The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome, Text 1
THE CONFERENCE.
L. F.
I Pray you, Doctor Featly, resolue mee, whether thinke you a Church may be without a Bishop, or no?
D. Featly.
Your L. propoundeth a question, that little concerneth you any way, or any member of the Church of England. For in England we hauehave, (God bee blessed) Bishops, and those, besides many learned Priests, very well able to iustifie that Calling. If I might bee so bold, I would aduise your L. not to trouble your selfe with such curious questions of small, or no moment to you, wherein learned men, without hazarding of their saluation, may hauehave different opinions.
L. F.
I hold it a matter of great moment, and desire you not to decline it, but plainely to deliuer your iudgement thereof.
D. Featly.
I professe (Madame) with submission to more learned iudgements, that I euer held, and doe hold, that a aHieron. aduersus Lucifer. Ecclesia non est, quae sacerdotem non habet. I meane, a compleate Church. For in some sense that of Tertullian is true: Where two or three are, there is a Church, although they be Laicks. Tertul. exhort. ad cast. b See P. Moul. Bucklet of faith. & P. Mart. epist. ad Iuel. episcop. Salisb. Zanch ad Grind. Archiep. Bucer & Gualterum. Item Bezam, & Suadael. ad Epis. copos quosdam Angliae.Church cannot bee without a Priest, or a Pastor; but it may bee, and sometimes is without a Bishop, properly so called. The Church of Geneua, as also the Reformed Churches in France, and the Low-Countries, and diuers in Germany, are true Reformed Churches, and yet they hauehave no Bishops, such as you meane; Although some of them would after our manner hauehave them, if they could. Discipline, or a precise gouernment of the Church is not simply of the essence of the Church. And therefore, albeit it be granted, that these Churches hauehave not the best gouernment, nor the Apostolicall discipline in all points: yet because they hauehave the Apostolicall doctrine sincerely taught, and beleeued in them, and the Christian Sacraments rightly administred, I beleeue that they are true Churches.
L. F.
Ought there not to bee Bishops in eueryevery Church by the Law of God?
D. Featly.
What if there ought? This doth not proue, that in case there be no Bishops in some Countries (as there ought to be,) that therefore there are no Churches. I say, that by the Law of God congregations ought to meet in publike Churches to serue God in his House; yet if the vse of publike Churches bee taken away from the faithfull, or they be not permitted to resort vntounto them, as in time of persecution it hath been, and in some places is at this day: the Pastors, and their flocks may meete in Cryptis, that is in priuate, and secret places; as they did in the Primitiue Church. And the faithfull thus meeting, continue a true Church, though they hauehave neither a Temple allowed them, nor Tythe to the Ministers, nor Bishops ouer the Priests. All which yet we doe acknowledge, in a peaceable and flourishing estate of the Church, ought to be had: And we hauehave cause to praise God for our happinesse in England aboue other Churches, in this behalfe.
M. Euerard.
Here M. Euerard stepping in, not being called, said, I pray you Sir, if there may bee a Church without a Bishop, who shall ordaine the Priests in that Church?
D. Featly.
Sir, what are you, who intrude your selfe into our priuate conference? It seemes you are a Romish Priest. Are you not so?
M. Euerard.
I am no Priest.
D. Featly.
What, will you deny your Priesthood?
M. Euerard.
I am no Priest to tell you.
D. Featly.
Now I perceiue you are not onelyonly a Priest, but a Iesuited Priest also. For you can equiuocate.
M. Euerard.
It is no equiuocation, to say, I am no Priest to tell you.
D. Featly.
Indeed now that you expresse your mentall reseruation, you vse no equiuocation; but while you concealed it, you did equiuocate. And I maruell you blush not, to vse such a simple shift, or euasion, as to say, you are no Priest to tell me: As if you, or any man were made a Priest to tell another man you are a Priest.
At these words the meate was brought in, and thereby a stop made of a farther reply for the present. But not long after the Guests were all placed, the L. reuiued the former question, demanding of Doctor Featly,
L. F.
Who should ordaine Priests in a Church, where there are no Bishops?
D. Featly.
If there bee no Bishops in any adioyning Church, by whom they may be ordained, and presented to the Church, I say, in that case, the Church, to whom Christ (as St. bLib. 4. de bapt. contra Don. c. 1. & 18. & tract. in Ioh. 124 Ecclesia claues ab …oregni coelorū accepit in Petro.August. saith) gaue the keyes, may commit Episcopall authority to certaine Priests; and they thus authorized, may ordaine other Priests, as well as absolue, and confirme the baptized, and performe other cD. Field of the Church, lib. 3. c. 239. pag. 156. Presbyters, as they may doe all other acts (whatsoeuer speciall challenge Bishops in ordinary course make vntounto them) so they may doe this also. Who dare condemne all those worthy Ministers of God, that were ordained by Presbyters, in sundry Churches of the world at such time, as Bishops in those places, where they liued, opposed themselues against the truth of God? He citeth there Armacanus, and Alex, of Hales, affirming, that many learned men of their time were of this opinion, that Presbyters in case of necessity, may ordaine.acts ordinarily reserued to Bishops. d And this ordination (in a troubled state of the Church, and in case of necessitie) I hold to be lawfull and warrantable; both because it hath that which the Apostle requireth, 1. Tim. 4. 14. to wit, the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, and because there hauehave bin presidents of such ordination in the Primitiue Church. And questionles, the Church, that committeth the power to one Priest, set in an eminent degree ouer the rest, may commit the same power to more Presbyters or Priests, especially considering it is the iudgement of learned diuines, both Protestants and Papists, that Bishops, and Presbyters differ rather in execution of some acts of their order appropriated to Bishops onelyonly, then in their essentiall order. A Bishop hath an eminencie of degree in the same order, but his ecclesiasticall order is essentially the same with the Presbyters, or Priests. But what doth this question concerne any here present? Neither wee, nor, for ought I know, the Papists themselues define it to be a matter of faith, necessary to saluato resolue this way, or that way. Therefore this question might hauehave been forborne.e Quid est enim episcopus, nisi primus presbyter? denique non aliter, quàm cum presbyteros & consacerdotes vocat, nunquid & ministros condiaconos suos dicit episcopus? non vtique, quia multò inferiores sunt: & …rpe est ludicem dicere Primicerium. nam Alexandriae, & per totam Aegyptum, si…desit Episcopus, consecrat Presbyter. August. ex vtroque Test. mixt. quaest. 101. D. Mort. Apol. Cathole. 21. Presbyter alter alteram ordinare potest, non in Ecclesia bene composita, sed in statu collapso, & deplorato, maximè in casu necessitatis.
