be truly Christs body and blood after there halowing through ghostly mystery as a pledge and a figure And a little after All our fathers dranke the same ghostly drinke of the stone which followed them which stone was not bodily Christ who calleth to vs to all beleeuing and faithful men Whosoeuer thirsteth let him come and drinke that heauenly liquor which had signification of Christs blood Now it is offered daily in Gods Church it was the same which we now offer not bodily but ghostly I finde no answer made by any Romanist to the testimonies in this Age which yet are very full and pregnant both for the precept and practise of communicating in both kinds both by men and women If any except against the Authors in the words of the Orator haurimus de foece we draw out dregs and lees I answer where learning ran so low as it did in this Age we could do no other wise yet the Reader may see that out of these lees wee haue ex tracted some Aqua-vitae whereof though he hath but a taste now he shal haue a ful draught in the next Age. SECT XI The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 1000. to 1100. IN this age the Bishops of Rome were so busie about transubstantiating the bread into the body of Christ that they suffered the laiety to goe cleere away with the Cup and gaue them no publique check or controule for it till the Councel of Constance held 400. yeeres after Of which hereafter in his due place Anno 1002. Fulbertus Carnotensis confesseth with the Fathers of the former Age though in a higher and more affected straine Put forth the palate of faith enlarge the Iawes of thy hope extend the bowels of Charity and receiue the bread of life the food of the inward man take also the wine not troden out by feete of a nasty husbandman but crusht out of the wine-presse of the crosse Anno 1014. Bruno Abbas Richen-angiensis speaketh to the point as Fulbertus we also though most unworthie doe not onely eate daily the bread of Christ when we take the foode of his flesh from the table of his Altar but also drinke his blood Anno 1050. Oecumenius ascribes our spirituall vnion with Christ our Head to the participating of his blood in the Sacrament the blood of Christ saith he by partaking thereof ioynes vs to Christ as members to the head And the same Father commenting vpon the eleuenth Chapter schooleth rich men for disdayning to admit the poore to their table whom Christ admits as wel as them to his to partake both of his body and blood If the Lord saith he sets his body and blood on his table and in the Chalice as well before the poore as before thee dost thou dare to driue them from thy table in dispite and contempt Anno 1060. Guitmundus ioines with Oecumenius in assigning our Communion at the Lords Table to be an especiall meanes of vnion with Christ. And they both speake of all faithfull Christians indifferently without distinction of Priest and people who are one in Christ. we saith this Author who receiue the Communion of this holy bread and Cup are made one body of Christ. Anno 1061. Lanfranck sometime Archbishop of Canterbury deliuering a rule touching all Sacraments saith Sacraments they are alwayes a likenesse of those things whereof they are sacraments as in the sacrament about which we contend when the Hoste is broken the blood powred out of the Cup and into the mouth of the faithfull what is signified else but the sacrificing of the body of our Lord vpon the Crosse. Anno 1070. Theophilact reproues the Corinthians out of Saint Paul for leauing the Lords Cup and running to drink with the Idolaters of the wine offered to Idols Are not you ashamed O you Corrinthians to run to the Idoles cup from Christs Cup who hath freed you from Idols And in his comment vpon 11. chap. hee reproues as sharply those who tooke delight in drinking alone and quassing by themselues How dost thou take thy cup alone considering that the dreadfull Chalice is alike deliuered vnto all Anno 1080. Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury speaking of Christians in general deliuereth a double manner of participating the Sacrament both spiritually and Corporally we ought saith he to eat and drinke this sacrament two manner of wayes with the mouth of the heart and with the mouth of the body And vpon 1. Cor. and Cap. 10. All we saith he who partake of one bread and one Cup are made one body Anno 1090. Hildebertus Cenomanensis together with Burcardus Micrologus and Humbertus de silua candida relate and aproue that Canon of the third Councell of Brachara which condemneth the deliuering the bread sopt in the wine to the Laietie for the whole Communion It is the manner saith Hildebertus in your monasteries to giue the sacramentall bread to none but dipt in the wine which Custome we find is not taken either from the Lords institution nor out of authenticall constitutions If you looke into Matthew Marke and Luke you shall finde the bread deliuered by it selfe and the wine by it selfe neither doe we read that Christ deliuered bread dipt vnto any but that disciple whom by giuing him a sop he declared to be the betrayer of his Master The Papists answer This Canon of the Councell of Bracara confirmed by so many witnesses Burchard lib. 5. cap. 1. Gratian de consecratione dist 2. Micrologus de Ecclesiasticis obseruationibus cap. 19. and Lambertus de Silua candida lib. cont Graec. calumnias Cardinall Bellarmine could not any waies baulk with credit therefore he sets his braine vpon the racke for a double answer The first is that the Councel indeed forbids the dipping of the bread vpon this ground that our Lord gaue not bread dipt or sopt in the wine neither can any such o dipping be proued by any testimonie or example of scriptures yet saith he the Councell doth not adde that both kinds ought to be giuen to the Laietie Secondly he saith If the Councell should haue said so wee would haue answered that the Councell speakes of that time in which it was free for the Laietie to communicate in both kinds For then if any desired both kinds the Councell commandeth that both be giuen vnto them to wit bread and wine a part and not a sop of bread dipt in the wine The Refutation These answeres are like the apples of Sodome which fall to ashes if you touch them The first thus presently dissolueth the Councell of Bracara doth as well command Commnion in both kindes as forbid receiuing the bread dipt in wine for the intire Communion for thus standeth the argument In administring the Sacrament wee ought to doe as Christ did and no otherwaies but Christ at his last Supper deliuered first bread by it selfe and then wine and not bread and wine
THE GRAND SACRILEGE OF THE CHVRCH OF ROME In taking away the sacred Cup from the Laiety at the Lords Table Detected and conuinced by the euidence of holy Scripture and Testimonies of all Ages successiuely from the first propagation of the Catholike Christian Faith to this present Together with two Conferences the former at Paris with D. Smith now stiled by the Romanists B of Calcedon the later at London with M Euerard Priest By DAN FEATLY Doctor in Diuinity Gelasius de consecrat dist 2. cap. comperimâ—…s Aut integra percipiant aut ab integris arceantur diuisio enim vnius eiusdemque mystery sine grandi sacrilegio non potest prouenire LONDON Printed by Felix Kyngston for Robert Milbourne and are to be sold in Pauls Churchyard at the signe of the Greyhound 1630. TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE WILLIAM EARLE OF Pembroke Lord high Steward of his Maiesties Houshold and of his most Honourable priuy Councell Chancellor of the Vniuersity of Oxford Knight of the Noble Order of the Garter ALthough I can challenge no interest in your Lordships fauour yet your Lordsh may challenge your interest in those fruits of my studies which grew vnder the shade of your Honours protection in the famous Nursery of Religion and Learning the Uniuersity of Oxford which the more it flourisheth by the sweet influence of your Lordships wise and mild gouernment the fairer and fresher Garlands of fame it still presents to your Honour Since the Muses of Sion and Helicon chose you their Patron their Reuenewes haue been so enlarged the Libraries furnisht the number of Professors increased the Buildings raised and beautified that you may rightly vse the Apothegme of Augustus Vrbem lateritiam inveni relinquam marmoream or rather in the sacred phrase of the Scripture we may say of you You found the Uniuersity built with Sycamores you willieaue it built with Cedars you found the foundations laid with Bricks you will leaue them laid with Saphyrs Yet the rearing of these high and stately buildings doth not erect so lasting a monument of your praise as the repairing the collapsed discipline and reuiuing of our ancient Statutes the Characters whereof were more worne out in some mens manners then in our bookes But aboue all the safe custodie of that pretious depositum of sauing Truth no way clipt by schisme nor adulterated by Popish heresie nor embased by any semipelagian alloy is to be accounted the Crowne of your glory and our ioyes This is that Palladium which if wee lose we are all lost but if we keepe it notwithstanding the treacheries of Iesuiticall Sinons and Wodden engines of Antichristian Rome Troia stabit Priamique arx alta manebit Of this our most holy and orthodox â—…aith because your selfe and your Noble House haue been alwaies and are at this day vnder his Maiesty a principall defender and protector I make bold to dedicate to your Honour this polemicall Tractate wherein I charge the Church of Rome deepely with no lesse a crime then Grand Sacrilege and to demonstrate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I call in for witnesses against her of the best rank and note from the Apostles times down-wara through all centuries euen to this sixtenth now currant That which the Iesuites haue so long clamored for and many in regard of the razing out and defacing and burning ancient records of truth vnder the tyranny of Antichrist haue thought infecible I haue produc'd a catalogue of visible professors and eminent propugners of a maine Article of our reformed Religion in all Ages And if my trauell herein through many difficult and vnbeaten pathes may be thought profitable to the Church of God I will proceed by the same line in other controuersies as God shall inable and your Lordship incourage Your Lordships humbly deuoted D. F. TO THE CHRISTIAN READER THe people of Germany as Illyricus writeth of them aboue an hundred yeeres agoe complained that in old time there were in the Church woodden Chalices but golden Priests but now say they we haue golden Chalices but woodden Priests A iust complaint against the ignorant Cleargie of Rome in the latter Ages especially before the happie Reformacion of late in our time Yet the ignorance of Priests was not so blameable as their sacrilege was damnable For these wooden Priests tooke away from the peoples vse those golden Chalices and robbed them of that which is farre more precious the heauenly liquor contained in them which is sacramentally as wee say but as they beleeue substantially the blood of our Sauiour the inualuable price of mans Redemption The Heathen Strobilus in the Poet vsed not his Goddesse Fides worse then they doe the deuout Laietie If I finde my treasure saith hee I will offer vnto thee a gallon of sweet wine Trust me Faith I will offer it to thee but I will drinke it euery drop my self In like sort the Romish Masse-Priests vpon a thousand Altars offer many flagons of wine as they pretend for the people as well as themselues but they drinke it all themselues And yet I know not whether more impiously or ridiculously in their priuate Masses and publike Communions they rehearse the words Bibite ex hoc omnes Drinke yee all of this that is in their sence and practise Drinke yee none of this but we onely that are Priests Verily of all the abuses in the Masse which is nothing else but a huge heape and masse of idolatrous and superstitious rites there is none more grosse in the doctrine or impious in the practise or absurde in the defence then this of halfing the Communion by with-holding the Cup from the people For it is an open violence offered to our Lords last Will and Testament a violation of the words of the Institution a mutilation of the blessed Sacrament a sacrilegious detention of an holy Legacie from the Sonnes of God In other points of difference our aduersaries lay claime to the Primitiue Church but in this they yeeld it vs. Against other of their errors wee haue frequent testimonies in the former and purer Ages for fiue or sixe hundred yeeres after Christ but few in the later Against this vnsufferable enormity wee abound in passages of good Writers in all Ages In other controuersies the Romanists like Sampsons Foxes are tyed fast by the tailes in this they are loose and parted asunder and they take direct contrary courses They disproue their own proofes and approoue our disproofes of them Penelopes telam texunt retexunt they doe and vndoe There is no argument of ours against them which is not confirmed by some of them no obiection of theirs against vs which is not solued by some of their owne side as thou mayst see through the whole but especially in the last Chapter of this Discourse Into which I Imbarked my studies the rather vpon this occasion About two yeeres since I was desired by a person of qualitie to conferre with a L. a little before that time seduced by
cut of the rugged knobs not grate or weare out the heart of it Volo nasutum non polyposum Fourthly because the testimonies I cite out of these authors were neuer questioned much lesse proued to be taken for good by the aduersarie vntill he can disproue them according to the rule of the Ciuill law supponitur esse bonus qui non probatur esse malus he is supposed to be an honest man who was neuer proued otherwise To cal in then these ancients in that order as commonly they go First Anno 70. Dionysius Areopagita in his booke of Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie chap. 5. relateth the practise of the Church in his time on this manner z After the Priest hath prayed that he may holyly distribute and that they that are to partake of the Sacraments may receiue it worthily discouering the bread that before was couered and breaking it into many pieces and diuiding one Cup among all he multiplieth that in the signes which is but one and distributeth it Anno. 80. The second Martialis Lenoricensis who stileth himselfe a seruant of God and an Apostle of Iesus Christ in his epistle ad Burdigal writeth thus You heretofore honored the priests which deceiued you with their sacrifices which they offered to dumbe and deafe images that neither could helpe you nor themselues but now much more you ought to honour the Priests of Almighty God who minister life vnto you in the Cup and liuing Bread By this argument of Martials the Romish Priests that giue the people but an halfe Communion should lose halfe of the honour due vnto Gods Priests if not the whole For thus out of Martials premises I conclude Those and none but those Priests are to be honoured and reuerenced who administer life to the people in the Cup The Romish Priests administer not life to the people in the Cup Therefore they are not to bee reuerenced or honoured Anno 92. Thirdly Clemens in his second booke of Constitutions 57. chap. thus enioyneth after the offering of the sacrifice let euery order a part receiue the body of our Lord and his pretious blood Anno 100. Fourthly Ignatius the Scholer of Saint Iohn the Euangelist Bishop of Antioch and Martyr in his Epistle to the Philadelphians enforceth an argument to vnity from the Communion I exhort you to imbrace one faith one manner of preaching and vse of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper for the flesh of our Lord Iesus is one and his blood one that was shed for vs there is one bread also broken for all and one Cup distributed vnto all Bellarmine his first Answer Bellarmine is put to a miserable plunge in his answer to this allegation First he saith in the Latine copies the words of Ignatius are not as we cite them There is one Cup distributed vnto all but there is one Cup of the whole Church and though the Greeke copies reade as we do yet he saith that much credit is not to be giuen to them The Refutation Against this answer I reply First that if we may not trust the Greeke editions of Ignatius much lesse may we trust the Latine translations especially since of late they are come into hucksters hands To appeale from a translation to the originall is vsuall but to appeale from the originall to a translation is a thing vnheard of This is to make the brooke or streame to bee purer then the fountaine or