The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome, Chapter 12

The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome · Chapter 12

p. 148CHAP. XII. The Papists Arguments drawne from Scripture answered, and retorted.

SECT. 11. THe first argument, vrged by our aduersaries for their halfe Communion, is drawn from the types and figures of the old Testament. I will propound it in Bellarmines owne words, that they may not cauill, as they vse to doe, that wee marre their arguments in relating them. Thus qqBell. de sacr. Euch. lib. 4. c. 24.Bellarmine disputeth against vsus: Most of the figures of the Eucharist in the old Testament signifie eating vnderunder one kind; it is not therefore probable, that Christ would command the eating of both kinds. For that which is figured, ought to answer the figure. The first figure was of the Tree of life in the midst of Paradise, which Paschasius in his booke of the body of our Lord, chap. 7. teacheth to hauehave been a type of the Sacrament of the Eucharist; but it was manifest, there was no drinke ioyned to that Tree. The second figure was of the Paschall Lambe, Exodus the 12. The third figure, Manna, Exodus 26. The fourth was shew-bread, Exodus 25. The fifth, the sacrifices, in which the flesh p. 149was eaten, but the blood was not drunke.

To this Argument we say,

First, that these figures were types of Christ himselfe, and not necessarily, or properly of the Sacrament of the new Testament. For types are shadowes representing the substance, and the body, not properly other types. Christ interpreteth Manna to be himselfe, Ioh. 6. I am the true bread that came downe from heauen. S. Paul calleth Christ our Paschall Lambe, and saith, The Rocke that followed them was Christ. And S. Iohn, Apoc. 2. by eating of the Tree of life in the Paradise of God, vnderstandeth not the sacramentall eating; which cannot be in heauen, where there are no sacred elements, but the spirituall feeding on the flesh of the Sonne of God.

Secondly, if we admit, that the types and figures of the old Law were representations of the Sacrament of the new; we answer then, that the types and figures of the old Testament must be equally compared with the Sacrament of the new; part of them must be referred to the part of these. For example, the Shew-bread, and Manna, and the flesh of the Lambe, and the Tree of life, prefigured one part, or kind in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, to wit, the Bread: and the Riuers of Paradise, and the Waters that Flowed from the Rocke, and the Drinke-offerings, and the striking the blood of the Lambe vponupon the doore-postes, represented the mysticall effusion, and drinking of Christs blood in the Sacrament. There was p. 150no drinking of the Tree of life; but there was drinking of the Riuers of Paradise: there was no drinking of Manna, or of the Shew-bread; but there was drinking of the Waters that issued out of the Rocke at Horeb. And S. Paul testifieth of the Hebrewes, 1. Cor. 10. vers. 2, 3. that they were all baptized in the Cloud, and in the Sea; and as they did all eate the same spirituall meat, so they did all drinke the same spirituall drinke. For they dranke all of that spirituall Rocke, and that Rock was Christ. If they will needs hauehave in one type a perfect image or embleme of the Communion in both kinds, Cyprian, & other ancient Fathers, will direct them to Melchisedec; who brought forth bread & wine not bread only, but bread & wine.

Thirdly, this argument may be strongly retorted vponupon our aduersaries after this manner:

The Truth ought to answer the types: but the types of the old Law prefigured the faithfulls communicating in both kinds, as is gathered by the ancient Fathers, S. Chrysost. S. Ambrose, S. Austine, and S. Gregory.

tt23. Hom. in 1. ad Corinth.Chrysost. As thou eatest the body of our Lord, so they did eate Manna: and as thou drinkest the blood of our Lord; so they dranke the water of the Rocke: To them he gaue Manna and Water; to thee he giueth his Body and Blood.

uuDeijs, qui mysterijs initian…ur. cap. 9.S. Ambrose, in the water that issued from the Rocke, drunke by the people in the wildernesse, noteth the resemblance of Christians, who in the wildernesse of this world drinke of the blood, that sprang from the true Rocke p. 151Christ Iesus. **Illis aqua de petra, tibi sanguis e Christo, illos ad horam satiauit aqua, te sanguis deluit in …ernum.To them, saith he, water flowed from the Rocke▪ to thee, blood from Christ: the water satisfyed them for an houre; the blood refresheth, or washeth thee for euer.

xxTract. 26. in Ioh. Omnes eundem potum spiritualem biberunt, aliud illi, aliud nos. sed specie visibili; quod tamen idem est virtute spirituali.S. Austine compareth the drinking of all the Fathers in the old Testament, with ours in the new, in these words, All drunke the same spirituall drinke; Wee drinke one thing, and they drinke another but in visible appearance; which yet is the selfe-same thing in spirituall vertue. So the Paschall Lambe was eaten, but the blood was stricken vponupon both posts, which mystery yy22. Homil. in Euang. Quid sit sanguis Christi, non audiendo, sed bibendo didicistis. Et super vtrumque postem ponitur, cum non solùm ore corporis, sed & ore cordis hauritu….Saint Gregory thus vnfolds; What is meant by the blood of the Lambe, you hauehave learned not by hearing, but by drinking it: Which blood is put vponupon both postes, when it is drunke not onelyonly with the mouth of the body, but also with the mouth of the heart.

