202 Of the P op e ’ s A u thor i ty pr oaches and B lasphemies : S o that by his Fury, it plainly appears, that those who are driven from the B osom of their H oly Mother the C hu r ch, are im m e di ately seized, and possessed wi th F u r i es, and tormented by D evi ls. B u t I ask this ; he that saw these Things so short a while since, how is it that he becomes of Opinion, that then he saw Nothing at all ? What n ew E yes has he got ? I s his S ight more sharp, after he has j oined A n ger to his wonted Pr id e, and has added H atr ed to both ? D oe s he see farther with these so excellent S pectacles I will not wrong the B ishop of Rom e so much, as troublesomely, or carefully to dispute his Right, as if it were a Matter doubtful ; it is sufficient for my present Task, that the E nemy i s so much led by Fury, that he destroys his own C redit, and makes clearly appear, that by mere M alice he is so blinded, that he neithe r sees, n or kn ows what he says himself . For he can not deny, but that all the Faithful honour and acknowledge the sacred Rom an S ee for their Mother and S upreme , n or does D istance of Place or D angers in the Way hinder A ccess thereunto . For if those who come hither from the I n di es tell us Truth, the I n di an s themselves ( sepa rated from us by such a vast D istance, both of Land and S ea, ) do submit to the S ee of Rom e . If the B ishop of Rom e has g ot this large Power, neither by C ommand of God, n or the Will of Man , but by main Force ; I would fain .know of Lu ther , when the P op e rushed into the Possession of so great Riches ? for so vast a Power, ( es p ec ial l y if it begun in the Memory of Man , ) cannot have an obscure Origin . B u t perhaps he will say, it i s above one or two A ges since ; l et him then point out the Time by Histories : Otherwise, if it be so antient that the B eginning of so great a Thing is quite forgot ; let him know, that , by all Laws, we are forbidden to think
204 Of the Pop e ’ s A u thor ity otherwise, than that Thing had a lawful B eginning, which so far surpasses the Memory of Man , that i ts Origin cannot be kn own . It is certain, that, by the unanimous C onsent of all Nations, it is forbidden to change, or move the Things which have been for a long Time immoveable . Truly, if any will look upon antient Monuments , or re ad the Histories of former Times , he m ay easily find, that since the C onversion of the World, all C hurches in the C hristian World have been obedient to the S ee of Rom e . We find, that, though the E mpire was translated to the Gr eci an s, yet did they still own , and Obey the S u p r em acy of the C hurch, and S ee of Rom e, except when they were in any turbulent S chi sm . St. H i er om e excellently well dem onstrates hi s good E steem for the Rom an S ee, when he openly declares, ( thou gh he was n o Roman hi m self, ) that i t was sufii ci en t for him that the P op e ofRome did bu t app r ove his F aith, whoever el se shou ld di sapp r ove it. When Lu ther so impudently assert s, ( and that against his former S entence, ) That the P op e has n o Ki n d of Right over the C atholic C hurch ; n o, n ot so m u ch as hu m an ; bu t has by m er e F or c e tyr an n i cal ly u su rp ed i t; I cannot but admire , that he should expect his Readers should be so easily induced to believe his Words ; or so blockish, as to think that a Pr i est, wi thout any Weapon, or C ompany to defend him, ( as doubtless he was , before he enj oyed that which Lu ther says he usurped,) could ever expect or hope, without any Right or Title, to obtain so great a C ommand over so many B i shops, hi s Fellows , in so many dif erent, and divers Nations . How could he expect , I say, that an y B ody would believe, ( as I know not how he could desire they should, ) that all Nations, C ities , nay Kingdoms and Provinces , should be so prodigal of their Rights and Liberties, as to acknowledge the S uperiority of a strange
Papatu s 205 g r editu r , u t sci r i n on possit cu ju sm odi habu er it in itium , c en seatu r habu i sse legitimum ; vetitu m qu e esse constat omnium consensu gen tium, n e, qu a diu m an ser unt im mota, m ovean tu r . C erte si quis rerum gestar um monumen ta r evol vat, in ven i et j am olim, pr otin u s post p ac atu m orbem , p l er asqu e omn es C hristi ani orbis E cclesias obtem p er asse Roman a . Quin Gr a ci am ipsam , qu an qu am ad ipsos com m ig r asset imperium, r eper i em u s tam en , qu od ad E cclesia pr im atu m per tin ebat, p r a terq u am dum schi sm ate l abor abat, E cclesia Romana c essi sse . B eatus vero Hieronym us quantum Romana S edi c en seat defer en dum vel in de l u cu l enter osten dit, quod q u u m Ro manus ipse n on esset, tam en aperte fatetu r sibi satis esse, si suam fidem , qu ibu svi s im p r oban tibu s al ii s, c om p r obar et Papa Roman us . C u i q u u m Luthern s tam im pu den ter p r on u n ci et, idqu e contra suam p r idem sen ten ti am , n ihil om n i n o juris in E ccl esi am c athol ic am , n e human o quidem jure, competere, sed Papam mera vi meram occupasse tyran n idem, vehementer adm ir or quod au t tam faciles, aut tam stu pidos sper et esse lectores, u t sac erdotem cr edan t in erm em , solum, nullo septum satel litio, q u al em fuisse eu m n ecesse est, pr iu sq u am eo poti r etu r , quod eum Lu ther u s ait in vasi sse, vel i n spem ven ire un qu am potu i sse, u t n ullo jure fu l tu s, n ullo fr etu s titulo, in tot ubique pares ep i sc opos, apud tam diversas, tam p r ocu l di sj ectas gen tes, tantum obtin er et imperium . Nedu m u t c r edat qu i squ am populos omn es, urbes, regn a, p r o vi n ci as, su ar um rerum , juris , l ibertati s fuisse tam pr o digos , u t extern o sacerdoti , cui n ihil deber en t, tan tum in sese potestati s daren t, quan tum ipse vix esset au su s optare . S ed quid r efer t quid in hac re Lu ther u s sen tiat, qui p r a ira atque in vidia non sen tit ipse quid sen tiat, sed
206 Of the P op e ’ s A u thor ity Pr i est, to whom they should owe n o S ubjection ? B u t what signifies it to kn ow the Opinion of In i ther in this C ase, when ( through An ger and M alice,) he himself i s ign oran t of his own Opinion, or what he think s ? B u t he man ifestly discovers the D arkn ess of his Un derstand ing an d Knowledge, and the Folly and B lindn ess of hi s Heart, abandoned to a reprobate S ense, i n doin g and sayin g Thi n gs soinconsistent . H ow true is that saying of the A postle ? Thou gh I have P r ophecy, an d u n der stan d al l Mysteri es, an d all Kn owl edg e ; an d thou gh I have al l F ai th, so as to r em ove Mou n tai ns, an d have n ot Char ity, I am Nothi n g . w Of which C harity Lu ther n ot on ly shews how void he is , by perishing himself through Fury ; bu t much more by endeavouring to draw all others with him into D estruction, whilst he strives to dissuade them from their Obedience to the C hief B ishop, whom, in a three - fold Manner, he himself is boun d to obey, vi z . as a C hr i sti an , as a Pr i est, an d as a r elig i ou s B r other ; his D isobedience also deserving to be punished in a treble M anner : He remembers n ot how m u ch Obedience is better than S ac r ifice ; 1 ' n ot does he consider how it is ordained in D eu ter on om y, That the Man that wil l do p r esu m p tu ou sly, an d wil l n ot hear ken u n to the Pr i est, ( that stan ds to m in ister ther e befor e the Lord thy God, or u n to the Ju dg e, even that Man shal l He considers n ot, I say, what cruel Pu n ish ment he deserves, that will n ot obey the chief Pr i est an d supreme Judge upon E arth . For this poor B rother, bein g cited to appear before the P op e, with Of ers to pay hi s E xpen ces, and Promi se of safe C onduct ; he refuses to go without a Guard ; troubling the whole C hurch as much as he could, and exciting the whole B ody to rebel again st the Head ; which to do, i s as the S in ofWi tch craft; and in whom to acquiesce, i s as the S i n ofI dol *I . C or . xiii . 2 . H . Ki n g s xv . 22 . fD eu t . xvn . 12.
208 Of the P op e ’ s A u thor i ty atr y. * S eeing therefore that Lu ther , (moved by Hatred) runs headlong on to D estruction, and refuses to submit to the Law of God, but desires to establish a Law of hi s own ; i t behaves al l C hr i sti an s to bewar e, l est (as the A postle says) thr ou gh the D i sobedi en c e ofon e, m an y be m ad e S i n n er sfibut on the contrary, by hating and de testing his Wickedness, we may sing with the Prophet, I hated the wi cked, an d l oved you r Law. :t *1 . Ki n g s xv. 23 . mom . v. 19 . fPs. c xviii . 1 13.
