of Christians to the whol and each particular to some part of this command For seeing there is noe more reason why one Christian should be more exempted from it then an other the concurring to it falls equally vppon all for though Priests when they consecrate and sacrifice haue each in particular an obligation to communicate yet according to a probable opinion they haue noe obligation in particular proceeding from any diuine precept to consectate or sacrifize but all their absolute obligation to communicate is taken from this and other like commands which we haue treated so that though noe particular Priest were bound by diuine precept to say masse yet they are bound to communicate by reason of these precepts which could not be vnlesse euery Christian were obliged in perticular to concurre to the performance of this generall command with an equall obligation Objection If it should be said that the church may sufficiently complie with the generall command by prouiding that it be still kept in execution by some particular persons as she complies with many others Answer In answer first that if should one staÌ„d meerely to the bare letter of Scripture in these precepts this might be said but if we take the sence of it according to the common straine of doctours euery particular will be obliged by them especially seeing that S. Paul extends this matter of communion to each particular Secondly as it was not in the power of the Apostels to exempt any of the twelf from concurring to the conuersion of all nation commanded by our Sauiour and to haue iâ— accomplished by the rest which they should haue appointed because each of them in particular was bound to labour in it by diuine precept where in the church cannot dispence so seeing we haue the same authority of doctours and tradition for the obliging each particular by this command vnlesse you eate aâ— each Apostle by that goe and teach all nations c. it may be denied that the church hath power to exempt any one from this precept by hauing it performed by other Christians appointed by her authority Thirdly had this Sacrament been left free as Priesthood and mariage were without any diuine precept that euery Christian csometimes in their liues receiue it the church neither would nor could haue obliged each Christian in particular to receaue it once a yeare as shee obliges none to receaue Priesthood or mariage because they were left free by our Sauiour Objection If it should be here objected that in the command of teaching c. each Apostle in particular could not conuert all and if each had been bound to teach and baptize all the command could not haue any conuenient sense but each Christian is able easily both to eate and drinke this Sacrament and so there is no parity in the command of teching with that of communicating Answer I answer first that this command is not instanced as like in all things but to this end that seeing this precept of teaching c. must he vnderstood of all in general and each in particular and that there be such commands in Scripture that though this of eating and drinking this Sacrament might haue been so vnderstood that each Ccristian is bound both to eate and drinke as being a rhing very feasable yet this Sacramentall precept may be vnderstood as the other must be and if it be possible to vnderstand it so our aduersaries will neuer be able to conuince thence the necessity for euery particular to receaue both kindes and yet there will be a necessity by vertu of these words to receaue one I Answer secondly that there is as great a necessity to vnderstand this precept in the foresaid manner drawn from the truth of Scripâ—ure as there is for vnderstanding the command of teaching drawn for the force of nature That which followes the text in the ensuing verses makes this matter quite out of question for though our Sauiour here declared the necessity in the plurall number Nisi manducauerith c. vnlesse you eate c. of eating his stesh and drinking his blood as belonging to the generallity of Christians the words in vobis in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you shall not haue life in you signifie according to the Greeke phrase very familiarly in Scripture amongst you which is referred to the whol congregation of Christians and not to each patricular Yet when he expressed himselfe in the singular number Qui manducat hunc panem qui manducat mâ— c. he who eateth this bread he who eateth me c. and addessed his speach to particular persons he attributes eternall life to the sole eating of him and that heauenly bread as appeares in the said text he who eateth me shall liue by me he who eateth this bread shall liue for euer c. and hence it is clearly deduced not only that these words vnlesse ye â—ate c. doe not euidently include ea necessity for euery particular person to rereceaue both kindes but that they cannot possibibily include any such necessity without a contradiction betwixt this text and the text following now cited for if he who eates the flesh of our Sauiour hath eternall life as those textes affirme then it can not be true that vnlesse each particular both eate and drinke he shall not haue life eternall and hence also appeares a necessity of vnderstanding these words that though all in generall be bound to receaue both amongst them yet none in particular is bound to receaue both but each is partially to concurre to accomplish this command as each Apostle was that of teaching and baptizing all nations Obiection Some happily may answer with Caluin that though eating be only named in the text now cited yet drinking also is there included and to be vnderstood as being connected with it in the former text vnlesse you eate c. Answer That more is vnderstood then is expressed in any place of Scripture is not vppon light coniectures to be supposed but to be prouued by solide and conuincing arguments otherwise each light headed nouelist might at his pleasure frame to himselfe certain apparent congruities to extend the words of Scripture and to make them import more then they signifie in themselues and so multiplie Synecdoches wheresoeuer it comes to his purpose Seeing therefore I haue shewed that there is noe necessity to strech these textes beyond the common and vsuall stgnification of the words by giuing at least a probable satisfaction to whatsoeuer they alleadge to proue the contrary let our aduerfaries make good that there it a necessity of the drawing these words beyond their naturall signification or that more words are supposed then are expressed in the text and we will yeeld to this explication But this discours of our Sauiour is so farre from giuing the least ground to any such like improprieties the common refuge of our Aduersaries when they eannot auoyd the sorce of the expresse words and proper sense of
