The grand sacrilege of the Church of Rome, in taking away the sacred cup from the laiety at the Lords Table: detected, and conuinced by the euidence of holy Scripture, and testimonies of all ages successiuely from the first propagation of the catholike Christian faith to this present: together with two conferences; the former at Paris with D. Smith, now stiled by the Romanists B of Calcedon; the later at London with M Euerard, priest: by Dan. Featly, Doctor in Diuinity.
Featley, Daniel, 1582-1645.
highlight hits: on | off

CHAP. XI. The eleuenth Argument, drawne from the vniforme, and constant practice of the Catholike Church in all ages.

THe words vsed in the institution, Drink you all of this, ought to be expounded according to the vniforme and con∣stant practise of the Catholike Christian Church:

But the constant and vniforme practise of the Catholike Church extendeth them to the Laytie, as well as to the Clergy:

Therefore the words of the institution ex∣tend to the Laiety, as well as to the Clergy.

Page  34 The Proposition was assented vnto by Ma∣ster Euerard, in the Conference held with him: neither, thinke I, any Christian will sticke at it, who seriously weigheth Christs promises to his Church, to leade her by his Spirit into all truth; to be with her vnto the end of the world; to build her vpon a rocke, against which hell gates should neuer preuaile;

The Assumption can no otherwise so cer∣tainely be prooued as by induction, and parti∣cular instances in euery Age; which, God wil∣ling, shall be brought, and made good, against the aduersaries exceptions, in the Sections fol∣lowing.

SECT. I. Testimonies of the practise of the Christian Church in the first Age.

From Christs Ascension to the first 100. yeeres following.

AFter the writings of the blessed Apostle Saint Paul, whose testimonie in the ninth argument is discussed, I alleadge for the pra∣ctise of the Church in this first age Dionysius Areopagita, Martialis Lemouicensis, Clemens Romanus, and Ignatius Antiochenus. For albeit I assent thus farre to our learned Critickes, that these Authors are not altogether currant; there is some drosse in Ignatius, more in Martia∣lis,Page  35 and most of all in Clemens: and Dionysius is vndoubtedly post-natus 300. yeeres at lest yon∣ger then his age is set in the Romane register; yet for the reasons following, I thought fit to produce these Authors, and ranke them in the first age. First, because our aduersaries vsually so ranke them, and alleage them against vs for fathers of the first age; and surely if their te∣stimonies bee good and ancient, when they seeme to make against vs, they are to bee ac∣counted as good and ancient, when they make for vs.

Secondly, because we cannot make authors, but must take such as we finde, these are the only authors that are extant, out of whom te∣stimonies may be alleadged for this first age. Therefore as the sage Senatour of Capua, when the people vpon a iust distaste giuen by the Magistrates, had a purpose at once to ca∣sheere them all, aduised them: Before you re∣moue these, choose fitter in their places; and when diuers were named vnto them, and they could like of none, in the end hee perswaded them to keepe the old officers, till they could agree to name better in their roomes: so I would desire our Critikes to name vs more approued authors in this age, then these are, and if they can name none, then to let these hold their places, and the estimation they haue had for many hundred yeeres.

Thirdly, because I hold it no good Topick, to argue à parte ad totum, affirmatiuely in this Page  36 manner. There are some false passages, or cor∣ruptions in an author: therefore the author is spurious, and of no credit. If we may thus fillip off ancient Writers, wee shall haue but a few left. If there are (as no doubt there bee) diuers dead boughes & superfluous stemmes in these Writers of so long standing: let our Criticks prune them off, not cut the trees downe by the roots. Poliat lima, non exterat, saith Fabius, let the pluimer smooth the timber & cut of the rug∣ged knobs, not grate or weare out the heart of it. Volo nasutum, non polyposum. Fourthly, because the testimonies I cite out of these authors, were neuer questioned, much lesse proued to be taken for good by the aduersarie, vntill he can disproue them, according to the rule of the Ciuill law: supponitur esse bonus, qui non pro∣batur esse malus, he is supposed to be an honest man, who was neuer proued otherwise. To cal in then these ancients in that order, as com∣monly they go: *

First, Anno 70.

Dionysius Areopagita in his booke of Ec∣clesiasticall Hierarchie. chap. 5. relateth the practise of the Church in his time on this man∣ner. zAfter the Priest hath prayed, that he may holy∣ly distribute, and that they that are to partake of the Sacraments, may receiue it worthily: discouering the bread, that before was couered, and breaking it into many pieces, and diuiding one Cup among all, he mul∣tiplieth that in the signes, which is but one, and distri∣buteth it.

Page  37
Anno. 80.

The second, MartialiskLenoricensis, who stileth himselfe a seruant of God, and an Apo∣stle of Iesus Christ, in his epistle ad Burdigal. writeth thus: You heretofore honored the priests, which deceiued you with their sacrifices, which they offered to dumbe and deafe images, that neither could helpe you, nor themselues: but now much more you ought to honour the Priests of Almighty God, who minister life vnto you in the Cup, and liuing Bread. By this argument of Martials, the Romish Priests, that giue the people but an halfe Com∣munion, should lose halfe of the honour due vnto Gods Priests, if not the whole. For thus out of Martials premises I conclude. Those, and none but those Priests are to be honoured and reuerenced, 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 bee reuerenced, or honoured.

Anno 92.

Thirdly, Clemensl in his second booke of Constitutions, 57. chap. thus enioyneth: after the offering of the sacrifice, let euery order a part re∣ceiue the body of our Lord, and his pretious blood.

Page  36 〈1 page duplicate〉 Page  37 〈1 page duplicate〉 Page  36 〈1 page duplicate〉 Page  37 〈1 page duplicate〉
Page  38
Anno 100.

Fourthly, Ignatius, the Scholer of Saint Iohn the Euangelist, Bishop of Antioch and Martyr, in his Epistle to the Philadelphians, enforceth an argument to vnity from the Communion: I exhort you to imbrace one faith, one manner of preaching, and vse of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: for the flesh of our Lord Iesus is one, and his blood one that was shed for vs, there is one bread also broken for all,*and one Cup distributed vnto all.

Bellarmine → his first Answer.

Bellarmine → is put to a miserable plunge in his answer to this allegation. First, he saith, in the Latine n copies the words of Ignatius are not as we cite them; There is one Cup distributed vnto all: but there is one Cup of the whole Church: and though the Greeke copies reade as we do, yet he saith, that much credit is not to be giuen to them.

The Refutation.

Against this answer I reply:

First, that if we may not trust the Greeke e∣ditions of Ignatius, much lesse may we trust the Latine translations; especially since of late they are come into hucksters hands. To ap∣peale from a translation to the originall is vsu∣all: Page  39 but to appeale from the originall to a tran∣slation is a thing vnheard of. This is to make the brooke or streame to bee purer then the fountaine or spring. The Poet teacheth Bellar∣mine another lesson:

Dulciùs ex ipso fonte bibuntur aquae.
Ignatius, as it is well knowne, wrote in Greeke, and therefore vnlesse Bellarmine → can proue, that other Greeke copies agree with his La∣tine translation, and not with ours, he speaketh nothing to the purpose: for a translation is of no credit further, then it agrees with the * ori∣ginall.

Secondly, euen Bellarmines corrupt transla∣tion maketh against the Church of Rome, and prooueth, 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 speakes not of the possession, but of the vse of the Cup: and if the Priests onely had dranke of it, hee would haue called it the Priests Cup: but in terming it the Cup of the whole Church, he plainely signifieth, that the whole Church vsed it in the celebration of the Lords Supper.

Bellarmine → , his second answere.

Secondly, oBellarmine → saith, that the force of Ignatius his argument consisteth in the vni∣tie of the Cup, and not in the vniuersalitie of Page  40 them that drinke, for he exhorteth there to vnitie.

The Refutation.

First, Ignatius exhorts there all to vnitie, because all eate of one bread, and drinke of one cup. His argument therefore standeth both in the vniuersalitie of them that drinke, and the vnitie of the Cup: and it may be thus reduced into forme.

All that eate of one bread, and drinke of one holy Cup, in remembrance of one body offered, and one blood shed for all, ought to embrace vnitie:

But all you of the Church of Philadelphia (people as well as Priests) eate of one bread, and drinke 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 Phi∣ladelphia ought to embrace vnitie, and god∣ly loue.

If the pinch, or straine of the argument were in vnitie only, it would not hold; for if some onely dranke of this Cup, and not others, this should rather make more for a diuision, then for vnitie; it is the commu∣nion of more in one, that Ignatius layeth for the ground of his argument, enforcing vnitie.

Secondly, howsoeuer the argument stands, Page  41 it makes no great matter; sith we insist not so much vpon the argument it selfe, as vpon that his expresse affirmation; That one Cup in his time was giuen vnto all. This assertion alone suf∣ficiently prooueth the practise of the Church in his time.

Bellarmine → his third answere.

Thirdly, pBellarmine → saith, that nothing can be inforced from these words of Ignatius, but that it was the vse in that time, when there were but few Christians to giue the Cup vnto all: but this is an example, it is no precept: so the Cardinall.

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 testifie the contrary, and in this very Church of Philadelphia, the holy Ghost testifieth, Apoc. 3. 8. That there were many Christians. Behold, I haue set before thee an open dore, and no man shall shut it, &c.

Secondly, though the Primitiue Church were not of that large extent, as the Church in suceeding ages: yet the authoritie of the Church in that age, in which the Apostles liued, and their immediate successors, is Page  42 farre greater, then in any later age.

Thirdly, in this last answere the Cardinall yeeldeth vs the cause; for we cite these words of Ignatius onely to prooue the practise of the Primitiue Church, and thus much Bellarmine → confesseth, whereupon I adde; that this con∣fessed practise of the Primitiue Church was grounded on our Lords precept: drinke you all of this; for the Church so neere Christ can∣not bee supposed to haue swarued any way from his institution, by adding any thing vnto it, or taking away from it: certainely, Igna∣tius, and the Churches, wherein he bore sway, obserued the order and practise of Saint Iohn his master; and if Saint Iohn administred the Cup in all Churches to the people, so did the rest of the Apostles; for they varied not from Christ, or among themselues in celebrating the Lords Supper. And what the Apostles did ioyntly, no Christian doubteth, but they did by the direction of the holy Ghost, accor∣ding to our Lords will and commandement. And thus wee see this example amounteth to a precept, and the practise in Ignatius his time, ought to bee a president for all fu∣ture times.

Page  43

SECT. II. Testimonies of the Practise of the Christian Chur∣ches in the second Age.

From 100. to 200. Anno Dom. 150.

IVstinqMartyr in his second apologie, thus writeth: They which are called Deacons among vs, giue to euery one that is present of the consecra∣ted Bread and Wine. And when he hath related the whole manner of the celebration of the Eucharist, as it were to preuent a cauill that might be made, and is now made by Papists; the Martyr heere sheweth the practise of the Church, but maketh no mention of the pre∣cept of our Sauiour; as that they did so in deed, but were not bound so to doe: he fur∣ther addeth for the close: as they report that Ie∣sus commanded them, or, as they haue deliuered*vnto vs, Iesus his command giuen vnto them.

Bellarmine → , his answere.

Bellarmine → repineth at this so expresse a te∣stimony of so ancient a Father, and so renow∣ned a Martyr; and therefore laboureth to dis∣parage it some way or other.—Si non aliqu â nocuisset, mortuus esset. Yet all that he saith r to it is but this; that those last words of the Mar∣tyr, which mentioneth Christs precept, belong not to the Communion, but to the Consecration.

Page  44
The Refutation.

This solution will no way beare water. First, it is euident to any that reads the whole place, that Iustin Martyrs words, wherein he mentioneth Christs 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 bee seuered from the Communion: The series or method of the passage in Iustin is thus: hauing rehearsed the words of the In∣stitution, This is my body, doe this in remembrance of me, and this Cup is the new Testament; drinke you all of this: he addeth; and he commanded, that they onely should participate, as had been be∣fore washed in the lauer of Regeneration, and lead such a life as Christ prescribed them. These words? that they onely should participate, clearely con∣uince the Cardinall, and demonstrate, that Iustin Martyr extendeth Christs command both to the Consecration, and to the Commu∣munion it selfe: which in Christs precept cannot be deuided, both being enioyned in this one precept; doe this in remembrance of me▪ that is, Consecrate, and Communicate.

Secondly, howsoeuer the Cardinall by any tricke of sophistrie shall dismember the whole sentence, and pull these words, As Christ com∣manded, from the rest, and refer them to which part of the sentence he pleaseth; yet he can Page  45 neuer smoother the light of truth shining in these words; The Deacons deliuer or minister to e∣uery one, of the consecrated bread and wine. The pra∣ctice then of those times maketh for vs against the Church of Rome. The Deacons then, as the Ministers now, deliuered the Sacrament to the people in both kindes.

Anno. 152.

Laurence Deacon, to Pope Sixtus cryed out to him as hee was led to his Martyrdome: Whether goest thou, father, without thy sonne? whe∣ther hastest, thou Priest, without thy Leuite? try whe∣ther thou hast chosen a fitsminister, to whom thou hast committed the dispensation of our Lords blood. Wilt thou denie me to bee a copartner with thee in the effusion of thy blood, who hast made me a copart∣ner with thee in the celebration of our Lords blood? This giueth such light to Iustin Martyrs words, and so fully accordeth with them, that Tileta∣nus, the defender of the councell of Trent con∣fesseth, that it is t manifest, that in this age the vse of both kinds was common to all.

Anno 180.

Saint Irenaeus Bishop of Lions and Martyr, in the fourth booke against heresies, and 34. cha. proueth the resurrection of the flesh, and eter∣nall life by an argument drawne from the faithfulls eating Christs flesh in the Eucharist, Page  46 and he presseth his argument in this manner; How doe they, viz. the heretiques, say, that the flesh*should be vtterly corrupted and neuer rise againe, which is nourished with the body and blood of Christ? and a little after, Our bodies by participating the Eucharist or Sacrament of our Lords supper, are not now corruptible, or shall not vtterly be corrupted, and come to nothing, because they haue the hope of there∣surrection. Irenaeus speaketh of all Christians, people as well as Priests, for all faithfull Chri∣stians haue hope of a blessed resurrection; and he saith, that they are nourished with the bo∣die and blood of Christ, by participating of the Sacrament of his supper.

