THE GRAND SACRILEGE OF THE CHURCH OF ROME, In taking away the sacred Cup from the Laiety at the Lords Table: Detected, and convinced by the evidence of holy Scripture, and Testimonies of all Ages successively from the first propagation of the Catholic Christian Faith to this present: Together with two Conferences; the former at Paris with D. Smith, now styled by the Romanists B of Chalcedon; the later at London with M Euerard, Priest: By DAN. FEATLY, Doctor in Divinity. Gelasius de consecrat. dist 2. cap. comperim●…s. Aut integra percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur: divisio enim unius eiusdemque mystery sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire. LONDON, Printed by Felix Kyngston for Robert Milbourne, and are to be sold in Paul's Churchyard at the sign of the Greyhound. 1630. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE, WILLIAM, EARL OF Pembroke, Lord high Steward of his Majesty's Household, and of his most Honourable privy Council, Chancellor of the University of Oxford, Knight of the Noble Order of the Garter. ALthough I can challenge no interest in your Lordship's favour: yet your Lordsh, may challenge your interest in those fruits of my studies, which grew under the shade of your Honour's protection in the famous Nursery of Religion and Learning, the University of Oxford: which the more it flourisheth by the sweet influence of your Lordship's wise and mild government, the fairer and fresher Garlands of fame it still presents to your Honour. Since the Muses of Zion and Helicon chose you their Patron, their Revenues have been so enlarged, the Libraries furnished, the number of Professors increased, the Buildings raised and beautified, that you may rightly use the Apothegme of Augustus: Vrbem lateritiam inveni, relinquam marmoream; or rather in the sacred phrase of the Scripture we may say of you, You found the University built with Sycamores, you willieave it built with Cedars: you found the foundations laid with Bricks, you will leave them laid with Sapphires. Yet the rearing of these high and stately buildings doth not erect so lasting a monument of your praise, as the repairing the collapsed discipline, and reviving of our ancient Statutes, the Characters whereof were more worn out in some men's manners, then in our books. But above all, the safe custody of that precious depositum of saving Truth, no way clipped by schism, nor adulterated by Popish heresy, nor embased by any semipelagian alloy, is to be accounted the Crown of your glory, and our joys. This is that Palladium, which if we lose, we are all lost: but if we keep it (notwithstanding the treacheries of jesuitical Sinon's, and Wooden engines of Antichristian Rome) Troia stabit Priamique arx alta manebit. Of this our most holy and orthodox ●…aith, because yourself, and your Noble House have been always, and are at this day under his Majesty, a principal defender and protector, I make bold to dedicate to your Honour this polemical Tractate, wherein I charge the Church of Rome deeply with no less a crime then Grand Sacrilege, and to demonstrate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I call in for witnesses against her of the best rank and note from the Apostles times down-wara through all centuries, even to this sixtenth now currant. That which the Jesuits have so long clamored for; and many, in regard of the razing out, and defacing, and burning ancient records of truth, under the tyranny of Antichrist, have thought infecible, I have produced a catalogue of visible professors and eminent propugners of a main Article of our reformed Religion in all Ages. And if my travel herein, through many difficult, and unbeaten paths, may be thought profitable to the Church of God; I will proceed by the same line in other controversies, as God shall enable, and your Lordship encourage. Your Lordships humbly devoted, D. F. TO THE CHRISTIAN READER. THe people of Germany (as Illyricus writeth of them) above an hundred years ago, complained, that a Catal. Test. ver. lib. 19 pag. 1912. olim fuerunt lignei calices, & aurei sacerdotes, nunc contra sunt aurei calices, & lignei sacerdotes. in old time there were in the Church wooden Chalices, but golden Priests, but now, say they, we have golden Chalices, but wooden Priests. A just complaint against the ignorant Clergy of Rome, in the latter Ages, especially before the happy Reformation of late in our time. Yet the ignorance of Priests was not so unblamable, as their sacrilege was damnable. For these wooden Priests took away from the people's use those golden Chalices, and robbed them of that, which is far more precious, the heavenly liquor contained in them, which is sacramentally (as we say, but as they believe substantially) the blood of our Saviour, the invaluable price of man's Redemption. The Heathen Strobilus in the Poet used not his Goddess, Fides, worse, than they do the devout Laiety. b Plaut. in Au●…i Sireperco, Fides, mulsi congial●…m ple●…am tibi faciam fideliam: id adeo tibi faciam, sed ego mihi bibam vid. Eras A●…g. Delphis sacrisicans ipse comedit carnes. If I find my treasure, saith he, I will offer unto thee a gallon of sweet wine. Trust me, Faith, I will offer it to thee, but I will drink it every drop myself. In like sort the Romish Masspriests upon a thousand Altars offer many flagons of wine, as they pretend, for the people, as well as themselves: but they drink it all themselves. And yet I know not whether more impiously, or ridiculously in their private Masses, and public Communions they rehearse the words, Bibite Missale Rom. in Can. Miss. ex hoc omnes, Drink ye all of this, that is, in their sense and practice, Drink ye none of this, but we only, that are Priests. Verily of all the abuses in the Mass, which is nothing else but a huge heap, and mass of idolatrous, and superstitious rites, there is none more gross in the doctrine, or impious in the practice, or absurd in the defence, than this of halfing the Communion, by withholding the Cup from the people. For it is an open violence offered to our Lords last Will and Testament, a violation of the words of the Institution, a mutilation of the blessed Sacrament, a sacrilegious detention of an holy Legacy from the Sons of God. In other points of difference, our adversaries lay Concil. Constan. s●…ss 13. Tho●…gh Christ did in s●…tute in both ●…ds, and the 〈◊〉 ●…ch did so ●…minister, etc. claim to the Primitive Church: but in this they yield it us. Against other of their errors we have frequent testimonies in the former and purer Ages, for five, or six hundred years after Christ: but few in the later. Against this unsufferable enormity we abound in passages of good Writers in all Ages. In other controversies, the Romanists, like sampson's Foxes, are tied fast by the tails: in this they are loose, and parted asunder, and they take direct contrary courses. They disprove their own proofs and approve our disproofes of them. Penelope's telam texunt, & retexunt, they do and undo. There is no argument of ours against them, which is not confirmed by some of them, no objection of theirs against us, which is not solued by some of their own side; as thou mayst see through the whole, but especially in the last Chapter of this Discourse. Into which I Embarked my studies the rather upon this occasion. About two years since I was desired by a person of quality, to confer with a L. a little before that time seduced by deceitful guides, who first lead the party out of the right way into the Arminian tract, and afterward into the high road of Popery lying not far off. Upon the first motion, I made some difficulty of giving the party a meeting: because I suspected there might be shifted into the company, after their manner, some disguized Priest lying in subsidijs, or in Ambush as it were, that he might suddenly rush in upon the least show of advantage. Yet after the messenger had assured me, that there were none in the Ls company, but such as sincerely affected the truth of the Gospel, I made then no scruple, but presently accompanied him to the Honourable personages house. Where I found, notwithstanding that the L. was provided of a second, and that the L. mouth was used only as a trunk to shoot out those poisoned bullets, which M. Euerard the Priest, and Confessor to this person, had chammed before with his teeth. Aspis à vipera sumit venenum: the Asp, according to the Proverb, borrowed poison of the Viper. The Priest, in a few passages of speech unawares discovered himself, tanquam sorex suo iudicio; whereupon I drew back, and was very desirous to break of further conference, because I expected nothing less, then sincere dealing in a meeting, that was contrived by fraud, and began to be acted in a masking manner. Yet when I observed, that M. Euerard grew very insolent, and audacious upon my withdrawing myself, and divers Knights and Gentlemen there present, religiously devoted to the Truth, both advised, and entreated me not to be wanting to the necessary defence thereof: (Cassium enim hunc sufflaminandum esse) at their instance, I undertook Master Euerard, and for many hours sometimes opposed, and sometimes answered in diverse points, but especially in the question most desired by both parties to be particularly debated, touching the necessity of Communicating in both kinds. The conference ended, I thought to have heard no more of it, because it being on my part casual, and extemporal; I conceived it of little importance either way. But being since informed by an ho nourable Lord, that M. Euerard after that encounter had not only with his tongue licked all his wounds whole, but also with a venomous tooth fastened many slanders upon me, I thought fit to send him the ensewing relation of the Conference, requiring him to add, or alter, what he thought convenient in his own arguments, and answers, and then to consign it with his subscription, as I meant to do the rest with mine also. Upon the receipt hereof, he promised to return me an answer with speed: but after many months failing thereof, being urged again and again, and upbraided with his tergiversations, in the end he sent me a flat denial by S. P. L. and therein showed himself to be of the nature of the Crocodile, or of those barbarous soldiers, of whom Muretus observed, that they Plin. nat. hist. l. 8. c. 25. Terribilis haec contra fugaces bellua, fugax contra insequentes. Muret. Orat. Barbari cedentibus instant, instantibus cedeunt. furiously charge them that yield, but presently yield unto them that charge them: pursuing hard upon a retiring enemy, but flying with all speed from a pursuing. Now, lest that this my Antagonist should take D. Weston, and M. Fisher, for two Enfant perdues, or forlorn hopes, for his precedents; who, when they ought mederi capiti, and answer to the main, touching the visibility of a Church, professing the Trent Faith 500 years after Christ, redwiam curarunt, and leaving quit the matter of Faith, shaped some colourable answer to impertinent circumstances of fact, and that of no great consequence either way: I have therefore premised a Challenge to M. Euerard, as also to M. Fisher, to deal with me in this principal Controversy; and I have set down the state thereof, and added thereunto such proofs for the truth, as the holy Scriptures, and the prime Authors in all ages have offered unto me. All which I submit to thy diligent examination, and judicious censure. TO MASTER EVERARD, ROMISH PRIEST. SIr, I doubt not, but that you have heard, or read of the famous Leper of Rhodes; who having bragged in the hearing of many, what an incredible leap he had leapt at Rhodes, was by some there present taken tardy in his tale, and short in his leap; they bidding him forthwith to leap that great leap again; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hîc Rhodus, hîc saltus: See, her's Rhodes, let us, say they, see the leap. This plat of ground for leaping is all one with Rhodes. In the Schedule which I sent you two years since by S. P. L. I described as it were our stand at Rhodes, where we took our rise. The question in hand, and the large scope we had to take our feeze in, the whole Scripture, and the perpetual practice of the Church. Now if you, (as either yourself, or your Proselytes have reported) at our encounter in Noble-street, so far out-leapt, not me only, but all the Romish Priests, and Jesuits, that have met with me upon the like terms: let me entreat you to leap that your great leap again; That the print of your feet may remain to be viewed of all men by the Characters of the Press. Had you learned from the holy Apostle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and ballast Rom. 12. 13. Not to think of yourself more highly, than you ought to think, but to be wise. unto sobriety. your vessel with modest ingenuity, you could not so lightly with a puff of vain glory been driven on those Rocks, at which now you must needs make shipwreck of your Faith, or of your fame; of your Creed, or of your Credit; of your Creed, if you stand to the defence of your assertions in the Conference; of your Credit, if you flinch from them. For mine own part, I profess sincerely, I would have let your manifold escapes and slips in that extemporary dispute slip out of memory; your Solecisms in Logic, as well as Divinity; your ignorance of your own Romish tenets; your contradicting yourself; your lame distinctions, and crude expressions, which cannot endure the light, should never have been brought by me to it, had you not been yourself, in the audience of some persons of quality, your own Herald, and Trumpeter. Had you not like one of those Captains of Alexander, mentioned in the first book of Maccabees, put a Crown upon your own head, Macc. l. 1. c. 1. v. 9 After his death, they all put Crowns upon themselves, and so did their sons after them. for your noble exploits that day. Nay, had not you, or some of your disciples, voiced a miracle upon it, that the places which you alleged against me out of the Council of Trent, and Cardinal Bellarmine, turned to of themselves; no sooner had you taken the book in your hands, but presently they fell open at the chapter and pages, which you w●…re to make use of against me. Just like as the flattering Senators at Tiberius his table, Asud. I●…u. Saty. 4. Ipse capi voluit, quid apertius▪ et tamen illi Surgebant cristae. spoke of the great Turbet served in; That the Fish in honour to the Emperor, offered himself to be taken, as being for many ages preserved for him. If you had then, M. E. so glorious a day, why do you now make a night of it, by shadowing, and vail●…ng it in obscurity and silence? why do you not put forth that Conference yourself, or put your hand to the true Relation thereof long ago sent you. Nihil veritas erubescit, nisi solumodo abscondi; Truth never blusheth, but when she is hid. She feareth nothing, but not to be brought to her trial. He who knoweth his coin is pure gold, will never refuse to offer it to the Goldsmith's Test: because he can lose nothing by it, but shall have allowance for it. Besides your friends boasting at the Conference, your own promise in the Conference deeply engageth you to assoil the arguments then urged against your half Communion; whereunto at the present you returned not so much as half an answer; pleading for yourself the short scantling of time, which gave you not space to wield yonr Catholic buckler. Scitum est enim, culpam conijcere intempus, cum ultra addere, si maximèvelis, non possis. The Roman Orator told you, it is a handsome put-off, to lay the blame upon the time, when an advocate hath never a word more to say for his Client. But veritas temporis filia, Truth is Time's Daughter, & she will justify her Mother. If in so long a tract of time, as hath run since our meeting in Noble-street, you had fully and punctually satisfied those arguments than left untouched, you had salved your cause and credit, and made it appear, you were not wanting to time, but time then to you. But now, sith you have broken so often day after day, and month after month, and by this time year after year, being foe oft challenged of your promise, yea & upbraided also by S. P. L. and the Lord T. and others, and in fine, your resolution is, to give no resolution of those doubts: I will be bold to tell you, that time will now no more bear your blame, but you and your cause must bear it off with head and shoulders. You cannot now go back: Lis contestata est, praelium condictum; The field is pitched, the weapons are chosen: The question agreed upon, is the Communion in one kind: the proofs must be Scripture, and the perpetual custom of the Church. If by both your Romish practice be convinced to be sacrilege in the highest degree, then write hereafter your brags In su●…reption of the Cup from the Laiety. in redinke, and let your lines blush for shame, and do you yourself ingeniously confess concerning sacrilege, as Papinian did concerning fatricide: that it is as difficult and dangerous a matter to defend the murder of a brother, as to commit it. But on the contrary, if by the evidence of Scripture, and coustant practice of the Catholic Christian Church, you can justify your Romish dry communions, you shall not only gain your pretended Catholic cause, but me also your Proselyte. D. F. THE PARTICULAR CONTENTS OF THE SEVERAL Chapters of this Book. Chap. 1. THe state of the question concerning the Communion in both kinds, is set down out of the Harmony of Protestant Confessions on the one sida, and out of the Canons of the Counsels of Constance, Basil, and Trent on the otherside. Chap. 2. The first Argument for the Tenent of the Reformed Churches, drawn from Christ's Precept and example in the celebration of the Sacrament, confirmed by the testimony of Pope julius the first. Chap. 3. The second Argument for the Communion in both kinds, drawn from the essence and perfection of this Sacrament, confirmed by Vasquez the jesuit. Chap 4. The third argument, drawn from the Analogy of the sign to the thing signified, confirmed by Gratian the Canonist. Chap. 5. The fourth argument, drawn from the nature of a banquet or supper, confirmed by Aquinas, and Vasquez. Chap. 6. The fifth argument, drawn from the express precept of drinking at the Lords Table, confirmed by the testimony of Pope Innocen. the 3. Chap. 7. The sixth argument, drawn à Pari confirmed by Bonaventure the School Divine, and others. Chap. 8. The seventh argument drawn from the condition and propriety of a Will or Legacy, confirmed by jansonius, etc. Chap. 9 The eight argument drawn from the end of the Sacrament, confirmed by jac. Rehing. being then a jesuit. Chap. 10. The ninth argument drawn from the example of Saint Paul and the Corinthians, confirmed by Becanus the jesuit. Chap. 11. The tenth argument drawn from the uniform and constant practice of the Christian Catholic Church in all Ages. Sect. 1. The testimonies of the practice of the Church from Christ's ascension to 100 years. Sect. 2. Testimonies in the second Age from 100 to 200. Sect. 3. Testimonies in the third age from 200. to 300. Sect. 4. Testimonies in the fourth Age from 300. to 400. Sect. 5. Testimonies in the fifth Age from 400. to 500 Sect. 6. Testimonies in the sixth Age from 500 to 600. Sect. 7. Testimonies in the seventh Age from 600. to 700. Sect. 8. Testimonies in the eighth Age from 700. to 800. Sect. 9 Testimonies in the ninth Age from 800. to 900. Sect. 10. Testimonies in the tenth Age from 900. to 1000 Sect. 11. Testimonies in the eleventh Age from 1000 to 1100. Sect. 12. Testimonies in the tewelfth Age from 1100. to 1200. Sect. 13. Testimonies in the thirteenth Age from 1200. to 1300. Sect. 14. Testimonies in the fourteenth Age from 1300. to 1400. Sect. 15. Testimonies in the fifteenth Age from 1400. to 1500. Sect. 16. Testimonies in the sixteenth Age from 1500. to 1600. Sect. ultima. The confirmation of this argument by the confession of Papists of eminent learning and worth. Thom. Aquin. Dionysius Carthousianus, joh. Eccius, Cassander, Soto, joh. Arborius, Ruardus Tapperus, Alsonsus a Castro, Slotanus, Salmeron, Gregory de Valentia, and Suarez. Chap. 12. Papists objections for their half communion from Scripture answered, and retorted. Chap. 13. Papists objections from Counsels answered, and retorted. Chap. 14. Papists objections from sundry pretended rites and customs of the Church answered, and retorted. Chap. 15. Papists objections from reason answered, and retorted. Chap. 16. The Contradictions of Papists in this question noted, and the whole truth for us delivered out of their own mouths. The Contens of the Conference. Of the necessity of Episcopal government. Of ordination by Presbyters, or Priests in case of necessity. Of the distinction of Bishops, and Priests iure divino. Of differences amongst Papists in matter of faith. Of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Marie. Of the authority of General Counsels above the Pope & ècont. Of prayer for the dead. Of the authority of original Scripture. Of the Communion in both kinds Of the Pope's Supremacy. Of mingling water with wine in the Sacrament. Of the perfection of Scripture. AN ADVERTISEMENT to the Reader. IT falleth out often with Students in controversies, as with people in the market: who taking money with them at their going from home, and espying in the fair some Merchandise they like, when they have driven the Price, and are drawing out their purse, they find it either picked, or the strings cut: In like manner, these Students meeting with some pregnant testimonies alleged out of the ancient Fathers, or later Writers in Apologies for the Truth, and laying them up in their memory, or treasury of written notes, when they are to draw them out, and make use of them against an adversary, turning to the Authors themselves, out of which those testimonies are quoted, they find either the whole book, or chapter cut away, or at least, that passage they most spoke for, razed out by a trick of the Romish Inquisitors Leger de main. That thou mightest not be so served, or have any trick put upon thee in the perusal of this book, I have here in a Tablet set before thee, all the Authors of note, with the Editions which I follow: where thou shalt undoubtedly find the parcel of truth thou seekest for, and not the empty shells only, wherewith thou mayst be abused in other Editions, castrated by the Romanists. A TABLE OF THE AUTHORS CITED IN THIS BOOK, WITH THE Editions of their Works, and the time when they are accounted to have flourished. The first figure noteth the Age, the second the Names of the Authors, the third the Edition. A. An. Dom. 920. Abbess Prumiensis vide Regino. 1215. Abbas Vrspergensis. Basil. 1569. 1590. Aegidius de Coninck. Antwerp. 1615. 995. Aelfricus Arch. Episcop. Cantuariens. Lond. 1580. 1241. Albertus' magnus. Basil. 1507. 1530. Albertus' Pighius. Colon. 1598. 780. Alcuinus. Lutetiae. 1618. 1240. Alexander de Hales. Venetijs. 1575. 1543. Alfonsus' à Castro. Antw. 1556. 1135. Algerus Scholasticus. In bib. pat. tom. 12. Col. 1618. 370. Ambros. Mediolanens. Frob. Basil. 1555. 830. Amalarius Fortunatus. Bib. pat. tom. 9 Col. 1618. 1600. Andrews Episc. Winton. Lond. 1610. 1080. Anselmus canturians. Col. 1533. 340. Athanas. Alexandrinus. Ex officina Comelin. 1601. 410. August. Hipponens. Episc. Paris. 1586. B. 1180. BAlsamon annot. in Concil. Lutet. 1620. 1600. Baronius Card. Col. 1621. 370. Basilius Mag. Paris. 1618. 1610. Becanus. Mogunt. 1610. 720. Beda Presbyter. Basil. 1563. 1580. Bellarminus Card. Ingolstad. ex offici. Sartorij. 1590. 1130. Bernard. Clareval. Basil. 1566. 1014. Berno Abbas Augrinsis. Bib. pat. tom. 11. Col. 1618. 875. Bertram Presbyt. Lond. 1623. 1580. Bilson. Lond. 1586. 1260. Bonaventura. Mogunt. 1609. C. 1520. CAietanus Card. Antwerp. 1612. 1530. Caluinus. Genevae 1595. 1564. Cassander. Lugduni. 1608. 80●…. Carolus Magnus. Edit. 1549. 92. Clemens Roman. Antwerp. 1578. 190. Clemens Alexand. Lugdu. Batavorun. 161●…. 400. Chrysost. Gr. Etonae. 1613. 1530. Cochlaeus. Mogunt. 1596. 1430. Concil. Basilien. Editio Binij Col. Agrip. 1618. 314. C. Ancyranum. Editio Binnij. Col. Agrip. 1618. 675. C. Bracharens. 3. 691 Caesar-Augustanum. 398. Carthaginens. 813. Cabilonense 2. 450. Chalcedonens. 1414. Constantiense. 524. I●…erdense. 588. Matiscon. 2. 325. Nicenum primum. 829. Parisiense. 589. Tolet. 2. 599. Tolet. 3. 633. Tolet. 4. 675. Tolet. 11. 1563. Trident. 868. Wormatiens. 1530. Confess. August. Gene. apud Petr. S. Andr. 1591. 1562. Anglica. 1579. Belgica. 1559. Gallica. 1536. Heluetica. 1551. Saxonica. 1580. Cornel. jansen. Lugd. 1606. 1450. Cusanus Card. Basil. 1565. 250. Cyprianus. Edit. Pamel. Ant. 1589. 400. Cyrill. Alex. Antw. 1618. 365. Cyrill. Hierosol. Bib. pat. tom. 4. Col. 1616. D. 1600. DAniel Chamierus. Gen. 1626. 1580. Didacus' Nugnus. Venetijs. 1592. 1580. Didacus' de Tapia. Salmant. 1589. 70. Dionysius Areopagit. Ludg. 1570. 1480. Dionys. Carthus. Paris. 1539. 1563. Dom. Soto. Lugd. 1569. 1564. Dudith. Quinq. eccles. Lond. edit. cum council. Trid. 1620. 1236. Durand. Lugd. 1595. E 1520. Eckius. Ingolstad. 1535. 1580. Edmund. Camp. Edit. cum Whitak. respon. Gen. 1610. 1530. Erasmus. Antw. 1540 1532. Estius. Duaci. 1616. 453. Eucherius Lugdun. Bibl. Patr. tom. 5. Col. 1618. 420. Euseb. Emise. Bib. pat. tom. 5. Col. 1618. 328. Eusebius Cesariensis. Colon. Allobrogum. 1612. 1080. Euthynius. Pan's. 1560. F 1600. FErdinand. Quir. de Sal. Complut. 1618. 1600. Field. Lond. 1606. 1618. Fisher jes. Lond. 1624. 1570. Fox martyr, log. Lond. 1580. 1002. Fulbert Carnotens. Bib. pat. to. Col. 11. 1618. 1590. Fulk. Lond. 1617. G 1530. GEorg. Cassand. Paris. 1616. 1541. Gerard Lorich. auctoris impensis edit. 1536. 130. Gratian. Paris. 1507. 600. Greg. mag. Papa. Froben. bas. 1564. 726. Greg 2. Papa. Tom. Concil. Bin. Col. 1618. 731. Greg. 3. Tom. Concil. 3. Bin. Col. 1618. 580. Greg. Turonens. bib. pat. tom. 6. Col. 1618. 1590. Greg. Valent. Lutetiae. 1614 1060. Guitmund. Bib. pat. tom. 11. Col. 1618. H. 1591. HArmonia Confessionum. Geneu. apud Pet. S. Andr. 1591. 1564. Harding. Impress. cum juello. Lond. 1611. 840. Haymo. Halbarstad. Argent. 1519. 1590. Hesselius. Lovan. 8. 1564. 390. Hieronymus Stridon. Antw. 1579. 1090. Hildebert. Cenomanens. Bib. pat. tom. 12. Col. 1618. 355. Hilarius Pictaviens. Paris. 1605. 1554. Hosius Stanis. Col. 1584. 1262. Hugo. Card. Bas. 1600. 1136. Hugo de Sanct. Vict. Mogunt. 1617. 1054. Humbert de Sylva Card. Bib. pat. tom. 11. Col. 1618. I. 1410. IAcobellus Misno. Citat. à Dd. de Tap. Salmant. 1589. 100 Ignatius Graecolat. Genevae. 1623. 1580. Illyricus, vide M. 1216. Innocent. 3. Pontifex. Lovan. 1566. 1540 joh. Benedict. Paris. 1552. 1530. joh. Arboreus. Paris. 1540 1530. joh. Calvin. vid. C. 1411. joh. Gerson. Paris. 1514. 1414. joh. Hus. Noremberg. 1584. 1596. joh. Maldonat. Mogunt. 1602. 1560. joh. juellus. Lond. 1611. 1604. joh. Munster in Wecleg. Francofurt. 1621. 180. Irenaeus Lugd. Epis. Col. Agrip. 1596. 630. Isodorus Hispal. Paris. 1601. 150. justin Martyr Graecolat. Lutetiae. 1615. justinian. jes. Lugd. 1612. L. 1580. LAurent. Humf. Lond. 1582. 1061. Lanfranc. de Euch. Bib. Pat. tom. 11. Col. 1618. 450. Leo Mag. Bib. pat. tom. 5. Col. 1618. 1600. Lorinus jesuit. Col. Agrip. 1617. 1570. Lucas Brugens. Antw. 1612. 1520. Lutherus. Basil. 1540 1320. Lyranus. Venetijs. 1604. M. 370. Macarius' Egypt. Bib. pat. tom. 4. Col. 1618. 80. Martialis Lemou. Lug. 1572. 1540 Marcus Flac. Illyric. Ex offici. jacob. Stoer. 1608. M. T. Cicero. Colon. Allobr. 1616. 1520. Mart. Luther, vide L. 1565. Mart. Chemnis. Francof. ad Moen. 1574. 1077. Micrologus. Bib. pat. tom. 11. Col. 1618. 1600. Morton. Lond. 1606. 1610. Mockettus. Lond. 1617. N. 375. NAzianzenus. Gr. Lat. Lutet. 1609. Nugnus, vid. D. O. 1110. ODo Cameracens. Bib. pat. tom. 12. Col. 1618. 1080. Occumenius. Gr. Veronae. 1532. 230. Origenes Adamant. Basil. 1570. 1530. Orthuinus Gratius. Daven. 1535. P. 820. PAscasius Rudbertus. Bib. pat. tom. 9 Col. Agrip. 1618. 1150. Petrus Cluniacens. Bib. pat. tom. 12. part. 2. Col. 1618. 1320. Petrus de Palude. Paris. 1530. 1140. Petrus Lombard. Sub praelo Ascensiano. 1535. 1610. Pet. Molinaeus. Lond. 1620. 1590. Pet. Su●…. Polanus. Author. Hist. Conc. Trid. August. Trinob. 1620. 100 Plinius Maior. Franco. ad Maenum. 1599 1530. Philippus Melancthon. Wittebergae. 1623. Q. 90. QVintilianus. Lugd. 1560. Quinque Eccles. vide Dudith. R. 835. RAbanus Maurus. Lutet. 1534. 620. Rehing jacob. Tubingae. 1621. 869. Regino Abb. Prumiens. Argent. 1609. 560. Rhemigius Rhemens'. Bib. pat. tom. 10. Col. 1618. 1280. Ricard. de Med. vil. Brixiae. 1591. 1360. Ricard. Armacanus. 1600. Rivetus Andr. Saumur. 1616. 910. Rodulphus Flaviacens. Bib. pat. tom. 10. Col. 1618. 1530. Ruardus Tapperus. Lovan. 1555. 1119. Rupertus Abbas Tuitie. Col. 1528. S. 1580. SAlmeron jesuit. Col. 1902. 1590. Suarez jesuit. Venetijs. 1597. 950. Steph. Eduensis. Bib. pat. tom. 10. Col. 1618. T. 200. TErtullianus. Antwerp. 1584. 440. Theodoretus. Col. 1612. 1430. Thomas Waldensis. Venetijs. 1571. Thom. Aquin. vide A. Thom. Mort. vide M. 1070. Theophilact. Basil. 1525. 1580. Tolet. Card. Col. 1569. 1590. Theodo. Beza. Genevae. 1598. 390. Tripartita historia. Basil. 1528. V. 1572. VAdianus Aphoris. Euch. 1536. 1600. Vasquez. Antwerp. 1621. 1240. Vincentius Histor. Venetijs. 1591. W. 1430. WAldensis, vide T. 849. Walafridus Strabo. Bib. pat. tom. 9 Col. 1618. 1380. Widford contra Wiclif. Daven. 1535. Edit. ab Orthuino Gratio. Z. 1105. ZAcharias Chrysopol. Bib. pat. tom. 12. Col. 1618. FINIS. I entreat the Gentle Reader, before the reading hereof, to correct these few faults in some copies, which alter the sense; the lesser escapes are annexed at the end. Pag. 21. lin. 22. add, his body. 24. l. 23. for they, read, l. 36. l. 15. add, to be spurious, and therefore ought, 44. l. 7. and therefore they cannot be se●…ed from the Communion. 67. l. 15 r. infundatur. 107. l. penult. r. for it is that, which w●…. 121. l. penult. r. now, for, na●…. 128. l. 7 r. both, for one, 146. l. 28. r. and, for or. 147. l. 15. r. 190. for 90. 176. l. 13. r. repealed. 2●…0. l. 17. r. no error. 226. l. 6. r. to me, for some. 230. l. 25. deal, Etym. fill. dextr. 271. l. 9 r. Bishops at Carthage. 278. l. 〈◊〉 r. she for he, 298. l 11. add quoth M. Featly. l. 23. r. then for this. 302. l. 19 r. Testament of blood, or blood a Testament. THE GRAND SACRILEGE OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. CHAP. I. The state of the question, touching the necessity of Communicating in both kinds. PLinie a Plin. 〈◊〉. 8. c. 18. Cameli implentur, cum bibendi occasio est & in praeteritum & in futurum obturbatâ proculcatione prius aquâ, aliter potu non gaudent. Apoc. 18. v. 12. writeth of the Camels, that they like not clear water, but usually foul and trouble the stream, wherein they are to drink. Such is the manner of our muddy Popish writers, who are sent to us from Rome and Rheims, laden like Camels with Babylonish merchandise: they trouble the waters of strife, and for the most part confound the states of all the questions, which they enter into, or mainly contend for; and as in other Controversies, so in this of entire Communicating, they begin their doubling and falsifying at the very setting down of the point of difference between us. b Lib. 4. De sacra. Euch. c. 20. Bellarmine and c Hom. de sacramento. 33. Eccius state the question thus; whether it be necessary for all men to Communicate in both kinds: d De sacr. Euch. c. 40. Hosius and e Artic. 15. de common. sub utraque specie. Papists juggling in the state of the question. Tapperus add, to salvation; as if we affirmed, that Communicating in both kinds were simply necessary to salvation: this is not the true hinge, upon which this question turneth. For we doubt not, but that the children of the faithful, especially dying baptised, as also that abstemij, such as cannot drink wine, and other believers that are prevented by death before they participate of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, if they prepare themselves for it, and desire it, may be saved without actual Communicating in both, or either kind. The wilful contempt, not the inevitable defect of the Sacrament is damnable. We conceive no more necessity of drinking of the cup of blessing, then of eating the sacramental bread, which is not absolutely necessary to salvation, no not to those which are in riper years. The spiritual eating of Christ's blessed body and blood, is simply and absolutely necessary to salvation; but not the sacramental, without which many blessed Martyrs and Saints have been saved. The term necessary, is seldom, or never used by Protestants in this argument, or if they use it, they mean necessary, ratione praecepti, not medij: They inquire not how necessary a means communicating in both kinds is to salvation: but how necessary a command Christ hath laid upon all Communicants, to receive the Sacrament in both kinds. They should have propounded the question thus: Whether the people are not bound by The true state of the question. Christ's precept to Communicate in both kinds? or, if they will needs retain the word, necessary, in unfoulding this controversy; whether it be not as necessary for the people to drink of the Cup, as to eat of the Bread? or whether it be not as necessary, in regard of Christ's institution, that the people communicate in both kinds, as that the Priest, the minister, or as they speak, the Conficient; or maker of this sacrament? Or whether the administering of this sacrament in both kinds to the people, and priests also, none Conficients be not so necessary, that it cannot be otherwise administered without sin and violation of our Lords most holy Institution? The Romish tenant, to which all Papists, under pain of a curse, are bound to subscribe, is plainly and expressly set down in the Canons of three Counsels: at Constance, Basil, and Trent. In the f Decernit, & declarat superistâ materia reverendissi. in Christo patribus, & Dominis Patriarchis, Primatibus, Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, & eorum in spiritualibus vicarijs ubilibet constitutis processus esse dirigendos, in quibus in iis committatur, & mandetur auctoritate huius sacri concilij, sub poena excommunicationis, ut effectualiter puniat eos qui ad communicandum populum sub utraque specie, panis & vini exhortati fuerint, & sic faciendum esse docuerint. Council of Constance, sess. 13. This Synod doth decree and declare concerning this matter, that process be directed to the most reverend Fathers in Christ, the Lord patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops and Bishops, and their vicar's in spirituals, wheresoever by them apppointed. In which process, by the authority of the holy Council, let them be enjoined and commanded effectually to punish those that observe not this Decree: viz. Who exhort the people to Communicate in both kinds, or teach that they ought so to do. In the Council of g Decernit & declarat quod fideles Laici, sive Clerici Communicantes & non conficientes non astringuntur ex praecepto Domini ad suscipiendum sub utraque specie panis & vini sacrosanctum Eucharistiae sacramentum. Basile, sess. 30. This Synod doth decree and declare, that the faithful Laics or Clarks communicants, and not conficients, are not bound by our Lords command to receive the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist under both forms or kinds, viz. of Bread and Wine. In the Council of h Declarat & docet nullo divino precepto laicos, & cl●…ricos non conficientes obligari ad Eucharistiae sacramentum sub utraque specie sumendum. Et siquis dixerit, Dei praecepto, omnes & singu●… Christi fideles ●…ramque spe●…iem sanctae Eu●…haristiae sacramenti sumere debere, anathe●…a sit. Trent, sess. 21. c. 1. The Synod declareth and teacheth, that Laics and Clarks non conficient, are by no divine precept bound to receive this most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist in both kinds, and if any say that all and every of the faithful by Gods command aught to receive the Sacrament in both kinds; let them be accursed. The doctrine of the Reformed Churches cannot be more certainly gathered, then out of the harmony of their orthodoxal confessions, which were penned by most judicious Divines at the first, and are at this day subscribed by those that are admitted to any degree of function in each particular Church. To begin with the Church of England, to whose Articles of Religion all Graduates, and Ministers of the Word profess their assent and consent, even by interposing an oath. In the 30. Article thus we read; i Doctrina Eccl. Anglicanae. p. 132. artic. 30. Calix domini non est denegandus laicis, utraque enim pars Dominici sacramenti, ex Christi institutione & praecepto, omnibus Christianis ex aquo adminstrari debet. The cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay people, for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, aught to be ministered to all Christian men alike. In the k Datur laicis utraque pars sacramenti in coena Domini, quia sacramentum institutum est non solùm pro parte Ecclesiae sc. pro presbyteris: sed etiam pro reliqua ecclesia. Igitur & populus utitur sacramento, sicut Christus instituit, & quid Christus inquit, Mat. 26. bibite ex hoc omnes, ubi manifestè ait de poculo, ut omnes bibant: & nequis cavilari possit, quòd id tantum ad sacerdotes pertineat, Paùli ordinatio ad Corinthios testatur, totam ecclesiam communiter usam esse utraque parte. Confession of Auspurg, Article 2. both parts of the Sacraments are given to the Laiety in the Lord's Supper, because the Sacrament was instituted not for a part of the Church only, viz. the Priests: but for the rest of the Church also: and truly Christ saith, Math. 26. Drink you all of this: where he expressly commandeth, all to drink of the Cup; and lest any man might cavil, saying, that that precept belonged only to Priests, Saint Paul's ordinance to the Corinthians testifies; That the whole Church ordinarily, or in common, used both kinds. In the l Norunt omnes, coe●…am Domini ita institutam esse, ut detur populo integrum sacramentum, sicut scriptum est; bibite ex hoc omnes; n●…ta est & consuetudo veteris ecclesiae Latinae & Graecae ideo fatendum est, prohibitionem unius partis iniustam esse, legitima hominum testamenta violare iniustum est; cur filij Dei testamentum sanguine ipsius ob signatum episcopi violent? Saxonik Article 15. All men know, that the Lords Supper was so instituted at the first, that the whole Sacrament was given to the people, as it is written, Drink you all of this. The custom of the ancient Churches both Greek and Latin are well known; therefore we must confess, that the prohibiting of one part thereof is unjust. It is unlawful to violate the last will and Testament of men, if it be lawfully made; why then do the Bishops violate the Testament of the Son of God, sealed with his blood? In the Bohemian, c. 14. m Christus disertis verbis dixit, accipite, edite, & rursus cum similiter separatim, & distinctè poculum porrexit, dicens, accipite, bibite ex hoc omnes; hic est sanguis meus. Ita igitur secundum hoc mandatum, corpus & sanguis Domini nostri jesu Christi distribui. & à fidelibus, seu credentibus Christianis communiter percipi debet. Christ said in express words, Take, eat, this is my body: and in like manner when he gave them the Cup by itself, and distinctly said, Take, Drink ye all of this, this is my blood: therefore according to this Commandment, the body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ ought to be distributed and received by all believers in common. In the latter o Improbamus illos, qui alteram speciem poculum inquam Domini fidelibus subtraxerunt. Graviter enim peccant contra institutionem Dom. dicentis bibite ex hoc omnes, id quod ad panem non ita expressè dixit. Helvetian confession, cap. 21. we dislike these, who have taken away one part of the Sacrament, viz. the Cup of the Lord from the faithful, for they grievouslly offend against the Lord's institution, who said, Drink ye all of this, which he spoke not in so express words of the bread. The Doctrine and practice of the reformed Churches, as it is expressed in these Confessions, is solidly and learnedly justified against the Romish adversaries by p De captivi. babyl. Luther, q Apol. confess. August. Melancton, r Lib. 4. instit. c. 1. par. 41. & deinceps ad 50. Calvin, s Contra Hard. art. 2. jewel, t Chem. par. 2. ad 5. sessio. Concil. Triden. Chemsius, u De Eucharistia lib. 1. cap. 10. 11. 12. Plessis, x Supremi part. 4. pag. 496. Bilson, y Cath. orthod. tract. 3. quaest. 21. Rivet, z Buck. of faith, part. 2. sect. 35. 36. & apol. coen. Dom. 22. Moulin, a Tom. 4. resp. ad. Bellar. 1. Chamierus, b Humfr. resp. ad. camp. rat. 3. Humphrey, and others: from whose Hives I have taken much honey, yet not upon trust, nor without trying it, but tracing the diligent Bees in the Paradise of God, the holy Scripture, and the Garden of Ecclesiastical Writers, even to each flower, whence they gathered it. CHAP. II. The first Argument, drawn from Christ's Precept and example in the celebration of this Sacrament. Whatsoever Christ commanded and did in the first celebration of this Supper, ought continually to be observed and practised in the Church: But Christ in the first celebration of the Supper, gave the Cup, and commanded it to be given to all there present, that before had received, the bread: Therefore the giving of the Cup to all Communicants at the Supper, ought perpetually to be observed, and practised in the Church. The proposition is gathered out of Luk. 22. 19 This do ye in remembrance of me: and 1. Cor. 11. 25. This do ye as oft as you drink in remembrance of me: and ver. 26. as oft as you eat of this bread, and drink this Cup, you show the Lords death till he come. In which words, the Apostle evidently implieth, that the Commandment, this do in remembrance of me, extends even to Christ's second coming. And verily, if Christ's precepts and actions in the first celebration of this Sacrament, were not a law binding the Church to do the like in all succeeding ages; neither the Apostles themselves, nor the Church after them should have had any warrant at all to celebrate the Lords Supper after his death. Which to affirm were absurd impiety, or as Saint Augustine speaks in a case of far less importance, most insolent madness. The assumption is set down in the very letter, totidem verbis, Mat. 26. 27. He took the Cup, and gave it to them, saying; Drink you all of this. Mark. 14. 23: And he took the Cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it them, and they all drank of it. Certainly, I persuade myself, that our Saviour expressed the note of universality, viz. in delivering the Cup to all, saying: Drink you all of this, and not so in giving the bread, of set purpose, to prevent that abuse, which the Romish Church of late hath brought in, by taking away the Cup. As in like manner the Apostle saith of marriage: It is honourable in, or amongst all men. Heb. 13. 4. and he saith not so of virginity, or single life; although it be most true, that single life, or virginity is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, precious, or honourable; because the holy Ghost foresaw, that some heretics would deny marriage to be honourable amongst all, and prohibit it to some men, viz. the Clergy. Which two texts of Scripture the Romanists lewdly pervert, and ridiculously contradict themselves in the interpretation of them, extending all to the Laiety in the one, and excluding the Clergy; and extending all to the Clergy in the other, and excluding the laiety. Marriage is honourable among all, say they, that is, all, save Priests; Drink you all of this, that is, all, save the people. In restraining all in both places, they make of omnes, non omnes, and so contradict the text, and by expounding all sometimes of the people, not Priests, sometimes of Priests, and not people, they contradict themselves. For the restriction of all in this place to Priest's administering only, I forbear the further refuting of it; because all the arguments, that follow in general, overthrow it, and in particular, and expressly it is refelled in the Conference annexed hereunto. This whole argument is confirmed by the testimony of Pope julius, set down in the Canon jul. Law, and therefore delivered a Magister veritatis etc. nulli lac, sed panem tantum, & calicem sub hoc sacramento cognoscitur dedisse. Ab ips●… sonte veritatis probabi●… à quo ordinata ipsa sacramentorum mysteria precesse●…ant. ex Cathedra. De consecrat. dist. 2. There he proves, that bread and wine only ought to be given in the Sacrament, and not milk; because Christ the master of Truth, when he commended the Sacrament unto his Disciples at his last Sup●…er, gave milk to none, but bread & the cup only. The contrary practice viz. of them that give milk in the Sacrament, how repugnant it is to the evangelical, and Apostolical Doctrine and custom of the Church, will easily be proved from the fountain of truth; from whom the ordination of these mysteries did proceed. The Pope in this place draws an argument from Christ's institution, and practice at his last Supper both affirmatively, and negatively. Christ gave bread and wine to his Disciples, therefore we ought so to do, he gave not milk, therefore we ought not. Christ is the Fountain of truth, he is the Master of truth, he is the Author of the Sacrament; therefore inferreth the Pope, and in this particular infallibly; nothing must be done in the administration of this Sacrament, otherwise than Christ did, and commanded at his last Supper. The Romanists cannot confirm the Pope's argument, but they must needs confirm ours in this point, they cannot infirm, or weaken ours, but they must needs weaken his, and not his only, but that renowned Doctor, and glorious Martyr, Faint Cyprians also; who fighteth with the same weapon against the heretics called b Epist. 63. Nec ab eo, quod Christus magister & praecepit, & gessit, humana & novella institutione discedere. Aquarij, wherewith we do against the papists: No man may under colour of new, or humane constitutions depart from that which Christ our Master did and taught: and a little after: If in the Sacrifice which Christ offered, Christ alone is to be followed, it behooveth us to obey and do that, which Christ did, and commanded to be done, seeing he himself saith, in the Gospel, if ye do that which I command you, I will not say, that you are servants, but friends, etc. Yet some out of ignorance, or simplicity in sanctifying the Lords Cup, and ministering to the people, do not that which jesus Christ the Author and Teacher of this sacrifice did and taught. If any Cavil, against this argument, that Christ sat, or leaned at his last Supper, gave the Sacrament after supper, and that unto 12, and those men, and no women, and yet we are not bound so to do; and consequently, that the argument from Christ's example is not of absolute necessity for us to follow, but may be dispensed with by the Church: I answer; first, that the argument proceeds upon substantial acts, and not circumstances, such as are the time, and the place, and the number of communicants. Now that the Cup is a substantial part of the Sacrament, appeareth both by Christ's blessing, and consecrating it, and the words of the institution: This Cup is the new Testament in my blood: neither can the adversaries deny it, who account it no less than c See infrà. c. 7. sacrilege in a Priest to consecrate, or receive the Sacrament in one kind only. 2. Our argument is not grounded only upon that which Christ did, but upon that which Christ did, and taught, or commanded should be done. Now as Christ took the bread, and broke it, and said; Do this: so in like manner he took the Cup, and said: Drink ye all of this, but Christ said not in like manner, sit you down, or lie, when you take the sacrament, or receive it late at night, or administer it to such a number of men only. What he did and taught, as Saint Cyprian sound collects, must be perpetually observed in the Church; the circumstances used at his last Supper he did not command us to use; but the substantial acts of administering the Sacrament in both kinds. Fecitet Docuit, he both did, and taught us to do. Wherefore as Saint d Confess. lib. 9 c. 2. Contradictionibus flatus inflammare acrius possit, non extinguere. August: speaks in a like kind. All the contradictions of our adversaries cavilling breath serveth rather to kindle more, then blow out or quench the fire of truth in this argument burning up the stubble of Popish Canons and constitutions, repugnant to Christ's Doctrine and practice at his last Supper. CHAP. III. The second Argument drawn from the essence and perfection of this Sacrament. THe Sacrament of the Eucharist is not entire, and perfect without the Cup. The faithful people capable of it, and prepared for it ought to receive the Sacrament entire and perfect: Therefore the faithful people capable of the Sacrament, and prepared for it, aught to receive the Cup. The proposition is evident, by the institution of this Sacrament, and the confession of our adversaries: for this Sacrament was instituted in two kinds, bread and wine: as Christ blessed the one Element, so the other; as he commanded the one to be taken and eaten: so likewise or in like manner Luk. 22. 20. he commanded the other to be taken, and drunk. As a man that hath but one eye, or one ear, or one arm, or leg, is not a perfect man, but a maimed, because nature intend all those organs to be double; and the operation is more complete and perfect in both organs, than it can be in one only: In like manner he cannot be said to receive the Sacrament entire, and perfect who receiveth it but in one kind only: because Christ instituted it in two kinds, and ordained the full significancy and efficacy to be complete in both, and not in one only. Wherefore e Ideo ad sacramenti huius integritatem duo concurrunt; sc. spiritualis cibus, & potus. & part. 3. q. 80. ar. 12. ex parte ipsius sacramenti convenit, quòd utrumque sumatur. scil. corpus & sang. quia in utroque consistit perfectio sacramenti. Aquinas part. 3. q. 63. art. 1. concludeth. Therefore two things concur to the integrity of this Sacrament; viz. spiritual meat and drink. And f Perfecta refectio non est in pane tantum sed in utroque. ideo non in uno tantum perfectè signatur, Christo ut reficiens, sed in utroque. Et post: ut perfecta esset, & signaretur redemptio, & ex hoc perfecta refectio, debuit signari corpus in pane, & anima, cuius sedes est in sanguine, in vino. g Sacramentum non nifi in utraque specie, quantum ad integram significationem perficitur. item Soto in sent. distinct. 8. artic. 2. Negatur, dum sumitur solum corpus, sumi totum sacramentum, quo ad integrum eius repraes●…ntationem. ʰ Hesiod. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. * This is not to ●…eceiue the Lords Suppe●…. Bonaventure in 4. sententiarum. Distinct. 11. part. 2. art. 1. quest. 2. A perfect refection or repast is not in bread only, but in bread and drink; therefore Christ is not perfectly signified, as feeding our souls in one kind, but in both. And 〈◊〉 Soto art. 12. quest. 1. in 12. distinct. The Sacrament, as concerning the entire signification thereof, is not perfect, but in both kinds. Doubtless half a man is not a man, nor half an eye an eye, nor half a ship a ship. Neither can that which is half to one, be the whole to another. Wherefore sith the Papists confess, that this Sacrament is not entire, or whole to a Priest receiving it in one kind only, neither can it be whole to the Laiety, unless we take Hesiods riddle for sound divinity, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The half is not then the whole. The assumption cannot be denied by any Christian. Saint Paul implieth, 1. Cor. 11. That they which receive the Sacrament otherwise then they ought, receive not the Lords Supper. And S. Ambr. saith i Indignum esse dicit Domino, qui aliter mysterium celebrat, quám ab eo traditum est. Non enim potest devotus esse, qui aliter praesumit, quam datum est ab authore. expressly: comment. in 11. cap. 1. ad Corint. The Apostle saith he is unworthy of the Lord, who celebrates this mystery otherwise, than it was delivered by him: for he cannot be religious, who presumes to receive it otherwise, than it was given by the author. This whole argument is confirmed by the testimony of their accomplished jesuit k Vnaquaeque species huius sacramenti, quatenus sacramenti pars est, suam habet significationem diversam, cum ut supposuimus, significationem in sacramento novae legis consequatur efficacitas: quia id efficiunt quod significant hinc sequitur, unamquamque speciem in hoc sacramento suum effectum per se operari. Vasques, who, t. 3. in 3. disp. 215. c. 2. reasoneth thus: each kind in this sacrament, as it is apart of the sacrament, hath a divers signification by itself; and sith, according to our former suppositions, in the Sacraments of the new law the efficacy follows the signification; for they effect that which they signify: it ensueth thereupon, that each kind in this Sacrament doth produce, or work its own effect by itself. Upon which inferences of his, I collect that, which peradventure he little expected, but can never with all his sophistical slights avoid, that the Church of Rome robbeth the Laiety of, or to speak more properly, detaineth unjustly from them an unualuable jewel, viz. some measure, or degree at lest l But Vasq. in. 3. disp. 215. cap. 3. cometh off with a poor shift, saying: Concedimus Laicos, quibus alteraspecies negatur, aliquâ quidem grati●… def●…audari, non tamen necessariâ ad salutem: We grant that the Lay-people, to whom the one kind is denied, are def●…auded of some grace, but not a grace necessary to salvation, by which reason they may take away the bread also from them; because the grace ●…btained by receiving it, is no more necessary to salvation, then that which is obtained by receiving the Cup. of sanctifying grace. And what amends can they make for so unsufferable wrong done unto them? If each part of this Sacrament, have a signification a part, and an operation a part in the soul, the Roman Church by taking away one part of the Sacrament, depriveth them of the signification and operation thereof. How Vasques position can stand with their doctrine of concomitancy, let him look to it. It is no small advantage, that the truth gaineth by her enemies, falling foul one upon another. CHAP. four Argument 3. drawn from the Analogy of the thing signified to the sign. THe sign, viz. the Cup ought to be denied to none, upon whom God conferreth the grace signified by the sign: Upon all faithful Christians God conferreth the grace signified by that sign: Therefore that sign, viz. the Cup ought to be denied to no faithful Christian. The proposition is deduced from the words of m Acts 10. 47. S. Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptised, which have received the holy Ghost as well as we? Surely to whom God intendeth the end, he intendeth the use of the means. n Lor. in hac verba. Lorinus out of the ordinary gloss conceives the Apostle to use an argument à minori, which he thus reduceth to form. If God hath given that which is greater, no man ought to forbid the lesser: But God hath given them the holy Ghost, which is the greater; Therefore none ought to deny them the baptism of water, which is the less. This is all one, as if when the Pope hath bestowed an Archbishopric upon any Bishop, the Datary should deny him the Pale: or when the University hath conferred the degree of Doctor, the Beadle should deny him his Scarlet Hood: or when the Captain hath admitted a soldier into his band, any under officer should forbid him to wear his colours. As incongruous, if not far more, it is, when God the Lord and Master confers the thing signified by the Sacrament, for man, the servant, and minister to deny the sign. The asumption is easily proved; for the thing signified by the Cup, is either the Communion of Christ's blood, as the Apostle testifieth; The o 1. Cor. 10. 16. Cup of Blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? Or it is remission of sins by the bloodshedding of Christ, as the words of the institution imply; This is the blood of the new Testament, which is shed for man for the remission of sins: Neither of which benefits the Romanists dare to exclude the Laiety from. They have union with Christ by faith, therefore Communion of his blood: they receive the remission of sins by Christ's blood shed upon the Cross, with what colour then can the Romanists take away from them the Cup, the sign and pledge thereof? if they except against this argument, that children, & abstemious persons, such as cannot brook wine, receive the thing signified, viz. remission of sins, and participate of Christ's blood, and yet A Popish cavil. drink not of the holy Cup; the answer is easy; None are by this argument meant, but such as desire the Cup, and are capable thereof: such are not either children, or abstemious persons. Let the Opposition then, or Mayor be understood as it is intended, with this explication, or limitation: No faithful Christians ought to be denied the Cup, upon whom God conferreth the thing signified by the Cup. viz. none that desire it, and are capable thereof, and can The answer thereunto. receive it according to Christ's ordinance, such are the faithful people ordinarily, and so the former Cavil vanisheth into smoke. This whole argument is confirmed by a Canon, extant in p Si quoties cunque effunditur sanguis Christi, in remissionem peccatorum effunditur, debeo illum semper sumere, ut semper peccata mihi dimittantur. Gratian de consecrat: dist: 2. If as often as the blood of Christ is shed, it is shed for the remission ofsins: I ought always to take it, that always sins may be forgiven me. This Gratian gathered as a flower out of Saint Ambrose his works: but behold a greater than Saint Ambrose, our Lord and Saviour implieth as much, saying, This is my blood which is shed for you, and for many for the remission of sins; Drink ye of it, for it is shed for you, and the remission of your sins. These therefore for whom Christ's blood was shed, and they who have obtained remission of sins by it, aught by the reason annexed to this precept, drink of it. And I persuade myself, that no learned Papist hath so little charity in his heart, or so much brass in his brow, as doctrinally to deliver, that Christ's blood was not shed sor the Laiety, or that they receive not remission of sins thereby, as well as Priests. CHAP. V. The fourth argument drawn from the nature of a banquet, or supper. IN every supper, feast, or banquet, the cup is to be given to the guests, that they may drink as well as eat: The Sacrament of the Eucharist is a supper, feast, or banquet: Therefore in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the Cup is to be given to all the communicants, that they may drink as well as eat. The proposition is evident to sense, and is readily assented unto by the adversaries, Aquinas q Ad corporalem refectionem duo requiruntur sc. cibus, qui est alimentum siccum, & potus, qui est alimentum humidum. ʳ Datur sacramentum sub duplici specie, sc. panis & vini: ut per hoc spiritualis refectio perfectè designetur. ˢ 1. Cor. 11. 20. part. 3. q. 73. To a corporal refection, or repast, two things are required, viz. meat, which is a dry nourishment, and drink which is a moist. And ʸ Lyranus in 1. Corin. 