A systeme or body of divinity consisting of ten books : wherein the fundamentals and main grounds of religion are opened, the contrary errours refuted, most of the controversies between us, the papists, Arminians, and Socinians discussed and handled, several Scriptures explained and vindicated from corrupt glosses : a work seasonable for these times, wherein so many articles of our faith are questioned, and so many gross errours daily published / by Edward Leigh.

CHAP. IX. The Lords Supper.

THere are divers names and appellations of it, of which Casaubone speaks Ex.* 1.1 16. ad Annal. Eccles. Baron.

This Sacrament is called The a 1.2 Supper, from the time of its institution, because it was instituted by Christ after a common Supper, and the eat∣ing of the Paschal Lamb, in the night in which he was betrayed, 1 Cor. 11. 23.

This word Coena is not liked of the Roman Church, because it signifies a com∣mon Supper, and by consequent cannot be applied to private Masses, nay nor to publick Masses neither, in which oftentimes the Priest eats all alone. Scena est pla∣nè, non Coena Dominici corporis & sanguinis id quod agitur. Sacerdos ad altare assi∣stit, theatrali veste magnificè indutus. Post multas gesticulationes manuum, multas corporis gyrationes, tandem crustulum manibus supra caput elatis, elatum à populo aver∣sus ostendunt. Audiunt qui ad sunt quod non intelligunt, vident quae non percip••unt, adorant quod nesciunt. Simplicii Varini. Epist. de libro postumo Grot. p. 263.

The Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11. 20. b 1.3 because instituted by Christ our Lord. The Fathers often call it so. Cyprian hath written a Tractate, De Coena Domini.

The breaking of Bread, Acts 2. 42. & 20. 7. The breaking of the Eucharist, so the Syriack in both places. Vide De Dieu, because it representeth the crucifying of Christ.

The Eucharist, so it was called not long after the Apostles, because the Evan∣gelist Luke and the Apostle rehearsing the institution of this Sacrament, do

write that Christ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did give thanks, Luke 22. 19. 1 Cor. 11. 24. and it is al∣so still celebrated in the Church with thanksgiving. This title is used by the Fa∣thers and Reformed Churches.

The Table of the Lord, 1 Cor. 10. 21. because our Lord Christ instituted this Sa∣crament, and celebrated it at a Table, and the Apostles received it there. See Mat. 26. 20. Mark 14. 18. Luke 22. 14. Iohn 13. 12.

A Communion, 1 Cor. 10. 16. because it is a bond of that mutual charity and sym∣bole of the brotherly unity which is among all the faithful, 1 Cor. 10. 17.

The Papists acknowledge no Communion in participating of this Sacrament, no marvel therefore if they dislike the name.

It is called by the Ancients Syn••xis, which is a Greek word, and signifies the same with Congregation, or a meeting together, 1 Cor. 11. 20. it is a collection, gathering together, or assembling of the faithful.

The Papists call it A Masse, The Sacrament of the Altar, and The Sa∣crifice.

Some things are necessary in their nature, as love and fear of God; Some on∣ly* 1.4 by a Law are necessary to our life, so all institutions of Christ. Paul cals it the Lords Supper, which imports Christ the Author, as indeed he was, as the Evan∣gelists do witnesse. See 1 Cor. 11. 23. It is a standing Ordinance, he enjoyns the use of it, Till the Lord come, ver. 26. which cannot be meant of coming in the Spirit, for so he was already come according to his promise made before he depart∣ed from the world.

The Lords Supper is thus described by one:

It is an Institution of Christ or second Sacrament of the New Testament, con∣sisting of bread and wine, wherein by performance of divers acts about it the Co∣venant of Grace is confirmed to every worthy receiver. This is too obscure and confused.

Others thus:

It is the second Sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ himself, wherein by taking and eating of bread, and by taking and drinking of wine, the Covenant of Grace is confirmed to every worthy receiver.

It is the eating and drinking of consecrated bread and wine given to seal up our feeding and nourishment in Christ Jesus.

Doctor Featley in his Grand Sacriledge of the Church of Rome, c. 15. thus defines it, It is a Sacrament of the New Testament, sealing unto us the perfect nourishment of our souls, by the participation of the sacred elements of bread and wine.

Doctor Go••ge in his Catechism thus defines it, It is a Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment, wherein by receiving of bread and wine according to Christs institution, our Communion with Christ is represented and sealed up unto us.

It is a Sacrament of our nourishment and our growing up in the Lord Jesus, and* 1.5 therefore it is appointed by him to be frequently used, as being one of the stand∣ing dishes which the Lord Christ hath provided for the daily diet, and the houshold provision of his faithful ones who are of his family, 1 Cor. 11. 26, 34. Bread su∣stains the hungry, Wine refreshes the thirsty, both satisfie to the full: Christ saves perfectly all that come unto him. Hookers Survey of the Summe of Church-Discipline, part 3. c. 2.

Here we have more immediately to do with the person of Christ: we draw high to God in prayer, but we become one with him in the Supper, 1 Cor. 10. 16. here are the sweetest refreshings that ever we receive, other duties seem rather to be our work, this is our meal: all other duties are to fit us for the Supper, Examina∣tion, the Word, Prayer. This is a duty of the highest and most mysterious signi∣fication, Epitome Evangelii: here are the benefits of the Covenant in one rite, 1 Cor. 11. 25. the whole contrivance of salvation is represented in a bit of bread

and drop of wine, it is a duty wherein God seals up to his people the assurance o•• his love and special favour, Iohn 6. 33.

The Lords Supper is,

• 1. A spiritual medicine to cure the remainder of corruption.
• 2. Spiritual food to strengthen our weak graces.
• 3. A spiritual cordial to comfort our distressed consciences.
• 4. A strong obligation to all acts of thankfulnesse and obedience unto Jesus Christ.

What are the special and spiritual ends for which the body and bloud of Christ is exhibited and applied in the Lords Supper?

1. In the transacting of the services there done the whole Covenant of grace is sealed and personally applied, the body and bloud of Christ may be held forth in a Sermon, God renews unto them all that he hath promised, Matth. 26. 22▪ This Cup is the New Testament in my bloud, as the New Testament is founded in the bloud of Christ, so it is exhibited and sealed therein.

2. It serves for the nourishing and building up of his people in all graces, it is called eating and drinking, He that eats my flesh and drinks my bloud.

Two things are comprehended under nourishment:

• 1. The maintenance and preservation of the stock of spiritual life which we have got already, as by our meat and drink we are preserved and continued in our life.
• 2. In children it serves to augment their parts, make them larger, stronger, the Lords Supper was appointed by Christ to be one of the great means of our spiritual augmentation.* 1.6

The Sacraments are not properly Seals unto our faith, but of the Covenant. They may be said to be seals of our faith consecutivè, by a consequence of speech, because as seals confirm a thing, so faith is confirmed and strengthened by recei∣ving; but they are not formaliter, in a true proper sense, seals unto any thing but the Covenant.

All graces are nourished and increased by the Lords Supper, because the new Covenant is sealed, but three cardinal Graces especially, as in the body: nourish the stomack, liver, brain, heart, lungs, nourish them and you nourish all the rest.

• 1. The in-dwelling vertue of the Spirit of God, they receive an increase of the Spirit.
• 2. Faith, nourish that and you nourish all, it is called the life of faith. Faith is the condition of the Covenant, and we seal to our condition.
• 3. Love to God and his people, it doth enflame thy love to God and his people, it is a communion, we are all made one Spirit.

This Sacrament doth not beget but increase and strengthen Grace where it is already wrought.

Christ is conveyed in this Sacrament by way of food. The Word was appointed to work conversion, Faith cometh by hearing; This ordinance is not appointed for con∣version, but it supposeth conversion, it seals mens conversion; therefore in the Primi∣tive times they let all come to the hearing of the Word, and then when the Sermon was done, there was an Officer stept up and cried, Sancta Sanctis, Holy things for holy men, and then all others were to go out, and therefore it was called missa (though the Papists did corrupt it, and so called it the Masse afterwards, by mixing their own inventions in stead of the Supper of the Lord, but it had that name at first) because all others were sent away; and only such as were of the Church and accounted godly stayed.

Reasons. 1. The nature of it, being the seal of the Covenant of Grace requires it, it must be supposed that all which come hither must be in Covenant with God. The condition of the Covenant of Grace, is, Believe and be saved, therefore it is appointed for believers.

Secondly, It is the Ordinance of spiritual nourishment, there must be first life before there can be any nourishment received in. If it be appointed to

nourish and increase grace, then surely there must be grace before.* 1.7

Thirdly, We are required to examine our selves, 1 Cor. 11. and of our godliness, examine what work of God hath been upon the soul.

Fourthly, It is a Sacrament of Communion with God and with the Saints, and What Communion hath light with darknesse? Or, What fellowship hath Christ with Belial?

All ignorant prophane scandalous persons, and such as are meerly civil are hence excluded.

Conversion is sometimes (and that improperly in Scripture, as Matth. 18. 3.) ta∣ken for the renewed exercise of faith and repentance in one that is already convert∣ed, but the Question is, Whether the first work of Regeneration, the infusing of the first habits, principles and seed of grace, be effected by the Lords Supper re∣ceived?

It is one thing to be converted at a Sacrament, another to be converted by the Sacrament; There is some expounding, praying. It is one thing intentionally to convert as an Institution, and another accidentally to convert as an occasion. Philip Goodwins Evangelical Communicant.

The Assembly upon these grounds thought it fit that scandalous sinners (though not yet cast out of the Church) should be suspended from the Sa∣crament.

• 1. Because the Ordinance it self must not be prophaned.
• 2. Because we are charged to withdraw from those who walk disorderly.* 1.8
• 3. Because of the great sinne and danger both to him that comes unworthily, and also to the whole Church. The Scriptures from which they did prove all this were Matth. 7. 6. 2 Thess. 3. 6, 14, 15. 1 Cor. 11. 27. to the end of the Chapter, com∣pared with Iude v. 23. 1 Tim. 5. 22.

Another proof added by the Assembly, was this, There was power and autho∣rity under the Old Testament to keep unclean persons from holy things, Levit. 13. 5. Numb. 9. 7. 2 Chron. 23. 19. And the like power and authority by way of Ana∣logy continues under the New Testament, for the authoritative Suspension from the Lords Table, of a person not yet cast out of the Church.

Wicked men (saith Master Hildersam) should not be admitted to the Ta∣ble of the Lord, Ezra 6. 21. holy things are prophaned thereby, Ezek. 22. 26. 1 Cor. 5. 6.

There should be a publick confession for scandalous sins. David was more ho∣noured for this, Psal. 51. then dishonoured for his sinne. Salomon left his Ecclesia∣stes as a monument of his Repentance. Paul frequently mentions his faults, Tertul. de poenit. and others speak of it.* 1.9

Ebrius, infantes, erroneus, atque furentes, Cum pueris, Domini non debent sumere corpus.

It was their great sinne in the Church of Corinth, that they did not cast out the* 1.10 incestuous person, and it was a commendation to that Church, Revel. 2. that they could not endure the Nicolaitans.

A prophane person in Augustines, Chrysostoms time, Tertullians and Cyprians time, in Pauls, in Iohns time, could not come to the Sacrament. They are called Tremenda mysteria, mysteries which the soul is to tremble at, the Fathers call it the most terrible day and hour, as if it were a day of Judgement.

This Suspension is called by the Schoolmen, Excommunicatio minor.

The power of suspending one from the Sacrament, is given not uni, but unitati, to the Eldership, not to any one either Minister or Elder. M. Gillesp. Aarons Rod bloss. l. 3. c. 1.

Church-officers should not admit all promiscuously, but be careful whom they admit to the Supper.

That they be not cruel to the souls of them they admit, and to the Nation, and their own souls, by being guilty of other mens sinnes. Pareus said to those of Heidelberg, When I see your Sacrament prophanation, I wonder not at the warre.

Of receiving with the wicked.

It is lawful to joyn with a known unsanctified man in the service of God, 1 Sam.* 1.11 15. 30, 31, Christ knew Iudas to be an hypocrite, a devil, a traitor, yet admitted him to be at the last Passeover which ever he received, though not to the Supper▪ for that was not administred till his departure, not because it had been unlawfull to have received with him.

Because the Lord who commandeth his worship, never puts in any such limitati∣ons and exceptions, unlesse a wicked man be present.

Object. Christ was the Son of God, and as so knew the theft and hollowness of Iudas, and therefore his example in this case cannot be our warrant.

Answ. Though he did know as God his wickednesse, yet he did receive the Passeover with him as man, and how he came by the knowledge of his faultinesse it matters not, since he knew him faulty. Therefore our Saviour also went up to the usual feast, and to the Temple, when he was sure to meet there with the most abominable Scribes and Pharisees, 1 Sam. 2. 2. Hannah and Elkanah went up to the house of God to Shiloh to worship there with the sons of Eli, Hophni and Phi∣neas, there not alone with wicked people but Priests they did partake in divine service.

