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
divide not their minde into two Adorations and worship not the body of Christ with one kinde of Adoration and the species of the bread with an other but carry their whole devotion to worship with soveraigne adoration the hoste they have before their eyes Bellarmin teacheth as much in his fourth Booke of the E charist Chapter 29. * § Sed haec Cultu latriae diciâ— mus per se proprie Christis esse adorandu eam aderaâ—â—one ad symbola 〈◊〉 â—iâ—m panis vâ—nt perâ—nere quaâ—â—nus â—ppre 〈◊〉 dunâ—ur 〈◊〉 auâ—um â—um ipso Christo quâ—m conâ—â—nent We say that Christ For se proprie is to be worshipped with the adâ—ration of Latria and that this adoration belongeth also to the signes or symboles of the bread and wine in as much as they are conceived or considered as being one with Christ himselfe whom they containe And saith it was just so that Christs garments were worshipped with the same adoration that Christ was For saith he they did not pull off his cloaths for 〈◊〉 worship him For he proposeth this for an infalliblâ— Maxime that bee that worshippeth soâ—â—thing worshippeth also all the things thâ—â— are conjâ—yned to it Bell lib. de Imaginibus cap. 25 Qui adoral ea omnia quae cum ipso conjuncta sunt That is to say that hâ— that worshippeth the Images worships also the Cobwebs that are upoâ— them And that he that worshippeth thâ— Pope worshippeth also his Breecheâ— and his shirt Hee will have then thâ— roundnesse whitenesse length breadth and taste of the hoste to be worshippeâ— with the same adoration that God iâ— worshipped with because these accident and Christ are but one Vasquez the Jesuite saith the same in his second Booke of Adoration Disp 9. Chapter 1. * Quae absolute dâ—â—â—tur adorari adorat one latriae cum tamen per accidens cii d vinitate conjunlla colantur Christs humanity saith he and the Eucharist are worshipped absolutely with the adoration of Latria albeit that being enjoyned by accident with thâ— God-head a worshippe is given to theâ— And that we may know that the accidents of the bread that is to say thâ— breadth length colour and savour of the bread are worshipped with the same adoration that Christ is worshipped he addeth * Accidentia panis vini cum existat non propria exisientâ—a sed exâ—stentia corporâ—s sanguinis Christi optâ—â—â— possiil simul sub cundem cultum adorat onis cadâ—re queadmodum humanitas Christi ejusque divinitas â—odem motu adorationis coluntur The accidents of the bread and wine because they exist not by their proper existence but by the existence of the body and blood of Christ may very well receive the same honour of adoration together with the body and blood of Christ even as Châ—sts humanitie and his Divinitie are worshipped with one and the same motion of adoration This Idolatry is prodigious by which the colour and roundnesse of the bread are worshipped with the same adoration that God is worshipped with The Aegyptians did seeme to have attained to the highest degree of Idolatry when they did worship Cats Onions and Storkes But this Idolatry in worshipping the accidents of the bread goes farre beyond them For these things they worshipped were substances and things really existing But these accidents without a subject are imaginary things and which indeed are nothing The folly of those Aegyptians would have beene much greater if they had worshipped the colour and the length and the faces or lowring of a Cat without worshipping the Cat. Adde moreover that they did not worship beasts and plants as the Soveraigne God but as having in them some sparkes of the Divinity But the Roman Church worshippeth the accidents of bread without bread with a Soveraigne adoration and which onely belongeth to God And marke the doctrine of this Jesuite who saith with approbation of the Examinators prefixed in the forefront of his booke that the accidents of the bread doe exist in Christ after the same manner as the humanitie of Christ hath no proper subsistence but subsisteth in the divine nature This truely is to unite and conjoyne the roundnesse and colour of the bread with Christ with a personall union And as errors are link'd together anâ— cleave one to an other it is certain that the accidents of the bread are noâ— more straitly conjoyned with Christ than Christ with these accidents And by consequent even as because of this imaginary union of the body of Christ with the accidents of the bread the things which befall these accidents are also attributed unto the body of Christ of which they say it is carryed and lifted up and walked up and downe and stolne away and eaten by mice and vomited up and devoured by a beast So by the same reason because of the same union they must say that the roundnesse and whitenesse of the bread are the Sonne of God and are borne of the Virgin and are just and without origiginall sinne In all this truely the Roman Church sheweth her selfe idolatrous in the last degree It is a bog or quagmire of abuses and an abyssus or a gulfe of seduction wherein Satan hath plunged men God punishing in his just anger the contempt of his word which is become an unknowne Booke among the people For it is just that those that have lost Piety should loose also the common sense CHAP. XVI Examen of the Adoration of the Sacrament by the word of God That the Ancient Christians did not worship the Sacrament IF the Scriptures had with our Adversaries any authority this controversie would soone be decided Every action that concernes Gods Service and specially Adoration is to be done in Faith and not with doubts and conjectures as Saint James saith Chapter first Let him aske in Faith nothing wavering And Saint Paul Rom. 14. saith that whatsoever is not of Faith is sinne And the same Apostle to the Hebrewes Chapter 11. It is impossible without Faith to please God Now it is impossible that the people of the Roman Church should worship the hoste of the Massâ— in faith Because God hath not commanded it in his word For as Saint Paul saith Rom. 1â— Faith commeth by hearing and hearing by the word of God In generall we have the Lords commandement saying Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve Hee speaketh of the Soveraigne God Creator and Governour of the World and not of a God made with words that is made of bread subject to falling to be vomited up and stolne away Certainly to worship such a god as that is to violate the Commandement of the Law which saith Thou shalt have no other God before me In vaine doe they answer that Christ ought to be worshipped since hee is God For besides that they presuppose that which is not to wit that this bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ they declare themselves
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
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
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
that he protesteth to stand and keepe himselfe close to the doctrine of the Pope and Church of Rome to wit that the bread and the wine which are upon the Altar are not onely the Sacrament but also the very body and blood of Christ Words that must be taken in a quite contrary sense For the Church of Rome beleeveth not that the bread is the true body of Christ Item they make him say that Christs body is sensiblie handled by the Priest and is broken and crushed with the teeth of the faithfull But the Doctors Glosse noteth in the margent these wordes Except thou understandst aright Berengarius his words thou shalt fall into a greater herisie than Berengarius did It is the property of untruth to intangle it selfe with figures and not to understand it selfe CHAP. XIII Of the Ascension of the Lord and of his absence and of that our Adversaries say that in the Sacrament he is Sacrmentally present ABove all things the Glosses and figures of our Adversaries are intolerable when as they wrest the places of Scripture wherein mention is made of Christs Ascension and of his departure out of this world The Lord in the 12 Chapter of Saint John 8 Verse saith The poore ye have alwayes but me ye have not alwayes And in the 14 Chapter 3 Verse If I goe I will come againe speaking of his returne at the day of judgement And in the chapter 17.10 speaking of his Ascension neare at hand as if it were past he saith Now I am no more in the World Saint Peter in the third Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles saith Heaven must containe him untill the times of the restitution of all things which is the day of judgement All these words are as many lies if we beleeve the Transubstantiation For in these places Christ saith that he hath left the world and is no more in the world and that we shall not have him alwayes But if we beleeve the Transubstantiation we must say Christ hath not left the world but is much more present than he was before his ascension For then he was but in one place at once upon earth but now they will have him to be present upon a million of Altars in boxes and in bellies And for to conclude that place of Saint Peter which saith that Heaven must containe him untill the day of restitution the Latin version of the Roman Church hath put Heaven must receive him as if when S. Peter said these words Christ was not yet ascended And it is false that heaven doth receive Christ continually untill the day of Judgement The Lovain Doctors which have traÌ„slated the Bible into French have acknowledged the same wherefore they have turned faithfully WhoÌ„ heaven must contain And Emanud Sâ— the Jesuite in his Notes upon this place Recipere id est receptum continere To receive that is to say to containe him after he be received Christ then must be contained in heaven not be still upon earth They rid themselves as ill out of the other places They say that when Christ saith He leaveth the world and is no more in the world it must be understood concerning his visible presence So they make without word of God 2 sorts of Christs presence the one visible the other invisible And make Christ say I goe away but I will remaine invisibly I leave you but my body shall be alwayes with you Now in conscience could a man that had Christs body and soule in his mouth say that Christ is not present under colour that he sees him not By the same reason one may say that a man hath no soule because it is invisible and that a man hath left the towne when he lyeth hid in it What more Christ himselfe in the 13. of Saint Marke 21. verse warnes us that there will come a time in which they shall say unto us Loe here is Christ or loe he is there and forbids us to beleeve it And in the 24. chapter of Saint Matthew he addeth If any man shall say unto you he is in the closets or in the cup-boards for the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth that beleeve it not Truly he speaketh evidently of the places wherein they shall say that Christ is hidden And speaketh in the plurall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in closets as of a Christ which shall be thought to be in severall places at once But Christ refuteth plainly all these shifts and evasions of our Adversaries when as to comfort his Disciples sorrowfull for his departure he promiseth them to send them the Comforter Iohn 14.16.26 chap. 15.26 which is the Holy Ghost According to the doctrine of the Church of Rome hee should have said I goe away but that shall not hinder mee from being present in your mouths and in your stomacks and I shall 〈◊〉 more present unto you than I am now Hâ— saith not a word of all that unto