thing present to be a pledge of Christ's Body absent and also o Book 5. Chap. 9. Sect. 2. allowed such a Touch of his Body by Faith that whosoever so toucheth him is Sanctified Which Observations concerning our Fourth Generall Argument do minister unto us five particular Reasons which make our Defence to be Impreinable Fifthly forasmuch as you teach the Subject matter of the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ as a proper Sacrifice propitiatory wee upon due inquisition into the doctrine of Antiquity have p Booke 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. thorowout and elsewhere found the Ancient Fathers I. Nothing that which they called Sacrifice herein to be Bread and Wine saying thereupon that Melchisedech in that his Bread and Wine offered the Body and Blood of Christ II. Such a Subject which being taken in great Quantity doth q B 3. Chap. 13 Sect. 10 nourish and satiate mans Bodily Nature III. Such as needeth prayer to God that it may be r In this Booke 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Acceptable to God as was the Sacrifice of Abels sheepe IV. So naming it an Vnbloody Sacrifice as meaning thereby Å¿ Booke 6. thorowout more especially Chap. 5. Sect. 9 10. void of Blood which cannot agreed to the Body of Christ now risen from death V. So qualifying their other Exuberances and Excesse of speech wherein they named it The same Sacrifice of Christ once offered by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 correcting it thus t Booke 6. Cha. 5. Sect. 6. A Sacrifice or rather a Memoriall thereof VI. By placing the Sacrifice of Christ his Body as now Presentative onely in Heaven and the thing offered on Earth but a Signe VII In all your objected Testimonies for proofe of the same Body of Christ in the Eucharist which suffered on the Crosse they understood the same as the u Booke 6. Cha. 5. Sect. 1 2 3 4 c. Object of our Remembrance and not as the Subject of Offering which make up so many Arguments moe VIII By paralleâ—ing x In this Booke Chap. 2. Sect. 2 3. Baptisme with the Eucharist in like tenour of speech from point to point IX By praying God to be y Above in this Booke Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Propitious to that which is offered Sixthly upon the same Doctrine of Corporall Presence you have erected and fastned the roofe of all your Building which is Divine Adoration of the Host yet notwithstanding have you not beene able by the Testimonies of any ancient Father to free your selves from Formall Idolatry by any of your z Booke 7. thorowout Pretences devised for your excuse either of Good Intent Morall Certainty or of Habituall Condition especially seeing that the Fathers by that their universall Invitation Lift up your hearts abstracted still the thoughts of the Communicants from contemplating of any Subject present here Below that they might be drawne to the meditation of the Body of Christ as it is in Heaven Lastly in your owne Romish Masse praying after Consecration God to be propitious to the things offered as to Abels Sacrifice which was but a sacrificed Sheepe Compute all these Particulars and you shall finde about sixteene Arguments to prove you to be absolutely Idolaters Wee having thus reveiled these Three Principall and Fundamentall Abominations do now proceed to their Concomitants and Consequences which are Mixtures of Heresie in many Overture of Perjury in some and Obstinacie in all Wee begin at the last CHAP. II. Of the exceeding Obstinacie of the Romish Disputers made palpable by their owne Contradictions and of the Defence thereof as being Contradictory in it selfe SECT I. ALl your Disputers shew themselves in nothing more zealous than in maintenance of your Romish Masse which they contend for by objecting Scriptures Fathers and Reasons notwithstanding their Expositions of Scriptures their Inferences out of the Fathers their devised Reasons and almost all their Confutations are confuted rejected and contradicted by their owne fellowes as the Sections thorowout this whole Tractate do plainly demonstrate Wee cannot therefore otherwise judge but that as Prejudice is the chiefe Director so Obstinacie is the greatest Supporter of your Cause How much more when the Defence it selfe is found to consist upon meere Contradictories whereof you may take