The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome, Chapter 14

The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome · Chapter 14

p. 177CHAP. XIIII. The Arguments of Papists, drawne from ancient pretended rites of the Church, answered, and retorted.

THere is no more certaine signe of a bad cause, then extorted testimonies, and wyer-drawne arguments; such as our aduersaries, for want of better, insist vpō in this question. For the truth neuer wanteth voluntarie witnesses to depose for her, nor arguments p. 178that offer themselues in her defence; as the Poets faine, that stones came of their owne accord to the building of Thebes. Such are those proofes, which the texts of scpriture without any forcing, and the free deposition of all ages before alleaged, hauehave furnished vsus withall. On the contrarie, our aduersaries straine antient rites, and customes weakely proued, and peruersely applied to excuse their sacrilege. They tell vsus of reseruing the Sacrament for a long space, of carrying it home to mens houses, giuing it to infants, and impotent persons, on their death-bed, to Priests put out of their ranck for misdemeanour; and lastly, of a Communion of such things, as were before consecrated. All which obseruations are as headlesse arrowes shot at randome. Falces petebamus, we demand sithes, and they answer vsus with mattocks. Our question is of the publike, and generall practise of the Church, their answer is of priuate customes; our question is of the lawfull vse of the Lords Supper; their answer is, of abuses and corruptions; our question is of the depriuing the Laietie of the Cup; their answer is of Priests; our question is of fit and worthie receiuers qualified to communicate in both kinds; their answer is of children, excommunicate persons, or men lying on their death-beds: This might suffice to wash away their varnish of antiquitie. Yet lest they should accuse vsus, as Fimbria did sometimes Scecuola, quòd non totum telum corporereceperimus, that wee receiued not p. 179the ful thrust into our body, I wil bring in their great Cardinal laying amaine at vsus in this wise.

SECT. I.

From the reseruation of the Sacrament, thus he disputeth against vsus: mmBellar. de sacram. Euchar. lib. 4. c. 24.That the Sacrament was accustomed antiently to be reserued, we hauehave proued by the testimonies of Fathers, & Councels. Now, that it was reserued in one kind onelyonly, and consequently, that the communicants receiued in one kind onelyonly, it is manifest, because sometimes they reserued it for a very long time; Sophronius in his spirituall meddow relates of the keeping of it for a whole yeere, but wine, especially in a small quantitie, could not be kept so long, because within that time it would be corrupted.

The answer.

First, although wee grant, that the antient Answ. I.Church, vponupon some occasions, reserued the holy elements after the Communion: yet not for any long space. They had no reason, nor neede so to do, because, as Saint nnOmni hebdomada offerendum est, si non quotidie perigrinis, incolis tamen velbis in bebdomada.Ambrose teacheth vsus, the Church consecrated eueryevery day for strangers, and twise in the weeke for the inhabitants. As for Sophronius his tale of keeping the Sacrament for a whole yeere, it is a fit flower for his spirituall meddow, which no man euer saw, or heard of, vnlesse it were in Sir Thomas Moores Vtopia. I giuegive much more credit to Alphonsus ooIob. Munster à vertleg. discurs. ea nobilis.his experiment, who locking vp a consecrated wafer in a Casket of gold, after a p. 180few months opened it, and found nothing in it but a worme.

Secondly, as wine cannot be long kept, but it will sowre, so neither can bread, but it will grow mustie; and of the two, if care be had to stop close the vessel, to keepe out aire, the wine will keepe sweet longer then the bread. If the Cardinall fly to a miracle, I answer, that by the same miracle, whereby the bread was kept a whole yeere from moulding, the wine was, or might hauehave beene kept from sowring.

Retortion.

Thirdly, this headlesse arrow may thus bee headed, and shot backe vponupon our aduersaries;

If the Sacrament were antiently reserued in both kinds, then the custome of reseruing it maketh for, and not against the Laieties Communion in both kinds:

But the Sacrament was antiently reserued in both kinds:

Therefore the custome of reseruing the Sacrament maketh for, and not against the Laieties communicating in both kinds.

