antiquity and of the conformity of their Creed to that of the Primitive Church and yet can so openly renounce both in this chief and principal point of doctrine 3. Here the Romish Doctors now adays think to shelter themselves by telling us it is true that Jesus Christ did institute the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both the species of the Bread and Wine and that the Primitive Church did so celebrate it not by any express command of Jesus Christ and his Apostles but meerly by Ecclesiasâ—ical policy which may be changed as several occasions and circumstances require And they add That it is sufficient to observe that which is of the essence of the Sacrament viz. to receive the body and bloud of Christ but that the Church may change that which is accidental viz. to receive them under both the species or under one species only for they will have it that the bloud of Christ is under the species of the Bread by concommitance and that his body is under the species of the Wine by concommitance because Jesus Christ being now glorious his body and bloud cannot be separated 4. To this I reply First That there is an express command of Jesus Christ to take the Cup and drink St. Matth. 26. in these words drink ye all of it To this the Romish Doctors answer That the word all is not extended to all men for then we should say that the Eucharistical Cup ought to be given to Turks Jews and all other Infidels And they add that the word all doth not extend to all those that are of the body of the Church of the Elect for then the Eucharistical cup should be given to little children whom God hath elected to eternal life But say they the word all is extended only to all those to whom Jesus Christ gave the cup viz. to the Apostles considered as they were Pastors 5. To this I reply That although Jesus Christ gave this command to drink of the Eucharistical cup to his Apostles only yet we must know in what quality they received this command But it was not in the quality of Apostles for then none but Apostles could partake of the cup and there being now no more Apostles it should be quite taken away and so Mass could be no more celebrated And it was not in quality of Pastors or sacrificing Priests for Jesus Christ was then the only Sacrificer as the Romish Doctors say and the Apostles did not then exercise the function of sacrificing Priests Besides it belongs to Pastors and those that administer the Sacraments being publick persons to give but to private persons to receive only But the Apostles in the celebration of the Eucharist did only receive of Jesus Christ their Master and Pastor Therefore they received the command to drink of the cup as they were Believers Whence it follows that all the faithful that partake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist are obliged by the command of Jesus Christ to drink of the cup. So then the Romish Doctors are mistaken when they tell us that none but Priests that sacrifice have a right to drink of the cup and that those Priests that do not sacrifice must communicate under the species of the bread only for at that time the Apostles did not sacrifice To this may be added that if the command of Jesus Christ drink ye all of it was spoken to Pastors only because they to whom Christ spake were Pastors then it follows that the command of Jesus Christ Take eat was spoken to Pastors because they to whom Jesus Christ spake were Pastors and so the people will not be obliged by any command to communicate under the species of the bread and consequently will be wholy deprived of the Sacrament which is very absurd and contrary to Christian Religion 6. Secondly I say That in 1 Cor. 1. there is an express command to all the Faithful to drink of the cup in these words Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup. In which words the Apostle speaks to all Believers who no doubt have cause to examine themselves And this is apparent because St. Paul directs his Epistle and consequently these words to all those of the Church of Corinth as well Lay-men as Ecclesiastical for in chap. 1. vers 2. he directs it to all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. To this I add That Jesus Christ doth not only say as often as ye eat this bread but also as often as ye drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come so that we do as much commemorate Christs death by partaking of the cup in the Eucharist as we do by partaking of the bread And this is very proper for seeing that not only the body of Christ was broken but also his bloud shed on the Cross and that in every propitiation and expiation for sin the effusion of bloud was very considerable because it represents death better then any thing else doth it is certain that they do not celebrate the memory of Christs death as they ought that do not partake of this part of the Sacrament whereby only we commemorate the effusion of Christs bloud 7. Thirdly I say that in the dispute about the Eucharist our Adversaries do alledge to us the words of Jesus Christ in chap. 6. of St. Johns Gospel Except ye drink the bloud of the son of man ye have no life in you Why then do they deprive the people of life by taking the cup from them and hindering them from drinking And it is not at all to the purpose here to alledge concommitance and to tell us that by taking Christs body under the species of the bread we take his bloud also because 't is inseparable from his body For to this I answer First That to take