Scripture mistaken the ground of Protestants and common plea of all new reformers against the ancient Catholicke religion of England : many texts quite mistaken by Nouelists are lay'd open and redressed in this treatis[e] by Iohn Spenser.

This is proued by Scripture mistaken, as will presently appeare.

Hauing therefore, as I hope, cleared this point of the reall presence in the iust balance of an open and impartiall eye, it will not be very difficult to euen an other as a sequell from this concerning communion vnder one kind, which though it be not thought vppon in these objections, yet this fit occasion, the great difficulties which our aduersaries raise against it, the earnest desire which many not otherwise ill disposed, haue to be satisfied in it, and the request of others who haue seene some part of this treatis haue put me vppon

necessitie to say something but very suc∣cinctly of this matter holding my selfe close to Scripture according to my former me∣thode.

This point therefore supposes the reall presence, and is rather to be treated against Lutherans, or such other Protestants as are conuinced of that mysterie then against Cal∣uinists or Suinglians who disbeleeue it, for were not our Sauiours body and blood really present there, as the practise of receauing one only kind had neuer been allowed, so could it not haue been defended. This there∣fore supposed, I will indeauour to defend communion vnder one kind, and answer whatsoeuer is pressed by our aduersaries against it out of Scripture mistaken.

Objection.

First they vrge the institution of this Sa∣crament as hauing been vnder the formes both of bread and wine, which institution is to be followed by all Christians and so both to be receaued.

Answer.

The bare institution of a Sacrament drawes with it noe necessitie of frequenting it, as ap∣peares in Priesthood and mariage instituted

by our Sauiour. which not withstanding im∣pose noe necessitie or command to receaue them, so that standing precisely in the insti∣tution, noe man wil be obliged to receaue either both, or either of rhem.

Objection.

Secondly though the bare institution of a Sacrament impose noe command to receaue it, yet it imports a precept that when it is re∣ceaued or administted, it be done in that manner it was instituted, as it appeares in baptisme, Priesthood and other Sacraments. Seeing therefore our Sauiour instituted this Sacrament both in the consecration and com∣munion in both kinds, at least whensoeuer it is receaued, it must be receaued vnder both.

Answer.

This objection inuolues many difficulties and is first to he vndeestood that Sacraments are to be receaued and administred as they were first instituted in such matters as belong to the substance and essence of the Sacra∣ment, not in other accidentary circumstances of time, place, personnes, precedences, conse∣quences, &c. as was the institution of this Sa∣crament after supper, sitting vppon the ground, giuen to priests only, in a priuate se∣cular house &c.

Secondly there is something particular in this Sacrament which is in noe other, euen concerning the substance of it: for the very same entire substance being here put vnder each kind makes that woesoeuer receaues either of them, receaues the whole substance of this Sacrament and consequently receaues a true Sacrament instituted by our Sauiour; and so that which is able to sanctifie him who worthily receaues either of them.

Thirdly concerning the substance of this Sacrament all that can be gathered from the bare words of the institution, is that it is to be consecrated and receiued by Priests such as were the Apostles who were Priests, then made when it was first instituted vnder both kinds, but here is noe president giuen about the lay people, because none then receaued it. That the whole substance of our Sauiour is here receaued I suppose for the present, neither is it much questioned by such as grant the reall presence, nor can be possibly doubted of by any who beleeues that our Saoiour dies not more, and soe both flesh and blood, and life, and soule, and diuinitie are all vnited to∣geather weresoeuer he is: hence therefore followes that lay people receiue as much of our Sauiour (seeing they receaue him wholy and interily) as Priests doe.

That he who receaues our Sauiour thus

vnder one only kind receaues a true Sacra∣ment is as cleare as the former for who can without absurditie denye that vnder one kind is exhibited an outward visible signe of an inward spirituall grace, which is the compleat definition of a Sacrament according to our aduersaries: for here the formes of bread only containing vnder them our Sauiour by way of meat, signifie that he confers a spirituall grace nourishing and feeding our soules to eternall life and thus much is signified by the English ministers when they distribute the bread to the people saying: the Body of our Lord Iesus Christ preserue thy body and soul to eternall life, &c. and containing his body represented as separated from his blood, and so as dead by force of the words of consecration are an outward visible commemoratiue signe of his sacred death and passion. and seeing that both bread is com∣posed of many graines, and wine of many grapes vnited togeather, the mystical vnity of Christians receauing this Sacrament is suffi∣ciently signified hy the species of either of them. if then here he an outward visible signe of an inward spirituall grace both exhibitiue, com∣memoratiue and significatiue, here must needs be a true Sacrament euen according to the pttnciples of our aduersaries. and what I haue said of the forme of bread, is by the same reason verified of the forme of wine. but not

only in their principlcs, but in all good Theo∣logie there must be a true Sacrament vnder each kind: for certainly seeing that a diffe∣rent grace is conferred by each of them, the one of spirituall meate, the other of spirituall drinke (which how it is to be vnderstood, I will hereafter examine) each will be sufficient to sanctifie and helpe the soul to eternall life. If it should be replyed that in neither of these kinds alone is exhihited a compleate signe either of our spirituall refection, or the death of our Sauiour but only a partiall or imparfect signe of them, which notwith∣standing are compleatly significd vnder both togeather. I answer that if by a compleat signe be vnderstood a most full and expresse repre∣sentation of these two particulars, I grant that there is not vnder one only kind so full and expresse a representation (and in this sense not so compleat a signe of them) as vnder both togeather. but then it must be prouued (this most full and expresse representation vnder both being exhibited to lay Christians by the consecration and communion of the Priest in the dread full sacrifice of the masse) that the substance of this sacrifice requirs that they should be allways so fully and expressely represented in each particular communion of the people. but if by a compleat signe be vn∣derstood a signe sufficient to signifie both our

spirituall food and vnion, and the death of our Sauiour, I denie that there is not a com∣pleat signe of both exhibited vnder each kind. This distinction may be much illustrated by an instance from baptisme, certainly the mystery of the trinity was more expressely, fully and compleatly signified by that ancient coustome of a threefold dipping the child in the water, and the words of baptisme then by the same words and putting water once vppon the child, and yet this latter is iudged suffi∣cient euen by Protestants. for who can doubt that the formes of bread sufficiently giue vs to vnderstand that our Sauiours is the food of our soules noe lesse then the bread of pro∣position in the old, and the bread multiplied by our Sauiour in the new Testament; and his calling himselfe the bread of life in the sixt of S. Iohn prefigured and signified suffi∣ciently that our Sauiour was to be the bread of our soules: and who seeing a bodyly before him void of soul and blood as our Sauiour is here represented by force of the words, gathers not presently that it is dead though he see not the blood which issued from it: and the same is of the blood of our Sauiour vnder the forme of wine, for this alone is noe lesse sufficient to represent the death of our Sauiour then was tbe blood alone of the paschall lambe sprinkled vppon the posts of

the Israëlites by the Iewish priests to prefigu∣rate the shedding of his precious blood and sacred passion: nor is the blood of our Sauiour vnder the forme of wine lesse sufficient to re∣present the spirituall exhiberation and con∣forting of our soules thē was the wine in Cana of Galilee, and that sentence spoken of by the Prophete (wine producing virgins) able to fore figurate the same blood so comforting: as also the species of bread or wine alone to signifie the vnity and amitie which is to be amongst Christians both in regard of Christ and themselues, as I haue shewed. Hence the∣refore appeares that seeing in each kinde apart both the death of our Sauiour, and our spirituall meate and drinke and vnion respec∣tiuely are sufficiently signifieds each must ne∣cessarily containe a true Sacrament, and not only the part of a true Sacrament: and seeing in each a true Sacrament is receaued, each alone must conferre that grace which is signi∣fied by it, and so sanctifie the soul of such as receaue it, and consequently may be receaued fruitfully and sauingly alone for so much as belongs to the bare institution: for if our Sauiour instituted each species apart to con∣ferre sauing grace, then who receaues either deuoutly receaues that grace for which our Sauiour instituted it, and so we are put in the state of saluation by reeeauing one vnlesse

thete be some other command produced which obligeth all to receaue both, which shall here after be examined.

