The Anatomy of the Mass, Book 1 · Chapter 29 – Chapter 32
CHAP. XXIX. That divers Ancient Fathers have beleeved a myſticall Union of the Godhead of Chriſt with the bread of the Sacrament.
NEvertheleſſe, I cannot deny but that many Fathers have had an opinion, which with good reaſon is rejected by the Roman Church of theſe dayes. They teach that as Chriſts divine nature hath united it ſelfe perſonally unto his humane nature, ſo the ſame divine nature, by vertue of the Conſecration, is united to the bread of the Euchariſt, by an union, though not perſonall and hypoſtaticall, yet myſticall, divine, and ineffable, by which the bread remaining bread, is made the body of Chriſt. For they uſe this compariſon, taken from the perſonall union of the two natures of Chriſt, for to ſhew how the bread is the body of Chriſt: This opinion hath no foundation in the Scripture. Yet I dare ſay, it is an errour no way prejudiciall to Chriſtian Religion. For that opinion changeth not the nature of Chriſt, and deſtroyes not his humanitie. Neither doth it deſtroy the nature of the Sacrament, ſince they did beleeve that the bread changeth not its ſubſtance. Whence alſo they worſhipped not the Sacrament, neither did fall into Idolatrie. To be ſhort, it was an innocent error, ſerving to augment and encreaſe the peoples reſpect and reverence to the holie Sacrament, which for that cauſe they call terrible and wonderfull.
In the meane while we have in that a moſt evident proofe that theſe Fathers did not beleeve the Tranſubſtantiation. For as they beleeved not that by the union of Chriſts divinitie with his humanitie, the human nature was tranſubſtantiated, or his bodie aboliſhed: ſo did not they beleeve that by this myſticall and divine union of the God-head of Chriſt with the bread, the bread ſhould be deſtroyed, and turned into another ſubſtance.
By this doctrine the bread of the Euchariſt is the body of Chriſt in two manners: the one becauſe of that myſticall union of the bread with Chriſt, after the ſame ſorte as Jeſus Chriſt man is called the Son of God; becauſe of the perſonall union with the Sonne of God: The other, becauſe this bread is the ſacred ſigne and remembrance of Chriſts body, as it is uſual to give to the ſignes the name of that which they doe ſignifie. For this ſecond conſideration they ſay that the bread of the Euchariſt is the body which was borne of the Virgin, and crucified for us. For as touching the firſt Conſideration, it is certaine that this bread which they ſay is made Chriſts body by that myſticall union, is another body of Chriſt than that which was crucified for us. For to effect ſuch a tranſmittation, they interpoſe the Omnipotencie of God. For it muſt bee a divine power for to cauſe that the bread remaining bread, bee ſo ſtraitly united to the Godhead of Chriſt, as to become the body of Chriſt.
Now, that theſe Fathers doe hold that this myſticall body of Chriſt is another body than that which was crucified for us, though it be the ſame in ſignification, we prooved it juſt now by a multitude of places of Fathers, wherein they ſay that Chriſt hath two ſorts of fleſh, and that we may very well eate of that fleſh or myſticall body which is taken in the Sacrament, but no manner of way eate the fleſh that was crucified for us.
The firſt Father that ever made uſe of the perſonall union of the two natures of Chriſt for to ſhew how the bread is made the body of Chriſt, not by Tranſubſtantiation, but by the myſterious union of the Godhead of Chriſt with the bread, is Juſtin Martyr, about the end of his ſecond Apologie, where he ſpeaketh thus: Wee doe not take theſe things as common bread: but after the ſame manner as Chriſt our Saviour was incarnate and made fleſh and blood for our ſalvation, ſo we have beene taught that the meate whereon thankeſgivings have been rendred by the prayer of the Word, whereby our fleſh is nouriſhed by aBy this tranſmutation hee underſtandeth the change of the bread which is made in the ſtóach for the nouniſhment of our bodies.tranſmutation, is the body and blood of Chriſt Jeſus. Now that Juſtin beleeved that this meate is bread ſtil, and hath not loſt its ſubſtance, he ſheweth it when hee ſaith that our bodies are fed with it. And by that which he ſaith in that very place, that the Deacons give to all them that are preſent to participate, the bread and wine, whereupon graces have beene ſaid.