M. Euerard.
The Councell of Trent hath defined it: therefore to vsus it is a matter of Faith.
D. Featly.
I scarcely beleeue the Councell of Trent, (bee it of what credit it may bee) hath defined this point in such sort as you intimate.
M. Euarard.
I will shew it.
D. Featly.
When you shew it, I will answer it.
After this passage, some speech hauing been cast in by some of the table, concerning differences in point of Religion among the Protestants of England; D. Featly said, it was to bee considered, that the differences amongst the true members of the Church of England were only in point of Discipline and Ceremony, not in point of Doctrine, or matter of Faith. But the Romanists differed one frō another in point of Doctrine, and matter of Faith; for the present, saith he, I will instance in two remarkeable particulars. First, touching the conception of the blessed Virgin; secondly, touching the Popes supreame authority euen ouer Generall Councells. In the first point, the Iacobins, or dominicants maintaine, that the blessed Virgin was conceiued in Originall sinne: the Iesuites Franciscans, and Sorbonists hold the contrary.
M. Euarard.
Yet both keepe the Feast of the immaculate Conception.
D. Featly.
They may both keepe a Feast vponupon the same day, and that for the Conception of our Lady. But certainely they, who beleeue she was conceiued in sin, cannot without hipocrisie keepe a Feast of the immaculate Conception. Touching the second point, the Sorbonists hauehave euer held, and doe hold to this day, that a Generall Councell is aboue the Pope: but the Iacobins, Iesuits, & all orders of Friers generally, besides many Secular Priests hold the contrary, that the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell. When I liued in Paris in the Ambassadors house, I heard of a generall Chapter, as they called it, held by the Iacobins in Tho. Aquinas Schoole. Where for many dayes together diuers diuinity questions were handled, and among other, this question touching the Popes superioritie to Councels. An acute Serbone Doctor there present, thus impugned the Iacobins assertion.
Whatsoeuer is defined in a Generall Councell, confirmed by the Pope, is infallibly true, & de fide.
But it is defined in a generall Councel, to wit, the Councel of Constance, confirmed by Pope Martin the fifth, that a Generall Councell is aboue the Pope:
Therefore it is infallibly true, and de fide, that a Generall Councell is aboue the Pope.
The Auditors (the greater part of them) very much applauded this argument of the Sorbonist, and expressed their applause by a kinde of shout. But the Iacobin respondent in a kinde of scorne answered it by retortion thus:
Whatsoeuer is defined in a generall Councell confirmed by the Pope, is infallibly true, and de fide.
But it is defined in a Generall Councell, to wit, the Councell of Lateran, confirmed by Leo the tenth, that the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell.
Therfore it is infallibly true, and de fide, that the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell.
At this Syllogisme, the Iacobin had neere as great an applause, as the Sorbonist. Wee that were present of the Reformed Churches (vnknowne to the Romanists) receiued very much satisfaction, to heare Papists amongst themselues thus bandy Councell and Pope, against Councell and Pope. For from both, we concluded: that, sith contradictories cannot be both true, and it appeared in matter of Faith, that Generall Councels, confirmed by Popes, had decreed direct contradictories: that therefore Generall Councels confirmed by Popes, might erre, and consequently, that the strongest pillar of a Romanists Faith is weake, and tottering:
M. Euerard.
The Councell of Constance, which decreed a Generall Councell to be aboue the Pope, was confirmed by Martin the fifth *False, vid. Vntruth 3. in the Appendix to this Conference.: only in such points, as were in that Councell determined against Hus, and the Bohemians: the Pope confirmed not all points defined in that Councell.
M. L.
HaueHave you any example of any such confirmation of a Councell, wherein some points defined by a generall Councell are confirmed, and the rest not?
M. Euerard.
There may bee such a confirmation of a Councell, and it was so in that Councell. For the Pope neuer confirmed this article touching a general Councels authoritie aboue the Pope.
D. Featly.
Had I knowne that I should hauehave met with you here at this time, or that there should hauehave been any disputation about points of Religion, I would hauehave brought my bookes with me, and produced the Acts of the Councell. For the present, sith we hauehave not here the Tomes of the Councells, all that I wil reply shall be this, that as the Councell of Constance defined, that a Generall Councell was aboue the Pope; so they exercised their power, and made good that decree by deposing three Popes in that Councell, and setting vp a fourth, by name this Martin the fifth, whom it much concerned to confirme this Councell euen in that point.
M. Euerard.
Those three Popes, I say, deposed that Councell.
D. Featly.
Resolutely spoken, and brauely: but yet by your fauour, the three Popes deposed by that Councell sate downe by the losse, and the Fathers that deposed them stil held there Bishopricks, and the fourth Pope chosen in that Councell held the Papacy during life.
This point being thus put off for the present vntill the Tomes of the Councels might be had, and the Popes confirmation extant in them *Infrain Appendice.explained, the Lady asked Doctor Featly;
Lady Faulkland.
Whether hee thought the ancient Fathers prayed not for the dead?D. Field of the Church, lib. 3. cap. 29. Howsoeuer we dislike the Popish manner of praying for the dead, which is to deliuer them out of their feigned Purgatory: yet wee doe not reprehend the Primitiue Church, nor the Pastors, nor guides of it, for naming them in their publike prayers, thereby to nourish their hope of the resurrection; and to expresse their longing desire of the consummation of their owne, and their happinesse, that are come before them in the faith of Christ.
D. Featly.
Questionlesse they did, and Aërius is condemned by them for simply and absolutely condemning the practise of the Church in naming the dead in their publike prayers, and celebrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist: that is, of thanksgiuing for them. Wee condemne not all commemoration of, or prayers for the dead, but the Popish manner of praying for the release of their soules out of Purgatory.
M. Euerard.
To what end should the Fathers pray for the dead, if not for the release of their soules out of Purgatory?
D. Featly.
To what end doth the Church of Rome pray for the soule of blessed Leo, and other Saints in heauen? I trow not to release their soules out of Purgatorie.
M. Euerard.
The Church of Rome prayeth not for the soule of blessed Leo, or any Saint now in heauen.
D. Featly.
Bellarmine saith, she did, and yet doth, and proueth it out of Innocentius the Pope.
M. Euarard.
Will you put this vnderunder your hand?
