CHAP. I.

THe Institution of the holy Supper by Christ Jesus, as it is contained in the first Epistle of the Apostle Saint Paul to the Corinthians Chap. 11.

23 I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you; that the Lord Je­sus the same night in which he was betrayed, tooke bread;

24 And when he had given thankes, hee brake it and said, Take, eate: This is my body, which is broken for you: this doe in re­membrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he tooke the cup when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood: This doe ye as oft as you drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eate this bread, and [Page 2]drink this cup, ye doe shew the Lords death till he come.

27 Wherefore, whosoever shall eate thi [...] bread, and drinke this cup of the Lord un­worthily, shall be guilty of the bodie an [...] blood of the Lord.

28 Let a man therefore examine him­selfe, and so let him ea [...]e of that bread, an [...] drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh un­worthily, eateth and drinketh damnatio [...] to himselfe, not discerning the Lords body.

CHAP. II. Foure and thirty contrarieties between the Lords holy Supper and the Masse; and how farre the Church of Rome is departed from the Insti­tution of the Lord.

NOne can deny but that our Lord Je­sus did institute the holy Supper a­right and as it ought: And it were an impiety to find fault with his institution. Therefore the shortest way, yea the only meanes to end all our differences, would be to come back to Christs institution, and to speake as he spake, and to doe as he did. That is the thing which we de­sire and beg with so much earnestnesse, and whereunto the Church of Rome can by no meanes agree. For the Councell of Trent in the XXII Session denoun­ceth Anathema on all those that shall say that in the Canon of the Masse there is any errour. Yet neverthelesse it is e­vident that the Masse is nothing else but a changing and a disfiguring of the Lords Institution. Whereof we will give some examples.

1. Christ instituting the holy Supper [Page 4]among his Disciples, spake in a knowne and intelligible tongue to the assistants. On the contrary, the Priest in the Masse speaketh in a tongue which the people understand not.

2. Christ presenting the Cup to his Disciples, said, Drinke ye all of it. And S ^t. Paul in the 1 to the Cor. Chap. 11. vers. 28. bids the people of Corinth to drink of the cup, saying, Let a man examine himselfe, and so let him eate of that bread, and drink of that cup. And in the 10. Chap. 17. Verse, We are all partakers of one bread, and of one cup: according to the Version of the Romane Church, solely authorised by the Councell of Trent.

3. Christ in celebrating the Eucharist, spake not of sacrificing his body, and made no offering unto God his Father. On the contrary, the Priest in the Masse pretends to sacrifice Christs body, and offereth him up to God in sacrifice pro­pitiatory for the quick and for the dead, without a warrant, and without Gods command.

4. Christ in the holy Supper made no elevation of the hoste, as likewise the Apostle worshipped not the Sacrament, but sat still at the Table. On the con­trarie, the Priest in the Masse lifts up [Page 5]the hoste, and maketh the people to wor­ship it.

5. Christ did not cause any bones nor reliques of Saints to be put under the sa­cred table, and did not aske of God the remission of sinnes through the me­rits of those Saints whose reliques were under the table. On the contrary, the Priest in the Masse, kissing the Altar, speakes thus to God, Oramus te, Domine, per merita Sanctorum tuorum, quorum reliquiae hic sunt, & omnium Sanctorum; ut indulge­re digneris omnia pec­cata mea We pray thee, Lord, through the merits of thy Saints, whose re­liques are here, that thou wilt vouchsafe to pardon me all my sinnes.

6. Christ said to his Apostles, Take, eate. On the contrary, in the Romane Church, a great number of private Mas­ses are sayd, at the intention of such as pay for them, without communicants and without assistants, in which the Priest saith, Take, eate: but there is no body either for to take or for to eate. Yea e­ven in publick Masses, the Priest often­times eateth and drinketh alone.

7. Three Evangelists, viz. S. Matth. in the 26 chapter, S. Marke in the 14. Chap. and S. Luke in the 22. and S. Paul in the eleventh chapter of the first to the Corinthians, testifie that Christ gave bread to his Disciples, saying, He tooke bread, and brake it, and gave it. Now [Page 6]the Sacrament is not given but after the consecration. Christ therefore gave bread after the consecration. And Saint Paul, 1 to the Corinth. Chap. 11. Verse 26.27. and 28. saith three severall times that we eate bread. And in the 10 Chap. Verse 16. he saith that wee breake bread. And in the 20 Chap. of the Acts, Verse 7. it is said that the Disciples came together to breake bread. On the contrary, the Church of Rome teacheth, that in the Eucharist no bread is eaten, and that the bread is not broken: but that which the Priest breakes in the Masse, is the body of Christ, which neverthelesse cannot be broken.

8. Christ giving that bread, said, This is my body, declaring that the bread that he gave, was his body. On the contrary, the Romane Church teacheth that the bread is not the body of Christ: But that the bread is no more bread: and that it is transubstantiated into Christs body, Now how the bread is Christs body, himselfe teaches it, when he adds that it is his commemoration. Even as in the next line following he saith that the Cup is the New Testament, because it is the signe and commemoration of it: ac­cording to the stile of the Scripture, that [Page 7]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, [...] quod fran­gitur. This is my body which is broken for [Page 8]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 1 [...] to the [Page 9] 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, [Page 10]is not to eate Devils But to be partaker of the meat con­sec [...]ated to Devils.: So to be partaker of Christs Table, is not to ea [...] Christ, but to be partaker of the mea [...] consecrated by Christ, in remembrane of Christ and of his death.

14. Christ in distributing the brea [...] and the cup, said, Doe this in remembran [...] of me. These words shew manifestly tha [...] 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 [Page 11]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 [Page 12]Christs example, and consequentl [...] did breake unconsecrated bread. Br [...] those that speake so, contradict the R [...] ­man Church, which doth not belee [...] 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 s [...] let him eate OF this bread: Which is the same kind of speech used by Christ, saying Bibite ex eo omnes, [...]. Drinke yee all OF it. The Apostle commands us to eate OF this bread: that is to say, to take eve­ry one his part and portion of it: and Christ saying Drinke ye all of it, bids the Communicants to take their share of the cup. This manner of speaking is become absurd in the Roman Church, who by this bread, understand Christ him­selfe. For they would esteeme that man to be mad, or a mocker, that should say that we eate every one his portion of Christ body.

17. Christ presenting the cup to his Disciples, said in the present tense that it was his blood which is shed for many. Where manifestly he speaketh of a Sa­cramentall, and not of a reall effusion. For our adversaries confesse that in the [Page 13]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 [Page 14]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 [Page 15]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, [Page 16]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 [Page 17]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, [Page 18]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 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 [Page 19]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. Ʋr­sula, 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 [Page 20]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 [Page 22]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 Pre­monstratē ­si. Vide Sc­rarium de Proces­lib. 2. c. 9. & Episto­lam Vrbani IV. ad E­van. This holy day was in­stituted by Pope Ʋrbanus 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 Ʋrbans 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 is no consecration.

THis change, and so horrible a de­pravation of the institution of the Lord, hath wholy abolished the nature of the Sacrament. For Sacraments are sacred signes. Not onely the Ancient, but also all the Doctors of the Roman Church doe define the Sacrament after that manner, saying that Sacramentum est sacrum signum. So in Baptisme, wa­ter is the signe, and Christs blood is the thing signified. And in the holy Sup­per, the bread and the wine are the signes, but the body and blood of Christ are the things signified. Even therefore, as if the water were taken away from Bap­tisme, it would be no more a Sacrament nor Baptisme: so the Eucharist in the Roman Church is no more a Sacrament, since the signes, to wit the bread and wine are abolished: in stead of which they put Christs naturall body and [Page 25]blood, which they call the Sacrament. Wherefore the Councell of Trent ordai­neth that the Sacrament be worshipped. Ses. XIII. chap. 5. By this meanes Christ in the Masse is the figure and the signe of himselfe, Bellav. lib. 2. de Eu­char. cap. 24 Christus sui ipsus si­gura fuit. as Bellarmine with the rest teacheth: as if one should say that a man is the picture of himselfe.

Moreover, the Sacraments are not in­stituted for to make Christ come downe to us, but to lift up our hearts to him. Nor for to eate Christ with our teeth, but to feed our soules and strengthen our faith.

Againe, by Transubstantiation the consecration of the Sacrament is de­stroyed: and there is nothing in the Masse that is consecrated. The bread is not consecrated: for they hold that the bread is no more bread. Christs body is not consecrated; for Christ cannot be con­secrated by men. Neither can the acci­dents of bread and wine be consecrated. For lines, colours, and taste, are not the offering which is pretended to be offer­ed unto God. Therefore there being no­thing consecrated, there is no consecra­tion: and there being no consecration, there is no Sacrament.

CHAP. IV. That by altering the Lords Institu­tion, the Romane Church hath changed the nature of Christ.

THis change is gone so farre, that Christs humane nature, by Tran­substantiation, is wholy destroyed and abolished. For the Scripture spea­king of Christs humane nature, saith, that he is like unto us in all things, Heb. 2.17. &c. 4.15. sinne excepted. But the Roman Church gives unto Christ a body that is nothing like ours. Whence followeth, that he is no more our brother: so that all the glory of the faithfull which consisteth in have­ing a brother who is the eternall Sonne of God, is altogether abolished.

For the Church of Rome forgeth un­to Christ a body, which is in many seve­rall places at one and the same time: which is in Heaven and upon severall Altars, but not in the space that is be­tween. From whence followeth, that Christs body is separated from it selfe, and farre from it selfe, and higher and [Page 27]ower than it selfe. There is no lesse ab­urdity in willing that an humane body [...]e at the same time in severall remote places, than to will that a man, in one and the selfe same moment, be in two se­verall yeares, and so be young and old at once, and out-live himselfe.

The same doctrine giveth unto Christ an humane body, which is whole in every crumme of the Hoste, and hath his head and his feet in one and the selfe same place, and both his eies under one point. Can a man say that a body whose parts are not one out of the other, and differ not in situation, and which taketh and filleth no place, and is more spirituall than the very spirits themselves, is a true humane body? And for that cause the priests of the Romane Church shave or keep short the beard of their upper lips. For that Church beleeveth that if a Priest should dip his mustachoe in the chalice, the whole body of Christ would remaine hang'd at every haire thereof.

The same doctrine forgeth unto Christ two bodies of a contrary nature, and un­to which are attributed contradictory things. For the body of Christ which was at the table celebrating the Eucha­rist, did speake and stirre his hands: But [Page 28]he that was in the mouthes and stoma [...] of the Apostles, neither spake not sti [...] his hands. The soule of Christ as he at the table, was in anguish: but t [...] which was in the Apostles mouth, su [...] ­red no griefe. Christ after he was ri [...] from the table & entred into the gard [...] did sweat great drops of blood: but that was in the Apostles stomacks, did [...] sweat drops of blood. Which of th [...] two is our Saviours? Or if it be the sat Christ, how is he contrary to himselfe?

Furthermore, by this doctrine, [...] whole history of Christs life is made [...] diculous, and turn'd into a fable. F [...] if Christs body may be in severall remo [...] places at once, it may be said that whil [...] he was in the Virgins wombe, peradven­ture he was in other wombes: And th [...] whilst he was upon the Crosse, he wal­ked in Spaine. From thence also follow­eth, that all the journies that Chris [...] made to and fro, going and commin [...] from Galilea to Judea, were to no pur­pose. For why did he goe from Galilea to Judea, if he might be in both places at one & the same time, and be found it Judea, without budging from Galilea?

What? (say they) is not God om­nipotent for to doe this? I answer [Page 29]that God without question could doe all these things if he would. But I say, It is impossible that God should will such things. For he is no lyar, and can­not contradict himselfe. But it were to contradict himselfe, if he would that at one and the same time a man should speake and not speake, stirre and not stirre, suffer and not suffer, and be farre and remote, and divided from himselfe. He will have Christs body to be a true humane body. God will not have a thing so absurd and contradictory, wher­by they will that in the Hoste there be accidents without a subject, Innoc. III. lib. 4. de myster. Mis­sa. cap. 11. Est enim hic color & sapor, quantitas & qualitas, cùm nihil alterutro sit colora­tum aut sa­pidum, quantum aut qua [...]. and (as Pope Innocent the third teacheth) that there be in the hoste greatnesse and no­thing great, color and nothing colour­ed. As if one should suppose an ecclipse of the Sunne without a Sunne, a hal­ting of a legge and no legge, a sick­nesse without a sick-man. Besides, the omnipotencie of God is not the rule of our faith, but his Will. By that meanes, a man might maintaine all the fables of the Alcoran, saying that God is powerfull so to doe. Joyne to this, that God doth nothing but wisely. Therefore he will never have Christ to be subject to sinnefull men, now that [Page 30]he is glorified, and be exposed to [...] disgraces and ignominie which th [...] make him suffer every day, whereof sh [...] be spoken hereafter.

CHAP. V. Of Maldonats audaciousnesse [...] giving Saint Paul and Sai [...] Luke the lye: and in correcti [...] Saint Matthew & Saint Mar [...] And touching the fruit of th [...] Vine.

OF all the words which the Lo [...] used in the Institution of the E [...] ­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 thos [...] by which he calleth that which was i [...] the cup, the fruit of the Vine. For they are forc'd (as we shall see heareafter [...] to acknowledge in these words, Th [...] 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 [Page 31]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 dix [...]sse. Cum enim Matthaeus qui aderat, & Mar [...]us qui ex Matthaeo didicerat, scribant Christum his verbis sanguinem suum tra­didesse, Hic est san­guis mens novi Testa­menti, ae­quum est credere Matthaei pot [...]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 inten [...] was to give his owne blood, hee speaketh [Page 32]of Saint Luke and of Saint Paul as no having well conceived Christs meaning saying, Luke and Paul seeme to speake [...] 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 an [...] suppose that Christ spake as it is written i [...] Luke and Paul, &c.

Truly this presumption is intolerable, to dare contradict thus an Evangelist and an Apostle, Luke and Pau [...] saying, I deny that Christ spake these word [...] And to make himselfe a Judge of the fidelity of the Apostles, saying, this ma [...] is more credible than that man, an [...] deeme that for to excuse Saint Luke an [...] Saint Paul, one must faine and presup­pose that which is not.

Every man that hath any remnant o [...] modesty and feare of God, shall rathe [...] beleeve that all the Evangelists and A­postles are to be beleeved alike, and that all have spoken the truth. For i [...] we beleeve that they have reported som [...] 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, [Page 33]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 [Page 34]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, & [...] v [...]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. V [...] ­nū suit in red [...]ptionis nostrae my­sterio, cum d [...]xit, Non b [...]b [...]m de genimine, &c. It was wine in the mystery of our redemption, when the Lord said, I will drink [...] 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 mod [...] &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 [Page 35] Trent, in the Chapter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist: Salvatorē vino in hu­jus Sacra­menti insti­tutione usil esse Catho­lica Eccl [...]sia semper do­cuit. The Catholick Churc [...] 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. Christun [...] dixisse de calice san [...] 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 [Page 36]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, look [...] 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 v [...] casie a­liquo, ut venlo, aut miraculo, velab li­quo a [...]ma­li accepta, & acqueat repe [...]eri, tunc alter­ra consecre­tur ab [...]o loco incipi­endo, Qu [...] 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 [...] ­meat, sumat cum sangu [...]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 congelat [...] sanguis in calice, involvatur calix pannis calefact [...]s. If in winter the blood doe freeze in the chalice, let the chalice be wrapped up in ho [...] clothes. Note these words, If the blood doe freeze. Whilest Christ is full of glo­ry [Page 37]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 [Page 38]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. [...]sp. 191. cap. 3. Neque a­gere▪ ne (que) pati po­ [...]est cor­pus Christi prout est in hoc Sa­cramento, corpo [...]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 [Page 39]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 tis 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 [Page 40]hath forsaken the Roman Religion, yea a Priest Vasquez Tomo Ill. in 3. partē Thomae Disp. 171. Cap. 3. Cum constet Sacerdo [...] ­bus cōmis­sam 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 the power of Priests, who make him, and pin him up, and walke him, and may if they will, cast him into the fire: As Gabriel Biel a famous Doctor saith, in the first Lesson upon the Canon of the Masse: Biel Lect. 1. in Canonem Missae. Super u­trumque corpus Christi Sacerdos insignes habet potesiates. The Priest hath great power over the one and the other body of Christ, that is to say, over the Church, and over the consecrated hoste. Whereupon he addeth: Quis hujus rei [...]nd [...]t similia? Qui creavit me (si fas est dicere) dedit mihi creare se. E [...] qui creavit me, creatur mediante me. Who e­ver saw things like unto this? He that hath created me (if I may say so) hath given me to create him; And he that hath created mee without me, is created by my meanes. Thus Priests doe create Christ in the Masse, and make Christ who is made already: As if one should beget a man already born.

CHAP. VII. That the very words of the Masse are contrary to Transubstantia­tion.

IN the midst of this alteration of the Lords Institution, God hath permit­ted that in the Masse some clauses should remaine, which manifestly condemne the Transubstantiation. For a great part of the Canon of the Masse are prayers, which have beene added when they did not yet beleeve the Transubstantiation. As when the Priest, having before him the consecrated hoste, saith, Osserimus praeclarae [...]uae Maje­stati de tuis domis & datis hostiam pu­ram. Wee offer to thine excellent Majesty of thy gifts and presents a pure hoste. By these gifts, they understand at this day Christ himselfe. Surely, never a man in his right sense cal­led Christ gifts and presents in the plu­rall: But that agrees very well with the bread and wine.

The Priest goes on, saying, Supra quae propi­tio a [...] sereno vuliu re­spicere dig­neris, & accepta ha­bere, sicut accepta ha­bere d gna­tus es mu­nera pueri tui justi Abel. Ʋpon which things vouchsafe to looke with a cheerefull eye. Is it not a jeast to call [Page 42]Christ these things? and for a full mea­sure of abuse, to aske of God that he may looke upon Christ with a graci­ous eye: as if Christ had need of our recommendation?

Moreover, the Priest demandeth of God afterward, that he would be plea­sed to have these gifts and presents as ac­ceptable, as he had acceptable the pre­sents of Abel. That is to say, that Christ may be as acceptable unto God, as the beasts sacrificed by Abel. This prayer is good being said upon the bread and the wine, but being said upon Christ, it is altogether blasphemous.

Chiefly, this is evident, in that the Priest looking upon the consecrated hoste and the chalice, saith, that Per Christum Dominum nostrum, per quem haec omnia, Domine, semper bo­na creas, sanctificas, vivificas, henedicis. by Christ our Lord, God creates alwayes for us these good things, sanctifies them, and vivifies them. Can Christ be called these good things? Doth God create and vivi­fie Christ alwayes? And since God cre­ates these things through Jesus Christ, as the Masse saith, it is certaine these things are not Christ. But all that agrees very well with the bread and wine.

We must not omit that Christ give­ing the bread to his Disciples, said simply, [Page 43] Take, Eate,: But in the Canon of the Masse there is, Accipite & manducate ex hoc omnes: Take and eate all of it. Who­soever added these words E X HOC, lie did not beleeve that in the Eucha­rist the Lords body was really eaten by the mouth of the body. For to eate of that, is to eate a part thereof, and not all. Which cannot be said of Christs naturall body.

CHAP. VIII. Recrimination of our Adversa­ries.

THe Prophet Elisha accused the Isra­elites of Idolatry, and of forsaking Gods Covenant. They out of revenge called him bald-pate, which was a re­proach nothing belonging to the doctrine. We stand upon the like termes with our Adversaries. We accuse the Roman Church to have brough in Ido­latry in the Masse, worshipping of the Sacrament, and a Sacrifice of Christs body, which Christ hath not instituted: To have taken away from the people [Page 44]the halfe of the Sacrament: To have changed the nature of the Sacrament yea of Christ himselfe: which are thing of importance, and altogether essen­tiall to the Eucharist and to Christian Religion. But they, out of recrimina­tion, tell us, that we have likewise chan­ged many things in the Lords Institu­tution. For (say they) ye solemniz [...] the Supper in the morning: but Chri [...] instituted it after Supper. Ye celebrate it in a Temple: but Christ did ce­lebrate it in an upper Chamber. Yee receive women to the Communion: But when Christ instituted the Eucharist, there were none but men. Things, where­of the two first are indifferent, and all three not onely are not of the essence of that Sacrament, but even make no part of that action.

To this objection, Christ affords us an answer. For hee said, Doe this in remembrance of mee. Hee said not Doe this in such a place, nor at such an houre, nor with such a Sexe or such persons: But hee said, Doe this, com­manding us to doe as hee hath done, and to imitate his action. Christ did not exclude women. If any had beene there present, worthy to be partakers [Page 45]of the holy Supper, he would not have rejected them.

CHAP. IX. Causes why the Pope admitteth not of any alteration in the Masse, and will not conforme himselfe to the Lords Institution.

THough the abuse be so apparent, yet the Church of Rome and the Pope will not let goe their hold, and suffer a­ny change or alteration to be made in the Masse. The cause of that is easie to be knowne. For if the Church of Rome should yeeld to the least alteration, it would overthrow the three Maximes that are the basis whereon all Popery is grounded, whereof the first is, that the Church of Rome cannot erre: the second, that the Pope and Church of Rome are not subject to the holy Scripture, and have greater authority than the holy Scripture: the third, that the Pope and Church of Rome have power to change Gods Comman­demens, and make new Articles of Faith. [Page 46]All which things are seene not one by practice, in that all the doctrine [...] the Roman Church is contrary to th [...] holy Scripture, but also by example of Popish Councels, and open profe [...] sion of the principall Doctors of tha [...] Church: whereof I will alleadge so [...] places in the next chapter.

CHAP. X. Places wherin the Doctors and Coun­cels of the Roman Church main­tain, that the Pope and the Church of Rome are not subject to th [...] Scripture, and have greater au­thority than the Scripture, an [...] may make voide and abolish th [...] Commandements of God.

THe Romish Decree and its Glosse [...] are all stuffed with this brave max­ime, Can. Lect. Dist. 34. in Gloss. Papa dispensat contra A­postolum. Innec. III. D [...]creta [...]le Concessione Prae [...]end. Tu. 8. c p. Propos [...]t. Secundum plenitudi­nē potesta­tis de jure possumus supra jus dispensare. El thi Glos­sa, Nam contra A­postolum dispensat. Itē contra vetus Test­amentum. El Glossa Canonis sut quidam, Caus. 25. quaest. 1. Papa dis­pensat in Evangelio interpretā ­do ipsum. that the Pope may dispense a­gainst the Apostle, and against the Old Testament, and may dispense with the Law, as being above the Law: And that [Page 47]he may dispense against the Gospel in giving interpretation to it.

In the first booke of the Decretals of Gregory the 9. Title 7. at the Chap­ter Quanto personam, the Pope Innocent the third saith, that the Pope, on earth, holdeth not the place of a meere man, but of a very God. And thereupon the Glosse of the Doctors saith: The Pope of no­thing can make something: And a sentence that is of no value, he can make it to bee some thing: Because in the thing that he willeth, his will standes him in stead of reason: And no man saith to him, Where­fore doest thou doe that? For he may dis­pense above the Law, and make of injustice Justice.

Thomas Aquinas, whom the Pope hath Sainted, saith: Thom. 2.2 quaest. 1. art. 10. Ad solam authorita­tem summi Pontificis pertinet nova edi­tio Sym­boli. A new edition of a Creed, belongeth solely to the Popes au­thority. The same is defined by the Coun­cell of Florence in the last Session, to wit, that the Pope may adde to the Creed. That is one of the crimes for which Luther was anathematised by Pope Leo the tenth, viz. because he had taught, Bulla ex­urge Leo­nis X. sub­jecta Conci­lio Latera­nensi, inter errores Lu­ther [...] h [...]ore­sertur. Certum est in manu Ecclesiae aut Papae prorsus nō esse statue­re articulos sidei. That it is not in the power of the Pope and of the Roman Church, to establish any Articles of faith: as is to be seen in the Bull added to the last Councell of Lateran.

The Cardinall du Perron in his book against the King of Great Brittaine hath a chapter 2 Booke, Observat. 3 Cap. 3. whose title is such Of the Churches authority, in changing [...] things contained in the Scriptures.

Vasquez the Jesuit in the third To [...] upon the third part of Thomas, Disput [...] 216. speaking of this Commandemen [...] of the Lord, Drinke yee all of it, saith Vasquez [...] 3. T [...]om. Tomo. 3. Disput. 216 num. 60. Licet conce­deremus hoc suisse Apostolorū praeceptum, nihilominus Ecclesia & sūmus Pon­tifex potu­erunt illud justis de cansis abro­gare, &c. Though even we should grant that th [...] was a Commandement of the Apostles yet the Church and the soveraigne Bish [...] might abolish it upon good grounds. [...] the Apostles power to make Lawes, was n [...] greater than the power of the Church an [...] of the Pope.

Salmeron the Jesuite in the second Pro­legom. Non mirū si Scriptura Ecclesiae dei quae spiriti [...] habet, subij­citur. It is no wonder if the Scripture be subject to the Church, which hath th [...] Spirit. The same man in the ninth Tome and 13 Treatise, * disputing of the change and alteration in the forme of the Sa­crament, speakes thus: Wee are no wa [...] tyed to imitate Christ in all things, §. Ad il­lud. Nequa­quā astr [...]n­g [...]mur in omnibus Christum, i­mitari, n [...]si in honis mo­ribus. except in good manners. By that, hee teachet [...] we are not bound to imitate Christ in the Sacraments, nor in the communion under one kind, nor in that he celebra­ted the holy Supper in a known tongue, nor in the doctrine of Pargatory, not [Page 49]In the Sacrifice of the Masse, &c. For these things concerne not manners.

The same, in the first Prolegom. Ecclesiae authoritas antiquior & dignior authoritate Scripturae. The Churches authority is more ancient and more worthy, than the authority of the Scriptures. That, truly, is to say that men are above God. For it is God that speaketh in the holy Scriptures. Can a man say without impiety that the Church of Israel was above the Law, which God had written in two tables? Are Subjects above the Laws? Is not the Pope subject to the Law of God?

The same Jesuite saith, that the Salm. To­mo XIII. part 3. Disp. 6. § Esl er­gò. Doctri­na fidei ad­mittit addi­tionem in essent iali­bus. Christi­an Religion admitteth still of some additi­ons in things essentiall. Whence followeth that Christian Religion is not yet per­fect, since that essentiall Articles may be added thereunto.

John Almain, a Sorbonist, in his Booke of the Ecclesiasticall and Tem­porall power, chapter 12. Papa po­test d [...]spen­sare in illis quae sunt lege Dei prohibita. The Pope may dispense in things that are forbidden by Gods Law: and alleadges thereupon Panormitanus and Angelus.

Andradius in the second Booke of the Defense of the Tridentine Faith: Romanos Pontifices multa desi­ni [...]ndo quae ante latit [...] ­bant, sym­bolum fidei augere con­suev [...]sse. The Roman Bishops in defining many things that were bidden before, are accusto­med to enlarge the Creed. And in the [Page 50]same place: Liquet minime cos errasse qui dicunt Rom. Pon­tifices posse nonnun­quam in legibus dis­pensare à Paulo & à quatuor primis Con­cilijs. It appeareth those haven [...] erred which say that the Roman Bishop may some times dispense from obeying th [...] Lawes of the Apostle Saint Paul and th [...] foure first Councels. Item: Minime vero majo­res nostri relig one & pietate ex­cellentes Apostolori [...] haec & quam plu­rim [...]alia decret a re­sigere in animum in­duxissent, nifi intell [...]xissent, &c. Our Ances [...] ­ers, excellent men in Piety, have cance­led and abrogated many of the Apostle Decrees.

Cardinall Bellarmin in the fourth Booke de Pontif. chapter 5. If the Pep [...] should erre in commanding the vices, an forb [...]dding vertues, the Church were bou [...] to beleeve that vices be good, and vertues bad, unlesse she would sinne against her own conscience.

The same Cardinall in the 31 chapter against Barklay, In a good sense Chris [...] gave to Peter (that is to say to the Pope) the power to doe that that which is sinne be not sinne, and that which is no [...] sinne to be sinne.

