Bishops ouer the Priests All which yet we doe acknowledge in a peaceable and flourishing estate of the Church ought to be had And we haue cause to praise God for our happinesse in England aboue other Churches in this behalfe M. Euerard Here M. Euerard stepping in not being called said I pray you Sir if there may bee a Church without a Bishop who shall ordaine the Priests in that Church D. Featly Sir what are you who intrude your selfe into our priuate conference It seemes you are a Romish Priest Are you not so M. Euerard I am no Priest D. Featly What will you deny your Priesthood M. Euerard I am no Priest to tell you D. Featly Now I perceiue you are not onely a Priest but a Iesuited Priest also For you can equiuocate M. Euerard It is no equiuocation to say I am no Priest to tell you D. Featly Indeed now that you expresse your mentall reseruation you vse no equiuocation but while you concealed it you did equiuocate And I maruell you blush not to vse such a simple shift or euasion as to say you are no Priest to tell me As if you or any man were made a Priest to tell another man you are a Priest At these words the meate was brought in and thereby a stop made of a farther reply for the present But not long after the Guests were all placed the L. reuiued the former question demanding of Doctor Featly L. F. Who should ordaine Priests in a Church where there are no Bishops D. Featly If there bee no Bishops in any adioyning Church by whom they may be ordained and presented to the Church I say in that case the Church to whom Christ as St. August saith gaue the keyes may commit Episcopall authority to certaine Priests and they thus authorized may ordaine other Priests as well as absolue and confirme the baptized and performe other acts ordinarily reserued to Bishops d And this ordination in a troubled state of the Church and in case of necessitie I hold to be lawfull and warrantable both because it hath that which the Apostle requireth 1. Tim. 4. 14. to wit the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery and because there haue bin presidents of such ordination in the Primitiue Church And questionles the Church that committeth the power to one Priest set in an eminent degree ouer the rest may commit the same power to more Presbyters or Priests especially considering it is the iudgement of learned diuines both Protestants and Papists that Bishops and Presbyters differ rather in execution of some acts of their order appropriated to Bishops onely then in their essentiall order A Bishop hath an eminencie of degree in the same order but his ecclesiasticall order is essentially the same with the Presbyters or Priests But what doth this question concerne any here present Neither wee nor for ought I know the Papists themselues define it to be a matter of faith necessary to saluato resolue this way or that way Therefore this question might haue been forborne M. Euerard The Councell of Trent hath defined it therefore to vs it is a matter of Faith D. Featly I scarcely beleeue the Councell of Trent bee it of what credit it may bee hath defined this point in such sort as you intimate M. Euarard I will shew it D. Featly When you shew it I will answer it After this passage some speech hauing been cast in by some of the table concerning differences in point of Religion among the Protestants of England D. Featly said it was to bee considered that the differences amongst the true members of the Church of England were only in point of Discipline and Ceremony not in point of Doctrine or matter of Faith But the Romanists differed one frō another in point of Doctrine and matter of Faith for the present saith he I will instance in two remarkeable particulars First touching the conception of the blessed Virgin secondly touching the Popes supreame authority euen ouer Generall Councells In the first point the Iacobins or dominicants maintaine that the blessed Virgin was conceiued in Originall sinne the Iesuites Franciscans and Sorbonists hold the contrary M. Euarard Yet both keepe the Feast of the immaculate Conception D. Featly They may both keepe a Feast vpon the same day and that for the Conception of our Lady But certainely they who beleeue she was conceiued in sin cannot without hipocrisie keepe a Feast of the immaculate Conception Touching the second point the Sorbonists haue euer held and doe hold to this day that a Generall Councell is aboue the Pope but the Iacobins Iesuits all orders of Friers generally besides many Secular Priests hold the contrary that the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell When I liued in Paris in the Ambassadors house I heard of a generall Chapter as they called it held by the Iacobins in Tho. Aquinas Schoole Where for many dayes together diuers diuinity questions were handled and among other this question touching the Popes superioritie to Councels An acute Serbone Doctor there present thus impugned the Iacobins assertion Whatsoeuer is defined in a Generall Councell confirmed by the Pope is infallibly true de fide But it is defined in a generall Councel to wit the Councel of Constance confirmed by Pope Martin the fifth that a Generall Councell is aboue the Pope Therefore it is infallibly true and de fide that a Generall Councell is aboue the Pope The Auditors the greater part of them very much applauded this argument of the Sorbonist and expressed their applause by a kinde of shout But the Iacobin respondent in a kinde of scorne answered it by retortion thus Whatsoeuer is defined in a generall Councell confirmed by the Pope is infallibly true and de fide But it is defined in a Generall Councell to wit the Councell of Lateran confirmed by Leo the tenth that the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell Therfore it is infallibly true and de fide that the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell At this Syllogisme the Iacobin had neere as great an applause as the Sorbonist Wee that were present of the Reformed Churches vnknowne to the Romanists receiued very much satisfaction to heare Papists amongst themselues thus bandy Councell and Pope against Councell and Pope For from both we concluded that sith contradictories cannot be both true and it appeared in matter of Faith that Generall Councels confirmed by Popes had decreed direct contradictories that therefore Generall Councels confirmed by Popes might erre and consequently that the strongest pillar of a Romanists Faith is weake and tottering M. Euerard The Councell of Constance which decreed a Generall Councell to be aboue the Pope was confirmed by Martin the fifth only in such points as were in that Councell determined against Hus and the Bohemians the Pope confirmed not all points defined in that Councell M. L. Haue you any example of any such confirmation of a Councell wherein some points defined by a
