His words are plain in his Book against Eutyches and Nestorius Lib. de duabus Christi Naturis The Sacraments we receive of Christs body and bloud are divine things by which we are made partakers of the divine Nature and yet the substance or nature of Bread and Wine ceaseth not And indeed the Image of the body and bloud of Christ in the sacramental participation is celebrated Tamen non definit esse substantia vel Natura panis vini Imago similitudo c. In ejus imagine profitemur celebramus sumimus Permanent tamen in sua proprietate We must therefore think that of Christ our Lord which we profess celebrate and take in his Image i.e. the Sacramental signs of his Body and Bloud that as these by the operation of the Holy Ghost pass into a divine substance and yet remain in the propriety of their own nature so that great mystery of the Incarnation whose Vertue they represent shew one whole true Christ consisting of two Natures properly remaining The same is affirmed by the Patriarch Ephraim in Photii Bibliotheca Cod. 229. I purposely conclude with Saint Augustin Tract 25. in Joan. Basil in Psal 33. saith the same Lib. 3. de Doctrin Christ cap 16. Flagitium jubere videtur Nolite parare fauces sed Cor. Nos non tangimus Christum sed credimus Augustin Serm. 33. in Lucam Devorandus auditu ruminandus intellectu side digerendus Tertul. de Resur who hath with the consent of the more Ancient Fathers deliver'd several things which utterly overthrow the present Roman Article of Faith Transubstantiation As first That Christ's Body or Flesh is not to be eaten in a proper carnal oral but figurative and spiritual sense not by the mouth of the body but by Faith the mouth of the Soul. For having laid it down as a general Rule that whensoever the Scripture seems to command any thing wicked or flagitious we must understand it as a figurative and improper form of speech he instanceth in those words Unless ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man c. Figura est ergo It is therefore saith he a figure requiring us to communicate in Christ's Passion sweetly and profitably remembring that his flesh was crucify'd and wounded for us The same is affirm'd by Cyprian de coena Domini As often as we do this in remembrance of him we whet not our teeth to bite but with a sincere Faith we break the holy Bread. Which is saith he Cibus non dentis aut ventris sed mentis meat not of the mouth or teeth but mind In like manner Cyril Catec Mystag 4. Ambrose de Sacramentis lib. 1. cap. 4. Idem Serm. 58. in Lucae cap. 10. v. 24. Besides others of the Fathers I shall not now mention Secondly He expresly affirmeth that wicked men in the Sacrament do not eat Christ's body or drink his bloud Tract 26. in Joan. Cyprian de coena saith the same Compare Aug. De Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 25. Of the Lord's Table saith he some receive to life others to damnation but the thing whereof it is a Sacrament every man receives to life none to death To eat that meat and to drink that drink our Saviour explaineth when he saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me whence he that dwelleth not in Christ proculdubio questionless neither eats nor drinks spiritually altho he carnally and visibly press with his teeth the Sacrament of Christ's body and bloud but rather eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a thing to his own condemnation because being unclean he presumes to come to the Sacrament of Christ Whosoever eateth me shall live by me In another place Non dicitur qui manducat dignè sed qui manducat me Cajetan in locum He that is at discord with Christ or an enemy to Christ neither eateth his body nor drinketh his bloud altho he daily receive indifferently as if there were no difference betwixt that bread and common bread the Sacrament of so great a thing to the punishment of his own presumption Which is no more than what Origen had written long before him on Matth. 15. where he saith Sentent 339. Qui discordat à Christo non corpus ejus manducat c. V. Ambrose de tis qui myster initiantur cap. 9. If it were possible for any wicked man persevering such to eat the Word made flesh seeing he is the living bread it would not have been written Whosoever eateth this bread shall live for ever St. Hierom in Jerem. lib. 4. cap. 22. and also cap. 66. in Esai affirms the same saying That Hereticks do not eat the body or drink the bloud of Christ in the Sacrament because then they should have everlasting life Thirdly Saint Augustin expresly affirmeth In signis diversis cadem fides Aug. Tract 45. in Joan. ubi plura legas Lib. 20. cont Faustum c. 21. that our Fathers the Patriarchs and Prophets under the Law did eat the same spiritual meat and drink the same spiritual drink with us under the Gospel i.e. Christ for they drank of that Rock which follow'd