a Taste out of your Doctrine of Corporall Presence and of a proper Sacrifice In the first by obtruding on mens Consciences a Beliefe upon due Consequence of a Body of Christ Borne and not Borne of the Virgin Mary One and not one Finite and not Finite Divisible and not Divisible Perfect and not Perfect and also Glorious and not Glorious as hath beene a Booke 4. thorowout proved in each point II. In a point of properly Sacrificing of Christ's Body your Musicke stands upon the same kind of Discords of b See Booke 6. thorowout Teaching a Body Broken and not Broken a matter visible and not visible of Blood shed and not shed and of a suffering Destruction and not suffering Destruction Evident Arguments of Obstinacie one would thinke and yet behold a plainer if it may be One Example instead of many of a stupendious Obstinacie in urging the Iudgement of Antiquity for Defence of your Romish Masse in the chiefect parts thereof proved by instancing onely in their like Sayings concerning Baptisme SECT II. THree chiefe Iesuites besides others have beene as you may c Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 13. remember extremely urgent and important with Protestants to shew if they could the like Phrases of the Fathers in Baptisme as were used of them concerning the Eucharist in the question of Sacrifice as if the just paralleling of these Two might be a Satisfaction unto themselves concerning that one point Wee are to deale more liberally with them and whereas they assume unto themselves the suffrages of Antiquity 1. For a Literall Exposition of Christs words This is my Body 2. For a Change of Bread by Transubstantiation into his Body 3. For a Corporall Presence of the same Body in the Sacrament 4. For a Bodily Vnion with our Bodies 5. For a Proper Sacrifice of the Eucharist And lastly for a Divine Adoration thereof wee answer them from the Fathers in their like Sayings concerning Baptisme throughout every particular A Synopsis of the Speeches of Ancient Fathers objected throughout this whole Treatise for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist and assoyled and satisfied by the Parallels and like Equivalent Sayings of the same Fathers to the manifold and manifest Conviction of all Romish Deliration in this their Controversie of the Masse SECT III. WEe shall pursue your Objections and our Solutions according to the Order of the Bookes wherein they are cited BOOKE II. I. Kind of Romish Objections for proofe of the Corporall Presence of Christs Body OB. I. The Fathers call the Eucharist an Antitype of Christ Basil and others Ergo is Christ Corporally therein B. 2. c. 2. § 6. SOL. Nay for Baptisme is
Rursus Baptismus est Sacramentum Repraesentationis mortis Christi Rom. 6. Et tamen nulli veterum Baptismum Sacrificium Deo oblatum unquam appellaverunt non igitur sola repraesentatio causa esse potuit cur actio Coenae Sacrificium appellaretur Ibid. §. Tert. bapt If the Fathers had held the Eucharist to be only a Sacrament and not also a Sacrifice there had beene no cause why they should not have called Baptisme a Sacrifice it being a Representation of Christs death But the Fathers do no where call Baptisme a Sacrifice So hee Another Cardinall thus b Card. Alan Patres abusos esse nomine Sacrificij quis possit cum Haereticis vel tenuiter suspicari cum hoc solum eo nomine appellent nec alteri fetè Sacramento unquam tribuunt Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 14. Who can so much as suspect that the Fathers spake abusively in calling the Eucharist a Sacrifice seeing this is the onely Sacrament which they call a Sacrifice and no other Next take your learned'st Iesuite with you who would be loth to come behinde any in vehemencie and boldnesse thus c Suarez Ies In multis Conc. vocatur hoc Sacrificium incruentum Solum est observandum propter Haereticos qui hoc etiam ad metaphoram detorquent nomen Sacrificium Sanctos Patres nunquam vocâsse Ministerium Baptismi aut alterius Sacramenti nomine Sacrificij cum tamen Sacrificium Metaphoricè sumptum in eo conveniet Cum ergo Eucharistiam simpliciter absolutissimè Sacrificium vocant signum est eos propriè de Sacrificio loqui Tom. 3. Dâ—sp 74. Sect. 2. pag. 952. Ancient Fathers never called Baptisme or the Ministery thereof a Sacrifice albeit they might have so called it