A replie to Iesuit Fishers answere to certain questions propou[n]ded by his most gratious Matie: King Iames By Francis White D: of Div· deane of Carlile, chaplaine to his Matie. Hereunto is annexed, a conference of the right: R:B: of St Dauids wth the same Iesuit*

THE SEVENTH POINT. [ A] [ B] COMMVNION VN∣DER ONE KIND, AND THE ABBETTING OF IT BY CONCOMITANCIE.

IESVIT. [ C]

YOur most Excellent Maiestie, in the Proposition of this Controuersie, shewes your deepe insight into Theo∣logicall difficulties, perceiuing a maine ground whereon the Catholicke opinion of the lawfulnesse of Communion vn∣der [ D] one kinde standeth, to wit, Concomitancie: which be∣ing granted, Communion vnder one kind, is iustified.

ANSVVER.

IF his Sacred MAIESTIE should [ E] yeeld you Concomitancie, yet vpon that ground Communion in one kinde could not be iustified: Neuerthelesse, we denie both 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Communion vnder one kinde.

IESVIT. § 1. [ A] The Doctrine of Concomitan∣cie prooued.

THe Doctrine of Concomitancie is, that vnder the forme of bread, not onely the bodie of Christ, but al∣so his precious blood and blessed soule, are truely and really contained; the bodie directly, and by vertue of [ B] the words of Consecration; the blood and the soule conse∣quently: for being contained within the bodie of Christ, they must needs Concomitate, that is, follow the bodie, in what place soeuer the same bee; neither can any that ac∣knowledges the reall Presence denie this Concomitancie, without falling into many absurdities, as I prooue by three Arguments.

ANSWER. [ C]

THe bodie of Christ is considered two wayes: First, Ac∣cording to the nature of a perfect liuing bodie; second∣ly, As it is represented and exhibited in the Sacrament. If we consider it the first way, the blood of Christ cannot properly be said to be in his bodie, by Concomitancie, (for then it were accidentally therein) but as a part in the whole; for as the bones, sinews, and veynes, are integrall parts of ana∣turall humane bodie, so likewise is the blood a 1.1: and naturall [ D] parts are in the whole, by substantiall vnion, not by Concomi∣tancie; for then they were in the bodie, or belonging there∣unto, as an adiunct to his subiect.

If we consider the bodie of Christ, taken for the more solid parts thereof, as it is represented and exhibited in the Sacra∣ment, to wit, as it was fixed to the crosse, and diuided from the blood; then, according to this Sacramentall representation and exhibition, the same alone neither containeth nor representeth [ E] the blood b 1.2.

The sacred Eucharist is one intire Sacrament a 1.3, (totum [ A] compositum) hauing two externall Elements, to wit, Bread and Wine, and these two signes or elements, represent the materi∣all Sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse b 1.4, which consisted, at the time of the Oblation thereof, of a bodie fixed on a tree, and the same dying by effusion of blood, Luk. 22.21. And in the holy Eucharist, Christ is as it were crucified before our eyes, and his bodie and blood, by representation, are diuided: and God Almightie vseth these mysticall creatures, as instruments, to communicate vnto euery worthie Receiuer, the Sacrifice of Christ his Sonne, 1. Cor. 10.16. But as the Sacrifice vpon the [ B] Crosse, was not performed in one of these Indiuiduals apart, or by it selfe, but ioyntly in them both; and without effusion of blood, there is no remission of sinnes c 1.5, Heb. 9.22: So likewise in the holy Eucharist the bodie of Christ is represented, as it was diuided from the blood; and againe the blood, as seuered from the bodie: and God concurreth with both the Elements, deliuered and receiued; with the one, as it were by inception, and with the other by consummation: and Communicants partake not the whole Sacrifice of Christ, vntill they haue receiued both the materiall parts of the Sacrament. [ C]

Here then is no Popish Concomitancie, either of the blood [ D] to the bodie, when it is receiued apart, or of the bodie to the blood, when that is receiued alone: but the Sacrament reacheth the bodie & blood, as they were diuided, and they are then con∣ioyned to make one Sacrifice, when they are both deliuered and receiued. The whole cannot be in one part, neither doth one part Concomitate another, but is substantially vnited to ano∣ther: and in a Sacrifice or Sacrament, compounded of diuisible parts, he which giueth or receiueth one materiall part, doth not therein or thereby distribute or receiue the whole. [ E]

Neither againe is the Deitie vnited to the bodie or blood of Christ by Concomitancie, but by personall vnion.

Thus then I argue:

Whatsoeuer is receiued in the Sacrament by vs, was before of∣fered to God vpon the Crosse.

But the bodie of Christ hauing bloud in it by concomitance, [ A] or the deitie in it by concomitancie, or the bloud of Christ hauing in it the bodie or 〈◊〉〈◊〉, by concomitancie, was not offered to God vpon the Crosse: for before the effusion of the bloud, the same was in the bodie as a part, not by concomitancie. After the full effusion, the bloud was diuided from the bodie, and the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was with the bodie by personall vnion, and not by concomitan∣cie, Ergo,

At this day the bodie and deitie of Christ are not in the bloud of Christ by concomitancie, &c.

IESVIT. [ B]

First, hee that acknowledgeth the reall presence of Christs sacred bodie vnder the forme of bread, and de∣nies concomitancie, doth in his beleefe seperate the bloud and soule of Christ from his bodie: but to seperate either Christs diuinitie from his humanitie, or soule from his bo∣die, or his bloud from his flesh, is vnlawfull; for such a beleeuer doth dissolue and destroy Christ Jesus, and so is [ C] one of the number of them that S. Iohn condemneth, Om∣nis * 1.6 Spiritus qui soluit Iesum, non est ex Deo, & hic est Antichristus.

ANSVVER.

The summe of this obiection is,

Whosoeuer dissolueth Christ Iesus, is an Antichrist. [ D]

Euerie one who admitteth reall presence, and yet denyeth con∣comitancie, dissolueth Christ Iesus, for he seperateth the bloud and soule of Christ from his bodie, and his diuinitie from his hu∣manitie: Ergo,

Whosoeuer in the reall presence denyeth concomitancie, is an Antichrist.

Our answer is, Whosoeuer dissolueth Christ Iesus, accor∣ding to S. Iohns meaning, 1. Ioh. 4.3. by denying his deitie, hu∣manitie, or personall vnion a 1.7, is Antichrist. But the denying of [ E] Popish concomitancie inferreth none of these.

For although we affirme, that in the holy Eucharist the bo∣die [ A] and bloud of Christ are represented distinctly, and as they were diuided at his passion: yet this dissolueth not Iesus, but signifieth the seperation of his bodie and bloud formerly made vpon the Crosse a 1.8. And we beleeue that the holy Ghost, accor∣ding to the distinct signification b 1.9 of the sacramentall ele∣ments, reacheth in a spirituall manner, the bodie and bloud of Christ crucified, to all faithfull communicants, and addeth a se∣uerall effect and vertue of spirituall refection to each distinct part receiued c 1.10 according to the signification; and this is con∣fessed by Vasques, Ruard Tapper, Alexander Halles. [ B]

IESVIT. [ C]

And this argument hath greatest force in their opi∣nion, who shall thinke that Christ leaues heauen for the time, to come downe really according to his Bodie and Bloud: for how can the bodic of Christ come downe from heauen without bloud and soule, vnlesse he come downe dead? and so Christ should be not only mystically and figuratiuely, but truely and really massacred in the Sacrament, and the Eu∣charist [ D] be a bloudie Sacrifice, and not incruent as the Fa∣thers tearme it.

ANSWER.

None of our part thinke that Christ leaueth heauen, to come downe really according to his bodie and bloud, Act. 3.21. Do∣nec seculum finiatur, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 est Dominus (Augustine in Ioh. tract. [ E] 7.) vntill the world be finished, the Lord continues aboue. And the Fathers tearme the holy Eucharist, an vnbloudie sacrifice, not because Christ is properly, and in his substance offred there∣in, but because his bloudie sacrifice vpon the crosse, is, by this vnbloudie commemoration represented, called to remem∣brance,

and applyed. Read the sentences of Fathers a 1.11 [ C] placed [ A] in the margen. Read also Peter Lombard b 1.12, and the Enchiridion of Colen c 1.13.

IESVIT.

Secondly, The Priest in the person of Christ, who is [ D] glorious in heauen, or rather Christ being glorious in hea∣uen, by the mouth of the Priest, saith, This is my bodie: but a bodie deuoid of bloud without soule, and consequently dead and sencelesse, is not the bodie of Christ, as he is now glorious in heauen, which hath bloud in the veines, and is informed and glorified by a most excellent soule. There∣fore Christ glorious in heauen, cannot say truely, that a bo∣die void of bloud, sence, and soule is his bodie; but soule, [ E] life, and bloud, must needs follow and concomitate his bodie wheresoeuer it be.

ANSVVER. [ A]

First, The new Testament acknowledgeth no proper sacri∣ficing Priests, but Christ Iesus onely, Heb. 7.23.27.28. & ca. 10. 21. Neither is there any word or sentence in our Saui∣ours Doctrine, concerning any reall sacrifice, but only of him∣selfe vpon the Crosse: neither was any altar a 1.14 vsed and ordai∣ned by Christ and his Apostles. And if in all reall sacrifices, the matter of the oblation must be really destroyed and chan∣ged, and no physicall destruction or change is made in the bo∣die [ B] of Christ, or in the elements of Bread and Wine by Tran∣substantiation b 1.15; then Romists haue deuised a reall sacrifice in the new Testament, which hath no diuine Institution.

Secondly, There is no created vertue inhaerent in the Sa∣cramentall words c 1.16, as they are pronounced by a Priest, to [ C] make the bodie of Christ locally present in the holy Eucha∣rist: but when all the words, and all the actions are lawfully performed, which Christ commanded, the holy Ghost is assi∣stant to his owne ordinance, and deliuereth vnto faithfull people the crucified Bodie of Christ, and the Bloud of Christ shed for our sinnes vpon the crosse. And although the crucified bodie of our Sauiour was seuered from the soule, yet the deitie euen then remained vnited to that bodie, which then was not dead in regard of merit and satisfaction: and all they which receiue that bodie by operatiue faith, are made parta∣kers of the merit and satisfaction thereof, and by this receiuing, [ D] are more and more ingraffed into Christ.

IESVIT.

Thirdly, If vnder the forme of bread were onely the bodie of Christ, and his soule and bloud were not by con∣comitancie there, the communicants should receiue the body of Christ, but not truely Christ, as our Aduersaries grant. * 1.17 Caluin specially saying, Quis sanus & sobrius Christi [ E] corpus Christum esse sibi persuadeat? And againe, Ne fando quidem auditum est corpus Christi, aut sanguinem Deum & hominem appellari. But Fathers

affirme most constantly, that not onely the bodie of Christ, [ A] but also a 1.18 Christ himselfe is in the Sacrament; that we take in the Dominicall refection, The word made flesh; that by the consecration of the Mysteries, wee receiue the verie Sonne of God; that vnder the forme of Bread, we lodge within vs the Soueraigne King; and that we see Christ, feele Christ, eate Christ, Non regium puerum, sed ip∣sum vnigenitum Dei filium. An hundred other places might be brought, where the Fathers call the consecrated [ B] Bread Christ; and consequently, they did not thinke there was the meere Bodie, without Blood and Soule, seeing, as Caluin doth confesse, Jt is an absurd manner of speech, to terme Christ the meere bodie of Christ; and such a forme of speech was neuer heard of hitherto in the world: Ergo, Concomitancie, that is, Christs reall and entire Bodie, Soule, Flesh, Blood, to be vnder the forme of Bread, was acknowledged by the Fathers. [ C]

ANSVVER.

It is granted, that worthie Communicants in the holy Eu∣charist, receiue Christ, Ioh. 6. 33, 35, 48. but Sacramentall ea∣ting his flesh, and drinking his blood, is the meanes, by which they are vnited and incorporated with Christ himselfe: there∣fore the Obiection, to wit, if the soule and blood were not in Christs bodie by Concomitancie, Communicants should re∣ceiue the bodie of Christ, but not truely Christ, is inconse∣quent: [ D] because by receiuing the one, they receiue the other, and the former is the instrumentall cause of the latter. So in this kinde of spirituall Concomitancie, neither the Fathers, nor Cal∣uin, nor we, nor you, need be at any difference.

IESVIT.

This Principle, which is no lesse certaine than the true reall Presence supposed, I inferre the lawfulnesse of Com∣munion [ E] vnder one kinde, (to wit, vnder the sole forme of Bread) by this Argument: If Communion vnder one kinde be not against the substance, either of Christs Insti∣tution

or of his Sacrament, or his Precept, or of the [ A] Practise of the Primitiue Church; it is lawfull, iustifi∣able, and for iust Reasons may be commanded by the Church.

This Proposition is true, because there neither are other causes of dislike, that may not be reduced to these foure; neither doe Christs Institution, or Sacrament, or Precept, or the Primitiue practise, bind vs to keepe them further, than in substance, the accidentall Circumstances of Insti∣tutions, [ B] Sacraments, Precepts, Primitiue Customes, being variable, according to the variable disposition of things, vnto which the Church Militant in this life is subiect. Now I assume, Concomitancie being supposed, it may be made euident, that Communion vnder one kind is not a∣gainst the substance, either of Christs Institution, or of the Sacrament, or of his Precept, or of his Primitiue practise: For the substance of these foure Obligations is one and the same, to wit, that we be truly and really partakers of [ C] the Bodie and Bloud of our Sauiour; which is fully done by Communion vnder one kind, as I will shew in the foure consequent Sections.

ANSWER.

If Concomitancie (which is stiled in this place by the name of a Principle) were graunted, yet Communion in one kind is [ D] not iustifiable: For although it depriue not people of Christs Bloud, as it is a bodily part, a 1.19 contained in the veines, yet it depriueth them of the Bloud of Christ, as it was shed, and poured out, and offered in Sacrifice for them.

To the maine Argument I answer, denying the Assumption. For Communion in one kind is repugnant to the first Institu∣tion of the Eucharist by Christ, who hallowed two materiall Elements, Bread and Wine; appointed them a distinct signifi∣cation, deliuered them indifferently to all the Communicants, and annexed a Promise to the reception of the one, as well as [ E] to the sumption of the other.

Secondly, It is repugnant to the expresse Precept of Christ, saying, Drinke yee all of this; and to S. Pauls Precept b 1.20, 1. Cor. 11. 28.

Thirdly, The practise of the holy Apostles a 1.21, and of the [ A] Primitiue Church b 1.22, is against it.

Fourthly, The people which receiue in one kind, receiue [ B] onely a Moitie, and piece, but not the whole and entire Sa∣crament

IESVIT. § 2. Communion vnder one kind, not against the substance of the Institution of Christ.

DIuine Institution, is an Action of God, whereby hee [ C] giues being vnto things, with reference vnto some speciall end. This end is twofold, the one corporall and temporall, for which God hath instituted agreeable & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 meanes; that men may be borne into this world, he did institute marriage; and for maintenance of the said life, being had, hee or dained many sorts of meate. The other end is spirituall, for which God hath instituted Sacra∣ments: as for the first obtaining of grace and spirituall [ D] life, the Sacrament of Baptisme and Penance; and for the preseruing of grace, and increasing therein, particu∣larly the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

That a man bee bound to vse the Jnstitution of God, two things are required: First, that the end thereof bee necessarie, and hee bound to indeuour the attaining there∣of. Hence it is, that though marriage bee the Jnstitution of God, appointed to propagate mankinde, yet euery man is [ E] not bound to marry, because he is not bound to propagate mankinde, when there be others that do abundantly complic with that duty; to which mankind is in general bound, mul∣tiplicamini * 1.23 & replete terram. Secondly, when the end of

tion is such, as euery man must indeauour the attayning [ A] thereof; to the end that a man be bound to vse that institu∣tion, it is further required, that the thing instituted be ne∣cessarie for attaining of that end: for if there be other meanes ordained, sufficient for the attaining of that end, man is not bound to vse such particular diuine instituti∣ons. For example, man is bound to maintaine his corporall life, so long as nature will permit, and to this end God created varietie of fruites; yet no man is bound by diuine [ B] institution to eate fruites, there being other meanes institu∣ted for the maintenance of life.

