The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity
Thus 2 Chron. 6.24. these words according to the vulgar version, Si conversi egerint poenitentiam, if converting themselves they do penitence, show that true penitence consisteth in conversion. And 2 Chron. 7.14. Si populus egerit poenitentiam à viis pessimis; If the people do penitence from their wicked ways; So then doing penitence, is turning away from evil, to follow good works. And when Christ said that he came to call sinners to repentance, or penitence, he means not that he came to call men to bear satisfactory pains, but to amend their lives. And, Rev. 9.20. Non egerunt poenitentiam, they repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship Devils and Idols, &c. For then an idolater doth the works of penitence, when he forsakes idols, to adhere to the true God. But the Pope hath changed amendment of life, into torment, and corporal, and pecuniary pains, because such a penitence is lucrative unto the Clergy, and raiseth their authority. And with such a penitence the Pope may dispense, but cannot dispense with amendment of life, and conversion to God.
Wherefore Pope Leo the X. and the Fathers of the last Council of Lateran, declare open war against God, when (in the Bull Exurge, which is in the end of the Council) they put among the blasphemies and heresies of Luther, that he had said that the best penitence was a new life; that is, that the most acceptable penitence unto God, is to amend ones life, leaving wicked ways, and embracing virtue and the fear of God. By pronouncing an anathema against Luther for speaking so, they excommunicate Christ, and the Apostles and Prophets, who have spoken the same language, as we have seen. These Prelates then should have told us, what penitence is better then a better life. Did they believe that self-whipping, or abstaining from flesh, or pilgrimage, or giving to the Church (that is, to the Friars) are better things then to live holily, and depart from evil? Who knows not that these outward exercises may be done with hypocrisy, and that the Pagans and Mohammedans exceed the Christians in these austerities? But the true amendment of life alone, and without these outward penances, is profitable and acceptable unto God, but the outward penances without a new heart, and without amendment, are a masked profaneness, whereby a man playeth a pageant before God, and payeth him in cringes, putting on the outside of devotion before God, not to please God but men. Bodily exercise profiteth little, (saith the Apostle) but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
Contrition of heart never makes a man proud, since it consisteth in humiliation, but outward penances puff up many men with pride, and some will boast of their humility, even so far as to believe that God is in their debt, and that they have satisfactions to spare. It is the instruction of Jerome to Eustochium, Seek not to appear more humble then thou needest, neither seek glory by flying glory, desiring to please, even in that thou despisest to please, &c. Let not that breed boasting in thee, that thou hast despised the boasting of this world. And upon the death of Blesilla, In many persons humility in clothes, is a sign of a proud mind. There is an arrogant humility. Many stoop that they may rise. Some being lean with fasting, yet are puffed up with pride. Vices will nestle themselves even among sackcloth and ashes. Some that scourge their sides as if they were angry with themselves, flatter themselves in their heart with an imagination, that they have attained a great perfection. Such are those especially, that whip themselves for others; for they believe that they have merits to spare for their neighbors. But this is true penitence, when a man hiding his penitence before men, discovereth it before God, whereby a man makes God the only witness of his tears, and seeks to please him by amendment of life. Such a penitence is a sacrifice of sweet savor before God. And it is the true receipt to mortify sin, and quell the heat of lust. God by his wisdom having so disposed it, that as sin hath brought sorrow into the world, so sorrow should kill sin, tearing by an holy parricide, the womb that bore her. This (by Pope Leo's leave) is better then whipping ones self in public, either for himself or for another. The true way to please God, is not that a man torment his body, but that he change his heart. God forgiveth him that condemneth himself. By a mortal war against our vices, we keep peace with God.
CHAP. 13. In what sense the words Penitence and Satisfaction, are taken in the writings of the Fathers, and that the Penitence of the ancient Church, is much different from the penitences of the Roman Church.
THis word Penitence is taken two ways, in the writings of the Fathers; Sometimes in a proper, sometimes in a figurative sense.
Penitence in the proper sense, is a change of the sinner, consisting in sorrow for sins past, and in amendment for the time to come.
The Roman Decree, in the third Distinction of Penitence, and Lombard in in the fourth Book, in the fourteenth Distinction, bring many texts of the Ancients, which give the definition of Penitence. They allege this sentence of Ambrose, Penitence is to weep for sins past, and to do no more, things that we should weep for. And this of Austin, The satisfaction of penitence, is to cut off the causes of sins, and to give no more access to their suggestions. And of Gregory the I. To do penitence, is to lament the faults committed, and to commit no more, things that need to be lamented. And of Smaragdus, That man doth penitence worthily, that so lamenteth the evils committed, that he committeth no more for the future. They allege also Austin in the Book of Soliloquies, That Penitence is vain, that is defiled with following sins.
Ambrose in the second Book of Penitence, chap. 10. saith that we do penitence, cum dolemus admissa, admittenda excludimus, when we are sorry for sins committed, and exclude those which we might commit in the time to come. This language is consonant to that of Scripture, and to the nature of true penitence, and agreeth with the etymology of the word. For the word penitence, signifieth repentance: Now that man is not truly repenting, who continueth to do evil. And when all is said, true penitence consisteth in amendment of life.
But the Fathers often will take the word Penitence in a figurative sense, using that common and familiar Metonymy, whereby the name of the thing signified is given unto the sign. As when we say, that a man is mourning, when he weareth clothes that are signs of mourning.
Thus words that show joy, are called joy, and faith is taken often for the profession and confession of Faith. In the same manner we say, that a man doth penitence in the Church, when in the presence of the Church he giveth signs of penitence. It is so, that the Fathers call penitence the outward signs, and public professions of repentance; and call those Penitents that make public profession in the Church, that they are Penitents, although very often their heart be not touched with any repentance. For the same reason the Fathers call Penitence, the exemplary pain which a sinner cut off from the Communion, bore in public for a time prefixed by the Ecclesiastical Canons, before he could be reconciled with the Church.
That public penance is also called exomologesis, that is, confession, because the penitent sinner did publicly confess his sin. Wherein the Novatians were different from the Orthodox: For they received not those that were fallen, to public penitence, and kept them forever out of the Communion.
Tertullian hath writ a Book of Penitence, and Ambrose two, where they call Penitence a second remedy after Baptism, and as it were a second plank after the shipwreck. Jerome saith the same. Tertullian and Ambrose hold, that public penance cannot be done but once, and that a man who after he hath fulfilled his penitence, falls into sin again, can no more be received to do penitence: Wherein they use too much rigor.
But that Penitence of the Ancients, had nothing common with the penitences of the Roman Church of this time. For the penitence which the Fathers speak of, was public, and was done according to the public Constitutions and Ecclesiastical Canons, but the penitences of the Roman Church are enjoined in private, and according to the Confessors discretion. 1. For although the Council of Trent approve public penitences, yet they are no more practiced in the Roman Church, as all they that have written of that matter freely acknowledge. 2. The ancient penitence was accomplished before the absolution, or reconciliation to the Church. But the penitences and satisfactions of the Roman Church, commonly are fulfilled after absolution. 3. In old time, while a sinner was accomplishing the time of his penitence, he was not received to the Communion. But in the Roman Church, a penitent is admitted to the Sacrament, while he is performing his penitence. 4. All the penitence of the Ancients, consisted only in the public shame, and in the suspension and removing from the communion for a certain time, not in whipping, or pilgrimages, or fasts enjoined by a Confessor, or pecuniary pains, or rehearsing of the seven Psalms, or saying a limited number of Pater's, interlaced with Ave's, in an unknown tongue. What was the countenance, and what the humiliation of the old penitents, Tertullian teacheth us, in chap. 13. of the Book of Pudicity, and in the Book of Penitence, in the ninth chapter. 5. In those days penitence was not done by Attorney, and a man whipt not himself, and fasted not for another. 6. Neither were corporal pains changed into pecuniary. 7. And one Confessor did not change the penance enjoined by another. 8. It is to be noted, that in the writings of the Fathers, the word Penitence is found in the singular only, because Penitence in their time was simple, and consisted only in public humiliation. They did not yet know those pye-bald penances, consisting in so many Articles, as those which we have seen before, when a penitent is enjoined to fast so many days, to ride neither in a coach nor on horse-back, to eat the leavings of Grey-hounds, and to receive so many lashes singing melodiously. 9. If any penitent to the public penitence added private fasts, and more frequent prayers, it was done by a voluntary humiliation, not by the injunction of a Confessor. 10. In the writings of the Ancients, no mention is found of a Sacrament of Penitence, composed with four pieces, Contrition, Confession, Satisfaction and Absolution, whereof the three first are the matter, and the fourth the form. This came out of the forge of Schoolmen, who going about to polish Popery, and to give it a form, have beset it with thorns, and have smothered the truth. And that this doctrine was unknown among the Ancients, it appeareth by the Books which Tertullian and Ambrose writ of penitence, where for examples of penitence, they bring the Ninevites and the Israelites, whom God hath so often summoned and invited to repentance, and the Jews, whom John the Baptist exhorted to penitence, and Saint Peter who lamented for his sin; whereas our Adversaries hold, that in those days the Sacrament of Penitence was not yet instituted. 11. I pass by a multitude of errors about Contrition, as that which the Doctors commonly teach, that Contrition is the meritorious cause of Justification, and deserves it, at least by congruity. 12. That Attrition is an imperfect Contrition, proceeding not out of the love of God, but out of fear to be punished: That such an Attrition is good, and that by the Absolution, the Attrition goeth for Contrition, as the Council of Trent teacheth, in Session 14. chap. 4. and Bellarmine in the second Book of Penitence, chap. 17, 18. 13. That it is not necessary to have contrition for venial sins, and that one may be absolved from them, though he be not contrite and sorry in his heart for them, as Tolet teacheth in the third Book of the Instruction of Priests, chap. 5. sect. 2. And many the like doctrines, of which there is no trace, neither in the Word of God, nor in the Fathers.
It remains to say something of the sense, in which the Fathers have taken this word Satisfaction. The holy Scripture speaks not of satisfaction towards God. But the Latin Fathers use that language many times, according to the style of the Jurisconsults, who speak of satisfying for debts by paying, and for injuries, by craving forgiveness.
The satisfactions of which the Fathers speak, are either towards God, or towards the Church. Public penitences were satisfactory towards the Church, and reparations of the scandal. So did Austin understand it, in chap. 65. of his Manual to Laurentius, The times of penitence are with good reason constituted by those that govern the Church, to satisfy the Church also, in which only sins are remitted. This must be carefully observed, because our Adversaries allege indifferently the testimonies of the Fathers, in which it is spoken of satisfaction, not discerning whether they speak of satisfaction to God, or to the Church.
The same Fathers speak often of satisfying God, but they speak after the style of the Jurisconsults, which is also usual among the people, for by Satisfaction, they understand acknowledging a fault in words, and asking pardon. Ambrose who had been the Emperors Lieutenant in Lombardy, and Judge of his Courts, understood the terms of Judicature, when he said, Lachrymas Petri lego, satisfactionem non lego; that is, I read of Peters tears, but I read not of his satisfaction. He saith that, because the Gospel relates that Peter wept, but saith not that he craved pardon, or that he confessed his sins. For taking the word satisfaction, for humbling ones soul after the sin committed, in that sense tears are a satisfaction. And the same Father in the second Book of Penitence, chap. 10. speaking of the satisfaction which is done for offenses unto men, saith, that to make satisfaction, a man will humble himself, kiss the offended persons feet, and send his innocent children to ask pardon.
Cyprian hath many such passages: As in the twelfth Epistle, Watching for the satisfaction which is made unto God, and for prayer. And in the 52. Epistle, Trophimus returning to the Church and satisfying, and by the penitence of prayer confessing his sin. And in the 55. Epistle, They hinder that pardon be obtained of Christ by prayers and satisfactions. And in the book of the unity of the Church, They pray to God by full satisfactions. In all these places and many more, it is evident that satisfactions are prayers, whereby the sinner confesseth his sin, and craveth pardon. And the same Father, towards the end of the book to Demetrian a Pagan. We exhort you to satisfy God. There these words satisfy God, cannot signify paying a recompense to God for the temporal pain. For according to the doctrine of the Roman Church, that exhortation cannot be made to a Pagan, who is bound to eternal pain.
Tertullian in the book of Penitence, Satisfactio confession disponitur, Satisfaction is prepared by Confession. This Doctor was learned in the Roman Laws, and knew that satisfaction is made for offenses, by confessing the offense, and asking pardon.
Sometimes the Fathers say, that by amendment of life, and by good works, satisfaction is made unto God, meaning that it is a course acceptable unto God, as Lactantius saith. The man may be brought back and delivered, if he repent of his acts, and being turned to better things, make satisfaction unto God.
If any places of the Fathers be found, where they will have us to redeem and expiate our sins our own selves; as when Ambrose saith, Hast thou money? redeem thy sin, &c. A man's wealth is his redemption. We reverence the ancients so much, as to bear with these improper expressions, not believing that ever they believed that a man's money can be the redemption of his sin. And when the same Ambrose saith to Valentinian, Tu me redemptorem sperabas, Thou didst hope that I should be thy redeemer; and praiseth that Emperor because he called him his Redeemer; that expression and the like, must be corrected by other expressions of his, in which he acknowledgeth no other price of our redemption, but the death of Christ. By redeeming our own sins, he understood only correcting or bringing ourselves to a better course. Of which signification, we have brought many examples out of Scripture. Ambrose, who is the most licentious of all the Fathers in those expressions, shows evidently, that by redemption from sin, he understands a deliverance by amendment, and inward regeneration. For these are his words, in chap. 15. of the first book of Penitence, By the tears of the people and by prayers, they are redeemed from sin, and cleansed in the inward man. This Father is so far from understanding by satisfactions, the torments of Purgatory, that in the same book he maintains that the souls separate from the bodies, cannot be tormented. But our Adversaries gather up the faults of the Fathers, and leave out their virtues; Like flies, that will choose scabs, rather then the sound parts of a body to sit upon. They make use of these improper terms, to persuade men that they are their own redeemers, and that sins are redeemed with money. May we not obtain so much of these Gentlemens kindness, that this honor be deferred unto the eternal Son of God, to have the title of Redeemer attributed unto him alone? Is not this a truth worth dying for? Is it not better to suffer all things, then to impart that praise to any creature, or to believe that all the money of the world is sufficient to be the redemption for one sin?
Ninth Controversy, OF THE SEVENTH BOOK. Of the NECESSITY OF BAPTISM.
CHAP. 1. Cardinal du Perron 's reason for the absolute necessity of Baptism. Examination of the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon that point. How they abuse this text, John 3.5. Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
THE dispute about the necessity of Baptism with water, might easily be composed, if we had to do with equitable persons. For while the Romanists accuse us to have taken away the necessity of Baptism, themselves say such things as make it unnecessary. And setting forth our doctrine in odious terms, they fight against Chimera's of their own making. Yea, it will be found, that instead of impugning, our cause, they defend it.
Cardinal du Perron treats this question in the sixth Chapter of his third Observation. It is made plain enough (saith he) by the precedent reply, that we tie not the power of God's grace to that means, (that is, to Baptism with water) since God might have saved us, if it had been his pleasure, without any of those means which he instituted. These means are the death of Christ, the preaching of the Gospel, the Sacraments, Faith in Christ, repentance, and study of good works. The Cardinal saith, that God might have saved us without any of these means, if it had been his pleasure, and thereby he pretends to show that the Roman Church holds not the Baptism with water to be of simple and absolute necessity, since God could save us without that, as well as without all the other means. Upon this then he grounds the necessity of the Baptism of Infants. We tie (saith he) the effect of God's grace to his own protestations, that is, to the means without which he protested that he would not give it; namely, before all things to faith in Christ, and to Baptism; of which he said, He that believeth not in the only Son of God, is judged already; And except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
In these words there is either much ignorance or much foul dealing. For he conceiveth amiss of the necessity of the means of our salvation, that puts Baptism with water in equal degree of necessity with the other means without which none can be saved. Without the merit of Christ's death none can come to salvation; and of all them to whom the Gospel is announced, none are saved but such as believe in the Goespl; but an infinite number of persons are saved without the Baptism of water, as the Cardinal acknowledgeth in the following lines, in which he saith, that Baptism may be supplied by faith, and by the vow of Baptism. This cannot be said of faith in Christ, which cannot be supplied by Baptism nor by the vow of believing or being baptized. These very texts which he allegeth show how the necessity of those two things is unequal. For Scripture saith that whosoever believeth in Christ shall be saved, but saith not that whosoever is baptized shall be saved. And our Adversaries confess that many adult persons shall be saved without Baptism with water, if they have but the vow, that is the desire and the will to be baptized.
The Cardinal asketh his Majesty of great Britain, With what conscience the Church of England can communicate with the Protestants of France which differ from her in a point so important to salvation? The difference he finds between the English and us consisteth in two points; The one, that the Protestants of France (if he must be believed) deny the necessity of Baptism; The other that they deny that Baptism conferreth grace, but affirm only that it signifieth grace, and say that it is not unto them a means of salvation but only a sign. Whereupon he chargeth us in odious terms, that we frustrate children in case of danger of the only way which God hath instituted unto them to attain salvation.
This man speaks according to his custom, that is, against his conscience, attributing such things to us which he knoweth that we believe not. For we hold that it is necessary in the Christian Church to baptize. It is necessary to obey Christ's command, Go Baptise all nations, &c. Also we believe Baptism to be of such necessity, that one that should despise Baptism, and not care to be baptized, could not be saved. Circumcision was of the like necessity, for whosoever despised it, God declareth that he should be cut off from his people. The question is only whether in case of impossibility of being baptized, a man is therefore excluded from the Kingdom of heaven. We agree with our Adversaries about adult persons, that in case of impossibility they may be saved without Baptism. And it is well that so much is granted already. The difference then is only about infants that die without Baptism, our Adversaries send them into a Limbus, of which the word of God saith nothing, and exclude them forever from the Kingdom of heaven. To prove the necessity of Baptism of water unto little children they bring but one text which speaks of adult persons. For when Christ said, Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, he spake to Nicodemus, who, because he was old, asked How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mothers womb? And it is certain that Christ in that place speaks of a second birth without which Nicodemuus could not be saved; To whom nevertheless Baptism was not necessary because he was circumcised. Our Adversaries themselves say that he might be saved without Baptism, if he had died before he could be baptized; and that before Christ's resurrection, Baptism was not necessary to salvation.
In the second place Monsieur du Perron attributes unto us a doctrine remote from our belief, making us say that we deny, that Baptism conferreth grace to little children, and that we say only that it signifieth grace. It is not so. For although it be hard for us to define how, and how far Baptism worketh with efficacy in little children, yet we doubt not of the virtue thereof, nor of the remission of original sin which is applied and ratified in the same. Neither do we reduce it to a bare and ineffectual signification. God in his own time makes the godly sensible of the fruit of their Baptism, and of the effects of that Covenant of which they have received the seal.
That which the Cardinal addeth [that Baptism is the only means which God hath given to Infants to attain salvation ] cannot subsist. For the death of Christ, and God's promise, that he will be our God, and of our seed, are also means which serve for the salvation of our children, and are far above Baptism, both in excellency and necessity.
Our adversaries to prove the necessity of the Baptism of water, bring the example of Circumcision of which it is said, Gen. 17.14. that every uncircumcised mal shall be cut off from his people, but they fraudently omit the following words, for he hath broken my Covenant; Words which cannot belong but to adult persons, and teach us that God punished the contempt of Circumcision, not the privation in case of impossibilty.
Also they dispute thus, Every means which God useth to sanctify and save us, is necessary to salvation. But the Baptism of water is a means which God useth to sanctify and save us, as St. Paul teacheth us, Eph. 5.25, & 26. Christ gave himself for his Church, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. And Tit. 3.5. He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost. Then the washing of water is necessary to salvation.
