hand to the true Relation thereof long agoe sent you Nihil veritas erubescit nisi solumodo abscondi Truth neuer blusheth but when she is hid She feareth nothing but not to bee brought to her tryall Hee who knoweth his coyne is pure gold will neuer refuse to offer it to the Goldsmiths Test because he can loose nothing by it but shal haue allowance for it Besides your friends boasting at the Conference your owne promise in the Conference deepely ingageth you to assoyle the arguments then vrged against your halfe Communion whereunto at the present you returned not so much as half an answer pleading for your selfe the short scantling of time which gaue you not space to wield yonr Catholike buckler Scitum est enim culpam conijcere intempus cum vltra addere si maximèvelis non possis The Romane Oratour told you it is a handsome put-off to lay the blame vpon the time when an aduocate hath neuer a word more to say for his Clyent But veritas temporis filia Truth is Times Daughter she will iustifie her Mother If in so long a tract of time as hath run since our meeting in Noble-street you had fully and punctually satisfied those arguments then left vntouched you had salued your cause and credit and made it appeare you were not wanting to time but time then to you But now sith you haue broken so often day after day and moneth after moneth and by this time yeere after yeere being fo oft challenged of your promise yea vpbraided also by S. P. L. and the Lord T. and others and in fine your resolution is to giue no resolution of those doubts I will be bold to tell you that time will now no more beare your blame but you and your cause must beare it off with head and shoulders You cannot now goe backe Lis contestata est praelium condictum The field is pitched the weapons are chosen The question agreed vpon is the Communion in one kind the proofes must bee Scripture and the perpetuall custome of the Church If by both your Romish practise be conuinced to be sacrilege in the highest degree then write hereafter your braggs in redinke and let your lines blush for shame and do you your selfe ingeniously confesse concerning sacrilege as Papinian did concerning fatricide that it is as difficult and dangerous a matter to defend the murder of a brother as to commit it But on the contrarie if by the euidence of Scripture and coustant practise of the Catholike Christian Church you can iustifie your Romish dry communions you shal not only gaine your pretended Catholicke cause but me also your Proselyte D. F. THE PARTICVLAR CONTENTS OF THE SEVERALL Chapters of this Booke Chap. 1. THe state of the question concerning the Communion in both kinds is set downe out of the Harmony of Protestant Confessions on the one sida and out of the Canons of the Councels of Constance Basil and Trent on the otherside Chap. 2. The first Argument for the Tenent of the Reformed Churches drawne from Christs Precept and example in the celebration of the Sacrament confirmed by the testimony of Pope Iulius the first Chap. 3. The second Argument for the Communion in both kinds drawne from the essence and perfection of this Sacrament confirmed by Vasquez the Iesuite Chap 4. The third argument drawne from the Analogie of the signe to the thing signified confirmed by Gratian the Canonist Chap. 5. The fourth argument drawne from the nature of a banket or supper confirmed by Aquinas and Vasquez Chap. 6. The fift argument drawne from the expresse precept of drinking at the Lords Table confirmed by the testimonie of Pope Innocen the 3. Chap. 7. The sixt argument drawne à Pari confirmed by Bonauenture the Schoole Diuine and others Chap. 8. The seuenth argument drawne from the condition and propriety of a Will or Legacie confirmed by Iansonius c. Chap. 9. The eight argument drawne from the end of the Sacrament confirmed by Iac. Rehing being then a Iesuite Chap. 10. The ninth argument drawne from the example of Saint Paul and the Corinthians confirmed by Becanus the Iesuite Chap. 11. The tenth argument drawne from the vniforme and constant practice of the Christian Catholicke Church in all Ages Sect. 1. The testimonies of the practice of the Church from Christs assention to 100. yeeres Sect. 2. Testimonies in the second Age from 100. to 200. Sect. 3. Testimonies in the third age from 200. to 300. Sect. 4. Testimonies in the fourth Age from 300. to 400. Sect. 5. Testimonies in the fifth Age from 400. to 500. Sect. 6. Testimonies in the sixth Age from 500. to 600. Sect. 7. Testimonies in the seuenth Age from 600. to 700. Sect. 8. Testimonies in the eighth Age from 700. to 800. Sect. 9. Testimonies in the ninth Age from 800. to 900. Sect. 10. Testimonies in the tenth Age from 900. to 1000. Sect. 11. Testimonies in the eleuenth Age from 1000. to 1100. Sect. 12. Testimonies in the tewelfth Age from 1100. to 1200. Sect. 13. Testimonies in the thirteenth Age from 1200. to 1300. Sect. 14. Testimonies in the fourteenth Age from 1300. to 1400. Sect. 15. Testimonies in the fifteenth Age from 1400. to 1500. Sect. 16. Testimonies in the sixteenth Age from 1500. to 1600. Sect. vltima The confirmation of this argument by the confession of Papists of eminent learning and worth Thom. Aquin. Dionysius Carthousianus Ioh. Eccius Cassander Soto Ioh. Arborius Ruardus Tapperus Alsonsus a Castro Slotanus Salmeron Gregorie de Valentia and Suarez Chap. 12. Papists obiections for their halfe communion from Scripture answered and retorted Chap. 13. Papists obiections from Councels answered and retorted Chap. 14. Papists obiections from sundry pretended rites and customes of the Church answered and retorted Chap. 15. Papists obiections from reason answered and retorted Chap. 16. The Contradictions of Papists in this question noted and the whole truth for vs deliuered out of their owne mouthes The Contens of the Conference Of the necessitie of Episcopall gouernment Of ordination by