The Author likewiſe of the Catecheſticall prayer attributed to Gregory of Nyſſe, uſeth the ſame compariſon.bI ſhew this falſity in my book againſt Cardinall du Perron, lib. 7. cap. 22. Namely in that he ſpeaks of one Severus, an Heritick, wch came above a hundred yeares after the death of this Gregory. The body (ſaith he) was changed into a divine dignity by the inhabitation of the Word God. With good reaſon then alſo now I beleeve that the bread, ſanctified by the word of God, is changed into the body of God the Word. If this compariſon be good, as the body of Chriſt was not tranſubſtantiated by the inhabitation of the Godhead: no more likewiſe is the bread tranſubſtantiated by the conſecration which is made at the Sacrament.
Hilary ſpeaketh juſt ſo in the eighth Booke of the Trinity:cSivere Verbum caro factum eſt, & nos Verbum carnem cibo Dominico ſumimus. If the Word was truly made fleſh, and wee alſo in the meate of the Lord doe take the Word fleſh.
Gratian in his ſecond diſtinction of the Conſecration,dCan. hoc eſt. Hoc eſt quod dicimus, &c. Si ut Chriſti perſona conſtat ex Deo & homine, cum ipſe Chriſtus verus ſit Deus & verus ſit homo. alleadgeth a place of Auſtin, drawne from the Sentences of Proſper, in theſe words, The Sacrifice of the Church is compoſed of two things, to wit of the Sacrament, and of the thing of the Sacriment; hat is to ſay of the body of Chriſt, after the ſame manner as Chriſts perſon is compoſed of God and man. For Chriſt is very God and very man.
Ireneus hath an opinion by himſelfe. For he ſaithcQuomodo conſtab…t cis eum panem in quo gratiae actae ſunt, corpus eſſe Domini ſui & calicem ſanguinem ejus, ſi non ipſum fabricatoris mūdi filium dicunt .i. verbum ejus, per quod lignū fruct…fica…, defluunt fontes, & dat terra primo quid…m foenum deinde ſpicas. that the bread is the body of Chriſt, becauſe Chriſt is the Creator of all things, eſteeming that the whole world in reſpect of God, is what the body of man is to his Soule. Which was the opinion and beleife of Plato, of Cicero, of Virgil, and of all the Platonick Schoole, that bore the ſway in Ireneus his time.
Such was the beleife of the Author of the Booke of the Lords ſupper, attributed to Saint Cyprian. That Author ſpeaketh thus:fPan…s ſte communis in carnem & ſangumem mutatus, procurat vitam & incrementum corporibus, ideo que , ex conſueto rerum effectu fidei noſtrae adjutamſirmit as ſenſibil argumento, edocta eſt viſibilibus Sacramentis ineſſe vitae aeternae effectum. The common bread being changed into fleſh, and into blood, bringeth …ife and growth unto the body. And therefore the infirmity of our fleſh being helped by the accuſtomed effect, is taught by a ſenſible proofe, that in the viſible Sacraments there is an effect of eternall life. When he ſaith that the common bread is turned into fleſh, and into blood, he doth not meane that it is turned into the fleſh and blood of Chriſt, but into our fleſh and blood by diſgeſtion; for hee addeth that this bread nouriſheth our bodyes and maketh them to grow; and all the currant of the ſpeech ſheweth that. But a little after hee addeth ſome wordes whereupon our Adverſaries doe triumph and glory, for lack of underſtanding what this Authors beleefe was.*Panis quē Dominus diſcipulis porrigebat, non effigie, ſed natura mutatus omnipotentia Verbi factus eſt caro. Et ſicut in perſona Chriſti humanitas videbatur, et latebat d vinitas, ita Sacramento viſibili ineffabiliter divina ſe infudit eſſentia. The bread (ſaith hee) that the Lord gave to his Diſciples, being changed, not in ſhew, but in nature, is made fleſh by the omnipotency of the Word. But in the words following, he ſheweth that this converſion of the bread into the fleſh of Chriſt, is made, not by Tranſubſtantiation, but by an union of the Godhead of Chriſt with the bread, like unto the union of Chriſts divine nature with his humane nature: For he added immediatly after, And even as in …he perſon of Chriſt, his humanity was …eene, but his divinity was hidden, ſo the *Panis itaque hic azymus, cibus verus & ſincerus per ſpeciem & Sacramentum nos tactu ſanctificat.divine eſſence is infuſed in the viſible Sacrament by an unſpeakable manner. There is nothing more expreſſe, nor more contrary unto Tranſubſtantiation. For according to this Authors beleefe, even as Chriſts divine nature did not tranſubſtantiate his Manhood, but made it to be the fleſh of the Son of God: So the divine Eſſence which he ſaith to be infuſed in the bread of the Sacrament, maketh it to become Chriſts body, without being Tranſubſtantiated. Wherefore a litlte after, he ſaith, that that which we receive in the Sacrament,*Caro quae Verbū Dei Patris aſsū pſit in utero virginali n un tate ſuae perſonae, et panis qui conſecratur in Eccleſia, unum corpus ſunt. Divinit atisenim plenitudo quae fuit in illa, replet et iſtum pa…em. is unleavened bread, which ſanctifieth us by touching it: acknowledging that it is bread ſtill.
