not be baptized which haue receiued the holy Ghost as well as we Surely to whom God intendeth the end hee intendeth the vse of the meanes Lorinus out of the ordinary glosse conceiues the Apostle to vse an argument à minori which he thus reduceth to forme If God hath giuen that which is greater no man ought to forbid the lesser But God hath giuen them the holy Ghost which is the greater Therefore none ought to denie them the baptisme of water which is the lesse This is all one as if when the Pope hath bestowed an Archbishoprick vpon any Bishop the Datary should deny him the Pale or when the Vniuersity hath conferred the degree of Doctor the Beadle should denie him his Scarlet Hoode or when the Captaine hath admitted a souldier into his band any vnder officer should forbid him to weare his colours As incongruous if not far more it is when God the Lord and Master conferres the thing signified by the Sacrament for man the seruant and minister to denie the signe The asumption is easily prooued for the thing signified by the Cup is either the Communion of Christs blood as the Apostle testifieth The Cup of Blessing which we blesse is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ Or it is remission of sins by the blood-shedding of Christ as the words of the institution imply This is the blood of the new Testament which is shed for man for the remission of sins Neither of which benefits the Romanists dare to exclude the Laietie from They haue vnion with Christ by faith therefore Communion of his blood they receiue the remission of sinnes by Christs blood shed vpon the Crosse with what colour then can the Romanists take away from them the Cup the signe and pledge thereof if they except against this argument that children abstemious persons such as cannot brook wine receiue the thing signified viz. remission of sins and participate of Christs blood and yet drink not of the holy Cup the answer is easie None are by this argument meant but such as desire the Cup and are capable thereof such are not either children or abstemious persons Let the Opposition then or Maior be vnderstood as it is intended with this explication or limitation No faithfull Christians ought to be denied the Cup vpon whom God conferreth the thing signified by the Cup. viz. none that desire it and are capable thereof and can receiue it according to Christs ordinance such are the faithfull people ordinarily and so the former Cauill vanisheth into smoake This whole argument is confirmed by a Canon extant in Gratian de consecrat dist 2. If as often as the blood of Christ is shed it is shed for the remission ofsins I ought alwaies to take it that alwayes sinnes may be forgiuen me This Gratian gathered as a flowre out of Saint Ambrose his works but behold a greater then Saint Ambrose our Lord and Sauiour implieth as much saying This is my blood which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sinnes Drinke yee of it for it is shed for you and the remission of your sinnes These therefore for whom Christs blood was shed and they who haue obtained remission of sins by it ought by the reason annexed to this precept drinke of it And I perswade my selfe that no learned Papist hath so little charitie in his heart or so much brasse in his brow as doctrinally to deliuer that Christs blood was not shed sor the Laietie or that they receiue not remission of sinns thereby as well as Priests CHAP. V. The fourth argument drawne from the nature of a banquet or supper IN euery supper feast or banquet the cup is to be giuen to the guests that they may drinke as well as eate The Sacrament of the Eucharist is a supper feast or banquet Therfore in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Cup is to be giuen to all the communicants that they may drink as well as eate The proposition is euident to sense and is readily assented vnto by the aduersaries Aquinas part 3. q. 73. To a corporall refection or repast two things are required viz. meat which is a drie nourishment and drinke which is a moyst And y Lyranus in 1. Corin. 11. The Sacrament is giuen in two kinds or formes viz. of bread and wine that thereby a perfect spirituall refection might bee signified The asumption is testified by a cloud of witnesses by Saint Paul When you come together therefore into one place this is not to eate the Lords Supper for in eating euery one taketh before hand his own supper By Saint Cyprian who intituleth his Treatise of this Sacrament De coena Domini of the Lords Supper by Tertullian who sayth what shall her husband sing to her what shall shee sing to her husband shall Gods Supper heare something from the Tauerne from hell what mention of God what calling vpon Christ can there be there c. By Saint Ierom epist. 14. ad Damasum pa. 409. * the fat calfe is our Sauiour whose flesh we dayly eat and drinke his blood this banquet is euery day kept euery day the Father receiues his Sonne By Soto art 12. quest in 12. dist The Sacrament is not perfect but in both kinds for it is a banquet consisting of meate and drinke Nay by the whole Church of Rome in her Offices and publique Liturgie in the Antiphony sung at the Vespers on Corpus Christi day O holy banquet and in the prayer after the Communion in the feastof Cosimus and Damianus This whole argument is confirmed by Vasques the Iesuite disp 215. The Sacrament is instituted in both kinds viz. bread and wine that it might be a kind of banquet Therfore Christ speaking of himselfe saith My flâ—…sh is meate indeed and my blood is drinke indeed now in a banquet there is nothing but me â—…t and drinke whereof each refresheth the body after a seuerall manner and conduceth to the nourishment and increase thereof Whereupon he inferreth that each kinde in the Sacrament hath a peculiar and proper signification and operation This testimony of Vasques commeth home to the point for he confesseth all that is inforced by this argument first that a banquet consists of drinke as well as of meat Secondly that the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist is a banquet Thirdly that the seuerall kinds of foode in this banquet nourish after a seuerall manner from whence who seeth not that it will follow that the Laietie which are debarred of one kinde of viand in this banquet and receiue onely the other cannot participate the full effect and operation of the Sacrament which is a perfect spirituall refection or nourishment CHAP. VI. The fift Argument drawne from the precept of drinking NOne can drink in the Sacrament without the Cup All that communicate ought to drinke in the Sacrament Therefore all that communicate ought to haue the
said to the same Drinke yee all of this to whom before he said Take eate this is my body Fifthly and lastly if it were sufficient reason to redeliuer the Cup in these times to the Laietie who haue been deseruedly depriued of it namely to arme them against eminent persecution why should not the faithfull people of God especially those who neuer incurred the censure of Excommunication or suspension be much rather admitted to drinke of the Cup to arme them against as great or greater conflicts of temptations The sinnew of Saint Cyprians reason is in the word militaturis Those that are to fight the Lords battels are to be strengthened thereunto by taking the Cup of Saluation or drinking the Lords Blood But I assume all Christians in all ages were are and shall be militantes or militaturi such as haue fought doe fight or shall against their ghostly and bodily enemies therefore according to Saint Cyprians military discipline they are to be strengthened and armed thereunto by participating of the Lords Cup. The answere of Bellarmine to the second testimony of Saint Cyprians 63. Epistle commeth not home to the marke by many bowes for albeit the maine scope of that Epistle be to prooue the necessitie of administring the Sacrament in Wine against the corrupt custome of the Aquarij certaine heretikes that administred it in meere water yet on the by he discouereth the practise of the Church in his time to Communicate in both kinds and in the words alleaged be expresly faith that the Cup was ministred or deliuered to the people which is all we produce this passage for SECT IIII. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 300. to 400. Anno. 314. IN the councel held at Ancyra Deacons that had sacificed vnto Idols are forbidden to exercise any sacred function and in particular nec panem nec calicem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to offer or deliuer bread or the Chalice The Chalice then by their Deacons was deliuered to whom but to the people for Priests administer to Deacons but Deacons neuer to Priests Anno. 316. In the Councell held at Neo-Caeserea can 13. country Priests are forbidden in the presence of a Bishop or the Priest of the citie to deliuer the sanctified bread or Cup to any Here we see the Cup as well as the bread was deliuered at the communion the words are nec panem nec calicem porrigere Anno 325. In the acts of the Councell of Nice set out by Gelasius Cyzicenus we haue a most expresse testimonie of the beleife and practise of the Church in that flowrishing age Let vs vnderstand by faith that in that holy Supper the Lambe of God that takes away the sinnes of the world is offered without blood by the Priests and that wee taking his pretious body and blood doe verily beleeue that they are symboles or pleadges of our resurrection Anno. 337. Iulius the first as we read in Gratian de conse dist 2. condemneth the practise of such who gaue the people a bit of bread dipped in wine for the whole Communion alleaging against this corrupt custome the practise of our Sauiour who when he commended his body and blood to the Apostles he commended the bread and the Cup apart This ancient Pope concludes from our Sauiours practise that the people ought to receiue the holy elements of bread and wine a part consequently that it is not sufficient to giue them the bread dipped Now if it be not sufficient to giue them the bread dipped in the wine Iulius would haue held it much lesse sufficient to giue them drie bread If our Sauior as he rightly conceiueth enioyned that all ought to partake of the elements apart certainly hee enioyned that the people should receiue both and not bread onely or wine onely by concomitancie Anno 340. Athanasius in his second Apology maketh it plainer that the vndeniable custome in his age was for the people to receiue the Cup. This saith he is the vse of this Cup and no other in this Cup you lawfully or of right drinke before or to the Laity This you haue receiued for an Ecclesiastical Cannon it belongs to you alone to drink the blood of Christ before the Laietie Anno 355. Hilarius Pictauiensis de trinitate lib. 8. writeth thus There is no place left of doubting cōcerning the truth of Christs flesh and blood for both by our Lords owne profession and our faith it is truly flesh and truly blood and these being taken and drunke doe worke this effect that Christ is in vs and wee in Christ Saint Hilarie spake of all Christians and saith that they receiue the flesh of Christ hauriunt that is take a draught of his blood which cannot bee without partaking the Cup. For although the doctrine of concomitancie were admitted whereby our aduersaries suppose that the people take the blood of Christ in the body yet certainely there they cannot haurire sanguinem take a draught of blood or drinke it because it is not there in a liquid forme or so that it may be sucked or drunke Anno 365. Cyril Catechesi Mystagogicâ 4. Vnder the forme of bread Christs body is giuen vnto thee that taking the body and blood of Christ thou maist be of one body and blood with him And a little after After thou hast participated of the body of Christ draw neere also to the cup of his blood Anno. 366. Macarius Egyptius hom 27. By offering bread and wine in the Church he gaue vs a patterne to take his body and blood Anno 370. S. Basil in his 289. epistle to Patricia exhorts her frequently to participate the Sacrament of Christs body and blood saying It is good and profitable euery day to participate the holy body and blood of Christ. And in his moralls chap. 22. hee propoundeth this question what is the proper dutie of a Christian and he answereth immediately to haue no spot or wrincle in his Conscience to be holy and vnblameable and so to eate the body and drinke the blood of Christ. Our aduersaries doe well to conceale this testimonie of Saint Basil because it is so direct and full to the point that it admits not any collourable answer He saith that it is the proper dutie of a Christian and therefore not of a Priest onely not to eate Christs body onely and receiue his blood by concomitancie but expresly to drinke it and this hee teacheth to be as necessarie a duty of all Christians as to clense themselues from sinne and to be holy and vndefiled Anno. 372. Gregory Nazianzen surnamed the Diuine S. Basils bosome friend in his 42. oration inuites all to drinke the blood of Christ who look for life by him without any doubting or shamefast feare Eat his body and drinke his blood if thou desirest life and in his second oration he testifieth that his sister Gorgonia after she had Communicated laid vp some part of the
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
participating of the blood of the Lord. Papists answere If our aduersaries here flie to their old starting hole that by all here all Priests are meant and not all Communicants they may be stopped by that which Hincmarus writeth in the life of this Rhemigius that he gaue a Chalice for the peoples vse with this Motto Hauriat hinc populus vitam de sanguine sacro Iniecto aeternus quem fudit vulnere Christus Rhemigius reddit Domino sua vota Sacerdos Rhemigius Priest that gaue this Cup Prai'th that in it the people sup And still draw life from flowing blood Out of Christs side as of a flood Let it bee noted that hee saith not hauriat hinc clerus but populus not let the Priest but let the people out of this Cup draw life from the holy blood which Christ shed out of his wounds Whereby it appeareth euidently that this Chalice was giuen by the Archbishop for the peoples vse at great and solemne Communions and not for the Priests in their priuate Masses if any such were in Rhemigius his dayes Anno 580. Greg. Turonens de glor Martyr li. 1. ca. 10. relateth a miraculous accident that fel out by occasion of a Iewes child comming with other children to the Communion of Christs body and blood I am sure these children were not Priests that said Masse and if children were admitted to the holy Cup much more men of riper yeeres Papists answer This was an abuse to let children come to the Communion who cannnot examine themselues and therefore from this abusiue coustome no good rule may be drawne The Refutation I allow not of the coustome of admitting children to the Communion in the Church or giuing it them at home though it be more antient then most of the new Articles of the Romish Creede coined by Pope Pius the fourth in his Bull. but I make a true inference though from an erroneous practise as the Apostle doth from a custome among the Corinthians who were baptized for the dead Doubtlesse if the Laietie in those dayes had been kept from the holy Cup children neuer had been admitted to drink of it For no man can imagine that the Church would giue little infants that priuiledge which they denied their parents Anno 537. In the second Councell of Toledo Can. 7. It is ordained throughout all the Countries of Spaine and Gallicia for the confirmation of the new conuersion of the people from Arianisme that before the participation of the body and blood of Christ corporis sanguinis communicationem according to the manner of the Easterne Churches all the Congregation shall with an audible voyce rehearse the most holy Articles of the Christian faith Anno 597. In the third Councel held at Toledo in the reigne of Recaredus c. 2. It is decreed that the people shall first make profession of their faith and so exhibite their hearts purified by faith to receiue Christs body and blood Doth not this Councell speake in the Protestant language that the people are to receiue Christs blood as well as his body and both by faith or which is all one in their hearts purified by faith How neere commeth this to the forme at this day in vse in our Church Feed on him in thy heart by faith I find no exception taken by any Papist at this testimony and therefore there needs no ward where no blow is so much as offered SECT VII Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 600. to 700. Anno. 600. IT was truly spoken of Constantine that hee was Praeteritis melior venientibus auctor Better then his predecessors and a good president to those that succeded him But on the contrary we may say of Gregory the Great that hee was Praeteritis peior yet venientibus auctor that he was bad in comparison of his predecessors but good in comparison of his successours For he was the worst of the good Popes and the best of the euill It was this Pope who sent Austine the Monke into England to propagate the Christian faith who in some places sowed in others watred the seede all ready sowne which was wholesome yet somewhat smutty and such as needed to be washed and clensed from superstition He much stikled for Gregorie his masters authoritie and brought in some customes and ceremonies that sauour rancke to those that are Emunctae naris yet the faith hee preached was for substance the same which the reformed Churches embrace at this day as in my answer to the Iesuites threefold challenge I haue made it appeare And as in other controuersies of greater moment so in this he is cleerely ours Homil. 