Presbyters or Priests in case of necessitie Of the distinction of Bishops and Priests iure diuino Of differences amongst Papists in matter of faith Of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Marie Of the authoritie of Generall Councels aboue the Pope ècont Of prayer for the dead Of the authoritie of originall Scripture Of the Communion in both kinds Of the Popes Supremacy Of mingling water with wine in the Sacrament Of the perfection of Scripture AN ADVERTISEMENT to the Reader IT falleth out often with Students in controuersies as with people in the market who taking money with them at their going from home and espying in the fayre some Merchandize they like when they haue driuen the Price and are drawing out their purse they find it either pickt or the strings cut In like maner these Students meeting with some pregnāt testimonies alleaged out of the ancient Fathers or later Writers in Apologies for
faithfull wife was like to be debarred of the comfort of receiuing the Sacrament and drinking of the Lords Cup. Tert. then is cleere for the Laietie communicating in both kinds And so is Origen Anno. 230. Origen in 16. Hom. on Numb maketh this question What people is it that is accustomed to drinke blood and he answereth the faithfull people the Christian people heareth these things and embraceth him who saith vnlesse you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his blood you haue no life in you For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drinke indeed Marke the ingemination The people the faithfull people heareth these things c. Therefore in Origens time it was the peoples vse and custome to drinke the blood of Christ. Papists answer Bellarmine loc sup cita saith to this testimonie of Origen that the people did drinke but they had no command so to doe It was their vse it was not Christs precept Secondly hee saith the people might haue such a vse or custome to drinke at the Lords supper though euery one dranke not but some onely The Refutation I need not refell this answer because Bellarmine granteth all that for which I produce this testimonie that the practise of the Church in Origens time goeth for vs and his mincing the matter that some of the people might drinke not all and that they dranke it by custome not by law no way healpeth his bad cause For first Origen in this very place alleageth Christs precept for this practise of the faithfull people Iohn 6. vnlesse ye drinke my blood you haue no life in you Secondly in the end of this homily he turneth his speech not to some of this people but to his audience and thus concludeth Thou therefore art the true people of Israel who knowest to drink the blood and hast learned to eat the flesh of the Word of God and to take a draught of the blood of that grape which is of the true vine those branches of which the father purgeth The euidence of this truth is like the light of the morning it groweth cleerer and cleerer For Origen is cleerer in this point then Tertullian and Cyprian is yet cleerer then Origen Anno. 250. Cyprian that learned Bishop of Carthage and blessed Martyr of Christ Iesus not onely deliuereth but propugneth our assertion by a forcible argument epist. 54. How doe wee inuite them Gods people to shed their blood for Christ in the confession of his name if when they set forth to fight for him we denie them his blood how shall wee fit them for the Cup of Martyrdome if before we admit them not by right of Communion to drinke of the Lords Cup in his Church in his 63. epistle Because some men out of ignorance or simplicitie in sanctifying the Cup of the Lord and ministring it to the people doe not that which Iesus Christ our Lord and God the Author and Institutor of this Sacrifice did and taught I thought it both a matter of religion and necessity to acquaint you herewith by letters that if any yet bee held in that error the light of truth being now discouered vnto him hee might returne vnto the roote and beginning of our Lords institution Papists answere Bellarmine in his answere to Saint Cyprian makes good the Poets obseruation Qui semel verecundiae limites transiuerit hunc grauiter impudentem esse oportet he that hath once passed the bounds of modesty he must be stoutely impudent and arme his forehead with brasse for here he is not content to slight this allegation as he did the former but is bold to challenge it for an euidence on his owne side This place saith hee rather maketh for our opinion then against it for Saint Cyprian speaketh of certaine Christians that fell in time of persecution from the profession of the true faith and were therefore excommunicated by the Bishops whom Saint Cyprian exhorteth in regard of the eminent persecution to restore these weake Christians to their former right and interest which they had in the Lords body The right therefore of the Laietie to Communicate is giuen by the Priests and taken away by them Now if the Priests or Prelates may for certaine crimes take the right of Communicating from the Laietie they may also dispose of the manner of Communicating vnder one kinde To the second testimony he answereth that Cyprian in that place handleth not the poynt whether the Cup ought to bee deliuered to the people or no but if it bee deliuered vnto them hee will haue it deliuered not in water onely but wine mingled with water And this he saith Christ taught vs. The Refutation Neither of these answeres will beare scale both of them are to light by many graines the first of these is liable to these exceptions First it is impertinent for we bring the testimony to prooue the practise of the Primitiue Church concerning the Laieties participating the Cup But Bellarmine craftily waues that poynt and questioneth by what right the people did Communicate Admit that which is most falfe that the Bishop or Priest gaue the people all the right they had to the Cup yet they had it