The third part of the Defence of the Reformed Catholike against Doct. Bishops Second part of the Reformation of a Catholike, as the same was first guilefully published vnder that name, conteining only a large and most malicious preface to the reader, and an answer to M. Perkins his aduertisement to Romane Catholicks, &c. Whereunto is added an aduertisement for the time concerning the said Doct. Bishops reproofe, lately published against a little piece of the answer to his epistle to the King, with an answer to some few exceptions taken against the same, by M. T. Higgons latley become a proselyte of the Church of Rome. By R. Abbot Doctor of Diuinitie.

R. ABBOT.

Whether it bee S. Mathew or S. Paul, they serue both for the confirming of one truth, and doe both condemne the Antichristian and damnable sacriledge of the Church of Rome, in maiming the Sacrament of Christ contrary to the institution of Christ himselfe, to the very intention and purpose of the Sacrament, to the example and practise of all ancient churches. Our Sauiour Christ saith: a Drinke yee all of this. But the Church of Rome saith; Not so, for there are iust and reasonable causes why it is not fit that all drinke therof, but it is sufficient that the Priest alone drinke for all. M. Bishop to make this good, telleth vs that Christ there spake to his Apostles onely, and that some thing there∣about is spoken to them, which may not bee extended vnto lay∣men, but vnto Priests onely. But how will hee make it ap∣peare that Christ in the one part of the Sacrament spake to the Apostles onely, and not in the other also? There were none there present but the Apostles, and what direction haue we in the words of Christ, to restraine the vse of the cup, as peculiar to the Priests, and to make the other common to the people? And if Christ did so intend, how falleth it out that the Apostle S. Paul in the recitall of

Christs institution, professing b to deliuer precisely what he had receiued of the Lord, maketh no mention of this re∣straint? and what presumption was it in the whole primi∣tiue Church, contrary to that intendment, to make that common to the laitie, which Christ had made the prero∣gatiue of the Priests onely? He saith, that others may drinke of it, or not drinke of it, as it shall be thought most expedient by the Pope, whom hee falsly nameth the supreme Pastour. But how may it appeere that there is any such authoritie left to the Pope? Surely, if Christ spake only to the Priests, it should not seeme likely that the Pope should haue liber∣ty to extend this fauour to the people; and if the Pope may giue libertie heereof to the people, then it is certaine that Christ did not speake only to the Priests. But there is a speciall secret heere which I would gladly haue M. Bi∣shop to vnfold: for if the words of Christ, Drinke yee all of this, were spoken onely to Priests, and doe belong to them, how is it that c Priests also in the church of Rome, he only excepted that ministreth, are excluded from being partakers of the cuppe? Christ saith, by their owne con∣fession, Drinke all yee Priests; how impudently then doe they transgresse the commandement of Christ who barre all Priests from the Cup but him only that saith Masse? Here their wicked and damnable hypocrisie most plainly appeareth, and the knots wherewith they are tied are such, as that they know not which way to vntie them. The Priests that minister not, are with them in that behalfe as in the case of lay-men, and therefore are forbidden to be par∣takers of the cup. But in that case also the Apostles were at the institution of the Sacrament; for Christ only mini∣stred and not any of them. And yet to the Apostles being thus as in the state and condition of lay men, because they ministred not, our Sauiour Christ saith, Drinke ye all of this. What now followeth hereof, but that to lay men, and of lay men as well as of Priests, our Sauiour Christ said, Drink ye all of this; euen you all that haue eaten of this bread,