11. The Sacrament is given in two kinds, or forms, viz. of bread and wine, that thereby a perfect spiritual refection might be signified. The asumption is testified by a cloud of witnesses: by Saint Paul; When you come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lords Supper; for in eating, every one taketh before hand his own supper. By Saint Cyprian, who entitleth his Treatise of this Sacrament, De coena Domini, of the Lords Supper: by Tertullian, who saith, what shall her husband sing to her, what shall she sing to her husband? t Audiat aliquid Dei coena de taberna, de gehenna? quae Dei mentio, quae Christi invocatio? shall God's Supper hear something from the Tavern, from hell? what mention of God? what calling upon Christ can there be there? etc. By Saint jerom epist. 14. ad Damasum, t Uitulus saginatus ipse saluator est, cuius quotidie carne vescimur, cruorem potamus: hoc convivium quotidie, celebratur quotid e pater fi●…um recipit. pa. 409. * the fat calf is our Saviour, whose flesh we daily eat, and drink his blood; this banquet is every day kept, every day the Father receives his Son. By Soto, art. 12. quest. in 12. dist. u Sacramentum nisi in 〈◊〉 raque so c●…e non 〈◊〉; est enim conu●…tum ex cibo & po●…u constans. The Sacrament is not perfect, but in both kinds; for it is a banquet consisting of meat and drink Nay, by the whole Church of Rome in her Offices, and public Liturgy, in the Antiphony sung at the Vespers, on Corpus Christi day, ‖ O sacrum convivium. O holy banquet; and in the prayer after the Communion, in the feastof Cosimus and Damianus. This whole argument is confirmed by * Hoc sacramentum sub duplici specie est institutum, ut ●…sset instar conui●…ij: ide●…que de illo dix●…t hristus: caro mea ve●…est cibus, & sanguis verè est potus Nam in convivio ni●…il a●…ud est, nisi cibus & potus; quorum quilibet su●… pec●…iari modo resi●…t, & ad nutri●…nem. & aug●…entum cond●…it. Vasqu. in Aquin. part. 3. quaest. 80. art. 12 disp. 215. Vasques the jesuit, disp. 215. The Sacrament is instituted in both kinds, viz. bread and wine, that it might be a kind of banquet. Therefore Christ speaking of himself saith, My fl●…sh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed: now in a banquet there is nothing but me ●…t and drink, whereof each refresheth the body after a several manner, and conduceth to the nourishment and increase thereof. Whereupon he inferreth, that each kind in the Sacrament hath a peculiar and proper signification and operation. This testimony of Vasques cometh home to the point; for he confesseth all that is enforced by this argument: first, that a banquet consists of drink as well as of meat: Secondly that the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist is a banquet; Thirdly, that the several kinds of food in this banquet nourish after a several manner; from whence, who seeth not, that it will follow that the Laiety which are debarred of one kind of viand in this banquet, and receive only the other, cannot participate the full effect and operation of the Sacrament, which is a perfect spiritual refection, or nourishment. CHAP. VI The fifth Argument drawn from the precept of drinking. NOne can drink in the Sacrament without the Cup: All that communicate, aught to drink in the Sacrament: Therefore all that communicate, aught to have the Cup given them. The proposition cannot be denied, the relation is so near between drinking and the Cup; none drink but by taking the Cup; none taketh the Cup in the Lord's Supper, but he drinketh: Spiritual drinking indeed may be * For albeit the Pope at this day is said to suck the wine out of a quill, and in some Churches anciently the people drank out of pipes, for fear of spilling: yet this drinking was not without the cup, out of which they drank, though not immediately as we do, and they ought to do, according to the practice of the Apostles themselves. without a material Cup, or Chalice; but corporal and sensible, such as is drinking in the Sacrament, which is a visible sign, cannot be without the Cup. The assumption may be collected, if not out of Saint john, 6. 53. and 56. unless you drink my blood you have no life in you: and he that drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me: (because some judicious Divines understand those texts of Spiritual, and not Sacramental drinking) yet most evidently out of other texts of Scripture, which by consent of all divines, either directly point unto, or manifestly allude to drinking in the Sacrament; As the 1. Cor. 11. 28. So let him drink of that Cup: vers. 29. Whosoever drinketh unworthily, drinketh damnation unto himself. And 1. Cor. 10. 4. All did drink that same spiritual drink: and vers. 21. Ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of devils: and 1. Cor. 12. 13. we are all made to drink into one spirit. Besides, Mat. 26. 28. Drink you all of this; of which before in the first argument. This whole argument is confirmed by Pope Innocent himself, one of the learnedest of all the Popes, and best studied in this argument. In his fourth book of the Mysteries of the mass, c. 21. The blood of Christ is x Vecsanguis sub specie panis comeditur. nec corpus sub specie vini bibitur: quia sicut nec sanguis comeditur, nec corpus bibitur: ita neutrum sub specie panis bibitur, sub specie vini comeditur. not said to be drunk under the form of bread, as neither to be eaten under the form of wine; but we infer, all faithful Christians are invited by Christ's precept, and the undeniable practice of the apostolic Churches, not only to participate of Christ's blood in some manner, as the Romanists conceive they may do in eating the flesh, but truly and properly to drink it, but sacramentally. And therefore albeit we should admit, that the blood of Christ might in some sort be taken together with the body, because now since his resurrection and ascension, they are never severed; but where his body is locally and really, there is his blood also: yet this doth not satisfy Christ's command, who requireth, that we distinctly Drink of the Cup, or wine, which he calleth his blood, Mat. 26. 28. and that we drink his blood, john 6. 53. which most of our learned adversaries understand properly of drinking Christ's blood really present, as they believe, in the Sacrament. Were his blood really present, as they suppose, in the bread by the words of consecration turned into his body yet certainly in eating the body they cannot be said to drink his blood: for eating is not drinking; neither can any man possible imagine true real and proper drinking of any thing, which is not sub liquidâ formâ, as Christ's blood cannot be sub forma panis, under the form of bread, which is dry and solid. CHAP. VII. The sixth Argument drawn à pari. Whatsoever is sacrilege in the Priest, can not but be sacrilege in the people also: To communicate in one kind only, viz. by taking the bread, and not the cup, is sacrilege in the priest: Therefore to communicate in one kind only, can be no other than sacrilege, or as bad in the people. The proposition needs no proof; for as adultery, and simony, and other crimes alter not their nature by whomsoever they be committed: so neither doth sacrilege. The same sin I grant, may be more grievious and scandalous in one, then in the other; but magis & minus non variant speciem; agravating circumstances make a gradual, not a specifical difference in sin. The y Corpus sine sanguine sacerdos non debet suscipere. quia divisio unius eiusdemque mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire. assumption we find in the Canon law, De Consecr. dist. 2. The priests must not receive the body without the blood. This is the title of the Canon: the reason follows in the body of the Canon, because the division of one and the same mystery, cannot be without great sacrilege; as also in that burning Taper of Louvain, Tapperus, and the jesuit 〈◊〉 Suarez. This whole argument is confirmed by Aquinas, Bonaventure, Alfonsus, and Vasques. z Tapperus, art. ●…5. Non est perfecta oblatio sacramentalis, quae mortis christi imaginem plane referas, nisi stat sub utraque specie. Aquin. part. 3. quest. 80. art. 12. It is requisite or agreeable in regard of the Sacrament itself, that both be taken, viz. the body and the blood, because in both consisteth the perfection of this Sacrament. And a Suarez. in 3. part. Tho. q. 80. art. 12. Distin●…uiz Thomas de Sacerdotibus & laicis, & de prioribus dicit, nullo modo debere corpus sumi sine sanguine. b●… Exparte ipsius sacramenti convenit, quod utrumque sumatur. Sci: & corpus & sanguis: qua in utroque consistit perfectio sacramenti. c Ambae species f●…nt dé integritate: quia in neutra per se exprimitur ves huius sacramenti, sed in utraque fi●…ul. Bonaventure in 4. dist. 11. part. 2. art. 1. quest. 2. Both the species or kinds are of the integrity or perfection of the Sacrament, because the thing signified by the sacrament, is expressed in neither kind by itself, but in both together. d Sacerdos hac lege devinctus est, ut quotiescunque celebret, nec panem sine vino consecret, nec unam speciem sine altera sumat; quoniam etsi sub qualibet specie totus integer Christus lateat, non tamen quaelibet species totum Christum significat, ut repraesentet: sed species panis solam carnem significat, species vinisolum sanguinem repraesentat: eiusque solius memoriam gerit; quo fit, ut si solum panem consecraret, aut solum panem consecratum sumeret, solius oblationis memoriam faceret, qua Christus obtulit suum corpus, nulla autem tunc fieret memoria sanguinis effusi, atque pro nobis oblati; quòd species panis etsi sanguinem contineat, non tamen sanguinem repraesentat, aut eius memoriam facit. Alfonsus' adversus herese. The Priest is bound by this law, that as often as he celebrates this Sacrament, that he neither consecreate the bread without the wine, nor take one of the forms or kinds without the other, because although Christ be whole and entire under either kinds; yet either kind by itself, doth not signify, or represent whole Christ: but the species, or form of bread doth signify the flesh only, the species or form of wine doth represent the blood only, and exhibit the memory of it alone. Whence it comes to pass, that if he should consecrate the bread alone, or receive the bread alone consecrated, he should represent only the memory of that oblation, whereby Christ offered his body, but there should be made no commemoration at all of his blood shed, and offered for us: because the species, or form of bread, although it contain the blood, yet it represents not the blood, nor makes any memory, or commemoration thereof. And e Hoc sacramentum sub duplici specie institutum est, non tantum quatenus sacrificium incrwentum ut sacrificium crucis Christi repraesentaret, sed etiam quatenus sacramentum. Vasques, tom. 3. in 3. disp. 215. cap. 2. num. 5. The sacrament is instituted under a double form, or in two kinds, not only as an unbloody sacrifice of Christ's Cross, but also as a Sacrament. From these testimonies of Papists of eminent note, they infer against themselves; If both kinds be requisite to the integrity of the Sacrament, as well the people, as the Priest in communicating in one kind mutilate the Sacrament, and divide one and the self same mystery, as Gelasius speaketh; If the Priest in receiving the bread only signify not whole Christ, nor represent the memory of his blood shed for us, as Alfonsus teacheth; neither do the people in so communicating either receive whole Christ, or celebrate the memory of his blood shed upon the Cross, and offered for us, to which end especially this Sacrament was instituted. Lastly, if the Sacrament were instituted under a double form, or in two kinds, not only as a sacrifice representing Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross, but also as a Sacrament (as Vasquez determineth the point) then doubtless it may no more be divided as a Sacrament, then as a sacrifice; and he is as well guilty of sacrilege, who takes away one part of the Sacrament, as he who takes away one part of the Sacrifice. If they answer, that though the Sacrament was instituted in two kinds, yet that it is really entire in one, because the body is not now without the blood, nor the blood without the body: so we reply, that the Sacrifice is entire also in one kind. If the doctrine of concomitancie take place in the Sacrament, it must needs take place also in the sacrifice; if in the people receiving the bread represents and exhibits whole Christ, it must needs do also in the Priests consecrating. As Pliny writes of the Bees, that f Plin. hist. Nature. lib. 11. cap. 19 Nocent & sua mella ipfis. they are often entangled in their own honey and wax: so are our adversaries caught fast and entangled in their own fancies, viz. the necessity of consecrating both kinds in the sacrifice of the Mass, and their doctrine of concomitancy, viz. that whole Christ's body and blood is contained in each kind by itself. Thus as the bees honey stop the little pipe, which serveth them in stead of a mouth, so our adversaries own Tenants stop their own mouth. CHAP. VIII. The seventh Argument, drawn from the nature and condition of a will, or legacy. NO legacy bequeathed by the last will and testament, confirmed by the death of the testator, aught to be withheld from any legatory, that is person, to whom it is bequeathed: The Cup in the Eucharist is a legacy, bequeathed by Christ's last will and testament to all true believers capable thereof: Therefore the Cup in the Eucharist ought not to be withheld from any true believer capable thereof. The proposition is the Apostles, Gal. 3. 15. A man's testiment, if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereunto: and Heb. 9 7. A ●…estament is of force after men are dead. The assumption is part of the words of Christ's institution, Luk. 22. 20. This cup is the new Testament in my blood. Christ calleth it his Testament, or last legacy, as a Quia ea quae vl●… adicuntur, maximè ab amicis recedentibus, magis mem●…iae commend●…ntur; pias●… tim quia tunc magis inflammatur offectus ad amic●…s: ea ver●… ad quae magis afficimur, profundius animo imprimunar. Aquinas par. 3. qu. 73. art. 50. truly noteth, Because those things which are spoken last, especially by friends departing, do stick faster in the memory, by reason that the affections are then most inflamed to our friends, and those things wherewith we are more affected, make a deeper impression in the mind. This whole argument is confirmed by jansenius, who meeting with an answer, that seems to be made to this argument, directly impugneth it. The answer given by Bellar. and others is: The legacy bequeathed, is not bread, nor wine, but the body and blood of our Lord; both which are given under one kind, as well as under both: the difference is, that they which drink of the Cup, receive the legacy as it were in two payments, they who do not drink, receive the same legacy in one payment. This answer is substantially refuted by jansenius in Liturge. b Non solum rei sacramentariae, sed etiam signaculorum habuit ratione●…. lib. 4. and 7. and thereby the former argument very much strengthened. First, saith he, the answer were to some purpose, if Christ by will had disposed only of the things signified in the Sacrament; but Christ in his legacy had respect not only to the thing signified, but also to the sign, for the manifestation of his Passion, and representation of his death. Secondly, he acutely and truly observeth, that the will of the testator might be satisfied, in giving the whole legacy at once, or twice, if it were of the nature of money, which may be paid in one great piece, or in many small amounting to the same value: But c Nec res sacramentales perplures formas dividi, nec Ecclesiae arbitrio sub unam contrahi. Ex Chamiero. it is not so in the Sacrament, saith he, the thing signified by the Sacrament cannot by the discretion of the Church be divided into more forms, nor be contracted in one. It is not in the power of the Church, to make the body alone to be under the form of bread; nor the blood alone under the form of wine; nor both of them together under one form, or kind. Therefore, as when a man bequeatheth to any by his will one thousand pound in coin, and one thousand pound in ancient plate of such a making; he that payeth the whole legacy, either in coin only, or in plate only, violates the will, because though he may give the value, yet he gives not the thing in specie bequeathed; so although it should be granted, which yet is not, that the Priest giveth to the people the body & blood of Christ in the bread; yet he violates the will of the testator, because he giveth it not so as it may be drunk, or in the form of wine. Whence I conclude, that what the Apostle saith: No man offereth to the will of a man; The Gal 3. 15. Romanists offer to the last will and testament of God our Lord: and therefore are guilty not only of grievous sacrilege, but also of grand fraud and impiety, in violating the Testament of our Saviour, and deceiving the people of a most precious legacy bequeathed by him unto them. CHAP. IX. The eight Argument drawn from the end of the Sacrament. THis Sacrament ought in such wise to be received by all Communicants, that thereby the death of Christ may be represented and showed forth: But without partaking of the Cup, it cannot be so received, that thereby Christ's death may be represented and showed forth: Therefore without partaking of the Cup, it ought not to be received by any Communicants. The proposition is the Apostles. 1. Cor. 11. 28. As often as you eat this bread, and drink this Cup, you show forth the Lords death, till he come again. The assumption is evident to sense and reason: to sense for the breaking of bread representeth in no wise the effusion of blood: to reason for blood which is contained in the body and veins, no way showeth the kill or bloody death of the party; but the blood, if it be at all in the bread (which we deny,) it can be there no otherwise, as themselves confess, then by concomitancy, as contained in, not severed from the body: as enclosed in, not shed out of the veins. Therefore if it should be granted to our adversaries, that the blood might be received in the bread by itself: yet by such receiving, Christ's death by the effusion of his blood for us, could in no wise be represented, or showed forth; which yet is acknowledged to be the principal end of the celebration of this Sacrament. This whole argument is confirmed by ●…bus Reihing, who ingeniously acknowledgeth, that in the Encheridion, which he wrote when he was a jesuit against the doctrine of the d Araneorum oper. cap. 21. In Enchiridij mei editione argumentum hoc dissimulavi, quòd ac solide responso desperavi. reformed Churches, he concealed this objection of the Protestants; because he despaired ever to give a satisfactory answer thereunto. It may be, that wits, if they be put upon the rack, may find out evasions for any argument; but a true solution, on which a man may settle his conscience, no Papist can ever give. For if the Priest be bound to consecrate, and receive the wine a part, because otherwise he should not represent the effusion of Christ's blood: by the same reason, all Communicants that receive the Sacrament, aught to take the wine apart, being mystically Christ's blood, as well as the Priests: because they in their eating and drinking are commanded to show forth, and declare Christ's death, as the Apostle teacheth us. Neither can it be said, that this manner of receiving, to show forth Christ's death, was necessary only, till such time as the Church in the Council of Constance had otherwise ordained; for the Apostles Canon extendeth to Christ's second coming; e 1. Cor. 11. 26. As oft, saith he, as you eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, you shall show forth Christ's death, till he come again. Therefore till his second d●…ng, even to the end of the world, this Injunction is of force. CHAP. X. The tenth Argument, drawn from the example of Saint Paul, and the Corinthians. THat which Saint Paul delivered from Christ to the Corinthians, touching the administration of the Eucharist, ought perpetually to be observed in the Church: But S. Paul from Christ delivered to the Corinthians the communicating of the faithful in both kinds: Therefore the communicating of the faithful in both kinds, ought perpetually to be observed (in the administration of the Eucharist) in the Church. The Proposition is vncontroleabl●…; because an example of the Apostle, and the Primitive Churches, having warrant from Christ's word, is a safe precedent to all succeeding Churches. The Assumption is contained in the 1. Cor. 11. from verse the 23. to the 29. I received of the Lord, that which I delivered unto you, etc. After this preface, he relateth this institution of the Sacrament in both kinds, vers. 24, 25. and from the 26. to the 29. he teacheth in what manner they ought to communicate in both kinds, and how they ought to fit and prepare themselves thereunto. S. Paul's authority, writing by divine inspiration, aught to sway with all religious Christians: how much more when it is backed, and seconded with some Command, Precept, Order, or at least, Warrant from Christ himself? That which I delivered unto you, saith he, I received from the Lord; and therefore you may safely follow, what not I, but the Lord hath prescribed. This whole Argument is confirmed by Becanus, who confesseth, that the Apostle delivered the Communion in both kinds; f Becanus. fateor utramque speciem à Christe institutam esse: fateor utramque ab Apostolo traditam. I confess that both kinds were instituted by Christ; I confess that both were delivered by the Apostle. g Antiqua consuetudo à temporibus Apostolorum fuit in ecclesia sub utraque specie communicandi: in hac assertione nulla est controversia. Tollet upon the sixth of john saith; There is no question of it. It was an ancient custom observed in the Church from the times of the Apostles, to communicate in both kinds. In this assertion there is no controversy at all. No controversy at all indeed; for it is the Protestants plea generally, and the Romanists themselves admit of it; but yet come in with a strange non obstante. See the Council of Constance, sess. 13. h Declarat, decernit, & definite, quòd licèt Christus post coenam instituerit, & suis discipulis administravit sub utraque specie panis & vini hoc venerabile sacramentum, etc. & licet in Primitiuâ Ecclesia huiusmodi sacramentum reciperetur sub utraque specie. The Synod declareth, decrees, and defines, that although Christ after supper instituted, and administered to his Disciples this venerable Sacrament in both kinds, viz. of bread and wine; and though this Sacrament were received in both kinds in the Primitive Church; Hoc tamen non obstante; notwithstanding all this, the Council gives order to the Contrary. The Prince by his Prerogative sometimes in his Proclamations appoints and commands in some particular, Acts to be done contrary to some former Statute, or Act; but we never read of a non obstante against the King's Prerogative; how much less against the express Command and Law of the King of Kings? Wherefore this Council deserveth to be branded for ever, either with the infamous name of non obstantiense Concilium, which Luther gives it, or In-constantiense, for breaking their public faith given to john Hus, and Jerome of Prage, and burning those blessed Martyrs, because they were not able to confute them. CHAP. XI. The eleventh Argument, drawn from the uniform, and constant practice of the Catholic Church in all ages. THe words used in the institution, Drink you all of this, aught to be expounded according to the uniform and constant practice of the Catholic Christian Church: But the constant and uniform practice of the Catholic Church extendeth them to the Laiety, as well as to the Clergy: Therefore the words of the institution extend to the Laiety, as well as to the Clergy. The Proposition was assented unto by Master Euerard, in the Conference held with him: neither, think I, any Christian will stick at it, who seriously weigheth Christ's promises to his Church, to lead her by his Spirit into all truth; to be with her unto the end of the world; to build her upon a rock, against which hell gates should never prevail; The Assumption can no otherwise so certainly be proved as by induction, and particular instances in every Age; which, God willing, shall be brought, and made good, against the adversary's exceptions, in the Sections following. SECT. I. Testimonies of the practice of the Christian Church in the first Age. From Christ's Ascension to the first 100 years following. AFter the writings of the blessed Apostle Saint Paul, whose testimony in the ninth argument is discussed, I allege for the practice of the Church in this first age Dionysius Areopagita, Martialis Lemovicensis, Clemens Romanus, and Ignatius Antiochenus. For albeit I assent thus far to our learned Critics, that these Authors are not altogether currant; there is some dross in Ignatius, more in Martialis, and most of all in Clemens: and Dionysius is undoubtedly post-natus 300. years at lest younger than his age is set in the Roman register; yet for the reasons following, I thought fit to produce these Authors, and rank them in the first age. First, because our adversaries usually so rank them, and allege them against us for fathers of the first age; and surely if their testimonies be good and ancient, when they seem to make against us, they are to be accounted as good and ancient, when they make for us. Secondly, because we cannot make authors, but must take such as we find, these are the only authors that are extant, out of whom testimonies may be alleged for this first age. Therefore as the sage Senator of Capua, when the people upon a just distaste given by the Magistrates, had a purpose at once to cashier them all, advised them: Before you remove these, choose fitter in their places; and when diverse were named unto them, and they could like of none, in the end he persuaded them to keep the old officers, till they could agree to name better in their rooms: so I would desire our Critics to name us more approved authors in this age, than these are, and if they can name none, then to let these hold their places, and the estimation they have had for many hundred years. Thirdly, because I hold it no good Topick, to argue à part ad totum, affirmatively in this manner. There are some false passages, or corruptions in an author: therefore the author is spurious, and of no credit. If we may thus fillip off ancient Writers, we shall have but a few left. If there are (as no doubt there be) diverse dead boughs & superfluous stems in these Writers of so long standing: let our Critics prune them off, not cut the trees down by the roots. Poliat lima, non exterat, saith Fabius, let the pluimer smooth the timber & cut of the rugged knobs, not grate or wear out the heart of it. Volo nasutum, non polyposum. Fourthly, because the testimonies I cite out of these authors, were never questioned, much less proved to be taken for good by the adversary, until he can disprove them, according to the rule of the Civil law: supponitur esse bonus, qui non probatur esse malus, he is supposed to be an honest man, who was never proved otherwise. To call in then these ancients in that order, as commonly they go: * Postquam rogavit, ut castè distribuat, & ij qui Sacramentis participaturi sunt, dignè sumant, pane qui opertus erat & integer, ape●…o, & in multas partes fracto, & unico cal●…ce diniso inter omnes, quod unum est, signis multiplicat, & distribuit. First, Anno 70. Dionysius Areopagita in his book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. chap. 5. relateth the practice of the Church in his time on this manner. ᶻ After the Priest hath prayed, that he may holily distribute, and that they that are to partake of the Sacraments, may receive it worthily: discovering the bread, that before was covered, and breaking it into many pieces, and dividing one Cup among all, he multiplieth that in the signs, which is but one, and distributeth it. Anno. 80. The second, Martialis k Honorabatis sacerdotes, qui decipienant vos suis sacrificijs, quae mutis & surdis statuis offerebant, quae nec se, nec vos iware poterant; nunc autem multò magis sacerdotes Dei omnipotentis, qui vitam vobis tribuunt in chalice, & pane vivo, honorare debetis. Lenoricensis, who styleth himself a servant of God, and an Apostle of jesus Christ, in his epistle ad Burdigal. writeth thus: You heretofore honoured the priests, which deceived you with their sacrifices, which they offered to dumb and deaf images, that neither could help you, nor themselves: but now much more you ought to honour the Priests of Almighty God, who minister life unto you in the Cup, and living Bread. By this argument of Marshals, the Romish Priests, that give the people but an half Communion, should lose half of the honour due unto God's Priests, if not the whole. For thus out of Marshal's premises I conclude. Those, and none but those Priests are to be honoured and reverenced, who administer life to the people in the Cup: The Romish Priests administer not life to the people in the Cup: Therefore they are not to be reverenced, or honoured. Anno 92. Thirdly, Clemens l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. in his second book of Constitutions, 57 chap. thus enjoineth: after the offering of the sacrifice, let every order a part receive the body of our Lord, and his precious blood. Anno 100 Fourthly, Ignatius, the Scholar of Saint john the Evangelist, Bishop of Antioch and Martyr, in his Epistle to the Philadelphians, enforceth an argument to unity from the Communion: I exhort you to embrace one faith, one manner of preaching, and use of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: for the flesh of our Lord jesus is one, and his blood one that was shed for us, there is one bread also broken for all, * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and one Cup distributed unto all. Bellarmine his first Answer. Bellarmine is put to a miserable plunge in his answer to this allegation. First, he saith, in the Latin n Bell. de sacr. Eucharist. lib. 4. cap. 26. In Latinis codicibus non habetur; unus calix omnibus distributus; sed unus calix totius Ecclesiae. nec multum fidendum Graecis codicibus. copies the words of Ignatius are not as we cite them; There is one Cup distributed unto all: but there is one Cup of the whole Church: and though the Greek copies read as we do, yet he saith, that much credit is not to be given to them. The Refutation. Against this answer I reply: First, that if we may not trust the Greek editions of Ignatius, much less may we trust the Latin translations; especially since of late they are come into huckster's hands. To appeal from a translation to the original is usual: but to appeal from the original to a translation is a thing unheard of. This is to make the brook or stream to be purer than the fountain or spring. The Poet teacheth Bellarmine another lesson: Dulciùs ex ipso fonte bibuntur aquae. Ignatius, as it is well known, wrote in Greek, and therefore unless Bellarmine can prove, that other Greek copies agree with his Latin translation, and not with ours, he speaketh nothing to the purpose: for a translation is of no credit further, than it agrees with the * And howsoever Bellarmine may produce some Latin copy, that translateth the words of Ignatius, as Bellarmine sets them down, unus Calix totius Ecclesiae; yet Uitlemeus, and diverse other Latin copies following the original verbatim, render them thus, unus calix omnibus distributus, that is, One Cup distributed unto all. original. Secondly, even Bellarmine's corrupt translation maketh against the Church of Rome, and proveth, that the practice in Ignatius his time was for the whole Church to communicate in both kinds: for why else calleth he it, Calicem totius Ecclesiae, The Cup of the whole Church? Ignatius there speaks not of the possession, but of the use of the Cup: and if the Priests only had drank of it, he would have called it the Priest's Cup: but in terming it the Cup of the whole Church, he plainly signifieth, that the whole Church used it in the celebration of the Lords Supper. Bellarmine, his second answer. Secondly, o Respondeo, Ignatium vim facere in unitate calicis, non universalitate bibentium. Bellarmine saith, that the force of Ignatius his argument consisteth in the unity of the Cup, and not in the universality of them that drink, for he exhorteth there to unity. The Refutation. First, Ignatius exhorts there all to unity, because all eat of one bread, and drink of one cup. His argument therefore standeth both in the universality of them that drink, and the unity of the Cup: and it may be thus reduced into form. All that eat of one bread, and drink of one holy Cup, in remembrance of one body offered, and one blood shed for all, aught to embrace unity: But all you of the Church of Philadelphia (people as well as Priests) eat of one bread, and drink of one holy Cup, in memory of one body offered, and one blood of Christ shed for you all: Therefore all you of the Church of Philadelphia ought to embrace unity, and godly love. If the pinch, or strain of the argument were in unity only, it would not hold; for if some only drank of this Cup, and not others, this should rather make more for a division, then for unity; it is the communion of more in one, that Ignatius layeth for the ground of his argument, enforcing unity. Secondly, howsoever the argument stands, it makes no great matter; sith we insist not so much upon the argument itself, as upon that his express affirmation; That one Cup in his time was given unto all. This assertion alone sufficiently proveth the practice of the Church in his time. Bellarmine his third answer. Thirdly, p Respondeo, nihil ex his verbis elici, nisi fuisse usum illo temp●…re, cum pauci erant Christiani, ut omnibus daretur potus calicis, sed hoc exemplum est, non praeceptum. Bellarmine saith, that nothing can be enforced from these words of Ignatius, but that it was the use in that time, when there were but few Christians to give the Cup unto all: but this is an example, it is no precept: so the Cardinal. The Refutation. First, it is not true, which he here affirmeth; that there were but few Christians in Ignatius his time: for all histories of those times, and the Epistles of Ignatius testify the contrary, and in this very Church of Philadelphia, the holy Ghost testifieth, Apoc. 3. 8. That there were many Christians. Behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man shall shut it, etc. Secondly, though the Primitive Church were not of that large extent, as the Church in succeeding ages: yet the authority of the Church in that age, in which the Apostles lived, and their immediate successors, is far greater, then in any later age. Thirdly, in this last answer the Cardinal yieldeth us the cause; for we cite these words of Ignatius only to prove the practice of the Primitive Church, and thus much Bellarmine confesseth, whereupon I add; that this confessed practice of the Primitive Church was grounded on our Lord's precept: drink you all of this; for the Church so near Christ cannot be supposed to have swerved any way from his institution, by adding any thing unto it, or taking away from it: certainly, Ignatius, and the Churches, wherein he bore sway, observed the order and practise of Saint john his master; and if Saint john administered the Cup in all Churches to the people, so did the rest of the Apostles; for they varied not from Christ, or among themselves in celebrating the Lords Supper. And what the Apostles did jointly, no Christian doubteth, but they did by the direction of the holy Ghost, according to our Lords will and commandment. And thus we see this example amounteth to a precept, and the practice in Ignatius his time, aught to be a precedent for all future times. SECT. II. Testimonies of the Practice of the Christian Churches in the second Age. From 100 to 200. Anno Dom. 150. IVstin q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Martyr in his second apology, thus writeth: They which are called Deacons among us, give to every one that is present of the consecrated Bread and Wine. And when he hath related the whole manner of the celebration of the Eucharist, as it were to prevent a cavil that might be made, and is now made by Papists; the Martyr here showeth the practice of the Church, but maketh no mention of the precept of our Saviour; as that they did so in deed, but were not bound so to do: he further addeth for the close: as they report that jesus commanded them, or, as they have delivered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. unto us, jesus his command given unto them. Bellarmine, his answer. Bellarmine repineth at this so express a testimony of so ancient a Father, and so renowned a Martyr; and therefore laboureth to disparage it some way or other.— Si non aliqu â nocuisset, mortuus esset. Yet all that he saith r Respondeo, verba illa justini, ubi commemoratur Christi praeceptum, non pertinent ad Communionem, sed ad consecrationem. to it is but this; that those last words of the Martyr, which mentioneth Christ's precept, belong not to the Communion, but to the Consecration. The Refutation. This solution will no way bear water. First, it is evident to any that reads the whole place, that justin Martyrs words, wherein he mentioneth Christ's precept, belongeth both to the Consecration, and to the Communion. For after he had spoken of the Communion, he subjoineth these words; And therefore they cannot be severed from the Communion: The series or method of the passage in justin is thus: having rehearsed the words of the Institution, This is my body, do this in remembrance of me, and this Cup is the new Testament; drink you all of this: he addeth; and he commanded, that they only should participate, as had been before washed in the laver of Regeneration, and lead such a life as Christ prescribed them. These words? that they only should participate, clearly convince the Cardinal, and demonstrate, that justin Martyr extendeth Christ's command both to the Consecration, and to the Commumunion itself: which in Christ's precept cannot be divided, both being enjoined in this one precept; do this in remembrance of me▪ that is, Consecrate, and Communicate. Secondly, howsoever the Cardinal by any trick of sophistry shall dismember the whole sentence, and pull these words, As Christ commanded, from the rest, and refer them to which part of the sentence he pleaseth; yet he can never smother the light of truth shining in these words; The Deacons deliver or minister to every one, of the consecrated bread and wine. The practice then of those times maketh for us against the Church of Rome. The Deacons then, as the Ministers now, delivered the Sacrament to the people in both kinds. Anno. 152. Laurence Deacon, to Pope Sixtus cried out to him as he was led to his Martyrdom: Whether goest thou, father, without thy son? whether hastest, thou Priest, without thy Levite? try whether thou hast chosen a fit s Histor. tripartit. l. 9 Cui commisisti Dominici sanguinis dispensationem; Cui consummandorum consortium sacramentorum, huic consortium tui sanguinis negas? citatur hic locus à Tappero artic. 15. p. 335. minister, to whom thou hast committed the dispensation of our Lord's blood. Wilt thou deny me to be a copartner with thee in the effusion of thy blood, who hast made me a copartner with thee in the celebration of our Lord's blood? This giveth such light to justin Martyrs words, and so fully acordeth with them, that Tiletanus, the defender of the council of Trent confesseth, that it is t Manifestum est aetate Sixti utriusque speciei usum omnibus dispensatum fuisse. manifest, that in this age the use of both kinds was common to all. Anno 180. Saint Irenaeus Bishop of Lions and Martyr, in the fourth book against heresies, and 34. cha. proveth the resurrection of the flesh, and eternal life by an argument drawn from the faithfuls eating Christ's flesh in the Eucharist, and he presseth his argument in this manner; How do they, viz. the heretics, say, that the flesh Quomodo dicunt carnem in corruptionem devenire, quae corpore Domini, & sanguine, alitur. Et paulo post: corpora nostra participantia Eucharistiàmiam non sunt corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia. should be utterly corrupted and never rise again, which is nourished with the body and blood of Christ? and a little after, Our bodies by participating the Eucharist or Sacrament of our Lord's supper, are not now corruptible, or shall not utterly be corrupted, and come to nothing, because they have the hope of theresurrection. Irenaeus speaketh of all Christians, people as well as Priests, for all faithful Christians have hope of a blessed resurrection; and he saith, that they are nourished with the body and blood of Christ, by participating of the Sacrament of his supper. Papists answer. The Romanists seek to avoid these and the like passages by their doctrine of concomitancy, averring that the blood of Christ is not severed from his body; and consequently, that the Laiety take the blood in the body, and are nourished therewith to eternal life, and this, say they, is all that can be gathered from Irenaeus his words: They are nourished with the blood of Christ, which they receive together with his body, not with the blood of Christ, which they take by itself in the Cup. The Refutation. This answer of theirs is weak, and insufficient. First, because it is built on a weak and ruinous foundation. viz. the real and carnal presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament under the accidents of bread and wine: which I have else where by Scriptures and Fathers refelled. See the fisher caught in his own net. part. 2. That the doctrine of concomitancy is builded upon the real and carnal presence, is not denied by the Romanists, for they make the one the ground of the other. Secondly, albeit we should grant, that the Laiety in some sense receive the blood of Christ in the bread; yet they receive it not so as Christ commandeth: for they receive it not by drinking; No man drinketh in eating, or eateth in Drinking. Thirdly, the blood of Christ, which we receive in the Sacrament, we receive not as subsisting in his veins, or as being a part of, or joined unto his body; but as shed for us: In which quality and manner it is impossible to receive the blood of Christ together with, and in the body by natural concomitancy. Fourthly, whatsoever becometh of the device of concomitancy, our adversaries therewith cannot shift off Irenaeus. For in his fifth book, and second Chapter, he speaketh distinctly of the Cup, and declareth his meaning to be, that the faithful are made partakers of eternal life by drinking Christ's blood, (mystically) in the Chalice: He confirmed the Chalice or Cup, which is a t Caliccm, qui est creatura, suum sanguinem, qui effusus est, confirmavit, ex quo auget nostrum singuinem. Et post: quando mistus calix, & fractus panis pereipit verbum Dei, fit Eucbaristia corporis & sanguinis Christi: quomodo negant carnem essecapacem donationis Dei, que est vita aeterna, quae sanguine & corpore Christi nutritur, & est membrum? creature, to be his blood, shed for us, wherewith our blood is nouvished: and a little after; when the mingled Cup and bread broken receiveth the Word of God (that is the benediction, or consecration) it is made the Eucharist or Sacrament of Christ's body and blood: how then do they (the heretics) deny, that our flesh is capable of the gift of God, which is eternal life, sith it is nourished with Christ's body and blood, and is a member? From these passages of Irenaeus thus I collect his argument. All they that in the Sacrament of the Lord Supper eat of the bread, and drink of the Cup consecrated, are nourished by Christ's body and blood to eternal life: All faithful Christians, or worthy communicants eat of the bread, and drink of the consecrated Cup: Therefore all faithful Christians, or worthy communicants are nourished by Christ's body and blood to eternal life. If the adversary will have the assumption restrained to Priests only, he must needs in like manner restrain the conclusion to Priests only; which is little less than heresy. Irenaeus his intent and drift in that place is, to confirm all the faithful in the doctrine of the resurrection, and therefore his medium must be universal, and such as holds as well for the Christian people, as for the Priest. Anno. 190. Clemens Alexandrinus stromatum lib. 1. when they distribute the Eucharist, as the manner is, they give to every one of the u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. people a part or portion thereof. Now that the Eucharist includeth the Cup, as well as the bread, he declareth himself in express words. paedagog. li. 2. cap. 2. The mingling of the drink and of the water and the word is called the Eucharist: and a little before: to drink the blood of jesus is to be partaker of the Lords incorruption. & stromatum lib. 4 Melchizedeke sanctified bread and wine for * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. a type of the Eucharist; not bread only, but bread and wine is the Eucharist, and of this every one of the people participated in his time, therefore all drank of the Cup. Bellarmine's answer. Bellarmine cavilleth x Non sequitur illa negativa ex affirmativa, qui bibit Christi sanguinem, habet incorruptionem, ergo non bibit, potest enim aliunde habere, nempe à corpore. * Sanguis Domininon dat incorruptionem, quia bibitur, sed quia sumitur: sanguinem autem verè sumunt, qui sub unica specie communicant. at the last passage save one, viz. where Clemens saith, to drink Christ's blood is to be partaker of his incorruption. First he saith it doth not follow, that because he that drinketh Christ's blood hath immortality or incorruption: therefore he that drinketh it not, hath not incorruption: for he may have it otherwise, namely, by the body. Secondly, he saith, that Christ's blood giveth incorruption or immortal life, not because it is drunk but because it is taken. Now it is truly taken of them, who communicate in one kind only, because the blood is not severed from the body, which they partake of. The refutation. This answer of Cardinal Bellarmine is many ways defective. First, when we gave him three wounds, he applieth a plaster but to one of them, and it is too narrow for that too: he cunningly silenceth our strong allegations out of Clemens, and singleth out one of the weakest. Secondly, that passage of Clemens, to which alone he would seem to say something, he saith indeed nothing. For if the drinking of Christ's blood be a means to attain our Lord's incorruption, or immortality, as Bellar, out of Clemens confesseth, although he denyeth it to be the only means; why should the people be deprived of this means? Our argument out of Clemens standeth thus. None ought to be deprived of the means of attaining our Lord's incorruption, and immortality. But the drinking of Christ's blood is the means to attain immortality: Therefore none ought to be deprived of the use of the Cup: I mean none that are fit guests for the Lords table. Thirdly, Clemens saith not, to take Christ's blood, but to drink it, is to partake of incorruption. And therefore, albeit Christ's blood might be otherwise participated, then by drinking of the Cup, this satisfieth not Clemens his intention and scope, who speaketh expressly of taking of it in this manner, viz. by drinking. Fourthly, Bellarmine in his answer beggeth the question. For he supposeth, that Christ's blood, is taken in the bread, as his body in the Cup, which I have before refuted out of Innocentius. SECT. III. Testimonies of the practice of the Church from 200. to 300. Anno. 210. FIrst Tertullian in his book of the resurrection of the flesh. cap. 8. speaking of the practice of Christians in general, and not Ecclesiastic only, saith: y Caro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur, ut anima de Deo saginetur. The flesh feedeth upon the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be fatted, as it were of God. Papists answer. z Loc. sup. cit. Tert. Dixit nos sanguine vesci, non sanguinem bibere, vescimur autem sanguine, cum sumimus per modum cibi, sub specie panis. Cardinal Bellarmine shifteth of this sentence of Tertullian: by tithing mint and cummim, nicely distinguishing between feeding upon Christ's blood, & drinking it. The people may and do feed upon Christ's blood, though they drink it not, but eat it, or take it by way of meat, under the form of bread. The refutation. This nicety will not serve the turn. First because Tertullian speaketh of the body and blood of Christ as distinct things, saying, corpore et sanguine. Now the blood taken as a distinct thing from the body, cannot be fed upon, but by drinking: we feed upon the blood of Christ in the Sacrament as shed for us; and therefore necessarily as severed from the body. And how is it possible, to take blood, or feed upon it as shed and severed from the body, without drinking of it? All faithful Christians in Tertullian his time fed upon Christ's blood, as distinguished from the body; they drank it therefore. Why then doth Tertullian use the Verb, vesci, signifying to feed upon, & not bibere, signifying to drink? The reason is evident, because he speaketh of the partaking of both the body and the blood, which he could not express by the word, Drink, because we drink not the body; he useth, therefore a common word Vesci, to feed, which may be applied to both acts, eating and drinking; namely, eating the body, and drinking the blood. Feeding is as the Genus to both, and may be affirmed of both, For which cause Tertullian speaking of both made choice of it, rather than of the Verb, bibere, which could not agree to Corpore, though it were proper to sanguine. Secondly, Tertullian himself elsewhere maketh mention of the Cup given to the Laiety, and not only to Lay men, but women also. Tertul. ad a De cuius m●… desiderabit, de cuius poculo participabit? etc. uxorem lib. 2. c. 6. shall the Lords Table hear any thing, or have to do with the Tavern, or with hell? from whose hands, shall she desire (the Sacramental) bread, of whose Cup shall she participate? He speaketh of a Christian woman married to an infidel, and showeth the inconveniency of such a match, whereby the faithful wife was like to be debarred of the comfort of receiving the Sacrament, and drinking of the Lords Cup. Tert. then is clear for the Laiety communicating in both kinds. And so is Origen. Anno. 230. Origen in 16. b Quis est iste populus, qui in usu habet sanguinem bibere? etc. populus fidelis populus Christianus audit hac, & amplectitur eum, qui dicit, nisi manducaveritis carnem filij hominis, etc. Hom. on Numb. maketh this question. What people is it, that is accustomed to drink blood? and he answereth the faithful people; the Christian people heareth these things, and embraceth him, who saith, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Mark the ingemination? The people, the faithful people heareth these things, etc. Therefore in origen's time it was the people's use and custom, to drink the blood of Christ. Papists answer. c Respondeo, habet in usu, non praecepto. Secundo, ut usum eum habeat populus Christianus, non necesse est, ut singuli de populo bibant, sed satis est, si in ecclesia aliqui sint, qui id faciant. Bellarmine loc. sup. cita. saith to this testimony of Origen, that the people did drink, but they had no command so to do. It was their use, it was not Christ's precept. Secondly, he saith, the people might have such a use or custom, to drink at the Lords supper, though every one drank not, but some only. The Refutation. I need not refel this answer, because Bellarmine granteth all that, for which I produce this testimony: that the practice of the Church in origen's time goeth for us; and his mincing the matter, that some of the people might drink, not all, and that they drank it by custom, not by law, no way helpeth his bad cause. For first, Origen in this very place allegeth Christ's precept for this practice of the faithful people, john. 6. unless ye drink my blood, you have no life in you. Secondly, in the end of this homily, he turneth his speech not to some of this people, but to his audience, and thus concludeth; d Tu ergo es verus populus Israel, quiscis sanguinem bibere, & nosti carnem verbi Dei commedere, & ●…vae sanguinem illius, qua est ex vera vite, & illis palmitibus, quos pate purgat, ●…rire. Thou therefore art the true people of Israel, who knowest to drink the blood, and hast learned to eat the flesh of the Word of God, and to take a draught of the blood of that grape, which is of the true vine, & those branches of which the father purgeth. The evidence of this truth is like the light of the morning: it groweth clearer and clearer. For Origen is clearer in this point than Tertullian, and Cyprian is yet clearer, than Origen. Anno. 250. Cyprian that learned Bishop of Carthage, and blessed Martyr of Christ jesus, not only delivereth but propugneth our assertion by a forcible argument. e Quomodo provocamus eos in confession nominis sanguinem suum effundere, si iis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamur aut quomodo ad martyrij poculum idoneos facimus, si non eos prius ad bibendum in Ecclesia poculum iure communionis admittimus? epist. 