Some endeavour to prove out of 1 Sam. 2. 17. that wicked men by coming to the Sacrament do pollute it, because the sinful carriage of Eli's sons, caused men* 1.12 to abhorre the offering of the Lord: but note the reason why the offering became abominable, because they offered not the Sacrifice according to the Command∣ment of God, they would not have sodden flesh but raw: If the doctrine of the Sacrament be corrupted, if it be celebrated under one kinde, if water be mingled with wine, this is to pollute the Ordinance.

Object. We are commanded to separate our selves from the wicked, and to come out from amongst them. 2 Cor. 6. 17.

Answ. We must indeed come out from amongst those which do serve false gods, and separate our selves from the familiar society of wicked persons, but other se∣paration was never practised by any Prophet or Apostle, or ever meant. Immedi∣ately there it follows, Touch not the unclean thing, that is, do not joyn with others in their pollutions, Ephes. 5. 6, 7, 11.

Some say he speaks to professours of Christian Religion concerning Heathens, to leave familiar fellowship with them, as joyning in marriage, and the like, which is the thing he had spoken of immediately before.

To have none good is the property of a Church malignant, to have all good and none bad is the property of the Church triumphant, to have some good and some bad is the property of the Church militant.

Men openly wicked and scandalous should be cast out of the Congregation of Saints, but it follows not that because such should be cast out and be not, therefore others should abstain from the Assemblies of the Saints.

The Brownists abstain from coming to the Word and Sacrament amongst us, be∣cause

many openly prophane and known wicked men are admitted to our Assem∣blies, therefore they think they cannot with good conscience serve God with such persons, but no good man in the Scripture did therefore withdraw himself from the Temple or their Synagogues. See M. Hilders. on Iohn 4. 22.

This Ordinance (saith M. Burroughes a 1.13) must be received in a holy Communi∣on, or in a Communion of Saints, 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. therefore all that come to re∣ceive the Sacrament, must so come as they must be one body, one spiritual corpo∣ration.

This Sacrament (saith he b 1.14) is not defiled to the right receivers of it, meerly because wicked men are present there, but because the Congregation neglects their duty of casting out the wicked from thence, when they discover themselves. The example of the incestuous Corinthian, 1 Cor. 5. (saith he) is a plain place for it, A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. The Lump there is the Church communi∣on, and the Leaven the incestuous person; while this leaven continues, if you do not your duty to cast out this scandalous person, your whole lump, your whole communion will come to be defiled. Particular persons and communicants come to be defiled in this, if they neglect the duty that belongs unto them as Christians, Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. if thou ••ast done this duty to all scandalous persons in the Congregation, then the sinne be upon the Church, thou maist receive the Sacra∣ment with comfort, though wicked men be admitted there.

As I never found one word in Scripture where either Christ or his Apostles de∣nied admittance to any man that desired to be a member of the Church, though but onely professing to repent and believe; So neither did I ever there finde that any but convicted Hereticks, or scandalous ones (and that for the most part after due admonition) were to be avoided or debarred our fellowship M. Baxters Saints everlasting Rest, c. 4. Sect. 3. See more there.

The rest of the Congregation is not polluted by the mixture of unworthy per∣sons with them, unlesse they be consenting to their wickednesse, no more then in the duties of hearing and prayer with the wicked in a mixt Congregation. M. L••fo. Princip▪ of Faith and a good Consc. c. 52.

For that Objection, A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.* 1.15

Answ. This is a Metaphorical speech, the meaning of it is not, that one or two sinners cause the whole Congregation to be so corrupt and unpleasing to God, that whosoever joyneth with them is polluted, but alone this, One sinner suffered and not punished, the infection spreads farther and farther.

Objection. We are commanded not to eat with a brother, if he be so and so.

Answ. It signifieth to have familiar civil society with them, in inviting them* 1.16 or feasting them. But if one may not have familiar civil conversation with such, much lesse may he eat with them at the Sacrament. It follows not, for in with∣drawing our selves from them we punish them, and shew our dislike of them, but in withdrawing our selves from the Sacrament, because of them we punish our selves. The Church of Israel in the time of Hophni and Phineas was a mixt multi∣tude. In the time of Christ the Church of Ierusalem, for they plotted Christs

death, and had decreed to cast out of the Synagogue every one that should con∣fesse him.

M^r Downame * 1.17 saith, None ought to refrain coming to the Lords Table, because they see scandalous sinners and unworthy guests admitted. For

• 1. The Apostle, 1 Cor. 11. 28. doth not enjoyn us to examine others but our selves.
• 2. Because the Apostles, yea even Christ himself did joyn with those Assem∣blies in the service of God, and particularly in the use of the Sacraments which were full of corruptions, both in respect of doctrine and manners, as viz. this Church of Corinth it self. See 1 Cor. 11. 21. The word usually signifies to be drunk, and here they are sharply reproved for a great fault.
• 3. Because one mans sinne cannot defile another, nor make the seals of the Co∣venant uneffectual to him who cometh in faith and repentance, and even hateth that sinne which he seeth committed, especially when he hath no power commit∣ted unto him by God and the Church, of repelling the wicked from this holy Communion.
• 4. Because the punishment denounced against unworthy receivers is appropria∣ted to them who thus offend, and reacheth not to the innocent because they are in their company, 1 Cor. 11. 29.

It were much to be desired (saith M. Downame) that all wicked persons were excluded from this outward Communion with the Saints (for what have dogs to do with holy things, or swine with pearls?) and it were a great comfort to the godly if none but such as are like unto themselves, had fellowship with them at this feast; our Love, Zeal, and Devotion is more enlivened in this action by our mutual prayers, when with one minde and heart we joyn together, yet it should not wholly discourage us from coming to this sacred Feast (though wicked per∣sons be there present) if we our selves be duly prepared. For though we would not willingly eat with slovenly persons, nor permit them to put their unclean hands into our dish, yet if we have a good appetite and cannot help it, we will rather ad∣mit such inconvenience then for want of food pine with hunger.

Theodosius the Emperour being a man guilty of rash effusion of bloud, coming* 1.18 upon a Sabbath-day to the place of publick worship, would have received the Sacrament: Ambrose seeing him coming, goes and meets him at the door, and speaks thus to him, How dare those bloudy hands of yours lay hold on the body and bloud of Christ, who have been the shedders of so much innocent bloud? Which speech did so startle him that he went away and was humbled for his sinne, and afterwards came and made his publick confession, and then was received in. Whence we may see that Kings, yea Emperours have been kept back from the Sacrament. * 1.19

The Canons of our Church (Can. 26.) straitly charge every Minister, That he shall not in any wise admit to the Communion any of his flock which are openly known to live in notorious sin without repentance.

Whether Iudas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper?

M. Gillespie in his Aarons Rod blos••oming, chap. 8. holds he did not, and chap. 9.* 1.20 questions, Whether he received the Sacrament of the Passeover that night in which our Lord was betrayed: and chap. 10. saith, If it could be proved that Iudas

received the Lords Supper, it maketh nothing against the Suspension of known wic∣ked persons from the Sacrament.

One saith, The evidence of this fact hath ever appeared so fully to the Church, that this alone hath been ground sufficient to deduce their right of free admission.* 1.21 D. Drake in his Barre to free Admission to the Sacrament, pag. 5, 6. urgeth reasons that Iudas did not receive the Sacrament, and saith, that it makes nothing for free Admission if he did.

M. Selden De Synedriis veterum Ebraeorum cap. 8. saith, Seriò perpendatur, Judam ipsum, Furem, Proditorem, Scelestissimum, hisque nominibus satis notum & publicè* 1.22 peccantem in ipsa institutione cum reliquis undecim, Sacramenti Eucharistiae, juxta plerosque & Veterum & Recentiorum, participem fuisse, nec omninò ea interdictum. He hath much more there out of divers ancient and modern Writers to confirm that opinion.

At what time the Lords Supper was instituted:

Christ instituted it at night, because occasion so required: we have not the like occasion, therefore are not bound unto it. In Trajans and Tertullians time Chri∣stians* 1.23 did celebrate the Sacrament before day, * 1.24 Tempore antelucano, because of persecution they durst not receive it in the day time; in S^t Augustines time, Tem∣pore Antemeridiano, so now. It behoved that Christ should suffer at the time of the Passeover, to shew himself the true Passeover, 1 Cor. 5. 7. and immediately after the eating of the last Passeover should institute this Sacrament, to shew that now he abrogated the Jewish Ordinance, and did appoint this in stead of it. A fair intimation that Baptism follows in the room of Circumcision, as the Lords Supper doth the Passeover.

The consideration of this circumstance should be of great force to make us re∣spect and reverence the Sacrament, seeing Christ instituted it then when he was about to depart out of this life, and to suffer death for us: we usually remember the words of a dying friend.

The Elements of the Eucharist:

They are two, not only differing in number, but also in their kinde, Bread and* 1.25 Wine, the first of which is solid and belongs to meat, the later liquid and serves for drink. The body is sufficiently nourished if it have bread and drink. Christ cals himself both, Iohn 6. 58.

Bread because it strengtheneth the body is therefore called Christs body, and wine because it turneth into bloud, is therefore called Christs bloud. Isidor.

These two creatures are, 1. Of ordinary use, not rare, gotten in every Countrey.

2. Such creatures as God of old made representations of his grace, Isa. 25. 6. and 55. 3.

3. They are creatures best in their kinde, of all things we eat, bread is most nou∣rishing and universally necessary for all kinde of bodies, Panis à pascendo, and wine of all drinks.

1 Cor. 10. 17. We are all one body, in as much as we are partakers of one bread. The Analogy standeth thus, as many grains of Corn make one loaf of bread, and ma∣ny Grapes make one measure of wine in the Cup: So, many Christians partaking

faithfully of this Sacrament become one mystical body of Christ by the union of faith and love.

The Lord hath appointed those Elements to shew that men should come with an appetite and thirsting, to receive the Sacrament in ancient times was as much as de∣siderare, è cujus manu desideravit.

In Baptism we have one sign as the material part, in the Supper we have two signs, partly to note out our whole, full, and perfect nourishment in Christ, ha∣ving whatsoever is requisite for our salvation; and partly to shew a fuller remem∣brance of his death, for the wine which is a figure of his bloud, doth as it were represent it before our eyes. Attersol of the Sacr. l. 3 c. 5. Vide Aquin. Sum parte 3. Quaest. 74. Art. 1.

There are two representing signs in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper:

• 1. That we might know tha•• •••• Christ w•• have whole and perfect spiritual nou∣rishment,* 1.26 and whatsoever is ••••q••isite to ••al••••••ion.
• 2. For a more ••••vely representation of Christ his death and p••ssion, in which his bloud was separated from his body.

These elements are to be administred in both kindes severally; Christ at his last Supper delivered first bread by it self, and then wine, and not bread and wine to∣gether in a sop, or bread dipt in wine. In the sop the wine is not d••un•• but eaten.

Of receiving the Sacrament in both kindes, Bread and Wine.

The Communion was instituted by Christ in both kindes, as three Evangelists* 1.27 shew Mark 14. 23. & Luke 22. 20. Matth. 26. 27. It was administred by the Apo∣stles in both kindes, 1 Cor. 11. 26, 28. & 10. 16. It was received in the ancient Church for the space of fourteen hundred years in both kindes, as it is confessed by their own Councel of Constance, and that of Trent also. This was constantly pra∣ctised in the Church for divers hundred years, untill the Councel of Constance in the year of the Lord 1414.

Some Northern Councels there are (saith Bellarmine Tom. 3. de Sacr. Eccles. l. 4. c. 28.) where wine is not to be had, therefore for uniformity sake the Church thought fit that every where the Sacrament should be administred but in one kinde.

Although there be not wine or wheat in some Countreys, yet it may easily be carried to all, as much as sufficeth for the use of this Sacrament. Aquinas part. 3. Quaest. 74. Art. 1.

Object. Some (saith Bellarmine) are abstemious and abhorre wine, they cannot endure it, and it may offend sickly persons.

Answ. Extraordinary cases must not justle out ordinary laws and custom, Vi∣num in modica quantitate sumptum non potest multum aegrotanti nocere. Wine mo∣derately taken cannot much hurt the sick. Aquin ubi supra.

Object. Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink this Cup unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ, the conjunction Or (say they) doth so dis-joyn both kindes, that it is free to take one without the other.

Answ. If this be true, then it shall be lawful also to take the Cup without the Bread, that disjunctive is put not for that it is lawful to take one kinde and omit the other, but that greater caution may be used, and he spake of both severally, because irreverence may be used in both signs, and to shew that it sufficieth not to carry our selves holily in part, unlesse we finish the whole action holi∣ly, otherwise in the same place Bread and Wine are joyned together eight times.

Object. Act. 2. 42. & 20. 7.

Answ. Suppose the bread of the Lords Table be there meant, yet it is a Synec∣doche* 1.28 whereby the part is put for the whole, otherwise you may as well say they had no thanksgiving, because Luke maketh only mention of prayers, as to say they had not the Cup, because mention is made only of bread, vers. 46▪ speaking of the common Table (from the similitude whereof the Lords Table is taken) he useth the same phrase of breaking of bread without making mention of any drink, he saith breaking bread they took bread, which can hardly be said of the Lords Supper.

