this chapter p. 287. l. 5. the word even must be put in the next line and read that even c. CYPRIAN IN HIS LXIII EPISTLE TO CAECILIVS §. 7. SPEAKING OF THE EVCHARISTICALL CVP. The holy Apostle teacheth that we must no manner of way swerve or depart from that which is commanded us in the Gospell and that the Disciples ought to practise and doe the same things which the Master hath done and taught And in the XI §. If Christ must be heard alone we ought not to regard what others before us have thought fitting to be done but what Christ who is before all hath done first For we must not follow the custome of man but the will of God The Commentary upon the first to the Corinth attributed to Saint Ambrose in the XI Chapter The Apostle saith that that man is unworthy of the Lord which celebrates this mysterie otherwise than it was celebrated by him For that man cannot be devout which presumes to doe otherwise than it was given us by the author THE ANATOMY OF THE MASSE FIRST BOOKE CHAP. I. THe Institution of the holy Supper by Christ Jesus as it is contained in the first Epistle of the Apostle Saint Paul to the Corinthians Chap. 11. 23 I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed tooke bread 24 And when he had given thankes hee brake it and said Take eate This is my body which is broken for you this doe in remembrance of me 25 After the same manner also he tooke the cup when he had supped saying This cup is the New Testament in my blood This doe ye as oft as you drink it in remembrance of me 26 For as often as ye eate this bread and drink this cup ye doe shew the Lords death till he come 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eate thiâ— bread and drinke this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the bodie anâ— blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man therefore examine himselfe and so let him eaâ—e of that bread anâ— drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnatioâ— to himselfe not discerning the Lords body Saint Mathew in the 26 Chap. and 29 Verse addes these words of the Lord. BVt I say unto you I will not drinke henceforth of this fruit of the Vine untill that day when I drinke it new with you in my Fathers Kingdome And in the 27 verse he testifieth that Christ presenting the cup to his Disciples said Drink ye all of it CHAP. II. Foure and thirty contrarieties between the Lords holy Supper and the Masse and how farre the Church of Rome is departed from the Institution of the Lord. NOne can deny but that our Lord Jesus did institute the holy Supper aright and as it ought And it were an impiety to find fault with his institution Therefore the shortest way yea the only meanes to end all our differences would be to come back to Christs institution and to speake as he spake and to doe as he did That is the thing which we desire and beg with so much earnestnesse and whereunto the Church of Rome can by no meanes agree For the Councell of Trent in the XXII Session denounceth Anathema on all those that shall say that in the Canon of the Masse there is any errour Yet neverthelesse it is evident that the Masse is nothing else but a changing and a disfiguring of the Lords Institution Whereof we will give some examples 1. Christ instituting the holy Supper among his Disciples spake in a knowne and intelligible tongue to the assistants On the contrary the Priest in the Masse speaketh in a tongue which the people understand not 2. Christ presenting the Cup to his Disciples said Drinke ye all of it And St. Paul in the 1 to the Cor. Chap. 11. vers 28. bids the people of Corinth to drink of the cup saying Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of that bread and drink of that cup. And in the 10. Chap. 17. Verse We are all partakers of one bread and of one cup according to the Version of the Romane Church solely authorised by the Councell of Trent 3. Christ in celebrating the Eucharist spake not of sacrificing his body and made no offering unto God his Father On the contrary the Priest in the Masse pretends to sacrifice Christs body and offereth him up to God in sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and for the dead without a warrant and without Gods command 4. Christ in the holy Supper made no elevation of the hoste as likewise the Apostle worshipped not the Sacrament but sat still at the Table On the contrarie the Priest in the Masse lifts up the hoste and maketh the people to worship it 5. Christ did not cause any bones nor reliques of Saints to be put under the sacred table and did not aske of God the remission of sinnes through the merits of those Saints whose reliques were under the table On the contrary the Priest in the Masse kissing the Altar speakes thus to God a Oramus te Domine per merita Sanctorum tuorum quorum reliquiae hic sunt omnium Sanctorum ut indulgere digneris omnia peccata mea We pray thee Lord through the merits of thy Saints whose