Of the institution of the sacrament of the blessed bodie and blood of Christ, (by some called) the masse of Christ eight bookes; discovering the superstitious, sacrilegious, and idolatrous abominations of the Romish masse. Together with the consequent obstinacies, overtures of perjuries, and the heresies discernable in the defenders thereof. By the R. Father in God Thomas L. Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield.

The first Transgression of the (now) Church of Rome, in contradicting Christ his Canon, is collected out of these words, [AND HE BLESSED IT;] which concerne the Conse∣cration of this Sacrament.

SECT. III.

FIrst of the Bread the Text saith [He blessed it:] next of the Cup it is said [When he had giuen thanks:] Which words in e your owne iudgements, are all one as if it should be said, Hee blessed it with giuing of thankes. By the which word, Blessing, he doth im∣ply a Consecration of this Sacrament. So you.

The contrary Canon of the (now) Romane Masse; wherein shee, in her Exposition, hath changed Christ's manner of Consecration.

The Canon of the Romish Masse attributeth the property and power of Consecration of this Sacrament only vnto the repetition

of these words of Christ [This is my body,] and [This my blood.] &c. and that from the iudgement (as f Some say) of your Councell of Florence, and Trent. Moreouer you also alleage, for this purpose, your publique Catechisme, and Romane Missall, both which were authorized by the Councell of Trent, and command of Pius Quin∣tus then Pope (See the Marginals.) Whereupon it is that you vse to attribute such efficacie to the very words, pronounced with a Priestly intention, as to change all the Bread in the Bakers shop, and wine in the Vintners Cellar into the body and blood of Christ: As your Summa Angelica speaketh more largely concerning the Bread.

CHALLENGE.

BVt Christopherus your own Arch-bishop of Caesarea in his Booke dedicated to Pope Sixtus Quintus, and written professedly vpon this Subject, commeth in, compassed about with a clowd of witnesses and Reasons, to proue g that the Consecration, vsed by our Sauiour, was performed by that his Blessing by Prayer, which preceded the pronouncing of those words, [Hoc est corpus meum:]

[This is my bodie, &c.] To this purpose hee is bold to averre that Thomas Aquinas and all Catholikes before Caietane have confessed that Christ did consecrate in that his [Benedixit, that is, He blessed it.] And that Saint Iames and Dionyse the Areopagite did not Conse∣crate only in the other words, but by Prayer. Then he assureth vs that the Greeke Churches maintained that Consecration consisteth in Bene∣diction, by Prayer, and not in the only repetition of the words afore-said. After this hee produceth your subtilest Schooleman Scotus, accompanied with divers others, Who Derided those, that attribu∣ted such a supernaturall vertue to the other forme of words. After steppeth in your Lindan, who avoucheth Iustin (one of the an∣cientest of Fathers) as Denying that the Apostles consecrated the Eucharist in those words, [Hoc est, &c.] and affirming that Conse∣cration could not be without Prayer.

Be you but pleased to peruse the Marginals, and you shall fur∣ther find alleadged the Testimonies of Pope Gregorie, Hierome, Ambrose, Bernard, and (to ascend higher) the Liturgies of Cle∣ment, Basil, Chrysostome, and of the Romane Church it selfe; in gain-saying of the Consecration, by the only words of Institution, as you pretend. And in the end he draweth in two Popes, contradi∣cting one the other in this point, and hath no other meanes to stint their iarre, but (whereas the authoritie of both is equall) to thinke it iust to yeild rather to the better learned of them both. Whoso∣ever requireth more, may be satisfied by reading of the Booke it¦selfe.

It will not suffice, to say, that you also vse Prayer in the Romish Liturgie: for the question is not meerely of Praying, but where∣in the forme of Benediction and Consecration properly doth consist. Now none can say, that he consecrateth by that Prayer, which he belieueth is not ordained for Consecration. We may furthermore take hold, by the way, of the Testification of M^r. h Brereley a Ro∣mish Priest, who out of Basil and Chrysostome, [calling one part Calix benedictione sacratus] alloweth Benediction to haue beene the Consecration thereof.

All this Armie of Witnesses were no better than Meteors, or imaginarie figures of battailes in the aire, if that the Answere of Bellarmine may goe for warrant, to wit, that the only Pronuntia∣tion of these words [Hoc est corpus meum] imply in them (as hee i saith) an Invocation, or Prayer. Which words (as any man may perceiue) Christ spake not supplicatorily vnto God, but declara∣tiuely vnto his Apostles, accordingly as the Text speaketh, [Hee said unto them:] as is also well observed by your fore-said Arch-bishop of Caesarea, out of Saint Hierome. But none of you (we presume) will dare to say that Christ did Invocate his Disciples. These words therefore are of Declaration, and not of Invocation. Which (now) Romish Doctrine of Consecrating, by reciting these

words [This is my bodie, &c.] your Divines of Colen k haue iud∣ged to be a Fierce madnesse, as being repugnant both to the Ea∣sterne and Westerne Churches. But we haue heard divers Westerne Authours speake, giue leave to an Easterne Archbishop to deliuer his minde. l No Apostle, or Doctor is knowne to affirme (saith hee) those sole words of Christ to haue beene sufficient for Consecration. So he, three hundred yeares since, satisfying also the Testimonie of Chrysostome, obiected to the contrarie.

