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, ounía 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 Coucil. 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 institu tion 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.

c Mat. xxvi. 27.

mysteries." So Aquinas also affirms; "According to the ancient custom of the church, all men as they communicated in the body, so they communicated in the blood; which also, to this day, is kept in some churches."-And therefore Paschasius Rathbertusf resolves it dogmatically, "That neither the flesh without the blood, nor the blood without the flesh, is rightly communicated; because the apostles all of them did drink of the chalice." And Salmeron being forced by the evidence of the thing, ingenuously and openly confesses, "That it was a general custom to communicate the laity under both kinds."

It was so, and it was more: there was anciently a law for it, "Aut integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur," said Pope Gelasius. Either all or none; 'let them receive in both kinds, or in neither;' and he gives this reason; "Quia divisio unius et ejusdem mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest pervenire:" "The mystery is but one and the same, and therefore it cannot be divided without great sacrilege." The reason concludes as much of the receiver as the consecrator, and speaks of all indefinitely.

Thus it is acknowledged to have been in the Latin church', and thus we see it ought to have been: and for the Greek church there is no question; for even to this day they communicate the people in the chalice. But this case is so plain, and there are such clear testimonies out of the fathers recorded in their own canon-law; that nothing can obscure it, but to use too many words about it. We therefore do exhort our people to take care, that they suffer not themselves to be robbed of their portion of Christ, as he is pleased sacramentally and graciously to communicate himself unto us.

e Commen. in 6. Joh. lect. 7.

Tract. 35.

'De corp. et sang. Domini, c. 9.

Apud Gratian. de Consecrat. dist. 2. cap. Comperimus.

1 Vide Ochagav. de Sacr. Tract. 2. de Euchar. q. 18. De Consecrat. dist. 2. c. Si non sunt, et cap. Quia passus, et cap. Prima quidem, et cap. Tune eis, et cap. Accesserunt.

SECTION VII.

As the church of Rome does great injury to Christendom, in taking from the people what Christ gave them in the matter of the sacrament; so she also deprives them of very much of the benefit, which they might receive by their holy prayers, if they were suffered to pray in public in a language they understand. But that is denied to the common people,

to their very great prejudice and injury.

Concerning which, although it is as possible to reconcile adultery with the seventh commandment, as service in a language not understood to the fourteenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians; and that therefore if we can suppose, that the apostolical age did follow the apostolical rule, it must be concluded, that the practice of the church of Rome is contrary to the practice of the primitive church: yet besides this, we have thought fit to declare the plain sense and practice of the succeeding ages, in a few testimonies, but so pregnant, as not to be avoided.

Origen affirms, that "the Grecians, in their prayers, use the Greek,—and the Romans, the Roman language; and so every one, according to his tongue, prayeth unto God, and praiseth him as he is able." St. Chrysostom, urging the precept of the apostle for prayers in a language understood by the hearer, affirms that which is but reasonable, saying, “If a man speaks in the Persian tongue, and understands not what himself says, to himself he is a Barbarian, and therefore so he is to him that understands no more than he does." And what profit can he receive, who hears a sound, and discerns it not? It were as good he were absent as present for if he be the better to be there, because he sees what is done, and guesses at something in general, and consents to him that ministers: it is true, this may be, but this therefore is so, because he understands something; but he is only so far benefited as he understands; and therefore all that which is not understood, does him no more benefit that

Lib. viii. contra Celsum.

b Affectus consequitur intellectum; ubi autem nullus earum rerum, quæ petuntur vel dicuntur, habetur intellectus, aut generaliter tantum ibi exiguus assurgit affectus.-Azor. Inst. moral. tom. 1. lib. ix. c. 34. q. 8.