Papists answer.

The Romanists seeke to auoyde these and the like passages by their doctrine of concomi∣tancie, auerring that the blood of Christ is not seuered from his body; and consequently, that the Laietie take the blood in the body, and are nourished therewith to eternall life, and this, say they, is all that can bee gathered from Irenaeus his words: They are nourished with the blood of Christ, which they receiue together with his body, not with the blood of Christ, which they take by it selfe in the Cup.

The Refutation.

This answer of theirs is weake, and insuffi∣cient.

Page  47 First, because it is built on a weake and rui∣nous foundation. viz. the reall and carnall pre∣sence of Christs body in the Sacrament vnder the accidents of bread and wine: which I haue else where by Scriptures and Fathers refelled. See the fisher caught in his owne net. part. 2.

That the doctrine of concomitancie is builded vpon the reall and carnall presence, is not denied by the Romanists, for they make the one the ground of the other.

Secondly, albeit wee should grant, that the Laiety in some sence receiue the blood of Christ in the bread; yet they receiue it not so as Christ commandeth: for they receiue it not by drinking; No man drinketh in eating, or eateth in Drinking.

Thirdly, the blood of Christ, which wee re∣ceiue in the Sacrament, we receiue not as sub∣sisting in his veines, or as being a part of, or ioyned vnto his body; but as shed for vs: In which quality and manner it is impossible to receiue the blood of Christ together with, and in the body by naturall concomitancy.

Fourthly, whatsoeuer becommeth of the deuice of concomitancy, our aduersaries ther∣with cannot shift off Irenaeus. For in his fifth booke, and second Chapter, hee speaketh di∣stinctly of the Cup, and declareth his meaning to be, that the faithfull are made partakers of eternall life by drinking Christs blood, (my∣stically) in the Chalice: He confirmed the Chalice or Cup, which is a t creature, to be Page  48 his blood, shed for vs, wherewith our blood is nou∣vished: and a little after; when the mingled Cup and bread broken receiueth the Word of God (that is the benediction, or consecration) it is made the Eucharist or Sacrament of Christs body and blood: how then doe they (the heretiques) denie, that our flesh is capable of the gift of God, which is eter∣nall life, sith it is nourished with Christs 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 eate of the bread, and drinke of the Cup consecrated, are nourished by Christs body and blood to eternal life:

All faithfull Christians, or worthy commu∣nicants eate of the bread, and drinke of the consecrated Cup:

Therefore all faithfull Christians, or wor∣thy communicants are nourished by Christs body and blood to eternall life.

If the aduersarie will haue the assumption restrained to Priests onely, he must needs in like manner restraine the conclusion to Priests only; which is little lesse then heresie. Irenaeus his intent and drift in that place is, to confirme all the faithfull in the doctrine of the resurre∣ction, and therfore his medium must be vniuer∣sall, and such as holds as well for the Christian people, as for the Priest.

Page  49
Anno. 190.

Clemens Alexandrinus stromatum lib. 1. when they distribute the Eucharist, as the manner is, they giue to euery one of theupeople a part or portion ther∣of. Now that the Eucharist includeth the Cup, as well as the bread, hee declareth himselfe in expresse words. paedagog. li. 2. cap. 2. The mingling of the drinke and of the water and the word is called the Eucharist: and a little before: to drinke the blood of Iesus is to be partaker of the Lords incorruption. & stromatum lib. 4 Melchizedeke sanctified bread and wine for*a type of the Eucharist; not bread onely, but bread and wine is the Eucharist, and of this euery one of the people participated in his time, therefore all dranke of the Cup.

Bellarmines answer.

Bellarmine → cauilleth x at the last passage saue one, viz. where Clemens saith, to drinke Christs blood is to bee partaker of his incorruption. First he saith it doth not follow, that because he that drinketh Christs blood hath immorta∣lity or incorruption: therefore hee that drin∣keth it not, hath not incorruption: for he may haue it otherwise, namely, by the bodie.

Secondly, he saith, that Christs blood giueth in∣corruption or immortall life, not because it is drunke Page  50 but because it is taken. Now it is truly taken of them, who communicate in one kind onely, because the blood is not seuered from the body, which they partake of.

The refutation.

This answer of Cardinall Bellarmine → is many wayes defectiue.

First, when we gaue him three wounds, he applieth a plaister but to one of them, and it is too narrow for that too: hee cunningly silen∣ceth our strong allegations out of Clemens, and singleth out one of the weakest.

Secondly, that passage of Clemens, to which alone hee would seeme to say something, hee saith indeed nothing. For if the drinking of Christs blood bee a meanes to attaine our Lords incorruption, or immortality, as Bellar, out of Clemens confesseth, although he denyeth it to be the onely means; why should the peo∣ple be depriued of this means? Our argument out of Clemens standeth thus.

None ought to be depriued of the meanes of attaining our Lords incorruption, and im∣mortality.

But the drinking of Christs blood is the meanes to attaine immortallitie:

Therefore none ought to bee depriued of the vse of the Cup: I meane none that are fit guests for the Lords table.

Thirdly, Clemens saith not, to take Christs blood, but to drinke it, is to partake of incorruption. And Page  51 therefore, albeit Christs blood might bee o∣therwise participated, then by drinking of the Cup, this satisfieth not Clemens his intention and scope, who speaketh expressely of taking of it in this manner, viz. by drinking.

Fourthly, Bellarmine → in his answer beggeth the question. For he supposeth, that Christs blood, is taken in the bread, as his body in the Cup, which I haue before refuted out of Inno∣centius.

SECT. III. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 200. to 300.

Anno. 210.

FIrst Tertullian in his booke of the resurrecti∣on of the flesh. cap. 8. speaking of the pra∣ctise of Christians in generall, and not Ecclesi∣asticke onely, saith: yThe flesh feedeth vpon the body and blood of Christ, that the soule may be fatted, as it were of God.

Papists answere.

z Cardinall Bellarmine → shifteth of this sen∣tence of Tertullian: by tithing minte and cummim, nicely distinguishing betweene feeding vpon Christs blood, & drinking it. The people may and do feede vpon Christs blood, though they Page  52 drinke it not, but eate it, or take it by way of meat, vnder the forme of bread.

The refutation.

This nicity will not serue the turne. First because Tertullian speaketh of the body and blood of Christ as distinct things, saying, corpo∣re et sanguine. Now the blood taken as a distinct thing from the body, cannot bee fed vpon, but by drinking: we feed vpon the blood of Christ in the Sacrament as shed for vs; and therefore necessarily as seuered from the body. And how is it possible, to take blood, or feede vpon it as shed and seuered from the body, without drin∣king of it? All faithfull Christians in Tertullian his time fed vpon Christs blood, as distingui∣shed from the body; they dranke it therefore. Why then doth Tertullian vse the Verbe, vesci, signifying to feed vpon, & not bibere, signifying to drinke? The reason is euident, because hee speaketh of the partaking of both the body and the blood, which he could not expresse by the word, Drinke, because wee drinke not the body; he vseth, therefore a common word Ves∣ci, to feed, which may be applied to both acts, eating and drinking; namely, eating the body, and drinking the blood. Feeding is as the Ge∣nus to both, and may bee affirmed of both, For which cause Tertullian speaking of both made choice of it, rather then of the Verbe, bi∣bere, which could not agree to Corpore, though Page  53 it were proper to sanguine.

Secondly, Tertullian himselfe elsewhere maketh mention of the Cup giuen to the Laie∣tie, and not only to Lay men, but women also. Tertul. adavxorem lib. 2. c. 6. shall the Lords Table heare any thing, or haue to doe with the Tauerne, or with hell? from whose hands, shall she desire (the Sa∣cramentall) bread, of whose Cup shall she participate? He speaketh of a Christian woman married to an infidell, and sheweth the inconueniencie of such a match, whereby the faithfull wife was like to be debarred of the comfort of receiuing the Sacrament, and drinking of the Lords Cup. Tert. then is cleere for the Laietie com∣municating in both kinds. And so is Origen.

Anno. 230.

Origen in 16.bHom. on Numb. maketh this question. What people is it, that is accustomed to drinke blood? and he answereth the faithfull people; the Christian people heareth these things, and embra∣ceth him, who saith, vnlesse you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drinke his blood, you haue no life in you. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drinke indeed. Marke the ingemination? The people, the faithfull people heareth these things, &c. Therefore in Origens time it was the peoples vse and cu∣stome, to drinke the blood of Christ.

Page  54
Papists answer.

cBellarmine → loc. sup. cita. saith to this testimo∣nie of Origen, that the people did drinke, but they had no command so to doe. It was their vse, it was not Christs precept. Secondly, hee saith, the people might haue such a vse or custome, to drinke at the Lords supper, though euery one dranke not, but some onely.

The Refutation.

I need not refell this answer, because Bellar∣mine granteth all that, for which I produce this testimonie: that the practise of the Church in Origens time goeth for vs; and his mincing the matter, that some of the people might drinke, not all, and that they dranke it by custome, not by law, no way healpeth his bad cause.

For first, Origen in this very place alleageth Christs precept for this practise of the faithfull people, Iohn. 6. vnlesse ye drinke my blood, you haue no life in you.

Secondly, in the end of this homily, he tur∣neth his speech not to some of this people, but to his audience, and thus concludeth; dThou 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 euidence of this Page  55 truth is like the light of the morning: it grow∣eth cleerer and cleerer. For Origen is cleerer in this point then Tertullian, and Cyprian is yet cleerer, then Origen.

Anno. 250.

Cyprian that learned Bishop of Carthage, and blessed Martyr of Christ Iesus, not onely deliuereth but propugneth our assertion by a forcible argument. e epist. 54. How doe wee inuite them (Gods people) to shed their blood for Christ in the confession of his name, if when they set forth to fight for him, we denie them his blood? how shall wee fit them for the Cup of Martyrdome, if before we ad∣mit them not by right of Communion to drinke of the Lords Cup in his Church? in his 63. epistle *Be∣cause some men out of ignorance, or simplicitie in san∣ctifying the Cup of the Lord, and ministring it to the people; doe not that which Iesus Christ our Lord and God, the Author and Institutor of this Sacrifice did, and taught; I thought it both a matter of religi∣on, and necessity, to acquaint you herewith by letters: that, if any yet bee held in that error, the light of truth being now discouered vnto him; hee might re∣turne vnto the roote and beginning of our Lords in∣stitution.

Papists answere.

Bellarmine → in his answere to Saint Cyprian, makes good the Poets obseruation: Qui semel Page  56 verecundiae limites transiuerit, hunc grauiter impu∣dentem esse oportet: he that hath once passed the bounds of modesty, he must be stoutely impudent, and arme his forehead with brasse: for here he is not content to slight this allega∣tion, as he did the former: but is bold to chal∣lenge it for an euidence on his owne side. This place, saith hee, rather maketh for our opinion, then against it: for f Saint Cyprian spea∣keth of certaine 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 re∣store these weake Christians to their former right and interest, which they had in the Lords body. The right therefore of the Laie∣tie to Communicate, is giuen by the Priests, and taken away by them. Now if the Priests or Prelates, may for certaine crimes take the right of Communicating from the Laietie, they may also dispose of the manner of Com∣municating vnder one kinde. To the second testimony he answereth, that Cyprian in that place handleth not the poynt, whether the Cup ought to bee deliuered to the people or no, but if it bee deliuered vnto them, hee will haue it deliuered not in water onely, but wine mingled with water. And this he saith, Christ taught vs.

Page  57
The Refutation.

Neither of these answeres will beare scale, both of them are to light by many graines: the first of these is liable to these exceptions.

First, it is impertinent: for we bring the te∣stimony to prooue the practise of the Primi∣tiue Church concerning the Laieties partici∣pating the Cup: But Bellarmine → craftily waues that poynt, and questioneth by what right the people did Communicate. Admit that, which is most falfe, that the Bishop or Priest gaue the people all the right they had to the Cup, yet they had it, and vsed it; their practise therefore maketh for vs.

Secondly, it is inconsequent: for first, when a'man is Excommunicated, and hath lost his right to the Lords Table, a Bishop vpon the parties submission, and sorrow for his sin, and humble intreatie, may restore him to his right againe, and set him where he was: yet this prooueth not, that the Laietie had their o∣riginall right of Communicating from them; as a Bishop may vpon iust cause suspend a Lay man, or Cleargie from the Communion, so he may also exclude him from hearing of the word, and publike prayer; yet no man will hence conclude, that the Laietie, or Priest haue no right at all to come into the Church, and to pray, and to heare Gods word, but from the Bishop. Albeit Cyprian in his owne Page  58 Church, and any other Bishop in his Diocesse may admit, or reiect some particular persons vpon iust 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 Gods people in all Chur∣ches.

Thirdly, it is no good inference, that because the Bishop may depriue a man of the whole Sacrament vpon some causes, viz. for a great crime, or high misdemeanor, that therefore he may depriue him of a part of it without a∣ny fault at all, as the Romanists doe the Laie∣tie in generall.

Fourthly, a Bishop may dispence with his owne censures, or reuoke them; but he can∣not dispence with Gods law. To suspend a man from the whole Communion, if the de∣linquent deserue it, is agreeable to Christs and the Apostles discipline; but to admit him to one part of the Sacrament, and not to the other, is a manifest violation of Christs ordi∣nance, who instituted this Sacrament in two kinds, and said to the same, Drinke yee all of this, to whom before he said, Take, eate, this is my body.

Fifthly, and lastly, if it were sufficient rea∣son to redeliuer the Cup in these times to the Laietie, who haue been deseruedly depri∣ued of it, namely to arme them against emi∣nent persecution, why should not the faithfull people of God, especially those, who neuer Page  59 incurred the censure of Excommunication, or suspension, be much rather admitted to drinke of the Cup, to arme them against as great, or greater conflicts of temptations? The sinnew of Saint Cyprians reason is in the word milita∣turis: Those that are to fight the Lords bat∣tels, are to be strengthened thereunto, by ta∣king the Cup of Saluation, or drinking the Lords Blood. But I assume, all Christians in all ages were, are, and shall be militantes, or mi∣litaturi, such as haue fought, doe fight, or shall against their ghostly and bodily enemies; therefore according to Saint Cyprians military discipline, they are to be strengthened, and ar∣med thereunto, by participating of the Lords Cup.

