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
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
as a buckler to beare off our arguments drawne from the necessity of representing Christs death in the Lords Supper by receiuing his blood apart as seuered from his body He also infringeth their common argument for their halfe Communion drawne from the example of the Disciples at Emaus and Saint Paul his breaking bread in the ship For he truly and acutely noted that if these Texts are to be expounded of communicating in one kind only that it would from thence follow that it were not onely lawfull for the people to communicate in one kind only but for Priests such as the Apostle S. Paul and the Disciples were to consecrate in one kind onely Thus he saw light as it were by a chinke but Amans servito Brixianus as a man in the open aire felt the light of truth to come so full into his eyes that it dazeled them For following the doctrine of Caietan who holdeth that blood is not a part of mans nature but the first nourishment thereof and adding that it cannot be said that the body necessarily draweth the nourishment into concomitancy with it from thence he inferred that it was not altogether the same substance vnder the forme of bread and vnder the forme of wine Withall hee added that the blood in the Lords Supper was blood shed out of the veines in which as long as it was contained it could not be drinke and therefore could not bee drawne with the veine into concomitancy Moreouer that the Lords Supper was instituted to celebrate his Passion which could not â—…ee represented but by effusion of blood and seuering it from the body It is true this Amans had a check in the Counfor his paines but his reasons were not answered himselfe for feare shuffled and fumbled about some answer vnto them but gaue no satisfaction either to himselfe or to others Welfare Cardinall Madrusius who being asked his opinion answered directly That hee thought fit the Cup should be restored to the Layety without all exception Gaspar de Casa Bishop of Lerye a man of eminent learning concurred with the Cardinall in iudgement adding that he thought that God would neuer send the spirit of delusion into the minde of the Emperour in so weighty a point especially considering that Charles the French King and the Duke of Bauaria ioyned with the Emperour in this request that the Cup should be granted to the Layety This speech of so learned a Bishop not only confirmed those who were of the same mind with him but also made most of the opposite faction to startle Anno 1563. Dudithius Bish. of Quinque-Ecclesiae as in the Councell of Trent hee had stoutly maintained the entire Communion and refelled all obiections to the contrary so after the breaking vp of the Councell in an Epistle which he wrote to Maximilian the Emperour he bitterly complaineth of the miscarriage of this businesse in the Councell What good could be done saith he in that Councell wherein voyces were numbred but not weighed If the merits of the cause or reason might haue preuailed or if but a few had ioyned with vs we had wonne the day but when the number only did beare the sway in which we came farre short though our cause was exceeding good yet wee were faine to sit downe by the losse Anno 1564. Georgius Cassander being set a worke by Ferdinand the Emperour to aduise about a meanes of composing differences in Religion declares himselfe fully for vs in this point of the Cup It is not saith hee without cause that the best learned Catholikes most earnestly desire and contend that they may receiue the Sacrament of Christs blood together with his body according to the antient custome in the vniuersall Church continued for many Ages or at least that the liberty which was granted two hundred yeeres agoe of communicating in one kind or both may be restored Wherefore I hold it not onely nothing contrary to the authoritie of the Church but rather very agreeable to the peace and vnitie of the Church and in a manner necessary that either those in whose hands lyes the gouernment of the Church restore the antient custome of communicating or which may be done without great trouble that the Churches themselues by little and little returne to their antient vse SECT XVII The confirmation of this Argument from the custome of the Church by the testimonies of our learned Aduersaries THis Argument as all the former may bee confirmed by the testimonies of our aduersaries themselues who giue sufficient euidence to condemne their owne Church of innouation and manifest defection from the Primitiue in this their halfing the holy Sacrament The Law saith that custome is the best interpreter of law And of all customes the antient especially if they be generall and haue lasted out diuers Ages ought to beare most sway with those that maintaine the truth of antiquitie or antiquitie of truth An argument drawne from an antient general and long continuing custome for more then one thousand yeeres is like a threefold cable that cannot be broken If we may beleeue the Councels held at Constance and Basill such a custome ought to be held for a law and inâ—…iolably obserued But I inferre The Lay-Communion in both kinds is a custome commended by antiquitie generalitie and duration as hath been proued before by the testimonies of approued Writers in all Ages and is confessed by the Romanists themselues First for the antiquity of this custome I appeale to the Councell of Constance Arboreus Aquinas Lyra Carthusianus and Ruardus Tapperus The Councell of Constance admits vnder a licèt that Christ instituted the venerable Sacrament vnder both kinds and that in the Primitiue Church it was so receiued by the faithfull yet with a non obstante countermands Christs Institution and the practice of the Primitiue Church which gaue Luther iust occasion to nick-name this Councell and for Constantiense to call it Non obstantiense Concilium Iohannes Arboreus in plaine termes confesseth that anciently the Lay people did communicate vnder both kinds Thomas Aquinas is a contest to Arboreus auerring that according to the ancient custome of the Church all those that were partakers of the communion of Christs body were partakers also of the communion of his blood Dionys. Carthusianus speakes Aquinas his words after him It was so done indeed in the Primitiue Church but now the Church hath ordered otherwise Lyra harpes vpon the same string Here is mention of both kinds for so the Sacrament was rereceiued of the faithfull in the Primitiue Church Aestius that famous Sorbonist vpon the Sentences lib. 4. handling this question professedly saith that it is manifest out of antient histories and the writing of almost all the ancient Fathers qui testantur fideles bibere sanguinem Christi that the Eucharist was communicated to the people in both kinds Ruardus Tapperus speakes rather like a Protestant then a Papist in
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
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
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