Dispute Against the English-Popish Ceremonies, Part 4 · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
Other Positions built upon the former ground.
THe third consequence which we inferre upon our former Sect. I rule of following the example of Christ, is, that it is not a thing indifferent, to omit the repetition of those words, This is my body, enunciatively and demonstratively, in the act of distributing the Eucharisticall Bread: and farre lesse is it indifferent, so to omit this demonstrative speech in the distribution, as in place of it to surrogate a Prayer, to preserve the soule and body of the communicant unto everlasting life. Our reason is, because Christ (whose example herein we ought to follow, used no prayer in the distribution, but that demonstrative enunciation, This is my body. But we goe forward.
The fourth Position, which we draw from the same rule, is, that Sect. II it is not indifferent for a Minister to omit the breaking of the Bread at the Lords Table, after the consecration, and in the distribution of it: because he ought to follow the example of Christ, who after he had blessed the Bread, and when hee was distributing it to them who were at Table, brake it, zPareus in 1 Cor. 11. 24.manibus comminuendo panem acceptum in partes: but had it not …arved in small peeces, before it was brought to the Table. Hence ade symb. caenae dom. disp. 2. thes. 5.G. I. Vossius doth rightly condemne those, who, though they breake the Bread in multas minutias, yet they break it not in actu sacramentali. Such a breaking as this, (he saith well,) is not Mistica but conquinaria.
The fifth Position drawen from the very same ground, is, that it Sect. III is not indifferent for a Minister in the act of distribution, to speake in the singular number, Take thou, eat thou, drinke thou: because he should follow the example of Christ, who in the distribution spake in the plurall number, Take ye, eate ye, drinke ye. And he who followeth not Christs example herein, by his speaking in the singular to one, he maketh that to be a private action betwixt himselfe and the communicant, which Christ made publike and common by his speaking to all at one time.
How idly bPart. 2. pag. 55. 56. 57.B. Lindsey answereth to these things, it can not but appeare to every one who considereth, that we doe not challenge Sect. IV them for not breaking the Bread at all, for not pronouncing at all these words, This is my body, or for never pronouncing at all, those speeches in the plurall, take ye, eate ye, drinke ye; but for not breaking the Bread in the very act of distribution: for not propouncing demonstratively those words, This is my body, in the very act of distribution: for not speaking in the plurall number, Take ye. &c. In the very act of distribution, as Christ did, having no other reasons to move him, then such as concerne us. Why then did not the B. say something to the point, which we presse him with? or shall we excuse him, because he had nothing to say to it?
Now last of all, we finde yet another point, whereby the cIbid.B. departeth from the example and mind of Christ. He saith, that by Sect. V the Sacramentall word, This is my body, the Bread is made the Sacrament, &c. And that without this word, &c. all our Prayers & wishes should serve to no use. Where he will have the Bread to be otherwise consecrated by us, then it was consecrated by Christ: for that Christ did not consecrate the Bread to be the Sacrament of his body, by those words, This is my body, it is manifest, because the Bread was consecrated before his pronouncing of those words: or else what meaneth the blessing of it, before he brake it? It was both blessed & broken, and he was also distributing it to the Disciples, before ever he said, This is my body Beza, benedictionem expresse ad panis consecrationem & quidem singularem, refert:: & omnes nostri referunt, consecrationem intelligentes, &c, Qua ex communi cibo, in spiritualis alimoniae sacramentum transmutetur, saith dcom. in Math. 26. 26.Pareus. Wherefore we must not think, to sanctify the Bread, by this prescript word, This is my body, but by Prayer and Thansgiving, as Christ did. Our Divines hold against the Papists, eAmes. Bell. ener. Tom. 3. l. 1. c. 2. q. 2.Verba illa quae in Sacramento sunt consecratoria, non esse paucula quaedam praescripta; sed praecipue verba orationis, quae non sunt praescripta; And that fCartwr. on Math. 26. s 6.through use of the Prayers of the Church, there is a change in the Elements. gdefence of the English translation cap. 17. n. 5D Fulk objecteth against Gregory Ma…tin, Your Popish Church doth not either as the Greeke Liturgies, or … the Churches in Ambrose and Augustines time: for they hold that the Elements are consecrated by Prayer and Thanksgiving. I know none who will speake with B. Lindsey, in this point, except Papists. Yet hcom. in Mal. 1. 11.Cornelius a Lapide could also say, Eucharistiaconficitur & conditur sacris precibus.
I say not, that these words, This is my body, have no use at all, in Sect. VI making the Bread to be a Sacrament. But that which giveth us dislike, is,
1. That the B. maketh not the Word and Prayer togither, but the Word alone; to sanctify the Bread and Wine. …ow if i1 Tim. 4. 5.both the Word and Prayer be necessary, to sanctify the creatures for the food of our bodies, much more are they necessar to sanctify them for the food of our soules. kG. I. Voss. de symb caenae dom. disp. 2. thes. 2.Neque enim solis domini verbis consecratio fit, sed etiam precibus. The Fathers (saith lInstit. Theol. lib. 2. p. 258.Trelcatius) had not onelyonly respect to those five words. For this is my body, dum Eucharistiam fieri dixerunt, mistica prece, invocatione nominis divini, solemni benedictione, gratiarum actione. 2. That he makes not the whole word of the Institution, to sanctify the Bread, but onelyonly that one sentence, This is my body. Whereas Christs will is declared, and consequently the Elements sanctisyed, mAmes. ubi supra.by the whole word of the institution: Iesus tooke the Bread, and when he had given thankes, he brake it, and said, Take eate, this is my body which is broken for you, this doe in remembrance of me, &c.
3. That he aknowledgeth not the Bread, though sanctified by Prayer, to be the Sacrament, except that very word be pronounced, This is my body. Now when a Minister hath from Christs will & institution declared, that he hath appointed Bread & Wine, to be the Elements of his body and blood: when he hath also declared the essentiall rites of this Sacrament.
And lastly, when by the Prayer of consecration he hath sanctifyed the Bread and Wine which are present: put the case, that all this while, those prescript sentences, This is my body, This Cup is the New Testament in my blood, have not beene pronounced; yet what hindereth the Bread and Wine, from beeing the Sacramentall Elements of the Lords body and blood? It is sounder Divinity to say, nAmes. ubi supra. lib 4. cap. 6.that the consecration of a Sacrament, doth not depend ex certa aliqua formula verborum. For it is evident, that in Baptisme there is not a certaine forme of words prescribed, as oapud. Ames. ibid. lib. 1 cap. 2.Bellarmine also proveth: because Christ saith not: Say, I baptise thee in the name, &c. But onelyonly he saith, Baptizing them in the name, &c. So that he prescribeth not what should be said, but what should be done. p3. q. 60. art. 8.Aquinas likewise holdeth, that the consecration of a Sacrament is not absolutely tied to a certaine forme of words. And so saith qin Enchir. contr. inter Evang. & Pontif.Conradus Vorstius, speaking of the Eucharist. Wherefore rubi supra,Vossius doth rightly condemne the Papists, quod consecrationem non aliis verbis fieri putant, quam istis, hoc est corpus meum, & hic est sanguis meus.