The suruey of popery vvherein the reader may cleerely behold, not onely the originall and daily incrementes of papistrie, with an euident confutation of the same; but also a succinct and profitable enarration of the state of Gods Church from Adam vntill Christs ascension, contained in the first and second part thereof: and throughout the third part poperie is turned vp-side downe.

The 1. conclusion.

TO withhold from the vulgar and laycall sort of people, the [ 1] one part of the holy communion, is a diabolical, hereticall, and sacrilegious fact. I prooue it sundry waies: First, because it is flatly against the expresse scripture,* 1.1 and Christes holy in∣stitution. For Christ himselfe instituted and ministred the Sa∣crament in both kindes, saying; drinke yee all of it, as Saint Mathew recordeth: and they all dranke of it, as witnesseth Saint Marke. Saint Paule also taught all the Corinthians to communicate in both kindes, protesting that hee deliuered the forme and maner of the holy communion, euen as he had in spi∣rite receiued it from the Lord.

* 1.2Secondly, because the auncient fathers shew euidently, that in their time it was the generall practise of the church, to deli∣uer the holy communion to the lay people vnder both kindes. Neither was the cup taken from the vulgar sort by any setled law,* 1.3 vntill the late councell of Constance, which was in the yere of our Lord God, 1414.

* 1.4Origen hath these words; Quis est iste populus, qui in vsu ha∣bet sanguinem bibere? haec erant quae in euangelio audientes ij qui ex Iudaeis dominum sequebantur, scandalizati sunt, & dixerunt; Quis potest manducare carnem, & sanguinem bibere? sed populus Christianus, populus fidelis audit haec, & amplecti∣tur, & sequitur eum qui dicit: nisi manducaueritis carnem meam, & biberitis sanguinem meum, non habebitis vitam in vobis ipsis, quia caro mea verè est cibus, & sanguis meus verè potus est.

Who is that people, that hath in custome to drinke bloud? these were the thinges which the Iewes that followed Christ heard in the gospel, and were scandalized, and said; Who can eate flesh and drinke bloud? but the christian people, the faith∣full people, heare these thinges, and embrace them, and follow him that sayth; vnlesse ye shall eate my flesh & drink my bloud, ye shall haue no life in your selues, because my fleshe is meate indeed, and my bloud drinke indeed?

S. Hierome hath these words; Sacerdotes quo{que} qui euchari¦stiae seruiunt, & sanguinem domini populis eius diuidunt,* 1.5 im∣piè agunt in legem Christi.

The Priestes also that administer the eucharist, and diuide the Lordes bloud to his people, transgresse the law of Christ heynously.

Saint Cyprian with fourtie learned bishops, in their ioynt Epistle to Cornelius, write in this expresse maner;* 1.6 Quo modo docemus aut prouocamus eos in confessione nominis sanguinem suum fundere, si eis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamus? aut quo modo ad martyrij poculum ido••••os facimus, si non eis priùs ad bibendum in ecclesia poculum domini iure communica∣tionis admittimus? Howe doe we teache 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them to shed their bloud for the name of Christ, if wee denie them the bloud of Christ, when they go to warre? or how doe we make them fit for the cuppe of martyrdome, if wee doe not first admit them to drinke the Lordes cuppe in the Churche, and that by the right of communion?* 1.7 where I wishe the reader to note well that the lay people haue right to both kindes; and conse∣quently, that the Romish church is become the whore of Ba∣bylon, in that shee robbeth vs of our christian right, which wee haue de iure diuino.

Saint Chrysostome hath these wordes:* 1.8 Est vbi nihil differt sacerdos à subdito, vt quando fruendum est honorandis myste∣riis. Similiter enim omnes vt illa percipiamus digni habe∣mur. Non sicut in veteri lege, partem quidem sacerdos come∣debat, partem autem populus; & non licebat populo partici∣pem esse eorum quorum particeps erat sacerdos. Sed nunc non sic: verum omnibus vnum corpus proponitur & poculum vnum.

There is a place, where there is no difference betweene the priest & the lay person, as when we are to communicate in the holy mysteries; for we are all in like worthie, for that commu∣nion; not as it was in the olde lawe, where the priest ate one part and the people another; neither coulde the people be per∣mitted to take part of that that the priest ate. For nowe it is not so, but to all is proposed one bodie and one cuppe. Out of [ 1] these golden words I note first, that the difference in commu∣nion, is a Iudaicall ceremonie from which Christs death deli∣uered [ 2] vs. I note secondly, that in the christian communion, the common people ought to be as free as the minister. I note [ 4] thirdly, that it was so in Saint Chrysostomes time, when the people receiued vnder both kinds.* 1.9 I note fourthly, that the pope hath brought vs into greater bondage then euer were the Iewes. S. Ignatius hath these wordes; Vna est caro domini Iesu▪ & vnus eius sanguis qui pro nobis effusus est, vnus etiam panis pro omnibus confractus, & vnus calix totius ecclesiae. There is one flesh of our Lord Iesus, & one blood which was shed for vs, one bread also broken for all, and one cuppe of the whole church.

