remoued all rubs and obstacles out of the way wee haue passed clearely throughout all Ages from the time of Christ and his Apostles and in euery hundred yeere since produced euidence against the Church of Rome And finally by verdict of some Doctors of chiefe credit among themselues found her to be guiltie of sacrilege in taking away the Cup from the Laiety at the Lords Table If any demand where this Cup may be found I answer as we read in o Genesis it is found with Beniamin I meane the Reformed Churches Etymon filij dextrae chrildren of Christs right hand by which hee distributeth to his people the bread of life and wine of Immortalitie his most pretious body and blood There is yet palpable darknes in Egypt but there is light in Goshen In Rome vnder the Papacie the people are fed with Huskes of legendary fables or at the best with mustie bread of old traditions and sowred with the leauen of heresie And all their publike Communions are dry feasts but in the Reformed Churches the people are fed with the flowre of Wheat the sincere Word of God and drinke of the purest iuyce of the Grape the blood of our Redeemer in the holy Sacrament What shall wee therefore render to the Lord for all the benefits which hee hath bestowed vpon vs we will take the Cup of Saluation and continually call vpon the name of the Lord. So be it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Finis Deolaus sine fine Cassander tract de Communione de vtraque specie pag. 1019. edit Paris 1616. Veteres omnes tam Graeci quà m Latini in ea sententia fuisse videntur vt existimauerint in legitima solemni celebratione Corporis sanguinis Domini et Adminiratione quae in Ecclesia fideli populo è sacra mensa fit Duplicem sâ—…ciem panis vini esse adhibendam atque hunc morem per vniuersas Orientis Occidentis Ecclesias antiquitus obseruatum fuisse tum expriscorum Patrum Monumentis tum ex vetustis diuinorum mysteriorum formulis apparet Et post Ad hoc inductifuerunt exemplo mandato Christi qui instituendo huius Sacramenti vsum Apostolis fiâ—…lium Sacramenta percipientium personam repraesentantibus quibus dixerat Accipite edite idem mox dixit bibite ex hoc omnes quod ex veterum sententia interpretatur Radbertus tam ministri quà m reliqui credentes All the Ancients both Greeke and Latine seeme to be of opinion that in the lawfull and solemne celebration of the Sacrament of Christs body and blood and administring it to the people that both kinds to wit bread and wine ought to be vsed at the Lords Table And it appeares both out of the workes of the ancient Fathers and the old Rites and formes of the diuine mysteries that this custome was obserued in all the Easterne and Westerne Churches And a little after Hereunto they were induced by the Example and Command of Christ who in the institution of this Sacrament speaking to his Apostles then representing the persons of all faithful Communicants said Take and eate and presently after said to the selfe-same Drinke ye all of this which Radbertus according to the mind of the Ancients expoundeth as well Ministers as other beleeuers FINIS A RELATION OF WHAT PASSED IN A CONFERENCE BETWEENE DAN FEATLY Doctor in Diuinity and Mr. Euerard Priest of the Romish Church disguized in the habit of a Lay-Gentleman vnexpectedly met at a Dinner in Noble street Ian. 25. 1626. LONDON Printed by F. Kyngston for Rob. Milbourne and are to be sold at the Greyhound in Pauls Churchyard 1630. THE SPECIALL POINTS of the Conference OF the necessitie of Episcopall gouernment to the essence of a Church 2 Of ordination by Presbyters 3 Of the distinction of Bishops and Priests iure diuino 4 Of differences among Papists in matter of faith 5 Of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary 6 Of the authoritie of a Generall Councell aboue the Pope 7 Of prayer for the dead 8 Of the authority of the originall Scriptures and corruption in the vulgar translation 9 Of the Communion in one kind 1. The state of the question opened 2. The necessitie of communicating in both kinds 3. Popish obiections answered 10 Of the Popes supremacie 11 Of mingling water with wine in the Sacrament 12 Of the perfection of Scripture THE CONFERENCE L. F. I Pray you Doctor Featly resolue mee whether thinke you a Church may be without a Bishop or no D. Featly Your L. propoundeth a question that little concerneth you any way or any member of the Church of England For in England we haue God bee blessed Bishops and those besides many learned Priests very well able to iustifie that Calling If I might bee so bold I would aduise your L. not to trouble your selfe with such curious questions of small or no moment to you wherein learned men without hazarding of their saluation may haue different opinions L. F. I hold it a matter of great moment and desire you not to decline it but plainely to deliuer your iudgement thereof D. Featly I professe Madame with submission to more learned iudgements that I euer held and doe hold that a Church cannot bee without a Priest or a Pastor but it may bee and sometimes is without a Bishop properly so called The Church of Geneua as also the Reformed Churches in France and the Low-Countries and diuers in Germany are true Reformed Churches and yet they haue no Bishops such as you meane Although some of them would after our manner haue them if they could Discipline or a precise gouernment of the Church is not simply of the essence of the Church And therefore albeit it be granted that these Churches haue not the best gouernment nor the Apostolicall discipline in all points yet because they haue the Apostolicall doctrine sincerely taught and beleeued in them and the Christian Sacraments rightly administred I beleeue that they are true Churches L. F. Ought there not to bee Bishops in euery Church by the Law of God D. Featly What if there ought This doth not proue that in case there be no Bishops in some Countries as there ought to be that therefore there are no Churches I say that by the Law of God congregations ought to meet in publike Churches to serue God in his House yet if the vse of publike Churches bee taken away from the faithfull or they be not permitted to resort vnto them as in time of persecution it hath been and in some places is at this day the Pastors and their flocks may meete in Cryptis that is in priuate and secret places as they did in the Primitiue Church And the faithfull thus meeting continue a true Church though they haue neither a Temple allowed them nor Tythe to the Ministers nor
Bishops ouer the Priests All which yet we doe acknowledge in a peaceable and flourishing estate of the Church ought to be had And we haue cause to praise God for our happinesse in England aboue other Churches in this behalfe M. Euerard Here M. Euerard stepping in not being called said I pray you Sir if there may bee a Church without a Bishop who shall ordaine the Priests in that Church D. Featly Sir what are you who intrude your selfe into our priuate conference It seemes you are a Romish Priest Are you not so M. Euerard I am no Priest D. Featly What will you deny your Priesthood M. Euerard I am no Priest to tell you D. Featly Now I perceiue you are not onely a Priest but a Iesuited Priest also For you can equiuocate M. Euerard It is no equiuocation to say I am no Priest to tell you D. Featly Indeed now that you expresse your mentall reseruation you vse no equiuocation but while you concealed it you did equiuocate And I maruell you blush not to vse such a simple shift or euasion as to say you are no Priest to tell me As if you or any man were made a Priest to tell another man you are a Priest At these words the meate was brought in and thereby a stop made of a farther reply for the present But not long after the Guests were all placed the L. reuiued the former question demanding of Doctor Featly L. F. Who should ordaine Priests in a Church where there are no Bishops D. Featly If there bee no Bishops in any adioyning Church by whom they may be ordained and presented to the Church I say in that case the Church to whom Christ as St. August saith gaue the keyes may commit Episcopall authority to certaine Priests and they thus authorized may ordaine other Priests as well as absolue and confirme the baptized and performe other acts ordinarily reserued to Bishops d And this ordination in a troubled state of the Church and in case of necessitie I hold to be lawfull and warrantable both because it hath that which the Apostle requireth 1. Tim. 4. 14. to wit the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery and because there haue bin presidents of such ordination in the Primitiue Church And questionles the Church that committeth the power to one Priest set in an eminent degree ouer the rest may commit the same power to more Presbyters or Priests especially considering it is the iudgement of learned diuines both Protestants and Papists that Bishops and Presbyters differ rather in execution of some acts of their order appropriated to Bishops onely then in their essentiall order A Bishop hath an eminencie of degree in the same order but his ecclesiasticall order is essentially the same with the Presbyters or Priests But what doth this question concerne any here present Neither wee nor for ought I know the Papists themselues define it to be a matter of faith necessary to saluato resolue this way or that way Therefore this question might haue been forborne M. Euerard The Councell of Trent hath defined it therefore to vs it is a matter of Faith D. Featly I scarcely beleeue the Councell of Trent bee it of what credit it may bee hath defined this point in such sort as you intimate M. Euarard I will shew it D. Featly When you shew it I will answer it After this passage some speech hauing been cast in by some of the table concerning differences in point of Religion among the Protestants of England D. Featly said it was to bee considered that the differences amongst the true members of the Church of England were only in point of Discipline and Ceremony not in point of Doctrine or matter of Faith But the Romanists differed one frō another in point of Doctrine and matter of Faith for the present saith he I will instance in two remarkeable particulars First touching the conception of the blessed Virgin secondly touching the Popes supreame authority euen ouer Generall Councells In the first point the Iacobins or dominicants maintaine that the blessed Virgin was conceiued in Originall sinne the Iesuites Franciscans and Sorbonists hold the contrary M. Euarard Yet both keepe the Feast of the immaculate Conception D. Featly They may both keepe a Feast vpon the same day and that for the Conception of our Lady But certainely they who beleeue she was conceiued in sin cannot without hipocrisie keepe a Feast of the immaculate Conception Touching the second point the Sorbonists haue euer held and doe hold to this day that a Generall Councell is aboue the Pope but the Iacobins Iesuits all orders of Friers generally besides many Secular Priests hold the contrary that the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell When I liued in Paris in the Ambassadors house I heard of a generall Chapter as they called it held by the Iacobins in Tho. Aquinas Schoole Where for many dayes together diuers diuinity questions were handled and among other this question touching the Popes superioritie to Councels An acute Serbone Doctor there present thus impugned the Iacobins assertion Whatsoeuer is defined in a Generall Councell confirmed by the Pope is infallibly true de fide But it is defined in a generall Councel to wit the Councel of Constance confirmed by Pope Martin the fifth that a Generall Councell is aboue the Pope Therefore it is infallibly true and de fide that a Generall Councell is aboue the Pope The Auditors the greater part of them very much applauded this argument of the Sorbonist and expressed their applause by a kinde of shout But the Iacobin respondent in a kinde of scorne answered it by retortion thus Whatsoeuer is defined in a generall Councell confirmed by the Pope is infallibly true and de fide But it is defined in a Generall Councell to wit the Councell of Lateran confirmed by Leo the tenth that the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell Therfore it is infallibly true and de fide that the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell At this Syllogisme the Iacobin had neere as great an applause as the Sorbonist Wee that were present of the Reformed Churches vnknowne to the Romanists receiued very much satisfaction to heare Papists amongst themselues thus bandy Councell and Pope against Councell and Pope For from both we concluded that sith contradictories cannot be both true and it appeared in matter of Faith that Generall Councels confirmed by Popes had decreed direct contradictories that therefore Generall Councels confirmed by Popes might erre and consequently that the strongest pillar of a Romanists Faith is weake and tottering M. Euerard The Councell of Constance which decreed a Generall Councell to be aboue the Pope was confirmed by Martin the fifth only in such points as were in that Councell determined against Hus and the Bohemians the Pope confirmed not all points defined in that Councell M. L. Haue you any example of any such confirmation of a Councell wherein some points defined by a