them but comforting them for his departure he promiseth them his holy Spirit Saint Paul in the second to the Corinthians chap. 5.8 saith We are willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. And to the Philippians chap. 1.23 My desire is to depart and to be with Christ Had this Apostle lost his wiâ—s For according to the Popish doctrine he should have said I am already with Christ I do carry him in my hands I have him in my stomacke S. Austin upon that is very expresse in his 50. Treatise upon S. John where he saith According to the Maj stie of thâ— Lord according to his unspeak â—â—â—e and inâ—isiâ—â—e grace is accomplish'd that which he said I will be with you at all times till the consummation of the world But according to his flesh which the world bath taken and is he is horn of the Virgin c. he said Ye shall not have mee alwaies And in the first Treatise upon the first of John * Ipsum jam 〈…〉 sed side contingâ—re Wee can no more handle him with our hands now that he sitteth in heaven but well may we touch him by faith He speaketh to the Priests of these times who bragge to have Christ in their hands And in the 78. Treatise upon S. John * A quibus homo abscedebat Deus non recedebat Christ was going away as being a man and withdrew not himself as he is God And in the 30 Treatise †Corpus Dominiâ—n quo resurrexit in uno loco esse oportet veritas ejus ubâ—que disâ— fusa est The Lords body in which he is risen must be in one place onely but his truth is spread every where There is in the Latin in uno loco esse oportet and not in uno loco esse potest according to the new editions falsified * Gratiaâ—nus Dist 2. de Conseâ—â— Câ—nâ—prim Iuo 2. partâ— Decreti c 18. Lombard lib. 4. Sentent Gratian Ivo Carmitensis Lombard Thomas
not from Calvin but from Christ and his Apostles For the strait â—â—ssages and steepe places of the Alpes â—â—d preserved them from the persecutiâ—â—s of the Pope and his Ministers And at this very day also the Church of Ethiopia which containeth 17 great â—â—ovinces agrees with us in the funâ—amentall points of Faith though she â—ave some small superstitions For she â—eleeveth not Purgatory nor Transubâ—antiation She maketh no elevation for Adoration of the Hoste Is not subâ—ect to the Pope Knowes nor what Indulgences meane nor private Masses Celebrateth the divine Service in the Ethiopian tongue Gives the Communion to the People under both kindes Worships no Images Hath but one Table or Altar in the Church Hath Monkes but they are Muried and earne their living by the worke of their hands Baptiseth not the male Children till forty dayes after this 〈◊〉 and the females after threesâ—â—â— dayes an assured signe that she beleeves not 〈◊〉 Baptisme of Water to be necessary uâ—â— Salvation These things are seene 〈◊〉 the History of Francis Alvarez a Pâ—â—tugall Monke who lived six yeareâ—â— the Court of the great Neguz Empertâ—â— of Ethiopia The Ethiopian Churches are calâ—â—niously and falsly accused to be Eutichians True it is they be subjeâ—â— to the Patriarch of Alexandria is who 〈◊〉 an Eutichian But that subjection iâ—â—â— in the doctrine but onely in that 〈◊〉 said Patriarch hath the right of noâ—â—â— nation of the Abuna or chiefe Prâ—late of the Ethiopians when the Seâ—â—voide The Greeke Church more ancient thaâ— the Roman and of whom the Chuâ—â—â— of Rome received the Christian Religion doth not acknowledge the Pope rejecteth his Lawes knoweth not whaâ— his Indulgences are Beleeveth neitheâ— the Purgatory nor the Transubstantiation Celebrateth the divine Service in the Greeke tongue Hath her Priests married Hath no Liturgies or Private Masses and comes a greatdeale neerer to our Religion than to the Romish And this I say not that we ground our selves upon any of these examples â—or would be authorised thereby For â—â—e doe ground our selves only upon the word of God and of his blessed Apostles contained in the holy Scripture unto which the Pope braggeth not to be subject and doth not acknowledge it for Judge In a word we must stand firme upon this To wit that our Adversaries must shew us where their Religion was in the time of the Apostles before wee doe shew them where our Religion was before Calâ—in CHAP. XXIV That our Adversaries reject the Fathers and speake of them with contempt OVr Adversaries being pressed by the holy Scripture are wont to have recourse to the Fathers whom never thelesse they receive not for Judges and acknowledge in them a multitude of errors and speake of them with great contempt Denis Petau a Jesuite in his Notes upon Epiphanius pag. Multa sunt à sactissims Patribus praeapucque à Chrysostomo in Homiliss aspersa quae si ad exactae veritatis regulam accommodare volueris boni sesus mania videbuntur 244 speaketh thus In the most holy Fathers and cheifly in Chrysostome his Homilies are dispersed many things which if thore wouldest accommodate to the rule of truth shall be found to be voide of sense Cardinall Baronius in his Annals in the year 34. § 213. a Sanctiâ—â—mos Patres in interpretatione Scripturae non semper in omnibus Catholica sequâ—â—ur â—â—desia The Catholick Church doth not follow alwayes the most holy Fathers in the interpretation of the Scripture b Consultiâ—â— dâ—â—ndu puâ—aâ—â—â— Hâ—eronymum sit amen ille ipse est ut humana sert infirmiâ—as memoriâ lapsum And in the § 185. Hierome hath erred for lacke of memory And in the yeare 31. § 24. he checks Saint Austin for not understanding well these words of the Lord Thou art Peter c. And in the yeare 60. § 20. he is vexed against Theodoret because he rejected the service of Angels grounded upon a place of Saint Paul Colos 2. c Ex his videas haud feliciter ejâ—s pace dictum sit Theodoretum assecutum esse Pauls verborum sensum By this saith he it may he seene that Theodoret with his good leave did not well apprehend the Apostles meanning And in the veare 369. § 24. Hilary had also his defects Alphonsus à Castro in his first Booke of Heresies Chapter 7. a SanctoruÌ„ Patrumsetentâ—â—e saepe invicem repugnant Oftentimes the opinions of the Fathers are repugnant one to the other Melchior Canus in his seventh Book of common places Chapter 3. b NuÌ„ 2. CuÌ„ Sanctorum quisque his duntax at exceptis qui libros Canonicos eduderunt humano spiritu locutus suerit aliquaÌ„do vel in co â—rrarit quod ad sidem pertinere posteademonstratum est c. Seeing there is none of the Saints except onely those that have written the Canonicall Bookes but have spoken by the spirit of man and sometimes erred in that which afterwards was knowne to belong to the Faith It is evident that from such an authority none can build a certaine and assured Faith And thereupon he produceth for an example the errors of many Fathers so farre as to say that against the ordinary course of nature they bring forth monsters Sixtus Senensis in the Preface upon the fifth Booke of his Bibliotheca c Prisâ—i illi Ecclisiaâ—il Magistrâ— nonnibâ—l interdum à proposito veritatis scopo aberraverunt These ancient Masters of the Churches of have some times swerved from the scope of the truth at which they aimed And in the same place d In libris sancterum Doctorum quos authentica legit Ecclesia nonnunquam â—â—uni antur quaedam pravavel haeretica In the Bookes of the holy Doctors whose authority is read in the Church are found sometimes things wicked and hereticall and he speaketh this after Anselme in his Commentaries upon the second to the Corinthians Maldonat the Jesuite upon the sixth of Saint John checking Saint Austin for not well conceiving in what sense Christ calleth himselfe the bread saith a § 81. Hoc dâ—co persuasum me habere D. Augustâ—num si nostra fuisset aetate longe aliter sensurum fuisse Et S. 71. Hanc interpretationeÌ„ multo magis probo quà m illam Augustinâ— I am perswaded that if Austin had lived in ouâ— dayes he would have beene of an other opinion And in the same place I doe approve of this interpretation much more than that of Austins Cardinall Cajetan in the beginning of his Commentaries upon Genefis b Nullus detestelur novum sacrae Scripturae sensum ex hoc quod dissonat à prescis Doâ—â—oribus Non enim allâ—gavit Deus exposiâ—â—onem Scripturarum pâ—isâ—orum Doctorum sensibus Let none detest a new sense of the Scripture under colour it disagreeth from the ancient Doctors For God hath not tyed the Expesition of the Scriptures to the sense or opinions of the ancient Doctors Andradius in his second Booke of the defense of the Faith
Cardinall du Perron writing against du Plessiâ— maketh many exclamations against Origen and cals him origine of all errors and cries out Shut yâ—â— eares Christian people as if men did read with their cares What Cardinall dâ— Perron saith that Theophilus Patriarck of Alexandria did condemne Origen for speaking so is false and shall never be found Theodoret in his first Dialogue titled the Vnchangeable speaking of these words This is my body saith * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lord hath honored the visible signes with the appellation of his body and blood not having changed their nature but having added grace 〈◊〉 nature A little before he had said The Lord gave to the signe the name of his body And in the second Dialogue tearmed the Non confuse The divine mysteries are signes of the true body And a little after he introduceth an Eutychian Heretick maintaining Transubstantiation To whom he answereth in these words Thou art oâ—â—ght by the nets that thou hast woven For even after the consecration the mysticall signes do not change their own nature * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For they remaine in their former Substance Forme and Figure And in the same Dialogue Tell me then the signes that are offered unto God what signes are they of The answer is Of the Lords body and blood In the Books of Sacraments attributed to S. Ambrose in the fourth Book cha 5. We have a clause of the publick forme used in the Eucharist in these words a Dixit Sacerdos Fac nobis hanc oblationem asscriptam rationabileÌ„ acceptabileÌ„ quod est figura corporis sanguinis Domini nostri Iesus Christi GraÌ„t that this oblation be imputed unto us as acceptable reasonable which is the FIGVRE of the body and blood of Christ Iesus our Lord. Which cannot be understood of the unconsecrated bread for it is not an acceptable oblation for our sins This clause is retained in the Masse except this word Figure which they have taken away Eusebius in his 12 Book of the Demonstration chap. 8. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have been instructed to celebrate at the table according to the laws of the New Testament by the signes of the body and blood the remembrance of this Sacrifice And in the eight Book after he had said that Christ delivered to his Disciples the signes or symboles of his dispensation he addeth a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Commanding to celebrate the Image or figure of his own Body Euphraemius Patriarck of Antioch b Ex Bibliothe Phocii p. 415. editionis Augustanae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Christs body which the Faithfull receive loseth not its sensible substance and is not divided from intelligible grace So Baptisme being wholly made spirituall and one doth retaine the property of its sensible substance tâ— wit water and yet looseth not that which it is made This place is very forcible for he calleth the bread Christs body and acknowledges not therein any conversion of substance and teacheth that in the Eucharist there is no more conversion of substance than in Baptisme where the water remaineth always water Gregory Nazianzen in his 2. Oration of the Passeover speaketh thus of the participation of the Eucharist c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We shal indeed be partakers of the Passeover in figure though more evidently than in the old Passe over For the Passeover I dare say wâ—â— a more darke figure of a figure And the same Father in his Oration in the Praise of his Sister Gorgonia commendeth her devotion in that having received with her own hand the Sacrament she carried back home a parcell of 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If saith he her hand had shut up us in treasure any thing of the signes or aâ—â—itypes 〈◊〉 the body or of the blood of the Lord she minded it with her teares Euphraemius Deacon of Edissa b Ad eos qui Filii Dei naturam scrutari volunt Inspice diligenter quomodo sumens in manibus paneÌ„ benedix it ac fregil in figuram immaculati corporis c. Behold â—iligently how the Lord after hee had taken â—e bread in his bands blessed it and brake it 〈◊〉 figure of his immaculat body and blessed â—e cup in figure of his precious blood and gave to his Disciples The imperfect work upon S. Matthew â—â—tributed to Chrysostome in the 11 Hoâ—ily speaking of those that imploy the â—â—cred vessels as Plates and Chalices to â—ofane uses c Si haec vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre â—periculosum est in quibus non est verum corpus Christs sed â—â—sterium corporis ejus continetur quanto magis vasa corporis â—â—stri c. If it be so dangerous a thing 〈◊〉 transport to privat uses the sacred vessels â—herein Christs body is not but where the myâ—ry of his body is contained how much more â—â—e vessels of our bodies which God hath preâ—red to himse fe for to dwell in them Note â—at hee doth nor say that the body of â—hrist was not in these vessels but that it not in them that it may not be thought â—e speaketh of the vessels of Salomons â—emple The same Fathers upon the third Psalme a Dominus Iudam adhâ—buit ad câ—nviv um â—n quo corporis sangumis suâ— siguram discipulâ—s commondavâ—t tradid t. The Lord admitâ—ed Judas 〈◊〉 the banquet in whâ—ch he recommended anâ— gave to his disciples the figure of his bâ—â—â— and blood The same in his third Booke of Châ—â—stian Doctrine Chapter 16. When 〈◊〉 Lord saith b N si manducaveritis inquit carnâ—m siâ—iâ— hom nis â—iberitis sanguinem non habebi tis vitam in vobis facinus vel flag tium vâ—detur jubere Fâ—gura ergo est praecipiens passions Dominicae esse communicandum suaviter atque utiliter is memoâ—â— recondendum quòd â—aro ejus proâ—obis crucifixa vulâ—â—â— rata sit Except yee eate the flâ—sh of 〈◊〉 Sonne of man and drinke his blood ye havâ— no life in you he seemeth to command a wiâ—ked thing or haiâ—us offence It is therefore a figure that commands to communicate to the Passion of the Lord and to puâ— sweetly and profitably into our memory that his flesh was crucified and woundâ—â— for us Note that Saint Austin saith noâ— onely that these words Exce t yee eâ—â— c. are figurative But alâ—o expounâ— unto us the sense and meaning of thâ—â— figure saying that it signifieth we mâ—â— meditate with pleasure and profiâ— that Christ is dead for us Which 〈◊〉 an exposition our Adversaries approâ—â— not The same Author in the first Treatise upon the first Epistle of Saint John c Dominus consolans nos qui ipsum jam in coelo sedentem manu contrectare non possumus sed side contingere The Lord comforteth us we that can handle him no more with our hands but touch him by Faith And in the 53 Sermon of the
words of the Lord d Pene quidem Sacramentum omnes corpus ejus dicunt All almost doe call the body of Christ that which is the sacred signe of it Words that are very considerable And in the 27 Treatise upon Saint John e Illi put abant cum erogaturii corpus suii ille aâ—dixit se ascensurum in coelum utique integrumcum videritâ—s silium ho minis ascendentem ubi erat prius certe vel tunc videbitis quia non co modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum Certe vel tunc intelliget is quod ejus gratia non consumitur morsibus The Capernaites thought he should distribute his body unto them but he said unto them hee would ascend into heaven whole indeed When yee see the Sonne of man ascend where he was before certainly then at least you shall see that he giveth not his body as you esteeme Verily then shall yee understand that his grace is not consumed with biting Chiefly that place of the same Father upon the 98 Psalme seemes to me very expresse where expounding these words of the Lord Except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man yee have no life in you he bringeth in the Lord speaking thus f Spirital ter intelligite quod locutus sum Non hoc corpus quod videt is manducaturi â—sâ—â—s bibituri illum songuinem quem fusuri sunt qui me cru cisigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commondavi spiritaliter intellectum vivâ—ficabit vos Vnderstand spirituallie what I have said unto you yee shall not eate this body that you see g Qui non manet â—n christo â—u quo â—non manet Christus pro culdubio nâ—c manduâ—â—t spiritaliter earnem ejus nec bibit ejus sanguinem lcet carnalter visic biliter premat dentibus Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Chr st nor d inke that blood wâ—ich shall bee shed by those that shall crucifie me I have commended a sacred signe unto you which being understood spiritually shall vivifie you According to our Adversaries doctrine both good and bad take the Lords body in the Eucharist For many bee partakers of the Sacrament without Faith and hypocriâ—ically Such neverthelesse doe swallow the consecrated hoste and if we beleeve our Adversaries eate truly and really the body of Christ Jesus Saint Austin impugneth that opinion and maintaineth that the wicked eate but the signes and receive not Christ In the 26 Treatise upon Saint John g Sent. 339 Quâ— discordat à Christo non carne ejus manducat nec sanguinem bibat etiamsi tantae rei Sacramentum ad judicium suae praesumtionis quotidie indifferenter accipiat Whosoever dwelleth not is Christ and in whom Christ dwelleth not for a certaine he eateth not his flesh spiritually and drinketh not his blood though he presseth carnally and visibly with his teeth the sacred signes of Christs body and blood And in the Booke of Sentences of Saint Austin collected by Prosper h Whosoever discordeth with Christ eateth not the flesh of Christ and drinketh not his blood though hee take every day indifferently the sacred signe of so great a thing to the condemnation of his owne presumption And in the 25 Chapter of the 21. Booke Of the City of God i Non dicendum cum manducare corpus Christi qui in corpore Christi non est It must not bee said that he who is not in the body of Christ eateth the body of Christ And there he bringeth in Christ saying k Qui non in me manet et in quo ego no maneo non se dicat aut existimet manducare corpus meum c. He that abideth not in me and in whom I abide not let not him say nor thinke that be eateth my body or drinketh my blood Therefore those doe not abide in Christ that are not the members of Christ Saint Hierome saith the same upon the last Chapter of Esaiah l Dum non sunt sancti corpore et spiritu non comedunt carnem Icsu neque bibunt sangumem Whilest they are not holy in body and spirit they eate not the flesh of Jesus and drinke not that blood whereof he speaketh himselfe Whosoever eateth my flesh c. Let no man wonder that I have turned this word Sacrament in Saint Austin by a sacred signe seeing that he himselfe expoundeth it so in the fifth Epistle to Marcellinus m Signa cum ad res divinas pertinent Sacramenta appellantur The signes when they belong to divine things are called Sacraments And in the tenth Booke of the City of God Chapter 5. n Sacrificium visibile est invisibilis Sacrificij Sacramentum id est sacrum signum The visible Sacrifice is a Sacrament of the invible Sacrifice that is to say a sacred signe And against the adversarie of the Law and the Prophets 2 Booke Chapter 9. Sacramenta id est sacra signa The Sacraments that is to say the sacred signes It is the definition given by Lombard in the first Distinction of the fourth Book Tit. 3. Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum Bellarmin himselfe in his first Booke of Sacraments o Sacramentum nomem genericium significat signum rei sacrie vel arcanae Chapter 7. 11. The word Sacrament signifieth a signe of a sacred or secret thing In one thing principally it appeareth how farre Saint Austin was from beleeving Transubstantiation In that in these words This is my body by this word Body he understandeth the Church At the end of Fulgentius his Workes who was Austins disciple there is a Sermon of Austins which maliciously they have plucked out of his Workes and that had been lost if Fulgentius and Beda had not preserved it Here then be the very words of Austin p Aug. â—o Serm. ad infantes Quod vidistis panis est et calix quod vobis etiam oculi â—estri reâ—untiant quod aute sides vestra â—ostulat inâ—truenda â—anis est â—orpus Christi What ye have seene is bread and wine as your eyes shew unto you but according to the instruction that your Faith demandeth the bread is the body of Christ and the Cup is his blood Bellarmin in his first Booke of the Eucharist Chapter 1. acknowledgeth that these words This bread is Christs body cannot be true if they be not taken figuratively But let us learne how Saint Austin will have the bread to be the body of Christ He saith then q Quomodo est panis corpus ejus calix vel quod habet calix quomodo est sanguis ejus Ista fraires ideo dicuntur Sacramenta quia in eis alâ—ud vidotur aliud intelligitur Quod videtur formam habet corporalem quod intelligitur fructu habet spiritalem Corpus ergo Christi sivis intelligere audi Apostolum dicentem fidelibus Vos estis corpus Christ et membra c. How is the bread his body and how is the
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
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