spring The Poet teacheth Bellarmine another lesson Dulciùs ex ipso fonte bibuntur aquae Ignatius as it is well knowne wrote in Greeke and therefore vnlesse Bellarmine can proue that other Greeke copies agree with his Latine translation and not with ours he speaketh nothing to the purpose for a translation is of no credit further then it agrees with the originall Secondly euen Bellarmines corrupt translation maketh against the Church of Rome and prooueth that the practice in Ignatius his time was for the whole Church to communicate in both kinds for why else calleth he it Calicem totius Ecclesiae The Cup of the whole Church Ignatius there speakes not of the possession but of the vse of the Cup and if the Priests onely had dranke of it hee would haue called it the Priests Cup but in terming it the Cup of the whole Church he plainely signifieth that the whole Church vsed it in the celebration of the Lords Supper Bellarmine his second answere Secondly Bellarmine saith that the force of Ignatius his argument consisteth in the vnitie of the Cup and not in the vniuersalitie of them that drinke for he exhorteth there to vnitie The Refutation First Ignatius exhorts there all to vnitie because all eate of one bread and drinke of one cup. His argument therefore standeth both in the vniuersalitie of them that drinke and the vnitie of the Cup and it may be thus reduced into forme All that eate of one bread and drinke of one holy Cup in remembrance of one body offered and one blood shed for all ought to embrace vnitie But all you of the Church of Philadelphia people as well as Priests eate of one bread and drinke of one holy Cup in memory of one body offered and one blood of Christ shed for you all Therefore all you of the Church of Philadelphia ought to embrace vnitie and godly loue If the pinch or straine of the argument were in vnitie only it would not hold for if some onely dranke of this Cup and not others this should rather make more for a diuision then for vnitie it is the communion of more in one that Ignatius layeth for the ground of his argument enforcing vnitie Secondly howsoeuer the argument stands it makes no great matter sith we insist not so much vpon the argument it selfe as vpon that his expresse affirmation That one Cup in his time was giuen vnto all This assertion alone sufficiently prooueth the practise of the Church in his time Bellarmine his third answere Thirdly Bellarmine saith that nothing can be inforced from these words of Ignatius but that it was the vse in that time when there were but few Christians to giue the Cup vnto all but this is an example it is no precept so the Cardinall The Refutation First it is not true which he here affirmeth that there were but few Christians in Ignatius his time for all histories of those times and the Epistles of Ignatius testifie the contrary and in this very Church of Philadelphia the holy Ghost testifieth Apoc. 3. 8. That there were many Christians Behold I haue set before thee an open dore and no man shall shut it c. Secondly though the Primitiue Church were not of that large extent as the Church in suceeding ages yet the authoritie of the Church in that age in which the Apostles liued and their immediate successors is farre greater then in any later age Thirdly in this last answere the Cardinall yeeldeth vs the cause for we cite these words of
faithfull wife was like to be debarred of the comfort of receiuing the Sacrament and drinking of the Lords Cup. Tert. then is cleere for the Laietie communicating in both kinds And so is Origen Anno. 230. Origen in 16. Hom. on Numb maketh this question What people is it that is accustomed to drinke blood and he answereth the faithfull people the Christian people heareth these things and embraceth him who saith vnlesse you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his blood you haue no life in you For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drinke indeed Marke the ingemination The people the faithfull people heareth these things c. Therefore in Origens time it was the peoples vse and custome to drinke the blood of Christ. Papists answer Bellarmine loc sup cita saith to this testimonie of Origen that the people did drinke but they had no command so to doe It was their vse it was not Christs precept Secondly hee saith the people might haue such a vse or custome to drinke at the Lords supper though euery one dranke not but some onely The Refutation I need not refell this answer because Bellarmine granteth all that for which I produce this testimonie that the practise of the Church in Origens time goeth for vs and his mincing the matter that some of the people might drinke not all and that they dranke it by custome not by law no way healpeth his bad cause For first Origen in this very place alleageth Christs precept for this practise of the faithfull people Iohn 6. vnlesse ye drinke my blood you haue no life in you Secondly in the end of this homily he turneth his speech not to some of this people but to his audience and thus concludeth Thou therefore art the true people of Israel who knowest to drink the blood and hast learned to eat the flesh of the Word of God and to take a draught of the blood of that grape which is of the true vine those branches of which the father purgeth The euidence of this truth is like the light of the morning it groweth cleerer and cleerer For Origen is cleerer in this point then Tertullian and Cyprian is yet cleerer then Origen Anno. 250. Cyprian that learned Bishop of Carthage and blessed Martyr of Christ Iesus not onely deliuereth but propugneth our assertion by a forcible argument epist. 54. How doe wee inuite them Gods people to shed their blood for Christ in the confession of his name if when they set forth to fight for him we denie them his blood how shall wee fit them for the Cup of Martyrdome if before we admit them not by right of Communion to drinke of the Lords Cup in his Church in his 63. epistle Because some men out of ignorance or simplicitie in sanctifying the Cup of the Lord and ministring it to the people doe not that which Iesus Christ our Lord and God the Author and Institutor of this Sacrifice did and taught I thought it both a matter of religion and necessity to acquaint you herewith by letters that if any yet bee held in that error the light of truth being now discouered vnto him hee might returne vnto the roote and beginning of our Lords institution Papists answere Bellarmine in his answere to Saint Cyprian makes good the Poets obseruation Qui semel verecundiae limites transiuerit hunc grauiter impudentem esse oportet he that hath once passed the bounds of modesty he must be stoutely impudent and arme his forehead with brasse for here he is not content to slight this allegation as he did the former but is bold to challenge it for an euidence on his owne side This place saith hee rather maketh for our opinion then against it for Saint Cyprian speaketh of certaine Christians that fell in time of persecution from the profession of the true faith and were therefore excommunicated by the Bishops whom Saint Cyprian exhorteth in regard of the eminent persecution to restore these weake Christians to their former right and interest which they had in the Lords body The right therefore of the Laietie to Communicate is giuen by the Priests and taken away by them Now if the Priests or Prelates may for certaine crimes take the right of Communicating from the Laietie they may also dispose of the manner of Communicating vnder one kinde To the second testimony he answereth that Cyprian in that place handleth not the poynt whether the Cup ought to bee deliuered to the people or no but if it bee deliuered vnto them hee will haue it deliuered not in water onely but wine mingled with water And this he saith Christ taught vs. The Refutation Neither of these answeres will beare scale both of them are to light by many graines the first of these is liable to these exceptions First it is impertinent for we bring the testimony to prooue the practise of the Primitiue Church concerning the Laieties participating the Cup But Bellarmine craftily waues that poynt and questioneth by what right the people did Communicate Admit that which is most falfe that the Bishop or Priest gaue the people all the right they had to the Cup yet they had it and vsed it their practise therefore maketh for vs. Secondly it is inconsequent for first when a'man is Excommunicated and hath lost his right to the Lords Table a Bishop vpon the parties submission and sorrow for his sin and humble intreatie may restore him to his right againe and set him where he was yet this prooueth not that the Laietie had their originall right of Communicating from them as a Bishop may vpon iust cause suspend a Lay man or Cleargie from the Communion so he may also exclude him from hearing of the word and publike prayer yet no man will hence conclude that the Laietie or Priest haue no right at all to come into the Church and to pray and to heare Gods word but from the Bishop Albeit Cyprian in his owne Church and any other Bishop in his Diocesse may admit or reiect some particular persons vpon iust cause from the Communion yet it will not from hence follow that the Bishop of Rome may take away either the Cup or the Bread from Gods people in all Churches Thirdly it is no good inference that because the Bishop may depriue a man of the whole Sacrament vpon some causes viz. for a great crime or high misdemeanor that therefore he may depriue him of a part of it without any fault at all as the Romanists doe the Laietie in generall Fourthly a Bishop may dispence with his owne censures or reuoke them but he cannot dispence with Gods law To suspend a man from the whole Communion if the delinquent deserue it is agreeable to Christs and the Apostles discipline but to admit him to one part of the Sacrament and not to the other is a manifest violation of Christs ordinance who instituted this Sacrament in two kinds and
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
the people otherwise one would haue serued This custome the Pope dislikes not for that the Cup was giuen to the Laiety but because in the first institution Christ gaue but one Cup to all his Disciples The same Pope afterward thus resolueth the question touching the leprous Communicants with whom the sound could not with safety drinke in the same Cup As for leapers if they be belieuers let them not be depriued if the participation of our Lords body and blood but by no meanes let them bee at the same Table or participate together with them that are cleane Anno. 780. Alcuinus in his book of diuine duties instanceth in some who were not fit to communicate euery day because they had no purpose to leaue their sinnes To these saith he Saint Austine thus speaketh I like well of your humility that you presume not to approach to the body and blood of Christ but it were better that you would depart from your iniquities and being made cleare by repentance would take the body and blood of Christ. Papists answer Cardinall Bellarmine for want of a better aduentureth vpon this answer that indeede these Fathers say that the blood of Christ is taken by or with the mouth but they say not that it ought to be drunken with the mouth of the body or taken vnder the forme of wine Reply The Hart as often as he is wounded flyes to his old Dictamus and Bellarm. to this distinction to heale himselfe but none of this herbe here groweth there is no ground for it For first the Fathers alleadged speake of the body and blood of Christ as distinct things and therefore not as of one inuolued in the other by the doctrine of Concomitancy to approach vnto to take the body of Christ and his blood or the creature of bread and wine sacramentally changed into Christs body and blood as Beda speaketh is not to take bread onely and wine by I know not what consequence or the body onely in specie and the blood by Concomitancy Secondly could this answer be appliable to other generall sentences of the Fathers yet not to these in which there is expresse mention made of the Chalice of powring out the blood of Christ and taking it as drinke and therfore vnder the forme of wine And who are they that so receiue it The Laietie as wel as the Priests vnlesse none but Priests are faithful Christians or all lepers excommunicate or suspended persons are to bee taken for Priests Beda reacheth the Cup to the faithful indifferently and Gregory to penitents after confession and contrition of what ranck so euer Yea leapers are not excluded simply but secluded that they might not infect the sound by drinking together with them SECT IX The practise of the Church from 800. to 900. Anno 800. CHarles the Great in his booke as the Inscription beareth of Images testifieth that in his time not onely frequently but dayly Christians participated of Christs body and blood He affirmeth that sins are remitted by the holy Ghost or by the blood of Christ which is taken of vs in the Sacrament and was shed for vs for the remission of sinnes That he means by vs the Laiety as well as the Clergy is euidēt First because himself was a Lay man and therefore necessarily in vs includes those of his owne ranke and order Secondly because he speakes of all their communicating who receiue the remission of sinnes by the effusion of Christs blood for them and these I am sure are not the Priests onely Thirdly because in the fourth booke c. 14. hee speaketh expresly of the faithfull in generall whereby the people must needs be vnderstood as well as the Priests His words are the mystery of the body and blood of Christ is dayly receiued by the faithfull in the Sacrament Anno 820. Paschasius Rathertus Abbot of Corbie who was the first that euer wrote of purpose and at large of the truth of Christs body and blood in the sacrament if we may belieue Bellarmine is full and direct against the Church of Rome in the point of their halfe communion O man saith he as often as thou drinkest of this Cup or eatest of this bread thou mayest not thinke that thou drinkest other blood then that which was shed for thee and for all for the remission of our sinnes And againe The blood is well ioyned to the flesh because neither the flesh without the blood nor the blood without the flesh is rightly communicated For the whole man which consists of two substances is redeemed and therefore fed together both with the flesh of Christ and his blood Had he liued in our dayes and professedly wrote against our moderne Papists he could not in more expresse words haue impugned the Romish Glosse vpon the words of our Sauiour viz. drinke yee all of this that is all Priests then he doth cap. 15. He alone it is saith he who breaketh this bread by the hands of his Ministers distributeth it to beleiuers saying take ye ad drinke all of this as well Ministers as the rest of the faithfull this is the Cup of the blood of the new and euerlasting Testament Anno 830. Amalarius praefat in liber 3. de Offic. Eccles affirmeth that the benediction of Bishops or Priests without Chaunters Readers or any other is sufficient to blesse the bread and wine wherewith the people might be refreshed to their soules health as it was wont to be done in the first times by the Apostles themselues Quot verba tot fulmina so many words so many thunderbolts to strike downe dead the Popes sacrilegious heresie If the bread and wine were blest for the refection of the people then not of the Priests onely if this refectiō was for the health of their soules who dare deny it them If this was the manner of blessing and administring the Sacrament vsed by the Apostles themselues by what authority at this day doth the Church of Rome alter it Anno 835. Rabanus Maurus Bishop of Mentz teacheth vs that the Lord would haue the Sacrament of his body and blood to bee receiued by the mouth of the faithfull and made their food that by that visible worke the inuisible effect of the Sacrament might bee shewed For as the materiall food outwardly nourisheth the body and maketh it quicke and liuely so the Word of God within nourisheth and strengtheneth the soule Men may haue this temporall life without this meate and drinke but they cannot haue the eternall because this meate signifies the eternall societie or communion of the Head with the members Who soeuer saith he eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood he abides in me and I in him Wherefore of necessity we must take his body and blood that we may abide in him and be made members of his body In these passages this learned Bishop euery way stops the mouth of our aduersaries They
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
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
