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
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
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
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
1580. SAlmeron Iesuit Col. 1902. 1590. Suarez Iesuit Venetijs 1597. 950. Steph. Eduensis Bib. pat tom 10. Col. 1618. T. 200. TErtullianus Antwerp 1584. 440. Theodoretus Col. 1612. 1430. Thomas Waldensis Venetijs 1571. Thom. Aquin. vide A. Thom. Mort. vide M. 1070. Theophilact Basil. 1525. 1580. Tolet. Card. Col. 1569. 1590. Theodo Beza Geneuae 1598. 390. Tripartita historia Basil. 1528. V. 1572. VAdianus Aphoris Euch. 1536. 1600. Vasquez Antwerp 1621. 1240. Vincentius Histor. Venetijs 1591. W. 1430. WAldensis vide T. 849. Walafridus Strabo Bib. pat tom 9. Col. 1618. 1380. Widford contra Wiclif Dauen 1535. Edit ab Orthuino Gratio Z. 1105. ZAcharias Chrysopol Bib. pat tom 12. Col. 1618. FINIS I intreate the Gentle Reader before the reading hereof to correct these few faults in some copies which alter the sense the lesser escapes are annexed at the end Pag. 21. lin 22. adde his body 24. l. 23. for they reade l. 36. l. 15. adde to be spurious and therefore ought 44. l. 7. and therefore they cannot be seâ—…ed from the Communion 67. l. 15 r. infundatur 107. l. penult r. for it is that which wâ—… 121. l. penult r. now for naâ—… 128. l. 7 r. both for one 146. l. 28. r. and for or 147. l. 15. r. 190. for 90. 176. l. 13. r. repealed 2â—…0 l. 17. r. no error 226. l. 6. r. to me for some 230. l. 25. dele Etym. fil dextr 271. l. 9. r. Bishops at Carthage 278. l. 〈◊〉 r. she for he 298. l 11. adde quoth M. Featly l. 23. r. then for this 302. l. 19. r. Testament of blood or blood a Testament THE GRAND SACRILEGE OF THE CHVRCH OF ROME CHAP. I. The state of the question touching the necessitie of Communicating in both kinds PLinie writeth of the Camels that they like not cleare water but vsually foule and trouble the streame wherein they are to drinke Such is the manner of our muddie Popish writers who are sent to vs from Rome and Rhemes laden like Camels with Babylonish merchandize they trouble the waters of strife and for the most part confound the states of all the questions which they enter into or mainely contend for and as in other Controuersies so in this of entire Communicating they begin their doubling and falsifying at the very setting downe of the poynt of difference betweene vs. Bellarmine and Eccius state the question thus whether it be necessary for all men to Communicate in both kinds Hosius and Tapperus adde to saluation as if we affirmed that Communicating in both kinds were simply necessary to saluation this is not the true hinge vpon which this question turneth For wee doubt not but that the children of the faithfull especially dying baptized as also that abstemij such as cannot drinke wine and other beleeuers that are preuented by death before they participate of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper if they prepare themselues for it and desire it may be saued without actuall Communicating in both or either kinde The wilfull contempt not the ineuitable defect of the Sacrament is damnable We conceiue no more necessitie of drinking of the cuppe of blessing then of eating the sacramentall bread which is not absolutely necessary to saluation no not to those which are in riper yeeres The spirituall eating of Christs blessed body and blood is simply and absolutely necessary to saluation but not the sacramentall without which many blessed Martyrs and Saints haue been saued The tearme necessary is seldome or neuer vsed by Protestants in this argument or if they vse it they meane necessary ratione praecepti not medij They enquire not how necessary a meanes communicating in both kinds is to saluation but how necessary a command Christ hath laid vpon all Communicants to receiue the Sacrament in both kinds They should haue propounded the question thus Whether the people are not bound by Christs precept to Communicate in both kinds or if they will needs retaine the word necessary in vnfoulding this controuersie whether it be not as necessary for the people to drinke of the Cup as to eate of the Bread or whether it be not as necessary in regard of Christs institution that the people communicate in both kinds as that the Priest the minister or as they speake the Conficient or maker of this sacrament Or whether the administring of this sacrament in both kindes to the people and preists also none Conficients be not so necessary that it cannot bee otherwise administred without sinne and violation of our Lords most holy Institution The Romish tenent to which all Papists vnder paine of a curse are bound to subscribe is plainely and expressely set downe in the Canons of three Councels at Constance Basil and Trent In the Councell of Constance sess 13. This Synod doth decree and declare concerning this matter that processe be directed to the most reuerend Fathers in Christ the Lord Patriarkes Primates Archbishops and Bishops and their vicars in spirituals wheresoeuer by them appoynted In which processe by the authoritie of the holy Councell let them be inioyned and commanded effectually to punish those that obserue not this Decree viz. Who exhort the people to Communicate in both kinds or teach that they ought so to doe In the Councell of Basile sess 30. This Synod doth decree and declare that the faithfull Laicks or Clarks communicants and not conficients are not bound by our Lords command to receiue the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist vnder both formes or kindes viz. of Bread and Wine In the Councell of Trent sess 21. c. 1. The Synod declareth and teacheth that Laicks and Clarks non conficient are by no diuine precept bound to receiue this most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist in both kinds and if any say that all and euery of the faithfull by Gods command ought to receiue the Sacrament in both kinds let them be accursed The doctrine of the Reformed Churches cannot be more certainely gathered then out of the harmony of their orthodoxall confessions which were penned by most iudicious Diuines at the first and are at this day subscribed by those that are admitted to any degree of function in each particular Church To begin with the Church of England to whose Articles of Religion all Graduats and Ministers of the Word professe their assent and consent euen by interposing an oath In the 30. Article thus we reade The cup of the Lord is not to bee denyed to the Lay people for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs ordinance and commandement ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike In the Confession of Auspurg Article 2. both parts of the Sacraments are giuen to the Laiety in the Lords Supper because the Sacrament was instituted not for a part of the Church onely viz. the Priests but for the rest of the Church also and truly Christ saith Math. 26. Drink you all of this where he