set down in an other English Catechisme which I haue seene and read in a publike auditory of Protestants The ground therefore of this false imposition if it may be termed a ground may happily haue beene some small short Catechismes made for little children and new beginners for the help of their memories to be learned by hart wherin this commandement as all the rest of the longer commandements set down Exod. 20. Deut. 5. is abridged and brought to so many words as merely serue to expresse the substance of them omitting the rest thus 1. I am the Lord thy God thou shalt not haue any other Gods before me 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vayne 3. Remember thou sanctify the festiuall dayes 4. Honour thy father and mother where not only many words adioyned to the command against adoring false Gods or Idols Exod. 20. Deut. 5. but to the three ensuing also are here for breuity's sake omitted setting down in few words the substance and making no mention of the reasons and amplifications found in Exodus and Deuteronomy least were they all sett at large as they are there both the memory of yong children might be ouercharged and their weake vnderstandings confounded not being able to distinguish the substance of the command from the reasons and amplifications of it Now if we deliuered the commandements with this preface as Protestants do in their common prayer booke The same which God spake in the 20. chapter of Exodus saying c. we were obliged to put them all word for word as they are found there For otherwise the commandements would not be answerable to the Title But seeing we find them in other places of Scripture set down in a much briefer manner then they are there and find no precept neither in Scripture nor in the Church to deliuer them to Christians as they are deliuered in Exod. 20. and Deut. 5. rather then in other places our aduersaryes can no more condemne vs of falsefying them when we put them briefer then they can the holy Scripture it selfe for abbreuiating them more in other places then they are in Exodus now cited and Leuiticus That they are thus abbreuiated in Scripture is manifest Leuit. 19. v. 1.2.3 And the Lord spake vnto Moyses saying speake vnto all the congregation of the children of Israel and say vnto them yee shall be holy for I the Lord your God am holy yee shall feare euery man his father and his mother and shall keepe my sabbaths I am the Lord your God yee shall not turne vndo Idols nor make molten Gods I am the Lord your God c. where that which our aduersaryes account the second commandement is put euen shorter then many of our catechismes haue it Turne not your selues vnto Idols nor make vnto your selues molten Gods as it is in Exod. 20. v. 23. Yee shall not make vnto your selues Gods of siluer neither shall yee make Gods of gould Neither indeed is it any way conuenient to deliuer the commandements publikely and generally to Christian people word for word as they stand Exod. 20. Leuitit 26. because therby they are indangered either to take sunday to be saturday or the Iewish Sabbath or must hold themselues obliged to obserue Saturday with the Iewes that alone being dies Sabbati the Sabbath day wherin only God rested after the creation of the world which only he also Sanctifyed and commanded to be kept as clearly appeares by the words of the commandement soe that it is not any seuenth day or one indeterminately euery weeke which God commands to be kept holy in this precept but one only and determinately that is the same seuenth day where in God rested from the worke of the creation as appeares Gen. 2.1.2.3 Et benedixit diei septimo sanctisicauit illum quia in ipso cessauerat ab omni opere suo quod creauit Deus vt faceret And God blessed the seuenth day and sanctified it hecause that in it he had rested from all his workes which God created and made now it is most euident that God rested only vppon one determinate day and that noe other then the Iewish Sabbath or Saturday or if they vnderstand well what day is meant in the commandemenr they must needs be scandalized to see a commandement vniuersally deliuered to them of keeping the Iewish Sabbath which is and euer was Saturday and yet neuer obserued by any of them but Sunday in place of it Hence therefore we see in generall that it is very inconuenient to propose Gods commandements publikely to Christians word for word as they stand in Exodus and so wee can neuer be iustly condemned if we put some of them as they are more briefly deliuered in other places of Scripture or now to be in obseruance amongst Christians But there is an other poynt boggeled at chiefly by the ignorant about the diuision of Gods cōmandements Yee obiect they against vs put the two first commandements into one and diuide the last into two I answere that a Catholike seeing their diuision may with much more reason tell Protestants yee put the two last commandements into one and diuide the first into two Briefly therefore to cleare this poynt it is to be noted that though it be expresly declared in Scripture that Gods commandements were ten in number and written in two tables yet through the whole Bible neuer is it declared which is the first second third c. nor so much as one word spoken concerning the diuision of them but this was left either to tradition or to the prudent determination of Doctours so that howsoeuer they are prudently diuided there will be nothing contrary to Scripture so long as the whol substance be expressed and the number of them be obserued Hence in and euen before S. Augustins tyme as he witnesses there was a double diuision of the commandements amongst Christians some diuiding them as we doe and others as our aduersaryes Yet both S. Augustine himselfe q. 71. in Exod. and S. Hierome Comment in Psalm 32. and Clemens Alexandrinus lib. 6. Stromatum follow our diuision S. Augustin prouing it very largly to be the better and putting in the first commandement Idol not Image and serue not worship and S. Hierome setting down the three commandements conteyned in the first table as short or shorter then any of our Catechismes doe and from them euen to our tymes it seemes to haue beene the receiued diuision at least in the westerne Church and should haue beene followed by those of our nation who euer before the breach were estemeed a part of it and yet pretend to be so had not the spirit of contradiction against the Romain Church induced them to the contrary Now as we haue authority so haue we solid reason to prefer this diuision before that of our aduersaryes for certaine it is that each different commandement forbids a different maine sin so that neither are we to make two
which is not set down in expresse words in the new Testament I answer that that is manifestly vntrue and must be confessed to be soe euen by Protestants themselues for they can neuer find any expresse mention in the new Testament that nothing is to be beleeued or practized lawfully by Christians saue that which is expressed in the new Testament 2. that any churches were made or to be made amongst Christians distinct from dwelling houses 3. that fonts for baptisme were put in those churches 4. that childeren were euer actually baptised in those fonts 5. that God-fathers and God-mothers were to be vsed in Baptisme of childeren 6. that any spirituall kindred arises by vertu of Baptisme betwixt those God-fathers and God-mothers on the one side and the childeren Baptized theyr Parents respectiuely on the other If therefore none of those can be found mentioned expressely in the new Testament with what shew of reason can Protestants demand that the worship of Images should be mentioned in the new Testament seeing they practice these particulars noe lesse then we the worship of Images But in these and such like religious practices it is sufficient euen according to the Protestant Principle of sole Sctipture that eyther there be expresse mention made of them eyther commanding or allowing them in the old Testament which is neuer reuoked or dissallowed in the new as is that of the worship of Images or at least that the lawfullnesse of them can be deduced from the old or new Testament by a good consequence drawn according to the rules of right reason as the worship of Images is manifestly from the 13. of the Reuel now cited for if the worship of the Image tend to the honour of him who is represented by it as is there euident and that it is lawfull to doe all that which tends to the