reliques are here that thou wilt vouchsafe to pardon me all my sinnes 6. Christ said to his Apostles Take eate On the contrary in the Romane Church a great number of private Masses are sayd at the intention of such as pay for them without communicants and without assistants in which the Priest saith Take eate but there is no body either for to take or for to eate Yea even in publick Masses the Priest oftentimes eateth and drinketh alone 7. Three Evangelists viz. S. Matth. in the 26 chapter S. Marke in the 14. Chap. and S. Luke in the 22. and S. Paul in the eleventh chapter of the first to the Corinthians testifie that Christ gave bread to his Disciples saying He tooke bread and brake it and gave it Now the Sacrament is not given but after the consecration Christ therefore gave bread after the consecration And Saint Paul 1 to the Corinth Chap. 11. Verse 26.27 and 28. saith three severall times that we eate bread And in the 10 Chap. Verse 16. he saith that wee breake bread And in the 20 Chap. of the Acts Verse 7. it is said that the Disciples came together to breake bread On the contrary the Church of Rome teacheth that in the Eucharist no bread is eaten and that the bread is not broken but that which the Priest breakes in the Masse is the body of Christ which neverthelesse cannot be broken 8. Christ giving that bread said This is my body declaring that the bread that he gave was his body On the contrary the Romane Church teacheth that the bread is not the body of Christ But that the bread
the pronouncing of the words of Consecration For by these words This is my body the Priest offâ—reth nothing to God But every Sacrifice is an offering made unto God Furthermore in every Sacrifice he that sacrificeth addresseth himselfe to God but these words are addressed to the broad Which is more we have seene hereabove the Confession of our Adversaries acknowledging that in all this action Christ offered nothing to God Therefore he made no Sacrifice 11. It is to be noted that in the Roman Church the Order of Priesthood is a Sacrament whose it stitution they wil have to be found in the Institution of the Eucharist when the Lord said Doe this as if Christ by one and the same words had instituted two Sacraments With as much absurditie as if one would needs finde the Institution of Marriage or of Extreame Vnction in the institution of Baptisme That if these words Doe this in remembrance of mee bee the formall and expresse words whereby Christ conferred the Order of Priesthood how comes it to passe that the Bishops when they dâ—e conserre that Order in the Ember weeks make no mention of these words at all 12. Our Adversaries put two sorts of Sacrifice The one bloody the other unbloody which they call the Sacrifice of Melchisedek and which they say to be farre more excellent that the blooddy sacrifice and will have the Masse to be the Sacrifice after the Order of Melchisedek Whence followeth that the Masse is more excellent than Christs death which is a bloody Sacrifice It is great wonder then that the Apostle to the Hebrewes speaking so at large of the Priesthood of Melchisedek maketh not any mention at all of Masse nor of Eucharist 13. But how is it thay by these words Doe this in remembrance of mee Christ should command men to sacrifice him in the Masse since it is impossible to sacrifice Christ in remembrance of Christ seeing also that Saint Paul immediately after these words addeth the explication of them saying For as often as yee cate this bread and drink this cup ye doe shew the Lords death 1. Cor. 11. He teacheth us that to Doe this is to eate bread and drink the cup in remembrance of the Lords death Here therefore every man that seareâ— God and loves the Lord Jesus shal consider what a crime it is for moratal men and sinners to intrude and take upon themselves to Sacrifice the Eternall Sonne of God to his Father and to bee Priests after the Order of Melchisedek without charge and without commission CHAP. XXXIIII In what sence the holy Supper may be called a Sacrifice Of Melchisedeks Sacrifice And of the Oblation whereof Malachy speaketh THe holy Scripture calleth our Almes our Prayers our Praises and Thankesgivings and generally what worship soever wee render unto God Sacrifices In this sence the holy Supper may be called a Sacrifice For the question betweene us and our Adversaries is not whether the Eucharist may be calâ—ed a Sacrifiee But whether it be truly and properly a Sacrifice of redemption and whether the Priests in the Masse sacrifice the body of Christ really and truely for the sins of the quick and of the dead Touching that our Adversaries bring no manner of proofe out of the new Testament wherein neverthelesse the institution of this Sacrifice should appeare Only they all eadge out of the Old Testament the example of Melchisedek who as they say sacrificed bread and wine Gen. 14.18 Which they produce falsly for that place