is double the one visible and corruptible which is receiued with the hand and entreth into the body by the mouth of the faithfull to wit the Bread and Wine The other inuisible and incorruptible to wit the body broken and the Bloud of Iesus shed vpon the Crosse which is applyed to the soule of the faithfull for their sanctification and redemption As for the forme it is prescribed in the Gospel on the pastors part to take the bread into his handes to blesse it breake it distribute it to the people likewise to take the Wine to blesse it and giue it to all the Church to drinke thereof which are capable of it and to signifie vnto them the benefite of that Sacrament On the part of the faithfull Math. 26. Mar. 14. Luke 22.1 Cor. 11. hauing examined themselues they ought to present themselues to that holy communion take it eate and drinke that visible element with the mourh of their body and by faith to participate of the body blood of our Saviour apprehend the merit of his death the effect of his resurrection and the efficacy of his ascension As for the End it is to magnifie the bountie of God to render him thanks to accept his accordment made in the new Testament to receaue there the pledge and assurance of a better life to protest our fidelitie to his service from the vnion which we haue with him then with his mysticall body the Church receauing from him our spirituall nourishment so participating of that quickning bread to wit all his benefits his wisdome his iustice his sanctification redemption So then the vnion which we haue with our Saviour is reall but that is as much to say as reipsa for in regard of the veritie of it we are vnited vnto him and it is likewise spirituall in respect of the meanes whereby it is wrought which is the spirit and faith With this truth and this simplicity the faithfull of the first ages contented themselues and if they vsed the termes of sacrifice and oblation it was not either to play the Pagans or Iewes much lesse to crucify againe our Saviour as it hath beene proued before But as falshood is an ape of the truth the spirit of error hath falsified this testament strucke of her seales turned the things bequeathed to other vses depriued the legataries of their legacies inserted divers clauses to their owne profit and to be briefe hath so disguised and adulterated the coppies that from thence one can no more expect ayd for his salvation Wherefore the truely faithfull doe charge that instrument with falsehood haue recourse to the first draught of it in the Gospel and take no lesse care of the salvation of their soules then of the keeping of an heritage fearing as much false doctrine as to receaue false coyne righting themselues from the confessions of the forgers themselues doe finde great light for the discovery of these falshoods To this purpose confessed an ancient Abbot Rupert Tuit l. 2. cap. 21. that the Masse was not celebrated in times past with such apparell as it is now adaies and that it was not polisht by one alone in such sort as it is now c. and that it is not a whit the holyer for that considering that heretofore it was consecrated only with the words of our Lord and ioyning of the Lords prayer And a Bishop of Rome saith Greg. epist ex reg lib. 7. c. 63. Platin. in Xisto the Lords prayer is said incontinently after the other prayers because the Apostles were accustomed to consecrate the oblation of the host in saying only the Lords prayer Whence it appeares that the body of the Masse which is the Canon is not at all essentiall vnto it and that the soule of it which is transubstantiation was not infused into that body vntill by the Councell of Lateran in the yeare 1205. We must therefore here resume the first paths we must take away the hay durt and strawe from this building and ioine our selues to the foundation of the Apostles doing like those which goe astray return by their owne steps to finde the true way Wee shall finde Iustin Martyr writing about an hundred and sixtie yeares after the birth of Christ and wee shall note in reading him that water was mingled with the wine about 40 yeares before Iustin Apolog. 2. by Pope Xistus or Alexander See how he describes the celebration of divine service in his time The day saith he which is called Sunday an assembly is made of all those which abide in the fields or cities into one place and there are read the Commentaries of the Apostles and the writings of the Prophets so long as the time will permit Afterwards the reader hauing left off to read hee which is president in the assembly makes an exhortation to the people in a Sermon admonishing them to imitate those good things after that is finished all doe rise vp together and make our prayers vnto God hee saith not to any Saint and as we said before that prayer being done the bread the wine and the water are brought forth and hee that performeth that action pronounceth with all his might prayers