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.

CHAP. III.

The Tenth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse by the now Church of Rome, is in contradicting the Sence of the next words following (concerning the second part of this Sacrament of receiuing the Cup) [HE LIKE∣WISE TOOKE THE CVP, AND GAVE IT TO THEM, SAYING, DRINKE YEE ALL OF THIS.] And adding, 1. Cor. 11. [DOE THIS, AS OFTEN AS YOV DOE IT, IN REMEM∣BRANCE OF MEE.]

SECT. I.

BY which Words [Like manner of Taking, and Gi∣ving, and Saying, Drinke yee All of this] we say that Christ ordained for his Guests as well the Sacra∣mentall Rite of Drinking as of Eating; and hath tied his Church Catholike in an equall obligation for performance of both, in the administring of this Sacrament.

This Cause will require a just Treatise, yet so, that our Discourse insist only upon necessary points, to the end that the extreme Inso∣lencie, Noveltie, Folly, and Obstinacie of the Romane Church, in contradicting of this part of Christ his Canon, may be plainly displayed; that every conscience of man, which is not strangely preoccupated with prejudice, or transported with malice, must needs see and detest it. We have heard of the Canon of Christ his Masse.

The contrarie Canon of the Romish Church, in her Masse.

Shee in her Councell of Constance, decreed that a Although Christ, indeed, and the Primive Church did administer the Eucharist in both kinds; notwithstanding (say they) this Custome of but one kind is held for a law irreprovable. Which Decree shee afterwards con∣firmed in her b Councell of Trent, requiring that the former Cu∣stome and Law of receiuing it but vnder one kinde be observed both by Laicks, yea, and also by those Priests, who being present at Masse, doe not the office of Consecrating. Contrarily our Church of England in her thirtieth Article thus: Both parts of the Lords Sacrament, by Christ's Ordinance and Commandement, ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike.

CHALLENGE.

BVt wee demand; what Conscience should mooue your late Church of Rome to be guided by the authority of that former Councel of Constance, which notwithstanding maketh no scruple to reiect the authority of the same c Councell of Constance in another Decree thereof, wherein it gain-sayeth the Antichristian usurpa∣tion of the Pope, by Denying the authority of the Pope to be above a Councell? and that (as the d Councell of Basil doth prooue) from the authority of Christ his direction unto Peter, to whom he said, Tell the Church. We returne to the State of the Question.

The full State of the Question.

All Protestants whether you call them Calvinists, or Lutherans, hold, that in the publike and set celebration of the Eucharist, the Communion in both kinds ought to be given to all sorts of Communi∣cants, that are capable of both. The question, thus stated, will cut off a number of Impertinences, which your Obiectors busie them∣selves withall, as will appeare in due places. Wee repeate it a∣gaine [In publike Assemblies of all prepared, and capable of the Communion.]

The best Method, that I could choose, for the expedite and per∣spicuous handling of this great Controversie, is by way of Com∣parison: as, namely, First, by comparing the Institution of Christ, with the contrarie Ordination and Institution of the Romane Church. Secondly, Christ his Example, with contrarie Examples. Thirdly, the Apostles Practice, with the adverse Practice. Fourthly, the Primitive Custome of the Church Catholike, with the after-con∣trarie Custome; and the Latitude thereof, together with latitude of the other. Fiftly, the Reasons thereof with Reasons. Sixtly, the divers manners of beginning of the one, as also the Dispositions of men therein, with the repugnant manner and Dispositions of men, in continuing the other.

The discussing of all which points will present unto your view divers kinds of Oppositions. In the first is the Conflict of Reli∣gion with Sacriledge. In the second, a soveraigne Presidence in Christ, with Contempt. In the third, of Faithfulnesse with Faith∣lesnesse. In the fourth, of Antiquity with Noveltie. In the fift, of Vniversality with Pa••city. In the sixt, of Wisdome, with Folly: as also of Charity with Iniustice and Impiety. In the seventh of Knowledge with Ignorance; as likewise of Devotion with Pro∣fanenesse: And all these marching and warring together, without any possibility of Reconciliation at all.

The first Comparison is of the Institution of Christ with the Con∣trarie: proving the Precept of Christ, for the vse of both kinds to all lawfull Com∣municants.

SECT. II.

THere is one word twice used in the tenour of Christ his Institu∣tion; once concerning the Bread, [Hoc FACITE] DOE THIS:] the second time touching the Cup, [Hoc FACI∣TE QVOTIESCVNQVE:] DOE THIS AS OFTEN &c.] Both which whosoever should denie to have the Sound and Sence of a Precept, might be confuted by your owne Iesuites, Do∣ctors, Bishops, and Cardinals, among whom wee find your Barradas interpreting it, Praecipit: your Valentian, Praeceptum: your Iansenius, Mandat: your Alan, Praeceptio: your Bellarmine, Iubet; each one signifying a Command. But of what? this is our next Inquisition.

The Acts of Christ were some belonging to Consecration, and some to Distribution, Manducation, and Drinking. Such as con∣cerned Consecration of both kinds, being with common consent acknowledged to be under that Command of [Hoc facite,] are the Taking Bread, and Blessing it, &c. The other touching Administra∣tion of the Cup, whereof it is said, [Hee tooke it, and gave it to his Disciples] whom after he had Commanded, saying [Drinke you all of this:] he added the other Command set downe by Saint Paul, saying unto them, [Doe this as often as yee shall doe it in remem∣brance of Mee.] That by this Obligation he might charge them to communicate in both kinds. A Precept then it must needs be, But we are not ignorant of your Evasions.

Your first Evasion.

Although (say e you) it be said to his Disciples [Drinke you all, and, Doe this] yet it is spoken to them as they were Priests. And onely to the Apostles; saith Master Brereley: And againe, The Apostles did represent the Priests.

CHALLENGE.

VVE answere that your owne f Castro will not allow your Antecedent, but is perswaded rather (by the manifest

Current of the Text) that The Apostles were not Priests when the Cup was given unto them. And although they were then Priests, yet we answere, that your Consequence (viz.) Ergò only Priests are enioy∣ned to receive the Cup, will appeare to be both fond in it selfe, and to your owne selves pernicious. First, as fond, as if one should argue thus: It was at the first said only to the Apostles, Goe and baptize all Nations: Ergò none but the Apostles have Command to Baptize. Next pernicious, for say (Wee pray you) doe the words, [Drinke yee all of this] command all Priests to drinke? then must this condemne the contrary Practice of your (now Church of Rome, which alloweth the Cup to no Priest present, but only to him that doth Consecrate: which is directly confuted by the Example of Christ, who administred the Cup unto all his Apostles, by your doctrine, Priests.

Againe, Doe these words only command the Priest to receive the Cup? then likewise doe you condemne your former Church of Rome, which hath sometime permitted the Cup unto Laicks. Yea, and your Cardinall Alan g doth not sticke to tell you, out of the ancient Fathers, that the Command [Doe this] declared by Saint Luke, is applyed by Saint Paul to the receiving in both kinds, aswell of People as of Priest.

And by virtue of the same Command of Christ, The Greeke Church hath alwayes observed the use of both kinds unto this day. So hee, justifying our contrary Consequence; euen as also your Cos∣mus Philiarchus defendeth, and confirmeth the same by Aqui∣nas, and Scotus, the two most eminent Doctors of your Church, holding that Laicks are chargible to celebrate the Eucharist by virtue of the Command of Christ in the same words of Institution, [Doe this.]

Your second Evasion.

Next, although it were h (say you) said, [And in like manner Christ tooke the Cup] namely, as he tooke Bread: yet the word [Si∣militèr, Likewise] hath Relation to his Taking, not to his Giving.

CHALLENGE.

THis is flatly repugnant to the Gospell of Christ, where these words of Saint Luke, [Likewise he tooke the Cup] appeare by Saint Matthew to have relation aswell to Christ's Giuing, as to his Taking of the Cup, thus; [Iesus tooke the Cup and gave thankes, and gave it vnto them, saying, Drinke you all of this] Yea and in Saint

Luke the text obiected is so cleare, that it needeth no Comment: He tooke the Bread, and gave thankes, and gave it unto them, saying, &c. and likewise the Cup. Where the precedent word, expressing Christ his Act, is not Tooke, but Gave the Cup. And if any should seeke a Comment upon these words, hee could find none more di∣rect than that of your learned Arias Montanus, and B. Iansenius, [In like manner.] That (saith i they) as he did with the bread, so did he with the Cup, he tooke it, he gave thankes, he gave it unto them All to drinke. All which Saint Luke comprized in these words; [In like manner He tooke the Cup.] So they.

Your third Evasion.

Although it be said of Drinking of the Cup, [Doe this in remem∣brance of Mee:] yet the words [Doe this,] say k you) are spoken ab∣solutely of the Bread, and but Conditionally of the Cup, namely, [As often as you shall drinke it.] And vpon this Conceit doe two Ie∣suites raise up their Insultation, l saying; Behold here the wonder∣full providence of God, whereby is taken from Heretikes all colour of excuse. So they, of us Protestants.

CHALLENGE.

TO this we answere, out of the Conclusions of your owne Do∣ctors, aswell of the new, as of the old Schooles; your m Iesuite Vasquez, for the new, Concluding, that the words, [This doe yee, as often as you drinke it, in remembrance of Mee,] as they command the end of the Celebration of this Sacrament, in the remembrance of the Passion of Christ: so doe they also command the Act and manner thereof, which is, by drinking of the Sacramentall Cup. Which hee holdeth to be so manifest a Truth, that hee thinketh no man to be so blinde, as not to discerne it, saying, Who seeth not this? Accor∣dingly he alleageth Soto for the old Schoole, concluding that the words [Drinke yee all of this, as often, &c.] Doe simply command the

act of Drinking: or else (saith he) the Church hath no ground, for the Priest that consecrateth, to celebrate in both kinds. And this Obliga∣tion Cardinall n Cusanus affirmeth to lie alwayes upon the Church; Whereby your Master o Brereley may see, and acknow∣ledge his double Errour.

And, indeed, the Evidence is so great, that although all Romish Vniversities should withstand it, we might herein appeale to com∣mon Sence: for Christ having first commanded his Disciples, saying, in the Celebration of this Sacrament, [Drinke yee all of this;] this is the Act: and adding further, saying, [As often, or whensoever as yee shall drinke it, doe this in remembrance of mee,] Which is the End so commanded; it doth equally imply command of the Act of Drinking, aswell as of the End. Now the Catholike Church did alwayes hold, that there ought to be an Often Com∣memoration of the Passion of Christ even untill his comming againe (as saith the Apostle) by the Celebration of this Sacrament. And the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] As often, and when-soever yee receive, &c. (being indefinite, and assigning no certaine dayes or times) giveth liber∣tie to the Church to solemnize this Memoriall at her convenient times; yet so, that Whensoever the Church celebrateth this Sacra∣ment, shee doe it according to the forme of Christ his Institution, by Communicating in both kinds.

If the Pope, sitting in the Assembly of his Cardinals, delivering unto each of them a Ring, to put upon their thumbes, should say, Doe this as often as you come before mee, in testimonie of my love: We demand, Are they not, as often as they come into the presence of that Pope, chargeable to put on each one his Ring upon his thumbe, by vertue of the Popes Command, [Doe this?] who seeth not this, that doth not wilfully blind-fold and stupifie his wits? Shall we conclude? As your owne Doctors inferre from these words of Christ [Doe this] that Laicks, who be of yeares, are bound by the Law of God to communicate: By the same Text may wee conclude, that they are likewise obliged to participate of the Cup.

THE CHALLENGE, In Generall.

DOe this] are (as you haue heard) words Commandatorie, and being spoken of both kinds, aswell for Consecration, as for Distribution, doe oblige the Church of Christ to performe both kinds: so that it must needs follow, that the neglect of the Act is a Transgression of the Precept of Christ. And so much the rather ought you to be perswaded hereof, because your choicest and most subtile Objecters, when, seeking to defend your Alteration, it be∣came them to reason discreetly concerning this Sacrament (which the Fathers call [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] the Cup of Sobrietie) yet

doe argue so intemperately, as though they had beene over-taken with some other Cup: insomuch that they are confuted by their owne learned fellowes, by evident texts of the Evangelists, and by common sence; which giveth us just cause to turne their Won∣derment against themselves, saying, Behold the providence of God! thus plainly to confound the wisdome of the Adversaries of his truth by themselves, in their greatest subtilenesse. Hitherto of the Comparison of the Ordinance of Christ with the Ordinance of the Romish Church.