The Romish Decree in the fortieth Distinction, Canon Si Papa, hath these words: Si Papa suae & fraternae salutis n [...]gligens deprehenditur, &c. nihilominus innumer abiles pes pulos caterva [...]m secum ducit prano mancipio gehennoe [...] ipso plagis multis in aeternum vapulaturos. Hujus culpa [...]stic redarguere praesu [...]t murtalium nullus, quia cuncto [...] [...]pse judicaturus à nemiae est judicandus, nisi sit à sid [...] a [...]ius. If the Pope being carelesse of his [Page 51]owne Salvation and of the Salvation of his brethren, leadeth by troopes with him, first slave of hell fire, innumerable peoples to be tormented with him with many plagues e­ternally, none dares reprove him of his faults. Because that he that is to be Judge of all men, is to be judged of none: Except he doe swerve from the Faith.

Stapleton an English Doctor, in the se­cond Booke of the authority of the Scripture, chapter 11. Dixi & dico non tā ipsius fidei regulam in se esse Scrip­turam, quā ipsarum Scriptura­rum regulā esse sidem Ecclesiae. I have said, and say still, that the Church is the rule of the Scripture. By this reckoning, Sinners shall rule God, and shall be masters of his word.

Lindan in the Index of the Chapters of the fifth Booke of his Panoplia: The Church by the will of God is not tyed to the Scriptures. For he, and the rest with him, will have the Church bound to the Tradition of the Church, that is to say to the Lawes which she giveth to her selfe. Now by the Church they un­derstand alwayes the Roman Church, and by the Romane Church the Pope.

Costerus the Jesuite in his Enchi­ridion, Chapter 1. calleth the Tradi­tion of the Romane Church a second kinde of Scripture, and saith, that [Page 52] Hujus Scripturae praestant [...]a multis par­tibus supe­rat Scrip­turas quas nobis in membranis Apostol [...]re l [...]querunt. the excellencie of this Scripture goes fam [...] beyoud the Scriptures which the Apostles left unto us written in parchements.

Gregory de Valentia the Jesuite, it the fourth Booke of his Analysis, chap­ter 2. Scriptura sacram non esse judicem omnium controver­siarum si­dei proba­tur. The Scripture is not the Judge if controversies. And in the third Chapter. Probatur secundo Scripturam non esse suf­ficientem sideiregu­lam. The Scripture is no sufficient rule of Faith. And in the fourth Chapter. Scriptu­ram ar [...]no De [...] judicio esse velut lapidem ossensionis, & in tentationem pedibus insipientium, ut quive lint ea sola niti, sa [...]lime impingant & errent. The Scrip­ture by the secret judgement of God, is [...] stumbling block, and a temptation to the fe [...] of fooles, to the end that those which wil [...] rely upon it alone, may easily stumble and swerve from the way. Wherefore after he hath withdrawne us from the holy Scriptures, in the seventh Book he s [...]nds us back to the Pope, saying, Pont [...]fea Romanus ipse est in quo authoritas illa residot quae in Ec­clesia extal adjudicandum de omnibus omnino controversi [...]s. The Ro­man Bishop is he in whom resideth that au­thority of judging wholly of all the con­troversies of Faith. According as Andra­dius saith in the first booke of the De­fense of the Tridentin Faith, Our faith is contained and sub sisteth by the Popes faith, and all mens Salvation depends on his au­thority.

The same Jesuite in his first booke of the Sacrifice of the Masse, Chapter for­ty, finding no proofes in the Scriptures whereon to ground the Sacrifice of the Masse, saith, that Si maxi­me hic cul­tus non esse [...] institutus à Deo, con­cluditamen abastis non possit allum non esse le­git imum, cumid ad bon tatem cultus & sacrificij minime re­quiratur. If this worship or Service were not instituted of God: Yet these men could not draw from thence this conclusion, that it is not lawfull. For that ( viz. to be instituted by God) is in no wise required for to make a worship or a Sacrifice to be good. And in his second booke: At ego suprà & alias saepi­us ostendi praeceptum Dernon re­quir [...] ad honitatem cul [...]us. Here above and often elsewhere I have shewed, that for the goodnesse of a worship or service, Gods commandemem is not required.

For these causes, in the fourth Tome of his Commentaries, he affirmeth that Greg. de Val. Tomo IV. D [...]sp. 6. qu. 8. Punct. 5. §. 10. Et certe quae­dam posterioribus temporibus rectius instituta esse, quam [...]tio se haberent. there are some things which in the latter times are better ordained than they were at the beginning. For he supposeth that the Church now is better instructed than it was in the Apostles time.

Of this power which the Roman Church taketh upon her selfe, to change, can­cell, and make void the commandements of the Lord, we have a remarkable ex­ample in the Councell of Constance, [Page 54]kept in the yeare 1416. which is the first Councell that tooke away the Cup from the people. That Councell ac­knowledgeth in the 13 Session, that Christ instituted the Eucharist under both kinds, and that in the Primitive Church the people received the Cup. Yet withall it dare say, Cum in nonnull is mundi par­tibus qui­dam teme­rarie asse­rere prae­sum [...]nt po­pulum Christia num debere Sacramen­tum Eu­charistie sub utra­qu panis & v [...]ni spec [...]e sus­cipere. [...]an [...] con­cupis [...]entia quam ali­quando A­postolus piccatum app [...]llat, s [...]n [...]a Sy [...] Cathal [...] [...]peccatum appellari quod [...] & prop [...] [...] p [...]c [...]u [...] sit. that in som [...] parts of the World some dare affirme rash­ly, that the Christian people ought to take the Eucharist under both kinds: as if it were a temerity to follow Christs exam­ple. And ordaining that henceforth the people shall receive the species of the bread onely, will have this custome to be held as a Law, which it is not lawfull to reprove or change. Finally this Coun­cell concludeth, that those which obsti­nately affirme the contrary, [...]ught to be d [...]i­ven out as Hereticks, and grievously pun­ished.

With the like audacity the Coun­cel of Trent in the 5 Session b [...] speak­ing of the concupiseence forbidden in Gods Law, which Saint Paul in the seventh Chapter to the Romanes cal­leth sinne, declareth and defineth that [Page 55]concupiscence is no sinne in those that are regenerate, that is to say baptiz­ed: and that Saint Paul spake neither truly nor properly. Whence will fol­low that a baptised person may with­out sinne cover his neighbours wife: but in an unbaptised person it is a sin.

Now, let every unpartiall Reader judge, with what reason our Adver­saries call our Religion a new Religi­on, seeing they doe declare themselves that they may change the Commande­ments of God, add to the Creed, and make a new Religion, and that in the Masse they are not tyed to the Lords Institution.

CHAP. XI. That our Exposition of these wordes This is my body, is conformable to the Scripture and to the nature of Sacraments, and approved by the Ancient Fathers, and confirm­ed by our Adversaries.

THe interpretation that wee give of these wordes, This is my body, [Page 56]is the same which Christ himselfe giveth in the same place, viz. that it is his com­memoration. And the same which Saint Paul giveth in the 10 chapter of the first to the Corinthians. The bread which we breake, is the communion of the body of Christ. The Sacrament being a figure, there is nothing more sit than to make use of a figure, drawne from the na­ture of the action, by which the name of the thing siguified, is given to the signe. Even as in the seventeenth of Genesis the Sacrament of Circumcision is called the Covenant of God, [...] in 17. Genis. Pactum hoc loco sumitur pro signo pacti. Em [...]a. Sa, Prim [...]ed [...] ­tio, e [...] Notis, Pactum id est s [...]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. D [...]tum [...] A [...] ­s [...], p [...]ra Ga [...] Chris­tus, quia [...] [...]lla [...] quaho [...] d [...]m est, [...] [...]abat [...]. the Apostle saith, the Rocke was Christ, because that Rocke did signi­sie Christ. And in the 57 question upon [Page 57]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. Hine est quod dictū est Petra crat Chris­tus. Non enim dixit, petra signi­sicabat Christum, sedtanqu [...] hoc esse [...] ▪ quod uti­que per substantiam non hoc e­rat, sed per sign [...]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: Petra e­rat Chris­tus, non per substantiū, sed per sig nificatione. The Rock was Christ, not in substance, but by signi­fication. Lombardus in his Commen­tary upon this Chapter, B bebant de petra spirituali, s [...]et quae Christum sign sic [...] 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 [Page 58]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 i [...] my blood. Wherein there is two figures as Salmeron the Jesuite saith truely 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 s [...] ­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, i [...] called the Covenant or Testament, for that it is the symbole or signe of it because of th [...] species. And a little after. Idem ibidem pag. 100 Dicitur sanguis Novum Test [...]mentum sicut circumcisio dicitur foedus, quia illud foedus representar. The blood i [...] 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: Hic calix est N. T. in meo sanguint, quasi dicat, Per id quod in b [...]c [...]a [...]ce conti [...]ur, comm [...] 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 [Page 59]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 Bonis [...]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 [Page 60]themselves. Even then as the Sacra­ment of Christs body, is in a manne [...] 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 th [...]se words, J [...]sus is the Lambe of G d: and all Popery is grounded upon these word, Ʋpon this Rock will [...]uild my Church, [...]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, [Page 61]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. H [...]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 g [...]thered together. [...]. And M [...]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 [...]. [Page 62]Tis 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 [Page 64]heard them confesse that these word This cup is the New Testament in my bloe [...] 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 belee [...] them.

Christ called that which he dran [...] in the Eucharist, the fruit of the Vi [...] 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 i [...] the 6 of Saint John, Verse 53. Chri [...] saith, Except yee drinke my blood, yee ha [...] no life in you: our adversaries, least th [...] should be accused of taking the li [...] from the Lay people, in depriving the [...] of the cup, by the word drinking, they understand eating. And that whe [...] 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 [Page 66]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 [...]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 Canō. Ego Beren­garius.

The Roman Councell under Nieho­las the second, prescribed to Berenga­rius a forme of abjuration of his doct­rine, in the most exquisite and formall tearmes that ever they could devise. These tearmes are, that he protesteth to stand and keepe himselfe close to the doctrine of the Pope and Church of Rome, to wit, [Page 68]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, [Page 69]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 trāslated the Bible in­to French, have acknowledged the same: wherefore they have turned faithfully, Whō heaven must contain. And Emanud S [...] 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 [Page 71]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 [Page 72]mouths, and in your stomacks, and I shall [...] more present unto you than I am now. H [...] 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 wi [...]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 th [...] Lord, according to his unspeak [...]e and in [...]i­si [...]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 conting [...]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 [Page 73]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 Domini [...]n quo resur­rexit, in u­no loco esse oportet, ve­ritas ejus ub [...]que dis [...] 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. Gratia [...] ­nus Dist. 2. de Conse [...]: C [...]n [...]prim. Iuo 2. par­t [...] 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. D [...]st. 10. A. Thomas 3. parte su [...] ­mae qu. 75. art. 1. Ga­br el Biel Lell. 39. in Canonem M ss [...]. E [...]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 [Page 74]Adversaries doe. For they said, th [...] 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 divinitatē suā alt no­bis, Ecce sum vobis­cum us (que) 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 u­ti (que) in coe­lo: Et nunc quia in coe­lo est, non est uti (que) 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 [Page 75]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 Do [...] ­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, compell [...] 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 lo [...]ū ullū Scrip­turae tam expressu [...], ut sine de­clara [...]ne Eccles [...] [...] ­ [...]dent [...] coga [...] Tra­substant [...] ­ [...]ionem ad­mitt [...]. Et id non est omat [...] improhahi­le. Nam et si Scriptura quam [...] suprà ad dux [...], videatur nobis [...] [...]ra, ut possi [...] [...] non prote [...]um [...] tamen an [...] sit merito dubitar [...] po [...]est, cum [...] n [...]s doctissi [...] & acurat [...]mi, qual [...]s impr [...] Scotus [...], [...]trarium sentiant. Sc tus saith that there is no [Page 77]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 u­trā (que) par­tē al quā ­tulum clau, di [...]ātes 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 hi [...] 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. Th [...] other point which the Gospel expoundeth n [...] 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 i [...] 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 quàm aliquis aliorum. It appears that this manner which supposeth that 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 a [...]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 [Page 79] [...]me thing into it, or whether without conver­ [...]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: § Secun­da. Prose­ctò illis verbis ne­quaquam conversio significatur ex vi ver­borum. Ali­às 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 [Page 80]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 th [...] same Treatise, Inno. 3. [...]ib 4. de Myster. Missa cap. 6. Sane dic [...] potesi quod Christus v [...]rtute di­vina confe­ [...]t, & po­sl [...] forma expressit, &c. Et cap. 17. Ab ha­jus quaest­onis laqueo sae [...]le se ab­solvit qui d [...]cit, quod Chr [...]stus tunc cons­cit cum he­ned c [...]t. joynes himselfe to th [...] 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 H [...] ­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 [...]. calleth that which wee receive in the Eucharist a foode conse­crated [Page 81]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 [...]is vocationem De [...], jam non est pa­nis commu­n [...]s, sed Eu­charisi [...]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 Officij [...]: S [...]fic [...]ii di [...]tum quasi sacrii sa [...]m, qu [...] ece m [...]sti a con­secratur in me [...] [...]m pro [...] is dom [...]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 s [...]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 [Page 82]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 Christ [...] day) and of carrying God to a sick [...] 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 thu [...] [Page 83] There remaines no doubt but that all faith­full Christian people ought to give the wor­ship of L [...]tria, nullus dubu andi locus relin­quitur, qu [...]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, divide not their minde into two Adorations, and worship not the body of Christ with one kinde of Adoration, and the species of the bread with an other: but carry their whole devotion to worship with soveraigne adoration, the hoste they have before their eyes.

Bellarmin teacheth as much in his fourth Booke of the E charist, Chap­ter 29. § Sed haec. Cultu latriae dici [...] mus per se & proprie Christis esse adorandu, & eam ade­ra [...]one ad symbola [...] [...]i [...]m panis & v [...]nt per­ [...]nere, qua­ [...]nus [...]ppre [...] dun [...]ur [...] au­ [...]um [...]um ipso Christo qu [...]m con­ [...]nent. We say that Christ, For se & proprie, is to be worshipped with the ad [...] ­ration of Latria, and that this adoration belongeth also to the signes or symboles of the bread and wine, in as much as they are conceived or considered, as being one with [Page 84]Christ himselfe, whom they containe. And saith, it was just so that Christs garments were worshipped with the same adora­tion that Christ was. For (saith he) they did not pull off his cloaths for [...] worship him.

For he proposeth this for an infallibl [...] Maxime, that bee that worshippeth so [...] ­thing, worshippeth also all the things th [...] are conj [...]yned to it. Bell lib. de Imagini­bus cap. 25 Qui ado­ral ea omnia quae cum ipso conjuncta sunt. That is to say that h [...] that worshippeth the Images, wor­ships also the Cobwebs that are upo [...] them: And that he that worshippeth th [...] Pope, worshippeth also his Breeche [...] and his shirt. Hee will have then th [...] roundnesse, whitenesse, length, breadth and taste of the hoste, to be worshippe [...] with the same adoration that God i [...] worshipped with, because these accident and Christ are but one.

Vasquez the Jesuite saith the same in his second Booke of Adoration. Disp. 9. Chapter 1. Quae ab­solute d [...] ­tur adorari adorat one latriae, cum tamen per accidens cii d vinitate conjunlla colantur. Christs humanity (saith he) and the Eucharist are worshipped ab­solutely with the adoration of Latria, albe­it that being enjoyned by accident with th [...] God-head, a worshippe is given to the [...] And that we may know that the acci­dents of the bread, that is to say th [...] breadth, length, colour and savour of [Page 85]the bread are worshipped with the same adoration that Christ is worshipped: he addeth, Acciden­tia panis & vini cum existat non propria ex­isient [...]a sed ex [...]stentia corpor [...]s & sanguinis Christi, op­t [...] possiil simul sub cundem cultum a­dorat onis cad [...]re que­admodum humanitas Christi e­jusque di­vinitas [...]o­dem motu adorationis coluntur. The accidents of the bread and wine, because they exist not by their proper existence, but by the existence of the body and blood of Christ, may very well receive the same honour of adoration together with the body and blood of Christ: even as Ch [...]sts humanitie and his Divinitie are worship­ped with one and the same motion of ado­ration.

This Idolatry is prodigious, by which the colour and roundnesse of the bread are worshipped with the same adorati­on that God is worshipped with. The Aegyptians did seeme to have attained to the highest degree of Idolatry when they did worship Cats, Onions, and Storkes. But this Idolatry, in worship­ping the accidents of the bread, goes farre beyond them: For these things they worshipped, were substances and things really existing: But these acci­dents without a subject, are imaginary things, and which indeed are nothing. The folly of those Aegyptians would have beene much greater, if they had worshipped the colour and the length, and the faces or lowring of a Cat, with­out worshipping the Cat. Adde more­over [Page 86]that they did not worship beasts and plants as the Soveraigne God: but as having in them some sparkes of the Divinity. But the Roman Church wor­shippeth the accidents of bread with­out bread, with a Soveraigne adora­tion, and which onely belongeth to God.

And marke the doctrine of this Je­suite, who saith with approbation of the Examinators prefixed in the fore­front of his booke, that the accidents of the bread doe exist in Christ after the same manner as the humanitie of Christ hath no proper subsistence, but sub­sisteth in the divine nature. This true­ly is to unite and conjoyne the round­nesse and colour of the bread with Christ with a personall union.

And as errors are link'd together an [...] cleave one to an other, it is certain that the accidents of the bread are no [...] more straitly conjoyned with Christ, than Christ with these accidents. And by consequent even as because of this imaginary union of the body of Christ with the accidents of the bread, the things which befall these accidents, are also attributed unto the body of Christ, of which they say, it is carryed, and [Page 87]lifted up, and walked up and downe, and stolne away, and eaten by mice, and vomited up, and devoured by a beast: So by the same reason because of the same union, they must say that the round­nesse and whitenesse of the bread are the Sonne of God, and are borne of the Virgin, and are just and without origi­ginall sinne.

In all this truely the Roman Church sheweth her selfe idolatrous in the last degree. It is a bog or quagmire of a­buses, and an abyssus or a gulfe of se­duction wherein Satan hath plunged men: God punishing in his just anger the contempt of his word, which is be­come an unknowne Booke among the people. For it is just that those that have lost Piety, should loose also the common sense.

CHAP. XVI. Examen of the Adoration of the Sa­crament by the word of God. That the Ancient Christians did not worship the Sacrament.

IF the Scriptures had with our Adver­saries any authority, this controver­sie would soone be decided.

Every action that concernes Gods Service, and specially Adoration, is to be done in Faith, and not with doubts and conjectures, as Saint James saith, Chapter first: Let him aske in Faith no­thing wavering: And Saint Paul, Rom. 14. saith that whatsoever is not of Faith, is sinne. And the same Apostle to the Hebrewes, Chapter 11. It is impossible without Faith to please God. Now it is impossible that the people of the Roman Church should worship the hoste of the Mass [...] in faith: Because God hath not commanded it in his word. For as Saint Paul saith, Rom. 1 [...]. Faith commeth by hear­ing, and hearing by the word of God.

In generall we have the Lords com­mandement saying, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him onely shalt thou serve. Hee speaketh of the Soveraigne God, Creator and Governour of the World, and not of a God made with words, that is made of bread, subject to falling, to be vomited up, and stolne away. Certainly, to worship such a god as that, is to violate the Commandement of the Law, which saith: Thou shalt have no other God before me.

In vaine doe they answer that Christ ought to be worshipped, since hee is God: For, besides that they presuppose that which is not, to wit, that this bread is transubstantiated into the bo­dy of Christ, they declare themselves that in this Sacrament Christs body is not onely worshipped: but also the roundnesse, colour, and savour of the bread.

That if any religious worship were to be given to this Sacrament, some trace of it would be found in the In­stitution of the holy Supper, and some commandement of the Lord: But nei­ther trace nor appearance of that is to be found. But rather we see that the A­postles sate at the table during this acti­on, [Page 90]as it appeareth by what is said i [...] Saint John 13.12. that Christ after h [...] had taken his garments, he sate downe a­gaine. During which repast Saint John was leaning on Jesus bosome, Verse 23. And Saint Paul relating the Institution of the Lord, saith: I have received of the Lord that which I delivered unto you. Since then hee doth not speake of any adoration of the Sacrament, it is cer­taine hee had not received it of the Lord, and beleeved not that the Church was obliged to worship the Sacrament.

The ordinary shift of our Adversa­ries, is to say that the Apostles wor­shipped not the consecrated hoste, be­cause they had Christ every day with them, and must have beene continually kneeling before him.

I answer that to eate Christ with their teeth, and receive him in their mouthes, and sacrifice him in sacrifice propitiatory, are actions which were new to the Apostles, and which necessa­rily required Adoration. Every Sacri­fice is performed in the worshipping of him to whom the Sacrifice is offered up. These things so extraordinary and ad­mirable (if they were true) did well [Page 91]deserve an extraordinary veneration. Specially in the first Institution which was to serve for a rule unto the Church, and a patterne to conforme her selfe unto.

And since our Adversaries will have Christ in the holy Supper to have eaten himselfe, he might by the same reason worship himselfe, and bowe the knee before himselfe, which is a very merry and recreative conception, and sutable unto Transubstantiation.

Whereupon we give our Adversaries the choice. Will they have Christ to have adored the consecrated hoste? But it would follow from thence, according to their doctrine, that Christ had wor­shipped his owne selfe, and that he was holyer than himselfe. And it is certain that he that worshippeth, and he that is worshipped, are two persons. Will they have Christ not to have worship­ped the consecrated hoste? But it will follow from thence that the Apostles, neither then, nor since, never worship­ped it. For Christ saying unto them, Doe this, commanded them to doe as he had done.

That if the Lord would have had the Apostles to have worshipped the Sacra­ment [Page 92]he would have made an elevation of the hoste, as was observed in al Sacrifices, for to binde the sacrificers and the assist­ants to the adoration. A thing neverthe­lesse which Christ did not doe: for he offered up nothing to his Father. He did not say, Father receive this obla­tion: But sayd to his Apostles, Take, Eate.

Even in the very time of Tertullian and of Cyprian (as we shall see hereafter) the custome of divers Christians, both men and women, was to carry into their houses the sacred bread they had received in the Church, to wrap it up in a cloth, and to lock it up at home in a chest or cupbord. A manifest proofe they worshipped not the Sacra­ment. For would they have permit­ted a woman to take God with her hand, put him up in her pocket, and keepe him locked up close at home?

Would the Christians have upbraided the Pagans that they worshipped Sta­tues that could not move themselves, See Arnob. lib. 6. and Lactantius lib. 2. cap. 2. nor rise when they were fallen, nor breathe, subject to rust, wherein mice make their nests, &c. if the Pagans might have upbraided them the same, [Page 93]and tell them that they worshipped an hoste that could not breath, nor rise up when it is fallen, nor open its eyes, nor stretch out its hands; that may be stolne by men, and eaten by mice, and will grow mouldie, &c?

Durst Theodoret have sayd in the 55 question upon Genesis, [...]. that it is an ex­treame folly to worship that which one eat­eth, if the Christians of his time had worshipped the Sacrament afore they are it? It is this errour above all o­thers that keepes the Pagans from em­bracing the Christian Religion, as A­verroes testifieth; of whom Salmeron the Jesuite cites these words out of the 12 booke of his Metaphysickes. Salmeron Tomo 9. Tract. 18. S. Ca lvi nus. Quoniam Christiani Deum suum quem adorant, man­ducant, sit anima mea cum Philosophis. Since Christians eate the God they worship, let my soule be with the Philosophers.

The ancientest forme of celebrating the Eucharist in the Christian Church, is that which is described about the la­ter end of the second Apologie of Justin Martyr, wherein no mention is made of any adoration: No more than in that which is extant in the booke of the Ec­clesiasticall Hierarchie of Denis, who is surnamed Areopagite.

There are some places in the Fathers that say that Christ is worshipped in the Eucharist: but that makes no­thing to this purpose. For the Father also and the Holy Ghost ought to b [...] worshipped in the Eucharist. It is one thing to worship Christ in the action of the Sacrament, and another thing to worship the Sacrament. Yet notwith­standing, the third Councel of Carthage in the 23 Canon, forbids one to addresse his prayer to the Sonne in the Eucha­rist, in these words: When any one assists at the Altar, Cum ad al­tare a [...]sta­tur, semper ad l'atrem der gatur oral [...]o. let his prayer alwayes be di­rected to the Father. If then they had worshipped the consecrated hoste, doubtlesse it would not have beene for­forbidden to invocate it.

There be also in Ancient Fathers some Oratorie Apostropho's, wherein they speake to the water of Baptisme, Ambros. in Lu [...]am cap 10. O qua qua Sa [...]a­m [...]utum Ch [...]st esse [...]ru [...]sti. and to the bread and wine of the Eu­charist: but that makes nothing for the adoration neither of the water nor of the bread. So the Scripture speakes of­ten to heaven, to the Earth, to the Sea, to the Mountaines; yet none can in­ferre from thence that they must be worshipped.

Of Theodoret, who in his 2. Dialogue [Page 95]saith, that the signes are worshipped, [...]all be spoken hereafter. There is in the Greeke [...], which cannot be understood of the soveraigne adoration, [...]eing he speakes of the signes or Sym­ [...]les, which cannot be worshipped reli­ [...]ously, and with the worship of Latria, without manifest Idolatry. In the Greeke copies of the Affrican codex, Aurelius Bi­shop of Carthage, is oftē called [...]: Abraham worshippeth, or rather pro­ [...]rateth himselfe before the Sons of Heth, Genes: 23. vers. 7. & 12. And Jacob doth the same to his brother Esau, Gen: 33.3. and David to Jonathan. 1. Sam: 20.41. Whom neverthelesse Abraham, and Ja­cob, and David esteemed not to be Gods: Tertullian against Hermogenes, chap. 22. saith, that he worshippeth the plenitude of the Scriptures. Austiu in the 164 E­pistle to Emeritus, Baptismum Christi u­bique veneramur: We worship every where the Baptisme of Christ. Such n [...]n [...]r of speeches ought to be understood accor­ding to the subject or matter in hand.

CHAP. XVII. Of the Priests intention, without which the Roman Church beleeve [...] no consecration, nor Transubstan­tiation is made.

THe Roman Church holdeth, that [...] the Priest hath not intention to con­secrate, and to doe what the Church doth, there is no consecration or Tran­substantiation made. It is thus defined and determined by Pope Eugenius the 4. in the instruction of the Armenians, which is at the end of the Councell of Florence: And by the Councell of Tren [...] in the 7. Session, Canon 11. in these words: Si quis dixerit in Ministris dum Sacra­menta con­sic [...]unt, & conferunt, non requiri intentione, saltem faci­end [...] quod Ecclesia sa­ [...]it, [...]ath [...] ­ma sit. If any one say that the intentiont [...] doe at least what the Church doth, is not re­quisite in the Ministers, let him be accursed.

The Sacrament then being of no value, if the Priests intention be not to conse­crate, it is impossible for the people to be assured that the consecration was made. For they know not what the intention and thought of the Priest was: only they presume it by conjecture. God only knows the hearts of men, 2. Chron. 6.30. The ado­ration [Page 97]therefore of the Hoste, is a conje­cturall adoration, and which is done at all adventure, since no man is assured of the Priests intention, without which the Sacrament is of no value. Bellarmin con­fesses it ingenuously in his third Book of Justification, chap. 8. Dicent. Ne (que) potest quis esse certus cer­titudine fi­dei se perci­pere verum Sacramen­tum, cum Sacramen­tū non con­siciatur si­ne intentio­ne Ministri, & intenti­onem alte­rius nemo videre pos­sit. No man (saith he) can be certaine by the certitude of faith that he receives a true Sacrament, because it de­pends upon the intention of the Minister: And none can see another mans intention. And truly this Cardinall hath reason to say that none can be certaine of it: for there are Priests that are Magitians, and there are examples of Priests convicted and punished for having consecrated in the name of the Devill. Even very lately there was one put to death at Loudun, ac­cused of Magicke by the Ʋrsulina Nunnes that were possest with the Devill. There be Priests Atheists & profane, that scoffe and jest at every thing they doe in the Church. I have knowne diverse Priests, who beeing converted to the true Reli­gion, did confesse to have sung Masses for many yeares together against their intention, and detesting in their hearts what they did, and asked forgivenesse of God for that they had fought so long a­gainst their owne consciences. In all [Page 98]these Masses then no consecration was made.

