propagated it But the Church having in it the property of heat which as Philosophers say is to gather together things that are of the same nature and separate things that are of different natures includes all that are of the same faith and admitteth no other § 3. I therefore conceived according to the judgement of the most learned the Church to be a society of those that God hath called to salvation by the profession of the true faith the sincere adminstration of the Sacraments and the adherence to lawfull Pastors Which description of the Church is so fitted and proportioned to her that it resembles the nest of the Halcion which as Plutarch saith is of such a just and exact size for the measure of her body that it can serve for no other bird either greater or lesse Then for the meaning of the word Catholique the Protestants say that that Church is Catholique which holdeth the true faith which though it be not spread universally over the world yet it ought to be so say they and therefore it is Catholique By which they leave men in a labyrinth of finding out the true faith in all the particulars thereof which as they say must guide a man to the Church that is truely Catholique which being the object of the understanding is much more difficult to find out than that which is the object of the sense as is its being Catholique And therefore it seemed to me as proposterous as to set the cart before the horse to prove a Church Catholique because it is true whereas it should be proved true because it is Catholique Beside the name Catholique is not a name of belief only but of communion also else antiquity would not have refused that title to those which were not separated from the belief but only from the communion of the Church S. Aug. Ep. 50. nor would they have affirmed that out of the Catholique Church the faith and Sacraments may he had but not salvation So that Catholique imports thus much both the vast extension of doctrine to persons and places different and the union of all those places and persons in Communion Therefore allbeit the Protestants should hold the same belief that the ancient Church did yet if they did not communicate with the same ancient Church which by succession of Pastors and People is derived down to this present time I could not see how they could with justice assume to themselves the title of Catholiques CHAP. VI. Of the Infallibility of the Church § 1. NOw that the Catholique Church which society of Christians soever it be of which we shall deliberate hereafter is the only faithfull and true witnesse of the matter of Gods Word to tell us what it is and what is not it the only true interpreter of the meaning of Gods word and the last and finall judge of all controversies that may arise in matters of Religion and that shee is not onely true but that shee cannot be otherwise seeing shee is infallible I was perswaded to believe by many reasons In the alleadging of which I will avoid the accusation of Protestants of the circular disputation of Catholiques saying they believe the Scripture because the Church saies it is so and the Church because the Scripture bids them do so First then without dependence on the Scripture I conceived the Catholique Church to be infallible in her Traditions in that which she declareth to us concerning the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles and that even in the very nature of her testimony and tradition For Tradition being a full report of what was evident to sense namely what doctrines the Apostles taught what Scripture they wrote it is impossible it should be false Worlds of men cannot be universally deceived in matters evident to sense as are the things men heare and see and not being so it is impossible they should either negligently suffer it or maliciously agree to deceive others being so many in number so distant in place so different in affections conditions and interests Wherefore it is impossible that what is delivered by full Catholique Tradition from the Apostles should be by the deliverers first devised as Tertullian saith Tert. de praesc cap. 28. That which is found one and the same amongst many is not an error but a Tradition Yet supposing universall Tradition as it is meerly humane be in its nature fallible yet the Tradition of the Catholique Church is by God himselfe preserved from error which is thus demonstrated God being infinitely good and ardently desiring the salvation of mankind cannot permit the meanes which should convey the Apostles doctrine to posterity by the belief whereof men must be saved to be poisoned with damnable error to the destruction of their salvation now the onely meanes to convey this doctrine is the Tradition of the Catholique Church Tert. de Praes cap. 21. as Tertullian saith what the Apostles taught I will prescribe ought no other wayes to be proved than by those Churches which the Apostles founded All other means as I have shewed you before are insufficient and if this Tradition of the Church should be insufficient also by reason of its liablenesse unto error then were there no certainty at all of the truth of Christian Religion no not so much as that there was such a man as Jesus Christ but all men would be left to grope in the wandring uncertainty of their owne imaginations which for God to suffer cannot fall under any prudent mans belief § 2. Secondly that which bindeth men to believe a thing to be Gods Word God cannot suffer to delude men into error whereby for their devotion unto his truth they may fall into damnation now Catholique