Coals from the Altar, Part 1 – Title page 4
The Almighty power of God and his will.
Wherein is declared, how the Almightie power of God and of his will, ought to rule our faith in the receiuing of the holy Sacrament.
TO binde vsus to beleeue the Tranſubſtantiation of bread with the bodie of Ieſus Chriſt, our aduerſaries ſet before vsus the Almightie power of God, who (they ſay) hath wrought as great miracles; whereupon wee ſay, That vſe wee ought to make of the Almightie power of God, is to beleeue that hee will doe all which hee hath promiſed in his word, but not to beleeue all that wee would imagine. By that way one may defend the moſt falſe and abſurd things in the world, in ſaying that God is powerfull enough to doe it: The power of God is not the rule of our religion, but his will.
For to know if the bread of the Euchariſt becommeth fleſh, and tranſubſtantiateth it ſelfe into the bodie of Ieſus Chriſt, one muſt not begin with the conſideration of the Almightie power of God; but wee muſt firſt informe our ſelues of his will in his word. And if wee finde that God will hauehave it ſo, we muſt beleeue it without all difficultie.
Firſt, we learne in the Goſpell, that Ieſus Chriſt hauing taken the bread, gaue it. He gaue bread then. But it is not giuen vntill after the Conſecration.
Alſo we finde, that Ieſus Chriſt giuing this bread, ſaid, This is my bodie. And to ſhew that that which he gaue was his bodie, hee addeth, that it is done in remembrance of him. For ordinarily the Scripture calleth the remembrance or repreſentatiue ſigne of any thing of name, with that it ſignifieth and repreſenteth, in the ſame manner, as when we ſay, This is the King, when wee ſee but the portrait. If then this Sacrament be the commemoration of Ieſus Chriſt, it is not Ieſus Chriſt himſelfe: for a man cannot bee the remembrance of himſelfe.
This appeareth cleerely by that which is added. For Ieſus Chriſt giuing the cup, ſaid, This cap is the new Teſtament in my bloud. From whence it appeareth, that this cup is not the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt, for the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt is not in the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt, and ſo cannot hee bloud of his bloud. If I ſay that Baptiſme is the new Teſtament in the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt, by conſequence I ſay, that Baptiſme is not the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt. So Ieſus Chriſt ſaying, that the cup is the Teſtament in his bloud, alſo verie cleerely ſaith, that the cup is not his bloud.
And euen as a man doth not find it ſtrange, that Ieſus ſaid, that the cup is an alliance, although the cup, nor that which is within is not tranſubſtantiated into an alliance, but only is the Sacrament of the alliance of Ieſus Chriſt; ſo we may not finde it ſtrange, if Ieſus Chriſt giuing the bread, hath ſaid, that it was his bodie, although it bee not tranſubſtantiated into his bodie.
And S. Matthew in the 26. chapter 29. Ieſus Chriſt hauing giuen the cup to his Diſciples, ſaid vntounto them, Henceforth I will not drinke of the fruit of this vine: hee drunke then the fruit of the vine, and not of the bloud. For although that there had beene two cups, yet S. Matthew ſpeaketh but of one, and calleth not the fruit of the vine, the wine of one cup, he ſpeaketh nothing of it.
Alſo wee finde the Apoſtle S. Paul in the 1 Cor. 2.16. ſaith three times, We eat of this bread, and drinke of this cup: ſo we ſee it is ſtill bread that they did eat.
The ſame Apoſtle in the ſame chapter and 16. verſe ſaith, The bread which we eat is the communion of the bodie of Chriſt: he ſaith, The bread which wee breake: it is then bread when it is broken in the Sacrament: yet it is not broken but after the conſecration.
So in the 20. of the Acts 17. the Diſciples are aſſembled to breake the bread: It was bread then they broke amongſt them, and not fleſh.