Applying this to our purpose, it is apparent, that by force of diuine institution, no man is bound to vse Commu∣nion vnder both kinds. For though the end why Christ did institute the Sacrament in both kinds be necessarie, and all must indeauour the attaining thereof, to wit, maintenance and increase of grace, the life of the soule; yet there be other meanes by which we may attaine to this end. Whence it is [ C] that learned Diuines hold, that the Sacrament of the Eu∣charist * 1.24 is not Necessarium necessitate Medij, as they speake, that is the vse thereof is not a necessarie meanes for the maintenance of spirituall life, but a man wanting meanes of Sacred Communion, may by other meanes pre∣serue himselfe in the state of grace. And though we should suppose that actuall Communion were a necessary meanes to preserue spirituall life, yet Communion vnder one kind is [ D] abundantly sufficient thereunto. For the Sacrament in the sole forme of Bread, contayning the Author and fountaine of life whole and intire, according to Body, Soule, Bloud, and his infinite person, is abundantly sufficient for the refection of the soule, yea no lesse sufficient than Com∣munion vnder both kinds. For this one kind 〈◊〉〈◊〉 within it nothing lesse, than what is contained in both: and Christ promiseth life to sole manducation, Qui manducat [ E] me & ipse viuit propter me, and vnto the sole reception of his Body vnder the forme of Bread, Panis quem ego * 1.25 dabo caro mea est pro mundi vita & qui manducat

hunc panem viuet in aeternum: If the Tree of life in the [ A] * 1.26 midst of Paradise, if the Manna of the Jewes (the Bread of Angells) did suffice to nourish the body without Drinke, * 1.27 Why should we deny this soule-nourishing sufficiencie vnto the sole body of Christ, were the same alone in the Bread: but specially being there conioyned with his soule and his most precious bloud?

ANSWER.

FIrst, the ground of the obiection laid by the Iesuit in cer∣taine [ B] comparisons, taken from Marriage, Meatand Drinke, is of no consequence: for as touching Wedlocke, the same (presupposing humane Propagation) is necessarie, both Necessi∣tate Medij, and Necessitate praecepti, that the generation of man may be morally lawfull, Heb. 13.4. so likewise presupposing, that Christians doe receiue the holy Eucharist, it is necessarie Necessitate finis, or Medij, & necessitate praecepti, That they receiue the same, as the Author appointed it to be receiued; which was not in one kind, but in both. And as touching Food, it is necessa∣ry, that man receiue it in some kind or other, for the sustenance [ C] of his life: but because God hath left it to the libertie of mans Election to vse which kind he liketh, and hath not by law, or precept, obliged him to any one kind in speciall, thereforeman is free in choosing his materiall Food, and obtaineth the end of Food, and obserueth the law of his Maker, when he orderly vseth any kind thercof. But in the matter of the holy Eucha∣rist, as God hath not made it adiaphorous for man to change the Elements, substituting Water and Broath, or Flesh in the stead of Bread and Wine: so likewise he hath not permitted it [ D] to humane discretion, to omit or vse the Sacramentall signes, but hath by expresse precept, obliged his Church to thevse of one signe, as well as the other.

But I wonder that the Iesuit in this discursiue preamble, would vse an instance from our naturall foode, than which nothing by wayof inference doth more expresly refute him. Can he in the Sacrament make mention of Food, and not con∣sider that our Sauiours intent in the institution was, to propor∣tion our Spirituall food to our Corporall? In our bodily nou∣rishment, haue we not need of drinke as well as meat? Did [ E] not our Sauiour therfore adde the Cup to the Bread, and equal∣ly blessed both? How dare they then make the repast of our soules, a dry banquet? And although God neuer bound any man to eate all kind of meat, yet he neuer forbad any man all kind of drinke.

Secondly, If the matter or materiall part of compounded [ A] things belongs to their substance a 1.28, then the defalcation of one kind is against the integritie of the substance of the Eucharist. For the Element of Wine, vnto which answereth the distribu∣tion and reception thereof, is a medietie or halfe part of the matter of the holy Communion; and if the taking away there∣of, is not against the substance of Christs Institution, then like∣wise the taking away of Bread, which is the other part, and the retaining of Wine onely, is not against the same: for the blood of Christ is as noble a part of Christ, and hath as great vertue, necessitie, and commendation in holy Scripture, as his bodie [ B] strictly taken; and consequently, the outward signe heereof, is as necessarie for all the members of the Church, as the ex∣ternall signe of his bodie.

But against this, the Iesuit argueth as followeth.

If Lay people may attaine the end for which Christ ordained the Eucharist, without receiuing in both kindes, then Commu∣nion vnder one kinde is not against the substance of Christs In∣stitution. [ C]

But Lay people may attaine the end, &c. to wit, maintenance, and increase of grace, by Communion in one kinde, because one kinde containeth in it nothing lesse than what is contained in both, Ioh. 6. v. 55, 58, 59. Ergo,

Communion vnder one kinde is not against the substance of Christs Institution.

ANSWER. [ D]

The sequele and assumption of this Argument are denied. First, Communion vnder one kinde, may be of the substance of Christs Institution, although the end and fruit of the holy Eu∣charist might bee receiued by other meanes: for as in the Sa∣crament of Baptisme, the end is regeneration and remission of sinnes a 1.29, Acts 22. 16. Tit. 3. 5. and this end, in some cafe, may bee obtained without aspersion of water, as appeareth in Baptismo sanguinis b 1.30, when Martyrs decease, without Sacra∣mentall

Baptisme: and yet to be washed or sprinkled with wa∣ter, [ A] is of the substance of Christs Institution; so likewise Com∣munion in both kindes, is of the substance of Christs Institu∣tion, although the end and fruit of the holy Eucharist, to wit, continuance and increase of grace, may be obtained by spiritu∣all manducation alone, without Sacramentall.

If the former illation of Romists were good, it will follow likewise from thence, that receiuing of Bread in the Eucharist, is not of the substance of Christs Institution: for whole and intire Christ, according to bodie, and soule, and infinite per∣son, is in the blood alone, if the Popish Doctrine of Conco∣mitancie [ B] be true: and if this be granted (as of necessitie it must) then Romists may mangle and transforme the holy Sacrament at their pleasure.

Secondly, The end and fruit of the Sacrament is either com∣mon to the holy Eucharist, with other meanes of Grace a 1.31, or else proper to it onely.

To eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the Sonne of God, [ C] by recognition of Christs Passion, and by Faith in the same, may be an effect of the Gospell preached, Ioh. 6. 54. But to eate the same flesh and blood, communicated more distinctly and effectually by visible seales, of the couenant of the new Testament, is an end and fruit peculiar and proper to the holy Eucharist, 1. Cor. 10. 16. A man may haue the same inheri∣tance bestowed on him, by the word and writing of the Donor, yet when the same is confirmed by the seale of the Donor, the donation is of greater validitie; and if by Law or [ D] custome, two seales should be appointed, the apposition of one is not of equall force and validitie to the apposition of both: so likewise, because the Sonne of God made choyce of two outward signes, namely, Bread and Wine, to represent and ap∣ply his Passion and Oblation, and withall commanded the common vse and reception of both, saying, Drinke ye all of this: and also annexed a speciall promise and blessing to both these outward signes, ioyntly vsed: therefore the vse & sumption of one of these without the other, cannot haue so great force b 1.32, to apply the effect & fruit of the Sacrament, as the vse & reception [ E] of both. And as in concauses, or partiall causes, the action of

the one, cannot produce the effect without the other; and as [ A] when two keyes are prouided to open a locke, the same is not opened by one of them onely: so likewise Christ Iesus, ha∣uing instituted and sanctified two signes, for the more propor∣tionable and effectuall application of his Bodie, and Blood, it is grosse presumption in man to mutilate and cut off a part of that bodie which the wisedome of Christ hath framed in due and beautifull proportion, and to diuide that which God hath ioy∣ned together, and without warrant from Gods reuealed word, to attribute a totall effect, to a partiall meanes and cause.

IESVIT. [ B]

Hence it is apparent, that without any iust cause, some Protestants inueigh against the Councell of Constance, as * 1.33 professing to contradict the Precept of Christ, because it decreed, That the Sacrament may bee lawfully giuen vn∣der one kind, Non obstante quod Christus in vtraque specie illud instituerit, & Apostolis administrauerit: Notwithstanding Christs Institution and Administration [ C] thereof in both kinds, to his Disciples. This their bitter∣nesse proceeds from zeale without knowledge, not di∣stinguishing the Jnstitution of God from his Precept, which are very distinct: for the Precept of both kinds (if Christ gaue any) doth bind, whether both kinds be neces∣sarie for the maintenance of mans soule in grace, or no; but the Jnstitution in both kinds, doth not binde further than the thing instituted, to wit, Communion vnder both kinds is necessarie for the maintaining of spirituall life, [ D] for which, one kind being sufficient, as I haue shewed, Christs Institution of both kinds, doth not inforce the vse of both. If God should haue commanded the vse both of meate and drinke, euery man should be bound, not onely to eate, but also to drinke, though he had no necessitie thereof; but now seeing God hath not giuen such a Precept, a man that can liue by meate without euer drinking, is not bound [ E] to drinke, non obstante, that God did institute both ea∣ting and drinking for the preseruation of life in euerie man.

ANSWER. [ A]

The Councell of Constance is iustly censured, for presu∣ming to alter and disanull the ordinance of Christ a 1.34; for if it be flagitious amongst men to alter and contradict the lawfull Will of a Testator, Galat. 3.15. shall it not be much more vn∣lawfall to alter the Testament of the Sonne of God, who dis∣posed to the common people his Bloud, as well as his Bodie, saying, Drinke ye all of this, Math. 26, 27. and except yee eate the flesh, and drinke the bloud of the man, &c. Ioh. 6.53.

And the words of the said Synod are most presumptious, [ B] * 1.35 for this they pronounce, Although Christ, after supper, instituted and administred to his Disciples vnder both kindes, &c. And although in the Primitiue Chruch, this Sacrament was receiued of Beleeuers in both kinds, yet notwithstanding, the contrarie custome for Laicks to receiue in one kind, is with good reason brought in, and they are Heretickes which hold this, sacrilegious or vn∣lawfull.

But what are these men in comparison of Christ and his [ C] Apostles, and of the Fathers of the Primitiue Church? If men may thus twit Christ and his Apostles, what shall become of all religion? The sole and totall rule to guide the Church in the matter of the holy Eucharist, is Christs Institution and pra∣ctise, recorded by the Euangelists, and testified by the Apostles, and the Primitiue Church in their doctrine and practise fol∣lowed this rule (as some of our learned Aduersaries ingeni∣ously confesse a 1.36.) If therefore Christ Iesus and his Apostles, and after these, the Primitiue Church administred the Communi∣on [ D] to lay people in both kinds (as this Synod confesseth;) and on the contraie, nothing is extant in holy Writ, or in the monu∣ments of the Fathers, to testifie that Christ and his Apostles retracted or altered this first practise: What audacious sacri∣ledge was it in the Prelates of Constance, vpon their owne pri∣uate and childish b 1.37 reasons, to cancell Christs last Will and Te∣stament, and to violate the sacred precept and ordinance of the Sonne of God?

But our Aduersarie laboureth by a distinction of Institution [ A] and Precept, to plaister the vlcerous Doctrine of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Constance, saying, or implying, That although Christ did in∣stitute the holy Eucharist in two kinds, yet he gaue no precept for the vse of it in two kinds. But this plaister of sig-leaues healeth not the wound, for there is both an institution and a precept for both kinds, and more expressely for the cup than for the bread: for Christ said expressely and literally, Drinke yee all of this, whereas he said not so literally and expressely, eat yee all of this. Besides, his institution is a vertuall and inter∣pretatiue [ B] precept, as appeareth by S. Paul 1. Cor. 11.23. And Christ did institute the Eucharist in two kinds, that people might receiue and vfe it in two kinds.

Also, if the manner of the institution prooueth not the manner of the vse, then the Eucharist may be vsed in another manner (I meane in things substantiall) than as it was instituted: and if this, then it may be vsed in wine onely without bread, or in broth, or in flesh, for we haue no direction or rule for the manner, of greater authoritie than the institution.

Lastly, diuine institution doth not only signifie an action of God, whereby he giueth being vnto things, with reference to [ C] their end, (in which manner the Iesuit sinisterly defineth it a 1.38) but it signifieth also a decree, rule, precept, and information, concerning the vse and practise of that which God hath ordai∣ned. Now our Sauiour, when he ordained the holy Eucharist, in regard of the being and entitie thereof, he withall conioy∣ned the vse of the same as a necessarie condition, to make it operatiue and effectuall to his people. For euen as in Baptisme, although the Word and Element constitute the Sacrament, in regard of the definition b 1.39, yet the same is no Baptisme c 1.40 to [ D] vs, vntill the Word & Water be applied to the subiect by ablu∣tion: so likewise in the holy Eucharist, the words and ele∣ments make the definition, but the vse and application, accor∣ding to the manner taught by Christ, giues it a Sacramentall vertue and operation in respect of vs d 1.41.

IESVIT. §. 3. [ E] Communion vnder one kind, not against the substance of the Sacrament.

A Sacrament of the new Testament, being a visible efficatious signe of inuisible grace, foure things

are necessarie to concurre to the substantiall constitution [ A] thereof, which I will set downe in order, and together shew that they are all found in the Eucharist giuen vnder one kind.

First, there is required some element, that is a visible and sensible thing or action, without which, no Sacrament can subsist, tearmed by Diuines Materia Sacramenti. This substantiall part is not wanting in the Sacrament giuen in one kind, in which kind there is consecrated bread, visible and sensible in the accidents thereof, and manducation also, [ B] an action visible and appar ant to sence.

ANSVVER.

THis quadripartite argument (at least in the three formost branches) is meerly sophistical, & indeed against common sence: as if one should question, whether a man without legs or armes were a perfect entire man, according to the first creation of mankind, & the perpetual succeeding law of nature, [ C] not erring? The Iesuit should answere thus: This is a suffici∣ent and perfect man, for the other members which he hath, as head, brest, backe, &c. are not of the substance of humane na∣ture. In my replie, I need adde no more, but smile. And yet to answere his particulars: First in euerie Sacrament there is re∣quired not onely a sensible action, but also a visible and materi∣all signe a 1.42, and therefore (to speake by the way) some of the seuen which Romists number in their List or Kalender, are no Sacraments. But in the holy Eucharist there is a double vi∣sible element, and materiall visible signe b 1.43, to wit, Bread and [ D] Wine, Math. 26.26, 27. Luc. 22. 19, 20. 1. Cor. 11.23.25. and these outward elements being two in number, and diuided the one from the other, were distinctly and seuerally distributed by our Sauiour, and were receiued by the communicants apart, the one of them after the other: and although they make but one Sacrament in regard of the definition, as similarie and dis∣similarie parts make but one bodie, yet there is a diuersitie and pluralitie both in their matter and forme c 1.44, and a reason why they must be two, and not one indiuiduall signe.

IESVIT. [ A]

The second thing required to the substance of the Sa∣crament, is, Verbum, the Word; that is, a forme of speech, shewing the diuine and supernaturall purpose, vnto which the element is consecrated. Neither is that part wanting in the Sacrament giuen vnder one kind, which is consecrated by the words of Christ, This is my bodie: and the Theo∣logicall [ B] Principle taken out of S. Augustine verified, * 1.45 Accedit verbum ad elementum & fit Sacramentum.

ANSWER.

As the outward elements are two in number, so likewise a double act of blessing and consecration must passe vpon them a 1.46; for otherwise, that part which wanteth benediction, is not a sa∣cramentall signe, but a common creature: and if any signe be omitted, then the Sacrament wanteth integritie of parts. [ C]

IESVIT.

The third thing is signification, euerie Sacrament sig∣nifying some diuine effect of grace, which God worketh by the application thereof; and the sensible signe, euen by nature hath as S. Augustine noteth, some proportion and * 1.47 analagie to signifie that diuine effect, which to produce it [ D] is assumed by Gods omnipotencie as an Instrument. This * 1.48 sacred signification which the holy Eucharist hath, is of three kinds, and all three are found in the Sacrament giuen vnder one kind. First, this Sacrament is a signe of spiritu∣all food, for the nourishment and refection of the soule, which signification is manifestly found in Communion vn∣der one kind, for the Eucharist doth signifie this effect of spirituall nutrition, because it is a signe of Christ the Bread [ E] of Life, the food of Angels, the fountaine of grace: but by the sole forme of bread, Christ is signified as present ac∣cording to his most sacred bodie, and consequently as most

sufficient to feed and refresh the Soule. Another significa∣tion [ A] of this Sacrament, is vnion and coniunction betweene the Faithfull, as being members of the same Bodie where∣of Christ is Head, and fellow members one with another, as S. Paul declares: which coniunction, the Sacrament in * 1.49 the forme of Bread, doth signifie. For Bread being a com∣pound of many graines of Wheat, massed together in one Loafe, and also made of Flower and Water mingled one with another, signifies the perfect vnion, both of the [ B] Church with Christ, and of the Faithfull that are in the Church one with another; as S. Paul testifies, Vnum cor∣pus * 1.50 sumus quotquot de vno Pane participamus; where he makes no mention of Wine, the Sacrament in the forme of Bread being alone able to shew and worke this signification.

This Sacrament doth also signifie the Passion and Death of our Sauiour, which Death and Passion is shew∣ed and represented by Communion vnder one kind. For [ C] receiuing the Sacrament in the forme of Wine onely, wee haue a sufficient ground to remember the Bloud of Christ, that was in his Passion shed and seperated from his Bo∣die. Likewise, by participating of the consecrated Bread, wee may liuely conceiue the Bodie of Christ, as it was de∣priued of the most precious Bloud, by the effusion thereof on the Crosse: whereupon Christ (as S. Paul testifies) did * 1.51 after the consecration of each kind, particularly recom∣mend [ D] the memorie of his Passion, as knowing that in each of them alone, was a sufficient Monument and me∣moriall thereof.