SECT. 2. The second reason, saith zzBell. de sacr. Euch. lib. 4. c. 24.Bellarmine, is drawne from the doctrine and example of Christ. For our Lord in the sixth of Iohn, speaking of the fruit of the Eucharist, or Lords Supper, not once, but foure times teacheth one kind to be sufficient to saluation: he that ea…eth me, shall liue by me; he that eateth this bread, shall liue for euer: if any man eate of this bread, hee shall liue for euer: This is the Bread, that came downe from Heauen, that if any man eate of it, he may not die. It cannot therefore be, that the same Lord should command both kinds to bee taken. Againe, our Lord proues the same by his example; first, Ioh. the sixth, where hee multiplied the l…aues, and thereby satisfied the people, there remaining twelue baskets full: but neither multiplied hee, nor p. 152gaue them any drinke. Moreouer, in the 24 of Luke, in the supper with the Disciples at Emaus, hee tooke bread, and blest it, and brake it, and gaue it vntounto them: but we reade of no Cup that there he tooke, or blest, nor indeed could: For the story of the Gospell so ioyneth the distribution of the bread with our Lords departure, that it leaueth no place for the blessing, or distributing the Cup. For so S. Luke speaketh: It came to passe, as he sate with them, hee tooke bread, and brake it, and gaue it to them, and their eies were opened, and they knew him, and he suddenly vanished out of their sight.

Answer.

Cardinall Bellarmine **Quintil. institut. orator. lib. 5. cap. 20. Infirmiora argumenta congreganda sunt. Imbecilla enim natur … mutuo auxilio sustinentur.in propounding this second reason, as he calleth it, makes vse of the Orators precept, to heape weake arguments one vponupon another, that, though each by themselues be of their owne nature feeble, yet they may receiue some support by the helpe of one another. For here in like maner he layeth together diuers places of Scripture to strengthen his cause; which being seuerally examined, will prooue of no moment, being misapplied in his owne defence.

To the first place therefore alleaged out of the sixth Chapter of S. Iohn, we say;

First, that in the iudgement of Tapperus, Iansenius, bbCaiet. in 3. partem Thom. quaest. 80. not onelyonly affirmeth, that Christ, Ioh. 6. speaketh not of the sacramentall, but of the spirituall eating of Christ: but also confirmeth it by a strong reason: Verba Christi, Ioh. 6. ad literam in…lliguntur de mamducatione spirituali Christi, abstrahendo eam à manducatione sacramentali, & probatur, quia sola manducatio spiritual… est illa, sine qua non potest vita esse in nobis, &c. Thom. … ens… to. 2. c. 91. probat ex Augustino, Cypriano, Bernardo, bibere. Iohan. 6. Sanguinem Christi, spiritua…iter …. Et con…ludit his verbis; Planè ergo non conciudunt, bibere speci…m … inuis…ilis, sorbendo illud ore corp…is, ex illo verbo saluatoris; Si non bibe…is sang… …ly hominis, non habebitis vitā in vobis: sed intelligitur, si non secundùm fi…, & deuotionē passionis biberitis sanguinem filij hominis ore cordis, nō habebitis vitā in vobis.John 6Caietanus, Cusanus, and diuers others p. 153quoted by Bellarmine himselfe in his first book of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and fifth Chapter. Christ in the sixth of Iohn, speaketh not at all of the Sacrament, which was not yet instituted, but a yeere after at his last Supper with his Disciples.

Secondly, for the words insisted vponupon by Bellarm. in particular, Christ himselfe foure seuerall times tells vsus, that he meaneth by bread, himselfe, who came downe from heauen. verse 48. I am that bread of life. 50. this is that bread which commeth downe frō heauen. vers. 51. I am the liuing bread, which came downe from heauen: if any man eate of this bread, he shall liue for euer. vers. 58. This is the bread which came downe from heauen, not as your fathers, which did eat Manna, and are dead. If then there be any force in the number of foure, we answer; that our Lord, who foure times in this cap. attributeth life to the eating of bread, foure times expoundeth himself, that by bread he meaneth celestiall bread, not sacramentall; for the sacramentall bread commeth not from heauen, but is made of the graine of the earth, and many that eate of it, liue not for euer. Iudas and many other reprobates hauehave eaten, yea Mise, Rats, and other vermin may, and sometimes hauehave eaten the sacramentall bread, who yet neuer hauehave, nor shall taste the power of the heauenly gift, much lesse inioy eternall life. These texts therefore are mis-applied by Bellarmine to the Sacrament; and being mis-applied, proue nothing p. 154for his halfe Communion.

