face began to close her mouth with her lips to refuse the cup but the deacon desisted not but though she resisted powred into her mouth out of the chalice And disputing against them that were named Aquarii he saith In ministring the cup to the people contrary to that which Christ did taught they giue water insteed of wine Let them tell vs saith Origon what people that is that vse to drinke bloud Ambrose If so often as the bloud of Christ is powred out it be powred out for the remission of sins it behoueth me alwayes to receiue it that my sins may be forgiuen me Laurence the deacon saith Sixtus the B. cōmitted vnto him the dispensation of the Lords bloud made him his consort in consummating the Sacraments Hierom vpō Sophonie the Priests which doe serue about the Eucharist and distribute the bloud of the Lord vnto his people do wickedly against the Law of Christ when they think that the words not the life of him that prayeth make the Eucharist Augustine Cùm frangitur hostia dum sanguis de calice in or a fidelium funditur quid aliud quam dominici corporis in cruce immolatio eiusque sanguinis de latere effusio designatur That is When the hoast is broken the bloud powred out of the chalice into the mouthes of the faithfull what other thing is represented thereby but the offering of Christs body on the crosse the powring of the blood out of his side ◠Nazianzen Reverere mysticam mensam ad quam accessisti panem quem participasti poculum cui communicasti passionibus Christi initiatus Reverence the Lords Table to which thou hast accesse the bread whereof thou hast beene partaker the cup in which thou hast communicated being initiated in the passions of Christ. ◠Cyrill of Hierusalem Concavâ manu suseipe corpus Christi dicens Amen tum verò post communionem corporis Christi accede ad calicem illius c. dicens Amen That is Receiue the body of Christ with a hollow hand saying Amen and after the partaking of the body of Christ come also to the cup of the Lord c saying Amen And Chrysostome most fully to this purpose It is not now as in the time of the Old testament where the Priest did eate same things and the people some other and where it was not lawfull for the people to partake of those things whereof the Priest did partake but one body is proposed to all and one cup. Gregory His body is there receiued his flesh is there divided for the saluation of the people his blood is not now shed vpon the hands of Infidels but into the mouthes of beleeuers ◠Ordo Romanus put forth by Cassander The Archdeacon taking the challice confirmeth all thē with the Lords blood whom the Pope had ceased to communicate in the body of the Lord. And againe As the Archdeacon doth confirme those that the Pope communicateth in the body of the Lord so do the other deacons confirme them that the other Bishops or priests communicate Liber sacramentorū put out by Gregory prescribeth thus When the priest giueth the Lords body let him say the body of our Lord Iesus Christ keepe thee vnto eternall life amen And let him that receiueth say I will receiue the celestiall bread will call on the name of the Lord. Also whē the priest giueth the cup let him say the blood of our Lord Iesus Christ keep thee vnto eternall life let him that receiueth it say I will receiue the cup of saluation Beda The body of Christ is not killed nor his blood shed by the hands of Infidels to their own destruction but it is receiued by the mouth of beleeuers to saluation The 11 t councel of Toledo provideth that such as through weakenes cannot receiue the whole sacrament but onely drinke of the mysticall cuppe shall not for this be separated from the body of Christ. Charles the great The mysterie of the Lords body blood is daily receiued of the faithfull in the sacrament Rabanus Moguntinus God would haue the sacraments of his body and blood receiued into the mouths of the faithfull that by the visible worke the invisible effect might be shewed Paschasius It is he only that breaketh this bread by the hands of his ministers distributes it to the beleeuers saying take yee drinke yee all of this aswell ministers as other beleeuers for this is the cup of my blood of the new eternall testament Haimo vpon the 1. Cor. 10. The cup is called a communication as it were a participation because all doe communicate of it doe take part of the blood of the Lord which it containeth in it Rupertus Abbas The priest distributeth the bread wine putting them into the mouthes of the faithfull Anselm All we which receiue of one bread one cup of the Lord are made one body Lanfrancus hath the same words that afore we cited out of Augustine Algerus Because we liue so by bread drinke that we cannot want either of them Christ would haue them both in his sacrament least if either were wanting the signification of life beeing imperfit hee might bee thought to be imperfit life Petrus Cluniacensis abbas The flesh of Christ was given to man to be eaten vnder the forme of bread the blood of Christ to be drunke vnder the forme of wine that as men doe principally vse bread wine for the maintaining of this present life so for the life that is eternall they might be sed with the body blood of Christ here spiritually hereafter both spiritually corporally In the primitiue Church saith Caietan the people did communicate in both kinds as appeareth in the 1 Cor. 11. This custome continued not only in the time of persecution in the time of the martyrs whom Cyprian would haue to bee comforted strengthened with drinking the cup of the Lord before they came to drinke of the cup of Martyrdome but euen in the time of peace also And therefore we reade not onely of the making providing of dishes but of ministeriall chalices much different from those wherein they now consecrate out of which the priest receiueth which were therefore named ministeriall chalices because they served not to offer but to minister the bloud of Christ to the people In the pontificall of Damasus in the life of Syluester we reade that Constantine builded a Church in the citty of Naples where hee offered two plates or dishes and 10 ministeriall chalices weighing euery one of them two pounds Of this sort was that of blessed Remigius as we find in Hincmarus in which these verses were Hauriat hinc populus vitam de sanguine sacro c. That is let the people draw life out of this sacred blood Our Fathers sayth Ioachimus Vadianus
due consideration of the feare of spilling and shedding the blood of Christ. But this attempt was disliked and resisted for the authour of the booke intituled Micrologus saith It is not authenticall that certaine doe dippe the body of the Lord and hauing so dipped it giue it to the people thinking thereby to make vp vnto them the whole communion But the Roman order is against this and doth prescribe that vpon Good friday when they consecrate not but vse the bread consecrated the day before they shall take wine that is not consecrated and consecrate it with the Lords player and dipping of the Lords body into it that so the people may receiue the whole Sacrament which prescription were superfluous if it were enough to dippe the body of Christ the day before so to keep it to giue it so dipped to the people to cōmunicate in Pope Iulius in order of Popes the 36th writing to the Bishops of Egypt doth altogether forbid any such dipping commandeth the bread cup to be receiued apart What the credit of this Epistle is which the authour of this book citeth as the Epistle of Pope Iulius I know not neither do I thinke that any such custome of giuing the Sacrament to the people in the Church in such sort was so ancient as to be reprehended by Pope Iulius But it appeareth that such dipping when it began to be vsed in the Church found great opposition therfore this supposed constitution of Iulius is renewed cōfirmed in the 3d councel of Bracar Micrologus addes that blessed Gelasius in order of Popes the 51th writing to certaine Bishoppes commandeth them to excommunicate all those that receiuing the Lords body abstained from the participation of the cuppe pronouncing in the same decree that such diuision of the Sacrament cannot bee without horrible sacriledge By this of Micrologus it is evident that they thought in those times that not onely the communicating in one kind alone out of such erroneous conceipts as those of the Manichees and other like but all communicating in one kind alone is sacrilegious And that they could not endure the dipping of the sacramentall bread whereby yet the people did in a sort partake of both kindes Neither doth Micrologus alone shew the dislike that then was of such dipping but the like wee may finde in the writings of sundry worthy men Hildebertus Cenomanensis Hoec ideo tibi frater exaravi vt excitatus evigiles vt videas quoniam traditioni sacramentorum altaris quae in vestro celebris est monasterio nec Evangelica traditio consonat nec decreta concordant In eo enim consuetudinis est eucharistiam nulli nisi intinctam dare quod nec ex dominica institutione nec ex sanctionibus authenticis reperitur assumptum si Mathaeum si Marcum si Lucam consulas seorsim panem traditum invenies seorsim vinum c nam intinctum panem aliis praebuisse Christum non legimus excepto tantummodo illo discipulo quem intincta buccella proditorem ostenderit non quod huius sacramenti institutionem fignaret sic Papa Iulius ait c. That is Brother I haue therefore written these things vnto thee that being stirred by me thou mightest bee awakened to see that the manner of deliuering of the sacrament of the altar which is growne into vse in your monasterie is neither consonant to the evangelicall tradition nor agreeing with the decrees For in your monasterie it is become a custome to giue the mysticall bread to none but dipped which will never be found to haue taken beginning from the Lords institution or authenticall constitutions For if thou consult Mathew or Marke or Luke thou shalt finde that the bread was deliuered apart and the wine apart c. for wee reade not that Christ gaue dipped bread to any other but onely to that disciple whom by the dipped soppe he meant to shew to be the traitour and not that he would haue the sacrament so ministred and so Pope Iulius sayth c. From the custome of dipping the mysticall bread into the blood giving it so dipped vnto the people for feare of shedding the blood of Christ if it should haue beene ministred apart some proceeded farther and began to teach the people that seeing the body blood of Christ cannot be separated in that they partake of the one they partake of the other also and that therefore it is sufficient to receiue in one kinde alone But herein they gaue no satisfaction either to themselues or others For though it be true sayth Durandus that they are not separated and that he that receiueth the one receiueth the other also yet neither part of the sacrament is superfluous but both are to bee receiued For whereas wine breedeth blood wherein the soule life is seated according to that in Leviticus The soule of all flesh is in the blood of it and whereas in the offerings that were of old the flesh of those beasts that were sacrificed was offered for the body and the blood of them for the soule if wee should receiue Christs body and together with it the blood vnder the forme of bread signifying and exhibiting the flesh of Christ and not vnder the forme of wine signifying exhibiting vnto vs the blood of Christ wee might bee thought to neglect the saluation and good of our soules And els-where hee saith that hee that receiueth onely the consecrated bread receiueth not the whole entire Sacrament For howsoeuer it be true that the blood of Christ is in the host or consecrated bread yet is it not there sacramentally seeing bread doth not signifie the blood but the body of Christ neither the wine the body but the blood of Christ. And in the former place hee addeth out of Innocentius tertius that though the blood of Christ be receiued with the body vnder the forme of bread and the body with the blood vnder the forme of wine yet neither can wee drinke the blood of Christ vnder the forme of bread which wee eat nor eat the body of Christ vnder the forme of wine which wee drinke And sundry of the Schoolemen agree with him in this poynt resoluing that though Christ bee whole and entire in either part of the sacrament yet both parts are necessary First because the exhibiting of the body blood of Christ distinctly representeth his passion in which his blood was separated from his body And secondly because in this sorte Christs body is more fitly and significantly exhibited vnto vs in the nature of food and his blood of drinke If this sacrament bee worthily receiued vnder both kinds sayth Alexander of Hales there is a greater efficacy and working of grace causing an vnity betweene the mysticall body Christ the head then when it is receiued in one kinde onely And therefore he sayth though the receiuing vnder one kinde bee sufficient yet that which is vnder both is of more
of Christ they haue no life that he hath instituted holy Sacraments of his body and blood under the formes of bread and wine in which he will not onely represent but exhibit the same vnto all such as hunger and thirst after righteousnesse and therefore they desire him so to accept and sanctifie these their oblations of breade and wine which in this sort they offer vnto him that they may become vnto them the body and blood of Christ that soe partaking in them they may bee made partakers of Christ and all the benefits of redemption and saluation that hee hath wrought Secondly by the name of sacrifice is vnderstood the sacrifice of Christs body wherein wee must first consider the thing offered and secondly the manner of offering The thing that is offered is the body of Christ which is an eternall and perpetuall propitiatory sacrifice in that it was once offered by death vpon the crosse and hath an euerlasting and neuer failing force and efficacie Touching the manner of offering Christs body and blood wee must consider that there is a double offering of a thing to God First soe as men are wont to doe that giue something to God out of that they possesse professing that they will no longer be owners of it but that it shall be his and serue for such vses and imployments as hee shall conuert it too Secondly a man may bee sayd to offer a thing vnto GOD in that he bringeth it to his presence setteth it before his eyes and offereth it to his view to incline him to doe something by the sight of it and respect had to it In this sort Christ offereth himselfe and his body once crucified dayly in heauen and soe intercedeth for vs not as giuing it in the nature of a gift or present for hee gaue himselfe to God once to be holy vnto him for euer nor in the nature of a sacrifice for hee dyed once for sinne and rose againe neuer to die any more but in that hee setteth it before the eyes of GOD his Father representing it vnto him and soe offering it to his view to obtaine grace and mercie for vs. And in this sort wee also offer him dayly on the altar in that commemorating his death and liuely representing his bitter passions endured in his body vpon the crosse wee offer him that was once crucified and sacrificed for vs on the crosse and all his sufferings to the view and gracious consideration of the Almighty earnestly desiring and assuredly hoping that hee will encline to pitty vs and shew mercie vnto vs for this his dearest sonnes sake who in our nature for vs to satisfie his displeasure and to procure vs acceptation endured such and soe grieuous things This kind of offering or sacrificing Christ commemoratiuely is twofold inward and outward Outward as the taking breaking and distributing the mysticall bread and powering out the cuppe of blessing which is the Communion of the blood of Christ. The inward consisteth in the faith and deuotion of the Church people of God so commemorating the death and passion of Christ their crucified Sauiour and representing and setting it before the eyes of the Almighty that they flye vnto it as their only stay and refuge and beseech him to be mercifull vnto them for his sake that endured all these things to satisfie his wrath worke their peace good And in this sense and answerable herevnto that is which wee finde in the canon where the Church desireth Almighty God to accept those oblations of bread and wine which shee presenteth vnto him to make them to become vnto the faithfull communicants the body bloud of Christ who the night before he was betraied tooke bread into his sacred hands lifted vp his eyes to heauen gaue thankes blessed it gaue it to his disciples saying take and eate yee all of this for this is my body And in like manner after hee had supped tooke the cuppe and gaue thankes blessed it and gaue it to his disciples saying drinke yee all of this for this is the new Testament in my bloud doe this as oft as you shall drinke it in remembrance of mee And then proceedeth and speaketh vnto Almighty GOD in this sort Wherefore o Lord wee thy seruants and thy holy people mindfull of that most blessed passion of the same CHRIST thy sonne our Lord as also of his resurrection from the dead and his glorious ascension into heauen doe offer to thy diuine maiestie out of thine owne gifts consecrated and by mysticall blessing made vnto vs the body and bloud of thy sonne Christ a pure sacrifice a holy sacrifice and an vndefiled sacrifice the holie bread of eternall life and the cuppe of euerlasting saluation that is wee offer to thy view and sette before thine eyes the crucified body of Christ thy sonne which is here present in mystery and sacrament and the blood which hee once shedde for our sakes which wee know to be that pure holy vndefiled and eternall sacrifice wherewith onely thou art pleased desiring thee to bee mercifull vnto vs for the merit and worthinesse thereof and soe to looke vpon the same sacrifice which representatiuely wee offer to thy viewe as to accept it for a full discharge of vs from our sinnes and a perfect propitiation that soe thou mayest behold vs with a pleased cheerefull and gratious countinance This is the meaning of that prayer in the canon supra quae propitio sereno vultu respicere digneris c. as the best interpreters of the canon doe tell vs. And when in the same prayer wee desire that this sacrifice may be accepted for vs as the sacrifices of Abell Abraham and Melchisedec were they obserue that this comparison must not be vnderstood in quantitie but in similitude onely For the thing it selfe is infinitely better then the figure and the sacrifice that CHRIST offered and wee here commemorate is incomparablie more excellent then those of Abell Abraham and Melchisedec And that therefore the meaning of those words is That as God accepted those sacrifices which his seruants offered vnto him before the comming of CHRIST his sonne as prefigurations of that sacrifice which he was afterwards to offer and as a profession of their hope of remission of sinnes by the same soe it will please him to accept the sacrifice which CHRIST once offered and wee now commemorate for vs and vs for it That soe our sinnes may be remitted and wee receiued to fauour After this there followeth another prayer in the canon wherein as humble suppliants they that come to celebrate and to communicate beseech Almighty God to commaund the oblations which they offer to be carried by the hands of his holy Angell vnto his altar that is on high and into the view and sight of his diuine Maiestie that soe many as shall by partaking of the altar receiue the sacred body and bloud of his sonne may bee filled vvith all heauenly benediction
