hoste which is made admirably in remembrance of Christ But it is not lawfull in it selfe for any one to eate of that which he offered on the Altar of the Crosse And in the same place at the Canon Corpus taken out of Saint Austin c Corpus sauguinem Christi dicimus illud quod de fructibus terrae acceptum prece mystica consecratum c. We doe call body and blood of Christ that which being taken of the fruits of the earth is consecrated by the mysticall prayer Certainely a body of Christ taken of the fruits of the earth is not the body of Christ crucified for us Tertullian in the sixth chapter of his Booke of Prayer d Panis est Sermo Dei vivi qui descâ—ndit de coelis Tum quod corpus ejus in pane censetur Hoc est corpus mâ—um The bread is the word of the living God which is descended from heaven Item the body that is holden to be in the bread This is my body Ensebius of Cesarea in his third Booke of Ecclesiasticall Divinitie Chapter 12. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lord spake not of the flesh which hee tooke but of his mysticall body and blood Saint Austin calleth very often that which we receive in the holy Supper the body of Christ But that we may not thinke that that which we receive by the corporall mouth is that body of the Lord which was crucified for us he bringeth in Christ saying unto us Yee shall not eate this body that you see f In Psal 98. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturiestis neque bibituri illis sanguinem queÌ„ fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent Sacrament um aliquod vobis coÌ„mendavi spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos â—nd shall not drinke the blood shed by those that shall crucifie me What then I have saith he recommended a Sacrament unâ—â— you which being taken Spiritually shall quicken and vivifie you Saint Ambrose in his Commentarie â—pon Saint Luke maketh a plaine diffeâ—ance betweene these two kinds of body of Christ expounding the words of the Lord Luke 17. Wheresoever the bodie is â—hither will the Eagles bee gathered togeâ—her First he saith that by the body may be understood the dead body of Christ and by the Eagles which are about it Mary wife to Cleophas and Mary Magdalen and Mary mother of the Lord then he addeth There is also that body â—f whom it is said My flesh is meate indeed Pope Innocent the third in the fourth Booke of the Mysteries of the Masse Chapter 36. distinguisheth in expresse tearmes these two kindes of flesh or body of Christ saying The forme of the bread comprehendeth both the one and the other flesh of Christ to wit the true and the mysticall Salmeron the Jesuite in his fifteenth Treatise of the IX Tome gathereth the same distinction of two sorts of blood of Christ out of the Booke of the Lords Supper attributed to Saint Cyprian Why saith he in the Law it was forbidden to eate blood and it is commanded in the Gospell Cyprian teacheth it excellently well in his Booke of the Lords Supper For in the abstinence of that blood is designed the Spirituall and reasonable life farre from brutish manners b Bibimus verò de Christi sanguine humane pariter ac divino ut intelligamus per ejus gustum ad eternae ac divinae vitae participium nos vocatos Now we drinke of Christs blood both of that which is humane and of that which is divine To the end we may understand that intasting of him we are called to the participation of eternall and divine life Wee have in the former Chapter alleadged Eupbraemius calling the bread of the Eucharist the body of Christ and yet saying that that body loseth not the Substance of bread And the Canon Hoc est in the second Distinction of the Consecration drawne out of Saint Austin saying that the bread which is the flesh of Christ is after its manner called the body of Christ though indeed it is the sacred signe of the body of Christ And Saint Austin The Lord made no difficultie to say This is my body when hee gave the signe of his body And Theodoret likewise saying The Lord hath given to the signe the name of his body And Origen calling the bread of the Supper a figurative body of Christ The same appeareth more cleare than the very day in that the Fathers which say that in the Eucharist we eate Christs body attribute unto this body things which cannot agree with the naturall body of Christ borne of the Virgin Mary and crucified for us Saint Cyprian c Domiunâ— corpus suiâ— paneÌ„ vocatâ— de multorâ—â— granorum adunatione congestum in his 76 Epistle saith The Lord calleth the bread his body which is made and composed of many graines And in the 63 Epistle d Nec corpus Domini potest esse sarina sola aut aqua sola insi utrumque adunatum fucrit c. The Lords body cannot be of the flower alone or of the water alone except both the one and the other be kneaded and conjoyned together Certainely this body of Christ composed of many graines and kneaded with water cannot be the body of Christ crucified for us Justin in his second Apologie saith e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Deacons doe give to every one of those that are present to participate bread and wine and water whereupon thankesgivings have beene said Then he addeth that this bread is the body of Christ But he sheweth manifestly that this bodie of Christ is not that which was crucified for us in that he saith a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is a meate wherewith ouâ— flesh and blood are fed by the transmutation He speaketh of the change made by the disgestion For our bodies are not fed of or with the body crucified for us that bodie is not changed into our flesh and blood For that Justin beleeved not the Transubstantiation he sheweth it sufficiently in the Dialogue against Tryphonius saying b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The oblation of fine flower was a figure of the bread of the Euchâ—rist which our Lord Jesus hath ordained to be made in remembrance of his Passion Ireneus in his first Booke saith the same c Euâ—n calâ—cem qui est cre tura suum corpus confirmavit ex quo nostra auget corâ—ora The Lord hath affirmed that the Cup which is a creature wherewith bee maketh our bodyes grow is his bodie Would Ireneus have lost his wit so farre as to beleeve that our bodies grow and are fed with the crucified body of the Lord and with the blood shedde upon the Crosse which did not returne into his body The same distinction of two sorts of body of Christ in the writings of the ancient Fathers appeareth in that they doe speake of the peeces of the
the 12 chapter against Adimantus saying The Lord made no difficulty to say This is my body when he gave the signe of his body 23 Christ our Lord was sitting at the table his face turn'd towards the Assistants Whereas the Priest in the Masse standeth before an Altar turning hi◠tayle to the people 24 Christ gave to every one of the assistants a piece of the bread he had broken with his hands which bread his Disciples received with their owne hands As also in the ancient Church both me◠and women received with their hand the Sacrament under both kinds The contrary of all that is practised in the Masse in which the Priest chops into the mouthes of the Communicants cound wafer unbroken If a woman ha◠touched with her hand I doe not say th◠hoste but onely the clothes or the patine or the chalice that would be thought a hainous offence and a profanation of sacred things 25 Our Lord Jesus instituted this Sacrament for the remission of sinnes Mar. 26.28 1. Cor. 11.16 and for to shew his death But in the Roman Church they sing Masses for the easing of sicke people for preserving of the vines from a white frost for the healing of a horse c. In all these the priest makes a gaine For that man at whose intention the Masse is said is to pay for it 26 The Apostle S. Paul 1. Cor. 11.12 calleth this Sacrament the Lords Supper Whereof we finde but of one sort But the Romane Church hath invented a thousand sorts of Masses There is the Masse of the Holy Ghost The Masse of S. Giles That of Linus Pope That of S. Francis c. There are amongst other Masses that of S. Catherine and that of S. Margaret which are Saints that never were in the World no more than S. Vrsula S. Longis S. Christopher and many others which they have placed in heaven though they were never upon earth Item there are Loud Masses and Lowe Masses Great Masses and Small Masses Dry Masses Episcopall Masses Masses in White and others in Greene and others in Violet colour 27 Christ in the holy Supper made no prayer for the dead On the contrary there is in the Masse a prayer for the dead Qui dormiunt in somno pacis by which the Priest prayeth for the deceased which sleepe in the sleepe of peace A thing which is to be carefully observed For it sheweth that when this prayer was added to the Masse they did not then beleeve the Purgatory For those that burne for many ages in a hott burning Fornace sleepe not peaceably 28. Item the confession which the Priest maketh at the Masse in the Confiteor is very farre from the Lords institution For in it the Priest confesseth his finnes unto God and to the Virgin Mary and to John the Baptist and to Peter and Paul and to all the Saints None is there left out but Christ 29. In the Masse of the Friday before Easter they worship the image of the Crosse with the highest adoration called by them Latria which is due to God alone saying Behold the wood of the Crosse Come let us worship There likewise is sung the Antheme which saith We doe worship thy Crosse O Lord. And speaking to the Crosse Faithfull Crosse the onely noble among the trees c. That is to speake to an sencelesse thing and which understandeth not 30. Vpon the Altar there be Images as also in all places of the Churches that are commanded to be worshipped under the penalty of a curse by the second councell of Nice and by the councell of Constantinople which they tearme the Eighth generall Councell and by many Popes and generally taught by the Jesuites 31. Christ celebrated the holy Supper with all simplicity But the Priests of the Roman Church sing Masse with allegoricall habits and full of mysteries with a thousand turnes and undecent gesticulations unbeseeming the holinesse of that action They busie the eyes of the people because their eares are of no use unto them 32. In the Canon of the Masse there is an evident untruth For the Priest saith that the Lord when he had taken the Chalice into his hands said This is the Chalice of my blood of the new and eternall Testament mysterie of the Faith Contrary to the testimony of the Evangelists in which these words are not to be found Pope Innocent in the chapter Cum Marthae de celebratione Missarum saith that the Church holdeth that from the Tradition Which he will have men to beleeve though it be contrary unto the Gospell 33. All that Christ said in celebrating this Sacrament he pronounced it with a loude and intelligible Voice he did not mutter in secret the words which are called the words of consecration as the now Roman Church doth which in this point as in many others differs from the Greeke and Easterne Churches which pronounce the words of consecration with a loud voyce The Pope Innocent the third in the third booke of the Mysteries of the Masse chapter first And Durant in the fourth Booke of his Rationals Chap. 35. renders the reason of this change To wit that one day it came to passe that certaine Shepheards having learned the words of consecration pronounced them upon the bread of their ordinary meale which was instantly turned into flesh Wherewith God being angry sent downe fire from heaven that consumed them Neverthelesse they vary in the recitall of this fable and doe not tell where and when that came to passe neither doe they bring any witnesse nor doe agree one with another in the relation of that story 34. After that the Disciples of the Lord had taken the Sacrament Christ did not command that the remainders of the bread should be lockt up in a box and kept for to be carried in pompe up and downe the streets as the Roman Church doth on Corpus Christi-day and in its Octaves Binius Notis in Concilia in vita Vrbani IV. Idque ex Molane Petro Premonstratēsi Vide Scrarium de Proceslib 2. c. 9. Epistolam Vrbani IV. ad Evan This holy day was instituted by Pope Vrbanus the fourth in the yeare of our Lord 1264. as Pope Clement the fifth his successor doth testifie in the third booke of his Clementines Tit. 16. where Vrbans Epistle by which he did institute this holy day is inserted wherein he saith he was moved so to doe By a Revelation made unto some Catholick persons By which Catholick persons hee meaneth a Nunne of Leodium called Eva whom he had knowne when he was Arch-Deacon of the same place This woman said that God had revealed unto her that he did not like well that every Saint had his holy day and hee none Neverthelesse this feast had been extinguished if Clement the fifth had not instituted it againe some Forty yeares after CHAP. III. How the change in the Lords institution hath changed the nature of the Sacrament And that in the Masse there
taking it figuratively For the body of Christ was not dead when he did institute this Sacrament But it is very true in the sense that we take it to wit that the bread which he did breake and give to his Disciples was the figure or remembrance of his body dead for us For we have shewed already that in the holy Supper Christs body is presented to our faith not as glorious and spirituall but as broken and dying and dead for us This is confirmed in that in the Evangelists this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth body is in most places taken for a dead body As in the 17 of Saint Luke Verse 37. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Wheresoever the body is thither will the Engles be gâ—thered together †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Mâ—tthew 27.52 * Many bodyes of Saints which slept arose And Mark 14.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to annoint the body For the proper word in Greek for to signifie a dead body is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 T is true that in the Syriack Testament the word Peger is taken sometimes for a living body But it is not credible that Christ tooke this word in an other sense than it is taken in the Old Testament where it signifieth alwayes a dead bodie Neither is it to be omitted that Saint Paul cals oftentimes the Church Christs body Ephes 1.23 and Chapter 5.23 If then from these words This is my body they will inferre that the bread is transubstantiated into Christs body by the like reason when the Scripture saith that the Church is the body of Christ it may bee inferred that the Church is transubstantiated into Christs bodie CHAP. XII That our Adversaries to avoide a cleare and naturall figure forge a multitude of harsh and unusuaall ones and speake but in figurative tearmes And of Berengarius his confession OVr Adversaries who make a shew to be enemies to Figures forge neverthelesse a great number of absurd and violent figures and turne all into figures When Christ saith This is my body by This they understand an individuum Vagum or that which is under these species without determining any thing Others interprete the word IS by shall be or shall become For they say that the Transubstantiation is not made or effected till the words be pronounced When the Evangelists say that the Lord gave bread by this word bread they understand flesh And wee have heard them confesse that these word This cup is the New Testament in my bloeâ— are figurative By their doctrine which puts 〈◊〉 body into the cup Christ giving 〈◊〉 cup might have said This is my body and had spoken truely if wee beleeâ— them Christ called that which he dranâ— in the Eucharist the fruit of the Viâ—â— But our Adversaries by the fruit 〈◊〉 the Vine will have the blood to be understood By these words Doe this they understand Sacrifice me but the words following Doe this in remembrance of 〈◊〉 doe refute that interpretation For it 〈◊〉 impossible to Sacrifice Christ in remembrance of Christ Wee shall see anone that when iâ— the 6 of Saint John Verse 53. Chriâ—â— saith Except yee drinke my blood yee haâ—â— no life in you our adversaries least thâ—â— should be accused of taking the liâ—â— from the Lay people in depriving theâ— of the cup by the word drinking they understand eating And that wheâ— Christ saith I leave the World and am 〈◊〉 more in the world they add this taile to it to wit by my visible presence We have seene before that the Apostle saith foure several times that in the Lords Supper we breake bread and eate bread To shun the force of these words they wrest them into figures saying that it is not bread that we eate But that figuratively Christs body is called bread because it seemes to be so Which thing they know to be false for Christs body never seemed to be bread Item they