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
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
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
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
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
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
Gabriel Biel and the old editions of Saint Austin have oportet Reason also requireth it For it would be repugnant to common sense to say that the body of Christ may be in one place as if one should say that the Sunne may be in one place it were to say that it may be in no place Cyril of Alexandria in his eleventh booke upon Saint John chap. 3. * Dâ—st 10. A. Thomas 3. parte suâ—â—mae qu. 75. art 1. Gabr el Biel Lell 39. in Canonem M ssâ— Eâ—st abest corpore Patri pro nobis apparens ac à dextris ejus sedens habitat tamen in Sanct is per Spiritum Though he be absent in body appearing for us before his Father and sitting at his right hand he dwelleth in his Saints through his Spirit He supplyeth the want of his corporall presence by giving his Spirit and nor in keeping himselfe hidden under the accidents of bread The Eutychian hereticks spake as our Adversaries doe For they said thâ—â— Christs body is present on earth as well as in heaven by an invisible presence Against whom whither Vigil or Gelasius Pope hath written five Bookes in the first whereof he speaketh thus * Vigil l. 1. Dei silius secundum humanitatem suam recessit à nobis Secundum divinitateÌ„ suaÌ„ alt nobis Ecce sum vobiscum usque ad consummationem saeculi The Sonne of God according to his humanity hath left us and withdrawne himselfe from us But according to his divinitie he saith unto us I will be with you till the consummation of the world And in the 4 Booke †Lib. 4. Quando in terra fuit non erat utique in coelo Et nunc quia in coelo est non est utique in terra When Christs flesh was upon earth it was not in Heaven and now that it is in Heaven it is not on earth Even as Vigilius saying that when Christs flesh was upon earth it was not in heaven understood it was not in heaven neither visibly nor invisibly So when he saith that now it is no more on earth he meaneth it is not there neither visibly nor invisibly That if he meant or understood that Christs flesh is present unto us invisibly then would he plead the Eutychians cause for that was their opinion To be short the Apostle to the Ephesians chap. 3.17 saith that Christ dwelleth in our hearts by faith and not in our stomacks in the midst of meat When we aske of them after what manner the body of Christ is present in the Sacrament they answer that it is not present there circumscriptively as wine is enclosed in a tunne or caske nor definitively as immateriall spirits But that it is Sacramentally present This answer truly is ridiculous For to say that Christ is in the Sacrament sacramentally present is a thing as absurd as to say that a man which is in a Temple is there Templarily present and he that is in a Coach is present in it Coacharily Moreover it is certaine that by this answer they come to be of our side For they say themselves that this word Sacrament signifieth a sacred signe Therefore to be present sacramentally signifieth no other thing but to be present significatively and by figure and representation 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 THe most learned of the Roman Church ground their Transubstantiation not upon these words This is my body but upon the authority of the Church of Rome which as they hold cannot erre Scotus which is termed the suttle Doâ—tor upon the fourth of the Sentences Dist 11. quest 3. saith There is no place 〈◊〉 be found in the Scripture that may wi hout the determination of the Church compellâ— man to beleeve the Transubstantiation Vpon which place Cardinall Bellarmine in his 3. booke of the Eucharist chap. 23. speaketh thus * Secundo dicit non extare loâ—uÌ„ ulluÌ„ Scripturae tam expressuâ—â— ut sine declara â—â—ne Ecclesâ—â—â—â—â—dentâ—â— cogaâ— Trasubstant â—â—â—ionem admittâ—â—â— Et id non est omatâ—â— improhahile Nam et si Scriptura quam 〈◊〉 suprà ad duxâ—â—â— videatur nobis 〈◊〉 â—â—â—ra ut possiâ—◠〈…〉 non proteâ—â—â—umâ— tamen an 〈◊〉 sit merito dubitarâ— poâ—est cum 〈◊〉 nâ—s doctissiâ—â— acurat â—â—â—mi qualâ—s imprâ—â—â— Scotus 〈◊〉 â—â—â—trarium sentiant Sc tus saith that there is no place in the Scripture so expresse as to compell evidently without the declaration of the Church to receive the Transubstantiation And that is not altogether improbable For although the Scripture that we have alleaged seeme to us so plaine that it may compell a man not proud or insolent yet neverthelesse it may justly be doubted whether it be so or no seeing the most acute and learned men such especially as Scotus was are of a contrary opinion And in the same place he tels us that Scotus saith that Transubstantiation was not an article of faith before the Councell of Lateran held Anno 1215. For that cause Vasquez the Jesuite upon the 3. part of Thomas Disp 180. chap. 5. having represented the opinion of Scotus who saith * Scotus docet potuisse servari veritatem verborum consecrationis etiamsi in Eucharistia maneret substantia panis v ni that the truth of the words of consecration might have beene preserved though the substance of the bread and wine had remained in the Eucharist to whom also Durand joyneth himselfe blameth Bellarmine without naming him for saying that the opinion of Scotus is probable accuseth him of halting on both sides We see †Videas aliquos Theologiae Professores nostriceporis qui in utraÌ„que parteÌ„ al quaÌ„tulum clau diâ—aÌ„tes non putant improhahile id quod Scotus de verhis consecrationis dixit saith he certaine professors in Divinity in our times who halting a little on both sides do not esteeme improbable that which Scotus hath said touching the words of consecration Of that number of learned and acute men was Cardinall Cajetan who in hiâ— notes upon Thomas speaketh thus * Cajetanus in 3. Thomae q. 75. art 1. Alterum quod Evangelium non explicavit expresse ab Ecclesia accepimus scile conversionem panis in corpus Christi Thâ— other point which the Gospel expoundeth nâ—â— expresly we have received it from the Church to wit the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ Item Conversio non explicate habetur iâ— Evangelio The conversion of the bread is not to be found explicitly in the Gospel The Cardinall de Alliaco †Petr. de Alliaco in 4. Sent. q. 6. art 2. Patet quod ille modus est possibilis nec repugnat rationi nec authoritati Bibliae immo est sacilior ad intelligendum rationabilior quà m aliquis aliorum It appears that this manner which supposeth that
unconceivable a plain contradiction 16. This body also which was under the residue of the consecrated bread muâ—â— of necessity either bee living or deal when the Lords body was in the Sepulcher If living behold there was two bodies of Christ at one and the same time whereof the one was dead the other living Or if that body which was in these crummes suffered death under those species there was a body of Christ which suffered death without being put to the crosse and without the Souldiers touched it 17. That if whilst the body of the Lord was dead any of his Disciples had celebrated the Eucharist if he had offered a living body it would not have beene the same body that was in the Sepulcher Or if by pronouÌ„cing the words of consecration he had turned the bread into a dead body he had not offered a Sacrifice For a dead body is not an acceptable Sacrifice These difficulties would deserve wel to consult the Papal Oracle or some decision of the Sorbon 18. From the same Doctrine followeth that when in the Procession on Corpus Christi day two consecrated hostes meet one another and passe by one an other Christ incounters himselfe and goes to meet with his owne selfe And it is to bee presumed that these Hostes know one another and make one to another a mutuall salutation and that if one should come to fall the other that is not fallen would looke upon that which is fallen with great compassion 19. This is one of the best of all and wherein the Romish Doctors entangle themselves most and trouble their braines exceedingly A time was that they disputed in the Church of Rome whether it be in Gods power to make that one body be circumscriptively in two or in many severall places As for example whether God can make that Philip be at Paris and at Rome at one and the same time contained and limited by two severall remote places But now they hold with a generall consent that it is possible Among those that have written in these our times I know none but Vasquez that is of another opinion This thing admitted to be so it will follow that if Philip be at Rome in the water and in the fire at Paris he shall be both wet and burned at once If one of his armes be cut off at Paris he shall have but one arme at Paris but at Rome he shall have two If hee be kil'd at Paris he shall be dead at Paris and living at Rome and perhaps comming from Rome to Paris hee shall find himselfe to be dead not knowing of it before and shall assist at his owne funerals Perhaps that Philip of Paris will come to Rome to see himselfe and being arrived there shall not find himselfe there because he absented himselfe from Rome That if both of them set forth on the way for to meet one another one and the same man shall goe to meet himselfe And having met with himselfe how shall their noses jumble themselves into one How shall a man turne his back to his owne selfe That if Philip doth feast at Paris and fast at Rome one and the selfe same man shall be both full and empty fat and leane at the same time That if Philip meete with himselfe upon the way and that Philip embrace Philip it is evident they shall be two For every conjunction is at least betweene two divers things 20. That if the body of one and the same man may be in a thousand severall