As miserable, and more intolerable is the Answere of others, who said that the Evangelists haue not observed the right order of Christ his actions: as if hee had first said, [This is my bodie] by way of Consecration, and after commanded them to [Take and eat.] Which Answere your owne m Iesuite hath branded with the note of Falsitie: yea, so false, that (as it is further avouched) all an∣cient Liturgies, aswell Greeke as Latine, constantly held, that in the order of the tenour of Christ his Institution it was first said [Tak•• yee] before that he said [This is my Bodie.]

Lastly, your other lurking-hole is as shameful as the former, where, when the iudgement of Antiquitie is obiected against you, requi∣ring that Consecration be done directly by Prayer vnto God: n you answere that some Fathers did use such speeches in their Sermons to the people, but in their secret instraction of Priests did teach other∣wise. Which Answere (besides the falsitie thereof) Wee take to be no better than a reproach against Antiquitie, and all one, as to say that those venerable Witnesses of Truth would professe one thing in the Cellar, and proclaime the contrarie on the house-top. It were to be wished, that when you frame your Answeres, to direct other men's Consciences, you would first satisfie your owne, espe∣cially being occupied in soule's-businesses.

We conclude. Seeing that Forme (as all learning teacheth) gi∣veth being vnto all things; therefore your Church, albeit shee vse Prayer, yet erring in her iudgement concerning the perfect manner and Forme of. Consecration of this Sacrament, how shall shee be credited in the Materialls; wherein she will be found, aswell as in this, to haue Transgressed the same Iniunction of Christ, [DOE THIS?]

Neuerthelesse, this our Conclusion is not so bee interpreted, as

(hearken o M^r. Brereley) to exclude, out of the words of this Ce∣lebration, the Repetition and pronunciation of these words [This is my Bodie: and, This is my Bloud of the new Testament.] Farre be this from vs, because wee hold them to be essentially belonging to the Narration of the Institution of Christ; and are vsed in the Li∣turgie of our Church: for although they be not words of Bles∣sing and Consecration, (because not of Petition, but of Repetition) yet are they Words of Direction; and, withall, Significations and Testifications of the mysticall effects thereof. Your Obiection out of the Fathers is answered.

Notes

• e

  Non dubium est quin apud Euange∣listas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 idem sit quod 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: nam quod Matthae∣us & Marcus dicunt [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] post de calice loquentes, di∣cunt [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:] & vicissim quod Matth. & Marcus de pane dicunt [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] Lucas & Paulus dicunt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Maldon. Ies. in Math. 26 and Stapleton. Antidot. in eum locum. Promiscuè unum pro altero indesi∣nenter accipi. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 12. Haec duo verba idem valent, ut Cyrillus admonet, & sicut ap∣paret ex Euangelistis, & S. Paulo. Inde est quòd Ecclesia Latina, pro eodem accipiens has voces, simul con∣junxit. Idem ibid. pag. 76. Illud verbum Benedictionis est forma eius Sacramenti, & idem est, Benedicere, & uti verbis Consecrationis ad elementa proposita. Alan. l 1. de Euch. ca. 15. p 294. Et Catechismus Trident. dicit idem esse Benedicere & Consecrare res proposi••as. Idem ibid. Dixit S. Paulus [Calix benedictionis, ••ui bene∣dicimus] i e. cui benedicendo Sacerdotes consecrant in altari, ut exponit B. Remigius. Salmeron. Ies. quo sup. See also Ians. Concor. c. 131. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 idem valere, vide 1. Cor. 14. v. 16, 17. Marc. 8. v. 6. 7. Mat. 15. 36.]
• f