and vsed it their practise therefore maketh for vs. Secondly it is inconsequent for first when a'man is Excommunicated and hath lost his right to the Lords Table a Bishop vpon the parties submission and sorrow for his sin and humble intreatie may restore him to his right againe and set him where he was yet this prooueth not that the Laietie had their originall right of Communicating from them as a Bishop may vpon iust cause suspend a Lay man or Cleargie from the Communion so he may also exclude him from hearing of the word and publike prayer yet no man will hence conclude that the Laietie or Priest haue no right at all to come into the Church and to pray and to heare Gods word but from the Bishop Albeit Cyprian in his owne Church and any other Bishop in his Diocesse may admit or reiect some particular persons vpon iust cause from the Communion yet it will not from hence follow that the Bishop of Rome may take away either the Cup or the Bread from Gods people in all Churches Thirdly it is no good inference that because the Bishop may depriue a man of the whole Sacrament vpon some causes viz. for a great crime or high misdemeanor that therefore he may depriue him of a part of it without any fault at all as the Romanists doe the Laietie in generall Fourthly a Bishop may dispence with his owne censures or reuoke them but he cannot dispence with Gods law To suspend a man from the whole Communion if the delinquent deserue it is agreeable to Christs and the Apostles discipline but to admit him to one part of the Sacrament and not to the other is a manifest violation of Christs ordinance who instituted this Sacrament in two kinds and
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
Petrus Dresensis taught publikely that the Laietie might not communicate vnder one kind as is confessed by Didacus de Tapia in sent lib. 4. Anno 1412. Iacobellus Misnensis a Preacher of Prage being admonished by Petrus Dresensis after hee had searched into the writings of the ancient doctours and by name Dionysius and Saint Cyprian and finding in them the communicating of the Cup to the Laiety commanded he from thence forth exhorted the people by no means to neglect or omit the receiuing the Communion of the Cup. Anno 1414. In the Councell of Constance in which the entire Communion is professedly oppugned yet the Truth extorted frō her bloody aduersaries a remarkeable confession of the practise of the Primitiue Church and of the continuance of it in diuers parts euen vntil the time of the calling of that Assembly In the petition of those that procured this Synod it is expressed that one cause for which the procurers desired that the Church should take order for the establishing of a law touching the laieties cōmunicating in one kind is declared to be because in some parts of the world the Priests did not forbeare to administer the communiō to the laiety in both kinds against the custome of the Romish Church Here we haue the continuance of this practise the antiquity whereof they likewise acknowledged in the preface to their sacrilegious decree against it Although Christ instituted and gaue the sacrament after supper in both kinds to his disciples and in the primitiue Church it was in like wise administred yet the Councell for certaine reasons commands that the sacrament be otherwise administred As the tree f gaines more branches by being lopped with the axe so the Truth gaineth much lustre and authority from the very Canon of the Councell of Constance by which her aduersaries doe seeke to oppresse her For who will not rather follow Christs institution then their ordinance and the ancient acknowledged practise of the Primitiue Church rather then a late custome of the present Romish Church Anno 1420. Martin the fifth after the Councel of Constance vpon Easter day after hee had deliuered the body of our Lord with his owne hands to the Laiety suffered them to receiue the blood of Christ at the hands of the Deacon The like Henry Kalteysin reportes of other Popes and withall acquaints vs with the cause why the Pope left off this custome It fell out saith he that a certaine Bohemian came amongst the rest to the Popes chappel and receiued the Communion at his hands and hee wonderfully bragged of it whereof Pope Martin being aduertised and much inraged that such a trick was put vpon him from that time tooke away the Cup from the Laiety Anno 1430. Thomas Waldensis who tooke vpon him to refute Wickliffes bookes howsoeuer he maintained the decree of the Councell of Constance touching Communion in one kind yet hee witnesseth that greater personages amongst the people and men of note or place as Kings and doctors and others that were thought worthie so great a mystery were admitted to the Communion in both kinds Anno 1413. In the Councell held at Basil as Nauclerus writeth tom 2. generat 48. a kinde of hope was offered to the Bohemians that vpon certaine conditions the vse of the Cup might be restored vnto them The order of the Councell is conceiued in these words If the Bohemians continue in the desire of the Communion in both kinds and send an Embassage to the Councell to that purpose the holy assembly shall giue libertie to the Priests of Bohemia and Morauia to administer the Communion in both kinds to such persons as being in yeeres of discretion shall reuerently desire it Anno 1438. The Bohemians put the faith and honesty of the Fathers of Basil to the Test they send comissioners Iohn Belouar of Prage Iohn Rokyzana Peter Panie Procopius and others to treat about the concession of the Cup and to expresse their earnest and vnfained desire thereof To whom the Councell returneth this answer That the request should be granted them so that they will really effectually keep vnitie with the Church and conforme themselues in all other things saue the communion in both kinds to the faith and rites of the vniuersall Church SECT