22. in Euang. he mystically applieth the blood of the Pascall Lambe striken vpon both posts of the doore to the participation of Christs blood in the Eucharist saying The blood is then put on both posts when is taken or drawne in both by or with the mouth of the body and of the heart In the fourth of his dialogues if his c. 58. His body is taken whose flesh is broken and diuided for the peoples saluation his blood is not now powred out vpon the hands of infidels but into the mouths of the faithfull If with any coulour the aduersaries might restraine fideles to the Priests onely yet the word populi going before will enforce them to vnderstand this passage as well of the people as Priests if not the people more especially who are named expresly and not the Priests Papists answer I answer saith Bellarmine that Gregorie and Bede say that Christs blood is taken with the mouth of the body but we denie that they say that it ought to be drunken with the mouth of the body or to be taken vnder the forme of wine Refutation This answer of the Cardinall can argue no lesse in him then either supine negligence or a cauterized conscience For S. Gregorie in the words immediately preceding those aboue alleaged expressely speaketh of drinking Christs blood saying quòd sit sanguis Christi non audiendo sed bibendo didicistis What is meant by the blood of Christ you haue learned not by hearing but by drinking Had he not in expresse words mentioned drinking yet the phrases he vseth hauritur and perfunditur that Christs blood is shed and taken as a draught demonstrates that he speaketh not of partaking Christs blood as it is ioyned to his body and enclosed in his veines but as seuered from it And if the Cardinall himselfe had not been drunke with the Cup of the wine of Babylon he would neuer haue denied that Saint Gregory speaketh of drinking Christs blood vnder the forme of wine when hee vseth that very word u Potat Quis exponere queat quantae fuit miserationis sacratissim â praeciosi sanguinis effusione genus humanum redimere sacrosanctum viuifici corporis sanguinis sui mysterium membris suis tribuere cuius perceptione corpus suum quod est Ecclesia pascitur
potatur abluitur sanctificatur Who can expresse how great mercie it was by that most holy effusion of his pretious blood to redeeme mankind and to giue to his members the most holy mysterie of his quickning body and blood by the partaking whereof his body which is the Church is nourished as with meat and drinke is washed and sanctified These and other passages of Gregory are so cleare and bright that they dazeled the eies of Estius a great Parisian Doctor who handling this question professedly acknowledgeth that Saint Gregory among other fathers is expresly for the Commmunion in both kinds Anno Dom. 620. The Seruice Booke commonly called Ordo Romanus The Romane order set forth by Gregory or vnder Pope Gregory with his allowance sufficiently discouereth the present practise of the Romane Church in their dry Masses to be a disorder and shamefull abuse For there they may reade and blush to reade in the Rubricke these formes set downe at the Communion Wee humbly beseech thee that wee which haue taken the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ thy Sonne may be filled with grace and heauenly benediction and after the Communion Let thy body O Lord which we haue taken and thy blood which we haue drunke sticke to our bowels that no blot of sinne may remaiue in vs who haue beene refreshed by these pure and holy mysteries Anno 630. Saint Isidore as in other things so in this treadeth his master Gregories steps de diuin of fic lib. 1. c. 15. The fourth prayer is brought in for the kisse of peace vt omnes that all being reconciled by charitie may ioyne in the worthie participation of Christs body and blood omnes all People therefore as well as Priests vnlesse they will haue the people to be out of charity all that are in charity must communicate together in the mistery of Christs body and blood But Gods people are or ought to be in charity and therefore to be admitted by Saint Isidores rule as well to the Cup as to the bread at the Lords Table Anno. 633. In the fourth Councell of Toledo Can. 6. All the people are appointed one good fryday to aske pardon for their sinnes that being clensed by the compunction of repentance they may be thought fit one Easter day to receiue the sacrament of Christs body and blood And in the seuenth Canon it is appointed that after the Lords prayer and the blessing of the people the Sacrament of Christs body and blood bee receiued after this manner the Priest and Leuite is to communicate before the Altar the rest of the Clergie in the Quire the rest of the people without the Quire See also 57. Canon Anno 675. In the eleuenth Councell held at Toledo the fathers determine that such who receiued the Cup in extemity of sicknesse but refused the bread because in regard of the drines of their throat they could not swallow it downe should not therefore bee cut off from Christs body The decree runneth thus The infirmity of humane nature in the very passage out of this life is accustomed to be oppressed in such sort with drought that the sick are not able to take downe any meat to refresh them no nor scarse any drop of drinke to strengthen them which thing we haue obserued in the departure of many who desiring the wished foode of the holy Communion to sustaine them in their last iourney haue yet cast away the Eucharist giuen them by the Priest not out of infidelitie but because they could not swallow any thing down beside a small draught of the holy Cup such as these therefore ought not to bee separated from the body of Christ. The Councell speaketh of the Laiety refusing bread at the Priests hands which they could not take downe and yet receiuing the Cup and in this case of necessitie the Councell dispenceth with their refusing the bread but findeth no fault with them for taking the Cup. Nay vpon that point excuseth them from infidelitie and saueth them from excommunication How doth this Councel clash and crosse shins as it were with the Councel of Constance and Trent In these the people are condemned for taking the Cup in that they are acquitted for it In them the Priest is censured that giueth them the Cup in this the people are absolued from censure in refusing the bread because they Communicate in the Cup. In the same yeere in the Councell at Braccara they are blamed that ministred not wine to the people in the Sacrament but either milke or grapes Can. 2. Non expressum vinum in sacramento dominici calicis offerre sed lac pro vino dedicare aut oblatis vuis populo communicare In the same Councell they are blamed also Qui intinctam Eucharistiam populis pro complemento communionis porrigerent Who deliuered to the people a piece of bread dipt in wine for the whole Communion which custome how repugnant it is to the doctrine of the Gospell and custome of the Church may easily be proued from the fountaine of truth who gaue the Cut by it selfe saying Drinke yee all of this as he tooke the bread by it selfe saying Take eat c. SECT VIII The Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 700. to 800. IN this age wee haue foure concurrent witnesses and contestatours beyond all exception Beda Greg. 2. Greg. 3. Alcumus We will produce them in order And first Venerable Beda Anno 720. Venerable Beda the honour of England and mirrour of his time witnesseth as followeth Christ washeth vs daily from our sins in his blood when the memory of his passion is celebrated or recounted at the Altar where the creatures of bread and wine by the vnspeakable sanctification of the Spirit are changed into the Sacrament of his flesh and blood and therby his body blood is not powred out by the hands of Infidels to their destruction but is receiued or is taken by or into the mouth of the faithful to saluation In this testimony I note first that he teacheth not a substantiall change of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ but a sacramentall onely agreeable to the harmony of Protestants Confession Se condly that Beda either alludes vnto or transcribes herein the words of S. Gregory aboue alleaged which I haue there proued to be most pregnant to our purpose Anno 726. Gregory 2. in his Epistle of Images to Leo Isaurus A man that hath sinned and confessed after they haue well chastened and punished him with fasting let them impart vnto him the pretious body of our Lord and giue him his holy blood to drinke Anno 731. Gregory 3. in his former Epistle to Boniface forbiddeth at the Lords Table more then one Cup to be vsed saying It is not a fitting thing to put two or three Chalices on the Altar No doubt the reason why more Chalices were put on the Altar was for the vse of
together in a sop or bread dipt in wine therefore we ought in like manner to administer the Sacrament in both kindes seuerally and not by intinction or sopping the bread in the wine Who seeth not that this Canon of the Councell is a two edged sword cutting off Concomitancie on the one side as well as intinction on the other and giuing as deepe a wound to the late Councell of Constance inioyning the mutilation of the Sacrament as to the ancient Councell of Toures inioyning the confusion of it by the infusion of the bread into the Cup. The second answere doth vanish to nothing the Councell in deed spake of that time wherein the Communion of both kindes was free For so it had been from the time of the Apostles and continued in the Romane Church till the Councell of Constance and in the Greeke Church till this day The greater wrong is offered by the Romanists to the Laietie from whom they haue taken the Cup after so many hundred yeeres possession If any such thing had been attempted in the time of this Councell at Bracara they would haue been as earnest or more earnest against this abuse then they were against that in their time which was farre lesse for of the two it is better to receiue the bread dipt in the wine then the bread and no wine at all The Councell doth not ground it selfe vpon any supposed dispensation of the Church for the Laieties Communion in both kindes as Bellarmine surmiseth but vpon the institution of Christ and the example of the Apostles which in their iudgement ought to preuaile against any sanction of Councell or custome of any place whatsoeuer to the contrarie SECT XII The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 1100. to 1200. Anno 1101. IVo in his collections out of the writings of the ancient for the present vse of the Church in his seuenth Chapter relateth a sentence out of Saint Ambrose to our purpose The Blood is a witnesse of a diuine benefit in a figure whereof we receiue the mysticall Cup for the preseruation of our body and soule To them to wit the Iewes water flowed out of the Rocke to thee blood out of Christ the water quenched their thirst for on howre the blood of Christ washeth thee for euer And in his 31. chapter he reciteth a decree of Pope Syluerius Euery Lords day in the Lent all besides Excommunicate persons or such as doe publike penance ought to receiue the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ. Anno 1105. Zacharias Crysopolitanus applieth the sprinkling of the dore posts with the blood of the Lambe in Exodus to the Sacrament of Christs blood he saith We sprinkle our body and soule with the blood of Christ because the blood of the Lambe sprinkled vpon both the posts of the house freed the Hebrewes And againe The reall and Sacramentall eating of Christ are ioyned when receiuing in the bread that which hung vpon the tree and receiuing in the Cup that which flowed from his side our soules attaine vnto the eating of the bread of life Anno 1110. Odo Cameracensis in expounding the holy Canon affirmeth that vnder the shape and taste of bread and wine we eate and drinke the very substance of Christs body and blood Anno 1120. Rupertus enforcing the necessity of receiuing the sacrament concludes vpon our Sauiours words in Saint Iohn that euery man ought to communicate in both kinds for the repast of his soule as well as his body lest any man should thinke saith he that he hath recouered by faith alone the life of his body and soule without the visible meat and drink of the body blood of Christ and consequently needs not the sacrament Christ repeates the same thing againe touching the eating his flesh and drinking his blood thereby vndoubtedly testifying that he doth not truly beleeue whosoeuer dispiseth to eate and to drink For although thou bee a faithfull man and professe thy selfe to be a Catholick if thou refuse to eat and to drinke of this visible meat and drinke euen by this that thou presumest that this meat and drinke is not necessary to thee thou cuttest thy selfe off from the societie of the members of Christ which is the Church But I inferre that all lay Papists that haue bin instructed by the Fathers of the Councels of Constance and Trent presume that it is not necessary for them to receiue the visible drinke whereof Rupertus speaketh Therefore by Rupertus his conclusion they cut themselues off from the Church And though they are men of a Catholike profession which he speakes of yet they are not true beleeuers In the same Booke and Chapter We saith he that is the Church are that earth which openeth his mouth and faithfully drinketh the blood of Christ. And in his third booke de operibus Spiritus Sancti et 20. cap. he saith in specie panis et vini sanctus Sanctorum est et in omnibus electis qui ad fide eius veniunt idem efficit quod in illa specie qua perpendit in cruce id est remisssionem peccatorum that is the Holy of holies is in forme of bread and wine and to all the elect who come to the faith of him he worketh remission of sinnes as he did in that shape in which he hung vpon the Crosse. Anno 1130. Bern. in his 3. Serm. one Palme Sunday maketh the sacrament of Christs body and blood the Christians foode and alimonie Touching the sacrament of Christs body and blood saith hee there is no man who knoweth not that this so singular a foode was on that day first exhibited on that day commended and commanded to bee frequently receiued Anno 1135. Algerus doth not barely affirme that the sacrament was instituted at first and ought to be administred in both kinds but he confirmeth it strongly by the testimonie of Saint Austine And Pope Gelatius first in his fifth Chapter he positiuely deliuereth the necessitie of communicating in both kinds in these words Because we so liue by meate and drink that we can want neither of them Christ would haue them both in his sacrament least if either should be wanting by that imperfect taking of life and not entire an imperfect life might seeme to be signified In his 8. chap. more at large he vnfoldeth the mysterie that lyeth in the communicating in both kinds There is nothing found in the creature saith he whereby more fitly and neerly life may be represented then by blood which is the seate of the soule in which that it may be signified that our bodies and soules ought to be vnited and made conformable to Christs body and soule the body and blood of Christ are both taken together of the faithfull that by taking whole Christs body and soule the whole man in body and soule might be quickned in as much as the flesh of Christ as I haue said is