The answere of Bellarmine → to the second te∣stimony of Saint Cyprians 63. Epistle, com∣meth not home to the marke by many bowes: for albeit the maine scope of that Epistle be, to prooue the necessitie of administring the Sacrament in Wine, against the corrupt cu∣stome of the Aquarij, (certaine heretikes that administred it in meere water) yet on the by, he discouereth the practise of the Church in his time, to Communicate in both kinds; and in the words alleaged, be expresly faith, that the Cup was ministred, or deliuered to the people, which is all we produce this passage for.

Page  60

SECT. IIII. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 300. to 400.

Anno. 314.

IN the councel held at Ancyra, Deacons that had sacificed vnto Idols, are forbidden to exercise any sacred function: and in particular, nec panem, nec calicem,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; not to offer or de∣liuer bread or the Chalice. The Chalice then by their Deacons was deliuered; to whom, but to the people? for Priests administer to Dea∣cons, but Deacons neuer to Priests.

Anno. 316.

In the Councell held at Neo-Caeserea can. 13. country Priests are forbidden in the pre∣sence of a Bishop, or the Priest of the citie, to deliuer the sanctified bread or Cup to any. Here we see the Cup as well as the bread was deliuered at the communion; the words are, nec panem, nec calicem porrigere.

Anno 325.

In the acts of the k Councell of Nice, set out by Gelasius Cyzicenus, we haue a most expresse testimonie of the beleife and practise of the Page  61 Church in that flowrishing age. Let vs vnder∣stand by faith, that in that holy Supper the Lambe of God, that takes away the sinnes of the world, is offered without blood by the Priests, and that wee taking his pretious body and blood, doe verily beleeue, that they are symboles, or pleadges of our resurrection.

Anno. 337.

lIulius the first, as we read in Gratian de conse. dist. 2. condemneth the practise of such, who gaue the people a bit of bread dipped in wine for the whole Communion, alleaging against this corrupt custome, the practise of our Saui∣our, 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 Sauiours practise, that the people ought to re∣ceiue the holy elements of bread and wine a part, & consequently, that it is not sufficient to giue them the bread dipped. Now if it be not sufficient to giue them the bread dipped in the wine, Iulius would haue held it much lesse suffi∣cient to giue them drie bread. If our Sauior, as he rightly conceiueth, enioyned; that all ought to partake of the elements apart, certainly hee enioyned, that the people should receiue both, and not bread onely, or wine onely by conco∣mitancie.

Page  62
Anno 340.

Athanasius in his second Apology maketh it plainer, that the vndeniable custome in his age was for the people to receiue the Cup. This saith he, is the vse of this Cup and no other: in this Cup you lawfully or of right drinke before, or to the Laity. This you haue receiued for an Ecclesiastical Cannon;mit belongs to you alone to drink the blood of Christ before the Laietie.

Anno 355.

nHilarius Pictauiensis de trinitate lib. 8. writeth thus. There is no place left of doubting cōcerning the truth of Christs flesh and blood; for both by our Lords owne profession, and our faith, it is truly flesh, and tru∣ly blood; and these being taken and drunke, doe worke this effect, that Christ is in vs, and wee in Christ; Saint Hilarie spake of all Christians, and saith, that they receiue the flesh of Christ, & hauri∣unt: that is, take a draught of his blood, which cannot bee without partaking the Cup. For al∣though the doctrine of concomitancie were admitted, whereby our aduersaries suppose, that the people take the blood of Christ in the body: yet certainely there they cannot haurire sanguinem, take a draught of blood, or drinke it, because it is not there in a liquid forme, or so that it may be sucked, or drunke.

Page  63
Anno 365.

oCyril. Catechesi Mystagogicâ 4. Vnder the forme of bread, Christs body is giuen vnto thee, that taking the body and blood of Christ, thou maist be of one body and blood with him. And a little after; After thou hastpparticipated of the body of Christ, draw neere also to the cup of his blood.

Anno. 366.

Macarius Egyptius. hom. 27. By offering bread and wine in the Church, he gaue vs a patterne to take his body and blood.

Anno 370.

S. qBasil in his 289. epistle to Patricia exhorts her frequently to participate the Sacrament of Christs body and blood, saying, It is good and pro∣fitable euery day to participate the holy body and blood of Christ. And in his moralls, chap. 22. hee propoundeth this question: what is the proper*dutie of a Christian? and he answereth immediately; to haue no spot, or wrincle in his Conscience, to be holy and vnblameable, and so to eate the body, and drinke the blood of Christ. Our aduersaries doe well to conceale this testimonie 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 dutie of a Christian; and there∣fore not of a Priest onely, not to eate Christs bo∣dy Page  64 onely and receiue his blood (by concomitan∣cie) but expresly to drinke it: and this hee tea∣cheth to be as necessarie a duty of all Christi∣ans, as to clense themselues from sinne and to be holy and vndefiled.

Anno. 372.

yGregory Nazianzen, surnamed the Diuine, S. Basils bosome friend in his 42. oration in∣uites all to drinke the blood of Christ, who look for life by him, without any doubting or shamefast feare: Eat his body, and drinke his blood, if thou desirest life: and in his second oration he testifieth, that his sister Gorgonia, after she had Communicated, * laid vp some part of the Sacrament of the bo∣dy and blood of Christ. With what face then can our aduersaries deny the Cup to Lay men, when the ancient Church deliuered it vsually to religious women, such as were Patricia, and Gorgonia?

Anno 375.

Ambrose in his fifth booke de sacramentis chap. 1. elegantly applieth Moses his striking the rocke, and the water flowing out thereupon to the holy communion, saying, see the mystery, Moses, that is a Prophet, the Rod, that is Gods word, the Priest with the Word of God toucheth the rock, and the water floweth, and the people of God drinke it.zThe Priest therefore toucheth the Cup, and there a∣boundeth Page  65 in the Cup water springing to eternall life; and the people of God drinketh, and obtaineth the grace of God. The same S. Ambrose, as Theoderet writes in his fifth booke of Ecclesiasticall sto∣rie, and 17. chap. repelleth the Emperor Theo∣dosius from the Communion with these words: uHow darest thou take into thy hands, sprinckled with blood, the holy body of Christ? How presumest thou to lift vp his dreadfull blood to thy mouth, who in thy rage hast spilt vniustly so much blood? Wee see in Saint Ambroses time, that both Prince and peo∣ple communicated in both kinds: albeit Theo∣dosius at this time were deseruedly suspended from the participating of Christs body, as well as his blood: Yet after hee had cleansed his bloody hands with penitent teares, he was ad∣mitted to the blessed Sacrament, and he recei∣ued both the blessed Body, and the holy Cup into his hands.

Cardinall Bellarmine → himselfe in his answer to this our allegation out of Theodoret, saith, We confesse, that both kinds haue been sometimes giuen to*the Laietie, but we denie, that it is so commanded by Gods Law. A poore and miserable euasion. For first many of the ancients, whom wee haue be∣fore alleadged, doe not onely testifie the pra∣ctise of their times, but vrge diuine precept for it.

Secondly, they indifferently exhort the Laietie, as well as the Clergie to the Commu∣nion in both kinds, and vrge a like necessitie for both: but the Papists themselues confesse, Page  66 that the Cleargie, who administer the Com∣munion, are bound by the Law of God to communicate in both kinds; and sith Sacra∣ments may not be administred to any without order and command from him, who instituted them, questionlesse, the ancient Church would neuer haue vsually administred the Cup to the Laietie with the bread, if they had not concei∣ued, that Christs words, Drinke ye all of this, be∣longed to them as well as to the Cleargie.

Anno. 390.

x Hierome vpon the eleuenth of the 1. Cor. The Lords Supper ought to be cōmon to all, because Christ equally deliuered the Sacraments to all his disciples, who were there present. It is to be noted, that he vseth the word Sacraments in the plurall number, speaking onely of the Lords Supper; whereby it is euident, that by Sacraments hee vnderstandeth the elements bread, and wine and from Christs example en∣forceth, that they be equally deliuered to all communicants. The same Saint Hierome spea∣keth yet more expresly of the Laietie, recei∣uing the Cup from the Priest in the Eucharist, in his comment on the 3. chap. of Zephanie;ythe Priests also, who administer the Eucharist, & deuide the blood of the Lord to his people, commit wickednes against the Law, To which allegation Cardinall Bellarmine → z answereth nothing, but we heare no newes. It is true we heare no newes out of Saint Page  67Ieroms mouth. For all the fathers aboue allead∣ged testifie as much; and this Bellarmine → is for ced to grant. Durum telum necessitas; ignoscite. If he could haue coyned any new answer, wee should haue had somewhat else from him, then, Nihil noui audimus, but seeing hee brings nothing new to impeach our argument, I need not to adde any new confirmation.

Anno 398.

In the fourth councell of Carthage it is or∣dered, that if any penitent desire the peace of the Church, when he lyeth on his death bed, if it bee beleeued, that he will presently depart, that the Church peace be giuen vnto him by laying on of hands, and vt ori eius effundatur Eucharistia, and that the Sacrament be powred into his mouth.

Anno 399.

Saint Chrysostome in his 18. homily, in the 2. epist. to the Corinth. makes it a cleere case, that the people by the new law haue as good interest to the entire Sacrament, as the Priest, Sometimes, or in some things there is no difference be∣tweene*the people and the Priest, as in the participati∣on of the dreadfull mysteries: for all are equally ad∣mitted vnto them. In the time of the old testament it was not lawfull for the people to eat of those things of which the Priests did eate; but it is not so now; for Page  68 one body is offered to all, and one Cup.

The Papists answer.

Bellarmine → answereth, that the difference which Saint Chrysostome obserues betweene the sacrifices of the old and new Testament was, that the sacrifice of the old was deuided into parts, and could not bee entirely taken by any one, and hence it came to passe, saith he, that some receiued a greater, and some a lesse portion; and for the most part, the Priests part was the greatest: but this our Sacrament is giuen intirely to euery one, neither hath the Priest more then the Lay people, although the symboles are more or greater in the Commu∣nion of the Priests, then of the people.

Refutation.

This slight colour of answer is easily wa∣shed away: for

First, Saint Chrysostome in the originall Greek hath no word signifying parts, or diuision into parts, but saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. that the Priest fed on other things, and that the Laietie might not feed vpon the same: as for example; The laitie might not at all eat of the shew bread, and in the sacrifices the people might not eate of the same, specie, or numero, which the Priest eate. For the Law expresly set downe what be∣longed to the Priest to eate, and what to the Page  69 people: but in the new Testament it is not so: for the people may eat of the bread, which the Priest eateth, and drinke also of the same Cup. This is euidently Saint Chrysostomes meaning.

Secondly, although it is true which Bellar∣mine saith, that the whole Sacrament is eaten by euery Communicant; yet this must be vn∣derstood of the integrity of the thing signifi∣ed, and of the essence of that signe, not of the integrity of the quantitie of the outward ele∣ments. For no one man eateth the whole loafe, or quantity of bread, that is consecrated, nor drinketh the whole measure of wine, that is sanctified, but a portion onely. Herein then the difference is not betweene the Priests of the old Law, and the Priests of the new, that the Priests of the old Law might eate but a part of the Sacrifice, but the Priests of the new might eat the whole. For if we speake of the thing sig∣nified, both receiued the whole, if of the signes, neither receiues the whole, that is, the entire quantity of the thing offered. The difference was in this, according to S. Chrysostome, that the people simply might not eat of those things, of which the Priest might, but in the new testa∣ment the people may eat of all that the Priests may.

Lastly, although we should admit of Bellar∣mines 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 hauing their seuerall portions appointed Page  70 for them; but that the Prists and people of the new, receiued the sacrament entirely, the Priest entirely, and the people entirely, which in some sence is true: yet this no way satisfi∣eth the words of Saint Chrysostome: who saith expresly, that one Cup as well as one bread is set be∣fore all people, as well as Priests, and that according to Christs institution in the new testament.

SECT. V. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 400. to 500.

Anno 410.

ABout the beginning of the fifth Age, God raysed vp that golden Tapour in the Church, Saint Austin, by whose light, as wee may discouer other errors and abuses of the Church of Rome: so this their mutilation of the Sacrament, and defrauding Gods 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 receiueth, it saith, Amen. For what a cry maketh the whole Church, when after she hath dranke the blood of Christ, cryeth, Amen? And in his 57. question vpon Leuiticus, he not onely testifies, that the people did drinke of Christs blood, but that they ought to doe so, if they expect life from him. What is the mea∣ning Page  71 of this, saith he, that the people are forbidden to eat of the blood of the sacrifices, which were offered for sinn, if by those sacrifices this sacrifice was signi∣fied, in which there is trueremission of sinnes? and yet not onely 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 drinke it.

Papists answer.

bBellarmine → de sacra. Eucharistiae. lib. 4. cap. 26. answereth, that the force of Saint Austines rea∣son consisteth not in the manner of drinking, but in the taking of the blood, which produ∣ceth the same effect, whither it bee taken as meat, or drinke.

Refutation.

Saint Austin in that place obserueth a diffe∣rence between the precepts of the old, and the precepts of the new testament; that in the old, blood was forbidden so much as to bee eaten with the flesh; but in the new it is commanded to be drunke, euen by it selfe, and so the force of his reason ab oppositis stands not onely in some way taking blood for sustenance, but e∣uen in the manner of taking it, euen by drinke.

Secondly, whereinsoeuer the force of Saint Austines reason stands, his words, which wee alleage, are expresly for taking it by c drinking. Page  72 For he saith not, as Bellarmine → will haue him; all who desire life, are exhorted to take Christs blood for sustenance, or to feed vpon it. But they are exhorted to drinke it. The people therefore, if they looke for life by Christ, they must drinke his blood, which they cannot doe, if the Priest deny the Cup.