XVI Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 1500. to 1600. IN this Age I might produce many Testimonies of such learned Doctors and Professors of the Gospell as haue beene by Gods prouidence raised vp in the Reformed Churches in former and latter yeeres who by their writings learnedly soundly haue mainteined the cause we haue in hand as also doe the ioynt and vnanimous Confessions of the Churches of England France Scotland Germany Polonia Sweueland Morauia Howbeit because the Romanists doe except against all the foresaid witnesses as insufficient and of no authority because they haue departed from their Synagogue therefore I will alleage some prime Doctors of this Age also and men of eminency among themselues maintaining the same truth with vs against whom I see not what iust exception may be taken by them Anno 1541. Gerardus Lorichuis zealously oppugning the sacrilegious practise of the Church of Rome There be false Catholicks saith he that are not ashamed by all meanes to hinder the reformation of the Church They to the intent that the other kind of the sacrament may not be restored to the Lay people spare no kind of blasphemie For they say Christ said onely to his Apostles Drinke yee all of this but the words of the Canon of the Masse be these Take and eate yee all of this Here I beseech them let them ◅ell me whither they wil haue this word all onely to pertaine vnto the Apostles then must the Lay people abstaine from the other kind of the bread also Which thing to say is an heresie and a pestilent and detestable blasphemie Wherefore it followeth that each of these words were spoken to the whole Church Anno 1545. The Ambassadours for the Emperour and for the French King were earnest sutors to the Fathers in the Councell of Trent for the restitution of the Cup to the Layety Anno 1562. The obseruation of Seneca That a lye is of a thin and transparent nature a diligent eye may see through it was verified in the Diuines and Bishops present at the Councell of Trent Whereof some saw obscurely others clearely through this grand lye of the Romish Church which vnder colour of concomitancy subtracteth the vse of the Cup from the Layety For Antonius Mandulfe◅sis had a glympse but Card. Madrutius Gaspar de casa and the Bishop of Quinque Ecclesi◅ and also Amans Seruito a Friar had a full sight of the truth in this point Antonius Mandulfensis Chaplain to the Bishop of Prage professedly impugned the distinction of the Eucharist as a Sacrament and as a sacrifice which distinction the Papists at this day hold before them
Sacrament To coyne new Fathers is a vsuall practise and therefore of no transcending merit but to coyne new Canons of generall Councels and to forge records of such antiquitie as is the true Councell of Ephesus can be no lesse then a worke of superarrogation To the allegation out of the Councell of Constance we answer first that it was no generall Councell The Easterne Church of as large or larger extent then the Westerne sent no Patriarch or Bishop thither Secondly this Councell is impeached by the Romane Church it selfe Bellarmine de concil cap. 7. k speaking of this Councell of Constance saith this Councel so much as concerneth the first sessions is disallowed and repealed in the Councels of Florence and Lateran Albertus Pighius is yet hotter against this Councell saying that it decreed against the order of nature against manifest Scriptures against the authoritie of all antiquitie and against the Catholicke faith of the Church What credit is then to be giuen to this erroneous and perfidious Councell Which both adulterated the Christian faith by heretical decisions and brake their morrall faith by bloody crueltie exercised against Iohn Hus and Hierome of Prague to whom safe conduct to the Councell and backe againe was promised If the Romanists themselues reiect this Councell in point of the Popes Supremacie why may not we in point of the Sacrament Lastly out of this very Councell wee may draw an inuincible argument against the halfe Communion The institution of Christ and practise of the Primitiue Church ought to sway more with euery good Christian then any constitution of a late Councell neuer generally approued of by the Church of God But the Communion in both kinds hath the institution of Christ and the practise of the Primitiue Church for it as is confessed by the Fathers in this Councell Therefore euery good Christian ought to communicate in both kinds the prohibition of the Councell of Constance to the contrary notwithstanding To the allegation out of the Councell of Basil our answer is the stronger by how much the authoritie of this Councell is weaker or rather of no validitie at all First there lyeth against it the same exception which we tooke before against the Councell of Constance that none of the Bishops of the Easterne Churches were present at it and in this regard it cannot bee held for an Occomenicall or generall Councell Secondly while the Fathers of this Councell sate at Basil the Pope fearing least some thing might be done to his preiudice called an other Councell at Ferrara and ◠in this regard the Councell of Basil cannot be esteemed a generall or totall Councell no not so much as of the Westerne or Romane Church Thirdly the Acts of this Councell are repeated in the Councell of Florence and Lateran Pighius writes as bitterly against it as against the Councell of Constance and Cardinall Bellarmine writing of it saith There is nothing of this Councell ratified and allowed but certaine orders about benefices the Councell it selfe is reiected and condemned in the Councell of Lateran Sess. 11. No maruell then if Protestants account the decrees of this Synode no better then drosse when by the Roman test it selfe they are proued to bee no good mettell Wherefore as the Romane Oratour makes a Dilemma touching Brutus and Antonie being in Armes one against