Pap atu s 209 tic ol a c aveam u s quod A postol u s ait, per in obe ' di en ti am u n i u s hom i n i s p eccator es con sti tu ti sim as m u l ti ; sed illin s in iqu itatem per osi , D omino cum p r opheta c an am u s : “ I n i qu os odi o habai , l eg em au tem tuam dil exi .
CHAP . 1 1 1 (tbe Defence of the Seven Sacraments B UT these two C hapters, (of abrogating I n du lg en c es, and taking away all A uthority of the chief B ishop, ) of which we have already given our Opinion ; tho ’ they are wicked, yet are they but the F l ou r i shin gs or first E ssays of Lu ther , who now begins to mur der and destroy the S acr am en ts, which in his B ook he goes about to do ; all which whole B ook, he con fesses to be but a Flourish, to I know not what Work : I suppose it is some Work, in which he intends to fight more seriously against ou r most holy F ai th , yet I much admire he shou ld think to compose an y Thing whatsoever, more stuffed with Venom, than i s this whole Preface, or Flourish of his : In which of seven S acr am en ts, he leaves us but thr ee, nor them neither, unless for a Time ; givi ng us to under stand, that he shall soon also take them from us ; for of the three, he takes away on e immediately after in the same B ook ; whereby he plainly shews us what he in tends to do with the rest . To which Undertaking it see ms he prepares the Way, when he says, That if he wou ld speak accor din g to S cr iptu r e, he wou ld l eave bu t on e S acr am en t an d thr ee S acr a -men tal S ig n s. If any on e do but diligently ex amine how he handles these three S acr am en ts, (which, for the present, he puts as three S acr am en ts, or un der three S igns) he may perce ive that he treats of them in such a Manner, as that none should doubt, but that when he sees his own Time , and at his own Pleasure , he in ten ds wholly to deprive us of them all .
21 2 The S acr am en t of the A ltar Let the Reader diligently observe his Steps, an d look to his own , that he may discover the S ubtilties of this S erpen t ; and let him not, with too much S ecurity, thrust himself amongst these Thorns, B rambles, and D ens , bu t warily walk round his C averns, fearing lest he should secretly strike his mortal S tin g into his Heel This hideous Monster being caught, will become be numbed, and pine away by his own Ven om . C HA P . I V t he Sacrament of tbe El ltar LE ' r u s therefore begin where he began himself, with the adorable S acr am en t of C hr i st ’ s B ody. The changin g of the Name thereof, calling it, The S acr am en t of B r ead, shews that this Man cannot well endure , that we should be put in Mind of C hr i st ’ s B ody, by the Name of the B l essed S acr am en t; and that, if under any fair Pre text, it were possible for hi m , he would give it a worse Name. How much dif ers the Judgment of S t. A m br ose from this Man ’ s, when he says, Thou gh the Form ofthe B read an d Wine i s seen u p on the A l tar , yet we m ust beli eve, that ther e i s Nothi n g el se bu t the B ody an d B lood of C hr ist: B y which Words it clearly appears, that S t. A m br ose confesses no other S ubstan ce to remain with the B ody an d B l ood of C hr i st in the S acr am en t, when he says, That whi ch i s seen u n der the F or m of B read an d Wine, i s Nothi n g el se bu t the B ody an d B lood of C hr i st. If S t. A m br ose had only said F l esh an d B l ood, without adding any Thing more , perhaps Lu ther would have said, that the B r ead an d Wi n e were there also ; as I/ather himself says, That the S u bstan c e ofthe Flesh is with the B read, and the S u bstan ce ofthe
D e S ac ram en to E u char i sti ce 21 3 Quas colubri i stiu s astucias qu o facil iu s, lector, possi s dep r ehen der e, observa dil igen ter sin gula vestigia ejue, et suspende gr essu s tu os, neque n im i u m secu r u s inter vepr es ac tr ibu l os, l atebr as et spel u n c as ojus obam bu l a, n e, ex occulto in sidi atu s, calcaneo tu o exitial e virus in stil l et . D epr ehen su s enim torpebit ign avu s, et suo ipse venen o tabescet . C A P . I V D e Sacramento E ucharistiae I NC I P IA M US ergo, unde ipse in c ep it, a venerabili sac ramento corporis C hristi . Cujus primo quod nomen mutet, ac voc ar i vel it sacramentum panis , in dic at homi nem non valde bene ferre, quod ipso sacramenti nomine adm on eam u r corporis C hristi , et sic u bi reperire colorem potui sset, qu o nomen dare p otu i sset deter i u s, l iben ter fuisse datu r u m . C ujus ab animo per q u am longe di ssidet ac di ssen tit beatus A mbrosius , q u u m dicit : “Licet figu r a panis et vini in altari videatur, nihil tam en aliud, quam caro et sanguis Christi , credenda est . ” E x quibus ver bis eviden ti ssim e cl ar esc it A m br osium fater i n u l l am aliam substantiam cum C hristi corpore manere per m ixtam , qu um dic at nihil aliud esse quam corpus et sanguinem C hristi id quod fig ur a panis videtur, et vini . S i tantum dixi sset A mbrosius : caro et sanguis, p otu i sset for tasse Luthern s dicere quod A m brosius, faten do esse c ar n em et sang u inem, non n eg ar et tam en panem simul esse ac vinum ; qu em adm odum Lu ther u s ipse dicit carnis sub~ stan ti am cum pane, et sanguinis una cum vino su b aistere . S ed qu u m A mbrosius di c at nihil esse aliud , quam c ar n em et sanguin em, aperte contr adicit Luthero,
21 4 The S acr am en t ofthe A l tar B lood al ong with the Wine : B u t seeing St. A m br ose says, That ther e i s Nothi n g else bu t the F l esh an d B lood, it appears that he is manifestly again st L uther , who affirms , That the B read is wi th the Flesh, an d the Win e wi th the B lood. A n d though this which L u ther says, were as true as it i s false, viz. That the B read shou ld r emai n m in g l ed wi th the B ody of C hr i st; yet was it n ot necessary for him to blot the Name of the B ody of C hr i st ou t of the S acr am en t, in which he confesses that the tr u e B ody of C hr i st i s. F or if the S ub stan ce of B r ead shoul d be with the B ody ofC hr i st, (as he contends, ) yet there is no Reason that the in ferior S ubstance should take away the Name from the more worthy : B ec ause, though the A postle, ( conformin g him self to the Understanding of the A uditors, then ign or ant People,) called it B r ead; yet now, after the Faith has been so long established, it was n ot fit or con venien t to chan ge this so adorable a Name, (which represen ts to the Hearers, the Thing in the S acr am en t, ) into such a Name as would have turned their Minds from the B ody to the B r ead; neither would L ather , without D oubt, have changed it, if he had not determ ined with himself to draw the People to worship the B r ead, and leave out C hr ist ’ s B ody; from which he him self is divided ; con cerning which, I shall presently speak more full y. (tbe S acrament of tbe E uc harist unb er ®ne storm onlv fibmi nister eo to the l ati n I N the mean while, let us truly examine how subtilely, under Pretence of favouring the Lai ty, he en deavours to stir them up to an Hatred ag ainst the C l er gy: F or when he resolved to render the C hurch ’ s Faith su s p iciou s, that its A uthority should be of n o C onsequen ce again st him ; ( and so, by opening that Gap, he might
