God upon their soules but to remain in the Protestant Communion by the private instigations of flesh and blood Who wanting the seasoning of Charity doe warp and shrink from that to which their judgement hath joyned them Whose faith like bullion though it be good metall in it selfe yet wanting the stamp of of Catholique Communion and obedience is not currant in the Kingdome of heaven nor will serve in their journey to defray them thither But they according to the condition of all weak minds accounting the Present evill as losse of goods friends and the like the most intolerable desire to avoid that and put to adventure the ensuing And so while they saile through the troublesome Sea of this life unskilfull of steerage in a storme do strike and split their soules upon the flats of fear and rocks of presumption forgetfull of that dreadfull threatning of our Saviour He that shall deny mee before men shall be denyed before the Angells of God Luc. 12.9 Now to the diligence of examination before mentioned for those that are not yet convinced in their judgements a Protestant is bound by Chillingworths owne rule who though he say that for as much as there is no infallible guide and that therefore a man must follow the choice of his own reason in what he doth believe and that God will be contented with that be it more or lesse true or false being as much as he can attain to yet addes withall that a man must imploy his uttermost endeavours to the finding out of the truth And who is it amongst the Protestants that hath done that Who hath spent all his spare time much lesse who hath spared all the time he could to this enquiry I think no Protestants conscience can acquit him in this case and if not he must not think to quiet himselfe by saying that to the best of his understanding the Protestant Religion seemes true if he have not imployed all his endeavours to find whether it be so or no which cannot be unlesse with King Philip of Macedon he keep one ear for the party accused hee equally heare both sides Wherefore devesting themselves of all prejudice and prepossessed opinions like white paper wherein there is nothing written let them addresse themselves with all their spare time yea they ought to make spare time rather than to want it to a sad and serious consideration of the great businesse of Religion the truth whereof who so gaines though with the losse of all temporall felicity doth highly improve his estate considering that as our Saviour saith what will it profit a man to gain the whole world and to lose his owne soule Math. 16.16 And let no man defer this most important affaire and put it off to the later end of his life which how soon it will happen the youngest know not as if the Kingdome of heaven were like a market cheapest at the later end of the day or that because nature hath placed the seat of his memory in the hindermost part of his head therefore he may defer the remembrance of God and of comming to him by the path of true Religion to the hindermost part of his life But as God himselfe saith while it is called to day harden not your hearts Psal 94.8 lest his delay pull upon himselfe the forsaking of God and steel his forehead to the perpetuall refusall of his mercifull invitation and so he and especially the Citty of London which hath been purpled with the blood of so many martyrs hear the complaint and curse of our Saviour sounding in his eare O Jerusalem Jerusalem which killest the Prophets and stonest them that are sent to thee how often would I have gathered thy children as the hen gathereth her chickens under her wings and you would not behold your habitation shall be left unto you desolate Math. 23.37 CHAP. XXII Of the foolish deceitfull and absurd proceedings and behaviour of Protestants in matter of Religion And of the vanity and injustice of their pretext of conscience for their separation from the Roman Church § 1. HE that will apply himself to this inquest as I have done shall find that the objections of Protestants against Catholique Doctrines are very weak and sleight they are but paper-pellets and make more noise than hurt the workes also that they raise for their owne defence are as weak and easily dismantled I found that their objections were answered again and again which a later writer would take no notice of but retrive the first arguments and urge them as fresh as if they had never been urged before or at least had never been answered forgetting to make reply to the Catholique Answers which was indeed because they could not do it And in their writings I found much abuse of all Authors even from the Bible it self to the Authors of latest times either misalledging the words â—or misconstruing the meaning or urging that for their purpose which was indeed to no purpose § 2. Particularly for their mistranslating of Scripture wherein they grievously accuse one another as I shewed before I will alledge two or three places of a great many for a tast wherein their unfaithfulnesse is apparent as first that notable depravation of their Master Luther which I have mentioned before in adding the word only where the Apostle saith that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law Rom. 3.28 Also where the Apostle saith give diligence by good works to make your calling and election sure 2 Pet. 1.10 the English Bibles leave out these words by good works and yet Beza in his notes upon the place acknowledges these words to be in almost all the antient Greek Copies Also in the same Chapter fifteenth Verse these words are read according to the originall I will do my diligence also you to have often after my decease that you may have a remembrance of these things shewing thereby that he would pray for them after he was dead as S. Chrysostome expounds it saying Rejoyce ever you blessed Apostles in our Lord without intermission pray for us fulfill your promises for ô Blessed Peter thou cryest out speaking thus I will do my diligence after my coming to make mention of you 2 Pet. 1.10 Now the English Bibles read this place thus Moreover I will indeavour that you may be able after my decease to have these things alwaies in remembrance corrupting the sense and making it signifie only that he would indeavour that they should remember those things when he was dead whereas he saith that he would indeavour after he was dead that they should remember those things and thereby it proves that he prayed for them after be was dead a Doctrine which many Protestants will not allow Also in the first Epistle to the Corinthians Chap. 11. v. 27. where the Apostle saith whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord the