Our second Comparison is of the Example of Christ, with the contrarie Example.

SECT. III.

VVEre it that we had no Precept of Christ to [Doe this] but only the Example of his Doing it in the first Institution, this should be a Rule for us to observe it punctually, excepting in such Circumstances, which only occasionally and accidentally hap∣ned therein, as hath beene proved; and therefore not to dare to give a Non-obstante, against the Example of Christ, as your Councell of Constance hath done: and which p your Iesuite also teacheth, as if the Example of Christ were no argument of proofe at all. Which Doctrine wee are now to trie by the judgement of Anti∣quity. q Cyprian confuteth the Aquarij (Heretikes that used only Water in the Chalice) by the Example of Christ his Institution, because Nothing is to be done of us, in celebrating of this Mystery, which was not done of Christ. So he.

In the dayes of Pope Iulius, Anno 337. there arose many giddie spirits, which violated the holy Institution of Christ in this Sacra∣ment, when as some consecrated Milke instead of Wine: others sopped the bread in the Cup: a third sort squiezed Grapes thereinto. These, and the like, that holy Pope did condemne, but how? by pretence of Custome only? no, but by the obligation of Christ his Example, and institution of this Sacrament, in these words follow∣ing: r Because these are contrary (saith he) to Evangelicall and Apo∣stolicall

doctrine, and Ecclesiasticall Custome, as is easily proved from the fountaine of truth, from whence the Sacraments had their first ordinance; for when our Master of Truth commended this to his Dis∣ciples, he gave to none Milke, but Bread only, and the Cup. Nor doth the Gospell mention the sopping of bread, but of giving Bread a-part, and the Cup also a-part, &c. So Pope Iulius. Those also that of∣fered Bread and Cheese together, in this Sacrament, are confuted by the Institution of Christ, who appointed Bread, saith s your A∣quinas. What can be more direct and absolute? yet dare your men obiect to the contrarie.

The Romish Obiection answered.

At Emmaus, Luke 24. Christ, meeting with certaine Disciples, ta∣king bread and blessing it, and thereby manifesting himselfe to them, is said immediately after the Breaking of Bread to have va∣nished out of their sights. Ergò, it may be lawfull (saith your t Car∣dinall) to use but one kind. Because (saith Master Brereley) the Text sheweth, that Christ vanished away, not leaving any time for Be∣nediction, or Consecration of the Cup.

CHALLENGE.

THis Argument is still inculcated, almost, by every Romanist, in defence of the Romish Custome of but in one kind, not∣withstanding it be twice rotten. First, in the Root and Antecedent: For although Christ here had begun the Celebration of the Eucha∣rist, yet doth it not appeare that he did now perfect it, in distri∣buting either kinde to his Disciples, Nor is this likely, saith your u Iansenius. And it is dead-rotten also in the branch and Conse∣quence thereof, because that this Act of Christ in Emmaus is not to be urged as an Example, to be imitated in the Church; which is demonstrable by an Acknowledgement of your Iesuite x Valentia. As for example. The Councell of Trent hath defined that the Priest, in Consecrating, is commanded by Christ his Institution to conse∣crate in both kinds; Because this (saith your Iesuite) both the nature of the Sacrifice and Sacrament doth exact: but by what words of Command? namely (for so hee saith) by these words, [Doe this.] Accordingly your Objectour Master Brereley (as if he had meant

purposely to confute, and confound himselfe) The reason why the Priest receiveth both kinds, is because hee is to represent the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse. But Bread cannot represent Christ dead, without some signe of Bloud.

If then, because Christ ministred it not in both kindes in Em∣maus, it shall be lawfull for the Church to imitate him in that manner of Distribution of this Sacrament, it must as equally follow, that because hee is not found there to have Consecra∣ted in both kinds, it may be lawfull for your Church so to doe; not only contrary to your now Romane Custome, but also (in the judgement of the Councell of Trent) contrary to the Com∣mand of Christ, as hath beene confessed. Twice miserable there∣fore is the darknesse of your Disputers, First, not to see the Incon∣sequence of this Obiection: and next not to remember that com∣mon Principle, to wit, Extraordinary Acts are not to be Rules for or∣dinary Duties.

A SECOND CHALLENGE.

VVEe conclude. You have seene by the testimonies of Cy∣prian, and Pope Iulius, that it was good Divinity, in their dayes, to argue from the Example of Christ his Institution nega∣tively; by rejecting such Acts, and accounting them as contra∣rie to the Institution of Christ, which accord not with his Ex∣ample, and which are not comprized within the Canon of Christ his [Hoc facite.] which kinde of Reasoning, at this day, is ••issed at in your Romish Schooles. What need many words? O tempora!

Our third Comparison is, by conferring Apostolicall Practice with contrary Practice.

SECT. IV.

SAint Paul having more speciall occasion to handle this point, than any other of the Apostles, may worthily be admitted to resolve us in the name of all the Rest. Hee Catechizing the Co∣rinthians, concerning the true use of the Eucharist, recordeth the first Institution thus: I have received of the Lord that which I deliver unto you, that the Lord Iesus, &c. And, after his Re∣citall of the Institution of Christ, hee himselfe addeth [ As often as you eate of this Bread, and drinke of this Cup, you shew the Lords death untill he come againe. Let therefore a man examine himselfe, and so eate of this Bread, and drinke of this Cup.] From this wee seeke a Proofe both of the Apostolicall Practice, in the use of both kindes in this Sacrament; and of our duety in observing the same. But wee may spare our paines of prooving

the use of both kindes in the Church of Corinth, because (as your a Cardinall Tolet confesseth) There is no controversie thereof.

As for the proofe of our necessary Conformity, wee have the same Reasons, wherewith the Apostle perswadeth thereunto, [That (saith he) which I have received of the Lord, I deliver vnto you, that Iesus, &c.] Thereby applying the Example of Christ his Institution for a Rule of their Practice: which this coniunctive Par∣ticle of Eating [AND] Drinking; To Eate [AND] Drinke, five times so coupled in this Epistle, doe plainly declare.

But you tell vs, that in this place the Coniunctive [AND] is is put for a disiunctive Or, thereby to teach the Church a liberty to choose whether they shall Eate or Drinke: notwithstanding, you your selves have confessed that Christ spake absolutely, and with∣out Condition, of the Bread, Take, Eate, Doe this. And againe, 1. Cor. 11. 24. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, And in like maner the cup.] It is an AND Coniunctive, questionlesse. But seeing it cannot be denyed, that the Apostles practice was both Eating and Drinking coniunctive∣ly, it is not likely or credible that the sence of his words should be discretiue; because this had bene, in wordes, to have contradicted his owne practice. M. Breerly opposeth, viz. The Apostle in the same Chapter saith v. 26. He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh Iudgement; also hee saith v. 27. whosoever ea∣teth this Bread, and drinketh this Cup vnworthily, &c. So hee. It is not to be denyed but that [AND] is often vsed in Scripture for Or: but M. Brearly his notions, as commonly, so here also are too confused, by not distinguishing the divers use of [AND] in Precepts, and Exhortations to an Act, in denunciation of iudge∣ment, in case of Transgression. As for example, The Precept is, Honour thy father and thy mother, (Exod. 20.) here [AND] must needs be copulative, because of the Obligation of precept of ho∣nouring both. But the denunciation against the Transgressour, if it stood (as M. Breerly obiecteth, feigning a false Text contrary both to the Originall, and vulgar Latine Translation) thus, Hee that shall strike his father, and mother shall die: the particle [AND] must needs be taken disiunctively for Or, (as indeed it is expressed in the Text) because the Transgression of either parts of a Com∣mandement inferreth an obligation of guilt and iudgement, as a∣ny man of sense may perceive.

Against this, albeit so euident a Truth, your Doctors will have something to obect, or else it will goe hard; even forsooth the contrary practice of the Apostles, Act. 2. 42. where wee read of the faithfull assembled and Continuing together in fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers; because there is but mention on∣ly of one kinde, which is Bread: whence they inferre a no-neces∣sity of vsing the Cup. So your b Cardinall Bellarmine. And to answere that the ministration of the Cup is vnderstood by a figure Synecdoche, is an answere onely imaginary and groundles, saith M^r.

Breerely. But are they yet to learne that which every man know∣eth, and your owne Iesuites have taught? that there is no Trope more familiar in Scripture than this Sy••echdoche of taking a part for the whole? Or could they not discerne thus much in the same Chap. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 46. where it is said, They brake bread through every house; Wherein (as your Iesuite c Lorinus teacheth) there is not meant the Eucharist, but common foode? Whereby you cannot but vndersta••d implied in their breaking of bread their mutuall drinking together also. And yet in the like words spoken of the Eucharist, v. 42. [They continued together in breaking of Bread] you exclude the par∣ticipation of the Cup. What shall wee say? was your spirituall appetite weaker than your corporall, in reading these two Texts, wherein is mentioned onely Bread, that you could discerne but halfe refection in the Eucharist, and an whole in their bodily re∣past? Besides, any man may guesse what spirit it savoureth of, that (in paralleling the authoritie of your Church with the authori∣tie of the Apostles) your Iesuites doe resolue, that although the Apostles had constituted the custome of Receiving in both kinds, d Nevertheles (say they) the Church of Rome, and Pope thereof, ha∣uing the same authority with S. Paul, may abrogate it upon iust Cause. And yet hardly can you alleage any Cause, for abrogation of that Practice, which S. Paul might not have assumed in his time.

CHALLENGE.

OFrustrà susceptos Labores nostros! may we say; for to what end is it for vs to prove an Apostolicall Practice, or Precept for both kinds, when your Obiectors are ready with the onely names of Pope and Church of Rome to stoppe the mouthes not onely of vs Heretikes (as you call vs) but even of S. Paul himselfe, and of the other Apostles, yea and of S. Peter too? By which Answere not∣withstanding you may perceive how little S. Paul doth favour your cause, by whose Doctrine the Advocates for your Church are dri∣ven to these straits: but more principally if you call to remem∣brance, that our Argument is taken from the Apostles Doctrine and Practice, as it was grounded by S^t. Paul himselfe vpon the Doctrine and Precept of Christ. Thus, when we appeale vnto the Apostles Tradition, you, by opposing, Thinke your selves wiser than the Apostles: which Irenaeus will tell you was the very garbe of old e Heretickes.

Our fourth and fift Comparisons are of Primitiue Custome with the contrary Custome; in respect both of the Antiqui∣tie and Vniversalitie thereof.

SECT. V.

BEfore wee shall say any thing our selues of the Primitive Cu∣stome, in vsing both kindes in the administration of this Sa∣crament,

and the extent thereof, both in the longitude of Con∣tinuance, and latitude of Vniversalitie, we are ready to heare how farre your owne Doctors will yeeld vnto vs, in both these points, touching the publike vse of both kindes. Hearken but vnto the Marginals, and you shall finde your Iesuites, with others, vtte∣ring these voyces: f Wee must confesse, Wee doe confesse; yea, Wee doe ingenuously confesse a Custome of both kindes (aswell to the Laicks as Priests) to have beene in the Primitive Church most frequent and generall: as is prooved by the ancient Fathers both Greeke and La∣tine, among whom are Leo and Gregorie (both) Popes of Rome; yea and universall also for a long time, continuing a thousand yeares in the Church of Rome, and in the Greeke Church vnto this day. So they. where we see both Antiquity and Vniversality thereof to the full, which it were easie for vs to have shewne Gradatim, descending downe from the first Age unto the twelfth; but that when wee haue as much confessed as neede be proved, it might be iudged to be but an importunate diligence and Curiositie to labour any further. Neverthelesse, if peradventure any should desire to see one or two Testimonies for the last Age, he may satisfie himselfe in the g Mar∣gent at the first sight.

The Romish Obiections, concerning Primitive Custome.

Divers Obiections are vrged on your side, to abate something of the Vniuersalitie of the Custome of Both kindes, which we defend; but if they shall not seeke to decline the Question, and to rove a∣bout, as it were, at vnset markes, their Arguments are but as so many Bolts shot altogether in vaine. For our defence is onely this, that in the publike solemnization and Celebration of this Sacrament, in an Assembly of Christians freely met to communi∣cate, no one example can be shewen in all Antiquity, throughout the Catholique Church of Christ, for the space of a thousand

yeares, inhibiting either Priest, or Laick, from Communicating in both kindes, who was duly prepared to receive the Sacrament. As for the examples which you vsually obiect, they are of no force at all, being h proved to be either private, or illegitimate, or false, respectively. Hitherto of the Primitive Custome. Notwithstanding all this, will your Romane Church boast of her contrary Custome of after-times; telling vs in her Councels that her Custome of ad∣ministring the Eucharist but in one kinde is rightly observed, as a Custome which hath beene Diutissimè observata, that is, of most long continuance: Many yeares by passed, saith i your Villalpandius: But most precisely your Iesuite k Salmeron: It is certaine (saith he) that the Church, for these three or two hundred yeares, hath used to communicate to the Laity vnder one kinde. So they.

