The Lords Supper or, A vindication of the sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ according to its primitive institution. In eight books; discovering the superstitious, sacrilegious, and idolatrous abomination of the Romish Master. Together with the consequent obstinacies, overtures of perjuries, and the heresies discernable in the defenders thereof. By Thomas Morton B.D. Bp. of Duresme.

CHAP. III.

The Tenth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse, by the now Church of Rome, is in contradicting the Sense [ 20] of the next words following (concerning the second part of this Sacrament of receiving the Cup) [HE LIKE∣VVISE TOOKE THE CVP, AND GAVE IT TO THEM, SAYING, DRINKE YEE ALL OF THIS.] And adding, 1. Cor. 11. [DO THIS, AS OFTEN AS YOV DO IT, IN REMEM∣BRANCE OF MEE.] SECT. I. [ 30]

BY which words [Like maner of Taking, and Giving, and Saying, Drinke yee All of this] wee say that Christ ordained for his Guests as well the Sacramentall Rite of Drinking, as of Ea∣ting; and hath tied his Church Catholike in an equall obligation for performance of both, in the administring of this Sacrament.

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

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

Shee, in her Councel of Constance, decreed thata 1.1 Although Christ, indeed, and the Primitive Church did administer the Eu∣charist in both kindes; notwithstanding (say they) this Custome of but one kinde is held for a law irreproveable. Which Decree she afterwards confirmed in herb 1.2 Councel of Trent; requiring that the former Custome and Law of receiving it but under one kind [ 10] be observed both by Laicks, yea, and also by all those Priests, who being present at Masse, do not the office of Consecrating. Contrarily our Church of England, in her thirtieth Article thus: Both parts of the Lords Sacrament, by Christs Ordinance and Commandement, ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike.

[ 20] CHALLENGE.

BVtwee demand; what Conscience should moove your late Church of Rome to be guided by the authority of that for∣mer Councell of Constance, which notwithstanding maketh no scruple to reject the authority of the samec 1.3 Councell of Con∣stance in another Decree thereof, wherein it gain-sayeth the Antichristian usurpation of the Pope, by Denying the authority of the Pope to be above a Councell? and that (as thed 1.4 Councell of [ 30] Basil doth prove) from the authority of Christ his direction unto Peter, to whom he said, Tell the Church. We returne to the State of the Question.

The full State of the Question.

All Protestants, whether you call them Calvinists, or Luthe∣rans, hold, that in the publike and set celebration of the Eucharist, [ 40] the Communion in both kinds ought to be given to all sorts of Com∣municants that are capable of both. The question, thus stated, will cut off a number of Impertinences, which your Objectors busie themselves withall, as will appeare in due places. Wee repeate it againe, [In publike Assemblies of all prepared, and capable of the Communion.]

The best Method, that I could choose, for the expedite and perspicuous handling of this great Controversie, is by way of

Comparison: as namely, First, by comparing the Institution of Christ, with the contrarie Ordination and Institution of the Romane Church. Secondly, Christ his Example, with contra∣rie Examples. Thirdly, the Apostles Practice, with the adverse Practice. Fourthly, the Primitive Custome of the Church Ca∣tholicke, with the after-contrarie Custome; and the Latitude thereof, together with the latitude of the other. Fiftly, the Rea∣sons thereof, with Reasons. Sixtly, the divers manners of begin∣ning of the one, as also the Dispositions of men therein, with the repugnant manner and Dispositions of men in continuing the other. [ 10]

The discussing of all which points will present unto your view divers kinds of Oppositions. In the first, is the Conflict of Religion with Sacrilege. In the second, a soveraigne Pre∣sidence in Christ, with Contempt. In the third, of Faithful∣nesse with Faithlesnesse. In the fourth, of Antiquity with Noveltie. In the fift, of Vniversality with Paucity. In the sixt, of Wisedome with Folly: as also of Charity with Inju∣stice and Impiety. In the seaventh, of Knowledge with Igno∣rance; as likewise of Devotion with Prophanenesse. And all [ 20] these marching and warring together, without any possibility of Reconciliation at all.

The first Comparison is of the Institution of Christ with the Contrary: proving the Precept of Christ, for the Vse of Both kinds to all lawfull Com∣municants, SECT. II. [ 30]

THere is one word twice used in the tenour of Christ his Institution; once concerning the Bread, [HOC FA∣CITE] DO THIS:] the second time touching the Cup, * 1.5 [HOC FACITE, QVOTIESCVNQVE:] DO THIS AS OFTEN, &c.] Both which whosoever should denie to have the Sound and Sense of a Precept, might be confuted by your owne Iesuites, Doctors, Bishops, and Cardinalls, among * 1.6 whom we find your Barradas interpreting it, Praecipit: your Valentian, Praeceptum: your Iansenius, Mandat: your Alan, Praeceptio: your Bellarmine, Iubet; each one signifying a Com∣mand. But of what? this is our next Inquisition. And it is [ 40] found, that All of them acknowledge Christs Praecept, simply for the Bread: and Some of them, onely, but conditionally of the Cup, whereof we are now to speake.

The Acts of Christ were some belonging to Consecration, and some to Distribution, Manducation, and Drinking, Such as con∣cerned Consecration of both kinds, being with common con∣sent

ackowledged to be under that Command of [Hoc facite,] are the Taking Bread and blessing it, &c. To the other, touching Administration of the Cup, whereof it is sayd, [He tooke it, and gave it to his Disciples] whom after he had Commanded, say∣ing, [Drinke you all of this,] hee added the other Command set downe by Saint Paul, saying unto them, [Doe this as often as yee shall doe it in remembrance of Mee.] That by this Obligation hee might charge them to communicate in both kinds. A Pre∣cept then it must needs bee, But wee are not ignorant of your [ 10] Evasions.

Your first Evasion.

Although (saye 1.7 you) it be said to his Disciples [Drinke you all, and, Doe this] yet it is spoken to them as they were Priest. And on∣ly to the Apostles; saith Master* 1.8 Brerely. And againe, The A∣postles did represent the Priests.

[ 20] CHALLENGE.

VVEe answere that your ownef 1.9 Castro will not allow your Antecedent, but is perswaded rather (by the manifest Current of the Text) that The Apostles were not Priests when the Cup was given unto them. And although they were then Priests, yet we answere, that your Consequence, (viz.) Ergò onely Priests are enjoyned to receive the Cup, will appeare to be both fond in it selfe, and to your owne selves pernicious. First, as fond, as if one should argue thus: It was at the first said only to the Apostles, Goe and baptize all Nations: Ergò none but the [ 30] Apostles have Command to Baptize, which office you permit aswell to women Laicke, as to men. Next pernicious, for say (Wee pray you) doe the words, [Drinke yee all of this] com∣mand all Priests to drinke? then must this condemne the con∣trary * 1.10 Practice of your now Church of Rome, which allow∣eth the Cup to no Priest present, but onely to him that doth Conse∣crate: which is directly confuted by the Example of Christ, who administred the Cup, unto all his Apostles, by your do∣ctrine, Priests.

[ 40] Againe, Do these words onely command the Priest to re∣ceive the Cup? then likewise do you condemne your former Church of Rome, which hath sometime permitted the Cup unto Laike. Yea, and your Cardinall Alang 1.11 doth not sticke to tell

you, out of the ancient Fathers, that the Command [Doe this] declared by Saint Luke, is applyed by Saint Paul to the receiving in both kinds, aswell of People as of Priest. And by virtue of the same Command of Christ, The Greeke Church hath alwayes observed the use of both kinds unto this day. So hee, justifying our contrary Consequence; even as also your * 1.12 Cosmus Philiarchus defendeth, and confirmeth the same by Aquinas, and Scotus, the two most eminent Doctors of your Church, holding that Laicks are chargible to receive the Eucha∣rist by virtue of the Command of Christ, in the same words of In∣stitution, [Do this.]

{fleur-de-lys}And lest you may thinke that wee seeke advantage onely from your private Schooles, you may find the Coun∣cell [ 10] of Braccara (about the yeare 67••) decreeing the se∣verall Administration of both kindes to bee Commended to the Church, by the words of Christ his Institution. Lastly, Wee shall* 1.13 prove, that the ancient Fathers with joynt con∣sent collected, as well as Wee, a necessitie of the Peoples re∣ceiving in both kinds, by right of equalitie with the Priest, from the same example of Christ, in his first Institution, even because* 1.14 Christ admitted it to all his Disciples then present: [ 20] which were not true,* 1.15 if that the Disciples had had any pri∣vilege in receiving either of Both, as they were Priests, as you have fondly fancied.

Your second Evasion.

Next, although it were (sayh 1.16 you) said, [And in like man∣ner Christ tooke the Cup] namely, as hee tooke Bread: yet the word [Similitèr, Likewise] hath Relation to his Taking, not to [ 30] his Giving.

CHALLENGE.

THis is flatly repugnant to the Gospell of Christ, where these words of* 1.17 Saint Luke, [Likewise hee tooke the Cup] appeare by Saint* 1.18 Matthew to have relation aswell to Christs Giving, as to his Taking of the Cup, thus; [Iesus tooke the Cup and gave thankes, and gave it unto them, saying, Drinke you all of this.] [ 40] Yea and in Saint Luke, the text objected is so cleare, that it needeth no Comment: Hee tooke the Bread, and gave thankes, and gave it unto them, saying, &c. and likewise the Cup. Where the precedent word, expressing Christ his Act, is not Tooke, but Gave the Cup. And if any should seeke a Comment upon these words, he could finde none more direct than that of your lear∣ned Arias Montanus, and Bishop Iansenius, [In like manner:]

That (sayi 1.19 they) as hee did with the Bread, so did hee with the Cup, he tooke it, hee gave thankes, hee gave it unto them All to drinke. All which Saint Luke comprized in these words; [In like manner Hee tooke the Cup.] So they.

[ 10] Your third Evasion.

Although it be said of Drinking of the Cup, [Do this in Re∣membrance of mee:] yet the words [Do this,] (sayk 1.20 you) are spoken Absolutely of the Bread, and but Conditionall of the Cup, namely, [As often as you shall drinke it.] And upon this Conceit do two Iesuites raise up their Insultation,l 1.21 saying; Be∣hold here the wonderfull providence of God, whereby is taken from Heretikes all colour of excuse. So they, of us Protestants.

[ 20] {fleur-de-lys}If this Providence, whereof you talke, be so Wonderfull; and Notorious; it is some Wonder to us, how your owne other Doctors missed the sight of it; who, in seeking most earnestly to avoyd the dint of Christs words of Precept [Drinke you all of this] devised an uncouth subterfuge, saying,1 1.22 These may bewords of Invitation, and not of Command. An Answer which might better become one on an Alebench, inviting his fellow to pledge him. Wee hasten to our Challenge, in answer to [ 30] your former Objection.

CHALLENGE.

TO this we answer, our of the Conclusions of your owne [ 40] Doctors, aswell of the new, as of the old Schooles; your m 1.23 Iesuite Vasquez, for the new, Concluding, that the words, [This do yee, as often as you drinke it, in remembrance of Mee,] as they command the end of the Celebration of this Sacrament,

in the remembrance of the Passion of Christ: so doe they also com∣mand the Act and manner therof, which is, by drinking of the Sa∣cramentall Cup. Which hee holdeth to be so manifest a Truth, that hee thinketh no man to be so blinde, as not to discerne it, saying, Who seeth not this? Accordingly he allegeth Solo, for the old Schoole, concluding that the words [Drinke yee all of this, as often, &c.] Do simply command the act of Drinking: or else (saith he) the Church hath no ground, for the Priest that conse∣crateth, to celebrate in both kinds. And this Obligation Cardi∣nall n 1.24 Cusanus affirmeth to lye alwayes upon the Church; [ 10] Whereby your Mastero 1.25 Brerely may see, and acknowledge his double Errour.

And, indeed, the Evidence is so great, that although all Ro∣mish Vniversities should withstand it, we might herein appeale to common Sense: for Christ having first commanded his Disciples, saying, in the Celebration of this Sacrament, [Drinke yee all of this;] this is the Act: and adding further, saying, [As often, or whensoever as yee shall drinke it, do this in remembrance of mee,] which is the End so commanded; it doth equally im∣ply a command of the Act of Drinking, aswell as of the End. [ 20] Now the Catholike Church did alwayes hold, that there ought to be an Often Commemoration of the Passion of Christ, even untill his comming againe (as saith the Apostle) by the Ce∣lebration of this Sacrament. And the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] As often, or whensoever yee receive, &c. (being indefinite, and assigning no certaine dayes or times) giveth libertie to the Church to solem∣nize this Memoriall at her convenient times; yet so, that When∣soever the Church celebrateth this Sacrament, shee do it accor∣ding to the forme of Christ his Institution, by communicating in both kinds. [ 30]

{fleur-de-lys}Yet is not this all, but if you desire an Argument of Gods wonderfull Providence, you may see it in this, in deli∣vering up your owne Cardinals to that Stupidity, as to be caught in their owne subtilty, by the cleare light of the Text, well discerned by your Divines of2 1.26 Colen in these words of Saint Paul, [As often as you do eate this Bread, and drinke this Cup.] Do you marke? the [Quotiescunque,] is applyed equally to both, The eating of the one, and Drinking of the o∣ther. If then their Consequence were good, that the Church, by virtue of that [Quotiescunque,] had a libertie to abstaine [ 40] from the Cup, it would follow that (against the universall do∣ctrine of both sides) the Church might celebrate the Com∣munion without distribution of either of both, whereof more in the next Section.

If the Pope, sitting in the Assembly of his Cardinals, delive∣ring unto each of them a Ring, to put upon their thumbes, should say, Do this as often as you come before mee, in testi∣monie

of my love: (Wee demand) Are they not, as often as they come into the presence of that Pope, chargeable to put on each one his Ring upon his thumbe, by virtue of the Popes Command? [Do this] who seeth not this, that doth not wil∣fully blind-fold and stupifie his wits? Shall wee conclude? As your owne Doctors inferre from these words of Christ [Do this] that Laicks, who be of yeares, are bound by the Law of God to communicate: by the same Text may wee conclude, that they are likewise obliged to participate of the Cup.

[ 10] {fleur-de-lys}And although our Argument, taken from the words of Christ [Do this as often] seeme to be hereunto of no force with your two Cardinals, who spy therein a wonderfull gappe of libertie for a non-use of the Cup, in the celebration of this Sacrament; yet your Councell of Trent pronounceth that* 1.27 The Priest by these words. [Do this as often as, &c.] is commanded to consecrate in both kinds; Which indeed ought to be unto us an Argument of the singular Providence of God, to see the Adversaries of his Truth, to be Babylonishly Confounded by the Contrarietie of their owne tongues.

[ 20] THE CHALLENGE, In Generall.

DO this] are (as you have heard) words Commandatorie, and being spoken of Both kinds, aswell for Consecration, as for Distribution, do oblige the Church of Christ to performe both kinds: so that it must needs follow, that the neglect of [ 30] the Act is a Transgression of the Precept of Christ. And so much the rather ought you to be perswaded hereof, because your choicest and most subtile Objecters, when, seeking to de∣fend your Alteration, it became them to reason discreetly con∣cerning this Sacrament (which the Fathers call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Cup of Sobriety) yet do argue so intemperatly, as though they had beene over-taken with some other Cup: insomuch that they are confuted by their owne learned fellowes, by evi∣dent texts of the Evangelists, and by common sense; Which gi∣veth us just cause to turne their Wonderment against themselves, [ 40] saying, Behold the Providence of God! thus plainely to confound the wisedome of the Adversaries of his truth by themselves, in their greatest subtilnesse. Hitherto of the Comparison of the Ordinance of Christ with the Ordinance of the Romish Church.

Our second Comparison is of the Example of Christ, with the contrary Example. SECT. III.