Christs bloud in taking the host is not to drink it But Jesus Christ saith expresly Except a man drink his bloud he hath no life in him Secondly I say That although in some places by the body should be meant the body and bloud too yet it could not be in those places where a manifest distinction is made between the body and the bloud But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist this distinction is very apparent for Jesus Christ gave first the Sacrament and sign of his body in these words Take eat this is my body which is broken for you and then separately the Sacrament of his bloud in these words Drink ye all of it for this is my bloud which is shed for you And he not only speaks of them separately but represents them as really separated in his death for he saith my body broken for you and my bloud shed for you In which words there is no place for concomitance for the body broken by divers wounds doth not contain the bloud and the bloud being shed is not contained in the body Also our Adversaries affirm
that the sacramental words do operate that which they signifie But by their own confession they signifie the separation of Christs body from his bloud as Card. Perron acknowledgeth in his reply to the King of Great Britain pag. 1108. in these words The scope of the entireness of this Sacrament is to put us in mind that this body and this bloud which we receive were divided by his death on the Cross whence St. Paul saith as often as we eat this bread and drink this cup we shew the Lords death till he come Thirdly I say That as he that eats bread dipt in wine hath indeed wine in his mouth but doth not drink it so he that should eat or swallow a consecrated host would not drink Christs bloud though it were in it 8. Lastly I say That seeing the Sacraments were instituted to assure us the more of the truth of Gods promises and that all our comfort depends on this perswasion that all Gods promises are most true it necessarily follows that as much of the Sacrament as is taken away so much of the certainty of this perswasion is diminished And 't is to no purpose to say that one part of the Sacrament doth as much confirm Gods promises as the whole Sacrament doth for if it be so then God hath unnecessarily instituted two Sacraments for it had been enough to have instituted Baptism only seeing it is ordained to confirm Gods promises But if for such a confirmation two Sacraments are better then one and if two pledges and two seals for that purpose are of more consequence then one alone then in one Sacrament also two signs are of more weight then one alone for the confirmation of Gods promises and seeing it is said St. Luke 22. and 1 Cor. 11. that the cup is the New Testament and the New Covenant in the bloud of Christ because it is the Sacrament of it why then are people deprived of it 9. As for the imaginary dangers and scandals which the Romish Doctors find in peoples partaking of the cup I say in general that Jesus Christ in whom the treasures of wisdom are hid and in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily foresaw them as well as they and yet he instituted and administred the cup and commanded all to drink of it And St. Paul who was extraordinarily inspired by the Holy Ghost doth notwithstanding these pretended dangers and scandals command the Corinthians as well Lay persons as Ecclesiastical to drink of the cup as hath been already proved 10. The first inconvenience which our Adversaries find in peoples partaking of the cup is that they fear they may dip their moustaches in the Chalice and so the bloud of Christ may remain on some hair of the moustache also they fear that the species of the wine and consequently Christs bloud may fall to the ground and being fallen it cannot be gathered up again To this I answer First That Women Eunuchs and such young men as have no beards ought not to be excluded Secondly It is better to be without Moustaches then without the participation of the whole Sacrament Thirdly This inconvenience proceeds only from a false supposition viz. that Christs bloud is under the species of the wine but if in the Sacrament of the Eucharist there be nothing but Bread and Wine in substance and any of it should fall to the ground accidentally and not through any fault of ours this inconvenience is not great enough to violate the institution and command of Jesus Christ and his Apostles 11. The second inconvenience is That it is almost impossible to observe this Law where there is a great number of people and but one Priest To this I answer First That in places where there is much people as in Cities there are divers Priests Secondly If one Priest be not enough another must be called from some neighbouring place Thirdly That which cannot be done in one day must be done in two or three days rather then the command of Jesus Christ should be violated and the practice of the Primitive Church abandoned 12. The third inconvenience is that some have a natural antipathy or aversion to Wine and consequently cannot drink of the cup. To this I answer That because corporal actions do depend on certain natural powers they are supposed to be commanded to those that have natural powers proper to exercise those actions and to none else For example The hearing of Gods Word is not commanded to deaf persons but to those that can hear it but drinking of Wine is a corporal action and therefore commanded to those only that can drink it So that if the cup must be taken from