Objection.

Some may happily obiect that this answer subsists not, for according to this doctrine the Priest also receaues a true Sacrament and the spirituall graces and fruits of it when he re∣ceaues the host only, and yet euen after he hath receaued the host; he is obliged to re∣ceaue the chalice according to Roman Ca∣tholiques, therefore though it should be grant∣ed that lay people by receauing vnder the species of bread only, receaue a true Sacra∣ment with the sauing grace signified and con∣ferred by it, yet they may be obliged to re∣ceaue the other kind as Priests are.

Answer.

There is first a great difference betwixt the Apostles and lay Christians, for they were directly and expressely obliged by our Sa∣uiour in time of the institution to receaue the chalice euen after they had receaued the true Sacrament and the grace of it vnder the spe∣cies of bread. whence may probably be gathered that all Priests consecrating haue the same obligation of receauing both: but noe such command was directly and expesse∣ly

giuen to lay people none hauing been there. Secondly Priests consecrating and sacri∣ficing are obliged to receaue of each part of theyr sacrifice, and so though precisely stand∣ing in the essence of a Sacrament, there be no diuine obligation, yet in regard of consum∣mating and participating of theyr own sacri∣fice they are bound to receaue both as the Apostles did, wich hath noe place in lay people. The answer only concluds that stand∣ing precisely in the institution, seeing lay people receaue vnder one kind a true Sacra∣ment with sauing grace, it cannot be thence conuinced that they are bound to receaue more; so that if there be any obligation of re∣ceauing both it must rise from some other head and not from the bare institution, whereof we treate in answer to this objection now taken from it alone.

Obiection.

It may be yet further obiected that our Sauiour here instituted a full and compleat refection not only by way of meate, or by way of drinke only, but of both togeather, and therefore such as receaue one only kind receaue but one part of this heauenly banquet and want the other, which seemeth quite contrary to the institution and intention of our Sauiour.

Answer.

Our Sauiour instituted this celestiall ban∣quet in so ineffable a manner that the very same substantiall thing was to be both our meat and drinke, to wit, himselfe and that so abundantly that either both to geather, or each a part are so suffizing a repast, that they communicate strengh and life to all such as worthily receaue them: and though both being receaued make but one compleat re∣fection by reason they are both taken at once by way of meate and drinke, as it happens in other ordinary refections, yet each of them receaued apart, or at different times, is also a full and compleat refection of the soul by reason that each communicates sauing grace sufficient to saluation, and this euidently ap∣peares in common feasts and banquets, for when many dishes are eaten and different sortes of wine drunke at the same time or meeting, they are esteemed but one meal or banquet, and yet if at different times one should feed now vppon one, then vppon an other of these dishes apart, or dranke but one sorte of wine one day, and an other of them an other, then such eating and drinking by reason of the diuersitie of times would be counted diuers sufficient refections: and if it were possible to find in other meates and

drinke what is found in this Sacrament, that as well the one the other alone could pre∣serue and conferre life, and that one could liue with drinking without eating, or eating without drinking, then either of these a part would become a full refection all therefore that can be gathered from this objection is only that our Sauiour in the first institution gaue a most plentifull and abundant banquet, whereof each part in it selfe was sufficient to conferre life and satieté to his Apostles, which in succeeding ages being receaued either ioyntly, or apart, was to be a sufficient refec∣tion for Christians. But from the institution vnder both kindes followed not (which is cheesty pressed in this objection) that our Sa∣uiours intention was that these two kindes should be such parts of this heauenly feast that both of them are essentially required to it, for then he would not haue giuen each of them force to conferre grace sufficient for saluation, but would haue had that grace ne∣cessarily dependant vppon the receauing of both togeather. Now that the receauing of our Sauiour vnder the forme of bread only conferres life and saluation is out of all question Ioan. 6. He who eateth this bread shall liue for euer, and that perfectly and entirely as appeareth by these words: As I liue by my father so he who eateth me shall liue by me. for our Sa∣uiour

liueth by his father not partially, bu•• wholy and perfectly.

Obiection.

Further one may reply that as corporal meate and drinke haue different effects, th•• one of nourishing and strengthing the othe•• of comforting and exhilerating, so propor∣tionably this diuine meate and drinke must haue the like different spirituall effects cor∣respondent to each of them. whence fol∣loweth that he who receaues one only, is de∣priued of the grace corresponding to the other, and so the people will be depriued of some grace corresponding to the chalice, to wit, that of spirituall consolation, and exhila∣ration of the soul in the seruice of God, which Priests haue by receauing both kindes.

Answer.

First I answer that it is sufficient for the defence of the Catholique Roman faith that lay people in receauing vnder one kind, are not depriued of any grace necessary to salua∣tion, which they should be were they obliged by vertu of Christs institution to receaue both.* 1.1 And which our aduersaries presse against vs. seeing therefore the same habituall iusti∣fiing and sauing grace is receaued by one kind as well as by both, though he who re∣ceaues

both were supposed to receaue exten∣siuely more then they which receaue one only, yet this hath noe greater difficulty then that Priests being accoustumed and permitted euery day to say masse receaue by vertu of oftener communicating more habituall grace then lay people who promiscuously haue noe such practise or permission, they being by acts of obedience to the holy Church, and humi∣••ity proportionable to there own estat to sup∣ply the want of that extent of graces which are conferred vppon Priests by vertu of theyr dayly receauing this Sacrament, noe wrong being done them so long as both in this and that of communicating vnder one kind, they are depriued of noe grace necessary to salua∣tion, and by other acts of vertues and good workes may if they will, (being assisted by the grace of God) exercise and supply that defect wherein by reason of the Sacrament they fall ••hort of Priests. I say there is noe wrong done them, because Christians are obliged to haue respect not only to theyr own parricular spi∣rituall profit in increase of grace by the Sa∣crament, but also to the reuerence which is due to it, they must be content to want that ••ncrease when it cannot be obtained but by some irreuerence offerred to this diuine Sa∣crament. Thus though both Priests and lay men might haue more degrees of grace by