places at one and the same time it may be also in a hundred thousand places and if in a hundred thousand so likewise in a Million and so still in augmenting so that at last one mans body shall be able to fill up the whole world Indeed the plurality of places and the Vbiquity comes all to one The difference between the Church of Rome and those that put Christs body everywhere is onely in this the one say this body is everywhere and the other say it may be everywhere Truely the Roman Church hath no reason to contend with the Vbiquitaries about a thing which she beleeves to be possible 21. The point in Mathematicks is no quantity and hath no magnitude and is indivisible To put therefore one and the same point in two divers remote places is to divide the point and to separate it from it selfe That is the thing our Adversaries doe putting one body in two severall places For example if Philip may be at Paris and at Rome at one and the same time the point that is in the midst of the apple of his eye is the same point aswell at Rome as at Paris and yet it is farre from it selfe and separated and divided from it selfe 22. And since Angelicall Spirits are but in one onely place definitively those that put the Lords body in severall places at once make it more spirituall than the very Spirits themselves and divide it from it selfe 23. There is impietie mingled with that For after the Priest hath eaten the hoste they hold that Christs body is in the Priests stomack untill the species by disgestion be destroyed After then that those species be destroyed the Lords body is no more there and yet is not gone out of it for these Doctors say it cannot move it selfe locally Whereupon it must follow of necessity that this body of Christ which was in the Priests stomack is turned into nothing And our Adversaries cannot tell us whither he is gone nor what is become of him CHAP. XIX Of accidents without a subject places of Fathers THe accidents without a subject which they put in the consecrated Hoste are another swarme of ridiculous absurdities and meere contradictions For what is there more incompatible than this * Arist l. 6. Metaph. cap. 1. Loquens de accidentibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wit that Accidentia non accidunt as if one said Albentia non albent that the speakers speake not and to forge qualities which qualifie nothing colour and nothing coloured a length and nothing long a roundnesse and nothing round as if one should forge a sight without an eye a sicknesse without a sicke body a halting without a legge an Ecclipse of the Moone without a Moone So they put in the Hoste a taste of bread a colour of bread a roundnesse of bread without bread And as Pope Innocent the third saith in his 4 Booke of the Mysteries of the Masse chap. 11. †Est enim hic color sapor cum nihil alterutro sit coloratum aut sapiduÌ„ quantum aut quale There is here colour and savour quantitie and qualitie though there be here nothing savory nothing coloured nothing that hath quantitie or qualitie In summe God hath so created substances and accidents that as a created substance cannot be without accidents so accidents cannot be without a substance These things be so relative one to another as to separate them is as if one should
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
corporis ejus sanguinisque contineant c. The Sacrament of Adoption to wit Baptisme may be called the Adoption even as we call the Sacrament of his body and blood which is in the bread and in the consecrated Cup his body and blood Not that to speake properly the bread is his body and the Cup his blood But because they containe in them the mystery of his body and blood This Book of Facundus drawn out of the Vatiean Library was published by Jacobus Sirmoudus a Jesuite who for this cause was suspected And I heare he hath been in trouble about it a Turrian li. 1. de Eucharist c. 18. §. Ad illud Vasq in 3. part Thomae Tomo 3. Dis 180. c. 9 pag. 107. Greg de Val. lib. de Trans c. 7. Sicut enim antequam sactificetur panis paneÌ„ nominamus divina auteÌ„ illum sanclificante gratia incdiante Sacerdote liberatus quideÌ„ est ab appellatione panis â—lignus habiâ—us est Dominici corporis appellatione etiamsi natura panis in co remansit Turrianus and Vasquez and Gregory of Valentia Jesuites object unto themselves a place of Chrysostome in his Epistle to Caesarius which Epistle also is in Biblioth Patr. Printed at Colen anno 1618 in the 8 Tome That place is such Afore the bread be sanctified we coll is bread But the divine grace sanctifying it by the meanes of the Priest it is freed indeed from the appellation of bread and is honored with the name of the body of the Lord though the nature of bread remaine in it These Iesuites answer that this place is not of John Chrysostome but of another John of Constantinople Which they say without proofe Yet it matters not for it sufficeth they acknowledge that place to bee of an ancient Author The 8 Books of Apostolicall Constitutions attributed to Clement the first Bishop of Rome are not of him Neverthelesse these Books are ancient and there is much good to be learned in them In the 5 Book chap. 16. it is said that b Cum verâ— anttypa mysteria pretiosi Corporis sanguinis sui nobis tradidisset Christ having given the figurative mysteries of his body and blood went to the mount of Olives And in the 7 Book chap. 26. c Etiam agimus gratias tibi Pater pro pretioso sanguine Iesu Christi qui effusuâ— est pro nobis et pro pretioso corpore cujus haec Antitypa perficimus We give thee thankes for the precious blood of Christ which was shed for us and for the precious body whereof we performe the signes by his command for to shew forth his death There would never be an end if wee should gather up all the places of the ancient Fathers wherein they say that that which we receive in the Eucharist is bread and that the bread and wine are Signes Symboles Figures and Antitypes of the body and blood of the Lord I will adde but two Canons of a Councell which are very formall The 24 Canon of the III Councell of Carthage is such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let nothing be offered in the sacred service but the body and blood of the Lord as also the Lord hath ordained it that is to say nothing but bread and wine mingled with water The same Canon is found repeated in the very same words in the Councell of Trull in the Canon 32 aswell in the Greeck as in the Latin Copies Upon which Canon Baâ—samon maketh this Commentary The two and thirtieth Canon of the Councell of Trull hath ordained very at large a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the nonbloody Sacrifice was made with bread and wine mingled with water because that the bread is the figure of the body of the Lord and the wine the figure of his blood Here is then above two hundred Bishops gathered in a Councell that interpret these words the body and blood of Christ by the bread and wine mingled with water The same Councell in the 23 Canon ordaineth that when a man officiates at the Altar the Prayer must always be directed to the Father Whence appeareth manifestly that then they worshipped not the Sacrament seeing that the Councel forbiddeth when men assist at the Altar to addresse their Prayers to Christ If this hoste be Christ it must be worshipped and by consequent invocated And that it may appeare how lately this opinion of Transubstantiation was received in the Tome de Divinis officiis which is in Biblioth P atr we have an Epistle of that Great Emperor Carolus Magnus where he saith b Cum adaltare assistitur semper ad Patrem d rigatur oratio Christ supping with his Disciples brake bread and gave them likewise the Cup in figure of his body and blood This Epistle happily might bee written about the yeare of our Lord 800. Walefridus Strabo who wrote about the yeare 850 in his Book of Ecclesiasticall things chap. 16. c Christus coenando cii discipulis panem fregit calicem pariter cis dedit in figuram corporis sanguinis sui In coena quam ante traditioneÌ„ suaÌ„ ultimaÌ„ cum discipulis habu t post Paschae veteris solemnia corporis et saÌ„guinis sui SacrameÌ„ta in panis et vini substaeÌ„tia cisdeÌ„ discipulis suis tradidit et ea in coÌ„memorationeÌ„ sanctissimae suae passionis celebrare perdocuit The Lord at the last Supper he made with his Disciples afore he was betrayed after he had made an end of the solemnity of the ancient Passeover gave to his Disciples the sacred signes of his body and blood in the SVBSTANCE of the bread and wine and taught them to celebrate them in remembrance of his most holy Passion Rupertus Abbot of Deutsch neare Colen who lived in the yeare 1112. and whose works are yet extant hath condemned Transubstantiation and taught that the Substance of bread remaineth after the Consecration Here are his words upon the 12 chap. of Exodus d Rup Tuitiensis in Exo. 12. Sicut Christus humâ—na naturam nec mutavâ—â— nec destruâ—â—â— sed assumpsit ita in SacrameÌ„to nec destruit nec mutat substantiaÌ„ panis vini sed assumit in unitatem cororis et sanguinis sui Even as Christ neither changed nor destroyed the humane nature but joyned himselfe to it So in the Sacrament he neither destroyeth nor changeth the substance of the bread and wine but joyneth himselfe to it in the unity of his body and blood This place of Rupertus is alleadged by Salmeron in the 16 Treatise of the IX Tome § Ruit and Bellarmin in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers alleadgâ—s out of him many such like places and blameth him for it To so many places that say that the substance of the bread remaineth after the Consecration our Adversaries do reply that by the word of Substance the Fathers understand the Accidents As it is a great absurdity by the word of Accidents to understand the Substance So