By the same doctrine it appeares that the Priest doth not know whether he b [...] a Priest or no. For he knowes not what the intention of his Ordinator was▪ Whence followeth that all the Masses he sings, and all the absolutions he giveth, remaine in suspence, and no man knowes whether they be of any force or value Peradventure this Priest received the or­der of Priesthood of a Bishop that had intention, but this Bishop perhaps re­ceived his Orders of another Bishop that had no intention. And so mounting up­wards, the uncertaintie encreaseth and multiplies it selfe ad infinitum. Gabri [...] Biel acknowledges the same in his Epi­tomie of the Canon of the Masse: Null [...]s [...]elebrans potest evi­denter scice se esse Sa­cer dotem, quia non potest c [...] [...]nter s [...]re [...]e sore baptizatu, aut leg [...]m [...] or­dinatum. No Priest (saith he) that celebrateth, can know evidently whether he be a Priest: for he can­not know evidently whether he be baptized, or whether he hath received the Ordination lawfully.

The Church then under the Old Te­stament had a great advantage over the Christian Church; for then the Salvati­on of Children depended not upon the intention of those that circumcised them, but on the onely grace of God, [Page 99]and upon his Covenant, which is a stay infinitely more firme than the intention of men.

Pope Adrian the 6. Adrian. 6. Quodlib. Sect. 10. Supposito 2. Fol. 70. Consilium Constanti­ense excu­sa [...] simpli­ces adorā ­tes hosti­am non consecra­tam, quia tacite im­plicatur conditio, si consecra­tio sit re­ctè facta. Et paulo post, Si sic adoret, A­doro te si­tu es Chri­stus. Conside­ration. 6. after the coun­cell of Constance, excuseth the simple people that worshippeth the unconse­crated Hoste, which they thinke to be consecrated, saying, the Hoste is not worshipped but with this condition, to wit, if the consecration be made as it ought, in saying, Adoro te situes Chri­stus: I worship thee if thou be Christ. As saying: I know not whether thou be Christ, or whether thou be not Christ; but howsoever, and at all adventure, I adore thee if thou be Christ.

Gerson in his Treatise of the Examen of Doctrines, Tome 1. moves an objection drawne out of Bonaventure, touching the worshipping of the Eucharist which is thought to be consecrated though it be not. His answer after Bonaventure is such: Objicit i­dem Bona­ventura de adoratione Eucharistiae quandoque non consecratae in manibus Sacer dotis. Respondet casum communem esse, qui semper impli­citam habet conditionem vel presuppositionem, quod Sacerdos se­cerit secundum debitum Ecclesiae ritum. It is an ordinary ease which alwaies carries this condition or implicite presuppo­sition, that the Priest hath done as ought to be done in the Church, which condition needs [Page 100]not to be expressed in the adoration. Never­thelesse this adoration frees it selfe from being a sinne, because it is the custome of the faith­full: whereof we have an example in the worshipping of Images. These Doctors will have the Hoste and Images of Saints to be worshipped upon these conditions, viz: if the consecration was duly made, and if those Images be Images of true Saints, and if those Saints heare us: Which be things that one must guesse at piously, and be contented with conje­ctures, and be saved by custome. As if a wife doubting whether he that hath lien with her, were her husband or no, should say unto him, I have received you, but un­der this presupposition, that you are my hus­band: I have indeed lien with you, but it was under this condition, if you were my hus­band. The faith of the saithfull is not grounded upon conjectures, it worships not a conjecturall God, not knowing whether he be a God or no God.

The force of this intention is so great, that Vasquez the Jesuite saith, Vasquez in 3 part. Thomae To­mo 3. D [...]sp. 171. num. 17. Con­stat Sacer­dotibus cōmissam fuisse po­testatem consecran­di, [...]ta ut si vellent cō ­secrare in malū usū, nempe pro venefi [...]s & incan­tationibus cōsecratio corum ef­fectum ha­ [...]eret. It is most certaine that the power of consecrating was committed unto Priests, so that if they would consecrate to a bad use, viz: as for poysonings, or enchantments, the consceration never the­lesse should have its effect. By this meanes [Page 101]Christ shall be in the power of a Magi­cian, and shall become the sport or pa­stime of the Devill. Would God have given unto Priests a power against God himselfe, which he will not take from them when they employ it in the service of the Devill?

But upon this intention mens consci­ences are marvelously confounded and troubled, and their Doctors know not at what passe they be. For if a Priest hath before him a great houshold-loafe, and his intention is but to consecrate one halfe of it, without cutting it into two pieces: how shall a man discerne Christs body which is in that bread, from the unconsecrated bread? And if the Priest hath before him a dozen of wafer cakes, and his intention is but to consecrate ten of them, if these Hostes come to be mingled together, how shall he discern the consecrated ones from those that are not cōsecrated? How shall he discern his God from the wafers of common bread? Is it possible that Christ did not leave un­to Christians any meanes to know with certainty whether his body be present under the species, or whether it be not: lest they should pollute themselves with Idolatrie?

Vpon this adoration it must be obser­ved, that the Councell of Trent Sess. 13. [...]ap. 5. ordai­neth that the Sacrament be worshipped. Now all the Doctors with an unani­mous consent, after Saint Austin, define that this word Sacrament, signifieth a sacred signe. This Councell then ordains that the signe be worshipped. That if by the sacred signe Christ himselfe must be understood, Christ shall be the signe and the figure of himselfe, as Bellarmin S Produ­ [...]in [...]. saith in the 24. chapter of his second Booke of the Eucharist: Ide Chri­stus sui up­sius figura suit. The same Christ was the fi­gure of himselfe.

In this point of adoration, God in his just judgement hath given our adversa­ries over into a reprobate sense. For when the Hoste is fallen into some filthy place, or is vomited up through drun­kennesse, they worship it thus defiled, as Vasquez teaches in his 3 Tome, upon the 3 part of Thomas, Disput. 195. chap. 5. Vasq. 3. Tom. in 3. partem Thomae Disp. 195. cap. 5. Hoc est cō tracom [...] ­nem sensum Ecclesiae, quae species [...] loco sor­alido eru [...] ras, tanquā verum Sa­cramentum venerare­tur. That is (saith he) the common opinion of the Church, which would worship as a true Sacrament the species taken ou [...] of a filthy place, or vomited up againe by a brute beast: for there is no reason to say that Christs body ozaseth to be under them before they be corrup­ted. And in the same Cap. 43. place he teacheth, that if a dumbe creature hath eaten the [Page 103]consecrated Hostes, and drunken the consecrated cup, this beast shall grow fat with them, and may be made drunke with it, and its belly shall swell. It will then be drunke with accidents, and far­ten with roundnesses and lines.

The words of this Jesuite, in the be­ginning of the 4 chapter of the same Di­spute, are such: A [...]dere po [...]est ut a­nimal quod species Sa­cramenti sumpsit, non m [...]nus nu­triatur quàm si panem & vinum non cons [...]rati [...] manducet. Immo [...] aceidere po­test ut ani­mal inebri­ctur, & venter [...]jus disteda [...]tur. It may come to passe that a beast that hath eaten the species of the Sa­crament, shall not be lesse nourished with thē then if it bad eaten bread and wine not conse­crated: yea it may fall out that this beast may be made drunk therewith, & her belly stretch & swell. To be short, by this doctrine that beast may burst for having eaten God.

For to avoid this ignominie and pre­serve Christ from these inconveniences, certaine Doctors of the Roman Church, and namely Bonaventure have esteemed that so soon as a beast hath devoured the consecrated Hoste, or that it hath beene cast into the dirt or in a privie, Christs body with drawes himselfe, and the sub­stance of the bread returnes by a second transubstantiation no lesse admirable than the first. But Pope Vasquez in 3 part. Thomae Disp. 195. cap 5. Gregory the ele­venth Verum Greg. 11. in Directorie Inquisito­rum 2. p. 4.10. damnavit asserentes sub hostia cons [...]rata, projecta in lutum, aut locum sordidum, non manere corpus Christi. [Page 104]in his Directorie of Inquisitors, part. 2. quest. 20. condemnes this opini­on: and that conformably to the opini­on of Thomas, and of Scotus, and of the Jesuites, who hold generally that the body of Christ is taken really by a beast, and that mice may carry it away.

CHAP. XVIII. That our Adversaries in this matter intangle themselves into absurdi­ties, and insoluble contradictions.

IT is hard to beleeve a man that be­leeves not his own selfe, and that con­tradicts himselfe, and heapes up toge­ther so many absurdities, that it seemes he is afraid other men should beleeve him. This maxime is true without ex­ception, that two things contradictorie cannot both be true. Our Adversaries themselves confesse that it passeth the omnipotencie of God, and that hee can­not doe that a thing be and be not at one and the fame time: that Caesar be a man indeed and not be a reasonable creature. That a round sigure be square whilst it is round.

Against this rule do our adversaries offend, destroying the definition of things, and affirming things which are [...]ncompatible, and heaping together in this matter a thousand absurdities, whereof we will specifie some.

1 They say that in the Masse the Priest with 5 words makes the body of Christ, which neverthelesse was already be­fore the Priest made it. They speak as if should say, that whilest Philip is at Paris, some body makes him at Rome. To make a thing which is already, and to destroy a thing which is not, are like absurdi­ties.

2 If a man be in this chamber who was not in it the day before, it must needs follow that either he came thither from elsewhere, or was borne in it. But in the Masse they say that Christ is not there before the consecration, and that after the consecration he is there, and yet that he came not thither: It follows then that he was borne there, or freshly for­med, though he was already before.

3 They say that the Species of the bread and wine (for they speake after that manner) contain the body of Christ, and yet containe it not, for it is in hea­ven. This is a ridiculous contradiction, [Page 106]to will that a body be out of that which containes it, for thence will follow tha [...] the thing which containeth it, containe [...] it not.

4 They say that the Lords body with all its bignesse and length is contained i [...] the least crumme of the Hoste, and in th [...] least drop of the chalice, so that if th [...] point of a pinne were dipt in the conse­crated cup, the Lords body would be whole in that drop that should hang [...] the end of the pinne. Whence follow­eth that the contained is greater tha [...] the continent, as if one should say that [...] crowne which is in a purse, is bigger than the purse, and that the Earth is big­ger than heaven that compasseth it a­bout.

5 They give to the body of Christ [...] length without extent, that is to say, [...] length without length, since all i [...] length is under one point that hath no [...] length.

6 They say that Christs body is in this place, but not locally, as if a man should say, it is white, but not whitely. They say that the body of the Lord i [...] present, but not corporally, but rather spiritually. But for a body to be spiri­tually present, is a thing no lesse ab­surd, [Page 107]than for a spirit to be corporal-present.

7 They will have Christs body in the crament to be long and large, and yet hold no space. How is that possible, [...]ce that length and breadth are spaces.

8 They say that Christs body in the crament is present not circumscrip­ [...]ely, that is to say, not bounded or en­ [...]osed of any place. Yet what they de­ [...] of the whole, they confesse it of every [...]verall part of the body. For they can­ [...]ot deny but that in the Lords body the [...]aines are inclosed, and circumscribed [...]ithin the scull, and that his heart is en­ [...]osed and limited within the pericardi­ [...]n, and the lungs within the breast or [...]est, since they say that it is a true hu­mane body.

9 They say that the consecrated hoste [...] Christ, and that the Priest breakes the Hoste, and yet breakes not Christ. They [...]ay that Christs blood is shed in the Masse, and yet budges not, and comes not out of the veines. But all effusion is a motion: how can then Christs blood be shed without motion?

10 They say that the Priest drinketh Christs body and soule under the species of the wine. By that meanes they make [Page 188]Christs body liquid. For although the [...] say that the Priest drinks the Lords bo [...] under the species of the wine: yet under these species it doth not lose its soliditi [...].

11 They say that Christ did eate him­selfe, and swallowed up his owne body Whence it followeth that he had at th [...] same time his mouth in his head, and his head in his mouth, and that the whole was inclosed in one part, whereas par [...] are comprized in the whole. A ma [...] should be esteemed madde that would say that the scabberd is within the blade of the sword, and the purse within a crowne. And all this without beeing able to tell us what benefit comes to us, that Christ should have eaten himselfe. The absurditie redoubles in that that Christ eating, was infirme and passible, speaking, and moving, and fitting: But Christ that was eaten by Christ, was im­passible and without infirmity, neither speaking, nor moving, fitting, lying▪ nor standing. By this means Christ pas­sible hath devoured the impassible: And Christ did eate himselfe, not such as hee was, but such as he was not.

12 It is true that things contradicto­ry may agree in one and the same subject in severall times, or in severall parts, or [Page 109]in severall respects, that is to say, in com­ [...]aring this thing with severall things Arist. l. 1. Elenchorie c. 5. where­as we say, code▪ respe­ctu, saith, [...] ad i­dem: and gives for example of divers respects, that one and the same num­ber may be the double and nor the double being cō ­pared to divers nū ­bers.. [...]or example a man may be yong and old [...] severall times: be white in one part of [...]s body, and blacke in the other. Hee [...]ay be tall and little, poore and rich [...] severall respects, that is to say, in [...]omparing him with severall persons. [...]ee may be tall in comparison of a [...]warfe, little in comparison of a Gi­ [...]nt, rich in comparison of a begger, [...]nd poore in comparison of Seneca, or Lucullus. But here they attribute unto Christ contradictory things at one and the same time, not in severall parts, and without comparing him with any other but himselfe. They will have him at one and the same time to have beene the con­tained and the continent, speaking and moving in the Eucharist, and neither speaking nor moving in the mouthes of the Apostles, having a length without length, an extent without a space.

13. They say that as God may doe that one and the same body be whole and entire in severall remote places, and so bee farre and separated from him­selfe, that is to say that he be one, and not be one: So likewise God can make that two bodies hold but one place, by [Page 110]penetration of dimensions, as they prat­tle in their Schooles: That is to say that God can make that a vessell that holds a pinte, without making it big­ger or larger, may containe two pintes yea three, yea tenne, yea a thousand, yea a million, and so ad infinitum: So th [...] this pinte shall containe the whole Se [...] without being made bigger, and with­out the water of the Sea being any wh [...] diminished. Yea by this doctrine th [...] whole World without diminishing o [...] its bignesse, may be enclosed in one grai [...] of wheate.

14. Philosophy by a thousand rea­sons proveth that it is impossible that there be any Vacuum in the World, and our Adversaries teach it so in their Schooles, and with good reason. By Vacuum is understood a space of place which is not filled with any substance a place that is full of nothing. Ye [...] notwithstanding, the Roman Church, by Transubstantiation puts a Vacuum in the consecrated cup. They say that this chalice is full, but they cannot tell with what body it is filled up. It is not full of wine: For they holde it is no more wine. It is not full of the body of Christ: for they hold that Christs [Page 111]body in the Eucharist filleth no place. As for the accidents they are not a bo­dy. So no bodily substance shall be found that filleth the chalice.

15. It is not to be imagined but that when Christ did breake the bread to his Disciples, some crummes thereof fell up­pon the table: and some residue of that sacred bread was left behind. Now ac­cording to the Church of Romes doctrine, in every one of these peeces of bread, Christs body was whole and entire. Whereupon wee aske if when Christ (after hee was risen from the table) swate drops of blood, that body of the Lord which was under these crummes, swate also drops of blood? Item if when Christ was put upon the Crosse, that body which was under these crums, or under the residues of that sacred bread was likewise crucified under the species of the bread? For if it was not crucified under these species of the bread, behold there was 2 Christs, the one crucified, the other not crucified. Or if under those species Christs body was crucified, they must also put under the same species the Crosse, and the Souldiers that crucified him. For to be crucified without a crosse is a thing unconceivable, & a plain con­tradiction.

16. This body also which was under the residue of the consecrated bread, mu [...] 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 pronoūcing 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 [Page 113]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 [Page 114]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, [Page 115]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 Ʋbiquity 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 Ʋbiquitaries 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 [Page 116]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 sapidū, quantum aut quale. There is here colour and savour, quantitie and qualitie, though there be here [Page 118]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 put a Father without a Sonne, or a Sonne without a Father.

This error casts our Adversaries head-long into many others. For if the Hoste become dirtie, being fallen into the mire, loe there are accidents that carry a sub­stance: and whereas the substance is the subject of accidents, here on the contra­rie, accidents are the subject of the sub­stance.

None can deny but that Ice is a sub­stance: when then the consecrated cup freezeth, they will have the accidents alone to be frozen, and so the accidents are become a Substance by a new kind of Transubstantiation, no lesse prodigi­ous than the first, and which never the­lesse availeth nothing to our salvation. Vnlesse they will have Christs body to be frozen.

That if the Hostes grow mouldie, be­hold there are lines, a whitenesse, a [Page 119]length, a roundnesse mouldie. If one warme the consecrated cup so that it smoake, behold accidents which pro­duce a Substance. If (as Thom. 3. part. q. 77. art. 3. Sen­su depre­henditur hostias con­secratas putrefieri & corrum­pt. Et art. 5. Ex specie­bus sacri­mentalib. generantur vermes, si corrodan­tur. Thomas and Suarez in 3 Tho­mae disput. 57. s. 3. Constat ex hostus con­secratis vermes ge­nerari. Suarez acknowledge) wormes breed in the consecrated hoste, we must say that accidents have engendred a substance, and that Soul-lesse accidents have produced an animated Substance: and all that without being able to tell what profit the faithfull reape there­by.

The histories written by our adversa­ries testifie, that Pope Platina in Victore 3. & Clemēt. 5. Nau­cler. Gener. 4. Aventinus lib. 7. pag. 598. Stella, Fasciculus temporum. Victorinus the 3 was impoysoned in the chalice of the Masse. And that Henry the 7 Emperour was served just so in taking the Hoste. Henricus Archiepisc Eboracensis, cum divi­na celebraret mysteria, hausto in ipso calice, ut aiunt, vener obiit. Matthew Paris, in the yeare 1154. re­lates the like of Henry Archbishop of Yorke. Then it was said with horrour, God is impoysoned. It is likely that for to avoid this inconvenience, they make the essay to the Pope, and taste it before him at the Masse, as they doe at his ordi­nary meales. That if the accidents onely are impoysoned, besides the absurdity [Page 120]of impoysoning a length, breadth, and colour, where there is nothing long, nothing broad, nor nothing coloured, this ignominy is done to Christ Jesus, that by his presence hee could not t [...] ­move away the poyson: and that his bo­dy served of a vehicle to the poyson, and that being given for the salvation of the soule, it serveth to bring death and de­struction to the body.

The Fathers impugne this errour plainly and expresly. Nyss. exam. e­mero. pag. 13. [...]. Gregory of Nysse, in his worke of six dayes. The figure is not without bodie. Tolle ipsa corpora qualitati­bus corpo­rum, non e­rit ubisint [...] ideo necesse est ut non sint. Et paulo post. Si moles ip­sa corporis penitus au­f [...]rater, qualitates ejus non e­rit ubisint. S. Austin in his 57 Epistle to Dardanus, Take away the bodies from the qualities of bodies, they shall be no more, and therefore it is necessary they be not. Aud a little after, If the masse of the body be wholy taken away, its qualities shall be no more. The same in his 2 booke of Soliloquies: I'lud ve­ro quod in­terrogast quis con­cesserit, ut quod in subjecto est mameat ip­so intere­unte sub­fecto? Who can yeeld to that thou hast demanded of me, that that which is in the subject, may remaine after the subject is abolished?

Briefly, in all the Fathers you shal not finde one that saith that in the Eucha­rist the accidents remaine without a Sub­ject. That if they had be leeved it, doubt­lesse when they said that an accident is never without a subject, they would [Page 121]have brought this exception taken from the Sacrament.

Moreover S. Austin in his 3 booke of [...]he Trinitie, chap. 10. saith openly that [...]n the Eucharist there is no miracle wrought. The bread (saith he) made for [...]his use, is eaten when the Sacrament is re­ [...]eived: but because these things are knowne unto men, by reason they are made by men, Haec he­norem ha­bere pos­sunt ut re­ligiosa, stu­porem au­tem habere ut mira non pos­sunt. [...] they may well be honoured as religious: but cannot be admired as miraculous. In the 3 Tome of this good Doctor there are 3 bookes Of the marvelous things of the Scriptures, wherein he speakes nothing of Transubstantiation, nor of the Eucha­rist.

And those that talke here of Miracle, understand not what a miracle is. A Mi­racle is a sensible and a visible effect of the power of God, against or above the course of nature, to the end he may make his vertue knowne unto men. But in the Masse there is nothing seene miracu­lous. None can boast without lying, that ever he saw the Transubstantiation made. We do not deny but God may do all these things, if he would. But we say it is impossible that he would have such things to come to passe. For he will be no lyar, nor will contradict himselfe, nor [Page 122]tie and submit his omnipotencie to mers imagination, who imploy it in ridicu­lous things, and forging of Chymera' [...] and castles in the aire.

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.

TO cloake this abuse, they say that as God hath made that sometimes two bodies have filled and occupied but one place, so hee can make that one and the same body be in severall places at once: and thereupon they alleage for example that Christ entred in at the doores shut, John 20.19. and conse­quently did penetrate the wood of the doores. But they falsifie the Scripture. S. John saith not that Christ entred in at the doores shut, but that hee entred in when the doores were shut. [...]. It may be that he went in by some other place than by the [Page 123] [...]ore. It may be that the wood of the doore, or the stones of the wall yeelded into him, the creature yeelding and o­ [...]eying the Creator, as Hieron. ad Pam­mach. adv. Joh. Iero­sol. Deum transire per clausam portam, & creatu [...] ram cedere creatori. Hierome saith, God went in at the doore shut, the creature having yeelded to the Creator. By saying [...]hat he entred in at the doore shut, hee meant the doore yeelded to him, or that [...]ee opened it at his coming in. So if I say, a muddie brooke runnes thorow a cleare water, I meane it marred it as it went thorow. But the best is alwayes to sticke close to the holy Scriptures.

Againe, they alleage to the same pur­pose, that Christs body coming out of the Sepulcher, passed thorow the stone that stopped the mouth of the Sepul­cher, without taking away or removing the stone. Matth. 28.2. But this place is likewise alleaged falsly: For Saint Matthew in the very same place saith the cleane contrary. There was (saith he) a great Earthquake: For the Angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came, and [...] rolled back the stone from the doore of the Se­pulcher. And Marke, chap. 16.4. saith the same. Thom. 1. Concil. Edi­tion. Golon­an. 1567. pag. 814. Revoluto monimen­ti lapide, tertio die caro re­surrexit. Leo the first Bishop of Rome, in his 95 Epistle to Leo Augustus, ac­knowledges it, saying that in the third day the flesh of the Lord arose againe, [Page 124]the stone of the monument being rolles backe.

In vaine do they alleage that Chri [...] walked upon the waters. For what i [...] that to prove that his body may be in se­verall places at one and the same time▪ He that walketh upon the waters, is not for that farre from himselfe. If Christ by his divine power▪ hath made the wa­ters firme under his feete, or sustained his body that it might not sinke, he hath not for that placed his body in severall places, nor changed the nature of his body. If I keepe up and uphold with my hand a stone above the water, that changes not the nature of the stone, and doth not take from it its weight and hea­vinesse.

For to prove that the body of the Lord hath beene sometimes in two seve­rall places at once, they alleage the 23 chapter of the Actes, verse 11. where it is said, [...]. That the night following, the Lord stoode by Paul: from whence they doe in­ferre that Christs body being in heaven, stood neverthelesse by Saint Paul on earth. In speaking thus, they presup­pose without proofe that the Lord of whom is spoken in this place, is Christ onely, and not God simply without di­stinction [Page 125]of persons. Yea even in re­ [...]raining this word, LORD, to Christs person, there is nothing in that place that obliges us to understand this of the body of Christ, rather then of his divine nature and vertue. Might not [...]he sonne of God speake and make him­selfe sensible to Saint Paul by his divine vertue, without a locall and bodily ap­proach? The Greeke word [...], Act. 12.7. & Luc. 2.9. [...] Act. 23.27. [...]. where­of Saint Luke makes use, signifieth not onely to stand by one, but also to come upon him unlook'd for, to relieve and succour him, and make him feele his fa­vour, as may be seene Acts 12.7. Luke 2.9. Acts 23.27. In all these places the Greeke word signifieth to come upon un­looked for. Now the Roman Church doth not beleeve that Christ comes unto the Sacrament, but beleeves that hee is made in it.

CHAP. XXI. Of the dignitie of Priests. And that our Adversaries debase and vili­sie the utilitie and efficacie o [...] Masses, and make them unprofi­table for the remission of sinnes. And of the trafficke of Masses.

THe Doctors of the Roman Church do speake of the Eucharist as of the highest mystery of Christian Religion, and extoll with such bigge tearmes the power of priests in making Christ with a few words, that they call them Gods and Creators of their Creator, having a power above the blessed Virgin Mary, and above all the Angels, who cannot make Christ, because he is made alrea­dy. So saith Gabriel Biel in his 4 lesson upon the Canon of the Masse. Ad Sa­cerdotii authorita­tem Angeli coelorum ci­ves nō au­dent aspi­ra [...]e. The An­gels, Citizens of Heaven, dare not aspire to the authority of Priesthood. And a little af­ter: Trans­grediendo perinde ag­mina Ange­torum, ad ipsam eoeli Reg [...]nā, & mundi Do­m nam ve­niamus. Haec etsi in gratiae pl [...] ­nitudine [...]aturas supergre­diatur, universas, Hierarch [...]s tamen cedit it commissi mysterii executione. Passing by the bands of Angels, let us come to the Queene of Heaven and Lady [Page 127]of the World. The same, though in pleni­ [...]de of grace shee goes beyond all the crea­ [...]ures, yet shee yeelds to the Hierarchs of [...]he Church, (he cals the Priests so) in the [...]xecution of the Mystery committed unto [...]em. And it is in the same lesson where [...]e saith, that Christ in incarnate and made [...]esh in the hands of Priests, as in the Vir­ [...]ins wombe, and that Priests doe create [...]heir Creator, and have power over the [...]ody of Christ.

Peter de Besse in his Booke of the Roy­all Priesthood, chapter 2. speakes thus, Saint Peter addeth that all Priests are Kings, in token whereof they weare the crowne. And in the 3 chapter: The Priesthood and the Godhead are in some things to be parallell'd, and are almost of equall greatnesse, since they have equall power, Matth. 16. & 18. Againe, Seeing that the Priesthood walketh hand in hand with the Godhead, & that Priests are Gods: it goes farre beyond the kingly authority, and Priests are farre above Kings. And in the same place, hee calls them Ma­sters of Kings, surpassing as much in dig­nitie the royall office, as the Soule surpasses the body. Which hee hath taken out of Baron. annal. An. 57. §. 31. At verò longe prae­stare sa­cerdotes regibus ar [...] gumento quo utitur plane sig­nificat. Et paulo post, Regem sa­cris mini­stris mino­rem gere­re ordinē certum est. And shewes it by the example of S. Martin, who made a Priest drinke be­fore the Emperour, at the Em­perour his owne table. Baronius. He addes: Incredible things (saith he) but yet true, that the power of [Page 128]Priests is so great, and their excellencie so no­ble, that heaven depends on them. Item in the same place comparing the Priests with Josuah, at whose Prayer the Sunne stood still, he saith: Josuah stopped but the Sunne, but these (to wit the Priests) stay Christ being in heaven, in the midst of an Altar. The creature obeyed to the first, but the Creator obeyes to these last: The Sunne to the one, and God to the other, as often as they pronounce the sacred words. To be short, he concludes that whatsoever God is in heaven, the Priest is the same on earth. And all that with the approba­tion of the Faculty of Divinity at Paris, prefixed in the front of the Booke.

It is good to know that England having beene a long time without a Bi­shop subject to the Pope, the English Papists complained lately they had no body to conferre them the Orders, and to minister unto them the confirmation, without which the Canons say that a man cannot be wholy a Christian. Vn­to whose desire Ʋrhan now raigning being willing to satisfie, sent them a titular Bishop which hee hath called Bishop of Calcedon. But the Jesuits, t [...]at are in possession of ruling and governing [Page 129]among the English Papists, would not receive that Bishop, saying that Con­firmation is not necessary, and that the Baptismall Vnction may supply the want of Episcopall Crisome and that a Church may bee without a Bishop. Against whom the Sorbonne of Paris did cast some Censures, calling their doct­rine hereticall and scandalous. Of which censures these Jesuites made a laughing stock, in a Booke full of bitternesse, which they have titled Spongia. For to refute this Spongia, the Sorbonne made use of the penne of a Sorbonist called Petrus Aurelius. In whose Booke prin­ted at Paris by Charles Morell, I finde these words in the page 175. The Bi­shops have the power to produce Christ, Anno. 1634. that is to say, God himselfe, &c. Which ver­tue is in a manner infinite, and equiva­lent not onely to the fecunditie of the Virgin Mother of God, inasmuch as the Virgin-Priests procreate upon the Altar the same God whom the Virgin procreated first in her most holy wombe: But als [...] hath some [...]u­lation with the eternall operationes by which the divine persons are produced, and with the eternall generation, by which the F [...] ­ther produceth with his divine mouth the same Word which the Priests produce with [Page 130]their sacred mouthes. And gathers from thence, that the power of Priests sur­passes very farre all the Angelicall power. And in the page 177. he saith that Priests doe perfect and accomplish the Redemption of mankinde. And in the page 187. he saith that the power of Priests is most like unto the Divine power, and that they have power over the reall body of Christ, and over his mysticall body which is the Church: and that with the Approba­tion of the Sorbon set in the front of the Booke.