blood that wee fasten our teeth in his flesh that wee put ouâ— fingers in his wounds and suck the blood of them and that a Seraphin bringeth unto us a burning coale with a paire of tongs they bee outlashing words that savour of a declamation and which our Adversaries themselves doe not beleeve CHAP. XXIX That divers Ancient Fathers have beleeved a mysticall Union of the Godhead of Christ with the bread of the Sacrament NEverthelesse I cannot deny but that many Fathers have had an opinion which with good reason is rejected by the Roman Church of these dayes They teach that as Christs divine nature hath united it selfe personally unto his humane nature so the same divine nature by vertue of the Consecration is united to the bread of the Eucharist by an union though not personall and hypostaticall yet mysticall divine and ineffable by which the bread remaining bread is made the body of Christ For they use this comparison taken from the personall union of the two natures of Christ for to shew how the bread is the body of Christ This opinion hath no foundation in the Scripture Yet I dare say it is an errour no way prejudiciall to Christian Religion For that opinion changeth not the nature of Christ and destroyes not his humanitie Neither doth it destroy the nature of the Sacrament since they did beleeve that the bread changeth not its substance Whence also they worshipped not the Sacrament neither did fall into Idolatrie To be short it was an innocent error serving to augment and encrease the peoples respect and reverence to the holie Sacrament which for that cause they call terrible and wonderfull In the meane while we have in that a most evident proofe that these Fathers did not beleeve the Transubstantiation For as they beleeved not that by the union of Christs divinitie with his humanitie the human nature was transubstantiated or his bodie abolished so did not they beleeve that by this mysticall and divine union of the God-head of Christ with the bread the bread should be destroyed and turned into another substance By this doctrine the bread of the Eucharist is the body of Christ in two manners the one because of that mysticall union of the bread with Christ after the same sorte as Jesus Christ man is called the Son of God because of the personall union with the Sonne of God The other because this bread is the sacred signe and remembrance of Christs body as it is usual to give to the signes the name of that which they doe signifie For this second consideration they say that the bread of the Eucharist is the body which was borne of the Virgin and crucified for us For as touching the first Consideration it is certaine that this bread which they say is made Christs body by that mysticall union is another body of Christ than that which was crucified for us For to effect such a transmittation they interpose the Omnipotencie of God For it must bee a divine power for to cause that the bread remaining bread bee so straitly united to the Godhead of Christ as to become the body of Christ Now that these Fathers doe hold that this mysticall body of Christ is another body than that which was crucified for us though it be the same in signification we prooved it just now by a multitude of places of Fathers wherein they say that Christ hath two sorts of flesh and that we may very well eate of that flesh or mysticall body which is taken in the Sacrament but no manner of way eate the flesh that was crucified for us The first Father that ever made use of the personall union of the two natures of Christ for to shew how the bread is made the body of Christ not by Transubstantiation but by the mysterious union of the Godhead of Christ with the bread is Justin Martyr about the end of his second Apologie where he speaketh thus Wee doe not take these things as common bread but after the same manner as Christ our Saviour was incarnate and made flesh and blood for our salvation so we have beene taught that the meate whereon thankesgivings have been rendred by the prayer of the Word whereby our flesh is nourished by a By this transmutation hee understandeth the change of the bread which is made in the stóach for the nounishment of our bodies transmutation is the body and blood of Christ Jesus Now that Justin beleeved that this meate is bread stil and hath not lost its substance he sheweth it when hee saith that our bodies are fed with it And by that which he saith in that very place that the Deacons give to all them that are present to participate the bread and wine whereupon graces have beene said The Author likewise of the Catechesticall prayer attributed to Gregory of Nysse useth the same comparison b I shew this falsity in my book against Cardinall du Perron lib. 7. cap. 22. Namely in that he speaks of one Severus an Heritick which came above a hundred yeares after the death of this Gregory The body saith he was changed into a divine dignity by the inhabitation of the Word God With good reason then also now I beleeve that the bread sanctified by the word of God is changed into the body of God the Word If this comparison be good as the body of Christ was not transubstantiated by the inhabitation of the Godhead no more likewise is the bread transubstantiated by the consecration which is made at the Sacrament Hilary speaketh just so in the eighth Booke of the Trinity c Sivere Verbum caro factum est nos Verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus If the Word was truly made flesh and wee also in the meate of the Lord doe take the Word flesh Gratian in his second distinction of the Consecration d Can. hoc est Hoc est quod dicimus c. Si ut Christi persona constat ex Deo homine cum ipse Christus verus sit Deus verus sit homo alleadgeth a place of Austin drawne from the Sentences of Prosper in these words The Sacrifice of the Church is composed of two things to wit of the Sacrament and of the thing of the Sacriment hat is to say of the body of Christ after the same manner as Christs person is composed of God and man For Christ is very God and very man Ireneus hath an opinion by himselfe For he saith c Quomodo constabâ—t cis eum panem in quo gratiae actae sunt corpus esse Domini sui calicem sanguinem ejus si non ipsum fabricatoris muÌ„di filium dicunt .i. verbum ejus per quod lignuÌ„ fructâ—ficaâ— defluunt fontes dat terra primo quidâ—m foenum deinde spicas that the bread is the body of Christ because Christ is the Creator of all things esteeming that the whole world in respect of God is what the body
Christ with the bread in the Sacrament only which bringeth no manner of change to the naturall body of Christ But these Fathers make two bodies of Christ the one his naturall body which is but in Heaven the other the bread of the Sacrament which they make to be Christs body two manner of wayes to wit because it is united to the divinitie of Christ by an union like unto the hypostaticall union of the two natures of Christ and because it is a signe figure and symbole of Christs naturall body according as the signes are wont to be called by the name of that which they doe signifie and represent Whence also they say sometimes that that bread is the body of Christ borne of the Virgin and crucified for us Whosoever shall apprehend this aright shall have a key in their hand for to enter into the knowledge and intelligence of the Fathers and for to come out of all difficulties It is the solution of the places of Cyril that are objected against us and of those and Ambrose out of the Booke of Sacraments For indeed the Author of the Books of Sacraments was one of these Impanators since that he holdeth that by the unspeakable vertue of God the bread becometh the body of Christ and yet remaines bread still as we have prooved and alleadged the forme of the service of that time where it was said * Ambros li. 4. de Sacram c. 5. Fac nobis hanc oblationem aseriptam rataÌ„ rationabilem acceptabilem quod est siguracorporis Christi That the oblation we offer is the Figure of the body of Christ And in the 4 chap Let us establish this to wit how THAT WHICH IS BREAD may be the body of Christ And a little after he saith that the bread and the wine are still what they were and yet are changed into the body and blood of the Lord. Wee must not wonder if for to work this change in the bread of the Sacrament he imployeth the Omnipotency of God and his unexpressable vertue in changing things For indeed if that union he conceiveth were true it were an unspeakable and incomprehensible work and wherein human reason is stark blind Because of this mysticall union which is neare unto the personall union Cyrill of Alexandria saith that this body of Christ received into our bodies maketh them susceptible and capable of the Resurrection Which truely is an abuse For by the same reason the participation of the Sacrament should keep us from dying The Faithfull of the Old Testament and John the Baptiste and the Theife crucified with Christ and an ininfinit number of Martyrs that were never partakers of this Sacrament are no lesse capable of the Resurrection From that impanation sprung up that custome by which in old time many particular persons carried away the Eucharist into their own houses and kept it locked up in a chest or cupboord as a Gregor Nazianz. Oratione de sorore Gorgonia Gorgonia did who was sister to Gregory Nazimzen Which sheweth on the one side that they did give unto that bread something more than to be the figure and signe of Christ body And on the other side that sheweth also that they did not beleeve the Transubstantiation For they would never have put Christs naturall body into a womans hand for to keep it locked up in a cupboord From the same opinion proceeded that which Satyrus b Ambros Oratione de obitu fratris Satyri did who was S Ambroses brother and yet unbaptized Who being upon the Sea in danger of shipwrack caused the Eucharist to be given him and hanged it about his neck and then threw himselfe into the sea for to save himselfe by swimming An evident proofe they beleeved thâ—t in this Sacrament there was some secret vertue and that neverthelesse they beleeved not this bread to be the naturall body of Christ crucified for us For they would never have given it to an unbaptized person for to hang it about his neck and cast it with him into the Sea Neither is it to bee omitted that the Fathers never speake of the species of the bread in the plurall but only in the singular because that by the spâ—cies of the bread they understand the substance of the bread which is one But our Adversaries which deprave the Fathers tearmes as well as their doctrine speak of species of the bread in the plurall because that by the species of the bread they understand accidents without a subject which are many Which is a new doctrine and a phrase or kind or speech altogether unusuall not only in Philosophers but also in the Fathers and in all Antiquity CHAP. XXX Particular opinion of Saint Austen and of Fulgentius and of Innocent the third AVsten and Fulgentius his disciple take sometimes these words This is my body in a sense patricular to themselves For besides this exposition which is very frequent in S. Austin namely that the Lord called the bread his body because it is the sigure and signe of his body in some places he will have in these words THIS is my body that by this word body the Church be understood For in his Sermon to Children which is to be found at the end of Fulgentius his Workes hee speaketh thus These things are called Sacraments because in them one thing is seene and another understood c. If then thou wilt know what the body of Christ is heare the Apostle saying Ye are the body and members of Christ And in the 26 Treatise upon S. John By this ment and by this drinke the Lord will have the fellowship of his body and of his members to bee understood to wit the holy Church of the Predestinat Pope Innocent the third holdeth the same doctrine For in his 4 Book of the mysteries of the Masse hee saith that Christ hath two bodies to wit his naturall body which he took of the Virgin and which was crucified and his mysticall body viz. the Church Then he addeth * Mysticum corpus coÌ„editur spiritualiter id est in fide sub specie panâ—s The mysticall body is eaten spiritually that is to say in faith under the species of the bread By all the premises it is plaine and evident that he who forsaking the Scriptures taketh the Fathers for his addresse or direction intangleth himselfe into marveilous difficulties and casteth himselfe into darknesse and in a labyrinth without issue And that a man must be well read in them and observe and heed them very exactly for to attaine to an indifferent knowledge of them That if any one readeth them carefully and with an unpreoccupated mind though he meets with many errors in them and small agreement among themselves Yet he shall find them so far from the doctrine of the Roman Church as the heavens are from the earth CHAP. XXXI That the Church of Rome condemning the Impanation is fallen her selfe into an error a thousand times more pernitiouâ— by Transubstantiation