Ieſus Chriſt ſaith in the 12. of S. Iohn 8. You ſhall alwayes hauehave the poore, but you cannot hauehave me alwaies. And in the 16. ver. 18. I leaue the world, and goe to my Father, And in the 10. I am no more of the world. This ſentence ſhould bee falſe, if we ſhould hauehave Ieſus Chriſt ſhut vp within a peece of bread, if hee were yet remaining in the world. For he ſaith, You ſhall not hauehave mee alwayes. Now may one anſwer, that we hauehave Ieſus Chriſt no more viſibly; which is nothing to the purpoſe: for to hauehave Ieſus Chriſt inuiſibly, is alwayes to hauehave Ieſus Chriſt. Hee ſhould bee a lier that ſhould ſay hee had no money, becauſe his money was hid: or hee that ſhould ſay hee had no ſoule, becauſe it is inuiſible.
And it is a ſtrange libertie which the Doctors of the Roman Church take; for to make theſe texts of no value, they interpret them figuratiuely, and for to ſhunne a naturall and vſuall figure in ſpeaking of the Sacraments, they introduce a dozen of vnuſuall figures without example.
The action intirely whole of Ieſus Chriſt and of his Diſciples, maketh for vsus: for the Apoſtles ſate at the Table without any kinde of adoration, which ſhould hauehave been a very great irreuerence in them, to eat Ieſus Chriſt, and to ſacrifice him to God without making any adoration, which is ſo much more remarkable, becauſe the Apoſtles neuer gaue aſſiſtance in ſuch an action, and alſo becauſe it was the firſt inſtitution of this Sacrament, which is giuen for a patterne to the end to make them hereafter conformable. Alſo we ſee not that Ieſus Chriſt maketh any eleuation of the Hoſt, hee preſenteth nothing to God, but only to his Diſciples. To conclude, in eueryevery action Ieſus Chriſt doth the contrary to that which is done in the Maſſe.
The text of the Maſſe maketh for vsus, wherin the Prieſt, after the Conſecration, asketh of God that hee take this offering as acceptable as euer the Sacrifice of Abel was acceptable vntounto him: a prayer that was good before Tranſubſtantiation was beleeued. But in theſe daies, is it not a great offence to God, to entreat him to accept the Sacrifice of his Sonne as acceptable, as a beaſt offered by Abel? And which is more, the Prieſt deſireth of God that the Offring which he holdeth may be acceptable through Ieſus Chriſt: he beleeueth not then that hee holdeth Ieſus Chriſt.
And to take away all doubt, the Prieſt long after the Conſecration, looketh vponupon the Hoaſt and the Cup ſtanding vponupon the Altar, and ſaith that theſe are goods which God hath alwaies created, which he viuifieth and ſanctifieth through Ieſus Chriſt. All this may he ſay of bread and wine, but not one of theſe words can agree with the body of Ieſus Chriſt: for can the bodie of Ieſus Chriſt be called goods in the plurall? Doth God create alwaies Ieſus Chriſt? Doth God alwaies viuifie Ieſus Chriſt, ſeeing that Ieſus Chriſt himſelfe ſaith, that he himſelfe is life? Doth God create Ieſus Chriſt by Ieſus Chriſt? Truly if theſe things ſhould be ſpoken openly before the people in the vulgar tongue, they would be much offended: & that is the reaſon why they ſay their Seruice in an vnknowne tongue, againſt the example of Ieſus Chriſt, and againſt the ſaying of Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 14. The Prieſt and the Reader ſpeake to a people in a tongue they vnderſtand not. The ſixt of Saint Iohn maketh alſo for the truth which wee defend; for although there is nothing ſpoken of the holy Sacrament of the Euchariſt, which was not then inſtituted; yet notwithſtanding he ſpeaketh there of the Communion of the Body of Ieſus Chriſt; wherof Ieſus Chriſt ſpeaketh in a manner, that he manifeſtly ſheweth he ſpeaketh of a manducation, which is not by the mouth: for he ſpeaketh of a manducation, without the which no man can be ſaued; ſaying, If you doe not eat my fleſh, you ſhall not liue. So you ſee hee ſpeaketh not of a manducation by the mouth, without the which ſo many perſons are ſaued, as the good theefe crucified with Ieſus Chriſt, holy Iohn Baptiſt, and infinite others.
