Christendome tells vs that such commands as were giuen to the Apostles were neuer esteemed to oblige theyr successours Thirdly when the matter commanded is common to the Apostles and all other Priests and not limited by any circumstance mentioned or insinuated in Scripture to the Apostles only if the generall and continnuall practise of Christendome be not contrarie it is to be vnderstood to oblige not only the persons of the Apostles but all Bishops and Priests in succeeding ages such as are the preceptes of teaching the Gospell Baptizing absoluing from sinnes c. and of consecrating sacrifising and receauing this blessed Sacrament Fourthly when the matter of the precept in it selfe may be common to all Christians as was the washing of one an others feet the abstinence from blond and the receauing of both kindes and hath noe limitation to the Apostles or Priests only prescribed in the Scripture there can be noe other rule to know which precept obliges all Christians which not saue the constant and generall tradition of the Christian Church For by this only me know as well Protestants as Catholikes that the precept of washing of feet bindes not though it be vniuersally strictly inioineyd in Scripture without any limitation of time or persons and noe lesse though all Christians are of themselues capable to receaue both kindes and the command be giuen to the Apostles to teceaue them yet this command by the churches perpetuall tradition or permitting many lay Christians to teceaue in one only kinde by the Protestants coustome of not communicating little infants shew cleerly that this precept is not to be extended to all Christians without exception and if Protestants notwitstanding the word all limitate it only to such as are arriued to the yeares of discretion without any ground in the bare words of the text to exclude little children only because their own practise approues it why may not Roman Catholikes limit it to the Apostles then present hauing both a ground in the text because the words were spoken to them only and the vniuersall tradition of the Christian Church permitting many lay persons to communicate in one only kinde and little children eyther in one or neyther as I shall here after demonstrate Objection The second precept alleaged by reformists for communion vnder both kindes is in these words doe this in remembrance of me which being to be vnderstood of something commanded to be done not then but for insuing times as I haue already shewed are not to be limited as spoken to the Apostles only then present and so seeme to be extended to all Christians especially if they be limited to Priests only there will be noe command at-all in the institution obliging all Christians to receaue either both or either kind of this Sacrament Answer These words doe this in remembrance of me according to all that which is commanded in them cannot be extended to any more then Priests for here is euidently commanded the blessing consecrating offering sacrificing and administring of this Sacrament for it is to doe what our Sauiour then did which according to Catholiques comprehends all these particulars and according to Protestants some of them and if the consecrating and administration of this Sacrament were not commanded in these words there would be noe command at all for them in the whol institution nor very probabily in the whol new Testament Secondly if we stick closely to the bare words noe man can conuince from them only that all Christians are obliged to receaue this Sacrament vnder both or either kinde for the cleargy men might haue been obliged to consecrate and administer this Sacrament though the layity were not obliged to receaue it as they are bound to administer Priesthood and mariage when they are iustly required though noe man haue any absolute command either to be a Priest or to mary and consequently are not bound to receaue those two Sacraments Thirdly all that those words import as they stand may be satisfied probably if we say that not euery Priest or lay man in particular is obliged to consecrate or communicate by force of them but that they conteyne a precept giuen to the church in generall that what our Sauiour here commands be done as certainly there is a command giuen to the church to conferre Priesthood absolution and extreme Vnction c. and yet noe Bishop or Priest hath in particular any such absolute obligation by reason of his Priesthood only neither is any in particular bound to administer them by a positiue diuine precept giuen directly to them though accidentally they may haue a strickt obligation according to different circumstances to administer the said Sacrament Fourtly though it should be granted that these words doe this c. containe a precept obliging all Christians arriued to yeares of discretion to communicate sometimes yet this toucheth only the receauing vnder the forme of bread if we stand to the expresse words of the institution being said after the consecration of the host and before the chalice And the precept recorded by S. Paul after the chalice is not absolute to consecrate and receaue that but so often as it is drunke to doe it in remembrance of our Sauiour doe this as often as you shall drinke in remembrance of me said our Sauiour Lastly though from the sole force of these words doe this in remembrance of me considered as they stand in Scripture noe forcible argument can be drawn to proue a positiue precept in particular binding euery Christian to receaue sometimes this Sacramēt vnder either or both kindes and though the generall doctrine of the church be that there is noe diuine precept obliging more to receaue the host then the chalice and the coustome of the primitiue church was to giue to some the chalicc noe lesse without the host then to others the host without the chalice and that some late Learned Writers affirme that there is noe such precept conteyned in holy Scripture yet because S. Thomas and the common streame of doctours after him grant a generall precept of receauing this Sacrament to be conteyned in them and that S. Paul seemes to giue sufficient ground to thinke that this command doe this c. was to be extended to the actuall receauing of this Sacrament by the laity by mentioning drinking in the conditionall command of the consecrated chalice and deducing from the institution what preparation all Christians should make to receaue worthily this Sacrament as appeares v. 27. to the end of the chapter and mouued by this authority I grant that all Christians are here commanded sometimes in there liues to frequent this Sacrament yet so that lay people satisfie this precept by receauing one only kind or both according to the order prescribed by the holy Church as shee is mouued by different times or circumstances now to ordaine the receauing of both now of one alone to some the sole host and to others the chalice only for seeing this precept was giuen
before the consecration of the chalice though it induce noe more neccssity of receauing the host then the chalice yet it shewes euidently that if the host alone be receaued this precepte is satisfied and by a manifest paritie and equalitie betwixt the two kindes that if it be sufficient to satisfie this precept to receaue the sole host it will also be sufficient to receaue the chalice without the host the one containing nos lesse the whole essence of this Sacrament then the other as I haue already declared So that in this command doe this in remembrance of me the word this seemes to signifie according to S. Thomas now cited whatsoeuer our Sauiour then did as necessarily appertaining to the essence substaÌ„ce of this Sacrament and though this absolute preecpt was giuen before the chalice yet the ground of it being the very same in the host and chalice it is equally to be applyed to the receauing either of them yet disiunctiuely only that is that this Sacrament is to be receaued by euery one either vnder each or both kindes as the church shall determine Obiection The maine difficulty therefore comes at last to that text Ioh. 6. vnlesse c. which as it deliuers an absolute necessitie of receauing this most holy Sacrament so seemes it in expresse termes to impose the same necessitie of receauing vnder both kindes making mention of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of our Sauiour as necessarie to saluation Verily verily I say unto you vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sone of man and drinke his blood you shall not haue life in you Answer I am not ignorant that Catholique doctours giue different answers to this text which I leaue to be perused in theyr particular treatises of this point I answer breefly and clearely that in this text is comprehended a necessity both of eating and drinking that is there is a generall command giuen to the whol gencrality of Christians to receaue the body of Christ by way of eating and his blood by way of drinking and consequently of receauing vnder both kindes which must alwayes be performed by the generall body of Christians that they may haue life in them and that this may be performed there is a particular necessitie put vppon euery particular Christian to concurre to the execution of this generall command not that euery one in particular is obliged both to eate and drinke really this