speaketh of a fourefold presence of Christ first Diuine according to which he is present in all places The second Spirituall according to which hee is said after a speciall manner to dwell in the faithfull The third Sacramentall according to which he is vnited to the Sacrament both mystically and effectually For the Sacrament doth not onely represent him and his death to the eye of our body but also truly present and offer him and all the benefits of his Passion to our soules It doth not onely signifie but also by vertue of Christs promise truly and effectually exhibit Grace The fourth is carnall and corporall of which those words are meant The Word was madeflesh and dwelt among vs. Secondly In like manner the word Reall is diuersly taken 1. Sometime as it is opposed to that which is fayned and imaginary Secondly as it is opposed to that which is meerely figuratiue and barely representatiue Thirdly as it is opposed to that which is spirituall and immateriall in which sense Reall Materiall and Corporall are co-incident We beleeue that Christ is present in the Sacrament and that Really in the two former significations of Reall and the three first acceptions of Presence we deny it in the last of both In summe Christ is there many wayes Really not Corporally that is not according to the substance of his naturall body shrouded vnder the accidents of bread and wine which he thus prooued That doctrin which hath no foundation in the Word of God and is repugnant to the doctrine of the true ancient Church and ouerthroweth the principles of right reason implying palpable absurdities and apparent contradictions is to be reiected as erroneous and hereticall But the Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament is such Ergo it is to be disclaimed D. Smith here denyed the minor Which Mast. Featly vndertooke to proue according to all the parts but the time permitted to prosecute onely the proofe of the first which was That the Papists haue no ground in Scripture for their Reall Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament And thus he proceeded First if there be any ground in Scripture for this your opinion certainely it is either in the words This is my body or in those the 6. of Ioh. 53. Vnlesse you eate my flesh c. vpon which all Papish build their beliefe in this point But neither the one nor the other are any sure ground for it Ergo You haue none D. Smith in this Syllogisme as in the former denyed the assumption Which was thus confirmed If the words of the Institution Hoc est c. and the other Iohn 6. are to be taken figuratiuely and not in the proper sense out of all question they make nothing for the bodily presence or carnall eating of Christ with the mouth But the words aboue alleadged in both places are to bee construed figuratiuely and not properly according to the rigour of the letter which I proue saith he by vncontrollable testimonies of Fathers and euident arguments drawne from the circumstances of those texts And first he alledged a place of Tertullian li. 4. cont Marcionem cap. 40. The bread taken and distributed vnto his disciples he made the same bis body saying this is my body that is a figure of my body adding withal that if D. Smith or any other could being a more pregnant place for the figuratiue exposition out of any Protestant hee would yeeld him the better D. Smith could bring none but made this answer Those words of Tert. are so to be vnderstood that the words a figure of my body are to be referred to the word this which is the subiect of Christs proposition and doe explaine it so that the meaning of Tertullian is This that is a figure of my body is my body or as he afterwards mended it that which was of old a figure of my body is now my body To which M. Featly thus replyed To rehearse this answer is to refute it if it bee lawfull vnto a speech of three words to ad id quod erat vetus to the subiectum and corpus meum to the praedicatum and to referre the words idest figura not to the praedicatum as all men do in the like you may make quidlibet ex quolibet To this D. Smith answered out of Cyprian that Tertullian was a very obscure Writer and had a very ill gift in expressing his minde Whereunto it was reioyned If he bee obscure in other places what is that to this which is most cleere to any that will not shut his eyes discredit not Tertullian whom Cyprian so highly esteemed that hee let no day passe without reading some part of his workes calling for him by the name of his Master Da Magistrum Tertullianum videlicet significans Secondly he replyed that how ill soeuer a gift Tertullian might haue in expressing his owne minde he could not be so dull in conceiuing our Sauiours mind as to make this to bee the meaning of our Sauiours words This is my body that is the bread which was a figure of my body in the old Law is now my body seeing that our Sauiour speaketh neuer a word there nor hath any relation at all to any figure of the old Testament neither in the words going before nor comming after Thirdly admitting this most strange and forced interpretation yet out of this place of Tertullian I inferre necessarily that the words of the Institution be figuratiue For this Proposition The figure or that which was the figure of my body is my body which is your exposition of Tertullian cannot be true but by a figure sith panis and corpus Christi are disparata which cannot properly be one affirmed of the other Let the Pronoune demonstratiue Hoc stand for figura corporis mei as you will haue it and adde thereunto the copula and praedicatum you faine est corpus meum saying figura corporis mei est corpus meum you must needs fly to a figure to make this Proposition true For whether you put the Bread or the accidents to be the onely figures of Christs body all is one sith neither Bread nor the accidents of Bread can bee truly and properly said to be Christs body Here D. Smith was forced to acknowledge a figure in the words of the Institution These are his owne words I acknowledge that in these words this is my body is a figure but not a meere figure or a figure voyde of that truth which is figured by it Thus they grew to an issue Master Featly affirming that hee demanded no more then to haue him grant that there is a figure in these words hoc est corpus meum which Bellarmine and all other Papists disclaime as quite ouerthrowing their opinion of the Reall presence For quoth he as for your distinction of a meere figure and not meere in speech
1580. SAlmeron Iesuit Col. 1902. 1590. Suarez Iesuit Venetijs 1597. 950. Steph. Eduensis Bib. pat tom 10. Col. 1618. T. 200. TErtullianus Antwerp 1584. 440. Theodoretus Col. 1612. 1430. Thomas Waldensis Venetijs 1571. Thom. Aquin. vide A. Thom. Mort. vide M. 1070. Theophilact Basil. 1525. 1580. Tolet. Card. Col. 1569. 1590. Theodo Beza Geneuae 1598. 390. Tripartita historia Basil. 1528. V. 1572. VAdianus Aphoris Euch. 1536. 1600. Vasquez Antwerp 1621. 1240. Vincentius Histor. Venetijs 1591. W. 1430. WAldensis vide T. 849. Walafridus Strabo Bib. pat tom 9. Col. 1618. 1380. Widford contra Wiclif Dauen 1535. Edit ab Orthuino Gratio Z. 1105. ZAcharias Chrysopol Bib. pat tom 12. Col. 1618. FINIS I intreate the Gentle Reader before the reading hereof to correct these few faults in some copies which alter the sense the lesser escapes are annexed at the end Pag. 21. lin 22. adde his body 24. l. 23. for they reade l. 36. l. 15. adde to be spurious and therefore ought 44. l. 7. and therefore they cannot be seâ—…ed from the Communion 67. l. 15 r. infundatur 107. l. penult r. for it is that which wâ—… 121. l. penult r. now for naâ—… 128. l. 7 r. both for one 146. l. 28. r. and for or 147. l. 15. r. 190. for 90. 176. l. 13. r. repealed 2â—…0 l. 17. r. no error 226. l. 6. r. to me for some 230. l. 25. dele Etym. fil dextr 271. l. 9. r. Bishops at Carthage 278. l. 〈◊〉 r. she for he 298. l 11. adde quoth M. Featly l. 23. r. then for this 302. l. 19. r. Testament of blood or blood a Testament THE GRAND SACRILEGE OF THE CHVRCH OF ROME CHAP. I. The state of the question touching the necessitie of Communicating in both kinds PLinie writeth of the Camels that they like not cleare water but vsually foule and trouble the streame wherein they are to drinke Such is the manner of our muddie Popish writers who are sent to vs from Rome and Rhemes laden like Camels with Babylonish merchandize they trouble the waters of strife and for the most part confound the states of all the questions which they enter into or mainely contend for and as in other Controuersies so in this of entire Communicating they begin their doubling and falsifying at the very setting downe of the poynt of difference betweene vs. Bellarmine and Eccius state the question thus whether it be necessary for all men to Communicate in both kinds Hosius and Tapperus adde to saluation as if we affirmed that Communicating in both kinds were simply necessary to saluation this is not the true hinge vpon which this question turneth For wee doubt not but that the children of the faithfull especially dying baptized as also that abstemij such as cannot drinke wine and other beleeuers that are preuented by death before they participate of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper if they prepare themselues for it and desire it may be saued without actuall Communicating in both or either kinde The wilfull contempt not the ineuitable defect of the Sacrament is damnable We conceiue no more necessitie of drinking of the cuppe of blessing then of eating the sacramentall bread which is not absolutely necessary to saluation no not to those which are in riper yeeres The spirituall eating of Christs blessed body and blood is simply and absolutely necessary to saluation but not the sacramentall without which many blessed Martyrs and Saints haue been saued The tearme necessary is seldome or neuer vsed by Protestants in this argument or if they vse it they meane necessary ratione praecepti not medij They enquire not how necessary a meanes communicating in both kinds is to saluation but how necessary a command Christ hath laid vpon all Communicants to receiue the Sacrament in both kinds They should haue propounded the question thus Whether the people are not bound by Christs precept to Communicate in both kinds or if they will needs retaine the word necessary in vnfoulding this controuersie whether it be not as necessary for the people to drinke of the Cup as to eate of the Bread or whether it be not as necessary in regard of Christs institution that the people communicate in both kinds as that the Priest the minister or as they speake the Conficient or maker of this sacrament Or whether the administring of this sacrament in both kindes to the people and preists also none Conficients be not so necessary that it cannot bee otherwise administred without sinne and violation of our Lords most holy Institution The Romish tenent to which all Papists vnder paine of a curse are bound to subscribe is plainely and expressely set downe in the Canons of three Councels at Constance Basil and Trent In the Councell of Constance sess 13. This Synod doth decree and declare concerning this matter that processe be directed to the most reuerend Fathers in Christ the Lord Patriarkes Primates Archbishops and Bishops and their vicars in spirituals wheresoeuer by them appoynted In which processe by the authoritie of the holy Councell let them be inioyned and commanded effectually to punish those that obserue not this Decree viz. Who exhort the people to Communicate in both kinds or teach that they ought so to doe In the Councell of Basile sess 30. This Synod doth decree and declare that the faithfull Laicks or Clarks communicants and not conficients are not bound by our Lords command to receiue the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist vnder both formes or kindes viz. of Bread and Wine In the Councell of Trent sess 21. c. 1. The Synod declareth and teacheth that Laicks and Clarks non conficient are by no diuine precept bound to receiue this most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist in both kinds and if any say that all and euery of the faithfull by Gods command ought to receiue the Sacrament in both kinds let them be accursed The doctrine of the Reformed Churches cannot be more certainely gathered then out of the harmony of their orthodoxall confessions which were penned by most iudicious Diuines at the first and are at this day subscribed by those that are admitted to any degree of function in each particular Church To begin with the Church of England to whose Articles of Religion all Graduats and Ministers of the Word professe their assent and consent euen by interposing an oath In the 30. Article thus we reade The cup of the Lord is not to bee denyed to the Lay people for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs ordinance and commandement ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike In the Confession of Auspurg Article 2. both parts of the Sacraments are giuen to the Laiety in the Lords Supper because the Sacrament was instituted not for a part of the Church onely viz. the Priests but for the rest of the Church also and truly Christ saith Math. 26. Drink you all of this where he
