2 3. that they were all baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea and as they did all eate the same spirituall meat so they did all drinke the same spirituall drinke For they dranke all of that spirituall Rocke and that Rock was Christ. If they will needs haue in one type a perfect image or embleme of the Communion in both kinds Cyprian other ancient Fathers will direct them to Melchisedec who brought forth bread wine not bread only but bread wine Thirdly this argument may be strongly retorted vpon our aduersaries after this manner The Truth ought to answer the types but the types of the old Law prefigured the faithfulls communicating in both kinds as is gathered by the ancient Fathers S. Chrysost. S. Ambrose S. Austine and S. Gregory Chrysost. As thou eatest the body of our Lord so they did eate Manna and as thou drinkest the blood of our Lord so they dranke the water of the Rocke To them he gaue Manna and Water to thee he giueth his Body and Blood S. Ambrose in the water that issued from the Rocke drunke by the people in the wildernesse noteth the resemblance of Christians who in the wildernesse of this world drinke of the blood that sprang from the true Rocke Christ Iesus To them saith he water flowed from the Rocke to thee blood from Christ the water satisfyed them for an houre the blood refresheth or washeth thee for euer S. Austine compareth the drinking of all the Fathers in the old Testament with ours in the new in these words All drunke the same spirituall drinke Wee drinke one thing and they drinke another but in visible appearance which yet is the selfe-same thing in spirituall vertue So the Paschall Lambe was eaten but the blood was stricken vpon both posts which mystery Saint Gregory thus vnfolds What is meant by the blood of the Lambe you haue learned not by hearing but by drinking it Which blood is put vpon both postes when it is drunke not onely with the mouth of the body but also with the mouth of the heart SECT 2. The second reason saith Bellarmine is drawne from the doctrine and example of Christ. For our Lord in the sixth of Iohn speaking of the fruit of the Eucharist or Lords Supper not once but foure times teacheth one kind to be sufficient to saluation he that ea◅eth me shall liue by me he that eateth this bread shall liue for euer if any man eate of this bread hee shall liue for euer This is the Bread that came downe from Heauen that if any man eate of it he may not die It cannot therefore be that the same Lord should command both kinds to bee taken Againe our Lord proues the same by his example first Ioh. the sixth where hee multiplied the l◅aues and thereby satisfied the people there remaining twelue baskets full but neither multiplied hee nor gaue them any drinke Moreouer in the 24 of Luke in the supper with the Disciples at Emaus hee tooke bread and blest it and brake it and gaue it vnto them but we reade of no Cup that there he tooke or blest nor indeed could For the story of the Gospell so ioyneth the distribution of the bread with our Lords departure that it leaueth no place for the blessing or distributing the Cup. For so S. Luke speaketh It came to passe as he sate with them hee tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to them and their eies were opened and they knew him and he suddenly vanished out of their sight Answer Cardinall Bellarmine in propounding this second reason as he calleth it makes vse of the Orators precept to heape weake arguments one vpon another that though each by themselues be of their owne nature feeble yet they may receiue some support by the helpe of one another For here in like maner he layeth together diuers places of Scripture to strengthen his cause which being seuerally examined will prooue of no moment being misapplied in his owne defence To the first place therefore alleaged out of the sixth Chapter of S. Iohn we say First that in the iudgement of Tapperus Iansenius Caietanus Cusanus and diuers others quoted by Bellarmine himselfe in his first book of the Sacrament of the Eucharist and fifth Chapter Christ in the sixth of Iohn speaketh not at all of the Sacrament which was not yet instituted but a yeere after at his last Supper with his Disciples Secondly for the words insisted vpon by Bellarm. in particular Christ himselfe foure seuerall times tells vs that he meaneth by bread himselfe who came downe from heauen verse 48. I am that bread of life 50. this is that bread which commeth downe frō heauen vers 51. I am the liuing bread which came downe from heauen if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer vers 58. This is the bread which came downe from heauen not as your fathers which did eat Manna and are dead If then there be any force in the number of foure we answer that our Lord who foure times in this cap. attributeth life