generall Councell are confirmed and the rest not M. Euerard There may bee such a confirmation of a Councell and it was so in that Councell For the Pope neuer confirmed this article touching a general Councels authoritie aboue the Pope D. Featly Had I knowne that I should haue met with you here at this time or that there should haue been any disputation about points of Religion I would haue brought my bookes with me and produced the Acts of the Councell For the present sith we haue not here the Tomes of the Councells all that I wil reply shall be this that as the Councell of Constance defined that a Generall Councell was aboue the Pope so they exercised their power and made good that decree by deposing three Popes in that Councell and setting vp a fourth by name this Martin the fifth whom it much concerned to confirme this Councell euen in that point M. Euerard Those three Popes I say deposed that Councell D. Featly Resolutely spoken and brauely but yet by your fauour the three Popes deposed by that Councell sate downe by the losse and the Fathers that deposed them stil held there Bishopricks and the fourth Pope chosen in that Councell held the Papacy during life This point being thus put off for the present vntill the Tomes of the Councels might be had and the Popes confirmation extant in them explained the Lady asked Doctor Featly Lady Faulkland Whether hee thought the ancient Fathers prayed not for the dead D. Featly Questionlesse they did and Aërius is condemned by them for simply and absolutely condemning the practise of the Church in naming the dead in their publike prayers and celebrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist that is of thanksgiuing for them Wee condemne not all commemoration of or prayers for the dead but the Popish manner of praying for the release of their soules out of Purgatory M. Euerard To what end should the Fathers pray for the dead if not for the release of their soules out of Purgatory D. Featly To what end doth the Church of Rome pray for the soule of blessed Leo and other Saints in heauen I trow not to release their soules out of Purgatorie M. Euerard The Church of Rome prayeth not for the soule of blessed Leo or any Saint now in heauen D. Featly Bellarmine saith she did and yet doth and proueth it out of Innocentius the Pope M. Euarard Will you put this vnder your hand D. Featly I will let it bee written Bellarmine saith that the Church of Rome prayed for the Soule of Saint Leo and other Saints Dan. Featly About this time Master Euerard hauing gotten the Councell of Trent called vpon Doctor Featly to acknowledge his error in denying that the Councell of Trent had defined it as a matter of Faith that a Bishop is in order aboue a Presbyter by the Law of God Looke heere saith he in the 23. Sess. Canon 6. expresly it defines this point g If any man shall say that in the Catholike Church there is not an Hierarchie instituted by Diuine ordination consisting of Bishops Presbyters and Ministers let him be accursed Can. 7. * If any man shall say that Bishops are not superiours to Priests or Presbyters let him be accursed D. Featly This Canon of the Trent Councell defineth not that Bishops Priests differ ordine sedgradu not that Bishops are in Ecclesiasticall order essentially different from Priests but that they haue a degree of superioritie in the same order Secondly the Councel defineth this as a truth but not as a matter of saluation for the Laietie to beleeue vpon paine of damnation And therfore I say as before that this point might haue bin forborne Thirdly the Councell defineth Bishops to be superiors to priests but sayth not iure diuino Here diuers of the auditors desired Doctor Featly and Master Euerard to disscusse the point touching Communion in one kinde which they conceiued to bee a point of great moment because if the Laietie as well as the Clergie ought to haue the Cup the Church of Rome doth them great wrong in debarring them of it and shee violateth Christs institution D. Featly If Master Euerard like well of it we will confine our selues to this point But first I desire a Bible For I will neuer dispute of point of Faith without Scripture the Ground of Faith M. Euerard What Bible will you haue For I allow not of the English Translation D. Featly The originall if it may be had especially the new Testament in Greeke M. Euerard I desire the Vulgar Latine Translation D. Featly What rather then the originall That is strange M. Euerard Not so For the Vulgar Latine is purer then the Greek of the new or the Hebrew of the old Testament D. Featly Will you set your hand to it M. Euerard I will The vulgar Latine Translation is purer then the Greeke of the new or the Hebrew of the olde Testament Ita est Euerard p. D. Featly This is a new and erroneous assertion if not blasphemous M. Euerard Neither erroneous nor new Other Catholikes haue held the same before me and namely Bellarmine De verbo dei lib. 2. cap. 11. Truely it can scarse be doubted but as the Latine Church hath beene more constant in retayning the Faith then the Greek so also that she hath been more vigilant in preseruing her bookes from corruption D. Featly 1. Although Bellarmine had come home to your assertion yet it followeth not but that it is new and erroneous Secondly the reason Cardinall Bellarmine vseth is not found that because the Latine Church hath preserued the Faith purer then the Greeke therefore the Latine Bibles kept by them are freer from corruption then the Greeke Originall For it is not true that the Latine that is as he meaneth the Romane Church hath kept the Faith more sincerely then the Greeke Beside the originall Greeke hath not oenly beene kept by the Greeke Church but also by the Latine Church which Latine Church no doubt had as great or greater care to preserue the Originall from corruption then the Latine Translation Thirdly Bellarmine affirmeth not so much as you doe For he speaketh not a word of the Hebrew of the old Testament in this place but onely of the Greeke of the new Whereas you preferre the Vulgar Latine not onely before the Greeke of the new but also the Hebrew of the old Neither doth Bellarmine say that the Vulgar Latine is simply to be preferred before the Greeke of the new but that the Latines were more carefullin keeping their Latine then the Greekes in keeping their Greeke This might be Bellarmines Iudgement without preferring the Latine absolutely before the Greek For albeit the Latine for a Translation were better kept then the Greeke for the Originall yet he might say still that the Translation must needs come behind the Originall simply A Translation be it neuer so good cannot come neere the Originall in authoritie though it be kept
you to eate his flesh and drinke his blood and he no where commands you to drinke his flesh and bones Who euer heard of flesh and bones to be drunke and that properly without any figure M. Euerard In Mummie the flesh of man may be drunke D. Featly Peraduenture the flesh of man may bee so handled and altered and the bones also grounded to so small a powder that in some Liquor they may be drunke but the flesh of man and bones without an alteration of qualitie or quantitie cannot be drunke And I hope you will not say that the flesh and bones of Christ in the Sacrament receiue any alteration at all At these words Doctor Featly and Master Euerard were intreated to desist from any further dispute till after supper And so this point was not further pursued After supper Doctor Featly calling for Saint Cyprian besides the places aboue alleaged for Communion in both kinds shewed Master Euerard the speach of Saint Cyprian in the Councell of Carthage Wherein he expresly denieth the Bishop of Romes Supremacy The words are these Super est vt de hac ipsa re quid singuli sentiamus proferamus neminem iudicantes aut à iure communionis aliquem si diuersum senserit remouentes neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporū constituit aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit Quando habeat omnis episcopus pro licentia libertatis potestatis sua arbitriū propriū tanquā iudicari ab alio non possit cum nec ipse possit alterū iudicare Sed expectemus vniuersi iudicium Domini nostri Iesu Christi qui vnus solus habet potestatē praeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernatione de hoc actu nostro iudicandi i. e. It remaineth that euery one of vs deliuer his opinion of this matter iudging no man or remouing him from Communion with vs if he differ frō vs in iudgment For none of vs makes himselfe a Bishop of Bishops nor compells by tyrannicall terror his Colleagues to a necessitie of following him seeing that euery Bishop within his liberty and iurisdiction hath free power of himselfe and as he can iudge no other so neither can he be iudged by any other But let vs all waite for the iudgment of our Lord Iesus Christ who onely and alone hath power to preferre vs in the gouernment of his Church and to iudge of this act of ours M. Euerard Saint Cyprian speakes this in a Councell that is condemned by the Church for defining an error to wit that those that were baptized by heretikes ought to be rebaptized Secondly Saint Cyprian in these words Christ one and alone excludeth not his Vicar generall the Bishop of Rome D. Featly Your first exception is not to the purpose For albeit the sentence of this Councell be not approued touching the rebaptization of those who had been baptized by heretikes yet this speech of Saint Cyprian vttered by him at the first meeting of the Bishop of Carthage sitting in Councell was neuer disliked by any of the ancients Neither S. Augustine nor any other Father who impugned the sentence of this Councell did any way impeach or dislike much lesse refute this sentence of Saint Cyprian wherein he denieth all manner of submission to Stephen then Bishop of Rome Nay by a Sarcasme he glance that him and checketh him for making himselfe a Bishop of Bishops and goeing about to compel other Bishops to subscribe to his iudgement Your second answer is controwled by the direct words of Saint Cyprian If any besides Christ to wit his supposed Vicar the Bishop of Rome haue powre to place Bishops in the Church and censure their Synodical Acts then it is false which Saint Cyprian heere saith that Christus vnus solus that Christ alone hath this power The Pope with Christ is not Christus vnus much lesse Christus solus But Saint Cyprian saith Christus vnus solus one and onely Christ hath this power therefore not the Pope Lady Faulkland If Christ alone haue power to preferre Bishops in the gouernment of the Church and to censure their acts made in their Councells how can you then maintaine the Kings Supremacy doth not the King place and displace Bishops D. Featly In Saint Cyprians time there were no Christian Kings or Emperors and therefore this exception could not bee taken against the blessed Martyrs words Secondly That which Saint Cyprian here reproueth in Pope Stephen no Christian King or Emperor assumed to himselfe to be a Bishop of all Bishops and to censure the acts of Bishops and their determinations deliuered in point of Faith in Councels lawfully assembled Thirdly Christian Kings within there owne Dominions grant Conge de-lires to Deanes and Chapters and confirme their Elections and giue Mandates to Metrapolitans to consecrate but they take not vpon them to bee Bishops of all Bishops through the world as the Bishop of Rome doth nor as Bishops or Archbishops to consecrate any Bishops but vpon persons ordained and to bee consecrated by order of the Church they conferre and collate such Bishopricks as lye within there owne dominion M. Euerard Before I answer you any further I require you to answer a place of Cyprian touching the mingling of water with the wine in the Sacrament Mingling the Cup of Christ let vs not depart from the diuine Mandate If any man offer wine onely Christs blood begins to be without vs if water be alone the people begin to be without Christ. When both are mingled then the spirituall and heauenly Sacrament is perfect D. Featly It doth not appeare by scripture that Christ or his Apostles mingled water with wine onely because it was the manner of those hot Countries to temper their wine with water many of the ancients and amongst them Saint Cyprian conceiued that Christ at his last Supper did so Which if he did yet seing he commandeth vs not to follow his example any further then to doe that which hee did that is to take bread and breake it to take the Cup and distribute it we transgresse not Christs Institution whether we communicate in leauen or vnleauened bread whether in pure wine or in wine mingled with water The commandement lyes vpon the substance to eate of the bread and drinke of the Cup and therein of the fruit of the vine but not on the circumstances which are left free and indifferent Secondly Saint Cyprian in this epistle mainly bendeth this discourse against the Aquarij certaine heretikes who contended that the Sacrament ought to be receiued in water onely Against these he proues most strongly that we ought to receiue in wine This is his maine drift and thus farre we hold with him On the by he speaketh of mingling wine with water which was the vse in his time and we dislike it not only wee hold the Church is free in this kind to receiue it in pure
grounded vpon vncertaine and false supposals For a Church may haue been visible yet not the names of all visible Professors now bee shewed and proued out of good Authors There might be millions of Professors yet no particular and authenticall record of them by name Records there might bee many in ancient time yet not now extant at least for vs to come by Yet we will not refuse to deale with you in your owne question if you in like manner will vndertake the like taske in your owne defence and maintaine the affirmatiue in the like question which we now propound here vnto you in writing Whether the Romish Church that is a Church holding the particular entire doctrine of the now Romanists as it is comprised in the Councell of Trent was in all Ages visible especially in the first 600. yeeres and whether the names of such visible or legible Romanists in all Ages can bee shewed and proued out of good Authors Secondly whereas in a Conference Iune 27. 1623. with you and M. Sweete I vndertook to proue the perpetuall visibility of the Protestant Church both à priore by Syllogisme and à posteriore by Induction and then also made an Essay in both kinds as the time permitted demonstrating the visibility of the Protestant Church being an effect by the eternity of our Faith as the cause And further to stop your clamour for names I produced at that time the names of visible Professors of our beliefe for 200. yeeres Thirdly wheras since the Conference I haue made good my demonstration à priore of the perpetuall visibility of the Protestant Church against all your cauils refuted at large through my whole booke intituled The Romish Fisher caught and held in his own net printed at London 1624. but particularly more especially in the Remonstrance therein to Sr. Humphry Linde frō page the 14. vsque ad finem and in my Reply to your answer Paragraph 8. pag. 89. vsque ad 112 Fourthly whereas now I haue quite finished my demonstration à posteriore and haue set downe the so much harangued for Catalogue of visible Professors in all Ages from Christ to Luther of our Protestant doctrine in a maine point of difference and one of the first mentioned in the Conference touching the communicating in both kinds I now therfore challenge you M. Iohn Fisher according to your deepe ingagement before in and since the Conference as you tender the tickle state of your Catholike cause with your collapsed Ladies immediately after the perusall of this my Treatise to goe about and in conuenient time without further delayes and tergiuersatiō to draw a like Catalogue for your part of such Writers and Authors of note in all Ages who haue defended or at least approued your dry and halfe Communion Which after that you haue performed I will proceed God assisting me to name visible Professors in all Ages in other points of greatest moment But if you refuse to meete mee in this field pitched by your selfe diuerting into your common place of railing at Sectaries and Nouelists Or if like Caligula you triumph at Rome for a signall victory in Germany when he had gathered onely a few pebbles on the shore at Caieta and you thereupon cry out vpon the shifts and tergiuersations of D. Featly whereas to pay you backsome of your owne in coine your white liuer wil not suffer you to come so much as in sight of the walles and gates of my defence but onely to shoote a few paper bullets against three or foure of my redoubts you in all your Replyer not replying one word to the defence of my proceeding in the Conference and Refutations of your answers Or if for want of better imployment Ne toga condylis penula desit oliuis You shall tacke together a cento of relations like Sibylles leaues as much distracted as the braines of the Penner and if you shall intreate in good earnest your Midas Reader to giue credit to your own report in your own cause you being both a Romanist and a Iesuite against the subscription of sundry persons of honor worth and qualitie affixed to the Conference Or if hauing a leaden Treatise that hath long lyen heauy vpon your hands touching no saluation out of the Church of Rome you shall clap my name and D. Whites vpon it to make it sell intituling it A Reply to D. White and D. Featly whereas from the first page being 145. to the last 181. there is not one syllable against either of their writings Fifthly and lastly if you shall change your trade and of a Fisher turne Sawyer nothing but drawing the Saw of your ragged stile 1000. times by the same line backward and forward and neuer pierce into the heart of any Controuersie impute it to no other thing then meere compassion in your opposites that they reioyne not to your Replyes ne famam tuam sponte concidentem maturiùs extinguant suo vulnere lest they should giue a deaths-wound to your reputation that lyeth on bleeding already In tauros ruunt Libyci leones Ne sint Papilionibus molesti FINIS THE SVMME AND SVBSTANCE OF A DISPVTATION BETWEENE M. DAN FEATLY OPONENT AND D. SMITH THE younger Respondent now by the Pope intitutuled Bishop of Chalcedon and Ordinary of all England at Paris Sept. 4. 