celebrating and communicating two or three times a day, then by once, yet because this inuolues a want of reuerence to the body and bloud of Christ, it is but once a yeare gene∣rally amongst Catholikes permittrd to Priests, and neuer to lay people, neither by Catholi∣ques nor Protestants, the same would follow if all lay men were licenced promiscuously to communicate euery day, and noe lesse, were they permitted to receaue vnder both kindes as I shall shew here after: whence fol∣lowes that as out of the respect which they are bound to bere to this heauenly mystery they are obliged to refraine from communicating euery day, and vppon noe day to receaue more then once: so are they to abstaine (the Church so commanding) from receauing the chalice. Secondly concerning actuall auxilia∣ry graces, which are supernaturall pious thoughts and inspirations to good, conferred by vertu of this Sacrament and proper to it, some doctours hold that there is a different actuall grace corresponding to the chalice from that of the host, the one of strenghning proper to meate, the other of exhilaration proper only to drinke. yet the common tenet of doctours is contrary, and so it will only come to a schoole Question not necessary to be treated here, wherein the more common and negatiue opinion seemes to me more

pious and honorable to this Sacrament, for it wil be sufficient to saue the proper effects of these two kindes that there be actuall graces corresponding to meate and drinke, the one of corroborating, the other of exhilerating, as the primary, not as the only actuall fruits of this spirituall food and drinke, so that by the host by reason of its inestimable 'and illimitat∣ed vertu be communicated to the receauer certaine actuall graces strenghtning him in ti∣me of tentation as the primary effect of that kinde, and yet the other of exhilerating in time of sorow also, as the secondary and lesse principall of the sacred host. and the same discours holds proportionably of the chalice, so that each kinde conferres these different graces, but in a different order and manner. and by consequence he who receaues either hath the very same actuall graces communi∣cated to him noe lesse then he who receaues both, and lay people are not depriued of any species of actuall grace due to this Sacrament, which Priests haue. Now that this doctrine much conducing to the honour and glory and grounded in the boundlesse perfection of this Sacrament, is cleere tough to such as only consider that this spirituall banquet vnder each species containes noe lesse then Christ himselfe. who is not only the food, but also the drinke of our soules, and so the holy

Scripture speaking of him telleth vs,* 1.2 he who eateth me shall yet hunger, and he who drinketh me shall yet thirst, and if we may hunger and thirst after iustice, and the same iustice be borh able to satisfie our hunger and quench our thirst, that is, be both meat and drinke to vs whensoeuer we receaue it, why should we denye these effects to the foun∣taine of iustici our deare Sauiour whensoeuer he is worthily receaued vnder either forme in this Sacrament. and if the materiall manna had the taste, sweetnesse and strength of all other different meates, why should we not attribute to this spirituall and diuine manna the strength sweetnes and perfection both of all meates, and drinks also whensoeuer it is rightly receaued? And if speaking of diuine wisdome Salomon tell vs that all good came to him togeather with it,* 1.3 why should we li∣mite that wisdome of God more then is ne∣cessarie in this Sacrament. In a word, if some corporall meates haue also the vertu of drinke▪ and some corporall drinkes the force of meate to nourish, why should we denye this to the best of all meates and drinks the body and bloud of our Sauiour? for if the least drop of his bloud or action of his body was sufficient to satisfie for the sinnes of infinite worlds, why should we frame so pore an opinion o•• them both in this Sacrament that whensoeuer

they are truly receaued they haue not power vnder each kind both to nourish strenghen, exhilerate and conferre spiritually all the fruits and profits correspondent to those which are found in any, or in all other meates and drinkes togeather so that not only habituall iustifying and sanctifying grace necessary to saluation, and actuall Sacramentall graces correspondent to that of meat by way of spi∣rituall nourishment in the host, and of drink by way of spirituall exhileration in the chali∣ce, but both these graces are conferred by each kind apart that proper to meat prima∣rily by the host, and to drinke primarily by the chalice, but yet secondarily and by way of a superabundant vertu and efficacy in this diuine refection the host exhilerates & com∣••orts, and the chalice nourisheth and strenght∣eneth correspondent to all corporall meates and drinkes and conferred separatly by them are ioyntly receaued by each of these apart: and thus as that of the hymne of corpus Christi is most true: dedit fragilibus corporis ferculum, dedit & tristibus sanguinis poculum: he gaue the food of his body to the infirme and the cup of his blood to the sad, whereby are designed the primary effects of the host by way of strenght∣••ning, and the chalice by way of exhilerating so it is also true which is affirmed in the same office: Panem de caelo praestitisti eis omne delectamen∣tum

in se habentem: thou hast giuen them bread from heauen hauing all delight and comfort in it: whereby seemes to be assribed to the sacred host the essect of delighting and ex∣hilerating such as worthily receaue it, and noe lesse those other versicles which follow in the same feast: cibauit illos ex adipe frumenti, & de petra melle saturauit eos: he hath fed them with the•• fattnes of wheat, where the de∣lightfull nourishmēt of the soule is expressed: and sati••ted them with honny from the rock, which expresseth the sweet feeding of the soul by the sacred chalice. much more might be said of this particular, were it to be disputed in the schooles but in this occasion I iudge noe more necessary seeing the question it selfe is not necessary for the defence of Ca∣tholike faith in this point. Thus farre I haue answered the difficulties which can be drawn from the bare institution abstracting from the command of our Sauiour expressed either in the institution, or else where concerning this Sacrament, which I will now answer very breefly.

Objection.

Our Sauiour saith: drinke ye all of it, the∣refore he commands all Christians to drinke of the cup in this Sacrament.

Answer.

Our Sauiour saith Iohn 13. If I haue washed your feet your Lord and maister, you must also wash one anothers feet, therefore all Christians are com∣manded by our Sauiour to wash one an others feet: or thus our Sauiour Marc. 16. Goenig into the whol world preach the Gospel to all creatures. and Matt. 28. Goe and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the father, &c. therefore he commands all Christians to teach the Gospel and baptize all nations: or thus to come so∣mthing nearer to this matter in the drinking of a cupp. Luc. 22. our Sauiour saith before the Sacrament was instituted: and he tooke the cupp and said: take and diuide amongst you, &c. therefore all Christians are com∣manded to take and drinke wine which is noe sacrament, yea before they receaue the sacra∣ment, as our Sauiour commanded the Apostles to doe here. or lastly thus to instance in the institution it selfe Matth. 26. our Sauiour saith: Take and eate this is my Body: therefore he com∣manded all Christians to take the host into theyr hands, and then eate it, as he did the Apostles. many such like instances might be giuen whence (if we stand to the sole and bare word of scripture it will be as easily de∣duced that all Christians are commanded many things which Protestants say they are

not bound to doe, as from this command: drinke yee all of this: giuen to the Apostles, can be drawn that all Christians are commanded to dtinke of the chalice because the Apostles were then commanded to doe it.

If it should be replyed that in the other commands alleaged is not found the word (all) drinke ye all of this as we finde here, and therefore are not so generall to comprehend all Christians. I answer that the word (all) as appeares hy S. Marke: and they all drunke of it: only signifies all the Apostles there present, none excepted, for our Sauiour said not: let all Christians drinke of this, but drinke ye all of this. If it should be demanded why should our Sa∣uiour say: drinke yee all of this more then eate. yee all of this; adding the word (all) only to the chalice and not to the host, but only to shew the vniuersall necessitie of drinking. I answer first that (all) cannot possibly be added. for that reason, for Protestants confesse that there is as vniuersall necessitie for all Christians to eate the bread comprehended in these words: take eate this is my Body, without the word (all) as of drinking the cup in these: drinke yee all of this. Secondly I answer that the reason of adding the word (all) more to the chalice then to the host, was because our Sa∣uiour hauing broken the host into differēt pee∣ces gaue to each Apostle one and so there was

noe necessitie to command them all to eate of the same particle, but hauing giuen but one cup amongst them, it was more necessary for the full declaration of his minde (which was that all the Apostles there presēt should drinke of that cupp,) to expresse himselfe in these termes: drinke ye all of this.