And of the Adoration of the accidents of the bread WE have shewed that many Fathers have beleeved that the divinity of the Lord is joyned to the bread of the Eucharist by an union comming neare unto the personall union that is between the two natures of Christ The Transubstantiation is an imitation of this doctrine but in the worse For whereas these Fathers conjoyne the Godhead of Christ with the substance of the bread The Church of Rome conjoyneth Christ with the accidents of bread with a more strait union than that which those Impanators did put betweene the divinity of the Lord and the bread of the Eucharist For the ancient Fathers esteemed not that because of the union of Christ with the substance of the bread the bread should be worshipped But the Roman Church by reason of the union of Christs body with the accidents of the bread worshippeth these accidents that is to say the roundnesse whitenesse favour and breadth of the Host with the same adoration that Christs body is worshipped with * Bellar. 13 cap 5. Nullus dubtandi locus r l â—qu tur quin 〈◊〉 Châ— sti sideles latrâ—â— cultâ—â— quâ—â—â—â—â— Deo dâ—bâ—tur 〈◊〉 Sâ—nit ssimo Sacramento ma enâ—ratione adbibeant The Councell of Trente in the XIII Session ordaineth upon paine of a curse that the Sacrament shall be worshipped with divine adoration called Latria Now by the Sacrament the Councell understandeth the body of Christ with the species or accidents Of which abuse hath been spoken before It is therefore very wrongfully that the Church of Rome condemnes those that have put a mysticall and unspeakable union betweene the Godhead of Christ and the bread of the Sacrament since our Adversaries themselves bring in another a thousand times more absurde and more pernicious betweene Christ and the Accidents of bread More absurd I say For the union of two substances may easily be conceived But to unite a substance with the accidents of another substance as if one should put the Moon under the accidents of a horse is a thing and a conceit which passeth all the imaginations of hypocondriaks and which cannot fall into the mind of any man that hath not interdicted to himselfe the use of reason Adde moreover that this doctrine destroyeth the nature of the Sacrament and the humanity of Christ as we have prooved and bindeth men to worship a peece of bread with divine adoration Things which the ancient Church never beleeved nor practised It seemeth that Satan when he tempted Christ in the Wildernesse was a projecting this doctrine and making an essay or triall of it For promising unto Christ imaginary kingdomes he proposed unto him accidents without a subject And in speaking to him of turning stones into bread he spake to him of a Transubstantiation CHAP. XXXII That the Sacrifice of the Masse was not instituted by Christ Confession of our Adversaries IN the holy Scripture the holy Supper is not called a Sacrifice Christ in instituting this Sacrament offered nor presented nothing to his Father but only to his Disciples saying Take eate Hee made no elevation of the Host The Apostles worshipped not the Sacrament In a word there did not passe in it any of the actions necessarily required in a Sacrifice properly so called Bellarmin acknowledgeth it freely saying * Bellar. l. 1. de Missa c. 27. §. 5. Oblatiâ— quae sequitur consecrationem ad integritatem sacrificii pertinet non ad essentiam Quod non ad essent iam probatur tamex co quod Dominus eam oblationem non adbibuit immo nec Apostoll in principio ur ex Gregorio demonstratum est The oblation which is after the Consecration belongeth to the integrity of the Sacrifice but is not of its essence which is prooved in that the Lord made not this oblation nor the Apostles themselves at the beginning as we have demonstrated it out of Gregory A confession very notable by which this Cardinall will have Christ and his Apostles to have made a Sacrifice without offering any thing that is to say that in the Eucharist hee offered not himselfe in Sacrifice But now the Church of Rome offereth Christ Jesus in Sacrifice against Christs example and the example of his Apostles Salmeron Jesuite in the XIII Tome and first Book of Commentaries upon the Epistles of S. Paul * Parte 2. Disp 8 §. 5 Opus Et §. Postâ—â—mo §. Porro maketh an enumeration of the unwritten Traditions and puts in their rank the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy that is to say the Papall Monarchy and the service of Images and the Masse and the manner of Sacrificing And the Tradition that Christ made a Sacrifice in bread and wine And here are the reasons why he thinketh it was not expedient those things should be written or taught by word of mouth a Part. 3. Disp 8. §. Quinto Tradit Stultum est omnia ab Apostolis scripta putare vel omnia ab eis trad ta fulsse Et in injuriam vergerel agentâ—s revelantis Spiâ—itus Et insuave esset naturae nostrae quae omnia simul non capit It is saith he a foolish thing to thinke the Apostles have written all or given all by Tradition That would turne to injury against the holy host acting and revealing And it would be a thing uncouth unto nature which comprehendeth not all things at once And there he giveth a particular reason wherefore these * §. Quinto opus Haec literis consignari minime debuerant ut servaretur praeceptum Christâ— Nolite dare sanctum cambus things were not to be writen to wit that Christs Commandement might be kept Give not that which is holy unto dogs If wee beleeve this Doctor the doctrine of the Birth and Passion of our Saviour was given unto dogs for it was Gods will it should be set down in writing By these Dogges he meaneth the People and the Princes Cardinall * Baron Annal. ad annum 53. §. 13. Baronius maketh the same confession and acknwledgeth ingenuously that the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is an unwritten Tradition and whereof by consequent no mention is made in the Gospell And Gregory of Valentia a Jesuite in the 4 chap of his first Book of the Masse * Si maxime ille cultus à Deo institutus non esset concludi tamen ab istis non posset non esse legitimum cum id ad bonitatem cultus minime requiratur Even though this service or worship of the Masse had not been instituted by God yet these men could not conclude that it is not lawfull for wee have showed that that to wit to bee commanded of God is not necessarily required for to make that a service be good All these Doctors speaking thus condemne tacitely the Councell of Trente who in the XXII Session chapter 1. declareth and defineth that by these words Doe this in remembrance of me the Lord established the Priesthood of the New Testament
Words which Mâ—tthew and Marke would not have omitted if by them the Lord had instituted the Sacrifice and the Priesthood of the New Testament CHAP. XXXIII That the Sacrifice of the Masse agrees neither with Scripture nor with reason 1. THe two third partes of Saint Pauls Epistle to the Hebrews are employed in speaking both of the Sacrifice and of the Priesthood of the Christian Church where neverthelesse no mention is made at all of the Eucharist nor of any other Sacrifice of redemption than the death of Christ our Lord. 2. Moreover in many places namely about the end of the ninth Chapter the Apostle saith As it is appointed unto men once to dye so Christ was once offered for to take away our sinnes Teaching us that as man dieth but once and that the death of men is not reiterated neither bloodily nor unbloodily so the Sacrifice by which Christ offered himselfe for our sinnes receiveth no iteration And in the tenth Chapter two severall times he saith in expresse tearmes that Christ hath offered Vnicam oblationem one onely Sacrifice and then sate him downe on the right hand of God 3. For since Christs death is a price and a sufficient Sacrifice for our redemption there is no more need of another Sacrifice of redemption That if for applying unto our s lves Christs Sacrifice he must he sacrificed againe by the same reason for to apply his dâ—ath unto our selves he must be put to death againe Christ and his death is applyed unto us by the fraction of the bread 1. Cor. 10.16 And by Baptisme Galat. 3.27 And by that Faith whereby Saint Paul saith that hee dwelleth in our hearts Ephesians 3.17 but not in sacrificing him 4. But how should Christ in the Masse satisfie for our sinnes seeing he is no more in that condition of satisfying nor of suffering for us But onely in the state of interceding and impetrating for us as Bellarmin confesseth * Bellar. li. 2. de Missa cap. 1. §. Secundo Christus nunc nec mererince sâ—â—isfacere potest sed tantum in petrare I gitur impetratio propria est hujus sacrificij vis effiâ—â—â—â—ia Christ saith he cannot now merit nor satisfie but only impetrate Wherefore the proper vertue and efficacie of this Sacrifice is to impetrate not therefore to redeeme and satisfie Now for to impetrate Christs intercession whereby he maketh request for us sitting at the right hand of his Father Rom. 8.33 is sufficient without being needfull to sacrifice him 5. Wherefore the Pastors of the Chritian Church are never called Priests in the Scripture for to distinguish them from the people But all the faithfull are called Priests by Saint Peter in his first Eâ—istle Chap. 2.9 And by Saint John Revelation 1.6 He hath made â—s Kings and Priests unto God and his Father 6. The Apostle Saint Paul to the Ephesians 4.11 maketh a denumeration of the Offices which Christ ascending up to heaven left here to his Church And he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers Of Priests and Sacrificers he speaketh not one word No more than in the first to Timothy and in the Epistle to Titus where he describeth the duty of Priests whom hee calleth also Bishops and of Deacons without making any mention of this Priesthood 7. It is evident that to be a Sacrificer is a thing more excellent than to be Sacrificed So Aaron was more excellent than the beasts that he offered Not onely because he was a man and had these Sacrifices in his power but also because these Lambes and Bullocks were figures of Christ as hee was a man who was to die for us but Aaron represented Christ as hee was God offering his body in Sacrifice to his Father for our finnes Priests therefore boasting themselves of sacrificing Christ advance themselves above Christ 8. In all Sacrifices the thing sacrificed and offered unto God must be destroyed and killed But in the Masse Christ is not destroyed and suffereth nothing there Therefore in the Masse Christ is not sacrificed To say that in the Masse Christs sacramentall being is destroyed is a pure mockerie For Christ hath but one being to wit his naturall being And this word of Sacramentall being is as much as a significative being which is a Chymera oâ— fond conceit The principall is that in the Masse they pretend to sacrifice Christ for our redemption But the Sacramentall or significative being of the Lord is not the price of our redeÌ„ption is not sacrificed for us That if the Sacrifice be made when the species of the bread and wine are destroyed we must say that the Sacrifice is made in the stomach of the Priest some houres after the Masse is ended for there must be some time for to destroy the species by the disgestion 9. Furthermore in all Sacrifices the thing sacrificed must bee Consecrated and in every Sacrifice there must be some Consecration But in the Masse there is nothing consecrated Not the bread for they hold it is no more bread Not Christs body for men cannot consecrate him It is he that consecrateth us Not the accidents of bread For they be not offered to God in Sacrifice otherwise the Masse would be a Sacrifice of accidents of colour of savor of lines and superficies 10. Our Adversaries never find themselves more puzled than when they are put to finde in the institution of this Sacrament some action wherein this Sacrifice doth consist by which they pretend that the consecrated Hoste is sacrificed to God in propitiatory Sacrifice Doth this Sacrifice consist in the words whereby the Priest presenteth the body of Christ unto God and prayes him to have that offering acceptable But we have seene in the foregoing Chapter that our Adversaries doe confesse thaâ— Christ made not God his Father Doth this Sacrifice confist in the fraction of the bread But that is impossible for Christ brake the bread before hee uttered the words of Consecration therefore hee brake no consecrated Hoste And when the Priest lets the Host fall whole into the Chalice without breaking it the Masse leaveth not for that to be called a Sacrisice as Bellarmin * Bellar. lib 1. de Missa cap. 27. §. 