Thirdly, we say, that Christ hauing spoken of Manna, the Israelites bread in the wildernesse, calleth himselfe bread, keeping the subiect and occasion, which he had begun to speak of: As Ioh. 4. 14. speaking with the woman of Samaria about drawing water, he promiseth her to giuegive her water to drinke, of which whosoeuer drinketh, shall thirst no more. There Christ speaketh of drinking, and mentioneth no eating; but in the places of Saint Iohn, alleaged by Bellarmine of eating, and not drinking, because the Metaphore of drinking better fitted the subiect of his speech, which was water there; but eating better relished in the sixth of Iohn, where the occasion of his speech was bread; yet as from these words of Ioh. 4. 14. no man may inferre, that drinking alone is sufficient to saluation without eating; so neither may Bellarmine conclude from the sixth of Iohn, in the places aboue quoted, that eating is sufficient without drinking; as eternall life is ascribed here to eating, so to drinking, Ioh. 4. 14. as also vntounto beleeuing, Ioh. 6. 47. He that beleeueth in me, hath euerlasting life. Beleeuing, eating, and drinking, are all meanes of eternall life, but not exclusiuely: euen by the same reason, whereby Bellarmine would prooue eating alone to be sufficient to eternall life; Because eternall life is promised to eating, hee may prooue beleeuing alone to be sufficient to saluation, without partaking the Sacrament at all p. 155by eating or drinking; because eternall life is promised vntounto beleeuing. Eternall life is promised to beleeuing, as blessednes is in the fifth of Matthew to pouertie, and to meekenesse, and to puritie in heart, and to godly sorrow, and to hungring and thirsting for righteousnesse, and to peace making, and to patience: Not that each of these vertues are sufficient of themselues alone to saluation, or to make a man happy, but that they are speciall meanes to make men happy, and altogether with faith make a man most blessed.

Fourthly, this argument of Bellarmine may bee retorted against him thus: Our Sauiour here speakes of such eating, whereby eternall life may be attained: But eternall life cannot be attained by eating exclusiuely, that is, eating without drinking, as Christ in this very Chapter three seuerall times teacheth vsus, vers. 53. Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his blood, yee hauehave no life in you. And vers. 54. and 56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternall life, and dwelleth in me, and I in him. Therefore Christ in the places alleaged by Bellarmine speaketh not of eating exclusiuely; but of such eating as is necessarily accompanied with drinking. And consequently, if these Texts are meant of the Sacrament, they proue, that we ought to communicate in both kinds.

To the second place alleaged by Bellarmine out of Ioh. 6. 11. we say:

p. 156First, that there are three sorts of signes; signes of Gods wrath, and such are prodigious euents: signes of his power, and such are Miracles: lastly, signes of his grace, and such are Sacraments? The multiplying of the loaues in the place alleaged, is to bee ranked amongst the second sort of signes, and not the last. It was a miraculous signe, not a mysticall signe.

Secondly, if it be granted, that this action of Christs was mysticall, and prefigured some thing besides the corporall refection of the people, yet questionlesse it had no reference to the bread in the Lords Supper. For that, as Saint Paul teacheth, represents vntounto vsus, that we are all one bread, and one body; because we partake of one bread: whereof the multiplication of the loaues in S. Iohn could bee no type, but rather on the contrary. Moreouer, in that place of Saint Iohn, there is mention of fishes multiplied, which can hauehave no affinitie with the Sacrament of our Lords Supper. And this, if Bellarmine had well considered, it would hauehave made him as mute as a fish in this argument.

Thirdly, the edge of this argument may bee retorted vponupon our aduersaries thus:

The multiplying of the loaues, Ioh. 6. without multiplying the wine, doth no more prooue, that wee may communicate in bread alone, then the multiplying, or miraculous supplying of wine without the like supplying of bread, Ioh. 2. in Cana of Galily, prooueth, Vid. 170.that wee may communicate in wine onelyonly: p. 157But the multiplying or miraculous supplying of wine, by turning water into it, without any miraculous supplie of bread, prooueth not, that we may Communicate in wine, or in the blood of Christ onelyonly; (for such an halfe Communion the Church of Rome condemneth.)

Therefore the multiplying of the loaues in S. Iohn maketh nothing for the popish halfe-Communion in bread onelyonly.