that this manner of receiuing to shew forth Christs death was necessary onely till such time as the Church in the Councell of Constance had otherwise ordained for the Apostles Canon extendeth to Christs second comming 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 dâ—…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 vncontroleablâ—… 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 vnto 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 vnto 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 I confesse that both kinds were instituted by Christ I confesse that both were deliuered by the Apostle Tollet vpon 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. 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 vnto 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 vnto the end of the world to build her vpon 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 euery Age which God willing shall be brought and made good against the aduersaries exceptions in the Sections following SECT I. Testimonies of the practise of the Christian Church in the first Age. From Christs Ascension to the first 100. yeeres following AFter the writings of the blessed Apostle Saint Paul whose testimonie in the ninth argument is discussed I alleadge for the practise of the Church in this first age Dionysius Areopagita Martialis Lemouicensis Clemens Romanus and Ignatius Antiochenus For albeit I assent thus farre to our learned Critickes that these Authors are not altogether currant there is some drosse in Ignatius more in Martialis and most of all in Clemens and Dionysius is vndoubtedly post-natus 300. yeeres at lest yonger then his age is set in the Romane register yet for the reasons following I thought fit to produce these Authors and ranke them in the first age First because our aduersaries vsually so ranke them and alleage them against vs for fathers of the first age and surely if their testimonies bee good and ancient when they seeme to make against vs they are to bee accounted as good and ancient when they make for vs. Secondly because we cannot make authors but must take such as we finde these are the only authors that are extant out of whom testimonies may be alleadged for this first age Therefore as the sage Senatour of Capua when the people vpon a iust distaste giuen by the Magistrates had a purpose at once to casheere them all aduised them Before you remoue these choose fitter in their places and when diuers were named vnto them and they could like of none in the end hee perswaded them to keepe the old officers till they could agree to name better in their roomes so I would desire our Critikes to name vs more approued authors in this age then these are and if they can name none then to let these hold their places and the estimation they haue had for many hundred yeeres Thirdly because I hold it no good Topick to argue à parte ad totum affirmatiuely in this manner There are some false passages or corruptions in an author therefore the author is spurious and of no credit If we may thus fillip off ancient Writers wee shall haue but a few left If there are as no doubt there bee diuers dead boughes superfluous stemmes in these Writers of so long standing let our Criticks prune them off not cut the trees downe by the roots Poliat lima non exterat saith Fabius let the pluimer smooth the timber
Ignatius onely to prooue the practise of the Primitiue Church and thus much Bellarmine confesseth whereupon I adde that this confessed practise of the Primitiue Church was grounded on our Lords precept drinke you all of this for the Church so neere Christ cannot bee supposed to haue swarued any way from his institution by adding any thing vnto it or taking away from it certainely Ignatius and the Churches wherein he bore sway obserued the order and practise of Saint Iohn his master and if Saint Iohn administred the Cup in all Churches to the people so did the rest of the Apostles for they varied not from Christ or among themselues in celebrating the Lords Supper And what the Apostles did ioyntly no Christian doubteth but they did by the direction of the holy Ghost according to our Lords will and commandement And thus wee see this example amounteth to a precept and the practise in Ignatius his time ought to bee a president for all future times SECT II. Testimonies of the Practise of the Christian Churches in the second Age. From 100. to 200. Anno Dom. 150. IVstin Martyr in his second apologie thus writeth They which are called Deacons among vs giue to euery one that is present of the consecrated Bread and Wine And when he hath related the whole manner of the celebration of the Eucharist as it were to preuent a cauill that might be made and is now made by Papists the Martyr heere sheweth the practise of the Church but maketh no mention of the precept of our Sauiour as that they did so in deed but were not bound so to doe he further addeth for the close as they report that Iesus commanded them or as they haue deliuered vnto vs Iesus his command giuen vnto them Bellarmine his answere Bellarmine repineth at this so expresse a testimony of so ancient a Father and so renowned a Martyr and therefore laboureth to disparage it some way or other Si non aliqu â nocuisset mortuus esset Yet all that he saith to it is but this that those last words of the Martyr which mentioneth Christs precept belong not to the Communion but to the Consecration The Refutation This solution will no way beare water First it is euident to any that reads the whole place that Iustin Martyrs words wherein he mentioneth Christs precept belongeth both to the Consecration and to the Communion For after he had spoken of the Communion he subioyneth these words And therefore they cannot bee seuered from the Communion The series or method of the passage in Iustin is thus hauing rehearsed the words of the Institution This is my body doe this in remembrance of me and this Cup is the new Testament drinke you all of this he addeth and he commanded that they onely should participate as had been before washed in the lauer of Regeneration and lead such a life as Christ prescribed them These words that they onely should participate clearely conuince the Cardinall and demonstrate that Iustin Martyr extendeth Christs command both to the Consecration and to the Commumunion it selfe which in Christs precept cannot be deuided both being enioyned in this one precept doe this in remembrance of me that is Consecrate and Communicate Secondly howsoeuer the Cardinall by any tricke of sophistrie shall dismember the whole sentence and pull these words As Christ commanded from the rest and refer them to which part of the sentence he pleaseth yet he can neuer smoother the light of truth shining in these words The Deacons deliuer or minister to euery one of the consecrated bread and wine The practice then of those times maketh for vs against the Church of Rome The Deacons then as the Ministers now deliuered the Sacrament to the people in both kindes Anno. 152. Laurence Deacon to Pope Sixtus cryed out to him as hee was led to his Martyrdome Whether goest thou father without thy sonne whether hastest thou Priest without thy Leuite try whether thou hast chosen a fit minister to whom thou hast committed the dispensation of our Lords blood Wilt thou denie me to bee a copartner with thee in the effusion of thy blood who hast made me a copartner with thee in the celebration of our Lords blood This giueth such light to Iustin Martyrs words and so fully accordeth with them that Tiletanus the defender of the councell of Trent confesseth that it is manifest that in this age the vse of both kinds was common to all Anno 180. Saint Irenaeus Bishop of Lions and Martyr in the fourth booke against heresies and 34. cha proueth the resurrection of the flesh and eternall life by an argument drawne from the faithfulls eating Christs flesh in the Eucharist and he presseth his argument in this manner How doe they viz. the heretiques say that the flesh should be vtterly corrupted and neuer rise againe which is nourished with the body and blood of Christ and a little after Our bodies by participating the Eucharist or Sacrament of our Lords supper are not now corruptible or shall not vtterly be corrupted and come to nothing because they haue the hope of theresurrection Irenaeus speaketh of all Christians people as well as Priests for all faithfull Christians haue hope of a blessed resurrection and he saith that they are nourished with the bodie and blood of Christ by participating of the Sacrament of his supper Papists answer The Romanists seeke to auoyde these and the like passages by their doctrine of concomitancie auerring that the blood of Christ is not seuered from his body and consequently that the Laietie take the blood in the body and are nourished therewith to eternall life and this say they is all that can bee gathered from Irenaeus his words They are nourished with the blood of Christ which they receiue together with his body not with the blood of Christ which they take by it selfe in the Cup. The Refutation This answer of theirs is weake and insufficient First because it is built on a weake and ruinous foundation viz. the reall and carnall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament vnder the accidents of bread and wine which I haue else where by Scriptures and Fathers refelled See the fisher caught in his owne net part 2. That the doctrine of concomitancie is builded vpon the reall and carnall presence is not denied by the Romanists for they make the one the ground of the other Secondly albeit wee should grant that the Laiety in some sence receiue the blood of Christ in the bread yet they receiue it not so as Christ commandeth for they receiue it not by drinking No man drinketh in eating or eateth in Drinking Thirdly the blood of Christ which wee receiue in the Sacrament we receiue not as subsisting in his veines or as being a part of or ioyned vnto his body but as shed for vs In which quality and manner it is impossible to receiue the blood of Christ together with and in the body by naturall