Anno. 420.

dEusebius Emissenus in his Homily vpon Palme-Sunday, speakes of the faithfulls com∣municating in both kinds, as of a daily and fre∣quent practice. As then our Lord liued, and spake, and yet was eaten by his Disciples, and drunke; so now he remaines whole and vncorrupted, and yet is daily drunke and eaten by the faithfull. I beleeue, no Romish Priest will bee so impudent, as to restraine beleeuers to Priests onely. If the Layetie are not to be reckoned in the number of fideles, or belieuers, they may not eat Christ in the Sacrament of bread; and if they are fide∣les, or beleeuers, then they vsually, nay, daily drinke his blood in the Sacrament of wine, as well as eate his flesh in the Sacrament of bread.

Anno 430.

Theodoret in his Dialogue, called Atreptus,*cap. 11. allotteth to all the faithfull an equall share in the Lords Supper: one mysticall Table is prepared for all, from which all beleeuers take vnto Page  73 themselues an equall portion. And in his Com∣ment on the second Chapter of the first to the Corinthians, hee obserueth a difference be∣tweene ordinary suppers, and the Lords Sup∣per: fOf that, viz. the Lords Table, all are equally partakers: but here, viz. in common suppers, one is hungry, and another is drunke: Hee saith not, he drinkes; but is drunke, blaming him for two rea∣sons; first, that he drinkes alone; secondly, thatghe is drunke. If the Layetie drank not of the Lords Table, they did not equally participate with the Priests. And if in Theodorets time the Priests did drinke alone, as now they doe at the Ro∣mane Masse; Theodoret could not herein haue differenced them from common and prophane tables: so that at the one all eate and drinke a∣like, at the other, one is satisfied, and another is hungry; one is thirsty, and another drinketh alone, and is drunke.

Anno 431.

Cyrillus of Alexandria, Glaphyr. lib. 2. writeth thus; As long as we are in this world, wee will commu∣nicate with Christ by his holy flesh, and precious blood. Communicatio sanctae carnis, atque item po∣culū ex salutari ipsius sanguine, &c. The commu∣nicating his holy flesh, and the Cup of his holy blood hath in it a confession of Christs death: by the partici∣pating in these things in this world we commemorate Christs death.

Page  74
Anno. 450.

Leo the Great, Bishop of Rome, in his fourth Sermon de quadragessima, giues it as a character or marke, to descry the Manichees by; that at the Sacrament they would eate of the bread, but in no wise drinke of the wine. hThey, viz. the Manichees, so carry themselues at the Commu∣nion, that they may more safely lye hid: they take the body of Christ into their vnworthy mouthes, but altogether they refuse to drinke the blood of their re∣demption, which I would haue your Holinesse know, that you may set a mark vpon these men, & in whom∣soeuer you find such sacrilegious simulation, you dis∣couer them, that by Priestly authoritie they may be driuen from the society of the Saints. Here Leo, both a Bishop of Rome, and a great Clarke, makes it sacriledge, and heresie, to receiue Christs body in the Sacrament, and to refuse to drinke his blood.

Anno. 451.

In the generall i Councell of Chalcedon, act. 10. there is an accusation brought in against Iba the Bishop of Edessa, that in some Church in his Diocesse, at the Commemoration of the holy Martyrs, there was but a little wine, and that corrupt and sowre, prouided for the Altar to bee san∣ctified, and distributed to the people. This generall Councell was counted to represent the whole Page  75 Christian Church, whereby it appeares, that at the time of this Councell, the Cup was gi∣uen through the whole Christian world to the Laiety, and that the administring of the Sacra∣ment to the people without wine, was held a profanation of the Lords Supper: for which cause that Bishop was seuerely taxed.

Anno 453.

kEucherius, Bishop of Lyons in his questions vpon Matthew implyeth, that all holy men in generall, and true members of Christ in his time dranke our Redeemers blood in the Sa∣crament. His words are; The Kingdome of God, as the learned vnderstand it, is the Church, in which Christ daily drinketh his owne blood by his Saints, as the Head in his members.

Anno 492.

Among the Decrees of ancient Popes col∣lected by Gratian, we finde that sentence of Ge∣lasius, which I haue set in the frontispiece of this booke, Grat. de consecra. dist. 2. cap. Comperi∣mus.lWe find that some receiuing a portion of Christs holy Body, abstaine from the Cup of his sacred blood: which because they doe out of I know not what super∣stition, we comand, that either they receiue the entire Sacraments, or that they be entirely withheld from them, because the diuision of one and the selfe-same mysterie cannot be without grand sacriledge. In this Page  76 Decree of Gelasius, first, we are to note, that it is a Papall decision ex Cathedra; That the ele∣ments in the Lords Supper must bee taken ioyntly. This Gelasius determineth not as a priuate man, but as a Pope ex Cathedra, and therefore all Papists are bound to beleeue, that hee did not, nor could not erre in this de∣cree.

Secondly, it is to bee noted, that the Sacra∣ment of the Lords Supper is not entire with∣out the Cup, which quite ouerthroweth our aduersaries new fancy of concomitancy.

Thirdly, it is to bee noted, that hee defineth the withholding the Cup from any Commu∣nicant, or deuiding the holy mysterie, by halfe communicating, not onely to bee sacriledge, but to be grand sacriledge, or the greatest sacri∣ledge that can bee committed. For grande is more then magnum, or graue, and it signifieth sa∣criledge in the highest degree.

Papists answer.

Gratian, or his glosse in the title to this De∣cree would beare vs in hand, that this Decree concerneth the * Priests only, and not the Laie∣ty. For a Priest to consecrate, or to offer the bread without the wine, or after they haue consecrated both, to participate but of one, this Gelasius forbids, say they; but not the Layetie to communicate in one kind onely. Cardinall Bellarmine → addes a second answer; that this Page  77 Canon was made against the Manichees, and Priscillianists, who refused the Cup in the Sa∣crament, partly because they held wine in an a∣bomination, partly because they beleeued not, that Christ had true blood in him. These, saith Bellarmine → , in token and testimony that they had reformed their former errour, are commanded to receiue the Sacrament in both kinds, or else not at all to be admitted vnto the Communion.

The Refutation.

Neither of these wards will beare off the blow. For first, it is not likely, that Gelasius made this decree against the Manichees, or Priscillianists: for then hee would not haue said, Quia nescio quâ superstitione astricti tenen∣tur: that is, that they were intangled in I know not what superstition; but rather, Quia nota haeresi astricti tenentur: that is, they doe it, be∣cause they are intangled in a knowne heresie.

Secondly, admit that the Manichees, and Priscillianists occasioned this decree; yet this decree is backed with a generall reason, which forbids all to Communicate in one kind only, vnder the perill of grand Sacrilege.

Thirdly, Gratians euasion will no way saue the Laietie harmelesse, or acquit them of Sa∣crilege: where of the Priest by this decree, say they, is made guiltie: For that which is Sacri∣lege in the Priest, cannot be Religion in the Page  78 people. Gelasius saith not, that the Sacrilege consisteth in the diuision of one and the selfe same sacrifice, but in the diuision of one and the selfe same mysterie. Now the selfe same mystery, or Sacrament is diuided as well in the halfe Communion of the people, as of the Priest.

Lastly, it is euident, that the decree concer∣neth the Communicants, and not the Priests Conficients, or administring. For the word arceantur, that is, let them be kept from, or driuen from the entire Sacrament, must needs be meant of the people. For the people sus∣pend not the Priests from the Sacrament, but the Priests, or Bishops the people. Here Ma∣ster Euerard is locked fast with a like paire of fetters to those, which Campian makes for Protestants. As he saith, Patres, so I say, Papas admittis? Captus es; exludis? Nullus es. Doe you allow of the Popes decissions? You are then taken. Doe you disallow of them? You are no body in the opinion of your owne selues. If you subscribe to the determination of two Popes, Leo, and Gelasius, you must confesse your selfe guilty of Sacrilege: if you subscribe not to them, of heresie. Vtrum horum mauis, accipe.

Page  79

SECT. VI. Testimonies of the practise of the Church, from 500. to 600.

AS mTullie writeth of Hortensius, that after his Consulship he decayed in his rare fa∣cultie of eloquence, though not so sensibly, that euery auditor might perceiue it: yet in such sort, that a cunning artist might obserue, that he drew not so cleare a stroake in his ma∣ster-pieces, nor cast on them so rich and liue∣ly colours, as before. Such was the state of the Church in this age. It decayed and failed, though not so sensibly, and grossely, that eue∣ry ordinary reader might take notice thereof: yet in such sort, that the learned and iudicious haue discouered in the writers of this age, and much more after, a declination from the puri∣tie of former ages, both in stile and doctrine. Their Latine much degenerated into barba∣risme; and their deuotion into superstition. Whence it is, that the prime Doctors of the Reformed Churches, who appeale from the late corruptions in the Romish Church to the prime sinceritie in the first and best ages, con∣fine this their appeale within the pale of the fifth age.

Wherefore, the reader is not to demaund, or expect from hence forth, either so frequent testimonies, or at least, of men of that eminen∣cie, and reuerend authority, as the former Page  80 were. For such, the succeeding ages brought forth none: but it shall suffice to produce such witnesses as the times affoorded; men that held ranke with the best in their times: Such were Remigius Archbishop of Rhemes, Grego∣ry, Bishop of Tours, and the Fathers of the Councell of Toledo and Iledra.

Anno 524.

In the Councell held at Ilerda, can. 1. All those that serue at the Altar (& Christi corpus & sanguinem tradunt) and deliuer the body and blood of Christ, or handle any holy vessell, are strictly charged to abstaine from all mans blood, yea, euen of their enemies.

Anno 560.

oRemigius Archbishop of Rhemes, thus ex∣poundeth those words of Saint Paul: The Cup of blessing wherewith we blesse; is it not the Com∣munion of the blood of Christ? The Cup is cal∣led the Communion, because all communicated or receiued the Communion out of it, participating of the blood of the Lord.

Papists answere.

If our aduersaries here flie to their old star∣ting hole; that by all, here all Priests are meant, and not all Communicants, they may be stop∣ped Page  81 by that which Hincmarus writeth in the life of this Rhemigius: that he gaue a Chalice for the peoples vse with this Motto:

Hauriat hinc populus vitam de sanguine sacro
Iniecto, aeternus quem fudit vulnere Christus.
Rhemigius reddit Domino sua vota Sacerdos.
Rhemigius Priest, that gaue this Cup,
Prai'th that in it the people sup;
And still draw life from flowing blood
Out of Christs side, as of a flood.

Let it bee noted, that hee 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 euidently, that this Chalice was giuen by the Archbishop, for the peoples vse, at great and solemne Communi∣ons, and not for the Priests in their priuate Masses, if any such were in Rhemigius his dayes.

Anno 580.

Greg. Turonens. de glor. Martyr. li. 1. ca. 10. re∣lateth a miraculous accident, that fel out by oc∣casion of a pIewes child, comming with other chil∣dren to the Communion of Christs body and blood: I am sure these children were not Priests that said Masse; and if children were admitted to the holy Cup, much more men of riper yeeres.

Page  82
Papists answer.

This was an abuse to let children come to the Communion, who cannnot examine them∣selues; and therefore from this abusiue cou∣stome no good rule may be drawne.

The Refutation.

I allow not of the coustome of admitting children to the Communion in the Church, or giuing it them at home: though it be more an∣tient then most of the new Articles of the Ro∣mish Creede, coined by Pope Pius the fourth, in his Bull. but I make a true inference, though from an erroneous practise, as the Apostle doth from a custome among the Corinthians, who were baptized for the dead. Doubtlesse if the Laietie in those dayes had been kept from the holy Cup, children neuer had been ad∣mitted to drink of it. For no man can imagine, that the Church would giue little infants that priuiledge, which they denied their parents.

Anno 537.

In the second Councell of Toledo, Can. 7. It is ordained throughout all the Countries of Spaine, and Gallicia, for the confirmation of the new conuersion of the people from Aria∣nisme, that before the participation of the bo∣dy Page  83 and blood of Christ (corporis & sanguinis communicationem) according to the manner of the Easterne Churches, all the Congregation shall with an audible voyce, rehearse the most holy Articles of the Christian faith.

Anno 597.

In the third Councel held at Toledo, in the reigne of Recaredus, c. 2. rIt is decreed, that the peo∣ple shall first make profession of their faith, and so ex∣hibite their hearts purified by faith, to receiue Christs body and blood. Doth not this Councell speake in the Protestant language? that the people are to receiue Christs blood, as well as his body, and both by faith, or, which is all one, in their hearts purified by faith. How neere commeth this to the forme at this day in vse in our Church? Feed on him in thy heart by faith? I find no exception ta∣ken by any Papist at this testimony; and there∣fore there needs no ward, where no blow is so much as offered.

SECT. VII. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 600. to 700.

Anno. 600.

IT was truly spoken of Constantine, that hee was Praeteritis melior, venientibus auctor; Better Page  84 then his predecessors, and a good president to those that succeded him. But on the contra∣ry, we may say of Gregory the Great, that hee was Praeteritis peior, yet venientibus auctor: that he was bad in comparison of his predecessors, * but good in comparison of his successours. For he was the worst of the good Popes, and the best of the euill. It was this Pope, who sent Austine the Monke into England to propagate the Christian faith; who in some places sow∣ed, in others watred the seede all ready sowne which was wholesome, yet somewhat smutty, and such as needed to be washed and clensed from superstition. He much stikled for Gregorie his masters authoritie, and brought in some cu∣stomes and ceremonies, that sauour rancke to those that are Emunctae naris: yet the faith hee preached was for substance the same, which the reformed Churches embrace at this day; as in my answer to the Iesuites threefold chal∣lenge I haue made it appeare; And as in other controuersies of greater moment, so in this he is cleerely ours.

Homil. 22. tin Euang. he mystically applieth the blood of the Pascall Lambe striken vpon both posts of the doore, to the participation of Christs blood in the Eucharist; saying; The blood is then put on both posts, when is taken, or drawne in both by, or with the mouth of the body, and of the heart.

In the fourth of his u dialogues (if his) c. 58. Page  85His body is taken, whose flesh is broken, and diuided for the peoples saluation, his blood is not now powred out vpon the hands of infidels, but into the mouths of the faithfull. If with any coulour the aduersaries might restraine fideles to the Priests onely, yet the word populi going before, will enforce them to vnderstand this passage as well of the people, as Priests; if not the people more espe∣cially, who are named expresly, and not the Priests.