Secondly I answer to the maine objection that if we stand ptecisely in these words of Scripture, it can neuer be conuinced that any precept is contained either in these take eate: or in these: drinke yee all of this; for they are capable to signifie a meere inuitation or in∣treaty as great persons ordinarily are ac∣coustomed when they haue other inferiours at theyr table to say, eate or drinke of this or that, not commanding but inuiting: and it belongs to Protestāts who stand so strictly to the bare expresse words of Scripture to conuince by the sole expresse words the contrary.

Thirdly if wee either by vniuersall tradi∣tion of Christians, or by some other expresse commands in scripture of communicating, grant that euen in these words, eate, drinke &c. a strickt command was giuen, seeing some commands, oblige all Christians, others all Bishops & Priests, and others the Apostles only, we can notwithstanding giue a reason why these words: drinke yee all of this, binde the

Apostles only, and extend not themselues to all Christians. for the declaration of this. when the circumstances are such that the command can haue noe place but for that present time when it is giuen, it is cleare that what our Sa∣uiour spake to the Apostles is giuen to the Apostles only; as when our Sauiour said to S. Peeter: putt vp thy swod into the scabbard; or to the three Apostles: rise let vs goe &c. and a thou sand such like.

Secondly: when the common tradition of Christendome tells vs that such commands as were giuen to the Apostles were neuer esteemed to oblige theyr successours.

Thirdly: when the matter commanded is common to the Apostles and all other Priests and not limited by any circumstance men∣tioned or insinuated in Scripture, to the A∣postles only (if the generall and continnuall practise of Christendome be not contrarie) it is to be vnderstood to oblige not only the persons of the Apostles but all Bishops and Priests in succeeding ages, such as are the preceptes of teaching the Gospell,, Baptizing absoluing from sinnes &c. and of consecrating sacrifising and receauing this blessed Sacra∣ment.

Fourthly: when the matter of the precept in it selfe may be common to all Christians as was the washing of one an others feet, the

abstinence from blond, and the receauing of both kindes, and hath noe limitation to the Apostles or Priests only prescribed in the Scripture there can be noe other rule to know which precept obliges all Christians, which not, saue the constant and generall tradition of the Christian Church. For by this only me know (as well Protestants as Catho∣likes) that the precept of washing of feet bindes not though it be vniuersally & strictly inioineyd in Scripture without any limitation of time or persons, and noe lesse though all Christians are of themselues capable to re∣ceaue both kindes, and the command be giuen to the Apostles to teceaue them, yet this com∣mand by the churches perpetuall tradition, or permitting many lay Christians to teceaue in one only kinde, & by the Protestants cousto∣me of not communicating little infants, shew cleerly that this precept is not to be ex∣tended to all Christians without exception. and if Protestants notwitstanding the word, all, limitate it only to such as are arriued to the yeares of discretion, without any ground in the bare words of the text, to exclude little children, only because their own practise approues it; why may not Roman Catholikes limit it to the Apostles then present hauing both a ground in the text, because the words were spoken to them only, and the vniuersall

tradition of the Christian Church permitting many lay persons to communicate in one only kinde, and little children eyther in one, or neyther, as I shall here after demonstrate.

Objection.

The second precept alleaged by reformists for communion vnder both kindes, is in these words: doe this in remembrance of me, which being to be vnderstood of something com∣manded to be done not then, but for insuing times, as I haue already shewed, are not to be limited as spoken to the Apostles only, then present, and so seeme to be extended to all Christians. especially if they be limited to Priests only, there will be noe command at-all in the institution obliging all Christians to receaue either both, or either kind of this Sa∣crament.

Answer.

These words: doe this in remembrance of me. according to all that which is commanded in them, cannot be extended to any more then, Priests, for here is euidently commanded the blessing, consecrating, offering, sacrificing and administring of this Sacrament, for it is to doe what our Sauiour then did, which according to Catholiques comprehends all these parti∣culars, and according to Protestants some of

them, and if the consecrating and administra∣tion of this Sacrament were not commanded in these words there would be noe com∣mand at all for them in the whol institu∣tion, nor very probabily in the whol new Testament.

Secondly if we stick closely to the bare words, noe man can conuince from them only that all Christians are obliged to receaue this Sacrament vnder both, or either kinde, for the cleargy men might haue been obliged to consecrate and administer this Sacrament, though the layity were not obliged to receaue it, as they are bound to administer Priesthood and mariage when they are iustly required: though noe man haue any absolute command either to be a Priest, or to mary, and conse∣quently are not bound to receaue those two Sacraments.

Thirdly all that those words import as they stand, may be satisfied probably if we say that not euery Priest or lay man in parti∣cular is obliged to consecrate or communi∣cate by force of them, but that they conteyne a precept giuen to the church in generall that what our Sauiour here commands, be done as certainly there is a command giuen to the church to conferre Priesthood, absolu∣tion and extreme Vnction &c. and yet noe Bishop or Priest hath in particular any such

absolute obligation by reason of his Priest∣hood only neither is any in particular bound to administer them by a positiue diuine pre∣cept, giuen directly to them, though acci∣dentally they may haue a strickt obligation according to different circumstances to ad∣minister the said Sacrament.

Fourtly: though it should be granted that these words: doe this &c. containe a precept obliging all Christians arriued to yeares of discretion to communicate sometimes, yet this toucheth only the receauing vnder the forme of bread, if we stand to the expresse words of the institution being said after the consecra∣tion of the host and before the chalice. And the precept recorded by S. Paul after the chalice is not absolute to consecrate and re∣ceaue that, but so often as it is drunke, to doe it in remembrance of our Sauiour: doe this as often as you shall drinke in remembrance of me, said our Sauiour.

Lastly: though from the sole force of these words: doe this in remembrance of me, considered as they stand in Scripture, noe forcible argu∣ment can be drawn to proue a positiue pre∣cept in particular binding euery Christian, to receaue sometimes this Sacramēt vnder either or both kindes, and though the generall doc∣trine of the church be that there is noe diuine precept obliging more to receaue the host

then the chalice, and the coustome of the pri∣mitiue church was to giue to some the chalicc noe lesse without the host, then to others the host without the chalice. and that some late Learned Writers affirme that there is noe such precept conteyned in holy Scripture; yet because S. Thomas and the common streame of doctours after him grant a generall precept of receauing this Sacrament to be conteyned in them, and that S. Paul seemes to giue sufficient ground to thinke that this command: doe this &c. was to be extended to the actuall receauing of this Sacrament by the laity, by mentioning drinking in the conditio∣nall command of the consecrated chalice, and deducing from the institution what prepara∣tion all Christians should make to receaue worthily this Sacrament, as appeares v. 27. to the end of the chapter: and mouued by this authority I grant that all Christians are here commanded sometimes in there liues to fre∣quent this Sacrament, yet so that lay people satisfie this precept by receauing one only kind, or both, according to the order pre∣scribed by the holy Church, as shee is mouued by different times or circumstances now to ordaine the receauing of both, now of one alone, to some the sole host, and to others the chalice only; for seeing this precept was giuen before the consecration of the chalice,

though it induce noe more neccssity of re∣ceauing the host then the chalice, yet it shewes euidently that if the host alone be receaued, this precepte is satisfied and by a manifest pa∣ritie and equalitie betwixt the two kindes that if it be sufficient to satisfie this precept to receaue the sole host, it will also be sufficient to receaue the chalice without the host, the one containing nos lesse the whole essence of this Sacrament, then the other, as I haue al∣ready declared.