D. Featly.
I will, let it bee written: *See the place of Bellarmine, cited in the Appendix. g Can. 6. Si quis dixerit in Ecclesia cathol. Non esse Hierarchiam diuinâ ordinatione constitutam, quae constat ex Episcopis, presbyteris, & ministris anathema sit. Can. 7. Si quis dixerit, Episco pos presbyteris non esse superiores, anathemasit. See the history of the Councell of Trent, lib. 7. p. 478. 480 The Legates consulting among themselues, answer, that there were cause to declare, that a Bishop is superiour to a Priest, verum quo iure declarato non esse opus. But by what right, the Councell need not determine. A little after the Doctors in the Councel were diuided about the Hierarchy, some placing it in Orders only, naming the Orders of Deacons, Priests, and Bishops, and others following. For Aerius placed it in iurisdiction; a third sort placed it in both; and the reasons of their direct opinions are there to be seene.Bellarmine saith, that the Church of Rome prayed for the Soule of Saint Leo, and other Saints,
Dan. Featly.
About this time Master Euerard hauing gotten the Councell of Trent, called vponupon Doctor Featly to acknowledge his error in denying, that the Councell of Trent had defined it, as a matter of Faith, that a Bishop is in order aboue a Presbyter by the Law of God: Looke heere, saith he, in the 23. Sess. Canon 6. expresly it defines this point. g If any man shall say, that in the Catholike Church there is not an Hierarchie, instituted by Diuine ordination, consisting of Bishops, Presbyters, and Ministers, let him be accursed. Can. 7. * If any man shall say, that Bishops are not superiours to Priests, or Presbyters, let him be accursed.
D. Featly.
This Canon of the Trent Councell defineth not, that Bishops, & Priests differ ordine, sedgradu; not that Bishops are in Ecclesiasticall order essentially different from Priests, but that they hauehave a degree of superioritie in the same order. Secondly, the Councel defineth this as a truth, but not as a matter of saluation for the Laietie to beleeue, vponupon paine of damnation. And therfore I say as before, that this point, might hauehave bin forborne. Thirdly, the Councell defineth Bishops to be superiors to priests, but sayth not, iure diuino. Here diuers of the auditors desired Doctor Featly, and Master Euerard to disscusse the point touching Communion in one kinde; which they conceiued to bee a point of great moment; because if the Laietie, as well as the Clergie, ought to hauehave the Cup, the Church of Rome doth them great wrong in debarring them of it, and shee violateth Christs institution.
D. Featly.
If Master Euerard like well of it, we will confine our selues to this point. But first I desire a Bible. For I will neuer dispute of point of Faith without Scripture, the Ground of Faith.
M. Euerard.
What Bible will you hauehave? For I allow not of the English Translation.
D. Featly.
The originall, if it may be had, especially the new Testament in Greeke.
M. Euerard.
I desire the Vulgar Latine Translation.
D. Featly.
What, rather then the originall? That is strange.
M. Euerard.
Not so. For the Vulgar Latine is purer then the Greek of the new, or the Hebrew of the old Testament.
D. Featly.
Will you set your hand to it?The contrary to this assertion is maintained by the learned in the Romish Church. vid. Pagn. In praef. in suam ver sionem. Ariam Montanum. praef. Bibl. Reg. Ignatium Leuitam contra Lindanum, & alios Pontificios. & prae omnibus Hieron. apologiam pro Hebraicâ Veritate in Prologis, & Comm. in Zach. cap. 8. vid. Decret. 1. part. dist. 9. ca. vt veteres. citat. Bellar. plures alios in hanc sententiam. de verbo Dei lib. 2. cap. 11. 10. Benedict. Parisiensis theologus aliquot millia locorum in lat. vulg. versione correxit ad veritatem hebraicam & graecam. edit. Paris. an. 1552. 1558. sed postea prodijt noua editio, ibid. 1573. omissis omnibus illis emendationibus, cui praefixa est satis insulsa praefatio Iacobi fabri Sorbonici D.
M. Euerard.
I will. The vulgar Latine Translation is purer then the Greeke of the new, or the Hebrew of the olde Testament.
Ita est, Euerard. p.
D. Featly.
This is a new and erroneous assertion, if not blasphemous.
M. Euerard.
Neither erroneous, nor new. Other Catholikes hauehave held the same before me, and namely Bellarmine De verbo dei lib. 2. cap. 11. hCerte, vix dubitari potest, quin sicut Latina Ecclesia constantior fuit in fide retinenda, quàm Graeca…ita: etiam vigilantior fuerit in suis codicibus à corruptione defendendis. Bell. de Verb. Deil. 2. c. 11.Truely it can scarse be doubted, but as the Latine Church hath beene more constant in retayning the Faith, then the Greek so also that she hath been more vigilant in preseruing her bookes from corruption.
D. Featly.
1. Although Bellarmine had come home to your assertion, yet it followeth not, but that it is new and erroneous.
Secondly, the reason Cardinall Bellarmine, vseth, is not found, that because the Latine Church, hath preserued the Faith purer, then the Greeke: therefore the Latine Bibles, kept by them, are freer from corruption, then the Greeke Originall. For it is not true, that the Latine, that is (as he meaneth) the Romane Church, hath kept the Faith more sincerely, then the Greeke. Beside, the originall Greeke hath not oenly beene kept by the Greeke Church, but also by the Latine Church, which Latine Church, no doubt, had as great, or greater care to preserue the Originall from corruption, then the Latine Translation.
Thirdly, Bellarmine affirmeth not so much, as you doe. For he speaketh not a word of the Hebrew of the old Testament in this place, but onelyonly of the Greeke of the new. Whereas you preferre the Vulgar Latine not onelyonly before the Greeke of the new, but also the Hebrew of the old. Neither doth Bellarmine say, that the Vulgar Latine is simply to be preferred before the Greeke of the new, but that the Latines were more carefullin keeping their Latine, then the Greekes in keeping their Greeke. This might be Bellarmines Iudgement, without preferring the Latine absolutely before the Greek. For albeit the Latine for a Translation were better kept, then the Greeke for the Originall, yet he might say still, that the Translation must needs come behind the Originall simply. hThis Bellarmine must needs say, vnlesse he contradict himselfe. For a little after in the same chapter he confess…th, that in foure cases we may correct and mend the vulgar Latine Translation by the Greeke and Hebrew Fountaines. De Verb. Dei lib. 2. cap. 11. sect. 17. See Hieron. Apolog. ad Pam. Interpretum v…tio, quae apud suos puriss…o orationis cursu labuntur, apud nos vitijs scate…t. …dem cont. Heluid. cap. 6. Multo purior manare credenda est sontis vnda, quàm riui.A Translation, be it neuer so good, cannot come neere the Originall in authoritie, though it be kept neuer so free from corruption. For at the very first, when it was purest, it was by many, nay infinite degrees inferior to the Originall.