faithfull wife was like to be debarred of the comfort of receiuing the Sacrament and drinking of the Lords Cup. Tert. then is cleere for the Laietie communicating in both kinds And so is Origen Anno. 230. Origen in 16. Hom. on Numb maketh this question What people is it that is accustomed to drinke blood and he answereth the faithfull people the Christian people heareth these things and embraceth him who saith vnlesse you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his blood you haue no life in you For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drinke indeed Marke the ingemination The people the faithfull people heareth these things c. Therefore in Origens time it was the peoples vse and custome to drinke the blood of Christ. Papists answer Bellarmine loc sup cita saith to this testimonie of Origen that the people did drinke but they had no command so to doe It was their vse it was not Christs precept Secondly hee saith the people might haue such a vse or custome to drinke at the Lords supper though euery one dranke not but some onely The Refutation I need not refell this answer because Bellarmine granteth all that for which I produce this testimonie that the practise of the Church in Origens time goeth for vs and his mincing the matter that some of the people might drinke not all and that they dranke it by custome not by law no way healpeth his bad cause For first Origen in this very place alleageth Christs precept for this practise of the faithfull people Iohn 6. vnlesse ye drinke my blood you haue no life in you Secondly in the end of this homily he turneth his speech not to some of this people but to his audience and thus concludeth Thou therefore art the true people of Israel who knowest to drink the blood and hast learned to eat the flesh of the Word of God and to take a draught of the blood of that grape which is of the true vine those branches of which the father purgeth The euidence of this truth is like the light of the morning it groweth cleerer and cleerer For Origen is cleerer in this point then Tertullian and Cyprian is yet cleerer then Origen Anno. 250. Cyprian that learned Bishop of Carthage and blessed Martyr of Christ Iesus not onely deliuereth but propugneth our assertion by a forcible argument epist. 54. How doe wee inuite them Gods people to shed their blood for Christ in the confession of his name if when they set forth to fight for him we denie them his blood how shall wee fit them for the Cup of Martyrdome if before we admit them not by right of Communion to drinke of the Lords Cup in his Church in his 63. epistle Because some men out of ignorance or simplicitie in sanctifying the Cup of the Lord and ministring it to the people doe not that which Iesus Christ our Lord and God the Author and Institutor of this Sacrifice did and taught I thought it both a matter of religion and necessity to acquaint you herewith by letters that if any yet bee held in that error the light of truth being now discouered vnto him hee might returne vnto the roote and beginning of our Lords institution Papists answere Bellarmine in his answere to Saint Cyprian makes good the Poets obseruation Qui semel verecundiae limites transiuerit hunc grauiter impudentem esse oportet he that hath once passed the bounds of modesty he must be stoutely impudent and arme his forehead with brasse for here he is not content to slight this allegation as he did the former but is bold to challenge it for an euidence on his owne side This place saith hee rather maketh for our opinion then against it for Saint Cyprian speaketh of certaine Christians that fell in time of persecution from the profession of the true faith and were therefore excommunicated by the Bishops whom Saint Cyprian exhorteth in regard of the eminent persecution to restore these weake Christians to their former right and interest which they had in the Lords body The right therefore of the Laietie to Communicate is giuen by the Priests and taken away by them Now if the Priests or Prelates may for certaine crimes take the right of Communicating from the Laietie they may also dispose of the manner of Communicating vnder one kinde To the second testimony he answereth that Cyprian in that place handleth not the poynt whether the Cup ought to bee deliuered to the people or no but if it bee deliuered vnto them hee will haue it deliuered not in water onely but wine mingled with water And this he saith Christ taught vs. The Refutation Neither of these answeres will beare scale both of them are to light by many graines the first of these is liable to these exceptions First it is impertinent for we bring the testimony to prooue the practise of the Primitiue Church concerning the Laieties participating the Cup But Bellarmine craftily waues that poynt and questioneth by what right the people did Communicate Admit that which is most falfe that the Bishop or Priest gaue the people all the right they had to the Cup yet they had it and vsed it their practise therefore maketh for vs. Secondly it is inconsequent for first when a'man is Excommunicated and hath lost his right to the Lords Table a Bishop vpon the parties submission and sorrow for his sin and humble intreatie may restore him to his right againe and set him where he was yet this prooueth not that the Laietie had their originall right of Communicating from them as a Bishop may vpon iust cause suspend a Lay man or Cleargie from the Communion so he may also exclude him from hearing of the word and publike prayer yet no man will hence conclude that the Laietie or Priest haue no right at all to come into the Church and to pray and to heare Gods word but from the Bishop Albeit Cyprian in his owne Church and any other Bishop in his Diocesse may admit or reiect some particular persons vpon iust cause from the Communion yet it will not from hence follow that the Bishop of Rome may take away either the Cup or the Bread from Gods people in all Churches Thirdly it is no good inference that because the Bishop may depriue a man of the whole Sacrament vpon some causes viz. for a great crime or high misdemeanor that therefore he may depriue him of a part of it without any fault at all as the Romanists doe the Laietie in generall Fourthly a Bishop may dispence with his owne censures or reuoke them but he cannot dispence with Gods law To suspend a man from the whole Communion if the delinquent deserue it is agreeable to Christs and the Apostles discipline but to admit him to one part of the Sacrament and not to the other is a manifest violation of Christs ordinance who instituted this Sacrament in two kinds and