CHALLENGE.

NOw after that wee have proved, out of your owne Confessi∣ons, the length of the Custome of both kinds to have beene in the Continuance above a thousand yeares, after the first In∣stitution of this Sacrament, and for largenes thereof, in an uni∣versall consent thereunto, without any exception by any exam∣ple ordinary, publique, and legitimate; and that you have heard also even the Fathers of your Church opposing against it a contra∣ry custome not above the Compasse of three hundred yeeres, and yet to call it [Diutissima] A Custome of long continuance; What Tergi∣versation could be more shameles? But enough of this point. In the next place, because the same your Councell hath told us, that your Contrary Custome was brought in [Rationabili∣tèr,] with good Reason, wee are forth-with to discusse the Rea∣sons thereof.

Our sixt Comparison is of Reasons, for the Vse of both kindes, collated with Reasons obiected to the contrary.

SECT. VI.

A Sacrament (according to the common definition) is a Visi∣ble signe of an invisible Grace; and so farre is a Signe true and perfect, as it doth fully represent the things that are ordained to be signified thereby: Signification being the very proper nature and end of a signe, as well in sacred, as in prophane Rites. Come now and let vs industriously and calmly debate this matter, which wee have in hand, both in respect of the thing signified (which is the Sacrament, or spirituall Obiect) as of the party Communicating, who is the Subiect thereof.

Our first Reason is taken from the due Perfection of this Sacra∣ment, which must necessarily be in both kindes.

The things Spirituall (as all Christians professe) are the Body and Blood of Christ, which are signified in the Sacrament of Bread and wine; These two then are not two Sacraments, but one Sacrament, (as you know) which therfore ought to be performed in both, or els the Act will be a Sacrilegious dismembring of the Sacrament of Christ. This shall we easily prove from the Principles and Confes∣sions of your owne Schooles. Your Church professeth to celebrate the Eucharist, both as it is a Sacrifice, and as it is a Sacrament. As you hold it to be a Sacrifice, you generaly teach that both kinds are neces∣sarily to be received of the Priest, because they both belong to the Essence thereof. So your l Cardinall. Consult with your m Aquinas, your Iesuites Valentia, and Vasques, and they will say as much in behalfe of the Eucharist, as it is a Sacrament; their reason is, Because both kindes, making but one Sacrament, ought to be celebrated perfectly, and therefore is the Priest bound to consecrate this Sacrament in both kindes by that command of Christ, saying, [Do this:] nor can this be omitted without Sacrilege. So they.

If such be the necessity of consecrating in both kindes vnder the hand of the Priest, then lieth the same obligation vpon the Church likewise, for distributing it in both kindes vnto the people, to whom it is to be administred, in token of Christ his Passion for them applicatorily, both in his Body and Blood: but the Bread only can no

more represent the Blood of Christ in the mouthes of people, in the eating thereof, then it can by Consecrating it in the hands of the Priest: and consequently the dismembring thereof, as you do, must necessarily condemne both Priest and People. A Consequence, which your figment of Concomitancie cannot possibly auoid.

A Corroboration of the same Reason, against the Sacrilegious dis∣membring of this Sacrament, by the Testimony of Pope Gelasius; and a Vindication of D^r. Morton, from the Traduce∣ment of other your Priests and Iesuites.

SECT. VII.

THe Haereticall Manichees forbare the vse of the Cup in this Sa∣crament, in an opinion, that wine was not created by God, but by some evill spirit; whom Pope Gelasius did therfore condemne by his publique Decree: which hereticall opinion (as once I n said) can∣not iustly be imputed unto the Church of Rome, in her manner of abstaining from the Cup in the Eucharist. This saying o M. Fisher the Iesuite, of late, thought good to pervert to his owne use, thus. The Crime wherewith some Protestants charge us, that our receiving under the sole forme of Bread is to iump in the opinion of the Manichees, we may (as D. Morton confesseth) reiect as iniurious, saying with him, that it was not the Manichees abstinence from wine, but the reason of their forbearance that was iudged hereticall. So hee. But this mans march is but slow.

M. Breerly, a Romish Priest, one well esteemed among you, for his exceeding labour and pains in defending the Romish Cause, to his power; by his many Books, almost in every particular, commeth on more roundly, as followeth: D. Morton himselfe (saith he) shall plead in our behalfe, who saith that the Manichees did heretically celebrate the Eucharist only in one kind, in an opinion that wine was not created by God, but by some evill spirit, and were therfore anciently condemned for Heretiques: but the Romanists are not to be accused of this Heresie of the Manichees, in their not distributing of both elements of bread & wine. And to obiect this against that Church were an accusation iniurious, for it was not the Manichees abstinence from wine, but their reason thereof which made them hereticall, said he. So your Priest; yet what of all this? So clearly doth D. Morton (saith he) cleere vs from the foule and false imputation urged against us by D. Whitaker, who noted the Ad∣ministration but in one kind, now used by the Romish Church, to have had it's originall from the Manichees: and so clearly doth he contradict both M. Whitaker & himselfe, in one place accusing us, in another excu∣sing us, in one and the same Respect: of which foule fault of Contradicti∣on in so great a Rabbin when hee cleereth himselfe, in stead of being Bi∣shop of Litch field, he shall be unto me euer Magnus Apollo. Thus far M. Breerly. Alas! what wil become of the Doctor, being, as you see, thus fiercely assaulted by two at once, one a Iesuite, the other a Romish Priest, both conspiring together to make the Doctor ridiculous?

CHALLENGE.

IT is now about twenty yeares since the said Doctor (in Confu∣tation of a Booke of Master Brereleys, intituled an Apologie) pub∣lished a Treatise, called the Protestants Appeale, wherein were discovered many hundred of Master Brereleyes Ignorances, Falsi∣ties, and Absurdities: who ever since hath had Master Parson's itch, (as hee himselfe called his owne humour) which received a Salve that might have cured him of that itch, to be medling with the same Doctor. Yet the onely Exception, which hath since come to this Doctor's eares from your side, is this now objected point, concerning the Manichees: whereupon you have heard them both so urgently, and boastingly insist, and not so onely, but they have also divulged this pretended Contradiction in many Counties of this Kingdome, to his reproach. Will you be so kinde, as but to heare an Answer, and then either wonder at, or hisse, or applaude, or him, or them, as you shall finde iust Cause.

Two things there were condemnable in the Manichees, one was their Act and Practice, in dismembring the Sacrament, by not communicating in both kindes: the other was their Opinion, which they held, for so doing; which was, as you have heard, an hereticall Conceit that Wine was the Creature of the Devill. Concer∣ning this hereticall opinion, no Protestant (said q Doctor Morton) doth charge the Church of Rome: but as for the Act of not-Com∣municating in both kinds, r he called it Sacrilegious, and concluded the Church of Rome, in this respect, to be as guilty of dismembring the Sacrament, as were the Manichees. And both these hee hath done by the Authority of Pope s Gelasius, who decreed, in con∣demning the Manichees, First against their Opinion, saying, Illines∣cio quâ superstitione docentur astringi, &c. (That is) They are intang∣led in a kind of Superstition. Then, for the Act of refusing the Cup, Because (saith he) the dividing of the same Mystery cannot be done without grievous sacrilege, therefore let these Manichees either receive the whole Sacrament, or else let them be wholly excluded from receiving. So Gelasius.

Seeing then Doctor Morton, and all Protestants, cleare the Church of Rome from the imputation of the Heresie of the Manichees, in respect of their opinion, and yet condemne them of the Mani∣chean Sacrilege, in respect of the Act of dismembring the Sa∣crament; with what spectacles (thinke you) did your Priest and Iesuite reade that Answere of Doctor Morton, to collect from thence, either your Churches Iustification from a foule fault of Sa∣crilege, or else the Doctors foule Contradiction to himselfe, and that cleerely forsooth, in the same respect? who themselves are now found to have beene so subtilly witlesse, as not to discerne Heresie from Sacrilege; an opinion from a fact; or a no-imputation of

that, whereof neither Doctor Whitaker, nor any other Protestant ever accused them, from a practice condemned by a Romane Pope himselfe. Take unto you a Similitude. A man being apprehended in the company of Traytors, upon suspition of Felonie, is fully and effectually prosecuted for Felonie onely; if one should say of him, that he was not conuicted or condemned of Treason, but of Felo∣nie, were this either a Contradiction in the party speaking, or a full Iustification of the party spoken of?

You are by this time (we thinke) ashamed of your Proctors, and of their scornefull insultation upon the Doctor, in the ridiculous tearmes of Rabbin, and magnus Apollo: who willingly forbeareth, upon this Advantage, to recompence them with like scurrility, be∣ing desirous to be only Great in that, which is called Magna est Veritas, & praevalet.

By which Truth also is fully discovered the vanity of the An∣swere both of Master Fisher, and of your Cardinall, saying, that Gelasius condemned only the Opinion of the Manichees; which is so transparant a falshood, as any one that hath but a glympse of Reason may see through it, by the sentence it ••elfe, as hath beene proved.

Our second Reason is in respect of the perfect Spirituall Refection, represented by this Sacrament.

SECT. VIII.

ANother Object, represented in this Sacrament, is the food of man's soule, in his faithfull receiving of the Bodie and Blood of Christ, which because it is a perfect spirituall Refection, Christ would have it to be expressed both in Eating and Drinking, wherein consisteth the perfection of man's bodily sustenance: and therefore are both necessarily to be used, by law of Analogie betweene the outward signe and the thing signified thereby. Two of your a Ie∣suites (from whome Master Fisher hath learned his Answere) seeke to perswade their Readers, that the soules refection spirituall is sufficiently signified in either kind, whether in Bread, or Wine. But be it knowne unto you, that either all these have forgotten their Catechisme, authorized by the Fathers of the Councell of Trent, and confirmed by Pius Quartus then Pope, or else Those their Cate∣chists forgot themselves in teaching, that b This Sacrament was in∣stituted so; that two severall Consecrations should be used, one of Bread, and the other of the Cup; to the end both that the Passion of Christ might be represented, wherein his Bloud was separated from

his Body, and because this Sacrament is ordained to nourish man's soule, it was therefore to be done by Eating and Drinking; in both which the perfect nourishment of man's naturall life doth consist.

Aquinas, and your Iesuite Valentia with others are as expresse in this point, as they were in the former; who although they (as we also) hold that whole Christ is received in either kinde, (for Christ is not divided) yet doe they c mayntaine that This Sacra∣ment, as it is conformable both to Eating and Drinking, so doth it by both kindes, more perfectly expresse our spirituall nourishment by Christ: and therefore it is more convenient that both be exhibited to the faithfull severally, as for Meate, and for Drinke. So they. For although, in the Spirituall Receiving, Eating and Drinking are both one, even as the appetite of the Soule in hungring and thirsting is the same; as where it is written, Matth. 5. Blessed are they that hun∣ger and thirst after righteousnesse, &c. yet in this Sacramentall com∣municating with bodily instruments it is otherwise, as you know. d The blood of Christ is not dranke in the forme of Bread, nor is his Bo∣die eaten as meate in the forme of Wine, because the Bodie cannot be said to be dranke, nor the bloud to be eaten. So your Durand, and so afterwards your Iansenius.

Wherefore you, in with-holding the Cup from the People, doe violate the Testament of Christ, who requireth in this a perfect re∣presentation visible of a compleate and a full Refection spirituall, which is sufficient to condemne your Abuse, whereby you also defraud God's people of their Dimensum, ordained by Christ for their vse. Concerning this second, e Master Fisher (one of the society of Iesuites) was taught to Answere, that the Full causality (as he said) and working of spirituall Effects of the soule cannot be a wanting to the Sacrament under one kind; because of Christ his assi∣stance. So he. We should aske whether a greater Devotion and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 more plentifull Grace are not to be esteemed spirituall Effects, for the good of the Soule, which are f confessed to be enjoyed by Com∣municating in both kinds; and why not rather than by one? For consider (we pray you) that the Assistance of Christ doth espe∣cially concurre with his owne Ordinance, and therefore much ra∣ther where the forme of a Sacrament ordained, and instituted by himselfe, is observed, then where it is (as of you) so notoriously perverted, and contemned. Yet because you may thinke we rest upon either our owne, or yet of other your Doctors Iudgement in this Defence, we shall produce to this purpose, the consonant Doctrine of ancient Fathers.

