Divisions and breach of the Union of Love and Judgment are not of humane cognizance nor can the Church know who are or censure such Schismaticks 3. But Schism in the sense we now speak of consists in a Violation or breach of the External Church-Union when men refuse to Communicate with their Fellow-Christians in the Belief of the same Creed coming to the same publick Prayers and receiving the same Sacraments c. 4. This Schism must be a Criminal or Sinful Separation when those who separate have no Rational and firm grounds to justifie their Separation For if any Church hath Apostatiz'd from the Ancient and true Christian Faith and as necessary conditions of her Communion require of her Members to believe any thing in fide erroneous or to do any thing in facto impious then Separation from such a corrupted Church is so far from being Schismatical and sinful Impiety that it is a necessary duty This is on all sides confessed that 't is no Schism to Separate from an erroneous Church It being evident that no Christian can be bound to Communicate with any Church in Errors or Impieties and therefore may without any Schism lawfully Separate from such Churches whether that Church disbelieve and deny any Articles of the Ancient and True Christian Faith or which the Pope and his party do add new ones inconsistent with it and the truth of the Gospel and that Faith which our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles deliver'd to the Christian Church The Premisses concerning the Nature of Schism consider'd and as they are and must be granted I say That the Errors of the Church of Rome are so many and grievous that they are a just ground to condemn Her and to justifie our Separation from her I shall only instance in some few and the first concern the Sacred Scripture which 1. Many of her Writers speak most irreverently of the Sacred Scriptures tho' they be on all sides confess'd to be the Holy Word of God calling them nasus Cereus Regula Lesbia Vnsens'd Characters c. These and many more such occur in their greatest Writers as is notoriously known and cannot be deny'd Sure I am that She her self tells us That the reading of Scripture in any Vulgar tongue has by reason of mens rashness done more mischief than good And therefore the Church of Rome forbids all Reading the Scriptures in any Vulgar Tongue which consequence notwithstanding her Infallibility is most irrational and not better than this None shall drink any Wine because many through their temerity and drunkenness abuse it to their great hurt and detriment But this is not all nor tho' bad enough the worst of it Other of their Authors approv'd at Rome tell us That the reading of Scripture in a vulgar Tongue is so far from being profitable that it is pernicious to the people Nay horresco referens They farther say That the permitting of the People to read the Bible was the Invention of the Devil and a likelier means to build Babylon than Jerusalem Having thus given so foul a character of the Holy Scriptures to fright men foom reading them as dangerous and to the People pernicious they do in the next place 2. Absolutely prohibit the reading or hearing the Bible or any Summary or Compendium of it in any vulgar Tongue understood by the People and if any have any prohibited Books they are to bring them to the Bishop or Inquisitor who are presently to see them burnt the Bible not excepted for it is all prohibited Books whatsoever c. Now this giving such an irreverent character of Holy Scripture and prohibiting the reading or hearing it in any vulgar Tongue is not only erroneous but highly unjust and to the People who are deny'd the benefit and comfort they might receive by reading the Scriptures pernicious which will evidently appear because such prohibition of reading or hearing the Bible in any vulgar Language is expresly contrary 1. To the Scripture it self 2. To the command and precepts of God in It. 3. To the practice of the Church of God both Jewish and Christian as may and to intelligent and impartial Judges will evidently appear 1. For the Jewish Church 't is undeniably certain That the Sacred Books of the Old Testament were either immediately by God himself or mediately by his Prophets given to the Jews in their own vulgar Tongue 2. That they were not given only to the Levites or learned amongst the Jews but to all Israel Levites or Laity Remember saies the Prophet the Law of Moses which I commanded in Horeb for all Israel with the Statutes and Judgments 3. And by the express command of God they were bound to read that Law in that vulgar Language to all Israel men women and children and to that end that they might learn to fear the Lord and keep his Statutes 4. And accordingly in praxi de facto it was read in their vulgar Tongue to men women and children and afterwards both the Law and Prophets were read in every Synagogue every Sabbath day 5. And that they had the Scriptures in the vulgar Tongue and could read and be directed by them as divine Oracles was the greatest and most profitable privilege and the man is Bless'd who read and did meditate in them day and night c. The Premisses consider'd I think 't is evident that their undervaluing the Scriptures and prohibiting the reading them in any vulgar Tongue is directly contradictory to the express command of God and practice of the Jewish Church the only true Church then before our Blessed Saviour had constituted the Christian Church of Jews and Gentiles 2. Concerning the Christian Church That the Scriptures were had and read by