all men is called a sacrifice, is the sign of the true sacrifice, in which the flesh of Christ, after his assumption, is celebrated by the sacrament of remembrances.

But, in this particular, the canon law itself, and the Master of the Sentences, are the best witnesses; in both which collections there are divers testimonies brought, especially from St. Ambrose and St. Austin, which whosoever can reconcile with the doctrine of transubstantiation, may easily put the hyena and a dog, a pigeon and a kite, into couples, and make fire and water enter into natural and eternal friendships.

Theodoret and Pope Gelasius speak more emphatically, even to the nature of things, and the very philosophy of this question. "Christ honoured the symbols and the signs," saith Theodoret1, "which are seen, with the title of his body and blood, not changing the nature, but to nature adding grace." "For neither do the mystical signs recede from their nature; for they abide in their proper substance, figure, and form, and may be seen and touched," &c. And for a tetimony that shall be esteemed infallible, we allege the words of Pope Gelasius'; "Truly the sacraments of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, are a Divine thing; for that by them we are made partakers of the Divine nature; and yet it ceases not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine. And truly an image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries"."

Now, from these premises we are not desirous to infer any odious consequences in reproof of the Roman church, but we think it our duty to give our own people caution and admonition; 1. That they be not abused by the rhetorical words and high expressions, alleged out of the fathers, calling the sacrament, The body or the flesh of Christ.' For we all believe it is so, and rejoice in it. But the question is,- After what manner it is so;- whether after the

De Consecrat. dist. 2. cap. Qui manducant: et cap. Prima quidem : et cap. Non hoc corpus; et cap. Ut quid paras. Sentent. lib. iv. dist. 11.

1 Dialog. i. c. 8.

k Dial. ii. c. 24.

1 De duabus Naturis contra Eutych. et Nestor.

Videatur Pichorellus in Dissert. de Missa et Expositione verborum institutionis cœnæ Domini.

manner of the flesh, or after the manner of spiritual grace, and sacramental consequence? We, with the holy Scriptures and the primitive fathers, affirm the latter. The church of Rome, against the words of Scripture, and the explication of Christ", and the doctrine of the primitive church, affirm the former. 2. That they be careful not to admit such doctrines under a pretence of being ancient; since, although the Roman error hath been too long admitted, and is ancient in respect of our days, yet it is an innovation in Christianity, and brought in by ignorance, power, and superstition, very many ages after Christ. 3. We exhort them, that they remember the words of Christ, when he explicates the doctrine of 'giving us his flesh for meat, and his blood for drink,' that he tells us, 'The flesh profiteth nothing, but the words which he speaks, are spirit, and they are life.'

4. That if those ancient and primitive doctors, above cited, say true, and that the symbols still remain the same in their natural substance and properties, even after they are blessed, and when they are received, and that Christ's body and blood are only present to faith and to the spirit, that then whoever tempts them to give Divine honour to these symbols or elements (as the church of Rome does), tempts them to give to a creature the due and incommunicable propriety of God; and that then this evil passes further than an error in the understanding; for it carries them to a dangerous practice, which cannot reasonably be excused from the crime of idolatry. To conclude:

This matter, of itself, is an error so prodigiously great and dangerous, that we need not tell of the horrid and blasphemous questions, which are sometimes handled by them concerning this Divine mystery. As if a priest going by a baker's shop, and saying with intention, 'Hoc est corpus meum,' whether all the baker's bread be turned into the body of Christ? Whether a church-mouse does eat her Maker? Whether a man, by eating the consecrated symbols, does break his fast? For if it be not bread and wine, he does not: and if it be Christ's body and blood naturally and properly, it is not bread and wine. Whether it may be said, the priest is, in some sense, the creator of God himself?