ANSWER.

Significations may be found in Types and figures, being no Sacraments; as in a Vine and Branches, a naturall Humane Bo∣die, a materiall House, or Temple, a Lambe led before the shea∣rer, [ E] and the like: but yet, because they are otherwise in the Sacrament, both in regard of a more perfect and liuely repre∣sentation, and also because a speciall Promise of Diuine assi∣stance and grace is annexed to the Sacramentall signes, vsed and receiued, according to Christs Institution, which belon∣geth

not to other signes and figures, therefore it is inconse∣quent, [ A] to say one Element receiued alone, signifies as much in substance, as both: Ergo, the vse of one Element, is as profita∣ble and effectuall, as the vse and reception of both.

But if the obiection be reduced to forme, the defect will be more apparent.

If there is the same signification, of one single Element, which there is of both, then there is the same benefit obtained by receiuing one, which is obtained by receiuing both.

But there is the same signification of one single Element, which [ B] there is of both, to wit, spirituall Food, vnion of the Faithfull, and Christs passion: Ergo,

There is the same benefit obtayned, by receiuing in one kind, as in both.

I answer: First, denying the consequence of the Maior Pro∣position. For although there were the same signification in one Element, which is of both, yet there is not equall benefit rea∣ped by receiuing one, as is reaped by receiuing both; because the promise of Grace is annexed to the receiuing both, and [ C] not to the receiuing of one without the other: for when a pro∣mise is made vpon condition of a duty to be performed, the promise is not fulfilled, but vpon obseruing the condition. Now Christ hauing instituted the Sacrament as a seale of his Couenant, and appointed the same to be receiued in both kinds (as his Institution shewes) a 1.52 the Church cannot expect that Christ should fulfill his promise, in giuing his flesh and blood by the Sacrament, vnlesse the Church obserue his ordinance, and doe that which he appointed. Also, obedience is better [ D] than Sacrifice, 1. Sam. 15. 22. but when we administer and receiue in both kinds, we obey Christ, saying, Drinke ye all of this; and we disobey, when we doe otherwise. Therefore al∣though there were the same signification of one Element, which is of both, yet the same benefit is not reaped by recei∣uing one, which is obtained by receiuing both.

Secondly, to the assumption I answer, that there is a more perfect and liuely representation b 1.53 of spirituall feeding and refection, and of coniunction of the faithfull, and of Christs [ E] death and Sacrifice vpon the crosse, by both the signes, than by one: and pouring out of the wine c 1.54, doth in a cleerer manner represent and signifie the effusion of Christs bloud, and also the separation of his body and soule; and there is a more perfect

* 1.55 similitude of nourishment in Bread and Wine a 1.56 together, than [ A] in Bread alone, Eccles. 4. 9. so likewise two Elements repre∣sent more than one, and nourish more than one, and vnite more than one. Otherwise, if the representation of one Element, were equall to the representation of both, to what purpose should our Sauiour institute a Sacrament in two kinds, which (according to Papists, who will seeme wiser than God) b 1.57 is as sufficient in one kind, as in both?

IESVIT.

The fourth thing required to the substance of a Sacra∣ment, is Causalitie, to wit, to worke in the soule the Spi∣rituall effects it signifies. This Causalitie cannot be wanting [ C] to the Sacrament vnder one kind, wherein is contayned the fountaine of Spirituall life. For, the cause why the Sacra∣ment in both kinds giueth grace, and refresheth the soule, is, That Christ is assistant vnto them, bound by his promise at the presence of sensible signes, to worke the proportiona∣ble spirituall effects in disposed soules. But Christ is in the Sacrament vnder the forme of Bread, and he is able through infinite power, and bound by inuiolable promise, to [ D] worke the effect of grace, preseruing vnto life eternall, the worthy participant of this Sacrament, vnder the forms * 1.58 of Bread, Qui manducat hunc panem viuet in aeter∣num. Not any doubt then may be made but the Sacrament in one kind is full, entire, compleate in substance; and by participation thereof, prepared consciences doe receiue the benefite of celestiall fauour, that conserueth the life of the soule, with daily increase in perfection. [ E]

ANSVVER.

The summe of this obiection is:

There is the same power of causing Grace, in one signe receiued

alone, as in both; because Christ, the Fountaine of Grace, is re∣ceiued [ A] in one signe alone, Ioh. 6. 51.

Therefore the receiuing of one signe alone, is as sufficient, and profitable, as the sumption of both.

The Antecedent of this Argument is denyed. And the Scripture, Ioh. 6. 51. saith not, Whosoeuer eateth Sacramentall Bread, without Wine, shall liue for euer; but if any eat this Bread which came downe from Heauen, to wit, Christ Iesus in∣carnate a 1.59, shall liue for euer. And then it followeth, Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, you shall not [ B] haue life in you, Ioh. 6.53. Now let the Romist chuse which Exposition hee pleaseth. If our Sauiour, in these last words, speaketh of Sacramentall and Spirituall eating ioyntly, then Communion in both kinds is necessarie to life eternall; and if he speake of Spirituall eating only, by Faith, then this Scrip∣ture prooueth not the necessitie of receiuing eyther Bread or Wine b 1.60, and much lesse prooueth it, that there is the power of causing Grace, in receiuing Bread alone.

IESVIT. §. 4. Communion vnder one kind, not [ D] against Christ his Precept.

ALthough Communion vnder both kinds pertaine not to the substance of the Sacrament; yet if Christ did specially command the same, we are bound to that ob∣seruance, and should by Communion vnder one kind, sinne not against his Sacrament and Institution, but against a speciall Diuine Precept. [ E]

ANSWER.

WHen Christ instituted the Sacrament, he prouided and prescribed two materiall Elements, and not one one∣ly, or none; and he sanctified and distributed both,

and with his Institution and Practise, he conioyned a Precept; [ A] Doe this in remembrance of me: Drinke ye all of this. Saint Paul likewise saith, Let a man prooue himselfe, and so let him eate of this Bread, and drinke of this Cup: and the practise of the holy Apo∣stles in their dayes, and of the successours of the Apostles; and Saint Pauls owne practise appeareth, 1. Cor. 10.16. & cap. 11.26. and he describeth Communicating, by taking the Cup, as a most noble part, saying, Yee cannot drinke the cup of the Lord and the cup of deuils, 1. Cor. 10.21. Iustin Martir, who borders * 1.61 vpon the Apostles, saith, That Christians in his age, distributed the sanctified Bread and Wine, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to euery one present: and [ B] he addeth further, that the Apostles taught, That Iesus comman∣ded * 1.62 them to doe thus. Saint Chrysostome saith a 1.63, That whereas in the old Law there was a difference betweene Priests and Laicks in commu∣nicating of Victimes; in the New Testament it is otherwise, for one Bodie and one Cup is ministred to all. This practise continued as a Law, more than a thousand yeeres after Christ. And Hai∣mo b 1.64 (who liued in the yeere 850.) saith, That in his dayes, all the people receiued out of the Cup, the Blood of Christ. And Paschasius c 1.65 after him, saith, That the Flesh, or Bread, is not law∣fully receiued, without the Cup or Blood. [ C]

But whatsoeuer our Sauiour himselfe, and his Apostles, and their successours, and the antient Church, by perpetuall succes∣sion, taught and practised a thousand yeeres and vpward, yea, euen the Latine Church it selfe, and the Easterne Churches c 1.66 to this day; the Romish generation exalting it selfe aboue God, not onely presumeth to commit Sacriledge at home, but it cen∣sureth [ D] the followers of Christs Testament of damnable He∣resie d 1.67.

Now, that they may with some colour aduance their owne Tradition against the Ordinance of Christ, they prie into euery corner, and inuent friuolous Glosses and Pretexts, as [ E] wee shall further perceiue, by that which followeth in our Ad∣uersaries Discourse.

IESVIT. [ A]

Hence wee may probably inferre, That Christ gaue no speciall Precept thereof, because Christ hath commanded no more concerning the vse of the Eucharist, than what by the substance of the Institution and nature of the Sacra∣ment we are bound vnto; leauing accidentall circumstan∣ces belonging thereunto, to be ordained by the Apostles and Pastours of the Church, as S. Augustine noteth, saying, * 1.68 Our Lord did not appoint in what order the Sacrament of [ B] the Eucharist was to be taken afterward, but left authori∣tie to make such appointments vnto his Apostles, by whom he was to dispose, and order his Church: So clearely doth S. Augustine speake, that Christ gaue no commandement to his Church concerning the vse of the Sacrament, besides such as are contained in the substance of the Institution of the Sacrament, of which kinde, Communion vnder both [ C] kinds, cannot be, as hath beene prooued, which will farther appeare, by pondering the places alleadged to prooue a Precept.

ANSVVER.

Ecclesiasticall power, to adde, detract, or alter any thing a∣bout Sacraments, is confined to things adiaphorous: and Saint Augustine a 1.69, in the place obiected, speaketh expresly of these: but the materiall parts of Sacraments, belong to their sub∣stance, [ D] euen as the matter of the heauens is of the substance of the heauens, and the matter of the Scripture is of the substance of the Scripture.

And if in the holy Eucharist the Element of Wine is not of the substance thereof, then the Eucharist may bee administred without wine; also the kinde of the Element may be changed, and milke or broath, substituted in the place of wine; and the Communion may be celebrated in wine without bread. In all compounded things, the moitie of the matter, is the moitie of the substance: and whatsoeuer Iesuited Romists teach, I see [ E] not how their Laickes can truely say, that they haue at any time in all their liues beene partakers of this Sacrament; for if halfe a man be not a man, then likewise halfe a Communion is not a Communion.

If they except, That they receiue the Blood of Christ [ A] Consecutiue, or by Concomitancie: I reply, This Answere sol∣ueth not the difficultie, for I dispute of the materiall Element, and the direct receiuing thereof, and not of receiuing the blood of Christ spiritually, or any other way. Now the wine is a moitie of the substantiall outward matter of the Eucharist, and therefore if they receiue not the wine, they receiue not the one halfe of the substantiall outward matter of the Eucharist; and consequently, they receiue no Eucharist: for as the poope of a ship, the prowe being broken away, is no ship; and as halfe a cloake is not a garment to keepe a man warme: so likewise, [ B] halfe a Communion is no Sacrament.

And concerning the being of Christs Blood in the bread by Concomitancie: I answere, If this were granted, they receiue not Christs blood Sacramentally, but some other way: for no∣thing is receiued Sacramentally, but that which is caused by the words of consecration: Ergo, It is not there Sacramentally, and consequently it is not receiued Sacramentally.

IESVIT.

The words of Christ, Doe this in remembrance of [ C] me, doe no wayes inferre a Precept of both kinds. First, * 1.70 because he said, Doe this in remembrance of me, onely of the Sacrament in forme of bread; of the forme of wine, not absolutely, but conditionally, Doe this as often as you drinke, in memorie of me, that the Aduersaries of the Church, might not haue any the least plausible shew, to complaine of her neglecting Gods Precept. For this Pre∣cept, Doe this, being the onely Precept giuen by Christ to [ D] his Church, as shall afterwards appeare, and giuen abso∣lutely of the forme of Bread; conditionally of the forme of Wine; there is no colour to accuse the Church of doing against Christs Precept, by Communion vnder one kinde.

ANSWER.

The first reason vpon which you presume, that our Sauiours words, Doe this in remembrance of me, are not Preceptiue, in re∣gard [ E] of Communion in both kinds, is an emptie shadow, with∣out substance of matter. Our Sauiour in your Tenet, saith not, Doe this as often as you Lay men communicate, but whensoe∣uer you receiue the cup and drinke, then doe it in remembrance

of me. But if this be the whole sence, then Christs words must [ A] be resolued against sence in this manner.

As often as you Lay people drinke, which needeth neuer to be done by you, (according to Romish Diuinitie) Doe this nothing, in remembrance of me. Secondly, Quotiescunque bi∣beritis, as often as you drinke, maketh not the Precept conditio∣nall, in respect of the cup, more than of the bread: for in the very next verse it followeth, Quotiescunque ederitis panem hunc, as often as you shall eate this bread: and therefore, if as often as you shall drinke, restraineth the speech in regard of the cup, then as often as you shall eate, restraineth the Precept in regard [ B] of the bread. And Haimo saith, Idem sensus est, &c. There is the same sence of, Doe this, being referred to the cup, as of Doe this, being referred to the bread. But Doe this, referred to the bread, is a Precept: Ergo, Doe this, referred to the cup, is also a Pre∣cept. But the Romanist, infatuated with this conceit, croweth as followeth, That the Aduersaries of the Church might not haue the least plausible shew, &c. The Vermine is deceiued, in calling vs, Aduersaries of the Church; for wee are fast friends to the true Catholicke Church, and we are Aduersaries to Romists, an vnsound Church, no otherwise than Saint Paul was to the [ C] Galathians, when he said, Am I therefore become your enemie, be∣cause I tell you the truth, Gallat. 4. 16. And touching the fancie of this Obiectour, I adde, That euen as when Saint Paul said, 1. Cor. 10. 31. Whether yee eate or drinke, or whatsoeuer thing else ye doc, doe all to the glorie of God: If these words should be resolued in this manner, As often as ye eate and drinke, doe this to the glorie of God; the placing of this word, As often, restraineth not the speech from being a Precept: so likewise, when Saint Paul saith, As often as ye shall drinke, doe this in remembrance of me; this manner of speaking, altereth not his words from being a [ D] commandement.

IESVIT.

Secondly, suppose Christ spake these imperatiue words, Doe this, after the giuing of the Cup, yet are they to be vn∣derstood with this restriction, Doe this, that is, all things that belong to the essence and substance of this Action, in [ E] memorie of me: for if we extend the Precept, Doe this, further than the substance of the Action, vnto the Acci∣dentarie circumstances thereof, in which, Christ did then institute and gaue the Sacrament, many absurdities will

follow. By this rule, wee must alwayes celebrate and re∣ceiue [ A] the Eucharist after supper, as Christ did; especially, seeing this circumstance of after supper, was chosen of Christ, as being verie proper and mysterious: for there∣by is signified, that this is the sacrifice which succeedes the Paschall Lambe that was offered in the euening: the sacri∣fice, whereof the royall Prophet saieth in the person of Christ, Eleuatio manuum mearum Sacrificium ves∣pertinum, The Sacrifice instituted in the Euening of the [ B] World, to continue vntill the end thereof. We should also by this rule, be bound stil to celebrate in Azime, that is, vn∣leauened Bread, in which Christ did celebrate and giue the Sacrament, saying, Do this: which circumstance was al∣so mysticall, signifying the puritie of our Sauiours virgi∣nall bodie and person, which was without any leauen of finne. And befides, the Priest might not giue the Sacrament vnto any but such whose feet he had washedafore, seeing [ C] Christ gaue the Eucharist with this preparatiue Circum∣stance: which doubtlesse is verie pertinent, and myste∣rious, to signifie with what puritie of conscience men ought to approach vnto the sacred Table. If to bind men to obserue these circumstances of our Sauiours Action (though mysterious and Sacramentall) were absurd (as without doubt it is most absurd) then we must not extend the Precept, Doe this, to the Circumstances of Christs Action; but acknowledge that the Precept, Do this, onely [ D] includes the doing of that which pertaines to the substance of the Sacrament, and so not to the giuing of both kinds, the substance thereof being entire in one onely kind, as hath beene prooued.

ANSVVER.

This precept is not extended to things adiaphorous, and ac∣cidentall circumstances, such as was the time, after supper; the [ E] place, and vpper roome; the persons, men onely, and no wo∣men; the qualitie of the bread, vnleauened; the gesture of the receiuers, the preuious washing of feet, &c. but it commandeth onely that which was of the substance of the holy Eucharist.

And the sacramentall signes of Bread and Wine, or such as [ A] hath formerly beene prooued, pag. 482. &c.

IESVIT.

The second Text, much vrged for the giuing of the Cup vnto all men, is the words of our Sauiour, Bibite ex hoc omnes, wherein some note our Sauiours prouidence, saying, That he foreseeing that some would take the Cup from the Laitie, granting them the consecrated Bread, said [ B] of the Supper, Bibite ex hoc omnes; but not of the Bread, Manducate ex hoc omnes. I answere, The words of our Sauiour be plaine, Drinke ye all of this; but the diffi∣cultie is, to whom they are spoken, and who are these all? Luther would haue, all men for whom the bloud of Christ was shed; whence is followes, that as the Bloud of Christ was shed for all men, euen Infidels, Iewes, Turkes, In∣fants, the Cup also should be giuen vnto all these, which to [ C] say were verie absurd. Others restraine the word, All, to the Faithfull, come to the yeares of discretion, who must drinke of the Cup all of them. But what shall we say of them that are by nature abstemij, who cannot indure the tast of any wine, yet are not to be excluded from the Sa∣crament?