quantum ad primas sessiones reprobatum est in Concil Florent Lateranensi In Hierarchiâ—… k k Huius Concilij nihil est ratum probatum nisi quaedam dispositiones circa beneficia Cor. cil verò ipsum reprobatur in Concil Lateran sess 11. l Vasq. in 3. part Thom. quest 80. art 12. disp 215 cap. 3. Basiliense Concil nullius est auctoritatis in hac re m m Bellar. de sacram Euchar. lib. 4. c. 24. Answ. I. n n Omni hebdomada offerendum est si non quotidie perigrinis incolis tamen velbis in bebdomada o o Iob. Munster à vertleg discurs ea nobilis p p Anno 404. Annal. tom 4. Hic lector considera quà m procul abborreant à patrum traditione vsuque Catholicae Ecclesiae qui nostro tempore negant osseruandam esse sacratissimam Eucharistiam quam videmus non sub specie panis tantùm sed etiam sub specie vini olim consueuisse recondi q q Bellar. de sa Euch. lib. 4. cap. 24. Stromatum 1. p Hard. diuis 19. art 2. Answ. 1. q q Aust. contra Parm. l. 3. Pensandae sunt doctrinae non in statera dolosa consuetudinum suarum sed in statera aequa diuinarum scripturarum r r Concil Caesar Aug. â—…an 3. Eucharistiae gratiam si quis probatur acceptam non consumpsisse in Ecclesia anathema fit imperpetuum 2 t t Iust. in apol 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 u u Nazia in fune Gorgoniae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. x x Hier. epist. ad Rust. Nihil illo ditius qui corpus domini in canistro sanguinem portabat in vitro * * Bellar. desacr Eucha lib. 4. c. 24. Answ. I. x x Nec derelicto cibo poculo Domini y y Quando carnem Christi man ducauerunt vel non manducauerunt quando biberunt vel non biberunt sanguinem c 8. z z Gen. lib. de Eccles. dogmat cap. 52. Si paruuli sunt vel hebetes respondeant pro illis qui illos afferunt ita Eucharistiae mysterijs admittantur * * Bellar. loc supr citato Answ. 1. a a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b b Euseb. Eccles. hist. l. 6. c. 36. c c Bed hist. lib. 4. d d Bellar. loc sup cit Answ. 1. e e Concil Tolotan 4. Can. 17. In Choro Clerus communicet extra chorum populus f f Sola species panis dabatur in manus ex calice autem bibebant qui volebant in Ecclesia sed non licebat laicis calicem tangere g g Annal. tom 1. an Christi 57. Fideles sacrificij tempore olim in Ecclesia sacratissimam Eucharistiam sub vtraque specie panis vini sumebant h h Bellar. loc sup cit Answ. 1. 2 i i Lyturg. praesanctif 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Answer to certaine questions Sect. 5. l l Sozomen Eccles hist. lib. 1. m m Fisher in his answer to certaine questions propounded by King Iames his Maiestie Point 7. Answ. 1. n n Alexand. Hal. 3. paâ—…t q. 11. membr 2. art 4. Corpus non est sacramentaliter sub specie viâ—…i nec sanguis sacramentaliter sub specie panis Ergo vt sacramentaliter sumatur totus Christus necesse est vt sumatur sub duabus speciebus Vid. supra Arg. 2. o o Bell. de sacra Euch. lib. 4. c. 24. Answ. 1. 2 p p Bel. loco supracitat species panis vini non tam essentiales quam integrales partes huiuâ—… sacramenti videntur Answ. 1. q q Ambr. in 1. ad Corinth cap. 11. Indignus est Domino qui aliter mysterium celebrat quà m ab eo traditum est r r Halensis part 3. qu. 11. membro artic 4. sumptio sub vtraque specie minoris est efficaciae complementi Vasquez in 3. Tho. q. 80. art 12. probabilior sententia mihi semper visa est maiorem fructum gratiae ex vtraque specie huius sacramenti quà m ex altera tantùm percipi Ita docet Halensis Gasper Consaluus quam sententiam absolutè secutus est Clemens sextus in Bulla ad Regem Angliae Anno 1346. quâ illi concessit vt ad gratiae augmentum in vtraque specie communicaret Aegidius de Coninck Iesuita Etsi plus gratiae conferat sumptio vtriusque speciei dicimus tamen meritò hoc Ecclesiam non curare quaest 10. art 12. in lib. 4. sent r r De leg Senat consult t t Hier. in Catal. Viror illust Answ. 1. 2 3 4 * * Art 2. diuis 5. x x In Luc. 24. vers 30. 31. y y Gers. defens decret con Constant. z z Confess Polonica * * Tom. 9. tract 35 * * Bell. de sacra Eucha l. 4. c. 24. Melanth Orat. a a Sess. 13. b b In Can. Missae tract 7. c c Quest. 74. part 3. art 2 d d De Cons. dis e e in 1. Cor. c. 11. f f Consil. de Commu sub vtraque specis g g Delegit vsu Eucha cap. 10. h h Disp. 216. c. 4. i i Hist. Bohe. k k Lit. mis Hist. Concil Trid. l l Loâ—… sup cit m m Tap. Consonum est institutioni sacramenti integritati imò exemplo Christi patruÌ„ primitiu Eccles. vt populus communicaret sub vtraque specie citat Cassand tract de commu sub vtraque specie n n 4. part quest 53. memb 1. k Gen 44. 12. l l Psal. 16. 13. a a Hieron aduersus Lucifer Ecclesia non est quae sacerdotem non habet I meane a compleate Church For in some sense that of Tertullian is true Where two or three are there is a Church although they be Laicks Tertul. exhort ad cast b See P. Moul. Bucklet of faith P. Mart. epist. ad Iuel episcop Salisb Zanch ad Grind. Archiep. Bucer Gualterum Item Bezam Suadael ad Epis. copos quosdam Angliae b b Lib. 4. de bapt contra Don. c. 1. 18. tract in Ioh. 124 Ecclesia claues ab â—…oregni coeloruÌ„ accepit in Petro. c c D. Field of the Church lib. 3. c. 239. pag. 156. Presbyters as they may doe all other acts whatsoeuer speciall challenge Bishops in ordinary course make vnto them so they may doe this also Who dare condemne all those worthy Ministers of God that were ordained by Presbyters in sundry Churches of the world at such time as Bishops in those places where they liued opposed themselues against the truth of God He citeth there Armacanus and Alex of Hales affirming that many learned men of their time were of this opinion that Presbyters in case of necessity may ordaine e Quid est enim episcopus nisi primus presbyter denique non aliter quà m cum presbyteros consacerdotes vocat nunquid ministros condiaconos suos dicit episcopus non vtique quia multò inferiores sunt â—…rpe est ludicem dicere Primicerium nam