Tradition from the Apostles is that which bindes men to believe the same to be the Word of God and that because it is thereby sufficiently proposed the World affording no higher nor surer proposall so that either this must be infallible or else God hath left us to the guidance of our own weak understandings the weaknesse of which conceit I shewed even now and all Christians to that confusion which all different opinions yet reputed the Word of God by them that hold them may produce § 3. Thirdly God being the Prime Verity he cannot so much as connive at falshood whereby he becomes accessory of deceiving them who simply readily and religiously believe what they have just reason to think to be his Word but there is most just and sufficient reason to believe that the doctrine delivered by full and perpetuall Tradition from hand to hand even from the Apostles is undoubtedly their doctrine and the Word of God therefore he cannot suffer Catholique Tradition to be falsified Nor can as I conceive any prudent man imagine that God having sent his Son into the world to teach men the way to heaven every moment of whose life was made notable by doing or suffering somthing to that end should suffer the efficacy and
so much as Couell the Protestant in his Answer to Burgesse pag. 138. saith No man can deny but that God after the death of his Son manifested his power to the amazement of the world in this contemptible sign being the instrument of many Miracles Concerning the neglect of Confession we read divers Miracles in S. Bedes History l. 5. c. 14. S. Francis and S. Dominick preached against the Albigenses who denied Purgatory Prayer for the dead Confession Extreme Vnction the Popes authority Indulgences Images Ceremonies Traditions with many other and are by the Protestants claimed for their Predecessors in the Protestant Faith and wrought many Miracles whereof one of S. Francis is most notable to this purpose and is recorded by Mathew Paris an approved Author amongst Protestants who thus relates it pag. 319. The fifteenth day before his death there appeared wounds in his hands freshly bleeding such as appeared in the Saviour of the world hanging on the Crosse Also his right side appeared so open and bloody that the inward parts of his heart were to be discerned whereupon there repaired to him great store of people amongst whom the Cardinalls themselves demanded of him what this sight imported to whom he said This sight is therefore shewed in me to them to whom I preached the mystery of the Crosse that you may believe in him who for the salvation of the world suffered upon the Crosse these wounds that you see and that ye may know me to be the servant of him whom I preached c. And to the end that you may without doubt persevere in this constancy of faith these wounds which you see in me so open and bloody shall immediately after I am dead be whole and close like to my other flesh Afterwards he yeelded up his soule to his Creator without all anguish or pain of body and being dead there remained no marks of his foresaid wounds Lastly for confirmation of the Reall Presence it is reported that in a town called Knobloch in the year 1510. one Paul Forme a Sacrilegious person went secretly into the Church by night brake the Pyx and stole from thence two consecrated Hosts one of which he sold to a Jew who in disdainfull malice said If thou be the God of Christians manifest thy selfe and thereupon pierced the Sacrament with his dagger whereupon blood did miraculously flow forth This Miracle was so publique and evident that 38. were thereupon apprehended and burned in the Marquisate of Brandenburg and all other Jewes banished out of the said Territory And this is reported for credible not onely by a Surius in Chron. Pontanus l. 5. rerum memorab Catholique but by b Ioan. Manlius loc Com p. 87. Osiander Epit. cent 16. c. 14. p. 28. fine Protestant writers If I should undertake to set down all the Miracles that have been done in the Catholique Church I might say as S. Iohn did of our Saviours doings that if they were all written the whole world could not contain the books Ioh. 21.25 To all which Protestants answer as the Blasphemous Iewes did to our Saviour that they were done by the Devill To whom Catholiques cannot give that answer our Saviour did If I by Belzebub cast out Devills by whom do your children cast them out Mat. 12.27 For your children cast out none And truly I believe that they that do thus accuse the Miracles done by so many holy Catholique men and women would have done the same to our Saviour if they had lived in his daies For Miracles being the last and highest proof of other things can have no proof for themselves but the evidence of sense to them that see them and their testimony and report to others But if as Protestants say the Miracles of Catholiques were done by the Devill how were they Miracles For the Devill can do none though he can do wonders if they were Miracles how were they done by the Devill Now that they were Miracles many Protestants do grant and therefore Chillingworth their Paragon doth also confess that they are done by God whence any reasonable man would infer that his next word would be the profession of himself a Roman Catholique in which Church God works Miracles the last and highest motive of belief But instead hereof O the accursed power of the devill he belcheth forth the most blasphemous speech against God that ever struck the tender sense of a pious eare and saith a In the preface of his book fine that it seemes most strange to him that