The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome

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 Lemouicensis, 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 then 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 casheere 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 Critikes to name us more approved authors in this age, then 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 Topic, to argue à parte 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 stemmes 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 cal in then these ancients in that order, as commonly they go:

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 holyly 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 Lenoricensis, who styleth himself a servant of God, and an Apostle of Jesus Christ, in his epistle ad Burdigal. writeth thus: You heretofore honored 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 honor the Priests of Almighty God, who minister life unto you in the Cup, and living Bread. By this argument of Martials, the Romish Priests, that give the people but an half Communion, should lose half of the honor due unto God's Priests, if not the whole. For thus out of Martials premises I conclude. Those, and none but those Priests are to be honored 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 honored.

Anno 92.

Thirdly, Clemens 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 Lord's 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 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.

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 hucksters 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 then the fountain or spring. The Poet teacheth Bellarmine another lesson:

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 Priests 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 Lord's Supper.

Bellarmine, his second answer.

Secondly, 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, ought 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; since we insist not so much upon the argument it self, 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, 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, &c.

Secondly, though the Primitive Church were not of that large extent, as the Church in suceeding 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 anything unto it, or taking away from it: certainly, Ignatius, and the Churches, wherein he bore sway, observed the order and practice 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 Lord's Supper. And what the Apostles did jointly, no Christian doubteth, but they did by the direction of the holy Ghost, according to our Lord's will and commandment. And thus we see this example amounteth to a precept, and the practice in Ignatius his time, ought to be a president for all future times.

From 100. to 200. Anno Dom. 150.

IVstin Martyr in his second apology, thus writeth: They which are called Deacons among us, give to everyone 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 Savior; 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 laboreth to disparage it some way or other.— Si non aliqu â nocuisset, mortuus esset. Yet all that he saith 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 subioyneth 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 it self: 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 smoother the light of truth shining in these words; The Deacons deliver or minister to everyone, 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 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 accordeth with them, that Tiletanus, the defender of the council of Trent confesseth, that it is 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 faithfulls 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 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 concomitancie, averring that the blood of Christ is not severed from his body; and consequently, that the Laity 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 it self 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 concomitancie is built 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 Laity 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 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, since 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 then 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 everyone of the 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 Lord's 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 everyone of the people participated in his time, therefore all drank of the Cup.

Bellarmine's answer.

Bellarmine cavilleth 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 denieth 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 Lord's 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.

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: The flesh feedeth upon the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be fatted, as it were of God.

Papists answer.

Cardinal Bellarmine shifteth of this sentence of Tertullian: by tithing minte 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 nicity 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 Verbe, 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 then of the Verbe, 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 Laity, and not only to Lay men, but women also. Tertul. ad vxorem lib. 2. c. 6. shall the Lord's Table hear anything, 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 inconueniencie of such a match, whereby the faithful wife was like to be debarred of the comfort of receiving the Sacrament, and drinking of the Lord's Cup. Tert. then is clear for the Laity communicating in both kinds. And so is Origen.

Anno. 230.

Origen in 16. 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, &c. Therefore in Origen's time it was the people's use and custom, to drink the blood of Christ.

Papists answer.

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 Lord's supper, though everyone drank not, but some only.

The Refutation.

I need not refell 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 healpeth 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; 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 then Tertullian, and Cyprian is yet clearer, then 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. 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 Lord's Cup in his Church? in his 63. epistle 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 Poets observation: Qui semel verecundiae limites transiuerit, hunc grauiter impudentem esse oportet: he that hath once passed the bounds of modesty, he must be stoutely 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 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 Laity 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 Laity, 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 Lord's Table, a Bishop upon the parties 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 Laity 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 Laity, 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 misdemeanor, that therefore he may deprive him of a part of it without any fault at all, as the Romanists do the Laity in general.

Fourthly, a Bishop may dispence with his own censures, or revoke them; but he cannot dispence 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 redeliuer the Cup in these times to the Laity, 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 Lord's battles, are to be strengthened thereunto, by taking the Cup of Salvation, or drinking the Lord's 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 Lord's 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.

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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; 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 Council of Nice, set out by Gelasius Cyzicenus, we have a most express testimony of the belief and practice of the Church in that flowrishing 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 pleadges of our resurrection.

Anno. 337.

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 Savior, 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 Saviors 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 Savior, as he rightly conceiveth, enjoined; that all ought to partake of the elements apart, certainly he enjoined, that the people should receive both, and not bread only, or wine only by concomitancie.