Our third proofe is taken from the manifold Reasons of ancient Fathers, for Confirmation of the Necessity of the Communicating in both kinds.

SECT. IX.

FOr the proofe of the necessary vse of both kindes, in the so∣lemne and publique dispensation of this Sacrament, the parti∣cular Testimonies of many ancient Fathers might be produced, but your owne Authours will ease us of that labour, by relating and g confessing as much in effect, as we did intend to prove, viz. That the ancient Fathers were induced to the Continuance of the Custome in both kinds, First, by the Example and Institution of Christ. Secondly, by some particular Grace, which they held to be signi∣fied by the Cup. Thirdly, for the Representation, that it had to the Passion of Christ; distinctly and respectively to his Bodie and Blood. Fourthly, to resemble the Redemption, which man hath in his Body by Christ's Body, and by his Blood in the soule. Fif••ly, To expresse by these Symbols the perfect spirituall Nourishments wee have by his Body and Blood. Sixtly, To understand that this Sacrament doth equally belong to People, as well as to Priests. Seventhly, that the Cup of the Eucharist doth animate soules to receive the Cup of bloody Martyrdome, when the time should be. Whereunto may be added the Constant profession of the h Greeke Church, in obeying the Canon of Christ, and holding it necessarily to be observed of the people also, by receiving in both kindes; and that otherwise wee transgresse against the Institution of Christ.

All these Testimonies of primitive Fathers, under the Confession, of your owne Doctors, are so many Arguments of the Consonant Doctrine of Antiquity, for proofe of an obligation of precept upon

the Churches of Christ whatsoever, for the preservation of the perfect forme of Christ's Ordinance in the administring of the Sa∣crament in both kindes. Vpon this Evidence may you justly call your fellow-Priest Master Brereley to account for his bold Assump∣tion, saying that No Doctor (speaking of ancient Fathers) can be produced either expressely, or else by necessary Consequence, affirming the necessity of the Laicks receiving under both kinds: Your selves perceiving now not only One, but many ancient Doctors to have expressed not only One, but many Necessities inferring the same. And then you may furthermore question him for his next as lavish As∣sertion, affirming in his fift Answere, that The Authorities obiected, for the necessity of both kinds, speake not of a Sacramentall, but only of a spirituall Receiving with the mouth of their hearts. When shall we find conscionable dealing at this man's hands?

Having thus finished our Assumption, we shall more expedite∣ly satisfie such your Reasons, or rather Pretences, which you bring to disguize your sacrilegious Abuse.

The Romish Pretences for their Innovation and Alteration of Christ his Institution, by the publique vse of but One kind.

SECT. X.

VVE heare the Councell of Trent pretending (as they say) Iust reasons of altering the primitive Custome and vse of both kinds, but naming none, which we may well thinke was be∣cause they deserved not the mention: surely, such they were, that your Iesuite had rather that you should belieue them, then try and examine them; It being your part (as i hee saith) Rather to thinke them inst, than to discusse them. But wee are not bound to your Rules of blinde Obedience. God will have us to use the sight, which he hath given us, least, If the blinde leading the blinde, both fall into the Ditch. And whether the Reasons, which are given by your Doctors, be not blinde Seducements, wee are now to try. Some of your Reasons are taken from extraordinary Cases, some Instances are common to all other Churches Christian, and some are made as being peculiar to the Church of Rome.

The first kind of Romish Pretences, from extraordinary Cases.

The first Pretence is thus alleaged; k Many Northerne Countries are destitute of Wine, and therefore one kinde is to be used for Con∣cord

and Vniformity-sake. Will you be answered from your selves? Aquinas, making the same Obiection of want of Wine, and Wheate in forreine Countries, l Resolveth, that Notwithstanding Wheate and Wine may be transported easily to all parts. Accordingly doth he resolve of the want of Balsame, used in your Consecrati∣on, and yet it is farre more scarce then Wine or Wheate. Yet what Northerne Countrie almost can you name, that hath not abundance of Wine for many persons, even unto r••ot, and can they not as well have it in moderate measure, for a sacred Rite?

But what talke you of Vniformity and Concord, in this Case of Alteration, (which are your two next Pretences) wherein not∣withstanding the Church of Rome is dissenting from the Greeke, and all other Christian Churches in the World? Or if this were a necessary Cause, why did not your Church allow the use of both kinds to the Church of Bohemia, but twice raised a fierce warre a∣gainst them? for which your Iesuite m Salmeron seemeth to be full sorrie; marrie it was, because that warre had not his wished suc∣cesse. Is their Concord in Hostilitie? Againe, because you thirdly pretend Vniformity also, why then doe your consecrating Priests only receive both kinds sacramentally, and all the other Priests in Communicating participate but in one? or how is it that you allow a •…•…priuiledge to Popes, Cardinals, Monkes, and noble Personages, to receive in both kinds, and deny this liberty to others? Is there likewise Vniformity in Disparity?

Your fourth Pretence is because divers are n Abstemious, and have an Antipathy against Wine, and some sickly persons also can hardly receive without Irreverent casting it up againe. If the par∣ticular reason, which o Aquinas giveth, saying, That Wine mode∣rately taken of such can doe no hurt, may not satisfie, yet this be∣ing also a Cause accidentall, and extraordinary, you ought to be re∣gulated by this generall Rule, That extraordinary Cases ought not to iustle out ordinary Lawes and Customes. For, that Command of Christ to his Apostles, Goe preach to every Creature of man, stood good in the generall, albeit many men happened to be deafe. Saint Peter requireth of every Christian of fit yeares that he be prepared to give an answere of his faith to everyone that asketh; which pre∣cept was not therefore alterable, because of multitudes of many that were dumbe. Finally, to close vp with you, hee that by the rule of Hospitality is to cheere up his Guests, doth not prescribe, that, because some mens stomackes are queasie, and not able to endure Wine, or else some meates; therefore all others should be kept from fasting from all meates and Drinkes: and the Eucharist (you know) is called by Saint Paul, The supper of the Lord, and by ancient Fathers, an holy Banquet.

The second kind of Romish Pretences is of such, which might have beene common to other Churches.

The other Causes above-mentioned were common to the pri∣mitive Church of Christ, wherein the use of both kinds was (not∣withstanding) preserved and continued; except that you will say, no Northerne Nations were Christians in those times: and that no stomacks of Christians were disaffected to wine, in loathing it, &c. But two other Pretences you have, which you thinke to be of more speciall force, to forbid the use of this Sacrament in both kinds; One is Because (saith your m Cardinall) Such is the now-received and approved custome of Nations and People. So hee. But first to ar∣gue, that your Church did therefore forbid the use of both kinds, because shee had approued the contrary Custome, is a meere Nu∣gacitie and Tautologie; and as much as to say, Shee would forbid it, because shee would forbid it. Secondly, saying, that the Vse of but One kinde had indefinitely the Consent of Nations and People, is a flat falsity, because (as hath beene confessed) The Greeke Church (not to mention Aethiopians, Aegyptians, Armenians, and Others) have alwayes held the Contrarie Custome. Lastly, to justifie your Churches Innouation, in consenting to the humour of People of later times, what can you censure it lesse than a grosse and absurd Indulgence?

The other Motive, which the n Cardinall calleth a Vehement presumption, and which all your Obiectors most earnestly urge, is the Cause of Irreverence, lest the blood might be split, especially in such a multitude of faithfull Communicants: and also least any par∣ticle of the Hoast fall to the ground, saith Master Brereley.

We have but foure Answeres to this mightie Obiection. First, that this was not held a Reason to Christ, or his Apostles, or to the Church of Christ for many ages, when notwithstanding the multi∣tudes of Communicants were innumerable. Secondly, that The Casuall spilling of the Cup, saith your o Salmeron, is no sinne, else would not Christ have instituted the use of the Cup: nor would the A∣postles, or primitive Church aswell in the West as in the East, in their communicating; nor yet the Priest in consecrating, have vsed it. So hee. Wee might adde, by the same reason should people be for∣bid the other part also, left (as your Priest said) any particle there∣of should fall to the ground. Furthermore, for the avoiding of Spil∣ling, you (as your Cardinall Alan p relateth) have provided

Pipes of silver, which are used by Popes, Cardinals Monks, and some other Illustrious lay-Personages. Surely, there being no respect of per∣sons with God (as said S. Peter) we thinke that he, who will be S. Peter's Successor should have taken out with S. Peter that lesson of Christ, of loving the whole flocke of Christ, aswell Lambes as Sheepe; not to provide Pipes or Tunnels for himselfe alone & his Grandes, for receiuing this part of the Sacrament, and to neglect all other Christians, albeit never so true members of Christ. For this wee all know, that q Our Lord Christ prepared his table aswell for the poore as the Rich, according to the Apostles Doctrine, by your owne construction, answerable to the Doctrine of ancient Fathers. And that the pretence of Reverence cannot be a sufficient Reason of alte∣ring the ordinance of Christ, wee may learne from ancient Hi∣stories, which euidently declare that the opinion of Reverence hath often beene the Damme and Nource of manifold Super∣stitions.

As for example. The Heretikes called Discalceati, in pretence of more humilitie, thought that they ought to goe bare-foote. The Encratitae, in pretence of more sanctitity, abhorred marriage. The r Aquarij, in pretence of more sobriety, used water in this Sacra∣ment. The Manichees wanted not their pretence of not drinking wine in the Eucharist, because they thought it was created by an evill Spirit. And yet were these iudged by Pope Gelasius to be Sacrilegious. Yea and what greater defence had the Pharisees, for all their Superstitions, than that of Reverence? whom notwith∣standing Christ did pierce thorow with so many Vae's, for annul∣ling of the Precepts of God, by their Traditions, vnder the pretence of religious Reverence and sanctity.

In briefe. It was the opinion of Reverence that made S. Peter to contradict our Lords command, when he said, Thou shalt never wash my feete: yet how dangerous it had beene for Peter to have persisted in opposition, the Replie of our Saviour doth declare. If I wash not thy feete (saith Christ) thou hast no part with me, &c. Vpon which Text S. s Chrysost. readeth vnto you this Lecture. Let us therefore learne (saith he) to honour and reverence Christ, as he would, and not as we thinke meete. And sure wee are, that he would that same which he commanded, saying, [Doe this.] Therefore our next Difference, betweene our defence and yours, is no other than obedient Reverence, and reverent, or rather irreligious Dis∣obedience.

As for your Pretence of manifesting hereby a t Greater dignity of Priests than of Laicks; it is too phantasticall for the singularity; too harsh for the noveltie; and too gracelesse for the impietie thereof: seeing that Christ, who gave his Bodie and Blood an e∣quall price of Redemption for all sorts, would have the Sacrament of his Body and Blood equally administred to People, as Priests; as you have heard the Fathers themselves professe.

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.

The seaventh Comparison is betweene the manner of Institution, and manner of Alteration thereof.

SECT. XI.

THe beginning of the Institution in both kindes is knowne and acknowledged to haue beene authorized by him, who is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the new Testament, even Christ our Lord, by whom it was established and published among all his Disciples, at his last Supper: But your Custome of onely one kinde, How (we be∣seech you) came it into your Church? tell vs. i It came not in by any precept, but crept in by little and little, by the Tacite and silent con∣sent of the Bishops. So your Bishop Roffensis, and your Iesuite Coste∣rus, and Frier Castro. This confessed vnknowne maner of Altera∣tion of this your Custome, as it doth vtterly refute your common Obiection, viz. That every Doctrine and Custome must bee iudged ancient and Catholike, the beginning whereof is not knowne; so doth

it more specially put your M. Breerly to his blush, who durst make the same obiection in this very Case, in defence of the vse of but One kinde, to prove it to haue beene from the beginning, because No first knowne beginning of our Catholike practice ( saith he) can be instanced. And yet behold here no certaine beginning of this Ro∣mish Custome; yet notwithstanding confessed to be an Alteration different from the Custome, which formerly for a thousand yeares was held a Catholike Custome.

Was not the Church of Rome then a wise and a worthy Mistris of Churches, trow you, to suffer her Priests to be guided by the People in a matter of this nature? what other difference can this make between our Custome and yours, but that which is between divine Ordinance & popular negligence; or as between a publique Professor, & a Thee••ish Creeper? Heresie is certainly a disease, but wote you what? the Apostle noteth it to be a Cancer, or Gangrene, which is a disease Creeping by little and little, from ioynt to ioynt, untill it have eaten vp the vitall parts; such a Cancer was this your Custome, if you shall stand to your owne former Confessions.