Wherefore the trueth is, that these wordes were spo∣ken vnto all the Apostles, and to them All only. And though [ D] it be enough for Catholickes to say it, and put their Ad∣uersaries to prooue their pretended precept, which they call of the eternall King, for the Cup (and so long as they cannot cleerely conuince the contrarie, good reason the word of the Church, defined by Councels, should stand) yet exabū∣danti, we can very probably shew out of the sacred Text, that the particle All, concernes all the Apostles only. First, * 1.71 what one Euangelist saith was commanded vnto all, Bibi∣te ex hoc omnes, Drinke yee all of this; another relates to [ E] haue beene answerably performed by them all, biberunt * 1.72 ex eo omnes, all dranke thereof. But the second All, is re∣strained to all the Apostles, and to them all onely: What

reason then is there to extend the words, Drinke yee all of [ A] this, further than to all the Apostles?

ANSVVER.

That which S. Stephen spake to the vnfaithfull Iewes, Yee do alwaies resist the holy Ghost, Act. 7. 51. is verified in the Pharisees of Rome, for no light of heauenly veritie is so il∣lustrious, which this generation, in fauour of their owne im∣pietie, will not indeauour to cloud.

Is it possible for any thing to be more euident for Commu∣nion [ B] in both kindes, than this precept of Christ, Drinke yee all of this a 1.73? especially when the same is expounded by the im∣mediat practise of our Sauiour, and by the practise of the ho∣ly Apostles, and of the Primitiue Church? But the sonnes of darkenesse, hauing renounced veritie, and chosen the way of errour, blunder and grope in the cleere light, and verba recta ac veritatis luce fulgentia, tortuosis interpretationibus obscurare & de∣prauare moliuntur (as S. Augustine b 1.74 long since spake of the Pe∣lagians.) The Iesuits euasion or starting hole is, the words of Christ, Math. 26.27. Drinke yee all of this, containe a precept [ C] not generall to all Communicants, but speciall or singular, to the Apostles onely. The reasons of this assertion are: First, if the precept were generall, then all men for whom the Bloud of Christ was shed, euen Infidels, Iewes, Turkes, and Infants must receiue the Cup. A profound obiection, and such as will take away the Bread as well as the Cup from Lay people. For at the instant, when Christ ordained and administred the holy Eucharist, none were present (for ought we know) but only the Apostles. And there is extant a speciall rule touching people of riper yeares, and for Christians onely to receiue this Sacra∣ment, [ D] 1. Cor. 11.28. &c. cap. 10.17.21. and Cardinall Caietan c 1.75 concludeth the same out of our Sauiors precept, Math. 26.26.

The consequence of this Obiection, to wit, the Precept of [ E] Christ, is not generall in respect of all Christians rightly dispo∣sed; because when the Eucharist was first administred, and these words vttered, none were present but the Apostles, is like vn∣to these which follow. None were present but the Apostles, and the words were in speciall directed to them, when Christ

said, Watch and pray least yee fall into temptation, Math. 26.41. Er∣go, [ A] this precept concerneth the Apostles onely, and not Lay men. Also when our Sauiour said, Math. 18.3. Vnlesse yee bee conuerted, and become as little children, yee shall not enter into the kingdome of God, the Apostles onely were present, and the Doctrine was personally pronounced to them alone. Also, Math. 18.9. 15.22. the like is found concerning other do∣ctrines and precepts, and yet these doctrines and precepts are common to all Christians. The Romists (if they were not partiall) could distinguish betweene personall precepts deliue∣red to the Apostles onely (as they were by office Pastors of [ B] the Church) and betweene common precepts, deliuered vnto them as Christians, and as they represented the whole body of the Church.

But the Obiectour addeth, That we are not able to demon∣strate, that this Precept Drinke yee all of this, was common. I answere, First, if that which Christ said to the Apostles, S. Paul spake to the whole multitude of Beleeuers, then Christs words vttered to the Apostles were common: But the first is true, 1. Cor. 11. 28. And S. Hierome a 1.76 inferreth vpon the same, Oportet Coenam dominicam esse communem, quià ille omnibus Discipulis suis [ C] qui aderant, equalitèr tradidit Sacramenta, The Lords Supper ought to be common, because Christ deliuered the Sacraments of his Bodie and Bloud equally to all the Disciples that were present.

Secondly, If Communion in both kinds hath not founda∣tion [ D] in Christs words vttered to the Apostles, then Commu∣nion in one kind wanteth foundation in Christs words and in∣stitution: and if it haue not foundation in Christs words, then it wanteth all foundation; for S. Paul grounds his whole Do∣ctrine, touching the holy Eucharist, vpon our Sauiours words and institution, 1. Cor. 11.23.

Thirdly, If the reason why the Apostles receiued the Cup, was, because they were Priests, then all Priests being present at the communion, ought to receiue in both kinds, although they [ E] administer not; but this is repugnant to the practise of the Romane Church.

Fourthly, It is not certaine that the Apostles were Priests when Christ ordained and administred the Eucharist, for that

they were not Priests, Math. 18. is affirmed by our Aduersa∣ries [ A] a 1.77, and that they were made Priests, Luke 22. by the words Hoc facite, as Bellarmine, Suares, Henriques, Hosius, Canisius, &c. say, can neuer be prooued: for what force is there in Hoc fa∣cite, to conclude Priestly Ordination: and if Hoc facite proo∣ueth Priesthood, then Lay men are made Priests, when the words, Doe this in remembrance of mee, are spoken to them b 1.78, in part, or respectiuely. Hitherto we haue found nothing in our Aduersaries, but Sophistrie of words, and Theomachie against Diuine Institution and Apostolicall Tradition. But to hold correspondence with the rest, the Iesuit addeth: [ B]

IESVIT.

Secondly, These words, Accipite, manducate, bibite, Take, eate, drinke, were certainely spoken vnto the same persons, and they runne so together in rancke, that no man can with probabilitie make the one outrunne the other: But the command, Accipite, which signifies, Take with your hands, (for it is a Precept distinct from Man∣ducate, which is, take with your mouth) was giuen to the [ C] Apostles onely, not vnto all the faithfull; else wee must say, That all Communicants were bound to take the conse∣crated Bread and Cup with their hands: who euer heard of such a Precept in the Christian Church.

ANSWER.

This Argument truely propounded, is, [ D]

All persons commanded to eate, were commanded to take.

None but the Apostles were commanded to take: for if Lay men were commanded to take, they must alwayes receiue the Eu∣charist in their hands, Ergo,

None but the Apostles were commanded to eate.

This Obiection, fighteth against Lay mens receiuing in one kinde, which vntill 〈◊〉〈◊〉 we supposed Papists had permitted, but it seemeth that they will haue the whole vse of the Sacra∣ment depend vpon the Popes deuotion and pleasure. [ E]

But touching the Argument, I denie the Assumption: for Lay men were commanded to take, that is, to receiue, at least into their mouthes, and then to manducate, that is, to chew or swallow, and to let the Element receiued, passe into their

stomack a 1.79. To take with the hand is agreeable to Christs man∣ner [ A] of Administration b 1.80, and it was vsed in the Primitiue Church, but the same is not of absolute necessitie, for some Communicants may want hands, or the naturall vse thereof: but to receiue into the mouth, and then to manducate or drinke, is commanded. The Iesuit imagineth, that all taking, is by the hand, and thus he prooueth himselfe to be neither good Gram∣marian, nor Diuine. Virgill saith, Illos porticibus rex accipiebat in amplis: where, accipio is to entertaine. S. Paul saith, Per quem ac∣cepimus gratiam, Rom. 1. 5. By whom we haue receiued grace and Apostleship, ca. 8.15. Ye haue receiued (〈◊〉〈◊〉) the spi∣rit [ B] of Adoption. The Angell said, Ioseph thou sonne of Dauid, feare not to take Mary thy wife. Math. 1. 20. His Bishopricke, let ano∣ther man take. Act. 1.20.

IESVIT.

The third reason is, because there was a peculiar and personall cause, Why Christ should giue that particular Councellor Admonition (for the imperatiue word doth not euer signifie a precept, but often an aduise, or a permission, as your Maiestie well knowes) to his Apostles, at that time, to wit, because he would haue them all, not onely drinke of [ D] his bloud, but also would haue them drinke of the same Cup, without filling and consecrating the same anew, this is more manifest in the Protestants opinion, who thinke the Chalice whereof Christ said in S. Mathew, Bibite ex hoc omnes, * 1.81 to be the same whereof he said in S. Luke, Accipite, diui∣dite * 1.82 inter vos, non enim bibam amplius de hoc geni∣mine vitis: For this being supposed, the words Drinke ye all of this, imports the same, as Diuide this Cup amongst you. [ E] But, Diuide this Cup amongst you, was a personall precept, giuen to all the Apostles; importing that euery one should drinke but a part of that Cup, and that also in such mea∣sure

as the Cup, without new filling and consecration, might [ A] suffice for all to drinke therof, What? All men in the world? Or all Christians that should succeede them to the Worlds end? Christ neuer intended that one Cup for all, nor is it indeed diuided or parted with vs, but the Apostles dranke it vp amongst them. Wherefore referring my saying to your Maiesties learned censure, I conclude, that to me it seemes cleere, that the precept or rather direction, Drinke ye all of this, was but personall, confined vnto the number of [ B] all there then present.

ANSWER.

The Precept, Drinke ye all of this (saith the Iesuit) was per∣sonall, and concerned the Apostles onely, because our Sauiour commanded them All to drinke of the same Cup without fil∣ling and consecrating it anew. But, if Drinke ye all of this, had imported a generall duty, then Christ could not haue stinted them to one single Cup.

This obiection is grounded vpon a false Principle, which is, [ C] all Precepts are Personall in regard of their substance, wherein any circumstance is Personall. Nothing can be more absurd and false than this Position: for in the Decalogue it selfe, some things were Personall, as appeareth by the Preface, Exod. 20.2. Likewise in many generall or common Preepts of the old and new Testament, some personall circumstances may be noted, and yet the substance of the Commandement is generall. 1. Cro. 28.9. Pro. 30.1.3. Math. 18.2.3. Ioh. 13.13, 14.

Also we may consider a twofold vnitie of the Cup: Specifical, [ D] and Indiuiduall; to drinke of the same indiuiduall Cup, euen as to eate of the same indiuiduall loase, is an accidentall circum∣stance. But to drinke, and receiue the common kind, to wit, the fruit of the Wine, this is the substance of the Commandement. If we parallell the Obiection, the defect is manifestly ridicu∣lous. It is not of the substance of Christs Commandement, That lay People shall receiue consecrated Bread at the Communion, because the Bread which Christ gaue his Disciples, was of one Indiuiduall loafe, but the bread of one indiuiduall loafe will not suffice all men in the world, therefore the Precept of receiuing [ E] consecrated Bread was Personall, and concerned the Apostles only. Now if a man should vse this Argument, which in sub∣stance is the same with the Iesuits, he had in my opinion, more cause to blush for shame, than to glory before the Presence of a most iudicious and learned King, as this vaine Boaster doth.

IESVIT. [ A]

Another text of Scripture some vrge to prooue, That Communion vnder one kind is commanded, to wit, the fa∣mous place out of the sixt chapter of S. Iohn, Except ye * 1.83 eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man, you shall not haue life in you. Where our Saui∣our vnder the penaltie of loosing eternall life, commands [ B] not onely eating but also drinking, Perchance your Maie∣stie doth not stand much vpon this, as not beleeuing that chapter of S. Iohn to concerne the Sacramentall sumpti∣on of our Sauiours Flesh, as also some learned Catholikes hold. Not withstanding, though we grant that Chapter to concerne the eating and drinking in the Sacrament, as most of the Fathers teach, yet this obiection may be easily satis∣fied by the former Principles: for as we distinguish in the [ C] Sacrament the substance and the manner, The substance being to receiue the body of Christ, the manner in both kinds by formall eating and drinking: so the same distin∣ction is to be made in our Sauiours Precept about this Sa∣crament. For howsoeuer his words may sound of the man∣ner of receiuing in both kinds, yet his intention is to com∣mand no more than the substance, to wit, that we really receiue his body and bloud, which may be done vnder one kind. This is made cleere by the Precept by our Sauiour gi∣uen [ D] about another Sacrament, to wit, Baptisme; where, though his words seeme to define the manner, yet his mind was but to determine the substance: He saith to his Apo∣stles, Baptise all nations in the name of the Father, * 1.84 and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost: To baptise, signifies the same that the Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, not to wet or sprinkle with water, but to put and plunge into the Water by immersion, bathing them in water; in [ E] which respect, Baptisme is tearmed by the Apostle, the La∣uer or Bath of the renouation of the holy Ghost. And yet * 1.85 because the Church teacheth Baptisme by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or

sprinkling to be sufficient and substantiall Baptisme, no [ A] lesse than Baptisme by immersion, Christians must and doe so interpret the words of Christ (Baptize) that is, plunge into the water all Nations, to command onely cleansing and washing in substance, not the manner thereof by im∣mersion, as his words may seeme to import, and the Primi∣tiue Church did the first sixe hundred yeares practise. Jn this like sort, the words, Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke of his bloud, you [ B] shall not haue life in you, be preceptiue no further than they signifie reall receiuing of his body and bloud; not the manner of both kinds, as may appeare by the intention of the Commaundement. For as Christ gaue this Precept of Eating and Drinking, onely to the end that wee might haue life in vs; so likewise he meant to command the same no further than it was ne∣cessary to this end. But eating formally the body of Christ [ C] vnder the forme of Bread, and vertually and implicit∣ly his bloud, as contayned within his Sacred body, suf∣fiseth that we may haue life in vs, as he promiseth in the same place, He that eateth this Bread shall liue for * 1.86 euer: What necessitie then is there to vnderstand this Precept of formall receiuing in both kinds?

But further I adde the coniunctiue particle (&, and) signifies disjunctiuely the same that (vel, or) as Argentum * 1.87 [ D] & aurum non est mihi, and particularly of this Sacra∣ment, He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily, eateth * 1.88 and drinketh damnation: the sence is disjunctiue, eateth or drinketh vnworthily. In this sort the words of Christ, Except you eate and drinke, is to be vnderstood disjun∣ctiuely, Except you eate the flesh or drinke the bloud * 1.89 of the Sonne of man, you shall not haue life in you. Which disjunctiue sence to be the sence intended in this place, may be prooued, because else Christ should be contra∣ry [ E] to himselfe: for seeing in the ver. 59. of this Chapter, He promiseth life eternall to eating onely, Qui manducat panem viuit in aeternum, If in the foure and fiftie

verse of the same Chapter, he require vnto himselfe life e∣uerlasting, [ A] eating and drinking both, he should in the space of a few lines speake contraries. And because this is impossible, wee interprete the place disiunctiuely, vnlesse you eate or drinke, &c.

ANSWER.

Cardinall Bellarmine a 1.90 affirmeth, that the Text of Saint Iohn cap. 6. is to be expounded of the holy Eucharist; and not one∣ly [ B] of spirituall receiuing, but also of Sacramentall eating and drinking the Bodie and Blood of Christ: And hee saith, that although some Catholickes, to wit, Gabriel Biel b 1.91, Cusanus c 1.92, Caietan d 1.93, Ruard Tapper e 1.94, Hesselius f 1.95, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 g 1.96, expound this Chapter of spirituall Receiuing, yet other Pontificians hold, as himselfe doth h 1.97: with Bellarmine also agree Suares i 1.98, Vasques k 1.99, Gregorie Valence l 1.100, Salmeron, Barradius, &c.

From this Exposition, it followeth, That Communicants when they partake the holy Eucharist, ought to receiue in both kindes; for our Sauiour saith, Iohn 6.54. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, &c. 55. My flesh is meate indeed, and my blood is drinke indeed, 56. Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 53. Except ye eate the flesh, and drinke the blood of the Sonne of man, &c.

Our Aduersarie, after some staggering about the place, Ioh. 6. condescendeth at last to Bellarmines Tenet, and admitting that [ D] Saint Iohn treateth of Sacramentall Receiuing, answeres the former places, by a distinction of substance and manner, saying, That howsoeuer Christs words may sound of the manner of Receiuing in both kinds; yet his intention is, to command no more than the substance; and he prooueth this by the example of Baptisme, wherein, although according to the letter, dip∣ping and plunging into the water is required, yet according to the Intention, sprinckling is sufficient.

But heere I demand of the Romist, Whether any thing tou∣ching [ E] the manner of receiuing the Eucharist, is deliuered in Christs words or not? And if nothing, then our Sauiour trea∣teth not, either of Spirituall or Sacramentall eating or drin∣king, for both these belong to the manner: and if hee speake

about the manner, then the Blood of Christ must be Sacramen∣tally [ A] receiued, as well as his Bodie: but it is not receiued Sa∣cramentally a 1.101 vnder bread alone, because to receiue Sacramen∣tally, is to receiue vnder the proper and indiuiduall signe, repre∣senting the Blood receiued, which is Wine. And implicite and vertuall receiuing of Christs Blood, is spirituall drinking, and this is performed out of the Sacrament, and not onely in the same.