Christians either in the Originals or in Versions and Translations into other vulgar Tongues is an undeniable truth and indeed confess'd For 't is manifest that all Churches in Christendom anciently had and except the Roman to this day have the Scriptures and read them in their vulgar Tongues and the Church of Rome had and read the Scriptures in Latin which was for many ages their vulgar Tongue till it did degenerate into Italian 2. The Apostle commends Timothy that he had known the Scriptures from a child and that they were able to make him wise unto Salvation or as S. James expresseth it able to save his soul. The Scriptures which Timothy is said to know from a child were the Scriptures of the Old Testament little if any of the New being then writ when he was a child which he had and read in vulgar Tongue and such reading was so far from being what the Popish Writers and the Popes themselves say of them dangerous and pernicious to his Soul that if we will believe the Apostle it was a happy and powerful means for the Salvation of it 3. St. Paul preaches the Gospel
they had the Scriptures in their vulgar Tongue till Pope Innocent the third which was somewhat above 1200 years after our Blessed Saviour condemn'd and prohibited the reading or hearing the Scriptures in any vulgar Idiome And amongst impertinent things which they mis-call reasons which they then and others since alledg'd against reading Scripture in a vulgar Tongue this was one That such reading of the Scriptures would be the cause of several Heresies Seditions Schisms and almost infinite other mischiefs Certainly all good Christians who as surely they are bound love God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ will judge this to be what indeed it is not sober reasoning but railing at and reviling the Holy Scriptures and that Holy Spirit who did dictate them to be a proper and powerful means to bring us to the knowledge of the truth and Salvation by it For if the Scripture be not a good means to procure such an end then they must say which if they do 't is no better than blasphemy That the Holy Spirit could not or would not give a good means for that end for which he intended it But it is certain that the Holy Scriptures are so far from being what they untruly say a cause of Heresie Sedition or Schism that no Book in the world does or can condemn those crimes with that clear evidence and Authority which the Bible doth Especially seeing the Scripture is the sole authentick Rule to know what Doctrines are de fide and what heretical and therefore I have often wonder'd what Heresies they mean when they say that reading the Scripture is the cause of Heresie seeing no Doctrine is or can be de fide a Doctrine or Article of our Christian Faith which is not contain'd in Scripture that being the adequate Rule and measure of our Christian Faith nor can any thing be truly and properly Heresie which is not contrary to some Divine truth reveal'd in Scripture But Azorius and others tell me that Articles of Faith and Heresies are not to be measured and defined by their agreement or disagreement with Scripture only but also by their agreement and disagreement with the Doctrinal definitions of the Church of Rome So that not only the Articles of the Apostles Creed of that of Nice of Constantinople and Chalcedon are de fide and all contrary Doctrines Heresies in which we and they agree but also all the Articles of their new Trent Creed first published by Pope Pius the 4 th in the year 1564. are at Rome de fide and all Doctrines contrary to any Article of that new Creed they call Heresies and condemn them Here I consider 1. That all Protestants do believe and profess many Doctrines contradictory to the Articles of their New Trent-Creed as is confess'd 2. And the Sacred Scriptures are the reason and ground why we do so which in express terms or by evident consequence condemns many of their Doctrines as their worshipping of Images denying the Cup to the Laity and to Priests that do not Consecrate forbidding the Clergy to marry c. And yet they mis-cal us Hereticks and our Doctrines maintain'd against them tho' consonant to the Sacred Scripture Heresies and accuse Scripture as the cause of Heresies not that it is the cause of Heresies properly and truly so call'd which are errors contrary to the infallible Rule of Faith for this would make Scripture contradict it self but because it is the true ground and reason why we believe and profess many Doctrines which are contrary to the erroneous definitions of their Church so that we confess the Scripture is the cause of those things which tho' real truths they mis-cal Heresies But to deprive the People of the benefit and comfort of the Scriptures upon so irrational and frivolous a pretence is evidently injust in them and not only dangerous but pernicious to the people So that had we no other reason but this the depriving the people of the use and benefit of the Scriptures it were abundantly sufficient to justifie our Separation from Rome reason 2 But Secondly The Church of Rome does not only deprive the People of the benefit and comfort of Scriptures prohibiting the reading or having them in any vulgar Language by them understood but for the same reason they deprive them of the benefit and Edification they might and ought to have had in the publick service of God all their Liturgies and publick Sacred Offices Missals Breviaries c. being in Latin a Language not understood by the people and many times not by the Priests themselves who not