But that we may not digresse from the point proposed vntounto vsus, touching Communion in both kinds, here I promise you, that in discussing this question, I will alleage no text of Scripture, wherein our English Translation agreeth not both with the Originall Greeke, and the Latine vulgar. That I may therefore know, what to impugne, I desire you to set downe the state of the question, as you meane to hold it.
M. Euerard.
I beleeue, that wheresoeuer the body of Christ is, there is also his blood by concomitancie, and consequently, that the Church, though it giuegive not the Cup to the Laietie, yet it giueth them the blood of Christ, which they participate in, and with his body.
Secondly, I deny not, that the Laietie may receiue in both kinds, if the Church giuegive them leaue, but they are not bound by Christs Institution, so to receiue. It is sufficient, that they receiue in one.
D. Featly.
We teach, and beleeue, that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, according to Christs Institution, ought to be administred in both kinds, as well to the Laietie, as to the Cleargie.
M. Euerard.
Let the Scriptures bee interpreted by the consent of Fathers, and practise of the Primitiue Church.
D. Featly.
I assent vntounto this condicion, especially in this point, wherein the continuall practise of the Church is vndoubtedly for vsus: as also the cleare and expresse letter of Scripture. And this I prooue, First, by the words of the Institution, Matth. 26. 28. Drinke yee all of this. For this is the blood of the new Testament, which was shed for many.
Christ commandeth the same to drinke, whom he commandeth to eate:
But he commandeth the Laiety to eate the bread:
Therefore also to drinke of the Cup.
And Againe:
He commandeth those to drinke, for whom his blood was shed, saying, drinke yee all of this, for this is my blood of the new Testament shed for many:
But Christs blood was shed for the people, as well as for the Priests:
Therefore the people are to drinke, as well as the Priests.
By the words of our Sauiour, Iohn 6. 53. Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his blood, yee hauehave no life in you. This Text is alleaged by Bellarmine and most Papists, as a strong proofe of the reall presence of Christs body and blood in the Sacrament. And if that you grant, that these words are to be vnderstood of the Sacrament, you must needes confesse, they require all people, as well as Priests, to receiue the Communion in both kinds, to wit, to eate the flesh of the Sonne of Man vnderunder the forme of bread, and drinke his blood vnderunder the forme of wine.
Thirdly, By the words of Saint Paul, 1. Corinth. 11. 28. Let a man examine himselfe, and so let him eate of that Bread, and drinke of that Cup. Here the Apostle inuiteth all to drinke of the Cup, who are to examine themselues; saying: Let a man examine, &c. and so let him drinke. But the Laietie as well as the Cleargie, are bound to examine themselues; nay, the Laietie in some respect are more bound to examin themselues, because most commonly they are more ignorant in this holy mystery:
Fourthly, *In hunc locum Ignat. exceptioni Bellarm. primae. An Ignatius hoc loco corruptus? item secundae ac tertiae. Item Baronij deprauationi, & fraudi respondet. Nic. Vedelius. exercit. 2. in epist. ad Philadelph. Morn. de Eucharist. lib. 1. c. 10. 11. vbi de hoc toto argum. agit plenissimè.by the practise of the Primitiue Church. For which it shall suffice for the present to produce the testimonies of,
1. Ignatius, epist. ad Phil. speaking of the administring, of the Sacrament, saith, foreign; one Bread is broken vntounto all, and one Cup is distributed vntounto all.
2. Cyprian, epist. 54. kQuomodo ad Martyrij poculū idoneos faciemus, si non eos primùm in Ecclesia ad Bibendum poculum Domini iure communicationis admittimus? Cypr. epist. 54. ad Cornet.How shall wee make them fit for the Cup of Martyrdome, if we doe not first admit them into the Church to drinke the Cup of the Lord, by the right of Communication? Here Saint Cyprian speaketh of the Laietie, who are to suffer martyrdome for Christ, and not Priests onelyonly: and he saith, they hauehave a right to Communicate in the Cup: therefore the Church of Rome doth them wrong, to debarre them from it.
Againe, the same Cyprian in his 2, booke, and 3. epistle lCur quidam in calice sanctificando & plebi ministrando non faciunt quod Dom fecit & docuit?Why doe some not doe that our Lord did, and taught in sanctifying the Cup, and administring it to the people?
Thirdly, mAd bibendum sanguinem omnes exhortantur, qui volunt habere vitam.S. August. quaest. 57. in Leuiticum. All men are exhorted to drinke the blood of Christ, who desire to hauehave life. I hope you will not deny, that the Laietie desire to hauehave life, and therefore by Saint Augustines inference, they are inuited to the Cup.
Fourthly, nAut integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur. Quia diuisio vnius eius demque mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest prouenire.Gelatius de consecratione dist. 2. Let them receiue the Sacrament intirely, or let thē be kept from them intirely. Because the diuision of one and the selfe same mystery cannot be without great sacrilege.
Saint oQuid sit sanguis non iam audiendo, sed bibendo didicistis.Gregory hom. 22. in Euangelia, speaking to the people his auditors, saith, pSanguis non in manus fidelium, sed in ora funditur. These books of Gregory are cited by Papists against vsus vnderunder his name: though they be iustly suspected to be counte feit in learned Diuines iudgement.You hauehave learned what is the blood of the Lambe, not by hearing, but by drinking it. And in his fourth booke of dialogues; q The blood of Christ is powred not into the hands but into the mouthes of the faithfull.
M. Euerard.
Master Euerard here produced for the Romish opinion, diuers practises of the ancient Church, as the sending the bread *See an answer to these pretended ancient Rites, supra. c. 14.a farre off to the sicke, and not the Cup: the denying the Cup to all those, who had eaten meates offered vntounto Idols. He answered in Generall to the allegations aboue mentioned; that either Christ commanded not the Communion in both kinds determinately, but either in one, or in the other; or if he enioyned both, yet this precept of his was dispensable by the Church. In fine, saith hee, you cannot expect, that I should answer all the places you hauehave cited, at once, and on the sudden.