Sacrament but that some eating others drinking others doing both each particular conferres to the performance of this command of eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ wherevnto the generallity is absolutly obliged so that this whol command is to be performed by all as ioyntly and vnitedly considered and that it may be thus ioyntly done by all each particular is obliged to some part of it thereby concurring partially to the whol performance Thus when our Sauiour commanded his Apostles to teach and baptize all nations he gaue a generall and vniuersall command to them and theyr successours to performe this worke ioyntly amongst them not commanding each one in particular to preach and baptize the whol world for that neither was nor could morally speaking haue been done but that this might be done by all each one in particular was obliged to performe his part and to coÌ„curre to the conuersion and instruction of all nations so that though noe one was bound by vertu of this command either to conuert all nations or any one in particular each one was obliged to labour towards the conuersion of some part or other of the world so that by the labours of each at last the whol worke might be accomplished Thus our Sauiour sent his disciples saying goe and cure all diseases c. that is each one curing some all might be cured amongst them thus after his resurrection he foretold what cures and miracles should be done by his disciples not that each should doe all these miracles but that amongst them such miracles should be done and thus the holy Euangelist affirmes that the Apostles of Christ preached euery where not that each preached euery where but that all of them togeather were spread ouer the whol world and in the same manner may it now be said that Christians eate the flesh and drinke the blood of Christ not that each doth both but that it is done amongst them by reason that each in particular is obliged either to both or either of them and so the whol precept will be performed amongst them Neither seemes the context of S. Iohn to exact more then this for in what goes immediately before the doubt which the Iewes had there to which our Sauiour answers in this text was not whether it was necessary to saluation for euery one both to eate the flesh and drinke the blood of Christ for he had as then made noe mention at all of drinking his blood but they only doubted how his flesh could be really eaten how can this man say they giue vs his stesh to eate so that our Sauiours answer to this doubt of theirs was fully sufficient by telling them that it was not only possible but necessary to saluaâ—ion to eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the sone of man that is that those two actions should be really and truly done amongst such as were to haue eternall life but seeing their doubt was not supposing the reality of this eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ amongst such as were to haue eternall life whether it were necessary that euery one in particular were both to eate and drinke for they neuer so much as dreamed of this question it is noe way necessary to affirme by vertu of this context that our Sauiour defined there that it was necessary for euery one in particular to performe both but it was sufficient that both these actions were truly and really so to be accomplished in his church that the generalitie was to doe both and each Christian in particular to concurre either by performing one or both to the accomplishment of this iniunction for if each in particular had not been obliged to concurre to the performance of this command the wholâ— church would not haue been bound to correspond with it seeing their is noe more reason to binde one then another to the performance of it as in the command of teaching and baptizing the whol world by the Apostles each particular was bound to performe his part seeing that our Saoiour had commanded it should he done amonst them and there was noe reason that one should be more obliged to doe it then an other And though there be many other commands giuen by our Sauiour to the church in generall which oblige not each particular Christian to the performance of any part of them but only the gouuernours of the church to see that by some or other they be put in execution yet this precept is of an other nature binding the whol community
Scripture that it rather confirmes the proper and natiue signification of these words he who eateth this bread shall liue for euer when he saith as I liue by my father so he who eateth me shall liue by me whence is at the least more probabily then Protestants can proue the contrary inferred that as our Sauiour liues totally and compleately by his father without the addition of any thing else so Christians liue by worthily eating this heauenly bread without the addition of drinking or any other action necessary to giue life as a part of this Sacrament But that I may make the exposition which I haue giuen of these words yet more plaine and forcible I will propose an instance of a command of this kind giuen to the Israelites euen in matter of a Sacrament where they are in generall commanded by families to celebrate the passeouer by taking killing and shedding the blood and sprinkling it vppon the posts of their dores rosting and eating the paschall lambe c. not that euery one in particular was obliged to performe all these actions but some to one and others to others with decency and proportion though absolutly speaking euery one in particular must haue concurred with the rest to the performance of them all and yet the whol familly by concurring partially were obliged to the performance of all and happily this mystery beeing a figure of the Eucharist the only command of eating without any mention of drinking may giue some aduantage to the coustome of eating alone amongst Roman Catholiques but this only by the way as a congruence And yet to come nerer to our present Question when our Sauiour in the command giuen in the institution doe this c. commanded that what he had done as substantially belonging to this Sacrament should be done in his church that is that this mystery should be celebrated the host and chalice consecrated the body and blood of our Sauiour vndloodily be sacrifized and receaued yet noe Christian dare affirme that all these actions here commanded were to be performed by euery Christian in particular for then all Christian men weomen and children were to performe the office of Priests but that euery one was to concurre to the performance of this precept by doing what belongs to his degree and calling and seeing all these actions now mentioned were not to be performed by each Christian how can it be euer prouued that each was both to eate drinke seeing that by performance of either of these actions separately each might partially concurre to the accomplishment of that precept as they may also to this nisi manducaueritis vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sone of man and drinke his blood you shall not haue life in you that is vnlesse you concurre each in particular to the performaÌ„ce of this command either by eating alone or drinking alone or performing both togeather each respectiuely to his calling office and order prescribed by the church you shall not haue life amongst you that is these actions are necessary that life may be found in the Church of Christ or amongst Christians for this is à command which must be fulfilled amongst them and all are bound in particular to concurre one way or other to the fulfilling of it seeing there is noe reason that one should be more obliged then an other and so if any one were not obliged none in particular would be bound to fulfill it and then euery one in particular might lawfully abstaine and consequently there would be noe performance of this command amongst Christians which would make the command to be void and of noe effect quite contrary to the expresse words and intention of our Sauiour From this whol discours may appeare what an vnworthy and base esteeme our aduersaries frame of the most sacred body and blood of our Sauiour not thinking that either of them as they are in this Sacrament is fit and capable to conferre sauing grace to such as deuoutly receaue them which cannot buâ— derogate insufferably from that infinite worth and dignity which all Christians haue euer conceaued in them for as it is a most certaine and receaued tenet that not only the shedding of the least drop of his most precious blood but the least action or motion of his most sacred body was abundantly sufficient for the redemption of the whol world and a million of worlds more why should they now call in Question the sufficiency of the same body and blood receaued apart each of them to communicate ineffabâ—le fauours and graces all grounded in his sacred passion to the worthy receauers of them Obiection If they answer that they doubt not of the worth and power of each of these but of the will of our Sauiour whether he ordained that they separately or only ioyntly should conferre grace or commanded that allwayes both should be receaued Answer I answer that seeing noe lesse the body then the blood of our Sauiour as separately taken in the Eucharist is abondantly in it selfe fit and able to sanctifie the