saith no such thing Melchisedek brought out bread and wine to Abraham for to refresh his wearieâ— troopes but offered not bread and wine to Abraham in Sacrifice The very Biblâ— of the Roman Church hath proferens and not offerens Neverthelesse we wil suppose that place to be faithfully alleadged For if the Masse be the Sacrifice oâ— Melchisedek it will follow that the Masse is a Sacrifice of bread and wine and not of slesh and bones and blood From thence it followeth also that the Masse is not a Sacrifice of redemption For bread and wine offered up in Sacrified cannot bee the price of our redemption It were an abuse to think that Melchisedek hath sacrificed bread for the redemption of any one The propitiatory sacrifices under the Old Testament were made by the death of the victime and no propitiation was made without shedding of blood saith the Apostle Heb. 9. â—2 In summe it is to speak against the commâ—n sence to argue thus Melchisedek offered bread and wins Therefore the Priest sacrificeth the Lords body and blood They object likewise a place of Malachy chap. 1. wherein God promiseth that in every place Incense shall be offered unto his Name and a pure offering Which is a Prophesie of the calling of the Gentiles whereby God foretels that among the â—â—tions and acceptable service shall bee offered unto him Of the Sacrifice of the Lords body he speaketh nothing of it The novelty of this service is that it shall be made among all Nations whereas in Malachies time â—it was but made in the Jewish Nation They say also that the Passeover of the Old Testament was a Sacrifice and by consequent that the Lords Supper that succeeded thereunto must be Sacrifice They speake with as much reason as if I should say that the night must be cleare because it succeedeth to the day which is bright and cleere and that old Age is strong and lusty seeing it succeedeth to yong Age which is strong and lusty The succession of one thing unto another bringeth commonly great alterations Adde to this that our Adversaries will not have the Masse to be such a Sacrifice as that Passeover was For the Passeover was not offered by the Priests and was not made upon the Altar of the Temple it was a domesticall sacrifice which particular men made at home in their own houses As it appeareth by the Passeover which Christ did celebrate among his Disciples in which no Priest was employed And even though by this example our Adversaries had prooved that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice yet there would remaine for them to prove that in this Sacrifice Christs body is really sacrificed CHAP. XXXV In what sense the Fathers have called the Eucharist a Sacrifice THe ancient Fathers indeavouring to draw the Heathen unto the Christian Faith who esteemed there is no Religion without sacrifice and the Jewes whose Religion under the Old Testament did chiefly consist in Sacrifices have called the holy Supper a Sacrifice and the Sacred Table an Altar and those that serve at it Levites But they shew sufficiently how they call the holy Supper a Sacrifice since they call it Eucharist that is to say Thankesgiving and not a Sacrifice of Propitiation Saint Austin calleth it indeed the Sacrifice of our price in the ninth Book of Confessions chapter 12. But wee have produced a multitude of places out of the same Father that say that in matter of Sacraments the signes are wont to take the name of
is no more bread and that it is transubstantiated into Christs body Now how the bread is Christs body himselfe teaches it when he adds that it is his commemoration Even as in the next line following he saith that the Cup is the New Testament because it is the signe and commemoration of it according to the stile of the Scripture that giveth to the signes and memorials the name of the thing which they doe signifie and represent 9. Christ called that which was in the cup the fruit of the Vine saying I will drinke no more of this fruit of the Vine On the contrary the Church of Rome teacheth that that which is in the cup is not the fruit of the Vine but blood And saith that in the Cup is not onely the very blood of Christ but also that his Body and his Soule and his Divinity is there and that the Body is whole in every drop of the Chalice Whereupon it followeth and the Roman Church beleeves it so that Christ dranke his flesh and swallowed downe his owne soule and body and ate himselfe and had his head in his mouth 10. The Evangelists doe record that Christ having taken bread blessed it But according to the Church of Romes doctrine which abolisheth the substance of the bread in the Eucharist Christ did not blesse the bread for to destroy a thing and reduce it to nought is not to blesse it 11. Christ distributing the bread and breaking it spake in the present tense saying b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod frangitur This is my body which is broken for you