say that it is called bread because it was bread before the consecration Which also is false For the Lords body was never bread To such figures Rhethorick affords no name They bring indeed for example Moses Rod which is still called a rod after it was turned into a Serpent and the water of the wedding of Cana Iohn 2. which is still called water after it was turned into wine Which are examples making against them For of that rod it is expressly said that it was turned into a Serpent Exod. 4.3 And of that water it is said in expresse termes that it was turned into wine John 2.9 But of the bread of the holy Supper it is not said that it was converted into flesh Of this Serpent one might have truly said that it was once a rod and of this wine that it was once water because it was the same matter clothed with another forme But of Christs body it cannot be sayd truely that ever it was bread The matter or substance of the body of Christ is not the matter of the bread For Christs body is not made of bread and was never bread Others say that the Apostle saith not When ye eate bread but when ye eate of this bread understanding by the pronoune This a spirituall and heavenly bread But they consider not that the Apostle in the first to the Corinthians Chapter 10 saith not THIS BREAD but the bread that we breake And Saint Luke in the 20 of the Acts 7 Verse The Disciples came together to break bread There their Philosophy fayles them They must also learne that when the Scripture taketh this word Bread in a spirituall sense it is never opposed to the cup because that when the question is of a spirituall foode to eate and to drinke are but one and the same thing But Saint Paul opposeth this bread to that cup saying Let every man eate of this bread and drinke of this â—up That if any one consider exactly all the termes which our Adversaries use in this matter hee shall perceive that they be unintelligible figures They say that the Priest breaketh the hoste and that this hoste is the body of Christ which neverthelesse cannot be broken They say they lift up God but God cannot be lifted up They say the consecrated hoste is round And that Christs body is in the consecrated hoste Whence will follow in good Logick that the body of Christ is round Which neverthelesse they doe not beleeve They grant both propositions and deny the conclusion Which is against common sense And when they speake of drinking the cup by drinking they understand a swallowing downe of flesh and bones and the Soule of Christ with his Divinity This confession of Berengarius is to be found in the 2 Distinction of the Consecration at the CanoÌ„ Ego Berengarius The Roman Councell under Nieholas the second prescribed to Berengarius a forme of abjuration of his doctrine in the most exquisite and formall tearmes that ever they could devise These tearmes are
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
the things signified That this is the sense and meaning of the Fathers when they speak thus appeareth in that they call also the Eucharist Christs death As Cyprian in his 63 Epistle * Passlo est Domiâ— sacrâ—fiâ—um quod offeâ—imus The Lords Passion is the Sacrifice wee do offer And Chrysostome in the 21 Homily upon the Acts of the Apostles a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whilest this death is a perfeciting and this dreadfull Sacrifice and these ineffable mysteries And so the Canon Hoc est in the 2 Distinâ—tion of the Consecration b Vocatur ipsa immolatio câ—â—nâ—s quae Sacerâ—dotâ—s manibus sit Chrâ—sti passio mâ—rs crucafixio non râ—â— veritate sed significante mysterio The immolation of Christs flesh which is made by the hands of the Priest is called the Passion Death and Crucifixion of Christ not according to the truth but by a significant mystery Austin in his 23 Epistle to Bonifacius Was not Christ once sacrificed in himselfe and yet hee is sacrificed to the People in a sacred signe And in his 10 Book of the City of God chap 5. c Sacrificium visibile invisibilis Sacrificâ—i Sacramentumid est sacrum signâ—m The visible Sacrifice is a Sacrament that is to say a sacred signe of the invisible Sacrifice And a little after * Illud quod ab omnibus appellatur SacrificiuÌ„ est signum veri sacrificii That which men do call Sacrifice is a signe of the rue Sacr fice Note that he saith that men do call it a Sacrifice acknowledging tacitely the holy Scripture doth not call it so Wee have then in these places of S. Austin a cleare exposicion of this place wherein he calleth the Eucharist the Sacrifice of our price The sixth Book of Apostolicall Constitutions of Clemens chap. 23 a Pro sacrificio crueÌ„to rationale incruentum ac mysticum sacrificium instituit quod in mortem Domini per symbola corporis et sangumis sui celebratur The Lord instead of a bloody Sacâ—â—fice hath instituted a reasonable and unbloody and mysticall Sacrifice which is celebrated in consideration of the Lords death by the signes of his body and blood In the 4. Book of Sacraments attributed to S. Ambrose chap. 5. wee have these words of the ancient Service b Fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam rationabile acceptabilem quod est sigura corporis sanguinis Domini Grant that this oblation be imputed unto us as reasonable acceptable which is the FIGVRE of the body and blood of the Lord. The succeeding ages have razed out the word Figure Procopius Gazaeus upon the 49. chap. of Genesis Christ gave to his Disciples the Image or Figure and Type of his body and blood receiving no more the bloody Sacrifices of the Law Eusebius in the 10 chapter of his first Book of the Evangelicall Demonstration a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lord having offered a Sacrifice and an excellent victime unto his Father for the salvation of us all hath appointed us to offer continually the remembrance of it instead of a Sacrifice And in the same place b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wee have received the remembrance of this Sacrifice for to celebrate it at his own table by the signes of his Body and Blood according to the institution of the New Testament In a word the Fathers are full of such places Wherefore in the Eucharist they put no difference between the Sacrament and the Sacrifice But to speak properly there is such difference between a Sacrifice and a Sacrament as between giving and receiving For in a Sacrifice we offer unto God but in a Sacrament we receive from God The Fathers do not make this distinction For by reason the Sacrament is a signe and a figure of the Sacrifice they call the Sacrament a Sacrifice This kind of speaking to call the Lords Supper a Sacrifice had its beginning from the offerings and gifts which in old time the people offered upon the sacred table afore the Communion which gifts were commonly called Sacrifices and Oblations Cyprian in his Sermon of Almes a Locuples Dives Dominicum celebrare te credis quae sorbonum non respuis quae in DominicuÌ„ sine sacrificio venis quae partâ—m de sacrificio quod pauper obâ—ulit sumis chides a rich woman that had brought no Sacrifice and yet took her part of the Sacrifices the poor had brought And in the 21 Distinction at the Canon Cleros b Hypod acon oblatioues in â—eplo Domini 〈◊〉 sideâ—bus susâ—â—pâ—â—nt Lâ—vitis superponâ— das altari buâ—dâ—serat Let the Subdeacons in the Lords Temple receive the Oblations of the Faithfull and carry them to the Levites that they may put them upon the Altars Which manner of speech remaines yet at this day in the Masse wherein the Priest before the CoÌ„secration saith Receive Lord thiâ— immaculate Host c. as is acknowledged by Bellarmin in his first Book of the Masse ch 27. And he prooves it by Ireâ—eus who in the 4 Book chap. 32. saith we offer unto God a Sacrifice of his creatures that is to say bread and wine And that even before the Consecration In that therefore the Fathers have said nothing but what is agreeable conformable unto the Faith Yet neverthelesse the abuse that hath followed thereon a longtime after is unto us an excellent example that the safest way is to cleave to the Apostles language and not to depart from the stile of the holy Scripture THE SECOND BOOK OF The Manducation of the Bodie of Christ CHAP. I. Of two sorts of manducation of Christs flesh to wit Spirituall and Corporall and which is the best MEtaphors are similies contracted and reduced to a word So wee say feeding for teaching and to flourish for to be in prosperity and we call Pride a swelling and truth a light We say of a childes tongue that it is untied and of his wit that it is displayed These Metaphors besides the ornament have some utility For they propose an Image of the things whereof wee speake and make them more intelligible by a tacite comparison Specially it is a thing very usuall and frequent to expresse the functions and qualities of the soule by tearmes borrowed from the actions and corporall qualities So we say that Envy fretteth that love burneth that Covetousnesse is a thirst of money and that hope is a tickling or soothing The holy Scripture is full of such manner of speeches wherein nothing is more frequent than to speake of good instructions as of meats and drinks and of the Graces of God as of a water that quensheth the thirst and of the desire of these graces as of a hunger and thirst So in the 9 of Proverbes the supreame Wisedome saith Come eate of my bread and drink of the wine which I have mingled And David in the 36 Psalme saith God makes us drink in the river of his pleasures
THE ANATOMIE OF THE MASSE Wherein is shewed by the Holy Scriptures and by the testimony of the Ancient Church that the MASSE is contrary unto the Word of God and farre from the way of Salvation By PETER du MOVLIN Doctor and Professor in Divinity And Translated into English By JAM MOUNTAINE LONDON Printed by J. B. for Humphrey Robinson and are to be sold at his Shop at the Signe of the three Pigeons in Pauls Church-Yard 1641. Imprimatur Tho Wykes R. P. Episc Lond. Capell Domest TO The Right Honourable and most Illustrious Lords The Earle of Bedford The Earle of Hartford The Earle of Essex The Earle of Warwick The Viscount Say and Seale The Viscount Savile Lord Wharton Lord Brooke RIGHT HONOVRABLE GOD having been pleased not to suffer my heart to be much enamoured with worldly preferments imployes of that nature whereby I have possessed my soule in quietnesse and enjoyed more liberty In acknowledgement of that favour and being perswaded withall that God hath not weaned me from these pleasures for to sit still to be idle my chiefe studie hath been according to my poore ability to busie my mind and to apply my heart to spirituall things which might both better my selfe and others and make me if not so rich and so considerable in this life yet I am sure through God his free mercy rich and eminent enough in the life to come Wherefore in the prosecution of that holy resolution after severall Works of this nature which by Gods providence I have given to the publick in the French tongue and which I may say it truly without vanity have not been without fruit It hath pleased the same divine Wisdome to put into my heart to give unto this Pious Nation this little Work in their owne language And forasmuch as your Honours are of the eminentest of the kingdome and of the mainest and principal Pillars which under your most Pious and most Gratious Soveraigne uphold both this Church and Common wealth furthermore seeing also that all the eyes of this florishing Nation grounded upon that assured knowledge it hath of your fervent Love to GOD Loyalty to your PRINCE and tender affection to your Countrey are now fixed upon you as upon so many Moses standing in the gap between them and Gods threatning judgements I have thought my selfe bound in duty having so faire an opportunity as this is to crowd among the rest into your presence and to shew as wel as others this publick and true testimony of my most humble respects in presenting first with all humility this poore labour of mine unto your Honors joyntly being unwilling so long as I finde divers presidents of the like dedications to divide and separate those whom GOD and the KING have joyned together beseeching you to accept of it to vouchsafe it your Patronage and to beare in its forefront your Honourable Names I presume that for the Author his sake your Honors will not deny me that favour And the rather because it tends to the same end that yee aime at to wit Gods Glory and the furtherance of True Religion For Most Illustrious Lords I have beene an eye-witnesse above this eighteen years of that Constant Zeale and Exemplary Pietie which is so resplendent in your Honors And oftentimes being ravished in admiration to see such extraordinary gifts graces in such great Persons notwithstanding the corruption of the times I have blessed God heartily for it and prayed his Divine Majestie to powre more and more upon your Lordships the dew of his heavenly graces unto the end And indeed Right Honourable to conclude this in a word I can attest upon mine owne knowledge of that eighteen yeares standing that although your Honours doe live here among men your conversation hath been for the most part with God neglecting no meanes for all your great and weighty occasions to waite and attend upon his service in his holy Courts and Sanctuaries But alas all that I can say in that behalfe is but as a drop of water throwne into the vast Ocean And therefore Right Honorable I must crave leave to say no more and aske pardon that I have said so little and so far short of what your Honors deserve As for the Author and Worke I should say something too if he and his Workes were not better knowne than I can expresse Yet I will say this by the way that he hath been is and long may hee be one of the Worthiest and most powerfull Instruments in Gods hand for the conversion of Soules destruction of Babel and rearing up of Bethel as this Age hath afforded And for this particular Worke of his it shall suffice me to say to give it the highest commendation I can that it is Peter du Moulins Finally Right Honourable I should say something also touching my selfe which shall bee onely to beseech againe your Lordships to be pleased to Pardon the boldnesse of a poore stranger in dedicating this small book and first fruits of his that have seene the light in the English tongue unto your Honours excuse the defects that may be found in the same though I hope you shall finde it faithfully translated and free from any grosse barbarismes in the Language and to attribute that excesse of temeritie to the excesse of the honour I beare unto your Lordships for whom I shall never cease to call upon God for an encrease of Honor and long Prosperity here on Earth untill that being full of dayes and having finished your course in his feare yee receive that Crowne of glory which is laid up for you in Heaven And so fearing to be too tedious and troublesome unto your Honours I humbly take my leave and rest Most Renowned Lords Your most humble and most devoted servant JAM MOVNTAINE A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS FIRST BOOKE Chap. 1. THe Institution of the holy Supper by our Lord Jesus Christ as it is contained in the first Epistle of the Apostle Saint Paul to the Corinthians Chapter 11. page 1. Chap. II. Foure and thirty contrarieties betweene the holy Supper and the Masse And how farre the Church of Rome is departed from the institution of the Lord. pag. 3. Chap. III. How the change in the Lords Institution hath changed the nature of the Sacrament And that in the Masse there is no consecration 24. Chap. IV. That by altering the Lords Institution the Romane Church hath changed the nature of Christ 26. Chap. V. Of Maldonat his audaciousnesse in giving Saint Paul and Saint Luke the lie and in correcting Saint Matthew and Mark And of the fruit of the Vine 30. Chap. VI. How much Christ is dishonoured by this Doctrine And of the character indelible And of the power of creating ones Creator 35. Chap. VII That the very words of the Masse are contrary to Transubstantiation 41. Chap. VIII Recrimination of our Adversaries 43. Chap. IX Causes why the Pope admitteth not of any alteration in the Masse and will not
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
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