Long before, Pope Ʋrban the second, Simeon Dunel­mensis. lib. [...]. Chron. Vignier in his Eccle­siastiall History pag. 310. in the yeare 1097. called a Councell at Rome against the Emperour Henry the fourth, in which he did thunder a­gainst earthly Princes who challenged to themselves the investiture of Bene­fices, alleadging it is a thing abhomina­ble that the hands of those which create God their Creator by their Character, should be bound to this ignominie to be as drudges or servants to the hands that are night and day polluted with filthy and dishonest at­tractations. If these things be true, rea­son requires that so great a power hath not beene given unto Priests without great necessity, and without some great profit should come thereby unto the [Page 131]Christian Church, and that so many wonders as our Adversaries pile up in the Eucharist, be greatly usefull and pro­fitable to the faithfull. Yet when we come to examine what the fruit is that comes from Transubstantiation and from the Sacrifice of the Masse, we find they reduce it almost to nothing, and make the Masse almost needlesse and unpro­fitable.

That appeares as cleare as the day, by comparing it with Baptisme. For in Baptisme there is no Transubstantiation made. After these words I baptise thee in the name of the Father, &c. the wa­ter remaines in its owne nature, and is not turned into blood. Yet notwith­standing, according to the doctrine of the Roman Church, Baptisme is a thou­sand times more profitable and bene­ficiall, and of a more excellent nature, For in the Roman Church they hold Baptisme with water absolutely neces­sary to Salvation. But as for the Eu­charist, our Adversaries hold that ma­ny are saved without being partakers thereof: as appeareth by the example of John the Baptist, and of the Theife crucified with Christ our Lord, and of many faithfull people that dye with­out [Page 132]having partaked thereof, speci­ally of those which the Ancient Church did call Catechumenes.

Secondly our Adversaries say, that by Baptisme not onely originall sinne is pardoned, but even wholly taken a­way, so that those which are Baptised, have no more originall sinne, nor no­thing (to speake properly) that may be called sinne. But concerning the Eu­charist, the Roman Church doth not beleeve that it wipes away the vices, nor vicious customes in such sort as it may bee sayd that all those which are made partakers of the Eucharist, bee without pride, or without co­vetouesnesse, or without lascivious lusts.

The principall is, that our Adversa­ries teach that by Baptisme is remitted and abolished all the guilt and punish­ment, both eternall and temporall, of all the sinnes as well veniall as mortall, committed before Baptisme. But as for the Eucharist, they say it availeth but against venial I sinnes, which they make to be so light, that a man needs not so much as to have and contrition or re­pentance for them. Vasquez the Jesuite: Vasquez Tomo III. in 3 partē Thomae Disp. 179. cap 3. num. 26. Rudes non deb [...]nt hude ar t [...]ulum seire, neque virtutem hujus Sa­crament [...], prou [...]are [...] ad remit [...] ­dum v [...]ia l [...], qui [...] haec [...]issi [...] non est ad s [...]lutem ne­ [...]essar [...]. The rude and vulgar sort ought not to [Page 133]know the particular vertue of this Sacra­ment in remitting veniall sinnes, for that remission is not necessary unto salvation. And the Catechisme of the Councell of Trent, in the chapter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist: Catechis. Trident. Remitt [...] Eucharisti [...]i. & condo­nari leviora peccat a quae venialia dici solent, nō est quod dubitar [...] debeat It must not be doubted but by the Eucharist, light sinnes, which are called veniall, are remitted and forgi­ven, which remission Vasquez told us just now not to be necessary. Bellarmin in the seventeenth Chapter of his fourth Booke of the Eucharist, putteth this a­mong Luthers errors, to have said that the first effect of this Sacrament is the re­mission of mortall sinnes. And about the end of the same Chapter: The whole question is reduced to this article, Whether the Sacrament of the Eucharist doe conferre the forgivenesse of mortall sinnes where­with a mans conscience is charged, or else (for it comes all to one) if for to receive the Communion worthily, it be required that a mans conscience be not charged with any mortall sinne: For all Catholicks teach that the Eucharist remits not such sinnes wherewith a mans conscience is loaden, and therefore it is requisite they should be pur­ged before. And in the beginning of the eighteenth Chapter: In this chapter it is not taught that the Eucharist be in­stituted [Page 134]for the remission of sinnes, but onely for to preserve spirituall life.

And though even these Doctors were not so expresse upon this subject, Yet the practise of the Roman Church shewes evidently that the Eucharist and the Masse availes nothing for the remission of sinnes. For he that will receive the communion, must be confessed before, and after confession he receives of the Priest the absolution and forgivenesse of all his sinnes. Whereupon it follow­eth, that when a little after he receives the hoste, there is nothing at all to be pardoned: and that the Eucharist is a plaister for a healed wound, and a remedie for a disease which is not.

Of how small efficacy likewise the Sacrifice of the Masse is in the Romane Church, appeares in that they sing or say tenne thousand Masses for to draw one Soule out of Purgatory, and yet after so many Masses, they doubte still whether that Soule be in Heaven, and are still uncertaine of its condi­tion.

They Sacrifice in private Masses the body of Christ in a corner of a Church, for the easing of a sicke body, or for [Page 135]the curing of a horse; but it fals out very often that both man and horse dye, and that the Priest hath created his Cre­ator and Sacrificed Christ for naught. Whence ariseth a great occasion of doubting whether Masses serve for drawing of Soules out of Purgatory. For if Masses cannot obtaine so small a thing, what assurance have we they shall obtaine a greater? seeing that no Soule comes out of that Countrey for to thanke those who in causing Masses to be said, have eased it with their mo­ney. For these private Masses are pay­ed by such as cause them to be sayd at their intention. The Priest in his Me­mento names none of those for whom nothing was given. Of particular Mas­ses for the Soule of a Beggar, there is no speech of it. Therefore Gabriel Biel in his 25 Lesson upon the Canon of the Masse, warnes the Testators Attende­re debent haec testat [...] ­res, ut non desidibus & torpēti­bus aut ali­as minus timoratis executiones suarum stu­deant com­mittere vo­luntatum, ne per exe­cutionis negligentiā dum non siunt quae ordinarunt suffragijs preventur, &c. that be­queath any thing to the Church for the easing of their Soules, to chuse faithfull executors, least their Soules be frustra­ted of the Suffrages of the Church, for lacke of payment. That is to say, that Masses are not said if they be not paid for before hand.

And seeing that our Adversaries hold [Page 136]with us that our Saviour Christ, sitting at the right hand of God, maketh re­quest for all the faithfull: it follows that he makes request also for the Soules that are in Purgatory. If they of me out of that fire through his Intercession, Mas­ses are unprofitable. But if they come not out; who will beleeve that a Masse or a Papall Indulgence can doe that which Christs Intercession hath not done?

This is a Maxime received among the Romish Doctors, that a Eman. Sa Aphotism. verbo Mis­s [...]. Si missapro mulus offe­r [...]tur non tan [...]undom singulis pro­desse [...], ac si pro allis so­lis offerre­tur. Syloc­sier, Na­vorrus, To­lerus, Sua­rez, Scotus. Masse said for three or foure persons that joyn and pay for it together, is not so available and profitable unto them, as if every one should cause a Masse to be said for him­selfe alone. By this meanes the gaine encreases three or foure fold Emanuel Sa the Jesuite, in his Aphorismes, gives this rule full of great equity: Idem I­bidem. cus datur certa peeu­nae summa pro M [...]ssis à sed [...]endas potest alios pro [...]minore pretuo con­ducere qua adjuvent, [...] reliquit fibs reline­re. That if a Priest hath received a summe of money for to say a certaine number of Masses, be may hire other Priests that will say them at a low­er rate, and keepe to himselfe the rest of the money.

And it is marvellous and strange, that Priests, which are thought to have the power to make a God with a few words, and to carry Christ every day shut up in a Pixe or Boxe, and in their stomaks, are [Page 137]in the meane while in such contempt, and that the Country Priests are the reproach and the very dregs of the people: And that a Cardinall Deacon, who hath no power to make Christ, should equall in magnificence the Kings of the Earth, whilst a wretched Priest is tipling in an Alehouse, and of his singing of Mas­ses makes his onely living. Who when he maketh Christ in a private Masse for two or three groats, may justly say with Judas, What will you give me and I will deliver him unto you? Men boast to give or deliver God unto others, and cannot give Salvation. And our Adversaries confesse, that there are some Priests dam­ned: Whereupon it will follow, that a man which hath carried God so many times, is himselfe carryed away by the Devill.

CHAP. XXII. That the Roman Religion is a new Religion, and forged for the Popes profit and of the Clergie.

AFter that our Adversaries have ut­terly changed and wholly disfigu­red the Christian Religion, it becomes them very ill to accuse us of noveltie. For indeed the Roman Religion is a gar­ment patched with new peeces, and a heap or pile of doctrines invented and added from age to age, beaten upon the anvile of Ambition and covetousnesse. We are ready to undergoe all kinds of punishments, if in the five hundred years after Christ, (and we might descend lower) one man be found, that had and professed a Religion comming any thing neere to the Roman Religion as it is at this day. Can they finde one Church in all the Antiquity, wherein the Concilij Constā. sess. XIII. Quod in primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramen­rum recipi­retur à si­delibus sub utraque specie. people was deprived of the com­munion of the Cup? Hath the Ancient Church forbidden unto the people the reading of the holy Scriptures? Did [Page 139]he beleeve the fire of Purgatory? Was there then any speech of Roman Gabriel Biel, lect. 57 in can. Missae: Dicendum quod ante tempora beati Greg. modicus vel nullus fuit usus indulgen tiarum. Vid. Caiet. tract. de Indulgent. cap. 2. & Navarrum Tom. 3. Comment. de Jubil. & Indulg. septimo Notabili, Art. 5. & 6. Indul­gences, and of the Treasure of the Church, in which the Pope gathers up the Superabundance of Satisfactions and penall workes of Saints and Monk [...], and distributes them to others by his In­dulgences? Did they make in those days any Images of God and of the Trinity, in stone or in painting? Did men wor­ship the Images of Saints? Was there then any Penitents that whipt them­selves in publick, not onely for their owne sinnes, but also to satisfie for the sinnes of other men? Did the Bishops of Asia, Aegypt, Africk, &c. sweare allegiance to the Bishop of Rome, or did they take from him their Letters of Investure?

Was the publick Service read in an unknowne tongue to the people? Did the Bishop of Rome then call himselfe a God? Did hee cause himselfe to bee worshipped? Did he give Pardons of two or three hundred thousand yeares? Did he depose Kings, and brag of his power to give and take away their Kingdomes? Had he power to dispense of Oathes and Vowes? And to disjoyne Marriages lawfully contracted, under [Page 140]colour of Monachall [...] profession? Did they then speake of Beades, Rosa­ries, blessed Graines, Agnus Dei? &c. The like I say of the title they give to the Virgin Mary, of Queene of Heaven and Lady of the World: and of the severall Offices they give unto Saints, to the one the charge over such a Countrey, to the other over such a Disease, to another over such and such a trade. As also the power that Priests take upon them to give the absolu­tion, and forgive sinnes in the quality of Judges, is a new thing, and of the dregges of the latter ages. Item Privat Masses without Communicants and without assistants, said at the In­tention of those that pay for them, are a thing whereof no trace is to be found in all Antiquitie. As also the taxe of the Papall Chauncerie, where­in the Absolutions for Cap. de ab­solut ōibus. Absolutio pro co qui interfecit patrem, ma­trem, gros. 7 Absolut io pro eo qui falsificavit litteras A­postolicas, grossos 15. Murther, for Parricide, Inceste, Perjury, are taxed at a certaine rate of money. So many groats, or so many Ducats for a man that hath killed his Father: so much for him that hath lyen with his Mother. A Roman Jesuit called Silvester Petra sancta wrote lately a Booke against me, where­in he teaches us a thing which we knew [Page 141]not before. He saith in the thirteenth Chapter, that during the time of Ad­vent and Lent, the Pope permits not a man in Rome to passe the whole night in a bawdy house: that would be thought [...] violating of the holynesse of Lent. Wherefore in those dayes of devotion, it is onely permitted to passe the whole day and a part of the night in the Baw­dy-house. Can such Lawes be found in the Ancient Church? Briefly, it is a very new Religion, and a heape of doctrines and Lawes, unheard off in all Antiquitie, expressly invented for gain, and for the raising of the Popes Em­pire, and building up that Monarchie which was not in the first ages of the Church: And for to keepe the People in ignorance, least they should discover these Mysteries.

For example, Indulgences, Priv [...] Masses, Masses and S [...]ffrage [...] [...] dead, are very lucrative [...] to the Pope and [...] Auricul [...] [...] the [...] Conscien [...] [...] jection. [...] is not giv [...] [...] and satis [...] [...] [Page 142]Monkes, serve to fill up that Spirituall Treasure of the Pope, whereof he car­ries the keyes, distributing these satis­factions to the people by his Indulgen­ces, so lucrative and profitable to the Pope and his Clergie. By Absolutions the Priests make themselves Judges of Soules, and Judges in Gods cause. In reserving to themselves and unto Kings the communion of the Cup, they make themselves companions unto Kings, and exalt themselves above the Peo­ple. By the single life of Bishops, and other Clergie men, the Pope keepes the Ecclesiasticall goods from being wasted and consumed, and from being diverted and turned to the reliefe and enriching of the Children. In pain­ting God the Father dressed like a Pope, they plant this opinion in the minde of the People, that the Pope is like un­to God, and that God makes great ac­count of the Pope, since he borrowes his habit. By Canonizing of Saints, the Pope makes the People to worship his groomes, and gives the title of Saint for a recompence of Services. By the Sacrament of Penance, the Pope and his Priests usurpe the power of impo­sing corporall and pecuniary punish­ments, [Page 143] Thus cau­sed he Hen­ry the se­cond of England to be whipt by a troope of Monkes. As is to be seene in Matth. Paris, and in West mo­nasteriensis so farre as to cause Kings to [...]e whipt. By the Service in the Latin [...]ongue hee entertaines the People in [...]gnorance, and giving them his tongue, planteth in the midst of them a marke of his Empire. He gives them the Ro­man Language for to came and inure [...]hem to the Roman Religion. The Popes power to unthrone Kings, makes him King of Kings, and exalts him on an Empire above all the Greatnesse that is in the World. Images, which are called ignorant mens Books, accustome the People to forget, and be without the Scriptures, which in those Coun­tries where the inquisition raignes, is a Booke altogether unknowne among the People. By Transubstantiation, Priests make Christ, and have him in their owne power. By Holy-dayes that the Pope ordaines, he rules the Civill Government, causing the Shops to be shut up, and the Seates of Justice and of the Kings Counsell to cease. When the Merchants shop shutteth, the Cler­gie-mens shop openeth. For then doe the People goe to gaine Pardons (as they tearme it) and visit Reliques, and alwayes the Bason is by. By the di­stinction of meates and fasting dayes, [Page 144]the Pope rules the Markets, and bellies, and Kitchins, and Kings and Peoples tables. And the more prohibitions there is, the oftner come they to the Pope and to the Prelates for to have dispensati­ons. The Pope hath made of Matrimo­nie a Sacrament, that he might take a­way from the civill Magistrates and Judges Secular the right of judging of such causes; for it belongs to the Church to judge of Sacraments.

By Dispensations in degrees of con­sanguinity which in the Word of God hinders the Marriage, the Pope maketh that the Children of Princes (for such dispensations are given but to Great ones) are obliged to defend the Popes Authority, if they will be held for le­gitimate. By Annates or first fruites of Benefices, and the sale of Archiepisco­pall Cloakes, the Pope makes an incre­dible gaine. And there is such a Cloake, for which he drawes above threescore thousand Ducats. By the power which the Pope assumes to himselfe to change the Commandements of God, and to dispense of Vowes and Oathes made un­to God, he exalts himselfe above God. For hee that can free and exempt men from obeying God and being [Page 145]faithfull to him, must be greater than God.

The Invocation of Saints, the Ado­ration of Reliques, and the Miracles which are said to be wrought at those Reliques, serve to build up many Chur­ches & Monasteries, which are as so many props to the Papall Domination. In sum, all the subtilty and policy in the World hath been brought therein. Never was there any Empire built with so much craft and cunning. The doctrine which teacheth that Christ Jesus by his death hath delivered us from the guilt and punishment of sinnes before Baptisme: but as for the sinnes committed after Baptisme, that we must beare the punish­ment for them, either in this life, or in Purgatory: hath clipped Christs bene­fice for to make place unto their traffick, and for to give credit to their Indulgen­ces, and Masses for the dead. In a word, they make profit of all: Death it selfe is tributary to the Roman Clergie.

CHAP. XXIII. Answer to the Question made unto us by our Adversaries, Where was your Religion before Calvin.

THis demand which every foot is made unto us by our Adversaries, viz. Shew us where your Religion was be­fore Calvin, is altogether injust and de­ceitful. For to keepe us from exami­ning the Roman Religion by the holy Scripture, they amuse us with humane Histories. For this is not a question of Divinity, but of History, wherein God hath not commanded us to be learned and skilfull that wee may bee saved: But hath commanded us to be instruct­ed in his Word. At the day of judge­ment, God shall not aske us whether we have beleeved as they did beleeve before Calvin: but Saint Paul tels us that God shall judge us according to his Gospell, and that men shall be judg­ed by the Law of God, Rom. 2.12. & 16, [Page 147]That if for to be saved it were necessary to know the History of the ages before Calvin, mounting upwards 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 [Page 148]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, quàm eos nuncupare Romanos at (que) 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, [Page 149]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 [Page 150]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 f [...]rre from their beleife. Of whom were Massacred in few months by one Domi [...]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 [Page 151]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 [Page 152]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 Ʋnction, they make no reckoning at [Page 153]all. They are very opposite to the Religions of Monkes, and affirme they be diabolicall Inventions. They use meere Water in Bap­tisme. They have no holy Water. They me not consecrate their Church-yards. They bury their dead in the fields and with [...]easts, as also they deserve it, &c. And [...]ee addeth that the Emperour, in stead of destroying them, granted unto them safety and liberty. But he should have ad­ded to this, that the Emperor Sigismond having by armes assaulted and scuffled with them, lost there many Battles. For which cause he did let them rest in peace. In this discourse Aeneas hath chopt and thrust in some calumniations; as when he saith they give the Eucharist to madde men and to Infants, and bury their dead with beasts. Things very absurde, and that never were. As for the rest, all our Religion almost is seene in it.

Hungaria at the same time was full of Faithfull people holding the same beleife. They presented to the King Ʋla­dislaus, in the yeare of our Lord 1508. their Confession of faith, conformable to ours, defending themselves against an Austin Frier that had accused them to the King of many errors, namely, for that they did not obey the Pope, [Page 154]called not upon Saints, denied Purgato­ry, received the Communion in both kinds, and rejected Transubstantiation. Vpon which last point, they speak thus: This Frier writeth that the bread and wine in their naturall substance are changed into the body and blood of Christ, This Con­fession is to be foūd in Fasciou­lo rerum expetenda­rum. and are changed into Christ God and man, so that nothing of the substance of the bread and wine remaineth, but that the onely acci­dents are meerely upheld by miracle. This Confession of faith hath no foundation in the Lord Christ Jesus his words, who never spake one word of the conversion of the sub­stance. And a little after, By that is ma­nifested that the Primitive Church had this Beleife, and hath confessed it, and hath not erred, and did not bowe at this Sacra­ment. For in that time they received the Sa­crament sitting, and reserved nothing of it, and carried none of it out of the house, &c.

About the same time, in the yeare 1520. Calvin being yet very young, the Faithfull of Provence presented to the Parliament of Aix their Confession of Faith, conformable to ours. Vpon the point of the Sacrament, they speak thus: We are not entangled with any errors or heresies condemned by the Ancient Church, [Page 155]and we hold the documents and instructions approved by the true Faith. And as for the Sacraments particularly, we have the Sa­craments in honour, and beleeve that they be testimonies and signes by which Gods grace is confirmed and assured in our con­sciences. For which cause wee beleeve that Baptisme is a signe whereby the purgation that we obtaine by the blood of Jesus Christ, is corroborated, in such sort that it is the true washing of Regeneration and renova­tion. The Lords Supper is the signe un­der which the true Communion of his bo­dy and blood is given unto us. And these poore Churches were the remainder of the horrible Persecutions exercised by the space of three or foure hundred yeares, by Kings and Princes at the in­stigation of Popes. Which Churches they had defamed with horrible here­sies, accusing them to be Manicheans, and enemies of Marriage: even as they accuse us now to be enemies unto the Saints and the blessed Virgin, and to beleeve that good workes are not ne­cessary to salvation, and that we make God Author of sin.

A few yeares before, under the raigne of good King Lewis the XII. who was called the Father of the People, happed a [Page 156]memorable thing which Carolus Moli­naeus a famous Jurisconsulte reciteth in his Booke of the French Monarchie. He saith that certaine Cardinals and Pre­lates did goe about to stirre up and in­cite this good King to destroy and ex­terminate the Inhabitants of Cabrieres and Merindoles in Provence, saying they were Sorcerers, Incestuous persons, here­ticks, condemned already by the Aposto­lick Sea. But this King answered that he would condemne no body to death without hearing both sides, and be ful­ly acquainted with the cause. And that for that end he sent one Adam Fumee, a Master of Request, and John Parin a Jacobin Frier, his Confessor, for to transport themselves into the place where they lived, and be informed of their Religion. Which they did, and reported to the King, that among these men they had found no Images, nor any [...]race or vestige of any ornaments of Mas­ses or Papall Ceremonies. That they had found nothing touching Magicall Artes, whoredomes and other crimes laid upon them. The King understanding this, cryed out with a lowde voice, and swore that those people were better Christians than hee and his people, and confirmed their [Page 157]priviledges and immunities. That fell out about the yeare 1412. Calvin scarce be­ing borne.

Pope Julius the second, made warres against this King: But the King de­feated his Armie, and the Emperours, neare the City of Ravenna: Assembled a Councell at Piso against the Pope: Caused money to bee coyned with this Inscription round about. PER­DAM BABYLONIS NOMEN, as Thuanus relateth in the first Booke of his History.

But under the raigne of King Fran­cis the first, Successor unto Lewis the twelfth, these poore Churches of Pro­vence suffered hard and rude persecu­tions and Massacres. Neverthelesse, they subsist yet at this day, and Thu­anus in the sixth Booke of his Histo­ry, speaketh of their Religion: Hee saith that these Ʋaldenses (for hee tearmes them so) did say that the Church of Rome had departed from the faith of Christ Jesus, and was become Babylon, and the great Whore whereof is spoken in the Revelation: That none ought to o­bey the Pope nor his Prelates: That Mo­nachall life was a sinke of the Church, and an Infernall thing: That the fi [...] [Page 158]of Rurgatorie, the Masse, the Dedicati [...] of Churches, the Service of Saints, as Suffrages for the dead, were invention [...] Satan. Then hee addeth: To these [...] and principall heads of their doctrine, [...] thens were falsly added, touching Mu­riage, the Resurrection, the state an [...] condition of the dead, and touch [...] meates.

The same Author in the 27 Booke speaketh of the Churches of the Val­sies of the Alpes, which he saith to be descended from the ancient Valdeuses, which have yet at this very day a Re­ligion altogether conformable to ourt and saith that in the yeare 1560 they presented their Confession of Faith un­to those whom the Duke of Savoye their Lord had sent them, by which they de­clared that they stuck fast and adheared to the ancient doctrine contained in the Old and New Testament, and to the Apostles Creed, and to the foure first Generall Councels, and that for the rule of a good life they kept them­selves close to the renne Commande­ments of the the Law. That they taught to live chastely, soberly, and justly, and to yeeld obedience unto Princes and Ma­gistrates. That neverthelesse they re­jected [Page 159]Sacrifice of the Masse, the [...]rament of Penance, Auricular Con­ [...]sion, humane Traditions, Prayers for the dead, but cleaved to the holy Scrip­ [...]es. Which things they said to have [...]eived not from Calvin, but from Christ and his Apostles: For the strait [...]ssages and steepe places of the Alpes [...]d preserved them from the persecuti­ [...]s of the Pope and his Ministers.

And at this very day also, the Church of Ethiopia, which containeth 17 great [...]ovinces, agrees with us in the fun­ [...]amentall points of Faith, though she [...]ave some small superstitions. For she [...]eleeveth not Purgatory, nor Transub­ [...]antiation. She maketh no elevation for Adoration of the Hoste. Is not sub­ [...]ect to the Pope. Knowes nor what In­dulgences meane, nor private Masses. Celebrateth the divine Service in the Ethiopian tongue. Gives the Commu­nion to the People under both kindes. Worships no Images. Hath but one Table or Altar in the Church. Hath Monkes, but they are Muried, and earne their living by the worke of their hands. Baptiseth not the male Children till forty dayes after this [...] and the females after threes [...] dayes: an [Page 160]assured signe that she beleeves not [...] Baptisme of Water to be necessary u [...] Salvation. These things are seene [...] the History of Francis Alvarez, a P [...] ­tugall Monke, who lived six yeare [...] the Court of the great Neguz Empert [...] of Ethiopia.

The Ethiopian Churches are cal [...] ­niously and falsly accused to be Eutichians. True it is they be subje [...] to the Patriarch of Alexandria is who [...] an Eutichian. But that subjection i [...] in the doctrine, but onely in that [...] said Patriarch hath the right of no [...] nation of the Abuna or chiefe Pr [...] ­late of the Ethiopians when the Se [...] ­voide.

The Greeke Church more ancient tha [...] the Roman, and of whom the Chu [...] of Rome received the Christian Religi­on, doth not acknowledge the Pope rejecteth his Lawes, knoweth not wha [...] his Indulgences are. Beleeveth neithe [...] the Purgatory, nor the Transubstantia­tion. Celebrateth the divine Service in the Greeke tongue. Hath her Priests mar­ried. Hath no Liturgies or Private Mas­ses, and comes a greatdeale neerer to our Religion than to the Romish.

And this I say, not that we ground [Page 161]our selves upon any of these examples, [...]or would be authorised thereby. For [...]e doe ground our selves only upon the word of God, and of his blessed A­postles, contained in the holy Scrip­ture, unto which the Pope braggeth not to be subject, and doth not acknow­ledge it for Judge, In a word, we must stand firme upon this: To wit, that our Adversaries must shew us where their Religion was in the time of the Apostles, before wee doe shew them where our Religion was before Cal­ [...]in.

CHAP. XXIV. That our Adversaries reject the Fathers, and speake of them with contempt.

OVr Adversaries being pressed by the holy Scripture, are wont to have recourse to the Fathers, whom never the­lesse they receive not for Judges, and acknowledge in them a multitude of errors, and speake of them with great contempt.

Denis Petau, a Jesuite, in his Notes upon Epiphanius pag. Multa sunt à sactissims Patribus, praeapuc­que à Chrysosto­mo in Ho­miliss asper­sa, quae si ad exactae veritatis regulam accommo­dare volue­ris, boni se­sus mania videbun­tur. 244, speaketh thus. In the most holy Fathers, and cheifly in Chry­sostome his Homilies, are dispersed many things, which if thore wouldest accommo­date to the rule of truth, shall be found to be voide of sense.

Cardinall Baronius in his Annals in the year 34. §. 213. Sancti [...] ­mos Patres in interpre­tatione Scripturae non semper in omnibus Catholica sequ [...]ur [...]desia. The Catholick Church doth not follow alwayes the most holy Fa­thers in the interpretation of the Scripture, Consulti­ [...] d [...]ndu pu [...]a [...] H [...]eronymum, (sit amen ille ipse est) ut humana sert infirmi [...]as memoriâ lapsum. And in the §. 185. Hierome hath erred for lacke of memory. And in the yeare 31. §. 24. he checks Saint Austin for not un­derstanding well these words of the Lord, Thou art Peter, &c. And in the yeare 60. §. 20. he is vexed against The­odoret, because he rejected the service of Angels grounded upon a place of Saint Paul, Colos. 2. Ex his videas haud feliciter (ej [...]s pace dictum sit) Theodoretum assecutum esse Pauls ver­borum sensum. By this (saith he) it may he seene that Theodoret (with his good leave) did not well apprehend the Apostles mean­ning. And in the veare 369. §. 24. Hila­ry had also his defects.