1612. Stylo nouo touching the Reall presence in the Sacrament LONDON Printed by Felix Kyngston for Robert Milbourne and are to be sold at his shop in Pauls Churchyard at the signe of the Greyhound 1630. THE SVMME AND SVBSTANCE OF A DISPVTATION betweene M. Dan. Featly Opponent and D. Smith the younger Respondent now by the Pope intituled Bish. of Chalcedon and Ordinary of all England at Paris Sept. 4. 1612. Stylo nouo touching the Reall presence in the Sacrament The Lawes of the Disputation 1. That they should dispute calmely and peaceably 2. That all impertinent discourses should be auoided 3. That M. Featly at this time should onely oppose and D. Smith onely answer THese Conditions agreed vpon it was thought fit both should set downe the state of the Question and the points of difference between them which D. Smith being Respondent first vndertooke distinguishing betweene the questions of Reall presence and of Transubstantion and determining the point in question to bee this Whether the body of Christ were truly and substantially in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine Which being done hee entred into a large discourse to set downe the proofes and confirmations of the affirmatiue vsed by their Church Whereupon he was challenged by M. Featly of a breach of the third Law and so after Master Featly had for his part promised him to answer all his arguments at another time when the hearers should thinke good D. Smith surceased And M. Featly explained the termes of the Question as followeth There are two termes said hee in the question Presence and Reall I distinguish of both First The Scripture
hand to the true Relation thereof long agoe sent you Nihil veritas erubescit nisi solumodo abscondi Truth neuer blusheth but when she is hid She feareth nothing but not to bee brought to her tryall Hee who knoweth his coyne is pure gold will neuer refuse to offer it to the Goldsmiths Test because he can loose nothing by it but shal haue allowance for it Besides your friends boasting at the Conference your owne promise in the Conference deepely ingageth you to assoyle the arguments then vrged against your halfe Communion whereunto at the present you returned not so much as half an answer pleading for your selfe the short scantling of time which gaue you not space to wield yonr Catholike buckler Scitum est enim culpam conijcere intempus cum vltra addere si maximèvelis non possis The Romane Oratour told you it is a handsome put-off to lay the blame vpon the time when an aduocate hath neuer a word more to say for his Clyent But veritas temporis filia Truth is Times Daughter she will iustifie her Mother If in so long a tract of time as hath run since our meeting in Noble-street you had fully and punctually satisfied those arguments then left vntouched you had salued your cause and credit and made it appeare you were not wanting to time but time then to you But now sith you haue broken so often day after day and moneth after moneth and by this time yeere after yeere being fo oft challenged of your promise yea vpbraided also by S. P. L. and the Lord T. and others and in fine your resolution is to giue no resolution of those doubts I will be bold to tell you that time will now no more beare your blame but you and your cause must beare it off with head and shoulders You cannot now goe backe Lis contestata est praelium condictum The field is pitched the weapons are chosen The question agreed vpon is the Communion in one kind the proofes must bee Scripture and the perpetuall custome of the Church If by both your Romish practise be conuinced to be sacrilege in the highest degree then write hereafter your braggs in redinke and let your lines blush for shame and do you your selfe ingeniously confesse concerning sacrilege as Papinian did concerning fatricide that it is as difficult and dangerous a matter to defend the murder of a brother as to commit it But on the contrarie if by the euidence of Scripture and coustant practise of the Catholike Christian Church you can iustifie your Romish dry communions you shal not only gaine your pretended Catholicke cause but me also your Proselyte D. F. THE PARTICVLAR CONTENTS OF THE SEVERALL Chapters of this Booke Chap. 1. THe state of the question concerning the Communion in both kinds is set downe out of the Harmony of Protestant Confessions on the one sida and out of the Canons of the Councels of Constance Basil and Trent on the otherside Chap. 2. The first Argument for the Tenent of the Reformed Churches drawne from Christs Precept and example in the celebration of the Sacrament confirmed by the testimony of Pope Iulius the first Chap. 3. The second Argument for the Communion in both kinds drawne from the essence and perfection of this Sacrament confirmed by Vasquez the Iesuite Chap 4. The third argument drawne from the Analogie of the signe to the thing signified confirmed by Gratian the Canonist Chap. 5. The fourth argument drawne from the nature of a banket or supper confirmed by Aquinas and Vasquez Chap. 6. The fift argument drawne from the expresse precept of drinking at the Lords Table confirmed by the testimonie of Pope Innocen the 3. Chap. 7. The sixt argument drawne à Pari confirmed by Bonauenture the Schoole Diuine and others Chap. 8. The seuenth argument drawne from the condition and propriety of a Will or Legacie confirmed by Iansonius c. Chap. 9. The eight argument drawne from the end of the Sacrament confirmed by Iac. Rehing being then a Iesuite Chap. 10. The ninth argument drawne from the example of Saint Paul and the Corinthians confirmed by Becanus the Iesuite Chap. 11. The tenth argument drawne from the vniforme and constant practice of the Christian Catholicke Church in all Ages Sect. 1. The testimonies of the practice of the Church from Christs assention to 100. yeeres Sect. 2. Testimonies in the second Age from 100. to 200. Sect. 3. Testimonies in the third age from 200. to 300. Sect. 4. Testimonies in the fourth Age from 300. to 400. Sect. 5. Testimonies in the fifth Age from 400. to 500. Sect. 6. Testimonies in the sixth Age from 500. to 600. Sect. 7. Testimonies in the seuenth Age from 600. to 700. Sect. 8. Testimonies in the eighth Age from 700. to 800. Sect. 9. Testimonies in the ninth Age from 800. to 900. Sect. 10. Testimonies in the tenth Age from 900. to 1000. Sect. 11. Testimonies in the eleuenth Age from 1000. to 1100. Sect. 12. Testimonies in the tewelfth Age from 1100. to 1200. Sect. 13. Testimonies in the thirteenth Age from 1200. to 1300. Sect. 14. Testimonies in the fourteenth Age from 1300. to 1400. Sect. 15. Testimonies in the fifteenth Age from 1400. to 1500. Sect. 16. Testimonies in the sixteenth Age from 1500. to 1600. Sect. vltima The confirmation of this argument by the confession of Papists of eminent learning and worth Thom. Aquin. Dionysius Carthousianus Ioh. Eccius Cassander Soto Ioh. Arborius Ruardus Tapperus Alsonsus a Castro Slotanus Salmeron Gregorie de Valentia and Suarez Chap. 12. Papists obiections for their halfe communion from Scripture answered and retorted Chap. 13. Papists obiections from Councels answered and retorted Chap. 14. Papists obiections from sundry pretended rites and customes of the Church answered and retorted Chap. 15. Papists obiections from reason answered and retorted Chap. 16. The Contradictions of Papists in this question noted and the whole truth for vs deliuered out of their owne mouthes The Contens of the Conference Of the necessitie of Episcopall gouernment Of ordination by Presbyters or Priests in case of necessitie Of the distinction of Bishops and Priests iure diuino Of differences amongst Papists in matter of faith Of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Marie Of the authoritie of Generall Councels aboue the Pope ècont Of prayer for the dead Of the authoritie of originall Scripture Of the Communion in both kinds Of the Popes Supremacy Of mingling water with wine in the Sacrament Of the perfection of Scripture AN ADVERTISEMENT to the Reader IT falleth out often with Students in controuersies as with people in the market who taking money with them at their going from home and espying in the fayre some Merchandize they like when they haue driuen the Price and are drawing out their purse they find it either pickt or the strings cut In like maner these Students meeting with some pregnāt testimonies alleaged out of the ancient Fathers or later Writers in Apologies for
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
expresly commandeth all to drinke of the Cup and lest any man might cauill saying that that precept belonged only to Priests Saint Pauls ordinance to the Corinthians testifies That the whole Church ordinarily or in common vsed both kinds In the Saxonik Article 15. All men know that the Lords Supper was so instituted at the first that the whole Sacrament was giuen to the people as it is written Drinke you all of this The custome of the ancient Churches both Greeke and Latine are well knowne therefore we must confesse that the prohibiting of one part thereof is vniust It is vnlawfull to violate the last wil and Testament of men if it be lawfully made why then doe the Bishops violate the Testament of the Sonne of God sealed with his blood In the Bohemian c. 14. Christ said in expresse words Take eate this is my body and in like manner when he gaue them the Cup by it selfe and distinctly said Take Drinke ye all of this this is my blood therefore according to this Commandement the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ ought to be distributed and receiued by all beleeuers in common In the latter Heluetian confession cap. 21. we dislike these who haue takeÌ„ away one part of the Sacrament viz. the Cup of the Lord from the faithfull for they grieuouslly offend against the Lords institution who said Drinke ye all of this which hee spake not in so expresse words of the bread The Doctrine and practice of the reformed Churches as it is expressed in these Confessions is solidly and learnedly iustified against the Romish aduersaries by Luther Melancton Caluin Iewel Chemsius Plessis Bilson Riuet Moulin Chamierus Humfrey and others from whose Hiues I haue taken much hony yet not vpon trust nor without trying it but tracing the diligent Bees in the Paradice of God the holy Scripture and the Garden of Ecclesiasticall Writers euen to each flower whence they gathered it CHAP. II. The first Argument drawne from Christs Precept and example in the celebration of this Sacrament WHatsoeuer Christ commanded and did in the first celebration of this Supper ought continually to be obserued and practized in the Church But Christ in the first celebration of the Supper gaue the Cup and commanded it to bee giuen to all there present that before had receiued the bread Therefore the giuing of the Cup to all Communicants at the Supper ought perpetually to bee obserued and practised in the Church The proposition is gathered out of Luk. 22. 19. This doe ye in remembrance of me and 1. Cor. 11. 25. This do ye as oft as you drink in remembrance of me and ver 26. as oft as you eate of this bread and drinke this Cup you shew the Lords death till he come In which words the Apostle euidently implyeth that the Commandement this doe in remembrance of me extends euen to Christs second comming And verily if Christs precepts and actions in the first celebration of this Sacrament were not a law binding the Church to doe the like in all succeeding ages neither the Apostles themselues nor the Church after them should haue had any warrant at all to celebrate the Lords Supper after his death Which to affirme were absurd impietie or as Saint Augustine speakes in a case of farre lesse importance most insolent madnesse The assumption is set down in the very letter totidem verbis Mat. 26. 27. He tooke the Cup and gaue it to them saying Drinke you all of this Mark 14. 23 And he tooke the Cup and when hee had giuen thanks he gaue it them and they all drank of it Certainely I perswade my selfe that our Sauiour expressed the note of vniuersality viz. in deliuering the Cup to all saying Drinke you all of this and not so in giuing the bread of set purpose to preuent that abuse which the Romish Church of late hath brought in by taking away the Cup. As in like manner the Apostle saith of marriage It is honorable in or amongst all men Heb. 13. 4. and he saith not so of virginity or single life although it bee most true that single life or virginity is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is pretious or honorable because the holy Ghost foresaw that some heretikes would denie marriage to bee honourable amongst all and prohibite it to some men viz. the Cleargie Which two texts of Scripture the Romanists lewdly peruert and ridiculously contradict themselues in the interpretation of them extending all to the Laietie in the one and excluding the Cleargie and extending all to the Cleargie in the other and excluding the laietie Marriage is honorable among all say they that is all saue Priests Drink you all of this that is all saue the people In restraining all in both places they make of omnes non omnes and so contradict the text and by expounding all sometimes of the people not Priests sometimes of Priests and not people they contradict themselues For the restriction of all in this place to Priests administring onely I forbeare the further refuting of it because all the arguments that follow in generall ouerthrow it and in particular and expressly it is refelled in the Conference annexed hereunto This whole argument is confirmed by the testimonie of Pope Iulius set downe in the Canon Law and therefore deliuered ex Cathedra De consecrat dist 2. There hee proues that bread and wine onely ought to be giuen in the Sacrament and not milke because Christ the master of Truth when he commended the Sacrament vnto his Disciples at his last Supâ—…er gaue milke to none but bread the cup only The contrary practice viz. of them that giue milke in the Sacrament how repugnant it is to the Euangelicall and Apostolicall Doctrine and custome of the Church will easily bee proued from the fountaine of truth from whom the ordination of these mysteries did proceed The Pope in this place drawes an argument from Christs institution and practice at his last Supper both affirmatiuely and negatiuely Christ gaue bread and wine to his Disciples therefore wee ought so to doe he gaue not milke therefore wee ought not Christ is the Fountaine of truth he is the Master of truth hee is the Author of the Sacrament therefore inferreth the Pope and in this particular infallibly nothing must bee done in the administration of this Sacrament otherwise then Christ did and commanded at his last Supper The Romanists cannot confirme the Popes argument but they must needs confirme ours in this point they cannot infirme or weaken ours but they must needes weaken his and not his onely but that renowned Doctor and glorious Martyr Saint Cyprians also who fighteth with the same weapon against the heretiques called Aquarij wherewith we doe against the papists No man may vnder colour of new or humane constitutions depart from that which Christ our Master did and taught and a little