soule of him who dewly receaues it and that there is noe cleere text in Scripture which conuinces that one of them alone can not sanctifie or rather that there be most cleere texts which proue that one alone can doe it and that there is noe expresse command giuen in Scripture to all patticular Christians to receaue both and the coustome both of the primitiue ancient late and moderne church is euidently to the contrary I cannot see what can haue mouued ouâ— aduersaries to thinke that one kinde suffices not saue a low and meane esteeme they haue of the vertu and force of our Sauiours body and blood considercd separately in themselues in this Sacrament The second defect of respect and reuerence which our aduersaries shew to the sacred blood of Christ in this particular is the little care they haue how much of that diuine chalice and how often it be spilt vppon the ground sprinkled vppon the cloarhes of communicants cast out of the sacred vessels abused lost trod vnder foot by a thousand indiscretions irreuerences negligeÌ„ces mischances by reason of the great multitudes of people of all most all ages sexes conditions who not only once or twice a yeare as amongst the new reformers but each month forttnight and weeke communicate through out the whol Roman Church as dayly experiences teach and especially in the former age in Bohemia where leaue hauing been granted for the Catholiques to receaue both kindes for theyr comfort they found not withstanding all the diligences which morally could be vsed so many and great inconueniences in this kind both to the communicanrs and Priests that they quicly grew weary of it and were compelled to leaue it of But our aduersaries eyther not beleeuing it is his precious blood or little regarding what becomes of it if they beleeue it will and must haue the vse of the chalice though it be affected with a thosand irreuerences to satisfie theyr
SCRIPTVRE MISTAKEN THE GROVND OF PROTESTANTS AND COMMON PLEA OF ALL NEW REFORMERS AGAINST THE ANCIENT CATHOLICKE RELIGION OF ENGLAND Many texts quite mistaken by Nouelists are layd open and redressed in this treatis by restoring them to theyr proper sense according to which it is made manifest that none of them are of force against the ancient Catholicke Religion By IOHN SPENSER of the Society of IESVS Videtis id vos agere vt oninis de medio Scripturarum auferatur auctoritas S. Aug. li. 32. contra Faust. c. 19. PRINTED AT ANTWERPE By IAMES MEVRSIVS ANNO M.DC.LV. The points of Controuersie conteyned in this Treatis I. Of vvorship of Saincts and Angles pag. 1. II. Of the making and vvorshipping of holy Images pag. 69. III. Of Iustification by faith only pag. 137. IV. Of the merit of good vvorkes pag. 161. V. Of Purgatory pag. 179. VI. Of the reall Presence pag. 189. VII Of Communion vnder one kinde pag. 317. THE PREFACE THose victories are deseruedly inroled amongst the most noble and memorable in the monumeÌ„ts of Antiquity wherein an Enemy is ouercâ—m me with his own weapen Thus Dauids beating down that Tower of the Philistines seemed to the Israelites to haue been a conquest ouer ten thowsand Enemies Saul percussit mille Dauid decem millia because he cut of Golias head with Golias sword Thus the sone of God our dearest Sauiour purchast the noblest of all victories against the strongest of all Enimies vt qui in ligno vincebat in ligno quoque vinceretur because he who ouercame vs by a tree was through him by a tree ouercome And thus our deare Redeemer hauing been furiously attacked by the Tempter in the desert with the authority of his own word put to flight and vanquished the same Tempter by the authority of the same word which he had pressed against him Hence it is that not the sling of Dauid werewith he begunne but the sword of Golias was reserued and wrapt vp in a holy Ephod in the Tabernacle as an eternall trophe and monument of his victory Hence that anciently most ignominious hatefull of creatures the crosse is now erected in triumphal maner not only vppon the highest towers of Christian temples but vppon the most sacred and soueraigne heads of Christian Emperours And hence it also is that the Catholicque Church hath soe carefully conserued soe religiously honored and gloriously triuÌ„phed in those breathes of diuinity the holy Scriptures because that as her spouse stopt the fontaine soe she by the heat of his spirit hath dried vp the troubled and diuided streames of all errours and heresies trough theyr heauenly light and authority This is the victoty which I represent in triumph in this present treatis as the most heroicke amongst all others of the Romane Church because it conquers heresie by the weapen of heresie vt qui in verbo pugnabant in verbo quoque vincerentur that those vvbo haue hitherto fought vvith the sole vvord might be ouercome vvith the sole vvord The Romane Church euen from the first Challenge of her aduersaries in these last ages hath giuen them the foile nay quite defeated them at the weapens of Antiquity vniuersalâ—â—y vnity succession visibility sanctity miracles Fathers Councils reason authority but these were soe farre and clearly her weapens that they scarce euer dirst lay clayme to any of them and soe the victory glassed in theyr eyes seemes eyther none or small because not gayned with a weapen of theyr chusing now therefore to accomplish what she hath soe prosperously attempted she accepts the combat euen with that weapen which they take by mistaking to be theyr own It is the vvritâ—en vvord of God the sole vvritten vvord to which all appeall here they boast and glory here they exult and triumph not only before the victory but befote the fight this and this alone they take for theyr bucklar of defense for theyr armour of proofe for theyr deepe piercing dart theyr swift flying arrow and theyr sharp edged sword this they brandish before the eyes of innoceÌ„ts with this they florish in theyr bookes and Pulpits in theyr publicque meetings and priuate conuenticles nay in the very streetes and tauernes and that soe seemingly with a glosse as false as it is faire that they dazle the eyes of the vulgar and strike them with admiration in each motion of it Here they fully perswade themselues that those of the Roman Church dare not medle with them and take for granted that whatsoeuer wee haue gained vppon them by other weapens yet wee yeeld our selues clerely conquered by this So confideÌ„t are our Aduersaries in theyr own conceipts where as the Roman Church neuer as yet acknowledged to haue been eyther worsted or soe much as touched by any one text of Scripture which they euer pressed against her witnesse the many large volumes of full and cleere answers to euery senteÌ„ce objected by her Aduersaries Neyther euer refused she to incounter her enemies with this weapen of theyr own chusing True it is she requiers iudges present to see and determine which party hath the better in the incounter but they refuse all other iudges quite contrary to the light of reason saue that very weapen where with rhey fight and though she still keepe the feeld continue on the coÌ„bat maintaine the quarel without soe much as yeelding eyther a step or hairs breadth not withstaÌ„ding she must be worsted only because her aduersaries say she is What will an impartiall ey iudge of such proceedings yet to shew how empty and vaine all these flotishes are and how strong desires she hath of the eternall good of her enimies rather then leaue them wholy destitute of redresse she freely like an indulgent mother condesceÌ„ds to theyr infirmities and conformes her selfe to theyr wayward humours and that soe farre as to expose the equitie of her cause euen to the iudgement of her very Aduersaries and confides with holy Dauid inimici nostri sunt iudices that euen her most forward enimies will not be soe voyd of light reason and equity as not to acknowledge her conquerant and themselue vanquished euen in theyr own iudgements and with theyr own weapen Thus she enters the list and confides in the strength of her God and spouse that the day wil be hers And findes noe surer meanes to incompasse it then by disarming her enimie because to dissarme him him is to dissanimate him for yeeld he must when he can feight noe longer I haue indeauored in this present Treatis to giue my Readers an essay of this kinde of victory of the Roman Church where in I hope he will finde it manifest that the texts which our Aduersaries vsually alleadge against the Romane doctrine in such points as I haue tuched are not arguments but mistakes And that soe grosse and palpable that halfe an ey may discouer them Thus therefore the matter stands and the combat proceeds betwixt vs. Our Aduersaries haue now aboue
