The Ancient Doctrine of the Church of England, Part 1 · Communion 5
Concerning the Communion in both kindes. Spectacles, chap. 9. Section 5. a pag. 242. uſ que ad 259.
THe Knight in alledging the Councell of Conſtance touching Communion, in one kind tranſlateth the Latine falſly and abſurdly. I confeſſe that under one kind only all and whole Chriſt, and the true Sacraments are received, as if the Councell had ſaid, omnis & totus Chriſtus, whereas the words are, totus at que integer Chriſtus, that is, whole and entire Chriſt.
In bringing this Decree, hee hath brought a ſtaffe to beate himſelfe withall, for the non obſtante which hee would joyne with Chriſts Inſtitution in both kindes, as if the Councell forbid it in both kindes, notwithſtanding Christ did ſo inſtitute it, is not ſo joyned in the Councell, but otherwiſe thus; Though Chriſt did Inſtitute this venerable Sacrament after ſupper, and adminiſtred it in both kinds, yet notwithſtanding this, the approved cuſtome of the Church hath obſerved, and doth obſerve, that this Sacrament is not to bee Conſecrated after Supper, nor to bee received by the faithfull but faſting; which Decree I ſuppoſe the Knight will not condemne.
This was no new thing begun by that Councell, but it being growne to bee a generall practiſe to communicate in one kind, which alſo from the beginning was ſomewhat practiſed, and certaine heretiques ariſing, and condemning the practiſe and beliefe of the whole Church; this Councell condemned them, and commanded the former cuſtome to bee ſtill retained.
Though Chriſt did inſtitute the Sacrament in both kindes, yet it is lawfull to receive in one: neither doth the Councell decree any thing againſt Chriſts Precept by eſtabliſhing the Communion in one kind, for Chriſt may inſtitute a thing without commanding it. For example, hee did inſtitute Mariage, yet commanded not every man to marry.
The Councell of Trent doth not any way contradict Chriſts inſtitution or practiſe as the Knight would have it: but inferreth only thus much, though Chriſt did inſtitute and deliver the bleſſed Sacrament to his Apoſtles in both kindes in the laſt Supper, yet is Chriſt contained whole and entire in one kind, and a true Sacrament received, wherein ſaith hee, I would faine ſee, what oppoſition the ſubtiltie of the Knights wit can find? what reaſon can hee give? why it may not ſtand with Chriſt his inſtitution in both kinds, that he be whole under one, and if whole, why not alſo a true Sacrament?
The words, Drinke yee all of this, and doe this in remembrance of mee were ſpoken and appertaine only to the Apoſtles, and in them to Prieſts, as appeareth more plainly by S. Mark, who ſheweth all which our Srviour meant of when hee ſaid, Drinke yee all of this, for ſaith S. Marke, and they did drinke all.
Though Chriſt at his laſt Supper did inſtitute a Sacrament in both kindes, and ſo gave it to his Apoſtles: yet Christ might at ſome other time after his reſurrection communicate ſome of his Diſciples in one kind; and ſome Fathers thinke hee did his two Diſciples at Emmaus.
The Knight needeth not to produce ten or eleven Authours to prove it to have been the practiſe of the primitive Church, to communicate in both kinds: for that would have beene granted him without all that labour: but hee ſhould have proved that the practiſe was grounded upon ſome divine precept indiſpenſable, or elſe it followeth not, but that it is in the power of the Church to alter the practiſe in the uſe, and adminiſtration of the Sacrament.
Bellarmine bringeth ſix ſeverall Rites or practiſes of the ancient Church which Proteſtants cannot deny, evidently convincing the frequent uſe of one kind.
The Nazarites among the firſt Chriſtians in Ieruſalem did communicate in one kind, for they were forbid to drinke wine, or even eate a grape or reiſin.
The Knight in alleging Tapperus againſt the Communion in one kind, leaveth out the principall verbe, and one halfe of the ſentence anſwering the former, which of it ſelfe was imperfect, which was the Authours abſolute judgement and determination for the whole ſentence of Tapper, art. 16. is this, it were more convenient if wee regard the Sacrament, and the perfection thereof to have the Communion under both kindes, then under one: for this were more agreeable to the Inſtitution thereof, and to the integritie of a corporall refection, and the example of Chriſt; but in another conſideration, to wit, of the reverence which is due to the Sacrament, and to the end wee may avoide all irreverence, it is leſſe convenient, and no way expedient for the Church, that the Chriſtian people ſhould communicate in both kindes.