the thing offered The difference was in this according to S. Chrysostome that the people simply might not eat of those things of which the Priest might but in the new testament the people may eat of all that the Priests may Lastly although we should admit of Bellarmines answer touching the condition of the Priest and people of the old law and the new that they of the old fed of the sacrifice apart each hauing their seuerall portions appointed for them but that the Prists and people of the new receiued the sacrament entirely the Priest entirely and the people entirely which in some sence is true yet this no way satisfieth the words of Saint Chrysostome who saith expresly that one Cup as well as one bread is set before all people as well as Priests and that according to Christs institution in the new testament SECT V. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 400. to 500. Anno 410. ABout the beginning of the fifth Age God raysed vp that golden Tapour in the Church Saint Austin by whose light as wee may discouer other errors and abuses of the Church of Rome so this their mutilation of the Sacrament and defrauding Gods people of one part of this Supper This Author in his dialogue to Orosius quest 49. he interprets the blood of Abel the blood of Christ which saith he when the whole Church receiueth it saith Amen For what a cry maketh the whole Church when after she hath dranke the blood of Christ cryeth Amen And in his 57. question vpon Leuiticus he not onely testifies that the people did drinke of Christs blood but that they ought to doe so if they expect life from him What is the meaning of this saith he that the people are forbidden to eat of the blood of the sacrifices which were offered for sinn if by those sacrifices this sacrifice was signified in which there is trueremission of sinnes and yet not onely no man is forbidden to take the blood of this sacrifice for nourishment but on the contrary all men who desire life are exhorted to drinke it Papists answer Bellarmine de sacra Eucharistiae lib. 4. cap. 26. answereth that the force of Saint Austines reason consisteth not in the manner of drinking but in the taking of the blood which produceth the same effect whither it bee taken as meat or drinke Refutation Saint Austin in that place obserueth a difference between the precepts of the old and the precepts of the new testament that in the old blood was forbidden so much as to bee eaten with the flesh but in the new it is commanded to be drunke euen by it selfe and so the force of his reason ab oppositis stands not onely in some way taking blood for sustenance but euen in the manner of taking it euen by drinke Secondly whereinsoeuer the force of Saint Austines reason stands his words which wee alleage are expresly for taking it by drinking For he saith not as Bellarmine will haue him all who desire life are exhorted to take Christs blood for sustenance or to feed vpon it But they are exhorted to drinke it The people therefore if they looke for life by Christ they must drinke his blood which they cannot doe if the Priest deny the Cup. Anno. 420. Eusebius Emissenus in his Homily vpon Palme-Sunday speakes of the faithfulls communicating in both kinds as of a daily and frequent practice As then our Lord liued and spake and yet was eaten by his Disciples and drunke so now he remaines whole and vncorrupted and yet is daily drunke and eaten by the faithfull I beleeue no Romish Priest will bee so impudent as to restraine beleeuers to Priests onely If the Layetie are not to be reckoned in the number of fideles or belieuers they may not eat Christ in the Sacrament of bread and if they are fideles or beleeuers then they vsually nay daily drinke his blood in the Sacrament of wine as well as eate his flesh in the Sacrament of bread Anno 430. Theodoret in his Dialogue called Atreptus cap. 11. allotteth to all the faithfull an equall share in the Lords Supper one mysticall Table is prepared for all from which all beleeuers take vnto themselues an equall portion And in his Comment on the second Chapter of the first to the Corinthians hee obserueth a difference betweene ordinary suppers and the Lords Supper Of that viz. the Lords Table all are equally partakers but here viz. in common suppers one is hungry and another is drunke Hee saith not he drinkes but is drunke blaming him for two reasons first that he drinkes alone secondly that he is drunke If the Layetie drank not of the Lords Table they did not equally participate with the Priests And if in Theodorets time the Priests did drinke alone as now they doe at the Romane Masse Theodoret could not herein haue differenced them from common and prophane tables so that at the one all eate and drinke alike at the other one is satisfied and another is hungry one is thirsty and another drinketh alone and is drunke Anno 431. Cyrillus of Alexandria Glaphyr lib. 2. writeth thus As long as we are in this world wee will communicate with Christ by his holy flesh and precious blood Communicatio sanctae carnis atque item poculū ex salutari ipsius sanguine c. The communicating his holy flesh and the Cup of his holy blood hath in it a confession of Christs death by the participating in these things in this world we commemorate Christs death Anno. 450. Leo the Great Bishop of Rome in his fourth Sermon de quadragessima giues it as a character or marke to descry the Manichees by that at the Sacrament they would eate of the bread but in no wise drinke of the wine They viz. the Manichees so carry themselues at the Communion that they may more safely lye hid they take the body of Christ into their vnworthy mouthes but altogether they refuse to drinke the blood of their redemption which I would haue your Holinesse know that you may set a mark vpon these men in whomsoeuer you find such sacrilegious simulation you discouer them that by Priestly authoritie they may be driuen from the society of the Saints Here Leo both a Bishop of Rome and a great Clarke makes it sacriledge and heresie to receiue Christs body in the Sacrament and to refuse to drinke his blood Anno. 451. In the generall Councell of Chalcedon act 10. there is an accusation brought in against Iba the Bishop of Edessa that in some Church in his Diocesse at the Commemoration of the holy Martyrs there was but a little wine and that corrupt and sowre prouided for the Altar to bee sanctified and distributed to the people This generall Councell was counted to represent the whole Christian Church whereby it appeares that at the time of this Councell the Cup was giuen through the whole Christian world to