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; it belongs to you alone to drink the blood of Christ before the Laity.

Anno 355.

Hilarius Pictauiensis 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 Lord's 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 spake 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 concomitancie 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.

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 mayest be of one body and blood with him. And a little after; After thou hast 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. 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 moralls, 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 concomitancie) 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.

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. 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 Theoderet writes in his fifth book of Ecclesiastical story, and 17. chap. repelleth the Emperor Theodosius from the Communion with these words: 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 spilled 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 the Laity, but we deny, that it is so commanded by God's 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 Laity, 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 since 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 Laity 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.

Jerome 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 Lord's 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 Jerome speaketh yet more expressly of the Laity, receiving the Cup from the Priest in the Eucharist, in his comment on the 3. chap. of Zephaniah; the Priests also, who administer the Eucharist, & devide the blood of the Lord to his people, commit wickedness against the Law, To which allegation Cardinal Bellarmine answereth nothing, but we hear no news. It is true we hear no news out of Saint Jerome's mouth. For all the fathers above alleged testify as much; and this Bellarmine is for ced to grant. Durum telum necessitas; ignoscite. If he could have coined any new answer, we should have had somewhat else from him, then, Nihil noui 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 vt ori eius effundatur Eucharistia, and that the Sacrament be poured into his mouth.

Anno 399.

Saint Chrysostom 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 Chrysostom 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 Priests part was the greatest: but this our Sacrament is given entirely to everyone, neither hath the Priest more then the Lay people, although the symbols are more or greater in the Communion of the Priests, then of the people.

Refutation.

This slight color of answer is easily washed away: for

First, Saint Chrysostom in the original Greek hath no word signifying parts, or division into parts, but saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. that the Priest fed on other things, and that the Laity 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 then 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. Chrysostom, 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 Prists 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 Chrysostom: 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.

Anno 410.

ABout the beginning of the fifth Age, God raised up that golden Tapour 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 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, crieth, 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.

Bellarmine de sacra. Eucharistiae. lib. 4. cap. 26. answereth, that the force of Saint Augustine'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 it self, 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, whereinsoeuer the force of Saint Augustine's reason stands, his words, which we allege, are expressly for taking it by 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.

Eusebius Emissenus in his Homily upon Palme-Sunday, speaks of the faithfulls communicating in both kinds, as of a daily and frequent practice. As then our Lord lived, and spake, 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 Layetie 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, then 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 Lord's Supper: Of that, viz. the Lord's 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 he is drunk. If the Layetie drank not of the Lord's Table, they did not equally participate with the Priests. And if in Theodorets 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 poculū ex salutari ipsius sanguine, &c. 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. 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 Clarke, 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 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 Laity, and that the administering of the Sacrament to the people without wine, was held a profanation of the Lord's Supper: for which cause that Bishop was severely taxed.

Anno 453.

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. 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 comand, that either they receive the entire Sacraments, or that they be entirely withheld from them, because the division of one and the self-same 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 Lord's Supper is not entire without the Cup, which quite overthroweth our adversaries new fancy of concomitancy.

Thirdly, it is to be noted, that he defineth the withholding the Cup from any Communicant, or deviding 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 then 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 Priests only, and not the Laity. 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 Layetie 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 reformed 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 then 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 heresy 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, Gratians evasion will no way save the Laity 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 Priests 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 Everard 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 Popes decissions? You are then taken. Do you disallow of them? You are nobody 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 mauis, accipe.

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.

Remigius Archbishop of Reims, 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:

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 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 then 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 baptized for the dead. Doubtless if the Laity 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 Arianism, 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. 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.

Anno. 600.

IT was truly spoken of Constantine, that he was Praeteritis melior, venientibus auctor; Better then his predecessors, and a good president 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, 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 Augustine the Monk into England to propagate the Christian faith; who in some places sowed, in others watered the seed all ready sown which was wholesome, yet somewhat smutty, and such as needed to be washed and cleansed from superstition. He much stikled for Gregory his masters authority, and brought in some customs and ceremonies, that savor 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. in Euang. he mystically applieth the blood of the Paschal 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 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 color 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, 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, then either supine negligence, or a cauterized conscience. For S. Gregory in the words immediately preceding those above alleged, expressly speaketh of drinking Christ's blood, saying, quod 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, sacratissim â praeciosi sanguinis effusione genus humanum redimere, & sacrosanctum viuifici 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 Commmunion 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 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 remaiue in us, who have been refreshed by these pure and holy mysteries.