Alphonsus à Castro in his first Booke [Page 163]of Heresies, Chapter 7. Sanctorū Patrumse­tent [...]e saepe invicem re­pugnant. Oftentimes the opinions of the Fathers are repugnant one to the other.

Melchior Canus in his seventh Book of common places Chapter 3. Nū. 2. Cū Sanctorum quisque, his duntax at exceptis qui libros Canonicos eduderunt, humano spi­ritu locu­tus suerit, & aliquā ­do vel in co [...]rrarit quod ad si­dem perti­nere postea­demonstra­tum est, &c. Seeing there is none of the Saints, except onely those that have written the Canonicall Bookes, but have spoken by the spirit of man, and sometimes erred in that which afterwards was knowne to belong to the Faith: It is evident that from such an authority none can build a certaine and assu­red Faith. And thereupon he produceth for an example, the errors of many Fa­thers, so farre as to say that against the ordinary course of nature they bring forth monsters.

Sixtus Senensis in the Preface upon the fifth Booke of his Bibliotheca: Pris [...]i illi Ecclisia [...]il Magistr [...] nonnib [...]l interdum à proposito veritatis scopo aberraverunt. These ancient Masters of the Churches of have some times swerved from the scope of the truth at which they aimed. And in the same place: In libris sancterum Doctorum quos authentica legit Ecclesia, nonnunquam [...]uni antur quae­dam pravavel haeretica. In the Bookes of the holy Doctors, whose authority is read in the Church, are found sometimes things wicked and here­ticall: and he speaketh this after Anselme [Page 164]in his Commentaries upon the second to the Corinthians.

Maldonat the Jesuite upon the sixth of Saint John, checking Saint Austin for not well conceiving in what sense Christ calleth himselfe the bread, saith, § 81. Hoc d [...]co persuasum me habere D. August [...] ­num, si no­stra fuisset aetate, lon­ge aliter sensurum fuisse. Et S. 71. Hanc interpreta­tionē mul­to magis probo quàm illam Augustin [...]. I am perswaded that if Austin had lived in ou [...] dayes, he would have beene of an other o­pinion. And in the same place: I doe ap­prove of this interpretation much more than that of Austins.

Cardinall Cajetan in the beginning of his Commentaries upon Genefis: Nullus detestelur novum sa­crae Scrip­turae sen­sum, ex hoc quod disso­nat à pres­cis Do [...]o­ribus. Non enim all [...] ­gavit Deus exposi [...]onem Scripturarum p [...]is [...]orum Doctorum sensibus. Let none detest a new sense of the Scripture, un­der colour it disagreeth from the ancient Doctors. For God hath not tyed the Expe­sition of the Scriptures to the sense or opi­nions of the ancient Doctors.

Andradius in his second Booke of the defense of the Faith of Trent: Vt Augustinum, Basilium, &c. taceam, quorum non sem­per sumus opinionibus add [...]. I say nothing of Austin, Basil, Athanasius, both Cyrils, Chrysostome, and Epiphanius, to whose opinions we are not alwayes tyed.

Pererius the Jesuite, in his eighth Book upon Genesis, Disp. 1. Pudet dicere quae de optim [...] scriptoribus hoc loco dictur [...], s [...]m, adco sunt non modo fa [...]sa, sed pudead [...] & abs [...]d [...] I am ashamed to [Page 165]tell what I must say here against the best writers, so much doe they say things not one­ [...] false, but also shamefull and absurde. Now the Fathers whom he meaneth, are Justin Martyr, Ireneus, Tertullian, Cle­mens Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Ambrose, Lactantius, Eusebaus, Sulpitius Severus.

Salmeron the Jesuite in the eight Prolegomene: Pag. 85 Quisque Patrum di­verse ab a­lio unum locum ex­ponit, im­mo etiam unus & i­dem vario modo. Every Father expoundeth one place of the Scripture otherwise than the rest, yea one and the same Father expounds it in severall fashions. And in the third Prolegomene, pag. 13. he bringeth many examples of Fathers which contradict themselves.

The same man in the 51 Disput. up­on the Epistle to the Romanes, acknow­ledgeth that the Fathers generally are against him in the point of the Con­ception of the Virgin Mary. Where­upon he shifts off thus; Contra hanc quam objectant multitudi­nem, respon­demus ex verbo Dei, Exod. 23. In judicio, plurimo­rum non acquiosces sententiae, ut devies à vero. Against this multitude objected against us, we answer by the Word of God, Exodus 23. Thou shalt not yeeld in judgement to the opini­on of many, Ego (ut ingenuè fa­tear) plus uni summo Pontifici crediderim in his quae sidci mysteria tangunt, quàm mille Augustinis, Hieronymis, Gregorijs. for to decline from the truth.

Cornelius Mus Bishop of Bitonto, upon the 14 chapter of the Epistle to the Romanes: I would give more credit [Page 166](to confesse it ingenuously) to one Pope, than to a thousand Austine, a thousand Hie­romes, a thousand Gregories.

I should never make an end if I would produce all the places wherein our Adversaries abuse the Fathers, and accuse them of error, or of untruth, or of ignorance: and have reason in some things, in others not. Chrys. ho­nul. 45. in Matth. & 21. in Io­hannem. Chryso­stome accuseth often the Virgin Many of mbition, temeritie, and importu­nitie. Iustin. Deal. in T [...]ph. Cle. 6. Strom. Justin Martyr and Clemens Alex­andrinus say, that God created the Sun and the Moone, that the Gentiles might worship them, least they should bee without Religion. See Ire­neus in his 5. Booke. Justin, Ireneus, Lact­antius, Ambrose, Tertullian, and many o­thers, were Chiliastes, holding a Reigne of Christ that is to endure one thou­sand yeares in feastings and carnall de­lights. L [...]b 1. de Spir [...]tu Sancto. c. 2. Ambrose teacheth that Baptisme conferred in the name of the Holy-Ghost, without naming the Father or the Sonne, is good and warrantable. Austin hath condemned the Children dead without Baptisme, to the eternall flames. Cyprian taught the Rebaptiza­tion of Hereticks, and assembled a Councell, in which hee did condemne the doctrine of the Roman Church. [Page 167] Lib, 10. de Trinita­te. & in Psal. 68, & 138. & in Psal. 118. litera Gi­mel. Hilary taught that our Saviour Christ suffered no paine at his death: And that the Virgin Mary is to be purged by the fire of the last judgement. Hier. lib. 1. & 2. in Iovinianii, & saepe a­libi. Saint Hierome calleth Marriage an ignominie, [...]he end whereof is death, and the per­sons marryed, Vessels unto dishonour. Hier. i [...] Epist. ad Titum c. 1. He taught also that Bishops and Priests are equall by divine right. Whereupon Bellarmin in his first Booke de Pontif. chap. 8. saith: This opinion is false and must bee refuted in its due place. Gregory of Nice in the first Oration of the Lords Resurrection, teacheth that when Christ instituted the Eucharist, his body was already dead, and that his Soule was in hell. For which he is censured by the Jesuite Salmeron, saying: Salm Tomo XI. Tract. 7. de modo re­surr. Chri­sti pag. 49. Cujus in verbis con­tinentur multa non satis in Ec­clesia recep­ta. In these words of Gregory there are many things which the Church doth not approve off. Clemens Alexandrinus teacheth that the Pagans were saved by Philosophy. Tertullian maketh God to be corporall. Clement the first, Bishop of Rome, in a Decretall Epistle, will have goods and women to be common. In the ninth Tome of Baronius Annales, there is an Epistle of Pope Gregory the second, wherein hee declareth that it is not law­full to paint out God the Father: [Page 168]But Baronius Postea u­su venisse ut pingatur in Ecclesia Deus, &c. noteth in the margent, that the Church now hath ordained of it o­therwise.

Six hundred and thirty Bishops de­creed at the Councell of Chalcedone, that the Bishop of Constantinople should be equall in all things to the Bishop of Rome. The Milevitan Councell where Saint Austin was present, and framed the Canons of it, forbiddeth upon paint of a curse, to appeale beyond the Sea, that is to say to appeale out of Africk to Rome.

The sixth Councell of Carthage con­firmeth the same prohibition, and wri­teth to Celestin Bishop of Rome long Letters which are inserted in the Coun­cel, wherein the Councel warnes him to take heed henceforth from receiving any appeales out of Africk, and not to send them his Legats any more; not make use any more of supposed Canons for to advance his authority, and not to bring in worldly pride into the Church. In all these things and in a thousand others more, the Roman Church condemneth the Fathers, and maketh no reckoning of their authority. Whence appeareth that it is to no purpose that our Adversaries in certaine questions [Page 169]alledge the Fathers unto us, seeing them­selves reject them, and subject them to the Judgement of the Pope and Church of Rome.

CHAP XXV. Of the corruption and falsification of the Fathers writings: and of the difficultie to understand them.

IN the Allegation of Fathers about our Controversies we have this dis­advantage, that we have them but by the hands of our owne Adversaries. For all the impressions that have been made of them, were made upon the Manuscripts found in Monasteries, writ­ten by Monkes, who had faire oppor­tunitie to clip and alter them at their pleasure, and set old titles upon new Bookes made and composed by them­selves. It is a hard case to one of the parties that goes to Law, when he can make use of no other writings but of such as his owne Adverse party fur­nisheth [Page 170]him with, who hath thrusted in such clauses as seemed good unto him. But it is come to passe through the Pro­vidence of God, that the most part of these falsifications are so grosse and so palpable, that we have not had much paines to discover the falsity of many places and false Workes, which are in so great number, that if they were ta­ken away, the Fathers Workes would bee found diminished of a third part. Those among our Adversaries that are well read in the Fathers, acknowledge the same with us, and passe condemna­tion in this point. Reade Sixtus Senen­sis about the end of his fourth Booke, and the Booke of Cardinall Bellarmin Of Ecclesiasticall Writers, where he hath put the Catalogue of the Fathers Works. There shall ye wonder to see the mul­titude of Bookes, which he saith to be doubtfull or manifestly counterfeit. Which causes men to doubt of the other Workes, whose falsitie is not easilie found out.

For the discovering of these falsities, we have beene helped by the Catalogue of the Workes of Ancient Writers, which Photius, Patriarch of Constantin­ople, who wrote about the yeare of our [Page 171]Lord 878. hath put into his Librarie. And by Gennadius, a Priest of Mar­seilles, that wrote a Booke of the Il­lustrious men, about the yeare of our Lord 492. Item by the diversity of stile. Item by certaine places of the Fathers, which are alleadged by Ivo, Gratian, Burchardus, Lombard, Thomas and o­thers, quite otherwise than they bee found in the editions printed in this last age. Item by other places of the same Fathers which say the contrary: so that one and the same Father is oftentimes found to contrarie him­selfe.

Even as the ninth Age was the Age wherein the Decretals of the ancient Bishops of Rome were forged, under the name of one Isidorus Mercator, which was falsely framed for the grounding of the Papall Monarchy, which with might and maine was a building in that Age: So the eleventh Age, in which Berengarius, Archdeacon of Angiers, withstood and impugned stoutly and vigorously the o­pinion of the reall presence and Transub­stantiation, was the Age wherein were forged sundry works in the behalf of that error, and divers clauses were chopt into the Books of the ancient Fathers. Of this [Page 172]false coyne is the Book attributed to Bellar. lib. de Script. Eccles. Six­tus Senensis sub sinem libriquart. Cyprian, of the Lords Supper, which all the learned of the Roman Church ac­knowledge not to be of his making. And the Cathecheses Mystagogicall of Cyril of Jerusalem. The Catecheses of Gregory of Nysse are indeed his, but horribly corrup­ted and full of errors, which the Roman Church approves not. There is mention made there of one Severus an Heretick, who is posterior to this Gregory above 150. yeares.

Of these falsifications and divers o­thers, we have entreated more at large in the Book against Cardinal du Perron. He that should take away from the works of Cyprian, Ambrose, Hierome, Austin and A­thanasius, the counterfeit Books, should diminish the writings of these Fathers more than of a third part.

Wherefore after so many falsities dis­covered, when our adversaries object us some place of a Father, we might very ju­stly desire them to proveunto us that that place was not added or depraved by some falsifier aswell as so many others. By all manner of reasons, if in an writing brought in justice there be found but one falsification, the whole instrument loseth all its force and is rejected.

There is another difficulty that decei­veth such men as are not wel seen in an­tiquity, to wit, that the words used in old time, have now changed their signifi­cation. In the Fathers are found these words, of Pope, of Sacrifice, of Oblation, of Purging fire, of Indulgence, of Station, of Species, of Monke, of Penance; but quite in another sense than these words are taken at this day.

Notwithstanding these difficulties and disadvantages, whereby our adversaries strive to prevaile against us, we refuse not for all that to buckle with thē. For what falsifications soever were made in the Books of Ancient writers, yet in them remaines still so many expresse and for­mall places against Transubstantiation, that of the collection of them, a man might make a great volume. Wee have produced above 500 in the Book of the Novelty of Popery; and M ^r le Faucheur, and M ^r Aubertin have laboured lately, and ta­ken paines about this subject with a [...]ost exact diligence and full of great learning. Here wee will content our selves to pro­duce some few places for a taste, yet with this protestation, that I do not alleadge the Fathers for to be a stay to our cause, which is sufficiently propped and esta­blished [Page 174]upon the Word of God. Go [...] doth not beg the testimonies of men. H [...] word is as strong alone, as being a [...] ­companied with humane testimon [...] To goe about to defend it with th [...] testimonies of men subject to errou [...] is as if a man would lighten the Sun [...] with a Candle. But wee doe alleadg [...] the Fathers for to defend their ho­nour, because that against their [...] ­tent, our Adversaries make them Ad­vocates of a bad cause: And for [...] condescend and yeeld some thing to the disease of this froward age, where­in the holy Scripture hath lost its pow­er and efficacy, and which armeth it selfe with human testimonies against the Word of God.

CHAP. XXVI. Places of the Fathers contrary to Transubstantiation, and to the manducation of the body of Christ by the corporall mouth.

TErtullian in his fourth Booke against Marcion chapter, 40. disputing a­ [...]ainst the Marcionites that denyed Christ [...]o have a true humane body, speaketh [...]hus: Acceptum panem & distributum discipulis corpus suū illum fecit, dicendo, Hoc est cor­pus meum, id est figu­ra corporis mei. Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. Christ when he had taken the bread [...]nd distributed it to his disciples, made it [...]o be his body, saying, This is my body, [...]hat is to say the figure of my body. But it were not a figure, unlesse it were a true body. His reason is, because men represent not by figure the things that are not.

And in the third Booke, chapter 19. Panem su­um corpus appellans, ut & b [...]c jam eu [...], intellig [...] corporis sui figuram pa [...]i dedis­se. Christ called the bread his body, that there­by thou mightest understand that he gave to the bread to be the figure of his body.

Origen upon the fifteenth Chapter of Saint Matthew, speaking of that which the Faithfull receive by the corporall mouth in the Eucharist: [Page 176] Quod si quicquid ingreditur in os, in ve­ [...]e abit, & in s [...]cessum [...]jicitur, & ille cibus qui sancti­ficatur per verbit Dei, perque ob­secrat [...]onē, juxta id quod habet materialein ventrem a­ [...] & in se­cessū emit­ [...]itur, &c. [...]t haecqui­dem de [...]y­pico symbo­luo (que) [...]or­pore. If every thing that entereth into the mouth, goes into the belly, and is sent into the prity▪ this food which is sanctified by the Word of God and by the Prayer, as it is materiall, g [...] into the belly, and is sent into the privy. And a little after, And thus much be said touch­ing the typicall and symbolicall body of Christ. Vpon this place Cardinall du Perron wri­ting against du Plessi [...], maketh many ex­clamations against Origen, and cals him origine of all errors, and cries out, Shut y [...] eares Christian people, as if men did read with their cares. What Cardinall d [...] 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 [Page 177]Transubstantiation. To whom he answereth in these words, Thou art o [...]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, Dixit Sa­cerdos, Fac nobis hanc oblationem asscriptam, rationabilē, acceptabilē, quod est fi­gura corpo­ris & san­guinis Do­mini nostri Iesus Chri­sti. Grāt 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. [...]. 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 [Page 178]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 [...] Commanding to celebrate the I­mage or figure of his own Body.

Euphraemius Patriarck of Antioch▪ 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, t [...] 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: [...]. 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) w [...] 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, [Page 179]she carried back home a parcell of [...] [...]. &c. If (saith he) her hand had shut up us in treasure any thing of the signes or a [...]itypes [...] the body or of the blood of the Lord, she min­ded it with her teares.

Euphraemius Deacon of Edissa: Ad eos, qui Filii Dei natu­ram scruta­ri volunt. Inspice dili­genter, quo­modo su­mens in ma­nibus panē, benedix it ac fregil in fi­guram im­maculati corporis, &c. Behold [...]iligently how the Lord after hee had taken [...]e bread in his bands, blessed it, and brake it, [...] figure of his immaculat body, and blessed [...]e cup in figure of his precious blood, and gave to his Disciples.

The imperfect work upon S. Matthew [...]tributed to Chrysostome, in the 11 Ho­ [...]ily, speaking of those that imploy the [...]cred vessels, as Plates and Chalices, to [...]ofane uses: Si haec va­sa sanctifi­cata ad pri­vatos usus transferre [...]periculosum est, in quibus non est verum corpus Christs, sed [...]sterium corporis ejus continetur, quanto magis vasa corporis [...]stri? &c. If it be so dangerous a thing [...] transport to privat uses the sacred vessels [...]herein Christs body is not, but where the my­ [...]ry of his body is contained, how much more [...]e vessels of our bodies which God hath pre­ [...]red to himse fe for to dwell in them? Note [...]at hee doth nor say that the body of [...]hrist was not in these vessels, but that it not in them, that it may not be thought [...]e speaketh of the vessels of Salomons [...]emple.

[...]The same Fathers upon the third Psalme: Dominus Iudam ad­h [...]buit ad c [...]nviv um [...]n quo cor­poris & sangumis su [...] siguram discipul [...]s commonda­v [...]t & tra­did t. The Lord admit [...]ed Judas [...] the banquet, in wh [...]ch he recommended an [...] gave to his disciples the figure of his b [...] and blood.

The same, in his third Booke of Ch [...] stian Doctrine, Chapter 16. When [...] Lord saith, N si man­ducaveritis (inquit) carn [...]m si [...]i [...] hom nis & [...]iberitis sanguinem, non habebi tis vitam in vobis; fa­cinus vel flag tium v [...]detur ju­bere. F [...]gu­ra ergo est praecipiens passions Dominicae esse communicandum & suaviter atque utiliter is memo [...] recondendum quòd [...]aro ejus pro [...]obis crucifixa & vul [...] rata sit. Except yee eate the fl [...]sh of [...] Sonne of man and drinke his blood, ye hav [...] no life in you, he seemeth to command a wi [...] ked thing or hai [...]us offence. It is therefore a figure, that commands to communicate to the Passion of the Lord, and to pu [...] sweetly and profitably into our memory that his flesh was crucified and wound [...] for us. Note that Saint Austin saith no [...] onely that these words Exce t yee e [...] &c. are figurative. But al [...]o expoun [...] unto us the sense and meaning of th [...] figure, saying, that it signifieth we m [...] meditate with pleasure and profi [...] that Christ is dead for us. Which [...] an exposition our Adversaries appro [...] not.

The same Author in the first Treatise upon the first Epistle of Saint John [Page 183] Dominus consolans nos, qui ip­sum jam in coelo seden­tem manu contrectare non possu­mus sed si­de contin­gere. The Lord comforteth us, we that can han­dle him no more with our hands, but touch him by Faith.

And in the 53 Sermon of the words of the Lord: 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: Illi put a­bant cum erogaturii corpus suii, ille a [...]dixit se ascensu­rum in coe­lum uti (que) integrum­cum vide­rit [...]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: Spirital ter intelligite quod locutus sum. Non hoc corpus quod videt is manducaturi [...]s [...]s, & bibituri illum songuinem quem fusuri sunt qui me cru cisigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commondavi, spiritaliter intel­lectum viv [...]ficabit vos. Ʋnderstand spirituallie what I [Page 184]have said unto you, yee shall not eate this body that you see, Qui non manet [...]n christo, & [...]u quo [...]non manet Chri­stus▪ pro: culdubio n [...]c mandu­ [...]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 w [...]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 hypocri [...]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. Sent. 339 Qu [...] 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 [Page 185]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, 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, 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: 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: 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 [Page 186]City of God, Chapter 5. 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, 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: Aug. [...]o Serm. ad infantes. Quod vi­distis, panis est et calix, quod vobis etiam oculi [...]estri re­ [...]untiant; quod aute sides vestra [...]ostulat in­ [...]truenda, [...]anis est [...]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. [Page 187]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, Quomodo est panis corpus ejus & calix, vel quod habet calix, quomodo est sanguis ejus? Ista fraires, i­deo dicun­tur Sacra­menta, quia in eis al [...]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 Cup his blood? These things Bethren, are called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seene, and an­other is understood. What is seene, hath a corporall forme: What is meant, hath a spirituall fruite. If then thou wilt under­stand what the body of Christ is, heare the Apostle saying to the Faithfull, Ye are Christs body and his members. If ye bee therefore Christs body and members, your mysterie is set on the table of the Lord, &c. He giveth the same exposition in the 26 Treatise upon Saint John. By this m [...]ate, and by this drinke, the Lord will have to bee un­derstood the society and fellowship of his bo­dy and of his members, to wit the holy Church of the Predestinate.

And in the Roman Canon, in the a Di­stinction of the Consecration at the Ca­non [Page 188] Hoc est: Coelestis anis, qui [...]hristi caro [...], suo modo [...]ocatur [...]rpus [...]hristi, cum [...] vera sit [...]cramentii [...]rporis [...]hristi illi­ [...]s: videli­ [...]t quod [...]alpabile, [...]ortale in [...]uce posi­ [...]m est. t [...]b. Glos. [...]oeleste Sa­ [...]amentum [...]uod vere [...]praesen­ [...]t Christi [...]rnemdici­ [...]r corpus [...]hristi, sed [...]aproprie, crum dici­ [...]r suo mo­ [...]sed non [...]iveritate, sed significante mysterio. Vt sit sensus, vocatur Chri­ [...] corpus, id est significatur. The heavenly bread which is the flesh of Christ, is after its manner called the body of Christ, although to speake truely it be the sacred signe of Christs body, to wit of that which being visible, palpable, mortall, was put upon the Crosse. And thereupon the Glosse of the Doctors hath these words, which truely are excellent: The heavenly Sacrament that representeth truely the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ, but improperly, for it is thus called after its manner, but not according to the truth of the thing, but by a significant mystery. So that the sense is, that it is called the body of Christ, that is to say, that it is signified.

S. Cyprian in his 63 Epistle will have in the sacred Cup water to be mingled with the wine. His reason is because that as the wine is the blood of Christ, so the water is the People: and that the People ought not to bee divided from Christ. §. 9. Quando in Calice vino aqua [...]iscetur, Christo populus adunatur, &c. Sivinum tantum quis [...]crat, sanguis Christi inc pit esse sine nobis: si veroaqua sit sola, [...]ebs incipit esse sinc Christo. If (saith he) any one offereth nothing but wine, Christs blood beginneth to bee without us, but if the water be alone, the people begins [Page 189]to be without Christ. Whereby it follow­eth, that as Cyprian did not beleeve that the water was transubstantiated into the people: so did he not beleeve that the wine was transubstantiated into the bo­dy of Christ.

And in the same Epistle: Vinum fu­it quod san­guiuem suii dixit. That which Christ called his blood, was wine. And in the 76 Epistle: Dominus corpus suii panē vocat de multorii granorum adunation [...] congestum. The Lord called his body the bread, compounded with the gathering to­gether of many graines.

We have a Treatise of the two natures of Christ, against Nestorius and Eutyches, made by Pope Gelasius, who wrote about the yeare of our Lord 495. There, is this sentence to be found, which vexeth and grieves mightily our Adversaries: Certe Sa­cramenta quae sumi­mus corpo­ris & san­guinis Chri­sti, divina res est: pro­pter quod & per eadē divinae effi­scimur con­sortes natu­rae, & tamē esse non desi­nit substā ­tia panis & vini. Et certe image & similitu­do corporis et sanguinis Christi in a­ctione my­steriorum celebrātur. Certainely the Sacraments that we take of the body & blood of Christ, are a divine thing, for which cause also by them we are made par­takers of the divine nature, and yet the sub­stance or nature of the bread and wine ceaseth not to be. And verily the Image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ, is celebrated in the action of the mysteries. Note that hee disputed against the Eutychians, who held that the substance of the body of Christ was passed and changed into the substance of the divine nature. The con­troversy was not about the conversion of [Page 190]the accidents, but of the Substance, which Gelasius maintaineth to remaine in the body of the Lord, as the substance of the bread remaineth in the Sacrament. Now, no man can doubt but that this Book be of Gelasius Bishop of Rome, Hoc etiam eatae me­ [...]orie Papa Gelasius, &c. in co [...]bro quem [...]emoratus [...]ntistes [...]onscripsit [...]dversus e­ [...] qui in [...] omino Ie­ [...] duarum at urarum [...]olunt indi­ [...]ā credere [...]ritatem. Quomodo [...]cend t in [...]lum, nisi [...]ia localis verus est [...]mo? aut [...]omodo a­ [...]st fidel [...] ­ [...]s sui [...]nisi [...]a idem [...]mensus [...] [...]rus d [...]us? seeing that Fulgentius who lived in Gelasius time, al­leadgeth it * in his Book to Fe [...]randus the Deacon, in the 2 proposition: and attributeth it to the Pope Gelasius.

Fulgentius, Disciple to S. Austin, in his second Book to Trasimondus, chap. 17. ^a How is Christ ascended into Heaven, but because he is in a place, and a man indeed? Or how is he present to his Faithfull ones, but because he is infinit and a God indeed?

Again, in his Book of the Faith to Pe­ter the Deacon, chap. 19. Cu [...] nunc id est tempore nov Testamenti cum Pa­ [...]e et Sp Sancto, cum quibs illi est una divini [...]as, sacrificium [...]ais et [...]ni [...]n side et charit [...]te sancta Ecclesia Catholica per u­versum or [...] [...]e [...]rae offerre non cessat, etc. The holy Catho­lick Church which is over all the world now, that is to say under the New Testament, cea­seth not to offer unto Christ Jesus, with the Father and the holy Ghost with whom he is one and the same Godhead, a Sacrifice of bread and wine, in Faith and Charity. For in those ca [...]n ill oblations [of the Old Te­testament] there was a figure of Christs [Page 191]flesh, which he was to offer for our sins, being without sin. But in the sacrifice [of the Eu­charist] is made an action of thankesgiving, and a remembrance of the flesh of Christ which he offered for us, and of the blood that himselfe, who is God, hath shed for us. Be­sides this, that he calleth the Holy Sup­per a remembrance, and a Sacrifice of bread and wine: it is very remarkable that he saith, that this Sacrifice of bread and wine is offered unto Christ Jesus. Whereby it appeareth that this Sacri­fice is not Christ himselfe: for Christ is not Sacrificed unto Christ.

Facundus an Affrican Bishop, who wrote about the yeare of our Lord 550 in the defence of three heads or points of the Councell of Chalcedon: Potest Sa­cramentum adoptionis adoptio nūcupari, sangu [...]nē dicimus, nō quod pro­prie corpu [...] ejus sit pa­nis, & po­culum san­guis: sed quod in se mysterium corporis e­jus sangui­nis (que) 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.