WEre it that wee had no Precept of Christ to [Doe this] but onely the Example of his Doing it in the first Insti∣tution, this should bee a Rule for us to observe it punctually, excepting in such Circumstances, which onely occasionally and [ 10] accidentally happened therein, as* 1.28 hath beene prooved; and therefore not to dare to give a Non-obstante against the Ex∣ample of Christ, as your* 1.29 Councell of Constance hath done: and whichp 1.30 your Iesuite also teacheth, as if the Example of Christ were no argument of proofe at all. Which Doctrine wee are now to trie by the judgement of Antiquity.q 1.31 Cyprian confuteth the Aquarij (Heretikes that used onely Water in the Chalice) by the Example of Christ his Institution, because Nothing is to bee done of us, in celebrating of this Mystery, which was not done of Christ. So hee. [ 20]

In the dayes of Pope Iulius, Anno 337. there arose many gid∣die spirits, which violated the holy Institution of Christ, in this Sacrament, when as some Consecrated Milke instead of Wine: others sopped the bread in the Cup: a third sort squiezed Grapes thereinto. These, and the like, that holy Pope did condemne, but how? by pretence of Custome only? no, but by the obliga∣tion of Christ his Example, and Institution of this Sacrament, in these words following:r 1.32 Because these are contrary (saith he) to Evangelicall and Apostolicall doctrine, and Ecclesiasticall [ 30] Custome, as is easily proved from the fountaine of truth, from whence the Sacraments had their first ordinance; for when our Ma∣ster of Truth commended this to his Disciples, hee gave to none Milke, but Bread onely, and the Cup. Nor doth the Gospell mention the sopping of Bread, but of giving Bread a-part, and the Cup also a-part, &c. So Pope Iulius. [ 40]

{fleur-de-lys}Long after this, the Councel of Braccara (about the yeare of our Lord 675) withstood the Complementall Custome of receiving both kindes in dipped soppes: but wot you why? hearken; even because3 1.33 It is not reveiled in the Gospell of Christs Institution. Ponder the Testimony in the Margin, and you shall find it point-blanke contradictorie to your opi∣nion and practice. Which Reasoning of the Bishops of that Councell had beene very loose and lavish, except they had beleeved that the forme of Institution of Christ, concerning [ 10] the Participation of both kindes, was as Commandatorie, as∣well for the People, as the Priest.

Those also that offered Bread and Cheese together, in this Sa∣crament, are confuted by the Institution of Christ, who appoin∣ted Bread, saiths 1.34 your Aquinas. What can bee more direct and absolute? yet dare your men object to the contrarie.

[ 20] The Romish Objection answered.

At Emmaus, Luke 24. Christ, meeting with certaine Disci∣ples, taking bread and blessing it, and thereby manifesting him∣selfe to them, is said immediately after the Breaking of Bread to have vanished out of their sights. Ergò, it may be lawfull (saith yourt 1.35 Cardinall) to use but one kinde. Because (saith* 1.36 Master Brerely) the Text sheweth, that Christ vanished away, not lea∣ving [ 30] any time for Benediction, or Consecration of the Cup.

CHALLENGE.

THis Argumentis is still inculcated, almost, by every Romanist, in defence of the Romish Custome of but in one kind, not∣withstanding [ 40] it be twice rotten. First, in the Root and Antece∣dent. For although Christ here had begun the Celebration of the Eucharist, yet doth it not appeare that he did now perfect it, in distributing either kinde to his Disciples; Nor is this likely, saith youru 1.37 Iansenius. And it is dead-rotten also in the branch and Consequence thereof, because that this Act of Christ in Emmaus is not to bee urged, as an Example to be imi∣tated in the Church; which is demonstrable by an acknow∣ledgment,

of your Iesuitex 1.38 Valentia. As for example. The Councel of Trent hath defined that the Priest, in Consecrating, is cōmanded by Christ his Institution to consecrate in both kinds; Because this (saith your Iesuite) both the nature of the Sacrifice and Sacrament doth exact: but by what words of Command? name∣ly (for so he saith) by these words, [Do this as often, &c.] Accor∣dingly your Objectour* 1.39 Master Brerely (as if hee had meant purposely to confute, and confound himselfe) The reason why the Priest receiveth both kinds, is, because hee is to represent the Sacri∣fice of Christ upon the Crosse. But Bread cannot represent Christ dead, without some signe of Bloud. [ 10]

{fleur-de-lys}Your Scottish Iesuite will prompt your English Priest, to say, that there may be a4 1.40 Perfect commemoration of Christs death by consecration of but one kinde: and that Christ [ 20] did not command the Consecration of Both, as necessary. This hee fetcheth from the former Example of Christ at Em∣maus; whom notwithstanding your Iesuite5 1.41 Vasquez (if peradventure hee cannot reforme) will surely refute, even from your owne Romish Principle, which teacheth that the Sacrifice of the Masse is an unbloudy Sacrifice in it selfe, yet Commemorative and Representative of Christs death and Pas∣sion; which was by the Effusion and Separation of Bloud from his Body. But this (saith he) cannot be represented 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by one kinde. And thereupon hee Concludeth that Christ instituted [ 30] the Consecration of this Sacrament in Both kindes.

If then, because Christ ministred it not in Both kindes in Em∣maus, it shall be lawfull for the Church to imitate him in that manner of Distribution of this Sacrament, it must as equally follow, that because hee is not found there to have Consecra∣ted in both kindes, it may be lawfull for your Consecrating Priest so to do; not onely contrarie to your now Romane Cu∣stome; but also (in the judgement of the Councell of Trent) con∣rary to the Command of Christ, as* 1.42 hath beene confessed. Twice miserable therefore is the darknesse of your Disputers, [ 40] First, not to see the Inconsequence of this Objection: and next

not to remember that common Principle, to wit, Extraordinary Acts (such as this was) are not to be Rules for ordinary Duties.

{fleur-de-lys}Wherein, that the Vnconscionablenesse of all your Ob∣jectors may be made more transparent, We adde out of your Schooles, that Christs Acts of Excellencie, (that is, which are proper to his owne Soveraignty) are neither Dispensable, nor Imitable. And such was this his abrupt not-dispensing of Both kinds unto his Disciples. Say, Father Vasquez, is not this most true?6 1.43 Christ (saith this Iesuite) now at Emmaus [ 10] consecrated but in one kinde, by his Supreme authority; so pro∣per to Christ, that the Pope himselfe cannot dispence with any Priest, that he should not consecrate in Both. So he. With what Conscience then could your Objectors urge this Example of Christ, for the Priests administring the Sacrament but in One kinde, which they themselves did see could not justifie either your Priests, or Popes, consecrating but in One kinde?

A SECOND CHALLENGE.

[ 20] VVEe conclude. You have seene, by the testimonies of Cyprian, and Pope Iulius, that it was good Divinity, in their dayes, to argue from the Example of Christ his Institution negatively; by rejecting such Acts, and accounting them as contrarie to the Institution of Christ, which accord not with his Example, and which are not comprized within the Canon of Christ his [Hoc facite.] Which kinde of Reasoning, at this day, is hissed at in your Romish Schooles. What need many words? O tempora!

[ 30] Our third Comparison, is, by conferring Apostolicall Pra∣ctice with contrary Practice. SECT. IV.

Saint Paul having more speciall occasion to handle this point, than any other of the Apostles, may worthily be admitted to resolve us in the name of all the Rest. Hee Catechizing the Corinthians, concerning the true use of the Eucharist, recordeth [ 40] the first Institution, thus:* 1.44 I have received of the Lord that which I deliver unto you, that the Lord Iesus, &c. And, after his Re∣citall of the Institution of Christ, hee himselfe addeth [* 1.45 As often as you eate of this Bread, and drinke of this Cup, you shew the Lords death untill hee come againe.* 1.46 Let therefore a man examine himselfe, and so eate of this Bread, and drinke of this Cup.] From this wee seeke a Proofe both of the Apostolicall Practice, in the use of Both kindes, in this Sacrament; and of our duty in

observing the same. But we may spare our paines of proving the use of Both kindes in the Church of Corinth, because (as your a 1.47 Cardinall Tolet confesseth) There is no controversie thereof.

As for the Proofe of our necessary Conformity, wee have the same Reasons, wherewith the Apostle perswadeth there∣unto, [That (saith he) which I have received of the Lord, I deliver unto you, that Iesus, &c.] Thereby applying the Example of Christ his Institution for a Rule of their Practice: which this conjunctive Particle of Eating [AND] Drinking; To Eate [AND] Drinke, five times so coupled in this Epistle, do plain∣ly [ 10] declare.

But you tell us, that in this place the Conjunctive [AND] is put for a Disjunctive, Or, thereby to teach the Church a liberty to choose whether they shall eate or Drinke: notwithstanding, you your selves have confessed that Christ spake absolutely, and without Condition, of the Bread, Take, Eate, Do this. And againe, 1 Cor. 11. 24. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, And in like manner the Cup.] It is an AND Conjunctive, questionlesse. For seeing it cannot be denyed, that the Apostles Practice was both Eating and Drinking conjunctively, it is not likely or credible that the [ 20] sense of his words should be discretive; because this had beene, in words, to have contradicted his owne practice. Master Brerely opposeth, viz. The Apostle in the same Chapter saith v. 20 Hee that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement; also he saith vers. 27. whosoever eateth this Bread, and drinketh this Cup unworthily, &c. So he.

It is not to be denyed but that [AND] is often used in Scrip∣ture for, [Or:] but Master Brerely his notions, as commonly else-where, so here also are too confused, by not distinguishing the divers use of [AND] namely, in Precepts, and Exhorta∣tions [ 30] to an Act, from AND, in denunciation of judgement, in case of Transgression. As for example, The Precept is, Honour thy father, And thy mother, (Exod. 20.) here [AND] must needs be copulative, because of the Obligation of Precept of honou∣ring Both. But the denunciation against the Transgressour, if it stood (as Master7 1.48 Brerely objecteth, feigning a false Text contrary both to the Originall, and vulgar Latine Translation) thus, Hee that shall strike his father, And mother, shall die: the particle [AND] must needs be taken disjunctively for, Or, (as indeed it is expressed in the Text) because the Transgression [ 40] of either parts of a Commandement inferreth an obliga∣tion of guilt and judgement, as any man of sense may per∣ceive.

Against this, albeit so evident a Truth, your Doctors will have something to object, or else it will go hard; even forsooth the contrarie practice of the Apostles, Act. 2. 42 where wee read of the faithfull assembled and Continuing together in fellow∣ship,

and in breaking of bread, and in prayers; because there is but mention onely of one kinde, which is Bread: whence they in∣ferre a no-necessity of using the Cup. So yourb 1.49 Cardinall Bellarmine. And to answer, that the ministration of the Cup is understood by a figure Synechdoche, is an Answer onely imaginary and groundlesse, saith Master* 1.50 Brerely.

But are they yet to learne that which every man knoweth, and your owne Iesuites have taught? that there is no Trope more familiar in Scripture than this Synechdoche of taking a part [ 10] for the whole? Or could they not discerne thus much in the same Chapter, ver. ••6. where it is sayd, They brake bread through every house; Wherein (as your Iesuitec 1.51 Lorinus reacheth) there is not meant the Eucharist, but common foode? Whereby you can∣not but understand implied, in their breaking of bread, their mu∣tuall drinking together also. And yet in the like words spoken of the Eucharist, verse 42. [They continued together in breaking of Bread] you exclude the participation of the Cup. What shall wee say? was your spirituall appetite weaker than your corpo∣rall, in reading these two Texts, wherein is mentioned onely [ 20] Bread, that you could discerne but halfe refection in the Eu∣charist, and an whole in their bodily repast?

{fleur-de-lys}Not to trouble you with the repeating of Some* 1.52 few Scriptures, among many, wherein the word, Bread, alone doth by a Senechdoche necessarily unply a perfect and full Refecti∣on; else men (you know) should be clemmd, who should have Bread onely, without Drinke.

Besides, any man may guesse what spirit it favoureth of, that (in paralleling the authority of your Church with the authority of the Apostles) your Iesuites doe resolve, that although the [ 30] Apostles had constituted the Custome of Receiving in both kindes,d 1.53 Neverthelesse (say they) the Church of Rome, and Pope thereof, having the same authoritie with Saint Paul, may abro∣gate it upon just Cause. And yet hardly can you allege any Cause, for abrogation of that Practice, which Saint Paul might not have assumed in his time.

[ 40] CHALLENGE.

OFrustrà susceptos Labores nostros! may wee say; for to what end is it for us to prove an Apostolicall Practice, or Pre∣cept for Both kinds, when your Objectors are ready with the onely names of Pope and Church of Rome to stoppe the mouthes not onely of Vs Heretikes (as you call us) but even of Saint Paul himselfe, and of the other Apostles, yea, and of Saint Peter too?

By which Answere notwithstanding you may perceive how little Saint Paul doth favour your cause, by whose Doctrine the Advocates for your Church are driven to these straits: but more principally if you call to remembrance, that our Argu∣ment is taken from the Apostles Doctrine and Practice, as it was grounded by S^t. Paul himselfe upon the Doctrine and Precept of Christ. Thus, when wee appeale unto the Apostles Tradi∣dition, you, by opposing, Thinke your selves wiser than the A∣postles: which Irenaeus will tell you was the very garbe of old e 1.54 Heretikes. [ 10]

Our fourth and fift Comparisons are of Primitive Custome with the contrary Custome, in respect both of the Antiquitie and Vniversalitie thereof. SECT. V.

BEfore wee shall say any thing our selves of the Primitive Custome, in using Both kinds in the administration of this Sacrament, and the extent thereof, both in the longitude of Continuance, and latitude of Vniversality, wee are ready to [ 20] heare how farre your owne Doctors will yeeld unto us, in both these points, touching the publike use of Both kinds. Wher∣fore, hearken but unto the Marginals, and you shall finde your Iesuites, with others, uttering these voyces:f 1.55 Wee must con∣fesse, Wee doe confesse; yea, Wee do ingenuously confesse a Custome of both kinds (aswell to the Laicks as Priests) to have beene in the Primitive Church most frequent and generall: as is proved by the ancient Fathers both Greeke and Latine, among whom are Leo and Gregorie (both) Popes of Rome; yea and universall also for a long time, continuing a thousand yeares in the Church of Rome, and in [ 30] the Greeke Church unto this day. So they.

Where wee see both the Antiquity and Vniversality thereof to the full, which it were easie for us to have shewne Gradatim, descending downe from the first Age unto the twelfth; but that when wee have as much confessed as neede be proved, it might [ 40]

be judged to bee but an importunate diligence and Curiositie to labour any further. Neverthelesse, if peradventure any should desire to see one or two Testimonies for the last Age, hee may satisfie himselfe in theg 1.56 Margent at the first sight.

The Romish Objections, concerning Primitive Custome.

[ 10] Divers Objections are urged on your side, to abate something of the Vniversality of the Custome of Both kindes, which we de∣fend; but if they shall not seeke to decline the Question, and to rove about, as it were, at unset markes, their Arguments are but as so many Bolts shot altogether in vaine. For our defence is o••••∣ly this, that in the publike solemnization and Celebration of this Sacrament, in an Assembly of Christians freely met to com∣municate, no one example can bee shewne in all Antiquity, throughout the Catholike Church of Christ, for the space of a thousand yeares, inhibiting either Priest, or Laick, from [ 20] Communicating in both kindes, who was duly prepared to re∣ceive the Sacrament. As for the examples which you usually object, they are of no force at all, beingh 1.57 proved to be either private, or illegitimate, or false, respectively. Hitherto of the Primitive Custome.

Notwithstanding all this, will your Romane Church boast of her contrary Custome of after-times, telling us, in her Councels, that her Custome of administring the Eucharist but in one kinde is rightly observed, as a Custome, which hath beene [Diutissi∣mè [ 30] observata, ] that is, of very long continuance. Many yeares by∣passed, saithi 1.58 your Villalpandus. But most precisely your Ie∣suite k 1.59 Salmeron: It is certaine (saith he) that the Church, for these three or two hunded yeares, hath used to communicate to the [ 40] Laity under one kinde. So they.

CHALLENGE.

NOw after that wee have proved, out of your owne Con∣fessions, the length of the Custome of Both kindes to have beene in the Continuance above a thousand yeares, after the first Institution of this Sacrament; and for largenesse thereof, in an universall consent thereunto, without any exception by any example ordinary, publike, and legitimate; and that you have heard also even the Fathers of your Church opposing against [ 10] it a contrarie custome not above the Compasse of three hundred yeares, and yet to call it [Diutissima] A Custome of longest continu∣ance; what Tergiversation could be more shamelesse? But e∣nough of this point. In the next place, because the same your Councel hath told us, that your contrary Custome was brought in [Rationabiliter,] with good Reason, wee are forth-with to dis∣cusse the Reasons thereof.

Our sixt Comparison is of Reasons, for the Vse [ 20] of Both kindes, collated with Reasons objested to the contrary. SECT. VI.

A Sacrament (according to the common definition) is a Visi∣ble signe of an invisible Grace; and so farre is a Signe true and perfect, as it doth fully represent the things that are ordained to be signified thereby: Signification being the very proper na∣ture and end of a Signe, as well in sacred, as in prophane Rites. [ 30] Come now and let us industriously and calmly debate this mat∣ter, which wee have in hand, both in respect of the thing signi∣fied (which is the Sacrament, or spirituall Object) as of the party Communicating, who is the Subject thereof.

Our first Reason is taken from the due Perfection of this Sacrament, which must necessa∣rily be in Both kindes.

The things Spirituall (as all Christians professe) are the Body [ 40] and Blood of Christ, which are signified in the Sacrament of Bread and wine; These two then are not two Sacraments, but one Sacrament formally, (as you* 1.60 know) which therfore ought to be performed in Both, or else the Act will be a Sacrilegious dismembring of the Sacrament of Christ. This shall we easily

prove from the Principles and Confessions of your owne Schooles. Your Church professeth to celebrate the Eucharist, both as it is a Sacrifice, and as it is a Sacrament. As you hold it to be a Sacrifice, you generally teach that Both kinds are necessarily to be received of the Priest, because they both belong to the Essence thereof. So yourl 1.61 Cardinall. Consult with yourm 1.62 Aqui∣nas, your Iesuites Valentia, and Vasquez, and they will say as much in behalfe of the Eucharist, as it is a Sacrament; their rea∣son is, Because both kindes, making but one Sacrament, ought to be [ 10] celebrated perfectly, and therefore is the Priest bound to consecrate this Sacrament in both kindes by that command of Christ, saying, [Do this:] nor can this be omitted without Sacrilege. So they.

If such be the necessity of consecrating in both kindes, under the hand of the Priest, then lieth the same obligation upon the Church likewise, for distributing it in both kindes unto the people, to whom it is to be administred, in token of Christ his Passion for them applicatorily, both in his Body and Bloud: but the Bread only can no more represent the Blood of Christ in the mouthes of people, in the eating thereof, than it can by Con∣secrating [ 20] it in the hands of the Priest: and consequently the dismembring thereof, as you do, must necessarily condemne both Priest and People. A Consequence, which your figment of [ 30] * 1.63 Concomitancie cannot possibly avoid.

A Corroboration of the same Reason, against the Sacrilegi∣ous dismembring of this Sacrament, by the Testimony of Pope Gelasius; and a Vindication of Doctor Morton from the Traducement of other your Priests and Iesuites. [ 40] SECT. VII.

THe Hereticall Manichees forbare the use of the Cup in this Sacrament, in an opinion, that wine was not created by God, but by some evill spirit; whom Pope Gelasius did therefore con∣demne by his publike Decree: which Hereticall opinion (as once In 1.64 said) cannot justly be imputed unto the Church of Rome, in her manner of abstaining from the Cup in the Eucharist. This

Sayingo 1.65 Master Fisher the Iesuite, of late, thought good to pervert to his owne use, thus. The Crime wherewith some Pro∣testants charge us, that our receiving under the sole forme of Bread is to jump in the opinion of the Manichees, wee may (as Doctour Morton confesseth) reject as injurious, saying with him, that it was not the Manichees abstinence from w••ne, but the reason of their forbearance that was judged Hereticall. So hee. But this mans march is but slow.

Master Brerely,p 1.66 a Romish Priest, one well esteemed among you, for his exceeding labour and paines in defending the Ro∣mish Cause, to his power, by his many Bookes, almost in eve∣ry particular, commeth on more roundly, as followeth: Do∣ctor Morton himselfe (saith he) shall plead in our behalfe, who saith [ 10] that the Manichees did heretically celebrate the Eucharist onely in one kind, in an opinion that wine was not created by God, but by some evill spirit, and were therefore anciently condemned for Heretiques: but the Romanists are not to bee accused of this here∣sie of the Manichees, in their not distributing of both elements of bread and wine. And to object this against that Church were an accusation injurious, for it was not the Manichees abstinence from [ 20] wine, but their reason thereof which made them hereticall, said hee. So your Priest; yet what of all this? So clearely doth Doctor Morton (saith hee) cleare us from the foule and false im∣putation urged against us by Doctor Whitaker, who noted the Ad∣ministration but in one kind, now used by the Romish Church, to have had it's originall from the Manichees: and so clearely doth hee contradict both Master Whitaker and himselfe, in one place accusing us, in another excusing us, in one and the same Respect: of which foule fault of Contradiction in so great a Rabbin when he cleareth himselfe, instead of being Bishop of Litchfield, hee shall bee unto mee ever Magnus Apollo. Thus farre Master Brerely. [ 30] Alas! what will become of the Doctor, being as you see, thus fiercely assaulted by two at once, one a Iesuite, the other a Ro∣mish Priest, both conspiring together to make the Doctor ridi∣culous?

CHALLENGE,

IT is now about twenty yeeres since the sayd Doctor (in Confutation of a booke of Master Brerelyes, intituled an A∣pologie) [ 40] published a Treatise, called the Protestants Appeale, wherein were discovered many hundred of Master Brerelyes Ignorances, Falsities, and Absurdities: who ever since hath had Master Parson's itch, (as hee himselfe called his owne hu∣mour) which received a Salve that might have cured him of that itch, to bee medling with the same Doctor. Yet the only Exception, which hath since come to this Doctor's eares from

your side, is this now objected point, concerning the Mani∣chees: whereupon you have heard them both so urgently, and boastingly insist: and not so onely, but they have also divulged this pretended Contradiction in many Counties of this King∣dome, to his reproach. Will you be so kinde, as but to heare an Answer, and then either wonder at, or hisse, or applaude, or him, or them, as you shall find just Cause.

Two things there were condemnable in the Manichees, one was their Act and Practice, in dismembring the Sacrament, by [ 10] not communicating in Both kinds: the other was their Opi∣nion, which they held, for so doing; which was, as you have heard, an Hereticall Conceit, that Wine was the Creature of the Devill. Concerning this Hereticall opinion, no Protestant (sayd q 1.67 Doctor Morton) doth charge the Church of Rome: but as for the Act of not Communicating in Both kinds,r 1.68 he called it Sacrilegious, and concluded the Church of Rome, in this respect, to bee as guilty of dismembring the Sacrament, as were the Ma∣nichees. And both these hee hath done by the Authority of Popes 1.69 Gelasius, who decreed, in condemning the Manichees, [ 20] First against their Opinion, saying, Illi nescio quâ superstitione docentur astringi, &c. (That is) They are intangled in a kinde of Superstition. Then, for the Act of refusing the Cup, Because (saith hee) the diving of the same Mystery cannot be done with∣out grievous sacrilege, therefore let these Manichees either re∣ceive the whole Sacrament, or else let them be wholly excluded from receiving. So Gelasius,

Seeing then Doctor Morton, and all Protestants, cleare the Church of Rome from the imputation of the Heresie of the Ma∣nichees, in respect of their opinion, and yet condemne them of the Manichean Sacrilege, in respect of the Act of dismem∣bring [ 30] the Sacrament; with what spectacles (thinke you) did your Priest and Iesuite reade that. Answere of Doctor Mor∣ton, to collect from thence, either your Churches Iusti∣fication from a foule fault of Sacrilege, or else the Doctors foule Contradiction to himselfe, and that clearely forsooth, in the same respect? who themselves are now found to have beene so subtilly witlesse, as not to discerne Heresie from Sacrilege; an opinion from a fact; or a no-imputation of that, whereof neither Doctor Whitaker, nor any other Protestant ever [ 40] accused them, from a practice condemned by a Roman Pope him∣selfe. Take unto you a Similitude. A man being apprehended in the company of Traytors, upon suspicion of Fellony, is fully and effectually prosecuted for Fellony onely; if one should say of him, that he was not convicted or condemned of Treason, but of Fellony, were this either a Contradiction in the party spea∣king, or a full Iustification of the party spoken of?

You are by this time (wee thinke) ashamed of your Proctors, and of their scornefull insultation upon the Doctor, in the ri∣diculous

tearmes of Rabbin, and Magnus Apollo: who willingly forbeareth, upon this Advantage, to recompence them with like scurrility, being desirous to be onely Great in that, which is called Magna est Veritas, & praevalet.

By which Truth also is fully discovered the vanity of the An∣swer both of M^r. Fisher, & of your Cardinall, saying, that Gelasi∣us condemned only the Opinion of the Manichees; which is so trans∣parant a falshood, as any one that hath but a glympse of Reason may see throught it, by the sentence it selfe, as hath been proved.

Our second Reason is in respect of the perfect Spirituall [ 10] Refection, represented by this Sacrament. SECT. VIII.

ANother Object, represented in this Sacrament, is the food of mans soule, in his faithfull receiving of the Bodie and Blood of Christ, which because it is a perfect spirituall Refection, Christ would have it to be expressed both in Eating and Drink∣ing, wherein consisteth the perfection of man's bodily suste∣nance: and therefore are both necessarily to be used, by law of Analogie betweene the outward Signe, and the thing Signified [ 20] thereby. Two of youra 1.70 Iesuites (from whom Master Fisher hath learned his Answer) seeke to perswade their Readers, that the Soules refection spirituall is sufficiently signified in ei∣ther kinde, whether in Bread, or Wine. But be it knowne unto you, that either all these have forgotten their Catechisme, autho∣rized by the Fathers of the Councel of Trent, and confirmed by Pope Pius Quintus, or else Those their Catechists forgot them∣selves in teaching, thatb 1.71 This Sacrament was instituted so, that two severall Consecrations should be used, one of Bread, and the other [ 30] of the Cup; to the end, both that the Passion of Christ might be repre∣sented, wherein his Blood was separated from his Body: and because this Sacrament is ordained to nourish man's soule, it was therefore to be done by Eating and Drinking; in both which the perfect nourish∣ment of mans naturall life doth consist.

Aquinas, and your Iesuite Valentia, with others, are as expresse in this point, as they were in the former; who although they (as we also) hold that whole Christ is received in either kinde, (for Christ is not divided) yet do theyc 1.72 maintaine that This Sacrament, as it is conformable both to Eating and Drinking, so [ 40]

doth it by Both kindes, more perfectly expresse our spirituall nourish∣ment by Christ: and therefore it is more convenie it that both be exhibited to the faithfull severally, as for Meate, and for drinke. So they. For although, in the Spirituall Receiving, Eating and Drinking are both one, even as the appetite of the Soule in hun∣gring and thirsting is the same; as where it is written, Matth. 5. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousnesse, &c. yet in this Sacramentall communicating with bodily instru∣ments it is otherwise, as you know.d 1.73 The blood of Christ is [ 10] not drunke in the forme of Bread, nor is his Body eaten as meate in the forme of Wine, because the Body cannot be said to be drunke, nor the blood to be eaten. So your Durand, and so afterwards your* 1.74 {fleur-de-lys}Who also observeth that, concerning spirituall Repast,8 1.75 Christ saith, that by the onely act of Faith both hunger and thirst is taken away: therefore wee are said both to eat and drinke by the same and onely act of Faith.

Wherefore you, in with-holding the Cup from the People, do violate the Testament of Christ, who requireth in this a perfect representation visible of a compleate and a full Refection spiri∣tuall; [ 20] which is sufficient to condemne your Abuse, whereby you also defraud God's people of their Dimensum, ordai∣ned by Christ for their use. Concerning this second,e 1.76 Ma∣ster Fisher (one of the society of Iesuites) was taught to An∣swer, that the Full causality (as he said) and working of spirituall Effects of the soule cannot be a wanting to the Sacrament under one kind; because of Christ his assistance. So he. We should aske, whether a greater Devotion, and a more plentifull Grace are not to be esteemed spirituall Effects, for the good of the Soule, [ 30] which aref 1.77 confessed to be enjoyed rather by Communicating in Both kinds.

{fleur-de-lys}Will you have any more? know then that your Ro∣mane Pope Clement did absolutely teach that9 1.78 A greater augmentation of Grace is obtained by Communicating in Both. Which was the Cause (saith your Iesuite) that Hee dispenced with the King of England to participate in Both. For con∣sider (we pray you) that the Assistance of Christ doth especially concurre with his owne Ordinance, and therefore much rather where the forme of a Sacrament, ordained and instituted by himselfe, is observed, then where it is (as of you) so notoriously [ 40] perverted, and contemned. Yet because you may think we rest upon either our owne, or yet of other your Doctors Iudgement

in this Defence, we shall produce to this purpose, the consona•••• Doctrine of ancient Fathers.

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

FOr the proofe of the necessary use of Both kindes, in the so∣lemne and publike dispensation of this Sacrament, the parti∣cular [ 10] Testimonies of many ancient Fathers might be produced, but your owne Authors will ease us of that labour, by relating andg 1.79 confessing as much, in effect, as we did intend to prove, viz. That the ancient Fathers were induced to the Continu∣ance of the Custome in Both kindes, First, by the Example and Institution of Christ. Secondly, by some particular Grace, which they held to be signified by the Cup. Thirdly, for the Repre∣sentation, that it had to the Passion. of Christ; distinctly and respectively to his Body and Blood. Fourthly, to resemble the Redemption, which man hath in his Body by Christ's Body, and [ 20] by his Blood in the soule. Fiftly, To expresse by these Sym∣bols the perfect spirituall Nourishments wee have by his Body and Blood. Sixtly, To understand that this Sacrament doth equally belong to People, as well as to Priests: (which they with great earnestnesse enforce, with joynt consent, as a ne∣cessary [Ius] and Right belonging to both.) Seventhly, that the Cup of the Eucharist doth animate soules to receive the Cup of bloody Martyrdome, when the time should be. {fleur-de-lys}Eightly, by the Precept of Christ;10 1.80 Iustine one of the most ancient [ 30] [ 40]

Guides in Christs Church saying plainely, that Christ com∣manded Both kindes to be received

And the Commandement, which Iustine meant, your Iesuite attributeth to Christs saying, [DO THIS] And Cyprian as directly as succinctly11 1.81 The Gospell commandeth the drinking of it; yea and Saint Augustine was so peremptory for the Common use of the Cup, that hee called Christian mens12 1.82 [Bibere] in this Sacrament, to bee their [Vivere] and that lawfully the one cannot bee communicated without the [ 10] other. {fleur-de-lys}Whereunto may bee added the Constant profession of theh 1.83 Greeke Church, in obeying the Canon of Christ, and hol∣ding it necessarily to be observed of the people also, by receiving in Both kindes; and that otherwise wee transgresse against the Institution of Christ.

All these Testimonies of Primitive Fathers, under the Con∣fession of your owne Doctors (besides our other Collecti∣ons) are so many Arguments of the Consonant Doctrine of Antiquity, for proofe of an Obligation of Precept upon the Churches of Christ whatsoever, for the preservation of the [ 20] perfect forme of Christs Ordinance, in the administring of the Sacrament in Both kindes. Vpon this evidence may you justly call your fellow-Priest M^r. Brerely to account for his bold As∣sumption, saying, that* 1.84 No Doctor (speaking of ancient Fathers) can bee produced either expressely, or else by necessary Consequence, affirming the necessitie of the Laicks receiving under Both kindes: Your selves perceiving now not onely One, but many ancient Doctors to have expressed not only One, but Many Necessities inferring the same. And then you may furthermore question him for his next as lavish Assertion, affirming, in his fift An∣swer, [ 30] that The Authorities objected, for the necessity of Both kinds, speake not of a Sacramentall, but onely of a spirituall Receiving with the mouth of their hearts. When shall we find conscionable dealing at this man's hands?

Having thus finished our Assumption, wee shall more expe∣ditely satisfie such your Reasons, or rather Pretences, which you [ 40] bring to disguise your sacrilegious Abuse.

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

WEe heare the* 1.85 Councel of Trent pretending (as they say) Iust reasons of altering the primitive Custome and use of both kindes, but naming none, which we may well thinke was because they deserved not the mention: surely, such they were, that your Iesuite had rather that you should beleeve [ 10] them, then try and examine them; It being your part (asi 1.86 hee saith) Rather to thinke them just, then to discusse them. But wee are not bound to your Rules of blinde Obedience. God will have us to use the sight, which hee hath given us, lest If the blinde leade the blinde, both fall into the Ditch. And whether the Reasons, which are given by your Doctors, be not blinde Seduce∣ments, wee are now to try. Some of your Reasons are taken from extraordinary Cases, some Instances are common to all other Churches Christian, and some are made as being peculiar to the Church of Rome. [ 20]

The first kind of Romish Pretences, from extraordinary Cases.

The first pretence is thus alleaged;k 1.87 Many Northerne Coun∣tries are destitute of Wine, and therfore one kind is to be used for Concord, and Vniformity-sake. Will you be answered from your selves? Aquinas, making the same Objection of want of Wine, and Wheare in forreine Countries,l 1.88 Resolveth that Notwithstanding, Wheate and Wine may be transported easily to all parts. Accordingly doth he resolve of the want of Balsame, u∣sed in your Consecration, and yet it is farre more scarce than [ 30] Wine or Wheate. Yet what Northerne Country almost can you name, that hath not abundance of Wine for many persons, e∣ven unto riot, and can they not as well have it in moderate mea∣sure, for a sacred Rite?

But what talke you of Vniformity and Concord, in this Case of Alteration, (which are your two next Pretences) wherein not∣withstanding the Church of Rome is dissenting from the Greeke, and all other Christian Churches in the World? Or if this were a necessary Cause, why did not your Church allow the use of Both kindes to the Church of Bohemia, but twice raised a fierce [ 40] warre against them? for which your Iesuitem 1.89 Salmeron see∣meth

to be full sorry; marrie it was, because that warre had not his wished successe. Is their Concord in Hostility? Againe, be∣cause you (thirdly) pretend Vniformity also, why then do your consecrating Priests onely receive both kindes sacramentally, and all the other Priests in Communicating participate but in one? or how is it that you allow a privilege to* 1.90 Popes, Cardi∣nals, Monkes, and noble Personages, to receive in both kindes, and deny this liberty to Others? Is there likewise Vniformity in Disparity?

[ 10] Your fourth Pretence is, because divers aren 1.91 Abstemious, and have an Antipathy against Wine, and some sickly persons also can hardly receive without Irreverent casting it up againe. If the particular reason, whicho 1.92 Aquinas giveth, saying, That Wine moderately taken of such can do no hurt, may not satis∣fie, yet this being also a Cause accidentall, and extraordinary, you ought to be regulated by this generall Rule, That extraor∣dinary Cases ought not to justle out ordinary Lawes and Customes. For, that Command of Christ to his Apostles, Go preach to every Creature, stood good in the generall, albeit many men happe∣ned [ 20] to be deafe. Saint Peter requireth of every Christian of sit yeares, that he be prepared to give an answer of his faith to eve∣ry one that asketh; which precept was not therefore alterable, because of multitudes of many that were dumbe. Finally, to close up with you, he that by the rule of Hospitality is to cheere up his guests, doth not prescribe that, because some mens stomackes are queasie, and not able to endure Wine, or else some meates, therefore all others should be kept fasting from all meates and Drinkes: and the Eucharist (you know) is called by Saint Paul, The Supper of the Lord, and by ancient Fathers, an [ 30] holy* 1.93 Banquet.

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

The other Causes above-mentioned were common to the primitive Church of Christ, wherein the use of Both kindes was (notwithstanding) preserved and continued; except that you will say, no Northerne Nations were Christians in those [ 40] times: and that no stomackes of Christians were dis-affected to wine, in loathing it, &c. But two other Pretences you have, which you thinke to be of more speciall-force, to forbid the use of this Sacrament in Both kindes; One is Because (saith yourm 1.94 Cardinall) such is the now-received and approved Custome of Nations and People. So he. But first to argue, that your Church did therefore forbid the use of both kindes, because she had approved the contrary Custome, is a meere Nugacitie

and Tautologie; and as much as to say, Shee would forbid it, because shee would forbid it. Secondly, saying, that the Vse of but One kinde had indefinitely the Consent of Nations and Peo∣ple, is a flat falsity, because (as hath beene confessed) The Greeke Church (not to mention AEthiopians, AEgyptians, Armenians, and Others) have alwayes held the Contrary Custome. Lastly, to justifie your Churches Innovation, in consenting to the humour of People of latter times, what can you censure it lesse than a grosse and absurd Indulgence?

The other Motive, which then 1.95 Cardinall calleth a Vehe∣ment presumption, and which all your Objectors most earnestly [ 10] urge, is the Cause of Irreverence, lest the blood might be spilt, especially in such a multitude of faithfull Communicants: and also lest any particle of the Hoast fall to the ground, saith Master * 1.96 Brerely.

We have but foure Answers to this mighty Objection. First, that this was not held a Reason to Christ, or his Apostles, or to the Church of Christ, for many ages, when notwithstanding the multitudes of Communicants were innumerable. Secondly, that The Casuall spilling of the Cup, saith youro 1.97 Salmeron, is no sinne, else would not Christ have instituted the use of the Cup: nor [ 20] would the Apostles, or Primitive Church aswell in the West as in the East, in their communicating; nor yet the Priest in consecra∣ting, have used it. So he. We might adde, by the same reason should people be forbid the other part also, lest (as your Priest said) any particle thereof should fall to the ground. Furthermore, for the avoiding of Spilling, you (as your Cardinall Alanp 1.98 rela∣teth) have provided Pipes of silver, which are used by Popes, Car∣dinals, Monkes, and some other Illustrious lay-Personages. Surely, there being no respect of persons with God (as said Saint Peter) we thinke that he, who will be Saint Peter's Successor should have [ 30] taken out with Saint Peter that lesson of Christ, of loving the whole flocke of Christ, aswell Lambes as Sheepe; not to provide Pipes or Tunnels for himselfe alone, and his Grandes, for recei∣ving this part of the Sacrament, and to neglect all other Chri∣stians, albeit never so true members of Christ. For this wee all know, thatq 1.99 Our Lord Christ prepared his table aswell for the poore as the Rich, according to the Apostles Doctrine, by your owne construction, answerable to the Doctrine of ancient Fathers. And that the Pretence of Reverence cannot be a suffi∣cient Reason of altering the ordinance of Christ, we may learne [ 40] from ancient Histories, which evidently declare that the opini∣on of Reverence hath often beene the Damme and Nourse of manifold Superstitions.

As for example, The Heretikes called* 1.100 Discalceati, in pre∣tence of more humility, thought that they ought to goe bare-foote. The* 1.101 Encratitae, in pretence of more sanctity, abhorred marriage. Ther 1.102 Aquarij, in pretence of more sobriety, used water in this Sacrament. The Manichees wanted not their pre∣tence of not drinking wine in the Eucharist, because they thought it was created by an evill Spirit. And yet were these judged by Pope Gelasius to be Sacrilegious. {fleur-de-lys}Hence was it that your Iesuite demanded,13 1.103 How was it possible (saith he) that the [ 10] Heresie of Eutyches, being nousled under a false zeale of Reve∣rence towards the person of the Sonne of God, might not in∣snare the Empresse Pulcheria, a woman? Yea, and what greater defence had the Pharisees, for all their Superstitions, than that of Reverence? whom notwithstanding Christ did pierce thorow with so many Vae's, for annulling of the Precepts of God, by their Traditions, under the pretence of religious Reverence and sanctity.

In briefe. It was the opinion of Reverence that made Saint Peter to contradict our Lords Command, when he said, Thou [ 20] shalt never wash my feete: yet how dangerous it had beene for Peter to have persisted in opposition, the Reply of our Saviour doth declare: If I wash not thy feete (faith Christ) thou hast no part with me, &c. Vpon which Text Saints 1.104 Chrysostome rea∣deth unto you this Lecture. Let us therefore learne (saith he) to honour and reverence Christ, as he would, and not as wee thinke meete. And sure we are, that he would that same which he com∣manded, saying, [Do this.] Therefore our next Difference, be∣tweene our defence and yours, is no other than obedient Reve∣rence, and irreverent, or rather irreligious Disobedience.

[ 30] As for your Pretence of manifesting hereby at 1.105 Greater dignity of Priests than of Laicks; it is too phantasticall for the sin∣gularity; too harsh for the noveltie; and too gracelesse for the impietie thereof: seeing that Christ, who gave his Body and Blood an equall price of Redemption for all sorts, would have the Sacrament of his Body and Blood equally administred to People, as to Priests; as you have heard the Fathers themselves pro∣fesse.

The Third kinde of Romish Pretences, which are more pe∣culiar [ 40] to their owne Church, in two points.

First, becausea 1.106 Heretikes (saith Bellarmine, and meaning Pro∣testants) do not believe Concomitancie, that is to say, that the blood of Christ is received under the forme of bread: but for this Con∣comitancie the Church was moved to prescribe the use of the Eucha∣rist

in one kinde. So he. And this point of Concomitancse is that whichb 1.107 Master Fisher, andc 1.108 Master Brerely most laboured for, or rather laboured upon. And albeit your Romaned 1.109 Ca∣techisme judgeth this the principall Cause of inducing your Church to preferre one kinde: yet wee (whom you call Here∣tikes) believe that the devout Communicant, receiving Christ spiritually by faith, is thereby possessed of whole Christ crucifi∣ed, in the inward act of the Soule: and only deny, that the Whole is received Sacramentally, in this outward act, under one onely part of this Sacrament, which is the present Question. [ 10]

And in this wee say no more than your Bishop Iansenius judg∣ed reasonable, who hath rightly argued, saying,e 1.110 It doth not easily appeare how the outward receiving of Christ, under the forme of Bread, should he called Drinking, but onely Eating, being recei∣ved after the manner of meates, as that is called Drinking onely, which is received after the manner of drinke. Drinking therfore and Eating are distinguished by Christ, in the outward Act. So he, even as your owne* 1.111 before him had truly concluded, with whom Master* 1.112 Brerely will beare a part.

Therefore your Concomitancie (if wee respect the Sacramen∣tall [ 20] manner of Receiving) is but a Chimaera, and as great a Sole∣cisme as to say, that the Body and Bones of Christ are drunke, and his Blood eaten: contrary to the Sacramentall representa∣tion, in receiving Bread and Wine, as hath beene proved.

Next, when wee aske you, why onely your Church will not reforme and regulate her Custome, according to the Insti∣tution of Christ, and the long practice of the primitive Church? you answer plainly, and without Circumlocution, that the Rea∣son is, Lest that your Church might seeme to have erred in her alte∣ration if the ancient Custome. And this yourf 1.113 Cardinall Bellar∣mine [ 30] and the Iesuiteg 1.114 Valentian use and urge as a neces∣sary Reason, for confutation of Protestants, who held the necessity of publike Communion in Both kindes. Which Reason your owne Orator Gaspar Cardillo proclaimed as (in a manner) the sole cause of continuing your degenerated use, h 1.115 Lest that the Church (saith hee) may seeme to have erred. [ 40]

What can more savour of an Hereticall and Antichristian spi∣rit, than this pretence doth? For an Heretike will not seeme to have erred, and Antichrist will professe himselfe one that cannot erre: which Character of not personall erring was ne∣ver assumed of any particular Church, excepting only the lat∣ter Church of Rome.

Our Assumption. But the Church of Rome (which will seeme that shee cannot possibly erre, in her not administring the Cup unto Laickes) is knowne to have erred 600. yeares to∣gether [ 10] in the abuse of the same Sacrament, by administring it (in an opinion of Necessity) unto Infants, as hath beene plenti∣fully * 1.116 witnessed by eminent Doctors in your owne Church. Hence therfore ariseth another difference; betweene the pro∣fession of our Custome and yours, which is, betweene Christ and Antichrist. All this while you do not perceive that your opinion of Concomitancie will ruinate the foundation of your Doctrine of Transubstantiation. But hereof* 1.117 hereafter.

[ 20] The seventh Comparison is betweene the maner of Instituti∣on, and manner of Alteration thereof. SECT. XI.

THe beginning of the Institution in Both kindes is knowne and acknowledged to have beene authorized by him, who is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the new Testament, even Christ our Lord, by whom it was established and published among all his Disci∣ples, at his last Supper. But your Custome of only One kinde, [ 30] How (wee beseech you) came it into your Church? tell us. i 1.118 It came not in by any precept, but crept in by little and little, by the abstinence of the people, and by the Tacite and silent con∣sent of the Bishops. So your Bishop Roffensis, and your Iesuite Costerus, and Fryer Castro. This confessed unknowne manner of Alteration of this your Custome, as it doth utterly refute your common Objection, viz. That every Doctrine and Custome must beejudged ancient and Catholike, the beginning whereof is not knowne; so doth it more especially put your Master Brerely to his blush, who durst make the same Objection in this very [ 40] Case, in defence of the use of but One kinde, to proove it to have beene from the beginning, because No first knowne be∣ginning of our Catholike practice (* 1.119 saith he) can bee instanced.

And yet behold here no certaine beginning of this Romish Cu∣stome; yet notwithstanding confessed to be an Alteration, diffe∣rent from the Custome, which formerly for a thousand yeares was held a Catholike Custome.

Was not the Church of Rome then a wise and a worthy Mistris of Churches, trow you; to suffer her selfe to be guided by the humour of People in a matter of this nature? what other diffe∣rence can this make betweene our Custome and yours, but that which is betweene divine Ordinance and popular negligence? or as betweene a publike Professor, and a Theevish Creeper? Heresie is certainly a disease, but wore you what? the* 1.120 Apostle [ 10] noteth it to be a Cancer, or Gangrene, which is a disease Creeping by little and little, from joynt to joynt, untill it have eaten up the vitall parts; such a Cancer was this your Custome, if you shall stand to your owne former Confessions.

Our last Comparison is betweene the Contrary Dispositions of Professors, one in continuing, and distinguishing; a second in mixing; the third in rejecting Both kindes. SECT. XII. [ 20]

THe comparison, betweene the divers Dispositions of Pro∣fessors, none will be more willing to shew than your Iesuite l 1.121 Salmeron, who will have you, out of Cardinall Cusanus, to ob∣serve three States of the Church. The first is in her Fervencie; The second in her Warmnes; The third in her Coldnes. In the first state of her Fervencie, when the Christians affected Martyr∣dome for the Gospell of Christ, then did the People (saith he) com∣municate in both kindes. In the second state, which was in her Warmnes (though not so hot boyling as before) They then used [ 30] to dip the Hoast into the Chalice, and so were made joyntly par∣takers of Both, in one. But in the third state of Coldnes, the peo∣ple were allowed the Sacrament only under one kinde. So he.

CHALLENGE, [ 40]

IF now Truth may be judged by the different Dispositions of Professors, then may this former Confession witnes for us, that there is as much difference betweene the Primitive and the now Romish Custome, as there is betweene lively Fervencie, and senselesse Numnes and Coldnes, that is to say, Godly zeale,

and Godlesse Indevotion and Negligence: yet a Negligence not only approved (which is impious) but (that which is the height of Impiety) even applauded also by your Priests, among whom them 1.122 above-said Gasper Cardillo in the Councell of Trent, with exultation told their Father-hoods (as being a matter of great joy) that they who are under the Iurisdiction of the Church of Rome, in Germany, dare not so much as desire the Cup of life. [ 10] So hee.

A GENERALL CHALLENGE, Concerning this last Transgression of Christ his Massè. [ 20] SECT. XIII.

IN this wee are to make an open discovery of the odious Vn∣charitablenesse, the intolerable Arrogancie, the vile Perju∣ry, the extreame Madnesse, and Folly, together with a note of plaine Blasphemie of your Romish Disputers, in Defence of this one Romane Custome of forbidding the Cup to faithfull Commu∣nicants. For what Vn••••aritablenesse can be more odious, than when they cannot but confesse, that there is more spirituall grace in the receiving of the Communion in Both kindes, do notwith∣standing boast, even in the open Councel of Trent, of some of [ 30] their Professors, who, in obedience to the Church of Rome, do not onely (* 1.123 their owne words) not desire the Cup of life, but also dare not so much as desire it. Which Vaunt, wee thinke, besides the Impietie thereof, inferreth a note of prophane Tyranny.

Secondly, when wee compare these Fathers of Trent, with the Fathers of most primitive Antiquity, they answer,n 1.124 Al∣though the primitive Church (say they) did exceed our's in Zeale, Wisdome, and Charity, neverthelesse, it falleth out sometimes, that the wiser may in some things be lessè wise than another. Which an∣swer, [ 40] if wee consider the many Reasons, which you have heard the Fathers give, for the use of Both kinds, and their consonant practice thereof, what is it but a vilifying of the authority of all

ancient Fathers? and indeed (as the saying is) To put upon them the Foole. The like answer two of their Iesuites made to the Practice of the Apostles, saying that your Church, having the same spirit, hath the same power to alter the Custome: whereas we have proved, that the ground which the Apostles lay, for their Custome, was the Institution of Christ. But that which the Ro∣mane Church allegeth, is meerely a Pretence of Plenitude of her owne Authority; It is impossible therefore that in so great a Contradiction there should be the same Spirit. And can there be a more intollerable Arrogancie than is this, which this Ro∣mane [ 10] spirit bewrayeth in both these?

Thirdly, upon the Consideration of this their Contempt of Apostolicall and primitive Antiquity, in this Cause, wee finde that your Romish Priests are to be condemned of manifest per∣jurie also; for in the Forme of Oath, for the profession of the Ro∣mish Faith, every Priest and Ecclesiasticke is sworno 1.125 To admit of all Apostolicall and Ecclesiasticall Traditions; as also to hold what thep 1.126 Councel of Trent hath decreed. But this Custome of administration of Both kindes, as hath been acknowledged, was an Apostolicall Custome, and from them also remained in an [ 20] Ecclesiasticall profession and practice thorow-out a thousand yeares space; which your Church of Rome, notwithstanding, in her Councel of Trent, (whereunto likewise you are sworne) hath altered and perverted: which doth evidently involve your Priests, and Iesuites in a notorious and unavoydable Per∣jurie.

Fourthly, As for the note of Foolishnesse, what more mad folly can there be seene in any, than to take upon them a serious Defence of a Custome, for satisfaction of all others, and yet to be so unsatisfied among themselves? so that both the Obje∣ctions [ 30] urged by Protestants against that Abuse, are fortified, and also all your Reasons for it are refuted, either by the direct Te∣stimonies of your owne Doctors, or by the common Principles and Tenents of your Church, or else by the Absurdities of your Consequences issuing from your Reasons and Answers; divers of them being no lesse grosse, than was your objecting the An∣tiquity and Generality of the particular Romane Church, for lesse than three hundred yeeres, and to preferre it before the confes∣sed Vniversall primitive Custome of above the Compasse of a Thousand yeares continuance before the other. [ 40]

Fiftly, the last is the note of Blasphemy; for this name the contempt of Christ his last Will and Testament must needs de∣serve; and what greater contempt can there be, than contrary to Christ his [Do this] (concerning Both kinds) to professe that Sacrilegious dismembring of the holy Sacrament, which Gelasius the Pope himselfe had anciently condemned? or if this be not Blasphemous enough, then, supposing that Christ indeed had

commanded Consecration in Both kindes, upon divine right, yet notwithstanding to hold it very probable (as saith your Iesuit q 1.127 Azorius) that the authority of the Pope may dispense therewith. But because Divine right was never yet dispensed with, I (saith hee) would give my Councel that it never may be. O Iesuite! thus to deale with Christ his Command. If hee or any other Ie∣suite had made as bold with the Pope* 1.128 insituled in your pub∣like Glosse, OVR LORD GOD THE POPE) as this doth with Christ himselfe, saying unto him; Any of your decrees (holy [ 10] Father) may be dispenced with by any Iesuite of our Societie: yet because no Iesuite hath taken upon him hitherto so much, my councell is that none of your Deerees be ever dispensed withall. The Pope, wee suppose, albeit he would thanke this man for his councell, for not Doing so; yet doubtlesse, would he reward him with a welcome into the office of his holy Inqui∣sition, for his judgement, to thinke it lawfull so to do: namely, to leave it to the discretion of every Iesuite, to dispense with his Papall Decrees. And notwithstanding the Iesuites [Suppose] wee may depose, that your Romish licence, for but One kinde, [ 20] is a dispencing, or rather a despising of the Ordinance of Christ.

{fleur-de-lys}And this the Iesuites themselves do thinke,* 1.129 which may appeare in that Conclusion, which your Iesuite Vasquez gave concerning Christ Consecrating the Eucharist but in one kinde before his Disciples at Emmaus. Where he resolved, that This was an act of Christs Supreme authority, not imitable by the Church. And that the necessary Obligation of Consecrating in Both kindes is not dispensable by the Pope. So hee. Wherfore the Act of Christ being equally an Administration in only [ 30] one kinde, and Both these equally done by the same Supreme Excellencie, and authority of Christ; the determination and Resolution must necessarily be this. That the Administra∣tion and Consecration in only One kinde are equally Indi∣spensable.

We are already wearied with citing of the manifold, vilde, odious, and irreligious Positions of your Disputers and Pro∣ctors, for this your Cause; yet one Pretence more may not be pretermitted, least we might seeme to contemne the wit and zeale of your Iesuite Salmeron, against the use of this Sacrament [ 40] in Both kindes. The use of Both kinds (saithr 1.130 he) is not to bee allowed to Catholikes, because they must bee distinguished from Heretikes: nor to Heretikes, because holy things are not to bee given unto Dogges. Now blessed be God! that we are esteemed as Heretikes and Dogges, to be distinguished from them, in this

and other so many commanded Acts, wherein they have distin∣guished themselves from all Primitive Fathers, from the Apo∣stles of Christ, and from Christ himselfe.

An Appeale unto the ancient Popes and Church of Rome, against the late Romish Popes and Church; in Confutation of their former Transgressions of Christ his Institution. SECT. XIV. [ 10]

THe ancient Popes and Church of Rome were (as all the world will say) in authority of Command, and in sincerity of judgement equall, and in integrity of life Superiour unto the latter Popes of Rome and Church therof; yet the ancient held it as a matter of Conscience for the Church, in all such Cases belonging to the Eucharist, to be conformable to the Precept [ 20] and Example of Christ, and of the Apostles. So, you have heard,a 1.131 Pope Calixtus (Anno Christi, 218.) requiring all persons present at the Masse to Communicate. For which rea∣son it was (wee thinke) that Popeb 1.132 Gregory (Anno 60••.) commanded every one present at the Masse, and not purposing to Communicate, to Depart. There is an History related by AEneas Sylvius (after, Pope Pius the Second) which sheweth the reason why anotherc 1.133 Pope of Rome, with his Consistory, yeelded a liberty to the Sclavonians, to have Divine Service in their Nationall Language, and reporteth that it was thorow the [ 30] sound of that voice (which is written in the Psalmes) Let every tongue praise the Lord.d 1.134 Pope Iulius (Anno 336.) was much busied in repressing the Sopping of bread in the Chalice, and o∣ther like abuses of the Sacrament in his time: and the reason, which he gave, was this; Because (quoth he) these Customes are not agreeable to Evangelicall and Apostolicall Doctrine: and our Church of Rome doth the same. Where he addeth, concerning the manner of Communicating,e 1.135 Wee reade (saith hee) that both the Bread and Cup were distinctly and severally delivered. As if he had meant, with the same breath, to have confuted your [ 40] other Romish Transgression in distributing to the people the Sa∣crament, but in one of Both. And who can say but that Gregory and Leo, both Popes,f 1.136 observing the same use of Christ, had the same Resolution? Sure we are that Popeg 1.137 Gelasius (Anno 404) called the Abuse, in dismembring of this Sacrament, by re∣ceiving but in One kinde, A Grand Sacrilege.

Wee reade of a Councell held at Toledo in Spaine, under Pope Sergius, stiledh 1.138 Generall (Anno 69••.) reproving those Priests who offered Bread in crusts and lumps. But with what reason were they reprehended? Because (saith the Councell) that fashion is not found in the Sacred storie of the Evangelists. All those ancient Popes, who held the Example of Christ, in his In∣stitution and Apostolicall Customes, to be necessary Directions of Christ his Church in such points, concerning the ministration of this Sacrament, being so utterly repugnant to your now Ro∣mish [ 10] Opinions and Practices; it must follow, that those former Popes being admitted for Iudges, whom all Christians acknow∣ledged to have beene Apostolicall in their Resolutions, the now Romish Church and her degenerate Profession must needs be judged Apostaticall.

Now,* 1.139 from the former Actuall, we proceed to the Doctri∣nall [ 20] [ 30] [ 40] points.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Christus sub u∣traque ••pecie Disci∣pulis administravit—Licet in primiti∣vâ Ecclesiâ sub utra∣que specie hoc Sa∣cramentum recipe∣retur,—tamen haec consuerudo, ut à Lai∣cis sub specie p••nis tantùm reciperetur,—habenda est pro lege, quam non licet reprobare, Conc. Con∣stant. Sess. 13.
• b 1.2

  Ipsa Synodus, à Spiritu Sancto edo∣cta, & ipsius Ecclesi∣ae judicium & consuetudinem secuta, declarat & docet, nullo divino jure Laicos, & Clericos non consecrantes, obligari ad Eucharistiae Sacramentum sub utra{que} specie sumendum: Etsi Christus venerabile hoc Sacramentum sub utraque instituit, & Apostolis tradidit Concil. Trident. Sess. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 1. cap. 1.
• c 1.3

  Respondeo, Fu∣it reprobatum Conc. Cō••antiens Mar∣tino Pont. quantum ad eam partem, quâ statuit Concilium fu∣isse suprà Papam. Bellar. lib. 1. de Conc. cap. 7. §. Quintum.
• d 1.4

  Dixit Petro Christus Cum fra∣ter in te p••ccaverit, si te non audiat, Dic Ecclesiae, Ergo Ecclesiam Papae Iudicem constitut. Conc. Basil. apud AEnean••i Sylvium de gest ejusdem Concilij.
• * 1.5

  1. Cor. 11. 25.
• * 1.6

  See all this above Chap. 2. Sect. 1. in the Margent.
• e 1.7

  Bellar. lib. 1. de Eucharistilia. cap. 25. §. Tertu••.
• * 1.8

  M. Brereley Li∣turg. Tract. 4. §. 7. after the letter (y) and after (g.)
• f 1.9

  Quorundam opinio, est Apostolos factos sacerdotes per illa verba [Hoc faci∣te.] Sed de his ver∣bis non constat facta consecratione facta consecratione imme∣diatè ea dixisse, an∣requàm Euchristiam ub utra{que} specie de∣dit, vel post—Quod si verba ista Christus post datam Eucha∣ristiam illam dixit, manifestum est, il∣lum non Sacerdoti∣bus hinc dedisse: quod mihi ex literae decursu magis proba∣tur. Alfon. de Castro con. Heres. Tit Eu∣charist. pag. 158.
• * 1.10

  See above in this Chapter at the letter (b.)
• g 1.11

  [Hoc facite.] Quod cùm pertineat maxime ad potesta∣tem sacerdotalem cir∣ca consecrandum & sacrificandum, tamen Apostolus, 1. Cor. 11. resert quo{que} ad sumptionem sive Laicorum, sive Sacerdotum. Quod & Cyrillus facit in Iohan. lib. 12. cap. 38. Et Basil in Moral. Reg. 21. cap. 3. ut [Hoc facite] pertineat ad totam actionem Eucharisticam à Christo factam, & tàm à Presbyteris quàm a plebe posteà faciendam. Eodemque verbo impri∣mis potestas consecrandi & offerendi, deinde etiam mandatum sumendi tàm Sacerdotibus quàm alijs fidelibus detur, cùm utrumque suo modo, licet prius exactius Sacrificium, quàm sumptio memoriam mortis Dominicae ••ontineat. Alan. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 37. pag. 646.
• * 1.12

  Laici adulti te∣nentur ex instituti∣one Christi commu∣nicare, jure divino: hoc thomas probat ex Luc. 22. [Hoc fa∣cite in commemore∣tionem mei.] quae habent vim praecepti, non tantùm de cele∣brando (ait Scotus) sed etiam de admini∣strando Sacramen∣tum populo. Cosmus Phil. de offic. Sacer∣dot. Tom. 1. de Sacri∣fic. Missae. l. 2. c. 2.
• * 1.13

  {fleur-de-lys}Conc. Braccar. See the third Section following.
• * 1.14

  See afterwards in this Chapt. Sect. 9. at the
• * 1.15

  * in the Mar∣gin.
• h 1.16

  Nec quicquam valet quod objicitur [Similiter & Cali∣cem:] quià non di∣cit Similiter & Cali∣cem dedit, sed solùm accepit. Bellar. ibid. §. Nec quicquam.
• * 1.17

  Luc. 22. 20.
• * 1.18

  Math. 26. 27.
• i 1.19

  Similiter et Ca∣heem] id est. Qualia feci•• circa panem, ta∣li•• circa Calicem, Ac∣cepit, gratias egit, di∣videndum dedit, at{que} praecep••t ut biberent ab eo om••••es: Quae omnia Lucas complexus est, dicens, [Similitèr & Calicem.] Iansen Episc. Concord. cap. 131. pag. 905. [Similitèr & Calicem postquàm coenavit, &c.] Id••est, accepit, et porte•••• omnibus, dicens, [Hic est Calix, &c] Arias Montan. in 1. Cor. 11. 25.
• k 1.20

  Post panis con∣secrationem absolutè ponitur [Hoc facite] pòst Calicem verò idem repetitur, sed cum conditione, Hoc (inquit) facite quo∣••••escunquè bibetis, &c. Caertè non fine causa Spiri••us San∣ctus modum loquen∣di mutavit, signifi∣cans, non ut Calix debat. dari necessa∣riò, sed modum prae∣scribens, ut id fiat ed memoriā Dominicae Passionis. Bellar quo sup. cap. 25 §. ••am.
• l 1.21

  Mirabilis est Dei providentia in sanctis literis, nam ut non haberent Haere∣tici justam excusationem, sustulit eis omnem tergiversandi occasionem. Nam Lucas [Hoc facite] posuit pòst datum Sacramentum sub specie panis: post datum autem Colicem non repetivit, ut intelligeremus Dominum jussisse, ut sub specie panis omnibus distribueretur: sub specie autem vini non ••em. Bellar quo sup. c. 25. §. Resp. Mirabilis. Singularis Dei provide••tia, ut intelligamus minimè expedire, ut singuli fideles sub utraquè spe∣cie communicent. Valent. les. Tract. de Euch c. 2. §. Et certè, p 483.
• 1 1.22

  [Bibite ex hoc omnes] Quae verba si non sint Praecipientis, sed invitantis, ut certè esse possint, tùm respondemus, &c. Petrus Arcad Corcyreut. Presb. S. T. D. de Concord Orient. & Occident. Eccles. l. 1. c. 10.
• m 1.23

  Praecepit igi∣tur Christus, in ver∣bis Lucae, ut ipsà sumptione comme∣moremus Passionem ejus; & non tantùm ut quoties illud sumeremus Passionem ipsius in memoriam revocaremus. Ac proindè praecepit, ut opere aliquo commemoratio fiat alicujus beneficij accepti, ex modo ipso praecipiendi. Praecepit etiam ut fiat opus ipsum, quis hoc non videat? Vasquez. les. ia 3. Thom. Disp. 113. cap. 2. At verò non est negandum, esse Praeceptum simplicitèr faciendum, alioquin non haberemus fundamentum Praecepti celebrandi in Ecclesia. Sot•• in 4. Dist. 12. q. 1. Art. 12.
• n 1.24

  Credimus eos rectè oblagari, dùm militainus in hac vi∣ra, ad Sacramentum Fucharistiae, eo mo∣do, quo perfectiùs significat Passionem: id est, sub utraqu•• specie, &c. Card. Cu∣san. Epist. 2. ad Bo∣hem. pag. 831.
• o 1.25

  Who in his Booke of the Litur∣gie of the Masse, stan∣deth so much upon the no command of Christ for the use of boto kinds, that he justifi∣eth an ancient Ro∣mane Custome (as he calleth it) of the Priest himselfe, recei∣ving on Good Fri∣day only under one kind.] Tract. 4. Sect. 4. pag 407. And Tra. 4. Sect. 7. pag. 421 [As often:] not sig∣nifying the necessitie of Drinking.
• 2 1.26

  Enchirid. Co¦loni••nse de Sacramen. Euch. verb [Hujus.] Divus Paulus ape••tius reliquis habet: Quo∣tiescun{que} manduca∣veritis hunc panem, & poculum hoc bib••∣tis, mortem Domini annuntiabitis. 1. Cor. 11. 26.
• * 1.27

  See afterwards Sect. 4. at the letter (a) and Sect. 6. at (m).
• * 1.28

  See above Sect 2.
• * 1.29

  See above in this Chapter Sect. 1. lit. (a.)
• p 1.30

  Rectè docent Iurisconsulti, non e∣xemplis sed legibus judicandum.—Quae ab exemplis ducuntur argumenta per locum sunt à simili, quae non tàm ad aliquid firmandum, quàm ad id quod firmatur il∣lustrandum à Diale∣cticis esse traduntur. Salmeron. les. Tom. 9. Tract. 34.
• q 1.31

  Cyprian. con. Aquarios Epist. 63. Admonitos nos sci∣as, ut in Calice offe∣rendo traditio obser∣vetur, neque aliquid fiat à nobis, quàm quod pro nobis Do∣minus prior fecerit. [And some-what af∣ter] A divino Ma∣gisterio non receda∣mus.
• r 1.32

  Iulius P. apud Gratian de Consecra: Ca. Cum omne. Au∣divimus quosdam, Schismaticâ ambiti∣one detentos, contra divinos ordines & Apostolicas iustitutiones, lac pro vino, in divinis officijs dedicare: alios intinctam Eu∣charistiam populo pro complemento communionis porrigere: quosdam etiam expressum vinum in Sacra∣mento Dominici Calicis afferre: Alijs vero pannum lincum, musto intinctum, per totum annum reservare, & in tempore Sacrificij partem ejus aquâ lavare, & sic offeire. Quod cùm sit Evangel. cae & Apostolicae doctri∣nae contrarium, & consuetudim Ecclesiasticae adversum, non difficilè ab ipso fonte veritatis probatur, à quo ordinata ipsa Sacramentorum mysteria processerunt. Cùm enim Magister veritatis verum salutis nostrae Sa∣crificium suis commendaret Discipulis, nu•••• lac, sed panem tantùm & Calicem sub hoc Sacramento nosci∣mus dedisse. Legitur enim in Evangelica veritate, [Accepit Iesus Panem & Calicem, & benedicens dixit Di∣scipulis suis] Cesset igitur Lac in Sacrificando offerri, quià manifestum & evidens veritatis exemplum illuxit, quià praeter Panem & Vinum aliud offerri non licet. Illud verò quod, pro complemento Communio∣nis, intinctam Eucharistiam tradunt populis, nec hoc prolatum ex Evangelio testimonium receperunt, ubi corpus suum Apostolis commendaret & sanguinem: scorsim enim panis, & scorsim Calicis commendatio ••emoratur.
• 3 1.33

  Conc Braccar. 3. cap. 1. Iliud verò, quod pro comple∣mento Communio∣nis intinctam tradunt Eucharistiam popu∣lis; nec hoc prosa∣tum ex Evangelio re∣cipit, ubi Apostolis corpus suum & san∣guinem commenda∣vit: seorsim enim panis, & seorsim ca∣licis commendatio memoratur. Apud Binium, Tom. 2.
• s 1.34

  Artotyritae pa∣nem & caseum offe∣runt: qui excludun∣tur per hoc, quòd Christus hoc Sacramentum instiruit in pane. Aquinas, part 3. quaest 24. Art. 1.
• t 1.35

  Ex Luc. 24 30. Vbi Christus appa∣tens duobus Discipu∣lis in Emmaus, & accumbens accepit panem, & benedixit, & dedit eis: quo facto, aperti sunt oculi comm, & evanuit ex oculis, &c. [Hence doth Bellarmine conclude thus:] Ostendit hoc exemplum, quòd minimè existimandum sit, suisse imperatum omnibus illius usum in utraque specie. Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. cap. 24. §. Rursus. So also Ruffensis, and others.
• * 1.36

  Master Brereley Li∣turg. Tract. 4. §. 3. pag. 402.
• u 1.37

  Christum hanc Eucharistiam porre∣xisse, sententia est incerta, & non veri∣sim. lis, Iansen. Con∣cord. c. 126 p. 1070.
• x 1.38

  Respondendum est eam actionem es∣se illis ipsis impera∣tam, per illa verba [Hoc facite.] Hoc ipso enim quod juffi∣sunt consecrate sub specie panis, confe¦quenter intelligi de∣bet, eos j••ss••s ess•• consecrare sub specie vi•• Nam hoc exi¦git necessariò natura Sacrificij, & Sacra∣menti: si enim una species absque altera conficiatur, sacrilegium committitur. Quamobrem in Conc. Trident. absolutè dicitur, Sacerdotes jussos esse offerre utr••mque speciem illis verbis [Hoc facite in commemorationem meam.] Quae forma verborum solùm usurpata fuit à Christo circa panem. Valent. les. de usu Eucharist. c. 3. §. Respondendum. {fleur-de-lys}The words of the Synod. Sess 22. cap. 1. Corpus & sanguinem suum sub speciebus panis & vi•• obtulit, ac sub earundem rerum symbolis Apostolus quos tunc novi Testamenti sacerdotes constituebat, ut sumerent, tradidit eisdem, eorum∣què in sacerdotio successoribus, ut offerrent, praecepit per illa verba, [Hoc facite in memoriam mei.]
• * 1.39

  Liturg. Tract. 4. §. 2. pag. 401.
• 4 1.40

  Iac. Gordon. Scotus les. lib. Contro. 8. cap 4. In conse∣cratione et sump∣tione unius speciei est perfecta memoria mortis Christi—quae imperfecta dici potest integraliter, sed non essentialiter. Num. 19. Nec vide∣tur necessario colligi, quòd obligatur sacer∣dos consecrare vi∣num—Num. 21. Fecit Christus in Emmaus cùm uni∣cam speciem conse∣crârat, fecit id quod absolutè praeceperat.
• 5 1.41

  Vasques les. in 3. Thom. Disp. 222. cap. 4. per totum. Re∣praesentatio mortis Christi in ipsa conse∣cratione hujus Sa∣cramenti, non debet corpus sinè sanguine consecrari.—Cele bratio hujus Sacra∣mēti est imago quae∣dam Repraesentatio∣nis Christi—Rat 1. Quià probaturhoc sa∣crisicium non in consecratione unius speciei, sed utrius{que} fuisse à Christo institutum, quià alioqui ubi duae essent Consecrationes, duo essent sacrificia in Missa.—Altera, quià per alterius tantum speciei consecrationem non potest mors Christ commodè repraesentati—quià neutra species sola habet analogiam, similitudinem, aut p••oportionem cum ••orte Christi ptout contigit, nempe per••effusionem sanguinis ex vulneribus. Vndè rectè fequitur, unae tantum speciei consecrationem, pro sacrificio Christi cruento, non fuisse à Christo institutam.
• * 1.42

  See above. See also hereafter Sect. 6.
• 6 1.43

  Vasquez. Ies. in 3. Thom Disp 2••3. cap. 3. Supremâ au∣thoritate coram Di∣scipulis in castello Emmäus alterā tan∣tùm speciem conse∣cravit.—quod qui∣dem eo tempore fieri maximè expe∣dibat, cùm st••tim in fractione panis ag∣nis is est.—Non possit Pontifex hanc obligationem Sacer∣dotibus relaxare.
• * 1.44

  1. Cor. 11. 23.
• * 1.45

  Ibid. Vers. 26.
• * 1.46

  Ibid. Vers. 28.
• a 1.47

  Antiqua Con∣suctudo temporibus Apostolorum fuit in Ecclesia, sub utraque specie communican∣di. In hac assertione nulla est Controver∣sia. Tolet. Ies. in Ioh. 6. pag 602. So Ecchius Hom. 36. Nullum insiciari posse, Pau∣lum hoc praecipisse Corinthijs.
• 7 1.48

  {fleur-de-lys}Mr. Brerely in his Lit. Tract. 4. §. 7. Vsual it is in Scrip∣ture to use the Con∣junctive, ET, And, for the Disjunctive. So it is sayd, he that shall strike his Fa∣ther and Mother, shall die. When as both the Originall, the Roman Vulgar, and our Translations have it. (OR.){fleur-de-lys}
• b 1.49

  Act 2. Ita de∣scribitur com ••unica∣tio Eucharistiae [E∣rāt enim persevoran∣tes in doctrin•• Apo∣stolorum, & commu∣nicatione fractionis panis, & Orationi∣bus.] Quo in loco negari non potest quin agatur de Eu∣charistia. Apostoli igitur in utra{que} specie consecrabant: sed po∣pulis in una specie ministrabant. Bellar. l. 4 de Euch. c. 24. p. 64.
• * 1.50

  Liturg. Tract. 4. §. 3. pag 403.
• c 1.51

  Existamo de Eu∣charistia non esse Sermonem, quonium de illo superiùs paulò Sermo habitus est. Lorin. les in eund. loc. And Cajetan. Card. F••ebat distributio pa∣nis—ita quod acei∣piebant cibus erat. Comment in ••und. loc.
• * 1.52

  Matth. 16. The Disciples are accused for eating bread with unwashed, hands, Mark. 3. They had no leisure to eate bread Luc. 12. Christ to the Pharisees house eate bread. 2. Thess. 3. We have not eaten our bread freely, &c.
• d 1.53

  Si daremus hunc ritum ab Apostolo fuisse traditum, cum tamen merè positivus sit, potuillet illum mutare, quid Ecclesia habet eūdem spiri∣tum, & eandē autho∣ritatem cum Paulo. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 34. p. 277. Eodem modo Vasquez les. in 3. Thom. Disp. 215. 216. Nihilo minus Ecclesia & summus Pontifes poterit illud justis de causis abrogare; licet concederemus praeceptum hoc fuisse Apostolicum.
• e 1.54

  Cùm ad eam Traditionem, quae ab Apostolis, pro∣vocamus eos, dicent se Apostolis existen∣tes superiores, since∣ram ingenisse ve••ita tem. Iren. lib. 2. ad∣vers. Haeres. cap. 2.
• f 1.55

  Olim per multa secula sub utra{que} spe∣cie 〈◊〉〈◊〉gebatur Lai∣cis, ut ex multorum Sanctorum scriptis didicimus. Alfons. à Castro in hac ipsa con∣troversia •• pag. 158. Vsus utrius{que} speciei à primitiva Ecclesia comprobatus fuit: in posteriori etiam Ec∣clesia multi Latini et Occidentales illum retinuerunt. Graeci quo{que} hodiè & Ori∣entales licitè & san∣ctè, quod ad ipsum ritum attinet, cum observant Salmeron. les. Tom. 9. Tract. 37. pag. 308. Minimè ne∣gamus quin utraque species frequentissi∣mè olim etiam ad∣ministrata fuerit, ut apparet ex Paulo, Atl anasio, Cyprian. Hier. Leone, & Hist. Tripart. ex Greg. & passim ex alijs veterum Te∣stimonijs: item{que} ex D. Thoma, qui etiam suo tempore in aliquibus Ecclesijs administratum Calicem fuisse significat. Valent. les de usu Euch. cap. 8 §. Alioqui. pag. 496. Ingenuè tamen & apertè confitemur, morem ge∣neralem extitisse communicandi etiam Laicis sub utra{que} specie, sicut hodiè fit apud Graecos, & olim erat in more positum apud Corinthios, & in Africa. De quo more loquitur Cyprian. Athanas. Dionys. Etiam proba∣tur ex Ecclesia Latina, at{que} in hunc usum erant olim Calices ministeriales, & paterae ad differentiam calicum & paterarum, in quibus Sacerdotes offerebant. Salmeron. Tom. 9. quo sup. Tract. 35. §. Ingenuè p. 294. B. Gre∣gorius, & Sexcenta hujusmodi proferri possent—Vsus utrius{que} speciei à Christo & Apostolis, & à Primitiva Ecclesia, qui illum usurpâ••unt, comprobatus fuit. In posteriori etiam Ecclesia multi Latini & Occidentales illum retinuer••nt: Gr•••• i quo{que} hodiè. Salmeron. ib. Tract. 37. § Deinde. Satis compertum est, universalem Ecclesiam Christi in hunc us{que} diem, Occidentalem seu Romanam mille annis à Christo, in solenni praesertim & ordi∣naria hujus Sacramenti dispensatione, utramvis panis & vini speciem omnibus Christi membris exhibuisse. Cassand. Consult. pag 166. 167. [And lest any doubt should be made of Gregory the first Pope of that name, his testimony is cited in Gratian, among the Popes Decrees. De Consecrat. Dist. 2. Quid sit sanguis. Sanguis in ora fidelium funditur.]
• g 1.56

  Bern. Serm. 3. de ram•••• palmarum, de Sacrament. corp. & sanguinis Dom.—Nemo est qui nesciat hanc tàm singularem alimoniam eâ primâ die (viz. Palm••rum) exhibitam & commendatam, & m••ndatam deinceps frequentari. Algerus lib. 2. c. 8. de Sacram. Iste mos inolevit in Ecclesia ab ipso Christo, qui corpus suum & sanguinem di∣visim consecravit & dedit. Vide etiam Rupertum de divin of fic. lib. 6. cap. 23.
• h 1.57