Papists answer.

I answer, saith Bellarmine → ,* that Gregorie, and Bede say, that Christs blood is taken with the mouth of the body; but we denie that they say, that it ought to be drunken with the mouth of the bo∣dy, or to be taken vnder the forme of wine.

Refutation.

This answer of the Cardinall can argue no lesse in him, then either supine negligence, or a cauterized conscience. For S. Gregorie in the words immediately preceding those aboue al∣leaged, expressely speaketh of drinking Christs blood, saying, quòd sit sanguis Christi non audiendo, sed bibendo didicistis. What is meant by the blood of Christ, you haue learned not by hearing, but by drink∣ing. Had he not in expresse words mentioned drinking, yet the phrases he vseth, hauritur, and perfunditur; that Christs blood is shed, and taken as a Page  86 draught, demonstrates, that he speaketh not of partaking Christs blood, as it is ioyned to his body, and enclosed in his veines; but as seuered from it. And if the Cardinall himselfe had not been drunke with the Cup of the wine of Babylon, he would neuer haue denied, that Saint Grego∣ry speaketh of drinking Christs blood vnder the forme of wine: when hee vseth that very word, uPotat. Quis exponere queat quantae fuit mi∣serationis,*sacratissim â praeciosi sanguinis effusione ge∣nus humanum redimere, & sacrosanctum viuifici corporis & sanguinis sui mysterium membris suis tri∣buere, cuius perceptione corpus suum, quod est Ecclesia pascitur, & potatur, abluitur, & sanctificatur? Who can expresse how great mercie it was, by that most ho∣ly effusion of his pretious blood to redeeme mankind, and to giue to his members the most holy mysterie of his quickning body and blood, by the partaking where∣of, his body, which is the Church, is nourished as with meat and drinke, is washed, and sanctified?

These and other passages of Gregory are so cleare and bright, that they dazeled the eies of Estius, a great Parisian Doctor, who handling this question professedly, acknowledgeth, that Saint Gregory among other fathers is expresly for the Commmunion in both kinds.

Anno Dom. 620.

The Seruice Booke, commonly called Ordo Romanus, The Romane order set forth by Gre∣gory, or vnder Pope Gregory with his allowance, Page  87 sufficiently discouereth the present practise of the Romane Church in their dry Masses, to be a disorder and shamefull abuse. For there they may reade, and blush to reade in the Rubricke, these formes set downe at the y Communion: Wee humbly beseech thee, that wee which haue ta∣ken the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ thy Sonne, may be filled with grace and heauenly benedi∣ction: and after the Communion; Let thy body, O Lord, which we haue taken, and thy blood which we haue drunke, sticke to our bowels, that no blot of sinne may remaiue in vs, who haue beene refreshed by these pure and holy mysteries.

Anno 630.

Saint zIsidore, as in other things, so in this, treadeth his master Gregories steps de diuin. of fic. lib. 1. c. 15. The fourth prayer is brought in for the kisse of peace; vt omnes, that all being reconciled by charitie, may ioyne in the worthie participation of Christs body and blood; omnes, all People there∣fore, as well as Priests, vnlesse they will haue the people to be out of charity, all that are in charity must communicate together in the mi∣stery of Christs body and blood. But Gods people are, or ought to be in charity, and there∣fore to be admitted by Saint Isidores rule, as well to the Cup, as to the bread at the Lords Table.

Page  88
Anno. 633.

In the fourth Councell of Toledo, Can. 6. All the people are appointed one good fryday to aske pardon for their sinnes; that being clensed by the compunction of repentance, they may be thought fit one Easter day to receiue the sacrament of Christs bo∣dy and blood. And in the seuenth Canon it is ap∣pointed, that after the Lords prayer, and the blessing of the people, the Sacrament of Christs body and blood bee receiued after this manner: the Priest and Leuite is to communicate be∣fore the Altar, the rest of the Clergie in the Quire, the rest of the people without the Quire. See also 57. Canon.

Anno 675.

In the eleuenth Councell held at Toledo, the fathers determine, that such who receiued the Cup in extemity of sicknesse, but refused the bread, because in regard of the drines of their throat they could not swallow it downe, should not therefore bee cut off from Christs body. The decree runneth thus; The infirmity of humane nature in the very passage out of this life is ac∣customed to be oppressed in such sort with drought, that the sick are not able to take downe any meat to refresh them; no, nor scarse any drop of drinke to strengthen them; which thing we haue obserued in the departure of many, who desiring the wished foode of the holy Page  89 Communion to sustaine them in their last iourney, haue yet cast*away the Eucharist giuen them by the Priest, not out of infidelitie, but because they could not swallow any thing down, beside a small draught of the holy Cup; such as these therefore ought not to bee sepa∣rated from the body of Christ. The Councell spea∣keth of the Laiety, refusing bread at the Priests hands, which they could not take downe, and yet receiuing the Cup: and in this case of ne∣cessitie, the Councell dispenceth with their re∣fusing the bread, but findeth no fault with them for taking the Cup. Nay vpon that point, excuseth them from infidelitie, and saueth them from excommunication. How doth this Councel clash, and crosse shins as it were with the Councel 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 giueth them the Cup; in this, the people are absolued from censure in refusing the bread, because they Communi∣cate in the Cup.

In the same yeere, in the Councell at Brac∣cara, they are blamed that ministred not wine to the people in the Sacrament, but either milke, or grapes, Can. 2. Non expressum vinum in sacramento dominici calicis offerre, sed lac pro vi∣no dedicare, aut oblatis vuis populo communicare. In the same Councell they are blamed also. Qui intinctam Eucharistiam populis pro complemento communionis porrigerent; Who deliuered to the peo∣ple a piece of bread dipt in wine for the whole Commu∣nion Page  90 which custome, how repugnant it is to the doct∣rine of the Gospell, and custome of the Church, may easily be proued from the fountaine of truth, who gaue the Cut by it selfe saying, Drinke yee all of this, as he tooke the bread by it selfe, saying; Take, eat, &c.

SECT. VIII. The Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 700. to 800.

IN this age wee haue foure concurrent wit∣nesses, and contestatours beyond all excep∣tion:

  • Beda.
  • Greg. 2.
  • Greg. 3.
  • Alcumus.

We will produce them in order. And first Venerable Beda.

Anno 720.

Venerable Beda, the honour of England, and mirrour of his time, witnesseth as followeth: Christ washeth vs daily from our sins in his blood, when the memory of his passion is celebrated or re∣counted at the Altar;awhere the creatures of bread and wine, by the vnspeakable sanctification of the Spi∣rit, are changed into the Sacrament of his flesh and blood; and therby his body & blood is not powred out Page  91 by the hands of Infidels to their destruction, but is re∣ceiued, or is taken by, or into the mouth of the faithful to saluation. In this testimony I note, first, that he teacheth not a substantiall change of the ele∣ments of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ; but a sacramentall onely, a∣greeable to the harmony of Protestants Con∣fession. Se condly, that Beda either alludes vn∣to, or transcribes herein the words of S. Grego∣ry aboue alleaged, which I haue there proued 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 confes∣sed after they haue well chastened, and puni∣shed him with fasting, let them impart vnto him the pretious body of our Lord, and b giue him his holy blood to drinke.

Anno 731.

Gregory 3. in his former Epistle to Boniface, forbiddeth at the Lords Table more then one Cup to be vsed; 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 vse of the people, other∣wise one would haue serued.

This custome the Pope dislikes not, for that the Cup was giuen to the Laiety: but because Page  92 in the first institution, Christ gaue but one Cup to all his Disciples. The same Pope afterward thus resolueth the question touching the le∣prous Communicants, with whom the sound could not with safety drinke in the same Cup: Ascfor leapers, if they be belieuers, let them not be de∣priued if the participation of our Lords body and blood, but by no meanes let them bee at the same Ta∣ble, or participate together with them, that are cleane.

Anno. 780.

Alcuinus in his book of diuine duties, instan∣ceth in some, who were not fit to communi∣cate euery day, because they had no purpose to leaue their sinnes; To these, saith he, Saint Austine 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 cleare by repentance,*would take the body and blood of Christ.

Papists answer.

Cardinall Bellarmine → , for want of a better, aduentureth vpon this answer: that indeede 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 vnder the forme of wine.

Page  93
Reply.

The Hart as often as he is wounded flyes to his old Dictamus, and Bellarm. to this distincti∣on to heale himselfe: but none of this herbe here groweth; there is no ground for it. For first, the Fathers alleadged speake 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 vnto, to take the body of Christ and his blood, or the creature of bread and wine sacramental∣ly changed into Christs body and blood, as Beda speaketh, is not to take bread onely, and wine by, I know not what, consequence; or the body onely in specie, and the blood by Conco∣mitancy.

Secondly, could this answer be appliable to other generall sentences of the Fathers, yet not to these, in which there is expresse menti∣on made of the Chalice, of powring out the blood of Christ, and taking it as drinke; and therfore vnder the forme of wine. And who are they that so receiue it? The Laietie as wel as the Priests, vn∣lesse none but Priests are faithful Christians, or all lepers & excommunicate, or suspended per∣sons are to bee taken for Priests. Beda reacheth the Cup to the faithful indifferently, and Grego∣ry to penitents after confession and contrition, of what ranck so euer. Yea leapers are not ex∣cluded simply, but secluded, that they might Page  94 not infect the sound, by drinking together with them.

SECT. IX. The practise of the Church from 800. to 900.

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.

Page  95
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.

Page  96
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 theqSacra∣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.

SECT. X. The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 900. to 1000.

ARistole rightly obserueth, that it so y falleth out in the descent of families, as it doth in diuers grounds, in which sometimes wee haue great plentie, sometime as great scarsitie: so, saith he, some families haue afforded store of noble personages; at other times scarse any of note or eminence. So it fareth here with vs in the last Age wee had plentifull store of testi∣monies for the truth, but in this we are like to haue Penury. Although (if wee consider a∣right) this scarsity may be imputed rather vn∣to the iniury of the time, and want of Records of History, which happily being extant might haue afforded vs no lesse plentie of Testimo∣nies, then the former Ages, as well in this, as in other points in question. The Poet wisely ob∣serued: Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona Multi, Page  106 sed omnes vrgentur ignoti longâ Nocte: carent quia vate sacro. Dan. Chamier. after much inquiry can bring notice but of one witnesse, and him hee dares scarse avow. zBellarmine → brandeth with a note this ninth Age, as being the most ob∣scure and darke, that the Sunne euer cast his beames vpon: yet euen in this Age wee haue somewhat to shew for the right of Gods people to the holy Chalice of the Lords Table.

Anno 910.

aRodolphus Tongrensis testifieth, that the people in his time tooke the sacred body of Christ, and drank a blessed draught of his blood.

Anno 920.

The Abbot of Prumes Regino teacheth vs, * that what Rodolphus witnesseth of the practise 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 soules of the weake be refreshed, and strengthned with the body and blood of our Lord.

Anno 950.

bStephanus Edvensis; saith These gifts or benefits are dayly performed vnto vs, when the body and Page  107 blood of Christ is taken at the Altar.

Anno 990.

cVincentius writes of Elgifa, an old Matrone in this age, who being ready to giue vp the ghost, tooke the body and blood of our Lord.

Anno 995.

Aelfricus, first Abbot of Saint Albons, and af∣ter 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 ful for the entire Communion, as hee is against Transub∣stantiation: the Howsell, or Hoste, saith he, is Christs body, not bodily, but Ghostly; not the body, which he suffered in, but the body of which he spoke, when hee blessed bread and wine to Howsel, ep. ad Wolfin. and in his sermon: Without, they be seene bread and wine, both in figure and in taste: and they be truly Christs body and blood after there halowing through ghostly mystery as a pledge and a figure. And a little after: All our fathers dranke the same ghostly drinke of the stone, which followed them, which stone was not bodily Christ, who calleth to vs, to all beleeuing and faithful men: Whosoeuer thirsteth, let him come and drinke that heauenly liquor, which had signification of Christs blood. Now it is offered daily in Gods Church; it was the same, which we now Page  108 offer not bodily, but ghostly.

I finde no answer made by any Romanist to the testimonies in this Age, which yet are very full and pregnant, both for the precept and pra∣ctise of communicating in both kinds, both by men and women. If any except against the Au∣thors 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 Rea∣der may see, that out of these lees wee haue ex tracted some Aqua-vitae, whereof, though he hath but a taste now, he shal haue a ful draught in the next Age.

SECT. XI. The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 1000. to 1100.

IN this age the Bishops of Rome were so bu∣sie about transubstantiating the bread into the body of Christ, that they suffered the laie∣ty to goe cleere away with the Cup, and gaue them no publique check or controule for it, till the Councel of Constance held 400. yeeres after. Of which hereafter in his due place.

Anno 1002.

Fulbertus Carnotensis confesseth with the Fa∣thers Page  109 of the former Age, though in a higher, and more affected straine, Put forth the palate of*faith; enlarge the Iawes of thy hope; extend the bowels of Charity, and receiue the bread of life, the food of the inward man; take also the wine not tro∣den out by feete of a nasty husbandman, but crusht out of the wine-presse of the crosse.

Anno 1014.

Bruno Abbas Richen-angiensis speaketh to the point, as Fulbertus;ewe also, though most unwor∣thie, doe not onely eate daily the bread of Christ, when we take the foode of his flesh from the table of his Al∣tar, but also drinke his blood.

Anno 1050.

fOecumenius ascribes our spirituall vnion with Christ our Head to the participating of his blood in the Sacrament; the blood of Christ, saith he, by partaking thereof, ioynes vs to Christ, as members to the head. And the same Father, com∣menting vpon the eleuenth Chapter, schoo∣leth rich men for disdayning to admit the poore to their table, whom Christ admits as wel 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 poore, as before thee, dost thou dare to driue them from thy table in dispite and contempt?

Page  110
Anno 1060.

gGuitmundus ioines with Oecumenius, in assig∣ning our Communion at the Lords Table, to be an especiall meanes of vnion with Christ. And they both speake of all faithfull Christi∣ans indifferently, without distinction of Priest and people, who are one in Christ. we, saith this Author, who receiue the Communion of this holy bread and Cup, are made one body of Christ.