them and that Rock St. Paul says was Christ Tract 26. on John. Contr. Faustum lib. 19. cap. 16. Whence it undeniably follows that the eating of Christ's flesh in an oral carnal manner is not necessary to salvation which before Christ's Incarnation was impossible as it is now unprofitable Fourthly Saint Augustin Epist ad Dardanum writeth Epist 57. Tolie à Corporibus locorum spatia nusquam erunt Christus ubique per id quod Deus est in coeâ—o autem per id quod homo est c. that Christ's body being a true humane body necessarily taketh up a space answerable to its quantity and saith That to deny a body to take up space is to deny it to be a true body And adds That the body of Christ is not every-where but in a certain determinate place Whereby he utterly overthrows the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the possibility of eating and chewing or which is all one the swallowing down whole Christ's body that it should be in a thousand places at once and should be contain'd whole under the least piece of Wafer Which is in effect to revive the Heresie of Marcion and the Manichees who denyed the verity of Christ's Body turning it into a Phantasm Non hee corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis Sacramentum vobis commendavi c. Compare Cyprian de unctione Chrismatis Christus tradidit Discipulis figuram corporis sui Augustin in Psalm 3. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis Sacramentum commendavi vobis quod spiritualiter intellectum vivificabitvos Epist 23. Sprite or Spirit But I cannot omit his words upon the 98th Psalm where he brings in our Saviour speaking thus to his Apostles Ye shall not eat this body ye see nor drink that bloud that my Crucifiers shall
Cap 19. Passio Domini in qua tingimur Mystag 4. In Sacramentis non quid sint sed quid ostendant attenditur quoniam signa sunt rerum aliud existentia aliud significantia Aug. cont Max. l. 3. c. 22. Ne quis attendat in eis quod sunt c. de Doctr. Christ c. 7. Hom. 16. in Sacram. Euchar. Tom. 6. wherein neither we nor our Adversaries admit of any Transubstantiation Thus Tertullian in his Book of Baptism saith that thereby we are dyed in the passion or bloud of our Lord. In like manner Cyril of Hierusalem after he had instructed Christians not to look upon the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament as mere Bread and Wine whatever sense suggesteth but as the body and bloud of Christ affirmeth the same of the Water in Baptism that it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mere or bare Water and the same he saith of the Oil in Chrism though neither of them are substantially chang'd into the very bloud of Christ Many more instances might be added but these may suffice I will onely take notice of a Similitude used by St. Chrysostom in which Bellarmin triumphs 'T is this As saith he Wax set on fire loseth its substance being turn'd into fire so by consecration the substance of the bread is chang'd into the flesh of Christ To which and the like expressions quoted out of the Fathers In Epiphanium pag. 244. pag. 288. I shall answer in the words of Petavius the Jesuit There are many things saith he in the Holy Fathers especially in Chrysostom scatter'd here and there in their Homilies which if you would reduce to the rule of exact Truth they will seem altogether void of good sense Sixtus Senensis lib. 6. Biblioth Annotat 152. Another of their own Church ingenuously aknowledgeth that Preachers such as the Fathers were in their Homilies and popular Discourses often speak things by an Hyperbole being carried away affectuum impetu orationis cursu with the heat of their affections which often saith he befell Chrysostom Yea Rhetoricati sumus ali quid declamationibus dedimus Saint Hierom confesses of himself We have play'd the Rhetoricians in a Declamatory way To close this Similitudes are the weakest kind of Arguments Neither may our Adversaries in prudence urge this similitude of fired Wax too vehemently against us If so they must necessarily grant that not onely the substance of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament ceaseth to be but the very outward accidents also For when Wax is fired not onely the substance but the very accidents are disserent from what they were before And so much at present for Transubstantiation I pass to the next Article Purgatory 3. Art. Concerning Purgatory The Antient Fathers for five hundred years after Christ did not hold the Romish Doctrine of Purgatory as an Article of Faith yea some of them expresly contradict it I will begin with the Greek Fathers Clemens Romanus and Ignatius in their genuine Writings take no notice at all of it Justin Martyr denies it We believe saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ☜ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every