SECT. 3. To the third place out of the 24. of S. Luke, the 30. and 31. verses:

We say; first, that the bread, which Christ there brake was common bread, and not the Sacrament, as may be prooued, both by the circumstances of the text, and the confession of our Aduersaries. In the Text wee finde no words of consecration of the Bread, or the Cup, no command to reiterate that action of Christ. The place was a common Inne, the Disciples came thither to receiue common foode, and to lodge there that night, they met not together for the Sacrament, nor reade we of any prayers before, or preparation meete for receiuing of so holy and heauenly a mystery; and therefore some Papists doubt of it, as Iansenius: whether the Bread here was Transubstantiated, or no. ddIans. concor. Euang. cap. 146. Q…dam existimant Dominum hîc sub specie panis suum porrexisse corpus: qu…madmodum Apostolis in vltima …oena: at …a sententia non est ce…a, nec multū ver…milis, &c.There are some, saith hee, who thinke, that our Lord▪ here gaue vntounto the Disciples vnderunder the forme of bread, his owne body, as he did to the Apostles in his last S…pper; and hence they would draw a certaine argument to show, that it p. 158is lawfull to deliuer, and receiue the Sacrament of the Eucharist in one kinde onelyonly. Howbeit, although that opinion be not certaine, nor very likely to be true, yet as all the actions of Christ contained in them something mysticall and hidden; so doubtlesse this action of Christ signified some holy thing. Iansenius somewhat lyspeth. He durst doe no other wayes, for fearing of hauing his tongue clipt. But the more antient Papists speake the truth plainely.

eeCarth. comment. in Luk. 24 Accepit panem, & benedixit, non tamen in corpus suum conuertit, sicut in caena.Luke 24Dionysius Carthusianus thus paraphraseth vponupon the place of Saint Luke: It came to passe as he sate downe, that is, rested, and eate with them, hee tooke bread and blessed it, yet he turned it not into his body, as in his last Supper, but as the manner is, he blessed the meate, thereby teaching vsus to blesse our meate and drinke, or giuegive thankes beforeour meales.

Widford in his booke against Wickliffe, comes off roundly: ffLib. 1. cont. Wickl. Non habetur in textu, vel in glossa Luc. 24. vel per antiquos patres, quòd ille panis, quem fregit post resurctionem in sero coram discipulis, suit consecratus, &c.Luke 24I say, saith he, that it appeares not in the Text, or in the Glosse, Luk. 24. or by the antient Fathers, that the bread which Christ brake after his resurrection at Euen before his Disciples, was consecrated bread, or that it was sacramentall, or turned into his body.

ggIustinian. in 1. Cor. c. 10. Non simplicem fractionem intelligit, qualis erat illa, cujus meminit Lucas, quá indigentium necessitati consulebatur, sed sacra, & Eucharistica1 Cor 10Iustinianꝰ, a later commentator of great note amongst the Papists vponupon the by (in a parenthesis before he was aware) discouereth the truth, and concurreth with Widford, and Carthusian. For expounding those words of Saint Paul, The bread which wee breake, &c. he vnderstandeth here not a simple, or ordinary breaking, such as that was, whereof Saint Luke maketh mention, whereby the necessity of the hungry was prouided for; but a p. 159holy breaking, belonging to the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Our aduersaries are very loth, that this weapon should bee so wrested out of their hands, and therefore they tugge hard for it. Hesselius Hesselius.catcheth at the benediction mentioned before the breaking of the bread, which he will hauehave to be the consecrating of it.

Maldonate layeth hold on the consequence, to wit, the opening of the Disciples eyes in the breaking of the bread, which, saith he, hhMaldo. in 24. Luc. Accedis Miraculum, quòd in fractione panis ab illis, qui tot eum ante sermonibus non cognouerant, cognitus est, quod alia ratione quàm Eucharistica virtute factum esse non potest.could not be done, but by the vertue of the Eucharist.

Iansenius and Bellarme alleage Austine, Beda, and Theophylact, who in their iudgement seeme to shrowde the Sacrament of the Eucharist vnderunder the forme of bread at Emaus. But these mistes are easily dispelled.