Of this argument the first proposition is false, for God useth many means to sanctify and save us, as the holy Communion, and miracles and afflictions and persecutions for the Gospel, without which things nevertheless many are saved. As for the second proposition we have great reason to make a question, whether by the washing of regeneration, whereby the Apostle saith that God hath sanctified and saved his Church, the Baptism of water must be understood? For within that Church the Church of the Old Testament is also comprehended, which was not baptized with water: And our Adversaries confess that many are saved, which are not baptized with water: Very often in Scripture remission of sins, and regeneration is compared to washing with water, Isa. 1.16. Zech. 1.13. Ezek. 36.25.
As for the text of John 3.5. Except a man be born again, and Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, whereby they will establish the necessity of Baptism, I will not oppose the opinion of many Ancients who hold that in this text the Baptism of water is understood; But I wonder how our Adversaries forgetting themselves make this Baptism of water unnecessary, saying that there is a Baptism of Blood, and a Baptism of the Spirit, which may be instead of the Baptism of water. I wonder noless that they consider not that Christ speaks to Nicodemus in this text, and declareth to him, that though he be old, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God unless he be born again, and yet themselves hold that Nicodemus might be saved without the Baptism of water, because he was circumcised, and that Baptism was not yet necessary at that time, Hinckmar in the book of the fifty five chapters, ch. 47. expoundeth thus this text. Except a man be born again of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, that is, Except he be born again by the invisible grace with the visible Sacrament, or by the invisible grace without the visible Sacrament.
It were easy to come out of this difficulty, if they would use here the same discretion as in expounding John 6.53. Except you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, a text speaking as they think of the necessity of the Eucharist. There they restrain Christ's words to the persons that have age, capacity, and opportunity to receive the holy Sacrament. Why shall we not say the same here, that Christ speaks to persons come to an age capable of instruction, and that have the opportunity to be baptized, who cannot be saved if they despise Baptism? So much Lombard acknowledgeth saying, that this must be understood of those who having the opportunity to be baptized despise Baptism. But to exclude infants from the Kingdom of Heaven, if they die when they are carried to Baptism, or if their Parents take no care that they be baptized, it is a tenet ill sorting with the wisdom and goodness of God: For God tieth not his grace unto the element, as if he could not or would not save without washing with water. Neither is it suitable with his wisdom to make the salvation of children to depend upon the will of another; For according to the Cardinals doctrine, he that hath a child dying in his power, may save or damn that soul; For if it pleaseth him to baptize that child, he shall be saved, but if he will not baptize him, he shutteth the gate of Paradise against him, and excludes him forever from the Kingdom of heaven. By this means eternal election shall depend upon the provision of Baptism, and it shall be in men's power to make it void.
This also is repugnant to the goodness and justice of God, to exclude an infants soul from salvation for the fault of another; The son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father, Ezek. 18.20.
In the fourth ch. of Exodus God offereth to punish Moses for neglecting his sons circumcision, but he offereth not to punish the child. If Circumcision, which under the old Covenant held the place of Baptism, had been absolutely necessary to salvation, God would not have deferred it till the eighth day, before which so many children die. If it was of that absolute necessity, we must say, that all the women of Israel, and so many men born and dead in the wilderness in the space of forty years without circumcision, and the converted Ninevites were excluded from eternal salvation. It is not credible that God made the condition of his Church worse under the New Testament; Which should be, if before the coming of Christ the godly might be saved without any Sacrament. But now their salvation is made to depend upon the Baptism of water, of which many are deprived for want of possibility, and from the Priests intention which must be presumed by conjecture, and a soul may be damned by the negligence of another.
God said to Abraham, I will be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee, Gen. 17.7. How many persons of his seed are dead without circumcision, of whom nevertheless God declareth himself to be the God and the Savior.
The Prophet Jeremy was sanctified from the womb and before he was born, as God himself told him, Jer. 1.5. The same is said of John the Baptist. Cornelius and his family received the Holy Ghost before they were baptized, Act. 10.47, & 48. All these were sanctified by the Holy Ghost, and by consequent capable of salvation before they received any Sacrament. Whence it followeth that neither Circumcision nor Baptism were unto them necessary for Salvation.
Act. 2.39. St. Peter saith to the Jews, The promise is unto you and to your children; Now the children not yet baptized, were no less their children then after Baptism.
1 Cor. 7.14. St. Paul speaking of a husband and wife, one of which is a Christian, the other an Infidel, saith that their children are holy, Else (saith he) your children were unclean but now they are holy. If when one party only is believing, the children are holy, that is, consecrated to God, how much more when the child hath two believing persons for his Parents?
Upon that text the Cardinal labors very much to find what the word Holy importeth, and according to his custom he clogs his own way with troublesome distinctions saying that there is a legal and an Evangelical pollution, one absolute, another relative, one in itself, another in relation to another, one in the being, another in the use. He taketh a long way beset with thorns, having a plain and easy way at hand. For what he saith, comes to the same thing that we say, but he is ashamed to borrow it from us, namely, that the children of believers are dedicated and consecrated unto God, and esteemed to be of his people; in the same manner as all the people of Israel was holy, and the Temple, and the Sabbath, and the victims; Which holiness neither in infants, nor in adult persons doth necessarily import salvation.
By the way I comprehend not why the Cardinal corrupts this text, and instead of saying with St. Paul, now your children are holy, saith your children are clean.
And whereas our Adversaries hold, that the Baptism of blood serveth instead of the Baptism with water, let them tell us whether that Baptism of blood be a Sacrament or no, if it be a Sacrament, hangmen have conferred it, who yet had no intention to confer it. And if in a person not baptized with water, martyrdom is a Sacrament, shall the same matyrdome in a baptized person be also a Sacrament? For if it be so, that person hath twice received the Sacrament of Baptism; or if it be not so, it will follow, that in one, martyrdom is a Sacrament, in another, it is not.
And since the satisfactions, fasts, and self-whippings of Dominick and Francis may be imputed to others, and in the Roman Church one whips himself for another; if the father makes a vow to cause himself to be baptized, why may not that vow be imputed to the child? especially seeing that in Baptism the Godfathers answer for the child, and the Priest asking the child whether he believeth and renounceth the world and the Devil, the Godfather answereth for the child, Credo & Abrenuntio. If the child in Baptism believe by Attorney, why may he not also vow by Attorney? Whereas also the Roman Church holds that for want of Baptism the vow is sufficient, let them tell us whether by that vow original sin be blotted out, for if it be not blotted out by that vow, it followeth that the person not baptized cannot be saved by that vow; But if the vow of Baptism blots out original sin, it will follow that the Baptism received after the vow, doth not blot out original sin, and by consequent becomes useless. For one cannot blot out that which is blotted out already, nor take away a spot which is no more.
What may be the reason why the Roman Church will have God to be more rigid to little children, then to adult persons, of whom they hold that they may be saved without Baptism? Why may not God save infants without Baptism, by the efficacy of his Spirit working in them? especially seeing that the Roman Church holds, that by the Baptism of infants, their original sin is not only remitted but also wholly blotted out, and that they are made altogether pure and without sin; by which doctrine they acknowledge that infants are capable of a perfect regeneration.
And seeing that to children dead without Baptism the Romanists appoint an underground dungeon which they call Limbus; we desire to know of them what quarters the Roman Church assigneth for them after the day of Judgment when the earth shall be no more? and whether they shall rise again with others? what sentence the Judge shall give about them? and whether they shall be placed at the Lord's right hand or at the left? For of all that no more then of Limbus Scripture speaks never a word, and it belongs to them that have forged that Limbus to instruct us about these difficulties.
Besides since many children not baptized have suffered martyrdom, as the new born infants which Herod caused to be slain at Bethlehem whom the Roman Church puts indifferently among Saints and Martyrs, how doth that agree with their doctrine, that the Baptism of water is absolutely necessary to infants, and (as the Cardinal saith) that it is the only way that God hath given them to be saved? Do they not say themselves, that the want of Baptism with water is supplied in infant with martyrdom? So that it will be found, that the Roman Church holds not the Baptism of water necessary to infants, no more then to adult persons. Hinckmar Arch-bishop of Reims, a man of great name in his time, in his book of the fifty five chapters ch. 48. taxeth Hinkmar Bishop of Laon his nephew, that to many other crimes he had added this, that he had hindered the Baptism of infants in his Diocese, whereby many children were dead without Baptism. Whom Hinckmar of Reims affirmeth to have been saved by the faith of their parents or their Godfathers, who had presented themselves to answer for them, and had required that these children might be baptized. For (saith he) the Spirit of God by whom regeneration is made, bloweth where he listeth. This Prelat who writ about the year of the Lord 865. believed not, that it was just and agreeing with God's goodness to exclude infants from salvation for the fault of another.
The Roman Church shuts up these children in a dark perpetual and burning prison, where though they be in a vehement fire, they feel no pain. For (say the Doctors) original sin deserveth only privation of happiness, which they call poena damni, not a pain of sense and dolour. Yet it is certain that Christ hath suffered dolors and felt torments to expiate original sin. A certain proof, that original sin deserveth the pain of sense, and that infants both before and after baptism suffer dolors and torments, which cannot be pains of any sin but original, since they have committed no actual sin. But what may that pain be which is not felt, seeing that every punishment is imposed that it may be felt? If these children in the Limbus are without any knowledge, they are no reasonable creatures, and have nothing of God's image in them. But if they know and feel that they are deprived of the presence of God, they are very wicked and destitute of all love of God, if they feel not an extreme dolor for that privation.
Truth is so strong in all this, that it comes from our Adversaries mouth against their will. Gerson Chancellor of the University of Paris. It is certain (saith he) that God hath not so tied the grace of salvation unto the Sacraments, but that without pejudice of that law he may sanctify within, by the baptism of his grace, the children not yet come out of the womb. And Lombard saith, that this sentence, Except a man be born again of water and of the Holy Ghost, &c. must be understood of them that can be baptized and despise it. And he proveth his saying by Austin, Gabriel Biel saith the same upon that Distinction of Lombard. And Cajetan in his Comment upon the third part of the sum of Thomas, qu. 68. Art. 2.
That place of Austin which Lombard mentioneth in the fourth book of Baptism ch. 22. is this, that Baptism which was hindered, not by the contempt of religion but by the term of necessity is invisibly administered. And it is alleged in the 43. of the Decretals.
The same Father in the second Book against Cresconius ch. 33. moveth this difficulty against Cyprian, who maintained, that the Baptism conferred by Heretics was null. He asketh what will become of those, who before were converted unto the faith, and were received into the Church without Baptism? He answereth that in the very words of Cyprian, The Lord by his mercy may grant them pardon, and not exclude from the gifts of his Church those that being received with simplicity into the Church, are dead in the Church.
Tertullian in the book of Baptism, ch. 12. Thy faith hath saved thee (said Christ) and thy sins are forgiven thee, namely to him that believed, although he was not baptized.
Had Gregory Nazianzen believed, that infants cannot be saved without Baptism, he had not advised the Parents to defer their Baptism, till they were come to age of instruction.
Had the ancient Church believed, that Baptism was absolutely necessary to salvation, Christians would not have put off Baptism to the last part of their life, as it was then the custom of many.
The ancient Councils are full of Constitutions that forbid to baptize at any other time but Easter and Whitsuntide, so that no baptising was seen in the Church for ten months together every year. How many infants died in those ten months? and how many adult unbaptised persons were overtaken with sudden death? It is true that in many Canons this clause was added, saving only in case of necessity. But everyone knoweth that man's life is subject to such sudden accidents, that many times one hath no leisure to think of anything, much less to take an order for Baptism.
It is very observable, that the Emperor Valentinian, who in his life had opportunity enough to be baptized, died without Baptism, and yet Ambrose in his Oration upon his death holds that he enjoyeth eternal felicity.
Against the absolute necessity of Baptism of water, I could bring many testimonies, not only of the Ancients, but also of the chief Doctors of the Roman Church. The authentical definition of Pope Innocent the III. will be one for all. It is in the third book of the Decretals, Tit. 43. de Presbytero non Baptisato, where he declareth that a Priest unbaptised yet was saved. We affirm (saith he) without demurring, that the Priest of whom thou hast sent us word, that he died without the water of Baptism, is delivered from original sin, and hath got the joy of the heavenly country, because he persevered in the faith of the Church our holy Mother, and in the confession of the name of Christ. And a little after, He that hath Christ by faith, although he hath not Baptism, yet hath the foundation, out of which there is none, even Jesus Christ. It is very like that this unbaptised Priest had baptized many children.
The Council of Trent in the seventh Session, and fourth Canon pronounceth anathema to all that say that the Sacraments of the New Testament are not necessary, or the vow for want of the Sacrament.
As for Austin, by the like error whereby he believed the perception of the holy Communion to be necessary to infants, he believed also that every infant that died unbaptised was eternally damned in Hell fire, and was with the Devil, For in those days the Limbus of infants was unknown. Wherein M. du Perron excuseth him, saying that herein he was a pious Father, charitable, and compassionate, because he took care that these poor little creatures should be succoured by the diligence of their parents. Upon which we desire not to dispute, being inclined to cover the defects of such an excellent man. Yet since in this point he agreeth not with the Roman Church, the Romanists should not use his authority in this question.
Pope Leo the I. in the first Epistle to the Bishops of Sicily in the third ch. holds, that Baptism was not effectual and necessary but after Christ's resurrection, and that Christ by his resurrection began the gift of regeneration. According to which doctrine Bellarmine in ch. 5. of the first book of Baptism saith, that The Baptism of Christ, that is, the Baptism conferred by Christ, and his Apostles before the Lord's death, was neither a necessary means, nor a necessary command.
To this join the doctrine of Pope Nicolas the I. (q) who judged and pronounced that Baptism conferred by a Jew, or by a Pagan is good and valid, if the man did but baptize in the name of the Trinity, or only in the name of Christ. And the custom of the Roman Church, in which women confer the Sacrament of Baptism, without which they hold that these children could not be saved. For hence it followeth that the Sacrament conferred by a Jew or a Mohammedan who are Christ's enemies, hath more efficacy then that which Christ's and his Apostles have conferred, and that a Pagan or a woman do more good to a child, which but for them had died unbaptised, then all the Apostles together could have done.
If one receiveth Baptism out of hypocrisy, as the Marranes do in Spain to avoid the Inquisition, Shall that Baptism blot out his sin? Shall his crime be profitable to him? Shall the grace of God be so tied to the water that it turn into a bondage unto God himself, so that God be obliged to do good unto hypocrites, and to give his grace for a reward of the profanation of his holy Sacrament?
Besides, all this efficacy of Baptism upon which they pin salvation, depends upon the intention of the person that baptizeth, which must be ghost at, and presumed by conjecture. For if we believe the Roman Church, he that baptizeth, may by taking off his intention take away the efficacy of the Sacrament; And the grace of God to the child is subjected to another man's intention.
CHAP. 2. Sense of the forealleadged text, John 3.5. How unworthily and unjustly Cardinal du Perron deals with Calvin. A notable ignorance of the Cardinal.
John Calvin, whom, because he is so odious unto men, we presume to be especially beloved of God, in his Comment upon John 3. expounding these words of our Savior, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, is of opinion that in that text it is not spoken of Baptism, but of spiritual regeneration, and expounds these words to be born of water and of the Spirit, to be regenerated by the Spirit, washing the heart, or, by a spiritual washing; in the same manner as John the Baptist, Matth. 3.11. exhorting the Pharisees and Sadducees to repent, tells them that one was coming after him who should baptize them with the Holy Ghost and with fire, that is, with a fervent spirit, heating and purifying their hearts. Which is a familiar and frequent figure, called by the Grammarians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as when Virgil saith molem & montes, instead of moles montosas, and pateris libamus & auro, instead of pateris aureis. Thus Luke saith, Act. 14.13. That the Priest of Jupiter brought 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , bulls and crowns, instead of crowned bulls. Thus Rev. 14.10. Fire and brimstone, instead of burning brimstone. And 2 Tim. 1.10. Life and Immortality, for immortal life. And Joh. 14.6. Christ calls himself the way and the truth, that is, the true way.
This exposition of Calvin is grounded upon these reasons,
1. Because Christ having said, Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, addeth a little after, so is every man that is born of the Spirit, taking to be born of the Spirit, and to be born of water and of the Spirit, for the same thing, and declaring that the Spirit alone is sufficient for that regeneration.
2. Because it is the style and ordinary language of Christ, to understand by water the grace of the Spirit, as John 4, 14. he promiseth to give water which whosoever drinketh shall never thirst, and the water that he shall give him, shall be made in him a well springing into everlasting life. And Job. 7.37. If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink. He that believeth in me, as the Scripture hath said, he shall flow with rivers of living water. Upon which St. John addeth, This spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive.
3. This sentence of Christ according to Calvin's exposition is absolutely true, and admitteth no exception; for no man is saved unless he be regenerated by the Spirit of God. But if one will understand it of the Baptism of water, he is forced to bring multitude of exceptions which turn that rule into smoke, and bring it to nothing. For our Adversaries except adult persons, who have made a vow to be baptized; And those that are regenerated by God's Spirit; And Martyrs unbaptised, And those that have believed in Christ before his resurrection; And the infants slain for Christ's cause, who are dead without Baptism, as those that were put to death by Herod's command. Thus then our Adversaries expound these words of Christ, Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, that is, None can be saved, except he be baptized with water, or except he be regenerated by the Holy Ghost, or except he hath vowed to be baptized, or except he hath suffered Martyrdom, whether he be adult or an unbaptised infant. Which are terrible Glosses, and an interpretation which saith openly, that the Baptism of water is not necessary.
4. Christ saying, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of God, spake to Nicodemus, and for Nicodemus, to whom our Adversaries themselves hold that the Baptism of water was not necessary. This Pharisee that had the die of Pharisaism, which was a discipline of pride and of opinion of self-righteousness, and a doctrine which made the service of God to consist in petty outward observations, is brought back by Christ to the elements of true piety consisting in changing a man's nature, and in regeneration by the Holy Ghost. It may be also that Nicodemus being imbrued with the opinion of the Metempsychosis held by the Pharisees (which made the souls to pass into other bodies by a new birth) Christ would speak to him of another birth which he had not yet comprehended.
5. That which Christ addeth is considerable. The wind bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; So is everyone that is born of the Spirit. For this comparison of the wind is fit to represent the secret virtue of the Holy Ghost, not the efficacy of washing with material water. And truly in the tongue which Christ spake, the same word signifieth both wind and Spirit.
6. With these reasons Cardinal Tolet found himself so convinced, that he calleth them heretics, that out of this text of Joh. 3.5. will infer the absolute necessity of Baptism.
Against this the Cardinal is storming and raging with great impetuosity. He saith that giving this interpretation to the text, is playing with Scripture with childish and ridiculous elusions, and destroying the faith of the fundamental Sacrament of the Church. He wonders at Calvin's ignorance, saying that God hath blinded Calvin by his just judgment; That by his ignorance he hath killed all little chilren dead without Baptism; That he hath given a mortal wound unto his Church, &c.
To that clattering hail of words, he adds a specious reason; That according to Calvin's exposition there should be a battology (that is, a vain repetition) in Christ's words. And that if water signifies here Spirit, then these words, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, will signify, Except a man be born of the Spirit and of the Spirit. This Prelat should have been put to his Grammar again, where he might have learned that in this figure where two substantives are joined together, one of them must be interpreted as an adjective, Pateris & auro for pateris aureis; The Spirit and the fire for the fervent Spirit; the water of the Spirit for the spiritual water, or the spiritual washing, or the washing and cleansing Spirit; for these come all to one.