the other if Brutus bee a preseruer of his country Antonie is an enemie if Antony be a Consul Brutus is an enemie so may we say of those two Councels of Basil and Lateran if the Councell of Basil bee Catholick Lateran is hereticall if Lateran be Catholick the Councell of Basil is hereticall Lastly be this Councell of Basil of what authoritie it may be the Romanists loose more by it then they gaine For though the halfe Communion were after a sort established in this Councell yet the Bohemians petition for the intire Communion was yeelded vnto and signed in this Councell whence we thus argue against them If the Papists arguments drawne from danger of irreuerence inconueniences examples or testimonies of antiquity and pretended consequences of Scripture were necessary and concludent the Councell of Basil could not lawfully grant to the Bohemians and Morauians the vse of the Cup but the Councell of Basil might lawfully and did yeeld to the Bohemians and the Morauians the vse of the cup Therfore the reasons of the Romanists drawn to the contrary from the heads aboue mentioned are not necessarie or concludent CHAP. XIIII The Arguments of Papists drawne from ancient pretended rites of the Church answered and retorted THere is no more certaine signe of a bad cause then extorted testimonies and wyer-drawne arguments such as our aduersaries for want of better insist vpō in this question For the truth neuer wanteth voluntarie witnesses to depose for her nor arguments that offer themselues in her defence as the Poets faine that stones came of their owne accord to the building of Thebes Such are those proofes which the texts of scpriture without any forcing and the free deposition of all ages before alleaged haue furnished vs withall On the contrarie our aduersaries straine antient rites and customes weakely proued and peruersely applied to excuse their sacrilege They tell vs of reseruing the Sacrament for a long space of carrying it home to mens houses giuing it to infants and impotent persons on their death-bed to Priests put out of their ranck for misdemeanour and lastly of a Communion of such things as were before consecrated All which obseruations are as headlesse arrowes shot at randome Falces petebamus we demand sithes and they answer vs with mattocks Our question is of the publike and generall practise of the Church their answer is of priuate customes our question is of the lawfull vse of the Lords Supper their answer is of abuses and corruptions our question is of the depriuing the Laietie of the Cup their answer is of Priests our question is of fit and worthie receiuers qualified to communicate in both kinds their answer is of children excommunicate persons or men lying on their death-beds This might suffice to wash away their varnish of antiquitie Yet lest they should accuse vs as Fimbria did sometimes Scecuola quòd non totum telum corporereceperimus that wee receiued not the ful thrust into our body I wil bring in their great Cardinal laying amaine at vs in this wise SECT I. From the reseruation of the Sacrament thus he disputeth against vs That the Sacrament was accustomed antiently to be reserued we haue proued by the testimonies of Fathers Councels Now that it was reserued in one kind onely and consequently that the communicants receiued in one kind onely it is manifest because sometimes they reserued it for a very long time Sophronius in his spirituall meddow relates of the keeping of it for a whole yeere but wine especially in a small quantitie could not be kept so long because within that time it would be corrupted The answer First
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
Bishops ouer the Priests All which yet we doe acknowledge in a peaceable and flourishing estate of the Church ought to be had And we haue cause to praise God for our happinesse in England aboue other Churches in this behalfe M. Euerard Here M. Euerard stepping in not being called said I pray you Sir if there may bee a Church without a Bishop who shall ordaine the Priests in that Church D. Featly Sir what are you who intrude your selfe into our priuate conference It seemes you are a Romish Priest Are you not so M. Euerard I am no Priest D. Featly What will you deny your Priesthood M. Euerard I am no Priest to tell you D. Featly Now I perceiue you are not onely a Priest but a Iesuited Priest also For you can equiuocate M. Euerard It is no equiuocation to say I am no Priest to tell you D. Featly Indeed now that you expresse your mentall reseruation you vse no equiuocation but while you concealed it you did equiuocate And I maruell you blush not to vse such a simple shift or euasion as to say you are no Priest to tell me As if you or any man were made a Priest to tell another man you are a Priest At these words the meate was brought in and thereby a stop made of a farther reply for the present But not long after the Guests were all placed the L. reuiued the former question demanding of Doctor Featly L. F. Who should ordaine Priests in a Church where there are no Bishops D. Featly If there bee no Bishops in any adioyning Church by whom they may be ordained and presented to the Church I say in that case the Church to whom Christ as St. August saith gaue the keyes may commit Episcopall authority to certaine Priests and they thus authorized may ordaine other Priests as well as absolue and confirme the baptized and performe other acts ordinarily reserued to Bishops d And this ordination in a troubled state of the Church and in case of necessitie I hold to be lawfull and warrantable both because it hath that which the Apostle requireth 1. Tim. 4. 