Christ as fore-seeing the sacriledge of the Papists commandeth all, not to eat of the bread, but to drink of the Cup, Matth. 26. 27. Mark 14. 23. 1 Cor. 12. 13. and Mark saith, They all drank of it.

Certainly I perswade my self, that our Saviour expressed the note of universa∣lity, viz. in delivering the Cup to all, saying, Drink you all of this: and not so in giving the bread, of set purpose, to prevent that abuse which the Romish Church of late hath brought, by taking away the Cup. As in like manner the Apostle saith of marriage, It is honourable in, or amongst all men, Heb. 13. 4. and he saith not so of Virginity or single life, although it be honourable, because the holy Ghost foresaw, that some hereticks would deny marriage to be honourable amongst all, and prohibit it to some, viz▪ the Clergy. Which two Texts of Scripture the Romanists leudly pervert, and ridiculously contradict themselves in the interpre∣tation of them, extending all to the Laity in the one, and excluding the Clergy; and extending all to the Clergy in the other, and excluding the ••aity: Marriage is honourable among all, say they, that is, all, save Priests. Drink you all of this, that is, all, save the people. Doctor Featleys Grand Sacriledge of the Church of Rome, ch. 2.

Drink you all of this, saith the Author of the Sacrament: he saith not expresly, Eat you all of this; as foreseeing that impiety, which in time humane presumption should bring in upon and against his own institution, fulfilled in the Church of Rome at this day. B. Mountag. Answ. to the Gagger of Protest. Sect. 36.

The Papists say, That the universal particle All belongs to the twelve Apostles, who were Priests, say they, and alone present at the institution of this first Sup∣per, and therefore it belongs only to Priests, not Lay-men, and they receive the bloud with the body ratione concomitantiae. By this reason they may as well take away the bread from the people.

The Apostles in the first Supper did not represent the order of Priests, but the whole Church of Communicants, and Christ administred the Sacrament to them not as Apostles, but as Disciples, therefore Paul extends this particle All, to all the Christians in the Church of Corinth, and to men of all order, condition, state and sex, 1 Cor. 11. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. The Sacrament represents Christs death and his bloud shed out of his veins, Matth. 26. 27, 28. That Helena of concomi∣tancy, which the Lutherans also admit, (as we may see in * 1.29 Gerhard) doth abound with so many absurdities, and was so unknown to antiquity, that it is a wonder that judicious men will defend it, only that they may maintain their figments of Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation.

This Argument from Concomitancy proveth as well that they may drink the wine only, and not receive the bread.

2. Though Christ wholly be sealed to us in the use of the bread really, yet not wholly sacramentally. Vide P••cher. de missa cap. 4.

Object. Bellarmine de Eucharist l. 4. c. 25. saith, There is a plain difference be∣tween the Bread and Cup, for 1 Cor. 11. he saith of the Bread absolutely Do this, but of the Cup conditionally, As oft as ye do it, therefore those words do not sig∣nifie that the Cup should alwayes be given when the Sacrament is administred, but they only prescribe the manner, that if it be so, then it should be done in memory of Christs passion.

Answ. But this is a most frivolous cavil, for the words do both command the thing, and also shew the end of doing it. In the verse immediately following the Apostle hath those words, speaking as well of the Bread as Cup. As often as ye eat of this bread and drink of this Cup. Therefore there is one and the same reason of both, the Bread and the Cup. We must take and eat the one, and take and drink the other, and whensoever we do so we must do it in remembrance of Christs death.

Object. More irreverence will be shewed to the Sacrament by spilling of it, to which in a great multitude of Communicants the wine must needs be sub∣ject to.

Answ. Reverence due to the Sacrament consists in a religious partaking of it, not in a necessary abstinence from one of the Elements.

The Papists have cut out their Sacrament according to the measure of their do∣ctrine, for as they teach Christ to be but half a Saviour, by making their works joynt-purchases of their salvation with him, so they minister half a Sacrament of salvation. Cartw. against the Rhem. on Iohn 6.

Our practice and profession is the receiving the Communion in both kindes: for which I joyn issue with all Papists living; that it is the prime, original institution of our Saviour, which giveth birth and being to a Sacrament; that it is sacriledge to alter it therefrom; that it was never otherwise used in the Church of God, for above two thousand years after Christ. Let all the Papists living prove the contrary, and I will subscribe to all Popery. B. Mountag. Answer to the Gagger of Protest. Sect. 36.

This was the custom in all the Fathers times, as I could deduce almost out of every one. This is every where the custom in all the world unto this day, but in the Romane exorbitant Church, as Cassander saith; and was not quite abolished in that Church till about thirteen hundred years after Christ, and by much art, colluding and fine forgery, was retained from being cast out of that Church in the late Conventicle of Trent, only kept in for a faction, but mightily opposed by lear∣ned, honest and conscionable Catholicks. Id. ibid.

First, If none may drink of the consecrate wine but the Priests, then none should eat of the bread but Priests, for to whom Christ said, Take and eat, to those he gave* 1.30 the Cup, and said, Drink ye: The signs being both equal, all Communicants must drink of the one, as well as eat of the other, there being the same warrant for the one that there is for the other.

Secondly, The Cup is a part of Christs Will and Testament, Galat. 3. 15.* 1.31 Hebr. 9. 16, 17. the dead mans Will may not be changed. The Lords Supper

is a Sacrament proper to the New Testament, Luke 22. 20.

Thirdly, The bloud of Christ shed upon the Crosse belongeth not onely to* 1.32 the Pastors and Teachers, but to all the faithfull that come to the Table of the Lord, Matth. 26. 28. Luke 22. 20. why then should the Cup of the Lord be bar∣red from them?

Fourthly, All the faithful that come to the Lords Table must shew forth his death untill be come, and this is done by them as well by drinking of the Cup as by eating of the bread, therefore all the Communicants must receive the Sacrament under both kinds.

To which these reasons may be added:

• 1. From the institution, for Christ commanded them to drink the wine as well as to eat the bread, therefore this is a violation of Gods command.
• 2. The Apostle bids every one to try themselves, and so to eat of that bread and drink of that wine, so they did not only eat and drink then, but they were com∣manded so to do.
• 3. To celebrate the Sacrament otherwise, is to make void Christs two main ends in appointing the Sacrament,
  • 1. To represent his death and bloud shed out of the veins.
  • 2. To shew that Christ is full nourishment to the soul, as bread and drink to the body.

The bread and wine being the matter of the Sacrament may not be changed in the* 1.33 Lords Supper.

Reasons.

• 1. The institution of the Supper, and the example of Christ himself, whom the Church is to imitate and follow, 1 Cor. 11. 25.
• 2. No other signs are so significant and effectual as these are for this purpose, to strengthen and comfort them that are in trouble and almost in the present estate of death, Psal. 104. 14, 15. Prov. 31. 6.
• 3. The matter and form of every thing do constitute its essence: So it is in the* 1.34 Sacraments, where the signes are the matter, and the words of institution the form.
• 4. If the bread and wine might be changed in the Supper, and yet the Sacra∣ment in substance remain: then in like manner, water in Baptism might be changed, and yet be true Baptism: but the Minister cannot baptize with any other liquour or element, then with water, as the matter of that Sacra∣ment.
• 5. If we grant a change in the signs at the pleasure of men, why may we not al∣so change other parts of the Sacrament? why may we not in stead of the Minister appointed o•• God and called by the Church, admit private persons, and receive other alterations inforced upon the Church by the Papists?

Bucan institut. loc. 48. Beza Epist. 2. think, that where there is no store of bread and plenty of wine sufficient for this purpose, some other thing may be taken in stead of them.

Thus it may come to passe (saith Attersol) that we shall have nothing which Christ commanded and sanctified by his example, and yet boast that we have his Supper, and do that which he appointed. For whereas we make four outward parts of this Sacrament, the Minister, the Word, the Signs and the Receiver:

There are which hold there is no necessity of the Minister: Others, that there is no necessity of the words of Institution: Others, that there is no necessity of the Signs: Others, that there is no necessity of the Receiver: So if we once admit any alteration in any of the parts, we open a gap to all innovation, and being in great uncertainty in the Sacraments.

Whether the breaking of the bread be an indifferent Ceremony.* 1.35

Some make the breaking of the bread to be simply necessary, and an essential part of the Supper, so that without it there can be no Sacrament.

• 1. Because the Sacrament is called the breaking of bread, and this breaking of bread is said to be the Communion of the body of Christ, •• Cor 10. 16.
• 2. Others make this breaking to be meerly indifferent and not necessary▪ acciden∣tal, and not of the substance.
• 3. Others * 1.36 hold a middle way between both extreams, that it is necessary, yet not as an essential but an integral part.

The Ceremony of breaking bread was continually observed by Christs first in∣stitution, by the practice of the Apostles, by the ancient and universal custom of the whole Church of Christ, as well Greek as Latine.

This act of breaking of bread is such a principal act, that the whole celebration of this Sacrament hath had from thence this appellation given to it by the Apo∣stles* 1.37 to be called breaking of bread; it is also a Symbolicall Ceremony be∣tokening the crucifying of Christs body upon the Crosse, 1 Corinth. 11. 24. But the Papists yet doe not break it but g••ve it whole, and this they pretend to doe for reverence sake, least some crums of bread should fall to the ground.

Three Evangelists mention the breaking of the bread.

It is not material whether the bread be broken or cut, but it is more probable that Christ broke it from the custom of the Jews, saith Vossius: but Balduinus the Lutheran a 1.38 saith, they receive a perfect Sacrament who intermit this fraction in the use of the Supper, because Christ broke the bread that he might distribute it, therefore say Gerhard b 1.39 and he, Perinde est, sive in ipsa actione coenae, sive antea ••ran∣gatur. Balduin quotes Beza, Aretius, Zanchius to that purpose, to shew that ••ra∣ction may be omitted in the very act of the Supper.

But Zanchy in an Epistle to a noble man hath this passage. The bread is to be broken before the people after the example of Christ, the Apostles and all the an∣cient Church, and also to expresse the mystery of the passion and death of Christ which are lively represented by that action.

The breaking of the bread signifies:

• 1. How we should be broken in humiliation for our sins, and the pouring out

• of the wine, how our bloud and life should be shed and poured out for our sins, if we had that we deserve.
• 2. They represent unto us how the body of Christ was broken, and his bloud poured out for our sins. M. Perkins.

Not the Palatine, the French or English Churches have lately invented or brought in the breaking of the bread, but the whole Apostolical, ancient Church above 1500 years ago, and since that time have used it according to Christs com∣mand, Do this. Paraeus de Ritu fractionis in S▪ Eucharistia. c. 5. See his 6^th Cha∣pter, where he shews how frivolous that argument is, Frangere, Hebraica phrasi nihil aliud est, quàm distribuere, and gives this rule, Where ever in Scripture the word Break concerning bread is put alone, it is an Hebraism, and signifies to di∣stribute, because the Hebrews above other nations used not to cut bread with a knife, but to break it with their hands, when they took it themselves, or gave it to others to take, but when the word ••ive is expresly added to it, it signifieth the true breaking or dividing of the whole bread into parts, as Matth. 14. 19. Mark 6. 41. Luke 9. 26. Matth. 15. 36. Mark 8. 6. and in the institution of the Supper, Mat. 26. 26. Mark 14. 22. Luk. 22. 19.

It is not necessarily required, that the Lords Supper be administred in unleaven∣ed* 1.40 bread. For bread is often times named and repeated: but the word (unlea∣vened) is never added. Wherefore as it is in it self indifferent whether the wine be red or white, and whatsoever the kinde or colour be (if it be wine:) so it is not greatly material whether the bread be leavened or unleavened, so it be bread. Attersol of the Sac. l. 3. c. 5.

The Papists pretend the institution of Christ, who (say they) made the Sacra∣ment of unleavened bread, instituting it after he had eaten the Passeover, which* 1.41 was to be eaten with unleavened bread, according to the Law of Moses, neither was there any leaven to be found in Israel seven dayes together. We deny not (saith Attersol a 1.42) but Christ m••ght use unleavened bread at his last Supper, having immediately before eaten the Paschal Lamb, yet no such thing is expressed in the Gospel. The Evangelists teach, He took bread: but make no mention or distin∣ction what bread ^b he took, nor determine what bread we should take, no more then limit what wine we shall use, but leave it at liberty to take leavened bread or unleavened, as occasion of time, place, persons, and other circumstances serve, so we take bread. If Christ on this occasion used unleavened bread: it was be∣cause it was usual, common and ordinary bread at that time, as we also should use that bread which is common. It is therefore no breach of Christs Ordinance, nor a transgression of the first original institution of the Lords Supper, to eat ei∣ther the one or the other.

The Papists give a mystical reason why the bread must be unleavened, because* 1.43 hereby is signified our sincerity, but this is ridiculous, for if unleavened bread because it is unmixed must signifie my sincerity, then the wine because it is mingled with water must signifie my duplicity and hypocrisie.