Bellarmin in the 15 chap. of his third Book of the Euchariſt, alleadgeth Saint Remigius, that wrote about the yeare of our Lord 520 in theſe words, a The fleſh which the Word of God the Father tooke in the Virgins wombe in unity of perſon, and the bread that is conſecrated in the Church, are one and the ſelfe-ſame body. For the plenitude of the divinity which was in that fleſh, filleth alſo this bread. Bellarmin addeth that Haimo held the ſame language, and that Gelaſius and Theodorets words that we have alleadged above, may be fitted to this opinion.
The Author our Adverſaries alleadge with more oſtentation, is Damaſcene, whom they rank among the Saints. This man may be tearmed the Lombard of the Grecians, becauſe he is the firſt among the Grecians that handled divinity in Philoſophicall tearmes: And is the firſt that wrote for the adoration of Images. Now, he did write about the yeare of our Lord 740. This man in his 4 Book of the Orthodox Faith, chap. 14. extendeth himſelfe upon this matter, and will have the breadbforeign to be changed into the body of the Lord, not by tranſubſtantiation, but bycforeign. Aſſumption and union with the divinity, like unto the union of Chriſts divinity with his humanity. Becauſe (ſaith hee)dforeign. that it is the cuſtome to eate bread, and to drink wine and water, the Lord hath conjoyned his divinity to theſe things, and hath made them to be his body and blood. And a little after,eforeign. If thou inquireſt in what manner that is done, let it ſuffice thee to underſtand that it is done by the holy Spirit, after the ſame manner as the Lord hath made himſelfe to himſelfe and in himſelfe, a fleſh taken of the holy Mother of God by the holy Ghoſt. And a little after, he ſaith that the bread and winecforeign. is the body of Chriſt Deified. Chiefly he is very expreſſe in that he addeth:dforeign. The bread of the Communion is not meere bread, but it is conjoyned to the Divinity. But ſtill he acknowledgeth that it is bread, ſaying, the bread is the body of Chriſt, and calling it the bread of the Communion: And a little after, The loaves of propoſition did figurate this bread. Item, The broad is the firſt fruits of the future bread. And a little after, We partake all of one bread. Only he hath this of particular to himſelfe, that he will not have the bread to bee called the figure of Chriſts body, rejecting that kind of ſpeech, uſuall and ordinary in the Fathers that have written afore him.
It appeareth likewiſe in that he will have the Sacrament to bee honored, but not to be worſhipped.dforeign. Let us (ſaith he) honor it with purity corporall and ſpiritual; and will have it to be received with the hands ſet in forme of a Croſſe. For then it was not as yet the cuſtom to chop it into the mouths of Communicants.
Rupertus was imbrued with the ſame opinion,eRupertus Tuitienſis in Exod. c. 12. Sicut Chriſtus humanam naturā nec mutavit, nee deſtruxityſed aſſumpſit, it a in Sacrameto, nec deſtruit, nec mutat ſub. ſtantiam panis et vini, ſèd aſſumit in unitatemcorporis et ſ…ngumis ſui. Even as Chriſt (ſaith he) did neither change nor deſtroy the humane nature, but joyned himſelfe unto it: So in the Sacrament he neither deſtroyeth nor changeth the ſubſtance of the bread and wine, but joyneth himſelfe unto it in the unity of his body and blood. For which cauſe alſo Bellarmin placeth him among the Impanators.
This doctrine doth no whit agree with the ubiquity. For they did put this union of Chriſt with the bread, in the Sacrament only, which bringeth no manner of change to the naturall body of Chriſt. But theſe Fathers make two bodies of Chriſt: the one his naturall body, which is but in Heaven, the other the bread of the Sacrament, which they make to be Chriſts body two manner of wayes: to wit becauſe it is united to the divinitie of Chriſt by an union like unto the hypoſtaticall union of the two natures of Chriſt, and becauſe it is a ſigne, figure, and ſymbole of Chriſts naturall body: according as the ſignes are wont to be called by the name of that which they doe ſignifie and repreſent. Whence alſo they ſay ſometimes that that bread is the body of Chriſt, borne of the Virgin, and crucified for us.