of man is to his Soule Which was the opinion and beleife of Plato of Cicero of Virgil and of all the Platonick Schoole that bore the sway in Ireneus his time Such was the beleife of the Author of the Booke of the Lords supper attributed to Saint Cyprian That Author speaketh thus f Panâ—s ste communis in carnem sangumem mutatus procurat vitam incrementum corporibus ideoque ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostrae adjutamsirmit as sensibil argumento edocta est visibilibus Sacramentis inesse vitae aeternae effectum The common bread being changed into flesh and into blood bringeth â—ife and growth unto the body And therefore the infirmity of our flesh being helped by the accustomed effect is taught by a sensible proofe that in the visible Sacraments there is an effect of eternall life When he saith that the common bread is turned into flesh and into blood he doth not meane that it is turned into the flesh and blood of Christ but into our flesh and blood by disgestion for hee addeth that this bread nourisheth our bodyes and maketh them to grow and all the currant of the speech sheweth that But a little after hee addeth some wordes whereupon our Adversaries doe triumph and glory for lack of understanding what this Authors beleefe was * Panis queÌ„ Dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur et latebat d vinitas ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter divina se infudit essentia The bread saith hee that the Lord gave to his Disciples being changed not in shew but in nature is made flesh by the omnipotency of the Word But in the words following he sheweth that this conversion of the bread into the flesh of Christ is made not by Transubstantiation but by an union of the Godhead of Christ with the bread like unto the union of Christs divine nature with his humane nature For he added immediatly after And even as in â—he person of Christ his humanity was â—eene but his divinity was hidden so the * Panis itaque hic azymus cibus verus sincerus per speciem Sacramentum nos tactu sanctificat divine essence is infused in the visible Sacrament by an unspeakable manner There is nothing more expresse nor more contrary unto Transubstantiation For according to this Authors beleefe even as Christs divine nature did not transubstantiate his Manhood but made it to be the flesh of the Son of God So the divine Essence which he saith to be infused in the bread of the Sacrament maketh it to become Christs body without being Transubstantiated Wherefore a litlte after he saith that that which we receive in the Sacrament * Caro quae VerbuÌ„ Dei Patris assuÌ„psit in utero virginali n un tate suae personae et panis qui consecratur in Ecclesia unum corpus sunt Divinit atisenim plenitudo quae fuit in illa replet et istum paâ—em is unleavened bread which sanctifieth us by touching it acknowledging that it is bread still Bellarmin in the 15 chap. of his third Book of the Eucharist alleadgeth Saint Remigius that wrote about the yeare of our Lord 520 in these words a The flesh which the Word of God the Father tooke in the Virgins wombe in unity of person and the bread that is consecrated in the Church are one and the selfe-same body For the plenitude of the divinity which was in that flesh filleth also this bread Bellarmin addeth that Haimo held the same language and that Gelasius and Theodorets words that we have alleadged above may be fitted to this opinion The Author our Adversaries alleadge with more ostentation is Damascene whom they rank among the Saints This man may be tearmed the Lombard of the Grecians because he is the first among the Grecians that handled divinity in Philosophicall tearmes And is the first that wrote for the adoration of Images Now he did write about the yeare of our Lord 740. This man in his 4 Book of the Orthodox Faith chap. 14. extendeth himselfe upon this matter and will have the bread b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be changed into the body of the Lord not by transubstantiation but by c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Assumption and union with the divinity like unto the union of Christs divinity with his humanity Because saith hee d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is the custome to eate bread and to drink wine and water the Lord hath conjoyned his divinity to these things and hath made them to be his body and blood And a little after e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If thou inquirest in what manner that is done let it suffice thee to understand that it is done by the holy Spirit after the same manner as the Lord hath made himselfe to himselfe and in himselfe a flesh taken of the holy Mother of God by the holy Ghost And a little after he saith that the bread and wine c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the body of Christ Deified Chiefly he is very expresse in that he addeth d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The bread of the Communion is not meere bread but it is conjoyned to the Divinity But still he acknowledgeth that it is bread saying the bread is the body of Christ and calling it the bread of the Communion And a little after The loaves of proposition did figurate this bread Item The broad is the first fruits of the future bread And a little after We partake all of one bread Only he hath this of particular to himselfe that he will not have the bread to bee called the figure of Christs body rejecting that kind of speech usuall and ordinary in the Fathers that have written afore him It appeareth likewise in that he will have the Sacrament to bee honored but not to be worshipped d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us saith he honor it with purity corporall and spiritual and will have it to be received with the hands set in forme of a Crosse For then it was not as yet the custom to chop it into the mouths of Communicants Rupertus was imbrued with the same opinion e Rupertus Tuitiensis in Exod. c. 12. Sicut Christus humanam naturaÌ„ nec mutavit nee destruxitysed assumpsit it a in Sacrameto nec destruit nec mutat sub stantiam panis et vini sèd assumit in unitatemcorporis et sâ—ngumis sui Even as Christ saith he did neither change nor destroy the humane nature but joyned himselfe unto it So in the Sacrament he neither destroyeth nor changeth the substance of the bread and wine but joyneth himselfe unto it in the unity of his body and blood For which cause also Bellarmin placeth him among the Impanators This doctrine doth no whit agree with the ubiquity For they did put this union of
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
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
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
part of Thomas Tome III. in the Dispute 196 chap. 4. * Ego existimo verba illa Non bibam c. Christunâ— dixisse de calice sanâ— guinis sui I thinke Christ said these words I will drinke no more of this fruit of the Vine of the chalice of his blood and proveth his saying by the Fathers CHAP. VI. How much Christ is dishonoured by this Doctrine And of the character indelible And of the power of creating ones Creator THe very cauteles of the Masse doe sufficiently discover the abuse and maketh every man that loveth Christ shake with horror At the end of the old editions of the Roman Decree are added many penitentiall Canons whereof the nine and thirtieth is such * Quando mus corrodit aut comedit corpus Christi When a mouse eateth or gnaweth the body of Christ for the penance in this case lookâ— for the second distinction of the Consecration towards the end In the new Masse-Booke reviewed and amended by the Popes authority there is in the beginning a treatise of the defects that happen in the Masse where these rules are found in the third chapter †De defectibus circa Massam occu◠étibus cap. 3. §. 7. Si host a consecrata dispareat vâ—â— casie aliquo ut venlo aut miraculo velab liquo aâ—â—mali accepta acqueat repeâ—eri tunc alterra consecretur ab â—o loco incipiendo Quâ— pridie c. If the consecrated hoste vanish away by some accident as if it be carried away with the winde or by some miracle or eaten up by some beast and cannot be found then let another be consecrated beginning again about the place of the Masse Qui pridie c. And in the tenth chapter * Cap. 10. Si musca vel aranea cecîderit in calicem non fuerit Sacerdoti nausea nee ullum periculum â—â—meat sumat cum sanguâ—ne If a Flye or Spider fall into the chalice and that the Priests Stomack rise not against and feare not any danger thereby let him swallow the Flye or Spider with the blood And in the same Chapter †Cap. 10. § 11. Si in hieme congelatâ—â— sanguis in calice involvatur calix pannis calefactâ—s If in winter the blood doe freeze in the chalice let the chalice be wrapped up in hoâ— clothes Note these words If the blood doe freeze Whilest Christ is full of glory in heaven they thaw him here upon earth Let them tell us what body or what substance is frozen in the chalice For all Ice is a body But above all is to be noted that which is found in the same Chapter * Cap. 10. §. 