continued vntill the middle of this age gaue a full testimony vnto the truth But those who liued after spake partely in the language of Canaan and partly in the language of Ashdod Halensis saith that the lay people for the most part communicated in both kinds Lynwood that in greater Churches they did so Aquinas that in some Churches they did and in some they did not For by this time according to the Greeke prouerbe Serpens genuit serpentem vt fieret Draco One Serpent hath begot another that from them both a Dragon might issue The error of transubstantiation had begotten the error of concomitancie and from both these at length issued out their hereticall sacrilege or sacrilegious heresie in defending the practise of their halfe Communion SECT XIIII The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 1300. to 1400. IN this Age when this sacrilegious error like a Gangreene had spred ouer a great part of the Latine Churches God stirred vp many learned Chirons and Machaeons knowne by the nick-names of Walldenses Lollards Wickliffests to applie a soueraigne remedie vnto it And they Deo secundante wrought great cures vpon this Cancer in England France and Bohemia In other parts of Europe the people were so intoxicated with the golden Cup of the whore of Babylon that they willingly suffered the Priests to keepe away from them the Lords Cup. Yet in this Centurie if wee adde to the sounder Diuines or Doctors in the Latine Church the iudgement and practise of the whole Greeke Church the entire Communion wil carry it away from the halfe by more then halfe the voyces of Christendome Anno 1301. The custome of communicating in both kinds was not abolished in the beginning of this age but was retained in certaine places especially in Monasteries vntill the yeere of our Lord 1300. and more Thus writeth Cassander Anno 1320. Petrus de Palude saith that in his time the custome was in many Churches that the faithfull communicated in both kinds and hee backeth this his testimonie with a solid reason There ought saith he to be a double matter in this sacrament to wit meat and drink because the effect of this Sacrament ought to be represented perfectly by the matter thereof in a manner agreeable to the things naturall For sacraments effect that which they signifie but the effect of this sacrament is a perfect refection or repast of the soule therfore the matter representing it ought to bee a perfect refection of the body which is not but by meate and drinke This argument of Peter of the F◅n hath so farre sunke our aduersaries that to this day they cannot by all their sophistry get out of the boggs Anno 1341. Clemens 6. in his Bull to the King of England granteth him the vse of the Cup ad gratiae augmentum to the increase of grace Anno 1360. Richard Archbishop of Armach thus wardeth off a blow of the Armenians when the Armenian heretique obiected against him vnlesse you eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his blood you haue no life in yon Hee answereth that this speech of our Sauiour if it bee taken as spoken of sacramentall drinking ought to be vnderstood with this qualification to wit That it is necessarie to obtaine spirituall life that a man receiue both at sometime or bee willing to receiue and be ready so farre as it is in his power Anno 1372. Besides these written testimonies wee haue engrauen I meane the inscriptions of Chalices or Communion Cups called Ministerales because they serued for the people Vadianus writeth of a cup in the Abbie of Sangall that weighed 70. markes in siluer without doubt saith he for the vse of the people at the publique C◅mmunion Gretser censureth the writings of Pelichdorfius against the poore men of Lyons in this manner This author saith he doth refute in the first part of this work the poore men of Lyons but with some such arguments as ring not well in the purified eares of Catholiques I am sure this argument drawne from great siluer chalices some of them with pipes for the Laiety to sucke out the consecrated wine ring not well in the purified eares of Romane Catholiques For not onely Rhenanus out of Conradus Pellicanus relateth a constitution amongst the Carthusians whereby they are forbid to haue any pretious vessels or plate besides a siluer chalice and a pipe wherewith the Laietie may suck the blood of our Lord but also Caietan maketh mention of them and their vse to this purpose and Cassander very much taxeth Eccius for that he writeth that he neuer read of the Laieties Communion in both kinds in the Roman Church saue only in the story of S. Laurence his life It is strange saith he that a man of so excellent a memorie as Eccius should forget the ministeriall Chalices whereof there is euer and anon mention made in the Romane Pontificall which were so called because the blood of Christ was out of thē ministred to the people In most places for feare of shedding the blood of Christ in deliuering it to the people there were siluer pipes put into the Chalices that in the peoples drinking or rather sucking the blood of Christ not so much as a droppe might be spilt These Chalices were not onely in vse in this Age but a 1000. yeeres before in Saint Cyprians time if we may beleeue Cardinall Caietan who ingeniously confesseth that they were so called from their vse in the Church which was to serue the people Thus he commenteth vpon Thomas This custome saith hee continued not onely in the time of that Martyr whom Cyprian thought fit to bee forearmed with the Lords Cup but also in the time of the peace of the Church For we reade not onely of basons but also of ministeriall Chalices made for this vse a For why were they called ministeriall but because they serued not to offer the blood of Christ but to minister it to the people Anno 1390. The custome was in France to administer the whole Supper not in the middle of the Church but in Chappels This saith Francis the first I heard of old men who affirmed that this had been the manner in France for 120. yeeres before SECT XV. The testimonies of the practice of the Church from 1400. to 1500. IOhn Hus and Hiero. of Prage by the books of Wickliffe were brought vnto the knowledge of the truth And as in other points they concluded for that holyfaith which we at this day professe against the errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome so in this they were most earnest and so preuailed in the Kingdome of Bohemia that from the time of the effusion of their blood for the testimonie of the Gospell vntill this day the Cup of the new Testament in Christs blood hath beene deliuered to the people in these parts and the entire Communion preserued Anno 1410.
2 3. that they were all baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea and as they did all eate the same spirituall meat so they did all drinke the same spirituall drinke For they dranke all of that spirituall Rocke and that Rock was Christ. If they will needs haue in one type a perfect image or embleme of the Communion in both kinds Cyprian other ancient Fathers will direct them to Melchisedec who brought forth bread wine not bread only but bread wine Thirdly this argument may be strongly retorted vpon our aduersaries after this manner The Truth ought to answer the types but the types of the old Law prefigured the faithfulls communicating in both kinds as is gathered by the ancient Fathers S. Chrysost. S. Ambrose S. Austine and S. Gregory Chrysost. As thou eatest the body of our Lord so they did eate Manna and as thou drinkest the blood of our Lord so they dranke the water of the Rocke To them he gaue Manna and Water to thee he giueth his Body and Blood S. Ambrose in the water that issued from the Rocke drunke by the people in the wildernesse noteth the resemblance of Christians who in the wildernesse of this world drinke of the blood that sprang from the true Rocke Christ Iesus To them saith he water flowed from the Rocke to thee blood from Christ the water satisfyed them for an houre the blood refresheth or washeth thee for euer S. Austine compareth the drinking of all the Fathers in the old Testament with ours in the new in these words All drunke the same spirituall drinke Wee drinke one thing and they drinke another but in visible appearance which yet is the selfe-same thing in spirituall vertue So the Paschall Lambe was eaten but the blood was stricken vpon both posts which mystery Saint Gregory thus vnfolds What is meant by the blood of the Lambe you haue learned not by hearing but by drinking it Which blood is put vpon both postes when it is drunke not onely with the mouth of the body but also with the mouth of the heart SECT 2. The second reason saith Bellarmine is drawne from the doctrine and example of Christ. For our Lord in the sixth of Iohn speaking of the fruit of the Eucharist or Lords Supper not once but foure times teacheth one kind to be sufficient to saluation he that ea◅eth me shall liue by me he that eateth this bread shall liue for euer if any man eate of this bread hee shall liue for euer This is the Bread that came downe from Heauen that if any man eate of it he may not die It cannot therefore be that the same Lord should command both kinds to bee taken Againe our Lord proues the same by his example first Ioh. the sixth where hee multiplied the l◅aues and thereby satisfied the people there remaining twelue baskets full but neither multiplied hee nor gaue them any drinke Moreouer in the 24 of Luke in the supper with the Disciples at Emaus hee tooke bread and blest it and brake it and gaue it vnto them but we reade of no Cup that there he tooke or blest nor indeed could For the story of the Gospell so ioyneth the distribution of the bread with our Lords departure that it leaueth no place for the blessing or distributing the Cup. For so S. Luke speaketh It came to passe as he sate with them hee tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to them and their eies were opened and they knew him and he suddenly vanished out of their sight Answer Cardinall Bellarmine in propounding this second reason as he calleth it makes vse of the Orators precept to heape weake arguments one vpon another that though each by themselues be of their owne nature feeble yet they may receiue some support by the helpe of one another For here in like maner he layeth together diuers places of Scripture to strengthen his cause which being seuerally examined will prooue of no moment being misapplied in his owne defence To the first place therefore alleaged out of the sixth Chapter of S. Iohn we say First that in the iudgement of Tapperus Iansenius Caietanus Cusanus and diuers others quoted by Bellarmine himselfe in his first book of the Sacrament of the Eucharist and fifth Chapter Christ in the sixth of Iohn speaketh not at all of the Sacrament which was not yet instituted but a yeere after at his last Supper with his Disciples Secondly for the words insisted vpon by Bellarm. in particular Christ himselfe foure seuerall times tells vs that he meaneth by bread himselfe who came downe from heauen verse 48. I am that bread of life 50. this is that bread which commeth downe frō heauen vers 51. I am the liuing bread which came downe from heauen if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer vers 58. This is the bread which came downe from heauen not as your fathers which did eat Manna and are dead If then there be any force in the number of foure we answer that our Lord who foure times in this cap. attributeth life to the eating of bread foure times expoundeth himself that by bread he meaneth celestiall bread not sacramentall for the sacramentall bread commeth not from heauen but is made of the graine of the earth and many that eate of it liue not for euer Iudas and many other reprobates haue eaten yea Mise Rats and other vermin may and sometimes haue eaten the sacramentall bread who yet neuer haue nor shall taste the power of the heauenly gift much lesse inioy eternall life These texts therefore are mis-applied by Bellarmine to the Sacrament and being mis-applied proue nothing for his halfe Communion Thirdly we say that Christ hauing spoken of Manna the Israelites bread in the wildernesse calleth himselfe bread keeping the subiect and occasion which he had begun to speak of As Ioh. 4. 14. speaking with the woman of Samaria about drawing water he promiseth her to giue her water to drinke of which whosoeuer drinketh shall thirst no more There Christ speaketh of drinking and mentioneth no eating but in the places of Saint Iohn alleaged by Bellarmine of eating and not drinking because the Metaphore of drinking better fitted the subiect of his speech which was water there but eating better relished in the sixth of Iohn where the occasion of his speech was bread yet as from these words of Ioh. 4. 14. no man may inferre that drinking alone is sufficient to saluation without eating so neither may Bellarmine conclude from the sixth of Iohn in the places aboue quoted that eating is sufficient without drinking as eternall life is ascribed here to eating so to drinking Ioh. 4. 14. as also vnto beleeuing Ioh. 6. 47. He that beleeueth in me hath euerlasting life Beleeuing eating and drinking are all meanes of eternall life but not exclusiuely euen by the same reason whereby Bellarmine would prooue eating alone to be sufficient to eternall
that meane while had been kept it would haue been dead in the Pixe Hugo Card. saith Christs Passion is the truth and the Sacrament is a figure of the same Therfore when the truth is come the figure giueth place Consider we the weight of these reasons The Apostles fled sixteene hundred yeeres agoe on Good-Friday therefore we must not now on that day consecrate the elements or communicate in both kinds On Good-Friday Christ suffered his blood then was seuered from the body Therefore now wee must not receiue his body and blood on that day Christs Passion was on that day therefore wee must neuer receiue the figure thereof on that day 2. Concerning the custome of the Greeke Church It is true that the Greeke Church in Lent vsed to consecrate onely vpon Saterday and Sunday and on the other dayes of the weeke they did communicate ex praesanctificatis of the presanctified formes which had been consecrated the Saterday or Sunday before as may be gathered out of the 49. Canon of the Councell of Laodocea and 52. Canon of the Councell in Trullo Sed quid ad rhombum we dispute not of the Communion of things before consecrated but of the communion of both kinds Such no doubt was this communion of the Greekes as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or praesanctificata in the plurall number doth implie It is not called by Balsamo vpon the 52. Canon of the sixth Councell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not a communion of presanctified bread but of presanctified mysteries This headlesse arrow therefore as all the former may be thus headed and shot backe vpon our aduersaries Retortion If the Communion of presanctified elements were in both kindes this Rite of the Greeke Church no way suporteth but quite ouerthroweth the Romish halfe Communion in one kind only But the communion of presanctified elements of the Greeke Church was in both kinds Ergo this Rite of the Greeke Church no way supporteth but quite ouerthroweth the Romish halfe Communion in one kinde onely That this Communion in the Greeke Church was in both kinds wee need no better euidence then the Seruice-booke or Office of the Greeke Church wherein we reade that after the Priest hath sanctified the bread he powreth wine and water into the sacred Cup and rehearseth the accustomed words in the Liturgie it self called Liturgia praesanctificatorum The dreadfull mysteries are named in the plurall number And that al that communicated receiued in both kinds it appeares by the forme of thankesgiuing there set downe We giue thanks to thee O God the Sauiour of all for all thy benefits which thou hast bestowed vpon vs and in speciall for that thou hast vouch safed to make vs partakers of the body and blood of thy Christ. CHAP. XV. The arguments of Papists drawne from reason answered and retorted SECT I. OVr aduersaries are driuen to rake hell for arguments and to begge proofes from damned hereticks such as were the Manichees From whose dissembling at the Lords Supper our equiuocating Iesuits would make vs beleeue that their halfe Communion was in vse in the Primitiue Church The Manichees saith Fisher liued in Rome and other places shrowding themselues amongst Catholicks went to their Churches receiued the Sacrament publikely with thē vnder the sole forme of bread yet they were not noted nor then discerned from Catholicks A manifest signe saith he that Communiō vnder one kind was publikly in the Church permitted For how could the Manichees still refusing the Cup haue beene hidden