man after his departure hence goeth according to his works either into everlasting punishment or life And immediately addeth Men would avoid sin if they consider'd that they must go without Repentance into eternal punishment by fire But of enduring temporal punishment for sin by fire not a word is to be found in all his Writings Quest 75. Amongst the Questions and Answers which are printed with his Works it is thus resolved After the departure of Souls out of their Bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presently they are by Angels carried to places fit for them the Souls of the just to Paradise of the unjust to Hell in which places they are kept until the Resurrection Here no notice is taken of Purgatory or any middle or third place out of which Souls may be deliver'd by Prayers Masses Indulgences c. It 's true this Writer is much younger than Justin Martyr but it maketh the more against our Adversaries for it sheweth that long after his death this Article of Roman Faith was not Catholick or universally received In Irenaeus as Erasmus also hath observ'd who was very well seen in his Writings there is no mention of Purgatory but in the close of his last Book there is somewhat contradicting it for without any distinction of Persons or sins mortal or venial he declares his opinion that the Souls of all Christ's Disciples go to one invisible place Origen Hom. 18. in Jeremiam pag. 163. edit Huet Dum hic sumus remedium non postea Vita Constant lib. 4.63 hades there remaining till the Resurrection as Tertullian Origen Lactanctius Ambrose and other of the Fathers held which is inconsistent with Purgatory as invocation of dead Saints also and contradicted by the Romanists Eusebius Caesariensis hath written several Volumes in all which as Scultetus hath noted there is not the least mention of Purgatory It 's true he relates how the people pray'd for the Soul of Constantine But Constantine as he assures us in the next Chapter went not to Purgatory but was taken up to his God and joined his divine part his Soul to God yea a little before his death he himself as Eusebius reports used these words Now I know my self to be happy to be now accounted worthy of eternal life Prayer then for the dead doth not necessarily infer Purgatory De Praep. Evang. lib. 11. c. 20. lib. 13. I grant he reporteth Plato's opinion concerning purgation of a middle sort of men by temporal punishments after death But adds that Plato through ignorance of the Scripture erred in many things I pass to Athanasius in all whose Writings tho many and large I can find no mention of this Article of Faith Purgatory and am the more confirm'd it cannot be found in regard Bellarmin quotes nothing out of him or Eusebius against us Gregory Nazianzen in his Oration in Caesarium Oratio 10. delivers himself thus I am mov'd by the sayings of the Wise that every Soul that is belov'd of God as the Souls sent by Romanists to Purgatory are acknowledg'd to be presently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the loosing from the body and departure hence that which darkned the mind being either purged or cast from it or done away in what sort I cannot well express whence it's evident he believed not they were purged by fire as Romanists peremptorily affirm beginneth sensibly to discern that good which remaineth for it to be filled with wonderful delight and to leap for joy But this wonderful delight and joy cannot consist with Purgatory torments or the fear of them Nazianzen then was no Papist in this point On those words Orat. de Paschate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye shall carry out nothing until the morning c. He saith Beyond or after this night i. e. after death there
Psalm 50. Offer unto God thanksgiving c. and those of Malachy above-mentioned concerning pure Incense i. e. Prayer and a pure Offering i. e. saith he A broken and contrite heart He concludeth in these words We sacrifice and offer Incense sometimes by celebrating the memory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that great Sacrifice to wit of Christ on the Cross by those sacramental Mysteries which he hath delivered to us giving thanks to God for our Redemption and offering Hymns and Praises to him The same do Protestants otherwise by consecrating and devoting our selves to God and dedicating Soul and Body to his High-Priest the Word Ye see here how many sorts of Christian Sacrifices Eusebius reckons up Prayers Praises consecrating our souls and bodies to God celebrating the memory of his Sacrifice on the Cross but concerning sacrificing of Christ himself in and by the sacramental Mysteries we find nothing Can this now be a point of Catholick Faith of which Eusebius and all the antient Fathers were ignorant Lib. 5. c. 3. The same Eusebius in another place discourseth concerning Christs Priesthood according to the order of Melchizedeck His words are In like manner first our Saviour then the Priests of or from him exercising a spiritual Priesthood by Bread and Wine V. Tertul. cont Judaeos Ambross de Sacram. l. 4. c. 3. do obscurely represent the Mysteries of his Body and Bloud This maketh nothing for the Popish Mass-sacrifice For first Melchizedeck as he said a little before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 protulit as the vulgar translation rendreth it brought forth to Abraham Bread and Wine but offered obtulit no corporal Sacrifices The truth is the Mass Priests if Transubstantiation be admitted offer neither Bread nor Wine which they tell us are changed into Christs Body and Bloud which are corporal things But the Christian Priesthood saith Eusebius is spiritual so therefore are their Sacrifices also Secondly All that Eusebtus saith of the Executors of this spiritual Priesthood is that after Christs Example by Bread and Wine which he supposeth to remain in their substance they obscurely represent Christs Body and Bloud Doth this imply that the Bread and Wine are miraculously changed into the body and bloud of Christ or that representing Christs body and bloud in the Holy Sacrament rendreth them a Sacrifice or implieth any offering them up as a propitiatory Victim for the sins both of quick and dead Certainly did this sacrificing Christ by or under Bread and Wine at all appertain to the Christian Priesthood Eusebius no doubt would have it being so eminent and wonderful an action made at least some little mention of it But how could he mention that which it appeareth he was wholly ignorant of to wit the sacrificing Christ by Priests in the Holy Eucharist Athanasius in a few words giveth the Sacrifice of the Mass a deadly blow Orat. 3. in Arian The Sacrifice of our Saviour once offered perfects all and remaineth firm all times Aaron had Successors our Lord had none Saint Chrysostome adv Judaeos Hom. 36. expounds Malachy's Pure Offering of Prayer and Hom. in Psalm 95. reckoning up about ten sorts of Sacrifices in the Christian Church as Martyrdom Prayer Alms c. he taketh no notice of the Sacrifice of all Sacrifices to wit of Christ in the Mass But that noted place Hom. 17. on the Hebrews must not be omitted where having first said Heb. 10.10 that Jesus Christ is both Priest and Sacrifice who offer'd himself to God once for all for us he raiseth an Objection against what he had said from Saint Paul What then do we Priests Do not we daily offer He answereth We do indeed offer but it is making a remembrance of his death V. Basil M. in Cap. 1. Esaiae we do it in commemoration of what is already done we do offer the same Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather correcting himself that he might speak more properly and exactly We celebrate or operate the remembrance of a Sacrifice i. e. of Christ on the Cross commemorantes memoriam facientes as the Roman Missal it self speaketh Saint Ambrose in his Comment on the Hebrews saith the very same as if he had translated Saint Chrysostome Cap. 10. Do not we daily offer Yes We offer memoriam facientes making in and by the Eucharist a memorial of his death We offer him Christ magis autem sacrificii recordationem operamur Rather or more properly we make a remembrance of a Sacrifice Lib. 4. de Sacra c. 6. In another place he sets down the antient forms of Consecration Wherefore being mindful of his Passion i. e. V. Canonem Missae Rom. Christ on the Cross we offer to thee this Sacrifice this bread Bread not the very Body of Christ in a carnal and corporeal sense The like words we find in Saint Chrysostomes and the Gregorian Liturgies I will now add Epiphanius who saith as Athanasius above Haer. 55. Christ hath no Successour in his Priesthood that he is both Priest and Sacrifice in regard none can properly sacrifice him but himself which he did once for all on the Cross And Haer. 42. Christ by his Sacrifice hath taken away the use of all Sacrifices i. e. properly so called under thâ—â—ospel In like manner Saint Cyril of Alexandria againâ—â— Julian the Apostate who objected that the Christians had no Sacrifice Lib. 9. cont Julian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For answer he asserts not any external visible and corporeal one but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an intellectual and spiritual Worship for saith he a most immaterial and spiritual Sacrifice becometh God who is in his nature pure and immaterial I will end with Saint Austin who in his 20th Book against â—â—â—stus thus writeth Christians celebrate the memory of this finished Sacrifice to wit Ch. 18. of Christ on the Cross by the Holy Oblation or Sacrament i. e. of Bread and Wine and by participation of the body and bloud of Christ not