The last euasion is, That in the words of Christ, Et, is taken for Aut, that is, vnlesse you eate the flesh, or drinke the blood of the Sonne of man, ye haue no life, &c. This poore Cauill, borrowed from Claudius de Saincts b 1.102, is against the letter of the Text: and if it be admitted, then it will follow, That it is not necessarie to drinke the blood of the Sonne of man, implicite∣ly and vertually: and the reason why Christ nameth bread alone, vers. 51. is, in opposition to Manna: for the Sonne of [ C] God descended from heauen by incarnation, and propounded himselfe incarnate, as an obiect of Faith c 1.103, and because he was the spirituall Life, and food of mans soule, by donation of his Word and Grace; and heerein excelled Manna, which was one∣ly corporall bread. But in the sacred Eucharist Christ is repre∣sented, as hauing perfected mans saluation, and this represen∣tation is made by two sensible signes, wherein his suffering of death, by separation of bodie and soule, and of bodie and blood, is visibly proposed: and whosoeuer receiueth him Sacramen∣tally, as he was sacrificed on the Crosse, must receiue him by [ D] both the signes; because in both, and not in one alone, there is a representation of his Passion, and of the effusion of his blood.

As for the Iesuites instance in the manner of Baptising, whe∣ther by plunging or by sprinckling, the same is not to purpose: For in our Question, the Dispute is, about taking away one of the Elements and materiall parts of a Sacrament: in Baptisme onely a circumstance, in the manner of applying and vsing the Element, was altered by the Church. But from alteration of a thing accidentall, or of circumstance, to inferre a libertie to [ E] defalcate a substantiall part, is sophisticall.

IESVIT. §. 5. [ A] Communion vnder one kinde, not against the Practise of the Primitiue CHVRCH.

CErtaine it is, that the Primitiue Church did very of∣ten and frequently vse Communion vnder both kindes, so that Lay men had by prescription a right * 1.104 to receiue in both kindes, yea, they were bound thereunto [ B] by the Obligation of custome, not by Diuine Precept.

ANSWER.

* 1.105 THe Primitiue Church, in all her publicke Assemblies and congregations, administred the holy Eucharist to the people in both kinds perpetually, and not frequently one∣ly, or often (as the Iesait minseth.) And Iustin Martir saith a 1.106, That the Apostles prescribed this, as commanded by Christ: [ C] and Saint Cyprian b 1.107 hath these words, Lex esum sanguinis prohi∣bet, Euangelium precipit vt bibatur; Whereas the old Law for∣bade the eating of blood, the Gospell commandeth to drinke the blood: and in his 63 Epistle, Many Bishops, &c. depart not from that which our Master Christ commanded and per∣formed (Praecepit & iussit) but others of ignorance and sim∣plicitie, In Calice Dominico sanctificando, & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ministrando, In consecrating and ministring the Cup to the people, doe not that which Christ our Lord and God performed and taught. Petrus de Occhagauia saith c 1.108, that the words, Et plebi ministrando, [ D] Deliuering it to the people, are not S^t. Cyprians. But this man went by heare-say, as appeareth both by the elder & later Edi∣tion d 1.109 of Cyprian: And that this was the constant Doctrine of this Father, is manifest by other places cited in the Margen e 1.110. Therefore it is palpably vntrue which the Iesuit venteth, They were bound thereunto by Obligation of Custome, and not by Diuine Precept.

IESVIT. [ A]

Also because the Manichees, being impiously per suaded * 1.111 that wine was the gall of the prince of darknesse, did su∣perstitiously abstaine from the Chalice. The Church in dete∣station * 1.112 of this errour, commaunded, for a time, Communion vnder both kinds: Vpon which ocasion Gelasius Pope made * 1.113 the decree recorded by Gratian, aut integra Sacramenta suscipiant, aut ab integris arceantur. And why, because [ B] such Abstinents, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 qua superstitione docentur a∣stringi, that is were superstitious, not abstaining out of any deuotion, but out of impious persuasion of the impuri∣tie of Gods creature. Wherefore the crime with which some Protestants charge vs, That our receiuing vnder the sole forme of Bread, is to iumpe in opinion with the Ma∣nichees, we may (as Doctor Morton confesseth) reiect as in∣jurious, * 1.114 saying, That it was not the Manichees 〈◊〉〈◊〉 [ C] from wine, but the reason of their for 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that was iudged hereticall. This custome was the cause that Cypri∣an * 1.115 saieth, That the Law 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the eating of bloud, but the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 commaunds the same should be drunke, not only because some Christians, to wit, Priests are bound to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Bloud of Christ, but also because Christ in his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 did 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Sacrament of his Bodie and Bloud in both kinds. Whence grew the custome of the Primitiue Church, to receiue in both kinds, and by custome there grew further, [ D] an Oligation to drinke of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 there were some iust cause of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, as in the sicke, and in some that by nature loathed wine.

ANSVVER.

One errour begets another. It was formerly said, that Com∣munion in both kinds was vsed by the Fathers, as a matter of custome onely, and not because of precept: now it is added, [ E] that this was done only because of the errour of the Manichees. I answere, First, before euer the Manichees appeared in any number a 1.116, Communion in both kinds was in practise, as ap∣peareth by the Apostles, and by Ignatius, Dionysius, Iustin

Martyr, Ireneus, Tertullian, 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉, and Saint Cy∣prian a 1.117. [ A]

Secondly, although Pope 〈◊〉〈◊〉 b 1.118 in his Sermon speaketh of the Manichees, yet Vasques c 1.119 the Iesuit saith, That he com∣manded not the vse of the Cup; because of them, but requi∣red that these Heretickes which feigned themselues Ca∣tholickes, and came to the holy Communion, receiuing the Bread, and taking the Cup into their hands, pretending that they drunke the Wine, and yet did not, should carefully be obserued.

Thirdly, touching the place of Pope Gelasius d 1.120, the same Au∣thor saith e 1.121, That whereas some of his part applie the same to the Manichees, yet this exposition agreeth not with the last branch of the Canon; for therein Gelasius teacheth that the [ C] mysterie of the Eucharist is of that nature in regard of it selfe, that without grieuous sacriledge it cannot be diuided and se∣uered the one part from the other, to wit, because of the insti∣tution and signification. Thus our Aduersarie is confuted, touching Pope Leo and Gelasius, by a most intelligent and lear∣ned Doctour of his owne societie.

IESVIT.

And as this is certaine and granted on our part, so it is no lesse certaine that the Primitiue Church did neuer practise the vse of the Cup, as pertaining to the essentiall integritie of the Sacrament, or as commaunded by diuine precept, but thought the recoiuing vnder one and both [ E] kinds, a thing indifferent. This may be prooued by the con∣sideration of the time since Christs 〈◊〉〈◊〉, from our dayes vpward, whence I gather fiue Arguments.

First, is the confession of our Aduersaries, amongst [ A] whom a Bohemian Protestant doth professe, That hauing * 1.122 the feare of God before his eyes, be dares not censure the Roman Church of Heresie in this point. Hospinian writes that some Protestants confessed that whole christ was re∣ally present, exhibited, and receiued vnder euery kind, and therefore vnder the onely forme of Bread: and that they did not iudge those to do euill that communicated vnder one kind. Melancthon, As to eate, or not to eate Swines flesh, * 1.123 is placed in our power, and athing indifferent, so (saith [ B] he) J iudge of the Eucharist, that they finne not, who know∣ing and beleeuing this libertie, doe vse either part of the figne. And Luther, They finne not against Christ, who vse * 1.124 one kind, seeing Christ doth not commaund to vse it, but hath left it to the will of euerie one. And Hospinian alledg∣eth * 1.125 Luther, affirming, Jt is not needfull to giue both kinds, but the one alone sufficeth: the Church hath power of or∣daining onely one, and the people ought to be content there∣with, [ C] if it be ordained by the Church.

But these testimonies though they may serue to stop the mouth of a clamorous Aduersarie, yet are they not suffici∣ent to satisfie any iuditious man, in regard their Authors were men most vncertaine and various in their Doctrines about Religion, now auerring as Orthodox and diuine Truth, what soone after they fell to abhor as hereticall and impious. [ D]

ANSWER.

Concerning Luther, Melancthon, Iohannes Perzibram, &c. I an∣swere, that your benefactor Coccius (to whom you are perpetu∣ally indebted for your readings) alledgeth some such sayings out of these Authors, but how truely it is vncertaine; for in the ordinarie editions, I find the contrarie deliuered by them a 1.126.

〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 [ A] 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉, 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 made a Booke of Recognitions. And it were more seemely for your selfe to reuoke your errours than to persist in a blind and 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 of Truth.

IESVIT. [ B]

I adde therefore, secondly, the definitions of the three generall Councels celebrated before the breach of Luther from the Romane Church. The Councell of Florence, where∣in * 1.127 were present the Grecian and Armenian Bishops, where 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is defined, that Christ is whole vnder each 〈◊〉〈◊〉. The Councell of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, though they allowed the vse * 1.128 of the Cup 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, defined the lawfulnesse of [ C] Communion vnder one kind. The Councell of Constance gaue * 1.129 example vnto both these former Councels, being the first that defined this truth.

ANSVVER.

You adde nothing of any worth, for the Councels of Con∣stance and Basil were in your owne eyes vncanonical and he ad∣lesse, and are reiected by your selues in diuers articles a 1.130: and [ D] when you prooue (which will be Ad Calendas Graecas) that the three Synods, named by you, were generall Councells, it shall be granted that Communion in one kind is not destitute of ge∣nerall Synodicall late Testimonie.

IESVIT.

The third argument, is the receiued and allowed gene∣rall custome of the Church, which spontaneously euen be∣fore the Councell of Constance, did abstaine from the Cup, [ E] as the said Councell doth acknowledge: which may be proo∣ued by the testimonies of many that liued before the Coun∣cell of Constance. Yea Alexander Halensis (who liued two * 1.131 hundred yeares before the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Constance) sayeth,

That almost euerie where, Lay men receiued vnder the [ A] sole for me of Bread. And venerable Bede doth signifie, * 1.132 That in the Church of England, euer since the first 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of her vnder S. Gregorie, was vsed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vnder one kind for the Laitie: which could neuer haue entred into the Church, without being 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and marked as an Heresie, had not the Church euer held Communion vnder one or both kinds, as a thing of indifferencie. [ B]

ANSWER.

The Greeke Church alwayes receiued in both kinds (as your selues acknowledge) a 1.133 therefore Communion in one kind was at no time an vniuersall Custome. Also Vasques b 1.134 the Iesuit saith, Wee cannot denie, but that euen in the Latine Church, Communion in both kinds was vsed, and had conti∣nuance vntill the age of Thomas Aquinas. Alexander de Hales affirmeth c 1.135, There is more Merit and power of Grace in Communion in both kinds, than in one. [ C]

Lastly, you were guided with that Spirit which is mentio∣ned 3. Kings 22. v. 21. when you affirme, That venerable Bede saith, in the Church of England, euer since her first Conuersion vnder S. Gregorie, Communion vnder one kind was in vse for [ D] the Laitie. First, No such report is found in this Author: Secondly, In one of the Testimonies cited by your selfe, the contrarie is affirmed. For the two Apostles which are repor∣ted to haue spoken to a certaine young Lad, say as follow∣eth d 1.136 [ E] : You must wait vntill the Masse or Communion be en∣ded; and hauing then receiued the holy Food of the Lords Bodie and Bloud, you shall be deliuered from your infirmitie by Death, and exalted to coelestiall ioyes.

IESVIT.

The fourth Argument is drawne from many signes and tokens, that the Primitiue Church did sometimes vse

Communion vnder one kind. First, the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 receiued vn∣der [ A] the onely forme of Bread, as may appeare by the Hi∣story of Serapion, related by Eusebius, and the Graecians * 1.137 at this day though they giue the Cup to the Communicants in the Church, yet to the sicke they send the Sacrament vnder one kind. Yea S. Ambrose, as Paulinus relateth in his life, at his death receiued the Sacrament vnder the sole forme of Bread, and straight after the receiuing thereof gaue vp his soule. [ B]

ANSWER.

First, touching Serapion, related by Eusebius, he receiued both * 1.138 Bread and Wine: for the ladde which brought the Portion of the Eucharist, was commanded by the Priest, which sent him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to sop the Bread into Wine, and being moistened, to put it into the old mans mouth; and this was performed accordingly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a 1.139 the ladde wetted, or moistened the Portion of [ C] Bread, which he receiued of the Priest, and infused the same into Serapion the old mans mouth; and the Councell of Towers, alleadged by Burchardus and Iuo b 1.140, reporteth the manner and reason of dipping the Bread in this sort: We command, That the Eucharist which is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to be giuen sicke Persons, shall be dipped into the bloud of our Lord, that the Priest may say in truth, The body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ profit thee to life eternall. Which dipping sheweth that they thought it not sufficient to giue the sicke only the Bread.

Secondly, if Paulinus (of whom Erasmus c 1.141 saith, it is the same [ D] Craftsman, which hath corrupted so many things in the wri∣tings of S. Hierome and S. Augustine) report truely touching S. Ambrose, this prooueth not, That Communion in one kind was in ordinary vfe, but that S. Ambrose being speechlesse, and without vnderstanding, and deceasing instantly after the Bread was put into his mouth d 1.142, and consequently being preuented by death, receiued (by reason of this accident) one materiall part of the Sacrament onely.

IESVIT. [ E]

Secondly, it was an antient custome in the Church to * 1.143 giue the Sacrament vnto Lay men, especially vnto Eremites, to be carryed in most pure linnen corporalls home to their

houses, to be taken in the morning before all other meates, [ A] but there is no signe or token in Antiquity, That the Faith∣full, together with the consecrated Bread did carry away with them consecrated Wine: yea diuers Histories shew, the onely forme of Bread was carryed away, and conse∣quently that the Church did not then esteeme of Communi∣on 〈◊〉〈◊〉 one kind, as of a Sacrilegious mayming of the Sa∣crament, as Protestants now doe. [ B]

ANSVVER.

It was an antient custome to send the Communion to Per∣sons absent, in both kinds, as appeareth by the Historie of Exu∣perius, in S. Hierome a 1.144. And Gregorie Nazianzen b 1.145 saith of his sister Gorgonia, if her hand had laid vp any Portion of the types or tokens of the pretious body, and of the bloud, &c. And as tou∣ching sicke persons, Why should we not iudge, that the same order and proportion was kept in sending the Sacrament to them at their houses, as was obserued when sicke persons came to the Communion Table or Altar in the Church. [ C]

IESVIT.

Thirdly, it was an antient custome in the Graecian Church, to consecrate the holy Eucharist on Saturdayes and * 1.146 Sundayes; and on the other dayes of the weeke to communi∣cate Ex praesanctificatis, of the praesanctified forme st hat [ D] is consecrated on the Saturday or Sunday before. Now it is not probable, that they did consecrate Wine to indure fiue or sixe dayes long, for feare (specially in such hot Coun∣treyes) the same should grow sower. Wherefore for the most part they did communicate vnder one kind.

ANSWER.

The Office of the Greeke Church, making mention of the [ E] Sacramentall signes, consecrated or sanctified before they were vsed a 1.147, nameth Bread and Wine: For thus wee reade in the same, That after the Priest hath sanctified the Bread, hee pow∣reth Wine and Water into the sacred Cup, and rehearseth the accustomed words, &c. And the Liturgie Praesanctificatorum,

of the Presanctified signes, according to Genebrards a 1.148 〈◊〉〈◊〉, [ A] speaketh both of the body and of the bloud presented in the mysticall signes. It appeareth also by Balsamon b 1.149, vpon the 52 Canon of the Synod in Trullo, that both the Elements were consecrated at least vpon two seuerall dayes in the weeke; and Baronius c 1.150 acknowledgeth, That in antient times the Eucharist was reserued in both the kinds: now if it was consecrated and reserued in both kinds, Why should we imagine, that it was not deliuered and receiued in both kinds?

IESVIT.

Fourthly, the Manichees liued in Rome, and other pla∣ces, * 1.151 shrouding themselues among Catholikes, went to their Churches, receiued the Sacrament publikely with them, vnder the sole forme of Bread: and yet they were not no∣ted, [ C] nor there discerned from Catholikes. A manifest signe that Communion vnder one kind was publikely in the Church permitted at the least vpon some iust causes that might be pretended For how could the Manichees still re∣fusing the Cup, haue beene hidden among these antient Christians, if they had beene persuaded, as now Prote∣stants, that receiuing vnder one kind only is a Sacriledge? If one in the Church of England should refuse the Cup but [ D] once in a publike Communion in the Church, would he not be incontinently noted?

ANSWER.