amongst those antient Christians if they had bin perswaded as now Protestants are that receiuing one kind onely is sacrilege The like argument Master Harding draweth from a tricke of Leger demaine vsed by a cunning housewife who made her husband beleeue that shee receiuing the bread from the Priest stooped downe as if she had prayed but receiued of her seruant standing by her somewhat that shee had brought for her from home which shee had no sooner put into her mouth but it hardned into a stone If this seeme to any incredible saith Sozomen that stone is a witnesse which to this day is kept amongst the Iewels of the Church of Constantinople By this stone it is cleere saith Master Harding the Sacrament was then ministred vnder one kind onely For by receiuing that one forme this woman would haue perswaded her husband that shee had communicated with him else if both kindes had beene ministred shee would haue practised fome other shift for the auoyding of the Cup which had not beene so easie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an ill egge of an ill bird a loose inference of a lewd practise As if the Manichees in Rome or this woman in Constantinople might not pitisare sip and make as if they drank and yet let not a drop go downe or as if this their fraud was not discouered Howsoeuer these disembled it is certaine out of Saint Leo in his 4. Sermon of Lent and Saint Chrysostome 18. Homile vpon the second to the Corinthians that the faithful people of Rome and Constantinople receiued the Communion in both kinds For Saint Leo in the place aboue alleaged giueth this as a marke to discrie Manichees from other Christian people intruding amongst them at the Lords Table by refusing to drink the blood of Christ with them And Saint Chrysostome saith expresly that there is no difference betwixt Priest and people in participating the dreadfull mysteries Therefore as the Priest in Constantinople and euery where else in his time receiued the Communion in both kindes so did the people SECT II. To leaue these absurd inferences of the Papists from the vngodly practise of hereticks I come now in the last place to batter and breake in pieces such weapons as they hammer against vs in the forge of reason The first reason they shape in this wise If whole Christ Body Blood Soule and Diuinity are vnder the forme of bread the Laietie are no way wronged by denying them the Cup But whole Christ is vnder the forme of bread to wit his Body Blood Soule and Diuinity Therefore the Laiety are not wronged by denying them the Cup. That whole Christ is vnder the forme of bread they proue by the vnseparable vnion of the body and blood of Christ c. Since his ascention his body now in heauen is a liue body and therfore hath his blood in his veines and is informed and glorified by a most excellent soule Therfore Christ cannot say truly that a body voyd of blood sence and soule is his body but soule life and blood must needs follow and concomitate his body wheresoeuer it bee Therefore when the Priest in the person of Christ or rather Christ by the mouth of the Priest saith This is my body the meaning must bee a liuing body with blood in the veines The answer First the doctrine of naturall Concomitancie presupposeth the naturall body of Christ to bee substantially and carnally vnder
neuer so free from corruption For at the very first when it was purest it was by many nay infinite degrees inferior to the Originall But that we may not digresse from the point proposed vnto vs touching Communion in both kinds here I promise you that in discussing this question I will alleage no text of Scripture wherein our English Translation agreeth not both with the Originall Greeke and the Latine vulgar That I may therefore know what to impugne I desire you to set downe the state of the question as you meane to hold it M. Euerard I beleeue that wheresoeuer the body of Christ is there is also his blood by concomitancie and consequently that the Church though it giue not the Cup to the Laietie yet it giueth them the blood of Christ which they participate in and with his body Secondly I deny not that the Laietie may receiue in both kinds if the Church giue them leaue but they are not bound by Christs Institution so to receiue It is sufficient that they receiue in one D. Featly We teach and beleeue that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper according to Christs Institution ought to be administred in both kinds as well to the Laietie as to the Cleargie M. Euerard Let the Scriptures bee interpreted by the consent of Fathers and practise of the Primitiue Church D. Featly I assent vnto this condicion especially in this point wherein the continuall practise of the Church is vndoubtedly for vs as also the cleare and expresse letter of Scripture And this I prooue First by the words of the Institution Matth. 26. 28. Drinke yee all of this For this is the blood of the new Testament which was shed for many Christ commandeth the same to drinke whom he commandeth to eate But he commandeth the Laiety to eate the bread Therefore also to drinke of the Cup. And Againe He commandeth those to drinke for whom his blood was shed saying drinke yee all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament shed for many But Christs blood was shed for the people as well as for the Priests Therefore the people are to drinke as well as the Priests By the words of our Sauiour Iohn 6. 53. Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood yee haue no life in you This Text is alleaged by Bellarmine and most Papists as a strong proofe of the reall presence of Christs body and blood in the Sacrament And if that you grant that these words are to be vnderstood of the Sacrament you must needes confesse they require all people as well as Priests to receiue the Communion in both kinds to wit to eate the flesh of the Sonne of Man vnder the forme of bread and drinke his blood vnder the forme of wine Thirdly By the words of Saint Paul 1. Corinth 11. 28. Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of that Bread and drinke of that Cup. Here the Apostle inuiteth all to drinke of the Cup who are to examine themselues saying Let a man examine c. and so let him drinke But the Laietie as well as the Cleargie are bound to examine themselues nay the Laietie in some respect are more bound to examin themselues because most commonly they are more ignorant in this holy mystery Fourthly by the practise of the Primitiue Church For which it shall suffice for the present to produce the testimonies of 1. Ignatius epist. ad Phil. speaking of the administring of the Sacrament saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Bread is broken vnto all and one Cup is distributed vnto all 2. Cyprian epist. 54. How shall wee make them fit for the Cup of Martyrdome if we doe not first admit them into the Church to drinke the Cup of the Lord by the right of Communication Here Saint Cyprian speaketh of the Laietie who are to suffer martyrdome for Christ and not Priests onely and he saith they haue a right to Communicate in the Cup therefore the Church of Rome doth them wrong to debarre them from it Againe the same Cyprian in his 2 booke and 3. epistle Why doe some not doe that our Lord did and taught in sanctifying the Cup and administring it to the people Thirdly S. August quaest 57. in Leuiticum All men are exhorted to drinke the blood of Christ who desire to haue life I hope you will not deny that the Laietie desire to haue life and therefore by Saint Augustines inference they are inuited to the Cup. Fourthly Gelatius de consecratione dist 2. Let them receiue the Sacrament intirely or let thē be kept from them intirely Because the diuision of one and the selfe same mystery cannot be without great sacrilege Saint Gregory hom 22. in Euangelia speaking to the people his auditors saith You haue learned what is the blood of the Lambe not by hearing but by drinking it And in his fourth booke of dialogues q The blood of Christ is powred not into the hands but into the mouthes of the faithfull M. Euerard Master Euerard here produced for the Romish opinion diuers practises of the ancient Church as the sending the bread a farre off to the sicke and not the Cup the denying the Cup to all those who had eaten meates offered vnto Idols He answered in Generall to the allegations aboue mentioned that either Christ commanded not the Communion in both kinds determinately but either in one or in the other or if he enioyned both yet this precept of his was dispensable by the Church In fine saith hee you cannot expect that I should answer all the places you haue cited at once and on the sudden D. Featly These instances which you alleage of the practise of the Primitiue Church are either false or impertinent as I will shew when I am to answer For dispencing with Christs precept I say that no mortall man can dispence with the precept of God As for the crauing time to answer my former allegations take what time will and you answer them one by one M. Euerard Dispute then syllogistically D. Feately If Christ command the Laietie to take the Cup as well as the bread they that take away the Cup from them doe ill But Christ commanded the Laietie to take the Cup as well as the Bread Therefore they that take away the Cup from them doe ill M. Euerard I deny the sequell of the Maior D. Featly The sequel of the Maior cannot be denied for they certainely doe ill that transgresse Christs Commandement Therefore if Christ command all to receiue the Cup as well as the Bread they that take away the Cup doe ill M. Euerard Christ commands not all to drinke of the Cup that eate of the bread D. Featly I proue he doth by the words of the Institution Matth. 26. 28. Drinke yee all of this He saith not of the bread Eate all of this though his meaning was that all should eate But he saith
expresly of the Cup Drinke yee all of this yet you denie the Laietie the Cup and giue them the Bread M. Euerard This Commandement Drinke ye all of this is giuen to all Priests and not to the Laietie D. Featly Christ giues the command of drinking to all those to whom hee giues the command of eating For he saith to the same Drinke to whom he saith before Take and eate But hee gaue the commandement of eating to the Laiety as well as to the Clergy Therefore he gaue the Commandement of drinking to the Laiety as well as to the Clergie M. Euerard He commandeth not the Laiety to eate For he speaketh here onely to the Apostles who were Priests D. Featly If Christ commandeth not the Laiety to eate then the Laietie are not bound to receiue the Communion in bread at all And consequently they transgresse not Christs Commandement in receiuing the Communion without bread M. Euerard It is in the power of the Church to take away the Bread and leaue the Laiety onely the Cup. The Laiety are not bound to receiue the Communion in Bread determinately D. Featly This neuer any held before you to my knowledge M. Euerard It is the common Tenent of Catholikes D. Featly Thus I disproue it The Laiety are bound determinately to receiue in both kinds For Christ in Ioh. 6. 53. saith Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood c. This place is alleaged by most of your side to proue the reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament but if it be meant of the Sacrament it enforceth Communion in both kinds M. Euerard This place in the Iudgment of Caluin and Luther is not of force to proue the Communion in both kinds D. Featly Luther and Caluin haue no such words Although some Protestants as well as Papists are of opinion that this place is not meant of the Sacrament But if it be meant of the Sacrament it enforceth both kinds And I am sure no Protestant contradicteth M. Euerard First I answer that these words are meant disiunctiuely thus Vnlesse yee eate his flesh and that is or drinke his blood as in Saint Iohn except a man be borne of Water and the Spirit that is of Water or the Spirit D. Featly And for or a coniunction for a disiunction is a forced interpretation And the place you alleage for it maketh against you For if our Sauiours words except a man be borne of Water and the Spirit are taken disiunctiuely then that Text no way inferreth the necessity of Baptisme of Water for which it is alleaged by the best diuines euen of your owne side If a man may enter into the Kingdome of Heauen that is be borne againe either of Water or of the Spirit it is sufficient then to be borne againe of Water without the Spirit or of the Spirit without Water And consequently this place so expounded no way proueth the necessitie of Baptisme of Water or at least no more maketh a necessitie of the spirituall then of the Sacramentall Baptisme M. Euerard You know well that wee hold a threefold Baptisme fluminis flaminis sanguinis and that a man may enter into the Kingdome of Heauen that hath any of these Baptismes D. Featly I know that the Baptisme of water is not absolutely and simply necessarie but it is then onely necessarie when it may be had the wilfull neglect or contempt of it is damnable but not the ineuitable defect Baptisme is necessarie where it may bee had But if these words except a man be borne of Water and the Spirit may be meant disiunctiuely that is of Water or the Spirit this Text so glossed proueth not the necessitie of Baptisme when it may be had For it sufficeth to bee borne of the Spirit without it by your exposition which is contrary to the iudgment of the best learned diuines ancient and latter But to come backe againe to the former Text out of the sixth of Saint Iohn If you expound these words disiunctiuely except a man eate the flesh of the Sonne of Man and that is or drinke his blood then your Priests are not commanded to communicate in both kinds but in one onely But the Priests are commanded according to your owne Doctrine to communicate in both kinds Therefore these words cannot be taken disiunctiuely M. Euerard In this Text there is no commandement for Priests or people to communicate in both kinds but onely to take the body and blood of Christ into the mouth and conuey it into the stomacke D. Featly If eating and drinking be taken here properly then this Text inferreth communicating in both kinds distinctly and not onely as you expound it taking the body of Christ and his blood whether by eating onely or by drinking onely But the words of eating and drinking are to bee taken properly Therefore this Text inferreth Communion in both kinds both in Priest and people M. Euerard The words are not to be taken properly but figuratiuely D. Featly All the diuines of the Church of Rome that alleage this place of Saint Iohn to proue the reall presence say that these words except yee eate my flesh and drinke my blood are to be vnderstood properly For otherwise they could not inferre from them there reall presence M. Euerard The acts are meant figuratiuely the obiect properly in that place aboue mentioned of Saint Iohn D. Featly The acts are meant properly to wit eating and drinking which I thus proue Christ commands vs in these words to receiue the Communion as you confesse For you say they are meant of the Sacrament But the Communion is receiued by eating and drinking properly Therefore Christ commands eating and drinking properly M. Euerard I answer that though the commandement doe not fall properly vpon formall eating or drinking yet that the act formally commanded cannot be performed without formall eating and drinking Secondly I distinguish the Maior Christ commands the substance of the Communion I grant I denie that hee commands properly the manner of receiuing D. Featly Christ commands the substance of the Communion to be receiued But the substance of the Communion cannot be receiued without eating or drinking properly Therefore hee commands the act of eating or drinking properly M. Euerard If properly in the Conclusion bee applied to command then the Syllogisme is naught if it be applied to the act of eating or drinking then the conclusion is true and makes nothing against vs. D. Featly This answer contrary to the rules of disputation is giuen to the conclusion and the distinction appplied to no tearme of the premisses which should haue been done Secondly You grant that which before you denied and so contradict your selfe When I prest that those words vnlesse you eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood doe proue that the people are commanded to drinke as drinking is taken properly and distinguished from eating you answered that the word
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