Readers memory least the contrary misconceipt amongst Protestants of our doctrine in this poinct might alienate his affection from our Religion If any one desire to haue the inuocation of Saints and Angels thus explicated prouued by Scripture he may please to examine Iob. 5.1 Call if there be any which will answer the and to which of the Saints wilt thou turne where the seauenty Interpreters haue it in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is turne the to some of the holy Angels And Gen. 48. v. 16. The Angel which redeemed me from all 〈◊〉 blesse these Laddes which is a plaine inuocation of an Angel as in the former verse 15. the like speech was an inuocation of God And lastly the first of Samuel 28. v. 7. to the 22. where the Scripture affirmes expresly 1. thrice ouer that Samuel himselfe appeared v. 15.16.20 2. that Saul worshipped him and Samuel did not forbid him and soe accepted of it v. 14. 3. that Saul desired Samuel to assist him and soe inuoked him v. 15. 4. that Samuel prophesied truly what should become of Saul and the Israelites army under him as apprares in the next chapter which was a manifest signe that he who appeared was not the diuel but a true Prophete of God both because the diuel hath noe certaine knowledge of accidentall and casuall things to come as those which Samuel foretold were and because the Prophete Ierem. c. 28. v. 9. giues this for the signc of a true Prophete sent from God The Prophete which prophesieth of peace when the word of the Prophete shall come to passe then shall the Prophete be known that the Lord hath truly sent him That he who here appeared to Saul was Samuel hemselfe and that he truly prophesied is witnessed by Ecclesiasticus c. 46. v. 20. And after his death he prophesied and shewed the king his ende and lift vp his voyce from the earth in prophesie to blot out the wickednesse of the people which booke though it be not accounted canonicall by Protestants yet they must acknowledge it to be of greater authority then any they can alleadge of theyr party to proue that it was not Samuel neyther concluds the reason brought commonly by Protestants any thing against this for though Saul had recourse to that witch to raise him vp Samuel and she had consented to doe it yet the text sayes not that her conjuring raised him or that he was inforced to come by force of her witchcraft for first Samuel attributes his coming vp not to her but to Saul v. 15. why hast thou disquieted me secondly it seemes that soe soone as the woman had consented to Sauls petition that Samuel by the power of God preuenting her wicked conjurings came vp unexpectedly and suddainly and in a terrible and unusuall maner and therefore the text saies v. 12. And when the woman saw Samuel she cried out with a lowd voyce Thirdly That woman said not I raised but I saw Gods ascending from the earth where the Hebrew word Elohim Gods is vety ordinarily taken for good Spirits or Angels in the old testament These three texts may suffice for the present it being not my intention to proue but to defend THE SECOND CONTROVERSIE Concerning the making and worshipping of holy Images The Doctrine of the Romain Chruch concerning the use and veneration of holy Images deliuered in the Council of Trent sess 24. MAndat sancta Synodus omnibus Episcopis caeteris docendi munus curamque sustinentibus vt fideles diligenter instruant docentes eos Imagines Christi Deiparae Virginis aliorum Sanctorum in templis praesertim habendas retinendas eisque debitum honorem venerationem impertiendam non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis diuinitas vel virtus propter quam sint colendae vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum vel quod fiducia in Imaginibus sit figenda veluti olim fiebat à Gentibus quae in Idolis spem suam collocabant sed quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur referrur ad Prototypa quae illae repraesentant ita vt per imagines quas osculamur coram quibus caput aperimus procumbimus Christum adoremus Sanctos quorum illae similitudinem gerunt veneremur Id quod conciliorum praesertim verò secundae Nicenae Synodi decretis contra imaginum oppugnatores est sancitum THe holy Council commands all Bishops and all others who haue the office and care of teaching that they diligently instruct faithfull people teaching them that the Images of Christ of the Virgin Mother of God and of other Saincts are to be had and reteyned especially in churches and that due honour and veneration is to be giuen to them not that one beleeues that there is any diuinity in them or power for which they are to be worshipped or that one is to asck any thing of them or that confidence is to be put in them as anciently the gentiles did who placed theyr hope in Idoles but because the honour which is done to them is referred to those whom they represent Soe that through the Images which we kisse and before which we uncouer our heades and prostrate our selues we worship Christ and his Saints whose similitudes they are which doctrine is established by the decrees of Councils especially of the second Council of Nice Seeing therefore here the Council of Trent expresly commands that all Bishops and Paslours c. teach this doctrine to all faithfull Christians noe Aduersary of the Romain Church can eyther doubt in prudēce whether this be her doctrine nor in charity iudge or affirme vppon a mere coniecturall supposition without any certaine and particular information or proof that Romain Catholicques commonly and ordinarily pray to pictures and put theyr confidence and hope in them beleeuing that there is power life and diuinity in those carued or panited Images which they haue before them and soe hoping to be heard and helped by them as the heathens did by theyr Idoles this I say noe man can say or iudge in charity because he must eyther iudge that the Prelates and Pastours of our church are generally neglecting to teach the faithfull vnder theyr charge what they are here commanded which would be to accuse them of a high and hainous neglect or he must iudge that faithfull people beeing sufficiently taught this doctrine by theyr respectiue Pastours are proudly dissobedient to theyr Pastours and the whol church in doing the quite contrary to what thy are taught which were to condemne them of a greeuous sinne and that without any sufficient reason vppon a mere coniecture or voluntary and rash iudgement contrary to the expresse command of our Sauiour Luc. 6.37 Nolite iudicare non iudicabimini Iudge not and you shall not be iudged And as contrary to that of S. Paul Rom. 14.4 Tu quis es qui iudicas alienum seruum domino suo stat aut cadit VVho art thou who iudges an others seruant he stands or
answer is a mere euasion grounded vppon a false principle I will presently make manifest for first it is not the custome of Greeke authours speaking of the statues or Idols of theyr Gods to expresse them in the feminine as referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in the masculine article as referred to the God whose name that statua beares Secondly Acts 19.35 those words which M. Fulck and other Protestants vnderstand of the statua or Image of Diana are not put in greek with the feminine but with the masculine or newter gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby is manifest that when the greeks speake of theyr Idols and statuas they referre them not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the feminine but rather to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the newter gender or some such like word Thirdly in the 1. of Kings 19.18 whence this text of Rom. 11.4 is taken the Septuagint haue it in the masculine gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet both this place and that of S. Paul must necessarily be vnderstood to speake of the same thing and in the same sence which seeing the Protestants will haue to be only the statua or picture of Baal it must needs follow that the reason why S. Paul hath it in the feminine gender is not because it speakes of that visible and artificiall Idol for 1. Kings 19.18 speaking also of that hath it in the masculine gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This therefore is not the Reason but S. Paul puts it in the feminine and the Septuagint in the masculine gender because Baal was a common name to the Idols of the heathens which weare adored by the Iews thus nothing is more familiar in the old Testament then to put that word in the plurall number Baalim because it was common to many false Gods which weare comprised in that name now those Gods some were males and some femalls and soe of both genders amongst which Astarthes Queene and Goddesse of Sidonia was the most famous where of familiar mention is made in the old Testament speaking of Baalim and Asteroth Seeing therefore that both S. Paul and the booke of kings speake of a generall worshipping of Baal through the whol kingdome of Israel which must be extended to all theyr false Gods whether men or woemen it might likewise be translated truly both in the masculine gender in the first of the kings and in the feminine in the 11. to the Romains as comprehending both And soe S. Paul hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the feminine not in reference to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Image as Fulk would haue it bur in reference to Astarthes or other woemen Goddesses comprehended in that generall word Baal as Catholicque doctours vnderstand it for according to this exposition both the old and new Testament are easily reconciled but according to Fulk neyther can the old be here reconciled with the new nor the new with it selfe as I haâ—e declared whence appeares seeing this reason failes which Protestants foly alleadge for theyr defence that the word Image is here added to the text with out any sufficient reason and soe falsely and corruptedly I finde the like addition of the word Image