In the lawes of King Edward the ſixt revived and confirmed by Queene Elizabeth, it is ordained that the Communion bee delivered to the people under both kindes with this exception, unleſſe neceſsitie otherwiſe require.
That it is not requiſite that every article of faith have ſufficient and expreſſe proofe of Scripture,Dial. 2. cont. Lucifer. etiamſi ſacrae ſcripturae authoritas non ſubeſſet, totius orbis in hanc partem conſenſus inſtar praecepei obtinerct. for as S. Ierome teacheth, although the authoritie of holy Scripture were wanting, the conſent of the whole world on this ſide ſhould have the force of a Precept.
The Hammer.
IN this Section the Ieſuit beginneth merrily with a fiddle, but endeth ſadly, and every where anſwereth ſorily. For to omit his omiſſion of ſome things that pincht him ſhrewdly, as namely, firſt that the Councell of Conſtance by reaſon the firſt Seſsions judged the Councell above the Pope, is condemned, and rejected by the Councell of Florence and laſt Councell of Lateran; but for the laſt Seſsions wherein the halfe Communion is eſtabliſhed contrarie to Chriſts precept, and holy inſtitution, it is allowed by Pope Martine the fift, and rectived of all Catholiques; whereby it appeares that Papiſts are more tender of the Popes ſupremacie, then Chriſts honour; Secondly,De Euchars l. 4. c. 7. that Bellarmine ſaith, that it is not to be doubted; but that is beſt and ſitteſt to bee practiſed that Chriſt hath done. Now it is evident out of Scriptures, and confeſſed by the Fathers in the Councell of Conſtance and Trent, that Chriſt inſtituted and adminiſtred the Sacrament in both kindes: Laſtly, that the Papiſts in this point apparantly contradict themſelves, for they require antiquity, univerſality, and conſent, as the proper markes of Catholique doctrine, and yet confeſſe that in this the practiſe of their Church is contrarie to the practiſe of the Primitive Church, nor was it ever received in the true Church, till above a thouſand yeares after Chriſt. Dichotomived.To let paſſe theſe his preteritions, all that hee ſaith in replie to other paſſages of the Knights may be dicotomized into idle cavils, and ſophiſticall evaſions, as ſhall appeare by the examination of each particular,
To the firſt. The Ieſuit as it ſhould ſeeme tooke Ennius the Poet for his patterne, who as Horace obſerveth, Nunquam niſi potus ad arma proſiluit, &c. never undertooke the deſcription of a warre, or ſet himſelfe to write ſtrong lines before hee had comforted his heart with a cup of ſtrong liquour. For if the French wine had not aſſaulted his Capitoll, as the Frenchmen did ſometimes the Roman: if a ſtrong fume had not made his head ſo dizzie, that he thought all things before him went round, hee would never in ſo ſerious a ſubject as is the Sacrament of Chriſts blood uſe ſuch light and comicall ſaracaſmes as he doth; againſt this ſaith he, hee bringeth two places of Scripture, P. 243.and the practiſe of the Primitive Church, and ſo concludeth the antiquitie and univerſalitie of his Church, this goeth round with a fiddle Sir Humfrey: if hee had a purpoſe to make ſport to his reader in the merrie pin hee was ſet on, hee ſhould rather have ſaid you Creed Sir Humfrey goeth round with a crowd. But crowde or fiddle whether hee pleaſe to tearme the learned diſcourſe of the Knight, I hope it will prove like Davids Harpe, and conjure the evill ſpirit out of the Ieſuit. To fall upon the particulars in order, whereas in the firſt place hee chargeth the Knight with falſe and abſurd tranſlation of the Decree of the Councell, rendering totus Chriſtus, all Chriſt, not whole Chriſt, and would make us beleeve that all can in no ſenſe bee attributed to Chriſt; hee forgot that text of the Apoſtle that Chriſt is all in all. Surely it ſhould ſeeme this Ieſuit is deſcended from Pope Adrian, who was choaked with a fly, for what a ſilly fly choaketh him here? The Knight to avoid a tautologie in tranſlating totus & integer Chriſtus, whole and whole Chriſt, rendereth the word all and whole Chriſt, and what falſitie or abſurditie is there in this? doth not every punie know that omnis in Latine, and all in Engliſh is often taken collectivè, as when wee ſay Lazarus was covered all over with ſores, doe not the Papiſts themſelves ſometimes ſo render the word totus, as namely in thoſe places, I have ſtretched my armes all the day long to a rebellious people? and all the day long have I beene puniſhed, and all Scripture is given by divine inſpiration, and is profitable for doctrine for reproofe, for correction, for inſtruction in righteonſneſſe that the man of God may bee perfect, throughly furniſhed to all good workes: In which paſſages it is moſt evident that all is taken for whole, and ſo the beſt interpreters render foreign, tota ſcriptura, that is the whole Scripture.