understanding the Language in which the Publick Service of God was celebrated could not possibly know to whom whether to God or Saint or Angels or for what the Priest prayed and so could not which the Apostle thinks they should in publick Prayers and Thanksgiving say Amen to any thing said by him who did officiate For this practice of the Church of Rome in having their Liturgies in a Tongue not understood by the People that it is unjust in them and pernicious to the People I shall only say two things 1. That it is expresly against Scripture and the directions the Apostle has given against it He spends a whole Chapter to this purpose and with so much zeal and so many reasons demonstrates that publick Prayers and Divine Service ought not to be in an unknown Language that it is a wonder that any who pretend to be Christians should as they of Rome do dare to contradict an Apostle of Jesus Christ and that Holy Spirit by which he spoke I know that some of the greatest Writers for Rome and the Vindication of their Sacred Offices in an unknown Tongue indeavour to Answer the Apostles reasons in this Chapter but with such insignificant and miserable shifts that you will easily see that they indeavour that which they cannot possibly do 2. And that it was as manifestly against the practice of the Church of God Jewish and Christian in all Ages is as manifest and by sober and ingenuous persons of the Roman Communion confess'd Now do you consider how pernicious this must needs be to the People to deprive them of that great comfort and edification which they might and ought to have had by the publick Service of God in a Language by them understood especially seeing Cardinal Contarenus and Cajetan convinced of this truth confess in the places now cited that if the Sacred Offices and publick Prayers were in a known Tongue it would tend much more to the Edification and benefit of the People reason 3 Thirdly While we were in the Communion of the Church of Rome the one half of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was taken from us therefore we had good reason to separate from their Communion The Cup in the Eucharist was taken from the Laity and all Priests too save him who did Consecrate and this is most unjust and illegal 1.
I believe ever will be guilty of 2. They contradict their own Martyrologies their Missals and Breviaries wherein they acknowledge many hundred Saints and Martyrs who lived and dyed in those 3 Centuries and in their Offices pray to them as to glorify'd Saints and Martyrs 3. But to put the case in short and beyond dispute it is certain there never was any truly General Council or any Synod wherein the Representatives of the Universal Church did meet and determine Controversies The greatest Council the Christian Church ever had was only Imperial of the Roman Empire not Universal of all Christendom few if any out of the Roman Empire being ever call'd or coming to any of those Councils we now call General or Oecumenical 'T is true there are several Councils as the first of Nice that of Constantinople that of Ephesus and Chalcedon c. which we commonly call Oecumenical or General Councils but then the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence we call a Council Oecumenical must be taken in that signification it has in St. Luke There came a Decree from Augustus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole World should be taxed Now 't is evident that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there the Roman world only must be meant or the Roman Empire for Augustus had neither intention nor any Authority to tax any but his own Subjects So when the Emperours call'd Councils as is evident they did call all the first Oecumenical Councils they had neither Intention nor any Authority to call those Christians which were out of their Empire and none of their Subjects Now 't is evident that when the Nicene Council was call'd and others after it a very great part of Christendom was without the bounds of the Roman Empire whose Bishops as they were never call'd so they never came as may appear by the Subscriptions to the Councils themselves 4. Is it not irrational for them to boast of the Infallibility of their General Councils when their greatest Writers and Publishers of their Councils ridiculously contradict themselves and give us this distinction of General Councils 1. Generalia Concilia approbata 2. Concilia Gen. reprobata 3. Concilia Gen. partim approbata partim reprobata 4. Concilium Gen. nec approbatum nec reprobatum They mean the first of Pisa about the year 1409 which they will not approve nor reject In short if General Councils may be reprobate and rejected then sure they are not Infallible 5. It seems your Emissaries to perswade your People to desert the Church of England tell your Parishioners that the Church of England is in a miserable condition for want of what they have an Infallible Guide and Judge of Controversies For hence it is say they that our Church is divided into so many Sects and Factions some being Presbyterians some Independents some Quakers c. To this you may with great reason and truth reply That they have in the Roman Church more Sects and Factions than we have in England they differing in things of an higher nature such as concern the Being of the Papacy For to say nothing of the late great and hot differences and disputes between the Jansenists and Molinists between the Dominicans and their Adherents on the one side and the Jesuits and Franciscans on the other Their Church