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.
Featley, Daniel, 1582-1645.
highlight hits: on | off
Page  220

COVNCELS. The second Combate: Whether Councels make for, or against the halfe Communion?

    The Antagonists.
  • Stanist. Hosius, and Dominicus à Soto.
  • Tho. Caietan, and Gabr. Vasquez, Ie∣suite.
  • Alph. Salmeron, Iesuite. and Rob. Bellarmine → , Ie∣suite.
  • Edm. Campian, Iesuite. and Andr. Dudithius. B. of Quinq. Eccles.

zHosius the Asay∣lant.

THe Councell of E∣phesus decreed, that the Communion should be giuen in one kind onely to the Lai∣tie, in opposition to the heresie of Nestorius, who held, that vnder the bread in the Sacra∣ment, Christs body was without his blood.

Gabr. Vasquez the De∣fendant.

VNto the time of the Councell of Constance, where the vse of the Cup was first takē away, there arose an error about the in∣tegritie, or whole hu∣manitie of Christ vn∣der either kinde: wherefore it cannot be said, that there was a∣ny law made in the Page  221 Church for the taking away of that error. Vas∣quez cap. 4. disp. 216.

Caietan the Assay∣lant.

Nestorius, and Pela∣gius affirmed, that the Communion ought to be kept in both kinds, though vpon a diuerse reason. Nestorius, be∣cause he held, that vn∣der the bread, the body onely was contained, and vnder the forme of wine, his blood one∣ly. Pelagius, because he beleeued, that infants could not bee saued without Communion in both kinds. To op∣pose both which here∣sies, it is very likely, that the Councell of Ephesus decreed, that the Communion shuld be administred in one kind. Caietan in 3. Tho. quest. 80. art. 12.

Soto the Defen∣dant.

Caietan referreth the beginning of the cu∣stome to the Nestori∣ans and Pelagians, as also another custome of giuing the Sacra∣ment to Infants. But as for the second of these customes, wee haue shewed before in the ninth Article, that it is not likely the Pelagi∣ans had any such cu∣stome; because they taught, that Infants might attaine euerla∣sting life without any Sacrament; neither were the Nestorians in the Councell of E∣phesus taxed with any such error, but with this, that they belee∣ued not the body of Christ in the Sacra Page  222 ment to bee vnited to the Deitie. Soto in 2. dist. 91. art. 12.

*Salmeron the Assay∣lant.

Two general Coun∣cels held in the bow∣els of Germany, to wit, the Councell of Con∣stance, and Basil with a great consent of Bi∣shops, decreed, that the Cup should not be giuen to the Laietie: now we know, that the authoritie of Generall Councels is vncon∣trowleable; He doth wrong to the holy Ghost, who despiseth, or goeth about to a∣brogate their Decrees.

Bellarmine the Defen∣dant.

The Councell of Constance, for so much as concernes the former Sessions, is repealed in the Coun∣cell of Florence, and the last Councell of Lateran. Nothing in the Councell of Basil is ratified, and appro∣ued, saue onely cer∣taine orders about be∣nefices, which for peace and vnities sake, Pope Nicolas approo∣ued. But the Councell it selfe is repealed in the Councell of Late∣ran, last Session. Bell. de Concil. cap. 7. Vasquez disput. 215. c. 3. Basili∣ense Concilium nullius est authoritatis in hac re: The Councell of Basil is of no authority in Page  223 this point.

Campian, and Norrice the Assaylant.

The Councell of Trent teacheth, that, he who inioyeth the least particle of either kinde, receiueth not a mangled or imperfect, but an absolute, com∣pleate, entire, and per∣fect Sacrament, true Author and Giuer of life; the whole refecti∣on of Christs body and blood.

Norrice Antidot con∣tro. 50. This Councell of Trent is highly ex∣tolled by Campian. The Synode of Trent, the older it groweth, the more it shall perpe∣tually flourish. Good God! What varietie of Nations was there? What choyse of Bi∣shops of the whole world? What lusture of Kings, and Com∣mon-wealth? Page  224 What marrow of Diuines? What holynesse? What teares? What fasting? What flowers of Vniuersities? What tongues? &c.

Andreas Dudithius the Defendant.

What good could be done in that Coun∣cell, wherein voyces were numbred, but not wayed? If the merits of the cause (hee spea∣keth of the Communi∣on in both kindes) or reason might haue car∣ried it, or if but a few had ioyned with vs, wee had won the day. But when the number onely could beare sway, in which wee came short, though our cause was excee∣ding good, wee were faine to sit downe by the losse, &c. In summe the matter came to that passe, through the wickednesse of those hungrie Bishops, that hung vpon the Popes sleeue, and were crea∣ted on the sudden by Page  224 the Pope for the pur∣pose, that that Coun∣cell seemed to be an as∣sembly not of Bishops, but of Hobgoblins; not of men, but of Ima∣ges, moued like the statues of Dedalus, by the sinewes of others. Dudith. Quinque-Eccles. episc. ad Maximilianum 2. Caes.

highlight hits: on | off