after If in the Sacrifice which Christ offered Christ alone is to be followed it behooueth vs to obay and doe that which Christ did and commanded to be done seeing he himselfe saith in the Gospel if ye doe that which I command you I will not say that you are seruāts but friends c. Yet some out of ignorance or simplicity in sanctifying the Lords Cup and ministring to the people doe not that which Iesus Christ the Author and Teacher of this sacrifice did and taught If any Cauill against this argument that Christ sate or leaned at his last Supper gaue the Sacrament after supper and that vnto 12 and those men and no women and yet we are not bound so to doe and consequently that the argument from Christs example is not of absolute necessity for vs to follow but may be dispensed with by the Church I answer first that the argument proceedes vpon substantiall acts and not circumstances such as are the time and the place and the number of communicants Now that the Cup is a substantiall part of the Sacrament appeareth both by Christs blessing and consecrating it and the words of the institution This Cup is the new Testament in my blood neither can the aduersaries deny it who account it no lesse then sacriledge in a Priest to consecrate or receiue the Sacrament in one kind onely 2. Our argument is not grounded onely vpon that which Christ did but vpon that which Christ did and taught or commanded should bee done Now as Christ tooke the bread and broke it and said Doe this so in like manner he tooke the Cup and said Drinke ye all of this but Christ said not in like manner sit you downe or lye when you take the sacrament or receiue it late at night or administer it to such a number of men onely What he did and taught as Saint Cyprian soundly collects must be perpetually obserued in the Church the circumstances vsed at his last Supper hee did not command vs to vse but the substantiall acts of administring the Sacrament in both kinds Fecitet Docuit he both did and taught vs to doe Wherefore as Saint August speaks in a like kind All the contradictions of our aduersaries cauilling breath serueth rather to kindle more then blow out or quench the fier of truth in this argument burning vp the stubble of Popish Canons and constitutions repugnant to Christs Doctrine and practice at his last Supper CHAP. III. The second Argument drawne from the essence and perfection of this Sacrament THe Sacrament of the Eucharist is not entire and perfect without the Cup. The faithfull people capable of it and prepared for it ought to receiue the Sacrament intire and perfect Therefore the faithfull people capable of the Sacrament and prepared for it ought to receiue the Cup. The proposition is euident by the institution of this Sacrament and the confession of our aduersaries for this Sacrament was instituted in two kinds bread and wine as Christ blessed the one Element so the other as he commanded the one to be taken and eaten so likewise or in like manner Luk. 22. 20. hee commanded the other to be taken and drunke As a man that hath but one eye or one eare or one arme or leg is not a perfect man but a maimed because nature intende all those organs to bee double and the operation is more compleat and perfect in both organs then it can be in one onely In like manner he cannot be said to receiue the Sacrament entire and perfect who receiueth it but in one kind onely because Christ instituted it in two kinds and ordained the full significancie and efficacie to bee compleat in both and not in one onely Wherefore Aquinas part 3. q. 63. art 1. concludeth Therefore two things concurre to the integrity of this Sacrament viz. sprituall meat and drink And Bonauenture in 4. sententiarum Distinct. 11. part 2. art 1. quest 2. A perfect refection or repast is not in bread only but in bread and drinke therefore Christ is not perfectly signified as feeding our soules in one kinde but in both And 〈◊〉 Soto art 12. quest 1. in 12. distinct The Sacrament as concerning the entire signification thereof is not perfect but in both kinds Doubtlesse halfe a man is not a man nor halfe an eye an eye nor halfe a ship a ship Neither can that which is halfe to one bee the whole to another Wherefore sith the Papists confesse that this Sacrament is not entire or whole to a Priest receiuing it in one kind onely neither can it be whole to the Laietie vnlesse we take Hesiods riddle for sound diuinitie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The halfe is not then the whole The assumption cannot be denyed by any Christian. Saint Paul implyeth 1. Cor. 11. That they which receiue the Sacrament otherwise then they ought receiue not the Lords Supper And S. Ambr. saith expressly comment in 11. cap. 1. ad Corint The Apostle saith he is vnworthie of the Lord who celebrates this mysterie otherwise then it was deliuered by him for he cannot be religious who presumes to receiue it otherwise then it was giuen by the author This whole argument is confirmed by the testimonie of their accomplished Iesuite Vasques who t. 3. in 3. disp 215. c. 2. reasoneth thus each kind in this sacramēt as it is apart of the sacrament hath a diuerse signification by it selfe and sith according to our former suppositions in the Sacraments of the new law the efficacie followes the signification for they effect that which they signifie it ensueth thereupon that each kind in this Sacrament doth produce or worke its owne effect by it selfe Vpon which inferences of his I collect that which peraduenture he little expected but can neuer with all his sophisticall slights auoid that the Church of Rome robbeth the Laiety of or to speake more properly detaineth vniustly from them an vnualuable Iewel viz. some measure or degree at lest of sanctifying grace And what amends can they make for so vnsufferable wrong done vnto them If each part of this Sacrament haue a signification a part and an operation a part in the soule the Romane Church by taking away one part of the Sacrament depriueth them of the signification and operation thereof How Vasques position can stand with their doctrine of concomitancie let him looke to it It is no small aduantage that the truth gaineth by her enemies falling foule one vpon another CHAP. IIII. Argument 3. drawne from the Analogie of the thing signified to the signe THe signe viz. the Cup ought to be denyed to none vpon whom God conferreth the grace signified by the signe Upon all faithfull Christians God conferreth the grace signified by that signe Therefore that signe viz. the Cup ought to be denied to no faithfull Christian. The proposition is deduced from the words of S. Peter Can any man forbid water that these should
not be baptized which haue receiued the holy Ghost as well as we Surely to whom God intendeth the end hee intendeth the vse of the meanes Lorinus out of the ordinary glosse conceiues the Apostle to vse an argument à minori which he thus reduceth to forme If God hath giuen that which is greater no man ought to forbid the lesser But God hath giuen them the holy Ghost which is the greater Therefore none ought to denie them the baptisme of water which is the lesse This is all one as if when the Pope hath bestowed an Archbishoprick vpon any Bishop the Datary should deny him the Pale or when the Vniuersity hath conferred the degree of Doctor the Beadle should denie him his Scarlet Hoode or when the Captaine hath admitted a souldier into his band any vnder officer should forbid him to weare his colours As incongruous if not far more it is when God the Lord and Master conferres the thing signified by the Sacrament for man the seruant and minister to denie the signe The asumption is easily prooued for the thing signified by the Cup is either the Communion of Christs blood as the Apostle testifieth The Cup of Blessing which we blesse is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ Or it is remission of sins by the blood-shedding of Christ as the words of the institution imply This is the blood of the new Testament which is shed for man for the remission of sins Neither of which benefits the Romanists dare to exclude the Laietie from They haue vnion with Christ by faith therefore Communion of his blood they receiue the remission of sinnes by Christs blood shed vpon the Crosse with what colour then can the Romanists take away from them the Cup the signe and pledge thereof if they except against this argument that children abstemious persons such as cannot brook wine receiue the thing signified viz. remission of sins and participate of Christs blood and yet drink not of the holy Cup the answer is easie None are by this argument meant but such as desire the Cup and are capable thereof such are not either children or abstemious persons Let the Opposition then or Maior be vnderstood as it is intended with this explication or limitation No faithfull Christians ought to be denied the Cup vpon whom God conferreth the thing signified by the Cup. viz. none that desire it and are capable thereof and can receiue it according to Christs ordinance such are the faithfull people ordinarily and so the former Cauill vanisheth into smoake This whole argument is confirmed by a Canon extant in Gratian de consecrat dist 2. If as often as the blood of Christ is shed it is shed for the remission ofsins I ought alwaies to take it that alwayes sinnes may be forgiuen me This Gratian gathered as a flowre out of Saint Ambrose his works but behold a greater then Saint Ambrose our Lord and Sauiour implieth as much saying This is my blood which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sinnes Drinke yee of it for it is shed for you and the remission of your sinnes These therefore for whom Christs blood was shed and they who haue obtained remission of sins by it ought by the reason annexed to this precept drinke of it And I perswade my selfe that no learned Papist hath so little charitie in his heart or so much brasse in his brow as doctrinally to deliuer that Christs blood was not shed sor the Laietie or that they receiue not remission of sinns thereby as well as Priests CHAP. V. The fourth argument drawne from the nature of a banquet or supper IN euery supper feast or banquet the cup is to be giuen to the guests that they may drinke as well as eate The Sacrament of the Eucharist is a supper feast or banquet Therfore in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Cup is to be giuen to all the communicants that they may drink as well as eate The proposition is euident to sense and is readily assented vnto by the aduersaries Aquinas part 3. q. 73. To a corporall refection or repast two things are required viz. meat which is a drie nourishment and drinke which is a moyst And y Lyranus in 1. Corin. 11. The Sacrament is giuen in two kinds or formes viz. of bread and wine that thereby a perfect spirituall refection might bee signified The asumption is testified by a cloud of witnesses by Saint Paul When you come together therefore into one place this is not to eate the Lords Supper for in eating euery one taketh before hand his own supper By Saint Cyprian who intituleth his Treatise of this Sacrament De coena Domini of the Lords Supper by Tertullian who sayth what shall her husband sing to her what shall shee sing to her husband shall Gods Supper heare something from the Tauerne from hell what mention of God what calling vpon Christ can there be there c. By Saint Ierom epist. 14. ad Damasum pa. 409. * the fat calfe is our Sauiour whose flesh we dayly eat and drinke his blood this banquet is euery day kept euery day the Father receiues his Sonne By Soto art 12. quest in 12. dist The Sacrament is not perfect but in both kinds for it is a banquet consisting of meate and drinke Nay by the whole Church of Rome in her Offices and publique Liturgie in the Antiphony sung at the Vespers on Corpus Christi day O holy banquet and in the prayer after the Communion in the feastof Cosimus and Damianus This whole argument is confirmed by Vasques the Iesuite disp 215. The Sacrament is instituted in both kinds viz. bread and wine that it might be a kind of banquet Therfore Christ speaking of himselfe saith My flâ—…sh is meate indeed and my blood is drinke indeed now in a banquet there is nothing but me â—…t and drinke whereof each refresheth the body after a seuerall manner and conduceth to the nourishment and increase thereof Whereupon he inferreth that each kinde in the Sacrament hath a peculiar and proper signification and operation This testimony of Vasques commeth home to the point for he confesseth all that is inforced by this argument first that a banquet consists of drinke as well as of meat Secondly that the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist is a banquet Thirdly that the seuerall kinds of foode in this banquet nourish after a seuerall manner from whence who seeth not that it will follow that the Laietie which are debarred of one kinde of viand in this banquet and receiue onely the other cannot participate the full effect and operation of the Sacrament which is a perfect spirituall refection or nourishment CHAP. VI. The fift Argument drawne from the precept of drinking NOne can drink in the Sacrament without the Cup All that communicate ought to drinke in the Sacrament Therefore all that communicate ought to haue the
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 Laiety and that the administring of the Sacrament to the people without wine was held a profanation of the Lords Supper for which cause that Bishop was seuerely taxed Anno 453. Eucherius Bishop of Lyons in his questions vpon Matthew implyeth that all holy men in generall and true members of Christ in his time dranke our Redeemers blood in the Sacrament His words are The Kingdome of God as the learned vnderstand it is the Church in which Christ daily drinketh his owne blood by his Saints as the Head in his members Anno 492. Among the Decrees of ancient Popes collected by Gratian we finde that sentence of Gelasius which I haue set in the frontispiece of this booke Grat. de consecra dist 2. cap. Comperimus We find that some receiuing a portion of Christs holy Body abstaine from the Cup of his sacred blood which because they doe out of I know not what superstition we comand that either they receiue the entire Sacraments or that they be entirely withheld from them because the diuision of one and the selfe-same mysterie cannot be without grand sacriledge In this Decree of Gelasius first we are to note that it is a Papall decision ex Cathedra That the elements in the Lords Supper must bee taken ioyntly This Gelasius determineth not as a priuate man but as a Pope ex Cathedra and therefore all Papists are bound to beleeue that hee did not nor could not erre in this decree Secondly it is to bee noted that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not entire without the Cup which quite ouerthroweth our aduersaries new fancy of concomitancy Thirdly it is to bee noted that hee defineth the withholding the Cup from any Communicant or deuiding the holy mysterie by halfe communicating not onely to bee sacriledge but to be grand sacriledge or the greatest sacriledge that can bee committed For grande is more then magnum or graue and it signifieth sacriledge in the highest degree Papists answer Gratian or his glosse in the title to this Decree would beare vs in hand that this Decree concerneth the Priests only and not the Laiety For a Priest to consecrate or to offer the bread without the wine or after they haue consecrated both to participate but of one this Gelasius forbids say they but not the Layetie to communicate in one kind onely Cardinall Bellarmine addes a second answer that this Canon was made against the Manichees and Priscillianists who refused the Cup in the Sacrament partly because they held wine in an abomination partly because they beleeued not that Christ had true blood in him These saith Bellarmine in token and testimony that they had reformed their former errour are commanded to receiue the Sacrament in both kinds or else not at all to be admitted vnto the Communion The Refutation Neither of these wards will beare off the blow For first it is not likely that Gelasius made this decree against the Manichees or Priscillianists for then hee would not haue said Quia nescio quâ superstitione astricti tenentur that is that they were intangled in I know not what superstition but rather Quia nota haeresi astricti tenentur that is they doe it because they are intangled in a knowne heresie Secondly admit that the Manichees and Priscillianists occasioned this decree yet this decree is backed with a generall reason which forbids all to Communicate in one kind only vnder the perill of grand Sacrilege Thirdly Gratians euasion will no way saue the Laietie harmelesse or acquit them of Sacrilege where of the Priest by this decree say they is made guiltie For that which is Sacrilege in the Priest cannot be Religion in the people Gelasius saith not that the Sacrilege consisteth in the diuision of one and the selfe same sacrifice but in the diuision of one and the selfe same mysterie Now the selfe same mystery or Sacrament is diuided as well in the halfe Communion of the people as of the Priest Lastly it is euident that the decree concerneth the Communicants and not the Priests Conficients or administring For the word arceantur that is let them be kept from or driuen from the entire Sacrament must needs be meant of the people For the people suspend not the Priests from the Sacrament but the Priests or Bishops the people Here Master Euerard is locked fast with a like paire of fetters to those which Campian makes for Protestants As he saith Patres so I say Papas admittis Captus es exludis Nullus es Doe you allow of the Popes decissions You are then taken Doe you disallow of them You are no body in the opinion of your owne selues If you subscribe to the determination of two Popes Leo and Gelasius you must confesse your selfe guilty of Sacrilege if you subscribe not to them of heresie Vtrum horum mauis accipe SECT VI. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 500. to 600. AS Tullie writeth of Hortensius that after his Consulship he decayed in his rare facultie of eloquence though not so sensibly that euery auditor might perceiue it yet in such sort that a cunning artist might obserue that he drew not so cleare a stroake in his master-pieces nor cast on them so rich and liuely colours as before Such was the state of the Church in this age It decayed and failed though not so sensibly and grossely that euery ordinary reader might take notice thereof yet in such sort that the learned and iudicious haue discouered in the writers of this age and much more after a declination from the puritie of former ages both in stile and doctrine Their Latine much degenerated into barbarisme and their deuotion into superstition Whence it is that the prime Doctors of the Reformed Churches who appeale from the late corruptions in the Romish Church to the prime sinceritie in the first and best ages confine this their appeale within the pale of the fifth age Wherefore the reader is not to demaund or expect from hence forth either so frequent testimonies or at least of men of that eminencie and reuerend authority as the former were For such the succeeding ages brought forth none but it shall suffice to produce such witnesses as the times affoorded men that held ranke with the best in their times Such were Remigius Archbishop of Rhemes Gregory Bishop of Tours and the Fathers of the Councell of Toledo and Iledra Anno 524. In the Councell held at Ilerda can 1. All those that serue at the Altar Christi corpus sanguinem tradunt and deliuer the body and blood of Christ or handle any holy vessell are strictly charged to abstaine from all mans blood yea euen of their enemies Anno 560. Remigius Archbishop of Rhemes thus expoundeth those words of Saint Paul The Cup of blessing wherewith we blesse is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ The Cup is called the Communion because all communicated or receiued the Communion out of it
for the opinion of the Romish Church For they signifie that Christs blood is to bee drunk but vnder the forme of bread not vnder the forme of wine As for Haymo hee answers him with a short come-off saying He spake of the vnity of the Chalice and that his meaningis that they that receiue the blood of the Lord receiue out of one Cup. Refutation The threefold answer of Bellarmine to Paschasius is not like a threefold cable that cannot be broken but rather like a rustie twisted wyer-string that breakes with the least strayne First he beareth vs in hand that the place in Paschasius seemes to be corrupted Corrupted By whom by Papists Surely they would neuer haue corrupted this text to make against themselues by Protestants That cannot be for no Protestants haue set forth Paschasius for ought we find or haue had any thing to doe in that Edition of Paschasius which we cite Besides in all the ancient impressions of Paschasius and the Manu-scripts that haue come to our sight the words are found as we cite them Yea but Iohn of Louane suspects that the copies are faulty and that bibite is put for edite Drinke yee for eat ye why so because the words going before are he distributeth the bread by the hands of his ministers to the beleeuers saying Take yee and drinke yee all of this This reason like a rope of sand hath no coherence at all For though Pascasius spake of bread yet to proue that Christ is he who alone by his Ministers distributeth the sacrament he rehearseth the words of the institution both concerning the Bread and the Cup neither can bibite or drink you in Paschasius be put for edite eate ye but must stand as it doth drinke yee For the words immediately following in Paschasius are for this is the new and eternall Testament Now what a ridiculous inference were it if we read the words as Iohn of Louane would haue vs take eate this for this is the Cup of the blood of the new and euerlasting testament Bellarmine his second answer is as absurd as his first For Paschasius his words make more strongly for vs and against himself if Paschasius expound the words Drinke ye all of this as they seeme to bee spoken by Christ not at the first Institution but afterwards whensoeuer the sacrament is administred in the Church If now also whensoeuer the sacrament is administred in the Church Christ commandeth drink ye all of this that is with Paschasius glosse all Ministers other beleeuers it followeth that all other beleeuers as well as Ministers ought now by Christs command to drinke of the cup. Thirdly as Bellarmine his first answer is against the text of Paschasius and his second against himselfe so his third is against common sence How can blood bee drunke vnder the forme of bread if we speake of drinking siguratiuely by faith this kind of drinking the Romanists explode If he speake of drinking properly with the mouth euery suckling is able to confute the Cardinall who know by meere sense that nothing cā be drunk but that which is moist and of liquid substance Nay the Cardinal discourseth like a man that had drank too deep of the wine forgetting in this page what he said in the former There he saith that the fathers doe not say that Christs blood is to be drunke of the people by the mouth of the body but here he saith that other beleeuers as well as Ministers by Christs command ought to drinke it but after a manner neuer heard of before to drinke it vnder the forme of bread Now for his answer to Haymo pari facilitate reijcitur quâ profertur t is as easy to be reiected as vrged For first the Cardinal corrupteth the text of Haymo hee saith not the Cup is the Communion because all drinke of that one Cup the word one is not in Haymo Admit it were this no way disapointeth our allegation out of Haymo For still this word omnes or al remaines And be it out of one Cup or more Haymo saith expresly that all did partake of it and receiued of the blood of Christ contained in it If all then the people as well as the Priests SECT X. The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 900. to 1000. ARistole rightly obserueth that it so falleth out in the descent of families as it doth in diuers grounds in which sometimes wee haue great plentie sometime as great scarsitie so saith he some families haue afforded store of noble personages at other times scarse any of note or eminence So it fareth here with vs in the last Age wee had plentifull store of testimonies for the truth but in this we are like to haue Penury Although if wee consider aright this scarsity may be imputed rather vnto the iniury of the time and want of Records of History which happily being extant might haue afforded vs no lesse plentie of Testimonies then the former Ages as well in this as in other points in question The Poet wisely obserued Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona Multi sed omnes vrgentur ignoti longâ Nocte carent quia vate sacro Dan. Chamier after much inquiry can bring notice but of one witnesse and him hee dares scarse avow Bellarmine brandeth with a note this ninth Age as being the most obscure and darke that the Sunne euer cast his beames vpon yet euen in this Age wee haue somewhat to shew for the right of Gods people to the holy Chalice of the Lords Table Anno 910. Rodolphus Tongrensis testifieth that the people in his time tooke the sacred body of Christ and drank a blessed draught of his blood Anno 920. The Abbot of Prumes Regino teacheth vs that what Rodolphus witnesseth of the practise of the people in his age was not an abuse or disorder in the people but done in obedience to the sacred discipline of the Church whose Canon he mentioneth Let the soules of the weake be refreshed and strengthned with the body and blood of our Lord. Anno 950. Stephanus Edvensis saith These gifts or benefits are dayly performed vnto vs when the body and blood of Christ is taken at the Altar Anno 990. Vincentius writes of Elgifa an old Matrone in this age who being ready to giue vp the ghost tooke the body and blood of our Lord. Anno 995. Aelfricus first Abbot of Saint Albons and after Archbishop of Canterbury in his epistle to Woulfinus and in his sermon translated of late out of the Saxon in die S. Paschae is as ful for the entire Communion as hee is against Transubstantiation the Howsell or Hoste saith he is Christs body not bodily but Ghostly not the body which he suffered in but the body of which he spoke when hee blessed bread and wine to Howsel ep ad Wolfin and in his sermon Without they be seene bread and wine both in figure and in taste and they
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
life Because eternall life is promised to eating hee may prooue beleeuing alone to be sufficient to saluation without partaking the Sacrament at all by eating or drinking because eternall life is promised vnto beleeuing Eternall life is promised to beleeuing as blessednes is in the fifth of Matthew to pouertie and to meekenesse and to puritie in heart and to godly sorrow and to hungring and thirsting for righteousnesse and to peace making and to patience Not that each of these vertues are sufficient of themselues alone to saluation or to make a man happy but that they are speciall meanes to make men happy and altogether with faith make a man most blessed Fourthly this argument of Bellarmine may bee retorted against him thus Our Sauiour here speakes of such eating whereby eternall life may be attained But eternall life cannot be attained by eating exclusiuely that is eating without drinking as Christ in this very Chapter three seuerall times teacheth vs vers 53. Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood yee haue no life in you And vers 54. and 56. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life and dwelleth in me and I in him Therefore Christ in the places alleaged by Bellarmine speaketh not of eating exclusiuely but of such eating as is necessarily accompanied with drinking And consequently if these Texts are meant of the Sacrament they proue that we ought to communicate in both kinds To the second place alleaged by Bellarmine out of Ioh. 6. 11. we say First that there are three sorts of signes signes of Gods wrath and such are prodigious euents signes of his power and such are Miracles lastly signes of his grace and such are Sacraments The multiplying of the loaues in the place alleaged is to bee ranked amongst the second sort of signes and not the last It was a miraculous signe not a mysticall signe Secondly if it be granted that this action of Christs was mysticall and prefigured some thing besides the corporall refection of the people yet questionlesse it had no reference to the bread in the Lords Supper For that as Saint Paul teacheth represents vnto vs that we are all one bread and one body because we partake of one bread whereof the multiplication of the loaues in S. Iohn could bee no type but rather on the contrary Moreouer in that place of Saint Iohn there is mention of fishes multiplied which can haue no affinitie with the Sacrament of our Lords Supper And this if Bellarmine had well considered it would haue made him as mute as a fish in this argument Thirdly the edge of this argument may bee retorted vpon our aduersaries thus The multiplying of the loaues Ioh. 6. without multiplying the wine doth no more prooue that wee may communicate in bread alone then the multiplying or miraculous supplying of wine without the like supplying of bread Ioh. 2. in Cana of Galily prooueth that wee may communicate in wine onely But the multiplying or miraculous supplying of wine by turning water into it without any miraculous supplie of bread prooueth not that we may Communicate in wine or in the blood of Christ onely for such an halfe Communion the Church of Rome condemneth Therefore the multiplying of the loaues in S. Iohn maketh nothing for the popish halfe-Communion in bread onely SECT 3. To the third place out of the 24. of S. Luke the 30. and 31. verses We say first that the bread which Christ there brake was common bread and not the Sacrament as may be prooued both by the circumstances of the text and the confession of our Aduersaries In the Text wee finde no words of consecration of the Bread or the Cup no command to reiterate that action of Christ. The place was a common Inne the Disciples came thither to receiue common foode and to lodge there that night they met not together for the Sacrament nor reade we of any prayers before or preparation meete for receiuing of so holy and heauenly a mystery and therefore some Papists doubt of it as Iansenius whether the Bread here was Transubstantiated or no. There are some saith hee who thinke that our Lord here gaue vnto the Disciples vnder the forme of bread his owne body as he did to the Apostles in his last Sâ—…pper and hence they would draw a certaine argument to show that it is lawfull to deliuer and receiue the Sacrament of the Eucharist in one kinde onely Howbeit although that opinion be not certaine nor very likely to be true yet as all the actions of Christ contained in them something mysticall and hidden so doubtlesse this action of Christ signified some holy thing Iansenius somewhat lyspeth He durst doe no other wayes for fearing of hauing his tongue clipt But the more antient Papists speake the truth plainely Dionysius Carthusianus thus paraphraseth vpon the place of Saint Luke It came to passe as he sate downe that is rested and eate with them hee tooke bread and blessed it yet he turned it not into his body as in his last Supper but as the manner is he blessed the meate thereby teaching vs to blesse our meate and drinke or giue thankes beforeour meales Widford in his booke against Wickliffe comes off roundly I say saith he that it appeares not in the Text or in the Glosse Luk. 24. or by the antient Fathers that the bread which Christ brake after his resurrection at Euen before his Disciples was consecrated bread or that it was sacramentall or turned into his body Iustinianê° a later commentator of great note amongst the Papists vpon the by in a parenthesis before he was aware discouereth the truth and concurreth with Widford and Carthusian For expounding those words of Saint Paul The bread which wee breake c. he vnderstandeth here not a simple or ordinary breaking such as that was whereof Saint Luke maketh mention whereby the necessity of the hungry was prouided for but a holy breaking belonging to the Sacrament of the Eucharist Our aduersaries are very loth that this weapon should bee so wrested out of their hands and therefore they tugge hard for it Hesselius catcheth at the benediction mentioned before the breaking of the bread which he will haue to be the consecrating of it Maldonate layeth hold on the consequence to wit the opening of the Disciples eyes in the breaking of the bread which saith he could not be done but by the vertue of the Eucharist Iansenius and Bellarme alleage Austine Beda and Theophylact who in their iudgement seeme to shrowde the Sacrament of the Eucharist vnder the forme of bread at Emaus But these mistes are easily dispelled To Hesselius his coniecture we answer that Christ neuer brake or eate bread but hee blessed it before Matth. 14. 19. He tooke the fiue loaues and two fishes and he looking vp to heauen hee blessed and brake and gaue the loaues to his Disciples c. Likewise Matth. 15. 36.