D. Featly.
These instances which you alleage of the practise of the Primitiue Church, are either false, or impertinent; as I will shew, when I am to answer. For dispencing with Christs precept, I say, that no mortall man can dispence with the precept of God. As for the crauing time to answer my former allegations, lIt is now two yeeres and more, since Master Euerard hath had this Scedule in his hand, vntounto which he hath been sundry times importuned to answer, but hath not performed.take what time will, and you answer them one by one.
M. Euerard.
Dispute then syllogistically.
D. Feately.
If Christ command the Laietie to take the Cup, as well as the bread, they that take away the Cup from them, doe ill,
But Christ commanded the Laietie to take the Cup, as well as the Bread:
Therefore they that take away the Cup from them, doe ill.
M. Euerard.
I deny the sequell of the Maior.
D. Featly.
The sequel of the Maior cannot be denied, for they certainely doe ill, that transgresse Christs Commandement. Therefore if Christ command all to receiue the Cup, as well as the Bread, they that take away the Cup, doe ill.
M. Euerard.
Christ commands not all to drinke of the Cup, that eate of the bread.
D. Featly.
I proue he doth by the words of the Institution. Matth. 26. 28. Drinke yee all of this. He saith, not of the bread, Eate all of this, though his meaning was, that all should eate:
But he saith expresly of the Cup, Drinke yee all of this, yet you denie the Laietie the Cup, and giuegive them the Bread.
M. Euerard.
This Commandement, Drinke ye all of this, is giuen to all Priests, and not to the Laietie.
D. Featly.
Christ giues the command of drinking to all those, to whom hee giues the command of eating. For he saith to the same, Drinke, to whom he saith before, Take, and eate:
But hee gaue the commandement of eating to the Laiety, as well as to the Clergy:
Therefore he gaue the Commandement of drinking to the Laiety, as well as to the Clergie.
M. Euerard.
He commandeth not the Laiety to eate. For he speaketh here onelyonly to the Apostles, who were Priests *M. Euerard should hauehave taken notice, that the Apostles were not at this time fully ordained Priests, though they had been once sent to preach. For after his resurrection, Ioh. 20. Christ breathed on them the holy Ghost, and said, Whose soeuer sinnes yee remit, &c. whereby hee fully indued them with Priestly power. Secondly, the Apostles at this Supper were Communicants, not Ministers of the Sacrament. Christ was then the Priest, and Minister onelyonly in that action, and therefore the Apostles supplying the place of meere Communicants, it followeth, that whatsoeuer Christ then commanded them, he commanded all Receiuers after them..
D. Featly.
If Christ commandeth not the Laiety to eate, then the Laietie are not bound to receiue the Communion in bread at all. And consequently they transgresse not Christs Commandement in receiuing the Communion without bread.
M. Euerard.
It is in the power of the Church to take away the Bread, and leaue the Laiety onelyonly the Cup. *If neither precept of eating, or drinking belong to the Laiety, the Laiety are not at all bound to receiue this Sacrament.The Laiety are not bound to receiue the Communion in Bread determinately.
D. Featly.
This neuer any held before you, to my knowledge.
M. Euerard.
It is the common Tenent of *Shamefull vntruth, and notorious ignorance. See the Appendix, num. …. item Chamierum de Euch. lib. 8. cap. … de panis distributione quaestio nulla est, nec dubitatur omnibus esse fidelibus distribuendum, si qui se bene praeparatos offerant.Catholikes.
D. Featly.
Thus I disproue it. The Laiety are bound determinately to receiue in both kinds. For Christ in Ioh. 6. 53. saith, Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his blood, &c. This place is alleaged by most of your side, to proue the reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament: but if it be meant of the Sacrament, it enforceth Communion in both kinds.
M. Euerard.
This place in the Iudgment of Caluin, and Luther, is not of force to proue the Communion in both kinds.
D. Featly.
Luther, and Caluin, hauehave no such words. Although some Protestants, as well as Papists *Waldensis, tom. 2. cap. 91. fol. 162. edit. Salmant. 1557. Prolixe probat ex August. Cypriano, Bernando bibere spiritualitur intelligendum. Caietanusin 3. partem Thom. q. 80. verba Christi Ioh. 6. ad literam intelliguntur ad Manducationem spiritualem.are of opinion, that this place is not meant of the Sacrament. But if it be meant of the Sacrament, it enforceth both kinds; And I am sure no Protestant contradicteth.
M. Euerard.
First, I answer, that these words are meant disiunctiuely thus; Vnlesse yee eate his flesh, and, that is, or drinke his blood, as in Saint Iohn, except a man be borne of Water and the Spirit, that is of Water, or the Spirit.
D. Featly.
And for or, a coniunction for a disiunction, is a forced interpretation. And the place you alleage for it, maketh against you. For if our Sauiours words, (except a man be borne of Water and the Spirit) are taken disiunctiuely, then that Text no way inferreth the necessity of Baptisme of Water, for which it is alleaged by the best diuines, euen of your owne side. If a man may enter into the Kingdome of Heauen, that is, be borne againe either of Water, or of the Spirit, it is sufficient then to be borne againe of Water without the Spirit, or of the Spirit without Water. And consequently, this place so expounded, no way proueth the necessitie of Baptisme of Water; or at least, no more maketh a necessitie of the spirituall, then of the Sacramentall Baptisme.
M. Euerard.
You know well, that wee hold a threefold Baptisme: fluminis, flaminis, & sanguinis: and that a man may enter into the Kingdome of Heauen, that hath any of these Baptismes.
D. Featly.
I know, that the Baptisme of water is not absolutely, and simply necessarie; but it is then onelyonly necessarie, when it may be had▪ the wilfull neglect or contempt of it is damnable: but not the ineuitable defect. Baptisme is necessarie, where it may bee had. But if these words (except a man be borne of Water, and the Spirit) may be meant disiunctiuely, that is, of Water, or the Spirit: this Text so glossed, proueth not the necessitie of Baptisme, when it may be had. For it sufficeth to bee borne of the Spirit without it, by your exposition, which is contrary to the iudgment of the best learned diuines, ancient, and latter. But to come backe againe to the former Text out of the sixth of Saint Iohn.
If you expound these words disiunctiuely (except a man eate the flesh of the Sonne of Man, and, that is, or drinke his blood:) then your Priests are not commanded to communicate in both kinds, but in one onelyonly.
But the Priests are commanded according to your owne Doctrine, to communicate in both kinds:
Therefore these words cannot be taken disiunctiuely.
M. Euerard.
In this Text there is no commandement for Priests, or people to communicate in both kinds, but onelyonly to take the body and blood of Christ into the mouth, and conuey it into the stomacke.