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 SECT V. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 400. to 500. Anno 410. ABout the beginning of the fifth Age God raysed vp that golden Tapour in the Church Saint Austin by whose light as wee may discouer other errors and abuses of the Church of Rome so this their mutilation of the Sacrament and defrauding Gods people of one part of this Supper This Author in his dialogue to Orosius quest 49. he interprets the blood of Abel the blood of Christ which saith he when the whole Church receiueth it saith Amen For what a cry maketh the whole Church when after she hath dranke the blood of Christ cryeth Amen And in his 57. question vpon Leuiticus he not onely testifies that the people did drinke of Christs blood but that they ought to doe so if they expect life from him What is the meaning of this saith he that the people are forbidden to eat of the blood of the sacrifices which were offered for sinn if by those sacrifices this sacrifice was signified in which there is trueremission of sinnes and yet not onely no man is forbidden to take the blood of this sacrifice for nourishment but on the contrary all men who desire life are exhorted to drinke it Papists answer Bellarmine de sacra Eucharistiae lib. 4. cap. 26. answereth that the force of Saint Austines reason consisteth not in the manner of drinking but in the taking of the blood which produceth the same effect whither it bee taken as meat or drinke Refutation Saint Austin in that place obserueth a difference between the precepts of the old and the precepts of the new testament that in the old blood was forbidden so much as to bee eaten with the flesh but in the new it is commanded to be drunke euen by it selfe and so the force of his reason ab oppositis stands not onely in some way taking blood for sustenance but euen in the manner of taking it euen by drinke Secondly whereinsoeuer the force of Saint Austines reason stands his words which wee alleage are expresly for taking it by drinking For he saith not as Bellarmine will haue him all who desire life are exhorted to take Christs blood for sustenance or to feed vpon it But they are exhorted to drinke it The people therefore if they looke for life by Christ they must drinke his blood which they cannot doe if the Priest deny the Cup. Anno. 420. Eusebius Emissenus in his Homily vpon Palme-Sunday speakes of the faithfulls communicating in both kinds as of a daily and frequent practice As then our Lord liued and spake and yet was eaten by his Disciples and drunke so now he remaines whole and vncorrupted and yet is daily drunke and eaten by the faithfull I beleeue no Romish Priest will bee so impudent as to restraine beleeuers to Priests onely If the Layetie are not to be reckoned in the number of fideles or belieuers they may not eat Christ in the Sacrament of bread and if they are fideles or beleeuers then they vsually nay daily drinke his blood in the Sacrament of wine as well as eate his flesh in the Sacrament of bread Anno 430. Theodoret in his Dialogue called Atreptus cap. 11. allotteth to all the faithfull an equall share in the Lords Supper one mysticall Table is prepared for all from which all beleeuers take vnto themselues an equall portion And in his Comment on the second Chapter of the first to the Corinthians hee obserueth a difference betweene ordinary suppers and the Lords Supper Of that viz. the Lords Table all are equally partakers but here viz. in common suppers one is hungry and another is drunke Hee saith not he drinkes but is drunke blaming him for two reasons first that he drinkes alone secondly that he is drunke If the Layetie drank not of the Lords Table they did not equally participate with the Priests And if in Theodorets time the Priests did drinke alone as now they doe at the Romane Masse Theodoret could not herein haue differenced them from common and prophane tables so that at the one all eate and drinke alike at the other one is satisfied and another is hungry one is thirsty and another drinketh alone and is drunke Anno 431. Cyrillus of Alexandria Glaphyr lib. 2. writeth thus As long as we are in this world wee will communicate with Christ by his holy flesh and precious blood Communicatio sanctae carnis atque item poculū ex salutari ipsius sanguine c. The communicating his holy flesh and the Cup of his holy blood hath in it a confession of Christs death by the participating in these things in this world we commemorate Christs death Anno. 450. Leo the Great Bishop of Rome in his fourth Sermon de quadragessima giues it as a character or marke to descry the Manichees by that at the Sacrament they would eate of the bread but in no wise drinke of the wine They viz. the Manichees so carry themselues at the Communion that they may more safely lye hid they take the body of Christ into their vnworthy mouthes but altogether they refuse to drinke the blood of their redemption which I would haue your Holinesse know that you may set a mark vpon these men in whomsoeuer you find such sacrilegious simulation you discouer them that by Priestly authoritie they may be driuen from the society of the Saints Here Leo both a Bishop of Rome and a great Clarke makes it sacriledge and heresie to receiue Christs body in the Sacrament and to refuse to drinke his blood Anno. 451. In the generall Councell of Chalcedon act 10. there is an accusation brought in against Iba the Bishop of Edessa that in some Church in his Diocesse at the Commemoration of the holy Martyrs there was but a little wine and that corrupt and sowre prouided for the Altar to bee sanctified and distributed to the people This generall Councell was counted to represent the whole Christian Church whereby it appeares that at the time of this Councell the Cup was giuen through the whole Christian world to
participating of the blood of the Lord. Papists answere If our aduersaries here flie to their old starting hole that by all here all Priests are meant and not all Communicants they may be stopped by that which Hincmarus writeth in the life of this Rhemigius that he gaue a Chalice for the peoples vse with this Motto Hauriat hinc populus vitam de sanguine sacro Iniecto aeternus quem fudit vulnere Christus Rhemigius reddit Domino sua vota Sacerdos Rhemigius Priest that gaue this Cup Prai'th that in it the people sup And still draw life from flowing blood Out of Christs side as of a flood Let it bee noted that hee saith not hauriat hinc clerus but populus not let the Priest but let the people out of this Cup draw life from the holy blood which Christ shed out of his wounds Whereby it appeareth euidently that this Chalice was giuen by the Archbishop for the peoples vse at great and solemne Communions and not for the Priests in their priuate Masses if any such were in Rhemigius his dayes Anno 580. Greg. Turonens de glor Martyr li. 1. ca. 10. relateth a miraculous accident that fel out by occasion of a Iewes child comming with other children to the Communion of Christs body and blood I am sure these children were not Priests that said Masse and if children were admitted to the holy Cup much more men of riper yeeres Papists answer This was an abuse to let children come to the Communion who cannnot examine themselues and therefore from this abusiue coustome no good rule may be drawne The Refutation I allow not of the coustome of admitting children to the Communion in the Church or giuing it them at home though it be more antient then most of the new Articles of the Romish Creede coined by Pope Pius the fourth in his Bull. but I make a true inference though from an erroneous practise as the Apostle doth from a custome among the Corinthians who were baptized for the dead Doubtlesse if the Laietie in those dayes had been kept from the holy Cup children neuer had been admitted to drink of it For no man can imagine that the Church would giue little infants that priuiledge which they denied their parents Anno 537. In the second Councell of Toledo Can. 7. It is ordained throughout all the Countries of Spaine and Gallicia for the confirmation of the new conuersion of the people from Arianisme that before the participation of the body and blood of Christ corporis sanguinis communicationem according to the manner of the Easterne Churches all the Congregation shall with an audible voyce rehearse the most holy Articles of the Christian faith Anno 597. In the third Councel held at Toledo in the reigne of Recaredus c. 2. It is decreed that the people shall first make profession of their faith and so exhibite their hearts purified by faith to receiue Christs body and blood Doth not this Councell speake in the Protestant language that the people are to receiue Christs blood as well as his body and both by faith or which is all one in their hearts purified by faith How neere commeth this to the forme at this day in vse in our Church Feed on him in thy heart by faith I find no exception taken by any Papist at this testimony and therefore there needs no ward where no blow is so much as offered SECT VII Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 600. to 700. Anno. 600. IT was truly spoken of Constantine that hee was Praeteritis melior venientibus auctor Better then his predecessors and a good president to those that succeded him But on the contrary we may say of Gregory the Great that hee was Praeteritis peior yet venientibus auctor that he was bad in comparison of his predecessors but good in comparison of his successours For he was the worst of the good Popes and the best of the euill It was this Pope who sent Austine the Monke into England to propagate the Christian faith who in some places sowed in others watred the seede all ready sowne which was wholesome yet somewhat smutty and such as needed to be washed and clensed from superstition He much stikled for Gregorie his masters authoritie and brought in some customes and ceremonies that sauour rancke to those that are Emunctae naris yet the faith hee preached was for substance the same which the reformed Churches embrace at this day as in my answer to the Iesuites threefold challenge I haue made it appeare And as in other controuersies of greater moment so in this he is cleerely ours Homil. 22. in Euang. he mystically applieth the blood of the Pascall Lambe striken vpon both posts of the doore to the participation of Christs blood in the Eucharist saying The blood is then put on both posts when is taken or drawne in both by or with the mouth of the body and of the heart In the fourth of his dialogues if his c. 58. His body is taken whose flesh is broken and diuided for the peoples saluation his blood is not now powred out vpon the hands of infidels but into the mouths of the faithfull If with any coulour the aduersaries might restraine fideles to the Priests onely yet the word populi going before will enforce them to vnderstand this passage as well of the people as Priests if not the people more especially who are named expresly and not the Priests Papists answer I answer saith Bellarmine that Gregorie and Bede say that Christs blood is taken with the mouth of the body but we denie that they say that it ought to be drunken with the mouth of the body or to be taken vnder the forme of wine Refutation This answer of the Cardinall can argue no lesse in him then either supine negligence or a cauterized conscience For S. Gregorie in the words immediately preceding those aboue alleaged expressely speaketh of drinking Christs blood saying quòd sit sanguis Christi non audiendo sed bibendo didicistis What is meant by the blood of Christ you haue learned not by hearing but by drinking Had he not in expresse words mentioned drinking yet the phrases he vseth hauritur and perfunditur that Christs blood is shed and taken as a draught demonstrates that he speaketh not of partaking Christs blood as it is ioyned to his body and enclosed in his veines but as seuered from it And if the Cardinall himselfe had not been drunke with the Cup of the wine of Babylon he would neuer haue denied that Saint Gregory speaketh of drinking Christs blood vnder the forme of wine when hee vseth that very word u Potat Quis exponere queat quantae fuit miserationis sacratissim â praeciosi sanguinis effusione genus humanum redimere sacrosanctum viuifici corporis sanguinis sui mysterium membris suis tribuere cuius perceptione corpus suum quod est Ecclesia pascitur