21 6 The S acr am en t of the A l tar destroy the chiefest Mysteries of C hristianity, ) he be gan with that Thing, which he foresaw would be praised and applauded by the People : For he touched the old S ore, by which B ohem i a had been formerly blistered, vi z . That the Lai ty ou ght to r ecei ve the E ucharist u n der both Ki n ds. When first he began to handle this Point, he only said, That the Pope wou ld do wel l , to have i t or dai n ed by a g en er al C ou n cil , that the Laity shou ld r e c ei ve the S acrament u n der both Ki n ds; but that being by some disputed with him, and denied, he contented n ot himself to stop there, but grew to such a perverse Height , that he condemn ed the whole C l ergy of Wicked ness , for n ot doin g i t withou t stayin g for an y C ou n cil . For my Part, I do n ot dispute the first : A n d though to me, no Reason appear why the C hurch should n ot or dain, that the S acr am en t should be administered to the Lai ty, under both Kinds ; yet doubt I n ot, but what was done in Times past, in omitting it, and also in hindering it to be so administered now, is very convenient. Nor can I believe the whole C lergy, ( during so many A ges,) to have been so void of S ense, as to incur etern al Pun i shm en t for a Thing by which they could reap no tem poral Good . It further appears not to be a Thing of any such D anger ; because God, not only bestowed Heaven upon those Men , who did this Thing themselves, and writ that it ought to be done ; but likewise would have them honoured on E arth , by those by whom he is adored himself : A mong st whom ( to omit others, ) was that most learned and holy Man Thom as A qu i n as, whom I the more willingly name here; because the Wickedness of I/u ther cannot endure the S anctity of this Man , but reviles with his foul Lips , him whom all C hr isti an s honour . There are very many, though n ot canoniz ed, who are contrary to Lu ther ’ s Opinion in this ; an d to whom, in Piety and Learning, [ father is in no wise comparable
D e S acr am en to E u char istice 21 7 lum sper abat al acr iter app l au su r um . Tetig it enim vetus ulcus, quo pr idem ulcerata est B oemia, q u od l ai ci su b a tr aqu e sp eci e n on r ecipian t E u char isti am . E am rem qu u m prius ita tr actasset, u t du n taxat di c er et recte factu r u m Pon tificem , si c u r ar et communi concilio statu en du m u i su b u tr aqu e specie laici c om m un ic ar en t, post, ubi nescio quis il l u d si n eg avit, n on c on ten tu s in eo manere, quod dixer at, sic pr ofecit in pejus , u t totum clerum c on dem n et im pi etati s, quod i stu d n on faciant, n on expectato con cilio . E go de primo n on disputo . C a ter u m , etiam si causas n on vider em , cur n on dec ern at E cclesia u t u tr aq u e species mi n i str etu r l aici s, tam en dubitare n on possem quin sint idonea qu a et olim fecer u n t u t id om itter etu r , et nun c quoque faciu n t n e r edin tegr etu r . Ncc plane assen tior totum clerum per tot sa cu l a fuisse tam stoli dum, u t se obstr in xer it a terno supplicio propter eam rem, unde nihil r epor tar et c omm odi temporalis : im o vero, quam n ihil sit talis p er ic ul i , vel hoc evidenter osten dit, quod eos qui non tantum i stu d fecer u n t, verum etiam qui scr ipser u n t esse faciendum, D eus n on modo su scep i t in coelum, verum etiam vol u it esse venerandos in terris, et ab hom in ibu s hon or ar i , a quibus hon or atu r ipse . Inter quos fuit ( u t de al ii s interim tac eam ) vir eru diti ssim u s, et idem san cti ssim u s divus Thomas A quinas, quem ideo l iben tiu s commemoro, quoni am ej u s viri san c titatem Lu ther i ferre n on potest im p ietas, sed quem omn es Christiani ven er an tu r , pol l u ti s l abii s ubique bl asphem at. Q u an qu am sun t p erm u l ti , qui , etiam si p r o sanctis r ec epti n on sun t, tam en , sive doc trina, sive pietate specten tu r , tales sun t, u t Lutherns eis com par ar i n on possit, qui hac in re contr ar ium Luthero
21 8 The S acr am en t of the Al tar A mong whom are the Master of the S en ten ces, Nich olas de Lyr a, and many others ; to each of whom it behoves all Christians to give more C redit, “ than to L uther . B u t pray observe how L uther staggers, and contra dicts himself: In one Place, he says, That C hri st, i n hi s l ast S u pp er , n ot on ly said to al l the F ai thfu l , as p er m i ttin g , bu t as com m an di n g , D r i n k ye al l ofthi s Yet afte rwards , ( fearing to offend the Laity, whom he fiat ters, wi th a View to stir up their Hatred against the Priests,) he adds these Words , n ot that they, who u se bu t on e Ki n d do sin agai n st C hr i st, seein g C hr i st did n ot com m an d to u se an y Kin d, bu t l eft i t to ever y Man ’ s D i scr eti on , sayin g , A s often as ye do this, do it in Re m em br an ce of me : B u t, says he, they sin who for bid to g i ve both Ki n ds to su ch as ar e wi l li n g to r ec ei ve them The B l am e, says he, li es on the C lergy, an d n ot on the Laity. You see how clearly he first holds it for a C on mand, an d then says, it i s no C ommandment, but a Thing left to every Man ’ s D iscretion . What need we contradict him, who so often contradicts himself ? A n d yet before, when he speaks of all, in general, he does not defend the Lai ty well , if any B ody would urge the Matter : A n d he proves no S i n to be in the Pr i ests, whom he accuses most bitterly : F or , he says, the S in c on si sts i n the Priest ’ s taki n g the Liber ty ofon e Kin d fr om the Laity : If any B ody should ask him here, how he kn ows that C ustom to have been practised against the People ’ s Will ? I believe he cannot tell it . Why then does he condemn the whole C l er gy, for having taken the Lai ty ’ s Right from them by Force, seeing he cannot by any Testimony prove that this was forcibly done How much more reason able should it be, to say, that the C on sent Of the People did concur with this C ustom for so *Matt. xxvi . 27 .
220 The S acr am en t of the A ltar many A ges, if it could n ot be justly established bu t with their Pleasure ? For my Part, when I see what Things the C l er gy cann ot obtain from the Lai ty, (not even an E xemption from burying their D ead almost un der their A ltar s ) I cannot easily believe that they should sufier themselves to be injuriously, and by Force, deprived of an y such great Part of their Rights ; but that rather this was instituted for some reasonable C auses, and with the C onsent of the Lai ty . Wh at I most adm ire, i s, that L uther should be so angry and passionate, for having on e Kind taken away from the Lai ty in the C om m u n i on ; but i s Nothing at all moved that C hildren should be de barred from both : F or he cannot deny, but that C hildren, in the primitive Times, did receive the C om m u ni on : Wh ich C ustom, if it was justly omitted , ( though C hrist said, D r in k ye al l of and that , without D oubt, for very good Reasons , ( though no B ody can now remember them) why should we n ot think that it was for good and just Reasons, unknown at this Time, the primitive C ustom of the Lai ty ’ s receiving the S acr a m en t in both Kinds, (which perhaps continued not for an y considerable Time,) was taken away ? Moreover, if he exami nes the strict Form of the E van g eli cal Nar r ati on , and leaves Nothing in this Mat ter to the C hurch ; why does he not command the S acr a m en t to be always received at S upper - time, or rather after it ? Finally, it should not be esteemed less inconvenient to do any Thi ng in the Manner of rece iving this S acr a m en t, which ought not to be done . If therefore the Custom of the whole C hurch does n ot well , in denying to the Lai ty the C om m u n i on under the Form of Win e, by what Reason durst Lu ther put Water into the Win e ? *Matt . xxvi . 27 .