So that in this command: doe this in remem∣brance of me. the word, this, seemes to signifie (according to S. Thomas now cited) what∣soeuer our Sauiour then did, as necessarily appertaining to the essence & substāce of this Sacrament; and though this absolute preecpt was giuen before the chalice, yet the ground of it being the very same in the host and cha∣lice, it is equally to be applyed to the receauing either of them; yet disiunctiuely only that is, that this Sacrament is to be receaued by euery one either vnder each or both kindes, as the church shall determine,

Obiection.

The maine difficulty therefore comes at last to that text, Ioh. 6. vnlesse &c. which as it deliuers an absolute necessitie of receauing this most holy Sacrament, so seemes it in ex∣presse

termes to impose the same necessitie of receauing vnder both kindes, making men∣tion of eating the flesh, and drinking the blood of our Sauiour, as necessarie to salua∣tion. Verily, verily I say unto you, vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sone of man, and drinke his blood, you shall not haue life in you.

Answer.

I am not ignorant that Catholique doctours giue different answers to this text which I leaue to be perused in theyr particular treatises of this point. I answer breefly and clearely that in this text is comprehended a necessity both of eating and drinking that is, there is a generall command giuen to the whol genc∣rality of Christians to receaue the body of Christ by way of eating, and his blood by way of drinking, and consequently of re∣ceauing vnder both kindes, which must al∣wayes be performed by the generall body of Christians, that they may haue life in them, and that this may be performed there is a par∣ticular necessitie put vppon euery particular Christian to concurre to the execution of this generall command, not that euery one in par∣ticular is obliged both to eate and drinke really this Sacrament, but that some eating, others drinking, others doing both, each particular conferres to the performance of

this command of eating, and drinking the body and blood of Christ: wherevnto the generallity is absolutly obliged: so that this whol command is to be performed by all as ioyntly and vnitedly considered and that it may be thus ioyntly done by all, each parti∣cular is obliged to some part of it, thereby concurring partially to the whol performan∣ce.* 1.4 Thus when our Sauiour commanded his Apostles to teach and baptize all nations, he gaue a generall and vniuersall command to them and theyr successours to performe this worke ioyntly amongst them, not com∣manding each one in particular to preach and baptize the whol world, for that neither was nor could, morally speaking, haue been done, but that this might be done by all, each one in particular was obliged to performe his part, and to cōcurre to the conuersion and in∣struction of all nations, so that though noe one was bound by vertu of this command either to conuert all nations, or any one in particular: each one was obliged to labour towards the conuersion of some part or other of the world, so that by the labours of each, at last the whol worke might be accomplished. Thus our Sauiour sent his disciples saying: goe and cure all diseases &c. that is each one curing some,* 1.5 all might be cured amongst them. thus after his resurrection he foretold

what cures and miracles should be done by his disciples, not that each should doe all these miracles, but that amongst them such mira∣cles should be done: and thus the holy Euan∣gelist affirmes that the Apostles of Christ preached euery where, not that each preached euery where, but that all of them togeather were spread ouer the whol world. and in the same manner may it now be said that Chri∣stians eate the flesh and drinke the blood of Christ, not that each doth both, but that it is done amongst them, by reason that each in particular is obliged either to both, or either of them: and so the whol precept will be per∣formed amongst them. Neither seemes the context of S. Iohn to exact more then this; for in what goes immediately before, the doubt which the Iewes had there, to which our Sauiour answers in this text; was not whether it was necessary to sal∣uation for euery one both to eate the flesh, and drinke the blood of Christ, for he had as then made noe mention at all of drinking his blood, but they only doubted how his flesh could be really eaten. how can this man, say they, giue vs his stesh to eate?* 1.6 so that our Sauiours answer to this doubt of theirs, was fully sufficient by telling them that it was not only possible, but necessary to salua∣••ion to eate the flesh and drinke the blood of

the sone of man, that is, that those two actions should be really and truly done amongst such as were to haue eternall life. but seeing their doubt was not (supposing the reality of this eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ, amongst such as were to haue eternall life.) whether it were necessary that euery one in particular were both to eate and drinke (for they neuer so much as dreamed of this question) it is noe way necessary to affir∣me (by vertu of this context) that our Sauiour defined there that it was necessary for euery one in particular to performe both: but it was sufficient that both these actions were truly and really so to be accomplished in his church, that the generalitie was to doe both, and each Christian in particular to concurre either by performing one, or both to the accomplish∣ment of this iniunction. for if each in particu∣lar had not been obliged to concurre to the performance of this command, the whol•• church would not haue been bound to cor∣respond with it, seeing their is noe more rea∣son to binde one then another to the perfor∣mance of it, as in the command of teaching and baptizing the whol world by the Apo∣stles, each particular was bound to performe his part, seeing that our Saoiour had com∣manded it should he done amonst them: and there was noe reason that one should be

more obliged to doe it, then an other.

And though there be many other com∣mands giuen by our Sauiour to the church in generall which oblige not each particular Christian to the performance of any part of them, but only the gouuernours of the church to see that by some or other they be put in execution, yet this precept is of an other na∣ture binding the whol community of Chri∣stians to the whol and each particular to some part of this command. For seeing there is noe more reason why one Christian should be more exempted from it then an other, the concurring to it falls equally vppon all; for though Priests when they consecrate and sa∣crifice haue each in particular an obligation to communicate, yet according to a probable opinion, they haue noe obligation in particu∣lar proceeding from any diuine precept to consectate, or sacrifize, but all their absolute obligation to communicate is taken from this and other like commands, which we haue treated; so that though noe particular Priest were bound by diuine precept to say masse, yet they are bound to communicate by reason of these precepts, which could not be vnlesse euery Christian were obliged in perticular to concurre to the performance of this generall command with an equall obligation.

Objection.

If it should be said that the church may sufficiently complie with the generall com∣mand by prouiding that it be still kept in exe∣cution by some particular persons as she com∣plies with many others.

Answer.

In answer first that if should one stād meere∣ly to the bare letter of Scripture in these pre∣cepts, this might be said, but if we take the sence of it according to the common straine of doctours, euery particular will be obliged by them. especially seeing that S. Paul extends this matter of communion to each particular.

