whereby hee requireth in all persons about to Communicate three principall Acts of Reason one is before and two are at the time of Receiuing The first is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let a man examine himselfe and so come c. The second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To discerne the Lords body The third is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To remember the Lords death vntill his Comming againe All which Three being acts of Iudgement how they may agree vnto Infants being persons void of iudgement iudge you And remember we pray you that wee speake of Sacrament all Eating and not of that vse before spoken of touching Eating it after the Celebration of the Sacrament which was for Consuming it and not for Communicating thereof CHAP. III. The Tenth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse by the now Church of Rome is in contradicting the Sence of the next words following concerning the second part of this Sacrament of receiuing the Cup HE LIKEWISE TOOKE THE CVP AND GAVE IT TO THEM SAYING DRINKE YEE ALL OF THIS And adding 1. Cor. 11. DOE THIS AS OFTEN AS YOV DOE IT IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE SECT I. BY which Words Like manner of Taking and Giving and Saying Drinke yee All of this we say that Christ ordained for his Guests as well the Sacramentall Rite of Drinking as of Eating and hath tied his Church Catholike in an equall obligation for performance of both in the administring of this Sacrament This Cause will require a just Treatise yet so that our Discourse insist only upon necessary points to the end that the extreme Insolencie Noveltie Folly and Obstinacie of the Romane Church in contradicting of this part of Christ his Canon may be plainly displayed that every conscience of man which is not strangely preoccupated with prejudice or transported with malice must needs see and detest it We have heard of the Canon of Christ his Masse The contrarie Canon of the Romish Church in her Masse Shee in her Councell of Constance decreed that Although Christ indeed and the Primive Church did administer the Eucharist in both kinds notwithstanding say they this Custome of but one kind is held for a law irreprovable Which Decree shee afterwards confirmed in her Councell of Trent requiring that the former Custome and Law of receiuing it but vnder one kinde be observed both by Laicks yea and also by those Priests who being present at Masse doe not the office of Consecrating Contrarily our Church of England in her thirtieth Article thus Both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandement ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike CHALLENGE BVt wee demand what Conscience should mooue your late Church of Rome to be guided by the authority of that former Councel of Constance which notwithstanding maketh no scruple to reiect the authority of the same Councell of Constance in another Decree thereof wherein it gain-sayeth the Antichristian usurpation of the Pope by Denying the authority of the Pope to be above a Councell and that as the Councell of Basil doth prooue from the authority of Christ his direction unto Peter to whom he said Tell the Church We returne to the State of the Question The full State of the Question All Protestants whether you call them Calvinists or Lutherans hold that in the publike and set celebration of the Eucharist the Communion in both kinds ought to be given to all sorts of Communicants that are capable of both The question thus stated will cut off a number of Impertinences which your Obiectors busie themselves withall as will appeare in due places Wee repeate it againe In publike Assemblies of all prepared and capable of the Communion The best Method that I could choose for the expedite and perspicuous handling of this great Controversie is by way of Comparison as namely First by comparing the Institution of Christ with the contrarie Ordination and Institution of the Romane Church Secondly Christ his Example with contrarie Examples Thirdly the Apostles Practice with the adverse Practice Fourthly the Primitive Custome of the Church Catholike with the after-contrarie Custome and the Latitude thereof together with latitude of the other Fiftly the Reasons thereof with Reasons Sixtly the divers manners of beginning of the one as also the Dispositions of men therein with the repugnant manner and Dispositions of men in continuing the other The discussing of all which points will present unto your view divers kinds of Oppositions In the first is the Conflict of Religion with Sacriledge In the second a soveraigne Presidence in Christ with Contempt In the third of Faithfulnesse with Faithlesnesse In the fourth of Antiquity with Noveltie In the fift of Vniversality with Paâ—city In the sixt of Wisdome with Folly as also of Charity with Iniustice and Impiety In the seventh of Knowledge with Ignorance as likewise of Devotion with Profanenesse And all these marching and warring together without any possibility of Reconciliation at all The first Comparison is of the Institution of Christ with the Contrarie proving the Precept of Christ for the vse of both kinds to all lawfull Communicants SECT II. THere is one word twice used in the tenour of Christ his Institution once concerning the Bread Hoc FACITE DOE THIS the second time touching the Cup Hoc FACITE QVOTIESCVNQVE DOE THIS AS OFTEN c. Both which whosoever should denie to have the Sound and Sence of a Precept might be confuted by your owne Iesuites Doctors Bishops and Cardinals among whom wee find your Barradas interpreting it Praecipit your Valentian Praeceptum your Iansenius Mandat your Alan Praeceptio your Bellarmine Iubet each one signifying a Command But of what this is our next Inquisition The Acts of Christ were some belonging to Consecration and some to Distribution Manducation and Drinking Such as concerned Consecration of both kinds being with common consent acknowledged to be under that Command of Hoc facite are the Taking Bread and Blessing it c. The other touching Administration of the Cup whereof it is said Hee tooke it and gave it to his Disciples whom after he had Commanded saying Drinke you all of this he added the other Command set downe by Saint Paul saying unto them Doe this as often as yee shall doe it in remembrance of Mee That by this Obligation he might charge them to communicate in both kinds A Precept then it must needs be But we are not ignorant of your Evasions Your first Evasion Although say you it be said to his Disciples Drinke you all and Doe this yet it is spoken to them as they were Priests And onely to the Apostles saith Master Brereley And againe The Apostles did represent the Priests CHALLENGE VVE answere that your owne Castro will not allow your Antecedent but is perswaded rather by the manifest Current of the Text that The Apostles were not Priests when the Cup was given unto them And although they were then
having power sensibly to perceive which betokening Bread or the Accidents of bread as you see it doth confirmeth unto us the Tropicall speech of Christ in calling Bread his Body and consequently overthroweth your whole Cause Fourthly the Similitude of Epiphanius must stand thus That which is said to be after the Image of God is such which hath a substantiall being yet so that it be like but not the same in nature And so is Bread having a Sacramentall Analogie to Christ's Body the first as the substantiall meate of man's Body and the other as the supersubstantiall food of Man's Soule Which Conclusion namely that Bread as the signe of Christ's Body is not the same in nature with Christ's Body doth dash out the braines of the Monster Transubstantiation by the which Bread as your Tridentine Faith teacheth is wholly changed into the substantiall nature of Christ's Body As if you would have Epiphanius to have said The Image of God in man is God in nature Thus doe you find the Testimony of Epiphanius to be Convincent indeed but against your Romish Doctrine of Errour and against your Cardinall of a foule falsity who saith that Epiphanius will have us to believe something herein although it be repugnant to our Sences which word no man of Sence can find in Epiphanius He saith indeed that every man is bound upon his Salvation to believe the Truth of Christ his Speech which say wee none but an Infidell can deny because Christ being Truth it selfe therefore all the words of Christ whether spoken Literally or Tropically they are still the Truth of Christ That the same Greeke Fathers have expresly vnfolded their meanings touching a Figurative Sence SECT VIII THe Iudgement of a whole Councell of Greeke Fathers may well suffice for the manifestation of the Iudgement of that Church They in Constantinople at Trullo alluding to these words of Christ This is my Body saying Let nothing be offered but the Body and Blood of Christ that is say They Bread and Wine c. If we had not told you that this had been the speech of Greeke Fathers in a Councell you would have conceived they had beene uttered by some Heretique as your Charity useth to cal us Protestants Neither may the Authority of this Councell be rejected by you as unlawfull in the point of the Sacrament both because it is objected by your selves to prove it an vnbloody Sacrifice whereunto you are answered as also for that your Binius in opposing against some things in this Councell yet neuer tooke any Exception against this Canon We may not let passe another Testimony used by the Antient Father Theodoret namely That Christ called the Bread his Body as he called his Body Bread Matth. 