Acts 19.35 aboue cited where though the greek word be of the masculine gender as I haue declared yet the word Image which is not in the originall as M. Fulk acknowledges is put into the English text thus of the Image which came down from Iupiter where there was noe reason at all to put Image seeing the greeke words are masculine but the Readeâ— may easily discouer by such indirect proceedings as these that it is not the gender but the generall disgust against holy Images which caused these additions for whether the greek article be masculine or feminine Image must come in as is euident from these two textsâ— Neyther is that which M. Fulk alleadges of any force for the greek words may be refered to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and be translated as our vulgar hath it Iouis Prolis Iupiters child hauing rather relation to the Person then to the Idol of Diana Or if it be referred to that Idol which was reserued with soe greate honour in the temple of Ephesus yet by reason of the great stupidity and brutality of the Heathens described in many places of holy Scripture as I shall here after declare that very Idol was held by them to be a true deity and the liuing Goddesse Diana and therefore they made soe loud and strong acclamations magna est Diana Ephesiorum great is Diana of the Ephefiens who was noe other then that dull and dead Idol which was adored by them in the temple of Ephesus But though they had been wiser then the ordinary strayne of Idolaters and soe had esteemed that Idol to be a mere representation of theyr Goddesse yet seeing that the originall hath noe word which signifies Image but vses a generall expression which is indifferent to the one or other of these explications why should not the English as well as the greek haue only sayd that which came down from Iupiter neyther expressiing Image nor any other determinate thing if they had as fully intended to follow the originall without all passion against holy Images as they predend it But that I may further lay open how vehemently they were transported in the first appearance of theyr new Church against the vse of Images I will breefly alleadge some other places of Scripture wherein theyr translations of the yeares 1562. and 1577. as M. Fulk acknowledges and 1589. they haue translated the greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worshippers of Images 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Images Thus Ephes. 5.5 where the greek hath Idolater these traÌ„flations haue a worshipper of Images And Coll. 3.5 where the greek hath Idolatry they haue worshipping of Images and the like is Gal. 5.20 1. Ioan. 5.21 for Idoles in greeke they translate Images in the Bible printed 1562. and though in Fulks testament it be translated Idoles in the text yet in the margent he puts or Images Now how great a difference there is betwixt an Idol and an Image I haue all ready declared and M. Fulk acknowledges fol. 456. that the vse of our English speach hath made the name of Idol odious and of Image indifferent whence follows necessarily that the word Image according to him may signifie noe lesse a good then a bad representation but the word Idol allways a bad soe that the word Image or Images cannot be put absolutly in those places of Scripture where they are vniuersally to be vnderstood of things bad or vnlawful thus therefore 1. Iohn 5.2 where the Apostle saith Babes keepe your selues from Idoles being an indefinite and soe an vniuersall precept he commands Christians to keepe themselues from all kinde of Idoles what soeuer and soe is fitly and truly expressed by the word Idoles because that word is alwayes taken in our language euen according to M. Fulk
set down in an other English Catechisme which I haue seene and read in a publike auditory of Protestants The ground therefore of this false imposition if it may be termed a ground may happily haue beene some small short Catechismes made for little children and new beginners for the help of their memories to be learned by hart wherin this commandement as all the rest of the longer commandements set down Exod. 20. Deut. 5. is abridged and brought to so many words as merely serue to expresse the substance of them omitting the rest thus 1. I am the Lord thy God thou shalt not haue any other Gods before me 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vayne 3. Remember thou sanctify the festiuall dayes 4. Honour thy father and mother where not only many words adioyned to the command against adoring false Gods or Idols Exod. 20. Deut. 5. but to the three ensuing also are here for breuity's sake omitted setting down in few words the substance and making no mention of the reasons and amplifications found in Exodus and Deuteronomy least were they all sett at large as they are there both the memory of yong children might be ouercharged and their weake vnderstandings confounded not being able to distinguish the substance of the command from the reasons and amplifications of it Now if we deliuered the commandements with this preface as Protestants do in their common prayer booke The same which God spake in the 20. chapter of Exodus saying c. we were obliged to put them all word for word as they are found there For otherwise the commandements would not be answerable to the Title But seeing we find them in other places of Scripture set down in a much briefer manner then they are there and find no precept neither in Scripture nor in the Church to deliuer them to Christians as they are deliuered in Exod. 20. and Deut. 5. rather then in other places our aduersaryes can no more condemne vs of falsefying them when we put them briefer then they can the holy Scripture it selfe for abbreuiating them more in other places then they are in Exodus now cited and Leuiticus That they are thus abbreuiated in Scripture is manifest Leuit. 19. v. 1.2.3 And the Lord spake vnto Moyses saying speake vnto all the congregation of the children of Israel and say vnto them yee shall be holy for I the Lord your God am holy yee shall feare euery man his father and his mother and shall keepe my sabbaths I am the Lord your God yee shall not turne vndo Idols nor make molten Gods I am the Lord your God c. where that which our aduersaryes account the second commandement is put euen shorter then many of our catechismes haue it Turne not your selues vnto Idols nor make vnto your selues molten Gods as it is in Exod. 20. v. 23. Yee shall not make vnto your selues Gods of siluer neither shall yee make Gods of gould Neither indeed is it any way conuenient to deliuer the commandements publikely and generally to Christian people word for word as they stand Exod. 20. Leuitit 26. because therby they are indangered either to take sunday to be saturday or the Iewish Sabbath or must hold themselues obliged to obserue Saturday with the Iewes that alone being dies Sabbati the Sabbath day wherin only God rested after the creation of the world which only he also Sanctifyed and commanded to be kept as clearly appeares by the words of the commandement soe that it is not any seuenth day or one indeterminately euery weeke which God commands to be kept holy in this precept but one only and determinately that is the same seuenth day where in God rested from the worke of the creation as appeares Gen. 2.1.2.3 Et benedixit diei septimo sanctisicauit illum quia in ipso cessauerat ab omni opere suo quod creauit Deus vt faceret And God blessed the seuenth day and sanctified it hecause that in it he had rested from all his workes which God created and made now it is most euident that God rested only vppon one determinate day and that noe other then the Iewish Sabbath or Saturday or if they vnderstand well what day is meant in the commandemenr they must needs be scandalized to see a commandement vniuersally deliuered to them of keeping the Iewish Sabbath which is and euer was Saturday and yet neuer obserued by any of them but Sunday in place of it Hence therefore we see in generall that it is very inconuenient to propose Gods commandements publikely to Christians word for word as they stand in Exodus and so wee can neuer be iustly condemned if we put some of them as they are more briefly deliuered in other places of Scripture or now to be in obseruance amongst Christians But there is an other poynt boggeled at chiefly by the ignorant about the diuision of Gods cōmandements Yee obiect they against vs put the two first commandements into one and diuide the last into two I answere that a Catholike seeing their diuision may with much more reason tell Protestants yee put the two last commandements into one and diuide the first into two Briefly therefore to cleare this poynt it is to be noted that though it be expresly declared in Scripture that Gods commandements were ten in number and written in two tables yet through the whole Bible neuer is it declared which is the first second third c. nor so much as one word spoken concerning the diuision of them but this was left either to tradition or to the prudent determination of Doctours so that howsoeuer they are prudently diuided there will be nothing contrary to Scripture so long as the whol substance be expressed and the number of them be obserued Hence in and euen before S. Augustins tyme as he witnesses there was a double diuision of the commandements amongst Christians some diuiding them as we doe and others as our aduersaryes Yet both S. Augustine himselfe q. 71. in Exod. and S. Hierome Comment in Psalm 32. and Clemens Alexandrinus lib. 6. Stromatum follow our diuision S. Augustin prouing it very largly to be the better and putting in the first commandement Idol not Image and serue not worship and S. Hierome setting down the three commandements conteyned in the first table as short or shorter then any of our Catechismes doe and from them euen to our tymes it seemes to haue beene the receiued diuision at least in the westerne Church and should haue beene followed by those of our nation who euer before the breach were estemeed a part of it and yet pretend to be so had not the spirit of contradiction against the Romain Church induced them to the contrary Now as we haue authority so haue we solid reason to prefer this diuision before that of our aduersaryes for certaine it is that each different commandement forbids a different maine sin so that neither are we to make two