and thanksgiuings the people there ioyne their voices their affections and their blessing saying Amen Then a distribution is made to every one and a communication of those things which were blessed with thanksgiuing The people were not then excommunicated I aske let any man speake in cōscience if that forme be not practised in the reformed Churches and why will not they follow it is it not the ambition of Prelats which hindreth them from acknowledging their fault and avarice which retaines them in a commodious errour whilst in the meane time the simple drinke the folly of their conductors great ones contributing their authority the people their violence the ignorāt their fury O Lord order proceeds from thee thou hast the hearts of kings in thine owne hands deliuer vs from popular seditions Let vs thinke that not the sacrament alone hath beene liable to abuse for even the tree of life the sacrifices of Moses the brasen Serpent which was a firgure of our Lord and many other divine institutions haue beene subiect to reformation after 900 yea after 1000 yeares of abuse and idolatry And as for the supper wee see how that that hath beene casheerd by the Masse the tables of wood by the tables of stone the Churches simplicitie by Iewish and heathenish superstition although some of these things might at the first haue beene introduced with a good intention Harken therefore to the advice of a good Cordelier named Ferus speaking of the idolatry which befel in Israel There was saith he a double sinne in Gedeon Ioh. Ferus in annot in lib. Iud. c. 8. both in that hee made an Ephod contrary to the word of God and in that he seeing the abuse of it tooke it not away Now
27 When in the Church the bread and the wine are brought forth being antitypes of the body and blood of him those which partake of the visible bread doe eate his body and his blood spiritually And that which the Priest saith after he hath taken the Eucharist shewes that there is no transubstantiation for after the consecration he saith quod ore sumpsimus c de munere temporali fiat c also the prose sub diuersis speciebus signis tantum non rebus latent res eximiae the Sacraments are termed signes not things Chrys ad Caesar mon. And S. Chrysostome saith that the bread is called by the name of our Lord although the nature of bread doe yet continue The same said Pope Gelasius writing 1000 yeares after our Sauiour Gelas contra Eutich Car. lib. de diuin eff pag. 85. Tertull. lib 4. cont Marcion Chrys 1. Cor. c. 10. Amb. de iis qui init myst c. 9. Can. ante benedict dist 2. de consec Dionys de eccles Hierarch c 3. Aug. in Psal 3. Aug. contra Adim manich c. 12. and Charlemaine writing to Alcuinus his Master hath these wordes In supping with his disciples hee brake the the bread and gaue it vnto them and likewise the cup as figures of his body and blood And Tertullian Christ hauing taken the bread and distributed it to his disciples he made it his body in saying this is my body that is to say the figure of my body And Chrysostome What is that which the bread signifieth the body of Christ And Ambrose Before the blessing of those heau'nly words another kinde was named but after the consecration the body of Christ is signified And Saint Denis By the venerable signes of the Sacrament Iesus Christ is signified and receiued And S. Augustine saith that he eateth Christ which eateth him within and not without which eateth him in his heart and not he which feedeth on him with his teeth In his 26 tract vpon Saint Iohn The patience of Iesus Christ was admirable in that he admitted Iudas to the banquet in the which he instituted and gaue to his disciples the figure of his body and of his blood The Lord made no difficulty to say this is my body when he gaue them the figure of his body and his blood And in the canon taken out of Saint Hierome vpon the Epistle to the Ephesians it is said that the body of Iesus Christ is two wayes vnderstood the first carnally when it is said that it is crucified Euseb de vita const lib 10. c. 3 Maldonat Iesuit in Ioh. c. 6 v. 55. the other spiritually when is is called bread So are the Sacraments called by Eusebius secret Symboles of the passion of our Sauiour Againe he calls his flesh true food and blood true drinke because it doth truly nourish our soules and giues vnto them life euerlasting As in the 32 verse he calls himselfe true bread yet certainely not of nature for if one regard nature he is not true and proper bread but onely in respect of the effect because hee truely doth doe that which bread vseth to doe And Saint Augustine The Apostle saith Aug. ad Bonifac epist 23. wee are buried with Christ through Baptisme into his death hee saith not that wee signifie his burying but hee saith absolutely that we are buried Wherefore hee called not the Sacrament of so great a thing otherwise then by the name of the thing it selfe And the same puts downe this rule Aug. quaest super Leuit. 