Whereby it appeareth that by his body he meant the Sacrament or commemoration of his body For Christs naturall body cannot be broken To shun the force of this argument the Latin Version of the Romane Church hath corrupted this place and in stead of these words Which is broken for you hath turned Which shall bee delivered for you 1. Cor. 11.14 Quod pro vobis tradetur putting delivering for breaking and the future for the present And indeed our Adversaries are mightily pestered to tell us what it is that the Priest breaketh in the Masse Doth he breake bread But they say that it is no more bread Doth he breake Christs body But it cannot be broken and they themselves say that it is whole and entire in the least crum of the hoste as big and as large as it was upon the crosse Doth he breake the Accidents of bread which most fraudulously they call species viz. the taste the colour and roundnesse of the hoste But these things cannot bee broken Can a man make peeces of taste or of whitenesse None but bodies can bee broken 12. The Apostle Saint Paul conforming himselfe to the Lords institution saith in the 10 chapter of the 1â— to the Corinthians 16 Verse that the bread which we breake is the communion of the body of Christ The Church of Rome gaine says and contradicteth every word of this sentence The Apostle saith that it is bread The Church of Rome on the contrary saith that it is not bread The Apostle saith that it is bread which we breake On the contrary the Church of Rome saith that it is flesh which we doe not breake The Apostle saith that this bread is the communion of the body of Christ On the contrary the Church of of Rome saith that this bread is Christs body it selfe Behold then a cleare and a plaine exposition of these words This is my body given by the Apostle to wit The bread which I breake is the communion of my body and not that which the Church of Rome giveth viz. That which is under these species is transubstantiated into my body 13. It is very considerable that the same Apostle in the same chapter and 21 verse maketh an opposition between the Lords table and the table of devils saving Ye cannot be partakers of the Lords table and of the table of Devils The reason of the opposition sheweth plainely that as to be partaker of the table of Devils is not to eate Devils * But to be partaker of the meat consecâ—ated to Devils So to be partaker of Christs Table is not to eaâ— Christ but to be partaker of the meaâ— consecrated by Christ in remembrane of Christ and of his death 14. Christ in distributing the breaâ— and the cup said Doe this in remembranâ—â— of me These words shew manifestly thaâ— the Priest maketh not Christ in the Masse and sacrificeth him not For it is impossible to make Christ in remembrance of Christ It is impossible to sacrifice Christ in remembrance of Christ Can a man build a house in remembrance of that house Did Aaron sacrifice a Lamb in remembrance of that Lambe Besides that the remembrance is but of things absent and past as Saint Austin saith upon the 37 Psalme Nemo recordatur nisi quod in praesentia non est positum No remembrance can be had but of things that are not present The councell of Trent declareth indeed that Christ by these words Doe this commanded that he should be sacrificed in the Masse But besides that Christ cannot be sacrificed in remembrance of Christ the Apostle Saint Paul presently after these words Doe this in remembrance of mee addeth the explication saying For as often as ye eate of this bread and drinke of this cup ye doe shew the Lords death till he come Will we therefore know what is to Doe this Saint Paul teacheth us that it is to eate this bread and drinke of this cup for to shew and declare the remembrance of Christ his death 15. Our Lord Jesus brake the bread before he pronounced the words which they call the words of consecration He tooke the bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it saying This is my body which is broken for you Whereby it followeth by the doctrine of the Roman Church that he brake bread unconsecrated and untransubstantiated On the contrary in the Roman Church the Priest breaks the hoste after the words of consecration to the end the people may beleeve that he breaketh and sacrificeth the very body of Christ Our adversaries then confesse that the Priest breaketh an other thing than Christ brake Some for to arme themselves against the Apostle which saith that the bread that we breake is the communion of the body of Christ tell us that Saint Paul saith that we breake bread because that when he did minister this holy Sacrament he did break afore he consecrated following Christs example and consequentlâ— did breake unconsecrated bread Brâ—â— those that speake so contradict the Râ—man Church which doth not beleeâ—â— that the fraction of the unconsecrated bread is the communion of the body of Christ 16. The same Apostle 1. Cor. 11.28 saith Let a man examine himselfe and sâ— let him eate OF this bread Which is the same kind of speech used by Christ saying Bibite ex eo omnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Drinke yee all