Whoſoever ſhall apprehend this aright, ſhall have a key in their hand for to enter into the knowledge and intelligence of the Fathers, and for to come out of all difficulties. It is the ſolution of the places of Cyril that are objected againſt us, and of thoſe and Ambroſe out of the Booke of Sacraments. For indeed the Author of the Books of Sacraments was one of theſe Impanators, ſince that he holdeth that by the unſpeakable vertue of God, the bread becometh the body of Chriſt, and yet remaines bread ſtill, as we have prooved, and alleadged the forme of the ſervice of that time, where it was ſaid,*Ambroſ. li. 4. de Sacram. c. 5. Fac nobis hanc oblationem aſeriptam, ratā, rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod eſt ſiguracorporis Chriſti. That the oblation we offer, is the Figure of the body of Chriſt. And in the 4 chap, Let us eſtabliſh this, to wit, how THAT WHICH IS BREAD, may be the body of Chriſt. And a little after, he ſaith that the bread and the wine are ſtill what they were, and yet are changed into the body and blood of the Lord. Wee muſt not wonder if for to work this change in the bread of the Sacrament, he imployeth the Omnipotency of God, and his unexpreſſable vertue in changing things. For indeed if that union he conceiveth, were true, it were an unſpeakable and incomprehenſible work, and wherein human reaſon is ſtark blind.
Becauſe of this myſticall union which is neare unto the perſonall union, Cyrill of Alexandria ſaith, that this body of Chriſt received into our bodies, maketh them ſuſceptible and capable of the Reſurrection. Which truely is an abuſe. For by the ſame reaſon the participation of the Sacrament ſhould keep us from dying. The Faithfull of the Old Teſtament, and John the Baptiſte, and the Theife crucified with Chriſt, and an ininfinit number of Martyrs, that were never partakers of this Sacrament, are no leſſe capable of the Reſurrection.
From that impanation ſprung up that cuſtome by which in old time many particular perſons carried away the Euchariſt into their own houſes, and kept it locked up in a cheſt or cupboord, asaGregor. Nazianz. Oratione de ſorore Gorgonia. Gorgonia did, who was ſiſter to Gregory Nazimzen. Which ſheweth on the one ſide that they did give unto that bread ſomething more than to be the figure and ſigne of Chriſt body. And on the other ſide that ſheweth alſo that they did not beleeve the Tranſubſtantiation. For they would never have put Chriſts naturall body into a womans hand, for to keep it locked up in a cupboord.
From the ſame opinion proceeded that which Satyrus bAmbroſ. Oratione de obitu fratris Satyri.did, who was S Ambroſes brother, and yet unbaptized Who being upon the Sea in danger of ſhipwrack, cauſed the Euchariſt to be given him, and hanged it about his neck, and then threw himſelfe into the ſea, for to ſave himſelfe by ſwimming. An evident proofe they beleeved th…t in this Sacrament there was ſome ſecret vertue, and that nevertheleſſe they beleeved not this bread to be the naturall body of Chriſt, crucified for us. For they would never have given it to an unbaptized perſon for to hang it about his neck, and caſt it with him into the Sea.
Neither is it to bee omitted that the Fathers never ſpeake of the ſpecies of the bread in the plurall, but only in the ſingular, becauſe that by the ſp…cies of the bread, they underſtand the ſubſtance of the bread, which is one. But our Adverſaries, which deprave the Fathers tearmes as well as their doctrine, ſpeak of ſpecies of the bread in the plurall, becauſe that by the ſpecies of the bread, they underſtand accidents without a ſubject, which are many. Which is a new doctrine, and a phraſe or kind or ſpeech altogether unuſuall, not only in Philoſophers, but alſo in the Fathers, and in all Antiquity.
CHAP. XXX. Particular opinion of Saint Auſten and of Fulgentius, and of Innocent the third.
AƲſten, and Fulgentius his diſciple, take ſometimes theſe words, This is my body, in a ſenſe patricular to themſelves. For beſides this expoſition which is very frequent in S. Auſtin, namely, that the Lord called the bread his body, becauſe it is the ſigure and ſigne of his body: in ſome places he will have in theſe words THIS is my body, that by this word, body, the Church be underſtood. For in his Sermon to Children, which is to be found at the end of Fulgentius his Workes, hee ſpeaketh thus: Theſe things are called Sacraments, becauſe in them one thing is ſeene, and another underſtood, &c. If then thou wilt know what the body of Chriſt is, heare the Apoſtle ſaying, Ye are the body and members of Chriſt. And in the 26 Treatiſe upon S. John, By this ment, and by this drinke, the Lord will have the fellowſhip of his body and of his members to bee underſtood, to wit, the holy Church of the Predeſtinat.