54. How do we invite them (God's people) to shed their blood for Christ in the confession of his name, if when they set forth to fight for him, we deny them his blood? how shall we fit them for the Cup of Martyrdom, if before we admit them not by right of Communion to drink of the Lords Cup in his Church? in his 63. epistle * Quoniam quidam vel ignoranter, vel simpliciter in chalice Dominico sanctificando & plebi ministrando hoc non faciunt, quod jesus Christus Dominus & Deus noster docuit, & fecit, etc. Because some men out of ignorance, or simplicity in sanctifying the Cup of the Lord, and ministering it to the people; do not that which jesus Christ our Lord and God, the Author and Institutor of this Sacrifice did, and taught; I thought it both a matter of religion, and necessity, to acquaint you herewith by letters: that, if any yet be held in that error, the light of truth being now discovered unto him; he might return unto the root and beginning of our Lord's institution. Papists answer. Bellarmine in his answer to Saint Cyprian, makes good the Poet's observation: Qui semel verecundiae limites transiverit, hunc graviter impudentem esse oportet: he that hath once passed the bounds of modesty, he must be stoutly impudent, and arm his forehead with brass: for here he is not content to slight this allegation, as he did the former: but is bold to challenge it for an evidence on his own side. This place, saith he, rather maketh for our opinion, then against it: for f Loc. supr. cit. Respondeo, hoc loco confirmatur potius, qùam infirmatur nostra sententia. Loquitur enim de lapsis, quibus ab Episcopis oblatum erat ius communionis: & hortatur, ut iis restituatur, iminente persecutione; ius ergo Laicorum ad Communicandum à Sacerdotibus datur, & tollitur; & si prelati possunt ob crimina tollere, possunt ordinare de modo Communicandi sub unica specie. Bellarm. loc. sup. citato. Non agit eo loco Cyprianus, opor●…ne calicem prebere, an non? sed tantum, si ministretur, ut ex vine misto, non ex aqua solâ constet; & hoc dicit dominum docuisse. Saint Cyprian speaketh of certain Christians, that fell in time of persecution, from the profession of the true faith, and were therefore excommunicated by the Bishops, whom Saint Cyprian exhorteth, in regard of the eminent persecution, to restore these weak Christians to their former right and interest, which they had in the Lord's body. The right therefore of the Laiety to Communicate, is given by the Priests, and taken away by them. Now if the Priests or Prelates, may for certain crimes take the right of Communicating from the Laiety, they may also dispose of the manner of Communicating under one kind. To the second testimony he answereth, that Cyprian in that place handleth not the point, whether the Cup ought to be delivered to the people or no, but if it be delivered unto them, he will have it delivered not in water only, but wine mingled with water. And this he saith, Christ taught us. The Refutation. Neither of these answers will bear scale, both of them are to light by many grains: the first of these is liable to these exceptions. First, it is impertinent: for we bring the testimony to prove the practice of the Primitive Church concerning the Laieties participating the Cup: But Bellarmine craftily waves that point, and questioneth by what right the people did Communicate. Admit that, which is most false, that the Bishop or Priest gave the people all the right they had to the Cup, yet they had it, and used it; their practice therefore maketh for us. Secondly, it is inconsequent: for first, when a'man is Excommunicated, and hath lost his right to the Lords Table, a Bishop upon the party's submission, and sorrow for his sin, and humble entreaty, may restore him to his right again, and set him where he was: yet this proveth not, that the Laiety had their original right of Communicating from them; as a Bishop may upon just cause suspend a Lay man, or Clergy from the Communion, so he may also exclude him from hearing of the word, and public prayer; yet no man will hence conclude, that the Laiety, or Priest have no right at all to come into the Church, and to pray, and to hear God's word, but from the Bishop. Albeit Cyprian in his own Church, and any other Bishop in his Diocese may admit, or reject some particular persons upon just cause from the Communion: yet it will not from hence follow, that the Bishop of Rome may take away either the Cup, or the Bread from God's people in all Churches. Thirdly, it is no good inference, that because the Bishop may deprive a man of the whole Sacrament upon some causes, viz. for a great crime, or high misdemeanour, that therefore he may deprive him of a part of it without any fault at all, as the Romanists do the Laiety in general. Fourthly, a Bishop may dispense with his own censures, or revoke them; but he cannot dispense with God's law. To suspend a man from the whole Communion, if the delinquent deserve it, is agreeable to Christ's and the Apostles discipline; but to admit him to one part of the Sacrament, and not to the other, is a manifest violation of Christ's ordinance, who instituted this Sacrament in two kinds, and said to the same, Drink ye all of this, to whom before he said, Take, eat, this is my body. Fifthly, and lastly, if it were sufficient reason to redeliver the Cup in these times to the Laiety, who have been deservedly deprived of it, namely to arm them against eminent persecution, why should not the faithful people of God, especially those, who never incurred the censure of Excommunication, or suspension, be much rather admitted to drink of the Cup, to arm them against as great, or greater conflicts of temptations? The sinnew of Saint Cyprians reason is in the word militaturis: Those that are to fight the Lords battles, are to be strengthened thereunto, by taking the Cup of Salvation, or drinking the Lords Blood. But I assume, all Christians in all ages were, are, and shall be militantes, or militaturi, such as have fought, do fight, or shall against their ghostly and bodily enemies; therefore according to Saint Cyprians military discipline, they are to be strengthened, and armed thereunto, by participating of the Lords Cup. The answer of Bellarmine to the second testimony of Saint Cyprians 63. Epistle, cometh not home to the mark by many bows: for albeit the main scope of that Epistle be, to prove the necessity of administering the Sacrament in Wine, against the corrupt custom of the Aquarij, (certain heretics that administered it in mere water) yet on the by, he discovereth the practice of the Church in his time, to Communicate in both kinds; and in the words alleged, be expressly faith, that the Cup was ministered, or delivered to the people, which is all we produce this passage for. SECT. four Testimonies of the practice of the Church from 300. to 400. Anno. 314. IN the council held at Ancyra, Deacons that had sacificed unto Idols, are forbidden to exercise any sacred function: and in particular, nec panem, nec calicem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; not to offer or deliver bread or the Chalice. The Chalice then by their Deacons was delivered; to whom, but to the people? for Priests administer to Deacons, but Deacons never to Priests. Anno. 316. In the Council held at Neo-Caeserea can. 13. country Priests are forbidden in the presence of a Bishop, or the Priest of the city, to deliver the sanctified bread or Cup to any. Here we see the Cup as well as the bread was delivered at the communion; the words are, nec panem, nec calicem porrigere. Anno 325. In the acts of the k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Council of Nice, set out by Gelasius Cyzicenus, we have a most express testimony of the belief and practice of the Church in that flourishing age. Let us understand by faith, that in that holy Supper the Lamb of God, that takes away the sins of the world, is offered without blood by the Priests, and that we taking his precious body and blood, do verily believe, that they are symbols, or pledges of our resurrection. Anno. 337. l Quod pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt eucharistiam populo; nec hoc prolatum ex Euangelio testimonium receper●…nt. Vbi Apostolis corpus suum commendavit, & sanguinem. seorsum enim panis, & seorsum calicis commendatio memoratur. julius' the first, as we read in Gratian de conse. dist. 2. condemneth the practice of such, who gave the people a bit of bread dipped in wine for the whole Communion, alleging against this corrupt custom, the practice of our Saviour, who when he commended his body and blood to the Apostles, he commended the bread and the Cup apart. This ancient Pope concludes from our Saviour's practice, that the people ought to receive the holy elements of bread and wine a part, & consequently, that it is not sufficient to give them the bread dipped. Now if it be not sufficient to give them the bread dipped in the wine, julius would have held it much less sufficient to give them dry bread. If our Saviour, as he rightly conceiveth, enjoined; that all aught to partake of the elements apart, certainly he enjoined, that the people should receive both, and not bread only, or wine only by concomitancy. Anno 340. Athanasius in his second Apology maketh it plainer, that the undeniable custom in his age was for the people to receive the Cup. This saith he, is the use of this Cup and no other: in this Cup you lawfully or of right drink before, or to the Laity. This you have received for an Ecclesiastical Cannon; m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. it belongs to you alone to drink the blood of Christ before the Laiety. Anno 355. n Haec accepta & hausta id efficiunt, ut & nos in Christo, & in nobis Christus sit. Hilarius Pictaviensis de trinitate lib. 8. writeth thus. There is no place left of doubting concerning the truth of Christ's flesh and blood; for both by our Lords own profession, and our faith, it is truly flesh, and truly blood; and these being taken and drunk, do work this effect, that Christ is in us, and we in Christ; Saint Hilary spoke of all Christians, and saith, that they receive the flesh of Christ, & hauriunt: that is, take a draught of his blood, which cannot be without partaking the Cup. For although the doctrine of concomitancy were admitted, whereby our adversaries suppose, that the people take the blood of Christ in the body: yet certainly there they cannot haurire sanguinem, take a draught of blood, or drink it, because it is not there in a liquid form, or so that it may be sucked, or drunk. Anno 365. o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Cyril. Catechesi Mystagogicâ 4. Under the form of bread, Christ's body is given unto thee, that taking the body and blood of Christ, thou mayst be of one body and blood with him. And a little after; After thou hast p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. participated of the body of Christ, draw near also to the cup of his blood. Anno. 366. Macarius Egyptius. hom. 27. By offering bread and wine in the Church, he gave us a pattern to take his body and blood. Anno 370. S. q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil in his 289. epistle to Patricia exhorts her frequently to participate the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood, saying, It is good and profitable every day to participate the holy body and blood of Christ. And in his morals, chap. 22. he propoundeth this question: what is the proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. duty of a Christian? and he answereth immediately; to have no spot, or wrinkle in his Conscience, to be holy and unblameable, and so to eat the body, and drink the blood of Christ. Our adversaries do well to conceal this testimony of Saint Basil, because it is so direct and full to the point, that it admits not any collourable answer. He saith, that it is the proper duty of a Christian; and therefore not of a Priest only, not to eat Christ's body only and receive his blood (by concomitancy) but expressly to drink it: and this he teacheth to be as necessary a duty of all Christians, as to cleanse themselves from sin and to be holy and undefiled. Anno. 372. y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gregory Nazianzen, surnamed the Divine, S. Basils' bosom friend in his 42. oration invites all to drink the blood of Christ, who look for life by him, without any doubting or shamefast fear: Eat his body, and drink his blood, if thou desirest life: and in his second oration he testifieth, that his sister Gorgonia, after she had Communicated, * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. laid up some part of the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. With what face then can our adversaries deny the Cup to Lay men, when the ancient Church delivered it usually to religious women, such as were Patricia, and Gorgonia? Anno 375. Ambrose in his fifth book de sacramentis chap. 1. elegantly applieth Moses his striking the rock, and the water flowing out thereupon to the holy communion, saying, see the mystery, Moses, that is a Prophet, the Rod, that is God's word, the Priest with the Word of God toucheth the rock, and the water floweth, and the people of God drink it. z Tangit sacerdos calicem, & redundat aqua in calicesaliens in vitam aeternam, & bibit populus Dei, qui Dei gratiam consecutus est. The Priest therefore toucheth the Cup, and there aboundeth in the Cup water springing to eternal life; and the people of God drinketh, and obtaineth the grace of God. The same S. Ambrose, as Theodoret writes in his fifth book of Ecclesiastical story, and 17. chap. repelleth the Emperor Theodosius from the Communion with these words: u Quomodo venerandum eius sanguinem ori ad movebis, qui furore irae iubente tantum sanguinis tam in iquè effudist●…? How darest thou take into thy hands, sprinkled with blood, the holy body of Christ? How presumest thou to lift up his dreadful blood to thy mouth, who in thy rage hast spilt unjustly so much blood? We see in Saint Ambroses' time, that both Prince and people communicated in both kinds: albeit Theodosius at this time were deservedly suspended from the participating of Christ's body, as well as his blood: Yet after he had cleansed his bloody hands with penitent tears, he was admitted to the blessed Sacrament, and he received both the blessed Body, and the holy Cup into his hands. Cardinal Bellarmine himself in his answer to this our allegation out of Theodoret, saith, We confess, that both kinds have been sometimes given to ˣ Fatemur datam aliquando utramque speciem Laicis, sed negamus id iure divino mandatum. the Laiety, but we deny, that it is so commanded by Gods Law. A poor and miserable evasion. For first many of the ancients, whom we have before alleged, do not only testify the practice of their times, but urge divine precept for it. Secondly, they indifferently exhort the Laiety, as well as the Clergy to the Communion in both kinds, and urge a like necessity for both: but the Papists themselves confess, that the Clergy, who administer the Communion, are bound by the Law of God to communicate in both kinds; and sith Sacraments may not be administered to any without order and command from him, who instituted them, questionless, the ancient Church would never have usually administered the Cup to the Laiety with the bread, if they had not conceived, that Christ's words, Drink ye all of this, belonged to them as well as to the Clergy. Anno. 390. x Dominica caena omnibus debet esse communis, etc. Hierome upon the eleventh of the 1. Cor. The Lord's Supper ought to be common to all, because Christ equally delivered the Sacraments to all his disciples, who were there present. It is to be noted, that he useth the word Sacraments in the plural number, speaking only of the Lords Supper; whereby it is evident, that by Sacraments he understandeth the elements bread, and wine and from Christ's example enforceth, that they be equally delivered to all communicants. The same Saint Hierome speaketh yet more expressly of the Laiety, receiving the Cup from the Priest in the Eucharist, in his comment on the 3. chap. of Zephanie; y Qui sanguinem Domini populo ●…ius dividunt. the Priests also, who administer the Eucharist, & divide the blood of the Lord to his people, commit wickedness against the Law, To which allegation Cardinal Bellarmine z Bell. de sac. Eucha. lib. 4. cap. 26. Respondeo, nihil no●…i audimus. answereth nothing, but we hear no news. It is true we hear no news out of Saint jeroms' mouth. For all the fathers above alleged testify as much; and this Bellarmine is forced to grant. Durum telum necessitas; ignoscite. If he could have coined any new answer, we should have had somewhat else from him, then, Nihil novi audimus, but seeing he brings nothing new to impeach our argument, I need not to add any new confirmation. Anno 398. In the fourth council of Carthage it is ordered, that if any penitent desire the peace of the Church, when he lieth on his death bed, if it be believed, that he will presently depart, that the Church peace be given unto him by laying on of hands, and ut ori eius effundatur Eucharistia, and that the Sacrament be poured into his mouth. Anno 399. Saint Chrysostome in his 18. homily, in the 2. epist. to the Corinth. makes it a clear case, that the people by the new law have as good interest to the entire Sacrament, as the Priest, Sometimes, or in some things there is no difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the people and the Priest, as in the participation of the dreadful mysteries: for all are equally admitted unto them. In the time of the old testament it was not lawful for the people to eat of those things of which the Priests did eat; but it is not so now; for one body is offered to all, and one Cup. The Papists answer. Bellarmine answereth, that the difference which Saint Chrysostome observes between the sacrifices of the old and new Testament was, that the sacrifice of the old was divided into parts, and could not be entirely taken by any one, and hence it came to pass, saith he, that some received a greater, and some a less portion; and for the most part, the Priest's part was the greatest: but this our Sacrament is given entirely to every one, neither hath the Priest more than the Lay people, although the symbols are more or greater in the Communion of the Priests, then of the people. Refutation. This slight colour of answer is easily washed away: for First, Saint Chrysostome in the original Greek hath no word signifying parts, or division into parts, but saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. that the Priest fed on other things, and that the Laiety might not feed upon the same: as for example; The laity might not at all eat of the show bread, and in the sacrifices the people might not eat of the same, specie, or numero, which the Priest eat. For the Law expressly set down what belonged to the Priest to eat, and what to the people: but in the new Testament it is not so: for the people may eat of the bread, which the Priest eateth, and drink also of the same Cup. This is evidently Saint Chrysostom's meaning. Secondly, although it is true which Bellarmine saith, that the whole Sacrament is eaten by every Communicant; yet this must be understood of the integrity of the thing signified, and of the essence of that sign, not of the integrity of the quantity of the outward elements. For no one man eateth the whole loaf, or quantity of bread, that is consecrated, nor drinketh the whole measure of wine, that is sanctified, but a portion only. Herein than the difference is not between the Priests of the old Law, and the Priests of the new, that the Priests of the old Law might eat but a part of the Sacrifice, but the Priests of the new might eat the whole. For if we speak of the thing signified, both received the whole, if of the signs, neither receives the whole, that is, the entire quantity of the thing offered. The difference was in this, according to S. Chrysostome, that the people simply might not eat of those things, of which the Priest might, but in the new testament the people may eat of all that the Priests may. Lastly, although we should admit of Bellarmine's answer touching the condition of the Priest and people of the old law, and the new; that they of the old fed of the sacrifice apart, each having their several portions appointed for them; but that the Priests and people of the new, received the sacrament entirely, the Priest entirely, and the people entirely, which in some sense is true: yet this no way satisfieth the words of Saint Chrysostome: who saith expressly, that one Cup as well as one bread is set before all people, as well as Priests, and that according to Christ's institution in the new testament. SECT. V. Testimonies of the practice of the Church from 400. to 500 Anno 410. ABout the beginning of the fifth Age, God raised up that golden Taper in the Church, Saint Austin, by whose light, as we may discover other errors and abuses of the Church of Rome: so this their mutilation of the Sacrament, and defrauding God's people of one part of this Supper. This Author in his dialogue to Orosius, quest. 49. he interprets the blood of Abel, the blood of Christ, which, saith ᵃ Sanguis Abel significat sanguinem Christi, quo accepto, universa Ecclesia dicit, Amen. Dum potatur sanguinem Christi, dicit, Amen. Non soùm nemo probibetur, sed omnes ad bibendum exhortantur, qui volunt habere vitam. he, when the whole Church receiveth, it saith, Amen. For what a cry maketh the whole Church, when after she hath drank the blood of Christ, cryeth, Amen? And in his 57 question upon Leviticus, he not only testifies, that the people did drink of Christ's blood, but that they ought to do so, if they expect life from him. What is the meaning of this, saith he, that the people are forbidden to eat of the blood of the sacrifices, which were offered for sin, if by those sacrifices this sacrifice was signified, in which there is trueremission of sins? and yet not only no man is forbidden to take the blood of this sacrifice for nourishment, but on the contrary all men, who desire life, are exhorted to drink it. Papists answer. b Non vim sacit in modo bibendi, sed in ipsa sumptione songuinis, quodidem efficit, sive sumatur per modum cibi, sive per modum potus. Bellarmine de sacra. Eucharistiae. lib. 4. cap. 26. answereth, that the force of Saint Austin's reason consisteth not in the manner of drinking, but in the taking of the blood, which produceth the same effect, whither it be taken as meat, or drink. Refutation. Saint Austin in that place observeth a difference between the precepts of the old, and the precepts of the new testament; that in the old, blood was forbidden so much as to be eaten with the flesh; but in the new it is commanded to be drunk, even by itself, and so the force of his reason ab oppositis stands not only in some way taking blood for sustenance, but even in the manner of taking it, even by drink. Secondly, whereinsoever the force of Saint Austin's reason stands, his words, which we allege, are expressly for taking it by c Estius. Omnes ferè patres tesantur, fideles bibere sanguinem Christi, ut Tertul. Orig. Cyprian. & Aug. in Psal. 94. & 96 Ser. 59 de verbis Domini. homil. 27. & tract. 31. 38. 40. & 45. in johan. drinking. For he saith not, as Bellarmine will have him; all who desire life, are exhorted to take Christ's blood for sustenance, or to feed upon it. But they are exhorted to drink it. The people therefore, if they look for life by Christ, they must drink his blood, which they cannot do, if the Priest deny the Cup. Anno. 420. d A fidelibus in panis & vini sacramento quotidie manducatur, & bibitur. Eusebius Emissenus in his Homily upon Palme-Sunday, speaks of the faithfuls communicating in both kinds, as of a daily and frequent practice. As than our Lord lived, and spoke, and yet was eaten by his Disciples, and drunk; so now he remains whole and uncorrupted, and yet is daily drunk and eaten by the faithful. I believe, no Romish Priest will be so impudent, as to restrain believers to Priests only. If the laiety are not to be reckoned in the number of fideles, or believers, they may not eat Christ in the Sacrament of bread; and if they are fideles, or believers, than they usually, nay, daily drink his blood in the Sacrament of wine, as well as eat his flesh in the Sacrament of bread. Anno 430. Theodoret in his Dialogue, called Atreptus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. cap. 11. allotteth to all the faithful an equal share in the Lord's Supper: one mystical Table is prepared for all, from which all believers take unto themselves an equal portion. And in his Comment on the second Chapter of the first to the Corinthians, he observeth a difference between ordinary suppers, and the Lords Supper: f Illius enim, ex aequo omnes sunt particip●…s, hîc autem alius esurit, alius vero ebrius est. Of that, viz. the Lords Table, all are equally partakers: but here, viz. in common suppers, one is hungry, and another is drunk: He saith not, he drinks; but is drunk, blaming him for two reasons; first, that he drinks alone; secondly, that g Et quod solus bibit. he is drunk. If the laiety drank not of the Lords Table, they did not equally participate with the Priests. And if in Theodoret's time the Priests did drink alone, as now they do at the Roman Mass; Theodoret could not herein have differenced them from common and profane tables: so that at the one all eat and drink alike, at the other, one is satisfied, and another is hungry; one is thirsty, and another drinketh alone, and is drunk. Anno 431. Cyrillus of Alexandria, Glaphyr. lib. 2. writeth thus; As long as we are in this world, we will communicate with Christ by his holy flesh, and precious blood. Communicatio sanctae carnis, atque item poculum ex salutari ipsius sanguine, etc. The communicating his holy flesh, and the Cup of his holy blood hath in it a confession of Christ's death: by the participating in these things in this world we commemorate Christ's death. Anno. 450. Leo the Great, Bishop of Rome, in his fourth Sermon de quadragessima, gives it as a character or mark, to descry the Manichees by; that at the Sacrament they would eat of the bread, but in no wise drink of the wine. h Ita in sacramenti communione se temperant, ut interdum tutiùs lateant, ore indigno Christi corpus accipiunt, sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurire omnino declinant. They, viz. the Manichees, so carry themselves at the Communion, that they may more safely lie hid: they take the body of Christ into their unworthy mouths, but altogether they refuse to drink the blood of their redemption, which I would have your Holiness know, that you may set a mark upon these men, & in whomsoever you find such sacrilegious simulation, you discover them, that by Priestly authority they may be driven from the society of the Saints. Here Leo, both a Bishop of Rome, and a great Clerk, makes it sacrilege, and heresy, to receive Christ's body in the Sacrament, and to refuse to drink his blood. Anno. 451. In the general i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Council of Chalcedon, act. 10. there is an accusation brought in against Iba the Bishop of Edessa, that in some Church in his Diocese, at the Commemoration of the holy Martyrs, there was but a little wine, and that corrupt and sour, provided for the Altar to be sanctified, and distributed to the people. This general Council was counted to represent the whole Christian Church, whereby it appears, that at the time of this Council, the Cup was given through the whole Christian world to the Laiety, and that the administering of the Sacrament to the people without wine, was held a profanation of the Lords Supper: for which cause that Bishop was severely taxed. Anno 453. k Regnum Dei, ut docti intelligunt, Ecclesia est, in quaquotidie bibit sanguinem suum Christus per sanctos suos, tanquam caput in membris suis. Eucherius, Bishop of Lions in his questions upon Matthew implieth, that all holy men in general, and true members of Christ in his time drank our Redeemers blood in the Sacrament. His words are; The Kingdom of God, as the learned understand it, is the Church, in which Christ daily drinketh his own blood by his Saints, as the Head in his members. Anno 492. Among the Decrees of ancient Popes collected by Gratian, we find that sentence of Gelasius, which I have set in the frontispiece of this book, Grat. de consecra. dist. 2. cap. Comperimus. l Aut integra sacramenta, percipiunt aut ab integris arceantur. We find that some receiving a portion of Christ's holy Body, abstain from the Cup of his sacred blood: which because they do out of I know not what superstition, we command, that either they receive the entire Sacraments, or that they be entirely withheld from them, because the division of one and the selfsame mystery cannot be without grand sacrilege. In this Decree of Gelasius, first, we are to note, that it is a Papal decision ex Cathedra; That the elements in the Lord's Supper must be taken jointly. This Gelasius determineth not as a private man, but as a Pope ex Cathedra, and therefore all Papists are bound to believe, that he did not, nor could not err in this decree. Secondly, it is to be noted, that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not entire without the Cup, which quite overthroweth our adversary's new fancy of concomitancy. Thirdly, it is to be noted, that he defineth the withholding the Cup from any Communicant, or dividing the holy mystery, by half communicating, not only to be sacrilege, but to be grand sacrilege, or the greatest sacrilege that can be committed. For grande is more than magnum, or grave, and it signifieth sacrilege in the highest degree. Papists answer. Gratian, or his gloss in the title to this Decree would bear us in hand, that this Decree concerneth the * Itarespondet Aquinas, part. 3. q. 80. & Thomistae passim. Priests only, and not the Laiety. For a Priest to consecrate, or to offer the bread without the wine, or after they have consecrated both, to participate but of one, this Gelasius forbids, say they; but not the laiety to communicate in one kind only. Cardinal Bellarmine adds a second answer; that this Canon was made against the Manichees, and Priscillianists, who refused the Cup in the Sacrament, partly because they held wine in an abomination, partly because they believed not, that Christ had true blood in him. These, saith Bellarmine, in token and testimony that they had reform their former error, are commanded to receive the Sacrament in both kinds, or else not at all to be admitted unto the Communion. The Refutation. Neither of these wards will bear off the blow. For first, it is not likely, that Gelasius made this decree against the Manichees, or Priscillianists: for than he would not have said, Quia nescio quâ superstitione astricti tenentur: that is, that they were entangled in I know not what superstition; but rather, Quia nota haeresi astricti tenentur: that is, they do it, because they are entangled in a known heresy. Secondly, admit that the Manichees, and Priscillianists occasioned this decree; yet this decree is backed with a general reason, which forbids all to Communicate in one kind only, under the peril of grand Sacrilege. Thirdly, Gratian'ss evasion will no way save the Laiety harmless, or acquit them of Sacrilege: where of the Priest by this decree, say they, is made guilty: For that which is Sacrilege in the Priest, cannot be Religion in the people. Gelasius saith not, that the Sacrilege consisteth in the division of one and the self same sacrifice, but in the division of one and the self same mystery. Now the self same mystery, or Sacrament is divided as well in the half Communion of the people, as of the Priest. Lastly, it is evident, that the decree concerneth the Communicants, and not the Priest's Conficients, or administering. For the word arceantur, that is, let them be kept from, or driven from the entire Sacrament, must needs be meant of the people. For the people suspend not the Priests from the Sacrament, but the Priests, or Bishops the people. Here Master Euerard is locked fast with a like pair of fetters to those, which Campian makes for Protestants. As he saith, Patres, so I say, Papas admittis? Captus es; exludis? Nullus es. Do you allow of the Pope's decissions? You are then taken. Do you disallow of them? You are no body in the opinion of your own selves. If you subscribe to the determination of two Popes, Leo, and Gelasius, you must confess yourself guilty of Sacrilege: if you subscribe not to them, of heresy. Vtrum horum mavis, accipe. SECT. VI Testimonies of the practice of the Church, from 500 to 600. AS m Cic. Brut. Tully writeth of Hortensius, that after his Consulship he decayed in his rare faculty of eloquence, though not so sensibly, that every auditor might perceive it: yet in such sort, that a cunning artist might observe, that he drew not so clear a stroke in his masterpieces, nor cast on them so rich and lively colours, as before. Such was the state of the Church in this age. It decayed and failed, though not so sensibly, and grossly, that every ordinary reader might take notice thereof: yet in such sort, that the learned and judicious have discovered in the writers of this age, and much more after, a declination from the purity of former ages, both in stile and doctrine. Their Latin much degenerated into barbarism; and their devotion into superstition. Whence it is, that the prime Doctors of the Reformed Churches, who appeal from the late corruptions in the Romish Church to the prime sincerity in the first and best ages, confine this their appeal within the pale of the fifth age. Wherefore, the reader is not to demand, or expect from hence forth, either so frequent testimonies, or at least, of men of that eminency, and reverend authority, as the former were. For such, the succeeding ages brought forth none: but it shall suffice to produce such witnesses as the times afforded; men that held rank with the best in their times: Such were Remigius Archbishop of Rheims, Gregory, Bishop of Tours, and the Fathers of the Council of Toledo and Iledra. Anno 524. In the Council held at Ilerda, can. 1. All those that serve at the Altar (& Christi corpus & sanguinem tradunt) and deliver the body and blood of Christ, or handle any holy vessel, are strictly charged to abstain from all man's blood, yea, even of their enemies. Anno 560. o In 1. Cor. c. 10. Appellatur calix communicatio, quasi participatio; quia omnes communicant ex illo, partemque sumunt ex sanguine Domini. Biblioth. PP. Tom. 5. Remigius Archbishop of Rheims, thus expoundeth those words of Saint Paul: The Cup of blessing wherewith we bless; is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? The Cup is called the Communion, because all communicated or received the Communion out of it, participating of the blood of the Lord. Papists answer. If our adversaries here fly to their old starting hole; that by all, here all Priests are meant, and not all Communicants, they may be stopped by that which Hincmarus writeth in the life of this Rhemigius: that he gave a Chalice for the people's use with this Motto: Hauriat hinc populus vitam de sanguine sacro Iniecto, aeternus quem fudit vulnere Christus. Rhemigius reddit Domino sua vota Sacerdos. Rhemigius Priest, that gave this Cup, Prai'th that in it the people sup; And still draw life from flowing blood Out of Christ's side, as of a flood. Let it be noted, that he saith not, hauriat hinc clerus, but populus: not let the Priest, but let the people out of this Cup, draw life from the holy blood, which Christ shed out of his wounds. Whereby it appeareth evidently, that this Chalice was given by the Archbishop, for the people's use, at great and solemn Communions, and not for the Priests in their private Masses, if any such were in Rhemigius his days. Anno 580. Greg. Turonens. de glor. Martyr. li. 1. ca 10. relateth a miraculous accident, that fell out by occasion of a p Ad participationem gloriosi corporis, & sanguinis Domini ●…um aliis infantibus infans judaeus accessit. jews child, coming with other children to the Communion of Christ's body and blood: I am sure these children were not Priests that said Mass; and if children were admitted to the holy Cup, much more men of riper years. Papists answer. This was an abuse to let children come to the Communion, who cannot examine themselves; and therefore from this abusive custom no good rule may be drawn. The Refutation. I allow not of the custom of admitting children to the Communion in the Church, or giving it them at home: though it be more ancient than most of the new Articles of the Romish Creed, coined by Pope Pius the fourth, in his Bull. but I make a true inference, though from an erroneous practice, as the Apostle doth from a custom among the Corinthians, who were baptised for the dead. Doubtless if the Laiety in those days had been kept from the holy Cup, children never had been admitted to drink of it. For no man can imagine, that the Church would give little infants that privilege, which they denied their parents. Anno 537. In the second Council of Toledo, Can. 7. It is ordained throughout all the Countries of Spain, and Gallicia, for the confirmation of the new conversion of the people from Arianisme, that before the participation of the body and blood of Christ (corporis & sanguinis communicationem) according to the manner of the Eastern Churches, all the Congregation shall with an audible voice, rehearse the most holy Articles of the Christian faith. Anno 597. In the third Council held at Toledo, in the reign of Recaredus, c. 2. r Vt primùm populi quam credulitatem teneant, fanteantur; & sic corda fide purificata ad Christi corpus & sanguinem percipiendum exhibeant. It is decreed, that the people shall first make profession of their faith, and so exhibit their hearts purified by faith, to receive Christ's body and blood. Doth not this Council speak in the Protestant language? that the people are to receive Christ's blood, as well as his body, and both by faith, or, which is all one, in their hearts purified by faith. How near cometh this to the form at this day in use in our Church? Feed on him in thy heart by faith? I find no exception taken by any Papist at this testimony; and therefore there needs no ward, where no blow is so much as offered. SECT. VII. Testimonies of the practice of the Church from 600. to 700. Anno. 600. IT was truly spoken of Constantine, that he was Praeteritis melior, venientibus auctor; Better than his predecessors, and a good precedent to those that succeeded him. But on the contrary, we may say of Gregory the Great, that he was Praeteritis peior, yet venientibus auctor: that he was bad in comparison of his predecessors, * Like fabulus in the Poet, ut verum loquar, optimus malorum, etc. Mart. epig. lib. 12. but good in comparison of his successors. For he was the worst of the good Popes, and the best of the evil. It was this Pope, who sent Austin the Monk into England to propagate the Christian faith; who in some places sowed, in others watered the seed all ready swoon which was wholesome, yet somewhat smutty, and such as needed to be washed and cleansed from superstition. He much stikled for Gregory his master's authority, and brought in some customs and ceremonies, that savour rank to those that are Emunctae naris: yet the faith he preached was for substance the same, which the reformed Churches embrace at this day; as in my answer to the Jesuits threefold challenge I have made it appear; And as in other controversies of greater moment, so in this he is clearly ours. Homil. 22. t Sanguis super ●…umque postem ponitur, ●…uando non sol●…●…e cordis, sed etiam ore corporis hauritur. in Euang. he mystically applieth the blood of the Pascall Lamb stricken upon both posts of the door, to the participation of Christ's blood in the Eucharist; saying; The blood is then put on both posts, when is taken, or drawn in both by, or with the mouth of the body, and of the heart. In the fourth of his u Eius ibi corpus samitur, cuius caro in populi salutem partitur, eius fanguis non iam in manus in fidelium, sed ad fidelium or a perfunditur. dialogues (if his) c. 58. His body is taken, whose flesh is broken, and divided for the people's salvation, his blood is not now poured out upon the hands of infidels, but into the mouths of the faithful. If with any colour the adversaries might restrain fideles to the Priests only, yet the word populi going before, will enforce them to understand this passage as well of the people, as Priests; if not the people more especially, who are named expressly, and not the Priests. Papists answer. I answer, saith Bellarmine, * Bel. de Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 16. Sancti isti patres sumi dicunt sanguinem ore corporis, quod nos non negamus esse faciendum; bibi autem debere ore corporis, aut sub specie vini sumi non dicunt. that Gregory, and Bede say, that Christ's blood is taken with the mouth of the body; but we deny that they say, that it ought to be drunken with the mouth of the body, or to be taken under the form of wine. Refutation. This answer of the Cardinal can argue no less in him, than either supine negligence, or a cauterised conscience. For S. Gregory in the words immediately preceding those above alleged, expressly speaketh of drinking Christ's blood, saying, quòd sit sanguis Christi non audiendo, sed bibendo didicistis. What is meant by the blood of Christ, you have learned not by hearing, but by drinking. Had he not in express words mentioned drinking, yet the phrases he useth, hauritur, and perfunditur; that Christ's blood is shed, and taken as a draught, demonstrates, that he speaketh not of partaking Christ's blood, as it is joined to his body, and enclosed in his veins; but as severed from it. And if the Cardinal himself had not been drunk with the Cup of the wine of Babylon, he would never have denied, that Saint Gregory speaketh of drinking Christ's blood under the form of wine: when he useth that very word, ᵘ Potat. Quis exponere queat quantae fuit miserationis, ᵘ Greg. in Psal. 6. Poenitent. Primis Ecclesiae temporib. Euchar. fideli populo communicatam esse sub utraque specie manifestum est exscriptis omnium ferè patrum; quitestantur fideles bibere sanguinem Christi. Ut Tertul. Orig. Cypr. Aug. Greg. Estius in Sent. sacratissim â praeciosi sanguinis effusione genus humanum redimere, & sacrosanctum vivifici corporis & sanguinis sui mysterium membris suis tribuere, cuius perceptione corpus suum, quod est Ecclesia pascitur, & potatur, abluitur, & sanctificatur? Who can express how great mercy it was, by that most holy effusion of his precious blood to redeem mankind, and to give to his members the most holy mystery of his quickening body and blood, by the partaking whereof, his body, which is the Church, is nourished as with meat and drink, is washed, and sanctified? These and other passages of Gregory are so clear and bright, that they dazzled the eyes of Estius, a great Parisian Doctor, who handling this question professedly, acknowledgeth, that Saint Gregory among other fathers is expressly for the communion in both kinds. Anno Dom. 620. The Service Book, commonly called Ordo Romanus, The Roman order set forth by Gregory, or under Pope Gregory with his allowance, sufficiently discovereth the present practice of the Roman Church in their dry Masses, to be a disorder and shameful abuse. For there they may read, and blush to read in the Rubric, these forms set down at the y Supplices te rogamus, ut qui corpus & sanguinem Domini nostri jesu Christi sumpserimus, omni gratia & benedictione spirituali repleamur. Et post communionem; Corpus tuum, Domine, quod sumpsimus, & sanguis quem potanimus, adhaereat visceribus nostris. Communion: We humbly beseech thee, that we which have taken the body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ thy Son, may be filled with grace and heavenly benediction: and after the Communion; Let thy body, O Lord, which we have taken, and thy blood which we have drunk, stick to our bowels, that no blot of sin may remaive in us, who have been refreshed by these pure and holy mysteries. Anno 630. Saint z Quarta infertur pro osculo pacis ut charitate omnes reconciliati invicem dignè sacramento corporis & sanguinss Christi consocientur. Isidore, as in other things, so in this, treadeth his master Gregory's steps the diuin. of offic. lib. 1. c. 15. The fourth prayer is brought in for the kiss of peace; ut omnes, that all being reconciled by charity, may join in the worthy participation of Christ's body and blood; omnes, all People therefore, as well as Priests, unless they will have the people to be out of charity, all that are in charity must communicate together in the mystery of Christ's body and blood. But God's people are, or aught to be in charity, and therefore to be admitted by Saint Isidores rule, as well to the Cup, as to the bread at the Lords Table. Anno. 633. In the fourth Council of Toledo, Can. 6. All the people are appointed one good friday to ask pardon for their sins; that being cleansed by the compunction of repentance, they may be thought fit one Easter day to receive the sacrament of Christ's body and blood. And in the seventh Canon it is appointed, that after the Lord's prayer, and the blessing of the people, the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood be received after this manner: the Priest and Levite is to communicate before the Altar, the rest of the Clergy in the Choir, the rest of the people without the Quire. See also 57 Canon. Anno 675. In the eleventh Council held at Toledo, the fathers determine, that such who received the Cup in extemity of sickness, but refused the bread, because in regard of the dryness of their throat they could not swallow it down, should not therefore be cut off from Christ's body. The decree runneth thus; The infirmity of humane nature in the very passage out of this life is accustomed to be oppressed in such sort with drought, that the sick are not able to take down any meat to refresh them; no, nor scarce any drop of drink to strengthen them; which thing we have observed in the departure of many, who desiring the wished food of the holy Communion to sustain them in their last journey, have yet cast * Collatam sibi à sacerdote Eucharistiam reiecerunt, non quòd infidelitat, hoc agerent, sed quòd prater dominici calicis 〈◊〉 traditum 〈◊〉, non possent Eucharistiam deglutire. away the Eucharist given them by the Priest, not out of infidelity, but because they could not swallow any thing down, beside a small draught of the holy Cup; such as these therefore ought not to be separated from the body of Christ. The Council speaketh of the Laiety, refusing bread at the Priest's hands, which they could not take down, and yet receiving the Cup: and in this case of necessity, the Council dispenceth with their refusing the bread, but findeth no fault with them for taking the Cup. Nay upon that point, excuseth them from infidelity, and saveth them from excommunication. How doth this Council clash, and cross shins as it were with the Council of Constance, and Trent? In these the people are condemned for taking the Cup; in that, they are acquitted for it. In them, the Priest is censured, that giveth them the Cup; in this, the people are absolved from censure in refusing the bread, because they Communicate in the Cup. In the same year, in the Council at Braccara, they are blamed that ministered not wine to the people in the Sacrament, but either milk, or grapes, Can. 2. Non expressum vinum in sacramento dominici calicis offer, sed lac pro vino dedicare, aut oblatis vuis populo communicare. In the same Council they are blamed also. Qui intinctam Eucharistiam populis pro complemento communionis porrigerent; Who delivered to the people a piece of bread dipped in wine for the whole Communion which custom, how repugnant it is to the doctrine of the Gospel, and custom of the Church, may easily be proved from the fountain of truth, who gave the Cut by itself saying, Drink ye all of this, as he took the bread by itself, saying; Take, eat, etc. SECT. VIII. The Testimonies of the practice of the Church from 700. to 800. IN this age we have four concurrent witnesses, and contestatours beyond all exception: Beda. Greg. 2. Greg. 3. Alcumus. We will produce them in order. And first Venerable Beda. Anno 720. Venerable Beda, the honour of England, and mirror of his time, witnesseth as followeth: Christ washeth us daily from our sins in his blood, when the memory of his passion is celebrated or recounted at the Altar; a Beda, homil in verba joh. vidit joh. jesum, etc. Cum panis & vini creatura in sacramentum corporis eius & sanguinis transsertur. et post: sanguis fidelium ore sumitur ad salutem. where the creatures of bread and wine, by the unspeakable sanctification of the Spirit, are changed into the Sacrament of his flesh and blood; and thereby his body & blood is not poured out by the hands of Infidels to their destruction, but is received, or is taken by, or into the mouth of the faithful to salvation. In this testimony I note, first, that he teacheth not a substantial change of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ; but a sacramental only, agreeable to the harmony of Protestants Confession. See condly, that Beda either alludes unto, or transcribes herein the words of S. Gregory above alleged, which I have there proved to be most pregnant to our purpose. Anno 726. Gregory 2. in his Epistle of Images to Leo Isaurus; A man that hath sinned, and confessed after they have well chastened, and punished him with fasting, let them impart unto him the precious body of our Lord, and b Sancto illius sanguine potent. give him his holy blood to drink. Anno 731. Gregory 3. in his former Epistle to Boniface, forbiddeth at the Lords Table more than one Cup to be used; saying, It is not a fitting thing, to put two or three Chalices on the Altar. No doubt the reason, why more Chalices were put on the Altar, was for the use of the people, otherwise one would have served. This custom the Pope dislikes not, for that the Cup was given to the Laiety: but because in the first institution, Christ gave but one Cup to all his Disciples. The same Pope afterward thus resolveth the question touching the leprous Communicants, with whom the sound could not with safety drink in the same Cup: As c Leprosis, si fideles fuerint, Dominici corporis & sanguinis participatie tribuatur. for lepers, if they be believers, let them not be deprived if the participation of our Lord's body and blood, but by no means let them be at the same Table, or participate together with them, that are clean. Anno. 780. Alcuinus in his book of divine duties, instanceth in some, who were not fit to communicate every day, because they had no purpose to leave their sins; To these, saith he, Saint Austin thus speaketh; I like well of your humility, that you presume not to approach to the body and blood of Christ; but it were better, that you would depart from your iniquities, and being made clear by repentance, ᵈ Mundi facti per poenitentiam, corpus, & sanguinem Domini sumere. would take the body and blood of Christ. Papists answer. Cardinal Bellarmine, for want of a better, adventureth upon this answer: that indeed these Fathers say, that the blood of Christ is taken by, or with the mouth; but they say not, that it ought to be drunken with the mouth of the body, or taken under the form of wine. Reply. The Hart as often as he is wounded flies to his old Dictamus, and Bellarm. to this distinction to heal himself: but none of this herb here groweth; there is no ground for it. For first, the Fathers alleged speak of the body and blood of Christ, as distinct things; and therefore not as of one involved in the other by the doctrine of Concomitancy: to approach unto, to take the body of Christ and his blood, or the creature of bread and wine sacramentally changed into Christ's body and blood, as Beda speaketh, is not to take bread only, and wine by, I know not what, consequence; or the body only in specie, and the blood by Concomitancy. Secondly, could this answer be appliable to other general sentences of the Fathers, yet not to these, in which there is express mention made of the Chalice, of pouring out the blood of Christ, and taking it as drink; and therefore under the form of wine. And who are they that so receive it? The Laiety as well as the Priests, unless none but Priests are faithful Christians, or all lepers & excommunicate, or suspended persons are to be taken for Priests. Beda reacheth the Cup to the faithful indifferently, and Gregory to penitents after confession and contrition, of what rank so ever. Yea lepers are not excluded simply, but secluded, that they might not infect the sound, by drinking together with them. SECT. IX. The practice of the Church from 800. to 900. Anno 800. Charles' the Great in his book (as the Inscription beareth) of Images, testifieth, that Lib. 3. cap. 6. in his time not only frequently, but daily, Christians participated of Christ's body and blood. He affirmeth, that sins are remitted by e Per sanguinem Christi, quia nobis in sacramento sumitur, et pro nobis effusus. est. the holy Ghost, or by the blood of Christ, which is taken of us in the Sacrament, and was shed for us, for the remission of sins. That he means by us, the Laiety, as well as the Clergy, is evident. First, because himself was a Lay man; and therefore necessarily, in us, includes those of his own rank and order. Secondly, because he speaks of all their communicating, who receive the remission of sins by the effusion of Christ's blood for them; and these I am sure, are not the Priests only. Thirdly, because in the fourth book c. 14. he speaketh expressly of the faithful in general: whereby the people must needs be understood, as well as the Priests. His words are: the mystery of the f Corporis, & sanguinis Christi mysterium quotidie à fidelibus sumitur. body and blood of Christ is daily received by the faithful in the Sacrament. Anno 820. Paschasius Rathertus, Abbot of Corbie, who was the first that ever wrote of purpose, and at large, of the truth of Christ's body g Bel. de scripter. Eccles. ad ann. 820. Hic auctor primus suit, qui seriò & copiosè scripsit de veritate corporis & sanguinis. Pasdecor. & sang. dom. ca 15. and blood in the sacrament (if we may believe Bellarmine) is full and direct against the Church of Rome in the point of their half communion. O man, saith he, as often as thou drinkest of this Cup, or eatest of this bread, thou mayest not think, that thou drinkest other blood, then that which was shed h Cap. 1 9 for thee, and for all for the remission of our sins. And again; The blood is well joined to the flesh, because i Nec caro sine sanguine, nec sanguis sine carne iure communicatur. neither the flesh without the blood, nor the blood without the flesh is rightly communicated. For the whole man, which consists of two substances, is redeemed; and therefore fed together both with the flesh of Christ, and his blood. Had he lived in our days, and professedly wrote against our modern Papists, he could not in more express words have impugned the Romish Gloss upon the words of our Saviour, viz. drink ye all of this: that is, all Priests, than he doth. cap. 15. He alone it is, saith he, who breaketh this bread, & by the hands of his Ministers distributeth it to beleivers, saying, take ye add drink all of this, as well Ministers, as the rest k Bibite ex hoc omnes, tam ministri, quam reliqui credentes. of the faithful; this is the Cup of the blood of the new and everlasting Testament. Anno 830. Amalarius, praefat. in liber. 3. de Offic. Eccles. affirmeth, that the benediction of Bishops, or Priests without Chanters, Readers, or any other, is sufficient to bless the bread and wine, wherewith the people might be l Ad benedicendum panem & vinum, quo populus reficeretur ad animarum salutem. refreshed to their soul's health, as it was wont to be done in the first times by the Apostles themselves. Quot verba, tot fulmina; so many words, so many thunderbolts to strike down dead the Pope's sacrilegious heresy. If the bread and wine were blessed for the refection of the people, than not of the Priests only; if this refection was for the health of their souls, who dare deny it them? If this was the manner of blessing and administering the Sacrament used by the Apostles themselves, by what authority at this day doth the Church of Rome alter it? Anno 835. m Lib. 1. de instit. Cleri. cap. 31 Maluit Dominus cor poris & sanguinis sui sacramentum sidelium ore percipi, etc. Rabanus Maurus, Bishop of Mentz teacheth us, that the Lord would have the Sacrament of his body and blood to be received by the mouth of the faithful, and made their food; that by that visible work, the invisible effect of the Sacrament might be showed. For as the material food outwardly nourisheth the body, and maketh it quick and lively, so the Word of God within nourisheth, and strengtheneth the soul. n Temporalem vitam sine isto cibo & potu habere possunt homines, aeternam habere omnino non possunt, quapropter necesse habemus sumere corpus & sanguinem eius. Men may have this temporal life without this meat and drink, but they cannot have the eternal, because this meat signifies the eternal society, or communion of the Head with the members. Who soever (saith he) eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, he abides in me, and I in him. Wherefore of necessity we must take his body and blood, that we may abide in him, and be made members of his body. In these passages this learned Bishop every way stops the mouth of our adversaries. They cannot say, that he speaks of Priests only; for he speaks of all faithful, that either are already, or are to be made members of Christ's body. Neither can they shift off this passage, as they do some others, by granting, that the people may, but denying, that they ought to communicate in both kinds. For he presseth very far the necessity of thus communicating, without which he supposeth neither communion with Christ, nor eternal life can be obtained. Neither lastly, can they evade by their doctrine of concomitancy, saying, that the people participate of the blood in the body, when they receive the consecrated Host. For he speaketh distinctly of eating and drinking, bread and drink, and sacraments, in the plural number, which cannot possibly be understood of participating the bread only, or communicating in one kind after the Popish manner. Anno 840. o In Apoc. ca 2. in Ecclesia quotidie fideles comedunt Christi corpus, & sanguinem bibunt. Haymo Bishop of Halberstat, relateth the manner of the faithful to have been in his time, daily to eat the body of Christ, and to drink his blood; and paraphrasing upon these words of the Apostle, 1. Cor. cap. 10. The Cup which we bless, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? He saith, the Cup is called the p Appellatur calix communicatio, quasi participatio; quia omnes communicant ex illo, partemque sumunt ex sanguine Domini, quem continet in se. Communion, because all communicate of it, and partake of the blood of the Lord, which it containeth in it. Surely if the word fidelis, or faithful carrieth not the laiety, yet the word omnes, or all, must needs; the faithful then, and all of them in Haymoes' time, were as well admitted to the Cup, as to the bread. Anno 849. Valafridus Strabo speaking of the suspension De verb. Eccl. ca 17. Ab ipsis sacramentis Ecclesiastico suspendantur iudicio, ne indignè ea percipientes reatu maiori involuantur, ut judas. of scandalous persons from the Communion, calleth the Lord's Supper Sacraments in the plural number, in regard of the two elements, or kinds in which it is administered. Those, saith he, that wander from the members of Christ by the enormity, or faeditie of capital crimes, by the judgement of the Church are suspended from the q Sacraments, lest by the unworthy receiving them, they should be entangled in a greater guilt, as judas. Here by capital offenders, to understand Priests, were a capital offence; as if they alone were the greatest offenders in the Church, and to have the rod of Ecclesiastical censures to be spent upon them only. Therefore the Romanists, will they, nill they, to save themselves from the lash, must put the capital offender upon the Laiety, and consequently confess, that they, who for their crimes were at some times suspended from the Sacraments, were ordinarily, when they were free from such crimes, admitted to both the Sacraments, (as Strabo calleth them) that is, both the elements, the wine as well as the bread. For the same Strabo in his twentieth Chapter stirreth up himself, and all good Christians to the continual participating of the r Quantum mentis, velcorporis graviores maculae non obsistunt, panem & sanguinem dominicum, quibus sine vivere non possumus, iugiter ambiamus. body and blood of Christ, without which we cannot live, so far forth, as some greater blots or blemishes in body or mind do not withhold, or hinder from it. Anno. 868. In a Council held at Worms under Lewis the second, we find a Canon to this purpose: s Can. 36. Si vir viduam duxerit, quae ex priori marito filiam babuit, & cum eadem filia postmodum concubuerit, coniugium modis omnibus diffoluatur; & vir ille poenitentiae subiaceat sanctionibus: ut per trien●… tempus á corpore Domini nost. jes. Christ. suspendatur, & sanguine. If any man shall marry a widow, which had a daughter by her former husband, and shall after lie with this her daughter; let that marriage by all means be dissolved, and let that man undergo the penance of the Church, so that for three years he be suspended from the body of jesus Christ, and his blood. He who upon a special reason is debarred from the Communion of the body and blood of Christ, and that for a certain time, must needs be supposed before that time to have been admitted to communicate in both kinds, and after his penance of three years done, cannot be denied again admittance to the Lords Table. I desire then to know, what incestuous crime all the Laiety under the Papacy have committed, that for these two hundred years, ever since the Council of Constance, they have suspended them from the Sacrament of Christ's blood. Anno. 869. t Reg. in Chro. ad an. 869. Communionem corporis & sanguinis Domini de manu pontificis sumpsit, & post: Corpus & sanguis Domnostri lesi Christi prosit tibi in vitam aeternam. Regino describeth the manner of Pope Adrians' delivering the Communion to King Lotharius and his followers in both kinds, than which we cannot desire a nobler precedent, or fairer evidence of the custom of the Church in that Age; Thus than Regino; The Pope invites the king to the Lords Table, taking the body and blood of our Lord in his hands; the King takes the body and blood of our Lord at the hands of the Pope: Then the Bishop turning himself to the followers of the King, delivers the Communion to each of them in these words: If thou hast not showed thyself a favourer, or an abbetter of King Lothar. in the objected crime of adultery, neither haste given thy consent thereunto, neither haste communicated with Waldrand, and other persons excommunicated by the Apostolic See, let the body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ be healthful to thee unto eternal life. Anno 875. u Quòd in Ecclesia ore fidelium sumitur corpus Cbristi & sanguis, quaerit vestrae magnitudinis excelientia, in mysterio fiat, an inveritate? & postea: Interius si consideres, non iam liquor vini, sed sanguis Christi fidelium mentibus & sapit, dum gustatur, & agnoscitur, dum conspicitur, & probatur dum odoratur. Bertramus, or as some write his name Ratramus, in his book of the body and blood of Christ, dedicated to Carolus Caluus, writeth thus: you demand, whether the body of Christ and his blood which in the Church are received, by, or with the mouth of the faithful, be his body and blood mystically, or in truth? And a little after he resolveth thus; If ye look inwardly, it is not the liquor of wine, but the blood of Christ, which is tasted by the minds of the faithful, when it is drunk, and acknowledged, when it is seen, and liked, when it is smelled unto. This Bertram speaks so plainly through this whole book for the entire Communion, and against the Popish carnal presence of Christ in the Sacrament, that the Romish Inquisitors were in a quandary, what to do with this Author, whither quite to prohibit the reading of him, or to devose some colourable excuse and evasion for such passages in him, as hold no good quarter with their Trent Faith. Papists answer to the testimonies of the writers alleged in this former Age. Before most of these testimonies, our adversaries draw Timanthes his curtain, and answer them with silence. Only to Paschasius and Haymo, Cardinal Bellarmine pretends to give an answer; either because for shame he could do no less, being so often upraided with them: or because like a new Alchemist, he hoped out of the iron that wounded him, to draw an oil to cure the wound