all Lay-people because some of them have a natural antipathy to Wine then the preaching of the Gospel must be taken from Christians because some of them are deaf and cannot hear it 13. The fourth inconvenience is That there are some Countries where no Wine grows as in Lapland Norway c. To this I answer First That although no Wine grows in those Countries yet some may be brought thither Secondly But if none can be brought without being spoiled and its form changed then it is better to substitute the ordinary drink of the Country in stead of Wine Thirdly But if this common drink of the Country may not be substituted in stead of Wine then they that cannot have Wine do abstain from it because they are forced thereunto and it is neither impudence nor contempt to abstain from a thing commanded by Jesus Christ when it is not to be had but to ordain that they that have wine in abundance shall abstain from the cup is an insufferable boldness and a most unchristian contempt of the Sacrament CHAP. VII Against the Mass 1. THe Mass according to the Romish Doctors is a Sacrifice of the Body and Bloud of Christ propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead and so it is defined by the Council of Trent Session 22. Against such a Mass we might alleadge all the Arguments already made use of against Transubstantiation and the pretended presence of Christs body in the host for our Adversaries confess that those reasons which destroy Transubstantiation and the pretended presence of Christs body in the host do also destroy the Mass But in this Chapter we shall only use such Arguments as are directly against the Mass and do utterly destroy it 2. The first Argument is drawn from this viz. that in the institution and first celebration of the Eucharist Jesus Christ did not sacrifice nor offer his body and bloud to his Father as appears by what is mentioned in the three Evangelists and the Apostle St. Paul in which there is not the least foot-step to be seen of a sacrifice or oblation of Christs body and bloud This Bellarmin confesseth in Book 1. of the Mass chap. 27. in these words The oblation which is made after consecration belongs to the entireness of the Sacrament but is not
not be appeased but by the bloudy and ignominious death of the Cross Therefore the justice of God must have changed its nature if sins can be expiated in the Mass without pain or suffering 20. Thirdly To the distinction of Primitive sacrifice which was offered on the Cross and representative commemorative and applicative which is daily offered in the Mass I reply First That what the Council of Trent saith in Session 22. viz. that in the Eucharist there is a sacrifice representative commemorative and applicative of that of the Mass may bear a good sense viz. that there is in it a representation commemoration and application of the sacrifice of the Cross viz. a representation because the bread broken represents the body broken and the wine poured into the cup represents the bloud of Christ shed for the remission of sins a commemoration because all that is done in it is done in remembrance of Jesus Christ and his death according to his own command in these words Do this in remembrance of me and according to what St. Paul saith 1 Cor. 11. As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come and an application because the merit of the sacrifice of the Cross is applied to us not only by the word but also by the Sacraments as we shall shew hereafter But our Adversaries are not content with this for they will have it that in the celebration of the Eucharist there is offered a true and proper sacrifice propitiatory for the sins of the living and the dead which hath been already refuted at large Secondly I say that the application of the sacrifice of the Cross may be considered on Gods part or on mans part on Gods part when he offers Jesus Christ to us with all his benefits both in his Word and Sacraments on mans part when by a true and lively faith working by love we embrace Jesus Christ with all his benefits offered to us both in his Word and Sacraments And this is it that Jesus Christ teacheth us St. John 3. in these words As Moses lifted up the serpent in the Wilderness even so must the Son of man be lifted up viz. on the Cross that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son viz. to die that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life he doth not say whosoever sacrificeth him in the Mass but whosoever believeth c. And St. Paul shews it clearly in these words God hath set forth Jesus Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his bloud he doth not say through the sacrifice of the Mass but through faith And we really and truly apply the sacrifice of Christs Cross when we have recourse to him as a man applies a Plaister when he hath recourse to it and lays it on the wound But the recourse or refuge of a penitent sinner to the sacrifice of the Cross for obtaining mercy from God is nothing else but Faith As for the distinction of the sacramental and natural being of Jesus Christ it hath been already refuted in the 6. Number 21. I shall conclude this discourse with the testimony of Thomas Aquinas the most famous of all the Romish Doctors and called by our Adversaries the Angelical Doctor This Thomas in Part. 3. Quest 83. Artic. 