12. saying thereof Except the grane of wheat die c. insomuch that Interchangeably in the one place He gave to the Signe the name of his Body and in the other He gave to his Body the name of the Signe So hee As Protestantly as either Calvin or Beza could speake And you cannot deny but that when Christ called his Body Bread it was an improper and figurative speech And therefore if you will believe Theodoret you are compellable to confesse that Christ in calling Bread his Body meant it not in a proper and literall sence Hitherto of the Greeke Fathers That the same Figurative sence of Christ's words is avouched by the Latine Fathers SECT IX SOme of the Latine Fathers we confesse seeme in some places to deny all Figurative sence but this they doe even by a figure called Hyperbole that is onely in the excesse of Speech thereby to abstract the minds of sensuall men from fixing their thoughts upon externall Rites and to rayse them up to a Sacramentall and Spirituall Contemplation of the Body and Blood of Christ But as for the direct and perspicuous Sentences of these Fathers they cleerely and exactly teach a figurative sence in the words of Christ to wit Tertullian This is my Body That is a figure thereof Cyprian Things signifying and signified are called by the same word Hierom. Wine the type of Christ his Blood Gelasius Bread the image of his Body Ambrose After consecration Christ his Body is signified Saint Augustine in many places may be unto Vs instar multorum To eate the flesh of Christ saith he is a figurative speech Againe In the banquet Christ gave to his Disciples the signe of his Body And yet againe Christ doubted not to say This is my Body when he gave a signe of his Body Lastly unanswerably proving other Sacraments to agree with this in this point and that herein the Eucharist hath no Prerogative above the rest Sacraments saith he for the very Similitude and likenesse which they have with the things whereof they are Sacraments doe often take the names of those things which they doe signifie as when the Sacrament of Christ's Body saith he is after a certaine manner called the Body of Christ But how Hee addeth as if hee had meant to stop the mouthes of all Opposites As it is said by the Apostle of Baptisme we are buried by Baptisme into the death of Christ He saith not wee signifie his buriall but absolutely saith Wee are buried therefore hath he called the Sacrament or Signe of so great a Thing by the name of the Thing signified thereby So he even the same He who will be found like himselfe in the following passages of this Booke especially when we shall handle the manner of Eating of Christ's body which Augustine will Challenge to be figuratively meant We shall take our farewell of the Latine Fathers in the Testimony of Bishop Isidore who will give you his owne Reason why Christ called Bread his Body Bread saith he because it strengtheneth the body is therefore called the body of Christ and Wine because it maketh Blood is therefore referred to Christ's Blood but these two being sanctified by the Holy Ghost are changed into a Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ So he and so say we Accordingly Tertullian but least any may Cavill as some doe at his sentence above-cited wee adde his other sentence wherein he sheweth that Christ called Bread his Body in saying This is my body as the Prophet Ieremy called his Body Bread in saying Let us put wood upon his Bread meaning his Body So Tertullian shewing them both to be spoken equally in a figurative Sence CHALLENGE THese Sentences of these holy Fathers are so fully Consonant to the Doctrine of Protestans as that if the names of these Fathers had beene concealed our Reader might thinke that hee heard Bucer Calvin or Beza speake Goe you now and proclaime that all Ancient Fathers teach your Litterall sence of Christ his words and perswade your selves if you can that any man of Conscience and Iudgement can be seduced to believe you They say indeed that Bread is the Body of Christ
condemned in divers who sopped the Bread in the Chalice and squeezed Grapes in the Cup and so received them even as did the Artoryritae in mingling Bread with Cheese censured for Heretiques by your Aquinas In which Comparison your Aberration from Christ's Example is so much greater than theirs as you are found Guilty in defending Ten Innovations for one 2. Your Pope Gelasius condemned the Hereticall Manichees for thinking it lawfull not to receive the Cup in the Administration of the Eucharist judging it to be Greatly Sacrilegious notwithstanding your Church authorizeth the same Custome of forbidding the Administration of the Cup to fit Communicants 3. As you pretend Reverence for withdrawing the Cup so did the Aquarii forbeare wine and used only Water under a pretence of Sobriety 4. Sometime there may be a Reason to doe a thing when as yet there is no right nor Authority for him that doth it Wee therefore exact of you an Autority for altering the Apostles Customes and Constitutions and are answered that your Church hath Authority over the Apostles Precepts Iumpe with them who being asked why they stood not unto the Apostles Traditions replyed that They were herein above the Apostles whom therefore Irenaeus reckoneth among the Heretikes of his Time BOOKE II. It is not nothing which hath beene observed therein to wit your Reasoning why you ought not to interpret the words of Christ This is my Body literally and why you urge his other saying Except yoâ—… eat my flesh for proofe of Bodily Eating so that your Priest may literally say in your Masse that The Body of Christ passeth into your bellies and entrâ—ils because forsooth the words of Christ are Doctrinall And have you not heard of one Nicodemus who hearing Christ teach that every man must be Borne againe who shall be partaker of God's Kingdome and that hee expounding them in a Literall Sence conceited a new Entrance into his Mothers wombe when as nothing wanted to turne that his Errour into an Heresie but only Obstinacie But of the strong and strange Obstinacies of your Disputers you have received a full Synopsis BOOKE III. After followeth your Article of Transubstantiation I. Your direct profession is indeed to beleeve no Body of Christ but that which was Borne of the Virgin Mary But this your Article of Transubstantiation of Bread into Christs Body generally held according to the proper nature of Transubstantion to be by Production of Christs Body out of the Substance of Bread it necessarrly inferreth a Body called and beleeved to be Christ's which is not Borne of the Blessed Virgin as S. Augustine hath plainly taught diversifying the Bodily thing on the Altar from the Body of Christ borne of the Virgin Therefore your Defence symbolizeth with the heresie of Apollinaris who taught a Body not Borne of the Virgin Mary Secondly you exclude all judgement of Senses in discerning Bread to be trâ—… Bread as did the Manichees in discerning Christ's Body which they thereupon held not to have beene a True but a Phantasticall Body Tertullian also challengeth the Verity of Sense in judging of Wine in the Eâ—charist after Consecration in confutation of the same Errour in the Marcioniâ—es Thirdly for Defence of Christ his invisible Bodily Presence you professe that after Consecration Bread is no more the same but changed into the Body of Christ which Doctrine in very expresse words was bolted out by an Eâ—tychian Heretique and instantly condemned by Theodoret and as fully abandoned by