and grace thorough the same Lord IESVS CHRIST This forme of prayer wee finde to haue beene verie auncient but what the meaning of it is it is not soe easie to finde out For how may wee bee vnderstood to desire that the body of CHRIST which we represent vnto GOD in this commemoratiue sacrifice should bee carried into heauen seeing it is alwaies there Wherefore let vs heare what the holy Fathers haue sayd to this purpose Quis fidelium haberet dubium sayth Saint Gregorie in ipsâ immolationis hora ad vocem sacerdotis coelos aperiri in illo Iesu Cristi mysterio Angelorum choros adesse summis in a sociari terrena coelestibus iungi vnum quid ex visibilibus invisibilibus fieri That is What faithfull man or beleeuer will euer make any doubt but that in the houre of the oblation the Heauens are opened that so soone as the voyce of the Priest is heard Quires of Angels are present the lowest and highest things enter into a societie earthly things are joyned with those that are celestiall and things visible and invisible become one And in another place At one and the same time and moment that which is presented on the altar is caught vp into Heauen by the ministerie of Angels to bee ioyned in a neere sort vnto the body of Christ and is at the same time before the eyes of the Priest vpon the altar So then the oblations which we present vnto God on the Altar are then carried by the hands of Angels into Heauen when those sacramentall elements which we bring thither though they be still visible on the altar as Gregory saith yet being changed and become vnto vs in mysterie and exhibitiue signification the body and bloud of Christ once sacrificed and shed for vs and now in heauen continually represented vnto God to intercede for vs may rightly be said to bee carried vp into heauen But seeing by the precedent wordes of mysticall blessing and prayer the sacramentall Elements are so chaunged before the pronouncing of this prayer that they are already become in sort before expressed the body and bloud of Christ which is in heauen wee doe not in these wordes desire any such thing to bee done but this is that wee say Lord wee heere commemorate the death and sacrifice of thy Sonne Christ that once died for vs and now continually representeth the same his death vnto thee to procure vs good humbly beseeching thee that for his sake thus dying for vs now continually in heauen representing himselfe vnto thee setting the same his passions and sufferings before the eyes of thy Diuine Maiesty as if euen now he did hang on the Crosse all euill may bee farre remoued from vs all good brought vpon vs. And that all we that by communicating in these holy mysteries receiue the body bloud of the same thy Son Christ may be filled with all heauenly benediction and grace So that to commaund the sacrifice of Christs body and bloud once offered here by vs commemorated to be carried into heauen and to bee represented vnto God is no more but to make it appeare that that body of Christ which hee once offered by the passion of death and which we now commemorate is in Heauen there so represented vnto God that it procureth for vs all that wee desire There is nothing therefore found in the Canon of the Masse rightly vnderstood that maketh any thing for the new reall offering of Christ to God his Father as a propitiatorie sacrifice to take away sinnes neither did the Church of God at before Luthers time know or beleeue any such thing though there were some in the midst of her that so conceiued of this mystery as the Romanists now do Wherfore for the clearing of this point I will first set down what the conceipt of the Romanists now is then make it appeare that all the best learned at and before Luthers time thought otherwise touching this matter then these now doe These that now are expresse their conceipt touching this point in this sort First they shew what an oblation is Secondly what the nature of a sacrifice is And thirdly how and in what sort they imagine Christ is now newly really not offered onely but sacrificed also to take away our sinnes An oblation they rightly define to bee the bringing of some thing that we haue into the place where the name of God is called on and where his honour dwelleth a representing of it there vnto God a professing that wee will owne it no longer but that God shall bee the owner of it that it shall bee holy vnto him to bee imployed about his seruice if it bee an irrationall thing or to serue him in some speciall sort if it bee rationall as when parents presented and offered their children to God to bee holy vnto him as were the Nazarits who were to serue him in some peculiar and speciall sort and in this sort Christ presented and gaue himselfe to God his father from his first entrance into this world and was holy vnto him and an oblation But in this sort it is not for vs to offer Christ to God his father whatsoeuer any Papist may imagine For it were a wofull thing for vs so to giue vp Christ to his father as to professe that wee will owne him no longer nor haue any interest in him nor claime to him any more And besides if it were fit for vs so to doe yet who are wee that wee should present Christ vnto God his father to bee holy vnto him that so presented and gaue himselfe vnto him from his first entrance into the world that hee bringeth vs also to God to bee holy vnto him A sacrifice implyeth more than an oblation For if wee will sacrifice a thing vnto God wee must not onely present it vnto him professing that it shall bee his and that wee will owne it no more nor make any claime vnto it but wee must destroy and consume it also As wee see in the old law when liuing things were sacrificed they were slaine and consumed in fire when other that had no life were sacrificed they were consumed in fire And answerably herevnto Christ was sacrificed on the crosse when hee was crucified and cruelly put to death by the Iewes But how he should now bee really sacrificed sacrificing implying in it a destruction of the thing sacrificed it is very hard to conceiue First therefore they say that Christ may truely bee said to bee really sacrificed because when the words of consecration are pronounced ouer the bread they so cause the body of Christ to bee where the bread was that they cause not the presence of the blood and in like sort the words pronounced ouer the wine cause the presence of Christs blood and not of his body so that vpon the pronouncing of the words of consecration there would bee in the sacrament the body of Christ without the
made partakers of the life of grace or being already partakers of it to be strengthned confirmed and continued in the same Thirdly that the elements of bread and wine presenting to our consideration the spirituall nourishing force that is in the body blood of Christ are not a bolished in their substances as the Patrons of Transubstantiation imagine but onely changed in vse in that they doe not onely signifie but exhibite and communicate vnto vs the very body and blood of Christ with all the gracious working of the same Fourthly that the meaning of Christs wordes when hee said this is my body this is my blood is This which outwardly and visibly I giue vnto you is in substance bread and wine and in mysterie and exhibitiue signification my body and blood but this which invisibly together with the visible element I giue vnto you is my very body that was crucified and my blood that was shed for the remission of your sinnes Fifthly that the body and blood of Christ which the Sacraments doe not signifie only but exhibite also and whereof the faithfull are to be partakers are truely present in the blessed Sacrament but the one part denieth that they are present secundum suum esse naturale that is in the naturall beeing or beeing of essence because the body of Christ being finite and hauing finite dimensions cannot be in many places at one time the other part on the contrary side answereth that the body of Christ is finite indeed but that because it is personally ioyned to the Deity it is wheresoeuer the Deity is yet doe not they of this part say it is euery where localitèr but repletiuè personalitèr that is not locally but repletiuely and personally which distinction Zanchius professeth hee doth not well vnderstand but saith if their meaning bee that the body of Christ is present secundum esse personale that is in that being of diuine subsistence communicated to it whereof I haue spoken before they say true and contradict not the other who speake of the naturall beeing of Christes body or beeing of essence and not of existence or subsistence which is infinite and Diuine And though Christs body be euery where in that personall being as well as in the Sacrament yet is it not any where else presented vnto vs in the nature of spirituall food So that there is no difference between these men touching the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament neither will there bee any found touching the eating of it for whereas in eating there is implied a chewing or mastication of that which is eaten a traiection from the mouth into the stomacke and a turning of the substance of the meate into the substance of the eater a bodily eating of Christs body there cannot bee seeing it is impassible and admitteth no such diuision as is made in chewing and besides if it should bee swallowed whole it cannot bee turned into the substance of our bodies but rather turneth vs into the substance of it selfe so that there is onely a spirituall eating of Christ consisting in that chewing that is by meditation vpon the seuerall and distinct thinges that are found in his natures powers actions and sufferings a traiection from the vnderstanding part to the heart and an incorporation of the beleeuer into him Yet it is not to be denyed but that Luther and some other did teach that euen the wicked doe in a sort eat the flesh of Christ not as if they did corporally touch his sacred body much lesse teare rent or diuide it with their teeth or turne it into their substance but for that they may bee said in a sort to eate the flesh of Christ though vnprofitably and to their condemnation in that they truely receiue the body of Christ eating that outward substance of bread with which it is truely present though not locally and to this purpose the same Zanchius reporteth that a man of no vulgar note amongst the followers of Luther did not feare to tell him that hee and his doe not say that we eate the body of Christ corporally in such sort as that our mouth and body should touch his sacred body which is not locally present but that the body of Christ is eaten bodily only in respect of the Sacramentall vnion attributing that to the body of Christ that properly agreeth to the bread with which the body is present These things are found in a discourse of Zanchius intitled Iudicium Hieronymi Zanchii de dissidio caenae dominicae written by him for the satisfaction of a Bishop of Italy at the request and entreaty of Paulus Vergerius and Sturmius By that which hath beene said we see there is no difference in iudgement between them who out of humane frailty are too much diuided in affection Luther vttered many thinges very passionately against Zuinglius and others conceauing that they made the Sacraments to be nothing but onely notes distinctiue seruing to put difference betweene Christians and such as are no Christians as a Monkes Cowle distinguisheth a Monke from him that is no Monke or empty signes without all presence of grace and exhibition of the thinges they signifie But if hee had fully vnderstood the meaning of them hee was so violently opposite vnto hee would not haue censured them so hardly as hee did If Master Higgons had euer read this Tract of Zanchius hee would not haue willed Mee to excogitate or scanne out any reconciliation betwixt Lutherans and Sacramentaries in the matter of the Sacrament The second part of the Chapter §. 1. WHerefore let vs come to the next part of this Chapter wherein hee vndertaketh to demonstrate that the thinges alledged by Mee to take away the offence and scandall of the seeming differences amongst Protestants are but false and empty pretenses The first thing that I alledge is that it is not to bee marvailed at that the Tigurins Gesnerus and others disliked the distempered passions of Luther or that some difference were amongst them seeing the like were in former times betweene Epiphanius and Chrysostome Hierome Ruffinus Augustine and others The second that the Papistes haue their differences also and those farre more materiall and vnreconcileable then any are amongst vs. The third that our differences grow not out of the nature and quality of our doctrine and that wee want not a certaine rule by the direction whereof all controuersies may be ended Against the first of these my allegations first hee opposeth a diuelish vntrueth affirming that Gesnerus and the Tigurins did not onely dislike the distempered passions of Luther but hate him with mortall hatred and accurse and execrate him as possessed of a legion of Diuells which neither Higgons into whom a lying spirit is entred nor any of those diuells hee is growne so familiar with shall euer proue So that there is no cause of trembling but at the fearefull iudgement of God against such as Master Higgons is that forsake the loue of
himselfe to the Church of Rome Which hee might not haue beene suffered to doe if hee had erred in the article of the incarnation These Nestorians inhabite though mixed with Mahumetanes and Infidels a great part of the Orient For besides the countries of Babylon Assyria Mesopotamia Parthia and Media where very many of them are found they are scattered in the East Northerly to Cataia and Southerly to India So that in the histories wee finde mention of them and no other sort of Christians in sundry regions of Tartary These haue a Patriarch residing in Muzall on the riuer Tigris in Mesopotamia This Muzall either is the citie of Seleucia so honoured in times past that the government of those parts was committed to the Bishop thereof with the name of a Catholicke and place of Session in Councells next the Patriarch of Hierusalem or if that were destroied the Patriarchall seat was thence translated to Muzal In this citie though subject to Mahumetans the Iacobites haue three temples the Nestorians fifteene beeing esteemed to bee about forty thousand soules In the time of Iulius the third certaine of these Nestorians fell from the Bishop of Muzal and tooke for their head Simon Sulaca of the order of Saint Basil. Who submitted himselfe to the Bishop of Rome exhibited an orthodoxe confession of his faith and was by him confirmed bishop of Muzal in title name but the other held the place still So that when hee returned he was forced to abide in Caramit This Simon Sulaca made certaine Archbishops and Bishops and caused the memory of Nestorius to bee put out of their liturgies and in the end hee was slaine by the Turkes ministers But Abdesu of the same order succeeded him and after him Aatalla after him the Archbishop of Gelu and Salamas renouncing the obedience of the Bishop of Muzal was elected Patriarch and confirmed by the Bishop of Rome So that there were foure Patriarches successiuely following one another that held communion with the Church of Rome but no one of them euer possessed that citie but resided either in Caramit Serit or Zeinalbach in the confines of Persia. All these were vndoubtedly orthodoxe touching the article of the incarnation of the Sonne of God And Elias one amongst the Bishops that held the seat at Muzal desired to be joyned in communion with the Church of Rome sent his confession which was found to be orthodoxe and right so that they of that faction also seeme not to haue differed much in judgement touching any article of faith The Nestorians are subject to these two Patriarches to this day The Patriarch of Muzal hath vnder him 22 Bishops more then 600 territories in which there are at the least 22 rich and flourishing cities and in euery of them 500 families in Muzal 1000 whereof euery one contayneth about fortie persons And other-lesser territories contayning about 200 or 300 families a piece and thirty monasteries In India also there are many families subject to this Patriarch by the name of Patriarch of Babylon to whom he was wont to assigne Bishops There were in India before the Portugals comming about some 15 or 16 thousand families About some thirtie yeares since their Archbishop fell from the Patriarch of Muzal or Babylon to the Bishop of Rome by the perswasion of the Portugals yet retayning the auncient religion which was permitted But his successor in another Synod holden at Diamper not farre from Maliapur by the Archbishop of Goa in the yeare 1599 receiued the religion of Rome also and suffered their liturgie so to bee altered as wee finde it in Bibliotheca patrum But let vs proceede to take a view of the particular poynts of their religion First all cleargie men amongst the Chaldeans and also all lay men that excell in devotion receiue the Sacrament of the Lords body and blood in their own hands vnder both kinds The rest receiue into their mouths the bodie of the Lord dipt into the blood They contract marriages within the degrees prohibited marrying in the second degree without dispensation Their Priests are marryed and after the death of the first wife haue libertie to marry the second or third time or oftner They minister the communion in leavened bread They vse not auricular confession nor confirmation They deny the supremacie of the Pope The specialties of the religion of the Indians or Christians of S. Thomas before they admitted any alteration were these First they distributed the sacraments in both kinds Secondly they vsed bread seasoned with salt and in steade of wine India affording none the juice of raisons softned one night in water and so pressed forth Thirdly they baptized not their children till they were forty dayes old except in danger of death Fourthly their priests were married but excluded from the second marriage Fifthly they had no images in their Churches but the crosse onely Sixtly they denyed the supremacie of the Pope From the Assyrians and Indians vniustly named Nestorians let vs passe to those Christiās that are supposed to be Monophysits as the Iacobites Armenians Cophti or Christians of Aegypt the Aethiopians or Abissens These beleeue that the nature of God and man were so vnited in the person of Christ that hee is truly God and truly man and that after the vnion they remaine distinct in their being of essence and property so that the diuinity is not of the same essence substance and nature with the humanity for the diuinity is infinite incomprehensible and increated and the humanity is finite and a created essence yet because they are vnited and conioyned in the vnity of the same person they say they are but one nature and will not acknowledge as wee do that there are two natures in Christ. That we may the better know what we are to thinke of these Christians differing thus from us I will first historically shew how this difference grew Secondly more largely refute their opinion And thirdly make it appeare that in respect of this difference they are not to be reiected as heritickes There liued at Constantinople a certaine man whose name was Eutiches a priest and an abbat This Eutiches in opposition to Nestorius who divided the person of Christ proceeded so farre that he confounded the natures imagining a conversion of the divinity into the humanity or of the humanity into the divinity or a kind of mixtion of them This Eutiches was well acquainted with Eusebius Bish. of Dorilaeum who vnderstanding by conference with him that he was fallen into such a damnable haerisie made the matter knowne to Flauianus the B. of Constantinople wishing him to call Eutiches vnto him and sharply to rebuke him least the faith might be indangered Flavianus assoone as he vnderstoode thus much called together 30 of his Bish. and in their presence asked of Eutiches whether he did beleiue that Christs body is of the same substance with ours He answered he had never said so hitherto but would seing they would haue it