life but that a man wanting meanes of sacred communion may by other meanes preserve himselfe in the state of Grace And though we should suppose that actuall Communion were a necessary meanes to preserve spirituall life yet Communion in one kind is abundantly sufficient thereunto as I shall presently shew and if so by force of the institution there is no more required For we must know that there is a great difference between an institution and a precept the precept of both kinds if Christ gave any doth bind whether both kinds be necessary for the maintenance of mans soule in grace or no but the institution of both kinds doth not bind to the use further than the thing instituted is necessary to the maintenance of the said spirituall life to which seeing one kind is sufficient the institution of both kinds doth not oblige us to the use of both § 3. Now that Communion in one kind is sufficient Transubstantiation being supposed easily appeares in that the Sacrament in the sole form of bread seeing it containes the author and fountaine of life whole and intire according to body soule blood and his infinite person is abundantly sufficient for the refection of the soule yea no lesse than Communion under both kinds For this one kind containeth in it no lesse than is contained in both that is whole Christ God and man His body is there by force of these words This is my body and by concomitance there is the blood the soule the divinity for there is the person of Christ alive which implies all these particulars it being impossible he should be there otherwise as S. Paul saith Christ rising againe from the dead now dieth no more death shall have no more dominion over him Rom. 6.9 And to the receivers of Christ by eating only he promiseth the end of the Sacrament which is life He that eateth me he shall live by me John 6.58.59 and to the sole reception of him under the forme of bread He that eateth this bread shall live for ever And this surely he would not have said if receiving in both kinds had been necessary § 4. But because Protestants deny Transubstantiation I will without that supposition prove that to receive in one kind is sufficient First because that in one kind is contained the whole substance essence and parts of the Sacrament and secondly because it is not against any divine precept As for the institution I have proved already that it hath not the force of a precept First in one kind alone is contained the whole substance and essence of the Sacrament which are these fowre matter word signification causality First there is the element or matter of the Sacrament which is consecrated bread and manducation thereof secondly there is the word or form of speech shewing the divine and supernaturall purpose whereto the element is consecrated This is my body and these two make a Sacrament according to S. Aug Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum Thirdly there is a signe or signification therein and that three-fold first of spirituall food for the nourishment of the soule secondly of union and conjunctions between Christ and his Church and between the faithfull one with another even as in the bread there is a mixture of flower and water and in the flower of many graines together Thirdly the death and passion of Christ is hereby signified For as by the wine we have a motive to remember his blood shed and separated from his body so by the bread we may conceive his body deprived of blood by the effusion thereof upon the crosse whereupon Christ as S. Paul testifies 1. Cor. 11.24.25 did after the consecration of each kind particularly recommend the memory of his passion as knowing thas in each of them alone was a sufficient memoriall thereof Lastly there is causality that is a working in the soule the spirituall effects it signifies as our Saviour saith He that eateth this bread shall live for ever Joh. 6.59 And if any object that though there be all the essentiall parts of the Sacrament in one kind yet there are not all the integrall parts I answer that bread and wine are not two integrall parts of the Sacrament more than the severall particles of the bread and wine are integrall parts and as the Sacrament is sufficient whether it be in a greater or lesse quantity of bread or wine so is it whether it be in bread only or wine only for our Saviour instituted the whole Sacrament both in bread and in wine as two distinct intire matters thereof not as integrall parts thereof and gave us leave to use or both or either as shall appeare in that he hath not obliged us by any precept to the use of both And thus it appeareth that the Sacrament in one kind is full intire and complete in substance and that by participation thereof prepared consciences do receive the benefits of Christs death and passion Neither doth it hereupon follow that because the Sacrament is essentially and intirely contained under either kind therefore the Priest receiving underboth receiveth two Sacraments for being received both at once they make but one as being ordained to one refection signifying one thing and producing one effect Even as six or seven dishes of meat set upon a table do make but one dinner whereas part thereof being served one day and part another would make two And the reason why Priests receive under both kinds is because they offer up a Sacrifice representing the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse which were not perfectly represented but by both kinds wherefore also in this sort was it prefigured in the Sacrifice of Melchizedek offering bread and wine It being thus proved that whole Christ and the true essence and parts of the Sacrament are under either kind it followeth that in distributing it in one kind only there is no irreverence offered to the Sacrament it not being given as Protestants thinke halfe or maimed but essentially and intirely whole nor is any injury done to the people by depriving them of any grace meet to salvation seeing the very fountaine of grace is no lesse received under either kind than under both Nor is it the opinion of the greater part of Catholique Divines that more grace is obtained by communicating in both kinds than in one yet if it were this advantage might be easily ballanced by other meanes as by the more frequent receiving in one kind and by our obedience to the Church Now by the premisses it is evident that whether we respect the institution of the Sacrament or the nature thereof no obligation or necessity ariseth of receiving in both kinds The only question therefore remaining is whether we be bound thereunto by any expresse Precept of our Saviour or his Apostles Protestants believe we are and for proof thereof alledge these places Vnlesse you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you shall not have life