Anno 1061.

hLanfranck, sometime Archbishop of Can∣terbury, deliuering a rule touching all Sacra∣ments, saith, Sacraments they are alwayes a likenesse of those things, whereof they are sa∣craments; as in the sacrament about which we contend, when the Hoste is broken, & the blood pow∣red out of the Cup, and into the mouth of the faithfull, what is signified else, but the sacrificing of the body of our Lord vpon the Crosse.

Anno 1070.

iTheophilact reproues the Corinthians out of Saint Paul, for leauing the Lords Cup, and run∣ning to drink with the Idolaters of the wine offered to Idols; Are not you ashamed, O you Cor∣rinthians to run to the Idoles cup from Christs Cup, who hath freed you from Idols? And in his com∣ment Page  111 vpon 11. chap. hee reproues as sharply those, who tooke delight in drinking alone, and quassing by themselues, kHow dost thou take thy cup alone, considering, that the dreadfull Chalice is alike deliuered vnto all?

Anno 1080.

lAnselme, Archbishop of Canterbury, spea∣king of Christians in general, deliuereth a dou∣ble manner of participating the Sacrament, both spiritually, and Corporally: we ought, saith he, to eat and drinke this sacrament two manner of wayes, with the mouth of the heart, and with the mouth of the body. And vpon 1. Cor. and Cap. 10. *All we, saith he, who partake of one bread, and one Cup, are made one body.

Anno 1090.

mHildebertus Cenomanensis, together with Burcardus, Micrologus, and Humbertus de silua can∣dida, relate and aproue that Canon of the third Councell of Brachara, which condemneth the deliuering the bread sopt in the wine to the Laietie for the whole Communion; It is the manner, saith Hildebertus, in your monasteries to giue the sacramentall bread to none, but dipt in the wine, which Custome we find is not taken either from the Lords institution, nor out of authenticall constitu∣tions. If you looke into Matthew, Marke, and Luke, you shall finde the bread deliuered by it selfe, and the wine by it selfe; neither doe we read, that Christ deli∣uered Page  112 bread dipt vnto any, but that disciple, whom by giuing him a sop, he declared to be the betrayer of his Master.

The Papists answer.

This Canon of the Councell of Bracara confirmed by so many witnesses, Burchard, lib. 5. cap. 1. Gratian, de consecratione, dist. 2. Micrologus de Ecclesiasticis obseruationibus. cap. 19. and Lam∣bertus de Silua candida, lib. cont. Graec. calumnias. Cardinall Bellarmine → could not any waies baulk with credit; therefore he sets his braine vpon the racke for a double answer. The first is, that thenCouncel indeed forbids the dipping of the bread, vpon this ground, that our Lord gaue not bread dipt, or sopt in the wine: neither can any suchodipping be proued by any testimonie, or example of scriptures: yet, saith he, the Councell doth not adde, that both kinds ought to be giuen to the Laietie. Secondly, he saith, oIf the Councell should haue said so, wee would haue answered, that the Councell speakes of that time, in which it was free for the Laietie to communicate in both kinds. For then if any desired both kinds, the Councell commandeth, that both be giuen vnto them, to wit, bread and wine a part, and not a sop of bread dipt in the wine.

The Refutation.

These answeres are like the apples of So∣dome, which fall to ashes, if you touch them. Page  113 The first thus presently dissolueth: the Coun∣cell of Bracara doth as well command Com∣mnion in both kindes, as forbid receiuing the bread dipt in wine for the intire Communion: for thus standeth the argument. In admini∣string the Sacrament, wee ought to doe as Christ did, and no otherwaies: but Christ at his last Supper deliuered first bread by it selfe, and then wine, and not bread and wine toge∣ther in a sop, or bread dipt in wine: therefore we ought in like manner to administer the Sa∣crament in both kindes seuerally, and not by intinction, or sopping the bread in the wine. Who seeth not, that this Canon of the Coun∣cell is a two edged sword, cutting off Conco∣mitancie on the one side, as well as intinction on the other: and giuing as deepe a wound to the late Councell of Constance, inioyning the mutilation of the Sacrament; as to the an∣cient Councell of Toures, inioyning the con∣fusion of it, by the infusion of the bread into the Cup. The second answere doth vanish to nothing: the Councell in deed spake of that time, wherein the Communion of both kindes was free. For so it had been from the time of the Apostles, and continued in the Romane Church, till the Councell of Constance: and in the Greeke Church till this day. The grea∣ter wrong is offered by the Romanists to the Laietie, from whom they haue taken the Cup after so many hundred yeeres possession. If a∣ny such thing had been attempted in the time Page  114 of this Councell at Bracara, they would haue been as earnest, or more earnest against this a∣buse, then they were against that in their time, which was farre lesse; for of the two, it is bet∣ter to receiue the bread dipt in the wine, then the bread, and no wine at all. The Councell doth not ground it selfe vpon any supposed dispensation of the Church, for the Laieties Communion in both kindes, as Bellarmine → sur∣miseth, but vpon the institution of Christ, and the example of the Apostles, which in their iudgement ought to preuaile against any sanction of Councell, or custome of any place whatsoeuer to the contrarie.

SECT. XII. The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 1100. to 1200.

Anno 1101.

IVo in his collections out of the writings of the ancient for the present vse of the Church, in his seuenth Chapter, relateth a sen∣tence out of Saint Ambrose to our purpose: The Bloodqis a witnesse of a diuine benefit in a fi∣gure, whereof we receiue the mysticall Cup for the preseruation of our body and soule. To them (to wit, the Iewes) water flowed out of the Rocke, to thee blood out of Christ, the water quenched their thirst Page  115 for on howre, the blood of Christ washeth thee for e∣uer. And in his 31. chapter, he reciteth a de∣cree of Pope Syluerius:*Euery Lords day in the Lent all, besides Excommunicate persons, or such as doe publike penance, ought to receiue the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ.

Anno 1105.

Zacharias Crysopolitanus applieth the sprink∣ling of the dore posts with the blood of the Lambe in Exodus, to the Sacrament of Christs blood: he saith, rWe sprinkle our body and soule, with the blood of Christ, because the blood of the Lambe sprinkled vpon both the posts of the house, freed the Hebrewes. And againe, The reall and Sacramentall eating of Christ are ioyned, when re∣ceiuing in the bread, that which hung vpon the tree, andsreceiuing in the Cup, that which flowed from his side, our soules attaine vnto the eating of the bread of life.

Anno 1110.

tOdo Cameracensis in expounding the holy Canon, affirmeth, that vnder the shape and taste of bread and wine, we eate and drinke the very sub∣stance of Christs body and blood.

Anno 1120.

Rupertus enforcing the necessity of receiuing Page  116 the sacrament, concludes vpon our Sauiours words in Saint Iohn, that euery man ought to communicate in both kinds, for the repast of his soule, as well as his body; lest any manushould thinke, saith he, that he hath recouered by faith alone the life of his body and soule, without the visible meat and drink of the body & blood of Christ, and consequently needs not the sacrament; Christ re∣peates the same thing againe touching the eating his flesh, and drinking his blood; thereby vndoubtedly testifying, that he doth not truly beleeue, whosoeuer dispiseth to eate and to drink. For although thou bee a faithfull man, and professe thy selfe to be a Catholick, if thou refuse to eat and to drinke of this visible meat and drinke; euen by this, that thou presumest, that this meat and drinke is not necessary to thee, thou cut∣test thy selfe off from the societie of the members of Christ, which is the Church. But I inferre, that all lay Papists, that haue bin instructed by the Fa∣thers of the Councels of Constance and Trent, presume, that it is not necessary for them to receiue the visible drinke, whereof Rupertus speaketh; Therefore by Rupertus his conclusi∣on, they cut themselues off from the Church. And though they are men of a Catholike pro∣fession, which he speakes of, yet they are not true beleeuers. In the same Booke and Chap∣ter; 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 booke de operibus Spiritus Sancti et 20. cap. he saith, in spe∣cie panis et vini sanctus Sanctorum est, et in omni∣bus Page  117 electis, qui ad fide eius veniunt, idem efficit, quod in illa specie, qua perpendit in cruce, id est, remisssio∣nem peccatorum: that is, the Holy of holies is in forme of bread and wine, and to all the elect, who come to the faith of him, he worketh re∣mission of sinnes, as he did in that shape, in which he hung vpon the Crosse.

Anno 1130.

*Bern. in his 3. Serm. one Palme Sunday, ma∣keth the sacrament of Christs body and blood the Christians foode and alimonie. Touching the sacrament of Christs body and blood, saith hee, there is no man who knoweth not, that this so singular a foode was on that day first exhibited, on that day commended, and commanded to bee frequently recei∣ued.

Anno 1135.

Algerus doth not barely affirme, that the sa∣crament * was instituted at first, and ought to be administred in both kinds: but he confirmeth it strongly by the testimonie of Saint Austine. And Pope Gelatius, first in his fifth Chapter he positiuely deliuereth the necessitie of commu∣nicating in both kinds, in these words; yBecause we so liue by meate and drink, that we can want nei∣ther of them, Christ would haue them both in his sa∣crament, least if either should be wanting, by that im∣perfect taking of life, and not entire, an imperfect life might seeme to be signified. In his 8. chap. more at large he vnfoldeth the mysterie, that lyeth in Page  118 the communicating in both kinds. There is no∣thing found in the creature, saith he, whereby more fitly and neerly life may be represented, then by blood, which is the seate of the soule; in which that it may be signified, that our bodies and soules ought to be vnited and made conformable to Christs bodyyand soule, the body and blood of Christ are both ta∣ken together of the faithfull, that by taking whole Christs body and, soule, the whole man in body and soule might be quickned: in as much as the flesh of Christ, as I haue said, is beleeued not to bee without blood and dead, but liuing and quickning: whence it is that Saint Agustine saith, that neither the flesh with out the blood, nor the blood without the flesh is right∣ly taken. Also Gelatius writeth to Maioricus, and Iohn, Bishops, in this manner: We vnderstand, that some taking a portion of Christs body, abstaine from the Cup of his sacred blood, to whom our commande∣ment is, that either they partake the sacrament intire∣ly, and receiue both, or be kept from both.

Anno 1136.

Hugo dezSancto Victore yeeldeth a like reason of the full and intire communicating in both kinds; Therefore, saith hee, the sacrament is taken in both kinds, that thereby a double effect might bee signified. For it hath force, as Saint Ambrose saith, to preserue both body and soule. In the same termes hath Halensis. Sum. Theol. par. 3. num. 29. art. 4.

Page  119
Anno 1140.

Peter Lumbard Mag. sentent. propoundeth this question: aWhy is the sacrament receiued vnder a double forme, or kind, sith whole Christ is in either kind? He answereth, That thereby it might be sig∣nified, that Christ tooke the whole nature of man, that he might redeeme the whole.

Anno. 1150.

Petrus Cluniacensis Epist. lib. 1. Though hee * fight against the truth one way, and woundeth the Albigenses; yet he fighteth for it another way, and giueth a deeper wound to the Trent Fathers, and all that content themselues with an halfe communion. That men might not onely learne by words, saith he, but haue a sensible feeling by deeds, that they cannot liue vnlesse they bee ioyned and vnited to Christ, after the manner of carnall food and life, they receiue the body of Christ, and drinke the blood of Christ. And a little after, to signifie that for this cause he wouldbgiue his flesh to all, to eat it, and his blood to all, to drinke it, he draweth a simi∣litude from Manna, that fell in the wildernesse. In this yeere of our Lord also Vincentius relates of one Tundanus, a profane person in his former life, that being suddenly strucken from heauen, hee called for the body of our Lord, which when hee had taken, and drunke the wine, he began to praise God in these words; O Lord, thy mercie is greater then mine Page  120 iniquitie. In this same Age Antoninus writes in his Chronicles, that cthe Normans the morning before they fought with the Danes, receiued the Communion of Christs body and blood.

Anno 1170.

dGratian rehearseth many ancient Canons and Constitutions for communicating in both kinds, which because they haue been handled before, I here let passe.

The Papists answer.

The onely answer, which I find to our alle∣gations out of the Fathers in this Age, is Car∣dinall *Bellarmines, who indeuoureth to put a glosse vpon Saint Bernards words on this wise: Vnder the forme of bread, the entire nourish∣ment, or compleat foode of Christs body and blood is contained. Wherefore our Lord, saith he, commanded that foode to bee often taken, but he commandeth not, that it should bee ta∣ken in both kinds.

Refutation.

S. Ierome saith, it is the part of a bad Physiti∣on, omnibus oculi morbis vno collyrio mederi: to applie but one eye-salue to all manner of disea∣ses of the eyes. Yet such a Physition is Bellar∣mine; he hath but one salue for all diseases, and Page  121 that hath no vertue it in at all in effect. To the saluing of all the testimonies of the ancient Fa∣thers opposed against him, hee applieth onely this medicamentum〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of concomitancie. whatsoeuer the Fathers speake of receiuing the body and blood, and the entire food of our soules, he would make vs beleeue, they intend nothing against their halfe Communion. For, as he accounteth, the blood is neuer seuered from the body, and the blood is vnder the forme of bread. Hee therefore, who taketh the bread, taketh the body & blood of Christ: and consequently communicateth intirely. But besides, that this proposition of his, hath beene heretofore refuted, I adde first in generall, that, albeit we should admit, that in the iudgement of the Fathers in this Age, the blood of Christ were with the body, and with the forme of bread: yet there is no Cup, nor Wine in the bread, no drinking in eating, no powring out of the wine, or blood into the mouthes of the faithfull. Of which the writers of this Age speake so expresly, that those of our aduersa∣ries, who haue not rubbed hard their fore∣heads, neuer so much as offer to make answer to these testimonies, but haue held it the wisest course, neuer to take notice of them. Secondly, for Saint Bernard in particular, his words haue relation to the Institution of Christ, saying, The entire foode of the body and blood of Christ was that day first exhibited: nay, at our Lords last supper there was wine, as well as bread. And this Vas∣quezPage  122 the Iesuite ingeniously confesseth, howso∣euer it cut the throat of his fellow Iesuites an∣swer. eBernard, saith he, speakes plainely of the other part of nourishment, which is taken by way of drinke vnder the forme of wine. What then? Doth Vasquez freely giue vs Saint Ber∣nard? Not so! but deuiseth another euasion, to wit that communicating in both kinds, for the entire repast of the soule is commanded to the whole Church, not to euery particular be∣leeuer: Defumo in flammas. Vasq. to auoide the smoke, that put out Bellarmine his eyes, falls in∣to the fire. For that which is inioyned the whole Church, is necessarily inioined eue∣ry saithfull. The words of our Sauior, Drinke ye all, &c. are euidently a command to each parti∣cular. For so the Apostles vnderstood him, and dranke euery one of them of that Cup, and not a∣ny one, or more, in the name and behalfe of all the rest. Doubtlesse, as euery man must liue by himselfe, so he must also in his owne person and by himselfe, receiue the entire food of life, the body and blood of Christ.