honour of our Sauiour then it follows ineuitably that the worship of his Image is lawfull and the like is of the Images of Saints Thus haue I indeauored to discouer the different mistakes of Protestants in the texts of Scripture cited by them against the vse of holy Images taught and peactized in the Romane Church and with all the strange mistranslations inuented by them to make holy Scripture speake to the vulgar against the doctrine and practice of the Romane Church in this particular and this may sfuffice for the second Controuersie THE THIRD CONTROVERSIE Concerning Iustification The Doctrine of the Roman Church deliuered in the Council of Trent touching this Point Sess. 6. can 1. SI quis dixerit hominem suis operibus quae vel per humanae naturae vires vel per legis doctrinam fiunt absque diuina per Iesum Christum gratiâ posse iustificari coram Deo Anathema sit It any one shall say that a man can be iustified by his workes which are done by the force of humaine nature or by the doctrine of the law without diuine grace through our Lord Iesus Christ let him be accursed Ibidem can 2. Si quis dixerit ad hoc solùm diuinam gratiam per Iesum Christum dari vt facilius homo iustè viuere ac vitam aeternam promereri possit quasi per liberum arbitrium vtrumque sed aegrè tamen difficulter possit anathema sit If any one shall say that diuine grace through Iesus Christ is giuen only to this end that a man may more easily liue iustly and deserue eternal life as if he could doe both though with labour and difficulty by his freewill let him be accursed Ibidem can 3. Si quis dixerit sine praeuenienâ—e Spiritus sancti inspiratione atque eius adiutorio hominem credere sperare diligere aut poenitere posse sicut oportet vt ei iustificationis gratiâ conferatur anathema sit If any one shall say that without the preuenting inspiration of the holy Ghost and his assistance a man can beleeue hope loue and repent as he should doe to haue the grace of iustification bestowd vppon him let him be accursed Here I demand vppon what ground the 13 of the 39 English Protestant Articles speakes thus of the scoole men of the Roman Church Workes done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his spirit are not pleasant to God for as much as they spring not of faith in Iesu Christ neyther doe they make men meet to recriue grace or as the schoole Authors say deserue grace of Congruity I would gladly haue those schoole Authours named and cited who affirme contrary to the expresse words of the Council of Trent so great a semi-Pelagian Heresie as this is whereof they are here accused And if none attall can be produced how great an vntruth is conteyned in this article where it is said not as some of the schoole Authours but as the schoole Authours say that is eyther vniuersally or commonly affirme whence may clearly be collected that those new Prelates and Doctours who composed those 39 articles which haue been euer since they were composed esteemed the summe and substance of the Protestant Religion and faith in England were eyther grosly ignorant in the doctrine of the schoole Authours and exceeding temerarious in affirming that of them which they neuer vnderstood or insufferably deceiptfull and malitious in accusing them against theyr own knowledge and conscience of holding generally an errour which not soe much as any one of them euer held but the quite contrary Conc. Trid. ibidem cap. 8. Cùm verò Apostolus dicit iustificari hominem per fidem gratis ea verba in eo sensu intelligenda sunt quem perpetuus Ecclesiae Catholicae consensus tenuit expressit vt scilicet per fidem ideo iustificari dicamur quia fides est humanae salutis initium fundamentum radix omnis iustificationis sine quâ impossibile est placere Deo ad filiorum eius consortium peruenire gratis autem iustificari ideo dicamur quia nihil eorum quae iustificationem praecedunt siue fides siue opera ipsam iustificationis gratiam promeretur si enim gratia est iam non ex operibus alioquin vt idem Apostolus inquit gratia iam non est gratia When the Apostle saith that a man is iustified by fayth and gratis or freely those words are to be vnderstood in that sence which the perpetuall consent of the Catholicque Church allwayes held and expressed to wit that we are said to be iustified by faith because faith is the beginÌ„ing of mans saluation the foundation and roote of all iustifieation without which it is impossible to please God and to come into the number of his childeren But we are said to be iustified gratis because none of these things which goe before iustification whether it be faith or workes deserue the grace of iustification for if it be grace it is not of workes otherwise as the same Apostle says grace would not be grace Conc. Trid. ibidem cap. 10. Sic ergo iustificati
ancient coustome of a threefold dipping the child in the water and the words of baptisme then by the same words and putting water once vppon the child and yet this latter is iudged sufficient euen by Protestants for who can doubt that the formes of bread sufficiently giue vs to vnderstand that our Sauiours is the food of our soules noe lesse then the bread of proposition in the old and the bread multiplied by our Sauiour in the new Testament and his calling himselfe the bread of life in the sixt of S. Iohn prefigured and signified sufficiently that our Sauiour was to be the bread of our soules and who seeing a bodyly before him void of soul and blood as our Sauiour is here represented by force of the words gathers not presently that it is dead though he see not the blood which issued from it and the same is of the blood of our Sauiour vnder the forme of wine for this alone is noe lesse sufficient to represent the death of our Sauiour then was tbe blood alone of the paschall lambe sprinkled vppon the posts of the Israëlites by the Iewish priests to prefigurate the shedding of his precious blood and sacred passion nor is the blood of our Sauiour vnder the forme of wine lesse sufficient to represent the spirituall exhiberation and conforting of our soules thē was the wine in Cana of Galilee and that sentence spoken of by the Prophete wine producing virgins able to fore figurate the same blood so comforting as also the species of bread or wine alone to signifie the vnity and amitie which is to be amongst Christians both in regard of Christ and themselues as I haue shewed Hence therefore appeares that seeing in each kinde apart both the death of our Sauiour and our spirituall meate and drinke and vnion respectiuely are sufficiently signifieds each must necessarily containe a true Sacrament and not only the part of a true Sacrament and seeing in each a true Sacrament is receaued each alone must conferre that grace which is signified by it and so sanctifie the soul of such as receaue it and consequently may be receaued fruitfully and sauingly alone for so much as belongs to the bare institution for if our Sauiour instituted each species apart to conferre sauing grace then who receaues either deuoutly receaues that grace for which our Sauiour instituted it and so we are put in the state of saluation by reeeauing one vnlesse thete be some other command produced which obligeth all to receaue both which shall here after be examined Objection Some may happily obiect that this answer subsists not for according to this doctrine the Priest also receaues a true Sacrament and the spirituall graces and fruits of it when he receaues the host only and yet euen after he hath receaued the host he is obliged to receaue the chalice according to Roman Catholiques therefore though it should be granted that lay people by receauing