A Case for the Spectacles, Chapter 9 · Section 5
Concerning the Communion in both kindes. Spectacles, chap. 9. Section 5. a pag. 242. us{que} ad 259.
THe Knight in alledging the Councell of Constance touching Communion, in one kind translateth the Latine falsly and absurdly. I confesse that under one kind only all and whole Christ, and the true Sacraments are received, as if the Councell had said, omnis & totus Christus, whereas the words are, totus at{que} integer Christus, that is, whole and entire Christ.
In bringing this Decree, hee hath brought a staffe to beate himselfe withall, for the non obstante which hee would joyne with Christs Institution in both kindes, as if the Councell forbid it in both kindes, notwithstanding Christ did so institute it, is not so joyned in the Councell, but otherwise thus; Though Christ did Institute this venerable Sacrament after supper, and administred it in both kinds, yet notwithstanding this, the approved custome of the Church hath observed, and doth observe, that this Sacrament is not to bee Consecrated after Supper, nor to bee received by the faithfull but fasting; whieh Decree I suppose the Knight will not condemne.
This was no new thing begun by that Councell, but it being growne to bee a generall practise to communicate in one kind, which also from the beginning was somewhat practised, and certaine heretiques arising, and condemning the practise and beliefe of the whole Church; this Councell condemned them, and commanded the former custome to bee still retained.
Though Christ did institute the Sacrament in both kindes, yet it is lawfull to receive in one: neither doth the Councell decree any thing against Christs Precept by establishing the Communion in one kind, for Christ may institute a thing without commanding it. For example, hee did institute Mariage, yet commanded not every man to marry.
The Councell of Trent doth not any way contradict Christs institution or practise as the Knight would have it: but inferreth only thus much, though Christ did institute and deliver the blessed Sacrament to his Apostles in both kindes in the last Supper, yet is Christ contained whole and entire in one kind, and a true Sacrament received, wherein saith hee, I would faine see, what opposition the subtiltie of the Knights wit can find? what reason can hee give? why it may not stand with Christ his institution in both kinds, that he be whole under one, and if whole, why not also a true Sacrament?
The words, Drinke yee all of this, and doe this in remembrance of mee were spoken and appertaine only to the Apostles, and in them to Priests, as appeareth more plainly by S. Mark, who sheweth all which our Srviour meant of when hee said, Drinke yee all of this, for saith S. Marke, and they did drinke all.
Though Christ at his last Supper did institute a Sacrament in both kindes, and so gave it to his Apostles: yet Christ might at some other time after his resurrection communicate some of his Disciples in one kind; and some Fathers thinke hee did his two Disciples at Emmaus.
The Knight needeth not to produce ten or eleven Authours to prove it to have beene the practise of the primitive Church, to communicate in both kinds: for that would have beene granted him without all that labour: but hee should have proved that the practise was grounded upon some divine precept indispensable, or else it followeth not, but that it is in the power of the Church to alter the practise in the use, and administration of the Sacrament.
Bellarmine bringeth six severall Rites or practises of the ancient Church which Protestants cannot deny, evidently convincing the frequent use of one kind.
The Nazarites among the first Christians in Ierusalem did communicate in one kind, for they were forbid to drinke wine, or even eate a grape or reisin.
The Knight in alledging Tapperus against the Communion in one kind, leaveth out the principall verbe, and one halfe of the sentence answering the former, which of it selfe was imperfect, which was the Authours absolute judgement and determination for the whole sentence of Tapper, art. 16. is this, it were more convenient if wee regard the Sacrament, and the perfection thereof to have the Communion under both kindes, then under one: for this were more agreeable to the Institution thereof, and to the integritie of a corporall refection, and the example of Christ; but in another consideration, to wit, of the reverence which is due to the Sacrament, and to the end wee may avoide all irreverence, it is lesse convenient, and no way expedient for the Church, that the Christian people should communicate in both kindes.
In the lawes of King Edward the sixt revived and confirmed by Queene Elizabeth, it is ordained that the Communion bee delivered to the people under both kindes with this exception, unlesse necessitie otherwise require.
That it is not requisite that every article of faith have sufficient and expresse proofe of Scripture,Dial. 2. cont. Lucifer. etiamsi sacrae scripturae authoritas non subesset, totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepei obtinerct. for as S. Ierome teacheth, although the authoritie of holy Scripture were wanting, the consent of the whole world on this side should have the force of a Precept.
The Hammer.