14. to wit the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery and because there haue bin presidents of such ordination in the Primitiue Church And questionles the Church that committeth the power to one Priest set in an eminent degree ouer the rest may commit the same power to more Presbyters or Priests especially considering it is the iudgement of learned diuines both Protestants and Papists that Bishops and Presbyters differ rather in execution of some acts of their order appropriated to Bishops onely then in their essentiall order A Bishop hath an eminencie of degree in the same order but his ecclesiasticall order is essentially the same with the Presbyters or Priests But what doth this question concerne any here present Neither wee nor for ought I know the Papists themselues define it to be a matter of faith necessary to saluato resolue this way or that way Therefore this question might haue been forborne M. Euerard The Councell of Trent hath defined it therefore to vs it is a matter of Faith D. Featly I scarcely beleeue the Councell of Trent bee it of what credit it may bee hath defined this point in such sort as you intimate M. Euarard I will shew it D. Featly When you shew it I will answer it After this passage some speech hauing been cast in by some of the table concerning differences in point of Religion among the Protestants of England D. Featly said it was to bee considered that the differences amongst the true members of the Church of England were only in point of Discipline and Ceremony not in point of Doctrine or matter of Faith But the Romanists differed one frō another in point of Doctrine and matter of Faith for the present saith he I will instance in two remarkeable particulars First touching the conception of the blessed Virgin secondly touching the Popes supreame authority euen ouer Generall Councells In the first point the Iacobins or dominicants maintaine that the blessed Virgin was conceiued in Originall sinne the Iesuites Franciscans and Sorbonists hold the contrary M. Euarard Yet both keepe the Feast of the immaculate Conception D. Featly They may both keepe a Feast vpon the same day and that for the Conception of our Lady But certainely they who beleeue she was conceiued in sin cannot without hipocrisie keepe a Feast of the immaculate Conception Touching the second point the Sorbonists haue euer held and doe hold to this day that a Generall Councell is aboue the Pope but the Iacobins Iesuits all orders of Friers generally besides many Secular Priests hold the contrary that the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell When I liued in Paris in the Ambassadors house I heard of a generall Chapter as they called it held by the Iacobins in Tho. Aquinas Schoole Where for many dayes together diuers diuinity questions were handled and among other this question touching the Popes superioritie to Councels An acute Serbone Doctor there present thus impugned the Iacobins assertion Whatsoeuer is defined in a Generall Councell confirmed by the Pope is infallibly true de fide But it is defined in a generall Councel to wit the Councel of Constance confirmed by Pope Martin the fifth that a Generall Councell is aboue the Pope Therefore it is infallibly true and de fide that a Generall Councell is aboue the Pope The Auditors the greater part of them very much applauded this argument of the Sorbonist and expressed their applause by a kinde of shout But the Iacobin respondent in a kinde of scorne answered it by retortion thus Whatsoeuer is defined in a generall Councell confirmed by the Pope is infallibly true and de fide But it is defined in a Generall Councell to wit the Councell of Lateran confirmed by Leo the tenth that the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell Therfore it is infallibly true and de fide that the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell At this Syllogisme the Iacobin had neere as great an applause as the Sorbonist Wee that were present of the Reformed Churches vnknowne to the Romanists receiued very much satisfaction to heare Papists amongst themselues thus bandy Councell and Pope against Councell and Pope For from both we concluded that sith contradictories cannot be both true and it appeared in matter of Faith that Generall Councels confirmed by Popes had decreed direct contradictories that therefore Generall Councels confirmed by Popes might erre and consequently that the strongest pillar of a Romanists Faith is weake and tottering M. Euerard The Councell of Constance which decreed a Generall Councell to be aboue the Pope was confirmed by Martin the fifth only in such points as were in that Councell determined against Hus and the Bohemians the Pope confirmed not all points defined in that Councell M. L. Haue you any example of any such confirmation of a Councell wherein some points defined by a
grounded vpon vncertaine and false supposals For a Church may haue been visible yet not the names of all visible Professors now bee shewed and proued out of good Authors There might be millions of Professors yet no particular and authenticall record of them by name Records there might bee many in ancient time yet not now extant at least for vs to come by Yet we will not refuse to deale with you in your owne question if you in like manner will vndertake the like taske in your owne defence and maintaine the affirmatiue in the like question which we now propound here vnto you in writing Whether the Romish Church that is a Church holding the particular entire doctrine of the now Romanists as it is comprised in the Councell of Trent was in all Ages visible especially in the first 600. yeeres and whether the names of such visible or legible Romanists in all Ages can bee shewed and proued out of good Authors Secondly whereas in a Conference Iune 27. 