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.

CHAP. X.

Of the Canon of the Councell of Nice, obiected for proofe of a Corporall Prescnce of Christ in the Eucharist.

SECT. I.

THis (as it is delivered by your a 1.1 Cardinall, taken out, as he saith, of the Vatican Library) standeth thus: Let us not here in this divine Table be in humblenesse intent unto the Bread, and Cup which is set before us, but lifting up our minds let us understand by faith the Lambe of God set upon that Table: The Lambe of God, which taketh away the sinnes of the World, offered unbloodily of the Priest. And we receiving truly his Body and Blood, let us thinke these to be the Symbols of our Resurrection. For this Cause doe we receive not much, but little, that wee may understand this is not to satisfie, but to sancti∣fie. So the Canon.

The Generall approbation of this Canon by Both sides.

SECT. II.

SCarce is there any one Romish Author, handling this Contro∣versie, who doth not fasten upon this Canon of Nice, for the countenancing of your Romish Masse. Contrarily Protestants (as they are set downe by our b 1.2 Zanchy, and your c 1.3 Bellarmine) in great numbers (among whom are Luther and Calvin) with ioynt consent approve of this Canon; one of them (Bucer by name) sub∣scribing unto it with his owne hand, in these words: So I thinke in the Lord, and I wish to appeare in this minde before the Tribunall Seat of God. So they. The right Explication of this Canon will be worthy our paines.

The state of the Difference, concerning this Canon.

SECT. III.

THis (as is propounded by your Cardinall) standeth thus. d 1.4 All (saith he) by the Lambe understand Christ as he is di∣stinguished from the Symbols and Signes upon the Altar. Next. But the Protestants thinke (saith he) that the Councell admonisheth not to seeke Christ on the Altar, but to ascend up unto him in Heaven by faith, as sitting at the right hand of God. But we all say (saith he) that the Councell would have us to attend unto the holy Table (meaning the Altar below) yet so, that we see in it not so much the outward Sym∣bols, and Signes, as that which lyeth hid under them, viz. The Body and Blood of Christ. So hee. The difference then betweene him and us is no lesse than the distance betweene Aloft and Vnder, that is, betweene Heaven above, and Earth below. Let us set forward in our progresse, but with easie, and even paces; to the end you may better understand the strength of our Proofes, and rottennesse of your Obiections.

That the Nicene Councell is marvellously preiudiciall to your Romish Defence: proved by five Observations; Three here.

SECT. IV.

FIve points are chiefly observable in this Canon. First is the no∣mination of Bread. Secondly, the mention of two Tables. Thirdly, the admonition to lift up our minds. Fourthly, the ex∣pression of the Reason thereof. Fiftly, the Confirmation of the same Reason.

First, That, which the Councell would that men be not too in∣tent unto, they call Bread after Consecration; for the Errour, which they would have avoyded, was either the too much abasing of this Sacrament (according to your Cardinals e 1.5 Glosse) and then was it after Consecration, because they needed not to have perswaded any to have too meane an estimation of the Bread unconsecrated; which you your selves hold to be a common and prophane thing: or else the Errour must have beene (as indeed it was) too high a valuation of the outward Element of Bread, which must needs be so, because it was consecrated, and notwithstanding it being so consecrated, in the Canon it is called Bread. which your Fathers of the Councell of Trent would not have endured, especially seeing that we find that your f 1.6 Latine Church was offended with the late Greeke Church, for calling the parts of the Eucharist by the termes

of Bread and Wine after the pronunciation of these words [This is my Body,] by you called the words of Consecration. Besides they so call them Bread and Wine, as they name them Symbols and Signes, which properly they could not be, untill after Conse∣cration.

Secondly, the g 1.7 Canon expresly noteth and distinguisheth two Tables, in respect of place; the one, as Here; being as much as to say, This Table: and the other opposed hereunto is instiled, That Table. And, of this Table Here, the Councell forbiddeth Chri∣stians to looke Too attentively to the thing set before us: But con∣trarily, concerning That other Table, they command men to Lift up their minds aloft. And not thus onely, but they also distinguish them in respect of their different Obiects. The Obiect of the First Table, Here, they name Bread, and the Cup; the obiects of sense: And the other obiect, opposed to this, is that on the other Table, expressed to be the Lambe of God, the obiect of our mindes.