OF it The Apostle commands us to eate OF this bread that is to say to take every one his part and portion of it and Christ saying Drinke ye all of it bids the Communicants to take their share of the cup. This manner of speaking is become absurd in the Roman Church who by this bread understand Christ himselfe For they would esteeme that man to be mad or a mocker that should say that we eate every one his portion of Christ body 17. Christ presenting the cup to his Disciples said in the present tense that it was his blood which is shed for many Where manifestly he speaketh of a Sacramentall and not of a reall effusion For our adversaries confesse that in the Masse the blood of Christ is not shed out of the body and goeth not out of the Veines He therefore speaketh of a Sacramentall effusion which is respective to the real effusion made upon the crosse We aske then whether the Priest in the Masse drinketh that blood of Christ which came out of his side and wounds upon the crosse If they answer that the Priest drinks not that blood of the Lord which issued forth of his body upon the crosse but that blood which remained in the body and is there still thereby they confesse that the Priest drinks not the same blood which Christ will have us to drink For he commands us expressly to drinke the blood shed for us But if they answer that the Priest drinketh the same blood which the Lord shed upon the crosse then they presuppose rashly and without word of God that that blood which came out of the Lords body is gotten in againe All this abuse comes for lack of considering that in the holy Supper Christs body is represented unto us and presented to our faith as suffering and broken and dying and dead for us and his blood as shed and issued out of his body Whereas on the contrary the Romane Church hath a conceit that she receive the spirituall glorious body of Christ and his blood enclosed within the body and within the veines 18. The Apostle Saint Paul 1. Cor. 1◠And Saint Luke chap. 22. record th◠Christ said This cup is the New Testame◠in my blood If by this word of cup th◠blood must be understood the sence 〈◊〉 these words shall be This blood is th◠New Testament in my blood By that meanes loe here two kinds of blood of Christ whereof the one shall be within the other 19. Christ in celebrating the holy Supper said Doe this in remembrance of me And Saint Paul hath told us here above that in earing this bread we doe shew his death On the contrary the Priest in the Masse saith that he celebrateth In the first place the remembrance of the Virgin Mary saying Communicantes memoriam venerantes in primis gloriosae semperque Virginis Mariae Communicating and solemnizing in the first place the remembrance of the glorious Virgin Mary leaving Christ behind As Gabriel Biell saith in the 32 Lesson of the Canon of the Masse First and principally the remembrance is made of the most blessed Virgin Mary because saith he she is the most safe sanctuary of our calamities and hath beene the administratrix and dispensatrix of this sacrifice and all the reason of our hope 20. In the whole institution of the Eucharist there is no mention made of the Saints neither is there any command to pray unto Saints No word of the intercession of Angels On the contrary the Priest in the Confiteor of the Masse prayes Michael the Archangel and John the Baptist and all the Saints to pray for him There are some Masses in which the Letany is rehearsed which is but a long chaine of prayers unto Saints In the Masse they blesse the Encense through the intercession of Michael the Archangell The Priest askes of God that he would be pleased to command his Angell to take the consecrated hoste and to carry it up to heaven And for an excesse of abuses at the offertory of the Masse the Priest saith he makes that oblation in honour of the Virgin Mary and of the Saints As if the holy Supper were instituted in honour of the creatures That truely is to put the creatures above Christ As when a man gives almes in Gods honour he presupposeth that God is more excellent than the Alme 21. S. John in the 13 chapter and 2 verse witnesseth that in the action o◠the holy Supper the Divel entred int◠Judas But our adversaries with mos◠of the Fathers hold that Judas was pertaker of the Eucharist with the rest o◠the Disciples They will therefore tha◠both Christ and the Divel have entre◠together into Judas So they give unto Christ a very unsutable companion and truely the Sonne of God and the Divel had been very ill lodged together 22. We agree in this point with ou◠adversaries that Christ ate and dranke with his Disciples and was partaker of the holy Sacrament He sheweth it himselfe sufficiently when after he had