concomitancy Fourthly whatsoeuer becommeth of the deuice of concomitancy our aduersaries therwith cannot shift off Irenaeus For in his fifth booke and second Chapter hee speaketh distinctly of the Cup and declareth his meaning to be that the faithfull are made partakers of eternall life by drinking Christs blood mystically in the Chalice He confirmed the Chalice or Cup which is a creature to be his blood shed for vs wherewith our blood is nouvished and a little after when the mingled Cup and bread broken receiueth the Word of God that is the benediction or consecration it is made the Eucharist or Sacrament of Christs body and blood how then doe they the heretiques denie that our flesh is capable of the gift of God which is eternall life sith it is nourished with Christs body and blood and is a member From these passages of Irenaeus thus I collect his argument All they that in the Sacrament of the Lord Supper eate of the bread and drinke of the Cup consecrated are nourished by Christs body and blood to eternal life All faithfull Christians or worthy communicants eate of the bread and drinke of the consecrated Cup Therefore all faithfull Christians or worthy communicants are nourished by Christs body and blood to eternall life If the aduersarie will haue the assumption restrained to Priests onely he must needs in like manner restraine the conclusion to Priests only which is little lesse then heresie Irenaeus his intent and drift in that place is to confirme all the faithfull in the doctrine of the resurrection and therfore his medium must be vniuersall and such as holds as well for the Christian people as for the Priest Anno. 190. Clemens Alexandrinus stromatum lib. 1. when they distribute the Eucharist as the manner is they giue to euery one of the people a part or portion therof Now that the Eucharist includeth the Cup as well as the bread hee declareth himselfe in expresse words paedagog li. 2. cap. 2. The mingling of the drinke and of the water and the word is called the Eucharist and a little before to drinke the blood of Iesus is to be partaker of the Lords incorruption stromatum lib. 4 Melchizedeke sanctified bread and wine for a type of the Eucharist not bread onely but bread and wine is the Eucharist and of this euery one of the people participated in his time therefore all dranke of the Cup. Bellarmines answer Bellarmine cauilleth at the last passage saue one viz. where Clemens saith to drinke Christs blood is to bee partaker of his incorruption First he saith it doth not follow that because he that drinketh Christs blood hath immortality or incorruption therefore hee that drinketh it not hath not incorruption for he may haue it otherwise namely by the bodie Secondly he saith that Christs blood giueth incorruption or immortall life not because it is drunke but because it is taken Now it is truly taken of them who communicate in one kind onely because the blood is not seuered from the body which they partake of The refutation This answer of Cardinall Bellarmine is many wayes defectiue First when we gaue him three wounds he applieth a plaister but to one of them and it is too narrow for that too hee cunningly silenceth our strong allegations out of Clemens and singleth out one of the weakest Secondly that passage of Clemens to which alone hee would seeme to say something hee saith indeed nothing For if the drinking of Christs blood bee a meanes to attaine our Lords incorruption or immortality as Bellar out of Clemens confesseth although he denyeth it to be the onely means why should the people be depriued of this means Our argument out of Clemens standeth thus None ought to be depriued of the meanes of attaining our Lords incorruption and immortality But the drinking of Christs blood is the meanes to attaine immortallitie Therefore none ought to bee depriued of the vse of the Cup I meane none that are fit guests for the Lords table Thirdly Clemens saith not to take Christs blood but to drinke it is to partake of incorruption And therefore albeit Christs blood might bee otherwise participated then by drinking of the Cup this satisfieth not Clemens his intention and scope who speaketh expressely of taking of it in this manner viz. by drinking Fourthly Bellarmine in his answer beggeth the question For he supposeth that Christs blood is taken in the bread as his body in the Cup which I haue before refuted out of Innocentius SECT III. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 200. to 300. Anno. 210. FIrst Tertullian in his booke of the resurrection of the flesh cap. 8. speaking of the practise of Christians in generall and not Ecclesiasticke onely saith The flesh feedeth vpon the body and blood of Christ that the soule may be fatted as it were of God Papists answere Cardinall Bellarmine shifteth of this sentence of Tertullian by tithing minte and cummim nicely distinguishing betweene feeding vpon Christs blood drinking it The people may and do feede vpon Christs blood though they drinke it not but eate it or take it by way of meat vnder the forme of bread The refutation This nicity will not serue the turne First because Tertullian speaketh of the body and blood of Christ as distinct things saying corpore et sanguine Now the blood taken as a distinct thing from the body cannot bee fed vpon but by drinking we feed vpon the blood of Christ in the Sacrament as shed for vs and therefore necessarily as seuered from the body And how is it possible to take blood or feede vpon it as shed and seuered from the body without drinking of it All faithfull Christians in Tertullian his time fed vpon Christs blood as distinguished from the body they dranke it therefore Why then doth Tertullian vse the Verbe vesci signifying to feed vpon not bibere signifying to drinke The reason is euident because hee speaketh of the partaking of both the body and the blood which he could not expresse by the word Drinke because wee drinke not the body he vseth therefore a common word Vesci to feed which may be applied to both acts eating and drinking namely eating the body and drinking the blood Feeding is as the Genus to both and may bee affirmed of both For which cause Tertullian speaking of both made choice of it rather then of the Verbe bibere which could not agree to Corpore though it were proper to sanguine Secondly Tertullian himselfe elsewhere maketh mention of the Cup giuen to the Laietie and not only to Lay men but women also Tertul. ad vxorem lib. 2. c. 6. shall the Lords Table heare any thing or haue to doe with the Tauerne or with hell from whose hands shall she desire the Sacramentall bread of whose Cup shall she participate He speaketh of a Christian woman married to an infidell and sheweth the inconueniencie of such a match whereby the
although wee grant that the antient Church vpon some occasions reserued the holy elements after the Communion yet not for any long space They had no reason nor neede so to do because as Saint Ambrose teacheth vs the Church consecrated euery day for strangers and twise in the weeke for the inhabitants As for Sophronius his tale of keeping the Sacrament for a whole yeere it is a fit flower for his spirituall meddow which no man euer saw or heard of vnlesse it were in Sir Thomas Moores Vtopia I giue much more credit to Alphonsus his experiment who locking vp a consecrated wafer in a Casket of gold after a few months opened it and found nothing in it but a worme Secondly as wine cannot be long kept but it will sowre so neither can bread but it will grow mustie and of the two if care be had to stop close the vessel to keepe out aire the wine will keepe sweet longer then the bread If the Cardinall fly to a miracle I answer that by the same miracle whereby the bread was kept a whole yeere from moulding the wine was or might haue beene kept from sowring Retortion Thirdly this headlesse arrow may thus bee headed and shot backe vpon our aduersaries If the Sacrament were antiently reserued in both kinds then the custome of reseruing it maketh for and not against the Laieties Communion in both kinds But the Sacrament was antiently reserued in both kinds Therefore the custome of reseruing the Sacrament maketh for and not against the Laieties communicating in both kinds That the holy mysteries were kept in the Primitiue Church in both kinds appeareth manifestly by Saint Chrysostome in his first Epistle to Inocentius Nicephorus Histor. Eccles. lib. 13. cap. 19 and Cardinall Baronius himselfe whose words are very obseruable Here O Reader consider saith he how wide they are of the Traditions of the Fathers and the vse of the Catholick Church who deny that the holy Eucharist in our time ought to bee kept which we see in antient times was reserued not onely in the forme or kind of bread but also in the other kind to wit in the wine You haue this proued by the authority of Saint Gregory in the 3. of his dialogues where he saith that the Marriners carried in the ship the body and blood of Christ. SECT II. The second headlesse arrow is their argument deduced from the carrying the holy