The holy Eucharist in the dayes of Pope Leo the first was ad∣ministred in both kinds, and Romists could neuer as yet pro∣duce any one sufficient testimonie or example, that so much as any one congregation of Christians in antient times receiued in the open Church vnder one kind. And although the place ob∣iected [ E] out of Leo d 1.152 doth in speciall concerne the Manichees, yet it sheweth plainely that the present doctrine and practise of the Roman Church, is not consonant to the antient practise of the same Church. Neuerthelesse, our peruerse Aduersary argueth

against vs out of this place of Leo, saying, That if the Commu∣nion [ A] had not sometimes beene administred vnder one kind, the Manichees practise, in refusing the Cup, could not haue passed vnmarked, but must necessarily haue beene obserued.

I answer: First, The Manichees were espied, and discouered; otherwise, how could the Pope reprooue their practise.

Secondly, Vasques a 1.153 the Iesuit saith, That these Heretikes receiued the Cup into their hand, but dranke no Wine; and among a multitude of Communicants, some few might hold the Cup to their mouth, and make shew of drinking, and yet receiue no Wine. [ B]

IESVIT.

The last Argument, is practise of the Apostles, that is, of the first Christians vnder them, of whom wee reade in the Acts of the Apostles, Erant perseuerantes in Doctri∣na * 1.154 Apostolorum, & communicatione, fractionis Pa∣nis, & Orationibus, speaking of sucred Eucharisticall Bread, the taking whereof was ioyned with Prayer, which [ C] vnto the newly baptised was straight giuen after Bap∣tisme: and yet there is no mention of Wine. So that Pro∣testants, if they will haue these Christians to haue Wine, they must out of their owne liberalitie, by way of interpre∣tation, bestow it vpon them, seeing the words of the Text doe not affoord it them. To this Apostolicall practise, wee may adde the example of Christ, who gaue to his two Dis∣ciples in Emaus, the Sacrament vnder the sole forme of [ D] * 1.155 Bread. That the Bread Christ gaue, was Eucharisticall, * 1.156 and consecrated, the words of the Text insinuate, some learned Fathers affirme, and the miraculous effect of ope∣ning their eyes to know Christ, and their returne to Hie∣rusalem and the Church of the Apostles in all hast, con∣firmes it. That they receiued at the hands of Christ the Sacrament vnder one onely kind of Bread, is euident by the context of the Holy Narration, which saith, That [ E] vpon our Sauiours breaking, and giuing them Bread, they knew him, and bee straight vanished out of their sight. So that here also, if Protestants will haue Wine giuen to these Disciples, they must by the superabundance thereof,

in their Expositions, supply 〈◊〉〈◊〉 want thereof in Scrip∣ture; yea, the Scripture [ A] in this place 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 capa∣ble of that Exposition, the Apostles acknowledging of Christ in the verie fraction, and giuing of Bread, and our 〈◊〉〈◊〉 departing in the same moment, leaues not∣time for him, to giue them Wine after the Bread.

ANSWER.

Your last Argument is poore and drowsie, and perhaps you [ B] imagine, that at this your Feast (if yet we may be said to drinke 〈◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊〉, sine Calice) we haue drunke well before, and therefore in the conclusion, you giue vs that which is worst, Iohn 2. 8.

The Antecedent, or leading part of your Argument, is du∣bious, and the Consequence also is infirme. First, you are not able to prooue out of the Texts, Act. 2.42. or Luk. 24.30. that Christ and his Apostles in those places, administred the holy Communion: for there may be Prayer and breaking of Bread, and yet no Sacrament, 1. Tim. 4. v. 3.4.5. Also the place, Act. 2. [ C] 42. may be vnderstood of dealing bread by Eleemosinarie dole to the poore. And although some of the Fathers apply these Scriptures to the Eucharist, according to the mysticall sence, yet other Fathers are contrarie a 1.157, yea many Pontificians b 1.158 ex∣pound these Texts, of common food or bread, and not of the Eucharist.

But if the first Exposition were true, yet Communion in [ E] one kinde cannot be hence inferred; for either the words are proper, or figuratiue. If Romists will presse them, according to the letter, then no wine at all was then vsed by Christ, Luc. 24. or by the Apostles, Act. 2. and consequently, it follow∣eth,

〈1 line〉〈1 line〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 [ A] 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉. If they will yeeld, that there is a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the words, then, euen as when wee reade in sundrie places of Scripture, That people meet toge∣ther to 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 31.34 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 2.10, wee vnderstand by a part of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the whole; not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wine, or other 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Texts, making literall mention of bread onely, must be vnder∣stood, as mentioning a part of the spirituall Feast for the whole.

Neither is there any force in the Argument ensuing, which [ B] is, Their eyes were opened to know Christ, Ergo; They 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 bread; for the eyes may be opened by Mi∣racle, Grace, and by Donation of Faith, Act. 10. 14. without receiuing Eucharisticall Bread. The holy Eucharist, is not a sole or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cause of grace, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 there are other caufes and meanes besides: and therefore the Illation is inconsequent, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 an effect which may proceed from diuers and fundrie 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to one speciall and determinate efficient cause.

But the Aduersarie proceedeth, saying, That after breaking of bread, Christ straight way vanished out of their sight, and [ C] they hastened to Hierusalem with all speed. Therefore there was no space after receiuing the Bread, for the sumption of Wine.

The Reader may perceiue by these, and other such like wri∣things of the Text, vpon what foundation Popish Faith is buil∣ded. First, The word, Straight wayes, is not in the Narration, Luke 24. Secondly, The receiuing a small quantitie of Wine, could neither hinder our Sauiours expedition, nor the Apo∣stles iourney to Ierusalem. Thirdly, How appeareth it, that re∣ceiuing Eucharisticall Bread, made the Disciples more agile in [ D] bodie, and prompter in minde to trauell to Hierusalem: for two Disciples ranne to the Sepulchre, with as much allacritie and expedition as was possible, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 20. 4, and yet they had at that present time receiued no Eucharisticall Bread. Yea, on the con∣trarie, the Apostles of Christ, after the receiuing of the holy Eucharist, doe all of them flie away and forsake their Master, Math. 26.58. This collection therefore, The Disciples hasted to Hierusalem, Ergo, They receiued the Eucharist, is dissolute, and not much vnlike that of Pope Boniface the eight, God said, Let vs make two great lights, Ergo, The Pope is greater than the [ E] Emperour.

IESVIT. [ A]

These bee the Warrants that Communion vnder one kinde hath, being the greatest that may bee: whereby ap∣peares, that the Roman Church is furnisht with all kinde of proofe in this point, in which she doth seeme to her Ad∣uersaries to be most forsaken of Antiquitie. Now suppo∣sing Communion vnder one kinde to be good and lawfull, That the Church could preseribe it, and, That shee had iust [ B] reasons to prescribe it, J will let passe without proofe, as a thing not doubted of by your Maiesties excellent wisedome.

ANSVVER.

All your warrants for halfe Communions, are meere Impo∣stures, and audacious words and figments, Commota semel, & excussa mens, ei seruit à quo impellitur (saith Seneca,) The mind which is disordered and put out of frame, becomes a slaue to that which impells it. This is verified in you, you want all kinds of iust defence for your Sacriledge in mangling and dis∣membring [ C] the holy Communion, yet hauing once ouershot your selues, and become slaues to your owne conceit, of not be∣ing subiect to errour, Litigare magis quam sanari vultis, you chuse rather to make warre with heauen, than to retract your errour; for they warre with heauen, which oppose the Testa∣ment of the Sonne of God, the Tradition of the holy Apo∣stles, and the practise of the Primitiue Church: and this is your case, although you list not to see it, or rather seeing, to acknow∣ledge it. [ D] [ E]

Notes

• a 1.1

  Yrebarn. 4. d. 8. Disp. 28. Sect. 3. Corpus, &c. est substantia inclu∣dens omnes partes, quae corpus orga∣nicum quoquo modo integrant, siue sint animabiles siue non, & hoc sensu sanguis ingreditur integritatem corporis.
• b 1.2

  Ruard. Tapper. ar. 15. Species panis solum significant corpus pro nobis in cruce oblatum, cum iam esset exangue, & species vini, sanguinem effusum, & quasi à corpore separatum. Yrebarn. in 4. d. 8. q. 1. Disp. 28. Sect. 3. Corpus stricte sumptum, signatum per se, à spe∣ciebus panis nihil sanguinis fignati includit. Tartaret. 4. d. 8. q. 1. Bassolis. 4. d. 8. q. 1. ar. 1.
• a 1.3

  Fauentin. 4. d. 8. Disp. 29. Non est vnum vnitate Indi∣uisibilitatis, quia sunt plura signa, &c. tamen est vnum vnitate integrita∣tis, quia ambae spe∣cies integrant vnū perfectum & totale sacramentum.
• b 1.4

  Greg. Dial. li. 4. cap. 58. Ambros. d. poenit. lib. 2. cap. 3. Chrys. tom. 1. in Psal. 22. Quotidie in si∣militudinem cor∣poris & sanguinis Christi, panem & vinum secundum ordinem Melchise∣dech, nobis osten∣dit in Sacramento. Aug l. 83. q. 61. Ipse est sacerdos noster in aeternum, secun∣dum ordinem Mel∣chisedech, qui se∣metipsum obtulit, Holocaustum pro peccatis nostris, & eius sacrificij similitudinem celebrandā in suae passionis memoriam commendauit. Holocausti cius imaginem ad memoriam passionis suae in Ecclesia celebrandam 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Id. d. fid. ad Petrum. c. 19. In isto sacri∣ficio, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Actio atq, commemoratio est carnis Christi, quam 〈◊〉〈◊〉 obtulit, & quam pro nobis idem Deus effudit. Justin. Martir. Colloq. cum Tryph. in hac Prophetia, & de pane quem nobis noster Christus tradidit, ad commemorationem corporis assumpti, propter credentes in eum, propter quos & passibilis natus est: & de poculo quod in memoriam sanguinis sui, cum gratiarum actione sumendum dedit, fit manifesta mentio.
• c 1.5

  Ambros. in 1. Cor. 11. Testamentum in sanguine constitutum est, quia 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Diuinisanguis testis est. In cuius typum nos 〈◊〉〈◊〉 misticum sanguinis ad tuitionem corporis & animae nostrae percipimus, quia sanguis Domini, sanguinem nostrum redemit, id est totum hominem saluum fecit. Caro 〈◊〉〈◊〉 saiuatoris prosalute corporis, sanguis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 anima nostra effusus est.
• * 1.6

  1. Ioh. 4.3.
• a 1.7

  Aquin. in 1. Ioh. 4. Qui soluit, id est, diuidit Iesum, velseperans diuinitatem ab eo, vt Arius, vt Appollinaris, qui 〈◊〉〈◊〉 diuinitatem pro anima, vel carnem, vt Ma∣nicheus, qui ponit quod Christus assumpsit phantasiam, & non veram, vel 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vnitatem, vt Nestorius, &c. B. Iustinian. Ib. 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 ratione dis∣suere, aut dissoluere conatur, &c.
• a 1.8

  Ambros. in 1. Cor. 11. Quia mor∣te Domini liberati sumus, hui' rei me∣moriam in edendo & potando carnem & sanguinem, quae pro nobis oblata sunt, significamus nouum testamentū in hijs consecuti.
• b 1.9

  Vasq. in 3. Tho. tom. 3. disp. 215. cap. 2. nu. 13. Diuinitas quae est 〈◊〉〈◊〉 causa, ità assumpsit vt 〈◊〉〈◊〉, ad producendam gratiam, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sacramenta, vt suam efficacitatem significationi eorum accommodaret, sicut reuera accommodare potuit.
• c 1.10

  Ibid. nu. 9. Vnaquaequè species huius Sacra∣menti, quatenus Sacramenti pars est, suam habet signisicationem diuersam. Cumquè significationem in Sacra∣mentis nouae legis, consequatur efficacia, quià id 〈◊〉〈◊〉 quod significant, sequitur vnamquamquè speciem in hoc Sacramento, suum effectum per se operari, sicut etiàm suum refectionis modum per se significat. Ruard. Tapper. ar. 15. Quià per diuersa hic operatur instrumenta variè significantia, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, videlicet, & corpus suum, quae sunt causae immediatae effectus Sacramentalis, ipse etiàm diuersos operatur effectus, donaquè sua diuidit, idem ipse 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉.
• a 1.11

  Cyprian. Ep. 63. Quotiescun∣què ergo Calicem in commemorati∣onem Domini, & passionis eius offerrimus. Aug. c. Faust. lib. 20. cap. 18. Christiani peracti huius sacrificij memoriam cele∣brant, sacrosancta oblatione, & participatione corporis & sanguinis Domini, Ep. 23. ad Bonifac. Nonnè semel immolatus est Christus in semetipso? & tamen in Sacramento non tantum per omnes Paschae so∣lennitates, sed etiàm omni die, populis immolatur, nec vtiquè mentitur, qui interrogatus, eum responde∣ret immolari: si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum Sacramentasunt, non haberent omnino Sacramenta non essent. contr. Faust. lib. 20. cap. 21. Huius sacrificij caro & sanguis, antè aduentum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur, in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur, post ascensum Christi per Sacramentum memoriae celebratur. Quest. 83. cap. 61. Christus qui semetipsum obtulit holocaustum pro peccatis nostris, huius sacrificij similitudinem, & holocausti eius ima∣ginem in passionis suae memoriam celebrandam dedit, & commendauit. In lib. Sent. prosper. Sicut coelestis [ B] panis, qui verè Christi caro est, suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cum reuera sit Sacramentum corporis Christi, illius videlicet, quod visibile, palpabile, mortale, in cruce suspensum est, vocaturquè ipsa immolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio, mors, crucifixio, non rei veritate sed significante mysterio. Chrys. in Heb. 10. Hom. Quid ergo nos, nonnè per singulos dies offerrimus, &c. offerrimus quidem sed re∣cordationem facientes mortis eius, &c. Hoc quod facimus in commemorationem fit eius quod factum est. Hocenim facite inquit in mei commemorationem. Non aliud Sacrificium sicut Pontifex sed id ipsum sem∣per facimus, magis autem recordationem Sacrificij operamur. Theoderet. in cap. 8. Hebr. Cur noui Testa∣menci Sacerdotes my sticam Liturgiam seu Sacrificium peragunt, Cum Christus qui est Sacerdos secun∣dum ordinem Melchisedech, offerens Sacrificium, efficit vt alia Sacrificia non essent necessaria? Resp. cla∣rum est ijs qui sunt eruditi in rebus diuinis, nos non aliud offerre, sed illius vnius & salutaris memoriam peragere. Hocenim nobis praecipit ipse Dominus, hoc facite in meam recordationem: vt per figurarum con∣templationem, earum quae pro nobis susceptae sunt perpessionum recordaremur, & in benefactorem bene∣uolentiam conseruemus, & futurorum beneficiorum perceptionem expectemus. Theophilact. in Heb. 10. Ip∣sum quidem semper offerrimus, imo vero potius memoriam illius oblationis facimus, qua seipse obtulit.
• b 1.12

  Lombard. Sent. lib. 4. Dist. 12. Quaeritur si quod gerit Sacerdos propriè dicatur Sacrificium, vel immo∣latio, & si Christus quotidiè immoletur, vel semel tantum imniolatus sit? ad hoc breuitèr dici potest, Il∣lud quod offertur & consecratur à Sacerdote, vocari Sacrificium & oblationem, quià memoria est, & re∣presentatio veri Sacrificij, & sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis. Idem. Semel Christus mortuus est in cruce, ibiquè immolatus est in semetipso. Quotidiè autem immolaturin Sacramento, quià in Sacramento recordatio fit illius, quod factum est semel.
• c 1.13

  Enchir. Coloniens. d. Euchar. Patres non dubitarunt hoc Christi corpus in altari, Sacrificium & salutarem victimam appellare, non ratione Sacrificij, quod est situm in actione Sacerdotis, &c. sed ratione Sacrificij quod in cruce oblatum est semel.
• a 1.14

  Lesseus, d. iust. & iure li. 2. c. 38. n. 11. Quinquè ad perfectum & propriè dictum sa∣crificium requirū∣tur. 1. Ex parte mi∣nistri vt sit Sacer∣dos. 2 Ex parte materiae res ali∣qua sensibilis externa, &c. 3. Ex parte formae, illius rei peremptio, vel aliqua alia conueniens mutatio, hoc enim potissimum differt sacrificium ab oblationibus. 4. Ex parte finis vt 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ad honorem Dei. 5. Ex parte loci, Altare, &c.
• b 1.15

  Soto. d. iust. & iur. lib. 9. q. 2. ar. 1. Hac negata veritate Catholica, palàm 〈◊〉〈◊〉 consequens, mysterium altaris non esse sacrificium.
• c 1.16

  Nugnus. in 3. Tho. q. 78. ar. 4. In verbis nihil pro∣ducitur superna∣turale, nisi sola eleuatio & motio diuina.
• * 1.17

  Caluin. li. 4. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. ca. 7. nu. 35. Ibid. nu. 74.
• a 1.18

  Ambr. l. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 qui init. In illo Sacramento Chri∣stus est. Hilar. l. 8. d. Trinit. Nos vere verbum carnem ci∣bo Dominico su∣mimus. Cyrill. A∣lexand. l. 4. in Ioh. c. 15. Per hanc be∣nedictionē Myste∣rij ipsum filium Dei suscipimus. Cyrill. Hierosol. Catech. Myst. 5. Chrys. Hom. 83. in cap. 26. Math. & Hom. 24. in 1. ad Cor.
• a 1.19