That the holy mysteries were kept in the Primitiue Church in both kinds, appeareth manifestly by Saint Chrysostome in his first Epistle to Inocentius, Nicephorus Histor. Eccles. lib. 13. cap. 19, and Cardinall Baronius himselfe; whose words are very obseruable, ppAnno 404. Annal. tom. 4. Hic, lector considera, quàm procul abborreant à patrum traditione, vsu que Catholicae Ecclesiae, qui nostro tempore negant osseruandam esse sacratissimam Eucharistiam, quam videmus non sub specie panis tantùm, sed etiam sub specie vini olim consueuisse recondi.Here, O Reader, consider, p. 181saith he, how wide they are of the Traditions of the Fathers, and the vse of the Catholick Church, who deny, that the holy Eucharist in our time ought to bee kept, which we see in antient times was reserued, not onelyonly in the forme or kind of bread, but also in the other kind, to wit, in the wine. You hauehave this proued by the authority of Saint Gregory: in the 3. of his dialogues. where he saith, that the Marriners carried in the ship the body, and blood of Christ.

SECT. II.

The second headlesse arrow is, their argument deduced from the carrying the holy mysteries after consecration into priuat houses; and thus they draw this arrow at vsus:

qqBellar. de sa. Euch. lib. 4. cap. 24.The second rite, or custome of the antient Church was, to carrie the Sacramēt home, and there to take it at some seasonable time. This custome is most certainly proued out of Tertullian his second book to his wife. Clem. Alexand. stromatum. li. 1. Cyprian Serm. Stromatum 1.de Lapsis. Basil epist. to Cesarea Patricia. Hierom. Apolog. contra Iouinian. Now that the Christians were went to communicate at home in one kind onelyonly, it is manifest, both for that the onelyonly forme of bread was giuen to the hands of the faithful, the blood being drunke out of a Chalice, as Cyrill demonstrateth in his 5. Catechisme, & also, because their were no Chalices in the bouses of Lay-men, or holy vessels to receiue the blood of Christ; as it may be euidently gathered out of the second Apologie of Athanasius. ^p Hard. diuis. 19. art. 2.^r Harding imbellisheth this argument with a p. 182miraculous narration out of Saint Cyprian: that when a woman had gone about with vnworthie hands to open her Coffer, where the holy thing of our Lord was laid vp, she was made afraid with fier that rose vp from thence, so as she durst not touch it.

The answer.

First, this argument is very impertinent to the purpose, and in consequence also. For the Answ. 1.question is of the publike vse of the Sacrament in the Church: this argument proceedes vponupon priuate abuse thereof in mens houses at home. Now an argument from a meere abuse is an abusiue argument, and concludes nothing. A meere falsehood cannot proue a truth, nor a corrupt custome the lawfull vse of any thing. Saint qqAust. contra Parm. l. 3. Pensandae sunt doctrinae non in statera dolosa consuetudinum suarum, sed in statera aequa diuinarum scripturarum.Austine giues vsus a golden rule to the contrary; Doctrines are to bee weighed not in the deceitfull ballances of their owne customes, but in the euen ballances of diuine scriptures. In which, if this custome of carrying the Sacrament home to their houses be wighed, it will bee found too light. And therefore it is reiected, and condemned vnderunder a curse in a Councel holden at rrConcil. Caesar▪ Aug. …an. 3. Eucharistiae gratiam si quis probatur acceptam non consumpsisse in Ecclesia, anathema fit imperpetuum.Cesar-Augusta in Spaine. If any man receiue the Sacrament, & eat not the same presently in the Church, let him be accursed for euer. And likewise in the first Councell of Toledo, cap. 14. If any man receiuing the Sacrament of the Priest, doe not presently eate it, let him be driuen out for a sacrilegious person. As for the miracle of fier, vrged by M. Harding, p. 183it burnes his owne fingers. For God shewed himselfe by that miracle to bee offended with that, which the woman did, fraying her that kept the Sacrament in her coffer with a flame of fier.

Secondly, this corrupt custome is no shaddow 2of proofe for the Laities communicating in one kind. For as they caried the bread home to their houses, so they might also a portion of wine; yea but saith Bellar. they had no Chalices at home; what then? they might hauehave and had bottles, or glasses, in which they might, and did carrie part of the consecrated wine home to their houses.

Retortion.

Thirdly, this headlesse arrow may bee thus headed, and shotte backe vponupon our aduersaries:

If the Sacrament were antiently carried home to Lay-mens houses in both kinds, then this custome of carrying it home makes not against, but for the Laieties Communion in both kinds:

But the Sacrament was antiently carryed home to Lay-mens houses in both kinds:

Therefore that custome maketh for, and not against the Laieties Communion in both kinds:

That the Sacrament was carried home in both kinds, is proued by the vndeni able testimonies p. 184of Iustin Martyr, Gregorie, Nazianzenus, and S. Hierome.