Whether it be leavened or unleavened bread, we will not strive, but take that which the Church shall according to the circumstance of the times and persons or∣dain, Yet this we dare boldly say, That in the use of leavened bread we come nearer to the imitation of Christs action then those which take unleavened. For our Saviour took the bread that was usual and at hand, there being only unleaven∣ed bread at the Feast of the Passeover, and no other to be gotten. We therefore taking the bread which is in ordinary use, and causing no extraordinary bread to be made for the nonce, are found to tread more nearly in the steps of our Saviour Christ. Therefore (unlesse you will renew the Jewish Passeover of banishing all leaven at the time of the holy Communion) your precise imitation of unleavened bread is but apish a 1.44.

Although Azymes were used by Christ, it being then the Paschal Feast, yet was this occasioned also by reason of the same Feast which was prescribed to the Jews: Protestants and Papists both grant it not to be of the essence of the Sacrament that it be unleavened, but in its own nature indifferent b 1.45.

When the Ebionites taught unleavened bread to be necessary, the Church com∣manded consecration to be made in leavened bread.

The Grecians use leavened bread, the Papists unleavened, and that made up in such wafer-cakes that it cannot represent spiritual nourishment.

We hold either indifferent, because in the institution we reade of bread without commanding leavened or unleavened. De panis qualitate nos non contendimus, si modo verus sit & solidus panis; quod de hostia Papistarum, vix potest affirmari. Ames. Bell. Enerv. Tom. 3. Disp. 32.

Cassander himself complaineth that the Papists bread is of such extream thin∣nesse and lightnesse, that it may seem unworthy the name of bread. Whereas Christ used solid and tough bread which was to be broken with the hands, or cut with the knife.

The custome of the Christian Church by the space of above a thousand years, was to put upon the sacred Table, after Christs and the Apostles example, a solid loaf which was broken into pieces among the Communicants: for all the people did communicate. Now this quantity of bread is reduced into round and light wafers, in the form of a peny, whereof they give this mystical reason, because that Christ was sold for thirty pence, and because that a peny is given for a hire unto those that have wrought in the Vineyard, Matth. 20. 10. Upon these Hostes they have put the Image of a Crucifix. Pet. du Moulin of the Masse, lib. 1. cap. 7. & lib. 3. cap. 3.

The use of the Wafer-cake is defended by the Papists and some Lutherans, as Gerh. loc. commun. Tom. 5. de Sacra Coena, c. 7. but Christ used it not whose action is our instruction, and also there is no Analogy, or a very obscure one between the sign and thing signified.

Whether it be necessary to mingle water with the Eucharistical wine.

Aquinas * 1.46 saith, Water ought to be mingled with wine, but it is not de necessi∣tate hujus Sacramenti.

Some Papists for mingling water with wine pretend the Antiquity of Councels* 1.47 and Fathers: But we say,

• 1. There is no such thing in the Institution.
• 2. The authority of these is not divine but meerly humane.
• 3. It was an ancient custom in Tertullians time to give milk and honey in Baptism to the Infant, yet the Papists themselves do not keep it: So that unlesse we had Christs institution we cannot do it, especially knowing that it is dangerous to add to any essential part of the Sacrament such as the wine is. But then they are most ridiculous, when they will make a mystical signification in this, that the union of the water with the wine must signifie the union of the people (which is denoted by waters, Revel. 17.) with Christ; Thus Bellarmine. But it signifies not this uni∣on either naturally, for then it would signifie so in common feasts: nor by divine institution, for then then the Scripture would have delivered it. Besides Rev. 17. Great waters (not a few drops) signifie the people, and that not of believers, but Heathens, and if it signifie the communion of the people with Christ, why do they deny it them?

The drink then used being called the fruit of the vine, Matth. 26. 29. it is evi∣dent that there was no mixture of water, for then it had not been the fruit of the vine, but another drink compounded of water and wine.

Some say this reason is not of force, for he that drinks vinum dilutum; drinks the fruit of the grape as well as he that drinks merum. And therefore that our Saviour Christ and his Apostles ever mingled water with wine in the sacramental Cup, cannot be shewed by any testimony out of the word of God.

As for the water gushing forth with the bloud out of our Saviour Christ, it is* 1.48 frivolous: the wine in the Cup is not a Sacrament of the bloud of Christ which was shed after that he was slain, but of the bloud which he shed before his death.

This was an ancient custom, Iustin Martyr makes mention of it, and Cyprian* 1.49 pleads for it, yet Iansenius doth ingeniously confesse that there are evident testi∣monies of Scripture for wine, but none for water, though Bellarmine * 1.50 impudent∣ly affirm, That there is as much proof for the one as the other, viz. Tradition for both, Scriptures for neither, and labours violently to wrest the plain places ano∣ther way, yet at length he doth not deny, but it is Calix Domini, though there be no water in it, and he tels us that the greater part of Divines hold, that water is not de necessitate Sacramenti. Iansenius saith, it appears by Scripture, though not expresly, yet implicitely, that there was water in the Cup which Christ consecrated, because there was wine in it, and in those hot Countreys they used not to drink meer wine, but allayed with water, this is an uncertain conjecture.

The beginning of it was lawful, because there were in the Church that could not* 1.51 beat the strength of the wines, especially in the East and South Countreys where the wines are strong.

The Christians in the Primitive Church had a custom of mixing water with the* 1.52 wine (as there came water and bloud out of Christs side) which how ever it might have a natural reason because of the heat of the Countrey to correct the heat of the wine with water, yet it was by them used for a mystical sense to expresse the mixture (whereof this Sacrament is an effectual instrument) of all the people who have faith to receive it with Christs bloud, water being by the holy Ghost inter∣preted for people and Nations.

The Aquarii used onely water in the Eucharist in pretence of Sobriety which* 1.53 Cyprian confuted onely upon this ground, viz. That this practice was not warranted by the Institution of Christ, wherein Christ ordained wine and not wa∣ter only.

In the Scripture we finde the fruit of the vine, but not water, therefore we ac∣count not that to be of any necessity in the celebration of the Lords Supper. In the Primitive Church water was used first of Sobriety, then of Ceremony, at length it grew to be counted of necessity. D^r Fulk against Martin.

Of the Consecration of the Elements.

Christs actions in the administration of the Sacrament were four:

First, He took bread into his hand, and so likewise wine, which signifies the* 1.54 purpose of God decreeing to give Jesus Christ in the flesh to work out our Re∣demption.

Secondly, Christ blessed it, and gave thanks, and sanctified it to that use by his own prayer to God, which as it is effective to make the elements now fit for a spi∣ritual use, so it is significative representing the action of God, wherein he fitted Christs manhood in the fulnesse of his Spirit and power, to work out our Re∣demption.

Thirdly, He brake the bread, which signifies the action of God satisfying his justice in Christs manhood for the sins of all the Elect by breaking him in the Gar∣den, and on the Crosse especially, besides other sufferings throughout his life, and by rending his soul and body asunder.* 1.55

Fourthly, Christ gave it to every one, signifying that God doth offer parti∣cularly to every one, and give to the Elect the body and bloud of Christ, with the merit of. it, and power of the same to blot out their sins, and free them more and more from the same.

The Text saith of the Bread, He blessed it, and of the Cup, When he had given thanks. By the which word Blessing he implieth a consecration of this Sacrament. The Papists attribute it to the repetition of these words, Hoc est enim corpus meum, For this is my body, For this is my bloud. Hence they call them Verba operatoria, and say, there is such a power and operation in them, that by them the bread is turned into the body of Christ. The Elements of which the Sacrament is com∣posed are natural, the things having nothing of themselves whereby they may be Sacraments, and therefore an institution is necessary, whereby they may be made what they are not. Now we say this is done by reciting the institution of Christ, and by prayer.

The Papists order that the Priest should reade all the other words with a loud voice, yet when he comes to this, For this is my body, he speaks it secretly, so that none can hear him, and this is one of their reasons, because Christ prayed alone, what is this to the consecration? did he so at the Sacrament time?

2. The Minister or Priest speaks it secretly, because if he speak aloud, he can∣not be so intent to what is said; why then do they command such loud noise by their Organs in singing? How can they be attentive then?

3. Least that form of words should be vilified, Why not then in Baptism?

It is most expedient,

• 1. For the receiver to receive the Bread and Cup into his hand: This custome (saith Vossius) was long in the ancient Church. It is unseemly to have the Bread put, or the Wine poured into the mouth by the Minister; this custom came from a su∣perstitious worshipping of the signs.
• 2. The receiver must eat the Bread and drink the wine, which signifies the par∣ticular applying of Jesus Christ with all the benefits of his mediation to ones own soul.

Whether Christ be corporally present with the symboles in the Eu∣charist?

Corpore de Christi lis est, de sanguine lis est.* 1.56 Lis est de modo, non habitura modum.

Christ is ascended into heaven, and he is contained there, Acts 3. 21. till he come to Judgement, therefore he is not there under the shape of bread and wine. See Matth. 26. 11. Iohn 16. 7. Acts 3. 21.

2. All the circumstances about the first Institution of the Sacrament do declare that Christ was not bodily there, especially Christ eating and drinking of it himself, which Cloppenburg a 1.57, Peter du Moulin b 1.58 and D. Featley c 1.59 hold, urging Matth. 26. 29. & Mark 14. 25. for that purpose. Those words (say they) necessarily im∣ply, that before he uttered them he had drunk of the Cup which he gave to them. Aquinas d 1.60 also holds this, and the Fathers likewise, saith Peter du Moulin.

The nature of the action (saith Peter du Moulin in the place last quoted) requi∣red that Christ should communicate to shew the Communion he had with us, as also he did partake of our Baptism, Matth. 3. 16. from whence cometh the cu∣stome of the Church, that the Pastor first communicates, and the people af∣terwards.

When the publick Authority of this Land were for the Papists, subscription was not urged upon such violent and bloudy terms unto any Articles of their Religion, as unto that of the real presence. D. Iack. Epist. to the Read.

For the same Christ was not visibly at the Table and spake, and yet invisibly un∣der the bread and wine, he did not eat and drink himself.

The end of the Sacrament is a remembrance of Christs death, Do this in remem∣brance of me, and You shew forth his death till he come. Now how can there be any remembring of him when he is present.

His corporal presence and eating is made unprofitable, Iohn▪ 6. though Christ said, his flesh was meat indeed, yet he did not mean that it should be eaten and and drunk corporally: the flesh profiteth nothing, but his words are Spirit and Life.

Our Union and Conjunction with Christ is inward and spiritual, which consists in Faith and Love; it is true we are united to his body, but not after a bodily manner.

It is against reason and sense:

We believe Christ to be present spiritually in the hearts of the Communicants,* 1.61 sacramentally in the Elements, but not corporally.

Real is,

• 1. Opposed to that which is imaginary, and importeth as much as truely.
• 2. To that which is meerly figurative and barely representative, and importeth as much as effectually.
• 3. To that which is spiritual, and importeth as much as corporally or mate∣rially.

The presence of Christ in the Sacrament is reall in the two former acceptions of real, but not in the last, for he is truly there present and effectually, though not carnally or locally. Doctor Featleys Transubstantiation Exploded.

Really and corporally are not all one, that which is spiritually present is really present, unlesse we will say that a Spirit is nothing. The bloud of Christ is really present in Baptism to the washing away of sinne. Christ is really present to the faith of every true believer, even out of the Sacrament. Downs Defence against the Reply of M. N.

We deny that Christ is so present in the Sacrament under the forms of bread

and wine, as that whosoever receive the Sacrament, do truely receive Christ himself.

The Papists say, Christs natural body is present; we, that the merit and vertue of his* 1.62 body broken upon the Cross and of his bloud shed upon the Cross is present to the believing soul in the Sacrament. The body of the Sun is in heaven in its sphere local∣ly and circumscriptively, but the beams are on the earth. And when the Sun beams shine into our house, we say, here's the Sun, though it be the beams not the body of the Sun. So the Scripture saith of the Sacrament, This is my body, Christ ascended up into Heaven: as for that exception, he is visibly in heaven, but invisibly here, it an∣swereth not those testimonies which prove he is so there that he is not here, Mat. 28. 6. q. d. he could not be in both places at once, an angelical argument. Aqui∣nas saith, It is not possible by any miracle, that the body of Christ should be lo∣cally in many places at once, because it includeth a contradiction by making it not one, for one is that which is not divided from it self. It is impossible (say the Pa∣pists) according to the course of nature, but not absolutely impossible, by divine miracle it may be.

Consubstantiation overthroweth the grounds,* 1.63

• 1. Of reason, the body of one and the same man cannot be present in many places all together, but must needs remain in some definite and certain place.
• 2. Religion, because Christ was taken up into heaven, there to abide till the end of the world.

It was above a hundred years before Transubstantiation.

They did adore Christ as co-existent with the bread which perhaps gave occasion to Averroes to say, That Christians did adore their God and then eat him. Aver∣roes his resolution was, Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt, sit anima mea cum Philosophis.

The quarrel between Luther and Zuinglius was about Christs presence in the Sacrament, which Luther held to be by way of Consubstantiation, which how it could be unlesse the body of Christ were every where, Zuinglius and others could not conceive. Luther being pressed therewith, he and his followers not being able▪* 1.64 to avoid it, maintained that also. But how? By reason of the hypostatical Union and Conjunction thereof with the word. For the word being every where, and the humane nature being no where severed from it, How can it be, say they, but every where? The humanity of Christ according to its Essence or natural Being is contained in one place, but according to its subsistence or personal being may right∣ly be said to be every where. Zanch. Misc. Iud. de Dissid. Coen. Dom. and D. Field, lib. 3. c 35. of the Church.