Lay-man that communicateth in one kind recipit gratiam 4. receiueth grace but in 4. degrees Nugnus in 3. partem Thom. quest 80. art 12. Thus hauing remoued all rubs and obstacles out of the way wee haue passed clearely throughout all Ages from the time of Christ and his Apostles and in euery hundred yeere since produced euidence against the Church of Rome And finally by verdict of some Doctors of chiefe credit among themselues found her to be guiltie of sacrilege in taking away the Cup from the Laiety at the Lords Table If any demand where this Cup may be found I answer as we read in o Genesis it is found with Beniamin I meane the Reformed Churches Etymon filij dextrae chrildren of Christs right hand by which hee distributeth to his people the bread of life and wine of Immortalitie his most pretious body and blood There is yet palpable darknes in Egypt but there is light in Goshen In Rome vnder the Papacie the people are fed with Huskes of legendary fables or at the best with mustie bread of old traditions and sowred with the leauen of heresie And all their publike Communions are dry feasts but in the Reformed Churches the people are fed with the flowre of Wheat the sincere Word of God and drinke of the purest iuyce of the Grape the blood of our Redeemer in the holy Sacrament What shall wee therefore render to the Lord for all the benefits which hee hath bestowed vpon vs we will take the Cup of Saluation and continually call vpon the name of the Lord. So be it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Finis Deolaus sine fine Cassander tract de Communione de vtraque specie pag. 1019. edit Paris 1616. Veteres omnes tam Graeci quà m Latini in ea sententia fuisse videntur vt existimauerint in legitima solemni celebratione Corporis sanguinis Domini et Adminiratione quae in Ecclesia fideli populo è sacra mensa fit Duplicem sâ—…ciem panis vini esse adhibendam atque hunc morem per vniuersas Orientis Occidentis Ecclesias antiquitus obseruatum fuisse tum expriscorum Patrum Monumentis tum ex vetustis diuinorum mysteriorum formulis apparet Et post Ad hoc inductifuerunt exemplo mandato Christi qui instituendo huius Sacramenti vsum Apostolis fiâ—…lium Sacramenta percipientium personam repraesentantibus quibus dixerat Accipite edite idem mox dixit bibite ex hoc omnes quod ex veterum sententia interpretatur Radbertus tam ministri quà m reliqui credentes All the Ancients both Greeke and Latine seeme to be of opinion that in the lawfull and solemne celebration of the Sacrament of Christs body and blood and administring it to the people that both kinds to wit bread and wine ought to be vsed at the Lords Table And it appeares both out of the workes of the ancient Fathers and the old Rites and formes of the diuine mysteries that this custome was obserued in all the Easterne and Westerne Churches And a little after Hereunto they were induced by the Example and Command of Christ who in the institution of this Sacrament speaking to his Apostles then representing the persons of all faithful Communicants said Take and eate and presently after said to the selfe-same Drinke ye all of this which Radbertus according to the mind of the Ancients expoundeth as well Ministers as other beleeuers FINIS A RELATION OF WHAT PASSED IN A CONFERENCE BETWEENE DAN FEATLY Doctor in Diuinity and Mr. Euerard Priest of the Romish Church disguized in the habit of a Lay-Gentleman vnexpectedly met at a Dinner in Noble street Ian. 25. 1626. LONDON Printed by F. Kyngston for Rob. Milbourne and are to be sold at the Greyhound in Pauls Churchyard 1630. THE SPECIALL POINTS of the Conference OF the necessitie of Episcopall gouernment to the essence of a Church 2 Of ordination by Presbyters 3 Of the distinction of Bishops and Priests iure diuino 4 Of differences among Papists in matter of faith 5 Of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary 6 Of the authoritie of a Generall Councell aboue the Pope 7 Of prayer for the dead 8 Of the authority of the originall Scriptures and corruption in the vulgar translation 9 Of the Communion in one kind 1. The state of the question opened 2. The necessitie of communicating in both kinds 3. Popish obiections answered 10 Of the Popes supremacie 11 Of mingling water with wine in the Sacrament 12 Of the perfection of Scripture THE CONFERENCE L. F. I Pray you Doctor Featly resolue mee whether thinke you a Church may be without a Bishop or no D. Featly Your L. propoundeth a question that little concerneth you any way or any member of the Church of England For in England we haue God bee blessed Bishops and those besides many learned Priests very well able to iustifie that Calling If I might bee so bold I would aduise your L. not to trouble your selfe with such curious questions of small or no moment to you wherein learned men without hazarding of their saluation may haue different opinions L. F. I hold it a matter of great moment and desire you not to decline it but plainely to deliuer your iudgement thereof D. Featly I professe Madame with submission to more learned iudgements that I euer held and doe hold that a Church cannot bee without a Priest or a Pastor but it may bee and sometimes is without a Bishop properly so called The Church of Geneua as also the Reformed Churches in France and the Low-Countries and diuers in Germany are true Reformed Churches and yet they haue no Bishops such as you meane Although some of them would after our manner haue them if they could Discipline or a precise gouernment of the Church is not simply of the essence of the Church And therefore albeit it be granted that these Churches haue not the best gouernment nor the Apostolicall discipline in all points yet because they haue the Apostolicall doctrine sincerely taught and beleeued in them and the Christian Sacraments rightly administred I beleeue that they are true Churches L. F. Ought there not to bee Bishops in euery Church by the Law of God D. Featly What if there ought This doth not proue that in case there be no Bishops in some Countries as there ought to be that therefore there are no Churches I say that by the Law of God congregations ought to meet in publike Churches to serue God in his House yet if the vse of publike Churches bee taken away from the faithfull or they be not permitted to resort vnto them as in time of persecution it hath been and in some places is at this day the Pastors and their flocks may meete in Cryptis that is in priuate and secret places as they did in the Primitiue Church And the faithfull thus meeting continue a true Church though they haue neither a Temple allowed them nor Tythe to the Ministers nor