Our last Comparison is betweene the Contrary dispositions of Pro∣fessors, one in continuing, and distinguishing; a second in mixing; the third in reiecting both kindes.

SECT. XII.

THe Comparison, betweene the divers dispositions of Pro∣fessors, none will be more willing to shew than your Iesuite l Salmeron, who will have you out of Cardinall Cusanus to observe three States of the Church. The first is in her Fervencie; The se∣cond in her Warmnes; The third in her Coldnes. In the first state of her Fervencie, when the Christians affected Martyrdome for the Gospell of Christ, then did the People (saith hee) communicate in both kindes. In the second state, which was in her Warmnes (though not so hot boyling as before) They then used to dip the Hoast into the Chalice, and so were made ioyntly partakers of both, in one. But in the third state of Coldnes, the people were allowed the Sacrament onely vnder one kinde. So hee.

CHALLENGE.

IF now Truth may be iudged by the different dispositions of Pro∣fessors, then may this former Confession witnes for us that there is as much difference betweene the Primitive and the now Romish Custome, as there is betweene lively Fervencie, and sencelesse Num∣nes and Coldnes, that is to say, Godly zeale, and Godlesse indevoti∣on and negligence: yet a negligence not only approved (which is impious) but (that which is the height of impiety) even applau∣ded also by your Priests, among whom the m above-said Gaspar Cardillo in the Councell of Trent, with exultation told their Father-hoods (as being a matter of great ioy) that they who are under the

Iurisdiction of the Church of Rome, in Germany, doe not so much as de∣sire the Cup of life. So hee.

A GENERALL CHALLENGE, Concerning this last Transgression of Christ his Masse.

SECT. XIII.

IN this we are to make an open discovery of the odious Vncha∣ritablenesse, the intolerable Arrogancie, the vile Perjury, the extreame Madnesse, and Folly, together with a note of plaine Blas∣phemie of your Romish Disputers in Defence of this one Romane Custome of forbidding the Cup to faithfull Communicants. For what Vncharitablenesse can be more odious, than when they can∣not but confesse, that there is more spirituall grace in the receiving of the Communion in both kinds, doe notwithstanding boast, e∣ven in the open Councell of Trent, of some of their Professors, who in obedience to the Church of Rome, doe not only ( their owne words) not desire the Cup of life, but also dare not so much as desire it. Which Vaunt, we thinke, besides the Impiety thereof, inferreth a note of prophane Tyranny.

Secondly, when wee compare these Fathers of Trent with the Fathers of most primitive Antiquity, they answere, n Although the primitive Church (say they) did exceed ours in Zeale, Wisdome, and Charity, neverthelesse it falleth out sometimes, that the wiser may in some things be lesse wise then another. Which answere, if we consider the many Reasons, which you have heard the Fathers give, for the use of both kinds, and their consonant practice there∣of, what is it but a vilifying of the authority of all ancient Fa∣thers? and indeed (as the saying is) To put upon them the Foole. The like answere two of their Iesuites made to the Practice of the Apostles, saying that your Church, having the same spirit, hath the same power to alter the Custome, whereas wee have proved that the ground which the Apostles lay for their Custome was the Institution of Christ. But that which the Romane Church allea∣geth is meerely a pretence of Plenitude of her owne Authoritie; It is impossible therefore that in so great a Contradiction there should be the same Spirit. And can there be a more intollerable Arrogancie than is this, which this Romane spirit bewrayeth in both these?

Thirdly, vpon the Consideration of this their Contempt of A∣postolicall and primitive Antiquity, in this Cause, wee finde that your Romish Priests are to be condemned of manifest perjurie also; For in the Forme of Oath, for the profession of the Romish Faith, every Priest and Ecclesiasticke is sworne o To admit of all Apo∣stolicall & Ecclesiasticall Traditions; as also to hold what the p Coun∣cell of Trent hath decreed: But this Custome of administration of

both kindes, as hath beene acknowledged, was an Apostolicall Cu∣stome, and from them also remayned in an Ecclesiasticall profession and practice thorow-out a thousand yeares space; which your Church of Rome, notwithstanding, in her Councell of Trent, (whereunto likewise you are sworne) hath altered and perverted: which doth evidently involve your Priests, and Iesuites in a no∣torious, and unavoydable Perjury.

Fourthly, As for the note of Foolishnesse, what more mad folly can there be seene in any, than to take upon them a serious De∣fence of a Custome, for satisfaction of all others, and yet to be so unsatisfied among themselves? so that both the Obiections urged by Protestants against that Abuse are fortified, and also all your Reasons for it are refuted either by the direct Testimonies of your owne Doctors, or by the Common Principles and Tenents of your Church, or else by the absurdities of your Consequences is∣suing from your Reasons and Answeres; divers of them being no lesse grosse, then was your objecting the Antiquity and Generality of the particular Romane Church, for lesse then three hundred yeares, and to preferre it before the confessed Vniversall primitive Custome of above the Compasse of a Thousand yeares continu∣ance before the other.

Fiftly, the last is the note of Blasphemy; for this name the con∣tempt of Christ his last Will and Testament must needs deserve; and what greater contempt can there be, than contrary to Christ his [Doe this] (concerning both kinds) to professe that Sacrilegious dismembring of the holy Sacrament, which Gelasius the Pope himselfe had anciently condemned? or if this be not Blasphemous enough, then, supposing that Christ indeed had commanded Con∣secration in both kindes, upon divine right, yet notwithstanding to hold it very probable (as saith your Iesuite q Azorius) that the authority of the Pope may dispense therewith. But because Divine right was never yet dispensed with, 1 (saith hee) would give my Counsell that it never may be. O Iesuite! thus to deale with Christ his Command. If he or any other Iesuite had made as bold with the Pope, as this doth with Christ himselfe, saying unto him; Any of your De∣crees (holy Father) may be dispensed with by any Iesuite of our Societie: yet because no Iesuite hath taken upon him hitherto so much, my counsell is that none of your Decrees be euer dispen∣sed withall. The Pope, wee suppose, albeit he would thanke this man for his counsell, for not Doing so; yet doubtlesse, would hee reward him with a welcome into the office of his holy Inquisition, for his judgement, to thinke it lawfull so to doe: namely, to leave it to the discretion of every Iesuite, to dispense with his Papall Decrees. And notwithstanding the Iesuites [Suppose] wee may

depose, that your Romish licence, for but one kinde, is a dispen∣sing, or rather a despising of the Ordinance of Christ.

Wee are already wearied with citing of the manifold, vilde, odious, and irreligious Positions of your Disputers and Proctors, for this your Cause; yet one Pretence more may not be pretermit∣ted, least we might seeme to contemne the wit and zeale of your Iesuite Salmeron, against the use of this Sacrament in both kindes. The use of both kinds (saith r he) is not to be allowed to Catholiques; because they must be distinguished from Heretikes: nor to Heretikes, because bread is not to be given unto Dogges. Now blessed be God! that we are esteemed as Heretikes and Dogges, to be distinguished from them, in this and other so many commanded Acts; wherein they have distinguished themselves from all Primitive Fathers, from the Apostles of Christ, and from Christ himselfe.

An Appeale unto the ancient Popes and Church of Rome, against the late Romish Popes and Church; in Confutation of their former Transgressions of Christ his Institution.

SECT. XIV.

THe ancient Popes and Church of Rome were (as all the world will say) in authority of Command, in synceritie of judge∣ment equall, and in integrity of life Superiour unto the latter Popes of Rome and Church thereof; yet the ancient held it as a matter of Conscience for the Church, in all such Cases belonging to the Eucharist, to be conformable to the Precept and Example of Christ, and of the Apostles. So, you have heard, a Pope Calixtus (An. Christi, 218.) requireth all persons present at the Masse to Com∣municate. For which reason it was (we thinke) that Pope b Gregory (Anno 600.) commanded every one present at the Masse; and not purposing to Communicate, to Depart. There is an History rela∣ted by Aeneas Sylvius (after, Pope Pius the Second) which shew∣eth the reason why another c Pope of Rome, with his Consistory, yeilded a liberty to the Sclavonians, to have Divine Service in their Nationall Language; and reporteth that it was thorow the sound of that voice (which is written in the Psalmes) Let every tongue prayse the Lord. d Pope Iulius (Anno 336.) was much busied in repressing the sopping of bread in the Chalice, and other like abu∣ses of the Sacrament in his time: and the reason, which hee gaue was this; Because (quoth hee) these Customes are not agreeable to E∣vangelicall and Apostolicall Doctrine: and our Church of Rome doth the same. Where he addeth, concerning the manner of Communi∣cating, e We reade (saith hee) that both the Bread and Cup, were distinctly and severally delivered. As if hee had meant, with the same breath, to have confuted your other Romish Transgression in

distributing to the people the Sacrament, but in one of Both: And who can say but that Gregory and Leo, both Popes, f observing the same use of Christ, had the same Resolution? Sure wee are that Pope g Gelasius (Anno 494.) called the Abuse, in dismembring of this Sacrament, by receiving but in one kinde, A Grand Sacrilege.

Wee reade of a Councell held at Toledo in Spaine, under Pope Sergius, stiled h generall, (Anno 693.) reproving those Priests who offered Bread in crusts and lumpes. But with what reason were they reprehended? Because (saith the Councell) that fashion i•• not ••ound in the sacred Storie of the Evangelists. All those ancient Popes, who held the Example of Christ, in his Institution and A∣postolicall Customes, to be necessary Directions of Christ his Church in such points, concerning the ministration of this Sa∣crament, being so utterly repugnant to your now Romish opini∣ons and Practices; it must follow, that those former Popes being admitted for Iudges, whom all Christians acknowledged to have beene Apostolicall in their Resolutions, the now Romish Church and her degenerate Profession must needs be judged Apostaticall.

Now, from the former Actuall, wee proceed to the Doctrinall points.

Notes

• a

  Christus sub u∣traque specie Disci∣pulis administravit—Licet in primiti∣vâ Ecclesiâ sub••utra∣que specie hoc Sa∣cramentum recipe∣retur,—tamen haec consuetudo, ut à Lai∣cis sub specie panis tantùm reciperetur,—habenda est pro lege, quàm non licet reprobare. Conc. Con∣stant. Sess. 13.
• b

  Ipsa Synodus, à Spiritu Sancto edocta, & ipsius Ecclesiae iudicium & consuetudinem secura, declarat & docet, n••llo divino iure Laicos, & ••lericos non consecrantes, obligari ad Eucharistiae Sacramentum sub utraque specie su∣mendum: etsi Christas venerabile hoc Sacramentum sub utraque instituit, & Apostolis tradidit. Conc. Trid. Sess. 21. cap. 1.
• c

  Respondeo, Fuit reprobarum Conc. Cōstantiense à Mar∣tino Pont. quantum ad eam partem, quâ statuit Concilium fu∣isse suprà Papam. Bel∣lar. l 1. de Conc. c. 7. §. Quintum.
• d

  Dixit Petro Christus [Cum fra∣ter in te peccave∣rit, si ••e non andia••, Dic Ecclesiae.] Ergo Ecclesiam Papae Iudicem constituit. Conc. Basil. apud Aenaeam Sylvium de gest. eiusdem Conc.
• 1. Cor. 11. 25. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• See all this above Chap. 2. Sect. 1. in the Margent.
• e

  Bellar. l. 1. de Eu∣charist. c. 25 §. Tertiū.
• M. Brereley Li∣turg. Tract. 4. § 7. after the let. (y) and after (g.)
• f

  Quorundam o∣pinio, est Apostolos factos sacerdotes per illa vèrba [Hoc faci∣te.] Sed de his verbis non constat facta consecratione immediate ea dixisse, antequàm Eucharistiam sub utra∣que specie dedit, vel pòst—Quodsi verba ista Christus post datam Eucharistiam illam dixit, manifestum est, illum non Sacerdotibus hinc dedisse: quod mihi ex literae decursu magis probatur. Alfon. de Castro con. Haeres. Tit. Eucharist. pag. 158.
• See above in this Chapter at the let. (b.)
• g

