Cup giuen them The proposition cannot be denyed the relation is so neere betweene drinking and the Cup none drinke but by taking the Cup none taketh the Cup in the Lords Supper but hee drinketh Spirituall drinking indeed may bee without a materiall Cup or Chalice but corporall and sensible such as is drinking in the Sacrament which is a visible signe cannot be without the Cup. The assumption may be collected if not out of Saint Iohn 6. 53. and 56. vnlesse you drinke my blood you haue no life in you and hee that drinketh my blood dwelleth in me because some Iudicious Diuines vnderstand those texts of Spirituall and not Sacramentall drinking yet most euidently out of other texts of Scripture which by consent of all diuines either directly point vnto or manifestly allude to drinking in the Sacrament As the 1. Cor. 11. 28. So let him drinke of that Cup vers 29. Whosoeuer drinketh vnworthily drinketh damnation vnto himself And 1. Cor. 10. 4. All did drinke that same spirituall drinke and vers 21. Ye cannot drinke the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of deuils and 1. Cor. 12. 13. we are all made to drinke into one spirit Besides Mat. 26. 28. Drinke you al of this of which before in the first argument This whole argument is confirmed by Pope Innocent himselfe one of the learnedest of all the Popes and best studied in this argument In his fourth booke of the Mysteries of the masse c. 21. The blood of Christ is not said to be drunke vnder the forme of bread as neither to bee eaten vnder the forme of wine but wee inferre all faithfull Christians are inuited by Christs precept and the vndeniable practise of the Apostolike Churches not onely to participate of Christs blood in some manner as the Romanists conceiue they may doe in eating the flesh but truly and properly to drinke it but sacramentally And therefore albeit we should admit that the blood of Christ might in some sort be taken together with the bodie because now since his resurrection and ascention they are neuer seuered but where his body is locally and really there is his blood also yet this doth not satisfie Christs command who requireth that we distinctly Drinke of the Cup or wine which he calleth his blood Mat. 26. 28. and that we drinke his blood Iohn 6. 53. which most of our learned aduersaries vnderstand properly of drinking Christs blood really present as they belieue in the Sacrament Were his blood really present as they suppose in the bread by the words of consecration turned into his body yet certainely in eating the body they cannot be said to drinke his blood for eating is not drinking neither can any man possible imagine true reall and proper drinking of any thing which is not sub liquidâ formâ as Christs blood cannot bee sub forma panis vnder the forme of bread which is drie and solid CHAP. VII The sixt Argument drawne à pari WHatsoeuer is sacriledge in the Priest can not but be sacriledge in the people also To communicate in one kind onely viz. by taking the bread and not the cup is sacriledge in the priest Therefore to communicate in one kinde onely can be no other then sacriledge or as bad in the people The proposition needs no proofe for as adulterie and simonie and other crimes alter not their nature by whomsoeuer they be committed so neither doth sacriledge The same sinne I grant may be more grieuious and scandalous in one then in the other but magis minus non variant speciem agrauating circumstances make a graduall not a specificall difference in sinne The assumption wee finde in the Canon law De Consecr dist 2. The priests must not receiue the body without the blood This is the title of the Canon the reason followes in the body of the Canon because the diuision of one and the same mysterie cannot be without great sacriledge as also in that burning Taper of Louaine Tapperus and the Iesuite 〈◊〉 Suarez This whole argument is confirmed by Aquinas Bonauenture Alfonsus and Vasques Aquin. part 3. quest 80. art 12. It is requisite or agreeable in regard of the Sacrament it selfe that both bee taken viz. the body and the blood because in both consisteth the perfection of this Sacrament And Bonauenture in 4. dist 11. part 2. art 1. quest 2. Both the species or kindes are of the integrity or perfection of the Sacramēt because the thing signified by the sacramēt is expressed in neither kind by it self but in both together Alfonsus aduersus hereses The Priest is bound by this law that as often as he celebrates this Sacrament that he neither consecrate the bread without the wine nor take one of the formes or kinds without the other because although Christ bee whole and entire vnder either kinds yet either kind by it selfe doth not signifie or represent whole Christ but the species or forme of bread doth signifie the flesh onely the species or forme of wine doth represent the blood onely and exhibite the memorie of it alone Whence it comes to passe that if he should consecrate the bread alone or receiue the bread alone consecrated he should represent onely the memorie of that oblation whereby Christ offered his body but there should bee made no commemoration at all of his blood shed and offered for vs because the species or forme of bread although it containe the blood yet it represents not the blood nor makes any memorie or commemoration thereof And Vasques tom 3. in 3. disp 215. cap. 2. num 5. The sacrament is instituted vnder a double forme or in two kinds not onely as an vnbloodie sacrifice of Christs Crosse but also as a Sacrament From these testimonies of Papists of eminent note they infer against themselues If both kinds be requisite to the integritie of the Sacrament as well the people as the Priest in communicating in one kinde mutilate the Sacrament and deuide one and the selfe same mysterie as Gelasius speaketh If the Priest in receiuing the bread onely signifie not whole Christ nor represent the memory of his blood shed for vs as Alfonsus teacheth neither doe the people in so cōmunicating either receiue whole Christ or celebrate the memorie of his blood shed vpon the Crosse and offered for vs to which end especially this Sacrament was instituted Lastly if the Sacrament were instituted vnder a double forme or in two kinds not onely as a sacrifice representing Christs Sacrifice on the Crosse but also as a Sacrament as Vasquez determineth the point then doubtlesse it may no more be diuided as a Sacrament then as a sacrifice and he is as well guiltie of sacriledge who takes away one part of the Sacrament as hee who takes away one part of the Sacrifice If they answer that though the Sacrament was instituted in two kinds yet that it is really intire in one because the body is not now without
cannot say that he speakes of Priests only for he speakes of all faithfull that either are already or are to bee made members of Christs body Neither can they shift off this passage as they doe some others by granting that the people may but denying that they ought to communicate in both kinds For he presseth very farre the necessitie of thus communicating without which he supposeth neither communion with Christ nor eternall life can be obtained Neither lastly can they euade by their doctrine of concomitancy saying that the people participate of the blood in the body when they receiue the consecrated Hoste For he speaketh distinctly of eating and drinking bread and drinke and sacraments in the plurall number which cannot possibly be vnderstood of participating the bread onely or communicating in one kind after the Popish manner Anno 840. Haymo Bishop of Halberstat relateth the manner of the faithfull to haue been in his time daily to eate the body of Christ and to drinke his blood and paraphrasing vpon these words of the Apostle 1. Cor. cap. 10. The Cup which we blesse is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ He saith the Cup is called the Communion because all communicate of it and partake of the blood of the Lord which it containeth in it Surely if the word fidelis or faithfull carryeth not the Layetie yet the word omnes or all must needs the faithfull then and all of them in Haymoes time were as well admitted to the Cup as to the bread Anno 849. Valafridus Strabo speaking of the suspension of scandalous persons from the Communion calleth the Lords Supper Sacraments in the plurall number in regard of the two elements or kinds in which it is administred Those saith he that wander from the members of Christ by the enormity or faeditie of capitall crimes by the iudgement of the Church are suspended from the q Sacraments lest by the vnworthy receiuing them they should be entangled in a greater guilt as Iudas Here by capitall offenders to vnderstand Priests were a capitall offence as if they alone were the greatest offenders in the Church and to haue the rod of Ecclesiasticall censures to bee spent vpon them onely Therefore the Romanists will they nill they to saue themselues from the lash must put the capitall offender vpon the Laiety and consequently confesse that they who for their crimes were at some times suspended from the Sacraments were ordinarily when they were free from such crimes admitted to both the Sacraments as Strabo calleth them that is both the elements the wine as well as the bread For the same Strabo in his twentieth Chapter stirreth vp himselfe and all good Christians to the continuall participating of the body and blood of Christ without which we cannot liue so far forth as some greater blots or blemishes in body or mind do not withhold or hinder from it Anno. 868. In a Councell held at Wormes vnder Lewis the second we find a Canon to this purpose If any man shall marry a widow which had a daughter by her former husband and shall after lye with this her daughter let that marriage by all meanes be dissolued and let that man vndergoe the pennance of the Church so that for three yeeres he be suspended from the body of Iesus Christ and his blood He who vpon a special reason is debard from the Communion of the body and blood of Christ and that for a certain time must needs be supposed before that time to haue beene admitted to communicate in both kinds and after his penance of three yeeres done cannot be denied againe admittance to the Lords Table I desire then to know what incestuous crime all the Laiety vnder the Papacy haue committed that for these two hundred yeeres euer since the Councell of Constance they haue suspended them from the Sacrament of Christs blood Anno. 869. Regino discribeth the manner of Pope Adrians deliuering the Communion to King Lotharius and his followers in both kindes then which we cannot desire a nobler president or fairer euidence of the custome of the Church in that Age Thus then Regino The Pope inuites the king to the Lords Table taking the body and blood of our Lord in his hands the King takes the body and blood of our Lord at the hands of the Pope Then the Bishop turning himselfe to the followers of the King deliuers the Communion to each of them in these words If thou hast not shewed thy selfe a fauourer or an abbetter of King Lothar in the obiected crime of adulterie neither hast giuen thy consent thereunto neither hast communicated with Waldrand and other persons excommunicated by the Apostolick See let the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ be healthfull to thee vnto eternall life Anno 875. Bertramus or as some write his name Ratramus in his booke of the body and blood of Christ dedicated to Carolus Caluus writeth thus you demand whether the body of Christ and his blood which in the Church are receiued by or with the mouth of the faithfull be his body and blood mystically or in truth And a little after he resolueth thus If yee looke inwardly it is not the liquor of wine but the blood of Christ which is tasted by the minds of the faithfull when it is drunke and acknowledged when it is seene and liked when it is smelt vnto This Bertram speaks so plainely through this whole booke for the entire Communion and against the Popish carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament that the Romish Inquisitors were in a quandary what to doe with this Author whither quite to prohibite the reading of him or to deuise some colourable excuse and euasion for such passages in him as hold no good quarter with their Trent Faith Papists answer to the testimonies of the writers alleadged in this former Age. Before most of these testimonies our aduersaries draw Timanthes his courtain and answer them with silence Onely to Paschasius and Haymo Cardinall Bellarmine pretends to giue an answer either because for shame hee could do no lesse being so often vpraided with them or because like a new Alcumist he hoped out of the iron that wounded him to draw an oyle to cure the wound of his cause To the testimonie out of Paschasius his answer like Cerberus consists of three heads First he saith that the place in Paschasius seemes to be corrupted Secondly he saith that Paschasius doth not expound the words of our Lord as they are in Matthew but as they seeme to be spoken of Christ when the sacrament is administred in the Church His reason is In the institution of the Sacrament there were no other Ministers present distinguished from other beleeuers and therfore Christs words as they were vttered then no way admitteth Paschasius explication Drinke ye all of this as well Ministers as other beleeuers Thirdly hee saith that the words of Paschasius make much
Christi caro Christs flesh nor coeleste Sacramentum a heauenly Sacrament Therefore the former words cannot be meant of the accidents but of the consecrated Hoste it selfe To which D. Smith with some indignation replyed Gratian with vs is no authenticall Author much lesse the Glosse Well said M. Featly if you so easily auoide Gratian approoued by so many Popes citing in this very place S. Augustine in the Margent for his warrant I will see whether you can so rid your hands of Diuine authorities I argue thus from the Text Christ tooke bread and brake it and gaue it and said This c. Therefore by this word This he meant this bread as the Fathers generally accord in their interpretations of it Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 34. How shall it appeare vnto them that the bread which was blessed was our Lords body Tertullianus lib. 4. cont Marcion cap. 40. He calleth the bread his body Athanas. in 1. Cor. 11. What is the bread Christs body Hieron ad Hedib quaest 2. pag. 416. Let vs heare that the bread which Christ brake and gaue to his Disciples is his body as himselfe saith This is my body August sermon 2. de verb. Apost The bread is Christs â—…ody and the Cup is his blood Epiphan in Anchorato Christ said of that which is of a round figure and without sense This is my body Cyril Catech mystag 4. Christ said of the bread This is my body Theodoret. Dialog 1. In the distribution of the mysteries he called bread his body Gerson contra Flor. c. 4. We must say that the Pronoune this demonstrates the substance of bread I could produce many more of your owne Writers that are cited by Suarez to this purpose but these suffice to prooue that the Pronoune Hoc standeth for Hic panis Now I assume Corpus Christi cannot properly be affirmed of bread sith bread and Christs body are substantiae disparatae Ergo will you nill you either you must accept of a figure in Christs words or put backe and reiect all these reuerend Fathers and your own Doctors also at once I answer quoth D. Smith that the Fathers by panis meant panis Eucharistatus What meane you quoth M. Featly by panis Eucharistatus Transubstantiatus actu actually transubstantiated or not Transubstantiatus actu quoth D. Smith Therefore replyed M. Featly by panis they meant that which is not now panis For panis Transubstantiatus is no more panis then homo mortuus is homo or the Rod being turned into a Serpent is still a Rod. Is this thinke you their meaning Bread is Christs body that is Bread not being bread is Christs body Might not I say with as good reason It is my body that is it is not my body I say quoth D. Smith bread not remaining bread is the body of Christ. Refell you this my Exposition if you can It is needlesse quoth M. Featly it cannot be made worse then it is yet to gratifie you I thus impugne it This Pronoune demonstratiue Hoc must needs signifie some thing that then was existent to which Christ pointed saying This But there was no panis transubstantiatus or your non manens panis when Christ pronounced this Pronoune This pointing to something at the table for you all confesse that the bread is not conuerted into the substance of Christs body till after all the words of consecration are vttered D. Smiths answer was This subiect hoc signifieth when it is vttered the body of Christ but it signifieth not for that instant but for the next not being of the whole proposition What say you is a proposition true when it is not at all Hoc est in non esse suo Aristotle makes signification de esse propositionis defining it Oratio significans verum vel falsum Is this then that you say Christs speech signifieth that is hath his esse pro Proximo non esse How many non esses hath a Proposition which you wil haue signifie pro Proximo non esse Goe on quoth D. Smith with your Argument When Christ said M. Featly vttered precisely this Pronoune Hoc did it signifie any thing then or no It signified This but not for that instant What did it then signifie quoth M. Featly bread transubstantiated or not If you say transubstantiatum you make a false Proposition If you say non transubstantiatum you must acknowledge a figure To this D. Smith said nothing but repeated his old distinction Tunc pro Tunc This your distinction quoth M. Featly is like vnto his in Keckerman by which hee turneth off all arguments â—…rthopodialiter non restexiue which no man was able to refute because they vnderstood it not I professe said he I know not what you will by your Tunc and pro Tunc vnlesse this bee your meaning that the Proposition is true de futuro non de praesente which to say is apparantly to put a figure in the copula est construing it pro erit No figure quoth D. Smith but s an enlarging of the copula I might say likewise quoth M. Featly that no Protestant maketh a figure in the copula or praedicatum but onely an amplification of it in your language I pray you what difference is there betweene that your Ampliatio copulae and the Rhetoricians enallage temporis I see no more then between a siluer and a leaden token of the same value both an halfe penny Let vs not striue about words What is the thing meant by Hoc pro quo nomine stat hoc pronomen For bread transubstantiated saith D. Smith Therefore for the body of Christ saith Master Featly What of that quoth D. Smith Then quoth M. Featly the meaning of the words is The body of Christ is the body of Christ. I grant saith D. Smith that the sense of these words the bread is the body of Christ is this according to the identitie of the thing signified the body of Christ is the body of Christ According to the manner of signifying it is not the same but diuers and not identicall Belike quoth M. Featly the Apostles were ignorant that Christs body was his body and by vertue of these words he made his body his body as if it were not so before Will you stand to this interpretation quoth M. Featly See what will come vpon it What quoth D. Smith That the words of consecration make nothing for Transubstantiation or any thing else For a Proposition that is meerely identicall quoad significatum prooues nothing at all I may truly say pointing to Christs body in heauen at the right hand of his Father This or that body of Christ is his body and will it hence follow that bread or any thing else is substantially turned into Christs body were it not much better to admit a Trope then to commit a Tautologie in your