Thirdly, the Admonition or Caution, which the Councell giveth concerning the Bread, is, not to be too intent to it: but touching the Lambe of Christ, they command us to lift up our mindes aloft; for so the word h 1.8 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] doth signifie, not to be used (we thinke) for an inward looking into the sublimity of the mystery of the mat∣ter before us, as your Cardinall fancieth: but for looking vp aloft unto the Lambe of God in Heaven, according to the Catholike fence of those words, * 1.9 SVRSVM CORDA!

The next two proofes out of the same Canon of Nice, to mani∣fest our Protestant profession touching the questi∣on in hand.

OVr next two proofes out of the Canon are these. First is their Reason of the former Caution: the Second, the Confirmati∣on of that Reason: both are expresly set downe in the Canon it selfe. Why then did those holy Fathers admonish us not to be too intent to the Bread and Wine set before us? It followeth; Because they are not ordained to satisfie our naturall man, namely, by a full eating and Drinking: but for a Sacramentall participation of the Body, and Blood of Christ, to the sanctifying of our soules: whereas your Church doth attribute to that, which you eate in this Sacra∣ment, a power of sanctifying the Body by it's Bodily touch. But much more will the next proofe vndermine your defence.

To confirme their Reason, why the Sacrament was not ordai∣ned for the satisfying of the naturall man, they adde saying; For this cause we receive not much, but little: which one Clause most e∣vidently proveth it to be spoken of Bread and Wine; and not of the Body, and Blood of Christ. As your generall Romane Catechisme (if you have not already learned it) will now teach you to beleeve, saying that i 1.10 Christ is not great or small in this Sacrament. And in∣deed

none ever said of the Eucharist, that he eat a little of Christ's Body, or a little Christ, but yet the Sacrament eaten is sometimes more, sometime lesse. Nor this onely, but the Canon furthermore speaketh of taking a little of that, whereof if much were taken (saith it) it might satiate the naturall man. So the Canon. But that the outward Sacrament can truly satisfie the naturall man, you your selves will testifie in your Booke-Cases and Missals, * 1.11 acknowled∣ging men Drunke with the Sacrament, even unto vomiting with the one part thereof; and also making mention of Men, and Mice be∣ing fed and nourished with the other. So then the naturall man may be satiated with this Sacrament; but with what therein? The Body and Blood of Christ? you abhorre to thinke that; with Acci∣dents? You may be ashamed to affirme it, as from the Iudgement of Antiquity, seeing you were never able hitherto iustly to produce one Father for proofe of the Existence of Accidents without their Subiects: or of nourishing a substance by meere Accidents. Where∣fore untill you can prove some one of all these, give us leave to be∣leeve, that all were of the mind of that one k 1.12 Father, who held it Impossible for an Incorporeall, or not-bodily thing to be food to a bodily substance. And so much the rather, because the Fathers have manifoldly * 1.13 acknowledged in this Sacrament, after Consecration, the substance of Bread. Wherefore the Reasoning of the Councell, touching the Eucharist, was like as if one should say of Baptisme; We take not too much, but little, lest it might be thought to have beene ordained not for a Sacramentall meanes of sanctifying the Soule, but for the clensing of the Flesh. None is so stupid as not to understand, by Much and Little, the substance of water.

And if you shall need a further Explication of the same sentence of the Fathers of Nice, you may fetch it from the Fathers in ano∣ther Councell held at Toledo in Spaine, Anno 693. who shew this Reason, why they l 1.14 Take little portions of the Hoast (namely, say they) least otherwise the belly of him that taketh this Sacrament may be stuffed, and over-charged; and least it may passe into the Draught, but that it may be nourishment for the soule. Hereby plain∣ly teaching, concerning the consecrated matter, that were it so much as could burthen the belly, it would through the superflui∣tie thereof goe into the Draught: whereas, if Lesse, it would serve as well, or better for a Sacramentall use, to the replenishing of our soules in the spiritually receiving of the Body of Christ. But you are not so farre bereft of your wits as to imagine that Much, which stuffeth, and after passeth into the Draught, to be Christ's Bodie; and you may sweare that the Fathers meant not meere * 1.15 Accidents. For mere Accidents have not the property of Substance, through the Muchnesse thereof, either to satiate the naturall appetite, in feeding, or to over-charge the Belly by weight, in pressing it downe to the Draught. Never did any Father father such an Imagination. What can be, if this be not true reasoning, and consequently a full confu∣ration