Secondly as it was not in the power of the Apostels to exempt any of the twelf from concurring to the conuersion of all nation commanded by our Sauiour and to haue i•• accomplished by the rest which they should haue appointed, because each of them in par∣ticular was bound to labour in it by diuine precept, where in the church cannot dispence so (seeing we haue the same authority of doc∣tours and tradition for the obliging each par∣ticular by this command: vnlesse you eate, a•• each Apostle by that: goe and teach all nations, &c.) it may be denied that the church hath power to exempt any one from this precept,

by hauing it performed by other Christians appointed by her authority.

Thirdly had this Sacrament been left free, as Priesthood and mariage were, without any diuine precept that euery Christian csome∣times in their liues receiue it, the church neither would nor could haue obliged each Christian in particular to receaue it once a yeare, as shee obliges none to receaue Priest∣hood or mariage because they were left free by our Sauiour.

Objection.

If it should be here objected that in the command of teaching &c. each Apostle in particular could not conuert all, and if each had been bound to teach and baptize all, the command could not haue any conuenient sense, but each Christian is able easily both to eate and drinke this Sacrament and so there is no parity in the command of teching with that of communicating.

Answer.

I answer first that this command is not in∣stanced as like in all things, but to this end that seeing this precept of teaching &c. must he vnderstood of all in general and each in particular, and that there be such commands in Scripture that though this of eating and

drinking this Sacrament might haue been so vnderstood that each Ccristian is bound both to eate and drinke, as being a rhing very fea∣sable, yet this Sacramentall precept may be vnderstood as the other must be, and if it be possible to vnderstand it so, our aduersaries will neuer be able to conuince thence the necessity for euery particular to receaue both kindes, and yet there will be a necessity by vertu of these words to receaue one.

I Answer secondly that there is as great a necessity to vnderstand this precept in the fo∣resaid manner drawn from the truth of Scrip∣••ure, as there is for vnderstanding the com∣mand of teaching drawn for the force of na∣ture. That which followes the text in the ensuing verses makes this matter quite out of question, for though our Sauiour here de∣clared the necessity in the plurall number: Nisi manducauerith &c. vnlesse you eate &c. of eating his stesh and drinking his blood as belonging to the generallity of Christians, & the words, in vobis,* 1.7 in Greeke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, you shall not haue life in you, signifie, according to the Greeke phrase, very familiarly in Scripture, amongst you, which is referred to the whol congregation of Christians, and not to each patricular. Yet when he expressed himselfe in the singular number: Qui manducat hunc panem, qui manducat m•• &c. he who eateth this bread, he who

eateth me &c. and addessed his speach to par∣ticular persons, he attributes eternall life to the sole eating of him, and that heauenly bread as appeares in the said text: he who eateth me shall liue by me; he who eateth this bread shall liue for euer &c. and hence it is clearly de∣duced not only that these words: vnlesse ye ••ate &c. doe not euidently include ea ne∣cessity for euery particular▪ person to re∣receaue both kindes, but that they cannot possibibily include any such necessity, wit∣hout a contradiction betwixt this text and the text following now cited; for if he who eates the flesh of our Sauiour hath eternall life, as those textes affirme, then it can not be true that vnlesse each particular both eate and drinke he shall not haue life eternall, and hence also appeares a necessity of vnder∣standing these words, that though all in gene∣rall be bound to receaue both amongst them, yet none in particular is bound to receaue both: but each is partially to concurre to ac∣complish this command as each Apostle was that of teaching and baptizing all nations.

Obiection.

Some happily may answer with Caluin that though eating be only named in the text now cited, yet drinking also is there in∣cluded, and to be vnderstood as being con∣nected

with it in the former text: vnlesse you eate &c.

Answer.

That more is vnderstood then is expressed in any place of Scripture, is not vppon light coniectures to be supposed, but to be prouued by solide and conuincing arguments, other∣wise each light headed nouelist might at his pleasure frame to himselfe certain apparent congruities to extend the words of Scriptu∣re, and to make them import more then they signifie in themselues, and so multiplie Syn∣ecdoches wheresoeuer it comes to his purpo∣se. Seeing therefore I haue shewed that there is noe necessity to strech these textes beyond the common and vsuall stgnification of the words, by giuing at least a probable satis∣faction to whatsoeuer they alleadge to proue the contrary, let our aduerfaries make good that there it a necessity of the drawing these words beyond their naturall signification, or that more words are supposed then are ex∣pressed in the text, and we will yeeld to this explication.

But this discours of our Sauiour: is so farre from giuing the least ground to any such like, improprieties (the common refuge of our Ad∣uersaries when they eannot auoyd the sorce of the expresse words, and proper sense of

Scripture) that it rather confirmes the proper and natiue signification of these words: he who eateth this bread shall liue for euer: when he saith: as I liue by my father, so he who eateth me shall liue by me. whence is (at the least more probabily then Protestants can proue the contrary) in∣ferred that as our Sauiour liues totally and compleately by his father without the addi∣tion of any thing else, so Christians liue by worthily eating this heauenly bread without the addition of drinking, or any other action necessary to giue life as a part of this Sacra∣ment.

But that I may make the exposition which I haue giuen of these words, yet more plaine and forcible, I will propose an instance of a command of this kind giuen to the Israelites euen in matter of a Sacrament,* 1.8 where they are in generall commanded by families to ce∣lebrate the passeouer by taking killing and shedding the blood and sprinkling it vppon the posts of their dores, rosting and eating the paschall lambe &c. not that euery one in par∣ticular was obliged to performe all these actions, but some to one, and others to others with decency and proportion, though abso∣lutly speaking, euery one in particular must haue concurred with the rest to the perfor∣mance of them all, and yet the whol familly by concurring partially were obliged to the

performance of all. and happily this mystery beeing a figure of the Eucharist, the only command of eating without any mention of drinking may giue some aduantage to the coustome of eating alone amongst Roman Catholiques, but this only by the way as a congruence. And yet to come nerer to our present Question, when our Sauiour in the command giuen in the institution: doe this &c. commanded that what he had done, as sub∣stantially belonging to this Sacrament, should be done in his church, that is, that this mystery should be celebrated, the host and chalice con∣secrated, the body and blood of our Sauiour vndloodily be sacrifized and receaued, yet noe Christian dare affirme that all these actions here commanded were to be performed by euery Christian in particular, for then all Christian men, weomen and children were to performe the office of Priests, but that euery one was to concurre to the perfor∣mance of this precept by doing what belongs to his degree and calling: and seeing all these actions now mentioned were not to be per∣formed by each Christian, how can it be euer prouued that each was both to eate & drinke, seeing that by performance of either of these actions separately, each might partially con∣curre to the accomplishment of that precept, as they may also to this: nisi manducaueritis:

vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sone of man and drinke his blood, you shall not haue life in you: that is vnlesse you concurre each in particular to the performāce of this command either by eating alone or drinking alone, or performing both togeather, each respectiuely to his calling, office and order prescribed by the church, you shall not haue life amongst you, that is these actions are necessary that life may be found in the Church of Christ, or amongst Christians. for this is à command which must be fulfilled amongst them, and all are bound in particular to concurre, one way or other, to the fulfilling of it, seeing there is noe reason that one should be more obliged then an other, and so if any one were not obliged, none in particular would be bound to fulfill it, and then euery one in particular might lawfully abstaine and consequently there would be noe performance of this command amongst Christians, which would make the command to be void and of noe effect, quite contrary to the expresse words and intention of our Sauiour.

From this whol discours may appeare what an vnworthy and base esteeme our ad∣uersaries frame of the most sacred body and blood of our Sauiour, not thinking that either of them (as they are in this Sacrament) is fit and capable to conferre sauing grace to such

as deuoutly receaue them, which cannot bu•• derogate insufferably from that infinite worth and dignity which all Christians haue euer conceaued in them. for as it is a most certaine and receaued tenet that not only the shedding of the least drop of his most precious blood, but the least action or motion of his most sa∣cred body was abundantly sufficient for the redemption of the whol world, and a million of worlds more: why should they now call in Question the sufficiency of the same body and blood receaued apart each of them to communicate ineffab••le fauours and graces (all grounded in his sacred passion) to the worthy receauers of them.

Obiection.

If they answer that they doubt not of the worth and power of each of these, but of the will of our Sauiour whether he ordained that they separately or only ioyntly should conferre grace, or commanded that allwayes both should be receaued?

Answer.

I answer that seeing noe lesse the body then the blood of our Sauiour as separately taken in the Eucharist is abondantly in it selfe fit and able to sanctifie the soule of him who dewly receaues it, and that there is noe cleere

text in Scripture which conuinces that one of them alone can not sanctifie, or rather that there be most cleere texts which proue that one alone can doe it: and that there is noe expresse command giuen in Scripture to all patticular Christians to receaue both and the coustome both of the primitiue, ancient, late, and moderne church is euidently to the con∣trary, I cannot see what can haue mouued ou•• aduersaries to thinke that one kinde suffices not, saue a low and meane esteeme they haue of the vertu and force of our Sauiours body and blood considercd separately in themsel∣ues in this Sacrament.

The second defect of respect and reue∣rence which our aduersaries shew to the sa∣cred blood of Christ in this particular is the little care they haue how much of that di∣uine chalice and how often it be spilt vppon the ground, sprinkled vppon the cloarhes of communicants, cast out of the sacred vessels, abused, lost, trod vnder foot by a thousand in∣discretions, irreuerences, negligēces, mischan∣ces by reason of the great multitudes of people of all most all ages, sexes, conditions, who not only once or twice a yeare, as amongst the new reformers, but each month, forttnight and weeke communicate through out the whol Roman Church, as dayly ex∣periences teach, and especially in the former

age in Bohemia where leaue hauing been granted for the Catholiques to receaue both kindes for theyr comfort, they found not withstanding all the diligences which mo∣rally could be vsed, so many and great incon∣ueniences in this kind both to the communi∣canrs and Priests that they quicly grew weary of it, and were compelled to leaue it of. But our aduersaries eyther not beleeuing it is his precious blood, or little regarding what be∣comes of it, if they beleeue it, will and must haue the vse of the chalice, though it be affected with a thosand irreuerences, to sa∣tisfie theyr willfull, and vngrounded impor∣tunity. But Roman Catholiques beare both a tender loue to this most pretious blood of our Sauiour, and so indeauour all they can to preserue it from all irreuerences and preuent all occasions as much as is possible of indan∣gering the least drop of the consecrared cha∣lice to be spilt or lost; and frame a most high esteeme of his sacred body as conteyned vnder the formes of bread to be alone suffi∣cient to feed them to eternall life. Imitating in both these the care and esteeme of the pri∣mitiue church, which both imposed very heauy and seuere penances vppon all such as permitted any the least quantity of the sacred chalice to be spilt, and was accoustomed to giue this Sacrament sometimes in forme of

bread only both to hermites in the wildernes,* 1.9 pilgrimes in theyr iournies, sicke persons in theyr beds, laymen in theyr houses and chil∣dren in the church: and in forme of wine only to little infants in their cradles, which cleerely conuinces that the primitiue church had noe beleefe or knowledgement of any absolute necessity or diuine precept to receaue alwayes both; which not withstanding as it read as di∣ligently, so vnderstood it more clearly and obserued more punctually the laws and com∣māds of Christ, then our aduersaries now doe.

Some there are who being conuinced of the reall presence, and that there is neither necessity nor command in Scripture of re∣ceauing allwayes both, notwithstanding for the precedent places objected, say that euery particular Christian is obliged sometimes in his life to communicate vnder both at the same time, and thus they esteeme them∣selues both to agree with those places of Scripture now cited which affirme that by eating alone eternall life is acquired, and auoid those inconueniences which happen to the blood of our Sauiour amongst such multitu∣des of Christians so frequently communicat∣ing by granting that this Sacrament ordina∣rily may be receaued vnder the formes of bread only: and agree with the practise of the primitiue Christians who though they

often receiued vnder one priuately, or when the other could not conueniently be had: yet at other times they receiued publickly vnder both▪ and on the other side conforme them∣selues both to the institution of our Sauiour and those other precepts of receiuing both by doing it sometimes in their liues when the precept obliges. This opinion though it seeme fairely to compose all difficulties, yet the newnesse and vnhardnesse of it, where there nothig else, render it suspect of superficiality and falshood, for how is it possible that each Christian should haue so weighty an obliga∣tion, and neither any doctour in the moderne Roman Church, so much as dreame of it, nor any amongst her present aduersaries once presse it against vs, or thinke of it themselues. or if we looke to the late fiue hundred yeares before vs where in it hath been the coustome in many particular churches to communicate publickly vnder the formes of bread only without the least reflection or practise of any such precept,* 1.10 as S. Thomas wittnesses, those churches always communicating the laity vnder one kinde only, or if we ascend to the primitiue times, there is noe step nor impres∣sion to be found of any such precept, for then they not sometimes only or euer by way of diuine precept, for so much as can be gathered from the authours of those times, but fre∣quently

in publick celebrations of those my∣steries communicated vnder both. and those childeren which communicated vnder one only kinde, we neuer read to haue communi∣cated vnder both, though they died in their childhood, which not withstanding they should haue done, had the Christians of the primitiue times beleeued any such need, as is here conceiued of sometimes communicating vnder both. how, I say, is it possible that this opinion should be true & solide seeing neither moderne nor ancient, nor primitiue times, nor friends nor aduersaries of the Roman Church so much as once mention it? but beside the newnesse it hath other reasons enough to con∣uince it of falshood, for first when the primi∣tiue Christians communicated little infants presently after baptisme vnder the formes of wine, only they neuer are read to haue gi∣uen it vnder both if they came to be in dāger of death when, they had acquired strength enough to receaue both; which notwithstand∣ing they had been obliged to doe had there been any diuine precept obliging all Chri∣stians to receaue both sometimes or at least once in their liues.

Secondly the same difficulty may be pressed against this new hatched opinion, of children arriued to the age of six or seauen yeares who being accoustumed in the primitiue Church

to consumate the particles or reliques of the sacred hosts, raceaued vnder the formes of bread only, for there is not a step imprinted in antiquity of conferring both kindes to them when they came to dy about that age. The like is of hermites who liued per∣petually in the deserts and had the coustome of taking with them the most blessed Sacra∣ment vnder the formes of bread only.

