Anno 800.

CHarles the Great in his booke (as the In∣scription beareth) of Images, testifieth, that * in his time not onely frequently, but dayly, Christians participated of Christs body and blood. He affirmeth, that sins are remitted by e the holy Ghost, or by the blood of Christ, which is taken of vs in the Sacrament, and was shed for vs, for the remission of sinnes. That he means by vs, the Laiety, as well as the Clergy, is euidēt. First, because himself was a Lay man; and therefore necessarily, in vs, includes those of his owne ranke and order. Secondly, be∣cause he speakes of all their communicating, who receiue the remission of sinnes by the ef∣fusion of Christs blood for them; and these I am sure, are not the Priests onely. Thirdly, because in the fourth booke c. 14. hee speaketh expresly of the faithfull in generall: whereby the people must needs be vnderstood, as well as the Priests. His words are: the mystery of thefbody and blood of Christ is dayly receiued by the faithfull in the Sacrament.

Anno 820.

Paschasius Rathertus, Abbot of Corbie, who was the first that euer wrote of purpose, and at large, of the truth of Christs body g and blood in the sacrament (if we may belieue Bellarmine) is full and direct against the Church of Rome in the point of their halfe communion. O man, saith he, as often as thou drinkest of this Cup, or ea∣test of this bread, thou mayest not thinke, that thou drinkest other blood, then that which was shedhfor thee, and for all for the remission of our sinnes. And againe; The blood is well ioyned to the flesh, becauseineither the flesh without the blood, nor the blood without the flesh is rightly communicated. For the whole man, which consists of two substances, is redee∣med; and therefore fed together both with the flesh of Christ, and his blood. Had he liued in our dayes, and professedly wrote against our moderne Papists, he could not in more expresse words haue impugned the Romish Glosse vpon the words of our Sauiour, viz. drinke yee 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 drinke all of this, as well Ministers, as the restkof the faithfull; this is the Cup of the blood of the new and euerlasting Testament.

Anno 830.

Amalarius, praefat. in liber. 3. de Offic. Ec∣cles. affirmeth, that the benediction of Bi∣shops, or Priests without Chaunters, Rea∣ders, or any other, is sufficient to blesse the bread and wine, wherewith the people might be l refreshed to their soules health, as it was wont to be done in the first times by the Apo∣stles themselues. Quot verba, tot fulmina; so ma∣ny words, so many thunderbolts to strike downe dead the Popes sacrilegious heresie. If the bread and wine were blest for the refection of the people, then not of the Priests onely; if this refectiō was for the health of their soules, who dare deny it them? If this was the man∣ner of blessing and administring the Sacrament vsed by the Apostles themselues, by what au∣thority at this day doth the Church of Rome alter it?

Anno 835.

mRabanus Maurus, Bishop of Mentz teacheth vs, that the Lord would haue the Sacrament of his body and blood to bee receiued by the mouth of the faithfull, and made their food; that by that visible worke, the inuisible effect of the Sacrament might bee shewed. For as the materiall food outwardly nourish∣eth the body, and maketh it quicke and liuely, so the Word of God within nourisheth, and strengtheneth Page  97 the soule.nMen may haue this temporall life without this meate and drinke, but they cannot haue the eter∣nall, because this meate signifies the eternall societie, or communion of the Head with the members. Who soeuer (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 euery way stops the mouth of our aduersaries. They can∣not say, that he speakes of Priests only; for he speakes of all faithfull, that either are already, or are to bee made members of Christs body. Neither can they shift off this passage, as they doe some others, by granting, that the people may, but denying, that they ought to commu∣nicate in both kinds. For he presseth very farre the necessitie of thus communicating, without which he supposeth neither communion with Christ, nor eternall life can be obtained. Nei∣ther lastly, can they euade by their doctrine of concomitancy, saying, that the people parti∣cipate of the blood in the body, when they re∣ceiue the consecrated Hoste. For he speaketh distinctly of eating and drinking, bread and drinke, and sacraments, in the plurall number, which cannot possibly be vnderstood of par∣ticipating the bread onely, or communicating in one kind after the Popish manner.