of your Romane Faith. Therefore this one Canon of Nice being thus undoubtedly gained, concerning the not seeking Christ, Here, on this Table, is sufficient of it selfe to batter downe your As∣sertion by a five-fold force. First, by proofe of no Transubstan∣tiation of Bread; Secondly, no Corporall Presence of Christ's Bodie; Thirdly, no Corporall Coniunction with the Bodies of the Commu∣nicants; and (consequently) Fourthly, no proper Sacrifice thereof; And lastly, no Divine Adoration due unto it. Therefore ought you to bid all these your Romish Doctrines and Delusions avant.

Your Obiections, from the former Canon, answered.

SECT. V.

FIrst you m 1.16 Obiect, that The Lambe is said to be placed on the Table, mistaking what Table is meant; for the Canon specifying two Tables, one Here, which is of the Eucharist, and another That Table, namely in Heaven, saith that Christ is placed on That Table, according to our Faith of his sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven. Secondly, hee is said (say you) to be sacrificed by the hands of the Priest; which cannot be done, as hee is in Heaven. The words of the Canon, truly resolved, doe cashiere this Obie∣ction, as thus: The Lambe of God set at that Table (namely in Hea∣ven) is sacrificed by the hands of the Priest Here, to wit, on the Table below (representatively) as hereafter the Catholique Fathers themselves will shew. And these two may easily consist, without any necessity of the Priest reaching his hands as farre as the high∣est Heavens; as your Cardinall pleasantly obiecteth. Thirdly, you alleage; Wee are said to partake truly of the Body of Christ. As though there were not a Truth in a Sacramentall, that is Figu∣rative Receiving; and more especially (which * 1.17 hath beene both proved, and confessed) a Reall, and true participation of Christ's Body and Blood spiritually, without any Corporall Coniunction.

But it is added (saith he) that These (namely, the Body and Blood of Christ) are Symbols of our Resurrection; which is by reason that our Bodies are ioyned with the Body of Christ: otherwise if our Coniunction were onely of our soules, onely the Resurrection of our soules should be signified thereby. So hee, that's to say, as successesly as in the former.

For the word, HAEC, These, (which are called Symbols of our Re∣surrection) may be referred either to the Body and Blood of Christ, immediatly spoken of, and placed on the Table in Heaven (which we Commemorate also in the Celebration of this Sacrament) and in that respect may be called Symbols of the Resurrection of our Bodies: because, * 1.18 If Christ be risen, then must they that are Christs also rise againe. Or else the word, These, may have relation to the

more remote (after the manner of the Greekes) to wit, Bread and Cup on the first Table, because (as immediately followeth) they are these whereof not much, but little is taken; as you have heard. Which other * 1.19 Fathers will shew to be indeed Symbols of our Resurrection, without any Consequence of Christ's Bodily Coniun∣ction with our Bodies, more than there is by the Sacrament of Bap∣tisme, which they call the Earnest of our Resurrection; as doth also your Iesuite m 1.20 Coster call it The Pledge of our Resurrection. (But this our Coniunction with Christ is the subiect matter of the Fift Booke.) Lastly, how the Eucharist was called of the Fathers a Sacrifice, is plentifully resol∣ved in * 1.21 the Sixt Booke.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Concilij verba. I∣terùm etiam hîc in divina mensa nè hu∣militer intenti simus ad propositum panē & calicem, sed attol∣lentes mentem fide intelligamus situm in sacra illa mensa agnū illum Dei tollentem peccata mundi in∣cruentè, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] à Sacerdotibus immo∣latum: & pretiosum eius corpus & sangui∣nem verè nos sumen∣tes, credamus haec esse nostrae resurrectionis symbola. Propter hoc enim neque mulcum accipimus, sed pa∣rum, ut sciamus, non ad satietatem, sed ad sanctificationem offerri, Vt resert Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 10.
• b 1.2

  Hunc canonem Conc. Niceni proba∣tum fuisse Marpurgi Luthero, & alijs.—Martinus Bucerus di∣xit; Ità in Domino sentio: & in hac sen∣tentia opto venire ad Tribunal Dei. Ma∣nu meâ scripsi. Teste Hier. Zanchio Miscell. de Coena Domini, pag. 152. He himselfe assenting unto the same.
• c 1.3

