The grand sacrilege of the Church of Rome, in taking away the sacred cup from the laiety at the Lords Table: detected, and conuinced by the euidence of holy Scripture, and testimonies of all ages successiuely from the first propagation of the catholike Christian faith to this present: together with two conferences; the former at Paris with D. Smith, now stiled by the Romanists B of Calcedon; the later at London with M Euerard, priest: by Dan. Featly, Doctor in Diuinity.

CHAP. XV. The arguments of Papists drawne from reason answe∣red, 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 Ma∣nichees, * 1.1 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 ma∣nifest 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 hid∣den 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 de∣maine, 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 stan∣ding 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 l 1.2 Sozo∣men, 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 hus∣band, 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; an ill egge of an ill bird; a loose inference of a lewd practise. As if the Manichees in Rome, or this woman in Con∣stantinople, 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 Communi∣on in both kinds. For Saint Leo, in the place a∣boue alleaged, giueth this as a marke to discrie Manichees from other Christian people, intru∣ding amongst them at the Lords Table, by re∣fusing to drink the blood of Christ with them. And Saint Chrysostome saith expresly, that there is no difference betwixt Priest and peo∣ple 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 peo∣ple.

SECT. II.

To leaue these absurd inferences of the Pa∣pists from the vngodly practise of hereticks, I come now in the last place to batter and breake in pieces such weapons, as they ham∣mer against vs in the forge of reason. The first reason they shape in this wise:

m 1.3 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 bo∣dy; and therfore hath his blood in his veines, and is informed, and glorified by a most excel∣lent 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 concomi∣tate 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 Concomitan∣cie, presupposeth the naturall body of Christ to bee substantially, and carnally, vnder the * 1.4 forme of bread: which we deny; and conse∣quently this argument, from concomitancie, is of no force. The words, This is my body, being rightly expounded by Austine, Tertullian, The∣odoret, and many other of the ancients to be no other, then, this bread is a signe, a figure, or a sacrament of my body, not this bread is turned substantially into my body, or vnder this is contained my very body, flesh & bones. Where Christs naturall humane body is, there wee grant his blood, and soule, and diuinitie are. But, That his body, is now in heauen, Acts 3. not in any place vpon the earth; much lesse in euery place, where the Masse is celebrated.

Secondly, although we grant, that the bo∣dy

of Christ cannot really bee seuered from his blood, yet the signes of his body, and blood are really seuered: if wee speake of sacramentall Communion, the Apostle tea∣cheth vs, that the bread, which wee break, is the Communion of Christs body, and the Cup, which wee blesse, is the Communion of his blood: neither can wee truly and properly, say, the Bread is the Communion of his blood. n 1.5 And therefore they that commu∣nicate in bread onely, doe not sacramentally communicate his blood.

Thirdly, should we liberally grant vnto our aduersaries, that by the receiuing the body of Christ in the bread, we consequently receiue the blood also, which since his Passion was ne∣uer seuered from his body: yet will it not hence follow, that we drinke the blood of Christ in eating the bread: but Christ commanded vs expresly, to drinke his blood, which cannot possi∣bly be done by communicating in bread only, no though we should admit of the carnall pre∣sence of Christs body in the Sacrament, and the doctrine of concomitancie also.

Retortion.

Lastly, this Argument may bee retorted vp∣on our aduersaries in this manner:

Whosoeuer receiueth Christ in the Sacra∣ment, ought to receiue whole Christ, to wit, his body, and blood:

But the body and blood of Christ cannot be

receiued but by communicating in both kinds:

Therefore all that receiue Christ in the Sa∣crament, ought to communicate in both kinds.

The Proposition is our aduersaries, the As∣sumption also is inferred from their owne Te∣nets. They deliuer this rule, that the Sacra∣ments * 1.6 effect, and exhibit that, and that onely, which they signifie: But the bread signifieth onely the body of Christ, and the wine his blood: hee therefore that will receiue whole Christ, as he is exhibited vnto vs in the Sacrament, must ne∣cessarily communicate in both kinds.

SECT. III.