60. Si forte panis consecratus in calicem decidat non solet fragi sedrelinquitur ita intâ—grum usque ad sumptioneÌ„ nec tamen sacrific um irritum aut essentialiter immutanri creditur Adde quod hac caeromonia Dommus non v detur esse usus acknowledgeth Perhaps they will say the Sacrifice consisteth in the manducation But that cannot be For eating is not sacrificing That if eating be sacrificing every one of the People shal be a sacrificing Priest and the Peoples mouthes shall be as many Altars Vnder Moses Law in all the sacrifices after which the people did â—ate of the things sacrificed the sacred feast was made some houres after the Sacrifice was ended Neither can the Sacrifice consist in
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
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
in us hee must be eaten by the mouth of the bodie Christ by the same reason must eate us that we may dwell in him 11. Christ for to divert and turne away our mindes from carnall thoughts addeth in the 63 Verse The fâ—est profiteth nothing It is the Spirit that quickneth Since that by the spirit hee meaneth his Spirit whereby he regenerateth us by the flesh also he understandeth his human body Whereof he saith that it profiteth nothing to wit being taken after that manner as the Capernaites did imagine themselves What would it profit a man to have in his stomach the head and feet of Christ Jesus whether hee doe swallow him by peeces and parcels or doe swallow him whole For the absurditie is a like 12. Christ addeth The words that I have spoken unto you are spirit and life that is to say are spirituall and quickening They are not quickning but to them that understand them spiritually and that imagine not a carnall and corporall manducation So teacheth Saint Austin in his 27 Treatise upon Saint John Hee demandeth * Quid est spiritus vita sunt Responder Spirit aliter intelligenda sunt Intellexisti spiritaliter spiritus vâ—â—a sunt Int ellexisti carnalâ—ter â—tiam siâ— spiritus vâ—â—a sunt sed tibi non sunt What meaneth these words are spirit and life His answer is That they must be under stood spiritually Hast thou understood them spiritually They are spirit and life unto thee Hast thou understood them carnally In this manner they bee also spirit and life but not unto thee 13. And upon that the Capernaites and some of the Lords Disciples were scandelized and said that these words were an hard saying he saith unto them * Illi putabant cum erogaturum corpus suum ille autem dixit se ascensurum in coelum utique integrum Cum videritis Fil um hominis ascendentem ubicral prius certe vel tune videbitis quia non co modo quo putatis crogat corpus suum Certe vel tunâ— intelligetis quta gratia ejus non consumitur morsibus What and if ye shall see then the Sonne of man ascend where he was before Which words Saint Austin in the same Treatise explaineth thus What meaneth that Thereby he resolveth that which had moved them They thought he would give them his body but he saith unto them that he would ascend up to heaven to wit whole and entire When ye have seene the sonne of man ascending where he was before certainely then at leâ—st shall ye see that he giveth not his body as ye thinke Then at the least shall ye understand that his grace is not consumed with biting CHAP. III. That the Romane Church by this doctrine depriveth the People of Salvation THat which grieves our Adversaries most in all this discourse of the â—ord is this clause of the 53 Verse Veâ—ily I say unto you Except ye eate the flesh â—f the sonne of man and drinke his blood â—e have no life in you For if by these words Christ doe speake of the partiâ—ipation of the Sacrament it followes that the People of the Roman Church whom they have deprived of the cup â—hall have no life and are lost eternally â—or they drinke not Christs blood To say as Bellarmin doth that the People â—akes the blood in the Hoste is to say â—ust nothing For Christ commandeth â—ot onely to take his blood but also commandeth to drinke it If he speaketh of the Sacrament hee commandeth men not onely to be partakers of his blood but also declareth the kind and manner how he will have them to participate thereof for to drinke is thâ— kinde and manner of participating thereof Briefly he commandeth to drinke But to eate a dry Hoste or wafer is noâ— to drinke That if to eate is to drinke the Priest drinketh twice in the Masse once in taking the Hoste and anotheâ— time in taking the Cup. Vnto which thâ— common sense contradicteth and Popâ—â— Innocent the third too in his fourt Booke of the Mysteries of the Masse Chapter 21. Neither is the blood drunâ— saith he under the species of the bread nor the body eaten under the species of tâ—â— wine Here then our Adversaries do forge an absurd figure whereby to drinâ— signifieth to eate Everywhere else the doe distinguish eating from drinking but here they confound them as if thâ— were all one Indeede to eate and 〈◊〉 drinke taken in a spirituall sense signifieth one and the same thing Bâ—â— when the question is of the Sacramâ—â— of the Eucharist and of eating thâ— bread and drinking the Chalice tâ— eate and to drinke are different thing That if to eate the Hoste be to drink so to drinke the Cup shall be to eaâ—â— the Cup. And if drinking bee take figuratively why not also the word eating Here the truth is so strong that Vasquez the Jesuite sticks not to dispute with might and maine against Bellarmin who saith that the Lord commandeth only the perception of his blood but not the manner of participating therunto * Vasquez in III. partem Tomo 3. Disp 206 num 50. Hoc respoÌ„ sum mihi non proba tur quia verba Domini non tantum reseruntur ad rem sumpt am sed ad modum sumeÌ„ dâ—eam Nam manducare bibere si verba proprie usurpentur â—â—â—tois species cor venire non possunt neque enim sanguis sub specie panis bibâ— dicitur sicut neque corpus sub specie vini manducari ut optime notat Innocent III lib. 4. de Mysteriis Missae qu mvis sumâ— dicatur Christus autem praecipit ut bibamus I do not approve saith he of this answer because the words of the Lord have not only reference unto the thing that is taken but to the manner of taking it For to eate and to drink if the words be taken properly cannot agree with any species whatsoever For the blood is not said to be drunk under the species of the bread no more than the body is eaten under the species of the wino as Innocent the third observeth very well in his 4 Book chap. 21. And he addeth a thing very considerable to wit that from this answer of Bellarmin who will have this word drinking to bee taken improperly it will follow that in the whole chapter there shall not be a word spoken of the Cup. Salmeron another Iesuite is of the same opinion saying * Salmer Tom. 9. Tract 24. Quinon bibit non bibit sanguinam â—eet carneÌ„ et sanguine siâ—mat that he that drinketh not drinketh not the blood though he do take the flesh and blood But the same Jesuites that contest against their own fellows bring no better things themselves They say that when Christ said Except ye drink my blood yee have no life in you he bindeth the people to drink the Cup and that they drink it indeed in as much as the Priest drinketh for the people and representeth the
whole Church when he drinketh By this reason the People might as wel forbeare eating and be contented that the Priest should eate for them For the commandement for eating in this place is not more expresse than that of drinking By the same meanes when Christ commands the People to beleeve in him the people may dispense themselves from beleeving in Christ saying it sufficeth that the Priest beleeve for others for he representeth the whole Church In a word it is an impious temerity and presumption to adde out of ones owne authority unto the words of the Lord whole clauses yea absurd clauses as if Christ had said Except ye drink my blood your own selves or by another ye shall have no life in you With the like licence they say that when Christ said Except ye eate my flesh AND drinke my blood this AND must be turned into OR and that Christs meaning was to have said Except ye eat my flesh or drink my blood If it may bee lawfull to change thus the words of the Lord there is no law in the Scripture from which a man may not dispence himselfe When the Law of God commands one to love God and his Neighbour one may by the same reason say that the Law meaneth that one must love God or his Neighbour And when the Law saith Honor thy Father and thy Mother it meaneth that one must honor his Father or his Mother and that it is enough to honor either of them Adde withall that by this depravation of the Lords Words it followes that the people may drink the Cup without eating the Hoste since it sufficeth to do either of them CHAP. IV. That the principall Doctors of the Roman Church yea the Popes themselves do agree with us in this point and hold that in the 6. of S. Iohn nothing is spoken but of the spirituall Manducation and that those that contradict them do speake with incertitude IN this controversie we have the Popes for us and a great multitude of the Romish Doctors who hold with us that in the 6 of S. John it is not spoken of the Eucharist nor of eating our Saviour Christ by the mouth of the body but that Christ speaketh of the spirituall manducation by Faith in Christs death Such is the opinion of Pope Innocent the III and of Pius II called Aeneas Sylvius afore he came to the Papacy Item * BonaveÌ„ in 4. Dist 9 art 1 q. â— Cajet in 6. Iohannis Cafaâ—us epist 7. ad Bohomos Petrus de Alliaco an 4. Sentent q. 2. art 3. Durant Raâ—â—â—nali divinor Offic. lib. 4. c. 41. n. 40. Lindaâ—â—rs Panopliae l. 4. c. â—8 Tapper in expliâ— antiâ—uloâ—â—m 15. Lovanensium Iansen Concord c. 5â— Feruâ—in 26. Maâ—â—h 〈◊〉 6 Iâ—hâ—nnis Valdensis Tomo 2 de Sacram. c. 91 I lesselâ—â—d communjone sub uttraque specie of Bonaventure Câ—jetan Cusanus De Alliaco Cardinals Item of Durandus Episcopus Mimatensis Gabriel Biel Hessel one of the Doctors of the Councell of Trente Lindanus Ruardus Tapperuâ— Iansenius Bishop of Gand Ferus a Divine of Maguntia Valdensis and many others Among others Gabriel Biel in his 36 Lesson upon the Canon of the Masse saith that the Doctors hold with a common consent that in the 6 of Sâ—â—ohn no mention is made