the thing offered The difference was in this according to S. Chrysostome that the people simply might not eat of those things of which the Priest might but in the new testament the people may eat of all that the Priests may Lastly although we should admit of Bellarmines answer touching the condition of the Priest and people of the old law and the new that they of the old fed of the sacrifice apart each hauing their seuerall portions appointed for them but that the Prists and people of the new receiued the sacrament entirely the Priest entirely and the people entirely which in some sence is true yet this no way satisfieth the words of Saint Chrysostome who saith expresly that one Cup as well as one bread is set before all people as well as Priests and that according to Christs institution in the new testament SECT V. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 400. to 500. Anno 410. ABout the beginning of the fifth Age God raysed vp that golden Tapour in the Church Saint Austin by whose light as wee may discouer other errors and abuses of the Church of Rome so this their mutilation of the Sacrament and defrauding Gods people of one part of this Supper This Author in his dialogue to Orosius quest 49. he interprets the blood of Abel the blood of Christ which saith he when the whole Church receiueth it saith Amen For what a cry maketh the whole Church when after she hath dranke the blood of Christ cryeth Amen And in his 57. question vpon Leuiticus he not onely testifies that the people did drinke of Christs blood but that they ought to doe so if they expect life from him What is the meaning of this saith he that the people are forbidden to eat of the blood of the sacrifices which were offered for sinn if by those sacrifices this sacrifice was signified in which there is trueremission of sinnes and yet not onely no man is forbidden to take the blood of this sacrifice for nourishment but on the contrary all men who desire life are exhorted to drinke it Papists answer Bellarmine de sacra Eucharistiae lib. 4. cap. 26. answereth that the force of Saint Austines reason consisteth not in the manner of drinking but in the taking of the blood which produceth the same effect whither it bee taken as meat or drinke Refutation Saint Austin in that place obserueth a difference between the precepts of the old and the precepts of the new testament that in the old blood was forbidden so much as to bee eaten with the flesh but in the new it is commanded to be drunke euen by it selfe and so the force of his reason ab oppositis stands not onely in some way taking blood for sustenance but euen in the manner of taking it euen by drinke Secondly whereinsoeuer the force of Saint Austines reason stands his words which wee alleage are expresly for taking it by drinking For he saith not as Bellarmine will haue him all who desire life are exhorted to take Christs blood for sustenance or to feed vpon it But they are exhorted to drinke it The people therefore if they looke for life by Christ they must drinke his blood which they cannot doe if the Priest deny the Cup. Anno. 420. Eusebius Emissenus in his Homily vpon Palme-Sunday speakes of the faithfulls communicating in both kinds as of a daily and frequent practice As then our Lord liued and spake and yet was eaten by his Disciples and drunke so now he remaines whole and vncorrupted and yet is daily drunke and eaten by the faithfull I beleeue no Romish Priest will bee so impudent as to restraine beleeuers to Priests onely If the Layetie are not to be reckoned in the number of fideles or belieuers they may not eat Christ in the Sacrament of bread and if they are fideles or beleeuers then they vsually nay daily drinke his blood in the Sacrament of wine as well as eate his flesh in the Sacrament of bread Anno 430. Theodoret in his Dialogue called Atreptus cap. 11. allotteth to all the faithfull an equall share in the Lords Supper one mysticall Table is prepared for all from which all beleeuers take vnto themselues an equall portion And in his Comment on the second Chapter of the first to the Corinthians hee obserueth a difference betweene ordinary suppers and the Lords Supper Of that viz. the Lords Table all are equally partakers but here viz. in common suppers one is hungry and another is drunke Hee saith not he drinkes but is drunke blaming him for two reasons first that he drinkes alone secondly that he is drunke If the Layetie drank not of the Lords Table they did not equally participate with the Priests And if in Theodorets time the Priests did drinke alone as now they doe at the Romane Masse Theodoret could not herein haue differenced them from common and prophane tables so that at the one all eate and drinke alike at the other one is satisfied and another is hungry one is thirsty and another drinketh alone and is drunke Anno 431. Cyrillus of Alexandria Glaphyr lib. 2. writeth thus As long as we are in this world wee will communicate with Christ by his holy flesh and precious blood Communicatio sanctae carnis atque item poculū ex salutari ipsius sanguine c. The communicating his holy flesh and the Cup of his holy blood hath in it a confession of Christs death by the participating in these things in this world we commemorate Christs death Anno. 450. Leo the Great Bishop of Rome in his fourth Sermon de quadragessima giues it as a character or marke to descry the Manichees by that at the Sacrament they would eate of the bread but in no wise drinke of the wine They viz. the Manichees so carry themselues at the Communion that they may more safely lye hid they take the body of Christ into their vnworthy mouthes but altogether they refuse to drinke the blood of their redemption which I would haue your Holinesse know that you may set a mark vpon these men in whomsoeuer you find such sacrilegious simulation you discouer them that by Priestly authoritie they may be driuen from the society of the Saints Here Leo both a Bishop of Rome and a great Clarke makes it sacriledge and heresie to receiue Christs body in the Sacrament and to refuse to drinke his blood Anno. 451. In the generall Councell of Chalcedon act 10. there is an accusation brought in against Iba the Bishop of Edessa that in some Church in his Diocesse at the Commemoration of the holy Martyrs there was but a little wine and that corrupt and sowre prouided for the Altar to bee sanctified and distributed to the people This generall Councell was counted to represent the whole Christian Church whereby it appeares that at the time of this Councell the Cup was giuen through the whole Christian world to
