expresly commandeth all to drinke of the Cup and lest any man might cauill saying that that precept belonged only to Priests Saint Pauls ordinance to the Corinthians testifies That the whole Church ordinarily or in common vsed both kinds In the Saxonik Article 15. All men know that the Lords Supper was so instituted at the first that the whole Sacrament was giuen to the people as it is written Drinke you all of this The custome of the ancient Churches both Greeke and Latine are well knowne therefore we must confesse that the prohibiting of one part thereof is vniust It is vnlawfull to violate the last wil and Testament of men if it be lawfully made why then doe the Bishops violate the Testament of the Sonne of God sealed with his blood In the Bohemian c. 14. Christ said in expresse words Take eate this is my body and in like manner when he gaue them the Cup by it selfe and distinctly said Take Drinke ye all of this this is my blood therefore according to this Commandement the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ ought to be distributed and receiued by all beleeuers in common In the latter Heluetian confession cap. 21. we dislike these who haue takeÌ„ away one part of the Sacrament viz. the Cup of the Lord from the faithfull for they grieuouslly offend against the Lords institution who said Drinke ye all of this which hee spake not in so expresse words of the bread The Doctrine and practice of the reformed Churches as it is expressed in these Confessions is solidly and learnedly iustified against the Romish aduersaries by Luther Melancton Caluin Iewel Chemsius Plessis Bilson Riuet Moulin Chamierus Humfrey and others from whose Hiues I haue taken much hony yet not vpon trust nor without trying it but tracing the diligent Bees in the Paradice of God the holy Scripture and the Garden of Ecclesiasticall Writers euen to each flower whence they gathered it CHAP. II. The first Argument drawne from Christs Precept and example in the celebration of this Sacrament WHatsoeuer Christ commanded and did in the first celebration of this Supper ought continually to be obserued and practized in the Church But Christ in the first celebration of the Supper gaue the Cup and commanded it to bee giuen to all there present that before had receiued the bread Therefore the giuing of the Cup to all Communicants at the Supper ought perpetually to bee obserued and practised in the Church The proposition is gathered out of Luk. 22. 19. This doe ye in remembrance of me and 1. Cor. 11. 25. This do ye as oft as you drink in remembrance of me and ver 26. as oft as you eate of this bread and drinke this Cup you shew the Lords death till he come In which words the Apostle euidently implyeth that the Commandement this doe in remembrance of me extends euen to Christs second comming And verily if Christs precepts and actions in the first celebration of this Sacrament were not a law binding the Church to doe the like in all succeeding ages neither the Apostles themselues nor the Church after them should haue had any warrant at all to celebrate the Lords Supper after his death Which to affirme were absurd impietie or as Saint Augustine speakes in a case of farre lesse importance most insolent madnesse The assumption is set down in the very letter totidem verbis Mat. 26. 27. He tooke the Cup and gaue it to them saying Drinke you all of this Mark 14. 23 And he tooke the Cup and when hee had giuen thanks he gaue it them and they all drank of it Certainely I perswade my selfe that our Sauiour expressed the note of vniuersality viz. in deliuering the Cup to all saying Drinke you all of this and not so in giuing the bread of set purpose to preuent that abuse which the Romish Church of late hath brought in by taking away the Cup. As in like manner the Apostle saith of marriage It is honorable in or amongst all men Heb. 13. 4. and he saith not so of virginity or single life although it bee most true that single life or virginity is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is pretious or honorable because the holy Ghost foresaw that some heretikes would denie marriage to bee honourable amongst all and prohibite it to some men viz. the Cleargie Which two texts of Scripture the Romanists lewdly peruert and ridiculously contradict themselues in the interpretation of them extending all to the Laietie in the one and excluding the Cleargie and extending all to the Cleargie in the other and excluding the laietie Marriage is honorable among all say they that is all saue Priests Drink you all of this that is all saue the people In restraining all in both places they make of omnes non omnes and so contradict the text and by expounding all sometimes of the people not Priests sometimes of Priests and not people they contradict themselues For the restriction of all in this place to Priests administring onely I forbeare the further refuting of it because all the arguments that follow in generall ouerthrow it and in particular and expressly it is refelled in the Conference annexed hereunto This whole argument is confirmed by the testimonie of Pope Iulius set downe in the Canon Law and therefore deliuered ex Cathedra De consecrat dist 2. There hee proues that bread and wine onely ought to be giuen in the Sacrament and not milke because Christ the master of Truth when he commended the Sacrament vnto his Disciples at his last Supâ—…er gaue milke to none but bread the cup only The contrary practice viz. of them that giue milke in the Sacrament how repugnant it is to the Euangelicall and Apostolicall Doctrine and custome of the Church will easily bee proued from the fountaine of truth from whom the ordination of these mysteries did proceed The Pope in this place drawes an argument from Christs institution and practice at his last Supper both affirmatiuely and negatiuely Christ gaue bread and wine to his Disciples therefore wee ought so to doe he gaue not milke therefore wee ought not Christ is the Fountaine of truth he is the Master of truth hee is the Author of the Sacrament therefore inferreth the Pope and in this particular infallibly nothing must bee done in the administration of this Sacrament otherwise then Christ did and commanded at his last Supper The Romanists cannot confirme the Popes argument but they must needs confirme ours in this point they cannot infirme or weaken ours but they must needes weaken his and not his onely but that renowned Doctor and glorious Martyr Saint Cyprians also who fighteth with the same weapon against the heretiques called Aquarij wherewith we doe against the papists No man may vnder colour of new or humane constitutions depart from that which Christ our Master did and taught and a little
the blood nor the blood without the body so we reply that the Sacrifice is entire also in one kinde If the doctrine of cōcomitancie take place in the Sacrament it must needs take place also in the sacrifice if in the people receiuing the bread represents and exhibits whole Christ it must needs do also in the Priests cōsecrating As Plinie writes of the Bees that they are often entangled in their owne honie and waxe so are our aduersaries caught fast and entangled in their owne fancies viz. the necessity of consecrating both kinds in the sacrifice of the Masse and their doctrine of Concomitancie viz. that whole Christs body and blood is contained in each kind by it selfe Thus as the bees hony stoppe the little pipe which serueth them in stead of a mouth so our aduersaries owne Tenents stop their owne mouth CHAP. VIII The seuenth Argument drawne from the nature and condicion of a will or legacie NO legacie bequeathed by the last will and testament confirmed by the death of the testator ought to bee withheld from any legatarie that is person to whom it is bequeathed The Cup in the Eucharist is a legacie bequeathed by Christs last will and testament to all true beleeuers capable thereof Therefore the Cup in the Eucharist ought not to be withheld from any true beleeuer capable thereof The proposition is the Apostles Gal. 3. 15. A mans testiment if it be confirmed no man disanulleth or addeth thereunto and Heb. 9. 7. A ◅estament is of force after men are dead The assumption is part of the words of Christs institution Luk. 22. 20. This cup is the new Testament in my blood Christ calleth it his Testament or last legacie as Aquinas par 3. qu. 73. art 50. truly noteth Because those things which are spoken last especially by friends departing doe stick faster in the memorie by reason that the affections are then most inflamed to our friends and those things wherewith we are more affected make a deeper impression in the mind This whole argument is confirmed by Iansenius who meeting with an answer that seemes to be made to this argument directly impugneth it The answer giuen by Bellar. and others is The legacie bequeathed is not bread nor wine but the body and blood of our Lord both which are giuen vnder one kind as well as vnder both the difference is that they which drinke of the Cup receiue the legacie as it were in two paiments they who doe not drinke receiue the same legacy in one paiment This answer is substantially refuted by Iansenius in Liturge lib. 4. and 7. and thereby the former argument very much strengthned First saith he the answer were to some purpose if Christ by will had disposed onely of the things signified in the Sacrament but Christ in his legacie had respect not onely to the thing signified but also to the signe for the manifestation of his Passion and representation of his death Secondly hee acutely and truly obserueth that the will of the testator might be satisfied in giuing the whole legacie at once or twise if it were of the nature of monie which may bee payd in one great piece or in many small amounting to the same value But it is not so in the Sacrament saith he the thing signified by the Sacrament cannot by the discretion of the Church be deuided into more formes nor be cōtracted in one It is not in the powre of the Church to make the body alone to be vnder the forme of bread nor the blood alone vnder the forme of wine nor both of them together vnder one forme or kinde Therefore as when a man bequeatheth to any by his wil one thousand pound in coyne and one thousand pound in ancient plate of such a making he that paieth the whole legacie either in coyne onely or in plate onely violates the will because though he may giue the valew yet hee giues not the thing in specie bequethed so although it should be granted which yet is not that the Priest giueth to the people the body blood of Christ in the bread yet hee violates the will of the testator because he giueth it not so as it may be drunke or in the forme of wine Whence I conclude that what the Apostle saith No man offereth to the will of a man The Romanists offer to the last will and testament of God our Lord and therefore are guiltie not onely of greuious sacriledge but also of grand fraud and impietie in violating the Testament of our Sauiour and deceiuing the people of a most pretious legacie bequeathed by him vnto them CHAP. IX The eight Argument drawne from the end of the Sacrament THis Sacrament ought in such wise to be receiued by al Communicants that thereby the death of Christ may be represented and shewed forth But without partaking of the Cup it cannot bee so receiued that thereby Christs death may be represented and shewed forth Therefore without pertaking of the Cup it ought not to be receiued by any Communicants The proposition is the Apostles 1. Cor. 11. 28. As often as you eate this bread and drinke this Cup you shew forth the Lords death till he come againe The assumption is euident to sense and reason to sense for the breaking of bread representeth in no wise the effusiō of bloud to reason for blood which is contained in the body and vaines no way sheweth the killing or bloodie death of the partie but the blood if it be at all in the bread which we denie it can be there no otherwise as themselues confesse then by concomitancie as contained in not seuered from the body as inclosed in not shed out of the veines Therefore if it should be granted to our aduersaries that the blood might be receiued in the bread by it selfe yet by such receiuing Christs death by the effusion of his blood for vs could in no wise be represented or shewed forth which yet is acknowledged to be the principall end of the celebration of this Sacrament This whole argument is confirmed by ◅bus Reihing who ingeniously acknowledgeth that in the Encheridion which he wrote when he was a Iesuite against the doctrine of the reformed Churches he cōcealed this obiection of the Protestants because hee despaired euer to giue a satisfactorie answer thereunto It may be that wits if they be put vpon the rack may finde out euasions for any argument but a true solution on which a man may settle his conscience no Papist can euer giue For if the Priest be bound to consecrate and receiue the wine a part because otherwise hee should not represent the effusion of Christs blood by the same reason all Communicants that receiue the Sacrament ought to take the wine apart being mystically Christs blood as well as the Priests because they in their eating and drinking are commanded to shew forth and declare Christs death as the Apostle teacheth vs. Neither can it be said
that this manner of receiuing to shew forth Christs death was necessary onely till such time as the Church in the Councell of Constance had otherwise ordained for the Apostles Canon extendeth to Christs second comming As oft saith hee as you eate this Bread and drinke this Cup you shall shew forth Christs death till he come againe Therefore till his second dâ—…ng euen to the end of the world this Iniunction is of force CHAP. X. The tenth Argument drawne from the example of Saint Paul and the Corinthians THat which Saint Paul deliuered from Christ to the Corinthians touching the administration of the Eucharist ought perpetually to bee obserued in the Church But S. Paul from Christ deliuered to the Corinthians the communicating of the faithfull in both kinds Therefore the communicating of the faithfull in both kinds ought perpetually to be obserued in the administration of the Eucharist in the Church The Proposition is vncontroleablâ—… because an example of the Apostle and the Primitiue Churches hauing warrant from Christs word is a safe president to all succeeding Churches The Assumption is contained in the 1. Cor. 11. from verse the 23. to the 29. I receiued of the Lord that which I deliuered vnto you c. After this preface hee relateth this institution of the Sacrament in both kinds vers 24 25. and from the 26. to the 29. hee teacheth in what manner they ought to communicate in both kinds and how they ought to fit and prepare themselues thereunto S. Pauls authority writing by diuine inspiration ought to sway with all religious Christians how much more when it is backed and seconded with some Command Precept Order or at least Warrant from Christ himselfe That which I deliuered vnto you saith he I receiued from the Lord and therefore you may safely follow what not I but the Lord hath prescribed This whole Argument is confirmed by Becanus who confesseth that the Apostle deliuered the Communion in both kinds I confesse that both kinds were instituted by Christ I confesse that both were deliuered by the Apostle Tollet vpon the sixth of Iohn saith There is no question of it It was an ancient custome obserued in the Church from the times of the Apostles to communicate in both kinds In this assertion there is no controuersie at all No controuersie at all indeed for it is the Protestants plea generally and the Romanists themselues admit of it but yet come in with a strange non obstante See the Councell of Constance sess 13. The Synod declareth decrees and defines that although Christ after supper instituted and administred to his Disciples this venerable Sacrament in both kinds viz. of bread and wine and though this Sacrament were receiued in both kinds in the Primitiue Church Hoc tamen non obstante notwithstanding all this the Councell giues order to the Contrary The Prince by his Prerogatiue sometimes in his Proclamations appoints and commands in some particular Acts to bee done contrary to some former Statute or Act but wee neuer reade of a non obstante against the Kings Prerogatiue how much lesse against the expresse Command and Law of the King of Kings Wherfore this Councel deserueth to be branded for euer either with the infamous name of non obstantiense Concilium which Luther giues it or In-constantiense for breaking their publike faith giuen to Iohn Hus and Ierome of Prage and burning those blessed Martyrs because they were not able to confute them CHAP. XI The eleuenth Argument drawne from the vniforme and constant practice of the Catholike Church in all ages THe words vsed in the institution Drink you all of this ought to be expounded according to the vniforme and constant practise of the Catholike Christian Church But the constant and vniforme practise of the Catholike Church extendeth them to the Laytie as well as to the Clergy Therefore the words of the institution extend to the Laiety as well as to the Clergy The Proposition was assented vnto by Master Euerard in the Conference held with him neither thinke I any Christian will sticke at it who seriously weigheth Christs promises to his Church to leade her by his Spirit into all truth to be with her vnto the end of the world to build her vpon a rocke against which hell gates should neuer preuaile The Assumption can no otherwise so certainely be prooued as by induction and particular instances in euery Age which God willing shall be brought and made good against the aduersaries exceptions in the Sections following SECT I. Testimonies of the practise of the Christian Church in the first Age. From Christs Ascension to the first 100. yeeres following AFter the writings of the blessed Apostle Saint Paul whose testimonie in the ninth argument is discussed I alleadge for the practise of the Church in this first age Dionysius Areopagita Martialis Lemouicensis Clemens Romanus and Ignatius Antiochenus For albeit I assent thus farre to our learned Critickes that these Authors are not altogether currant there is some drosse in Ignatius more in Martialis and most of all in Clemens and Dionysius is vndoubtedly post-natus 300. yeeres at lest yonger then his age is set in the Romane register yet for the reasons following I thought fit to produce these Authors and ranke them in the first age First because our aduersaries vsually so ranke them and alleage them against vs for fathers of the first age and surely if their testimonies bee good and ancient when they seeme to make against vs they are to bee accounted as good and ancient when they make for vs. Secondly because we cannot make authors but must take such as we finde these are the only authors that are extant out of whom testimonies may be alleadged for this first age Therefore as the sage Senatour of Capua when the people vpon a iust distaste giuen by the Magistrates had a purpose at once to casheere them all aduised them Before you remoue these choose fitter in their places and when diuers were named vnto them and they could like of none in the end hee perswaded them to keepe the old officers till they could agree to name better in their roomes so I would desire our Critikes to name vs more approued authors in this age then these are and if they can name none then to let these hold their places and the estimation they haue had for many hundred yeeres Thirdly because I hold it no good Topick to argue à parte ad totum affirmatiuely in this manner There are some false passages or corruptions in an author therefore the author is spurious and of no credit If we may thus fillip off ancient Writers wee shall haue but a few left If there are as no doubt there bee diuers dead boughes superfluous stemmes in these Writers of so long standing let our Criticks prune them off not cut the trees downe by the roots Poliat lima non exterat saith Fabius let the pluimer smooth the timber
the thing offered The difference was in this according to S. Chrysostome that the people simply might not eat of those things of which the Priest might but in the new testament the people may eat of all that the Priests may Lastly although we should admit of Bellarmines answer touching the condition of the Priest and people of the old law and the new that they of the old fed of the sacrifice apart each hauing their seuerall portions appointed for them but that the Prists and people of the new receiued the sacrament entirely the Priest entirely and the people entirely which in some sence is true yet this no way satisfieth the words of Saint Chrysostome who saith expresly that one Cup as well as one bread is set before all people as well as Priests and that according to Christs institution in the new testament SECT V. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 400. to 500. Anno 410. ABout the beginning of the fifth Age God raysed vp that golden Tapour in the Church Saint Austin by whose light as wee may discouer other errors and abuses of the Church of Rome so this their mutilation of the Sacrament and defrauding Gods people of one part of this Supper This Author in his dialogue to Orosius quest 49. he interprets the blood of Abel the blood of Christ which saith he when the whole Church receiueth it saith Amen For what a cry maketh the whole Church when after she hath dranke the blood of Christ cryeth Amen And in his 57. question vpon Leuiticus he not onely testifies that the people did drinke of Christs blood but that they ought to doe so if they expect life from him What is the meaning of this saith he that the people are forbidden to eat of the blood of the sacrifices which were offered for sinn if by those sacrifices this sacrifice was signified in which there is trueremission of sinnes and yet not onely no man is forbidden to take the blood of this sacrifice for nourishment but on the contrary all men who desire life are exhorted to drinke it Papists answer Bellarmine de sacra Eucharistiae lib. 4. cap. 26. answereth that the force of Saint Austines reason consisteth not in the manner of drinking but in the taking of the blood which produceth the same effect whither it bee taken as meat or drinke Refutation Saint Austin in that place obserueth a difference between the precepts of the old and the precepts of the new testament that in the old blood was forbidden so much as to bee eaten with the flesh but in the new it is commanded to be drunke euen by it selfe and so the force of his reason ab oppositis stands not onely in some way taking blood for sustenance but euen in the manner of