Pope Innocent the third holdeth the ſame doctrine: For in his 4 Book of the myſteries of the Maſſe, hee ſaith, that Chriſt hath two bodies, to wit his naturall body, which he took of the Virgin, and which was crucified, and his myſticall body, viz. the Church. Then he addeth:*Myſticum corpus cō editur ſpiritualiter, id eſt, in fide ſub ſpecie pan…s. The myſticall body is eaten ſpiritually, that is to ſay in faith under the ſpecies of the bread.
By all the premiſes it is plaine and evident, that he who forſaking the Scriptures, taketh the Fathers for his addreſſe or direction, intangleth himſelfe into marveilous difficulties, and caſteth himſelfe into darkneſſe, and in a labyrinth without iſſue. And that a man muſt be well read in them, and obſerve and heed them very exactly, for to attaine to an indifferent knowledge of them. That if any one readeth them carefully, and with an unpreoccupated mind, though he meets with many errors in them, and ſmall agreement among themſelves: Yet he ſhall find them ſo far from the doctrine of the Roman Church, as the heavens are from the earth.
CHAP. XXXI. That the Church of Rome condemning the Impanation, is fallen her ſelfe into an error a thouſand times more pernitiou…, by Tranſubſtantiation. And of the Adoration of the accidents of the bread.
WE have ſhewed that many Fathers have beleeved that the divinity of the Lord is joyned to the bread of the Euchariſt, by an union comming neare unto the perſonall union that is between the two natures of Chriſt. The Tranſubſtantiation, is an imitation of this doctrine, but in the worſe: For whereas theſe Fathers conjoyne the Godhead of Chriſt with the ſubſtance of the bread The Church of Rome conjoyneth Chriſt with the accidents of bread, with a more ſtrait union than that which thoſe Impanators did put betweene the divinity of the Lord, and the bread of the Euchariſt.
For the ancient Fathers eſteemed not that becauſe of the union of Chriſt with the ſubſtance of the bread, the bread ſhould be worſhipped. But the Roman Church by reaſon of the union of Chriſts body with the accidents of the bread, worſhippeth theſe accidents, that is to ſay, the roundneſſe, whiteneſſe, favour, and breadth of the Hoſt, with the ſame adoration that Chriſts body is worſhipped with.*Bellar. 13 cap 5. Nullus dubtandi locus r l …qu tur quin … Ch… ſti ſideles latr… cult… qu… Deo d…b… tur, … S…nit ſſimo Sacramento ma en…ratione adbibeant. The Councell of Trente in the XIII. Seſſion, ordaineth upon paine of a curſe, that the Sacrament ſhall be worſhipped with divine adoration, called Latria. Now by the Sacrament, the Councell underſtandeth the body of Chriſt with the ſpecies or accidents. Of which abuſe hath been ſpoken before.
It is therefore very wrongfully that the Church of Rome condemnes thoſe that have put a myſticall and unſpeakable union betweene the Godhead of Chriſt and the bread of the Sacrament, ſince our Adverſaries themſelves bring in another, a thouſand times more abſurde and more pernicious, betweene Chriſt and the Accidents of bread. More abſurd, I ſay: For the union of two ſubſtances may eaſily be conceived; But to unite a ſubſtance with the accidents of another ſubſtance, as if one ſhould put the Moon under the accidents of a horſe, is a thing and a conceit which paſſeth all the imaginations of hypocondriaks, and which cannot fall into the mind of any man that hath not interdicted to himſelfe the uſe of reaſon. Adde moreover that this doctrine deſtroyeth the nature of the Sacrament, and the humanity of Chriſt, as we have prooved: and bindeth men to worſhip a peece of bread with divine adoration. Things, which the ancient Church never beleeved nor practiſed.
It ſeemeth that Satan, when he tempted Chriſt in the Wilderneſſe, was a projecting this doctrine, and making an eſſay or triall of it. For promiſing unto Chriſt imaginary kingdomes, he propoſed unto him accidents without a ſubject. And in ſpeaking to him of turning ſtones into bread, he ſpake to him of a Tranſubſtantiation.