potatur abluitur sanctificatur Who can expresse how great mercie it was by that most holy effusion of his pretious blood to redeeme mankind and to giue to his members the most holy mysterie of his quickning body and blood by the partaking whereof his body which is the Church is nourished as with meat and drinke is washed and sanctified These and other passages of Gregory are so cleare and bright that they dazeled the eies of Estius a great Parisian Doctor who handling this question professedly acknowledgeth that Saint Gregory among other fathers is expresly for the Commmunion in both kinds Anno Dom. 620. The Seruice Booke commonly called Ordo Romanus The Romane order set forth by Gregory or vnder Pope Gregory with his allowance sufficiently discouereth the present practise of the Romane Church in their dry Masses to be a disorder and shamefull abuse For there they may reade and blush to reade in the Rubricke these formes set downe at the Communion Wee humbly beseech thee that wee which haue taken the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ thy Sonne may be filled with grace and heauenly benediction and after the Communion Let thy body O Lord which we haue taken and thy blood which we haue drunke sticke to our bowels that no blot of sinne may remaiue in vs who haue beene refreshed by these pure and holy mysteries Anno 630. Saint Isidore as in other things so in this treadeth his master Gregories steps de diuin of fic lib. 1. c. 15. The fourth prayer is brought in for the kisse of peace vt omnes that all being reconciled by charitie may ioyne in the worthie participation of Christs body and blood omnes all People therefore as well as Priests vnlesse they will haue the people to be out of charity all that are in charity must communicate together in the mistery of Christs body and blood But Gods people are or ought to be in charity and therefore to be admitted by Saint Isidores rule as well to the Cup as to the bread at the Lords Table Anno. 633. In the fourth Councell of Toledo Can. 6. All the people are appointed one good fryday to aske pardon for their sinnes that being clensed by the compunction of repentance they may be thought fit one Easter day to receiue the sacrament of Christs body and blood And in the seuenth Canon it is appointed that after the Lords prayer and the blessing of the people the Sacrament of Christs body and blood bee receiued after this manner the Priest and Leuite is to communicate before the Altar the rest of the Clergie in the Quire the rest of the people without the Quire See also 57. Canon Anno 675. In the eleuenth Councell held at Toledo the fathers determine that such who receiued the Cup in extemity of sicknesse but refused the bread because in regard of the drines of their throat they could not swallow it downe should not therefore bee cut off from Christs body The decree runneth thus The infirmity of humane nature in the very passage out of this life is accustomed to be oppressed in such sort with drought that the sick are not able to take downe any meat to refresh them no nor scarse any drop of drinke to strengthen them which thing we haue obserued in the departure of many who desiring the wished foode of the holy Communion to sustaine them in their last iourney haue yet cast away the Eucharist giuen them by the Priest not out of infidelitie but because they could not swallow any thing down beside a small draught of the holy Cup such as these therefore ought not to bee separated from the body of Christ. The Councell speaketh of the Laiety refusing bread at the Priests hands which they could not take downe and yet receiuing the Cup and in this case of necessitie the Councell dispenceth with their refusing the bread but findeth no fault with them for taking the Cup. Nay vpon that point excuseth them from infidelitie and saueth them from excommunication How doth this Councel clash and crosse shins as it were with the Councel of Constance and Trent In these the people are condemned for taking the Cup in that they are acquitted for it In them the Priest is censured that giueth them the Cup in this the people are absolued from censure in refusing the bread because they Communicate in the Cup. In the same yeere in the Councell at Braccara they are blamed that ministred not wine to the people in the Sacrament but either milke or grapes Can. 2. Non expressum vinum in sacramento dominici calicis offerre sed lac pro vino dedicare aut oblatis vuis populo communicare In the same Councell they are blamed also Qui intinctam Eucharistiam populis pro complemento communionis porrigerent Who deliuered to the people a piece of bread dipt in wine for the whole Communion which custome how repugnant it is to the doctrine of the Gospell and custome of the Church may easily be proued from the fountaine of truth who gaue the Cut by it selfe saying Drinke yee all of this as he tooke the bread by it selfe saying Take eat c. SECT VIII The Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 700. to 800. IN this age wee haue foure concurrent witnesses and contestatours beyond all exception Beda Greg. 2. Greg. 3. Alcumus We will produce them in order And first Venerable Beda Anno 720. Venerable Beda the honour of England and mirrour of his time witnesseth as followeth Christ washeth vs daily from our sins in his blood when the memory of his passion is celebrated or recounted at the Altar where the creatures of bread and wine by the vnspeakable sanctification of the Spirit are changed into the Sacrament of his flesh and blood and therby his body blood is not powred out by the hands of Infidels to their destruction but is receiued or is taken by or into the mouth of the faithful to saluation In this testimony I note first that he teacheth not a substantiall change of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ but a sacramentall onely agreeable to the harmony of Protestants Confession Se condly that Beda either alludes vnto or transcribes herein the words of S. Gregory aboue alleaged which I haue there proued to be most pregnant to our purpose Anno 726. Gregory 2. in his Epistle of Images to Leo Isaurus A man that hath sinned and confessed after they haue well chastened and punished him with fasting let them impart vnto him the pretious body of our Lord and giue him his holy blood to drinke Anno 731. Gregory 3. in his former Epistle to Boniface forbiddeth at the Lords Table more then one Cup to be vsed saying It is not a fitting thing to put two or three Chalices on the Altar No doubt the reason why more Chalices were put on the Altar was for the vse of
continued vntill the middle of this age gaue a full testimony vnto the truth But those who liued after spake partely in the language of Canaan and partly in the language of Ashdod Halensis saith that the lay people for the most part communicated in both kinds Lynwood that in greater Churches they did so Aquinas that in some Churches they did and in some they did not For by this time according to the Greeke prouerbe Serpens genuit serpentem vt fieret Draco One Serpent hath begot another that from them both a Dragon might issue The error of transubstantiation had begotten the error of concomitancie and from both these at length issued out their hereticall sacrilege or sacrilegious heresie in defending the practise of their halfe Communion SECT XIIII The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 1300. to 1400. IN this Age when this sacrilegious error like a Gangreene had spred ouer a great part of the Latine Churches God stirred vp many learned Chirons and Machaeons knowne by the nick-names of Walldenses Lollards Wickliffests to applie a soueraigne remedie vnto it And they Deo secundante wrought great cures vpon this Cancer in England France and Bohemia In other parts of Europe the people were so intoxicated with the golden Cup of the whore of Babylon that they willingly suffered the Priests to keepe away from them the Lords Cup. Yet in this Centurie if wee adde to the sounder Diuines or Doctors in the Latine Church the iudgement and practise of the whole Greeke Church the entire Communion wil carry it away from the halfe by more then halfe the voyces of Christendome Anno 1301. The custome of communicating in both kinds was not abolished in the beginning of this age but was retained in certaine places especially in Monasteries vntill the yeere of our Lord 1300. and more Thus writeth Cassander Anno 1320. Petrus de Palude saith that in his time the custome was in many Churches that the faithfull communicated in both kinds and hee backeth this his testimonie with a solid reason There ought saith he to be a double matter in this sacrament to wit meat and drink because the effect of this Sacrament ought to be represented perfectly by the matter thereof in a manner agreeable to the things naturall For sacraments effect that which they signifie but the effect of this sacrament is a perfect refection or repast of the soule therfore the matter representing it ought to bee a perfect refection of the body which is not but by meate and drinke This argument of Peter of the F◅n hath so farre sunke our aduersaries that to this day they cannot by all their sophistry get out of the boggs Anno 1341. Clemens 6. in his Bull to the King of England granteth him the vse of the Cup ad gratiae augmentum to the increase of grace Anno 1360. Richard Archbishop of Armach thus wardeth off a blow of the Armenians when the Armenian heretique obiected against him vnlesse you eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his blood you haue no life in yon Hee answereth that this speech of our Sauiour if it bee taken as spoken of sacramentall drinking ought to be vnderstood with this qualification to wit That it is necessarie to obtaine spirituall life that a man receiue both at sometime or bee willing to receiue and be ready so farre as it is in his power Anno 1372. Besides these written testimonies wee haue engrauen I meane the inscriptions of Chalices or Communion Cups called Ministerales because they serued for the people Vadianus writeth of a cup in the Abbie of Sangall that weighed 70. markes in siluer without doubt saith he for the vse of the people at the publique C◅mmunion Gretser censureth the writings of Pelichdorfius against the poore men of Lyons in this manner This author saith he doth refute in the first part of this work the poore men of Lyons but with some such arguments as ring not well in the purified eares of Catholiques I am sure this argument drawne from great siluer chalices some of them with pipes for the Laiety to sucke out the consecrated wine ring not well in the purified eares of Romane Catholiques For not onely Rhenanus out of Conradus Pellicanus relateth a constitution amongst the Carthusians whereby they are forbid to haue any pretious vessels or plate besides a siluer chalice and a pipe wherewith the Laietie may suck the blood of our Lord but also Caietan maketh mention of them and their vse to this purpose and Cassander very much taxeth Eccius for that he writeth that he neuer read of the Laieties Communion in both kinds in the Roman Church saue only in the story of S. Laurence his life It is strange saith he that a man of so excellent a memorie as Eccius should forget the ministeriall Chalices whereof there is euer and anon mention made in the Romane Pontificall which were so called because the blood of Christ was out of thē ministred to the people In most places for feare of shedding the blood of Christ in deliuering it to the people there were siluer pipes put into the Chalices that in the peoples drinking or rather sucking the blood of Christ not so much as a droppe might be spilt These Chalices were not onely in vse in this Age but a 1000. yeeres before in Saint Cyprians time if we may beleeue Cardinall Caietan who ingeniously confesseth that they were so called from their vse in the Church which was to serue the people Thus he commenteth vpon Thomas This custome saith hee continued not onely in the time of that Martyr whom Cyprian thought fit to bee forearmed with the Lords Cup but also in the time of the peace of the Church For we reade not onely of basons but also of ministeriall Chalices made for this vse a For why were they called ministeriall but because they serued not to offer the blood of Christ but to minister it to the people Anno 1390. The custome was in France to administer the whole Supper not in the middle of the Church but in Chappels This saith Francis the first I heard of old men who affirmed that this had been the manner in France for 120. yeeres before SECT XV. The testimonies of the practice of the Church from 1400. to 1500. IOhn Hus and Hiero. of Prage by the books of Wickliffe were brought vnto the knowledge of the truth And as in other points they concluded for that holyfaith which we at this day professe against the errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome so in this they were most earnest and so preuailed in the Kingdome of Bohemia that from the time of the effusion of their blood for the testimonie of the Gospell vntill this day the Cup of the new Testament in Christs blood hath beene deliuered to the people in these parts and the entire Communion preserued Anno 1410.