The Papists constant Doctrine is, That in worshipping the Sacrament they should give unto it, Latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur, as the Councell of Trent hath determined, that kinde of service which is due to the true God, de∣termining* 1.65 their worship in that very thing which the Priest doth hold betwixt his hands.

This is artolatry, an idolatrous worship of the bread, because they ado••e the host even as the very person of the Sonne of God. It is true, they conceive it not bread, but the body of Christ, yet that doth not free them from bread-worship, for then if the Heathen did take his stone to be a God it did free him from idola∣try. Hence, saith a * 1.66 Jesuite, If the bread be not turned into the body of Christ, we are the greatest and worst idolaters that ever were, as upon my soul, saith he, it is not.

Adoration is not commanded in the institution of it.* 1.67

2. Nothing is to be worshipt with Divine Worship but God.

Of Transubstantiation.

The word Transubstantiation (as the Papists grant) was not used of any ancient Fathers, and it was not so named among them before the Councel of Laterane, which* 1.68 was 1215 years after. Vocabulum ante Concilium Lateranense inauditum.

The Jesuites (which call Protestants in scorn Tropists, because they defend a tropical and figurative sense in that speech of Christ, This is my body) are yet themselves constrained to acknowledge six tropes in the other words of Christs institution of this Sacrament, a figure in the word Bread, another in Eat, a third in Given, a fourth in Shed, a fifth in Cup, a sixth in Testament. B. Morton of the Masse, lib. 6. cap. 2. Sect. 4.

The Papists to avoid one signe runne into many strange ones; by the demonstra∣tive* 1.69 Hoc, they understand they know not what, neither this Body nor this Bread, but an individuum vagum, something contained under the accidents of Bread, which when the Priest saith Hoc, it is Bread, but when he hath muttered out Meum, it is Christs body. By the copulative Est, is, they understand either shall be as soon as the words are spoken, or is converted unto, or by Body, they under∣stand such a Body as indeed is no body, without extension of place, without facul∣ty, sense or motion.

The very term Matth. 26. 26. manifestly evinceth the truth. This, What? That which he took, viz. Bread, therefore it must needs be a figurative speech, 1 Cor. 10. 4.

The Apostle speaking of the Bread being consecrated, still calleth it * 1.70 Bread, six times at least. He calleth it indeed the Bread, and this Bread, to shew the differ∣ence of it from other Bread, and the excellency of it above other bread, but yet* 1.71 bread. Therefore it is still bread of the same substance as other bread is, though in respect of use incomparably better. And so for the wine Matth. 26. 29. after con∣secration, he saith, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine. He doth not say in general, Of the fruit of the Vine, but particularly with a demonstrative pro∣noun, Of this fruit of the Vine, viz. that which he had blest and delivered to the Apostles.

Transubstantiation was first occasioned by the unwary speeches * 1.72 of Damascene and Theophylact, they were hyperbolical in their expressions about the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament.

Some of the ancient Fathers speaking of the sacramental Elements after conse∣cration, being then set apart from common use, called it a mutation, saying that

the Elements were changed into another nature, but withall they expresse their meaning to be, not the changing of their substance, but their use, from being common bread and wine to become sacramental or sacred. 1 Cor. 11. 27. The Apo∣stle distinguisheth these four things, Bread, Body, Cup and Bloud, the Bread and Wine therefore receive no other change, but that of use, signification and rela∣tion,* 1.73 1 Cor. 10. 16. He distinguisheth also Bread from the Body, Bread is the sub∣ject of the proposition, and the Communion of his Body the predicate.

Reasons against Transubstantiation:

First, Then Christ must hold himself in his own hands, eat and drink his own flesh and bloud, for the Papists say, He did eat the Sacrament with his Dis∣ciples.* 1.74

Secondly, Christ must needs have two Bodies, the one broken and having the bloud separated from it in the Cup, the other whole and having the bloud in it which holds the Cup.

Thirdly, Christs bloud then should be shed before his crucifying, and so a propitiatory Sacrifice offered to God before the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse.

Fourthly, One body should be now in a thousand places at a time.* 1.75

Fifthly, A true body should be without bignesse, void of all dimensions. Corpus non quantum.

Sixthly, Accidents should be without a subject, but Aristotle saith, Accidents are entis rather then entia. Accident is esse est inesse, the very essence of an Acci∣dent as it is an Accident, is to be in some subject. Vide Aquin. 1a; 1ae. Quaest 90. Artic. 2.

Seventhly, The same thing should be and not be at the same time, or should be before it was.

Eightly, This is an inhumane thing, none eat mans flesh but Cannibals.

Ninthly, Then the senses should be deceived, we see bread, we smell bread, we touch bread, and taste bread.

Tenthly, There is no alteration in the sign of Baptism, and there is the same use of the sign of the Lords Supper.

Matth. 26 26. Iesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave it to his Dis∣ciples, and said, Take, Eat, This is my Body. What our Saviour took, that he blessed; what he blessed that he brake; what he brake, he delivered to the Disciples; what he delivered to them, of that he said, This is my Body. But it was Bread that he took, the Evangelist so saith, and Bread therefore that he bles∣sed, Bread that he brake, Bread that he delivered, and Bread consequently of which he said, This is my Body.

The universal custom of the Scripture in all places where like kinde of speaking* 1.76 is used, plainly leades us to a figure, see 1 Cor. 10. 4. The Hebrews wanting a proper word to set forth that which we mean by signifying, do ever in stead of that use the word is. When Ioseph had heard Pharaohs dream, he saith, The seven years of good corn are seven years of plenty, and the seven thin ears seven years of dearth, Gen. 41. 26, 27. so the seven fat kine are seven years, that is, by way of sig∣nification and representation. So Ezek. 37. 11. & Dan. 2. 38. & 7. 17. whence it

comes that in the New Testament where the manner of speaking by the Hebrews is imitated, the word is in matter of signs, is used for the word signifie. So in the Parable, That which is sowed upon stony ground is he that heareth, and after. The seed is the Word, Luk. 8. 11. the Reapers, the Angels, so, I am the Vine, Revel. 17. 12. The ten Kings are ten horns. Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia. 2. The Apostle Paul clearly goes before us in this interpretation, for he saith, the bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ, because it was appointed for a certain means of making us partakers of his body.

Our Saviour said long before, viz. John 6. 63. that the flesh profiteth nothing, that is, the flesh by eating of it profits nothing, for in no other sense can it be said to profit nothing. See 2 Cor. 5. 16, 17.

Their Legend tels us, that some Boyes getting by heart, and pronouncing the words of Consecration, Hoc est Corpus meum, turned all the Bakers bread in the street into flesh.

In the Book of the Conformities of S^t Francis there is a miracle recorded for Transubstantiation; that on a time Prier Francis saying Masse, did finde a Spider in the Chalice, which he would not cast out, but drink it up with the bloud. Af∣terward rubbing his thigh and scratching where it itched, the Spider came whole out of his thigh without any harm to either.

It is a spiritual eating because it is wrought by the aid of the holy Ghost, and this mystery is perceived by faith, which the Spirit of God works in our mindes, and this excellent nourishment belongs to a spiritual and eternal life. Sadeel de spi∣rit, manducat. corporis Christi. c. 1.

A conjunction includes a presence, and as the conjunction between Christ and us is spiritual, so also is his presence.

Of the keeping of the Eucharist.

We grant that in antiquity there was a custom of breaking of some pieces of* 1.77 Bread which was blest, and sending of it home to some that were sick, or to other Parishes as a testimony of Communion, but this is nothing to that reservation of it in the pix, and to carry it up and down for Adoration. Now we say contrary, that the Sacraments are no longer then the meer use of them, that they are not absolute and permanent things, but relative and transient. Now that all such re∣servation is unlawful, appeareth

• 1. By the expresse precept even for the eating as well as the taking of it, so that if it be not taken it is no Sacrament.
• 2. A promise is not to be separated from the precept, now the Sacramental pro∣mise is only to the Bread in the use of it, Take, Eat, This is my Body, that is, this Bread so blest, so distributed, so eaten.
• 3. The Bread is called a Body in reference to us, now as a stone which is a

• Bound-mark, removed remaineth a stone, but ceaseth to be a Bound-mark: So here.
• 4. As the water in Baptism is not an actual Sacrament till sprinkled; so neither Bread and Wine unlesse used.

The reserving of the Eucharist which the primitive Christians used for the benefit* 1.78 of those who either by sicknesse or persecutions were withheld from the meetings of the Christians (as in those dayes saith Iustin Martyr many were) is by the Pa∣pists now turned into an idolatrous circumgestation, that at the sight of the Bread the people might direct unto it the worship that is due only to the person whose passion it represents.

Of the Circumgestation of the Sacrament, and the Popish Processions.

For the solemn Circumgestation of this Sacrament, Cassander hath confessed,* 1.79 that seeing it is but a late invention, it may well be omitted without any detri∣ment unto the Church, yea with emolument.

Some among our Adversaries have noted these pompous processions to have pro∣ceeded* 1.80 from an imitation of heathenish Rites and Ceremonies, and to be most ri∣diculous and sotish as they use them.

The ancient Fathers concealed heretofore, as carefully as they could, the mat∣ter and the rites used in the celebration of the holy Sacrament, the Papists shew it now openly, and carry it publickly abroad every day through the streets, and sometimes also go in solemn Procession with it: which custom of theirs is of very late standing among Christians, and heretofore would have been accounted rather prophane and unlawful. Daille of the right use of the Fathers, l. 2. c. 6.

Notes

• * 1.1

  E nominibus Sacramenti Eu∣charistiae, quae∣dam sunt in sa∣cris literis di∣serte usurpata, quaedam è verbis in Scriptura positis deducta: plurima Patrum pi••tas adinvenit, & usus Ecclesiae comprobavit. Casaub. exer∣cit. 16. ad An∣nal.
• a 1.2

  Ca••••a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Commu∣nione ves••••••∣tium. Nos quidem sa∣tis t••t•• sumus, sive à Scriptu∣ra, sive à ratio∣ne, sive à tra∣ditione in usurpando coenae nomine. Chamier. de Sacramentis, lib. 5. c. 2.
• b 1.3

  Cum scopus Apostoli fuerit 1 Cor. 11. 20. (ut ex sequentibus apparet) redarguere abusus qui invaluerant apud Corinthios in hujus Sacramenti celebratione, dubium non est quin 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 appellet, id quod postea v. 22. dicit se accepisse à Domino & eis tradidisse. Id tamen praefractè ne∣gant quidem Pontificii in primis Maldonatus Iesuita in Matth. 26. 26. petulanter, suo more, nobis insulat, ins••itiam & ••••••••∣tatem nobis obj••cit, quia coenae Domini nomen Sacramento Eucharisti•• tribuimus. Negat ullum in sacris Scripturis locum in quo ita appelletur Sacramentum. Maldonatum pro merito excepit doctissimus Casaubonus Exercit. 16. Sect. 23. Et ejus per∣vicaciam ita detexit, ut non opus sit actum agere. Riveti Cathol. Orthod. Tract. 3. quaest. 21. Vide Maldonat. etiam ad Joh. 13. 2. & Estium ad 1▪ Cor. 11. 20. Apostolus dicit convenientibus vobis in unum, non est Dominicam coenam manducare, hanc ip∣sam acceptionem Eucharistiae caenam Dominicam vocamus. Aug. Epist. 118. ad Jon. 5.
• * 1.4

  Three Evan∣gelists have mentioned Christs last Supper, Matth. 26. Mark 14. Luke 22. and Paul 1 Cor. 10. 4 and more fully 1 Cor. 11. 26.
• * 1.5

  Coena Domini est Sacramen∣tum nutritio••s & auctionis fidelium in Christo. Ames. Medul. Theol. l 1. c. 40. Coena est Sa∣cramentum, quo actis Deo gratiis pane & vino utimur ad profitendum nos Christi corpore crucifixo, sanguineque fuso, in aeternam vitam susten∣tari: ut enim à Baptismo primum est Christianismi initium, sic à Coena perpetuum deinceps est alimentum. Rami Comment. de Religione Christiana l. 4. c. 8.
• * 1.6

  See M^r Gillesp. Aarons Rod Blossoming, l. 3. c. 12, 13, 14. The Word makes bad ground good, the Sacrament only makes good ground better. The Word doth both convert and edifie, the Sacrament on∣ly edifies. We have no pro∣mise or presi∣dent in Scri∣pture for the conversion of any by recei∣ving the Lords Supper. It is not set forth under the no∣tion of immor∣tal feed, but under the no∣tion of food and nourish∣ment. D. Drakes answer to Sus∣pen. suspended. M. Burrh. Go∣spel-worship.
• * 1.7

  Paraeus saith, Sacramenta sunt instituta non in fidelibus▪ sed conversis.
• * 1.8

  Haeretici & sce∣lerati, si accedat pertinacia, à coe∣na Domini sunt arcendi Zanch. de Eccles.
• * 1.9