to the eating of bread foure times expoundeth himself that by bread he meaneth celestiall bread not sacramentall for the sacramentall bread commeth not from heauen but is made of the graine of the earth and many that eate of it liue not for euer Iudas and many other reprobates haue eaten yea Mise Rats and other vermin may and sometimes haue eaten the sacramentall bread who yet neuer haue nor shall taste the power of the heauenly gift much lesse inioy eternall life These texts therefore are mis-applied by Bellarmine to the Sacrament and being mis-applied proue nothing for his halfe Communion Thirdly we say that Christ hauing spoken of Manna the Israelites bread in the wildernesse calleth himselfe bread keeping the subiect and occasion which he had begun to speak of As Ioh. 4. 14. speaking with the woman of Samaria about drawing water he promiseth her to giue her water to drinke of which whosoeuer drinketh shall thirst no more There Christ speaketh of drinking and mentioneth no eating but in the places of Saint Iohn alleaged by Bellarmine of eating and not drinking because the Metaphore of drinking better fitted the subiect of his speech which was water there but eating better relished in the sixth of Iohn where the occasion of his speech was bread yet as from these words of Ioh. 4. 14. no man may inferre that drinking alone is sufficient to saluation without eating so neither may Bellarmine conclude from the sixth of Iohn in the places aboue quoted that eating is sufficient without drinking as eternall life is ascribed here to eating so to drinking Ioh. 4. 14. as also vnto beleeuing Ioh. 6. 47. He that beleeueth in me hath euerlasting life Beleeuing eating and drinking are all meanes of eternall life but not exclusiuely euen by the same reason whereby Bellarmine would prooue eating alone to be sufficient to eternall
that meane while had been kept it would haue been dead in the Pixe Hugo Card. saith Christs Passion is the truth and the Sacrament is a figure of the same Therfore when the truth is come the figure giueth place Consider we the weight of these reasons The Apostles fled sixteene hundred yeeres agoe on Good-Friday therefore we must not now on that day consecrate the elements or communicate in both kinds On Good-Friday Christ suffered his blood then was seuered from the body Therefore now wee must not receiue his body and blood on that day Christs Passion was on that day therefore wee must neuer receiue the figure thereof on that day 2. Concerning the custome of the Greeke Church It is true that the Greeke Church in Lent vsed to consecrate onely vpon Saterday and Sunday and on the other dayes of the weeke they did communicate ex praesanctificatis of the presanctified formes which had been consecrated the Saterday or Sunday before as may be gathered out of the 49. Canon of the Councell of Laodocea and 52. Canon of the Councell in Trullo Sed quid ad rhombum we dispute not of the Communion of things before consecrated but of the communion of both kinds Such no doubt was this communion of the Greekes as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or praesanctificata in the plurall number doth implie It is not called by Balsamo vpon the 52. Canon of the sixth Councell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not a communion of presanctified bread but of presanctified mysteries This headlesse arrow therefore as all the former may be thus headed and shot backe vpon our aduersaries Retortion If the Communion of presanctified elements were in both kindes this Rite of the Greeke Church no way suporteth but quite ouerthroweth the Romish halfe Communion in one kind only But the communion of presanctified elements of the Greeke Church was in both kinds Ergo this Rite of the Greeke Church no way supporteth but quite ouerthroweth the Romish halfe Communion in one kinde onely That this Communion in the Greeke Church was in both kinds wee need no better euidence then the Seruice-booke or Office of the Greeke Church wherein we reade that after the Priest hath sanctified the bread he powreth wine and water into the sacred Cup and rehearseth the accustomed words in the Liturgie it self called Liturgia praesanctificatorum The dreadfull mysteries are named in the plurall number And that al that communicated receiued in both kinds it appeares by the forme of thankesgiuing there set downe We giue thanks to thee O God the Sauiour of all for all thy benefits which thou hast bestowed vpon vs and in speciall for that thou hast vouch safed to make vs partakers of the body and blood of thy Christ. CHAP. XV. The arguments of Papists drawne from reason answered and retorted SECT I. OVr aduersaries are driuen to rake hell for arguments and to begge proofes from damned hereticks such as were the Manichees From whose dissembling at the Lords