To the ſecond. The Knight in bringing the Decree of the Councell of Conſtance, hath not brought in a ſtaffe to beate himſelfe withall, but to beate all ſuch Romiſh curres as barke at the light of the Sunne, I meane the cleare words of Chriſts inſtitution,Seſs. 13. Drinke you all of this. Yet ſaith that Councell to the Laitie, none of you drinke of this. If Chriſt had ſaid in like manner, receive you the Communion after ſupper, we would never receive it faſting. It is true that he inſtituted it the night he was betrayed after ſupper, which circumſtance yet bindeth us not now to receive it at that time: but the argument no wayes followes from the change of a circumſtance to the change of a ſubſtantiall act: the Church may diſpence with the one, not with the other. Wee argue not barely from the practiſe of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, but from their doctrine and practiſe. What Chriſt did and taught, as S. Cyprian ſoundly collects, muſt bee perpetually obſerved in the Church: but he taught and practiſed the Communion in both kindes, fecit & docuit, hee both did ſo, and taught us ſo to doe; but for the circumſtances of time, number of Communicants, & geſture ſitting or leaning, though at that time he uſed ſuch circumſtances: yet he cōmanded not us to uſe them, and therefore wee may adminiſter the Sacrament at another time, to a greater or leſſer number then twelve, we may receive it alſo with another geſture then Chriſt or his Apſtles uſed, becauſe he no where tieth us to thoſe circumſtances, but wee may in no wiſe adminiſter or receive it in one kind, becauſe he commandeth us to communicate in both, ſaying, drinke ye all of this; and what though the Councell joyne not the word notwithſtanding to Chriſts inſtitution in both kindes, but to his adminiſtring after ſupper: yet this no way excuſeth the Fathers in it from confronting Chriſt, and abrogating his commandement by their wicked Decree: for notwithſtanding Chriſts command, drinke you all of this; that Councell by a countermaund forbiddeth any Prieſt under a great penaltie to exhort the people to communicate in both kindes, or to teach that they ought ſo to doe.
To the third. If the Ieſuits forehead had not beene made of the ſame metall which hee worſhipeth in his images, hee would have bluſhed to utter ſo notorious an untruth contrary to the Records of all ages, and the confeſſion of all the learned of his owne ſide. Never any before this Ieſuit durſt to ſay, that the halfe Communion was the beliefe, and practiſe of the whole Church before the Councell of Conſtance, for beſides Salmeron, Arboreus, Aquinas, Tapperus, Alfonſus a Caſtro: the Councell of Conſtance, Bellarmine and Caſſander alledged by the Knight, See grand Sacrilcg. Sect. 17.I could adde Eſtius the Sorboniſt, Ecchius the great adverſarie of Luther, Suarez their accompliſhed Ieſuit, Soto their acuteſt Schoole-man, and Gregorie de Valentia, who of all other hath moſt … laboured in this argument, all not only affirming, but ſome of them alſo confirming that the Communion in both kindes was anciently, and univerſally adminiſtred to the people. It is well knowne that the Eaſterne Churches in Greece and Aſia, and Southern in Africa, and Northerne in Muſcovia have ever, and at this day doe adminiſter the Communion to the Laitie in both kindes: and in the Weſterne and Roman Church it ſelfe for a thouſand yeares after Chriſt and more, the Sacrament was delivered in both kindes to all the members of Chriſts Church, which is manifeſt ſaith Caſſander, Caſſand. conſult. art. 22.by innumerable teſtimonies of ancient Writers, both Greeke and Latine. And when the new cuſtome of communicating in one kinde began a little before the Councell of Conſtance, Soto artic. 12. q. 1. in diſt. 12. non modo inter baeretieos verùm inter Catholicos ritus ille multo tempore iuvaluit.it was impugned not by heretiques, as Flood would beare us in hand, but by good Catholiques, as Soto a man farre before Flood ingenuouſly confeſſeth.