D. Featly.
If eating and drinking be taken here properly, then this Text inferreth communicating in both kinds distinctly, and not onelyonly, as you expound it, taking the body of Christ and his blood, whether by eating onelyonly, or by drinking onelyonly:
But the words of eating and drinking are to bee taken properly:
Therefore this Text inferreth Communion in both kinds, both in Priest and people.
M. Euerard.
The words are not to be taken properly, but figuratiuely.
D. Featly.
All the diuines of the Church of Rome, that alleage this place of Saint Iohn, to proue the reall presence, say, that these words, except yee eate my flesh, and drinke my blood, are to be vnderstood properly. For otherwise they could not inferre from them there reall presence.
M. Euerard.
The acts are meant figuratiuely, the obiect *This answer he contradicteth in his last answer: infra. vid. A.properly in that place aboue mentioned of Saint Iohn.
D. Featly.
*From the proper acception of the obiect onelyonly, and not the act, the corporall and substantiall presence of Christ in the Sacrament cannot be inferred. For spiritually, and figuratiuely a man may feed vponupon Christs body by faith, though his body be not present on earth.The acts are meant properly, to wit, eating, and drinking, which I thus proue.
Christ commands vsus in these words to receiue the Communion, as you confesse. For you say, they are meant of the Sacrament:
But the Communion is receiued by eating, and drinking properly:
Therefore Christ commands eating, and drinking properly:
M. Euerard.
I answer, that though the commandement doe not fall properly vponupon formall eating, or drinking; yet that the act formally commanded, cannot be performed without formall eating and drinking.
Secondly, I distinguish the Maior; Christ commands the substance of the Communion, I grant; I denie that hee commands *See this answer refelled by Vasquez, tom. 3. in 3. partem disp. 116. Nisi manducaueritis, &c. Haec verba non tantum reseruntur ad rem ipsam sumptam, sed & ad modum sumendi cam. nam manducate, & bibite, si verba propriè vsur…entur, cuiuis speciei conuenire non possunt. Neque enim sanguis sub specie panis bibi dicitur, sicut neque corpus sub specie vinimanducari, vt optimè notauit Innocent. 3. lib. 4, de myst. miss…. cap. …1. Christus autem praecepit, vt bibamus, alioquin si praedictam solutionem probare velim, oportet, vt impropriè verba praedictacaptam, & ita nibil in eo cap. de calice sanguinis Christi dictum putemus: quod est absurdum. cum enim, inquit Christus, caro mea est verè cibus, & sanguis mens verè est potus, non possumus nō de sanguine sub specie vini intelligere.properly the manner of receiuing.
D. Featly.
Christ commands the substance of the Communion to be receiued:
But the substance of the Communion cannot be receiued, without eating or drinking properly;
Therefore hee commands the act of eating, or drinking properly.
M. Euerard.
If properly in the Conclusion bee applied to command, then the Syllogisme is naught; if it be applied to the act of eating, or drinking; then the conclusion is true, and makes nothing against vsus.
D. Featly.
This answer, contrary to the rules of disputation, is giuen to the conclusion, and the distinction appplied to no tearme of the premisses, which should hauehave been done.
Secondly, You grant, that which before you Supra vid. A-denied, and so contradict your selfe. When I prest, that those words: vnlesse you eate the flesh of Christ, and drinke his blood, doe proue, that the people are commanded to drinke, (as drinking is taken properly, and distinguished from eating;) you answered, that the word, drinking, was taken figuratiuelie, and not properlie, as likewise eating; But now you grant, that eating, or drinking is here to be taken properly. For you grant, that Christ in these words commands the act of eating, or drinking properly.
M. Euerard.
I answer; the grant you charge me withall, was no other but this, that the formall act of eating was commanded, but not formally; and so in that I doe not contradict my selfe.
D. Featly.
Whether you contradict your selfe, or no, I leaue it to the hearers. You before denied, that in the Text of Saint Iohn, the words, eating and drinking were taken properly; but now you grant, that Christ in these words commands eating or drinking properly, at least, consequently, though not formally. In summe, I desire, that it be noted, that whereas you promised, and it was so agreed vponupon, that the Texts of Scripture should be interpreted by the consent of the Fathers, and practise of the Primitiue Church, that you interpret them according to neither, but your owne priuate fancy. Secondly, note, that in your answer to the first Text which I alleaged against you, you contradict you owne side; in the answer to the second, you apparently contradict your selfe. Which I thus make euident. Before you said, that the words, eating and drinking were not taken properly, but figuratiuely: now you acknowledge, that they are taken properly, or must so acknowledge. For
Where proper eating, and formall is commanded, the words commanding must needs be taken properly:
But in these words (Except you eate) formall, and proper eating, and not figuratiue, is commanded, as you grant:
Therefore these words (except you eate) are to be taken properly, and not figuratiuely; and consequently the former answer was false, and you now contradict your selfe.
Thirdly, out of your owne answer I inferre; that all Christian people, that liue by Christ, are bound to communicate in both kinds.
The formall acts of eating and drinking in the Sacrament (as you grant) are here inioyned to all men:
But the formall acts of eating and drinking in the Sacrament, are communicating in both kinds:
Therefore the communicating in both kinds is enioyned to all men.
Lastly, whatsoeuer is commanded in formall and expresse words, is commanded formally:
But all men that hauehave life in Christ, are commanded in formall and expresse words, to eate and to drinke in the Sacrament:
Therefore they are commanded to eate and to drinke formally. And consequently your former answer hath the formality of an answer, but no truth and realty at all.
M. Euerard, opponent. D. Featly, respondent.
M. Euerard.
In the places alleaged by you, D. Featly, in Saint Matthew, and Saint Iohn;
If any besides Priests are bound, then all are bound:
But all are not:
Ergo, none are besides Priests.
D. Featly.
I distinguish of All: All may be taken either for All simply, or All that are fit, and qualified both by naturall and spirituall qualification: that is, such as are able to examine themselues, and repent, and beleeue, and can take it in both kinds.
M. Euerard.
If any bee bound to receiue both besides Priests, all that are qualified to receiue one, are bound to receiue both:
But all that are qualified to receiue one, are not bound to receiue both:
Ergo, none are bound to receiue both, but Priests.
D. Featly.
I deny the Consequence.
M. Euerard.
All are bound to fulfill the Commandement:
Ergo, all are bound to receiue in both kinds, as well as in one.
D. Featly.
First, you proue not the Consequence.