cut of the rugged knobs not grate or weare out the heart of it Volo nasutum non polyposum Fourthly because the testimonies I cite out of these authors were neuer questioned much lesse proued to be taken for good by the aduersarie vntill he can disproue them according to the rule of the Ciuill law supponitur esse bonus qui non probatur esse malus he is supposed to be an honest man who was neuer proued otherwise To cal in then these ancients in that order as commonly they go First Anno 70. Dionysius Areopagita in his booke of Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie chap. 5. relateth the practise of the Church in his time on this manner z After the Priest hath prayed that he may holyly distribute and that they that are to partake of the Sacraments may receiue it worthily discouering the bread that before was couered and breaking it into many pieces and diuiding one Cup among all he multiplieth that in the signes which is but one and distributeth it Anno. 80. The second Martialis Lenoricensis who stileth himselfe a seruant of God and an Apostle of Iesus Christ in his epistle ad Burdigal writeth thus You heretofore honored the priests which deceiued you with their sacrifices which they offered to dumbe and deafe images that neither could helpe you nor themselues but now much more you ought to honour the Priests of Almighty God who minister life vnto you in the Cup and liuing Bread By this argument of Martials the Romish Priests that giue the people but an halfe Communion should lose halfe of the honour due vnto Gods Priests if not the whole For thus out of Martials premises I conclude Those and none but those Priests are to be honoured and reuerenced who administer life to the people in the Cup The Romish Priests administer not life to the people in the Cup Therefore they are not to bee reuerenced or honoured Anno 92. Thirdly Clemens in his second booke of Constitutions 57. chap. thus enioyneth after the offering of the sacrifice let euery order a part receiue the body of our Lord and his pretious blood Anno 100. Fourthly Ignatius the Scholer of Saint Iohn the Euangelist Bishop of Antioch and Martyr in his Epistle to the Philadelphians enforceth an argument to vnity from the Communion I exhort you to imbrace one faith one manner of preaching and vse of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper for the flesh of our Lord Iesus is one and his blood one that was shed for vs there is one bread also broken for all and one Cup distributed vnto all Bellarmine his first Answer Bellarmine is put to a miserable plunge in his answer to this allegation First he saith in the Latine copies the words of Ignatius are not as we cite them There is one Cup distributed vnto all but there is one Cup of the whole Church and though the Greeke copies reade as we do yet he saith that much credit is not to be giuen to them The Refutation Against this answer I reply First that if we may not trust the Greeke editions of Ignatius much lesse may we trust the Latine translations especially since of late they are come into hucksters hands To appeale from a translation to the originall is vsuall but to appeale from the originall to a translation is a thing vnheard of This is to make the brooke or streame to bee purer then the fountaine or spring The Poet teacheth Bellarmine another lesson Dulciùs ex ipso fonte bibuntur aquae Ignatius as it is well knowne wrote in Greeke and therefore vnlesse Bellarmine can proue that other Greeke copies agree with his Latine translation and not with ours he speaketh nothing to the purpose for a translation is of no credit further then it agrees with the originall Secondly euen Bellarmines corrupt translation maketh against the Church of Rome and prooueth that the practice in Ignatius his time was for the whole Church to communicate in both kinds for why else calleth he it Calicem totius Ecclesiae The Cup of the whole Church Ignatius there speakes not of the possession but of the vse of the Cup and if the Priests onely had dranke of it hee would haue called it the Priests Cup but in terming it the Cup of the whole Church he plainely signifieth that the whole Church vsed it in the celebration of the Lords Supper Bellarmine his second answere Secondly Bellarmine saith that the force of Ignatius his argument consisteth in the vnitie of the Cup and not in the vniuersalitie of them that drinke for he exhorteth there to vnitie The Refutation First Ignatius exhorts there all to vnitie because all eate of one bread and drinke of one cup. His argument therefore standeth both in the vniuersalitie of them that drinke and the vnitie of the Cup and it may be thus reduced into forme All that eate of one bread and drinke of one holy Cup in remembrance of one body offered and one blood shed for all ought to embrace vnitie But all you of the Church of Philadelphia people as well as Priests eate of one bread and drinke of one holy Cup in memory of one body offered and one blood of Christ shed for you all Therefore all you of the Church of Philadelphia ought to embrace vnitie and godly loue If the pinch or straine of the argument were in vnitie only it would not hold for if some onely dranke of this Cup and not others this should rather make more for a diuision then for vnitie it is the communion of more in one that Ignatius layeth for the ground of his argument enforcing vnitie Secondly howsoeuer the argument stands it makes no great matter sith we insist not so much vpon the argument it selfe as vpon that his expresse affirmation That one Cup in his time was giuen vnto all This assertion alone sufficiently prooueth the practise of the Church in his time Bellarmine his third answere Thirdly Bellarmine saith that nothing can be inforced from these words of Ignatius but that it was the vse in that time when there were but few Christians to giue the Cup vnto all but this is an example it is no precept so the Cardinall The Refutation First it is not true which he here affirmeth that there were but few Christians in Ignatius his time for all histories of those times and the Epistles of Ignatius testifie the contrary and in this very Church of Philadelphia the holy Ghost testifieth Apoc. 3. 8. That there were many Christians Behold I haue set before thee an open dore and no man shall shut it c. Secondly though the Primitiue Church were not of that large extent as the Church in suceeding ages yet the authoritie of the Church in that age in which the Apostles liued and their immediate successors is farre greater then in any later age Thirdly in this last answere the Cardinall yeeldeth vs the cause for we cite these words of
Ignatius onely to prooue the practise of the Primitiue Church and thus much Bellarmine confesseth whereupon I adde that this confessed practise of the Primitiue Church was grounded on our Lords precept drinke you all of this for the Church so neere Christ cannot bee supposed to haue swarued any way from his institution by adding any thing vnto it or taking away from it certainely Ignatius and the Churches wherein he bore sway obserued the order and practise of Saint Iohn his master and if Saint Iohn administred the Cup in all Churches to the people so did the rest of the Apostles for they varied not from Christ or among themselues in celebrating the Lords Supper And what the Apostles did ioyntly no Christian doubteth but they did by the direction of the holy Ghost according to our Lords will and commandement And thus wee see this example amounteth to a precept and the practise in Ignatius his time ought to bee a president for all future times SECT II. Testimonies of the Practise of the Christian Churches in the second Age. From 100. to 200. Anno Dom. 150. IVstin Martyr in his second apologie thus writeth They which are called Deacons among vs giue to euery one that is present of the consecrated Bread and Wine And when he hath related the whole manner of the celebration of the Eucharist as it were to preuent a cauill that might be made and is now made by Papists the Martyr heere sheweth the practise of the Church but maketh no mention of the precept of our Sauiour as that they did so in deed but were not bound so to doe he further addeth for the close as they report that Iesus commanded them or as they haue deliuered vnto vs Iesus his command giuen vnto them Bellarmine his answere Bellarmine repineth at this so expresse a testimony of so ancient a Father and so renowned a Martyr and therefore laboureth to disparage it some way or other Si non aliqu â nocuisset mortuus esset Yet all that he saith to it is but this that those last words of the Martyr which mentioneth Christs precept belong not to the Communion but to the Consecration The Refutation This solution will no way beare water First it is euident to any that reads the whole place that Iustin Martyrs words wherein he mentioneth Christs precept belongeth both to the Consecration and to the Communion For after he had spoken of the Communion he subioyneth these words And therefore they cannot bee seuered from the Communion The series or method of the passage in Iustin is thus hauing rehearsed the words of the Institution This is my body doe this in remembrance of me and this Cup is the new Testament drinke you all of this he addeth and he commanded that they onely should participate as had been before washed in the lauer of Regeneration and lead such a life as Christ prescribed them These words that they onely should participate clearely conuince the Cardinall and demonstrate that Iustin Martyr extendeth Christs command both to the Consecration and to the Commumunion it selfe which in Christs precept cannot be deuided both being enioyned in this one precept doe this in remembrance of me that is Consecrate and Communicate Secondly howsoeuer the Cardinall by any tricke of sophistrie shall dismember the whole sentence and pull these words As Christ commanded from the rest and refer them to which part of the sentence he pleaseth yet he can neuer smoother the light of truth shining in these words The Deacons deliuer or minister to euery one of the consecrated bread and wine The practice then of those times maketh for vs against the Church of Rome The Deacons then as the Ministers now deliuered the Sacrament to the people in both kindes Anno. 152. Laurence Deacon to Pope Sixtus cryed out to him as hee was led to his Martyrdome Whether goest thou father without thy sonne whether hastest thou Priest without thy Leuite try whether thou hast chosen a fit minister to whom thou hast committed the dispensation of our Lords blood Wilt thou denie me to bee a copartner with thee in the effusion of thy blood who hast made me a copartner with thee in the celebration of our Lords blood This giueth such light to Iustin Martyrs words and so fully accordeth with them that Tiletanus the defender of the councell of Trent confesseth that it is manifest that in this age the vse of both kinds was common to all Anno 180. Saint Irenaeus Bishop of Lions and Martyr in the fourth booke against heresies and 34. cha proueth the resurrection of the flesh and eternall life by an argument drawne from the faithfulls eating Christs flesh in the Eucharist and he presseth his argument in this manner How doe they viz. the heretiques say that the flesh should be vtterly corrupted and neuer rise againe which is nourished with the body and blood of Christ and a little after Our bodies by participating the Eucharist or Sacrament of our Lords supper are not now corruptible or shall not vtterly be corrupted and come to nothing because they haue the hope of theresurrection Irenaeus speaketh of all Christians people as well as Priests for all faithfull Christians haue hope of a blessed resurrection and he saith that they are nourished with the bodie and blood of Christ by participating of the Sacrament of his supper Papists answer The Romanists seeke to auoyde these and the like passages by their doctrine of concomitancie auerring that the blood of Christ is not seuered from his body and consequently that the Laietie take the blood in the body and are nourished therewith to eternall life and this say they is all that can bee gathered from Irenaeus his words They are nourished with the blood of Christ which they receiue together with his body not with the blood of Christ which they take by it selfe in the Cup. The Refutation This answer of theirs is weake and insufficient First because it is built on a weake and ruinous foundation viz. the reall and carnall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament vnder the accidents of bread and wine which I haue else where by Scriptures and Fathers refelled See the fisher caught in his owne net part 2. That the doctrine of concomitancie is builded vpon the reall and carnall presence is not denied by the Romanists for they make the one the ground of the other Secondly albeit wee should grant that the Laiety in some sence receiue the blood of Christ in the bread yet they receiue it not so as Christ commandeth for they receiue it not by drinking No man drinketh in eating or eateth in Drinking Thirdly the blood of Christ which wee receiue in the Sacrament we receiue not as subsisting in his veines or as being a part of or ioyned vnto his body but as shed for vs In which quality and manner it is impossible to receiue the blood of Christ together with and in the body by naturall
Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. With what face then can our aduersaries deny the Cup to Lay men when the ancient Church deliuered it vsually to religious women such as were Patricia and Gorgonia Anno 375. Ambrose in his fifth booke de sacramentis chap. 1. elegantly applieth Moses his striking the rocke and the water flowing out thereupon to the holy communion saying see the mystery Moses that is a Prophet the Rod that is Gods word the Priest with the Word of God toucheth the rock and the water floweth and the people of God drinke it The Priest therefore toucheth the Cup and there aboundeth in the Cup water springing to eternall life and the people of God drinketh and obtaineth the grace of God The same S. Ambrose as Theoderet writes in his fifth booke of Ecclesiasticall storie and 17. chap. repelleth the Emperor Theodosius from the Communion with these words How darest thou take into thy hands sprinckled with blood the holy body of Christ How presumest thou to lift vp his dreadfull blood to thy mouth who in thy rage hast spilt vniustly so much blood Wee see in Saint Ambroses time that both Prince and people communicated in both kinds albeit Theodosius at this time were deseruedly suspended from the participating of Christs body as well as his blood Yet after hee had cleansed his bloody hands with penitent teares he was admitted to the blessed Sacrament and he receiued both the blessed Body and the holy Cup into his hands Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in his answer to this our allegation out of Theodoret saith We confesse that both kinds haue been sometimes giuen to the Laietie but we denie that it is so commanded by Gods Law A poore and miserable euasion For first many of the ancients whom wee haue before alleadged doe not onely testifie the practise of their times but vrge diuine precept for it Secondly they indifferently exhort the Laietie as well as the Clergie to the Communion in both kinds and vrge a like necessitie for both but the Papists themselues confesse that the Cleargie who administer the Communion are bound by the Law of God to communicate in both kinds and sith Sacraments may not be administred to any without order and command from him who instituted them questionlesse the ancient Church would neuer haue vsually administred the Cup to the Laietie with the bread if they had not conceiued that Christs words Drinke ye all of this belonged to them as well as to the Cleargie Anno. 390. Hierome vpon the eleuenth of the 1. Cor. The Lords Supper ought to be cōmon to all because Christ equally deliuered the Sacraments to all his disciples who were there present It is to be noted that he vseth the word Sacraments in the plurall number speaking onely of the Lords Supper whereby it is euident that by Sacraments hee vnderstandeth the elements bread and wine and from Christs example enforceth that they be equally deliuered to all communicants The same Saint Hierome speaketh yet more expresly of the Laietie receiuing the Cup from the Priest in the Eucharist in his comment on the 3. chap. of Zephanie the Priests also who administer the Eucharist deuide the blood of the Lord to his people commit wickednes against the Law To which allegation Cardinall Bellarmine answereth nothing