the Laiety and that the administring of the Sacrament to the people without wine was held a profanation of the Lords Supper for which cause that Bishop was seuerely taxed Anno 453. Eucherius Bishop of Lyons in his questions vpon Matthew implyeth that all holy men in generall and true members of Christ in his time dranke our Redeemers blood in the Sacrament His words are The Kingdome of God as the learned vnderstand it is the Church in which Christ daily drinketh his owne blood by his Saints as the Head in his members Anno 492. Among the Decrees of ancient Popes collected by Gratian we finde that sentence of Gelasius which I haue set in the frontispiece of this booke Grat. de consecra dist 2. cap. Comperimus We find that some receiuing a portion of Christs holy Body abstaine from the Cup of his sacred blood which because they doe out of I know not what superstition we comand that either they receiue the entire Sacraments or that they be entirely withheld from them because the diuision of one and the selfe-same mysterie cannot be without grand sacriledge In this Decree of Gelasius first we are to note that it is a Papall decision ex Cathedra That the elements in the Lords Supper must bee taken ioyntly This Gelasius determineth not as a priuate man but as a Pope ex Cathedra and therefore all Papists are bound to beleeue that hee did not nor could not erre in this decree Secondly it is to bee noted that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not entire without the Cup which quite ouerthroweth our aduersaries new fancy of concomitancy Thirdly it is to bee noted that hee defineth the withholding the Cup from any Communicant or deuiding the holy mysterie by halfe communicating not onely to bee sacriledge but to be grand sacriledge or the greatest sacriledge that can bee committed For grande is more then magnum or graue and it signifieth sacriledge in the highest degree Papists answer Gratian or his glosse in the title to this Decree would beare vs in hand that this Decree concerneth the Priests only and not the Laiety For a Priest to consecrate or to offer the bread without the wine or after they haue consecrated both to participate but of one this Gelasius forbids say they but not the Layetie to communicate in one kind onely Cardinall Bellarmine addes a second answer that this Canon was made against the Manichees and Priscillianists who refused the Cup in the Sacrament partly because they held wine in an abomination partly because they beleeued not that Christ had true blood in him These saith Bellarmine in token and testimony that they had reformed their former errour are commanded to receiue the Sacrament in both kinds or else not at all to be admitted vnto the Communion The Refutation Neither of these wards will beare off the blow For first it is not likely that Gelasius made this decree against the Manichees or Priscillianists for then hee would not haue said Quia nescio quâ superstitione astricti tenentur that is that they were intangled in I know not what superstition but rather Quia nota haeresi astricti tenentur that is they doe it because they are intangled in a knowne heresie Secondly admit that the Manichees and Priscillianists occasioned this decree yet this decree is backed with a generall reason which forbids all to Communicate in one kind only vnder the perill of grand Sacrilege Thirdly Gratians euasion will no way saue the Laietie harmelesse or acquit them of Sacrilege where of the Priest by this decree say they is made guiltie For that which is Sacrilege in the Priest cannot be Religion in the people Gelasius saith not that the Sacrilege consisteth in the diuision of one and the selfe same sacrifice but in the diuision of one and the selfe same mysterie Now the selfe same mystery or Sacrament is diuided as well in the halfe Communion of the people as of the Priest Lastly it is euident that the decree concerneth the Communicants and not the Priests Conficients or administring For the word arceantur that is let them be kept from or driuen from the entire Sacrament must needs be meant of the people For the people suspend not the Priests from the Sacrament but the Priests or Bishops the people Here Master Euerard is locked fast with a like paire of fetters to those which Campian makes for Protestants As he saith Patres so I say Papas admittis Captus es exludis Nullus es Doe you allow of the Popes decissions You are then taken Doe you disallow of them You are no body in the opinion of your owne selues If you subscribe to the determination of two Popes Leo and Gelasius you must confesse your selfe guilty of Sacrilege if you subscribe not to them of heresie Vtrum horum mauis accipe SECT VI. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 500. to 600. AS Tullie writeth of Hortensius that after his Consulship he decayed in his rare facultie of eloquence though not so sensibly that euery auditor might perceiue it yet in such sort that a cunning artist might obserue that he drew not so cleare a stroake in his master-pieces nor cast on them so rich and liuely colours as before Such was the state of the Church in this age It decayed and failed though not so sensibly and grossely that euery ordinary reader might take notice thereof yet in such sort that the learned and iudicious haue discouered in the writers of this age and much more after a declination from the puritie of former ages both in stile and doctrine Their Latine much degenerated into barbarisme and their deuotion into superstition Whence it is that the prime Doctors of the Reformed Churches who appeale from the late corruptions in the Romish Church to the prime sinceritie in the first and best ages confine this their appeale within the pale of the fifth age Wherefore the reader is not to demaund or expect from hence forth either so frequent testimonies or at least of men of that eminencie and reuerend authority as the former were For such the succeeding ages brought forth none but it shall suffice to produce such witnesses as the times affoorded men that held ranke with the best in their times Such were Remigius Archbishop of Rhemes Gregory Bishop of Tours and the Fathers of the Councell of Toledo and Iledra Anno 524. In the Councell held at Ilerda can 1. All those that serue at the Altar Christi corpus sanguinem tradunt and deliuer the body and blood of Christ or handle any holy vessell are strictly charged to abstaine from all mans blood yea euen of their enemies Anno 560. Remigius Archbishop of Rhemes thus expoundeth those words of Saint Paul The Cup of blessing wherewith we blesse is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ The Cup is called the Communion because all communicated or receiued the Communion out of it
