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.

Answer.

If the Romish halfe Communion be so visi∣ble, and apparant in these places, alleaged out of the Acts, I wonder the Fathers in the Coun∣cels of Constance, Basil, and Trent saw no such thing in them. As for the ancient Doctors in the Primitiue Church, some of them expound these places of common bread, some of the Sa∣crament, none of the Communion in one kind. In the 20. of the Acts, it is not certaine, that Saint Luke speakes of the Sacrament; and in the 27. of the Acts, it is certaine he speakes not

of the Sacrament. With such vntempered morter, that will not sticke together, our ad∣uersaries build the ruines of their Babell. To cleare then these passages in their order:

To the first, Acts 2. 42, 46. I answer,

First, that there is no necessity at all enfor∣cing vs to vnderstand by breaking of bread in either verse, the celebration of the Sacrament. The words of themselues are indifferent to ei∣ther of these three expositions; They continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and distribu∣ting their bread one to another, as each had need. It seemes to bee t 1.1 Caietans exposition: They continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellow∣ship, and had their common dyet with them, which is u 1.2 Beza's; or, Lastly, they continued in their doctrine, and participating the Com∣munion with them: Which interpretation Lu∣ther, Caluin, and the Waldenses seeme to like best. The ioyning of breaking of bread with doctrine and prayer, seemeth for to make for this interpretation; but that which followeth, vers. 44. All that beleeued were together, and had all things common; and vers. 46. breaking bread from house to house, did eate their meate with glad∣nesse, and singlenesse of heart; swayeth the bal∣lance on Beza his side. To which opinion Chry∣sostome, and Oecumenius, Theophylact, and Caietan before alleaged propend. * 1.3 Saint Chrysostome saith, that their Communion was with the Apostles,

not in prayers onely, but also in doctrine, and ciuill c•…•…uersation. All things were in Common: By bread he seemeth to me to signifie their fasting and austere life: they tooke their foode for the mainte∣nance of life, not of Luxurie. x 1.4 Oecumenius, and The∣ophylact accord in their note with Saint Chry∣sostome. He saith, breaking of bread, to shew the Apo∣stles simple and sparing diet: so Oecumenius, and Theophylact; by this phrase, breaking of bread, he signifieth the faithfulls temperance annd slender diet; whereby Bellarmines cauil is easily answe∣red, when he saith, it were a discommendation, not a prayse of the faithfull, to say they continued in ea∣ting and drinking: for it was a commendation to continue in the fellowship of the Apostles, and to eate and drinke with them after their temperate and sparing manner; especially, if we adde out of Cardinall z 1.5 Caietan, that this their breaking of bread was a charitable relei∣uing of those that wanted: they continued, saith he, in breaking of bread, that is in distribution of meate: the communication brought their owne pro∣per into common, but the breaking of bread distribu∣ted that which was common to euery man in particu∣lar.

Secondly, if we should grant, that Saint Luke by breaking of bread, vnderstood the celebra∣tion of the Lords Supper, yet our aduersaries would gaine nothing by it. For it is certaine, that in the Hebrew phrase, to breake bread, signifieth to make a meale, to dine, or sup with a man: which, I trow, is not without drinke, as

well as meat. Is not this, saith Esay, the fast, that I haue chosen? And chap. 58. vers. 6. 7. Is it not to deale thy bread to the hungery, and that thou bring the poore, that are cast out, to thy house, &c. And E∣zechiel. cap. 18. 7. Who hath giuen his bread to the hungrie, and Luk. 14. 1. Hee went into the house of one of the chiefe Pharises to eat bread: and the se∣cond to the Thessal. 3. 21. Let them eate their owne bread. In all which places, and many more, bread is taken for all manner of victuals, and to breake bread, signifieth, to breake or take foode, and naturall sustenance; which is not bread onely, but bread and drinke. Therefore howsoeuer the cup, or drinking be not expres∣sed in this place of the Acts, yet it must neces∣sarily be vnderstood by a vsuall Synechdoche in holy Scriptures. To the second place out of Acts the 20. 7. We answere as to the former Acts 2. that the disciples meeting to break bread, was either to keepe a feast of Charitie, which they called then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or to receiue the Com∣munion in both kinds. For the Disciples pub∣likely neuer receiued it otherwayes in the pri∣mitiue church.

