SECT. V.
The fifth headlesse arrow is, an Inference from a phrase of the antients Communio laica, or the Laick Communion, distinguished from the Communion of the Cleargie; And thus they draw it at vs.
dThe fifth Rite, or custome of the Church is, the vse of the Communion, called the Lay Communion, which was a kinde of censure inflicted vpon Cleargie men, for some great offence, by which they were depri∣ued of their Clericall Communion; of this Lay▪ com∣munion we haue often mention made in the decrees of Page 191 antient Popes, and Councels. For by Felix 3. in his first Epist. and second chapter; and Syricius 1. epist. 11. cap. and the Councell of Eliberis. Can. 76. and of Sar∣dica. cap. 10. and of Agatha cap. 2. 5. and 50. this punishment could be no other, then when other Clear∣gie men communicated in both kindes, these dilin∣quents were kept from the cup, and were enforced to content themselues with one kind.
The answer.
Wee acknowledge, that there is often mention made in the Ancients of the Lay * Communion. For Cyprian speakes of it in his 52. epistle, and Eusebius in his sixth booke of Ecclesiasticall storie. Inocentius the first, in his 22. epistle. The Canons of the Apostles, Can. 15. Basil to Amphilochius, and diuers others, quoted by Chamierus in his ninth booke de Caena Dom. chap. 2. But wee denie, that this Laick Communion was the Papists halfe Communion. The meaning of the antient in their decrees touching the permitting of Cleargymen to participate of the Laick Com∣munion, or communicate as Laicks, was this; that in regard that these Priests had sometime or other scandalized their calling, they should be degraded, & neuer admitted to consecrate, or administer the Sacrament, but receiue it on∣ly at the hands of the Priests meere Lay men; not in the e Quire, or Chancell, as Priests vsed to doe, but without the Quier in the body of Page 192 the Church among the common people. This argument therefore of the Papists is a maine Petitio principij, or begging the point in questi∣on; to wit, that the Laick Communion, or Communion of Laicks, was in one kind onely. The contrary whereof hath beene proued be∣fore, by the testimonies of all Ages. This headlesse arrow therefore of our aduersaries may be thus headed, and shot back vpon them by Retortion.
If the Laick Communion spoken of by the Antients, were in both kinds, then nothing can be gathered from it against, but for the entire Communion:
But the Laick Communion spoken of by the Antients was in both kinds:
Therefore nothing can be gathered from it against, but for the entire Communion.
That the Laick Communion was not with∣out the Cup, Saint Cyprian, who first named it, clearely sheweth in those words: in calice san∣ctificando, & plebi ministrando: in sanctifying the Cup, and ministring it to the people. Nay, which is very remarkeable, Cardinall Bellar∣mine himselfe in this very argument, (to verifie the obseruation of Saint Austine, that euident truth striketh into the eyes of such, as are shut against it) acknowlegeth as much: Thefonely forme of bread, saith he, was giuen to their hands, but they dranke out of the Cup, who would, in the Church; but it was not lawfull for Lay-men to touch the Cup, or carrie home with them. Drinke they Page 193 might, and did, as many as desired. Thus Bellar∣mine conuinced by the light of story, confes∣seth, that the Laietie dranke of the holy Cup: as doth also his fellow Cardinall gBaronius, saying; The faithfull of old, in the time of the sa∣crifice in the Church, receiued the most blessed Sacra∣ment of the Lords Supper in both kinds, vnder the forme of bread and wine.
The sixth headlesse arrow is, a collection from an antient rite of communicating in such things, as before had beene consecrated; And thus they draw it at vs:
