have been written against by so learned an adversary But to let them agree as well as they can the words of Eusebius Demonstr Evang. l. 1. c. ult 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle received a command according to the constitution of the N. T. to make a memory of this sacrifice upon the table by the symbols of his body and healthful bloud So the words are translated in the Dissuasive But the letter translates them thus Seeing therefore we have received the memory of this sacrifice to be celebrated in certain signs on the Table and the memory of that body and healthful bloud as is the institute of the new Testament out of his last chapter I translated as well as I could the Greek words I have set in the Margent that every one that understands may see I did him right and indeed to do my Adversary right when he goes about to change not to mend the translation he only changes the order of the words but in nothing does he mend his own matter by it for he acknowledges the main Question viz. that the memory of Christs sacrifice is to be celebrated in certain figns on the Table but then that I may do my self right and the question too whosoever translated these words for this Gentleman hath abused him and made him to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hath made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is so far off it and hath no relation to it and not to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with which it is joyn'd and hath made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it hath a substantive of its own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he repeats 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 once more than it is in the words of Eusebius only because he would not have the Reader suppose that Eusebius call'd the consecrated Elements the symbols of the body and bloud But this fraud was too much studied to be excusable upon the stock of humane infirmity or an innocent perswasion But that I may satisfie the Reader in this Question so far as the testimony and doctrine of Eusebius can extend he hath these words fully to our purpose Lib. 5. c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First our Lord and Saviour and then after him his Priests of all Nations celebrating the spiritual sacrifice according to the Ecclesiastick Laws by the bread and the wine signifie the mysteries of his body and healing bloud Et lib. 8. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et Paulo post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again By the wine which is the symbol of his bloud he purges the old sins of them who were baptized into his death and believe in his bloud Again he gave to his Disciples the symbols of the divine Oeconomy commanding them to make the image figure or representation of his own body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again He received not the sacrifices of bloud nor the slaying of divers beasts instituted in the Law of Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but ordained we should use bread the symbol of his own body So far I thought fit to set down the words of Eusebius to convince my Adversary that Eusebius is none of theirs but he is wholly ours in the doctrine of the Sacrament S. Macarius is cited in the Dissuasive in these words Macarius homil 27. In the Church is offered bread and wine the Antitype of his flesh and bloud and they that partake of the bread that appears do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ. * Pag. 22. A. L. saith Macarius saith not so but rather the contrary viz. bread and wine exhibiting the Exemplar or an antitype his flesh and bloud Now although I do not suppose many learned or good men will concern themselves with what this little man says yet I cannot but note that they who gave him this answer may be asham'd for here is a double satisfaction in this little answer First he puts in the word exhibiting of his own head there being no such word in S. Macarius in the words quoted 2. He makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be put with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of apposition expresly against the mind of S. Macarius and against the very Grammar of his words And after all he studies to abuse his Author and yet gets no good by it himself for if it were in the words as he hath invented it or some body else for him yet it makes against him as much saying bread and wine exhibite Christs body which is indeed true though not here said by the Saint but is directly against the Roman article because it confesses that to be bread and wine by which Christs body is exhibited to us but much more is the whole testimony of S. Macarius which in the Dissuasive are translated exactly as the Reader may see by the Greek words cited in the Margent There now only remains the authority of S. Austin Pag. ibid. which this Gentleman would fain snatch from the Church of England and assert to his own party I cited five places out of S. Austin to the last of which but one he gives this answer that S. Austin hath no such words in that book that is in the 10. book against Faustus the Manichee Concerning which I am to inform the Gentleman a little better These words that which by all men is called a sacrifice is the sign of the true sacrifice are in the 10. book of S. Austin de C. D. cap. 5. and make a distinct quotation and ought by the Printer to have