vnder the species of bread only receaue a true Sacrament with the sauing grace signified and conferred by it yet they may be obliged to receaue the other kind as Priests are Answer There is first a great difference betwixt the Apostles and lay Christians for they were directly and expressely obliged by our Sauiour in time of the institution to receaue the chalice euen after they had receaued the true Sacrament and the grace of it vnder the species of bread whence may probably be gathered that all Priests consecrating haue the same obligation of receauing both but noe such command was directly and expessely giuen to lay people none hauing been there Secondly Priests consecrating and sacrificing are obliged to receaue of each part of theyr sacrifice and so though precisely standing in the essence of a Sacrament there be no diuine obligation yet in regard of consummating and participating of theyr own sacrifice they are bound to receaue both as the Apostles did wich hath noe place in lay people The answer only concluds that standing precisely in the institution seeing lay people receaue vnder one kind a true Sacrament with sauing grace it cannot be thence conuinced that they are bound to receaue more so that if there be any obligation of receauing both it must rise from some other head and not from the bare institution whereof we treate in answer to this objection now taken from it alone Obiection It may be yet further obiected that our Sauiour here instituted a full and compleat refection not only by way of meate or by way of drinke only but of both togeather and therefore such as receaue one only kind receaue but one part of this heauenly banquet and want the other which seemeth quite contrary to the institution and intention of our Sauiour Answer Our Sauiour instituted this celestiall banquet in so ineffable a manner that the very same substantiall thing was to be both our meat and drinke to wit himselfe and that so abundantly that either both to geather or each a part are so suffizing a repast that they communicate strengh and life to all such as worthily receaue them and though both being receaued make but one compleat refection by reason they are both taken at once by way of meate and drinke as it happens in other ordinary refections yet each of them receaued apart or at different times is also a full and compleat refection of the soul by reason that each communicates sauing grace sufficient to saluation and this euidently appeares in common feasts and banquets for when many dishes are eaten and different sortes of wine drunke at the same time or meeting they are esteemed but one meal or banquet and yet if at different times one should feed now vppon one then vppon an other of these dishes apart or dranke but one sorte of wine one day and an other of them an other then such eating and drinking by reason of the diuersitie of times would be counted diuers sufficient refections and if it were possible to find in other meates and drinke what is found in this Sacrament that as well the one the other alone could preserue and conferre life and that one could liue with drinking without eating or eating without drinking then either of these a part would become a full refection all therefore that can be gathered from this objection is only that our Sauiour in the first institution gaue a most plentifull and abundant banquet whereof each part in it selfe was sufficient to conferre life and satieté to his Apostles which in succeeding ages being receaued either ioyntly or apart was to be a sufficient refection for Christians But from the institution vnder both kindes followed not which is cheesty pressed in this objection that our Sauiours intention was that these two kindes should be such parts of this heauenly feast that both of them are essentially required to it for then he would not haue giuen each of them force to conferre grace sufficient for saluation but would haue had that grace necessarily dependant
Christendome tells vs that such commands as were giuen to the Apostles were neuer esteemed to oblige theyr successours Thirdly when the matter commanded is common to the Apostles and all other Priests and not limited by any circumstance mentioned or insinuated in Scripture to the Apostles only if the generall and continnuall practise of Christendome be not contrarie it is to be vnderstood to oblige not only the persons of the Apostles but all Bishops and Priests in succeeding ages such as are the preceptes of teaching the Gospell Baptizing absoluing from sinnes c. and of consecrating sacrifising and receauing this blessed Sacrament Fourthly when the matter of the precept in it selfe may be common to all Christians as was the washing of one an others feet the abstinence from blond and the receauing of both kindes and hath noe limitation to the Apostles or Priests only prescribed in the Scripture there can be noe other rule to know which precept obliges all Christians which not saue the constant and generall tradition of the Christian Church For by this only me know as well Protestants as Catholikes that the precept of washing of feet bindes not though it be vniuersally strictly inioineyd in Scripture without any limitation of time or persons and noe lesse though all Christians are of themselues capable to receaue both kindes and the command be giuen to the Apostles to teceaue them yet this command by the churches perpetuall tradition or permitting many lay Christians to teceaue in one only kinde by the Protestants coustome of not communicating little infants shew cleerly that this precept is not to be extended to all Christians without exception and if Protestants notwitstanding the word all limitate it only to such as are arriued to the yeares of discretion without any ground in the bare words of the text to exclude little children only because their own practise approues it why may not Roman Catholikes limit it to the Apostles then present hauing both a ground in the text because the words were spoken to them only and the vniuersall tradition of the Christian Church permitting many lay persons to communicate in one only kinde and little children eyther in one or neyther as I shall here after demonstrate Objection The second precept alleaged by reformists for communion vnder both kindes is in these words doe this in remembrance of me which being to be vnderstood of something commanded to be done not then but for insuing times as I haue already shewed are not to be limited as spoken to the Apostles only then present and so seeme to be extended to all Christians especially if they be limited to Priests only there will be noe command at-all in the institution obliging all Christians to receaue either both or either kind of this Sacrament Answer These words doe this in remembrance of me according to all that which is commanded in them cannot be extended to any more then Priests for here is euidently commanded the blessing consecrating offering sacrificing and administring of this Sacrament for it is to doe what our Sauiour then did which according to Catholiques comprehends all these particulars and according to Protestants some of them and if the consecrating and administration of this Sacrament were not commanded in these words there would be noe command at all for them in the whol institution nor very probabily in the whol new Testament Secondly if we stick closely to the bare words noe man can conuince from them only that all Christians are obliged to receaue this Sacrament vnder both or either kinde for the cleargy men might haue been obliged to consecrate and administer this Sacrament though the layity