of his cause. To the testimony out of Paschasius, his answer, like Cerberus, consists of three heads. First, he * Bel. lib. 4. de sacra. Christ. cap. 26. Primum est, locum istum videri corruptum, secundò obseruandum est, non exponere Pasch. verba Domini, ut sunt apud Matheum. Tertiò obseruandum est, verba Paschasij sententiae nostrae plurimum savere; significant enim bibendum esse Domini sanguinem, sed in specie panis. saith, that the place in Paschasius seems to be corrupted. Secondly, he saith, that Paschasius doth not expound the words of our Lord, as they are in Matthew, but as they seem to be spoken of Christ, when the sacrament is administered in the Church. His reason is; In the institution of the Sacrament, there were no other Ministers present distinguished from other believers: and therefore Christ's words, as they were uttered then, no way admitteth Paschasius explication, Drink ye all of this, as well Ministers as other believers. Thirdly, he saith, that the words of Paschasius make much for the opinion of the Romish Church. For they signify, that Christ's blood is to be drunk, but under the form of bread, not under the form of wine, As for Haymo, he answers him with a short come-off, saying, He spoke of the * Respondeo, loquitur iste author (ut supra diximus Ignatium, & Chrysostomum) de unitate calicis. Significat enim eos, qui sanguinem Domini sumunt, ex uno colice sumere. unity of the Chalice; and that his meaningis, that they that receive the blood of the Lord, receive out of one Cup. Refutation. The threefold answer of Bellarmine to Paschasius, is not like a threefold cable that cannot be broken, but rather like a rusty twisted wyer-string, that breaks with the least strain. First, he beareth us in hand, that the place in Paschasius seems to be corrupted. Corrupted? By whom? by Papists? Surely they would never have corrupted this text to make against themselves: by Protestants? That cannot be. for no Protestants have set forth Paschasius, for aught we find, or have had any thing to do in that Edition of Paschasius, which we cite. Besides, in all the ancient impressions of Paschasius, and the Manu-scripts, that have come to our sight, the words are found as we cite them. Yea but john of Lovane suspects, that the copies are faulty, and that, bibite, is put for, edite, Drink ye, for eat ye: why so? because the words going before are, he distributeth the bread by the hands of his ministers to the believers, saying, Take ye, and drink ye all of this. This reason like a rope of sand, hath no coherence at all. For though Pascasius spoke of bread, yet to prove that Christ is he, who alone by his Ministers distributeth the sacrament, he rehearseth the words of the institution both concerning the Bread, and the Cup; neither can, bibite, or drink you in Paschasius be put for edite, eat ye, but must stand as it doth; drink ye. For the words immediately following in Paschasius are, for this is the new and eternal Testament. Now what a ridiculous inference were it, if we read the words, as john of Lovane would have us: take, eat this, for this is the Cup of the blood of the new and everlasting testament? Bellarmine his second answer is as absurd as his first. For Paschasius his words make more strongly for us, and against himself, if Paschasius expound the words, Drink ye all of this, as they seem to be spoken by Christ, not at the first Institution, but afterwards, whensoever the sacrament is administered in the Church; If now also, whensoever the sacrament is administered in the Church, Christ commandeth, drink ye all of this, that is with Paschasius gloss, all Ministers, & other believers; it followeth, that all other believers, as well as Ministers, ought now by Christ's command to drink of the cup. Thirdly, as Bellarmine his first answer is against the text of Paschasius, and his second against himself, so his third is against common sense. How can blood be drunk under the form of bread? if we speak of drinking siguratively by faith, this kind of drinking the Romanists explode. If he speak of drinking properly with the mouth, every suckling is able to confute the Cardinal, who know by mere sense, that nothing can be drunk, but that which is moist, and of liquid substance? Nay, the Cardinal discourseth like a man that had drank too deep of the wine, forgetting in this page, what he said in the former. There he saith, that the fathers do not say, that Christ's blood is to be drunk of the people by the mouth of the body, but here he saith, that other believers, as well as Ministers, by Christ's command ought to drink it, but after a manner never heard of before, to drink it under the form of bread. Now for his answer to Haymo pari facilitate reijcitur, quâ profertur, 'tis as easy to be rejected, as urged. For first, the Cardinal corrupteth the text of Haymo: he saith not, the Cup is the Communion, because all drink of that one Cup, the word one is not in Haymo. Admit it were; this no way disappointeth our allegation out of Haymo. For still this word omnes, or all, remains. And be it out of one Cup, or more, Haymo saith expressly, that all did partake of it, and received of the blood of Christ contained in it. If all, than the people, as well as the Priests. SECT. X. The testimonies of the practice of the Church from 900. to 1000 ARistole rightly observeth, that it so y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aristot. Rhetor. lib. 2. cap. 15. falleth out in the descent of families, as it doth in diverse grounds, in which sometimes we have great plenty, sometime as great scarcity: so, saith he, some families have afforded store of noble personages; at other times scarce any of note or eminence. So it fareth here with us in the last Age we had plentiful store of testimonies for the truth, but in this we are like to have Penury. Although (if we consider aright) this scarcity may be imputed rather unto the injury of the time, and want of Records of History, which happily being extant might have afforded us no less plenty of Testimonies, than the former Ages, as well in this, as in other points in question. The Poet wisely observed: Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona Multi, sed omnes urgentur ignoti longâ Nocte: carent quia vate sacro. Dan. Chamier. after much inquiry can bring notice but of one witness, and him he dares scarce avow. z Bell. de Rom. pontis. cap. 12. & de Scriptor. Ecclesiast. p. 198 Bellarmine brandeth with a note this ninth Age, as being the most obscure and dark, that the Sun ever cast his beams upon: yet even in this Age we have somewhat to show for the right of God's people to the holy Chalice of the Lords Table. Anno 910. a In Leviticum lib. 14. c. 4. Populus sacratum Christi corpus assumit, bibit & beatum ipsius sanguinis haustum. Rodolphus Tongrensis testifieth, that the people in his time took the sacred body of Christ, and drank a blessed draught of his blood. Anno 920. The Abbot of Prumes' Regino teacheth us, Lib. de Eccles. disciplina, c. 119 that what Rodolphus witnesseth of the practice of the people in his age, was not an abuse, or disorder in the people, but done in obedience to the sacred discipline of the Church, whose Canon he mentioneth: Let the souls of the weak be refreshed, and strengthened with the body and blood of our Lord. Anno 950. b De sacr. alt. c. 17. Quotidie nobis haec dona praestantur, quando corpus & sanguis in altari sumitur. in quibusdam edit. cap. 14. Stephanus Edvensis; saith These gifts or benefits are daily performed unto us, when the body and blood of Christ is taken at the Altar. Anno 990. c Lib. 14. cap. 5. Vincentius writes of Elgifa, an old Matron in this age, who being ready to give up the ghost, took the body and blood of our Lord. Anno 995. Aelfricus, first Abbot of Saint Albon, and after Archbishop of Canterbury, in his epistle to Woulfinus, and in his sermon translated of late out of the Saxon in die. S. Paschae, is as full for the entire Communion, as he is against Transubstantiation: the housel, or Host, saith he, is Christ's body, not bodily, but Ghostly; not the body, which he suffered in, but the body of which he spoke, when he blessed bread and wine to Howsel, ep. ad Wolfin. and in his sermon: Without, they be seen bread and wine, both in figure and in taste: and they be truly Christ's body and blood after there hallowing through ghostly mystery as a pledge and a figure. And a little after: All our fathers drank the same ghostly drink of the stone, which followed them, which stone was not bodily Christ, who calleth to us, to all believing and faithful men: Whosoever thirsteth, let him come and drink that heavenly liquor, which had signification of Christ's blood. Now it is offered daily in God's Church; it was the same, which we now offer not bodily, but ghostly. I find no answer made by any Romanist to the testimonies in this Age, which yet are very full and pregnant, both for the precept and practice of communicating in both kinds, both by men and women. If any except against the Authors in the words of the Orator, haurimus de foece, we draw out dregs and lees: I answer, where learning ran so low, as it did in this Age, we could do no other wise: yet the Reader may see, that out of these lees we have ex tracted some Aquavitae, whereof, though he hath but a taste now, he shall have a full draught in the next Age. SECT. XI. The testimonies of the practice of the Church from 1000 to 1100. IN this age the Bishops of Rome were so busy about transubstantiating the bread into the body of Christ, that they suffered the laiety to go clear away with the Cup, and gave them no public check or control for it, till the Council of Constance held 400. years after. Of which hereafter in his due place. Anno 1002. Fulbertus Carnotensis confesseth with the Fathers of the former Age, though in a higher, and more affected strain, Put forth the palate of ᵈ Fulb. de 3. capitibus. Exere palatum fidei, dilata fa●…es spe●…, viscera charitatis extente, & same panem vitae interioris hominis alimoniam: s●… nihilomnius vinum, non ser dido calcatore calcatum, sed torquilare crucis expressum. faith; enlarge the jaws of thy hope; extend the bowels of Charity, and receive the bread of life, the food of the inward man; take also the wine not trodden out by feet of a nasty husbandman, but crushed out of the winepress of the cross. Anno 1014. Bruno Abbas Richen-angiensis speaketh to the point, as Fulbertus; e Ser. de purifis. Maria. Christi non solum pane quotidie vescimur, sed & sanguine potamur, etc. Idem de Miss. Vini poculo in mystery sanguinis Christi potamur. we also, though most unworthy, do not only eat daily the bread of Christ, when we take the food of his flesh from the table of his Altar, but also drink his blood. Anno 1050. f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. in 1. Cor. cap. 10. Oecumenius ascribes our spiritual union with Christ our Head to the participating of his blood in the Sacrament; the blood of Christ, saith he, by partaking thereof, joins us to Christ, as members to the head. And the same Father, commenting upon the eleventh Chapter, schooleth rich men for disdaining to admit the poor to their table, whom Christ admits as well as them to his, to partake both of his body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Oecam. in 1. Cor. cap. 11. and blood: If the Lord, saith he, sets his body and blood on his table, and in the Chalice, as well before the poor, as before thee, dost thou dare to drive them from thy table in despite and contempt? Anno 1060. g De verit. Eu char. lib. pri. Ipsi, qui sumimus communionem huius sancti panis, & Calicis, unum Christi corpus efficimur. Guitmundus joins with Oecumenius, in assigning our Communion at the Lords Table, to be an especial means of union with Christ. And they both speak of all faithful Christians indifferently, without distinction of Priest and people, who are one in Christ. we, saith this Author, who receive the Communion of this holy bread and Cup, are made one body of Christ. Anno 1061. h Desacra. Eucha. Dum frangitur hostia, dum sanguis de chalice in ora fidelium funditur. Et post: Quorum alterum quod dum frangitur, & in populi salutem dividitur, alterum verò effusum de calice ab ore fidelium sumitur, mors eius in cruse, sanguis eius de latere emanans fi guratur. Lanfranck, sometime Archbishop of Canterbury, delivering a rule touching all Sacraments, saith, Sacraments they are always a likeness of those things, whereof they are sacraments; as in the sacrament about which we contend, when the Host is broken, & the blood poured out of the Cup, and into the mouth of the faithful, what is signified else, but the sacrificing of the body of our Lord upon the Crosse. Anno 1070. i In 10. cap. 1. ad Cor. Nun vos pudet Corinthij, cum ad Idolorum calicem ab hoc Christi decurritis poculo, qui vos ab Idolis liberavit? Theophilact reproves the Corinthians out of Saint Paul, for leaving the Lords Cup, and running to drink with the Idolaters of the wine offered to Idols; Are not you ashamed, O you Corrinthians to run to the Idols cup from Christ's Cup, who hath freed you from Idols? And in his comment upon 11. chap. he reproves as sharply those, who took delight in drinking alone, and quassing by themselves, k Et in cap. 11. Quo pacto solus perpetans debaccharis, praesertim cum tremendus hic calix pari cunctis conditione sit traditus? How dost thou take thy cup alone, considering, that the dreadful Chalice is alike delivered unto all? Anno 1080. l Com. in 11. cap. prio. ad Corinth. Duebus modis manducare & bibere hoc sacramentum, ore cordis, & ore corporis. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, speaking of Christians in general, delivereth a double manner of participating the Sacrament, both spiritually, and Corporally: we ought, saith he, to eat and drink this sacrament two manner of ways, with the mouth of the heart, and with the mouth of the body. And upon 1. Cor. and Cap. 10. * Idem Ansel. Ad tuitionem corporis, & animae sacramenta eius percipimus: quia sanguis pro anima nostra effusus est. All we, saith he, who partake of one bread, and one Cup, are made one body. Anno 1090. m Consuetudinis est, Eucharistiam nulli, nisi intinctam dari; quod nec ex dominica institutione, nec ex sanctionibus authenticis reperitur assumptum etc. Hildebertus Cenomanensis, together with Burcardus, Micrologus, and Humbertus de silua candida, relate and approve that Canon of the third Council of Brachara, which condemneth the delivering the bread sopped in the wine to the Laiety for the whole Communion; It is the manner, saith Hildebertus, in your monasteries to give the sacramental bread to none, but dipped in the wine, which Custom we find is not taken either from the Lords institution, nor out of authentical constitutions. If you look into Matthew, Mark, and Luke, you shall find the bread delivered by itself, and the wine by itself; neither do we read, that Christ delivered bread dipped unto any, but that disciple, whom by giving him a sop, he declared to be the betrayer of his Master. The Papists answer. This Canon of the Council of Bracara confirmed by so many witnesses, Burchard, lib. 5. cap. 1. Gratian, de consecratione, dist. 2. Micrologus de Ecclesiasticis obseruationibus. cap. 19 and Lambertus de Silua candida, lib. cont. Graec. calumnias. Cardinal Bellarmine could not any ways balk with credit; therefore he sets his brain upon the rack for a double answer. The first is, that the n Bell. de sacra. Euch lib. 4. cap. 16. Concilium prohibet intinctionem, etc. non tamen addit, debere dari utramque speciem. Council indeed forbids the dipping of the bread, upon this ground, that our Lord gave not bread dipped, or sopped in the wine: neither can any such ᵒ dipping be proved by any testimony, or example of scriptures: yet, saith he, the Council doth not add, that both kinds ought to be given to the Laiety. Secondly, he saith, o Praeterea, si hoc concilium diceret, responderemus, loqui de eo tempore, quo libera erat communio sub utraque specie, etc. If the Council should have said so, we would have answered, that the Council speaks of that time, in which it was free for the Laiety to communicate in both kinds. For then if any desired both kinds, the Council commandeth, that both be given unto them, to wit, bread and wine a part, and not a sop of bread dipped in the wine. The Refutation. These answers are like the apples of Sodom, which fall to ashes, if you touch them. The first thus presently dissolveth: the Council of Bracara doth as well command Commnion in both kinds, as forbid receiving the bread dipped in wine for the entire Communion: for thus standeth the argument. In administering the Sacrament, we ought to do as Christ did, and no otherways: but Christ at his last Supper delivered first bread by itself, and then wine, and not bread and wine together in a sop, or bread dipped in wine: therefore we ought in like manner to administer the Sacrament in both kinds severally, and not by intinction, or sopping the bread in the wine. Who seeth not, that this Canon of the Council is a two edged sword, cutting off concomitancy on the one side, as well as intinction on the other: and giving as deep a wound to the late Council of Constance, enjoining the mutilation of the Sacrament; as to the ancient Council of Toures, enjoining the confusion of it, by the infusion of the bread into the Cup. The second answer doth vanish to nothing: the Council in deed spoke of that time, wherein the Communion of both kinds was free. For so it had been from the time of the Apostles, and continued in the Roman Church, till the Council of Constance: and in the Greek Church till this day. The greater wrong is offered by the Romanists to the Laiety, from whom they have taken the Cup after so many hundred years' possession. If any such thing had been attempted in the time of this Council at Bracara, they would have been as earnest, or more earnest against this abuse, than they were against that in their time, which was far less; for of the two, it is better to receive the bread dipped in the wine, than the bread, and no wine at all. The Council doth not ground itself upon any supposed dispensation of the Church, for the Laieties Communion in both kinds, as Bellarmine surmiseth, but upon the institution of Christ, and the example of the Apostles, which in their judgement ought to prevail against any sanction of Council, or custom of any place whatsoever to the contrary. SECT. XII. The testimonies of the practice of the Church from 1100. to 1200. Anno 1101. IVo in his collections out of the writings of the ancient for the present use of the Church, in his seventh Chapter, relateth a sentence out of Saint Ambrose to our purpose: The Blood q Beneficij divini sanguis testis, cuius typum nos Calicem mysticum ad tuitionem corporis & animae percipimus. Illis aqua de petra fluxit, tibi sanguis ex Christo, illos ad horam satiavit, te sanguis diluit in ●…num. is a witness of a divine benefit in a figure, whereof we receive the mystical Cup for the preservation of our body and soul. To them (to wit, the jews) water flowed out of the Rock, to thee blood out of Christ, the water quenched their thirst for on hour, the blood of Christ washeth thee for ever. And in his 31. chapter, he reciteth a decree of Pope Syluerius: * Sacramenta Corporis & sanguinis Christi sumenda sunt in singulis diebus dominicis quadragesimae. Every Lord's day in the Lent all, besides Excommunicate persons, or such as do public penance, aught to receive the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ. Anno 1105. Zacharias Crysopolitanus applieth the sprinkling of the door posts with the blood of the Lamb in Exodus, to the Sacrament of Christ's blood: he saith, r Lib 4. cap. 156 Sanguine Christi corpus & animam linimus: quia sanguis agni super utrumque postem domus liberavit Haebreos. We sprinkle our body and soul, with the blood of Christ, because the blood of the Lamb sprinkled upon both the posts of the house, freed the Hebrews. And again, The real and Sacramental eating of Christ are joined, when receiving in the bread, that which hung upon the tree, and s Accipientes in Calais, quod manavit è latere. receiving in the Cup, that which flowed from his side, our souls attain unto the eating of the bread of life. Anno 1110. t Lib. pri. dist. 3. In specie & sapore panis & vini manducamus, & bibimus ipsam substantiam corporis, & sanguinis. Odo Cameracensis in expounding the holy Canon, affirmeth, that under the shape and taste of bread and wine, we eat and drink the very substance of Christ's body and blood. Anno 1120. Rupertus enforcing the necessity of receiving the sacrament, concludes upon our Saviour's words in Saint john, that every man ought to communicate in both kinds, for the repast of his soul, as well as his body; lest any man u In joh. cap. 6. Nequis existimet se absque corporis & sanguinis eius cibo potuque visibili, vitam utramque corpo. & animae sola fide recup●…rasse, & isto sacramento non egere; hoc ipsum repetivit, proculdubio, contestans, quòd non verè credat, quisquis manducare & bibere contemnit. Nam quantumuis fidelis, & Catholicae professionis homo sis, si manducare & bibere recuses de hoc cibo, potuque visibili, eo ipso quòd tibi hunc necessarium non esse praesumis, à so●…taie membrorum Christi, quod est ecclesia, te praecidis: neque rectè credis in eum, cuius in hoc cibo, potúque ab ipso tam diligenter commendato, d●…ogas authorita●…. should think, saith he, that he hath recovered by faith alone the life of his body and soul, without the visible meat and drink of the body & blood of Christ, and consequently needs not the sacrament; Christ repeats the same thing again touching the eating his flesh, and drinking his blood; thereby undoubtedly testifying, that he doth not truly believe, whosoever despiseth to eat and to drink. For although thou be a faithful man, and profess thyself to be a Catholic, if thou refuse to eat and to drink of this visible meat and drink; even by this, that thou presumest, that this meat and drink is not necessary to thee, thou cuttest thyself off from the society of the members of Christ, which is the Church. But I infer, that all lay Papists, that have been instructed by the Fathers of the Counsels of Constance and Trent, presume, that it is not necessary for them to receive the visible drink, whereof Rupertus speaketh; Therefore by Rupertus his conclusion, they cut themselves off from the Church. And though they are men of a Catholic profession, which he speaks of, yet they are not true believers. In the same Book and Chapter; We, saith he, that is the Church, are that earth, which openeth his mouth, and faithfully drinketh the blood of Christ. And in his third book de operibus Spiritus Sancti et 20. cap. he saith, in specie panis et vini sanctus Sanctorum est, et in omnibus electis, qui ad fide eius veniunt, idem efficit, quod in illa specie, qua perpendit in cruse, id est, remisssionem peccatorum: that is, the Holy of holies is in form of bread and wine, and to all the elect, who come to the faith of him, he worketh remission of sins, as he did in that shape, in which he hung upon the Crosse. Anno 1130. * Serm. 3. in ramis palma. De sacramento corpo. & sanguinis. Nemo est, qui nesciat hanc quoque tantam & tam singularem alimoniam eâ primum die exhibitam, etc. Bern. in his 3. Serm. one Palm Sunday, maketh the sacrament of Christ's body and blood the Christians food and alimony. Touching the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, saith he, there is no man who knoweth not, that this so singular a food was on that day first exhibited, on that day commended, and commanded to be frequently received. Anno 1135. Algerus doth not barely affirm, that the sacrament Lib. 2. de sacra. cap. 5. & 8. was instituted at first, and aught to be administered in both kinds: but he confirmeth it strongly by the testimony of Saint Austin. And Pope Gelatius, first in his fifth Chapter he positively delivereth the necessity of communicating in both kinds, in these words; y Quia cibo & potuita vinimus, ut alterutro carere nequeamus, utrumque in suo sacramento esse voluit, etc. Because we so live by meat and drink, that we can want neither of them, Christ would have them both in his sacrament, lest if either should be wanting, by that imperfect taking of life, and not entire, an imperfect life might seem to be signified. In his 8. chap. more at large he unfoldeth the mystery, that lieth in the communicating in both kinds. There is nothing found in the creature, saith he, whereby more fitly and nearly life may be represented, then by blood, which is the seat of the soul; in which that it may be signified, that our bodies and souls ought to be united and made conformable to Christ's body y Simul corpus & sanguis sumitur à fidelibus, ut sumpto toto Christo, totus homo in anima & corpore vivificetur. and soul, the body and blood of Christ are both taken together of the faithful, that by taking whole Christ's body and, soul, the whole man in body and soul might be quickened: in as much as the flesh of Christ, as I have said, is believed not to be without blood and dead, but living and quickening: whence it is that Saint Agustine saith, that neither the flesh with out the blood, nor the blood without the flesh is rightly taken. Also Gelatius writeth to Maioricus, and john, Bishops, in this manner: We understand, that some taking a portion of Christ's body, abstain from the Cup of his sacred blood, to whom our commandment is, that either they partake the sacrament entirely, and receive both, or be kept from both. Anno 1136. Hugo de z Tom. 5. cap. 6. Ideo duabus speciebus sumitur, ut significetur huius sacramenti duplex effectus: valet eni●… ad tuitione●… corporis & animae. Sancto Victore yieldeth a like reason of the full and entire communicating in both kinds; Therefore, saith he, the sacrament is taken in both kinds, that thereby a double effect might be signified. For it hath force, as Saint Ambrose saith, to preserve both body and soul. In the same terms hath Halensis. Sum. Theol. par. 3. num. 29. art. 4. Anno 1140. Peter Lombard Mag. sentent. propoundeth this question: a Lib. 4. dist. 11. Quare sub duplici specie sumitur, & c? ut ostenderetur totam humanam naturam assumpsisse, ut totam redimeret. Why is the sacrament received under a double form, or kind, sith whole Christ is in either kind? He answereth, That thereby it might be signified, that Christ took the whole nature of man, that he might redeem the whole. Anno. 1150. Petrus Cluniacensis Epist. lib. 1. Though he Epist. lib. 1. fight against the truth one way, and woundeth the Albigenses; yet he fighteth for it another way, and giveth a deeper wound to the Trent Fathers, and all that content themselves with an half communion. That men might not only learn by words, saith he, but have a sensible feeling by deeds, that they cannot live unless they be joined and united to Christ, after the manner of carnal food and life, they receive the body of Christ, and drink the blood of Christ. And a little after, to signify that for this cause he would b Accipiunt corpus Christi, et bibunt sanguinem Christi, ut propter hoc, carnem suam ad manducandam, sanguinem suam ad bibendum omnibus se dare velle signaret. Lib. 27. cap. 28. give his flesh to all, to eat it, and his blood to all, to drink it, he draweth a similitude from Manna, that fell in the wilderness. In this year of our Lord also Vincentius relates of one Tundanus, a profane person in his former life, that being suddenly strucken from heaven, he called for the body of our Lord, which when he had taken, and drunk the wine, he began to praise God in these words; O Lord, thy mercy is greater than mine iniquity. In this same Age Antoninus writes in his Chronicles, that c Northmanni man●… dominico corpore, & sanguine communicaverunt. the Normans the morning before they fought with the Danes, received the Communion of Christ's body and blood. Anno 1170. d De consecr. dist. 2. Gratian rehearseth many ancient Canons and Constitutions for communicating in both kinds, which because they have been handled before, I here let pass. The Papists answer. The only answer, which I find to our allegations out of the Fathers in this Age, is Cardinal Lib. 4. de sacr. Euch. cap. 26. Bellarmine's, who endeavoureth to put a gloss upon Saint Bernard's words on this wise: Under the form of bread, the entire nourishment, or complete food of Christ's body and blood is contained. Wherefore our Lord, saith he, commanded that food to be often taken, but he commandeth not, that it should be taken in both kinds. Refutation. S. Jerome saith, it is the part of a bad Physician, omnibus oculi morbis uno collyrio mederi: to apply but one eye-salue to all manner of diseases of the eyes. Yet such a Physician is Bellarmine; he hath but one salve for all diseases, and that hath no virtue it in at all in effect. To the saluing of all the testimonies of the ancient Fathers opposed against him, he applieth only this medicamentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of concomitancy. whatsoever the Fathers speak of receiving the body and blood, and the entire food of our souls, he would make us believe, they intent nothing against their half Communion. For, as he accounteth, the blood is never severed from the body, and the blood is under the form of bread. He therefore, who taketh the bread, taketh the body & blood of Christ: and consequently communicateth entirely. But besides, that this proposition of his, hath been heretofore refuted, I add first in general, that, albeit we should admit, that in the judgement of the Fathers in this Age, the blood of Christ were with the body, and with the form of bread: yet there is no Cup, nor Wine in the bread, no drinking in eating, no pouring out of the wine, or blood into the mouths of the faithful. Of which the writers of this Age speak so expressly, that those of our adversaries, who have not rubbed hard their foreheads, never so much as offer to make answer to these testimonies, but have held it the wisest course, never to take notice of them. Secondly, for Saint Bernard in particular, his words have relation to the Institution of Christ, saying, The entire food of the body and blood of Christ was that day first exhibited: nay, at our Lords last supper there was wine, as well as bread. And this Vasquez the jesuit ingeniously confesseth, howsoever it cut the throat of his fellow Jesuits answer. e Bernardus apertè loqui videtur de altera parte alimoniae, quae sub specie vini per modum potionis sumitur. Bernard, saith he, speaks plainly of the other part of nourishment, which is taken by way of drink under the form of wine. What then? Doth Vasquez freely give us Saint Bernard? Not so! but deviseth another evasion, to wit that communicating in both kinds, for the entire repast of the soul is commanded to the whole Church, not to every particular believer: Defumo in flammas. Vasq. to avoid the smoke, that put out Bellarmine his eyes, falls into the fire. For that which is enjoined the whole Church, is necessarily enjoined every saithful. The words of our Saviour, Drink ye all, etc. are evidently a command to each particular. For so the Apostles understood him, and drank every one of them of that Cup, and not any one, or more, in the name and behalf of all the rest. Doubtless, as every man must live by himself, so he must also in his own person and by himself, receive the entire food of life, the body and blood of Christ. SECT. XIII. The testimonies of the practice of the Church from 1200. to 3000. Anno. 1229. Abbess Vrspergensis writing of the besieging of Damiata, saith, that f Communicato sacramento corpo. & sanguinis domini, ascendunt in turrem illam ligneam pag. 322. the soldiers, before they scaled the wooden tower, made confession of their sins, and received the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord. The like Antoninus g Chron. part. 2. Northmani confessioni peccatorum vacantes manè dominico corp. & sang. communicaverunt. writeth of the Normans in William the Conqueror's time, and Matthew Paris of the English in King Herald's time, and William Rufus. Neither was that custom as yet controlled in that age, nor an hundred years after, as in due place shall be showed. Anno 1236. Durandus h In rationali Divin. lib. 4. c. 54 Solam hostiam recipiens, non plen●… sacramentum recipit sacramentaliter. etc. Mimatensis in express terms affirmeth, that he who receives the Host only, doth not receive the whole sacrament sacramentally. For although the blood of Christ be in the consecrated Host (he speaketh according to the schools in these times; yet it is not there sacramentally; because the bread signifieth the body, & not the blood; the wine signifieth the blood, and not the body. In regard therefore that the sacrament is not complete in one kind according to the sign, the sacrament must be made complete before the Priest use it. Durand his conclusion falls short upon the Priest, but his reason stretcheth to all people, as well as Priests. For all aught to receive the entire Sacrament sacramentally, and if one kind only be an imperfect Sacrament to the Priest in regard of the sign, it must needs be imperfect also unto the people: unless they will say, that the sacrament presents less to the Priests, then to the people, or that the Priests apprehend less in it, than the people surely that which is but half a Cup to one, cannot be a whole one to an other; that which is empty, or incomplete to one, cannot be complete and full to another. Anno 1240. i Halens, sum. Theolog. part. 3. quaest. 11. memb. 2. art. 4. & in 4. sent. quest. 40, Illa quae est sub duabus, est maioris meriti, tum ratione augmentationis devotioris, tum ratione sumptionis completioris. Totus Christus non continetur sub utraque specie sacramentaliter, sed caro tantùm sub specie panis, sanguis tantùm sub specie vini. Rursus sumptio sub utraque specie, quem modum sumendi tradidit Dominus, est maioris efficaciae, & complementi. Halensis, howsoever he some way inclines to that opinion, that it is sufficient to receive the sacrament in one kind: yet he confe●…eth, that there is more merit and devotion, and completeness, and efficacy in receiving in both. Albertus Magnus in 4. Sent. dist. 8. delivers this general rule: sacramentum Ecclesiae nihil in gratia causa●…, quod non ex similitudine significat: The sacrament of the Church causeth nothing in grace, which it signifieth not by similitude: that is, it produceth nothing, which it presenteth not. And from thence infers, that the unity of Christ's mystical body is not perfectly caused, and signified, but by a double sign: and therefore by k Ideo virtute sacramenti oportet habere utrumque. virtue, or in regard of the sacrament we ought to have both. Let the Reader note, that Albertus saith not, according to the new evasion of the Jesuits, virtute sacrificij oportet habere utramque, but, virtute sacramenti; not that both kinds are requisite to the sacrifice, but to the sacrament. The sacrament by the doctrine of Albertus, wants so much of his efficacy, as it doth want of its significancy, but the receiving under the form of bread only beareth no similitude, nor hath any signification of the spiritual drink of Christ's blood. The Romanists therefore in taking away one of the signs from the Laiety, consequently deprive (as much as in them lieth) the Laiety of the grace represented by that sign, and conferred with it. And * Etsi ●…lus gratiae conferretur per sumptionem ut iusque speciei, tamen meritò Ecclesiam hoc non curare, magisque prespicere reverentia ipsins Sacramenti, quam utilitati sumentium, etc. Aegid. de Coninck in D. Thom. de Sacram. quaest. 80. art. 12. nu. 126. Antuerp. 1624. yet Aegidius Coninck, a modern jesuit, and professor of Divinity at Louvain, maketh this audacious assertion out of the Chair of his School Divinity: Although more grace may be conferred by receiving in both kinds, notwithstanding, the Church upon good reason careth not for that, and doth more respect the reverence of the Sacrament, than the profit of the receivers, etc. Anno 1260. m In 1. Cor. c. 11. Traditur hoc sacramentum sub duplici specie propter tria. 1. propter eius perfectionem, etc. 2. Propter cius significationem, etc. 3. Propter salutarem effectum. valet enim ad, salutem corporis, & ideo offertur corpus, & valet ad salutem animae, & ideo offertur fangu●…. Aquinas loc. citat. sum. part. 3. q. 80. art. 12. Ex parte sacramenti convenit, quòd utrumque sumatur quia in utroque consistit eius perfectio. Aquinas yieldeth three reasons of the institution of this sacrament under a double form: the first is; For the perfection of it, because sith it is a spiritual meal, or refection, it ought to have spiritual meat, and spiritual drink; secondly, for the signification of it, for it is a memorial of the Lords passion, whereby his blood was severed from his body; and therefore in this sacrament the blood is offered by itself; Thirdly for the healthful effect of it, for the body is offered to show, that it is of force to save the body; and the blood is offered to show, that it is of force to save the soul. The half Communion therefore in Aquinas his learning wants perfection, significancy, and efficacy. Bonaventure thus endeavoureth to clear the matter: In the sacrament there are two things, efficacy, and significancy; concerning efficacy, neither kind is of the integrity of the Sacrament, but either is the whole; concerning signification, so the two signs are of the integrity of the Sacrament, or integral parts of the Sacrament, n Bonavent. in 4. sentent. dist. 11. q. 2. Neutrá per se exprimitur res buius sacramenti, sed in utraque. Et post. Vt perfecta esset & signaretur redemptio, & ex hoc perfecta refectio, debuit signari corpus in pane, & anima in vino, cuius sedes est in sanguine. because the matter of the Sacrament is expressed in neither kind by itself, but in both together: and a little after; To make it represent perfect redemption, and thereby a perfect refection, the body ought to be signified in the bread, and the soul in the wine, the seat whereof is in the blood. Anno 1280. Richardus de Mediavilla, and Petrus de Tarantasia; who afterwards was advanced to the Popedom, and changed his name into Innocentius the fourth, testifieth, that the Sacrament was administered in both kinds to the better sort of the Laiety, howsoever they entertained the vulgar and meaner sort with a dry Communion: thus o Tracta. de Commu. sub utraque specie. sec. 24. Maioribus ●…cet dari potus, sub utraque specie, de quibus non timentur pericula effusionis, & erroris, quòd maiorem reverentiam, & cautelam seruare sciunt. Cassander relates their words, The Sacrament may lawfully be given in both kinds to greater personages, or men of quality, where there is no fear of error of spilling the blood, because such men know how to observe due reverence, and caution. The Papists answer. I find no answer in particular made by any to the passages above alleged; but in general their answer is, that the Schoolmen might write more freely, before the Council of Constance had decreed the contrary. And they add; that some, if not all of these Schoolmen approve of the administering of the Communion under one kind to the Laiety. The Reply. The Council of Constance by their decree could not make that; which was before false, to be then the truth: or that which was in Gelasius his time sacrilege, to be then piety. What p Apud Aristot. Rbetor. 2. cap. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Androcles spoke sometimes of the Athenian laws; The laws had need of a law to mend them: may truly be said of this Canon in the Council of Constance, that it needs a Canon to rectify it: for it depraves Christ's institution, it checks the Primitive Church, it controls the practice of the whole Christian world, for 1200. years and more; even till the middle of this age, wherein Sacrilege stole in by degrees. A curious eye may track these felons of the holy Chalice. First, under colour of preventing abuses, in spilling the Cup, they take it away from the vulgar and meaner sort of people, not daring to offer this indignity to the better sort; to them, as we hear out of Mediavilla, they delivered the Sacrament in both kinds, afterwards upon this pretext, that the blood was in the body, and the whole Sacrament in either kind, they nimmed the Cup from the lesser Churches, as Linwood informs us: q Lib. de summa Trin. & side Catholic. Solis celebrantibus sanguinem sub specie vini cousecrati sumere in minoribus Ecclesijs est concessum. It it granted, saith he, only to Priests, that celebrate in such small Churches, to receive the blood under the form of wine. Going clear away with this their Sacrilege in lesser Churches, they adventure upon the greater. And by Aquinas his confession, the Sacrament was administered in one kind, but in some Churches in his days, For in diverse Churches, saith he, r Aquin. part. 3. q. 80. art. 12. Ideo providè in quibusdam Ecclesijs obseruatur, ut populo sanguis sumendus non detur, sed solùm à sacerdote sumatur. it is providently observed, that the blood should not be given to the people, but that it should be received only by the Priest. In the end, when they had as far as their authority stretched, rob all assemblies of the Laiety, in depriving them of the Cup: they after enacted a general law in the year of our Lord, 1414. to warrant this their public Sacrilege. This thirtenth age resembleth the river jordane, which is sweet at the spring, but bitter and brackish in the fall of it; and in the end runneth into the dead Sea. Abbas Vrspergensis, Matthew Paris, and Vincentius, who flourished in the beginning, and continued until the middle of this age, gave a full testimony unto the truth. But those who lived after, spoke partly in the language of Canaan, and partly in the language of Ashdod. Halensis s Part. 4. qu. 55. saith, that the lay people for the most part communicated in both kinds; Lynwood, that in greater Churches they did so; Aquinas, that in some Churches they did, and in some they did not. For by this time, according to the Greek proverb; Serpens genuit serpentem, ut fieret Draco: One Serpent hath begot another, that from them both a Dragon might issue. The error of transubstantiation, had begotten the error of concomitancy; and from both these at length issued out their heretical sacrilege, or sacrilegious heresy in defending the practice of their half Communion. SECT. XIIII. The testimonies of the practice of the Church from 1300. to 1400. IN this Age, when this sacrilegious error like a Gangrene, had spread over a great part of the Latin Churches, God stirred up many learned Chirons' and Machaeons, known by the nicknames of Walldenses, Lollards, & Wickliffests, to apply a sovereign remedy unto it. And they, Deo secundante, wrought great cures upon this Cancer in England, France, and Bohemia. In other parts of Europe, the people were so intoxicated with the golden Cup of the whore of Babylon, that they willingly suffered the Priests to keep away from them the Lords Cup. Yet in this Centurie, if we add to the sounder Divines, or Doctors, in the Latin Church, the judgement and practice of the whole Greek Church, the entire Communion will carry it away from the half, by more than half the voices of Christendom. Anno 1301. The custom of communicating in both kinds was not abolished in the beginning of this age, but was retained in certain places, especially in Monasteries, until the year of our Lord 1300. and more. Thus writeth t Cas. consul. art. 22. In utraque specie communio in quibusdam locis, presertim in monasterijs retenta est, idque ad annum ampliùs millessimum tricentessimum. Cassander. Anno 1320. u Pet. in 4. sent. dist. 11. quaest. 1. In multis ecclesijs consuetudo suit, quòd communicaverunt fidelibus sub utraque specie, etc. sacramenti effectus est persecta animae refectio; ergo, materia representans debet esse per pe●…ctam corporis refectionem, quae non est nisi per cibum, & potum. Petrus de Palude saith, that in his time the custom was in many Churches, that the faithful communicated in both kinds, and he backeth this his testimony with a solid reason. There aught, saith he, to be a double matter in this sacrament, to wit, meat and drink: because the effect of this Sacrament ought to be represented perfectly by the matter thereof, in a manner agreeable to the things natural. For sacraments effect that which they signify: but the effect of this sacrament is a perfect refection, or repast of the soul: therefore the matter representing, it ought to be a perfect refection of the body, which is not but by meat and drink. This argument of Peter of the F●…n hath so far sunk our adversaries, that to this day they cannot by all their sophistry get out of the bogs. Anno 1341. Clemens 6. in his Bull to the King of England; granteth him the use of the Cup, ad gratiae augmentum, to the increase of grace. Anno 1360. * Lib. contra errores Armeniorum. c. 8. Vtrumque sumere certo tempore, aut velle sumere, & esse paratum ad hoc, quantum in eius potestate est, necessarium est ad vitam spiritualem habendam. Richard Archbishop of Armach thus wardeth off a blow of the Armenians, when the Armenian heretic objected against him: unless you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in yond; He answereth, that this speech of our Saviour, if it be taken as spoken of sacramental drinking, aught to be understood with this qualification, to wit; That it is necessary to obtain spiritual life, that a man receive both at sometime, or be willing to receive, and be ready so far as it is in his power. Anno 1372. Besides these written testimonies, we have engraven, I mean the inscriptions of Chalices, or Communion Cups, called Ministerales because they served for the people; x Aphoris. Euchar. lib. 6. Ad plebeiam illud, & publicam communionem, haud dubiè, factam. Vadianus writeth of a cup in the Abbey of Sangall, that weighed 70. marks in silver: without doubt, saith he, for the use of the people at the public C●…mmunion. y Ascitis quibusdam argumentis, qu●… auribus probè purgatis non satis probè ti●…iunt. In Notis ad Pelichdorfiu●…. Gretser censureth the writings of Pelichdorfius against the poor men of Lions in this manner: This author, saith he, doth refute in the first part of this work the poor men of Lions, but with some such arguments as ring not well in the purified ears (of Catholics. I am sure this argument drawn from great silver chalices, some of them with pipes for the Laiety to suck out the consecrated wine, ring not well in the purified ears of Roman Catholics. For not only, Rhenanus ᶻ In Tertul. de corona militis. Nequicquam pretium ●…asorum possideant, pr●…ter calicem argenteum, & fistulam, qua Laici Dominicum excipiant sanguinem. out of Conradus Pellicanus relateth a constitution amongst the Carthusians, whereby they are forbid to have any precious vessels, or plate, besides a silver chalice, and a pipe, wherewith the Laiety may suck the blood of our Lord: but also Caietan maketh mention of them, and their use to this purpose: and Cassander very much taxeth Eccius, for that he writeth, that he never read of the Laieties Communion in both kinds in the Roman Church, save only in the story of S. Laurence his life; * Si non meminerit calicum ministerialium in Ecclesijs urbis Romanae, quorum in libro Pontificali subinde fit mentio. etc. In plerisque locis calicibus, qui ministeriales vocaba●…ur, argenti●… fistulae inserebantur. It is strange, saith he, that a man of so excellent a memory, as Eccius, should forget the ministerial Chalices, whereof there is ever and anon mention made in the Roman Pontifical; which were so called, because the blood of Christ was out of them ministered to the people; In most places for fear of shedding the blood of Christ, in delivering it to the people, there were silver pipes put into the Chalices, that in the people's drinking, or rather sucking the blood of Christ, not so much as a drop might be spilt. These Chalices were not only in use in this Age, but a 1000 years before, in Saint Cyprians time: if we may believe Cardinal Caietan; who ingeniously confesseth, that they were so called from their use in the Church, which was to serve the people. Thus In t●…t. partem s●…mmae. he commenteth upon Thomas: This custom, saith he, continued not only in the time of that Martyr, whom Cyprian thought fit to be forearmed with the Lords Cup, but also in the time of the peace of the Church. For we read not only of basons, but also of ministerial a Quare ministeriales dict●… sunt, nisiquia non ad offerendum, sed ministrandum populo Christi sanguinem deseruiebant? Chalices made for this use. ᵃ For why were they called ministerial, but because they served not to offer the blood of Christ, but to minister it to the people? Anno 1390. The custom was in France to administer the whole Supper not in the middle of the ᵇ Guliel. Bellaius Langius de Francisco 1. Gall. Rege. & Sleid. hist. lib. 9 Franc. 1. dixit, patrum 〈◊〉 diu tributam fuisse per Galliam quibu●…bet integra●… c●…nam, non quidem in medio te●…pli, said in sa●…llis. Church, but in Chapels. This, saith Francis the first, I heard of old men, who affirmed; that this had been the manner in France for 120. years before. SECT. XV. The testimonies of the practice of the Church from 1400. to 1500. IOhn Hus, and Hiero. of Prage by the books of Wickliff, were brought unto the knowledge of the truth. And as in other points they concluded for that holyfaith, which we at this day profess against the errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome: so in this they were most earnest, and so prevailed in the Kingdom of Bohemia, that from the time of the effusion of their blood for the testimony of the Gospel until this day the Cup of the new Testament in Christ's blood hath been delivered to the people in these parts, and the entire Communion preserved. Anno 1410. Petrus Dresensis taught publicly, that the Laiety might not communicate under one kind; as is confessed by Didacus' de Tapia in sent. lib. 4. Anno 1412. c Aeneas Silvius in Histor. Bohem. edit. per Orthu●…num Gratium. ●…aepit 〈◊〉 populum ne 〈◊〉 communionem calicis quo▪ quo pacto neglige●…ent. jacobellus Misnensis, a Preacher of Prage, being admonished by Petrus Dresensis, after he had searched into the writings of the ancient doctors, and by name Dionysius, and Saint Cyprian, and finding in them the communicating of the Cup to the Laiety commanded, he from thence forth exhorted the people by no means to neglect, or omit the receiving the Communion of the▪ Cup. Anno 1414. In the Council of Constance, in which the entire Communion is professedly oppugned, yet the Truth extorted from her bloody adversaries a remarkable confession of the practice of the Primitive Church, and of the continuance of it in diverse parts, even until the time of the calling of that Assembly. In the petition of those, that procured this Synod, it is expressed, that one cause, for which the procurers desired that the Church should take order for the establishing of a law touching the laieties communicating in one kind, is declared to be, d Quia in nonnullis mundi partibus sacerdotes laicos sub viraque specie, panis scilicet & vini, communica●…e non cessant. because in some parts of the world the Priests did not forbear to administer the communion to the laiety in both kinds, against the custom of the Romish Church. Here we have the continuance of this practice; the antiquity whereof they likewise acknowledged in the preface to their sacrilegious decree against it. Although Christ instituted, e Sess. 1●…. Li●…èt Christus instituerit, & ●…ederit sacramentum post coenam sub v●…raque specie discipulis, etc. ab ipso ducit opes animumque ferro. Hor. Od. 4. lib. 4. and gave the sacrament after supper in both kinds to his disciples, and in the primitive Church it was in like wise administered: yet the Council for certain reasons commands, that the sacrament be otherwise administered. As the tree ᶠ gains more branches by being lopped with the axe; so the Truth gaineth much lustre and authority from the very Canon of the Council of Constance, by which her adversaries do seek to oppress her. For who will not rather follow Christ's institution, than their ordinance, and the ancient acknowledged practice of the Primitive Church rather, than a late custom of the present Romish Church? Anno 1420. Martin the fifth after the Council of Constance upon Easter day, after he had delivered the body of our Lord with his own hands to the Laiety, g Card▪ Cusanus epist. ad clerum. permisit laicis accedere ad susceptionem sand▪ guinis de man●… Diaconi. suffered them to receive the blood of Christ at the hands of the Deacon. The like h Henricus Kal●…▪ contra Bohem▪ percipiens Pap●… Martinus sic se elusum, ex tunc subtraxit calicem communionis laicis. Henry Kalteysin reports of other Popes, and withal acquaints us with the cause, why the Pope left off this custom. It fell out, saith he, that a certain Bohemian came amongst the rest to the Pope's chapel, and received the Communion at his hands and he wonderfully bragged of it, whereof Pope Martin being advertised, and much enraged, that such a trick was put upon him, from that time took away the Cup from the Laiety. Anno 1430. i Tom. 1. cap. 88 & 94. contra Wick●…ff. Matoribus è populo, Rectoribus in●…gnium locorum, & aliis dignitate praestantibus, fide fortibus, & discretis fidelibus, ut doctoribus, Regibus, alijsque, qui tanta re digni iudicabantur, hoc donatum suisse, ut sacrificium, & eius sacramentum, scili●… ad commu nicandum sub ●…traque specie, assumerent. Thomas Waldensis, who took upon him to refute Wickliff's books, howsoever he maintained the decree of the Council of Constance touching Communion in one kind; yet he witnesseth, that greater personages amongst the people, and men of note or place, as Kings, and doctors, and others that were thought worthy so great a mystery, were admitted to the Communion in both kinds. Anno 1413. In the Council held at Basil, as Nauclerus writeth, tom. 2. generat. 48. a kind of hope was offered to the Bohemians, that upon certain conditions, the use of the Cup might be restored unto them. The order of the Council is conceived in these words: k Si perseveraverint Bohem. etc. Sacer conventus Bohemi●… & Moraviae sacerdotibus communicandi sub utraque specie personas sibi subiectas libertatem impertietur. If the Bohemians continue in the desire of the Communion in both kinds, and send an Embassage to the Council to that purpose, the holy assembly shall give liberty to the Priests of Bohemia and Moravia, to administer the Communion in both kinds to such persons, as being in years of discretion shall reverently desire it. Anno 1438. The Bohemians put the faith and honesty of the Fathers of Basil to the Test: they send commissioners john Belovar of Prage, john Rokyzana, Peter Panie, Procopius, and others, to treat about the concession of the Cup, and to express their earnest and unfeigned desire thereof. To whom the Council returneth this answer; That the request should be granted them, so that they will really, & effectually keep unity with the Church; and conform themselves in all other things, save the communion in both kinds, to the faith, and rites of the universal Church. SECT. XVI. Testimonies of the practice of the Church from 1500. to 1600. IN this Age I might produce many Testimonies of such learned Doctors and Professors of the Gospel, as have been by God's providence raised up in the Reformed Churches in former and latter years, who by their writings learnedly & sound have maintained the cause we have in hand; as also do the joint, and unanimous Confessions of the Churches of England, France, Scotland, Germany, Polonia, Sweveland, Moravia, &c. Howbeit, because the Romanists do except against all the foresaid witnesses, as insufficient, and of no authority, because they have departed from their Synagogue; therefore I will allege some prime Doctors of this Age also, and men of eminency among themselves, maintaining the same truth with us; against whom I see not what just exception may be taken by them. Anno 1541. m Lib. de Missa publica proroganda. in 7. part. Canonis. Sunt pseudo-ca●…olici, qui reformationem Ecclesiae quoquo modo remorari non v●…rentur. High ne Laicis altera species restituatur, nullis parcunt blasphemijs. etc. Idem Lorich. l. de sacr. Euch. fol. 72. Non possum non culpare nostrates, qui non ●…nimaduertunt, sacramentum Eucharisti●… hinc in 〈◊〉 labi ●…rimen, illic in 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 causam rap●…▪ propter alterius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. N●…c 〈◊〉 ●…obis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ ●…d magis di●…mulant, & ad●…iuent. Vnde omnium huiusmodi malorum Dominu●… ab illis ratione 〈◊〉 illo di●… poscet. Gerardus Lorichuis zealously oppugning the sacrilegious practice of the Church of Rome: There be false Catholics, saith he, that are not ashamed by all means to hinder the reformation of the Church; They, to the intent that the other kind of the sacrament may not be restored to the Lay people, spare no kind of blasphemy. For they say, Christ said only to his Apostles, Drink ye all of this, but the words of the Canon of the Mass be these, Take, and eat ye all of this. Here I beseech them, let them ●…ell me, whither they will have this word, all, only to pertain unto the Apostles? then must the Lay people abstain from the other kind, of the bread also. Which thing to say, is an heresy, and a pestilent and detestable blasphemy. Wherefore it followeth, that each of these words were spoken to the whole Church. Anno 1545. n Instructions, et Missiues des Roys de Fra. et d●… leurs Embassad. ann. 1561. & 1562. ●…rodijt Gall●…cè 8. 1608. Hist. Conc. Trid. lib. 3. 5. & 6. The Ambassadors for the Emperor, and for the French King, were earnest suitors to the Fathers in the Council of Trent, for the restitution of the Cup to the Laity. Anno 1562. The observation of * Epist. 