  [Hoc facite.] Quod cùm pertinc∣at maximè ad pote∣statem sacerdotalem circa consecrandum & sacrificandum, ta∣men Apostol{us} 1. Cor. 11. refert quóque ad sumptionem sive Lai∣corum, sive Sacerdo∣rum. Quod & Cyril∣lus facit in Ioh. l. 1••. c. 58. Et Basil. in Moral. Reg. 21. c. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. ut [Hoc facite] pertineat ad totam actionem, Eu∣charistiam à Christo factam, & tàm à Pres∣byteris quàm à plebe posteà faciendam. E∣odemque verbo im∣primis potestas con∣secrandi & offerendi, deinde etiam man∣datum sumendi tàm Sacerdotibus quàm alijs fidelibus detur, cum utrumque suo modo, licet prius exactius Sacrificium, quàm sumptio memoriam mortis Dominicae conti∣neat. Alan. l. 2 de Eucha. cap. 37. p. 646.
• Laici adulti tenentur ex institutione Christi communicare, iure divino: hoc Thomas probat ex Luc. 22. [Hoc facite in commemorationem mei] quae habent vim praecepti, non tantùm de celebrando (ait Scotus) sed etiam de administrando Sacramentum populo. Cosmus Phil. de offic. Sacer∣dot. Tom. 1. de Sacrif. Missae, lib. 2. c. 2.
• h

  Nec quicquam valetquod obijcitur [Similitèr & Cali∣cem:] quià non di∣cit Similiter & Cali∣cem dedit, sed solùm accepit. Bellar. ibid. §. Nec quicquam.
• Luke 22. 20.
• Matth. 26. 27.
• i

  Similiter & Ca∣licem.] Id est, Qualia fecit circa panem, ta∣lia circa Calicem, Accepit, gratias egit, dividendum dedit, atque praecepit ut bi∣berent ab co omnes: Quae omnia Lucas complexus est, dicens, [Similitèr & Calicem.] Iansen. Episc. Concord. cap. 131. pag 905. [Simi∣litèr & Calicem postquàm coenavit, &c.] Id est, accepit, & porrexit omnibus, dicens, [Hic est Calix, &c.] Ari•…•… Montan. in 1. Cor. 11. 25.
• k

  Pòst panis con∣secrationem absolutè ponitur [Hoc facite] pòst Calicem verò idem repetitur, sed cum conditione, Hoc (inquit) facite quo∣tiescunque bibetis, &c. Certè non sine causa Spiritus Sanctus modum loquendi mutavit, significans, non ut calix debeat dari necessariò, sed modum praescribens, ut id fiat ad memoriam Dominicae Passionis. Bellar. quo sup. cap. 25. §. Iam.
• l

  Mirabilis est Dei providentia in sanctis literis, nam ut non haberent Haeretici justam excusationem, sustulit eis omnem ••ergiversandi occasionem. Nam Lucas [Hoc facite] posuit pòst datum Sacramentum sub specie panis: post da∣tum autem Calicem non repetivit, ut intelligeremus Dominum jussisse, ut sub specie panis omnibus distribu∣retur: sub specie autem vini non item. Bellar. quo sup c. 25. §. Resp. Mirabilis. Singularis Dei providentia, ut in∣telligamus minimè expedire, ut singuli fideles sub utraque specie communicent. Valent. Ies. Tract. de Euch. c. 2. §. Et certè, p. 483.
• m

  Praecepit igitur Christus, in verbis Lucae, ut ipsâ sumpti∣one commemorem{us} Passionem cius; & non tantùm ut quo∣ties illud sumeremus Passionem ipsius in memoriam revoca∣remus. Ac proindè praecepit, ut opere a∣liquo commemoratio fiat alicujus beneficii accepti, ex modo ip∣so praecipiendi. Prae∣cepit etiam ut fiat opus ipsum, quis hoc non videat? Vasquez. Ies. in 3. Thom. Disp. 113. cap. 2. At verò non est ne∣gandum, esse Praeceptum simplicitèr faciendum, alioquin non haberemus fundamentum Praecepti celebrandi in Ecclesia. Soto in 4. Dist. 12. q. 1. Art. 12.
• n

  Credimus eos rectè obligari, dùm militamus in hac vi∣ta, ad Sacramentum Eucharistiae, eo mo∣do, quo perfectiùs significat Passionem: id est, sub utraque specie, &c. Card. Cu∣san. Epist. 2. ad Bohem. pag. 831.
• o

  [Who in his Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse, stadeth so much upon the no-Command of Christ for the use of both kinds, that he iu∣stifieth an ancient Ro∣mane Custome (as he calleth it) of the Priest himselfe re∣ceiving on Good Fri∣day only under one kind.] Tract. 〈…〉〈…〉 Sect. 4. pag. 407. And Tract. 4. Sect. 7. pag. 421. [As often:] not signify∣ing the necessitie of Drinking.
• See above Sect. 2
• See aboue in this Chapter Sect. 1. lit. (a.)
• p

  Rectè docent Iu∣riscōsulti, non exem∣plis sed legibus iudi∣candum.—Quae ab exemplis ducuntur argumēta per locum sunt à simili (quae non tàm ad aliquid fir∣mandum, quàm ad id quod firmatur illu∣strandum à Dialecti∣cis esse traduntur.) Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 34.
• q

  Cyprian. con. A∣quarios Epist. 63. Ad∣monitos nos scias, ut in Calice offerendo traditio observetur, neque aliquid fiat à nobis, quàm quod pro Nobis Dominus prior fecerit. [And some-what after;] A divino Magisterio non recedamus.
• r

  Julius P. apud Gratian. de Consecrat. Ca. Cum omne. Audivimus quosdam, Schismaticâ ambitione detentos, contra divinos ordines & Apostolicas institutio∣nes, lac provino, in divinis officijs dedicare: alios intinctam Eucharistiam populo pro complemento commu∣nionis porrigere: quosdam etiam expressum vinum in Sacramento Dominici Calicis afferre: Alijs verò pan∣num lineum, musto intinctum, per totum annum reservare, & in tempore Sacrificij partem eius aquâlavare, & sic offerre. Quod cùm sit Evangelicae & Apostolicae doctrinae contrarium, & consuetudini Ecclesiasticae adver∣sum, non difficilè ab ipso fonte veritatis probatur, à quo ordinata ipsa Sacramentorum mysteria processerunt. Cùm onim Magister veritatis verum salutis nostrae Sacrificium suis commendaret Discipulis, nulli lac, sed pa∣nem tantùm & Calicem sub hoc Sacramento noscimus dedisse. Legitur enim in Evangelica veritate, [Accepit Iesus Panem & Calicem, & benedicens dixit Discipulis suis.] Cesset igitur Lac in sacrificando offerri, quià ma∣nifestum & evidens veritatis exemplum illuxit, quià praeter Panem & Vinum aliud offerri non licet. Illud verò quod pro complemento Communionis, intinctam Eucharistiam tradunt populis, nec hoc prolatum ex Evange∣lio testimonium receperunt, ubi corpus suum Apostolis commendaret & sanguinem: scorsim enim panis, & se∣orsim Calicis commendatio memoratur.
• s

  Artotyritae panē & caseum offerunt: qui excluduntur per hoc, quòd Christus hoc Sacramentum in∣stituit in pane. Aqui∣nas part. 3. quaest. 24. Art. 1.
• t

  Ex Luc. 24. 30. V∣bi Christus apparens duobus Discipulis in Emmaus, & accum∣bens accepit panem, & benedixit, & dedit eis: quo facto, aperti sunt oculi eorum, & evanuit ex oculis, &c. [Hence doth Bellarmine conclude thus:] Ostendi••. hoc exemplum, quòd minimè existimandum fit, fuiffe imperatum omnibus illius usum in utraque specie. Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 24. §. Rursus, So also Roffensis, and others.
• Master Brereley Liturg. Tract. 4. §. 3. pag 402.
• u

  Christum hanc Eucharistiam porre∣xisse, sententia est incerra, & non veri∣similis. Iansen. Con∣cord. cap. 126. pa. ••070.
• x

  Respondendum est, eam actionem es∣se illis ipsis impera∣tam per illa verba [Hoc facite.] Hoc ip∣so enim quod jussi sunt consecrare sub specie panis, conse∣quenter intelligi de∣bet eos jussos esse consecrare sub specie vini. Nam hoc exigit necessariò natura Sacrificij & Sacramenti: si e∣nim una species absque altera conficiatur, sacrilegium committitur. Quamobrem in Conc. Trident. absolute dicitur, Sacerdotes jussos esse offerre utramque speciem illis verbis [Hoc facire in commemorationem meam.] Quae forma verborum solùm usurpata fuit à Christo circa panem. Valent. Ies. de usu Eucharist. c. 3 §. Responden∣dum.
• Liturg. Tract. 4. §. 2. pag. 401.
• See above.
• 1. Cor. 11. 23.
• Ib. Verse 26.
• Ib. Verse 28.
• a

  Antiqua Con∣suetudo temporibus Apostolorum fuit in Ecclesia, sub utra{que} specio communican∣di. In hac assertione nulla est Controver∣sia. Tolet. Ies. in Ioh. 6. pag. 602. So Ecchi∣us Hom. 36. Nullum inficiari posse, Pau∣lum hoc praecepisse Corinthijs.
• b

  Act. 2. Ita descri∣bitur communicatio Eucharistiae [Erant enim perseverantes in doctrina Aposto∣lorum, & communi∣catione fractionis panis, & Orationi∣bus.] Quò in loco negari non potest quin agatur de Eu∣charistia. Apostoli igitur in utra{que} spe∣cie consecrabant: sed populis in una specie ministrabant. Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 24. p. 64.
• Liturg. Tract. 4. §. 3. pag. 403.
• c

  Existimo de Eu∣charistia non esse Sermonem, quoni∣am de illo superius paulò Sermo habitus est. Lorin. Ies. in eund. loc. And Caietan. Card. Fiebat distributio panis—Ita quod ac∣cipiebant cibus erat. Comment in eund. loc.
• d

  Si daremus hunc ritum ab Apostolo fuisse traditum, cùm tamen merè positi∣vus sit, potuisset illum mutare, quià Ecclesia habet eundem spiri∣tum, & eandem au∣thoritatem cum Pau∣lo. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 34. p. 277. Eo∣d••m modo Ʋasquez Ies. in 3. Thom. Disp. 215, 216. Nihilo mi∣nus Ecclesia & sum∣mus Pontifex pote∣rit illud iust is de cau∣sis abrogare; licet concederemus prae∣ceptum hoc fuisse A∣postolicum.
• e

  Cùm ad eam Traditionem, quae ab Apostolis, provoca∣mus eos, dicent se Apostolis existentes superiores sinceram invenisse veritatem. Iren. lib. 2. advers. Hi••∣res. cap. 2.
• f

  Olim per multa secula sub utra{que} spe∣cie porrigibatur La∣icis, ut ex multorum Sanctorum scriptis didicimus. Alfons. à Castro in hac ipsa con∣troversia, pag. 158. Vsus utrius{que} specici à primitiva Ecclesia comprobatus fuit: in posteriori etiam Ec∣clesia multi Latini & occidentales illum retinuerunt. Graeci quo{que} hodiè & Ori∣entales licitè & san∣ctè, quod ad ipsum ri∣tum attinet, cum ob∣servant. Salmeron. Jes. Tom. 9. Tract. 37. pag. 308. Minimè nega∣mus quin utra{que} spe∣cies frequentissimè olim etiam admini∣strata fuerit, utappa∣ret ex Paulo, Atha∣nasio, Cyprian. Hier. Leone, & Hist. Tri∣part, ex Greg. & passim ex alijs veterum Testimonijs: item{que} ex D. Thoma, qui etiam suo tempore in aliqui∣bus Ecclesijs administratum Calicem fuisse significat. Valent. Ies. de usu Euch. cap. 8. §. Alioqui. pag. 496. Inge∣nuè tamen & apertè confitemur, morem generalem extitisse communicandi etiam Laicis sub utra{que} specie, si∣cut hodiè fit apud Graecos, & olim erat in more positum apud Corinthios, & in Africa. Dequo more loquitur Cyprian. Athanas Dionys. Etiam probatur ex Ecclesia Latina, at{que} in hunc usum erant olim Calices ministe∣riales & paterae ad differentiam calicum & paterarum, in quibus Sacerdotes offerebant. Salmeron quo sup. Tract. 35. §. Ingenuè p. 294. B. Gregorius, & Sexcenta huiusmodi proferri possent.—Vsus utrius{que} speciei à Christo & Apostolis, & à Primitiva Ecclesia, qui illum usurpârunt, comprobatus fuit. In posteriori etiam Ecclesia multi Latini & Occidentales illum retinuerunt: Graeci quo{que} hodiè. Salmeron. ib. Tract. 37. §. Deinde. Satis comper∣tum est, universalem Ecclesiam Christi in hunc us{que} diem, Occidentalem seu Romanam mille annis à Christo, in solenni praesertim & ordinaria hujus Sacramenti dispensatione, utramvis panis & vini speciem omnibus Christi membris exhibuisse. Cassand. Consult. pag. 166, 167. [And lest any doubt should be made of Gregory the first Pope of that name, his testimonie is cited in Gratian among the Popes Decrees. De Consecrat. Dist. 2. Quid sit san∣guis. Sanguis in ora fid elium funditur.]
• g