were not obliged to receaue it as they are bound to administer Priesthood and mariage when they are iustly required though noe man haue any absolute command either to be a Priest or to mary and consequently are not bound to receaue those two Sacraments Thirdly all that those words import as they stand may be satisfied probably if we say that not euery Priest or lay man in particular is obliged to consecrate or communicate by force of them but that they conteyne a precept giuen to the church in generall that what our Sauiour here commands be done as certainly there is a command giuen to the church to conferre Priesthood absolution and extreme Vnction c. and yet noe Bishop or Priest hath in particular any such absolute obligation by reason of his Priesthood only neither is any in particular bound to administer them by a positiue diuine precept giuen directly to them though accidentally they may haue a strickt obligation according to different circumstances to administer the said Sacrament Fourtly though it should be granted that these words doe this c. containe a precept obliging all Christians arriued to yeares of discretion to communicate sometimes yet this toucheth only the receauing vnder the forme of bread if we stand to the expresse words of the institution being said after the consecration of the host and before the chalice And the precept recorded by S. Paul after the chalice is not absolute to consecrate and receaue that but so often as it is drunke to doe it in remembrance of our Sauiour doe this as often as you shall drinke in remembrance of me said our Sauiour Lastly though from the sole force of these words doe this in remembrance of me considered as they stand in Scripture noe forcible argument can be drawn to proue a positiue precept in particular binding euery Christian to receaue sometimes this Sacramēt vnder either or both kindes and though the generall doctrine of the church be that there is noe diuine precept obliging more to receaue the host then the chalice and the coustome of the primitiue church was to giue to some the chalicc noe lesse without the host then to others the host without the chalice and that some late Learned Writers affirme that there is noe such precept conteyned in holy Scripture yet because S. Thomas and the common streame of doctours after him grant a generall precept of receauing this Sacrament to be conteyned in them and that S. Paul seemes to giue sufficient ground to thinke that this command doe this c. was to be extended to the actuall receauing of this Sacrament by the laity by mentioning drinking in the conditionall command of the consecrated chalice and deducing from the institution what preparation all Christians should make to receaue worthily this Sacrament as appeares v. 27. to the end of the chapter and mouued by this authority I grant that all Christians are here commanded sometimes in there liues to frequent this Sacrament yet so that lay people satisfie this precept by receauing one only kind or both according to the order prescribed by the holy Church as shee is mouued by different times or circumstances now to ordaine the receauing of both now of one alone to some the sole host and to others the chalice only for seeing this precept was giuen
before the consecration of the chalice though it induce noe more neccssity of receauing the host then the chalice yet it shewes euidently that if the host alone be receaued this precepte is satisfied and by a manifest paritie and equalitie betwixt the two kindes that if it be sufficient to satisfie this precept to receaue the sole host it will also be sufficient to receaue the chalice without the host the one containing nos lesse the whole essence of this Sacrament then the other as I haue already declared So that in this command doe this in remembrance of me the word this seemes to signifie according to S. Thomas now cited whatsoeuer our Sauiour then did as necessarily appertaining to the essence substaÌ„ce of this Sacrament and though this absolute preecpt was giuen before the chalice yet the ground of it being the very same in the host and chalice it is equally to be applyed to the receauing either of them yet disiunctiuely only that is that this Sacrament is to be receaued by euery one either vnder each or both kindes as the church shall determine Obiection The maine difficulty therefore comes at last to that text Ioh. 6. vnlesse c. which as it deliuers an absolute necessitie of receauing this most holy Sacrament so seemes it in expresse termes to impose the same necessitie of receauing vnder both kindes making mention of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of our Sauiour as necessarie to saluation Verily verily I say unto you vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sone of man and drinke his blood you shall not haue life in you Answer I am not ignorant that Catholique doctours giue different answers to this text which I leaue to be perused in theyr particular treatises of this point I answer breefly and clearely that in this text is comprehended a necessity both of eating and drinking that is there is a generall command giuen to the whol gencrality of Christians to receaue the body of Christ by way of eating and his blood by way of drinking and consequently of receauing vnder both kindes which must alwayes be performed by the generall body of Christians that they may haue life in them and that this may be performed there is a particular necessitie put vppon euery particular Christian to concurre to the execution of this generall command not that euery one in particular is obliged both to eate and drinke really this Sacrament but that some eating others drinking others doing both each particular conferres to the performance of this command of eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ wherevnto the generallity is absolutly obliged so that this whol command is to be performed by all as ioyntly and vnitedly considered and that it may be thus ioyntly done by all each particular is obliged to some part of it thereby concurring partially to the whol performance Thus when our Sauiour commanded his Apostles to teach and baptize all nations he gaue a generall and vniuersall command to them and theyr successours to performe this worke ioyntly amongst them not commanding each one in particular to preach and baptize the whol world for that neither was nor could morally speaking haue been done but that this might be done by all each one in particular was obliged to performe his part and to coÌ„curre to the conuersion and instruction of all nations so that though noe one was bound by vertu of this command either to conuert all nations or any one in particular each one was obliged to labour towards the conuersion of some part or other of the world so that by the labours of each at last the whol worke might be accomplished Thus our Sauiour sent his disciples saying goe and cure all diseases c. that is each one curing some all might be cured amongst them thus after his resurrection he foretold what cures and miracles should be done by his disciples not that each should doe all these miracles but that amongst them such miracles should be done and thus the holy Euangelist affirmes that the Apostles of Christ preached euery where not that each preached euery where but that all of them togeather were spread ouer the whol world and in the same manner may it now be said that Christians eate the flesh and drinke the blood of Christ not that each doth both but that it is done amongst them by reason that each in particular is obliged either to both or either of them and so the whol