is divided into great Sects and Factions which differ in things which concern the foundation of their Church and Papacy For to omit others many in their Church publickly affirm and maintain 1. That the Pope is Infallible 2. That he is the Supream Head of their Church above all General Councils and that no Appeal lies from him to the Council 3. That his Supremacy is not only in this Ecclesiastical but at least indirectè in temporals too 4. That he has power to depose Kings as for other causes so for Heresie 5. and to absolve their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance and give away their Kingdoms And altho' these Opinions pass with approbation at Rome yet they are all of them deny'd and condemn'd by the Church of France and thousands more who publickly and in Print declare against them as Erroneous and Impious highly prejudicial to the Rights of Kings and temporal Princes and Inconsistent with the Peace of Christendom Now if our Sects in England have risen and continued because we have no Infallible Judge to determine the Controversie Then by a parity of Reason seeing their great Sects and differences in the Church of Rome remain undetermin'd it must follow that they want an Infallible Judge to determine those Controversies So that it is to give it no worse name a very strange confidence in your Roman Emissaries to think they can perswade Protestants to desert the Church of England because there are some Sects and Divisions in it and yet perswade them to Communicate with the Church of Rome in which there are far more and more material Sects and undetermin'd Divisions for this were as the Country Proverb is to perswade us out of the Frying Pan into the fire and instead of bettering it to put us in a worse condition Let them make it appear that they are indeed at Unity amongst themselves and no Sects or Divisions amongst them then this Argument may have some more shew of Probability but as the case now stands it is not only irrational but ridiculous I say some more shew of Probability yet no just proof For admit they were at Unity amongst themselves yet there are many other gross Errors and Superstitions which while retain'd by their Church makes all Communion with them impossible but enough of this if not too much for nothing can be to an Intelligent and Impartial Judge more evident than this That since the decease of the Apostles there never was any Man or Congregation or Council of Men who pretended to Infallibility for above a thousand years after our Blessed Saviour But the Roman Church is so far from having what she commonly and vainly boasts of Infallibility that there neither is nor ever was any Christian Church in the world in such a miserable condition for the great incertainty of her Faith and Religion which incertainty arises from her own Principles approv'd and receiv'd by the Supream Authority of that Church and they are two 1. From their requiring the Intention of the Minister as necessary to the real Being of every Sacrament 2. Their denying the certainty of our Senses 1. For the first that the Intention of the Minister is necessarily requir'd to the real Being of any Sacrament We have the Decree of Pope Eugenius expresly affirming it and he says tho' untruly that it was approbante Concilio Their Trent Council confirms the same as do other of their Authentick Books Now this Principle being as it is by them granted it evidently follows 1. That no man in their Church can be certain that he is a Christian or that there is any one true
temporal things and so the loss of them less considerable But in our Blessed Saviour's Will and Testament the Legacies are Spiritual the promises of Grace here and eternal Glory hereafter and therefore to take away the Gospel from the People in any Language understood by them so that they cannot certainly know the Promises or their duties requir'd for the attaining of them is as I said not only injurious but pernicious to the poor people detain'd from the only means to know those things which in order to their Salvation they are by the Law of God and the Gospel bound to know For 1. Without the knowledge of Christ and belief in him there is no possibility of Salvation Joh. 3.16 Act. 10.43 Joh. 17.3 And 2. such knowledge of our Blessed Saviour whereon we may fiducially and with certainty rely can no where be had but in Scripture the only Infallible rule of our Faith. 3. Now the Pope and his party severely prohibiting the People to read or have the Scriptures or any part of them in any vulgar Language which they understand do by consequence deprive them of the only sure and certain means of their Salvation Which how unbecoming it is the pretended Successor of S. Peter who was commanded by our Blessed Saviour to feed his Sheep not to famish them by taking the Scriptures from them and how pernicious to the poor People let the Reader judge 4. And that the Pope quantum in se est deprives the People of the knowledge of Scripture besides what is above said I shall only add a signal passage out of a late Popes Bull wherein he condemns a French Translation of their own vulgar Latine in these words The said Gallican Version of the New Testament wheresoever Printed or hereafter to be Printed as rash and mischievous differing from the vulgar Latin and scandalous to the ignorant We by our Apostolical Authority condemn and prohibit so that hereafter none of what Degree or condition soever he be under pain of Excommunication shall dare or presume to read have sell print or cause it to be