  Bern. Serm. 3. de ramis palmarum, de Sacrament. corp. & sanguinis Dom.—Nemo est qui nesciat hanc tàm fingularem alimoniam ea primâ die (viz. Palmarum) exhibitam & commendatam, & mandatam deinceps frequentari. Algerus l. 2. c. 8. de Sacram. Iste mos inolevit in Ecclesia ab ipso Christo, qui corpus suum & sanguinem divisim consecravit & dedit. Vide etiam Rupertum de divin. offic. lib. 6. cap. 23.
• h

  Ob: Consuetu∣dinem Eucharisti∣am domum deferen∣di, &c. Sol. [By rea∣son of Persecution, and the paucitie of Mini∣sters: but afterwards abolished by the Church as was the ministrati∣on thereof to Infants.] Ob: [Communio o∣lim Laicis data in poenam gravis deli∣cti. Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. cap. 24. [Sol. As if the punishment of the La∣icks Communion could signifie Partaking in one kinde.] which is confuted by Durant. lib. 2. de Ritib. cap. 55. Nonnulli crediderunt Laicam Communionem appellatam, quòd sub unica specie etiam Clerici, imò Sacerdotes ipsi non conficientes communicant, nunc sub una specie. Quare verius est, Laicam communionem dictam, quia extra sacratiorem locum, ubi Sacrifi∣cium fit, ubi Sacerdos conficiens, tùm Ministri communicabant. And by Pamelius in Cyprian. Epist. 152. Laicum communicare, nihil aliud est quam inter Laicos. i. e. extrâ cancellos—hoc est, extra cho∣rum, ut hodie loquimur. Lorinus Ies. in Act. 2. Reverà distinctio non in specie utra{que} & una esse vide∣tur, quoniam utra{que} species concedebatur (nempe Laicis) sed in destinato loco, separato p••o Clericis. [And there were two punishments of Priests anciently, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, privari Clericatus honore, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ex∣communicari.] Ob: Ritus erat, ut Communio praesanctificatorum esset sub una specie, die Parascevis, cor∣pus sine specie sanguinis. Sol. [The word it selfe being in the Plurall, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, praesanctificata, Confu∣teth this Obiection, and so doe the Lyturgies.]
• i

  In Conc. Constant. de usu unius speciei. Cum huiusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia & sanctis patribus rationabiliter introducta, & hactenús diutissime observata sit, haben∣da est pro lege. Eodem modo Conc. Basil. penè eisdem verbis: Deinde latam legem quamplurimis retrò annis Con∣suetudo iucundissima effecerat. Gasp. Cardillus apud Act. Conc. Trident. p 220, 222, 223.
• k

  Secundum certum est, Ecclesiam praesentem, & quae illam praecessit per trecentos aut ducentos annos, Laicos sub altera specie in multis Ecclesijs communicare consuevisse, ut docet S. Thomas in Ioh. his verbis. Secundùm antiquae Eccle∣siae consuetudinem omnes sicut communicabant corpore, ità & sanguine: quod etiam adhuc in quibusdam Ec∣clesijs servatur, ubi etiam Ministri altaris continuò & corpore & sanguine communicabant. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 35. §. Secundum certum. pag. 284.
• l

  Sed nos nullam scimus Sacramenti multilationem, ne{que} partem dimidiam Laicis esse substra∣ctam, siquidem duae species requiruntur necessariò ad Sacri∣ficium, sed ad essenti∣am Sacramenti quae. libet ex duobus suf∣ficit.—Proinde Sa∣cramentum sub spe∣cie panis est verum & integrum Sa∣cramentum, quandò sumitur per modum unius refectionis. Bel∣lar. Apol. con. Praefat. Monit. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 102. And Al∣fons. à Castro de hac Controv. p. 157. Sacer∣dos hac lege devin∣ctus est, ut quoties∣cun{que} celebret, nec panem sine vino, nec vinum abs{que} pane consecrari faciat: quoniam etsi integer Christus sub qualibet specie lateat, non ta∣men quaelibet species totum Christum significat, sed panis solam carnem significat, species vini solum sanguinem repraesentat, illius{que} solius memoriam gerit.
• m

  Vnum dicitur quod est perfectum, sic cum dicitur una domus, unus homo. Est autem unum in perfectione, ad cujus integritatem concurrunt omnia quae requiruntur. Aquin. par. 3. qu. 73. Art. 12 Ex parte Sacramenti convenit, ut utrum{que} sumatur sc. corpus & sanguis, quòd in utro{que} consistit perfectio Sacramenti. Idem ibid. quaest 80. Art. 2. Etenim obligatio perficiendi istud Sacramentum illi solùm ex natura rei i. e. spectatâ Sacramenti dignitate, incumbit, qui illud etiam conficit: debet enim is, quandoquidem rem tam divinam facit, non utcun{que} facere. Ita{que} tenetur inprimis utram{que} speciem consecrare, tùm ut huic Sacra∣mento omnis perfectio sua substantialis, etiam quoad nationem individuam, constet. Valent. Ies. de vsu Euch. c. 6. §. Etenim. pag. 492. Respondendum est, eam actionem esse illis ipsis imperatam perilla verba [Hoc facite, &c. See above Sect. 3. at (g) where Vasquez the Ies. is cited in 3: Thom. disp. 215.
• See heereafter, Sect. 8.
• n

  Appeal. lib. 2. Chap. 1. pag. 140.
• o

  In his Answere to his Maiestie.
• (p) In his Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse, Tract. 4. §. 4. pag. 407.
• q

  Protestants Ap∣peale, lib. 2. Chapter 4. Sect. 3.
• r

  In the same Ap∣peale, lib. 4. Chapter 22. Sect. 10.
• s

  Cōperim{us} quòd quidam, sumptâ tan∣••ummodò corporis sacri portione, à Ca∣lice sacri cruoris ab∣stineant: qui procul∣dubiò (quoniam nes∣cio qua superstitione docētur astringi) aut Sacramenta integra percipiāt, aut ab in∣tegris arceantur, quià divisio uni{us} ejusdem∣que mysterii sinè grā∣di sacrilegio non po∣test provenire. Ge∣las. apud Gratia••. de Consecrat. cap. Compe∣rimu••. D. 2.
• a

  Nam in alterutra specie sive panis sive vini significatur suffi∣cienter refectio ani∣mae. Bellar. l. 4. de Eu∣charist. c. 22. §. Vtra∣que p. 639. Est etiam in specie qualibet to∣ta significatio refe∣ctionis spiritualis—quià unam & ean∣dem refectionis gra∣tiam spiritualem sig∣nificat cib{us} & potus. Valent. quo sup. de le∣git. usu Euch. p. 491.
• b

  Optimo iure in∣stitutum est ut separatim duae consecrationes fierent: primò enim ut Passio Domini, in qua sanguis à corpore divi••us est, magis referatur—Deindè, maximè consentaneum suit, ut quoniam Sacramento, ad alendam animam, utendum nobis erat, tanquam cibus & potus instituetetur, ex qui••us perfectum corporis alimentum constare, perspicuum est. Catechis. Rom. part. 2. de ••uch. num 29.
• c

  Hoc Sacramen∣tum ordiratur ad spir••tualem refectio∣nem, quae conforma∣tur corporali. Ad corporalem autem refectionem Duo re∣quiruntur, scilicet ci∣bus, qui est almentū si••cum, & potus, qui est alimentum humi∣dum. Et etiam ad in∣tegritatem hu••us Sa∣cramenti duo con∣currunt, scilicet, spiri∣cualis cibus, & spiri∣tualis potus, s••cundū illud, Ioh. 6. [Caro mea verè est cibus.]—Ergò hoc Sacra∣mentum multa quidē est materialitèr, sed unum formalitèr & perfectivè. Aquin. par. 3. qu. 73. Art. 2. Etsi negandum non est quin eius refectionis spiritualis vis & com∣moditas clarius utra∣que resimul, scilicet cibo & potu, atque adeo utraque specie significetur: ideo e∣nim hoc Sacramen∣tum, quod attinet quidem ad relationē individualem, per∣fectius est in utraque simu•• specie, quàm in altera. Greg. de Va∣lent. Ies. de usu Sacrā. Euch. c. 6. §. Secundū p. 491. Hoc est conve∣niētius u••ui ••uius Sa∣cramenti, ut seorsim exhibeatur fidelibus corpus Christi in ci∣bum, & sanguis in po∣tum. Aquinas quo sup. quaest. 76. Art. 2.
• d

  Sub specie panis sanguis sumatur cùm corpore, & sub specie vini sumatur corpus cum sanguine, nec sanguis sub specie panis bibitur, nec corpus sub specie vini editur: quià ••icut nec corpus bibitur, ità nec sanguis comeditur. Durand. Ra∣tional. lib. 4. cap. 41. pag. 326
• See hereafter Sect. 10.
• e

  Answere to his Maiestie.
• f

  Se∣cundum Alexand••um de Hales—Maior fructus ex perceptione utriusque speci••i habetur. Salmeron. Ies. Tom 9. Tract. 37. §. Neque benè. pag. 303. Per accidens autem non est dubium quin usus utriusque specici possit esse fructuosior, eò quod potest majorem devotionem commoverein percipiente. Vndè fiat, ut propter ma∣jorem dispositionem consequatur ille verlorem gratiam ex Sacramento. Valent. Ies. ibid. pag. 493. §. Per ac∣cidens.
• g

  Satis comper∣tum est, universalem Christi Eccl••siam in hunc usque diem, Oc∣cidētalem autem seti Romanam mille am∣plius à Christo an∣nis, in solenni prae∣se•• tim & ordinaria huius Sacramenti di∣spensatione, utram∣que panis & vini spe∣ciem omnibus Chri∣sti membris exhibuis∣se—atque uti••à fa∣cerent, inductos fuis∣se primo Instituto ex∣emploque Christi, qui hoc Sacramentū corporis & sanguinis sui duobus hisce pa∣nis & vini symbolis Discipulis suis, fide∣lium Communican∣tium personam re∣praesentantibus, prae∣buit: tum quià in Sa∣cramento sanguinis peculiarem quādam virtut••m & gratiam hoc vinisymbolo significatam esse credebant: tūm ob rationes mysti••as huius Instituti, quae à veteribus variè ad∣ducuntur, viz. ad repraesentandam memoriam Passionis Christi in oblatione corporis, & sanguinis effusione, iuxta illud Pauli, [Quotiescunque comederitis panem hunc, & Calicem Domini biberitis, morrem Domini annunciatis donec venerit.] Item ad significand••m integram refectionem sive nutritionem, quae ••ibo & potu constat, quomodò Christus inquit, [Caro mea verus est cibus, & sanguis meus verus est po••us.] Item ad design••ndam redemptionem & tuitionem corporis & animae, ut corpus pro salute corporis, & sanguis pro salute animae, quae in sanguine est, dari intelligatur. Ad significandum quoque Christum utramque naturam as∣sumpsisse, corporis & animae, ut utramque redimeret. Cassand. Consult. Art. 2••. pag. 166, 167.—Christus licet to∣tus sub una specie, tamen administrari ••oluit sub duplici, primò, ut totam naturam assumpsisse se ostenderet, ut utramque redimeret: panis enim ad corpus refertur, vinum ad anima••.—Si in altera tantùm sumer••tur,—tum mortem suam ad alterius salutem valere significaretur. Pet. Lombard•…•…. Dist. 11. Hic Calix pa••i cunctis con∣ditione sit traditus. Theoph in 1. Cor. 1••. In veteri Testamento quaedam Sacerdos, quaedam populus comedebat, nec poterat populus participare illis, quorum Sacerdos particeps erat: nunc autem omnibus un••m corpus proponitur, & unum poculum. Chrysost. in 2. Cor. Hom. 18. Coena Domini omnibus debet esse communis, quum il∣le Christus Discipulis suis omnibus, qui aderant, aequalitèr tradidit Sacramenta. Hier. in 1. Cor. 11. Quomodò ad martyrij poculum eos idoneos secimus, si non ad poculum Domini admittimus? Cyprian. Epist. 54. ad Cornel. Epis••. Rom. de pace lapsis da da. Etiam Lumbardus lib. 4. dist. 11. ex Ambrosio ad 1. Cor 11 Valet ad tuitionem corpo∣ris & animae quod percipimus, quià caro Christi pro salute corporis, sanguis vero pro anima nostra offertur.
• h