To the fourth. Albeit I grant there is ſome difference betweene an inſtitution, or conſtitution, or command: yet our argument drawne from Chriſts inſtitution in both kindes is of force againſt the Romiſh halfe. Communion. For a command is, as the genus, and an Inſtitution is as the ſpecies, every command is not an inſtitution: but every inſtitution is a command; for what is an inſtitution, but a ſpeciall order or appointment in matter of Ceremonie or Sacrament? was not the inſtitution of Circumciſion an expreſſe command to circumciſe every male child? was not the inſtitution of the Paſſeover a command for every familie to kill a Lambe, and eate it with ſowre herbes? Was not the inſtitution of Baptiſme a command to Baptiſe all Nations in the name of the Father, Sonne and holy Ghoſt? Was not the inſtitution of the Lords Supper by words imperative, Take, eate, doe this in remembrance of mee, and drinke yee all of this? Yea but the Ieſuit inſtanceth in Mariage, which we acknowledge to be inſtituted by God, yet not commanded. I anſwer, all ſacred Rites (and namely the ordination of Mariage) are injunctions and commands to the Church, or mankind in generall, though they bind not every particular perſon, but ſuch onelyonly as are qualified for them;Gen. 2.24. if creſcite & multiplicamini, bee rather a benediction upon Mariage, then a command to marrie, yet certainly thoſe words uſed in the Inſtitution of Mariage, therefore ſhall a man leave his father and mother, and ſhall cleave to his wife, and they ſhall bee one ſteſh, containe da direct command not to every man ſimply I grant, but to every one that hath not the gift of continencie.1 Cor. 7.2. to avoide fornication, ſaith the Apoſtle, let every man have his owne wife, and let every woman have her owne husband. And againe, if they cannot containe let them marry, V. 9.for it is better to marry then to burne.
To the fiſt. There needs no ſubtiltie of wit to find out the oppoſition betweene the Decree of the Trent Councell and Chriſts inſtitution; the dulleſt wit cannot but ſtumble upon it. For if whole Chriſt be received in either kind, why did Chriſt who doth nothing ſuperfluouſly, inſtitute the Sacrament in both kindes? If the Sacrament can no otherwiſe exhibit Chriſt unto us then by vertue of his Inſtitution, how can wee be aſſured that whole Chriſt is communicated unto us, when we violate his inſtitution adminiſtring the holy Communion but by halfes? the Sacrament exhibiteth nothing but what it ſignifieth, but the bread ſignifieth Chriſts body not his blood: the wine ſignifieth his blood, not his bodie; therefore accordingly the one exhibiteth only his body, the other his bloud. Againe, if Chriſt bee whole in either kinde, then a man might receive whole Chriſt in drinking of the cup only, though he eate not at all of the bread, and conſequently a man may without ſinne at the Lords board drinke only of the Conſecrated cup, and not eate of the bread which yet no Papiſt to my knowledge ever durſt affirme.
To the ſixt. This evaſion of the Ieſuit is exploded by Philip Morney, De Euch. l. 1. c. 10.& Chamierus tom. 4. reſp. Bellar. & in D. F. his conference with Everard p. 256. and divers others. This may ſuffice for the preſent, for the overthrow of this generall anſwer of all Papiſts to the words of the inſtitution, Drinke you all of this, viz. (that by all in S. Mathew and S. Marke, Prieſts only are to be underſtood.) Firſt I note at this time the Apoſtles were not fully ordained Prieſts. For as yet Chriſt had not breathed on them, nor given them the power of remiſſion of ſinnes: next admit they were Prieſts, yet in the inſtitution of this Sacrament they were non conficients, ſupplying the place of meere communicants, and therefore conſequently whatſoever Chriſt commanded them, hee commanded all receivers after them. Thirdly, Chriſt commanded the ſame to drinke, to whom before hee ſaid, Take, eate, this is my body; but the former words, take, eate, are ſpoken to the Laye-people as well as Prieſts, therefore the words drinke you all of this, are ſpoken to them alſo,Math. 9.6. thoſe things which God hath joyned together let no man put aſunder. Fourthly, I would faine know of our Adverſaries when Chriſt ſaith, This is the cup of the New Teſtament which is ſhed for many for the remiſsion of ſinnes, who are thoſe many? will they ſay Prieſts only? have the Laytie no ſinnes, or no remiſſion of ſinnes by Chriſt bloud? if they have, as all profeſſe they have, why do they forbid them that which Chriſt expreſly commandeth them, ſaying, Drinke ye all of this, for it is ſhed for you and for many. All worthy communicants are to drinke Chriſts bloud for whom it was ſhed, thus much Chriſts reaſon importeth; but it was ſhed for the Laytie as well as the Clergie, they therefore are alike to drinke it. If the Laytie expect life from Chriſt, they muſt drinke his bloud as well as eate his fleſh,Iohn 6.53. for except a man eate the fleſh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, hee hath no life in him. Laſtly,1 Cor. 11.28. when the Apoſtle enjoyneth all to examine themſelves before they receive the holy Communion, I deſire to bee informed by our Adverſaries, whether this Precept of examination concerneth not the Laytie eſpecially? I know they will ſay it doth, becauſe the people moſt need examination, that they may confeſſe their ſinnes, and receive abſolution for them before they preſume to communicate: let them then reade what followeth in the ſame verſe, and ſo let them eate of that bread, and drinke of that Cup, let a man examine himſelfe, and ſo let him eate of that Bread, and drinke of that Cup: the coherence of the members in this ſentence inferreth, that as none are to be admitted without precedent examination: ſo that all who have examined themſelves are to be admitted to the Lords table, both to eate of that Bread, and drinke of that Cup.