67. the thing which signifieth hath beene vsed to bee called by the name of that which it signifieth as it is written the seuen eares of corne are seuen yeares hee saith not that they signifie seuen yeares so likewise the seuen kine are seuen yeares and many others From thence it commeth that it was said the rocke was Christ for it is not saide the rocke signifieth Christ but as if it had beene that which it was not in substance but in signification Now that which hath brought in this errour is that they thinke that faith cannot produce any reall effect Heb. 11. and neuerthelesse wee haue the Scriptures full of contrary examples by faith Enoch was translated that hee should not see death through faith Sara conceiued by faith the Israelites passed through the red sea by faith the walles of Iericho fell downe And as for corporall manners of speaking attribubuted to the soule as when it is said that faith eateth and drinketh they enforce not any communication of the proprieties of the body any more then when it is said that the soule heareth and seeth although it haue neither eares nor eyes The effects therefore of the spirit are reall and true although the meanes and causes be spirituall for otherwise the Angels which killed the first borne in Egypt and defeated the Army of Senacherib because they had not bodies could not haue done that reall execution whereas indeede it was so much the more reall by how much the instrument was the more agile and disburdned of that corporall Masse which is an impediment to our actions Obiections There remaine now the Obiections whereof the first is that vnder the Ghospell all figures cease Where wee must distinguish of figures for sometimes they are taken for Rhetoricall figures and manners of speech which they call Tropes and those cease not for the Ghospell is full of them as for example Iesus is called the Lambe the Hedge the way by a Metaphore and euen in this place the cuppe is taken for the wine by a Metonomie Sometimes figures are taken for the ceremonies of the Law which prefigured Christ and his sacrifice These indeed cease in the reformed Churches but not in the Romane For if wee may beleeue Biell Titleman and others there were neuer more figures vnder the olde Law then are now vnder the new See the significations of the Altar the kissing of it the right hand and the left the turnings of the Priest the signes and a thousand significations and inuentions which wee know notwithstanding to haue ceased Wee answere therefore that figures doe not cease in the former signification but the later The second obiection is taken from the omnipotency of God who is able to make a body to be every where to bee invisible and existe without its accidents To this wee must answer that by this argument Mahumet and his abominations may be maintained for God is able to doe any thing But before we imploy this omnipotency we ought to examine if such be his will and then wee may boldly conclude that hee can doe it for the proposition is not convertible God can doe all that he will Aug. Euchirid c. 96. and God will doe all that hee can This is taught vs by S. Augustine God is not called omnipotent for any other reason then for that hee is able to doe all that which he is willing to doe and that the effect of his
For if it might be saith Origen vpon the 15 chap of Mat. that the wicked should eat the word which is made flesh it had never beene written whosoever shall eat this bread shall liue eternally The reason hereof is evident for seeing that the flesh and bloud are eaten only by the faithful and are receaued only by faith this body cannot bee eaten vnworthily For as S. Augustine saith Lib. 5. cont Donatistas tract in Iohan. 26. We are not to conceaue that the wicked doe eat the body of Christ although hee carnally and visibly doe breake with his teeth the signes of the body and bloud Note that he saith signes for S. Paul saith not whosoeuer eateth this body vnworthyly but whosoeuer eateth of this bread drinketh of this cup. Which eating of the meere signe is sufficient to make any man culpable which approacheth vnworthily and reiecteth the grace which his prince offereth him trampling vnder foot his armes and iniuring his ambassadour Heb. 10.26.28 which are no lesse then crymes of high nature offered to his sacred maiestie So the contempt of circumcision was a cause of Gods forsaking his people see more in the punishment of the Bethsamites for prying within the Arke of the covenant Gen. 17. 1. Sam. 7 36. 6.19 and of the Philistians who placed it in the temple of their Idoll Inn. de sacram altaris c. 4 13. 