the blood nor the blood without the body so we reply that the Sacrifice is entire also in one kinde If the doctrine of cōcomitancie take place in the Sacrament it must needs take place also in the sacrifice if in the people receiuing the bread represents and exhibits whole Christ it must needs do also in the Priests cōsecrating As Plinie writes of the Bees that they are often entangled in their owne honie and waxe so are our aduersaries caught fast and entangled in their owne fancies viz. the necessity of consecrating both kinds in the sacrifice of the Masse and their doctrine of Concomitancie viz. that whole Christs body and blood is contained in each kind by it selfe Thus as the bees hony stoppe the little pipe which serueth them in stead of a mouth so our aduersaries owne Tenents stop their owne mouth CHAP. VIII The seuenth Argument drawne from the nature and condicion of a will or legacie NO legacie bequeathed by the last will and testament confirmed by the death of the testator ought to bee withheld from any legatarie that is person to whom it is bequeathed The Cup in the Eucharist is a legacie bequeathed by Christs last will and testament to all true beleeuers capable thereof Therefore the Cup in the Eucharist ought not to be withheld from any true beleeuer capable thereof The proposition is the Apostles Gal. 3. 15. A mans testiment if it be confirmed no man disanulleth or addeth thereunto and Heb. 9. 7. A ◅estament is of force after men are dead The assumption is part of the words of Christs institution Luk. 22. 20. This cup is the new Testament in my blood Christ calleth it his Testament or last legacie as Aquinas par 3. qu. 73. art 50. truly noteth Because those things which are spoken last especially by friends departing doe stick faster in the memorie by reason that the affections are then most inflamed to our friends and those things wherewith we are more affected make a deeper impression in the mind This whole argument is confirmed by Iansenius who meeting with an answer that seemes to be made to this argument directly impugneth it The answer giuen by Bellar. and others is The legacie bequeathed is not bread nor wine but the body and blood of our Lord both which are giuen vnder one kind as well as vnder both the difference is that they which drinke of the Cup receiue the legacie as it were in two paiments they who doe not drinke receiue the same legacy in one paiment This answer is substantially refuted by Iansenius in Liturge lib. 4. and 7. and thereby the former argument very much strengthned First saith he the answer were to some purpose if Christ by will had disposed onely of the things signified in the Sacrament but Christ in his legacie had respect not onely to the thing signified but also to the signe for the manifestation of his Passion and representation of his death Secondly hee acutely and truly obserueth that the will of the testator might be satisfied in giuing the whole legacie at once or twise if it were of the nature of monie which may bee payd in one great piece or in many small amounting to the same value But it is not so in the Sacrament saith he the thing signified by the Sacrament cannot by the discretion of the Church be deuided into more formes nor be cōtracted in one It is not in the powre of the Church to make the body alone to be vnder the forme of bread nor the blood alone vnder the forme of wine nor both of them together vnder one forme or kinde Therefore as when a man bequeatheth to any by his wil one thousand pound in coyne and one thousand pound in ancient plate of such a making he that paieth the whole legacie either in coyne onely or in plate onely violates the will because though he may giue the valew yet hee giues not the thing in specie bequethed so although it should be granted which yet is not that the Priest giueth to the people the body blood of Christ in the bread yet hee violates the will of the testator because he giueth it not so as it may be drunke or in the forme of wine Whence I conclude that what the Apostle saith No man offereth to the will of a man The Romanists offer to the last will and testament of God our Lord and therefore are guiltie not onely of greuious sacriledge but also of grand fraud and impietie in violating the Testament of our Sauiour and deceiuing the people of a most pretious legacie bequeathed by him vnto them CHAP. IX The eight Argument drawne from the end of the Sacrament THis Sacrament ought in such wise to be receiued by al Communicants that thereby the death of Christ may be represented and shewed forth But without partaking of the Cup it cannot bee so receiued that thereby Christs death may be represented and shewed forth Therefore without pertaking of the Cup it ought not to be receiued by any Communicants The proposition is the Apostles 1. Cor. 11. 28. As often as you eate this bread and drinke this Cup you shew forth the Lords death till he come againe The assumption is euident to sense and reason to sense for the breaking of bread representeth in no wise the effusiō of bloud to reason for blood which is contained in the body and vaines no way sheweth the killing or bloodie death of the partie but the blood if it be at all in the bread which we denie it can be there no otherwise as themselues confesse then by concomitancie as contained in not seuered from the body as inclosed in not shed out of the veines Therefore if it should be granted to our aduersaries that the blood might be receiued in the bread by it selfe yet by such receiuing Christs death by the effusion of his blood for vs could in no wise be represented or shewed forth which yet is acknowledged to be the principall end of the celebration of this Sacrament This whole argument is confirmed by ◅bus Reihing who ingeniously acknowledgeth that in the Encheridion which he wrote when he was a Iesuite against the doctrine of the reformed Churches he cōcealed this obiection of the Protestants because hee despaired euer to giue a satisfactorie answer thereunto It may be that wits if they be put vpon the rack may finde out euasions for any argument but a true solution on which a man may settle his conscience no Papist can euer giue For if the Priest be bound to consecrate and receiue the wine a part because otherwise hee should not represent the effusion of Christs blood by the same reason all Communicants that receiue the Sacrament ought to take the wine apart being mystically Christs blood as well as the Priests because they in their eating and drinking are commanded to shew forth and declare Christs death as the Apostle teacheth vs. Neither can it be said
cut of the rugged knobs not grate or weare out the heart of it Volo nasutum non polyposum Fourthly because the testimonies I cite out of these authors were neuer questioned much lesse proued to be taken for good by the aduersarie vntill he can disproue them according to the rule of the Ciuill law supponitur esse bonus qui non probatur esse malus he is supposed to be an honest man who was neuer proued otherwise To cal in then these ancients in that order as commonly they go First Anno 70. Dionysius Areopagita in his booke of Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie chap. 5. relateth the practise of the Church in his time on this manner z After the Priest hath prayed that he may holyly distribute and that they that are to partake of the Sacraments may receiue it worthily discouering the bread that before was couered and breaking it into many pieces and diuiding one Cup among all he multiplieth that in the signes which is but one and distributeth it Anno. 80. The second Martialis Lenoricensis who stileth himselfe a seruant of God and an Apostle of Iesus Christ in his epistle ad Burdigal writeth thus You heretofore honored the priests which deceiued you with their sacrifices which they offered to dumbe and deafe images that neither could helpe you nor themselues but now much more you ought to honour the Priests of Almighty God who minister life vnto you in the Cup and liuing Bread By this argument of Martials the Romish Priests that giue the people but an halfe Communion should lose halfe of the honour due vnto Gods Priests if not the whole For thus out of Martials premises I conclude Those and none but those Priests are to be honoured and reuerenced who administer life to the people in the Cup The Romish Priests administer not life to the people in the Cup Therefore they are not to bee reuerenced or honoured Anno 92. Thirdly Clemens in his second booke of Constitutions 57. chap. thus enioyneth after the offering of the sacrifice let euery order a part receiue the body of our Lord and his pretious blood Anno 100. Fourthly Ignatius the Scholer of Saint Iohn the Euangelist Bishop of Antioch and Martyr in his Epistle to the Philadelphians enforceth an argument to vnity from the Communion I exhort you to imbrace one faith one manner of preaching and vse of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper for the flesh of our Lord Iesus is one and his blood one that was shed for vs there is one bread also broken for all and one Cup distributed vnto all Bellarmine his first Answer Bellarmine is put to a miserable plunge in his answer to this allegation First he saith in the Latine copies the words of Ignatius are not as we cite them There is one Cup distributed vnto all but there is one Cup of the whole Church and though the Greeke copies reade as we do yet he saith that much credit is not to be giuen to them The Refutation Against this answer I reply First that if we may not trust the Greeke editions of Ignatius much lesse may we trust the Latine translations especially since of late they are come into hucksters hands To appeale from a translation to the originall is vsuall but to appeale from the originall to a translation is a thing vnheard of This is to make the brooke or streame to bee purer then the fountaine or spring The Poet teacheth Bellarmine another lesson Dulciùs ex ipso fonte bibuntur aquae Ignatius as it is well knowne wrote in Greeke and therefore vnlesse Bellarmine can proue that other Greeke copies agree with his Latine translation and not with ours he speaketh nothing to the purpose for a translation is of no credit further then it agrees with the originall Secondly euen Bellarmines corrupt translation maketh against the Church of Rome and prooueth that the practice in Ignatius his time was for the whole Church to communicate in both kinds for why else calleth he it Calicem totius Ecclesiae The Cup of the whole Church Ignatius there speakes not of the possession but of the vse of the Cup and if the Priests onely had dranke of it hee would haue called it the Priests Cup but in terming it the Cup of the whole Church he plainely signifieth that the whole Church vsed it in the celebration of the Lords Supper Bellarmine his second answere Secondly Bellarmine saith that the force of Ignatius his argument consisteth in the vnitie of the Cup and not in the vniuersalitie of them that drinke for he exhorteth there to vnitie The Refutation First Ignatius exhorts there all to vnitie because all eate of one bread and drinke of one cup. His argument therefore standeth both in the vniuersalitie of them that drinke and the vnitie of the Cup and it may be thus reduced into forme All that eate of one bread and drinke of one holy Cup in remembrance of one body offered and one blood shed for all ought to embrace vnitie But all you of the Church of Philadelphia people as well as Priests eate of one bread and drinke of one holy Cup in memory of one body offered and one blood of Christ shed for you all Therefore all you of the Church of Philadelphia ought to embrace vnitie and godly loue If the pinch or straine of the argument were in vnitie only it would not hold for if some onely dranke of this Cup and not others this should rather make more for a diuision then for vnitie it is the communion of more in one that Ignatius layeth for the ground of his argument enforcing vnitie Secondly howsoeuer the argument stands it makes no great matter sith we insist not so much vpon the argument it selfe as vpon that his expresse affirmation That one Cup in his time was giuen vnto all This assertion alone sufficiently prooueth the practise of the Church in his time Bellarmine his third answere Thirdly Bellarmine saith that nothing can be inforced from these words of Ignatius but that it was the vse in that time when there were but few Christians to giue the Cup vnto all but this is an example it is no precept so the Cardinall The Refutation First it is not true which he here affirmeth that there were but few Christians in Ignatius his time for all histories of those times and the Epistles of Ignatius testifie the contrary and in this very Church of Philadelphia the holy Ghost testifieth Apoc. 3. 8. That there were many Christians Behold I haue set before thee an open dore and no man shall shut it c. Secondly though the Primitiue Church were not of that large extent as the Church in suceeding ages yet the authoritie of the Church in that age in which the Apostles liued and their immediate successors is farre greater then in any later age Thirdly in this last answere the Cardinall yeeldeth vs the cause for we cite these words of
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
said to the same Drinke yee all of this to whom before he said Take eate this is my body Fifthly and lastly if it were sufficient reason to redeliuer the Cup in these times to the Laietie who haue been deseruedly depriued of it namely to arme them against eminent persecution why should not the faithfull people of God especially those who neuer incurred the censure of Excommunication or suspension be much rather admitted to drinke of the Cup to arme them against as great or greater conflicts of temptations The sinnew of Saint Cyprians reason is in the word militaturis Those that are to fight the Lords battels are to be strengthened thereunto by taking the Cup of Saluation or drinking the Lords Blood But I assume all Christians in all ages were are and shall be militantes or militaturi such as haue fought doe fight or shall against their ghostly and bodily enemies therefore according to Saint Cyprians military discipline they are to be strengthened and armed thereunto by participating of the Lords Cup. The answere of Bellarmine to the second testimony of Saint Cyprians 63. Epistle commeth not home to the marke by many bowes for albeit the maine scope of that Epistle be to prooue the necessitie of administring the Sacrament in Wine against the corrupt custome of the Aquarij certaine heretikes that administred it in meere water yet on the by he discouereth the practise of the Church in his time to Communicate in both kinds and in the words alleaged be expresly faith that the Cup was ministred or deliuered to the people which is all we produce this passage for SECT IIII. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 300. to 400. Anno. 314. IN the councel held at Ancyra Deacons that had sacificed vnto Idols are forbidden to exercise any sacred function and in particular nec panem nec calicem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to offer or deliuer bread or the Chalice The Chalice then by their Deacons was deliuered to whom but to the people for Priests administer to Deacons but Deacons neuer to Priests Anno. 316. In the Councell held at Neo-Caeserea can 13. country Priests are forbidden in the presence of a Bishop or the Priest of the citie to deliuer the sanctified bread or Cup to any Here we see the Cup as well as the bread was deliuered at the communion the words are nec panem nec calicem porrigere Anno 325. In the acts of the Councell of Nice set out by Gelasius Cyzicenus we haue a most expresse testimonie of the beleife and practise of the Church in that flowrishing age Let vs vnderstand by faith that in that holy Supper the Lambe of God that takes away the sinnes of the world is offered without blood by the Priests and that wee taking his pretious body and blood doe verily beleeue that they are symboles or pleadges of our resurrection Anno. 337. Iulius the first as we read in Gratian de conse dist 2. condemneth the practise of such who gaue the people a bit of bread dipped in wine for the whole Communion alleaging against this corrupt custome the practise of our Sauiour who when he commended his body and blood to the Apostles he commended the bread and the Cup apart This ancient Pope concludes from our Sauiours practise that the people ought to receiue the holy elements of bread and wine a part consequently that it is not sufficient to giue them the bread dipped Now if it be not sufficient to giue them the bread dipped in the wine Iulius would haue held it much lesse sufficient to giue them drie bread If our Sauior as he rightly conceiueth enioyned that all ought to partake of the elements apart certainly hee enioyned that the people should receiue both and not bread onely or wine onely by concomitancie Anno 340. Athanasius in his second Apology maketh it plainer that the vndeniable custome in his age was for the people to receiue the Cup. This saith he is the vse of this Cup and no other in this Cup you lawfully or of right drinke before or to the Laity This you haue receiued for an Ecclesiastical Cannon it belongs to you alone to drink the blood of Christ before the Laietie Anno 355. Hilarius Pictauiensis de trinitate lib. 8. writeth thus There is no place left of doubting cōcerning the truth of Christs flesh and blood for both by our Lords owne profession and our faith it is truly flesh and truly blood and these being taken and drunke doe worke this effect that Christ is in vs and wee in Christ Saint Hilarie spake of all Christians and saith that they receiue the flesh of Christ hauriunt that is take a draught of his blood which cannot bee without partaking the Cup. For although the doctrine of concomitancie were admitted whereby our aduersaries suppose that the people take the blood of Christ in the body yet certainely there they cannot haurire sanguinem take a draught of blood or drinke it because it is not there in a liquid forme or so that it may be sucked or drunke Anno 365. Cyril Catechesi Mystagogicâ 4. Vnder the forme of bread Christs body is giuen vnto thee that taking the body and blood of Christ thou maist be of one body and blood with him And a little after After thou hast participated of the body of Christ draw neere also to the cup of his blood Anno. 366. Macarius Egyptius hom 27. By offering bread and wine in the Church he gaue vs a patterne to take his body and blood Anno 370. S. Basil in his 289. epistle to Patricia exhorts her frequently to participate the Sacrament of Christs body and blood saying It is good and profitable euery day to participate the holy body and blood of Christ. And in his moralls chap. 22. hee propoundeth this question what is the proper dutie of a Christian and he answereth immediately to haue no spot or wrincle in his Conscience to be holy and vnblameable and so to eate the body and drinke the blood of Christ. Our aduersaries doe well to conceale this testimonie of Saint Basil because it is so direct and full to the point that it admits not any collourable answer He saith that it is the proper dutie of a Christian and therefore not of a Priest onely not to eate Christs body onely and receiue his blood by concomitancie but expresly to drinke it and this hee teacheth to be as necessarie a duty of all Christians as to clense themselues from sinne and to be holy and vndefiled Anno. 372. Gregory Nazianzen surnamed the Diuine S. Basils bosome friend in his 42. oration inuites all to drinke the blood of Christ who look for life by him without any doubting or shamefast feare Eat his body and drinke his blood if thou desirest life and in his second oration he testifieth that his sister Gorgonia after she had Communicated laid vp some part of the
potatur abluitur sanctificatur Who can expresse how great mercie it was by that most holy effusion of his pretious blood to redeeme mankind and to giue to his members the most holy mysterie of his quickning body and blood by the partaking whereof his body which is the Church is nourished as with meat and drinke is washed and sanctified These and other passages of Gregory are so cleare and bright that they dazeled the eies of Estius a great Parisian Doctor who handling this question professedly acknowledgeth that Saint Gregory among other fathers is expresly for the Commmunion in both kinds Anno Dom. 620. The Seruice Booke commonly called Ordo Romanus The Romane order set forth by Gregory or vnder Pope Gregory with his allowance sufficiently discouereth the present practise of the Romane Church in their dry Masses to be a disorder and shamefull abuse For there they may reade and blush to reade in the Rubricke these formes set downe at the Communion Wee humbly beseech thee that wee which haue taken the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ thy Sonne may be filled with grace and heauenly benediction and after the Communion Let thy body O Lord which we haue taken and thy blood which we haue drunke sticke to our bowels that no blot of sinne may remaiue in vs who haue beene refreshed by these pure and holy mysteries Anno 630. Saint Isidore as in other things so in this treadeth his master Gregories steps de diuin of fic lib. 1. c. 15. The fourth prayer is brought in for the kisse of peace vt omnes that all being reconciled by charitie may ioyne in the worthie participation of Christs body and blood omnes all People therefore as well as Priests vnlesse they will haue the people to be out of charity all that are in charity must communicate together in the mistery of Christs body and blood But Gods people are or ought to be in charity and therefore to be admitted by Saint Isidores rule as well to the Cup as to the bread at the Lords Table Anno. 633. In the fourth Councell of Toledo Can. 6. All the people are appointed one good fryday to aske pardon for their sinnes that being clensed by the compunction of repentance they may be thought fit one Easter day to receiue the sacrament of Christs body and blood And in the seuenth Canon it is appointed that after the Lords prayer and the blessing of the people the Sacrament of Christs body and blood bee receiued after this manner the Priest and Leuite is to communicate before the Altar the rest of the Clergie in the Quire the rest of the people without the Quire See also 57. Canon Anno 675. In the eleuenth Councell held at Toledo the fathers determine that such who receiued the Cup in extemity of sicknesse but refused the bread because in regard of the drines of their throat they could not swallow it downe should not therefore bee cut off from Christs body The decree runneth thus The infirmity of humane nature in the very passage out of this life is accustomed to be oppressed in such sort with drought that the sick are not able to take downe any meat to refresh them no nor scarse any drop of drinke to strengthen them which thing we haue obserued in the departure of many who desiring the wished foode of the holy Communion to sustaine them in their last iourney haue yet cast away the Eucharist giuen them by the Priest not out of infidelitie but because they could not swallow any thing down beside a small draught of the holy Cup such as these therefore ought not to bee separated from the body of Christ. The Councell speaketh of the Laiety refusing bread at the Priests hands which they could not take downe and yet receiuing the Cup and in this case of necessitie the Councell dispenceth with their refusing the bread but findeth no fault with them for taking the Cup. Nay vpon that point excuseth them from infidelitie and saueth them from excommunication How doth this Councel clash and crosse shins as it were with the Councel of Constance and Trent In these the people are condemned for taking the Cup in that they are acquitted for it In them the Priest is censured that giueth them the Cup in this the people are absolued from censure in refusing the bread because they Communicate in the Cup. In the same yeere in the Councell at Braccara they are blamed that ministred not wine to the people in the Sacrament but either milke or grapes Can. 2. Non expressum vinum in sacramento dominici calicis offerre sed lac pro vino dedicare aut oblatis vuis populo communicare In the same Councell they are blamed also Qui intinctam Eucharistiam populis pro complemento communionis porrigerent Who deliuered to the people a piece of bread dipt in wine for the whole Communion which custome how repugnant it is to the doctrine of the Gospell and custome of the Church may easily be proued from the fountaine of truth who gaue the Cut by it selfe saying Drinke yee all of this as he tooke the bread by it selfe saying Take eat c. SECT VIII The Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 700. to 800. IN this age wee haue foure concurrent witnesses and contestatours beyond all exception Beda Greg. 2. Greg. 3. Alcumus We will produce them in order And first Venerable Beda Anno 720. Venerable Beda the honour of England and mirrour of his time witnesseth as followeth Christ washeth vs daily from our sins in his blood when the memory of his passion is celebrated or recounted at the Altar where the creatures of bread and wine by the vnspeakable sanctification of the Spirit are changed into the Sacrament of his flesh and blood and therby his body blood is not powred out by the hands of Infidels to their destruction but is receiued or is taken by or into the mouth of the faithful to saluation In this testimony I note first that he teacheth not a substantiall change of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ but a sacramentall onely agreeable to the harmony of Protestants Confession Se condly that Beda either alludes vnto or transcribes herein the words of S. Gregory aboue alleaged which I haue there proued to be most pregnant to our purpose Anno 726. Gregory 2. in his Epistle of Images to Leo Isaurus A man that hath sinned and confessed after they haue well chastened and punished him with fasting let them impart vnto him the pretious body of our Lord and giue him his holy blood to drinke Anno 731. Gregory 3. in his former Epistle to Boniface forbiddeth at the Lords Table more then one Cup to be vsed saying It is not a fitting thing to put two or three Chalices on the Altar No doubt the reason why more Chalices were put on the Altar was for the vse of