D e S acr am en to E u char i sti ae 221 sn orum con dan t c adaver a, n on facile credo populum fui sse p assu r u m u t inviti per c on tu m el i am , in tanta re, ab ulla juris su i parte pel l er en tu r , sed cansis aliquot idon ei s, e l aicor um quoque voluntate, consti tu tu m . A t i stu d m i r or , tam vehementer in dign ar i Lu ther um l ai ci s adem ptam alteram, qu u m nihil c u m p er m oveat, quod u tr aqu e Species adim atu r i n fan tibu s : nam il l os olim c om m u n ic asse nec ipse negare potest . Qui m os si recte fuit omissus, qu an q u am Christus dic at : “ B i bi te ea: hoe om n es, ” nec qu i sq u am du bitat quin causas fu er in t magn ae, etiam si nunc carum nemo m em in i sset, cur non etiam c ogitem u s bonis j u sti squ e r ati on ibu s, qu an tu m vi s nun c ignor ati s, abolitam esse c on su etu din em qua laici olim, nec id for tasse diu, sub u tr aq u e specie sol eban t r ec ip er e sacramentu m ? Pr aater ea, si eam rem ad exactam evangel icae narra ti on i s formam r evoc at, neque qu i cqu am p r or su s per m ittit E cclesias, cur E u char i sti am n on jubet semper in ccena r ec ip i , im o vero post caan am ? D en iq u e n on minus i n com m odi fuerit in hoc sacra mento facere, si quid fec i sse non debeas, quam si quid n on facias , quod feci sse debu er as. E rgo si toti u s E c olesi ec consuetudo rectum non facit u t in l aic i s om ittatu r species vini , qua ratione aquam in vinum audet Ln ther u s in fu n der e ? Neque enim tam au dac em puto, u t sine aqua c on sec r et, quam tam en u t adm i scer et, neque exemplum habet ex C aena dominica, n eque ex A postoli
222 The S acr am en t of the A l tar for I do not thin k that he is so bold as to consecrate without Water ; yet has he no E xample in ou r Lor d ’ s S u pp er , nor any certain on e, of the A p ostl es Tr adi ti on , of mingling the Wi n e with Water : B u t he learned it only by the C ustom of the C hurch ; to which, if he thinks himself obliged to be obedient in this Part, why does he so arrogantly oppose it in the other ? Whatever Lu ther chatters concerning this M atter ; for my Part I judge it more safe, to believe that the Lai ty do rightly c om m u n i cate, though under one Kind ; than that the C l er gy, for so many A ges , were damn ed, for omi tting both, ( as he disputes ;) for he calls them all wicked, an d so wi cked , that they al l wer e g u il ty of the Cr im e ofE vangelical Treason, I 7 “ ( says he) we m u st n am e them that ar e Heretics an d S chismatics ; i t i s n ot the B ohemians , or Gr aeci an s, for they en deavou r to fol l ow the Gospel) bu t the Romans who ar e the Heretics an d S chismatics, an d , by thei r F i cti on s, p r esu m e agai n st the eviden t Tr u th ofS cr ip tu r e . If Lu ther admits Nothing else, bu t the evi dent and plain Text of S cripture, why does he not ( as I said) com mand the E u char i st to be received at S u pp er - tim e ? For the S cr iptu r es mention that C hrist did so . How much better should L u ther believe, that this Institution of the Church, in giving the C om m u n i on to the Lai ty under one Kind, was done by the A uthority of God, not by any human Invention, as it was by God ’ s A uthority insti tu ted that it shoul d be received when the People are fasting : For as S t. A u g u sti n says, I t has pl eased the H oly Ghost, that the B ody of ou r Lor d , whi ch, by the Ap ostl es, was r ec ei ved after other Meats, shou ld , i n the C hu r ch, be r ec ei ved fasti n g , befor e an y other Meats ? ! It i s very probable , that the H ol y Ghost, whi ch governs the C hurch of C hrist, as he has changed the Time of r e c ei vin g the S acr am en t, from S u pp er , to the M or n i n g ,
224 The S acr am en t of the Al tar fastin g , has also changed the Lai ty ’ s receiving under both, to the c om m u n i cati n g under on e Kind : F or he that could change the on e, why could he n ot also alter the other . I/ uther shews plainly in this Pl ace, that his I n ten tion i s to flatter the B ohem i an s, whose Perfidi ou s ness he before detested : For none of those, whom he calls Pap i sts, and F l atter er s of the P ope, do so much flatter the Rom an Prelates , as Lu ther fiatter s the very S cum of the B ohem ian C ommonalty ; and not without Reason in deed ; for he foresees that the Ger m an s, (whom he for merly deceived under the Form of a simple S heep ,) would reject him, as soon as they should perceive him to be a devouring Wolf . A n d therefore he insinuates him self into the E steem of the B ohem i an s, and makes him self Friends of the Mam m on of Iniquity * ( as much as he is able, ) that when he is banished his own C ountry, he may pass into that of those, into whose E rrors he has already entered . A n d that some remarkable A ction may render him more commendable to them when he goes, he endeavours to extinguish all the Force and A uthority of E cc l esiasti cal C u stom s, and so, in the C onclusion , to ruin all, if his D esign s should take ; which God forbid ! He aims at greater Things than he can expect to ac complish ; and therefore pleads for the Lai ty, though his Thoughts are quite contrary to what he pretends ; for though he sweetly offers them B r ead in the one Hand, yet he holds a S c ou r g ef for them in the other . In the first Place, he is altogether for the Lai ty ’ s being adm itted to receive under both Kinds : (An d who would not think , that he thereby endeavours to increase their D evotion towards the S acr am en t? ) B u t look a little further what he drives at : For at last he brings his B usiness so far, as *Ln . xvi . 9 . fLu . xi . 1 1 .
D e S acr am en to E u char istice 225 Nam qui alterum mutare potu it, cur n on alterare potu er it et alterum ? H oc loco plane se osten dit Lu ther u s, quid ag itet in animo, qu u m B oem os, quorum perfidi am p r idem exe c r abatu r , nunc tam blande vi ci ssim dem u l c eat . Neque enim qu i squ am corum quos ille papistas appellat, et adu l ator es P on tific i s, ita Romano bl an ditu r antistiti , quomodo Lu ther u s eti am fze c i B oem icae pl ebi s adu l atu r . Nc c id tamem ab re : videt enim brevi fore u t Germani , quibus pr idem per spec iem ovinae sim pl ic itati s imposuit, ag ni tu m tandem l u pu m sint ej ectu r i ; atque ideo B oem i s ante se i n sin u at, ac sibi , quoad potest, am i cos faci t de m am m on a i n iqu i tati s, u t in quorum imm ig r avit errores, extor r i s al iqu an do sua, il l or u m immigrare sin atu r in patr i am . A d quos u t ob fac in u s al iqu od insigne ven i at c om m en datior , c on atu r interim eccl esi astic ae c on su etu dinis omn em ‘vim atque au ctor itatem extin gu er e ; post, si id (quod omen aver tan t S uperi feliciter c i c esser it, con c u ssu r u s omnia . Lon g i u s enim destin at, quam q u o pu tatu r tendere ; atque ita causam agit l aic or u m , u t longe m editetu r aliud , quam p r es se fert : quibus qu an tu m vi s blande p or r ig at altera manu panem, altera tame n g estat sc or p ion em . Nam multis primum verbis agit u t laici per m ittan tu r u tr am qu e spec iem sum ere . E t quis nunc non c r edet hoc eu m c on ar i , u t l aicor u m c u l tu m erga sacra mentum adau g eat ? Verum p au l i sper observa quo ten dat : nam tandem sic rem totam c l au dit, u t id quoque per m itti p ostu l et, n e laici c om m u n ic ar e cogan tu r in P aschate, neve ullum eis su m en dae E ucharisties tempus i n di c atu r , sed liber quisque suo r el in q u atu r arbitrio ; imo vero, u t n e sazp i u s in tota vita q u i squ am sumat, quam semel , idqu e n on ante extremum vitae diem, qui et
226 The S acr am en t of the A l tar to desire , that they may not be obliged to receive at E aster ; and that no Time may be appointed them for receiving, but that every Man may be left to his own D iscreti on ; nay further, That n on e shou ld r ecei ve m or e than on c e, i n hi s whol e L ife, an d that at the D ay of hi s D eath ; which is uncertain, and at which many are n ot able to receive . S o, he that pretended to stand for the com m u n i cati n g un der both Kinds, recommends the quite C ontrary, to wit, That i t m ay be l awfu l for them n ever to r ec ei ve u n der any Kind ; and he esteems it an excel lent Liberty, that the People may be altogether freed from receiving the S acr am en t at al l . Wherefore, thou gh this S e rp en t seems to flatter you with an amiable A spect ; yet that venomous Tail of his seeks to sting you : For he makes it plainly appear, that he is more concerned for the People ’ s receiving un der one Kind, than for their abstaining from both . A n d even as the old S erp en t, being cast out of Heaven , en vyed Man ’ s Happin ess in Par adi se ; so L u ther , being fallen, by his own S in , under the Penalty of E xc om m u n i cati on , ( and thereby deprived of the wholesome and life - giving C om m u n i on under both Kinds , ) em deavou r s to entrap all others in the same S nare ; in Order , that , being freed from the Obligation of r ec ei v ing under both Kinds, they may, by little and little, bring themselves under no Kind at all . A n d the further you advance in reading his Libel , the more you will discover this detestable Fetch of his . about Graneubetanttation H E makes it a second C aptivity, that any Man should be forbidden to believe, that the true B r ead and true Wi n e remain after C onsecration : S o that in this , ( c on