in correctiâ—â— Saint Matthew Saint Marâ— And touching the fruit of thâ— Vine OF all the words which the Loâ—â— used in the Institution of the Eâ—charist none gaule and vex our Adversaries more than those which he pronounced in delivering the cup saying This Cup is the New Testament and thosâ— by which he calleth that which was iâ— the cup the fruit of the Vine For they are forc'd as we shall see heareafterâ— to acknowledge in these words Thâ—â— Cup is the New Testament a figure like unto that which is in these words This is my Body and confesse that it is the signe and remembrance of it Besides that to presuppose that Christ called his blood the fruit of the Vine is out of all likelyhood Against these words of the Lord This Cup is the New Testament related by Saint Luke and Saint Paul Maldonat the Jesuite is madde and furious and stirred up with an audaciousnesse full of impiety and speaketh of these two organs of Gods Spirit as of two lyars that have not related the Lords words according to the truth And will have men to give credit to the testimony of Saint Matthew which saith This is my blood and not to the words of Saint Luke and Saint Paul which witnesse that the Lord said This cup is the New Testament Here be his words upon the 28 Verse of the 26 chapter of Saint Matthew * Nec multis opus est verbis Nego Christum haee verba dixâ—sse Cum enim Matthaeus qui aderat Marâ—us qui ex Matthaeo didicerat scribant Christum his verbis sanguinem suum tradidesse Hic est sanguis mens novi Testamenti aequum est credere Matthaei potâ—us Marci qua Iucae Pauli verbis usum esse c. There needs not many words I denie that Christ said these words For seeing that Matthew which was present and Marke that had learned it of Matthew writ that Christ gave his blood in these words This is my blood of the New Testament it is reasonable to beleeve that Christ did rather use the words of Matthew and Mark than those of Luke and Paul And a little after maintaining that Christs intenâ—â— was to give his owne blood hee speaketh of Saint Luke and of Saint Paul as no having well conceived Christs meaning saying Luke and Paul seeme to speakeâ— such sort as if Christ had chiefly aimed this viz. to declare that he gave the No Testament rather than his blood And little after Though we should faine anâ— suppose that Christ spake as it is written iâ— Luke and Paul c. Truly this presumption is intolerable to dare contradict thus an Evangelist and an Apostle Luke and Pauâ— saying I deny that Christ spake these wordâ— And to make himselfe a Judge of the fidelity of the Apostles saying this maâ— is more credible than that man anâ— deeme that for to excuse Saint Luke anâ— Saint Paul one must faine and presuppose that which is not Every man that hath any remnant oâ— modesty and feare of God shall ratheâ— beleeve that all the Evangelists and Apostles are to be beleeved alike and that all have spoken the truth For iâ— we beleeve that they have reported somâ— thing falsly all the rest of the Scripture becommeth suspect and uncertaine And though we should grant that Saint Luke and Saint Paul have brought some alteration in the words of the Lord yet were we bound to beleeve that they were moved by the holy Spirit to speake after that manner for to cleare and illustrate Christs words and turne the mindes of men from grosse thoughts and take away from the spirit of error the occasion of forging a Transubstantiation This Jesuite having thus abused Saint Paul and Saint Luke a little after upon these words I will drinke no more of this fruit of the Vine cleaveth to Saint Luke his side against Saint Marke and Saint Matthew and * Maldonat in 26. Matth. vers 29. Haec verba quae Matthaeus Marcus referunt Christum de calice dixisse non de co calice dixit quo sangu nem suum dedit sed de coqui in coena agni Paschalis à patre familias inter accumbentes distribui solebat 〈◊〉 will have Christ to have said these words I will drinke no more of this fruit of the Vine of the cup of the Passeover against the testimony of Matthew and Marke who report that Christ said these words upon the cup of the holy Supper Wherein indeed he maketh Christ a lyar For after the Pascall cup he dranke the cup of the Eucharist wherein there was wine The Lord had spoken against the truth if in drinking in the cup of the Pascall Lambe he had said he would drinke wine no more seeing he dranke of it a little after Add to this that Saint Matthew and Saint Marke make not any mention of the Pascall cup and consequently call not the fruit of the Vine that which was in a cup whereof they spake not In this Maldonat hath the Antiquity Popes Councels and the Jesuits themselves against him which maintaine that these words I will drinke no more of this fruit of the Vine ought to be understood of the cup of the holy Supper Saint Cyprian in the 63 Epistle The Lord said †Dico vobis non biham à modo c. Qua in parte invenimus calicem mixtum suisse quem Dominus obtulit Apostolis â— vâ—nü suisse quod sanguine suum dixit I say unto you I will drinke no more henceforth of this creature of the Vine untill that day when I drinke it new with you in my Fathers Kingdome Wherein we find that it was a mingled cup which the Lord offered and that which he called his blood was wine The Councel of Wormes in the fourth chapter * Apud Iuonem part 3. fol. 65. Vâ—nuÌ„ suit in redâ—ptionis nostrae mysterio cum dâ—xit Non bâ—bâ—m de genimine c. It was wine in the mystery of our redemption when the Lord said I will drinkâ— no more of the fruit of the Vine Pope Innocent the third in the fourth booke of the Mysteries of the Masse Chapter 27. * Quod autem vinum in calice consecraverit patet ex co quod ipse subjunxit non biba à modâ— c. Now that it was wine which Christ consecrated in the Chalice it appeareth by that which hee addeth I will drinke no more of the fruit of this Vine The Catechisme of the Councell of Trent in the Chapter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist †SalvatoreÌ„ vino in hujus Sacramenti institutione usil esse Catholica Ecclâ—sia semper docuit The Catholick Churcâ— hath alwayes taught that our Saviour used Wine in the institution of this Sacrament seeing that himselfe said I will drinke no more of this fruit of the Vine Salmeron the Jesuite in the IX Tome in the fourteenth Treatise holdeth the same and the Jesuite Vasquez upon the third
the power of Priests who make him and pin him up and walke him and may if they will cast him into the fire As Gabriel Biel a famous Doctor saith in the first Lesson upon the Canon of the Masse †Biel Lect. 1. in Canonem Missae Super utrumque corpus Christi Sacerdos insignes habet potesiates The Priest hath great power over the one and the other body of Christ that is to say over the Church and over the consecrated hoste Whereupon he addeth * Quis hujus rei â—ndâ—t similia Qui creavit me si fas est dicere dedit mihi creare se Eâ— qui creavit me creatur mediante me Who ever saw things like unto this He that hath created me if I may say so hath given me to create him And he that hath created mee without me is created by my meanes Thus Priests doe create Christ in the Masse and make Christ who is made already As if one should beget a man already born CHAP. VII That the very words of the Masse are contrary to Transubstantiation IN the midst of this alteration of the Lords Institution God hath permitted that in the Masse some clauses should remaine which manifestly condemne the Transubstantiation For a great part of the Canon of the Masse are prayers which have beene added when they did not yet beleeve the Transubstantiation As when the Priest having before him the consecrated hoste saith * Osserimus praeclarae â—uae Majestati de tuis domis datis hostiam puram Wee offer to thine excellent Majesty of thy gifts and presents a pure hoste By these gifts they understand at this day Christ himselfe Surely never a man in his right sense called Christ gifts and presents in the plurall But that agrees very well with the bread and wine The Priest goes on saying †Supra quae propitio aâ— sereno vuliu respicere digneris accepta habere sicut accepta habere d gnatus es munera pueri tui justi Abel Vpon which things vouchsafe to looke with a cheerefull eye Is it not a jeast to call Christ these things and for a full measure of abuse to aske of God that he may looke upon Christ with a gracious eye as if Christ had need of our recommendation Moreover the Priest demandeth of God afterward that he would be pleased to have these gifts and presents as acceptable as he had acceptable the presents of Abel That is to say that Christ may be as acceptable unto God as the beasts sacrificed by Abel This prayer is good being said upon the bread and the wine but being said upon Christ it is altogether blasphemous Chiefly this is evident in that the Priest looking upon the consecrated hoste and the chalice saith that * Per Christum Dominum nostrum per quem haec omnia Domine semper bona creas sanctificas vivificas henedicis by Christ our Lord God creates alwayes for us these good things sanctifies them and vivifies them Can Christ be called these good things Doth God create and vivifie Christ alwayes And since God creates these things through Jesus Christ as the Masse saith it is certaine these things are not Christ But all that agrees very well with the bread and wine We must not omit that Christ giveing the bread to his Disciples said simply Take Eate But in the Canon of the Masse there is Accipite manducate ex hoc omnes Take and eate all of it Whosoever added these words E X HOC lie did not beleeve that in the Eucharist the Lords body was really eaten by the mouth of the body For to eate of that is to eate a part thereof and not all Which cannot be said of Christs naturall body CHAP. VIII Recrimination of our Adversaries THe Prophet Elisha accused the Israelites of Idolatry and of forsaking Gods Covenant They out of revenge called him bald-pate which was a reproach nothing belonging to the doctrine We stand upon the like termes with our Adversaries We accuse the Roman Church to have brough in Idolatry in the Masse worshipping of the Sacrament and a Sacrifice of Christs body which Christ hath not instituted To have taken away from the people the halfe of the Sacrament To have changed the nature of the Sacrament yea of Christ himselfe which are thing of importance and altogether essentiall to the Eucharist and to Christian Religion But they out of recrimination tell us that we have likewise changed many things in the Lords Institutution For say they ye solemnizâ— the Supper in the morning but Chriâ—â— instituted it after Supper Ye celebrate it in a Temple but Christ did celebrate it in an upper Chamber Yee receive women to the Communion But when Christ instituted the Eucharist there were none but men Things whereof the two first are indifferent and all three not onely are not of the essence of that Sacrament but even make no part of that action To this objection Christ affords us an answer For hee said Doe this in remembrance of mee Hee said not Doe this in such a place nor at such an houre nor with such a Sexe or such persons But hee said Doe this commanding us to doe as hee hath done and to imitate his action Christ did not exclude women If any had beene there present worthy to be partakers of the holy Supper he would not have rejected them CHAP. IX Causes why the Pope admitteth not of any alteration in the Masse and will not conforme himselfe to the Lords Institution THough the abuse be so apparent yet the Church of Rome and the Pope will not let goe their hold and suffer any change or alteration to be made in the Masse The cause of that is easie to be knowne For if the Church of Rome should yeeld to the least alteration it would overthrow the three Maximes that are the basis whereon all Popery is grounded whereof the first is that the Church of Rome cannot erre the second that the Pope and Church of Rome are not subject to the holy Scripture and have greater authority than the holy Scripture the third that the Pope and Church of Rome have power to change Gods Commandemens and make new Articles of Faith All which things are seene not one by practice in that all the doctrine 〈◊〉 the Roman Church is contrary to thâ— holy Scripture but also by example of Popish Councels and open profeâ—sion of the principall Doctors of thaâ— Church whereof I will alleadge soâ—â— places in the next chapter CHAP. X. Places wherin the Doctors and Councels of the Roman Church maintain that the Pope and the Church of Rome are not subject to thâ— Scripture and have greater authority than the Scripture anâ— may make voide and abolish thâ— Commandements of God THe Romish Decree and its Glosseâ— are all stuffed with this brave maxime * Can. Lect. Dist 34. in Gloss Papa dispensat contra Apostolum Innec III. Dâ—cretaâ—â—le Concessione Praeâ—end Tu. 8. c p. Proposâ—â—t
of all men is to be judged of none Except he doe swerve from the Faith Stapleton an English Doctor in the second Booke of the authority of the Scripture chapter 11. * Dixi dico non taÌ„ ipsius fidei regulam in se esse Scripturam quaÌ„ ipsarum Scripturarum regulaÌ„ esse sidem Ecclesiae I have said and say still that the Church is the rule of the Scripture By this reckoning Sinners shall rule God and shall be masters of his word Lindan in the Index of the Chapters of the fifth Booke of his Panoplia The Church by the will of God is not tyed to the Scriptures For he and the rest with him will have the Church bound to the Tradition of the Church that is to say to the Lawes which she giveth to her selfe Now by the Church they understand alwayes the Roman Church and by the Romane Church the Pope Costerus the Jesuite in his Enchiridion Chapter 1. calleth the Tradition of the Romane Church a second kinde of Scripture and saith that a Hujus Scripturae praestantâ—a multis partibus superat Scripturas quas nobis in membranis Apostolâ—re lâ—querunt the excellencie of this Scripture goes famâ— beyoud the Scriptures which the Apostles left unto us written in parchements Gregory de Valentia the Jesuite it the fourth Booke of his Analysis chapter 2. b Scriptura sacram non esse judicem omnium controversiarum sidei probatur The Scripture is not the Judge if controversies And in the third Chapter c Probatur secundo Scripturam non esse sufficientem sideiregulam The Scripture is no sufficient rule of Faith And in the fourth Chapter d Scripturam arâ—â—no Deâ— judicio esse velut lapidem ossensionis in tentationem pedibus insipientium ut quive lint ea sola niti saâ—â—â—lime impingant errent The Scripture by the secret judgement of God is 〈◊〉 stumbling block and a temptation to the feâ—â— of fooles to the end that those which wilâ— rely upon it alone may easily stumble and swerve from the way Wherefore after he hath withdrawne us from the holy Scriptures in the seventh Book he sâ—nds us back to the Pope saying e Pontâ—fea Romanus ipse est in quo authoritas illa residot quae in Ecclesia extal adjudicandum de omnibus omnino controversiâ—s The Roman Bishop is he in whom resideth that authority of judging wholly of all the controversies of Faith According as Andradius saith in the first booke of the Defense of the Tridentin Faith Our faith is contained and sub sisteth by the Popes faith and all mens Salvation depends on his authority The same Jesuite in his first booke of the Sacrifice of the Masse Chapter forty finding no proofes in the Scriptures whereon to ground the Sacrifice of the Masse saith that a Si maxime hic cultus non esseâ— institutus à Deo concluditamen abastis non possit allum non esse legit imum cumid ad bon tatem cultus sacrificij minime requiratur If this worship or Service were not instituted of God Yet these men could not draw from thence this conclusion that it is not lawfull For that viz. to be instituted by God is in no wise required for to make a worship or a Sacrifice to be good And in his second booke b At ego suprà alias saepius ostendi praeceptum Dernon requirâ— ad honitatem culâ—us Here above and often elsewhere I have shewed that for the goodnesse of a worship or service Gods commandemem is not required For these causes in the fourth Tome of his Commentaries he affirmeth that c Greg. de Val. Tomo IV. Dâ—sp 6. qu. 8. Punct 5. §. 10. Et certe quaedam posterioribus temporibus rectius instituta esse quam â—â—tio se haberent there are some things which in the latter times are better ordained than they were at the beginning For he supposeth that the Church now is better instructed than it was in the Apostles time Of this power which the Roman Church taketh upon her selfe to change cancell and make void the commandements of the Lord we have a remarkable example in the Councell of Constance kept in the yeare 1416. which is the first Councell that tooke away the Cup from the people That Councell acknowledgeth in the 13 Session that Christ instituted the Eucharist under both kinds and that in the Primitive Church the people received the Cup. Yet withall it dare say a Cum in nonnull is mundi partibus quidam temerarie asserere praesumâ—nt populum Christia num debere Sacramentum Eucharistie sub utraqu panis vâ—ni specâ—e suscipere â—â—anâ— concupisâ—entia quam aliquando Apostolus piccatum appâ—llat sâ—nâ—â—a Sy 〈…〉 Cathal 〈…〉 â—â—â—peccatum appellari quod 〈◊〉 propâ—â—◠〈…〉 pâ—câ—â—â—uâ—â— sit that in somâ— parts of the World some dare affirme rashly that the Christian people ought to take the Eucharist under both kinds as if it were a temerity to follow Christs example And ordaining that henceforth the people shall receive the species of the bread onely will have this custome to be held as a Law which it is not lawfull to reprove or change Finally this Councell concludeth that those which obstinately affirme the contrary â—ught to be dâ—iven out as Hereticks and grievously punished With the like audacity the Councel of Trent in the 5 Session bâ— speaking of the concupiseence forbidden in Gods Law which Saint Paul in the seventh Chapter to the Romanes calleth sinne declareth and defineth that concupiscence is no sinne in those that are regenerate that is to say baptized and that Saint Paul spake neither truly nor properly Whence will follow that a baptised person may without sinne cover his neighbours wife but in an unbaptised person it is a sin Now let every unpartiall Reader judge with what reason our Adversaries call our Religion a new Religion seeing they doe declare themselves that they may change the Commandements of God add to the Creed and make a new Religion and that in the Masse they are not tyed to the Lords Institution CHAP. XI That our Exposition of these wordes This is my body is conformable to the Scripture and to the nature of Sacraments and approved by the Ancient Fathers and confirmed by our Adversaries THe interpretation that wee give of these wordes This is my body is the same which Christ himselfe giveth in the same place viz. that it is his commemoration And the same which Saint Paul giveth in the 10 chapter of the first to the Corinthians The bread which we breake is the communion of the body of Christ The Sacrament being a figure there is nothing more sit than to make use of a figure drawne from the nature of the action by which the name of the thing siguified is given to the signe Even as in the seventeenth of Genesis the Sacrament of Circumcision is called the Covenant of God a 〈◊〉 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