14. pâ—nem domini non panem dominum The fifteenth reason is taken from the wordes which S. Paul vseth that hee is culpable and receiueth his owne damnaon eating vnworthily the bread of the Lord. So Iudas eate the bread of the Lord but not the bread which is the Lord saith Innocent Whence it followeth that there is no transubstantiation considering that after the consecration he speaketh of two breades the one Panis domini the bread of the Lord which is the wheaten loafe the other Panis Dominus the bread which is the Lord to wit the true body of Iesus Christ the one in Heauen the other on earth the one receiued with the hand and the mouth of the body the other with faith which is the hand and mouth of the soule the one offered by the minister of the Church the other by Iesus Christ himselfe Wherefore S Paul saith that he which eateth and drinketh vnworthily discerneth not the Lords body Where to discerne διακÏίνειν is as much as to separate the one from the other and to haue a diuers respect of either for if there be but one there can be neither discerning nor distinguishing The sixteenth reason is taken from hence that the pretended change made by the pronouncing of words will accuse them in that they haue not the power to change as wel the accidents as the substance nor to conuert the forme as well as the matter And they must needes interprete these words this is my body in this manner this substance with his accidents is changed into an other substance without accidents The seuenteenth is taken from that which the Apostle saith You shall declare the Lords death vntill his comming 1. Cor. 11.26 For if we are not to celebrate this action but vntill his comming by a consequent there ought not to bee any more Masses said for according to the Priests doctrine Christ hath often descended already vnto vs. The eightenth is that we are not to celebrat the memory of things present but of those which are absent and therefore seeing that this is a commemoration of Iesus Christ it followeth that he is not there carnally present The nineteenth is taken from the letter to which the Priests so much sticke for this is my body makes not whole Christ and consequently the Priest in pronouncing those words vnderstands him not wholly and therefore ought not to adore him as is before said Numb 23. The twentieth reason is taken from the testimony of Cyrill before cited that the Sacrament is life vnto euery man Cyrill lib. 4. in Ioh. c. 19. is death vnto none whosoeuer he be that receiueth it So that if there were a true transubstantiation of the breade Pope Victor the 3. and the Emperour Henry the 7. would not haue beene poysoned with the bread and wine transubstantiated for neither the body nor bloud glorified is capable of poyson Exod. 16.15 78.25 Joseph Angles in storibus 4. quaest de susc diffic 2. Alexand Hales part 4. q. 45. m. 1. c. The one and twentieth reason for it is behoofull to haue iust furniture is taken from Manna a figure of this Sacrament which though it were not transubstantiated yet was it stiled the bread of Angels and Heau'nly bread and that which was reserued thereof in the Arke putrified not wherfore the bread which is in the Masse is not the naturall and carnall body of our Lord For if it were it would haue no lesse vertue in it to guard it then its legall figure had to preserue it selfe from wormes mice and other creatures with which the Priests stand at mortall enmity this day The last reason is taken from hence that our Sauiour ought to be adored with one onely kinde of adoration before and after his incarnation for the incarnation cannot be a cause of a new worship such as is in the Masse which endures no longer then the species doe subsist without putrifying whereas the onely and true adoration due to our Lord is due onely to the Person of Christ wherein two natures are inseparably vnited Wherefore the Ephesian Creed made against Paulus Damasetanus and translated out of Greeke into Latin by Peltanus the Iesuite saith We confesse that Iesus Christ our Lord ought to be entirely adored with his body but not according to his body For this reason the Arrians haue beene called idolaters by Athanasius Cyrill and Theodoret because they adored a god which they said was created §. Nobis quoque vers per quem The same say the Priestes in the Masse in these words by whom thou createst vnto vs these dayly goods And these goods after the words of pretended consecration are called pure Sacraments in temporall gifts and therefore they cannot be inseparably and hypostatically vnited to the person of our Sauiour § Corpus tuum Inspec sacer versican tangendo Corpus Christi propter continentiam tuam excellentissimae diuinitatis Christi who is neither a Sacrament nor in their sense a temporall gift Likewise Nestorius beleeuing our Sauiour to be man sustaining the God-head hath been condemned as an Heretique much more reason is there to brand with such a title those which beleeue the simple accidents doe sustaine a body and a soule euen the whole entire diuinity and who ordaine an adoration of Sacraments and things visible and temporall which are not God inuisible eternall infinite neither our Sauiour in his naturall existence who is at the right hand of God farre differing from a sacramentall existence which the Councell of Trent confesseth