228 The S acr am en t of the A l tar tr ary to the B elief of the whole Christian World, both now, and for so many A ges past, ) he endeavours to per suade, that the B ody and B l ood of C hrist are after such a Manner in the E u char i st, that the S ubstance of true B r ead and true Win e remains still after C onsecration . I suppose, afterwards, when it pleases him, he will deny the S ubstance of the B ody and B l ood to be there , when he has a Mind to change hi s Opinion, as he has three Times done already ; and yet he feigns that he teaches those Things, as bein g m oved wi th P i ty towar ds the C ap tivi ty ofthe Israelites , i n whi ch they ar e kep t S laves to B abylon . Thus he calls the whole C hurch, B abyl on , and the Faith of C hrist , S l aver y : A n d this merciful Man offers Liber ty to all those, who will divide them selves from the C hurch, and become corrupted with the Infection of this rotten and separated Member : B u t it is worth our While to know by what Means he invites People to this more than servile Liberty . He esteems this to be his greatest and chiefest Reason, to wit, That S cr iptu r e i s n ot to be for c ed, ei ther by M en or A n g el s ; bu t to be kep t i n the m ost sim p l e S ig n ifi cati on that can be : A n d ( says he) u n l ess for som e m an i fest Ci r cu m stan c es r eq u i r in g , i t i s n ot to be taken other wi se than i n i ts pr op er an d g r am m ati cal S en se ; l est Oc casi on shou ld be g i ven to the A dver sar i es to u n der val u e the whol e S cr ip tu r es : B u t ( says he) the D i vi n e Wor ds ar e for c ed , ifthat whi ch C hrist cal l ed B read, be taken for the A c ciden ts of B read ; an d what he cal l ed Wine, for the F or m ofWine : Ther efor e, by al l M ean s, the tr u e B read an d tr u e Wine r em ai n u p on the A l tar , l est Vi ol en c e be don e to C hr ist ’ s Wor ds, if the S pecies be taken for the S ubstance . F or , ( say s he) seein g that the E vangelists so p l ai n ly wr ite, that C hr i st took B read , an d bl essed i t; an d, after war ds, i n the B ook of the A cts , an d by Pau l , i t i s cal l ed B read , we ou ght to take
D e S acr am en to E u char isti ce 229 credit C hristianus orbis, ac multis retro saecu l i s cr edidit, persuadere c on atu r Lu ther u s in E u char i sti a sic esse C hristi corpus et sanguinem, u t tam en substantia veri panis ver iq u e vini r em an eat ; posthac , op in or , qu um l ibebit, corporis al iqu an do substantiam san gu i n i squ e n egatu r u s, tanquam post in melius mutata sententia, qu em adm odu m ter ante j am fecit, nempe in I n du l g en tii s, in potestate Pon tifici s, et c om m u n i on e l aicor u m . I n ter ea se fin g it ista docere, m otu m V idelicet miseri cordi a c apti vitati s, qua populus I sr ael i tic u s ser vi at B abyl on i . Ita totam E ccl esi am appellat B abyl on em ; E cclesias fidem vocat ser vitu tem , et homo m i ser ic or s of ert l iber tatem omn ibus qui vel in t ab E cclesia sepa rari , et i sti u s putridi et absci si membri contagione c or r u m p i . A t quibus modis in vitat in hanc plus quam servilem l iber tatem , Op er as pretium est c ogn os cere . Mag n am c en set ac primariam rationem, quod verbis divinis non est ulla fac i en da vis neque per homi nem, neque per angelum, “sed quantum fier i potest, ” in qu it, “in simplicissima sign ific ati on e servanda sunt, et, nisi manifesta ci r c u ms tan ti a cogat extra g r am m atic am et p r op r i am , acc ip i en da non sunt, n e d etur adver sar ii s oc casio u n iver sam S c r iptu r am el u den di . A t vi s, ” in qu it, “fit verbis divinis , si , quod C hristus ipse vocat panem, hoc nos dic am u s in tel l ig i panis acciden ti a, et, quod ille vinum vocat , hoc nos di c am u s esse tantum vini speci em . Omn ibus ergo modis verus panis , ac verum vinum r estat in altari , n e verbis C hristi fiat vis , si species sum atu r pro substantia . Nam qu u m evangelistas clare scr iban t, ” in qu it, “C hr i stu m acc epi sse panem, ac ben edixi sse, et A ctu u m liber, et Paulus panem de in c eps appellent, ver u m opor tet i n tel l ig i panem ver um q u e vinum, sicu t
230 The S acr amen t of the A l tar i t for tr u e B read, an d tr u e Wine, as a tr u e C hali c e . F or they do n ot say themsel ves, that the C hali ce i s tr ansu bstan ti ated . This is L u ther ’ s great, and (as he says) his chief Reason ; which I hope so to handle, as to give all Men to understand, of how little C onsequence it is . For in the first Place, though the E van g eli sts had plainly said, what he says they did ; yet that does not prove any Thing clearly for him ; but on the C ontrary, they say nothing in any Place that may seem to favour his S ide . D o n ot they wr ite ( says he) that he took B read, an d bl essed i t? A n d what does that argue ? We confess he took B read, and blessed it ; B u t that he gave B read to his D isciples, after he had m ade it hi s B ody, we flatly deny ; and the E van g eli sts do not say he did : That this may more evi den tl y appear, and that there may be less Room left for Wrangling ; l et us hear the E van g eli sts themselves St . Mathew ’ s Words are these, Whi l e they wer e at S u p p er , J esus took B read an d bl essed i t, an d br ake i t, an d gave i t to hi s D i scipl es, sayi n g , take, an d eat, thi s i s m y B ody : A n d takin g the C hali c e, he g ave Than ks, an d gave i t to them , sayi n g , dr in k ye al l ofthi s ; Thi s i s m y B lood of the New Testam en t, whi ch i s shed for m an y, for the Rem i ssi on ofS i n s . * B u t S t . Mar k ’ s Words are these, A n d whi l e they wer e eati n g , J esu s took B read, an d bl essed an d br ake i t, an d gave to them , an d said, take, eat, Thi s i s m y B ody : A n d when he had taken the C hali c e, an d g i ven Than ks, he gave i t to them ; an d they al l dr an k ofi t: A n d he said u n to them , Thi s i s m y B l ood of the n ew Testam en t whi ch i s shed for m an y . ) L St. Lu ke has it after this M anner, A n d he took B read, an d gave Than ks, an d br ake i t, an d gave u n to them , sayin g, Thi s i s m y Body whi ch i s g i ven for you : Thi s do in Rem em br an c e of m e ; likewi se al so the C hali ce, “Matt . xxvi . 26- 29 . k . xiv. 22 - 24.
232 The S acr am en t of the A ltar after S u pper , sayi n g , Thi s C hali c e i s the New Testa m en t ofm y B lood, whi ch i s shed for you . * In all these Words of the E van g eli sts, I see none , where, after the C onsecration, the S acr am en t is called B r ead and Wi n e ; but only B ody and B l ood . They say, That C hr i st took B read i n hi s H an ds, which we all c on fess but when the A postles received it, it was not called B r ead, but B ody. Yet Lu ther endeavours to rest the Words of the Gosp el , by his own Interpretation . Take, eat; thi s, that is , thi s B r ead, ( says he, which he had taken and broken, ) i s m y B ody . This is L u ther ’ s Inter p r etati on ; not C hrist ’ s Words , nor the S ense of hi s Words . If he had given to his D isciples the B r ead which he took, as he took it ; without converting it into F l esh, before he had them ( in giving it) take an d eat; it had been rightly said, that he gave what he took in hi s Hands ; for then he had given Nothing else : B u t seeing he turned the B r ead into his F l esh, before he gave it the A postles to eat ; they now receive , not the B r ead which he took, but his B ody, into which he had turned the B r ead; as if one who had taken S eed, should give to another the Flower sprun g thereof : H e would n ot give what he had taken, though the common C ourse of Nature had made the one of the other . S o likewi se, much less did C hrist give the A postles what he took in his Hand, when, by so great a Miracle , he turned the B r ead which he took, into his own B ody; unless, per haps, some will say, because A ar on took a Rod in his Hand, and cast a Rod from him ,1 that the S ubstance of the Rod remained with the S er p en t, and the S erpent ’ s S ubstance with the Rod, when it was restored again : If the Rod could not remain with the S erp en t, how much less can the B r ead remain with the F l esh of C hrist, that incomparable S ubstance ? *Ln . xxii . 19 , 20. {E x vii . 12 .