the substance of bread remaines still is possible neither is it contrary to reason nor to the authority of the Bible but is more easie to conceive and more reasonable And for this cause he is checked by Vasquez the Jesuite in the 3 Tome upon the 3 part of Thomas Disp 180. cap 5. And in that same place he saith that Durand followed the opinion of Scotus upon the 4. of the Sentences Disp 11. quest 2. Gabriel Biel in the 40 lesson upon the Canon of the Masse * Biel Lect. 40. Quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus an per conversionem aâ—icujus in ipsum an sine conversione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantia accidentibus panis non invenitur expressumin canone Bibliae How the body of Christ is there whether it be by conversion of â—â—me thing into it or whether without converâ—ion Christs body beginnes to be there with the bread the substance and the accidents remaining it is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible And even there That hath beene proved by the authority of the Church and of the Saints for that cannot be proved by reason The same * Sed cur hunc intellectum difficilem Sancti dicere Ecclesia determinarre elegerunt cum scripturae possint exponi salvari secundum intellectum facilem de hoc articulo in the 41 lesson asketh Why the Saints and the Church have chosen to say and determine that that should be understood in so difficult a manner seeing the Scriptures may be expounded and kept in their soundnesse in a manner easie to be understood To this he answereth that the Church hath determined it so meaning by the Church not the Syrian nor the Greeke or Ethiopian but the Roman Church onely Salmeron the Jesuite in the thirteenth Treatise of the ninth Tome expounding these words This is my body speaketh thus b § Secunda Prosectò illis verbis nequaquam conversio significatur ex vi verborum Alià s qui diceret Hoc est corpus meum demonstrando suum corpus significaret conversionem alicujus rei in suum corpus Certainely these words doe not signifie that any conversion be made by the force of the words Otherwise he that should say this is my body in shewing his owne body would signifie that some thing is converted into his body And he insistes very much upon this that these words This is my body are declarative or significative of the thing which is and not effective of that which is not Wherefore the same Jesuite in thâ— same Treatise * Inno. 3. â—ib 4. de Myster Missa cap. 6. Sane dicâ— potesi quod Christus vâ—rtute divina confeâ—â—t poslâ—â— forma expressit c. Et cap. 17. Ab hajus quaestonis laqueo saeâ—le se absolvit qui dâ—cit quod Chrâ—stus tunc conscit cum hened câ—t joynes himselfe to thâ— opinion of Pope Innocent the third a who in the fourth booke of the Mysteries of the Masse Chapters 6. and 17 teacheth that Christ made not the conversion of the bread by these words Hâ—est corpus meum but by his divine power and by the blessing that had preceded For he will have the pronouncing of these words to have another vertue at this day in the mouthes of Priests than they had in the mouth of Christ Which opinion of Innocent the third is followed by Innocent the fourth his Successor and by multitudes of Doctors which Salmeron produceth * § Porio pag. 82. in the same Treatise It is credible that these Popes and Doctors were moved to teach that Christ did not consecrate by these words This is my body but by the prayer 〈◊〉 blessing he made before because the Fathers say the same and that such was the beleefe of the ancient Church Justin Martyr b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calleth that which wee receive in the Eucharist a foode consecrated by the prayer of the Word that is to say Christ Saint Austin in the third booke of the Trinity Chapter 4. speaking of that which we receive in the Sacrament saith that it is taken of the fruits of the earth prece mystica consecratum and is consecrated by the mysticall prayer | 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen in his eight booke against Celsus * We eate loaves of bread which by the prayer are made one bodie which is some holy thing Ireneus in his fourth Booke Chapter 34. * Qui est à terra panis percip â—is vocationem Deâ— jam non est panis communâ—s sed Eucharisiâ—a The bread receiving the invocation of God is no more common bread but Eucharist Basil in the first booke of the holy Ghost 27 Chapter calleth the words of consecration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the words of invocation Isido us in the sixth booke of Origines in the Chapter de Officijâ— * Sâ—â—â—â—ficâ—ii diâ—tum quasi sacrii saâ—â—â—m quâ—â— ece mâ—sti a consecratur in meâ—â—â—â—â—â—m pro 〈◊〉 is domâ—nuae passion v. The Sacrifice is so called as if one should say a sacred deede because it is consecrated by the mysticall prayer in remembrance of the Passion which the Lord sâ—ffeced for us Yet at this day the Greek Churches consecrate by the prayer as Bellarmin acknowledgeth in the fourth Booke of the Eucharist Chapter * § Habemus 12. See the Canon Corpus in the second distinction of the consecration By this it is as cleare as the light that the Ancient Fathers did not beleeve that by these words This is my body any conversion of the bread was made CHAP. XV. Of the Adoration of the Sacrament The opinion of the Roman Church THe Roman Church having deified the Sacrament hath consequently obliged her selfe to worship it with the highest adoration which is due to God alone By this meanes a wafer of bread hath taken Gods place and is called God and is worshipped as God They speake of lifting up God in the Masse and of Gods feast viz Corpus Christâ— day and of carrying God to a sickâ— body Phrases that are not to bee found in the holy Scriptures and unheard off in the Ancient Christian Church The Councell of Trent in the thirteenth Session Chapter 5. speaketh thuâ— There remaines no doubt but that all faithfull Christian people ought to give the worship of Lâ—tria nullus dubu andi locus relinquitur quâ—n omnes Christi sideles latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur huic sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione adhibeant which is due to the true God to this holy Sacrament in the veneration Now by this word Sacrament they understand the body of Christ with the species or accidents For by this word Sacrament our Adversaries never understand Christ Jesus out of the species This Councell then ordaineth that the species of the bread and wine shall be worshiped with soveraigne adoration The practise doth verifie what I say For the people worshipping the consecrated hoste
Inventions They use meere Water in Baptisme They have no holy Water They me not consecrate their Church-yards They bury their dead in the fields and with â—easts as also they deserve it c. And â—ee addeth that the Emperour in stead of destroying them granted unto them safety and liberty But he should have added to this that the Emperor Sigismond having by armes assaulted and scuffled with them lost there many Battles For which cause he did let them rest in peace In this discourse Aeneas hath chopt and thrust in some calumniations as when he saith they give the Eucharist to madde men and to Infants and bury their dead with beasts Things very absurde and that never were As for the rest all our Religion almost is seene in it Hungaria at the same time was full of Faithfull people holding the same beleife They presented to the King Vladislaus in the yeare of our Lord 1508. their Confession of faith conformable to ours defending themselves against an Austin Frier that had accused them to the King of many errors namely for that they did not obey the Pope called not upon Saints denied Purgatory received the Communion in both kinds and rejected Transubstantiation Vpon which last point they speak thus This Frier writeth that the bread and wine in their naturall substance are changed into the body and blood of Christ This Confession is to be fouÌ„d in Fascioulo rerum expetendarum and are changed into Christ God and man so that nothing of the substance of the bread and wine remaineth but that the onely accidents are meerely upheld by miracle This Confession of faith hath no foundation in the Lord Christ Jesus his words who never spake one word of the conversion of the substance And a little after By that is manifested that the Primitive Church had this Beleife and hath confessed it and hath not erred and did not bowe at this Sacrament For in that time they received the Sacrament sitting and reserved nothing of it and carried none of it out of the house c. About the same time in the yeare 1520. Calvin being yet very young the Faithfull of Provence presented to the Parliament of Aix their Confession of Faith conformable to ours Vpon the point of the Sacrament they speak thus We are not entangled with any errors or heresies condemned by the Ancient Church and we hold the documents and instructions approved by the true Faith And as for the Sacraments particularly we have the Sacraments in honour and beleeve that they be testimonies and signes by which Gods grace is confirmed and assured in our consciences For which cause wee beleeve that Baptisme is a signe whereby the purgation that we obtaine by the blood of Jesus Christ is corroborated in such sort that it is the true washing of Regeneration and renovation The Lords Supper is the signe under which the true Communion of his body and blood is given unto us And these poore Churches were the remainder of the horrible Persecutions exercised by the space of three or foure hundred yeares by Kings and Princes at the instigation of Popes Which Churches they had defamed with horrible heresies accusing them to be Manicheans and enemies of Marriage even as they accuse us now to be enemies unto the Saints and the blessed Virgin and to beleeve that good workes are not necessary to salvation and that we make God Author of sin A few yeares before under the raigne of good King Lewis the XII who was called the Father of the People happed a memorable thing which Carolus Molinaeus a famous Jurisconsulte reciteth in his Booke of the French Monarchie He saith that certaine Cardinals and Prelates did goe about to stirre up and incite this good King to destroy and exterminate the Inhabitants of Cabrieres and Merindoles in Provence saying they were Sorcerers Incestuous persons hereticks condemned already by the Apostolick Sea But this King answered that he would condemne no body to death without hearing both sides and be fully acquainted with the cause And that for that end he sent one Adam Fumee a Master of Request and John Parin a Jacobin Frier his Confessor for to transport themselves into the place where they lived and be informed of their Religion Which they did and reported to the King that among these men they had found no Images nor any â—race or vestige of any ornaments of Masses or Papall Ceremonies That they had found nothing touching Magicall Artes whoredomes and other crimes laid upon them The King understanding this cryed out with a lowde voice and swore that those people were better Christians than hee and his people and confirmed their priviledges and immunities That fell out about the yeare 1412. Calvin scarce being borne Pope Julius the second made warres against this King But the King defeated his Armie and the Emperours neare the City of Ravenna Assembled a Councell at Piso against the Pope Caused money to bee coyned with this Inscription round about PERDAM BABYLONIS NOMEN as Thuanus relateth in the first Booke of his History But under the raigne of King Francis the first Successor unto Lewis the twelfth these poore Churches of Provence suffered hard and rude persecutions and Massacres Neverthelesse they subsist yet at this day and Thuanus in the sixth Booke of his History speaketh of their Religion Hee saith that these Valdenses for hee tearmes them so did say that the Church of Rome had departed from the faith of Christ Jesus and was become Babylon and the great Whore whereof is spoken in the Revelation That none ought to obey the Pope nor his Prelates That Monachall life was a sinke of the Church and an Infernall thing That the fiâ—â—â— of Rurgatorie the Masse the Dedicatiâ— of Churches the Service of Saints as Suffrages for the dead were inventionâ— Satan Then hee addeth To these 〈◊〉 and principall heads of their doctrine 〈◊〉 thens were falsly added touching Muriage the Resurrection the state anâ— condition of the dead and touchâ—â— meates The same Author in the 27 Booke speaketh of the Churches of the Valsies of the Alpes which he saith to be descended from the ancient Valdeuses which have yet at this very day a Religion altogether conformable to ourt and saith that in the yeare 1560 they presented their Confession of Faith unto those whom the Duke of Savoye their Lord had sent them by which they declared that they stuck fast and adheared to the ancient doctrine contained in the Old and New Testament and to the Apostles Creed and to the foure first Generall Councels and that for the rule of a good life they kept themselves close to the renne Commandements of the the Law That they taught to live chastely soberly and justly and to yeeld obedience unto Princes and Magistrates That neverthelesse they rejected Sacrifice of the Masse the â—â—â—rament of Penance Auricular Conâ—â—sion humane Traditions Prayers for the dead but cleaved to the holy Scripâ—â—es Which things they said to have â—â—eived