Iustin Martyr ttIust. in apol. 2. foreign.declaring the order of the Church in his time, saith thus: of the things that be consecrated, to wit, the bread, water, and wine, they giuegive a part to eueryevery one, and they carrie the same things to those that are absent.

uuNazia. in fune. Gorgoniae. foreign, &c.Gregory Nazianzen writeth of his sister Gorgonia, that if her hand had layed vp any portion of the tokens of the pretious body and of the blood in deuotion, shee mingled it with teares, and so receiued it.

xxHier. epist. ad Rust. Nihil illo ditius, qui corpus domini in canistro, & sanguinem portabat in vitro.Saint Hierome highly commending Exuperius Bishop of Tolosa, saith of him: there was no man richer then he, that carried the Lords body in a wicker basket, and his blood in a glasse.

SECT. III.

The third headlesse arrow, is an argument deduced from the Communion of Infants; Thus they draw it at vsus;

**Bellar. desacr. Eucha. lib. 4. c. 24.The third rite of the Church is the administring the Communion to Infants. For the antient did sometimes administer the Cōmunion to Infants, but vnderunder one kind only, namely, by dropping into their mouth something of Christs blood; as it appeareth both by Cyprians Sermon of those that are falne, and by this manifest reason, because Infants cannot take any solid sustenance.

The answer.

First, as glasses cannot strengthen one another, p. 185Answ. I.but may easily breake one another, and bubbles in the water, deface one another; so false holds and errors may destroy one the other, but they can in no wise establish one the other. The administring the Communion to Infants is an abuse, if not a prophanation of the holy Sacrament. How then can it iustifie the Romish halfe Communion, sith it selfe is vniustifiable? Mettall vponupon mettall is no good hearaldrie, and error vponupon error is no good D…uinity. By the Apostle Saint Pauls rule, none ought to be admitted to the Communion, that hauehave not knowledge to discerne the Lords body, and discretion to examine themselues. This sucklings cannot doe, and therefore not onelyonly the Reformed Churches; but the Romish also at this day, forbid the Communion to be giuen to Infants.

Secondly, it appeares not out of S. Cyprian, or any other way, that infants receiued the Communion in one kind onelyonly, for though Cyprian mentions one kind in that place, yet he excludeth not the other. And howsoeuer children cannot eate strong meat, yet no man doubteth, but that they are able to swallow downe a crume, or a small piece of a wafer.

Retortion.

Thirdly, this headlesse arrow may bee thus headed, and shot backe vponupon our aduersaries.

p. 186If the Sacrament were antiently giuen to sticklings in both kinds, then the Communion of Infants maketh for, and not against the Layties receiuing in both kinds:

But the Sacrament was anciently giuen to sucklings in both kinds:

Therefore the Communion of Infants maketh for, and not against the Laieties receiuing in both kinds:

That Infants had the Sacrament deliuered to them in both kinds, is testified by Saint Cyprian Saint Austine, and Gennadius. Saint Cyprian in his Sermon of such as fell away in time of persecution, bringeth in Infants thus pittifully complaining against their parents: xxNec derelicto cibo, & poculo Domini.Alas, the treachery of others hath destroyed vsus, wee hauehave done nothing of our selues, we hasted not of our own accords to profane contagions, leauing the Meate, and Cup of the Lord.

yyQuando carnem Christi man ducauerunt, vel non manducauerunt, quando biberunt, vel non biberunt sanguinem c, 8.Saint Austine in his 107. Epistle, writing of the doome of Infants, that if they dyed in their tender age, they shal receiue according to those things, which they hauehave done by the body, to wit, in the time in which they were in the body, that is, when by the mouthes or heart of them that carried them, they beleeued, or beleeued not, were baptized or were not baptized, they did eate the flesh of Christ, or eate it not, they did dranke his blood, or drank it not.

Gennadius of Massilia conceiueth the case to be alike in Baptisme, and in the Lords Supper with sucklings, and children, who if they bee not capable of heauenly doctrine, he requireth p. 187zzGen. lib. de Eccles. dogmat. cap. 52. Si paruuli sunt vel hebetes, respondeant pro illis qui illos afferunt, & ita Eucharistiae mysterijs admittantur.that those that bring them, answer for them; and so being confirmed by imposition of hands, and Chrisme, he admitteth them to the mysteries of the Eucharist, or the Lords Supper.