1623. with you and M. Sweete I vndertook to proue the perpetuall visibility of the Protestant Church both à priore by Syllogisme and à posteriore by Induction and then also made an Essay in both kinds as the time permitted demonstrating the visibility of the Protestant Church being an effect by the eternity of our Faith as the cause And further to stop your clamour for names I produced at that time the names of visible Professors of our beliefe for 200. yeeres Thirdly wheras since the Conference I haue made good my demonstration à priore of the perpetuall visibility of the Protestant Church against all your cauils refuted at large through my whole booke intituled The Romish Fisher caught and held in his own net printed at London 1624. but particularly more especially in the Remonstrance therein to Sr. Humphry Linde frō page the 14. vsque ad finem and in my Reply to your answer Paragraph 8. pag. 89. vsque ad 112 Fourthly whereas now I haue quite finished my demonstration à posteriore and haue set downe the so much harangued for Catalogue of visible Professors in all Ages from Christ to Luther of our Protestant doctrine in a maine point of difference and one of the first mentioned in the Conference touching the communicating in both kinds I now therfore challenge you M. Iohn Fisher according to your deepe ingagement before in and since the Conference as you tender the tickle state of your Catholike cause with your collapsed Ladies immediately after the perusall of this my Treatise to goe about and in conuenient time without further delayes and tergiuersatiō to draw a like Catalogue for your part of such Writers and Authors of note in all Ages who haue defended or at least approued your dry and halfe Communion Which after that you haue performed I will proceed God assisting me to name visible Professors in all Ages in other points of greatest moment But if you refuse to meete mee in this field pitched by your selfe diuerting into your common place of railing at Sectaries and Nouelists Or if like Caligula you triumph at Rome for a signall victory in Germany when he had gathered onely a few pebbles on the shore at Caieta and you thereupon cry out vpon the shifts and tergiuersations of D. Featly whereas to pay you backsome of your owne in coine your white liuer wil not suffer you to come so much as in sight of the walles and gates of my defence but onely to shoote a few paper bullets against three or foure of my redoubts you in all your Replyer not replying one word to the defence of my proceeding in the Conference and Refutations of your answers Or if for want of better imployment Ne toga condylis penula desit oliuis You shall tacke together a cento of relations like Sibylles leaues as much distracted as the braines of the Penner and if you shall intreate in good earnest your Midas Reader to giue credit to your own report in your own cause you being both a Romanist and a Iesuite against the subscription of sundry persons of honor worth and qualitie affixed to the Conference Or if hauing a leaden Treatise that hath long lyen heauy vpon your hands touching no saluation out of the Church of Rome you shall clap my name and D. Whites vpon it to make it sell intituling it A Reply to D. White and D. Featly whereas from the first page being 145. to the last 181. there is not one syllable against either of their writings Fifthly and lastly if you shall change your trade and of a Fisher turne Sawyer nothing but drawing the Saw of your ragged stile 1000. times by the same line backward and forward and neuer pierce into the heart of any Controuersie impute it to no other thing then meere compassion in your opposites that they reioyne not to your Replyes ne famam tuam sponte concidentem maturiùs extinguant suo vulnere lest they should giue a deaths-wound to your reputation that lyeth on bleeding already In tauros ruunt Libyci leones Ne sint Papilionibus molesti FINIS THE SVMME AND SVBSTANCE OF A DISPVTATION BETWEENE M. DAN FEATLY OPONENT AND D. SMITH THE younger Respondent now by the Pope intitutuled Bishop of Chalcedon and Ordinary of all England at Paris Sept. 4. 1612. Stylo nouo touching the Reall presence in the Sacrament LONDON Printed by Felix Kyngston for Robert Milbourne and are to be sold at his shop in Pauls Churchyard at the signe of the Greyhound 1630. THE SVMME AND SVBSTANCE OF A DISPVTATION betweene M. Dan. Featly Opponent and D. Smith the younger Respondent now by the Pope intituled Bish. of Chalcedon and Ordinary of all England at Paris Sept. 4. 1612. Stylo nouo touching the Reall presence in the Sacrament The Lawes of the Disputation 1. That they should dispute calmely and peaceably 2. That all impertinent discourses should be auoided 3. That M. Featly at this time should onely oppose and D. Smith onely answer THese Conditions agreed vpon it was thought fit both should set downe the state of the Question and the points of difference between them which D. Smith being Respondent first vndertooke distinguishing betweene the questions of Reall presence and of Transubstantion and determining the point in question to bee this Whether the body of Christ were truly and substantially in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine Which being done hee entred into a large discourse to set downe the proofes and confirmations of the affirmatiue vsed by their Church Whereupon he was challenged by M. Featly of a breach of the third Law and so after Master Featly had for his part promised him to answer all his arguments at another time when the hearers should thinke good D. Smith surceased And M. Featly explained the termes of the Question as followeth There are two termes said hee in the question Presence and Reall I distinguish of both First The Scripture