high Priests to offer vp sacrifice first for his owne sinnes and then for the peoples But those Iewish ceremonies haue ceased looke aboue in the chapter of sacrifice where you shall see that our Lord Iesus Christ is the only sacrifice and eternall sacrificer vnder the Gospell Exod. 12.15 Lev. 3.6 In the third place they reassume the shadowes and figures of the law by presenting of immaculate hosts where as Iesus Christ being prefigured by them vnder the law as saith S. Peter 1. Pet. 1.19 and hauing consummated all that kinde of sacrifice it were an impietie to revoke it againe into practise Lastly it is an execrable abomination to offer bread vnto God for the remission of sinnes considering that even vnder the law it selfe Heb. 9.22 without shedding of bloud there was no remission Yet the Priest offereth one oblation to that end concerning which I demand of him if it hath taken flesh for our sakes If it be the sonne of God If it hath suffered If wee be baptised in its name If that bread bee yet consecrated If the Priest hath yet pronounced these words hoc est corpus meum Wherefore by thyne owne doctrine thou offerest that which the Iew would be ashamed to present for his sin and which never any vsed saue onely the Magician Numa who did immolate that is to say offer Molam Cypr. de sacr calicis Epist 63. 68. a little round loafe to his Gods You that are deafe heare you that are blind see and deceaue not your selues any more For if wee ought to doe that onely in the supper which God hath commanded vs to doe and that which he commanded vs is that which he did with his Apostles the day before hee suffered as saith the Canon of the Masse pridie quam pateretur wee ought not to offer vp bread vnto God for the remission of sinnes For Iesus did it not neither commanded it neither purchased our salvation by the oblation of a cake not blessed but with his owne body and that not at the table but on the crosse not by elevation of bread but by the effusion of his bloud and separation of his soule Es 53. For he poured out his soule vnto death and made his soule an offering for sinne saith Esay this oblation therefore is vnsufficient in it selfe without commandment and without example Neither doe the two obiections availe which commonly are here produc't The first whereof is taken out of Gen. 14. Gen. 14 where it is said that Abraham returning from the defeating of his enimies the king of Sodome went out to meet him as also did Melchisedeck the king of Salem who brought forth bread and wine and blessed him For the bread and the wine were brought forth to refresh him and his men which returned from the warre and not to bee sacrificed vnto God much lesse vnto Abraham For although it be there added that Melchisedecke was the Priest of the most high God yet that was only to shew the reason why hee receaued tythes of him and why he blessed him and not to cause vs to imagine a sacrifice First because there was none such vnder the law and therefore Melchisedecke in so doing had enterprised to forge a new one secondly the words will not beare it for the translation of the Septuagint hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he set before him bread and wine and it is not said for he was a Priest but now or and he was a Priest which was the cause wherefore he blessed Abraham and not wherefore he presented him with bread and wine also the whole text runneth that Melchisedecke brought forth bread to whom to Abraham and blessed whom Abraham and that comparison which S. Paul makes betweene our high Priest Heb. 7. Christ Iesus and Melchisedecke consists not in the offering of bread and wine but in that he is eternal without father in regard of his humanitie and without mother in respect of his divinitie Neither is the other obiection of any force which is taken out of Malachy that amongst the Gētiles shall be offered Malac. 1. Muctar and Mincha that is incense a pure offering For this Mincha kneaded with flowre and oyle is ceremoniall and abolished neither is the bread which the Roman Priests doe offer vp at this day tempred in that sort But that same prophecy is allegoricall as is that of Micah Micah 4.1 who prophecied that men should ascend to Ierusalem to the mountaine of the Lord seeing the Church is catholike and not inclosed within Iury. So likewise that incense which ascends in the presence of God signifieth the prayers of the faithfull as wee may obserue in the Revelation where it is said that another Angell to wit our Saviour stood at the altar hauing a golden censer Apoc. 8.3 the smoke whereof which was the prayers of the Saints ascended vp before God out of the Angells hand Finally if our Sauiour had offered bread and wine for the remission of sinnes it would follow that our Lord Iesus had offered twice by a consequence had