been divided by a colume as the other But the following words in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption is celebrated by the sacrament of remembrance are in the 20. book cap. 21. against Faustus the Manichee * Hujus sacrificii caro sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur in passione Christi per ipsa◠veritatem reddebatur po◠ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur lib. 20. c. 21. contr Faustum Manich. All these words and divers others of S. Austin I knit together into a close order like a continued discourse but all of them are S. Austins words as appears in the places set down in the Margent But this Gentleman car'd not for what was said by S. Austin he was as well pleased that a figure was false Printed but to the words he hath nothing to say To the first of the other four only he makes this crude answer that S. Austin denied not the real eating of Christs body in the Eucharist but only the eating it in that gross carnal and sensible manner as the Capharnaites conceiv'd To which I reply that it is true that upon occasion of this error S. Austin did speak those words and although the Roman error
well they that Minister as the rest of the believers And no wonder since for their so doing they have the example and institution of Christ by which as by an irrefragable and undeniable argument the Ancient Fathers us'd to reprove and condemn all usages which were not according to it For saith Saint Cyprian If men ought not to break the least of Christs commandments Epist. 63. how much less those great ones which belong to the Sacrament of our Lords passion and redemption or to change it into any thing but that which was appointed by him Now this was spoken against those who refus'd the hallowed wine but took water instead of it and it is of equal force against them that give to the Laity no cup at all but whatever the instance was or could be S. Cyprian reproves it upon the only account of prevaricating Christs institution The whole Epistle is worth reading for a full satisfaction to all wise and sober Christians Ab eo quod Christus Magister praecepit gessit humana novella institutione decedere by a new and humane institution to depart from what Christ our Master commanded and did that the Bishops would not do tamen quoniam quidam c. because there are some who simply and ignorantly In calice Dominico sanctificando plebi ministrando non hoc faciunt quod Jesus Christus Dominus Deus noster sacrificii hujus author Doctor fecit docuit c. In sanctifying the cup of the Lord and giving it to the people do not do what Jesus Christ did and taught viz. they did not give the cup of wine to the people therefore S. Cyprian calls them to return ad radicem originem traditionis Dominicae to the root and original of the Lords delivery Now besides that S. Cyprian plainly says that when the chalice was sanctified it was also ministred to the people I desire it be considered whether or no these words do not plainly reprove the Roman doctrine and practice in not giving the consecrated chalice to the people Do they not recede from the root and original of Christs institution Do they do what Christ did Do they teach what Christ taught Is not their practice quite another thing than it was at first Did not the Ancient Church do otherwise than these men do And thought themselves oblig'd to do otherwise They urg'd the doctrine and example of our Lord and the whole Oeconomy of the Mystery was their warrant and their reason for they always believed that a peculiar grace and vertue was signified by the symbol of wine and it was evident that the chalice was an excellent representment and memorial of the effusion of Christs bloud for us and the joyning both the symbols signifies the intire refection and nourishment of our souls bread and drink being the natural provisions and they design and signifie our redemption more perfectly the body being given for our bodies and the bloud for the cleansing our souls the life of every animal being in the bloud and finally this in the integrity signifies and represents Christ to have taken body and soul for our redemption For these reasons the Church of God always in all her publick communions gave the chalice to the people for above a thousand years This was all I would have remarked in this so evident a matter but that I observed in a short spiteful passage of E. W. Pag. 44. a notorious untruth spoken with ill intent concerning the Holy Communion as understood by Protestants The words are these seeing the fruit of Protestant Communion is only to stir up faith in the receiver I can find no reason why their bit of bread only may not as well work that effect as to taste of their wine with it To these words 1. I say that although stirring up faith is one of the Divine benefits and blessings of the Holy Communion yet it is falsely said that the fruit of the Protestant Communion is only to stir up faith For in the Catechism of the Church of England it is affirmed that the body and bloud of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lords Supper and that our souls are strengthened and refreshed by the body and bloud of Christ as our bodies are by the bread and wine and that of stirring up our faith is not at all mentioned So ignorant so deceitful or deceiv'd is E. W. in the doctrine of the Church of England But then as for his foolish sarcasm calling the hallowed Element a bit of bread which