Petrus Dresensis taught publikely that the Laietie might not communicate vnder one kind as is confessed by Didacus de Tapia in sent lib. 4. Anno 1412. Iacobellus Misnensis a Preacher of Prage being admonished by Petrus Dresensis after hee had searched into the writings of the ancient doctours and by name Dionysius and Saint Cyprian and finding in them the communicating of the Cup to the Laiety commanded he from thence forth exhorted the people by no means to neglect or omit the receiuing the Communion of the Cup. Anno 1414. In the Councell of Constance in which the entire Communion is professedly oppugned yet the Truth extorted frō her bloody aduersaries a remarkeable confession of the practise of the Primitiue Church and of the continuance of it in diuers parts euen vntil the time of the calling of that Assembly In the petition of those that procured this Synod it is expressed that one cause for which the procurers desired that the Church should take order for the establishing of a law touching the laieties cōmunicating in one kind is declared to be because in some parts of the world the Priests did not forbeare to administer the communiō to the laiety in both kinds against the custome of the Romish Church Here we haue the continuance of this practise the antiquity whereof they likewise acknowledged in the preface to their sacrilegious decree against it Although Christ instituted and gaue the sacrament after supper in both kinds to his disciples and in the primitiue Church it was in like wise administred yet the Councell for certaine reasons commands that the sacrament be otherwise administred As the tree f gaines more branches by being lopped with the axe so the Truth gaineth much lustre and authority from the very Canon of the Councell of Constance by which her aduersaries doe seeke to oppresse her For who will not rather follow Christs institution then their ordinance and the ancient acknowledged practise of the Primitiue Church rather then a late custome of the present Romish Church Anno 1420. Martin the fifth after the Councel of Constance vpon Easter day after hee had deliuered the body of our Lord with his owne hands to the Laiety suffered them to receiue the blood of Christ at the hands of the Deacon The like Henry Kalteysin reportes of other Popes and withall acquaints vs with the cause why the Pope left off this custome It fell out saith he that a certaine Bohemian came amongst the rest to the Popes chappel and receiued the Communion at his hands and hee wonderfully bragged of it whereof Pope Martin being aduertised and much inraged that such a trick was put vpon him from that time tooke away the Cup from the Laiety Anno 1430. Thomas Waldensis who tooke vpon him to refute Wickliffes bookes howsoeuer he maintained the decree of the Councell of Constance touching Communion in one kind yet hee witnesseth that greater personages amongst the people and men of note or place as Kings and doctors and others that were thought worthie so great a mystery were admitted to the Communion in both kinds Anno 1413. In the Councell held at Basil as Nauclerus writeth tom 2. generat 48. a kinde of hope was offered to the Bohemians that vpon certaine conditions the vse of the Cup might be restored vnto them The order of the Councell is conceiued in these words If the Bohemians continue in the desire of the Communion in both kinds and send an Embassage to the Councell to that purpose the holy assembly shall giue libertie to the Priests of Bohemia and Morauia to administer the Communion in both kinds to such persons as being in yeeres of discretion shall reuerently desire it Anno 1438. The Bohemians put the faith and honesty of the Fathers of Basil to the Test they send comissioners Iohn Belouar of Prage Iohn Rokyzana Peter Panie Procopius and others to treat about the concession of the Cup and to expresse their earnest and vnfained desire thereof To whom the Councell returneth this answer That the request should be granted them so that they will really effectually keep vnitie with the Church and conforme themselues in all other things saue the communion in both kinds to the faith and rites of the vniuersall Church SECT XVI Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 1500. to 1600. IN this Age I might produce many Testimonies of such learned Doctors and Professors of the Gospell as haue beene by Gods prouidence raised vp in the Reformed Churches in former and latter yeeres who by their writings learnedly soundly haue mainteined the cause we haue in hand as also doe the ioynt and vnanimous Confessions of the Churches of England France Scotland Germany Polonia Sweueland Morauia Howbeit because the Romanists doe except against all the foresaid witnesses as insufficient and of no authority because they haue departed from their Synagogue therefore I will alleage some prime Doctors of this Age also and men of eminency among themselues maintaining the same truth with vs against whom I see not what iust exception may be taken by them Anno 1541. Gerardus Lorichuis zealously oppugning the sacrilegious practise of the Church of Rome There be false Catholicks saith he that are not ashamed by all meanes to hinder the reformation of the Church They to the intent that the other kind of the sacrament may not be restored to the Lay people spare no kind of blasphemie For they say Christ said onely to his Apostles Drinke yee all of this but the words of the Canon of the Masse be these Take and eate yee all of this Here I beseech them let them ◅ell me whither they wil haue this word all onely to pertaine vnto the Apostles then must the Lay people abstaine from the other kind of the bread also Which thing to say is an heresie and a pestilent and detestable blasphemie Wherefore it followeth that each of these words were spoken to the whole Church Anno 1545. The Ambassadours for the Emperour and for the French King were earnest sutors to the Fathers in the Councell of Trent for the restitution of the Cup to the Layety Anno 1562. The obseruation of Seneca That a lye is of a thin and transparent nature a diligent eye may see through it was verified in the Diuines and Bishops present at the Councell of Trent Whereof some saw obscurely others clearely through this grand lye of the Romish Church which vnder colour of concomitancy subtracteth the vse of the Cup from the Layety For Antonius Mandulfe◅sis had a glympse but Card. Madrutius Gaspar de casa and the Bishop of Quinque Ecclesi◅ and also Amans Seruito a Friar had a full sight of the truth in this point Antonius Mandulfensis Chaplain to the Bishop of Prage professedly impugned the distinction of the Eucharist as a Sacrament and as a sacrifice which distinction the Papists at this day hold before them
