it is the offer of us all the same do we all promise and we will all perform it Indeed in the first three of the first six hundred years the Church was almost under continuall persecution and so the writers of those times were few and much of that which they wrote did perish in those great ship-wracks of persecution and the matters that they wrote of most commonly were of another quality than concernes our present differences the Heresies of those daies being for the most part different from the present and much of their writings being spent in Apologies for themselves against the Heathen Yet all these advantages of the Protestants are too narrow to cover their designe For in those ages to retort the former boast of the Protestants there is not one single proof out of any one Father rightly interpreted for any one point of doctrine held by Protestants opposite to the Roman Catholique and for the Roman Catholique there is abundance In the alleadging whereof I will begin at the bottom and so go upward in some of which testimonies there shall be intermingling the interpretation of some Scriptures to the same purpose whereby I will include the testimony of Scripture also as it is interpreted by these Fathers who were doubtlesse better expositers than John Calvin or any of his followers And first of the Reall and corporall presence of our Saviour in the Holy Eucahrist and of the Holy Sacrifice of the Masse In the fift age or hundred of years S. Augustine expounding the title of the Psalme in which it is written And he was carried in his owne hands saith * Aug. Conc. 1. in Ps 33. Brethren who can understand how this could be done in man for who is carried in his own hands a man may be carried in the hands of another How this may be understood in David himselfe according to the letter we find not but in Christ we find For Christ was carried in his owne hands when commending his own body he said This is my Body for he carried that body in his hands Nor have the Protestants more reason to deny this place to intend the true reall naturall body and person of our Saviour because Turtullian saith it is a figure of his body than the Manichees and other Heretiques had to deny a reall body to our Saviour when he lived upon earth because the Scripture saith He took upon him the forme of a servant and was made in the likenesse of men Philip. 2.7 From which place they inferred that he was not a man really and indeed but had only the forme and likenesse of a man And if they would ' not stand to the judgement of the Church for the sense and meaning of these words who could convince them For they drew all other places to the sense of this and would not suffer this to yeald unto them though they were never so many or never so plaine In the fourth age S. Ambrose saith * Lib. 4. de Sacram c. 5. Before it be consecrated it is but bread but when the words of consecration come it is the body of Christ. To conclude heare him saying Take and eat of it all for this iâ— my body and before the words of Christ the chalice is full of wine and water when the words of Christ have wrought there it is made blood which redeemed the people Therefore mark in how great matters the word of Christ is potent to convert all things Moreover our very Lord Jesus testifieth unto us that we receive his body and bloud what ought we to doubt of his fidelity and testimony And again he saith * Lib. de iis qui misteriis initiantur c. 9. Perhaps you may say I see another thing how do you affirme to me that I shall receive the body of Christ This yet remaines to us to prove How great examples therefore do we use to prove that it is not this which nature hath formed but which benediction hath consecrated and that there is greater force of benediction than of nature because by the benediction the nature it selfe is changed Moses held a Rod he cast it down and it is made a Serpent c. which if humane benediction were so powerfull that it converted nature what say we of the divine consecration it selfe where the very words of our Lord and Saviour do work In the third age S. Cyprian tells us plainly if the former be not plaine enough for Transubstantiation that * Serm. de Coena Dom. prope init That bread which the Lord did give to his disciples being changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh and as in the person of Christ his humanity was seen his divinity lay hid so in the visible Sacrament the divine essence doth infuse it selfe after an expressible manner In the second age we find S. Iraeneus speaking thus * Lib. 4. c. 32. in fine But giving councell unto his diciples to offer unto God the first fruits of his creatures not as to one that wanted but that they might be neither unfruitfull nor ungratefull he took that which is bread of the creature and he gave thanks saying this is my body And the cup in like manner which is of that creature which is according to us he confesseth his blood and taught a new oblation of the new Testament which the Church receiving from the Apostles offers to God through all the world to him that maketh the first fruits of his gifts in the new Testament nourishments to us of which in the twelve Prophets Malachy 1.10.11 hath thus fore-signified I have no wil to you saith the Lord Omnipotent and I wil not receive a sacrifice of your hands for from the rising of the sun unto the going downe my name is glorified amongst the Gentiles and in every place incense is offered to my Name and a pure sacrifice because