Petrus Dresensis taught publikely that the Laietie might not communicate vnder one kind as is confessed by Didacus de Tapia in sent lib. 4. Anno 1412. Iacobellus Misnensis a Preacher of Prage being admonished by Petrus Dresensis after hee had searched into the writings of the ancient doctours and by name Dionysius and Saint Cyprian and finding in them the communicating of the Cup to the Laiety commanded he from thence forth exhorted the people by no means to neglect or omit the receiuing the Communion of the Cup. Anno 1414. In the Councell of Constance in which the entire Communion is professedly oppugned yet the Truth extorted frō her bloody aduersaries a remarkeable confession of the practise of the Primitiue Church and of the continuance of it in diuers parts euen vntil the time of the calling of that Assembly In the petition of those that procured this Synod it is expressed that one cause for which the procurers desired that the Church should take order for the establishing of a law touching the laieties cōmunicating in one kind is declared to be because in some parts of the world the Priests did not forbeare to administer the communiō to the laiety in both kinds against the custome of the Romish Church Here we haue the continuance of this practise the antiquity whereof they likewise acknowledged in the preface to their sacrilegious decree against it Although Christ instituted and gaue the sacrament after supper in both kinds to his disciples and in the primitiue Church it was in like wise administred yet the Councell for certaine reasons commands that the sacrament be otherwise administred As the tree f gaines more branches by being lopped with the axe so the Truth gaineth much lustre and authority from the very Canon of the Councell of Constance by which her aduersaries doe seeke to oppresse her For who will not rather follow Christs institution then their ordinance and the ancient acknowledged practise of the Primitiue Church rather then a late custome of the present Romish Church Anno 1420. Martin the fifth after the Councel of Constance vpon Easter day after hee had deliuered the body of our Lord with his owne hands to the Laiety suffered them to receiue the blood of Christ at the hands of the Deacon The like Henry Kalteysin reportes of other Popes and withall acquaints vs with the cause why the Pope left off this custome It fell out saith he that a certaine Bohemian came amongst the rest to the Popes chappel and receiued the Communion at his hands and hee wonderfully bragged of it whereof Pope Martin being aduertised and much inraged that such a trick was put vpon him from that time tooke away the Cup from the Laiety Anno 1430. Thomas Waldensis who tooke vpon him to refute Wickliffes bookes howsoeuer he maintained the decree of the Councell of Constance touching Communion in one kind yet hee witnesseth that greater personages amongst the people and men of note or place as Kings and doctors and others that were thought worthie so great a mystery were admitted to the Communion in both kinds Anno 1413. In the Councell held at Basil as Nauclerus writeth tom 2. generat 48. a kinde of hope was offered to the Bohemians that vpon certaine conditions the vse of the Cup might be restored vnto them The order of the Councell is conceiued in these words If the Bohemians continue in the desire of the Communion in both kinds and send an Embassage to the Councell to that purpose the holy assembly shall giue libertie to the Priests of Bohemia and Morauia to administer the Communion in both kinds to such persons as being in yeeres of discretion shall reuerently desire it Anno 1438. The Bohemians put the faith and honesty of the Fathers of Basil to the Test they send comissioners Iohn Belouar of Prage Iohn Rokyzana Peter Panie Procopius and others to treat about the concession of the Cup and to expresse their earnest and vnfained desire thereof To whom the Councell returneth this answer That the request should be granted them so that they will really effectually keep vnitie with the Church and conforme themselues in all other things saue the communion in both kinds to the faith and rites of the vniuersall Church SECT XVI Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 1500. to 1600. IN this Age I might produce many Testimonies of such learned Doctors and Professors of the Gospell as haue beene by Gods prouidence raised vp in the Reformed Churches in former and latter yeeres who by their writings learnedly soundly haue mainteined the cause we haue in hand as also doe the ioynt and vnanimous Confessions of the Churches of England France Scotland Germany Polonia Sweueland Morauia Howbeit because the Romanists doe except against all the foresaid witnesses as insufficient and of no authority because they haue departed from their Synagogue therefore I will alleage some prime Doctors of this Age also and men of eminency among themselues maintaining the same truth with vs against whom I see not what iust exception may be taken by them Anno 1541. Gerardus Lorichuis zealously oppugning the sacrilegious practise of the Church of Rome There be false Catholicks saith he that are not ashamed by all meanes to hinder the reformation of the Church They to the intent that the other kind of the sacrament may not be restored to the Lay people spare no kind of blasphemie For they say Christ said onely to his Apostles Drinke yee all of this but the words of the Canon of the Masse be these Take and eate yee all of this Here I beseech them let them ◅ell me whither they wil haue this word all onely to pertaine vnto the Apostles then must the Lay people abstaine from the other kind of the bread also Which thing to say is an heresie and a pestilent and detestable blasphemie Wherefore it followeth that each of these words were spoken to the whole Church Anno 1545. The Ambassadours for the Emperour and for the French King were earnest sutors to the Fathers in the Councell of Trent for the restitution of the Cup to the Layety Anno 1562. The obseruation of Seneca That a lye is of a thin and transparent nature a diligent eye may see through it was verified in the Diuines and Bishops present at the Councell of Trent Whereof some saw obscurely others clearely through this grand lye of the Romish Church which vnder colour of concomitancy subtracteth the vse of the Cup from the Layety For Antonius Mandulfe◅sis had a glympse but Card. Madrutius Gaspar de casa and the Bishop of Quinque Ecclesi◅ and also Amans Seruito a Friar had a full sight of the truth in this point Antonius Mandulfensis Chaplain to the Bishop of Prage professedly impugned the distinction of the Eucharist as a Sacrament and as a sacrifice which distinction the Papists at this day hold before them
as a buckler to beare off our arguments drawne from the necessity of representing Christs death in the Lords Supper by receiuing his blood apart as seuered from his body He also infringeth their common argument for their halfe Communion drawne from the example of the Disciples at Emaus and Saint Paul his breaking bread in the ship For he truly and acutely noted that if these Texts are to be expounded of communicating in one kind only that it would from thence follow that it were not onely lawfull for the people to communicate in one kind only but for Priests such as the Apostle S. Paul and the Disciples were to consecrate in one kind onely Thus he saw light as it were by a chinke but Amans servito Brixianus as a man in the open aire felt the light of truth to come so full into his eyes that it dazeled them For following the doctrine of Caietan who holdeth that blood is not a part of mans nature but the first nourishment thereof and adding that it cannot be said that the body necessarily draweth the nourishment into concomitancy with it from thence he inferred that it was not altogether the same substance vnder the forme of bread and vnder the forme of wine Withall hee added that the blood in the Lords Supper was blood shed out of the veines in which as long as it was contained it could not be drinke and therefore could not bee drawne with the veine into concomitancy Moreouer that the Lords Supper was instituted to celebrate his Passion which could not â—…ee represented but by effusion of blood and seuering it from the body It is true this Amans had a check in the Counfor his paines but his reasons were not answered himselfe for feare shuffled and fumbled about some answer vnto them but gaue no satisfaction either to himselfe or to others Welfare Cardinall Madrusius who being asked his opinion answered directly That hee thought fit the Cup should be restored to the Layety without all exception Gaspar de Casa Bishop of Lerye a man of eminent learning concurred with the Cardinall in iudgement adding that he thought that God would neuer send the spirit of delusion into the minde of the Emperour in so weighty a point especially considering that Charles the French King and the Duke of Bauaria ioyned with the Emperour in this request that the Cup should be granted to the Layety This speech of so learned a Bishop not only confirmed those who were of the same mind with him but also made most of the opposite faction to startle Anno 1563. Dudithius Bish. of Quinque-Ecclesiae as in the Councell of Trent hee had stoutly maintained the entire Communion and refelled all obiections to the contrary so after the breaking vp of the Councell in an Epistle which he wrote to Maximilian the Emperour he bitterly complaineth of the miscarriage of this businesse in the Councell What good could be done saith he in that Councell wherein voyces were numbred but not weighed If the merits of the cause or reason might haue preuailed or if but a few had ioyned with vs we had wonne the day but when the number only did beare the sway in which we came farre short though our cause was exceeding good yet wee were faine to sit downe by the losse Anno 1564. Georgius Cassander being set a worke by Ferdinand the Emperour to aduise about a meanes of composing differences in Religion declares himselfe fully for vs in this point of the Cup It is not saith hee without cause that the best learned Catholikes most earnestly desire and contend that they may receiue the Sacrament of Christs blood together with his body according to the antient custome in the vniuersall Church continued for many Ages or at least that the liberty which was granted two hundred yeeres agoe of communicating in one kind or both may be restored Wherefore I hold it not onely nothing contrary to the authoritie of the Church but rather very agreeable to the peace and vnitie of the Church and in a manner necessary that either those in whose hands lyes the gouernment of the Church restore the antient custome of communicating or which may be done without great trouble that the Churches themselues by little and little returne to their antient vse SECT XVII The confirmation of this Argument from the custome of the Church by the testimonies of our learned Aduersaries THis Argument as all the former may bee confirmed by the testimonies of our aduersaries themselues who giue sufficient euidence to condemne