the people otherwise one would haue serued This custome the Pope dislikes not for that the Cup was giuen to the Laiety but because in the first institution Christ gaue but one Cup to all his Disciples The same Pope afterward thus resolueth the question touching the leprous Communicants with whom the sound could not with safety drinke in the same Cup As for leapers if they be belieuers let them not be depriued if the participation of our Lords body and blood but by no meanes let them bee at the same Table or participate together with them that are cleane Anno. 780. Alcuinus in his book of diuine duties instanceth in some who were not fit to communicate euery day because they had no purpose to leaue their sinnes To these saith he Saint Austine thus speaketh I like well of your humility that you presume not to approach to the body and blood of Christ but it were better that you would depart from your iniquities and being made cleare by repentance would take the body and blood of Christ. Papists answer Cardinall Bellarmine for want of a better aduentureth vpon this answer that indeede these Fathers say that the blood of Christ is taken by or with the mouth but they say not that it ought to be drunken with the mouth of the body or taken vnder the forme of wine Reply The Hart as often as he is wounded flyes to his old Dictamus and Bellarm. to this distinction to heale himselfe but none of this herbe here groweth there is no ground for it For first the Fathers alleadged speake of the body and blood of Christ as distinct things and therefore not as of one inuolued in the other by the doctrine of Concomitancy to approach vnto to take the body of Christ and his blood or the creature of bread and wine sacramentally changed into Christs body and blood as Beda speaketh is not to take bread onely and wine by I know not what consequence or the body onely in specie and the blood by Concomitancy Secondly could this answer be appliable to other generall sentences of the Fathers yet not to these in which there is expresse mention made of the Chalice of powring out the blood of Christ and taking it as drinke and therfore vnder the forme of wine And who are they that so receiue it The Laietie as wel as the Priests vnlesse none but Priests are faithful Christians or all lepers excommunicate or suspended persons are to bee taken for Priests Beda reacheth the Cup to the faithful indifferently and Gregory to penitents after confession and contrition of what ranck so euer Yea leapers are not excluded simply but secluded that they might not infect the sound by drinking together with them SECT IX The practise of the Church from 800. to 900. Anno 800. CHarles the Great in his booke as the Inscription beareth of Images testifieth that in his time not onely frequently but dayly Christians participated of Christs body and blood He affirmeth that sins are remitted by the holy Ghost or by the blood of Christ which is taken of vs in the Sacrament and was shed for vs for the remission of sinnes That he means by vs the Laiety as well as the Clergy is euidēt First because himself was a Lay man and therefore necessarily in vs includes those of his owne ranke and order Secondly because he speakes of all their communicating who receiue the remission of sinnes by the effusion of Christs blood for them and these I am sure are not the Priests onely Thirdly because in the fourth booke c. 14. hee speaketh expresly of the faithfull in generall whereby the people must needs be vnderstood as well as the Priests His words are the mystery of the body and blood of Christ is dayly receiued by the faithfull in the Sacrament Anno 820. Paschasius Rathertus Abbot of Corbie who was the first that euer wrote of purpose and at large of the truth of Christs body and blood in the sacrament if we may belieue Bellarmine is full and direct against the Church of Rome in the point of their halfe communion O man saith he as often as thou drinkest of this Cup or eatest of this bread thou mayest not thinke that thou drinkest other blood then that which was shed for thee and for all for the remission of our sinnes And againe The blood is well ioyned to the flesh because neither the flesh without the blood nor the blood without the flesh is rightly communicated For the whole man which consists of two substances is redeemed and therefore fed together both with the flesh of Christ and his blood Had he liued in our dayes and professedly wrote against our moderne Papists he could not in more expresse words haue impugned the Romish Glosse vpon the words of our Sauiour viz. drinke yee all of this that is all Priests then he doth cap. 15. He alone it is saith he who breaketh this bread by the hands of his Ministers distributeth it to beleiuers saying take ye ad drinke all of this as well Ministers as the rest of the faithfull this is the Cup of the blood of the new and euerlasting Testament Anno 830. Amalarius praefat in liber 3. de Offic. Eccles affirmeth that the benediction of Bishops or Priests without Chaunters Readers or any other is sufficient to blesse the bread and wine wherewith the people might be refreshed to their soules health as it was wont to be done in the first times by the Apostles themselues Quot verba tot fulmina so many words so many thunderbolts to strike downe dead the Popes sacrilegious heresie If the bread and wine were blest for the refection of the people then not of the Priests onely if this refectiō was for the health of their soules who dare deny it them If this was the manner of blessing and administring the Sacrament vsed by the Apostles themselues by what authority at this day doth the Church of Rome alter it Anno 835. Rabanus Maurus Bishop of Mentz teacheth vs that the Lord would haue the Sacrament of his body and blood to bee receiued by the mouth of the faithfull and made their food that by that visible worke the inuisible effect of the Sacrament might bee shewed For as the materiall food outwardly nourisheth the body and maketh it quicke and liuely so the Word of God within nourisheth and strengtheneth the soule Men may haue this temporall life without this meate and drinke but they cannot haue the eternall because this meate signifies the eternall societie or communion of the Head with the members Who soeuer saith he eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood he abides in me and I in him Wherefore of necessity we must take his body and blood that we may abide in him and be made members of his body In these passages this learned Bishop euery way stops the mouth of our aduersaries They
be truly Christs body and blood after there halowing through ghostly mystery as a pledge and a figure And a little after All our fathers dranke the same ghostly drinke of the stone which followed them which stone was not bodily Christ who calleth to vs to all beleeuing and faithful men Whosoeuer thirsteth let him come and drinke that heauenly liquor which had signification of Christs blood Now it is offered daily in Gods Church it was the same which we now offer not bodily but ghostly I finde no answer made by any Romanist to the testimonies in this Age which yet are very full and pregnant both for the precept and practise of communicating in both kinds both by men and women If any except against the Authors in the words of the Orator haurimus de foece we draw out dregs and lees I answer where learning ran so low as it did in this Age we could do no other wise yet the Reader may see that out of these lees wee haue ex tracted some Aqua-vitae whereof though he hath but a taste now he shal haue a ful draught in the next Age. SECT XI The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 1000. to 1100. IN this age the Bishops of Rome were so busie about transubstantiating the bread into the body of Christ that they suffered the laiety to goe cleere away with the Cup and gaue them no publique check or controule for it till the Councel of Constance held 400. yeeres after Of which hereafter in his due place Anno 1002. Fulbertus Carnotensis confesseth with the Fathers of the former Age though in a higher and more affected straine Put forth the palate of faith enlarge the Iawes of thy hope extend the bowels of Charity and receiue the bread of life the food of the inward man take also the wine not troden out by feete of a nasty husbandman but crusht out of the wine-presse of the crosse Anno 1014. Bruno Abbas Richen-angiensis speaketh to the point as Fulbertus we also though most unworthie doe not onely eate daily the bread of Christ when we take the foode of his flesh from the table of his Altar but also drinke his blood Anno 1050. Oecumenius ascribes our spirituall vnion with Christ our Head to the participating of his blood in the Sacrament the blood of Christ saith he by partaking thereof ioynes vs to Christ as members to the head And the same Father commenting vpon the eleuenth Chapter schooleth rich men for disdayning to admit the poore to their table whom Christ admits as wel as them to his to partake both of his body and blood If the Lord saith he sets his body and blood on his table and in the Chalice as well before the poore as before thee dost thou dare to driue them from thy table in dispite and contempt Anno 1060. Guitmundus ioines with Oecumenius in assigning our Communion at the Lords Table to be an especiall meanes of vnion with Christ. And they both speake of all faithfull Christians indifferently without distinction of Priest and people who are one in Christ. we saith this Author who receiue the Communion of this holy bread and Cup are made one body of Christ. Anno 1061. Lanfranck sometime Archbishop of Canterbury deliuering a rule touching all Sacraments saith Sacraments they are alwayes a likenesse of those things whereof they are sacraments as in the sacrament about which we contend when the Hoste is broken the blood powred out of the Cup and into the mouth of the faithfull what is signified else but the sacrificing of the body of our Lord vpon the Crosse. Anno 1070. Theophilact reproues the Corinthians out of Saint Paul for leauing the Lords Cup and running to drink with the Idolaters of the wine offered to Idols Are not you ashamed O you Corrinthians to run to the Idoles cup from Christs Cup who hath freed you from Idols And in his comment vpon 11. chap. hee reproues as sharply those who tooke delight in drinking alone and quassing by themselues How dost thou take thy cup alone considering that the dreadfull Chalice is alike deliuered vnto all Anno 1080. Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury speaking of Christians in general deliuereth a double manner of participating the Sacrament both spiritually and Corporally we ought saith he to eat and drinke this sacrament two manner of wayes with the mouth of the heart and with the mouth of the body And vpon 1. Cor. and Cap. 10. All we saith he who partake of one bread and one Cup are made one body Anno 1090. Hildebertus Cenomanensis together with Burcardus Micrologus and Humbertus de silua candida relate and aproue that Canon of the third Councell of Brachara which condemneth the deliuering the bread sopt in the wine to the Laietie for the whole Communion It is the manner saith Hildebertus in your monasteries to giue the sacramentall bread to none but dipt in the wine which Custome we find is not taken either from the Lords institution nor out of authenticall constitutions If you looke into Matthew Marke and Luke you shall finde the bread deliuered by it selfe and the wine by it selfe neither doe we read that Christ deliuered bread dipt vnto any but that disciple whom by giuing him a sop he declared to be the betrayer of his Master The Papists answer This Canon of the Councell of Bracara confirmed by so many witnesses Burchard lib. 5. cap. 1. Gratian de consecratione dist 2. Micrologus de Ecclesiasticis obseruationibus cap. 19. and Lambertus de Silua candida lib. cont Graec. calumnias Cardinall Bellarmine could not any waies baulk with credit therefore he sets his braine vpon the racke for a double answer The first is that the Councel indeed forbids the dipping of the bread vpon this ground that our Lord gaue not bread dipt or sopt in the wine neither can any such o dipping be proued by any testimonie or example of scriptures yet saith he the Councell doth not adde that both kinds ought to be giuen to the Laietie Secondly he saith If the Councell should haue said so wee would haue answered that the Councell speakes of that time in which it was free for the Laietie to communicate in both kinds For then if any desired both kinds the Councell commandeth that both be giuen vnto them to wit bread and wine a part and not a sop of bread dipt in the wine The Refutation These answeres are like the apples of Sodome which fall to ashes if you touch them The first thus presently dissolueth the Councell of Bracara doth as well command Commnion in both kindes as forbid receiuing the bread dipt in wine for the intire Communion for thus standeth the argument In administring the Sacrament wee ought to doe as Christ did and no otherwaies but Christ at his last Supper deliuered first bread by it selfe and then wine and not bread and wine
beleeued not to bee without blood and dead but liuing and quickning whence it is that Saint Agustine saith that neither the flesh with out the blood nor the blood without the flesh is rightly taken Also Gelatius writeth to Maioricus and Iohn Bishops in this manner We vnderstand that some taking a portion of Christs body abstaine from the Cup of his sacred blood to whom our commandement is that either they partake the sacrament intirely and receiue both or be kept from both Anno 1136. Hugo de Sancto Victore yeeldeth a like reason of the full and intire communicating in both kinds Therefore saith hee the sacrament is taken in both kinds that thereby a double effect might bee signified For it hath force as Saint Ambrose saith to preserue both body and soule In the same termes hath Halensis Sum. Theol. par 3. num 29. art 4. Anno 1140. Peter Lumbard Mag. sentent propoundeth this question Why is the sacrament receiued vnder a double forme or kind sith whole Christ is in either kind He answereth That thereby it might be signified that Christ tooke the whole nature of man that he might redeeme the whole Anno. 1150. Petrus Cluniacensis Epist. lib. 1. Though hee fight against the truth one way and woundeth the Albigenses yet he fighteth for it another way and giueth a deeper wound to the Trent Fathers and all that content themselues with an halfe communion That men might not onely learne by words saith he but haue a sensible feeling by deeds that they cannot liue vnlesse they bee ioyned and vnited to Christ after the manner of carnall food and life they receiue the body of Christ and drinke the blood of Christ. And a little after to signifie that for this cause he would giue his flesh to all to eat it and his blood to all to drinke it he draweth a similitude from Manna that fell in the wildernesse In this yeere of our Lord also Vincentius relates of one Tundanus a profane person in his former life that being suddenly strucken from heauen hee called for the body of our Lord which when hee had taken and drunke the wine he began to praise God in these words O Lord thy mercie is greater then mine iniquitie In this same Age Antoninus writes in his Chronicles that the Normans the morning before they fought with the Danes receiued the Communion of Christs body and blood Anno 1170. Gratian rehearseth many ancient Canons and Constitutions for communicating in both kinds which because they haue been handled before I here let passe The Papists answer The onely answer which I find to our allegations out of the Fathers in this Age is Cardinall Bellarmines who indeuoureth to put a glosse vpon Saint Bernards words on this wise Vnder the forme of bread the entire nourishment or compleat foode of Christs body and blood is contained Wherefore our Lord saith he commanded that foode to bee often taken but he commandeth not that it should bee taken in both kinds Refutation S. Ierome saith it is the part of a bad Physition omnibus oculi morbis vno collyrio mederi to applie but one eye-salue to all manner of diseases of the eyes Yet such a Physition is Bellarmine he hath but one salue for all diseases and that hath no vertue it in at all in effect To the saluing of all the testimonies of the ancient Fathers opposed against him hee applieth onely this medicamentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of concomitancie whatsoeuer the Fathers speake of receiuing the body and blood and the entire food of our soules he would make vs beleeue they intend nothing against their halfe Communion For as he accounteth the blood is neuer seuered from the body and the blood is vnder the forme of bread Hee therefore who taketh the bread taketh the body blood of Christ and consequently communicateth intirely But besides that this proposition of his hath beene heretofore refuted I adde first in generall that albeit we should admit that in the iudgement of the Fathers in this Age the blood of Christ were with the body and with the forme of bread yet there is no Cup nor Wine in the bread no drinking in eating no powring out of the wine or blood into the mouthes of the faithfull Of which the writers of this Age speake so expresly that those of our aduersaries who haue not rubbed hard their foreheads neuer so much as offer to make answer to these testimonies but haue held it the wisest course neuer to take notice of them Secondly for Saint Bernard in particular his words haue relation to the Institution of Christ saying The entire foode of the body and blood of Christ was that day first exhibited nay at our Lords last supper there was wine as well as bread And this Vasquez the Iesuite ingeniously confesseth howsoeuer it cut the throat of his fellow Iesuites answer Bernard saith he speakes plainely of the other part of nourishment which is taken by way of drinke vnder the forme of wine What then Doth Vasquez freely giue vs Saint Bernard Not so but deuiseth another euasion to wit that communicating in both kinds for the entire repast of the soule is commanded to the whole Church not to euery particular beleeuer Defumo in flammas Vasq. to auoide the smoke that put out Bellarmine his eyes falls into the fire For that which is inioyned the whole Church is necessarily inioined euery saithfull The words of our Sauior Drinke ye all c. are euidently a command to each particular For so the Apostles vnderstood him and dranke euery one of them of that Cup and not any one or more in the name and behalfe of all the rest Doubtlesse as euery man must liue by himselfe so he must also in his owne person and by himselfe receiue the entire food of life the body and blood of Christ. SECT XIII The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 1200. to 3000. Anno. 1229. ABbas Vrspergensis writing of the besieging of Damiata saith that the souldiers before they scaled the wooden tower made confession of their sins and receiued the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord. The like Antoninus writeth of the Normans in William the Conquerors time and Matthew Paris of the English in King Heralds time and William Rufus Neither was that custome as yet controld in that age nor an hundred yeeres after as in due place shall be shewed Anno 1236. Durandus Mimatensis in expresse tearmes affirmeth that he who receiues the Hoste only doth not receiue the whole sacrament sacramentally For although the blood of Christ bee in the consecrated Hoste hee speaketh according to the schooles in these times yet it is not there sacramentally because the bread signifieth the body not the blood the wine signifieth the blood and not the body In regard therefore that the sacrament is not compleat in one kind according to the signe
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
