Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	according_a	church_n	word_n	5,622	5	4.1542	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A00580	The theater of honour and knight-hood. Or A compendious chronicle and historie of the whole Christian vvorld Containing the originall of all monarchies, kingdomes, and estates, with their emperours, kings, princes, and gouernours; their beginnings, continuance, and successions, to this present time. The first institution of armes, emblazons, kings, heralds, and pursuiuants of armes: with all the ancient and moderne military orders of knight-hood in euery kingdome. Of duelloes or single combates ... Likewise of ioustes, tourneyes, and tournaments, and orders belonging to them. Lastly of funerall pompe, for emperours, kings, princes, and meaner persons, with all the rites and ceremonies fitting for them. VVritten in French, by Andrew Fauine, Parisian: and aduocate in the High Court of Parliament. M.DC.XX.; Le théâtre d'honneur et de chevalerie. English	Favyn, André.; Munday, Anthony, 1553-1633, attributed name.	1623 (1623)	STC 10717; ESTC S121368	185,925	1,158

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

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

this point For he professeth that it were more conuenient the Communion were administred vnder both kinds then vnder one alone and that the Communion vnder both kinds is more agreeable to the Institution and fulnesse thereof and to the example of Christ and to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church Arti●… 15. Eccius though in short and briefe tearmes yet comes home to the question saying Wee confesse it was the vse in the Primitiue Church to administer in both kinds to the Laiety For the generalitie of this custome if antient Records had failed vs wee haue enough in the writings of moderne Papists to conuince the denyers therof Suarez saith somewhat to this point Slotanus presumes further and saith more and Salmeron goes beyond him and saith enough and yet Alphonsus exceedes him and saith more then enough Suarez The Christian people were w●…t frequently to communicate vnder both kinds Frequently they might communicate yet but in few places There Slotanus addes We doe not deny that the custome of communicating in both kinds was obserued in very many Churches and continued so not onely in the time of persecution and martyrdome but also in the peaceable daies of the Church This custome might be in very many Churches yet not generall therefore Salmeron addes further We doe ingeniously and openly confesse that it was a generall custome to giue the Communion to the Laiety in both kinds as the manner is at this day among the Greekes and was in antient time among the Corinthians and in Africa Generall the custome might be yet not vniuersall without exception and in all places Therefore to put the matter out of all question Alphonsus a Castro addes yet further We beleeue it is not against Christs Institution to giue the Communion to the Layetie in both kinds For we learne out of the writings of many Saints that in old time this was the practise for many ages amongst all Catholikes For the continuance of this custome which was the last point what more pregnant testimonies can we desire then these following of Cassander Soto and Gregory de Valentia Cassander and Tapperus witnesseth for one thousand yeeres in these words Touching the administration of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist it is euident enough that the Easterne Church euen vnto this day or that the Westerne or Romane Church for one thousand yeeres after Christ and more in the solemne and ordinary distribution of the Sacrament deliuered both the kinds of bread and wine to all the members of Christs Church which is manifest by innumerable testimonies of antient Writers both Greeke and Latine Tapperus calleth it a custome of longest continuance Soto witnesseth thus for twelue hundred yeeres and more not onely amongst the heretikes