in you Joh. 6.54 And taking the Chalice he gave thanks and gave to them saying drinke ye all of this Mat. 26.27 Also In like manner the Chalice after he had supped saying this Chalice is the New Testament in my blood this do ye as often as yee shall drinke in remembrance of me 1 Cor. 11.25 But none of these places rightly understood nor any other do prove what the Protestants pretend to Particularly to the first of these places I answer that seeing the Protestants do generally interpret this Chapter of S. John not of receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist but onely of believing in Christ it is no objection for them but because most Catholique Divines do interpret it of the Blessed Sacrament it is an objection against us to which therefore I further answer First that all words of Scripture that in their forme seem to import a Precept do not so indeed as where our Saviour saith to his Apostles that they ought to wash one anothers feet Joh. 13.14 yet no man ever held it for a matter of necessity But supposing for the present that it include a Precept I further answer that as we distinguish in the Sacrament the substance and the manner the substance being to receive Christ the manner to receive him in both kinds by formall eating and drinking So the same distinction is to be made in our Saviours Precept about this Sacrament For howsoever his words may sound of the manner of receiving in both kinds yet his intention is to command no more than the substance to wit that we really receive his body and blood which may be done under one kind The truth whereof will appeare if we consider first the occasion of the words objected which was the incredulity of the Capernaites whose doubt was not whether the Sacrament was to be given in one or both kinds but as Protestants still doubt whether he could give us his flesh to eat Secondly the manner of his speech which was not by making mention of any kind at all in the said words but only of the things themselves for he doth not say unlesse you eat the bread and drink the wine you have no life but unlesse you eat the flesh and drink the blood both which are equally contained under either bread or wine So that if a man receive the forme of bread only or of wine only he doth therein both eat and drinke the flesh and blood of Christ. And in other places of this Chapter where he makes mention of one kind it is of bread only and not at all of wine so that this place is of no force for the forme of wine unlesse the body and blood of Christ be separated and that receiving the form of bread we receive the body onely and of wine the blood only which must suppose Christ still dead which is most impious and impossible § 5. And if any think that because it is said unlesse you drinke therefore Christ must be received under a forme that may be drunke as well as eaten or else it is not drinking his blood but eating his blood as well as his body I answer it is called eating and drinking not so much in regard of the action as the subject so that flesh being the usuall subject of eating when the Sacrament is called flesh the action is called eating and blood being the usuall subject of drinking when there is mention of receiving the blood the action is called drinking and we are not bound to receive him in a drinkable forme because we are bid to drink his blood but we may be said to drink because we receive that which is in its nature drinkable to wit blood which we doe when we receive the body And if this will not serve the turn they may further argue against us that if we swallow the Host whole we do not eat it eating implying chewing more or lesse and so do not fulfill the precept of eating the flesh And we may argue in like manner against them that if they do not take wine enough to make a draught they do not drinke but onely tast or sip thereof and therein also do not fulfill that which they think they are here commanded But as a Protestant I suppose if the bread and wine should be so mixed together in a cup that both might be drunk together or else eaten with a spoon or in the manner of a moist piece of past or swallowed like a pill will believe that he receives in both kinds and fulfills this in his opinion Precept of drinking the blood So the body and blood being joyned together in either kind to us that believe Transubstantiation we receive both when we receive either kind which act of receiving with relation to the flesh may be called eating to the blood drinking yea though it should be taken in such a manner as strictly speaking should bee neither eating nor drinking I adde moreover with relation to them that do not believe Transubstantiation that the conjunctive particle And doth frequently signifie disjunctively that is Or For example the Apostle saith Acts 3.6 Silver and gold have I none where it is manifest that the sense is silver or gold I have none for if he had had either he had had no excuse of want for his not giving of almes So also S. Paul speaketh of this very Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.29 27. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himselfe which he interpreteth in the same Chapter saying Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the cup of our Lord unworthily In like manner those words Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood if they be taken for eating and drinking under the severall formes of bread and wine are to be understood disjunctively thus Except ye eat the flesh or drink the blood of the sonne of man you shall not have life in you Which disjunctive sense is proved to be the sense intended in this place because else Christ should contradict himself for he promiseth in this same Chapter life eternall to eating only He that eateth me the same shall live by me and he that eateth this bread shall live for ever now if he require unto life eternall eating and drinking both under distinct forms and kinds it is manifest he should contradict himselfe and because this is impossible we must necessarily interpret this place with relation to the severall formes of bread and wine disjunctively thus unlesse you eat or drink The second text urged for Communion in both kinds is Drinks ye all of this Mat. 26.27 which being rightly understood will appeare to be spoken neither to all mankind as to Jewes Turks Infidells as Protestants also acknowledge nor yet to all the faithfull but to all the Apostles and to them all only Which is manifest out of the Text it self for what one Evangelist saith was commanded to all another relates to have been answerably performed by all They drank all