Sacrament To coyne new Fathers is a vsuall practise and therefore of no transcending merit but to coyne new Canons of generall Councels and to forge records of such antiquitie as is the true Councell of Ephesus can be no lesse then a worke of superarrogation To the allegation out of the Councell of Constance we answer first that it was no generall Councell The Easterne Church of as large or larger extent then the Westerne sent no Patriarch or Bishop thither Secondly this Councell is impeached by the Romane Church it selfe Bellarmine de concil cap. 7. k speaking of this Councell of Constance saith this Councel so much as concerneth the first sessions is disallowed and repealed in the Councels of Florence and Lateran Albertus Pighius is yet hotter against this Councell saying that it decreed against the order of nature against manifest Scriptures against the authoritie of all antiquitie and against the Catholicke faith of the Church What credit is then to be giuen to this erroneous and perfidious Councell Which both adulterated the Christian faith by heretical decisions and brake their morrall faith by bloody crueltie exercised against Iohn Hus and Hierome of Prague to whom safe conduct to the Councell and backe againe was promised If the Romanists themselues reiect this Councell in point of the Popes Supremacie why may not we in point of the Sacrament Lastly out of this very Councell wee may draw an inuincible argument against the halfe Communion The institution of Christ and practise of the Primitiue Church ought to sway more with euery good Christian then any constitution of a late Councell neuer generally approued of by the Church of God But the Communion in both kinds hath the institution of Christ and the practise of the Primitiue Church for it as is confessed by the Fathers in this Councell Therefore euery good Christian ought to communicate in both kinds the prohibition of the Councell of Constance to the contrary notwithstanding To the allegation out of the Councell of Basil our answer is the stronger by how much the authoritie of this Councell is weaker or rather of no validitie at all First there lyeth against it the same exception which we tooke before against the Councell of Constance that none of the Bishops of the Easterne Churches were present at it and in this regard it cannot bee held for an Occomenicall or generall Councell Secondly while the Fathers of this Councell sate at Basil the Pope fearing least some thing might be done to his preiudice called an other Councell at Ferrara and ◠in this regard the Councell of Basil cannot be esteemed a generall or totall Councell no not so much as of the Westerne or Romane Church Thirdly the Acts of this Councell are repeated in the Councell of Florence and Lateran Pighius writes as bitterly against it as against the Councell of Constance and Cardinall Bellarmine writing of it saith There is nothing of this Councell ratified and allowed but certaine orders about benefices the Councell it selfe is reiected and condemned in the Councell of Lateran Sess. 11. No maruell then if Protestants account the decrees of this Synode no better then drosse when by the Roman test it selfe they are proued to bee no good mettell Wherefore as the Romane Oratour makes a Dilemma touching Brutus and Antonie being in Armes one against the other if Brutus bee a preseruer of his country Antonie is an enemie if Antony be a Consul Brutus is an enemie so may we say of those two Councels of Basil and Lateran if the Councell of Basil bee Catholick Lateran is hereticall if Lateran be Catholick the Councell of Basil is hereticall Lastly be this Councell of Basil of what authoritie it may be the Romanists loose more by it then they gaine For though the halfe Communion were after a sort established in this Councell yet the Bohemians petition for the intire Communion was yeelded vnto and signed in this Councell whence we thus argue against them If the Papists arguments drawne from danger of irreuerence inconueniences examples or testimonies of antiquity and pretended consequences of Scripture were necessary and concludent the Councell of Basil could not lawfully grant to the Bohemians and Morauians the vse of the Cup but the Councell of Basil might lawfully and did yeeld to the Bohemians and the Morauians the vse of the cup Therfore the reasons of the Romanists drawn to the contrary from the heads aboue mentioned are not necessarie or concludent CHAP. XIIII The Arguments of Papists drawne from ancient pretended rites of the Church answered and retorted THere is no more certaine signe of a bad cause then extorted testimonies and wyer-drawne arguments such as our aduersaries for want of better insist vpō in this question For the truth neuer wanteth voluntarie witnesses to depose for her nor arguments that offer themselues in her defence as the Poets faine that stones came of their owne accord to the building of Thebes Such are those proofes which the texts of scpriture without any forcing and the free deposition of all ages before alleaged haue furnished vs withall On the contrarie our aduersaries straine antient rites and customes weakely proued and peruersely applied to excuse their sacrilege They tell vs of reseruing the Sacrament for a long space of carrying it home to mens houses giuing it to infants and impotent persons on their death-bed to Priests put out of their ranck for misdemeanour and lastly of a Communion of such things as were before consecrated All which obseruations are as headlesse arrowes shot at randome Falces petebamus we demand sithes and they answer vs with mattocks Our question is of the publike and generall practise of the Church their answer is of priuate customes our question is of the lawfull vse of the Lords Supper their answer is of abuses and corruptions our question is of the depriuing the Laietie of the Cup their answer is of Priests our question is of fit and worthie receiuers qualified to communicate in both kinds their answer is of children excommunicate persons or men lying on their death-beds This might suffice to wash away their varnish of antiquitie Yet lest they should accuse vs as Fimbria did sometimes Scecuola quòd non totum telum corporereceperimus that wee receiued not the ful thrust into our body I wil bring in their great Cardinal laying amaine at vs in this wise SECT I. From the reseruation of the Sacrament thus he disputeth against vs That the Sacrament was accustomed antiently to be reserued we haue proued by the testimonies of Fathers Councels Now that it was reserued in one kind onely and consequently that the communicants receiued in one kind onely it is manifest because sometimes they reserued it for a very long time Sophronius in his spirituall meddow relates of the keeping of it for a whole yeere but wine especially in a small quantitie could not be kept so long because within that time it would be corrupted The answer First