79 ad finem. Seneca; That a lie is of a thin and transparent nature, a diligent eye may see through it; was verified in the Divines, and Bishops present at the Council of Trent. Whereof some saw obscurely, others clearly through this grand lie of the Romish Church, which under colour of concomitancy, subtracteth the use of the Cup from the Laity. For Antonius Mandulfe●…sis had a glimpse; but Card. Madrutius Gaspar de casa, and the Bishop of Quinque Ecclesi●…, and also Amans Seruito, a Histor. Conc. Trid. lib. 6. pag. 522. Angl. ann. 1629. Friar had a full sight of the truth in this point. Antonius Mandulfensis, Chaplain to the Bishop of Prage, professedly impugned the distinction of the Eucharist, as a Sacrament, and as a sacrifice: which distinction the Papists at this day hold before them, as a buckler to bear off our arguments, drawn from the necessity of representing Christ's death in the Lord's Supper, by receiving his blood apart, as severed from his body. He also infringeth their common argument for their half Communion, drawn from the example of the Disciples at Emaus, and Saint Paul his breaking bread in the ship. For he truly and acutely noted, that if these Texts are to be expounded of communicating in one kind only, that it would from thence follow, that it were not only lawful for the people to communicate in one kind only, but for Priests, such as the Apostle S. Paul, and the Disciples were, to consecrate in one kind only. Thus he saw light as it were by a chink; but p Historia Concilij Trid. lib. 6. pag 423. Amans servito Brixianus, as a man in the open air felt the light of truth to come so full into his eyes, that it dazzled them. For following the doctrine of Caietan, who holdeth, that blood is not a part of man's nature, but the first nourishment thereof; and adding, that it cannot be said, that the body necessarily draweth the nourishment into concomitancy with it; from thence he inferred, that it was not altogether the same substance under the form of bread, and under the form of wine. Withal he added: that the blood in the Lord's Supper was blood shed out of the veins, in which as long as it was contained, it could not be drink: and therefore could not be drawn with the vein into concomitancy: Moreover, that the Lords Supper was instituted to celebrate his Passion; which could not ●…ee represented, but by effusion of blood, and severing it from the body. It is true, this Amans had a check in the Counfor his pains: but his reasons were not answered: himself for fear shuffled and fumbled about some answer unto them, but gave no satisfaction either to himself, or to others. Welfare Cardinal q Hist. Conc. Triden. pag. 454. Madrusius, who being asked his opinion, answered directly, That he thought fit the Cup should be restored to the Laity, without all exception. Gaspar de Casa, Bishop of Lerye, a man of eminent learning, concurred with the Cardinal in judgement; adding, that he thought, that God would never send the spirit of delusion into the mind of the Emperor, in so weighty a point; especially considering, that Charles the French King, and the Duke of Bavaria, joined with the Emperor in this request, that the Cup should be granted to the Laity. This speech of so learned a Bishop, not only confirmed those, who were of the same mind with him, but also made most of the opposite faction to startle. Anno 1563. Dudithius, Bish. of Quinque-Ecclesiae, as in the Council of Trent he had stoutly maintained the entire Communion, and refeled all objections to the contrary: so after the breaking up of the Council, in an Epistle, which he wrote to Maximilian the Emperor, he bitterly complaineth of the miscarriage of this business in the Council: r Quid profici potuit in eo Concili●…, in quo numerarentur, non suis mementis ponderarentur sententiae? Si causa, si ratione pugnandum fuisset, si pauci quidam socij nobis adfuissent, viceramus, quamuis pauci, magnas copi●…s adversariorum. Sed cum numerus tantum prodire●… in aciem, quo longè inferiores futuri fuissemus, in optima causa victores disced●…re non potuimus. etc. Andr. Dudithius Episcopus Quinqu. Eccles. epist. ad C●…s. Maxim. 2. What good could be done, saith he, in that Council, wherein voices were numbered, but not weighed? If the merits of the cause, or reason might have prevailed, or if but a few had joined with us, we had won the day: but when the number only did bear the sway, in which we came far short, though our cause was exceeding good, yet we were fain to sit down by the loss. Anno 1564. Georgius Cassander being set a work by Ferdinand the Emperor, to advise about a means of composing differences in Religion, declares himself fully for us in this point of the Cup: s Cassand. consult. art. 22. pag. 184. Quare non temerè est, quòd optimi quique etiam Catholicae pro●…essionis, in divinorum, & Ecclesiasticorum scriptorum lectione versati, summo desiderio potiundi dominici calicis acce●…duntur, omnibusque modis contendunt, ut▪ hoc salutare sacramentum fanguinis Christi uno cum sacramento corpo●…is iuxta veterem, & multis seculis perpetuatam vniuersali●… Ecclesi●… consuetudinem, in usum 〈◊〉. It is not, saith he, without cause that the best learned Catholics most earnestly desire and contend, that they may receive the Sacrament of Christ's blood together with his body, according to the ancient custom in the universal Church continued for many Ages: or at least, that the liberty▪ which was granted two hundred years ago of communicating in one kind, or both, may be restored. Wherefore I hold it not only nothing contrary to the authority of the Church, but rather very agreeable to the peace and unity of the Church, and in a manner necessary, that either those in whose hands lies the government of the Church, restore the ancient custom of communicating, or, which may be done without great trouble, that the Churches themselves by little and little return to their ancient use. SECT. XVII. The confirmation of this Argument from the custom of the Church, by the testimonies of our learned Adversaries. THis Argument, as all the former, may be confirmed by the testimonies of our adversaries themselves, who t Didacus' de T●…pia. 〈◊〉 Ecclesi●… primitiu●… & antiquorum patru●… frequens usus suit communicandi sub utraque specie. Aestius. give sufficient evidence to condemn their own Church of innovation, and manifest defection from u Primis Eccles. temporibus Eucharistiam sub utraque specie Communicatam esse manifestum est ex vetere historia, & scriptis omnium ferè patrum, qui testantur fideles bibere sanguinem Christ. waldenfis. 〈◊〉. 2. c. 93. Non adversor Nicola●… de Lyra dicenti, quòd in primitiva Ecclesia communicavit populus sub utraque specie, etc. the Primitive, in this their halfing the holy Sacrament. The Law saith, that custom is the best interpreter of law. And of all customs the ancient, especially if they be general, and have lasted out diverse Ages, aught to bear most sway with those, that maintain the truth of antiquity, or antiquity of truth. An argument drawn from an ancient, general, and long continuing custom for more than one thousand years, is like a threefold cable, that cannot be broken. If we may believe the Counsels held at * Consuetudo ab Ecclesia, & sanctis patribus introducta, & di●…tissimè obseruata habenda est pro lege. Conc. Constan. ses. 13. Constance and x Laudabilis est consuetud●… ab ●…cclesia & sanctis patribus rationabi●…ter introducta, & hacte●…us di●…tissimè obseruata est a doctoribus diuin●… legis, sacraru●… Scripturarum atque Ca●…onum multam 〈◊〉 babentibus: ●…am longo tempore commendata, pro l●…ge habenda est. Concil. Basil. Basill, such a custom ought to be held for a law, and in●…iolably observed: But I infer; The Lay-Communion in both kinds is a a 1. Point, the antiquity of this custom. custom commended by antiquity, generality, and duration, as hath been proved before by the testimonies of approved Writers in all Ages, and is confessed by the Romanists themselves. First, for the antiquity of this custom, I appeal to the Council of Constance, Arboreus, Aquinas, Lyra, Carthusianus, and Ruardus Tapperus. The y Licèt Christus post coenam instituerit, & licèt in primitiva Ecclesa receiperetur à fidelibus sub utraque specie. etc. Council of Constance admits under a licèt, that Christ instituted the venerable Sacrament under both kinds, and that in the Primitive Church it was so received by the faithful; yet with a non obstante, countermands Christ's Institution, and the practice of the Primitive Church: which gave Luther just occasion to nickname this Council, and for Constantiense, to call it, Non obstantiense Concilium. z Theophisoae l. 8. cap. 11. Olim laici communicabant sub utraque specie. johannes Arboreus in plain terms confesseth, that anciently the Lay people did communicate under both kinds. * Comment. joh. 6. Secundùm antiquae Ecclesiae consu●…tudinem omnes sicuti communicabant corpore; ita communicabant & sanguine. Thomas Aquinas is a contest to Arboreus, averring, that according to the ancient custom of the Church, all those that were partakers of the communion of Christ's body, were partakers also of the communion of his blood. a In primitiuâ Ecclesia hoc fiebat: sed nunc aliter est ordinatum. Comment. in▪ 6. job. Dionys. Carthusianus speaks Aquinas his words after him: It was so done indeed in the Primitive Church, but now the Church hath ordered otherwise. b Lyr. in 1. Cor. Fit hic mentio de duplici specie. Name in primitiva Ecclesia sic dabatur fidelibus. Lyra harps upon the same string: Here is mention of both kinds: for so the Sacrament was rereceived of the faithful in the Primitive Church. Aestius, that famous Sorbonist, upon the Sentences, lib. 4. handling this question, professedly saith, that it is manifest out of ancient histories, and the writing of almost all the ancient Fathers; qui testantur fideles bibere sanguinem Christi, that the Eucharist was communicated to the people in both kinds. Ruardus Tapperus speaks rather like a Protestant, than a Papist in this point. For he professeth, that it were more convenient, the Communion were administered under both kinds, then under one alone: and that the Communion under both kinds is more agreeable to the Institution, and fullness thereof, and to the example of Christ, and to the Fathers of the Primitive Church. Arti●…. 15. Eccius, though d Enchiridij cap. 10. fatemur hunc usum fuisse in primitiva Ecclesia. The second point: The generality of this custom. in short and brief terms, yet comes home to the question, saying; We confess it was the use in the Primitive Church to administer in both kinds to the Laiety. For the generality of this custom, if ancient Records had failed us, we have enough in the writings of modern Papists to convince the deniers thereof. Suarez saith somewhat to this point; Slotanus presumes further, and saith more; and Salmeron goes beyond him, and saith enough; and yet Alphonsus exceeds him, and saith more than enough. Suarez: e Disput. 71. sect. 1. Solebat christianus populus frequenter sub utraque specie communicare. The Christian people were w●…t frequently to communicate under both kinds. Frequently they might communicate, yet but in few places. There f Slot. ap●…▪ D●…. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 8. c. 11. Haud diffite●…ur 〈◊〉 consuetudinem illo sempore, & subsequentibus ad tempu●… in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Slotanus adds We do not deny, that the custom of communicating in both kinds was observed in very many Churches, and continued so not only in the time of persecution and martyrdom, but also in the peaceable days of the Church. This custom might be in very many Churches, yet not general; therefore g Salm. tract. 35. Ingenuè & aperté confitemur, morem generalem extitisse communicandi etiam laicos sub utraque specie. Salmeron adds further; We do ingeniously and openly confess, that it was a general custom to give the Communion to the Laiety in both kinds, as the manner is at this day among the greeks, and was in ancient time among the Corinthians, and in Africa. General the custom might be, yet not universal without exception, and in all places. Therefore to put the matter out of all question, Alphonsus a Castro adds yet further; h Alphons. adversus herese. Olim per multa secula apud omnes Catholicos usitatum esse, ex multorum sanctorum scripturis didiscimus. We believe, it is not against Christ's Institution, to give the Communion to the laiety in both kinds. For we learn out of the writings of many Saints, that in old time this was the practice for many ages amongst all Catholics. For the continuance of this custom, which was the last point, what more pregnant testimonies can we desire, than these following of i Tolet. in 6. joh. Antiqua consuetudo a temporibus Apostolorum fuit in Ecclesia sub utraque specie communicandi. In hac assertione nulla ●…st controversia. Cassander, Soto and Gregory de Valentia? Cassander and Tapperus witnesseth for one thousand years in these words: k Cass. art. 221. Orientalis Christi Ecclesia in hunc usque diem, Occidentalis verò, sive Romana, mille amplius à Christo annis, vtra●… que panis, & vini speciem omnibus Christi Ecclesiae membris exhibuit. Touching the administration of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, it is evident enough, that the Eastern Church even unto this day, or that the Western or Roman Church for one thousand years after Christ and more, in the solemn and ordinary distribution of the Sacrament, delivered both the kinds of bread and wine to all the members of Christ's Church▪ which is manifest by innumerable testimonies of ancient Writers, both Greek and Latin. l Tapperus. art. 15. Testimonia Communicandi sub utraque specie multa sunt, eamque certissima: & longissimâ consuetudine hunc modum in Eccleijs Apostolicis fuisse obseruatum, testatur Dionys. Cypr. etc. Tapperus calleth it a custom of longest continuance. m Soto. art. 12. quest. 1. in dist. 12. Non modò inter haereticos, verum inter Catholicos ritus ille multo tempore invaluit, adeo ut temporibus S. Thomae nondum fuerit abolitus. Soto witnesseth thus for twelve hundred years and more: not only amongst the heretics, but also among the Catholics, the manner of giving the Communion to the laiety in both kinds for a long time was of force; in somuch as it was not utterly abolished in the days of Aquinas. Now Aquinas by * De Scriptor. Eccles. Bellarmine's exact calculation, was borne in the year of our Lord 1224. and died in the year 1274. Between the birth of Aquinas and the Council of Constance there passed 90. years, which time n Greg. de Val. De legitimo usu Eucb. cap. 8. caepit ea consuetudo in Ecclesia Latina esse generalis non multo ante tempora Concil. Constant. Greg. de Valentia after a sort gives us over and above: We do not deny, saith he, that both kinds were anciently administered to the people, as appears out of S. Paul, Cyprian, Athanasius, Hierome, and others. And truly when the contrary custom of communicating under one kind only began in some Churches, it appears not: but it began not to be a general custom in the Latin Church, much before the Council of Constance. Nor then neither. For Tapperus saith, that in some Churches they used both kinds, even unto the Council of Constance. Who seeth not in the frequency ᵒ Tapperus. art. 115. Quibusdam retinentibus utramque speciem etiam usque ad ipsum Concil. Constantiense. and pregnancy of these testimonies, out of the mouth of our adversaries, the observation of p Bud. de Ass Operae pr●…tium est; ●…m veritatis animaduertere, quae 〈◊〉 nunquam invitis erumpit, & fall●…ns inter mendacia ab audientibus demum agnoscitur: Cum interim loquentes adhuc habere se in potestate putent. Budaeus to be verified; that such is the force of truth, that she breaks out of men's mouths against their wills, and stealing amongst lies, is perceived by the hearers, when the speakers think they have her safe enough in their own power. CHAP. XII. The Papists Arguments drawn from Scripture answered, and retorted. SECT. 11. THe first argument, urged by our adversaries for their half Communion, is drawn from the types and figures of the old Testament. I will propound it in Bellarmine's own words, that they may not cavil, as they use to do, that we mar their arguments in relating them. Thus q Bell. de sacr. Euch. lib. 4. c. 24. Bellarmine disputeth against us: Most of the figures of the Eucharist in the old Testament signify eating under one kind; it is not therefore probable, that Christ would command the eating of both kinds. For that which is figured, aught to answer the figure. The first figure was of the Tree of life in the midst of Paradise, which Paschasius in his book of the body of our Lord, chap. 7. teacheth to have been a type of the Sacrament of the Eucharist; but it was manifest, there was no drink joined to that Tree. The second figure was of the Paschall Lamb, Exodus the 12. The third figure, Manna, Exodus 26. The fourth was shewbread, Exodus 25. The fifth, the sacrifices, in which the flesh was eaten, but the blood was not drunk. To this Argument we say, First, that these figures were types of Christ himself, and not necessarily, or properly of the Sacrament of the new Testament. For types are shadows representing the substance, and the body, not properly other types. Christ interpreteth Manna to be himself, joh. 6. I am the true bread that came down from heaven. S. Paul calleth Christ our Paschall Lamb, and saith, The Rock that followed them was Christ. And S. john, Apoc. 2. by eating of the Tree of life in the Paradise of God, understandeth not the sacramental eating; which cannot be in heaven, where there are no sacred elements, but the spiritual feeding on the flesh of the Son of God. Secondly, if we admit, that the types and figures of the old Law were representations of the Sacrament of the new; we answer then, that the types and figures of the old Testament must be equally compared with the Sacrament of the new; part of them must be referred to the part of these. For example, the Shewbread, and Manna, and the flesh of the Lamb, and the Tree of life, prefigured one part, or kind in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, to wit, the Bread: and the Rivers of Paradise, and the Waters that Flowed from the Rock, and the Drinke-offerings, and the striking the blood of the Lamb upon the door-posts, represented the mystical effusion, and drinking of Christ's blood in the Sacrament. There was no drinking of the Tree of life; but there was drinking of the Rivers of Paradise: there was no drinking of Manna, or of the Shewbread; but there was drinking of the Waters that issued out of the Rock at Horeb. And S. Paul testifieth of the Hebrews, 1. Cor. 10. vers. 2, 3. that they were all baptised in the Cloud, and in the Sea; and as they did all eat the same spiritual meat, so they did all drink the same spiritual drink. For they drank all of that spiritual Rock, and that Rock was Christ. If they will needs have in one type a perfect image or emblem of the Communion in both kinds, Cyprian, & other ancient Fathers, will direct them to Melchisedec; who brought forth bread & wine not bread only, but bread & wine. Thirdly, this argument may be strongly retorted upon our adversaries after this manner: The Truth ought to answer the types: but the types of the old Law prefigured the faithfuls communicating in both kinds, as is gathered by the ancient Fathers, S. Chrysost. S. Ambrose, S. Austin, and S. Gregory. t 23. Hom. in 1. ad Corinth. Chrysost. As thou eatest the body of our Lord, so they did eat Manna: and as thou drinkest the blood of our Lord; so they drank the water of the Rock: To them he gave Manna and Water; to thee he giveth his Body and Blood. u Deijs, qui mysterijs initian●…ur. cap. 9 S. Ambrose, in the water that issued from the Rock, drunk by the people in the wilderness, noteth the resemblance of Christians, who in the wilderness of this world drink of the blood, that sprang from the true Rock Christ jesus. * Illis aqua de petra, tibi sanguis e Christo, illos ad horam satiavit aqua, te sanguis deluit in ●…ernum. To them, saith he, water flowed from the Rock▪ to thee, blood from Christ: the water satisfied them for an hour; the blood refresheth, or washeth thee for ever. x Tract. 26. in joh. Omnes eundem potum spiritualem biberunt, aliud illi, aliud nos. sed specie visibili; quod tamen idem est virtute spirituali. S. Austin compareth the drinking of all the Fathers in the old Testament, with ours in the new, in these words, All drunk the same spiritual drink; We drink one thing, and they drink another but in visible appearance; which yet is the selfsame thing in spiritual virtue. So the Paschall Lamb was eaten, but the blood was stricken upon both posts, which mystery y 22. Homil. in Euang. Quid sit sanguis Christi, non audiendo, sed bibendo didicistis. Et super utrumque postem ponitur, cum non solùm ore corporis, sed & ore cordis hauritu●…. Saint Gregory thus unfolds; What is meant by the blood of the Lamb, you have learned not by hearing, but by drinking it: Which blood is put upon both posts, when it is drunk not only with the mouth of the body, but also with the mouth of the heart. SECT. 2. The second reason, saith z Bell. de sacr. Euch. lib. 4. c. 24. Bellarmine, is drawn from the doctrine and example of Christ. For our Lord in the sixth of john, speaking of the fruit of the Eucharist, or Lords Supper, not once, but four times teacheth one kind to be sufficient to salvation: he that ea●…eth me, shall live by me; he that eateth this bread, shall live for ever: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: This is the Bread, that came down from Heaven, that if any man eat of it, he may not die. It cannot therefore be, that the same Lord should command both kinds to be taken. Again, our Lord proves the same by his example; first, joh. the sixth, where he multiplied the l●…aues, and thereby satisfied the people, there remaining twelve baskets full: but neither multiplied he, nor gave them any drink. Moreover, in the 24 of Luke, in the supper with the Disciples at Emaus, he took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it unto them: but we read of no Cup that there he took, or blessed, nor indeed could: For the story of the Gospel so joineth the distribution of the bread with our Lord's departure, that it leaveth no place for the blessing, or distributing the Cup. For so S. Luke speaketh: It came to pass, as he sat with them, he took bread, and broke it, and gave it to them, and their eyes were opened, and they knew him, and he suddenly vanished out of their sight. Answer. Cardinal Bellarmine * Quintil. institut. orator. lib. 5. cap. 20. Infirmiora argumenta congreganda sunt. Imbecilla enim nature 〈◊〉 mutuo auxilio sustinentur. in propounding this second reason, as he calleth it, makes use of the Orator's precept, to heap weak arguments one upon another, that, though each by themselves be of their own nature feeble, yet they may receive some support by the help of one another. For here in like manner he layeth together diverse places of Scripture to strengthen his cause; which being severally examined, will prove of no moment, being misapplied in his own defence. To the first place therefore alleged out of the sixth Chapter of S. john, we say; First, that in the judgement of Tapperus, jansenius, b Caiet. in 3. partem Thom. quaest. 80. not only affirmeth, that Christ, joh. 6. speaketh not of the sacramental, but of the spiritual eating of Christ: but also confirmeth it by a strong reason: Verba Christi, joh. 6. ad literam in●…lliguntur de mamducatione spirituali Christi, abstrahendo eam à manducatione sacramentali, & probatur, quia sola manducatio spiritual●… est illa, sine qua non potest vita esse in nobis, etc. Thom. 〈◊〉 ens●… to. 2. c. 91. probat ex Augustino, Cypriano, Bernardo, bibere. johan. 6. Sanguinem Christi, spiritua●…iter 〈◊〉. Et con●…ludit his verbis; Planè ergo non conciudunt, bibere speci●…m 〈◊〉 inuis●…ilis, sorbendo illud ore corp●…is, ex illo verbo saluatoris; Si non bibe●…is sang●…●…ly hominis, non habebitis vitam in vobis: sed intelligitur, si non secundùm fi●…, & devotionem passionis biberitis sanguinem filij hominis ore cordis, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Caietanus, Cusanus, and diverse others quoted by Bellarmine himself in his first book of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and fifth Chapter. Christ in the sixth of john, speaketh not at all of the Sacrament, which was not yet instituted, but a year after at his last Supper with his Disciples. Secondly, for the words insisted upon by Bellarm. in particular, Christ himself four several times tells us, that he meaneth by bread, himself, who came down from heaven. verse 48. I am that bread of life. 50. this is that bread which cometh down from heaven. vers. 51. I am the living bread, which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. vers. 58. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not as your fathers, which did eat Manna, and are dead. If then there be any force in the number of four, we answer; that our Lord, who four times in this cap. attributeth life to the eating of bread, four times expoundeth himself, that by bread he meaneth celestial bread, not sacramental; for the sacramental bread cometh not from heaven, but is made of the grain of the earth, and many that eat of it, live not for ever. judas and many other reprobates have eaten, yea Miso, Rats, and other vermin may, and sometimes have eaten the sacramental bread, who yet never have, nor shall taste the power of the heavenly gift, much less enjoy eternal life. These texts therefore are mis-applied by Bellarmine to the Sacrament; and being mis-applied, prove nothing for his half Communion. Thirdly, we say, that Christ having spoken of Manna, the Israelites bread in the wilderness, calleth himself bread, keeping the subject and occasion, which he had begun to speak of: As joh. 4. 14. speaking with the woman of Samaria about drawing water, he promiseth her to give her water to drink, of which whosoever drinketh, shall thirst no more. There Christ speaketh of drinking, and mentioneth no eating; but in the places of Saint john, alleged by Bellarmine of eating, and not drinking, because the Metaphor of drinking better fitted the subject of his speech, which was water there; but eating better relished in the sixth of john, where the occasion of his speech was bread; yet as from these words of joh. 4. 14. no man may infer, that drinking alone is sufficient to salvation without eating; so neither may Bellarmine conclude from the sixth of john, in the places above quoted, that eating is sufficient without drinking; as eternal life is ascribed here to eating, so to drinking, joh. 4. 14. as also unto believing, joh. 6. 47. He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. Believing, eating, and drinking, are all means of eternal life, but not exclusively: even by the same reason, whereby Bellarmine would prove eating alone to be sufficient to eternal life; Because eternal life is promised to eating, he may prove believing alone to be sufficient to salvation, without partaking the Sacrament at all by eating or drinking; because eternal life is promised unto believing. Eternal life is promised to believing, as blessedness is in the fifth of Matthew to poverty, and to meekness, and to purity in heart, and to godly sorrow, and to hungering and thirsting for righteousness, and to peace making, and to patience: Not that each of these virtues are sufficient of themselves alone to salvation, or to make a man happy, but that they are special means to make men happy, and altogether with faith make a man most blessed. Fourthly, this argument of Bellarmine may be retorted against him thus: Our Saviour here speaks of such eating, whereby eternal life may be attained: But eternal life cannot be attained by eating exclusively, that is, eating without drinking, as Christ in this very Chapter three several times teacheth us, vers. 53. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. And vers. 54. and 56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and dwelleth in me, and I in him. Therefore Christ in the places alleged by Bellarmine speaketh not of eating exclusively; but of such eating as is necessarily accompanied with drinking. And consequently, if these Texts are meant of the Sacrament, they prove, that we ought to communicate in both kinds. To the second place alleged by Bellarmine out of joh. 6. 11. we say: First, that there are three sorts of signs; signs of God's wrath, and such are prodigious events: signs of his power, and such are Miracles: lastly, signs of his grace, and such are Sacraments? The multiplying of the loaves in the place alleged, is to be ranked amongst the second sort of signs, and not the last. It was a miraculous sign, not a mystical sign. Secondly, if it be granted, that this action of Christ's was mystical, and prefigured some thing besides the corporal refection of the people, yet questionless it had no reference to the bread in the Lord's Supper. For that, as Saint Paul teacheth, represents unto us, that we are all one bread, and one body; because we partake of one bread: whereof the multiplication of the loaves in S. john could be no type, but rather on the contrary. Moreover, in that place of Saint john, there is mention of fishes multiplied, which can have no affinity with the Sacrament of our Lord's Supper. And this, if Bellarmine had well considered, it would have made him as mute as a fish in this argument. Thirdly, the edge of this argument may be retorted upon our adversaries thus: The multiplying of the loaves, joh. 6. without multiplying the wine, doth no more prove, that we may communicate in bread alone, than the multiplying, or miraculous supplying of wine without the like supplying of bread, joh. 2. in Cana of Galily, proveth, Vid. 170. that we may communicate in wine only: But the multiplying or miraculous supplying of wine, by turning water into it, without any miraculous supply of bread, proveth not, that we may Communicate in wine, or in the blood of Christ only; (for such an half Communion the Church of Rome condemneth.) Therefore the multiplying of the loaves in S. john maketh nothing for the popish halfe-Communion in bread only. SECT. 3. To the third place out of the 24. of S. Luke, the 30. and 31. verses: We say; first, that the bread, which Christ there broke was common bread, and not the Sacrament, as may be proved, both by the circumstances of the text, and the confession of our Adversaries. In the Text we find no words of consecration of the Bread, or the Cup, no command to reiterate that action of Christ. The place was a common Inn, the Disciples came thither to receive common food, and to lodge there that night, they met not together for the Sacrament, nor read we of any prayers before, or preparation meet for receiving of so holy and heavenly a mystery; and therefore some Papists doubt of it, as jansenius: whether the Bread here was Transubstantiated, or no. d jans. concor. Euang. cap. 146. Q●…dam existimant Dominum hîc sub specie panis suum porrexisse corpus: qu●…madmodum Apostolis in ultima ●…oena: at ●…a sententia non est ce●…a, nec multum ver●…milis, etc. There are some, saith he, who think, that our Lord▪ here gave unto the Disciples under the form of bread, his own body, as he did to the Apostles in his last S●…pper; and hence they would draw a certain argument to show, that it is lawful to deliver, and receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist in one kind only. Howbeit, although that opinion be not certain, nor very likely to be true, yet as all the actions of Christ contained in them something mystical and hidden; so doubtless this action of Christ signified some holy thing. jansenius somewhat lyspeth. He durst do no other ways, for fearing of having his tongue clipped. But the more ancient Papists speak the truth plainly. e Carth. comment. in Luk. 24 Accepit panem, & benedixit, non tamen in corpus suum convertit, sicut in caena. Dionysius Carthusianus thus paraphraseth upon the place of Saint Luke: It came to pass as he sat down, that is, rested, and eat with them, he took bread and blessed it, yet he turned it not into his body, as in his last Supper, but as the manner is, he blessed the meat, thereby teaching us to bless our meat and drink, or give thanks beforeour meals. Widford in his book against Wickliff, comes off roundly: f Lib. 1. cont. Wickl. Non habetur in textu, vel in glossa Luc. 24. vel per antiquos patres, quòd ille panis, quem fregit post resurctionem in sero coram discipulis, suit consecratus, etc. I say, saith he, that it appears not in the Text, or in the Gloss, Luk. 24. or by the ancient Fathers, that the bread which Christ broke after his resurrection at Even before his Disciples, was consecrated bread, or that it was sacramental, or turned into his body. g justinian. in 1. Cor. c. 10. Non simplicem fractionem intelligit, qualis erat illa, cujus meminit Lucas, quá indigentium necessitati consulebatur, sed sacra, & Eucharistica justinianꝰ, a later commentator of great note amongst the Papists upon the by (in a parenthesis before he was aware) discovereth the truth, and concurreth with Widford, and Carthusian. For expounding those words of Saint Paul, The bread which we break, etc. he understandeth here not a simple, or ordinary breaking, such as that was, whereof Saint Luke maketh mention, whereby the necessity of the hungry was provided for; but a holy breaking, belonging to the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Our adversaries are very loath, that this weapon should be so wrested out of their hands, and therefore they tug hard for it. Hesselius Hesselius. catcheth at the benediction mentioned before the breaking of the bread, which he will have to be the consecrating of it. Maldonate layeth hold on the consequence, to wit, the opening of the Disciples eyes in the breaking of the bread, which, saith he, h Maldo. in 24. Luc. Accedis Miraculum, quòd in fractione panis ab illis, qui tot eum ante sermonibus non cognoverant, cognitus est, quod alia ratione quam Eucharistica virtute factum esse non potest. could not be done, but by the virtue of the Eucharist. jansenius and Bellarme allege Austin, Beda, and Theophylact, who in their judgement seem to shroud the Sacrament of the Eucharist under the form of bread at Emaus. But these mists are easily dispelled. To Hesselius his conjecture we answer, that Christ never broke, or eat bread, but he blessed it before, Matth. 14. 19 He took the five loaves and two fishes, and he looking up to heaven, he blessed, and broke, and gave the loaves to his Disciples, etc. Likewise, Matth. 15. 36. he took seven loaves, and the fishes, and gave thanks, and broke them, and gave to his Disciples. And joh. 6. 11. And jesus took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed to his Disciples. From all which Texts, as also from this in S. Luke, nothing can be inferred for the celebration of the Sacrament, but for an holy custom of giving thanks before meat, as before was noted out of Carthusian. To Maldonates' bold assertion, that the opening of their eyes must needs be ascribed to the virtue of the Sacrament, we answer, that if himself had opened his own eyes, he might have seen the contrary both in Mary, and john; Mary's eyes were opened, when she said, joh. 20. Raboni; and john's, joh. 21. when he said to Peter, It is the Lord. Yet neither of them at that time received the Sacrament, or had their eyes opened to know Christ by virtue thereof; neither is it said in the text, that the breaking of the bread was a cause, or instrument, whereby they were brought to know Christ; but it is only said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he was known of them in the breaking of the bread, or as he broke the bread; which might be other ways, then by virtue of the Sacrament, either by means supernatural, or natural. i Euthy. in hunc locum. cum vidissent assevetam, & cog nitam panis benedictionem, tunc permissi sunt, ut eum agnoscerent. Calu. in hunc locum. peculiarem precandi ritum illi in usu fuisse apparet, cui sciebat Discipulos familiariter assuevisse, ut hac nota admoniti, sensus suos excitarent. Euthymius and Calvin are of opinion, that the Disciples knew Christ in breaking of bread by the peculiar form of prayer, or blessing, which he used at the table. Lyra by his manner of breaking bread: for he so broke it, as if it had been cut with a knife. k Kemnitius exam. Conc. Trident. part. 2. pag. 141. Qui discipulis notierant ritus Christi in benedictione & fractione panis; inde ipsum agnoscebant. Kemnitius joins both together. Because, saith he, Christ's manner both in blessing, and breaking of bread, was known to the Disciples, from thence it was, that they came to know that it was Christ, as he sat at meat with them, by observing his peculiar manner of giving of thanks, and breaking of bread. Whereunto we may add out of l Lucas Brugensis in hunc lo●…um. Lucas Brugensis, that when the Disciples received bread from him, they locked more steadfastly upon our Saviour, that they might more perfectly know who he was; which when our Saviour perceived, he took away the veil, or impediment from their eyes, and showed his native countenance more manifestly unto them, as he did to Mary Magdalene, after she called him Raboni. To the allegations out of Saint Austin, Beda, and Theophylact, we answer, that the word Sacrament is taken by them largely for any mystery. For nothing is more frequent with the Fathers, then to call the mystery of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, of our Saviour's fasting, his washing his Disciples feet, and the like, the sacrament of the Trinity, the sacrament of the Incarnation, of fasting, washing, Passion of Christ, and the like. Their meaning is, as m Bell. de sacr. Euch. lib. 4. cap. 24. August. Beda, Tb●…h. Hoc tantum docere videri possunt, nempe fuisse in illa panis benedictione mysierium quoddam, quo utilitas Eucharistiae significaretur. August, de consensu Evangelist lib. 3. cap. 25. Nec quisquam se Christum agnovisse arbitretur, si eius corporis particeps non est, id est, Ecclesiae, cuius unitatem in sacramento panis Apostolis commendat. Bellarmine out of jansenius, acknowledgeth, that there lieth hid some mystery, whereby in the blessing and breaking of bread, the fruits of the Eucharist is signified. Saint Austin in particular interprets this mystery not of the Sacrament, nor of Christ's natural body, but of his body mystical, which is the Church; and that whosoever is partaker, or member of the Church knoweth Christ, and whosoever is without the unity thereof, knoweth him not. His words are; Let no man think he knoweth Christ, unless he be partaker of his body, that is of the Church, the unity of which Church the Apostle commendeth in the Sacrament of bread, saying, We being many, are one bread, and one body. Saint o In Euangel. hom. ●…3. Mensam ponunt, panes, cibosque afferunt & Deum, quem in scripturarum expositione non cognoverunt, in panis fractione cognoscunt. Gregory and Bede conceive, that our Saviour manifested himself in the breaking of bread, to commend hospitality, whereby, as the Saints of the old Testament, that unawares entertained Angels, so the Disciples here entertained our Lord. They laid the table, saith S. Gregory, and set forth bread and wine; and God, whom they knew not in the expounding of the Scriptures, they knew in the breaking of the bread. Which observation Bede and Saint Gregory seem to have borrowed from Saint p Euangelicarum quaestionum, lib. 2. cap. 51. Austin, where the like words are found with this introduction, quia hospitalitatem sectati sunt, etc. because they were given to hospitality, they knew him in breaking of bread, whom they knew not in expounding the Scriptures. Theophylact (whose note upon this place is, that Christ his flesh hath a great, and unspeakable virtue to open their eyes, who receive the blessed bread) doth not affirm, that the bread, which the disciples broke at Emaus, was the Sacrament, but that thereby the virtue of the Sacrament was shadowed. His plain meaning is this, that as the Disciples at Emaus knew Christ corporally in breaking of bread, so we in breaking bread in the Sacrament know him spiritually. Eusebius Emissenus hath a different conceit from all these: he will have the knowledge of Christ, by breaking corporal bread at Emaus, to signify the knowledge of Christ, which is obtained by the opening of Scriptures: * Feria 2. post Pascha. Nunquam tam benè cognoscitur Christus, sicut in fractione panis, pan siste spiritualis est, non carnalis, panis iste cibus animae est, etc. nobis panem fregit, nobi●… scripturas exposuit, & sensum aperuit Christus. Christ, saith he, is never so well known, as by breaking of bread; this bread is spiritual, and not carnal; Christ hath broken bread unto us, he hath expounded the Scriptures, and opened the meaning thereof. Secondly, we answer, that extraordinary actions are not to be taken for precedents: that Christ here after breaking the bread, did not likewise take the cup, was, because (as our adversaries collect) immediately upon the breaking of the bread, he vanished out of sight; which case is extraordinary; like as if when a Minister had consecrated, and participated of the bread, he should presently die, or be caught away by the Spirit (as Philip was) before he had taken the cup. Now that which falleth out by accident, and upon an extraordinary occasion, is not to be drawn into a common rule: especially, when it is a bare example, without any precept annexed unto it. Christ at his last Supper, when he had broken the bread, and taken the Cup, he added a Command; Do this. And Saint Paul teacheth, that this Command is of force until his second coming. That example therefore, which hath a command added unto it, aught to be followed; not that in Emaus, which was extraordinary, and without any precept at all. Thirdly, although there be no mention made of the Disciples drinking: yet no doubt they did drink, as well as eat before they rose. For who could imagine, that two travellers, at that time of the year, in a Country so hot as judea, taking an Inn of purpose for their repast, should call for dry bread without any drink? Gregory, and Beda, and all those, who from hence commend hospitality, must needs be understood by breaking of bread, to commend courteous entertaining of strangers at their table, which is not without refreshing them with drink, as well as bread. Saint q Aug. in exposit. joh. in hunc lec. Discipuli non agnouerū●… eum, nisi in fractione panis; & verè qui non sibi iudicium manducat & bibit, in fractione panis Christum agnoscit. Austin, upon whose judgement our adversaries seem most to rely, in the exposition of this Text, intimateth, that the Disciples at Emaus then did, and that the faithful aught in the Sacrament, drink, as well as eat; The Disciples, saith he, knew him not, but in breaking of bread: and verily he that eateth not, and drinketh not damnation to himself, taketh knowledge of Christ in breaking of bread. Fourthly, the point of this argument may be turned upon our adversaries, and it woundeth them deeply both in their doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass, and their Priests communicating. For they teach, that a Priest may not consecrate, or communicate in one kind only, which was here done (if this place be to be understood of the Sacrament, according to their Gloss.) This Text therefore, which they conceive to make most for them, maketh most against them, and may be doubly retorted upon them. First, thus: Without consecration of the Cup, there can be no sacrifice, or true sacrament: At Emaus there was no consecration of the Cup; For, as our adversaries teach, after Christ had broke the bread, before he took the Cup, he vanished out of their sight: Therefore at Emaus there was no sacrifice of Christ his blood offered, or Sacrament at this time administered. Here is then no ground at all for communicating in bread only. Secondly, it may be thus retorted; r Suar. in 〈◊〉. partem Thom. q. 80. Distinguit Thomas de sacerdotibus, & laicis; & de prioribus dicit, nullo modo debere corpus sumere fine sanguine. All Priests by Christ's commandment are to drink of the Cup in the Sacrament. For this is the Roman Gloss upon our Saviour's words, Drink ye all of this; that is, all Priests: But the Disciples that travelled to Emaus, were Priests, and had commission to preach, and administer the Sacrament; Therefore if they celebrated the Sacrament at Emaus, they drank of the Cup, or else they violated Christ's commandment, and were guilty of sacrilege, by the doom of Cardinal s In 3. partem summae quaest. 80. Sicut sacrilegus esset sacerdos, consecrando panem & non vinum, sic sacrilegus esset, sumendo sanctum panem, & non sumendo vinum. * Sect. 4. Caietan. For his definitive sentence is, that as a Priest is a sacrilegious in cons●…crating bread, and not wine; so he is guilty of sacrilege also, if he participate of the holy Bread, and not of the Cup. The third reason, saith Bellarmine, is drawn from the doctrine, and practice of the Apostles. For in the second of the Acts, vers. 42. the communication of the Eucharist is thus described: t Bell. lib. 4. de sacr. Euchar. cap. 24. And they continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer. In which place it cannot be denied, that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is meant: as well because breaking of bread is joined with doctrine and prayer, as also, because it were rather a discommendation, than a praise of the faithful, to say, that they continued steadfastly in dining and supping. Lastly, Luther in his Sermon of the Lords Supper, and Calvin in his fourth book of Institutions, chap. 17. acknowledgeth, that this place is to be understood of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Harding in his thirteenth division addeth hereunto the testimony of the Waldenses, in the confession of their faith to Vladislaus: and he saith there, that he might likewise allege the place of the twentieth Chapter, and especially that of the seven and twentieth of the Acts, where Chrysostome, and the Fathers understand the bread, that Saint Paul in peril of shipwreck took, gave thanks over, brake, and eat, to be the holy Sacrament. Answer. If the Romish half Communion be so visible, and apparent in these places, alleged out of the Acts, I wonder the Fathers in the Counsels of Constance, Basil, and Trent saw no such thing in them. As for the ancient Doctors in the Primitive Church, some of them expound these places of common bread, some of the Sacrament, none of the Communion in one kind. In the 20. of the Acts, it is not certain, that Saint Luke speaks of the Sacrament; and in the 27. of the Acts, it is certain he speaks not of the Sacrament. With such untempered mortar, that will not stick together, our adversaries build the ruins of their Babel. To clear then these passages in their order: To the first, Acts 2. 42, 46. I answer, First, that there is no necessity at all enforcing us to understand by breaking of bread in either verse, the celebration of the Sacrament. The words of themselves are indifferent to either of these three expositions; They continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and distributing their bread one to another, as each had need. It seems to be t Caietan. Fractio panis communis distribuebatur singulis. Caietans' exposition: They continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and had their common diet with them, which is u Beza. Latiùs patere puto hanc panis fractionem, quâ nimirum communis convictus significetur. Beza's; or, Lastly, they continued in their doctrine, and participating the Communion with them: Which interpretation Luther, Calvin, and the Waldenses seem to like best. The joining of breaking of bread with doctrine and prayer, seemeth for to make for this interpretation; but that which followeth, vers. 44. All that believed were together, and had all things common; and vers. 46. breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness, and singleness of heart; swayeth the balance on Beza his side. To which opinion Chrysostome, and Oecumenius, Theophylact, and Caietan before alleged propend. * Chrys. in Act. serm. 6. cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et post: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Saint Chrysostome saith, that their Communion was with the Apostles, not in prayers only, but also in doctrine, and civil c●…uersation. All things were in Common: By bread he seemeth to me to signify their fasting and austere life: they took their food for the maintenance of life, not of Luxury. x Occum. in hunc locum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Oecumenius, and Theophylact accord in their note with Saint Chrysostome. He saith, breaking of bread, to show the Apostles simple and sparing diet: so Oecumenius, and Theophylact; by this phrase, breaking of bread, he signifieth the faithfuls temperance and slender diet; whereby Bellarmine's cavil is easily answered, when he saith, it were a discommendation, not a praise of the faithful, to say they continued in eating and drinking: for it was a commendation to continue in the fellowship of the Apostles, and to eat and drink with them after their temperate and sparing manner; especially, if we add out of Cardinal z Caiet. in Act. cap. 2. Perseverabant in fractione panis, hoc est, in distributione cibi, communicatio redigebat propria in commune, fractio autem panem commnnem distribuebat singulis. Caietan, that this their breaking of bread was a charitable relieving of those that wanted: they continued, saith he, in breaking of bread, that is in distribution of meat: the communication brought their own proper into common, but the breaking of bread distributed that which was common to every man in particular. Secondly, if we should grant, that Saint Luke by breaking of bread, understood the celebration of the Lords Supper, yet our adversaries would gain nothing by it. For it is certain, that in the Hebrew phrase, to break bread, signifieth to make a meal, to dine, or sup with a man: which, I trow, is not without drink, as well as meat. Is not this, saith Esay, the fast, that I have chosen? And chap. 58. vers. 6. 7. Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor, that are cast out, to thy house, etc. And Ezechiel. cap. 18. 7. Who hath given his bread to the hungry, and Luk. 14. 1. He went into the house of one of the chief pharisees to eat bread: and the second to the Thessal. 3. 21. Let them eat their own bread. In all which places, and many more, bread is taken for all manner of victuals, and to break bread, signifieth, to break or take food, and natural sustenance; which is not bread only, but bread and drink. Therefore howsoever the cup, or drinking be not expressed in this place of the Acts, yet it must necessarily be understood by a usual Synecdoche in holy Scriptures. To the second place out of Acts the 20. 7. We answer as to the former Acts 2. that the disciples meeting to break bread, was either to keep a feast of Charity, which they called then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or to receive the Communion in both kinds. For the Disciples publicly never received it otherways in the primitive church. To the third objection out of Acts 27. 35. Where Saint Paul is said to take bread, and after he had given thanks, to eat it: we answer, that the bread which Saint Paul took and broke, could not be the holy sacrament. For Sant Paul would never have given that which is holy to Dogs, or cast Pearls before swine, which he should have done, if in the ship before, and to Infidels he had administered the blessed sacrament. The text saith, b Ver. 33. that they had been many days fasting before; and S. c Chrys. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysostome, d Theoph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ᵈ Occu. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Oecumenius, and Theophylact expressly affirm, that Saint Paul both by words, and by his own example, persuaded the Mariners, after so long fasting, to take food, to keep them from starving. Moreover, it is to be observed, that after Saint Paul began to cat, it is said ver. 36. that they were all of good cheer, and they also took to themselves some meat. It is not said, that they took bread from Saint Paul's hand which they must have done, if they had received the Communion from him. Neither do any receive the sacrament in that quantity, that they may thereby satisfy hunger, and be said to have eaten enough. verse 38. These circumstances of the Text do so evidently convince any man of understanding, that the bread, which Saint Paul broke in the ship, was common bread; in so much that Lorinus f Lorin. in act. 27. Occur. Chrysost. Beda, alijque huius loci expositores usit atum, ac vulgarem duntaxat panem, escamque intelligunt, nec non Hieronymus. & mihi etiam magis placet. the jesuit, a great Patron in other places of the half Communion, here yields unto us, ingeniously confessing, that Chrysostome, Oecumenius, Beda, and other expositors upon this place, understand usual and common bread or food: as also doth Saint Hierome: And I better, saith he, like of their exposition. Lastly, this third & last argument of our adversaries out of the scriptures, drawn from the example of Paul, the Disciples, and Apostles in the Acts, may be forcibly retorted upon them. For the Apostles, Disciples, and Saint Paul were Priests, and Ministers of the Sacrament: in whom, as we learned before out of the Gloss of the Canon law, and Cardinal Caietan, it had been sacrilege to communicate in one kind only. Bellarmine saw this retortion in Kemnitius, and seeks to avoid it by telling us that in the second of the Acts, Saint Luke relateth the faithful people's continuance in prayer, and receiving the sacrament, and not the Apostles communicating, which he yielded was in both kinds. But this is a vain evasion, both because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or fellowship of the Apostles, implieth, that the Apostles were communicants with them, as also because properly those, who administered the communion, broke the bread, and not the people; they took it after it was broken by the Apostles. To conclude, they are caught on both sides by this Dilemma. Either breaking of bread in those places, is not celebrating the sacrament, or if it be, their is a synecdoche in the words, whereby one part is put for the whole. For how can they put by this thrust? No priests may consecrate, or communicate in one kind only: The eleven Apostles Acts. 2. and the Disciples, Acts. 20. and Paul Acts. 27. were Priests: Therefore they did not, nor might not consecrate, or Communicate in bread only. In the places above alleged therefore, under the name of bread, both kinds by a synecdoche must needs be understood. CHAP. XIII. The arguments of papists drawn from Counsels answered, and retorted. Our adversaries in this question, much boast of the definitions of three general Counsels in favour of their half Communion, The Council of Ephesus, Constance, and Basil. Whereunto in general we answer, first, that either these Counsels approve not the half Communion, or they are not approved themselves. The Council of Ephesus is an approved Council, but it approveth not the half Communion; the Counsels of Constance and Basil approve the half Communion; but they are not themselves approved, no not by the Roman Church, much less by the Catholic Christian Church. g Gratian. dist. 50. In gestis Conciliorun, quotiescunque discors sententia invenitur, illius Concilij sententia magis teneatur, cuius antiquior, & potior extat auctoritas. Secondly, we are resolved by the Pope himself, that if Counsels are at odds with one another, and their definitions irreconciliable, we ought to take part with the ancient against the latter. This is our present case; two latter Counsels to wit the Council of Constance and Basil contradict many Counsels more ancient; by name, the Council of Nice, and Chalcedon, cited before. Ancyra, Canon 2. of Neocorsarea, Can. 13. of Africa, Can. 4. of Brachar. 2. cap. 1. of Ilerda Can. 1. of Toledo the 3. Can. 2. &. 7. of Matiscon the 2. Can. 2. Can. 4. of Toledo the 4. Can. 6. 7. 17. 57 of Toledo the 11. Can. 6. 11. of Cabilonum. Can. 46. 47. of Paris, lib. 3. cap. 20. of Worms, Can. 4. 31. Therefore by the Pope's decision, and that ex cathedra, we may, and aught to embrace rather the whole Communion enjoined, or approved in so many ancient Counsels, then of the half Communion, commanded to be practised by the Laiety, under pain of a curse, in these latter, and fewer. In particular, we answer to the allegations made by Hosius, Harding, and other Papists out of the Council of Ephesus; that they took it upon trust of some ancient Schoolman or Canonist, who thought it a matter of merit, to forge an ancient record for the good of the catholics cause, and defence of the Roman Church. For neither in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, nor in any approved history is there any footstep, or print of any such constitution, as is pretended by our adversaries to be made, for the half Communion, and that upon this occasion; h Caietan. in 3. part. Thom. q. 80. art. 12 Nestoriani p●…ant sub specie panis corpus tant●…m Christi esse, sub specie vini sanguinem, quia in morte Christi sanguis fuit separatus à corpore. Because the Nestorians held, that Christ's body in the sacrament under the form of bread was Cadaver exangue, a carcase without blood; In this fiction the Romanists sufficiently show (to use the words out of Saint Hierome) that they had voluntatem, but not artem ●…entiendi; that they had a good will to lie for the Catholic cause, but were not their craftsmasters. For they that hope to gain credit by a lie, ●…ust build it upon some probable ground, or colour at least of truth, which here is wanting. For neither did the Nestorians maintain any such error touching the sacrament, as neither had the Council of Ephesus any reason thereupon, to have prohibited the use of the Cup to the Laiety. For what a consequence is this? The heretics denied any blood to be in the body of Christ in the Sacrament; Therefore Catholics and right believers of the Laiety ought to be deprived of the use of the holy Cup in the Sacrament. To coin new Fathers is a usual practice, and therefore of no transcending merit: but to coin new Canons of general Counsels, and to forge records of such antiquity (as is the true Council of Ephesus) can be no less than a work of supererogation. To the allegation out of the Council of Constance, we answer: first, that it was no general Council. The Eastern Church of as large, or larger extent, than the Western, sent no Patriarch, or Bishop thither. Secondly, this Council is impeached by the Roman Church itself. Bellarmine de council. cap. 7. ᵏ speaking of this Council of Constance) saith, this Council, so much as concerneth the ⁱ Hoc Concil. quantum ad primas sessiones, reprobatum est in Concil. Florent. & Lateranensi. In Hierarchi●…. first sessions, is disallowed and repealed in the Counsels of Florence and Lateran. Albertus' Pighius is yet hotter against this Council, saying, that it decreed against the order of nature, against manifest Scriptures, against the authority of all antiquity, and against the Catholic faith of the Church. What credit is then to be given to this erroneous, and perfidious Council? Which both adulterated the Christian faith by heretical decisions, and broke their moral faith by bloody cruelty, exercised against john Hus, and Hierome of Prague, to whom safe conduct to the Council, and back again was promised. If the Romanists themselves reject this Council in point of the Pope's Supremacy, why may not we in point of the Sacrament? Lastly, out of this very Council we may draw an invincible argument against the half Communion. The institution of Christ and practice of the Primitive Church ought to sway more with every good Christian, than any constitution of a late Council, never generally approved of by the Church of God. But the Communion in both kinds hath the institution of Christ, and the practice of the Primitive Church for it, as is confessed by the Fathers in this Council: Therefore every good Christian ought to communicate in both kinds, the prohibition of the Council of Constance to the contrary notwithstanding. To the allegation out of the Council of Basil, our answer is the stronger, by how much the authority of this Council is weaker, or rather of no validity at all. First, there lieth against it the same exception, which we took before against the Council of Constance; that none of the Bishops of the Eastern Churches were present at it, and in this regard it cannot be held for an Occomenicall, or general Council. Secondly, while the Fathers of this Council sat at Basil, the Pope fearing least some thing might be done to his prejudice, called an other Council at Ferrara: and ● in this regard the Council of Basil cannot be esteemed a general, or total Council, no not so much as of the Western, or Roman Church. Thirdly, the Acts of this Council are repeated in the Council of Florence, and Lateran. Pighius writes as bitterly against it, as against the Council of Constance; and Cardinal k Huius Concilij nihil est ratum & probatum, nisi quaedam dispositiones circa beneficia. Cor. cil. verò ipsum reprobatur in Concil. Lateran. sess. 11. ˡ Vasq. in 3. part. Thom. quest. 