  Oh: Consuetu∣dinem Eucharist••••m domum deferendi, &c. Sol. [By reason of persecution, and the p••••icity of Ministers: but afterwards abo∣lished by the Church: as was the ministra∣tion thereof to In∣fants.] Ob: Com∣munio olim Laicis data ••n poenam gra∣vis delicti. Bellar. lib. 4 de Euch. cap. 24. Sol. [As if the pu∣nishment of the La∣icks Communion could signifie Partaking in one kind.] which is confuted by Durant. lib. 2. de Ritib. cap. 55. Nonnulli credi∣derunt Laicam Com∣munionem appella∣tam, quòd sub unica specie etiam Clerici, imò Sacerdotes ipsi non conficientes cō∣municant, nunc sub una specie. Quare ve∣rius est, Laicam com∣munionem dictam, quia extra sacratio∣rem locum, ubi Sacrificium fit, ubi Sacerdos conficiens, tùm Ministrie•• nunicabant. And by Pamelius in Cyprian. Epist. 152. Laicum communicare, nihil aliud est quam inter Laicos. i. e. extrâ cancellos—hoc est, extra cho∣rum, ut hodiè loquimur. Lorinus les. in Act. 2. Reverà distinctio non in specie utra{que} et una esse videtur, quoniam utra{que} species concedebatur (nempe Laicis) sed in destinato loco, separato pro Clericis. [And there were two punishments of Priests anciently, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, privari Clericatus honore, et 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Excommunicari. {fleur-de-lys}Yea and Gabriel Episc. Albispinae l. 1. Observat. Sacr. 3. Confuting Bellar. by name: Si opinio Bellarmini probabilitate niteretur, Canones illam non praetermissuri erant, quandoquidem Laici illis temporibus sub utra{que} specie communicabant. {fleur-de-lys}Ob: Ritus erat, ut Communio praesanctificatorum esset sub una specie, die Parasce∣vis, corpus fine specie sanguinis. Sol. [The word it selfe being in the Plurall, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, prae sanctificata, confuteth this Objection, and so doe the Liturgies.]
• i 1.58

  In Conc. Constant. de usu unius speciei. Cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia & sanctis patribus rationabiliter introducta, & hactenus diutissime observata sit, habenda est prolege. Eodem modo Conc. Basil. penè eisdem verbis: Deinde latam legem quamplurimis retrò annis Con∣suetudo jucundissima effecerat. Gasp. Cardillus apud Act. Conc. Trident. p. 220. 221. 223.
• k 1.59

  Secundum certum est, Ecclesiam praesentem, & quae illam praecessit per trecentos aut ducentos annos, Laicos sub altera specie in multis Ecclesijs communicate consuevisse, ut docet S. Thom. in Ioh. his verbis. Secundum antiquae Ecclesiae con∣suetudinem omnes sicut communicabant, corpore, ità & sanguine: quod etiam adhuc in quibusdam Ecclesijs servatur, ubi etiam Ministri altaris continuò & corpore & sanguine communicabant. Salmeron. les. Tom 9. Tract. 35. §. Secundum cortum. pag. 284.
• * 1.60

  See afterwards at the letter (m.)
• l 1.61

  Sed nos nullam scimus Sacramenti mutilationem, ne{que} partem dimidiam Laicis esse substra∣ctam, siquidem duae species requiruntur necessariò ad Sacri∣ficium, sed ad essenti∣am Sacramenti quae∣libet ex duobus suf∣ficit.—Proinde Sa∣cramentum sub spe∣cle panis est verum & integrum Sacra∣mentum, quandò su∣mitur per modum ••∣nius refectionis. Bel∣lar. Apol. con. Praefar. Monit. pag. 102. And Alfons. à Castro de nac Controv. pag. 157. Sacerdos hac lege de∣vinctus est, ut quoti∣escun{que} celebret, nec panem sine vino, nec vinum absque pane consecrari faciat: quoniam etsi integer Christus sub quali∣bet specie lateat, non tamen quaelibet spe∣cies totum Christum significat, sed panis sol••m carnem significat, species vini solum sanguinem repraesentat, illiusque solius me∣moriam gerit.
• m 1.62

  Vnum dicitur quod est perfectum: sic cùm dicitur una domus, unus homo. Est autem unum in perfectione, ad cujus integritatem concurrunt omnia quae requiruntur. Aqum. part. 3. qu. 73. Art. 12. Ex parte Sacrament•• convenit, ut utrum{que} sumatur, scilicet corpus & sanguis, quòd in utroque consistit perfectio Sacramenti. Idem thid. quaest. 80. Art. 2. Etenim obligatio perficiendi istud Sacramentum illi solùm ex natura rei, id est, spect••tâ Sacramenti dignitate, incumbit, qui illud etiam conficit: debet enim is, quando-quidem rem tam divinam facit, non utcunque facere. Ita{que} tenetur inprimis utramque speciem consecrare, tùm ut huic Sacramento omnis perfectio sua substantialis, etiam quoad rationem individuam, constet. Valent. les. de usu Eucharistiae, cap. 6. §. Etenim. pag. 492. Respondendum est, eam actionem esse illis ipsis impera∣tam per illa verba [Hoc facite, &c.] See above Sect. 3. at (g) where Vasquez the Iesult is cited in 3. Them. Disput. 215.
• * 1.63

  See hereafterr, Sect: 8.
• n 1.64

  Appeal. lib. 2. Chap. 1. pag. 140.
• o 1.65

  In his Answer to his Majestie.
• p 1.66

  In his Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse, Tract. 4. §. 4. pag. 407.
• q 1.67

  Protestants Ap∣peale lib. 2. chap. 4. Sect. 3.
• r 1.68

  In the same Ap∣peale, lib. 4. chap. 22. Sect. 10.
• s 1.69

  Comperimus quòd quidam, sump∣tâ tantummodò cor∣poris sacri portione, à Calice sacri cruoris abstineante qui pro∣culdubiò (quoniam nescio qua superstici∣one docentur astrin∣gi) aut Sacramenta integra percipiant, aut ab integris arce∣antur, quià divisio unius ejusdem{que} my∣sterij sine grandi sa∣crilegio non potest provenire. Gelas••a∣pud Gratian, de Con∣secrat. cap. Comper••∣mus. D. 2.
• a 1.70

  Nam in alteru∣tra 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sive panis sive vin•• significatur sufficienter refect•••• animae Bellar. lib. 4. de Eucharist. cap. 20. §. Vtranuc. pag. 639. Est etiam in specie quod 〈◊〉〈◊〉 signifi∣catio refectionis spi∣ritualis—quià u∣nam & eandem rese∣ctionis gratiam spiri∣tualem significat ••••∣bus & potus. Valent quo supr. de legis. usu Eucharist pag. 491.
• b 1.71

  Optimo jure in∣stitutum est, ut sepa∣ratim duae consecra∣tiones fierent: pri∣mò enim ut Passio Domini, in qua san∣guis à corpore divisus est, ••magis referatur—Deinde, maximè consentaneum fuit, ut quoniam Sacra∣mento, ad alendam animam, utendum nobis erat, tanquam cibus & potus institueretur, ex quibus perfectum corporis alimen∣tum constare, perspicu•••• est. Ca••echis. Rom. part. 2. de Euch. num. 29.
• c 1.72

  Hoc Sacramentum ordinatur ad spiritualem refectionem, quae conformatur corporali. Ad corporalem autem refectionem Duo requiruntur, scilicet cibus, qui est alimentum siccum, & potus, qui est alimentum humidum. Et etiam ad integritatem hujus Sacramenti duo concu••••••unt; scilicet, spiritualis cibus, & spiritualis potus, secundùm illud, Ioh. 6 [Caro mea verè est cibus]—Ergò, hoc Sacramentum multa quidem est materialiter, sed unum formaliter & perfe∣ctivè. Aqui. part. 3. quaest. 73. Art 2. Etsi negandum non est, quin ejus refectionis spiritualis vis & commo∣ditas clarius utr••que re s••nul, scilicet cibo & potu, atque adeò utraque specie significetur: ideò enim hoc Sa∣cramentum, quod atti••••et 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ad relationem individualem, perfectus est in utraque simul specie, quàm in altera. Greg de Valent. les. de usu Sacr. Each. c. 6. §. Secundum. p. 491. Hoc est convenientius us•• hujus Sacra∣menti, ut seorsim exhibeatu•• fidelibus corpus Christi in cibum, & sanguis in potum. Aquin. quo sup. qu. 76. Art 2.
• d 1.73

  Sub specie pa∣nis sanguis sumatur cum corpore, & sub specie vini sumatur corpus cum sangui∣ne: nec s••nguis sub specio panis bibitur, nec corpus sub specie v•••• editu••: quià si∣cut nec corpus ••bitur, ità nec sanguis come∣ditur. Duraad. Rati∣tional. lib. 4. cap. 42. pag. 326.
• * 1.74

  See hereafter Sect 10.
• 8 1.75

  ••••aasen. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. cap. 59. Dominus dicit, uno••actu fidei famein tolli, & si∣tim: ac proindè u∣nico actu fidei dici∣tur manducare & bi∣bere.
• e 1.76

  Answer to his Majestie.
• f 1.77

  Secundum Ale∣xandrum de Hales—Major fructus ex perceptione utrius{que} speciei habetur. Sal∣meron. les. Tom. 9. Tract. 37. § Neque benè p. 303. Per acci∣dens tutem non est ••ubium quin usus u∣triusque speciei possit esse fructuosior, eò quod potest majorem devotionem commo∣vere in percipiente. Vndè fiat, ut propter majorem dispositio∣nem consequitur ille veriorem gratiam ex Sacramento. Valent. les. Ibid. pag. 493. §. Per accidens.
• 9 1.78

  Vasquez. les. in 3. Thom. quaest. 80. Disput. 215. cap. 2. Probabilior sententia mihi semper visa est eorum, qui dicunt majorem-fructum gratiae ex utraque specie, quàm ex a••••erutra percipi: & proindè illos, qui calicem sumunt, novum augmentum Gratiae consequi. Ità Alexander Cassalius, Arboreus, Clemens Pont. 6. Remandus (Et i••margine suâ; Hinc sententiam Suarez, Disp. 35. § 6. ut probabilem defendit.) Hanc sententiam absolutè secuti••s est Clemens 6. in Bullâ ad Regem Angliae 1341. in quo ill•• concessit, ut in gratiae augmentum in utra{que} specie communicaret.—Sacramentum hoc institutum est in modum Convivij, Ioh. 6. [Caro mea verè est cibus, & languis meus verè est potus:] nam in Convivio nihil aliud est quàm cibus & potus, quorum quilibec suo particulari modo reficit.
• g 1.79

  Satis comper∣tum est, universalem Christi Ecclesiam in hunc usque diem, Oc∣cidētalem autem seu Romanam mille am∣pliù à Christo annis, in solenn; prae fertim & ordinaria hujus Sacramenti dispensa∣tione, Vtramque pa∣nis & vini speci∣em omnibus Christi membris exhibuisse—atque ut ità facerent, inductos fuisse pri∣mò Instituto exem∣ploque Christi, qui hoc Sacramentum, corporis & sanguinis sui, duobus hisce pa∣nis & vini symbolis Discipulis suis, fide∣lium Communican∣tium personam re∣praesentantibus, pre∣buit: ••um quià in Sa∣cramento sanguinis peculrarem quādam virtutem & gratiam hoc vini symbolo sig¦nificatam esse crede∣bant: tùm ob ratio∣nes mysticas hujus Instituti, quae à veteribus variè adducuntur, viz. ad repraesentandam memoriam Passio••is Christi in oblatione corporis, & sanguinis effusione, juxta illud Pauli, [Quo••iescunque comederitis panem hunc, & Calicem Domini biberitis, mortem Dom•••• annunciatis donec venerit] Item ad significandam integram ••o∣fectionem sive nutritionem, quae cibo & potu constat, quomodò Christus inquit, [Caro mea verus est cibus, et sanguis meus verus est potus.] Item ad designandam redemptionem & tuitionem corporis & animae; ut corpus pro salute corporis, & sanguis pro salute animae, quae in sanguine est, dari intelligatur. Ad significandum quoque Christum utram{que} naturam assumpsisse, corporis & animae; ut utramque redimeret. Cassand. Consult. Art. 22. pag. 166. 167—Christus licet totus sub una specie, tamen administrari voluit sub duplici, primò, ut totam na∣turam assumpsisse se ostenderet, ut utramque redimeret: panis enim ad corpus refertur, vinum ad animam.—Si in altera tantùm sumeretur,—tum mortem suam ad alterius salutem valere significaretur. Pet. Lombard. 4. Dist. 11. Hic Calix pari cuactis conditione sit traditus. Theoph, in 1. Cor. 11. In veteri Testamento quaedam Sacerdos, quaedam populus comedebat, nec poterat populus participare illis, quorum Sacerdos particeps erat: nunc autem omnibus unum corpus proponitur, & unum poculum. Chrysost. in 2. Cor. Hom. 18. Coena Domini omnibus debet esse communis, quum ille Christus Discipulis suis omnibus, qui aderant, aequalitèr tradidit Sa∣cramenta, Hier. in Cor. 11. Quomodò ad martyrij poculum eos idoneos fecimus, si non ad poculum Domini ad∣••••mus? Cyprian, Epist. 54. ad Cornel. Episc. Rom. de pace lap•••• danda. Etiam Lombardus lib. 4. dist. 11. ex Am∣brosio ad 1. Cor. 11. Valet ad tuitionem corporis & animae quod percipimus, quià caro Christi pro salute corporis, sanguis verò pro anima nostra offertur.
• 10 1.80

  Vasquez in 3. Thom. Qu. 801. Disp. 216. cap. 6. Iustinus in 2. Apo∣log. pro Christianis, postquam descripsit communionem sub utra{que} specie, subjungit: Apostoli enim in Com∣mentati••s suis, quae Evangelia dicuntur, ità sibi Christum praecepisse tradiderunt. Respondeo, Nullum aliud prae∣ceptum Domini Iustinum ibi agnovisse praeter, [Hoc facite in memoriam mei.] Very well, and [Hoc facite] is as full a Command us [Hoc manducate] or, [Hoc bibite.]
• 11 1.81

  Cyprian Serm. de Coena Dom. Evan∣gelium praec••pit, ut bibatur. Resp. Satis est si bibatur à Sacer∣dotibus, licet non à Laicis. [But this is refuted by the Fa∣thers, who will admit of no Inequality a∣mong Christians, in communicating of this sacred Banquet.]
• 12 1.82

  Aug. Ser. 2. Feriae Pase••ae. Simul hoc sumimus, simul bibimus; quià simul vivimus. Teste Cas∣sandro in Exposit. & Homilijs in Hymnum aquinatis. Nec cor∣pus sine sanguine, nec sanguis sine corpore jure communicatur 〈◊〉〈◊〉 at{que} is communican∣di ritus usquè ad Tho. Aquin••tis ••••ta∣tem & amplius in Ecclesia Catholica obtinuerat—tandem ista antiquà Distri∣butio non, ut an••eà, necessaria, sed ut li∣cita tantum haberi coeperit. Ibid.
• h 1.83

  Graeci dicunt esse necessariò sub u∣traque specie panis scilicet, & vini com∣municandum, adeo quidem, ut qui sub una specie tantùm communicat, etiamsi laicus sit, peccate di∣catur, quod (ut aiunt) contra Christi Prae∣ceptum agat, qui sub utraque specie com∣municare praecepit. Prateol. Elench. Haeret. lib. 7. tit. Graeci. [{fleur-de-lys}For proofe that the Cause of Priest and people, in the receiving of this S••crament, is equall, we have these, Sayings of Antiquity. Dominica coena omnibus debet esse communis, quià dabatur omnibus Discipulis, qui aderant. Hier. in 1. Cor. c. 11. Est ubi nihil dissert Sacerdo•• à subdito, ut in tremendis Christi mysterijs: non sicut in veteri lege partem Sacerdos, partem populus, & tunc non licebat po∣pulo participare eorum, quorum particeps erat Sacerdos. Verùm nunc omnibus unum Corpus proponitur, unum poculum. Chrys••st. in 1. Cor. Hom. 27. Ille corpus aequaliter dedit, Tu autem quod commune est non commu∣nicae: etenim pro omnibus pariter factum est, & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 portione distributum. Cyprian. de Coena Dom. Haec mensa omnibus ex aequo proponitur. Theodoret. in 1. Cor. 11. Hic Calix pari—cunctis conditione tradi∣tus. Theoph. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 1. Cor. 11.]
• * 1.84