God in his justice should permit some true Miracles to be wrought to delude them who have forged so many to delude the world As if God the Father of truth would set his seal which is Miracles to confirme falshood to delude the soules of men into sin and so change titles with the Devill and be the father of lies and deceiver of mankind Than which what can be imagined more hellish More true and pious was the saying of Nicodemus and appliable to our workers of Miracles we know that thou art a teacher come from God for no man could do these miracles that thou dost except God were with him John 3.2 But wee may take up the complaint of the Prophet Esay who hath believed our report and to whom is the arme of the Lord revealed Esay 53.1 Protestants will not believe these things and in matter of proof Catholiques can goe no further our Saviour himself did not so that now nothing remaines but for God to touch their hearts with his grace and to move them to believe that which they have most reason to think to be his word which God of his great mercy grant And if they consider it they shall find it the most unreasonable thing in the world to deny Miracles in the Roman Church for that there are and shall be Miracles in the world no prudent man I suppose will deny at least for the conversion of the people Yea we read of many Miracles done in the Church of the Jewes amongst those that were of the true faith and therefore were not intended for conversion but for confirmation or to some other end And why may it not be so in the Church of the Christians Now Protestants or any other Christians doe not so much as pretend to Miracles therfore they that are are amongst Roman Catholiques Indeed I have read of Calvin that for the credit of his new doctrine he would make shew to the people of doing a Miracle and hired one that was sick to counterfeit himselfe dead who when Calvin should speak certain words was to rise up as it were from the dead but he not stirring nor answering at his cue they looked and found him dead indeed b Capcavil in chronicis Pontificum Leodiensium But on the other side the sonne of Calvin being bit by a mad dog and his father not able to cure him he was sent to S. Hubert in Ardenne where the body of that
else can usurp it from her For howsoever some when being so hard pressed that they cannot claime the title of true Chritian unlesse they assume the name of Catholique do then arrogate it to themselves and say that they are Catholikes yet in ordinary speech if you speak of a Catholike every one understands thereby a Romane Catholike all other Sects voluntarily taking to themselves the name of some men for their founder as of Luther Calvin whom they call their Reformers or of some place as the Albigenses or from some accident of their pretended reformation as Protestants by which the legall Protestants delight to stile themselves with this addition of the Church of England renouncing therein as they suppose Luther and Calvin as ashamed or seeming to scorne to derive themselves from any one man as though the Church of England in this matter namely in opposition to the whole Church both present and precedent were of more consideration then one single man Moreover certain enough it is that the Reformation of the Church of England began by one man and he no God neither except it were such an one as Jupiter was who transform'd himself into a beast for the love of women before it filled the whole Kingdome and arrived at that high pitch of perfection that some suppose And who that man was is well enough knowne and what godly motives he had which they must confesse or else that their Church is like Melchizedek without Father or Mother or like a Mushrump started up in a night no man knowes how On the contrary the true believer will own no name but that of the Catholique Faith which was first devised by the Apostles in the Creed and which the successors of the Apostles in that Faith have alwaies worne As the Antient Father a Pacianus ad Symp. Ep. 1. S. Pacianus saith in an Epistle to Sympronianus a Novatian Heretique Christian is my name Catholique is my Sir-name that names me this marks me out by that I am manifested by this I am distinguished And Saint b Cyrill Hieros Catech 15. Cyrill of Jerusalem expounding the Creed For this cause saith he thy faith hath given thee this Article to hold undoubtedly and in the holy Catholique Church to the end thou shouldest fly the polluted Conventicles of Heretiques And a little after when thou comest into a Town inquire not simply where the Temple of our Lord is for the Heresies of impious persons do likewise call their dens the Temples of the Lord neither ask simply where the Church is but where is the Catholique Church For that name is the proper name of this holy Church And on the contrary c Hieron cont Lucifer c. 9. S. Hierome saith If in any part thou hearest of men denominated from any but from Christ as Marcionites Valentinians c. know that it is not the Church of Christ but the Synagogve of Antichrist And d Lib. deutilitat cred cap. 7. S. Augustine fully Although there be many heresies of Christians and that all would be called Catholikes yet there is alwaies one Church if you cast your eyes upon the extent of the whole world more abundant in multitude and also as those that know themselves to be of it more sincere in truth than all the rest but of the truth that is another dispute That which sufficeth for the question is that there is one Church to which different Heresies impose different names whereas they are