my name is great amongst the Gentiles saith the Lord Almighty Manifestly signifying by these words that the former people ceased to offer to God but in every place sacrifice is offered to God and this pure but his name is glorified in the nations Nor can this be meant of the Sacrifice of all Christians in generall but only of the Priests because as by the Chapter it doth appear God speakes of rejecting the Priests of the old law and their Sacrifice and choosing a new priesthood whom he calls the sonnes of Levi Mal. 3.3 by which figuratively is meant the Priests of the new Law and so do the Ministers of England frequently stile themselves the Tribe of Levi. Besides Protestants confesse that their * VVhitak cont Dur. l. 8. p. 572. praiers and best actions are impure and sinfull it cannot therefore be meant of such Sacrifices for this is a pure sacrifice and proper which none but Priests can offer is therefore according to the exposition of S. Irenaeus the Sacrifice of the Body and
blood of Christ the purest sacrifice that can be imagined In this age also Justin Martyr saith In Apol. 2. ad Anton. Imperat prope finem * For we do not take those things as common bread and common drink but as Jesus Christ our Saviour made flesh by the word of God had both flesh and blood for our Salvation so the bread and wine being made the Eucharist by the praier of the word proceeding from him by which our flesh and blood are nourished by change we are taught that it is the flesh and blood of the same Jesus Christ incarnate Lastly in the first age S. Ignatius Martyr and Disciple of S. John the Evangelist speaking of the error of the Saturnians saith a Epist ad Smynium ut citatur à Theodoreto Dial 3. They do not admit Eucharists and oblations because they do not confesse the Eucharist to be the flesh of the Saviour which suffered for our sinnes which the Father by his â—ounty raised And S. Andrew the Apostle saith b lib. pass S. Andreae apud SuriuÌ„ I daily sacrifice an immaculate Lamb to the omnipotent God which when it is truly sacrificed and the flesh thereof truly eaten of the people doth continue whole and alive Concerning the honour and Invocations of Saints in the fift age S. Augustine saith c Serm. 17. de verbis Apost prope init It is an injury to pray for a Martyr to whose prayers we ought to be commended And accordingly he did commend himself in these words d Meditat. c. 40. Holy immaculate Virgin Mary Mother of God and Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ vouchsafe to intercede for me to him whose Temple thou hast deserved to be made Holy Michael holy Gabriel holy Raphael holy Quires of Angells and Archangells of Patriarchs and Prophets of Apostles Evangelists Martyrs Confessors Priests Levites Monks Virgins and all the just both by him who hath chosen you and in whose contemplation you rejoyce I presume to ask that you would deign to beseech God for me a sinner that I may deserve to be delivered from the jaw of the Devill and from eternall death And again he saith a Lib. de loquutionibus in Gen. prope finem Jacob blessing his Nephewes the sonnes of Joseph among other things he saith and my name shall be invoked in these and the name of my Fathers Whence it is to be noted that not only hearing but also invocation is somtimes said which are not things pertaining unto God only but unto men In the fourth age we find S. Gregory Nazianzene speaking thus to S. Basil the great b In Orat. 20. quae est in laudem Basilii Magni But thou holy and heavenly head I pray thee behold us from heaven and either with thy prayers stop the provocation of the flesh which God hath given us for instruction or truly perswade that we may beare it with a valiant mind and direct all our life to that which is most availeable and after that we shall passe out of this life receive us also there in thy Tabernacles And S. Hierome against Vigilantius saith c Cont. Vigilant c. 3. initio Thou saist in thy book that while we live we may pray for one another but after we shall be dead the prayer of no man is to be heard for another especially seeing the Martyrs regarding the revenge of their blood shall not be able to obtain to which he answers ' If the Apostles and Martyrs being yet in the body can pray for others when as yet they ought to be solicitors for themselves how much more after crowns victories and triumphs And a little after he answers to the objection of their being dead saying To conclude the Saints are not said to be dead but asleep In the third age Origen giues us this example d Initio sui Lamenti I will begin to prostrate my self on my knees and to beseech all the Saints that they help me who dare not beg of God by reason of the abundance of my sin O Saints of God I beseech you with tears and weeping full of griefe that you fall down to his mercies for me miserable wretch And after woe is me Father Abraham pray for me that I be not estranged from thy bosome which I have greatly desired not condignely truly by reason of my great sin In the second age Justin Martyr speaks thus d Apol. 2. ad Anton Pium Imper. non longe ab initio Moreover we doe worship and adore him to wit God and the Son who came from him and taught us these things and the Army of others that followed and of the good Angells assimilated and the propheticall Spirit reverencing in word and truth and fairly delivering it as we are taught to all that will learn And in the first age in the Liturgie of S. James the lesse Ante Med. we have