Supper our equiuocating Iesuits would make vs beleeue that their halfe Communion was in vse in the Primitiue Church The Manichees saith Fisher liued in Rome and other places shrowding themselues amongst Catholicks went to their Churches receiued the Sacrament publikely with thē vnder the sole forme of bread yet they were not noted nor then discerned from Catholicks A manifest signe saith he that Communiō vnder one kind was publikly in the Church permitted For how could the Manichees still refusing the Cup haue beene hidden amongst those antient Christians if they had bin perswaded as now Protestants are that receiuing one kind onely is sacrilege The like argument Master Harding draweth from a tricke of Leger demaine vsed by a cunning housewife who made her husband beleeue that shee receiuing the bread from the Priest stooped downe as if she had prayed but receiued of her seruant standing by her somewhat that shee had brought for her from home which shee had no sooner put into her mouth but it hardned into a stone If this seeme to any incredible saith Sozomen that stone is a witnesse which to this day is kept amongst the Iewels of the Church of Constantinople By this stone it is cleere saith Master Harding the Sacrament was then ministred vnder one kind onely For by receiuing that one forme this woman would haue perswaded her husband that shee had communicated with him else if both kindes had beene ministred shee would haue practised fome other shift for the auoyding of the Cup which had not beene so easie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an ill egge of an ill bird a loose inference of a lewd practise As if the Manichees in Rome or this woman in Constantinople might not pitisare sip and make as if they drank and yet let not a drop go downe or as if this their fraud was not discouered Howsoeuer these disembled it is certaine out of Saint Leo in his 4. Sermon of Lent and Saint Chrysostome 18. Homile vpon the second to the Corinthians that the faithful people of Rome and Constantinople receiued the Communion in both kinds For Saint Leo in the place aboue alleaged giueth this as a marke to discrie Manichees from other Christian people intruding amongst them at the Lords Table by refusing to drink the blood of Christ with them And Saint Chrysostome saith expresly that there is no difference betwixt Priest and people in participating the dreadfull mysteries Therefore as the Priest in Constantinople and euery where else in his time receiued the Communion in both kindes so did the people SECT II. To leaue these absurd inferences of the Papists from the vngodly practise of hereticks I come now in the last place to batter and breake in pieces such weapons as they hammer against vs in the forge of reason The first reason they shape in this wise If whole Christ Body Blood Soule and Diuinity are vnder the forme of bread the Laietie are no way wronged by denying them the Cup But whole Christ is vnder the forme of bread to wit his Body Blood Soule and Diuinity Therefore the Laiety are not wronged by denying them the Cup. That whole Christ is vnder the forme of bread they proue by the vnseparable vnion of the body and blood of Christ c. Since his ascention his body now in heauen is a liue body and therfore hath his blood in his veines and is informed and glorified by a most excellent soule Therfore Christ cannot say truly that a body voyd of blood sence and soule is his body but soule life and blood must needs follow and concomitate his body wheresoeuer it bee Therefore when the Priest in the person of Christ or rather Christ by the mouth of the Priest saith This is my body the meaning must bee a liuing body with blood in the veines The answer First the doctrine of naturall Concomitancie presupposeth the naturall body of Christ to bee substantially and carnally vnder
this point For he professeth that it were more conuenient the Communion were administred vnder both kinds then vnder one alone and that the Communion vnder both kinds is more agreeable to the Institution and fulnesse thereof and to the example of Christ and to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church Artiâ—… 15. Eccius though in short and briefe tearmes yet comes home to the question saying Wee confesse it was the vse in the Primitiue Church to administer in both kinds to the Laiety For the generalitie of this custome if antient Records had failed vs wee haue enough in the writings of moderne Papists to conuince the denyers therof Suarez saith somewhat to this point Slotanus presumes further and saith more and Salmeron goes beyond him and saith enough and yet Alphonsus exceedes him and saith more then enough Suarez The Christian people were wâ—…t frequently to communicate vnder both kinds Frequently they might communicate yet but in few places There