SECT. XIII. The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 1200. to 3000.

Anno. 1229.

ABbas Vrspergensis writing of the besieging of Damiata, saith, that fthe souldiers, before Page  123 they scaled the wooden tower, made confession of their sins, and receiued the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord. The like Antoninusg 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 cu∣stome as yet controld in that age, nor an hun∣dred yeeres after, as in due place shall be shew∣ed.

Anno 1236.

DurandushMimatensis in expresse tearmes affirmeth, that he who receiues the Hoste only, doth not receiue the whole sacrament sacramentally. For although the blood of Christ bee in the consecrated Hoste (hee speaketh according to the schooles 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 there∣fore that the sacrament is not compleat in one kind according to the signe, the sacrament must be made compleat before the Priest vse it. Du∣rand his conclusion falls short vpon the Priest, but his reason stretcheth to all people, as well as Priests. For all ought to receiue the entire Sacrament sacramentally, and if one kind one∣ly be an imperfect Sacrament to the Priest in regard of the signe, it must needs bee im∣perfect also vnto the people: vnlesse they will say, that the sacrament presents lesse to the Priests, then to the people, or that the Priests aprehend lesse in it, then the people Page  124 surely that which is but halfe a Cup to one, cannot be a whole one to an other; that which is empty, or incompleat to one, cannot bee compleat and full to another.

Anno 1240.

iHalensis, howsoeuer he some way inclines to that opinion, that it is sufficient to receiue the sacrament in one kind: yet he confe•…eth, that there is more merit and deuotion, and compleatnesse, and efficacie in receiuing in both.

Albertus Magnus in 4. Sent. dist. 8. deliuers this generall 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 pro∣duceth nothing, which it presenteth not. And from thence inferres, that the vnity of Christs mysticall body is not perfectly caused, and signified, but by a double signe: and there∣fore bykvertue, or in regard of the sacramēt we ought to haue both. Let the Reader note, that Albertus saith not, according to the new euasion of the Iesuites, 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 efficacie, as it doth want of its significancie, but the receiuing vnder the forme of bread onely beareth no similitude, nor hath any signification of the spiritual drink of Christs blood. The Romanists therefore in Page  125 taking away one of the signes from the Laiety, consequently depriue (asmuch as in them lieth) the Laiety of the grace represented by that signe, and conferred with it. And * yet Aegidius Coninck, a moderne Iesuite, and professor of Di∣uinity at Louaine, maketh this audacious asserti∣on out of the Chaire of his Schoole Diuinity: Although more grace may be conferred by receiuing in both kinds, notwithstanding, the Church vpon good reason careth not for that, and doth more respect the reuerence of the Sacrament, then the profit of the receiuers, &c.

Anno 1260.

mAquinas yeeldeth three reasons of the insti∣tution of this sacrament vnder a double forme: the first is; For the perfection of it, because sith it is a spi∣rituall meale, or refection, it ought to haue spirituall meat, and spirituall drinke; secondly, for the signifi∣cation of it, for it is a memoriall of the Lords passion, whereby his blood was seuered from his body; and therefore in this sacrament the blood is offered by it selfe; Thirdly for the healthfull effect of it, for the bo∣dy is offered to shew, that it is of force to saue the body; and the blood is offered to shew, that it is of force to saue the soule. The halfe Communion therefore in Aquinas his learning wants perfection, sig∣nificancie, and efficacie. Bonauenture thus inde∣uoreth to cleere the matter: In the sacrament there are two things, efficacy, and significancy; concerning efficacie, neither kinde is of the in∣tegritie Page  126 of the Sacrament, but either is the whole; concerning signification, so the two signes are of the integritie of the Sacrament, or integrall parts of the Sacrament, nbecause the matter of the Sacrament is expressed in nei∣ther kinde by it selfe, 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 soule in the wine, the seate whereof is in the blood.

Anno 1280.

Richardus de Mediauilla, and Petrus de Ta∣rantasia; who afterwards was aduanced to the Popedome, and changed his name into Inno∣centius the fourth, testifieth, that the Sacrament was administred in both kinds to the better sort of the Laietie, howsoeuer they entertai∣ned the vulgar and meaner sort with a drie Communion: thus oCassander relates their words, The Sacrament may lawfully bee giuen in both kinds to greater personages, or men of qualitie, where there is no feare of error of spilling the blood, because such men know how to obserue due reue∣rence, and caution.

The Papists answer.

I finde no answere in particular made by a∣ny to the passages aboue alleaged; but in ge∣nerall their answere is, that the Schoole-men might write more freely, before the Coun∣cell Page  127 of Constance had decreed the contrary. And they adde; that some, if not all of these Schoole-men approoue of the administring of the Communion vnder one kinde to the Laietie.

The Replie.

The Councell of Constance by their de∣cree 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 pietie. What pAndrocles spake sometimes of the A∣thenian lawes; The lawes had need of a law to mend them: may truely be said of this Canon in the Councell of Constance, that it needs a Canon to rectifie it: for it depraues Christs institution, it checks the Primitiue Church, it controules the practice of the whole Christian world, for 1200. yeeres and more; euen till the middle of this age, wherein Sacrilege stole in by degrees. A curious eye may tracke these fellons of the holy Chalice. First, vnder colour of preuenting abuses, in spilling the Cup, they take it away from the vulgar and meaner sort of people, not daring to offer this indignitie to the better sort; to them, as we heare out of Mediauilla, they deliuered the Sacrament in both kinds, afterwards vpon this pretext, that the blood was in the body, and the whole Sa∣crament in either kind, they nimmed the Cup from the lesser Churches, as Linwood informes Page  128 vs: qIt it granted, saith he, onely to Priests, that celebrate in such small Churches, to receiue the blood vnder the forme of wine. Going cleere away with this their Sacrilege in lesser Churches, they aduenture vpon the greater. And by Aquinas his confession, the Sacrament was administred in one kind, but in some Churches in his daies, For in diuers Churches, saith hee, rit is proui∣dently obserued, that the blood should not be giuen to the people, but that it should be receiued only by the Priest. In the end, when they had as farre as their authoritie stretched, robbed all assem∣blies of the Laietie, in depriuing them of the Cup: they after inacted a generall law in the yeere of our Lord, 1414. to warrant this their publike Sacrilege. This thirtenth age resem∣bleth the riuer Iordane, 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 Vincen∣tius, who flourished in the beginning, and con∣tinued vntill the middle of this age, gaue a full testimony vnto the truth. But those who liued after, spake partely 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 Greeke prouerbe; Serpens genuit serpentem, vt fieret Draco: One Serpent hath begot another, Page  129 that from them both a Dragon might issue. The error of transubstantiation, had begot∣ten the error of concomitancie; and from both these at length issued out their hereticall sacrilege, or sacrilegious heresie in defending the practise of their halfe Communion.

SECT. XIIII. The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 1300. to 1400.

IN this Age, when this sacrilegious error like a Gangreene, had spred ouer a great part of the Latine Churches, God stirred vp many learned Chirons and Machaeons, knowne by the nick-names of Walldenses, Lollards, & Wick∣liffests, to applie a soueraigne remedie vnto it. And they, Deo secundante, wrought great cures vpon this Cancer in England, France, and Bohemia. In other parts of Europe, the people were so intoxicated with the golden Cup of the whore of Babylon, that they willingly suffered the Priests to keepe away from them the Lords Cup. Yet in this Centurie, if wee adde to the sounder Diuines, or Doctors, in the Latine Church, the iudgement and pra∣ctise of the whole Greeke Church, the entire Communion wil carry it away from the halfe, by more then halfe the voyces of Christen∣dome.

Page  130
Anno 1301.

The custome of communicating in both kinds was not abolished in the beginning of this age, but was retained in certaine places, es∣pecially in Monasteries, vntill the yeere of our Lord 1300. and more. Thus writeth tCassan∣der.

Anno 1320.

uPetrus de Palude saith, that in his time the custome was in many Churches, that the faithfull communicated in both kinds, and hee backeth this his testimonie 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 Sacra∣ment ought to be represented perfectly by the matter thereof, in a manner agreeable to the things naturall. For sacraments effect that which they signifie: but the effect of this sacrament is a perfect re∣fection, or repast of the soule: therfore the mat∣ter representing, it ought to bee a perfect refe∣ction of the body, which is not but by meate and drinke. This argument of Peter of the F•…n hath so farre sunke our aduersaries, that to this day they cannot by all their sophistry get out of the boggs.

Anno 1341.

Clemens 6. in his Bull to the King of Eng∣land; Page  131 granteth him the vse of the Cup, ad gra∣tiae augmentum, to the increase of grace.

Anno 1360.

*Richard Archbishop of Armach thus war∣deth off a blow of the Armenians, when the Armenian heretique obiected against him: vnlesse you eat the flesh of the sonne of man, and drink his blood, you haue no life in yon; Hee answereth, that this speech of our Sauiour, if it bee taken as spoken of sacramentall drinking, ought to be vnderstood with this qualification, to wit; That it is necessarie to obtaine spirituall life, that a man receiue both at sometime, or bee willing to re∣ceiue, and be ready so farre as it is in his power.

Anno 1372.

Besides these written testimonies, wee haue engrauen, I meane the inscriptions of Chalices, or Communion Cups, called Ministerales be∣cause they serued for the people; xVadianus writeth of a cup in the Abbie of Sangall, that weighed 70. markes in siluer: without doubt, saith he, for the vse of the people at the publique C•…mmunion.yGretser censureth the writings of Pelichdorfius against the poore men of Lyons in this manner: This author, saith he, doth re∣fute in the first part of this work the poore men of Lyons, but with some such arguments as ring not well in the purified eares (of Catho∣liques. Page  132 I am sure this argument drawne from great siluer chalices, some of them with pipes for the Laiety to sucke out the consecrated wine, ring not well in the purified eares of Ro∣mane Catholiques. For not onely, Rhenanus* out of Conradus Pellicanus relateth a constituti∣on amongst the Carthusians, whereby they are forbid to haue any pretious vessels, or plate, besides a siluer chalice, and a pipe, wherewith the Laietie may suck the blood of our Lord: but also Caietan maketh mention of them, and their vse to this purpose: and Cassander very much taxeth Eccius, for that he writeth, that he neuer read of the Laieties Communion in both kinds in the Roman Church, saue only in the story of S. Laurence his life; *It is strange, saith he, that a man of so excellent a memorie, as Ec∣cius, should forget the ministeriall Chalices, whereof there is euer and anon mention made in the Romane Pontificall; which were so called, because the blood of Christ was out of thē ministred to the people; In most places for feare of shedding the blood of Christ, in de∣liuering it to the people, there were siluer pipes put in∣to the Chalices, that in the peoples drinking, or rather sucking the blood of Christ, not so much as a droppe might be spilt. These Chalices were not onely in vse in this Age, but a 1000. yeeres before, in Saint Cyprians time: if we may beleeue Cardi∣nall Caietan; who ingeniously confesseth, that they were so called from their vse in the Church, which was to serue the people. Thus * he commenteth vpon Thomas: This custome, Page  133 saith hee, continued not onely in the time of that Martyr, whom Cyprian thought fit to bee forearmed with the Lords Cup, but also in the time of the peace of the Church. For we reade not onely of basons, but also of ministeriall a Chalices made for this vse. aFor why were they called ministeriall, but because they serued not to offer the blood of Christ, but to minister it to the people?

Anno 1390.

The custome was in France to administer the whole Supper not in the middle of the * Church, but in Chappels. This, saith Francis the first, I heard of old men, who affirmed; that this had been the manner in France for 120. yeeres before.

SECT. XV. The testimonies of the practice of the Church from 1400. to 1500.

IOhn Hus, and Hiero. of Prage by the books of Wickliffe, were brought vnto the knowledge of the truth. And as in other points they con∣cluded for that holyfaith, which we at this day professe against the errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome: so in this they were most earnest, and so preuailed in the Kingdome of Bohemia, that from the time of the effusion of Page  134 their blood for the testimonie of the Gospell vntill this day the Cup of the new Testament in Christs blood hath beene deliuered to the people in these parts, and the entire Commu∣nion preserued.

Anno 1410.

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

Anno 1412.

cIacobellus Misnensis, a Preacher of Prage, being admonished by Petrus Dresensis, after hee had searched into the writings of the ancient doctours, and by name Dionysius, and Saint Cy∣prian, and finding in them the communicating of the Cup to the Laiety commanded, he from thence forth exhorted the people by no means to neglect, or omit the receiuing the Commu∣nion of the▪ Cup.

Anno 1414.

In the Councell of Constance, in which the entire Communion is professedly oppugned, yet the Truth extorted frō her bloody aduer∣saries a remarkeable confession of the practise of the Primitiue Church, and of the continu∣ance Page  135 of it in diuers parts, euen vntil 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 esta∣blishing of a law touching the laieties cōmuni∣cating in one kind, is declared to be, dbecause in some parts of the world the Priests did not forbeare to administer the communiō to the laiety in both kinds, against the custome of the Romish Church. Here we haue the continuance of this practise; the anti∣quity whereof they likewise acknowledged in the preface to their sacrilegious decree against it. Although Christ instituted,eand gaue the sacra∣ment after supper in both kinds to his disciples, and in the primitiue Church it was in like wise administred: yet the Councell for certaine reasons commands, that the sacrament be otherwise administred. As the tree f gaines more branches by being lopped with the axe; so the Truth gaineth much lustre and authority from the very Canon of the Coun∣cell of Constance, by which her aduersaries doe seeke to oppresse her. For who will not rather follow Christs institution, then their or∣dinance, and the ancient acknowledged pra∣ctise of the Primitiue Church rather, then a late custome of the present Romish Church?