that the same body sacrificed vppon the altar or consecrated vppon the table of God should be able to put vs in remembrance of the passion of our Sauiour and of the very same body crucified that is those actions there done of consecrating the hoast separate from the chalice of sacrificing of giuing to others eating drinking c. should signifie that our Sauiour there inuisibly present suffered for vs many yeares agoe and sacrificed himselfe to nourish vs to eternall life and so our Sauiour not hauing said this is a remembrance of my Body but doe this in remembrance of me by vertue of these words precisely made the actions done to him in this SacrameÌ„t and not himselfe or his body a remembraÌ„ce of himselfe as béfore crucified Objection So that that which he gaue into his disciples hands being a remembrance or commemoration of Christ is not Christ himselfe for nothing can be a remembrance or commemoratian of it selfe for who would not thinke him to speake simply that should say I giue you this ring in remembraÌ„ce of this ring or I giue you this bookc for a coÌ„memoration of this book certainly the remembrà ce of things are otherwise then the thing it selfe Answer Though these words of our Sauiour doe this in remembrance of me by force of themselues signifie only that the action which the Apostles were commanded to doe was to be in remembrance of him that is of him crucified yet speaking independently of these words it is noe absurdity but a truth to grant that a thing or peâ—son may be a remembrance of themselues considered in different circumstances for though nothing in the same time place and circumstances can be a remembrance or coÌ„memoration of it selfe for that were to signifie idem per idem the same by the same which is absurd and in this sence the obiection sayes well yet it would nor be absurd to say I giue you this ring now to be a remembrance or commemoration here after that this same ring was giuing you by me for who can doubt but that very same ring when he lookes or thinkes vppon it who receaued it is apt to put him in remembrance that it was giuen to him by such a friend so many dayes or yeares before and so at one time it is a remembrance of it selfe as considered in a nother different precedent time Thus when friends and ancient acquintance after a long separation meet first togeather they presently put the one the other in remembrance of themselues and so are accoustomed to say I remember you very well Thus if a king or Generall should act his own part vppon a stage he would put his subiects or souldiers there present in remembrance of himselfe fighting or becoming victorious in some precedent battel Thus our Sauiour appearing to S. Thomas made him presently beleeue and remember that he was the same person who not many dayes before was crucified for him and to say Dominus meus Deus meus my Lord and my God Hence appeares manifestly that the very same body which was giuen and that very blood which was shed for vs remaning in its own proper substance and nature in this Sacrament which it then had but after an inuisible and diuine manner by reason of the visible actions of consecrating sacrificing eleuating and receiuing of him puts vs in remembrance of that same body blood and person which so many yeares agoe was giuen shed and crucified out of pure mercy for vs. If any one here shouid replye that though in the fore named instances he proued that one thing or person may put vs in remembrance of themselues in different times and circumstances yet the same thing cannot properly be said to be a remembrance commemoration or memoriall of it selfe euen in those different times according to the ordinary cours of speach amongst men I answer that when a thing remaines in its whole visible substance as it was before there may be some difficulties whether it be to be called a memoriall or remembrance of it selfe or noe though it he capable of putting one in remembrance of it selfe as existent in some other time because it hath other functions and perfections properly belonging to it which being of cheefer and more primary vse and consequence giue the name to the thing and so it is not rightly termed a memory or remembrance of it selfe but when it actually reduces any one to the temembrance of it But when a thing is so changed in respect of its proper functions amongst men though it remaines the same in substance and all other proprieties that it was that one of the maine ends for which it is put in that manner is to be a remembrance of what it did or suffered in former times then it may properly be called a memoriall commemoration remembrance or memory of it selfe Thus though our Sauiour appearing to his disciples after his resurrection in a visible and liuing forme put them in remembrance of his passion or that he was the same who suffered and yet because his other actions of teaching inlightning comforting confirming in faith c. were his primarie actions he had his appellations according to to them and not from the remembrance which he caused in them because that was secundary and of lesse consequence But by reason that in this holy Sacrament he hath noe vse of any of those functions or the like but is put in an inuisible and hidden manner as the food of our soules and the end why he is so put is cheefly to continue a perpetuall remembrance of his bitter death and passion he is most deseruedly termed a memoriall of himselfe suffering vppon the crosse Thus for the like reason a sword wherewith some valiant champion hath atcheeued some notable feate of armes so long as he weares it himselfe or any other vses it it cannot properly be said to be a remembrance of it selfe as the instrument of those famous exploits but if it be hung vp as a monument for those exploits in some publike place or temple it becomes a memoriall of it selfe as working those noble actions and in this sense the sword of Golias vsed by Dauid in the beheading of that tower of flesch and kept in the temple as a monument was a true memoriall of it selfe as the instrument of atcheeuing that victorie Obiection All that hath beene said of these words This is my Body may and ought to be applied to to these This is my bloud and there is nothing more conuenient then te receaue the same manner of speech in the distribution of the one kinde which is in the distribution of the other Answer All that is conteined in this paragraphe of the obiections may easily be granted supposing there be a right explication giuen of these words This is my Body as conteining nothing against vs. Obiection But as they repeate only these words This is my Body without relation either to that which goes befote or to that
contrary â—eeing therefore I haue clearly demonstrated that in the instaÌ„ces alleadged none of the figuratiue speeches can be vnderstood in a proper sense without the violation of some article of our faith proceeding according to true discours euen confessed by our aduersarios I conuince also that they haue no force to proue that these sacramentall words are to be vnderstood figuratiuely THE SEAVENTH CONTROVERSIE Concerning Communion vnder one kinde The Doctrine of the Church of Rome deliuered in the Council of Trent Sess. 13. cap. 3. SEmper haec fides in Ecclesiâ Dei fuit Statim post consecrationem verum Domini nostri corpus verumque eius sanguinem sub panis vini specie vna cum ipsius animâ diuinitate existere sed corpus quidem sub specie panis sanguinem sub vini specie ex vi verborum ipsum corpus sub specie vini sanguinem sub specie panis animamque sub vtraque vi naturalis illius connexionis concomitantiae quâ partes Christi Domini qui iam ex mortuis resurrexit non ampliùs moriturus inter se copulantur Diuinitatem porrò propter admirabilem illam eius cum corpore animâ hypostaticam vnionem Quapropter verissimum est tantumdem sub altetutrâ specie atque sub vtrâque contineri totus enim integer Christus sub panis specie sub quauis ipsius speciei parte totus item sub vini specie sub eius partibus existit This faith hath been alwayes in the church of God that presently after consecration the true body and blood of Christ did exist vnder the species of bread and wine togeather with his soul and diuinity But his body vnder the species of bread and his