Alſo our Lord ſpeakes of a manducation, which how many ſoeuer participate thereof, hauehave eternall life; for he ſaith, He that eateth his fleſh hath life eternall; he ſpeaketh not then of the eating the Sacramēt with the mouth, which many hauehave done, and yet eſcaped not damnation, witneſſe Iudas and many moe Hypocrites. But wee may not ſo conclude nor ſay thereupon, of thoſe that eat the fleſh of Ieſus Chriſt worthily. For wee finde in S. Paul, 1 Cor. 2. that ſome eat the bread vnworthily; but we ſhall not finde that the fleſh of Ieſus Chriſt can be eaten vnworthily: and indeed, ſeeing that to eat the fleſh of Ieſus Chriſt, & to drinke his bloud, is to beleeue in his incarnation and in his death; who knowes not that one cannot poſſibly beleeue in Ieſus Chriſt vnworthily, ſeeing in the beleefe of Ieſus Chriſt conſiſteth our dignitie.
But to eat and drinke is to be vnderſtood to beleeue; the Doctors and Canons of the Church of Rome ſay with vsus, and the holy Scripture is full of ſuch manner of ſpeaking; and Ieſus Chriſt in the ſame place ſaith, That whoſoeuer beleeueth in him, ſhall neuer thirſt; to the end we may know that this Thirſt is quenched in beleeuing, and not in drinking with the mouth. And a little after hauing ſaid, Who beleeueth in me, ſhall hauehave eternal life; thence he inferreth that he is the bread of life: and aduertiſeth vsus that theſe words of eating and drinking, are ſpirit and life, for if they bee not taken ſpiritually, they cannot viuifie.
Thereupon wee ought not to feare, if Tranſubſtantiation be taken away, the Sacrament ſhould become contemptible: For Baptiſme is not become contemptible, but is more honoured in the Church of Rome, than the Euchariſt, and is eſteemed a thouſand thouſand times more, albeit the water be not tranſubſtantiated into bloud. For they hold, Baptiſme is neceſſary to ſaluation, but not the Euchariſt. They hold, that by Baptiſme eueryevery kinde of ſinne is wholly forgiuen; but the Euchariſt taketh away but veniall ſinnes, and thoſe which they hauehave freed their conſciences of before. The Sacraments ought not to be honored but for IESVS CHRISTS ſake, which when you ſhall adore in heauen, whitherto hee is mounted, to returne againe at the laſt day, and ſhall ſerue him according to his word, we need not feare that the memorials which hee hath left in the Church, and by the which he worketh in our hearts, with efficacie, ſhould euer become contemptible. We muſt honour the Sacraments, but wee may not put them in the place of things ſignified.
All this aboueſaid, ſerueth to ſhew, that for to know the truth in Religion, wee muſt not beginne with the conſideration of the Almighty power of God, but firſt of all enquire after his will; which when it is learned, then the Almighty power of God that can doe all, aſſureth vsus, that being able to doe all, hee will doe that which hee willed, and that which hee teacheth in his holy word.
I will ſay more: It is the Doctours of the Church of Rome, that diſhonour and diſgrace, the power of the Almighty God, and of Ieſus Chriſt our Lord.
For firſt of all, they make it ſerue to doe things more miraculous than the creation of the world, and yet notwithſtanding no profit commeth by it. For they hold, that Ieſus Chriſt hath eaten himſelfe, for hee hath participated in the holy Sacrament with his diſciples; and yet notwithſtanding they cannot declare vntounto vsus, to what end ſuch a prodigious and incomprehenſible thing ſerueth for; that a man hath his head and his body in his mouth, and that Ieſus Chriſt is entred into the ſtomacke of IESVS CHRIST.