the forme of bread which we deny and consequently this argument from concomitancie is of no force The words This is my body being rightly expounded by Austine Tertullian Theodoret and many other of the ancients to be no other then this bread is a signe a figure or a sacrament of my body not this bread is turned substantially into my body or vnder this is contained my very body flesh bones Where Christs naturall humane body is there wee grant his blood and soule and diuinitie are But That his body is now in heauen Acts 3. not in any place vpon the earth much lesse in euery place where the Masse is celebrated Secondly although we grant that the body of Christ cannot really bee seuered from his blood yet the signes of his body and blood are really seuered if wee speake of sacramentall Communion the Apostle teacheth vs that the bread which wee break is the Communion of Christs body and the Cup which wee blesse is the Communion of his blood neither can wee truly and properly say the Bread is the Communion of his blood And therefore they that communicate in bread onely doe not sacramentally communicate his blood Thirdly should we liberally grant vnto our aduersaries that by the receiuing the body of Christ in the bread we consequently receiue the blood also which since his Passion was neuer seuered from his body yet will it not hence follow that we drinke the blood of Christ in eating the bread but Christ commanded vs expresly to drinke his blood which cannot possibly be done by communicating in bread only no though we should admit of the carnall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament and the doctrine of concomitancie also Retortion Lastly this Argument may bee retorted vpon our aduersaries in this manner Whosoeuer receiueth Christ in the Sacrament ought to receiue whole Christ to wit his body and blood But the body and blood of Christ cannot be receiued but by communicating in both kinds Therefore all that receiue Christ in the Sacrament ought to communicate in both kinds The Proposition is our aduersaries the Assumption also is inferred from their owne Tenets They deliuer this rule that the Sacraments effect and exhibit that and that onely which they signifie But the bread signifieth onely the body of Christ and the wine his blood hee therefore that will receiue whole Christ as he is exhibited vnto vs in the Sacrament must necessarily communicate in both kinds SECT III. The second reason is this If the whole nature and essence of a Sacrament be found in one kinde the Romanists Communion in bread onely is not a maimed or imperfect but an entire Sacrament But the whole nature and essence of a Sacrament is found in one kinde Therefore the Romanists communicating in bread onely is not a mained or imperfect but an entire Sacrament That the whole nature and essence of a Sacrament is found in either kind by it selfe Bellarmine endeauoreth thus to make euident There are but two things required essentially to a Sacrament a signe and a thing signified both which are found in one kind first a signe to wit bread secondly the thing signified to wit the inward nourishment of the soule and the representation of the vnion of the faithful with Christ and among themselues The answer First there is a double essence of the sacrament the generall essence which makes it a sacrament in generall and the specificall essence which makes it in speciall Baptisme or the Lords Supper To bee a visible and effectuall signe of inuisible sanctifying grace is sufficient to proue a sacrament in generall but not to proue the Lords Supper the entire definition whereof is a Sacrament of the new Testament sealing vnto vs the perfect nourishment of our soules by the participation of the sacred elements of bread and wine Secondly there are two sorts or parts essentiall or integrall For example the essentiall parts of a man are animal rationale the integrall parts are legges and armes and other members In like manner in the Sacrament besides the essentiall parts which Bellarmine will haue to bee the signe and the thing signified there are integrall parts to wit the elements of bread and wine of which if either be wanting the sacrament may be as truly called a maimed or vnperfect Sacrament as a man that wants an arme or legge is truly called a maimed or vnperfect man though he haue in him the essentiall parts of a man intirely to wit animal his Genus and rationale his difference Thirdly although in the Romane halfe Communion there be a signe and a thing signified yet neither is there the whole signe nor the whole signification not the whole signe because bread is but a part of the signe representing Christs body and not his blood not the whole signification which is such an entire refection and nourishment of the soule as bread and wine are of the body Retortion Lastly this Argument as the former may be retorted vpon the aduersary The Lords Supper is the Sacrament of Christs body and blood The bread is not the Sacrament of Christs body and blood Therefore bread alone is not the Lords Supper Or in this wise The Lords Supper essentially includeth and signifieth such a perfect refection and nourishment of the soule as bread and wine are of the body Communicating in one kind neither includeth nor signifieth such refection Therefore communicating in one kind is not the Lords Supper nor containeth in it the whole nature and essence of this Sacrament SECT IIII. The third Argument of our aduersaries drawne from reason is an off-spring of the two former If the faithfull receiue as much benefit by communicating in one kind as in both they haue no cause to complaine of the Church for the restraining of them from the Cup But the faithfull receiue as much benefit by communicating in one kind as in both Therefore they haue no cause to complaine of the Church for the restraining of them from the Cup That they receiue as much benefit by communicating in one kind as in both it seemes to follow necessarily vpon the two former supposalls that whole Christ is in each kind and that the whole essence of the Sacrament is found in either The answer First the two props of this Argument being before taken away it must needes fall to the ground neither is whole Christ contained vnder one kind neither in it is preserued the whole essence of the Sacrament Therefore questionlesse the fruit of the halfe Communion if it be any at all cannot bee equall to the fruit of the whole Secondly the consequence of this Argument is not found For neither the onely nor the principle thing to be regarded in the Sacrament is our benefit but Gods glorie and the testification of our obedience to his Ordinance Therefore albeit it were granted that the people lost nothing by the taking away the Cup from them yet they haue iust
bread and blessed it yet hee turned it not into his body as in his last Supper but as the manner is hee blest the meate he eate thereby teaching vs to say Grace before meales Wid. cont Wicklif Carthus in Luk. 24. Vid. Iustinian supr c. 12. Gerson the Assaylant Christ our Lord in the sixth of Iohn speaking of the fruit of the Lords Supper teacheth one kind to be sufficient to saluation saying he that eateth this bread shall liue for euer And if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer Tapperus the Defendant Ruardus Tapp In this Chapter Iohn 6. Christ speaketh not of the sacramental eating and drinking of his body and blood Tap. in expli art Louaniens art 15. Idem habet Gabriel Biel. lec 84. super Canone Missae Cusanus epist. 7. ad Bohemos Caiet in 3. part quest 80. Ions c. 59. concordiae Wald. alij Hosius the Assaylant Iames in the Church of Ierusalem deliuered and kept the Communion in one kind For in the second of the Acts in the description of the exercises of the Church of Ierusalem there is rehearsed breaking of bread and no mention at all made of wine Iustinianus the Defendant Iustin. on the first to the Corinthians vers 10. The Apostle by breaking of bread vn derstandeth not the ordinary breaking of bread such as that was whereof S. Luke maketh mention Acts the second whereby the necessity of the hungry was prouided for Cochlaeus the Assaylant Acts 27. Saint Paul taking bread gaue thanks to God in the sight of all and when hee had broken it he began to eate Here is an example of the Communion in one kind for there is no mention made of wine Lorinus the Defendant S. Chrysostome Oecumenius Beda others expounders of this place by bread vnderstand vsuall and common bread And I am also of the same mind For I cannot beleeue that this mysterie being the greatest of all other was celebrated in the sight of profane persons Lor. in Act. 27. COVNCELS The second Combate Whether Councels make for or against the halfe Communion The Antagonists Stanist Hosius and Dominicus à Soto Tho. Caietan and Gabr. Vasquez Iesuite Alph. Salmeron Iesuite and Rob. Bellarmine Iesuite Edm. Campian Iesuite and Andr. Dudithius B. of Quinq Eccles. Hosius the Asaylant THe Councell of Ephesus decreed that the Communion should be giuen in one kind onely to the Laitie in opposition to the heresie of Nestorius who held that vnder the bread in the Sacrament Christs body was without his blood Gabr. Vasquez the Defendant VNto the time of the Councell of Constance where the vse of the Cup was first takē away there arose an error about the integritie or whole humanitie of Christ vnder either kinde wherefore it cannot be said that there was any law made in the Church for the taking away of that error Vasquez cap. 4. disp 216. Caietan the Assaylant Nestorius and Pelagius affirmed that the Communion ought to be kept in both kinds though vpon a diuerse reason Nestorius because he held that vnder the bread the body onely was contained and vnder the forme of wine his blood onely Pelagius because he beleeued that infants could not bee saued without Communion in both kinds To oppose both which heresies it is very likely that the Councell of Ephesus decreed that the Communion shuld be administred in one kind Caietan in 3. Tho. quest 80. art 12. Soto the Defendant Caietan referreth the beginning of the custome to the Nestorians and Pelagians as also another custome of giuing the Sacrament to Infants But as for the second of these customes wee haue shewed before in the ninth Article that it is not likely the Pelagians had any such custome because they taught that Infants might attaine euerlasting life without any Sacrament neither were the Nestorians in the Councell of Ephesus taxed with any such error but with this that they beleeued not the body of Christ in the Sacra ment to bee vnited to the Deitie Soto in 2. dist 91. art 12. Salmeron the Assaylant Two general Councels held in the bowels of Germany to wit the Councell of Constance and Basil with a great consent of Bishops decreed that the Cup should not be giuen to the Laietie now we know that the authoritie of Generall Councels is vncontrowleable He doth wrong to the holy Ghost who despiseth or goeth about to abrogate their Decrees Bellarmine the Defendant The Councell of Constance for so much as concernes the former Sessions is repealed in the Councell of Florence and the last Councell of Lateran Nothing in the Councell of Basil is ratified and approued saue onely certaine orders about benefices which for peace and vnities sake Pope Nicolas approoued But the Councell it selfe is repealed in the Councell of Lateran last Session Bell. de Concil cap. 7. Vasquez disput 215. c. 3. Basiliense Concilium nullius est authoritatis in hac re The Councell of Basil is of no authority in this point Campian and Norrice the Assaylant The Councell of Trent teacheth that he who inioyeth the least particle of either kinde receiueth not a mangled or imperfect but an absolute compleate entire and perfect Sacrament true Author and Giuer of life the whole refection of Christs body and blood Norrice Antidot contro 50. This Councell of Trent is highly extolled by Campian The Synode of Trent the older it groweth the more it shall perpetually flourish Good God! What varietie of Nations was there What choyse of Bishops of the whole world What lusture of Kings and Common-wealth What marrow of Diuines What holynesse What teares What fasting What flowers of Vniuersities What tongues c. Andreas Dudithius the Defendant What good could be done in that Councell wherein voyces were numbred but not wayed If the merits of the cause hee speaketh of the Communion in both kindes or reason might haue carried it or if but a few had ioyned with vs wee had won the day But when the number onely could beare sway in which wee came short though our cause was exceeding good wee were faine to sit downe by the losse c. In summe the matter came to that passe through the wickednesse of those hungrie Bishops that hung vpon the Popes sleeue and were created on the sudden by the Pope for the purpose that that Councell seemed to be an assembly not of Bishops but of Hobgoblins not of men but of Images moued like the statues of Dedalus by the sinewes of others Dudith Quinque-Eccles episc ad Maximilianum 2. Caes. REASONS The third Combate Whether Reason maketh for or against the halfe Communion The Antagonists Mart. Becanus Iesuite and Domin à Soto Ioan. Hesselius and Gabr. Vasquez Iesuite Rob. Bellarmine and Guli Durand Alph. Salmeron and Thom. Aquinas Becanus the Assaylant IF whole Christ bee no lesse contained vnder one kind then vnder both it is all one whether wee receiue in one kind or in both For alwayes wee receiue the
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
1580. SAlmeron Iesuit Col. 1902. 1590. Suarez Iesuit Venetijs 1597. 950. Steph. Eduensis Bib. pat tom 10. Col. 1618. T. 200. TErtullianus Antwerp 1584. 440. Theodoretus Col. 1612. 1430. Thomas Waldensis Venetijs 1571. Thom. Aquin. vide A. Thom. Mort. vide M. 1070. Theophilact Basil. 1525. 1580. Tolet. Card. Col. 1569. 1590. Theodo Beza Geneuae 1598. 390. Tripartita historia Basil. 1528. V. 1572. VAdianus Aphoris Euch. 1536. 1600. Vasquez Antwerp 1621. 1240. Vincentius Histor. Venetijs 1591. W. 1430. WAldensis vide T. 849. Walafridus Strabo Bib. pat tom 9. Col. 1618. 1380. Widford contra Wiclif Dauen 1535. Edit ab Orthuino Gratio Z. 1105. ZAcharias Chrysopol Bib. pat tom 12. Col. 1618. FINIS I intreate the Gentle Reader before the reading hereof to correct these few faults in some copies which alter the sense the lesser escapes are annexed at the end Pag. 21. lin 22. adde his body 24. l. 23. for they reade l. 36. l. 15. adde to be spurious and therefore ought 44. l. 7. and therefore they cannot be seâ—…ed from the Communion 67. l. 15 r. infundatur 107. l. penult r. for it is that which wâ—… 121. l. penult r. now for naâ—… 128. l. 7 r. both for one 146. l. 28. r. and for or 147. l. 15. r. 190. for 90. 176. l. 13. r. repealed 2â—…0 l. 17. r. no error 226. l. 6. r. to me for some 230. l. 25. dele Etym. fil dextr 271. l. 9. r. Bishops at Carthage 278. l. 〈◊〉 r. she for he 298. l 11. adde quoth M. Featly l. 23. r. then for this 302. l. 19. r. Testament of blood or blood a Testament THE GRAND SACRILEGE OF THE CHVRCH OF ROME CHAP. I. The state of the question touching the necessitie of Communicating in both kinds PLinie writeth of the Camels that they like not cleare water but vsually foule and trouble the streame wherein they are to drinke Such is the manner of our muddie Popish writers who are sent to vs from Rome and Rhemes laden like Camels with Babylonish merchandize they trouble the waters of strife and for the most part confound the states of all the questions which they enter into or mainely contend for and as in other Controuersies so in this of entire Communicating they begin their doubling and falsifying at the very setting downe of the poynt of difference betweene vs. Bellarmine and Eccius state the question thus whether it be necessary for all men to Communicate in both kinds Hosius and Tapperus adde to saluation as if we affirmed that Communicating in both kinds were simply necessary to saluation this is not the true hinge vpon which this question turneth For wee doubt not but that the children of the faithfull especially dying baptized as also that abstemij such as cannot drinke wine and other beleeuers that are preuented by death before they participate of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper if they prepare themselues for it and desire it may be saued without actuall Communicating in both or either kinde The wilfull contempt not the ineuitable defect of the Sacrament is damnable We conceiue no more necessitie of drinking of the cuppe of blessing then of eating the sacramentall bread which is not absolutely necessary to saluation no not to those which are in riper yeeres The spirituall eating of Christs blessed body and blood is simply and absolutely necessary to saluation but not the sacramentall without which many blessed Martyrs and Saints haue been saued The tearme necessary is seldome or neuer vsed by Protestants in this argument or if they vse it they meane necessary ratione praecepti not medij They enquire not how necessary a meanes communicating in both kinds is to saluation but how necessary a command Christ hath laid vpon all Communicants to receiue the Sacrament in both kinds They should haue propounded the question thus Whether the people are not bound by Christs precept to Communicate in both kinds or if they will needs retaine the word necessary in vnfoulding this controuersie whether it be not as necessary for the people to drinke of the Cup as to eate of the Bread or whether it be not as necessary in regard of Christs institution that the people communicate in both kinds as that the Priest the minister or as they speake the Conficient or maker of this sacrament Or whether the administring of this sacrament in both kindes to the people and preists also none Conficients be not so necessary that it cannot bee otherwise administred without sinne and violation of our Lords most holy Institution The Romish tenent to which all Papists vnder paine of a curse are bound to subscribe is plainely and expressely set downe in the Canons of three Councels at Constance Basil and Trent In the Councell of Constance sess 13. This Synod doth decree and declare concerning this matter that processe be directed to the most reuerend Fathers in Christ the Lord Patriarkes Primates Archbishops and Bishops and their vicars in spirituals wheresoeuer by them appoynted In which processe by the authoritie of the holy Councell let them be inioyned and commanded effectually to punish those that obserue not this Decree viz. Who exhort the people to Communicate in both kinds or teach that they ought so to doe In the Councell of Basile sess 30. This Synod doth decree and declare that the faithfull Laicks or Clarks communicants and not conficients are not bound by our Lords command to receiue the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist vnder both formes or kindes viz. of Bread and Wine In the Councell of Trent sess 21. c. 1. The Synod declareth and teacheth that Laicks and Clarks non conficient are by no diuine precept bound to receiue this most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist in both kinds and if any say that all and euery of the faithfull by Gods command ought to receiue the Sacrament in both kinds let them be accursed The doctrine of the Reformed Churches cannot be more certainely gathered then out of the harmony of their orthodoxall confessions which were penned by most iudicious Diuines at the first and are at this day subscribed by those that are admitted to any degree of function in each particular Church To begin with the Church of England to whose Articles of Religion all Graduats and Ministers of the Word professe their assent and consent euen by interposing an oath In the 30. Article thus we reade The cup of the Lord is not to bee denyed to the Lay people for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs ordinance and commandement ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike In the Confession of Auspurg Article 2. both parts of the Sacraments are giuen to the Laiety in the Lords Supper because the Sacrament was instituted not for a part of the Church onely viz. the Priests but for the rest of the Church also and truly Christ saith Math. 26. Drink you all of this where he
expresly commandeth all to drinke of the Cup and lest any man might cauill saying that that precept belonged only to Priests Saint Pauls ordinance to the Corinthians testifies That the whole Church ordinarily or in common vsed both kinds In the Saxonik Article 15. All men know that the Lords Supper was so instituted at the first that the whole Sacrament was giuen to the people as it is written Drinke you all of this The custome of the ancient Churches both Greeke and Latine are well knowne therefore we must confesse that the prohibiting of one part thereof is vniust It is vnlawfull to violate the last wil and Testament of men if it be lawfully made why then doe the Bishops violate the Testament of the Sonne of God sealed with his blood In the Bohemian c. 14. Christ said in expresse words Take eate this is my body and in like manner when he gaue them the Cup by it selfe and distinctly said Take Drinke ye all of this this is my blood therefore according to this Commandement the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ ought to be distributed and receiued by all beleeuers in common In the latter Heluetian confession cap. 21. we dislike these who haue takeÌ„ away one part of the Sacrament viz. the Cup of the Lord from the faithfull for they grieuouslly offend against the Lords institution who said Drinke ye all of this which hee spake not in so expresse words of the bread The Doctrine and practice of the reformed Churches as it is expressed in these Confessions is solidly and learnedly iustified against the Romish aduersaries by Luther Melancton Caluin Iewel Chemsius Plessis Bilson Riuet Moulin Chamierus Humfrey and others from whose Hiues I haue taken much hony yet not vpon trust nor without trying it but tracing the diligent Bees in the Paradice of God the holy Scripture and the Garden of Ecclesiasticall Writers euen to each flower whence they gathered it CHAP. II. The first Argument drawne from Christs Precept and example in the celebration of this Sacrament WHatsoeuer Christ commanded and did in the first celebration of this Supper ought continually to be obserued and practized in the Church But Christ in the first celebration of the Supper gaue the Cup and commanded it to bee giuen to all there present that before had receiued the bread Therefore the giuing of the Cup to all Communicants at the Supper ought perpetually to bee obserued and practised in the Church The proposition is gathered out of Luk. 22. 19. This doe ye in remembrance of me and 1. Cor. 11. 25. This do ye as oft as you drink in remembrance of me and ver 26. as oft as you eate of this bread and drinke this Cup you shew the Lords death till he come In which words the Apostle euidently implyeth that the Commandement this doe in remembrance of me extends euen to Christs second comming And verily if Christs precepts and actions in the first celebration of this Sacrament were not a law binding the Church to doe the like in all succeeding ages neither the Apostles themselues nor the Church after them should haue had any warrant at all to celebrate the Lords Supper after his death Which to affirme were absurd impietie or as Saint Augustine speakes in a case of farre lesse importance most insolent madnesse The assumption is set down in the very letter totidem verbis Mat. 26. 27. He tooke the Cup and gaue it to them saying Drinke you all of this Mark 14. 23 And he tooke the Cup and when hee had giuen thanks he gaue it them and they all drank of it Certainely I perswade my selfe that our Sauiour expressed the note of vniuersality viz. in deliuering the Cup to all saying Drinke you all of this and not so in giuing the bread of set purpose to preuent that abuse which the Romish Church of late hath brought in by taking away the Cup. As in like manner the Apostle saith of marriage It is honorable in or amongst all men Heb. 13. 4. and he saith not so of virginity or single life although it bee most true that single life or virginity is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is pretious or honorable because the holy Ghost foresaw that some heretikes would denie marriage to bee honourable amongst all and prohibite it to some men viz. the Cleargie Which two texts of Scripture the Romanists lewdly peruert and ridiculously contradict themselues in the interpretation of them extending all to the Laietie in the one and excluding the Cleargie and extending all to the Cleargie in the other and excluding the laietie Marriage is honorable among all say they that is all saue Priests Drink you all of this that is all saue the people In restraining all in both places they make of omnes non omnes and so contradict the text and by expounding all sometimes of the people not Priests sometimes of Priests and not people they contradict themselues For the restriction of all in this place to Priests administring onely I forbeare the further refuting of it because all the arguments that follow in generall ouerthrow it and in particular and expressly it is refelled in the Conference annexed hereunto This whole argument is confirmed by the testimonie of Pope Iulius set downe in the Canon Law and therefore deliuered ex Cathedra De consecrat dist 2. There hee proues that bread and wine onely ought to be giuen in the Sacrament and not milke because Christ the master of Truth when he commended the Sacrament vnto his Disciples at his last Supâ—…er gaue milke to none but bread the cup only The contrary practice viz. of them that giue milke in the Sacrament how repugnant it is to the Euangelicall and Apostolicall Doctrine and custome of the Church will easily bee proued from the fountaine of truth from whom the ordination of these mysteries did proceed The Pope in this place drawes an argument from Christs institution and practice at his last Supper both affirmatiuely and negatiuely Christ gaue bread and wine to his Disciples therefore wee ought so to doe he gaue not milke therefore wee ought not Christ is the Fountaine of truth he is the Master of truth hee is the Author of the Sacrament therefore inferreth the Pope and in this particular infallibly nothing must bee done in the administration of this Sacrament otherwise then Christ did and commanded at his last Supper The Romanists cannot confirme the Popes argument but they must needs confirme ours in this point they cannot infirme or weaken ours but they must needes weaken his and not his onely but that renowned Doctor and glorious Martyr Saint Cyprians also who fighteth with the same weapon against the heretiques called Aquarij wherewith we doe against the papists No man may vnder colour of new or humane constitutions depart from that which Christ our Master did and taught and a little