To Hesselius his coniecture we answer, that Christ neuer brake, or eate bread, but hee blessed it before, Matth. 14. 19. He tooke the fiue loaues and two fishes, and he looking vp to heauen, hee blessed, and brake, and gaue the loaues to his Disciples, &c. Likewise, Matth. 15. 36. hee tooke seuen loaues, and the fishes, and gaue thankes, and brake them, and gaue to his Disciples. And Ioh. 6. 11. And Iesus tooke the loaues, and when hee had giuen thankes, he distributed to his Disciples. From all which Texts, as also from this in S. Luke, nothing can be inferred for the celebration of the Sacrament, but for an holy custome of giuing thankes before meate, as before was noted out p. 160of Carthusian. To Maldonates bold assertion, that the opening of their eyes must needs bee ascribed to the vertue of the Sacrament, we answer, that if himselfe had opened his owne eyes, hee might hauehave seene the contrary both in Mary, and Iohn; Maries eyes were opened, when she said, Ioh. 20. Raboni; and Iohns, Ioh. 21. when he said to Peter, It is the Lord. Yet neither of them at that time receiued the Sacrament, or had their eyes opened to know Christ by vertue thereof; neither is it said in the text, that the breaking of the bread was a cause, or instrument, wherby they were brought to know Christ; but it is only said, foreign, that he was knowne of them in the breaking of the bread, or as he brake the bread; which might be other wayes, then by vertue of the Sacrament, either by meanes supernaturall, or naturall. iiEuthy. in hunc locum. cum vidissent asseuetam, & cog nitam panis benedictionem, tunc permissi sunt, vt eum agnoscerent. Calu. in hunc locum. peculiarem precandi ritum illi in vsu fuisse apparet, cui sciebat Discipulos familiariter assueuisse, vt hac nota admoniti, sensus suos excitarent.Euthymius and Caluin are of opinion, that the Disciples knew Christ in breaking of bread by the peculiar forme of prayer, or blessing, which he vsed at the table. Lyra by his manner of breaking bread: for he so brake it, as if it had been cut with a knife. kkKemnitius exam. Conc. Trident. part. 2. pag. 141. Qui discipulis notierant ritus Christi in benedictione & fractione panis; inde ipsum agnoscebant.Kemnitius ioynes both together. Because, saith he, Christs manner both in blessing, and breaking of bread, was knowne to the Disciples, from thence it was, that they came to know that it was Christ, as he sat at meat with them, by obseruing his peculiar manner of giuing of thankes, and breaking of bread. Whereunto p. 161we may adde out of llLucas Brugensis in hunc lo…um.Lucas Brugensis, that when the Disciples receiued bread from him, they locked more stedfastly vponupon our Sauiour, that they might more perfectly know who he was; which when our Sauiour perceiued, he tooke away the vaile, or impediment from their eyes, and shewed his natiue countenance more manifestly vntounto them, as he did to Mary Magdalene, after she called him Raboni.

To the allegations out of Saint Austine, Beda, and Theophylact, we answer, that the word Sacrament is taken by them largely for any mystery. For nothing is more frequent with the Fathers, then to call the mystery of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, of our Sauiours fasting, his washing his Disciples feet, and the like, the sacrament of the Trinity, the sacrament of the Incarnation, of fasting, washing, Passion of Christ, and the like. Their meaning is, as mmBell. de sacr. Euch. lib. 4. cap. 24. August. Beda, Tb…h. Hoc tantum docere videri possunt, nempe fuisse in illa panis benedictione mysierium quoddam, quo vtilitas Eucharistiae significaretur. August, de consensu Euangelist lib. 3. cap. 25. Nec quisquam se Christum agnouisse arbitretur, si eius corporis particeps non est, id est, Ecclesiae, cuius vnitatem in sacramento panis Apostolis commendat.Bellarmine out of Iansenius, acknowledgeth, that there lyeth hid some mysterie, whereby in the blessing and breaking of bread, the fruits of the Eucharist is signified.

Saint Austine in particular interprets this mysterie not of the Sacrament, nor of Christs naturall body, but of his body mysticall, which is the Church; and that whosoeuer is partaker, or member of the Church knoweth Christ, and whosoeuer is without the vnity thereof, knoweth him not. His words are; Let no man thinke he knoweth Christ, vnlesse he be partaker of his p. 162body, that is of the Church, the vnity of which Church the Apostle commendeth in the Sacrament of bread, saying, We being many, are one bread, and one body.

Saint ooIn Euangel. hom. …3. Mensam ponunt, panes, cibosque afferunt & Deum, quem in scripturarum expositione non cognouerunt, in panis fractione cognoscunt.Gregory and Bede conceiue, that our Sauiour manifested himselfe in the breaking of bread, to commend hospitality, whereby, as the Saints of the old Testament, that vnawares entertained Angels, so the Disciples here entertained our Lord. They layd the table, saith S. Gregory, and set forth bread and wine; and God, whom they knew not in the expounding of the Scriptures, they knew in the breaking of the bread. Which obseruation Bede and Saint Gregory seeme to hauehave borrowed from Saint ppEuangelicarum quaestionum, lib. 2. cap. 51.Austine, where the like words are found with this introduction, quia hospitalitatem sectati sunt, &c. because they were giuen to hospitality, they knew him in breaking of bread, whom they knew not in expounding the Scriptures.

