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.

The answer.

First, the doctrine of naturall Concomitan∣cie, presupposeth the naturall body of Christ to bee substantially, and carnally, vnder the * 1.1 forme of bread: which we deny; and conse∣quently this argument, from concomitancie, is of no force. The words, This is my body, being rightly expounded by Austine, Tertullian, The∣odoret, and many other of the ancients to be no other, then, this bread is a signe, a figure, or a sacrament of my body, not this bread is turned substantially into my body, or vnder this is contained my very body, flesh & bones. Where Christs naturall humane body is, there wee grant his blood, and soule, and diuinitie are. But, That his body, is now in heauen, Acts 3. not in any place vpon the earth; much lesse in euery place, where the Masse is celebrated.

Secondly, although we grant, that the bo∣dy

of Christ cannot really bee seuered from his blood, yet the signes of his body, and blood are really seuered: if wee speake of sacramentall Communion, the Apostle tea∣cheth vs, that the bread, which wee break, is the Communion of Christs body, and the Cup, which wee blesse, is the Communion of his blood: neither can wee truly and properly, say, the Bread is the Communion of his blood. n 1.2 And therefore they that commu∣nicate in bread onely, doe not sacramentally communicate his blood.

Thirdly, should we liberally grant vnto our aduersaries, that by the receiuing the body of Christ in the bread, we consequently receiue the blood also, which since his Passion was ne∣uer seuered from his body: yet will it not hence follow, that we drinke the blood of Christ in eating the bread: but Christ commanded vs expresly, to drinke his blood, which cannot possi∣bly be done by communicating in bread only, no though we should admit of the carnall pre∣sence of Christs body in the Sacrament, and the doctrine of concomitancie also.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Answ. 1.
• n 1.2

  Alexand. Hal. 3. pa•…•…t. q. 11. membr. 2. art. 4. Corpus non est sacramentaliter sub specie vi•…•…i, nec sanguis sa∣cramentaliter sub specie panis. Ergo vt sacra∣mentaliter su∣matur totus Christus, necesse est, vt sumatur sub duabus spe∣ciebus.