80. art. 12. disp. 215 cap. 3. Basiliense Concil. nullius est auctoritatis in hac re. Bellarmine writing of it, saith, There is nothing of this Council ratified and allowed, but certain orders, about benefices: the Council itself is rejected, and condemned in the Council of Lateran, Sess. 11. No marvel then, if Protestants account the decrees of this Synod, no better than dross, when by the Roman test itself, they are proved to be no good mettle. Wherefore as the Roman Orator makes a Dilemma, touching Brutus and Antony, being in Arms one against the other; if Brutus be a preserver of his country, Antony is an enemy; if Antony be a Consul, Brutus is an enemy: so may we say of those two Counsels of Basil and Lateran; if the Council of Basil bee Catholic, Lateran is heretical; if Lateran be Catholic, the Council of Basil is heretical. Lastly, be this Council of Basil, of what authority it may be, the Romanists lose more by it, than they gain. For though the half Communion were after a sort established in this Council, yet the Bohemians petition for the entire Communion was yielded unto, and signed in this Council; whence we thus argue against them. If the Papists arguments drawn from danger of irreverence, inconveniences, examples, or testimonies of antiquity, and pretended consequences of Scripture were necessary and concludent, the Council of Basil could not lawfully grant to the Bohemians, and Moravians the use of the Cup: but the Council of Basil might lawfully, and did yield to the Bohemians, and the Moravians the use of the cup: Therefore the reasons of the Romanists drawn to the contrary from the heads above mentioned, are not necessary, or concludent. CHAP. XIIII. The Arguments of Papists, drawn from ancient pretended rites of the Church, answered, and retorted. THere is no more certain sign of a bad cause, than extorted testimonies, and wyer-drawne arguments; such as our adversaries, for want of better, insist upon in this question. For the truth never wanteth voluntary witnesses to depose for her, nor arguments that offer themselves in her defence; as the Poets fain, that stones came of their own accord to the building of Thebes. Such are those proofs, which the texts of scpriture without any forcing, and the free deposition of all ages before alleged, have furnished us withal. On the contrary, our adversary's strain ancient rites, and customs weakly proved, and perversely applied to excuse their sacrilege. They tell us of reserving the Sacrament for a long space, of carrying it home to men's houses, giving it to infants, and impotent persons, on their deathbed, to Priests put out of their rank for misdemeanour; and lastly, of a Communion of such things, as were before consecrated. All which observations are as headless arrows shot at random. Falces petebamus, we demand scythes, and they answer us with mattocks. Our question is of the public, and general practice of the Church, their answer is of private customs; our question is of the lawful use of the Lords Supper; their answer is, of abuses and corruptions; our question is of the depriving the Laiety of the Cup; their answer is of Priests; our question is of fit and worthy receivers qualified to communicate in both kinds; their answer is of children, excommunicate persons, or men lying on their deathbeds: This might suffice to wash away their varnish of antiquity. Yet lest they should accuse us, as Fimbria did sometimes Scecuola, quòd non totum telum corporereceperimus, that we received not the full thrust into our body, I will bring in their great Cardinal laying amain at us in this wise. SECT. I. From the reservation of the Sacrament, thus he disputeth against us: m Bellar. de sacram. Euchar. lib. 4. c. 24. That the Sacrament was accustomed anciently to be reserved, we have proved by the testimonies of Fathers, & Counsels. Now, that it was reserved in one kind only, and consequently, that the communicants received in one kind only, it is manifest, because sometimes they reserved it for a very long time; Sophronius in his spiritual meadow relates of the keeping of it for a whole year, but wine, especially in a small quantity, could not be kept so long, because within that time it would be corrupted. The answer. First, although we grant, that the ancient Answ. I. Church, upon some occasions, reserved the holy elements after the Communion: yet not for any long space. They had no reason, nor need so to do, because, as Saint n Omni hebdomada offerendum est, si non quotidie perigrinis, incolis tamen velbis in bebdomada. Ambrose teacheth us, the Church consecrated every day for strangers, and twice in the week for the inhabitants. As for Sophronius his tale of keeping the Sacrament for a whole year, it is a fit flower for his spiritual meadow, which no man ever saw, or heard of, unless it were in Sir Thomas Moores Utopia. I give much more credit to Alphonsus o job. Munster à vertleg. discurs. ea nobilis. his experiment, who locking up a consecrated wafer in a Casket of gold, after a few months opened it, and found nothing in it but a worm. Secondly, as wine cannot be long kept, but it will sour, so neither can bread, but it will grow musty; and of the two, if care be had to stop close the vessel, to keep out air, the wine will keep sweet longer than the bread. If the Cardinal fly to a miracle, I answer, that by the same miracle, whereby the bread was kept a whole year from moulding, the wine was, or might have been kept from souring. Retortion. Thirdly, this headless arrow may thus be headed, and shot back upon our adversaries; If the Sacrament were anciently reserved in both kinds, than the custom of reserving it maketh for, and not against the Laieties Communion in both kinds: But the Sacrament was anciently reserved in both kinds: Therefore the custom of reserving the Sacrament maketh for, and not against the Laieties communicating in both kinds. That the holy mysteries were kept in the Primitive Church in both kinds, appeareth manifestly by Saint Chrysostome in his first Epistle to Inocentius, Nicephorus Histor. Eccles. lib. 13. cap. 19, and Cardinal Baronius himself; whose words are very observable, p Anno 404. Annal. tom. 4. Hic, lector considera, quam procul abborreant à patrum traditione, usuque Catholicae Ecclesiae, qui nostro tempore negant osseruandam esse sacratissimam Eucharistiam, quam videmus non sub specie panis tantùm, sed etiam sub specie vini olim consuevisse recondi. Here, O Reader, consider, saith he, how wide they are of the Traditions of the Fathers, and the use of the Catholic Church, who deny, that the holy Eucharist in our time ought to be kept, which we see in ancient times was reserved, not only in the form or kind of bread, but also in the other kind, to wit, in the wine. You have this proved by the authority of Saint Gregory: in the 3. of his dialogues. where he saith, that the Mariners carried in the ship the body, and blood of Christ. SECT. II. The second headless arrow is, their argument deduced from the carrying the holy mysteries after consecration into private houses; and thus they draw this arrow at us: q Bellar. de sa. Euch. lib. 4. cap. 24. The second rite, or custom of the ancient Church was, to carry the Sacrament home, and there to take it at some seasonable time. This custom is most certainly proved out of Tertullian his second book to his wife. Clem. Alexand. stromatum. li. 1. Cyprian Serm. Stromatum 1. de Lapsis. Basil epist. to Caesarea Patricia. Hierom. Apolog. contra jovinian. Now that the Christians were went to communicate at home in one kind only, it is manifest, both for that the only form of bread was given to the hands of the faithful, the blood being drunk out of a Chalice, as Cyrill demonstrateth in his 5. Catechism, & also, because their were no Chalices in the bouses of Laymen, or holy vessels to receive the blood of Christ; as it may be evidently gathered out of the second Apology of Athanasius. ᵖ Hard. diuis. 19 art. 2. ʳ Harding imbellisheth this argument with a miraculous narration out of Saint Cyprian: that when a woman had gone about with unworthy hands to open her Coffer, where the holy thing of our Lord was laid up, she was made afraid with fire that rose up from thence, so as she durst not touch it. The answer. First, this argument is very impertinent to the purpose, and in consequence also. For the Answ. 1. question is of the public use of the Sacrament in the Church: this argument proceeds upon private abuse thereof in men's houses at home. Now an argument from a mere abuse is an abusive argument, and concludes nothing. A mere falsehood cannot prove a truth, nor a corrupt custom the lawful use of any thing. Saint q Aust. contra Parm. l. 3. Pensandae sunt doctrinae non in statera dolosa consuetudinum suarum, sed in statera aequa divinarum scripturarum. Austin gives us a golden rule to the contrary; Doctrines are to be weighed not in the deceitful balances of their own customs, but in the even balances of divine scriptures. In which, if this custom of carrying the Sacrament home to their houses be wighed, it will be found too light. And therefore it is rejected, and condemned under a curse in a Council holden at r Concil. Caesar▪ Aug. ●…an. 3. Eucharistiae gratiam si quis probatur acceptam non consumpsisse in Ecclesia, anathema fit imperpetuum. Cesar-Augusta in Spain. If any man receive the Sacrament, & eat not the same presently in the Church, let him be accursed for ever. And likewise in the first Council of Toledo, cap. 14. If any man receiving the Sacrament of the Priest, do not presently eat it, let him be driven out for a sacrilegious person. As for the miracle of fire, urged by M. Harding, it burns his own fingers. For God showed himself by that miracle to be offended with that, which the woman did, fraying her that kept the Sacrament in her coffer with a flame of fire. Secondly, this corrupt custom is no shadow 2 of proof for the Laities communicating in one kind. For as they carried the bread home to their houses, so they might also a portion of wine; yea but saith Bellar. they had no Chalices at home; what then? they might have and had bottles, or glasses, in which they might, and did carry part of the consecrated wine home to their houses. Retortion. Thirdly, this headless arrow may be thus headed, and shot back upon our adversaries: If the Sacrament were anciently carried home to laymen's houses in both kinds, than this custom of carrying it home makes not against, but for the Laieties Communion in both kinds: But the Sacrament was anciently carried home to laymen's houses in both kinds: Therefore that custom maketh for, and not against the Laieties Communion in both kinds: That the Sacrament was carried home in both kinds, is proved by the undeni able testimonies of justin Martyr, Gregory, Nazianzenus, and S. Hierome. justin Martyr t Iust. in apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. declaring the order of the Church in his time, saith thus: of the things that be consecrated, to wit, the bread, water, and wine, they give a part to every one, and they carry the same things to those that are absent. u Nazia. in fune. Gorgoniae. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Gregory Nazianzen writeth of his sister Gorgonia, that if her hand had laid up any portion of the tokens of the precious body and of the blood in devotion, she mingled it with tears, and so received it. x Hier. epist. ad Rust. Nihil illo ditius, qui corpus domini in canistro, & sanguinem portabat in vitro. Saint Hierome highly commending Exuperius Bishop of Tolosa, saith of him: there was no man richer than he, that carried the Lords body in a wicker basket, and his blood in a glass. SECT. III. The third headless arrow, is an argument deduced from the Communion of Infants; Thus they draw it at us; * Bellar. desacr. Eucha. lib. 4. c. 24. The third rite of the Church is the administering the Communion to Infants. For the ancient did sometimes administer the Communion to Infants, but under one kind only, namely, by dropping into their mouth something of Christ's blood; as it appeareth both by Cyprians Sermon of those that are fall'n, and by this manifest reason, because Infants cannot take any solid sustenance. The answer. First, as glasses cannot strengthen one another, Answ. I. but may easily break one another, and bubbles in the water, deface one another; so false holds and errors may destroy one the other, but they can in no wise establish one the other. The administering the Communion to Infants is an abuse, if not a profanation of the holy Sacrament. How then can it justify the Romish half Communion, sith itself is uniustifiable? Mettle upon mettle is no good hearaldrie, and error upon error is no good D●…uinity. By the Apostle Saint Paul's rule, none ought to be admitted to the Communion, that have not knowledge to discern the Lords body, and discretion to examine themselves. This sucklings cannot do, and therefore not only the Reformed Churches; but the Romish also at this day, forbid the Communion to be given to Infants. Secondly, it appears not out of S. Cyprian, or any other way, that infants received the Communion in one kind only, for though Cyprian mentions one kind in that place, yet he excludeth not the other. And howsoever children cannot eat strong meat, yet no man doubteth, but that they are able to swallow down a crume, or a small piece of a wafer. Retortion. Thirdly, this headless arrow may be thus headed, and shot back upon our adversaries. If the Sacrament were anciently given to stickling in both kinds, than the Communion of Infants maketh for, and not against the Laities receiving in both kinds: But the Sacrament was anciently given to sucklings in both kinds: Therefore the Communion of Infants maketh for, and not against the Laieties receiving in both kinds: That Infants had the Sacrament delivered to them in both kinds, is testified by Saint Cyprian Saint Austin, and Gennadius. Saint Cyprian in his Sermon of such as fell away in time of persecution, bringeth in Infants thus pitifully complaining against their parents: x Nec derelicto cibo, & poculo Domini. Alas, the treachery of others hath destroyed us, we have done nothing of ourselves, we hasted not of our own accords to profane contagions, leaving the Meat, and Cup of the Lord. y Quando carnem Christi man ducaverunt, vel non manducaverunt, quando biberunt, vel non biberunt sanguinem c, 8. Saint Austin in his 107. Epistle, writing of the doom of Infants, that if they died in their tender age, they shall receive according to those things, which they have done by the body, to wit, in the time in which they were in the body, that is, when by the mouths or heart of them that carried them, they believed, or believed not, were baptised or were not baptised, they did eat the flesh of Christ, or eat it not, they did drank his blood, or drank it not. Gennadius of Massilia conceiveth the case to be alike in Baptism, and in the Lord's Supper with sucklings, and children, who if they be not capable of heavenly doctrine, he requireth z Gen. lib. de Eccles. dogmat. cap. 52. Si paruuli sunt vel hebetes, respondeant pro illis qui illos afferunt, & ita Eucharistiae mysterijs admittantur. that those that bring them, answer for them; and so being confirmed by imposition of hands, and Chrism, he admitteth them to the mysteries of the Eucharist, or the Lord's Supper. SECT. four The fourth headless arrow is their argument, fetched from the Communion of the sick; And thus they draw it at us: * Bellar. loc. supr. citato. The fourth Rite is the communion of the sick, which for the most part was administered in one kind. Eusebius in his. 6. book of his Ecclesiastical history writeth of a Priest, that gave to a young Lad à piece of the holy Eucharist to carry it to old Serapion, that lay on his deathbed and that he commanded that the young Boy should moisten it before he gave it him. Paulinus in the life of Saint Ambrose writeth, that Saint Ambrose a little before his death received the Lords body, and as soon as he had swallowed it down, presently gave up the Ghost. And Amphilochius in the life of Saint Basil writeth, that at his death he received the Sacrament in one kind, namely, in bread, which he had kept along time. The answer. First, these instances are not to the purpose: Answ. 1. for our question is of the prohibition of giving the Laiety the Cup in the Church. These instances are for private communions of the sick at home. Our question is of members of the Church, and those of the Laiety, but of these instances, the first is of a person excommunicate; the second and third are of Bishops. Secondly, these instances are not sufficiently proved. To the first instance, Serapions' Boy were able to answer. For what a sequel is this, the old man's mouth was dry, and the Boy was therefore commanded to moisten the bread, to wit, by sopping it in the wine; Ergo, the old-man received no wine? The story is thus set down in Eusebius. Serapion an old man that had been excommnicated for sacrificing unto Idols, lying upon his deathbed, desired to be reconciled to the Church, and sent to a Priest to give him the Communion; the Priest not being able for sickness to go himself, lest the old man should depart comfortless in desperation, in token that he was reconciled to the Church, sent unto him the sacrament by a young Lad, and charged him, for the more ease of the old man, to moisten the bread, to wit, in the wine he brought with him which the Lad did accordingly, a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. moistening the portion of bread which he received of the Priest, and inf●…sing the same into the old man's mouth. To the second instance we answer, that this Paulinus is an author branded by Erasmus, and other learned Critics. And if it were true which he writeth, it no way releiveth our adversaries, nor hindereth us. For if Saint Ambrose strait upon the receiving of the bread yielded up the Ghost, before he could receive the Cup, it was by accident, that he received not in both kinds, because death prevented him: Otherways, that Saint Ambrose, and the Church in his time received in both kinds, is proved at large in the testimonies of the fourth Age. To the third instance in Saint Basils' life, we answer, that Amphilochius is a fabulous writer, and that his tale in him of Saint Basil, discredits itself. For the Author saith, that this bread, which Saint Basil called for at his death, had been kept for the space of seven years and more, and that S. Basil received it, to the intent that it might be buried with him. Similes habent labra lactucas. Like Lettuce for such lips: It is as true, that he communicated in bread only, as that he kept the bread seven years by him for this purpose, to be buried with him. Retortion. Thirdly, this headless arrow may be thus headed, and shot back upon our adversaries. If the Sacrament were usually given to the sick in both kinds, than this rite of the Church maketh for, and not against the entire Communion of the Laiety: But the Sacrament was usually given to the sick in both kinds: Therefore this custom of the Church maketh for, and not against the entire Communion of the Laiety. That the sacrament was given to the sick usually in both kinds, may be gathered from the words of Instin Martyr above alleged, in his second Apology; who saith, that the holy mysteries, which had been before consecrated in the Church, were sent to those that were absent; amongst which number were necessarily the sick. And from the charge, which Dionysius, of Alexandria gave to his Priests, that b Euseb. Eccles. hist. l. 6. c. 36. if any that were ready to die, desired to be partakers of the holy mysteries, they should obtain there desire; especially, if it could be proved, that before in the time of their health, they had been humbly suitors for them. Lastly, by the words of c Bed. hist. lib. 4. Beda, who speaking of a sick Boy, saith; thou mayst stay till the Mass be done, that then thou mayst receive the viaticum of the Lords body and blood. SECT. V. The fifth headless arrow is, an Inference from a phrase of the ancients Communio laica, or the Laic Communion, distinguished from the Communion of the Clergy; And thus they draw it at us. d Bellar. loc. sup. cit. The fifth Rite, or custom of the Church is, the use of the Communion, called the Lay Communion, which was a kind of censure inflicted upon Clergy men, for some great offence, by which they were deprived of their clerical Communion; of this Lay▪ communion we have often mention made in the decrees of ancient Popes, and Counsels. For by Felix 3. in his first Epist. and second chapter; and Syricius 1. epist. 11. cap. and the Council of Eliberis. Can. 76. and of Sardica. cap. 10. and of Agatha cap. 2. 5. and 50. this punishment could be no other, then when other Clergy men communicated in both kinds, these delinquents were kept from the cup, and were enforced to content themselves with one kind. The answer. We acknowledge, that there is often mention made in the Ancients of the Lay Answ. 1. Communion. For Cyprian speaks of it in his 52. epistle, and Eusebius in his sixth book of Ecclesiastical story. Inocentius the first, in his 22. epistle. The Canons of the Apostles, Can. 15. Basil to Amphilochius, and diverse others, quoted by Chamierus in his ninth book de Caena Dom. chap. 2. But we deny, that this Laic Communion was the Papists half Communion. The meaning of the ancient in their decrees touching the permitting of Cleargymen to participate of the Laic Communion, or communicate as Laics, was this; that in regard that these Priests had sometime or other scandalised their calling, they should be degraded, & never admitted to consecrate, or administer the Sacrament, but receive it only at the hands of the Priests mere Lay men; not in the e Concil. Tolotan. 4. Can. 17. In Choro Clerus communicet, extra chorum populus. Choir, or Chancel, as Priests used to do, but without the Quire in the body of the Church among the common people. This argument therefore of the Papists is a main Petitio principij, or begging the point in question; to wit, that the Laic Communion, or Communion of Laics, was in one kind only. The contrary whereof hath been proved before, by the testimonies of all Ages. This headless arrow therefore of our adversaries may be thus headed, and shot back upon them by Retortion. If the Laic Communion spoken of by the Ancients, were in both kinds, than nothing can be gathered from it against, but for the entire Communion: But the Laic Communion spoken of by the Ancients was in both kinds: Therefore nothing can be gathered from it against, but for the entire Communion. That the Laic Communion was not without the Cup, Saint Cyprian, who first named it, clearly showeth in those words: in chalice sanctificando, & plebi ministrando: in sanctifying the Cup, and ministering it to the people. Nay, which is very remarkable, Cardinal Bellarmine himself in this very argument, (to verify the observation of Saint Austin, that evident truth striketh into the eyes of such, as are shut against it) acknowledgeth as much: The f Sola species panis dabatur in manus, ex calice autem bibebant, qui volebant, in Ecclesia, sed non licebat laicis calicem tangere. only form of bread, saith he, was given to their hands, but they drank out of the Cup, who would, in the Church; but it was not lawful for Laymen to touch the Cup, or carry home with them. Drink they might, and did, as many as desired. Thus Bellarmine convinced by the light of story, confesseth, that the Laiety drank of the holy Cup: as doth also his fellow Cardinal g Annal. tom. 1. an. Christi 57 Fideles sacrificij tempore, olim in Ecclesia sacratissimam Eucharistiam sub utraque specie panis & vini sumebant. Baronius, saying; The faithful of old, in the time of the sacrifice in the Church, received the most blessed Sacrament of the Lords Supper in both kinds, under the form of bread and wine. The sixth headless arrow is, a collection from an ancient rite of communicating in such things, as before had been consecrated; And thus they draw it at us: SECT. VI h Bellar. loc. sup. cit. The sixth rite, or Custom of the ancient Church is, the communion of the presanctified forms of bread and wine. This Communion was in use in the Greek Church all the Lent long, except the Lord's day, and the Saturday: this custom was also in the Latin Church, and remains unto this time on the sixth day of the holy Week. For on that day there is no consecration, and the Priest himself communicates in one kind. Of this custom among the greeks there is mention made in the Council of Laodicea, Can. 49. and the Council in Trullo, Can. 52. Of the like custom amongst the Latins Innocent. 1. makes mention in his 1. epist. cap. 4. and the Book of Sacaments made by Saint Gregory in the service for the preparation to the Passeover. Rabanus in his 2. book of the Instruction of Clerks. And Micrologus in his book of Ecclesiastical observations. cap. 19 The answer. This argument hath two parts, the, first is taken from the custom of the Greek Church, Answ. 1. the latter from a custom of the Roman. To dispatch first the latter, because it is of small moment; we say, that there is no ground for this custom: we dislike it no less, than the half Communion itself. For why should not the Sacrament be consecrated upon good Friday, as well as any other day? Or what an argument is this; the Priest communicateth in one kind alone on good Friday, therefore the people ought to be deprived of the Cup all the year long? And why, I pray you, doth the Priest receive the Sacrament on Good-Friday in bread only, more than any other day? And why do they communicate in such bread only, as was consecrated the day before? Why might they not consecrate it on that day? As some Gramarians excuse all Homer's fables of the Gods, by turning them into Allegories, and mythological expositions. So Harding division 22. arti. 2. salveth this superstitious custom, by telling us, that it was not without signification of a singular mystery. This mystery is revealed unto us by Pope Innocentius, Aquinas, and Hugo Cardinalis. Innocentius saith, that it is, because the Apostles ran their way that day, and hid themselves. Aq●…inas saith, they consecreate not on Good-Friday, because if any had consecrated that day, whilst Christ lay dead, the body had been without blood, and the blood without the body. And others say, if the Sacrament that mean while had been kept, it would have been dead in the Pixe. Hugo Card. saith, Christ's Passion is the truth, and the Sacrament is a figure of the same. Therefore when the truth is come, the figure giveth place. Consider we the weight of these reasons: The Apostles fled sixteen hundred years ago on Good-Friday; therefore we must not now on that day consecreate the elements, or communicate in both kinds. On Good-Friday Christ suffered, his blood then was severed from the body: Therefore now we must not receive his body and blood on that day. Christ's Passion was on that day; therefore we must never receive the figure thereof on that day. 2. Concerning the custom of the Greek Church. It is true that the Greek Church in Lent 2 used to consecrate only upon Saturday and Sunday; and on the other days of the week they did communicate ex praesanctificatis, of the presanctified forms, which had been consecrated the Saturday, or Sunday before: as may be gathered out of the 49. Canon of the Council of Laodocea; and 52. Canon of the Council in Trullo. Sed quid ad rhombum! we dispute not of the Communion of things before consecrated, but of the communion of both kinds. Such no doubt was this communion of the greeks, as the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or praesanctificata in the plural number doth imply. It is not called by Balsamo, upon the 52. Canon of the sixth Council, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; not a communion of presanctified bread, but of presanctified mysteries. This headless arrow therefore, as all the former, may be thus headed, and shot back upon our adversaries: Retortion. If the Communion of presanctified elements were in both kinds, this Rite of the Greek Church no way suporteth, but quite overthroweth the Romish half Communion in one kind only: But the communion of presanctified elements of the Greek Church was in both kinds: Ergo, this Rite of the Greek Church no way supporteth, but quite overthroweth the Romish half Communion in one kind only. That this Communion in the Greek Church was in both kinds, we need no better evidence, than the service-book, or Office of the Greek Church, wherein we read, that after the Priest hath sanctified the bread, he poureth wine and water into the sacred Cup, and rehearseth the accustomed words in the Liturgy itself, called Liturgia praesanctificatorum. The dreadful mysteries are named in the plural number. And that all that communicated, received in both kinds, it appears by the form of thanksgiving there set down; We give thanks to thee, O God, the Saviour of all, for all thy benefits, which thou hast bestowed upon us, and in special, for that thou hast vouch safed i Lyturg. praesanctif. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. to make us partakers of the body, and blood of thy Christ. CHAP. XV. The arguments of Papists drawn from reason answered, and retorted. SECT. I. Our adversaries are driven to rake hell for arguments, and to beg proofs from damned heretics, such as were the Manichees. From whose dissembling at the Lords Supper, our equivocating jesuits would make us believe, that their half Communion was in use in the Primitive Church. The Manichees, Answer to certain questions. Sect. 5. saith Fisher, lived in Rome, and other places, shrouding themselves amongst Catholics, went to their Churches, received the Sacrament publicly with them, under the sole form of bread: yet they were not noted, nor then discerned from Catholics. A manifest sign, saith he, that Communion under one kind was publicly in the Church permitted. For how could the Manichees still refusing the Cup, have been hidden amongst those ancient Christians, if they had been persuaded, as now Protestants are, that receiving one kind only is sacrilege? The like argument Master Harding draweth from a trick of Leger demaine, used by a cunning housewife: who made her husband believe, that she receiving the bread from the Priest, stooped down as if she had prayed, but received of her servant standing by her somewhat, that she had brought for her from home, which she had no sooner put into her mouth, but it hardened into a stone. If this seem to any incredible, saith l Sozomen. Eccles. hist. lib. 1. Sozomen, that stone is a witness, which to this day is kept amongst the jewels of the Church of Constantinople. By this stone it is clear, saith Master Harding, the Sacrament was then ministered under one kind only. For by receiving that one form, this woman would have persuaded her husband, that she had communicated with him; else, if both kinds had been ministered, she would have practised foam other shift, for the avoiding of the Cup, which had not been so easy. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; an ill egg of an ill bird; a loose inference of a lewd practice. As if the Manichees in Rome, or this woman in Constantinople, might not pitisare, sip, and make as if they drank, and yet let not a drop go down; or as if this their fraud was not discovered. Howsoever these disembled, it is certain out of Saint Leo in his 4. Sermon of Lent, and Saint Chrysostome 18. Homile upon the second to the Corinthians, that the faithful people of Rome and Constantinople received the Communion in both kinds. For Saint Leo, in the place above alleged, giveth this as a mark to descry Manichees from other Christian people, intruding amongst them at the Lords Table, by refusing to drink the blood of Christ with them. And Saint Chrysostome saith expressly, that there is no difference betwixt Priest and people in participating the dreadful mysteries. Therefore as the Priest in Constantinople, and every where else in his time, received the Communion in both kinds, so did the people. SECT. II. To leave these absurd inferences of the Papists from the ungodly practice of heretics, I come now in the last place to batter and break in pieces such weapons, as they hammer against us in the forge of reason. The first reason they shape in this wise: m Fisher in his answer to certain questions propounded by King james his Majesty. Point. 7. If whole Christ Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are under the form of bread, the Laiety are no way wronged by denying them the Cup: But whole Christ is under the form of bread, to wit, his Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity: Therefore the Laiety are not wronged by denying them the Cup. That whole Christ is under the form of bread, they prove by the unseparable union of the body and blood of Christ, etc. Since his ascension, his body now in heaven is a live body; and therefore hath his blood in his veins, and is informed, and glorified by a most excellent soul: Therefore Christ cannot say truly, that a body void of blood, sense, and soul, is his body, but soul, life, and blood, must needs follow and concomitate his body, wheresoever it be. Therefore when the Priest in the person of Christ, or rather Christ by the mouth of the Priest, saith, This is my body, the meaning must be, a living body with blood in the veins. The answer. First, the doctrine of natural concomitancy, presupposeth the natural body of Christ to be substantially, and carnally, under the Answ. 1. form of bread: which we deny; and consequently this argument, from concomitancy, is of no force. The words, This is my body, being rightly expounded by Austin, Tertullian, Theodoret, and many other of the ancients to be no other, then, this bread is a sign, a figure, or a sacrament of my body, not this bread is turned substantially into my body, or under this is contained my very body, flesh & bones. Where Christ's natural humane body is, there we grant his blood, and soul, and divinity are. But, That his body, is now in heaven, Acts 3. not in any place upon the earth; much less in every place, where the Mass is celebrated. Secondly, although we grant, that the body of Christ cannot really be severed from his blood, yet the signs of his body, and blood are really severed: if we speak of sacramental Communion, the Apostle teacheth us, that the bread, which we break, is the Communion of Christ's body, and the Cup, which we bless, is the Communion of his blood: neither can we truly and properly, say, the Bread is the Communion of his blood. n Alexand. Hal. 3. pa●…t. q. 11. membr. 2. art. 4. Corpus non est sacramentaliter sub specie vi●…i, nec sanguis sacramentaliter sub specie panis. Ergo ut sacramentaliter sumatur totus Christus, necesse est, ut sumatur sub duabus speciebus. And therefore they that communicate in bread only, do not sacramentally communicate his blood. Thirdly, should we liberally grant unto our adversaries, that by the receiving the body of Christ in the bread, we consequently receive the blood also, which since his Passion was never severed from his body: yet will it not hence follow, that we drink the blood of Christ in eating the bread: but Christ commanded us expressly, to drink his blood, which cannot possibly be done by communicating in bread only, no though we should admit of the carnal presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, and the doctrine of concomitancy also. Retortion. Lastly, this Argument may be retorted upon our adversaries in this manner: Whosoever receiveth Christ in the Sacrament, aught to receive whole Christ, to wit, his body, and blood: But the body and blood of Christ cannot be received but by communicating in both kinds: Therefore all that receive Christ in the Sacrament, aught to communicate in both kinds. The Proposition is our adversaries, the Assumption also is inferred from their own Tenets. They deliver this rule, that the Sacraments Vid. supra. Arg. 2. effect, and exhibit that, and that only, which they signify: But the bread signifieth only the body of Christ, and the wine his blood: he therefore that will receive whole Christ, as he is exhibited unto us in the Sacrament, must necessarily communicate in both kinds. SECT. III. The second reason is this. o Bell. de sacra. Euch. lib. 4. c. 24. If the whole nature and essence of a Sacrament be found in one kind, the Romanists Communion in bread only is not a maimed, or imperfect, but an entire Sacrament. But the whole nature, and essence of a Sacrament is found in one kind: Therefore the Romanists communicating in bread only, is not a maimed, or imperfect, but an entire Sacrament. That the whole nature, and essence of a Sacrament is found in either kind by itself, Bellarmine endeavoureth thus to make evident, There are but two things required essentially to a Sacrament, a sign, and a thing signified: both which are found in one kind; first, a sign, to wit, bread; secondly, the thing signified, to wit, the inward nourishment of the soul, and the representation of the union of the faithful with Christ, and among themselves. The answer. First, there is a double essence of the sacrament, Answ. 1. the general essence, which makes it a sacrament in general, and the specifical essence, which makes it in special, Baptism, or the Lord's Supper. To be a visible, and effectual sign of invisible sanctifying grace is sufficient to prove a sacrament in general: but not to prove the Lords Supper; the entire definition whereof is, a Sacrament of the new Testament, sealing unto us the perfect nourishment of our souls, by the participation of the sacred elements of bread and wine. Secondly, there are two sorts, or parts essential, 2 or integral. For example; the essential parts of a man are animal rationale; the integral parts are legs and arms, and other members. In like manner, in the Sacrament, besides the essential parts, which p Bel. loco supracitat species panis & vini non tam essentiales, quam integrals parts huiu●… sacramenti videntur. Bellarmine will have to be the sign and the thing signified, there are integral parts, to wit, the elements of bread and wine, of which if either be wanting, the sacrament may be as truly called a maimed or unperfect Sacrament, as a man that wants an arm, or leg, is truly called a maimed, or unperfect man, though he have in him the essential parts of a man entirely, to wit, animal his Genus, and rationale, his difference. Thirdly, although in the Roman half Communion there be a sign, and a thing signified; yet neither is there the whole sign, nor the whole signification; not the whole sign, because bread is but a part of the sign, representing Christ's body, and not his blood; not the whole signification, which is such an entire refection and nourishment of the soul, as bread and wine are of the body. Retortion. Lastly, this Argument, as the former, may be retorted upon the adversary. The Lord's Supper is the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood: The bread is not the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood; Therefore bread alone is not the Lords Supper. Or in this wise: The Lord's Supper essentially includeth and signifieth such a perfect refection, and nourishment of the soul, as bread and wine are of the body: Communicating in one kind neither includeth, nor signifieth such refection: Therefore communicating in one kind is not the Lords Supper, nor containeth in it the whole nature, and essence of this Sacrament. SECT. four The third Argument of our adversaries, drawn from reason, is an offspring of the two former. If the faithful receive as much benefit by communicating in one kind, as in both, they have no cause to complain of the Church, for the restraining of them from the Cup: But the faithful receive as much benefit by communicating in one kind, as in both: Therefore they have no cause to complain of the Church, for the restraining of them from the Cup, That they receive as much benefit by communicating in one kind, as in both, it seems to follow necessarily upon the two former supposals; that whole Christ is in each kind, and that the whole essence of the Sacrament is found in either. The answer. First, the two props of this Argument being Answ. 1. before taken away, it must needs fall to the ground: neither is whole Christ contained under one kind, neither in it is preserved the whole essence of the Sacrament. Therefore questionless the fruit of the half Communion, if it be any at all, cannot be equal to the fruit of the whole. Secondly, the consequence of this Argument is not found: For neither the only, nor the principle thing to be regarded in the Sacrament, is our benefit, but God's glory, and the testification of our obedience to his Ordinance. Therefore, albeit it were granted, that the people lost nothing by the taking away the Cup from them, yet they have just cause to complain of the Church of Rome, for the violation of Christ's Institution, and hindering them from discharging their whole duty in communicating in both kinds, according to his commandment. Thirdly, unworthy Receivers receive no benefit at all by the Communion, but eat and drink their own damnation. q Ambr. in 1. ad Corinth. cap. 11. Indignus est Domino, qui aliter mysterium celebrat, quam ab eo traditum est. And Saint Ambrose pronounceth him to be an unworthy Receiver, who celebrates these mysteries otherways, than the Lord hath appointed: Therefore they amongst the Papists, who consent to this violation of Christ's Institution, and mutilation of the Sacrament, may expect no benefit at all by this their sacrilegious practice; much less may they look to share equally with them, who communicate entirely, according to Christ's commandment. Fourthly, r Halensis part. 3. qu. 11. membro. artic. 4. sumptio sub utraque specie minoris est efficaciae, & complementi. Vasquez in 3. Tho. q. 80. art. 12. probabilior sententia mihi semper visa est, maiorem fructum gratiae ex utraque specie huius sacramenti, quam ex altera tantùm percipi. Ita docet Halensis, Gasper Consaluus. quam sententiam absolutè secutus est Clemens sextus in Bulla ad Regem Angliae, Anno 1346. quâ illi concessit, ut ad gratiae augmentum in utraque specie communicaret. Aegidius de Coninck jesuita. Etsi plus gratiae conferat sumptio utriusque speciei; dicimus tamen meritò hoc Ecclesiam non curare, quaest. 10. art. 12. in lib. 4. sent. although each Element represent Christ unto us, yet not so fully, or expressly, as both together. Therefore this argument, as all the former, may be retorted upon the adversary. The efficacy of Sacraments is answerable to their significancy: for they effect that, which they signify, etc. But the significancy of one Element is not equal to the significancy of both. Therefore the efficacy of one Element, is not equal to the efficacy of both. Which conclusion is assented unto both by Halensis, and Vasquez, Gasper Consaluus, and Clemens the sixth. SECT. V. The fourth Argument our adversaries thus frame: The Sacrament of the Lords Supper ●…ught to be administered, that all faithful people may communicate. (All cannot receive in both kinds, exempli gratia: Abstemij, whose stomach cannot brook wine; and Nazarites, who made a vow against drinking of wine.) But all faithful people cannot communicate in both kinds: Therefore it ought not to be administered in both kinds. The answer. First, this Argument toucheth not the point in question: for we find no fault with the Church of Rome, for her indulgence in this kind, but for her sacrilege; not for her dispensing with them, that cannot receive in both kinds, but for prohibiting them that can, and desire it. Secondly, Laws, as r De leg. & Senat. consult. Pomponius observeth, Provide for those things, that happen commonly, or for the most part, and not for such things as happen to few, or seldom. A man can scarce find one in a Kingdom, that hath such an Antipathy to Wine, that he cannot endure so small a quantity of some kind of Wine, as may suffice for the Communion. And I believe our adversaries can hardly name now a Christian Nazarite 〈◊〉 the world. And is it any way reasonable, out of respect to so few, to make a general law for the restraint of the Cup from the Laiety? Is there any reason, that the disability of so few, should prejudice the right of all the rest of God's people? Some Priests have at some times so weak stomaches, that they cannot taste wine, and some both of the Laiety and Clergy, through infirmity of stomach, or drought in the throat in hot diseases, cannot swallow down the bread; will they therefore make a general law to take away the Cup from the Priests, or the bread from both? Thirdly, for Nazarites, if there be any in the Church, they are to be taught, that there evangelical liberty releaseth them of the strict rigour of their legal vow, and that our Saviour's command, Drink ye all of this, is a sufficient warrant for them to drink of the sacramental wine at the Lords Table, though they drink no wine else where. Saint james the Brother of our Lord, though as Saint t Hier. in Catal. Viror. illust. Hierome writeth of him, he kept strictly the Nazarites vow in abstaining from wine, and strong drink at other times; yet he was amongst the twelve at Christ's last Supper. And Saint Mark testifieth that all drank of the Cup; and for such, whose stomaches cannot away with the smallest quantity of wine, it may be sufficient for them to take the Cup into their hands, and show their desire; or they may have a Cup by themselves of wine so allayed with water, as their stomaches may brook; as the fathers in the Counsel of Towers ordered to give to sick folk bread sopped in wine, because they were not able to take down dry bread. Lastly, this Argument is both answered, and retorted in the Conference. SECT. VI The first and last Argument, which our adversaries draw from reason, may be thus form: The Sacrament ought to be so administered, that all inconveniences in the celebration thereof may be prevented. But many inconveniences cannot be prevented, unless the Cup be withheld from the Laiety: Therefore in the administration of the Sacrament, the Cup ought to be withheld from the Laiety. The inconveniences, which they pretend to arise from the public use of the Chalice, are summed up by M. Harding, art. 2. diuis. 8. viz. irreverence of so high a Sacrament, whereof Christian people in the beginning had a marvelous care and regard; the loathsomeness of many, that cannot brook the taste of wine; the difficulties of getting wine in countries near situated to the North pole; and impossibility of keeping it long. The answer. First, inconveniences in a matter of indifference, may be pondered and put in the other Answ. 1. scale against the commodities in the thing in question; and if the inconveniences be such, as cannot be prevented, and they are greater, and more in number, than the profits, or advantages that are like to grow upon the use of it, in this case wisdom adviseth to take away a thing, that is not necessary: I say, if the unavoidable inconveniences exceed the certain profits thereby. But in religious duties, which cannot be omitted, without violation of God's Law, and Christ's Ordinance, inconveniences must not turn the balance: only we must take all the care that may be, to prevent such inconveniences: Which though they be never so many, yet are they rather to beindured, than God's absolute Command disobeyed, or Christ's Institution corrupted. Secondly, Christ and his Apostles, and the Christian Churches throughout all the world, 2 for twelve hundred years, foresaw the inconveniences which our adversaries now pretend: yet they thought it not fit in regard of them, to violate Christ's Institution by restraining the Cup to the Clergy only: For they, as we have proved by abundant testimonies, generally and ordinarily gave the Cup to the Laiety, as well as the Bread. Thirdly, if they would from these wants and impediments infer, that some favourable 3 course should be taken, and dispensation granted to such, as cannot taste wine, or live in such countries where wine cannot be got: we would not much strive with them. We censure not the Priests in Russia, who for want of wine, used to consecrate in Metheglin, nor call Innocentius the vl into question, howsoever now many Papists condemn him for it, for dispensing with the Priests in Norway to consecrate without wine. That which in this question we charge the Church of Rome with, is a manifest transgression of Christ's Ordinance, and a general prohibition of giving the Cup to the Laiety, where wine may be had, and the communicants are able and willing to drink, if the Priests will admit them. As some Lay men cannot brook wine, so at some times the Priests through some disease after drinking of the Cup, may be enforced to cast it up. And as the people's hands may shake in taking of the Cup, and so spill a drop: so may the Priests also: And as some Countries have no wine, so, if we may believe Strabo, and Arianus, and many later Geographers also, some Countries have no bread. Yet the Church of Rome herself never thought it fit, in regard of such few Instances, and rare accidents, to make a general law, either to deprive the Priests of the use of the Cup, or the Laiety of the use of the bread. Fourthly, for the matter of irreverence, if any through carelessness or contempt, spill a 4 drop of the consecrated wine, or let fall a crumb of bread, he ought to be punished for it. And if he amend not his fault, to be denied the Communion. But if such a thing fall out through infirmity, or by some casualty against a man's will, it is no irreverence at all. And for the difficulty of getting wine in the Northern parts, especially where Vines grow not, we answer, that wine is easier to be gotten, than Balsamum, which the Romish Church useth in confirmation. For Vines grow in many Countries, and that in great abundance: True Balsamum but in one. Yet the Church of Rome, in regard of this difficulty in getting it, will by no means suffer, that their Sacrament to be administered without it. Yet their Chrism is a mere humane invention, but wine in the Lord's Supper is Christ's ordniance. But what do they pretend impediments, that are not, and surmise difficulties against common experience? He is but a stranger in Geography, who knoweth not, that by the benefit of Navigation, store of wines are brought into those parts, where no vines grow. In the reformed Churches in England, Scotland, Denmark, Norway, and the other regions situated nearer the North-Pole, the Sacrament is administered in both kinds, and never yet any complaint was heard of the difficulty, much less of the impossibility of providing wine for the Communion. Surely if there may be had wine for the Priest, their may be had also for the people. Who ever heard of Merchants, that transported wine in so small quantity, that there might be a draught for the Priest, and none for the people? If there be none for the Priests, how can they consecrate without facrilege, according to their own Canon? Lastly, this argument, as all the former, may be thus retorted upon them. The Council of Basil yielded the use of the Cup to the Bohemians; and the whole Council of Trent reserved it to the Pope to grant the use of the Cup to all the Germans; and the Pope assented thereunto upon certain conditions, notwithstanding all the former inconveniences. Therefore it is not inconueniency they stand upon. But the true cause why they at this day with hold the Cup, is either obstinacy, lest they should seem to yield any thing to the Reformed Churches, and acknowledge their former error, or pride to maintain a prerogative of their Priests above the people. Which, as I showed before out of Saint Chrysostome, aught to be none in partaking the dreadful mysteries. To conclude, howsoever they pretend in this their erroneous practice, like ᵘ Aesop, to remove that stone, at which all that came into the Bath, stumbled at; yet in truth they rather resemble Aesop in some thing of another nature. For as he was accused to have stolen away a piece of holy plate, that was found among his carriages, from the Temple of Apollo at Delphi; so these grand Aesop's, and Coiners of Fables, whereby they delude the simple people, are clearly convinced of sacrilege, in taking away the Chalice from the Lords Supper. For they have taken away the Cup of blessing from the people, and in stead thereof, offer the Whore of Babylon's cup of abomination. CHAP. XVI. The contradictions of our adversaries in this Question noted, and the whole Truth for us delivered out of their own mouths. IT was the manner of the Roman Emperors in their Triumphs amongst other spectacles, to exhibit to the people ludos gladiatorios Fencers playing their Prizes, fight not with foils, but at sharp, till they had killed one another. In like manner, in the conclusion of this Discourse, for the better adorning and setting forth of the Triumph of Truth, I have thought not unfitting to present unto the Readers view, Quaedam Gladiatorum paria some certain couples of the professed Champions, and defenders of the Roman cause, bickering one with another in such manner, that by their sharp weapons of evident contradictions, they must needs wound on another, even to the death of their cause. SCRIPTURES. The first Combat: Whether the Scriptures make for, or against the half Communion? The Antagonists. Thom. Harding, and Gerardus Lorichius. joan. Maldonate, jesuit. and Widford. Stanislaus Hosius, and Laur. justinianus. joan. Cochlaeus, and joan. Lorinus, jesuita. joan. Gerson, and Ruardus Tapperus. * Art. 2. diuis. 5. Harding the Assailant. THE words of Christ, Drink ye all of this, pertain to the Apostles, and their successors. For to them only he gave commandment to do that which he did, saying, Do this in remembrance of me. By which words he ordained them Priests of the new Testament. Wherefore this commandment belongeth not at all to the Lay people, neither can it be justly gathered by this place, that they are bound of necessity to receive the Sacrament under both kinds. Lorichius the Defendant. THey be false Catholics, who say, that Christ said only to his Apostles, Drink ye all of this. For the words of the Canon be these, Take, and eat ye all of this. Here I beseech them to tell me, whether they will have these words also, only to appertain to the Apostles, then must the Laiety abstain from the other kind of bread also: which thing to say is heresy: wherefore it followeth, that each of the words are spoken to the whole Church. Gerard. Loric. de missa. part. 7. in praef. x In Luc. 24. vers. 30. 31. Maldonate Assailant. I doubt not, and I marvel, that any other doubt, but that this place where Christ took bread, blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the two Disciples, of whom he was known in the breaking of bread, must be understood of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. I am induced hereunto by the whole form of the action, which I know not what Christian can deny to be the action of the Eucharist. We read of the breaking of the bread, blessing it, distributing it, and a miracle ensuing upon it, and shall we not believe it to be the Eucharist? Widford Defendant. I say, that it appeareth not in the Text, nor in the Gloss, Luk. 24. nor by the ancient Fathers, that the bread which Christ broke, and gave to his Disciples, was consecrated bread, that it was sacramental bread, or turned into his body; with whom Carthusian accords. It came to pass, saith he, that as Christ sat down, he took bread, and blessed it, yet he turned it not into his body, as in his last Supper; but as the manner is, he blessed the meat he eat; thereby teaching us to say Grace before meals. Wid. cont. Wicklif. & Carthus. in Luk. 24. Vid. justinian. supr. c. 12. y Gers. defence. decret. con. Constant. Gerson the Assailant. Christ our Lord in the sixth of john, speaking of the fruit of the Lords Supper, teacheth one kind to be sufficient to salvation; saying, he that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. And if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. Tapperus the Defendant. Ruardus Tapp. In this Chapter, john 6. Christ speaketh not of the sacramental eating and drinking of his body and blood. Tap. in expli. art. Lovaniens. art. 15. Idem habet Gabriel Biel. lec. 84. supper Canone Missae. Cusanus epist. 7. ad Bohemos. Caiet. in 3. part. quest. 80. jons. c. 59 concordiae. Wald. & alij. Hosius the Assailant. james in the Church of jerusalem delivered and kept the Communion in one kind. For in the second of the Acts, in the description of the exercises of the Church of jerusalem, there is rehearsed breaking of bread, and no mention at all made of wine. justinianus the Defendant. justin. on the first to the Corinthians, vers. 10. The Apostle by breaking of bread, un derstandeth not the ordinary breaking of bread, such as that was, whereof S. Luke maketh mention, Acts the second; whereby the necessity of the hungry was provided for. Cochlaeus the Assailant. Acts 27. Saint Paul taking bread, gave thanks to God in the sight of all, and when he had broken it, he began to eat. Here is an example of the Communion in one kind, for there is no mention made of wine. Lorinus the Defendant. S. Chrysostome, Oecumenius, Beda, & others, expounders of this place, by bread understand usual and common bread. And I am also of the same mind. For I cannot believe, that this mystery, being the greatest of all other, was celebrated in the sight of profane persons. Lor. in Act. 27. COUNSELS. The second Combat: Whether Counsels make for, or against the half Communion? The Antagonists. Stanist. Hosius, and Dominicus à Soto. Tho. Caietan, and Gabr. Vasquez, jesuit. Alph. Salmeron, jesuit. and Rob. Bellarmine, jesuit. Edm. Campian, jesuit. and Andr. Dudithius. B. of Quinq. Eccles. z Confess. Polonica. Hosius the Asaylant. THe Council of Ephesus decreed, that the Communion should be given in one kind only to the laity, in opposition to the heresy of Nestorius, who held, that under the bread in the Sacrament, Christ's body was without his blood. Gabr. Vasquez the Defendant. Unto the time of the Council of Constance, where the use of the Cup was first taken away, there arose an error about the integrity, or whole humanity of Christ under either kind: wherefore it cannot be said, that there was any law made in the Church for the taking away of that error. Vasquez cap. 4. disp. 216. Caietan the Assailant. Nestorius, and Pelagius affirmed, that the Communion ought to be kept in both kinds, though upon a divers reason. Nestorius, because he held, that under the bread, the body only was contained, and under the form of wine, his blood only. Pelagius, because he believed, that infants could not be saved without Communion in both kinds. To oppose both which heresies, it is very likely, that the Council of Ephesus decreed, that the Communion should be administered in one kind. Caietan in 3. Tho. quest. 