  ••raeci dicunt esse necessario sub utraque specie panisscilicet, & vini communicandum, adeo quidem, ut qui sub una specie tantùm communicat etiamsi laicus sit, peccare dicatur, quod (ut aiu••t) contra Christi prae∣ceptum agat▪ qu•• sub utraque specie communicare praecepit. Prat••ol Elench. Haeret lib. 7. tit. Graeci.
• Liturg. Tract 4 § 9. p. 425. at Eightly.
• i

  Porrò causas, quae Ecclesiam mo∣verunt, ut consuetu∣dinem communican∣di sub altera proba∣ret, atque etiam pro lege observandā esse decerneret, non tàm nostrum est discutere aut inquirere, quàm ipsi Decreto simpli∣citèr obtemperare, existimaréque omni∣nò eas fuisse just as, ut rectissimè ex Conc. Trid. definitum est. Greg. Valent. Ies. de le∣git. usu Sacra. Euch. c. 10. §. Porrò, p. 499.
• k

  Ob inopiam vi∣ni, cujus in plerisque Christianitatis par∣tibus magna penu∣ria. Valent. ibid. & Salmeron Jes. Tom. 9. Tract. 34. §. Ad quintum, pag. 279. And Roffens. in like manner. Bellar. also addeth another Reason to this: Movit Ecclesiam uniformitas, ut concordia populi Christiani in Sacramento hoc percipiendo, quod est Sacramentum pacis & unitatis, propter eos, apud quos vinum inveniri non potest: ut sunt aliquae provinciae boreales, ubi vinum non invenitur, qui existimarent se Christo curae non fuisse, aut non ità ut alias provincias, quandò Sacramentum instituit. Lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 28.
• l

  Licet non in om∣nibus terris nascitur vinum aut triticum, tamen ad omnes ter∣ras facilè deferri po∣test, quantum sufficit ad usum huius Sacra∣menti. Aquin. part. 3. qu. 74. Art. 1. Sufficit quòd Balsamum po∣test ad omnia loca transferri. Idem ibid. qu. 72. Art. 2.
• m

  Bis Principes Germaniae ad Bohe∣mos (quòd Commu∣nionem sub utr••que specie communica∣rent) debellandos ar∣ma sumpsere, horta∣tore Cardinale lulia∣no S. Angeli, Apo. stolicae sedis Legato doctissimo paritèr & rerum gerendarum prudentiâ ornatissi∣mo viro: quanquàm bellum non satis feli∣citer successit. Salme∣ron Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 35. pag. 284.
• See a little after at (p.)
• n

  Multi sunt Ab∣stemij, qui vinum non ferunt. Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. cap. 28.
• o

  Dicēdum, quod vinum modicè sump∣tum non potest mul∣tum aegrotanti noce∣re. Aquin. par. 3 quest. 74. Art. 1.
• See above Chap. 2. Sect. 9. in the Chall.
• m

  Primò movet Ecclesiam consuetu∣do recepta & appro∣bata consensu Gen∣tium & Populorum. Bellar. quosup.
• n

  Movet Ecclesiā, & quidem vehemen∣tèr Irreverentia & profanationes tanti Sacramenti, quae vix evitari possent in tā∣ta fidelium multitu∣dine, si omnibus da∣retur sub utra{que} spe∣cie. Bellar. ibid.
• Liturg. tract. 4. §. 6.
• o

  Vtriusque spe∣cici vsum illicitum esse at{que} sacrilegium ait.—falsum est, quòd usui Calicis an∣nexum sit peccatum vel sacrilegiu, prop∣ter periculum effusio∣nis: nam si hab eret adiūctum peccatum, neque Christus Do∣minus, neque Aposto∣li in primitiva Eccle∣sia, nee Orientales modo, nec Occidentales ante Conc. Constantiense, ne{que} deni{que} Sacerdotes celebrantes eo ut erentur ritu Salme∣ron Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 37. §. Deinde, p. 308.
• p

  Cernuntur hodiè ex antiquitate relictae quaedam fistu lae argenteae & aureae velut canales, calicibus vetustioribus adjunctae, ut per eas sine effusione hauri••i posset ••an∣guis è calice, quarum in Ordinario Rom. fit mentio. Et adhuc in Missa solenni Pontificis adhibentur, ubi ministri Cardinales, aut illustriores personae communicant sub utraque specie, posteriorem speciem fistulâ haurientes. sed ista instrumenta non fuisse in usu apud plebem in parochialibus Ecclesijs planè existimo, sed tantum in sa∣cris Cardinalium, Canonicorum, & Monachorum Conventibus. Alan. lib. 1. de Euch. cap 47. p. 495.
• q

  1. Cor. 11. Ita{que} fratres mei, cum con∣ven••ritis, invicem expectate.] Domi∣nus ex aequo Tibi & pauperimensam pro∣prij corporis, & po∣culum sanguinis t••a∣didit. Teste Salmeron. Ies Tom. 14. Disp. 19. pag. 153.
• (*) See §. 9.
• (*) See above. Secto 8. (g)
• r

  Aquarij solam a∣quam apponendam asserebant, sobrieta∣tis conservandae cau∣sâ vinum vitantes. Alfons. à Castro cont. Haeres. Tit. Euchari∣stia, Haer. 6.
• s

  Discamus Chri∣stum, prout vult, vene∣rari, honorato nam{que} iucundissi••us est ho∣nor, non quem nos putamus; nam & eum Petrus honorare pu∣tabar, cùm sibi pe∣des eum lavare pro∣hibuit: sed non erat honor, quem age∣bat, sed contrarium. Chrysost. Hom. 60. ad pop. Antioch. Tom. 5.
• t

  Si sic tanta esset dignitas Laicorum circà sūptionem cor∣poris Christi, quanta Clericorum? Gerson. Tract. de utra{que} specie.
• 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.
• i

  Nullâ praecep∣torum vi, sed con∣sensu quodam taci∣to tàm populi quam Cleri sensim irrep∣sit dicta consue••udo. Ro••••ens. con. Cap. Babyl. Trac. de utra{que} Specie, f. 28. Est{que} hoc diligen∣ter notandum, alteri∣us speciei communio∣nem non tam Epis∣coporum mandato, quam populi usu & facto conniventibus tamen Praesulibus, ir∣repsisse: populus e∣nim ob varia incom∣moda paulatim à calice abstinebat. Episcopi propter varia effusionis sanguinis, alia{que} pericula tacendo hanc abstinentiam comprobabant: quae abstinentia à calice cum tempore▪ Constantiensis Conc. ferè per Europam universalis esset, non erat damnanda, sed contra Haereticos insurgentes defendenda. Coster. Ies. Enchirid. Tract. de Com. sub. utra{que} specie, pag. 359. Credere par est, ex communi fidelium populor••m & Orthodoxorum Praesulum tacito consensu receptam: quandò autem primum inceperit, mihi non constat. Alf. de Castro l. 6. Tit: Eucharistia, haer. vlt.
• Liturg Tract 4 § 9. at the end thereof.
• 2. Tim 2. 15.
• l

  Quod verò atti∣net ad tempora, tri∣plicem in coetu Chri∣stiano statum, Nic. de Cusano Card. expen∣dit; ferventis nimi∣rùm, calidae & fri∣gentis. Initio n. fuit Ecclesia ad funden∣dum pro Christo san∣guinem fervens, & tunc data est illi u∣tra{que} species, ut san∣guinem Domini bi∣bens, sanguinem su∣um pro illo libenter effunderet.—In se∣quenti statu Ecclesia fuit calida, licet non ità fervens, & tunc non dabatur bina species, sed panis tantùm sanguine in∣fusus, ut ex quibus∣dam veterū Patrum sententijs Concilijsq colligi potest. Terti∣us status est Ecclesiae frigentis ac tepidae, & in ea tantùm alte∣ra species, panis sc. sine infusione sangui∣nis Laicis dispensa∣tur. Salm. Ies. To. 9. Tract. 34. §. Quod ve∣rò, p. 277.
• m

  Vt nobis locu∣pletissimi testes, at{que} omni exeptione ma∣iores retulerunt, in Germania qui eò lo∣ci per omnia obedi∣unt Rom. Pontifici∣bus, non solùm (Re∣verendi Patres) cali∣cem vitae non cupi∣unt, aut petere au∣dent, &c. Gasp. Card. Villalp. opud Act. Conc. Trid. p. 222. §. Accedit.
• See the next testi∣mony above.
• n

  Tertio loco ob∣ijciunt Ecclesiae sapi∣entiam, antiquita∣tem, atque potesta∣tem; aiunt enim, Ec∣clesiam primitivam, quae antiquior & sci∣entiâ atquè vitae san∣ctitate praestantior erat, utráque specie usam fu••sse: nostra i∣gitur illam imitari debet, praesertim cū eandem atque illa habet potestatem in eiusmodi legibus po∣sitivis siuè abrogan∣dis siuè dispensandis. Respondemus, non esse dubium quin Ec∣clesia primitiva no∣strae maiore charita∣te, ac proindè uberi∣ori sapientia praecel∣luerit, nihilominus, tamen interdum cō∣tingit minus sapien∣tem in aliquo meliùs sapere, quàm al••••m absolutè sapientio∣rem. Saepe etiam accidit, minùs p••••∣fectum hominem vi∣tare aliquem errorē, quem melior non vi∣tat. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 38. §. Tertio loco, p. 320.
• o

  Forma Iuramen∣ti, per Bullam Pij quarti. Apostolicas & Ecclesiasticas Tradi∣tiones admitto,—Ego spond eo, & juro, &c.
• p

  Coetera omnia à Concilio Tr••dent. declarata & confir∣mata firmissimè ••e∣neo. Ibid. Romanam Ecclesiam Magistram esse Ecclefiar u•…•…∣do, &c.
• q

  Licet Gabriel, & quidam alij senti∣ant divini juris esse, ut Sacerdos in utra∣que specie sacrificet, nihilominùs' tamen opinantur authorita∣te Rom. Pontificis fi∣eri posse, ut in una tantùm specie sacri∣ficet, viz. in consecra∣tione panis fine vi∣no, quià putant mul∣ta esse juris divini, quae remittere & re∣laxare Pótifex queat ob publicam aliquam & gravem necessita∣tem: ut videmus vo∣tum, iusiurandū, ma∣trimonium ratum, nō consummatū, autho∣ritate Pontificis re∣laxari & dissolvi. Et ità in hac quaestione prima puto proba∣bilius & verius esse (ut dixi) iuris esse di∣vini, ut Sacerdos in duplici specie sacrificet. Et nihilominùs existimo valdè probabile, authoritate Pontifi∣ciâ, ob publicam & urgentem necessitatem, praedictum jus divinum relaxari posse. Sed▪ quià nunquàm est rela∣xatum, ego confilium darem ut nunquam relaxaretur. Azorius Ies. Tom. 1. Instit, Moral. lib. 10. cap. 19. §. Tertium pag. 857.
• r

  Dispensandus non est utriusque, speciei usus Haereti∣cis, quia non sunt dā∣da sancta Canibus: nec Catholicis, quià debent distingui ab Haereticis, qui com∣municant sub duab. Salmeron Jes. Tom. 9. Tract. 37. §. His pofi∣tis, p. 411.
• a

  P. Calixtus. See above Chap. 2. Sect. 9.
• b

  P. Greg. Ibid. at (b.)
• c

  See above, Chap. 2. Sect. 7. Chall. 5. (a.)
• d

  P. Iulius. See a∣bove Chap. 3. Sect. 3.
• e

  Ibid.
• f

  See above Chap. 3. Sect 4.
• g

  P. Gelasius. See above Chap. 3. Sect. 4.
• h

  Synod. Tolet. 16—Conc. Generale, sub Sergio Papa. Ba∣ron, ad An. 693 This Councel, cap. 6. saith, Quoniam quid ā non panes m••ndos atque integros, sed crustu∣lam & particulam of∣ferunt—quod ne∣quaquàm in sacrae au∣thoritatis historia gestum perpenditur; ubi legitur Christum benedixisse & dedi••se panem, &c. Apud Bi∣nium Tom. 3. And this being, by Baronius, a Generall Councell, could not conclude without the Popes con∣sent, in your iudge∣ments.