that vpon his bare word wee should beleeue so shamelesse a lye For Augustine which was before this Persian in his booke De moribus Ecclesiae libro primo capite tricesimo quarto hath the same heresie as it pleaseth these heretikes to call it Nolite inquit consectari turbas imperitorum qui in ipsà verâ religione superstitiosi sunt Novi multos esse sepulchrorum picturarum adoratores quos mores Ecclesia condemnat quotidiè corrigere studet And Gregory after the time of this supposed Persian doth condemne the adoration of Images And the Councell of Frankford likewise after his time as appeareth by Hincmarus and others Besides if Nicephorus follow the judgement of the Fathers of the second Nicene Councell hee meaneth nothing else by that adoration of Images which hee approoueth but the embracing kissing and reverent vsing of them like to the honour wee doe the Bookes of holy Scripture not that Religious worshippe which consisteth in spirit and trueth which the Papists yeelde to their Idoles And so there is as great difference of judgement betweene him and Bellarmine as betweene him and vs. That which Bellarmine addeth against Caluine and others touching the time that Images were first brought into the Church if this place did require the examination of it wee should finde him as notable a trifler therein as in all the rest CHAP. 37 Of the errour of the Lampetians touching vowes THe errour of the Lampetians was as Alphonsus à Castro supposeth that it is not lawfull for men to vowe and by vowing to lay a necessity vpon themselues of doing those things which freely and without any such tye might much better bee performed If they disliked simply all vowing wee doe not approue their opinion as may appeare by that which Kemnisius Zanchius and others haue written to this purpose and therefore wee are vniustly said to fauour their errour That which Bellarmine addeth for the strengthening of this his vniust imputation is a meere calumniation For Luther doth not say that a man should vow to do a thing as long as hee shall bee pleased and then to be free againe when hee shall dislike that which before hee resolued on but that all vowes should be made with limitation to bee so farre performed as humane frailty will permitte that it is better after a vow made to breake it to discend to the doing of that which is lawfull good though not carrying so great show of perfection as that which by vowe was promised than under the pretence of keeping it to liue in all dissolute wickednesse as the manner of the Popish votaries is whereupon the Fathers are cleare that marriage after a vow made of single life is lawfull and that it is better to marry than continuing single to liue lewdly and wantonly CHAP. 38. Of the heresie of certaine touching the verity of the body and blood of Christ communicated to vs in the Sacrament THe last heresie might well haue beene omitted For those heretikes condemned by Theodoret Ignatius and others denied the verity of Christs humane nature and thereupon condemned the Sacrament of his body and blood So that it was not the impugning of Popish Transubstantiation as Bellarmine idlely fancieth that was reprooued in them but the denying of the trueth of that body and blood which all true Christians doe know to bee mystically communicated to them in the Sacrament to their vnspeakeable comfort How then can we be charged with the heresie of these men seeing wee neither deny the verity of Christs humane nature nor make the Sacrament to be a naked figure or similitude only but acknowledge that it consisteth of two things the one earthly and the other heauenly and that the body of Christ is truely present in the Sacrament and communicated to vs though neither Capernaitically to be torne with the teeth nor popishly to bee swallowed and carried downe into the stomacke and belly Thus then wee see how fondly this Cardinall heretike hath indeuoured to prooue vs heretikes and to hold the old condemned heresies of those cursed Arch-heretikes whose frensies wee condemne much more than he and his fellowes doe So that he is so farre from demonstrating either our consent with condemned heretikes that were of old or their consent with the auncient Fathers and consequently the antiquity of their profession that contrarily all that are not blinded with partiality may easily see that the whole course of Popish doctrine is nothing but a confused mixture of errours and all that they write against vs nothing but meere calumniation slander CHAP. 39. Of Succession and the exceptions of the aduersaries against vs in respect of the supposed want of it THus then hauing taken a view of whatsoeuer they can or do alleage for proofe of the antiquity of their doctrine which is the first note of the Church assigned by them let vs come vnto the second which is Succession and see if they haue any better successe in it than in the former In what sense Succession may bee granted to bee a note of the true Church I haue shewed already let vs therefore see how and what our aduersaries conclude from thence against vs or for themselues By this note say they it is easie to prooue that the reformed Churches are not the true Churches of God Ecclesia non est quae non habet sacerdotem saith Hierome against the Luciferians It can be no Church that hath no Ministery And Cyprian to the same purpose pronounceth that the Church is nothing els but Plebs episcopo adunata Thus therefore from these authorities they reason Where there is no ministery there is no Church But amongst the Protestants there is no Ministerie therefore no Church The Minor proposition or assumption of this argument wee deny which they endeuour to prooue in this sorte There is no lawfull calling to the worke of the Ministery amongst the Protestants therefore no Ministery The defects they suppose to bee in the calling of our Bishops and Ministers are two fold first for that they that ordained them in the beginning of this alteration of things in the state of the Church had no power so to doe Secondly for that no man may be ordained but into a voide place either wherein there neuer was any Pastour or Bishop before as in Churches in their first foundation or wherein there hauing beene their place is now voide by the death depriuation or voluntary relinquishment of them that possest it before that so they who are newly elected and ordained may succeede into the void roomes of such as went before them and not intrude vpon their charge wherevnto they are still iustly intituled Our Bishops and Pastours were ordayned and placed in the beginning of the reformation of religion where there were Bishops already in actuall possession These being the defects which they suppose to be in the calling of our Bishops Ministers let
did see in the greater Church of Sangalli a chalice guilded with gold that weighed threescore and tenne markes of siluer provided no doubt for the publique communion of the people formerly vsed Beatus Rhenanus saith that Conradus Pellicanus a man of wonderfull sanctity and learning did finde in the first constitution of the Carthusians that they are forbidden to possesse any vessels of price besides a siluer chalice and a pipe with which the lay people might sucke out the bloud of our Lord. Besides the booke written more then foure hundred yeares since concerning the treasures of the Church of Mentz amongst chalices of gold of a greate weight hauing handles and golden Crosses c reckoneth also syluer pipes six in number if I be not deceiued deputed to this vse of sucking out the bloud of our Lord which I suppose sayth hee the Archbishop was wont to vse Ordo Romanus sheweth that when the Bishop of Rome doth celebrate the Archdeacon giueth him to drinke of the holy chalice and afterwards powreth a little out of the same into a greater chalice or cuppe which the acoluth doth hold that the people may be confirmed or receiue the sacrament of the Lords bloud out of the sacred vessell For the wine that was not consecrated being mingled with the blood of Christ is altogether sanctified The Bishops therefore come in order to receiue of the hande of the Pope and aftar them all the Priestes come vp that they may communicate at the alter and while the Archdeacon communicateth the chiefe Bishop that is present holdeth the challice for as Bishops attend the Pope in the Church of Rome so priestes should attend and assist Bishops in other Churches The Archdeacon after hee hath communicated receiueth the chalice back againe from the Bishop and confirmeth all those with the Lords blood to whom the Pope hath giuen the communion of the body of our Lord. This seruice being performed by the altar hauing receiued by the Subdeacon the pipe with which the people are to be confirmed the Archdeacon deliuereth the chalice to be carried to the acoluth to be layed vp by him in the vestery Then doth the pope goe downe to giue the communion to the Princes of the people and their wiues and as the Archdeacon doth confirme those to whom the Pope giueth the Communion of the Lords body so do the other Deacons confirme them to whom after the Pope hath ministred to those of the better sort the other Bishops and Priestes do giue the Communion and as soone as the pope beginneth to minister the Communion to the Clergie and people the schoole of singers beginneth to sing the antheme appointed for the Communion and after that when the Pope thinketh fit Glory be to the Father c. Here wee see a cloud of witnesses testifying for the Communion in both kinds wherevpon â— Cassander feareth not to pronounce that hee verily thinketh it cannot be shewed that the sacrament of the Eucharist was any otherwise ministred in any part of the Catholike Church to the faithfull people in the holy assembly from the Lords table for a thousand yeares and more but vnder both the sacramentall signes of bread and wine Neither can this saying of Cassander be refuted by that in the second of the Acts where the faithfull are sayd to haue continued in the breaking of bread and prayer Nor by that wee reade in antiquity of the Lay communion which Caietan childishly vrgeth For sundry worthy diuines in the Roman Church haue sufficiently shewed the weakenesse of these sillie allegations Let vs see therefore how the Communion in one kind came into the Church It appeareth by Leo the first that the Manichees as they denied Christ to haue beene borne in the truth of our flesh so they denied him to haue truely dyed and risen againe and therefore they vsed to fast vppon that day that is to vs the day of saluation and ioy And whereas to hide their infidelity and heresie they came sometimes to the Churches of Catholikes and were present at the celebration of the sacred mysteries they did so temper the matter that with vnworthy mouthes they receiued the Lords body but declined to drinke the blood of our redemption Leo carefully endeauoured to make this thing knowne to all that by these signes they might bee discried that their sacrilegious dissembling might bee found out and that being discouered they might by sacerdotall auctoritie be cast out of the society of the Saints By this of Leo it appeareth that the Manichees out of an hereticall conceipt began to communicate in one kinde and that all were wont to communicate in both kindes that hereby the Manichees might be discouered and knowne from other right beleeuers in that they would communicate but in one kinde alone Which thing also Andradius doth rightly note In the time of Gelasius there were certain found that out of some superstitious conceipt would not communicate in both kindes Wee haue found saith Gelasius that certaine hauing receiued a portion of the sacred Body onely abstaine from the cup of the most holy bloud Which men because they are saide to be holden with I know not what superstition either let them receiue the whole Sacrament or let them be put and kept frrom the whole seeing there can be no division of one and the same mysterie without grievous sacriledge Thirdly whereas in case of necessity as when children or such as were sicke and weake were to receiue the communion the auncient did sometimes dippe the mysticall bread into the consecrated wine and so gaue it vnto them as it appeareth by the history of Serapion by that which Cyprian and Prosper report and by that which the Councell of Turon prescribeth that the Eucharist which is reserued for the voyage provision of such as are ready to depart hence shall be dipped into the blood of the Lord that so the Priest may truely say The body and blood of our Lord be beneficiall vnto thee vnto eternall life Some beganne to bring in this manner of dipping into the ordinary communion vnder pretence of carefull avoyding the danger of shedding the blood of Christ and greater reuerence towards the same For certaine Monkes brought the same custome into their Monasteries ingenuously confessing that herein they did contrary to the custome of other Churches But that they were forced so to doe by the rudenesse of their novices who they feared would runne into some grosse neglect if they should receiue the blood of Christ apart Neither did this custome stay here but it made an entrance into other Churches abroad also for Ivo Carnotensis about the yeare 1100 hath these wordes Let them not communicate in the bread dipped but according to the decree of the Councell of Toledo let them communicate in the bodie apart and in the blood apart those onely excepted to whom it is not prescribed but permitted to communicate in the bread dipped out of
I am si canon ille missae in hunc quem diximus sensum intelligatur nihil habet incommodi superstitiosa tantum absit opinio quia quidam de naturâ energiâ huius sanctissimi sacrificii male edocti virtutem eius ex solo externo opere quod facit Sacerdos in se deriuari putabant tametsi illi nullam viuam fidem adferrent nullam pietatem adhiberent nulla communione vel precum seu orationis sacrificio assensum praeberent quales erant qui nullâ suae nefandae impietatis execrandorum flagitiorum habitâ ratione se huic sacratissimae diuinissimae actioni damnabiliter miscuerunt missam solius externi operis quod sacerdos facit virtute prodesse put antes etsi ipsi nihil probae mentis adferrent That is If the canon of the Masse bee vnderstood in this sense which wee haue expressed there is no euill in it so that men haue no superstitious conceipt of things for there were some who being ill instructed touching the nature of this sacrament supposed that vertue might be deriued vnto them by the sole externe action of the priest although they brought no liuely faith no piety nor gaue any consent to the sacrifice by any communion so much as of prayer of which sort they were who hauing no consideration of their owne horrible impieties evills committed by them persevering in the purpose of sinning damnably presumed to be present at this most holy action and put themselues in a sort into it perswading themselues that the masse by the vertue of the externe worke of the priest alone would doe them good though they brought no motions affections or desires of a good mind with them Hosius was of the same opinion with these before recited When the priest sayth hee lifteth vp the eucharist let men remember that sacrifice wherein Christ being lifted vp to the crosse offered himselfe to God a sacrifice for vs. Let them thinke how bitter the torments were that hee sustained let them know that mens sins were the cause of such his sufferings let them greiue as it is fitte they should for them and let them shew by all meanes that they hate them And because by his precious death hee hath so fully satisfied for all sinnes that there are none that are not abolished let them with good assurance considence goe vnto the throne of grace and whereas wee haue no merit of our owne let them plead that of Christ let them present that his body that did hang on the crosse and his bloud which was shed for the remission of our sinnes to God the Father and let them humbly beseech him to turne away his face from their sinnes and to looke vpon the face of his son Christ who bare our infirmities to looke vpon his face for his merit to remit their sinnes and to graunt that they may deriue vnto themselues all that fruite which that sacrifice of the crosse that is represented on the altar brought to the world Thus he sayth the people were taught by our forefathers and this hee sayth is enough for them to know Notwithstanding hee sheweth that Michael Bishop of Merspurge a man learned godly and truely catholique published certaine sermons touching the sacrifice of the massâ—… which hee wisheth to bee in the hands of all men in these sermons the same explication is made of the sacrament so often mentioned that I haue already deliuered And with him agreeth another learned Bishop Thomas Watson sometimes Bishop of Lincolne in his sermons vpon the seauen sacraments his words are these Christ in heaven and wee his mysticall body on earth doe but one thing for Christ being a Priest for euermore after his passion and resurrection entred into heauen and there appeareth now to the countenance of God for vs offering himselfe for vs to pacifie the anger of God against vs and representing his passion and all that he suffered for vs that we might be reconciled to God by him euen so the Church our mother being carefull for vs her children that haue offended our father in heauen vseth continually by her publique minister to pray to offer vnto God the body bloud of her husband Christ representing renewing his passion and death before God that wee thereby might bee renewed in grace and receiue life perfection and saluation and after the same sort the holy Angels of God in the time of this our sacrifice do assist the priest and stand about the host thinking that the meetest time to shew their charitie towards vs and therefore holding forth the body of Christ praye for mankind as saying thus Lord wee pray for them whom thou hast so loued that for their saluation thou hast suffered death spent thy life vpon the crosse we make supplication for them for whom thou hast shed this thy bloud we pray for them for whom thou hast offered this same thy very body In that houre when Christs death is renewed in mysterie his most fearefull and acceptable sacrifice is represented to the sight of God then sitteth the King on his Mercie-seat enclined to giue and forgiue whatsoeuer is demaunded and asked of him in humble manner In the presence of this body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ the teares of a meeke and humble man neuer beg pardoÌ„ in vain nor the sacrifice of a contrite heart is neuer put back but hath his lawfull desires granted giuen By resorting to this sacrifice of the masse we evidently declare protest before God the whole world that we put our singular only trust of grace saluation in Christ our Lord for the merits of his death his passion not for the worthinesse of any good worke that we haue done or can doe that we make his passion our only refuge For when wisedome faileth which onely commeth by the doctrine of Christ when righteousnesse lacketh which onely is gotten by the mercie of Christ when vertue ceaseth which onely is receiued from him who is the Lord of all vertue then for supplying of these our lacks needs our refuge is to Christs passion then we run as the Prophet saith to the cup of our Sauiour and call vpon the Name of our Lord that is to say we take his passion offer to God the Father in mystery the worke of our redemption that by this memorie commemoration of it it would please his mercifull goodnes to innovate his grace in vs to replenish vs with the fruit of his Sonns passion We are become debtors to Almighty God for our manifold sins iniquities done against him we can neuer pay this debt no scarse one farthing of a 1000 pounds what remedie then haue we but to run to the rich man our neighbour that hath enough to pay for vs all I meane Christ our Lord who hath payde his heart bloud for no debt of his own but for our