not be baptized which haue receiued the holy Ghost as well as we Surely to whom God intendeth the end hee intendeth the vse of the meanes Lorinus out of the ordinary glosse conceiues the Apostle to vse an argument à minori which he thus reduceth to forme If God hath giuen that which is greater no man ought to forbid the lesser But God hath giuen them the holy Ghost which is the greater Therefore none ought to denie them the baptisme of water which is the lesse This is all one as if when the Pope hath bestowed an Archbishoprick vpon any Bishop the Datary should deny him the Pale or when the Vniuersity hath conferred the degree of Doctor the Beadle should denie him his Scarlet Hoode or when the Captaine hath admitted a souldier into his band any vnder officer should forbid him to weare his colours As incongruous if not far more it is when God the Lord and Master conferres the thing signified by the Sacrament for man the seruant and minister to denie the signe The asumption is easily prooued for the thing signified by the Cup is either the Communion of Christs blood as the Apostle testifieth The Cup of Blessing which we blesse is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ Or it is remission of sins by the blood-shedding of Christ as the words of the institution imply This is the blood of the new Testament which is shed for man for the remission of sins Neither of which benefits the Romanists dare to exclude the Laietie from They haue vnion with Christ by faith therefore Communion of his blood they receiue the remission of sinnes by Christs blood shed vpon the Crosse with what colour then can the Romanists take away from them the Cup the signe and pledge thereof if they except against this argument that children abstemious persons such as cannot brook wine receiue the thing signified viz. remission of sins and participate of Christs blood and yet drink not of the holy Cup the answer is easie None are by this argument meant but such as desire the Cup and are capable thereof such are not either children or abstemious persons Let the Opposition then or Maior be vnderstood as it is intended with this explication or limitation No faithfull Christians ought to be denied the Cup vpon whom God conferreth the thing signified by the Cup. viz. none that desire it and are capable thereof and can receiue it according to Christs ordinance such are the faithfull people ordinarily and so the former Cauill vanisheth into smoake This whole argument is confirmed by a Canon extant in Gratian de consecrat dist 2. If as often as the blood of Christ is shed it is shed for the remission ofsins I ought alwaies to take it that alwayes sinnes may be forgiuen me This Gratian gathered as a flowre out of Saint Ambrose his works but behold a greater then Saint Ambrose our Lord and Sauiour implieth as much saying This is my blood which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sinnes Drinke yee of it for it is shed for you and the remission of your sinnes These therefore for whom Christs blood was shed and they who haue obtained remission of sins by it ought by the reason annexed to this precept drinke of it And I perswade my selfe that no learned Papist hath so little charitie in his heart or so much brasse in his brow as doctrinally to deliuer that Christs blood was not shed sor the Laietie or that they receiue not remission of sinns thereby as well as Priests CHAP. V. The fourth argument drawne from the nature of a banquet or supper IN euery supper feast or banquet the cup is to be giuen to the guests that they may drinke as well as eate The Sacrament of the Eucharist is a supper feast or banquet Therfore in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Cup is to be giuen to all the communicants that they may drink as well as eate The proposition is euident to sense and is readily assented vnto by the aduersaries Aquinas part 3. q. 73. To a corporall refection or repast two things are required viz. meat which is a drie nourishment and drinke which is a moyst And y Lyranus in 1. Corin. 11. The Sacrament is giuen in two kinds or formes viz. of bread and wine that thereby a perfect spirituall refection might bee signified The asumption is testified by a cloud of witnesses by Saint Paul When you come together therefore into one place this is not to eate the Lords Supper for in eating euery one taketh before hand his own supper By Saint Cyprian who intituleth his Treatise of this Sacrament De coena Domini of the Lords Supper by Tertullian who sayth what shall her husband sing to her what shall shee sing to her husband shall Gods Supper heare something from the Tauerne from hell what mention of God what calling vpon Christ can there be there c. By Saint Ierom epist. 14. ad Damasum pa. 409. * the fat calfe is our Sauiour whose flesh we dayly eat and drinke his blood this banquet is euery day kept euery day the Father receiues his Sonne By Soto art 12. quest in 12. dist The Sacrament is not perfect but in both kinds for it is a banquet consisting of meate and drinke Nay by the whole Church of Rome in her Offices and publique Liturgie in the Antiphony sung at the Vespers on Corpus Christi day O holy banquet and in the prayer after the Communion in the feastof Cosimus and Damianus This whole argument is confirmed by Vasques the Iesuite disp 215. The Sacrament is instituted in both kinds viz. bread and wine that it might be a kind of banquet Therfore Christ speaking of himselfe saith My flâ—…sh is meate indeed and my blood is drinke indeed now in a banquet there is nothing but me â—…t and drinke whereof each refresheth the body after a seuerall manner and conduceth to the nourishment and increase thereof Whereupon he inferreth that each kinde in the Sacrament hath a peculiar and proper signification and operation This testimony of Vasques commeth home to the point for he confesseth all that is inforced by this argument first that a banquet consists of drinke as well as of meat Secondly that the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist is a banquet Thirdly that the seuerall kinds of foode in this banquet nourish after a seuerall manner from whence who seeth not that it will follow that the Laietie which are debarred of one kinde of viand in this banquet and receiue onely the other cannot participate the full effect and operation of the Sacrament which is a perfect spirituall refection or nourishment CHAP. VI. The fift Argument drawne from the precept of drinking NOne can drink in the Sacrament without the Cup All that communicate ought to drinke in the Sacrament Therefore all that communicate ought to haue the
Ignatius onely to prooue the practise of the Primitiue Church and thus much Bellarmine confesseth whereupon I adde that this confessed practise of the Primitiue Church was grounded on our Lords precept drinke you all of this for the Church so neere Christ cannot bee supposed to haue swarued any way from his institution by adding any thing vnto it or taking away from it certainely Ignatius and the Churches wherein he bore sway obserued the order and practise of Saint Iohn his master and if Saint Iohn administred the Cup in all Churches to the people so did the rest of the Apostles for they varied not from Christ or among themselues in celebrating the Lords Supper And what the Apostles did ioyntly no Christian doubteth but they did by the direction of the holy Ghost according to our Lords will and commandement And thus wee see this example amounteth to a precept and the practise in Ignatius his time ought to bee a president for all future times SECT II. Testimonies of the Practise of the Christian Churches in the second Age. From 100. to 200. Anno Dom. 150. IVstin Martyr in his second apologie thus writeth They which are called Deacons among vs giue to euery one that is present of the consecrated Bread and Wine And when he hath related the whole manner of the celebration of the Eucharist as it were to preuent a cauill that might be made and is now made by Papists the Martyr heere sheweth the practise of the Church but maketh no mention of the precept of our Sauiour as that they did so in deed but were not bound so to doe he further addeth for the close as they report that Iesus commanded them or as they haue deliuered vnto vs Iesus his command giuen vnto them Bellarmine his answere Bellarmine repineth at this so expresse a testimony of so ancient a Father and so renowned a Martyr and therefore laboureth to disparage it some way or other Si non aliqu â nocuisset mortuus esset Yet all that he saith to it is but this that those last words of the Martyr which mentioneth Christs precept belong not to the Communion but to the Consecration The Refutation This solution will no way beare water First it is euident to any that reads the whole place that Iustin Martyrs words wherein he mentioneth Christs precept belongeth both to the Consecration and to the Communion For after he had spoken of the Communion he subioyneth these words And therefore they cannot bee seuered from the Communion The series or method of the passage in Iustin is thus hauing rehearsed the words of the Institution This is my body doe this in remembrance of me and this Cup is the new Testament drinke you all of this he addeth and he commanded that they onely should participate as had been before washed in the lauer of Regeneration and lead such a life as Christ prescribed them These words that they onely should participate clearely conuince the Cardinall and demonstrate that Iustin Martyr extendeth Christs command both to the Consecration and to the Commumunion it selfe which in Christs precept cannot be deuided both being enioyned in this one precept doe this in remembrance of me that is Consecrate and Communicate Secondly howsoeuer the Cardinall by any tricke of sophistrie shall dismember the whole sentence and pull these words As Christ commanded from the rest and refer them to which part of the sentence he pleaseth yet he can neuer smoother the light of truth shining in these words The Deacons deliuer or minister to euery one of the consecrated bread and wine The practice then of those times maketh for vs against the Church of Rome The Deacons then as the Ministers now deliuered the Sacrament to the people in both kindes Anno. 152. Laurence Deacon to Pope Sixtus cryed out to him as hee was led to his Martyrdome Whether goest thou father without thy sonne whether hastest thou Priest without thy Leuite try whether thou hast chosen a fit minister to whom thou hast committed the dispensation of our Lords blood Wilt thou denie me to bee a copartner with thee in the effusion of thy blood who hast made me a copartner with thee in the celebration of our Lords blood This giueth such light to Iustin Martyrs words and so fully accordeth with them that Tiletanus the defender of the councell of Trent confesseth that it is manifest that in this age the vse of both kinds was common to all Anno 180. Saint Irenaeus Bishop of Lions and Martyr in the fourth booke against heresies and 34. cha proueth the resurrection of the flesh and eternall life by an argument drawne from the faithfulls eating Christs flesh in the Eucharist and he presseth his argument in this manner How doe they viz. the heretiques say that the flesh should be vtterly corrupted and neuer rise againe which is nourished with the body and blood of Christ and a little after Our bodies by participating the Eucharist or Sacrament of our Lords supper are not now corruptible or shall not vtterly be corrupted and come to nothing because they haue the hope of theresurrection Irenaeus speaketh of all Christians people as well as Priests for all faithfull Christians haue hope of a blessed resurrection and he saith that they are nourished with the bodie and blood of Christ by participating of the Sacrament of his supper Papists answer The Romanists seeke to auoyde these and the like passages by their doctrine of concomitancie auerring that the blood of Christ is not seuered from his body and consequently that the Laietie take the blood in the body and are nourished therewith to eternall life and this say they is all that can bee gathered from Irenaeus his words They are nourished with the blood of Christ which they receiue together with his body not with the blood of Christ which they take by it selfe in the Cup. The Refutation This answer of theirs is weake and insufficient First because it is built on a weake and ruinous foundation viz. the reall and carnall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament vnder the accidents of bread and wine which I haue else where by Scriptures and Fathers refelled See the fisher caught in his owne net part 2. That the doctrine of concomitancie is builded vpon the reall and carnall presence is not denied by the Romanists for they make the one the ground of the other Secondly albeit wee should grant that the Laiety in some sence receiue the blood of Christ in the bread yet they receiue it not so as Christ commandeth for they receiue it not by drinking No man drinketh in eating or eateth in Drinking Thirdly the blood of Christ which wee receiue in the Sacrament we receiue not as subsisting in his veines or as being a part of or ioyned vnto his body but as shed for vs In which quality and manner it is impossible to receiue the blood of Christ together with and in the body by naturall
Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. With what face then can our aduersaries deny the Cup to Lay men when the ancient Church deliuered it vsually to religious women such as were Patricia and Gorgonia Anno 375. Ambrose in his fifth booke de sacramentis chap. 1. elegantly applieth Moses his striking the rocke and the water flowing out thereupon to the holy communion saying see the mystery Moses that is a Prophet the Rod that is Gods word the Priest with the Word of God toucheth the rock and the water floweth and the people of God drinke it The Priest therefore toucheth the Cup and there aboundeth in the Cup water springing to eternall life and the people of God drinketh and obtaineth the grace of God The same S. Ambrose as Theoderet writes in his fifth booke of Ecclesiasticall storie and 17. chap. repelleth the Emperor Theodosius from the Communion with these words How darest thou take into thy hands sprinckled with blood the holy body of Christ How presumest thou to lift vp his dreadfull blood to thy mouth who in thy rage hast spilt vniustly so much blood Wee see in Saint Ambroses time that both Prince and people communicated in both kinds albeit Theodosius at this time were deseruedly suspended from the participating of Christs body as well as his blood Yet after hee had cleansed his bloody hands with penitent teares he was admitted to the blessed Sacrament and he receiued both the blessed Body and the holy Cup into his hands Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in his answer to this our allegation out of Theodoret saith We confesse that both kinds haue been sometimes giuen to the Laietie but we denie that it is so commanded by Gods Law A poore and miserable euasion For first many of the ancients whom wee haue before alleadged doe not onely testifie the practise of their times but vrge diuine precept for it Secondly they indifferently exhort the Laietie as well as the Clergie to the Communion in both kinds and vrge a like necessitie for both but the Papists themselues confesse that the Cleargie who administer the Communion are bound by the Law of God to communicate in both kinds and sith Sacraments may not be administred to any without order and command from him who instituted them questionlesse the ancient Church would neuer haue vsually administred the Cup to the Laietie with the bread if they had not conceiued that Christs words Drinke ye all of this belonged to them as well as to the Cleargie Anno. 390. Hierome vpon the eleuenth of the 1. Cor. The Lords Supper ought to be cōmon to all because Christ equally deliuered the Sacraments to all his disciples who were there present It is to be noted that he vseth the word Sacraments in the plurall number speaking onely of the Lords Supper whereby it is euident that by Sacraments hee vnderstandeth the elements bread and wine and from Christs example enforceth that they be equally deliuered to all communicants The same Saint Hierome speaketh yet more expresly of the Laietie receiuing the Cup from the Priest in the Eucharist in his comment on the 3. chap. of Zephanie the Priests also who administer the Eucharist deuide the blood of the Lord to his people commit wickednes against the Law To which allegation Cardinall Bellarmine answereth nothing but we heare no newes It is true we heare no newes out of Saint Ieroms mouth For all the fathers aboue alleadged testifie as much and this Bellarmine is for ced to grant Durum telum necessitas ignoscite If he could haue coyned any new answer wee should haue had somewhat else from him then Nihil noui audimus but seeing hee brings nothing new to impeach our argument I need not to adde any new confirmation Anno 398. In the fourth councell of Carthage it is ordered that if any penitent desire the peace of the Church when he lyeth on his death bed if it bee beleeued that he will presently depart that the Church peace be giuen vnto him by laying on of hands and vt ori eius effundatur Eucharistia and that the Sacrament be powred into his mouth Anno 399. Saint Chrysostome in his 18. homily in the 2. epist. to the Corinth makes it a cleere case that the people by the new law haue as good interest to the entire Sacrament as the Priest Sometimes or in some things there is no difference betweene the people and the Priest as in the participation of the dreadfull mysteries for all are equally admitted vnto them In the time of the old testament it was not lawfull for the people to eat of those things of which the Priests did eate but it is not so now for one body is offered to all and one Cup. The Papists answer Bellarmine answereth that the difference which Saint Chrysostome obserues betweene the sacrifices of the old and new Testament was that the sacrifice of the old was deuided into parts and could not bee entirely taken by any one and hence it came to passe saith he that some receiued a greater and some a lesse portion and for the most part the Priests part was the greatest but this our Sacrament is giuen intirely to euery one neither hath the Priest more then the Lay people although the symboles are more or greater in the Communion of the Priests then of the people Refutation This slight colour of answer is easily washed away for First Saint Chrysostome in the originall Greek hath no word signifying parts or diuision into parts but saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that the Priest fed on other things and that the Laietie might not feed vpon the same as for example The laitie might not at all eat of the shew bread and in the sacrifices the people might not eate of the same specie or numero which the Priest eate For the Law expresly set downe what belonged to the Priest to eate and what to the people but in the new Testament it is not so for the people may eat of the bread which the Priest eateth and drinke also of the same Cup. This is euidently Saint Chrysostomes meaning Secondly although it is true which Bellarmine saith that the whole Sacrament is eaten by euery Communicant yet this must be vnderstood of the integrity of the thing signified and of the essence of that signe not of the integrity of the quantitie of the outward elements For no one man eateth the whole loafe or quantity of bread that is consecrated nor drinketh the whole measure of wine that is sanctified but a portion onely Herein then the difference is not betweene the Priests of the old Law and the Priests of the new that the Priests of the old Law might eate but a part of the Sacrifice but the Priests of the new might eat the whole For if we speake of the thing signified both receiued the whole if of the signes neither receiues the whole that is the entire quantity of