1. having proposed this Question viz. Whether Christ be sacrificed in the Sacrament of the Eucharist he concludes with these memorable words The celebration of this Sacrament is very fitly called a sacrificing of Christ as well because it is the representation of Christs Passion as because by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords Passion And afterward he gives his answer in these words I answer We must say that the celebration of this Sacrament is called a sacrificing of Christ in two respects First Because as Augustine to Simplicius saith we are wont to give to Images the name of the things whereof they are Images as when we see Pictures on a Wall or in a Frame we say this is Cicero that is Salust c. But the celebration of this Sacrament as hath been said above is a representative Image of Christs Passion which Passion is the true sacrificing of Christ and so the celebration of this Sacrament is the sacrificing of Christ. Secondly The celebration of this Sacrament is called the sacrificing of Christ in regard of the effect of Christs Passion because by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords Passion Let the Romanists keep to this decision of their Angelical Doctor and we shall agree with them in this point for I am confident that there is not one of the Reformed Religion but will subscribe this true doctrine of Thomas Aquinas CHAP. VIII Containing Answers to the Objections of the Romish Doctors 1. IN the two first Chapters we have answered the two principal Objections of the Romish Doctors drawn from these words This is my body c. and from these he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life c. Now we must answer the rest Objection 1. 2. The first Objection is this When the establishing of Articles of Faith the Institution of Sacraments and the making Testaments and Covenants are in agitation men speak plainly and properly and not obscurely or figuravitely But in the celebration of the Eucharist Jesus Christ established an Article of Faith instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist and spake of a Testament and a Covenant for it is said of the Cup that it is the New Testament and the New Covenant in the bloud of Christ yea he spake then to his Disciples to whom he spake in plain and proper terms and not in obscure terms or in figures or parables as he did to the people Answer 3. To this objection I answer First That it is false that Articles of Faith are always expressed in proper terms in holy Scripture as when it is said in the Creed that Jesus Christ sitteth on the right hand of God it is evident that this is a Figure and a Metaphor for God being a Spirit hath neither right hand nor left and all interpreters expound this sitting on Gods right hand metaphorically viz. for that Lordship both of Heaven and Earth which he hath received from God his Father as earthly Princes make their Lieutenants whom they appoint to govern in their name to sit on the right side of them Again When it is said St. Matth. 16. Vpon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it and I will give thee the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven c. It is manifest that these are Figures and Metaphors as Bellarmin confesseth in Book 1. of the Bishop of Rome chap. 10. and yet it is
Jesus Christ and his bloud shed on the Cross then the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist have yet the Sacrament of the Eucharist is much more excellent then that of the Passover in respect of its form which depends on the words of Institution because that at the institution of the Sacrament of the Passover God spake not one word of the principal end for which he did institute it viz. to be the type of Jesus Christ and his death But at the institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist Christ declared in express terms that he did institute the eating of the bread broken and the drinking of the wine poured into the cup to be commemorative signs of himself and his death The Sacrament of the Eucharist is yet more excellent then that of the Passover in respect of its efficacy which depends on two things viz. on the form which being more manifest in the Eucharist doth also operate with more efficacy and also because it represents a thing past viz. the death of Christ But the knowledge of things past is more clear and perfect then the knowledge of things to come and we are more toucht with the memory of things past when some symbole brings them to our thoughts then when we consider things to come through clouds and shadows To this I add that the bread and wine of the Eucharist have a greater analogie with Jesus Christ then the Paschal Lamb had in one respect viz. in regard of the spiritual nourishment which we receive by Christs death for as Baptism is the Sacrament of our spiritual birth so the Eucharist is the Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment But this nourishment is much better represented by bread and wine which are the ordinary nourishment of our bodies then by a Lamb. Lastly I answer That it is far less inconvenient to give some prerogative to the Pasover above the Eucharist â—â—z to give it a more excellent matter and analogie then to assert the corporal presence of Christ in the Host by an unheard of Transubstantiation which destroys the nature of Sacraments gives our Lord a monstrous body includes notorious absurdities and contradictions and gives the lye to Sense Reason and holy Scripture as hath been proved Objection 3. 