SECT. IIII.

The fourth headlesse arrow is their argument, fetcht from the Communion of the sick; And thus they draw it at vsus:

**Bellar. loc. supr. citato.The fourth Rite is the communion of the sicke, which for the most part was administred in one kind. Eusebius in his. 6. booke of his Ecclesiasticall history writeth of a Priest, that gaue to a young Lad à piece of the holy Eucharist to carrie it to old Serapion, that lay on his death-bed and that he commanded that the young Boy should moisten it before hee gaue it him. Paulinus in the life of Saint Ambrose writeth, that Saint Ambrose a little before his death receiued the Lords body, and as soone as he had swallowed it down, presently gaue vp the Ghost. And Amphilochius in the life of Saint Basil writeth, that at his death he receiued the Sacrament in one kind, namely, in bread, which he had kept along time.

The answer.

First, these instances are not to the purpose: Answ. 1.for our question is of the prohibition of giuing the Laietie the Cup in the Church. These instances are for priuate communions of the sick at home. Our question is of members of the p. 188Church, and those of the Laietie, but of these instances, the first is of a person excommunicate; the second and third are of Bishops.

Secondly, these instances are not sufficiently proued.

To the first instance, Serapions Boy were able to answer. For what a sequel is this, the old mans mouth was drie, and the Boy was therefore commanded to moysten the bread, to wit, by sopping it in the wine; Ergo, the old-man receiued no wine? The story is thus set downe in Eusebius. Serapion an old man that had beene excommnicated for sacrificing vntounto Idols, lying vponupon his death-bed, desired to bee reconciled to the Church, and sent to a Priest to giuegive him the Communion; the Priest not being able for sicknesse to goe himselfe, least the old man should depart comfortlesse in desperation, in token that he was reconciled to the Church, sent vntounto him the sacrament by a young Lad, and charged him, for the more ease of the old man, to moisten the bread, to wit, in the wine he brought with him which the Lad did accordingly, aaforeign.moystening the portion of bread which he receiued of the Priest, and inf…sing the same into the old mans mouth.

To the second instance we answer, that this Paulinus is an author branded by Erasmus, and other learned Criticks. And if it were true which he writeth, it no way releiueth our aduersaries, nor hindreth vsus. For if Saint Ambrose straight vponupon the receiuing of the bread yeelded vp the Ghost, before hee could receiue the Cup, it was by accident, that hee receiued p. 189not in both kindes, because death preuented him: Otherwayes, that Saint Ambrose, and the Church in his time receiued in both kindes, is proued at large in the testimonies of the fourth Age.

To the third instance in Saint Basils life, wee answer, that Amphilochius is a fabulous writer, and that his tale in him of Saint Basil, discredits it selfe. For the Author saith, that this bread, which Saint Basil called for at his death, had beene kept for the space of seuen yeeres and more, and that S. Basil receiued it, to the intent that it might be buried with him. Similes habent labra lactucas. Like Lettice for such lips: It is as true, that he communicated in bread only, as that hee kept the bread seuen yeeres by him for this purpose, to be buried with him.

Retortion.

Thirdly, this headlesse arrow may bee thus headed, and shot backe vponupon our aduersaries.

If the Sacrament were vsually giuen to the sick in both kinds, then this rite of the Church maketh for, and not against the entire Communion of the Laietie:

But the Sacrament was vsually giuen to the sicke in both kinds:

Therefore this custome of the Church maketh for, and not against the entire Communion of the Laietie.

p. 190That the sacrament was giuen to the sicke vsually in both kinds, may bee gathered from the words of Instin Martyr aboue alleaged, in his second Apologie; who saith, that the holy mysteries, which had beene before consecrated in the Church, were sent to those that were absent; amongst which number were necessarily the sicke. And from the charge, which Dionysius, of Alexandria gaue to his Priests, that bbEuseb. Eccles. hist. l. 6. c. 36.if any that were ready to die, desired to bee partakers of the holy mysteries, they should obtaine there desire; especially, if it could be proued, that before in the time of their health, they had been humbly sutors for them.

Lastly, by the words of ccBed. hist. lib. 4.Beda, who speaking of a sick Boy, saith; thou mayst stay till the Masse be done, that then thou mayst receiue the viaticum of the Lords body and blood.