14. Si Sacerdos evomat Eucharistiam si species integrae appareant reverenter sumantur nisi nausea siat Tunc enim species consecratae caute separentur in loto sacro reponantur If the Priest vomit up the Eucharist and that the species appeare whole they must be chewd againe with reverence unlesse the stomack should loath them For then the consecrated species must bee carefully severed and put into a sacred place and after that be cast into the reliquary or shrine wherein reliques are kept Pope Innocent the third in the fourth Booke of the Mysteries of the Masse Chapter 16 moveth a very important question He asketh that if a flux or loosenesse takes a Priest that hath nothing in his stomack but consecrated hostes what is the matter that comes out of his body Of which difficulty the Pope rids himselfe wisely saying with the Apostle Be not wiser than it behooveth but bee wise unto sobriety By these things it appeareth that God stirred up with anger against men that have rejected his word hath strucken them with giddines For who would ever have thought that Christian men would have come to that point as to worship a God which may bee stolne or carried away with the winde so that one may say God is lost A God that may be gnawed by mice and devoured by brute beasts A God that is wrapped in the middest of vomiting and spuing and that must be eaten and chewed againe A God who being fallen downe cannot rise up againe Of whom their Doctors * Vasquez in 3 partem Thamae Tomo 3. â—â—sp 191. cap. 3. Neque agere neque pati poâ—est corpus Christi prout est in hoc Sacramento corpoâ—ea actione neque passione say that under the hoste he cannot open his eyes nor stirre his hands and that he is neither lieing sitting nor standing Our Adversaries doe answer that when Mice have gnawed or carryed away the consecrated hoste or that a beaste hath devoured it Christ suffereth no paine nor hurt thereby But they cannot deny but that Christ there by is exposed to laughter and suffers a greater ignominie than that of the Crosse To be eaten by beasts and vomited up and wrapped among vomiting and spuing is a thing more shamefull than to be crucified The Turks and Pagans will say Is that the God of the Christians that could not defend himselfe against Mice and which is devoured by Dogs Certain it is that God would never make the glorious body of his Son to be subject to so many ignominies without it were very beneficiall and usefull unto the Church And yet our Adversaries cannot tell us what good it doth to our Salvation that Christ should be thus carried away by a mouse or devoured by brute beasts Cardinal Tolet the Jesuit in the second Booke of the Institution of Priests chapter 25. saith †Potest consecrare Sacerdos multos cophinos panis vini dolium The Priests can consecrate many baskets of bread and a Tunne of wine If he can consecrate one Tun he may also consecrate two yea tenne or twentie and so may turne into blood all the Wine of a Market Whereupon t is necessary to know that the Church of Rome holdeth that by conferring of the order of Priesthood an Indelible character is engraven into the Soule of the Priest So that the Pope himselfe cannot blot it out And that a Priest degraded for Heresie or other crime may consecrate and transubstantiate bread into flesh and wine into blood by vertue of that character remaining in him though the function of his office be interdicted unto him By that meanes a Priest that hath forsaken the Roman Religion yea a Priest * Vasquez Tomo Ill. in 3. parteÌ„ Thomae Disp 171. Cap. 3. Cum constet Sacerdoâ—bus coÌ„missam fuisse potestatem consecrandi ita ut licet consecrare velit in malum usum nempe pro veneficijs incantationibus consceratio corum effectum haberet Sorcerer and Magician may transubstantiate whole tuns of wine into blood and make Christs blood to be carried up and downe in pints and bottles over al the taverns tipling houses of a town which is truly to make Christ the sport of Magicians and drunkards and expose him to great ignominy By the same doctrine Christ is in
17. Genis Pactum hoc loco sumitur pro signo pacti Emâ—a Sa Primâ—edâ—tio eâ—â— Notis Pactum id est sâ—num pacti because it was the signe and remembrance of it So in the twelfth of Exodus the Sacrament of the Pascall Lambe is called the Passe-over because it was a memoriall of the Passeover of the Augell sparing the houses of the Israclites And Saint Paul 1. Corinth 10. speaking of the Rock which gusht out waters in the Wildernesse saith that this Rocke was Christ because it was the sigure of Christ As Austin saith in the Eighteenth Booke of the City of God Chapter 48. b Dâ—â—tum 〈◊〉 Aâ—â—sâ—â—â—â— pâ—â—ra Gaâ— Christus quia 〈◊〉 â—lla 〈◊〉 quahoâ— dâ—â—â—â—m est 〈◊〉 â—â—â—abat 〈◊〉 the Apostle saith the Rocke was Christ because that Rocke did signisie Christ And in the 57 question upon the Leviticus The thing which signifieth is wont to beare the name of the thing signified as it is written Seven eares of corne are seven yeares and seven kine are seven yeares and many such like things a Hine est quod dictuÌ„ est Petra crat Christus Non enim dixit petra signisicabat Christum sedtanquâ—â— hoc esseâ— quod utique per substantiam non hoc erat sed per signâ—ficationem Thence comes what is said that the Rocke was Christ he did not say the Rocke signifieth Christ but as if it were that which it was not in substance but onely by signification Pope Innocent the third in the fourth Booke of the Mysteries of the Masse chapter 7. saith Petra erat Christus id est significabat Christum The Rocke was Christ that is to say did signifie Christ And Aquinas in the Exposition of this Epistle b Petra erat Christus non per substantiuÌ„ sed per sig nificatione The Rock was Christ not in substance but by signification Lombardus in his Commentary upon this Chapter c B bebant de petra spirituali sâ—â—â—et quae Christum sign sicâ—â— bat They did drink of the Rock which signified Christ Which thing is confirmed by that word Was. For Bellarmin that doth invert these words and translateth Christ was the Rocke seemes to imply that Christ was then the Rock but is not now And the same Apostle to the Romans Chapter 6.4 saith Wee are buryed in Christs death by Baptisme because Baptisine signifieth to us that our sins are as buried with Christ and that we are to be made conformable to 〈◊〉 death And without extending my selfe further upon this Christ giving the Cur said This Cup is the New Testament iâ— my blood Wherein there is two figures as Salmeron the Jesuite saith truely a Salm. Tomo IX Tra. XV. pag. 98. 99. Subest in his verhis duplex Motonymia prima qua contmens ponitur pro contento id est poculum sive calix pro vino co quod vinum in ipso continetur Altera est qua contentum in poctelo id est sanguis sub specie vin soedus vel Testamentum diatur Novum cum sit ejus symbolum propter sâ—â—cies There is saith he a double Metonymie by which the continent is put for the thing contained that is to say the Cup for the wine contained therein the other that that which is contained in the Chalice iâ—â— called the Covenant or Testament for that it is the symbole or signe of it because of thâ— species And a little after b Idem ibidem pag. 100 Dicitur sanguis Novum Testâ—mentum sicut circumcisio dicitur foedus quia illud foedus representar The blood iâ— called the New Testament as the Circumcision is called the Covenant because it representeth that Covenant And Thomas Aquinas in his Commentary upon the eleventh chapter of the first to the Corinthians c Hic calix est N. T. in meo sanguint quasi dicat Per id quod in bâ—câ—aâ—â—ce contiâ—â—ur commâ—â—â— ratur N. T. c. This Cup is the New Testament in my blood as if be did say By that which is contained in this cup is made a commemoration of the New Testament which was confirmed by Christs blood And Emanuel Sa the Jesuit in the first edition of his notes upon the first to the Corinthians Chapter 11. saith that the word IS implies as much as containeth or signifieth This manner of speaking is ordinary to say a mourning suite because it is a signe of mourning a celestial Spheare for the figure of a heavenly Spheare And in shewing of Mappes to say This is France and that is Spaine And to be lodged at the Eagle or at the Swan for the signe of the Eagle or of the Swan So doth Saint Austin say in the fifty seventh question upon Leviticus The thing which signifieth is wont to be called by the name of the thing signified And Theodoret in the first Dialogue speaking of these words This is my body saith that the Lord gave unto the signe the name of his body And Tertullian in his fourth Booke against Macion chapter 40. He made it to be his body saying This is my body that is to say the sigure of my body Saint Austin in the 23 Epistle to Bonisâ—ce is very expresse If Sacraments had not some resemblance of the things whereof they be Sacraments they would be no Sacraments But because of this resemblance they take very often the name of the things themselves Even then as the Sacrament of Christs body is in a manneâ— the body of Christ so the Sacrament of faith to wit Baptisme is faith Note that he saith that the Sacrament of Christs body is the body of Christ after the same manner as Baptisme is faith Therefore our Adversaries say very ignorantly that figures elsewhere are receiveable but in the Articles of faith and institution of a Sacrament figures are no way convenient or agreeable For we have produced many examples of figures in the institution of Sacraments and they themselves acknowledge two figures in these words This Cup is the New Testament And touching the Articles of faith the Creede saith that Christ sitteth at the right hand of God which is a figurative kinde of speech for God hath no right hand The wh le Gospell is comprized under thâ—se words Jâ—sus is the Lambe of G d and all Popery is grounded upon these word Vpon this Rock will â—â—uild my Church â—nd I will give thee the keeps of the kingdome of heaven which he all figurative words And it is to be observed that when Christ instituted this holy Sacrament he spake in the Jewish language which is a dialect of the Syrian tongue saying * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro cadavere 1. Sam. 17.46 Amos. 6.3 Es 14.19 2. Paral. 20.24 Gen. 15.11 Num. 19.29 Hâ—n in pagri that is to say This my dead body supplying the word IS after the manner of the Hebrewes and Syrians He did then say to his Disciples that hee gave them his dead body Which could not be true but in