the thing offered The difference was in this according to S. Chrysostome that the people simply might not eat of those things of which the Priest might but in the new testament the people may eat of all that the Priests may Lastly although we should admit of Bellarmines answer touching the condition of the Priest and people of the old law and the new that they of the old fed of the sacrifice apart each hauing their seuerall portions appointed for them but that the Prists and people of the new receiued the sacrament entirely the Priest entirely and the people entirely which in some sence is true yet this no way satisfieth the words of Saint Chrysostome who saith expresly that one Cup as well as one bread is set before all people as well as Priests and that according to Christs institution in the new testament SECT V. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 400. to 500. Anno 410. ABout the beginning of the fifth Age God raysed vp that golden Tapour in the Church Saint Austin by whose light as wee may discouer other errors and abuses of the Church of Rome so this their mutilation of the Sacrament and defrauding Gods people of one part of this Supper This Author in his dialogue to Orosius quest 49. he interprets the blood of Abel the blood of Christ which saith he when the whole Church receiueth it saith Amen For what a cry maketh the whole Church when after she hath dranke the blood of Christ cryeth Amen And in his 57. question vpon Leuiticus he not onely testifies that the people did drinke of Christs blood but that they ought to doe so if they expect life from him What is the meaning of this saith he that the people are forbidden to eat of the blood of the sacrifices which were offered for sinn if by those sacrifices this sacrifice was signified in which there is trueremission of sinnes and yet not onely no man is forbidden to take the blood of this sacrifice for nourishment but on the contrary all men who desire life are exhorted to drinke it Papists answer Bellarmine de sacra Eucharistiae lib. 4. cap. 26. answereth that the force of Saint Austines reason consisteth not in the manner of drinking but in the taking of the blood which produceth the same effect whither it bee taken as meat or drinke Refutation Saint Austin in that place obserueth a difference between the precepts of the old and the precepts of the new testament that in the old blood was forbidden so much as to bee eaten with the flesh but in the new it is commanded to be drunke euen by it selfe and so the force of his reason ab oppositis stands not onely in some way taking blood for sustenance but euen in the manner of taking it euen by drinke Secondly whereinsoeuer the force of Saint Austines reason stands his words which wee alleage are expresly for taking it by drinking For he saith not as Bellarmine will haue him all who desire life are exhorted to take Christs blood for sustenance or to feed vpon it But they are exhorted to drinke it The people therefore if they looke for life by Christ they must drinke his blood which they cannot doe if the Priest deny the Cup. Anno. 420. Eusebius Emissenus in his Homily vpon Palme-Sunday speakes of the faithfulls communicating in both kinds as of a daily and frequent practice As then our Lord liued and spake and yet was eaten by his Disciples and drunke so now he remaines whole and vncorrupted and yet is daily drunke and eaten by the faithfull I beleeue no Romish Priest will bee so impudent as to restraine beleeuers to Priests onely If the Layetie are not to be reckoned in the number of fideles or belieuers they may not eat Christ in the Sacrament of bread and if they are fideles or beleeuers then they vsually nay daily drinke his blood in the Sacrament of wine as well as eate his flesh in the Sacrament of bread Anno 430. Theodoret in his Dialogue called Atreptus cap. 11. allotteth to all the faithfull an equall share in the Lords Supper one mysticall Table is prepared for all from which all beleeuers take vnto themselues an equall portion And in his Comment on the second Chapter of the first to the Corinthians hee obserueth a difference betweene ordinary suppers and the Lords Supper Of that viz. the Lords Table all are equally partakers but here viz. in common suppers one is hungry and another is drunke Hee saith not he drinkes but is drunke blaming him for two reasons first that he drinkes alone secondly that he is drunke If the Layetie drank not of the Lords Table they did not equally participate with the Priests And if in Theodorets time the Priests did drinke alone as now they doe at the Romane Masse Theodoret could not herein haue differenced them from common and prophane tables so that at the one all eate and drinke alike at the other one is satisfied and another is hungry one is thirsty and another drinketh alone and is drunke Anno 431. Cyrillus of Alexandria Glaphyr lib. 2. writeth thus As long as we are in this world wee will communicate with Christ by his holy flesh and precious blood Communicatio sanctae carnis atque item poculū ex salutari ipsius sanguine c. The communicating his holy flesh and the Cup of his holy blood hath in it a confession of Christs death by the participating in these things in this world we commemorate Christs death Anno. 450. Leo the Great Bishop of Rome in his fourth Sermon de quadragessima giues it as a character or marke to descry the Manichees by that at the Sacrament they would eate of the bread but in no wise drinke of the wine They viz. the Manichees so carry themselues at the Communion that they may more safely lye hid they take the body of Christ into their vnworthy mouthes but altogether they refuse to drinke the blood of their redemption which I would haue your Holinesse know that you may set a mark vpon these men in whomsoeuer you find such sacrilegious simulation you discouer them that by Priestly authoritie they may be driuen from the society of the Saints Here Leo both a Bishop of Rome and a great Clarke makes it sacriledge and heresie to receiue Christs body in the Sacrament and to refuse to drinke his blood Anno. 451. In the generall Councell of Chalcedon act 10. there is an accusation brought in against Iba the Bishop of Edessa that in some Church in his Diocesse at the Commemoration of the holy Martyrs there was but a little wine and that corrupt and sowre prouided for the Altar to bee sanctified and distributed to the people This generall Councell was counted to represent the whole Christian Church whereby it appeares that at the time of this Councell the Cup was giuen through the whole Christian world to
the Laiety and that the administring of the Sacrament to the people without wine was held a profanation of the Lords Supper for which cause that Bishop was seuerely taxed Anno 453. Eucherius Bishop of Lyons in his questions vpon Matthew implyeth that all holy men in generall and true members of Christ in his time dranke our Redeemers blood in the Sacrament His words are The Kingdome of God as the learned vnderstand it is the Church in which Christ daily drinketh his owne blood by his Saints as the Head in his members Anno 492. Among the Decrees of ancient Popes collected by Gratian we finde that sentence of Gelasius which I haue set in the frontispiece of this booke Grat. de consecra dist 2. cap. Comperimus We find that some receiuing a portion of Christs holy Body abstaine from the Cup of his sacred blood which because they doe out of I know not what superstition we comand that either they receiue the entire Sacraments or that they be entirely withheld from them because the diuision of one and the selfe-same mysterie cannot be without grand sacriledge In this Decree of Gelasius first we are to note that it is a Papall decision ex Cathedra That the elements in the Lords Supper must bee taken ioyntly This Gelasius determineth not as a priuate man but as a Pope ex Cathedra and therefore all Papists are bound to beleeue that hee did not nor could not erre in this decree Secondly it is to bee noted that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not entire without the Cup which quite ouerthroweth our aduersaries new fancy of concomitancy Thirdly it is to bee noted that hee defineth the withholding the Cup from any Communicant or deuiding the holy mysterie by halfe communicating not onely to bee sacriledge but to be grand sacriledge or the greatest sacriledge that can bee committed For grande is more then magnum or graue and it signifieth sacriledge in the highest degree Papists answer Gratian or his glosse in the title to this Decree would beare vs in hand that this Decree concerneth the Priests only and not the Laiety For a Priest to consecrate or to offer the bread without the wine or after they haue consecrated both to participate but of one this Gelasius forbids say they but not the Layetie to communicate in one kind onely Cardinall Bellarmine addes a second answer that this Canon was made against the Manichees and Priscillianists who refused the Cup in the Sacrament partly because they held wine in an abomination partly because they beleeued not that Christ had true blood in him These saith Bellarmine in token and testimony that they had reformed their former errour are commanded to receiue the Sacrament in both kinds or else not at all to be admitted vnto the Communion The Refutation Neither of these wards will beare off the blow For first it is not likely that Gelasius made this decree against the Manichees or Priscillianists for then hee would not haue said Quia nescio quâ superstitione astricti tenentur that is that they were intangled in I know not what superstition but rather Quia nota haeresi astricti tenentur that is they doe it because they are intangled in a knowne heresie Secondly admit that the Manichees and Priscillianists occasioned this decree yet this decree is backed with a generall reason which forbids all to Communicate in one kind only vnder the perill of grand Sacrilege Thirdly Gratians euasion will no way saue the Laietie harmelesse or acquit them of Sacrilege where of the Priest by this decree say they is made guiltie For that which is Sacrilege in the Priest cannot be Religion in the people Gelasius saith not that the Sacrilege consisteth in the diuision of one and the selfe same sacrifice but in the diuision of one and the selfe same mysterie Now the selfe same mystery or Sacrament is diuided as well in the halfe Communion of the people as of the Priest Lastly it is euident that the decree concerneth the Communicants and not the Priests Conficients or administring For the word arceantur that is let them be kept from or driuen from the entire Sacrament must needs be meant of the people For the people suspend not the Priests from the Sacrament but the Priests or Bishops the people Here Master Euerard is locked fast with a like paire of fetters to those which Campian makes for Protestants As he saith Patres so I say Papas admittis Captus es exludis Nullus es Doe you allow of the Popes decissions You are then taken Doe you disallow of them You are no body in the opinion of your owne selues If you subscribe to the determination of two Popes Leo and Gelasius you must confesse your selfe guilty of Sacrilege if you subscribe not to them of heresie Vtrum horum mauis accipe SECT VI. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 500. to 600. AS Tullie writeth of Hortensius that after his Consulship he decayed in his rare facultie of eloquence though not so sensibly that euery auditor might perceiue it yet in such sort that a cunning artist might obserue that he drew not so cleare a stroake in his master-pieces nor cast on them so rich and liuely colours as before Such was the state of the Church in this age It decayed and failed though not so sensibly and grossely that euery ordinary reader might take notice thereof yet in such sort that the learned and iudicious haue discouered in the writers of this age and much more after a declination from the puritie of former ages both in stile and doctrine Their Latine much degenerated into barbarisme and their deuotion into superstition Whence it is that the prime Doctors of the Reformed Churches who appeale from the late corruptions in the Romish Church to the prime sinceritie in the first and best ages confine this their appeale within the pale of the fifth age Wherefore the reader is not to demaund or expect from hence forth either so frequent testimonies or at least of men of that eminencie and reuerend authority as the former were For such the succeeding ages brought forth none but it shall suffice to produce such witnesses as the times affoorded men that held ranke with the best in their times Such were Remigius Archbishop of Rhemes Gregory Bishop of Tours and the Fathers of the Councell of Toledo and Iledra Anno 524. In the Councell held at Ilerda can 1. All those that serue at the Altar Christi corpus sanguinem tradunt and deliuer the body and blood of Christ or handle any holy vessell are strictly charged to abstaine from all mans blood yea euen of their enemies Anno 560. Remigius Archbishop of Rhemes thus expoundeth those words of Saint Paul The Cup of blessing wherewith we blesse is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ The Cup is called the Communion because all communicated or receiued the Communion out of it
participating of the blood of the Lord. Papists answere If our aduersaries here flie to their old starting hole that by all here all Priests are meant and not all Communicants they may be stopped by that which Hincmarus writeth in the life of this Rhemigius that he gaue a Chalice for the peoples vse with this Motto Hauriat hinc populus vitam de sanguine sacro Iniecto aeternus quem fudit vulnere Christus Rhemigius reddit Domino sua vota Sacerdos Rhemigius Priest that gaue this Cup Prai'th that in it the people sup And still draw life from flowing blood Out of Christs side as of a flood Let it bee noted that hee saith not hauriat hinc clerus but populus not let the Priest but let the people out of this Cup draw life from the holy blood which Christ shed out of his wounds Whereby it appeareth euidently that this Chalice was giuen by the Archbishop for the peoples vse at great and solemne Communions and not for the Priests in their priuate Masses if any such were in Rhemigius his dayes Anno 580. Greg. Turonens de glor Martyr li. 1. ca. 10. relateth a miraculous accident that fel out by occasion of a Iewes child comming with other children to the Communion of Christs body and blood I am sure these children were not Priests that said Masse and if children were admitted to the holy Cup much more men of riper yeeres Papists answer This was an abuse to let children come to the Communion who cannnot examine themselues and therefore from this abusiue coustome no good rule may be drawne The Refutation I allow not of the coustome of admitting children to the Communion in the Church or giuing it them at home though it be more antient then most of the new Articles of the Romish Creede coined by Pope Pius the fourth in his Bull. but I make a true inference though from an erroneous practise as the Apostle doth from a custome among the Corinthians who were baptized for the dead Doubtlesse if the Laietie in those dayes had been kept from the holy Cup children neuer had been admitted to drink of it For no man can imagine that the Church would giue little infants that priuiledge which they denied their parents Anno 537. In the second Councell of Toledo Can. 7. It is ordained throughout all the Countries of Spaine and Gallicia for the confirmation of the new conuersion of the people from Arianisme that before the participation of the body and blood of Christ corporis sanguinis communicationem according to the manner of the Easterne Churches all the Congregation shall with an audible voyce rehearse the most holy Articles of the Christian faith Anno 597. In the third Councel held at Toledo in the reigne of Recaredus c. 2. It is decreed that the people shall first make profession of their faith and so exhibite their hearts purified by faith to receiue Christs body and blood Doth not this Councell speake in the Protestant language that the people are to receiue Christs blood as well as his body and both by faith or which is all one in their hearts purified by faith How neere commeth this to the forme at this day in vse in our Church Feed on him in thy heart by faith I find no exception taken by any Papist at this testimony and therefore there needs no ward where no blow is so much as offered SECT VII Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 600. to 700. Anno. 600. IT was truly spoken of Constantine that hee was Praeteritis melior venientibus auctor Better then his predecessors and a good president to those that succeded him But on the contrary we may say of Gregory the Great that hee was Praeteritis peior yet venientibus auctor that he was bad in comparison of his predecessors but good in comparison of his successours For he was the worst of the good Popes and the best of the euill It was this Pope who sent Austine the Monke into England to propagate the Christian faith who in some places sowed in others watred the seede all ready sowne which was wholesome yet somewhat smutty and such as needed to be washed and clensed from superstition He much stikled for Gregorie his masters authoritie and brought in some customes and ceremonies that sauour rancke to those that are Emunctae naris yet the faith hee preached was for substance the same which the reformed Churches embrace at this day as in my answer to the Iesuites threefold challenge I haue made it appeare And as in other controuersies of greater moment so in this he is cleerely ours Homil. 22. in Euang. he mystically applieth the blood of the Pascall Lambe striken vpon both posts of the doore to the participation of Christs blood in the Eucharist saying The blood is then put on both posts when is taken or drawne in both by or with the mouth of the body and of the heart In the fourth of his dialogues if his c. 58. His body is taken whose flesh is broken and diuided for the peoples saluation his blood is not now powred out vpon the hands of infidels but into the mouths of the faithfull If with any coulour the aduersaries might restraine fideles to the Priests onely yet the word populi going before will enforce them to vnderstand this passage as well of the people as Priests if not the people more especially who are named expresly and not the Priests Papists answer I answer saith Bellarmine that Gregorie and Bede say that Christs blood is taken with the mouth of the body but we denie that they say that it ought to be drunken with the mouth of the body or to be taken vnder the forme of wine Refutation This answer of the Cardinall can argue no lesse in him then either supine negligence or a cauterized conscience For S. Gregorie in the words immediately preceding those aboue alleaged expressely speaketh of drinking Christs blood saying quòd sit sanguis Christi non audiendo sed bibendo didicistis What is meant by the blood of Christ you haue learned not by hearing but by drinking Had he not in expresse words mentioned drinking yet the phrases he vseth hauritur and perfunditur that Christs blood is shed and taken as a draught demonstrates that he speaketh not of partaking Christs blood as it is ioyned to his body and enclosed in his veines but as seuered from it And if the Cardinall himselfe had not been drunke with the Cup of the wine of Babylon he would neuer haue denied that Saint Gregory speaketh of drinking Christs blood vnder the forme of wine when hee vseth that very word u Potat Quis exponere queat quantae fuit miserationis sacratissim â praeciosi sanguinis effusione genus humanum redimere sacrosanctum viuifici corporis sanguinis sui mysterium membris suis tribuere cuius perceptione corpus suum quod est Ecclesia pascitur