The second reason is this.

o 1.7 If the whole nature and essence of a Sacrament be found in one kinde, the Romanists Communion in bread onely is not a maimed, or imperfect, but an en∣tire Sacrament.

But the whole nature, and essence of a Sacrament is found in one kinde:

Therefore the Romanists communicating in bread onely, is not a mained, or imperfect, but an entire Sa∣crament.

That the whole nature, and essence of a Sa∣crament is found in either kind by it selfe, Bel∣larmine endeauoreth thus to make euident, There are but two things required essentially to a Sa∣crament, a signe, and a thing signified: both which are found in one kind; first, a signe, to wit, bread; se∣condly, the thing signified, to wit, the inward nourish∣ment

of the soule, and the representation of the vni∣on of the faithful with Christ, and among themselues.

The answer.

First, there is a double essence of the sacra∣ment, * 1.8 the generall essence, which makes it a sa∣crament in generall, and the specificall essence, which makes it in speciall, Baptisme, or the Lords Supper. To bee a visible, and effectuall signe of inuisible sanctifying grace is sufficient to proue a sacrament in generall: but not to proue the Lords Supper; the entire definition whereof is, a Sacrament of the new Testament, sea∣ling vnto vs the perfect nourishment of our soules, by the participation of the sacred elements of bread and wine.

Secondly, there are two sorts, or parts essen∣tiall, * 1.9 or integrall. For example; the essentiall parts of a man are animal rationale; the inte∣grall parts are legges and armes, and other members. In like manner, in the Sacrament, be∣sides the essentiall parts, which p 1.10 Bellarmine will haue to bee the signe and the thing signified, there are integrall parts, to wit, the elements of bread and wine, of which if either be wanting, the sacrament may be as truly called a maimed or vnperfect Sacrament, as a man that wants an arme, or legge, is truly called a maimed, or vn∣perfect man, though he haue in him the essen∣tiall parts of a man intirely, to wit, animal his Genus, and rationale, his difference.

Thirdly, although in the Romane halfe Communion there be a signe, and a thing sig∣nified; yet neither is there the whole signe, nor the whole signification; not the whole signe, because bread is but a part of the signe, repre∣senting Christs body, and not his blood; not the whole signification, which is such an entire refection and nourishment of the soule, as bread and wine are of the body.

Retortion.

Lastly, this Argument, as the former, may be retorted vpon the aduersary.

The Lords Supper is the Sacrament of Christs body and blood:

The bread is not the Sacrament of Christs body and blood;

Therefore bread alone is not the Lords Supper.

Or in this wise:

The Lords Supper essentially includeth and signifieth such a perfect refection, and nourish∣ment of the soule, as bread and wine are of the body:

Communicating in one kind neither inclu∣deth, nor signifieth such refection:

Therefore communicating in one kind is not the Lords Supper, nor containeth in it the whole nature, and essence of this Sacrament.

SECT. IIII.

The third Argument of our aduersaries, drawne from reason, is an off-spring of the two former.

If the faithfull receiue as much benefit by communicating in one kind, as in both, they haue no cause to complaine of the Church, for the restraining of them from the Cup:

But the faithfull receiue as much benefit by communicating in one kind, as in both:

Therefore they haue no cause to complaine of the Church, for the restraining of them from the Cup,

That they receiue as much benefit by com∣municating in one kind, as in both, it seemes to follow necessarily vpon the two former sup∣posalls; that whole Christ is in each kind, and that the whole essence of the Sacrament is found in either.

The answer.

First, the two props of this Argument being * 1.11 before taken away, it must needes fall to the ground: neither is whole Christ contained vnder one kind, neither in it is preserued the whole essence of the Sacrament. Therefore questionlesse the fruit of the halfe Communi∣on, if it be any at all, cannot bee equall to the fruit of the whole.

Secondly, the consequence of this Argu∣ment is not found: For neither the onely, nor the principle thing to be regarded in the Sa∣crament, is our benefit, but Gods glorie, and the testification of our obedience to his Or∣dinance. Therefore, albeit it were granted, that the people lost nothing by the taking a∣way the Cup from them, yet they haue iust cause to complaine of the Church of Rome, for the violation of Christs Institution, and hindring them from discharging their whole duety in communicating in both kinds, accor∣ding to his commandement.