Anno 840.

oHaymo Bishop of Halberstat, relateth the Page  98 manner of the faithfull to haue been in his time, daily to eate the body of Christ, and to drinke his blood; and paraphrasing vpon these words of the Apostle, 1. Cor. cap. 10. The Cup which we blesse, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? He saith, the Cup is called the p Com∣munion, because all communicate of it, and partake of the blood of the Lord, which it con∣taineth in it. Surely if the word fidelis, or faith∣full carryeth not the Layetie, yet the word om∣nes, or all, must needs; the faithfull then, and all of them in Haymoes time, were as well admit∣ted to the Cup, as to the bread.

Anno 849.

Valafridus Strabo speaking of the suspension * of scandalous persons from the Communion, calleth the Lords Supper Sacraments in the plurall number, in regard of the two elements, or kinds in which it is administred. Those, saith he, that wander from the members of Christ by the enormity, or faeditie of capitall crimes, by the iudge∣ment of the Church are suspended from the ^q Sacra∣ments, lest by the vnworthy receiuing them, they should be entangled in a greater guilt, as Iudas. Here by capitall offenders, to vnderstand Priests, were a capitall offence; as if they alone were the greatest offenders in the Church, and to haue the rod of Ecclesiasticall censures to bee spent vpon them onely. Therefore the Ro∣manists, will they, nill they, to saue themselues Page  99 from the lash, must put the capitall offender vp∣on the Laiety, and consequently confesse, that they, who for their crimes were at some times suspended from the Sacraments, were ordina∣rily, when they were free from such crimes, ad∣mitted to both the Sacraments, (as Strabo cal∣leth them) that is, both the elements, the wine as well as the bread. For the same Strabo in his twentieth Chapter stirreth vp himselfe, and all good Christians to the continuall partici∣pating of the r body and blood of Christ, with∣out which we cannot liue, so far forth, as some greater blots or blemishes in body or mind do not withhold, or hinder from it.

Anno. 868.

In a Councell held at Wormes vnder Lewis the second, we find a Canon to this purpose: sIf any man shall marry a widow, which had a daugh∣ter by her former husband, and shall after lye with this her daughter; let that marriage by all meanes be dissolued, and let that man vndergoe the pennance of the Church, so that for three yeeres he be suspended from the body of Iesus Christ, and his blood. He who vpon a special reason is debard from the Com∣munion of the body and blood of Christ, and that for a certain time, must needs be supposed before that time to haue beene admitted to communicate in both kinds, and after his pe∣nance of three yeeres done, cannot be denied againe admittance to the Lords Table. I desire Page  100 then to know, what incestuous crime all the Laiety vnder the Papacy haue committed, that for these two hundred yeeres, euer since the Councell of Constance, they haue suspended them from the Sacrament of Christs blood.

Anno. 869.

tRegino discribeth the manner of Pope A∣drians deliuering the Communion to King Lo∣tharius and his followers in both kindes, then which we cannot desire a nobler president, or fairer euidence of the custome of the Church in that Age; Thus then Regino; The Pope inuites the king to the Lords Table, taking the body and blood of our Lord in his hands; the King takes the body and blood of our Lord at the hands of the Pope: Then the Bishop turning himselfe to the followers of the King, deliuers the Communion to each of them in these words: If thou hast not shewed thy selfe a fa∣uourer, or an abbetter of King Lothar. in the obie∣cted crime of adulterie, neither hast giuen thy consent thereunto, neither hast communicated with Wald∣rand, and other persons excommunicated by the A∣postolick See, let the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ be healthfull to thee vnto eternall life.

Anno 875.

uBertramus, or as some write his name Ratra∣mus,Page  101 in his booke 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 receiued, by, or with the mouth of the faithfull, be his body and blood mystically, or in truth? And a little after he resol∣ueth thus; If yee looke inwardly, it is not the liquor of wine, but the blood of Christ, which is tasted by the minds of the faithfull, when it is drunke, and acknow∣ledged, when it is seene, and liked, when it is smelt vn∣to.

This Bertram speaks so plainely through this whole booke for the entire Communion, and against the Popish carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament, that the Romish Inquisitors were in a quandary, what to doe with this Au∣thor, whither quite to prohibite the reading of him, or to deuise some colourable excuse and euasion for such passages in him, as hold no good quarter with their Trent Faith.

Papists answer to the testimonies of the wri∣ters alleadged in this former Age.