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
wine as it is the maner of some Protestant Churches or in wine mingled with water as it may bee in some other But Master Euerard if you had read this epistle vpon which you so much insist you might haue found that though Saint Cyprian by the way fauoureth your practise of mingling wine with water yet he condemneth your Church by the maine scope drift of the epistle in the very point now in question For hee saith that Christ taught that the Cup ought to be sanctified and ministred vnto the people which you doe not In sanctifying the Lords Cup and ministring it to the people why do some through ignorance or simplicitie not that which Iesus Christ our Lord and God the author and teacher of this Sacrifice both did and taught By this time it grew very late and so the Conference brake vp This is a true Relation of the some of the Conference so farre as I can remember Most of the answers of Master Euerard are taken verbatim out of the notes set downe by consent in the Conference which I haue to shew The arguments I perfectly remember were these aboue written If Master Euerard thinke good to adde any thing to his arguments or answer I freely giue him leaue and desire him so to do that we may haue a perfect copie An appendix to the former Conference Vntruths vttered by Master Euerard HEe saith it is the doctrine of the Romane Catholikes generally that the people are not bound to receiue the Communion in bread determinately but that they may if the Church please so to appoint receiue it in wine onely On the contrary see Bellarmine li. 4. de sac Euch. 6. 25. Although Christ did not giue bread to the Laietie yet he did not forbid it to be giuen them and elsewhere hee commanded it to bee giuen them And Bellarmine saith a little after S. Luke after the Sacrament giuen vnder the forme of bread addeth Doe this but he repeateth it not after the giuing of the Cup that we might vnderstand that our Lord commanded that the Sacrament should bee giuen vnder the forme of bread to all but not vnder the forme of wine Againe Fisher in his answer to certaine questions propounded by King Iames contradicts directly this assertion of Master Euerard touching Communion in both kinds Sect. 4. This precept doe this being the onely precept giuen by Christ to his Church and giuen absolutely of the forme of bread conditionally of the forme of wine there is no colour to accuse the Church of doing against this Precept Secondly When offer was made vnto him to proue euery point of the Protestants beliefe out of Scripture and he was required to do the like he answered that it was the custome of all heretikes to appeale to sole Scripture and reiect Tradition Vntruth For Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 2. thus writeth Heretikes when they are conuinced out of Scriptures fall accusing the Scriptures themselues as if they were not right nor of authoritie and that they are ambiguous and that the truth cannot bee knowne out of them by those who are ignorant of tradition for that the truth was not deliuered by writing but by word of mouth Tertul. de praescrip aduers. haeret cap. 17. To conferre by scripture will auaile nothing with this kind of heretikes vnlesse a man goe about to ouer-turne his braine or his stomacke c. And c. 23. They beleeue without Scripture that they may beleeue against Scripture Et de resurrect carnis cap. 47. he calleth heretikes flyers or shunners of the light of the Scriptures qualiter accipiunt lucifugae isti scripturarum And against Hermogenes cap. 22. hee appealeth to sole Scriptures I reuerence the fulnesse of Scripture let Hermogenes Shop or Schoole teach that this is written If it bee not written let him feare that woe or curse threatned to all that adde or take away Thirdly He affirmeth that the Councell of Constance was not confirmed by Martin the fifth in all points defined in that Councell but onely in those that concerned Wicklife Hus and the Bohemians Vntruth In the Acts of the Councell of Constance set out by Binnius sess 45. we reade Our most holy Lord the Pope Martin the fifth said I will vnuiolably obserue all and euery of these things that are determined concluded and agreed in matter of Faith by this present Councell and those things so done Councell-wise or in a Councell-way I approue and ratifie And Binnius testifieth as much p. 960 that the Pope gaue order for the dismissing of the Councell after hee had approued and confirmed all and euery Decree that concerned matter of Faith and is not the Popes supremacy with you a matter of Faith Fourthly he peremptorily denied that the Church of Rome euer prayed for the soules of the Saints in heauen or in particular that she praied for the soule of blessed Leo. Vntruth for Innocentius the third Cap. cum Mathae extra de celebratione Missar This prayer was vsed vpon Saint Leos feast Grant wee beseech thee O Lord that this oblation may profit or helpe the soule of blessed Leo. And although saith Bellarmine this prayer be now changed yet at this day in the seuered prayer or collect for this Feast we say let the yeerely solemnitie of Saint Leo the Confessor and Bishop make vs acceptable vnto thee that by these pious offices of appeasing thee a blessed retribution or reward may accompany him and hee may procure vnto vs gifts of thy grace Bellarmine addeth a little after Pope Innocentius answers to these and the like prayers two manner of wayes when the Church desireth glory to Saints who already possesse the Kingdome of Heauen he desireth or prayeth not that the Saints may increase in glory but that their glory may increase with vs that is that it may be made manifest to the wholeworld Secondly He saith that it seemes not absurd to pray for the encrease of some accidentall glory vnto them He addeth in the third place that peraduenture in these prayers we pray for the glory of the body which they shall haue in the day of the resurrection FINIS A CHALLENGE TO MASTER IOHN FISHER alias PERCIF ahas STEPDEN Iesuite FIrst whereas you Master Iohn Fisher sent questions by way of challenge to Doct White now L. Bishop of Norwich and to mee Iune 21. 1623. concerning the visibilitie of Protestant Professors in all Ages whereupon we returned you this answer viz. Although diuine infallible Faith is not built vpon deduction out of humane History but vpon diuine reuelation as is confessed by your owne Schoolemen and expresly by Cardinall Bellarmine Historiae humanae faciunt tantùm fidem humanam cui subesse potest falsum Humane histories and Records beget onely an humane Faith or rather credulitie subiect to error not a diuine and infallible beliefe which must be built vpon surer ground Secondly although I say this question of visibility are
