the celebration of the Sacrament in an audible and intelligible voice. He did not mutter what are called the consecrating words, as is now done in the Roman Church, which differs in this point, as in many others, from the Greek and Oriental Churches, in which the consecrating words are pronounced aloud. Pope Innocent III., in the Mysteries of the Mass, (b. iii. c. 1,) and Durand, in the Rational, (b. iv. c. 35,) give the reason of this change, namely, that it happened one day, that some shepherds, having learned the consecrating words, pronounced them over their ordinary bread, which was immediately changed into flesh: God being provoked at this, sent fire from heaven, which consumed them. However, there are many ways of telling this fable: it is not said where or when the thing happened, nor is there any evidence adduced for it, nor do the relators agree even about the story itself.

XXXIV. Jesus Christ did not command his disciples, after they had received the Sacrament, to put the remaining fragments into a box, and preserve them, to be carried about and paraded in great pomp through the streets, as is now done by the Roman Church on Corpus Christi day and its Octaves. This festival was instituted by Pope Urban IV. A.D. 1264, as his successor, Pope Clement V. testifies, in the Clementines, (Tit. 16,) where the epistle of Urban instituting it is inserted, in which he says, that he was moved to do it, "by a revelation made to some Catholic persons."* By Catholic persons he meant a nun of Leige, named Eva, with whom he was acquainted when he was archdeacon of Leige. This woman said, that God had revealed to her

*Binius notis in Concilia in Vita Urbani IV. et ex Molano et Petro Premonstratensi. Vide Serarium de Proces. b. ii. c. 9, et Epistolam Urbani IV. ad Evam.

that he did not esteem it right that each of the saints had his festival, and that God had none. This festival would, nevertheless, have gone into lasting desuetude, had not Clement V., about forty years afterwards, instituted it anew,

CHAPTER III.

In what manner the change in the Institution of the Lord hath altered the nature of the Sacrament-and that there is no Consecration in the Mass.

The horrible change and depravation in the Institution of the Lord, has entirely abolished the nature of the Sacrament; for Sacraments are sacred signs. Not the ancients only, but even the doctors of the Roman Church, define Sacraments "Sacramentum est sacrum signum." Thus, in baptism, water is the sign, and the blood of Christ is the thing signified; and, in the Holy Supper, bread and wine are the signs, but the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ are the things signified. If the water of baptism were entirely taken away, there could neither be a sacrament nor baptism. In like manner, the Eucharist in the Roman Church is not a sacrament, because the signs, namely, the bread and wine, are abolished, and the natural body and blood of Jesus are substituted in their stead, and are called Sacrament. Moreover, the Council of Trent ordains,* that the Sacrament be worshipped. And thus, as Bellarmine+ and others maintain, Jesus Christ, in the Mass, is by this means made the figure and sign of himself; as if one should

Sess. XIII. ch. 5.-† Bellar. de Euch. b. 2. c. 24; Christus sui, ipsius figura fuit.

assert that a man is the portrait of himself. Besides, the sacraments were not instituted for the purpose of bringing Christ down to us, but of elevating us to him. He is not given to be mangled with the teeth, but is set forth for the nourishment of our souls, and the strengthening of our faith.

Further, the consecration of the Sacrament is abolished by transubstantiation, and there is nothing in the Mass capable of consecration. The bread is not consecrated; for it is held that it no longer exists. The body of Christ cannot be consecrated by men. The qualities of bread and wine cannot be consecrated, for lines, colours, and tastes, are not the sacrifices which is pretended to be offered unto God. There being, therefore, nothing consecrated, there is no consecration, and where there is no consecration there is no Sacrament.

CHAPTER IV.

That by the change in the Institution of the Lord, the Roman Church hath changed the Nature of Jesus Christ.

The change signified by transubstantiation is carried so far, that the human nature of Jesus Christ is entirely abolished and destroyed. For the Scripture, speaking of Christ's human nature, says, that he was like unto us in all things, yet without sin; but the Roman Church ascribes to him a body, which is in no respect like ours: whence it follows, that he is no longer our brother, so that all the glory of believers, which consists in having a brother, who is the eternal Son of God, is entirely swept away.

The Roman Church invents a body for Jesus Christ,

which exists in many different distant places at the same time; which is in heaven and on many altars, but is in no point of intermediate space, whence it follows, that the body of Jesus Christ is separated and far from itself, and is higher and lower than itself. There is no less absurdity in supposing that a human body may be in divers distant places at the same time, than in supposing that a man may be in two different years at the same moment, and, thus be old and young at the same time, and outlive himself.

By this doctrine, a human body is ascribed to Jesus Christ, which is quite entire in each crumb of the host,which has the feet and the head in the same place, and the two eyes exactly in the same point. Can that body, the parts of which are not external the one of the other,—have no difference of situation,-occupy no place, and are more spiritual than spirits,—be called a true human body? It is on this account that the priests of the Roman Church shave the beard on the upper lip, for it is believed, that if a priest should dip his mustaches into the cup, the whole body of Jesus would remain suspended at each hair. This doctrine, likewise, invents two bodies for Jesus Christ, to which belong contradictory properties: for that body of Jesus, which was at the table celebrating the Eucharist, spoke and moved the hands; but that which was in the mouths and stomachs of the apostles, did not speak nor move the hands. That soul of Christ, who was at the table, was in agony; but the soul of the Christ which was in the mouths of the apostles, suffered no sorrow. When Jesus rose from the table, he entered into the garden, and did sweat great drops of blood, but that Jesus who was in the stomachs of the apostles, did not sweat drops of blood. Which of these two is our Saviour? Or, if they be one and the same Christ, how is he diverse from himself?

Further, by this doctrine, the whole history of Christ's life is rendered ridiculous, and turned into fable. For, if the body of Christ can be in divers distant places at the same time, might it not be said that whilst he was in the womb of the virgin, perchance he was likewise in other wombs, and that whilst he was on the cross, he was walking in Spain? From this doctrine, it likewise follows, that all the journeys he made, going and coming from Gallilee into Judea, were useless; for wherefore should he go from Gallilee into Judea, if he could be present in both the one and the other at the same time, and could shew himself in Judea without moving from Gallilee? What, say you, cannot the Almighty do that? I answer, that without doubt, God can do all things if he will; but that it is impossible that God can will these things, for he is not a liar, and cannot contradict himself. Yet he would contradict himself if he willed that a man should speak and not speak at the same instant, that he should move and not move, suffer and not suffer, and be diverse and distant from himself. It pleased God to constitute the body of Christ a true human body. God doth not will any thing so absurd and contradictory as that imagined by some, namely, that in the host accidents exist without a subject, and that, according to Pope Innocent III.,* in the host there is greatness and nothing great, colours and nothing coloured; as if one should say there was an eclipse of the sun and no sun,— lameness in the leg and no leg,-sickness and no one sick. Besides, the will of God, not his omnipotence, is the rule of our faith. In like manner, one might defend all the fables of the Alcoran, by saying, God is able to do it. Yet God never acts but in wisdom; and assuredly, now that

De Myst. Missae. L. iv. c. 11.

M