that meane while had been kept it would haue been dead in the Pixe Hugo Card. saith Christs Passion is the truth and the Sacrament is a figure of the same Therfore when the truth is come the figure giueth place Consider we the weight of these reasons The Apostles fled sixteene hundred yeeres agoe on Good-Friday therefore we must not now on that day consecrate the elements or communicate in both kinds On Good-Friday Christ suffered his blood then was seuered from the body Therefore now wee must not receiue his body and blood on that day Christs Passion was on that day therefore wee must neuer receiue the figure thereof on that day 2. Concerning the custome of the Greeke Church It is true that the Greeke Church in Lent vsed to consecrate onely vpon Saterday and Sunday and on the other dayes of the weeke they did communicate ex praesanctificatis of the presanctified formes which had been consecrated the Saterday or Sunday before as may be gathered out of the 49. Canon of the Councell of Laodocea and 52. Canon of the Councell in Trullo Sed quid ad rhombum we dispute not of the Communion of things before consecrated but of the communion of both kinds Such no doubt was this communion of the Greekes as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or praesanctificata in the plurall number doth implie It is not called by Balsamo vpon the 52. Canon of the sixth Councell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not a communion of presanctified bread but of presanctified mysteries This headlesse arrow therefore as all the former may be thus headed and shot backe vpon our aduersaries Retortion If the Communion of presanctified elements were in both kindes this Rite of the Greeke Church no way suporteth but quite ouerthroweth the Romish halfe Communion in one kind only But the communion of presanctified elements of the Greeke Church was in both kinds Ergo this Rite of the Greeke Church no way supporteth but quite ouerthroweth the Romish halfe Communion in one kinde onely That this Communion in the Greeke Church was in both kinds wee need no better euidence then the Seruice-booke or Office of the Greeke Church wherein we reade that after the Priest hath sanctified the bread he powreth wine and water into the sacred Cup and rehearseth the accustomed words in the Liturgie it self called Liturgia praesanctificatorum The dreadfull mysteries are named in the plurall number And that al that communicated receiued in both kinds it appeares by the forme of thankesgiuing there set downe We giue thanks to thee O God the Sauiour of all for all thy benefits which thou hast bestowed vpon vs and in speciall for that thou hast vouch safed to make vs partakers of the body and blood of thy Christ. CHAP. XV. The arguments of Papists drawne from reason answered and retorted SECT I. OVr aduersaries are driuen to rake hell for arguments and to begge proofes from damned hereticks such as were the Manichees From whose dissembling at the Lords Supper our equiuocating Iesuits would make vs beleeue that their halfe Communion was in vse in the Primitiue Church The Manichees saith Fisher liued in Rome and other places shrowding themselues amongst Catholicks went to their Churches receiued the Sacrament publikely with thē vnder the sole forme of bread yet they were not noted nor then discerned from Catholicks A manifest signe saith he that Communiō vnder one kind was publikly in the Church permitted For how could the Manichees still refusing the Cup haue beene hidden amongst those antient Christians if they had bin perswaded as now Protestants are that receiuing one kind onely is sacrilege The like argument Master Harding draweth from a tricke of Leger demaine vsed by a cunning housewife who made her husband beleeue that shee receiuing the bread from the Priest stooped downe as if she had prayed but receiued of her seruant standing by her somewhat that shee had brought for her from home which shee had no sooner put into her mouth but it hardned into a stone If this seeme to any incredible saith Sozomen that stone is a witnesse which to this day is kept amongst the Iewels of the Church of Constantinople By this stone it is cleere saith Master Harding the Sacrament was then ministred vnder one kind onely For by receiuing that one forme this woman would haue perswaded her husband that shee had communicated with him else if both kindes had beene ministred shee would haue practised fome other shift for the auoyding of the Cup which had not beene so easie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an ill egge of an ill bird a loose inference of a lewd practise As if the Manichees in Rome or this woman in Constantinople might not pitisare sip and make as if they drank and yet let not a drop go downe or as if this their fraud was not discouered Howsoeuer these disembled it is certaine out of Saint Leo in his 4. Sermon of Lent and Saint Chrysostome 18. Homile vpon the second to the Corinthians that the faithful people of Rome and Constantinople receiued the Communion in both kinds For Saint Leo in the place aboue alleaged giueth this as a marke to discrie Manichees from other Christian people intruding amongst them at the Lords Table by refusing to drink the blood of Christ with them And Saint Chrysostome saith expresly that there is no difference betwixt Priest and people in participating the dreadfull mysteries Therefore as the Priest in Constantinople and euery where else in his time receiued the Communion in both kindes so did the people SECT II. To leaue these absurd inferences of the Papists from the vngodly practise of hereticks I come now in the last place to batter and breake in pieces such weapons as they hammer against vs in the forge of reason The first reason they shape in this wise If whole Christ Body Blood Soule and Diuinity are vnder the forme of bread the Laietie are no way wronged by denying them the Cup But whole Christ is vnder the forme of bread to wit his Body Blood Soule and Diuinity Therefore the Laiety are not wronged by denying them the Cup. That whole Christ is vnder the forme of bread they proue by the vnseparable vnion of the body and blood of Christ c. Since his ascention his body now in heauen is a liue body and therfore hath his blood in his veines and is informed and glorified by a most excellent soule Therfore Christ cannot say truly that a body voyd of blood sence and soule is his body but soule life and blood must needs follow and concomitate his body wheresoeuer it bee Therefore when the Priest in the person of Christ or rather Christ by the mouth of the Priest saith This is my body the meaning must bee a liuing body with blood in the veines The answer First the doctrine of naturall Concomitancie presupposeth the naturall body of Christ to bee substantially and carnally vnder
cause to complaine of the Church of Rome for the violation of Christs Institution and hindring them from discharging their whole duety in communicating in both kinds according to his commandement Thirdly vnworthy Receiuers receiue no benefit at all by the Communion but eate and drinke their owne damnation And Saint Ambrose pronounceth him to be an vnworthy Receiuer who celebrates these mysteries otherwayes then the Lord hath appointed Therefore they amongst the Papists who consent to this violation of Christs Institution and mutilation of the Sacrament may expect no benefit at all by this their sacrilegious practice much lesse may they looke to share equally with them who communicate entirely according to Christs commandement Fourthly although each Element represent Christ vnto vs yet not so fully or expressely as both together Therefore this argument as all the former may be retorted vpon the aduersarie The efficacie of Sacraments is answerable to their significancie for they effect that which they signifie c. But the significancie of one Element is not equall to the significancie of both Therefore the efficacie of one Element is not equall to the efficacie of both Which conclusion is assented vnto both by Halensis and Vasquez Gasper Consaluus and Clemens the sixth SECT V. The fourth Argument our aduersaries thus frame The Sacrament of the Lords Supper â—…ught to be administred that all faithfull people may communicate All cannot receiue in both kinds exempli gratia Abstemij whose stomack cannot brooke wine and Nazarites who made a vow against drinking of wine But all faithfull people cannot communicate in both kinds Therefore it ought not to be administred in both kinds The answer First this Argument toucheth not the point in question for wee finde no fault with the Church of Rome for her indulgence in this kinde but for her sacrilege not for her dispensing with them that cannot receiue in both kinds but for prohibiting them that can and desire it Secondly Lawes as Pomponius obserueth Prouide for those things that happen commonly or for the most part and not for such things as happen to few or seldome A man can scarce finde one in a Kingdome that hath such an Antipathy to Wine that he cannot indure so small a quantitie of some kinde of Wine as may suffice for the Communion And I beleeue our aduersaries can hardly name now a Christian Nazarite 〈◊〉 the world And is it any way reasonable out of respect to so few to make a generall law for the restraint of the Cup from the Laietie Is there any reason that the disabilitie of so few should preiudice the right of all the rest of Gods people Some Priests haue at some times so weake stomackes that they cannot taste wine and some both of the Laietie and Cleargie through infirmitie of stomacke or drought in the throat in hot diseases cannot swallow downe the bread will they therefore make a generall law to take away the Cup from the Priests or the bread from both Thirdly for Nazarites if there be any in the Church they are to bee taught that there Euangelicall liberty releaseth them of the strict rigour of their legall vow and that our Sauiours command Drinke ye all of this is a sufficient warrant for them to drinke of the sacramentall wine at the Lords Table though they drinke no wine else where Saint Iames the Brother of our Lord though as Saint Hierome writeth of him he kept strictly the Nazarites vowe in abstaining from wine and strong drinke at other times yet he was amongst the twelue at Christs last Supper And Saint Marke testifieth that all dranke of the Cup and for such whose stomacks cannot away with the smalest quantitie of wine it may be sufficient for them to take the Cup into their hands and shew their desire or they may haue a Cup by themselues of wine so allayed with water as their stomackes may brooke as the fathers in the Counsell of Towers ordered to giue to sicke folke bread sopt in wine because they were not able to take downe dry bread Lastly this Argument is both answered and retorted in the Conference SECT VI. The first and last Argument which our aduersaries draw from reason may be thus formed The Sacrament ought to be so administred that all inconueniences in the celebration thereof may be preuented But many inconueniences cannot be preuented vnlesse the Cup be with-held from the Laietie Therefore in the administration of the Sacrament the Cup ought to be with-held from the Laietie The inconueniences which they pretend to arise from the publicke vse of the Chalice are summed vp by M. Harding art 2. diuis 8. viz. irreuerence of so high a Sacrament whereof Christian people in the beginning had a marueilous care and regard the loathsomenesse of many that cannot brooke the taste of wine the difficulties of getting wine in countries neere situated to the North pole and impossibility of keeping it long The answer First inconueniences in a matter of indifference may be pondered and put in the other scale against the commodities in the thing in question and if the inconueniences be such as cannot be preuented and they are greater and more in number then the profits or aduantages that are like to grow vpon the vse of it in this case wisedome aduiseth to take away a thing that is not necessary I say if the vn-auoydable inconueniences exceede the certaine profits thereby But in religious duties which cannot be omitted without violation of Gods Law and Christs Ordinance inconueniences must not turne the ballance onely we must take all the care that may be to preuent such inconueniences Which though they be neuer so many yet are they rather to beindured then Gods absolute Command disobeyed or Christs Institution corrupted Secondly Christ and his Apostles and the Christian Churches throughout all the world for twelue hundred yeeres foresaw the inconueniences which our aduersaries now pretend yet they thought it not fit in regard of them to violate Christs Institution by restraining the Cup to the Cleargie onely For they as wee haue proued by abundant testimonies generally and ordinarily gaue the Cup to the Laietie as well as the Bread Thirdly if they would from these wants and impediments inferre that some fauourable course should be taken and dispensation granted to such as cannot taste wine or liue in such countries where wine cannot be got we would not much striue with them Wee censure not the Priests in Russia who for want of wine vsed to consecrate in Methegling nor call Innocentius the eigth into question howsoeuer now many Papists condemne him for it for dispensing with the Priests in Norway to consecrate without wine That which in this question we charge the Church of Rome with is a manifest transgression of Christs Ordinance and a generall prohibition of giuing the Cup to the Laietie where wine may be had and the communicants are able and willing to drinke if the Priests
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
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
expresly of the Cup Drinke yee all of this yet you denie the Laietie the Cup and giue them the Bread M. Euerard This Commandement Drinke ye all of this is giuen to all Priests and not to the Laietie D. Featly Christ giues the command of drinking to all those to whom hee giues the command of eating For he saith to the same Drinke to whom he saith before Take and eate But hee gaue the commandement of eating to the Laiety as well as to the Clergy Therefore he gaue the Commandement of drinking to the Laiety as well as to the Clergie M. Euerard He commandeth not the Laiety to eate For he speaketh here onely to the Apostles who were Priests D. Featly If Christ commandeth not the Laiety to eate then the Laietie are not bound to receiue the Communion in bread at all And consequently they transgresse not Christs Commandement in receiuing the Communion without bread M. Euerard It is in the power of the Church to take away the Bread and leaue the Laiety onely the Cup. The Laiety are not bound to receiue the Communion in Bread determinately D. Featly This neuer any held before you to my knowledge M. Euerard It is the common Tenent of Catholikes D. Featly Thus I disproue it The Laiety are bound determinately to receiue in both kinds For Christ in Ioh. 6. 