by immolation but participation of them not by reiteration of Christs Sacrifice which is finished consummatum est but commemoration of it And Chap. 21. he hath these words Lib 20. contr Faust c. 21. The like he hath de fide ad Petrum Diacon c. 19. The flesh and bloud of this Sacrifice of Christ before his Incarnation was promised or represented by the similitude of Levitical Sacrifices In the Passion of Christ it was performed per ipsam veritatem by the very truth of the thing it self After his Ascension it is celebrated per sacramentum memoriae by a Sacrament of memory or commemoration not by a true proper Sacrifice of Christ per ipsam veritatem and immolation of his very body and bloud as Romanists affirm In his Epistle to Boniface he expresseth it more clearly Is not Christ immolated or offer'd up once in semetipso Quod natum est ex Virgine nobis quotidie nascitur crucifigitur Hieron in Psal
hasten to my fourth and last Assertion which was this That there is scarcely any point in Controversie betwixt us and the Papists especially of them before-mentioned made by Pope Pius and the late Tridentine Council Articles of Faith but we are able to produce many eminent Writers and some of their own Church who condemn them as well as we in the Ages next before Luther appeared in the World. So that what Doctrines and practices the Reformed Protestant Churches rejected and condemned were not the generally received and unanimously avowed Opinions and observances of the Roman much less Catholick Church but onely of a powerful and predominant Party in it The Numbâ—r of Sacraments I will first begin with their Doctrine of seven Sacraments The Canonists as Panormitan and the Glosse on Dist 5. de Poenitentia V. Rhe … num 〈◊〉 in Tertul. de Poenitent Loc. Commun lib. â— c. 4. 5. In qu. Gent. Diâ—t 26. qu. 3. say That Penance was not ordained as the Trent Council grants all true Sacraments are a Sacrament by Christ but is an Institution of the Church onely Canus affirmeth it 's uncertain whether it giveth Grace or no. Durandus holds 4. Dist 26. qu. 3. That Matrimony is no Sacrament univocally and properly so called conferring Grace Hugo de S. Victore denieth that extreme Unction is a Sacrament Holcot quoted by Cassander Consult art 13. saith Confirmation is no Sacrament De Sacrum Euchar. Part. 4. qu. 5. Mem. 2. Naucler Vol. 2. Bessarion the Cardinal owneth onely two Sacraments Baptism and the Eucharist Alexander Halensis is of opinion that there are onely four Sacraments of the Gospel See Dr. Field of the Church In Append. p. 332. and Bishop Mortons Appeal p. 337. The Waldenses held but two Sacraments Baptism and the Lords Supper as Protestants do Transubstantiation Secondly As for their new Article of Transubstantiation Petrus de Alliaco a Cardinal ingenuously acknowledgeth Dist 11. qu. 6. Art. 2. add Cameracensis 4. Gent. qu. 6. Art. 2. Occam in 4. Gent. 2.5 De Euchar. lib. 3. c. 23 quaest 3. Lib. 4. Dist 11. qu. 23. Art. 1. that the Opinion which supposeth the substance of Bread to remain still after Consecration which was Luther's Opinion is possible neither is it contrary to reason or Scripture Nay saith he it is easier to conceive and more reasonable than that which holdeth that the substance doth leave the accidents and of this Opinion no inconvenience doth seem to ensue if it could be accorded with the Churches i. e. his Roman Churches determination Scotus quoted by Bellarmine saith that before the Lateran Council it was no point of Faith. To be sure P. Lombard the Father of the Schoolmen believed it not For he saith if it be demanded what manner of conversion of the Elements into Christs body and bloud is made by Consecration whether formal or substantial De Verit. Corp. Sang. D. in Euchar. p. 46. I am not able to define Tunstal Bishop of Durham in Queen Maries days declares that before the Council of Lateran no man was bound to believe Transubstantiation it being free for all men till that time to follow their own conjecture as to the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament Hence he only required the Confession of a Real presence which we grant and no more Yea he used to say That if he had been at Pope Innocent's Elbow when he decreed Transubstantiation as an Article of Faith he could he thought have offered him such reasons as should have dissuaded him from it In Can. Missae Lect. 41. Biel affirmeth that Transubstantiation is a very new Opinion and lately brought into the Church and was believed onely or principally on the Authority of Pope Innocent and the Infallibility of the Church you must suppose Roman which expounds the Scripture by the same Spirit which delivered the Faith to us To which Durand agreeth 4 Dist 11. qu. 1. Num. 9. It is rashness saith he to think the body of Christ by his divine Power cannot be in