he does in scorn he might have considered that if we had a mind to find fault whenever his Church gives us cause that the Papists wafer is scarce so much as a bit of bread it is more like Marchpane than common bread and besides that as Salmeron acknowledges anciently Salmer in 11. Cor. 10. disp 17. pag. 138. Olim ex pane uno sua cuique particula frangi consueverat that which we in our Church do was the custom of the Church out of a great loaf to give particles to every communicant by which the Communication of Christs body to all the members is better represented Durand ration Divin offic l. 4. c. 53. and that Durandus affirming the same thing says that the Grecians continue it to this day besides this I say the Author of the Roman order says Cassander took it very ill Cassand liturg c. 27. Sect. Et cum mensa that the loaves of bread offered in certain Churches for the use of the sacrifice should be brought from the form of true bread to so slight and slender a form which he calls Minutias nummulariarum oblatarum scraps of little penies or pieces of money and not worthy to be called bread being such which no Nation ever used at their meals for bread But this is one of the innovations which they have introduc'd into the religious Rites of Christianity and it is little noted they having so many greater changes to answer for But it seems this Section was too hot for them they loved not much to meddle with it and therefore I shall add no more fuel to their displeasure but desire the Reader who would fully understand what is fit to be said in this Question Lib. 2. Chap. 3. Rule 9. to read it in a book of mine which I called Ductor dubitantium or the Cases of Conscience only I must needs observe that it is an unspeakable comfort to all Protestants when so manifestly they have Christ on their side in this Question against the Church of Rome To which I only add that for above 700. years after Christ it was esteemed sacriledge in the Church of Rome to abstain from the Cup and that in the ordo Romanus the Communion is always describ'd with the Cup how it is since and how it comes to be so is too plain But it seems the Church hath power to dispense in this
devesting the Church from the simplicity of her Faith is like removing the ancient Land-mark you cannot tell by the mark in what Countrey you are in whether in your own or in the Enemies And in the world nothing is more unnecessary For if that faith be sufficient if in that faith the Church went to Heaven if in that she preserv'd unity and begat Children to Christ and nurs'd them up to be perfect men in Christ and kept her self pure from Heresie and unbroken by Schism whatsoever is added to it is either contain'd in the Article virtually or it is not If not then it is no part of the Faith and by the laws of Faith there is no obligation pass'd upon any man to believe it But if it be then he that believes the Article does virtually believe all that is virtually contain'd in it but no man is to be press'd with the consequents drawn from thence unless the Transcript be drawn by the same hand that wrote the Original for we are sure it came in the simplicity of it from an infallible Spirit but he that bids me believe his Deductions under pain of damnation bids me under pain of damnation believe that he is an Unerring Logician for which because God hath given me no command and himself can give me no security if I can defend my self from that man's pride God will defend me from Damnation But let us see a little further with what constancy That and The following Ages of the Church did adhere to the Apostles Creed as the sufficient and perfect Rule of Faith There was an Imperial Edict of Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius Cunctos populos quos clementiae nostrae regit imperium in eâ volumus religione versari quam Divinum Petrum Apostolum tradidisse Romanis religio usque nunc ab ipso insi nuata declarat quámque pontificem Damasum sequi claret Petrum Alexandriae Episcopum virum Apostolicae sanctitatis hoc est ut secundum Apostolicam disciplinam Evangelicamque doctrinam Patris Filii Spiritus sancti Vnam Deitatem sub pari majestate sub piâ Trinitate credamus Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum Catholicorum nomen jubemus amplecti reliquos verò dementes vesanósque judicantes Haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere divina primùm vindictâ pòst etiam motu animi nostri quem ex coelesti arbitrio sumpserimus ultione plectendos Part of this being cited in the Dissuasive to prove that in the early Ages of the Church the Christian Faith was much more simple than it is now in the Roman Church The Letter to a friend p. 4. and that upon easier terms men might then be Catholick It was replied by some one of the Opponents That by this law was not meant that all who believ'd the Trinity were Catholicks absolutely but only as to those points and the Reason given is this Because after this law the Novatians Donatists Nestorians Eutychians c. were proceeded against as Hereticks and Schismaticks notwithstanding their belief of the Trinity and Vnity of the God-head But this thing was spoken without all care whether it were to the purpose or no. For when this law was made that was the Rule of Catholicism as appears by the words of the law and if afterward it became alter'd and the Bishops became too opinionative or thought themselves forc'd into further declarations must therefore