Anno 630.

Saint Isidore, as in other things, so in this, treadeth his master Gregory's steps de diuin. of fic. lib. 1. c. 15. The fourth prayer is brought in for the kiss of peace; vt 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 mistery of Christ's body and blood. But God's people are, or ought to be in charity, and therefore to be admitted by Saint Isidores rule, as well to the Cup, as to the bread at the Lord's Table.

Anno. 633.

In the fourth Council of Toledo, Can. 6. All the people are appointed one good fryday 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 Choir. 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 drines 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 human 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 away the Eucharist given them by the Priest, not out of infidelity, but because they could not swallow anything 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 Laity, refusing bread at the Priests hands, which they could not take down, and yet receiving the Cup: and in this case of necessity, the Council dispenseth 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 offerre, 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 dipt 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 it self saying, Drink ye all of this, as he took the bread by it self, saying; Take, eat, &c.

Anno 720.

Venerable Beda, the honor 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; 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. Se 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 give him his holy blood to drink.

Anno 731.

Gregory 3. in his former Epistle to Boniface, forbiddeth at the Lord's Table more then 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 Laity: 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 for leapers, 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 Augustine 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, would take the body and blood of Christ.

Papists answer.

Cardinal Bellarmine, for want of a better, aduentureth 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 inuolued 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 Laity 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 leapers are not excluded simply, but secluded, that they might not infect the sound, by drinking together with them.

Anno 800.

CHarles the Great in his book (as the Inscription beareth) of Images, testifieth, that in his time not only frequently, but daily, Christians participated of Christ's body and blood. He affirmeth, that sins are remitted by 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 Laity, 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 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 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 for thee, and for all for the remission of our sins. And again; The blood is well joined to the flesh, because 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 moderne Papists, he could not in more express words have impugned the Romish Gloss upon the words of our Savior, viz. drink ye all of this: that is, all Priests, then he doth. cap. 15. He alone it is, saith he, who breaketh this bread, & by the hands of his Ministers distributeth it to beleiuers, saying, take ye ad drink all of this, as well Ministers, as the rest 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 Chaunters, Readers, or any other, is sufficient to bless the bread and wine, wherewith the people might be refreshed to their souls 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 Popes sacrilegious heresy. If the bread and wine were blest for the refection of the people, then not of the Priests only; if this refectiō 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.

Rabanus Maurus, Bishop of Mainz 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 shown. 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. 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 Hoste. 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.

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 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 Layetie, 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 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 judgment 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 offense; 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 Laity, and consequently confess, that they, who for their crimes were at sometimes 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 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 Wormes under Lewis the second, we find a Canon to this purpose: 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 debard 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 Lord's Table. I desire then to know, what incestuous crime all the Laity 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.

Regino discribeth the manner of Pope Adrian’s delivering the Communion to King Lotharius and his followers in both kinds, then which we cannot desire a nobler president, or fairer evidence of the custom of the Church in that Age; Thus then Regino; The Pope invites the king to the Lord's 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 shown thyself a favorer, or an abbetter of King Lothar. in the objected crime of adultery, neither hast given thy consent thereunto, neither hast 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.

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 smelt 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 devise some colorable 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 courtain, 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 vpraided with them: or because like a new Alcumist, 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 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 spake of the 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 strayne. 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 ought we find, or have had anything 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 Leuven 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 spake 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 Leuven 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 siguratiuely 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 cā 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 disapointeth 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, then the people, as well as the Priests.

Anno 910.

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, 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.

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.

Vincentius writes of Elgifa, an old Matrone 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 Albons, 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 Howsell, or Hoste, 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 halowing 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 Aqua-vitae, whereof, though he hath but a taste now, he shall have a full draught in the next Age.

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 faith; enlarge the Iawes 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 wine-press of the cross.

Anno 1014.

Bruno Abbas Richen-angiensis speaketh to the point, as Fulbertus; 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.

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 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.

Guitmundus ioines with Oecumenius, in assigning our Communion at the Lord's 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.

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 Hoste 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 Cross.

Anno 1070.

Theophilact reproves the Corinthians out of Saint Paul, for leaving the Lord's 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, How dost thou take thy cup alone, considering, that the dreadful Chalice is alike delivered unto all?

Anno 1080.

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. All we, saith he, who partake of one bread, and one Cup, are made one body.

Anno 1090.