Pope Gelasâ—… BOOKE IV. Catholique Fathers were in nothing more zealous than in defending the distinct properties of the two natures of Christ his Deity and Humanity against the pernicious heresies of the Manichees Marcionites Eâ—tychians and Eâ—nomians all of them diversly oppugning the Integrity of Christ's Body sometime in direct tearmes and sometime by irrefragrable Consequences whether it were by gaine-saying the Finitenesse or Solidity or else the compleat Perfection thereof wherein â—ow farre yee may challenge affinity or kindred with them be you pleased to examine by this which followeth 1. The Heretiques who undermined the property of Christ's Bodily Finitenesse said that it was in divers places at once as is confessed even as your Church doth now attribute unto the same Body of Christ both in Heaven and in Earth yea and in Millions of distant Altars at the same time and consequently in all places whatsoever Now whether this Doctrine of Christ's Bodily Presence in many places at once was held of the Catholique Fathers for Hereticall it may best be seene by their Doctrine of the Existence of Christ's Body in one only place not only Definitively but also Circumspectively both which doe teach an absolute Impossibility of the Existence of the same in divers places at once And they were as zealous in professing the Article of the manner of Christ's Bodily Being in place as they are in instructing men of the Article of Christ's Bodily Being lest that the deniall of it's Bodily manner of being might destroy the nature of his Body To which end they have concluded it to be absolutely but in one place sometime in a Circumspective Finitenesse thereby distinguishing them from all created Spirits and sometime by a Definitive Termination which they set downe first by Exemplifications thus If Christ his Body be on Earth then it is absent from Heaven and thus Being in the Sunne it could not be in the Moone Secondly by divers Comparisons for comparing the Creature with the Creator God they conclude that The Creature is not God because it is determinated in one place and comparing the humane and divine Nature of Christ together they conclude that they are herein different because the humane and Bodily Nature of Christ is necessarily included in one place and laâ—tly comparing Creatures with the Holy Ghost they conclude a difference by the the same Argument because the Holy Ghost is in many places at once and all these in confutation of divers Heretiques A thing so well knowen to your elder Romish Schoole that it confessed the Doctrine of Existence of a Body in divers places at once in the judgement of Antiquity to be Hereticall 2. The property of a Solidity likewise was patronized by Antient Fathers in confutation of Heretiques by teaching Christ's Body to be necessarily Palpable against their Impalpabilitie and to have a Thicknesse against their feigned subtile Body as the Aire and furthermore controlling these opinions following which are also your Crotchets of a Bodies Being whole in the whole space and in every part thereof and of Christ's Body taking the Right hand or left of it selfe 3. The property of Perfection of the Body of Christ wheresoever in the highest Degree of Absolutenesse This one would thinke everie Christian heart should assent unto at the first hearing wherefore if that they were judged Heretiques by Antient
vsed by our Sauiour was performed by that his Blessing by Prayer which preceded the pronouncing of those words Hoc est corpus meum This is my bodie c. To this purpose hee is bold to averre that Thomas Aquinas and all Catholikes before Caietane have confessed that Christ did consecrate in that his Benedixit that is He blessed it And that Saint Iames and Dionyse the Areopagite did not Consecrate only in the other words but by Prayer Then he assureth vs that the Greeke Churches maintained that Consecration consisteth in Benediction by Prayer and not in the only repetition of the words afore-said After this hee produceth your subtilest Schooleman Scotus accompanied with divers others Who Derided those that attributed such a supernaturall vertue to the other forme of words After steppeth in your Lindan who avoucheth Iustin one of the ancientest of Fathers as Denying that the Apostles consecrated the Eucharist in those words Hoc est c. and affirming that Consecration could not be without Prayer Be you but pleased to peruse the Marginals and you shall further find alleadged the Testimonies of Pope Gregorie Hierome Ambrose Bernard and to ascend higher the Liturgies of Clement Basil Chrysostome and of the Romane Church it selfe in gain-saying of the Consecration by the only words of Institution as you pretend And in the end he draweth in two Popes contradicting one the other in this point and hath no other meanes to stint their iarre but whereas the authoritie of both is equall to thinke it iust to yeild rather to the better learned of them both Whosoever requireth more may be satisfied by reading of the Booke itselfe It will not suffice to say that you also vse Prayer in the Romish Liturgie for the question is not meerely of Praying but wherein the forme of Benediction and Consecration properly doth consist Now none can say that he consecrateth by that Prayer which he belieueth is not ordained for Consecration We may furthermore take hold by the way of the Testification of Mr. Brereley a Romish Priest who out of Basil and Chrysostome calling one part Calix benedictione sacratus alloweth Benediction to haue beene the Consecration thereof All this Armie of Witnesses were no better than Meteors or imaginarie figures of battailes in the aire if that the Answere of Bellarmine may goe for warrant to wit that the only Pronuntiation of these words Hoc est corpus meum imply in them as hee saith an Invocation or Prayer Which words as any man may perceiue Christ spake not supplicatorily vnto God but declaratiuely vnto his Apostles accordingly as the Text speaketh Hee said unto them as is also well observed by your fore-said Arch-bishop of Caesarea out of Saint Hierome But none of you we presume will dare to say that Christ did Invocate his Disciples These words therefore are of Declaration and not of Invocation Which now Romish Doctrine of Consecrating by reciting these words This is my bodie c. your Divines of Colen haue iudged to be a Fierce madnesse as being repugnant both to the Easterne and Westerne Churches But we haue heard divers Westerne Authours speake giue leave to an Easterne Archbishop to deliuer his minde No Apostle or Doctor is knowne to affirme saith hee those sole words of Christ to haue beene sufficient for Consecration So he three hundred yeares since satisfying also the Testimonie of Chrysostome obiected to the contrarie As miserable and more intolerable is the Answere of others who said that the Evangelists haue not observed the right order of Christ his actions as if hee had first said This is my bodie by way of Consecration and after commanded them to Take and eat Which Answere your owne Iesuite hath branded with the note of Falsitie yea so false that as it is further avouched all ancient Liturgies aswell Greeke as Latine constantly held that in the order of the tenour of Christ his Institution it was first said Takâ— yee before that he said This is my Bodie Lastly your other lurking-hole is as shameful as the former where when the iudgement of Antiquitie is obiected against you requiring that Consecration be done directly by Prayer vnto God you answere that some Fathers did use such speeches in their Sermons to the people but in their secret instraction of Priests did teach otherwise Which Answere besides the falsitie thereof Wee take to be no better than a reproach against Antiquitie and all one as to say that those venerable Witnesses of Truth would professe one thing in the Cellar and proclaime the contrarie on the house-top It were to be wished that when you frame your Answeres to direct other men's Consciences you would first satisfie your owne especially being occupied in soule's-businesses We conclude Seeing that Forme as all learning teacheth giveth being vnto all things therefore your Church albeit shee vse Prayer yet erring in her iudgement concerning the perfect manner and Forme of Consecration of this Sacrament how shall shee be credited in the Materialls wherein she will be found aswell as in this to haue Transgressed the same Iniunction of Christ DOE THIS Neuerthelesse this our Conclusion is not so bee interpreted as hearken Mr. Brereley to exclude out