11 The third Objection was proposed at Nismes Anno 1657. by the Jesuite S. Rigaut thus God doth communicate or can communicate to the creature in a finite degree that which he possesseth in an infinite degree For example God hath an infinite power whereby he can do all things at once therefore he communicates or can communicate to the creature a finite and limited power whereby it may do divers things at once as appears in a man for he can see hear talk and walk at the same time God hath also an infinite wisdom and knowledge whereby he knows all things at once therefore he communicates or can communicate to the creature a finite knowledge whereby it may know divers things at once And even so God hath a virtual infinite extent which is called immensity whereby he fills all things and all places at once Therefore God communicates or can communicate to the creature viz. to a body a finite extent whereby it may fill divers spaces and occupy several places at once Whence it follows that Christs body may be in divers places at the same time viz. in Heaven and in the Host Answer 12. To this I answer That as God cannot be in two places for example in heaven and upon earth without being in all those places that are between both for then he would be distant and separated from himself so Christs body cannot be in two distant places viz. at Paris and at Rome in Heaven and upon Earth in the host without being in all those places that are between both for then it would be distant and separated from it self which is impossible as hath been sufficiently proved Therefore seeing Christs body is not in all places between Paris and Rome and between Heaven and Earth it follows that it is not in heaven and upon Earth in the host nor at Paris and Rome in consecrated hosts So that to make a creature for example the body of Christ partaker of Gods extent or immensity it is sufficient that as God by his infinite extent occupies all places so Christs body should by its finite extent occupy some place But if to make it partake in a finite degree of this divine attribute of immensity it must be in divers places yet it is sufficient that it be in divers places successively and not at once or if to make it partake of this attribute it must be in divers places at once yet it is sufficient that it occupies them by its several parts for example that the head be in one place and the feet in another c. In a word that it be without discontinuance or separation as God is every where without discontinuance Thus the learned Master Bruguier then answered and much better but I cannot remember his full and compleat answer Objection 4. 13. The fourth Objection is this If divers bodies may miraculously be in one and the same place then it also follows that one body may miraculously be in divers places there being no more difficulty or impossibility in the one then in the other But divers bodies may miraculously be in one and the same place for Jesus Christ came into the room where his Disciples were the dores being shut which he could not have done if his body had not penetrated the dores Besides It is said that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary and consequently Mary was a Virgin both before and after his birth which could not have been if Jesus Christ had not penetrated her belly and come forth without fraction or overture Lastly Jesus Christ penetrated the stone that was laid on his sepulchre when he rose again and it is said that he penetrated the heavens when he ascended Answer 14 To this I answer First That it is not said that Jesus Christ came in the dores being shut for these are the words The same day when it was evening and the dores having been shut for fear of the Jews Jesus came c. which words do indeed shew the time when Jesus came in unto his Disciples but not the manner of his entry by penetration but if the words be translated the dores being shut and that they do import that the dores were not opened by any body yet they do not exclude the opening of them in the twinckling of an eye by the divine power sith we have examples of this in holy Scripture for Acts 5. we read that the Apostle went out of Prison though the dores had been fast shut but it is said that the Angel of God opened them And Acts 12. The dore of the Prison opened to S. Peter of its own accord that is without being opened by any body And so it is said that Jesus Christ entered the dores
chiefly by this passage that they endeavour to prove the Popes authority 4. Secondly I answer That the holy Scripture commonly speaks of Sacraments in figurative terms thus Circumcision is called Gods Covenant Gen. 17. in these words This is my Covenant every male shall be circumcised that is this is the sign of the Covenant as appears by the following verse Ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin and it shall be a token of the Covenant between me and you So the Paschal Lamb is called the Lords Passover Exod. 12. because the bloud of this Lamb sprinkled on the dore-posts was given as a sign of the Angels favourable passing over the houses of the Israelites as appears by verse 13. of the same Chapter So Baptism is called the washing of Regeneration because it is the Sacrament of it In a word The Eucharistical cup is called the New Testament because it is the sign seal and sacrament of it 5. Thirdly I answer That in holy Scripture Testaments are not always expressed in proper terms without a Figure for the Testament of Jacob Gen. 49. and that of Moses Deut. 33. are nothing else but a chain of Metaphors and other Figures And Civilians will have it that in