the Sacrament unless the bread be converted into it He adds that the Opinion of Transubstantiation held by Lutherans is liable to fewer difficulties but it must not be holden since the Church of Rome hath determined the contrary which is presumed not to err in such matters Yet see how doubtfully he speaketh of their Churches Infallibility V. Bell. de Euchar. lib. 3. c. 23. In 4 Sent. qu. 6. Scotus in 4. Dist 11. qu. 3. on whose Authority onely he owneth Transubstantiation not at all from any cogent authority of Reason or Scripture which he saith cannot be found In like manner Cameracensis professeth he saw not how Transubstantiation could be proved evidently either out of Scripture or any determination of the Universal or Catholick Church making it a matter of Opinion not Faith and inclining rather as Alliaco to Consubstantiation Aquinas himself acknowledgeth that some Catholicks quidam Catholici thought that one body could not possibly be present in two places locally but sacramentally only which overthroweth Transubstantiation Ferus is very moderate in this point Seeing saith he it 's certain that Christs body is in the Sacrament what need we dispute whether the substance of bread remain or not Tom. 3. Disp 46. c. 3. Cardinal Cajetan himself quoted by Suarez confesseth that those words so urged by Romanists in this Point This is my Body Supra in Part. 3. summ qu. 75. art 14. secluding the Authority of the Church are not sufficient to confirm Transubstantiation Of the same Opinion was Scotus The same Cajetan noteth that many in truth deny what the word Transubstantiation indeed importeth So if I be not much mistaken doth Cardinal Bellarmine who instead of a substantial change or conversion of the Bread into Christs Body maintains onely a Translocation adduction or succession of Christs Body into the room and place of it which as easie to discern is no Transubstantiation of the bread into Christs Body properly so called Johannes Scotus Erigena about the year 800. wrote against Transubstantiation proving out of the Scriptures and antient Fathers that the Bread and Wine are not properly but figuratively and sacramentally Christs body and bloud This Book is still extant and no wonder condemned by the Infallible Index Expurgatorius Aelfricus Arch-Bishop of Canterbury set out Anno 996. in the Saxon Tongue his Homilies wherein he affirms that the bread is not Christs Body corporaliter corporally but spiritually spiritualiter With which perfectly agreeth the Paschal Saxon Homily of Aelfrick Abbot of Malmsbury appointed publickly to be read to the People in England on Easter day before the Communion still extant in Manuscript in the publick Library of the University of Oxford and the private Library of Bennet College in Cambridge To which place I gratefully acknowledge I owe the foundation of that small knowledge I have in Divinity Panis ille est corpus Christi figurate
worship He concludes This is the sincere Religion this is the Catholick Custome p. 251. In Confess sidei per Critopulum Patriarch 5. Ann. 1430. Sess 4. Veritas fidei Catholicae Caranza An. 1409. An. 1414. Respons de Privileg Patriarch Concord l. 2. c. 25. Supra cap. 20. p. 748. this is the Tradition of the Fathers c. The Greeks condemn giving Latria or Douleia to Images in their confession of Faith. The Popes Supremacy over Emperours Councils Bishops c. This was contradicted by the Council of Basil confirmed by Pope Nicolas who decreed that it was de fide a point of Faith that the Pope ought to be subject to a General Council Of the same opinion were the Councils of Pisa and Constance who deposed several Popes as Schismaticks and Hereticks for refusing to appear upon their Summons Balsamon a Greek Writer sheweth that the five Patriarchs were equal in honour and power and were all instead of one Head over the whole Church Cusanus the Cardinal confesseth that the eight first General Councils were all called by the Emperours and that the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the precedency of the Bishop of Constantinople before him of Alexandria notwithstanding Pope Leo's disclaiming it was in full force and Authority Card. Cusanus Concord l. 2. c. 20. Ad An. 1088. Sigonius de Regno Ital. l. 7. Sigebert termeth the Pope absolving Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance to their Princes Novelty and Heresie Otho the Emperour deposed Pope John and assumed his antient right of Nomination to the Popedom The Popes usurped Authority over the Emperour was wrote against by Mcrsilius Occam Gerson Dante 's Zabarella Cusanus Tostatus Apud Bellarmin de Concil l. 1. c. 140. In Sent. lib. 4. dist 12. art 5. Part 3. qu. 83. Art. 1. Alliaco Antoninus and many others The Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass was unknown to Pope Lumbard who saith The