the precedent law be judged ex post facto by what they did afterwards It might as well have been said the Church was never content with the Apostles Creed because afterwards the Lutherans and Calvinists and Zuinglians c. were proceeded against as Hereticks and Schismaticks notwithstanding their belief of all that is in the Apostles Creed Ex post facto nunquam crescit praeteriti aestimatio says the law But for the true understanding of this Imperial law we must know that the confession of the Holy Trinity and Unity was not set down there as a single Article but as a Summary of the Apostles Creed the three parts of which have for their heads The three Persons of the holy and undivided Trinity And this appears by the relation the law makes to the faith Saint Peter taught the Church of Rome and to the Creed of Damasus which may be seen in Saint Hierom who rejects the Creed of that worthy Prelate in the second Tome of his Works in which the Apostolical Creed is explicated that what relates to the Trinity and Unity spoken of in the Imperial Law or Rule of Catholicks and Christians is set down in it's full purpose and design And this thing may better be understood by an instance in the Catechism of the Church of England for when the Catechumen hath at large recited the Apostles Creed he is taught to summe it up in this manner First I learn to believe in God the Father who hath made me and all the world Secondly In God the Son who hath redeemed me and all mankind Thirdly In God the Holy Ghost who sanctifieth me and all the elect people of God This is the Summary of the Creed and these things are not to be considered as Articles distinct and complete and integrating the Christian Faith but as a breviary of that Faith to which in the same place it is made to relate just as the Imperial Law does relate to the Faith of S. Peter and the Creed of Damasus and Peter of Alexandria Concerning which he that says much says no more and he that says little says no less for the Faith is the same as I have already cited the words of S. Irenaeus Since then the Emperours made the summary of the Apostles Creed to be the rule of discerning Catholicks from Hereticks it follows that the Roman Church Catholick signifies something else than it did in the primitive Church S. Ambrose says Faith is conceiv'd by the Apostles Creed all Faith lies in that as the Child in the Mother's Womb and he compares it to a Key because by it the darknesses of the Devil are unlock'd that the light of Christ might come upon us and the hidden sins of conscience are opened that the manifest works of righteousness may shine This Key is to be shown to our Brethren that by this as Scholars of S. Peter they may shut the gates of Hell and open the doors of Heaven He also calls it The Seal of our Heart and the Sacrament of our Warfare S. Hierom speaking of it Epist. ad Pammach contra â—rro es Johan Hierosolymit Exp siâ— Symbol c. 2 3. l. 6. Orig. c. 9. says The Symbol of our Faith and Hope which was deliver'd by the Apostles is not written in Paper and Ink but in the fleshy tables of our hearts After the confession of the Trinity and Vnity of the Church the whole or every Sacrament of the Christian Religion is concluded with the resurrection of the flesh Which words are intimated and in part transcribed by Isidore of Sevil.
consider'd how cheap are the lives of Kings in their eyes who consult more with the safety of a Villain whom they dare not absolve * Script Garnetti apud Is. Casaub ni Epist. ad Fron. Du caeum p. 13â— than of a King who is worthy ten thousands of his people and let it be also considered that by using all the ways in the world to make Confession easie to Traitors and Homicides they make it odious to Kings and Princes and to all that love the safety of their Sovereigns and of the publick We find that the laws of God yield to charity and necessity and Christ followed the act of David who when he was hungry eat the Shew-bread which was unlawful to be eaten but by the Priest alone and he that commanded us to go and learn what that means I will have mercy and not sacrifice intended not that the Seal of Confession should upon pretence of Religion be us'd to the most uncharitable ends in the world no though it had been made sacred by a Divine Commandment which it is not but is wholly introduc'd by Custom and Canons Ecclesiastical And when we see that things dedicated to God and made sacred by Religion and the laws of God confirming such Religion can be alien'd and made common in cases of extreme necessity or great charity it is a strange superstition that shall hold that fast with teeth and nails and never let it go no not to save a soul not to preserve the life of Kings not to prevent the greatest mâ—schief in the world This is certainly a making the Commandments of men greater and more sacred than the Commandments of God and a passing them into a doctrine great necessary and unalterable as a Fundamental Article SECTION XI Of the imposing Auricular Confession upon Consciences without authority from God THat Confession to a Priest is a Doctrine taught as necessary in the Church of Rome is without all question and yet that it is but the Commandment of men I shall I hope clearly enough evince and if I do I suppose the Charge laid against the Church of Rome which is the same Christ laid against the Pharisees will be fully made good as to this instance For this is one of the sorts of that