taking it figuratively For the body of Christ was not dead when he did institute this Sacrament But it is very true in the sense that we take it to wit that the bread which he did breake and give to his Disciples was the figure or remembrance of his body dead for us For we have shewed already that in the holy Supper Christs body is presented to our faith not as glorious and spirituall but as broken and dying and dead for us This is confirmed in that in the Evangelists this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth body is in most places taken for a dead body As in the 17 of Saint Luke Verse 37. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Wheresoever the body is thither will the Engles be gâ—thered together †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Mâ—tthew 27.52 * Many bodyes of Saints which slept arose And Mark 14.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to annoint the body For the proper word in Greek for to signifie a dead body is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 T is true that in the Syriack Testament the word Peger is taken sometimes for a living body But it is not credible that Christ tooke this word in an other sense than it is taken in the Old Testament where it signifieth alwayes a dead bodie Neither is it to be omitted that Saint Paul cals oftentimes the Church Christs body Ephes 1.23 and Chapter 5.23 If then from these words This is my body they will inferre that the bread is transubstantiated into Christs body by the like reason when the Scripture saith that the Church is the body of Christ it may bee inferred that the Church is transubstantiated into Christs bodie CHAP. XII That our Adversaries to avoide a cleare and naturall figure forge a multitude of harsh and unusuaall ones and speake but in figurative tearmes And of Berengarius his confession OVr Adversaries who make a shew to be enemies to Figures forge neverthelesse a great number of absurd and violent figures and turne all into figures When Christ saith This is my body by This they understand an individuum Vagum or that which is under these species without determining any thing Others interprete the word IS by shall be or shall become For they say that the Transubstantiation is not made or effected till the words be pronounced When the Evangelists say that the Lord gave bread by this word bread they understand flesh And wee have heard them confesse that these word This cup is the New Testament in my bloeâ— are figurative By their doctrine which puts 〈◊〉 body into the cup Christ giving 〈◊〉 cup might have said This is my body and had spoken truely if wee beleeâ— them Christ called that which he dranâ— in the Eucharist the fruit of the Viâ—â— But our Adversaries by the fruit 〈◊〉 the Vine will have the blood to be understood By these words Doe this they understand Sacrifice me but the words following Doe this in remembrance of 〈◊〉 doe refute that interpretation For it 〈◊〉 impossible to Sacrifice Christ in remembrance of Christ Wee shall see anone that when iâ— the 6 of Saint John Verse 53. Chriâ—â— saith Except yee drinke my blood yee haâ—â— no life in you our adversaries least thâ—â— should be accused of taking the liâ—â— from the Lay people in depriving theâ— of the cup by the word drinking they understand eating And that wheâ— Christ saith I leave the World and am 〈◊〉 more in the world they add this taile to it to wit by my visible presence We have seene before that the Apostle saith foure several times that in the Lords Supper we breake bread and eate bread To shun the force of these words they wrest them into figures saying that it is not bread that we eate But that figuratively Christs body is called bread because it seemes to be so Which thing they know to be false for Christs body never seemed to be bread Item they say that it is called bread because it was bread before the consecration Which also is false For the Lords body was never bread To such figures Rhethorick affords no name They bring indeed for example Moses Rod which is still called a rod after it was turned into a Serpent and the water of the wedding of Cana Iohn 2. which is still called water after it was turned into wine Which are examples making against them For of that rod it is expressly said that it was turned into a Serpent Exod. 4.3 And of that water it is said in expresse termes that it was turned into wine John 2.9 But of the bread of the holy Supper it is not said that it was converted into flesh Of this Serpent one might have truly said that it was once a rod and of this wine that it was once water because it was the same matter clothed with another forme But of Christs body it cannot be sayd truely that ever it was bread The matter or substance of the body of Christ is not the matter of the bread For Christs body is not made of bread and was never bread Others say that the Apostle saith not When ye eate bread but when ye eate of this bread understanding by the pronoune This a spirituall and heavenly bread But they consider not that the Apostle in the first to the Corinthians Chapter 10 saith not THIS BREAD but the bread that we breake And Saint Luke in the 20 of the Acts 7 Verse The Disciples came together to break bread There their Philosophy fayles them They must also learne that when the Scripture taketh this word Bread in a spirituall sense it is never opposed to the cup because that when the question is of a spirituall foode to eate and to drinke are but one and the same thing But Saint Paul opposeth this bread to that cup saying Let every man eate of this bread and drinke of this â—up That if any one consider exactly all the termes which our Adversaries use in this matter hee shall perceive that they be unintelligible figures They say that the Priest breaketh the hoste and that this hoste is the body of Christ which neverthelesse cannot be broken They say they lift up God but God cannot be lifted up They say the consecrated hoste is round And that Christs body is in the consecrated hoste Whence will follow in good Logick that the body of Christ is round Which neverthelesse they doe not beleeve They grant both propositions and deny the conclusion Which is against common sense And when they speake of drinking the cup by drinking they understand a swallowing downe of flesh and bones and the Soule of Christ with his Divinity This confession of Berengarius is to be found in the 2 Distinction of the Consecration at the CanoÌ„ Ego Berengarius The Roman Councell under Nieholas the second prescribed to Berengarius a forme of abjuration of his doctrine in the most exquisite and formall tearmes that ever they could devise These tearmes are
the substance of bread remaines still is possible neither is it contrary to reason nor to the authority of the Bible but is more easie to conceive and more reasonable And for this cause he is checked by Vasquez the Jesuite in the 3 Tome upon the 3 part of Thomas Disp 180. cap 5. And in that same place he saith that Durand followed the opinion of Scotus upon the 4. of the Sentences Disp 11. quest 2. Gabriel Biel in the 40 lesson upon the Canon of the Masse * Biel Lect. 40. Quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus an per conversionem aâ—icujus in ipsum an sine conversione incipiat esse corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantia accidentibus panis non invenitur expressumin canone Bibliae How the body of Christ is there whether it be by conversion of â—â—me thing into it or whether without converâ—ion Christs body beginnes to be there with the bread the substance and the accidents remaining it is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible And even there That hath beene proved by the authority of the Church and of the Saints for that cannot be proved by reason The same * Sed cur hunc intellectum difficilem Sancti dicere Ecclesia determinarre elegerunt cum scripturae possint exponi salvari secundum intellectum facilem de hoc articulo in the 41 lesson asketh Why the Saints and the Church have chosen to say and determine that that should be understood in so difficult a manner seeing the Scriptures may be expounded and kept in their soundnesse in a manner easie to be understood To this he answereth that the Church hath determined it so meaning by the Church not the Syrian nor the Greeke or Ethiopian but the Roman Church onely Salmeron the Jesuite in the thirteenth Treatise of the ninth Tome expounding these words This is my body speaketh thus b § Secunda Prosectò illis verbis nequaquam conversio significatur ex vi verborum Alià s qui diceret Hoc est corpus meum demonstrando suum corpus significaret conversionem alicujus rei in suum corpus Certainely these words doe not signifie that any conversion be made by the force of the words Otherwise he that should say this is my body in shewing his owne body would signifie that some thing is converted into his body And he insistes very much upon this that these words This is my body are declarative or significative of the thing which is and not effective of that which is not Wherefore the same Jesuite in thâ— same Treatise * Inno. 3. â—ib 4. de Myster Missa cap. 6. Sane dicâ— potesi quod Christus vâ—rtute divina confeâ—â—t poslâ—â— forma expressit c. Et cap. 17. Ab hajus quaestonis laqueo saeâ—le se absolvit qui dâ—cit quod Chrâ—stus tunc conscit cum hened câ—t joynes himselfe to thâ— opinion of Pope Innocent the third a who in the fourth booke of the Mysteries of the Masse Chapters 6. and 17 teacheth that Christ made not the conversion of the bread by these words Hâ—est corpus meum but by his divine power and by the blessing that had preceded For he will have the pronouncing of these words to have another vertue at this day in the mouthes of Priests than they had in the mouth of Christ Which opinion of Innocent the third is followed by Innocent the fourth his Successor and by multitudes of Doctors which Salmeron produceth * § Porio pag. 82. in the same Treatise It is credible that these Popes and Doctors were moved to teach that Christ did not consecrate by these words This is my body but by the prayer 〈◊〉 blessing he made before because the Fathers say the same and that such was the beleefe of the ancient Church Justin Martyr b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calleth