D e S acr am en to E u char istice 233 ealix n ovu m testam en tum i n san gu in e m eo, qu i p r o vobi s fu n detu r . ” E x omnibus his evan g eli star u m verbis nullum video locum, in q u o post con sec r ation em sacramentum voc etu r panis aut vinum, sed tantum corpus et sanguis. D icu n t in manus C hr i stu m su m psi sse pan em , id qu od etiam nunc fatem u r omnes at qu u m r ec iper en t apostoli , non panis n om in atu r , sed corpus . A t Lutherns evangelistas verba in suam partem c on atu r in ter pr etation e tor qu er e : “ A c cip i te, m an du cate, hoe id est, hic panis, in qu it is, quem ac ceper at et fr eg er at, est corpu s m eu m . ” S ed haec est in ter pr etati o Lu ther i , non verba C hristi , neque verbo r um sensus . S i panem quem acc ep it, qu em adm odu m acc ep it, sic tr adidi sset di sc ipu l i s, nec ante con ver ti sset in c ar n em , ac por r ig en do dixi sset : A c cip i te, et m an du cate, recte di c er etu r por r exi sse quod in manus ac c eper at : nihil enim fu i sset aliud, quod por r ig er etu r . A t q u um , pr i u squ am daret A postol i s m an du c an du m , panem convertit in carmem, non j am accip i u n t panem, quem ille su sc ep er at, sed corpus ejue, in quod panem c on ver ter at . Q u em adm odu m si quis, q u u m semen ao c ep i sset, alii daret inde n atu m florem, non id dedisset, quod ac cep er at, qu an q u am n atu r es comm unis ordo alte rum feci sset ex altero, ita multo minus p or r exit apostol i s id quod in manus acc eper at C hristus, q u u m panem sus c eptu m in suam ipse c ar n em tanto ver ti sset miraculo nisi quis c on ten dat, quoniam A aron virge m su m psit in manum, et vi rg am pr oj eci t e manu , ideo cum colubro quoque virga: r e stiti sse substantiam, aut colubri den u o cum recepta virgula . Quod si cum colubro virga restare non potu i t, quanto minus restare potest panis cum carne C hristi tam incomparabili substantia ?
234 The S acr am en t of the A ltar A s for what I/u ther argues , or rather tr ifles, to shew the S implicity of his own Faith ; when of the Wi n e, C hrist does not say, H c c , est S an gu i s m eu s, but, H i e, est S an g u is m eu s : I wonder why it should enter into any M an ’ s Mind to write thus : For who sees not that this makes Nothing at all for him, nay, rather, does it not make against him ? It had seemed more for his Purpose , if C hrist had said , H c c est S an g u i s m eu s : For then he might have had some C olour at least, whereby he might have referred the A r ti cl e ofD em on str atin g to the Wi n e . B u t now, though Wi n e is of the n eu ter Gen d er ; yet C hr ist did not say H c c , but H i e est S an g u i s m eu s . A n d though B r ead is of the m ascu lin e Gen der , yet, notwithstanding, he says , H c c est C orpu s m eu m , not H i e ; that it may appear, by both A r ti c l es, that he did not mean to give either B r ead or Win e, but his own B ody and B l ood . Is it not very ridiculous, that L u ther should imagine this Pronoun H 0 c , not to be by C hrist ’ s Intention referred to the B ody, but only for the C on ven i en cy of the Gr eek and Lati n Tongues ; and there fore sends u s back to the H ebr ew ? For the H ebr ew, if it has not the n eu ter Gen d er , cannot so conveniently de clare to what C hr i st has referred this A r ti cl e, as the Gr eek or Lati n can do . For though in the H ebr ew, the A r ti cl e should be of the m ascu li n e Gen der , that is , H i e est C orp u s m eu m ; nevertheless, the Matter would be left doubtful , because that S peech might seem forced by the Necessity of the Language, which has no n eu ter Gen der . B u t because B r ead and B ody are of different Gen der s in the L ati n ; he that translated it from the Gr eek should have j oined the A r ti cl e wi th P an i s, if he had not found that the E van g eli cal D emonstration was made of the B ody . Moreover, when L u ther confesseth that the same D if er ence of Gender is in the Gr eek, he might easily know
236 The S ac r am en t of the A l tar that when the E van g eli sts wr it in Gr eek, they would have put in the A rticle relating to the B read, if they had not known our Lord ’ s Mind ; but they were willing to teach the C hr i stian s, by the A rticle relating to the B ody, that , in the C ommunion, C hrist did not give B read to hi s D i scipl es, bu t his B ody . Wh erefore, when Lu ther , to serve his own Turn, i n ter pr ets the Words of C hr ist, ‘ take, and eat , this is my B ody, ’ that is , this B read he had taken ; not I , but C hrist himself teacheth us to understand the C ontrary, to wit, That what was given them, and seemed to, be B read, was not B read, but his own B ody ; if the E van g eli sts have rightly delivered us the Words of C hr i st : For otherwise he should say, not H c c , that it might be expounded for H i e, ) but , more properly , H i e P an i s est C orp u s m eu m : By which S aying he might teach his D i scipl es, what [ father now teaches to the whole Church , to wit, ‘That in the E ucharist the B ody of C hr i st, and the B read are together . ’ B u t ou r S aviour spoke after that M anner, that he might plainly manifest, that only his B ody is in the S acrament, and no B read . H ow magn ificently L u ther brings in this for hi s A rgu ment, ‘That C hrist speaks of the C halice, which no body holds to be transubstantiated I admire the Man is not ashamed of so unmeasurable a Folly. When C hrist says, Thi s C hali c e ofthe New Testam en t i s m y B l ood, what does that make for Lu ther ? For what else does it sign ify, but that what he gave his D isciples to drink , was his own B l ood ? Will I/u ther make appear, by those Words of C hr i st, that the S u bstan ce of Win e remains , because Christ speaks of B lood ? Or that the Win e can
D e S acr am en to E u char istice 237 Gr aeci s, facile potu i sset cognoscere evangelistas , qui sc r ipser u n t grwce, ar tic u l um fuisse positu r os, qui refer r etu r ad panem, nisi quod c on scii mentis dominicas, vol u er u n t adm on er e C hristianos articulo corporis , C hr i stu m n on pan em com m un icasse di scipu li s, sed corpus. Q u am obr em quod Lutherns i nter pr etatu r in suam partem verba C hristi : “ A ccip i te et m an du cate, hoe est corpu s m eu m , ” id est, hi e p an i s quem acc eper at, non ego, sed ipse C hristus, contra doc et sua verba in tel l ig i , nempe hoc, quod ei s por r ig ebat, non esse quod ipsi s videbatu r panem, sed suum ipsi u s corpus ( si recte C hristi verba recensent evangelistas) . Nam al ioq u i poter at dicere, non : H oe, quod expon er etu r id est H i c , sed aperte potiu s : H i e pan i s est c or p u s m eu m ; quo sermone doce r en tu r di sc ipu l i id quod nunc Lu ther u s doc et E ccl esiam , n empe in E u char i sti a pariter et C hristi esse corpus, et panem . Nunc vero sic l ocu tu s est, u t osten der et mani feste corpus du n taxat, n on panem . Item quod tam m agn ific e transfert ad se Lu ther u s quod C hristus etiam loquitur de calice , quem nemo dic at esse tr an ssu bstan ti atum , m ir or hominem non pudere tam i n tem per an ti s inepties. Q u u m dicit C hristus : “ H i c cali x n evi testam en ti i n m eo san gu i n e, quid facit pro Luthero ? Quid enim sign ific at aliud, quam id, quod di sc ipu l i s pr op in abat in calice, suum esse sanguinem ? A n ex hi s C hristi verbis osten det nobis Luthern s manere vini substantiam, quia C hristus loquitur de sanguine, aut vin um in sanguinem non posse mutari , quia adhu c
238 The S acr am en t of the A l tar not be chan ged in to B l ood, because the C hali ce i s still there ? I wish he had chosen to himself some other Matter in which he might have played and sported wi th less D anger . For when he so much excuses the B ohe m i an s and Gr eeks from H er esy; as to call all the R om an C atholi cs Heretics, he shews himself to be a worse H er eti c than either of those ; who not only deny the F ai th which the whole C hu r ch believes , but also per su ades People to believe worse than the Gr eeks or B ohe m i an s ever did . I have thus far disputed these Things , that I might make appear, that what he brags himself to make ou t, cannot be shewn by the Words of C hr i st, and the E vang eli sts ; nay in them the quite contrary i s very clear, to wit, that B r ead is not in the E u char ist. Lu ther speaks of the E ucharist ’ 8 being called B r ead, in the A cts of the A postl es : I desire he would shew us the Place : For my Part, I find none that is not ambigu ous, and which seems not rather to speak of a comm on B an q u et, than the S acr am en t. Yet I confess the A p ostl e speaks more than once of B r ead , following the C ustom of S cr iptu r e (which sometimes calls a Thing, not by the Name of what it is, but of what it was before ; as when it says, the Rod of A aron d evou r ed the Reds of the M agicians which then were not Rods , but S erpents ) or else perhaps content to call it what in S pecies it ap pear ed to be ; deeming it sufficient to feed the People with Mil kq L who as yet were but inexpert in Faith ; and at first to exact Nothing of them, but even to believe that the B ody of C hr i st was, after any Manner whatsoever, in the S acrament ; but afterwards, by little and little, to feed them with more solid Meat , as they gathered more S trength in C hr i st. He might as well have also touched, in the A c ts of the A postl es, at that Place where S t. Peter , speaking to the people, and insinuating in to *E x vii . 1 2. fH eb . v. 12 .