these words e Let us make commemoration of the most holy immaculate most glorious our blessed Lady Mother of God and alwaies Virgin Mary and of all Saints and just ones that we may all obtain mercy by their prayers and intercessions § 5. Thirdly for the use and veneration of holy Reliques and Images and chiefly of the holy Crosse hear what S. Augustine saith in the fift age * Tract 118. in Ioan. fine What is the signe of Christ which all have known but the Crosse of Christ which signe unlesse it be applied whether to the foreheads of believers or to the water wherewith they are regenerated or to the oile wherewith they are anointed with the chrisme or to the Sacrifice wherewith they are nourished nothing of them is rightly performed In the fourth age we shall find Athanasius speaking thus and expressing the manner of Catholiques worship of Images * ad Antiochum Principem Let it be far from us that we Christians adore images as Gods as the Greeks do we declare only our affection and the care of our love towards the figure of the person expressed by his image therefore oftentimes we burne as unprofitable the wood which ere while was an image if the figure be worne out Therefore as Jacob when he was to die adored the top of Josephs rod not honouring the rod it selfe but him who held the rod So we Christians do no otherwise adore images but even as moreover when we kisse our Fathers and children we declare the desire of our mind Even as the Jew also did adore in times past the Tables of the law and the two golden Cherubins and certaine other Images not worshiping the nature of the stone or gould but our Lord who commanded them to be made a Homil. 8. in diversos Evangelii locos In the third age * Origen saith thus To conclude * in Ezekiel the Prophet ch 9. v. 4. when the Angell who was sent had slaine all and the slaughter had begun from the Saints they only are kept safe whom the letter
they court to their faction are no Protestants for they hold damnable errors in the judgment of Protestants to wit Invocation of Saints Adoration of Images Transubstantiation Communion in one kind for the sick with many others So that Protestants are in great penury of professors of their Religion before Luther that are forced to call the Grecians in as Protestants in essence for they may even as well name the Pope himselfe As for John Husse and his followers who brake out about the year 1400. and are claimed to be Predecessors in the Protestant Religion it is certaine that they were no Protestants but held such Doctrines that if they were now in England they should suffer as Papists For they held a p. 216. seven Sacraments b p. 209. Transubstantiation c p. 217. art 7 8. the Popes primacy and the d Luther in Colloq Ger. c. de Missa Masse it self as Fox in his Acts and Monuments acknowledgeth No greater title have they to Wickliffe who appeared about the year 1370. in whom some Protestants say their visibility was maintained for he did visibly maintain Popery as e Wiclerus de blasphemia c. 17. holy water the f Idem de Eucharist c. 9. worship of Reliques and Images the g Idem in Ser. de assumpt Mariae intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary h Idem de apostosia c. 18. the Rites and ceremonies of the Masse all the i Idem in postil sup c. 15. Marci 7. Sacraments with all the points of Catholique doctrine now in question Moreover he held errors in the condemnation wherof both Catholiques and Protestants do agree as that k Acts Mon. p. 96. a. art 4. if a Bishop or Priest be in mortall sinne he doth not order consecrate or baptize l Idem p. 96 fine That Ecclesiasticall Ministers should not have temporall possessions He m Osiand Epit. hist Eccl. p. 459 art 43. condemned lawfull oathes with the Anabaptists and held many other pernicious doctrines Let any man then judge whether this man and his followers were Protestants or no. Then they ascend higher and claim on Waldo a merchant of Lions who brake out of the Sheepfold about the year 1220. with his followers as men in whom the Protestant Church was visible But these men were no more of kin to them than the former For they held the n In Ep. 244. p. 450. reall presence in the B. Sacrament for which they are reproved by Calvin who therfore understood them in the Catholique sense not in the Protestant And the most essentiall Doctrine of the Waldenses was their extolling of the merit of * Illiriâ—us Catolog Test p. 1498. voluntary poverty affirming all Ministers to be damned that had rents and possessions and that the Church perished under Pope Silvester and the Emperour Constantine through the poyson of temporall goods which Clergy-men began then to enjoy as they said against the Law of God Surely Protestants do not account this an Article of their faith Moreover the Waldenses held * Idem Catol Test p. 1502. these Anabaptisticall Errors That children are not to be baptized That there is no difference betweene a Bishop and a Priest a Priest and a Lay man That the Apostles were Lay-men and that every Lay-man that is vertuous is a Priest may preach and administer Sacraments That a woman pronouncing the words of consecration in the vulgar tongue doth consecrate yea transubstantiate bread into the body of Christ That it is a mortall sin to swear in any case That Magistrates being in mortall sin do lose in their office and no man is to obey them with many other absurdities too tedious to be recited The like may be said of the Albigenses and also of Beringarius