  Communis sen∣tentia est non solùm Theologorum recen∣tiorum, led etiam ve∣terum Patrum, Chri∣stum consecrásse his verbis [Hoc est cor∣pus meum. Hic est sanguis meus] Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 13. §. Quod attinet—Probatur ex Conc. Florentino, & Conc. Trident. sess. 13. cap. 1. Barrad. Ies. Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 4. So also Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 58. Sect. 1. §. Dicendum—Omnes veteres his solis verbis dixerunt fieri consecrationem. Maldon. Ies. Disp. de S. Euch. pag. 134. Nè formae ignoratione turpissime peccetur, ab Euan∣gelistis & Apostolis docemurillam esse formam. Catechis. Rom. de Euch. num 18. Tenet Sacerdos ambaous mani∣bus hostiam, profert verba Consecrationis distinctè [Hoc est corpus meum.] Missal. Rom. iussu Pij Quinti Pont. edit. Rubrica Canonis, & Aquinas part. 3. qu. 60. Art. 8.
• Summa Angelica, tit. Eucharistia num. 25. de P••ne. Sacerdos consecrans ex intentione Ecclesiae vnâ vice possit conficere tot hostias, quae sufficerent toti mundo, si necessi∣tas effet Ecclesiae.
• g

  Christoph. de capi∣te fontium Archiepise. Caesarien. Tract. var. ad Sixtum Quintum Pont. Paris. 1586.—Cap. 1. Non solùm Thomas, sed omnes ante Caietanū The∣ologi fatentur Chri∣stum, cùm benedixit, consecrasse. Nec ullum verbum (ut ait Alphonsus à Castro) est a pud Euangelistas, quo Con∣secratio significetur, praeter verbum [Benedixit] vel per verbum [Gratias egit] quod ibi pro eodem sumitur.—Cap. 5. Ad formam à Christo institutam obseruandum vrget praeceptum imitationis, nempè, [Hoc facite.]—D. Iacobus in Missâ sua post recitationem verborum, viz. [Hoc est corpus meum] accedit ad benedicti∣onem, quod est argumentum firmiss. non credidisse eum in sola verborum illorum prolatione Consecrationem fieri. Eodem modo Clemens in Missa suâ. Dionys. cap. 7. Hierarch. dicit, Preces esse effectrices Consecrationis. Ergo non solùm verborum istorum prolatio.—Lindanus probat ex lustino, sine precibus Consecrationem nullam esse. Amalcharius praef. in lib. de offic Apostolos solâ benedictione consectare consuevisse. Idem ha∣bet Rabanus,—& Cap. 6 Certum est, Graecos sustinere, non istis verbis, sed Sacerdotis benedictione, seu pre∣catione Consecrationem fieri—Nullus ex antiquioribus Ecclesiae Doctoribus per sola quatuor verba Christi Consecrationem fieri dixit.—Irridet eos Scotus, qui supernaturalem virtutem, de novo creatam, verbis istis inesse putant,—Scotum sequuntur Scholasticorum turba Landolfus, Pelbertus, Mart. Brotinus, Nic. Dorbellis, Pet. Tarraretus, Catharinus.—Lindanus de Iustino ait, quòd negat Apostolos istis ver∣bis u••os ad consecrandam Eucharistiam. De Basilio asserit, quòd priscos Patres dicit non fuisse contentos solis istis verbis. Greg l. 7. Ep. 63. Morem fuisse Apostolis ad solam Dominicam orationem oblationem consecrare. Hier. in Sophon. 3. Solennem orationem Sacerdotis precantis Eucharistiam facere. D Ambros. Consecrationem incipere ait ex eoloco Canonis, viz. Quam oblationem tu, Deus, benedictam, &c. Visscire (inquit) quibus verbis coelestibus consecratur? accipe quae sint, Fac nobis hanc oblationem, &c. Idem tenet Odo Camerac.—etiam Bern. Audi quid Sacerdos in consecratione corporis Christi dicat, Rogamus (inquit) hanc oblationem benedictam fieri, &c. [And lest that any should obiect, that the Apostles did not observe in their narration the right or∣der of Christ's acts, Hee addeth;] Omnes nunc prouoco Lectores ad legendos Missales libros Liturg. Iacobi, Cle∣mentis, Bafilij, Chrysost. & Ecclesiae Latinae, & videbunt, nisi sibi oculos eruere velint, quàm constanter omnes unoore asserant & testentur, Christum dando Eucharistiam Apostolis dixisse, [Hoc est corpus meum:] post ver∣ba [Accipite & manducate.] Hier. Epist. ad Hebdid. q. 2. Panem, quem fregit Christus, dedir{que} Discipulis esse corpus Domini Saluatoris, dicens, [Accipite & comedite, Hoc est corpus meum.] Haec ille. Nota quòd ait Christum dixisse ad Apostolos, non ad panem. [Hoc est corpus:] Ergò non per ista verba panem consecrauit—Si mihi opponant authoritatem Pij Quinti in Catechis. qui post Conc. Trid factus est, ego opponam illi non minoris authoritatis & sanctitatis, eruditionis autem nomine maioris, Innocentij tertij sententiam op∣positum sentientis—Et dico, librum illum Catechismi non definiendo, sed magistraliter docendo factum esse. Hactenus ex Archiep. Caesarien.
• h