IN this Section the Iesuit beginneth merrily with a fiddle, but endeth sadly, and every where answereth sorily. For to omit his omission of some things that pincht him shrewdly, as namely, first that the Councell of Constance by reason the first Sessions judged the Councell above the Pope, is condemned, and rejected by the Councell of Florence and last Councell of Lateran; but for the last Sessions wherein the halfe Communion is established contrarie to Christs precept, and holy institution, it is allowed by Pope Martine the fift, and rectived of all Catholiques; whereby it appeares that Papists are more tender of the Popes supremacie, then Christs honour; Secondly,De Euchars l. 4. c. 7. that Bellarmine saith, that it is not to be doubted; but that is best and sittest to bee practised that Christ hath done. Now it is evident out of Scriptures, and confessed by the Fathers in the Councell of Constance and Trent, that Christ instituted and administred the Sacrament in both kindes: Lastly, that the Papists in this point apparantly contradict themselves, for they require antiquity, universality, and consent, as the proper markes of Catholique doctrine, and yet confesse that in this the practise of their Church is contrarie eo the practise of the Primitive Church, nor was it ever received in the true Church, till above a thousand yeares after Christ. Dichotomived.To let passe these his preteritions, all that hee saith in replie to other passages of the Knights may be dicotomized into idle cavils, and sophisticall evasions, as shall appeare by the examination of each particular,
To the first. The Iesuit as it should seeme tooke Ennius the Poet for his patterne, who as Horace observeth, Nunquam nisi potus ad arma prosiluit, &c. never undertooke the description of a warre, or set himselfe to write strong lines before hee had comforted his heart with a cup of strong liquour. For if the French wine had not assaulted his Capitoll, as the Frenchmen did sometimes the Roman: if a strong fume had not made his head so dizzie, that he thought all things before him went round, hee would never in so serious a subject as is the Sacrament of Christs blood use such light and comicall saracasmes as he doth; against this saith he, hee bringeth two places of Scripture, P. 243.and the practise of the Primitive Church, and so concludeth the antiquitie and universalitie of his Church, this goeth round with a fiddle Sir Humfrey: if hee had a purpose to make sport to his reader in the merrie pin hee was set on, hee should rather have said your Creed Sir Humfrey goeth round with a crowd. But crowde or fiddle whether hee please to tearme the learned discourse of the Knight, I hope it will prove like Davids Harpe, and conjure the evill spirit out of the Iesuit. To fall upon the particulars in order, whereas in the first place hee chargeth the Knight with false and absurd translation of the Decree of the Councell, rendering totus Christus, all Christ, not whole Christ, and would make us beleeve that all can in no sense bee attributed to Christ; hee forgot that text of the Apostle that Christ is all in all. Surely it should seeme this Iesuit is descended from Pope Adrian, who was choaked with a fly, for what a silly fly choaketh him here? The Knight to avoid a tautologie in translating totus & integer Christus, whole and whole Christ, rendereth the word all and whole Christ, and what falsitie or absurditie is there in this? doth not every punie know that omnis in Latine, and all in English is often taken collectivè, as when wee say Lazarus was covered all over with sores, doe not the Papists themselves sometimes so render the word totus, as namely in those places, I have stretched my armes all the day long to a rebellious people? and all the day long have I beene punished, and all Scripture is given by divine inspiration, and is profitable for doctrine for reproofe, for correction, for instruction in righteousnesse that the man of God may bee perfect, throughly furnished to all good workes: In which passages it is most evident that all is taken for whole, and so the best interpreters render foreign, tota scriptura, that is the whole Scripture.
To the second. The Knight in bringing the Decree of the Councell of Constance, hath not brought in a staffe to beate himselfe withall, but to beate all such Romish curres as barke at the light of the Sunne, I meane the cleare words of Christs institution,Sess. 13. Drinke you all of this. Yet saith that Councell to the Laitie, none of you drinke of this. If Christ had said in like manner, receive you the Communion after supper, we would never receive it fasting. It is true that he instituted it the night he was betrayed after supper, which circumstance yet bindeth us not now to receive it at that time: but the argument no wayes followes from the change of a circumstance to the change of a substantiall act: the Church may dispence with the one, not with the other. Wee argue not barely from the practise of Christ and his Apostles, but from their doctrine and practise. What Christ did and taught, as S. Cyprian soundly collects, must bee perpetually observed in the Church: but he taught and practised the Communion in both kindes, fecit & docuit, hee both did so, and taught us so to doe; but for the circumstances of time, number of Communicants, & gesture sitting or leaning, though at that time he used such circumstances: yet he cōmanded not us to use them, and therefore wee may administer the Sacrament at another time, to a greater or lesser number then twelve, we may receive it also with another gesture then Christ or his Apostles used, because he no where tieth us to those circumstances, but wee may in no wise administer or receive it in one kind, because he commandeth us to communicate in both, saying, drinke ye all of this; and what though the Councell joyne not the word notwithstanding to Christs institution in both kindes, but to his administring after supper: yet this no way excuseth the Fathers in it from confronting Christ, and abrogating his commandement by their wicked Decree: for notwithstanding Christs command, drinke you all of this; that Councell by a countermaund forbiddeth any Priest under a great penaltie to exhort the people to communicate in both kindes, or to teach that they ought so to doe.