SECT. V.

The fifth headlesse arrow is, an Inference from a phrase of the antients Communio laica, or the Laick Communion, distinguished from the Communion of the Cleargie; And thus they draw it at vsus.

ddBellar. loc. sup. cit.The fifth Rite, or custome of the Church is, the vse of the Communion, called the Lay Communion, which was a kinde of censure inflicted vponupon Cleargie men, for some great offence, by which they were depriued of their Clericall Communion; of this Lay▪ communion we hauehave often mention made in the decrees of p. 191antient Popes, and Councels. For by Felix 3. in his first Epist. and second chapter; and Syricius 1. epist. 11. cap. and the Councell of Eliberis. Can. 76. and of Sardica. cap. 10. and of Agatha cap. 2. 5. and 50. this punishment could be no other, then when other Cleargie men communicated in both kindes, these dilinquents were kept from the cup, and were enforced to content themselues with one kind.

The answer.

Wee acknowledge, that there is often mention made in the Ancients of the Lay Answ. 1.Communion. For Cyprian speakes of it in his 52. epistle, and Eusebius in his sixth booke of Ecclesiasticall storie. Inocentius the first, in his 22. epistle. The Canons of the Apostles, Can. 15. Basil to Amphilochius, and diuers others, quoted by Chamierus in his ninth booke de Caena Dom. chap. 2. But wee denie, that this Laick Communion was the Papists halfe Communion. The meaning of the antient in their decrees touching the permitting of Cleargymen to participate of the Laick Communion, or communicate as Laicks, was this; that in regard that these Priests had sometime or other scandalized their calling, they should be degraded, & neuer admitted to consecrate, or administer the Sacrament, but receiue it only at the hands of the Priests meere Lay men; not in the eeConcil. Tolotan. 4. Can. 17. In Choro Clerus communicet, extra chorum populus.Quire, or Chancell, as Priests vsed to doe, but without the Quier in the body of p. 192the Church among the common people. This argument therefore of the Papists is a maine Petitio principij, or begging the point in question; to wit, that the Laick Communion, or Communion of Laicks, was in one kind onelyonly. The contrary whereof hath beene proued before, by the testimonies of all Ages. This headlesse arrow therefore of our aduersaries may be thus headed, and shot back vponupon them by Retortion.

If the Laick Communion spoken of by the Antients, were in both kinds, then nothing can be gathered from it against, but for the entire Communion:

But the Laick Communion spoken of by the Antients was in both kinds:

Therefore nothing can be gathered from it against, but for the entire Communion.

That the Laick Communion was not without the Cup, Saint Cyprian, who first named it, clearely sheweth in those words: in calice sanctificando, & plebi ministrando: in sanctifying the Cup, and ministring it to the people. Nay, which is very remarkeable, Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in this very argument, (to verifie the obseruation of Saint Austine, that euident truth striketh into the eyes of such, as are shut against it) acknowlegeth as much: The ffSola species panis dabatur in manus, ex calice autem bibebant, qui volebant, in Ecclesia, sed non licebat laicis calicem tangere.onelyonly forme of bread, saith he, was giuen to their hands, but they dranke out of the Cup, who would, in the Church; but it was not lawfull for Lay-men to touch the Cup, or carrie home with them. Drinke they p. 193might, and did, as many as desired. Thus Bellarmine conuinced by the light of story, confesseth, that the Laietie dranke of the holy Cup: as doth also his fellow Cardinall ggAnnal. tom. 1. an. Christi 57. Fideles sacrificij tempore, olim in Ecclesia sacratissimam Eucharistiam sub vtraque specie panis & vini sumebant.Baronius, saying; The faithfull of old, in the time of the sacrifice in the Church, receiued the most blessed Sacrament of the Lords Supper in both kinds, vnderunder the forme of bread and wine.

The sixth headlesse arrow is, a collection from an antient rite of communicating in such things, as before had beene consecrated; And thus they draw it at vsus:

SECT. VI.

hhBellar. loc. sup. cit.The sixth rite, or Custome of the antient Church is, the communion of the presanctified formes of bread and wine. This Communion was in vse in the Greeke Church all the Lent long, except the Lords day, and the Saturday: this custome was also in the Latine Church, and remaines vntounto this time on the sixt day of the holy Weeke. For on that day there is no consecration, and the Priest himselfe communicates in one kind. Of this custome among the Greekes there is mention made in the Councell of Laodicea, Can. 49. and the Councel in Trullo, Can. 52. Of the like custome amongst the Latines Inocent. 1. makes mention in his 1. epist. cap. 4. and the Booke of Sacaments made by Saint Gregory in the seruice for the preparation to the Passeouer. Rabanus in his 2. booke of the Instruction of Clerkes. And Micrologus in his booke of Ecclesiasticall obseruations. cap. 19.

p. 194The answer.