chiefe-fathers of Israel they came to Ierusalem and all the congregation made a couenant with the King said The Kings sonne must reigne as the Lord hath said of the sons of Dauid Hereupon the King is proclaimed Athaliah is slaine the house of Baal destroied the Altars and idols that were in it broken down In all this narration there is nothing that maketh for the chiefe Priests power of deposing lawfull kings if they become heretiques For first Athaliah was an vsurper no lawfull Queene Secondly here was nothing done by Iehoiada alone but by him and the Captaines of hundreths and the chiefe Fathers of Israel that entred into couenant with him Thirdly there is great difference betweene the high Priest in the time of the Lawe and in the time of Christ. For before the comming of Christ the high Priest euen in the managing of the weightiest ciuill affaires and in iudgement of life and death sate in the Councell of State as the second person next vnto the King by Gods owne appointment Whereas our Aduersaries dare not claime any such thing for the Pope And therefore it is not to bee maruailed at if the high Priest beeing the second person in the kingdome of Iudah by Gods owne appointment and the Vnckle and Protectour of the young king whom his wife had saued from destruction bee the first mouer for the bringing of him to his right and when things are resolued on by common consent take on him not onely to commaund and direct the Priests and Leuites but the Captaines souldiers also for the establishing of their King the suppressing of a bloody tyrant and vsurper For all this might be done by Iehoiada as a chiefe man in that state and yet the Pope be so farre from obtaining that he claimeth which is to depose lawfull kings for abusing their authority that hee may not presume to do all that the high Priests lawfully did and might doe as not hauing so great preeminence from Christ in respect of matters of ciuill state in any kingdome of the world as the high Priest had by Gods owne appointment in the kingdome of Iudah Israel In the old Law saith Occā the high Priest meddled in matters of warre in the judgment of life and death the losse of members vengeance of blood it beseemed him well so to do But the Priests of the new Law may not meddle with things of this nature Wherefore from the power dominion which the high Priest of the old Law had it cannot be concluded that the Pope hath any power in tēporal matters The fifth example is of Ambrose repelling Theodosius the Emperour from the communion of the Church after the bloody and horrible murther that was committed at Thessalonica by his commandement The story is this The coach-man of Borherica the Captaine of the souldiers in that towne for some fault was committed to prison Now when the solemne horse-race and sporting fight of horsemen approched the people of Thessalonica desired to haue him set at liberty as one of whom there would be great vse in those ensuing solemne sports which being denied the citty was in an vprore and Botherica and certaine other of the magistrates were stoned to death and most despitefully vsed Theodosius the Emperour hearing of this outrage was exceedingly moued and commaunded a certaine number to be put to the sword without all iudiciall forme of proceeding or putting difference betweene offendors and such as were innocent So that seauen thousand perished by the sword and among them many strangers that were come into the citty vpon diuerse occasions that had no part in the outrage for which Theodosius was so sore displeased were most cruelly and vniustly slaine Saint Ambrose vnderstanding of this violent and vniust proceeding of the Emperour the next time he came to Millaine and was comming to the Church after his wonted manner met him at the doore and stayd him from entring with this speech Thou seemest not to know O Emperour what horrible and bloudy murthers haue beene committed by thee neither dost thou bethinke thy selfe now thy rage is past to what extremities thy fury carried thee perhaps the glory of thine Imperiall power will not let thee take notice of any fault thy greatnesse repelleth all checke of reason controlling thee but thou shouldest know the frailty of mans nature and that the dust was that beginning whence we are taken and and to which we must returne Let not therefore the glory of thy purple robes make thee forget the weakenesse of that body of flesh that is couered with them Thy subjects O Emperour are in nature like thee and in seruice thy fellowes for there is one Lord and commander ouer all the maker of all things Wherefore with what eyes wilt thou behold his temple or with what feete wilt thou treade on the sacred pauement thereof wilt thou lift vp to him those hands from which the bloud yet droppeth wilt thou receiue with them the sacred body of our Lord or wilt thou presume to put to thy mouth the cup replenished with the precious bloud of Christ which hast shed so much innocent bloud by the word of thy mouth vttering the passion of thy furious minde Depart therefore adde not this iniquity to the rest and decline not those bands which God aboue approueth With these speeches the Emperour was much moued and knowing the distinct duties both of Emperours and Bishops for that he had bin trained vp in the knowledge of heauenly doctrine returned to the Court with teares sighes A long time after for eight moneths were first past the solemne feast of the Natiuity of Christ approached and all prepared themselues to solemnize the same with triumphant ioy But the Emperor sate in the Court lamenting powring out riuers of teares which when Ruffinus maister of the pallace perceiued he came vnto him and asked the cause of his weeping to whom weeping more bitterly then before he said O Ruffinus thou makest but a sport of these things for thou art touched with no sence of those euils wherewith I am afflicted but the consideration of my calamity maketh me sigh and lament for that whereas the doores of Gods Temple are open to slaues and beggars and they goe freely into the same to make prayers vnto their Lord they are shut against me and which is yet worse the gates of heauen are shut against me also for I cannot forget the words of our Lord who saith Whomsoeuer ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heauen To whom Ruffinus replied I will runne if it please thee O Emperour to the Bishop and intreate him to vnloose these bands wherewith hee hath bound thee No saith the Emperour it is to no purpose so to doe for he will not bee intreated I know his sentence is right and iust and that he will not transgresse the law of God for any respect of imperiall power Yet when Ruffinus was
such as are ordained by Heretikes are truly ordayned in the iudgment of our Aduersaries themselues but if all faile he will go backe to prayer for the dead which hath made him dead while hee is aliue and will proue that Bernard confuted Henricus impugning prayer for the dead with a miracle and that therefore the impugning of prayer for the dead is pronounced impious by Gods owne voyce from heauen surely if it could be proued that God gaue testimony by a miracle against Henricus his impugning of prayer for the dead to deliuer them out of Purgatory it were something but neither hee nor all the rabble of Romanistes shall euer proue that Henricus is reported to haue holden many damnable opinions in confutation whereof Bernard might worke a miracle without any respect to his denying prayers for the dead for he contemned the Sacraments denyed reconciliation to penitents the comfort of the holy Eucharist to such as in their greatest distresses desired the same And feared not to exclude infants from the benefitte of the Sacrament of regeneration Bernard himselfe describing him and the good effectes that followed his preaching sheweth that hauing beene a Monke hee became an Apostata that hee gaue himselfe to all impurity and that what hee got by his preaching hee played away at dice or spent it amongst harlots that his preaching wrought so good effectes that Churches were forsaken and left without People People without Priestes priestes without due reuerence and Christians without Christ Churches were reputed Synagogues the Sanctuaries of God denied to bee holy Sacraments accounted vnholy Festiuall daies depriued of Festiuall solemnities men dyed in their sinnes and their soules vvere euery where caught vp and brought to the terrible iudgement-seate neyther reconciled by penitentiall reconciliation nor garded with the Sacrament and holy Communion that the way of the life of Christ was shutte vppe against infants whiles the grace of Baptisme was denyed vnto them and that they were hindered from drawing neere to saluation though the Sauiour him-selfe cryed out aloud for them saying Suffer little children to come vnto mee This is all that Bernard imputeth to him neyther doth Willielmus Abbas as Maister Higgons vntruly reporteth charge him with denying of prayer for the dead but one Gotefrey a Monke of Clarauallis whose report is not greatly to bee regarded because what hee addeth aboue that before alleaged by vs touching prayer for the dead invocation of Saints excommunications of Priests Pilgrimages building of Churches and the like hee addeth as out of Bernards Epistle before mentioned wherein there is no such thing So that it is very probable that hee mistooke the matter and imputed such thinges to Henricus as were taught by the Apostolici or some other such like Hitherto wee finde no great proofe of the confirmation of prayer for the dead or any other point of popish errour by miracles so that my Peremptory denyall that euer any miracle was done by any man in times past or in our times to comfirme any of the things controuersed betweene the Papists and vs standeth as yet vncontrouled Wherefore Maister Higgons riseth from Henricus to Gregory the first and Augustine whom hee sent into England for the conuersion of our Nation who hee sayth were Papists and yet wrought many miracles for the confirmation of the doctrine they preached A more trifling fellow I thinke neuer aduentured to put penne to paper for wee confidently deny that eyther Gregory or Augustine were Papists say with Bishop Iewell in his worthy challenge that all the learned Papists in the world cannot proue thay eyther of them held any of those twenty seauen Articles of popish religion mentioned by him If some superstition began in their times to grow in it is not to bee maruayled at neyther will it follow that if Augustine and his Colleagues sent hither to sing the Lords song in a strange land did miracles for the confirmation of the Christian faith taught by them that the same miracles confirmed euery superstitious opinion which any of them held For then Cyprian and the African Bishops teaching rebaptization the Orientall Bishoppes thitking it necessary to keepe the feast of Easter with the Iewes Papias and all the worthy Fathers that taught that Christ raising vp the Saintes from the dead shall raigne with them on earth a thousand yeares in all earthly felicity that there are two resurrections the one of the just the other of the wicked and that there are a thousand yeares betweene Lactantius Irenaeus and others excluding the soules of the faithfull departed out of heauen till the resurrection such as held that men may be deliuered out of hell such as held it necessary to minister the Communion to infantes and other like Catholique Christians erring in some point of Doctrine could doe no miracles for the confirmation of the Christian faith amongst infidels or mis-belieuers but that the same must be confirmations of their errors God must concurre with thē by confusion as this confused companion speaketh but if this instance serue not the turne he hath another evidence more potent and perswasiue which serued as a Key to vnlocke his vnderstanding and that is this Transubstantiation is affirmed by mee to be one of the greatest mysteries of Popish Religion Gerson is highly approued by mee and yet he affirmeth that Transubstantiation is confirmed by a thousand and a thousand miracles For answere whereunto wee say with Cassander that the names of conversion transmutation trans-formation and trans-elementation are found among the Auncient and that the word Transubstantiation was vsed some hundreds of yeares since but touching the manner of this conversion there is great variety of opinions yet so that all agree in this that they vnderstand such a mutation or chaunge to bee made that that which before was earthly and common bread by the wordes of Institution the invocation of GODS Name and Divine vertue is made a Sacrament of the true Body and Bloud of CHRIST visibly sitting at the right hand of GOD in Heauen and yet after an invisible and incomprehensible manner present in the Church And that the Body and Bloud of CHRIST are in the Sacrament and exhibited and giuen as spirituall meate and drinke for the saluation and euerlasting life of them that are worthy partakers of the same Thus much we doubt not but a thousand and a thousand miracles may confirme and more Gerson doth not say is confirmed by miracle For whereas there is almost infinite varietie of opinions touching the manner of this conversion amongst such as admit it in generality it would bee very hard for Master Higgons or a wiser man then he is to say which of them any miracle euer confirmed All admit saith Caietan the conversion of the bread and wine into the Body Bloud of Christ but in truth many deny that which the word Transubstantiation indeed importeth therefore are diversly divided
some vnderstanding that the bread is therefore said to be made the body of Christ because where the Bread is the Body of Christ becommeth present others vnderstanding nothing but the order of succession whereby the body succeedeth is vnder the vailes of those accidents vnder which the Bread which they suppose to bee annihilated was before which opinion in substance Scotus followeth though in the manner of his speech hee seeme to decline it some admitting both the word and thing not wholly but in part as Durandus who thinketh the matter of the bread wine remaineth the forme onely changed some thinking the forme to remaine and the matter to cease Ockam saith there are 3 opinions touching Transubstantiation of which the first supposeth a conversion of the Sacramentall Elements the second an annihilation the third maketh the Bread to be so turned into the Body of Christ that it is no way chaunged in substance or substantially converted into Christs body but that onely the body of Christ becommeth present in euery part of the bread Cameracensis Gersons master professeth that for ought he can see the substantiall conversion of the Sacramentall elemēts into the body blood of Christ cannot be proued either out of Scripture or any determination of the Vniuersall Church and maketh it but a matter of opinion inclining rather to the other opinion of Con-substantiation And therefore in his iudgement it was not witnessed by a thousand a thousand persons of most holy life and profound knowledge testifying the truth thereof vnto death by a thousand a thousand miracles So that the thing which Gerson saith hath bin proued by miracles is the true presence of Christs body blood in the Sacrament the exhibition of thē to be the food of oursoules such a change of the elements in vertue grace power of containing in thē cōmunicating to vs Christs body blood as the nature of so excellent a Sacrament requireth This is the key which M. Higgons found to vnlock his vnderstanding that it might runne riot into all idle childish discourses But see the infelicitie of the man He was no sooner at libertie but presently againe he was incompassed brought into such a strait that either he must disclaime my book or his Protestanticall beleefe Yet did he not suffer himselfe long to bee so inclosed but full wisely chose rather to forsake the Religion hee was bredde in and which as a publique Preacher hee had taught others then to disclaime my booke Because as hee saith that Religion cannot bee good that is so falsely and absurdly defended by mee and all the cheefe Authors that euer applied their paines vnto that seruice Surely the poore fugitiue is greatly to be pittied as weake in vnderstanding and medling with things not fitte for him if hee doe that hee doth in simplicity or exceedingly to bee detested as a gracelesse person if he doe it as it is to be feared out of malice For what is it in my Booke that is so false and absurd as that the consideration thereof should make a man forsake his religion is not Transubstantiation one of the greatest mysteries of Popish religion as I haue said is that falsely deliuered by mee No but I say no miracle was euer done to confirme any thing defended by the Romanistes against vs and yet Gerson highly commended by mee saith many Miracles haue beene wrought for proofe and confirmation of that Transubstantiation which the Papists at this day beleeue and this is the falsitie and absurditie hee speaketh of That no miracle was euer wrought to proue the monstrous conceit of Popish Transubstantiation or any other Popish error shall stand good when heauen and earth shall be no more And if tenne thousand Gersons nay if so many Angells from heauen should affirme the contrarie I would not beleeue them much lesse Gerson a single witnesse in such a case This is then the absurdity that made him become a Papist that I commend Gerson and yet beleeue not euerything hee saith Truely this absurdity would neuer moue any but an absurd smatterer to alter his Religion For doth not Higgons himselfe admire Pighius Catharinus Contarenus and sundry other from whom he dissenteth in the matter of justification originall sinne and the certainty of grace Doth he not highly commend many that thought the Pope may erre that he is subiect to Generall Councells and may be deposed by them not for Heresie alone but for other enormous crimes also and yet I thinke hee will not be of their opinion So that though Gerson should thinke that the Transubstantiation which we deny was proued by miracles it were no such intollerable absurdity to commend him for much piety deuotion learning and vertue and yet to dissent from him in this point In the matter controuersed in former times in the Roman Church touching the conception of the blessed virgin were there not whorthy men on both sides did not the Patrons of her spotlesse conception pretend and alledge sundry miracles and visions for confirmation thereof yet was it no absurdity for Cardinall Caietan following the current of Antiquity to dissent from them how many worthy soeuer they were to call all their pretended miracles in question But indeed here is no such matter for Gerson is not so ill aduised as to dissent from his worthy Master confidently to affirme that a thousand and a thousand renowned for piety and learning by a thousand a thousand miracles gaue testimony to the opinion of the substantiall conuersion of the Sacramentall elements into the body blood of Christ which the Master of the Sentences the Author of the Ordinary glosse professe to be doubtfull and Caietan saith so many admitted not euen in his time But the onely thing hee affirmeth to haue beene confirmed by Miracles is that Christs body blood are truely present in the Sacrament that they are giuen to be the foode of our soules and that the outward elements are changed to become the body and blood of Christ which wee deny not though we dissent from the Papists touching the manner of the conuersion which they imagine to be substantiall to which opinion haply Gerson might consent as Cameracensis also did though he professed he could not see the deduction of it from Scripture or any determination of the Church and inclined rather to thinke that the substance of bread and wine remaine and that the body and blood of Christ become present together with them according to that of Cusanus who saith certaine ancient Diuines are found to haue been of opinion that the Bread is not substantially chaunged but that it is clothed vpon with a more noble substance as we hope to be clothed vpon with the light of glory our substance remaining the same it was and seemeth not much to dislike their opinion Thus wee see poore runnagate Higgons hath made a great out-cry when there