together in a sop or bread dipt in wine therefore we ought in like manner to administer the Sacrament in both kindes seuerally and not by intinction or sopping the bread in the wine Who seeth not that this Canon of the Councell is a two edged sword cutting off Concomitancie on the one side as well as intinction on the other and giuing as deepe a wound to the late Councell of Constance inioyning the mutilation of the Sacrament as to the ancient Councell of Toures inioyning the confusion of it by the infusion of the bread into the Cup. The second answere doth vanish to nothing the Councell in deed spake of that time wherein the Communion of both kindes was free For so it had been from the time of the Apostles and continued in the Romane Church till the Councell of Constance and in the Greeke Church till this day The greater wrong is offered by the Romanists to the Laietie from whom they haue taken the Cup after so many hundred yeeres possession If any such thing had been attempted in the time of this Councell at Bracara they would haue been as earnest or more earnest against this abuse then they were against that in their time which was farre lesse for of the two it is better to receiue the bread dipt in the wine then the bread and no wine at all The Councell doth not ground it selfe vpon any supposed dispensation of the Church for the Laieties Communion in both kindes as Bellarmine surmiseth but vpon the institution of Christ and the example of the Apostles which in their iudgement ought to preuaile against any sanction of Councell or custome of any place whatsoeuer to the contrarie SECT XII The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 1100. to 1200. Anno 1101. IVo in his collections out of the writings of the ancient for the present vse of the Church in his seuenth Chapter relateth a sentence out of Saint Ambrose to our purpose The Blood is a witnesse of a diuine benefit in a figure whereof we receiue the mysticall Cup for the preseruation of our body and soule To them to wit the Iewes water flowed out of the Rocke to thee blood out of Christ the water quenched their thirst for on howre the blood of Christ washeth thee for euer And in his 31. chapter he reciteth a decree of Pope Syluerius Euery Lords day in the Lent all besides Excommunicate persons or such as doe publike penance ought to receiue the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ. Anno 1105. Zacharias Crysopolitanus applieth the sprinkling of the dore posts with the blood of the Lambe in Exodus to the Sacrament of Christs blood he saith We sprinkle our body and soule with the blood of Christ because the blood of the Lambe sprinkled vpon both the posts of the house freed the Hebrewes And againe The reall and Sacramentall eating of Christ are ioyned when receiuing in the bread that which hung vpon the tree and receiuing in the Cup that which flowed from his side our soules attaine vnto the eating of the bread of life Anno 1110. Odo Cameracensis in expounding the holy Canon affirmeth that vnder the shape and taste of bread and wine we eate and drinke the very substance of Christs body and blood Anno 1120. Rupertus enforcing the necessity of receiuing the sacrament concludes vpon our Sauiours words in Saint Iohn that euery man ought to communicate in both kinds for the repast of his soule as well as his body lest any man should thinke saith he that he hath recouered by faith alone the life of his body and soule without the visible meat and drink of the body blood of Christ and consequently needs not the sacrament Christ repeates the same thing againe touching the eating his flesh and drinking his blood thereby vndoubtedly testifying that he doth not truly beleeue whosoeuer dispiseth to eate and to drink For although thou bee a faithfull man and professe thy selfe to be a Catholick if thou refuse to eat and to drinke of this visible meat and drinke euen by this that thou presumest that this meat and drinke is not necessary to thee thou cuttest thy selfe off from the societie of the members of Christ which is the Church But I inferre that all lay Papists that haue bin instructed by the Fathers of the Councels of Constance and Trent presume that it is not necessary for them to receiue the visible drinke whereof Rupertus speaketh Therefore by Rupertus his conclusion they cut themselues off from the Church And though they are men of a Catholike profession which he speakes of yet they are not true beleeuers In the same Booke and Chapter We saith he that is the Church are that earth which openeth his mouth and faithfully drinketh the blood of Christ. And in his third booke de operibus Spiritus Sancti et 20. cap. he saith in specie panis et vini sanctus Sanctorum est et in omnibus electis qui ad fide eius veniunt idem efficit quod in illa specie qua perpendit in cruce id est remisssionem peccatorum that is the Holy of holies is in forme of bread and wine and to all the elect who come to the faith of him he worketh remission of sinnes as he did in that shape in which he hung vpon the Crosse. Anno 1130. Bern. in his 3. Serm. one Palme Sunday maketh the sacrament of Christs body and blood the Christians foode and alimonie Touching the sacrament of Christs body and blood saith hee there is no man who knoweth not that this so singular a foode was on that day first exhibited on that day commended and commanded to bee frequently receiued Anno 1135. Algerus doth not barely affirme that the sacrament was instituted at first and ought to be administred in both kinds but he confirmeth it strongly by the testimonie of Saint Austine And Pope Gelatius first in his fifth Chapter he positiuely deliuereth the necessitie of communicating in both kinds in these words Because we so liue by meate and drink that we can want neither of them Christ would haue them both in his sacrament least if either should be wanting by that imperfect taking of life and not entire an imperfect life might seeme to be signified In his 8. chap. more at large he vnfoldeth the mysterie that lyeth in the communicating in both kinds There is nothing found in the creature saith he whereby more fitly and neerly life may be represented then by blood which is the seate of the soule in which that it may be signified that our bodies and soules ought to be vnited and made conformable to Christs body and soule the body and blood of Christ are both taken together of the faithfull that by taking whole Christs body and soule the whole man in body and soule might be quickned in as much as the flesh of Christ as I haue said is
the sacrament must be made compleat before the Priest vse it Durand his conclusion falls short vpon the Priest but his reason stretcheth to all people as well as Priests For all ought to receiue the entire Sacrament sacramentally and if one kind onely be an imperfect Sacrament to the Priest in regard of the signe it must needs bee imperfect also vnto the people vnlesse they will say that the sacrament presents lesse to the Priests then to the people or that the Priests aprehend lesse in it then the people surely that which is but halfe a Cup to one cannot be a whole one to an other that which is empty or incompleat to one cannot bee compleat and full to another Anno 1240. Halensis howsoeuer he some way inclines to that opinion that it is sufficient to receiue the sacrament in one kind yet he confe◅eth that there is more merit and deuotion and compleatnesse and efficacie in receiuing in both Albertus Magnus in 4. Sent. dist 8. deliuers this generall rule sacramentum Ecclesiae nihil in gratia causa◅ quod non ex similitudine significat The sacrament of the Church causeth nothing in grace which it signifieth not by similitude that is it produceth nothing which it presenteth not And from thence inferres that the vnity of Christs mysticall body is not perfectly caused and signified but by a double signe and therefore by vertue or in regard of the sacramēt we ought to haue both Let the Reader note that Albertus saith not according to the new euasion of the Iesuites virtute sacrificij oportet habere vtramque but virtute sacramenti not that both kinds are requisite to the sacrifice but to the sacrament The sacrament by the doctrine of Albertus wants so much of his efficacie as it doth want of its significancie but the receiuing vnder the forme of bread onely beareth no similitude nor hath any signification of the spiritual drink of Christs blood The Romanists therefore in taking away one of the signes from the Laiety consequently depriue asmuch as in them lieth the Laiety of the grace represented by that signe and conferred with it And yet Aegidius Coninck a moderne Iesuite and professor of Diuinity at Louaine maketh this audacious assertion out of the Chaire of his Schoole Diuinity Although more grace may be conferred by receiuing in both kinds notwithstanding the Church vpon good reason careth not for that and doth more respect the reuerence of the Sacrament then the profit of the receiuers c. Anno 1260. Aquinas yeeldeth three reasons of the institution of this sacrament vnder a double forme the first is For the perfection of it because sith it is a spirituall meale or refection it ought to haue spirituall meat and spirituall drinke secondly for the signification of it for it is a memoriall of the Lords passion whereby his blood was seuered from his body and therefore in this sacrament the blood is offered by it selfe Thirdly for the healthfull effect of it for the body is offered to shew that it is of force to saue the body and the blood is offered to shew that it is of force to saue the soule The halfe Communion therefore in Aquinas his learning wants perfection significancie and efficacie Bonauenture thus indeuoreth to cleere the matter In the sacrament there are two things efficacy and significancy concerning efficacie neither kinde is of the integritie of the Sacrament but either is the whole concerning signification so the two signes are of the integritie of the Sacrament or integrall parts of the Sacrament because the matter of the Sacrament is expressed in neither kinde by it selfe but in both together and a little after To make it represent perfect redemption and thereby a perfect refection the body ought to be signified in the bread and the soule in the wine the seate whereof is in the blood Anno 1280. Richardus de Mediauilla and Petrus de Tarantasia who afterwards was aduanced to the Popedome and changed his name into Innocentius the fourth testifieth that the Sacrament was administred in both kinds to the better sort of the Laietie howsoeuer they entertained the vulgar and meaner sort with a drie Communion thus Cassander relates their words The Sacrament may lawfully bee giuen in both kinds to greater personages or men of qualitie where there is no feare of error of spilling the blood because such men know how to obserue due reuerence and caution The Papists answer I finde no answere in particular made by any to the passages aboue alleaged but in generall their answere is that the Schoole-men might write more freely before the Councell of Constance had decreed the contrary And they adde that some if not all of these Schoole-men approoue of the administring of the Communion vnder one kinde to the Laietie The Replie The Councell of Constance by their decree could not make that which was before false to be then the truth or that which was in Gelasius his time sacrilege to be then pietie What Androcles spake sometimes of the Athenian lawes The lawes had need of a law to mend them may truely be said of this Canon in the Councell of Constance that it needs a Canon to rectifie it for it depraues Christs institution it checks the Primitiue Church it controules the practice of the whole Christian world for 1200. yeeres and more euen till the middle of this age wherein Sacrilege stole in by degrees A curious eye may tracke these fellons of the holy Chalice First vnder colour of preuenting abuses in spilling the Cup they take it away from the vulgar and meaner sort of people not daring to offer this indignitie to the better sort to them as we heare out of Mediauilla they deliuered the Sacrament in both kinds afterwards vpon this pretext that the blood was in the body and the whole Sacrament in either kind they nimmed the Cup from the lesser Churches as Linwood informes vs It it granted saith he onely to Priests that celebrate in such small Churches to receiue the blood vnder the forme of wine Going cleere away with this their Sacrilege in lesser Churches they aduenture vpon the greater And by Aquinas his confession the Sacrament was administred in one kind but in some Churches in his daies For in diuers Churches saith hee it is prouidently obserued that the blood should not be giuen to the people but that it should be receiued only by the Priest In the end when they had as farre as their authoritie stretched robbed all assemblies of the Laietie in depriuing them of the Cup they after inacted a generall law in the yeere of our Lord 1414. to warrant this their publike Sacrilege This thirtenth age resembleth the riuer Iordane which is sweet at the spring but bitter and brackish in the fall of it and in the end runneth into the dead Sea Abbas Vrspergensis Matthew Paris and Vincentius who flourished in the beginning and
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.
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
drinke Therefore howsoeuer the cup or drinking be not expressed in this place of the Acts yet it must necessarily be vnderstood by a vsuall Synechdoche in holy Scriptures To the second place out of Acts the 20. 7. We answere as to the former Acts 2. that the disciples meeting to break bread was either to keepe a feast of Charitie which they called then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to receiue the Communion in both kinds For the Disciples publikely neuer receiued it otherwayes in the primitiue church To the third obiection out of Acts 27. 35. Where Saint Paul is said to take bread and after he had giuen thankes to eate it wee answer that the bread which Saint Paul tooke and brake could not bee the holy sacrament For Sant Paul would neuer haue giuen that which is holy to Doggs or cast Pearles before swine which he should haue done if in the ship before and to Infidels he had administred the blessed sacrament The text saith that they had been many dayes fasting before and S. Chrysostome Oecumenius and Theophylact expresly affirme that Saint Paul both by words and by his owne example perswaded the Marriners after so long fasting to take foode to keepe them from staruing Moreouer it is to be obserued that after Saint Paul began to cat it is said ver 36. that they were all of good cheere and they also tooke to themselues some meat It is not said that they tooke bread from Saint Pauls hand which they must haue done if they had receiued the Communion from him Neither do any receiue the sacrament in that quantitie that they may thereby satisfie hunger and be said to haue eaten enough verse 38. These circumstances of the Text doe so euidently conuince any man of vnderstanding that the bread which Saint Paul brake in the ship was common bread in so much that Lorinus the Iesuite a great Patron in other places of the halfe Communion here yeelds vnto vs ingeniously confessing that Chrysostome Oecumenius Beda and other expositors vpon this place vnderstand vsuall and common bread or food as also doth Saint Hierome And I better saith he like of their exposition Lastly this third last argument of our aduersaries out of the scriptures drawn from the example of Paul the Disciples and Apostles in the Acts may be forcibly retorted vpon them For the Apostles Disciples and Saint Paul were Priests and Ministers of the Sacrament in whom as wee learned before out of the Glosse of the Canon law and Cardinal Caietan it had beene sacrilege to communicate in one kind onely Bellarmine saw this retortion in Kemnitius and seekes to auoyde it by telling vs that in the second of the Acts Saint Luke relateth the faithful peoples continuance in praier and receiuing the sacrament and not the Apostles communicating which he yeelded was in both kinds But this is a vaine euasion both because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or fellowship of the Apostles implyeth that the Apostles were communicants with them as also because properly those who administred the communion brake the bread and not the people they tooke it after it was broken by the Apostles To conclude they are caught on both sides by this Delemma Either breaking of bread in those places is not celebrating the sacrament or if it be their is a synechdoche in the words whereby one part is put for the whole For how can they put by this thrust No priests may consecrate or communicate in one kind onely The eleuen Apostles Acts. 2. and the Disciples Acts. 20. and Paul Acts. 27. were Priests Therefore they did not nor might not consecrate or Communicate in bread onely In the places aboue alleaged therefore vnder the name of bread both kinds by a synechdoche must needs be vnderstood CHAP. XIII The arguments of papists drawne from Councels answered and retorted OVr aduersaries in this question much boaste of the definitions of three generall Councells in fauour of their halfe Communion The Councell of Ephesus Constance and Basil. Whereunto in generall we answer first that either these Councels approue not the halfe Communion or they are not approued themselues The Councell of Ephesus is an approued Councell but it approueth not the halfe Communion the Councels of Constance and Basil approue the halfe Communion but they are not themselues approued no not by the Romane Church much lesse by the Catholicke Christian Church Secondly wee are resolued by the Pope himselfe that if Councells are at odds with one another and their definitions irreconciliable we ought to take part with the antient against the latter This is our present case two latter Councels to wit the Councel of Constance and Basil contradict many Councells more antient by name the Councel of Nice and Calcedon cited before Ancyra Canon 2. of Neocorsarea Can. 13. of Africa Can. 4. of Brachar 2. cap. 1. of Ilerda Can. 1. of Toledo the 3. Can. 2. 7. of Matiscon the 2. Can. 2. Can. 4. of Toledo the 4. Can. 6. 7. 17. 57. of Toledo the 11. Can. 6. 11. of Cabilonum Can. 46. 47. of Paris lib. 3. cap. 20. of Wormes Can. 4. 31. Therefore by the Popes decision and that ex cathedra wee may and ought to embrace rather the whole Communion inioyned or approued in so many ancient Councells then of the halfe Communion commanded to bee practised by the Laietie vnder paine of a curse in these latter and fewer In particular we answer to the allegations made by Hosius Harding and other Papists out of the Councell of Ephesus that they tooke it vpon trust of some ancient Schoole-man or Canonist who thought it a matter of merit to forge an ancient record for the good of the catholiques cause and defence of the Romane Church For neither in the Acts of the Councell of Ephesus nor in any approued history is there any footstep or print of any such constitution as is pretended by our aduersaries to be made for the halfe Communion and that vpon this occasion Because the Nestorians held that Christs body in the sacrament vnder the forme of bread was Cadauer exangue a carkas without blood In this fiction the Romanists sufficiently show to vse the words out of Saint Hierome that they had voluntatem but not artem â—…entiendi that they had a good wil to lye for the Catholick cause but were not their craftsmasters For they that hope to gaine credit by a ly â—…ust build it vpon some probable ground or colour at least of truth which here is wanting For neither did the Nestorians maintaine any such error touching the sacrament as neither had the Councell of Ephesus any reason thereupon to haue prohibited the vse of the Cup to the Laiety For what a consequence is this The heretikes denyed any blood to bee in the body of Christ in the Sacrament Therefore Catholikes and right beleeuers of the Laietie ought to be depriued of the vse of the holy Cup in 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
will admit them As some Lay men cannot brook wine so at some times the Priests through some disease after drinking of the Cup may be enforced to cast it vp And as the peoples hands may shake in taking of the Cup and so spill a drop so may the Priests also And as some Countries haue no wine so if we may beleeue Strabo and Arianus and many later Geographers also some Countries haue no bread Yet the Church of Rome her selfe neuer thought it fit in regard of such few Instances and rare accidents to make a generall law either to depriue the Priests of the vse of the Cup or the Laietie of the vse of the bread Fourthly for the matter of irreuerence if any through carelesnesse or contempt spill a drop of the consecrated wine or let fall a crum of bread he ought to bee punished for it And if hee amend not his fault to bee denyed the Communion But if such a thing fall out through infirmitie or by some casualtie against a mans will it is no irreuerence at all And for the difficulty of getting wine in the Northerne parts especially where Vines grow not we answer that wine is easier to be gotten thē Balsamum which the Romish Church vseth in confirmation For Vines grow in many Countries and that in great aboundance True Balsamum but in one Yet the Church of Rome in regard of this difficulty in getting it will by no meanes suffer that their Sacrament to be administred without it Yet their Chrisme is a meere humane inuention but wine in the Lords Supper is Christs ordniance But what do they pretend impediments that are not and surmise difficulties against common experience He is but a stranger in Geography who knoweth not that by the benefit of Nauigation store of wines are brought into those parts where no vines grow In the reformed Churches in England Scotland Denmarke Norway and the other regions situated neerer the North-Pole the Sacrament is administred in both kindes and neuer yet any complaint was heard of the difficulty much lesse of the impossibility of prouiding wine for the Communiō Surely if there may be had wine for the Priest their may be had also for the people Who euer heard of Merchants that transported wine in so smal quātity that there might be a draught for the Priest and none for the people If there be none for the Priests how can they consecrate without facrilege according to their owne Canon Lastly this argument as all the former may be thus retorted vpon them The Councell of Basil yeelded the vse of the Cup to the Bohemians and the whole Councell of Trent reserued it to the Pope to grant the vse of the Cup to all the Germanes and the Pope assented thereunto vpon certaine conditions notwithstanding all the former inconueniences Therefore it is not inconueniency they stand vpon But the true cause why they at this day with hold the Cup is either obstinacy lest they should seeme to yeeld any thing to the Reformed Churches and acknowledge their former error or pride to maintaine a prerogatiue of their Priests aboue the people Which as I shewed before out of Saint Chrysostome ought to be none in partaking the dreadfull mysteries To conclude howsoeuer they pretend in this their erroneous practise like u Aesop to remoue that stone at which all that came into the Bath stumbled at yet in truth they rather resemble Aesop in some thing of another nature For as he was accused to haue stolne away a piece of holy plate that was found among his carriages from the Temple of Apollo at Delphi so these grand Aesops and Coyners of Fables whereby they delude the simple people are clearely conuinced of sacrilege in taking away the Chalice from the Lords Supper For they haue taken away the Cup of blessing from the people and in stead thereof offer the Whore of Babylons cup of abomination CHAP. XVI The contradictions of our aduersaries in this Question noted and the whole Truth for vs deliuered out of their owne mouthes IT was the manner of the Roman Emperors in their Triumphs amongst other spectacles to exhibite to the people ludos gladiatorios Fencers playing their Prizes fighting not with foiles but at sharpe till they had killed one another In like manner in the conclusion of this Discourse for the better adorning and setting forth of the Tryumph of Truth I haue thought not vnfitting to present vnto the Readers view Quaedam Gladiatorū paria some certaine couples of the professed Champions and defenders of the Romane cause bickering one with another in such manner that by their sharpe weapons of euident contradictions they must needes wound on another euen to the death of their cause SCRIPTVRES The first Combate Whether the Scriptures make for or against the halfe Communion The Antagonists Thom. Harding and Gerardus Lorichius Ioan. Maldonate Iesuit and Widford Stanislaus Hosius and Laur. Iustinianus Ioan. Cochlaeus and Ioan. Lorinus Iesuita Ioan. Gerson and Ruardus Tapperus Harding the Assaylant THE wordes of Christ Drinke yee all of this pertaine to the Apostles and their successors For to them onely hee gaue commandement to do that which hee did saying Doe this in remembrance of me By which words hee ordained them Priests of the new Testament Wherefore this commandement belongeth not at all to the Lay people neither can it be iustly gathered by this place that they are bound of necessity to receiue the Sacrament vnder both kinds Lorichius the Defendant THey bee false Catholikes who say that Christ said onely to his Apostles Drinke yee all of this For the words of the Canon be these Take and eate yee all of this Here I beseech them to tell me whether they wil haue these words also onely to appertaine to the Apostles then must the Laiety abstaine from the other kind of bread also which thing to say is heresie wherefore it followeth that each of the words are spoken to the whole Church Gerard. Loric de missa part 7. in praef Maldonate Assaylant I doubt not and I maruell that any other doubt but that this place where Christ tooke bread blest it and brake it and gaue it to the two Disciples of whom hee was knowne in the breaking of bread must bee vnderstood of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper I am induced hereunto by the whole forme of the action which I know not what Christian can deny to bee the action of the Eucharist Wee reade of the breaking of the bread blessing it distributing it and a miracle insuing vpon it and shall wee not beleeue it to bee the Eucharist Widford Defendant I say that it appeareth not in the Text nor in the Glosse Luk. 24. nor by the ancient Fathers that the bread which Christ brake and gaue to his Disciples was consecrated bread that it was sacramētall bread or turned into his body with whō Carthusiā accords It came to passe saith he that as Christ sate downe he took