that which wee receive in the Eucharist a foode consecrated by the prayer of the Word that is to say Christ Saint Austin in the third booke of the Trinity Chapter 4. speaking of that which we receive in the Sacrament saith that it is taken of the fruits of the earth prece mystica consecratum and is consecrated by the mysticall prayer | 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen in his eight booke against Celsus * We eate loaves of bread which by the prayer are made one bodie which is some holy thing Ireneus in his fourth Booke Chapter 34. * Qui est à terra panis percip â—is vocationem Deâ— jam non est panis communâ—s sed Eucharisiâ—a The bread receiving the invocation of God is no more common bread but Eucharist Basil in the first booke of the holy Ghost 27 Chapter calleth the words of consecration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the words of invocation Isido us in the sixth booke of Origines in the Chapter de Officijâ— * Sâ—â—â—â—ficâ—ii diâ—tum quasi sacrii saâ—â—â—m quâ—â— ece mâ—sti a consecratur in meâ—â—â—â—â—â—m pro 〈◊〉 is domâ—nuae passion v. The Sacrifice is so called as if one should say a sacred deede because it is consecrated by the mysticall prayer in remembrance of the Passion which the Lord sâ—ffeced for us Yet at this day the Greek Churches consecrate by the prayer as Bellarmin acknowledgeth in the fourth Booke of the Eucharist Chapter * § Habemus 12. See the Canon Corpus in the second distinction of the consecration By this it is as cleare as the light that the Ancient Fathers did not beleeve that by these words This is my body any conversion of the bread was made CHAP. XV. Of the Adoration of the Sacrament The opinion of the Roman Church THe Roman Church having deified the Sacrament hath consequently obliged her selfe to worship it with the highest adoration which is due to God alone By this meanes a wafer of bread hath taken Gods place and is called God and is worshipped as God They speake of lifting up God in the Masse and of Gods feast viz Corpus Christâ— day and of carrying God to a sickâ— body Phrases that are not to bee found in the holy Scriptures and unheard off in the Ancient Christian Church The Councell of Trent in the thirteenth Session Chapter 5. speaketh thuâ— There remaines no doubt but that all faithfull Christian people ought to give the worship of Lâ—tria nullus dubu andi locus relinquitur quâ—n omnes Christi sideles latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur huic sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione adhibeant which is due to the true God to this holy Sacrament in the veneration Now by this word Sacrament they understand the body of Christ with the species or accidents For by this word Sacrament our Adversaries never understand Christ Jesus out of the species This Councell then ordaineth that the species of the bread and wine shall be worshiped with soveraigne adoration The practise doth verifie what I say For the people worshipping the consecrated hoste
from Calvin to the Apostles time hardlie one Christian of a thousand could be saved That if the question be touching Histories it is certaine we must begin by the Ancientest and that it belongs to our Adversaries to shew where their Religion was in the time of the Apostles afore they speake of the time before Calvin There they are at a stand and driven to a non-plus and not being able to shew their Religion in the Apostles writings they send us back to an unwritten word which depends on the Popes Authority whom they make judge in his owne cause and make the Church of Rome the Soveraigne Judge of her owne proper duty The principall is that the Christian Church is subject to the Lawes and to the practice of the Church of the Apostles time and not to the example of what was done before Calvin Of whom they speake as of the Inventer of our Religion because he exhorted us to beleeve the holy Scriptures For Calvin gave us not any Lawes We speake not of him in our Sermons we ground not our selves upon his authority we doe not say of him what the Church of Rome saith of the Pope to wit that he could not erre We doe not call our selves Calvinists as our Adversaries acknowledge themselves to be Papists and make glory of that title as * Certe nullo sublimiori gloriae titulo exornare nec certius eos esse Catholicos demonstrare potuissent quà m eos nuncupare Romanos atque Papistas Cardinall Baronius doth in his Martyrologie at the 16 of October where he saith that a man cannot be adorned with a higher degree of glory than to bee called a Papist So that after his account the title of Papist is of as much worth as the name of a Christian This demand is so much the more absurd as it is made unto us For when they aske of us where our Religion was before Calvin they presuppose that the Orthodoxe Church ought to be visible in all ages Which the Scripture saith not but foretels us of great revolts and false Doctors that shall teach men to abstaine from Marriage and from meates which God hath created for to be received with thanksgiving 1. Timoth. 4.3 It foretels us that all the Earth ravished in admiration shall goe after the Beast Revel 13 3. and that when Christ shall come hardly shall he find faith on the earth Luke 18.8 2. Thes 2. Revel 17. It tells us of the Sonne of perdition that shall bee called God and shall doe wonders and of the great harlot cloathed with scarlet who sitteth in the Citty with seaven hills that raigneth over the Kings of the earth which seduceth Kings and makes them drunke and is made drunke with the blood of the Saints and Faithfull It tells us in the twelfth of the Revelation that wings are given to the Church for to flie into the Wildernesse and live there hidden for a time It warnes us that the broad way where the throng of Peoples passeth leadeth into perdition Which things afford us another consideration That is if a Cut-purse asketh him whom hee hath robbed of his purse Where is thy Purse This theefe addeth scoffing and derision to his theft So the Pope who since so many ages hath persecuted to the uttermost the Church of God and endeavoured to abolish it addeth to this violence this derision and scoffing when he asketh Where was your Religion at that time For it were rather his part to informe us where hee had put her himselfe and to what passe he had reduced her In the meane while though we are not bound to answer to such an absurd and injust a demand and which doth not at all concerne Religion and being propounded by men whose Religion is new and that have swerved from the Ancient Christian Religion and who even say that the Pope may add unto the Creed new Articles of Faith Yet we say that it is foure or five hundred years agoe since the Pope persecuteth with fire and sword the Faithfull ones whereof there was a great number in France in the Low countries England Germany Bohemia and Hungaria to whom our Adversaries gave odious nicknames calling them Valdenses Albigenses Sodomites Picards c. And fathering upon them many impious and abhominable doctrines fâ—rre from their beleife Of whom were Massacred in few months by one Domiâ—ick Author of the Order of the Jacobins above two hundred thousand in Languedoe and Gasconie in Pope Innocent the third his time Of these faithfull people we have the Confession agreeable to ours written in their owne Language a residue of which People remaines still in Bohemia Hungaria Moravia and in the Valleys of Angrogne Luzerne Peruse Saint Martin Pragela Merindoles and Cabrieres which Churches have joyned themselves to ours so soone as it pleased God to display in France and the neighbouring Countries the Banner of his Gospell And the sudden alteration that hapned in Luthers time shewed that Europe was full of People that knew the truth and groaned after a Reformation which the Pope promised alwayes but would never suffer it to come to execution And for to specifie some thing touching the age immediatly before Calvin Aeneas Sylvius who in the yeare 1458. attained to the Popedome was a capital enemie to the faithfull of whom in his time Bohemia and Hungaria and the neighbouring Countries were full and was a firebrand of warre for to provoke the Emperours and Popes to persecute them Wherefore his testimony in this point is the more worthy of credit This man in his 130 Epistle describeth his journey to Tabor a City in Bohemia and the Religion of the Inhabitants and the Conferences he had with them Their sect saith he is pestilentious and abhominable and worthy of the uttermost punishment They will not admit the Church of Rome to have the Primacy nor that the Clergie should have any thing in propriety They pull downe the Images of God and of his Saints They deny Purgatory They hold that the Prayers of Saints which raigne with Christ availe nothing unto men They observe no holy day but the Lords day and Easter Contemne fasting and the Canonicall Prayers They give the Eucharist under the kindes of bread and wine even to little Children and to madde men When they consecrate the Sacrament they say nothing but the Lords Prayer and the words of Consecration They change no habits and take not any ornaments Yea some of them are so madde as to hold that the very body of Christ is not in the Sacrament of the Altar but that it is onely the representation thereof being wandring Sactators of Berengarius unconverted Among the Sacraments of the Church they admit the Baptisme and the Eucharist and Marriage and Orders But as for the Sacrament of Penance they make little account of it But of Confirmation and extreame Vnction they make no reckoning at all They are very opposite to the Religions of Monkes and affirme they be diabolicall
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
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