of the words of this Celebration the Repetition and pronunciation of these words This is my Bodie and This is my Bloud of the new Testament Farre be this from vs because wee hold them to be essentially belonging to the Narration of the Institution of Christ and are vsed in the Liturgie of our Church for although they be not words of Blessing and Consecration because not of Petition but of Repetition yet are they Words of Direction and withall Significations and Testifications of the mysticall effects thereof Your Obiection out of the Fathers is answered The second Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse is in their Contradicting the sence of the next words of Institution HE BRAKE IT SECT IV. HE brake it So all the Evangelists doe relate Which Act of Christ plainly noteth that hee Brake the Bread for distributing of the same vnto his Disciples And his Command is manifest in saying as well in behalfe of this as of the rest Doe this Your Priest indeed Breaketh one Hoast into three parts vpon the Consecration thereof but our Question is of Fraction or Breaking for Distribution to the People The Contrarie Canon of the now Romane Masse BEHOLD say you Christ brake it but the Catholike Church meaning the Romane now doth not breake it but giueth it whole And this you pretend to doe for Reverence-sake Lest as your Iesuite saith some crummes of Bread may fall to the ground Neither is there any Direction to your Priest to Breake the Bread either before or after Consecration in your Romane Masse especially that which is distributed to the people CHALLENGE BVt now see wee pray you the absolute Confession of your owne Doctors whereby is
which are displayed by your owne Authours Noting in them the very fooleries of the Romane Pagans by your fond Pageants where Priests play their parts in representing the persons of Saints others of Queenes accompanied with Beares and Apes and many like profane and sportfull Inuentions and other Abuses which occasioned some of your owne more devout Professors to wish that this your Custome were abrogated Thinking that it may be omitted with profit to the Church both because it is but an Innovation and also for that it serveth most-what for ostentation and pompe rather than pious Devotion So they Lastly lest you may obiect as else where that a Negative Argument as this because Christ did not institute this Custome therefore it may not be allowed is of no effect we adde that the Argument negative if in any thing then must it prevaile in condemning that Practice which maintaineth any new End differing from that which was ordained by Christ Which made Origen and Cyprian argue Negatively in this Case the one saying Christ reserved it not till to-morrow and the other This bread is received and not reserved or put into a Boxe Which Conclusion we may hold in condemning of your publike Carrying of the Hoast in the streets and Market-places to the end only that it may be Adored aswell as of latter times your Pope Pius Quartus which your Congregation of Cardinals report did forbid a new-upstart Custome of Carrying the Sacrament to sicke people that they might adore it when as they were not able to eate it All these Premises doe inferre that your Custome of Circumgestation of the Sacrament in publike Procession onely for Adoration cannot justly be called Laudable except you meane thereby to have it termed a Laudable Noveltie and a Laudable profanation and Transgression against the Institution of Christ as now from your owne Confessions hath beene plainly evicted and as will be further manifested when wee are to speake of your Idolatrous Infatuation it selfe The Ninth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the Sence of the words following IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE SECT XI REmembrance is an act of Vnderstanding and therefore sheweth that Christ ordained the use of this Sacrament only for persons of Discretion and Vnderstanding saying DOE THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE The contrarie Canon of the Romane Masse in times past Your Iesuite Maldonate will be our Relater ingenuously confessing that in the dayes of Saint Augustine and Pope Innocent the first this opinion was of force in your Church For six hundred yeares together viz. that the Administration of the Eucharist is necessary for Infants Which opinion saith hee is now reiected by the Councell of Trent Determining that the Eucharist is not only not necessarie for Infants but also that is Indecent to give it unto them So he Of this more in the Challenge CHALLENGE IS not now this your Churches Reiecting of her former Practice a Confession that she hath a long time erred in Transgressing of the Institution of Christ How then shall your Trent-Fathers free your fore-father Pope Innocent and your former Romane Church from this taxation This they labour to doe but alas their miserie by collusion and cunning for the same Synod of Trent resolveth the point thus The holy Synod say they teacheth that Children being void of the use of Reason are not necessarily bound to the Sacramentall receiving of the Eucharist This wee call a collusion for by the same Reason wherewith they argue that Children are not necessarily bound to receive the Eucharist because they want reason they should have concluded that Therefore the Church is and was necessarily bound not to administer the Eucharist to Infants even because they wanted Reason Which the Councell doubtlesse knew but was desirous thus to cover her owne shame touching her former superstitious practice of Giving this Sacrament vnto Infants In excuse whereof your Councell of Trent adioyneth that the Church of Rome in those dayes was not condemnable but why Because saith your Councell Truly and without Controversie wee ought to beleeve that they did not give the Eucharist unto Infants as thinking it necessary to Salvation Which Answere your owne Doctors will prove to be a bold and a notorious vntruth because as your Iesuite sheweth They then beleeved that Infants baptized could not be saved except they should participate of the Eucharist taking their Argument from that Scripture of Iohn 6. Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne c. and therfore held they it necessarie to the salvation of Infants That this was the beleefe of Pope Innocent and of the Church of Rome vnder him your Parisian Doctor Espencaeus also proveth at large out of the expresse writings of Pope Innocent Yea and your greatly approved Binius in his Volumes of the Councels dedicated to Pope Paul the fift explaineth the same so exactly See the Marginall Citation that it will permit no Euasion And so much the rather because that which the Tridentine Fathers alledge for cause of Alteration doth confirme this unto us It is vndocent say they to give the Eucharist unto Infants This may perswade vs that Innocent held it necessary els would he not haue practized and patronized a thing so vtterly vndecent Wee dispute therefore If the Church of Rome in the dayes of Pope Innocent the first held it a doctrine of faith in the behalfe of Infants that they ought to receiue the Sacrament of the Eucharist the same Church of Rome in her Councell of Trent whose Decrees by the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth are all held to be beleeued vpon necessity of Salvation did decree contrarily that the participation of the Eucharist is not necessary no nor yet decent for Infants Say now did the Church of Rome not erre in the dayes of Pope Innocent then is she now in an error Or doth shee not now erre herein then did she formerly erre and consequently may erre hereafter in determinining a matter to be Necessary to Salvation which in it selfe is Superfluous and Vndecent Thus of the contrary custome of the Church of Rome in elder times The new contrary Opinion concerning the Romane Masse at this day Euen at this day also your Iesuite will haue vs to vnderstand the meaning of your Church to be that Infants are capable of the Sacrament of the Eucharist CHALLENGE VVHereunto wee oppose the Authority of the Councell of Carthage and of that which you call the Councell of Laterane which denyed as you know that the Eucharist should be delivered vnto Infants accounting them vncapable of divine and spirituall feeding without which say they the corporall profiteth nothing But we also summon against the â—ormer Assertion eight of your ancient Schoolemen who vpon the same Reasons made the like Conclusion with vs. And wee further as it were arresting you in the Kings name produce against you Christ his writ the Sacred Scripture