To the ſeventh. There is no force at all in the inference which the Ieſuit would make from Chriſt his breaking of bread with the two Diſciples at Emmaus, to prove the Communion in one kind, for neither is it likely Chriſt inſtituted any ſupperafter his laſt Supper, neither was the place fit for a Communion being a common Inne: neither reade wee of any preparation on the Apoſtles part, nor of any words of inſtitution uſed then by Chriſt: neither could the Ieſuit alledge any one Father, who ſaith that Chriſt at that time adminiſtred the Communion to thoſe two Diſciples in bread only. For it is well knowne to all that are acquainted with the language of Canaan, that breaking of bread in Scripture by a Syneodoche is taken for making a meale, and it is very unlikely that the diſciples travelling at that time of the yeare in ſo hot a countrey as Iudaea is, when they came to their Inne for a repaſt, ſhould call for bread only and no drinke.
To the eighth. Though the Ieſuit make many a bravado here, and elſe-where: yet upon the matter in granting to the Knight that the generall practiſe of the primitive Church was to communicate in both kindes, he yeeldeth up the bucklers. For the maine ſcope of the Knight in this and other Sections is to prove the viſibilitie of our reformed Church in former ages by the confeſſion of our Romiſh adverſaries: this hee doth in the point of the Communion in both kindes abundantly in this Section, and the Ieſuit cannot denie it; it followeth therefore that in this maine point of controverſie betweene us and the Church of Rome, wee have antiquitie, univerſalitie, and eminent viſibilitie, and the Roman Church none of all: whereby any underſtanding reader may ſee that the Knight hath already wonne the day; Yet for the greater confuſion of the Ieſuit I adde that what the primitive Church did uniformly, they received it from the Apoſtles, and what the Apoſtles did joyntly, no doubt they did by the direction of the holy Ghoſt, according to our Lords will: and ſo their example amounteth to a Precept. Againe, the practiſe of the Catholique Church is the beſt expoſitour of Scripture, therefore the queſtion being concerning the meaning of that text of Scripture, Drinke you all of this, whether they concerne the Laytie, or Clergie only, that muſt bee taken for the true expoſition which the Catholique Church by a conſtant and vniforme practiſe hath allowed. Laſtly, either this practiſe of the Catholique Church was grounded upon ſome divine Precept, or it is a meere will-worſhip which the Ieſuit dare not ſay: if it be grounded upon any divine precept undoubtedly upon this, Drinke yee all of this, that is, as well Miniſters as Laye people, as Paſchaſius commenteth upon the words.
To the ninth. The arguments of Bellarmine drawne from ſix ancient Rites to prove the frequent uſe of Communion in one kind are anſwered at large by Philip Morney, and Chamierus, in the places above mentioned, and they are every one of them retorted againſt Bellarmine himſelfe by D. F. in his booke intituled the Grand ſacriledge, cap. 14. accipe quomode das ſi tibi machera eſt, & nobis vervina eſt, if it be ſufficient for him to object by proxe, why may not we anſwer by proxe?