generall Councell are confirmed and the rest not M. Euerard There may bee such a confirmation of a Councell and it was so in that Councell For the Pope neuer confirmed this article touching a general Councels authoritie aboue the Pope D. Featly Had I knowne that I should haue met with you here at this time or that there should haue been any disputation about points of Religion I would haue brought my bookes with me and produced the Acts of the Councell For the present sith we haue not here the Tomes of the Councells all that I wil reply shall be this that as the Councell of Constance defined that a Generall Councell was aboue the Pope so they exercised their power and made good that decree by deposing three Popes in that Councell and setting vp a fourth by name this Martin the fifth whom it much concerned to confirme this Councell euen in that point M. Euerard Those three Popes I say deposed that Councell D. Featly Resolutely spoken and brauely but yet by your fauour the three Popes deposed by that Councell sate downe by the losse and the Fathers that deposed them stil held there Bishopricks and the fourth Pope chosen in that Councell held the Papacy during life This point being thus put off for the present vntill the Tomes of the Councels might be had and the Popes confirmation extant in them explained the Lady asked Doctor Featly Lady Faulkland Whether hee thought the ancient Fathers prayed not for the dead D. Featly Questionlesse they did and Aërius is condemned by them for simply and absolutely condemning the practise of the Church in naming the dead in their publike prayers and celebrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist that is of thanksgiuing for them Wee condemne not all commemoration of or prayers for the dead but the Popish manner of praying for the release of their soules out of Purgatory M. Euerard To what end should the Fathers pray for the dead if not for the release of their soules out of Purgatory D. Featly To what end doth the Church of Rome pray for the soule of blessed Leo and other Saints in heauen I trow not to release their soules out of Purgatorie M. Euerard The Church of Rome prayeth not for the soule of blessed Leo or any Saint now in heauen D. Featly Bellarmine saith she did and yet doth and proueth it out of Innocentius the Pope M. Euarard Will you put this vnder your hand D. Featly I will let it bee written Bellarmine saith that the Church of Rome prayed for the Soule of Saint Leo and other Saints Dan. Featly About this time Master Euerard hauing gotten the Councell of Trent called vpon Doctor Featly to acknowledge his error in denying that the Councell of Trent had defined it as a matter of Faith that a Bishop is in order aboue a Presbyter by the Law of God Looke heere saith he in the 23. Sess. Canon 6. expresly it defines this point g If any man shall say that in the Catholike Church there is not an Hierarchie instituted by Diuine ordination consisting of Bishops Presbyters and Ministers let him be accursed Can. 7. * If any man shall say that Bishops are not superiours to Priests or Presbyters let him be accursed D. Featly This Canon of the Trent Councell defineth not that Bishops Priests differ ordine sedgradu not that Bishops are in Ecclesiasticall order essentially different from Priests but that they haue a degree of superioritie in the same order Secondly the Councel defineth this as a truth but not as a matter of saluation for the Laietie to beleeue vpon paine of damnation And therfore I say as before that this point might haue bin forborne Thirdly the Councell defineth Bishops to be superiors to priests but sayth not iure diuino Here diuers of the auditors desired Doctor Featly and Master Euerard to disscusse the point touching Communion in one kinde which they conceiued to bee a point of great moment because if the Laietie as well as the Clergie ought to haue the Cup the Church of Rome doth them great wrong in debarring them of it and shee violateth Christs institution D. Featly If Master Euerard like well of it we will confine our selues to this point But first I desire a Bible For I will neuer dispute of point of Faith without Scripture the Ground of Faith M. Euerard What Bible will you haue For I allow not of the English Translation D. Featly The originall if it may be had especially the new Testament in Greeke M. Euerard I desire the Vulgar Latine Translation D. Featly What rather then the originall That is strange M. Euerard Not so For the Vulgar Latine is purer then the Greek of the new or the Hebrew of the old Testament D. Featly Will you set your hand to it M. Euerard I will The vulgar Latine Translation is purer then the Greeke of the new or the Hebrew of the olde Testament Ita est Euerard p. D. Featly This is a new and erroneous assertion if not blasphemous M. Euerard Neither erroneous nor new Other Catholikes haue held the same before me and namely Bellarmine De verbo dei lib. 2. cap. 11. Truely it can scarse be doubted but as the Latine Church hath beene more constant in retayning the Faith then the Greek so also that she hath been more vigilant in preseruing her bookes from corruption D. Featly 1. Although Bellarmine had come home to your assertion yet it followeth not but that it is new and erroneous Secondly the reason Cardinall Bellarmine vseth is not found that because the Latine Church hath preserued the Faith purer then the Greeke therefore the Latine Bibles kept by them are freer from corruption then the Greeke Originall For it is not true that the Latine that is as he meaneth the Romane Church hath kept the Faith more sincerely then the Greeke Beside the originall Greeke hath not oenly beene kept by the Greeke Church but also by the Latine Church which Latine Church no doubt had as great or greater care to preserue the Originall from corruption then the Latine Translation Thirdly Bellarmine affirmeth not so much as you doe For he speaketh not a word of the Hebrew of the old Testament in this place but onely of the Greeke of the new Whereas you preferre the Vulgar Latine not onely before the Greeke of the new but also the Hebrew of the old Neither doth Bellarmine say that the Vulgar Latine is simply to be preferred before the Greeke of the new but that the Latines were more carefullin keeping their Latine then the Greekes in keeping their Greeke This might be Bellarmines Iudgement without preferring the Latine absolutely before the Greek For albeit the Latine for a Translation were better kept then the Greeke for the Originall yet he might say still that the Translation must needs come behind the Originall simply A Translation be it neuer so good cannot come neere the Originall in authoritie though it be kept