same Christ and him entire But the former is true therefore the latter And Norrice in antidoto 1. part cont 5. Vnder the forme of bread alone or wine alone and that in euery part or parcell of them the wholebody of Christ and all his pretious blood is contained as wee with the sacred Councell of Trent maintaine Therefore hee who inioyeth the least particle of either kind receiueth not a mingled or imperfect but an absolute and compleate entire or perfect Sacrament Soto the Defendant IT is denied by vs that when the body alone is taken that the whole Sacrament is taken according to the entire representation thereof Because sith by the force of consecration there is nothing vnder the bread but the body the taking of it is nothing but the eating for to drinking is required that the blood bee taken which ought to bee there by it selfe and that by vertue of consecration and not by concomitancy onely Soto in 4. dist 8. art 2. And before him Halens loco super cit Christ is not contained vnder each kind sacramentally but the flesh onely vnder the forme of bread and the blood vnder the forme of wine Hesselius the Assaylant There is not more spirituall fruit reaped by the Communion in both kinds then by the Communiō vnder the forme of bread onely And our Norrice as if hee had transcribed him saith Wee teach that not onely the entire Sacrament and totall substance thereof but the whole fruit grace vertue which proceeds from both kinds together is fully also exhibited vnder one alone Euery particle of a diuided Hoste euery drop of the Chalice is a maine Ocean of spiritual blessing Yet many of them by the same morall actions successiuely receiued afford no more grace then one alone because that one instilleth the whole Fountaine it selfe which cannot at that time be further increased or produced a new Vasquez the Defendant The opinion of them euer seemed to some to bee more probable who teach that there is more fruit of grace receiued by thē who communicate in both kinds then by them that receiue in one kinde onely And therefore they who receiue the Cup obtaine thereby a new increase of grace His reason is each kind in this Sacrament as it is a part of the Sacrament hath a diuers signification by it selfe and sith according to our former suppositions in the Sacraments of the new law the efficacy followeth the signification thereof it ensueth thereupon that each kind in this Sacrament doth produce its owne effect by it selfe Vasquez in part 3. Tho. disp 215. Cap. 2. Bellarmine the Assaylant The whole essence of a sacrament is found in one kind For to the essence of a Sacrament two things are required significancie and efficacie For a Sacrament is a Signe and cause of Grace but both these are found in each kind For although the forme of bread doth signifie a spirituall nourishing onely by way of meat and the forme of wine a spirituall nourishing only by way of drinke Yet it is absolutely sufficient to make it a Sacrament that it signifies spirituall nourishing and effects it also Durand the Defendant This Sacrament is ordeined by God for spirituall nourishment which is signified by bodily foode and it is not perfect vnlesse there be something in it that may nourish as meat and something that may nourish as drinke Durand quest 1. dist 8. in 4. with whom I ioyne Aquinas To the nourishing of the body are two things required meat which is a drie nourishment and drinke which is a moyst And therefore to the entire Nature of the Sacrament two things concurre spirituall meate and spirituall drinke Aquinas part 3. quest 73. art 2. Salmeron the Assaylant If from the beginning it had not bin lawfull to communicate in one kinde onely very many Christiās should haue either been depriued of the Communion or enforced to doe that which they were not able to performe as it is manifest in those people that liue farre North who haue no store of wine Salm. tra 35. tom 9. Aquinas the Defendant Wee must say that although that wine is not made in all places yet that so much may easily bee carried to all places as may suffice for the vse of the Sacrament Neither for the defect of either kinde may wee consecrate in one kind only because so the Sacracrament would not be perfect Aquin. part 3. quest 74. art 1. The Muses after a long fight with the Sirens when they had fully conquered them tooke from them their Plumes of Feathers and made of their enemies Ornaments Crownes for themselues Truth and Religion haue now long beene in sight with false-hood and sacralege and in the end as we see turned their owne weapons vpon them and quite vanquished them What remaineth but that after the manner of the Muses we take their Plumes of Feathers wherewith they adorned themselues from them and make of them a crowne to beautifie Christs spouse and to set forth the truth in this manner Christ instituted the Sacrament in both kinds so the Councell of Constance The command of Christ Drinke ye all of this extendeth to the Laietie and belongeth not onely to Priests so Lorichius The Sacrament is not perfect but in both kinds so Aquinas The diuiding of one and the selfe same mysterie cannot be without sacrilege so Gelatius Therefore in the Primitiue Church the Sacrament was giuen in both kinds to the faithfull so Lyra. This custome continued for aboue 1000. yeeres in the Church so Cassander The contrary custome of communicating vnder one kind onely began not to be generall in the Latine Church much before the Councell of Constance an dom 1414. so Greg. de Valen. The vse of the Cup was first taken away from the Laietie in the Councell of Constance so Vasquez After that Councell by a decree of the Councell of Basil it was restored to the Bohemians so Aeneas Syluius After this in the Councel of Trent it was desired by the Embassadors of the Emperor of the French King that the vse of the Cup might be granted to the Laietie so the Author of the Letters Missiue After the Councell breake vp the best learned Catholicks most earnestly desired and contended that they might receiue the Sacrament of Christs blood together with his body according to the ancient custome in the vniuersall Church continued for many Ages so Cassander And that vpon very good grounds for this were more agreeable to the institution and fullnesse of the Sacrament and to the example of Christ so Ruardus Tapperus And lastly of more fruit and efficacie and so Halensis and Vasquez Whose opinion thus Nugnus explicateth if a Priest and a Lay-man come equally prepared to the Lords Supper the Priest who communicateth in both kinds receiueth thereby grace in 8. degrees to wit 4. by eating the Bread and the other 4. by taking the Cup but the
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
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
drinking was taken figuratiuelie and not properlie as likewise eating But now you grant that eating or drinking is here to be taken properly For you grant that Christ in these words commands the act of eating or drinking properly M. Euerard I answer the grant you charge me withall was no other but this that the formall act of eating was commanded but not formally and so in that I doe not contradict my selfe D. Featly Whether you contradict your selfe or no I leaue it to the hearers You before denied that in the Text of Saint Iohn the words eating and drinking were taken properly but now you grant that Christ in these words commands eating or drinking properly at least consequently though not formally In summe I desire that it be noted that whereas you promised and it was so agreed vpon that the Texts of Scripture should be interpreted by the consent of the Fathers and practise of the Primitiue Church that you interpret them according to neither but your owne priuate fancy Secondly note that in your answer to the first Text which I alleaged against you you contradict you owne side in the answer to the second you apparently contradict your selfe Which I thus make euident Before you said that the words eating and drinking were not taken properly but figuratiuely now you acknowledge that they are taken properly or must so acknowledge For Where proper eating and formall is commanded the words commanding must needs be taken properly But in these words Except you eate formall and proper eating and not figuratiue is commanded as you grant Therefore these words except you eate are to be taken properly and not figuratiuely and consequently the former answer was false and you now contradict your selfe Thirdly out of your owne answer I inferre that all Christian people that liue by Christ are bound to communicate in both kinds The formall acts of eating and drinking in the Sacrament as you grant are here inioyned to all men But the formall acts of eating and drinking in the Sacrament are communicating in both kinds Therefore the communicating in both kinds is enioyned to all men Lastly whatsoeuer is commanded in formall and expresse words is commanded formally But all men that haue life in Christ are commanded in formall and expresse words to eate and to drinke in the Sacrament Therefore they are commanded to eate and to drinke formally And consequently your former answer hath the formality of an answer but no truth and realty at all M. Euerard opponent D. Featly respondent M. Euerard In the places alleaged by you D. Featly in Saint Matthew and Saint Iohn If any besides Priests are bound then all are bound But all are not Ergo none are besides Priests D. Featly I distinguish of All All may be taken either for All simply or All that are fit and qualified both by naturall and spirituall qualification that is such as are able to examine themselues and repent and beleeue and can take it in both kinds M. Euerard If any bee bound to receiue both besides Priests all that are qualified to receiue one are bound to receiue both But all that are qualified to receiue one are not bound to receiue both Ergo none are bound to receiue both but Priests D. Featly I deny the Consequence M. Euerard All are bound to fulfill the Commandement Ergo all are bound to receiue in both kinds as well as in one D. Featly First you proue not the Consequence Secondly I answer to your Antecedent In the sense of the Commandement all are bound if qualified for both not otherwise M. Euerard No man may lawfully receiue the Communion vnlesse he fulfils the Commandement No man fulfils the Commandement according to you vnlesse he receiue both Therefore no man lawfully receiues the Communion according to you vnlesse hee receiue both D. Featly This is for forme no Syllogisme For it consists all of Negatiues and is in no Moode and Figure For the matter I answer by denying the Minor and distinguishing thus If by no man you vnderstand simply no man at all qualified or vnqualified I deny it If no man qualified then I grant it But it is not to the purpose M. Euerard He that is vnqualified for both must not receiue but one I proue it No man can receiue it vnlesse he fulfils the Institution of Christ But the Institution is of both Ergo. D. Featly Progrederis in gyro you hunt counter Thrice haue you vrged the same obiection I distinguish of the Minour Christ instituted the Sacrament to be receiued in both kinds of all qualified for both M. Euerard No man may receiue the Sacrament vnlesse he fulfill the Commandement in receiuing it that is fulfill all that is substantially required in the Sacrament considered in it selfe and not in order to the Communicants But no man whatsoeuer that receiues but in one kind fulfils the Commandement in receiuing it id est fulfils all that is substantially required in the Sacrament considered in it selfe and not in order to the Communicants Ergo no man c. D. Featly This againe is no Syllogisme For it consisteth all of Negatiues M. Euerard The whole substance of the Sacrament is both bread and wine They that receiue onely bread doe not receiue bread and wine Ergo they doe not receiue the whole substance of the Sacrament D. Featly The substance of the Sacrament is taken either for the whole substance of the signe or outward elements or for the whole substance of the thing signified viz. the body and blood of Christ. Hee that receiueth in one kind to wit bread being not qualified to receiue it in the other receiueth the whole substance of the Sacrament as it is taken for the thing signified Secondly he receiueth not the whole substance of the outward elements simply yet he receiueth the whole substance of the elements required to bee receiued of him For Christ commands not impossibilities in the Sacrament He therefore that cannot drinke any wine is not commanded to receiue the Sacrament in wine Withall I desire those that are present to obserue that all this while you strongly dispute against your selfe For if all sorts euen Abstemij such as haue an antipathy to wine and can by no meanes brooke it are bound to communicate in wine as you would inferre then certainely much more all other Christians be they Lay or Clergy are bound to communicate in wine Here the Conference was interrupted for a time supper being brought in about the middle whereof Doctor Featly asked Master Euerard whether hee beleeued that the Priests dranke properly whatsoeuer was in the consecrated Chalice M. Euerard We doe so D. Featly But according to the Doctrine of concomitancie the flesh and bones of Christ are in the consecrated Chalice Therefore according to the doctrine of concomitancy you drinke and that properly the flesh and bones of Christ. M. Euerard What if I grant you that also D. Featly Then you do more then Christ commands For Christ commands
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
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 â—…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 â—…ilum quoth D. Smith True quoth M. Featly quia semper eodem reâ—…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 Câ—…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
for the opinion of the Romish Church For they signifie that Christs blood is to bee drunk but vnder the forme of bread not vnder the forme of wine As for Haymo hee answers him with a short come-off saying He spake of the vnity of the Chalice and that his meaningis that they that receiue the blood of the Lord receiue out of one Cup. Refutation The threefold answer of Bellarmine to Paschasius is not like a threefold cable that cannot be broken but rather like a rustie twisted wyer-string that breakes with the least strayne First he beareth vs in hand that the place in Paschasius seemes to be corrupted Corrupted By whom by Papists Surely they would neuer haue corrupted this text to make against themselues by Protestants That cannot be for no Protestants haue set forth Paschasius for ought we find or haue had any thing to doe in that Edition of Paschasius which we cite Besides in all the ancient impressions of Paschasius and the Manu-scripts that haue come to our sight the words are found as we cite them Yea but Iohn of Louane suspects that the copies are faulty and that bibite is put for edite Drinke yee for eat ye why so because the words going before are he distributeth the bread by the hands of his ministers to the beleeuers saying Take yee and drinke yee all of this This reason like a rope of sand hath no coherence at all For though Pascasius spake of bread yet to proue that Christ is he who alone by his Ministers distributeth the sacrament he rehearseth the words of the institution both concerning the Bread and the Cup neither can bibite or drink you in Paschasius be put for edite eate ye but must stand as it doth drinke yee For the words immediately following in Paschasius are for this is the new and eternall Testament Now what a ridiculous inference were it if we read the words as Iohn of Louane would haue vs take eate this for this is the Cup of the blood of the new and euerlasting testament Bellarmine his second answer is as absurd as his first For Paschasius his words make more strongly for vs and against himself if Paschasius expound the words Drinke ye all of this as they seeme to bee spoken by Christ not at the first Institution but afterwards whensoeuer the sacrament is administred in the Church If now also whensoeuer the sacrament is administred in the Church Christ commandeth drink ye all of this that is with Paschasius glosse all Ministers other beleeuers it followeth that all other beleeuers as well as Ministers ought now by Christs command to drinke of the cup. Thirdly as Bellarmine his first answer is against the text of Paschasius and his second against himselfe so his third is against common sence How can blood bee drunke vnder the forme of bread if we speake of drinking siguratiuely by faith this kind of drinking the Romanists explode If he speake of drinking properly with the mouth euery suckling is able to confute the Cardinall who know by meere sense that nothing cā be drunk but that which is moist and of liquid substance Nay the Cardinal discourseth like a man that had drank too deep of the wine forgetting in this page what he said in the former There he saith that the fathers doe not say that Christs blood is to be drunke of the people by the mouth of the body but here he saith that other beleeuers as well as Ministers by Christs command ought to drinke it but after a manner neuer heard of before to drinke it vnder the forme of bread Now for his answer to Haymo pari facilitate reijcitur quâ profertur t is as easy to be reiected as vrged For first the Cardinal corrupteth the text of Haymo hee saith not the Cup is the Communion because all drinke of that one Cup the word one is not in Haymo Admit it were this no way disapointeth our allegation out of Haymo For still this word omnes or al remaines And be it out of one Cup or more Haymo saith expresly that all did partake of it and receiued of the blood of Christ contained in it If all then the people as well as the Priests SECT X. The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 900. to 1000. ARistole rightly obserueth that it so falleth out in the descent of families as it doth in diuers grounds in which sometimes wee haue great plentie sometime as great scarsitie so saith he some families haue afforded store of noble personages at other times scarse any of note or eminence So it fareth here with vs in the last Age wee had plentifull store of testimonies for the truth but in this we are like to haue Penury Although if wee consider aright this scarsity may be imputed rather vnto the iniury of the time and want of Records of History which happily being extant might haue afforded vs no lesse plentie of Testimonies then the former Ages as well in this as in other points in question The Poet wisely obserued Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona Multi sed omnes vrgentur ignoti longâ Nocte carent quia vate sacro Dan. Chamier after much inquiry can bring notice but of one witnesse and him hee dares scarse avow Bellarmine brandeth with a note this ninth Age as being the most obscure and darke that the Sunne euer cast his beames vpon yet euen in this Age wee haue somewhat to shew for the right of Gods people to the holy Chalice of the Lords Table Anno 910. Rodolphus Tongrensis testifieth that the people in his time tooke the sacred body of Christ and drank a blessed draught of his blood Anno 920. The Abbot of Prumes Regino teacheth vs that what Rodolphus witnesseth of the practise of the people in his age was not an abuse or disorder in the people but done in obedience to the sacred discipline of the Church whose Canon he mentioneth Let the soules of the weake be refreshed and strengthned with the body and blood of our Lord. Anno 950. Stephanus Edvensis saith These gifts or benefits are dayly performed vnto vs when the body and blood of Christ is taken at the Altar Anno 990. Vincentius writes of Elgifa an old Matrone in this age who being ready to giue vp the ghost tooke the body and blood of our Lord. Anno 995. Aelfricus first Abbot of Saint Albons and after Archbishop of Canterbury in his epistle to Woulfinus and in his sermon translated of late out of the Saxon in die S. Paschae is as ful for the entire Communion as hee is against Transubstantiation the Howsell or Hoste saith he is Christs body not bodily but Ghostly not the body which he suffered in but the body of which he spoke when hee blessed bread and wine to Howsel ep ad Wolfin and in his sermon Without they be seene bread and wine both in figure and in taste and they