  Liturg. Tract. 4. §. 9. pag. 425. a•• Eighthly.
• * 1.85

  Concil. Trid. Sess. 21. Cap. 2. Gravibus et justis de Causis.
• i 1.86

  Porrò causas, quae Ecclesiam move∣runt, ut consuetudinē communicandi sub altera probaret, at{que} etiam pro lege obser∣vanda esse decerne∣ret, non tàm nostrum est discutere aut in∣quireie, quàm ipsi Decreto simpliciter obtemperare, existi∣maréque omninò eas fuisse justas, ut re∣ctissimè ex Conc. Trid. definitum est. Greg. Volent. Ies. dele∣git. usu Sacr. Euch c. 10. §. Porrò, p. 499.
• k 1.87

  Ob inopiam vini, cujus in pleris{que} Christianitatis parti∣bus magna penuria. Valent. ibid. & Sal∣meron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 34. §. Ad quin∣tum, pag. 279. And Rossens. in like man∣ner. Bellar. also addeth another Reason to this: Movit Ecclesi∣am uniformitas, ut Concordia populi Christiani in Sacra∣mento hoc percipien∣do, quod est Sacra∣mentum pacis & unj∣tatis, propter eos, a∣pud quos vinum in∣veniri non potest: ut sunt, aliquae provin∣ciae boreales, ubi vi∣num non invenitur, qui existimarent se Christo curae non fu∣isse, aut non ità ut alias provincias, quandò Sacramentum instituit. Lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 28.
• l 1.88

  Licet non in omnibus terris nascitur vinum aut triticum, tamen ad omnes terras facilè deferri potest, quantum sufficit ad usum hujus Sacra∣menti. Aquin part. 3 qu. 74. Art. 1. Sufficit quòd Balsamum potest ad omnia loca transfetri, Idem. ibid. qu. 72. Art. 2.
• m 1.89

  Bis Princepes Germaniae ad Bohemos (quòd Communionem sub utra{que} specie communicarent) debellandos arma sump••••cre, hortatore Cardinale Iuliano S. Angeli, Apostolicae sedis Legato doctissimo paritèt et rerum gerendarum prudentiâ ornatissimo viro: quanquàm bellum non satis felicitèr successit. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 36 pag. 284.
• * 1.90

  See a little af∣ter at (p.)
• n 1.91

  Multi sunt ab∣stemi••, qui vinum non ferunt. Bellar. lib. 4. de Eucharist. cap. 28.
• o 1.92

  Dicendum, quòd vinum modicè sump∣tum non potest mul∣tum aegrotanti noce∣re. Aquinas part. 3. quaest. 74. Art. 1.
• * 1.93

  See above Chap. 2. Sect. 9. in the Ch••ll.
• m 1.94

  Primò movet Ecclesiam consuetu∣do recepta, & appro∣bata consensu Gen∣tium & Populorum. Bellar. quo sup.
• n 1.95

  Mover Eccle∣clesiam, & quidem vehementer Irreve∣rentia & profanatio∣nes tanti Sacramenti, quae vix evitari pos∣sent in tanta fideli∣um multitudine, si omnibus daretur sub utra{que} specie. Bellar. ibid.
• * 1.96

  Liturg. tract. 4. §. 6.
• o 1.97

  Vtriusque speciei usum illicitum esse at{que} sacrilegium ait∣falsum est, quòd usui Calicis annexum sic peccatum vel sacrile∣gium, propter pericu∣lum effusionis: nam si haberet adjunctum peccatum, neque Christus Dominus, neque Apostoli in primitiva Ecclesia, nec Orientales mo∣do, nec Occidentales ante Conc. Constan∣tiense, ne{que} deni{que} Sacerdotes celebran∣tes eo uterentur ritu. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 37. §. Deinde p 308.
• p 1.98

  Cernuntur hodiè ex antiquitate relictae quaedam fistulae ar∣genteae & aureae ve∣lut canales, calicibus vetustioribus adjun∣ctae, ut per eas sine effusione hauriri pos∣set sanguis è calice, quarum in Ordinario Rom. sit mentio. Et adhuc in Missa so∣lenni Pontificis ad∣hibentur, ubi ministri Cardinales, aut il∣lustriores personae communicant sub u∣tra{que} specie, posterio∣rem speciem fistulà hauriētes: sed ista in∣strumenta non fuisse in usu apud plebem in parochialibus Ecclesijs planè existimo, sed tantum in sacris Cardinalium, Canonicorum, et Monachorum Conventibus. Alan. lib. 1. de Euch cap 47. p. 495.
• q 1.99

  1. Cor. 11. Ita{que} fratres mei, cum con∣veneritis, invicem expectate.] Dominus ex aequo Tibi & pauperi mensam proprij corporis, & poculum sangui∣nis tradidit. Teste Salmeron. les. Tom. 14. Disp. 19. pag. 153.
• * 1.100

  See §. 9.
• * 1.101

  See above Sect. 8. (g)
• r 1.102

  Aquarij solam aquam apponendam asserebant, sobeieta∣tis conservandae cau∣sâ vinum vitantes. Alsons. à Caflto cont. Id eres. Tit. Euchari∣stia, Har. 6.
• 13 1.103

  Nic. Causin. Ies in his booke called the Holy Court. pag. 539.
• s 1.104

  Discamus Chri∣stum, prout vult, ve∣nerari, honorato nam{que} jucundissimus est honor, non quem nos putamus; nam & eum Petrus hono∣rare putabat, cùm sibi pedes eum lavare prohibuit: sed non erat honor, quem a∣gebac, sed contrarium Chrysost. Hom. 60. ad pop. Antioch. Tom. 1.
• t 1.105

  Si sic tanta esset degnitas Laico∣rum, circà sumptio∣nem corporis Chri∣sti, quanta Clerico∣rum? Gerson. Tract. de utra{que} specie.
• a 1.106

  Movit Eccle∣siam, ad hunc usum stabiliendum & lege firmandum, quòd vi∣deret, ab Haereticis, et ex errore oppug∣nari. Sacramentarij autem non credunt Concomitantiam sanguinis Domini cùm corpore in specie panis: undè etiam ij Lutheranorum maximè urgent utram{que} speciem, qui cum Sacramentarijs rident Concomita••••∣tiam. Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 28. §. Secundò.
• b 1.107

  In his booke de∣dicated to K. Iames.
• c 1.108

  In his Liturg. of the Masse pag. 396.
• d 1.109

  Maximè om∣nium ad convellen∣dam eorum haeresin, qui negabant sub u∣tra{que} specie corpus Christi contineri. Catech. Rom. par. 2. c. 4. nu. 50.
• e 1.110

  Verùm non fa∣cilè apparet quomo∣dò apertè exterior il∣la sumptio dici possit bibitio: manducatio rectè dicitur, quià su∣mitur aliquid ibi per modum cibi: sed quo∣modò bibitio, cùm nihil sumatur per modum potus? non n. diceremus eum & manducare et bibere, qui panem tinctum vino sumeret, quam∣vis sumat quod fa∣mem tollat et sitim. Proindè, secundùm horum sententiam videtur omninò di∣cendum—cum di∣citur manducare, & bibere, non ratione actus exterioris, qui manducationis tan∣tùm speciem habet: sed ratione actus in∣terioris, nempe, ratio∣ne fidei. Iansen. Con∣cord in Evang. pag. 457.
• * 1.111

  Durand Rationale. lib. 4. c. 54. Vna pars abs{que} alia sumpta non est com∣pletum Sacramen∣tum, cùm panis cor∣pus significat, non potest sacramentali∣ter sumi sinè altera specie.
• * 1.112

  See Booke 2. Cap. 2. § 4.
• f 1.113

  Secunda ratio, quià qui Concomitantiam negant, ex alio perni∣tioso errore petunt utram{que} speciem: quià nimirum existimant jure divino esse praeceptum; & propterea totam Ecclesiam longo tempore in hac re turpiter enâssè. Bellar. quo. sup. §. Secundo.
• g 1.114

  Rectissimè facit Eccle∣sia, quod ipsa praxi contratiâ refutat eorum haeresin, qui utram{que} speciem jure divino necessariam omnibus esse perperam contendunt. Quae ratio jure optimo inter caetera cosiderata est in Conc. Constant. contra Bohemos; & in Conc. Trident. contra recen••iores Sectarios. Greg. de Valent. Ies. Tract. de usu Eucharist. cap 10 §. De∣indè, pag 499.
• h 1.115

  Ego existimo, Patres, non solùm nullam legitimam causàm essè, sed ne{que} fingi posse, cur de consensu vestro Laici calicem bibant: ne{que} pati ullo modo velitis à more vestro quempiam decedere latum unguem.—Inprimis, quoniam Ecclesia illud praecepit, ut alteram tantùm speciem Laicis porrigamus, cut meritò nobis obtemperandum est, quià nihil agit sine magna ratione, ne{que} in hujusmodi legibus ferendis er∣rare potest. Deni{que} si latam legem nullâ evidenti necessitate convellatis (Patres) suspicari multis in mentem veniet, aut vos illam temerè aullo{que} consilio tulisse olim suscipisse{que}, aut susceptam cùm ratione & servatam diutissimè in Christiana Republica, nulla vel causa vel ratione pro nihilo ducere, quo nihil sieri potest gravirate vestrâ, aut hujus amplissimi ordinis majestate indignius. G••spar Cardillo Villalpand. Orat. apud Act. Conc. Trid. pag. 219 221. 222.
• * 1.116

  See above Chap. 2. Sect. 11.
• * 1.117

  In the third Book.
• i 1.118

  Nullâ praecep∣torum vi, sed con∣sensu quodam taci∣to tàm populi quàm Cleri sensim irrep∣sit dicta consuetudo. Roffens. con Cap Ba∣byl. Tract. de utraque Specie, f. 28. Estque hoc diligenter no∣tandum, alterius spe∣ciei communionem non tam Episcopo∣rum mandato, quàm populi usu & facto conniventibus tamen praesulibus, irrepsi le: populus enim ob va∣ria incommoda pau∣latim à Calice absti∣nebat. Episcopi prop∣ter varia effusionis sanguinis, aliaque pericula tacendo hanc abstinentiam comprobabant: quae abstinentra à calice cùm tempore Constantiensis Concilij ferè per Europam universalis esset, non erat damnanda, sed con∣tra Haereticos insurgentes defendenda. Coster. Ies. Enchirid. Tract. de Commun. sub utraque specie. pag 359. Credere par est, ex communi fidelium populorum & Orthodoxorum Praesulum tacito consensu receptam: quando autem primum inceperit, mihi non constar. Alfons. de Castro l. 6. Tit. Eucharistia, Haer. ult.
• * 1.119

  Li∣turg Tract. 4. §. 9. at the ead thereof.
• * 1.120

  2. Tim. 2. 15.
• l 1.121

  Quod verò at∣rinet ad tempora, tri∣plicem in coetu Chri∣stiano statum, Nico∣laus de Cusano Car∣dinalis expendit; fer∣ventis nimirùm, ca∣lidae, & frigentis. Ini∣tio enim fuit Ecclesia ad fundendum pro Christo sanguinem fervens, & tunc data est illi utra{que} species, ut sanguinem Domi∣ni bibens, sanguinem suum pro illo liben∣ter effunderet.—In sequenti statu Eccle∣sia fuit calida, licèt non ità fervens, & tunc non dabatur bina species, sed panis tantùm sanguine infusus, ut ex quibusdam veterum Patrum sententiis Concilijisque colligi potest. Tertius status est Ecclesiae frigentis ac tepidae, & in ea tantùm altera species, panis scilicet, sine infusione sanguinis Laicis dispensatur, Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 34. §. Quod verò. pag. 277.
• m 1.122

  Vt nobis Iocu∣pletissi••i testes, at∣{que} omni exceptione majores retulerunt, in Germania qui eò loci per omnia obedi∣unt Romanis Ponti∣ficibus, non solùm (Reverendi Patres) Calicem vitae non cupiunt, aut petere audent, &c. Gasp. Card Villalp. apud Act. Concil. Trident. pag. 222. §. Accedit.
• * 1.123

  See the last te∣stimonie above.
• n 1.124

  Tertio loco ob∣jiciunt Ecclesiae sapi∣entiam, antiquita∣tem, atque potesta∣tem; atque potesta∣tem; aiunt enim, Ec∣clesiam primitivam, quae antiquior & sci∣entiâ at{que} vitae san∣ctitate praestantior erat, utraque specie usam fuisse: nostra igitur illam imitari debet, praesertim eum eandem atque illa habet potestatem in ejusmodi legibus positi∣vis sive abrogandis sive dispensandis. Respondemus, non esse dubium quin Ecclesia primitiva nostrae majore charitate, ac proindè uberiori sapientia praecelluerit, nihilominus tamen interdum contingit minùs sapientem in aliquo maliùs sapere, quâm alium absolute sapientiorem. Saepe etiam accidit, minùs perfectum hominem vitare aliquem errorem, quem melior non vitat. Salmcron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tractat. 38. §. Tertio loco. pag. 320.
• o 1.125

  Forma Iura∣menti, per Bullam Pij quarti. Apostoli∣cas & Ecclesiasticas Traditiones admit∣to,—Ego spon∣deo, & juro, &c.
• p 1.126

  Caetera omnia à Concilio Tridenti∣no declarata & con∣firmata firmissimè te∣neo. Ibid. Romanam Ecclesiam Magistram esse Ecclesiarum cre∣do, &c.
• q 1.127

  Licet Gabriel, & quidam alij senti∣unt divini juris esse, ut Sacerdos in utra{que} specie sacrificet, ni∣hilominùs tamen o∣pinantur authoritate Romani Pontificis fieri posse, ut in una tantum specie sacri∣ficet, viz. in conse∣cratione panis sine vino, quià putant multa esse juris divi∣ni, quae remittere & relaxare queat Pon∣tifex ob publicam a∣liquam & gravem necessitatem: ut vi∣demus votum, jus-j••∣randum, Matrimo∣nium ratum, non consummatum, au∣thoritate Pontificis relaxari & dissolvi. Et ità in hac questio∣ne prima puto proba∣bilius & verius esse (ut dixi) juris esse divini, ut Sacerdos in duplici specie sacrifi∣cet. Et nihilominùs existimo valdè pro∣babile, authoritate Pontificiâ, ob publi∣cam & urgentem ne∣cessitatem, praedi∣ctum jus divinum re∣laxari posse. Sed quia nunquàm est rela∣xatum, ego consili∣um darem ut nun∣quàm relaxaretur. A∣zorius Iesuit. Tom. 1. Iustit. Moral. lib. 10. cap. 19. §. Tertium. pag. 857.
• * 1.128

  {fleur-de-lys}Extravag. de verbo signific. Tit. 14. Cap. 4. G••ossa. Do∣minum Deum no∣strum Papam.
• * 1.129

  See above in this Chapter, Sect. 3. in the Chal. 1.
• r 1.130

  Dispensandus non est utrius{que} spe∣ciei usus Hereticis, quia non sunt danda sancta Canibus: nec Catholicis, quia debent distingui ab Haereticis, qui communicant sub duabus. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 37. 5. His potius. pag. 411.
• a 1.131

  P. Calixtus. See above Chap. 2. Sect. 9.
• b 1.132

  P. Greg. Ibid. at (••)
• c 1.133

  See above Chap 2. Sect 7. Chall. 6. (21)
• d 1.134

  P. Iulius. See above Chap. 3. Sect. 3.
• e 1.135

  Ibid.
• f 1.136

  See above Chap. 3. Sect. 5.
• g 1.137

  P. Gelasius. See above Chap. 3. Sect. 3. (r.)
• h 1.138

  Synod. Tolet. 16.—Conc. Generale, sub Sergio Papa Ba∣ron. ad An. 693. This Councel, cap 6 saith. Quontam quidā non panes mundos atque integros, sed crussu∣l••m & particulam of∣ferunt—quod ne∣quaquam in sacrae authoritatis historia gestum perpenditur; ubi legitur Christum benedixisse & dedisse panem, &c Apud B••∣nium, Tom 3. And this being, by Baroni∣••••, a Generall Coun∣cel, could not conclude without the Popes consent, in your judge∣ments.
• * 1.139

  20 30 40