This argument hath two parts, the, first is taken from the custome of the Greeke Church, Answ. 1.the latter from a custome of the Romane. To dispatch first the latter, because it is of smal moment; we say, that there is no ground for this custome: we dislike it no lesse, then the halfe Communion it selfe. For why should not the Sacrament be consecrated vponupon good Friday, as well as any other day? Or what an argument is this; the Priest communicateth in one kind alone on good Friday, therefore the people ought to be depriued of the Cup all the yeere long? And why, I pray you, doth the Priest receiue the Sacrament on Good-Friday in bread onelyonly, more then any other day? And why doe they communicate in such bread only, as was consecrated the day before? Why might they not consecrate it on that day? As some Gramarians excuse all Homers fables of the Gods, by turning them into Allegories, and Mythologicall expositions. So Harding diuision 22. arti. 2. salueth this superstitious custome, by telling vsus, that it was not without signification of a singular mysterie. This mysterie is reuealed vntounto vsus by Pope Innocentius, Aquinas, and Hugo Cardinalis. Innocentius saith, that it is, because the Apostles ran their way that day, and hid themselues. Aq…inas saith, they consecrate not on Good-Friday, because if any had p. 195consecrated that day, whilst Christ lay dead, the body had beene without blood, and the blood without the body. And others say, if the Sacrament that meane while had been kept, it would hauehave been dead in the Pixe. Hugo Card. saith, Christs Passion is the truth, and the Sacrament is a figure of the same. Therfore when the truth is come, the figure giueth place. Consider we the weight of these reasons: The Apostles fled sixteene hundred yeeres agoe on Good-Friday; therefore we must not now on that day consecrate the elements, or communicate in both kinds. On Good-Friday Christ suffered, his blood then was seuered from the body: Therefore now wee must not receiue his body and blood on that day. Christs Passion was on that day; therefore wee must neuer receiue the figure thereof on that day.

2. Concerning the custome of the Greeke Church.

It is true that the Greeke Church in Lent 2vsed to consecrate onelyonly vponupon Saterday and Sunday; and on the other dayes of the weeke they did communicate ex praesanctificatis, of the presanctified formes, which had been consecrated the Saterday, or Sunday before: as may be gathered out of the 49. Canon of the Councell of Laodocea; and 52. Canon of the Councell in Trullo. Sed quid ad rhombum! we dispute not of the Communion of things before consecrated, p. 196but of the communion of both kinds. Such no doubt was this communion of the Greekes, as the word, foreign, or praesanctificata in the plurall number doth implie. It is not called by Balsamo, vponupon the 52. Canon of the sixth Councell, foreign, but foreign; not a communion of presanctified bread, but of presanctified mysteries. This headlesse arrow therefore, as all the former, may be thus headed, and shot backe vponupon our aduersaries:

Retortion.

If the Communion of presanctified elements were in both kindes, this Rite of the Greeke Church no way suporteth, but quite ouerthroweth the Romish halfe Communion in one kind only:

But the communion of presanctified elements of the Greeke Church was in both kinds:

Ergo, this Rite of the Greeke Church no way supporteth, but quite ouerthroweth the Romish halfe Communion in one kinde onelyonly.

That this Communion in the Greeke Church was in both kinds, wee need no better euidence, then the Seruice-booke, or Office of the Greeke Church, wherein we reade, that after the Priest hath sanctified the bread, he powreth wine and water into the sacred Cup, and rehearseth the accustomed words in the Liturgie p. 197it self, called Liturgia praesanctificatorum. The dreadfull mysteries are named in the plurall number. And that al that communicated, receiued in both kinds, it appeares by the forme of thankesgiuing there set downe; We giuegive thanks to thee, O God, the Sauiour of all, for all thy benefits, which thou hast bestowed vponupon vsus, and in speciall, for that thou hast vouch safed iiLyturg. praesanctif. foreign.to make vsus partakers of the body, and blood of thy Christ.