Slotanus addes We doe not deny that the custome of communicating in both kinds was obserued in very many Churches and continued so not onely in the time of persecution and martyrdome but also in the peaceable daies of the Church This custome might be in very many Churches yet not generall therefore Salmeron addes further We doe ingeniously and openly confesse that it was a generall custome to giue the Communion to the Laiety in both kinds as the manner is at this day among the Greekes and was in antient time among the Corinthians and in Africa Generall the custome might be yet not vniuersall without exception and in all places Therefore to put the matter out of all question Alphonsus a Castro addes yet further We beleeue it is not against Christs Institution to giue the Communion to the Layetie in both kinds For we learne out of the writings of many Saints that in old time this was the practise for many ages amongst all Catholikes For the continuance of this custome which was the last point what more pregnant testimonies can we desire then these following of Cassander Soto and Gregory de Valentia Cassander and Tapperus witnesseth for one thousand yeeres in these words Touching the administration of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist it is euident enough that the Easterne Church euen vnto this day or that the Westerne or Romane Church for one thousand yeeres after Christ and more in the solemne and ordinary distribution of the Sacrament deliuered both the kinds of bread and wine to all the members of Christs Church which is manifest by innumerable testimonies of antient Writers both Greeke and Latine Tapperus calleth it a custome of longest continuance Soto witnesseth thus for twelue hundred yeeres and more not onely amongst the heretikes but also among the Catholikes the manner of giuing the Communion to the Layetie in both kinds for a long time was of force in somuch as it was not vtterly abolished in the dayes of Aquinas Now Aquinas by Bellarmines exact calculation was borne in the yeere of our Lord 1224. and died in the yeere 1274. Betweene the birth of Aquinas and the Councell of Constance there passed 90. yeeres which time Greg. de Valentia after a sort giues vs ouer and aboue We doe not deny saith he that both kinds were antiently administred to the people as appeares out of S. Paul Cyprian Athanasius Hierome and others And truly when the contrary custome of communicating vnder one kind onely began in some Churches it appeares not but it began not to bee a generall custome in the Latine Church much before the Councell of Constance Nor then neither For Tapperus saith that in some Churches they vsed both kinds euen vnto the Councell of Constance Who seeth not in the frequency and pregnancy of these testimonies out of the mouth of our aduersaries the obseruation of Budaeus to be verified that such is the force of truth that she breakes out of mens mouthes against their wills and stealing amongst lyes is perceiued by the hearers when the speakers think they haue her safe enough in their owne power CHAP. XII The Papists Arguments drawne from Scripture answered and retorted SECT 11. THe first argument vrged by our aduersaries for their halfe Communion is drawn from the types and figures of the old Testament I will propound it in Bellarmines owne words that they may not cauill as they vse to doe that wee marre their arguments in relating them Thus Bellarmine disputeth against vs Most of the figures of the Eucharist in the old Testament signifie eating vnder one kind it is not therefore probable that Christ would command the eating of both kinds For that which is figured ought to answer the figure The first figure was of the Tree of life in the midst of Paradise which Paschasius in his booke of the body of our Lord chap. 7. teacheth to haue been a type of the Sacrament of the Eucharist but it was manifest there was no drinke ioyned to that Tree The second figure was of the Paschall Lambe Exodus the 12. The third figure Manna Exodus 26. The fourth was shew-bread Exodus 25. The fifth the sacrifices in which the flesh was eaten but the blood was not drunke To this Argument we say First that these figures were types of Christ himselfe and not necessarily or properly of the Sacrament of the new Testament For types are shadowes representing the substance and the body not properly other types Christ interpreteth Manna to be himselfe Ioh. 6. I am the true bread that came downe from heauen S. Paul calleth Christ our Paschall Lambe and saith The Rocke that followed them was Christ. And S. Iohn Apoc. 2. by eating of the Tree of life in the Paradise of God vnderstandeth not the sacramentall eating which cannot be in heauen where there are no sacred elements but the spirituall feeding on the flesh of the Sonne of God Secondly if