notwithstanding you your selves have confessed that Christ spake absolutely and without Condition of the Bread Take Eate Doe this And againe 1. Cor. 11. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in like maner the cup. It is an AND Coniunctive questionlesse But seeing it cannot be denyed that the Apostles practice was both Eating and Drinking coniunctively it is not likely or credible that the sence of his words should be discretiue because this had bene in wordes to have contradicted his owne practice M. Breerly opposeth viz. The Apostle in the same Chapter saith v. 26. He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh Iudgement also hee saith v. 27. whosoever eateth this Bread and drinketh this Cup vnworthily c. So hee It is not to be denyed but that AND is often vsed in Scripture for Or but M. Brearly his notions as commonly so here also are too confused by not distinguishing the divers use of AND in Precepts and Exhortations to an Act in denunciation of iudgement in case of Transgression As for example The Precept is Honour thy father and thy mother Exod. 20. here AND must needs be copulative because of the Obligation of precept of honouring both But the denunciation against the Transgressour if it stood as M. Breerly obiecteth feigning a false Text contrary both to the Originall and vulgar Latine Translation thus Hee that shall strike his father and mother shall die the particle AND must needs be taken disiunctively for Or as indeed it is expressed in the Text because the Transgression of either parts of a Commandement inferreth an obligation of guilt and iudgement as any man of sense may perceive Against this albeit so euident a Truth your Doctors will have something to obect or else it will goe hard even forsooth the contrary practice of the Apostles Act. 2. 42. where wee read of the faithfull assembled and Continuing together in fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers because there is but mention only of one kinde which is Bread whence they inferre a no-necessity of vsing the Cup. So your Cardinall Bellarmine And to answere that the ministration of the Cup is vnderstood by a figure Synecdoche is an answere onely imaginary and groundles saith Mr. Breerely But are they yet to learne that which every man knoweth and your owne Iesuites have taught that there is no Trope more familiar in Scripture than this Syâ—echdoche of taking a part for the whole Or could they not discerne thus much in the same Chap. 〈◊〉 46. where it is said They brake bread through every house Wherein as your Iesuite Lorinus teacheth there is not meant the Eucharist but common foode Whereby you cannot but vnderstaâ—d implied in their breaking of bread their mutuall drinking together also And yet in the like words spoken of the Eucharist v. 42. They continued together in breaking of Bread you exclude the participation of the Cup. What shall wee say was your spirituall appetite weaker than your corporall in reading these two Texts wherein is mentioned onely Bread that you could discerne but halfe refection in the Eucharist and an whole in their bodily repast Besides any man may guesse what spirit it savoureth of that in paralleling the authoritie of your Church with the authoritie of the Apostles your Iesuites doe resolue that although the Apostles had constituted the custome of Receiving in both kinds Nevertheles say they the Church of Rome and Pope thereof hauing the same authority with S. Paul may abrogate it upon iust Cause And yet hardly can you alleage any Cause for abrogation of that Practice which S. Paul might not have assumed in his time CHALLENGE OFrustrà susceptos Labores nostros may we say for to what end is it for vs to prove an Apostolicall Practice or Precept for both kinds when your Obiectors are ready with the onely names of Pope and Church of Rome to stoppe the mouthes not onely of vs Heretikes as you call vs but even of S. Paul himselfe and of the other Apostles yea and of S. Peter too By which Answere notwithstanding you may perceive how little S. Paul doth favour your cause by whose Doctrine the Advocates for your Church are driven to these straits but more principally if you call to remembrance that our Argument is taken from the Apostles Doctrine and Practice as it was grounded by St. Paul himselfe vpon the Doctrine and Precept of Christ Thus when we appeale vnto the Apostles Tradition you by opposing Thinke your selves wiser than the Apostles which Irenaeus will tell you was the very garbe of old Heretickes Our fourth and fift Comparisons are of Primitiue Custome with the contrary Custome in respect both of the Antiquitie and Vniversalitie thereof SECT V. BEfore wee shall say any thing our selues of the Primitive Custome in vsing both kindes in the administration of this Sacrament and the extent thereof both in the longitude of Continuance and latitude of Vniversalitie we are ready to heare how farre your owne Doctors will yeeld vnto vs in both these points touching the publike vse of both kindes Hearken but vnto the Marginals and you shall finde your Iesuites with others vttering these voyces Wee must confesse Wee doe confesse yea Wee doe ingenuously confesse a Custome of both kindes aswell to the Laicks as Priests to have beene in the Primitive Church most frequent and generall as is prooved by the ancient Fathers both Greeke and Latine among whom are Leo and Gregorie both Popes of Rome yea and universall also for a long time continuing a thousand yeares in the Church of Rome and in the Greeke Church vnto this day So they where we see both Antiquity and Vniversality thereof to the full which it were easie for vs to have shewne Gradatim descending downe from the first Age unto the twelfth but that when wee haue as much confessed as neede be proved it might be iudged to be but an importunate diligence and Curiositie to labour any further Neverthelesse if peradventure any should desire to see one or two Testimonies for the last Age he may satisfie himselfe in the Margent at the first sight The Romish Obiections concerning Primitive Custome Divers Obiections are vrged on your side to abate something of the Vniuersalitie of the Custome of Both kindes which we defend but if they shall not seeke to decline the Question and to rove about as it were at vnset markes their Arguments are but as so many Bolts shot altogether in vaine For our defence is onely this that in the publike solemnization and Celebration of this Sacrament in an Assembly of Christians freely met to communicate no one example can be shewen in all Antiquity throughout the Catholique Church of Christ for the space of a thousand yeares inhibiting either Priest or Laick from Communicating in both kindes who was duly prepared to receive the Sacrament As for the examples which you vsually obiect they are of no force at all being proved to be
itch as hee himselfe called his owne humour which received a Salve that might have cured him of that itch to be medling with the same Doctor Yet the onely Exception which hath since come to this Doctor 's eares from your side is this now objected point concerning the Manichees whereupon you have heard them both so urgently and boastingly insist and not so onely but they have also divulged this pretended Contradiction in many Counties of this Kingdome to his reproach Will you be so kinde as but to heare an Answer and then either wonder at or hisse or applaude or him or them as you shall finde iust Cause Two things there were condemnable in the Manichees one was their Act and Practice in dismembring the Sacrament by not communicating in both kindes the other was their Opinion which they held for so doing which was as you have heard an hereticall Conceit that Wine was the Creature of the Devill Concerning this hereticall opinion no Protestant said Doctor Morton doth charge the Church of Rome but as for the Act of not Communicating in both kinds he called it Sacrilegious and concluded the Church of Rome in this respect to be as guilty of dismembring the Sacrament as were the Manichees And both these hee hath done by the Authority of Pope Gelasius who decreed in condemning the Manichees First against their Opinion saying Illinescio quâ superstitione docentur astringi c. That is They are intangled in a kind of Superstition Then for the Act of refusing the Cup Because saith he the dividing of the same Mystery cannot be done without grievous sacrilege therefore let these Manichees either receive the whole Sacrament