To answer the example of Matth. 3.11. where John the Baptist speaking of Christ saith, He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire, the Cardinal speaks as sitting down to take breath after a long race. Here (saith he) I will take a little breath to give me time to contemplate and admire the prodigious ignorance or inadvertence of Calvin, whose passion hath so blindfolded him that he is now by his passion put in the rank of those of whom God speaks by his Prophet, I will blind the eyes of this people that they seeing see not. These high swoln words promise to make us see some gross ignorance of Calvin. Let us see it. For (saith the Cardinal) the Lord in this place hath not added the word Fire to repeat the intelligence of the word Spirit. This Prelat believed that it was Christ that spake these words, whereas they are the words of John the Baptist speaking to the Sadducees and Pharisees. Truly this Cardinal should not have pranced so high to stumble so foully at the very first step. But this is worse, The Lord (saith he) in that place hath not added the word Fire to repeat the intelligence of the word Spirit, but to express the external and visible kind of the fire, which goeth along with the Baptism of the Spirit, wherewith our Lord baptized his Apostles and his other Disciples upon the day of Pentecost. A woeful ignorance. This man thinks that these words of John the Baptist, He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire, are spoken to the Apostles, and that it is a promise made to them that the Spirit should descend upon them in the shape of fiery tongues. For when John the Baptist said, He shall baptize you, the Apostles were not present, and were not yet Christ's Disciples. Who so will read the text may see, that this you, is not spoken to the Disciples of Christ but to Sadducees and Pharisees, to whom John the Baptist promiseth that if they would be converted, Christ would baptize them with a better Baptism then that of water which John administered, yea that Christ would baptize or cleanse them with the fervent and purifying virtue of his Spirit. Had the Cardinal been versed in the style of the Prophets, he might have known that this expression of John the Baptist is taken from Isa. 4.4. where God promiseth to purge the blood of Jerusalem, that is the grievous and bloody sins of that people, by the Spirit of judgment and by the Spirit of burning.
Out of all this it is evident, that the more violently the Cardinal is storming, the more is his ignorance to be laughed at, or pitied.
CHAP. 3. How contemptible Baptism is in the Roman Church, and miserably disgraced.
THe doctrine of the necessity of Baptism must be attended with the doctrine of the virtue of the same, for it is for the fruit that we hope from Baptism, that we preach the necessity thereof. The Cardinal saith that we have taken all the efficacy from Baptism, and that we make it only a bare sign without any virtue.
We on the contrary accuse our Adversaries, that they have clipt the efficacy and signification of Baptism, restraining the virtue thereof only to sins committed before Baptism. For as for the sins committed since baptism, they have reserved the remission thereof to the Sacrament of Penitence, because that Sacrament is far more lucrative and beneficial unto them then Baptism. For baptising will afford but little gain. But by the Sacrament of Penitence they give the absolution of sins, pardon in quality of Judges, the offenses committed against God, and make themselves Judges in God's cause. By Confessions they search the consciences and the secrets of families. And by Penitences and Satisfactions they impose corporal and pecuniary pains upon sinners, even upon Princes and Kings. This is one of the main pillars of the Papal Empire, and the principal revenue of the Roman Clergy. Wherefore we must not wonder, that they have clipt off the greatest part of the efficacy of Baptism instituted by Christ, to bestow it upon the Sacrament of Penitence invented by men.
With the like disgrace of Baptism our Adversaries prefer the Sacrament of Confirmation which is an human tradition before Baptism. For in the fifth Distinction of Consecration Can. de his, they make Pope Melchiades to say that Confirmation ought to be more honored then Baptism.
And Lombard Father of the School, and after him Bellarmine in the first book of Confirmation, maintain, that Confirmation is more excellent then Baptism, both because of the subject which is the forehead, and because of the dignity of the Minister which is the Bishop. And in ch. 11. Confirmation confers a grace which makes us acceptable, and that grace greater then that which is conferred in Baptism, as for strengthening the soul against the assaults of the Devil.
The same distinction in the Canon Omnes, saith that by Confirmation men are made fully and perfectly Christians, as though men were made but half Christians by Baptism. And the Canon Ut Jejuni declares the same, that none can be a Christian unless he hath received the Chrism in the Episcopal Confirmation.
For these causes in the Roman Church a porter, a woman, an hermaphrodite, a Jew, a Pagan, yea a Pagan-whore, may baptize; and this holy Sacrament is prostituted to the most infamous unbaptised persons. But Confirmation, as more hohonorable, is administered by the Bishop only, who conferreth it with great apparat and solemnity. See the Definition of Pope Nicolas the I. Can. A quodam Judice, in the fourth Distinction of the Consecration, where he pronounceth that Baptism conferred by an Impostor, though a Jew and a Pagan, is good & valid. Neither is it enough for them to have so disgraced Baptism, but they make that small virtue which they leave to it to depend upon the intention of the Priest that batiseth, which intention must be ghost at by a pious conjecture; For when all is said, no person in the Roman Church is certain that he is baptized. For who knoweth the intention of a man's heart? especially in an age swarming with Atheists? And if the Priest that baptizeth was baptized by another Priest, baptized by another that had no intention to confer the Sacrament, his Priesthood is null, and his Baptism null, and so by remounting the uncertainty groweth still, and is multiplied to infinity.
To these you may add the spittle, the salt, the oil, the exorcisms, whereby the Roman Church hath defiled the simplicity and purity of Baptism, as it was instituted by Christ and practiced by his Apostles.
CHAP. 4. The doctrine of our Churches about the virtue and efficacy of Baptism.
THat man honoreth the Sacraments as he ought, who yields unto them that degree of honor which God hath conferred upon them; and receiving them with faith and reverence, yet bewareth of attributing that to the signs and the Ministry of man which is proper only to the virtue of God's Spirit. This we do in our Churches. For we say that in Baptism the washing of all our sins by the blood of Christ, is not only represented and figured unto us, but also presented and applied: the Sacraments being not only figurative but also exhibitive of the grace of God. By the washing of our sins we understand the remission of our sins, and together regeneration or spiritual renewing, according to the style of Scripture, Act. 22.16. Isa. 1.16. Zech. 1.6. Hebr. 10.22.
The adult that receive Baptism feel the effects of the same; God working in them, not by the water, but with the water of Baptism. As for infants that are baptized, it is a hard matter for us to say, how far Baptism is effectual in them as for regeneration, since Scripture gives us no instruction upon that point. If one would judge by the apparent signs, as by their cry, and by their stirring and shrinking when they feel the cold water of Baptism, one might judge rather that they are displeased with that action. Yea it is but too ordinary, that when they have got some years and strength, they show by the perversity of their nature that Baptism had done them but little good. Only we say that when we baptize little children according to Christ's ordinance, God thereby declareth that he receiveth them into his Church, and marketh them with the outward sign of his Covenant. And that if they belong to God's Election, they shall one time show really how effectual Baptism was with them, and that the grace of God in Christ was not in vain offered unto them, for the Sacraments have not the same effect with all persons.
CHAP. 5. How the Romanists after they have depress Baptism, exalt it with improper praises.
FAlse praises are a kind of reviling. The abuse is much alike, whether we take away from Baptism the honor due to it, or attribute unto it that honor which God gives not to it in Scripture; For both the ways the nature of the Sacrament is corrupted, and with the Sacrament the doctrine of the Gospel. Our Adversaries sin in both the extremes; on the one side debasing Baptism with great contempt, and on the other side exalting it with absurd praises, so that the preaching of the Gospel showeth but small in comparison.
The first error of the Roman Church in this matter, is this tenet, That by Baptism both original sin, and all the actual sins committed before Baptism, are not only pardoned but also removed; so that in baptized persons there is no more original sin, nor any spot, nor anything displeasing to God, or that may properly be called sin. They are the very words of the Council of Trent in the 5. Session, and of the Catechism of Trent in the Chapter of Baptism.
Thus these Gentlemen stuffed with righteousness and holiness boast themselves to be without sin, because Baptism hath taken away all stain from them, and whatsoever is displeasing to God. Yet they confess that all men sin venially, thereby unsaying what they have said, and undoing what they have done. And because they cannot deny that they have lusts, and are tempted with evil desires, they say that lust is no sin. The Council of Trent in the V. Session acknowledgeth that the Law saith, Thou shalt not covet, and that St. Paul calls lust sin, Rom. 7. and yet the same Council maintains that this lust in baptized persons is no sin. Only they call that lust which leads to evil a match, a vice, an iniquity, and furies of lust, but not sin.
This doctrine of pride is contrary to God's word, to experience, to reason, to common sense, and contradicts itself.
1. For by this doctrine baptized persons are said to be altogether without sin, which is repugnant to God's word, where we learn, that if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us, 1 Joh. 1.8. And that in many things we offend all, Jam. 3.2. Wherefore also the Apostles said in their ordinary prayer, Forgive us our trespasses.
2. The Apostle St. Paul was baptized; Yet Rom. 7.17. speaking of his natural corruption, he saith that sin dwelleth in him; And two verses after he acknowledgeth, that he did the evil which he would not. Of that sin abiding in him he saith, v. 23. that it is a warring against the law of his mind, that is, against the law of God printed in his mind, and bringing him into captivity to the law of sin which is in his members.
3. We are more obliged to believe the Apostle who saith, that lust is sin, Rom. 7.7. And the Law of God, saying, Thou shalt not covet, (whence it followeth, that coveting is sin, since it is a transgression of the law) then the Council of Trent, whose impious boldness is come so far as to charge the Apostle, that he spake neither truly nor properly when he called lust sin.
4. The same Apostle saith, Rom. 6.23. that the wages of sin is death. Since then infants baptized are subject to die, and many die soon after Baptism, it follows that they are not without sin, and that original sin abideth in them still after Baptism.
5. And whereas none can give what he hath not, the children of baptized persons, should be born without original sin, if the parents were without original sin.
6. If baptized infants should be without original sin, they should be also without actual sin all their days; For actual sin proceeds from original sin, and from our natural corruption.
7. Take two children, the one baptized, the other unbaptised, it may happen that the baptized child shall become more wicked then the unbaptised, according to the instructions and examples which shall be given him. If both be wicked alike, murderers, blasphemers, adulterers, is it like that whereas the sins of the unbaptised proceed from original sin, the sins of the baptized must be assigned to some other cause which brings forth such wicked effects, and yet be no sin?
8. As for adult persons that receive Baptism, as when a Jew or a Pagan turns Christian, may it be affirmed that Baptism takes original sin from them, seeing that many receive Baptism out of hypocrisy? Shall that imposture and profanation of Baptism be profitable unto them? Shall that actual sin serve to abolish original sin in them?
9. It is certain that adult persons cannot receive Baptism worthily, and to salvation, unless they have faith and repentance. They had then faith and repentance before they were baptized. Whence it followeth that faith and repentance are things compatible with original sin. Such was Cornelius, a man full of faith and virtue, who received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized. If faith and repentance hath blotted out original sin in them before they were baptized, then there are some persons in whom original sin hath not been put out by Baptism.
10. If any desiring to receive Baptism is prevented by death, our Adversaries hold that such a man is saved nevertheless, and that the vow supplieth the want of Baptism. I ask the Romanists, whether such a man dieth having original sin? They answer, No, because no man can be saved unless he be purged before death from original sin. Let them tell us then by what means he was purged from original sin, since he was not baptized? If they give us another means, they shall make Baptism unnecessary.
11. If by the Baptism of water original sin is altogether taken away, it was a great error in the ancient Christians to put off their Baptism to man's age, yea to the last part of their life. No doubt but that their Bishops and Pastors of the Church would have severely rebuked them, because when they could put off original sin by Baptism, yet they would purposely keep and retain it. Yet we see no such reprehension in the books of the Fathers.
12. Our Adversaries themselves, being convinced in their consciences, contradict themselves. For while they maintain that there is no sin properly so called in baptized persons, yet they say in other terms, that lust remaining after Baptism is sin, yea a very great sin. For they call it vice and iniquity, and most grieveous furies. And the Catechism of the Council of Trent saith, that this lust fighteth most fiercely against the Spirit of God. What are vices and iniquities but sins? Is it not a sin to transgress God's law, Thou shalt not covet? St. John affirmeth so much, 1 Joh. 3.4. Sin is the transgression of the Law. And according to the version of the Roman Church, Peccatum est iniquitas. But these men conceive an iniquity without sin, and a transgression of the law which is no sin. So far that Andradius who was one of the Council of Trent maintains, that we are not obliged to obey that commandment, Thou shalt not covet. He saith that it is well done to wish, that we may fulfil that commandment, but that we are not bound to it: Thus that commandment shall be a commandment no more, and must be razed out of the Tables of God's Law. It shall be a matter for good wishes, not a rule for a good life. If a Turk or a Jew covets the wife or house of his neighbor, it will be a sin. But a Christian by coveting his neighbors wife shall not sin. For, according to the doctrine of the Roman Church, in baptized persons lust is no more sin. A thing so far from truth, that it is certain that a Christian coveting his neighbors wife sinneth more then a Pagan, because having more knowledge he hath less excuse, and having received more graces, he is more obliged to love God, and obey his law.
13. Let our adversaries tell us, whether, when they ask of God pardon of their sins, they ask together that he forgive them that lust, that vice, that iniquity, that fury resisting God's Spirit, which they acknowledge to be within them? For if they ask pardon for it, they confess it to be a sin. But if they ask not pardon for it, is it material whether they be damned for their vices, iniquities, and perverse lusts; or for their sins? What ease is it to them that they are not damned for their sins, but must go to hell upon another score? Why do we seek for new names while the thing remaineth?
14. As for the assertion of the Council of Trent, That God seeth nothing in baptized persons which he hates or dislikes; Doctor Andradius, who was present, and actor in that definition, yet asserteth the contrary, and saith, That this lust in baptized persons is most odious unto God. For who will believe that God hateth not iniquity and disliketh not the transgression of his law?
15. In vain they say that Baptism is dishonored and debased, if we believe not that it makes man perfect, and altogether without sin, and if we teach that it leaveth man in the sink of his natural corruption. For by the same reason, one may say that Baptism is disgraced if we believe not that it makes a man immortal. And our Adversaries acknowledge that after Baptism vice remaineth, and iniquity, and lust contrary to God's law. Sacraments shall be honored as they should be, when they are put in the rank which the word of God assigneth them. Now the word of God ascribeth not to them that virtue, to make a man perfect and without sin. Our Adversaries ascribe not that effect to the Eucharist, which they make a thousand times more miraculous then Baptism. The grace of Christ is offered to us in Baptism, as also in the preaching of the Gospel, and in the holy Communion, to bring us to perfection and immortality. But God worketh that by degrees; not in an instant. Neither are the Sacraments disgraced, because they make not a man perfectly just and immortal, presently, and in a moment.
16. If our Adversaries say that lust remaineth in man after Baptism to be to him an exercise, the same I may say of original sin, and of the relics of sin. Those souls remain not mired in corruption, in whom sin reigneth not, but is decreasing daily.
17. Indeed the Apostle Rom. 6.4. saith, that we are buried with Christ by Baptism. But in these words the Apostle speaks not of the efficacy of Baptism as the Doctors of the Council of Trent esteem, but of the signification of the same; in the same manner as the Apostle saith to the Galatians, that Christ was crucified among them, because his death had been represented to them by the preaching of the Gospel and by the Sacraments. For dipping in water represents to us, that we die to sin with a conformity to the death and burial of Christ. Our Adversaries themselves acknowledge that after Baptism, vice and iniquity is living within us, a thing ill suiting with that burial which they imagine.
With the like abuse they say, that the water of Baptism washeth sins, and that Baptism regenerateth him that is baptized, pouring into him the habits of hope and charity, and that (as they say) ex opere operato, by the work wrought, that is, by the bare and single action of Baptism, the disposition of the baptized person being not requisite for it. So that if one baptized a Jew sleeping or thinking on other things, and having neither faith nor charity, that Baptism will nevertheless confer justifying grace upon him, with regeneration & the habits of faith and charity, one condition only being requisite in him, that he make no resistance against it. They say that the water of Baptism hath that virtue because it hath touched the body of Christ in his Baptism, as the Catechism of the Council of Trent saith, Christ when he was baptized by John, gave to water the virtue of sanctifying. For it is their Doctrine that when Christ was baptized in Jordan, by immersing his body into the water, he thereby sanctified the water of Tiber, and of the Lake of Geneva, and the whole water of the Sea. To this end also serveth the consecration of the baptismal water by the Bishop, when he blesseth the font. For to a thousand ceremonies, as signs of the Cross, aspersions with salt and oil, and exorcisms, the Bishop addeth a prayer whereby he asketh of God, that the Godhead be mingled with that water, that it may become a new creature, a fountain of life, and a regenerated water. All these mystical inventions go beyond the antick borders of hangings in extravagancy. These subtle Doctors have stretched their wit to forge an infinity of Chimera's, and obtrude them for mysteries, without the word of God, and against common sense.
It is a great abuse to ascribe unto water the virtue proper to the Holy Ghost, and to teach that Baptism formeth the habit of faith in children, seeing that they are without knowledge, and the habit of charity, seeing that they have no use of their will. How could they have charity, seeing that they are incapable of loving? For one must know before he can love. How could Baptism pour the habit of faith into adult persons, seeing that they must have faith before they receive Baptism? How could infants receive the habit of faith, seeing that they cannot believe? And what becomes of those habits of faith and charity, when they come to age? seeing that they show themselves prone to evil, and for the most part rejecting the doctrine of faith and rules of charity?
But who will believe that water can act upon souls, and that a corporal and inaminate thing can have a spiritual virtue? If the water of all the world received the virtue of regenerating the soul, because the water of Jordan touched Christ's body in his Baptism, we must also attribute the same virtue to all the bread, and to all the wine of the world; For Christ hath handled and eaten bread, and drunk wine in the Eucharist, and hath consecrated them with a consecration far more express then the sanctification of the water of Jordan.
1. That opus operatum, work wrought, is a Chimera forged in the School, full of absurdity, whereby they will have the Sacraments of the New Testament to regenerate and sanctify the souls by the single action, that is, by the mere aspersion of water poured upon the head of the infant, or of an adult person, and by the single fraction or manducation of bread, the devotion or attention of the communicant being not required for it. It is as if one said, that the preaching of the Gospel regenerates souls by the only sound of words and syllables, and that there is no need of the people's faith and attention. If that be absurd in the preaching of the word, how much more in the administration of Sacraments, seeing that Scripture exalteth the efficacy of the word incomparably more then that of the Sacraments.
2. They make the error more evident, by putting this among the prerogatives of the Sacraments of the New Testament above those of the Old, which (if we must believe these Doctors) profited only opere operantis, that is, by the piety or devotion of those that administered the Sacraments, or of those that received them, in the same manner as prayers profit. Whence it followeth that circumcision profited nothing, when it was conferred by a man destitute of the fear of God, and that the child's salvation depended on the disposition and devotion of another.
3. Thence also it follows, that if Baptism be conferred by a Pagan or an impostor Jew, it profiteth and sanctifieth by the bare action; But the Sacraments of the Old Testament though conferred by a Prophet had not the same virtue.
4. Observe also the goodly prerogative, which they attribute to the Sacraments of the New Testament, whereby devotion or attention is become unnecessary, so that there is no danger in receiving them without devotion. This is then the advantage of the Roman Church above the Patriarchs and Prophets, that one may want devotion without peril, and be baptized in his sleep, and that there is no danger for one to think of the wars of Piemont, or his private businesses, whilst he is receiving the Lord's supper. These Doctors will corrupt men that they may honor the Sacraments, and by exalting their virtue, they diminish the virtue and piety of those that receive them. This tends to raise the dignity of Clergymen, who boast that they administer the Sacraments, with so much efficacy, that their single action supplieth the want of piety, and that by pouring water upon the body they pour together virtues into the soul, although the man that conferreth that Sacrament be many times without any virtue. All that taken from the unwritten word, for Scripture saith nothing of that, and the Apostles were ignorant of all that doctrine.