delivered the cup he said I will drinke no more of this fruit of the Vine Whereby it followeth that after the doctrine of the Romane Church Christ did eate himself and swallowed his owne body and soule and had his whole body in his mouth and in his stomacke By this meanes Christs passible body devoured the impassible body Whereupon it were good to know what Christs body did within the body of Christ and how Christs soule could enter into Christs body seeing that it was in already And since that that which containeth and that which is contained are severall things and that nothing containeth it selfe by this doctrine it is evident that they make Christ to have two bodies the one of which was contained within the other And since that to eat ones selfe is a more admirable thing than the Creation of the World it is not credible that Christ did eat himself without some great profit should come thereby for our salvation Yet our adversaries produce none at al. For to prop so extravagant a doctrin and which exposeth the Christian Religion to laughter our adversaries alledge a place out of S. Austin upon the 33 Psal where he saith that in this Sacrament Christ did cary himself in his own hands But Austin saith not only that he did cary himself in his own hands But he saith Ipse se portabat quodam mode cum diceret Hoc est corpus meum he did carry himself in a manner when he said This is my body So a man that carries his owne picture in his hands carries himself in a maner Even as it would be a sencelesse speech to say that the Moon is the Moon in a manner so i◠that which Christ carried in his hands was his true body it would be a foolish thing to say that it was his body in some kinde For concerning the sense of these words This is my body S. Austin expounds them plainely enough in
17. Genis Pactum hoc loco sumitur pro signo pacti Emâ—a Sa Primâ—edâ—tio eâ—â— Notis Pactum id est sâ—num pacti because it was the signe and remembrance of it So in the twelfth of Exodus the Sacrament of the Pascall Lambe is called the Passe-over because it was a memoriall of the Passeover of the Augell sparing the houses of the Israclites And Saint Paul 1. Corinth 10. speaking of the Rock which gusht out waters in the Wildernesse saith that this Rocke was Christ because it was the sigure of Christ As Austin saith in the Eighteenth Booke of the City of God Chapter 48. b Dâ—â—tum 〈◊〉 Aâ—â—sâ—â—â—â— pâ—â—ra Gaâ— Christus quia 〈◊〉 â—lla 〈◊〉 quahoâ— dâ—â—â—â—m est 〈◊〉 â—â—â—abat 〈◊〉 the Apostle saith the Rocke was Christ because that Rocke did signisie Christ And in the 57 question upon the Leviticus The thing which signifieth is wont to beare the name of the thing signified as it is written Seven eares of corne are seven yeares and seven kine are seven yeares and many such like things a Hine est quod dictuÌ„ est Petra crat Christus Non enim dixit petra signisicabat Christum sedtanquâ—â— hoc esseâ— quod utique per substantiam non hoc erat sed per signâ—ficationem Thence comes what is said that the Rocke was Christ he did not say the Rocke signifieth Christ but as if it were that which it was not in substance but onely by signification Pope Innocent the third in the fourth Booke of the Mysteries of the Masse chapter 7. saith Petra erat Christus id est significabat Christum The Rocke was Christ that is to say did signifie Christ And Aquinas in the Exposition of this Epistle b Petra erat Christus non per substantiuÌ„ sed per sig nificatione The Rock was Christ not in substance but by signification Lombardus in his Commentary upon this Chapter c B bebant de petra spirituali sâ—â—â—et quae Christum sign sicâ—â— bat They did drink of the Rock which signified Christ Which thing is confirmed by that word Was. For Bellarmin that doth invert these words and translateth Christ was the Rocke seemes to imply that Christ was then the Rock but is not now And the same Apostle to the Romans Chapter 6.4 saith Wee are buryed in Christs death by Baptisme because Baptisine signifieth to us that our sins are as buried with Christ and that we are to be made conformable to 〈◊〉 death And without extending my selfe further upon this Christ giving the Cur said This Cup is the New Testament iâ— my blood Wherein there is two figures as Salmeron the Jesuite saith truely a Salm. Tomo IX Tra. XV. pag. 98. 