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
is it as great an absurdity by the word of Substance to understand Accidents If it may be lawfull for them to wrest the Fathers thus and when they say a thing is white understand that they mean black never will there be any thing cleare nor sure Certainely if by this word Substance the Fathers had understood the Accidents they would have said the Substances in the plurall For Accidents are many Among which our Adversaries must chuse one that may be called a Substance But Theodoret in his second Dialogue saying that the bread after the Consecration remaineth in its former substance forme and figure refuteth this evasion For hee distinguisheth expressely the Substance from the Accidents Now as this error of the bodily presence of â—hrists body under the species of the bread began to be set on broach Bertram a Priest in Charles the Bald his time about the yeare of our Lord 870. made a Book against that abuse which Book is yet extant For which cause also Bellarmin in his first Book of the Eucharist chap. 1. placeth him among the Hereticks But Bertram all his life time lived with credit and honor and was never reprooved for it CHAP. XXVII Confirmation of the same by the customes of the ancient Church THis truth is confirmed by the ancient customes different from what is done in the Masse at this day and incompatible with Transubstantiation For in the ancient Church Service was said in a known tongue Every one received the Communion in both kinds The people offered upon the table abundance of bread and wine and not round light wafers * Cypr. Serm. de Lapsis Euseb Histor lib. 7. c. 9. Theod. Histor lib. 5. cap. 18. Nazianz. Orat. de Gorgonia The people aswell men as women received the Sacrament with their hand and many carried it home a long with them * Hesychius lib. 2. in Lev. c. 8. Ivo 2 part 2 de Sacr. c. 59. Burch l. 5. c. 12. The residues of the sacred bread that remained upon the table after the Communion were either burn't or * Evagâ— l. 4 cap. 36. given unto little children coming from Schoole or carried into the Priests houses for to be eaten there Than were there no private Masses Nor no Corpus Christi day The consecrated Host was not carried in procession * Ambâ—l de Viduis Oportet eam Viduam primo carere variarum illecebris voluptatuÌ„ vitare internum corporis animiq laÌ„guoreÌ„ ut corpus sanguinem Christi ministret Ambrose in his Book of Widdows saith that the Widdowes were imployed in the administration of the Sacrament a Editionis Parisiensis anno 1624 coluÌ„ 161. Virgo postquaÌ„ coÌ„municavit reservet de ipsa coÌ„munione unde iâ—sque ad diem octavum communicet In the Roman Order which is in Bibliotheca Patrum these words are to be found Let the Virgin receive the Communion after the Masse is ended and after she hath received let her reserve of the Communion sufficiently for to communie the eight dayes together Had they then beleeved the Transubstantiation they would never have given unto maids the Sacrament to keep so long a time Certain it is the ancient Church worshipped not the Sacrament There may be found indeed some places of the Fathers that say that in the Eucharist wee worship Christ But it is one thing to worship Christ in the action of the Sacrament and another thing to worship the Sacrament The Father and the holy Ghost in the Eucharist are also worshipped In vaine do they alleadge some ancient Fathers that speak of the elevation of the Sacrament For the elevation inferreth not necessarily adoration seeing that in Moses Law the Priest * Exod. 29 24. Levitiâ— 8.27 29. Num. 5.25 waved the breast and shoulder of the offering and a handfull of the first fruits without worshipping these things Moreover that elevation was nothing like to the elevation of the Host which the Priest maketh now a dayes over his head turning his back to the people and ringing a little Bell. But then after the Priest had uncovered the bread and wine he tooke the Platter or Dish with both his hands and lift it up for to shew it unto the people and that even before the words which are called of Consecration CHA. XXVIII Explanation of the places of the Fathers that 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 speake of severall kinds of body and blood of Christ THe holy Scripture speaketh of two sorts of body of Christ Namely of the natural body of Christ which he took in the womb of the Virgin Mâ—ry and of his mysticall body which is the Church and of his Sacramentall or commemorative body which is the bread of the holy Supper as we have shewed already The Fathers following the stile of the Scripture besides Christs mysticall body which is the Church speak of two bodies of Christ to wit of his naturall body and of his Symbolicall and Sacramentall body of which body they speak as of a divine thing and full of Mysteries and of a Spirituall flesh which is made by the iâ—effable power of God by the meanes and for the causes which I shall relate hereafter Likewise also they make two kinds of blood of Christ the one naturall the other mysticall and Divine which we receive in the Sacrament Clemens Alexandrinus in his second Book of the Pedagogue chap. 2. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is two sorts of blood of Christ the one is his carnall blood by which we are redeemed fâ—om corruption The other is Spirituall to wit that by which we are annointed and that is to drink the blood of Jesus to be partaker of the Lords incorruption Saint Hierome upon the Epistle to the Ephesians a Ex Hieron in Epist ad Ephes caâ—â— Dist 2. de Conse Can. Dupliciter Dupliciter intelligitur caro Christivel spiritualis illa atque divima de qua ipse aâ—t Caro meaverc est cibus vel caro quae crucifixa est sanguinis qui militis effusus est lanced Christs flesh is meant or understood in two manners either that spirituall and divine flesh of which hee saith himselfe My flesh is meate indeed Or else that flesh that was crucified and that blood which was shed by the speare of the Souldier This place is alleadged in the Roman Dâ—cree in the second Distinction of the Consecration at the Camon Dupliciter And in the same Distinction at the Canon b De hac quidem hostia quae in commemorationem mirabiliter sit edere licet De illa vero quam Christus in ara crucis abtulit secundum se nulli edere licet De hac the same Father is alleadged upon Leviticus in these words It is indeed lawfull to eate of this
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