53. saith Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood c. This place is alleaged by most of your side to proue the reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament but if it be meant of the Sacrament it enforceth Communion in both kinds M. Euerard This place in the Iudgment of Caluin and Luther is not of force to proue the Communion in both kinds D. Featly Luther and Caluin haue no such words Although some Protestants as well as Papists are of opinion that this place is not meant of the Sacrament But if it be meant of the Sacrament it enforceth both kinds And I am sure no Protestant contradicteth M. Euerard First I answer that these words are meant disiunctiuely thus Vnlesse yee eate his flesh and that is or drinke his blood as in Saint Iohn except a man be borne of Water and the Spirit that is of Water or the Spirit D. Featly And for or a coniunction for a disiunction is a forced interpretation And the place you alleage for it maketh against you For if our Sauiours words except a man be borne of Water and the Spirit are taken disiunctiuely then that Text no way inferreth the necessity of Baptisme of Water for which it is alleaged by the best diuines euen of your owne side If a man may enter into the Kingdome of Heauen that is be borne againe either of Water or of the Spirit it is sufficient then to be borne againe of Water without the Spirit or of the Spirit without Water And consequently this place so expounded no way proueth the necessitie of Baptisme of Water or at least no more maketh a necessitie of the spirituall then of the Sacramentall Baptisme M. Euerard You know well that wee hold a threefold Baptisme fluminis flaminis sanguinis and that a man may enter into the Kingdome of Heauen that hath any of these Baptismes D. Featly I know that the Baptisme of water is not absolutely and simply necessarie but it is then onely necessarie when it may be had the wilfull neglect or contempt of it is damnable but not the ineuitable defect Baptisme is necessarie where it may bee had But if these words except a man be borne of Water and the Spirit may be meant disiunctiuely that is of Water or the Spirit this Text so glossed proueth not the necessitie of Baptisme when it may be had For it sufficeth to bee borne of the Spirit without it by your exposition which is contrary to the iudgment of the best learned diuines ancient and latter But to come backe againe to the former Text out of the sixth of Saint Iohn If you expound these words disiunctiuely except a man eate the flesh of the Sonne of Man and that is or drinke his blood then your Priests are not commanded to communicate in both kinds but in one onely But the Priests are commanded according to your owne Doctrine to communicate in both kinds Therefore these words cannot be taken disiunctiuely M. Euerard In this Text there is no commandement for Priests or people to communicate in both kinds but onely to take the body and blood of Christ into the mouth and conuey it into the stomacke D. Featly If eating and drinking be taken here properly then this Text inferreth communicating in both kinds distinctly and not onely as you expound it taking the body of Christ and his blood whether by eating onely or by drinking onely But the words of eating and drinking are to bee taken properly Therefore this Text inferreth Communion in both kinds both in Priest and people M. Euerard The words are not to be taken properly but figuratiuely D. Featly All the diuines of the Church of Rome that alleage this place of Saint Iohn to proue the reall presence say that these words except yee eate my flesh and drinke my blood are to be vnderstood properly For otherwise they could not inferre from them there reall presence M. Euerard The acts are meant figuratiuely the obiect properly in that place aboue mentioned of Saint Iohn D. Featly The acts are meant properly to wit eating and drinking which I thus proue Christ commands vs in these words to receiue the Communion as you confesse For you say they are meant of the Sacrament But the Communion is receiued by eating and drinking properly Therefore Christ commands eating and drinking properly M. Euerard I answer that though the commandement doe not fall properly vpon formall eating or drinking yet that the act formally commanded cannot be performed without formall eating and drinking Secondly I distinguish the Maior Christ commands the substance of the Communion I grant I denie that hee commands properly the manner of receiuing D. Featly Christ commands the substance of the Communion to be receiued But the substance of the Communion cannot be receiued without eating or drinking properly Therefore hee commands the act of eating or drinking properly M. Euerard If properly in the Conclusion bee applied to command then the Syllogisme is naught if it be applied to the act of eating or drinking then the conclusion is true and makes nothing against vs. D. Featly This answer contrary to the rules of disputation is giuen to the conclusion and the distinction appplied to no tearme of the premisses which should haue been done Secondly You grant that which before you denied and so contradict your selfe When I prest that those words vnlesse you eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood doe proue that the people are commanded to drinke as drinking is taken properly and distinguished from eating you answered that the word
wine as it is the maner of some Protestant Churches or in wine mingled with water as it may bee in some other But Master Euerard if you had read this epistle vpon which you so much insist you might haue found that though Saint Cyprian by the way fauoureth your practise of mingling wine with water yet he condemneth your Church by the maine scope drift of the epistle in the very point now in question For hee saith that Christ taught that the Cup ought to be sanctified and ministred vnto the people which you doe not In sanctifying the Lords Cup and ministring it to the people why do some through ignorance or simplicitie not that which Iesus Christ our Lord and God the author and teacher of this Sacrifice both did and taught By this time it grew very late and so the Conference brake vp This is a true Relation of the some of the Conference so farre as I can remember Most of the answers of Master Euerard are taken verbatim out of the notes set downe by consent in the Conference which I haue to shew The arguments I perfectly remember were these aboue written If Master Euerard thinke good to adde any thing to his arguments or answer I freely giue him leaue and desire him so to do that we may haue a perfect copie An appendix to the former Conference Vntruths vttered by Master Euerard HEe saith it is the doctrine of the Romane Catholikes generally that the people are not bound to receiue the Communion in bread determinately but that they may if the Church please so to appoint receiue it in wine onely On the contrary see Bellarmine li. 4. de sac Euch. 6. 25. Although Christ did not giue bread to the Laietie yet he did not forbid it to be giuen them and elsewhere hee commanded it to bee giuen them And Bellarmine saith a little after S. Luke after the Sacrament giuen vnder the forme of bread addeth Doe this but he repeateth it not after the giuing of the Cup that we might vnderstand that our Lord commanded that the Sacrament should bee giuen vnder the forme of bread to all but not vnder the forme of wine Againe Fisher in his answer to certaine questions propounded by King Iames contradicts directly this assertion of Master Euerard touching Communion in both kinds Sect. 4. This precept doe this being the onely precept giuen by Christ to his Church and giuen absolutely of the forme of bread conditionally of the forme of wine there is no colour to accuse the Church of doing against this Precept Secondly When offer was made vnto him to proue euery point of the Protestants beliefe out of Scripture and he was required to do the like he answered that it was the custome of all heretikes to appeale to sole Scripture and reiect Tradition Vntruth For Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. thus writeth Heretikes when they are conuinced out of Scriptures fall accusing the Scriptures themselues as if they were not right nor of authoritie and that they are ambiguous and that the truth cannot bee knowne out of them by those who are ignorant of tradition for that the truth was not deliuered by writing but by word of mouth Tertul. de praescrip aduers. haeret cap. 17. To conferre by scripture will auaile nothing with this kind of heretikes vnlesse a man goe about to ouer-turne his braine or his stomacke c. And c. 23. They beleeue without Scripture that they may beleeue against Scripture Et de resurrect carnis cap. 47. he calleth heretikes flyers or shunners of the light of the Scriptures qualiter accipiunt lucifugae isti scripturarum And against Hermogenes cap. 22. hee appealeth to sole Scriptures I reuerence the fulnesse of Scripture let Hermogenes Shop or Schoole teach that this is written If it bee not written let him feare that woe or curse threatned to all that adde or take away Thirdly He affirmeth that the Councell of Constance was not confirmed by Martin the fifth in all points defined in that Councell but onely in those that concerned Wicklife Hus and the Bohemians Vntruth In the Acts of the Councell of Constance set out by Binnius sess 45. we reade Our most holy Lord the Pope Martin the fifth said I will vnuiolably obserue all and euery of these things that are determined concluded and agreed in matter of Faith by this present Councell and those things so done Councell-wise or in a Councell-way I approue and ratifie And Binnius testifieth as much p. 960 that the Pope gaue order for the dismissing of the Councell after hee had approued and confirmed all and euery Decree that concerned matter of Faith and is not the Popes supremacy with you a matter of Faith Fourthly he peremptorily denied that the Church of Rome euer prayed for the soules of the Saints in heauen or in particular that she praied for the soule of blessed Leo. Vntruth for Innocentius the third Cap. cum Mathae extra de celebratione Missar This prayer was vsed vpon Saint Leos feast Grant wee beseech thee O Lord that this oblation may profit or helpe the soule of blessed Leo. And although saith Bellarmine this prayer be now changed yet at this day in the seuered prayer or collect for this Feast we say let the yeerely solemnitie of Saint Leo the Confessor and Bishop make vs acceptable vnto thee that by these pious offices of appeasing thee a blessed retribution or reward may accompany him and hee may procure vnto vs gifts of thy grace Bellarmine addeth a little after Pope Innocentius answers to these and the like prayers two manner of wayes when the Church desireth glory to Saints who already possesse the Kingdome of Heauen he desireth or prayeth not that the Saints may increase in glory but that their glory may increase with vs that is that it may be made manifest to the wholeworld Secondly He saith that it seemes not absurd to pray for the encrease of some accidentall glory vnto them He addeth in the third place that peraduenture in these prayers we pray for the glory of the body which they shall haue in the day of the resurrection FINIS A CHALLENGE TO MASTER IOHN FISHER alias PERCIF ahas STEPDEN Iesuite FIrst whereas you Master Iohn Fisher sent questions by way of challenge to Doct White now L. Bishop of Norwich and to mee Iune 21. 1623. concerning the visibilitie of Protestant Professors in all Ages whereupon we returned you this answer viz. Although diuine infallible Faith is not built vpon deduction out of humane History but vpon diuine reuelation as is confessed by your owne Schoolemen and expresly by Cardinall Bellarmine Historiae humanae faciunt tantùm fidem humanam cui subesse potest falsum Humane histories and Records beget onely an humane Faith or rather credulitie subiect to error not a diuine and infallible beliefe which must be built vpon surer ground Secondly although I say this question of visibility are
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
it is nothing but a meere fiction of your owne braine as if you shuld say This is a shadow but not a meere shadow Secondly hee insisted vpon the words of S. Augustine But if the scripture seeme to command a sinne or an horrible wickednesse or to forbid any thing that is good and profitable the speech is figuratiue For example vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man c. seemes to command a sinne or horrible wickednes it is a figure therefore c. Three things said he are to be obserued in this testimony First that Saint Augustine maketh choise of these words of our Sauiour as a most knowne example of a figuratiue speech Secondly that he not onely affirmeth it to be a figuratiue speech but confirmeth it also by an argument Thirdly that he sheweth what figure it is and expoundeth it conformably to the doctrin of the Protestants and contrary to the now Church of Rome Hereunto D. Smith first answered that it was no horrible nor wicked thing to eat mans flesh since we vsually eate it in Mummy What said M. F. not the flesh of a liue man Not said D. Smith vnder another shape or forme Say you so quoth M. Featly Then indeed Saint Augustines argument is but very weake if it be not horrible to eate a liue man though masked or disguized What then say you to S. Augustines conclusion D. Smith answered It is a figure mixt of a figuratiue and proper action A proper figuratiue speech or action quoth M. Featly This is as if a man should say a white blacke colour or a true false answer I pray you expound your selfe D. Smith and shew vs how the selfe same speech can be figuratiue and proper that is proper and improper For in my vnderstanding euery figuratiue speech is improper and if it be taken in the proper sense of words is alwayes either vntrue or impertinent Let vs heare therefore your proper doctrine of an improper proper speech Thus quoth he I explicate my selfe Christs speech vnlesse you eate my flesh is proper and figuratiue according to Saint Austin figuratiue according to the manner of eating viz. in the proper forme but according to the matter it selfe it is proper viz. according to the substance of Christs flesh and so it is a speech mixed of a proper and figuratiue Hereunto M. Featly replyed A speech figuratiue according to the manner of eating and eating of a thing not in propria forma are Schoole-delicacies Where find you any such thing in S. Augustine or what is this to proue that a speech which may not be properly taken such is euery figuratiue may bee properly taken and so be figurata and propria both It is most certaine that Saint Augustine by figurata locutio meant such an one as could in no sense be proper For Saint Augustines words are If this now be taken in the proper sense let it be accounted no figuratiue speech A proper speech is here by S. Austine manifestly distinguished frō figuratiue and figuratiue from proper Besides hee speaketh of such a speech wherein an horrible wickednesse is commanded or a vertuous action condemned which can in no sense bee true in the proper acception of the words Otherwise it should bee lawfull to sinne because expresly commanded and sinfull to doe well because forbidden Furthermore to proue that these words could not be taken properly and literally he cited the words of Origen in Leuiticum Ho. 7. If you follow the letter in these words Vnlesse you eate the flesh c. that letter killeth I answer saith D. Smith that if you vnderstand those words according to the Caperniticall letter Now good Sir quoth M. Featly what is litera Capernitica a Iewes letter By Capernitica letter I vnderstand the litterall sense in which the Capernaits tooke Christs words M. Featly replyed that for ought appeares by Scripture or any ancient Record the Capernites errour was in this that they construed Christs words grossely and carnally as you do which you and they should haue taken spiri tually My words are spirit and life No quoth D. Smith the Capernites thought that Christs flesh should be sold in the market and cut in peices There is no such thing quoth M. Featly implyed in the literall meaning of these words vnlesse you eate my flesh nor can bee gathered from any circumstance of the Text. A man might eate flesh according to the rigour of the letter though he neither buy it in the market nor cut it The horror of the sinne of Anthropophagy or eating mans flesh is not in buying mans flesh nor in cutting it but in eating it with the mouth and chamming it with the teeth If we should doe so in the Sacrament we should follow the killing letter Origen speaketh of and runne vpon the point of Saint Cyrils sharpe reproofe doest thou pronounce this Sacrament to be man-eating and doest thou irreligiously vrge the minds of the faithfull to grosse and carnall imaginations I oppose against your interpretation Saint Chrysostoms who saith To take Scripture according to the letter is to take it according to the sound of the words Now I appeale to the eare of all that are heere present whether these words nisi manducauerîtis carnem sound after D. Smiths Caperniticall straine I heare nothing but the eating of the flesh which you doe as properly as the Capernites could conceiue with the mouth and teeth To which D. Smith replyed When I see the words of Chrysostome I will answere them You shall when you please quoth M. Featly in the meane while because the booke is not at hand I will presse you with another against whom I trow you dare not except Who is it quoth D. Smith It is Gratian quoth M. Featly who Decret 3. part de consecrat distinct 2. cap. Hoc est quod dicimus hath these expresse words As therefore the heauenly bread which is Christs flesh after a sort is called Christs body when as in very truth it is the sacrament of it the Glosse addeth the heauenly Sacrament is called the body of Christ but improperly and therefore it is said after a sort but not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mystery c. To which authoritie D. Smith shaped this answer the sacrament is taken either for the figne onely or for the thing signified onely or for both and applied his distincton thus Gratian and the Glosse vnderstood by Sacramentum Sacramentum tantum or signum the signe onely Therefore Accidentia sola panis according to your doctrine inferred M. Featly To which D. Smith accorded Then M. Featly thus refelled the former answer Gratian and the Glosse speake of heauenly bread or Christs flesh and a heauenly sacrament but the meere accidents of bread neither in Gratians opinion nor in yours can be termed coelestis panis heauenly bread nor