had much paines to discover the falsity of many places and false Workes which are in so great number that if they were taken away the Fathers Workes would bee found diminished of a third part Those among our Adversaries that are well read in the Fathers acknowledge the same with us and passe condemnation in this point Reade Sixtus Senensis about the end of his fourth Booke and the Booke of Cardinall Bellarmin Of Ecclesiasticall Writers where he hath put the Catalogue of the Fathers Works There shall ye wonder to see the multitude of Bookes which he saith to be doubtfull or manifestly counterfeit Which causes men to doubt of the other Workes whose falsitie is not easilie found out For the discovering of these falsities we have beene helped by the Catalogue of the Workes of Ancient Writers which Photius Patriarch of Constantinople who wrote about the yeare of our Lord 878. hath put into his Librarie And by Gennadius a Priest of Marseilles that wrote a Booke of the Illustrious men about the yeare of our Lord 492. Item by the diversity of stile Item by certaine places of the Fathers which are alleadged by Ivo Gratian Burchardus Lombard Thomas and others quite otherwise than they bee found in the editions printed in this last age Item by other places of the same Fathers which say the contrary so that one and the same Father is oftentimes found to contrarie himselfe Even as the ninth Age was the Age wherein the Decretals of the ancient Bishops of Rome were forged under the name of one Isidorus Mercator which was falsely framed for the grounding of the Papall Monarchy which with might and maine was a building in that Age So the eleventh Age in which Berengarius Archdeacon of Angiers withstood and impugned stoutly and vigorously the opinion of the reall presence and Transubstantiation was the Age wherein were forged sundry works in the behalf of that error and divers clauses were chopt into the Books of the ancient Fathers Of this false coyne is the Book attributed to * Bellar. lib. de Script Eccles Sixtus Senensis sub sinem libriquart Cyprian of the Lords Supper which all the learned of the Roman Church acknowledge not to be of his making And the Cathecheses Mystagogicall of Cyril of Jerusalem The Catecheses of Gregory of Nysse are indeed his but horribly corrupted and full of errors which the Roman Church approves not There is mention made there of one Severus an Heretick who is posterior to this Gregory above 150. yeares Of these falsifications and divers others we have entreated more at large in the Book against Cardinal du Perron He that should take away from the works of Cyprian Ambrose Hierome Austin and Athanasius the counterfeit Books should diminish the writings of these Fathers more than of a third part Wherefore after so many falsities discovered when our adversaries object us some place of a Father we might very justly desire them to proveunto us that that place was not added or depraved by some falsifier aswell as so many others By all manner of reasons if in an writing brought in justice there be found but one falsification the whole instrument loseth all its force and is rejected There is another difficulty that deceiveth such men as are not wel seen in antiquity to wit that the words used in old time have now changed their signification In the Fathers are found these words of Pope of Sacrifice of Oblation of Purging fire of Indulgence of Station of Species of Monke of Penance but quite in another sense than these words are taken at this day Notwithstanding these difficulties and disadvantages whereby our adversaries strive to prevaile against us we refuse not for all that to buckle with theÌ„ For what falsifications soever were made in the Books of Ancient writers yet in them remaines still so many expresse and formall places against Transubstantiation that of the collection of them a man might make a great volume Wee have produced above 500 in the Book of the Novelty of Popery and Mr le Faucheur and Mr Aubertin have laboured lately and taken paines about this subject with a â—ost exact diligence and full of great learning Here wee will content our selves to produce some few places for a taste yet with this protestation that I do not alleadge the Fathers for to be a stay to our cause which is sufficiently propped and established upon the Word of God Goâ— doth not beg the testimonies of men Hâ—â— word is as strong alone as being aâ—companied with humane testimonâ— To goe about to defend it with thâ— testimonies of men subject to errouâ— is as if a man would lighten the Sunâ—â— with a Candle But wee doe alleadgâ— the Fathers for to defend their honour because that against their â—â—tent our Adversaries make them Advocates of a bad cause And for 〈◊〉 condescend and yeeld some thing to the disease of this froward age wherein the holy Scripture hath lost its power and efficacy and which armeth it selfe with human testimonies against the Word of God CHAP. XXVI Places of the Fathers contrary to Transubstantiation and to the manducation of the body of Christ by the corporall mouth TErtullian in his fourth Booke against Marcion chapter 40. disputing aâ—ainst the Marcionites that denyed Christ â—o have a true humane body speaketh â—hus a Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suuÌ„ illum fecit dicendo Hoc est corpus meum id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Christ when he had taken the bread â—nd distributed it to his disciples made it â—o be his body saying This is my body â—hat is to say the figure of my body But it were not a figure unlesse it were a true body His reason is because men represent not by figure the things that are not And in the third Booke chapter 19. b Panem suum corpus appellans ut bâ—â—c jam euâ— intelligâ—â— corporis sui figuram paâ—i dedisse Christ called the bread his body that thereby thou mightest understand that he gave to the bread to be the figure of his body Origen upon the fifteenth Chapter of Saint Matthew speaking of that which the Faithfull receive by the corporall mouth in the Eucharist * Quod si quicquid ingreditur in os in veâ—â—e abit in sâ—cessum â—jicitur ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbit Dei perque obsecratâ—oneÌ„ juxta id quod habet materialein ventrem aâ—â—â— in secessuÌ„ emitâ—itur c. â—â—t haecquidem deâ—ypico symboluoqueâ—orpore If every thing that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is sent into the prity this food which is sanctified by the Word of God and by the Prayer as it is materiall gâ—â— into the belly and is sent into the privy And a little after And thus much be said touching the typicall and symbolicall body of Christ Vpon this place
Cup his blood These things Bethren are called Sacraments because in them one thing is seene and another is understood What is seene hath a corporall forme What is meant hath a spirituall fruite If then thou wilt understand what the body of Christ is heare the Apostle saying to the Faithfull Ye are Christs body and his members If ye bee therefore Christs body and members your mysterie is set on the table of the Lord c. He giveth the same exposition in the 26 Treatise upon Saint John By this mâ—ate and by this drinke the Lord will have to bee understood the society and fellowship of his body and of his members to wit the holy Church of the Predestinate And in the Roman Canon in the a Distinction of the Consecration at the Canon Hoc est a Coelestis anis qui â—hristi caro 〈◊〉 suo modo â—ocatur â—rpus â—hristi cum 〈◊〉 vera sit â—cramentii â—rporis â—hristi illiâ—s videliâ—t quod â—alpabile â—ortale in â—uce posiâ—m est tâ—b Glos â—oeleste Saâ—amentum â—uod vere â—praesenâ—t Christi â—rnemdiciâ—r corpus â—hristi sed â—aproprie crum diciâ—r suo moâ—â—sed non â—iveritate sed significante mysterio Vt sit sensus vocatur Chriâ—â— corpus id est significatur The heavenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is after its manner called the body of Christ although to speake truely it be the sacred signe of Christs body to wit of that which being visible palpable mortall was put upon the Crosse And thereupon the Glosse of the Doctors hath these words which truely are excellent The heavenly Sacrament that representeth truely the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly for it is thus called after its manner but not according to the truth of the thing but by a significant mystery So that the sense is that it is called the body of Christ that is to say that it is signified S. Cyprian in his 63 Epistle will have in the sacred Cup water to be mingled with the wine His reason is because that as the wine is the blood of Christ so the water is the People and that the People ought not to bee divided from Christ b §. 9. Quando in Calice vino aqua â—iscetur Christo populus adunatur c. Sivinum tantum quis â—crat sanguis Christi inc pit esse sine nobis si veroaqua sit sola â—ebs incipit esse sinc Christo If saith he any one offereth nothing but wine Christs blood beginneth to bee without us but if the water be alone the people begins to be without Christ Whereby it followeth that as Cyprian did not beleeve that the water was transubstantiated into the people so did he not beleeve that the wine was transubstantiated into the body of Christ And in the same Epistle c Vinum fuit quod sanguiuem suii dixit That which Christ called his blood was wine And in the 76 Epistle d Dominus corpus suii paneÌ„ vocat de multorii granorum adunationâ— congestum The Lord called his body the bread compounded with the gathering together of many graines We have a Treatise of the two natures of Christ against Nestorius and Eutyches made by Pope Gelasius who wrote about the yeare of our Lord 495. There is this sentence to be found which vexeth and grieves mightily our Adversaries e Certe Sacramenta quae sumimus corporis sanguinis Christi divina res est propter quod per eadeÌ„ divinae effiscimur consortes naturae tameÌ„ esse non desinit substaÌ„tia panis vini Et certe image similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebraÌ„tur Certainely the Sacraments that we take of the body blood of Christ are a divine thing for which cause also by them we are made partakers of the divine nature and yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine ceaseth not to be And verily the Image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries Note that hee disputed against the Eutychians who held that the substance of the body of Christ was passed and changed into the substance of the divine nature The controversy was not about the conversion of the accidents but of the Substance which Gelasius maintaineth to remaine in the body of the Lord as the substance of the bread remaineth in the Sacrament Now no man can doubt but that this Book be of Gelasius Bishop of Rome Hoc etiam eatae meâ—orie Papa Gelasius c. in co â—bro quem â—emoratus â—â—ntistes â—onscripsit â—dversus eâ—â— qui in 〈◊〉 omino Ieâ— duarum at urarum â—olunt indiâ—â—aÌ„ credere â—ritatem Quomodo â—cend t in â—â—lum nisi â—â—ia localis verus est â—mo aut â—omodo aâ—st fidelâ—â—s suiâ—â—nisi â—â—a idem â—mensus 〈◊〉 â—rus dâ—us seeing that Fulgentius who lived in Gelasius time alleadgeth it * in his Book to Feâ—randus the Deacon in the 2 proposition and attributeth it to the Pope Gelasius Fulgentius Disciple to S. Austin in his second Book to Trasimondus chap. 17. a How is Christ ascended into Heaven but because he is in a place and a man indeed Or how is he present to his Faithfull ones but because he is infinit and a God indeed Again in his Book of the Faith to Peter the Deacon chap. 19. b Cuâ— nunc id est tempore nov Testamenti cum Paâ—e et Sp Sancto cum quibs illi est una diviniâ—as sacrificium â—ais et â—â—niâ—n side et charitâ—te sancta Ecclesia Catholica per uversum orâ—â—â—â—eâ—rae offerre non cessat etc. The holy Catholick Church which is over all the world now that is to say under the New Testament ceaseth not to offer unto Christ Jesus with the Father and the holy Ghost with whom he is one and the same Godhead a Sacrifice of bread and wine in Faith and Charity For in those caâ—n ill oblations of the Old Tetestament there was a figure of Christs flesh which he was to offer for our sins being without sin But in the sacrifice of the Eucharist is made an action of thankesgiving and a remembrance of the flesh of Christ which he offered for us and of the blood that himselfe who is God hath shed for us Besides this that he calleth the Holy Supper a remembrance and a Sacrifice of bread and wine it is very remarkable that he saith that this Sacrifice of bread and wine is offered unto Christ Jesus Whereby it appeareth that this Sacrifice is not Christ himselfe for Christ is not Sacrificed unto Christ Facundus an Affrican Bishop who wrote about the yeare of our Lord 550 in the defence of three heads or points of the Councell of Chalcedon * Potest Sacramentum adoptionis adoptio nuÌ„cupari sanguâ—neÌ„ dicimus noÌ„ quod proprie corpuâ— ejus sit panis poculum sanguis sed quod in se mysterium
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
bodie of Christ and of the residues of the body of Christ that remaine after the Communion Which cannot agree with Christs naturall body crucified for us that cannot be broken in peeces and whereof there can be no residue Pope Gelasius in the Canon Comperimus second Distinction of the Consecration d Comperimus quod quidam sumpta taÌ„tum modo corporis sacri portione à calice sacrati cruoris abstineant We have learned that some having taken one part of the body of Christ abstaine from the cup which thing he calleth a sacriledge And Evagrius the Historian in his fourth Booke Chapter 36. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The ancient custome of the royall City requireth that when many Peeces of the immaculate body of Christ remaine children not yet in age to be corrupted going to Schoole be called for to eate them How could one give peeces of the naturall bodie of Christ who sitteth at the right hand of God What likelihood is there to give to a troope of little children the residues of the body of Christ Would not that bee esteemed at this day in the Romane Church an horrible profanation Wherefore it is a thing very frequent in the Fathers to say that Panis est Corpus Christi The bread is Christs body And we have heard Saint Austin here above speake so Words which if they were taken or understood of the naturall body of Christ would be false For the bread is not the body that was crucified for us It is therefore unjustly done by our Adversaries to expose unto the View with great noyse and rumour some placeâ— out of the Bookes of Sacraments attributed to Saint Ambrose and out of the Booke of the Lords Supper attributed to Cyprian wherein is sayde that the bread after the words of Consecration becometh and is made Christs bodieâ— since we doe shew by so many proofâ—â— that they speake of another body that of that which was borne of the Virgin Marie and that was crucified aâ— we will shew yet more clearely hereafter For that the Author of these Bookâ— attributed to Saint Ambrose hath beleeved that after the Consecration the bread is bread still he shewes it plainly when he saith c Lib. 4. de SacrameÌ„t cap. 4. Let us therefore establisâ— this to wit how that which is bread may be Christs body And a little after a Si tanta vis in Sermone Domini Iesu ut inciperent esse quae noÌ„ erant quaÌ„to magis operatorius est ut sint quae erant et in aliud commutentur If there be such power and vertue in the word of the Lord Jesus as to make that things which were not begin to bee how much more shall he make that the things which were be and be changed into other things This excellent place which saith that the things which were are still that is to say that that which was bread is bread still is found thus alleadged by Lombard in his fourth Booke of Sentences Distinction 10. And by Thomas in the third part of his Summe question 78. Art 4. And by Gratian in the second Distinction of the Consecration at the Canon Panis est And by b Gabr. lect 40. in Can. Missae Alger de Sacram corp lib. 2. cap. 7 Ivo Car. 2. Parte cap 7. Et Iodocus Coccius Tom. 2. lib. 6. pag. 621. Gabriel Biel and Alger and Ivo Carnutensis and Jodocus Coccius and not according to the new editions of Ambrose in which these words Sint quae erant are left out Such falsifications are frequent in the new editions Some places may bee found indeed wheâ—ein some Fathers say that the bread of the Eucharist is the body of the Lord crucified for us But that must be understood after the sâ—me manner as Christ said of the bread that it was his body and that the Cup is the New Testament because it is the Sacrament or remembrance of it They doe object a place of Saint Hilarie out of his eighth Booke of the Trinitie where he saith a De veritate carnis saguinis noÌ„ relictus est ambigendi locus Nunc enim â—psius DoÌ„mi professione side nostra vere caro est vere sanguis Et hac accepta atque hausta essiciunt ut nos in Christo Christus in nobis sit Of the truth of the flesh and blood there is no doubt For at this day both by the profession of the Lord and by our Faith it is flesh indeed and blood indeed and these things taken and swallowed downe cause us to be in Christ and Christ in us First of all it is a great abuse to urge Saint Hilary who in this point of the nature of Christs body had an errour that destroyes the whole Christian Religion For b Hilar. lib. 10. de Trinitate In quem quanvis aut idlus incideret aut vulnus descenderet c. afferrent quideÌ„ haec impetuÌ„ passionis non tamen doloreÌ„ passionis inferrent ut teluÌ„ aliquod aut aquam perforans aut ignem compungens aut aëra vulnerans Et paulo post Virtus corpoâ—is sine sensu poenae vim poenae in se desaevientis excepit he teacheth that Christ in his Passion suffered no manner of paine at all and that the stripes they gave him were as if they had pierced the aire or the fire with a dart Secondly it appeareth that Hilary speaketh of the Spirituall manducation For by it alone are we in Christ and Christ in us Thirdly when Hilarie saith there remaineth no place to doubt of the truth of the flesh and blood of the Lord he doth not meane it must not be doubted but that in the Eucharist we cate truely the naturall flesh of Christ by the mouth of the body But he saith that we must not doubt but Christ had a true flesh and a true blood For he disputeth against certaine Hereticks that destroyed the truth of his human nature For as touching the Mystagogicall Catecheses attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem which are objected against us where it is sayd that we must not beleeve our senses telling us that it is bread it is certaine that those Catecheses are supposed and falsly attributed to Cyril For the Stile of them is very different from those 18 Catecheses of Cyril that precedes them which are cited by Theodoret and by Gelasius and by Damascen but these last are never alleadged by any one In the first Catechese there is an evident marke of falsity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For hee disswadeth his hearers from frequenting the Amphitheater where the Gladiators chases and combates were made against wild beasts and the Hippod omus or Circus that is to say the Parke or Place where horses races and combates were exercised For then were no such buildings nor spectacles in Jerusalem nor never were any since Jerusalem was Christian And concerning Chrysostomes hyperbolical amplifications saying that the Altar streames with