  Vide Balduin: de cas. consc. l. 4. c. 9. cas. 1.
• * 1.10

  Why should a∣ny that are not Saints be ad∣mitted to one of the highest priviledges of Saints, Church communion in the highest? The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is a di∣stinguishing Ordinance, they who have no union with Christ, can have no com∣munion with him. M. Cheyne•• on Zech. 2. 7.
• * 1.11

  Non propter ma∣los qui videntur esse intus, dese∣rendi sunt boni qui verè sunt intus. August. contra Crescon. l. 2. c. 33. Fugio paleam ne hoc sim, non autem aream, ne nihil sim. Ib. l. 3. c. 25. Solebant (Donatistae) in ore habere, videbas surem & concu••∣rebas cum eo, & ne communicaberis peccatis alienis: Et recedite & exite inde: Et immundum ne tetigeritis, & qui tetige∣rit pollutum pollutus est, & modicum sermentum totam massam corrumpit, & hujusmodi—Haec fiunt consensione peccatorum, non communione Sacramentorum, in qua condiscipulus Judas mundos immundus contaminare non potuit. Aug de unico baptismo contra Petil. c. 14. Non enim propter malos boni deserendi, sed propter bonos mali tolerandi sunt: sicut toleraverunt Prophetae contra quos tanta dicebant, nec communionem Sacramentorum illius populi relinquebant. Aug. Ep. 48. Manifestum est non con••aminari justos alienis peccatis, quando cum eis Sacramenta communicant. Aug epist. 50. Nec malos à mensa Domini arcemus, quia bonis illam polluant, quum ex Apostolo didicerimus, omnia esse munda mundis: sed quia sibi illam polluunt. Beza de Presbyterio & excommunicatione. Quum scribat Joannes Joan. 13. 30. Iudam ante absolutum ••pulum discessisse, ass••ntior iis qui ante 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 institutionem Judam discessisse sentiunt. Ista separatio qua nonnulli à sacris catibus & recto Sacramentorum usu propter aliquorum vitia ultrò abstinent, id est, scipsos excommunicant, magnam reprehensionem meretur. Id. ib. Mali non polluunt coenam bonis etiamsi malis sunt permixti, coena tamen pura est. Beza de Presb. c. 6. Vide Ca••vin Instit l. 4. de externis mediis ad salutem. c. 1 Sect. 15. & Instruct. adversus Anabapt.
• * 1.12

  Husseys Plea for Christian Magistracy.
• a 1.13

  Gospel-wor∣ship. See D. Homes his mischief of mixt Commu∣nions.
• b 1.14

  On Hos. 5. 3. Cant. 7. 2. The navel and belly are both hidden parts, and therefore set forth the mysteries or Sacraments of the Church, Baptism and the Lords Sup∣per. The navel serving for the nourishing of the Infant in the womb, resembleth Baptism nourishing Infants, it wanteth not liquor, 1. Of the bloud of Christ to justifie us from sinne. 2. Of the Spirit of Christ to sanctifie and cleanse us from sinne. The Belly, viz. The Lords Supper is an heap of wheat, for store of ••x••••l••••n••, ••wee•• and fine nourishment set about with Lilies, because onely the faithful pure Christians shall be admitted to partake in the Sacrament. M. Cotton in loc. The corruptions of the Church of England are such, that a man in abstaining from the pollutions thereof, ought not to lever himself from those open Assemblies wherein the eternal word of the Lord God is preached, and the Sacraments administred, although not in that pu••i••y which they ought to be. Cartw. second Reply against Whitgise second Answer, 38.
• * 1.15

  1 Cor. 5. 6. Tame••si impio∣rum causa▪ qui se acramentis admiscent, Sa∣cramentum non est de••linandum; tamen quoad datum, & nostra in potestate est, omnis conatus & diligentia adhibenda est, ut nos cum piis aggregantes, ••••pro∣bos à Sacramentorum communione procul abigamus: quod ut omnibus promiscuè incumbit, ita singulari cura & industria ab Ecclesiae moderatoribus procurari debet. Cartw. in Harm. Evang.
• * 1.16

  1 Sam. 2. 17. The Priests were unsancti∣fied men, there∣fore no doubt many more.
• * 1.17

  On 1 Cor. 11. 28. Zanchy taxeth such as will abstain from the Lords Supper, and those also who will say, Ma∣nebimus quidem in Ecclesia, ve∣niemus ad audi∣endum verbum & ad preces, sed quî possumus in coena commu∣nionem vobis∣cum habere, cum ad eam admit∣tantur multi impuri, ••••rii, &c. He saith, Non aut obtalem abu∣sum Ecclesia de∣finit esse Ecclesia Christi, aut pij impiorum in sa∣cris communione possunt contami∣nari.
• * 1.18

  Animam priùs tradam meam (inquit Chrys. in Matth. Hom. 83.) quàm Dominicum ali∣cui corpus in∣digno: San∣guinemque me∣um effundi po∣tiua patiar, quàm sacratissimum illum sanguinë praeterquam di∣gno concedam.
• * 1.19

  M. Burrh. on Hos. 6. 4. Etiamsi suis oculis minister quispiam viderit aliquid agentem, quod coenae exclusionem mereatur, jure tamen, nec debeat, nec possit, nisi vocatum, convictum legitimè, denique secundum constitutum in Ecclesia ordinem damnatum à mensa Domini cum auctoritate prohibere. Beza de Presbyt. p. 28.
• * 1.20

  S^t Augustine and others think, Iudas was admitted to the Lords Supper▪ and M. Cartwright also so judgeth from that connexion, Luk. 22. 19, 20, 21. Si p••i communione in sacris cum impiis pollui possunt: cur ergò Christus à Coeua non arcet Iudam, quem optimè norat esse impuriss〈…〉〈…〉m nebulonem, ne ••••••••ri Apostoli ejus cons••rtio pollu••rentur? Zanch. de Eccles c. 7. Yet afterward he saith, ••onstat Dominum Iesum non prius suam instituisse c〈…〉〈…〉m, quàm legalem de Paschate absolvisset, Joan. autem. c. 13. ait, ••udam posteaquam à Domino Iesu offulam, intinctam (in catino, ubi agnus, erat) accepisset, hoc est, statim exivisse. Si statim ex••vit, nondum absolut•• l••∣gali coen••: quomodo intersuit coenae Dominicae, quae illam consecuta est?
• * 1.21

  M. Humfreys Vindication of a free Admissi∣on to the L. S.
• * 1.22

  Vide Aquin. Sum. partem ter∣tiam Quaest. 87. Art. 2.
• * 1.23

  It followed the celebration of the Passeover which was kept at even, Act. 20. 7. Tempus ve∣spertinum pro∣priè spectabat ad Pascha vetus, ex loge Quia vero Christus Paschati Coenam substituere vo∣lebat, utrumque Sacramentum eâdem vesperâ, unum post aliud celebravit, & vetus per novum abrogavit. Ita per accidens factum est, ut novum Sacramentum tempore Ve∣spertino sit institutum: Unde & coenae nomen accepit, & in hodiernum usque diem retinuit. Neque Apostoli ad tempus Ve∣spertinum se astrinxerunt, sed pro occasione Coenam administrarunt, aliàs diurno tempore, ut legere est Act. 2. 46 aliàs in∣tempesta nocte, ut Act. 20. Quo facto satis ostenderunt, tempus coenae per se esse indifferens. Paraeus De Ritu Fractionis in S. Eucharistia. c. 5.
• * 1.24

  Plin Epist. 97. ad Trajanum. Eucharistiae Sacramentum antelucanis coetibus sumimus. Tertullian. de Corona militis.
• * 1.25

  It is a great condescension for God to give us any outward signs and pledges of his faithful∣fulnesse, we are bound to believe in his Word. Panis & vinum quum prae cae∣toris cibis sint alendis corpori∣bus nostris ac∣comodatae, com∣modissimè nobis illum designant, in quo uno vita aeterna residet. Bezae Quaest. & Resp. Paulus non praeceptum vocat, sed institutum 1 Cor. 11. 23. Iam verò est eaque fuit semper, sub lege etiam rigida symbolorum natura, ut facile ex causa probabili omitti se ferant. Sic panes sacros, quos lex solis sacerdotibus a••••••xerat, in suos usus vertit David. Sic & Circumcisio tam severè praecepta, & Paschalis Ceremonia omissa totis annis 40 quibus Hebraei per desertas Arabiae terras ambularunt, nempè quod inter itinera parum commodè interventuri fuerant tot dies aut otio tribuenda aut medicando corpori. Grotius, an semper communicandum per symbola, cap. 5.
• * 1.26

  Ephes. 5. 26. Act. 8. 36. Matth. 28. 19. Act. 2. 16. M. Eltons Ca∣tech.
• * 1.27

  Constat Eucha∣ristiae Sacra∣mentum duabus externis parti∣bus, id est, du∣plici materia, pane & poculo. Neque quen∣quam contradi∣centem pati po∣test discritissima relatio instituti∣onis apud Mat∣thaeum, Mar∣cum, Lucam, Paulum, neque perpetua Ec∣clesiae traditio, Chamierus de Sac. l. 8. See Iansen. Concord. on Luk. 22. p. 155. the danger of communicating in both kindes. The Church of Rome hath decreed, Conc. Trident Sess. 21. c. 2. That it is not necessary for the people to commu∣nicate in both kindes, and holdeth them accursed that hold it necessary for the people to receive the Cup consecra∣ted by the Priest. Vide Cassand. consult. See D. Featleys Grand Sacriledge of the Church of Rome, chap. 1, 2, &c. to the 16. Chapter, And Bishop Davenants L. Quest. in his Determinat. And Master Cartwrights Rejoynder, pag. 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287.
• * 1.28

  The Apostle sometimes put∣teth the other part, viz. drin∣king of the Cup, for the whole celebra∣tion of the Supper, 1 Cor. 12. 13. The Heathens ••al∣led a fea••t sym∣posium, yet they had meat at their feasts. Admiranda hic est d••orum E▪ vangelist ar〈…〉〈…〉 dilig••••••ia & harmonia, ••••us refert de Po••••∣lo Christ•••• disertè & ex∣pressè ma••dass••, ut omnes ••x ••o bibant; Alter Discipulos om∣nes, ex eo bibisse, Quis igitur conformi••••••em eum coena Chri∣sti agnoscet illic, ubi dispensans, vel solus. Quos Christus ••uss••rat mandu∣care, eos bibere omnes jussit: Bibite, ait, ex hoc omnes. Sed illud omnes (inquiunt Pon∣tificii) restringi debet ad Apostolos, quos alloquitur solos. Quod sanè non dicerent, si cogitarent, Apostolos istic Ecclesiam totam repraesentare. Nulli dubium esse debet, quin quamvis soli essent praesentes Apostoli, tamen finis fuerit Christi pr••scri∣bere Ecclesiae rationem administrandi coenam quam servari vellet, usque dum venerit ad judicandum. Vossius in Thesibus. Edit & bibit, omnibus caeteris praesentibus auditoribus & discipulis neglectis, vel panem quidem sed solum, illis participat & exbibet. Buxtorf▪ de primae coenae ritibus & forma. Quod omnes tunc spectabat Apostolos; quibus Christus Sacramentum tra••ebat usurpandum, omnes quoque spectat fideles in Ecclesia, qui Sacramentum idem sunt recepturi à suis pastoribus. Nec ulla ratio potest fingi cum illud Bibite ad solos consecrantes debeat restringi, cum Apostoli in prima coena non consecrantium, sed communicantum sustinucrint personas, & tam latè d••beat patere illud bibite, quam illud comedite, quo omnes adulti fidele•• ••bligantur. Mares. de calice Eucharist. Vide Calv. Instit. l. 4. c. 17. Sect. 47, 48, 49.
• * 1.29

  Loco de coen••▪ Ubi stabilita fuit Transub∣stantiationis prodigiosa do∣ctrina in concill•• Lateran••ns•• per Innocenti∣um tertium an∣no 1215. haec concomitantiam statim peperit & concomitantia mutilationem Sacramenti. Maresius de Calice Benedi∣cto▪ Ut Baptisma regenerationis, ita sacra caena est Sacramen∣tum nutritionis nostrae spiritua∣lis, quae perfestè non potest adum∣brari nisi potu & cibo. Ex Histo∣riis res est clara, & fatetur Gregorius de Valentia apud Humf. Lynd. Equitem Anglum in via certa S. 6. Non nisi paulo ante concilium Constantinense hanc mutilationem universaliter receptam fu∣isse. Id. ib. Periculo effusionis & irreverentiae satis cavebatur in veteri Ecclesia etiam admissa integra communione; nihil ••un•• vel à barbis prolixioribus Laicorum, vel ab eorum manibus paralyticis metuebatur; multo minùs placebat Gersonis ratio im∣parem esse dignitatem ••acerdotis & Laicorum. Abstemios non magis obligat hoc praeceptum de sumendo calice, quam s••rdos de audiendo prae••onio Evangelii. Necessitas legem non habet. Id. ibid. Vide Episc. Daven. Quaest. L. Quaere ab illis, cur ••iccam Eucharistiam populo Christiano porrigant? Cur illis in caena mystica calice Dominico interdicant? Scilicet reverenti•• causa faciunt, & propter honorem Sacramenti, quia periculum est ne in prolixis barbis Christi sanguis inhaereat, ne quo casu dum circumfertur in terram fundatur, ne vasa sacra populi contactu ••ordidentur, ne alii alii•• bibentibus fastidium calicis con∣cipiant, &c. At ô infipien••em Christum, ô fatuos Apostolos & Patres sexcentorum & suprà seculorum, quibus rationes illae gravissimae & doctissimae nunquam in animum venerunt, ut tantoru••m scandalorum pericula vitarent, & reverentiam atque honorem sacramenti sanguinis Christi populo calicem prohibendo procurarent. Abb. Antich. Demonstrat. c. 10. Vide Phil. Morn. de sacra Eucharistia. l. 1. c. 10, 11, 12.
• * 1.30