Sacrament is called a Sacrifice because it is the Memorial and representation of the true Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross Aquinas expresseth his sense after the same manner The Celebration of this Sacrament is an image and representation of the passion of Christ quae est vera immolatio which is a true Immolation or Sacrifice and now its celebration dicitur is called the Immolation immolatio of Christ In Can. Missae Lect. 85. Loc. Treol l. 12. c. 12. p. 660. Biblioth l. 4. Concord c. 131. Decret part 3. de Consecrat dist 2. c. 48. Glossa in Grat. de Consecr See Canon of the Mass and Dr. Field in Append. Of the same judgement were Biel and Cornelius Muss a Bishop of note in the Council of Trent who as Canus and Sixtus Senensis relate openly denied that Christ instituted any proper Sacrifice of himself when he celebrated his Supper Jansenius acknowledgeth it can hardly be proved from Hoc facite Do this c. Instead of many more who might be added take the words of the Popes own Canon Law set out by Gregory XIII The sacramental Bread suo modo vocatur after its manner is called the Body of Christ when revera indeed it is the Sacrament of Christs Body and the immolation of his Flesh made by the Priest is termed his Passion death and crucifixion non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not in the truth of the thing but in a significant mystery The Gloss upon it is still more plain The Sacrament in regard it truly representeth Christs Flesh dicitur Christi corpus sed impropriè is called Christ's Body but improperly It is called Christs Body that is saith the Gloss significat it signifies it Communion in one kind The Ordo Romanus appointed the Wine allo to be consecrated De Observ Eccles c. 19. In 4. Dist 9. Prop. 6. Consult Art. 22. In 4. Sent. qu. 11. Mem. 3. V. Tapperum apud Cassandr de Commun sub utraque specie Ibid. qu. 31. that the people might fully communicate saith Micrologus Ovandus declares as also Cassander that it were better to grant the Cup to the people which was earnestly desired by the Emperours Ferdinand and Maximilian and under some good conditions permitted to the Bohemians Halensis a famous Schoolman granteth contrary to Bellarmine that it ought to be received under both kinds Which manner of receiving saith he Dominus tradidit our Lord delivered is majoris efficaciae of more efficacy and perfection Totus Christus non continetur sub utraquespecie 4. qu. 40. Aquin. in 6. Joann Alph. de Castro adv Haeres lib. 6. Serm. de Quadragess quoted by B. Juel as to Grace than to receive one onely Eccius Salmeron Lindanus Valentia Costerus Bellarmine Card. Bona confess that the Primitive Christians for many Ages yea say some for above one thousand years after Christ received the Sacrament in both kinds The custome of receiving in one kind had its first Original from the Manichean Hereticks as we learn from Pope Leo the Great P. Gelasius decrees That if they would not receive both they should be excluded from both Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester in his Book called the Devil's Sophistry ascribes its first beginning to the private superstitious Devotion of some indiscreet persons Others as Costerus in Enchir. to the connivance or negligence of Church Governours In the Mass-book it self there are as Dr. Field observes some expressions which imply In Append. in lib. 3. In Miss de Sanct. that the people were receivers of both kinds as particularly those words Cibo potuque refecti being refreshed with meat and drink in a Prayer after the receiving the Communion Again Sacramenta quae sumpsimus Domini prosint nobis c. Let the Sacraments Lord we have received be profitable to us To these add those words Quotquot sacrosanctum corpus sanguinem Filii tui sumpserimus V. Consult p. 238. Art. 24. quoted by Cassander As many of us as have received the body and bloud of thy Son. Gerardus Lorichius and Ruardus Tapperus are for the peoples receiving in both kinds See Dr. Field's Appendix to his second Book where are many clear Testimonies I had almost forgot Invocation of Saints Bannes 22. qu. 1. Art. 10. Conclus 2. a late learned Schoolman agreeth with Protestants that it hath no express grounds in Scripture In like manner Eccius in Enchirid. c. 15. De Venerat SS Suarez in 3. Thomae qu. 3. disput Lib. 1. de Eccles trium c. 6. 42. Salmeron in 1 Tim. cap. 2. disp 8. Bellarmine himself although to make a shew he alledg places out of the old Testament granteth that there was no Invocation of Saints before Christs Ascension in regard the Saints were then in Limbo and not admitted to the sight of God. The same is affirmed of the Saints under the New Testament by many of the most antient Fathers V. Sixtum Senens lib. 6. Annotat. 345. In 4. Sent. qu. 3. Irenaeus Tertullian Chrysostome to wit that