their owne Church of innouation and manifest defection from the Primitiue in this their halfing the holy Sacrament The Law saith that custome is the best interpreter of law And of all customes the antient especially if they be generall and haue lasted out diuers Ages ought to beare most sway with those that maintaine the truth of antiquitie or antiquitie of truth An argument drawne from an antient general and long continuing custome for more then one thousand yeeres is like a threefold cable that cannot be broken If we may beleeue the Councels held at Constance and Basill such a custome ought to be held for a law and inâ—…iolably obserued But I inferre The Lay-Communion in both kinds is a custome commended by antiquitie generalitie and duration as hath been proued before by the testimonies of approued Writers in all Ages and is confessed by the Romanists themselues First for the antiquity of this custome I appeale to the Councell of Constance Arboreus Aquinas Lyra Carthusianus and Ruardus Tapperus The Councell of Constance admits vnder a licèt that Christ instituted the venerable Sacrament vnder both kinds and that in the Primitiue Church it was so receiued by the faithfull yet with a non obstante countermands Christs Institution and the practice of the Primitiue Church which gaue Luther iust occasion to nick-name this Councell and for Constantiense to call it Non obstantiense Concilium Iohannes Arboreus in plaine termes confesseth that anciently the Lay people did communicate vnder both kinds Thomas Aquinas is a contest to Arboreus auerring that according to the ancient custome of the Church all those that were partakers of the communion of Christs body were partakers also of the communion of his blood Dionys. Carthusianus speakes Aquinas his words after him It was so done indeed in the Primitiue Church but now the Church hath ordered otherwise Lyra harpes vpon the same string Here is mention of both kinds for so the Sacrament was rereceiued of the faithfull in the Primitiue Church Aestius that famous Sorbonist vpon the Sentences lib. 4. handling this question professedly saith that it is manifest out of antient histories and the writing of almost all the ancient Fathers qui testantur fideles bibere sanguinem Christi that the Eucharist was communicated to the people in both kinds Ruardus Tapperus speakes rather like a Protestant then a Papist in
will admit them As some Lay men cannot brook wine so at some times the Priests through some disease after drinking of the Cup may be enforced to cast it vp And as the peoples hands may shake in taking of the Cup and so spill a drop so may the Priests also And as some Countries haue no wine so if we may beleeue Strabo and Arianus and many later Geographers also some Countries haue no bread Yet the Church of Rome her selfe neuer thought it fit in regard of such few Instances and rare accidents to make a generall law either to depriue the Priests of the vse of the Cup or the Laietie of the vse of the bread Fourthly for the matter of irreuerence if any through carelesnesse or contempt spill a drop of the consecrated wine or let fall a crum of bread he ought to bee punished for it And if hee amend not his fault to bee denyed the Communion But if such a thing fall out through infirmitie or by some casualtie against a mans will it is no irreuerence at all And for the difficulty of getting wine in the Northerne parts especially where Vines grow not we answer that wine is easier to be gotten thē Balsamum which the Romish Church vseth in confirmation For Vines grow in many Countries and that in great aboundance True Balsamum but in one Yet the Church of Rome in regard of this difficulty in getting it will by no meanes suffer that their Sacrament to be administred without it Yet their Chrisme is a meere humane inuention but wine in the Lords Supper is Christs ordniance But what do they pretend impediments that are not and surmise difficulties against common experience He is but a stranger in Geography who knoweth not that by the benefit of Nauigation store of wines are brought into those parts where no vines grow In the reformed Churches in England Scotland Denmarke Norway and the other regions situated neerer the North-Pole the Sacrament is administred in both kindes and neuer yet any complaint was heard of the difficulty much lesse of the impossibility of prouiding wine for the Communiō Surely if there may be had wine for the Priest their may be had also for the people Who euer heard of Merchants that transported wine in so smal quātity that there might be a draught for the Priest and none for the people If there be none for the Priests how can they consecrate without facrilege according to their owne Canon Lastly this argument as all the former may be thus retorted vpon them The Councell of Basil yeelded the vse of the Cup to the Bohemians and the whole Councell of Trent reserued it to the Pope to grant the vse of the Cup to all the Germanes and the Pope assented thereunto vpon certaine conditions notwithstanding all the former inconueniences Therefore it is not inconueniency they stand vpon But the true cause why they at this day with hold the Cup is either obstinacy lest they should seeme to yeeld any thing to the Reformed Churches and acknowledge their former error or pride to maintaine a prerogatiue of their Priests aboue the people Which as I shewed before out of Saint Chrysostome ought to be none in partaking the dreadfull mysteries To conclude howsoeuer they pretend in this their erroneous practise like u Aesop to remoue that stone at which all that came into the Bath stumbled at yet in truth they rather resemble Aesop in some thing of another nature For as he was accused to haue stolne away a piece of holy plate that was found among his carriages from the Temple of Apollo at Delphi so these grand Aesops and Coyners of Fables whereby they delude the simple people are clearely conuinced of sacrilege in taking away the Chalice from the Lords Supper For they haue taken away the Cup of blessing from the people and in stead thereof offer the Whore of Babylons cup of abomination CHAP. XVI The contradictions of our aduersaries in this Question noted and the whole Truth for vs deliuered out of their owne mouthes IT was the manner of the Roman Emperors in their Triumphs amongst other spectacles to exhibite to the people ludos gladiatorios Fencers playing their Prizes fighting not with foiles but at sharpe till they had killed one another In like manner in the conclusion of this Discourse for the better adorning and setting forth of the Tryumph of Truth I haue thought not vnfitting to present vnto the Readers view Quaedam Gladiatorū paria some certaine couples of the professed Champions and defenders of the Romane cause bickering one with another in such manner that by their sharpe weapons of euident contradictions they must needes wound on another euen to the death of their cause SCRIPTVRES The first Combate Whether the Scriptures make for or against the halfe Communion The Antagonists Thom. Harding and Gerardus Lorichius Ioan. Maldonate Iesuit and Widford Stanislaus Hosius and Laur. Iustinianus Ioan. Cochlaeus and Ioan. Lorinus Iesuita Ioan. Gerson and Ruardus Tapperus Harding the Assaylant THE wordes of Christ Drinke yee all of this pertaine to the Apostles and their successors For to them onely hee gaue commandement to do that which hee did saying Doe this in remembrance of me By which words hee ordained them Priests of the new Testament Wherefore this commandement belongeth not at all to the Lay people neither can it be iustly gathered by this place that they are bound of necessity to receiue the Sacrament vnder both kinds Lorichius the Defendant THey bee false Catholikes who say that Christ said onely to his Apostles Drinke yee all of this For the words of the Canon be these Take and eate yee all of this Here I beseech them to tell me whether they wil haue these words also onely to appertaine to the Apostles then must the Laiety abstaine from the other kind of bread also which thing to say is heresie wherefore it followeth that each of the words are spoken to the whole Church Gerard. Loric de missa part 7. in praef Maldonate Assaylant I doubt not and I maruell that any other doubt but that this place where Christ tooke bread blest it and brake it and gaue it to the two Disciples of whom hee was knowne in the breaking of bread must bee vnderstood of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper I am induced hereunto by the whole forme of the action which I know not what Christian can deny to bee the action of the Eucharist Wee reade of the breaking of the bread blessing it distributing it and a miracle insuing vpon it and shall wee not beleeue it to bee the Eucharist Widford Defendant I say that it appeareth not in the Text nor in the Glosse Luk. 24. nor by the ancient Fathers that the bread which Christ brake and gaue to his Disciples was consecrated bread that it was sacramētall bread or turned into his body with whō Carthusiā accords It came to passe saith he that as Christ sate downe he took
same Christ and him entire But the former is true therefore the latter And Norrice in antidoto 1. part cont 5. Vnder the forme of bread alone or wine alone and that in euery part or parcell of them the wholebody of Christ and all his pretious blood is contained as wee with the sacred Councell of Trent maintaine Therefore hee who inioyeth the least particle of either kind receiueth not a mingled or imperfect but an absolute and compleate entire or perfect Sacrament Soto the Defendant IT is denied by vs that when the body alone is taken that the whole Sacrament is taken according to the entire representation thereof Because sith by the force of consecration there is nothing vnder the bread but the body the taking of it is nothing but the eating for to drinking is required that the blood bee taken which ought to bee there by it selfe and that by vertue of consecration and not by concomitancy onely Soto in 4. dist 8. art 2. And before him Halens loco super cit Christ is not contained vnder each kind sacramentally but the flesh onely vnder the forme of bread and the blood vnder the forme of wine Hesselius the Assaylant There is not more spirituall fruit reaped by the Communion in both kinds then by the Communiō vnder the forme of bread onely And our Norrice as if hee had transcribed him saith Wee teach that not onely the entire Sacrament and totall substance thereof but the whole fruit grace vertue which proceeds from both kinds together is fully also exhibited vnder one alone Euery particle of a diuided Hoste euery drop of the Chalice is a maine Ocean of spiritual blessing Yet many of them by the same morall actions successiuely receiued afford no more grace then one alone because that one instilleth the whole Fountaine it selfe which cannot at that time be further increased or produced a new Vasquez the Defendant The opinion of them euer seemed to some to bee more probable who teach that there is more fruit of grace receiued by thē who communicate in both kinds then by them that receiue in one kinde onely And