But that which discouuers most cleerely the non existency of this new fangled opinion, is that it hath noe ground in holy Scripture. for when our Sauiour saith Ioh. 6. he who eateth this bread shall liue for euer, whosoeuer holds this opinion must say that he who receaues de∣uoutly vnder the forme of bread only, re∣ceaues grace and spirituall life in his soul; suppose therefore that still perseuering in that grace receaued he come to die before he te∣ceiue vnder both kindes, certainly he will be saued; which shewes euidently that the re∣ceauing of both kindes before death is not necessaty to saluation necessitate medij (as the schoole speakes) that is, so necessary that sal∣uation can noe more be acquired without it, then it can be without faith, or the grace of God. neither can communion vnder both kindes be said to be necessary to saluation necessitate praecepti, or by diuine precept: for these words of S. Ioh. c. 6. nisi māducaueritis car∣nem

filij hominis &c. being a mere declaration of a truth, cānot properly be said to be a precept or command and rather seemes to include ne∣cessitatem medij then precepti. and what∣soeuer command may be deduced from those words, or pressed from any other place of Scripture, I haue allready shewed to be of noe force, to put a necessitie vppon all Chri∣stians to receaue vnder both kindes, either all wayes when they frequent this Sacrament, or at any time in their liues.

What I answer to this opinion will easily preuent the forging of an other of the like nature that might happily occurre to some quaint nouelist, that though there should be noe necessity of euer receauing both kindes at the same time, yet these words of S. Iohn: Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sone of man and drinke his blood, you shall not haue life in you, im∣port a necessity of both eating and drinking at the least at seuerall times, now doing the one and then the other, which being done, each Christian may be truly said both to haue eaten the flesh and drunke the blood of the sone of man, and soe sufficiently to haue fullfilled this declaration of our Sauiour. This imagi∣nation, I say, is wholy cut of by what I haue answered to the former opinion, (to omit the nouelty of this inuention) for the community of Christians, comply sufficiently with this

command, if some receiue vnder the forme of bread, and others of wine, this being amongst themselues to haue both eaten the flesh, and drunke the blood of the sone of man, though each in particular doe not both of them, the command being giuen not in the singular but in the plurall number.

Now that I may conuince euen from the confession of our Aduersaries, that commu∣nion vnder both kindes is not necessary to saluation.

1. First whatsoeuer Luther holds in some places, (as he is most vnconstant in his asser∣tions) yet in very many others, he clearly de∣fines, that communion vnder both kindes is not necessary to saluation, nor was euer com∣manded by our Sauiour. De capt. Babyloni∣câ, c. de Eucharist. in Declar. in serm. de Eu∣charist. à se habito. de formulâ Missae. In assertionibus. Artic. 16. Epis. ad Bohemos To∣mo 2. Germanico. fol. 100. In aliâ editione To∣mo 7. fol. 360. libro de vtrâque specie Sacra∣menti: Si veneris ad locum, in quo vna tantùm species ministratur, accipe tantùm vnam, quemadmodum ibi accipiunt; si praebentur duae, duas accipe, nec quid∣quam singulare infer, nec te multitudini oppone. If thou comest to a place where one only kinde is admi∣nistred, receiue one only; if where both, receiue both, and induce noe singularity, nor appose thy selfe to the multitude. Thus Luther.

2. The same is held by Melancthon, in loc. com. edit. 2. nu. 1551. sol. 78.

3. And in the English Statutes. In the first Parlament vnder K. Edward the 6. pag. 818, In case of necessity communion vnder one kinde is permitted; neyther is any way con∣demned the vse of those Churches where communion vnder the forme of bread only is practised.

Which clearly proue that, those English Protestants held not communion vnder both kindes necessary to saluation.

And here I make an end of this whol treatis, which (had the spirit of Christian hu∣mility, and obedience perseuered in the harts of Christians) need neuer haue been be∣gunne; and was vndertaken for no other end, then to let the miflead spirits, of our age and country see, how little reason they either had in the beginning or now haue, to disobey the precepts, and contradict the decrees, of theyr noe lesse tender, then powerfull mother the vniuersall Church; that being noe other, nor better then a weake pretence of Scripture mista∣ken the common plea of all sectaries against the generall consent of Christendome. For this mistake of a few curious and disquiet No∣uelists, the mysticall body of Christ must be rent in peeces, Kingdomes and Prouinces swinne in each others blood, Churches, and

Religious howses, the monuments of Chri∣stian pyety, rased and defaced; citties sacced and pillaged, contries dispeopled and deso∣lated, castles burned, families ruined, parents bathed in their own teares, theyr children half famisht, like those of the Israelites, crying out for bread, and none found to giue it them; and that I may shut vp all, in those sad lynes of Vincentius Lirenensis Commonitorio 1. c. 6. speaking of the Arrian beresie and giuing noe lesse a true description of those, then a presage of our tymes, after he had declared how the whol Romane Empire was shaken, the west and easterne Churches eyther by fraud or force, dangerously infectcd, and all things both sacred and Prophane, distemp∣red, and distracted, he vses these words, Tunc temeratae coniuges, depullatae viduae, prophanatae vir∣gines, dilacerata monasteria, disturbati clerici, verbe∣rat•• Leuitae, acti in exilium Sacerdotes, oppleta sanctis ergastula, carceres metalla. Then maried woemen were abused, widdows dispoyled, of theyr purple mourning garments, sacred virgins pro∣phaned, monasteries torne in peeces, clergie men displaced, Leuites beaten, priests sent into banishment, dungeons, prisons, and mettle mines fild with Saincts. O vnhappy, and ac∣cursed mistake! what mischeefs hast thou all∣ready wrought, and art still a working in the bozom of Christendom! how hast thou

hoodwinkt the eyes, bewitched the eares, clowded the braines, and set on fyer the harts of mistaken Christians, who are soe deeply besotted, with thee, that like one in a frenzie, they can neyther beleeue, nor indure to heare that they are mistaken: and yet are not to be deserted as wholy desperate and incurable, there is still a sunne which can dart a beame of light into theyr souls, to discouer these cymerion clouds; a neuer erring truth to cor∣rect these mistakes, and a most prouident wisdome, to lead them to the certaine way of saluation. Deare contrymen, I haue only ex∣posed before your eyes (and more I cannot) a cleare looking glasse wherin you may be∣hold, the foulest, grossest, and most dangerous of your mistakes, and beholding, loath them, and loathing leaue them, though you leaue the whol world, and your own liues with them, for being once discouured, left they must be, or God will leaue you.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Concil. Trid. sess. ••1. c. 3.
• * 1.2

  Eccies. 24. v. 29. Marr. 5.6.
• * 1.3

  Wild. 7.11
• * 1.4

  Matth. 28. v. 19. Marc. 16. v. 13.
• * 1.5

  Iohn 10.9.
• * 1.6

  Iohn 6.
• * 1.7

  Gal. 3.1. Iames 4.1 1. Par. 5.3. 1. Cor. 1.10 Act. 25.2. Act. 17.22
• * 1.8

  Exod. 12.
• * 1.9

  Dion. A∣lex. ep. ad Sabīa. Beda Hist. lib. 4. c. 14. Prat. Spir. c. 79. Enas. li. 4. c. 35. Euag. Ma∣tisco. 2. c. ••
• * 1.10

  3. parte qu. 150. ar. 2. cor.