mysteries after consecration into priuat houses and thus they draw this arrow at vs The second rite or custome of the antient Church was to carrie the Sacramēt home and there to take it at some seasonable time This custome is most certainly proued out of Tertullian his second book to his wife Clem. Alexand. stromatum li. 1. Cyprian Serm. de Lapsis Basil epist. to Cesarea Patricia Hierom. Apolog. contra Iouinian Now that the Christians were went to communicate at home in one kind onely it is manifest both for that the onely forme of bread was giuen to the hands of the faithful the blood being drunke out of a Chalice as Cyrill demonstrateth in his 5. Catechisme also because their were no Chalices in the bouses of Lay-men or holy vessels to receiue the blood of Christ as it may be euidently gathered out of the second Apologie of Athanasius r Harding imbellisheth this argument with a miraculous narration out of Saint Cyprian that when a woman had gone about with vnworthie hands to open her Coffer where the holy thing of our Lord was laid vp she was made afraid with fier that rose vp from thence so as she durst not touch it The answer First this argument is very impertinent to the purpose and in consequence also For the question is of the publike vse of the Sacrament in the Church this argument proceedes vpon priuate abuse thereof in mens houses at home Now an argument from a meere abuse is an abusiue argument and concludes nothing A meere falsehood cannot proue a truth nor a corrupt custome the lawfull vse of any thing Saint Austine giues vs a golden rule to the contrary Doctrines are to bee weighed not in the deceitfull ballances of their owne customes but in the euen ballances of diuine scriptures In which if this custome of carrying the Sacrament home to their houses be wighed it will bee found too light And therefore it is reiected and condemned vnder a curse in a Councel holden at Cesar-Augusta in Spaine If any man receiue the Sacrament eat not the same presently in the Church let him be accursed for euer And likewise in the first Councell of Toledo cap. 14. If any man receiuing the Sacrament of the Priest doe not presently eate it let him be driuen out for a sacrilegious person As for the miracle of fier vrged by M. Harding it burnes his owne fingers For God shewed himselfe by that miracle to bee offended with that which the woman did fraying her that kept the Sacrament in her coffer with a flame of fier Secondly this corrupt custome is no shaddow of proofe for the Laities communicating in one kind For as they caried the bread home to their houses so they might also a portion of wine yea but saith Bellar. they had no Chalices at home what then they might haue and had bottles or glasses in which they might and did carrie part of the consecrated wine home to their houses Retortion Thirdly this headlesse arrow may bee thus headed and shotte backe vpon our aduersaries If the Sacrament were antiently carried home to Lay-mens houses in both kinds then this custome of carrying it home makes not against but for the Laieties Communion in both kinds But the Sacrament was antiently carryed home to Lay-mens houses in both kinds Therefore that custome maketh for and not against the Laieties Communion in both kinds That the Sacrament was carried home in both kinds is proued by the vndeni able testimonies of Iustin Martyr Gregorie Nazianzenus and S. Hierome Iustin Martyr declaring the order of the Church in his time saith thus of the things that be consecrated to wit the bread water and wine they giue a part to euery one and they carrie the same things to those that are absent Gregory Nazianzen writeth of his sister Gorgonia that if her hand had layed vp any portion of the tokens of the pretious body and of the blood in deuotion shee mingled it with teares and so receiued it Saint Hierome highly commending Exuperius Bishop of Tolosa saith of him there was no man richer then he that carried the Lords body in a wicker basket and his blood in a glasse SECT III. The third headlesse arrow is an argument deduced from the Communion of Infants Thus they draw it at vs The third rite of the Church is the administring the Communion to Infants For the antient did sometimes administer the Cōmunion to Infants but vnder one kind only namely by dropping
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 Artiâ—… 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 wâ—…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
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.