CHAP. XXXII. That the Sacrifice of the Maſſe was not inſtituted by Chriſt. Confeſſion of our Adverſaries.
IN the holy Scripture, the holy Supper is not called a Sacrifice. Chriſt in inſtituting this Sacrament, offered nor preſented nothing to his Father, but only to his Diſciples, ſaying, Take, eate. Hee made no elevation of the Hoſt. The Apoſtles worſhipped not the Sacrament. In a word, there did not paſſe in it, any of the actions neceſſarily required in a Sacrifice properly ſo called. Bellarmin acknowledgeth it freely, ſaying,*Bellar. l. 1. de Miſſa c. 27. §. 5. Oblati… quae ſequitur conſecrationem, ad integritatem ſacrificii pertinet, non ad eſſentiam. Quod non ad eſſent iam probatur, tamex co quod Dominus eam oblationem non adbibuit, immo nec Apoſtoll in principio, ur ex Gregorio demonſtratum eſt. The oblation which is after the Conſecration, belongeth to the integrity of the Sacrifice, but is not of its eſſence: which is prooved in that the Lord made not this oblation, nor the Apoſtles themſelves at the beginning, as we have demonſtrated it out of Gregory. A confeſſion very notable: by which this Cardinall will have Chriſt and his Apoſtles to have made a Sacrifice without offering any thing: that is to ſay, that in the Euchariſt hee offered not himſelfe in Sacrifice: But now the Church of Rome offereth Chriſt Jeſus in Sacrifice, againſt Chriſts example, and the example of his Apoſtles.
Salmeron Jeſuite, in the XIII. Tome and firſt Book of Commentaries upon the Epiſtles of S. Paul, *Parte 2. Diſp. 8 §. 5 Opus. Et §. Poſt…mo. & §. Porro.maketh an enumeration of the unwritten Traditions, and puts in their rank the Eccleſiaſticall Hierarchy, that is to ſay the Papall Monarchy, and the ſervice of Images, and the Maſſe, and the manner of Sacrificing. And the Tradition, that Chriſt made a Sacrifice in bread and wine. And here are the reaſons why he thinketh it was not expedient thoſe things ſhould be written, or taught by word of mouth.aPart. 3. Diſp. 8. §. Quinto Tradit. Stultum eſt omnia ab Apoſtolis ſcripta putare, vel omnia ab eis trad ta fulſſe. Et in injuriam vergerel agent…s & revelantis Spi…itus. Et inſuave eſſet naturae noſtrae quae omnia ſimul non capit. It is (ſaith he) a fooliſh thing to thinke the Apoſtles have written all, or given all by Tradition: That would turne to injury againſt the holy hoſt, acting and revealing. And it would be a thing uncouth unto nature, which comprehendeth not all things at once. And there he giveth a particular reaſon wherefore theſe*§. Quinto opus. Haec literis conſignari minime debuerant, ut ſervaretur praeceptum Chriſt…, Nolite dare ſanctum cambus. things were not to be writen, to wit, that Chriſts Commandement might be kept, Give not that which is holy unto dogs If wee beleeve this Doctor, the doctrine of the Birth and Paſſion of our Saviour was given unto dogs: for it was Gods will it ſhould be ſet down in writing. By theſe Dogges he meaneth the People and the Princes.
Cardinall*Baron. Annal. ad annum 53. §. 13. Baronius maketh the ſame confeſſion, and acknwledgeth ingenuouſly that the Sacrifice of the Euchariſt is an unwritten Tradition, and whereof, by conſequent, no mention is made in the Goſpell.
And Gregory of Valentia a Jeſuite, in the 4 chap of his firſt Book of the Maſſe:*Si maxime ille cultus à Deo inſtitutus non eſſet, concludi tamen ab iſtis non poſſet non eſſe legitimum, cum id ad bonitatem cultus minime requiratur. Even though this ſervice or worſhip [of the Maſſe] had not been inſtituted by God, yet theſe men could not conclude that it is not lawfull, for wee have ſhowed that that [to wit to bee commanded of God] is not neceſſarily required, for to make that a ſervice be good.
All theſe Doctors ſpeaking thus, condemne tacitely the Councell of Trente, who in the XXII. Seſſion, chapter 1. declareth and defineth, that by theſe words, Doe this in remembrance of me, the Lord eſtabliſhed the Prieſthood of the New Teſtament. Words which M…tthew and Marke would not have omitted, if by them the Lord had inſtituted the Sacrifice and the Prieſthood of the New Teſtament.