  Hoc testimonium Niceni Conc. primi in actis eiusdem Conc. in Vaticana Bibliotheca his verbis, &c. Hoc testimonium agnoscunt etiam Adversarij, ut Occolampadius, Calvin. Instit. l. 4. c. 17. §. 36. Petrus Boquinus, Klebitius: & nituntur hoc testimonio ad gra∣vissimam suam haeresin stabiliendam, &c. Bellar. ibid.
• d 1.4

  Per Agnum om∣nes intelligunt Chri∣stum, ut distinguitur contra symbola. Bel∣lar quo supra.—Illi (Protestantes) quasi admoneant, nè quae∣rendum Christum in Altati lapideo. Sed mente conscendam{us} ad coelum, in coelo si∣tum Agnum.—At vult Concilium, ut ad sacram ipsam mé∣sam attendamus: sed in ipsa non tàm Sym∣bola, quàm quae sub illis latent conside∣remus. Ibidem per tó∣tum.
• e 1.5

  Iubet Concilium ut non inhaereamus speciebus panis & vi∣ni; quasi ibi nihil sit, nisi quod oculi renū∣tiant. Bellar. quo su∣pra.
• f 1.6

  Nic. Cabasila. La∣tini dicunt eos, qui panem & vinum no∣minant, & tanquàm nondùm sanctificatis precantur sanctifica∣tionem post illa ver∣ba [Hoc est corpus meum] rem superva∣cuam facere. Expos. Liturg. cap. 29.
• g 1.7

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Conc. Nicen.
• h 1.8

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.9

  See hereafter Book 7. Chap. 4. Sect. 7.
• i 1.10

  Catechis. Rom. Christum Dominum esse in hoc Sacramē∣to non dicimus, ut parvus aut magnus est, sed ut substantia est. Tract. de Euch. num. 36.
• * 1.11

  See the fift Booke Chap. 6. Sect. 1. & 2.
• k 1.12

  Gregor. Nyssen. Quomodò enim res incorporea corpori cibus fiat? In Orat. de vita Mosis, p. 509.
• * 1.13

  See above Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 7. & 10. &c.
• l 1.14

  Conc. Tolet. 16. Anno 693. Can. 6. In∣tegrum panem esse sumendum—nequo grande allquid, sed modica tantum obla∣to, secundùm id quod Ecclesiastica consue∣tudo retentat: cuius reliquiae aut ad con∣servandum modico loculo absque aliqua iniuria Sacrificijs cō∣secretur; aut si sum en∣dum fuerit necessa∣rium, non ventrem illius, qui sumpserit, gravis sarciminis o∣nere premat, nec quid indigesticè va∣dat, sed animum ali∣moniâ spirituali refi∣ciat.
• * 1.15

  See above Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 10.
• m 1.16

  Ob. 1. Cum di∣cit agnum Dei sicum esse in sacra mensa, & eundem agnum opponit symbolis, de∣clarat agnū propriè esse in mensa: & non solùm ut per symbola repraesentatur. 2. Ag∣nus dicitur à Sacer∣dotum manibus im∣molari, quod non fit in coelo: neque enim tàm lōgas manus ha∣bent Sacerdotes, ut ad coelum pertingant 3. Dicimur verè su∣mere corpus Christi, & quòd non solùm corde sed & corpore sumitur, prebatur: quià corp{us} & sanguis Domini dicuntur es∣se nostrae resurrectio∣nis symbola, quià cùm nostris corporib{us} cō∣iunguntur. Si autem sola esset animorum coniunctio, solus ani∣mus resurrecturus sig∣nificaretur. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 10.
• * 1.17

  See above Chap. 1. Sect. 2.
• * 1.18

  1. Cor. 1. 15.
• * 1.19

  See below Booke 5. Chap. 8. Sect. 6.
• m 1.20

  Ad futuram re∣surrectionē, per Bap∣tismi Sacramentum, ius & pignus accepi∣mus. Coster. Institut. Christ. l. 4. c. 4 See more in the Booke following. Chap. 8. Sect. 6.
• * 1.21

  Chap. 5. Sect.