twice satisfied God his father and paid twice the same debt contrary to that which saith S. Paul By one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified Heb. 9.12 10. v. 14. Otherwise the offring on the crosse had serued to small purpose for it is certaine that God had heard his wel beloued the first time with out exposing him to the crosse if the offring of bread had beene sufficient as it would haue beene if he had offered it And from hence wee may conclude that the Priests make two oblations the first of bread and wine not blessed not broken not taken not distributed and the second they pretend to make of the very body of our Sauiour which errour proceeded from hence that in the Primatiue Church they vsed the word Oblation giuing the bread not immediatly to God but to the Priest who did take thereof for the cōmunion and distributed the rest to the members of our Sauiour which are the poore Thus the equiuocall acceptions of the word caused this horrible sacriledge See what more appertaines to this point in the Chapters of oblation and of sacrifice Besides to offer was taken for as much as to giue to the people which communicated and in that sense some of the ancients tooke it as amongst the rest Saint Cyprian who writing against the minglers of water with wine in the cup which they offred vnto the people contrary to the practice of the Primatiue Church saith Cypr. contra Aquarios epist 68. ad Cecilium seeing that neither Angell nor Apostle can preach otherwise then that which Iesus Christ hath once taught c One may heere demaund of them whom they follow for if in the sacrifice which Christ hath offered we are to follow none but Christ certainely we are then to obey and to doe that which Christ hath done and commanded
Sacrament Moreouer it being that we are to worship that onely which is eternall Damâ—sc lib. â— orthod fideâ—â— the humanity of Christ is not to bee worshipped if the diuinity be not joyned thereunto For Damascene distinguisheth totus Christus all Christ from totum Christi all that which is in Christ All Christ is perfect God and perfect man but all that which is in Christ is not God neither yet is it man Wee must distinguish and not separate his diuinity from his humanity which being ioyned doe make one hypostasis and one Person As for example all man is one soule and one body but all that which is in man is not soule neither is it body but both together Now we may say according to the doctrine of the Pope who would tye himselfe to the letter the Priest makes not all Christ neither all that which is in Christ he creates but a body broken vpon the Crosse and but blood shed forth consequently an humanity dead and separated from its soule And the glosse of the canon Comperimus saith Can. sic in sâ—â—ctificando gl Verb. Cal g de consec dist 2. that if a Priest should haue consecrated the bread whilest our Sauiour was in the sepulchre that the substance of the wheate would haue beene simply a dead body Now when one hath yeelded to the Priest that he can make a body and blood of the substance of the bread and wine which notwithstanding is false yet cannot that which he makes bee wholly Christ for his soule and his diuinity shall not bee made and consequently we ought not to adore that which he makes For we adore the humanity of Christ nor considered apart â—ren de incar c. 25. but as being vnited to the diuinity So sayth an ancient father Christ hath adored with vs and if it so be that we must adore him for to him must euery knee bow yet this is to be done onely in respect of one of his natures And Saint Augustine giues vs an example thereof If sayth he any of vs should finde a purple Robe or a Crowne lying on the ground Aug. de â—erbo 〈◊〉 58. would we worship it But when the King is cloathed therewith hee makes himselfe lyable to great punishment who through contempt adores it not with the King In the same manner shall he be culpable of eternall death which will not adore the humanity of Christ our Lord not as it is considered nakedly alone but as being vnited to his diuinity hee being the onely Sonne of God true God and true man This passage sheweth that Saint Augustine was farre from preaching the adoration of the Crosse Launce Nayles or Robe without seame which are not vnited vnto our Sauiour neither make one person If he should come to Argenteuill the Priest without all question would call him an Heretique Another abhomination is committed in that the Priest pretendeth to sacrifice Iesus Christ in the Masse which Christ himselfe did not in the supper for if hee had done it he verily would not haue reiterated the next day his oblation for that had not beene necessary Now Iesus sacrificing himselfe vpon the crosse said not doe this for hee had no other worthy sacrificer of such a sacrifice but himselfe whose effect is eternall and that which wee are to doe is to blesse breake and distribute in remembrance