taking it euen by drinke Secondly whereinsoeuer the force of Saint Austines reason stands his words which wee alleage are expresly for taking it by drinking For he saith not as Bellarmine will haue him all who desire life are exhorted to take Christs blood for sustenance or to feed vpon it But they are exhorted to drinke it The people therefore if they looke for life by Christ they must drinke his blood which they cannot doe if the Priest deny the Cup. Anno. 420. Eusebius Emissenus in his Homily vpon Palme-Sunday speakes of the faithfulls communicating in both kinds as of a daily and frequent practice As then our Lord liued and spake and yet was eaten by his Disciples and drunke so now he remaines whole and vncorrupted and yet is daily drunke and eaten by the faithfull I beleeue no Romish Priest will bee so impudent as to restraine beleeuers to Priests onely If the Layetie are not to be reckoned in the number of fideles or belieuers they may not eat Christ in the Sacrament of bread and if they are fideles or beleeuers then they vsually nay daily drinke his blood in the Sacrament of wine as well as eate his flesh in the Sacrament of bread Anno 430. Theodoret in his Dialogue called Atreptus cap. 11. allotteth to all the faithfull an equall share in the Lords Supper one mysticall Table is prepared for all from which all beleeuers take vnto themselues an equall portion And in his Comment on the second Chapter of the first to the Corinthians hee obserueth a difference betweene ordinary suppers and the Lords Supper Of that viz. the Lords Table all are equally partakers but here viz. in common suppers one is hungry and another is drunke Hee saith not he drinkes but is drunke blaming him for two reasons first that he drinkes alone secondly that he is drunke If the Layetie drank not of the Lords Table they did not equally participate with the Priests And if in Theodorets time the Priests did drinke alone as now they doe at the Romane Masse Theodoret could not herein haue differenced them from common and prophane tables so that at the one all eate and drinke alike at the other one is satisfied and another is hungry one is thirsty and another drinketh alone and is drunke Anno 431. Cyrillus of Alexandria Glaphyr lib. 2. writeth thus As long as we are in this world wee will communicate with Christ by his holy flesh and precious blood Communicatio sanctae carnis atque item poculū ex salutari ipsius sanguine c. The communicating his holy flesh and the Cup of his holy blood hath in it a confession of Christs death by the participating in these things in this world we commemorate Christs death Anno. 450. Leo the Great Bishop of Rome in his fourth Sermon de quadragessima giues it as a character or marke to descry the Manichees by that at the Sacrament they would eate of the bread but in no wise drinke of the wine They viz. the Manichees so carry themselues at the Communion that they may more safely lye hid they take the body of Christ into their vnworthy mouthes but altogether they refuse to drinke the blood of their redemption which I would haue your Holinesse know that you may set a mark vpon these men in whomsoeuer you find such sacrilegious simulation you discouer them that by Priestly authoritie they may be driuen from the society of the Saints Here Leo both a Bishop of Rome and a great Clarke makes it sacriledge and heresie to receiue Christs body in the Sacrament and to refuse to drinke his blood Anno. 451. In the generall Councell of Chalcedon act 10. there is an accusation brought in against Iba the Bishop of Edessa that in some Church in his Diocesse at the Commemoration of the holy Martyrs there was but a little wine and that corrupt and sowre prouided for the Altar to bee sanctified and distributed to the people This generall Councell was counted to represent the whole Christian Church whereby it appeares that at the time of this Councell the Cup was giuen through the whole Christian world to
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 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 vpon mettall is no good hearaldrie and error vpon error is no good Dâ—…uinity By the Apostle Saint Pauls rule none ought to be admitted to the Communion that haue not knowledge to discerne the Lords body and discretion to examine themselues This sucklings cannot doe and therefore not onely 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 onely 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 vpon our aduersaries If 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 Alas the treachery of others hath destroyed vs wee haue done nothing of our selues we hasted not of our own accords to profane contagions leauing the Meate and Cup of the Lord. 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 haue 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 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 vs 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 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 Church 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 vnto Idols lying vpon his death-bed desired to bee reconciled to the Church and sent to a Priest to giue 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 vnto 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 moystening the portion of bread which he receiued of the Priest and infâ—…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 vs. For if Saint Ambrose straight vpon the receiuing of the bread yeelded vp the Ghost before hee could receiue the Cup it was by accident that hee receiued not 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 vpon 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 That the