substance figure and shape and are visible and may be handled as before but they are conceiued and beleeued to be that which now they are made and are adored as being that which they are beleeued to bee Heere wee see is no such change of the mysticall signes as to abolish their substance and former being for then the conversion in the Sacrament had beene such as the Hereticke imagined it to be in the body of Christ assumed and so Theodoret could not truely haue sayd hee was taken in the snare which he layd for others Wherefore to conclude this poynt the Crecians teach that there is a conversion of the sacramētall elements but of that kinde which I haue before shewed that abolisheth not the things which were but maketh them to bee that they were not Which may farther appeare in that they say likewise there is a chaunge of the communicants into the being of Christ and make the end of the Sacrament to be nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a transubstantiation into Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the making of them that communicate partakers of the diuine nature according to that of the Apostle who saith Wee are made the body of Christ and yet is not our former being abolished but wee are made to bee that which wee were not in a divine and supernaturall sorte according to that of Damascen Let vs come and receiue the body of him that was crucified let vs partake of that divine burning coale that the fire of desire being kindled in vs by that coale may burne vp our sinnes and lighten our hearts and that being changed into that devine fire wee may become fire and bee in a sort deified and made partakers of the divine nature All which changes neither abolish nor confound substances For as Cyprian sayth well nostra ipsius contunctio nec miscet personas nec vnit substantias sed affectus consociat confaederat voluntates That is the vnion and coniunction that is betwixt Christ and vs neither causeth any mixture of the persons nor maketh them to be substantially the same but joyneth affections and confederateth the wills Lastly touching the sacrament of the Lords boby and blood they teach that it is a sacrifice and that wee may the better conceiue what they meane they lay downe these propositions First that vnder the Law two sorts of things were presented vnto God gifts and sacrifices Giftes as vessels of gold or silver and things of like nature which were dedicated vnto God and set apart from prophane and ordinary vses Sacrifices as sheepe oxen and the like things when they were slaine and their blood powred out and generally all such things as were consumed in the fire The second proposition is that the body of Christ was both a gift and a sacrifice for he was dedicated to God from his first entrance into the world as the first fruites of our nature as the first borne of Mary his mother and afterwards he became a sacrifice when he was crucified The third that bread and wine are presented vnto God in the holy sacrament in the nature of gifts before they are consecrated The fourth that the bread and wine are consecrated and so chaunged as to become the sacrificed body and blood of Christ. The fifth that it may be truely sayd that there is not only an oblation in the holy eucharist but a sacrifice also in that the body of Christ which was once sacrificed is there The sixt that the bread cannot be sayd to be sacrificed for then the sacrifices of the new Testament should not excell those of the old The seaventh that in the sacrificing of a liuing thing the killing of it is implied The eight that the body of Christ cannot bee sayd to bee sacrificed in the eucharist because hee can die no more but is immortall and impassible The ninth that Christ may be sayd to be newly sacrificed and slaine commemoratiuely in that the sacrificing of him on the altar of the crosse is there commemorated liuely expressed and the benefits of it communicated to them that are made partakers of those holy mysteries according to that of Lyra Si dicas sacrificium altaris quotidiè offertur in ecclesia dicendum quod non est ibi sacrificij reiteratio sed vnius sacrificij in cruce oblati quotidiana commemoratio Secundum illud Lucae 22. hoc facite in meam commemorationem That is If thou say the sacrifice of the altar is daily offered the answere is cleare and easie that the body of Christ is not newly sacrificed on the altar but whereas Christ once offered himselfe as a sacrifice on the crosse the same is daily commemorated according to that Luk. 22 Doe this in remembrance of mee And therefore Chrysostome writing vpon the epistle to the Hebrewes hauing named it a sacrifice addeth by way of explication or correction that it is a sacrifice or rather the commemoration of a sacrifice So that heerein they differ from the Romanists who teach that there is a new reall sacrificing of Christ. In the doctrine of freewill they doe not so clearely expresse themselues as S. Augustine others that follow him For they teach that we must first will the things that are right and good and that God then helpeth confirmeth and setteth vs forward so that they suppose hee followeth our wils and goeth not before them least the liberty thereof might be prejudiced Their meaning I thinke is that no good can be wrought in vs without our consent which S. Augustine also confesseth to bee true but it is Gods grace that winneth inclineth and boweth vs to consent to that good which it selfe suggesteth in which respect it may be truely sayd to goe before our will and yet not to prejudice our liberty If they speake not so distinctly touching this poynt as some others doe it is not to be marvailed at seeing the Greeke fathers are not so cleare in this point as the Latines are Wherevpon Aloisius Lippomannus in catena aurea in his preface to the reader hath these words I haue thought good to admonish thee that if in this whole worke thou shalt any where finde any such sayings of Chrysostome as that when man endeavoureth and doth that which pertayneth to him God will abundantly giue grace thou wisely and warily reade that holy Doctour least thou fall into any such errour as to beleeue that Gods grace is given for our merits For if out of merit it is not grace But farre be it from vs so to thinke seeing wee cannot so much as endeavour or doe any thing that pertayneth to vs without Gods grace preventing vs. According to that in the Psalme His mercie shall prevent mee and againe his mercy shall follow mee all the dayes of my life And that of holy Church Let thy grace O Lord wee beseech thee prevent and follow vs. Sixtly touching Iustification they lay downe these propositions The first that wee
incest of Lot therefore hee is like the Manichees that thought the old Testament was from an euill beginning Surely there is neither good beginning nor ending to be found in the writings of this slaunderous Iesuite CHAP. 28 Of the heresies of the Donatists THe next heresie imputed vnto vs is that of the Donatists who denied those societies of Christians to be the Churches of God wherein wicked men are tolerated and the rules of discipline are not obserued and thought that the Church whose communion we must hold doth consist onely of the good and elect people of God Touching the first part of this imputation wee disclaime it as most vniust iniurious For as I haue shewed in the first part wee confesse that wicked and godles men are oftentimes tolerated in the true Church of God either through the negligence of the guides thereof or vpon due consideration of the scandals and euils that would follow if they should bee eiected and cast out by reason of their greatnesse power or number Touching the second part in what sense onely the good and elect people of God are of the Church and how and in what degree hypocrites wicked men and reprobates while they hould the profession of the trueth may be said to be of the Church I haue likewise cleared in the first part But sayth Bellarmine the Donatists thought the Church to bee only in Africa the Protestants think it to be onely in the Northerne parts of the world and therefore they are not farre from Donatisme Surely as farre as hee is from any honest and sincere meaning For none of the Protestants haue any such conceit as to thinke the Church of God so straightned as that it should be no where found but in the Northerne parts of the world where themselues do liue But the Romanists may muchmore iustly be charged with Donatisme who denie all the societies of Christians in the world wherein the Popes feete are not kissed and his words holden for infallible Oracles to pertaine to the true Church of God who acknowledge no true Churches of Christ but their owne conuenticles soe casting into hell all the Christians of Aethiopia Syria Armenia Graecia and Russia for that they stand diuided from the communion of the Church of Rome Which vnchristian censure wee are farre from thinking that all those societies of Christians notwithstanding their manifold defects and imperfections bee and continue parts and limmes of the true and Catholike Church of God Lastly he sayth the Donatists committed many outrages against true Catholike Bishops spoyled the Churches of God prophaned the holy things they found in them But what can hee conclude from hence against vs With which of these impieties can he charge vs Our blood hath bin spilt by them like water in the streets our bodies tormented and consumed with fire and sword and all this by the procurement of the Antichristian Bishops sworne enemies of Christ and vassals of Antichrist Yet haue wee hurt none of them but in patience possessed our soules knowing that our judgement is with God and that when he maketh inquirie for blood hee will finde out all their barbarous actes of cruelty which they haue done against vs. Wee haue prophaned nothing that is holy wee haue remooued and abolished nothing but the monuments of grosse idolatry and therefore we are not to be compared to the Donatists If in any place in popular tumults or confusions of warre whereof euer the Romanists haue beene the causes there haue beene any thing done in furie that was not fit we cannot excuse it nor could not remedie it CHAP. 29. Of the heresies of Arrius and Aērius THe tenth imputation is of Arrianisme which heresie wee accurse to the pit of hell with all the vile calumniations of damned slaunderers that charge vs with it Neither did euer any of our men incline vnto it or giue any occasion of so execrable an heresie Touching traditions which Bella◅mine sayth the Arrians did refuse they were not blamed for denying vnwritten verities For I hope the Romanists will not disaduantage the Catholike cause so much as to confesse that the Godhead of Christ which was the thing the Arrians denyed cannot be proued by Scripture that the Fathers were forced to flie to vnwritten traditions for proofe of it But they were blamed for that when the thing had proofe enough by Scripture they refused the word Consubstantiall most happily deuised to expresse the trueth against the turnings and sleights of hereticks onely because they found it not in Scripture as if no wordes nor formes of speach might be allowed but those only that are there expressely found The eleuenth is the heresie of Aērius Aērius condemned the custome of the Church in naming the dead at the Altar and offering the sacrifice of the Eucharist that is of thanksgiuing for them He disliked set fasts and would not admit any difference betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter For this his rash and inconsiderate boldnesse and presumption in condemning the vniuersall Church of Christ he was iustly condemned For the practise of the Church at that time was not euill in any of these things neither doe we concurre with Aerius in the reprehension of that Primitiue and auncient Church For howsoeuer we dislike the Popish maner of praying for the dead which is to deliuer them out of their fained Purgatory yet doe we not reprehend the Primitiue Church nor the Pastors and guides of it for naming them in their publike prayers thereby to nourish their hope of the resurrection and to expresse their longing desires of the consummation of their owne their happinesse that are gone before them in the faith of Christ. If any of the Fathers did doubtfully extend the prayers then vsed further than they were originally or generally intended or meant it was not to be imputed to the whole Church Of our allowance of set fastes I haue spoken before and of the difference betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter I shall haue a fit occasion to speake in examining the note of succession and the exceptions of the Romanists against vs touching the same If it be sayd that sundry of our Diuines seeme to acquite Aerius in these poynts they are to bee conceived as vnderstanding his reprehension to haue touched the errors and superstitions which even then perhaps began in some places and among some men to grow into practises doctrines of the Church which were not euill nor erroneous For otherwise his reprehension if it be vnderstood to extend to the generall practise and judgement of the Church is not nor may not be justified CHAP. 30. Of the heresies of Iovinian THe twelfth heresie imputed to vs is the heresie of Iovinian concerning whom we must obserue that Augustine ascribeth vnto him two opinions which Hierome mentioneth not who yet was not likely to spare him if he might truely haue beene charged with them The first that Mary ceased to be a virgine when
gazed on and adored to driue away diuels to still tempests to stay the ouerflowing of waters to quench and extinguish consuming and wasting fires But that the body of Christ is present in and with the sanctified elements onely in reference to the vse appointed that is that men should be made partakers of it This participation according to the auncient vse was first and principally in the publike assembly secondly in the primitiue Church the maner of many was to receiue the Sacrament and not to be partakers of it presently but to carrie it home with them and to receiue it priuately when they were disposed as Tertullian and others doe report Thirdly the maner was to send it by the Deacons to them that by sickenesse or other necessary impediment were forced to be absent and to strangers Yea for this purpose they did in such places where they communicated not euery day reserue some part of the sanctified elements to be sent to the sicke and such as were in danger of death This reseruation was not generally obserued as may appeare by the Canon of Clemens prescribing that so much onely should be prouided for the outward matter of the Sacraments as might suffice the Communicants and that if any thing remained it should presently be receiued by the Clergie Neither could there be any place for or vse of reseruation where there was a daily Communion as in many places there was nor in any place for such reseruation as is vsed in the Church of Rome for weekes and moneths seeing there was generally in auncient times in all places twise a weeke or at least once euery weeke a Communion from whence they might bee supplied that were absent The Romanists consecrate euery day but make their reseruations from some solemne time of communicating as Easter or the like and this not only or principally for the purpose of communicating any in the mysteries of the Lords body and blood but for circumgestation ostentation and adoration to which end the Fathers neuer vsed it Neither is that which is thus vnto this purpose reserued the body of Christ as our Diuines doe most truely pronounce The maner of the primitiue Church was as Rhenanus testifieth if any parts of the consecrated elements remained so long as to be musty and vnfit for vse to consume them with fire which I thinke they would not haue done to the body of Christ. This sheweth they thought the sanctified elements to be Christs body no longer than they might serue for the comfortable instruction of the faithfull by partaking in them But the Romanists at this day as the same Rhenanus fitly obserueth would thinke it a great and horrible impietie to doe that which the Fathers then prescribed and practised So then Caluine doth thinke that the Romish reseruation doth not carry about with it the body of Christ as the Papists foolishly fancie and yet I hope is in no heresie at all Neither doeth hee any where say that the elements consecrated and reserued for a time in reference to an ensuing receiuing of them are not the body of Christ but saith onely that there were long since great abuses in reseruation and greater in that euery one was permitted to take the Sacrament at the hand of the publike Minister in the Church and carry it home with him which I thinke this Cardinall will not denie if hee aduisedly bethinke himselfe CHAP. 35. Of the heresie of Eutiches falsely imputed to the Diuines of Germany THe next heresie imputed vnto vs is Eutichianisme which is directly opposite and contrary to the former errour of Nestorius This hee chargeth first vpon Zuinck feldius whom wee reiect as a franticke seduced miscreant and do in no wise acknowledge him to be a member of our Churches Secondly vpon Brentius Iacobus Smidelinus and other learned Diuines of the German Churches The heresie of Eutiches was that as before so after the incarnation there was but one only nature in Christ for that the nature of God was turned into man that there was a confusion of these natures Doe any of the Germane Diuines teach this blasphemous doctrine No sayth Bellarmine not directly and in precise tearmes but indirectly and by consequent they doe If wee demaund of him what that is which they teach whence this impiety may by necessary consequence be inferred hee answereth the vbiquitary presence of the body and humane nature of Christ. For sayth he vbiquity being an incommunicable property of God it cannot bee communicated to the humane nature of Christ without confusion of the diuine and humane natures But he should remember that they whom he thus odiously traduceth are not so ignorant as to thinke that the body of Christ which is a finite and limited nature is euery where by actuall position or locall extension but personally only in respect of the coniunction and vnion it hath with God by reason whereof it is no where seuered from God who is euery where This is it then which they teach That the body of Christ doth remaine in nature and essence finite limited and bounded and is locally in one place but that there is no place where it is not vnited personally vnto that God that is euery-where in which sense they thinke it may truely bee said to be euery-where For the better clearing of this point we must remember that it is agreed vpon by all Catholike Divines that the humane nature of Christ hath two kindes of being the one naturall the other personall The first limited and finite the second infinite and incomprehensible For seeing the nature of man is a created nature and essence it cannot be but finite and seeing it hath no personall subsistence of it owne but that of the Sonne of God communicated to it which is infinite and without limitation it cannot be denied to haue an infinite subsistence and to subsist in an incomprehensible and illimited sort and consequently euery-where Thus then the body of Christ secundum esse naturale is contained in one place but secundum esse personale may rightly bee said to be euery-where It were easie to reconcile all those assertions of our Divines touching this part of Christian faith in shew so opposite one to another and to stop the mouthes of our prattling adversaries who so greedily seeke out our verball seeming differences whereas their whole doctrine is nothing else but an heap of vncertainties and contrarieties if this were a fit place But let this briefly suffice for the repelling of Bellarmines calumniation and let vs proceed to examine the rest of his objections CHAP. 36. Of the supposed heresie of Zenaias Persa impugning the adoration of Images THe next heresie hee imputeth vnto vs is the impugning of the adoration and worshipping of Images the first authour of which impiety as this impious Idolater is pleased to name it was Zenaias Persa as Nicephorus reports But whatsoeuer the Iesuite thinke Nicephorus credite is not so good