of man is to his Soule Which was the opinion and beleife of Plato of Cicero of Virgil and of all the Platonick Schoole that bore the sway in Ireneus his time Such was the beleife of the Author of the Booke of the Lords supper attributed to Saint Cyprian That Author speaketh thus f Panâ—s ste communis in carnem sangumem mutatus procurat vitam incrementum corporibus ideoque ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostrae adjutamsirmit as sensibil argumento edocta est visibilibus Sacramentis inesse vitae aeternae effectum The common bread being changed into flesh and into blood bringeth â—ife and growth unto the body And therefore the infirmity of our flesh being helped by the accustomed effect is taught by a sensible proofe that in the visible Sacraments there is an effect of eternall life When he saith that the common bread is turned into flesh and into blood he doth not meane that it is turned into the flesh and blood of Christ but into our flesh and blood by disgestion for hee addeth that this bread nourisheth our bodyes and maketh them to grow and all the currant of the speech sheweth that But a little after hee addeth some wordes whereupon our Adversaries doe triumph and glory for lack of understanding what this Authors beleefe was * Panis queÌ„ Dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur et latebat d vinitas ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter divina se infudit essentia The bread saith hee that the Lord gave to his Disciples being changed not in shew but in nature is made flesh by the omnipotency of the Word But in the words following he sheweth that this conversion of the bread into the flesh of Christ is made not by Transubstantiation but by an union of the Godhead of Christ with the bread like unto the union of Christs divine nature with his humane nature For he added immediatly after And even as in â—he person of Christ his humanity was â—eene but his divinity was hidden so the * Panis itaque hic azymus cibus verus sincerus per speciem Sacramentum nos tactu sanctificat divine essence is infused in the visible Sacrament by an unspeakable manner There is nothing more expresse nor more contrary unto Transubstantiation For according to this Authors beleefe even as Christs divine nature did not transubstantiate his Manhood but made it to be the flesh of the Son of God So the divine Essence which he saith to be infused in the bread of the Sacrament maketh it to become Christs body without being Transubstantiated Wherefore a litlte after he saith that that which we receive in the Sacrament * Caro quae VerbuÌ„ Dei Patris assuÌ„psit in utero virginali n un tate suae personae et panis qui consecratur in Ecclesia unum corpus sunt Divinit atisenim plenitudo quae fuit in illa replet et istum paâ—em is unleavened bread which sanctifieth us by touching it acknowledging that it is bread still Bellarmin in the 15 chap. of his third Book of the Eucharist alleadgeth Saint Remigius that wrote about the yeare of our Lord 520 in these words a The flesh which the Word of God the Father tooke in the Virgins wombe in unity of person and the bread that is consecrated in the Church are one and the selfe-same body For the plenitude of the divinity which was in that flesh filleth also this bread Bellarmin addeth that Haimo held the same language and that Gelasius and Theodorets words that we have alleadged above may be fitted to this opinion The Author our Adversaries alleadge with more ostentation is Damascene whom they rank among the Saints This man may be tearmed the Lombard of the Grecians because he is the first among the Grecians that handled divinity in Philosophicall tearmes And is the first that wrote for the adoration of Images Now he did write about the yeare of our Lord 740. This man in his 4 Book of the Orthodox Faith chap. 14. extendeth himselfe upon this matter and will have the bread b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be changed into the body of the Lord not by transubstantiation but by c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Assumption and union with the divinity like unto the union of Christs divinity with his humanity Because saith hee d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is the custome to eate bread and to drink wine and water the Lord hath conjoyned his divinity to these things and hath made them to be his body and blood And a little after e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If thou inquirest in what manner that is done let it suffice thee to understand that it is done by the holy Spirit after the same manner as the Lord hath made himselfe to himselfe and in himselfe a flesh taken of the holy Mother of God by the holy Ghost And a little after he saith that the bread and wine c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the body of Christ Deified Chiefly he is very expresse in that he addeth d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The bread of the Communion is not meere bread but it is conjoyned to the Divinity But still he acknowledgeth that it is bread saying the bread is the body of Christ and calling it the bread of the Communion And a little after The loaves of proposition did figurate this bread Item The broad is the first fruits of the future bread And a little after We partake all of one bread Only he hath this of particular to himselfe that he will not have the bread to bee called the figure of Christs body rejecting that kind of speech usuall and ordinary in the Fathers that have written afore him It appeareth likewise in that he will have the Sacrament to bee honored but not to be worshipped d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us saith he honor it with purity corporall and spiritual and will have it to be received with the hands set in forme of a Crosse For then it was not as yet the custom to chop it into the mouths of Communicants Rupertus was imbrued with the same opinion e Rupertus Tuitiensis in Exod. c. 12. Sicut Christus humanam naturaÌ„ nec mutavit nee destruxitysed assumpsit it a in Sacrameto nec destruit nec mutat sub stantiam panis et vini sèd assumit in unitatemcorporis et sâ—ngumis sui Even as Christ saith he did neither change nor destroy the humane nature but joyned himselfe unto it So in the Sacrament he neither destroyeth nor changeth the substance of the bread and wine but joyneth himselfe unto it in the unity of his body and blood For which cause also Bellarmin placeth him among the Impanators This doctrine doth no whit agree with the ubiquity For they did put this union of
And in the 34 Psalme O taste and see that the Lord is good And Ieremy in the 15 chap. Thy words were found and I did presently eate them And God himselfe in the 55 of Isayâ—h inviteth the thirsty to drink of the waters And that it may bee understood he speakes of a spirituall drink he addes Encline your care and your soule shall live According to this kind of speech S. Peter in his 1 Epistle chap. 2 exhorts us to desire the milk of intelligence to wit the Word of God And S. Paul in the first to the Corinthians chap. 3. saith he hath given them milk and not solid meat Christ our Lord is he that hath used very often such metaphors taken from corporall meats and drinks He saith in the 4. chap. of S. John that his meat is to do his Fathers will And in the same chap. he promiseth to give water whereof whosoever shall drink shall never thirst And in the chap. 7.37 If any man thirst let him come unto me and drink And in the 5. chapter of S. Matthew Blessed are they which doe hunger and thirst after righteousnesse With such manner of figurative speeches is woven and interlaced a great part of the 6 chap. of S. John where the Lord speaking to the Capernaites promiseth to give them the bread of Heaven and saith that his flesh is meat indeed and his blood is drink indeed Two occasions mooved him to speak so For the Jews of Capernaum making him inferior to Moses and objecting unto him as by reproach of impotency that Moses had given unto the Iews the Manna which they call the bread of Heaven the Lord from thence takes occasion to tell them he would give them another bread descended from Heaven farre better than the Manna to wit himselfe come downe from Heaven for to bee the food of soules and for to vivifie them The other cause that mooved him to speak in figured tearmes is that he was speaking unto ungratefull and rebellious Iews â—o whom S. Maâ—thâ—w saith he spake not wiâ—h â—t a parâ—ble Matth. 13.34 Here our Adversaries acknowledge with us that there is a manner of eating the body of Christ which is spirituall and which is done not by the corporall moâ—th but by the Faith in Christ Iesus in whom we find our life and spirituall food The Councell of Trente in the XIII Session chap. 8. teaches the same saying Some eate this bread only spiritually and by a lively Faith But besides this spirituall manducation the Church of Rome forgeth to her selfe a corporall manducation whereby the Faithfull in the Eucharist do chew and eate with their very teeth the body of our Saviour Christ and take it with the corporall mouth and make him to enter into their stomacks and do call this a reall and true manducation for to oppose it to the spirituall manducation whereof they speake very often with contempt as of a picture and of a thing which consists only in imagination The Councell of Trente intimates so much tacitely saying there be some that eate this bread only spiritually as if it were a small thing in comparison of the reall eating of it by the mouth of the body Yet neverthelesse when wee presse them a little they are forced to avow that the spirituall manducation is a great deale better and that the corporall manducation which they maintaine and defend so stiflly and with so much ardour is a small thing in regard of the spirituall For they confesse that many are saved without partaking of the Eucharist but that none are saved without beleeving in Christ And that many eate the Sacrament which neverthelesse do perish eternally but that whosoever eateth Christs flesh spiritually and with true Faith shall have eternall salvation according to the Lords saying in the third chap. of S. John that whosoever beleeveth on him shall not perish but have eternall life Which is more our Adversaries do acknowledge with us that the manducation of the Sacrament without the spirituall manducation by Faith is not only unprofitable but even turnes into condemnation and that it is profitable and usefull but for and because of the spirituall manducation But the spirituall manducation by it selfe alone and without the corporall manducation leaves not to be profitable and alwayes necessary to salvation The manducation of the Sacrament by the mouth of the body is common both to good and bad and hypocrites partake thereof as well as the true Faithfull yea our Adversaries hold that beasts may eate Christs body and that Mice do carry away sometimes the body of the Lord But the spirituall manducation is proper and peculiar to Gods Children and none but the true Faithfull can be partakers thereof Christ in the 15 of S. Matthew saith that which goeth into the mouth defileth not a man whence follows that neither can it sanctifie a man In this S. Austin is far from that language which the Roman Church holdeth now a dayes who acknowledgeth no other true and reall manducation of Christs body than that which is made by the bodily mouth in the Eucharist For this holy man on the contrary holdeth that there is no other true and reall manducation of Christs body but the spirituall and that that which is done in the Sacrament by the mouth of the body is not a true manducation He teacheth it in his 21 book of the City of God chap. 25. a Dominus ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus sed 〈◊〉 veracorpus Christi manducare The Lord saith he sheweth what it is to eate the body of Christ not in Sacrament only but in truth And in the same place b Non solo SacrameÌ„to sed re veâ—â— manduâ—â—verunt corpus Christi They have eaten the body of Christ not only in Sacrament but also truely and indeed To this holy Doctor Thomas joynes himselfe in this point in his 7 lesson upon the 6 of S. John where speaking of him that eateth spiritually the body of Christ he saith c Hic est ille qui non Sacramentalâ—â—er tantum sed re verâ— corpus Christ manduâ—at It is that man that eateth the body of Christ not only Sacramentally but also in truth CHAP. II. That in the 6 Chapter of S. Iohn the Lord speakes not of the Sacrament of the Eucharist nor of the manducation of his flesh by the mouth of the body BY the corporall manducation wee understand the manducation of the bread and wine which Christ hath honored with the title of his body and blood because they are the Sacrament and remembrance of the same But our Adversaries pretend to eate really the body of Christ with their mouth and to make him passe into their stomach and for to prop this so grosse and Capernaitish manducation they alleadge the sixth of Saint Iohn where Christ saith that he is the bread come downe from Heaven and promiseth to give his flesh to eate 1. For to beleeve that a man must of