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
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
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
2 3. that they were all baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea and as they did all eate the same spirituall meat so they did all drinke the same spirituall drinke For they dranke all of that spirituall Rocke and that Rock was Christ. If they will needs haue in one type a perfect image or embleme of the Communion in both kinds Cyprian other ancient Fathers will direct them to Melchisedec who brought forth bread wine not bread only but bread wine Thirdly this argument may be strongly retorted vpon our aduersaries after this manner The Truth ought to answer the types but the types of the old Law prefigured the faithfulls communicating in both kinds as is gathered by the ancient Fathers S. Chrysost. S. Ambrose S. Austine and S. Gregory Chrysost. As thou eatest the body of our Lord so they did eate Manna and as thou drinkest the blood of our Lord so they dranke the water of the Rocke To them he gaue Manna and Water to thee he giueth his Body and Blood S. Ambrose in the water that issued from the Rocke drunke by the people in the wildernesse noteth the resemblance of Christians who in the wildernesse of this world drinke of the blood that sprang from the true Rocke Christ Iesus To them saith he water flowed from the Rocke to thee blood from Christ the water satisfyed them for an houre the blood refresheth or washeth thee for euer S. Austine compareth the drinking of all the Fathers in the old Testament with ours in the new in these words All drunke the same spirituall drinke Wee drinke one thing and they drinke another but in visible appearance which yet is the selfe-same thing in spirituall vertue So the Paschall Lambe was eaten but the blood was stricken vpon both posts which mystery Saint Gregory thus vnfolds What is meant by the blood of the Lambe you haue learned not by hearing but by drinking it Which blood is put vpon both postes when it is drunke not onely with the mouth of the body but also with the mouth of the heart SECT 2. The second reason saith Bellarmine is drawne from the doctrine and example of Christ. For our Lord in the sixth of Iohn speaking of the fruit of the Eucharist or Lords Supper not once but foure times teacheth one kind to be sufficient to saluation he that ea◅eth me shall liue by me he that eateth this bread shall liue for euer if any man eate of this bread hee shall liue for euer This is the Bread that came downe from Heauen that if any man eate of it he may not die It cannot therefore be that the same Lord should command both kinds to bee taken Againe our Lord proues the same by his example first Ioh. the sixth where hee multiplied the l◅aues and thereby satisfied the people there remaining twelue baskets full but neither multiplied hee nor gaue them any drinke Moreouer in the 24 of Luke in the supper with the Disciples at Emaus hee tooke bread and blest it and brake it and gaue it vnto them but we reade of no Cup that there he tooke or blest nor indeed could For the story of the Gospell so ioyneth the distribution of the bread with our Lords departure that it leaueth no place for the blessing or distributing the Cup. For so S. Luke speaketh It came to passe as he sate with them hee tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to them and their eies were opened and they knew him and he suddenly vanished out of their sight Answer Cardinall Bellarmine in propounding this second reason as he calleth it makes vse of the Orators precept to heape weake arguments one vpon another that though each by themselues be of their owne nature feeble yet they may receiue some support by the helpe of one another For here in like maner he layeth together diuers places of Scripture to strengthen his cause which being seuerally examined will prooue of no moment being misapplied in his owne defence To the first place therefore alleaged out of the sixth Chapter of S. Iohn we say First that in the iudgement of Tapperus Iansenius Caietanus Cusanus and diuers others quoted by Bellarmine himselfe in his first book of the Sacrament of the Eucharist and fifth Chapter Christ in the sixth of Iohn speaketh not at all of the Sacrament which was not yet instituted but a yeere after at his last Supper with his Disciples Secondly for the words insisted vpon