To the third. If the Iesuits forehead had not beene made of the same metall which hee worshipeth in his images, hee would have blushed to utter so notorious an untruth contrary to the Records of all ages, and the confession of all the learned of his owne side. Never any before this Iesuit durst to say, that the halfe Communion was the beliefe, and practise of the whole Church before the Councell of Constance, for besides Salmeron, Arboreus, Aquinas, Tapperus, Alfonsus a Castro: the Councell of Constance, Bellarmine and Cassander alledged by the Knight, See grand Sacrilcg. Sect. 17:I could adde Estius the Sorbonist, Ecchius the great adversarie of Luther, Suarez their accomplished Iesuit, Soto their acutest Schoole-man, and Gregorie de Valentia, who of all other hath most mok laboured in this argument, all not only affirming, but some of them also confirming that the Communion in both kindes was anciently, and universally administred to the people. It is well knowne that the Easterne Churches in Greece and Asia, and Southern in Africa, and Northerne in Muscovia have ever, and at this day doe administer the Communion to the Laitie in both kindes: and in the Westerne and Roman Church it selfe for a thousand yeares after Christ and more, the Sacrament was delivered in both kindes to all the members of Christs Church, which is manifest saith Cassander, Cassand. consult. art. 22.by innumerable testimonies of ancient Writers, both Greeke and Latine. And when the new custome of communicating in one kinde began a little before the Councell of Constance, Soto artic. 12. q. 1. in dist. 12. non modo inter haeretieos verùm inter Catholicos ritus ille multo tempore invalnit.it was impugned not by heretiques, as Flood would beare us in hand, but by good Catholiques, as Soto a man farre before Flood ingenuously confesseth.
To the fourth. Albeit I grant there is some difference betweene an institution, or constitution, or command: yet our argument drawne from Christs institution in both kindes is of force against the Romish halfe Communion. For a command is, as the genus, and an Institution is as the species, every command is not an institution: but every institution is a command; for what is an institution, but a speciall order or appointment in matter of Ceremonie or Sacrament? was not the institution of Circumcision an expresse command to circumcise every male child? was not the institution of the Passeover a command for every familie to kill a Lambe, and eate it with sowre herbes? Was not the institution of Baptisme a command to Baptise all Nations in the name of the Father, Sonne and holy Ghost? Was not the institution of the Lotds Supper by words imperative, Take, eate, doe this in remembrance of mee, and drinke yee all of this? Yea but the Iesuit instanceth in Mariage, which we acknowledge to be instituted by God, yet not commanded. I answer, all sacred Rites (and namely the ordination of Mariage) are injunctions and commands to the Church, or mankind in generall, though they bind not every particular person, but such onelyonly as are qualified for them;Gen. 2.24. if crescite & multiplicamini, bee rather a benediction upon Mariage, then a command to marrie, yet certainly those words used in the Institution of Mariage, therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall bee one flesh, containe da direct command not to every man simply I grant, but to every one that hath not the gift of continencie. To avoide fornication, saith the Apostle,1 Cor. 7.2. let every man have his owne wife, and let every woman have her owne husband. And againe, if they cannot containe let them marry, V. 9.for it is better to marry then to burne.
To the fift. There needs no subtiltie of wit to find out the opposition betweene the Decree of the Trent Councell and Christs institution; the dullest wit cannot but stumble upon it. For if whole Christ be received in either kind, why did Christ who doth nothing superfluously, institute the Sacrament in both kindes? If the Sacrament can no otherwise exhibit Christ unto us then by vertue of his Institution, how can wee be assured that whole Christ is communicated unto us, when we violate his institution administring the holy Communion but by halfes? the Sacrament exhibiteth nothing but what it signifieth, but the bread signifieth Christs body not his blood: the wine signifieth his blood, not his bodie; therefore accordingly the one exhibiteth only his body, the other his bloud. Againe, if Christ bee whole in either kinde, then a man might receive whole Christ in drinking of the cup only, though he eate not at all of the bread, and consequently a man may without sinne at the Lords board drinke only of the Consecrated cup, and not eate of the bread which yet no Papist to my knowledge ever durst affirme.