Hildebertus Cenomanensis, together with Burcardus, Micrologus, and Humbertus de silua candida, relate and aproue that Canon of the third Council of Brachara, which condemneth the delivering the bread sopt in the wine to the Laity for the whole Communion; It is the manner, saith Hildebertus, in your monasteries to give the sacramental bread to none, but dipt in the wine, which Custom we find is not taken either from the Lord's institution, nor out of authentical constitutions. If you look into Matthew, Mark, and Luke, you shall find the bread delivered by it self, and the wine by it self; neither do we read, that Christ delivered bread dipt 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 baulk with credit; therefore he sets his brain upon the rack for a double answer. The first is, that the Council indeed forbids the dipping of the bread, upon this ground, that our Lord gave not bread dipt, or sopt 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 Laity. Secondly, he saith, 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 Laity 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 dipt 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 dipt 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 it self, and then wine, and not bread and wine together in a sop, or bread dipt 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 Concomitancie 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 spake 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 Laity, 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, then they were against that in their time, which was far less; for of the two, it is better to receive the bread dipt in the wine, then the bread, and no wine at all. The Council doth not ground it self 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 judgment ought to prevail against any sanction of Council, or custom of any place whatsoever to the contrary.

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 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 forever. And in his 31. chapter, he reciteth a decree of Pope Syluerius: Every Lord's day in the Lent all, besides Excommunicate persons, or such as do public penance, ought 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, 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 receiving in the Cup, that which flowed from his side, our souls attain unto the eating of the bread of life.

Anno 1110.

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 Saviors 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 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 Councils 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 cruce, 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 Cross.

Anno 1130.

Bern. in his 3. Serm. one Palme Sunday, maketh the sacrament of Christ's body and blood the Christians food and alimonie. 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 was instituted at first, and ought to be administered in both kinds: but he confirmeth it strongly by the testimony of Saint Augustine. And Pope Gelatius, first in his fifth Chapter he positively delivereth the necessity of communicating in both kinds, in these words; Because we so live by meat and drink, that we can want neither of them, Christ would have them both in his sacrament, least 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 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 Augustine saith, that neither the flesh without 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 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: Why is the sacrament received under a double form, or kind, since 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 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 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 stricken 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 then mine iniquity. In this same Age Antoninus writes in his Chronicles, that the Normans the morning before they fought with the Danes, received the Communion of Christ's body and blood.

Anno 1170.

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 Bellarmine's, who endeavoreth 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 vno collyrio mederi: to apply but one eye-salve 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of concomitancie. whatsoever the Fathers speak of receiving the body and blood, and the entire food of our souls, he would make us believe, they intend 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 judgment 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 Lord's 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. 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 inioined every faithful. The words of our Savior, Drink ye all, &c. are evidently a command to each particular. For so the Apostles understood him, and drank everyone 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.

Anno. 1229.

ABbas Vrspergensis writing of the besieging of Damiata, saith, that 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 writeth of the Normans in William the Conquerors time, and Matthew Paris of the English in King Heralds 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 shown.

Anno 1236.

Durand Mimatensis in express terms affirmeth, that he who receives the Hoste only, doth not receive the whole sacrament sacramentally. For although the blood of Christ be in the consecrated Hoste (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 ought 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 aprehend less in it, then the people surely that which is but half a Cup to one, cannot be a whole one to another; that which is empty, or incomplete to one, cannot be complete and full to another.

Anno 1240.

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 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 vtramque, 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 significancie, 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 Laity, consequently deprive (as much as in them lieth) the Laity of the grace represented by that sign, and conferred with it. And yet Aegidius Coninck, a moderne Jesuit, and professor of Divinity at Louaine, 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, then the profit of the receivers, &c.

Anno 1260.

Aquinas yieldeth three reasons of the institution of this sacrament under a double form: the first is; For the perfection of it, because since 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 Lord's passion, whereby his blood was severed from his body; and therefore in this sacrament the blood is offered by it self; 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, significancie, and efficacy. Bonaventure thus indeuoreth 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, because the matter of the Sacrament is expressed in neither kind by it self, 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 Mediauilla, 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 Laity, howsoever they entertained the vulgar and meaner sort with a dry Communion: thus 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 School-men might write more freely, before the Council of Constance had decreed the contrary. And they add; that some, if not all of these School-men approve of the administering of the Communion under one kind to the Laity.