blood vnder the species of wine by force of the words but his body vnder the species of wine and his blood vndet the species of bread and his soul vndeâ— both by force of that naturall connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord who is now risen from the dead not to dy any more are ioyned togeather moreouer also his diuinity both with his body and soul by reason of that admirable hypostaticall vnion with them wherefore it is most true that as much is conteyned vnder eyther kinde as vnder both togeather for whol and intire Christ exists vnder the species or kinde of bread and each part of it and whol Christ exists vnder the species of wine and vnder each part of it The same doctrine is confirmed sess 13. can 3. Item sess 21. cap. 3. Insuper declarat quamuis Redemptor noâ—ter vt anteà dictum est in supremâ illâ coenaÌ„â—oc Sacramentum in duabus speciebus instiâ—uerit Apostolis tradiderit tamen fatendum esse etiam sub alterâ tantùm specie totum atque integrum Christum verumque Sacramentum suâ—â—i ac propâ—ereà quod ad fructum attinet nulâ—a gratia necessariâ ad salutem eos defraudari qui vnam speciem solam accipiunt Moreouer the Council declares that allthough our Redeemer as is aboue said instituted this Sacrament in his last supper vnder both kindes yet it is to be confessed that vnder one only kinde whol Christ and a true Sacrament is receiued and therefore for soe much as belongs to the ftuict that those who receiue it only vnder one kinde are not defrauded of any grace necessary to saluation Ibidem cap. 2. Praetereà declarat hanc potestatem pepetuò in Ecclesiâ fuisse vt in Sacramentorum dispensatione saluâ illorum substantiâ ea statueret vel mutaret quae susâ—ipientium vtilitati seu ipsorum Sacramentorum venerationi pro rerum temporum ac locorum varietate magis expedire iudicaret Id autem Apostolus non obscurè visus est inuisse cùm ait Sic nos existimet homo vt ministrâ—s Christi dispensatores mysteriorum Dei atque quidem hac potestate vsum esse satis constat cùm in multis aliis tum in hoc ipso Sacramento cum ordinatis non nullis circa eius vsum caetera inquit cùm venero disponam Quare agnoscens sancta mater Ecclesia hanc suam in administratione Sacramentorum authoritatem licèt ab initio Christianae Religionis non infrequens vtriusque speciei vsus fuisset tamen progressu temporis latissimèiam mutatâ illâ consuetudine grauibus iustis de causis adducta hanc consuetudinem sub alterâ specie communicandi approbauit pro lege habendam decreuit quam reprobare aut sine ipsius Ecclesiae authoritate pro libito mutare non licèt Further the CouÌ„cil declares that this power hath allwayes been in the church that in the dispensation of the Sacraments the substance being kept inuiolated and intire she might appoint and change such things as she iudged to be expedient for the profit of the receiuers or the veneration of the Sacraments according to the variety of things times and places And this the Apostle seemes not obscurely to haue insinuated when he sayes Let a man soe esteeme vs as Ministers of Christ and dispsnsers of the mysteries os God and that he made vse of this power is clere enough both in many other things and particularly in this Sacrament when ordayning some things concerning the vse of this Sacrament he said I will dispose the rest when I come wherefore our holy mother the church taking notice of this her power in the administration of Sacraments though in the beginning of the church the vse os both kindes was frequent yet in processe of time that custome being now notably changed being induced by iust and important reasons she hath approuued this custome of communicating vnder one kinde and hath decreed that it be held for a law which it is not lawfull to change or reproue at ones pleasure without the authority of the church The like doctrine is deliuered in the first chap. of this session From these texts it is manifest that the Council was induced to command this practice first because whol Christ is vnder both kindes 2. because in each kinde is the whole essence and substance of this Sacrament 3. because noe sacramentall grace necessary to saluation is lost by communicating vnder one kinde 4. because many important reasons toutching the honour and respect dew to soe diuine a SacrameÌ„t mouued her to it 5. because there is noe diuine command to the contrary as appearrs sess 21. cap. 1. 6 because the church hath power to dispence the Sacraments as she finds most eoÌ„uenient soe long as Gods commands and theyr substance are not violated 7. That it is not in any ones power saue only of the church to change this costome The Protestant Position Deliuered in the 39. Articles of the English Church Art 30. THc cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people For both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs ordenance ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike This is proued by Scripture mistaken
of Christians to the whol and each particular to some part of this command For seeing there is noe more reason why one Christian should be more exempted from it then an other the concurring to it falls equally vppon all for though Priests when they consecrate and sacrifice haue each in particular an obligation to communicate yet according to a probable opinion they haue noe obligation in particular proceeding from any diuine precept to consectate or sacrifize but all their absolute obligation to communicate is taken from this and other like commands which we haue treated so that though noe particular Priest were bound by diuine precept to say masse yet they are bound to communicate by reason of these precepts which could not be vnlesse euery Christian were obliged in perticular to concurre to the performance of this generall command with an equall obligation Objection If it should be said that the church may sufficiently complie with the generall command by prouiding that it be still kept in execution by some particular persons as she complies with many others Answer In answer first that if should one staÌ„d meerely to the bare letter of Scripture in these precepts this might be said but if we take the sence of it according to the common straine of doctours euery particular will be obliged by them especially seeing that S. Paul extends this matter of communion to each particular Secondly as it was not in the power of the Apostels to exempt any of the twelf from concurring to the conuersion of all nation commanded by our Sauiour and to haue iâ— accomplished by the rest which they should haue appointed because each of them in particular was bound to labour in it by diuine precept where in the church cannot dispence so seeing we haue the same authority of doctours and tradition for the obliging each particular by this command vnlesse you eate aâ— each Apostle by that goe and teach all nations c. it may be denied that the church hath power to exempt any one from this precept by hauing it performed by other Christians appointed by her authority Thirdly had this Sacrament been left free as Priesthood and mariage were without any diuine precept that euery Christian csometimes in their liues receiue it the church neither would nor could haue obliged each Christian in particular to receaue it once a yeare as shee obliges none to receaue Priesthood or mariage because they were left free by our Sauiour Objection If it should be here objected that in the command of teaching c. each Apostle in particular could not conuert all and if each had been bound to teach and baptize all the command could not haue any conuenient sense but each Christian is able easily both to eate and drinke this Sacrament and so there is no parity in the command of teching with that of communicating Answer I answer first that this command is not instanced as like in all things but to this end that seeing this precept of teaching c. must he vnderstood of all in general and each in particular and that there be such commands in Scripture that though this of eating and drinking this Sacrament might haue been so vnderstood that each Ccristian is bound both to eate and drinke as being a rhing very feasable yet this Sacramentall precept may be vnderstood as the other must be and if it be possible to vnderstand it so our aduersaries will neuer be able to conuince thence the necessity for euery particular to receaue both kindes and yet there will be a necessity by vertu of these words to receaue one I Answer secondly that there is as great a necessity to vnderstand this precept in the foresaid manner drawn from the truth of Scripâ—ure as there is for vnderstanding the command of teaching drawn for the force of nature That which followes the text in the ensuing verses makes this matter quite out of question for though our Sauiour here declared the necessity in the plurall number Nisi manducauerith c. vnlesse you eate c. of eating his stesh and drinking his blood as belonging to the generallity of Christians the words in vobis in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you shall not haue life in you signifie according to the Greeke phrase very familiarly in Scripture amongst you which is referred to the whol congregation of Christians and not to each patricular Yet when he expressed himselfe in the singular number Qui manducat hunc panem