but also among the Catholikes the manner of giuing the Communion to the Layetie in both kinds for a long time was of force in somuch as it was not vtterly abolished in the dayes of Aquinas Now Aquinas by Bellarmines exact calculation was borne in the yeere of our Lord 1224. and died in the yeere 1274. Betweene the birth of Aquinas and the Councell of Constance there passed 90. yeeres which time Greg. de Valentia after a sort giues vs ouer and aboue We doe not deny saith he that both kinds were antiently administred to the people as appeares out of S. Paul Cyprian Athanasius Hierome and others And truly when the contrary custome of communicating vnder one kind onely began in some Churches it appeares not but it began not to bee a generall custome in the Latine Church much before the Councell of Constance Nor then neither For Tapperus saith that in some Churches they vsed both kinds euen vnto the Councell of Constance Who seeth not in the frequency and pregnancy of these testimonies out of the mouth of our aduersaries the obseruation of Budaeus to be verified that such is the force of truth that she breakes out of mens mouthes against their wills and stealing amongst lyes is perceiued by the hearers when the speakers think they haue her safe enough in their owne power CHAP. XII The Papists Arguments drawne from Scripture answered and retorted SECT 11. THe first argument vrged by our aduersaries for their halfe Communion is drawn from the types and figures of the old Testament I will propound it in Bellarmines owne words that they may not cauill as they vse to doe that wee marre their arguments in relating them Thus Bellarmine disputeth against vs Most of the figures of the Eucharist in the old Testament signifie eating vnder one kind it is not therefore probable that Christ would command the eating of both kinds For that which is figured ought to answer the figure The first figure was of the Tree of life in the midst of Paradise which Paschasius in his booke of the body of our Lord chap. 7. teacheth to haue been a type of the Sacrament of the Eucharist but it was manifest there was no drinke ioyned to that Tree The second figure was of the Paschall Lambe Exodus the 12. The third figure Manna Exodus 26. The fourth was shew-bread Exodus 25. The fifth the sacrifices in which the flesh was eaten but the blood was not drunke To this Argument we say First that these figures were types of Christ himselfe and not necessarily or properly of the Sacrament of the new Testament For types are shadowes representing the substance and the body not properly other types Christ interpreteth Manna to be himselfe Ioh. 6. I am the true bread that came downe from heauen S. Paul calleth Christ our Paschall Lambe and saith The Rocke that followed them was Christ. And S. Iohn Apoc. 2. by eating of the Tree of life in the Paradise of God vnderstandeth not the sacramentall eating which cannot be in heauen where there are no sacred elements but the spirituall feeding on the flesh of the Sonne of God Secondly if we admit that the types and figures of the old Law were representations of the Sacrament of the new we answer then that the types and figures of the old Testament must be equally compared with the Sacrament of the new part of them must be referred to the part of these For example the Shew-bread and Manna and the flesh of the Lambe and the Tree of life prefigured one part or kind in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to wit the Bread and the Riuers of Paradise and the Waters that Flowed from the Rocke and the Drinke-offerings and the striking the blood of the Lambe vpon the doore-postes represented the mysticall effusion and drinking of Christs blood in the Sacrament There was no drinking of the Tree of life but there was drinking of the Riuers of Paradise there was no drinking of Manna or of the Shew-bread but there was drinking of the Waters that issued out of the Rocke at Horeb. And S. Paul testifieth of the Hebrewes 1. Cor. 10. vers