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 Androcles spake 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 depraues Christ's institution, it checks the Primitive Church, it controules 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 fellons of the holy Chalice. First, under color 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 Mediauilla, 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: 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, 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, robbed all assemblies of the Laity, 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 Jordan, 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, spake partly in the language of Canaan, and partly in the language of Ashdod. Halensis 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, vt fieret Draco: One Serpent hath begot another, that from them both a Dragon might issue. The error of transubstantiation, had begotten the error of concomitancie; and from both these at length issued out their heretical sacrilege, or sacrilegious heresy in defending the practice of their half Communion.

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 Cassander.

Anno 1320.

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 ought, 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.

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 yon; He answereth, that this speech of our Savior, if it be taken as spoken of sacramental drinking, ought 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; Vadianus writeth of a cup in the Abbie of Sangall, that weighed 70. marks in silver: without doubt, saith he, for the use of the people at the public C •… mmunion. 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 Laity to suck out the consecrated wine, ring not well in the purified ears of Roman Catholics. For not only, Rhenanus 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 Laity may suck the blood of our Lord: but also Cajetan 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; 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 thē 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 spilled. These Chalices were not only in use in this Age, but a 1000. years before, in Saint Cyprians time: if we may believe Cardinal Cajetan; who ingeniously confesseth, that they were so called from their use in the Church, which was to serve the people. Thus 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 Lord's Cup, but also in the time of the peace of the Church. For we read not only of basons, but also of ministerial 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 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.

Anno 1410.

Petrus Dresensis taught publicly, that the Laity might not communicate under one kind; as is confessed by Didacus de Tapia in sent. lib. 4.

Anno 1412.

Iacobellus Misnensis, a Preacher of Prague, 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 Laity 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 frō 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, because in some parts of the world the Priests did not forbear to administer the communiō 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, 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 luster 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, then their ordinance, and the ancient acknowledged practice of the Primitive Church rather, then 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 Laity, suffered them to receive the blood of Christ at the hands of the Deacon. The like 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 Popes 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 Laity.

Anno 1430.

Thomas Waldensis, who took upon him to refute Wycliffe'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: 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 Morauia, 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 comissioners John Belouar of Prague, 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.

Anno 1541.

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.

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 Layety.

Anno 1562.

The observation of 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 color of concomitancy, subtracteth the use of the Cup from the Layety. For Antonius Mandulfe •… sis had a glimpse; but Card. Madrutius Gaspar de casa, and the Bishop of Quinque Ecclesi •… , and also Amans Seruito, a Friar had a full sight of the truth in this point. Antonius Mandulfensis, Chaplain to the Bishop of Prague, 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 Emmaus, 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 chinke; but 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 Cajetan, 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. Withall 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 Lord's 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 Madrusius, who being asked his opinion, answered directly, That he thought fit the Cup should be restored to the Layety, without all exception. Gaspar de Casa, Bishop of Lerye, a man of eminent learning, concurred with the Cardinal in judgment; 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 Layety. 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 refelled 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: 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: 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.

The answer.

First, although we grant, that the ancient 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 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 meddow, which no man ever saw, or heard of, unless it were in Sir Thomas Moors Vtopia. I give much more credit to Alphonsus 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 mustie; and of the two, if care be had to stop close the vessel, to keep out air, the wine will keep sweet longer then 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, then 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 Chrysostom in his first Epistle to Inocentius, Nicephorus Histor. Eccles. lib. 13. cap. 19, and Cardinal Baronius himself; whose words are very observable, 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.

The answer.

First, this argument is very impertinent to the purpose, and in consequence also. For the 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 anything. Saint Augustine 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 Caesar-Augusta in Spain. If any man receive the Sacrament, & eat not the same presently in the Church, let him be accursed forever. 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 shown 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 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 Lay-men's houses in both kinds, then 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 Lay-men'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 vndeni able testimonies of Justin Martyr, Gregory, Nazianzenus, and S. Jerome.

Justin Martyr 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 everyone, and they carry the same things to those that are absent.

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.

Saint Jerome highly commending Exuperius Bishop of Tolosa, saith of him: there was no man richer then he, that carried the Lord's body in a wicker basket, and his blood in a glass.

The answer.

First, as glasses cannot strengthen one another, 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, since it self is vniustifiable? Mettall upon metal 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 Lord's 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 sticklings in both kinds, then the Communion of Infants maketh for, and not against the Layties 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 Augustine, 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: Alas, the treachery of others hath destroyed us, we have done nothing of our selves, we hasted not of our own accords to profane contagions, leaving the Meat, and Cup of the Lord.