or else let them be wholly excluded from receiving So Gelasius Seeing then Doctor Morton and all Protestants cleare the Church of Rome from the imputation of the Heresie of the Manichees in respect of their opinion and yet condemne them of the Manichean Sacrilege in respect of the Act of dismembring the Sacrament with what spectacles thinke you did your Priest and Iesuite reade that Answere of Doctor Morton to collect from thence either your Churches Iustification from a foule fault of Sacrilege or else the Doctors foule Contradiction to himselfe and that cleerely forsooth in the same respect who themselves are now found to have beene so subtilly witlesse as not to discerne Heresie from Sacrilege an opinion from a fact or a no-imputation of that whereof neither Doctor Whitaker nor any other Protestant ever accused them from a practice condemned by a Romane Pope himselfe Take unto you a Similitude A man being apprehended in the company of Traytors upon suspition of Felonie is fully and effectually prosecuted for Felonie onely if one should say of him that he was not conuicted or condemned of Treason but of Felonie were this either a Contradiction in the party speaking or a full Iustification of the party spoken of You are by this time we thinke ashamed of your Proctors and of their scornefull insultation upon the Doctor in the ridiculous tearmes of Rabbin and magnus Apollo who willingly forbeareth upon this Advantage to recompence them with like scurrility being desirous to be only Great in that which is called Magna est Veritas praevalet By which Truth also is fully discovered the vanity of the Answere both of Master Fisher and of your Cardinall saying that Gelasius condemned only the Opinion of the Manichees which is so transparant a falshood as any one that hath but a glympse of Reason may see through it by the sentence it â—elfe as hath beene proved Our second Reason is in respect of the perfect Spirituall Refection represented by this Sacrament SECT VIII ANother Object represented in this Sacrament is the food of man's soule in his faithfull receiving of the Bodie and Blood of Christ which because it is a perfect spirituall Refection Christ would have it to be expressed both in Eating and Drinking wherein consisteth the perfection of man's bodily sustenance and therefore are both necessarily to be used by law of Analogie betweene the outward signe and the thing signified thereby Two of your Iesuites from whome Master Fisher hath learned his Answere seeke to perswade their Readers that the soules refection spirituall is sufficiently signified in either kind whether in Bread or Wine But be it knowne unto you that either all these have forgotten their Catechisme authorized by the Fathers of the Councell of Trent and confirmed by Pius Quartus then Pope or else Those their Catechists forgot themselves in teaching that This Sacrament was instituted so that two severall Consecrations should be used one of Bread and the other of the Cup to the end both that the Passion of Christ might be represented wherein his Bloud was separated from his Body and because this Sacrament is ordained to nourish man's soule it was therefore to be done by Eating and Drinking in both which the perfect nourishment of man's naturall life doth consist Aquinas and your Iesuite Valentia with others are as expresse in this point as they were in the former who although they as we also hold that whole Christ is received in either kinde for Christ is not divided yet doe they mayntaine that This Sacrament as it is conformable both to Eating and Drinking so doth it by both kindes more perfectly expresse our spirituall nourishment by Christ and therefore it is more convenient that both be exhibited to the faithfull severally as for Meate and for Drinke So they For although in the Spirituall Receiving Eating and Drinking are both one even as the appetite of the Soule in hungring and thirsting is the same as where it is written Matth. 5. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousnesse c. yet in this Sacramentall communicating with bodily instruments it is otherwise as you know The blood of Christ is not dranke in the forme of Bread nor is his Bodie eaten as meate in the forme of Wine because the Bodie cannot be said to be dranke nor the bloud to be eaten So your Durand and so afterwards your Iansenius Wherefore you in with-holding the Cup from the People doe violate the Testament of Christ who requireth in this a perfect representation visible of a compleate and a full Refection spirituall which is sufficient to condemne your Abuse whereby you also defraud God's people of their Dimensum ordained by Christ for their vse Concerning this second Master Fisher one of the society of Iesuites was taught to Answere that the Full causality as he said and working of spirituall Effects of the soule cannot be a wanting to the Sacrament under one kind because of Christ his assistance So he We should aske whether a greater Devotion and 〈◊〉 more plentifull Grace are not to be esteemed spirituall Effects for the good of the Soule which are confessed to be enjoyed by Communicating in both kinds and why not rather than by one For consider we pray you that
of all ancient Fathers and indeed as the saying is To put upon them the Foole. The like answere two of their Iesuites made to the Practice of the Apostles saying that your Church having the same spirit hath the same power to alter the Custome whereas wee have proved that the ground which the Apostles lay for their Custome was the Institution of Christ But that which the Romane Church alleageth is meerely a pretence of Plenitude of her owne Authoritie It is impossible therefore that in so great a Contradiction there should be the same Spirit And can there be a more intollerable Arrogancie than is this which this Romane spirit bewrayeth in both these Thirdly vpon the Consideration of this their Contempt of Apostolicall and primitive Antiquity in this Cause wee finde that your Romish Priests are to be condemned of manifest perjurie also For in the Forme of Oath for the profession of the Romish Faith every Priest and Ecclesiasticke is sworne To admit of all Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Traditions as also to hold what the Councell of Trent hath decreed But this Custome of administration of both kindes as hath beene acknowledged was an Apostolicall Custome and from them also remayned in an Ecclesiasticall profession and practice thorow-out a thousand yeares space which your Church of Rome notwithstanding in her Councell of Trent whereunto likewise you are sworne hath altered and perverted which doth evidently involve your Priests and Iesuites in a notorious and unavoydable Perjury Fourthly As for the note of Foolishnesse what more mad folly can there be seene in any than to take upon them a serious Defence of a Custome for satisfaction of all others and yet to be so unsatisfied among themselves so that both the Obiections urged by Protestants against that Abuse are fortified and also all your Reasons for it are refuted either by the direct Testimonies of your owne Doctors or by the Common Principles and Tenents of your Church or else by the absurdities of your Consequences issuing from your Reasons and Answeres divers of them being no lesse grosse then was your objecting the Antiquity and Generality of the particular Romane Church for lesse then three hundred yeares and to preferre it before the confessed Vniversall primitive Custome of above the Compasse of a Thousand yeares continuance before the other Fiftly the last is the note of Blasphemy for this name the contempt of Christ his last Will and Testament must needs deserve and what greater contempt can there be than contrary to Christ his Doe this concerning both kinds to professe that Sacrilegious dismembring of the holy Sacrament which Gelasius the Pope himselfe had anciently condemned or if this be not Blasphemous enough then supposing that Christ indeed had commanded Consecration in both kindes upon divine right yet notwithstanding to hold it very probable as saith your Iesuite Azorius that the authority of the Pope may dispense therewith But because Divine right was never yet dispensed with 1 saith hee would give my Counsell that it never may be O Iesuite thus to deale with Christ his Command If he or any other Iesuite had made as bold with the Pope as this doth with Christ himselfe saying unto him Any of your Decrees holy Father may be dispensed with by any Iesuite of our Societie yet because no Iesuite