by Bellarm. in particular Christ himselfe foure seuerall times tells vs that he meaneth by bread himselfe who came downe from heauen verse 48. I am that bread of life 50. this is that bread which commeth downe frō heauen vers 51. I am the liuing bread which came downe from heauen if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer vers 58. This is the bread which came downe from heauen not as your fathers which did eat Manna and are dead If then there be any force in the number of foure we answer that our Lord who foure times in this cap. attributeth life to the eating of bread foure times expoundeth himself that by bread he meaneth celestiall bread not sacramentall for the sacramentall bread commeth not from heauen but is made of the graine of the earth and many that eate of it liue not for euer Iudas and many other reprobates haue eaten yea Mise Rats and other vermin may and sometimes haue eaten the sacramentall bread who yet neuer haue nor shall taste the power of the heauenly gift much lesse inioy eternall life These texts therefore are mis-applied by Bellarmine to the Sacrament and being mis-applied proue nothing for his halfe Communion Thirdly we say that Christ hauing spoken of Manna the Israelites bread in the wildernesse calleth himselfe bread keeping the subiect and occasion which he had begun to speak of As Ioh. 4. 14. speaking with the woman of Samaria about drawing water he promiseth her to giue her water to drinke of which whosoeuer drinketh shall thirst no more There Christ speaketh of drinking and mentioneth no eating but in the places of Saint Iohn alleaged by Bellarmine of eating and not drinking because the Metaphore of drinking better fitted the subiect of his speech which was water there but eating better relished in the sixth of Iohn where the occasion of his speech was bread yet as from these words of Ioh. 4. 14. no man may inferre that drinking alone is sufficient to saluation without eating so neither may Bellarmine conclude from the sixth of Iohn in the places aboue quoted that eating is sufficient without drinking as eternall life is ascribed here to eating so to drinking Ioh. 4. 14. as also vnto beleeuing Ioh. 6. 47. He that beleeueth in me hath euerlasting life Beleeuing eating and drinking are all meanes of eternall life but not exclusiuely euen by the same reason whereby Bellarmine would prooue eating alone to be sufficient to eternall
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
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
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
he spake or to what this This is to be referred I referre my selfe to your owne conscience whether these words I will drinke no more of this fruit immediately following these Hic calix This cup or Hic est sanguis noui testamenti This is the blood of the new testament can haue relation to any other words then those or to any other Cup then which is here consecrated Not onely all the circumstances of the Text are against your interpretation but also all the Fathers generally controwle it who vnderstand these words I will not drinke of this fruit of the Vine of the Sacrament and not of the Cup of the old Law And he quoted Clemens in Pedag. l. 2. c. 2. That it was wine which was blessed Christ shewed saying I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the Vine Cypr lib. 2. Epist. 3. alleaging the words of Saint Matthew I will drinke no more of this fruit of the Vine addeth where doe we find that the cup which Christ offered was mingled that it was wine which he called his blood Chrys. Hom. 83. in Mat. When our Lord deliuered this mysterie he deliuered wine of the fruit of the Vine saith he which certainely produceth wine and not water August de Eccl. Dogm cap. 75. Concilium Worm ca. 2. Wine was in the mystery of our redemption when he said I will drinke no more of the fruit of the Vine If you haue not yet weight enough I will adde one Author that in the skales of your iudgment beareth downe all these Pope Innocentius lib. 4. de Myst. Missae cap. 27. It is manifest that he consecrated wine in the Cup by those words he added I will not drinke from henceforth of the fruit of the Vine What answer you quoth M. Featly to so many Fathers a Councell and your Pope I answer quoth D. Smith that their opinion is probable And though M. Featly pressed him in the words of Campian Do you admit of the Fathers or reiect them