To these two doctrines, whereby they exalt the efficacy of Baptism, they add a third; holding that Baptism prints an indelible character upon the soul, which the Pope himself cannot take away, and which remaineth even after this life, insomuch that damned souls carry it into Hell. May it not be thought that the souls marked with that character are respected by other souls in Hell, and that the Devils make low congies to them? But who can boast that ever he saw that character, or that ever he felt the impression of the same? In what place are those souls marked? What is the form or the color of that mark? The Apostle saith indeed that God marketh us with the seal of his Spirit, Eph. 1.13. & 4.30. and 2 Cor. 1.22. But in those texts he speaks not of the Sacraments which are administered to the wicked promiscuously with the good. But he speaks of the testimony of God's Spirit, which is the Spirit of adoption bearing witness to our hearts, that we are God's children. That testimony is proper to none but the right godly, and Infants are not yet capable of it.
Tenth Controversy, OF THE SEVENTH BOOK. Of the SACRIFICE Of the EUCHARIST.
CHAP. 1. State of the Question. How M. du Perron doth not touch it, but wanders about useles discourses.
CArdinal du Perron employeth five Chapters of his fourth Book to treat of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, and to prove that the Fathers have understood that it is truly and properly a Safice. That whole dispute is useless, both because he allegeth not one syllable of God's Word, without whose Authority that sacrifice cannot subsist; and because he toucheth not the question, and expatiates about things of no use. For the question is not, Whether the Lord's Supper be called a Sacrifice, properly or improperly? but, Whether the body of Christ be really sacrificed in it? Also, Whether it be a propitiatory sacrifice? and, Whether by it our souls be redeemed, and God reconciled with us? What is it to us, if the Communion is called a sacrifice properly or improperly, while this truth remains firm, that Christ is not really sacrificed in it? and that there is no other propitiatory and redemptory sacrifice, but the death of Christ?
He committs another fault. For the dispute about the proper or improper signification of the word Sacrifice, cannot be decided but by setting down a definition of sacrifice. It being certain that the Eucharist cannot be a true sacrifice, if the definition of a sacrifice be not proper to it.
But he hath purposely omitted that definition, finding no way how to make it square with the nature of the Eucharist. Is not that an abusing the Reader, to make long discourses, to prove that the Eucharist is a true sacrifice, and yet never say what a thing a sacrifice is? Now every lawful sacrifice is a religious action, instituted by God, whereby a visible offering is consecrated and offered unto God by a lawful Priest, and destroyed for the propitiation of sins, or for thanksgiving. For the definition and essence of a sacrifice, properly so called, includeth these six things. 1. That it be a religious action instituted by God. 2. That there be a visible offering. 3. That the thing offered be consecrated to God by him that sacrificeth. 4. That it be destroyed by the person that celebrates the sacrifice. 5. That it be offered by a lawful Priest instituted by God. 6. That if it be a sacrifice truly and really propitiatory, the price of our redemption must be really offered and sacrificed in it. Hence it appears, that it is utterly impossible that the Mass in which they pretend to sacrifice Christ, can be truly and properly a sacrifice. 1. Seeing, that Christ did not command us to sacrifice Christ. 2. That the offering pretended to be offered in the Mass, which is Christ, is not visible there, and is not perceived. 3. That it is not consecrated to God by him that sacrificeth, seeing that Christ cannot be consecrated by men. 4. That in the Mass Christ is not destroyed, and suffereth nothing in it, neither in effect nor in show. 5. That God hath not instituted in his Church, sacrificers of his Sons body. 6. And that the Mass cannot be in effect a propitiatory sacrifice, since it is not the death of Christ which is the only price of our redemption. All this, which is the principal point of the difference, the Cardinal toucheth not at all, and labors only to show in what sense the Fathers have called the Eucharist a sacrifice; Which is an unseless dispute. For although all the Fathers with one consent should say, that the Eucharist is truly and properly a sacrifice, it would not follow that Christ was really sacrificed in it as a propitiatory sacrifice. Besides, we must always begin with the divine institution, without which all authority falls, and all our discourses come to nothing. But of that divine institution, the Cardinal speaks not one word. Wherefore it is necessary for us to begin there.
CHAP. 2. That the Sacrifice of the Mass was not instituted by Christ. And of the fruit and efficacy of the sacrifice of the Mass.
THe Council of Trent in the XXII. Session, in the II. Canon, to prove that the Eucharist is the true sacrifice of Christ's body, allegeth for all the proof these words of Christ, Do this in remembrance of me; and denounceth an anathema to all that will deny, that by these words Christ hath conferred the Order of Priesthood, and commanded to sacrifice really the body of Christ. There cannot be a more certain proof of an ill cause, then to be reduced to such proofs. Can there be any interpretation of God's Word more constrained or more extravagant then this? Do this in remembrance of me; that is, I institute you to be Priests to sacrifice my body, to be a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead. But the Apostle Paul expounds these words otherwise; For after these words, Do this in remembrance of me, he addeth, As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death. So then, Doing this in remembrance of Christ, is eating the bread and drinking the cup of the Lord's Supper, to announce and celebrate the memory of his death.
It is very considerable, that Saint Matthew and Saint Mark relating the words of the institution of this Sacrament, have left out these words, Do this, which they had not done, had they believed that they are the formal words whereby this pretended Sacrifice is instituted.
Wherefore also, in the whole institution and action of Christ, no mention is made of sacrificing the Lord's body, no elevation of the Host, no offering unto God, no prayer to God that he accept the offering.
Neither doth the Christian Faith acknowledge any other sacrifice of redemption, but the death of the Redeemer, nor any other price for the redemption of souls. Now in the Mass Christ dieth not. And our very Adversaries acknowledge that Christ is no more in the condition of meriting, or satisfying, but only of impetrating. It is not then a sacrifice pro redemptione animarum, for the redemption of souls, as it is said in the Canon of the Mass. It is not convenient that a Sacrifice where Christ suffereth nothing, be the price of our redemption. For since his sufferings are the payment for our sins, an action where he suffereth nothing cannot be that payment.
If they say that the Mass is the sacrifice of Christ, and that he is really sacrificed in it for our redemption, because the sacrifice of his death is thereby applied to us, and the memory of his death announced: By the same reason Baptism and the preaching of the Gospel, are sacrifices properly so called, and propitiatory sacrifices, because in them Christ's death is applied to us, and brought to our remembrance. To apply the sacrifice of Christ to us, must we sacrifice him again? By the same reason he should be put to death again, to apply his death to us.
The Apostle to the Hebrews is very express upon this question. He spends most part of his Epistle about the Priesthood, and the Sacrifice of the Christian Church. Yet in the whole Epistle, he speaks not one word of the Eucharist or the Lord's Supper, in which only they will have the sacrifice of the Christian Church to consist. Must we say then, that the Apostle hath done as he that would write a Book of the Art of Navigation, without speaking of Ships; or of the Art of Reigning, without speaking of King or Prince? Certainly the Apostle brings us straight to the death of Christ, and acknowledgeth no other, but that only Sacrifice. In chap. 10. v. 14. he saith, that Christ by one offering hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. And v. 10. We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Here is then one only oblation, and that forever. And in chap. 9. v. 26. having said that Christ hath not often suffered from the foundation of the world; he addeth, v. 27, 28. As it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, and unto them that look for him, shall he appear the second time, &c. Thereby he excludeth all reiteration. For a man's death is not at all reiterated.
Neither indeed doth Scripture speak of any unbloody sacrifice of Christ; and that very text which our Adversaries bring for the unbloody sacrifice, speaks of shedding of blood. For they make use of these words, Mat. 26.28. This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many. Hardly can a text speaking of blood-shed, serve to establish a sacrifice where no blood is shed.
And since the Apostle, Heb. 9.22. saith that without shedding of blood there is no remission; how can the Mass, where the blood of Christ is not shed, really be a sacrifice for the remission of sins? Or how shall we say that the blood of Christ is really shed in the Sacrament, seeing it doth not come out of his veins? Or how can shedding of blood be without any motion?
The same Apostle, Heb. 10.17, 18. having said, that God hath promised to remember our sins no more; addeth, Now where the remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Since then by the death of Christ, and by faith in him, we have remission of our sins, what need we more to make oblations and sacrifices for sins?
In chap. 7. v. 27. he compareth the Priests of the Law with Christ, in that they offered every day sacrifices for sins: But this (saith he) he did once, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , once only, when he offered up himself. This word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , cannot be otherwise translated, but by semel, or once only, both because it is the signification of the word, and because by this word the Apostle opposeth Christ to the Priests of the Law, who offered sacrifices often. Thus Heb. 9.27. he saith, that it is appointed unto men 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , semel mori, once to die. That man should want common sense, that should find fault with translating that text in this manner, It is appointed unto men to die once only: No more should any find fault with us for translating the following verse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Christus semel oblatus, Christ being offered once only. And so Heb. 10.10. Through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all; for there also the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is found. And that sacrifice once made, he opposeth to the reiteration of the sacrifices of the Law, which were done every day.
In every sacrifice, properly so called, there must be an offering consecrated. How then can the Mass be properly called a sacrifice, seeing that there is nothing consecrated in it? Not the bread, not the wine, for it is pretended that they are no more bread and wine after the consecration. Not the accidents, for colors and lines are not an offering; Not the body of Christ, for it cannot be consecrated by men. Here is then a sacrifice, where nothing is consecrated.
As for the virtue of that sacrifice of propitiation, or redemption, when our Adversaries go about to declare it, they bring it to nothing. In the Canon of the Mass, the Priest saith, that he offereth a sacrifice of praises for the redemption of souls. Truly praises are no payments. A debtor by exalting his creditors, with praises to the third Heaven, shall never pay his debts.
Here Bellarmine is for us, for he insisteth much to prove, that the sacrifice of the Mass is only impetratory, such as are prayers, but cannot be satisfactory nor expiatory; because Christ is no more in a condition to satisfy or merit. It was never heard that an impetration by prayers without satisfaction, or without payment, was taken for redemption.
There was no need to sacrifice Christ again, to apply to us the sacrifice of his death, since the Eucharist, as it is a Sacrament applieth his death. The bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ, 1 Cor. 10.16.
Wherefore the Roman Church diminisheth to her power, the efficacy of that Sacrament, teaching that the sacrifice of the Mass serveth only to remit the temporal pain of sins already pardoned. Which appeareth, in that no man receiveth the Easter Communion in the Roman Church, but after the absolution by the Priest. Also in that Masses are sung for the souls in Purgatory, of whom the sins are pardoned, and the fault wholly blotted out, and which are liable only to the temporal pain. The Catechism of the Council of Trent saith, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist blotteth out small sins only; it hath then no virtue against great sins.
Yet it would be some comfort, if a Mass did impetrate the remission of the whole temporal pain: But it hath not that virtue. For ten thousand Masses are sung to fetch one soul out of Purgatory. Especially if it be the soul of one that hath founded Obits and Anniversaries, which are not said for those that have given nothing.
It is not without reason, that a doubt is made of the virtue and efficacy of Masses. For many pay Masses for their cure, or for the cure of their sick friends, who die nothing the less. Whereas many are cured, for whom no Masses were sung. Which makes it doubtful, whether Masses sung for the dead, bring them any ease.
Our Adversaries increase that doubt, by saying that in the Cross, Christ's natural being was destroyed; but in the Mass his Sacramental being only is destroyed, that is, his significative or representative being, as if one gave the picture of money only, which is a payment somewhat light; for indeed that Sacramental being is not the price of our redemption.
They that are contemptuously called Heretics, are so unfortunate, that whereas Masses are said for Pagans and Infidels, and for sick horses and sheep, none are said for them. For beasts, Masses are said for money: For Infidels, some are sung upon civil considerations: But for Heretics none are said. And there is reason for it; for not only they will spend no money for Masses, but they would give money that no more Masses were sung.
CHAP. 3. Examination of the Cardinals reasons, to prove that the Fathers call the Eucharist a Sacrifice in a proper, not in a Metaphorical sense.
THis question, which the Cardinal is so busy about, is altogether useless. For though we had granted that all the Fathers hold the Eucharist to be a true sacrifice, it would not follow that Christ is really sacrificed in it. Besides, all the old and late Doctors are not agreed about the definition of a sacrifice, which M. du Perron should have set down in the beginning, to build his proofs upon them, for without that, his proofs are to no end.
Austin, in the tenth Book of the City of God, chap. 5. calls Alms or Mercy a true sacrifice. And in the sixth chapter he defines a sacrifice, saying that every action which is done to adhere unto God, is a true sacrifice. According to that definition, we must not wonder that the Eucharist is called a true sacrifice. Yet let us see what reasons the Cardinal brings.
He affirmeth that the Fathers say, and that his Majesty of Great Britain acknowledgeth, that the Eucharist is the only sacrifice of Christians, and the only one that hath succeeded all the sacrifices of the ancient Law. Had he brought testimonies of the Fathers that speak so, the Reader might have seen that the Fathers speak of the sacrifice of Christ's death, which indeed hath succeeded the sacrifices of Aaron; and to this most part of the Epistle to the Hebrews is employed. For the end of the Apostle, is to show that Christ's Priesthood hath succeeded Aaron's Priesthood: Which Priesthood of Christ, he makes to consist in his death only. For in the whole Epistle, he speaks not at all of the Eucharist. Or if any Father saith, that the Lord's Supper succeeds alone the sacrifices of the Law, he saith that with respect to Christ's death, which is represented in the holy Communion, in which we offer unto God the death of his Son, beseeching him to accept it for our Redemption. As if he said, that the only thing that we can offer unto God, is Christ's death, which is celebrated in the Lord's Supper.
Thus the Apostle, 1 Cor. 5.7. saith, that Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us, giving to Christ's death the name of the Sacrament that represents it, by reason of the resemblance, and the relation that is betwixt both, and together showing that Christ's death is the true sacrifice, which hath succeeded the Passover of the Law.
Austin in the Book of the 83. Questions, in the 61. Question speaks thus, Christ hath offered himself a burnt-offering for our sins, and hath instituted that the representation of that sacrifice be celebrated in memory of his passion. And in the same place, He hath instituted that the image of this sacrifice be celebrated in the Church, in memory of his passion.
The Cardinal addeth, Besides, that which the same Fathers teach us, that it cannot be offered, but by those that have the character of Priesthood, showeth manifestly that they speak of the sacrifice taken in the proper and precise signification. The absurdity of that reason appears, by bringing it into a Syllogisticall form. This is his argument, That which cannot be done but by them that have the character of Priesthood, is a true and proper sacrifice. Now the Eucharist, &c. That proposition is false. For the preaching of the Gospel likewise, cannot be done but by those that have that character. By the same reason, the Sacrament of Penitence of the Roman Church, and Confirmation, shall be sacrifices properly so called, since they cannot be conferred but by Priests and Bishops. The Cardinal should have remembered also, that in the Roman Church the immolation of the Paschal Lamb by the several families of Israel, is held to have been a true sacrifice, which yet was done by the heads of Families, before the tribe of Levi was chosen by God to exercise the Priesthood. And since that choice, hardly was there a Levite for every Family where the Paschal Lamb was eaten. When Christ celebrated the Passover with his Disciples, there was none. The great defect of that argument is, that it was made to prove that the Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not to prove that Christ is really sacrificed in it, which is the point in question.
He goeth about to prove the same thing, because the Fathers use the word Altar, presupposing that no other sacrifices can be done upon an Altar, but such as are properly so called. Indeed, that which the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. calls the Table of the Lord, is sometimes called an Altar by the ancient Fathers, although more frequently they call it a Table. But the Fathers to draw the Jews and the Pagans, make use of terms usual among them, calling the Table of the Lord an Altar, in the same manner that the Deacons are called Levites, and the offerings which the people set upon the table victims and sacrifices. In effect, the Cardinals maxim is false, that all that is done upon an Altar, is truly and properly a sacrifice. For as the immolation of the Paschal Lamb was not done upon an Altar, so on the other side, offerings of fruits and perfumes, which the holy Scripture calls not sacrifices, were laid upon the Altar.
To the same end he addeth, Since the Fathers held that the prophecies of the abolition of Judaical sacrifices, and of the substitution of a new sacrifice were accomplished in the oblation of the Eucharist; when they spake of a sacrifice, they meant the proper, not the Metaphorical sacrifice.
I answer, that Christ saying in his death, All is fulfilled, taught us that in his death was the fulfilling of prophesies and figures. And the Apostle to the Hebrews finds in the death of Christ the fulfilling of the sacrifices of the Law, not in the Lord's Supper, of which he makes not any mention. Saint John agreeth to this, chap. 19. ver. 36. where he gives a reason why the bones of Christ were left unbroken on the Cross, namely, because it was forbidden to break the bones of the Paschal Lamb. He will have us then to find in the death of Christ, the fulfilling of the Paschal Lamb. Besides, the Cardinals maxim is false, that the thing in which the fulfilling of the sacrifices is found, is a true and proper sacrifice. By that reason, the fulfilling of prophesies should be also a prophesy, and the fulfilling of legal washings and purifications, should be also a real washing: Now everyone knows that remission of sins figured by these washings, cannot be called washing, but Metaphorically, and in an Allegorical sense. If then some Fathers have said, that in the Eucharist we have the fulfilling of Judaical figures, they say it because in the Eucharist the death of Christ is represented, and offered unto God for our sins. It is especially to be noted, that this argument tends to prove that the Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not that Christ is sacrificed in it.
The reason which he adds is of no greater strength, That the Fathers expounding Daniel's prophesy about the cessation of the sacrifice of the Eucharist, show sufficiently, that by the sacrifice of the Eucharist, they understand a true and proper sacrifice. But nothing hinders but that Daniel speaks of the sacred actions of the Christian Church in figurative terms, usual in the Old Testament. It is the style of the Prophets and Apostles, to call our prayers perfumes, and our bodies temples, and our thanksgivings the calves of our lips and sacrifices. But to look to Daniel's true meaning, he is prophesying of the cessation of the continual sacrifice which was to happen under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. And if some of the Ancients take Antiochus for a figure of Antichrist, they do not restrain the abolition of the continual sacrifice, to the only abolition of the Eucharist, but they understand thereby the cessation of the divine Service, of which the Eucharist makes a great part: For it is ordinary to take a part for the whole. He that saith that Antichrist must abolish the Lord's Supper, thereby understands that he will abolish the whole outward exercise of Christian Religion, which never was without this holy Sacrament.
Of the same stuff is the reason which he addeth, that the Fathers distinguish the inward sacrifices, that is, the mental commemoration, from the outward sacrifice of the Church. He presupposeth that all that is distinct or different from the mental sacrifice, and every outward sacrifice, is a true and proper sacrifice. By this reason, the oral prayer and alms which Scripture calls a sacrifice, must be a true and proper sacrifice. For they are external, and different from the internal sacrifices, consisting in the thought. After all, What strength hath this to prove that Christ is sacrificed in the Eucharist?
He goeth on, and saith that the Fathers distinguish the sacrifice of Melchizedek from that of Aaron, by the institution of the Eucharist; and thence he inferreth, that the Fathers believed that the Eucharist is truly and properly a sacrifice. This is a reason without reason. For two Priests may differ in actions, which are improperly called sacrifices. But the Fathers make not the difference between Melchizedek and Aaron to consist in that only, seeing that the Apostle to the Hebrews giveth us so many other differences between them, in the seventh chapter, without speaking one word of the Eucharist. As in that Melchizedek is represented as a Priest forever, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, being both King and Priest, taking tithes from Abraham as greater then he, and by consequent then Levi, and giving to Abraham his blessing.