  Matth. 26. 26, 27.
• * 1.31

  Attersol of the Sacr. l. 3. c. 5.
• * 1.32

  See B. of Lan∣daff▪ on the Sacrament from pag. 171. to 182. 1 Cor. 11. 26.
• * 1.33

  Rogatus pi•• memoriae vir D. Calvinus à Fratribus, qui tum in America erant, ubi nullus est vini usus, ••••∣cerentne pro vino uti in coena Domini vel aqua simplici qua plerumque illic utuntur, vel alio illic non inu••itato potionis genere. Nihil (aiebat) à Christi confilio ac voluntate alienum f••ere videri, qui non contemptu neque temeritate, sed ipsa necessitate adacti, pro vino aliud in iis regionibus usitatae potionis genus usurparent. In hac quaestione ••andem valere rationem arbitramur, si modo is de quo agitur, vel minimam vini degusta∣tionem ferre nequit, ut potius quam integram coenam non per••gat, vel aqua vel alia sibi familiari potione utatur. Beza Epist. 25. Quod Beza censuit in regionibus in quibus non est usus panis & vini nostri, ex Analogia institutionis Domini, qui usua∣ti•• pane & potu usus est, posse Eucharistiam celebrari in usuario pane & potu regionis illius; id non caret sua probalitate: de quo t••men, quia non est necessarium, contendere nolim: nec etiam id in me suscipere. Sed ubi vel neutrum ••ignorum à Christo instituto∣••um reperitur, vel alterutrum tantum, malim planè abstinere quam vel ••igna mutare, vel Sacramentum mutilare; quod postremum fieri non potest sine grandi sacrilegio. Rive••i Iesuita vapulans. 6. 7. Vide ejus Grot. Discus. Dialys Sect. 10. Necessitas legem non habet ••ubi Sacramentorum materia non habetur, à Sacramentis ••bstinendum, & spiritualiter Christo communicandum. Rivet. Exem. Animad. Hug. Grot. pag. 80. Vide Balduin. de cas▪ consc l 2. c. 12. cas. 8.
• * 1.34

  Attersol of the Sacraments, l. 3. c. 5.
• * 1.35

  Christus disertè dicitur fregisse panem. Fractio panis non est ac∣cidentalis Sa∣cramento Eucha∣ristiae, sed ex in∣stitutione, ac proinde haud a••iter necessaria, quam acceptio in manus, quam traditio, quam communio. Etsi nolimus enim tam severè de ••a contendere, ut nulla societas retineri possit cum iis qui omittunt; tamen defectum rei non exiguae dissimulandum non putamus, imò nec to∣lerandum, si tolli queat. Enimvero tam diserta fractio est in institutione quam quicquam al••u••, & ••am cu••••osè repetita ••b omnibus quibus recitata institutio est, Evangelistis, inquam, Paulo, Liturgi••s cunctis. Chami••r▪ de Sacramentis l. 7. c. 11. Fractio panis non est ritus adiaphorus humanitus institutus, sed caer••monia necessaria, ad ipso Christo tum observ••ta, tum ••••i••m mandata, Mat. 26. 26. 1 Cor. 11. 23. A••ting. Ex••g. Aug Confess. Art. 15.
• * 1.36

  Paraeus on 1 Cor. 11. where he hand∣leth▪ this Que∣stion largely, & de ritu fra∣ctionis. c. 5. Vossius in Thesibus. Attersol of the Sacraments, l 3. c. 3. See M^r Hilders. little Tract of the Sacraments. Pa••is fractio manifestè ••••titur exemplo Christi, Apostolorum & universae Ecclesiae ultra mille annos continuato exemplo. Nec ob∣scurè mandatum verba institutionis praeferunt. Unde omnes haud dissi••ulter intelligunt, ejus omissionem de justa integritate actionis non nihil d••libare. Non urgebimus, ut partem essentialem agnoscant. Crocius in August confes. Quaest. 2. cap. 29. Unusne an plures adhibendi sint panes, digitisne frangendi, an cultro s••ind••ndi, nulla est inter nostros contentio. Id. ibid. Nostri non destruunt, non discerpunt, non frangunt Ecclesiam propter panis fractionem. Quod vel inde patet, quod fra••res no∣stri per Poloniam panem non frangunt, nec Basilienses multis annis f••eg••runt. Non damnant Ecclesias, quae care•••• hi•• Cere∣monia. Zanch. id. ib. Quaest. 2. cap. 12.
• * 1.37

  Act. 2. 42. & 20. 7. Lorinus in Act. 2. 42. B. Morton of the Masse, l. 1. c. 2. Sect. 4. Ecce in coena Christus fregit panem, & tamen Ecclesia Catho∣lica hodiè non frangit, sed in∣tegrum dat. Salmeron.
• a 1.38

  De Cas Consc. lib. 2. cap. 12. Cas. 10.
• b 1.39

  Christus usus est fractione panis vel propter significationem quandam Sacramentalem, puta repraesentationem ••assionis, vel pro∣pter distributionem, tantum propter distributionem Christ••s usus est fractione, neque qui••quam interest, sive fractio illa panis ante admissionem coenae siue in ipsa admissione adhibeatur. Gerh. loc. commun. de sacra caena.
• * 1.40

  Necessarium est ut sit panis triti∣ceus sine quo non perficitur Sacra∣mentum. Non est autem de ne∣cessitate Sacra∣menti, quòd sit azymus vel ••ermentatus, quia in unoquoque consici potest. Conveniens autem est, ut unusquisque servet ritum suae Ecclesiae in Sacramenti celebratione. T. Aquin. par. 3 q. 74. Art. 4. Graeci olim pro fermentato pane litagabant cum Latinis, & ••i pro pane azy∣mo contra Graecos tanta contentione, ut Latim Graecos appellarent sermentarios, Graeci Latinos azymitas Ponti••icij quo{que} pro usu pan••s azymi, tanquam pro aris & focis pugnant. Bellarm. l. 4. de Euch. c. 7. An panis ex hordeo vel tritico pistus sit, an azymus vel f••rmentatus sit, nihil re••ert: hoc enim substantiae panis nihil addit, aut adimit. In Ecclesiis nostris azymus adhibentur, ex nulla necessitate, sed liberè, quia Christus eo usus fuit in institutione coenae, & panis Eucharistici typus fuit panis azymus, qui in es•• agni Paschalis usurpabatur, Exod. 12. 8. Si autem Ecclesia aliqua fermentato pane uteretur, non est cur quis sibi co romine scrupulum faciat. Nullum enim Christi mandatum habemus, i••t vel azymo vel fermentato utamur, res ••aec merè est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Et fermentato aequè ac azymo fieri potest communicatio corporis Christi. Pro••t ergo fert unius••••jusque. Ecclesiae consuetudo, ita faciendum, nec una Ecclesia aliam propter dissensum condemnare, nec communicantes hoc in genere nimis ••••∣riosi esse debent. Balduin. de cas consc. l. 2. c. 12 cas. 9. Vide Gerh. loc commun. Naevus est duplexin iis Ecclesiis quae azy∣mo potius quam fermentato pane utuntur. Hoc enim & Iudaismum sapit & minus est quotidiani cibi analogiae accomodatum. Beza Quaest. Panis autem, azymu•• ••e sit an ••ermentatus, non magnopere putamus laborandum, quamvis communem panem sentiam••s ordinationi Christi multo esse convenientiorem. Cur enim azymo pane usus est Dominus, nisi quia per id tempus quo sacram illam coenam ipsi visum est instituere, nullus in Iudaea alio pan•• uteb••tur? Aut igitur azymorum festum simul restituatur ••portet, aut fatendum est communem & omnibus usitatum panem exemplo Domini rectius usurpari, quamvis azymum panem Dominus adhibuerit: de veteris purioris Ecclesiae more taceam, quem adhuc Graeca Ecclesia retinet. Beza Ep. 12.
• * 1.41

  Exod. 12. 8, 18.
• a 1.42

  Some think no other then unleavened bread could be used without a manifest trans∣gression of the Law which did forbid that any leaven should be so much as used among them at that time. Yet the necessity of using unleavened bread in the Eucharist, doth no more follow from thence, then that we must celebrate the Sacrament at Even, because Christ did then institute it.
• * 1.43

  Pareus on 1 Cor. 11. handleth this Question, and makes it indif∣ferent, he saith, we should ra∣ther look that the heart be free from lea∣ven then the bread. 1 Cor. 5 7. and De Sym. Eucharist. c. 3. he saith with the Schoolmen, Conveniens est, ut in hoc casu cujusque Eccle∣siae observetur consuetudo, modò vitetur necessita∣tis opinio ac su∣perstitio, & spe∣ctctur communis aedificatio.
• a 1.44

  Cart. on Rbem. Test. on 1 Cor. 11. 22.
• b 1.45

  B. Morton of the Masse, l. 1. c. 1. Sect. 4. De panis quali∣tate nos conten∣dimus, si modo verus sit & soli∣dus panis, quod de hostia Papi∣starum vix potest affirmari. Ames. Bellarm. Enerv. Tom. 3. c. 5. Farinacea folia (Wafer-cake) neque panis formam habent; neque pro pane unquam usquam gentium fuers usitata. Chamier. de Sacramentis l. 1. c. 4. Hostiae neque ab Hebraeis, neque Graecis, neque Latinis vocantur panis, sed distinctis appellantur nominibus, à probatis autoribus ad nullum genus panum refe∣runtur, non sunt communissimum & nobilissimum nutrimentum, non roborant corpus humanum, ergo non sunt verus Cibarius, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sic dictus panis. Sylloge A. Frat. Roseae-crucis donata. Panis azymus glutinosus erat, & frangebatur fine ma∣nu fine cultre. Lorinus in Act. 2. 42. Nos sentimus pane azymo & fermentato confici Sacramentum posse, & retinendum cuique esse suae Ecclesiae morem. Verum addim us primò optimum esse omnes Ecclesias etiam hac parte conformes esse tum te∣standae unionis gratia, tum ut infirmiorum conscientiae consulatur. Deinde optimum videri & proximum instituto Sacramenti panem usurpari fermentatum, itaque hac potius utimur, paucis Ecclesiis exceptis, quibuscum non est propterea nobis unanimis consensus. Chamier. de Sacr. l. 5. c. 4. Cum nusquam nisi panis mentio sit, nulla addita circumstantia, panis intelligitur usitatus & communis. Constat panem azymum fuisse extraordinarium, nec vulgo usitatum. Id. ib.
• * 1.46

  Parte tertia Quaest. 74. Art. 6, 7.
• * 1.47

  Est ritus à ve∣teribus nonnullis olim observatus; sed nec dogma fidei nec essen∣tialis pars Sacra∣menti. Quia vinum forte fuit in illis regioni∣bus calidis, pau∣lulum aquae ad∣miscebant. Epis. Daven. de Iud. controvers. c. 8. Apol. 2. In regionibus orientalibus ubi fortia vina sunt, usitatum fuit non merum sed vinum aqua temperatum bihere. Unde Chemnitius verisimile judicat, Christum vinum non merum sed temperatum bibisse. Mixtio aquae potius aliquid addit institutioni, quia Evangelistae solius merique vini mentionem faciant, Matth. 25. 29. Ma••c. 14. 25. Luc. 22. 18. Gerh. loc. commun. Verisimile est Christum miscuisse vinum, cum orientis vina generosa sint & calida. Illud etiam non diffitemur, Ecclesiam veterem usam esse vino mixto. Nempe quia post coenam eodem vino celebrarent Aga∣pas suas, ansam dare gentibus noluerunt quasi mero ad ebrietatem uterentur. Vossius in Thesibus. Papistae vino consecrando admiscent aquam, quanquam exigua quantitate. Nos sentimus, rem esse merè indifferentem, ideóque liberè usurpandam, omittendamve; dum ne turbetur ordo Ecclesiae. Tantum ergo reprehendimus in Papistis, quod nullo praeeunte verbo Dei, pec∣cata & quidem mortalia fingant. Chamierus de Sacramentis lib. 5. cap. 3.
• * 1.48

  Cartw. on Mat. 26.
• * 1.49

  The Fathers used wine tem∣pered with wa∣ter, because in the place where they lived the wine was so strong. Matth. 26. 29. Mark 14. 24.
• * 1.50