Alſo they hold, that Miſe can eat the Body of the Lord. What a horrible ſhame and reproch doe they make the Sonne of God to be to the Church of God! For although that Ieſus Chirſt doe not ſuffer, yet hee is mightily diſhonoured.
Alſo, they put Ieſus Chriſt vponupon the Hoaſt, whereupon they ſay, that hee can neither open his eies, nor remoue the hands, nor breath, and therefore he hath not the power which other men hauehave. Is this to magnifie the power of the Sonne of God? or is it to diminiſh it, to the end to lift vp the power of Prieſts? who hauehave the power giuen them, as they teach, to make Ieſus Chriſt; which is a thing, that the bleſſed Virgin Mary, and all the Angels, and Saints together, could neuer doe.
What ſerueth it for to the Church of God, that Ieſus Chriſt in the Hoaſt hath two eies, and that he is wholly intire in eueryevery crum of the Hoaſt, and his Body intire in eueryevery drop of the Cup? And that in the Hoaſt it hath the length, and yet nothing long, as the Doctors of the Romane Church doe teach? We ought neuer to exalt the Almighty power of God in the employment of vnprofitable things.
And indeed, the examples which they bring to hold vp Tranſubſtantiation, are examples of the workes of God, which hauehave beene profitable, and the vſe whereof is apparent. As when God created the world, and brought forth the light; and changed the rod into a Serpent; and conuerted water into wine.
It is needfull to conſider, that in theſe miracles of Tranſubſtantiation, God hath conuerted one ſubſtance into another, which was not before the changing of it: For the rod of Moſes was changed into a Serpent, which was not ſo before the changing; and at the mariage in Cana in Galilee, the Lord conuerted water into wine, which was not ſo before the conuerſion. But they would that God ſhould heere conuert the bread into a body which is already: As if a man ſhould beget a man that is already borne; or ſhould turne money into gold which is already gold: Or who would goe about to make the Moone, vnleſſe it were vnmade. Beſides, the word of God expreſly ſaith, that the water was conuerted into wine; but it ſaith not, that the bread was conuerted into fleſh. In giuing the bread, Ieſus Chriſt ſaith, That it is his body, in ſuch ſort, as it was needfull it ſhould be bread, and alſo that it ſhould bee the body of Chriſt. For bread cannot be in ſubſtance the body of Chriſt, but it may well bee in the Sacrament, and according as the ſignes and memorials take the name, of that which they ſignifie and repreſent.
We exalt the almighty power of the Sonne of God in this, that without deſcending from heauen he communicateth himſelfe vntounto vsus; but the Church of Rome diſableth this power, in ſubiecting it to the will of a man, which diuers times happening is found no good man, who maketh Ieſus Chriſt when he will, and afterwards eateth it; whereupon it happeneth that Ieſus Chriſt is ſometimes eaten by his enemies, and alſo (as they ſay) euen by beaſts; if the Hoaſt be ſtollen, if it fall vponupon the ground, if wormes and corruption get into it: if a lew ſtrike it with a knife and maketh it bleed, as it is painted in the Billettes of Paris: if (as the cautions of the Meſſe and the penitentiall Canons ſay) the Prieſt or the ſicke man reuomit vp the Hoaſt through infirmity: All which redoundeth to the miſpriſe and diſhonour of Ieſus Chriſt, which is the eternall Sonne of God.
They ſay for excuſe, that the dogs licked vp ſome of the bloud of Chriſt Ieſus: but all that is nothing to the purpoſe; for Ieſus Chriſt was expreſly heere in this world to ſuffer ignominie, and to be ſubiect to infirmities: but now he is exempt from all opprobriouſneſſe and infirmitie. And moreouer, all that hee then ſuffered: was for our ſaluation. But one may well ſay vntounto me, To what end ſerueth it that Ieſus Chriſt ſhould ſtill be ſubiect to ſo many indignities aboue ſpoken of? If a Mouſe hath carried away the Hoaſt, or the Cup bee ſpilt, what ſerueth that to our ſaluation?