who broached his Heresie about the yeare 1048. who was a Protestant but onely in the point against Transubstantiation which he also recanted and died a Catholique And what do any of these or all these together availe the Protestants every one of them extending but to some part of time between this and the Primitive Church and is also but the example of some one or other private man in whom the revolt first began who was first a Catholike and beginning afterwards to hold some one or few points of the Protestant faith continued in all other matters of controversie a Catholique By all which it appeares that none of these were Protestants and that therefore in them the visibility of the Protestant Church is not maintained And that if it were yet seeing they lived at severall times ununited by a line of time one to another but jumping over severall ages against the Law of nature which non facit saltum and that therfore in the between-spaces there was an invisibility of the Protestant Church the main question of their Churches perpetuall visibility is yet unsatisfied Especially when we consider that for about a thousand yeares which was the time betwixt Beringarius and the Apostles the Protestants pretend to no predecessors As for the most Primitive Fathers whom they affirm to maintain the Protestant Doctrine I have in brief shewed it to be false already and they that will search shall more largely find it so Also they all died members of the Roman Church So that the Protestants have not in them to wit the Fathers a visible Church distinct from the Roman nor was the Roman theirs From whence it is manifest that there is not any one Protestant Church in the world that can shew her visibility in any Kingdome city poor countrey village or particular person from the Apostles time to Luther the truth wherof M. Wotton is not ashamed to confesse where he saith in his answer to a Popish Pamphlet p. 11. You will say shew us where the faith religion you professe were held Nay prove you they were held no where c. and what if it could not be shewed yet we know by the Articles of our Creed that there hath been alwaies a Church in which we say this Religion we now professe must of necessity be held with us it is no inconvenience to have the true Church hid This stands you upon to disprove which when you attempt to do by any particular records you shal have particular answer Than which saying what more ridiculous To presume that their Church was alwaies visible in the land of Vtopia sure where no man ever saw it because it is the true Church wheras they should prove it the true Church because it hath been alwaies visible the knowledge of her visibility being much more easie than of her truth which is the main thing in controversie And to require of Catholiques proof that they were not visible by particular records is extreme foolish records being memorialls of things that were not of things that were not § 7. All which considerations shaking the confidence of many Protestants in the visibility of their Church before Luther
life but that a man wanting meanes of sacred communion may by other meanes preserve himselfe in the state of Grace And though we should suppose that actuall Communion were a necessary meanes to preserve spirituall life yet Communion in one kind is abundantly sufficient thereunto as I shall presently shew and if so by force of the institution there is no more required For we must know that there is a great difference between an institution and a precept the precept of both kinds if Christ gave any doth bind whether both kinds be necessary for the maintenance of mans soule in grace or no but the institution of both kinds doth not bind to the use further than the thing instituted is necessary to the maintenance of the said spirituall life to which seeing one kind is sufficient the institution of both kinds doth not oblige us to the use of both § 3. Now that Communion in one kind is sufficient Transubstantiation being supposed easily appeares in that the Sacrament in the sole form of bread seeing it containes the author and fountaine of life whole and intire according to body soule blood and his infinite person is abundantly sufficient for the refection of the soule yea no lesse than Communion under both kinds For this one kind containeth in it no lesse than is contained in both that is whole Christ God and man His body is there by force of these words This is my body and by concomitance there is the blood the soule the divinity for there is the person of Christ alive which implies all these particulars it being impossible he should be there otherwise as S. Paul saith Christ rising againe from the dead now dieth no more death shall have no more dominion over him Rom. 6.9 And to the receivers of Christ by eating only he promiseth the end of the Sacrament which is life He that eateth me he shall live by me John 6.58.59 and to the sole reception of him under the forme of bread He that eateth this bread shall live for ever And this surely he would not have said if receiving in both kinds had been necessary § 4. But because Protestants deny Transubstantiation I will without that supposition prove that to receive in one kind is sufficient First because that in one kind is contained the whole substance essence and parts of the Sacrament and secondly because it is not against any divine precept As for the institution I have proved already that it hath not the force of a precept First in one kind alone