  De Eucharist. l. 4. c. 10, 11.
• * 1.51

  Cartw.
• * 1.52

  D. Reynolds Meditat. on the Lords Supper, Chap. 14.
• * 1.53

  Eucratitae & Aquarii tempe∣rantiae praetextu vinum refugie∣bant, ac loco ejus aquam so∣lam in hoc Sa∣cramento usur∣pabant. Vossius in Thesibus. Aquarii ex hoc appellati sunt, quòd aquam offerunt in poculo Sacramenti, non illud quod omnis Ecclesia. August. cap. 64. de Haeresibus.
• * 1.54

  Matth. 26 26.
• * 1.55

  Consecratio vo∣cabulum est so∣lenne significans id quod fit, ut haec signa visibi∣lia quae per se profana sunt, & aliena à mysteri∣is religiosis, sint Sacramenta cor∣poris & sangui∣nis Christi, sive sint corpus & sanguis Christi. Consecrationem distinguimus à forma Sacra∣menti, ut totum à parte, consecrati∣onem dicimus esse in tota Chri∣sti institutione. Ut quicquid ille fecerit ad eum pertinens, nosque jusserit facere, eo ipso consecrari credamus Sacra∣mentum, ne ex∣clusis quidem Ecclesiae preci∣bus, quibus id ip∣sum à Deo po∣stulatur fieri, quod ea institu∣tione continetur. Chamier. de Sac. l. 1. c. 5.
• * 1.56

  Si quis nega∣verit in sanctis∣sima Euchari∣stia contineri verè, realiter, substantialiter corpus & san∣guinem Christi Anathema sit. Concil. Trid. Sess. 23. Can. 1. Nos dicimus Dominura Chri∣stum corporali∣ter sub specie p••nis contineri. Greg. de Valent. Tom. 4. Disput. 6. Quaest. 3.
• a 1.57

  Compend. Socin. confutat. cap. 10. Vide plura ibid.
• b 1.58

  Of the Eucharist, chap. 6. pag. 68, 260. and chap. 11. pag. 141.
• c 1.59

  Stricturae in Lyndomastygem concerning the seven Sacraments.
• d 1.60

  Parte tertia Quaest. 81. Art. 1.
• * 1.61

  Qui transub∣stantiationem damnavit Lu∣therus optimè, tamen induxit consubstantiatio∣nem non benè, & ab hoc non lau∣dabili initio, Brentius ejus Discipulus ad ubiquitatem de∣latus est, pessimè. Anabaptistae in oppositum lapsi extremum, signa sunt imaginati vacua & inania, quasi nudas professionis tesseras Christianis & Infidelibus distinguen••is. Chamierus lib. 10. de Eucharistiae c. 7.
• * 1.62

  Hyperbolicum praesentiae mo∣dum exigunt cu∣riosi homines, quem Scriptura misquam osten∣dit. Calvin. In∣stit l 4▪ c. 17. Corpus unum non potest esse in pluribus locis si∣mul, non enim repletivè, at is modus proprius est Deitati quae omnia cum reple∣at, tamen neque spatium occupat, cum sit Spiritus: neque terminis ullis definitur, cum sit infinita: nec definitivè, quia quaecunque sic sunt in uno loco non pos∣sunt esse alibi. Nec tertiò occupativè, quia quicquid ita est in loco est etiam definitivè, ac proinde non potest esse alibi. Cha∣mierus Tom. 2. l. 6 c. 11. Scholastici tametsi contendunt ineptissimè, idem corpus posse esse in uno loco modo suo naturali seu cir∣cumscriptivo, & in multis aliis modo sacramentali: negant tamen posse esse modo naturali vel per divinam potentiam absolu∣tam simul in pluribus locis. Ames. Bellarm. Enerv. Tom 3. c. 12,
• * 1.63

  Lutherus prin∣cipio ad Sacra∣menta conversus, videbat non esse septem, putabat tamen adhuc plura esse quam duo; post in cate∣chismo majore, re diligentius expensa, duo tantum statuit. In negotio coenae primo videbatur illi, licet panis inesset, tamen corpus Domini una etiam per Consubstantiationem adesse; sed paulò ante mortem agens cum Philippo Melancthone, fatetur in negotio coenae nimium esse factum. Rainold. de lib. Apoc. Tom. 10. Pralect. 4. Nobis unicum solatium in co Sacramento est praesentia corporis Christi in sacrâ Coenâ. Sed negamus esse id, in, cum, sub pane; nisi ille modus loquendi sic accipiatur, quòd sit in, cum, sub pane ut signo corporis in Coena praesentis: ita enim unionis & pacis studio haud difficulter etiam in cum modum loquendi porrò condescendemus. Vedel. Rationale Theologicum, l. 3. c. 20.
• * 1.64

  Proper subsi∣stence of its own, and in it self it hath none, only the subsistence of the Son of God is communica∣ted unto it, which is infi∣nite and unli∣mited.
• * 1.65

  Ex hoc loco Cinglio-Cal∣viniani, canes impurissimi, bla∣spheme argumentantur, Corpus Christi in S. Coena ore corporis non accipi, nisi (inquiunt) s••atucre velimus & illud in alvum abire, & (increpet te Dominus Satan) per secessum ejici. Bertram. in Mat. 15.
• * 1.66

  Coster. D^r Burgess of kneeling. pag. 113.
• * 1.67

  Deux non jussit vel adorari Sa∣cramentum, vel etiam nos adorare coram Sacramento, vel in Sacramento. Nolumus tamen atro carbone notare eos, qui nobiscum alias se••••i∣••••••es, & eandem fidem profitentes, neque Sacramentis divinos honores deferre intendentes, ea flexis genibus accipiu••t, adora∣ti••ne ad institutorem directa, & ad eum qui se nobis communicat. Quia tamen mos ille ab iis profluxit, qui ex Sacramento Deum fecerunt, quod directe adorant, multo magis nobis consuetudo probatur corum, qui quantum possunt abstinent ab ••••s ex quibus vel suspicio, vel occasio idololariae, vel superstitioni, oriri posset. Riveti Instruct. Praepar. ad coenam Domini, c. 13. Vide plura ibid.
• * 1.68

  Transubstan∣tiation is commentum▪ quo nihil vi∣di•• orbis ab∣surdius. Cha∣mierus. B. Morton of the Masse, lib. 3. cap. 1. Sect. 3. Si quis negaverit mirabilem & Angelicam conversionem totius substantiae panis & vini in corpus & sangui∣nem, Anathema fit. Concil. Trident. Can. 3. Nullum exemplum dari potest, vel ordinarium, vel extra ordinem per miraculum, totalis conversionis alicu••us substantiae individualis, in aliam substantiam individualem praeexistentem & manen∣tem. Haec igitur transubstantiatio (quae res est ordinariae procur••tionis secundum Pontificios) tale quid est, quale simile ni∣hil Deus unquam per hominem aut Angelum effecit, id est, commentum sine exemplo. Ames. Bellarmin. Enervat. Tomo tertio cap. 3.
• * 1.69

  See M. Cartw. Answ. to the Marquess of Worc. Reply, from p. 122. to 140. and Ga∣ges new Survey of the West Indies, c. 21.
• * 1.70

  1 Cor. 10. 16. & 11. 26, 27.
• * 1.71

  Fictitia illa transubstantia∣tio pro qua hodiè acrius depug∣nant quàm qro omnibus aliis fidei suae capiti∣bus. Calv. Inst. l. 4. c. 17. Vide plura ibid.
• * 1.72

  D. Fulk on 1 Cor. 11. 24.
• * 1.73

  Attersol hath twenty six rea∣sons against Transubstan∣tiation, l. 3. of the Sacrament, cap. 5.
• * 1.74

  See D. Primrose on the Sacram. p. 127. to 158. and D. Hall•• No peace with Rome, p. 656. D. Featl••ys Vertum. Rom. p. 63.
• * 1.75

  D. Chaloner on Matth. 13. 2••. p. 279. to 283. To make bread to be flesh while it is bread, is a con∣tradiction in it self, and as much as to say, Bread is no bread, and therefore im∣possible. D. Morton. The pretence of Gods omni∣potency hath been anciently Asylum haereticorum, the Sanctuary of hereticks. C••saub. exercit. 3. Vide Amyraut▪ de l'elevation de la Foy & de l'abaisement de la raison, Ch. 3, 4, 8 9, 10. & Thess Theol. Sa••mur. part. 3. de Transub. Vobis (ut multi seutiunt) praestitisset, vertiginosam hanc de Transubstantiatione opinionem non attigisse. Nam, ex quo Helenam hanc vestram i•• Christianismum advexistis, tot vos, tot Scholam vestram quotidiè exerce••t, tam ••••inosae, tam nodosae quaestiones (tam id autem tristi successu:) De quantitate Christi sub pane, An sit ibi Christus sub sua, an sub panis quantitate? Et si sub suâ, an sub quantitate sine modo quantitativo? An sit ibi Christi substantia sub accedentibus, remotâ tamen inhaerentia? contra Logicam. In iis verbis, Quod pro vobis frangitur, cùm frangi jam corpus non possit, quippe nec pati: an frangi non sit ibi verbum passivum, contra Grammaticam? An ex accidentibus mures nutriantur, an ex iis vermes generentu••? contra Physicam? Episc. Andr. ad Bellarm. Apolog. ••esp cap. 1. Vide plura ibid. Nullum exemplum dari potest, ubi omnes sensus omnium hominum (organo, medio, objecto benè disposito) adh••bitis omnibus mediis explorandi veritatem, circa obje∣ctum sensibile fallatur. 2. Nullum Sacramentum institu••t ita Deus ut fundamentum suam habeat in sensuum delusione. Ames. Bellarm. Enerv. Tom. 3. de Transub.
• * 1.76

  In illis orationi∣bus Petra erat Christus, Semen erat verbum Dei, ego sum ostium, Verbum substantivum▪ est interpretandum pro signifi∣cat aut sigurat. Salmeron. Tom. 9. Tract. 10. Rogant Domi∣num qu•• esset Parabola jam dicta, boc est, quia illa signifi∣caret. Est enim hic ponitur pro significat, quem∣admodum & ibi, Petra autem erat Christus. Jansen, concord c. 51. Reprobata Cornel••o à Lapide fuisset audacia Maldonati, negantis verbum substanti∣vum aut Latinè, aut Graecè, aut Ebraicè, a••t t••lla prosus in lingua aut apud ull••m au•••••••••• pro verbo significat ••ccip•• solor••, ••••t etiam posse, hominesque imperitissimos qui id dicunt, esse affirmantis. Sic insolentissi••••us, Hispanus in Mat. 26 26▪ Rive••. i•• ••. 46. Manifestium est, est accipi ordinarie pro signifi••a••: •••• amare est diligere, id est, significat. Petra erat Christus, id est, in Petra erat significans Christum. Septem boves sunt septem anni, Gen. 41. Semen est verbum Dei, Mat. 13. Hoc est foedus meum, id est, significat Chamier. de Euchar. l. 10▪ c. 7. Vide Mo••nayum de▪ sac Euch▪ l. 4. c. 3. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9▪ La veritè de la Religion Reformee. Par. de Croi. p. 543, 544, 545, &c. Nullus Patrum affirmat substantiam panis, ••ffi•••• substantiam cor∣poris Christi, pro••er vel unum, & monstrum illud admittam & amplectar Transubstantiationis. Loquuntur scio Autres eo mo∣do, ut dicant tran••mutari, transire, transelementari, in aliam naturam cedere, & quae sunt alia ejus generis. Montac. Orig. Eccles. Tom. prior. part▪ poster. p. 264.
• * 1.77

  In Ecclesia vete∣ri rese••vabatur Eucharistia & ad aegrotum de∣serebatur: sed utrumque ••iebat, ut sumer••tur & manducaretur. At in Romana Ecclesia circum∣gestatio fit ad ostentationem & pompam▪ au•• ad incendia, tempe∣states, aliaque, mala averrun∣canda▪ etiam in adoratione ejus peculiaris cultus est institutus: quae commenta veteris Ecclesiae sapientiam fugerunt. Voss. in Thesibus. Sa∣cramentum non est, nisi quatenus institutio Domini in co observatur, sed Dominus instituit usum praesentem Eucharisti••, non Hostiam in pixide conservandam: Ergo Hostia in pixide conservata, non est Sacramentum. Iussit Dominus Discipulos suo•• facere quod fecerunt. Iussit nos etiam facere quod prima coeha factum est. Iussit manducationem conjungi cum benedictione, fractione, & acceptione. Nihil de reservatione jussit, aut judicavit. Ames. Bellarm. Enervat. T••m•• tertio cap. 14.
• * 1.78

  D. Reynolds medit. on the L. Supper, c. 12.
• * 1.79

  An nov•• nega∣bunt Romani in Eucharistiae Sa∣cramento, eleva∣tionem, ostensionem, adorationem, circumgestationem, detractionem calicis? Quam aliena haec omnia ab ipsa Christi institutione & primaevae Ecclesiae praxi? Recentissima quidem ista, & ab his quinque aut sex saeculis introducta. Salmas. Apparat. ad Primatum Papae. p. 190.
• * 1.80

  Polyd. Virgil. de Invent, l. 6. c. 11.