80. art. 12. Soto the Defendant. Caietan referreth the beginning of the custom to the Nestorians and Pelagians, as also another custom of giving the Sacrament to Infants. But as for the second of these customs, we have showed before in the ninth Article, that it is not likely the Pelagians had any such custom; because they taught, that Infants might attain everlasting life without any Sacrament; neither were the Nestorians in the Council of Ephesus taxed with any such error, but with this, that they believed not the body of Christ in the Sacra meant to be united to the Deity. Soto in 2. dist. 91. art. 12. * Tom. 9 tract. 35 Salmeron the Assailant. Two general Counsels held in the bowels of Germany, to wit, the Council of Constance, and Basil with a great consent of Bishops, decreed, that the Cup should not be given to the Laiety: now we know, that the authority of General Counsels is uncontrowleable; He doth wrong to the holy Ghost, who despiseth, or goeth about to abrogate their Decrees. Bellarmine the Defendant. The Council of Constance, for so much as concerns the former Sessions, is repealed in the Council of Florence, and the last Council of Lateran. Nothing in the Council of Basil is ratified, and approved, save only certain orders about benefices, which for peace and unities sake, Pope Nicolas approved. But the Council itself is repealed in the Council of Lateran, last Session. Bell. de Concil. cap. 7. Vasquez disput. 215. c. 3. Basiliense Concilium nullius est authoritatis in hac re: The Council of Basil is of no authority in this point. Campian, and Norrice the Assailant. The Council of Trent teacheth, that, he who enjoyeth the least particle of either kind, receiveth not a mangled or imperfect, but an absolute, complete, entire, and perfect Sacrament, true Author and Giver of life; the whole refection of Christ's body and blood. Norrice Antidote contro. 50. This Council of Trent is highly extolled by Campian. The Synod of Trent, the older it groweth, the more it shall perpetually flourish. Good God! What variety of Nations was there? What choice of Bishops of the whole world? What lustre of Kings, and Commonwealth? What marrow of Divines? What holiness? What tears? What fasting? What flowers of Universities? What tongues? etc. Andrea's Dudithius the Defendant. What good could be done in that Council, wherein voices were numbered, but not weighed? If the merits of the cause (he speaketh of the Communion in both kinds) or reason might have carried it, or if but a few had joined with us, we had won the day. But when the number only could bear sway, in which we came short, though our cause was exceeding good, we were fain to sit down by the loss, etc. In sum the matter came to that pass, through the wickedness of those hungry Bishops, that hung upon the Pope's sleeve, and were created on the sudden by the Pope for the purpose, that that Council seemed to be an assembly not of Bishops, but of Hobgoblins; not of men, but of Images, moved like the statues of Dedalus, by the sinews of others. Dudith. Quinque-Eccles. episc. ad Maximilianum 2. Caes. REASONS. The third Combat. Whether Reason maketh for, or against the half Communion? The Antagonists. Mart. Becanus, jesuit, and Domin. à Soto. joan. Hesselius, and Gabr. Vasquez, jesuit. Rob. Bellarmine, and Guli. Durand. Alph. Salmeron, and Thom. Aquinas. Becanus the Assailant. IF whole Christ be no less contained under one kind, then under both, it is all one, whether we receive in one kind, or in both. For always we receive the same Christ, and him entire. But the former is true; therefore the latter. And Norrice in antidoto 1. part. cont. 5. Under the form of bread alone, or wine alone, and that in every part, or parcel of them, the wholebody of Christ, and all his precious blood is contained, as we, with the sacred Council of Trent maintain. Therefore he who enjoyeth the least particle of either kind, receiveth not a mingled, or imperfect; but an absolute, and complete, entire, or perfect Sacrament. Soto the Defendant. IT is denied by us, that when the body alone is taken, that the whole Sacrament is taken, according to the entire representation thereof. Because sith by the force of consecration, there is nothing under the bread, but the body; the taking of it is nothing but the eating; for to drinking is required, that the blood be taken, which ought to be there by itself, and that by virtue of consecration, and not by concomitancy only. Soto in 4. dist. 8. art. 2. And before him Halens. loco super. cit. Christ is not contained under each kind sacramentally, but the flesh only under the form of bread, and the blood under the form of wine. Hesselius the Assailant. There is not more spiritual fruit reaped by the Communion in both kinds, then by the Communion under the form of bread only. And our Norrice, as if he had transcribed him, saith; We teach, that not only the entire Sacrament, and total substance thereof, but the whole fruit, grace, & virtue, which proceeds from both kinds together, is fully also exhibited under one alone. Every particle of a divided Host, every drop of the Chalice is a main Ocean of spiritual blessing. Yet many of them by the same moral actions successively received, afford no more grace, than one alone, because that one instilleth the whole Fountain itself: which cannot at that time be further increased, or produced a new. Vasquez the Defendant. The opinion of them ever seemed to some to be more probable, who teach, that there is more fruit of grace received by them, who communicate in both kinds, then by them that receive in one kind only. And therefore they, who receive the Cup, obtain thereby a new increase of grace. His reason is; each kind in this Sacrament, as it is a part of the Sacrament, hath a diverse signification by itself, and sith according to our former suppositions, in the Sacraments of the new law, the efficacy followeth the signification thereof, it ensueth thereupon, that each kind in this Sacrament doth produce its own effect by itself, Vasquez in part. 3. Tho. disp. 215. Cap. 2. * Bell. de sacra. Eucha. l. 4. c. 24. Bellarmine the Assailant. The whole essence of a sacrament is found in one kind. For to the essence of a Sacrament two things are required, significancy and efficacy: For a Sacrament is a Sign, and cause of Grace, but both these are found in each kind: For although the form of bread doth signify a spiritual nourishing only, by way of meat: and the form of wine a spiritual nourishing only, by way of drink. Yet it is absolutely sufficient to make it a Sacrament, that it signifies spiritual nourishing, and effects it also. Durand the Defendant. This Sacrament is ordained by God, for spiritual nourishment, which is signified by bodily food, and it is not perfect, unless there be something in it, that may nourish as meat, and something that may nourish, as drink. Durand, quest. 1. dist. 8. in 4. with whom I join Aquinas. To the nourishing of the body are two things required; meat, which is a dry nourishment; and drink, which is a moist. And therefore to the entire Nature of the Sacrament two things concur, spiritual meat, and spiritual drink, Aquinas part. 3. quest. 73. art. 2. Salmeron the Assailant. If from the beginning, it had not been lawful to communicate in one kind only, very many Christians should have either been deprived of the Communion, or enforced to do that, which they were not able to perform, as it is manifest in those people, that live far North, who have no store of wine. Salm. tra. 35. tom. 9 Aquinas the Defendant. We must say, that although that wine is not made in all places, yet that so much may easily be carried to all places, as may suffice for the use of the Sacrament. Neither for the defect of either kind, may we consecrate in one kind only: because so the Sacracrament would not be perfect. Aquin. part. 3. quest. 74. art. 1. The Muses after a long fight with the Sirens, when they had fully conquered them, took from them their Plumes of Feathers, and made of their enemy's Ornaments Crowns for themselves. Truth and Religion have now Melanth. Orat. long been in sight with falsehood and sacralege, and in the end, as we see, turned their own weapons upon them, and quite vanquished them. What remaineth, but that after the manner of the Muses, we take their Plumes of Feathers, wherewith they adorned themselves, from them, and make of them a crown to beautify Christ's spouse and to set forth the truth in this manner. Christ instituted the Sacrament in both kinds: so the Council of a Sess. 13. Constance. The command of Christ, Drink ye all of this, extendeth to the Laiety, and belongeth not only to Priests: so b In Can. Missae, tract. 7. Lorichius. The Sacrament is not perfect, but in both kinds: so c Quest. 74. part. 3. art. 2, Aquinas. The dividing of one and the self same mystery cannot be without sacrilege: so d De Cons. dis. Gelatius. Therefore in the Primitive Church, the Sacrament was given in both kinds to the faithful: so e in 1. Cor. c. 11. Lyra. This custom continued for above 1000 years in the Church: so f Consil. de Commu. sub utraque specis. Cassander. The contrary custom of communicating under one kind only began not to be general in the Latin Church much before the Council of Constance. an. dom. 1414. so g Delegit. usu Eucha. cap. 10. Greg. de Valen. The use of the Cup was first taken away from the Laiety in the Council of Constance: so h Disp. 216. c. 4. Vasquez. After that Council, by a decree of the Council of Basil it was restored to the Bohemians: so i Hist. Bohe. Aeneas Silvius. After this in the Council of Trent, it was desired by the Ambassadors of the Emperor, & of the French King, that the use of the Cup might be granted to the Laiety: so the Author of the k Lit. mis & Hist. Concil. Trid. Letters Missive. After the Council break up, the best learned Catholics most earnestly desired, and contended, that they might receive the Sacrament of Christ's blood together with his body, according to the ancient custom in the universal Church, continued for many Ages: so l Lo●…. sup. cit. Cassander. And that upon very good grounds; m Tap. Consonum est institutioni, sacramenti integritati, imò & exemplo Christi, & patrum primitiu. Eccles. ut populus communicaret sub utraque specie. citat. Cassand. tract. de commu. sub utraque specie. for this were more agreeable to the institution and fullness of the Sacrament, and to the example of Christ: so Ruardus Tapperus. And lastly, of more fruit and n 4. part. quest. 53. memb. 1. efficacy: and so Halensis, and Vasquez. Whose opinion thus Nugnus explicateth: if a Priest and a Layman come equally prepared to the Lords Supper, the Priest, who communicateth in both kinds, receiveth thereby grace in 8. degrees, to wit, 4. by eating the Bread, and the other 4. by taking the Cup: but the Layman, that communicateth in one kind. recipit gratiam 4. receiveth grace but in 4. degrees. Nugnus in 3. partem Thom. quest. 80. art. 12. Thus having removed all rubs and obstacles out of the way we have passed clearly throughout all Ages: from the time of Christ and his Apostles and in every hundred year since produced evidence against the Church of Rome, And finally by verdict of some Doctors of chief credit among themselves found her to be guilty of sacrilege, in taking away the Cup from the Laiety at the Lords Table. If any demand, where this Cup may be found, I answer, as we read inº Genesis, it is found with Benjamin; ᵏ Gen 44. 12. I mean the Reformed Churches. Etymon, filij dextrae, chrildrens of Christ's right hand: by which he distributeth to his people the bread of life, and wine of Immortality, his most precious body and blood. There is yet palpable darkness in Egypt, but there is light in Goshen. In Rome under the Papacy, the people are fed with Husks of legendary fables, or at the best, with musty bread of old traditions, and soured with the leaven of heresy. And all their public Communions are dry feasts: but in the Reformed Churches, the people are fed with the flower of Wheat, the sincere Word of God, and drink of the purest juice of the Grape, the blood of our Redeemer in the holy Sacrament. l Psal. 16. 13. What shall we therefore render to the Lord for all the benefits, which he hath bestowed upon us? we will take the Cup of Salvation, and continually call upon the name of the Lord. So be it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Finis, Deolaus sine fine. Cassander tract. de Communione de utraque specie. pag. 1019. edit. Paris. 1616. Veteres omnes tam Graeci, quam Latini in ea sententia fuisse videntur, ut existimaverint in legitima & solemni celebratione Corporis & sanguinis Domini, et Adminiratione, quae in Ecclesia fideli populo è sacra mensa fit, Duplicem s●…ciem panis & vini esse adhibendam: atque hunc morem per universas Orientis, & Occidentis Ecclesias antiquitus obseruatum fuisse, tum expriscorum Patrum Monumentis, tum ex vetustis divinorum, & mysteriorum formulis apparet. Et post: Ad hoc inductifuerunt exemplo & mandato Christi, qui instituendo huius Sacramenti usum, Apostolis fi●…lium Sacramenta percipientium personam repraesentantibus, quibus dixerat Accipite edite, idem mox dixit, bibite ex hoc omnes: quod ex veterum sententia interpretatur Radbertus, tam ministri, quam reliqui credentes. All the Ancients, both Greek and Latin, seem to be of opinion, that in the lawful and solemn celebration of the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood, and administering it to the people, that both kinds, to wit, bread and wine ought to be used at the Lords Table. And it appears both out of the works of the ancient Fathers, and the old Rites, and forms of the divine mysteries, that this custom was observed in all the Eastern, and Western Churches: And a little after: Hereunto they were induced by the Example and Command of Christ, who in the institution of this Sacrament, speaking to his Apostles, then representing the persons of all faithful Communicants, said, Take and eat: and presently after said to the selfsame, Drink ye all of this: which Radbertus according to the mind of the Ancients expoundeth, as well Ministers, as other believers. FINIS. A RELATION OF WHAT PASSED IN A CONFERENCE BETWEEN DAN. FEATLY, Doctor in Divinity, and Mr. Euerard, Priest of the Romish Church, disguized in the habit of a Lay-Gentleman unexpectedly met at a Dinner in Noble street. jan. 25. 1626. LONDON, Printed by F. Kyngston for Rob. Milbourne, and are to be sold at the Greyhound in Paul's Churchyard. 1630. THE SPECIAL POINTS of the Conference. OF the necessity of Episcopal government to the essence of a Church. 2 Of ordination by Presbyters. 3 Of the distinction of Bishops and Priests, iure divino. 4 Of differences among Papists in matter of faith. 5 Of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary. 6 Of the authority of a General Council above the Pope. 7 Of prayer for the dead. 8 Of the authority of the original Scriptures, and corruption in the vulgar translation. 9 Of the Communion in one kind, 1. The state of the question opened. 2. The necessity of communicating in both kinds. 3. Popish objections answered. 10 Of the Pope's supremacy. 11 Of mingling water with wine in the Sacrament. 12 Of the perfection of Scripture. THE CONFERENCE. L. F. I Pray you, Doctor Featly, resolve me, whether think 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 have, (God be blessed) Bishops, and those, besides many learned Priests, very well able to justify that Calling. If I might be so bold, I would advise your L. not to trouble yourself with such curious questions of small, or no moment to you, wherein learned men, without hazarding of their salvation, may have different opinions. L. F. I hold it a matter of great moment, and desire you not to decline it, but plainly to deliver your judgement thereof. D. Featly. I profess (Madame) with submission to more learned judgements, that I ever held, and do hold, that a a Hieron. adversus Lucifer. Ecclesia non est, quae sacerdotem non habet. I mean, a complete Church. For in some sense that of Tertullian is true: Where two or three are, there is a Church, although they be Laics. Tertul. exhort. ad cast. ᵇ See P. Moul. Bucklet of faith. & P. Mart. epist. ad jewel. episcop. Salisb. Zanch ad Grind. Archiep. Bucer & Gualterum. Item Bezam, & Suadael. ad Epis. copos quosdam Angliae. Church cannot be without a Priest, or a Pastor; but it may be, and sometimes is without a Bishop, properly so called. The Church of Geneva, as also the Reformed Churches in France, and the Low-Countries, and diverse in Germany, are true Reformed Churches, and yet they have no Bishops, such as you mean; Although some of them would after our manner have them, if they could. Discipline, or a precise government of the Church is not simply of the essence of the Church. And therefore, albeit it be granted, that these Churches have not the best government, nor the Apostolical discipline in all points: yet because they have the Apostolical doctrine sincerely taught, and believed in them, and the Christian Sacraments rightly administered, I believe that they are true Churches. L. F. Ought there not to be Bishops in every Church by the Law of God? D. Featly. What if there ought? This doth not prove, 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 public Churches to serve God in his House; yet if the use of public Churches be taken away from the faithful, or they be not permitted to resort unto them, as in time of persecution it hath been, and in some places is at this day: the Pastors, and their flocks may meet in Cryptis, that is in private, and secret places; as they did in the Primitive Church. And the faithful thus meeting, continue a true Church, though they have neither a Temple allowed them, nor Tithe to the Ministers, nor Bishops over the Priests. All which yet we do acknowledge, in a peaceable and flourishing estate of the Church, aught to be had: And we have cause to praise God for our happiness in England above other Churches, in this behalf. M. Euerard. Here M. Euerard stepping in, not being called, said, I pray you Sir, if there may be a Church without a Bishop, who shall ordain the Priests in that Church? D. Featly. Sir, what are you, who intrude yourself into our private conference? It seems 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 perceive you are not only a Priest, but a jesuited Priest also. For you can equivocate. M. Euerard. It is no equivocation, to say, I am no Priest to tell you. D. Featly. Indeed now that you express your mental reservation, you use no equivocation; but while you concealed it, you did equivocate. And I marvel you blush not, to use such a simple shift, or evasion, 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 meat 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. revived the former question, demanding of Doctor Featly, L. F. Who should ordain Priests in a Church, where there are no Bishops? D. Featly. If there be no Bishops in any adjoining Church, by whom they may be ordained, and presented to the Church, I say, in that case, the Church, to whom Christ (as St. b Lib. 4. de bapt. contra Don. c. 1. & 18. & tract. in joh. 124 Ecclesia claues ab ●…oregni coelorum accepit in Petro. August. saith) gave the keys, may commit Episcopal authority to certain Priests; and they thus authorized, may ordain other Priests, as well as absolve, and confirm the baptised, and perform other c D. Field of the Church, lib. 3. c. 239. pag. 156. Presbyters, as they may do all other acts (whatsoever special challenge Bishops in ordinary course make unto them) so they may do this also. Who dare condemn 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 lived, opposed themselves 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 ordain. acts ordinarily reserved to Bishops. ᵈ And this ordination (in a troubled state of the Church, and in case of necessity) I hold to be lawful 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 have been precedents of such ordination in the Primitive Church. And questionless, the Church, that committeth the power to one Priest, set in an eminent degree over the rest, may commit the same power to more Presbyters or Priests, especially considering it is the judgement of learned divines, both Protestants and Papists, that Bishops, and Presbyters differ rather in execution of some acts of their order appropriated to Bishops only, then in their essential order. A Bishop hath an eminency of degree in the same order, but his ecclesiastical order is essentially the same with the Presbyters, or Priests. But what doth this question concern any here present? Neither we, nor, for aught I know, the Papists themselves define it to be a matter of faith, necessary to saluato resolve this way, or that way. Therefore this question might have been forborn. ᵉ Quid est enim episcopus, nisi primus presbyter? denique non aliter, quam cum presbyteros & consacerdotes vocat, nunquid & ministros condiaconos suos dicit episcopus? non utique, quia multò inferiores sunt: & ●…rpe est ludicem dicere Primicerium. nam Alexandria, & per totam Aegyptum, si●…desit Episcopus, consecrat Presbyter. August. ex utroque Test. mixed. 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 Council of Trent hath defined it: therefore to us it is a matter of Faith. D. Featly. I scarcely believe the Council of Trent, (be it of what credit it may be) hath defined this point in such sort as you intimate. M. Euarard. I will show it. D. Featly. When you show it, I will answer it. After this passage, some speech having 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 be 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 from another in point of Doctrine, and matter of Faith; for the present, saith he, I will instance in two remarkable particulars. First, touching the conception of the blessed Virgin; secondly, touching the Pope's supreme authority even over General Counsels. In the first point, the jacobins, or dominicants maintain, that the blessed Virgin was conceived in Original sin: the Jesuits Franciscans, and Sorbonists hold the contrary. M. Euarard. Yet both keep the Feast of the immaculate Conception. D. Featly. They may both keep a Feast upon the same day, and that for the Conception of our Lady. But certainly they, who believe she was conceived in sin, cannot without hypocrisy keep a Feast of the immaculate Conception. Touching the second point, the Sorbonists have ever held, and do hold to this day, that a General Council is above the Pope: but the jacobins, jesuits, & all orders of Friars generally, besides many Secular Priests hold the contrary, that the Pope is above a General Council. When I lived in Paris in the Ambassadors house, I heard of a general Chapter, as they called it, held by the jacobins in Tho. Aquinas School. Where for many days together diverse divinity questions were handled, and among other, this question touching the Pope's superiority to Counsels. An acute Serbone Doctor there present, thus impugned the jacobins assertion. Whatsoever is defined in a General Council, confirmed by the Pope, is infallibly true, & de fide. But it is defined in a general Council, to wit, the Council of Constance, confirmed by Pope Martin the fifth, that a General Council is above the Pope: Therefore it is infallibly true, and de fide, that a General Council is above the Pope. The Auditors (the greater part of them) very much applauded this argument of the Sorbonist, and expressed their applause by a kind of shout. But the jacobin respondent in a kind of scorn answered it by retortion thus: Whatsoever is defined in a general Council confirmed by the Pope, is infallibly true, and de fide. But it is defined in a General Council, to wit, the Council of Lateran, confirmed by Leo the tenth, that the Pope is above a General Council. Therefore it is infallibly true, and de fide, that the Pope is above a General Council. At this Syllogism, the jacobin had near as great an applause, as the Sorbonist. We that were present of the Reformed Churches (unknown to the Romanists) received very much satisfaction, to hear Papists amongst themselves thus bandy Council and Pope, against Council and Pope. For from both, we concluded: that, sith contradictories cannot be both true, and it appeared in matter of Faith, that General Counsels, confirmed by Popes, had decreed direct contradictories: that therefore General Counsels confirmed by Popes, might err, and consequently, that the strongest pillar of a Romanists Faith is weak, and tottering: M. Euerard. The Council of Constance, which decreed a General Council to be above the Pope, was confirmed by Martin the fifth * False, vid. Untruth 3. in the Appendix to this Conference. : only in such points, as were in that Council determined against Hus, and the Bohemians: the Pope confirmed not all points defined in that Council. M. L. Have you any example of any such confirmation of a Council, wherein some points defined by a general Council are confirmed, and the rest not? M. Euerard. There may be such a confirmation of a Council, and it was so in that Council. For the Pope never confirmed this article touching a general Counsels authority above the Pope. D. Featly. Had I known that I should have met with you here at this time, or that there should have been any disputation about points of Religion, I would have brought my books with me, and produced the Acts of the Council. For the present, sith we have not here the Tomes of the Counsels, all that I will reply shall be this, that as the Council of Constance defined, that a General Council was above the Pope; so they exercised their power, and made good that decree by deposing three Popes in that Council, and setting up a fourth, by name this Martin the fifth, whom it much concerned to confirm this Council even in that point. M. Euerard. Those three Popes, I say, deposed that Council. D. Featly. Resolutely spoken, and bravely: but yet by your favour, the three Popes deposed by that Council sat down by the loss, and the Fathers that deposed them still held there Bishoprics, and the fourth Pope chosen in that Council held the Papacy during life. This point being thus put off for the present until the Tomes of the Counsels might be had, and the Pope's confirmation extant in them * Infrain Appendice. explained, the Lady asked Doctor Featly; Lady Faulkland. Whether he thought the ancient Fathers prayed not for the dead? D. Field of the Church, lib. 3. cap. 29. Howsoever we dislike the Popish manner of praying for the dead, which is to deliver them out of their feigned Purgatory: yet we do not reprehend the Primitive Church, nor the Pastors, nor guides of it, for naming them in their public prayers, thereby to nourish their hope of the resurrection; and to express their longing desire of the consummation of their own, and their happiness, that are come before them in the faith of Christ. D. Featly. Questionless they did, and Aërius is condemned by them for simply and absolutely condemning the practice of the Church in naming the dead in their public prayers, and celebrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist: that is, of thanksgiving for them. We condemn not all commemoration of, or prayers for the dead, but the Popish manner of praying for the release of their souls out of Purgatory. M. Euerard. To what end should the Fathers pray for the dead, if not for the release of their souls out of Purgatory? D. Featly. To what end doth the Church of Rome pray for the soul of blessed Leo, and other Saints in heaven? I trow not to release their souls out of Purgatory. M. Euerard. The Church of Rome prayeth not for the soul of blessed Leo, or any Saint now in heaven. D. Featly. Bellarmine saith, she did, and yet doth, and proveth it out of Innocentius the Pope. M. Euarard. Will you put this under your hand? D. Featly. I will, let it be written: * See the place of Bellarmine, cited in the Appendix. g Can. 6. Si quis dixerit in Ecclesia cathol. Non esse Hierarchiam divinâ 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 Council of Trent, lib. 7. p. 478 480 The Legates consulting among themselves, answer, that there were cause to declare, that a Bishop is superior to a Priest, verum quo iure declarato non esse opus. But by what right, the Council need not determine. A little after the Doctors in the Council were divided 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 jurisdiction; a third sort placed it in both; and the reasons of their direct opinions are there to be seen. Bellarmine saith, that the Church of Rome prayed for the Soul of Saint Leo, and other Saints, Dan. Featly. About this time Master Euerard having gotten the Council of Trent, called upon Doctor Featly to acknowledge his error in denying, that the Council of Trent had defined it, as a matter of Faith, that a Bishop is in order above a Presbyter by the Law of God: Look here, saith he, in the 23. Sess. Canon 6. expressly it defines this point. ᵍ If any man shall say, that in the Catholic Church there is not an Hierarchy, instituted by Divine ordination, consisting of Bishops, Presbyters, and Ministers, let him be accursed. Can. 7. * If any man shall say, that Bishops are not superiors to Priests, or Presbyters, let him be accursed. D. Featly. This Canon of the Trent Council defineth not, that Bishops, & Priests differ ordine, sedgradu; not that Bishops are in Ecclesiastical order essentially different from Priests, but that they have a degree of superiority in the same order. Secondly, the Council defineth this as a truth, but not as a matter of salvation for the Laiety to believe, upon pain of damnation. And therefore I say as before, that this point, might have been forborn. Thirdly, the Council defineth Bishops to be superiors to priests, but saith not, iure divino. Here diverse of the auditors desired Doctor Featly, and Master Euerard to disscusse the point touching Communion in one kind; which they conceived to be a point of great moment; because if the Laiety, as well as the Clergy, aught to have the Cup, the Church of Rome doth them great wrong in debarring them of it, and she violateth Christ's institution. D. Featly. If Master Euerard like well of it, we will confine ourselves to this point. But first I desire a Bible. For I will never dispute of point of Faith without Scripture, the Ground of Faith. M. Euerard. What Bible will you have? For I allow not of the English Translation. D. Featly. The original, if it may be had, especially the new Testament in Greek. M. Euerard. I desire the Vulgar Latin Translation. D. Featly. What, rather then the original? That is strange. M. Euerard. Not so. For the Vulgar Latin is purer than 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 Levitam 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 ut 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. version correxit ad veritatem hebraicam & graecam. edit. Paris. an. 1552. 1558. sed postea prodijt nova editio, ibid. 1573. omissis omnibus illis emendationibus, cui praefixa est satis insulsa praefatio jacobi fabri Sorbonici D. M. Euerard. I will. The vulgar Latin Translation is purer than the Greek of the new, or the Hebrew of the old Testament. Ita est, Euerard. p. D. Featly. This is a new and erroneous assertion, if not blasphemous. M. Euerard. Neither erroneous, nor new. Other Catholics have held the same before me, and namely Bellarmine De verbo dei lib. 2. cap. 11. h Certe, vix dubitari potest, quin sicut Latina Ecclesia constantior fuit in fide retinenda, quam Graeca●…ita: etiam vigilantior fuerit in suis codicibus à corruptione defendendis. Bell. de Verb. Deil. 2. c. 11. Truly it can scarce be doubted, but as the Latin Church hath been more constant in retaining the Faith, than the Greek so also that she hath been more vigilant in preserving her books 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 Cardinal Bellarmine, useth, is not found, that because the Latin Church, hath preserved the Faith purer, than the Greek: therefore the Latin Bibles, kept by them, are freer from corruption, than the Greek Original. For it is not true, that the Latin, that is (as he meaneth) the Roman Church, hath kept the Faith more sincerely, than the Greek. Beside, the original Greek hath not oenly been kept by the Greek Church, but also by the Latin Church, which Latin Church, no doubt, had as great, or greater care to preserve the Original from corruption, than the Latin Translation. Thirdly, Bellarmine affirmeth not so much, as you do. For he speaketh not a word of the Hebrew of the old Testament in this place, but only of the Greek of the new. Whereas you prefer the Vulgar Latin not only before the Greek of the new, but also the Hebrew of the old. Neither doth Bellarmine say, that the Vulgar Latin is simply to be preferred before the Greek of the new, but that the Latins were more carefullin keeping their Latin, than the greeks in keeping their Greek. This might be Bellarmine's judgement, without preferring the Latin absolutely before the Greek. For albeit the Latin for a Translation were better kept, than the Greek for the Original, yet he might say still, that the Translation must needs come behind the Original simply. h This Bellarmine must needs say, unless he contradict himself. For a little after in the same chapter he confess●…th, that in four cases we may correct and mend the vulgar Latin Translation by the Greek and Hebrew Fountains. 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 unda, quam rivi. A Translation, be it never so good, cannot come near the Original in authority, though it be kept never so free from corruption. For at the very first, when it was purest, it was by many, nay infinite degrees inferior to the Original. But that we may not digress from the point proposed unto us, touching Communion in both kinds, here I promise you, that in discussing this question, I will allege no text of Scripture, wherein our English Translation agreeth not both with the Original Greek, and the Latin vulgar. That I may therefore know, what to impugn, I desire you to set down the state of the question, as you mean to hold it. M. Euerard. I believe, that wheresoever the body of Christ is, there is also his blood by concomitancy, and consequently, that the Church, though it give not the Cup to the Laiety, yet it giveth them the blood of Christ, which they participate in, and with his body. Secondly, I deny not, that the Laiety may receive in both kinds, if the Church give them leave, but they are not bound by Christ's Institution, so to receive. It is sufficient, that they receive in one. D. Featly. We teach, and believe, that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, according to Christ's Institution, aught to be administered in both kinds, as well to the Laiety, as to the Clergy. M. Euerard. Let the Scriptures be interpreted by the consent of Fathers, and practise of the Primitive Church. D. Featly. I assent unto this condition, especially in this point, wherein the continual practice of the Church is undoubtedly for us: as also the clear and express letter of Scripture. And this I prove, First, by the words of the Institution, Matth. 26. 28. Drink ye all of this. For this is the blood of the new Testament, which was shed for many. Christ commandeth the same to drink, whom he commandeth to eat: But he commandeth the Laiety to eat the bread: Therefore also to drink of the Cup. And Again: He commandeth those to drink, for whom his blood was shed, saying, drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the new Testament shed for many: But Christ's blood was shed for the people, as well as for the Priests: Therefore the people are to drink, as well as the Priests. By the words of our Saviour, john 6. 53. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. This Text is alleged by Bellarmine and most Papists, as a strong proof of the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament. And if that you grant, that these words are to be understood of the Sacrament, you must needs confess, they require all people, as well as Priests, to receive the Communion in both kinds, to wit, to eat the flesh of the Son of Man under the form of bread, and drink his blood under the form of wine. Thirdly, By the words of Saint Paul, 1. Corinth. 11. 28. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup. Here the Apostle inviteth all to drink of the Cup, who are to examine themselves; saying: Let a man examine, etc. and so let him drink. But the Laiety as well as the Clergy, are bound to examine themselves; nay, the Laiety in some respect are more bound to examine themselves, 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 depravationi, & fraudi respondet. Nic. Vedelius. exercit. 2. in epist. ad Philadelph. Morn. de Eucharist. lib. 1. c. 10. 11. ubi de hoc toto argum. agit plenissimè. by the practice of the Primitive Church. For which it shall suffice for the present to produce the testimonies of, 1. Ignatius, epist. ad Phil. speaking of the administering, of the Sacrament, saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; one Bread is broken unto all, and one Cup is distributed unto all. 2. Cyprian, epist. 54. k Quomodo ad Martyrij poculum idoneos faciemus, si non eos primùm in Ecclesia ad Bibendum poculum Domini iure communicationis admittimus? Cypr. epist. 54. ad Cornet. How shall we make them fit for the Cup of Martyrdom, if we do not first admit them into the Church to drink the Cup of the Lord, by the right of Communication? Here Saint Cyprian speaketh of the Laiety, who are to suffer martyrdom for Christ, and not Priests only: and he saith, they have a right to Communicate in the Cup: therefore the Church of Rome doth them wrong, to debar them from it. Again, the same Cyprian in his 2, book, and 3. epistle l Cur quidam in chalice sanctificando & plebi ministrando non faciunt quod Dom fecit & docuit? Why do some not do that our Lord did, and taught in sanctifying the Cup, and administering it to the people? Thirdly, m Ad bibendum sanguinem omnes exhortantur, qui volunt habere vitam. S. August. quaest. 57 in Leviticum. All men are exhorted to drink the blood of Christ, who desire to have life. I hope you will not deny, that the Laiety desire to have life, and therefore by Saint Augustine's inference, they are invited to the Cup. Fourthly, n Aut integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur. Quia divisio unius eius demque mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire. Gelatius de consecratione dist. 2. Let them receive the Sacrament entirely, or let them be kept from them entirely. Because the division of one and the self same mystery cannot be without great sacrilege. Saint o Quid sit sanguis non iam audiendo, sed bibendo didicistis. Gregory hom. 22. in Euangelia, speaking to the people his auditors, saith, p Sanguis non in manus fidelium, sed in ora funditur. These books of Gregory are cited by Papists against us under his name: though they be justly suspected to be count feit in learned Divines judgement. You have learned what is the blood of the Lamb, not by hearing, but by drinking it. And in his fourth book of dialogues; q The blood of Christ is poured not into the hands but into the mouths of the faithful. M. Euerard. Master Euerard here produced for the Romish opinion, diverse practices of the ancient Church, as the sending the bread * See an answer to these pretended ancient Rites, supra. c. 14. a far off to the sick, and not the Cup: the denying the Cup to all those, who had eaten meats offered unto Idols. He answered in General to the allegations above mentioned; that either Christ commanded not the Communion in both kinds determinately, but either in one, or in the other; or if he enjoined both, yet this precept of his was dispensable by the Church. In fine, saith he, you cannot expect, that I should answer all the places you have cited, at once, and on the sudden. D. Featly. These instances which you allege of the practice of the Primitive Church, are either false, or impertinent; as I will show, when I am to answer. For dispencing with Christ's precept, I say, that no mortal man can dispense with the precept of God. As for the craving time to answer my former allegations, l It is now two years and more, since Master Euerard hath had this Schedule in his hand, unto 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. Featly. If Christ command the Laiety to take the Cup, as well as the bread, they that take away the Cup from them, do ill, But Christ commanded the Laiety to take the Cup, as well as the Bread: Therefore they that take away the Cup from them, do ill. M. Euerard. I deny the sequel of the Mayor. D. Featly. The sequel of the Mayor cannot be denied, for they certainly do ill, that transgress Christ's Commandment. Therefore if Christ command all to receive the Cup, as well as the Bread, they that take away the Cup, do ill. M. Euerard. Christ commands not all to drink of the Cup, that eat of the bread. D. Featly. I prove he doth by the words of the Institution. Matth. 26. 28. Drink ye all of this. He saith, not of the bread, Eat all of this, though his meaning was, that all should eat: But he saith expressly of the Cup, Drink ye all of this, yet you deny the Laiety the Cup, and give them the Bread. M. Euerard. This Commandment, Drink ye all of this, is given to all Priests, and not to the Laiety. D. Featly. Christ gives the command of drinking to all those, to whom he gives the command of eating. For he saith to the same, Drink, to whom he saith before, Take, and eat: But he gave the commandment of eating to the Laiety, as well as to the Clergy: Therefore he gave the Commandment of drinking to the Laiety, as well as to the Clergy. M. Euerard. He commandeth not the Laiety to eat. For he speaketh here only to the Apostles, who were Priests * M. Euerard should have 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, joh. 20. Christ breathed on them the holy Ghost, and said, Whose soever sins ye remit, etc. whereby he fully endued them with Priestly power. Secondly, the Apostles at this Supper were Communicants, not Ministers of the Sacrament. Christ was then the Priest, and Minister only in that action, and therefore the Apostles supplying the place of mere Communicants, it followeth, that whatsoever Christ then commanded them, he commanded all Receivers after them. . D. Featly. If Christ commandeth not the Laiety to eat, than the Laiety are not bound to receive the Communion in bread at all. And consequently they transgress not Christ's Commandment in receiving the Communion without bread. M. Euerard. It is in the power of the Church to take away the Bread, and leave the Laiety only the Cup. * If neither precept of eating, or drinking belong to the Laiety, the Laiety are not at all bound to receive this Sacrament. The Laiety are not bound to receive the Communion in Bread determinately. D. Featly. This never any held before you, to my knowledge. M. Euerard. It is the common Tenent of * Shameful untruth, 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. Catholics. D. Featly. Thus I disprove it. The Laiety are bound determinately to receive in both kinds. For Christ in joh. 6. 53. saith, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, etc. This place is alleged by most of your side, to prove the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament: but if it be meant of the Sacrament, it enforceth Communion in both kinds. M. Euerard. This place in the judgement of Calvin, and Luther, is not of force to prove the Communion in both kinds. D. Featly. Luther, and Calvin, have no such words. Although some Protestants, as well as Papists * Waldensis, tom. 2. cap. 91. fol. 162. edit. Salmant. 1557. Prolix probat ex August. Cypriano, Bernando bibere spiritualitur intelligendum. Caietanusin 3. partem Thom. q. 80. verba Christi joh. 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 disiunctively thus; Unless ye eat his flesh, and, that is, or drink his blood, as in Saint john, except a man be borne of Water and the Spirit, that is of Water, or the Spirit. D. Featly. And for or, a conjunction for a disjunction, is a forced interpretation. And the place you allege for it, maketh against you. For if our Saviour's words, (except a man be borne of Water and the Spirit) are taken disiunctively, than that Text no way inferreth the necessity of Baptism of Water, for which it is alleged by the best divines, even of your own side. If a man may enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, be borne again either of Water, or of the Spirit, it is sufficient then to be borne again of Water without the Spirit, or of the Spirit without Water. And consequently, this place so expounded, no way proveth the necessity of Baptism of Water; or at least, no more maketh a necessity of the spiritual, then of the Sacramental Baptism. M. Euerard. You know well, that we hold a threefold Baptism: fluminis, flaminis, & sanguinis: and that a man may enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, that hath any of these Baptisms. D. Featly. I know, that the Baptism of water is not absolutely, and simply necessary; but it is then only necessary, when it may be had▪ the wilful neglect or contempt of it is damnable: but not the inevitable defect. Baptism is necessary, where it may be had. But if these words (except a man be borne of Water, and the Spirit) may be meant disiunctively, that is, of Water, or the Spirit: this Text so glossed, proveth not the necessity of Baptism, when it may be had. For it sufficeth to be borne of the Spirit without it, by your exposition, which is contrary to the judgement of the best learned divines, ancient, and latter. But to come back again to the former Text out of the sixth of Saint john. If you expound these words disiunctively (except a man eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and, that is, or drink his blood:) than your Priests are not commanded to communicate in both kinds, but in one only. But the Priests are commanded according to your own Doctrine, to communicate in both kinds: Therefore these words cannot be taken disiunctively. M. Euerard. In this Text there is no commandment for Priests, or people to communicate in both kinds, but only to take the body and blood of Christ into the mouth, and convey it into the stomach. D. Featly. If eating and drinking be taken here properly, than this Text inferreth communicating in both kinds distinctly, and not only, as you expound it, taking the body of Christ and his blood, whether by eating only, or by drinking only: But the words of eating and drinking are to be 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 figuratively. D. Featly. All the divines of the Church of Rome, that allege this place of Saint john, to prove the real presence, say, that these words, except ye eat my flesh, and drink my blood, are to be understood properly. For otherwise they could not infer from them there real presence. M. Euerard. The acts are meant figuratively, the object * This answer he contradicteth in his last answer: infra. vid. A. properly in that place above mentioned of Saint john. D. Featly. * From the proper acception of the object only, and not the act, the corporal and substantial presence of Christ in the Sacrament cannot be inferred. For spiritually, and figuratively a man may feed upon Christ's body by faith, though his body be not present on earth. The acts are meant properly, to wit, eating, and drinking, which I thus prove. Christ commands us in these words to receive the Communion, as you confess. For you say, they are meant of the Sacrament: But the Communion is received by eating, and drinking properly: Therefore Christ commands eating, and drinking properly: M. Euerard. I answer, that though the commandment do not fall properly upon formal eating, or drinking; yet that the act formally commanded, cannot be performed without formal eating and drinking. Secondly, I distinguish the Mayor; Christ commands the substance of the Communion, I grant; I deny that he commands * See this answer refelled by Vasquez, tom. 3. in 3. partem disp. 116. Nisi manducaveritis, etc. Haec verba non tantum reseruntur ad rem ipsam sumptam, sed & ad modum sumendi came. name manducate, & bibite, si verba propriè vsur●…entur, cuivis speciei convenire non possunt. Neque enim sanguis sub specie panis bibi dicitur, sicut neque corpus sub specie vinimanducari, ut optimè notavit Innocent. 3. lib. 4, de mist. miss●…. cap. ●…1. Christus autem praecepit, ut bibamus, alioquin si praedictam solutionem probare velim, oportet, ut impropriè verba praedictacaptam, & ita nibil in eo cap. de chalice sanguinis Christi dictum putemus: quod est absurdum. cum enim, inquit Christus, caro mea est verè cibus, & sanguis mens verè est potus, non possumus non de sanguine sub specie vini intelligere. properly the manner of receiving. D. Featly. Christ commands the substance of the Communion to be received: But the substance of the Communion cannot be received, without eating or drinking properly; Therefore he commands the act of eating, or drinking properly. M. Euerard. If properly in the Conclusion be applied to command, than the Syllogism is naught; if it be applied to the act of eating, or drinking; then the conclusion is true, and makes nothing against us. D. Featly. This answer, contrary to the rules of disputation, is given to the conclusion, and the distinction applied to no term of the premises, which should have been done. Secondly, You grant, that which before you Supra vid. A- denied, and so contradict yourself. When I pressed, that those words: unless you eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood, do prove, that the people are commanded to drink, (as drinking is taken properly, and distinguished from eating;) you answered, that the word, drinking, was taken figuratively, and not properly, 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 withal, was no other but this, that the formal act of eating was commanded, but not formally; and so in that I do not contradict myself. D. Featly. Whether you contradict yourself, or no, I leave it to the hearers. You before denied, that in the Text of Saint john, 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 sum, I desire, that it be noted, that whereas you promised, and it was so agreed upon, that the Texts of Scripture should be interpreted by the consent of the Fathers, and practise of the Primitive Church, that you interpret them according to neither, but your own private fancy. Secondly, note, that in your answer to the first Text which I alleged against you, you contradict you own side; in the answer to the second, you apparently contradict yourself. Which I thus make evident. Before you said, that the words, eating and drinking were not taken properly, but figuratively: now you acknowledge, that they are taken properly, or must so acknowledge. For Where proper eating, and formal is commanded, the words commanding must needs be taken properly: But in these words (Except you eat) formal, and proper eating, and not figurative, is commanded, as you grant: Therefore these words (except you eat) are to be taken properly, and not figuratively; and consequently the former answer was false, and you now contradict yourself. Thirdly, out of your own answer I infer; that all Christian people, that live by Christ, are bound to communicate in both kinds. The formal acts of eating and drinking in the Sacrament (as you grant) are here enjoined to all men: But the formal acts of eating and drinking in the Sacrament, are communicating in both kinds: Therefore the communicating in both kinds is enjoined to all men. Lastly, whatsoever is commanded in formal and express words, is commanded formally: But all men that have life in Christ, are commanded in formal and express words, to eat and to drink in the Sacrament: Therefore they are commanded to eat and to drink 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 alleged by you, D. Featly, in Saint Matthew, and Saint john; If any besides Priests are bound, than 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 natural and spiritual qualification: that is, such as are able to examine themselves, and repent, and believe, and can take it in both kinds. M. Euerard. If any be bound to receive both besides Priests, all that are qualified to receive one, are bound to receive both: But all that are qualified to receive one, are not bound to receive both: Ergo, none are bound to receive both, but Priests. D. Featly. I deny the Consequence. M. Euerard. All are bound to fulfil the Commandment: Ergo, all are bound to receive in both kinds, as well as in one. D. Featly. First, you prove not the Consequence. Secondly, I answer to your Antecedent. In the sense of the Commandment all are bound, if qualified for both, not otherwise. M. Euerard. No man may lawfully receive the Communion, unless he fulfils the Commandment: No man fulfils the Commandment, according to you, unless he receive both: Therefore no man lawfully receives the Communion according to you, unless he receive both. D. Featly. This is for form, no Syllogism. For it consists all of Negatives, and is in no Mood and Figure. For the matter, I answer, by denying the Minor, and distinguishing thus: If by no man you understand simply no man at all, qualified, or unqualified, I deny it; If no man qualified, than I grant it. But it is not to the purpose. M. Euerard. He that is unqualified for both, must not receive but one. I prove it. No man can receive it, unless he fulfils the Institution of Christ: But the Institution is of both: Ergo. D. Featly. Progrederis in gyro, you hunt counter? Thrice have you urged the same objection. I distinguish of the Minour. Christ instituted the Sacrament to be received in both kinds of all qualified for both. M. Euerard. No man may receive the Sacrament, unless he fulfil the Commandment in receiving it; that is, fulfil all that is substantially required in the Sacrament, considered in itself, and not in order to the Communicants: But no man whatsoever, that receives but in one kind, fulfils the Commandment in receiving it, id est, fulfils all that is substantially required in the Sacrament, considered in itself, and not in order to the Communicants. Ergo, no man, etc. D. Featly. This again is no Syllogism. For it consisteth all of Negatives. M. Euerard. The whole substance of the Sacrament is both bread and wine. They that receive only bread, do not receive bread and wine: Ergo, they do not receive the whole substance of the Sacrament. D. Featly. The substance of the Sacrament is taken either for the whole substance of the sign, or outward elements, or for the whole substance of the thing signified, viz. the body and blood of Christ. He that receiveth in one kind, to wit, bread being not qualified to receive it in the other, receiveth the whole substance of the Sacrament, as it is taken for the thing signified. Secondly, he receiveth not the whole substance of the outward elements simply, yet he receiveth the whole substance of the elements, required to be received of him. For Christ commands not impossibilities in the Sacrament. He therefore that cannot drink any wine, is not commanded to receive the Sacrament in wine. Withal, I desire those that are present, to observe, that all this while you strongly dispute against yourself. For if all sorts, even Abstemij, such as have an antipathy to wine, and can by no means brook it, are bound to communicate in wine, as you would infer, then certainly much more all other Christians, be they Lay, or Clergy, are bound to communicate in wine * Indeed some Doctors of the Reformed Churches have conceived, that such as cannot receive not so much as a drop of wine, by their antipathy to wine, or other natural infirmities, should altogether abstain from the oral receiving of this Sacrament, because they cannot receive it in both kinds, according to Christ's institution. So jacob Rhenig. Arancoroper. cap. 22. pag. 212. But others incl●…ne rather unto a more moderate tenet, that in this case, which falleth out very seldom, either such Abstemij, Clinici, or infi●…me, and bed-●…ead persons may receive the Sacrament in some other liquor, which their stomach may brook, or that it is sufficient for them, to receive it in bread actually, and in wine only voto, or in desire; and in this case, that the saying alleged by our Saviour may take place, misericordiam volo non sacrificium. Of which judgement D. Andro. Episcopus Winton. Respons. ad apol. Bell. cap. 8. pag. 192. seemeth to be: applying the words also of our Saviour 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 clinicum est. i e. But of this case we are not to make a general law, but where we are not kept back by the Iron bar of necessity, we must presently return to Christ's institution. This argument drawn from bed-read men, lieth bed read. In like manner may we say of your argument taken from Abstemij, that you might very well have abstained from it, seeing there is no more strength in it, then in their stomaches. . Here the Conference was interrupted for a time, supper being brought in; about the middle whereof Doctor Featly asked Master Euerard, whether he believed, that the Priests drank properly whatsoever was in the consecrated Chalice. M. Euerard. We do so. D. Featly. But according to the Doctrine of concomitancy, the flesh and bones of Christ are in the consecrated Chalice: Therefore according to the doctrine of concomitancy, you drink, and that properly, the flesh and bones of Christ. M. Euerard. What if I grant you that also? D. Featly. Then you do more than Christ commands: For Christ commands you to eat his flesh, and drink his blood; and he no where commands you to drink his flesh and bones. Who ever heard of flesh and bones to be drunk, and that properly, without any figure? M. Euerard. In Mummy the flesh of man may be drunk. D. Featly. Peradventure the flesh of man may be so handled, and altered, and the bones also grounded to so small a powder, that in some Liquor they may be drunk: but the flesh of man and bones, without an alteration of quality, or quantity, cannot be drunk. And I hope you will not say, that the flesh and bones of Christ in the Sacrament receive any alteration at all. At these words, Doctor Featly and Master Euerard were entreated 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 above alleged for Communion in both kinds, showed Master Euerard the speech of Saint Cyprian in the Council of Carthage. Wherein he expressly denieth the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy; The words are these; Super est, ut 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 upon, lib. 3. de baptis. contr. Donatist. cap. 3. & l. 4. cont. Donat. c. 8. sentiamus, proferamus; neminem iudicantes, aut à iure communionis aliquem, si diversum senserit, removentes. neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit. Quando habeat omnis episcopus, pro licentia libertatis & potestatis sua, arbitrium proprium tanquam iudicari ab alio non possit, cum nec ipse possit alterum iudicare. Sed expectemus universi iudicium Domini nostri jesu Christi, qui unus & solus habet potestatem & praeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernation, & de hoc actu nostro iudicandi. i e. It remaineth, that every one of us deliver his opinion of this matter, judging no man, or removing him from Communion with us, if he differ from us in judgement. For none of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops, nor compels by tyrannical terror his Colleagues to a necessity of following him; seeing that every Bishop within his liberty and jurisdiction, hath free power of himself; and as he can judge no other, so neither can he be judged by any other. But let us all wait for the judgement of our Lord jesus Christ, who only, and * Unus & solus. alone, hath power to prefer us in the government of his Church, and to judge of this act of ours. M. Euerard. Saint Cyprian speaks this in a Council that is condemned by the Church for defining an error, to wit, that those, that were baptised by heretics, aught to be rebaptised. Secondly, Saint Cyprian in these words; Christ one, and alone, excludeth not his Vicar general, the Bishop of Rome. D. Featly. Your first exception is not to the purpose. For albeit the sentence of this Council be not approved touching the rebaptisation of those, who had been baptised by heretics: yet this speech of Saint Cyprian uttered by him, at the first meeting of the Bishop of Carthage, sitting in Council, was never disliked by any of the ancients. Neither S. g Nay, on the contrary, S. Aust. often remembreth it, approving it and commenting upon it. See note Marg. supra. Augustine, nor any other Father, who impugned the sentence of this Council, did any way impeach, or dislike, much less 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 himself a Bishop of Bishops, and going about to compel other Bishops to subscribe to his judgement. 