precept will be performed amongst them Neither seemes the context of S. Iohn to exact more then this for in what goes immediately before the doubt which the Iewes had there to which our Sauiour answers in this text was not whether it was necessary to saluation for euery one both to eate the flesh and drinke the blood of Christ for he had as then made noe mention at all of drinking his blood but they only doubted how his flesh could be really eaten how can this man say they giue vs his stesh to eate so that our Sauiours answer to this doubt of theirs was fully sufficient by telling them that it was not only possible but necessary to saluaâ—ion to eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the sone of man that is that those two actions should be really and truly done amongst such as were to haue eternall life but seeing their doubt was not supposing the reality of this eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ amongst such as were to haue eternall life whether it were necessary that euery one in particular were both to eate and drinke for they neuer so much as dreamed of this question it is noe way necessary to affirme by vertu of this context that our Sauiour defined there that it was necessary for euery one in particular to performe both but it was sufficient that both these actions were truly and really so to be accomplished in his church that the generalitie was to doe both and each Christian in particular to concurre either by performing one or both to the accomplishment of this iniunction for if each in particular had not been obliged to concurre to the performance of this command the wholâ— church would not haue been bound to correspond with it seeing their is noe more reason to binde one then another to the performance of it as in the command of teaching and baptizing the whol world by the Apostles each particular was bound to performe his part seeing that our Saoiour had commanded it should he done amonst them and there was noe reason that one should be more obliged to doe it then an other And though there be many other commands giuen by our Sauiour to the church in generall which oblige not each particular Christian to the performance of any part of them but only the gouuernours of the church to see that by some or other they be put in execution yet this precept is of an other nature binding the whol community
Scripture that it rather confirmes the proper and natiue signification of these words he who eateth this bread shall liue for euer when he saith as I liue by my father so he who eateth me shall liue by me whence is at the least more probabily then Protestants can proue the contrary inferred that as our Sauiour liues totally and compleately by his father without the addition of any thing else so Christians liue by worthily eating this heauenly bread without the addition of drinking or any other action necessary to giue life as a part of this Sacrament But that I may make the exposition which I haue giuen of these words yet more plaine and forcible I will propose an instance of a command of this kind giuen to the Israelites euen in matter of a Sacrament where they are in generall commanded by families to celebrate the passeouer by taking killing and shedding the blood and sprinkling it vppon the posts of their dores rosting and eating the paschall lambe c. not that euery one in particular was obliged to performe all these actions but some to one and others to others with decency and proportion though absolutly speaking euery one in particular must haue concurred with the rest to the performance of them all and yet the whol familly by concurring partially were obliged to the performance of all and happily this mystery beeing a figure of the Eucharist the only command of eating without any mention of drinking may giue some aduantage to the coustome of eating alone amongst Roman Catholiques but this only by the way as a congruence And yet to come nerer to our present Question when our Sauiour in the command giuen in the institution doe this c. commanded that what he had done as substantially belonging to this Sacrament should be done in his church that is that this mystery should be celebrated the host and chalice consecrated the body and blood of our Sauiour vndloodily be sacrifized and receaued yet noe Christian dare affirme that all these actions here commanded were to be performed by euery Christian in particular for then all Christian men weomen and children were to performe the office of Priests but that euery one was to concurre to the performance of this precept by doing what belongs to his degree and calling and seeing all these actions now mentioned were not to be performed by each Christian how can it be euer prouued that each was both to eate drinke seeing that by performance of either of these actions separately each might partially concurre to the accomplishment of that precept as they may also to this nisi manducaueritis vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sone of man and drinke his blood you shall not haue life in you that is vnlesse you concurre each in particular to the performaÌ„ce of this command either by eating alone or drinking alone or performing both togeather each respectiuely to his calling office and order prescribed by the church you shall not haue life amongst you that is these actions are necessary that life may be found in the Church of Christ or amongst Christians for this is à command which must be fulfilled amongst them and all are bound in particular to concurre one way or other to the fulfilling of it seeing there is noe reason that one should be more obliged then an other and so if any one were not obliged none in particular would be bound to fulfill it and then euery one in particular might lawfully abstaine and consequently there would be noe performance of this command amongst Christians which would make the command to be void and of noe effect quite contrary to the expresse words and intention of our Sauiour From this whol discours may appeare what an vnworthy and base esteeme our aduersaries frame of the most sacred body and blood of our Sauiour not thinking that either of them as they are in this Sacrament is fit and capable to conferre sauing grace to such as deuoutly receaue them which cannot buâ— derogate insufferably from that infinite worth and dignity which all Christians haue euer conceaued in them for as it is a most certaine and receaued tenet that not only the shedding of the least drop of his most precious blood but the least action or motion of his most sacred body was abundantly sufficient for the redemption of the whol world and a million of worlds more why should they now call in Question the sufficiency of the same body and blood receaued apart each of them to communicate ineffabâ—le fauours and graces all grounded in his sacred passion to the worthy receauers of them Obiection If they answer that they doubt not of the worth and power of each of these but of the will of our Sauiour whether he ordained that they separately or only ioyntly should conferre grace or commanded that allwayes both should be receaued Answer I answer that seeing noe lesse the body then the blood of our Sauiour as separately taken in the Eucharist is abondantly in it selfe fit and able to sanctifie the soule of him who dewly receaues it and that there is noe cleere text in Scripture which conuinces that one of them alone can not sanctifie or rather that there be most cleere texts which proue that one alone can doe it and that there is noe expresse command giuen in Scripture to all patticular Christians to receaue both