but of the spirituall manducation But for brevity sake it shall suffice to produce the places of the two forenamed Popes Pope Innocent 3. in the 14. chap of his fourth Book of the Mysteries of the Masse hath these words * De spirituali manducatione Dominus ait Nisi manducaveritis carnem siliâ— homenis et bâ—beritis ejus sanguinem c. Hâ—c modo corpus Christi soli boni comedunt The Lord speaketh of the spirituall manducation saying Except ye eate the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you In this manner the good only do eate the body of Christ A learned Pope is a very rare thing Yet of Pius II. one may say that he was one of the learndest of his age The same Pius in his 130 Epistle to Cardinall Carviall disputing against the Bohemians speaketh thus a Sed non est in Evangelâ—o Iohaâ—nis sensuâ— quem sibi asâ—râ—bitis Non hibit to Sacrament alis ibâ—prae scribitur sâ—d spirit â—alis insinuâ—atur The sense of the Gospell of Iohn is not such as you ascribe unto it For there it is not commanded to drink at the Sacrament But a manner of spirituall drinking is taught And a little after The Lord by these words declareth in that place the secret mysteries of the spirituall drinke and not of the carnall when hee saith It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing and again The words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life Wilt thou know openly that the Evangelist speaketh of the spirituall manducation which is made by Faith Consider that what the Lord saith in the words HEE THAT EATETH AND DRINKETH are words of the present tense and not of the future At that very instant therefore that the Lord was speaking there were some that did eate him and drink him And yet the Lord had not suffered as yet neither was the Sacrament instituted Thomas Aquinas tearmed the Angelicall Doctor was a great worshipper of Popes * Thom. Opusculo 21. c. 10. Dominus utitur in Iohâ—nne quadam interrogâ—tione importuna ter quaerens à suo successore beato Petro quod si ipsum dâ—â—â—git gregem pascat so far as to accuse Christ of importunity for asking his Vicar Peter thrice Lovest thou mee For which likewise the Pope canonized him and made him a Saint after his death This man though a great defender of Transubstantiation yet neverthelesse upon this point of the manducation whereof Christ speaketh in the 6 of S. John speaketh thus in his 7 Lesson upon these words Except ye eate my flesh ye have no life in you * Sihaeâ— sententia referatur ad spiritualem manducationem nullam dubitationem habet sententia c. Sivero ad SacrameÌ„talâ—m dubiâ—â— habet quod dicitur If this saith he be referred to the spirituall manducation this sentence is without all doubt For that man eateth spiritually the flesh of Christ and drinketh his blood that is partaker of the unity of the Church which is effected through love c. But if that hath reference to the Sacramentall manducation there is some doubt in that which is said Except yee eate my flesh ye have no life in you But in this latter age the greatest part of the Romish Doctors especially the Jesuites have forsaken this opinion generally received in the Church of Rome in former Ages and have contemned the authority of the fore-alleadged Popes Their opinion is that in the 51 verse of the 6 chap. of S. Iohn Christ beginneth to speake of the Sacramentall manducation which is made by the corporall mouth but that whatsoever is said
are truly the plague and contagion of the mind All that in figurative tearmes and yet true and wherein the word true excludes not the figure 6. What they do adde is not a whit better Christ say they used an oath saying Verily verily I say unto you Except ye eate the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you But it is not convenient say they to use figures in an oath What will they say then to these places Verily verily I say unto you that he that entreth not by the doore into the sheepfold the same is a theife and a robber Iohn 10.1 And a little after Verily verily I say unto you that I am the doore of the sheep And in S. Matth. 18.18 Verily I say unto you that whatsoever ye shal binde on earth shall be bound in Heaven And Iohn 3.5 Verily verily I say unto you Except a man be borne of the water and of the spirit c. Where we have the same oath with figurative words What more the same verse which they alleadge Verily verily I say unto you Except ye eaâ—e my flesh and drink my blood ye have no life in you is the same verse in which they will have drinking to signifie eating And in the same chap. ver 32. Christ calleth himselfe the true bread wherein our Adversaâ—ies do acknowledge a figure To let passe that the word Amen is not an oath but a simple and strong assirmation CHAP. VI. Testimonies of the Fathers IT is good upon this point to heare the ancient Fathers S. Austin shal march in the fore front In his Book of Christian Doctrine chap. 16. * Nisi manducaver it is inquit carnem filii hominis c sacinus vel slagitium videtur juhere Figura ergo est praecipiens passioni Dominâ— esse communicandum suaviter at que utilter recondendum in memoria quodpro nobis caro ejus crucifâ—a a el vul nerata sit When the Lord saith Except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood yee have no life in your selves it seemes that he commands some great crime or haynous offence It is then a figure that commandes to communicate unto the Lords Pâ—ssion and sweetly and profitably to put in remembrance that Christs flesh was crucified and wounded for us Our Adversaries to cleare themselves and avoyd the force of this place do make long discourses and sinde there are figures in these words Except yee eate c. To wit that in the Eucharist Christs body is not eaten by peece-meales as the flesh of the Shambles But they come not neare the point For Saint Austin saith not onely that it is a figure but he declares also how that figure is to be taken and expounded to wit that to eate Christs flesh is to meditare and call to remembrance with delight that Christ his flesh was crucified for us Which is an exposition our Adversaries doe not allow The same Father upon the 98 Psalme Vnder stand spiritually whâ—t I have said unto you Yee shall not eate this body that ye see and shall not drinke that blood that shall be shed by those that shall crucifie mâ— I have commended unto you a sacred figne which being under slood spiritually shall quicken and vivisie you We have in this Father a long exposition of the sixth Chapter of Saint John in the 25.26 27 Treatise upon Saint John In the 25 Tractaâ— he saith a Vi quid paras detâ—s el vetrem crede el maduâ—asti This viz. to beleeve is to eate the meate that perisheth not Why doest that make ready thy teeth and thy belly Beleeve and thou hast eaten And in the 26 Treatise b Credere in eum hoc est manducare panem vivuÌ„ Quâ— credit iâ— cuÌ„ manducal invâ—sibiliter sagâ—natur quia el invisibiliter renascitur To beleeve in him is to eate the living bread He that beleeves in him eateth him he is fed invisibly because he is regenerated invisibly And in the same place c HuÌ„c it aque cibuÌ„ et pot 〈◊〉 societatem vult intellâ—â—i corporâ—â— et membrorum suâ—â—um quod est sanila Ecclesia in praedestinatis c. By this meate and drinke Christ will have to be understood the society of his body and members which is the Church of the Predestinate This Father was so far from beleeving that Christ was eaten even by the mouth of the body that by this meate he will have the Church to be understood Whence also he addeth d Hoeveraciter non praestat nisi iste cibus potus qui cos aÌ„ quibus sumitur immortales incorruptibiles sacit iâ— societas ipsa Sanctorum c. This meate and drinke which makes such as doe take it immortall and incorruptible is the fellowshippe of Saints where there shall bee peace and perfect unitie And in the same place e Hoc est ergo manduâ—â—â—al lamescam bâ—bere ill â—mpotumâ—â— Câ—â—â—stoâ—â—â—â— manere ilum manâ—â—ntâ—â—in se habere de per haeâ— qui non maâ—â— in Chrisio in quâ— nor manâ—â— Chrisia in quo nor manâ— Châ—â—slâ—â— procâ—â—dnâ—no nec manducat spiratalâ—ter â—â—nem â—jus aâ—c bâ—hâ—â— ejus sâ—nguâ—nâ—n luet carnalaeâ— â—â—silâ—luâ—â— prâ—â—â—â— doelâ—bus Sacraâ—â—â—â— isâ—â—â— corpoâ— is sangâ—â—â—â—â— Châ—â—sâ—i That therefore is to eate this meate and to drinke this drinke to dwell in Christ and to have him dwelling in us And therefore he that dwelleth not in Christ and in whom Christ dwelleth not doublesse he eates not spiritually his flesh and drinkes not his blood how be it that carnally and visibly he presfeth with his teeth the sacred signe of Christs body and blood In summe in three long Treatises containing many pages wherein this good Doctor expoundeth the sixth Chapter of Saint John there is not one word of eating by the mouth of the body the Lords flesh crucified for us Which exposition was so disliked by Cardinall du Perron that he speaketh contemptibly of these Tractates of Saint Austin upon Saint John f In his Booke against the King of Great Britaine In the Treatise of the Eucharist saying that they be popular Sermons made before all kindes of persons to whom he would not declare openly the Churches beleife Tertullian in the 37 Chapter of his Booke of the Resurrection expounding these words The flesh profiteth nothing The sense saith hee must bee addressed according to the subject whereof he speaketh g Quia durum intolerabilem existimaverunt sermonem ejus quasi vere carnem suam illis edendam determâ—nasset ut in spiritu dispone ret statum salutis oraemisit Spiritus est quâ— vivificat Tum add t Caro non prodeâ—t quiâ—quam ad vivificandum sâ—ili et For because they esteemed his words to be harsh and intolerable as though he had determined to give them truely his flesh to eate that he might render spirituall the state of salvation he