is contained the whole substance and essence of the Sacrament which are these fowre matter word signification causality First there is the element or matter of the Sacrament which is consecrated bread and manducation thereof secondly there is the word or form of speech shewing the divine and supernaturall purpose whereto the element is consecrated This is my body and these two make a Sacrament according to S. Aug Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum Thirdly there is a signe or signification therein and that three-fold first of spirituall food for the nourishment of the soule secondly of union and conjunctions between Christ and his Church and between the faithfull one with another even as in the bread there is a mixture of flower and water and in the flower of many graines together Thirdly the death and passion of Christ is hereby signified For as by the wine we have a motive to remember his blood shed and separated from his body so by the bread we may conceive his body deprived of blood by the effusion thereof upon the crosse whereupon Christ as S. Paul testifies 1. Cor. 11.24.25 did after the consecration of each kind particularly recommend the memory of his passion as knowing thas in each of them alone was a sufficient memoriall thereof Lastly there is causality that is a working in the soule the spirituall effects it signifies as our Saviour saith He that eateth this bread shall live for ever Joh. 6.59 And if any object that though there be all the essentiall parts of the Sacrament in one kind yet there are not all the integrall parts I answer that bread and wine are not two integrall parts of the Sacrament more than the severall particles of the bread and wine are integrall parts and as the Sacrament is sufficient whether it be in a greater or lesse quantity of bread or wine so is it whether it be in bread only or wine only for our Saviour instituted the whole Sacrament both in bread and in wine as two distinct intire matters thereof not as integrall parts thereof and gave us leave to use or both or either as shall appeare in that he hath not obliged us by any precept to the use of both And thus it appeareth that the Sacrament in one kind is full intire and complete in substance and that by participation thereof prepared consciences do receive the benefits of Christs death and passion Neither doth it hereupon follow that because the Sacrament is essentially and intirely contained under either kind therefore the Priest receiving underboth receiveth two Sacraments for being received both at once they make but one as being ordained to one refection signifying one thing and producing one effect Even as six or seven dishes of meat set upon a table do make but one dinner whereas part thereof being served one day and part another would make two And the reason why Priests receive under both kinds is because they offer up a Sacrifice representing the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse which were not perfectly represented but by both kinds wherefore also in this sort was it prefigured in the Sacrifice of Melchizedek offering bread and wine It being thus proved that whole Christ and the true essence and parts of the Sacrament are under either kind it followeth that in distributing it in one kind only there is no irreverence offered to the Sacrament it not being given as Protestants thinke halfe or maimed but essentially and intirely whole nor is any injury done to the people by depriving them of any grace meet to salvation seeing the very fountaine of grace is no lesse received under either kind than under both Nor is it the opinion of the greater part of Catholique Divines that more grace is obtained by communicating in both kinds than in one yet if it were this advantage might be easily ballanced by other meanes as by the more frequent receiving in one kind and by our obedience to the Church Now by the premisses it is evident that whether we respect the institution of the Sacrament or the nature thereof no obligation or necessity ariseth of receiving in both kinds The only question therefore remaining is whether we be bound thereunto by any expresse Precept of our Saviour or his Apostles Protestants believe we are and for proof thereof alledge these places Vnlesse you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you shall not have life
in you Joh. 6.54 And taking the Chalice he gave thanks and gave to them saying drinke ye all of this Mat. 26.27 Also In like manner the Chalice after he had supped saying this Chalice is the New Testament in my blood this do ye as often as yee shall drinke in remembrance of me 1 Cor. 11.25 But none of these places rightly understood nor any other do prove what the Protestants pretend to Particularly to the first of these places I answer that seeing the Protestants do generally interpret this Chapter of S. John not of receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist but onely of believing in Christ it is no objection for them but because most Catholique Divines do interpret it of the Blessed Sacrament it is an objection against us to which therefore I further answer First that all words of Scripture that in their forme seem to import a Precept do not so indeed as where our Saviour saith to his Apostles that they ought to wash one anothers feet Joh. 13.14 yet no man ever held it for a matter of necessity But supposing for the present that it include a Precept I further answer that as we distinguish in the