To the tenth. To the inſtance in the Nazarites, I anſwer firſt, that I read of no other Nazarites ſince Chriſts time in the writings of the ancient Fathers, then certaine Heretiques ſo tearmed of the ſect of Ebionites, who went about to cloath the Goſpell with the beggarly rudiments of the Law, upon whom S. Auſtine paſſeth this verdict,L. De haereſ. ad quod vult Deum dum volunt Iudaei eſſe & Chriſtiani nec Iudaeiſunt, nec Chriſtiani. that whileſt they laboured to bee both Iewes and Chriſtians, they became neither Iewes nor Chriſtians, but a ſect of heretiques, partly judaizing, partly Chriſtianizing. Secondly, if there were any Nazarites that ſincerely imbraced the Goſpell, queſtionleſſe they communicated in both kindes: for though they had vowed againſt drinking of wine, yet either their Vow was to be underſtood of drinking it civilly not ſacramentally: for their corporall refection, not for their ſpirituall repaſt: or if their vow were abſolutely againſt wine, yet Chriſts command, Drinke yee all of this, implied a diſpenſation for their Vow in that caſe. A private vow of any man muſt give place to a publike command of God: even now a dayes thoſe who upon any great diſtemper of body or mind by wine, vow to abſtaine from it, yet make no ſcruple of conſcience to take a ſmall quantitie of it phyſically for the recoverie of their health: how much more ought they to doe ſo notwithſtanding their vow, if it bee preſcribed by the heavenly phyſician for the cure and ſalvation of their ſoules?
To the eleventh. Concerning Tapperus the Knight no way miſquoteth him though hee leave out ſome paſſges in him; for the truth is Tapperus halteth betweene two opinions, he ſpeaketh ſome words plainly in the language of Canaan, and others hee liſpeth in the language of Aſhdod, where he ſpeaketh in the language of Canaan, as hee doth moſt plainly in thoſe his words (if wee regard the Sacrament and perfection thereof, and the integritie of corporall refection, and the example of Christ, it were more convenient to have the Communion under both kindes) the Knight hearkeneth to him: but where hee liſpeth in the language of Aſhdod, ſaying, (that in conſideration of the reverence due to this Sacrament it is ill and inconvenient to communicate in both kindes) the Knight had reaſon to turne a deafe eare to him, for it is coſin germane to blaſphemie to ſay that is ill and inconvenient, which Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and the whole Church in all places for more then a thouſand yeares practiſed: the Knight might well ſay to Tapperus in the words of him in the Poet, foreign, I will be ſober with you, but I will not runne madde with you.
To the twelfth. For the ſtatute made in the dayes of that Phoenix of his age, King Edward the ſixt, the meaning is, unleſſe among the people there bee ſome that either by a naturall antipathie to wine or other infirmitie, cannot receive the Sacraments in both kindes, it is ordained that it be delivered to every one in both kindes, ceſſante ferreâ neceſsitate obtinet haec aurea regula, that all receive the whole Sacrament in which the Statute, and the articles of Religion, publiſhed firſt in the reigne of this bleſſed Prince, fully accord; For ſo wee reade Article the thirtieth, both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Chriſts ordinance and command ought to bee miniſtred to all Chriſtian people alike.
To the thirteenth. That every article of faith ought to have ſufficient proofe out of Scripture is proved by innumerable teſtimonies of antiquitie produced by Philip Morney in his Preface to his booke De Euchariſtia, Bilſon of Supremacie part the fourth Abbot againſt Biſhop, chapter the ſeventh; and Laurentius de diſp. Theolog: Neither doth S. Ierome any way contradict them or us, for wee beleeve that the conſent of the whole Chriſtian Church is an infallible argument of truth. Albeit wee teach that any particular Church, as namely the Roman or the French, or the Dutch or the Greeke Church may erre: yet we denie that the catholique Church univerſally hath ever erred, or can erre in matter of faith neceſſarie to ſalvation: and further I adde for concluſion, that as the words of S. Ierome alledged by the Ieſuit make nothing againſt us, ſo if they bee applied to our preſent ſubject they make moſt ſtrongly againſt him, being propounded after this manner. Although the authoritie of holy Scripture were wanting for the Communion in both kindes, (which is not ſo) yet the conſent of the whole world, on this ſide teſtified by their uniforme practiſe confeſſed by Papiſts themſelves, ought to have the force of a divine Precept, and ſo there would bee an end not only of this Section as the Ieſuit ſpeaketh, but of this whole Controverſie.