said before It is the spirit that quickneth Then he addeth The flesh profiteth nothing to wit for to vivifie And there againe h Quia sermo caro câ—at factus proinde m causam vitae appetendus devorâ—ndâ—s audau et â—uminandus intellectu et fide digerendus The word was made flesh and by consequent for to have life it must be desired and devoured by the eare and ruminated by the understanding and disgested by faith And a little after The Lord had a little afore declared that his flesh is the heavenly bread i Vrgens usquequaque per allegoriaÌ„ necessarioruÌ„ pabuloruÌ„ memoriam PaetruÌ„ c. urging altogether by allegory taken from necessary meates the remembrance of the Fathers Clemens Alexandrinus in his second Booke De Pedagogo Chapter 6. k Hee said eate my flesh and drinke my blood propoundiog by an allegoric the evidence of the faith and the drinke of the promise And a little after l Si secundum literam sequeris hoc ipsâ—ra quod â—â—â—â—um est Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam et biberitis sangutaâ—â—â—â—um hoec litera occid t. Hee calleth the holy Spirit flesh by aâ—â—egory For the flesh was created by him and the blood signifies the Word Origene upon the Leviticus in the seventh Booke n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Know that these things writen in the divine volumes are figures and understand them as spirituall and not as carnall For if you receive them as carnall they hurt you in stead of nourrishing you For in the Gospells there is a letter which killeth him that observes not the things that are spoken spiritually m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if thou takest according to the letter that which is said Except ye eate my flesh and drinke my blood that letter killeth The Commentary upon the Psalmes attributed to Saint Hierome upon the 44 Psalme n Quando dicâ—t Qui non manducaverit carnem meam et biberit sanguinem me um licet in mysterâ—o possit intel ligi tamen veriùs corpus Christi et sanguis ejus sermo Scripturarum est When the Lord saith He that eateth not my flesh c. though that may be understood in mysterie yet to speake more truely the body and blood of Christ is the word of the Scriptures and the heavenly doctrine And a little after o Corpus et sanguis ejus in auribus nostris fund tur The flesh and blood of Christ is powred into our eares It is true that some places may bee found in ancient Fathers that apply and fit the words of the sixth Chapter of Saint John to the Eucharist because the manducation of the Sacrament serves to helpe the spirituall manducation and there is some analogie betweene these two Adde moreover that we have proved already by a multitude of places of Ancient Fathers that when they say that in the Eucharist wee eate the flesh or the body of Christ they meane to speake of another flesh and another bodie than that which was crucified for us which is called Christs bodie because of the mysticall union of the bread with Christ and because the signes take the name of the things signified Vpon this the words of Pope Pius the second are notable in his 130 Epistle p Sed nec â—overi debetis quod nonnulli Doctores de communione Sacramentali loquentes ill amque populo suadentes Iohannis verba recipiunt Neque enim propterca illius loci vel talis verns est es proprius intellectus sed ex quadam similitudiâ—e consonantique ratione trahitur inde magis sensus quà m ducitur c. Yee must not wonder saith he if some Doctors speaking of the Sacramentall communion and counselling it unto the People doe imploy Saint John his words For it doth not follow from thence that it bee the true and proper sense of that place but by some resemblance and agreeable reason this sense is rather drawne than led And it is lawfull for the Doctors speaking after the manner of Orators to use sometimes figures and translations so that often times speaking of the signe they passe vnto the thing signified CHAP. VII Impiety of Salmeron the Jesuite and of Peter Charron And of Bellarmins foure men inclosed in one sute of clothes That by this doctrine Christ hath not a true body in the Sacrament Superstition and Atheisme are verie neere neighbours and the one leadeth unto the other For frantick superstition intangles the minde with extravagant conceits that expose Religion to laughter and make men to thinke that Religion is a shop of fables and a meere imagination Whence it comes to passe that those that take upon them to defend Superstition let goe very often certaine words of impietie whereby they profane the mysteries and scoffe at their owne Religion under colour of defending it Salmeron the Jesuite and Doctor Charron gives us an example thereof This Jesuite in the IX Tome and 26 Treatise for to represent the manner and the end for which Christ gives us his flesh to eate Sub finem Tractatus saith that Christ hath done as men doe who for to kindle and inflame a woman with love doe give her an amorous potion or morsell and that just so Christ in the Eucharist gives to his Church Panis bucellam sanctè benedictam incantatam a morsell of bread holily blessed and INCHANTED for to transport her with his love Charron hath followed him but with an addition that declares what are the ingredients of those philters or amorous potions to wit that there enters in them something of the substance of the Lover which substance is a thing not fit to be named In his eighth Discourse of the Eucharist after hee hath said that God comes downe in the forme of bread and wine and that to dance for to serue God is lesse strange then what is done in the Masse a little after he declares how Christ communitates himselfe unto men in the Eucharist to wit that he allures and intices them with a dainty and delicious bit Love saith he is so ingenious and inventive that for to win and allure the heart and will of others it hath found out a device to imploy inchanted morsels philters and amorous potious and to make them to be taken and drunke by those of whom one desires to bee loved in which morsells or potions enters some thing of the Lover or Suitor Thus it seemes that God for to draw and allure unto himselfe the heart and love of the Church would present a bit or potion made of his substance in this Sacrament the philter and amorous drinke of all Christians the dainty and delicious bit for to draw and allure them unto himselfe Doubtlesse this man jeasted and intended to make the world laugh for he could not expect that men should beleeve him I know not whither Bellarmin did mock or jeast Bellar. lib. 3. de Euchar cap 7 〈◊〉 ad tertiuÌ„ Potest
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
conforme himselfe to the Lords Institution 45. Chap. X. Places wherein the Doctors and Councels of the Roman Church maintaine that the Pope and the Church of Rome are not subject to the Scripture and have greater authority than the Scripture and may make voide and abolish the Commandements of God 46. Chap. XI That our Exposition of these words 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 55. Chap. XII That our adversaries to avoide a cleare and naturall figure forge a multitude of harsh and unusuall ones and speake but in figurative tearmâ—â— And of Berengarius his confession 63. Chap. XIII Of the Ascension of the Lord and of his absence and of that our Adversaries say that in the Sacrament he is Sacramentally present 68. Chap. XIV Confession of our Adversaries acknowledging that Transubstantiation is not grounded in the Scriptures That the Primitive Church did consecrate by the Prayer and not by these words This is my body 76. Chap. XV. Of the adoration of the Sacrament The opinion of the Roman Church 82. Chap. XVI Examen of the Adoraâ—â—â—n 〈◊〉 Sacrament by the word of God That the ancient Christians did not worship the Sacrament 88. Chap. XVII Of the Priests intention without which the Roman Church beleeveth no consecration nor Transubstantiation is mad â—6 Chap. XVIII That our Adversaries in this matter intangle themselves into absurdities and insoluble contradictions 104 Chap. XIX Of accidents without a subject Places of Fathers 117. Chap. XX. Answers to some examples brought out of the Scriptures by our Adversaries for to prove that the body of Christ hath beene sometimes in two severall places 122. Chap. XXI Of the dignity of Priests And that our Adversaries debase and vilifie the utility and â—fficacy of Mâ—sses and make them unprofitable for the remission of sinnes And of the traffick of Masses 126 Chap. XXII That the Roman Religion is a new Religion and forged for the Popes profit and of the Clergies 138. Chap. XXIII Answer to the question made unto us by our Adversaries Where was your Religion before Calvin 146. Chap XXIV That our Adversaries doe reject the Fathers and speake of them with contempt 161 Chap. XXV Of the corruption and falsification of the Fathers Workes and of the difficulty to understand them 169. Chap. XXVI Places of the Fathers contrary to Transubstantiation to the manducation of the body of Christ by the corporall mouth 175. Chap. XXVII Confirmation of the same by the custome of the Ancient Church 197. Chap. XXVIII Explanation of the places of the Fathers th t say that in the Eucharist we eate the body and blood of Christ and that the bread is changed into the body of Christ and is made Christs body Specially of Ambrose Hilary and Chrysostome That the Fathers doe speake of severall kindes of body and blood of Christ 200. Chap. XXIX That divers ancient Fathers have beleeved a mystical Vnion of the Godhead of Christ with the bread of the Sacrament 212. Chap. XXX Pâ—rticular opinion of Saint Austin and of Fulgenâ—â—uâ— and of Innocent the third 226. Chap. XXXI Tâ—at the Church of Rome condemning the Impâ—â—â—â—tion is fâ—llen her selfe into an error a thousand times more pernicious by Transubstantiation And of the Adoration of the accidents of the bread 228. Chap. XXXII That the Sacrifice of the Masse was not instituted by Christ Confesssion of our Adversaries 231. Chap. XXXIII That the Sacrifice of the Masse agrees neither with Scripture nor with reason 235 Chap. XXXIV In what sence the holy Supper may be called a Sacrifice Of Melchisedeks sacrifice And of the Oblation whereof Malachy speaketh 243. Chap. XXXV In what sence the Fathers have called the Eucharist a sacrifice 247. The Second Booke OF THE MANDUCATION of the Body of Christ Chap. I. OF two sorts of manducation of Christs flesh to wit the spirituall and corporall and which is the best 253. Chap. II. That in the sixt of Saint John the Lord speakes not of the Sacrament of the Eucharist nor of the manducation of his flesh by the mouth of the body 260. Chap. III. That the Roman Church by this doctrine depriveth the People of salvation 269. Chap. IV. That the Principall Doctors of the Roman Church yea the Popes themselves doe agree with us in this point and hold that in the sixt of Saint John nothing is spoken but of the spirituall manducation and that those that contradict them doe speake with incertitude 274. Chap. V. Reasons of our Adversaries for tâ— prove that in the sixt Chapter of Saint John it is spoken of the Manducation by the mouth of the body 280. Chap. VI. Testimonies of the Fathers 285. Chap. VII Impiety of Salmeron the Iesuite and of Peter Charron And of Bellarmins foure men inclosed in one sute of clothes That by this doctrine Christ hath not a true body in the Sacrament 292. Chap. VIII Of the progresse of this abuse and by what meanes Satan bath established the Transubstantiation 298. Chap. IX Of the judgement which the Doctors of the Roman Church doe make touching the apparitions whereby a little Child or a morsell of flesh hath appeared at the Masse in the hands of the Priest and touching Christs blood that is kept in Reliques 312. Chap. X. Of the corruption of the Papall Sea in the Ages wherein this errour was most advanced 317. Chap. XI Of the oppression of England How Reliâ—ion passed out of England into Bohemia Of Wicklef Of John Huz and of Hierome of Prague Of the Councell of Constance Of Zisca and Procopius and of their Victories 323. Chap. XII The Confession of Cyril Patriarch of Consta tinople now living touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist 324. ERRATA Page 5. Line 3. Reade any p. 10. l. 1. What is in the Margent must be in the Text. p. 11. l. 5. r. of this bread p. 28. l. 2. r. nor stirred and line 11. r. Saviour p. 68. l. 8. r. sensibly p. 69. l. 11. r. chap. 17. 11. p. 70. l. 23. r. Word p. 76. l. 15. r. Doctor p. 79. l. 15. r. Church p. 105. l. 10 r. as if I should say p. 121. l. 23. r. of miraculous p. 136. l 18. put a full point after fourefold p. 145. l. 20. r. benefit p. 152. from the 14 line to the 27 should be Italica p. 157. l. 2. r. yeare 1512. p. 177. l. 21. r. remained p. 178. l. 25. r. For the old Passeover p. 182. l. 1. r. Father p. 186. l. 2. r. invisible p. 187. l. 9. r. Brethren p. 194. l. 2. r should be made p. 200. l. 12. r. three sorts p. 223. l. 10. r. those of Ambrose p. 233. l. 17. r. acknowledgeth p. 244. l. 7. r. alleadge p. 248 l. 12. r perfecting l. 23. r. sacrificed p. 250. l. 28. 30. r. gifts p. 253. Chap. 1. r. Of the two sorts c. p. 282. l. 22. r. of
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