if you admit of them you are ouercome if you refuse them you are no body He answered onely as before that their opinion was probable but he preferred his owne before it and yet triumphed as if he had gotten the day saying Are these your demonstrations Are these sufficient causes why you should separate your selues from our Church and from your Brethren the Lutherans And it was replied Are these your best answers and defences Is your great brag of the Fathers and of the Councels come to this that when they are alleaged against you you either discredit them as you did Tertullian or make miserable excuses for them as Bellarmine doth for Saint Augustine Austin did not well weigh this place or cashere a whole troope of them Pope and all yet with ciuill and respectiue termes saying their opinion is probable follow it who so will yet you will not quit your owne for it And heere because it grew late they brake off for the present At the breaking vp of the Conference a Priest who was said to be D. Smiths Chamberfellow was heard to say Profectò haec fuit vera digladiatio non Sorbonica velificatio that is This was a true fight not a Sorbonicall flourishing In this Relation we haue omitted of set purpose all D. Smiths by-discourses together with his proofes of the maine because they were against the third Law And M. Featly at this time tooke no notice of them in particular but promised in generall to answer them all when it came to his course to answer Now he was bound by the Law onely to oppose and D. Smith onely to giue his answers which are here truly set downe most of them out of his owne writing as wee depose who were present at this Disputation I must willingly subscribe to the truth of that which D. Smith did so voluntarily present to our eyes and eares And for the rest which is M. Featlies none of the aduerse party can take any iust exception against it I. P. I professe that all things in this Narration deliuered and quoted out of D. Smiths Autographie are true out of my examination And of the rest I remember the most or all neither can I suspect any part B. I. FINIS Errata Pag. 5. marg reade quidem for qâ—…id p. 6. l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 p. 11. marg r. contrâ—…dictionis p. 13. marg r. Christus ibid. l. 22. r. mâ—…re prâ—… not p. 17. 2. r. proposition p. 27. 19. r. Iansâ—… p. 43. 13. r. oâ—… prâ—… as p. 54. 24 marg r. pâ—…er for potâ—… 56. 14. r. immineâ—…t p. 70. marg r. sanguine p. 96. 23 r. this p. 84. 4. r. faâ—…antur p. 84. 28. adde it p. 101. 22. dele former 108. vlt r. conâ—…rteth p. 112. 8. r. 〈◊〉 p. 117. 1. r. fidem p. 126. marg r. licâ—… ib. pâ—…st for potus 132. marg r. 〈◊〉 p. 137. 12. r. Plaine p. 13â—… 8. r. 1561. p. 145. vlt. r. therefore p. 149. 22. r Sacraments p. 202. 22. r. â—…imed p. 206. 2. r. sound p. 209. 27. 1. fâ—…ft p. 225. 25. r. mâ—…gled p. 228. 21. r. â—…ight p. 249. 19. r. sound p. 255. 11. r. take what time you will p. 2â—…8 marg r. Bernardâ—… p. 263. 13. r. your p. 129. 10. r. but for and p 274. 23. r. 〈◊〉 ib. 30. r. answers p. 278. marg r. Ecclesiâ—…â—…m p. 279. vlt dele Isa. p. 288. 〈◊〉 r. Transubstantiation 291. 2. r. bring p. 294. marg r. â—…x figuratâ—… p 29â—… 23. 〈◊〉 then for this p. 299. 14. r. ampliâ—…ion p. 301. marg r. for 〈◊〉 a a Catal. Test. ver lib. 19. pag. 1912. olim fuerunt lignei calices aurei sacerdotes nunc contra sunt aurei calices lignei sacerdotes b b Plaut in Auâ—…i Sireperco Fides mulsi congialâ—…m pleâ—…am tibi faciam fideliam id adeo tibi faciam sed ego mihi bibam vid. Eras Aâ—…g Delphis sacrisicans ipse comedit carnes Missale Rom. in Can. Miss Concil Constan. sâ—…ss 13. Thoâ—…gh Christ did in sâ—…tute in both â—…ds and the 〈◊〉 â—…ch did so â—…minister c. Plin. nat hist. l. 8. c. 25. Terribilis haec contra fugaces bellua fugax contra insequentes Muret Orat. Barbari cedentibus instant instantibus cedeunt Rom. 12. 13. Not to thinke of your selfe more highly then you ought to think but to be wise vnto sobriety Macc. l. 1. c. 1. v. 9. After his death they all put Crownes vpon themselues and so did their sonnes after them Asud Iâ—…u Saty. 4. Ipse capi voluit quid apertius et tamen illi Surgebant cristae In suâ—…reption of the Cup from the Laiety a a Plin. 〈◊〉 8. c. 18. Cameli implentur cum bibendi occasio est in praeteritum in futurum obturbatâ proculcatione priùs aquâ aliter potu non gaudent Apoc. 18. v. 12. b b Lib. 4. De sacra Euch. c. 20. c c Hom. de