Alexandriae per totam Aegyptum siâ—…desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter August ex vtroque Test. mixt quaest 101. D. Mort. Apol. Cathole 21. Presbyter alter alteram ordinare potest non in Ecclesia bene composita sed in statu collapso deplorato maximè in casu necessitatis * * False vid. Vntruth 3. in the Appendix to this Conference * * Infrain Appendice D. Field of the Church lib. 3. cap. 29. Howsoeuer we dislike the Popish manner of praying for the dead which is to deliuer them out of their feigned Purgatory yet wee doe not reprehend the Primitiue Church nor the Pastors nor guides of it for naming them in their publike prayers thereby to nourish their hope of the resurrection and to expresse their longing desire of the consummation of their owne and their happinesse that are come before them in the faith of Christ. * * See the place of Bellarmine cited in the Appendix g Can. 6. Si quis dixerit in Ecclesia cathol Non esse Hierarchiam diuinâ ordinatione constitutam quae constat ex Episcopis presbyteris ministris anathema sit Can. 7. Si quis dixerit Episco pos presbyteris non esse superiores anathemasit See the history of the Councell of Trent lib. 7. p. 478. 480 The Legates consulting among themselues answer that there were cause to declare that a Bishop is superiour to a Priest verum quo iure declarato non esse opus But by what right the Councell need not determine A little after the Doctors in the Councel were diuided about the Hierarchy some placing it in Orders only naming the Orders of Deacons Priests and Bishops and others following For Aerius placed it in iurisdiction a third sort placed it in both and the reasons of their direct opinions are there to be seene The contrary to this assertion is maintained by the learned in the Romish Church vid. Pagn In praef in suam ver sionem Ariam Montanum praef Bibl. Reg. Ignatium Leuitam contra Lindanum alios Pontificios prae omnibus Hieron apologiam pro Hebraicâ Veritate in Prologis Comm. in Zach. cap. 8. vid. Decret 1. part dist 9. ca. vt veteres citat Bellar. plures alios in hanc sententiam de verbo Dei lib. 2. cap. 11. 10. Benedict Parisiensis theologus aliquot millia locorum in lat vulg versione correxit ad veritatem hebraicam graecam edit Paris an 1552. 1558. sed postea prodijt noua editio ibid. 1573. omissis omnibus illis emendationibus cui praefixa est satis insulsa praefatio Iacobi fabri Sorbonici D. h h Certe vix dubitari potest quin sicut Latina Ecclesia constantior fuit in fide retinenda quà m Graecaâ—…ita etiam vigilantior fuerit in suis codicibus à corruptione defendendis Bell. de Verb. Deil. 2. c. 11. h h This Bellarmine must needs say vnlesse he contradict himselfe For a little after in the same chapter he confessâ—…th that in foure cases we may correct and mend the vulgar Latine Translation by the Greeke and Hebrew Fountaines De Verb. Dei lib. 2. cap. 11. sect 17. See Hieron Apolog. ad Pam. Interpretum vâ—…tio quae apud suos purissâ—…o orationis cursu labuntur apud nos vitijs scateâ—…t â—…dem cont Heluid cap. 6. Multo purior manare credenda est sontis vnda quà m riui * * In hunc locum Ignat. exceptioni Bellarm. primae An Ignatius hoc loco corruptus item secundae ac tertiae Item Baronij deprauationi fraudi respondet Nic. Vedelius exercit 2. in epist. ad Philadelph Morn de Eucharist lib. 1. c. 10. 11. vbi de hoc toto argum agit plenissimè k k Quomodo ad Martyrij poculuÌ„ idoneos faciemus si non eos primùm in Ecclesia ad Bibendum poculum Domini iure communicationis admittimus Cypr. epist. 54. ad Cornet l l Cur quidam in calice sanctificando plebi ministrando non faciunt quod Dom fecit docuit m m Ad bibendum sanguinem omnes exhortantur qui volunt habere vitam n n Aut integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur Quia diuisio vnius eius demque mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest prouenire o o Quid sit sanguis non iam audiendo sed bibendo didicistis p p Sanguis non in manus fidelium sed in ora funditur These books of Gregory are cited by Papists against vs vnder his name though they be iustly suspected to be counte feit in learned Diuines iudgement * * See an answer to these pretended ancient Rites supra c. 14. l l It is now two yeeres and more since Master Euerard hath had this Scedule in his hand vnto which he hath been sundry times importuned to answer but hath not performed * * M. Euerard should haue taken notice that the Apostles were not at this time fully ordained Priests though they had been once sent to preach For after his resurrection Ioh. 20. Christ breathed on them the holy Ghost and said Whose soeuer sinnes yee remit c. whereby hee fully indued them with Priestly power Secondly the Apostles at this Supper were Communicants not Ministers of the Sacrament Christ was then the Priest and Minister onely in that action and therefore the Apostles supplying the place of meere Communicants it followeth that whatsoeuer Christ then commanded them he commanded all Receiuers after them * * If neither precept of eating or drinking belong to the Laiety the Laiety are not at all bound to receiue this Sacrament * * Shamefull vntruth and notorious ignorance See the Appendix num 〈◊〉 item Chamierum de Euch. lib. 8. cap. 〈◊〉 de panis distributione quaestio nulla est nec dubitatur omnibus esse fidelibus distribuendum si qui se bene praeparatos offerant * * Waldensis tom 2. cap. 91. fol. 162. edit Salmant 1557. Prolixe probat ex August Cypriano Bernando bibere spiritualitur intelligendum Caietanusin 3. partem Thom. q. 80. verba Christi Ioh. 6. ad literam intelliguntur ad Manducationem spiritualem * * This answer he contradicteth in his last answer infra vid. A. * * From the proper acception of the obiect onely and not the act the corporall and substantiall presence of Christ in the Sacrament cannot be inferred For spiritually and figuratiuely a man may feed vpon Christs body by faith though his body be not present on earth * * See this answer refelled by Vasquez tom 3. in 3. partem disp 116. Nisi manducaueritis c. Haec verba non tantum reseruntur ad rem ipsam sumptam sed ad modum sumendi cam nam manducate bibite si verba propriè vsurâ—…entur cuiuis speciei conuenire non possunt Neque enim sanguis sub specie panis bibi dicitur sicut neque corpus sub specie vinimanducari vt optimè