drinke ye also of this cup? But all men confesse, saith M. Bi∣shop, that these words hoc facite, doe ye this, were spoken only to the Apostles, and in them to the Clergy alone. And it may be that all his men confesse so, or all the men that he had in his head when he wrote this, but otherwise all men will not so confesse, because to confesse so, should be to con∣fesse an vntruth. For those words haue reference to the whol celebration of this mystery, requiring the same to be performed in remembrance of him by whom it was first ordained. Yea and that they haue their respect to the re∣ceiuers, appeareth plainly by the very coherence and con∣sequence thereof; d Take, eat; doe this, namely that I haue bidden you doe, to take and eat, in remembrance of me. And this is as cleere in the Apostles description of the instituti∣on of the Cup; e He tooke the cup, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you; this doe as oft as ye drinke it in remembrance of me. Which later words sound plainly to this effect; Drinke ye all of this, and as oft as ye do so, doe it in the remembrance of me. But yet we will deale cur∣teously with M. Bishop, and grant him his desire, that Christ here speaketh of the ministration of the sacrament which appertaineth to the Clergy alone; and will he here∣of conclude that when hee saith Drinke ye all of this, his meaning was that the Clergy only should drinke thereof? Verily the contrary rather most plainly followeth. For when he saith, Doe this, what else doth he say, but what ye see me doe, the same doe ye; I say to you all here present, Take and eat; I deliuer the cup to you all that you may all drinke thereof; doe you administer to others in the same sort; what I haue done to you, the same doe you to them in remembrance of me. And this rule Cyprian most vehe∣mently presseth, and vrgeth it to Cecilius again and again; f that in remembrance of the Lord, we are to do the same that the Lord did; that we are not in any sort to depart from the precepts of the Gospell; and the disciples are to obserue the same things which their master hath taught and done; that that

Priest doth truely supply the roome of Christ, who imitateth that which Christ hath done; that we ought to doe nothing but what he hath done; that so often as we offer the cup in remem∣brance of the Lord and of his passion, wee are to doe the same which we are assured Christ did. Now if the minister bee to doe the same that Christ did, then is he to administer both parts of the sacrament alike to all that are present, because we find that Christ did so. Yea but why should the Apostles, saith M. Bishop, haue a speciall charge more to drinke of that cup, then to eat of that food, vnlesse it were to signifie that wher∣as all men should be bound to receiue Christs body, they, namely the Apostles, should be further bound to receiue that holy cup also; from which bond other men should stand free? Thus he falsifieth the institution of Christ, that from an imagined ground of his owne, he may infer a conclusion answerable thereto. For had not the Apostles as speciall charge to eat of that food, as to drinke of that cup? did not Christ aswell say to all his Apostles, Take, eat, this is my bo∣dy, doe this in remembrance of me; as he said, Drinke ye all of this? If hee did so, and thereby all men are bound to eat of that food, doth it not follow that by the other all men are bound also to drinke of that cup? Christ commandeth all his Apostles to take & eat. He commandeth al his Apostles to take the cup & drinke. On the one side he saith, Do this. On the other side he saith, Doe this. What reason can M. Bishop giue why al Christians should be concluded on the one side; and all saue the Priests should be excluded on the other; yea and all the Priests also that are present, saue he onely that administreth for the time? What, will hee wil∣fully blinde himselfe? Will he stoppe his owne eies, that he may not see that which hee cannot choose but see? Well, he will yet make amends for all, telling vs, that when they take away from the people one kinde of the Sacrament, they do them no hinderance thereby, because they giue them both the body and bloud of Christ together vnder one kinde. But who hath taught them so to doe, or that so they can doe? and if

both may bee giuen vnder one, why did Christ by his in∣stitution ordaine seuerally a Sacrament of both? Let him satisfie vs in this behalfe; if the whole intention of the Sa∣crament be atteined in one kinde, why our Sauiour Christ would do a needlesse worke to institute both? and if it be needfull for the Priest to drinke of the Lords cup, why is it needlesse for the people? or if it be sufficiently auailea∣ble for the people that the Priest drinke thereof, why is it not also sufficient that the Priest onely doe eate for all? Hee telleth vs that the body and bloud of Christ bee so vnited that they cannot be separated; and we grant so much of the bo∣die and bloud of Christ as now they are, but he should re∣member that by this Sacrament g wee shew foorth the death of the Lord, and in the death of the Lord his bodie was broken, and his bloud was shed for vs, accordingly as it is said, h This is my body which is broken for you, l this is my bloud which is shed for you, and therefore that the sacrament must represent and offer vnto vs the bloud of Christ, as se∣parated from the body. Which because it cannot do, be∣ing vsed in one kinde, therefore it followeth, that the Po∣pish vsage thereof in that sort, excludeth the intention of the sacrament, and robbeth vs of the comfort of Christs bloud shed for the forgiuenesse of our sins. And surely if the effect of the sacrament be wholly attained by receiuing onely in one kinde, there was no cause why Gelasius Bi∣shop of Rome, hearing of some, k who receiuing the portion of Christs sacred body, did forbeare the cuppe of his sacred bloud, should decree as he did, that either they should receiue the whole sacrament, or else be excluded from the whole, ad∣ding a reason thereof, which cleerely cutteth off all Po∣pish exceptions, because the diuiding of one and the same mysterie cannot come without great sacriledge. Why should Gelasius vrge a matter so needlesse if it be true which now is taught in Poperie? or if Gelasius then saw it to be sacri∣ledge to diuide this mysterie of Christ, how commeth it a∣bout that it is not so now? In the time of Iulius the first,