Thirdly, vnworthy Receiuers receiue no benefit at all by the Communion, but eate and drinke their owne damnation. q 1.12 And Saint Ambrose pronounceth him to be an vnworthy Re∣ceiuer, who celebrates these mysteries otherwayes, then the Lord hath appointed: Therefore they amongst the Papists, who consent to this vio∣lation of Christs Institution, and mutilation of the Sacrament, may expect no benefit at all by this their sacrilegious practice; much lesse may they looke to share equally with them, who communicate entirely, according to Christs commandement.

Fourthly, r 1.13 although each Element repre∣sent Christ vnto vs, yet not so fully, or ex∣pressely,

as both together. Therefore this ar∣gument, as all the former, may be retorted vp∣on the aduersarie.

The efficacie of Sacraments is answerable to their significancie: for they effect that, which they signifie, &c.

But the significancie of one Element is not equall to the significancie of both.

Therefore the efficacie of one Element, is not equall to the efficacie of both. Which conclusion is assented vnto both by Halensis, and Vasquez, Gasper Consaluus, and Clemens the sixth.

SECT. V.

The fourth Argument our aduersaries thus frame:

The Sacrament of the Lords Supper •…•…ught to be administred, that all faithfull people may communicate.

(All cannot receiue in both kinds, exempli gratia: Abstemij, whose stomack cannot brooke wine; and Nazarites, who made a vow against drinking of wine.) But all faithfull people cannot communicate in both kinds:

Therefore it ought not to be administred in both kinds.

The answer.

First, this Argument toucheth not the point in question: for wee finde no fault with the Church of Rome, for her indulgence in this kinde, but for her sacrilege; not for her di∣spensing with them, that cannot receiue in both kinds, but for prohibiting them that can, and desire it.

Secondly, Lawes, as r 1.14 Pomponius obserueth, Prouide for those things, that happen commonly, or for the most part, and not for such things as happen to few, or seldome. A man can scarce finde one in a Kingdome, that hath such an Antipathy to Wine, that he cannot indure so small a quan∣titie of some kinde of Wine, as may suffice for the Communion. And I beleeue our aduer∣saries can hardly name now a Christian Naza∣rite 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the world. And is it any way reasona∣ble, out of respect to so few, to make a gene∣rall law for the restraint of the Cup from the Laietie? Is there any reason, that the dis∣abilitie of so few, should preiudice the right of all the rest of Gods people? Some Priests haue at some times so weake stomackes, that they cannot taste wine, and some both of the Laietie and Cleargie, through infirmitie of stomacke, or drought in the throat in hot dis∣eases, cannot swallow downe the bread; will they therefore make a generall law to take away the Cup from the Priests, or the bread from both?

Thirdly, for Nazarites, if there be any in the Church, they are to bee taught, that there E∣uangelicall liberty releaseth them of the strict rigour of their legall vow, and that our Saui∣ours command, Drinke ye all of this, is a suffici∣ent warrant for them to drinke of the sacra∣mentall wine at the Lords Table, though they drinke no wine else where. Saint Iames the Brother of our Lord, though as Saint t 1.15 Hierome writeth of him, he kept strictly the Nazarites vowe in abstaining from wine, and strong drinke at other times; yet he was amongst the twelue at Christs last Supper. And Saint Marke testifieth that all dranke of the Cup; and for such, whose stomacks cannot away with the smalest quantitie of wine, it may be sufficient for them to take the Cup into their hands, and shew their desire; or they may haue a Cup by themselues of wine so allayed with water, as their stomackes may brooke; as the fathers in the Counsell of Towers ordered to giue to sicke folke bread sopt in wine, because they were not able to take downe dry bread.

Lastly, this Argument is both answered, and retorted in the Conference.

SECT. VI.

The first and last Argument, which our ad∣uersaries draw from reason, may be thus for∣med:

The Sacrament ought to be so administred,

that all inconueniences in the celebration thereof may be preuented.

But many inconueniences cannot be pre∣uented, vnlesse the Cup be with-held from the Laietie:

Therefore in the administration of the Sa∣crament, the Cup ought to be with-held from the Laietie.