hee tooke seuen loaues and the fishes and gaue thankes and brake them and gaue to his Disciples And Ioh. 6. 11. And Iesus tooke the loaues and when hee had giuen thankes he distributed to his Disciples From all which Texts as also from this in S. Luke nothing can be inferred for the celebration of the Sacrament but for an holy custome of giuing thankes before meate as before was noted out of Carthusian To Maldonates bold assertion that the opening of their eyes must needs bee ascribed to the vertue of the Sacrament we answer that if himselfe had opened his owne eyes hee might haue seene the contrary both in Mary and Iohn Maries eyes were opened when she said Ioh. 20. Raboni and Iohns Ioh. 21. when he said to Peter It is the Lord. Yet neither of them at that time receiued the Sacrament or had their eyes opened to know Christ by vertue thereof neither is it said in the text that the breaking of the bread was a cause or instrument wherby they were brought to know Christ but it is only said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he was knowne of them in the breaking of the bread or as he brake the bread which might be other wayes then by vertue of the Sacrament either by meanes supernaturall or naturall Euthymius and Caluin are of opinion that the Disciples knew Christ in breaking of bread by the peculiar forme of prayer or blessing which he vsed at the table Lyra by his manner of breaking bread for he so brake it as if it had been cut with a knife Kemnitius ioynes both together Because saith he Christs manner both in blessing and breaking of bread was knowne to the Disciples from thence it was that they came to know that it was Christ as he sat at meat with them by obseruing his peculiar manner of giuing of thankes and breaking of bread Whereunto we may adde out of Lucas Brugensis that when the Disciples receiued bread from him they locked more stedfastly vpon our Sauiour that they might more perfectly know who he was which when our Sauiour perceiued he tooke away the vaile or impediment from their eyes and shewed his natiue countenance more manifestly vnto them as he did to Mary Magdalene after she called him Raboni To the allegations out of Saint Austine Beda and Theophylact we answer that the word Sacrament is taken by them largely for any mystery For nothing is more frequent with the Fathers then to call the mystery of the Trinity of the Incarnation of our Sauiours fasting his washing his Disciples feet and the like the sacrament of the Trinity the sacrament of the Incarnation of fasting washing Passion of Christ and the like Their meaning is as Bellarmine out of Iansenius acknowledgeth that there lyeth hid some mysterie whereby in the blessing and breaking of bread the fruits of the Eucharist is signified Saint Austine in particular interprets this mysterie not of the Sacrament nor of Christs naturall body but of his body mysticall which is the Church and that whosoeuer is partaker or member of the Church knoweth Christ and whosoeuer is without the vnity thereof knoweth him not His words are Let no man thinke he knoweth Christ vnlesse he be partaker of his body that is of the Church the vnity of which Church the Apostle commendeth in the Sacrament of bread saying We being many are one bread and one body Saint Gregory and Bede conceiue that our Sauiour manifested himselfe in the breaking of bread to commend hospitality whereby as the Saints of the old Testament that vnawares entertained Angels so the Disciples here entertained our Lord. They layd the table saith S. Gregory and set forth bread and wine and God whom they knew not in the expounding of the Scriptures they knew in the breaking of the bread Which obseruation Bede and Saint Gregory seeme to haue borrowed from Saint Austine where the like words are found with this introduction quia hospitalitatem sectati sunt c. because they were giuen to hospitality they knew him in breaking of bread whom they knew not in expounding the Scriptures Theophylact whose note vpon this place is that Christ his flesh hath a great and vnspeakeable vertue to open their eies who receiue the blessed bread doth not affirme that the bread which the disciples brake at Emaus was the Sacrament but that thereby the vertue of the Sacrament was shadowed His plaine meaning is this that as the Disciples at Emaus knew Christ corporally in breaking of bread so wee in breaking bread in the Sacrament know him spiritually Eusebius Emissenus hath a different conceit from all these he will haue the knowledge of Christ by breaking corporall bread at Emaus to signifie the knowledge of Christ which is obtained by the opening of Scriptures Christ saith he is neuer so well knowne as by breaking of bread this bread is spirituall and not carnall Christ hath broken bread vnto vs hee hath expounded the Scriptures and opened the meaning thereof Secondly wee answer that extraordinary actions are not to be taken for presidents that Christ here after breaking the bread did not likewise take the cup was because as our aduersaries collect immediately vpon the breaking of the bread he vanished out of sight which case is extraordinary like as if when a Minister had consecrated and participated of the bread he should presently die or bee caught away by the Spirit as Philip was before he had taken the cup. Now that which falleth out by accident and vpon an extraordinary occasion is not to be drawne into a common rule especially when it is a bare example without any precept annexed vnto it Christ at his last Supper when he had broken the bread and taken the Cup he added a Command Doe this And Saint Paul teacheth that this Command is of force vntill his second comming That example therefore which hath a command added vnto it ought to bee followed not that in Emaus which was extraordinary and without any precept at all Thirdly although there be no mention made of the Disciples drinking yet no doubt they did drinke as well as eate before they rose For who could imagine that two trauellers at that time of the yeere in a Countrey so hot as Iudea taking an Inne of purpose for their repast should call for dry bread without any drinke Gregory and Beda and all those who from hence commend hospitality must needs be vnderstood by breaking of bread to commend courteous entertaining of strangers at their table which is not without refreshing them with drinke as well as bread Saint Austine vpon whose iudgement our aduersaries seeme most to relie in the exposition of this Text intimateth that the Disciples at Emaus then did and that the faithfull ought in the Sacrament drinke as well as eate The Disciples saith hee knew him not but in breaking of bread and verily he that eateth not and drinketh not damnation to