long before Gelasius, another abuse was creeping into the Church, of dipping the Sacrament of Christs body into the cup, as thereby to saue a labour, and so vnder one to deliuer both. It appeareth heereby, that Christian people were not then taught as they are now in the Romane church, that the one part of the Sacrament is by concomi∣tancy, as their Schoolemen haue deuised, both the bodie and the bloud of Christ, neither did Iulius vpon that ground condemne that dipping as superfluous and cause∣lesse, which both hee and they should in that respect haue conceiued so to bee if that fancie were true. But they by Christs institution conceiued a necessitie to receiue both, and therefore in this sort by dipping the Eucharist in the cup, prouided so to doe; in which sort notwithstanding to receiue both, Iulius approoued it as a thing vnlawfull, l be∣cause there is no testimony heereof in the Gospell where Christ commended to his Apostles his body and bloud; for there is re∣corded seuerally the deliuery of the bread and seuerally of the cup. Now if Christ to the end he might commend to vs both his body and bloud, would seuerally commend the one, and seuerally the other; surely the church of Rome in debarring the people from the cup, confoundeth the institution of Christ, and commendeth the one onely without the other. And sith Iulius did hold that for di∣rection in this behalfe, the Church is to haue recourse to the example of Christ in the Gospell, to doe as Christ there is recorded to haue done, wee must needs conceiue that the Church of Rome now, is not of the same mind that Iulius was, which so manifestly crosseth that which is described in the gospell. And not Iulius only but the whole Church of Christ held it selfe tied to that exam∣ple, and practised accordingly: neither was there any Church in the world which held it sufficient or lawfull to administer the sacrament to the people in one kind. Hie∣rome saith that m the Lords supper ought to be common to all, because the Lord Iesus equally deliuered the sacraments to all

his disciples that were present. So Chrysostome saith n that in the receiuing of the holy mysteries there is no difference be∣twixt the Priest and the people; for we all, saith he, are vouch∣safed to receiue them alike. o This dreadfull cup, saith Theo∣phylact, was in like or equall condition deliuered to all. In a word, when Cyprian saith that p by right of communion we admit the people to drinke in the Church of the Lords cup, what doth hee but plainly declare that the Church of Rome doth apparant wrong to the people of God, in that it bereaueth them of this right? We may therefore iustlie thinke them very impudently obstinate, whom neither the authority of Christ, nor the consent of fathers, nor the practise of Christian Churches vniuersally through the world, nor the very reason of the Sacrament it selfe can mooue to reform this maiming of the sacrament of Christ, but doe make choise rather to continue still in error, than to acknowledge that they haue erred. But M. Bishop here pretendeth that they haue more cause to complaine of vs, than we of them; for he saith that wee haue defrauded the poore people of both body and blood of Christ, and in lieu of that most pretious banquet, doe giue them a cold breakefast of a morsell of bread, and a sup of wine. Which words hee vseth rather of malice, then for that he knoweth not that wee af∣firme in the due participation of this Sacrament a heauenly riches of grace and of the communion of the body and blood of Christ. Tell vs M. Bishop, when Gelasius saith, that q the Sacraments which we receiue of the body and blood of Christ are a diuine thing, and we are thereby made parta∣kers of the diuine nature, & yet there ceaseth not to be the sub∣stance or nature of bread and wine, did hee make the Sacra∣ment to be no more but a morsell of bread, and a sup of wine? If wee respect the nature of the outward and visible ele∣ments, it is true that we receiue in the Sacrament a morsell of bread, and a sup of wine, for these creatures r remaine still, as Theodoret saith, in their former substance: but if