  Arist. d. part. Animal. lib. 2. cap. 2. Partium simularium aliae molles & hu∣midae, &c. sanguis, sanies, adeps.
• b 1.20

  Cyprian. d. Coen. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Lex esum 〈◊◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊◊〉 vt 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• a 1.21

  1. Cor. 10.21. cap. 11.23.26.
• b 1.22

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. Hie∣rarch. cap. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Calicem omnibus impartiens. Iustin. Martir. A polog. 2. Distribuunt vnicuique praesentium vt participet eum in quo gratiae actae sunt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 panem vinum & aquam. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Epist. ad Philadelph, vnus panis omnibus confractus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & vnum poculum omnibus distributum. Tertul. d. Cor. mil. cap. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Epist. 54. & 56. & 63. in Calice Dominico san∣ctificando & populo ministrando, &c. Aug. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 57. — à cuius Sacrisicij sa nguine in alimentum su∣mendo, non solum nemo prohibetur sed ad bibendum omnes exhortantur qui volunt habere vitam. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 1. Cor. hom. 11. & sup. 2. Cor. hom. 18. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sup. soph. cap. 3. Sacerdotes qui Eucharistiae seruiunt, & sanguinem Domini populis diuidunt. Hist. Trip. lib. 9. cap. 30. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. d. Octau. Pasch. Quid sit sanguis agni noniam audiendo sed bibendo didicistis.
• * 1.23

  Gen. 1. 28.
• * 1.24

  Theologi omnes communiter cum D. Tho. 3. p. quaest. 3. art. 3.
• * 1.25

  Ioh. 6. v. 58. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 v. 55. & 59.
• * 1.26

  Gen. 2.9.
• * 1.27

  Exod. 16.15.
• a 1.28

  Aquin. p. 1. q. 75 ar. 4. Scheibler. Metaphys. l. 1. c. 6. p. 2. in habentibus materiam, mate∣ria est pars essen∣tiae. Suar. Metaph. disp. 36. sect. 2. Pe∣rerius lib. 6. nat. Phil. cap. 6. 7. 8. Iandun. Metaph. 7. q. 12.
• a 1.29

  Aug. Ep. 90. & Epist. 157. Greg. Nyssen. Orat. d. Bapt. Chrysoft. in Gen. Hom. 40. Ambros. Apol. Dauid. cap. 13.
• b 1.30

  August. d. Ciuit. Dei. lib. 13. cap. 7. Quicunque non recepto rege∣nerationis [ E] lauacro, pro Christi consessione moriuntur tantum eis valet ad dimittenda peccata quantum si ablucrentur, sacro fonte Baptismatis. Lembard 4 d. 4. D. Aquin. 3. q. 68. ar. 2. & q. 87. ar. 1. Bellarm. d. Bap. lib. 1. cap. 6. Greg. Val. Suares, Nugnus, Henriques, lib 2. cap. 34. Petigian. in. 4. d. 4. q. 3. ar. 1. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. d Sacrament. d. Bapt. Disp. 2. punct. 2. Yrebarn. Cabrer. Fauentin. & aiij.
• a 1.31

  Aug. Epist. ad Bonifac. citatur à 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in 3. p. Tho. d. Euchar. q. 27. ar. 5. pa. 371. Nulliest aliquatenus ambigendum, tunc vnumquenque fidelium corporis sanguinisque Domini participem fieri, quando in Baptismate membrum Christi corporis efficitur, nec alie∣nari ab illius panis calicisque consortio, etiamsi antequam panem illum comedat, & calicem bibat, de hoc saeculo, in vnitate corporis Christi constitutus abscedat.
• b 1.32

  Alex. Hal. 4. q. 10. m. 4. ar. 1. §. 1. In quantum efficacia respicit signatum, & non contentum vtraque (species) est de integritate: quia sumpto hoc Sacramento digne, in vtraque specie, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 est effectus, vnionis corporis mystici cum capite quam sumptio sub altera.
• * 1.33

  Concil. Con∣stant. sess. 13.
• a 1.34

  Ambros. in 1. Cor. 11. Indignū dicit esse Domi∣no, qui alitèr my∣sterium celebrat, quam ab eo tradi∣tum est. Non enim potest deuotus es∣se, qui alitèr praesu∣mit, quam datum est ab Authore.
• * 1.35

  Concil. Constant. Can. 13. pag. 349. col. 2. Licet Chri∣stus post coenā in∣stituerit, & suis Discipulis admi∣nistrauerit sub v∣tra{que} specie panis & vini hoc vene∣rabile Sacramen∣tū: tamen hoc nō obstante, &c. Licet in Primitiua Ecclesia huiusmodi Sacramentū reciperetur, à fidelibus sub vtra{que} specie, tamen haec consuetudo, &c. Dicere quod hanc consuetudinē & legē obseruare sit sacrilegū, aut illicitū cen∣seri debet, erroneū, & pertinacitèr asserentes opositū praemissorū, tanquā Haeretici arcendi sunt, & grauitèr puniendi, &c.
• a 1.36

  Cassand. Con∣sult. 22. In Eccle∣sia Latina, mille amplius annis te∣nuit, vt tam popu∣lo quam clero, in celebratione mis∣sarum post myste∣riorum consecrati∣onē seorsum cor∣pus & seorsum sanguis Domini preberetur. Gerard. Lorich. d. public. miss. prorog. Ruard Tapper, ar 15. pag 218. Aquinas. Com. Ioh. 6. Secundum antiquam Ecclesiae [ E] consuetudinem, omnes sicut communicabant corpori, ità communicabant & sanguini: quod etiàm adhuc in quibusdam Ecclesijs seruatur Arboreus. Com. in Ioh. 6. Nec addubito, quin in Primitiua Ecclesia communicarent omnes tum Laici tum Sacerdotes sub vtraquè specie.
• b 1.37

  Gerson d. com. sub vtraquè. De∣nar. 2. Primum, periculum in effusione. Secundum, in deportatione de loco ad locum. Tertium, in vasorum sordidatione, &c. Quartum, in longis barbis laicorum. Itèm, quod tanta esset dignitas laicorum circà sumptionem corporis Christi, sicut & Sacerdotum. to. 1. pag. 528. vid. plura.
• a 1.38

  Accursius. praef. sup. Instit. Instini∣an. Institutiones sunt praeceptiones quibus instituun∣tur, & docentur homines, &c.
• b 1.39

  Aug sup. Ioh. tr. 80. Accedit ver∣bū ad elementum, & fit sacramentū.
• c 1.40

  Aquinas. 3. q. 66. ar. 1. Sacramē∣tum no 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in ipsa a qua, sed in applicatione a quae ad hominem, quae est ablutio.
• d 1.41

  Inchoatiuè vel inceptiuè Sacra∣mentum antè vsum. Consummatiuè & perfectiuè non est Sacramentum antè vsum.
• a 1.42

  Aug. ad Maxi∣min. lib. 3. cap. 22. Lombar. 4. d. 1. Sa∣cramentum est in∣uisibilis gratiae vi∣sibilis forma. Hu∣go. lit. F.
• b 1.43

  Idem. dist. 4. lit. F. Iren. lib. 4. ca. 32. Tertull. d. Re∣sur. carn. ca. 8. Iu∣stin. Mart. colloq. cum Tryph: & A∣pol. 2. Aug. in psal. 3. Cypr. Ep 63.
• c 1.44

  Bonacin. d. Sa∣cra. d. Euchar. disp. 4. p. 4. propos. 1. In Sacramento Eu∣charistiae [ E] est diuersitas & pluralitas materiae & formae, cum alia sit materia & forma corporis Christi, & alia 〈◊〉〈◊〉 materia & forma sanguinis. Alex. Hall. 4. q. 10. m. 3. ar. 2.
• * 1.45

  Aug. Tract. 18. in Ioan.
• a 1.46

  Palud. 4. d. 9. q. 1. ar. 1. Caiet. 3. q. 80 ar. 12. Suares. to. 3. disp. 43. sect. 3. Reginald. d. poen. li. 29. nu. 13. Cha∣merot. d. Euchar. cap. 6. Dub. 1. Nugnus. in 3. q. 74. ar. 1. Conclus. 2.
• * 1.47

  Aug. Epist. 23. ad Bonifac.
• * 1.48

  Aug. Epist. 23.
• * 1.49

  Rom. 12. 4. & 5. 1. Cor. 12. 12.
• * 1.50

  1. Cor. 10. v. 17.
• * 1.51

  1. Cor. 11. v. 14, 15.
• a 1.52

  Ferus. in Ioh. 6. In institutione huius Sacramenti Christus impera∣tiue loquitur, acci∣pite commedite, hoc facite.
• b 1.53

  Alex. Hal. 4. q. 10. m. 3. ar. 2. Etsi Christus ho∣mo naturali qua∣dam similitudine representatur v∣traque specie: non tame ex institutio∣ne, signatur vtra∣que: sed secundum carnem specie pa∣nis, secundum sanguinem specie vini.
• c 1.54

  Greg. Dial. li. 4. ca. 58. Eius sanguis in ora fidelium funditur.
• * 1.55

  c Cyprian. ep. 63. in Calice Dominico & plebi ministrando, non hoc faciunt, quod Iesus Christus Dominus & Deus noster huiua Sacri∣ficij Atuhor & Doctor, fecit & docuit.
• a 1.56

  Cyprian. li. 2. ep. 3. siue epist. 63. Calix Domini∣cus sic bibentes in∣ebriat, vt sobrios faciat, vt mentes ad spiritalem sa∣pientiam redigat, vt a sapore isto sae∣culari, ad intelle∣ctum Dei vnus∣quisque resipiscat. Chrys. in Ioh. Hom 45. Hic sanguis facit, vt imago in nobis regia 〈◊〉〈◊〉: Hic sanguis pulchritudinem atque nobilitatem animae quam semper irregat & notrit, languescere non sinit, &c. Hic mysticus sanguis Daemo∣nes procul pellit, Angelos & Angelorum Dominum ad nos allicit Daemones enim cum Dominicum sangui∣nem [ B] in nobis vident, in fugam vertuntur, Angeli autem procurrunt Iren. li. 5. ca. 1. Ruits. Contr. Theol. 32. pa. 152. Species panis sola non significat gratiam vt reficientem animam, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, sed partialiter. Alex. Hel. 4. q. 10. m. 4. ar. 1. §. 1 Reade 〈◊〉〈◊〉,
• b 1.57

  Arboreus Sap Ioh. 6. Caro Christi 〈◊〉〈◊〉 animam, sed sanguis viuisicat animam, & emundat conscientiam nostram ab operibus mortuis.
• * 1.58

  Ioan. 6.55.
• a 1.59

  Hilar. d. Trin. lib. 10. se panem hic dicit, &c. Chrys. in Ioh. Ho. 45. Pa∣nem vitae seipsum appellat, &c. Ferus in Ioh. 6. Hic pa∣nis de quo Chri∣stus hic loquitur, nihil aliud est quā Incarnatio, Passio, & Meritū Christi, atque adeo Chri∣stus ipse, cum om∣nibus quae habet quae fecit & passus est. Caietan. Ioh. 6. Primo tractat de seipso vt est panis vitae: Deinde de Passione sua futura, secundum quam est cibus & potus vitae. Ibid. Sermo formalis non est de Sacramento, sed de re Sa∣cramenti, [ C] de Fonte Sacramenti. Ibid. Non est ad literam sermo de manducare & bibere Sacramentum Eu∣charistiae, sed de manducare & bibere Mortem Christi.
• b 1.60

  Ferus, in Ioh. 6. Dicere quod sine corporali perceptione Sacramenti, nulli possit contingere vita, admodum durum, imo temerarium, & falsum est. Ibid. Manducatur corpus Christi in Sacramento: & haec quidem manducatio non simpliciter necessaria est vt prior, plures enim etiam sine hac saluati sunt, & saluantur: sed tamen ita necessaria est, vt non con∣temnatur vel negligatur suo tempore.
• * 1.61

  Iustin. Apol. 2. pa. 76. & 77.
• * 1.62

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.63

  Chrys. sup. 1. Cor. 11. & sup. 2. Cor. Hom. 18.
• b 1.64

  Haimo. sup. 1. Cor. 10. pa. 109.
• c 1.65

  Paschas. Rat∣bert. d. corp. & sang. Dom. ca. 19. Nec caro sine sanguine vtique, nec sanguis sine carne iure communicatur, &c. Non recte caro sine sanguine communicatur, &c. Ibid. cap. 15. Quapropter 〈◊〉〈◊〉 homo quotiescunque bibis hunc calicem, &c.
• c 1.66

  Ochagauia. d. Sacram. tr. 2. d. Euch. q. 18. Graeci suis Laicis distri∣buunt vtranque speciem panis & vini.
• d 1.67

  Gerson. d. com. sub vtraque. pag. 526. Sumptio talis est temeraria, presumptuosa, scandalosa, seditiosa, & Ecclesiastici ri∣tus turbatiua, & ex consequenti aeternae damnationis inductiua, pag. 529. Aduersus haeresin nouam de necessaria communicatione Laicorum, sub vtraque specie, pag. 528. Rex Rom. acciperet potestatem, à sacro Concilio (Constantiensi) factum illud 〈◊〉〈◊〉, sicut alias haereses in Bohemia, cum po∣tentia brachij secularis.
• * 1.68

  August. Ep. 118.
• a 1.69

  Aug. Ep. 118. ca. 2. Totum hoc genus rerum, libe∣ras habet obserua∣tionis, &c.
• * 1.70

  1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.71

  Math. 26.
• * 1.72

  〈1 line〉〈1 line〉.
• a 1.73

  Gerard. Lo∣rich. in 7. par. Can. Sunt Pseudoca∣tholici qui refor∣mationem Eccle∣siae quoquo modo remorari non ve∣rentur. Hij ne Lai∣cis altera species restituatur, nullis parcunt blasphe∣mijs. Dicunt enìm Christum solis A∣postolis dixisse bi∣bite exhoc omnes. A 〈◊〉〈◊〉 verba Ca∣nonis habent, ac∣cipite & mandu∣cate ex hoc omnes. Hic dicant oro, nū & hoc ad solos dictum sit Apo∣stolos. Ergò Laicis & a specie panis est abstinendum; quod dicere est haeresis & blas∣phemia pestilens & execrabilis. Cō∣sequitur ergò, v∣trumquè verbum dictum esse ad omnem Ecclesiam.
• b 1.74

  Aug. tom. 7. d. nupt. & concupis. lib. 2. cap. 2.
• c 1.75

  Caietan. in Math. 26. Hinc habetur Eucharistiam non esse tribuendam insfantibus, quibus non 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dici accipite comedite, sicut enim quià Dominus dixit nisi quis natus fuerit denuò ex a qua & spiritu, nega∣tur Baptismus infantibus in materno vtero, quià non potest denuo nasci qui non est natus, ità dicente Do∣mino in Communione Eucharistiae, accipite commedite, negatur Eucharistia illis, qui adhuc non possunt accipere, qui adhuc non possunt commedere.
• a 1.76

  Hierom. com. sup. 1. Corin. 11. Chrys. in 1. Cor. 11. Hom. 24. Quod dominicū est pri∣uatum fecerant, Coena enim Do∣mini debet esse communis, nam quae Domini sunt, non huius sunt serui, non alterius, sed omnibus communia. Quod enim dominicum est idem & commune est. Nam si Domini est, non debes tanquam proprium tibi assumere, sed tanquam res Domini communiter omnibus proponere Siquidem hoc est Dominicum. Nunc autèm non sinis esse com∣mune sed tibi comedis. Durand Rational. Diu lib. 4 cap. 1. In Primitiua Ecclesia singulis diebus omnes qui celebrationi missarum intererant communicare solebant, eo quod Apostoli omnes, de Calice biberunt, Domino dicente bibite ex co omnes.
• a 1.77

  Henriq. sum. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 5. c. 1. nu. 2.
• b 1.78

  Aquin. 3. q. 80. ar. 11. Homo te∣netur hoc Sacra∣mentum sumere, non solum ex sta∣tuto Ecclesiae, sed ex mandato Do∣mini, dicentis, Luc. 22. Hoc facite.
• a 1.79

  Bellarm. d. Eu∣char. li. 1. ca. 11. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ab 〈◊〉〈◊〉 stomachum, per instrumenta humana & natu∣ralia, id est lin∣guam & palatum.
• b 1.80