hath taken upon him hitherto so much my counsell is that none of your Decrees be euer dispensed withall The Pope wee suppose albeit he would thanke this man for his counsell for not Doing so yet doubtlesse would hee reward him with a welcome into the office of his holy Inquisition for his judgement to thinke it lawfull so to doe namely to leave it to the discretion of every Iesuite to dispense with his Papall Decrees And notwithstanding the Iesuites Suppose wee may depose that your Romish licence for but one kinde is a dispensing or rather a despising of the Ordinance of Christ Wee are already wearied with citing of the manifold vilde odious and irreligious Positions of your Disputers and Proctors for this your Cause yet one Pretence more may not be pretermitted least we might seeme to contemne the wit and zeale of your Iesuite Salmeron against the use of this Sacrament in both kindes The use of both kinds saith he is not to be allowed to Catholiques because they must be distinguished from Heretikes nor to Heretikes because bread is not to be given unto Dogges Now blessed be God! that we are esteemed as Heretikes and Dogges to be distinguished from them in this and other so many commanded Acts wherein they have distinguished themselves from all Primitive Fathers from the Apostles of Christ and from Christ himselfe An Appeale unto the ancient Popes and Church of Rome against the late Romish Popes and Church in Confutation of their former Transgressions of Christ his Institution SECT XIV THe ancient Popes and Church of Rome were as all the world will say in authority of Command in synceritie of judgement equall and in integrity of life Superiour unto the latter Popes of Rome and Church thereof yet the ancient held it as a matter of Conscience for the Church in all such Cases belonging to the Eucharist to be conformable to the Precept and Example of Christ and of the Apostles So you have heard Pope Calixtus An. Christi 218. requireth all persons present at the Masse to Communicate For which reason it was we thinke that Pope Gregory Anno 600. commanded every one present at the Masse and not purposing to Communicate to Depart There is an History related by Aeneas Sylvius after Pope Pius the Second which sheweth the reason why another Pope of Rome with his Consistory yeilded a liberty to the Sclavonians to have Divine Service in their Nationall Language and reporteth that it was thorow the sound of that voice which is written in the Psalmes Let every tongue prayse the Lord. Pope Iulius Anno 336. was much busied in repressing the sopping of bread in the Chalice and other like abuses of the Sacrament in his time and the reason which hee gaue was this Because quoth hee these Customes are not agreeable to Evangelicall and Apostolicall Doctrine and our Church of Rome doth the same Where he addeth concerning the manner of Communicating We reade saith hee that both the Bread and Cup were distinctly and severally delivered As if hee had meant with the same breath to have confuted your other Romish Transgression in distributing to the people the Sacrament but in one of Both And who can say but that Gregory and Leo both Popes observing the same use of Christ had the same Resolution Sure wee are that Pope Gelasius Anno 494. called the Abuse in dismembring of this Sacrament by receiving but in one kinde A Grand Sacrilege Wee reade of a Councell held at Toledo in Spaine under Pope Sergius stiled generall Anno 693. reproving those Priests who offered Bread in crusts and lumpes
Testament could not properly be the Testament it selfe Yea your Iesuite Salmeron pointeth out in the same words a double Figure A double figure saith hee the Cup being put for the thing contained in the Cup and Testament being taken for the Legacy that is granted and given by the Testament With whom your Iesuite Barradius doth consent Hereunto may be added that in the sixt of Iohn where Christ calling that which he giveth to be eaten his flesh in the same Chapter he calleth his flesh which is to be eaten of the Faithfull bread which none of your side durst hitherto interpret without a Figure And yet againe the Apostle speaking of the Mysticall body of Christ which is his Church assembled at the holy Communion to participate of this Sacrament saith of them Wee being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread But why Even as one bread consisteth of many cornes so doth one Church of Christ of many faithfull persons saith your Aquinas Wee may not forget what your Iansenius said of Drinking To whome Master Brereley is ready to yeild his assent saying If we should attend to the Propriety of speech neither is his blood properly drunke out of the Chalice but onely the forme of Wine seeing the blood hath the same manner of Existing as under the forme of bread to wit not divided nor seperated from the body but included in the veines and then in the body Doe you not heare Christ's Blood is not properly drunke if not properly then figuratively as figuratively as if one swallowing the body of Christ should be said to drinke his Body Wee aske Master Brereley what then is that which is properly drunke out of the Chalice and he saith onely the forme of Wine that is to say a meere Accident Hardly can it be said that a man properly drinketh the Aire which he breatheth although it be a Substance And are you brought to believe meere Formalities to be truly Potable But to the point CHALLENGE REpeat now the Premises One figure in the word Bread another in Eat a third in Given a fourth in Shed a fift in Cup a sixt in Testament so many words confessed to be so many Figures in the very words of Christ his Institution beside other-more of the same equivalencie touching the Body of Christ both naturall Ioh. 6. and also mysticall which is his Church 1. Cor. 10. It can be no lesse then a matter of great astonishment to us to see our Romish Adversaries with such pertinacie to condemne Protestants for holding the Sacramentall speeches of Christ to be figurative calling them Tropists when as they themselves are constrained to acknowledge no fewer then Six Tropes in Christ his words as you have heard Of your Cardinall his Objection from the word Shed hereafter That the figurative sence of Christ's words is agreeable to the Iudgement of the more Ancient Church of Rome SECT V. YOur old and publique Romish Glosse saith plainly This heavenly Sacrament because it doth truly represent the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly not in the truth of the thing but in the mysticall Sence to wit it is called the body of Christ that is it signifieth his Body So your Glosse which you may not deny to be the glosse or Tongue of your whole Church because it hath beene confirmed by the same Authority of Pope Gregory the thirteenth wherewith your Extravagants and former Decrees of Popes have beene Authorised CHALLENGE IF all Protestants should meeteat once in one Synod and should conspire together as labouring to prove a figurative Sence in these words of Christ This is my body I suppose that a more exact perspicuous copious and ponderous Proofe could not be defined then hitherto hath beene evinced from your owne Confessions grounded as well upon sound and impregnable Reasons as upon direct Testimonies of holy Scriptures That the former Figurative Sence of the words of Christ is agreeable to the Iudgement of Antient Fathers of the Greeke Church SECT VI. YOu wil needs defend your litterall Exposition by the verdict of Ancient Fathers and we appeale to the Venerable Senate both of Greeke and Latine Fathers The Greeke generally calling the Elements of bread and wine in this Sacrament Some Types Antitypes and Symbols that is Figures and Signes Some calling Christ his Speeches Tropicall or Figurative and his Table Typicall Some saying that Christ would haue his Disciples hereby Represent the image of his Body And one as expressly as any Protestant can speake even Theodoret by name that Christ here gave to the Signe the name of his Body as elswhere he gave to his Body the name of the Signe You cannot deny but these Phrases of Signes and Symbols are most frequent in the writings of all the Greeke Fathers which we take to be a convincing Argument vntill you can give us some reasonable Solution hereunto To this purpose you leaving the principall Obiections fasten onely upon certaine Crotchets and thereupon you bestirre your selves THE FIRST CHALLENGE Against the first Romish Answere touching the word Type and Antitype vsed by the Greeke Fathers THree kinds of Answeres