we respect them in their vse and effect, this bread is hea∣uenly bread, and this cup is the cup of saluation and life e∣ternall. And as he is a mad man who hauing a rich gift con∣firmed vnto him by his Princes seale, will vilifie the seale and say it is but a peece of wax; euen so is he as mad who of the Sacrament of Christ, which is s the seale of the righ∣teousnesse of faith, the pledge of the remission of sinnes, the meanes whereby grace and life through faith are deriued vnto vs, will say either in baptisme that it is but a handfull of water, or in the Lords supper that it is but a morsell of bread and a sup of wine. But of this and of his fiue other sa∣craments, as he hath spoken before, so I haue answered him t before: and I refer the reader to that that is there said, where he shall easily see that he hath no cause to account himselfe vnfortunate for following vs, but rather to hold them for vnfortunate fooles that yeeld themselues to bee guided by such fancies.

Notes

• a

  Matt. 26.27.
• b

  1. Cor. 11.23
• c

  Concil. Trid. ses. 5. can. 2. Ec∣clesia iustu cau∣sis & rationi∣bus adducta vt laicos at{que} eti∣am Clericos non conficientes sub panis tantum: modo specie com∣municaret, &c.
• d

  Mat. 26.26. Luke 22.19.
• e

  1. Cor. 11.25
• f

  Cyprian lib. 2. ep. 3. In comme∣morationem do∣min•• hoc facia∣mus quod secit & dominus &c. Ab Euangeii••i•• praeceptis omni∣nò recedendum non esse, & ea∣dem quae magi∣ster docuit & fecit, discipulos quo{que} obseruare & facere debe∣re &c. Vti{que} ille sacerdos vice Christi verè fungitur qurid quod Christus fecit imitatur. &c. Nihil aliud quàm quod ille fecit facere de∣bemus &c. Quotiescun{que} calicem in com∣memorationem domint & pas∣sionis eius offe∣r••mus•••• quod consia•• domi∣num fecisse, faci∣amus, &c.
• g

  1. Cor. 11.26
• h

  1. Cor. 11.24.
• l

  Mat. 26.28.
• k

  De consecrat. dist. 2. Comperi∣mus quosdam qui sumpta sa∣cri corporis portione à ca∣lice sacrati cruoris abstine∣ant; qui quia nescio qua su∣perstitione do∣centur astringi aut integra sa∣cramenta perci∣piant aut ab in∣tegru arcean∣tur; quia diui∣sio vnius eins∣dem{que} mysterij sine grandi sa∣crilegio non po∣test prouenire.
• l

  Dist. 2. cap. Cum omne. Quod pro com∣plemento c••m∣munionis inein∣ctam tradunt Eu haristiam populis nec hoc prolatum ex E∣uangelio testi∣moniū recepe∣runt, vbi Apo∣stolu corpus su∣um commenda∣uit & sangui∣nem; seorsum enim panu & scorsum calicis commendatio memoratur.
• m

  Hieron. in 1. Cor. 11. Domi∣nica coena om∣nibus debet esse communis, quia ille omnibus dis∣tipulu suis qui aderant aequa∣liter tradidit sacramenta.
• n

  Chrysost. in 2. Cor. hom. 18. Est vbi nihil differt sacerdos a sub∣dito vt quando fruendum est sacris mysterijs; similiter enin, omnes vt 〈◊〉〈◊〉 participemus digri habemus.
• o

  Theophylact. in 1. Cor. c. 11. praesertim cum tremendus hic calix pari cun∣ctis conditione sit traditus.
• p

  Cyprian lib. 1. epist. 2. Quo∣modo ad marty∣rij poculum ido∣neos facimus si non eos ad bi∣bendum prius in ecclesia poculum domini iure communicatio∣nis admittimus?
• q

  Gelas. cont. Eutych. & Ne∣stor. Certè sa∣cramenta quae sumimus corpo∣ris & sanguin•••• domini, diuina resest, & per illa diumae con∣sortes ••fficimur naturae, & ta∣men esse non desinit substan∣tia vel natura panis & vini.
• r

  Theodoret. dialog. 2. Manent in priore substantia & figura & forma, &c.
• s

  Rom. 4.11.
• t

  Preface to the Reader, sect. 20.