purpose put out his own eyes and give the Son of God the lye For all this dâ—scourse is addressed and spoken to the Jewes of Capernaum to whom hee promiseth to give his flesh to eate If by these words hee had promised to give them the Eucharist hee would have deceived them for he never administred nor presented the holy Supper unto them 2. That appeareth by the time wherein the Lord held this discourse It was when the holy Supper was not as yet instituted no nor till about two yeares after How could the Lords Disciples have understood that hee spake of the Eucharist unto them which was not and whereof he had never spoken before 3. Where is there in all this discourse of the Lord the least mention of a Table or of a Chalice or of a Supper or of a Fraction of Bread or of a distribution of the Sacrament among many In summe of any of the actions wherein the administration of this Sacrament doth consist 4. It is to be noted that Christ speaketh often in the present tense Iohn 6.33 and chap 35 14. He doth not say I shall be the bread come downe from heaven and I shall be the bread of life But I am the bread came downe from heaven and I am the bread of life And He that eateth my flesh hath ete naâ—l life He was then the bread of life before the holy Supper was instituted and might have beene eaten then and was the sood of the Soule when the holy Supper had as yet no being 5. Now that by eating and drinking the Lord meaneth to beleeve and to trust in him and thereby to be nourished and vivified he shewes it himselfe saying in the 35 Verse I am the bread of life be that commeth to me shall never hunger and hee that beleeveth on mee shall never thirst Who sees not that in this place beleeving is put for drinking since by beleeving the thirst is quenched And as by that word of comming hee speaketh of a spirituall comming so by that word drinking hee meaneth and understandeth a kinde of spirituall drinking 6. And when the Lord saith in the 47. and 48 Verse Hee that beleeveth in mee hath eternall life I am the bread of life who sees not that this bread is taken in and by beleeving For Christ sheweth how he is the bread of life to wit because he that beleeves on him hath eternall life 7. The very words whereupon our Adversaries ground themselves most are those which make most against them In the 53 Verse the Lord saith Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood yee have no life in you There it is evident he speakes of a manducation necessary unto salvation and without which none can be saved Hee speakes not therefore of the manducation of the Sacrament by the mouth of the body seeing that without it so many are saved Now to say that this corporall manducation is necessary not indeed but in vow and desire is to come neare our beleefe and reduce that necessity to the spirituall manducation Moreover to say that none are saved without desiring to be partakers of the holy Communion is to exclude from salvation John the Baptist and the good Theife crucified with the Lord who never participated thereof neither in deed nor in vow And we might bring many examples of Pagans and Idolaters Read the Homily of the 40 〈◊〉 maâ—â—yrs i◠〈◊〉 who by hearing of the wordes of the Martyrs were converted at the same instant and put to death at that very houre without any body ever having told them of this Sacrament and consequently without having made any vow at all to bee made partakers thereof Yea many have suffered martyrdome without being Baptized and by consequent verie farre from disposing themselves to receive the Eucharist 8. The same appeareth by that which Christ addeth in the 54 Verse Hee that eateth my flesh hath eternall life He speaketh not of the manducation of the Sacrament For many that eate it have not eternall life Their ordinary evasion is that Christ speaketh of him that eateth his flesh worthily Wherein appeareth how strong the truth is on our side For according to our beleefe the Lords words are true without any addition But our Adversaries doe adde some glosses for to escape and save themselves Which addition they make of their owne head without the Word of God One may well eate the bread unworthily as Saint Paul saith 1. Cor. 11. Whosoever eateth this bread unworthily But it is impossible to eate the Lords flesh unworthily since to eate is to beleeve as we have shewed A man cannot beleeve in Christ unworthily no more than to love God unworthily since that in beleeving in Christ and in loving of God consisteth all our dignity Cardinall Cajetan observeth the same upon the sixt of Saint John saying Christ doth not say He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood worthily but hee that eateth and drinketh to the end wee may understand that he speaketh of a meate and of a drinke that hath no need of modifieation c. It appeareth then plainely that this speech is not to be understood literally and that the Lord speaketh not of eating and drinking the Sacrament but of beleeving and of feeding spiritually by faith in his death 9. The Lord addeth in the 56 Verse He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him Words that decide this question For they would be false if they should be taken and understood of the manducation of the Sacrament it being a thing most certaine that profane men and hypocrites which receive the Sacrament dwell not in Christ nor Christ in them Now to dwell in Christ is to be conjoyned to him with an union constant and continuall and mutuall betweene Christ and the beleever As Cornelius Jansenius Bishop of Gant Concord Evang. ca. 59. Quiedit carnem meam hibit meum sanguinem in me manet ego in co hoc est indivulse intime mihi coujungitur ego illi teacheth very well He saith hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him that is to say he is conjoyned unto me inseparably and intimately and I to him and proves it by other places of Saint John in his first Epistle 4.16 Hee that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God and God in him And in the same place Hereby we know that we dwell in him and he in us because he hath given us of his Spirit And in the third Chapter 24. Verse he saith that hee that keepeth his Commandements dwelleth in him and bee in him From whence he inserreth that also in this 6 Chapter of Saint John the Lord speaks of a kinde of eating which is proper unto those that have a faith working through charity and not of a corporall manducation whereof wicked men are partakers 10. That if for to make Christ to dwell
fieâ—i ut redigatur ad locum unitatis â—t a ut quatuor homines occupent locum unius hominis when for to prove that a body may be in severall places at once hee saith that it is possible that foure men hold no more place than one of the foure alone and that all foure fill up but one place Take me a man clothed with a sute of clothes that sits close and is made just to his body Bellarmin saith it is possible for these foure men to be contained in the same sute of clothes without being made larger and the men never a whit the lesse If that be possible for foure it is also possible for ten yea for a hundred yea for a thousand so that all the men of the World shall be contained in a single doublet But if of these foure men in this little doublet one be sitting the other lying and the other standing If one of-them embrace the other and by consequent is out of the other they shall not be in one and the same place If they speake together and looke one upon another the one shall be the object of the others eyes and therefore shall not bee in one and the selfe same place Truly I thinke this Jesuite propounding such things and shutting up a whole Common-wealth in a doublet had a minde to deride his owne Religion For by the same reason a man may have both his eyes in one place and not different of sitnation Bellar. lib. 1. de Euchar c. 2. § Tertia Christus in Eucharistia non habet modum existendâ— corporum sed potius spiritâ—uÌ„ cum sit totus in qualibeâ— parte By this meanes a man shall have two eyes and shall have but one And the parts of an humane body shall not be distinct and the one shall not be out of the other This our Adversaries doe by their Transubstantiation as Bellarmin acknowledgeth saying that in the Eucharist Christ doth not exist after the manner of bodies but rather after the manner of Spirits since hee is whole in everie part It is false likewise that according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome Christs body be in the Eucharist after the manner of Spirits For when an Angell is present in any place he is not present in a thousand others severall places and is not far from himselfe and divided from himselfe aâ— they will have Christs body to bee in a million of severall places at one and the same time The same Jesuite in the third Booke and fifth chapter saith * §. Ad haec Substantia fius quanti â—ate caâ—o dâ—ci non potese that a Substance without qantity cannot bee tearmed flesh Whereupon it followes that Christs body under the Host is not flesh for there is no quantity since it is whole under every point that hath no quantity Besides that the quantity of a body is a continued quantity But Christs body in the Host is not one in continuity with that which is in Heaven sitting at the right hand of God the Father since hee is farre and remote from it Againe he saith in the same place * Quid est corpus nisi extentâ—o 〈◊〉 longitudinem latitudinem prosunditatâ—m That a body is nothing else but an extension in length breath and depth Therefore in the Sacrament there is no true body of Christ since it hath no extension no length breadth and depth As he saith himselfe in the second chapter of his first Book Christs body in the Eucharist hath no extension I have wondred many times seeing that our Adversaries hold that Christ municants untill the species be destroyed and consumed by the disgestion why they do not give them hard bread and not of easie disgestion that they might have Christ in them a longer time rather then to give them such light Hosts or wafers which are presently turned into a Chylus and disgested in an instant CHAP. VIII Of the progresse of this abuse and by what meanes Satan hath established the Transubstantiation UPon this matter the opinions of men began to varie in the eight Age wherein the controversie touching the adoration of Images was in its hight and force For Satan at the same time did labour and busie himselfe to introduce and bring into the Church these two sorts of Idolatry In the yeere of our Lord 754 the Emperor Constantin son to Lisaurus called a Councell of his whole Empire at Constantinople where 330 Bishops were present that condemned the adoration of Images Among other reasons that they bring they exhort the people to be contented with those Images that Christ had instituted having given in the holy Supper the bread and wine for Images and Figures of his body and blood And speaking of the Eucharisticall bread they say * Ecce vivificantis illâ—â—s corporâ—â—s Imaginem Behold the image of this quickning body that is honorably presented And a little after The Lord commanded to set upon the table that image altogether chosen to wit the substance of the bread least Idolatry should creep in if it were represented in an humane forme But few yeares after the Empire being fallen into the hands of Irenea an Idolatrous woman and who did put out the eyes of her own son and ravished the Empire from him this monster called another Councell at Nice in the year 787. where she caused Images to be re-established and the worshipping of them to be commanded under paine of a curse There likewise were condemned as abhominable these foresaid clauses of the former Councell whereby the bread and wine are called Images of the Lords body and blood And it is the same Councell that declares that Images are equivalent and of as much worth as the Gospell and that an Image is better than Prayer And that Angels are corporall And that he that hath the least doubt whither Images must bee worshipped is accursed For certainly the spirit of Satan reigned in that pernicious Councell Wherefore also Charles the Great who lived then called another Councell at Franâ—kford anno Domini 794 in which that Councell of Nice was condemned as erroneous by a generall consent notwithstanding that Pope Adrian had approved that Councell and made a Treatise in defense of it Whilest Satan bestirred himselfe thus in the East parts the Roman Bishops on their side did labour in the West parts For they did well perceive that these two things to wit the adoration of the Sacrament and the adoration of Images would be of great use and would serve much for the strengthning of their Empire and encreasing of the dignity of the Romish Clergy For the Pope taking out of the way the holy Scriptures from the eyes of the People hatâ—â—given them Images which they call Ignorant mens Books busying the eyes of the people whilest he conveyed away the Word of God from them And the opinioÌ„ of the real presence of Christs body in the Eucharist exalts the dignity and power of Priests so
far as to be able to make God with words and to have Christ in their own power This abuse beginning to creepe in France King Charles the Bald about the yeere 870 made a commandement unto one Bertram a Priest and as learned a man as these times did affoord to compose and write a Book of this matter which Book we have yet whole and â—xtant at this day wherein hee maintaines the true doctrine and withstands stoutly and vigourously that opinion of the reall presence of the body of Christ under the species of the bread For of Transubstantiation there was yet no speech of it For which cause also Bellarmin in his first Book of tee Sacrament of the Eucharist first chap. puts this Bertram amongst the Hereticks Who not withstanding in his time lived with honor and was neither troubled nor received any rebuke or reprehension upon this subject Of the same opinion were Iohn Scotus and Drutmarus and others of the same time And I make no doubt but many others with them have defended the same cause in writing But the following ages in which error prevailed have abolished their writings and it is marvel how this Book of Bertram could escape thus The tenth and eleventh Ages are the Ages wherein this error did strengthen it selfe most in which neverthelesse God left not himselfe without testimony For Bruno Bishop of Angiers and after him but more vigorously Berengarius his Arch-Deacon taught and maintained openly that the bread and wine of the Eucharist were not the body of Christ but the figure and remembrance of it * Sigebert ad annum 1051. This Berangarius began to shew himselfe about the yeare of our Lord 1050. Against whom Pope Victorius 2. caused a Councel to be gathered at Tours about the yeare 1055 and foure yeeres after Nicholas II. cited him to Rome to the Councel assembled for that effect where Berengarius was forced to condemn his own doctrine submit himself to the Popes wil. By the reading of that Councel it appeares that â—here were in it many others of the same opinion of Berengarius And Leo * Leo Hostiensis Chrâ— Cassinensi li. 3. c. 35. E que cum nullus valeret resistere Alberiâ—us â—deÌ„ evoâ—ntur Hostiensis recordeth that none of those that were there present could resist Berengarius The forme of the abjuration prescribed unto him is to be found in the Collections of the Decrees made by Ivo Carnutensis and by Gratian which forme is set down in absurde tearmes and which the Church of Rome her selfe beleeves not For they make him say a Can. Ego Berengar Dist 2. de consecr that the bread is the true body of Christ and that Christs body is truely and sensibly handled and bruised by the teeth of the Faithfull But Berengarius being rid out of the hands of that Councell and returned back into France protested against the violence offered unto him and continued to teach the same doctrine till the yeere 1088. in which he died Upon his tombe Hildebertus * Hild. Epitaphio Berengar apud Malmesburiensem Quem modo miratur semper mirabilâ—ter orbis Ilâ—e Berengarius non obiturus obit Quem sacrae fidei fastigia summa tenentem c. Vide Baron ad ann 1088. § 21. who after was Bishop of Mans made an honorable Epitaphe wherein he tearmes him the Prop and Support of the Church the hope and the glory of the Clergy And France Germany Italy and England were full of people that embraced his doctrine as William Malmesbury testifies in the 3. Book of his English Historie All France saith hee was full of his doctrine And Matthew of Westminstâ—r in the year 1087 * Eodem tempore Berengarius Turonensis in haereticam lapsus pravitatem omnes Gallos Italos Anglos suis jam pene corruperat pravitatibus Berengarius of Tours being fallen into heresie had corrupted by his depravations almost all the French Italians and English Platina in the life of John XV. speaks thus of Berengarius It is certain that Odius Bishop of Clugni and Berengarius of Tours men famous and renowned for doctrine and holinesse were in great esteeme in that time Adde to this that Berengarius distributed all his meanes to the poore and betooke himselfe to get his living with the labour of his hands * Guit alias Berengarius istevir bonus plenes eleemosynis et humilitate magnorum possessioneÌ„ qui omnia â—â—usiâ—spauperum â—dispersit c. Antoninus Arch-Bishop of Florence whom the Pope hath canonized and made a Saint gives him this testimony in the 2 Tome of his Chronicles Tit. 16 § 20. This Berengarius was otherwise a good man full of Almes deeds and humility and having great possessions and riches which hee distributed to the poore and would have no woman to come before his eyes About the latter end of Berengarius his life lived Gregory the seventh who entred into the Papacy in the yeare of our Lord 1073. called Hildebrand before he was Pope This Gregory was suspected to incline to Berengarius his opinion Sigonius in his 9 Book of the reigne of Italy in the yeare 1080 recordeth that the Bishops of Germany assembled at Brixina in Bavaria did call this Gregory Vâ—terem haeretici Berengariâ— discipulum an old disciple of Berengarius the heretick accusing him of calling into question the Apostolicall Faith touching the body and blood of the Lord. And this agrees with Cardinall Benno Arch-Priest of the Cardinals who was very inward and familiar with the said Gregory and who wrote his life wherein hee saith that Gregory appointed a fast to three Cardinals to the end God might shew whither of the two to wit Berengarius of the Church of Rome had the rightest opinion And there he relates that John Bishop of Port in a Sermon at S. Peters Church did declare in presence both of Clergy and People that Gregory for to obtaine some divine answer had in the presence of the Cardinals cast the holy Sacrament into the fire Berengarius being dead he had many successors that maintained the same doctrine even to the time of Petruâ— de Valdo of the City of Lions whose disciples were named by their enemies Valdenses and Albigenses Of whose Religion and Confession of Faith conformable to ours Fasciculus rerum expetâ—ndaruÌ„ fol. 95. Indocus Câ—â—cius Tom. H. lib. 6. de Euchar fol. 602. hath been spoken before in the 21 chapter of the first Book and shewed that their Churches remaine even unto our times Furthermore John Wicklâ—f in England in the yeere 1390. taught the same Of whose doctrine contained in eighteen Articles here is the first That the substance of the bread remaines after the Consecration and ceases not to bee bread Against the Faithfull that professed this doctrine the Pope stirred up Kings and Princes and caused an incredible butchery to bee made of them preaching the Croisadoe against them whereby hee gave the same spirituall graces unto those that should