Theophylact (whose note vponupon this place is, that Christ his flesh hath a great, and vnspeakeable vertue to open their eies, who receiue the blessed bread) doth not affirme, that the bread, which the disciples brake at Emaus, was the Sacrament, but that thereby the vertue of the Sacrament was shadowed. His plaine meaning is this, that as the Disciples at Emaus knew Christ corporally in breaking of bread, so wee in breaking bread in the Sacrament know him spiritually. Eusebius Emissenus hath a different conceit from all these: he will hauehave the knowledge of Christ, by breaking corporall bread at Emaus, p. 163to signifie the knowledge of Christ, which is obtained by the opening of Scriptures: **Feria 2. post Pascha. Nunquam tam benè cognoscitur Christus, sicut in fractione panis, pan siste spiritualis est, non carnalis, panis iste cibus animae est, &c. nobis panem fregit, nobi… scripturas exposuit, & sensum aperuit Christus.Christ, saith he, is neuer so well knowne, as by breaking of bread; this bread is spirituall, and not carnall; Christ hath broken bread vntounto vsus, hee hath expounded the Scriptures, and opened the meaning thereof.

Secondly, wee answer, that extraordinary actions are not to be taken for presidents: that Christ here after breaking the bread, did not likewise take the cup, was, because (as our aduersaries collect) immediately vponupon the breaking of the bread, he vanished out of sight; which case is extraordinary; like as if when a Minister had consecrated, and participated of the bread, he should presently die, or bee caught away by the Spirit (as Philip was) before he had taken the cup. Now that which falleth out by accident, and vponupon an extraordinary occasion, is not to be drawne into a common rule: especially, when it is a bare example, without any precept annexed vntounto it. Christ at his last Supper, when he had broken the bread, and taken the Cup, he added a Command; Doe this. And Saint Paul teacheth, that this Command is of force vntill his second comming. That example therefore, which hath a command added vntounto it, ought to bee followed; not that in Emaus, which was extraordinary, and without any precept at all.

Thirdly, although there be no mention made of the Disciples drinking: yet no doubt they did drinke, as well as eate before they p. 164rose. For who could imagine, that two trauellers, at that time of the yeere, in a Countrey so hot as Iudea, taking an Inne of purpose for their repast, should call for dry bread without any drinke? Gregory, and Beda, and all those, who from hence commend hospitality, must needs be vnderstood by breaking of bread, to commend courteous entertaining of strangers at their table, which is not without refreshing them with drinke, as well as bread. Saint qqAug. in exposit. Ioh. in hunc lec. Discipuli non agnouerū … eum, nisi in fractione panis; & verè qui non sibi iudicium manducat & bibit, in fractione panis Christum agnoscit.Austine, vponupon whose iudgement our aduersaries seeme most to relie, in the exposition of this Text, intimateth, that the Disciples at Emaus then did, and that the faithfull ought in the Sacrament, drinke, as well as eate; The Disciples, saith hee, knew him not, but in breaking of bread: and verily he that eateth not, and drinketh not damnation to himselfe, taketh knowledge of Christ in breaking of bread.

Fourthly, the point of this argument may bee turned vponupon our aduersaries, and it woundeth them deepely both in their doctrine of the sacrifice of the Masse, and their Priests communicating. For they teach, that a Priest may not consecrate, or communicate in one kind onelyonly, which was here done (if this place be to be vnderstood of the Sacrament, according to their Glosse.) This Text therefore, which they conceiue to make most for them, maketh most against them, and may be doubly retorted vponupon them. First, thus: Without consecration of the Cup, there can be no sacrifice, p. 165or true sacrament: At Emaus there was no consecration of the Cup; For, as our aduersaries teach, after Christ had broke the bread, before he tooke the Cup, he vanished out of their sight: Therefore at Emaus there was no sacrifice of Christ his blood offered, or Sacrament at this time administred. Here is then no ground at all for communicating in bread onelyonly. Secondly, it may be thus retorted; rrSuar. in …. partem Thom. q. 80. Distinguit Thomas de sacerdotibus, & laicis; & de prioribus dicit, nullo modo debere corpus sumere fine sanguine.All Priests by Christs commandement are to drink of the Cup in the Sacrament. For this is the Romane Glosse vponupon our Sauiours words, Drinke yee all of this; that is, all Priests: But the Disciples that traueled to Emaus, were Priests, and had commission to preach, and administer the Sacrament; Therefore if they celebrated the Sacrament at Emaus, they dranke of the Cup, or else they violated Christs commandement, and were guilty of sacrilege, by the doome of Cardinall ssIn 3. partem summae quaest. 80. Sicut sacrilegus esset sacerdos, consecrando panem & non vinum, sic sacrilegus esset, sumendo sanctum panem, & non sumendo vinum. * Sect. 4.Caietan. For his definitiue sentence is, that as a Priest is a sacrilegious in cons…crating bread, and not wine; so he is guilty of sacrilege also, if he participate of the holy Bread, and not of the Cup.

