Of the institution of the sacrament of the blessed bodie and blood of Christ, (by some called) the masse of Christ eight bookes; discovering the superstitious, sacrilegious, and idolatrous abominations of the Romish masse. Together with the consequent obstinacies, overtures of perjuries, and the heresies discernable in the defenders thereof. By the R. Father in God Thomas L. Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield.

The three Romish Pretences, which are more peculiar to their owne Church, in two points.

First, because a Heretikes (saith Bellarmine, and meaning Pro∣testants) doe not believe Concomitancie, that is to say, that the blood of Christ is received under the forme of bread: but for this Concomitan∣cie the Church was moved to prescribe the vse of the Eucharist in one kinde. So he. And this point of Concomitancie is that which b M. Fisher, and c M. Breerly most laboured for, or rather laboured vpon. And albeit your Romane d Catechisme iudgeth this the principall Cause of inducing your Church to preferre one kinde: yet wee (whom you call Heretikes) beleeve that the deuout Communi∣cant, receiving Christ spiritually by faith, is thereby possessed of whole Christ crucified, in the inward act of the Soule: and onely deny, that the whole is received Sacramentally, in this outward act, vnder one onely part of this Sacrament, which is the present question.

And in this wee say no more than your Bishop Iansenius iudged reasonable, who hath rightly argued, saying, e It doth not easily ap∣peare how the outward receiving of Christ, under the forme of Bread, should be called Drinking, but onely Eating, being received after the manner of meates, as that is called Drinking onely, which is received after the manner of Drinke. Drinking therefore and Eating are distin∣guished by Christ, in the outward Act. So hee, even as your owne Durand before him had truely concluded, with whom M. 2 Breerly will beare a part.

Therefore your Concomitancie (if wee respect the Sacramen∣tall manner of Receiving) is but a Chimaera, and as great a Sole∣cisme as to say, that the Body and Bones of Christ are dranke, and his Blood eaten: contrary to the Sacramentall representati∣on, in Receiving Bread and Wine, as hath beene prooved.

Next, when wee aske you why onely your Church will not reforme and regulate her Custome, according to the Institution of Christ, and the long practice of the primitive Church? you answere plainly, and without Circumlocution, that the Reason is, Lest that your Church might seeme to have erred in her alteration of the anci∣ent Custome. And this your f Cardinall Bellarmine and the Iesuite g Valentian vse and vrge as a necessary Reason for confutation of Protestants, who held the necessity of publike Communion in

both kindes. Which Reason your owne Orator Gaspar Cardillo proclaimed (as in a manner) the sole cause of continuing your de∣generated vse, h Least that the Church (saith he) may seeme to have erred. What can more sauour of an Hereticall and Antichristian spirit, than this pretence doth? For an Heretike will not seeme to have erred, and Antichrist will professe himselfe one that cannot erre: which Character of not personall erring was never assu∣med of any particular Church, excepting onely the latter Church of Rome.

Our Assumption. But the Church of Rome (which will seeme that she cannot possibly erre in her not administring the Cup unto Laicks) is knowne to have erred 600. yeares together in the abuse of the same Sacrament, by administring it (in an opinion of necessity) vnto Infants, as hath beene plentifully witnessed by eminent Doctors in your owne Church. Hence therefore ariseth another difference, betweene the profession of our Custome and yours, which is, betweene Christ and Antichrist. All this while you doe not perceiue but that your opinion of Concomitancie will ruinate the foundation of your Doctrine of Transubstantiation, whereof hereafter.

Notes

• a

  Movit Ecclesi∣am, ad hunc usum stabiliendum & lege firmandum, quòd vi∣deret ab Haereticis, & ex errore oppug∣nari. Sacramentarij autem non credunt Cōcomitantiam san∣guinis Domini cùm corpore in specie pa∣nis: undè etiam ij Lutheranorum max∣imè urgent utram{que} speciem, qui cum Sa∣cramentarijs rident Concomitantiā. Bel∣lar. l. 4 de Euch. c. 28. § Secundò.
• b

  In his Booke dedi∣cated to K. Iames.
• c

  In his Liturg. of the Masse pag. 396.
• d

  Maximè omni∣um ad convellendam eorum haeresin, qui negabant sub utra{que} specie corpus Chri∣sti contineri. Catech. Rom. par 2. c. 4. nu 50.
• e

  Verùm non faci∣lè apparet quomodò apertè exterior illa sumptio dici possit bibitio: manducatio rectè dicitur, quià su∣mitur aliquid ibi per modum cibi: sed quomodò bibitio, cùm nihil sumatur per modum potus? non n. diceremus e∣um & manducare & bibere, qui panem tinctum vino sume∣••et, quamvis sumat quod famem tollat & sitim. Proindè, se∣cundùm horum sen∣tentiam vider••tu•• omninò dicendum—cum dicitur manducare, & bibere, non ratione actus exterioris, qui manducationis tantum spe∣ciem habet: sed ratione actus interioris, nempe, ratione fidei. Jansen. Concord. in Evang. pag. 457.
• See more expressly in the testimony of Durand above, Sect. 8.
• 2

  See Booke 2. Cap. 2. §. 4.
• f

  Secunda ratio, quià qui Concomitantiam negant, ex alio pernitioso errore petunt utram{que} speciem: quià nimi∣rum existimant iure divino esse praeceptum; & proptereà totam Ecclesiam longo tempore in hac re turpi∣ter errâsse. Bellar. qu•• sup. §. Secundo.
• g

  Rectissimè facit Ecclesia, quod ipsa praxi contrariâ refu••at co∣rum haeresin, qui utram{que} speciem iure divino necessariam omnibus esse perperam contendunt. Quae ratio iure optimo inter coetera considerata est in Conc. Constant. contra Bohemos; & in Conc. Trident. contra recentiores Sectarios. Greg. de Ʋalent. Ies. Tract. de usu Eucharist. cap. 10. §. Deindè, p. 499.
• h

  Ego existimo, Pa∣tres, non solùm nul∣lam legitimam cau∣sam esse, sed ne{que} fin∣gi posse, cur de con∣sensu vestro Laici ca∣licem bibant: ne{que} pa••i ullo modo veli∣tis à more vestro quempiam decedere latum unguem.—Inprimis, quoniam Ecclesia illud praece∣pit, ut alteram tan∣tùm speciem Laicis porrigamus, cui m••∣ritò nobis obtempe∣randum est, quià ni∣hil agit sine magna ratione, ne{que} in hu∣iusmodi legibus fe∣rendis errare potest. Deni{que} si latam le∣gem nullâ evidenti necessitate convella∣tis (Patres) suspicari multis in mentem ve∣niet, aut vos illam te∣merè nullo{que} consi∣lio tulisse olim suscipisse{que}, aut susceptam cùm ratione & servatam diutissimè in Christiana Republica nullâ vel causa vel ratione pro nihilo ducere, quo nihil fieri potest gravitate vestrâ, aut huius amplissimi ordinis ma∣iestate indignius. Gaspar Cardillo Villalpand: Orat. apud▪ Act. Conc. Trid. pag. 219, 221, 222.
• See above, Chap. 2. Sect. 11.
• In the third Booke.