printed and whosoever has that French Translation of the N. Testament he is bound under pain of Excommunication to deliver it presently to the Ordinary of the place or the Inquisitors notwithstanding any thing whatsoever which may be to the contrary Thus Pope Clement the 9 th about 20 years since condemns and prohibits the Gospel of Jesus Christ in French a vulgar Tongue and we are told by a great and learned Casuist of their own that long before him Innocent the 3 d. condemned and prohibited a French Translation of the Bible Azorius in the place cited gives the reasons why the Scriptures are not to be permitted to be read or had in any vulgar Tongue where his irreverent speeches of the holy Word of God are so many and horrid that I shall not offend the pious Reader nor pollute these papers with them he who would be satisfied may see them in the place cited The Premisses consider'd I believe that intelligent and impartial Judges who love and seek truth will think that we had just reason to forsake the Church of Rome which unjustly in contradiction to Scripture and the practice of all Christian Churches except her self took the Holy Scriptures from us and consequently depriv'd us of the happiness which God himself had given us to be a sure and sufficient ground of our spiritual comfort and hope of Heaven For tho' they are pleas'd to contradict it the Apostle assures us That whatever things were written aforetime were written for our Learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope The Scriptures were dictated by the Holy Ghost and given to the Church not to be lockt up in an unknown Language but for our Learning and a firm foundation of our comfort and hope of Heaven 2. The Gospel was dictated by the Holy Ghost and given to this very end that it might be an effectual and powerful means to bring us to true Faith and by it to eternal life So the Apostle or Holy Spirit by him tells us These things are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ and believing them might have life 3. Nor is the Scripture an imperfect and defective means or without Traditions unable to beget such a Faith as will bring us to eternal life For the Apostle who knew better expresly tells Timothy That the Scriptures were ABLE to make him wise unto Salvation 4. Lastly Nor are the Scriptures so obscurely penn'd as they are commonly and most unjustly slander'd by our Adversaries that to ordinary people and understandings they are unintelligible I shall not go about to prove this being abundantly done by many of our Protestant Divines already I shall only add one testimony of a Cardinal I mean Bessarion who at the Council of Florence in a Speech to his Countrey-men expresly says That in Scripture ALL Doctrines of Faith are either plainly explain'd or if they be hid they may without difficulty be found out This Assertion of Bessarion is to me and all Protestants an evident and clear truth and is more considerable in that a Roman Cardinal dares and does publickly attest it in contradiction to the receiv'd Doctrine of the Church of Rome And while I am writing this there providentially comes in my way something concerning the taking away the Scriptures from the people which if I mistake not is very pertinent to our present purpose For 1. I find that Dioclesian in his Bloody Persecution of the Christians published an Edict that the Christians should bring in their Bibles to be publickly burnt They knew by the suggestion of Satan and their Pagan Priests that the Scriptures were the great and most effectual means to convert Pagans to Christianity and confirm them in it and therefore they did cunningly and impiously endeavour to deprive the Christians of the Benefit of those Sacred Books because no other Books were so destructive of their Pagan Religion and therefore they might not read them 2. And let sober and pious men consider whether the Pope does not for the same reason forbid the Scriptures to the People because no other Books make a clearer discovery of their Errors For they absolutely forbid the Bible in any vulgar Language whatsoever so that none of their Superiors could Licence them to have it and yet permit the abominable Turkish Alcoran to be read in a vulgar Tongue This may justly seem strange that the Gospel of our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ shall be absolutely prohibited and yet the Turkish Alcoran permitted to be read in a vulgar Tongue 3. Tho' the Pagans permitted not the Christians to have the Scriptures yet never any Christian Church no not the Roman for above 1000 years after our Blessed Saviour depriv'd the People of the use and benefit of the Sacred Scriptures In France
Because it is against the express Institution and Command of our Blessed Saviour who says Drink ye All of this and S. Mark particularly observes that they did All drink of it So that they might tho' with no just reason yet with more pretence have taken away the Bread For 't is never said Eat ye All of this nor express'd that they did all eat of it And the Decree of the Council of Constance the first Council that took away the Cup from the Laity in the year 1415. is most intolerable for they command upon pain of Excommunication that none should Communicate the Laity in both kinds in express contradiction to our Blessed Saviour's command Non obstante Institutione Christi They say indeed that the whole Body and blood of our Blessed Saviour is truly contain'd as well under the species of Bread as the species of Wine But admit this which is a great