Testaments we should not regard the proper signification of the words but the intention of the Testator To this I add that Jesus Christ did not then make the New Testament and the New Covenant but only instituted the Seal and Sacrament of them For the Covenant was made with all mankind in the person of Adam after the Fall when God promised him that the seed of the Woman should break the Serpents head This was afterward renewed with Abraham when God promised him that in his seed all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed viz. in Christ the blessed seed who hath destroyed the Kingdom of Satan After this it was confirmed by the bloud of Christ shed on the Cross Then it was published through all the World when the Apostles had received the Holy Ghost And lastly Baptism and the Eucharist are the Signs Seals and Sacraments of it 6. Fourthly I answer That by these words To speak clearly or plainly be understood to speak intelligibly so that the Apostles might and ought to understand what he said to them then it is certain that Jesus Christ did speak clearly for to speak sacramentally and according to the stile used in all Sacraments was to speak clearly and not obscurely But if by these words to speak clearly be understood to speak without a figure then it is false that he always spake clearly to his Disciples witness the calling of his Disciples to whom he said St. Matth. 4. follow me and I will make you fishers of men And when he saith else where ye are the salt of the earth the light of the world c. To this I add The Apostles did ask Jesus Christ the meaning of Parables and other things which they did not understand and therefore certainly they had much more reason to ask the meaning of so many strange things as follow from the Mass from Transubstantiation and from the pretended presence of Christs body in the Host viz. how a humane body can be in a point and in divers places at once how the head of Jesus Christ and his whole body could be in his mouth how accidents can be without a subject c. 7. Lastly Seeing Jesus Christ said drink ye all of this cup all Priests whether Jesuites Monks or other Romish Doctors would of necessity be constrained really properly and without a figure to drink of the cup whether melted or not and really to swallow it until they should confess that there are figures in the words of Jesus Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist Objection 2. 8. The second Objection is this The Sacrament of the Eucharist is more excellent then that of the Passover because the Sacrament of the Passover is a type of the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the thing typified is always more excellent then the type But if the Sacrament of the Eucharist did not really contain the body and bloud of Christ but was only the sign of it then it would follow that the Sacrament of the Eucharist would not be more excellent then that of the Passover nay the Sacrament of the Passover would be more excellent then that of the Eucharist because a Lamb and its bloud is more excellent then Bread and Wine and the death of a Lamb and the shedding of its bloud doth much better represent the death of Christ and the shedding of his bloud on the Cross then Bread broken and Wine poured into a cup can do Answer 9. To this I answer First That the thing typified by the Paschal Lamb is Jesus Christ and not the Sacrament of the Eucharist as St. Paul shews clearly 1 Cor. 5. when he calls Jesus Christ our Passover in these words Christ our Passover was crucified for us The truth is a whole Lamb without spot or blemish killed and burnt toward the evening and its bloud shed doth very well represent Jesus Christ perfect without sin put to death and his bloud shed toward the end of the World and in the fulness of time but such a Lamb represents nothing of that which is seen in the Eucharist Besides the Types and Sacraments of the Old Testament were instituted that the Faithful of those Times might come to the knowledge of the things typified and signified for the salvation of their souls But the Faithful under the Old Testament never came to the knowledge of the Eucharist by the Paschal Lamb and though they had come to the knowledge of it yet they had had no benefit thereby In a word seeing the Passover and the Eucharist are types images and signs of Jesus Christ 't is very impertinent to say that the Passover is the type of the Eucharist because a type is not properly the type of another type but only of the thing typified as the image of Caesar is not the image of another image of Caesar but only of Caesar himself 10. Secondly I answer that the excellence of one Sacrament above another must be drawn from its form and efficacie and not from its matter because it is form that chiefly gives being to things composed of matter and form But the form of Sacraments depends on the words of Institution because being signs of divine Institution their form can only depend upon the will of God who chooseth certain things to signifie other things and this will of God cannot be known but by revelation which is the Word so that it is properly said that the Word joined with the Element makes the Sacrament Therefore although the Sacrament of the Passover be more excellent then the Eucharist in respect of its matter because the Paschal Lamb and its bloud are more excellent then the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist and that the Lamb and its bloud have a greater analogie with