  Caietan in Mat. 26. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 e∣go, quod sicut v∣num Calicem cō∣munem omnibus tradidit, ita in vna 〈◊〉〈◊〉 panem in duodecim 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fractum, mani∣bus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tradi∣derit 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. li. 9. ca. 30. Quomo∣do manus extendes de quibus adhuc sanguis stillat iniustus? Quomodo huiusmodi manibus accipres sanctum Domini corpus? Qua temeritate ore tuo 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sanguinis pretiofi percipies, &c. Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 7. ca. 9. cum & gratiarum actionem in Ecclesia audisset, & ad illam vna cum alijs Amen accinuisset, 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉, manum ad suscipiendum Sanctum cibum extendisset. Chrys. in Eph. Hom. 3. Quomodo comparebis ante Tri∣bunal Christi, qui manibus & labijs immundis, ipsius audes contingere corpus, &c. Niceph. li. 13. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 7. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. li. 8. ca. 5. Aug. Cont Petil. li. 2. ca. 23. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 illum commemoro, &c. Cui pacis osculum inter Sacramenta 〈◊〉〈◊〉, in cuius manibus 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉. Rhenanus Annot. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉. d. Cor. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Satis liquet ex Anti∣quorum lectione, Eucharistiam olim manibus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 attactum fuisse. Synod. 6. can. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Et 〈◊〉〈◊〉. ibid. [ C] pa. 491. Cyprian. d. Laps. n 64. Plus modo in Dominum manibus atque ore delinquunt, &c. Ib. n. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Et quod non statim Domini corpus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 accipiat, aut ore polluto 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉. &c.
• * 1.81

  Math. 26.27.
• * 1.82

  Luk. 22. v. 18.
• * 1.83

  Ioh. 6.54.
• * 1.84

  Math. 28.23.
• * 1.85

  Ad Tit. 3. c. 54.
• * 1.86

  Ibidem v. 59.
• * 1.87

  Act. 3. 6.
• * 1.88

  1. Cor. 11.29.
• * 1.89

  Ioan. 3.5.
• a 1.90

  Bellarm. d. Eu∣char. l. 1. c. 5. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tholici fere 〈◊〉〈◊〉 volunt, huius capitis ver∣ba de Sacramento ipso Eucharistiae, siue de Sacramen∣tali manducatione corporis Domini in Eucharistia.
• b 1.91

  Biel. Can. Miss. lect. 48.
• c 1.92

  Cusau. Epist. 7. ad Bohem.
• d 1.93

  Caietan. in 3. q. 80. ar. vlt. & sup. Ioh. 6.
• e 1.94

  Ruard. Art. 15.
• f 1.95

  Hessel. lib. d. Com. sub vna specie.
• g 1.96

  Iansen. Concord. cap. 59.
• h 1.97

  Bellarm. ib. Caeteri Scrip∣tores [ C] Ecclesiastici, quos in maximo numero citat Nicholaus Sanderus in lib. d. 6. cap. Ioh. summo consensu docent, in hoc capite agi de manducatione Sacramentali, quod sine dubio verissimumest.
• i 1.98

  Suares. in 3. to. 3. Disp. 46. Sect. 2.
• k 1.99

  Vasq. in 3. Disp. 179. cap. 5.
• l 1.100

  Greg. Val. to. 4. Disp. 6. q. 1. punct. 5.
• a 1.101

  Innocent. Papa. d. Offic. Miss. l. 4. c. 21. Nec sanguis sub specie panis, nec corpus sub spe∣cie vini bibitur, & comeditur, quia sicut nec sanguis comeditur, nec corpus bibitur, ita 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 specie panis bibitur, aut sub species vini comeditur. Alex. Hal. 4. q. 10. m. 4. ar. 1. §. 1. Christus quantum ad corpus non signatur 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in specie vini 〈◊〉〈◊〉 quantum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sanguinem 〈◊〉〈◊〉, in specie panis, praeterea in hoc Sacramento signatur Christus, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cibus [ B] perfecte manducantes reficiens Sacramentaliter & spiritualiter: perfecta autem refectio, non est in pane tantum, necin vino tantum, sed in vtroque.
• b 1.102

  Claud. Saint. d. Euchar. Repet. 10. cap. 1.
• c 1.103

  Innocent. Papa. d. Offic. Miss. li. 4. ca. 21. Est modus sumendi corpus & sanguinem, quo neutrum mandu∣catur & bibitur.
• * 1.104

  Ad bibendum po∣culū Domini iu∣re communicatio∣nis admittimus Cypr. l. Ep. 2.
• * 1.105

  f Cyprian. Ep. 54. Quomodo docemus aut prouocamus eos, in confessione nominis [ E] Christi, sanguinē suum fundere, si eis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamus, aut quomodo ad Martyrij poculum idoneos facimus, si non eos prius ad bibendum in Ecclesia poculum Domini iure communicationis 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Id. Epist. 63. Quomodo possumus propter Christum sanguinem sundere, qui sanguinem Chri∣sti 〈◊〉〈◊〉 scimus bibere.
• a 1.106

  Reade before, pag. 482.
• b 1.107

  Cyprian. serm. d. Caena. Dom. & Epist. 63. A Do∣mino praecipitur, & ab Apostolis eius idem confir∣matur, & ab E∣uangelicis prae∣ceptis omnino re∣cedendū non esse, & eadem quae ma∣gister docuit & fecit, Discipulos quoque obseruare & facere debere, cum in claritate sua, & Maiestate coelesti, venire cae∣perit, inueniat nos, tenere quod mo∣nuit, obseruare quod docuit, fa∣cere quod fecit.
• c 1.108

  Occhagauia. d. Sacram. d. Euch. vsu & effect. tr. 2. nu. 14. Cyprianus vt legenti 〈◊〉〈◊〉 non habet verba illa, & plebi mini∣strando.
• d 1.109

  Cyprian. ll. 2. Ep. 3. In the beginning of the Epistle Printed at 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 542.
• e 1.110

  Pammel. Cypr. Epist. 63.
• * 1.111

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. de Heres. 46.
• * 1.112

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. Ser. 4. d. Qua∣drages.
• * 1.113

  Gelas. apud Grati∣an. d. Consecrat. Cap. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.114

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 appeale, li. 2. ca. 4. 140.
• * 1.115

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. de Coena Domini.
• a 1.116

  Prateol. d. Haer. li. 11. Manichaei à manete quodam, &c. dicti sunt qui circa annum 273, &c.
• a 1.117

  Floruit (Cypri∣anus) an. 250. Bell. d. Scriptor.
• b 1.118

  Lev, Serm. 4. d. Quadrag. Cum ad tegendum infi∣delitatem suā no∣stris audent inter∣esse mysterijs, ità in Sacramentorū Communione se temperāt, vt inter∣dum tutius lateāt, ore indigno Chri∣sti corpus accipi∣unt, [ B] sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae, haurire omnino declinant. Quod ideò vestram 〈◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊〉, vt vobis huiusmodi homines, & his manifestentur 〈◊〉〈◊〉, & quorum 〈◊〉〈◊〉. fuerit 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 notati & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 à Sanctorum societate 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sacerdotali authoritate.
• c 1.119

  Vasques. in 3. disp. 216. cap. 4. nu. 42. Ego existimo nequè proptèr Manicheorum, Haeresin, commendatum fuisse ab Apostolis, aut à Leone primo vsum Calicis, &c. Leo non commendauit vsum Calicis contrà Manichaeos, fed admonuit vt diligentèr obseruarent quosdam Manichaeos, qui vt se Catholicos simularent, ità sumebant Calicem, vt sanguinem non haurirent in altera specie.
• d 1.120

  Gratian. d. Consecrat. Dist. 2. cap. Comperimus autem, quod qui∣dem sumpta tan∣tummodo corpo∣ris sacri portione à Calice sacti cruo∣ris abstineant. Qui proculdubio (nes∣cio qua superstiti∣one dicuntur a∣stringi) aut inte∣gra Sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur, quià diuisio vnius, eiusdemquè mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio, non potest prouenire.
• e 1.121

  Vasques Disp. 216. cap. 6. nu. 76. Quidam probabilitèr explicant de Laicis Manichaeis, qui communi∣cabant sub altera specie tantum, &c. Verum haec explicatio, licet reliquis verbis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 accommodari possit, extremis tamèn quibus causam reddit, non potest conuenire. Ill is enim denotat, tale esse my sterium secun∣dum [ D] se, vt sine grandi sacrilegio diuidi nequeat, nempè intelligere 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ratione suae significationis & institutionis.
• * 1.122

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Confess. fid. Cath. ca. 19. Hospin. Hist. sacra. pa. 2. fo. 112.
• * 1.123

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. in 2. Edit. loc. com. Im∣press. Argent. ann. 1525. fol. 78.
• * 1.124

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. de Captiu. Babilon. ca. d. Eu∣char.
• * 1.125

  Hospin. Histor. sacr. 1. 2. fo. 12.
• a 1.126

  Luther. Edit. Wittenberg. anno 1546. d. Captiuit. Babil. d. Euchar. pa. 95. col. 2. Sivtra species potest ne∣gari Laicis poterit & eis pars Baptis∣mi & poenitentiae tolli. Sivini speciem potest Ecclesia tollere Laicis, potest & panis speciem tollere, &c. Melancth. Loc. Edit. 1561. Lipsiae pa. 188. Iuel. Replie. ar. 2. These godly learned men, when they saw that through the malice of their 〈◊〉〈◊〉, they could not obtaine, that Christs Institution might vniuersally [ E] be receiued, yet they defired at least, it might be left free without restraint, for euery Church to do therein as they should think good, and that without murmure or offecne of others, &c. Not that they thought Christ had not ordained the Sacrament to be administred vnto the people in both kinds, or that in it selfe it is in∣different, but as the godly Fathers at the beginning, when they could not persuade the princes of the world, and their people to receiue the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 yet they thought they were 〈◊〉〈◊〉 when they might haue place and libertie for themselues, surely and with quiet conscience to meet together, and to preach the Gospell.
• * 1.127

  Concil. Floren. in decreto Eugenij. 41.
• * 1.128

  Concil. Basilien. sess. 30.
• * 1.129

  Concil. Constan∣tiens. sess. 13.
• a 1.130

  Const. Concil. sess. 4. Basil. sess. 33. decree, That the Pope is inferiour to the Councell, and fallible in his iudgeme nt.
• * 1.131

  Halens. 4. p. q. 11. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 2. a. 4. 55: 3.
• * 1.132

  Beda, Hist. Gent. Anglic. lib. 2. c. 5. & lib. 4. c. 14.
• a 1.133

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 before, pag. 482.
• b 1.134

  Vasq. disp. 216. cap. 3. nu. 38. Ne∣gare nō possumus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Ecclesia Latina fuissevsum vtriusque speciei, & vsque ad tem∣pora Sancti Tho∣mae durasse.
• c 1.135

  Alex. Hal. 4. q. 10. m. 4. §. 1. Sumpto hoc Sacramento dignè in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 specie, maior est effectus vnionis corporis Mystici cum capite quàm sumpto sub altera. Ibid. q. 11. m. 2. ar. 4. §. 3. Sump∣tio sub vtraque specie; quem modum fumendi tradidit Dominus, est maioris efficaciae, & complementi. Item, Licet illa sumptio quae est in accipiendo sub vna specie sufficiat, illa tamen quae est sub duabus, est ma∣ioris meriti, tum ratione augumentationis deuotioris, tum ratione fidei dilatationis actualis.
• d 1.136

  Beda, Hist. An∣glorum, lib. 4. c. 14. pa. 132. Expectare habes, donec Mis∣sae celebrantur, ac viatico Dominici corporis & sanguinis, accepto sic infirmitate simul & morte absolutus, ad aeterna in coelis gaudia sub∣leueris.
• * 1.137

  Euseb. li. 6. Histor. ca. 36. ex Epist. Di∣onis. Alex. ad Fabi∣um. Genebrardus. Paulinus in vita Ambrosij.
• * 1.138

  Eus. Hist li. 6. c. 36.
• a 1.139

  Particulā pu∣er quam apporta∣rat 〈◊〉〈◊〉 si∣ue intinctam in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 senis 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• b 1.140

  Burchard. & Iuo. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vt Eucharistia quae in viaticum ex 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 re∣seruatur, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sit in sanguinem Domini, vt vera∣citer presbyter 〈◊〉〈◊〉 possit, corpus & sanguis Domini Iesu Christi, prosit tibi in vitam aeter∣nam.
• c 1.141

  Erasm. Censura ante opera Ambr. Idē est Artifex qui tam multa conta∣minauit in scriptis Hieronimianis & Augustinianis na∣tus ad hunc ludum.
• d 1.142

  Paulin. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ambr. Qui descē∣dens 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sancti Domini corp' quo accepto vbi gluti∣uit emisit spiritū.
• * 1.143

  Tertul. li. 2. ad 〈◊〉〈◊〉. ca. 5. Basil. Epist. ad Cae∣sar. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Pra∣tum 〈◊〉〈◊〉. ca. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• a 1.144

  Hier. tom. 1. Ep. 4. Nihil Exu∣perio ditius, qui corpus Domini ca∣nistro vimineo, sa∣guinem portat in vitro. Chrysost. to. 6. Ep. ad Innocent. Etiā sanguis Do∣mini in Sacrario seruatur. Niceph. Hist. Ecclesiast. lib. 13. cap. 19.
• b 1.145

  Greg. Naz. Or. 11. in Laud. Gorgon. pag. 187. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.146

  Conc. Laodicen. Conc. 49. & Trul∣lan. Can. 52.
• a 1.147

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. Graec. Bi∣blioth. sanct. Patr. Sacerdotem post∣quā sanctificaue∣rit Panē, infundere Vinū in 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉, & A quam, & 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉, &c.
• a 1.148

  Genebrard. Li∣turg. Myst. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 consecrat. ex Cre∣tensi codice. Ecce immaculatum cor∣pus ipsius, & 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Sanguis hac nunc hora ingre∣dientia in hac mē∣sa mystica sunt, qua multitudine celestis exercitus inuisibiliter 〈◊〉〈◊〉, quorum communionem innocuam tribue nobis.
• b 1.149

  Balsam. Synod. 6. can. 52. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. [ B]
• c 1.150

  Baron. Anno. 404. Haeretici negant asseruandam 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sacratissimam Eucharistiam, quam videmus non sub specie panis tantum, sed etiam sub specie vini olim recondi consueuisse. Habes id quoque probatum authoritate B. Gregorij, dum ait, in naui portasse nauigantes corpus & sanguinem Christi. Dialog. li. 3. ca. 36.
• * 1.151

  Leo. Serm. 4. d. Quadrag.
• d 1.152

  Leo. d. Quadra∣ges. serm. 4. pa. 173. ore 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Chri∣sti corpus 〈◊〉〈◊〉, sanguinem au∣tem Redemptor is nostri haurire, om∣nino 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• a 1.153

  Vasq. in 3. Disp. 216. c. 4. n. 42. vt se Catholicos simu∣larēt, ita sumebant Calicē, vt sangui∣nem non 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in altera specie.
• * 1.154

  Acts 2. 42.
• * 1.155

  Luc. 24.
• * 1.156

  Accepit Panem & benedixit & fre∣git. August. lib. 3. d. Consensu Euan∣gel. cap. 25. Bede & Theoph. in Luc. Hieron. in Epitaph. Paulae Isych. lib. 2. in Leuit. cap. 9.
• a 1.157

  Greg. Euang. Hom. 23. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. in Act. 2. 42. Eu∣sebius Emissen. ho. 2. Feria. 2. Pasch.
• b 1.158

  Lyra. in Luc. 24. Accepit panem, benedixit ac fregit, & porrigebat illis. Sicut consueuerat facere ante passionem: sic enim frangebat panem, ac si scinderetur cum cultello. Dionis. Carth. in Luc. 24. Accepit panem & benedixit, non tamen in suum corpus conuertit, sicut in 〈◊〉〈◊〉, sed vt moris est benedicere cibum, in quo instruxit nos, vt ante refectionem benedicatur cibus & potus. Caietan. sup. Luc. 24. [ D] Quatuor actiones Iesu circa panem describuntur, acceptio, benedictio, fractio, & porrectio, & tamen in sola fractione agnitus dicitur inferius: vt intelligamus, fractionem 〈◊〉〈◊〉 miraculosam, hoc est quod frangebat panem manibus, sicut alij incidunt cultello. Solitum autem hunc frangendi modum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 credimus, & propterea Discipuli ex consueto Iesu modo, cognouerunt eum. Gagneus. sup. Luc. 24. Cum viderunt assue∣tam panis 〈◊〉〈◊〉, agnouerunt eum. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Harm. cap. 146. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. to. 4. lib. 8. cap. 12. Respondet Iansenius & alij, Christum non prebuisse his duobus Discipulis 〈◊〉〈◊〉, erantenim impa∣rati, neque tunc nouerant quid esset Eucharistia, non enim 〈◊〉〈◊〉 extremae interfuerant. Willielm. Wids. c. Wiclif. Hie dico quod non habetur ex textu, vel exglossa, Luc. 24. vel per antiquos doctores, quod ille pa∣nis quem Christus fregit post resurrectionem, fuit consecratus vel Sacramentalis. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. d. Sacram. d. Euchar. Disp. 4. q. 2. p. 3. Ad factum Christi in castello Emaus responderi potest, primo, non constare, Christum confecisse corpus suum, cum Discipuli non essent dispositi, 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 in fide.