qui manducat mâ— c. he who eateth this bread he who eateth me c. and addessed his speach to particular persons he attributes eternall life to the sole eating of him and that heauenly bread as appeares in the said text he who eateth me shall liue by me he who eateth this bread shall liue for euer c. and hence it is clearly deduced not only that these words vnlesse ye â—ate c. doe not euidently include ea necessity for euery particular person to rereceaue both kindes but that they cannot possibibily include any such necessity without a contradiction betwixt this text and the text following now cited for if he who eates the flesh of our Sauiour hath eternall life as those textes affirme then it can not be true that vnlesse each particular both eate and drinke he shall not haue life eternall and hence also appeares a necessity of vnderstanding these words that though all in generall be bound to receaue both amongst them yet none in particular is bound to receaue both but each is partially to concurre to accomplish this command as each Apostle was that of teaching and baptizing all nations Obiection Some happily may answer with Caluin that though eating be only named in the text now cited yet drinking also is there included and to be vnderstood as being connected with it in the former text vnlesse you eate c. Answer That more is vnderstood then is expressed in any place of Scripture is not vppon light coniectures to be supposed but to be prouued by solide and conuincing arguments otherwise each light headed nouelist might at his pleasure frame to himselfe certain apparent congruities to extend the words of Scripture and to make them import more then they signifie in themselues and so multiplie Synecdoches wheresoeuer it comes to his purpose Seeing therefore I haue shewed that there is noe necessity to strech these textes beyond the common and vsuall stgnification of the words by giuing at least a probable satisfaction to whatsoeuer they alleadge to proue the contrary let our aduerfaries make good that there it a necessity of the drawing these words beyond their naturall signification or that more words are supposed then are expressed in the text and we will yeeld to this explication But this discours of our Sauiour is so farre from giuing the least ground to any such like improprieties the common refuge of our Aduersaries when they eannot auoyd the sorce of the expresse words and proper sense of
willfull and vngrounded importunity But Roman Catholiques beare both a tender loue to this most pretious blood of our Sauiour and so indeauour all they can to preserue it from all irreuerences and preuent all occasions as much as is possible of indangering the least drop of the consecrared chalice to be spilt or lost and frame a most high esteeme of his sacred body as conteyned vnder the formes of bread to be alone sufficient to feed them to eternall life Imitating in both these the care and esteeme of the primitiue church which both imposed very heauy and seuere penances vppon all such as permitted any the least quantity of the sacred chalice to be spilt and was accoustomed to giue this Sacrament sometimes in forme of bread only both to hermites in the wildernes pilgrimes in theyr iournies sicke persons in theyr beds laymen in theyr houses and children in the church and in forme of wine only to little infants in their cradles which cleerely conuinces that the primitiue church had noe beleefe or knowledgement of any absolute necessity or diuine precept to receaue alwayes both which not withstanding as it read as diligently so vnderstood it more clearly and obserued more punctually the laws and commāds of Christ then our aduersaries now doe Some there are who being conuinced of the reall presence and that there is neither necessity nor command in Scripture of receauing allwayes both notwithstanding for the precedent places objected say that euery particular Christian is obliged sometimes in his life to communicate vnder both at the same time and thus they esteeme themselues both to agree with those places of Scripture now cited which affirme that by eating alone eternall life is acquired and auoid those inconueniences which happen to the blood of our Sauiour amongst such multitudes of Christians so frequently communicating by granting that this Sacrament ordinarily may be receaued vnder the formes of bread only and agree with the practise of the primitiue Christians who though they often receiued vnder one priuately or when the other could not conueniently be had yet at other times they receiued publickly vnder both and on the other side conforme themselues both to the institution of our Sauiour and those other precepts of receiuing both by doing it sometimes in their liues when the precept obliges This opinion though it seeme fairely to compose all difficulties yet the newnesse and vnhardnesse of it where there nothig else render it suspect of superficiality and falshood for how is it possible that each Christian should haue so weighty an obligation and neither any doctour in the moderne Roman Church so much as dreame of it nor any amongst her present aduersaries once presse it against vs or thinke of it themselues or if we looke to the late fiue hundred yeares before vs where in it hath been the coustome in many particular churches to communicate publickly vnder the formes of bread only without the least reflection or practise of any such precept as S. Thomas wittnesses those churches always communicating the laity vnder one kinde only or if we ascend to the primitiue times there is noe step nor impression to be found of any such precept for then they not sometimes only or euer by way of diuine precept for so much as can be gathered from the authours of those times but frequently in publick celebrations of those mysteries communicated vnder both and those childeren which communicated vnder one only kinde we neuer read to haue communicated vnder both though they died in their childhood which not withstanding they should haue done had the Christians of the primitiue times beleeued any such need as is here conceiued of sometimes communicating vnder both how I say is it possible that this opinion should be true solide seeing neither moderne nor ancient nor primitiue times nor friends nor aduersaries of the Roman Church so much as once mention it but beside the newnesse it hath other reasons enough to conuince it of falshood for first when the primitiue Christians communicated little infants presently after baptisme vnder the formes of wine only they neuer are read to haue giuen it vnder both if they came to be in dāger of death when they had acquired strength enough to receaue both which notwithstanding they had been obliged to doe had there been any diuine precept obliging all Christians to receaue both sometimes or at least once in their liues Secondly the same difficulty may be pressed against this new hatched opinion of children arriued to the age of six or seauen yeares who being accoustumed in the primitiue Church to consumate the particles or reliques of the sacred hosts raceaued vnder the formes of bread only for there is not a step imprinted in antiquity of conferring both kindes to them when they came to dy about that age The like is of hermites who liued perpetually in the deserts and had the coustome of taking with them the most blessed Sacrament vnder the formes of bread only But that which discouuers most cleerely the non existency of this new fangled opinion is that it hath noe ground in holy Scripture for when our Sauiour saith Ioh. 6. he who eateth this bread shall liue for euer whosoeuer holds this opinion must say that he who receaues deuoutly vnder the forme of bread only receaues grace and spirituall life in his soul suppose therefore that still perseuering in that grace receaued he come to die before he teceiue vnder both kindes certainly he will be saued which shewes euidently that the receauing of both kindes before death is not necessaty to saluation necessitate medij as the schoole speakes that is so necessary that saluation can noe more be acquired without it then it can be without faith or the grace of God neither can communion vnder both kindes be said to be necessary to saluation necessitate praecepti or by diuine precept for these words of S. Ioh. c. 6. nisi māducaueritis carnem filij hominis c. being a mere declaration of a truth cānot properly be said to be a precept or command and rather seemes to include necessitatem medij then precepti and whatsoeuer command may be deduced from those words or pressed from any other place of Scripture I haue allready shewed to be of noe force to put a necessitie vppon all Christians to receaue vnder both kindes either all wayes when they frequent this Sacrament or at any time in their liues What I answer to this opinion will easily preuent the forging of an other of the like nature that might happily occurre to some quaint nouelist that though there should be noe necessity of euer receauing both kindes at the same time yet these words of S. Iohn Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sone of man and drinke his blood you shall not haue life in you import a necessity of both eating and drinking at the least at seuerall times now doing the one and then the other which being done each