of that sacrifice vpon the crosse Chrysost in hom ad Corinth In this sense S. Chrysostome saith If Iesus Christ be not dead whereof shall this sacrifice be a signe or figure But this is more amply treated of in the chapter of Sacrifice and of the Sacrament where you shall see that the action of the supper differeth from that of the crosse in respect of the time place forme ende matter c. and therefore cannot bee the same action But seeing that the essence soule of the Masse consisteth in transubstatiation wee must examine it more particularly Of the pretended transubstantiation TWelue hundred yeares after the institution of the supper the Popes brought in this transubstantiation In the councel of Lateran as new for the name as the effect the Divell hauing by little and little at the length gained the top of the mystery of iniquitie Le ts set downe therefore that which wee are to beleeue in this communion and then by way of opposition we shall knowe the abuses It was instituted in generall for the commemoration of the death of Christ to celebrate the graces which he purchased for vs to ratifie his alliance to receaue the pledge seale and assurance of a better life to make protestation of that obedience which wee owe vnto God and of the vnion which wee haue with all the Saints particularly to receaue the nourishment of our soules to feele that we are vnited to our head and Lord Iesus Christ that we are one with him as he is with God the Father and that we are bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh that we inioy him intirely and all his benefits to wit his wisdome Iustice sanctification and redemption So the vnion which we haue with him is tearmed substantiall in regard of the things vnited reall in regard of the truth of the vnion and its effect and spirituall in regard of the meanes by which this vnion is made which are the spirit and faith but as for the forme that is incomprehensible vnto vs thus farre wee must goe that wee prescribe not vnto God an impanation concomitancy transubstantiatioÌ„ or other chimeraes which favour of impiety and idolatry First let vs consider the words of our Lord Fagius in Deut. c. 8. Ioseph Scal. de emend temp lib. 6. who ordayning the celebration of the Passouer and the commemoration of his death vsed in a manner the same tearmes which were vsed in the ancient passouer where they said this is th bread of misery which our fathers haue eaten in Egypt which is as much as to say this bread which you now eate doth represent that bread which our fathers did eat in Egypt it is 1500 yeares since you were deliuered from that captivitie The Iewes in blessing of bread and wine vsed these words Blessed be thou In lib. Vnisnaioth O God which hast giuen vs bread and the fruit of the vine of the earth And so we are to take these tearmes not according to the letter but sacramentally as those which were added after them this is my body this cuppe is my bloud of the new Testament which wee must thus interpret this wine which is in the cup doth represent and present vnto you the new alliance which I haue made with you by the shedding of my bloud for the remission of sinnes So that if one would demand how the bread is the body of Christ we are to answer that it is in the same manner as the cup is his bloud without changing of the substance This bread is the body of Christ as circumcision
hast eaten and the Liturgie of the Armenians Lord Iesus I eat by faith thine holy quickning sauing body The eighth is August ed Dardan item traâ—â— 30. in Joh. Vâ—gil l. 4 con â—â—â—â— qui vbiâ— hâ—â—â—rat nusquam habitat that such transubstantiation destroyes the nature of the body of our Lord making it to be no body Take from bodies their space and they are no more bodies The body of Christ is raysed from the dead and it must needs be in one certaine place for as Vigilius an ancient Bishop of Trent saith how comes it about that the word being every where the flesh is not every where For when it was on earth it was not in heaven and now it is in heaven it is not vpon earth In the Canons themselues this carnall eating is called by S. Augustine the first heresie where it is said Can. prima quidem haeresis de consec d st 2. That vntill the end of the world the Lord will be on high but the truth of the Lord is here with vs for the body wherewith hee was raised vp must needs be in one certaine place but his truth is diffused throughout And in the Acts of the Apostles it is written whom the heauen must receaue vntill the times of restitution of all things Act. 3.21 The ninth is Vide gl can Quia corpus v. convertuntur de consec dist 2. where the glosser is much troubled Ioh. 2.9 Exod. 7.10 that this doctrine of transubstantiation is contrary to it selfe because the corruption of the first matter ought to be the generation of the second as when the substance of the water was altered and turned into the substance of wine in the marriage of Cana or when the rod of Aaron was turned into a serpent Now in this sacrament the substance of bread is not altered and the substance of the body of Christ was before there is therefore onely a change of place and not of substance and the body which is in heauen comes but either to mingle it selfe or to take the roome of the bread contrary to that which hath been proued here before The tenth reason is that the body which Christ presents vnto vs is a crucified body the memory wherof he inioyned vs to celebrate wherefore it is said This is my body which is broken Mat. 26 26. 