you to eate his flesh and drinke his blood and he no where commands you to drinke his flesh and bones Who euer heard of flesh and bones to be drunke and that properly without any figure M. Euerard In Mummie the flesh of man may be drunke D. Featly Peraduenture the flesh of man may bee so handled and altered and the bones also grounded to so small a powder that in some Liquor they may be drunke but the flesh of man and bones without an alteration of qualitie or quantitie cannot be drunke And I hope you will not say that the flesh and bones of Christ in the Sacrament receiue any alteration at all At these words Doctor Featly and Master Euerard were intreated to desist from any further dispute till after supper And so this point was not further pursued After supper Doctor Featly calling for Saint Cyprian besides the places aboue alleaged for Communion in both kinds shewed Master Euerard the speach of Saint Cyprian in the Councell of Carthage Wherein he expresly denieth the Bishop of Romes Supremacy The words are these Super est vt de hac ipsa re quid singuli sentiamus proferamus neminem iudicantes aut à iure communionis aliquem si diuersum senserit remouentes neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporū constituit aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit Quando habeat omnis episcopus pro licentia libertatis potestatis sua arbitriū propriū tanquā iudicari ab alio non possit cum nec ipse possit alterū iudicare Sed expectemus vniuersi iudicium Domini nostri Iesu Christi qui vnus solus habet potestatē praeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernatione de hoc actu nostro iudicandi i. e. It remaineth that euery one of vs deliuer his opinion of this matter iudging no man or remouing him from Communion with vs if he differ frō vs in iudgment For none of vs makes himselfe a Bishop of Bishops nor compells by tyrannicall terror his Colleagues to a necessitie of following him seeing that euery Bishop within his liberty and iurisdiction hath free power of himselfe and as he can iudge no other so neither can he be iudged by any other But let vs all waite for the iudgment of our Lord Iesus Christ who onely and alone hath power to preferre vs in the gouernment of his Church and to iudge of this act of ours M. Euerard Saint Cyprian speakes this in a Councell that is condemned by the Church for defining an error to wit that those that were baptized by heretikes ought to be rebaptized Secondly Saint Cyprian in these words Christ one and alone excludeth not his Vicar generall the Bishop of Rome D. Featly Your first exception is not to the purpose For albeit the sentence of this Councell be not approued touching the rebaptization of those who had been baptized by heretikes yet this speech of Saint Cyprian vttered by him at the first meeting of the Bishop of Carthage sitting in Councell was neuer disliked by any of the ancients Neither S. Augustine nor any other Father who impugned the sentence of this Councell did any way impeach or dislike much lesse refute this sentence of Saint Cyprian wherein he denieth all manner of submission to Stephen then Bishop of Rome Nay by a Sarcasme he glance that him and checketh him for making himselfe a Bishop of Bishops and goeing about to compel other Bishops to subscribe to his iudgement Your second answer is controwled by the direct words of Saint Cyprian If any besides Christ to wit his supposed Vicar the Bishop of Rome haue powre to place Bishops in the Church and censure their Synodical Acts then it is false which Saint Cyprian heere saith that Christus vnus solus that Christ alone hath this power The Pope with Christ is not Christus vnus much lesse Christus solus But Saint Cyprian saith Christus vnus solus one and onely Christ hath this power therefore not the Pope Lady Faulkland If Christ alone haue power to preferre Bishops in the gouernment of the Church and to censure their acts made in their Councells how can you then maintaine the Kings Supremacy doth not the King place and displace Bishops D. Featly In Saint Cyprians time there were no Christian Kings or Emperors and therefore this exception could not bee taken against the blessed Martyrs words Secondly That which Saint Cyprian here reproueth in Pope Stephen no Christian King or Emperor assumed to himselfe to be a Bishop of all Bishops and to censure the acts of Bishops and their determinations deliuered in point of Faith in Councels lawfully assembled Thirdly Christian Kings within there owne Dominions grant Conge de-lires to Deanes and Chapters and confirme their Elections and giue Mandates to Metrapolitans to consecrate but they take not vpon them to bee Bishops of all Bishops through the world as the Bishop of Rome doth nor as Bishops or Archbishops to consecrate any Bishops but vpon persons ordained and to bee consecrated by order of the Church they conferre and collate such Bishopricks as lye within there owne dominion M. Euerard Before I answer you any further I require you to answer a place of Cyprian touching the mingling of water with the wine in the Sacrament Mingling the Cup of Christ let vs not depart from the diuine Mandate If any man offer wine onely Christs blood begins to be without vs if water be alone the people begin to be without Christ. When both are mingled then the spirituall and heauenly Sacrament is perfect D. Featly It doth not appeare by scripture that Christ or his Apostles mingled water with wine onely because it was the manner of those hot Countries to temper their wine with water many of the ancients and amongst them Saint Cyprian conceiued that Christ at his last Supper did so Which if he did yet seing he commandeth vs not to follow his example any further then to doe that which hee did that is to take bread and breake it to take the Cup and distribute it we transgresse not Christs Institution whether we communicate in leauen or vnleauened bread whether in pure wine or in wine mingled with water The commandement lyes vpon the substance to eate of the bread and drinke of the Cup and therein of the fruit of the vine but not on the circumstances which are left free and indifferent Secondly Saint Cyprian in this epistle mainly bendeth this discourse against the Aquarij certaine heretikes who contended that the Sacrament ought to be receiued in water onely Against these he proues most strongly that we ought to receiue in wine This is his maine drift and thus farre we hold with him On the by he speaketh of mingling wine with water which was the vse in his time and we dislike it not only wee hold the Church is free in this kind to receiue it in pure