240 The S acr am en t of the A l tar them the Faith of C hr i st; yet durst not as yet say any Thing openly of his D ivinity : S o cautious were they then of exposing rashly the sacred Mysteries to the People . B u t C hr i st made no D ifficulty to teach his A p ostl es, (whom he had for so long Time instructed in his own D octrine, ) the very first Time he instituted the blessed S acrament, that the S ubstance of B read and Wine r e mained no longer in the S acrament ; but that the Forms of both remaining, the S ubstance was changed into his B ody and B lood : Which he so plainly taught, that it is a very strange Thing that an y B ody should ever after call in Question a Thing so clear in itself . For how could he have more properly said, that no B read and Wine remain in the S acrament, than when he said, This is m y B ody ? for he did not say, m y B ody i s i n this, or, wi th thi s whi ch you see i s m y B ody ; as if it shoul d consist in the B read, or Wi th the B read ; but thi s ( says he) i s m y B ody, manifestly declaring, ( to shut the Mouth of every yelping Fellow) what he then gave, to be his B ody . A n d though he had called what he gave to the A p ostl es, by the Name of B read, (which he did not) yet, when he should teach them that were present, that what he called B read, was no other Thing but his B ody, ( into which, by his Will , the B read was changed) none could doubt what C hr i st would have us understand by the Name of B read . A n d that very C ircumstance (for D u ther admits C i r c u m stan c esf eviden tly declares , that the Word B read , when the B read is turned into Flesh , signifies, (without an y Violence to the Text,) the Species , not the S ubstance of B read ; unless L u ther will stick so closely to the Propriety of Words , as to believe, that C hr i st was wheaten, or barley B read in Heaven ; because he says of himself, I am the B r ead whi ch de scen ded fr om H eaven ; * or that he was a Vine laden *John vi . 41 .
D e S acr am en to E u char isti ee 241 tavit, panis vinique n on am pliu s restare substantiam, sed manente utriusque specie, u tr u m qu e tam en , et panem, et vinum in corpus et sanguinem suum esse con ver su m . Quod tam aperte doc u it, u t plane m i r an dum sit exor tu m qu em qu e postea, qui rem tam cl ar am r u r su s voc ar et in dubium . Quomodo enim potu i sset aperti u s dicere nihil illio remanere panis, quam qu u m dixit : H oe est c orpu s m eu m ? ” Non enim dixit : I n hoe est corpus meum, aut : C u m hoe, quod videti s, est corpus meum, tanquam in pane aut simul cum pane con si ster et, sed : “ H c c est, ” in qu it, c orpu s m eu m , n im i r u m decl ar an s manifeste, u t os c u j u squ e g ann i en ti s obstr u er et, hoc totum, quod por r ig ebat, ipsi u s corpus esse . Quod ita por r ec tum apostol i s, eti am si , quod non fecit , nomine panis appel l as set, tam en , q u um simul adm on er et au di en tes idipsu m , quod voc ar et panem, nihil aliud esse, quam suum corpus, in quod totue fu er at, ipso mutante, conversus , nemo potu isset dubitare quid C hristus vellet panis ap p el l ati on e sign ific ar e ; eoqu e c i r c u m stan ti a ipsa (nam c i r c u m stan ti am Luthern s adm ittit) decl ar at evidenter voc abu l u m panis, qu u m panis m u tatu r in c ar n em absque ulla vi ol en ti a facta verbo divino , panis sig n ific ar e spec i em , non substanti am : nisi Lutherns adeo i n haer eat pr opr i etati verbor u m , u t C hr i stu m c r edat in c cel i s quoque fuisse panem triticeum, aut hor deaceu m , prop te r ea quod ipse dicit de se : “ E go su m pan i s, q u i de cael o desc en di ; aut veris u vi s on u stam vitem , quia dixit ipse : “ E go su m vi ti s ver a et Pater m eu s ag r i col a est
242 The S acr am en t of the A l tar with real Grapes, because he said , I am the tr u e Vin e, an d m y F ather i s the H u sban dm an fi or that the E lec t shall be rewarded in Heaven with corporal Pleasures, because C hr i st said, I di sp ose u n to you a Ki n g dom , as m y F ather has disp osed u n to m e ; that ye m ay eat an d dr i n k at m y Tabl e i n m y Ki n gdom . + Lu ther takes a deal of Pains to confute the A rguments of the Neoter i es, by which they endeavoured to main tain and prove Transubstantiation, by philosophical Reasons, out of A r istotl e ’ s S chool ; in which he troubles himself more than is requisite : For the C hurch does not believe it, because they dispute it so to be ; but because S he believed so from the B eginning, and that none should stagger about it , decreed that all should so be lieve . They therefore exercise their Wit with philo sophical Reasons , that they may be able to teach that no absurd C onsequence can follow that B elief ; or that the Change of B read into a new S ubstance, does not n eces sar ily leave, but take away the former . Luther says , ‘This D octrine of Transubstantiation, i s risen in the C hurch within these three Hundred Years ; whereas before, for above twelve Hundred Years, from C hr i st ’ s B irth, the C hurch had true Faith : Yet all this while was there not any Mention made of this pro dig i ou s ( as he calls it) Word Tr an su bstan ti ation . ’ If he strives thus onl y about the Word , I suppose none wi ll trouble him to believe Transubstantiation ; if he will but believe, that the B read is changed into the Flesh, and the Wine into the B lood and that Nothing remains of the B read and Wine but the S pecies ; which, in one Word, is the Meaning of those who put in the Word Transubstantiation . B u t after the C hurch decreed that to be true , ( though this were the first Time it shoul d be ordained) yet if the A ntients did not believe the C on *John xv. 1 . 1—Ln . xxii . 29 , 30.
244 The S acr am en t of the A ltar tr ary, although none should ever thin k of that Thin g be fore ; why should not I/u ther be obedient to the present D ecree of the whole C hurch, as persuaded that this i s revealed n ow at length to the C hurch, which was hidden before ? F or as the S pirit inspires where he is will ing so likewise he inspires when he pleases . B u t this is n o such Thing, as I/u ther feig n s, when he says, ‘ this D octrine of Transubstantiation i s risen up within three hundred Years . ’ Yet let it n ot vex hi m to allow u s four hundred Years ; for I think it is so many since H u go de S an cta Vi ctor e writ a B ook of the S acra ments, in which, though not the Word Tr an su bstan tia ti on itself, yet the S ense of his Words you may fin d to be of the same E ffect . ‘Though this S acrament ( says he) is bu t one, yet three dif erent Things are proposed in it ; to wit, the visible Form, the real Presence of the B ody, and Virtue of spiritual Grace You see how he puts down the A ccidents of B read, not the S ubstance ; an d the true S ubstance of the B ody, n ot the Form ; an d more plainly a little further : ‘For what we see is the S pecies of the B read and Wine ; but what we believe to be un der that Form, is the very B ody of C hrist which hung on the C ross, and the very B lood which flowed from his S ide . ’ He is yet clearer in another Place, where he says, ‘ by the Word of S an ctific ation , the true S ubstance of B read and Wine is turned, or changed into the true B ody and B lood of C hr i st, only the Form of B read and Wine remaining, and the S ubstan ce passing into another S ubstance . ’ B y this, then, it appears, that this D octrine of Tr an su bstan tiati on is somewhat more an tien t than Luther pretends it to be . B u t, for the bet ter Con firmation of this, we will shew, that what he thinks to be risen within three hundred Years, was the Faith of the holy Fathers above a thousan d Years ag o *John iii . 8.