the things signified That this is the sense and meaning of the Fathers when they speak thus appeareth in that they call also the Eucharist Christs death As Cyprian in his 63 Epistle * Passlo est Domiâ— sacrâ—fiâ—um quod offeâ—imus The Lords Passion is the Sacrifice wee do offer And Chrysostome in the 21 Homily upon the Acts of the Apostles a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whilest this death is a perfeciting and this dreadfull Sacrifice and these ineffable mysteries And so the Canon Hoc est in the 2 Distinâ—tion of the Consecration b Vocatur ipsa immolatio câ—â—nâ—s quae Sacerâ—dotâ—s manibus sit Chrâ—sti passio mâ—rs crucafixio non râ—â— veritate sed significante mysterio The immolation of Christs flesh which is made by the hands of the Priest is called the Passion Death and Crucifixion of Christ not according to the truth but by a significant mystery Austin in his 23 Epistle to Bonifacius Was not Christ once sacrificed in himselfe and yet hee is sacrificed to the People in a sacred signe And in his 10 Book of the City of God chap 5. c Sacrificium visibile invisibilis Sacrificâ—i Sacramentumid est sacrum signâ—m The visible Sacrifice is a Sacrament that is to say a sacred signe of the invisible Sacrifice And a little after * Illud quod ab omnibus appellatur SacrificiuÌ„ est signum veri sacrificii That which men do call Sacrifice is a signe of the rue Sacr fice Note that he saith that men do call it a Sacrifice acknowledging tacitely the holy Scripture doth not call it so Wee have then in these places of S. Austin a cleare exposicion of this place wherein he calleth the Eucharist the Sacrifice of our price The sixth Book of Apostolicall Constitutions of Clemens chap. 23 a Pro sacrificio crueÌ„to rationale incruentum ac mysticum sacrificium instituit quod in mortem Domini per symbola corporis et sangumis sui celebratur The Lord instead of a bloody Sacâ—â—fice hath instituted a reasonable and unbloody and mysticall Sacrifice which is celebrated in consideration of the Lords death by the signes of his body and blood In the 4. Book of Sacraments attributed to S. Ambrose chap. 5. wee have these words of the ancient Service b Fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam rationabile acceptabilem quod est sigura corporis sanguinis Domini Grant that this oblation be imputed unto us as reasonable acceptable which is the FIGVRE of the body and blood of the Lord. The succeeding ages have razed out the word Figure Procopius Gazaeus upon the 49. chap. of Genesis Christ gave to his Disciples the Image or Figure and Type of his body and blood receiving no more the bloody Sacrifices of the Law Eusebius in the 10 chapter of his first Book of the Evangelicall Demonstration a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lord having offered a Sacrifice and an excellent victime unto his Father for the salvation of us all hath appointed us to offer continually the remembrance of it instead of a Sacrifice And in the same place b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wee have received the remembrance of this Sacrifice for to celebrate it at his own table by the signes of his Body and Blood according to the institution of the New Testament In a word the Fathers are full of such places Wherefore in the Eucharist they put no difference between the Sacrament and the Sacrifice But to speak properly there is such difference between a Sacrifice and a Sacrament as between giving and receiving For in a Sacrifice we offer unto God but in a Sacrament we receive from God The Fathers do not make this distinction For by reason the Sacrament is a signe and a figure of the Sacrifice they call the Sacrament a Sacrifice This kind of speaking to call the Lords Supper a Sacrifice had its beginning from the offerings and gifts which in old time the people offered upon the sacred table afore the Communion which gifts were commonly called Sacrifices and Oblations Cyprian in his Sermon of Almes a Locuples Dives Dominicum celebrare te credis quae sorbonum non respuis quae in DominicuÌ„ sine sacrificio venis quae partâ—m de sacrificio quod pauper obâ—ulit sumis chides a rich woman that had brought no Sacrifice and yet took her part of the Sacrifices the poor had brought And in the 21 Distinction at the Canon Cleros b Hypod acon oblatioues in â—eplo Domini 〈◊〉 sideâ—bus susâ—â—pâ—â—nt Lâ—vitis superponâ— das altari buâ—dâ—serat Let the Subdeacons in the Lords Temple receive the Oblations of the Faithfull and carry them to the Levites that they may put them upon the Altars Which manner of speech remaines yet at this day in the Masse wherein the Priest before the CoÌ„secration saith Receive Lord thiâ— immaculate Host c. as is acknowledged by Bellarmin in his first Book of the Masse ch 27. And he prooves it by Ireâ—eus who in the 4 Book chap. 32. saith we offer unto God a Sacrifice of his creatures that is to say bread and wine And that even before the Consecration In that therefore the Fathers have said nothing but what is agreeable conformable unto the Faith Yet neverthelesse the abuse that hath followed thereon a longtime after is unto us an excellent example that the safest way is to cleave to the Apostles language and not to depart from the stile of the holy Scripture THE SECOND BOOK OF The Manducation of the Bodie of Christ CHAP. I. Of two sorts of manducation of Christs flesh to wit Spirituall and Corporall and which is the best MEtaphors are similies contracted and reduced to a word So wee say feeding for teaching and to flourish for to be in prosperity and we call Pride a swelling and truth a light We say of a childes tongue that it is untied and of his wit that it is displayed These Metaphors besides the ornament have some utility For they propose an Image of the things whereof wee speake and make them more intelligible by a tacite comparison Specially it is a thing very usuall and frequent to expresse the functions and qualities of the soule by tearmes borrowed from the actions and corporall qualities So we say that Envy fretteth that love burneth that Covetousnesse is a thirst of money and that hope is a tickling or soothing The holy Scripture is full of such manner of speeches wherein nothing is more frequent than to speake of good instructions as of meats and drinks and of the Graces of God as of a water that quensheth the thirst and of the desire of these graces as of a hunger and thirst So in the 9 of Proverbes the supreame Wisedome saith Come eate of my bread and drink of the wine which I have mingled And David in the 36 Psalme saith God makes us drink in the river of his pleasures
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
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
reliques was not truely his blood it would have beene an heresie deserving the fire and a manifest impiety The People did flock together for to worship this blood Therefore Guitmondus in his third booke of the Sacrament and Paschasius in his Booke of the body and blood of the Lord Chapter 14. and Iâ—docus Câ—câ—ius in his Collection of the places of the Fathers and many others doe make use of these miraculous apparitions for to prove Christs reall presence in the Eucharist Thomas Aquinas a Thom 3. part q. 76. Art 8. Tali apparitione facta eadem reverentia exhibetur eâ— quod apparet quae etiam primo exhibebatur quod quidem non sieret si vâ—re non esset ibi Christuâ— cu reverentiam latria exhibemus in the third part of his Summe question 76. Art 8. findes himselfe mightily pestred upon this point For though hee teacheth that that which appeareth thus miraculously ought to bee worshipped with the adoration of Latria as Christ and that Christ is there present yet withall hee esteemes that sometimes these apparitions are not true but onely in appearance especially when the same thing appeares but to some and not to all For which cause C jetan in his Annotations upon this place of Aâ—uinas departes from his opinion touching the Adoration b Cajetan in Notis Si quaeratur qua adoratione venerandus esset hujusmadi sanguis miraculosus dicendum â—dâ—m esse judicium de â—pso de veste Christi and will have this blood or flesh that appeares sometimes in the Massâ— to be worshiâ—ped not as Christ but as Christs garment which is an inferiour adoration But the Jesuite Vasquez goes more plainely to worke in his 193 Disput here bee his words c Vasquez in 76. q. tertiae par Thomae artic 8. Disp 193. cap. 2. Respondeo neque apparere carnem Christi neque alterius quae re vera caro sit sed carnis solum essigiem ut dixit S. Thomas c. Quod a. simplices decipiantur et credant ibi esse carnem Christi divisibili et cruento modo parum refert haec enim deceptio instructione vera Doctorum corrigenda est I answer that that which appeares is not the flesh of Christ nor of any other that bee truely flesh but that it is onely an effigies or appearance of flesh as Saint Thomas saith And as touching the simple that are deceived and beleeve that Christs flesh is there in a manner diâ—isible and bloody it matters not much For that deception ought to bee corrected by the true instruction of the Doctors Gabriel Biel a famous Doctor in his 51 Lesson upon the Canon of the d Potest fieri divina permissione illusione daemonis ad decipiendum incautos Masse goes further and saith that such appariritions of flesh and blood may bee done by illusion of the divell for to deceive the simple God permitting it thus And he brings an example of it To wit that in the Countrey of Thuringe in the City of Ysennae in a Convent of Minorite Friers e Apparuit quidam in specie Angell particulam apparenter porrigens Apparuit stultus ora sumens de manu porrigentis apparentem bostiae particulam et continuo à diabolo obsessus est et graviter vexatus a certaine man in the likenesse of an Angel appeared to a Lay Brother preparing himselfe to the communion who chopt into his mouth peece of flesh which so soone 〈◊〉 hee had swallowed he was posseâ—â—â—â— and grievously tormented by the devill And truely those that esteeme that