And if our Aduerſaries were asked, what becommeth of the Bodie of Ieſus Chriſt receiued into the ſtomacke: whether it goe out, or remaine alwaies there, or nothing commeth of it: alſo how Ieſus Chriſt hath one body like vntounto ours, and of like nature, ſeeing it is in an hundred thouſand places at one time, and hee is wholly entire in eueryevery part of the Hoaſt, hauing the feete thorowout the Hoaſt, and the head thorowout the Hoaſt, and head and feet vnderunder one point, and by conſequence hauing a humane body without extenſion, and a length vnderunder one point, and a continuance without extenſion: where the Body which was at the Table, a little after in the Garden, was afflicted and ſweat drops of Bloud: and he who in the ſame time was in the mouthes and ſtomacks of the Apoſtles, ſuffred nothing and was impaſſible, and yet neuertheleſſe was but one body: I beleeue that they found themſelues much troubled; where ſince that Iudas hath eaten Ieſus Chriſt in the Euchariſt, and euen at the ſame time the deuill entred into him; can it bee conuenient or poſſible to thinke that Ieſus Chriſt and the deuill entred into one body together, and remained together?
One thing I thinke is very conuenient, that in eueryevery Sacrament, as alſo at the ſacrifice, it is neceſſary that the thing which they adminiſter to the people, and that they offer to God, bee conſecrated: but in the Euchariſt of the Roman Church there is nothing of conſecrate which is adminiſtred to the people, nor which is offered to God: for is this the bread which is conſecrated? No way: for they ſay it is no more bread. Is it the body of Ieſus Chriſt? it is not: for Ieſus Chriſt cannot bee conſecrated, but it is he that conſecrateth vsus. Are theſe the accidents of bread which are conſecrated, that they call formes, that is to ſay, the roundneſſe, the colour and taſte of the bread? It is not neither; for theſe things are not offered to God in ſacrifice: neither are they giuen to the people for to ſanctifie them. But behold one Sacrament and one ſacrifice, where there is nothing conſecrated: where he doth make a Conſecration, but they cannot ſay what it is that is conſecrated.
All this abuſe commeth by the fault of ſome Prieſts, who could if they would, make vsus all agree very eaſily in one way. For all confeſſe that Ieſus Chriſt hath inſtituted the holy Sacrament as it ought to bee, and that there is nothing to ſay againſt it.
If then the Pope would reduce the Holy Supper into the ſame forme wherein Ieſus Chriſt inſtituted it, in ſpeaking as hee did, and doing as hee did, without further diſpute, we ſhould all agree, and ſo wee ſhould all come to be of one aſſembly vnanimouſly to glorifie God. By this meanes, diuine ſeruice ſhould bee done in the vulgar tongue; there ſhould be no more priuate Maſſes: All ſhould communicate vnderunder both kindes; there ſhould be no more adoration of the Hoaſt, nor any eleuation of the ſacrifice: & the Prieſts bending ouer the Altar ſhould not pray to God for ſaluation through the merit of Saints whoſe bones and reliques are hidden vnderunder the Altar. But contenting our ſelues with the preſcribed ſimplicity of Ieſus Chriſt, wee ſhould reiect theſe additions which disfigure this Sacrament vnderunder the ſhadow of adorning it. God giuegive vsus grace to ſee this happy time, and to that end diſpoſe of the hearts of Princes and people, for the louelove of IESVS CHRIST our LORD. Amen.
FINIS.
COMFORTABLE INSTRVCTIONS for the SICKE: By Peter Moulin, Miniſter in the Reformed Church at PARIS.
LONDON, Printed by T.S. for Thomas Pauier, and are to be ſold at his ſhop in Iuie lane. 1623.