  Tract. of the Masse, pag. 105.
• i

  Verba haec [Hoc est corpus meum] pronuntiata à Sacer∣dote, cùm intentione consecrandi Sacra∣mentum, continent implicitè Invocatio∣nem. Bellar. lib. 4. de Euch. c. 14. §. Quintū arg.
• See the former te∣stimony, letter (g.)
• k

  Vehemens pror∣sus insania est, quòd nune arbitrantur se consecrate hoc Sa∣cramentum sine pre∣ce, quam Canonem appellamus, absque invocatione super dona, sed tantùm re∣citatione verborum, &c. Talis recitatio non est Cōsecratio.—Alitèr profectò erat in Ecclesia ori∣entali, & occidenta∣li.—Hactenùs in Ecclesia doctum fuit, in piece, quâ Sacer∣dos sic invoca•• [Hanc Oblationem quaesu∣mus, Domine, ac∣ceptabile facere dig∣netis, &c. Antididag. de Cath. Relig. per Ca∣non. Eccles. Coloniens. Tract. de Missa, p. 100 §. An sine prece.
• l

  Quod autem il∣le sermo Domini suf∣ficiat ad sanctificati∣onem, nullus neque Apostolus, nec Do∣ctor dixisse cernitur. Nic. Cabasil. Explicat. Euch. c. 29. Latini obijciunt Chryso∣stomum dicentem; Quemadmodùm o∣pifex sermo dicens [crescite & multipli∣camini] semel à Deo dictus perpetuò ope∣ratur, &c. Resp. An ergò post illud di∣ctum Dei [Crescite] nullo adhuc opus habemus adiumen∣to, nullâ prece, nul∣lo matrimonio? Ibid.
• See the Testimo∣nie before at the letter (g) towards the end.
• m

  Alij dixerunt, Christum his verbis semel dictis consec••âsse, sed Evangelistas non seruâsse ordinem in rei gestae narratione. Sed cùm omnes Evangelistae conueniunt in hoc, ut dicant, primùm Christum accepisse panem, deindè Benedixisse, tertiò fregisse, & tùm de disse, dicendo [Hoc est corpus meum] videntur non casu, sed consilio Evangelistae rem narrâsse, ut gesta est. Maldon. Jes. Disp. de Euch. q. 7. p. 133. [And among them that doe invert the or∣der, is Alan. lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. de Euch. c. 15. p. 295.] Alij docuerunt, Christum haec verba [Hoc est corpus meum, &c.] bis repe∣tivisse: quae sententia est falsa, quia null•• conjecturâ probari potest. Idem ibidem.
• See aboue, lit. (〈◊〉〈◊〉.)
• n

  Iustin. Apol. 2. docet, Oratione confici Eucharistiam. Iren. lib. 4. c. 5. Invocatione nominis Dei. Cyril. Hier. Catech. mystag. 3. & 4. Invocatione Spiritus Sancti. Hieron. Epist. ad Evag. Sacerdotum precibus. August. Semperferè prece mysticâ (ut lib. 3. c. 4. de Trin.) Sacramentum fieri asserit.—Respondetur, Primò quòd ve∣teres non curabant passim exactè declarate & praecisè quibus verbis conceptis consecraretur: licet Ministris se∣cretiore institutione ea tradidisse constat. Alan. l. 1. de Euch. c. 17. p. 310. [To whom might be added Cyprian de coena Domini, Calix benedictione sacratus.]
• o

  It was M. Bre∣reley his error, Liturg. p. 101. in alleaging I∣renaeus lib. 5. cap. 1. Quandò mixtus ca∣lix, & fractus panis percepit verbū Dei, fit Eucharistia. [Here by verbum Dei, is not meant the words of Hoc est, &c. but Prayer, and the word of Blessing, comman∣ded by the Word of Christ, who blessed it, and commanded his Church, saying, Doe this: as appeareth by Iraen. lib. 4. c. 34. when he saith, Panis percipiens vo∣cationem (for Invocationem) Dei, non est communis panis.] In the next place Ambrose. l. 4 c. 4 dc Sacr. Con∣secratio igitur quibus verbis fit? Domini Iesu, &c. Ergò sermo Christi conficit hoc Sacramentum, nempe is, quo facta sunt omnia, iussit, & factum est. [This is the Allegation; whereas if he had taken but a little paines to have read the Chapter following, bee should have received Saint Ambrose his plaine Resolution; that they meant the words of Prayer. Visscire quibus verbis coelestibus consecratur? Accipe verba, Dicit Sacerdos, Fac nobis hanc Oblatio∣nem acceptam, &c. Then he procecdeth to the Repetition of the whole Institution. We see then that the Latine Church had this forme (Fac) even as the Greeke had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: both in Prayer, but neither of both without reciting the forme of Institution.]
• See at the former letter (o.)