said to the same Drinke yee all of this to whom before he said Take eate this is my body Fifthly and lastly if it were sufficient reason to redeliuer the Cup in these times to the Laietie who haue been deseruedly depriued of it namely to arme them against eminent persecution why should not the faithfull people of God especially those who neuer incurred the censure of Excommunication or suspension be much rather admitted to drinke of the Cup to arme them against as great or greater conflicts of temptations The sinnew of Saint Cyprians reason is in the word militaturis Those that are to fight the Lords battels are to be strengthened thereunto by taking the Cup of Saluation or drinking the Lords Blood But I assume all Christians in all ages were are and shall be militantes or militaturi such as haue fought doe fight or shall against their ghostly and bodily enemies therefore according to Saint Cyprians military discipline they are to be strengthened and armed thereunto by participating of the Lords Cup. The answere of Bellarmine to the second testimony of Saint Cyprians 63. Epistle commeth not home to the marke by many bowes for albeit the maine scope of that Epistle be to prooue the necessitie of administring the Sacrament in Wine against the corrupt custome of the Aquarij certaine heretikes that administred it in meere water yet on the by he discouereth the practise of the Church in his time to Communicate in both kinds and in the words alleaged be expresly faith that the Cup was ministred or deliuered to the people which is all we produce this passage for SECT IIII. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 300. to 400. Anno. 314. IN the councel held at Ancyra Deacons that had sacificed vnto Idols are forbidden to exercise any sacred function and in particular nec panem nec calicem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to offer or deliuer bread or the Chalice The Chalice then by their Deacons was deliuered to whom but to the people for Priests administer to Deacons but Deacons neuer to Priests Anno. 316. In the Councell held at Neo-Caeserea can 13. country Priests are forbidden in the presence of a Bishop or the Priest of the citie to deliuer the sanctified bread or Cup to any Here we see the Cup as well as the bread was deliuered at the communion the words are nec panem nec calicem porrigere Anno 325. In the acts of the Councell of Nice set out by Gelasius Cyzicenus we haue a most expresse testimonie of the beleife and practise of the Church in that flowrishing age Let vs vnderstand by faith that in that holy Supper the Lambe of God that takes away the sinnes of the world is offered without blood by the Priests and that wee taking his pretious body and blood doe verily beleeue that they are symboles or pleadges of our resurrection Anno. 337. Iulius the first as we read in Gratian de conse dist 2. condemneth the practise of such who gaue the people a bit of bread dipped in wine for the whole Communion alleaging against this corrupt custome the practise of our Sauiour who when he commended his body and blood to the Apostles he commended the bread and the Cup apart This ancient Pope concludes from our Sauiours practise that the people ought to receiue the holy elements of bread and wine a part consequently that it is not sufficient to giue them the bread dipped Now if it be not sufficient to giue them the bread dipped in the wine Iulius would haue held it much lesse sufficient to giue them drie bread If our Sauior as he rightly conceiueth enioyned that all ought to partake of the elements apart certainly hee enioyned that the people should receiue both and not bread onely or wine onely by concomitancie Anno 340. Athanasius in his second Apology maketh it plainer that the vndeniable custome in his age was for the people to receiue the Cup. This saith he is the vse of this Cup and no other in this Cup you lawfully or of right drinke before or to the Laity This you haue receiued for an Ecclesiastical Cannon it belongs to you alone to drink the blood of Christ before the Laietie Anno 355. Hilarius Pictauiensis de trinitate lib. 8. writeth thus There is no place left of doubting cōcerning the truth of Christs flesh and blood for both by our Lords owne profession and our faith it is truly flesh and truly blood and these being taken and drunke doe worke this effect that Christ is in vs and wee in Christ Saint Hilarie spake of all Christians and saith that they receiue the flesh of Christ hauriunt that is take a draught of his blood which cannot bee without partaking the Cup. For although the doctrine of concomitancie were admitted whereby our aduersaries suppose that the people take the blood of Christ in the body yet certainely there they cannot haurire sanguinem take a draught of blood or drinke it because it is not there in a liquid forme or so that it may be sucked or drunke Anno 365. Cyril Catechesi Mystagogicâ 4. Vnder the forme of bread Christs body is giuen vnto thee that taking the body and blood of Christ thou maist be of one body and blood with him And a little after After thou hast participated of the body of Christ draw neere also to the cup of his blood Anno. 366. Macarius Egyptius hom 27. By offering bread and wine in the Church he gaue vs a patterne to take his body and blood Anno 370. S. Basil in his 289. epistle to Patricia exhorts her frequently to participate the Sacrament of Christs body and blood saying It is good and profitable euery day to participate the holy body and blood of Christ. And in his moralls chap. 22. hee propoundeth this question what is the proper dutie of a Christian and he answereth immediately to haue no spot or wrincle in his Conscience to be holy and vnblameable and so to eate the body and drinke the blood of Christ. Our aduersaries doe well to conceale this testimonie of Saint Basil because it is so direct and full to the point that it admits not any collourable answer He saith that it is the proper dutie of a Christian and therefore not of a Priest onely not to eate Christs body onely and receiue his blood by concomitancie but expresly to drinke it and this hee teacheth to be as necessarie a duty of all Christians as to clense themselues from sinne and to be holy and vndefiled Anno. 372. Gregory Nazianzen surnamed the Diuine S. Basils bosome friend in his 42. oration inuites all to drinke the blood of Christ who look for life by him without any doubting or shamefast feare Eat his body and drinke his blood if thou desirest life and in his second oration he testifieth that his sister Gorgonia after she had Communicated laid vp some part of the