He addeth that the Fathers by these words, We offer unto thee, meant real offerings. That's true. But all real offerings are not sacrifices properly so called, nor propitiatory sacrifices, less yet sacrifices of Christ's body. The offerings which the Christian people used to offer upon the holy Table were real oblations, but our Adversaries hold them not to have been properly sacrifices, nor effectual for propitiation. Thus the Apostle saith, Heb. 13.15. Let us offer unto God sacrifices of praises▪ Where he speaks of real offerings which are improperly called sacrifices.
The reason that follows is such another: He proveth that the Fathers acknowledge the Eucharist for a true and proper sacrifice, because they ascribe to it the service of latria. Never was a man more unfortunate in argumenting, then this Prelate. He presupposeth, that all wherein the service of latria consisteth, is a true and proper sacrifice. By that reckoning, the Lord's Prayer is a true and proper sacrifice: For it is part of the Sovereign service which we present unto God. Can one build a more absurd reasoning then this? The Lord's Supper belongs to the Sovereign service which we yield unto God, Ergo, it is a true Sacrifice? To prop that impertinent argument, he employeth the rest of his chapter. Thus all the Cardinals reasons fall with blowing upon: And all the texts of the Fathers, which he allegeth are found useless, since he draws false consequences from them, grounded upon false maxims.
CHAP. 4. That the Fathers call the Lord's Supper a Sacrifice, because it is the commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ's death.
THe Fathers following the style of Scripture, use to give unto signs the name of the thing signified.
The Lord's Supper then being a sign and a Sacrament of Christ's sacrifice offered to God on the Cross, may with good reason be called Christ's sacrifice, and the sacrifice of our price and redemption, and the sacrifice of his death and passion: This is fully represented by Austin, in the 23. Epistle to Boniface, Many times we speak thus, when Easter draweth near, To morrow or the next day is the Lord's passion, although it happened so many years ago, and though that passion happened but once. Thus we say upon the Lord's day, This day the Lord is risen again, although so many years are past since his resurrection. Why is nobody so silly as to tax us of untruth when we speak so? but because this day is called the same day, which is not the same, but is like it by revolution of times? Was not Christ once sacrificed in himself? And yet he is sacrificed before the people in a sacred sign, not only upon every solemnity of Easter, but also every day; And yet that man lieth not who being asked answereth that Christ is sacrificed. For had not the Sacraments some resemblance with the things of which they are Sacraments, they should not be Sacraments. But because of that resemblance many times they take the name of the things themselves. In this remarkable place of Austin three things especially are to be observed. 1. That Christ at Easter, and in the ordinary celebration of the Eucharist did not sacrifice himself but in a sacrament or sacred sign. 2. That Christians say that in the Eucharist, Christ is Sacrificed, in the same manner as we say upon the Lord's day, this day is Christ's resurrection; Not that Christ in effect riseth again upon every Lord's day, but because the memory of his resurrection is celebrated every Lord's day. 3. That when we say that Christ is sacrificed in the Eucharist, we give unto the sign the name of the thing signified. The same he saith in the tenth book of the City of God, ch. 5. The visible sacrifice is a Sacrament, that is, a sacred sign of the true sacrifice; And a little after. That which men call sacrifice is a sign of the true sacrifice. He could not say more expressly that the Eucharist is no true sacrifice.
The other Fathers speak the same. Justin Martyr in his Dialogue against Tryphon, The offering of meal for those whom they purged from the leprosy, was a figure of the bread of the Eucharist, which our Lord Jesus Christ commanded us to do in remembrance of his passion.
The sixth book of the Apostolic Constitutions of Clement, ch. 3, speaks thus, The Lord instead of a bloody sacrifice hath instituted a reasonable, unbloody, and mystical sacrifice, which is celebrated in consideration of the Lord's death, by the signs of his body and blood.
The ancient service of the Church of Milan had these words, Fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam rationabilem acceptabilem, quod est figura corporis & sanguinis Domini. As Ambrose saith in the fourth book of Sacraments ch. 5. Let this offering be put to our account reasonable and acceptable, which is the figure of the body and blood of the Lord.
Gregory Nazianzen in the Oration upon his return from the country complaining of the hard dealing, which he had from those of whom he expected support, Shall they bar me (saith he) from the altars? [so he calls the table of the Lord's supper] But I know an altar of which the things that are now seen are figures, &c. the whole is the work of the understanding, and the ascent to it is by contemplation. To this altar I will approach, upon this I will sacrifice an acceptable sacrifice and offering, and whole burnt offerings, so much better then those that are now offered, as the truth is better then the shadow. Had this Father believed that the body of Christ was really sacrificed upon the Altar, he would never have said that his prayers and meditations are better then that which is offered upon the Altar in the Church. He would never have called the Eucharist a shadow. He had not been so bold as to deny that we have the truth in that holy Sacrament.
Procopius Gazaeus upon Gen. 49. saith, that Christ hath given to his Disciples the image or figure, and type of his body receiving no more the bloody sacrifies of the law.
Ambrose in the first book of Offices, ch. 48. compareth the ceremonies of the Law, and the Sacrments of the New Testament, with the truth which is in Christ Jesus. Here (saith he) is the shadow and image, there the truth is in heavenly places. And a little after, Here Christ is offered in image, but there in truth.
Eusebius in ch. 3. of the first book of Evangelical Demonstration. We celebrate with just reason every day the memory of his body and blood. And a little after, The Lord having offered a sacrifice, and an excellent victim to his Father for the salvation of us all, hath commanded us to offer continually the commemoration thereof instead of a sacrifice. And in the same place, We have received the memorial of that sacrifice to celebrate it in his table by the signs of his body and of his saving blood, according to the institution of the New Testament.
In the chapter before, we brought testimonies of Austin in the book of the eighty three Questions saying twice in the seventy ninth Question, That the holy Communion is the image and resemblance of the sacrifice of Christ's death. And in ch. 5. of the tenth book of the City of God, Illud quod ab hominibus appellatur sacrificium, signum est veri sacrificii, That which men call a sacrifice, is the sign of a true sacrifice. He could not speak more plainly. Note that he saith that men call it a sacrifice, not that God calls it so.
It must not be found strange, that the Fathers call the Lord's Supper the sacrifice of Christ, seeing that they say also that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is Christ's death.
Cyprian in the sixty third Epistle, Because in all sacrifices we make mention of his passion (for the Lord's passion is the sacrifice which we offer) we must not do any other thing but what he did himself. Upon which place Pamelius in his Notes freely acknowledgeth, that Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Oecumenius interpret so these words, which is broken for you, that they say that in the sacrifice of the Mass Christ suffereth, and is broken and changed. Wherein he saith true, but that this word Mass is not found in these Fathers.
The Lord's Supper then is in the same manner the sacrifice of Christ, as it is the death of Christ. Now the Lord's Supper is not really the death of Christ; Then it is not really the sacrifice of Christ, but by commemoration. So Chrysostom speaks, While that death is a doing, that dread sacrifice, those unspeakable mysteries. This Father is he that speaks in the most lofty terms of this sacrifice among all the ancient writers, and saith often, that Christ is sacrificed in the mysteries. In his twenty fourth Sermon upon 1 Cor. 10. he speaks thus, When this sacrifice is brought forth, Christ sacrificed, the Lordly sheep; When thou hearest these words, Let us pray all in common; When thou seest the double curtains drawn, think that heaven is opening from above, and Angels are descending. But there is no better interpreter of Chrysostom then Chrysostom. So be speaks in the seventeenth Homily upon the Epistle to the Hebrews. What then? Do we not not offer every day? We offer indeed, but making a memorial of his death. And that sacrifice is one, not many. How is that sacrifice one and not many? because that sacrifice was offered once. He was carried into the holiest of holies (that is, into heaven) This is a figure of that sacrifice. And in the same place, This is done in memory of that which was done then; For he saith, Do this in remembrance of me. We do not another sacrifice, as the High Priest [of the Law] but we do always the same; Yea rather we celebrate the remembrance of the same sacrifice. These words Yea rather are very express, and grieve our adversaries very much.
Austin calls also very often the Lord's supper a sacrifice. But he expounds himself in the twentieth book against Faustus the Manichean, ch. 21. in these words, Of this sacrifice the flesh and blood before Christ's coming was promised by the resemblance of sacrifices. In Christ's passion it was exhibited in truth. After Christ's Ascension it is celebrated by the Sacrament of commemoration. Could he say more plainly that the body of Christ is not exhibited, not sacrificed in truth in the Sacrament, then by saying that in his death it was exhibited in truth, but in the Sacrament it is exhibited by commemoration? This so express testimony is depraved and abused by Cardinal du Perron with an incredible licentiousness; for he soweth up a tail to it by way of interpretation. Austin saith. The flesh and blood of this sacrifice is promist before the coming of Christ by the victims, that is, (if we must believe the Cardinal) this flesh and blood is promist in a distinst and separate being. But Austin speaks not there at all of that separation, but of the figure and resemblance opposed to the truth. Of this Sacrifice (saith he) the flesh and blood was promised before Christ's coming by the resemblance of sacrifices, but in the passion it is exhibited in truth. But to what end is this shift, since Austin teacheth us in this place, that in the Sacrament the body of the Lord is not exhibited in truth but by commemoration? To that the Cardinal gives no answer.
The same Austin in ch. 17. of the seventeenth book against Faustus Manichean, To eat bread, in the New Testament is the sacrifice of Christians. So much indeed is not sacrificing Christ really. And in another place, Christ offered up himself in sacrifice for our sins, and hath instituted that the resemblance of that sacrifice be celebrated in memory of his passion.
The book of Faith to Petrus Diaconus, which is rather of Fulgentius then Austin, speaks thus in ch. 19. The universal Church over all the world ceaseth not to offer a Sacrifice of bread and wine, in faith and charity. For in these carnal victims [of the Old Testament] there was a representation of the flesh of Christ, which himself being free from sin was to offer for our sins, and of the blood which he was to shed for the remission of sins. But in this sacrifice [of the Eucharist] there is a thanksgiving and a commemoration of the flesh of Christ which be offered for us, and of the blood which the same God hath shed for us. It is observable that he saith that in the Eucharist there is a sacrifice of bread and wine, and that, in commemoration of the flesh of Christ. Then he did not believe that the flesh of Christ was really sacrificed in it.
In the tenth book against Faustus ch. 18. Christians celebrate the memory of this same Sacrifice already done, by the holy oblation and participation of the body and blood of Christ.
The words of the Canon Hoc est, are most express in the second Distinction of the Consecration, which Canon is ascribed to Prosper by Alger and Gratian, The immolation of the flesh which is done by the hands of the Priest is called the passion, death and crucifying, not in truth but by a significant mystery. In the same manner as the Sacrament of faith by which we understand Baptism, is faith. Can we find it strang that the Lord's Supper is called by the Ancients the Sacrifice of Christ, seeing that they call it also the death and Passion of Christ? The Grammarian Soudas, upon the word Ecclesia speaks thus, The Church offereth up the signs of the body of Christ, sanctifying the whole lump by the first fruits. And the Mass calls that which the Priest offereth, gifts and presents which God blesseth and sanctifieth and createth every day. Which are not terms convenient to the body of Christ. Hence these expressions which are found in some Councils and Penitential Canons alleged by Burchard in the fifth book, If any vomit the sacrifice, and it be eaten by the dogs, let him do a years penance, Again, Let every sacrifice grown mouldy with age be burnt. Again, If one hath not well kept the sacrifice, and a mouse or some other creature hath eaten it, let him do forty days penance. Which words should be impious, if by the word sacrifice the body of Christ were understood.
See Lombard the Father of the School of the Roman Church in the fourth of the Sentences Dist. 12. lit. G. where he showeth by testimonies of Ambrose and Austin, that the Eucharist is called the sacrifice of Christ, because it is the commemoration of the sacrifice of the Cross, and brings no other reason for it. The place of Ambrose which he allegeth is this, We offer every day; and that is done in memory of his death. He is the same victim, not many. How is it one, and not many? Because Christ was sacrificed once only; But this sacrifice is done after the example of that, &c. That which we do, is done in commemoration of that which was done.
Thomas speaks the same language. The celebration of the Sacrament is called the sacrifice or immolation of Christ for two reasons; First because, as Austin saith to Simplicius, Images are called by the name of the things of which they are images, &c. Secondly, because by the Sacraments, we are made partakers of the death of Christ. He brings no other reason for it. Himself in the exposition of St. John. ch. 6. Lesson 6. This Sacrament is nothing else but the application which is made unto us of the Lord's passion.
What more? Cardinal du Perron himself in an Assembly which was held in the Convent of the Dominicans of Paris made no difficulty to say, that the Eucharist was a sacrifice of religion instituted to apply and commemorate the sacrifice of the death of Christ, as himself acknowledgeth in ch. 6. At which many were offended, expecting that he would have said rather, that the Eucharist was a sacrifice of redemption where Christ was really sacrifice for our redemption; and they said that he kept that tenet still from his father who was Minister of God's word.
CHAP. 5. Examination of the Cardinals shifts.
THe Cardinal in ch. 2. acknowledgeth, that the Fathers call the holy Eucharist a sacrifice of commemoration. But (saith he) it was not as for the essence but as for the end; Meaning that the Fathers understood not that commemoration was of the essence of that sacrifice, but that they spake so to express the end thereof. This Prelat knew not that the end many times is of the essence of things. Thus seeing is the end of the eye, and yet it is of the essence of it, for it enters into the definition of the eye. And cutting is the end of a knife, and yet that fitness to cut is of the essence of the knife, for it is that which makes it to be a knife. This especially is found in the Sacraments. For the end of Baptism is the washing of our sins, and yet that end is of the essence of Baptism.
Yet let us receive that distinction, as absurd as it is. For if the end of an action is not of the essence of the action, at least that end must be agreeable with the essence and nature of the action. Now they give us here an end which is imcompatible with the essence and nature of Christ's sacrifice. For to sacrifice Christ, and to make a commemoration of his sacrifice, are things ill agreeing together. Must we sacrifice Christ that we may celebrate the memory of the sacrifice of his death? By the same reason to remember Christ's death, we must put him to death again.
The same I say of the application. For to apply Christ's sacrifice to ourselves we need not sacrifice him, as to apply a payment to us, we need not to pay the second time, and to apply a plaster to us, we need not have another plaster, much less do we need another plaster of a contrary or different nature. For that the sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrifice of the death of Christ are different, yea disagreeing sacrifices, it appears, because the Mass is not the death of Christ, and Christ suffereth nothing in it, and payeth nothing in it for us. The death of Christ happened but once, for it is sufficient to redeem us. But the Mass is celebrated every day, and Masses without number are sung. Many of them go to the redeeming of a soul from Purgatory. Then in the cross God visibly offered up himself; But in the Mass they say, that he offereth himself invisibly by the hands of the Priest under the species of bread. M. du Perron acknowledgeth that difference in ch. 6. of which the title is this, Of the difference of the Sacrifice of Redemption made in the Cross, and of the Sacrifice of Religion made in the Eucharist. The one then is a sacrifice of redemption, the other is not. But because herein he contradicteth the Mass, and the Council of Trent, which affirm that the Mass is a sacrifice of redemption, he goeth about to heal that wound by making two sorts of redemption, the one original, the other applicative, and fancying a sacrifice of original redemption which is the death of Christ, and a sacrifice of applicative redemption which is the Mass, which he saith to be a perpetual salve of redemption, not original, but applicative, there was need of new words for a new Divinity. I pass by the main fault, that he saith this without the word of God, which acknowledgeth but one redemption; for among these Prelates, Scripture hath lost her authority. But I think not that this doctrine can be tolerated in the Roman Church, which holds that the Mass of itself, and of its nature, not by application only, is a sacrifice of redemption. By the same reason then both the Gospel and Baptism should be an applicative redemption, since by them Christ's redemption is applied unto us. Besides who so will attentively consider this expression of applicative redemption, shall find that it is a Chimera, and a piece of gibbrish without common sense. For redemption signifieth buying again, or a ransom and payment to redeem a person. How ridiculous then should that man be that would say, that to redeem a man, there is need of two payments, the one original, the other applicative, as if the application of payment were another payment? When the Prelat spake thus, I suppose he was not in earnest, or that the strength of truth had set him on the rack, and extorted from him these dark and ridiculous words to hide himself in obscurity. For these words necessarily imply that the Eucharist is not at all a sacrifice of redemption, since by it redemption is applied to us. Neither indeed is there any other redemption, but that which he calls original, even the death of Christ, unless we will forge another Gospel. And when we have turned these words every way, no other sense can be drawn out of them, but that which he impugneth, the doctrine our Churches, that the Lord's supper is a sacrifice of thanksgiving, in which a commemoration is made of our redemption by the sacrifice of Christ's death, and whereby the benefit of the same is applied unto us. Which he makes evident by saying, that Christ in the Eucharist is not in a condition of passion and merit. This is clearly to say, that the Eucharist is not a sacrifice of redemption. It was not then without cause, that many that heard him speak so in the Assembly in the Convent of the Dominicans, murmured, saying that this doctrine had still a relish of the old leaven, and of the stock whence he was descended.
I pass by divers faults into which the Cardinal falls by the way, as his saying in pag. 929. that the sacrifices of the Law did not confer any grace ex opere operato, from the work wrought, but only ex opere operantis, from the work of the worker; that is, (as he addeth) that of themselves they were of no value, and of no price or virtue, but that their whole virtue depended upon the disposition of the persons that were partakers of them. Certainly, since God had instituted these sacrifices, we make no doubt but that God gave them a salutary virtue, which proceeded not from the virtue of those that were partakers of the sacrifices, but from God's blessing. If that doctrine of the Cardinal be true, we must say that the Sacraments of the Old Testament, instituted by God, were of no value by their nature, but that they became good and salutary by the virtue of men, not by God's Institution.
But I cannot pass by a notorious falsification, which he committeth in the fifth chapter of the Treatise of the Sacrifice, pag. 925. where he allegeth the 29. Canon of the third Council of Carthage, in these words, If any recommendation of the dead must be made in the afternoon, whether they be Bishops or Clerks, or others, let it be done by prayers only; if it be found that they that make it, be no more fasting, reserving to the morning only the recommendations made by oblation. This last clause, reserving to the morning only the recommendations made by oblation, is of the Cardinals addition, and is not found in that 29. Canon.
CHAP. 6. Other reasons for which the Fathers called the Lord's Supper a Sacrifice.
BEsides the foresaid reason, Why the Lord's Supper is called a Sacrifice, namely, Because it is a sign and a commemoration of Christ's sacrifice; and besides the reasons for which the prayers, the alms, the repentance, the sufferings for Christ, and generally every good work is called in Scripture a Sacrifice, and for which prayer is called an unbloody sacrifice by the Fathers: there are particular reasons why the Eucharist was so called by the Antient. First because in the holy Communion we offer unto God the sacrifice of Christ, beseeching him to accept the merit of his death for our sins.
Also the holy Communion is a sacrifice of thanksgiving, which the Fathers have shown enough, by calling it the Eucharist, and by consequent an Eucharistical sacrifice, that is, a sacrifice of thanksgiving. The same is confirmed by the Canon of the Mass, which calls the sacrifice, that the Priest offereth, sacrificium laudis, a sacrifice of praises.
Then the offerings which God's people brought in the very action of the Communion upon the holy Table, to be employed for the Lord's Supper, and for the Agapes, and to feed the poor and the Clerks, being called sacrifices by the Ancients, that name past to the whole action of the Communion. That expression remaineth in the Mass, in which the bread and wine not consecrated, are called a sacrifice, and an immaculate victim. For these are the words of the offertory, Receive this immaculate victim, which I thine unworthy servant offer unto thee my living God for my numberless sins, &c. This is said before the Consecration. Thus bread not consecrated, is offered for sins in the Mass. Which Bellarmine acknowledgeth in the first Book of the Mass, chap. 27. saying, It must not be denied, that the bread and the wine are in some manner offered in the Mass. This appeareth first by the Liturgy. For when we say before the Consecration, Receive Holy Father this immaculate victim: Certainly the Pronown this, sensibly showeth that which we hold at that time in our hands. And he showeth that Irenaeus and other Fathers spake so, and called the bread not consecrated a sacrifice.