we admit that the types and figures of the old Law were representations of the Sacrament of the new we answer then that the types and figures of the old Testament must be equally compared with the Sacrament of the new part of them must be referred to the part of these For example the Shew-bread and Manna and the flesh of the Lambe and the Tree of life prefigured one part or kind in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to wit the Bread and the Riuers of Paradise and the Waters that Flowed from the Rocke and the Drinke-offerings and the striking the blood of the Lambe vpon the doore-postes represented the mysticall effusion and drinking of Christs blood in the Sacrament There was no drinking of the Tree of life but there was drinking of the Riuers of Paradise there was no drinking of Manna or of the Shew-bread but there was drinking of the Waters that issued out of the Rocke at Horeb. And S. Paul testifieth of the Hebrewes 1. Cor. 10. vers
life Because eternall life is promised to eating hee may prooue beleeuing alone to be sufficient to saluation without partaking the Sacrament at all by eating or drinking because eternall life is promised vnto beleeuing Eternall life is promised to beleeuing as blessednes is in the fifth of Matthew to pouertie and to meekenesse and to puritie in heart and to godly sorrow and to hungring and thirsting for righteousnesse and to peace making and to patience Not that each of these vertues are sufficient of themselues alone to saluation or to make a man happy but that they are speciall meanes to make men happy and altogether with faith make a man most blessed Fourthly this argument of Bellarmine may bee retorted against him thus Our Sauiour here speakes of such eating whereby eternall life may be attained But eternall life cannot be attained by eating exclusiuely that is eating without drinking as Christ in this very Chapter three seuerall times teacheth vs vers 53. Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood yee haue no life in you And vers 54. and 56. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life and dwelleth in me and I in him Therefore Christ in the places alleaged by Bellarmine speaketh not of eating exclusiuely but of such eating as is necessarily accompanied with drinking And consequently if these Texts are meant of the Sacrament they proue that we ought to communicate in both kinds To the second place alleaged by Bellarmine out of Ioh. 6. 11. we say First that there are three sorts of signes signes of Gods wrath and such are prodigious euents signes of his power and such are Miracles lastly signes of his grace and such are Sacraments The multiplying of the loaues in the place alleaged is to bee ranked amongst the second sort of signes and not the last It was a miraculous signe not a mysticall signe Secondly if it be granted that this action of Christs was mysticall and prefigured some thing besides the corporall refection of the people yet questionlesse it had no reference to the bread in the Lords Supper For that as Saint Paul teacheth represents vnto vs that we are all one bread and one body because we partake of one bread whereof the multiplication of the loaues in S. Iohn could bee no type but rather on the contrary Moreouer in that place of Saint Iohn there is mention of fishes multiplied which can haue no affinitie with the Sacrament of our Lords Supper And this if Bellarmine had well considered it would haue made him as mute as a fish in this argument Thirdly the edge of this argument may bee retorted vpon our aduersaries thus The multiplying of the loaues Ioh. 6. without multiplying the wine doth no more prooue that wee may communicate in bread alone then the multiplying or miraculous supplying of wine without the like supplying of bread Ioh. 2. in Cana of Galily prooueth that wee may communicate in wine onely But the multiplying or miraculous supplying of wine by turning water into it without any miraculous supplie of bread prooueth not that we may Communicate in wine or in the blood of Christ onely for such an halfe Communion the Church of Rome condemneth Therefore the multiplying of the loaues in S. Iohn maketh nothing for the popish halfe-Communion in bread onely SECT 3. To the third place out of the 24. of S. Luke the 30. and 31. verses We say first that the bread which Christ there brake was common bread and not the Sacrament as may be prooued both by the circumstances of the text and the confession of our Aduersaries In the Text wee finde no words of consecration of the Bread or the Cup no command to reiterate that action of Christ. The place was a common Inne the Disciples came thither to receiue common foode and to lodge there that night they met not together for the Sacrament nor reade we of any prayers before or preparation meete for receiuing