and the coustome both of the primitiue ancient late and moderne church is euidently to the contrary I cannot see what can haue mouued ouâ— aduersaries to thinke that one kinde suffices not saue a low and meane esteeme they haue of the vertu and force of our Sauiours body and blood considercd separately in themselues in this Sacrament The second defect of respect and reuerence which our aduersaries shew to the sacred blood of Christ in this particular is the little care they haue how much of that diuine chalice and how often it be spilt vppon the ground sprinkled vppon the cloarhes of communicants cast out of the sacred vessels abused lost trod vnder foot by a thousand indiscretions irreuerences negligeÌ„ces mischances by reason of the great multitudes of people of all most all ages sexes conditions who not only once or twice a yeare as amongst the new reformers but each month forttnight and weeke communicate through out the whol Roman Church as dayly experiences teach and especially in the former age in Bohemia where leaue hauing been granted for the Catholiques to receaue both kindes for theyr comfort they found not withstanding all the diligences which morally could be vsed so many and great inconueniences in this kind both to the communicanrs and Priests that they quicly grew weary of it and were compelled to leaue it of But our aduersaries eyther not beleeuing it is his precious blood or little regarding what becomes of it if they beleeue it will and must haue the vse of the chalice though it be affected with a thosand irreuerences to satisfie theyr
willfull and vngrounded importunity But Roman Catholiques beare both a tender loue to this most pretious blood of our Sauiour and so indeauour all they can to preserue it from all irreuerences and preuent all occasions as much as is possible of indangering the least drop of the consecrared chalice to be spilt or lost and frame a most high esteeme of his sacred body as conteyned vnder the formes of bread to be alone sufficient to feed them to eternall life Imitating in both these the care and esteeme of the primitiue church which both imposed very heauy and seuere penances vppon all such as permitted any the least quantity of the sacred chalice to be spilt and was accoustomed to giue this Sacrament sometimes in forme of bread only both to hermites in the wildernes pilgrimes in theyr iournies sicke persons in theyr beds laymen in theyr houses and children in the church and in forme of wine only to little infants in their cradles which cleerely conuinces that the primitiue church had noe beleefe or knowledgement of any absolute necessity or diuine precept to receaue alwayes both which not withstanding as it read as diligently so vnderstood it more clearly and obserued more punctually the laws and commāds of Christ then our aduersaries now doe Some there are who being conuinced of the reall presence and that there is neither necessity nor command in Scripture of receauing allwayes both notwithstanding for the precedent places objected say that euery particular Christian is obliged sometimes in his life to communicate vnder both at the same time and thus they esteeme themselues both to agree with those places of Scripture now cited which affirme that by eating alone eternall life is acquired and auoid those inconueniences which happen to the blood of our Sauiour amongst such multitudes of Christians so frequently communicating by granting that this Sacrament ordinarily may be receaued vnder the formes of bread only and agree with the practise of the primitiue Christians who though they often receiued vnder one priuately or when the other could not conueniently be had yet at other times they receiued publickly vnder both and on the other side conforme themselues both to the institution of our Sauiour and those other precepts of receiuing both by doing it sometimes in their liues when the precept obliges This opinion though it seeme fairely to compose all difficulties yet the newnesse and vnhardnesse of it where there nothig else render it suspect of superficiality and falshood for how is it possible that each Christian should haue so weighty an obligation and neither any doctour in the moderne Roman Church so much as dreame of it nor any amongst her present aduersaries once presse it against vs or thinke of it themselues or if we looke to the late fiue hundred yeares before vs where in it hath been the coustome in many particular churches to communicate publickly vnder the formes of bread only without the least reflection or practise of any such precept as S. Thomas wittnesses those churches always communicating the laity vnder one kinde only or if we ascend to the primitiue times there is noe step nor impression to be found of any such precept for then they not sometimes only or euer by way of diuine precept for so much as can be gathered from the authours of those times but frequently in publick celebrations of those mysteries communicated vnder both and those childeren which communicated vnder one only kinde we neuer read to haue communicated vnder both though they died in their childhood which not withstanding they should haue done had the Christians of the primitiue times beleeued any such need as is here conceiued of sometimes communicating vnder both how I say is it possible that this opinion should be true solide seeing neither moderne nor ancient nor primitiue times nor friends nor aduersaries of the Roman Church so much as once mention it but beside the newnesse it hath other reasons enough to conuince it of falshood for first when the primitiue Christians communicated little infants presently after baptisme vnder the formes of wine only they neuer are read to haue giuen it vnder both if they came to be in dāger of death when they had acquired strength enough to receaue both which notwithstanding they had been obliged to doe had there been any diuine precept obliging all Christians to receaue both sometimes or at least once in their liues Secondly the same difficulty may be pressed against this new hatched opinion of children arriued to the age of six or seauen yeares who being accoustumed in the primitiue Church to consumate the particles or reliques of the sacred hosts raceaued vnder the formes of bread only for there is not a step imprinted in antiquity of conferring both kindes to them when they came to dy about that age The like is of hermites who liued perpetually in the deserts and had the coustome of taking with them the most blessed Sacrament vnder the formes of bread only But that which discouuers most cleerely the non existency of this new fangled opinion is that it hath noe ground in holy Scripture for when our Sauiour saith Ioh. 6. he who eateth this bread shall liue for euer whosoeuer holds this opinion must say that he who receaues deuoutly vnder the forme of bread only receaues grace and spirituall life in his soul suppose therefore that still perseuering in that grace receaued he come to die before he teceiue vnder both kindes certainly he will be saued which shewes euidently that the receauing of both kindes before death is not necessaty to saluation necessitate medij as the schoole speakes that is so necessary that saluation can noe more be acquired without it then it can be without faith or the grace of God neither can communion vnder both kindes be said to be necessary to saluation necessitate praecepti or by diuine precept for these words of S. Ioh. c. 6. nisi māducaueritis carnem filij hominis c. being a mere declaration of a truth cānot properly be said to be a precept or command and rather seemes to include necessitatem medij then precepti and whatsoeuer command may be deduced from those words or pressed from any other place of Scripture I haue allready shewed to be of noe force to put a necessitie vppon all Christians to receaue vnder both kindes either all wayes when they frequent this Sacrament or at any time in their liues What I answer to this opinion will easily preuent the forging of an other of the like nature that might happily occurre to some quaint nouelist that though there should be noe necessity of euer receauing both kindes at the same time yet these words of S. Iohn Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sone of man and drinke his blood you shall not haue life in you import a necessity of both eating and drinking at the least at seuerall times now doing the one and then the other which being done each