all called by their particular names that they dare not disavow from whence it appears in the judgement of any not pre-occupate with favour to whom the name of Catholike whereof they are all ambitious ought to be attributed And again e De vera relig cap. 6. We must hold the Christian Religion and the communion of that Church which is called Catholique both by her own and by strangers for whether Heretiques and Schismatiques will or will not when they speak not with their own but with strangers they call the Catholiques no otherwise than Catholiques As for the Protestants it is certain that neither by others nor yet by themselves in ordinary speaking are they called Catholiques No nor yet in their most solemne and serious speaking as appears by the severall Acts both of the King of England and of the Houses of Parliament wherein both sides publish to the world and yet in a sense different from one another that they will maintain the Protestant Religion But the Roman Church hath alwayes possessed the name of Catholique and therefore she is such CHAP. XII Of the second Mark of the Church viz. Antiquity both of persons and doctrines § 1. THe second mark of the Church is Antiquity as God saith by the Prophet Jeremy Stand in the waies see inquire of the old paths which is the good way and walk therein Ier. 6.16 And our Saviour saith Mat. 13. that the good seed was sown first and afterwards the tares And even in nature truth is before falshood And this Antiquity I found applyable in the highest degree to the Roman Religion for though some heresies are very antient as is intimated in that the tares were sowen soon after the good seed yet the truth is more antient and so is the Church of Rome This antiquity of hers for the greatest part of time is confessed by Protestants Perkins whom I alledged before grants it for 900. yeares Napier goes higher and saith it raigned universally and without any debateable contradiction 12. hundred and 60. yeares And seeing this raign of the Catholique Religion which Protestants call Popery was then universall it is apparent that it did not then begin for such an universall possession could not be got on the suddain as they may perceive by the Protestant Religion which is not improved to neere that universality in above a hundred yeares so that in all probability even according to the opinion of Protestants the beginning thereof must be in or neere the Apostles times Now whether we take the Roman Church for the society of Christians that acknowledge the Bishop of Rome for their head or whether we take it for Fathers and Doctors holding the doctrines of the present Church of Rome in both respects it will appear that the Church of Rome is most antient and Apostolicall The former is proved by the testimony of S. * Iren. cont Val. lib. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus who calls the Roman Church the greatest and antientest Church founded at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul And of S. Augustine * Aug. Epist 162. who saith In the Roman Church hath alwaies flourished the Principality of the Apostolique Seat This word alwaies including all the time upward from that present to S. Peter So that by this it is manifest that there was a Roman Church even from S. Peters time who was the first Bishop and Pope thereof Which S. Augustine confirmes in another place saying Number the Priests even from
do yea and more commanding things impossible and then punishes us for not doing them which is most tyrannicall Now if God do not require all but only thus much to do well then the doing better than well is a stock which God of his great bounty gives us to improve for our selves in a higher measure and to offer him liberalities beyond the bond of duty And what pride is it for man to acknowledge this sweet providence of his creator to praise his merciful indulgence in not exacting so much as he might but giving him a way means to shew his voluntary unexacted love to him Especially believing that this divine favour not to exact the uttermost of mans performance and consequently mans ability to present to God more perfect and excellent service than he requires is given through the merits of Christ § 8. But above all the Reall presence is the prodigie of opinions in the conceipt of Protestants whose playnnesse in Scripture notwithstanding leaves not where to adde to it with cleerer proofe as appeares by Christs words of institution This is my body so often repeated Mat. 26.26 Mar. 14.22 Luc. 22.19 They fight against it therfore with arguments drawn from the power of nature think because it exceeds the power of nature therfore it cannot be To whom it may be said as our Saviour said to the Jews who thought that mens bodies in heaven were like their bodies here on earth ye erre not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God Mat. 22.29 And why then do Protestants believe that God was in the form of a man a thing as impossible in nature as for God man together to be under the form of bread or wine And because they would make sure work if they could the former objection being in the opinion of many of them insufficient they say that it doth not only exceed the power of nature but of God also in that it implies a contradiction but this the most learned of them have never been able to prove nor never will I hope they will all take Luthers judgement herein whom they will not deny to be learned enough to discerne a contradiction Tom. Wittemb 1557. defens verb. Coenae fol. 388 and he saith what Scripture have they