99. Subest in his verhis duplex Motonymia prima qua contmens ponitur pro contento id est poculum sive calix pro vino co quod vinum in ipso continetur Altera est qua contentum in poctelo id est sanguis sub specie vin soedus vel Testamentum diatur Novum cum sit ejus symbolum propter sâ—â—cies There is saith he a double Metonymie by which the continent is put for the thing contained that is to say the Cup for the wine contained therein the other that that which is contained in the Chalice iâ—â— called the Covenant or Testament for that it is the symbole or signe of it because of thâ— species And a little after b Idem ibidem pag. 100 Dicitur sanguis Novum Testâ—mentum sicut circumcisio dicitur foedus quia illud foedus representar The blood iâ— called the New Testament as the Circumcision is called the Covenant because it representeth that Covenant And Thomas Aquinas in his Commentary upon the eleventh chapter of the first to the Corinthians c Hic calix est N. T. in meo sanguint quasi dicat Per id quod in bâ—câ—aâ—â—ce contiâ—â—ur commâ—â—â— ratur N. T. c. This Cup is the New Testament in my blood as if be did say By that which is contained in this cup is made a commemoration of the New Testament which was confirmed by Christs blood And Emanuel Sa the Jesuit in the first edition of his notes upon the first to the Corinthians Chapter 11. saith that the word IS implies as much as containeth or signifieth This manner of speaking is ordinary to say a mourning suite because it is a signe of mourning a celestial Spheare for the figure of a heavenly Spheare And in shewing of Mappes to say This is France and that is Spaine And to be lodged at the Eagle or at the Swan for the signe of the Eagle or of the Swan So doth Saint Austin say in the fifty seventh question upon Leviticus The thing which signifieth is wont to be called by the name of the thing signified And Theodoret in the first Dialogue speaking of these words This is my body saith that the Lord gave unto the signe the name of his body And Tertullian in his fourth Booke against Macion chapter 40. He made it to be his body saying This is my body that is to say the sigure of my body Saint Austin in the 23 Epistle to Bonisâ—ce is very expresse If Sacraments had not some resemblance of the things whereof they be Sacraments they would be no Sacraments But because of this resemblance they take very often the name of the things themselves Even then as the Sacrament of Christs body is in a manneâ— the body of Christ so the Sacrament of faith to wit Baptisme is faith Note that he saith that the Sacrament of Christs body is the body of Christ after the same manner as Baptisme is faith Therefore our Adversaries say very ignorantly that figures elsewhere are receiveable but in the Articles of faith and institution of a Sacrament figures are no way convenient or agreeable For we have produced many examples of figures in the institution of Sacraments and they themselves acknowledge two figures in these words This Cup is the New Testament And touching the Articles of faith the Creede saith that Christ sitteth at the right hand of God which is a figurative kinde of speech for God hath no right hand The wh le Gospell is comprized under thâ—se words Jâ—sus is the Lambe of G d and all Popery is grounded upon these word Vpon this Rock will â—â—uild my Church â—nd I will give thee the keeps of the kingdome of heaven which he all figurative words And it is to be observed that when Christ instituted this holy Sacrament he spake in the Jewish language which is a dialect of the Syrian tongue saying * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro cadavere 1. Sam. 17.46 Amos. 6.3 Es 14.19 2. Paral. 20.24 Gen. 15.11 Num. 19.29 Hâ—n in pagri that is to say This my dead body supplying the word IS after the manner of the Hebrewes and Syrians He did then say to his Disciples that hee gave them his dead body Which could not be true but in
corporis ejus sanguinisque contineant c. The Sacrament of Adoption to wit Baptisme may be called the Adoption even as we call the Sacrament of his body and blood which is in the bread and in the consecrated Cup his body and blood Not that to speake properly the bread is his body and the Cup his blood But because they containe in them the mystery of his body and blood This Book of Facundus drawn out of the Vatiean Library was published by Jacobus Sirmoudus a Jesuite who for this cause was suspected And I heare he hath been in trouble about it a Turrian li. 1. de Eucharist c. 18. §. Ad illud Vasq in 3. part Thomae Tomo 3. Dis 180. c. 9 pag. 107. Greg de Val. lib. de Trans c. 7. Sicut enim antequam sactificetur panis paneÌ„ nominamus divina auteÌ„ illum sanclificante gratia incdiante Sacerdote liberatus quideÌ„ est ab appellatione panis â—lignus habiâ—us est Dominici corporis appellatione etiamsi natura panis in co remansit Turrianus and Vasquez and Gregory of Valentia Jesuites object unto themselves a place of Chrysostome in his Epistle to Caesarius which Epistle also is in Biblioth Patr. Printed at Colen anno 1618 in the 8 Tome That place is such Afore the bread be sanctified we coll is bread But the divine grace sanctifying it by the meanes of the Priest it is freed indeed from the appellation of bread and is honored with the name of the body of the Lord though the nature of bread remaine in it These Iesuites answer that this place is not of John Chrysostome but of another John of Constantinople Which they say without proofe Yet it matters not for it sufficeth