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, have power to place Bishops in the Church, and censure their Synodical Acts; than it is false which Saint Cyprian here saith, that Christus unus, & solus, that Christ alone hath this power. The Pope with Christ is not, Christus unus, much less; Christus solus. But Saint Cyprian saith, Christus unus & solus; one and only Christ hath this power: therefore not the Pope. Lady Faulkland. If Christ alone have power to prefer Bishops in the government of the Church, and to censure their acts made in their Counsels, how can you then maintain the King's 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 be taken against the blessed Martyrs words. Secondly, That which Saint Cyprian here reproveth in Pope Stephen, no Christian King, or Emperor assumed to himself, to be a Bishop of all Bishops, and to censure the acts of Bishops, and their determinations delivered in point of Faith, in Counsels lawfully assembled. Thirdly, Christian Kings within there own Dominions grant Congee de-lires, to Deans, and Chapters, and confirm their Elections, and give Mandates to Metrapolitans to consecrate: but they take not upon them to be Bishops of all Bishops through the world, as the Bishop of Rome doth: nor as Bishops or Archbishops to consecrate any Bishops, but upon persons ordained, and to be consecrated by order of the Church, they confer and collate such Bishoprics, as lie within there own 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 us not depart Calicem Dei miscentes à divino 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 utrunque miscetur, tunc sacramentum spirituale, & coeleste perficitur. from the divine Mandate. If any man offer wine only, Christ's blood begins to be without us; if water be alone, the people begin to be without Christ. When both are mingled, than the spiritual and heavenly Sacrament is perfect. D. Featly. It doth not appear by scripture, that Christ, or his Apostles mingled water with wine, only because it was the manner of those hot Countries to temper their wine with water, many of the ancients, and amongst them Saint Cyprian conceived, that Christ at his last Supper did so. Which if he did, yet seeing he commandeth us not to follow his example any further, then to do that which he did, that is to take bread, and break it, to take the Cup, and distribute it; we transgress not Christ's Institution, whether we communicate in leaven or unleavened bread, whether in pure wine, or in wine mingled with water. The commandment lies upon the substance, to eat of the bread, and drink 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, certain heretics, who contended, that the Sacrament ought to be received in water only. Against these he proves most strongly, that we ought to receive in wine. This is his main drift, and thus far we hold with him. On the by, he speaketh of mingling wine with water, which was the use in his time: and we dislike it not, only we hold, the Church is free in this kind to receive it in pure wine, as it is the manner of some Protestant Churches, or in wine mingled with water, as it may be in some other. But Master Euerard, if you had read this epistle, upon which you so much insist, you might have found, that though Saint Cyprian by the way favoureth your practice of mingling wine with water, yet he condemneth your Church by the main scope & drift of the epistle, in the very point now in question. For he saith, that Christ taught, that the Cup ought to be sanctified, and ministered unto the people, which you do not, * Cur quidam in chalice sanctificando, & plebi ministrando non hoc faciunt, quod Iesus Christus Deus noster sacrificij huius author, & Doctor, fecit, & docuit. In sanctifying the Lords Cup, and ministering it to the people, why do some through ignorance, or simplicity not that which jesus 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 broke up. This is a true Relation of the some of the Conference, so far as I can remember. Most of the answers of Master Euerard are taken verbatim out of the notes, set down by consent in the Conference, which I have to show. The arguments I perfectly remember were these above written. If Master Euerard think good to add any thing to his arguments, or answer, I freely give him leave, and desire him so to do, that we may have a perfect copy. An appendix to the former Conference. Untruths uttered by Master Euerard. He saith, it is the doctrine of the Roman Catholics generally, that the people are not bound to receive the Communion in bread determinately, but that they may, if the Church please so to appoint, receive it in wine only. On the contrary, see Bellarmine, li. 4. de sac. Euch. 6. 25. * Etsi Christus non dedit laicis panem, non tamen prohibuit dari; & alihi etiam iussit dari, cum it, hoc facite. Paulo post: Lucas illud, hoc facite, posuit post datum sacramentum sub specie panis, post datum autem calicem illud non repetivit, ut intelligeremus, iussisse Dominun, ut sub specie panis omnibus destribueretur sacramentum, sub specie vini autem non item. Idem notat. Caiet. Becan. Tilitanus Hesselius citat. à Chamiero. de ●…ucha. lib. 8. cap. 4. pag. 4●…7. Although Christ did not give bread to the Laiety, yet he did not forbid it to be given them, and elsewhere he commanded it to be given them. And Bellarmine saith a little after: S. Luke, after the Sacrament given under the form of bread, addeth, Do this: but he repeateth it not after the giving of the Cup, that we might understand, that our Lord commanded that the Sacrament should be given under the form of bread to all, but not under the form of wine. Again, Fisher in his answer to certain questions propounded by King james, contradicts directly this assertion of Master Euerard, touching Communion in both kinds. Sect. 4. This precept (do this) being the only precept given by Christ to his Church, and given absolutely of the form of bread, conditionally of the form of wine, there is no colour to accuse the Church of doing against this Precept. Secondly, When offer was made unto him, to prove every point of the Protestants belief out of Scripture, and he was required to do the like; he answered, that it was the custom of all heretics to appeal to sole Scripture, and reject Tradition. Untruth. For * H●…retici, cum ex scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ips●…rū scripturarum. quasi non rectè habeant, nec sint ex authoritate, & quia variè sint dictae, & quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his, qui ignorant traditionem. non enim per literas traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem. Irenaeus. lib. 3. cap. 2. thus writeth: Heretics, when they are convinced out of Scriptures, fall accusing the Scriptures themselves, as if they were not right, nor of authority, and that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be known out of them by those, who are ignorant of tradition: for that the truth was not delivered by writing, but by word of mouth. Tertul. de praescrip. advers. haeret. cap. 17. To confer by scripture will avail nothing with this kind of * Tertul. Cum hac haeresi nihil perficiet congressio scripturae, nisi planè ut quis stomachi ineat eversionem aut creebri. heretics, unless a man go about to overturn his brain, or his stomach, etc. And c. 23. a Credunt sine scrip. ut credant adversus scripturas. They believe without Scripture, that they may believe against Scripture: Et de resurrect. carnis cap. 47. he calleth heretics flyers, or shunners of the light of the Scriptures. qualiter accipiunt lucifugae isti scripturarum. And against Hermogenes, cap. 22. he appealeth to sole Scriptures: b Adoro scripturae plenitudinem. Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina: si non etc. Si non est scriptum, timeat illud; adijcientibus, aut detrahentibus, destinatum. I reverence the fullness of Scripture; let Hermogenes Shop, or School teach, that this is written. If it be not written, let him fear that woe or curse threatened to all that add, or take away. Thirdly, He affirmeth, that the Council of Constance was not confirmed by Martin the fifth, in all points defined in that Council: but only in those, that concerned Wicklife, Hus, and the Bohemians. Sanctissimus Dominus noster Papa, Mart. 5. dixit: omnia, & singula determinata, conclusa, & decreta in materia fidei per praesens Concilium inviolabiliter obseruare volo, ipsaque haec conciliariter facta approbo, & ratifico. Postquam omnia, & singula decreta materiam fidei concernentia approbasset. In die S. Leonis dicebatur. Quaesumus, Domine, ut animae B. Leonis haec prosit oblatio. Et licèt bae●… oratio mutala sit, tamen ad huc bodie in secreta oratione in festo dicimus. S. Leonis confess tui atque pontificis annua solennitas nos tibi reddat acceptos, ut per haec piae placationis officia illum beata retributio comitetur, & nobis. gratia tuae dona conciliet. Bell. l. 2 de Purg. c. 18. Untruth. In the Acts of the Council of Constance set out by Binnius, sess. 45. we read, Our most holy Lord the Pope, Martin the fifth, said, I will unviolably observe all and every of these things, that are determined, concluded, and agreed in matter of Faith by this present Council: and those things so done Councell-wise, or in a Councell-way, I approve and ratify. And Binnius testifieth as much, p. 960 that the Pope gave order for the dismissing of the Council, after he had approved, and confirmed all and every Decree, that concerned matter of Faith; and is not the Pope's supremacy with you a matter of Faith? Fourthly, he peremptorily denied, that the Church of Rome ever prayed for the souls of the Saints in heaven, or in particular, that she prayed for the soul of blessed Leo. Untruth: for Innocentius the third, Cap. cum. Mathae. extra de celebratione Missar. This prayer was used upon Saint Leos feast; Grant we beseech thee, O Lord, that this oblation may profit, or help the soul of blessed Leo. And although (saith Bellarmine) this prayer be now changed, yet at this day in the severed prayer or collect for this Feast, we say, let the yearly solemnity of Saint Leo the Confessor, and Bishop, make us acceptable unto thee, that by these pious offices of appeasing thee, a blessed retribution or reward may accompany him, and he may procure unto us gifts of thy grace. Bellarmine addeth a little after: Pope Innocentius answers to these, and the like prayers two manner of ways; when the Church desireth glory to Saints, who already possess the Kingdom Respondit Innocent. dupliciter; 1. cum Ecclesiam petit gloriam Sanctis, qui regnum coelorum iam possident, non petere, ut illi in gloria crescant, sed ut apud nos illorum gloria crescat, ut toti mundo illorum gloria innotescat. 2. dicit, non videri absurdum, si petamus illis augmentum gloriae alicuius accidentalis. Fortasse petimus gloriam corporis, quam habebunt in die resurrectionis. of Heaven, he desireth, or prayeth not, that the Saints may increase in glory, but that their glory may increase with us: that is, that it may be made manifest to the wholeworld. Secondly, He saith; that it seems not absurd to pray for the increase of some accidental glory unto them. He addeth in the third place, that peradventure in these prayers we pray for the glory of the body, which they shall have in the day of the resurrection. FINIS. A CHALLENGE TO MASTER JOHN FISHER, alias PERCIF, ahas STEPDEN, jesuit. FIrst, whereas you, Master john Fisher, sent questions by way of challenge to Doct White, now L. Bishop of Norwich, and to me, june 21. 1623. concerning the visibility of Protestant Professors in all Ages: whereupon we returned you this answer, viz. Although divine infallible Faith is not built upon deduction out of humane History, but upon divine revelation; as is confessed by your own Schoolmen, and expressly by Cardinal Bellarmine: Historiae humanae faciunt tantùm fidem humanam, cui subesse potest falsum: Humane histories, and Records beget only an humane Faith, or rather credulity, subject to error, not a divine and infallible belief, which must be built upon surer ground. Secondly, although, I say, this question of visibility are grounded upon uncertain and false supposals. For a Church may have been visible, yet not the names of all visible Professors now be showed and proved out of good Authors. There might be millions of Professors, yet no particular, and authentical record of them by name. Records there might be many in ancient time, yet not now extant, at least for us to come by. Yet we will not refuse to deal with you in your own question, if you in like manner will undertake the like task in your own defence, and maintain the affirmative in the like question, which we now propound here unto you in writing. Whether the Romish Church (that is, a Church holding the particular entire doctrine of the now Romanists, (as it is comprised in the Council of Trent) was in all Ages visible, especially in the first 600. years; and whether the names of such visible, or legible Romanists in all Ages can be showed, and proved out of good Authors? Secondly, whereas in a Conference, june 27. 1623. with you, and M. Sweet, I undertaken to prove the perpetual visibility of the Protestant Church, both à priore by Syllogism, and à posteriore, by Induction: and then also made an Essay in both kinds, as the time permitted, demonstrating the visibility of the Protestant Church, being an effect, by the eternity of our Faith, as the cause: And further, to stop your clamour for names, I produced at that time the names of visible Professors of our belief for 200. years. Thirdly, whereas since the Conference I have made good my demonstration, à priore, of the perpetual visibility of the Protestant Church, against all your cavils, refuted at large through my whole book, entitled, The Romish Fisher caught, and held in his own net, printed at London, 1624. but particularly, & more especially in the Remonstrance therein to Sr. Humphrey Lined, from page the 14. usque ad finem, and in my Reply to your answer, Paragraph 8. pag. 89. usque ad 112: Fourthly, whereas now I have quite finished my demonstration à posteriore, and have set down the so much harangued for Catalogue of visible Professors, in all Ages from Christ to Luther, of our Protestant doctrine, in a main point of difference, and one of the first mentioned in the Conference, touching the communicating in both kinds: I now therefore challenge you, M. john Fisher, according to your deep engagement, before, in, and since the Conference, as you tender the tickle state of your Catholic cause with your collapsed Ladies, immediately after the perusal of this my Treatise, to go about, and in convenient time without further delays, and tergiversation, to draw a like Catalogue for your part, of such Writers, and Authors of note in all Ages, who have defended, or at least approved your dry and half Communion. Which after that you have performed, I will proceed, God assisting me, to name visible Professors in all Ages in other points of greatest moment. But if you refuse to meet me in this field, pitched by yourself, diverting into your common place of railing at Sectaries and Novelists: Or if like Caligula, you triumph at Rome, for a signal victory in Germany, when he had gathered only a few pebbles on the shore at Caieta: and you thereupon cry out upon the shifts, and tergiversations of D. Featly, whereas (to pay you backsome of your own in coin) your Fisher's reply to D. White, and D. Featly, pag. 79. anno. 1625. white liver will not suffer you to come so much as in sight of the walls and gates of my defence, but only to shoot a few paper bullets against three or four of my redoubts; you in all your Replyer not replying one word to the defence of my proceeding in the Conference; and Refutations of your answers; Or if for want of better employment, Ne toga condylis, & penula desit olivis: You shall tack together a cento of relations, See a book entitled, Sundry Relations by I. C. printed permissu superiorum. 1626. like Sibylles leaves, as much distracted, as the brains of the Penner: and if you shall entreat in good earnest your Midas Reader, to give credit to your own report, in your own cause (you being both a Romanist and a jesuit) against the subscription of sundry persons of honour, worth, and quality, affixed to the Conference: Or if having a leaden Treatise, that hath long See the second part of the Reply to D. White and D. Featly. lain heavy upon your hands, touching no salvation out of the Church of Rome, you shall clap my name, and D. Whites upon it, to make it sell, intituling it: A Reply to D. White, and D. Featly; whereas from the first page, being 145. to the last, 181. there is not one syllable against either of their writings: Fifthly, and lastly, if you shall change your trade, and of a Fisher turn Sawyer, nothing but drawing the Saw of your ragged stile 1000 times by the same line backward, and forward, and never pierce into the heart of any Controversy: impute it to no other thing, then mere compassion in your opposites, that they rejoin not to your Replies; ne famam tuam sponte concidentem Cicero proCaelio. maturiùs extinguant suo vulnere; lest they should give a deaths-wound to your reputation, that lieth on bleeding already. In tauros ruunt Libyci leones, Ne sint Papilionibus molesti. FINIS. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF A DISPUTATION BETWEEN M. DAN. FEATLY, OPONENT, AND D. SMITH THE younger, Respondent, (now by the Pope intitutuled Bishop of Chalcedon, and Ordinary of all England) at Paris. Sept. 4. 1612. Stylo novo, touching the Real presence in the Sacrament. LONDON, Printed by Felix Kyngston for Robert Milbourne, and are to be sold at his shop in Paul's Churchyard at the sign of the Greyhound. 1630. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF A DISPUTATION between M. Dan. Featly, Opponent, and D. Smith the younger, Respondent (now by the Pope entitled Bish. of Chalcedon, and Ordinary of all England) at Paris. Sept. 4. 1612. Stylo novo, touching the Real presence in the Sacrament. The Laws of the Disputation. 1. That they should dispute calmly and peaceably. 2. That all impertinent discourses should be avoided. 3. That M. Featly at this time should only oppose, and D. Smith only answer. THese Conditions agreed upon, it was thought fit both should set down the state of the Question, and the points of difference between them: which D. Smith being Respondent, first undertook, distinguishing between the questions of Real presence and of Transubstantion, and determining the point in question to be this. Whether the body of Christ were truly and substantially in the Sacrament, under the forms of bread and wine? Which being done, he entered into a large discourse, to set down the proofs and confirmations of the affirmative, used by their Church: Whereupon he was challenged by M. Featly of a breach of the third Law: and so, after Master Featly had for his part promised him to answer all his arguments at another time, when the hearers should think good, D. Smith surceased. And M. Featly explained the terms of the Question as followeth. There are two terms, (said he) in the question, Presence, and Real: I distinguish of both. First, The Scripture speaketh of a fourfold Fouresold presence; 1. divine; 2. spiritual; 3. sacramental; 4. corporal. Ephes. 3. 17. presence of Christ, first, Divine, according to which, he is present in all places. The second, Spiritual, according to which he is said after a special manner to dwell in the faithful. The third, Sacramental, according to which, he is united to the Sacrament both mystically and effectually. For the Sacrament doth not only represent him, and his death to the eye of our body, but also truly present, and offer him, and all the benefits of his Passion to our souls. It doth not only signify, but also by virtue of Christ's promise, truly, and effectually exhibit Grace: The fourth, is carnal and corporal, of which those words are meant, a Verbum care factum est, & babitavit in nobis. The Word was madeflesh, and dwelled among us. Secondly, In like manner the word Real is diversely taken; 1. Sometime as it is opposed to that, which is feigned, and imaginary. Secondly, as it is opposed to that, which is merely figurative, and barely representative. Thirdly, as it is opposed to that which is spiritual, and immaterial; in which sense, Real, Material, and Corporal are co-incident. We believe, that Christ is present in the Sacrament, Stat. Quaest and that Really, in the two former significations of Real, and the three first acceptions of Presence: we deny it in the last of both. In sum, Christ is there many ways Really, not Corporally; that is, not according to the substance of his natural body, shrouded under the accidents of bread and wine; which he thus proved. That doctrine which hath no foundation in the The main Argument. Word of God, and is repugnant to the doctrine of the true ancient Church, and overthroweth the principles of right reason, implying palpable absurdities, and apparent contradictions, is to be rejected as erroneous and heretical: But the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, touching the bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament, is such: Ergo, it is to be disclaimed. D. Smith here denied the minor. Which Mast. Featly undertook to prove according to all the parts: but the time permitted to prosecute only the proof of the first: which was, That the Papists have no ground in Scripture for their Real Presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament. And thus he proceeded. First, if there be any ground in Scripture for this your opinion, certainly it is either in the words b Hoc est corpus meu●…. This is my body; or in those, the 6. of joh. 53. c Nisi carnem meam comederitis, etc. Unless you eat my flesh, etc. upon which all Papish build their belief in this point. But neither the one, nor the other are any sure ground for it: Ergo, You have none. D. Smith in this Syllogism, as in the former, denied the assumption. Which was thus confirmed. If the words of the Institution, Hoc est, etc. and the other john 6. are to be taken figuratively, and not in the proper sense: out of all question, they make nothing for the bodily presence, or carnal eating of Christ with the mouth. But the words above alleged in both places are to be construed figuratively, and not properly according to the rigour of the letter; which I prove (saith he) by uncontrollable testimonies of Fathers, and evident arguments drawn from the circumstances of those texts. And first he alleged a place of Tertullian, li. 4. cont. Marcionem cap. 40. d Acceptum panem, & distributum discipulis, corpus suum illud fecit, Hoc est corpus meum, dicendo, id est figura ●…orporis mei. The bread taken, and distributed unto his disciples, he made the same bis body, saying, this is my body, that is, a figure of my body; adding withal, that if D. Smith, or any other could being a more pregnant place for the figurative exposition out of any Protestant, he would yield him the better. D. Smith could bring none, but made this answer; e Ex Autographo. Verbailla Tertulliani sic sunt intelligenda: ut verba illa, id est (figur●… corporis mei) reserenda sint ad illud vocabulum, Hoc, quod est subiectum propositionis Christi, & illud explanent: ut sensus Tertulliani sit: Hoc, id est, figura corporis mei, est corpus meum. Those words of Tert. are so to be understood, that the words (a figure of my body) are to be referred to the word (this) which is the subject of Christ's proposition, and do explain it so: that the meaning of Tertullian is: This that is a figure of my body, is my body; or: as he afterwards mended it, f Id quod erat uctus figura, est corpus meum. that which was of old a figure of my body, is now my body. To which, M. Featly thus replied. To rehearse this answer, is to refute it: if it be lawful unto a speech of three words to add (id quod erat vetus) to the subiectum; and (corpus meum) to the praedicatum: and to refer the words (idest figura) not to the praedicatum, as all men do in the like; you may make quidlibet ex quolibet. To this D. Smith answered out of Cyprian, that Tertullian was a very obscure Writer, and had a very ill gift in expressing his mind. Whereunto it was rejoined; If he be obscure in other places, what is that to this which is most clear to any, that will not shut his eyes? discredit not Tertullian, whom Cyprian so highly esteemed, that he let no day pass without reading some part of his works, calling for him by the name of his Master: Da Magistrum, Tertullianum videlicet significans. Hier. Ca●…al. vir: illustr. Secondly, he replied, that how ill soever a gift Tertullian might have in expressing his own mind, he could not be so dull in conceiving our Saviour's mind, as to make this to be the meaning of our Saviour's words;) This is my body,) that is, the bread which was a figure of my body in the old Law, is now my body: seeing that our Saviour speaketh never a word there, nor hath any relation at all to any figure of the old Testament, neither in the words going before, nor coming after. Thirdly, admitting this most strange, and forced interpretation; yet out of this place of Tertullian, I infer necessarily, that the words of the Institution be figurative. For this Proposition. The figure, or that which was the figure of my body, is my body (which is your exposition of Tertullian) cannot be true, but by a figure: sigh panis, and corpus Christi, are disparata; which cannot properly be one affirmed of the other; Let the Pronoune demonstrative, Hoc, stand for figura corporis mei, as you will have it, and add thereunto the copula and praedicatum, you fain, est corpus meum, saying, figura corporis mei est corpus meum: you must needs fly to a figure to make this Proposition true. For whether you put the Bread, or the accidents to be the only figures of Christ's body, all is one: sith neither Bread, nor the accidents of Bread can be truly, and properly said to be Christ's body. Here D. Smith was forced to acknowledge a figure in the words of the Institution. These are his own words; g Ex autogr. Ego agnos●…o, quòd in verbis, hoc est corpus meum, est figura, sed non mera figura, aut figura vacua à veritate, quae figuratur. I acknowledge, that in these words this is my body, is a figure, but not a mere figure or a figure void of that truth, which is figured by it. Thus they grew to an issue, Master Featly affirming, that he demanded no more, then to have him grant, that there is a figure in these words, hoc est corpus meum, (which Bellarmine, and all other Papists disclaim, as quite overthrowing their opinion of the Real presence.) For (quoth he) as for your distinction of a mere figure, and not mere in speech, it is nothing, but a mere fiction of your own brain; as if you should say, This is a shadow, but not a mere shadow. Secondly, he insisted upon the words of S. Augustine; h August. de Doct. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 16. pag. 23. edit. Parisiensis. Si autem flagitium, aut facinus videtur iubere aut utilitatem, aut benificentiam vetare, figurata est locutio. ex. gr. Nisi manducaue●…is (inquit) carnem fil●…j hominis, & sanguinem bibe●…îtis, non habebitis vitam in vobis: facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere: figura est ergo praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum, & suaviter, & utiliter recondendum in memoria, quòd pro nobis caro eius crucifixa, & vulnerata sit. But if the scripture seem to command a sin, or an horrible wickedness, or to forbid any thing that is good and profitable, the speech is figurative. For example: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, etc. seems to command a sin or horrible wickedness; it is a figure therefore, etc. Three things (said he) are to be observed in this testimony. First, that Saint Augustine maketh choice of these words of our Saviour, as a most known example of a figurative speech. Secondly, that he not only affirmeth it to be a figurative speech, but confirmeth it also by an argument. i Flagitium vid●…tur iubere, figura est ergo. Praecipiens recondendum in memoria, etc. Thirdly, that he showeth what figure it is, and expoundeth it conformably to the doctrine of the Protestants, and contrary to the now Church of Rome. Hereunto D. Smith first answered, that it was no horrible, nor wicked thing to eat man's flesh, since we usually eat it in Mummy. What (said M. F. not the flesh of a live man? k Sub aliena specie. Not (said D. Smith) under another shape or form. Say you so, (quoth M. Featly) Then indeed Saint Augustine's argument is but very weak, if it be not horrible to eat a live man, though masked or disguized. What then say you to S. Augustine's conclusion? D. Smith answered, l Figura est eogo. s●…u figurata locutio, Respondeo, quòd est figura mixta ex propria & figurata actione. It is a figure mixed of a figurative and proper action. 〈◊〉. Resp. ex Autog. m Prop●…ia figurata. Replic. A proper figurative speech or action, quoth M. Featly; This is, as if a man should say, a white black colour; or a true false answer. I pray you expound yourself, D. Smith, and show us, how the self same speech can be figurative and proper, that is, proper and improper. For in my understanding, every figurative speech is improper; and if it be taken in the proper sense of words, is always either untrue, or impertinent. Let us hear therefore your proper doctrine of an improper proper speech. Thus (quoth he) I explicate myself; n Ex Autogr. Locutio Christi, nisi manducaveritis, etc. est secundùm Augustinum prapria, & figurata: figurata qu●…ad modum ●…dendi, scilicet in propriâ sorma, quoed rem est propria, scilicet quoad substantiam ca●…nis Christi, & i●…a mixta est figurata & prop●…ia locutione. Christ's 2 Resp. speech; unless you eat my flesh, is proper and figurative, according to Saint Austin: figurative according to the manner of eating, viz. in the proper form: but according to the matter itself, it is proper, viz. according to the substance of Christ's flesh, and so it is a speech mixed of a proper and figurative. Hereunto M. Featly replied; A speech figurative according to the manner of eating; and eating of a thing not in propria forma, are Schoole-delicacies. Where find you any such thing in S. Augustine? or what is this to prove, that a speech, which may not be properly taken (such is every figurative) may be properly taken, and so be figurata and propria both? It is most certain, that Saint Augustine by figurata locutio, meant such an one, as could in no sense be proper. For Saint Augustine's words are. o Si hoc iam propriè sonat, nulla putetur figurata locutio. ibid. If this now be taken in the proper sense, let it be accounted no figurative speech. A proper speech is here by S. Austin manifestly distinguished from figurative, and figurative from proper. Besides, he speaketh of such a speech, wherein an horrible wickedness is commanded, or a virtuous action condemned; which can in no sense be true in the proper acception of the words. Otherwise, it should be lawful to sin, because expressly commanded, and sinful to do well, because forbidden. Furthermore, to prove that these words could not be taken properly, and literally, he cited the words of Origen in Leviticum. Ho. 7. p Si secundùm literam sequaris quod dictum est, nisi mandocaveritis carne●… filij hominis, etc. litera illa occîdit. If you follow the letter in these words: Unless you eat the flesh, etc. that letter killeth. q Respondeo secùndum literam Caperniticam. I answer (saith D. Smith) that if you understand those words according to the Caperniticall letter. Now good Sir, quoth M. Featly, what is litera Capernitica: a jews letter? r Secundùm literalem sensum, quem intellig●…bant Capernitae. 2. Resp. D. S. By Capernitica letter I understand the literal sense, in which the Capernaits took Christ's words. M. Featly replied, that for aught appears by Scripture, or any ancient Record, the Capernites error was in this, that they construed Christ's words grossly and carnally, as you do: which you and they should have taken spiris tually (My words are spirit and life. V●…rba mea Spiritus sunt, & vita. No, quoth D. Smith, the Capernites thought, that Christ's flesh should be sold in the market, and cut in pieces. There is no such thing, quoth M. Featly, employed in the literal meaning of these words, (unless you eat my flesh:) nor can be gathered 2. Resp. from any circumstance of the Text. A man might eat flesh according to the rigour of the letter, though he neither buy it in the market, nor cut it. The horror of the sin of Anthropophagy, or eating man's flesh, is not in buying man's flesh, nor in cutting it, but in eating it with the mouth, and chamming it with the teeth: If we should do so in the Sacrament, we should follow the kill letter Origen speaketh of, and run upon the point of Saint Cyrils' sharp reproof; a Num hominis commestionem hoc Sacramentum pronuntias, & irreligiosè ad crassas cogitationes vrges fidelium mentes? Cyr●…l. ad object. Theod. in expos. an●…. 11. dost thou pronounce this Sacrament to be man-eating? and dost thou irreligiously urge the minds of the faithful to gross, and carnal imaginations? I oppose against your interpretation Saint Chrysostoms', who saith: To take Scripture according to the letter is to take it according to the sound of the words. Now I appeal to the ear of all that are here present, whether these words, nisi manducaverîtis carnem, sound after D. smith's Caperniticall strain. I hear nothing but the eating of the flesh: which you do as properly, as the Capernites could conceive, b De consecr. dist. 2. Berenga rius is forced to subscribe, as followeth. Ego Berengarius, etc. Credo corpus Domini nostri jesu Christi sensualiter, & in ve●…itate manibus Sacerdotum tractari, frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri. with the mouth and teeth. To which D. Smith replied. When I see the words of Chrysostome, I will answer them. You shall when you please (quoth M. Featly) in the mean while, because the book is not at hand, I will press you with another, against whom (I trow) you dare not except. Who is it, quoth D. Smith. It is Gratian (quoth M. Featly) who Decret. 3. part. de consecrat. distinct. 2. cap. Hoc est quod dicimus, hath these express words: c Sicut ergo caelestis panis, qui Christi caro est, s●… modo vocatur corpus Christi cum revera sit Sacramentum corporis Christi: Glossa addit: c●…leste Sacramentum dicitur corpus Christi, sed improprie, vnd●… dicitu●… suo modo, sed non r●…i veritate sed significante mysteri●…: ●…t fit sensus: vo●…atur Christi corpus, id●…st, significatur. As therefore the heavenly bread which is Christ's flesh, after a sort is called Christ's body, when as in very truth it is the sacrament of it; the Gloss addeth, the heavenly Sacrament is called the body of Christ, but improperly, and therefore it is said after a sort, but not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery, etc. To which authority D. Smith shaped this answer: d Aliud est Sacramentum tantum, aliud res tantùm: aliud res & Sacramentum. the sacrament is taken either for the signe only, or for the thing signified only, or for both, and applied his distincton thus: Gratian, and the Gloss understood by Sacramentum, Sacramentum tantum, or signum, the sign only. Therefore Accidentia sola panis, according to your doctrine (inferred M. Featly.) To which D. Smith accorded. Then M. Featly thus refeled the former answer: Gratian, and the Gloss speak of heavenly bread, or Christ's flesh, and a heavenly sacrament: but the mere accidents of bread, neither in Gratian'ss opinion, nor in yours can be termed coelestis panis, heavenly bread, nor Christi caro, Christ's flesh, nor coeleste Sacramentum, a heavenly Sacrament. Therefore the former words cannot be meant of the accidents, but of the consecrated Host itself. To which D. Smith with some indignation replied; e Gratianus quoad nos non est authentic●…s author, mul●…ò minùs Glossa. Arg. 1 dust. à circumst cont. Gratian with us is no authentical Author, much less the Gloss. Well (said M. Featly) if you so easily avoid Gratian, approved by so many Popes, citing in this very place S. Augustine in the Margin for his warrant, I will see whether you can so rid your hands of Divine authorities. I argue thus from the Text: Christ took bread, and broke it, and gave it, and said, This, etc. Therefore by this word, This, he meant this bread, as the Fathers generally accord in their interpretations of it. Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 34. f Unde consta bi●… iis pan●…, in qu●… gratiae 〈◊〉 sunt, 〈◊〉 corpus Dom●…i? How shall it appear unto them, that the bread which was blessed, was our Lord's body? Tertullianus lib. 4. cont. Martion. cap. 40. g Pan●… corpus suum a 〈◊〉. He calleth the bread his body. Athanas. in 1. Cor. 11. h Quid est panis? Corpus Christi. What is the bread? Christ's body. Hieron. ad Hedib. quaest. 2. pag. 416. i Nos autem audiamus panem, quem fregit Dominus, deditque discipulis, esse corpus Domini, ipso dicente: ●…oc est corpus meum. Let us hear, that the bread which Christ broke and gave to his Disciples, is his body, as himself saith, This is my body. August. sermon. 2. de verb. Apost. k Quod videtur, panis est & calix, quod etiam 〈◊〉 renun●…iant; quod ●…utem fides p●…stulat instru●…da, panis est corpus Christi 〈◊〉 sanguis. The bread is Christ's ●…ody, and the Cup is his blood. Epiphan. in Anchorato; l De ●…o quod rotunda est figu●…ae, & 〈◊〉, Dominus per gratiam dixit, Hoc est co●…pus meum. Christ said of that which is of a round figure, and without sense, This is my body. Cyril. Catech. mystag. 4. m Christus depan●… affis mat, Hoc est c●…rpus meum. Christ said of the bread, This is my body. Theodoret. Dialog. 1. n In distributione mysteriorum, panem vocat corpus suum. In the distribution of the mysteries, he called bread his body. Gerson. contra Flor. c. 4. o Dicendum est, quod (hoc) demonstrat substantiam panis. We must say, that the pronoun (this) demonstrates the substance of bread. I could produce many more of your own Writers, that are cited by Suarez to this purpose: but these suffice to prove▪ that the pronoun Hoc, standeth for Hic panis. Now I assume, Corpus Christi, cannot properly be affirmed of bread, sith bread and Christ's body are substantiae disparatae: Ergo, will you, nill you, either you must accept of a figure in Christ's words, or put back, and reject all these reverend Fathers, and your own Doctors also at once. I answer, quoth D. Smith, that the Fathers by panis, meant, panis Eucharistatus. What mean you, quoth M. Featly, by panis Eucharistatus, Transubstantiatus actu, actually transubstantiated, or not? Transubstantiatus actu, quoth D. Smith. Therefore replied M. Featly, by panis they Repl. meant that which is not now panis. For panis Transubstantiatus is no more paniss, then homo mortuus is homo, or the Rod being turned into a Serpent, is still a Rod. Is this, think you, their Exod. 4. meaning? Bread is Christ's body, that is, Bread not being bread is Christ's body. Might not I say with as good reason: It is my body, that is, it is not my body? I say (quoth D. Smith) p Panis Eucharistatus (panis non manens panis est corpus Christi. bread (not remaining bread) is the body of Christ. Refel you this my Exposition if you can. It is needless (quoth M. Featly▪) it cannot be made worse than it is; yet to gratify you, I thus impugn it. This pronoun demonstrative, Hoc, must needs signify some thing, that then was existent, to which Christ pointed, saying, Ex Autogr. This: But there was no panis transubstantiatus, or your non manens panis, when Christ pronounced this pronoun, This, pointing to something at the table: for you all confess, that the bread is not converted into the substance of Christ's body, till after all the words of consecration are uttered. D. Smith's answer was, This subject hoc, signifieth, * Subiectum (hoc) significat quando proser●…, corpus Christi▪ sed non significat pro tunc, sed pro proximo non esse 〈◊〉 propositionis. when it is uttered, the body of Christ: but it signifieth not for that instant, but for the next not being of the whole proposition. What say you, is a proposition true, when it is not at all (Hoc est in non esse suo?) Aristotle makes signification de esse propositionis, defining it, Oratio significans verum, vel falsum. Is this then that you say, Christ's speech signifieth, that is, hath his esse pro Proximo non esse? How many non esses hath a Proposition, which you will have signify pro Proximo non esse? Go on (quoth D. Smith) with your Argument. When Christ (said M. Featly) uttered precisely this pronoun, Hoc, did it signify any thing then, or no? q Signifi●…bat tunc, non pro tunc. It signified, This, but not for that instant. r Quid ergo tunc significabat, panem transubstantiatum? What did it then signify, quoth M. Featly,) bread transubstantiated, or not? If you say, transubstantiatum, you make a false Proposition: If you say, non transubstantiatum, you must acknowledge a figure. To this D. Smith said nothing, but repeated his old distinction, Tunc, & pro Tunc. This your distinction (quoth M. Featly) is like unto his in Keckerman, by which he turneth off all arguments, ●…rthopodialiter, non restexive, which no man was able to refute, because they understood it not. I profess (said he) I know not what you will, by your Tunc, and pro Tunc, unless this be your meaning, that the Proposition is true, de futuro, non de praesente: which to say, is apparently to put a figure in the copula est, construing it pro erit. No figure, quoth D. Smith, but ˢ an enlarging of the copula. I might say likewise, (quoth M. Featly) that no Protestant maketh a figure in the copula, or praedicatum, but only an amplification of it in your language. I pray you, what difference is there between that your Ampliatio copulae, and the Rhetoricians enallage temporis? I see no more then between a silver and a leaden token of the same value; both an half penny, Let us not strive about words: What is the thing meant by Hoc? pro quo nomine stat hoc pronomen? t Pro pane transubstantiato. For bread transubstantiated, saith D. Smith. u Ergo pro corpore Christi. Therefore for the body of Christ, saith Master Featly. What of that, quoth D. Smith? Then (quoth M. Featly) the meaning of the words is, x Corpus Christi est corpus Christi. The body of Christ is the body of Christ. ʸ Conced●… sensus eorum verborum (Panis est corpus Christi) est iste quoad identitatem signifi●…ati: Corpus Christi est corpus Christi: quoad modum significandi, non est idem; sed diversus, & non i●…enticus. I grant, saith D. Smith, that the sense of these words, the bread is the body of Christ) is this, according to the identity of the thing signified, the body of Christ is the body of Christ; According to the manner of signifying, it is not the same, but diverse, and not identical. Belike (quoth M. Featly) the Apostles were ignorant, that Christ's body was his body, and by virtue of these words, he made his body his body; as if it were not so before. Will you stand to this interpretation, quoth M. Featly? See what will come upon it. What (quoth D. Smith?) That the words of consecration make nothing for Transubstantiation, or any thing else. For a Proposition that is merely identical quoad significatum, proves nothing at all. I may▪ truly say, pointing to Christ's body in heaven▪ at the right hand of his Father; This, or that body of Christ is his body: and will it hence follow, that bread, or any thing else, is substantially turned into Christ's body? were it not much better to admit a Trope, then to commit a Tautology in your exposition? To grant an elegancy in the words, then defend an absurdity in the meaning? to acknowledge a figure, then to disfigure so divine a sentence, and make of it a battology? Here D. Smith after his manner, largely discoursed of the nature of identical, and nugatory propositions. Of which, M. Featly gave this judgement, as Aristotle answered the Philosopher's disputes, de inani, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; so saith he, your discourse of nugatory propositions seemeth to me nugatory, and altogether impertinent. And therefore I proceed to a new argument. The words used in the consecration of the 2. Arg. deductum à circumst. contextus. bread are so to be expounded, as the like in the consecration of the Cup: But the words used in the consecration of the Cup are to be expounded by a figure, or more: Ergo▪ Prove your Assumption, saith D. Smith. Thus (quoth M. Featly▪) these are the words, as they are recorded, Luk. 22. 20. x Hic calix est n●…uum Testamentum in meo sanguine. This Cup is the new Testament in my blood: but both Calix is here taken by a figure, y Pro contento▪ and no●…um Testamentum pro sign●… sigillo, Sacramento novi Testamenti. for the thing contained in it; and the new Testament for the sign and seal, or Sacrament of the new Testament: Ergo, etc. I will not contest with you (quoth D. Smith) about Calix; let that be a figure: but I deny there is any figure in the word Testamentum. It is well (quoth M. Featly) you grant one figure in the words of consecration: I assure you, D. Bagshaw is of another mind; to grant one figure, in his judgement, is to lose all▪ For what privilege have you more to set a figure upon the words of consecration of the Cup, than we upon the like of the bread? Where are now your exclamations against us, for obscuring, depraving, and disfiguring the words of Christ by Tropes and Figures? One figure you grant, and it shall go hard, but I will multiply it, and make more figures of it. Either there is a figure in the word Testament, or that, which you say, is meant by Calix, is properly Christi Testamentum: But that cannot be: Ergo. Thus I demonstrate it: By hic calix you mean hic sanguis: but sanguis Christi is not propriè testamentum. Negatur minor, saith D. Smith. Probatur (quoth M. Featly,) No substantial part of the Testator is properly his Testament: But the blood of Christ is a substantial part of the Testator: Ergo, it is not properly his last Will and Testament. In this Syllogism D. Smith denied the Mayor, affirming, that if any man should sign any Resp. thing with his blood, that blood being an authentical sign of his Will, might be properly called his Testament. Hereupon M. Featly replied; Blood properly a Testament? I read in Scripture of blood Replic. of the Testament: but never heard of a Testament, or blood a testament. Certainly the word Testament signifieth properly the Will itself of the Testator, but by an usual phrase of speech, or figure, it is applied to the Instrument, which is (speaking properly) but a testimony of his Will. As for the blood, or mark wherewith any man signeth his Will, he never heard any man call that his Testament, no not by a figure, much less properly; a Testamentum est voluntatis nos●…ae iusta sententia d●… eo, quod quis fieri velit post mortem suam. Digest. de Test. estque aut Scriptum, aut nuncup●…torium. The Will of a man is the just determination, or appointment of what he would have done after his death, and it is either written, or nuncupative. Blood can be neither. How many new Testaments shall we have, if every authentical sign of Christ's Will, be properly his Testament? The sign of Christ's Will is no more his Will, than the sign of his Body is his Body. Therefore what colour have you to forbid us to interpret these words, This is my body (that is, a sign of my body?) when you yourselves expound these words: This cup, or, this blood is my Will, or Testament (that is, the authentical sign of my Testament?) yet we in our exposition, of the former words, commit no Tautology, as you do in the latter, thus paraphrasing Christ's words: This cup, that is, this blood is the New Testament in my blood, blood in blood, or signed with blood. Will you say, that Christ's blood needed his blood to sign it, as Saint Austin saith of the heathens God, Apollo; Interpres Deorum eget Interpret: & sors referenda est ad sortem, id est. The interpreter of the Gods wants an Interpreter, and we have need to cast Lots upon the Lot itself. How say you, is not this your interpretation? Hereunto D. Smith wrote this answer, a Sensus huius propositionis, Hic calix est n●…uum Testamentum in meo sanguine, est iste: Hic liquor, qui qu●…ad rem significatam est identicè sanguis meus, est novum Testamentum: id est, a●…thenticum signum ultimae m●…ae voluntatis, sancitum in sanguive meo; fuso pro vobis. The sense of this Proposition, This Cup is the new Testament, is this: This liquor, which according to the thing signified, is the same thing with my blood, is the new Testament, that is, ●…n authentical sign of my last Will, confirmed with my blood shed for you. judge, Sirs, (quoth M. Featly) Is not this a Tautology; b S●…nguis meus 〈◊〉 in sa●…guine meo. my blood confirmed in my blood, or the sign of my blood, signed in my blood? And did not I tell you before (saith D. Smith) of a twofold identical proposition? identical c Quoad rem significatam, & quoad modum significa●…di. according to the thing signified, and according to the manner of signifying. Sisyphi saxum voluis. Tuergoes Sisyphi saxum (quoth M. Featly) te enim 〈◊〉. Nec proficis ●…ilum, (quoth D. Smith.) True (quoth M. Featly) quia semper eodem re●…olueris. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. H●…m. Odies. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 3. Arg. Circumst. text. Yet I will have one lift more. Thus I prove, that Christ's blood is not in the consecrated Chalice. Blood is not the fruit of the Vine: That which Christ and the Apostles drank in the consecrated Chalice, was the fruit of the Vine: Ergo, not blood. That it was the fruit of the Vine, our Saviour affirmeth in express words, Matth. 26. 29. I will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the Vine; having in the words immediately going before consecrated the Chalice, and instituted the Sacrament of his blood, saying, Drink ye all of this (C●…p;) for this is my blood of the new Testament, vers. 28. To this D. Smith answered, that our Saviour spoke this of the Cup of the old Testament, mentioned in Luke, not of the Sacrament. Which answer M. Featly thus infringed: These words in Saint Matthew, This fruit of the Vine, must have relation to the Cup, of which Saint Matthew spoke before: but Saint Matthew spoke of no Cup before, but of the Cup of the new Testament: therefore these words: This fruit of the Vine, must needs be understood of the Cup of the new Testament. If I should take here a Cup, and after I had drank of it, say, I will drink no more of this, were it not ridiculous to understand me of any other cup, then that I took last in my hand, and drank of? D. Smith repeated his former answer, and said: it was sufficient that Saint Luke spoke of another Cup. M. Featly replied: what, is it sufficient to make perfect sense in a sentence set down in Saint Matthew to fetch a proposition, or narration from Saint Luke his Gospel? Will you make Saint Matthew to write nonsense: to relate Christ's words (I will drink no more of this) and no where to express of what he spoke, or to what this (This) is to be referred? I refer myself to your own conscience, whether these words (I will drink no more of this fruit) immediately following these: Hic calix, This cup, or Hic est sanguis novi testamenti, This is the blood of the new testament, can have relation to any other words then those, or to any other Cup, than which is here consecrated. Not only all the circumstances of the Text are against your interpretation, but also all the Fathers generally control it; who understand these words, (I will not drink of this fruit of the Vine) of the Sacrament, and not of the Cup of the old Law. And he quoted Clemens, in Pedag. l. 2. c. 2. d Qu●…d vinum esset, qu●…d ben●…dictum est, Christus o●…endit, ●…icens, non bibam à 〈◊〉 de h●…c fructu vitis. That it was wine which was blessed, Christ showed, saying, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the Vine. Cypr. lib. 2. Epist. 3. alleging the words of Saint Matthew, d Non bib●… ex ●…oc f●…uctu vitis. I will drink no more of this fruit of the Vine, addeth: e Qua in parte invenimus calic●…m mixtum fuisse, quem Dominus obtulit, & vinum fuisse, quod sanguinem suum dixit? where do we find that the cup which Christ offered, was mingled, & that it was wine, which he called his blood? Chrys. Hom. 83. in Mat. f Cum Dominus hoc mysterium trad●…et, vinum tradid●…; ex geni●…ine, ai●…, vitis, quae 〈◊〉 vinum, non aquam producit. When our Lord delivered this mystery, he delivered wine of the fruit of the Vine, saith he, which certainly produceth wine, and not water. August. de Eccl. Dogm. cap. 75. & Concilium Worm. ca 2. g Vinum fuit redemptionis nostrae mysterio, cum dixit; Non bibam de hoc genimine. Wine was in the mystery of our redemption, when he said, I will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine. If you have not yet weight enough, I will add one Author, that in the scales of your judgement, beareth down all these, Pope Innocentius, lib. 4. de Myst. Missae cap. 27. h Quod autem vinum in chalice consecra●…rat, patet ex ●…o, quod ipse subiunxit; Non bibam à modo de genimine vitis. It is manifest, that he consecrated wine in the Cup by those words he added, I will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the Vine. What answer you (quoth M. Featly) to so many Fathers, a Council, and your Pope? I answer (quoth D. Smith) that their opinion is probable. And though M. Featly pressed him in the words of Campian, i Patres admittis, an excludis? admittis, victus ●…s: excludis, Nullus●…s. Do you admit of the Fathers, or reject them; if you admit of them, you are overcome; if you refuse them, you are no body. He answered only as before, that their opinion was probable: but he preferred his own before it: and yet triumphed, as if he had gotten the day, saying; Are these your demonstrations? Are these sufficient causes, why you should separate yourselves from our Church, and from your Brethren the Lutherans? And it was replied; Are these your best answers, and defences? Is your great brag of the Fathers, and of the Counsels come to this; that when they are alleged against you, you either discredit them, as you did Tertullian, or make miserable excuses for them, as k In resp. ad hoc arg. lib. 1. de sacr. Euch▪ c. 11. Bellarmine doth for Saint Augustine? l Augustinus non perpendit hunc locum diligenter. Austin did not well weigh this place: or cashier a whole troop of them, Pope and all; yet with civil and respective terms, saying, their opinion is probable: follow it who so will, yet you will not quit your own for it! And here, because it grew late, they broke off for the present. At the breaking up of the Conference, a Priest, who was said to be D. Smith's Chamberfellow, was heard to say Profectò haec fuit vera digladiatio, non Sorbonica velificatio: that is, This was a true fight, not a sorbonical flourishing. In this Relation we have omitted of set purpose all D. Smith's by-discourses, together with his proofs of the main, because they were against the third Law. And M. Featly at this time took no notice of them in particular, but promised in general to answer them all, when it came to his course to answer: Now he was bound by the Law only to oppose, and D. Smith only to give his answers, which are here truly set down, most of them out of his own writing, as we depose, who were present at this Disputation. I must willingly subscribe to the truth of that, which D. Smith did so voluntarily present to our eyes and ears; And for the rest, which is M. Featlies', none of the adverse party can take any just exception against it. I. P. I profess, that all things in this Narration delivered and quoted out of D. Smith's Autographie, are true out of my examination. And of the rest I remember the most, or all: neither can I suspect any part. B. I. FINIS. Errata. Pag. 5. marg. read, quidem for q●…id. p. 6. l. 20. r. 〈◊〉. p. 11. marg. r. contr●…dictionis. p. 13. marg. r. Christus. ibid. l. 22. r. m●…re pr●… not. p. 17. 2. r. proposition. p. 27. 19 r. Ians●…. p. 43. 13. r. o●… pr●… as. p. 54. 24 marg. r. p●…er for pot●…. 56. 14. r. immine●…t. p. 70. marg. r. sanguine. p. 96. 23▪ r. this. p. 84. 4. r. fa●…antur. p. 84. 28. add, it. p. 101. 22. deal former. 108. vlt r. con●…rteth. p. 112. 8. r. 〈◊〉. p. 117. 1. r. fidem. p. 126. marg. r. lic●…. ib. p●…st for potus. 132. marg. r. 〈◊〉. p. 137. 12. r. Plain. p. 13●…. 8. r. 1561. p. 145. ult. r. therefore. p. 149. 22. r Sacraments. p. 202. 22. r. ●…imed. p. 206. 2. r. sound. p. 209. 27. 1. f●…ft. p. 225. 25. r. m●…gled▪ p. 228. 21. r. ●…ight. p. 249. 19 r. sound. p. 255. 11. r. take what time you will. p. 2●…8. marg. r. Bernard●…. p. 263. 13. r. your. p. 129. 10. r. but for and▪ p 274. 23. r. 〈◊〉. ib. 30. r. answers. p. 278. marg. r. Ecclesi●…●…m. p. 279. vlt▪ deal, Isa. p. 288. 〈◊〉. r. Transubstantiation. 291. 2. r. bring. p. 294. marg. r. ●…x figurat●…. p 29●…. 23. 〈◊〉. then for this. p. 299. 14. r. ampli●…ion. p. 301. marg. r. & for 〈◊〉.