Christ appeareth truely upon the Altar in the forme of a childe or of a peece of flesh and worship it are very much puzled For the Roman Church doth acknowledge but two sorts of Christs reall presence the one naturall and visible after which he conversed with his Disciples here on earth the other Sacramentall under the accidents of bread But when these things doe appeare yea if ever they doe appeare Christ is neither present in the one nor in the other manner For he appeares neither under his owne proper accidents nor under the accidents of the bread And it shall behoove one to beleeve that Christ is a child upon the Altar Or that a perfect man is under the accidents of a child That if it be onely a peece of flesh we aske whether this peece of flesh be whole Christ Or if it be but a part of his body whether this portion or peece of fl sh was taken out of the Arme or out of the Legge These things serve to make us to know how powerfull â—e seduction of Sathan hath beene and with â—ow much horrible darknesse he did envelope 〈◊〉 in the Ages wherin this monster of Transubstantiation was formed This latter age hath beene ashamed of it for now we see no more the People run to Mantua or to the Billettes Church at Paris for to worship the flesh and the blood of Christ that are there kept in reliques The French Pilgrimâ— passing by Mantua for to goe to Rome stay there no more They passe the Pyrenean Mountaines for to visit the supposed reliques of Saint James but doe not goe into those places of Spaine where Christs blood is kept That blood of Christ sent from Syria to King Henry the third of England whereof I have spoken in the former Chapter that putrified in a few dayes lost instantly its credit and there was no more speech of it CHAP. X. OF the corruption of the Papall Sea in the Ages wherein this errour was most advanced IN the Eighth and Ninth Ages were cast the first foundations of Transubstantiation neverthelesse it was not yet then establish d by Lawes and I cannot finde that ever any man was molested for that subj ct But in the Tenth and Eleventh Ages the Popes laboured to hatch that monster and to establish it with authoritie But God branded these two ages with infamous blemishes and disgraces For as vices agree well with errors the Popes of those times led such an infamous life that hardly the like is to be found in all Pagan histories and that Chaire was filled with horrible confusions Since Pope Formosus who in the yeare 890. attained to the Popedome by violating the oath hee had taken never to accept of it and whose dead body was dragged ignominiously up and downe the City of Rome and cast into the Tiber by his Successors For the space of a hundred and fifty yeares yea of two hundred yeares we see nothing in histories but of Popes murtherers Popes Adulterers necromanticall Popes perjured Popes Popes intruded by force or by money creatures of the Earles of Toscane that werer then powerfull in Italie and of the harlot Theodora and of her daughters Marozia and Theodora that reigned a long time in Rome and made and unmade Popes at their pleasure Of which time the Carmelite Frier Author of Fasciulus Temporum makes this lamentation f Heu heu
those that would take up Armes against Ladislaus for the defense of the Church This Indulgence being published at Prague many of the people beganne to say aloud and openly that it was indeed the language of Antichrist that promised salvation to those that should spill the Christian blood At which the Magistrate of Prague being angry hee layd hands on some of them and clapped them up into prison But the people gathered themselves together and demanded of the Magistrate the release of these prisoners who fearing an uproare appeased the people with milde words promising that no harme or wrong should be done unto them But so soon as this multitude was separated the Magistrate caused these prisoners to be stabbed with a dagger or pomard in the prison So that the blood ran out in such abundance that it streamed into the very street At the sight of that blood the people being provoked to wrath and fury they caused the Prison doores to be opened unto them and conveyed away the dead corpses and carried them from Church to Church crying aloude These are the faithfull ones that have exposed their bodies fâ—r the Covenant of God The King did consider these things without being much moved at it But the Emperour Sigismond desiring to remedy the disorders of the Papacie and by the same meanes to pacifie the troubles of Bohemia did in such sort by his going and comming and bestirring himselfe too and fro that a Councell was called and kept at Constance a City of Suaube in Germanie in the yeare 1414. wherein the three forenamed Popes were degraded of especially John XXIII for having among other things laid to his charge * Concâ—l Constant Sâ—ss X I. maintained openly and obstinately that the soules of men die as the soules of beasts and that there is neither Heaven nor Hell In these three Popes roome was chosen in the Councell Martin the fifth to whom the Emperour Sigismund kneeled downe before the whole Councell kissed his feet and worshipped him This Martin sent some Embassadors to Constantinople to whom hee gave instructions that begin thus Sactissimus et beaâ—issimus qui bahet coeleâ—te arbitriâ—m qui est Dominus in â—erris sucâ—essor Petri Christus Deâ—ini Domiâ—us uniâ—ersi ReguÌ„â—ater orbis â—umen c. The most holy and most blessed who hath the heavenly Empire who is Lord on Earth successor of S. Peter the Christ of the Lord the Master of the Vniversall World the Father of Kings the Light of the World the most high and Soveraigne Bishop Martin by the divine providence commandeth unto Master Anthonie Masson c. These instructions are inserted in the Councell of Siena held a little after Printed at Paris in the yeare 1612. At the same Councell of Constance John Huz and Hierome of Prague were called for to conferre of their doctrine they shewed some unwillingnesse to meet thither fearing some ill usage But the Emperour assured them and gave them by the advice of the Councell a large safe conduct whereby he did promise they should receive no harme there but might with all liberty and freedome propound their reasons and after that returne home in all safety Grounded upon the Emperours faith and promise they resorted to the Councel and propounded their reasons They spake chiefly of the Communion under both kinds But the Fathers of the Councell perceiving they would not yeeld to that which was enjoyned unto them concluded that they should be burned alive The Emperour made some difficulty in it saying he had obliged his faith unto them and that they came under his promise Thereupon that the Emperours conscience might be at quiet * This Canon by which is defined that one is not bound to keepe faith with hereticks is to be seene in the 19 Session of the Councel of CoÌ„stance the Councell framed a Canon wherein is declared and defined that faith must not be kept unto hereticks after men have done what they can for to convert them and that a Prince is not bound to keepe what hee hath promised them This Sentence being pronounced to John Huz he appealed to Christ Jesus They were then executed publickly And Aeneas Sylvius who afterward was Pope and made himselfe to bee called Pius the second speakes thus of them in the 36 chapter of his Historie of Bohemia * Pertulerunt ambo constanti animo neceÌ„ quasi ad epulas invitati ad incendium properaruÌ„t nullam emittentes vocem quae m seri animi esset indicium Vbi ardere coeperunt hymnum cecinere c. Both of them suffered death with a constant courage and made haste to goe to the fire as if they had been invited to a feast without heâ—ring any word come from them that shewed or testified any sorrowfulnesse of minde When they beganne to burne they fell a singing of an Hymne which could hardly be hindred by the violence and noyse of the flames No Philosopher ever suffered death with such magnanimitie as these indured burning Then he alleadgeth an Epistle of Poggius a Florentine that describeth the death of Hierome of Prague who was put to death some dayes after John Huz In that Epistle Poggius speakes as one that was present at the examination and death of the sayd Hierome I confesse saith he I never saw any body who in a cause altogether criminall came neerer the eloquence of the Ancients It was an admirable thing to sie with what words what eloquence what arguments what countenance what confidence hee answered his Adversaries and that too after he had beene three hundred and forty dayes in a deepe and stinking dungeon Then he relates afterwards how a list of heresies that were laid to his charge was read unto him and that upon everie head or point he answered in such sort as hee did shew they were calumnies laid upon him saying he beleeved nothing of all that And being brought to the place of punishment and compassed round about with faggots and straw hee fell a singing of an Hymne or Psalme The Executioner drawing neare for to kindle the fire hehind him he said unto him Friend come neere put the fire here before mee for if I did feare the fire I would not bee here The ashes of these Martyrs were cast into the Lake of Constance for to abolish the memory of them In this Councell was framed a Canon Sessioâ— XII whereby those are declared hereticks and punishable by the secular power who for conforming themselves unto Christ and unto the Ancient Church will have the people to receive the Sacrament under both kindes There also was condemned Wicklefs doctrine to whom in that Councell are falsly attributed impious doctrines and which never came into his minde For example That God ought to obey the Devill That a Prince is no lawfull master while he is in a mortall sinne And that it belongs to the people to chastise their Lords In the like manner was handled John Huz whose doctrine was condemned by