himselfe taketh knowledge of Christ in breaking of bread Fourthly the point of this argument may bee turned vpon our aduersaries and it woundeth them deepely both in their doctrine of the sacrifice of the Masse and their Priests communicating For they teach that a Priest may not consecrate or communicate in one kind onely which was here done if this place be to be vnderstood of the Sacrament according to their Glosse This Text therefore which they conceiue to make most for them maketh most against them and may be doubly retorted vpon them First thus Without consecration of the Cup there can be no sacrifice or true sacrament At Emaus there was no consecration of the Cup For as our aduersaries teach after Christ had broke the bread before he tooke the Cup he vanished out of their sight Therefore at Emaus there was no sacrifice of Christ his blood offered or Sacrament at this time administred Here is then no ground at all for communicating in bread onely Secondly it may be thus retorted All Priests by Christs commandement are to drink of the Cup in the Sacrament For this is the Romane Glosse vpon our Sauiours words Drinke yee all of this that is all Priests But the Disciples that traueled to Emaus were Priests and had commission to preach and administer the Sacrament Therefore if they celebrated the Sacrament at Emaus they dranke of the Cup or else they violated Christs commandement and were guilty of sacrilege by the doome of Cardinall Caietan For his definitiue sentence is that as a Priest is a sacrilegious in consâ—…crating bread and not wine so he is guilty of sacrilege also if he participate of the holy Bread and not of the Cup. The third reason saith Bellarmine is drawne from the doctrine and practice of the Apostles For in the second of the Acts vers 42. the communication of the Eucharist is thus described And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayer In which place it cannot be denied that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is meant as well because breaking of bread is ioyned with doctrine and prayer as also because it were rather a discommendation then a praise of the faithfull to say that they continued steadfastly in dining and supping Lastly Luther in his Sermon of the Lords Supper and Caluin in his fourth book of Institutions chap. 17. acknowledgeth that this place is to bee vnderstood of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Harding in his thirteenth diuision addeth hereunto the testimony of the Waldenses in the confession of their faith to Vladislaus and hee saith there that he might likewise alleage the place of the twentieth Chapter and especially that of the seuen and twentieth of the Acts where Chrysostome and the Fathers vnderstand the bread that Saint Paul in perill of shipwracke tooke gaue thankes ouer brake and eate to bee the holy Sacrament Answer If the Romish halfe Communion be so visible and apparant in these places alleaged out of the Acts I wonder the Fathers in the Councels of Constance Basil and Trent saw no such thing in them As for the ancient Doctors in the Primitiue Church some of them expound these places of common bread some of the Sacrament none of the Communion in one kind In the 20. of the Acts it is not certaine that Saint Luke speakes of the Sacrament and in the 27. of the Acts it is certaine he speakes not of the Sacrament With such vntempered morter that will not sticke together our aduersaries build the ruines of their Babell To cleare then these passages in their order To the first Acts 2. 42 46. I answer First that there is no necessity at all enforcing vs to vnderstand by breaking of bread in either verse the celebration of the Sacrament The words of themselues are indifferent to either of these three expositions They continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and distributing their bread one to another as each had need It seemes to bee Caietans exposition They continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and had their common dyet with them which is Beza's or Lastly they continued in their doctrine and participating the Communion with them Which interpretation Luther Caluin and the Waldenses seeme to like best The ioyning of breaking of bread with doctrine and prayer seemeth for to make for this interpretation but that which followeth vers 44. All that beleeued were together and had all things common and vers 46. breaking bread from house to house did eate their meate with gladnesse and singlenesse of heart swayeth the ballance on Beza his side To which opinion Chrysostome and Oecumenius Theophylact and Caietan before alleaged propend Saint Chrysostome saith that their Communion was with the Apostles not in prayers onely but also in doctrine and ciuill câ—…uersation All things were in Common By bread he seemeth to me to signifie their fasting and austere life they tooke their foode for the maintenance of life not of Luxurie Oecumenius and Theophylact accord in their note with Saint Chrysostome He saith breaking of bread to shew the Apostles simple and sparing diet so Oecumenius and Theophylact by this phrase breaking of bread he signifieth the faithfulls temperance annd slender diet whereby Bellarmines cauil is easily answered when he saith it were a discommendation not a prayse of the faithfull to say they continued in eating and drinking for it was a commendation to continue in the fellowship of the Apostles and to eate and drinke with them after their temperate and sparing manner especially if we adde out of Cardinall Caietan that this their breaking of bread was a charitable releiuing of those that wanted they continued saith he in breaking of bread that is in distribution of meate the communication brought their owne proper into common but the breaking of bread distributed that which was common to euery man in particular Secondly if we should grant that Saint Luke by breaking of bread vnderstood the celebration of the Lords Supper yet our aduersaries would gaine nothing by it For it is certaine that in the Hebrew phrase to breake bread signifieth to make a meale to dine or sup with a man which I trow is not without drinke as well as meat Is not this saith Esay the fast that I haue chosen And chap. 58. vers 6. 7. Is it not to deale thy bread to the hungery and that thou bring the poore that are cast out to thy house c. And Ezechiel cap. 18. 7. Who hath giuen his bread to the hungrie and Luk. 14. 1. Hee went into the house of one of the chiefe Pharises to eat bread and the second to the Thessal 3. 21. Let them eate their owne bread In all which places and many more bread is taken for all manner of victuals and to breake bread signifieth to breake or take foode and naturall sustenance which is not bread onely but bread and
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