to prove that these two Propositions be directly contrary Christ sitteth in heaven Christ is in the Supper The contradiction is in their carnall imagination not in faith or the word of God They also fright the people from this belief by presenting to them the uncomlinesse and inconveniences that may ensue which objections are but raked out of the ashes of the old Heathen and Heretiques who made the like against Gods taking our flesh upon him as that it was undecent that God should lie in a womans womb nine moneths that he should be circumcised whipt and spit upon and finally suffer a most shamefull and painfull death But seeing Protestants doe believe that Christ when he was on earth was subject to all humane infirmities except sin why should his liablenesse to such infirmities make them forbear to believe that he is in the Sacrament But to acquit them of that trouble they may take notice that Christs body in the Sacrament is not subject to those inconveniences that it was before his death because it is now a glorified body and not subject to suffer any thing For as the Sun shining on a dunghill is not defiled therewith and as the Deity it selfe is every where and yet suffers no infection from the foulnesse of any place So the body of Christ being immortall and impassible cannot be defiled or hurt with the touch or impression of any unclean or hurtfull thing more than a man can hurt or defile a Spirit for of that nature are all glorified bodies as the Apostle saith It is sowen a naturall body it shall rise a spirituall body 1. Cor. 15.44 So that in this respect Protestants have more reason to believe the reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament than that he once had a reall body conversant here on earth But some of them againe do acknowledge as they say themselves the Reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament and therein seem to be Catholiques and please themselves in seeming to be so and think we can desire no more but they do but cozen both themselves and us for when their Presence is sifted we find no reality in it They say that Christ is really present in the Sacrament but not corporally or bodily by which bodily they mean either that his body it selfe is not there or that it is not there with the circumstances and accidents of a body as quantity and the like If they mean the former to wit that he is really there and yet his body is not there I would faine know how this may be For a body to be really in any thing must fignifie to be bodily or in body there or nothing Therefore to say that Christ is really there who is a body and yet not there bodily is the contradiction they speak of and is in their reall presence not in the Catholiques For it is as much as if they should say his body is there and it is not there If by not bodily they mean not with the accidents of his body as quantity figure and the like and that so Christ is not bodily in the Sacrament but spiritually that is after the nature of a Spirit then they agree with Catholiques who say the same and in this sense he may be and is both corporally and spiritually present in the Sacrament Now if by really they mean in regard of his Deity which is every where this is true but is not the true meaning of really for he is no more there in this sense than he is every where else so their confession of a reall presence imports nothing distinctly and is but a delusion For Christ being a man as wel as God the body of a man as wel as the Godhead concurring to the making of his person he that is whole Christ and unseparated cannot be said to be any where really unlesse he be there also bodily and if his body be there his body is by us received and that not only spiritually that is under the conditions of a Spirit or spiritually by receiving the grace of his holy Spirit into our Spirits and souls but also corporally in regard of himselfe who is a body and in regard of us who receive his body into our bodies and this not by faith but with faith that is not by an imaginary conceipt that he is there or that the benefits of his passion are conveyed to the receiver that thinks so which is the Protestant saith in this case but with faith that is faith and charity also abiding in our souls without which though we doe receive him truly really yet we do not receive him worthily profitably But according to the Protestant
thereof Mark 14.23 But the second All is restrained to all the Apostles what reason then is there to extend the former words further then to all the Apostles And the reason why Christ said drink yee all of this and did not say eat ye all of this was not as Protestants vainly imagine because Christ fore-saw that some would deny the use of the Chalice to the Communicants but that the first to whom our Saviour gave the cup and so the rest untill the last were to know that they were not to drink all but were to leave so much as might suffice for them or him that was to drink after without new filling and consecration Which forme of words he used most plainely a little before the supper of the Pasche for as S. Luke saith Luke 22.17 Taking the chalice he gave thanks and said take it and divide it amongst you whereas breaking the bread himselfe and giving to every one his part and not the whole to be divided amongst them there was no such necessity of the said words § 6. As for the words of our Saviour doe this in remembrance of me they doe no waies infer a precept of receiving in both kinds First because our Saviour said these words absolutely only of the Sacrament