he spake or to what this This is to be referred I referre my selfe to your owne conscience whether these words I will drinke no more of this fruit immediately following these Hic calix This cup or Hic est sanguis noui testamenti This is the blood of the new testament can haue relation to any other words then those or to any other Cup then which is here consecrated Not onely all the circumstances of the Text are against your interpretation but also all the Fathers generally controwle it who vnderstand these words I will not drinke of this fruit of the Vine of the Sacrament and not of the Cup of the old Law And he quoted Clemens in Pedag. l. 2. c. 2. That it was wine which was blessed Christ shewed saying I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the Vine Cypr lib. 2. Epist. 3. alleaging the words of Saint Matthew I will drinke no more of this fruit of the Vine addeth where doe we find that the cup which Christ offered was mingled that it was wine which he called his blood Chrys. Hom. 83. in Mat. When our Lord deliuered this mysterie he deliuered wine of the fruit of the Vine saith he which certainely produceth wine and not water August de Eccl. Dogm cap. 75. Concilium Worm ca. 2. Wine was in the mystery of our redemption when he said I will drinke no more of the fruit of the Vine If you haue not yet weight enough I will adde one Author that in the skales of your iudgment beareth downe all these Pope Innocentius lib. 4. de Myst. Missae cap. 27. It is manifest that he consecrated wine in the Cup by those words he added I will not drinke from henceforth of the fruit of the Vine What answer you quoth M. Featly to so many Fathers a Councell and your Pope I answer quoth D. Smith that their opinion is probable And though M. Featly pressed him in the words of Campian Do you admit of the Fathers or reiect them if you admit of them you are ouercome if you refuse them you are no body He answered onely as before that their opinion was probable but he preferred his owne before it and yet triumphed as if he had gotten the day saying Are these your demonstrations Are these sufficient causes why you should separate your selues from our Church and from your Brethren the Lutherans And it was replied Are these your best answers and defences Is your great brag of the Fathers and of the Councels come to this that when they are alleaged against you you either discredit them as you did Tertullian or make miserable excuses for them as Bellarmine doth for Saint Augustine Austin did not well weigh this place or cashere a whole troope of them Pope and all yet with ciuill and respectiue termes saying their opinion is probable follow it who so will yet you will not quit your owne for it And heere because it grew late they brake off for the present At the breaking vp of the Conference a Priest who was said to be D. Smiths Chamberfellow was heard to say Profectò haec fuit vera digladiatio non Sorbonica velificatio that is This was a true fight not a Sorbonicall flourishing In this Relation we haue omitted of set purpose all D. Smiths by-discourses together with his proofes of the maine because they were against the third Law And M. Featly at this time tooke no notice of them in particular but promised in generall to answer them all when it came to his course to answer Now he was bound by the Law onely to oppose and D. Smith onely to giue his answers which are here truly set downe most of them out of his owne writing as wee depose who were present at this Disputation I must willingly subscribe to the truth of that which D. Smith did so voluntarily present to our eyes and eares And for the rest which is M. Featlies none of the aduerse party can take any iust exception against it I. P. I professe that all things in this Narration deliuered and quoted out of D. Smiths Autographie are true out of my examination And of the rest I remember the most or all neither can I suspect any part B. I. FINIS Errata Pag. 5. marg reade quidem for qâ—…id p. 6. l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 p. 11. marg r. contrâ—…dictionis p. 13. marg r. Christus ibid. l. 22. r. mâ—…re prâ—… not p. 17. 2. r. proposition p. 27. 19. r. Iansâ—… p. 43. 13. r. oâ—… prâ—… as p. 54. 24 marg r. pâ—…er for potâ—… 56. 14. r. immineâ—…t p. 70. marg r. sanguine p. 96. 23 r. this p. 84. 4. r. faâ—…antur p. 84. 28. adde it p. 101. 22. dele former 108. vlt r. conâ—…rteth p. 112. 8. r. 〈◊〉 p. 117. 1. r. fidem p. 126. marg r. licâ—… ib. pâ—…st for potus 132. marg r. 〈◊〉 p. 137. 12. r. Plaine p. 13â—… 8. r. 1561. p. 145. vlt. r. therefore p. 149. 22. r Sacraments p. 202. 22. r. â—…imed p. 206. 2. r. sound p. 209. 27. 1. fâ—…ft p. 225. 25. r. mâ—…gled p. 228. 21. r. â—…ight p. 249. 19. r. sound p. 255. 11. r. take what time you will p. 2â—…8 marg r. Bernardâ—… p. 263. 13. r. your p. 129. 10. r. but for and p 274. 23. r. 〈◊〉 ib. 30. r. answers p. 278. marg r. Ecclesiâ—…â—…m p. 279. vlt dele Isa. p. 288. 〈◊〉 r. Transubstantiation 291. 2. r. bring p. 294. marg r. â—…x figuratâ—… p 29â—… 23. 〈◊〉 then for this p. 299. 14. r. ampliâ—…ion p. 301. marg r. for 〈◊〉 a a Catal. Test. ver lib. 19. pag. 1912. olim fuerunt lignei calices aurei sacerdotes nunc contra sunt aurei calices lignei sacerdotes b b Plaut in Auâ—…i Sireperco Fides mulsi congialâ—…m pleâ—…am tibi faciam fideliam id adeo tibi faciam sed ego mihi bibam vid. Eras Aâ—…g Delphis sacrisicans ipse comedit carnes Missale Rom. in Can. Miss Concil Constan. sâ—…ss 13. Thoâ—…gh Christ did in sâ—…tute in both â—…ds and the 〈◊〉 â—…ch did so â—…minister c. Plin. nat hist. l. 8. c. 25. Terribilis haec contra fugaces bellua fugax contra insequentes Muret Orat. Barbari cedentibus instant instantibus cedeunt Rom. 12. 13. Not to thinke of your selfe more highly then you ought to think but to be wise vnto sobriety Macc. l. 1. c. 1. v. 9. After his death they all put Crownes vpon themselues and so did their sonnes after them Asud Iâ—…u Saty. 4. Ipse capi voluit quid apertius et tamen illi Surgebant cristae In suâ—…reption of the Cup from the Laiety a a Plin. 〈◊〉 8. c. 18. Cameli implentur cum bibendi occasio est in praeteritum in futurum obturbatâ proculcatione priùs aquâ aliter potu non gaudent Apoc. 18. v. 12. b b Lib. 4. De sacra Euch. c. 20. c c Hom. de
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
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