Sacrament the substance and the manner the substance being to receive Christ the manner to receive him in both kinds by formall eating and drinking So the same distinction is to be made in our Saviours Precept about this Sacrament For howsoever his words may sound of the manner of receiving in both kinds yet his intention is to command no more than the substance to wit that we really receive his body and blood which may be done under one kind The truth whereof will appeare if we consider first the occasion of the words objected which was the incredulity of the Capernaites whose doubt was not whether the Sacrament was to be given in one or both kinds but as Protestants still doubt whether he could give us his flesh to eat Secondly the manner of his speech which was not by making mention of any kind at all in the said words but only of the things themselves for he doth not say unlesse you eat the bread and drink the wine you have no life but unlesse you eat the flesh and drink the blood both which are equally contained under either bread or wine So that if a man receive the forme of bread only or of wine only he doth therein both eat and drinke the flesh and blood of Christ. And in other places of this Chapter where he makes mention of one kind it is of bread only and not at all of wine so that this place is of no force for the forme of wine unlesse the body and blood of Christ be separated and that receiving the form of bread we receive the body onely and of wine the blood only which must suppose Christ still dead which is most impious and impossible § 5. And if any think that because it is said unlesse you drinke therefore Christ must be received under a forme that may be drunke as well as eaten or else it is not drinking his blood but eating his blood as well as his body I answer it is called eating and drinking not so much in regard of the action as the subject so that flesh being the usuall subject of eating when the Sacrament is called flesh the action is called eating and blood being the usuall subject of drinking when there is mention of receiving the blood the action is called drinking and we are not bound to receive him in a drinkable forme because we are bid to drink his blood but we may be said to drink because we receive that which is in its nature drinkable to wit blood which we doe when we receive the body And if this will not serve the turn they may further argue against us that if we swallow the Host whole we do not eat it eating implying chewing more or lesse and so do not fulfill the precept of eating the flesh And we may argue in like manner against them that if they do not take wine enough to make a draught they do not drinke but onely tast or sip thereof and therein also do not fulfill that which they think they are here commanded But as a Protestant I suppose if the bread and wine should be so mixed together in a cup that both might be drunk together or else eaten with a spoon or in the manner of a moist piece of past or swallowed like a pill will believe that he receives in both kinds and fulfills this in his opinion Precept of drinking the blood So the body and blood being joyned together in either kind to us that believe Transubstantiation we receive both when we receive either kind which act of receiving with relation to the flesh may be called eating to the blood drinking yea though it should be taken in such a manner as strictly speaking should bee neither eating nor drinking I adde moreover with relation to them that do not believe Transubstantiation that the conjunctive particle And doth frequently signifie disjunctively that is Or For example the Apostle saith Acts 3.6 Silver and gold have I none where it is manifest that the sense is silver or gold I have none for if he had had either he had had no excuse of want for his not giving of almes So also S. Paul speaketh of this very Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.29 27. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himselfe which he interpreteth in the same Chapter saying Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the cup of our Lord unworthily In like manner those words Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood if they be taken for eating and drinking under the severall formes of bread and wine are to be understood disjunctively thus Except ye eat the flesh or drink the blood of the sonne of man you shall not have life in you Which disjunctive sense is proved to be the sense intended in this place because else Christ should contradict himself for he promiseth in this same Chapter life eternall to eating only He that eateth me the same shall live by me and he that eateth this bread shall live for ever now if he require unto life eternall eating and drinking both under distinct forms and kinds it is manifest he should contradict himselfe and because this is impossible we must necessarily interpret this place with relation to the severall formes of bread and wine disjunctively thus unlesse you eat or drink The second text urged for Communion in both kinds is Drinks ye all of this Mat. 26.27 which being rightly understood will appeare to be spoken neither to all mankind as to Jewes Turks Infidells as Protestants also acknowledge nor yet to all the faithfull but to all the Apostles and to them all only Which is manifest out of the Text it self for what one Evangelist saith was commanded to all another relates to have been answerably performed by all They drank all