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, panē nominamus: divina autē illum san­clificante gratia, inc­diante Sa­cerdote, li­beratus quidē est ab appellatione panis, & [...]li­gnus habi­ [...]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 Cum ver [...] 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. [Page 193]And in the 7 Book, chap. 26. Etiam a­gimus gra­tias tibi, Pater, pro pretioso sanguine Iesu Christi qui effusu [...] 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: [...]. 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, Ba [...]samon maketh this Commentary: The two and thirtieth Canon of the Councell of Trull hath [Page 194]ordained very at large, [...]. 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, 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. Christus coenando cii discipulis panem fre­git, & cali­cem pariter cis dedit in figuram corporis & sanguinis sui. In coena quam ante traditionē suā ultimā cum disci­pulis habu t post Paschae veteris so­lemnia cor­poris et sā ­guinis sui Sacramēta in panis et vini substaē ­tia cisdē di­scipulis suis tradidit, et ea in cōme­morationē 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 SƲBSTANCE 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: Rup. Tui­tiensis in Exo. 12. Si­cut Christus hum [...]na na­turam nec mutav [...], nec destru­ [...], sed as­sumpsit, ita in Sacramē ­to, nec de­struit, nec mutat substantiā 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, alleadg [...]s out of him many such like places, and blameth him for it.

To so many places that say, that the [Page 196]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 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 [...]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. [Page 197]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 [Page 198]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 Evag [...]. 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. Amb [...]l de Viduis. O­portet eam [Viduam] primo ca­rere varia­rum illece­bris volup­tatū, vitare internum corporis animiq, lā ­guorē, ut corpus & sanguinem Christi mi­nistret. Ambrose in his Book of Wid­dows, saith that the Widdowes were imployed in the administration of the Sacrament. Editionis Parisiensis anno 1624 colū. 161. Virgo post­quā cōmu­nicavit, re­servet de ipsa cōmu­nione unde i [...]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 [Page 199]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. Leviti [...]. 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 M [...]ry, and of his mysticall body, w ^ch 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 [Page 201]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 i [...]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 f [...]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: Ex Hie­ron, in E­pist. ad Ephes. ca [...] [...]. Dist. 2. de Conse. Can. Du­pliciter. Dupliciter intelligitur caro Christivel spiritu­alis illa at­que divima de qua ipse a [...]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 D [...]cree in the second Distinction of the Consecration, at the Camon Dupliciter.

And in the same Distinction at the [Page 202]Canon 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 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: 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: Panis est Sermo Dei vivi, qui desc [...]ndit de coelis. Tum quod & corpus ejus in pane censetur. Hoc est corpus m [...]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. [...]. 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, [Page 203]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, In Psal. 98. Non hoc corpus quod vide­tis mandu­caturiestis, ne (que) bibitu­ri illis san­guinem quē fusuri sunt qui me cru­cifigent, Sa­crament um aliquod vo­bis cōmen­davi, spiri­tualiter in­tellectum vivificabit vos. [...]nd shall not drinke the blood shed by those that shall crucifie me. What then? I have (saith he) recommended a Sacrament un­ [...] you, which being taken Spiritually, shall quicken and vivifie you.

Saint Ambrose in his Commentarie [...]pon Saint Luke, maketh a plaine diffe­ [...]ance betweene these two kinds of body of Christ, expounding the words of the Lord, Luke 17. Wheresoever the bodie is, [...]hither will the Eagles bee gathered toge­ [...]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 [...]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 [Page 204]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. 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 [Page 205]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 Domiun [...] corpus sui [...] panē vocat [...] de multor [...] 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, 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: [...]. 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 [Page 206]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 [...]. it is a meate wherewith ou [...] 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, [...], &c. [...], &c. The oblation of fine flower was a figure of the bread of the Euch [...]rist, which our Lord Jesus hath ordained to be made in remembrance of his Passion.

Ireneus in his first Booke saith the same, Eu [...]n cal [...] ­cem. qui est cre tura, suum cor­pus confir­mavit ex quo nostra auget cor­ [...]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 [Page 207]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. Comperi­mus quod quidam sumpta tā ­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. [...]. 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 place [...] 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 bodie [...] since we doe shew by so many proof [...] that they speake of another body that of that which was borne of the Vir­gin Marie, and that was crucified, a [...] we will shew yet more clearely here­after.

For, that the Author of these Book [...] attributed to Saint Ambrose, hath belee­ved that after the Consecration the bread is bread still: he shewes it plain­ly when he saith, Lib. 4. de Sacramēt. cap. 4. Let us therefore establis [...] this, to wit, how that which is bread, may [Page 209]be Christs body. And a little after, Si tanta vis in Ser­mone Domi­ni Iesu, ut inciperent esse quae nō erant, quā ­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 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 whe [...]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 s [...]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, De veri­tate carnis & saguinis nō relictus est ambigen­di locus. Nunc enim & [...]psius Dōmi pro­fessione, & side nostra vere caro est & vere sanguis. Et hac accepta at (que) 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 Hilar. lib. 10. de Tri­nitate In quem quan­vis aut idl­us incide­ret, aut vulnus de­scenderet, &c. affer­rent quidē haec impetū passionis, non tamen dolorē passionis inferrent, ut telū aliquod aut aquam perforans, aut ignem compungens aut aëra vulnerans. Et paulo post, Virtus corpo [...]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 [Page 211]the naturall flesh of Christ by the mouth of the body: But he saith that we must not doubt but Christ had a true flesh and a true blood: For he disputeth a­gainst certaine Hereticks that destroyed the truth of his human nature.

For as touching the Mystagogicall Catecheses attributed to Cyril of Jerusa­lem, which are objected against us, where it is sayd that we must not beleeve our senses telling us that it is bread: it is certaine that those Catecheses are sup­posed and falsly attributed to Cyril. For the Stile of them is very different from those 18 Catecheses of Cyril that pre­cedes them, which are cited by Theodo­ret, and by Gelasius, and by Damascen: but these last are never alleadged by a­ny one. In the first Catechese, there is an evident marke of falsity. [...], &c. For hee disswadeth his hearers from frequen­ting the Amphitheater where the Gla­diators chases and combates were made against wild beasts, and the Hippod o­mus or Circus, that is to say the Parke or Place where horses races and com­bates were exercised. For then were no such buildings nor spectacles in Jeru­salem, nor never were any since Jerusa­lem was Christian.

And concerning Chrysostomes hyper­bolical amplifications, saying that the Altar streames with blood, that wee fasten our teeth in his flesh, that wee put ou [...] 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, [Page 213]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 [Page 214]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 [Page 215]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 [Page 216]rendred by the prayer of the Word, where­by our flesh is nourished by 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. 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, w ^ch 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: Sivere Verbum caro factum est, & nos Verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus. If the Word was [Page 217]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, 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 Quomodo constab [...]t cis eum panem in quo gra­tiae actae sunt, corpus esse Domini sui & cali­cem sangui­nem ejus, si non ip­sum fabri­catoris mūdi filium dicunt .i. verbum ejus, per quod lignū fruct [...]fica [...], defluunt fon­tes, & dat terra primo quid [...]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 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: Pan [...]s ste communis in carnem & sangumem mutatus, procurat vitam & incrementum corporibus, ideo (que), ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostrae adjutamsirmit as sensibil argumento, edocta est vi­sibilibus Sacramentis inesse vitae aeternae effectum. The common bread being [Page 218]changed into flesh, and into blood, bringeth [...]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 quē 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 [Page 219] [...]he person of Christ, his humanity was [...]eene, but his divinity was hidden, so the Panis ita­ (que) 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 Verbū Dei Patris assū ­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 pa­ [...]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 [Page 220]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 [...] to be changed into the body of the Lord, not by transubstantiation, but by [...]. Assumption and union with the divinity, like unto the union of Christs divinity with his humanity. Because (saith hee) [...]. 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, [...]. If thou inquirest in what [Page 221]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 [...]. is the body of Christ Deified. Chiefly he is very ex­presse in that he addeth: [...]. 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. [...]. 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 [Page 222]then it was not as yet the custom to chop it into the mouths of Communicants.

Rupertus was imbrued with the same opinion, Rupertus Tuitiensis in Exod. c. 12. Sicut Christus humanam naturā nec mutavit, nee destru­xitysed as­sumpsit, it a in Sacrame­to, nec de­struit, nec mutat sub. stantiam panis et vi­ni, sèd as­sumit in u­nitatemcor­poris et s [...]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 Christ with the bread, in the Sa­crament only, which bringeth no man­ner of change to the naturall body of Christ. But these Fathers make two bodies of Christ: the one his naturall body, which is but in Heaven, the other the bread of the Sacrament, which they make to be Christs body two manner of wayes: to wit because it is united to the divinitie of Christ by an union like unto the hypostaticall union of the two na­tures of Christ, and because it is a signe, figure, and symbole of Christs naturall body: according as the signes are wont to be called by the name of that which they doe signifie and represent. Whence [Page 223]also they say sometimes that that bread is the body of Christ, borne of the Vir­gin, and crucified for us.

Whosoever shall apprehend this a­right, shall have a key in their hand for to enter into the knowledge and intelli­gence of the Fathers, and for to come out of all difficulties. It is the solution of the places of Cyril that are objected against us, and of those and Ambrose out of the Booke of Sacraments. For indeed the Author of the Books of Sacraments was one of these Impanators, since that he holdeth that by the unspeakable vertue of God, the bread becometh the body of Christ, and yet remaines bread still, as we have prooved, and alleadged the forme of the service of that time, where it was said, Ambros. li. 4. de Sa­cram. c. 5. Fac nobis hanc oblati­onem aseri­ptam, ratā, rationabi­lem, accep­tabilem, quod est si­guracorpo­ris Christi. That the oblation we offer, is the Fi­gure of the body of Christ. And in the 4 chap, Let us establish this, to wit, how THAT WHICH IS BREAD, may be the body of Christ. And a little af­ter, he saith that the bread and the wine are still what they were, and yet are changed into the body and blood of the Lord. Wee must not wonder if for to work this change in the bread of the Sa­crament, he imployeth the Omnipoten­cy of God, and his unexpressable vertue [Page 224]in changing things. For indeed if that u­nion he conceiveth, were true, it were an unspeakable and incomprehensible work, and wherein human reason is stark blind.

Because of this mysticall union which is neare unto the personall union, Cyrill of Alexandria saith, that this body of Christ received into our bodies, maketh them susceptible and capable of the Re­surrection. Which truely is an abuse. For by the same reason the participation of the Sacrament should keep us from dying. The Faithfull of the Old Testa­ment, and John the Baptiste, and the Theife crucified with Christ, and an in­infinit number of Martyrs, that were never partakers of this Sacrament, are no lesse capable of the Resurrecti­on.

From that impanation sprung up that custome by which in old time many par­ticular persons carried away the Eucha­rist into their own houses, and kept it locked up in a chest or cupboord, as Gregor. Nazianz. Oratione de sorore Gor­gonia. Gorgonia did, who was sister to Gregory Nazimzen. Which sheweth on the one side that they did give unto that bread something more than to be the figure and signe of Christ body. And on the other [Page 225]side that sheweth also that they did not beleeve the Transubstantiation. For they would never have put Christs natu­rall body into a womans hand, for to keep it locked up in a cupboord.

From the same opinion proceeded that which Satyrus Ambros. Oratione de obitu fra­tris Satyri. did, who was S Am­broses brother, and yet unbaptized Who being upon the Sea in danger of ship­wrack, caused the Eucharist to be given him, and hanged it about his neck, and then threw himselfe into the sea, for to save himselfe by swimming. An evident proofe they beleeved th [...]t in this Sacra­ment there was some secret vertue, and that neverthelesse they beleeved not this bread to be the naturall body of Christ, crucified for us. For they would never have given it to an unbaptized person for to hang it about his neck, and cast it with him into the Sea.

Neither is it to bee omitted that the Fathers never speake of the species of the bread in the plurall, but only in the singu­lar, because that by the sp [...]cies of the bread, they understand the substance of the bread, which is one. But our Adversa­ries, which deprave the Fathers tearmes as well as their doctrine, speak of species of the bread in the plurall, be­cause [Page 226]that by the species of the bread, they understand accidents without a subject, which are many. Which is a new do­ctrine, and a phrase or kind or speech al­together unusuall, not only in Philoso­phers, but also in the Fathers, and in all Antiquity.

CHAP. XXX. Particular opinion of Saint Au­sten and of Fulgentius, and of In­nocent the third.

AƲsten, and Fulgentius his disciple, take sometimes these words, This is my body, in a sense patricular to them­selves. For besides this exposition which is very frequent in S. Austin, na­mely, that the Lord called the bread his body, because it is the sigure and signe of his body: in some places he will have in these words THIS is my body, that by this word, body, the Church be un­derstood. For in his Sermon to Chil­dren, which is to be found at the end of Fulgentius his Workes, hee speaketh [Page 227]thus: These things are called Sacra­ments, because in them one thing is seene, and another understood, &c. If then thou wilt know what the body of Christ is, heare the Apostle saying, Ye are the body and members of Christ. And in the 26 Trea­tise upon S. John, By this ment, and by this drinke, the Lord will have the fellowship of his body and of his members to bee un­derstood, to wit, the holy Church of the Predestinat.

Pope Innocent the third holdeth the same doctrine: For in his 4 Book of the mysteries of the Masse, hee saith, that Christ hath two bodies, to wit his natu­rall body, which he took of the Virgin, and which was crucified, and his mysti­call body, viz. the Church. Then he ad­deth: Mysticum corpus cō ­editur spi­ritualiter, id est, in fide sub specie pan [...]s. The mysticall body is eaten spiri­tually, that is to say in faith under the spe­cies of the bread.

By all the premises it is plaine and e­vident, that he who forsaking the Scrip­tures, taketh the Fathers for his addresse or direction, intangleth himselfe into marveilous difficulties, and casteth him­selfe into darknesse, and in a labyrinth without issue. And that a man must be well read in them, and observe and heed them very exactly, for to attaine to an [Page 228]indifferent knowledge of them. That if any one readeth them carefully, and with an unpreoccupated mind, though he meets with many errors in them, and small agreement among themselves: Yet he shall find them so far from the do­ctrine of the Roman Church, as the hea­vens are from the earth.

CHAP. XXXI. That the Church of Rome condem­ning the Impanation, is fallen her selfe into an error a thousand times more pernitiou [...], by Transub­stantiation. And of the Adora­tion of the accidents of the bread.

WE have shewed that many Fa­thers have beleeved that the di­vinity of the Lord is joyned to the bread of the Eucharist, by an union comming neare unto the personall union that is between the two natures of Christ. The Transubstantiation, is an imi­tation of this doctrine, but in the worse: For whereas these Fathers con­joyne [Page 229]the Godhead of Christ with the substance of the bread The Church of Rome conjoyneth Christ with the acci­dents of bread, with a more strait u­nion than that which those Impanators did put betweene the divinity of the Lord, and the bread of the Eucharist.

For the ancient Fathers esteemed not that because of the union of Christ with the substance of the bread, the bread should be worshipped. But the Roman Church by reason of the union of Christs body with the accidents of the bread, worshippeth these accidents, that is to say, the roundnesse, whitenesse, favour, and breadth of the Host, with the same adoration that Christs body is wor­shipped with. Bellar. 13 cap 5. Nul­lus dub­tandi locus r l [...]qu tur quin [...] Ch [...] sti si­deles la­tr [...] cult [...] qu [...] Deo d [...]b [...] ­tur, [...] S [...]nit ssimo Sacramento ma en [...]rati­one adbibe­ant. The Councell of Trente in the XIII. Session, ordaineth upon paine of a curse, that the Sacrament shall be worshipped with divine adora­tion, called Latria. Now by the Sacra­ment, the Councell understandeth the body of Christ with the species or acci­dents. Of which abuse hath been spoken before.

It is therefore very wrongfully that the Church of Rome condemnes those that have put a mysticall and unspeakable union betweene the Godhead of Christ [Page 230]and the bread of the Sacrament, since our Adversaries themselves bring in ano­ther, a thousand times more absurde and more pernicious, betweene Christ and the Accidents of bread. More ab­surd, I say: For the union of two sub­stances may easily be conceived; But to unite a substance with the accidents of another substance, as if one should put the Moon under the accidents of a horse, is a thing and a conceit which passeth all the imaginations of hypocondriaks, and which cannot fall into the mind of any man that hath not interdicted to himselfe the use of reason. Adde moreover that this doctrine destroyeth the nature of the Sacrament, and the humanity of Christ, as we have prooved: and bindeth men to worship a peece of bread with divine adoration. Things, which the ancient Church never beleeved nor practised.

It seemeth that Satan, when he temp­ted Christ in the Wildernesse, was a pro­jecting this doctrine, and making an essay or triall of it. For promising unto Christ imaginary kingdomes, he proposed unto him accidents without a subject. And in speaking to him of turning stones into bread, he spake to him of a Transubstan­tiation.

CHAP. XXXII. That the Sacrifice of the Masse was not instituted by Christ. Confes­sion of our Adversaries.

IN the holy Scripture, the holy Supper is not called a Sacrifice. Christ in in­stituting this Sacrament, offered nor pre­sented nothing to his Father, but only to his Disciples, saying, Take, eate. Hee made no elevation of the Host. The A­postles worshipped not the Sacrament. In a word, there did not passe in it, any of the actions necessarily required in a Sacrifice properly so called. Bel­larmin acknowledgeth it freely, say­ing, Bellar. l. 1. de Missa c. 27. §. 5. Oblati [...] quae sequi­tur conse­crationem, ad integritatem sacrificii pertinet, non ad essentiam. Quod non ad essent iam probatur, tamex co quod Dominus eam oblationem non adbibuit, immo nec Apostoll in principio, ur ex Gregorio demonstratum est. The oblation which is after the Consecration, belongeth to the integrity of the Sacrifice, but is not of its essence: which is prooved in that the Lord made [Page 232]not this oblation, nor the Apostles them­selves at the beginning, as we have de­monstrated it out of Gregory. A confes­sion very notable: by which this Car­dinall will have Christ and his Apostles to have made a Sacrifice without of­fering any thing: that is to say, that in the Eucharist hee offered not him­selfe in Sacrifice: But now the Church of Rome offereth Christ Jesus in Sa­crifice, against Christs example, and the example of his Apostles.

Salmeron Jesuite, in the XIII. Tome and first Book of Commentaries upon the Epistles of S. Paul, Parte 2. Disp. 8 §. 5 Opus. Et §. Post [...]mo. & §. Porro. maketh an e­numeration of the unwritten Traditions, and puts in their rank the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy, that is to say the Papall Monar­chy, and the service of Images, and the Masse, and the manner of Sacrificing. And the Tradition, that Christ made a Sacrifice in bread and wine. And here are the rea­sons why he thinketh it was not expedi­ent those things should be written, or taught by word of mouth. Part. 3. Disp. 8. §. Quinto Tradit. Stultum est omnia ab Apostolis scripta putare, vel omnia ab eis trad ta fulsse. Et in injuriam vergerel agent [...]s & revelantis Spi [...]itus. Et insuave esset naturae nostrae quae omnia simul non capit. It is (saith he) a foolish thing to thinke the Apostles have written all, or given all by Traditi­on: [Page 233]That would turne to injury against the holy host, acting and revealing. And it would be a thing uncouth unto na­ture, which comprehendeth not all things at once. And there he giveth a particular reason wherefore these §. Quinto opus. Haec literis con­signari mi­nime debu­erant, ut servaretur praeceptum Christ [...], No­lite dare sanctum cambus. things were not to be writen, to wit, that Christs Commandement might be kept, Give not that which is holy unto dogs If wee be­leeve this Doctor, the doctrine of the Birth and Passion of our Saviour was gi­ven unto dogs: for it was Gods will it should be set down in writing. By these Dogges he meaneth the People and the Princes.

Cardinall Baron. Annal. ad annum 53. §. 13. Baronius maketh the same confession, and acknwledgeth ingenuou­sly that the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is an unwritten Tradition, and whereof, by consequent, no mention is made in the Gospell.

And Gregory of Valentia a Jesuite, in the 4 chap of his first Book of the Masse: Si maxi­me ille cul­tus à Deo institutus non esset, concludi tamen ab istis non posset non esse legitimum, cum id ad bonitatem cultus minime requiratur. Even though this service or worship [of the Masse] had not been instituted by God, yet these men could not conclude that it is [Page 234]not lawfull, for wee have showed that that [to wit to bee commanded of God] is not necessarily required, for to make that a service be good.

All these Doctors speaking thus, con­demne tacitely the Councell of Trente, who in the XXII. Session, chapter 1. declareth and defineth, that by these words, Doe this in remembrance of me, the Lord established the Priesthood of the New Testament. Words which M [...]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 [Page 236]in the tenth Chapter, two severall times, he saith in expresse tearmes that Christ hath offered Ʋnicam 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 d [...]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 s [...]isfacere potest, sed tantum in petrare. I gitur im­petratio propria est hujus sa­crificij vis & effi [...] ­ [...]ia. Christ (saith he) cannot now me­rit nor satisfie, but only impetrate. Where­fore the proper vertue and efficacie of this [Page 237]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 E [...]istle, Chap. 2.9. And by Saint John, Revelation 1.6. He hath made [...]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 o [...] fond conceit. The principall is that in the Masse they pretend to sacrifice Christ for our redemption. But the Sa­cramentall [Page 239]or significative being of the Lord is not the price of our redēption, & 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 [Page 240]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, tha [...] 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 int [...]grum usque ad sumptionē, 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 [...]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 off [...]reth [Page 241]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 d [...]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 [Page 242]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 seare [...] God, and loves the Lord Jesus, shal con­sider what a crime it is for moratal men and sinners to intrude and take upon [Page 243]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 cal­ [...]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 [Page 244]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 wearie [...] troopes, but offered not bread and wine to Abraham in Sacrifice. The very Bibl [...] 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 o [...] 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 [Page 245]made by the death of the victime: and no propitiation was made without shed­ding of blood, saith the Apostle, Heb. 9. [...]2. In summe, it is to speak against the comm [...]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 [...]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 [...]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 [Page 244] [...] [Page 245] [...] [Page 244] [...] [Page 245] [...] [Page 246]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 [Page 248]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 Domi [...] sa­cr [...]fi [...]um quod offe­ [...]imus. The Lords Passion is the Sacrifice wee do offer. And Chrysostome in the 21 Homily upon the Acts of the Apostles, [...]. Whilest this death is a perfeciting, and this dreadfull Sacrifice, and these ineffable mysteries. And so the Canon Hoc est, in the 2 Distin [...]tion of the Consecration, Vocatur ipsa immo­latio c [...]n [...]s quae Sacer [...] ­dot [...]s mani­bus sit Chr [...]sti pas­sio, m [...]rs, crucafixio, non r [...] 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. Sacrificium visibile invisibilis Sacrific [...]i Sacramentumid est sacrum sign [...]m. The visible Sacrifice is a Sacrament, that is to say a sacred signe of the invi­sible Sacrifice. And a little after, [Page 249] Illud quod ab omnibus appellatur Sacrificiū, 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 Pro sacri­ficio cruē ­to rationa­le & incru­entum ac mysticum sacrificium instituit, quod in mortem Domini per symbola corporis et sangumis sui celebra­tur. The Lord instead of a bloody Sac [...]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: 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 FIGƲRE 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, [...]. 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, [...]. 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 [Page 251]commonly called Sacrifices and Oblati­ons. Cyprian in his Sermon of Almes, Locuples & Dives, Dominicum celebrare te credis, quae sorbonum non respuis, quae in Do­minicū sine sacrificio venis, quae part [...]m de sacrificio quod pau­per ob [...]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, Hypod a­con oblati­oues in [...]e­plo Domini [...] side [...]bus sus [...]p [...]nt, & L [...]vitis superpon [...] das altari bu [...]d [...]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 Cō ­secration, saith, Receive, Lord, thi [...] imma­culate Host, &c. as is acknowledged by Bellarmin in his first Book of the Masse, ch. 27. And he prooves it by Ire [...]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.

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 [Page 254]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. And in the 34 Psalme, O taste and see that the Lord is good. And Ieremy in the 15 chap. Thy words were found, and I did presently eate [Page] [...] [Page 254] [...] [Page 255]them. And God himselfe in the 55 of Isay [...]h, inviteth the thirsty to drink of the waters. And that it may bee understood he speakes of a spirituall drink, he addes, Encline your care, and your soule shall live. According to this kind of speech S. Peter in his 1 Epistle, chap. 2, exhorts us to desire the milk of intelligence, to wit the Word of God. And S. Paul in the first to the Corinthians, chap. 3. saith he hath given them milk, and not solid meat. Christ our Lord is he that hath used very often such metaphors, taken from corporall meats and drinks. He saith in the 4. chap. of S. John, that his meat is to do his Fathers will. And in the same chap. he promiseth to give water, whereof whosoever shall drink, shall never thirst. And in the chap. 7.37. If any man thirst, let him come un­to me, and drink. And in the 5. chapter of S. Matthew, Blessed are they which doe hunger and thirst after righteousnesse.

With such manner of figurative spee­ches is woven and interlaced a great part of the 6 chap. of S. John, where the Lord speaking to the Capernaites, promiseth to give them the bread of Heaven, and saith that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed. Two occasions mooved him to speak so. For the Jews [Page 256]of Capernaum making him inferior to Moses, and objecting unto him, as by reproach of impotency, that Moses had given unto the Iews the Manna which they call the bread of Heaven: the Lord from thence takes occasion to tell them he would give them another bread descended from Heaven, farre better than the Manna, to wit himselfe, come downe from Heaven for to bee the food of soules, and for to vivifie them. The other cause that mooved him to speak in figured tearmes, is that he was speaking unto ungratefull and rebellious Iews, [...]o whom S. Ma [...]th [...]w saith, he spake not wi [...]h [...]t a par [...]ble, Matth. 13.34

Here our Adversaries acknowledge with us, that there is a manner of eating the body of Christ which is spirituall, and which is done not by the corporall mo [...]th, but by the Faith in Christ Iesus, in whom we find our life and spirituall food. The Councell of Trente in the XIII Session, chap. 8. teaches the same, saying: Some eate this bread, only spiritually and by a lively Faith.

But besides this spirituall manducati­on, the Church of Rome forgeth to her selfe a corporall manducation, whereby the Faithfull in the Eucharist do chew [Page 257]and eate with their very teeth the body of our Saviour Christ, and take it with the corporall mouth, and make him to enter into their stomacks, and do call this a reall and true manducation, for to op­pose it to the spirituall manducation, whereof they speake very often with contempt, as of a picture and of a thing which consists only in imagination. The Councell of Trente intimates so much tacitely, saying, there be some that eate this bread only spiritually, as if it were a small thing in comparison of the reall eating of it by the mouth of the body.

Yet neverthelesse when wee presse them a little, they are forced to avow that the spirituall manducation is a great deale better: and that the corporall man­ducation, which they maintaine and de­fend so stiflly and with so much ardour, is a small thing in regard of the spirituall. For they confesse that many are saved without partaking of the Eucharist, but that none are saved without beleeving in Christ. And that many eate the Sacra­ment, which neverthelesse do perish e­ternally: but that whosoever eateth Christs flesh spiritually and with true Faith, shall have eternall salvation, ac­cording to the Lords saying in the third [Page 258]chap. of S. John, that whosoever beleeveth on him, shall not perish, but have eternall life. Which is more, our Adversaries do acknowledge with us, that the manduca­tion of the Sacrament, without the spiri­tuall manducation by Faith, is not only unprofitable, but even turnes into con­demnation: and that it is profitable and usefull, but for, and because of the spiri­tuall manducation. But the spirituall manducation, by it selfe alone, and with­out the corporall manducation, leaves not to be profitable, and alwayes neces­sary to salvation. The manducation of the Sacrament, by the mouth of the body, is common both to good and bad, and hypocrites partake thereof as well as the true Faithfull: yea our Adversa­ries hold, that beasts may eate Christs body, and that Mice do carry away some­times the body of the Lord: But the spi­rituall manducation, is proper and pecu­liar to Gods Children, and none but the true Faithfull can be partakers thereof. Christ in the 15 of S. Matthew, saith: that which goeth into the mouth, defileth not a man: whence follows that neither can it sanctifie a man.

In this, S. Austin is far from that lan­guage which the Roman Church holdeth [Page 259]now a dayes, who acknowledgeth no o­ther true and reall manducation of Christs body, than that which is made by the bodily mouth in the Eucharist. For this holy man on the contrary, hol­deth that there is no other true and reall manducation of Christs body, but the spirituall: and that that which is done in the Sacrament by the mouth of the body, is not a true manducation. He tea­cheth it in his 21 book of the City of God, chap. 25. Dominus ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus sed [...] veracorpus Christi manducare. The Lord (saith he) sheweth what it is to eate the body of Christ, not in Sacrament only, but in truth. And in the same place, Non solo Sacramēto, sed re ve [...] mandu [...] ­verunt corpus Christi. They have eaten the body of Christ, not only in Sacrament, but also true­ly and indeed. To this holy Doctor, Tho­mas joynes himselfe in this point, in his 7 lesson upon the 6 of S. John, where speaking of him that eateth spiritually the body of Christ, he saith, Hic est ille, qui non Sacramental [...]er tantum sed re ver [...] corpus Christ mandu [...]at. It is that man that eateth the body of Christ, not only Sa­cramentally, but also in truth.