To the third obiection out of Acts 27. 35. Where Saint Paul is said to take bread, and after he had giuen thankes, to eate it: wee answer, that the bread which Saint Paul tooke and brake, could not bee the holy sacrament. For Sant Paul would neuer haue giuen that which is holy to Doggs, or cast Pearles before swine, which he should haue done, if in the ship before, and

to Infidels he had administred the blessed sacra∣ment. The text saith, b 1.6 that they had been many dayes fasting before; and S. c 1.7 Chrysostome, d 1.8 Oecume∣nius, and Theophylact expresly affirme, that Saint Paul both by words, and by his owne example, perswaded the Marriners, after so long fasting, to take foode, to keepe them from staruing. Moreouer, it is to be obserued, that after Saint Paul began to cat, it is said ver. 36. that they were all of good cheere, and they also tooke to themselues some meat. It is not said, that they tooke bread from Saint Pauls hand which they must haue done, if they had receiued the Communion from him. Neither do any receiue the sacrament in that quantitie, that they may thereby satisfie hunger, and be said to haue eaten enough. verse 38. These cir∣cumstances of the Text doe so euidently con∣uince any man of vnderstanding, that the bread, which Saint Paul brake in the ship, was common bread; in so much that Lorinus f 1.9 the Iesuite, a great Patron in other places of the halfe Communion, here yeelds vnto vs, ingeni∣ously confessing, that Chrysostome, Oecumenius, Beda, and other expositors vpon this place, vnderstand vsuall and common bread or food: as also doth Saint Hierome: And I better, saith he, like of their expositi∣on.

Lastly, this third & last argument of our ad∣uersaries out of the scriptures, drawn from the example of Paul, the Disciples, and Apostles in the Acts, may be forcibly retorted vpon them. For the Apostles, Disciples, and Saint Paul

were Priests, and Ministers of the Sacrament: in whom, as wee learned before out of the Glosse of the Canon law, and Cardinal Caietan, it had beene sacrilege to communicate in one kind onely. Bellarmine saw this retortion in Kemnitius, and seekes to auoyde it by telling vs that in the second of the Acts, Saint Luke rela∣teth the faithful peoples continuance in praier, and receiuing the sacrament, and not the Apo∣stles communicating, which he yeelded was in both kinds. But this is a vaine euasion, both be∣cause the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or fellowship of the A∣postles, implyeth, that the Apostles were com∣municants with them, as also because properly those, who administred the communion, brake the bread, and not the people; they tooke it af∣ter it was broken by the Apostles. To con∣clude, they are caught on both sides by this De∣lemma. Either breaking of bread in those pla∣ces, is not celebrating the sacrament, or if it be, their is a synechdoche in the words, whereby one part is put for the whole. For how can they put by this thrust?

No priests may consecrate, or communicate in one kind onely:

The eleuen Apostles Acts. 2. and the Disci∣ples, Acts. 20. and Paul Acts. 27. were Priests:

Therefore they did not, nor might not con∣secrate, or Communicate in bread onely.

In the places aboue alleaged therefore, vn∣der the name of bread, both kinds by a synech∣doche must needs be vnderstood.

Notes

• t 1.1

  Caietan. Fra∣ctio panis com∣munis distribue∣batur singulis.
• u 1.2

  Beza. Latiùs patere puto hanc panis fractio∣nem, quâ nimi∣rum communis conuictus signi∣ficetur.
• * 1.3

  Chrys. in Act. serm. 6. cap. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Et post: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• x 1.4

  Occum. in hunc locum. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• z 1.5

  Caiet. in Act. cap. 2. Perseue∣rabant in fra∣ctione panis, hoc est, in distribu∣tione cibi, com∣municatio redi∣gebat propria in commune, fra∣ctio autem pa∣nem commnnem distribuebat singulis.
• b 1.6

  Ver. 33.
• c 1.7

  Chrys. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• d 1.8

  Theoph. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ^d Occu. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• f 1.9

  Lorin. in act. 27. Occurr. Chry∣sost. Beda, alijque huius loci expo∣sitores vsit atum, ac vulgarem duntaxat pa∣nem, escamque intelligunt, nec non Hieronymus. & mihi etiam magis placet.