therefore they who receiue the Cup obtaine thereby a new increase of grace His reason is each kind in this Sacrament as it is a part of the Sacrament hath a diuers signification by it selfe and sith according to our former suppositions in the Sacraments of the new law the efficacy followeth the signification thereof it ensueth thereupon that each kind in this Sacrament doth produce its owne effect by it selfe Vasquez in part 3. Tho. disp 215. Cap. 2. Bellarmine the Assaylant The whole essence of a sacrament is found in one kind For to the essence of a Sacrament two things are required significancie and efficacie For a Sacrament is a Signe and cause of Grace but both these are found in each kind For although the forme of bread doth signifie a spirituall nourishing onely by way of meat and the forme of wine a spirituall nourishing only by way of drinke Yet it is absolutely sufficient to make it a Sacrament that it signifies spirituall nourishing and effects it also Durand the Defendant This Sacrament is ordeined by God for spirituall nourishment which is signified by bodily foode and it is not perfect vnlesse there be something in it that may nourish as meat and something that may nourish as drinke Durand quest 1. dist 8. in 4. with whom I ioyne Aquinas To the nourishing of the body are two things required meat which is a drie nourishment and drinke which is a moyst And therefore to the entire Nature of the Sacrament two things concurre spirituall meate and spirituall drinke Aquinas part 3. quest 73. art 2. Salmeron the Assaylant If from the beginning it had not bin lawfull to communicate in one kinde onely very many Christiās should haue either been depriued of the Communion or enforced to doe that which they were not able to performe as it is manifest in those people that liue farre North who haue no store of wine Salm. tra 35. tom 9. Aquinas the Defendant Wee must say that although that wine is not made in all places yet that so much may easily bee carried to all places as may suffice for the vse of the Sacrament Neither for the defect of either kinde may wee consecrate in one kind only because so the Sacracrament would not be perfect Aquin. part 3. quest 74. art 1. The Muses after a long fight with the Sirens when they had fully conquered them tooke from them their Plumes of Feathers and made of their enemies Ornaments Crownes for themselues Truth and Religion haue now long beene in sight with false-hood and sacralege and in the end as we see turned their owne weapons vpon them and quite vanquished them What remaineth but that after the manner of the Muses we take their Plumes of Feathers wherewith they adorned themselues from them and make of them a crowne to beautifie Christs spouse and to set forth the truth in this manner Christ instituted the Sacrament in both kinds so the Councell of Constance The command of Christ Drinke ye all of this extendeth to the Laietie and belongeth not onely to Priests so Lorichius The Sacrament is not perfect but in both kinds so Aquinas The diuiding of one and the selfe same mysterie cannot be without sacrilege so Gelatius Therefore in the Primitiue Church the Sacrament was giuen in both kinds to the faithfull so Lyra. This custome continued for aboue 1000. yeeres in the Church so Cassander The contrary custome of communicating vnder one kind onely began not to be generall in the Latine Church much before the Councell of Constance an dom 1414. so Greg. de Valen. The vse of the Cup was first taken away from the Laietie in the Councell of Constance so Vasquez After that Councell by a decree of the Councell of Basil it was restored to the Bohemians so Aeneas Syluius After this in the Councel of Trent it was desired by the Embassadors of the Emperor of the French King that the vse of the Cup might be granted to the Laietie so the Author of the Letters Missiue After the Councell breake vp the best learned Catholicks most earnestly desired and contended that they might receiue the Sacrament of Christs blood together with his body according to the ancient custome in the vniuersall Church continued for many Ages so Cassander And that vpon very good grounds for this were more agreeable to the institution and fullnesse of the Sacrament and to the example of Christ so Ruardus Tapperus And lastly of more fruit and efficacie and so Halensis and Vasquez Whose opinion thus Nugnus explicateth if a Priest and a Lay-man come equally prepared to the Lords Supper the Priest who communicateth in both kinds receiueth thereby grace in 8. degrees to wit 4. by eating the Bread and the other 4. by taking the Cup but the
neuer so free from corruption For at the very first when it was purest it was by many nay infinite degrees inferior to the Originall But that we may not digresse from the point proposed vnto vs touching Communion in both kinds here I promise you that in discussing this question I will alleage no text of Scripture wherein our English Translation agreeth not both with the Originall Greeke and the Latine vulgar That I may therefore know what to impugne I desire you to set downe the state of the question as you meane to hold it M. Euerard I beleeue that wheresoeuer the body of Christ is there is also his blood by concomitancie and consequently that the Church though it giue not the Cup to the Laietie yet it giueth them the blood of Christ which they participate in and with his body Secondly I deny not that the Laietie may receiue in both kinds if the Church giue them leaue but they are not bound by Christs Institution so to receiue It is sufficient that they receiue in one D. Featly We teach and beleeue that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper according to Christs Institution ought to be administred in both kinds as well to the Laietie as to the Cleargie M. Euerard Let the Scriptures bee interpreted by the consent of Fathers and practise of the Primitiue Church D. Featly I assent vnto this condicion especially in this point wherein the continuall practise of the Church is vndoubtedly for vs as also the cleare and expresse letter of Scripture And this I prooue First by the words of the Institution Matth. 26. 28. Drinke yee all of this For this is the blood of the new Testament which was shed for many Christ commandeth the same to drinke whom he commandeth to eate But he commandeth the Laiety to eate the bread Therefore also to drinke of the Cup. And Againe He commandeth those to drinke for whom his blood was shed saying drinke yee all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament shed for many But Christs blood was shed for the people as well as for the Priests Therefore the people are to drinke as well as the Priests By the words of our Sauiour Iohn 6. 53. Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood yee haue no life in you This Text is alleaged by Bellarmine and most Papists as a strong proofe of the reall presence of Christs body and blood in the Sacrament And if that you grant that these words are to be vnderstood of the Sacrament you must needes confesse they require all people as well as Priests to receiue the Communion in both kinds to wit to eate the flesh of the Sonne of Man vnder the forme of bread and drinke his blood vnder the forme of wine Thirdly By the words of Saint Paul 1. Corinth 11. 28. Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of that Bread and drinke of that Cup. Here the Apostle inuiteth all to drinke of the Cup who are to examine themselues saying Let a man examine c. and so let him drinke But the Laietie as well as the Cleargie are bound to examine themselues nay the Laietie in some respect are more bound to examin themselues because most commonly they are more ignorant in this holy mystery Fourthly by the practise of the Primitiue Church For which it shall suffice for the present to produce the testimonies of 1. Ignatius epist. ad Phil. speaking of the administring of the Sacrament saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Bread is broken vnto all and one Cup is distributed vnto all 2. Cyprian epist. 54. How shall wee make them fit for the Cup of Martyrdome if we doe not first admit them into the Church to drinke the Cup of the Lord by the right of Communication Here Saint Cyprian speaketh of the Laietie who are to suffer martyrdome for Christ and not Priests onely and he saith they haue a right to Communicate in the Cup therefore the Church of Rome doth them wrong to debarre them from it Againe the same Cyprian in his 2 booke and 3. epistle Why doe some not doe that our Lord did and taught in sanctifying the Cup and administring it to the people Thirdly S. August quaest 57. in Leuiticum All men are exhorted to drinke the blood of Christ who desire to haue life I hope you will not deny that the Laietie desire to haue life and therefore by Saint Augustines inference they are inuited to the Cup. Fourthly Gelatius de consecratione dist 2. Let them receiue the Sacrament intirely or let thē be kept from them intirely Because the diuision of one and the selfe same mystery cannot be without great sacrilege Saint Gregory hom 22. in Euangelia speaking to the people his auditors saith You haue learned what is the blood of the Lambe not by hearing but by drinking it And in his fourth booke of dialogues q The blood of Christ is powred not into the hands but into the mouthes of the faithfull M. Euerard Master Euerard here produced for the Romish opinion diuers practises of the ancient Church as the sending the bread a farre off to the sicke and not the Cup the denying the Cup to all those who had eaten meates offered vnto Idols He answered in Generall to the allegations aboue mentioned that either Christ commanded not the Communion in both kinds determinately but either in one or in the other or if he enioyned both yet this precept of his was dispensable by the Church In fine saith hee you cannot expect that I should answer all the places you haue cited at once and on the sudden D. Featly These instances which you alleage of the practise of the Primitiue Church are either false or impertinent as I will shew when I am to answer For dispencing with Christs precept I say that no mortall man can dispence with the precept of God As for the crauing time to answer my former allegations take what time will and you answer them one by one M. Euerard Dispute then syllogistically D. Feately If Christ command the Laietie to take the Cup as well as the bread they that take away the Cup from them doe ill But Christ commanded the Laietie to take the Cup as well as the Bread Therefore they that take away the Cup from them doe ill M. Euerard I deny the sequell of the Maior D. Featly The sequel of the Maior cannot be denied for they certainely doe ill that transgresse Christs Commandement Therefore if Christ command all to receiue the Cup as well as the Bread they that take away the Cup doe ill M. Euerard Christ commands not all to drinke of the Cup that eate of the bread D. Featly I proue he doth by the words of the Institution Matth. 26. 28. Drinke yee all of this He saith not of the bread Eate all of this though his meaning was that all should eate But he saith