The inconueniences, which they pretend to arise from the publicke vse of the Chalice, are summed vp by M. Harding, art. 2. diuis. 8. viz. irreuerence of so high a Sacrament, whereof Christian people in the beginning had a mar∣ueilous care and regard; the loathsomenesse of many, that cannot brooke the taste of wine; the difficulties of getting wine in countries neere situated to the North pole; and impos∣sibility of keeping it long.

The answer.

First, inconueniences in a matter of in∣difference, may be pondered and put in the o∣ther * 1.16 scale against the commodities in the thing in question; and if the inconueniences be such, as cannot be preuented, and they are greater, and more in number, then the profits, or aduantages that are like to grow vpon the vse of it, in this case wisedome aduiseth to take away a thing, that is not necessary: I say, if the vn-auoydable inconueniences exceede the certaine profits thereby. But in religious

duties, which cannot be omitted, without vio∣lation of Gods Law, and Christs Ordinance, inconueniences must not turne the ballance: onely we must take all the care that may be, to preuent such inconueniences: Which though they be neuer so many, yet are they rather to beindured, then Gods absolute Command dis∣obeyed, or Christs Institution corrupted.

Secondly, Christ and his Apostles, and the Christian Churches throughout all the world, * 1.17 for twelue hundred yeeres, foresaw the incon∣ueniences which our aduersaries now pretend: yet they thought it not fit in regard of them, to violate Christs Institution by restraining the Cup to the Cleargie onely: For they, as wee haue proued by abundant testimonies, general∣ly and ordinarily gaue the Cup to the Laietie, as well as the Bread.

Thirdly, if they would from these wants and impediments inferre, that some fauourable * 1.18 course should be taken, and dispensation gran∣ted to such, as cannot taste wine, or liue in such countries where wine cannot be got: we would not much striue with them. Wee censure not the Priests in Russia, who for want of wine, v∣sed to consecrate in Methegling, nor call Inno∣centius the eigth into question, howsoeuer now many Papists condemne him for it, for dispen∣sing with the Priests in Norway to consecrate without wine. That which in this question we charge the Church of Rome with, is a manifest transgression of Christs Ordinance, and a ge∣nerall

prohibition of giuing the Cup to the Laietie, where wine may be had, and the com∣municants are able and willing to drinke, if the Priests will admit them. As some Lay men cannot brook wine, so at some times the Priests through some disease after drinking of the Cup, may be enforced to cast it vp. And as the peoples hands may shake in taking of the Cup, and so spill a drop: so may the Priests also: And as some Countries haue no wine, so, if we may beleeue Strabo, and Arianus, and many la∣ter Geographers also, some Countries haue no bread. Yet the Church of Rome her selfe neuer thought it fit, in regard of such few In∣stances, and rare accidents, to make a generall law, either to depriue the Priests of the vse of the Cup, or the Laietie of the vse of the bread.

Fourthly, for the matter of irreuerence, if any through carelesnesse or contempt, spill a * 1.19 drop of the consecrated wine, or let fall a crum of bread, he ought to bee punished for it. And if hee amend not his fault, to bee denyed the Communion. But if such a thing fall out through infirmitie, or by some casualtie against a mans will, it is no irreuerence at all. And for the difficulty of getting wine in the Northerne parts, especially where Vines grow not, we an∣swer, that wine is easier to be gotten, thē Balsa∣mum, which the Romish Church vseth in con∣firmation. For Vines grow in many Countries, and that in great aboundance: True Balsamum but in one. Yet the Church of Rome, in regard

of this difficulty in getting it, will by no meanes suffer, that their Sacrament to be administred without it. Yet their Chrisme is a meere hu∣mane inuention, but wine in the Lords Supper is Christs ordniance. But what do they pretend impediments, that are not, and surmise diffi∣culties against common experience? He is but a stranger in Geography, who knoweth not, that by the benefit of Nauigation, store of wines are brought into those parts, where no vines grow. In the reformed Churches in Eng∣land, Scotland, Denmarke, Norway, and the o∣ther regions situated neerer the North-Pole, the Sacrament is administred in both kindes, and neuer yet any complaint was heard of the difficulty, much lesse of the impossibility of pro∣uiding wine for the Communiō. Surely if there may be had wine for the Priest, their may be had also for the people. Who euer heard of Mer∣chants, that transported wine in so smal quātity, that there might be a draught for the Priest, and none for the people? If there be none for the Priests, how can they consecrate without facri∣lege, according to their owne Canon?