error that the whole Body and Blood be really and truly in the Bread so that the Laity in their Wafer receive both the Body and Blood then 1. Why did our Blessed Saviour institute it in both kinds if the Apostles receiv'd his body and blood in the Bread why did he give the blood a second time in the Cup 2. If the Laity receive the whole Sacrament the body and blood of our Blessed Saviour in the Wafer why needs the Priest who Consecrates receive any more 3. But admit that our Blessed Saviour's blood were wholly in the Wafer and the Body in the Cup as the Fathers of Constance say yet by their own receiv'd Principles the blood is not Consecrated in the Wafer nor his Body in the Cup their form of Consecrating the bread in the Wafer being different from the form of Consecrating the blood in the Cup and then admit that the blood were in the Wafer yet it is not Consecrated in the Wafer and therefore is not Sacramental blood or any part of the Sacrament as it is in the Wafer and therefore the Lay-men who receive only the Bread or Wafer do not receive the whole but only one part of the Sacrament and so contrary to our Blessed Saviour's command are depriv'd of the Blood the other part of the Sacrament 4. But however it is most certain and evident that they do not drink the blood in the wafer and therefore disobey our Blessed Saviour's command who expresly says Drink ye All of this By the Premisses I think it may and to impartial Judges will appear That the taking away the Cup from the Laity is a kind of Sacriledg in the Church of Rome as being against the Institution and express command of our Blessed Saviour Nor is this all for it is as much contrary to the practice 1. Of the Apostles and 2. Of the Christian Churches after them For the first S. Paul hath two signal things concerning this Subject For writing to the Corinthians about the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and he tells them that he had received of the Lord what he writ to them he says 1. That the Host to use their word was only Bread and not the very Body and Flesh of our Blessed Saviour For in two Chapters to the Corinthians he calls it Bread five times after Consecration and we may be sure he call'd it what he thought it was and what both his own and all their Senses manifestly saw and judg'd it to be It is true the Apostle in the same Chapter says That the eating of the Bread is the Communion of the Body of Christ. Not Communio propria substantialis as if they had really eaten the very substance of our Saviour's flesh but Communio typica Sacramentalis they eat his Body in eating the bread which was a Sacramental sign of his Body So a little before in the same Chapter he says that the Jews in Moses his time eat the same spiritual meat and drank the same spiritual drink for they drank of the spiritual Rock which was Christ. Not that they did or could then really and properly eat or drink his Flesh and Blood for it was above 1400 years before our Blessed Saviour had any flesh or blood but they eat his flesh and drank his blood in signis typis Sacramentalibus They eat our Blessed Saviour's Body in the Manna which was a type only and our Saviour himself the true Manna Sacramentally signify'd by it so he says the Rock was Christ that is the Sign having the Name of the thing signified as is most usual a type of Him. 2. It is evident by the places cited that the Corinthians by the Apostles directions receiv'd the Cup as well as the Bread. But besides our Blessed Saviour's Institution of the Sacrament in both kinds and the Apostles directions which are obligatory and commands that it should be so receiv'd there is one thing more which aggravates the error and injustice of the Church of Rome in taking away the Cup from the Laity which they do in contradiction to all other Christian Churches which ever since the Apostles time to this day have approv'd and practis'd the receiving the Sacrament in both kinds Nay in the Church of Rome itself for above 1200 years after our Saviour all both Lay and Clergy received in both kinds I shall not take any pains to prove this because it is a truth so evident that many Roman Catholicks and they both for Learning and Dignity eminent persons have confess'd it Cardinal Bona in a book by him lately publish'd has a signal passage to our Purpose his own words you have faithfully cited in the margin And for the meaning of the words in the Margin Cum offerebant de oblatis participabant if you consult Cassander he will tell you Quod omnes Laici qui aderant offerebant Diaconi omnis populus de calice communicabant For farther confirmation of this truth that anciently in the Roman Church the Laity had the Cup for above 1200 years I shall refer you 1. To the 27. Canon of the Lateran Council under Alexander the third in the year 1180. 2. Can. 28. Concilii Claromontani celebrati anno 1095. 3. Petrum de Marca de Primatu Lugdunensi pag. 441 442 c. 4. Cassandrum vid. in Consultatione de utraque specie Sacramenti pag. 182. 5. Lindanum vid. Panoptiae lib. 4. pag. 342. 6. Lastly Greg. de Valentia goes farther than some of his followers will and plainly confesses That the custom of Communicating in one kind only began to be general a little before the Council of Constance in his Tract de legitimo usu Eucharistiae cap. 8. 10. and that Council sate and made that bold Decree to take away the Cup An. 1414. And here it is very observable that altho' it was the express command of our Blessed Saviour and of the Apostle S. Paul from him that all should receive