Also the desire of drawing the Pagans (who esteemed that no Religion could be without a sacrifice; and upbraided the Christians that they had neither Altars nor sacrifices) made many of the Ancients the more willing to call the holy Communion a sacrifice. This reproach, put upon the Christians by the Pagans, is seen in the eighth Book of Origen against Celsus, and in the Dialogue of Minutius Felix, and in Arnobius, as we shown in another place.
Had the Fathers believed, that they really sacrificed Christ, they would have adored the Sacrament, which they never did: No more then the Apostles, who remained sitting or leaning at the Table. They did indeed venerate the signs and symbols, as Theodoret saith in the second Dialogue. And they worshipped Christ in the Eucharist, but they worshipped not the Eucharist. Wherefore they said, Sursum corda; Lift up your hearts on high; that the people might lift up their hearts to Christ residing in heaven, and not stay upon the Sacrament present to them, as if Christ had been enclosed within it. They would have made an elevation of the host, whereas only they drew curtains that were spread before the Table, when they would show to the people the Sacrament set upon the Table. They would not have given to women the Sacrament in their hand, and would not have suffered them to carry it to their homes. They would not have burnt or given to children returning from the School the remnant of the bread of the Eucharist; which were the ancient customs, as we proved in another place, and will say more of it in the following controversy.
But still the safest course, is to stick close to the Word of God, and to follow the style of the Apostle, who calls this Sacrament the Lord's Supper. For from an impropriety in the language, the Church will pass insensibly to an error in the Faith.
Eleventh Controversy, OF THE SEVENTH BOOK. Of the Real Presence of CHRIST'S Body IN THE SACRAMENT, AND Of Transubstantiation.
CHAP. 1. Of the first Institution of the holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
IN the Question of the real presence of the Sacrament, M. du Perron leaving the holy Scripture, which can alone decide this difference, betakes himself altogether to the Fathers, who call that which we receive in the holy Communion the body of Christ. But since the Word of God is the only rule of our Faith, he should at least have done that honor to the Word of God, to let it speak first.
We shall begin then with the Institution of this holy Sacrament, such as Christ made it among his Apostles; To which if all would keep themselves, speaking as Christ spake, and doing as he did, this controversy would be soon ended; And a quarrel about which so much blood was spilled, would be changed into concord and a kind reconciliation.
In that institution we find, that Christ sitting at Supper with his face towards his Disciples, speaking to them in a known tongue, took bread, and having blessed it, brake it, and gave it to his Disciples, saying that it was his body broken for them, commanding them to do this in remembrance of him. In all that we see, that Christ offered nothing unto God, that he spake not of sacrifice, that he made no elevation, that there was no adoration of the Host, that all did communicate in the two kinds, Christ saying, Take eat, drink ye all of this; that there was no bone of any Saint or relick hidden under the Table.
With that institution compare the Mass, in which the Priest standing before an Altar, with his back turned to the people, speaking in an unknown tongue, takes a round wafer, and speaks to it with a low voice, and by a whisper pretendeth to transubstantiate it into flesh, and to offer the body of Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice for the redemption of souls, and makes an elevation of that Host, and sets it forth to be worshipped, and depriveth the people of the cup, and very often eats alone, and asketh salvation of God by the merits of the Saints, whose bones are hidden under the Altar, and sings Masses for the honor of the Saints, as the Mass of Saint Rock, or Saint Marcel, and makes a sacrifice of propitiation, not only for living men, but for the dead, and to make the corn thrive, and to heal beasts. In a word, the change from the institution is prodigious; Nothing of the Lord's Supper can be known in it, and the whole action seems to be made purposely to correct Christ, and overthrow his institution.
Then, that we may keep the right order, before we go further, we will set down the whole institution of that holy Sacrament made by Christ, for from it the fundamental maxims must be drawn, which give light to this matter. It is labor in vain, to set out with great noise what men have said, if we be ignorant of that Christ hath commanded.
Our Adversaries continually allege these words of the institution of this Sacrament, This is my body. Which words thus clipt and taken alone, might trouble weak consciences. But the whole text giveth a great light to the matter.
The Gospel relates, that Christ took bread, and gave thanks and brake it, and gave unto his Disciples, saying, This is my body which is given for you, this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you, Saint Matthew adds, that Christ giving the cup, said, Drink ye all of it; and that having given the cup to his Disciples, he told them, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom. Saint Paul relates the same institution, in the eleventh chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. His words are in ver. 24. This is my body which is broken for you; and in verse. 25, 26. This cup is the New Testament in my blood, this do ye as oft as you drink it in remembrance of me. Then he addeth, For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.
To this institution we must always return: And all that men have invented without or against this institution, cannot have the force of Law. Wherefore it is necessary before all things, to examine the Doctrine of the Roman Church by that rule. But before we go further, we must observe that the Roman Bible hath falsified the words of this institution: And that whereas Saint Paul saith, This is my body which is broken for you; there is in the Vulgar version, This is my body which shall be delivered for you; putting tradetur for frangitur. And whereas Saint Luke saith, which is shed for you; the same version saith, which shall be shed for you; fundetur for funditur. Which depravations hinder the understanding to discern, that Christ speaks of a Sacramental effusion and fraction, and of a body which is broken in the Eucharist; thereby stopping a window, whence we fetch much light, as we shall see hereafter.
CHAP. 2. That the Doctrine of the Real presence, and of Transubstantiation, is repugnant to Christ's Institution. The Cardinals reasons are examined.
THe institution of this Sacrament affords us two sorts of proofs, both clear and strong: Some of them drawn from Christ's words, some from the circumstances of the action.
In the words of the Institution we find, 1. That Christ took and broke bread. 2. That he gave bread to his Disciples. 3. That this bread which he gave to his Disciples, was his body. 4. That this bread is broken in the Eucharist. 5. That his blood was shed in the same. 6. That Christ gave and broke bread, to be a remembrance or commemoration of himself. 7. That the thing which is in the cup, is the Testament or Covenant of Christ. 8. That the said Covenant is in the blood of Christ. 9. That in the cup of the Sacrament, there was the fruit of the Vine. 10. That Saint Paul addeth, that it is bread which we eat in the Lord's Supper, and that bread distinct from the cup. As many words, so many thunderbolts to overthrow Transubstantiation.
First then, the Evangelists witness that Christ brake bread; But the Roman Church saith, That the Priest breaks no bread. For he breaks the Host, after the words which they call consecrating words, after which they hold that the Host is no more bread. And to persuade the people that it is the body of Christ which the Priest breaks, and not bread; the Roman Church hath put the fraction of the Host after the pronouncing of the words, Hoc est corpus meum, &c. Whereas Christ broke the bread before he said, This is my body. It was then bread when Christ broke; According to that which Saint Luke saith, Acts 20.7. The Disciples came together to break bread. And Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 10.16. The bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? Wherefore when we ask our Adversaries what it is that the Priest breaks, when he breaks the consecrated Host? they find themselves shrewdly puzzled, and driven into brakes whence they cannot get out; neither do they understand themselves. For what is it that the Priest breaks? Is it bread? But they say that it is no more bread, when the Priest breaks the Host. Or doth he break the body of Christ? But themselves say that it cannot be broken, and that it remains whole in every piece of the Host. Are then the accidents broken? But it is going against common sense, to go about to break colors and savors, and a length of bread without bread. And it is giving the lie to Scripture, which saith expressly, that it is bread which we break and eat in the Lord's Supper. Besides the Roman Church pretends to offer and sacrifice unto God, that which is broken in the Mass, now one cannot sacrifice unto God, savors, and colors, and lines. And these words, breaking the Host, cannot signify the breaking of those accidents: For those accidents are not the Host or Victim for our sins. Wherefore finding no way to get out, they never answer to the purpose, and being asked what it is that is broken in the Mass? they answer that the body of Christ is broken under the species or accidents. But we did not ask under what the body of Christ is broken in the Mass, but only whether it be broken? And truly these words, the body of Christ is broken under the accidents, signify nothing else, but that the body of Christ is not broken in effect, but that the accidents are broken.
The second proof drawn from the words of the Institution, is in these words, that Christ took bread and gave it. So it was bread which he gave. Now he gave it not but after the consecration, then it was bread after the consecration. This seems to me a strong and a clear proof, which to elude, our Adversaries either never allege these words, or being constrained to allege them, they allege together the following words, This is my body, which only they will stand upon. But the words of this Institution are true, whether they be read with one breath, or that every clause be read apart. It is true then that Christ gave bread; it is true also that this bread is his body; and we must not make use of that coherence to overthrow the truth of either of these clauses. That which is most to be noted, is, that these words which say that Christ gave bread, are not the words of Christ, as the following words, but they are the words of the Apostles, who long after that Institution, declare to us that Christ, when he said, This is my body, gave bread.
Then the Gospel declareth, that Christ giving bread to his Disciples told them, This is my body. Which words say plainly, that the bread which he gave was his body, not that this bread was changed into his body by these words. These words, This is my body, are declarative of that which is, not effective of that which is not; and they presuppose that the bread was the body of Christ, before Christ said, This is my body. As also all the Ancients with one consent hold, that the consecration was done, not by these words, This is my body, but by the prayer. And reason itself requireth, that the bread be rather consecrated by asking God's blessing upon it, then by speaking to the bread. Besides, the word this, can signify nothing but what Christ held in his hand. Now our Adversaries say, that when Christ pronounced the word this, he had yet the bread in his hand. Then the sense of these words, This is my body, is, This bread is my body. Bellarmine here joins with us, saying, The Lord took bread, he blessed bread, he gave bread, he said of bread, This is my body. Since then Christ said, that this bread was his body, and that bread cannot be the body of Christ indeed, but only in figure and signification, it followeth that the sense of these words, This bread is my body, is, This bread is my body in figure or Sacrament. As the same Bellarmine acknowledgeth, These words, (saith he) This bread is my body, must be taken figuratively, so that the bread be the body of Christ in signification, else the proposition is altogether absurd and impossible.
I add that when Christ said, This is my body, by the word this, he understood that which he gave. Now the Gospel testifieth that he gave bread. Truly if we will believe the Gospel, we must believe these two things: The one that Christ gave bread, the other that this bread was his body. And next we must consider, how and in what sense the bread can be called the body of Christ. Which himself teacheth us soon after, saying that it is his commemoration.
Fourthly Saint Paul teacheth us, that Christ giving the bread to his Disciples, said, This is my body which is broken for you: Since he speaks in the present Tense, he speaks of a fraction which he did while he gave the bread. And whereas that fraction could not be real (for Christ's body cannot be really broken by the Priest) he must of necessity speak of a Sacramental and figurative fraction, representing the fraction of Christ's body on the Cross. Whence it followeth, that as Christ's body is broken but Sacramentally, not really in the Lord's Supper, likewise Christ's body is but Sacramentally, not really in the Sacrament. For the body of Christ is in the same manner present in the Eucharist, as it is broken in the Eucharist. Now it is not really broken in the Eucharist, but in Sacrament▪ then it is really present there but in Sacrament, and (as it is said a little after) in commemoration. The corrupt Version of the Roman Church, which translates shall be broken, instead of is broken, would robb us of this proof, and keep us from knowing the sense of Christ's words. Not that this is a late depravation. Neither will I tax our Adversaries to be the Authors of this falsification. Only we give them warning that they ought to correct their Version, since that depravation troubleth the sense, and obscureth the truth. And if after good warning, they continue to use a forged text to disguise the truth, they are guilty of forgery.
Fifthly, Christ saith that this blood is shed. He saith not that it shall be shed, but that it is shed: in the present, not in the future, as the Version of our Adversaries falsely translates it, fundetur instead of funditur. He speaks then of a blood-shedding which was done, while Christ was speaking. I confess indeed, that Christ speaks of the shedding of his blood, which was to be done on the Cross the next day; But he speaks in the present, to give to understand to his Disciples, that the effusion which he was doing in the Sacrament, was a figure of that which was to be done on the Cross. The true blood of Christ was Sacramentally shed in the Eucharist.
Here our Adversaries are sore put to it, and never answer directly, or to the purpose. We ask them, Whether the blood of Christ be shed really and truly in the holy Communion? Their belief is, that it is not shed, and that it comes not out of the Lord's body, nor out of his veins, and that Christ's body is impassible, and that no local motion is made of the Lord's blood. Yet not daring to contradict openly these words, which say in the present Tense, that Christ's blood is shed when the cup is presented; they say that it is shed under the species, that is, Under the accidents, under the color and the taste of Wine. But we did not ask, under what Christ's blood is shed? but, Whether it be shed at all in the Eucharist? And these words to be shed under the accidents or species, if they signify anything, they signify this, to be shed in show, not in effect. Yet they continue to say, that the blood of Christ is really shed under the species, that is, that the said blood is shed really in show, but not in effect, which is a manifest contradiction, and forging an effusion without motion, a real effusion of blood that stirreth not, and comes not out of the veins, a blood flowing without flowing, and without stirring. It is not then a natural effusion. But it is the natural effusion of the blood of Christ, which is the price of our redemption. And when the Apostle Heb. 9. saith, that without shedding of blood there is no remission, he speaks of the real and natural shedding, not of that which is done in show, not in effect. And themselves call the Eucharist an unbloody sacrifice, acknowledging that no blood is shed in it. Then the shedding of Christ's blood in the Eucharist, is a Sacramental shedding, signifying the shedding of the Lord's blood on the Cross, and a commemoration, as Christ addeth. There is nothing more convenient, then to use Sacramental expressions in the Institution of a Sacrament, and in an action which is a figure, to use figures conformable to the nature of the action.
Sixthly, Christ having given bread, saying, This is my body, addeth, Do this in remembrance of me. If this bread be given in remembrance of Christ, it is not Christ in effect, but in remembrance, as signs take the name of the things signified. Memorials are never the very things of which they renew the memory. Neican anything be more absurdly spoken, then that which our Adversaries say, That Christ in the Eucharist is both the sign and the signified thing; and that he is the figure and commemoration of himself; as if one said, that Alexander is the image of himself, and that the King and the Kings picture are the same thing. And (to make absurdity superlative) that the body of Christ which is invisible in the Mass, is the figure or image of the visible body of Christ. Some visible images of invisible things may be found. But as for images, or signs, or invisible and imperceptible figures of visible things, there is none to be found; for signs and images that are invisible and insensible, signify nothing, and by consequent are neither signs nor images.
To this add, that memory is of things past or absent. One may commemorate the actions past of a person in his presence, but that is not a commemoration of the person present, but of his actions past. The tombs of Martyrs were called memories, not to remember their bones lying there, but their past sufferings, and their absent souls. Since then this Sacrament is given in remembrance of Christ's body, it cannot be Christ's body.
Indeed the fraction and manducation of the Sacramental bread, and the effusion of the cup, are a commemoration of the death of Christ suffering for us, and of the shedding of his blood on the Cross. But as for the Sacrament itself, Christ saith that it is the remembrance of himself, saying, Do this in remembrance of me.
Seventhly, Christ (according to Saint Paul's and Saint Luke's relation) giving the cup, called that which was in that cup the new Covenant, or the New Testament, (for the Greek word signifieth both) saying, This cup is the New Testament. These words give a great light to the intelligence of these words, This is my body. For, 1. The bread which the Lord gave, must be the Lord's body in the same manner, as that which is within the cup is the New Testament. Now that which is within the cup, is not really a Testament, but in Sacrament and commemoration, as signs will take the names of the things signified. 2. Then reason itself requireth that Christ should use the same language for one kind, as for another. 3. And that to institute a Sacrament, he should speak in a Sacramental way, that his words might be conformable to the nature of the action. Then the sense of these words is, This cup is the sign or the commemoration of the New Testament. 4. Or else we must say that wine or blood is a Covenant, that a substance is an accident, that wine is a contract. 5. That Christ whom they put in the cup is a Testament, and so that the Testator and the Testament are the same thing. 6. That the wine is transubstantiated into a Testament. 7. That the blood of Christ is composed with Clauses and Articles, for this is proper to every Testament. 8. And that by this transubstantiation God's Covenant was made, as if it had not been before.
They that (to avoid so many inconveniencies) will say that the blood which is in the cup is called a New Covenant, because it is a seal and a confirmation of the New Covenant, plead our cause. For by the same reason I will say, that the Sacrament of bread is called the body of Christ, because it is a seal and a confirmation to us, that the body of Christ is ours.
But the eighth observation seems to me the most evident of all, That the Lord Jesus did not only say, This cup is the New Testament, but added, In my blood, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood. Since that which is in the cup is the Covenant in the blood of Christ, it is clear that it is not the blood of Christ. Si calix est in sanguine, calix non est sanguis. Or if by this word cup, the blood of Christ must be understood, these words, This cup is the Covenant in my blood, will signify, This blood is the Covenant in my blood. Thus the blood of Christ shall be in the blood of Christ; an absurd expression, contradicting itself: Unless they will make us here two real bloods of Christ, and two Christ's, which is a prodigious impiety.
The ninth proof is drawn from these words of Christ, related by Saint Matthew, that after the Lord had given the cup, he said, I shall drink no more of this fruit of the Vine, till I drink it new in the Kingdom of heaven. By these words the Lord saith expressly, that what he drunk in the Sacrament with his Disciples was of the fruit of the Vine, that is, wine not blood, as the Council of Worms saith, in the fourth Chapter, It was wine in the mystery of our redemption, when the Lord said, I will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine. Innocent the III. in the fourth Book of the mysteries of the Mass, chap. 27. saith the same. Now that it was wine which Christ consecrated in the cup, it appears by that which he added, I will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine. It is true, that Saint Luke speaks of two cups, the one of the Passover, the other of the holy Communion, and saith that the Lord called also the cup of the Passover, the fruit of the Vine. But Saint Matthew and Saint Mark speak not of the cup of the Passover, but only of the cup of the Sacrament. By consequent then, they call the cup of the Sacrament, the fruit of the Vine. They testify also, that the Lord said these words after he had given the cup of the Sacrament. Then the Lord spake of that last cup which he had given them with, or immediately before these words: Unless we will accuse these two Evangelists, that they have unfaithfully related these words of Christ, taxing them to have inverted his words, and to have said of the cup of the Sacrament, that which the Lord said only of the cup of the Passover. Why do we not rather believe Matthew and Luke alike, believing that Christ called each of these cups the fruit of the Vine? But that Matthew speaks only of the cup of the Lord's Supper, because his principal end was to relate Christ's words in the institution of the Sacrament?
Some not bold enough to accuse Matthew and Mark, that they inverted the Lord's words, have recourse to other shifts, and say that the blood of Christ is called the fruit of the Vine, because it was wine before the consecration, and because it seems still to be wine, after the consecration. These men find figures where they list, and rejecting an usual and familiar figure, conformable to the nature of the action, whereby signs take the name of the things signified, they forge other figures which are hard, violent, and false. For it is false that ever the blood of Christ was wine. It is true, that the rod of Moses is still called a rod, even when it was turned into a Serpent, because it had been a rod before. But the blood of Christ cannot be called wine because it was wine, for it was never wine. The same I say of the water converted into wine, John 2.9.
With the like absurdity they tell us, that the blood of Christ is called wine, because it seems to be so. For that also is false. The blood of Christ never seemed to be wine. That figure should be contrary to the nature of the Sacrament, which requireth that the signs be called by the names of the things signified; but by this exposition, they make signified things, to be named by the names of the signs. Examples may be found in Scripture, of attributing the name of the signs to the things signified, but never in the institution of Sacraments.