Anno 1420.

Martin the fifth after the Councel of Con∣stance vpon Easter day, after hee had deliuered Page  136 the body of our Lord with his owne hands to the Laiety, gsuffered them to receiue the blood of Christ at the hands of the Deacon. The like hHenry Kalteysin reportes of other Popes, and withall acquaints vs with the cause, why the Pope left off this custome. It fell out, saith he, that a cer∣taine Bohemian came amongst the rest to the Popes chappel, and receiued the Communion at his hands and hee wonderfully bragged of it, whereof Pope Martin being aduertised, and much inraged, that such a trick was put vpon him, from that time tooke away the Cup from the Laiety.

Anno 1430.

iThomas Waldensis, who tooke vpon him to refute Wickliffes bookes, howsoeuer he maintai∣ned the decree of the Councell of Constance touching Communion in one kind; yet hee witnesseth, that greater personages amongst the people, and men of note or place, as Kings, and doctors, and others that were thought worthie so great a my∣stery, were admitted to the Communion in both kinds.

Anno 1413.

In the Councell held at Basil, as Nauclerus writeth, tom. 2. generat. 48. a kinde of hope was offered to the Bohemians, that vpon certaine conditions, the vse of the Cup might be resto∣red vnto them. The order of the Councell is Page  137 conceiued in these words: kIf the Bohemians continue in the desire of the Communion in both kinds, and send an Embassage to the Councell to that purpose, the holy assembly shall giue libertie to the Priests of Bohemia and Morauia, to administer the Communion in both kinds to such persons, as being in yeeres of discretion shall reuerently desire it.

Anno 1438.

The Bohemians put the faith and honesty of the Fathers of Basil to the Test: they send co∣missioners Iohn Belouar of Prage, Iohn Rokyza∣na, Peter Panie, Procopius, and others, to treat a∣bout the concession of the Cup, and to expresse their earnest and vnfained desire thereof. To whom the Councell returneth this answer; That the request should be granted them, so that they will really, & effectually keep vnitie with the Church; and conforme themselues in all other things, saue the communion in both kinds, to the faith, and rites of the vniuersall Church.

SECT. XVI. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 1500. to 1600.

IN this Age I might produce many Testimo∣nies of such learned Doctors and Professors of the Gospell, as haue beene by Gods proui∣dence Page  138 raised vp in the Reformed Churches in former and latter yeeres, who by their wri∣tings learnedly & soundly haue mainteined the cause we haue in hand; as also doe the ioynt, and vnanimous Confessions of the Churches of England, France, Scotland, Germany, Po∣lonia, Sweueland, Morauia, &c; Howbeit, because the Romanists doe except against all the foresaid witnesses, as insufficient, and of no authority, because they haue departed from their Synagogue; therefore I will alleage some prime Doctors of this Age also, and men of e∣minency among themselues, maintaining the same truth with vs; against whom I see not what iust exception may be taken by them.

Anno 1541.

mGerardus Lorichuis zealously oppugning the sacrilegious practise of the Church of Rome: There be false Catholicks, saith he, that are not ashamed by all meanes 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 peo∣ple, spare no kind of blasphemie. For they say, Christ said onely to his Apostles, Drinke yee all of this, but the words of the Canon of the Masse be these, Take, and eate yee all of this. Here I beseech them, let them •…ell Page  139 me, whither they wil haue this word, all, onely to per∣taine vnto the Apostles? then must the Lay people abstaine from the other kind, of the bread also. Which thing to say, is an heresie, and a pestilent and detestable blasphemie. Wherefore it followeth, that each of these words were spoken to the whole Church.

Anno 1545.

n The Ambassadours for the Emperour, and for the French King, were earnest sutors to the Fathers in the Councell of Trent, for the resti∣tution of the Cup to the Layety.

Anno 1562.

The obseruation of *Seneca; That a lye is of a thin and transparent nature, a diligent eye may see through it; was verified in the Diuines, and Bishops present at the Councell of Trent. Whereof some saw obscurely, others clearely through this grand lye of the Romish Church, which vnder colour of concomitancy, subtra∣cteth the vse of the Cup from the Layety. For Antonius Mandulfe•…sis had a glympse; 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 Prage, professedly impugned the distincti∣on of the Eucharist, as a Sacrament, and as a sa∣crifice: Page  140 which distinction the Papists at this day hold before them, as a buckler to beare off our arguments, drawne from the necessity of representing Christs death in the Lords Sup∣per, by receiuing his blood apart, as seuered from his body. He also infringeth their com∣mon argument for their halfe Communion, drawne from the example of the Disciples at Emaus, and Saint Paul his breaking bread in the ship. For he truly and acutely noted, that if these Texts are to be expounded of commu∣nicating in one kind only, that it would from thence follow, that it were not onely lawfull for the people to communicate in one kind on∣ly, but for Priests, such as the Apostle S. Paul, and the Disciples were, to consecrate in one kind onely. Thus he saw light as it were by a chinke; but pAmans servito Brixianus, as a man in the open aire felt the light of truth to come so full into his eyes, that it dazeled them. For following the doctrine of Caietan, who hol∣deth, that blood is not a part of mans 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 vnder the forme of bread, and vnder the forme of wine. Withall hee added: that the blood in the Lords Supper was blood shed out of the veines, in which as long as it was contained, it could not be drinke: and therefore could not bee drawne with the veine into concomitancy:Page  141 Moreouer, that the Lords Supper was instituted to celebrate his Passion; which could not •…ee represented, but by effusion of blood, and seuering it from the body. It is true, this Amans had a check in the Coun∣for his paines: but his reasons were not an∣swered: himselfe for feare shuffled and fum∣bled about some answer vnto them, but gaue no satisfaction either to himselfe, or to others. Welfare Cardinall qMadrusius, who being asked his opinion, answered directly, That hee 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 Cardinall in iudgement; adding, that he thought, that God would neuer send the spirit of delusion into the minde of the Emperour, in so weigh∣ty a point; especially considering, that Charles the French King, and the Duke of Bauaria, ioyned with the Emperour 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 Councell of Trent hee had stoutly maintained the entire Communion, and refelled all obie∣ctions to the contrary: so after the breaking vp of the Councell, in an Epistle, which he wrote to Maximilian the Emperour, he bitterly com∣plaineth Page  142 of the miscarriage of this businesse in the Councell: rWhat good could be done, saith he, in that Councell, wherein voyces were numbred, but not weighed? If the merits of the cause, or reason might haue preuailed, or if but a few had ioyned with vs, we had wonne the day: but when the number on∣ly did beare the sway, in which we came farre short, though our cause was exceeding good, yet wee were faine to sit downe by the losse.

Anno 1564.

Georgius Cassander being set a worke by Fer∣dinand the Emperour, to aduise about a meanes of composing differences in Religion, declares himselfe fully for vs in this point of the Cup: sIt is not, saith hee, without cause that the best lear∣ned Catholikes most earnestly desire and contend, that they may receiue the Sacrament of Christs blood to∣gether with his body, according to the antient cu∣stome in the vniuersall Church continued for many Ages: or at least, that the liberty▪ which was granted two hundred yeeres agoe of communicating in one kind, or both, may be restored. Wherefore I hold it not onely nothing contrary to the authoritie of the Church, but rather very agreeable to the peace and vnitie of the Church, and in a manner necessary, that either those in whose hands lyes the gouernment of the Church, restore the antient custome of communi∣cating, or, which may be done without great trouble, that the Churches themselues by little and little re∣turne to their antient vse.

Page  143

SECT. XVII. The confirmation of this Argument from the cu∣stome of the Church, by the testimonies of our learned Aduersaries.

THis Argument, as all the former, may bee confirmed by the testimonies of our ad∣uersaries themselues, who t giue sufficient eui∣dence to condemne their owne Church of in∣nouation, and manifest defection from u the Primitiue, in this their halfing the holy Sacra∣ment. The Law saith, that custome is the best interpreter of law. And of all customes the antient, especially if they be generall, and haue lasted out diuers Ages, ought to beare most sway with those, that maintaine the truth of antiquitie, or antiquitie of truth. An argument drawne from an antient, general, and long con∣tinuing custome for more then one thousand yeeres, is like a threefold cable, that cannot be broken. If we may beleeue the Councels held at * Constance and x Basill, such a custome ought to be held for a law, and in•…iolably obserued: But I inferre; The Lay-Communion in both kinds is a a custome commended by antiquitie, gene∣ralitie, Page  144 and duration, as hath been proued be∣fore by the testimonies of approued Writers in all Ages, and is confessed by the Romanists themselues. First, for the antiquity of this cu∣stome, I appeale to the Councell of Constance, Arboreus, Aquinas, Lyra, Carthusianus, and Ru∣ardus Tapperus.

The y Councell of Constance admits vnder a licèt, that Christ instituted the venerable Sa∣crament vnder both kinds, and that in the Primitiue Church it was so receiued by the faithfull; yet with a non obstante, countermands Christs Institution, and the practice of the Pri∣mitiue Church: which gaue Luther iust occasi∣on to nick-name this Councell, and for Con∣stantiense, to call it, Non obstantiense Concilium.

zIohannes Arboreus in plaine termes confes∣seth, that anciently the Lay people did com∣municate vnder both kinds.

*Thomas Aquinas is a contest to Arboreus, auerring, that according to the ancient custome of the Church, all those that were partakers of the com∣munion of Christs body, were partakers also of the communion of his blood.

aDionys. Carthusianus speakes Aquinas his words after him: It was so done indeed in the Primitiue Church, but now the Church hath ordered otherwise.

bLyra harpes vpon the same string: Here is mention of both kinds: for so the Sacrament was re∣receiued of the faithfull in the Primitiue Church.

Page  145Aestius, that famous Sorbonist, vpon the Sen∣tences, lib. 4. handling this question, professed∣ly saith, that it is manifest out of antient histo∣ries, and the writing of almost all the ancient Fathers; qui testantur fideles bibere sanguinem Christi, that the Eucharist was communicated to the people in both kinds.

Ruardus Tapperus speakes rather like a Pro∣testant, then a Papist in this point. For he pro∣fesseth, that it were more conuenient, the Commu∣nion were administred vnder both kinds, then vnder one alone: and that the Communion vnder both kinds is more agreeable to the Institution, and ful∣nesse thereof, and to the example of Christ, and to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church. Arti•…. 15.

Eccius, though d in short and briefe tearmes, yet comes home to the question, saying; Wee confesse it was the vse in the Primitiue Church to ad∣minister in both kinds to the Laiety. For the gene∣ralitie of this custome, if antient Records had failed vs, wee haue enough in the writings of moderne Papists to conuince the denyers ther∣of. Suarez saith somewhat to this point; Slo∣tanus presumes further, and saith more; and Salmeron goes beyond him, and saith enough; and yet Alphonsus exceedes him, and saith more then enough.

Suarez:eThe Christian people were w•…t fre∣quently to communicate vnder both kinds. Fre∣quently they might communicate, yet but in few places. There fSlotanus addes We doe not Page  146 deny, that the custome of communicating in both kinds was obserued in very many Churches, and con∣tinued so not onely in the time of persecution and mar∣tyrdome, but also in the peaceable daies of the Church. This custome might be in very many Church∣es, yet not generall; therefore gSalmeron addes further; We doe ingeniously and openly confesse, that it was a generall custome to giue the Communion to the Laiety in both kinds, as the manner is at this day among the Greekes, and was in antient time among the Corinthians, and in Africa. Generall the cu∣stome might be, yet not vniuersall without ex∣ception, and in all places. Therefore to put the matter out of all question, Alphonsus a Castro addes yet further; hWe beleeue, it is not against Christs Institution, to giue the Communion to the Layetie in both kinds. For we learne out of the wri∣tings of many Saints, that in old time this was the practise for many ages amongst all Catholikes. For the continuance of this custome, which was the last point, what more pregnant testimonies can we desire, then these following of iCassan∣der, Soto and Gregory de Valentia? Cassander and Tapperus witnesseth for one thousand yeeres in these words: kTouching the administration of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, it is eui∣dent enough, that the Easterne Church euen vnto this day, or that the Westerne or Romane Church for one thousand yeeres after Christ and more, in the so∣lemne and ordinary distribution of the Sacrament, Page  147 deliuered both the kinds of bread and wine to all the members of Christs Church▪ which is manifest by innumerable testimonies of antient Writers, both Greeke and Latine.lTapperus calleth it a custome of longest continuance.mSoto witnesseth thus for twelue hundred yeeres and more: not onely a∣mongst the heretikes, but also among the Catholikes, the manner of giuing the Communion to the Layetie in both kinds for a long time was of force; in somuch as it was not vtterly abolished in the dayes of Aqui∣nas. Now Aquinas by *Bellarmines exact calcu∣lation, was borne in the yeere of our Lord 1224. and died in the yeere 1274. Betweene the birth of Aquinas and the Councell of Con∣stance there passed 90. yeeres, which time nGreg. de Valentia after a sort giues vs ouer and aboue: We doe not deny, saith he, that both kinds were antiently administred to the people, as appeares out of S. Paul, Cyprian, Athanasius, Hierome, and others. And truly when the contrary custome of communicating vnder one kind onely began in some Churches, it appeares not: but it began not to bee a generall custome in the Latine Church, much before the Councell of Constance. Nor then neither. For Tapperus saith, that in some Churches they v∣sed both kinds, euen vnto the Councell of Constance. Who seeth not in the frequency * and pregnancy of these testimonies, out of the mouth of our aduersaries, the obseruation of pBudaeus to be verified; that such is the force Page  148 of truth, that she breakes out of mens mouthes against their wills, and stealing amongst lyes, is perceiued by the hearers, when the speakers think they haue her safe enough in their owne power.

highlight hits: on | off