CHAP. II. That in the 6 Chapter of S. Iohn the Lord speakes not of the Sacra­ment of the Eucharist, nor of the manducation of his flesh by the mouth of the body.

BY the corporall manducation, wee understand the manducation of the bread and wine, which Christ hath hono­red with the title of his body and blood, because they are the Sacrament and re­membrance of the same. But our Adver­saries pretend to eate really the body of Christ with their mouth, and to make him passe into their stomach: and for to prop this so grosse and Capernaitish manducation, they alleadge the sixth of Saint Iohn, where Christ saith that he is the bread come downe from Heaven, and promiseth to give his flesh to eate.

1. For to beleeve that, a man must of purpose put out his own eyes, and give [Page 261]the Son of God the lye: For all this d [...]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 [Page 262]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 na [...]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 [Page 263]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 [...] ma [...]yrs i [...] [...]. who by hearing of the wordes of the Martyrs, were converted at the same in­stant, and put to death at that very [Page 264]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 [Page 265]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, [Page 266]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 f [...]est profiteth nothing, It is the Spirit that quickneth. [Page 267]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 & v [...]a sunt. Int el­lexisti car­nal [...]ter? [...] ­tiam si [...] spi­ritus & v [...]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 [Page 268]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 tun [...] 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 le [...]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 [...]ord, is this clause of the 53 Verse, Ve­ [...]ily I say unto you, Except ye eate the flesh [...]f the sonne of man, and drinke his blood, [...]e have no life in you. For if by these words Christ doe speake of the parti­ [...]ipation of the Sacrament, it followes that the People of the Roman Church, whom they have deprived of the cup, [...]hall have no life, and are lost eternally: [...]or they drinke not Christs blood. To say, as Bellarmin doth, that the People [...]akes the blood in the Hoste, is to say [...]ust nothing. For Christ commandeth [...]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 [Page 270]manner how he will have them to par­ticipate thereof; for, to drinke, is th [...] kinde and manner of participating there­of. Briefly, he commandeth to drinke But to eate a dry Hoste or wafer, is no [...] to drinke. That if to eate, is to drinke the Priest drinketh twice in the Masse once in taking the Hoste, and anothe [...] time in taking the Cup. Vnto which th [...] common sense contradicteth: and Pop [...] Innocent the third too, in his fourt Booke of the Mysteries of the Masse Chapter. 21. Neither is the blood drun [...] (saith he) under the species of the bread nor the body eaten under the species of t [...] wine. Here then our Adversaries do forge an absurd figure, whereby to drin [...] signifieth to eate. Everywhere else the doe distinguish eating from drinking but here they confound them as if th [...] were all one. Indeede to eate and [...] drinke, taken in a spirituall sense, sig­nifieth one and the same thing. B [...] when the question is of the Sacram [...] of the Eucharist, and of eating th [...] bread, and drinking the Chalice, t [...] eate and to drinke are different thing▪ That if to eate the Hoste, be to drink so to drinke the Cup, shall be to ea [...] the Cup. And if drinking bee take [Page 271]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 respō sum mihi non proba tur, quia verba Do­mini non tantum reseruntur ad rem sumpt am. sed ad mo­dum sumē d [...]eam. Nam manducare & bibere, si verba proprie usurpentur, [...]tois species cor venire non possunt; neque enim sanguis sub specie panis bib [...] dicitur: sicut neque corpus sub specie vini manducari, ut optime notat Innocent. III lib. 4. de Mysteriis Missae, qu mvis sum [...] 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 [Page 272]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, [...]eet carnē et sanguine si [...]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, [Page 273]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 Bonavē. in 4. Dist▪ 9 art 1▪ q. [...]. Cajet. in 6. Iohannis. Cafa [...]us epist. 7. ad Bohomos. Petrus de Alliaco an 4. Sentent. q. 2. art. 3. Durant. Ra [...]nali divinor. Offic. lib. 4. c. 41. n. 40. Linda [...]rs Panopliae l. 4. c. [...]8. Tapper. in expli [...]. anti [...]ulo [...]m 15. Lovanensium Iansen. Concord. c. 5 [...]. Feru [...]in 26. Ma [...]h [...] & 6 I [...]h [...]nnis Valdensis Tomo 2 de Sacram. c. 91 I lessel [...]d▪ communjone sub uttraque specie. of Bonaventure, C [...]jetan, Cusanus, De [Page 275]Alliaco, Cardinals, Item of Durandus Episcopus Mimatensis, Gabriel Biel, Hessel one of the Doctors of the Coun­cell of Trente, Lindanus, Ruardus Tap­peru [...], 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 S [...]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 sili [...] homenis, et b [...]beri­tis ejus sanguinem, &c. H [...]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: Sed non est in Evan­gel [...]o Ioha [...] ­nis sensu [...] quem sibi as [...]r [...]bitis. Non hibit to Sacrament alis ib [...]prae scribitur▪ s [...]d spirit [...]alis insinu [...]atur. The sense of the Gospell of [Page 276]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 Ioh [...]nne quadam interrog [...]tione importuna▪ ter quaerens à suo successore, beato Petro, quod si ipsum d [...] ­git, gregem pascat. so far as to accuse Christ of importunity, for asking his Vicar Peter [Page 277]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. Sihae [...] sententia referatur ad spiritua­lem mandu­cationem, nullam du­bitationem habet sen­tentia, &c. Sivero ad Sacramēta­l [...]m, dubi [...] 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 [Page 278]is said before, is to be understood of the spirituall manducation. As when Christ saith in the 33, 35, & 50 verses that he is the bread come down from hea­ven. And that hee is the bread of Life. And that whosoever beleeveth on him, shall never thirst. And that he is the bread come down from heaven, whereof who­soever eateth, hee shall not die. In all these places they grant that it is spoken of a manner of eating and drinking that is spirituall, and will have nothing there to be spoken of the bread of the Encha­rist, but do take all these words figura­tively. A doctrine truly full of absurdity, and which destroyes and overthroweth it selfe. For what boldnesse is it to forge in the sequell or prosecution of one and the same discourse, two kinds of mandu­cation, and by a Master-like authority, to will that one part of the chapter be un­derstood figuratively, and the other sim­ply, since they all be the same kind of speeches, and that the same exposition may bee brought both to the one and to the other?

The Councell of Trente was mightily pestered about that; for after this matter had been tossed a long time and disputed upon at the Councell, the Prelats seeing [Page 279]the new Doctors were contrary unto the old, yea even to the Popes, and that the new ones besides did not agree among themselves, would determine nothing therein, and lest the thing undecided, as Salmeron the Jesuite, who was present at that Councell, doth testifie. The Synode Salmer. Tom. 8. Tract. 23. Etsi notu­erit Syno­dus nini­natius illo tempore de­cernere, quis esset maxime proprius & germanus verborum illorum Christi sen­sus apud Iohannem, propter varias sanctorum Patrum et Doctorum interpretationes in utramque partem allatas, &c. (saith he) would not then determine na­mely which is the properest and naturall sense of these words of Christ in S. Iohn. because of the variety of Interpretations of the holy Fathers and Doctors that were brought on both sides. Yet it was there principally, that the infallible per­fection of the Pope and of the Councell should have been displayed, being a mat­ter of so great importance. And yet to this very day the Popes have determi­ned nothing upon that, nor condemned those that are of a contrary mind to the Jesuits.

CHAP. V. Reasons of our Adversaries for to prove that in the sixth chap. of Saint Iohn it is spoken of the man­ducation by the mouth of the Body.

BUt let us see how the Doctors of this Age dispute against their Popes, Cardinals and Prelates, and goe about to prove that in the 6 of S. Iohn is spoken of the manducation by the mouth of the body in the Eucharist.

1. They say that Christ sp aketh in the future, saying, The bread that I will give, as speaking of a manducation that was not yet. I answer that he speaketh also in the present, saying, I am the bread come down from Heaven. And hee that eateth thereof, shall not die. They them­selves would laugh, if from that the Lord saith in the future, Whosoever shall beleeve and shall be Baptised, shall be saved, I should inferre that before Christ spake these words, none beleeved, none were Baptised, none were saved. Moreover, [Page 281]when Christ speaketh in the future, say­ing, The bread that I will give, he hath re­gard to his future death, which is the true food of our Soules.

2. They say also that if this sixth chapter of S. John were not taken and un­derstood of the manducation by the mouth of the body: it would follow that S. Iohn did not speake at all of the Eucharist. Stapleton, one of the most fu­rious Adversaries, answers for us: S. Iohn (saith he) Stapl. Promptu­ar. Cathol. Serm. 1. Hebdom. Sanctae. Iohannes de tertia & Euchar sti­ca coena ni­hil quidem scribit, eo quod caeteri tres Evan­gelistae ante cum eam plene de­scripsissent. writes nothing of the Euchari­sticall Supper, because the other three Evangelists had fully written of it before. S. John wrote long after the other Evan­gelists, and did only insist upō such things as the others had omitted. He did not put in his Gospel the history of the Lords Conception and Birth, nor of his Temptation in the Wildernesse, nor of his Baptisme, nor of his Transfiguration in the Mount

3. They adde that Christ doth distin­guish the eating from drinking, for to de­signe the two species of the Eucharist. To that I answer, that Christ speakes of eating and drinking, for to give us to understand that wee have in him and in his death a full and entire spirituall nou­rishment. In the 55 chap. of Isaiah, 1. v. [Page 282]God inviteth the hungry and the thirsty to cate and to drink. And in the 22 of S. Luke, 30 ver. Christ saith: I appoint unto you a Kingdome, as my Father hath appointed unto me, that yee may eate and drink at my table in my Kingdom. In these places, our Adversaries do acknowledge that to eate and to drink, signifies one and the same thing, and that they are taken in a spirituall sense.

4. But (say they) it is neither fitting nor convenient that Christ should have used so many figures, and spoken in such dark tearmes, when he might have spo­ken plainely. Wee have already shewed that Christs ordinary use was to speake unto the Jews by figures and similitudes, and that the Capernaites, objecting unto him the bread of Heaven given by Mo­ses, gave him occasion to speak so. That if our adversaries do so much dislike figures Why do they say that from the 27 verse this chap. to the 51. the Lord speaks of the spirituall manducation, and useth figurative words? Why will they have that when Christ said, Except ye drink my blood: by drinking, he understādeth eating? That if the question be touching the dif­ficulty, is there any thing in the World harder to conceive and to beleeve, than [Page 283]this doctrine, whereby they will have Christ to have eaten his own flesh, and that an human body be whole and entire in every crum of the host, and be remote and divided from it selfe, and that a Priest should make a God with a few words, and that this god must run the risque and be subject to be eaten by Rats and Mice, and carried away by the wind?

5. Yet (say they) Christ said, My flesh is me at indeed. Now, this word truly or in­deed, excludes all figure: For they esteem that figurative words are not true. If it be so, why do they themselves put in so many figures? Why will they have this word, bread, to be taken figuratively, and the word drinking, to signifie eating? They must then say that when Christ in the 15 of S. Iohn, 1 ver. said, I am the true Vine, he spake falsly: or else they must needs grant that this word, true, excluds not the figure. So in the 8 to the Heb. 2. v. the Apostle calleth Paradise the true Ta­bernacle. It is a common thing to say that God is the true Sun of the Soule, and that evill examples 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 [Page 284]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 ea [...]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 Adversa [...]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 Do­min [...] esse communi­candum, & suaviter at que util­ter recon­dendum in memoria quodpro nobis caro ejus cruci­f [...]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 P [...]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. [Page 286]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. Ʋnder stand spiritually wh [...]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 m [...] 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 Tracta [...] he saith, Vi quid paras det [...]s el vetrem? crede el madu [...]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, Credere in eum, hoc est mandu­care panem vivū. Qu [...] credit i [...] cū manducal, inv [...]sibiliter sag [...]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, Hūc it a (que) cibū et pot [...] societatem vult intel­l [...]i corpo­r [...] et mem­brorum su­ [...]um quod est sanila Ecclesia in praedestina­tis, &c. By this meate and drinke Christ [Page 287]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, Hoeve­raciter non praestat nisi iste ci­bus & po­tus qui cos ā quibus sumitur, immortales & incor­ruptibiles sacit, i [...] 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, Hoc est ergo man­du [...]al lamescam & b [...]bere ill [...]mpo­tum [...] C [...]sto [...] manere, & ilum man [...]nt [...]in se habere de per hae [...] qui non ma­ [...] in Chrisio, & in qu [...] nor man [...] Chrisia, & in quo nor man [...] Ch [...]sl [...] proc [...]dn [...]no nec manducat spiratal [...]ter [...]nem [...]jus, a [...]c b [...]h [...] ejus s [...]ngu [...]n [...]n, luet carnalae [...] & [...]sil [...]lu [...] pr [...] doel [...]bus Sacra [...] is [...] corpo [...] is & sang [...] Ch [...]s [...]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 [Page 288]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, 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. Quia du­rum & in­tolerabilem existimave­runt sermo­nem ejus. quasi vere carnem su­am illis e­dendam de­term [...]nasset ut in spiri­tu dispone ret statum salutis, oraemisit, Spiritus est qu [...] vivi­ficat. Tum add t, Caro non prode [...]t qui [...]quam; ad vivificandum s [...]ili et For because they esteemed his words to be harsh and intolerable, as though he had de­termined to give them truely his flesh to eate that he might render spirituall the state of salvation, he said before, It is the spirit that quickneth: Then he addeth, The flesh pro­fiteth nothing, to wit for to vivifie.

And there againe, Quia & sermo caro c [...]at factus, proinde m causam vitae ap­petendus, & devor [...]nd [...]s audau, et [...]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, Vrgens usquequa (que) per allego­riā necessa­riorū pabu­lorū memo­riam Paetrū, &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, Si secun­dum lite­ram seque­ris hoc ip­s [...]ra quod [...]um est, Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam et biberitis sanguta [...] [...]um, hoec litera occid t. Hee calleth the holy Spirit flesh by a [...]egory. For the flesh was created by him, and the blood signifies the Word.

Origene upon the Leviticus, in the se­venth Booke: [...]. 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. [...]. For if thou [Page 290]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. Quando dic [...]t, Qui non man­ducaverit carnem meam et biberit san­guinem me um, licet in myster [...]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, 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 [Page 291]signes take the name of the things sig­nified.

Vpon this, the words of Pope Pius the second, are notable in his 130 Epistle. Sed nec [...]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 similitudi­ [...]e consonantique ratione, trahitur inde magis sensus quàm 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 [Page 292]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 [Page 294]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 tertiū Potest fie [...]i ut rediga­tur ad lo­cum unita­tis, [...]t a ut quatuor homines oc­cupent lo­cum unius hominis. when for to prove that a body may be in severall places at once, hee saith that it is possible that foure men hold no more place than one of the foure alone, and that all foure fill up but one place. Take me a man clothed with a sute of clothes that sits close and is made just to his body, Bellarmin saith it is possible for these foure men to be con­tained in the same sute of clothes, with­out being made larger, and the men never a whit the lesse. If that be pos­sible for foure, it is also possible for ten, [Page 295]yea for a hundred, yea for a thousand: so that all the men of the World shall be contained in a single doublet. But if of these foure men in this little doublet, one be sitting, the other lying, and the other standing: If one of-them em­brace the other, and by consequent is out of the other, they shall not be in one and the same place. If they speake together and looke one upon another, the one shall be the object of the others eyes, and therefore shall not bee in one and the selfe same place. Truly I thinke this Jesuite, propounding such things, and shutting up a whole Common-wealth in a doublet, had a minde to deride his owne Religion. For by the same reason a man may have both his eyes in one place, and not different of sitnation. Bellar. lib. 1. de Eu­char. c. 2. § Tertia. Christus in Eucharistia non habet modum ex­istend [...] cor­porum, sed potius spi­rit [...]ū, cum sit totus in qualibe [...] parte. By this meanes a man shall have two eyes, and shall have but one. And the parts of an humane body shall not be distinct, and the one shall not be out of the other. This our Adversaries doe by their Transubstantiation: as Bellarmin acknow­ledgeth, saying that in the Eucharist Christ doth not exist after the manner of bodies: but rather after the manner of Spirits, since hee is whole in everie part.

It is false likewise, that according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, Christs body be in the Eucharist after the manner of Spirits. For when an Angell is present in any place, he is not pre­sent in a thousand others severall places and is not far from himselfe and divi­ded from himselfe, a [...] they will have Christs body to bee in a million of severall places at one and the same time.

The same Jesuite in the third Booke and fifth chapter saith, §. Ad haec. Substantia fius quanti [...]ate ca [...]o d [...]ci non potese. that a Sub­stance without qantity cannot bee tearmed flesh. Whereupon it followes that Christs body under the Host is not flesh, for there is no quantity, since it is whole under every point that hath no quanti­ty. Besides that the quantity of a body is a continued quantity. But Christs body in the Host is not one in continui­ty with that which is in Heaven sit­ting at the right hand of God the Fa­ther, since hee is farre and remote from it.

Againe, he saith in the same place, Quid est corpus, nisi extent [...]o [...] longitudinem, latitudinem, & prosundita­t [...]m? That a body is nothing else but an ex­tension in length, breath, and depth. There­fore [Page 296]in the Sacrament there is no true body of Christ, since it hath no ex­tension, no length, breadth and depth: As he saith himselfe in the second chap­ter of his first Book, Christs body in the Eucharist hath no extension.

I have wondred many times, seeing that our Adversaries hold that Christ municants untill the species be destroyed and consumed by the disgestion, why they do not give them hard bread and not of easie disgestion, that they might have Christ in them a longer time, ra­ther then to give them such light Hosts or wafers, which are presently tur­ned into a Chylus and disgested in an in­stant.

CHAP. VIII. Of the progresse of this abuse, and by what meanes Satan hath establi­shed the Transubstantiation.

UPon this matter, the opinions of men began to varie in the eight Age, wherein the controversie touching the adoration of Images was in its hight and force. For Satan at the same time did labour and busie himselfe to introduce and bring into the Church these two sorts of Idolatry.

In the yeere of our Lord 754, the Emperor Constantin, son to Lisaurus, called a Councell of his whole Empire at Constantinople, where 330 Bishops were present, that condemned the ado­ration of Images. Among other reasons that they bring, they exhort the people to be contented with those Images that Christ had instituted, having given in the holy Supper the bread and wine for Images and Figures of his body and [Page 299]blood. And speaking of the Eucharisticall bread, they say, Ecce vi­vificantis ill [...]s cor­por [...]s Ima­ginem. Behold the image of this quickning body that is honorably presented. And a little after, The Lord commanded to set [upon the table] that image altoge­ther chosen, to wit the substance of the bread, least Idolatry should creep in if it were represented in an humane forme.

But few yeares after, the Empire be­ing fallen into the hands of Irenea, an I­dolatrous woman, and who did put out the eyes of her own son, and ravished the Empire from him: this monster cal­led another Councell at Nice, in the year 787. where she caused Images to be re-established, and the worshipping of them to be commanded under paine of a curse. There likewise were condemned as ab­hominable, these foresaid clauses of the former Councell, whereby the bread and wine are called Images of the Lords body and blood. And it is the same Councell that declares, that Images are equivalent and of as much worth as the Gospell: and that an Image is bet­ter than Prayer: And that Angels are corporall: And that he that hath the least doubt whither Images must bee worshipped, is accursed. For certain­ly the spirit of Satan reigned in that [Page 299]pernicious Councell. Wherefore also Charles the Great, who lived then, cal­led another Councell at Fran [...]kford, an­no Domini 794, in which that Councell of Nice was condemned as erroneous, by a generall consent: notwithstanding that Pope Adrian had approved that Councell, and made a Treatise in defense of it.

Whilest Satan bestirred himselfe thus in the East parts: the Roman Bishops on their side did labour in the West parts. For they did well perceive that these two things, to wit the adoration of the Sacrament, and the adoration of Images, would be of great use, and would serve much for the strengthning of their Empire, and encreasing of the dignity of the Romish Clergy. For the Pope taking out of the way the holy Scriptures from the eyes of the People, hat [...]given them Images, which they call Ignorant mens Books, busying the eyes of the people, whilest he conveyed away the Word of God from them. And the opiniō of the real presence of Christs body in the Eucharist, exalts the dignity and power of Priests, so far as to be able to make God with words, and to have Christ in their own power.

This abuse, beginning to creepe in France, King Charles the Bald, about the yeere 870, made a commandement unto one Bertram a Priest, and as learned a man as these times did affoord, to com­pose and write a Book of this matter: which Book we have yet whole and [...]x­tant at this day, wherein hee maintaines the true doctrine, and withstands stoutly and vigourously that opinion of the reall presence of the body of Christ under the species of the bread. For of Transub­stantiation there was yet no speech of it. For which cause also Bellarmin in his first Book of tee Sacrament of the Eu­charist, first chap. puts this Bertram a­mongst the Hereticks. Who not with­standing, in his time, lived with honor, and was neither troubled, nor received any rebuke or reprehension upon this subject. Of the same opinion were Iohn Scotus and Drutmarus, and others of the same time. And I make no doubt but many others with them have defended the same cause in writing: But the fol­lowing ages, in which error prevailed, have abolished their writings, and it is marvel how this Book of Bertram could escape thus.

The tenth and eleventh Ages, are the [Page 302]Ages wherein this error did strengthen it selfe most, in which neverthelesse God left not himselfe without testimony. For Bruno Bishop of Angiers, and after him (but more vigorously) Berengarius, his Arch-Deacon, taught and maintained openly that the bread and wine of the Eucharist were not the body of Christ, but the figure and remembrance of it: Sigebert. ad annum 1051. This Berangarius began to shew himselfe a­bout the yeare of our Lord 1050. Against whom Pope Victorius 2. caused a Councel to be gathered at Tours about the yeare 1055 and foure yeeres after, Nicholas II. cited him to Rome to the Councel assem­bled for that effect, where Berengarius was forced to condemn his own doctrine, & submit himself to the Popes wil. By the reading of that Councel, it appeares that [...]here were in it many others of the same opinion of Berengarius. And Leo Leo Ho­stiensis Chr [...]. Cas­sinensi li. 3. c. 35. E que cum nullus valeret re­sistere. Al­beri [...]us [...]dē evo [...]ntur. Hostien­sis recordeth that none of those that were there present, could resist Berengarius. The forme of the abjuration prescribed unto him, is to be found in the Collecti­ons of the Decrees made by Ivo Carnu­tensis, and by Gratian, which forme is set down in absurde tearmes, and which the Church of Rome her selfe beleeves not. For they make him say, Can. Ego Berengar. Dist. 2. de consecr. that the [Page 303]bread is the true body of Christ, and that Christs body is truely and sensibly hand­led and bruised by the teeth of the Faith­full. But Berengarius being rid out of the hands of that Councell and returned back into France, protested against the violence offered unto him, and continued to teach the same doctrine till the yeere 1088. in which he died. Upon his tombe, Hildebertus, Hild. Epitaphio Berengar. apud Mal­mesburi­ensem. Quem mo­do miratur semper mi­rabil [...]ter orbis. Il [...]e Berengarius non obitu­rus obit. Quem sa­crae fidei fastigia summa tenentem, &c. Vide Ba­ron. ad ann 1088. § 21. who after was Bishop of Mans, made an honorable Epitaphe, wherein he tearmes him the Prop and Support of the Church, the hope and the glory of the Clergy. And France, Ger­many, Italy and England, were full of people that embraced his doctrine, as William Malmesbury testifies in the 3. Book of his English Historie. All France (saith hee) was full of his doctrine. And Matthew of Westminst [...]r in the year 1087 Eodem tempore Berengarius Turonensis in haereticam lap­sus pravitatem, omnes. Gallos, Italos, Anglos, suis jam pene corruperat pravitatibus. Berengarius of Tours being fallen into he­resie, had corrupted by his depravations al­most all the French, Italians, and English.

Platina in the life of John XV. speaks thus of Berengarius, It is certain that O­dius Bishop of Clugni and Berengarius of Tours, men famous and renowned for do­ctrine [Page 303]and holinesse, were in great esteeme in that time. Adde to this, that Berenga­rius distributed all his meanes to the poore, and betooke himselfe to get his living with the labour of his hands. Guit alias Berengari­us istevir bonus, ple­nes eleemo­synis, et hu­militate, magnorum possessionē, qui omnia [...]usi [...]spau­perum [...]dis­persit, &c. Antoninus Arch-Bishop of Florence, whom the Pope hath canonized and made a Saint, gives him this testimony in the 2 Tome of his Chronicles, Tit. 16 §. 20. This Berengarius was otherwise a good man, full of Almes deeds, and hu­mility, and having great, possessions and riches, which hee distributed to the poore, and would have no woman to come before his eyes.

About the latter end of Berengarius his life, lived Gregory the seventh, who entred into the Papacy in the yeare of our Lord 1073. called Hildebrand before he was Pope. This Gregory was suspe­cted to incline to Berengarius his opini­on. Sigonius in his 9 Book of the reigne of Italy, in the yeare 1080, recordeth that the Bishops of Germany assembled at Brixina in Bavaria, did call this Gre­gory V [...]terem haeretici Berengari [...] discipu­lum, an old disciple of Berengarius the he­retick, accusing him of calling into que­stion the Apostolicall Faith, touching the body and blood of the Lord. And this a­grees [Page 305]with Cardinall Benno, Arch-Priest of the Cardinals who was very inward and familiar with the said Gregory, and who wrote his life: wherein hee saith that Gregory appointed a fast to three Cardinals, to the end God might shew whither of the two, to wit Berengarius of the Church of Rome had the rightest opinion. And there he relates that John Bishop of Port in a Sermon at S. Peters Church, did declare in presence both of Clergy and People, that Gregory, for to obtaine some divine answer, had in the presence of the Cardinals cast the holy Sacrament into the fire.

Berengarius being dead▪ he had many successors that maintained the same do­ctrine even to the time of Petru [...] de Val­do, of the City of Lions, whose disciples were named by their enemies, Valdenses and Albigenses: Of whose Religion and Confession of Faith, conformable to ours, Fasciculus rerum ex­pet [...]ndarū fol. 95. Indocus C [...]cius Tom. H. lib. 6. de Eu­char. fol. 602. hath been spoken before in the 21 chapter of the first Book, and shewed that their Churches remaine, even unto our times.

Furthermore, John Wickl [...]f in England, in the yeere 1390. taught the same. Of whose doctrine contained in eighteen Articles, here is the first, That the sub­stance [Page 306]of the bread remaines after the Consecration, and ceases not to bee bread.

Against the Faithfull that professed this doctrine, the Pope stirred up Kings and Princes, and caused an in­credible butchery to bee made of them, preaching the Croisadoe against them, whereby hee gave the same spirituall graces unto those that should massacre them, as to those that went into Sy­ria against the Sarasens, for to recon­quer Christs Sepulcher, to whom he gave the remission of all their sins, and a degree of glory above the ordinary, as may bee seene in the Bull of In­nocent the third, placed at the end of the Councell of Lateran. The Earle of Montfort, having with him one Dominicke, author of the Or­der of the Jacobins, with an army of these crossed ones, did massacre in a few moneths above two hundred thousand of them.