Whether his power be greater than the power of angels and archangels? For that it is so, is expressly affirmed by Cassenæus. Whether (as a Bohemian priest said) that'a priest before he said his first mass, be the Son of God, but afterward he is the father of God and the creator of his body?' But against this blasphemy, a book was written by John Huss, about the time of the council of Constance. But these things are too bad, and therefore we love not to rake in so filthy channels, but give only a general warning to all our charges, to take heed of such persons, who, from the proper consequences of their articles, grow too bold and extravagant; and, of such doctrines from whence these and many other evil propositions, duxía xaxaì, frequently do issue. As the tree is, such must be the fruit. But we hope it may be sufficient to say, 1. That what the church of Rome teaches of transubstantiation, is absolutely impossible, and implies contradictions very many; to the belief of which no faith can oblige us, and no reason can endure. For Christ's body being in heaven, glorious, spiritual, and impassible, cannot be broken. And since by the Roman doctrine nothing is broken but that which cannot be broken, that is, the colour, the taste, and other accidents of the elements: yet if they could be broken, since the accidents of bread and wine are not the substance of Christ's body and blood; it is certain that, on the altar, Christ's body naturally and properly cannot be broken. And, 2. Since they say, that every consecrated wafer is Christ's whole body, and yet this wafer is not that wafer; therefore either this or that is not Christ's body, or else Christ hath two bodies, for there are two wafers. But, 3. when Christ instituted the sacrament, and said, "This is my body, which is broken;' because, at that time, Christ's body was not broken naturally and properly, the very words of institution do force us to understand the sacrament in a sense not natural, but spiritual, that is, truly sacramental. 4. And all this is besides the plain demonstrations of sense, which tells us, it is bread and it is wine naturally as much after as before consecration. And after all, 5. the natural sense is such as our blessed Saviour reproved in the men of Capernaum, and called them to spiritual understanding; the

P Gloria Mundi 4. n. 6.

natural sense being not only unreasonable and impossible; but also to no purpose of the spirit, or any ways perfective of the soul; as hath been clearly demonstrated by many learned men, against the fond hypothesis of the church of Rome in this article.

SECTION VI.

OUR next instance of the novelty of the Roman religion, in their articles of division from us, is that of the halfcommunion. For they deprive the people of the chalice, and dismember the institution of Christ, and prevaricate his express law in this particular, and recede from the practice of the apostles; and though they confess it was the practice of the primitive church, yet they lay it aside, and curse all them that say they do amiss in it; that is, they curse them who follow Christ, and his apostles, and his church, while themselves deny to follow them.

Now for this we need no other testimony but their own words in the council of Constance: "Whereas, in certain parts of the world, some temerariously presume to affirm, that the Christian people ought to receive the sacrament of the eucharist, under both kinds of bread and wine, and do every where communicate the laity not only in bread but in wine also ;"Hence it is that the council decrees and defines against this error, "that although Christ instituted after supper, and administered this venerable sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine, yet notwithstanding this, &c.— And although in the primitive church, this sacrament was received of the faithful under both kinds, &c."- Here is the acknowledgment, both of Christ's institution in both kinds, and Christ's ministering it in both kinds, and the practice of the primitive church to give it in both kinds: yet the conclusion from these premises is; "We command, under the pain of excommunication, that no priest communicate the people under both kinds of bread and wine." The opposition is plain: "Christ's testament ordains it; the church of Rome forbids it: it was the primitive custom to obey Christ

a Concil. Constant. sess. 13.

in this; a later custom is by the church of Rome introduced to the contrary." To say that the first practice and institution is necessary to be followed, is called heretical to refuse the later subintroduced custom incurs the sentence of excommunication: and this they have passed not only into a law, but into an article of faith; and if this be not' teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,' and worshipping God in vain with men's traditions; then there is, and there was, and there can be, no such thing in the world.

So that now the question is not, Whether this doctrine and practice be an innovation, but whether it be not better it should be so? Whether it be not better to drink new wine than old? Whether it be not better to obey man than Christ, who is God blessed for ever?' Whether a late custom be not to be preferred before the ancient? A custom dissonant from the institution of Christ, before that which is wholly consonant to what Christ did and taught? This is such a bold affirmative of the church of Rome, that nothing can suffice to rescue us from an amazement in the consideration of it: especially since, although the institution itself, being the only warranty and authority for what we do, is, of itself, our rule and precept (according to that of the lawyer, "Institutiones sunt præceptiones quibus instituuntur et docentur homines);" yet besides this, Christ added preceptive words, Drink ye all, of this:' he spake it to all that received, who then also represented all them, who for ever after were to remember Christ's death.

But concerning the doctrine of antiquity in this point, although the council of Constance confess the question, yet since that time they have "taken on them a new confidence, and affirm, that the half-communion was always, more or less, the practice of the most ancient times."-We therefore think it fit to produce testimonies concurrent with the saying of the council of Constance, such as are irrefragable, and of persons beyond exception. Cassanderd affirms, "That, in the Latin church, for above a thousand years, the body of Christ, and the blood of Christ, were separately given, the body apart, and the blood apart, after the consecration of the

b Accursius, Præfat. super Institut. Justin. d Consult sect. 22.

e Mat. xxvi. 27.