The third reason, saith Bellarmine, is drawne from the doctrine, and practice of the Apostles. For in the second of the Acts, vers. 42. the communication of the Eucharist is thus described: ttBell. lib. 4. de sacr. Euchar. cap. 24.And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer. In which place it cannot be denied, that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is p. 166meant: as well because breaking of bread is ioyned with doctrine and prayer, as also, because it were rather a discommendation, then a praise of the faithfull, to say, that they continued steadfastly in dining and supping. Lastly, Luther in his Sermon of the Lords Supper, and Caluin in his fourth book of Institutions, chap. 17. acknowledgeth, that this place is to bee vnderstood of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Harding in his thirteenth diuision addeth hereunto the testimony of the Waldenses, in the confession of their faith to Vladislaus: and hee saith there, that he might likewise alleage the place of the twentieth Chapter, and especially that of the seuen and twentieth of the Acts, where Chrysostome, and the Fathers vnderstand the bread, that Saint Paul in perill of shipwracke tooke, gaue thankes ouer, brake, and eate, to bee the holy Sacrament.

Answer.

If the Romish halfe Communion be so visible, and apparant in these places, alleaged out of the Acts, I wonder the Fathers in the Councels of Constance, Basil, and Trent saw no such thing in them. As for the ancient Doctors in the Primitiue Church, some of them expound these places of common bread, some of the Sacrament, none of the Communion in one kind. In the 20. of the Acts, it is not certaine, that Saint Luke speakes of the Sacrament; and in the 27. of the Acts, it is certaine he speakes not p. 167of the Sacrament. With such vntempered morter, that will not sticke together, our aduersaries build the ruines of their Babell. To cleare then these passages in their order:

To the first, Acts 2. 42, 46. I answer,

First, that there is no necessity at all enforcing vsus to vnderstand by breaking of bread in either verse, the celebration of the Sacrament. The words of themselues are indifferent to either of these three expositions; They continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and distributing their bread one to another, as each had need. It seemes to bee ttCaietan. Fractio panis communis distribuebatur singulis.Caietans exposition: They continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and had their common dyet with them, which is uuBeza. Latiùs patere puto hanc panis fractionem, quâ nimirum communis conuictus significetur.Beza's; or, Lastly, they continued in their doctrine, and participating the Communion with them: Which interpretation Luther, Caluin, and the Waldenses seeme to like best. The ioyning of breaking of bread with doctrine and prayer, seemeth for to make for this interpretation; but that which followeth, vers. 44. All that beleeued were together, and had all things common; and vers. 46. breaking bread from house to house, did eate their meate with gladnesse, and singlenesse of heart; swayeth the ballance on Beza his side. To which opinion Chrysostome, and Oecumenius, Theophylact, and Caietan before alleaged propend. **Chrys. in Act. serm. 6. cap. 2. foreign Et post: foreign.Saint Chrysostome saith, that their Communion was with the Apostles, p. 168not in prayers onelyonly, but also in doctrine, and ciuill c…uersation. All things were in Common: By bread he seemeth to me to signifie their fasting and austere life: they tooke their foode for the maintenance of life, not of Luxurie. xxOccum. in hunc locum. foreign.Oecumenius, and Theophylact accord in their note with Saint Chrysostome. He saith, breaking of bread, to shew the Apostles simple and sparing diet: so Oecumenius, and Theophylact; by this phrase, breaking of bread, he signifieth the faithfulls temperance annd slender diet; whereby Bellarmines cauil is easily answered, when he saith, it were a discommendation, not a prayse of the faithfull, to say they continued in eating and drinking: for it was a commendation to continue in the fellowship of the Apostles, and to eate and drinke with them after their temperate and sparing manner; especially, if we adde out of Cardinall zzCaiet. in Act. cap. 2. Perseuerabant in fractione panis, hoc est, in distributione cibi, communicatio redigebat propria in commune, fractio autem panem commnnem distribuebat singulis.Acts 2Caietan, that this their breaking of bread was a charitable releiuing of those that wanted: they continued, saith he, in breaking of bread, that is in distribution of meate: the communication brought their owne proper into common, but the breaking of bread distributed that which was common to eueryevery man in particular.