have beene applyed as Three wedges to dissolve this difficulty but a knot of wood cannot be loosed with a wedge of waxe such as every of your Answeres will appeare to be The first interpreting Types and Antitypes not to be taken for Signes but for Examples is at the first hearing reiected by your Cardinall and others The Second alleadged out of Damascen and much insisted upon by some favourers of your Romish Sence namely that the Fathers should call Bread and Wine Antitypes but not after Consecration So they And if so then indeed we should have no cause to oppose But this Answere is proved to be apparantly false by your Cardinall and others out of the expresse Testimonies of these Greeke Fathers viz. Dioâ—ysius Areopagita Clemens Iustine Macarius Basil and Nazianzene The third Answere is your Cardinals owne yet but faintly urged with a Peradventure they called them Antitypes but not Types after Consecration and he is encountred by your Suarez and Billius acknowledging that the words Types and Antitypes are used of the same Fathers in one and the same signification This our Obiection how strong it is may be seene by your much but vaine strugling Your quaintest device is yet behind A SECOND CHALLENGE Against the last and most peremptory Romish Pretence making Christ in this Sacrament to figure and to represent himselfe as a King in a Stage-play THe Solution which seemeth to your Disputers most perswasive is thus set downe by your Cardinall and your Iesuite Suarez viz. The Greeke Fathers called Bread and Wine Antitypes and Signes of the Body and Blood of Christ because the same Body and Blood of Christ as they are in this Sacrament vnder the forme of Bread and Wine are signes
also to other sacred Rites wherein you beleeve there is not any Substantiall Change at all The First Vnconscionablenes of your Romish Disputers in obiecting the Fathers speeches ofâ—an Omnipotent Worke in this Sacrament for proofe of Transubstantiation SECT II. A Worke of Omnipotencie is attributed by divers Fathers to the Change which is made in this Sacrament which wee likewise confesse Ambrose compareth the Change by Benediction made in this Sacrament unto many miraculous workes of God yea even to the worke of Creation Cyprian speaketh of a Change in nature by divine Omnipotencie Augustine reckoning it among God's miracles saith that This Sacrament is wrought by the Spirit of God Accordingly we heare Chrysostome proclaiming that These are not workes of humane power He that changeth and transmuteth now is the same that he was in his last Supper Each one of these Testimonies are principally alleaged by your Disputers as the strongest fortresses for defence of your Article of Transubstantiation and being taken altogether they are esteemed as a Bulwarke impregnable but why Because saith your Cardinall Omnipotencie is not required to make a thing to be a Signe Significant Se he We answer first from your owne Confessions and then from the Fathers themselues There are two workes observable in every Sacrament one is to be not onely a Signe of an Invisible grace promised by God but also both a Seale and Pledge thereof as all Protestants hold and as your most opposed Calvin teacheth an Instrumentall cause of conferring grace to the partakers of the Sacraments In both which Respects there is required an Omnipotencie of a Divine work without which the Element cannot be changed into a Sacrament either to signifie or yet to seale much lesse to convey any Grace of God unto man And that wee may take you along with vs It is the Doctrine of your Church with common consent saith your Romane Cardinall that God only can by his Authority institute a Sacrament because he onely can give them power of conferring grace and of infallible signification thereof So hee Well then as well infallible Signification of Grace as the efficacious conveyance of Grace is the worke of the same Omnipotencie To this purpose more plainly your English Cardinall Alan speaking as he saith from the iudgement of Divines telleth you that Although there be an apt nes in every Creature to beare a signification of some spiritall effect yet cannot the aptnes be determinately applyed vnto any peculiar effect nâ— not so much as to signifie the outward Cleannes of man's Body Sacramentally without a Divine Institution much lesse to represent man's sanctification but being so determinated and ordained of God the Creature saith hee is elevated above the Custome of nature not onely in respect of the worke of sanctification but even of signification also So hee And that as well as we could wish for this Omnipotent Change of a Creature into a Sacrament and this Instrumentall Cause of conferring Sanctifying Grace to the Faithfull Communicant is the Generall Doctrine of all Protestants But what Change shall wee thinke Of the Substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body as you teach No but as before Isidore said The Change of visible things by the spirit of God into a Sacrament of Christ's Body Seeing then that both Divine power and authority is required in every Sacrament to make it either infallibly significant or els efficaciously profitable to man and that it is by the same Divine power that the Element is Changed by being Elevated from a common vnto a spirituall and divine property of a Sacramentall Signification as one of your Cardinals hath said What an unconscionablenes is it then in your Disputers from the termes of Omnipotencie and Divine working which is necessary in all Sacraments to conclude a Change of the Element of Bread by Transubstantiation as you have heard But much more transparent will their Vnconscionablenesse be if we consult with the Obiected Fathers themselves For first Ambrose who observeth an Omnipotency in the Change of this Sacrament explaineth himselfe what kind of Efficacy he meant viz. such that The things changed into a divine Sacrament are still the same which they were before namely according to their naturall property Which one Clause doth so strangle all conceit of Transubstantiation that it may seeme you have some reason to wipe this Testimony of Saint Ambrose out of your new Editions notwithstanding by Gods providence so much of Ambrose his tongue is preserved even in the same place as will convince your Obiectors of wilfull Falshood telling you by a Similitude that the Change of Bread in this Sacrament is like to the Change whereby a Christian Regenerate of an old Creature is made a new Creature which is as euery Christian knoweth not a change in the substantiall nature of man but in the Accidentall properties So this Bread of of a common bodily Food is made Sacramentall And the same Father who said of a man that by Baptisme hee is made a new Creature saith also of this Sacrament that By Benediction Bread is made another nature namely of an Elementall become Sacramentall as you have heard and as his owne words import After Consecration the Body of Christ is signified and that which was Wine Is called Blood In the Testimony of Cyprian you applaude your selves for to your Lindan The wordes of Cyprian appeare Golden and hee must needs provoke forsooth all Gospellers to hearken unto them which also seemeth to your Cardinall To admit no solution Our Answere first unto the Authour is to deny it to be the Testimony of Cyprian may we not This Sermon of the Supper of the Lord is by us saith your Master Brerely attributed to Cyprian Whom of your Side he meant by Vs you may be pleased to aske him sure we are your Cardinall doth tell us that The Authour of this Booke is not Cyprian but some other after him But not to disclaime your Authour all that he saith is that Bread is changed by God's Omnipotency not in Figure but in Nature This is all And all this hath beene but even now quitted by your owne Confessions granting a power of Omnipotency in every Sacramentall Change where the naturall Element is altered from it's common habitude into the nature of a Spirituall Instrument and use both signifying and exhibiting Divine Grace and so the word Nature doth import The Schooles distinguishing the Nature of Accidents from the Nature of Subiects shew that there is an Accidentall Nature as well as a Substantiall Theology teaching that By nature we are the children of wrath wherein Nature signifieth onely a vitious Quality This saying viz. Indifferent things in fact Change their nature when they are commanded Master Brerely alloweth of as for example a Surplesse being commanded by lawfull Authority the use thereof becommeth necessary so that the