merit in that it augmenteth devotion enlargeth the apprehension of faith and is a more compleat full receiuing And againe The receiuing vnder both kindes which manner of receiuing the Lord deliuered is of more efficacy and complement And hee that receiueth the sacrament vnder the forme of bread onely doth not perfectly receiue the same in respect of sacramentall receiuing With him agree Albertus magnus Petrus de Palude Bonaventura and sundry other By all which it is evident that though they gaue way to the custome that grew in and began to prevaile in their time yet they signified and sufficiently expressed that in their opinion the communicating in both kindes as Christ at first did institute and the Church for a long time observed is fitte convenient compleat perfect of more efficacie and more cleere representation than the other vnder one kind alone And therefore many still retained the auncient manner of communicating after other had admitted receiued the new Aquinas sayth of his time that the communicating vnder one kinde alone was receiued in many Churches not in all Alexander of Hales sayth that lay men almost euery where communicated in one kinde Petrus de Palude sayth it was the custome in some Churches to giue the communion to the people in both kinds Durandus reporteth that it was the custome of some Churches in his time that the priest should consecrate such a quantity of wine that after hee had drunke of the same there might still some of the sacrament of Christs blood remaine in the chalice into which more wine not consecrated might be powred that the other communicants might partake of the blood of Christ. And then they began to dispute the question whether the wine that was put into the cup by contact of Christs blood became consecrated sacramentall or not But whether it did or not they resolued that all by this meanes did partake and drinke of the blood of Christ which was mingled with euery part of the wine newly powred into it After this some proceeded farther left none of the sacramentall or consecrated wine in the cuppe or chalice but powred meere wine into it that the communicants might wash their mouthes with it after they had receiued the body of Christ teaching them that they had beene sufficiently partakers of the blood of Christ in that they had receiued his body from which his blood cannot bee separated But Willielmus de Lauduno sayth that he that receiueth the body of Christ vnder the forme of bread receiueth the whole verity but not the whole sacrament and that therefore in many places they communicated in both kindes And wee shall finde that where they admitted the communion vnder one kinde yet they put a difference betweene the communicants and permitted some to communicate in both kindes Linwood sayth that in the lesser Churches onely they that consecrate receiue the blood of Christ vnder the forme of consecrated wine insinuating thereby that in the greater it was otherwise and that within the compasse of the same nation and people the greater and more honourable Churches had the communion in both kindes when the meaner had it but in one Yea wee shall finde that in the same particular Church some communicated in both kindes when other communicated but in one For Richardus de mediâ villâ and Petrus de Tarantasia afterwards named Innocentius the 4 t report that in their time not onely the Ministers of the Altar but the more principall of the people communicated in both kindes Thomas Waldensis provinciall of the Carmelites here in England saith of his time We permit the Pastours of the Churches to giue the Sacrament in both kindes to svch persons as are strong in faith and discreet as the Bishop of Rome doth vse to giue the communion to the deacon and other Ministers of the Altar and other excelling in faith or of high place and dignity as Doctours and Kings Or as the Churches of religious men and of great places doe still continue to giue the Sacrament to their brethren and such persons as are worthie of so great a thing And in another place he hath these words Neither doe we deny vnto all Lay men generally to drinke of the blood of Christ vnder the forme of wine neither doe wee generally and without distinction or difference graunt and yeeld it vnto all for wee know that by the custome of the Church it is left to the discretion of the greater Prelates to admit certaine of the Ministers of the Altar or certaine other illustrious persons amongst the people that are faithfull reverent and devout to the solemne communicating in both kindes Thus did he write more then a thousand and foure hundred yeares after Christ in the time of Pope Martin who was elected in the Councell of Constance and who as B. Lindan telleth vs went home from the Councell of Constance and ministred the communion to sundry both of the Clergie and Laity vnder both kindes So that the communion vnder both kindes continued after the Councell of Constance which as the same Lindan saith did not simply forbid the ministring of the Sacrament in both kindes but the teaching of the people that of necessitie it must be so ministred To this purpose see the 13th session of the Councell The Councell of Basil permitted the Bohemians to continue the vse of the communion in both kinds Cassander telleth vs that good credible authors do testifie that in France the whole cōmunion was ministred though not euery-where in ordinary Churches yet in Chappels euen a little before the memory of our fathers as also it is ministred to the French Kings to this day Caietan saith of his time that the Church of Rome almost all the Churches of the west had the cōmunion in one kind He saith not all but almost all for as it appeareth by the same Caietan the Cistercian monks in some places did cōmunicate vnder both kinds euen in his time their order as it may be thought being instituted while the communion vnder both kindes continued in generall observation For otherwise it is not to be thought that any Monasterie would haue presumed to renew an abolished custome So that we see that the Churches of this part of the world were neuer wholly depriued of the necessarie and comfortable vse of the Sacrament vnder both kindes And for those that were wee see by what degrees and in what sort not without complaining of the wrong done vnto them they were forced to giue way to the innovation by a prevailing faction Yet did they not cease to bee members of the true and orthodoxe Church that were thus wronged The Armenian in the Dialogues of Armachanus objecting the saying of Christ except a man eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood hee can haue no life to prooue the necessitie of the Communion in both kindes
blood and the blood without the bodie and so a slaine and a crucified Christ if that naturall concomitance by reason whereof the one of them will not bee absent where the other becommeth present did not hinder their being asunder Thus then they say there is a true reall sacrificing of Christ in that as much as is on the part of the words pronounced and him that pronounceth them Christs bloud is againe powred out and hee consequently slaine This is the conceipt of Gregorius de Valentia and in this sorte hee imagineth Christ is daily newly sacrificed on the altar But besides that it is an impious thing for the priest to endeauour as much as in him lies to slay Christ and to powre out his bloud againe this proueth not a reall sacrificing of Christ but onely an indevour so to doe For his bloud is not powred out neither is hee slaine indeede So that as in the time of the old law if the priest reaching forth his hand to slay the beast that was brought to bee sacrificed had beene so hindred by something interposing it selfe that hee could not slay the same hee had offered no sacrifice but endeavoured onely so to doe so is it here Bellarmine therefore reiecteth this conceipt and hath another of his owne For hee sayth that Christ hath a two fold beeing the one naturall the other sacramentall The Iewes had him present amongst them visibly in his naturall being this beeing they destroyed and so killed and sacrificed him The Romish Priests haue him not so present neither can they destroy his naturall beeing and so kill him but they haue him present in a sacramentall presence and in a sacramentall being this beeing they destroy For consuming the accidents of bread and wine which are there left without substance and with which hee is present they make his presence there to cease and so cause him to loose that beeing which formerly hee there had Thus doe they suppose that they newly sacrifice Christ and destroy him in that being wherein hee is present with them And the Priests eating is not for refection but for consumption that hee may destroy Christ in that beeing wherein hee is present as the fire on the altar was wont to consume and destroy the bodies of those beasts that were put into it But first it is impious to thinke of destroying CHRIST in any sort For though it bee true that in sacrificing of Christ on the altar of the crosse the destroying and killing of him was implyed and this his death was the life of the world yet all that concurred to the killing of him as the Iewes the Roman souldiers Pilate and Iudas sinned damnably and soe had done though they had shed his bloud with an intention and desire that by it the world might be redeemed Soe in like sort let the Romish priestes haue what intention they will it is hellish and damnable once to thinke of the destroying of Christ in any sort And besides if it were lawfull for them so to doe yet all that they doe or can doe is not sufficient to make good a reall sacrificing of CHRIST Because all they doe or can doe is noe destroying of his beeing but onely of his being somewhere that is in the Sacrament For as if the things which were brought to be sacrificed in the time of the Law had beene only remoued out of some place into which they were brought or onely caused to cease to bee where they were and not what they were they could not truly haue beene sayd to haue beene sacrificed no more can it be truly said that Christ is really sacrificed in that the priests consuming the accidents of bread and wine vnder which they supposed him to be make him cease to be there any longer Hauing thus in their erring imaginations framed to themselues a reall sacrificing of Christ they beginne to dispute of the force and efficacie of it affirming that this reall offering and sacrificing of CHRIST by the priest is propitiatorie in that it pacifieth God and procureth and obtaineth grace and the gift of repentance that the sinner may come to the sacrament and so be iustified satisfactorie in that it applyeth the satisfaction of Christ and procureth remission of temporall punishments to them that by faith and repentance are alreadie free from the guilt of eternall condemnation meritorious because it obtaineth that grace whereby wee may merit and impetratory in that it obtaineth for vs and procureth to vs all desired good This force and efficacie they say it hath ex opere operato that is the verie offering and sacrificing of Christ in sort before expressed of it selfe hath force and power to obtaine and procure grace remission of sinnes and the like for all them for whom such offering is made if there bee no hinderance or impediment in themselues And that God hath tyed himselfe by promise to conferre such gifts and worke such effects soe often as the body and bloud of his sonne shall bee thus offered And farther they adde that it conferreth good and remoueth euill not infinitely but in a stinted and limited sort Nor in that limited sort equally in respect of all but in proportionable sort as the intendment of the Church is to apply this sacrifice more or lesse to the procuring of more or lesse And that therefore the benefitte that this sacrifice procureth is in one degree communicated to all faithfull ones liuing and dead in another to such as by the Churches appointment are specially named as the Pope King and Bishoppe or the like in another to them that procure the offering of this sacrifice in another to them that are present and stand by in another to them that minister and attend in another to the priest that sacrificeth and in another to whomsoeuer it pleaseth the priest to impart and communicate the benefitte and effect of this sacrifice For as Gregorius de Valentia alleadgeth out of â— Scotus it is to be thought that the priest that is the minister of this sacrifice may apply to whom hee will not only that which by worth of his personall merit in the religious performing of this seruice hee may deserue but some part also of that effect which this sacrifice hath ex opere operato and that God hath committed vnto him the effect which it hath in this kinde in some degree and sort to bee dispensed by him to whom hee thinketh good in recompence of his seruice And further they resolue that those effects which this sacrifice hath ex opere operato and are by the intendment of the Church communicated in different sort and degree to those diuers sorts of men before specified are equally communicated to each of those sorts according to their seuerall differences whether the sacrifice be offered for more or fewer As they that procure Masse to be said for them whether they bee more or fewer shall haue like effects wrought in them But that portion of this
efficacie force and power of working gratious effects that is committed to the disposition and distribution of the Priest is so limited that accordingly as he intendeth good to more or fewer he procureth more or lesse vnto them Heere wee see a goodly frame of building raised but it hath an ill foundation for it is most absurd to say that the very offering of Christs body and bloud ex opere operato and of it selfe should haue force to obtaine any thing at Gods hand or to procuâ—…e any good vnto vs. For there is no offering that can haue any acceptation vnlesse it bee offered by an accepted offerer according to that in the 4â— of Genâ—…sis God had respect to Abel and to his offering first to Abel and then to his offering and that in the 21th of Luke where Christ saith this poore widdow hath cast in more into the treasurie then any of the rest because shee cast it in out of a larger more free better and more accepted will And heereupon Saint Gregory in his Homilie on that of Mathew 4. Iesus walking c. saith non pensat Deus quantum in eius sacrificio deferatur sed ex quanto that is God doth not so much weigh and consider how much or how good that is which is presented to him in sacrifice as out of how great and good affection it is presented And therefore if a Iew had offered Christ vnto his father willing so to bee offered or not willing this oblation had not beene so acceptable as when hee offered himselfe nay it had not beene accepted at all according to that in Ecclesiasticus Hee that offereth sacrifice out of the substance of the poore is as hee that slayeth and sacrificeth the sonne in the sight of his father And Bellarmine saith well to the same purpose that though the thing offered bee acceptable of it selfe yet the oblation is not acceptable vnlesse the offerer be accepted which is especially true in respect of God whose all things are and who needeth nothing So that in this supposed sacrifice the worthinesse and acceptation of the offerer is principally to bee considered for it is not so much the worth of the thing offered as the esteeme the offerer hath of it and his good affection in offering it that God respecteth Who therefore is the offerer of this their supposed sacrifice They will say Christ is the supreme and the Priest the inferiour and subordinate and that therefore whatsoeuer the condition of the Priest bee the sacrifice is accepted for the principall offerers sake But this is nothing for though Christ bee offered on the Altar as they imagine yet hee doth not offer himselfe immediately For then this offering would bee equivalent to that former on the Crosse which yet they will not acknowledge And besides that of the Apostle should be found false and vntrue Heb. 9. that hee doth not often offer himselfe Neither can it be saide that Christ offereth himselfe mediatly by the Priest and so giueth price and worth to the offering For if it be said that Christ offereth himselfe mediatly by the Priest either it is because hee appointeth authoriseth and encourageth the Priest to make this offering and this will giue no more value and worth to the offering then the immediate offerer hath as wee see it was in the offerings of the Priest vnder the Law or else in that the Priest doth this in his name as a Legate presents a thing to a forraine Prince in the name of the King and this cannot bee for whatsoeuer a legat may doe in the name person of his king the king may doe in his owne person if it please him but Christ can no more offer himselfe in his owne person therefore this is not to be admitted Wherefore passing by this idle phancie wee shall finde that the ofâ—…erer is the priest and so many as doe procure or desire the doing of the same and that therefore the whole Church in a sort may be said to offer this sacrifice For though it be offered ministerio sacerdotis by the ministery of the Priest yet it is offered voto ecclesiae out of the devotion desire of the Church in which there are ever some found that are acceptable vnto God and therefore the offerer of this sacrifice is euer acceptable and according to the merit worthinesse of this offerer the sacrifice here offered findeth acceptation So then these men imagine that there is a reall externall sacrifice in the Church which they daily offer vnto God that it worketh great effects of grace that Christ is offered in it but that the acceptation of it is not wholy nor principally from the dignity of the thing offered but from the merit of the offerer This is the present doctrine of the Roman Church but this was not the doctrine of the Church at the time of Luthers appearing for the best principall men that then liued taught peremptorily that Christ is not newly offered any otherwise then in that hee is offered to the view of God nor any otherwise sacrificed then in that his sacrifice on the crosse is commemorated represented The things that are offered in the sacrament are two sayth the authour of the Enchiridion of Christian religion published in the provinciall councell of Colen the true body of Christ with all his merits his mysticall body with all the gifts which it hath receiued of God In that therefore the Church doth offer the true body blood of Christ to God the father it is meerely a representatiue sacrifice all that is done is but the commemorating representing of that sacrifice which was once offered on the crosse But in that it dedicateth itselfe which is the mysticall body of Christ vnto God it is a true but a spirituall sacrifice that is an eucharisticall sacrifice of praise thanksgiuing of obedience due vnto God Christ therefore is offered sacrificed on the altar but sacramentally mystically in that in the sacrament there is a commemoration remembrance of that which was once done Christ is not often slaine which once to thinke were abominable but that which was once done is represented that wee might not forget the benefit bestowed on vs but rather be so stirred vp moued by this sacrament as if wee saw the Lord Iesus hanging vpon the crosse The passion of the Lord sayth Cyprian is the sacrifice that wee offer to God that is that wee offer to the view of God and represent vnto him Neither is it to be marvailed at that we offer the true body of Christ to reviue the memory of the former sacrifice and to represent it vnto God seeing the son of God was giuen vnto vs that wee might oppose him to the wrath of God as a reconciler and that distrusting our owne strength wee might represent to the father this most potent sacrifice Cum defecerit sayth Bernard virtus mea non conturbor