To the sixt. This evasion of the Iesuit is exploded by Philip Morney, De Euch. l. 1. c. 10.& Chamierus tom. 4. resp. Bellar. & in D.F. his conference with Everard p. 256. and divers others. This may suffice for the present, for the overthrow of this generall answer of all Papists to the words of the institution, Drinke you all of this, viz. (that by all in S. Mathew and S. Marke, Priests only are to be understood.) First I note at this time the Apostles were not fully ordained Priests. For as yet Christ had not breathed on them, nor given them the power of remission of sinnes: next admit they were Priests, yet in the institution of this Sacrament they were non conficients, supplying the place of meere communicants, and therefore consequently whatsoever Christ commanded them, hee commanded all receivers after them. Thirdly, Christ commanded the same to drinke, to whom before hee said, Take, eate, this is my body; but the former words, take, eate, are spoken to the Laye-people as well as Priests, therefore the words drinke you all of this, are spoken to them also,Math. 9.6. those things which God hath joyned together let no man put asunder. Fourthly, I would faine know of our Adversaries when Christ saith, This is the cup of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes, who are those many? will they say Priests only? have the Laytie no sinnes, or no remission of sinnes by Christ bloud? if they have, as all professe they have, why do they forbid them that which Christ expresly commandeth them, saying, Drinke ye all of this, for it is shed for you and for many. All worthy communicants are to drinke Christs bloud for whom it was shed, thus much Christs reason importeth; but it was shed for the Laytie as well as the Clergie, they therefore are alike to drinke it. If the Laytie expect life from Christ, they must drinke his bloud as well as eate his flesh,Iohn 6.53. for except a man eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, hee hath no life in him. Lastly,1 Cor. 11.28 when the Apostle enjoyneth all to examine themselves before they receive the holy Communion, I desire to bee informed by our Adversaries, whether this Precept of examination concerneth not the Laytie especially? I know they will say it doth, because the people most need examination, that they may confesse their sinnes, and receive absolution for them before they presume to communicate: let them then reade what followeth in the same verse, and so let them eate of that bread, and drinke of that Cup, let a man examine himselfe, and so let him eate of that Bread, and drinke of that Cup: the coherence of the members in this sentence inferreth, that as none are to be admitted without precedent examination: so that all who have examined themselves are to be admitted to the Lords table, both to eate of that Bread, and drinke of that Cup.
To the seventh. There is no force at all in the inference which the Iesuit would make from Christ his breaking of bread with the two Disciples at Emmaus, to prove the Communion in one kind, for neither is it likely Christ instituted any supper after his last Supper, neither was the place fit for a Communion being a common Inne: neither reade wee of any preparation on the Apostles part, nor of any words of institution used then by Christ: neither could the Iesuit alledge any one Father, who saith that Christ at that time administred the Communion to those two Disciples in bread only. For it is well knowne to all that are acquainted with the language of Canaan, that breaking of bread in Scripture by a Synecdoche is taken for making a meale, and it is very unlikely that the disciples travelling at that time of the yeare in so hot a countrey as Iudaea is, when they came to their Inne for a repast, should call for bread only and no drinke.
To the eighth. Though the Iesuit make many a bravado here, and else-where: yet upon the matter in granting to the Knight that the generall practise of the primitive Church was to communicate in both kindes, he yeeldeth up the bucklers. For the maine scope of the Knight in this and other Sections is to prove the visibilitie of our reformed Church in former ages by the confession of our Romish adversaries: this hee doth in the point of the Communion in both kindes abundantly in this Section, and the Iesuit cannot denie it; it followeth therefore that in this maine point of controversie betweene us and the Church of Rome, wee have antiquitie, universalitie, and eminent visibilitie, and the Roman Church none of all: whereby any understanding reader may see that the Knight hath already wonne the day; Yet for the greater confusion of the Iesuit I adde that what the primitive Church did uniformly, they received it from the Apostles, and what the Apostles did joyntly, no doubt they did by the direction of the holy Ghost, according to our Lords will: and so their example amounteth to a Precept. Againe, the practise of the Catholique Church is the best expositour of Scripture, therefore the question being concerning the meaning of that text of Scripture, Drinke you all of this, whether they concerne the Laytie, or Clergie only, that must bee taken for the true exposition which the Catholique Church by a constant and vniforme practise hath allowed. Lastly, either this practise of the Catholique Church was grounded upon some divine Precept, or it is a meere will-worship which the Iesuit dare not say: if it be grounded upon any divine precept undoubtedly upon this, Drinke yee all of this, that is, as well Ministers as Laye people, as Paschasius commenteth upon the words.