1. Cor. 1. and my bloud which is shed forth and not that which shall be or which hath beene for this lambe slaine before the creation of the world was present to Abraham vpoÌ„ the crosse through faith which is the substance of things hoped for Heb. 11.1 and whose effect was present before and since the passion in regard of the faithfull which are called not to the participation of a glorious body but of a body crucified not a body which cannot suffer but of him which makes his soule an oblation for sinne Esay 53.11 as Esay saith Durand de remed penit can vt quid de consecr dist 2. c. non iste Amb. lib. 6. de sacramento Idem lib. 2. c. 5. de Isaac anima Aug. in Joh. tract 5. The eleuenth reason is that the body of our Lord being spirituall food ought to be receaued spiritually and to that purpose S. Augustine saith To what end preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly beleeue and thou hast eaten And S. Ambrose As the bread is the proper food of our body and is eaten corporally so the body of Christ is the food of the spirit and is eaten spiritually And the same bringeth in our Saviour speaking Those are present with me whose faith is with mee and whose portion I am and S. Augustine Some will question how I shall enioy it being absent how I shall stretch forth my hand thither where he sits and hold him there send thither thy faith and thou takest hold of him thy forefathers enioyed him in the flesh enioy thou him by faith Our Saviour himselfe interpreteth to drinke and eat by the same tearmes to come and beleeue The twelfth reason is taken from the nature of the bodie and from the manner of the phrase to be in a place For if the naturall body borne of the Virgin be in the Sacrament it is then either definitiuely as the Angels be in a place and so it will haue no true body which ought to fill a place or else it will be there repletiuely and so in as much as it is a naturall body it should be there visibly and palpably For by being raysed againe and glorified it looseth not the nature of a true body for Christ said himselfe Touch and see Luk. 24.29 for a spirit hath not flesh nor bones as I haue It remaineth therefore that Christ is there by the virtue of his divinity which is every where as saith S. Augustine although his flesh bee in heauen and no otherwise then as we say the sunne to bee present with vs when the light thereof commeth through the windowes although the body thereof be fixed in the heauens The thirteenth reason is that if the eating of the body of Christ be carnall all the faithfull which liued before the comming of our Saviour be damned because they bee dead before they eat the body of Christ For it is written If you eat not the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke not his bloud there is no life in you But we are assured that they were saued by the words of our Saviour concerning the bosome of Abraham and by other testimonies and examples of Moses Enoch Elias Elizeus c from whence wee must conclude that they eat Iesus Christ it being written in expresse terms that all our Fathers did eat the same spirituall meat 1. Cor. 10.4 and did all drinke of the same spirituall drinke and that the rocke whereof they dranke was Christ Now before his nativitie they drank him not carnally and therefore it followeth that they did eat it by faith and that such a kind of eating is sufficient vnto salvation considering that by it alone they were saued being bound notwithstanding to eat it The fourteenth is taken from the effect of transubstantion for if the bread be made flesh by virtue of those wordes which are pronounced by the Priest it continues to be flesh vnlesse either by contrary words one dissubstantiats it whereof we haue no example or the incredulitie of the wicked receauer doth disanull that which the consecration had created For otherwise the wicked which receaue the sacrament should be infallibly saved and none of them receiue condemnation in regard that the promise is generall whosouer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud Ioh. 6.56 Aug. de verbo dom tract in Iohan. 26. Cyrill lib. 4. in Ioh. c. 19. the same hath life everlasting and that of S. Augustine when Christ is eaten life is eaten Againe The sacrament is life vnto every man is death vnto none whosoever he be which receaueth it