Secondly, I answer to your Antecedent. In the sense of the Commandement all are bound, if qualified for both, not otherwise.
M. Euerard.
No man may lawfully receiue the Communion, vnlesse he fulfils the Commandement:
No man fulfils the Commandement, according to you, vnlesse he receiue both:
Therefore no man lawfully receiues the Communion according to you, vnlesse hee receiue both.
D. Featly.
This is for forme, no Syllogisme. For it consists all of Negatiues, and is in no Moode and Figure. For the matter, I answer, by denying the Minor, and distinguishing thus: If by no man you vnderstand simply no man at all, qualified, or vnqualified, I deny it; If no man qualified, then I grant it. But it is not to the purpose.
M. Euerard.
He that is vnqualified for both, must not receiue but one. I proue it.
No man can receiue it, vnlesse he fulfils the Institution of Christ:
But the Institution is of both:
Ergo.
D. Featly.
Progrederis in gyro, you hunt counter? Thrice hauehave you vrged the same obiection. I distinguish of the Minour. Christ instituted the Sacrament to be receiued in both kinds of all qualified for both.
M. Euerard.
No man may receiue the Sacrament, vnlesse he fulfill the Commandement in receiuing it; that is, fulfill all that is substantially required in the Sacrament, considered in it selfe, and not in order to the Communicants:
But no man whatsoeuer, that receiues but in one kind, fulfils the Commandement in receiuing it, id est, fulfils all that is substantially required in the Sacrament, considered in it selfe, and not in order to the Communicants.
Ergo, no man, &c.
D. Featly.
This againe is no Syllogisme. For it consisteth all of Negatiues.
M. Euerard.
The whole substance of the Sacrament is both bread and wine.
They that receiue onelyonly bread, doe not receiue bread and wine:
Ergo, they doe not receiue the whole substance of the Sacrament.
D. Featly.
The substance of the Sacrament is taken either for the whole substance of the signe, or outward elements, or for the whole substance of the thing signified, viz. the body and blood of Christ. Hee that receiueth in one kind, to wit, bread being not qualified to receiue it in the other, receiueth the whole substance of the Sacrament, as it is taken for the thing signified.
Secondly, he receiueth not the whole substance of the outward elements simply, yet he receiueth the whole substance of the elements, required to bee receiued of him. For Christ commands not impossibilities in the Sacrament. He therefore that cannot drinke any wine, is not commanded to receiue the Sacrament in wine. Withall, I desire those that are present, to obserue, that all this while you strongly dispute against your selfe. For if all sorts, euen Abstemij, such as hauehave an antipathy to wine, and can by no meanes brooke it, are bound to communicate in wine, as you would inferre, then certainely much more all other Christians, be they Lay, or Clergy, are bound to communicate in wine *Indeed some Doctors of the Reformed Churches hauehave conceiued, that such as cannot receiue not so much as a drop of wine, by their antipathy to wine, or other naturall infirmities, should altogether abstaine from the orall receiuing of this Sacrament, because they cannot receiue it in both kinds, according to Christs institution. So Iacob Rhenig. Arancoroper. cap. 22. pag. 212. But others incl…ne rather vntounto a more moderate tenet, that in this case, which falleth out very seldome, either such Abstemij, Clinici, or infi…me, and bed-…ead persons may receiue the Sacrament in some other liquor, which their stomacke may brooke, or that it is sufficient for them, to receiue it in bread actually, and in wine onelyonly voto, or in desire; and in this case, that the saying alleaged by our Sauiour may take place, misericordiam volo non sacrificium. Of which iudgement D. Andro. Episcopus Winton. Respons. ad apol. Bell. cap. 8. pag. 192. seemeth to be: applying the words also of our Sauiour to this purpose: The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So may we say, the Sacrament was made for man, not man for the Sacrament. Verum casus ille in legem trahendus non est, sed cessante ferrea necessitate de reliquo redeundum mox ad Christi institutum. Decumbit quidem hoc argumentum, & ver è clinicū est. i. e. But of this case we are not to make a generall law, but where we are not kept backe by the Iron barre of necessity, we must presently returne to Christs institution. This argument drawne from bed-read men, lyeth bed read. In like manner may we say of your argument taken from Abstemij, that you might very well hauehave abstained from it, seeing there is no more strength in it, then in their stomakes..
Here the Conference was interrupted for a time, supper being brought in; about the middle whereof Doctor Featly asked Master Euerard, whether hee beleeued, that the Priests dranke properly whatsoeuer was in the consecrated Chalice.
M. Euerard.
We doe so.
D. Featly.
But according to the Doctrine of concomitancie, the flesh and bones of Christ are in the consecrated Chalice:
Therefore according to the doctrine of concomitancy, you drinke, and that properly, the flesh and bones of Christ.
M. Euerard.
What if I grant you that also?
D. Featly.
Then you do more then Christ commands: For Christ commands you to eate his flesh, and drinke his blood; and he no where commands you to drinke his flesh and bones. Who euer heard of flesh and bones to be drunke, and that properly, without any figure?
M. Euerard.
In Mummie the flesh of man may be drunke.
D. Featly.
Peraduenture the flesh of man may bee so handled, and altered, and the bones also grounded to so small a powder, that in some Liquor they may be drunke: but the flesh of man and bones, without an alteration of qualitie, or quantitie, cannot be drunke. And I hope you will not say, that the flesh and bones of Christ in the Sacrament receiue any alteration at all.
At these words, Doctor Featly and Master Euerard were intreated to desist from any further dispute, till after supper. And so this point was not further pursued.
After supper, Doctor Featly calling for Saint Cyprian, besides the places aboue alleaged for Communion in both kinds, shewed Master Euerard the speach of Saint Cyprian in the Councell of Carthage. Wherein he expresly denieth the Bishop of Romes Supremacy; The words are these; Super est, vt de hac ipsa re quid singuli These words of S. Cyprian are rehearsed, and commenmended by S. August. de baptismo cont. Donatistas lib. 2. cap. 3. and commented vponupon, lib. 3. de baptis. contr. Donatist. cap. 3. & l. 4. cont. Donat. c. 8.sentiamus, proferamus; neminem iudicantes, aut à iure communionis aliquem, si diuersum senserit, remouentes. neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporū constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit. Quando habeat omnis episcopus, pro licentia libertatis & potestatis sua, arbitriū propriū tanquā iudicari ab alio non possit, cum nec ipse possit alterū iudicare. Sed expectemus vniuersi iudicium Domini nostri Iesu Christi, qui vnus & solus habet potestatē & praeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernatione, & de hoc actu nostro iudicandi. i. e. It remaineth, that eueryevery one of vsus deliuer his opinion of this matter, iudging no man, or remouing him from Communion with vsus, if he differ frō vsus in iudgment. For none of vsus makes himselfe a Bishop of Bishops, nor compells by tyrannicall terror his Colleagues to a necessitie of following him; seeing that eueryevery Bishop within his liberty and iurisdiction, hath free power of himselfe; and as he can iudge no other, so neither can he be iudged by any other. But let vsus all waite for the iudgment of our Lord Iesus Christ, who onelyonly, and *Unus & solus.alone, hath power to preferre vsus in the gouernment of his Church, and to iudge of this act of ours.