Lastly, this argument, as all the former, may be thus retorted vpon them.

The Councell of Basil yeelded the vse of the Cup to the Bohemians; and the whole Councell of Trent reserued it to the Pope to grant the vse of the Cup to all the Germanes; and the Pope assented thereunto vpon certaine conditions, notwithstanding all the former in∣conueniences.

Therefore it is not inconueni∣ency they stand vpon. But the true cause why they at this day with hold the Cup, is either ob∣stinacy, lest they should seeme to yeeld any thing to the Reformed Churches, and acknow∣ledge their former error, or pride to maintaine a prerogatiue of their Priests aboue the people. Which, as I shewed before out of Saint Chry∣sostome, ought to be none in partaking the dread∣full mysteries.

To conclude, howsoeuer they pretend in this their erroneous practise, like ^u Aesop, to re∣moue that stone, at which all that came into the Bath, stumbled at; yet in truth they rather re∣semble Aesop in some thing of another nature. For as he was accused to haue stolne away a piece of holy plate, that was found among his carriages, from the Temple of Apollo at Delphi; so these grand Aesops, and Coyners of Fables, whereby they delude the simple people, are clearely conuinced of sacrilege, in taking a∣way the Chalice from the Lords Supper. For they haue taken away the Cup of blessing from the people, and in stead thereof, offer the Whore of Babylons cup of abomination.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Answer to certaine que∣stions. Sect. 5.
• l 1.2

  Sozomen. Ec∣cles. hist. lib. 1.
• m 1.3

  Fisher in his answer to cer∣taine questions propounded by King Iames his Maiestie. Point. 7.
• * 1.4

  Answ. 1.
• n 1.5

  Alexand. Hal. 3. pa•…•…t. q. 11. membr. 2. art. 4. Corpus non est sacramentaliter sub specie vi•…•…i, nec sanguis sa∣cramentaliter sub specie panis. Ergo vt sacra∣mentaliter su∣matur totus Christus, necesse est, vt sumatur sub duabus spe∣ciebus.
• * 1.6

  Vid. supra. Arg. 2.
• o 1.7

  Bell. de sacra. Euch. lib. 4. c. 24.
• * 1.8

  Answ. 1.
• * 1.9

  2
• p 1.10

  Bel. loco supra∣citat species panis & vini non tam essentiales, quam integrales par∣tes huiu•…•… sacra∣menti videntur.
• * 1.11

  Answ. 1.
• q 1.12

  Ambr. in 1. ad Corinth. cap. 11. Indignus est Do∣mino, qui aliter mysterium cele∣brat, quàm ab eo traditum est.
• r 1.13

  Halensis part. 3. qu. 11. mem∣bro. artic. 4. sumptio sub v∣traque specie mi∣noris est effica∣ciae, & comple∣menti. Vasquez in 3. Tho. q. 80. art. 12. proba∣bilior senten∣tia mihi semper visa est, maiorem fructum gratiae ex vtraque specie huius sacramenti, quàm ex altera tantùm percipi. Ita docet Halensis, Gasper Consaluus. quam sententiam absolutè secutus est Clemens sextus in Bulla ad Regem Angliae, Anno 1346. quâ illi concessit, vt ad gratiae augmentum in vtraque specie communicaret. Aegidius de Coninck Iesuita. Etsi plus gratiae conferat sumptio vtriusque speciei; dicimus tamen meritò hoc Ecclesiam non curare, quaest. 10. art. 12. in lib. 4. sent.
• r 1.14

  De leg. & Se∣nat. consult.
• t 1.15

  Hier. in Catal. Viror. illust.
• * 1.16

  Answ. 1.
• * 1.17

  2
• * 1.18

  3
• * 1.19

  4