D e S acr am en to E u char istice 245 l atum E cclesias, quod ante l atu i sset ? Sp i r itu s enim, sieut u bi vu l t spir at, ita spir at et quan do vult . Nu n c vero n on est i stu d tam novum, quam fin g i t Ln ther u s : qui qu u m hanc Tr an ssu bstan ti ati on i s fidem natam esse dic at ab an nis hine tr ecen ti s, n e g r avetu r , q u aeso, concedere saltem qu adr i n gen tos ; totidem enim opi n or efll u xi sse post edi tu m ab H ugon e de S anoto- Vic tore l ibr u m de sac r am en ti s, in qu o Transsubstantia tion i s, etsi n on verbu m, rem certe, et sen ten ti am r e perias. A it en im hoe pacto : “Jam qu u m unum si t sacramentum, tria ibi discreta pr opon u n tu r , species Videlicet vi sibil i s, et veritas corporis , et virtus gratias sp i r itu al i s. ” Vides u t sp eci em pon at panis, non veri tatem, ver itatem corporis, non speci em . E t paulo post ap er ti u s “ Q uod enim videm u s, species est panis et vini ; quod autem sub specie ill a c r edim u s, verum corpus C hristi est, et verus sanguis Jesu C hristi , quod p ep en dit in cruce, et qui flu xit de latere . ” Item alio loco multo adhu c m an ifestiu s, qu u m ait : Verbo san ctific ati on i s vera panis , et vera vini substantia in verum corpus et sanguinem C hristi c on ver titu r , sola spec ie panis et vini reman en te, et substantia in substantiam transe unte . ” C l ar u m est ig i tur hanc Tr an ssu bstan ti ation i s fidem an tiqu i or em esse al iqu an to, quam fin g it Lu ther u s. A t u t cu m astr in gam u s for tiu s, osten dem u s quod ille n atu m vider i vult intra an n oe trecentos, fidem fuisse san cti ssi morum Patrum ab ann is hine plus mille . Constat enim an te an noe plus mille sic c r edidi sse fidel es, u t fater en tu r totem panis vinique substantiam in Christi corpus et
246 The S acr am en t of the A l tar F or it is certain, that the Faithful, for above a thou sand Years past, did believe the S ubstance of B read and Wine to be truly changed into the B ody and B lood of J esu s C hr i st: Which makes me wonder that L u ther is n ot ashamed of himself, to say, that this B elief of Tr an su bstan tiati on has not been in the C hurch above three hundred Years . Who kn ows not that E u sebiu s E m i s sen us dyed above six hun dred Years since ? who, as if dreading the B roaching of such false O pinions said, ‘Let all D oubt or A mbiguity of Unfaithfulness be put away For he that is the A uthor of the Gift, is also the Witness of the Truth ; now the invisible Priest converteth, by his secret Power, the visible C reatures into his own B ody an d B lood ; saying, take and eat, this is m y B ody . ’ D oes not this holy Man say, most plainly, that the S ubstance of the B read and Wine is changed into the S ubstance of the B ody and B lood What could be said more to the Pur pose , than this of S t . A u g u stin e ? ‘We honour, ( says he) invisible Things , vi z . the Flesh and B lood in the visible Form of the B read and Wine He does not say, in the B read and Wine, but in the Form of the B read and Wine . Lu ther denies that the Form of B read is to be called B read ; and does he think that S t . A usti n should call that the Form of B r ead,whi ch i s the true S ubstan ce of B read? Likewise S t . Gr eg or y Ni ssen u s says, ‘That before the C onsecration, it is but B read ; but when it i s consecrated by Mystery, it is made, and called the B ody of C hr ist: ’ H i s saying that it i s so, before the C onsecration, gives us to un derstand, that it is not so after the C onsecration . Theophil u s also, expounding the Words, H c c est, (fie . This is my B ody, (20 . says, ‘This, which now I give, and you rec eive . For the B read i s n ot a Figure only of the B ody of C hr i st, but is changed into the proper B ody of the Flesh and B lood of C hrist and a while after, ‘ If we did see, says he, the Flesh and Blood of C hr i st, we
248 The S acr am en t of the A l tar could n ot endure to eat them : Therefore our Lord con descending to our Weakness , preserves the Forms of the B read and Wine ; but changeth the B read and Wine into his own true Flesh and B lood . ’ Lu ther is here, by this good and learned M an , twice beaten down : For first he teaches , that that A rticle, H c c , is not to be understood as Lu ther interprets it ; H 0 c , that is, H i e Pan is ; but H c c, that is , This which now I give, and ye take : S ec on dl y, he plainly says , that the Form of the B read and Wine remains , and that the S ubstance is changed into the B ody and B lood . B u t what else do they mean, who use the Word Tr an su bstan ti ati on , than what Theophil u s said, not within three hundred Years , for he was dead some hundred Years before the Word Tr an su bstan ti ati on was used ? What need I mention S t. C yr il , who not only affirms the same Thing, but almost in the same Words ? ‘For God, ( says he) condescending to ou r Frail ties, lest we should abhor Flesh and B l ood on the holy A ltars, in fu seth the Force of Life into what i s offered, by changing them into the Truth of his own proper Flesh . ’ M oreover, that none should say that the antient Fathers believed the B ody of C hr i st in such Manner, to be in the E ucharist, as that the B read should still remain ; n ot only those Things which I have related, do fully evince, ( as plainly they do) but likewise what we have above related out of S t. A m br ose, when he said, ‘ that although the Form of B read and Wine is seen, nevertheless we are to believe that there is n othing else after the C on secration, but the B ody and B lood of C hr ist. ’ You see how the Holy Father says, ‘That it is not only the B ody and B lood ; but that there is nothing be sides them, although the B read and “l ine seem to be there . ’ A n d he that speaks this , has n ot said it within three hundred Years past , in which Lu ther feign s that this B elief of Tr an su bstan ti ati on is risen ; but he spoke it above a thou sand Years ago :
D e S acr am en to E u char isti e: 249 panis et Vini c on ser vat ; sed panem et vinum in verita tem convertit carnis et sang u inis . ” Hic vir p ii ssim u s, idem qu e doc tissim u s bis premit Lu ther u m ; nam pri mum il l u m ar ti c u l u m hoe doc et, n on quomodo Lutherns doc et expon en du m , hoe, id est hi c pan i s, sed hoe, id est id qu od n u n c eg o do, et q u od vos sa m i ti s ; dein de dicit aperte panis et vini non nisi species esse con ser vatas, su bstan ti as ipsas in corpus et sanguinem esse conversas . A t quid aliud vol u n t, qui pon u n t Transsubstantia ti on em , quam quod hic ait Theophilus , non intra tre centos hos sunos p r oxim os, quippe qui defunctus est aliqu od an n or u m c en ten ar ii s prius quam Tr an ssu bstan ti ati on i s voc abu l u m n asc er etu r ? Quid beatum C yril lum c om m em or em ? Qui non tantum dicit idem, sed ferme eti am eodem modo ? A it enim : “Ne hor r er em u s c ar n em et sanguinem apposita sac r i s al tar ibu s, con descendens, D eus, fr ag ilitatibu s n ostr i s, infundis obl ati s vi m vitae, con ver ten s ea in ver itatem propriae carnis . Pr aeter ea, me quis dic at an tiq u os Patres cr edidi sse sic in E u char i stia corpus esse Christi , u t tam en rema n eat panis , non ista tantum obstant, quae dixim u s (qu a tamem obstant aper ti ssim e ) , sed il l u d p r aeter ea, quod supra dixim u s ex Am brosio, qu u m ait : “Licet fig ur a panis et vini videatur, nihil tam en aliud, quam caro Christi , et sang u is post c on secr ati on em credendum est . ” Videti s u t beati ssim u s Pater dic at non tantum corpus esse et sanguinem, sed etiam nihil esse p r aeter ea, licet panis et vinum esse videatur . E t i stu d qui dicit, non intra trecentos ann os pr oxim os hoc dixit, intra quos hanc Tr an sm u tation is fidem exortam esse fin g it Ln ther u s, se d dixit ante an n os plus mille .
250 The S acr am en t of the A l tar Neither can I believe that any of the antient Fathers woul d have approved that fine C omparison of Lu ther ’ s , viz . of I r on j oi n ed wi th the F i r e . F or none ever said that Iron is so converted into Fire, that the Form only remains, the S ubstance of the Iron being changed into that of the Fire ; which was the O pinion of all the A ncients concerning B re ad and the Flesh of C hr i st; or if, perhaps, any one Person was of a contrary S entiment, yet on e S wal l ow m akes n o S u m m er : A n d that Man , who ever he was, is rather to be excused for not perfectly seeing through a M atter, at that Time not in D ispute, than to be imi tated, contrary to the B elief of all the rest of the whole Church, and of so many A ges, in a Thi ng which he, if a good Man , and n ow alive, without D oubt, would not argue against : For that Man that has so much E ste em for the B ody of C hr i st, as he ought to have, will more easily consent that any other two S ubstances should r e main together, than that any other B ody remain, mixed with the adorable B ody of C hr i st; seeing there is no S ubstance worthy to be mixed with that S ubstance which created all S ubstances . Moreover, I suppose that the primitive Fathers would as little approve that C ompari son of Lu ther , by which he intends to prove, that the B read remains with the Flesh, as God did remain with Man in the Person of C hr i st: For as the most learned and the most holy of the ancient Fathers confess , in divers Places, that the B read is changed into Flesh ; so none of them were so wi cked or ignorant , as to think that the Humanity was changed into the D ivinity ; u n le ss perhaps I /u ther will devise a new Person, that as God took on him the Nature of Man , so God and M an take the Nature of B read , and Wine ; which if he believes, he shall be accounted an Heretic, by all those who are n ot Heretics .