but we heare no newes It is true we heare no newes out of Saint Ieroms mouth For all the fathers aboue alleadged testifie as much and this Bellarmine is for ced to grant Durum telum necessitas ignoscite If he could haue coyned any new answer wee should haue had somewhat else from him then Nihil noui audimus but seeing hee brings nothing new to impeach our argument I need not to adde any new confirmation Anno 398. In the fourth councell of Carthage it is ordered that if any penitent desire the peace of the Church when he lyeth on his death bed if it bee beleeued that he will presently depart that the Church peace be giuen vnto him by laying on of hands and vt ori eius effundatur Eucharistia and that the Sacrament be powred into his mouth Anno 399. Saint Chrysostome in his 18. homily in the 2. epist. to the Corinth makes it a cleere case that the people by the new law haue as good interest to the entire Sacrament as the Priest Sometimes or in some things there is no difference betweene the people and the Priest as in the participation of the dreadfull mysteries for all are equally admitted vnto them In the time of the old testament it was not lawfull for the people to eat of those things of which the Priests did eate but it is not so now for one body is offered to all and one Cup. The Papists answer Bellarmine answereth that the difference which Saint Chrysostome obserues betweene the sacrifices of the old and new Testament was that the sacrifice of the old was deuided into parts and could not bee entirely taken by any one and hence it came to passe saith he that some receiued a greater and some a lesse portion and for the most part the Priests part was the greatest but this our Sacrament is giuen intirely to euery one neither hath the Priest more then the Lay people although the symboles are more or greater in the Communion of the Priests then of the people Refutation This slight colour of answer is easily washed away for First Saint Chrysostome in the originall Greek hath no word signifying parts or diuision into parts but saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that the Priest fed on other things and that the Laietie might not feed vpon the same as for example The laitie might not at all eat of the shew bread and in the sacrifices the people might not eate of the same specie or numero which the Priest eate For the Law expresly set downe what belonged to the Priest to eate and what to the people but in the new Testament it is not so for the people may eat of the bread which the Priest eateth and drinke also of the same Cup. This is euidently Saint Chrysostomes meaning Secondly although it is true which Bellarmine saith that the whole Sacrament is eaten by euery Communicant yet this must be vnderstood of the integrity of the thing signified and of the essence of that signe not of the integrity of the quantitie of the outward elements For no one man eateth the whole loafe or quantity of bread that is consecrated nor drinketh the whole measure of wine that is sanctified but a portion onely Herein then the difference is not betweene the Priests of the old Law and the Priests of the new that the Priests of the old Law might eate but a part of the Sacrifice but the Priests of the new might eat the whole For if we speake of the thing signified both receiued the whole if of the signes neither receiues the whole that is the entire quantity of
for the opinion of the Romish Church For they signifie that Christs blood is to bee drunk but vnder the forme of bread not vnder the forme of wine As for Haymo hee answers him with a short come-off saying He spake of the vnity of the Chalice and that his meaningis that they that receiue the blood of the Lord receiue out of one Cup. Refutation The threefold answer of Bellarmine to Paschasius is not like a threefold cable that cannot be broken but rather like a rustie twisted wyer-string that breakes with the least strayne First he beareth vs in hand that the place in Paschasius seemes to be corrupted Corrupted By whom by Papists Surely they would neuer haue corrupted this text to make against themselues by Protestants That cannot be for no Protestants haue set forth Paschasius for ought we find or haue had any thing to doe in that Edition of Paschasius which we cite Besides in all the ancient impressions of Paschasius and the Manu-scripts that haue come to our sight the words are found as we cite them Yea but Iohn of Louane suspects that the copies are faulty and that bibite is put for edite Drinke yee for eat ye why so because the words going before are he distributeth the bread by the hands of his ministers to the beleeuers saying Take yee and drinke yee all of this This reason like a rope of sand hath no coherence at all For though Pascasius spake of bread yet to proue that Christ is he who alone by his Ministers distributeth the sacrament he rehearseth the words of the institution both concerning the Bread and the Cup neither can bibite or drink you in Paschasius be put for edite eate ye but must stand as it doth drinke yee For the words immediately following in Paschasius are for this is the new and eternall Testament Now what a ridiculous inference were it if we read the words as Iohn of Louane would haue vs take eate this for this is the Cup of the blood of the new and euerlasting testament Bellarmine his second answer is as absurd as his first For Paschasius his words make more strongly for vs and against himself if Paschasius expound the words Drinke ye all of this as they seeme to bee spoken by Christ not at the first Institution but afterwards whensoeuer the sacrament is administred in the Church If now also whensoeuer the sacrament is administred in the Church Christ commandeth drink ye all of this that is with Paschasius glosse all Ministers other beleeuers it followeth that all other beleeuers as well as Ministers ought now by Christs command to drinke of the cup. Thirdly as Bellarmine his first answer is against the text of Paschasius and his second against himselfe so his third is against common sence How can blood bee drunke vnder the forme of bread if we speake of drinking siguratiuely by faith this kind of drinking the Romanists explode If he speake of drinking properly with the mouth euery suckling is able to confute the Cardinall who know by meere sense that nothing cā be drunk but that which is moist and of liquid substance Nay the Cardinal discourseth like a man that had drank too deep of the wine forgetting in this page what he said in the former There he saith that the fathers doe not say that Christs blood is to be drunke of the people by the mouth of the body but here he saith that other beleeuers as well as Ministers by Christs command ought to drinke it but after a manner neuer heard of before to drinke it vnder the forme of bread Now for his answer to Haymo pari facilitate reijcitur quâ profertur t is as easy to be reiected as vrged For first the Cardinal corrupteth the text of Haymo hee saith not the Cup is the Communion because all drinke of that one Cup the word one is not in Haymo Admit it were this no way disapointeth our allegation out of Haymo For still this word omnes or al remaines And be it out of one Cup or more Haymo saith expresly that all did partake of it and receiued of the blood of Christ contained in it If all then the people as well as the Priests SECT X. The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 900. to 1000. ARistole rightly obserueth that it so falleth out in the descent of families as it doth in diuers grounds in which sometimes wee haue great plentie sometime as great scarsitie so saith he some families haue afforded store of noble personages at other times scarse any of note or eminence So it fareth here with vs in the last Age wee had plentifull store of testimonies for the truth but in this we are like to haue Penury Although if wee consider aright this scarsity may be imputed rather vnto the iniury of the time and want of Records of History which happily being extant might haue afforded vs no lesse plentie of Testimonies then the former Ages as well in this as in other points in question The Poet wisely obserued Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona Multi sed omnes vrgentur ignoti longâ Nocte carent quia vate sacro Dan. Chamier after much inquiry can bring notice but of one witnesse and him hee dares scarse avow Bellarmine brandeth with a note this ninth Age as being the most obscure and darke that the Sunne euer cast his beames vpon yet euen in this Age wee haue somewhat to shew for the right of Gods people to the holy Chalice of the Lords Table Anno 910. Rodolphus Tongrensis testifieth that the people in his time tooke the sacred body of Christ and drank a blessed draught of his blood Anno 920. The Abbot of Prumes Regino teacheth vs that what Rodolphus witnesseth of the practise of the people in his age was not an abuse or disorder in the people but done in obedience to the sacred discipline of the Church whose Canon he mentioneth Let the soules of the weake be refreshed and strengthned with the body and blood of our Lord. Anno 950. Stephanus Edvensis saith These gifts or benefits are dayly performed vnto vs when the body and blood of Christ is taken at the Altar Anno 990. Vincentius writes of Elgifa an old Matrone in this age who being ready to giue vp the ghost tooke the body and blood of our Lord. Anno 995. Aelfricus first Abbot of Saint Albons and after Archbishop of Canterbury in his epistle to Woulfinus and in his sermon translated of late out of the Saxon in die S. Paschae is as ful for the entire Communion as hee is against Transubstantiation the Howsell or Hoste saith he is Christs body not bodily but Ghostly not the body which he suffered in but the body of which he spoke when hee blessed bread and wine to Howsel ep ad Wolfin and in his sermon Without they be seene bread and wine both in figure and in taste and they
be truly Christs body and blood after there halowing through ghostly mystery as a pledge and a figure And a little after All our fathers dranke the same ghostly drinke of the stone which followed them which stone was not bodily Christ who calleth to vs to all beleeuing and faithful men Whosoeuer thirsteth let him come and drinke that heauenly liquor which had signification of Christs blood Now it is offered daily in Gods Church it was the same which we now offer not bodily but ghostly I finde no answer made by any Romanist to the testimonies in this Age which yet are very full and pregnant both for the precept and practise of communicating in both kinds both by men and women If any except against the Authors in the words of the Orator haurimus de foece we draw out dregs and lees I answer where learning ran so low as it did in this Age we could do no other wise yet the Reader may see that out of these lees wee haue ex tracted some Aqua-vitae whereof though he hath but a taste now he shal haue a ful draught in the next Age. SECT XI The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 1000. to 1100. IN this age the Bishops of Rome were so busie about transubstantiating the bread into the body of Christ that they suffered the laiety to goe cleere away with the Cup and gaue them no publique check or controule for it till the Councel of Constance held 400. yeeres after Of which hereafter in his due place Anno 1002. Fulbertus Carnotensis confesseth with the Fathers of the former Age though in a higher and more affected straine Put forth the palate of faith enlarge the Iawes of thy hope extend the bowels of Charity and receiue the bread of life the food of the inward man take also the wine not troden out by feete of a nasty husbandman but crusht out of the wine-presse of the crosse Anno 1014. Bruno Abbas Richen-angiensis speaketh to the point as Fulbertus we also though most unworthie doe not onely eate daily the bread of Christ when we take the foode of his flesh from the table of his Altar but also drinke his blood Anno 1050. Oecumenius ascribes our spirituall vnion with Christ our Head to the participating of his blood in the Sacrament the blood of Christ saith he by partaking thereof ioynes vs to Christ as members to the head And the same Father commenting vpon the eleuenth Chapter schooleth rich men for disdayning to admit the poore to their table whom Christ admits as wel as them to his to partake both of his body and blood If the Lord saith he sets his body and blood on his table and in the Chalice as well before the poore as before thee dost thou dare to driue them from thy table in dispite and contempt Anno 1060. Guitmundus ioines with Oecumenius in assigning our Communion at the Lords Table to be an especiall meanes of vnion with Christ. And they both speake of all faithfull Christians indifferently without distinction of Priest and people who are one in Christ. we saith this Author who receiue the Communion of this holy bread and Cup are made one body of Christ. Anno 1061. Lanfranck sometime Archbishop of Canterbury deliuering a rule touching all Sacraments saith Sacraments they are alwayes a likenesse of those things whereof they are sacraments as in the sacrament about which we contend when the Hoste is broken the blood powred out of the Cup and into the mouth of the faithfull what is signified else but the sacrificing of the body of our Lord vpon the Crosse. Anno 1070. Theophilact reproues the Corinthians out of Saint Paul for leauing the Lords Cup and running to drink with the Idolaters of the wine offered to Idols Are not you ashamed O you Corrinthians to run to the Idoles cup from Christs Cup who hath freed you from Idols And in his comment vpon 11. chap. hee reproues as sharply those who tooke delight in drinking alone and quassing by themselues How dost thou take thy cup alone considering that the dreadfull Chalice is alike deliuered vnto all Anno 1080. Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury speaking of Christians in general deliuereth a double manner of participating the Sacrament both spiritually and Corporally we ought saith he to eat and drinke this sacrament two manner of wayes with the mouth of the heart and with the mouth of the body And vpon 1. Cor. and Cap. 10. All we saith he who partake of one bread and one Cup are made one body Anno 1090. Hildebertus Cenomanensis together with Burcardus Micrologus and Humbertus de silua candida relate and aproue that Canon of the third Councell of Brachara which condemneth the deliuering the bread sopt in the wine to the Laietie for the whole Communion It is the manner saith Hildebertus in your monasteries to giue the sacramentall bread to none but dipt in the wine which Custome we find is not taken either from the Lords institution nor out of authenticall constitutions If you looke into Matthew Marke and Luke you shall finde the bread deliuered by it selfe and the wine by it selfe neither doe we read that Christ deliuered bread dipt vnto any but that disciple whom by giuing him a sop he declared to be the betrayer of his Master The Papists answer This Canon of the Councell of Bracara confirmed by so many witnesses Burchard lib. 5. cap. 1. Gratian de consecratione dist 2. Micrologus de Ecclesiasticis obseruationibus cap. 19. and Lambertus de Silua candida lib. cont Graec. calumnias Cardinall Bellarmine could not any waies baulk with credit therefore he sets his braine vpon the racke for a double answer The first is that the Councel indeed forbids the dipping of the bread vpon this ground that our Lord gaue not bread dipt or sopt in the wine neither can any such o dipping be proued by any testimonie or example of scriptures yet saith he the Councell doth not adde that both kinds ought to be giuen to the Laietie Secondly he saith If the Councell should haue said so wee would haue answered that the Councell speakes of that time in which it was free for the Laietie to communicate in both kinds For then if any desired both kinds the Councell commandeth that both be giuen vnto them to wit bread and wine a part and not a sop of bread dipt in the wine The Refutation These answeres are like the apples of Sodome which fall to ashes if you touch them The first thus presently dissolueth the Councell of Bracara doth as well command Commnion in both kindes as forbid receiuing the bread dipt in wine for the intire Communion for thus standeth the argument In administring the Sacrament wee ought to doe as Christ did and no otherwaies but Christ at his last Supper deliuered first bread by it selfe and then wine and not bread and wine