of so holy and heauenly a mystery and therefore some Papists doubt of it as Iansenius whether the Bread here was Transubstantiated or no. There are some saith hee who thinke that our Lord here gaue vnto the Disciples vnder the forme of bread his owne body as he did to the Apostles in his last Sâ—…pper and hence they would draw a certaine argument to show that it is lawfull to deliuer and receiue the Sacrament of the Eucharist in one kinde onely Howbeit although that opinion be not certaine nor very likely to be true yet as all the actions of Christ contained in them something mysticall and hidden so doubtlesse this action of Christ signified some holy thing Iansenius somewhat lyspeth He durst doe no other wayes for fearing of hauing his tongue clipt But the more antient Papists speake the truth plainely Dionysius Carthusianus thus paraphraseth vpon the place of Saint Luke It came to passe as he sate downe that is rested and eate with them hee tooke bread and blessed it yet he turned it not into his body as in his last Supper but as the manner is he blessed the meate thereby teaching vs to blesse our meate and drinke or giue thankes beforeour meales Widford in his booke against Wickliffe comes off roundly I say saith he that it appeares not in the Text or in the Glosse Luk. 24. or by the antient Fathers that the bread which Christ brake after his resurrection at Euen before his Disciples was consecrated bread or that it was sacramentall or turned into his body Iustinianê° a later commentator of great note amongst the Papists vpon the by in a parenthesis before he was aware discouereth the truth and concurreth with Widford and Carthusian For expounding those words of Saint Paul The bread which wee breake c. he vnderstandeth here not a simple or ordinary breaking such as that was whereof Saint Luke maketh mention whereby the necessity of the hungry was prouided for but a holy breaking belonging to the Sacrament of the Eucharist Our aduersaries are very loth that this weapon should bee so wrested out of their hands and therefore they tugge hard for it Hesselius catcheth at the benediction mentioned before the breaking of the bread which he will haue to be the consecrating of it Maldonate layeth hold on the consequence to wit the opening of the Disciples eyes in the breaking of the bread which saith he could not be done but by the vertue of the Eucharist Iansenius and Bellarme alleage Austine Beda and Theophylact who in their iudgement seeme to shrowde the Sacrament of the Eucharist vnder the forme of bread at Emaus But these mistes are easily dispelled To Hesselius his coniecture we answer that Christ neuer brake or eate bread but hee blessed it before Matth. 14. 19. He tooke the fiue loaues and two fishes and he looking vp to heauen hee blessed and brake and gaue the loaues to his Disciples c. Likewise Matth. 15. 36.
the forme of bread which we deny and consequently this argument from concomitancie is of no force The words This is my body being rightly expounded by Austine Tertullian Theodoret and many other of the ancients to be no other then this bread is a signe a figure or a sacrament of my body not this bread is turned substantially into my body or vnder this is contained my very body flesh bones Where Christs naturall humane body is there wee grant his blood and soule and diuinitie are But That his body is now in heauen Acts 3. not in any place vpon the earth much lesse in euery place where the Masse is celebrated Secondly although we grant that the body of Christ cannot really bee seuered from his blood yet the signes of his body and blood are really seuered if wee speake of sacramentall Communion the Apostle teacheth vs that the bread which wee break is the Communion of Christs body and the Cup which wee blesse is the Communion of his blood neither can wee truly and properly say the Bread is the Communion of his blood And therefore they that communicate in bread onely doe not sacramentally communicate his blood Thirdly should we liberally grant vnto our aduersaries that by the receiuing the body of Christ in the bread we consequently receiue the blood also which since his Passion was neuer seuered from his body yet will it not hence follow that we drinke the blood of Christ in eating the bread but Christ commanded vs expresly to drinke his blood which cannot possibly be done by communicating in bread only no though we should admit of the carnall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament and the doctrine of concomitancie also Retortion Lastly this Argument may bee retorted vpon our aduersaries in this manner Whosoeuer receiueth Christ in the Sacrament ought to receiue whole Christ to wit his body and blood But the body and blood of Christ cannot be receiued but by communicating in both kinds Therefore all that