And for to strengthen and fortifie this abuse, there was no speeche in those times but of miracles, coyned of pur­pose, tending to the worshipping of I­mages, and establishing of the reall presence of Christs body in the Eucha­rist. [Page 307]They gave out to the people that such an Image had sweated blood, that another had nodded his head. That a woodden Crucifix prickt in the side, had cast blood. This fable is recited by Fulgos­lib. 1. c. 6. And by Nauclerus Gener. 44 That to an Image of the Virgin Maries, brought from Damas­cus, breasts of flesh were grown upon the wood. That in such a place the Host had appeared in the forme of a child, and an Angell by it, that did hacke him to peeces. That an Hoste, pricked by a Jew, had gushed out blood: and being cast into a great cauldron or kittle, was turned into a man, as is to be seene yet at this day in Paris represented upon the forefront or porche of the Church of the Billetes. The life of Saint An­thonie of Padoua saith, that he presented the consecrated Hoste to an Asse, which presently left eating of his Oates and worshipped the Hoste. Albertu Krantzius Metropol. lib. 1. ca. 9. Wedekindus a Saxon Prince saw a child thrust into the mouth of the Communicants. Paschasius Rathertus de corpore & sangnine Domini c. 14. Guil. Mal. mesbur. l. 3. cap 27. An Angell did present Christ in the Masse unto a Priest called Pleg [...]ls, in the shape or forme of a childe, which he kissed and imbraced with great courage. [...] A little Jewish boy comming by chance into the Church as he was playing, saw upon the Altar a little boy that was [Page 308]minced and cut into small peeces, and thrust by small lumps into the mouths of the Communicants. Thomas Canti­pratensis in his second Booke of Mira­cles, Chapter 40, saith that at Doway, in the yeare 1260. the consecrated host being fallen to the ground, rised up a­gaine of it selfe, and pearched it selfe upon the cloth wherewith the Priest did wipe his hands, in the shape or forme of a fine little boy, who instantly be­came a tall man, having a crowne of thornes upon his head, and two drops of blood running downe from his fore­head on both sides of his nose. Jodoeus Coccius collected about one hundred of such miracles. Iodoeus Coccius Thesaur. Tom. II. lib. 6. de Euchari­stia. For in Berengarius his time such miracles were very rise and frequent. Matthew Paris an English Historian, in the yeare of the Lord, 1247 relates that the Templers of the holy land sent to Henry the third King of England, a little Christall bottle full of the true blood of our Saviour Christ that he shed upon the Crosse, which Cristall bottle that silly King carried upon his nose to Westminster Church in Proces­sion a foot, clothed with an old sle [...]ve­lesse gowne. Salmeron the Jesuite in the XI Tome and fifth Treatise, page 35. [Page 309]saith that at Rome in the Church of La­teran there is some of Christs blood kept. Item in the Church of Saint Maximin at Rome, which Marie Magdalen ga­thered up at the foote of the Crosse. There was also at Rochelle some kept, as the same Jesuite saith in the same place.

Sigonius in his fourth Booke of the reigne of Italy, Forte sā ­guinis ex i­magine cru­c [...]fi [...] Sal­vatoris in syria ef­fusi portio delata Mā ­tuam fue­rat, &c. Carolus Le­onem Ponti­sicem per literas ob­secravit ut accurate horum mi­racul [...]rum v [...]ritatem vellet ex­plorare & compertam sibi signifi­care. Ob id Leo Roma [...]g [...]ss [...]s Mantuam ven [...]t, & re cogn [...]ta, ad C ro [...]tum ser psit. saith that in the yeare 804. was brought out of Syria to Man­tua, a portion of the blood that ran out of the Image of a Crucifix, which did many miracles. And that the fame of it being come to Charles the Great, he in­treated by letters Pope Leo, to enquire of the truth of the matter: And that the said Pope having knowne and per­ceived the truth of the thing, wrote to Charle-maine touching the same. And in the eighth Booke, in the yeare 1048. he saith that the inhabitants of Man­tua having forgotten this blood, and knowing no more what it was, this blood beganne againe to doe miracles. Vasquez the Jesuite upon the 76 questi­on of the third Part of Th [...]mas, Art. 8. saith that yet at this day there is in Spaine some of Christs blood kept in Reliques.

Thus the darknesse grew thicke, and the mysterie of iniquity strengthened it selfe dayly more and more, the kings having no knowledge at all of the ho­ly Scripture, and trembling under the Popes thunderbolts and excommunica­tions, and powring abundance of wealth and riches into the bosome of the Cler­gie for the easing of their soules after death.

And for a full measure of mischiefe, new Orders of Mendicant Friers did spring up, namely the Franciscans and Dominicans, whereof Francis Assisias in Italy, and Dominick Calarogensis in Spaine were the first Founders, in the yeare of our Lord 1216. and 1223. An incredible multitude of these Monks were dilated and sp [...]ead over all the regions of the Popes Empire, who made use of them as of so many torches and trumpets for to provoke and en­courage Princes to the persecution of the faithfull. And it was the said Monks that h [...]ve coyned and forged the Schoole Divinity, all bristled with pricks, and twisted about with subtilties, much like unto the Cray-fish in which there is much picking, but little to eate. It is from this Divinity that suttle distincti­ons [Page 311]are drawne, wherewith they cover themselves against the truth. A [...]isto­tle is alleadged there a great deale oftner than the Apostle Saint Paul. Thus it be­hooved the mysterie of iniquitie should advance it selfe.

At the birth of these begging Friers, Innocent the third, in the yeare 1215. called a Councell at Rome in the La­teran Church, in which the word of Transubstantiation, not as yet recei­ved by any definition in the Roman Church, was established by an ex­presse Canon, and authority of Coun­cell.

CHAP. IX. Of the Judgement which the Doctors of the Romane 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.

A Long time hath beene that if one had doubted that a childe, or a p [...]ce of fl [...]sh that had appeared in a Pri [...]st [...] hand, were not truely Christ, and that Christs blood that was kept in 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 I [...]docus C [...]c [...]ius in his Collection of the places of the Fathers, and many others, [Page 313]doe make use of these miraculous ap­paritions, for to prove Christs reall pre­sence in the Eucharist.

Thomas Aquinas Thom 3. part. q. 76. Art. 8. Tali appa­ritione fa­cta eadem reverentia exhibetur e [...], quod ap­paret, quae etiam pri­mo exhibe­batur; quod quidem non sieret si v [...] ­re non esset ibi Christu [...] 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 A [...]uinas, departes from his opinion touching the Adora­tion, Cajetan▪ in Notis. Si quaeratur qua adoratione venerandus esset hujusmadi sanguis miraculosus: dicendum [...]d [...]m esse judicium de [...]pso & de veste Christi. and will have this blood or flesh that appeares sometimes in the Mass [...], to be worshi [...]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. [Page 314]here bee his words. 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 di [...]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 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, 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 [Page 315]chopt into his mouth peece of flesh, which so soone [...] hee had swallowed, he was posse [...] 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 [Page 316]how powerfull [...]e seduction of Sathan hath beene, and with [...]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 Pilgrim [...] 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 [Page 318]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: Heu, heu, heu, Dom [...] ­ne Deus, quomodo obscura­tum est au­rum, muta­tus est color opt mus? O tempus pessimum! in quo de­fecit sanct­us, et dimi­nutae sunt veritates à siliis homi­num. Alas, Alas, Alas, Lord God, how is the gold obscured and its good colour changed? O most wicked time in which the holy one is fallen away, and truth dimi­nished among the sonnes of men. And Car­dinall Baronius after a long recitall of the vilanios of the Papall Sea in those times, he poures out these complaints, Baron. An. 912. §. 8. Que tunc facies Ecclesiae Romonae? quam soedissima? cùm Romae domi iarentur potenti [...] ma [...] sordi­dissime meretr [...]ces, quarū arbitrio inutaretur sedes. &c. et [...]tru­derentur in sedem Petr [...]c [...]rum amasii Pseudopontifices. What was then the face of the Romane [Page 319]Church and how foule, when most powerfull and most filthie whores ruled and governed in Rome, by whose will the Seas were changed, and Bishopricks given away! And that which is horrible and not to be related, their Lovers, false Popes, were thrust in violently in Peters Chaire. And Genebrard, a great worshipper of Popes, speakes of the same time, in the yeare 901. of his Chronicle, in these tearmes: In that alone this age was unfortunate, that for the space almost of one hundred and fifty yeares, about fifty Popes have wholly fallen away from the vertue of their predecessors, being rather Apotacticall or Apostaticall, than Apostolicall. Sigonius puts two hundred yeares in.

In the yeare of our Lord 931. John the eleventh, came to the Popedome. He was Bastard to Pope Sergius begotten on the body of the whore Marozia. Where­upon Baronius saith, The Roman Church suffered her selfe to be so vilanously oppressed by such a monster.

After him, there was many Popes that were creatures of the fornamed whores, even to John the XII. who in the yeare of our Lord 955. attained to the Papa­cie at eighteene yeares old, whom Ba­ronius abhorres as an execrable monster. [Page 320] Luirprandus and Fascicu us Temporum, say, Luirprand. lib. 6. cap. 11. Sige­ber. ad an­num 963. Antoninus Chroni. Temo 11. Tract. 16. § 16. that this John being in bed with some bodies wife, was so beaten by the De­vill that he died of it. This Pope made Children Bishops, dranke to the Devill, when he played at dice hee invocated Jupiter and Venus, and conferred the sacred Orders in a stable.

Then, many Popes did play at thrust out, and cruelly persecuted one another, the Papacy was exposed to sale, and vices were there up to the roofe. France, though in an age full of darknesse, was mooved with it, and called a Councell at Rheims under the raigne of Hugh Ca­pet, whose Acts we have extant. In that Councell, Arnulphus Bishop of Orleans, who presided there, speakes thus: O lugenda Roma, quae nostris ma­jor [...]bus cla­ra patrum luminap ro­tulisti, nost­ris tempo­ribus mon­strosas te­nebras fu­turis saecu­lis famosas effudisti! Quid hunc Reverendi Patres in sublimi solio residentem, veste purpurea & aurea radi [...]em, quid hunc esse censet [...]s? Nim [...]rum si charitate destitu tu [...], so­laque scientia inslatur & extollitur, Antichrissus est in solio Dei residens, &c. O lamentable Rome, which in the time of our Ancestors hast brought forth bright shining lights, but now h [...]st powred out such mon­strous darknesses, that shall be infamous to future ages! And a little after, What thinke yee, Reverend Fathers, that the Pape is sitting upon a high throne, glistering in a robe of searlet and gold? If hee hath no [Page 321]charity, if he doe exalt himselfe being puffed up with science alone, hee is the Auti­christ sitting on Gods throne. Then hee addes, that the Citle of Rome is exposed to sale, and that Antichrist is neare, and that the mysterie of iniquitie goes for­ward.

In the yeare 984. In Baro­nius it is the yeare 985. as Sigonius re­lates in the beginning of his seventh Booke of the Reigne of Italy, Bonifa­cius, who made himselfe to bee called John the fifteenth, having put to death two Popes, usurped the Papacie by vi­olence and by money. Baronius calls him a Theefe and a Robber, and that had not one haire of a true Bishop. Genebrard, in the yeare 1007, speakes thus of all the Popes of that time. The Popes (saith hee) of this time being in­truded by the Emperours rather than elect­ed, were monsters. Thus the lawfull suc­cession hath beene troubled, as of old un­der the Synagogue in the time of the Kings Antiochi.

In the yeare 1033. Benedict the ninth being but tenne yeares old, was created Pope by the faction of his Father the Counte of Tuscula. Petrus Damianus in his Epistle to Nicolas the second, and Platina, and Fasciculus Temporum, and [Page 322] Baronius, describe this Pope like a mon­ster. Then three Popes held the Papacy, of whō Platina speaks thus, Platina in Gregor. 6. Henricus II. in Ita­liam cum magno ex­ercitu veni­ens, h [...]hita Synodo, cū Beredictum IX Sy [...]ve­strum III. Gregor um VI. t [...]nquā tria teter­rima mon­stra se ab­dicare ma­gistratu co­egisset. Henry the se­cond being entred into Italie with a mightie Armie, and having called a Councell, con­strained Benedict the ninth, Sylvester the third, and Gregory the sixth, as three hor­rible monsters, to forsake the magistrature. That was done in the yeare of our Lord 1044. when the contention touching the conversion of the bread into the body of the Lord was in its strength, and Bere [...] ­garius in great credit in France and in the neighbouring countries for his learning and good life.

The discreet Reader and lover of the truth, shal weigh & ponder these things in his minde, and say in himselfe, Is it credible that God would have used such wicked instruments for to defend his heavenly truth? Could any good thing spring from such wicked Popes? Are not those such Ages as Sathan desireth for to bring forth monsters in, & in the mids of so thicke a darknes to bring in Idolatry?

CHAP. XI. Of the oppression of England. How Religion passed out of England into Bohemia. Of Wicklef. John Huz, and Hierome of Prague. Of the Councell of Constance. Of Zisca and Procopius, and of their Victories.

I Hope the Reader shall not dislike to take here a short view of the Histo­ry of the troubles which hapned in Bo­hemia about Religion, a little before God made the light of his Gospell to shine againe in France, England, Germanie, Switserland and the Low-Countries. For in it may be seene a lively Image of Sa­tan, and of the power of God.

Of all Countries subject to the Pa­pall Empire, Math. Pa­ [...]is in Hen­rico. I. An. 1171. England suffered the har­dest and most shamefull servitude. That slavery increased especially under the reigne of Henry the second, and of John and Henry the third. In the yeare 1171. [Page 324]King Henry the second for to expiate the crime whereof hee was accused, namely to have caused the murther of Thomas Arch-Bishop of Canterburie, was whipt upon his naked flesh by a multi­tude of Monkes, some giving him three stripes and some five. With the like effeminatnesse that King yeelded up to the Pope the Investures of Benefices, which the Kings his predecessors had possessed till that time.

That King being dead in the yeare 1189. had for Successor Richard his son, and after him John, a King brutish and furious, who made some attempts to recover the Investures which his Fa­ther had yeelded up to the Pope. But being hated and contemned of his sub­jects, Pope Innocent the third had a faire way to handle him ill. He did declare him to have lost the right of his King­dome, dispensed his subjects from their Oath of allegiance, a thing never seene nor heard of before in England, caused Divine Service to cease throughout all the Kingdom, and Churches and Church yards to be shut up: Which continued by the space of six yeares and a halfe. He also excommunicated the King, and gave the Kingdome of England to Philip [Page 325]Augustus King of France, upon condition to Conquer the same at his owne perill and fortune: and that for the remission of his owne sinnes.

That constrained King John to yeeld up his Kingdome to the Pope, and to binde himselfe to doe homage unto him for his crowne. So hee made himselfe the Popes vassall, and England became Saint Peters patrimonie. And a Patent with a golden seale was made and fra­med, by which the King did oblige him­selfe and his successors for ever, to pay yearely unto the Pope a thousand marks in gold, in signe of subjection, besides Saint Peters moneys that were paid by polle. Unto which that poore King was forced to adde an Oath, whereby hee swore that hee was induced so to doe without constraint and of his owne ac­cord, and by the motion of the holy Spirit: and that for the remission of his sinnes.

Vnder this slaverie died this King in the yeare of our Lord 1216. to whom succeeded Henrie the third, who did put his Crowne at the Le­gats feete, one knee upon the ground, doing homage unto him for his King­dome.

Then did the Pope beginne to send his Legats, who skimmed England of money by a thousand kindes of devices. The Orders of the Franciscans and Ja­cobins were newly instituted. The same Friers preached the Croisado, where­by the Pope promised the remission of all sinnes, and a degree of glorie in hea­ven above the common sort, to all those which being arm'd, would make the v [...]w to goe to the holy I and f [...]r the recover­ing of Christs Sepulcher, possessed by the Sarras [...]ons. At these Predications every one c [...]ossed himselfe with a crosse upon the shoulder, and a great multitude of Gentry and people sold and mo [...]gaged their Lands and estates for the charges of that Journey. But as they were ar­med and furnished for the journey, an­other Legate would come that dispen­sed the English from their vow, and gave them the same graces and Indul­gences without b [...]dgeing from their owne houses, provided they would give to the Pope as much money as was necessary to have beene spent in their journey. By these meanes this Legate gathered huge summes of money. And that money was employed by the Pope for to conquer the Cities and Provinces [Page 327]which the Emperour had in Italy. Thus did the Pope inlarge his limits.

Never a yeare came over head but hungry Italians came over into England with new Commissions to raise mo­neyes, with power to excommunicate all such as would refuse, and put the Churches into interdict. What good horses soever there were, or curious houshold stuffe, or fine wares in shops, were conveyed away without paying for, and carried into Italy. The Ex­actors tooke up the tithes of the corne yet unsowen. The Italians possessed in England the best Benefices. The Pope called England his garden of pleasure and his bottomlesse treasure. Where­upon great clamours arose among the People. The Nobles said: Matth. Pa­ris pag. 267. Mar­xidiribaldi. These are the successors of Constantine, and not of Peter. O shamefull thing! rascally ruf­fians that know not what armes and ho­nour is, will domineere over all the World by their excommunications. Matth Pa­ris pag. 423. The Monkes in the Countrey did say, The Daughter of Sion is become a brasen faced Whore, and without shame at all, through the just judgement of him, who because of the sins of the People makes an Hypocrite to raigne, and a Tyrant to governe and rule. But [Page 328]all these clamours were unprofitable and without effect, because the holie Scripture was a Booke then altoge­ther unknowne amongst the English people. They spake of nothing but of Miracles, and of Images, and of Pilgrimages, and of Reliques: Vntill such time as an English Doctor and Preacher named John Wicklef, fell to preaching and writing openly against the Pope, and against the Masse, about the yeare of our Lord 1370. Hee was listened unto with great applause, and was able to have caused a great alte­ration in England, if the King would have given way to it. Of this oppres­sion in England, Matthew Paris and Westmonasteriensis, English Monks that lived in those dayes, wrote strange and prodigious things.

Now as John Wicklef was a teach­ing, Aencae Sylvii Hist. Bohem. it fell out that a Bohemian Gen­tleman, who was a student of Oxford, did taste and rellish wicklefs Doctrine, and coppied out his Bookes, which he carryed over into his owne Countrey, and imparted them to John Huz, a fa­mous Preacher, to whom Wenceslans King of Bohemia, brother to Sigismond Emperour, had committed the govern­ment [Page 329]of the Schoole of Prague, renown­ed at that time.

This John Huz, overcome by the e­vidence of Wickless reasons, fell a preach­ing his doctrine, and being a vehement and perswasive man, he drew after him a great number of People. To whom Hie­rome of Prague did adjoyne himselfe, who surpassed John Huz in eloquence and learning. There came also out of Ger­manie one Petrus Dresdensis, and one Ja­cobellus that spake with vehemencie a­gainst Transubstantiation, and against the Communion under the onely species of the bread.

For to appease these stirres and com­motions, the Arch-Bishop of Prague, called Subinco Cepus, caused Wicklefs Bookes publickly to bee burned, and drove out John Huz from Prague: But seeing the number of those that he cal­led hereticks did encrease dayly, he him­selfe fled into Hongaria towards Sigis­mond: and John Huz returned back to Prague.

Then Benedict the thirteenth, & Gregory the twelfth, excommunicated one ano­ther, the one having his seat at Auignon, & the other at Rome. A Councell was kept at Pisa in the yeare 1409. in which they [Page 330]created a third Pope, to wit, Alexander the fifth, who dying shortly after John XXIII. succeeded him. So there was then three Popes all at once, and there was no body in all the Church of Rome but was excommunicated by some one of these Popes.

This John had warre against Ladis­laus King of Naples: and for to streng­then and fortifie himselfe against him, he sent Preachers abroad over all the Countries of his obedience to preach the Croisadoe, whereby hee promised the forgivenesse of all sinnes to all 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 [Page 331]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 f [...]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) Conc [...]l. Constant S [...]ss. X I. main­tained openly and obstinately that the [Page 332]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 bea­ [...]issimus, qui bahet coele­ [...]te arbitri­ [...]m, qui est Dominus in [...]erris, suc­ [...]essor Petri, Christus De­ [...]ini, Domi­ [...]us uni­ [...]ersi, Regū [...]ater, orbis [...]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 Ʋniversall 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 [Page 333]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 w ^ch is defined that one is not bound to keepe faith with hereticks, is to be seene in the 19 Session of the Coun­cel of Cō ­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 [Page 334]called Pius the second, speakes thus of them in the 36 chapter of his Historie of Bohemia; Pertule­runt ambo constanti animo necē, & quasi ad epulas invi­tati ad in­cendium properarūt, 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 he [...]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 [Page 335]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, Sessio [...] 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, [Page 336]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 the Councell of Constance, Sess. XV. Artic. 19. Dixerant se audivisse quod Io­hannes Hus dixisset, quod in­dulgentiae Papae & [...]ip [...]scopi nō valent nisi Deus indul­geat. in the fifteenth Session. To whom also they did impute things farre from his beleefe. Some witnesses presented themselves that te­stified they had heard him say, That the Pardons of the Pope, and of the Bishop, are nothing worth, unlesse God doe forgive: That was one of the crimes for which he was burned. For that venerable Councell hath judged that the Pope may forgive sinnes whether God will or no, and that Gods consent is not ne­cessarily required for to make that the Popes and Bishops Indulgences be of force and validity.

This newes of John Huz his death, and of Hierome of Prague, brought into Bohemia, did pierce the heart of the Bo­hemians that were called Hussites, with exceeding griefe. Histor. Bo­hemicae cap. 56. The King seeing their number encrease dayly more and more, granted them Churches in Prague for their meetings. Aeneas Sylvius saith, that the people mooved with anger, pulled downe some Monasteries and Churches [Page 337]both within and without the City. Name­ly, neere Tabor, where thirty thousand persons did celebrate in the middest of a field the holy Communion under both kindes.

The King Wencestaus being dead, the Kingdome of Bohemia fell to Sigismund his brother, Emperor and King of Hun­garia. Whereupon great feare did seise the people of Bohemia, because of his great power, and that against his oath, and violating the safe conduct he had gi­ven to John Hux and to Hierome of Prague, he caused them to be burned at Constance.

But a Bohemian Gentleman called Zis­ca, that had lost an eye in the warres, a man incomparable for vigour of body and minde, exhorted them not to be dis­scouraged. And it fell out at the same time, that Sigismund under tooke warre against the Turke in Hungaria, with an indifferent bad successe.

That gave leasure to the people or­der their businesses. The Queene, wid­dow to Wenceslaus, levied some troopes for to fall upon this people, and hinder their encreasing. Sigismund sent Lievte­nants to governe the Country, and set things into good order againe, in whose [Page 338]hands Zisca did surrender and remit Pel­zina and Plesta, Cap. 39. and other places whereof he had gotten possession. For his desire was to obey the Emperour, and he sought all meanes to give him content. But there came Letters from the Emperour, whereby he did declare that his will and pleasure was that the Churches granted to the Bohemians called Hussites, should bee taken from them, and their Re­ligion interdicted. And they had good advice that Sigismonds intention was to destroy them. Whereat the Peo­ple being afraid, looked for nothing but for a totall ruine: and their ene­mies being become more vigorous, be­ganne to oppresse them. Which things moved Zisca to take Armes, and thinke upon his defence. With a few forces bee obtained many victo­ries against the Queene, having none but foote forces of small ex­perience, and little exercised in warre.

Then came Sigismond into Bohemia with a mighty Armie, resolved to de­stroy this people: Besieged Prague, wherein Zisea was, who in many sal­lies defeated the most part of Sigis­monds armie: made him raise the Siege, [Page 339]and tooke many townes by the verie terrour of his name. As hee was be­sieging Vissegrad, the Emperour came at unawares for to make him raise the siege, having with him thirtie thousand Horse, and all the Nobility of Mordvia. But Zisea defeated him, and obtained upon him a great victo­rie. And a little after, Sigismond having for the third time prepared a mightie Armie, lost a third Battell, by which he was constrained to leave Bohemia, full of shame and confusi­on.

A little after Zisea besieging a towne, Cap. 44. received a shot of an arrow in the eye, so that of blinde of an eye as hee was, hee became blinde of both. But that hindred him not from leading and conducting his troopes, and giving many combates, being victorious every where.

But the Emperour being irritated and angrie, came backe againe into Bohemia, bringing along with him two powerfull Armies, the one out of Germanie, and the other out of Hun­garia, which like an overflowing tor­rent, overwhelmed all Bohemia: Tooke some townes, and made great [Page 340]ravage. But Zisea, though blinde and having but a few men, drew directly towards the Emperours Armie, and defeated him with a great defeat, tooke Bag and Baggage and all things be­longing to the Armie, and pursued him a whole dayes Journey. Pio a Florentine had brought out of Hunga­ria fifteene thousand horse, who pas­sing upon a frozen River for to save themselves, the Ice breaking under them, were all drowned in the Ri­ver

Furthermore, Zisca with his victo­rious Armie went out of Bohemia, and entred into Moravia, and passed in­to Austria, and came to succour the faithfull that were oppressed there. To him did adjoyne himselfe a Mora­vian gentleman named Procopius, ex­ceeding valiant, and an imitator of the vertue of Zisea, who caused the Emperour Sigismund to raise the siege before Ju [...]emberg in Moravia, which he had besieged. A great Battell was gi­ven betweene Zisea and the Emperours troupes neare Ausck, upon the River of Elbe, where a great quantity of the Germane Centry were killed on the Emperours side. Who, pulled downe [Page]and confounded with so many losses, resolved at last to seeke after Zisca his love and friendship, promising him the Generall Lievetenancy of the whole Kingdome, and all kinde of Advanta­ges. Zisea gave eare thereunto, and took his journey for to goe meet the Em­perour; but hee fell sicke by the way and dyed, being very old, and blinde. Aeneas Sylvius saith, that when hee was a dying, he gave counsell to his people to make a Drumme of his skinne after his death, Cap. 46. assuring them that at the sound of that Drumme, his enemies would flie away.

Zisea being dead, Procopius succee­ded him in the conduct of a part of the troopes, against whom Pope Mar­tin the fifth set all Germanic in Armes, and sent into Bohemia three mighty Ar­mies, commanded by the Dukes of Saxe, the Marquesse of Brandenbourg, and the Arch-Bishop of Trivers. These three Armies joyned themselves together. But so soone as the Bohemians did appeare, such terrour and feare seised upon the Imperiall Armies, that they presently fled without staying for the enemie: forsaking all their baggage and muni­tions of warre. But the Cardinal Julian, [Page 342]sent by the Pope, stirred up the Empe­rour Sigismond to make a greater effort than any of the former. Aeneas Sylvius saith there was in his Armie forty thou­sand Horse besides the Foot. This Car­dinall entred into Bohemia, where hee committed many unheard off cruelties, killing both women and children▪ But at the very first noyse and rumour that came of the Bohemians approach, such a terrible feare tooke this huge Armie, that every one threw his armes downe for to fly away more nimbly, and left their carriage and munitions of warre to the enemy.

The Cardinall having escaped this danger, came to Basile for to preside at the Councell that the Pope Eugenius the fourth had assembled there, in the yeare of our Lord, 1431.

Now we have made this recitall, not for to approve Zisea his actions, nor the commotions of peoples taking armes against their Sovaraigne for to avoide persecution and Martyrdom; For the truth of the Gospell is not established by these meanes; Christ Jesus calleth us to beare the crosse after him; The blood of Martyrs hath more efficacy for to en­crease the Church and spread the doctrin [Page 343]of the Gospell, than Battels; But I have represented this history, for to be an ex­ample of Gods justice, punishing the dis­loyalty of Sigismond, who against his faith and promise burned alive two faith­full Martyrs, God having made use of weake and contemptible persons for to make him lose above two hundred thousand men, and cover him with shame and confusion.

CHAP. XII. The Confession of Cyril Patriarch of Constantinople, now living, touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

THis Prelate, in the seventeenth Ar­ticle of his Confession, altogether conformable to the Doctrine of our Churches, after he hath recited the In­stitution of the holy Supper as it is found in the Gospell, addeth: That is the simple, true, and lawfull Institution of this admirable Sacrament, in the admi­nistration whereof wee doe confesse and be­leeve the true and firme presence of the Lord Christ Jesus: Yet that presence which faith offereth and makes present unto us: but not that which Transubstantiation vainely invented, doth teach: For wee be­leeve that the faithfull, in the holy Supper, doe eate the body of Christ Jesus our Lord, not incrushing and breaking it sensibly, and destroying it with our teeth, in the partici­pation: But in partaking thereof by the sense [Page 345]of the soule. For the body of Christ is not that which is taken and seene in the Sacra­ment with the eyes, but that which Faith having taken spiritually makes it present and communicates it unto us. Therefore it is [...] that we eate it, and are made partakers of it, if we doe beleeve: But if we beleeve not, we fall away from all the benefit of the Sa­crament. By the same reason we beleeve that to drinke the Cup in the Sacrament, is to drinke indeed the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, after the same manner as hath been said concerning the body. For the Law-gi­ver made the same commandement touching his blood, as he did touching his body. Which precept must not be mutilated, according to every ones fancie and humour: But the tra­dition that hath beene prescribed unto us, must be kept sound and entire. When there­fore in the Sacrament wee have partaked worthily, and communicated intirely with the body and blood of Christ, we make this pro­fession, that we are already reconciled and united to our head, and made one and the selfe same body, with a firme hope that wee shall be his coheires in his Kingdome.