Finally, The Apostle immediately after the words of the institution of the Sacrament, addeth these words, As often as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, you shall announce the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread or drink this cup unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. This Apostle who writ the last of this matter, and more largely then others, saith three times together, that it is bread which we eat in the Lord's Supper. Now the Lord's Supper is not eaten, but after the consecration. It is then bread after the consecration. The same he saith in ver. 16. of the tenth chapter. The bread which we break, &c. And Act. 20.7. The Disciples came together to break bread. The text saith not, that the Disciples were come together to sing Mass, for it was not the language of the Apostles, but to break bread; Which language in our days would be ridiculous. He that going to Mass, would say, We are going to break bread; or, We are going to eat the Lord's Supper; (as Saint Paul speaks, 1 Cor. 11.20.) should be held either an Heretic, or a distracted man.
The ordinary answer is, that the Lord's body is called bread, because it looks like bread, that is, that Saint Paul speaks according to the appearance, not according to the truth. So they fill all with figures. They should have brought then some express of the Apostle, where he expounds himself, that we might not be deceived: But that they do not. Besides they affirm a false thing: For the Lord's body never looked like bread. They say also, that the Lord's body is called bread, because it was bread before the consecration. That likewise is false, for the Lord's body was never bread. They insist also upon the Pronoun this, and say that Saint Paul did not say the bread, but this bread, that is, this bread of life, this bread descended from heaven, which is Christ's body. But Saint Paul never spake of bread of life, nor of bread descended from heaven. These terms are found in Saint John, who writ after Saint Paul. Wherefore it is impossible that Saint Paul should have had respect to those texts of Saint John. He could not send back the Corinthians to a book not yet written, to have the intelligence of that he writ to them. And that bread of life mentioned in Saint Johns Gospel, is never opposed to the cup, nor distinguished from the cup. That is proper to the bread of the Sacrament. Besides, Saint Paul saying this bread, useth a demonstrative Pronoun, which can have no reference to anything, but to the bread mentioned in the precedent lines, saying, Jesus took bread and brake it. If Saint Paul said this bread, not the bread, in another place he saith the bread, 1 Cor. 10.16. The bread which we break. There their mystical interpretation faileth them. To interpret those words of Saint Paul, The bread which we break; and, As often as you eat this bread; by these of Christ, This is my body, is to overthrow the nature of things, it is to take for granted that Christ is the interpreter of the words of the Apostle, whereas it was the Apostles charge to expound the words of Christ. To which add, that the Apostle writ long after that Christ had spoken these things, and spoke of them more copiously: Yet his words are wrested in our days with unusual figures, contrary to the nature of the Sacrament.
Besides, it is an error to interpret Saint Paul's words, speaking of the Sacrament, by the words of Christ, in the sixth Chapter of Saint John, where Christ speaks not of this Sacrament. For at that time the Sacrament of the Eucharist was not yet instituted. And when Christ said, I am the bread of life, he was already the bread of life, and so is still, as well out of the Sacrament, as with it.
Saint Paul's words, 1 Cor. 10.16. The bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? put our Adversaries upon the rack. Every word of that Text is contradicted by the Roman Church. The Apostle saith, that it is bread that we break. The Roman Church saith, that it is flesh which cannot be broken, and that the whole body is under every crumb. The Apostle saith, that the bread which we eat, is the Communion with the body of Christ. But the Roman Church saith, that it is not the Communion with the body of Christ, but the very body of Christ. Observe also, that the Apostle in the same place, to show how this bread is the Communion with the body of Christ, opposeth the Communion of the Table of the Lord, to the Communion of the Table of Devils. And with that Table Communion might be had, although the meats consecrated unto Devils, were not transubstantiated into Devils.
By all these proofs, it appears in what sense bread is called the body of Christ, even because it is the Sacrament of the remembrance of the same. For it is the nature of Sacraments to name signs, with the name of things signified, not to call things signified with the name of signs. Thus circumcision is called God's Covenant, Gen. 17.10. And the Paschal Lamb is called the Passover, that is, the passage, Exod. 12.11. and in many other places, because it was the commemoration of the passage of the Angel through Egypt. And the Ark is called the Lord, 2 Sam. 6.2. And the stone which yielded water in the Wilderness, is called Christ, 1 Cor. 10.4. And the cup of the Sacrament, in this very text is called the New Covenant. Thus then the bread is called the body of Christ, because it is the commemoration of the same, as Christ declareth, Do this in remembrance of me. Neither could anything be more convenient, then in an action which is a figure, to use a figure suitable to the nature of the action,
There is more, for all that are skilled in the Hebrew tongue, know that it hath no proper word to say, This signifieth my body, and that instead of signifies, it saith is always. Thus the three branches are three days, Gen. 40.12. And the seven kine are seven years, and the seven ears are seven years of famine, Gen. 40. These bones are the whole house of Israel; Ezek. 37.11. The tree that thou sawest, it is thou O King, Dan. 4.20, 22. And the ten horns are ten Kings, Dan. 7.24. The seven heads are seven hills. And the woman which thou sawest is the great City, Rev. 17.9. & 18. See Gal. 4.24.
This figure is so natural and usual, that he that would speak otherwise and use proper words, should make himself ridiculous, as if instead of a sphere one should say, the representation of the Celestial spheres.
Our Adversaries themselves make this evident, for while they will avoid this figure, so natural and so convenient to the nature of the Sacraments, they are forced to bring in a multitude of other unusual and violent figures. For by the word this, they understand that which is under these species, and make it an individuum vagum, and no certain thing. And by this bread, they will understand this flesh, or this body. And when Saint Paul saith, The bread which we break, by the bread they understand the flesh, and by breaking, they understand not breaking. For (say they) Christ's body remains whole in every piece. Thus when the Lord saith, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; they forge two bloods of Christ, the one in the cup, the other shed on the Cross, the one being in the other, making Christ to say, This blood is the New Testament in my blood, as if the blood of Christ were in the blood of Christ.
Thus when Christ said, I leave the world, John 16.18. and, I am no more in the world, John 17.11. And me you have not always, John 12.8. And when Peter said of Christ, that the heaven must receive or contain him, until the times of the restitution of all things. Acts 3.21. to make these texts to agree with the doctrine of the Roman Church, which saith that the body of Christ is always present in earth in a million of places, in Altars, in boxes, in stomachs, &c. so that he is far more present in earth, then he was before his Ascension, and is not contained in heaven; they say that Christ in those texts spake of his visible presence, and that when he said, I leave the world, and am no more in the world, we must supply visibly: This tail they sow up, and add this gloss of their own, without the Word of God: And speak against common sense; For they speak as if one swore that he hath no money, reserving this secret meaning, none that you can see.
Certainly, to have Christ invisibly, is to have Christ. That man should be a liar, that would say, that he hath no money because his money is hidden, or that he hath no soul, because his soul is invisible, or that he goeth out of the Town and leaveth it, whereas he remains hidden in the Town. They make then Christ to leave the world, and yet to stay in the world; to go out of it, and yet not to stir out of it: And that the heaven contains the Lord's body, as Saint Peter saith, and yet that body is out of heaven, and is not contained in it.
No Painter with his anticks can come near their extravagancies and prodigious license in wresting Scripture, and forging figures, for which neither Grammar nor Rhetoric ever found any name.
The circumstances of the action, time and persons give here a great light. 1. When Christ instituted the Lord's Supper, his body was not yet glorified, but was infirm, passable and mortal. By consequent, to give unto Christ a body without place, and yet in an hundred thousand places, having a length without extent, in vain do they allege that the body of Christ is glorious. For it was not glorious as yet, when he gave the bread, saying, This is my body. By consequent, they give us two bodies of Christ at the same time, clad with contrary qualities, the one glorious and impassible, the other infirm and passable. The one having a place, the other having none. The one sitting at the Table, speaking and stirring his hands, the other in the mouths and stomachs of his Disciples, not speaking, and not able to change place, because he was not in any place. The one having a certain extent of length, and the parts of his body different in seat, the other having no extent, and having all his parts under the same point of the Host. If they were two bodies of Christ, which of the two was our Savior? If it was but the same body, how can the same body be contrary to himself? The same man can in the same time be poor and rich, great and small, but in divers respects, that is, when he is compared with divers persons. He may be great, compared to a Dwarf, and small compared to a Giant. But here they attribute contrary things unto Christ at the same time, without comparing him to any other but himself.
It is most important to observe, that Christ's body is presented to us in the Lord's Supper, for the food of our souls; Not as he is now glorious and impassible, but as dying for us, and suffering for our redemption. As often as you eat this bread, (saith the Apostle) you shall announce the Lord's death. Wherefore also the bread is broken, to signify his body suffering on the Cross. Then is Christ, whether in the Sacrament, or out of the Sacrament, the food of our souls, when we apprehend him dying for us, and delivering himself to death, for the life and salvation of the world, John 6.51.
In vain then do they go about to cover all the absurdities arising out of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, by saying that the body of Christ is glorious, seeing that we apprehend him in the Sacrament as infirm, and dying, and in the lowest point of his ignominy.
2. It is considerable also that as Christ made no elevation of the Sacrament, so the Apostles made no adoration of that which Christ held in his hands, but remained sitting at the table. Neither is it to any purpose to reply that they did not adore Christ, because they had him continually with them; for they had never eaten him, and never been present at such a sacrifice. Now every sacrifice of necessity implieth adoration.
3. It is also a notable circumstance that Christ in the holy Communion ate and drank with his Disciples. According to the doctrine of the Roman Church, he ate his own body. He had his head in his mouth; His whole body entered into his stomach; This implieth a thousand contradictions, which we have represented in another place. And that work of eating himself being more miraculous then his conception, resurrection, and Ascension, yet our Adversaries can produce no benefit of the same, and cannot tell us how it conduceth to our redemption, that Christ ate himself, yea and drank his bones and flesh, since they teach that the body was whole in every drop of the Chalice.
4. We must not omit that our adversaries hold with Austin and Jerome that Judas took the Sacrament, and ate with the other Apostles. Now the Gospel witnesseth that the Devil entered into him when he sat at the table. If our Adversaries must be believed, the body of Christ, and the Devil entered together into Judas. These two guests should have been ill together. And we must believe besides that the ill guest, the Devil prevailed.
5. To avoid so many absurdities there is no other way, but to say with the Evangelists that Christ gave bread, and that the Disciples are bread, and drunk the fruit of the vine; and that this bread is called the body of Christ, because it is the commemoration and the sign of the same, according as the Sacraments and signs are commonly named with the name of that they signify and represent. As Austin saith in the 23. Epistle to Boniface, The Sacraments, by reason of the likeness, are commonly named with the name of that they signify or represent. And against Adimantus, ch. 12. The Lord made no difficulty to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body. And Theodoret in the first Dialogue The Lord gave unto the sign the name of his body. Again, Christ hath honored the visible signs with the appellation of his body and blood, having not changed their nature, but added grace unto nature. And Tertullian in the fourth book against Marcion, ch. 40. This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. And Maximus who commented on Dionysius, speaking of that which is received in the Sacrament, These things (saith he) are signs and not the truth. Of which testimonies we shall speak more exactly hereafter.
Out of all that we have said it appeareth, how ill grounded the reason of Cardinal du Perron is, who alleging these words, This is my body, clipt and curtailed, weighing neither what goeth before nor what comes after, saith that this very thing that the Lord said, This is my body, and did not expound how it was his body, showeth that these words need no explication, and therefore must be taken according to the outward literal sense, not according to a hidden indirect and Allegorical sense. For we have shown how clearly these words, are expounded in the Gospel, in that it is said that Christ gave bread, and that in remembrance of him, and that the Lord hath drunk the fruit of the vine with his Disciples, and that it is bread which we eat in remembrance of his death, and in that the Lord calls the cup his Covenant, although it be but the Sacrament or the sign of his Covenant. And how express and excellent is St. Paul's exposition whereby he expound • h these words, This is my body, saying, The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
Yet suppose that in the Gospel these words, This is my body, are not expounded, doth it follow thence that there is no figure in them? When Christ said, I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman, he added no exposition to it, yet our Adversaries acknowledge a figure in that expression. And whereas after he had said, This is my body, he said, This cup is the New Testament; they are constrained to acknowledge a figure in it. Yet the Lord added no exposition to it. I say more, that when figures are clear, familiar, and usual, that man should be ridiculous that would trouble himself to expound them. He that showing the picture of Julius Caesar saith, This is Julius Caesar, saith enough to be understood; And he should show himself a shallow braind man if he added, By Julius Caesar I understand, not his person, but his picture. And our Adversaries feigning to avoid all figures in these words wrest them into a figurative sense, since by the word this, they understand not that which Christ held in his hand (for accoding to their belief he held bread yet at that time) but an individuum vagum, and that which lieth under the accidents. So that by the word is, they understand shall be, or shall become. And the Cardinal himself saith, that by the word this is understood that which Christ held when he had made an end of pronouncing the words; Whereby he interfereth himself with a contradiction. For when Christ said this, he had not yet made an en end of pronouncing. The Cardinal then ought to have said, not that which Christ held, but that which he was to hold after pronouncing. Truly in that matter the Adversaries stumble at every step, and the contrary of that they say must always be understood. They say that the host is round, yet they know that Christ is not round, and that the accidents are not the Host, or victim for our sins. They speak of making an elevation of God, yet they know that God cannot be elevated. They speak of the Sacrament of the body of Christ, whence it follows that the Sacrament is not the body of Christ. They say that the Sacraments are sacred signs, and yet say that they worship the Sacrament. It is the nature of those that defend an error, to say, and unsay, and desiring to be believed, yet they believe not themselves.
That which the Cardinal addeth, that the thing which our Lord held in his hand before the pronouncing of these words, This is my body, was not the body of Christ, That, I say, is false, and the spring of the whole error. For it was not by these words that Christ consecrated the bread but by the prayer and blessing which went before. And it is clear that these words, This is my body, are not words which make bread to become the body of Christ, but words declaring that the bread was his body already. All the Antient Fathers agree in that, and hold that the consecration is made by prayer and invocation. Justin Martyr in the second Apology calls that which we receive in the Eucharist, a food consecrated by the prayer of the Word proceeding from God. Austin in book 3. ch. 4. of the Trinity, That which is taken from the fruits of the earth, and consecrated by the mystical prayer. Theodoret in the second Dialogue brings in an heretic, and advocate of Transubstatiation speaking thus, The signs of the body and blood are other before the Priests invocation, but after the invocation they are changed. Origen in book. 8. against Celsus, We eat loaves by prayer made a body which is a certain holy thing. Irenaeus book. 4. ch. 4. The bread receiving God's invocation is no more common bread but the Eucharist.
Basil in the book of the holy Ghost. ch. 27. calls the words of Consecration, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the words of invocation when the bread is showed.
And the Canon Corpus in the second Distinction of the Consecration, We call the body and blood of Christ that which being taken from the fruits of the earth, and consecrated by the mystical prayer, is rightly taken by us for spiritual salvation, in memory of the Lord's passion. And which is more, that great builder of Decrees and Canons, Innocent the III. in the fourth book of the mysteries of the Mass ch. 6. holds that Christ did not consecrate by these words, This is my body, but by his divine virtue before he pronounced these words. Yet this day the Greek Church consecrateth by prayer, as Bellarmine acknowledgeth in book 4. of the Euchrist, ch. 12. §. Habemus.
The Cardinal goeth on, A substantial attribute (saith he) cannot be said substantially of a subject, of which it was not said before, unless either the subject be substantially changed, or the subject have taken some other substance in an hypostatical union. By these words he presupposeth the thing in question, namely that this word body is substantially, attributed to that which Christ held, that is, to the bread: But that we deny, and he brings no proof for it.
Upon that false presupposition all the rest of the chapter is grounded, and by consequent doth not concern us. By the way this Prelat gives us an excellent proof of his exquisite learning, in these words, When the water pots of the Architriclin were filled up. He speaks of the Architriclin, as if he had been a man of that name, and the owner of these water pots. Or if he takes not these words for a proper name, it is evident howsoever that he knew not what the office of the Architriclin was. For if he had known it, he had known also that those water pots were none of his. The office of the Architriclin was to wait in a feast, to give order to the kitchen and to the serving of the meat and to taste the wine. He did not sit at the table but went up and down the house, doing the same in mean houses as stewards do in great houses. See Chrysostom Hom. 21. upon John. Every house of the Jews had such water pots for the legal washings and purifications. As it is seen, Joh. 2.6. and they belonged not to the care of the Architriclin, who had the ordering of the feast. By the same reason the tablecloth dishes and plate might have been called the Architriclins goods.
CHAP. 3. Of the sense of John 6. and of the Spiritual manducation of the body Of Christ, and how many absurdities and inconveniencies follow the oral manducation of Christ's flesh taught in the Roman Church.
OUr Adversaries being cast by the words of the institution, and convinced to have altogether corrupted it, think to find a refuge in John. 6. where Christ many times calls himself the bread of life, and saith that his flesh is meat indeed, of which whosoever eateth shall live forever.
I can hardly persuade myself, that when they use that text to prove Transubstantiation they speak in good earnest 1. Whereas it is clear, & many of our Adversaries acknowledge it, that Christ speaks not there of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which was not yet instituted when Christ said these things, but of the spiritual manducation by faith in the death of Christ, which is the true food of our souls. How could the Apostles have understood that the Lord spake to them of the Lord's supper, which was not yet, & of which he had never spoken one word to them? 2. Wherefore also in the whole chapter there is no mention of table, or cup, or supper, or commemoration of his death. 3. As many lines as treat of that matter in that chapter, so many lies do they ascribe unto Christ, when they will have him to speak there of the Lord's supper. For Christ promiseth there to the Capernaits to give them his flesh to eat; Now he never administered the Lord's supper unto them. 4. Note also that when Christ spake these words he was already the bread of life, although the Eucharist was not yet instituted, for he speaks in the present tense, saying, I am the bread of life, and I am the bread which came down from heaven. He was then the bread of life, as soon as he came down from heaven. 5. It is evident that he speaks there of a manducation without which no man can be saved, when he saith in verse 53. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, you have no life in you; Now many are saved that never received the Lord's supper. 6. It is evident also that he speaks of a manducation without which none can be saved, when he saith in verse 54. Whoso eateth my flesh, hath eternal life. He speaks not then of the manducation of the Sacrament, which is eaten by many wicked and reprobate. One may indeed eat the bread unworthily, as the Apostle saith, Whosoever eateth this bread unworthily; But one cannot eat the flesh of Christ unworthily, since that manducation is done by faith, and eating is believing. For one cannot believe in Christ unworthily, seeing that in that faith our worthiness consisteth. 7. For that by eating and drinking, we must understand believing, Christ shows it in verse 35. I am the bread of life, he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. There manifestly drinking is put for believing, since that he saith that by believing thirst is quenched. And verse 47. He that believeth in me hath everlasting life, I am that bread of life. Where he showeth that this bread is taken by believing. For because he that believeth on him hath everlasting life, he gathereth thence that he is the bread of life. 8. Wherefore also he giveth warning that his words are spirit and life, that is, they are spiritual and quickening, and that they quicken not unless they be taken in a spiritual sense. 9. If these words of Christ, I am the bread of life, are pressed literaly and taken as our Adversaries will have these words taken, This is my body, it will follow that as, this is my body, signifieth, This is transubstantiated into my body, also I am the bread signifieth, I am transubstantiated into bread. 10. Also these words of verse 56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him, are very considerable. For many eat the Sacrament, yet Christ dwells not in them, nor they in Christ. 11. And if to make Christ to dwell in us, we must swallow him down with our mouth, and throat, by the same reason Christ must swallow us down, that we may dwell in him. 12. And when Christ saith, verse 63. The flesh profiteth nothing, the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life, if by the word flesh, he understands carnal sense and human reason, thereby he takes off our spirits from all carnal and gross sense, and will have his words taken in a spiritual sense But if by the word flesh, the Lord understands his own flesh, as Aquinas and many after him take it, he declareth to us that his flesh eaten with the mouth (as the Capernaites did imagine) would not conduce at all for their salvation. As also our Adversaries acknowledge that many that take the Sacrament, are damned nevertheless. But as for the manducation mentioned in this chapter, Christ declareth in verse 54. that whosoever eateth his flesh hath eternal life. 13. If in these words of verse 53. Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you, the Lord speaks of communicating in the Sacrament, it is certain that the Roman Church depriveth the people of life by denying them the cup. For he saith, Except you drink my blood, you have no life in you. To say that the people take the blood in the host, is no answer, for taking the blood thus is not drinking; Now Christ saith Except you drink. If eating the host be drinking, then the Priest drinks twice in the Mass. 14. The Lord addeth in verse 56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him. Can they say that the profane receiving the Sacrament dwell in Christ? 15. In vain do they press these words of verse 56. My flesh is meat indeed, to exclude all figures, for figurative words may be true. Christ saith, I am the true vine, Joh. 15.1. And God is the true spring of life, Psal. 36. which yet are figurative expressions. And when Austin in the third book of the Christian doctrine, ch. 16. saith that eating the flesh of Christ is a figurative expression, our Adversaries to elude that testimony say, that in these words of Christ, besides the figure there is truth also.