Secondly, if we should grant, that Saint Luke by breaking of bread, vnderstood the celebration of the Lords Supper, yet our aduersaries would gaine nothing by it. For it is certaine, that in the Hebrew phrase, to breake bread, signifieth to make a meale, to dine, or sup with a man: which, I trow, is not without drinke, as p. 169well as meat. Is not this, saith Esay, the fast, that I hauehave chosen? And chap. 58. vers. 6. 7. Is it not to deale thy bread to the hungery, and that thou bring the poore, that are cast out, to thy house, &c. And Ezechiel. cap. 18. 7. Who hath giuen his bread to the hungrie, and Luk. 14. 1. Hee went into the house of one of the chiefe Pharises to eat bread: and the second to the Thessal. 3. 21. Let them eate their owne bread. In all which places, and many more, bread is taken for all manner of victuals, and to breake bread, signifieth, to breake or take foode, and naturall sustenance; which is not bread onelyonly, but bread and drinke. Therefore howsoeuer the cup, or drinking be not expressed in this place of the Acts, yet it must necessarily be vnderstood by a vsuall Synechdoche in holy Scriptures. To the second place out of Acts the 20. 7. We answere as to the former Acts 2. that the disciples meeting to break bread, was either to keepe a feast of Charitie, which they called then foreign, or to receiue the Communion in both kinds. For the Disciples publikely neuer receiued it otherwayes in the primitiue church.

To the third obiection out of Acts 27. 35. Where Saint Paul is said to take bread, and after he had giuen thankes, to eate it: wee answer, that the bread which Saint Paul tooke and brake, could not bee the holy sacrament. For Sant Paul would neuer hauehave giuen that which is holy to Doggs, or cast Pearles before swine, which he should hauehave done, if in the ship before, and p. 170to Infidels he had administred the blessed sacrament. The text saith, bbVer. 33.that they had been many dayes fasting before; and S. ccChrys. foreign.Chrysostome, ddTheoph. foreign. ^d Occu. foreign.Oecumenius, and Theophylact expresly affirme, that Saint Paul both by words, and by his owne example, perswaded the Marriners, after so long fasting, to take foode, to keepe them from staruing. Moreouer, it is to be obserued, that after Saint Paul began to cat, it is said ver. 36. that they were all of good cheere, and they also tooke to themselues some meat. It is not said, that they tooke bread from Saint Pauls hand which they must hauehave done, if they had receiued the Communion from him. Neither do any receiue the sacrament in that quantitie, that they may thereby satisfie hunger, and be said to hauehave eaten enough. verse 38. These circumstances of the Text doe so euidently conuince any man of vnderstanding, that the bread, which Saint Paul brake in the ship, was common bread; in so much that Lorinus ffLorin. in act. 27. Occurr. Chrysost. Beda, alijque huius loci expositores vsit atum, ac vulgarem duntaxat panem, escamque intelligunt, nec non Hieronymus. & mihi etiam magis placet.the Iesuite, a great Patron in other places of the halfe Communion, here yeelds vntounto vsus, ingeniously confessing, that Chrysostome, Oecumenius, Beda, and other expositors vponupon this place, vnderstand vsuall and common bread or food: as also doth Saint Hierome: And I better, saith he, like of their exposition.

Lastly, this third & last argument of our aduersaries out of the scriptures, drawn from the example of Paul, the Disciples, and Apostles in the Acts, may be forcibly retorted vponupon them. For the Apostles, Disciples, and Saint Paul p. 171were Priests, and Ministers of the Sacrament: in whom, as wee learned before out of the Glosse of the Canon law, and Cardinal Caietan, it had beene sacrilege to communicate in one kind onelyonly. Bellarmine saw this retortion in Kemnitius, and seekes to auoyde it by telling vsus that in the second of the Acts, Saint Luke relateth the faithful peoples continuance in praier, and receiuing the sacrament, and not the Apostles communicating, which he yeelded was in both kinds. But this is a vaine euasion, both because the word foreign, or fellowship of the Apostles, implyeth, that the Apostles were communicants with them, as also because properly those, who administred the communion, brake the bread, and not the people; they tooke it after it was broken by the Apostles. To conclude, they are caught on both sides by this Delemma. Either breaking of bread in those places, is not celebrating the sacrament, or if it be, their is a synechdoche in the words, whereby one part is put for the whole. For how can they put by this thrust?

No priests may consecrate, or communicate in one kind onelyonly:

The eleuen Apostles Acts. 2. and the Disciples, Acts. 20. and Paul Acts. 27. were Priests:

Therefore they did not, nor might not consecrate, or Communicate in bread onelyonly.

In the places aboue alleaged therefore, vnderunder the name of bread, both kinds by a synechdoche must needs be vnderstood.