beleeued not to bee without blood and dead but liuing and quickning whence it is that Saint Agustine saith that neither the flesh with out the blood nor the blood without the flesh is rightly taken Also Gelatius writeth to Maioricus and Iohn Bishops in this manner We vnderstand that some taking a portion of Christs body abstaine from the Cup of his sacred blood to whom our commandement is that either they partake the sacrament intirely and receiue both or be kept from both Anno 1136. Hugo de Sancto Victore yeeldeth a like reason of the full and intire communicating in both kinds Therefore saith hee the sacrament is taken in both kinds that thereby a double effect might bee signified For it hath force as Saint Ambrose saith to preserue both body and soule In the same termes hath Halensis Sum. Theol. par 3. num 29. art 4. Anno 1140. Peter Lumbard Mag. sentent propoundeth this question Why is the sacrament receiued vnder a double forme or kind sith whole Christ is in either kind He answereth That thereby it might be signified that Christ tooke the whole nature of man that he might redeeme the whole Anno. 1150. Petrus Cluniacensis Epist. lib. 1. Though hee fight against the truth one way and woundeth the Albigenses yet he fighteth for it another way and giueth a deeper wound to the Trent Fathers and all that content themselues with an halfe communion That men might not onely learne by words saith he but haue a sensible feeling by deeds that they cannot liue vnlesse they bee ioyned and vnited to Christ after the manner of carnall food and life they receiue the body of Christ and drinke the blood of Christ. And a little after to signifie that for this cause he would giue his flesh to all to eat it and his blood to all to drinke it he draweth a similitude from Manna that fell in the wildernesse In this yeere of our Lord also Vincentius relates of one Tundanus a profane person in his former life that being suddenly strucken from heauen hee called for the body of our Lord which when hee had taken and drunke the wine he began to praise God in these words O Lord thy mercie is greater then mine iniquitie In this same Age Antoninus writes in his Chronicles that the Normans the morning before they fought with the Danes receiued the Communion of Christs body and blood Anno 1170. Gratian rehearseth many ancient Canons and Constitutions for communicating in both kinds which because they haue been handled before I here let passe The Papists answer The onely answer which I find to our allegations out of the Fathers in this Age is Cardinall Bellarmines who indeuoureth to put a glosse vpon Saint Bernards words on this wise Vnder the forme of bread the entire nourishment or compleat foode of Christs body and blood is contained Wherefore our Lord saith he commanded that foode to bee often taken but he commandeth not that it should bee taken in both kinds Refutation S. Ierome saith it is the part of a bad Physition omnibus oculi morbis vno collyrio mederi to applie but one eye-salue to all manner of diseases of the eyes Yet such a Physition is Bellarmine he hath but one salue for all diseases and that hath no vertue it in at all in effect To the saluing of all the testimonies of the ancient Fathers opposed against him hee applieth onely this medicamentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of concomitancie whatsoeuer the Fathers speake of receiuing the body and blood and the entire food of our soules he would make vs beleeue they intend nothing against their halfe Communion For as he accounteth the blood is neuer seuered from the body and the blood is vnder the forme of bread Hee therefore who taketh the bread taketh the body blood of Christ and consequently communicateth intirely But besides that this proposition of his hath beene heretofore refuted I adde first in generall that albeit we should admit that in the iudgement of the Fathers in this Age the blood of Christ were with the body and with the forme of bread yet there is no Cup nor Wine in the bread no drinking in eating no powring out of the wine or blood into the mouthes of the faithfull Of which the writers of this Age speake so expresly that those of our aduersaries who haue not rubbed hard their foreheads neuer so much as offer to make answer to these testimonies but haue held it the wisest course neuer to take notice of them Secondly for Saint Bernard in particular his words haue relation to the Institution of Christ saying The entire foode of the body and blood of Christ was that day first exhibited nay at our Lords last supper there was wine as well as bread And this Vasquez the Iesuite ingeniously confesseth howsoeuer it cut the throat of his fellow Iesuites answer Bernard saith he speakes plainely of the other part of nourishment which is taken by way of drinke vnder the forme of wine What then Doth Vasquez freely giue vs Saint Bernard Not so but deuiseth another euasion to wit that communicating in both kinds for the entire repast of the soule is commanded to the whole Church not to euery particular beleeuer Defumo in flammas Vasq. to auoide the smoke that put out Bellarmine his eyes falls into the fire For that which is inioyned the whole Church is necessarily inioined euery saithfull The words of our Sauior Drinke ye all c. are euidently a command to each particular For so the Apostles vnderstood him and dranke euery one of them of that Cup and not any one or more in the name and behalfe of all the rest Doubtlesse as euery man must liue by himselfe so he must also in his owne person and by himselfe receiue the entire food of life the body and blood of Christ. SECT XIII The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 1200. to 3000. Anno. 1229. ABbas Vrspergensis writing of the besieging of Damiata saith that the souldiers before they scaled the wooden tower made confession of their sins and receiued the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord. The like Antoninus writeth of the Normans in William the Conquerors time and Matthew Paris of the English in King Heralds time and William Rufus Neither was that custome as yet controld in that age nor an hundred yeeres after as in due place shall be shewed Anno 1236. Durandus Mimatensis in expresse tearmes affirmeth that he who receiues the Hoste only doth not receiue the whole sacrament sacramentally For although the blood of Christ bee in the consecrated Hoste hee speaketh according to the schooles in these times yet it is not there sacramentally because the bread signifieth the body not the blood the wine signifieth the blood and not the body In regard therefore that the sacrament is not compleat in one kind according to the signe
as a buckler to beare off our arguments drawne from the necessity of representing Christs death in the Lords Supper by receiuing his blood apart as seuered from his body He also infringeth their common argument for their halfe Communion drawne from the example of the Disciples at Emaus and Saint Paul his breaking bread in the ship For he truly and acutely noted that if these Texts are to be expounded of communicating in one kind only that it would from thence follow that it were not onely lawfull for the people to communicate in one kind only but for Priests such as the Apostle S. Paul and the Disciples were to consecrate in one kind onely Thus he saw light as it were by a chinke but Amans servito Brixianus as a man in the open aire felt the light of truth to come so full into his eyes that it dazeled them For following the doctrine of Caietan who holdeth that blood is not a part of mans nature but the first nourishment thereof and adding that it cannot be said that the body necessarily draweth the nourishment into concomitancy with it from thence he inferred that it was not altogether the same substance vnder the forme of bread and vnder the forme of wine Withall hee added that the blood in the Lords Supper was blood shed out of the veines in which as long as it was contained it could not be drinke and therefore could not bee drawne with the veine into concomitancy Moreouer that the Lords Supper was instituted to celebrate his Passion which could not â—…ee represented but by effusion of blood and seuering it from the body It is true this Amans had a check in the Counfor his paines but his reasons were not answered himselfe for feare shuffled and fumbled about some answer vnto them but gaue no satisfaction either to himselfe or to others Welfare Cardinall Madrusius who being asked his opinion answered directly That hee thought fit the Cup should be restored to the Layety without all exception Gaspar de Casa Bishop of Lerye a man of eminent learning concurred with the Cardinall in iudgement adding that he thought that God would neuer send the spirit of delusion into the minde of the Emperour in so weighty a point especially considering that Charles the French King and the Duke of Bauaria ioyned with the Emperour in this request that the Cup should be granted to the Layety This speech of so learned a Bishop not only confirmed those who were of the same mind with him but also made most of the opposite faction to startle Anno 1563. Dudithius Bish. of Quinque-Ecclesiae as in the Councell of Trent hee had stoutly maintained the entire Communion and refelled all obiections to the contrary so after the breaking vp of the Councell in an Epistle which he wrote to Maximilian the Emperour he bitterly complaineth of the miscarriage of this businesse in the Councell What good could be done saith he in that Councell wherein voyces were numbred but not weighed If the merits of the cause or reason might haue preuailed or if but a few had ioyned with vs we had wonne the day but when the number only did beare the sway in which we came farre short though our cause was exceeding good yet wee were faine to sit downe by the losse Anno 1564. Georgius Cassander being set a worke by Ferdinand the Emperour to aduise about a meanes of composing differences in Religion declares himselfe fully for vs in this point of the Cup It is not saith hee without cause that the best learned Catholikes most earnestly desire and contend that they may receiue the Sacrament of Christs blood together with his body according to the antient custome in the vniuersall Church continued for many Ages or at least that the liberty which was granted two hundred yeeres agoe of communicating in one kind or both may be restored Wherefore I hold it not onely nothing contrary to the authoritie of the Church but rather very agreeable to the peace and vnitie of the Church and in a manner necessary that either those in whose hands lyes the gouernment of the Church restore the antient custome of communicating or which may be done without great trouble that the Churches themselues by little and little returne to their antient vse SECT XVII The confirmation of this Argument from the custome of the Church by the testimonies of our learned Aduersaries THis Argument as all the former may bee confirmed by the testimonies of our aduersaries themselues who giue sufficient euidence to condemne their owne Church of innouation and manifest defection from the Primitiue in this their halfing the holy Sacrament The Law saith that custome is the best interpreter of law And of all customes the antient especially if they be generall and haue lasted out diuers Ages ought to beare most sway with those that maintaine the truth of antiquitie or antiquitie of truth An argument drawne from an antient general and long continuing custome for more then one thousand yeeres is like a threefold cable that cannot be broken If we may beleeue the Councels held at Constance and Basill such a custome ought to be held for a law and inâ—…iolably obserued But I inferre The Lay-Communion in both kinds is a custome commended by antiquitie generalitie and duration as hath been proued before by the testimonies of approued Writers in all Ages and is confessed by the Romanists themselues First for the antiquity of this custome I appeale to the Councell of Constance Arboreus Aquinas Lyra Carthusianus and Ruardus Tapperus The Councell of Constance admits vnder a licèt that Christ instituted the venerable Sacrament vnder both kinds and that in the Primitiue Church it was so receiued by the faithfull yet with a non obstante countermands Christs Institution and the practice of the Primitiue Church which gaue Luther iust occasion to nick-name this Councell and for Constantiense to call it Non obstantiense Concilium Iohannes Arboreus in plaine termes confesseth that anciently the Lay people did communicate vnder both kinds Thomas Aquinas is a contest to Arboreus auerring that according to the ancient custome of the Church all those that were partakers of the communion of Christs body were partakers also of the communion of his blood Dionys. Carthusianus speakes Aquinas his words after him It was so done indeed in the Primitiue Church but now the Church hath ordered otherwise Lyra harpes vpon the same string Here is mention of both kinds for so the Sacrament was rereceiued of the faithfull in the Primitiue Church Aestius that famous Sorbonist vpon the Sentences lib. 4. handling this question professedly saith that it is manifest out of antient histories and the writing of almost all the ancient Fathers qui testantur fideles bibere sanguinem Christi that the Eucharist was communicated to the people in both kinds Ruardus Tapperus speakes rather like a Protestant then a Papist in
drinke Therefore howsoeuer the cup or drinking be not expressed in this place of the Acts yet it must necessarily be vnderstood by a vsuall Synechdoche in holy Scriptures To the second place out of Acts the 20. 7. We answere as to the former Acts 2. that the disciples meeting to break bread was either to keepe a feast of Charitie which they called then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to receiue the Communion in both kinds For the Disciples publikely neuer receiued it otherwayes in the primitiue church To the third obiection out of Acts 27. 35. Where Saint Paul is said to take bread and after he had giuen thankes to eate it wee answer that the bread which Saint Paul tooke and brake could not bee the holy sacrament For Sant Paul would neuer haue giuen that which is holy to Doggs or cast Pearles before swine which he should haue done if in the ship before and to Infidels he had administred the blessed sacrament The text saith that they had been many dayes fasting before and S. Chrysostome Oecumenius and Theophylact expresly affirme that Saint Paul both by words and by his owne example perswaded the Marriners after so long fasting to take foode to keepe them from staruing Moreouer it is to be obserued that after Saint Paul began to cat it is said ver 36. that they were all of good cheere and they also tooke to themselues some meat It is not said that they tooke bread from Saint Pauls hand which they must haue done if they had receiued the Communion from him Neither do any receiue the sacrament in that quantitie that they may thereby satisfie hunger and be said to haue eaten enough verse 38. These circumstances of the Text doe so euidently conuince any man of vnderstanding that the bread which Saint Paul brake in the ship was common bread in so much that Lorinus the Iesuite a great Patron in other places of the halfe Communion here yeelds vnto vs ingeniously confessing that Chrysostome Oecumenius Beda and other expositors vpon this place vnderstand vsuall and common bread or food as also doth Saint Hierome And I better saith he like of their exposition Lastly this third last argument of our aduersaries out of the scriptures drawn from the example of Paul the Disciples and Apostles in the Acts may be forcibly retorted vpon them For the Apostles Disciples and Saint Paul were Priests and Ministers of the Sacrament in whom as wee learned before out of the Glosse of the Canon law and Cardinal Caietan it had beene sacrilege to communicate in one kind onely Bellarmine saw this retortion in Kemnitius and seekes to auoyde it by telling vs that in the second of the Acts Saint Luke relateth the faithful peoples continuance in praier and receiuing the sacrament and not the Apostles communicating which he yeelded was in both kinds But this is a vaine euasion both because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or fellowship of the Apostles implyeth that the Apostles were communicants with them as also because properly those who administred the communion brake the bread and not the people they tooke it after it was broken by the Apostles To conclude they are caught on both sides by this Delemma Either breaking of bread in those places is not celebrating the sacrament or if it be their is a synechdoche in the words whereby one part is put for the whole For how can they put by this thrust No priests may consecrate or communicate in one kind onely The eleuen Apostles Acts. 2. and the Disciples Acts. 20. and Paul Acts. 27. were Priests Therefore they did not nor might not consecrate or Communicate in bread onely In the places aboue alleaged therefore vnder the name of bread both kinds by a synechdoche must needs be vnderstood CHAP. XIII The arguments of papists drawne from Councels answered and retorted OVr aduersaries in this question much boaste of the definitions of three generall Councells in fauour of their halfe Communion The Councell of Ephesus Constance and Basil. Whereunto in generall we answer first that either these Councels approue not the halfe Communion or they are not approued themselues The Councell of Ephesus is an approued Councell but it approueth not the halfe Communion the Councels of Constance and Basil approue the halfe Communion but they are not themselues approued no not by the Romane Church much lesse by the Catholicke Christian Church Secondly wee are resolued by the Pope himselfe that if Councells are at odds with one another and their definitions irreconciliable we ought to take part with the antient against the latter This is our present case two latter Councels to wit the Councel of Constance and Basil contradict many Councells more antient by name the Councel of Nice and Calcedon cited before Ancyra Canon 2. of Neocorsarea Can. 13. of Africa Can. 4. of Brachar 2. cap. 1. of Ilerda Can. 1. of Toledo the 3. Can. 2. 