* 1.10Saint Iustine hath these wordes; Praesidens vero, postquam gratiarum actionem perfecit, & populus vniuersus apprecati∣one laeta eum comprobauit, qui apud nos vocantur diaconi atquo ministri, distribuunt vnicuique praesentium, vt participet eum in quo gratiae actae sunt panem, vinum, & aquam. After the chiefe pastour hath finished the giuing of thankes, and all the people haue with ioyfull prayer approoued the same, they that we cal Deacons and Ministers, do distribute to euery one that is present, the sanctified bread, wine, and water, to be partaker thereof.

Yea the said Iustinus a little after addeth these important wordes; Nam apostoli in commentarijs à se scriptis quae euan∣gelia vocantur, ita tradiderunt praecepisse sibi Iesum. For the apostles in their commentaries, that is, in the gospelles, haue taught vs, that Iesus so commaunded them (to minister the holie communion.) Where note by the way, that Christ did not onelie ordaine both kindes, but he also gaue commaunde∣ment to retaine the same in the church. For which cause saint

Paul teaching the Corinthians to communicate vnder both kinds, said that he receiued that form & maner from the Lord.* 1.11 S. Austen hath these words: Cum Dom. dicat,* 1.12 nisi manduca∣ueritis carnem meam & biberitis meum sanguinem, non habebi∣tis vitam in vobis: quid sibi vult, quod à sanguine sacrificio∣rum quae pro peccatis offerebantur, tantopere populus prohibe∣tur, si illis sacrificijs vnum hoc sacrificium significabatur, in quo vera sit remissio peccatorum? à cuius tamen sacrificij sanguine in alimentum sumendo nō solum nemo prohibetur, sed ad bibendum potius omnes exhortātur qui volunt habere vitam. When our Lord saith, vnles ye shal eate my flesh and drinke my blood, ye shal haue no life in you: what meaneth it that the people is so greatly forbidden the blood of sacrifices which was offered for sins, if in those sacrifices this onely sacrifice was signified, in which there is true remission of sins? From y^e blood of which sacrifice for al that to be takē for nourishment, not only none is prohibited, but al rather are exhorted to drinke it, that desire to haue life. S. Ambrose, at such time as the emperour Theo∣dosius after his great slaughter of men at Thessalonica desi∣red to enter into the church at Millan, and there to be partaker of the holie eucharist, spoke these words vnto him; Quî quaeso,* 1.13 manus iniusta caede & sanguine respersas extendere audes, & eisdem sacrosanctum corpus domini accipere? aut quomodo ve∣nerandum eius sanguinem ori admouebis, qui furore irae iuben∣te tantum sanguinis tam iniquè effudisti? How I pray thee da∣rest thou stretch out thy hands sprinckled with vniust slaughter and blood, and to take the holie bodie of our Lord in the same? Or how wilt thou touch thy mouth with his venerable blood, who to satisfy thy fury, hast shed so much bloud so vnworthily?

Gregorius magnus their owne bishop of Rome, confirmeth this veritie in these words: Eius quippe ibi corpus sumitur,* 1.14 eius caro in populi salutem partitur, eius sanguis non iam in manus infidelium, sed in ora fidelium funditur. For his bodie is there receiued, his flesh is diuided for the saluation of the people, his bloud is now powred, not into the handes of infidels, but into the mouthes of the faithfull. What need many words? Their owne Gelasius in their owne canon law, condemneth their fact as flat sacrilege. These be his words:* 1.15 Aut integra sacramenta

percipiant, aut ab integris arceātur: quia diuisio vnius eiusdē{que} mysterij, sine grandi sacrilegio non potest peruenire Either let them participate the whole sacraments, or els let them abstain from the whole; bicause the diuision of one and the same sacra∣ment, cannot be done without great sacrilege.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Math. 26. v. 27. Mar▪ 1••▪ v. 23.
• * 1.2

  1. Cor. 11. v. ••3.25.
• * 1.3

  Anno. dom. 1414
• * 1.4

  Origen. hom. 16. in numer. prope finem.
• * 1.5

  Hieron. in 3. cap. Sophon.
• * 1.6

  Cypr. lib. 1. epis. 2.
• * 1.7

  The Romish Church taketh from vs our chri∣st••••n right.
• * 1.8

  Chrysost. in ••. Corinth. hom. 1•• in mor.
• * 1.9

  Ignat. in epist ad Philadelp. prope 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.10

  ••ustinus mar••yr apolog. 2. pa. 76.
• * 1.11

  1. Cor. 11.23▪ 25.
• * 1.12

  August. q. 57. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Leuit. tom. 4▪
• * 1.13

  Ambr. apud Th••∣odor. lib. 5. hist••••. cap. 17.
• * 1.14

  Gregor. lib. 4. dialogor. cap. 5••.
• * 1.15

  De consecr. dist. 2. cap. compe••.