Saint Augustine 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 baptized or were not baptized, 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 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.

The answer.

First, these instances are not to the purpose: for our question is of the prohibition of giving the Laity 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 Laity, 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 death-bed, 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, least 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, moystening 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 releiueth our adversaries, nor hindereth us. For if Saint Ambrose straight 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: Otherwayes, 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 it self. 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, then this rite of the Church maketh for, and not against the entire Communion of the Laity:

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 Laity.

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 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 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 Lord's body and blood.

The answer.

We acknowledge, that there is often mention made in the Ancients of the Lay 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 scandalized 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 Choir, or Chancel, as Priests used to do, but without the Choir 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, then 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 calice 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 Augustine, that evident truth striketh into the eyes of such, as are shut against it) acknowledgeth as much: The 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 Lay-men 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 Laity drank of the holy Cup: as doth also his fellow Cardinal Baronius, saying; The faithful of old, in the time of the sacrifice in the Church, received the most blessed Sacrament of the Lord's 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:

The answer.

This argument hath two parts, the, first is taken from the custom of the Greek Church, 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, then the half Communion it self. 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 then 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 Homers fables of the God's, by turning them into Allegories, and Mythologicall expositions. So Harding division 22. arti. 2. salueth 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 consecrate 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 consecrate 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or praesanctificata in the plural number doth imply. It is not called by Balsamo, upon the 52. Canon of the sixth Council, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; 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, then 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 Savior of all, for all thy benefits, which thou hast bestowed upon us, and in special, for that thou hast vouch safed to make us partakers of the body, and blood of thy Christ.

The answer.

First, the doctrine of natural Concomitancie, presupposeth the natural body of Christ to be substantially, and carnally, under the form of bread: which we deny; and consequently this argument, from concomitancie, is of no force. The words, This is my body, being rightly expounded by Augustine, 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 human 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. 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 concomitancie also.

Retortion.

Lastly, this Argument may be retorted upon our adversaries in this manner:

Whosoever receiveth Christ in the Sacrament, ought 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, ought 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 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.

The answer.

First, there is a double essence of the sacrament, 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 Lord's 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, 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 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 imperfect Sacrament, as a man that wants an arm, or leg, is truly called a maimed, or imperfect 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 Lord's 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 Lord's Supper, nor containeth in it the whole nature, and essence of this Sacrament.

The answer.

First, the two props of this Argument being 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 Receiuers receive no benefit at all by the Communion, but eat and drink their own damnation. And Saint Ambrose pronounceth him to be an unworthy Receiver, who celebrates these mysteries other ways, then 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, 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 significancie: for they effect that, which they signify, &c.

But the significancie of one Element is not equal to the significancie 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.

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 Pomponius observeth, Prouide 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 Laity? 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 sometimes so weak stomachs, that they cannot taste wine, and some both of the Laity 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 rigor of their legal vow, and that our Saviors command, Drink ye all of this, is a sufficient warrant for them to drink of the sacramental wine at the Lord's Table, though they drink no wine else where. Saint James the Brother of our Lord, though as Saint Jerome 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 stomachs cannot away with the smalest 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 stomachs may brook; as the fathers in the Counsel of Towers ordered to give to sick folk bread sopt in wine, because they were not able to take down dry bread.

Lastly, this Argument is both answered, and retorted in the Conference.

The answer.

First, inconveniences in a matter of indifference, may be pondered and put in the other 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, then 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 vn-auoydable 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, then God's absolute Command disobeyed, or Christ's Institution corrupted.

Secondly, Christ and his Apostles, and the Christian Churches throughout all the world, 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 Laity, as well as the Bread.

Thirdly, if they would from these wants and impediments infer, that some favorable 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 Methegling, nor call Innocentius the eight 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 Laity, 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 sometimes 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 her self 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 Laity of the use of the bread.

Fourthly, for the matter of irreuerence, if any through carelessness or contempt, spill a 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 irreuerence 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, thē 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 human 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 Nauigation, 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 Communiō. 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 quātity, 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 anything to the Reformed Churches, and acknowledge their former error, or pride to maintain a prerogative of their Priests above the people. Which, as I shown before out of Saint Chrysostom, ought 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 something 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 Coyners of Fables, whereby they delude the simple people, are clearly convinced of sacrilege, in taking away the Chalice from the Lord's Supper. For they have taken away the Cup of blessing from the people, and instead thereof, offer the Whore of Babylon's cup of abomination.