That Christ used that expression must not be found strange; For when the Jews of Capernaum asked of him bread from heaven like unto manna, he takes thence occasion to speak to them of another bread from Heaven, and of better meat. In the same manner as two chapters before from the water of the well (where he met the Samaritan woman) he takes occasion of speaking to her of another water which he gave, and which whosoever drinketh shall never thirst. To this join that of the unbelieving Jews, he useth to speak in parables and simile's as St. Matthew saith ch. 13. v. 34. Without a parable spake he not unto them.
This is so evident that many of our Adversaries as Gabriel Biel, Cusanus, Cajetan, Tapperus, Hesselius, Jansen and Ferus, take our part, and hold, that in this ch. it is not spoken of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but of the spiritual manducation by faith. Pope Innocent the III. is of the same opinion, for these are his words in book. 4. ch. 14. of the Mysteries of the Mass. The Lord speaks of the spiritual manducation saying, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. In this manner the godly alone eat the body of Christ.
Thomas the Angelical Doctor in the seventh Lesson upon John 6. expounding these words of the Lord, Except you eat my flesh, you have no life in you. If (saith he) this relates to the spiritual manducation, this sentence is without any doubt. For that man spiritually eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh his blood, who is partaker of the unity of the Church, which is done by Charity, &c. He that eateth not, hath not life, &c. But if that relates to the Sacramental manducation, there is a doubt in that which is said, Except you eat my flesh, you have no life in you. He finds the first exposition clear and true; In the second he finds doubt and difficulty.
Wherefore Austin upon Psal. 98. personates Christ speaking to his Disciples, lest they should mistake his words, You shall not eat this body which you see, and shall not drink that blood which they that shall crucify me will spill. I have recommended a Sacrament unto you, which being taken spiritually shall quicken you.
The same in the book of sentences collected by Prosper in the 341. sentence. He that is in discord with Christ, eateth not his flesh, and drinks not blood, though he take the sacred sign of so great a thing indifferently every day for the judgment [or condemnation] of his presumption.
This good Doctor in the 25. and 26. Treatise upon John, expounds this sixth chapter of that Gospel, in which exposition not only he speaks never a word of the Transubstantiation, nor of the oral eating of Christ's body, but also keeps off the reader from that thought as much as he can, as I will show in ch. 11. of this controversy, where also we shall see that all the Fathers understood it so.
So it is understood in the Canon Ut quid in the second Distinction of the Consecration. Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly? believe and thou hast eaten, for believing on him is eating the bread▪ &c. He that believeth on him eats him. We shall see hereafter that the Fathers hold that the wicked eat not the body of Christ, Austin saith that these words, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, you have no life in you, are a figure that commands us to communicate unto the passion of our Lord, and to lay sweetly and profitably in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. He saith not only that in these words of Christ there is a figure, but he expoundeth also how that figure ought to be understood, namely that eating Christ's flesh is meditating his death and delighting to remember that Christ is dead for us, an exposition which Cardinal du Perron approveth not. Yet Cardinal Bellarmine in the first book of the Eucharist, ch. 7. expounding these words of Joh. 6. He that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst, saith, that these words belong not properly to the Sacrament, but to the faith of the Incarnation. Cardinal Tolet upon John 6. goeth so far as to say, that Infants in their Baptism are in some sort partakers of Christ's body, that is, as for the thing signified, and may be said to eat the flesh of Christ, and to drink his blood.
Truly I never saw nor read any of the Romanist Doctors, but acknowledgeth that there is a spiritual manducation, which is done, not with the mouth of the body, but with faith. For Christ is the food, not of bodies, but of souls; and is received by believing, not by chewing; nor with the mouth, but with faith. To feed a body with words and songs, and to feed a soul with meats taken by the mouth, are things equal in absurdity. Christ is the bread of children in which dogs have no part. Not as the bread of the Sacrament of which profane men and hypocrites participate. Christ is not eaten by his enemies. Christ is that bread which whosoever eateth hath eternal life. That bread not only feeds the living but also gives life unto the dead.
If we compare these two sorts of manducation, you shall find that the spiritual manducation by faith, of which our Adversaries speak with contempt, is beyond all comparison more excellent then that which is done with the mouth. For without the oral manducation a great number of persons are saved, but without manducation by faith none can be saved. And with the oral manducation, a great number of persons are damned, but whosoever hath eaten the flesh of Christ is saved. He that believeth on him hath eternal life.
And if after you have compared them you join them together, you shall find that the manducation by the mouth is good and profitable only by reason of the spiritual. But if it be without the spiritual it is hurtful, and whosoever takes the bread of the Sacrament unworthily takes his condemnation. If there be two things, whereof the one is hurtful without the other, it is easy to judge which of the two is the more excellent.
Wherefore Austin acknowledgeth no other manducation of the flesh of Christ but the spiritual, for opposing it to the oral manducation of the Sacrament, he calls it the true manducation. As in book 21. of the City of God, ch. 25. The Lord showeth what it is to eat the body of Christ, not in Sacrament only, but in truth. And in the same place, Non solo Sacramento sed re ipsa manducaverunt corpus Christi, They have eaten the body of Christ, not only in Sacrament, but also in truth. And Thomas in the seventh Lesson upon John 6. speaking of him that spiritually eats the body of Christ saith, This is he that eats the body of Christ, not only sacramentally, but also in truth. Speaking so, is saying that eating Christ in the Sacrament is not eating him in truth nor in effect, and that hypocrites and profane men receiving the Sacrament eat not the body of Christ truly or in truth.
Yea, the very Council of Trent in Session 13. ch. 8. acknowledgeth that spiritual manducation which is done even without the Sacrament, by faith. Some (saith the Council) eat this bread spriritually only, and by a lively faith. So let no Romanists hereafter laugh at this spiritual manducation as an imaginary thing.
Rather let them consider, how their real and oral manducation of Christ gives them occasion to say many things of him which are unworthy of the Majesty of the Son of God. They dispute what becomes of the body of Christ when the consecracted host is eaten by rats or other beasts, or when the Priest or a sick person casts it up again. They are in great care what becomes of Christ carried away by mice, and why he did not hinder them to come near him. If they say that when the mouse draweth near the host, the substance of bread returneth, then the mouse hath made a second transubstantiation.
Pope Innocent the III. in the first book of the mysteries of the Mass moveth this question, If a man happens to have nothing in his belly but consecrated hosts, that is, nothing but the body and blood of Christ, and upon that a laske take him, what his excrements shall be, and what matter they shall be made of? And Durand If one having taken nothing but the Eucharist, is taken with a laske or vomit, that is bred by the accidents and humors.
To which add this doctrine that a Priest by the words of Consecration can transubstantiate many basketfulls of, bread, and so undo a baker; And that he may turn whole buts of wine into blood.
And the doctrine of the Council of Trent, that the consecration is not done if the Priest hath no intention to consecrate, which intention since the people must ghess, and can have no assurance of it, but by conjecture, it followeth that they must believe at a venture, that the Host of the Mass is Christ, and bestow a conjectural worship upon it, or adore it conditionally, saying, (as Pope Adrian the VI. teacheth) I adore thee, if the Consecration be well made, and if thou art Christ. But whether it be Christ or no, it is left to conjecture.
I pass by a thousand other absurdities and inconveniencies which attend this doctrine; as that in the Host the accidents are without a subject, that is, there is length in it, but nothing that is long; whiteness, and nothing white; color, and nothing coloured; and as the Doctors say, Quantitas sed non quantum, & accidentia quae non accidunt, simitas sine naso, claudicatio sine crure.
And their saying that the Priest makes God with words, and createth his Creator, and makes a body, which is before it be made. And that Christ's body being already in heaven, the Priest makes him on earth; as if while Philip is studying at Paris, somebody begot him at Rome. So that Christ begins to have a new being besides the natural, namely a Sacramental being, as they speak, which is offered in the Mass for a propitiatory sacrifice. We thought that one person could have but one being, and that the only natural being of Christ, was the price of our redemption.
Also that doctrine makes the body of Christ more spiritual then spirits. For souls, though they fill no place, and be not circumscriptively in a place, yet they are but in one place, and cannot be separated from themselves, nor far from themselves. But as for Christ's body in the Mass, they are not contented to say, that he is in no place, and fills no space, and hath no extent; so that all his parts are under one point only, and that head and feet in the Host, differ not in situation; So far as to hold, that if any had dipt a pin in the Chalice, the Lord's body should be whole in the drop remaining at the pins end; And if any had dipt the hair of his upper-lip in the consecrated Chalice, the whole body of the Lord should remain hanging at the end of every hair: But to make the absurdity most superlative, they make Christ's body separated from himself, remote from himself, higher and lower then himself, being in heaven and upon Altars, not in the space between. All that is covered with the Almighty power of God, without any regard to his Wisdom, or to his Truth, or to his Word, which saith, that Christ is like unto us in all things but sin. By these inventions, that good Word of God is impugned, and the glory of the Son of God exposed to ignominy. For by that doctrine, Christ being fallen into the mire, cannot rise out of it, and may be stolen and stabbed, as the Jesus of Billettes of Paris, and cannot save himself from Mice. Wherefore there was need that the Cautelae or Caveat's of the Mass should make a provision against these inconveniencies. All that to raise the dignity of Priests, who by that doctrine can make God, and have Christ in their power locked up in a box, doing things that all the Angels and Saints together cannot do, for they cannot make Christ, nor create a thing which is already.
Thus they have overthrown the nature and the end of this Sacrament: For Sacraments are signs. Having then abolished the signs, they have abolished the Sacrament. For the bread and wine being no more, nothing but accidents in the air remain, which have no relation nor conveniency with the substance of Christ's body. They abolish also the end of this Sacrament, which is not to bring down the body of Christ to us, but to raise up our hearts to him.
CHAP. 4. How and in what sense the Fathers alleged by the Cardinal, call the Sacrament the body of Christ, and say that Christ's body is made in the Eucharist, and that we eat his flesh in it. Answer to the Cardinals depravations.
AFter we have heard the heavenly Oracle, and understood what was the institution of the Lord Jesus, if we would decide this difference by the testimonies of men, we should offer a disgrace to the eternal Son of God, and subject divine authority to man's judgment. Especially seeing that the Word of God is so clear in this point, that bringing light to it from other places, is like lighting a candle to see whether it be day.
Wherefore we desire the Reader not to mistake our end, when we allege the Fathers, either in this, or in other questions. We do it not, to ground the heavenly truth upon the testimonies of men, but to defend the ancient Fathers against the injustice of our Adversaries, who wrest the Fathers, and set them upon the rack, to force them to bear testimony for untruth, and make them speak contrary to their mind.
Neither do we allege them in this question, to be interpreters of the words of Christ and his Apostles. For where the Word of God interprets itself, there needs no other interpretation. But we allege them, to wipe off from us the ordinary calumny, that we oppose the consent of Antiquity, as though our belief were but of late date, or as if that which was from the beginning could be new. For although our belief be grounded upon the only Word of God, yet it is a singular delight and content unto us, when reading the Fathers of the first age, we find in them the same things that we teach, and perceive that we are hated for a doctrine which was believed by them, whom the Romanists make a show to reverence.
Cardinal du Perron in the fourth chapter, brings many testimonies of Fathers for the real presence of Christ's body. He begins by Authors not to be received, Damascenus, Euthymius, Theophylactus, and Anastasius Sinaita. Of whom the first writ about the year of Christ, 470. the second in the year 1118. the third in the year, 1070. and the last about the year, 630. all long after the time of the four first Councils, to which the Cardinal had said, that he would confine himself. Yet let us see whether they say anything that may prejudice us.
These Authors then observe, that the Lord said not, This is the figure of my body, but this is my body. Who knows not that, seeing that all the Evangelists that speak of this institution, affirm so much? I say more. For I maintain that the nature of the action required that he should speak so. For he instituted a Sacrament, wherefore it was convenient that he should use Sacramental words, and follow the style of Scripture (which is to give unto the sign, the name of the thing signified, when it speaks of Sacraments.) And that in a figurative action, he should use figurative words, conformable to the nature of the action.
He adds a testimony of Chrysostom, and another of Gaudentius, both to this purpose, Christ said, This is my body; Let us believe it, and see it with the eyes of the Spirit. Truth knows not untruth. So much we also believe, but with the expositions which Scripture brings. And Scripture teacheth us, that Christ gave bread unto his Disciples; That we eat bread in the Lord's Supper; That the same bread is his body; That the cup is the New Testament in his blood, and by consequent is not really his blood. That the bread which we break, is the Communion of the body of Christ; That the Disciples came together to break bread, who yet neither could nor would break the natural body of the Lord; That the cup which the Lord drunk with his Disciples, was the fruit of the Vine; That it is the remembrance of him; That we eat bread to announce his death; That Christ ascended to heaven, and left the world, and is no more in the world; That heaven contains him; That he is like unto us in all things but sin; That Christ did not lift up the Host; And that his Disciples, whose example we ought to follow, did not worship it. After that, alleging Euthymius or Theophylactus, late Greek Authors, separated from the communion of the Romā Church, is deriding God to abuse men.
The Cardinal adds a place of Ambrose, but he corrupts it, making Ambrose to say, in the ninth chapter of the book of those that are initiated into mysteries, The Lord Jesus himself crieth, This is my body; before the blessing of the heavenly words, he is named another kind, after the consecration he is called the body of Christ, This passage is unfaithfully translated. There is in Ambrose, Ante benedictionem verborum coelestium alia species nominatur, post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur. That is, Before the blessing of the heavenly words, another kind is named; after the consecration, the body of Christ is signified or represented. The Cardinal hath translated, he is named another kind, instead of another kind is named, to make way for the depravation of the following Clause, where he translateth significatur, is called, instead of, is signified, or represented. Which falsification he coloreth with the allegation of another text of Ambrose, which he quoteth not, where Ambrose saith, that Christ was signified the Son of the highest; but there also signifying is not calling, but declaring or manifesting. Should not that man show himself to be out of his right sense, that would say, that God is signified Almighty, instead of saying that he is called Almighty? Or that Virigil was signified Prince of the Poets, instead of saying that he is so called?
But that we may not lose time in confuting all the allegations of the Cardinal out of the Fathers, where the Sacrament is called the body of Christ, and where they say that by the consecration, the bread is made the body of Christ, it is necessary to show the sense & intent of the Fathers, & to know their style. For they speak so clearly of this matter, that they leave us no reason to doubt of their intention.
I say then, that the Fathers followin • the traces of the holy Scripture▪ speak of three sorts of bodies of Christ. First of his natural body, which was crucified for us; and of two mystical bodies, the one of them the Church, which Scripture often calls the body of Christ, the other his Sacramental body, which we receive in the Lord's Supper. Wherein also the follow they style of Scripture, which useth to give unto the signs, the name of things signified by the signs.
Austin in the third Book of the Questions upon Leviticus, qu. 57. The thing that signifieth, useth to be named by the name of the thing that it signifieth. And in the 102. Epistle to Exodius, Sometimes the thing that signifieth, takes the name of the thing that it signifieth.
The same Father applieth this rule to the Eucharist, in the 23. Epistle to Boniface, Was not Christ once sacrificed in himself? and yet he is sacrificed unto the people in a sacred sign, &c. That man lieth not, who being asked, answereth that he was sacrificed. For had not the Sacraments some likeness unto the things of which they are Sacraments, they should not be Sacraments at all. Now because of that likeness, they take most often the names of the things themselves.
And in the twelfth Chapter against Adimantus, The Lord made no difficulty to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body. Of which place we shall see hereafter a notorious depravation by our Cardinal.
The Roman Decree, in the second Distinction of the Consecration, in the Canon Hoc est, The heavenly bread, which is the flesh of Christ, is in its way, called the body of Christ, although to speak truly, it be the Sacrament [or sacred sign] of the body of Christ, even of him who being visible, palpable and mortal, was put on the Cross. Then he brings an example, that the immolation of the flesh of Christ, which is done by the hands of the Priest, is called the Passion, the Death, and Crucifixion of Christ, not according to the truth of the thing, but in a significant mystery. Upon which the Gloss of the Doctors speaks rarely, The heavenly Sacrament (say they) which truly representeth the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ, but improperly. Yet it is so called, 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, because it is signified. Certainly great is the strength of truth, and I wonder how our Adversaries suffer such a Gloss, in such an authentic book, whereby their doctrine is so clearly condemned.
Wherefore Austin in the third Book against Maximin. chap. 22. layeth down that maxim about Sacraments. These things (saith he) are Sacraments in which it is not regarded what they are, but what they signify. For they are signs which are one thing and signify another: That is, Baptism is water, and signifieth the blood of Christ; and the Eucharist is bread and wine, and signifieth the body and blood of Christ.
Wherefore also, in the third Book of Christian Doctrine, chap. 5. he giveth warning that Christians should take heed of mistaking the signs for the things signified. It is (saith he) a miserable bondage of the soul, to take the signs for the things. And in the ninth Chapter, As to follow the letter, and to take the signs for the things signified, is a servile infirmity, so to interpret the signs uselesly, is an ill wandering. This is directly the sickness of the Roman Church, which worshippeth the Sacrament, as if it were Christ himself, and takes the sign for the thing signified.
Theodoret is very pregnant upon this point. In his first Dialogue, entitled, the Immutable, he giveth the exposition of these words, This is my body. The Lord (saith he) hath given unto th • • ign, the name of his body; and showeth how sometimes the name of the thing signified is given unto the sign, as when the Lord called bread his body, and sometimes the name of the sign is given to the thing signified, as when he calls himself the bread and the vine. Our Savior (saith he) hath made an exchange of names, and hath given to his body the name of the sign (that is, when he called himself the bread) and gave to the sign the name of his body, (namely when he said, This is my body) and so he who called himself the Vine, called the sign (that is, the wine) his blood.
And a little after, His will was, that those that participate of the divine mysteries, should not regard the nature of things that are seen, but that by the exchange of the words, they should believe the change that is done by grace. For the same that called his natural body meat and bread [John 6.] and called himself the Vine, [John 15.] the same hath honored the visible signs with the name of his body and blood, having not changed their nature, but added grace unto nature. Here two things are very considerable: The one, that he denieth that in the holy Communion, Christ hath changed the nature of bread and wine: The other, that he makes these words, I am the Vine, like unto these, This is my body, and saith that it is an exchange of words, and that in the first the name of the sign is given to the signified thing, and in the second, the name of the signified thing, is given to the sign.
For these causes, the Preface prefixed to the Roman Edition of the Dialogues of Theodoret, giveth this excuse for Theodoret,