Christian may be truly said both to haue eaten the flesh and drunke the blood of the sone of man and soe sufficiently to haue fullfilled this declaration of our Sauiour This imagination I say is wholy cut of by what I haue answered to the former opinion to omit the nouelty of this inuention for the community of Christians comply sufficiently with this command if some receiue vnder the forme of bread and others of wine this being amongst themselues to haue both eaten the flesh and drunke the blood of the sone of man though each in particular doe not both of them the command being giuen not in the singular but in the plurall number Now that I may conuince euen from the confession of our Aduersaries that communion vnder both kindes is not necessary to saluation 1. First whatsoeuer Luther holds in some places as he is most vnconstant in his assertions yet in very many others he clearly defines that communion vnder both kindes is not necessary to saluation nor was euer commanded by our Sauiour De capt Babylonicâ c. de Eucharist in Declar. in serm de Eucharist à se habito de formulâ Missae In assertionibus Artic. 16. Epis. ad Bohemos Tomo 2. Germanico fol. 100. In aliâ editione Tomo 7. fol. 360. libro de vtrâque specie Sacramenti Si veneris ad locum in quo vna tantùm species ministratur accipe tantùm vnam quemadmodum ibi accipiunt si praebentur duae duas accipe nec quidquam singulare infer nec te multitudini oppone If thou comest to a place where one only kinde is administred receiue one only if where both receiue both and induce noe singularity nor appose thy selfe to the multitude Thus Luther 2. The same is held by Melancthon in loc com edit 2. nu 1551. sol 78. 3. And in the English Statutes In the first Parlament vnder K. Edward the 6. pag. 818 In case of necessity communion vnder one kinde is permitted neyther is any way condemned the vse of those Churches where communion vnder the forme of bread only is practised Which clearly proue that those English Protestants held not communion vnder both kindes necessary to saluation And here I make an end of this whol treatis which had the spirit of Christian humility and obedience perseuered in the harts of Christians need neuer haue been begunne and was vndertaken for no other end then to let the miflead spirits of our age and country see how little reason they either had in the beginning or now haue to disobey the precepts and contradict the decrees of theyr noe lesse tender then powerfull mother the vniuersall Church that being noe other nor better then a weake pretence of Scripture mistaken the common plea of all sectaries against the generall consent of Christendome For this mistake of a few curious and disquiet Nouelists the mysticall body of Christ must be rent in peeces Kingdomes and Prouinces swinne in each others blood Churches and Religious howses the monuments of Christian pyety rased and defaced citties sacced and pillaged contries dispeopled and desolated castles burned families ruined parents bathed in their own teares theyr children half famisht like those of the Israelites crying out for bread and none found to giue it them and that I may shut vp all in those sad lynes of Vincentius Lirenensis Commonitorio 1. c. 6. speaking of the Arrian beresie and giuing noe lesse a true description of those then a presage of our tymes after he had declared how the whol Romane Empire was shaken the west and easterne Churches eyther by fraud or force dangerously infectcd and all things both sacred and Prophane distempred and distracted he vses these words Tunc temeratae coniuges depullatae viduae prophanatae virgines dilacerata monasteria disturbati clerici verberat◠Leuitae acti in exilium Sacerdotes oppleta sanctis ergastula carceres metalla Then maried woemen were abused widdows dispoyled of theyr purple mourning garments sacred virgins prophaned monasteries torne in peeces clergie men displaced Leuites beaten priests sent into banishment dungeons prisons and mettle mines fild with Saincts O vnhappy and accursed mistake what mischeefs hast thou allready wrought and art still a working in the bozom of Christendom how hast thou hoodwinkt the eyes bewitched the eares clowded the braines and set on fyer the harts of mistaken Christians who are soe deeply besotted with thee that like one in a frenzie they can neyther beleeue nor indure to heare that they are mistaken and yet are not to be deserted as wholy desperate and incurable there is still a sunne which can dart a beame of light into theyr souls to discouer these cymerion clouds a neuer erring truth to correct these mistakes and a most prouident wisdome to lead them to the certaine way of saluation Deare contrymen I haue only exposed before your eyes and more I cannot a cleare looking glasse wherin you may behold the foulest grossest and most dangerous of your mistakes and beholding loath them and loathing leaue them though you leaue the whol world and your own liues with them for being once discouured left they must be or God will leaue you FINIS THE INDEX A. ANgels haue been worshipped in Scripture pag. 34.35 Angels indued with supernaturall graces 16.17.18 How he Arke is called God 293. B. BEza Translates in all the Euangelists and S. Paul for is my Body signifies my Body 514. Beza sayes that these words which is powred out for you as they stand in the Greeke are crept out of the margent into the text 214.215 How our Sauiours true body is broaken 200.201.102.103 Christ neuer said this is my Body that is to say a cōmemoration of my Body 215.216.217 Nor could say soe 218 c 219. c. S. Paul cals the consecrated elements the bread and cup of our Lord. 253.255.256 Why the consecrated Hoast is called bread 265.266 c. The Hoast is called noe otherwise bread after consecration then wine was called water Io. 6.196 Bread taken but not giuen by our Sauiour 193.194 Naturall bread cannot be really the Body of Christ. 213. 257. True naturall bread cannot be the Body of Christ as his true flesh is called bread Io. 6.281 ad 285. The Apostles did not eate bread remaning bread but bread made the Body of Christ as in Cana of Galilee they did not drinke water remayning water but water made wine 150.251 C. How the Chalice is the new Testamēt 231.232 c. Whol particular Churches aboue 400. yeares agoe communicated publickely vnder one kinde How Circumcision is called the couenant 287.288 Commandements put shorter in one place of Scripture then in other 114.115 The diuision of the Comwandements more reasonable according to Catholicques then Protestants 118.119 Noe Commandement left out of the Romane Bibles 112.113 Council of Trents Doctrine of worshipping of Saincts and Angels 1.2.3.4 and how tbey pray to God for vs. ibidem Concerning Images 69.70.71.72.73 Concerning Iustisiccation 137.138 to the 143. Concerning merit of