non diffido scio quid faciam calicem salutaris accipiam That is When my strength shall faile I will not bee troubled neither will I despaire I know what I will doe I will take the cup of saluation And in another place Totum quod dare possum miserum corpus istud est id si minus est addo corpus ipsius Nam illud de meo est meum est parvulus enim natus est nobis filius datus est mihi de te Domine suppleo quod minus habeo in me O dulcissima reconciliatio O suavissima satisfactio That is All that I can giue is this miserable body if that be too litle I adde his body for that is of mine and it is mine a litle child is borne vnto vs a sonne is given vnto mee from thee I take ô Lord to supply what I finde wanting in my selfe O most sweete reconciliation O most sweet satisfactoin Who doth not see that God doth by such a faith as that is that is exercised in the celebration of this representatiue sacrifice and in the eating of the body of Christ the sufferings whereof are here represented apply the benefit of Christ his dearest sonne to his faithfull ones Neither doe wee attribute this application to the priest but to God nor to our worke but to Gods benefit Which yet wee receiue no otherwise but by faith with the assent of our owne will Hitherto wee haue heard the words of the authour of the Enchiridion and the same authour els-where sayth that the orthodoxe diuines deny the externall action which wee call the sacramentall oblation to conferre grace or to haue any spirituall effect ex opere operato It is true sayth hee that a wicked man may pronounce the words of Christ and so make the elements of bread wine to become the sacrament of the Lords body and bloud and this sacrament ex opere operato that is out of the very nature of a sacrament of it selfe how ill soeuer the minister bee will conferre grace instrumentally to all such as receiue it without such indisposition as might hinder the working of it But if wee speake of the offering of Christ representatiuely it hath no force farther then the faith of the offerer extendeth If the priest therefore not onely outwardly but inwardly also by the acte of faith present the sufferings of Christ in the body of his flesh to God in desire by the merit thereof to escape his wrath hee bringeth much good vpon himselfe if hee devoutly beseech God for his Christs sake whose sufferings hee representeth vnto him to bee mercifull to the people committed to his charge or to any other there is no doubt but this his prayer in the nature of a prayer is most powerfull to obtaine in this kind But if hee bee wicked faithles his representatiue offering of Christ of meerely in respect of it selfe worketh no good to himselfe nor any other For in the representatiue offering of Christs passion to God must be included a supplication made to God for that passion sake and a desire of those good things that wee need Now the prayer of such a sinner God heareth not but the people spiritually representing vnto God by the acte of their faith that which the priest doth sacramentally obtaine all desired good and the removing of all evill not by force of that the priest doth but by their owne faith which is stirred vp by that outward acte done by him The most reverend Canons of the Metropoliticall Church of Colen agree with the authour of the Enchiridion their words are these Consecratione factâ in missâ Christus Dominus qui seipsum aliquando in corpore suo mortali Deo patri coelesti cruentum sacrificium pro peccatis mundi obtulit denuo totius ecclesiae nomine modo incruento spirituali representatione commemoratione sacratissimae suae passionis offertur quod ipsum fit quando ecclesia Christum eius verum corpus verumque sanguinem Deo Patri cum gratiarum actione oratione attentâ pro suis totius mundi peccatis proponit seu repraesentat quanquam enim sacrificium illud in eâ formâ quâ in cruce offerebatur semel tantum oblatum sit semel tantum sanguis effusus vt ita repeti iterumque offerri non possit nihilominus tamen consistit manet tale sacrificium coram Deo perpetuò in suâ virtute efficaciâ acceptum ita vt sacrificium illud in cruce oblatum non minus hodierno die in conspectu patris sit efficax vigens quam eo die quo de saucio latere sanguis exiuit aqua Quapropter cum vulnerati corporis nostri plagae pretio redemptionis semper opus habeant ecclesia proponit Deo Patri pretium illud in verâ fide devotione iterum sed figuratiuè spiritualitèr ad consequendam remissionem peccatorum non quod huic operi suo quo videlicet commem or at repraesentat sacrificium illius meritum ascribat remissionis peceatorum vt quam solus Christus cruentâ suâ oblatione in cruce nobis promeruit verum tali suo commemoratiuo mystico fidei sacrificio in quo repraesentat ecclesia sistit in conspectum patris verum corpus sanguinem eius vnigeniti applicat sibi accommodat magnum illud donatiuum remissionis peccatorum quod Christus impetravit cum accipiat remissionem peccatorum per nomen eius qui credit in eum Act. 10. That is So soone as the consecration is done in the Masse Christ the Lord who sometime offered himselfe in his mortall body a bloudy sacrifice to God his heauenly father for the sins of the whole world is now offered again after an vnbloudy manner by representation and commemoration of his most sacred passion which thing is then done when the Church doth propose and represent Christ and his true body ' and bloud to God the Father with thanksgiuing and with earnest prayer for the remission of her sinnes and the sinnes of the whole world for although that sacrifice in such sort as it was offered on the Crosse was offered onely once and his bloud only once powred forth so that he can no more be so offered yet notwithstanding that sacrifice remaineth and abideth before God perpetually in its vertue and efficacie and is so acceptable vnto him that being but once offered on the Crosse it is no lesse effectuall and of force in the sight of God to day then it was that day when water and bloud streamed out of his wounded side Wherefore seeing the soares and hurts of our wounded bodies haue alwayes need of the price of redemption the Church proposeth to God in faith and devotion that price againe but figuratiuely and spiritually to obtaine remission of sin not as if shee did ascribe to this her worke whereby she commemorateth and representeth that his sacrifice the meriting of
remission of sinnes which Christ onely merited for vs by his bloudy sacrifice on the Crosse but by such her commemoratiue and mysticall sacrifice of faith in which shee representeth and setteth before the eyes of God the Father the true body and bloud of his onely begotten Sonne shee applyeth to her selfe that great donatiue of remission of sinnes which Christ obtained it being so that euery one that beleeueth in him receiueth remission of sinnes by his Name as it is in the 10th of the Acts. In the booke proposed by Charles the 5th written by certaine learned and godly men much commended to him by men worthie to bee credited as opening a way for the composing of the controversies in Religion we shall finde the same explication of this point touching the sacrifice that I haue already deliuered out of the former authors the words are these Omnis ecclesia missam in quâ—… verum corpus verus sanguis Christi conficitur sacrificium esse consentit sed incruentum spirituale in eâ enim modò religiosé piè agatur Deo quatuor spiritualiter offeruntur Initio enim Christus qui seipsum patri in mortali corpore cruentam sufficientem beneplacentem pro totius mundi peccatis hostiam cruci affixus obtulit idem ille in missâ totius ecclesiae nomine repraesentativo sacrificio eidem deo patri immolatur quod certè fit cùm ecclesia illum eiusque verum corpus sanguinem Deo patri pro totius mundi peccatis piâ prece sistit nam etsi oblatio illa in cruce semel facta transiit non reiterabilis victima tamen ipsa immolata perpetuá virtute consistit vt non minus hodiè in conspectu patris oblatio illa in iis qui eum Deo religiosa fide repraesentant sit efficax quà m eo die quo de sacro latere sanguis aqua exivit In quam sententiam patres corpus sanguinem Christi in altari praesentia nunc pretium pro peccatis totius mundi nunc pretium redemptionis nostrae nunc victimam salutarem appellare consueverunt Et Chrysostomus testatur nos eandem hostiam quae semel oblata est in sancta sanctorum semper offerre at que unum esse utrobique sacrificium unum Christum hic plenum existentem illic plenum sic tamen ut quod nos agimus sacrificium exemplar sit illius in commemorationem eius quod factum est semel Nec ab re Deus enim in hoc donavit nobis Christum Iesum Filium suum ut de nostris viribus diffisi â—…deque nostris peccatis nobis probè conscii illum tanquam unicam potissimam victimam pro nostris peccatis satisfactoriam Deo patri repraesentemus ipse enim natus est ipse datus est nobis ut quicunque in eum credimus non pereamus sed pacem cum Deo reconciliati per sanguinem eius habeamus Secundò Ecclesia in hoc missae sacrificio seipsam quoque quatenus Christi corpus mysticum est per Christum Deo offerre non dubitat Tertiò In missâ sacrificium laudis offertur Postremo Ecclesia dona quaedam tam panis quà m vini ex quibus partim corpus sanâ—…uis Christi conficiebantur offerebat partim eleemosynae fiebant iustum est quod populus in hoc sacrificio se non tantum verbis deo consecret sed symbolo aliquo externo testetur quod se totum dedicet Deo Nam is mos in Ecclesiis penè abolitus est cum olim omnibus diebus dominicis panis vinum res aliae ab omnibus tum viris tum mulieribus ad altare offerebantur quemadmodum decreta quae Fabiano tribuuntur testantnr that is The whole Church doth consent that the masse in which the bread and wine are consecrated to become the true body and bloud of Christ is a sacrifice but vnbloudy and spirituall for in it if it be Godly and religiously celebrated foure things are spiritually offered vnto God For first Christ himselfe who being fastened to the crosse offered himselfe to his Father in his mortall body a bloudy sufficient and well pleasing sacrifice for the sinnes of the whole world is in the masse offered to the same God his Father in the name of the whole Church by a representatiue oblation which thing truly is then done when the Church piously to intreate mercie for the sins of the whole world presenteth him and his true body and bloud to God the Father for although that oblation that was once made on the crosse be past and cannot be reiterated yet the thing that was then sacrificed and offered abideth hauing a neuer failing vertue and efficacie so that that oblation in them that by a religious faith do represent it vnto God is no lesse effectuall and preuailing to procure them fauour in the sight of God then it was that day that water and blood streamed out of his sacred side And in this sense the fathers are wont sometimes to call the body and blood of Christ present on the altar the price for the sinnes of the whole world somtimes the price of our redemption sometimes the sacrifice that bringeth saluation And Chrysostome witnesseth that we continually and dayly offer the same sacrifice that was once offered and presented into the holiest of all and that both there and here ther is one sacrifice one Christ perfect here and perfect there yet so that that which wee doe is but a representation and done in remembrance of that which was once there done and this not vnfitly for therefore did God giue vs Christ Iesus his sonne that distrusting our owne strength and being guilty to our selues of many sinnes we might represent and set him in the sight of God the Father as the onely and most excellent satisfactorie sacrifice for our sins For he was borne and he was giuen vnto vs that whosoeuer of vs beleeue in him might not perish but might haue peace with God being reconciled by his bloud Secondly the Church in this sacrifice of the masse doubteth not to offer it selfe as the mysticall body of Christ vnto God by Christ. Thirdly in it is offered the sacrifice of praise Lastly the Church was wont to offer certaine gifts of bread and wine out of which some part was consecrated to become the body and bloud of Christ to the faithfull people and the rest was giuen in almes to the poore And truly it is very iust and right that the people in this sacrifice should not consecrate themselues to God in words onely but so as to testifie by some outward symbole that they wholly dedicate themselues to God and therefore it is not well that this custome is almost vtterly abolished whereas aunciently euery Lords day bread and wine and other things were offered on the altar both by men and women as the decrees attributed to Pope Fabian doe testifie After this follow these words in the same place
debt there whiles wee celebrate the memory of his passion we acknowledge confesse our sinnes which be without number grant that we are not able to satisfie for the least of them therfore beseech our mercifull Father to accept in full payment satisfaction of our debts his passion which after this sort as hee hath ordained to be done in the sacrifice of the masse we renew represent before him where our sinfull life hath altogether displeased him wee offer vnto him his welbeloued Son with whom we are sure he is well pleased most humbly making supplication to accept him for vs in whom only we put all our trust accounting him all our righteousnes the authour of our saluation Thus doth the Church daylie renew in mysterie the passion of Christ doth represent it before God in the holy masse for the attaining of all the graces benefites purchased by the same passion before after the measure of his goodnes as our faith deuotion is knowne vnto him And againe The Church offereth Christ Gods Sonne to God the Father that is representeth to the Father the body and bloud of Christ which by his omnipotencie hee hath there made present and thereby reneweth his passion not by suffering of death againe but after an vnbloudy manner not for this end that we should thereby deserue remission of sins deliuerance from the power of the deuill which is the proper effect of Christs passion but that we should by faith devotion this representation of his passion obtaine remission grace already deserued by his passion to be now applyed to our profite and saluation c. not that we can apply the merits of Christs death as we list to whō we list but that we by the representation of his passion most humbly make petition prayer to Almighty God to apply vnto vs the remission grace which was purchased deserued by Christs passion before after the measure of his goodnes and as our faith and deuotion is knowne vnto him The thing offered both in the sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse in the sacrifice of the Church on the Altar is all one in substance being the naturall body of Christ our high Priest and the price and ransome of our redemption but the manner and effects of these two offerings are diuerse the one is by the shedding of Christs bloud extending to the death of Christ the offerer for the redemption of all mankind the other is without shedding of his bloud onely representing his death whereby the faithfull and deuout people are made partakers of the merits of Christs passion Hitherto the Bishoppe of Lincolne and to the same purpose the Authour of the Enchiridion of Christian religion hath these words Diligenter ergo haec omnia nobis intuentibus nihil vel absurdi vel scrupulosi in toto missae contextu occurret sedomnia praesertim quae canon complectitur pietatis plenissima ac plané reuerenda vt sunt videbuntur Aut enim Ecclesia respicit ad corpus sanguinem Christi pro se in cruce oblata vi omnipotentis verbi in altari praesentia non veretur haec appellare hostiam puram hostiam sanctam hostiam immaculatam panem sanctum vitae aeternae calicem salutis perpetuae aut ad oblationem repraesentatiuam commemoratiuam passionis seu corporis Christi veri quae fide misericordiam per Christum apprehendente redemptionem quae est in Christo deo patri opponente peragitur non dubitat hoc sacrificium laudis offerre pro se suisque omnibus pro spe salutis incolumitatis suae nimirum spem salutis incolumitatis ac redemptionem animarum debitalaude ac gratiarum actione deo accepta referens petitque vt hanc oblationem seruitutis suae Deus placatus accipiat diesque nostros in sua pace disponat atque ab aeterna damnatione nos eripi et in electorum suorum grege iubeat numerari non quidem ex meritis nostris aut ex dignitate nostrae seruitutis sed per Christum dominum nostrum that is If wee rightly looke into these things nothing will occurre vnto vs in the whole context of the masse that may iustly seeme absurd or cause any scruple but all things there found especially such as are contained in the canon will appeare vnto vs as they are indeede full of piety and much to be reuerenced for either the Church hath respect to the body and bloud of Christ offered for her on the crosse and by force of his Almighty word present on the altar and so feareth not to call these a pure host an holy host an immaculate host the holy bread of eternall life and the cuppe of eternall saluation or else shee hath an eye to the representatiue and commemoratiue oblation of the passion or true body of Christ which consisteth in faith apprehending mercy by Christ and opposing vnto God the redemption that is in Christ and soe shee doubteth not to offer this sacrifice of praise for her selfe and all her members for the hope of her saluation and safety that is with all due praise and thankesgiuing shee acknowledgeth that shee hath receiued from GOD the hope of saluation safetie and the redemption of the soules of her sonnes and daughters and desireth that God will take in good part this oblation of her service and bounden dutie that hee will dispose our dayes in peace that hee will deliuer vs from eternall condemnation and that hee will make vs to be numbred with his elect not for our merits or the worthinesse of this seruice but thorough Christ our Lord. With these Georgius Wicelius a man much honoured by the Emperours Ferdinand and Maximilian fully agreeth defining the masse to bee a sacrifice rememoratiue and of praise and thankesgiuing and in another place he saith the masse is a commemoration of the passion of Christ celebrated in the publike assembly of Christians where many giue thinkes for the price of redemption With these agreeth the Interim published by Charles the fift in the the assembly of the states of the Empire at Augusta March 15 t 1548 and there accepted by the same states But some man happily will say here are many authorities alleaged to proue that sundry worthy diuines in the Roman Church in Luthers time denyed the new reall offering or sacrificing of Christ and made the sacrifice of the altar to bee onely representatiue and commemoratiue but before his time there were none found soe to teach Wherefore I will shew the consent of the Church to haue beene cleare for vs to uching this point before his time and against the Tridentine doctrine now prevailing Bonaventura in his exposition of the masse hath these words The body of Christ is eleuated and lifted vp in the masse for diuers causes but the first and principall is that wee may obtaine and regaine the favour of God the Father