7. of Matiscon the 2. Can. 2. Can. 4. of Toledo the 4. Can. 6. 7. 17. 57. of Toledo the 11. Can. 6. 11. of Cabilonum Can. 46. 47. of Paris lib. 3. cap. 20. of Wormes Can. 4. 31. Therefore by the Popes decision and that ex cathedra wee may and ought to embrace rather the whole Communion inioyned or approued in so many ancient Councells then of the halfe Communion commanded to bee practised by the Laietie vnder paine of a curse in these latter and fewer In particular we answer to the allegations made by Hosius Harding and other Papists out of the Councell of Ephesus that they tooke it vpon trust of some ancient Schoole-man or Canonist who thought it a matter of merit to forge an ancient record for the good of the catholiques cause and defence of the Romane Church For neither in the Acts of the Councell of Ephesus nor in any approued history is there any footstep or print of any such constitution as is pretended by our aduersaries to be made for the halfe Communion and that vpon this occasion Because the Nestorians held that Christs body in the sacrament vnder the forme of bread was Cadauer exangue a carkas without blood In this fiction the Romanists sufficiently show to vse the words out of Saint Hierome that they had voluntatem but not artem â—…entiendi that they had a good wil to lye for the Catholick cause but were not their craftsmasters For they that hope to gaine credit by a ly â—…ust build it vpon some probable ground or colour at least of truth which here is wanting For neither did the Nestorians maintaine any such error touching the sacrament as neither had the Councell of Ephesus any reason thereupon to haue prohibited the vse of the Cup to the Laiety For what a consequence is this The heretikes denyed any blood to bee in the body of Christ in the Sacrament Therefore Catholikes and right beleeuers of the Laietie ought to be depriued of the vse of the holy Cup in the
although wee grant that the antient Church vpon some occasions reserued the holy elements after the Communion yet not for any long space They had no reason nor neede so to do because as Saint Ambrose teacheth vs the Church consecrated euery day for strangers and twise in the weeke for the inhabitants As for Sophronius his tale of keeping the Sacrament for a whole yeere it is a fit flower for his spirituall meddow which no man euer saw or heard of vnlesse it were in Sir Thomas Moores Vtopia I giue much more credit to Alphonsus his experiment who locking vp a consecrated wafer in a Casket of gold after a few months opened it and found nothing in it but a worme Secondly as wine cannot be long kept but it will sowre so neither can bread but it will grow mustie and of the two if care be had to stop close the vessel to keepe out aire the wine will keepe sweet longer then the bread If the Cardinall fly to a miracle I answer that by the same miracle whereby the bread was kept a whole yeere from moulding the wine was or might haue beene kept from sowring Retortion Thirdly this headlesse arrow may thus bee headed and shot backe vpon our aduersaries If the Sacrament were antiently reserued in both kinds then the custome of reseruing it maketh for and not against the Laieties Communion in both kinds But the Sacrament was antiently reserued in both kinds Therefore the custome of reseruing the Sacrament maketh for and not against the Laieties communicating in both kinds That the holy mysteries were kept in the Primitiue Church in both kinds appeareth manifestly by Saint Chrysostome in his first Epistle to Inocentius Nicephorus Histor. Eccles. lib. 13. cap. 19 and Cardinall Baronius himselfe whose words are very obseruable Here O Reader consider saith he how wide they are of the Traditions of the Fathers and the vse of the Catholick Church who deny that the holy Eucharist in our time ought to bee kept which we see in antient times was reserued not onely in the forme or kind of bread but also in the other kind to wit in the wine You haue this proued by the authority of Saint Gregory in the 3. of his dialogues where he saith that the Marriners carried in the ship the body and blood of Christ. SECT II. The second headlesse arrow is their argument deduced from the carrying the holy mysteries after consecration into priuat houses and thus they draw this arrow at vs The second rite or custome of the antient Church was to carrie the Sacramēt home and there to take it at some seasonable time This custome is most certainly proued out of Tertullian his second book to his wife Clem. Alexand. stromatum li. 1. Cyprian Serm. de Lapsis Basil epist. to Cesarea Patricia Hierom. Apolog. contra Iouinian Now that the Christians were went to communicate at home in one kind onely it is manifest both for that the onely forme of bread was giuen to the hands of the faithful the blood being drunke out of a Chalice as Cyrill demonstrateth in his 5. Catechisme also because their were no Chalices in the bouses of Lay-men or holy vessels to receiue the blood of Christ as it may be euidently gathered out of the second Apologie of Athanasius r Harding imbellisheth this argument with a miraculous narration out of Saint Cyprian that when a woman had gone about with vnworthie hands to open her Coffer where the holy thing of our Lord was laid vp she was made afraid with fier that rose vp from thence so as she durst not touch it The answer First this argument is very impertinent to the purpose and in consequence also For the question is of the publike vse of the Sacrament in the Church this argument proceedes vpon priuate abuse thereof in mens houses at home Now an argument from a meere abuse is an abusiue argument and concludes nothing A meere falsehood cannot proue a truth nor a corrupt custome the lawfull vse of any thing Saint Austine giues vs a golden rule to the contrary Doctrines are to bee weighed not in the deceitfull ballances of their owne customes but in the euen ballances of diuine scriptures In which if this custome of carrying the Sacrament home to their houses be wighed it will bee found too light And therefore it is reiected and condemned vnder a curse in a Councel holden at Cesar-Augusta in Spaine If any man receiue the Sacrament eat not the same presently in the Church let him be accursed for euer And likewise in the first Councell of Toledo cap. 14. If any man receiuing the Sacrament of the Priest doe not presently eate it let him be driuen out for a sacrilegious person As for the miracle of fier vrged by M. Harding it burnes his owne fingers For God shewed himselfe by that miracle to bee offended with that which the woman did fraying her that kept the Sacrament in her coffer with a flame of fier Secondly this corrupt custome is no shaddow of proofe for the Laities communicating in one kind For as they caried the bread home to their houses so they might also a portion of wine yea but saith Bellar. they had no Chalices at home what then they might haue and had bottles or glasses in which they might and did carrie part of the consecrated wine home to their houses Retortion Thirdly this headlesse arrow may bee thus headed and shotte backe vpon our aduersaries If the Sacrament were antiently carried home to Lay-mens houses in both kinds then this custome of carrying it home makes not against but for the Laieties Communion in both kinds But the Sacrament was antiently carryed home to Lay-mens houses in both kinds Therefore that custome maketh for and not against the Laieties Communion in both kinds That the Sacrament was carried home in both kinds is proued by the vndeni able testimonies of Iustin Martyr Gregorie Nazianzenus and S. Hierome Iustin Martyr declaring the order of the Church in his time saith thus of the things that be consecrated to wit the bread water and wine they giue a part to euery one and they carrie the same things to those that are absent Gregory Nazianzen writeth of his sister Gorgonia that if her hand had layed vp any portion of the tokens of the pretious body and of the blood in deuotion shee mingled it with teares and so receiued it Saint Hierome highly commending Exuperius Bishop of Tolosa saith of him there was no man richer then he that carried the Lords body in a wicker basket and his blood in a glasse SECT III. The third headlesse arrow is an argument deduced from the Communion of Infants Thus they draw it at vs The third rite of the Church is the administring the Communion to Infants For the antient did sometimes administer the Cōmunion to Infants but vnder one kind only namely by dropping
exposition To grant an elegancy in the words then defend an absurditie in the meaning to acknowledge a figure then to disfigure so diuine a sentence and make of it a Battologie Here D. Smith after his manner largely discoursed of the nature of identicall and nugatory propositions Of which M. Featly gaue this iudgement as Aristotle answered the Philosophers disputes de inani 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so saith he your discourse of nugatory propositions seemeth to me nugatory and altogether impertinent And therefore I proceed to a new argument The words vsed in the consecration of the bread are so to be expounded as the like in the consecration of the Cup But the words vsed in the consecration of the Cup are to be expounded by a figure or more Ergo Prooue your Assumption saith D. Smith Thus quoth M. Featly these are the words as they are recorded Luk. 22. 20. This Cup is the new Testament in my blood but both Calix is here taken by a figure for the thing contained in it and the new Testament for the signe and seale or Sacrament of the new Testament Ergo c. I will not contest with you quoth D. Smith about Calix let that bee a figure but I deny there is any figure in the word Testamentum It is well quoth M. Featly you grant one figure in the words of consecration I assure you D. Bagshaw is of another mind to grant one figure in his iudgment is to loose all For what priuiledge haue you more to set a figure vpon the words of consecration of the Cup then we vpon the like of the bread Where are now your exclamations against vs for obscuring deprauing and disfiguring the words of Christ by Tropes and Figures One figure you grant and it shall goe hard but I will multiply it and make more figures of it Either there is a figure in the word Testament or that which you say is meant by Calix is properly Christi Testamentum But that cannot bee Ergo. Thus I demonstrate it By hic calix you meane hic sanguis but sanguis Christi is not propriè testamentum Negatur minor saith D. Smith Probatur quoth M. Featly No substantiall part of the Testator is properly his Testament But the blood of Christ is a substantiall part of the Testator Ergo it is not properly his last Will and Testament In this Syllogisme D. Smith denyed the Maior affirming that if any man should signe any thing with his blood that blood being an authenticall signe of his Will might be properly called his Testament Hereupon M. Featly replyed Blood properly a Testament I reade in Scripture of blood of the Testament but neuer heard of a Testament or blood a testament Certainely the word Testament signifieth properly the Will it selfe of the Testator but by an vsuall phrase of speech or figure it is applyed to the Instrument which is speaking properly but a testimony of his Will As for the blood or marke wherewith any man signeth his Will he neuer heard any man call that his Testament no not by a figure much lesse properly The Will of a man is the iust determination or appointment of what hee would haue done after his death and it is either written or nuncupatiue Blood can bee neither How many new Testaments shall wee haue if euery authenticall signe of Christs Will bee properly his Testament The signe of Christs Will is no more his Will then the signe of his Body is his Body Therefore what colour haue you to forbid vs to interpret these words This is my body that is a signe of my body when you your selues expound these words This cup or this blood is my Will or Testament that is the authenticall signe of my Testament yet wee in our exposition of the former words commit no Tautologie as you doe in the latter thus paraphrasing Christs words This cup that is this blood is the New Testament in my blood blood in blood or signed with blood Will you say that Christs blood needed his blood to signe it as Saint Austin saith of the heathens God Apollo Interpres Deorum eget Interprete sors referenda est ad sortem id est The interpreter of the Gods wants an Interpreter and wee haue neede to cast Lots vpon the Lot it selfe How say you is not this your interpretation Hereunto D. Smith wrote this answer The sense of this Proposition This Cup is the new Testament is this This liquor which according to the thing signified is the same thing with my blood is the new Testament that is â—…n authenticall signe of my last Will confirmed with my blood shed for you Iudge Sirs quoth M. Featly Is not this a Tautologie my blood confirmed in my blood or the signe of my blood signed in my blood And did not I tell you before saith D. Smith of a twofold identicall proposition Identicall according to the thing signified and according to the manner of signifying Sisyphi saxum voluis Tuergoes Sisyphi saxum quoth M. Featly te enim 〈◊〉 Nec proficis â—…ilum quoth D. Smith True quoth M. Featly quia semper eodem reâ—…olueris Yet I will haue one lift more Thus I prooue that Christs blood is not in the consecrated Chalice Blood is not the fruit of the Vine That which Christ and the Apostles dranke in the consecrated Chalice was the fruit of the Vine Ergo not blood That it was the fruit of the Vine our Sauiour affirmeth in expresse words Matth. 26. 29. I will not drinke from henceforth of the fruite of the Vine hauing in the words immediately going before consecrated the Chalice and instituted the Sacrament of his blood saying Drinke ye all of this Câ—…p for this is my blood of the new Testament vers 28. To this D. Smith answered that our Sauiour spake this of the Cup of the old Testament mentioned in Luke not of the Sacrament Which answer M. Featly thus infringed These words in Saint Matthew This fruit of the Vine must haue relation to the Cup of which Saint Matthew spake before but Saint Matthew spake of no Cup before but of the Cup of the new Testament therefore these words This fruit of the Vine must needs be vnderstood of the Cup of the new Testament If I should take here a Cup and after I had dranke of it say I will drinke no more of this were it not ridiculous to vnderstand me of any other cup then that I tooke last in my hand and dranke of D. Smith repeated his former answer and said it was sufficient that Saint Luke spake of another Cup. M. Featly replyed what is it sufficient to make perfect sense in a sentence set downe in Saint Matthew to fetch a proposition or narration from Saint Luke his Gospell Will you make Saint Matthew to write non-sense to relate Christs words I will drinke no more of this and no where to expresse of what