in the forme of bread but in the forme of wine only conditionally doe this as oft as ye shall drink in remembrance of me not commanding them to drink but in case they did drink which was lawfull and usuall in those times but not so now as I shall shew by and by that then they should doe it in memory of Christ So that this precept do this being the only precept given by Christ to his Church concerning this matter and given absolutely of the forme of bread conditionally of the form of wine there is no colour to accuse the Church of doing against Christs precept by communion under one kind only S. Augustine saith Epist 1 18. that Our Lord did not appoint in what order the Sacrament of the Eucharist was to be taken afterward but left authority unto the Apostles to make such appointments by whom he was to dispose and order his Churches But suppose Christ had spoken these imperative words doe this after the giving of the cup yet are they to be understood with restriction to those things that belong to the essence and substance of this action for if we extend it further to the accidentary circumstances thereof in which Christ did then institute and give the Sacrament many absurdities will follow For by this rule we must alwaies celebrate the Eucharist after supper and in unleavened bread the receivers must take it into their hands and the Priest must wash the feet of those to whom he administers it with the like Now seeing to bind men to these circumstances of our Saviours action is in all mens judgements very absurd we must not extend the precept doe this to the said or the like circumstances but acknowledge that the precept includes only the doing of that which pertaines to the substance of the Sacrament of which kind communion in both kinds cannot be it being also a circumstance the substance thereof being intire in one only kind as hath been proved So that the Protestants wrangling thus for the cup doe but fulfill in themselves though in a different sense the prophecy of Isaiah ERIT CLAMOR IN PLATEIS SUPER VINO there shall be crying for wine in the streets Isay 24.11 Thus it appeares that Communion in both kinds is not of the essence or integrity of the Sacrament nor necessary by any divine precept from whence it followes that as a thing indifferent it may be permitted or restrained according as the wisedome of the Church shall think fit For the precinct of humane power streacheth to things indifferent and only to them Things absolutely commanded man cannot forbid things absolutely forbidden man cannot command and therefore the territory of humane legislative power must be in things indifferent or else there is none at all which is against Scripture reason and the most generall beleef and practise of mankind The Apostles practised this power upon the Gentiles by imposing upon them a new law of abstinence for a time from things offered to Idolls and blood and that which is strangled Acts 15.29 which yet Christ himself never imposed but left it indifferent whereas after the Apostles decree it became necessary wherefore it is said that S. Paul walked through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches commanding them to keep the precepts of the Apostles and Elders Acts 15.41 § 7. Now the reasons moving the Church to restrain communion to one kind were many and weighty First to prevent thereby the occasion of error for whereas in the primitive Church the use of one or both kinds was indifferently practised as is apparent by testimonies of antiquity yea by the example of the Apostles Acts 2.42 and our Saviour himselfe Luke 26.30 yet when as the Manichean heretiques rose b see Aug. lib. de haer c. 46. Leo Serm. 4. de Quadrag who abstained from wine as a thing in it selfe unlawfull to be drunk and by consequence abstained from it also in the Sacrament holy Bishops did hereupon much commend the use of the chalice But this error being extinguished and another arising c Aeneas Silvius hist Bohem capt 3.5 against the integrity of Christ under either kind as also avouching the absolute necessity of both the Church of God hereupon began more universally to practise communion under one kind and withall in declaration of the truth and for prevention of Schisme did absolutely decree the lawfulnesse thereof with prohibition to the contrary So in more antient times when the Ebionites taught unleavened bread to bee necessary in consecration of the Eucharist the Church commanded the consecration thereof to be made in leavened bread And when the heretique Nestorius denyed our Blessed Lady to be the mother of God and only to be called the mother of Christ the Church condemned him and commanded that she should be called Mother of God And the Church hath ever found this the most effectuall means for the confutation and extirpation of heresie namely by contrary decrees and practise to declare and publish the truth A second reason moving the Church to forbid the use of the cup was the deserved reverence due to this highest Sacrament in consideration whereof the Holy Fathers did appoint most diligent care to be used lest any little particle of the Host or drop of the Chalice should fall to the ground Now the multitude of Christians in laterages being very great the negligence of many in sacred things as great through the coldnesse of their zeale devotion it could not morally be possible but that frequent spilling of the blood would happen if the Chalice were to be given ordinarily to the people d Aeneas Silvius Ep. 13. de errore Bohem. Narrat de Bohem. ad Conc. Basil