of the Church by the Ministery whereof they were appointed and not from the words of forme as the other doe Hence also it commeth that they are variable both in their matter and forme The Apostles sayth Alexander of Hales confirmed with the onely imposition of their hands without any certain forme of wordes or outward matter or Element but afterward it was otherwise ordayned both in respect of the one and the other the formes of Baptisme and the Eucharist being appoynted by Christ are kept inviolably without all change but touching the wordes of forme to be vsed in any other of the supposed Sacraments there is no certainty but they are diversly and doubtfully desiuered The reason whereof is because they are of humane devising By this which hath beene sayd it may appeare that the other pretended Sacraments are not of the same nature with Baptisme and the Eucharist as euen Bellarmin himselfe is forced to confesse the sacred or holy things sayth he which the Sacraments of the new Law signifie are threefold the grace of Iustification the Passion of Christ and eternall life as Thomas teacheth touching Baptisme and the Eucharist the thing is most evident concerning the other it is not so certaine CHAP. 16. Of the being of one body in many places at the same time THE possibility of the being of one body in many places at the same time was euer denyed by many worthy members of the Church and consequently the locall presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament whether definitiue or circumscriptiue was likewise reiected as a thing impossible To affirme sayth Aquinas that one body may be locally in this place and yet also in another at the same time implyeth a contradiction and therefore the power of God extendeth not to the effecting of any such thing Scotus confesseth that Egidius Godfredus de font Alanus and Henricus are of the same opinion with Thomas Durandus sayth that which is present in one place definitiuely or circumscriptiuely cannot in any such sort be in many places at the same time Whervpon he pronounceth that the body of Christ is no otherwise in the Sacrament but by reason of a certaine habitudinary vnion betweene it and the sacramentall elements whence it was wont to be sayd that Christs body is personaliter in verbo localiter in coelo sacramentaliter in Eucharistia Personally in the eternall word locally in heauen sacramentally in the Eucharist The first that taught otherwise and brought in the locall presence was Scotus whom Occam followed though he deny not but the former opinion had great fauourers CHAP 17. Of Transubstantiation THe conuersion of the bread and wine into Christs body and blood all of us sayth Caietane do teach in words but in deede many deny it thinking nothing lesse These are diuersly diuided one from another for some by the Conuersion that is in the sacrament vnderstand nothing but Indentity of place that is that the bread is therefore sayd to be made the body of Christ because where the bread is the body of Christ becomes present also others vnderstand by the word Conuersion nothing else but the order of succession that is that the body succeedeth and is vnder the vailes of those accidents vnder which the bread which they thinke to be annihilated was before This opinion in substance Scotus followeth though in the maner of his speech he seemeth to decline it Some admit both the word and thing but yet not wholy but only in part as Durandus Bonauentura sayth that some seeing the accidents to remaine both in their being and operation thinke the matter of the sacramentall element still remaineth Other the forme but that the more Catholike or generall opinion is that the whole substance of the elements is turned into Christs body and blood We see he maketh the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be but an opinion Occam sayth there are three opinions of Transubstantiation of which the first supposeth a couersion of the sacramentall elements the second an annihilation the third affirmeth the bread to be in such sort transubstantiated into the body of Christ that it is no way changed in substance or substantially cōuerted into Christs body or doth cease to bee but onely that the body of Christ in euery part of it becomes present in euery part of the bread This opinion he sayth the Master of sentences mentioneth not much disliking it yet is it not commonly holden Cameracensis sayth that the more common opinion is that the substance of bread doth not remaine but wholly ceaseth and that though this opinion be not euidently deduced from the scriptures nor concluded out of any determination of the vniuersall Church for ought he can see yet he is resolued to follow it Waldensis sayth hee found in a certaine old booke of decrees that in the yeare 1049. there was a meeting of Archbishops Bishoppes and other religious persons in a Synode and that when they were come together they beganne to speake of the body and bloud of Christ some saying one thing some another but that before the third day of meeting they that denyed the substantiall conuersion of the sacramentall elements were silent But in the same booke he reporteth out of Christopolitanus Zacharias his booke intituled Quatuor vnum that there were some perhaps many but hardly to be discerned and noted that thought still as Berengarius did whom they then condemned and yet condemned him with the rest in this respect onely disliking him for that refusing the forme of wordes the Church vsed with the nakednesse of his maner of speaking hee gaue offence not following the vse of the Scriptures which every where call things that are signes by the names of things signifyed especially in the matter of Sacraments the more liuely to expresse their vertue and efficacie these men ceased not to charge others secretly that they knew not the nature of figuratiue speaches therefore not without grosse errour killing the soule tooke signes for the things whereof they are signes scorning not a little the folly of them that say the appearing accidents of bread and wine after the conuersion doe hang in the ayre or that the senses are deceiued In the same place he sayth that Guitmundus reporteth some other that were not of the faction of Berengarius but with great vehementie contrary and opposite vnto him to haue beene of opinion that the bread and wine in part are changed and in part remaine these supposed so much onely to bee changed as is to serue for the communicating of the worthy receiuers others thought the whole to be changed but that when vnworthy men come to communicate the body and blood of Christ cease to bee present and the substances of bread and wine returne and are there present to be receiued by them But that it may yet more clearely appeare that the opinion of Transubstantiation neuer passed currantly in the Church let vs adde another testimony
him in the way of vertue and well-doing so amongst the children the elder should help the yonger the stronger and more excellent the weaker and more meane none could be fitter to assist him in the Kingly and Priestly office while he liued and to succeed him in the same when he died then the first-borne the beginning of strength the excellencie of dignity and the excellencie of power And heereupon we shall finde that from the beginning the first borne excelled the rest in three things For first he was Lord ouer his brethren according to that of Isaac blessing Iacob the yonger in steed of the elder and thereby preferring him to the dignity of the first-borne Be Lord ouer thy brethren and let thy mothers children bow downe vnto thee Secondly he had a double portion thirdly he was holy vnto God which dignity as it belonged formerly euen frō the beginning to the first-borne as being most worthy excellent so was it confirmed when God striking all the first borne in Egypt spared the first born of the Israelites This praeeminence of the first borne continued the eldest euer succeeding in the Kingly and Priestly office vnlesse for impiety or cause best knowen to God he were reiected by him till the time that Israel came out of Aegypt and the Church of God became nationall For then according to the tenor of Iacobs blessing these priuiledges were diuided Iudah had the Scepter Leui the Priesthood and Ioseph the double portion in that two of his Sonnes Ephraim and Manasses became Patriarches and Heads of tribes and had equall inheritance in the land of promise with the sonnes of Iacob So that in the societies of faithfull and holy ones from the first man that God made till Aaron was sanctified to bee a Priest vnto God in steed of the first borne the eldest alwayes vnlesse for impiety or other cause best knowen to God hee were reiected by him had the Kingly and Priestly direction of the rest So when Cain the eldest Sonne of Adam and first that was borne of a woman to whom the dignity of the first borne did pertaine was for his impiety reiected from that honour and Abel who by fayth offered a better sacrifice then hee was slaine by him God raysed vp Seth who being taught by Adam his father touching the Creation the fall the punishments of sinne and the promised Sauiour assisted him while hee lived in guiding the people and Church of God and succeeded him in the same gouernment after his death In like sorte Enosh assisted and succeeded Seth and dying left that honour to Kenan Kenan to Mahalaleel Mahalaleel to Iered Iered suruiuing Enoch his son whom God translated left it to Methusalem Methusalem to Lamech the father of Noe in whose time the children of God that is the posterity of Seth marying with the daughters of men that is such as came of wicked Cain highly displeased almighty God who therevpon appoynted him to bee a preacher of repentance vnto them whom when they contemned and despised hee brought in the floud and destroyed both them and all the inhabitants of the world Noe and his family onely excepted Noe gouerned the Church before and after the floud and left the same office and dignity to Sem his eldest sonne saying Blessed bee the God of Sem and let Canaan be his servant The Lord perswade Iaphet to dwell in the tents of Sem. Sem begat Arphaxad Arphaxad Sale Sale Heber Heber Phaleg Phaleg Rehu Rehu Serug Serug Nachor Nachor Thare Thare Abraham and Abraham Isaac All these onely Heber and Isaac excepted he suruiued so that dying he left the right of his office dignity to Isaac Heber hauing corrupted his wayes This Sem the Iewes thinke to haue beene Melchizedek that met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings that brought out bread and wine to refresh his wearied troupes and blessed him in the name of the Lord as being a Priest of the high God Thus then Sem gouerned the Church in his time and dying in part left his honour to Isaac soiourning as a stranger in Canaan Isaac to Iacob Iacob to Iudah and his sonnes who liuing in Aegypt in bondage with the rest of their brethren could not freely exercise the Kingly and Priestly office nor performe the things pertayning therevnto So that none of these succeeded Sem in the fulnesse as well of Kingly as Priestly power CHAP. 3. Of the diuision of the preeminences of the first borne amongst the sonnes of Iacob when they came out of Aegypt and the Church of God became Nationall BVt when it pleased Almighty God who chose vnto himselfe the posteritie of Israel and sonnes of Iacob as his peculiar portion and inheritance aboue all the nations of the world to bring them with a mighty hand and out stretched arme out of the land of Aegypt and the house of bondage to the land which he promised to their fathers Abraham Isaac and Iacob to make of them a mighty people then the former kinde of gouernment which was domesticall not so well fitting a people as a houshold he setled another in steed of the first borne which formerly in each family and kindred was both a King and Priest he chose the tribe of Iudah to sway the scepter and to be a lawgiuer to the rest of of his people and the tribe of Leui to attend his Tabernacle and seruice and out of all the families of that tribe tooke Aaron and his sonnes to serue in the Priests office appointing the rest to meaner seruices about the Sanctuary or to bee assistants to the Priests and rulers in the gouernment of the people CHAP 4. Of the separation of Aaron and his sonnes from the rest of the sonnes of Leui to serue in the Priests office and of the head or chiefe of that company THE Priests the sonnes of Aaron whom God separated from the rest of their brethren the sonnes of Leui were of two sorts For there was an high Prieste and there were others of an inferiour condition Touching the high Priest foure things are to obserued First his consecration Secondly the things that were required in him that was to be consecrated to so sacred a function Thirdly his imployment and Fourthly his attire The consecration of the high Priest was seauen daies in performing in this sort 1. He that was to be consecrated was brought before the Altar 2. Then he was washed with water and clothed with those sacred garments which God had prescribed holy oyle was poured on his heade sacrifice was offered on the Altar for his sanctification and his garments were sprinkled with the blood of it The things that were required in him that was to serue in the high Priests office were these Hee might not be defectiue nor deformed in body His wife must be a virgin not a widdow not one that had beene diuorced nor that had beene infamous
to permit leaue free the vse of the cup to the lay people being moved so to doe by Charles the Archduke his sonne the Duke of Bavaria his son in law and the due consideration of the necessity of his subiects There are extant certaine articles concerning reformation of manners Church discipline proposed in the councell of Trent by the embassadours of Charles the ninth the French King amongst which the 18 article is that the auncient decree of Leo and Gelasius touching the communion vnder both kindes might be reviued brought to be in vse againe But when the French perceiued that there were scarce any footesteps of the libertie of auncient councells to be discerned in the councell of Trent that all things were swayed and disposed by the absolute commaund of Pius the fourth then Pope the embassadours were commaunded to make a protestation in the name of the King their master the words of which protestation are these Wee refuse to bee subject to the commaund disposition of Pius the fourth Wee reiect wee refuse contemne all the judgments censures decrees of the same Pius And although most holy Fathers your religion life and learning was ever and euer shall bee of great esteeme with vs yet seeing indeed you doe nothing but all things are done at Rome rather then at Trent and the things that are here published are rather the deerees of Pius the fourth then of the councell of Trent wee denounce protest here before you all that whatsoeuer things are decreed published in this assembly by the meere will pleasure of Pius neither the most Christian King will euer approue nor the French Church euer acknowledge to be the decrees of a generall councell Besides this the King our master commaundeth all his Arch-Bishops Bishops and Abbots to leaue this assembly and presently to depart hence then to returne againe when there shall be hope of better more orderly proceedings Wherefore from this point of Romish Religion touching the communion in one kinde which findeth no helpe in the publique liturgie vsed in the dayes of our Fathers by which it is evident that the people were wont to cōmunicate in both kindes when that forme of divine seruice was first composed nor no liking or approbation of the best and worthiest guides of Gods Church then liuing let vs come to the next which is the propitiatory sacrifice for the quicke and the dead This indeede is a grand point of Romish Religion and if M Brerelie can prooue that it is contained in the publique Liturgie that was vsed in the Church at and immediatly before Luthers appearing and consequently that all that vsed that Liturgie had such an opinion of a sacrifice hee hath said much to proue that the Church vnder the Papacie was no Protestant Church but this neither hee nor all the most learned Papists in the world will euer be able to proue First therefore I will make it appeare that the Canon of the Masse importeth no such sacrifice And secondly I will shew at large that neither before nor after Luthers appearing the Church beleeued or knew any such new reall sacrificing of Christ as is now imagined Touching the canon of the Masse it is true that therein there is often mention of sacrifice and oblation but Luther professeth that the words may be vnderstood in such a sense as is not to be disliked and hee saith hee could so expound it and that somewhere hee hath so expounded it but seeing it is obseure and may beare diuers senses and a better and more cleare forme of divine celebration may be brought in he will not honour it so much as to giue it that sense which it may well carry and in which the first composers of it and others after did vse it but that wherein they of Rome will now needes haue it to be vnderstood That the forme of words vsed in the canon are obscure in sundry parts of it and hard to bee vnderstood euen by the learned Cassander confesseth and therefore thinketh it fit it were explained illustrated by some briefe scholies put in the margent or inserted into the text by way of parenthesis The obscuritie that is in it groweth as he rightly obserueth partly out of the disuse discontinuing of certaine old obseruations to which the words of the canon composed long since haue a reference and partly from the vsing of the word sacrifice in diuers and different senses though all connexed the sudden passing from the vsing of it in one sense to the vsing of it in another It is not vnknowne to them that are learned that in the Primitiue Church the people were wont to offer bread wine and that out of that which they offered a part was consecrated to become vnto them the Sacrament of the Lords body bloud other parts converted to other good holy vses Respectiuely to this ancient custome are those prayers conceiued that are named secretae the first part of the canon wherein wee desire that God will accept those gifts presents offerings and sacrifices which we bring vnto him and that hee will make them to become vnto vs the body bloud of his Son Christ which onely are that sacrifice that procureth the remission of our sins and our reconciliation and acceptation with God So that to take away this obscurity that the words may haue a true sense the ancient custome must bee brought backe againe or at least it must be conceiued that the elements of bread wine that are set vpon the mysticall table are to be consecrated are brought thither and offered in the name of the people and that as being their presents they are symboles of that inward sacrifice whereby they dedicate and giue themselues and all that they haue vnto God Touching the second cause of the obscurity of the wordes of the Canon which is the vsing of the word sacrifice and ◅ffering in so manifold and different senses and the sudden passing from the one of them to the other wee must obserue that by the name of sacrifice gift or present first the oblation of the people is meant that consisteth in bread and wine brought and set vpon the Lords table In which againe 2 things are to be considered the outward action and that which is signified thereby to wit the peoples dedicating of themselues and all that they haue to God by faith and deuotion offering to him the sacrifice of praise In this sense is the word sacrifice vsed in the former part of the canon as I haue already shewed In respect of this is that prayer powred out to God that he will be mindfull of his seruants that doe offer vnto him this sacrifice of praise that is these outward things in acknowledgement that all is of him that they had perished if he had not sent his sonne to redeeme them that vnlesse they eate the flesh and drink the blood