M. Euerard.
Saint Cyprian speakes this in a Councell that is condemned by the Church for defining an error, to wit, that those, that were baptized by heretikes, ought to be rebaptized.
Secondly, Saint Cyprian in these words; Christ one, and alone, excludeth not his Vicar generall, the Bishop of Rome.
D. Featly.
Your first exception is not to the purpose. For albeit the sentence of this Councell be not approued touching the rebaptization of those, who had been baptized by heretikes: yet this speech of Saint Cyprian vttered by him, at the first meeting of the Bishop of Carthage, sitting in Councell, was neuer disliked by any of the ancients. Neither S. gNay, on the contrary, S. Aust. often remembreth it, approuing it and commenting vponupon it. See note Marg. supra.Augustine, nor any other Father, who impugned the sentence of this Councell, did any way impeach, or dislike, much lesse refute this sentence of Saint Cyprian, wherein he denieth all manner of submission to Stephen then Bishop of Rome. Nay, by a Sarcasme he glance that him, and checketh him for making himselfe a Bishop of Bishops, and goeing about to compel other Bishops to subscribe to his iudgement.
Your second answer is controwled by the direct words of Saint Cyprian. If any besides Christ, to wit, his supposed Vicar the Bishop of Rome, hauehave powre to place Bishops in the Church, and censure their Synodical Acts; then it is false which Saint Cyprian heere saith, that Christus vnus, & solus, that Christ alone hath this power. The Pope with Christ is not, Christus vnus, much lesse; Christus solus. But Saint Cyprian saith, Christus vnus & solus; one and onelyonly Christ hath this power: therefore not the Pope.
Lady Faulkland.
If Christ alone hauehave power to preferre Bishops in the gouernment of the Church, and to censure their acts made in their Councells, how can you then maintaine the Kings Supremacy? doth not the King place, and displace Bishops?
D. Featly.
In Saint Cyprians time there were no Christian Kings, or Emperors; and therefore this exception could not bee taken against the blessed Martyrs words.
Secondly, That which Saint Cyprian here reproueth in Pope Stephen, no Christian King, or Emperor assumed to himselfe, to be a Bishop of all Bishops, and to censure the acts of Bishops, and their determinations deliuered in point of Faith, in Councels lawfully assembled.
Thirdly, Christian Kings within there owne Dominions grant Conge de-lires, to Deanes, and Chapters, and confirme their Elections, and giuegive Mandates to Metrapolitans to consecrate: but they take not vponupon them to bee Bishops of all Bishops through the world, as the Bishop of Rome doth: nor as Bishops or Archbishops to consecrate any Bishops, but vponupon persons ordained, and to bee consecrated by order of the Church, they conferre and collate such Bishopricks, as lye within there owne dominion.
M. Euerard.
Before I answer you any further, I require you to answer a place of Cyprian touching the mingling of water with the wine in the Sacrament; Mingling the Cup of Christ, let vsus not depart Calicem Dei miscentes à diuino magisterio non recedamus. Si vinum tantum quis offerat, sanguis Christi incipit esse sine nobis, si aqua sola, pl…bs incipit esse sine Christo. quando autem vtrunque miscetur, tunc sacramentum spirituale, & coeleste perficitur.from the diuine Mandate. If any man offer wine onelyonly, Christs blood begins to be without vsus; if water be alone, the people begin to be without Christ. When both are mingled, then the spirituall and heauenly Sacrament is perfect.
D. Featly.
It doth not appeare by scripture, that Christ, or his Apostles mingled water with wine, onelyonly because it was the manner of those hot Countries to temper their wine with water, many of the ancients, and amongst them Saint Cyprian conceiued, that Christ at his last Supper did so. Which if he did, yet seing he commandeth vsus not to follow his example any further, then to doe that which hee did, that is to take bread, and breake it, to take the Cup, and distribute it; we transgresse not Christs Institution, whether we communicate in leauen or vnleauened bread, whether in pure wine, or in wine mingled with water. The commandement lyes vponupon the substance, to eate of the bread, and drinke of the Cup, and therein of the fruit of the vine: but not on the circumstances, which are left free, and indifferent.
Secondly, Saint Cyprian in this epistle, mainly bendeth this discourse against the Aquarij, certaine heretikes, who contended, that the Sacrament ought to be receiued in water onelyonly. Against these he proues most strongly, that we ought to receiue in wine. This is his maine drift, and thus farre we hold with him. On the by, he speaketh of mingling wine with water, which was the vse in his time: and we dislike it not, only wee hold, the Church is free in this kind to receiue it in pure wine, as it is the maner of some Protestant Churches, or in wine mingled with water, as it may bee in some other. But Master Euerard, if you had read this epistle, vponupon which you so much insist, you might hauehave found, that though Saint Cyprian by the way fauoureth your practise of mingling wine with water, yet he condemneth your Church by the maine scope & drift of the epistle, in the very point now in question. For hee saith, that Christ taught, that the Cup ought to be sanctified, and ministred vntounto the people, which you doe not, *Cur quidam in calice sanctificando, & plebi ministrando non hoc faciunt, quod Iesus Christus Deus noster sacrificij huius author, & Doctor, fecit, & docuit.In sanctifying the Lords Cup, and ministring it to the people, why do some through ignorance, or simplicitie not that which Iesus Christ our Lord and God, the author and teacher of this Sacrifice both did, and taught?
By this time it grew very late, and so the Conference brake vp.
This is a true Relation of the some of the Conference, so farre as I can remember. Most of the answers of Master Euerard are taken verbatim out of the notes, set downe by consent in the Conference, which I hauehave to shew. The arguments I perfectly remember were these aboue written. If Master Euerard thinke good to adde any thing to his arguments, or answer, I freely giuegive him leaue, and desire him so to do, that we may hauehave a perfect copie.