they acknowledge that place to bee of an ancient Author The 8 Books of Apostolicall Constitutions attributed to Clement the first Bishop of Rome are not of him Neverthelesse these Books are ancient and there is much good to be learned in them In the 5 Book chap. 16. it is said that b Cum verâ— anttypa mysteria pretiosi Corporis sanguinis sui nobis tradidisset Christ having given the figurative mysteries of his body and blood went to the mount of Olives And in the 7 Book chap. 26. c Etiam agimus gratias tibi Pater pro pretioso sanguine Iesu Christi qui effusuâ— est pro nobis et pro pretioso corpore cujus haec Antitypa perficimus We give thee thankes for the precious blood of Christ which was shed for us and for the precious body whereof we performe the signes by his command for to shew forth his death There would never be an end if wee should gather up all the places of the ancient Fathers wherein they say that that which we receive in the Eucharist is bread and that the bread and wine are Signes Symboles Figures and Antitypes of the body and blood of the Lord I will adde but two Canons of a Councell which are very formall The 24 Canon of the III Councell of Carthage is such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let nothing be offered in the sacred service but the body and blood of the Lord as also the Lord hath ordained it that is to say nothing but bread and wine mingled with water The same Canon is found repeated in the very same words in the Councell of Trull in the Canon 32 aswell in the Greeck as in the Latin Copies Upon which Canon Baâ—samon maketh this Commentary The two and thirtieth Canon of the Councell of Trull hath ordained very at large a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the nonbloody Sacrifice was made with bread and wine mingled with water because that the bread is the figure of the body of the Lord and the wine the figure of his blood Here is then above two hundred Bishops gathered in a Councell that interpret these words the body and blood of Christ by the bread and wine mingled with water The same Councell in the 23 Canon ordaineth that when a man officiates at the Altar the Prayer must always be directed to the Father Whence appeareth manifestly that then they worshipped not the Sacrament seeing that the Councel forbiddeth when men assist at the Altar to addresse their Prayers to Christ If this hoste be Christ it must be worshipped and by consequent invocated And that it may appeare how lately this opinion of Transubstantiation was received in the Tome de Divinis officiis which is in Biblioth P atr we have an Epistle of that Great Emperor Carolus Magnus where he saith b Cum adaltare assistitur semper ad Patrem d rigatur oratio Christ supping with his Disciples brake bread and gave them likewise the Cup in figure of his body and blood This Epistle happily might bee written about the yeare of our Lord 800. Walefridus Strabo who wrote about the yeare 850 in his Book of Ecclesiasticall things chap. 16. c Christus coenando cii discipulis panem fregit calicem pariter cis dedit in figuram corporis sanguinis sui In coena quam ante traditioneÌ„ suaÌ„ ultimaÌ„ cum discipulis habu t post Paschae veteris solemnia corporis et saÌ„guinis sui SacrameÌ„ta in panis et vini substaeÌ„tia cisdeÌ„ discipulis suis tradidit et ea in coÌ„memorationeÌ„ sanctissimae suae passionis celebrare perdocuit The Lord at the last Supper he made with his Disciples afore he was betrayed after he had made an end of the solemnity of the ancient Passeover gave to his Disciples the sacred signes of his body and blood in the SVBSTANCE of the bread and wine and taught them to celebrate them in remembrance of his most holy Passion Rupertus Abbot of Deutsch neare Colen who lived in the yeare 1112. and whose works are yet extant hath condemned Transubstantiation and taught that the Substance of bread remaineth after the Consecration Here are his words upon the 12 chap. of Exodus d Rup Tuitiensis in Exo. 12. Sicut Christus humâ—na naturam nec mutavâ—â— nec destruâ—â—â— sed assumpsit ita in SacrameÌ„to nec destruit nec mutat substantiaÌ„ panis vini sed assumit in unitatem cororis et sanguinis sui Even as Christ neither changed nor destroyed the humane nature but joyned himselfe to it So in the Sacrament he neither destroyeth nor changeth the substance of the bread and wine but joyneth himselfe to it in the unity of his body and blood This place of Rupertus is alleadged by Salmeron in the 16 Treatise of the IX Tome § Ruit and Bellarmin in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers alleadgâ—s out of him many such like places and blameth him for it To so many places that say that the substance of the bread remaineth after the Consecration our Adversaries do reply that by the word of Substance the Fathers understand the Accidents As it is a great absurdity by the word of Accidents to understand the Substance So