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

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

exposition To grant an elegancy in the words then defend an absurditie in the meaning to acknowledge a figure then to disfigure so diuine a sentence and make of it a Battologie Here D. Smith after his manner largely discoursed of the nature of identicall and nugatory propositions Of which M. Featly gaue this iudgement as Aristotle answered the Philosophers disputes de inani 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so saith he your discourse of nugatory propositions seemeth to me nugatory and altogether impertinent And therefore I proceed to a new argument The words vsed in the consecration of the bread are so to be expounded as the like in the consecration of the Cup But the words vsed in the consecration of the Cup are to be expounded by a figure or more Ergo Prooue your Assumption saith D. Smith Thus quoth M. Featly these are the words as they are recorded Luk. 22. 20. This Cup is the new Testament in my blood but both Calix is here taken by a figure for the thing contained in it and the new Testament for the signe and seale or Sacrament of the new Testament Ergo c. I will not contest with you quoth D. Smith about Calix let that bee a figure but I deny there is any figure in the word Testamentum It is well quoth M. Featly you grant one figure in the words of consecration I assure you D. Bagshaw is of another mind to grant one figure in his iudgment is to loose all For what priuiledge haue you more to set a figure vpon the words of consecration of the Cup then we vpon the like of the bread Where are now your exclamations against vs for obscuring deprauing and disfiguring the words of Christ by Tropes and Figures One figure you grant and it shall goe hard but I will multiply it and make more figures of it Either there is a figure in the word Testament or that which you say is meant by Calix is properly Christi Testamentum But that cannot bee Ergo. Thus I demonstrate it By hic calix you meane hic sanguis but sanguis Christi is not propriè testamentum Negatur minor saith D. Smith Probatur quoth M. Featly No substantiall part of the Testator is properly his Testament But the blood of Christ is a substantiall part of the Testator Ergo it is not properly his last Will and Testament In this Syllogisme D. Smith denyed the Maior affirming that if any man should signe any thing with his blood that blood being an authenticall signe of his Will might be properly called his Testament Hereupon M. Featly replyed Blood properly a Testament I reade in Scripture of blood of the Testament but neuer heard of a Testament or blood a testament Certainely the word Testament signifieth properly the Will it selfe of the Testator but by an vsuall phrase of speech or figure it is applyed to the Instrument which is speaking properly but a testimony of his Will As for the blood or marke wherewith any man signeth his Will he neuer heard any man call that his Testament no not by a figure much lesse properly The Will of a man is the iust determination or appointment of what hee would haue done after his death and it is either written or nuncupatiue Blood can bee neither How many new Testaments shall wee haue if euery authenticall signe of Christs Will bee properly his Testament The signe of Christs Will is no more his Will then the signe of his Body is his Body Therefore what colour haue you to forbid vs to interpret these words This is my body that is a signe of my body when you your selues expound these words This cup or this blood is my Will or Testament that is the authenticall signe of my Testament yet wee in our exposition of the former words commit no Tautologie as you doe in the latter thus paraphrasing Christs words This cup that is this blood is the New Testament in my blood blood in blood or signed with blood Will you say that Christs blood needed his blood to signe it as Saint Austin saith of the heathens God Apollo Interpres Deorum eget Interprete sors referenda est ad sortem id est The interpreter of the Gods wants an Interpreter and wee haue neede to cast Lots vpon the Lot it selfe How say you is not this your interpretation Hereunto D. Smith wrote this answer The sense of this Proposition This Cup is the new Testament is this This liquor which according to the thing signified is the same thing with my blood is the new Testament that is ●…n authenticall signe of my last Will confirmed with my blood shed for you Iudge Sirs quoth M. Featly Is not this a Tautologie my blood confirmed in my blood or the signe of my blood signed in my blood And did not I tell you before saith D. Smith of a twofold identicall proposition Identicall according to the thing signified and according to the manner of signifying Sisyphi saxum voluis Tuergoes Sisyphi saxum quoth M. Featly te enim 〈◊〉 Nec proficis ●…ilum quoth D. Smith True quoth M. Featly quia semper eodem re●…olueris Yet I will haue one lift more Thus I prooue that Christs blood is not in the consecrated Chalice Blood is not the fruit of the Vine That which Christ and the Apostles dranke in the consecrated Chalice was the fruit of the Vine Ergo not blood That it was the fruit of the Vine our Sauiour affirmeth in expresse words Matth. 26. 29. I will not drinke from henceforth of the fruite of the Vine hauing in the words immediately going before consecrated the Chalice and instituted the Sacrament of his blood saying Drinke ye all of this C●…p for this is my blood of the new Testament vers 28. To this D. Smith answered that our Sauiour spake this of the Cup of the old Testament mentioned in Luke not of the Sacrament Which answer M. Featly thus infringed These words in Saint Matthew This fruit of the Vine must haue relation to the Cup of which Saint Matthew spake before but Saint Matthew spake of no Cup before but of the Cup of the new Testament therefore these words This fruit of the Vine must needs be vnderstood of the Cup of the new Testament If I should take here a Cup and after I had dranke of it say I will drinke no more of this were it not ridiculous to vnderstand me of any other cup then that I tooke last in my hand and dranke of D. Smith repeated his former answer and said it was sufficient that Saint Luke spake of another Cup. M. Featly replyed what is it sufficient to make perfect sense in a sentence set downe in Saint Matthew to fetch a proposition or narration from Saint Luke his Gospell Will you make Saint Matthew to write non-sense to relate Christs words I will drinke no more of this and no where to expresse of what