Crime to say Dixit Dominus Dominus autem non dixit to pretend a Rite to be of Divine institution when it is not so but humanum inventum a device of man's brain The other which is still supposing an institution to be humane and positive yet to urge it with the same severe Religion as they do a Divine Commandment I shall consider in other instances For the present the inquiry is concerning Auricular Confession and it's pretended necessity The first Decree concerning it was in the Lateran Council Can. 21. in which every person of years of discretion is commanded to confess all his sins to his own Priest at least once in the year or to another Priest with the leave of his own otherwise while he is living he must be driven from entrance into the Church and when he is dead he must have no Christian Burial This is very severe but yet here is no damnation to them that neglect it and the duty is not pretended to be by Divine Commandment and therefore lest that severity might seem too much to be laid upon humane Law they made it up in the new forge at Trent and there it was decreed that To confess all and every mortal sin which after diligent inquiry we remember and every evil thought or desire Sess. 14. Capp 6. 7. and the circumstances that change the nature of the sin is necessary for the remission of sins and of Divine institution and he that denies this is to be Anathema Whether to confess to a Priest be an adviseable discipline and a good instance instrument and ministery of Repentance and may serve many good ends in the Church and to the souls of needing persons is is no part of the Question We find that in the Acts of the Apostles divers converted persons came to S. Paul either publickly or privately and confess'd their deeds * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. magicas incantationes simile illud ibidem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nimirum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and burnt their books of Exorcism that is did what became severe and hearty penitents who needed Counsel and Comfort and that their Repentance should be conducted by wise Guides And when S. James exhorts all Christians to confess their sins to one another certainly it is more agreeable to all spiritual ends that this be done rather to the Curates of Souls than to the ordinary Brethren The Church of England is no way engag'd against it but advises it and practises it The Calvinist-Churches do not practise it much because they know not well how to devest it from it's evil appendages which are put to it by the customs of the world and to which it is too much expos'd by the interests weaknesses and partialities of men But they commending it show they would use it willingly if they could order it unto edification a Calvin Instit. lib. 3. cap. 4. Sect. 12. 13. Interim quin sistant se Pastori oves quoties sacram Coenam participare volunt adeò non reclamo ut maximè velim hoc ubique observari And for the Lutheran Churches that it is their practice we may see it in b 2. Part. Exam. Concil Trid. cap. 5. de poenit Chemnitius who was one of greatest fame amongst them and he is noted to this purpose by * Lib. 3. de poenit cap. 1. Sect. Martinus Kemnitius Bellarmin only they all consent that it is not necessary nor of Divine institution and being but of man's invention it ought not to pass into a doctrine and as the Apostles said in the matter of Circumcision a burden ought not to be put upon the necks of the Disciples and that in lege gratiae In â— dist 17. q. 2. ex Scoto longè difficilimum too as Maior observes truly by far greater than any burden in the Law of Grace the time of the Gospel Let it be commanded to all to whom it is needful or profitable but let it be free as to the Conscience precisely and bound but by the cords of a man and as other Ecclesiastical Laws are which are capable of exceptions restrictions cautions dispensations rescindings and abolitions by the same authority or upon greater reasons The Question then is Whether to confess all our greater sins to a Priest all that upon strict enquiry we can remember be necessary to salvation This the Church of Rome now affirms and this the Church of England and all Protestant Churches deny and complain sadly that the Commandments of men are chang'd into the doctrines of God by a Pharisaical empire and superstition Here then we joyn issue 1. And in the first place I shall represent that the
many ways it is a figure So that the whole force of E. W s. answer is this that if that which is like be the same then it is possible that a thing may be a sign of it's self and a man may be his own picture and that which is invisible may be a sign to give notice to come see a thing that is visible I have now expedited this topic of Authority in in this Question amongst the many reasons I urged against Transubstantiation E. W. p. 42. which I suppose to be unanswerable and if I could have answered them my self I would not have produc'd them these Gentlemen my adversaries are pleas'd to take notice but of one But by that it may be seen how they could have answered all the rest if they had pleased The argument is this every consecrated wafer saith the Church of Rome is Christs body and yet this wafer is not that wafer therefore either this or that is not Christs body or else Christ hath two natural bodies for there are two Wafers To this is answered the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies to Christ no more than head and feet infer two souls in a man or conclude there are two Gods one in heaven and the other in earth because heaven and earth are more distinct than two wafers To which I reply that the soul of man is in the head and feet as in two parts of the body which is one and whole and so is but in one place and consequently is but one soul. But if the feet were parted from the body by other bodies intermedial then indeed if there were but one soul in feet and head the Gentleman had spoken to the purpose But here these wafers are two intire wafers separate the one from the other bodies intermedial put between and that which is here is not there and yet of each of them it is affirm'd that it is Christs body that is of two wafers and of two thousand wafers it is at the same time affirm'd of every one that it is Christs body Now if these wafers are substantially not the same not one but many and yet every one of these many is substantially and properly Christs body then these bodies are many for they are many of whom it is said every one distinctly and separately and in its self is Christs body 2. For his comparing the presence of Christ in the wafer with the presence of God in heaven it is spoken without common wit or sense for does any man say that God is in two places and yet be the same-one God Can God be in two places that cannot be in one Can he be determin'd and number'd by places that fills all places by his presence or is Christs body in the Sacrament as God is in the world that is repletive filling all things alike spaces void and spaces full and there where there is no place where the measures are neither time nor place but only the power and will of God This answer besides that it is weak and dangerous is also to no purpose unless the Church of Rome will pass over to the Lutherans and maintain the Ubiquity of Christs body In Ps. 33. Yea but S. Austin says of Christ Ferebatur in manibus suis c. he bore himself in his own hands and what then Then though every wafer be Christs body yet the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies for then there would be two bodies of Christ when he carried his own body in his hands To this I answer that concerning S. Austins minde we are already satisfied but that which he says here is true as he spake and intended it for by his own rule the similitudes and figures of things are oftentimes called by the name of those things whereof they are similitudes Christ bore his own body in his own hands when he bore the Sacrament of his body for of that also it is true that it is truly his body in a Sacramental spiritual and real manner that is to all intents and purposes of the holy spirit of God According to the words of S. Austin cited by P. Lombard Lib. 3. de Trin. c. 4. in fine P. Lombard dist 11. lib. 4. ad finem lit C. We call that the body of Christ which being taken from the fruits of the Earth and consecrated by mystic prayer we receive in memory of the Lords Passion which when by the hands of men it is brought on to that visible shape it is not sanctified to become so worthy a Sacrament but by the spirit of God working invisibly If this be good Catholic doctrine and if this confession of this article be right the Church of England is right but then when the Church of Rome will not let us alone in this truth and modesty of confession but impose what is unknown in Antiquity and Scripture and against common sense and the reason of all the world Christs real and spiritual presence in the Sacrament against the doctrine of Transubstantiation printed at London by R. Royston she must needs be greatly in the wrong But as to this question I was here only to justifie the Dissuasive I suppose these Gentlemen may be fully satisfied in the whole inquiry if they please to read a book I have written on this subject intirely of which hitherto they are pleas'd to take no great notice SECTION IV. Of the half Communion WHen the French Embassador in the Council of Trent A. D. 1561. made instance for restitution of the Chalice to the Laity among other oppositions the Cardinal S. Angelo answered that he would never give a cup full of such deadly poison to the people of France instead of a medicine and that it was better to let them die than to cure them with such remedies The Embassador being greatly offended replied that it was not fit to give the name of poyson to the bloud of Christ and to call the holy Apostles poysoners and the Fathers of the Primitive Church and of that which followed for many hundred years who with much spiritual profit have ministred the cup of that bloud to all the people this was a great and a public yet but a single person that gave so great offence One of the greatest scandals that ever were given to Christendom was given by the Council of Constance Sess. 13. which having acknowledged that Christ administred this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine and that in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was receiv'd of the faithful under both kinds yet the Council not only condemns them as heretics and to be punished accordingly who say it is unlawful to observe the custome and law of giving it in one kinde only but under pain of excommunication forbids all Priests to communicate the people under both kinds This last thing is so shameful and so impious that A. L. directly denies that there is any such thing which if it