heu Domâ—ne Deus quomodo obscuratum est aurum mutatus est color opt mus O tempus pessimum in quo defecit sanctus et diminutae sunt veritates à siliis hominum Alas Alas Alas Lord God how is the gold obscured and its good colour changed O most wicked time in which the holy one is fallen away and truth diminished among the sonnes of men And Cardinall Baronius after a long recitall of the vilanios of the Papall Sea in those times he poures out these complaints g Baron An. 912. §. 8. Que tunc facies Ecclesiae Romonae quam soedissima cùm Romae domi iarentur potentiâ— ma 〈◊〉 sordidissime meretrâ—ces quaruÌ„ arbitrio inutaretur sedes c. et â—â—truderentur in sedem Petrâ—câ—rum amasii Pseudopontifices What was then the face of the Romane Church and how foule when most powerfull and most filthie whores ruled and governed in Rome by whose will the Seas were changed and Bishopricks given away And that which is horrible and not to be related their Lovers false Popes were thrust in violently in Peters Chaire And Genebrard a great worshipper of Popes speakes of the same time in the yeare 901. of his Chronicle in these tearmes In that alone this age was unfortunate that for the space almost of one hundred and fifty yeares about fifty Popes have wholly fallen away from the vertue of their predecessors being rather Apotacticall or Apostaticall than Apostolicall Sigonius puts two hundred yeares in In the yeare of our Lord 931. John the eleventh came to the Popedome He was Bastard to Pope Sergius begotten on the body of the whore Marozia Whereupon Baronius saith The Roman Church suffered her selfe to be so vilanously oppressed by such a monster After him there was many Popes that were creatures of the fornamed whores even to John the XII who in the yeare of our Lord 955. attained to the Papacie at eighteene yeares old whom Baronius abhorres as an execrable monster Luirprandus and Fascicu us Temporum say Luirprand lib. 6. cap. 11. Sigeber ad annum 963. Antoninus Chroni Temo 11. Tract 16. § 16. that this John being in bed with some bodies wife was so beaten by the Devill that he died of it This Pope made Children Bishops dranke to the Devill when he played at dice hee invocated Jupiter and Venus and conferred the sacred Orders in a stable Then many Popes did play at thrust out and cruelly persecuted one another the Papacy was exposed to sale and vices were there up to the roofe France though in an age full of darknesse was mooved with it and called a Councell at Rheims under the raigne of Hugh Capet whose Acts we have extant In that Councell Arnulphus Bishop of Orleans who presided there speakes thus h O lugenda Roma quae nostris majorâ—bus clara patrum luminap rotulisti nostris temporibus monstrosas tenebras futuris saeculis famosas effudisti Quid hunc Reverendi Patres in sublimi solio residentem veste purpurea aurea radiâ—â—em quid hunc esse censetâ—s Nimâ—rum si charitate destitu tuâ— solaque scientia inslatur extollitur Antichrissus est in solio Dei residens c. O lamentable Rome which in the time of our Ancestors hast brought forth bright shining lights but now hâ—st powred out such monstrous darknesses that shall be infamous to future ages And a little after What thinke yee Reverend Fathers that the Pape is sitting upon a high throne glistering in a robe of searlet and gold If hee hath no charity if he doe exalt himselfe being puffed up with science alone hee is the Autichrist sitting on Gods throne Then hee addes that the Citle of Rome is exposed to sale and that Antichrist is neare and that the mysterie of iniquitie goes forward In the yeare 984. * In Baronius it is the yeare 985. as Sigonius relates in the beginning of his seventh Booke of the Reigne of Italy Bonifacius who made himselfe to bee called John the fifteenth having put to death two Popes usurped the Papacie by violence and by money Baronius calls him a Theefe and a Robber and that had not one haire of a true Bishop Genebrard in the yeare 1007 speakes thus of all the Popes of that time The Popes saith hee of this time being intruded by the Emperours rather than elected were monsters Thus the lawfull succession hath beene troubled as of old under the Synagogue in the time of the Kings Antiochi In the yeare 1033. Benedict the ninth being but tenne yeares old was created Pope by the faction of his Father the Counte of Tuscula Petrus Damianus in his Epistle to Nicolas the second and Platina and Fasciculus Temporum and Baronius describe this Pope like a monster Then three Popes held the Papacy of whoÌ„ Platina speaks thus Platina in Gregor 6. Henricus II. in Italiam cum magno exercitu veniens hâ—hita Synodo cuÌ„ Beredictum IX Syâ—vestrum III. Gregor um VI. tâ—nquaÌ„ tria teterrima monstra se abdicare magistratu coegisset Henry the second being entred into Italie with a mightie Armie and having called a Councell constrained Benedict the ninth Sylvester the third and Gregory the sixth as three horrible monsters to forsake the magistrature That was done in the yeare of our Lord 1044. when the contention touching the conversion of the bread into the body of the Lord was in its strength and Bereâ—garius in great credit in France and in the neighbouring countries for his learning and good life The discreet Reader and lover of the truth shal weigh ponder these things in his minde and say in himselfe Is it credible that God would have used such wicked instruments for to defend his heavenly truth Could any good thing spring from such wicked Popes Are not those such Ages as Sathan desireth for to bring forth monsters in in the mids of so thicke a darknes to bring in Idolatry CHAP. XI Of the oppression of England How Religion passed out of England into Bohemia Of Wicklef John Huz and Hierome of Prague Of the Councell of Constance Of Zisca and Procopius and of their Victories I Hope the Reader shall not dislike to take here a short view of the History of the troubles which hapned in Bohemia about Religion a little before God made the light of his Gospell to shine againe in France England Germanie Switserland and the Low-Countries For in it may be seene a lively Image of Satan and of the power of God Of all Countries subject to the Papall Empire Math. Paâ—is in Henrico I. An. 1171. England suffered the hardest and most shamefull servitude That slavery increased especially under the reigne of Henry the second and of John and Henry the third In the yeare 1171. King Henry the second for to expiate the crime whereof hee was accused namely to have caused the murther of Thomas Arch-Bishop of Canterburie was whipt upon his naked flesh by a multitude of Monkes
the Councell of Constance Sess XV. Artic. 19. Dixerant se audivisse quod Iohannes Hus dixisset quod indulgentiae Papae â—ipâ—scopi noÌ„ valent nisi Deus indulgeat in the fifteenth Session To whom also they did impute things farre from his beleefe Some witnesses presented themselves that testified they had heard him say That the Pardons of the Pope and of the Bishop are nothing worth unlesse God doe forgive That was one of the crimes for which he was burned For that venerable Councell hath judged that the Pope may forgive sinnes whether God will or no and that Gods consent is not necessarily required for to make that the Popes and Bishops Indulgences be of force and validity This newes of John Huz his death and of Hierome of Prague brought into Bohemia did pierce the heart of the Bohemians that were called Hussites with exceeding griefe Histor Bohemicae cap. 56. The King seeing their number encrease dayly more and more granted them Churches in Prague for their meetings Aeneas Sylvius saith that the people mooved with anger pulled downe some Monasteries and Churches both within and without the City Namely neere Tabor where thirty thousand persons did celebrate in the middest of a field the holy Communion under both kindes The King Wencestaus being dead the Kingdome of Bohemia fell to Sigismund his brother Emperor and King of Hungaria Whereupon great feare did seise the people of Bohemia because of his great power and that against his oath and violating the safe conduct he had given to John Hux and to Hierome of Prague he caused them to be burned at Constance But a Bohemian Gentleman called Zisca that had lost an eye in the warres a man incomparable for vigour of body and minde exhorted them not to be disscouraged And it fell out at the same time that Sigismund under tooke warre against the Turke in Hungaria with an indifferent bad successe That gave leasure to the people order their businesses The Queene widdow to Wenceslaus levied some troopes for to fall upon this people and hinder their encreasing Sigismund sent Lievtenants to governe the Country and set things into good order againe in whose hands Zisca did surrender and remit Pelzina and Plesta Cap. 39. and other places whereof he had gotten possession For his desire was to obey the Emperour and he sought all meanes to give him content But there came Letters from the Emperour whereby he did declare that his will and pleasure was that the Churches granted to the Bohemians called Hussites should bee taken from them and their Religion interdicted And they had good advice that Sigismonds intention was to destroy them Whereat the People being afraid looked for nothing but for a totall ruine and their enemies being become more vigorous beganne to oppresse them Which things moved Zisca to take Armes and thinke upon his defence With a few forces bee obtained many victories against the Queene having none but foote forces of small experience and little exercised in warre Then came Sigismond into Bohemia with a mighty Armie resolved to destroy this people Besieged Prague wherein Zisea was who in many sallies defeated the most part of Sigismonds armie made him raise the Siege and tooke many townes by the verie terrour of his name As hee was besieging Vissegrad the Emperour came at unawares for to make him raise the siege having with him thirtie thousand Horse and all the Nobility of Mordvia But Zisea defeated him and obtained upon him a great victorie And a little after Sigismond having for the third time prepared a mightie Armie lost a third Battell by which he was constrained to leave Bohemia full of shame and confusion A little after Zisea besieging a towne Cap. 44. received a shot of an arrow in the eye so that of blinde of an eye as hee was hee became blinde of both But that hindred him not from leading and conducting his troopes and giving many combates being victorious every where But the Emperour being irritated and angrie came backe againe into Bohemia bringing along with him two powerfull Armies the one out of Germanie and the other out of Hungaria which like an overflowing torrent overwhelmed all Bohemia Tooke some townes and made great ravage But Zisea though blinde and having but a few men drew directly towards the Emperours Armie and defeated him with a great defeat tooke Bag and Baggage and all things belonging to the Armie and pursued him a whole dayes Journey Pio a Florentine had brought out of Hungaria fifteene thousand horse who passing upon a frozen River for to save themselves the Ice breaking under them were all drowned in the River Furthermore Zisca with his victorious Armie went out of Bohemia and entred into Moravia and passed into Austria and came to succour the faithfull that were oppressed there To him did adjoyne himselfe a Moravian gentleman named Procopius exceeding valiant and an imitator of the vertue of Zisea who caused the Emperour Sigismund to raise the siege before Juâ—emberg in Moravia which he had besieged A great Battell was given betweene Zisea and the Emperours troupes neare Ausck upon the River of Elbe where a great quantity of the Germane Centry were killed on the Emperours side Who pulled downe and confounded with so many losses resolved at last to seeke after Zisca his love and friendship promising him the Generall Lievetenancy of the whole Kingdome and all kinde of Advantages Zisea gave eare thereunto and took his journey for to goe meet the Emperour but hee fell sicke by the way and dyed being very old and blinde Aeneas Sylvius saith that when hee was a dying he gave counsell to his people to make a Drumme of his skinne after his death Cap. 46. assuring them that at the sound of that Drumme his enemies would flie away Zisea being dead Procopius succeeded him in the conduct of a part of the troopes against whom Pope Martin the fifth set all Germanic in Armes and sent into Bohemia three mighty Armies commanded by the Dukes of Saxe the Marquesse of Brandenbourg and the Arch-Bishop of Trivers These three Armies joyned themselves together But so soone as the Bohemians did appeare such terrour and feare seised upon the Imperiall Armies that they presently fled without staying for the enemie forsaking all their baggage and munitions of warre But the Cardinal Julian sent by the Pope stirred up the Emperour Sigismond to make a greater effort than any of the former Aeneas Sylvius saith there was in his Armie forty thousand Horse besides the Foot This Cardinall entred into Bohemia where hee committed many unheard off cruelties killing both women and children But at the very first noyse and rumour that came of the Bohemians approach such a terrible feare tooke this huge Armie that every one threw his armes downe for to fly away more nimbly and left their carriage and munitions of warre to the enemy The Cardinall having escaped this danger came to Basile for to preside at the Councell that the Pope Eugenius the fourth had assembled there in the yeare of our Lord 1431. Now we have made this recitall not for to approve Zisea his actions nor the commotions of peoples taking armes against their Sovaraigne for to avoide persecution and Martyrdom For the truth of the Gospell is not established by these meanes Christ Jesus calleth us to beare the crosse after him The blood of Martyrs hath more efficacy for to encrease the Church and spread the doctrin of the Gospell than Battels But I have represented this history for to be an example of Gods justice punishing the disloyalty of Sigismond who against his faith and promise burned alive two faithfull Martyrs God having made use of weake and contemptible persons for to make him lose above two hundred thousand men and cover him with shame and confusion CHAP. XII The Confession of Cyril Patriarch of Constantinople now living touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist THis Prelate in the seventeenth Article of his Confession altogether conformable to the Doctrine of our Churches after he hath recited the Institution of the holy Supper as it is found in the Gospell addeth That is the simple true and lawfull Institution of this admirable Sacrament in the administration whereof wee doe confesse and beleeve the true and firme presence of the Lord Christ Jesus Yet that presence which faith offereth and makes present unto us but not that which Transubstantiation vainely invented doth teach For wee beleeve that the faithfull in the holy Supper doe eate the body of Christ Jesus our Lord not incrushing and breaking it sensibly and destroying it with our teeth in the participation But in partaking thereof by the sense of the soule For the body of Christ is not that which is taken and seene in the Sacrament with the eyes but that which Faith having taken spiritually makes it present and communicates it unto us Therefore it is 〈◊〉 that we eate it and are made partakers of it if we doe beleeve But if we beleeve not we fall away from all the benefit of the Sacrament By the same reason we beleeve that to drinke the Cup in the Sacrament is to drinke indeed the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ after the same manner as hath been said concerning the body For the Law-giver made the same commandement touching his blood as he did touching his body Which precept must not be mutilated according to every ones fancie and humour But the tradition that hath beene prescribed unto us must be kept sound and entire When therefore in the Sacrament wee have partaked worthily and communicated intirely with the body and blood of Christ we make this profession that we are already reconciled and united to our head and made one and the selfe same body with a firme hope that wee shall be his coheires in his Kingdome Here is the Originall in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FINIS