receiue Christ in the Sacrament ought to communicate in both kinds The Proposition is our aduersaries the Assumption also is inferred from their owne Tenets They deliuer this rule that the Sacraments effect and exhibit that and that onely which they signifie But the bread signifieth onely the body of Christ and the wine his blood hee therefore that will receiue whole Christ as he is exhibited vnto vs in the Sacrament must necessarily communicate in both kinds SECT III. The second reason is this If the whole nature and essence of a Sacrament be found in one kinde the Romanists Communion in bread onely is not a maimed or imperfect but an entire Sacrament But the whole nature and essence of a Sacrament is found in one kinde Therefore the Romanists communicating in bread onely is not a mained or imperfect but an entire Sacrament That the whole nature and essence of a Sacrament is found in either kind by it selfe Bellarmine endeauoreth thus to make euident There are but two things required essentially to a Sacrament a signe and a thing signified both which are found in one kind first a signe to wit bread secondly the thing signified to wit the inward nourishment of the soule and the representation of the vnion of the faithful with Christ and among themselues The answer First there is a double essence of the sacrament the generall essence which makes it a sacrament in generall and the specificall essence which makes it in speciall Baptisme or the Lords Supper To bee a visible and effectuall signe of inuisible sanctifying grace is sufficient to proue a sacrament in generall but not to proue the Lords Supper the entire definition whereof is a Sacrament of the new Testament sealing vnto vs the perfect nourishment of our soules by the participation of the sacred elements of bread and wine Secondly there are two sorts or parts essentiall or integrall For example the essentiall parts of a man are animal rationale the integrall parts are legges and armes and other members In like manner in the Sacrament besides the essentiall parts which Bellarmine will haue to bee the signe and the thing signified there are integrall parts to wit the elements of bread and wine of which if either be wanting the sacrament may be as truly called a maimed or vnperfect Sacrament as a man that wants an arme or legge is truly called a maimed or vnperfect man though he haue in him the essentiall parts of a man intirely to wit animal his Genus and rationale his difference Thirdly although in the Romane halfe Communion there be a signe and a thing signified yet neither is there the whole signe nor the whole signification not the whole signe because bread is but a part of the signe representing Christs body and not his blood not the whole signification which is such an entire refection and nourishment of the soule as bread and wine are of the body Retortion Lastly this Argument as the former may be retorted vpon the aduersary The Lords Supper is the Sacrament of Christs body and blood The bread is not the Sacrament of Christs body and blood Therefore bread alone is not the Lords Supper Or in this wise The Lords Supper essentially includeth and signifieth such a perfect refection and nourishment of the soule as bread and wine are of the body Communicating in one kind neither includeth nor signifieth such refection Therefore communicating in one kind is not the Lords Supper nor containeth in it the whole nature and essence of this Sacrament SECT IIII. The third Argument of our aduersaries drawne from reason is an off-spring of the two former If the faithfull receiue as much benefit by communicating in one kind as in both they haue no cause to complaine of the Church for the restraining of them from the Cup But the faithfull receiue as much benefit by communicating in one kind as in both Therefore they haue no cause to complaine of the Church for the restraining of them from the Cup That they receiue as much benefit by communicating in one kind as in both it seemes to follow necessarily vpon the two former supposalls that whole Christ is in each kind and that the whole essence of the Sacrament is found in either The answer First the two props of this Argument being before taken away it must needes fall to the ground neither is whole Christ contained vnder one kind neither in it is preserued the whole essence of the Sacrament Therefore questionlesse the fruit of the halfe Communion if it be any at all cannot bee equall to the fruit of the whole Secondly the consequence of this Argument is not found For neither the onely nor the principle thing to be regarded in the Sacrament is our benefit but Gods glorie and the testification of our obedience to his Ordinance Therefore albeit it were granted that the people lost nothing by the taking away the Cup from them yet they haue iust