Before most of these testimonies, our aduer∣saries draw Timanthes his courtain, and answer them with silence. Onely to Paschasius and Haymo, Cardinall Bellarmine pretends to giue an answer; either because for shame hee could do no lesse, being so often vpraided with them: or because like a new Alcumist, he hoped out Page  102 of the iron that wounded him, to draw an oyle to cure the wound of his cause. To the testimo∣nie out of Paschasius, his answer, like Cerberus, consists of three heads. First, he * saith, that the place in Paschasius seemes to be corrupted. Se∣condly, he saith, that Paschasius doth not expound the words of our Lord, as they are in Matthew, but as they seeme to be spoken of Christ, when the sacra∣ment is administred in the Church. His reason is; In the institution of the Sacrament, there were no other Ministers present distinguished from other belee∣uers: and therfore Christs words, as they were vttered then, no way admitteth Paschasius explication, Drinke ye all of this, as well Ministers as other be∣leeuers. Thirdly, hee saith, that the words of Pas∣chasius make much for the opinion of the Romish Church. For they signifie, that Christs blood is to bee drunk, but vnder the forme of bread, not vnder the forme of wine, As for Haymo, hee answers him with a short come-off, saying, He spake of the * vnity of the Chalice; and that his meaningis, that they that receiue the blood of the Lord, receiue out of one Cup.

Refutation.

The threefold answer of Bellarmine to Pas∣chasius, is not like a threefold cable that cannot be broken, but rather like a rustie twisted wy∣er-string, that breakes with the least strayne. First, he beareth vs in hand, that the place in Paschasius seemes to be corrupted. Corrupted? Page  103 By whom? by Papists? Surely they would neuer haue corrupted this text to make against themselues: by Protestants? That cannot be. for no Protestants haue set forth Paschasius, for ought we find, or haue had any thing to doe in that Edition of Paschasius, which we cite. Be∣sides, in all the ancient impressions of Paschasi∣us, and the Manu-scripts, that haue come to our sight, the words are found as we cite them. Yea but Iohn of Louane suspects, that the copies are faulty, and that, bibite, is put for, edite, Drinke yee, for eat ye: why so? because the words going before are, he distributeth the bread by the hands of his ministers to the beleeuers, saying, Take yee, and drinke yee all of this. This reason like a rope of sand, hath no coherence at all. For though Pas∣casius spake of bread, yet to proue 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 Pascha∣sius be put for edite, eate ye, but must stand as it doth; drinke yee. For the words immediately following in Paschasius are, for this is the new and eternall Testament. Now what a ridiculous infe∣rence were it, if we read the words, as Iohn of Louane would haue vs: take, eate this, for this is the Cup of the blood of the new and euerlasting testa∣ment? Bellarmine his second answer is as absurd as his first. For Paschasius his words make more strongly for vs, and against himself, if Paschasius expound the words, Drinke ye all of this, as they Page  104 seeme to bee spoken by Christ, not at the first Institution, but afterwards, whensoeuer the sa∣crament is administred in the Church; If now also, whensoeuer the sacrament is administred in the Church, Christ commandeth, drink ye all of this, that is with Paschasius glosse, all Mini∣sters, & other beleeuers; it followeth, that all other beleeuers, as well as Ministers, ought now by Christs command to drinke of the cup. Thirdly, as Bellarmine his first answer is a∣gainst the text of Paschasius, and his second a∣gainst himselfe, so his third is against common sence. How can blood bee drunke vnder the forme of bread? if we speake of drinking sigu∣ratiuely by faith, this kind of drinking the Ro∣manists explode. If he speake of drinking pro∣perly with the mouth, euery suckling is able to confute the Cardinall, who know by meere sense, that nothing cā be drunk, but that which is moist, and of liquid substance? Nay, the Car∣dinal 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 doe not say, that Christs blood is to be drunke of the people by the mouth of the bo∣dy, but here he saith, that other beleeuers, as well as Ministers, by Christs command ought to drinke it, but after a manner neuer heard of before, to drinke it vnder the forme of bread.

Now for his answer to Haymo pari facilitate reijcitur, quâ profertur, tis as easy to be reiected, as vrged. For first, the Cardinal corrupteth the Page  105 text of Haymo: hee saith not, the Cup is the Communion, because all drinke of that one Cup, the word one is not in Haymo. Admit it were; this no way disapointeth our allegati∣on out of Haymo. For still this word omnes, or al, remaines. And be it out of one Cup, or more, Haymo saith expresly, that all did partake of it, and receiued of the blood of Christ contained in it. If all, then the people, as well as the Priests.