To the ninth. The arguments of Bellarmine drawne from six ancient Rites to prove the frequent use of Communion in one kind are answered at large by Philip Morney, and Chamierus, in the places above mentioned, and they are every one of them retorted against Bellarmine himselfe by D.F. in his booke intituled the Grand sacriledge, cap. 14. accipe quomodo das si tibi machera est, & nobis vervina est, if it be sufficient for him to object by proxe, why may not we answer by proxe?
To the tenth. To the instance in the Nazarites, I answer first, that I read of no other Nazarites since Christs time in the writings of the ancient Fathers, then certaine Heretiques so tearmed of the sect of Ebionites, who went about to cloath the Gospell with the beggarly rudiments of the Law, upon whom S. Austine passeth this verdict,L. De haeres. ad quod vult Deum dum volunt Iudaei esse & Christiani nec Iudaei sunt, nec Christiani. that whilest they laboured to bee both Iewes and Christians, they became neither Iewes nor Christians, but a sect of heretiques, partly judaizing, partly Christianizing. Secondly, if there were any Nazarites that sincerely imbraced the Gospell, questionlesse they communicated in both kindes: for though they had vowed against drinking of wine, yet either their Vow was to be understood of drinking it civilly not sacramentally: for their corporall refection, not for their spirituall repast: or if their vow were absolutely against wine, yet Christs command, Drinke yee all of this, implied a dispensation for their Vow in that case. A private vow of any man must give place to a publike command of God: even now adayes those who upon any great distemper of body or mind by wine, vow to abstaine from it, yet make no scruple of conscience to take a small quantitie of it physically for the recoverie of their health: how much more ought they to doe so notwithstanding their vow, if it bee prescribed by the heavenly physician for the cure and salvation of their soules?
To the eleventh. Concerning Tapperus the Knight no way misquoteth him though hee leave out some passages in him; for the truth is Tapperus halteth betweene two opinions, he speaketh some words plainly in the language of Canaan, and others hee lispeth in the language of Ashdod, where he speaketh in the language of Canaan, as hee doth most plainly in those his words (if wee regard the Sacrament and perfection thereof, and the integritie of corporall refection, and the example of Christ, it were more convenient to have the Communion under both kindes) the Knight hearkeneth to him: but where hee lispeth in the language of Ashdod, saying, (that in consideration of the reverence due to this Sacrament it is ill and inconvenient to communicate in both kindes) the Knight had reason to turne a deafe eare to him, for it is cosin germane to blasphemie to say that is ill and inconvenient, which Christ and his Apostles, and the whole Church in all places for more then a thousand yeares practised: the Knight might well say to Tapperus in the words of him in the Poet, foreign, I will be sober with you, but I will not runne madde with you.
To the twelfth. For the statute made in the dayes of that Phoenix of his age, King Edward the sixt, the meaning is, unlesse among the people there bee some that either by a naturall antipathie to wine or other infirmitie, cannot receive the Sacraments in both kindes, it is ordained that it be delivered to every one in both kindes, cessante ferreâ necessitate obtinet haec aurea regula, that all receive the whole Sacrament in which the Statute, and the articles of Religion, published first in the reigne of this blessed Prince, fully accord; For so wee reade Article the thirtieth, both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs ordinance and command ought to bee ministred to all Christian people alike.
To the thirteenth. That every article of faith ought to have sufficient proofe out of Scripture is proved by innumerable testimonies of antiquitie produced by Philip Morney in his Preface to his booke De Eucharistia, Bilson of Supremacie part the fourth Abbot against Bishop, chapter the seventh; and Laurentius de disp. Theolog: Neither doth S. Ierome any way contradict them or us, for wee beleeve that the consent of the whole Christian Church is an infallible argument of truth. Albeit wee teach that any particular Church, as namely the Roman or the French, or the Dutch or the Greeke Church may erre: yet we denie that the catholique Church universally hath ever erred, or can erre in matter of faith necessarie to salvation: and further I adde for conclusion, that as the words of S. Ierome alledged by the Iesuit make nothing against us, so if they bee applied to our present subject they make most strongly against him, being propounded after this manner. Although the authoritie of holy Scripture were wanting for the Communion in both kindes, (which is not so) yet the consent of the whole world, on this side testified by their uniforme practise confessed by Papists themselves, ought to have the force of a divine Precept, and so there would bee an end not only of this Section as the Iesuit speaketh, but of this whole Controversie.