Metaphorically which wee note saith hee because of the Heretickes who pervert the speeches of the Fathers as if they had called the Eucharist a Sacrifice Metaphorically and Improperly So they to omit * M. Fisher for one Others Now then if there be any sap or sense in these your Objectors it is as much as if they had reasoned against us thus If you Heretikes for so they call Protestants could shew that the Ancient Fathers did any where name the Sacrament of Baptisme a Sacrifice which wee confesse to be onely but a Representation of Christs death then should wee need no other Reason to perswade us that the Fathers called the Sacrament of the Eucharist a Sacrifice also Improperly onely because it representeth the Body and Blood of Christ sacrificed on the Crosse Thus for the Consequence confessed by your owne chiefest Advocates The Assumption lyeth upon us to prove to wit that the Fathers called Baptisme a Sacrifice even from the words of the Apostle Hebr. 10. 20. where speaking of Baptisme he saith To them that sinne voluntarily there remaineth no Sacrifice for sinne Saint Augustine testifyeth of the Doctors of the Church Catholike before his time that d Hebr. 10. 26. Voluntariè peccantibus non relinquâ—â—ur Sacrificium pro peccato Qui dili 〈◊〉 pertractant hunc locum Apostoli intelligunt de Holocausio Dominicae passionis quod eo tempore offert quisque pro peccatis suis quo ejusdem passionis fide baptizatus Vt sit sensus Non relinquitur Sacrificium pro peccatis hoc est non potest denuò baptizando purgari August Tom. 4. Expos ad Rom. Col. 1185 1186 1187. They who more diligently handled this Text understood it of the Sacrifice of Christs Passion which every one then offereth when hee is baptized into the faith of Christ So that holy Father who is a Witnesse without all Exception yet if peradventure wee should need any testimony our of your owne Schooles the witnesse of your Canus may be sufficient confessing and saying e Milchior Canus Quaeris quid Causae plerisque Antiquorum fuerit ut Baptismum Hostiam appellaverint ideoque dixerint non superesse Hostiam pro peccato Heb. 10. quia Baptismus repeti non potest Et quia per Baptismum applicatur nobis Hostia crucis Hinc illi Baptisma translatitiè hostiam nuncuparunt Loc. Theol. lib. 12. cap. 12. pag. 424. That most of the Fathers by Sacrifice in this place understood Baptisme which they so called Metaphorically because by it the Sacrifice of the Crosse is applyed unto us So hee Is not this enough for the understanding of the Dialect and of the speech of Ancient Fathers both in calling Baptisme a Sacrifice and of the Reason thereof to wit for Representation and Application-sake onely and Consequently that the Body and Blood of Christ are not the representing Subject but the represented Object of his Sacrifice What better satisfaction can the greatest Adversary desire than to be as now your Disputers are answered according to their owne Demands The tenth Demonstration Because the Fathers called the Eucharist a Sacrifice in respect of divers such Acts as are excluded by the Romish Doctors out of the Definition of a Proper Sacrifice SECT XIV THe Acts excluded by your Cardinall out of the number of Proper Sacrifices are a Bellarmin lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. §. Sed omissa Omne Sacrificium est Oblatio sed non omnis Oblatio Sacrificium hoc fit cùm 〈◊〉 oblata consumitur Oblations or Offerings of any thing that is not Consecrated by the Priest such as is the Offerings of Bread and Wine by the People before it be Consecrated Next b Bellarm. Opera virtutum non sunt propriè dicta Sacrificia Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. §. Haec Non quae in sola actione consistant ut Psalmodia genuflexio opus quodlibet ad honorem Dei factum Ibid. §. Secundum Non quae in sola oblatione sita ut aurum argentum c. Ibid. §. Secundo Non Non decimae aut primitiae §. Sed in Nec Patres appellant Sacrificium id quod solum est figura commemoiatio Sacrificij §. Tertio Non pia voluntas quia invisibilis §. Secundò Non Eleemosynae quia non soli Deo oblatae §. Tertiò Nulla reverentia externa ut genuflexiones precs quia actiones transeuntes §. Sextò Passiones Martyrum alia omnia bona opera largo modo non autem propriè in rigore Sacrificia dici possunt Ibid. cap. 3 §. Resp Martyrum All workes of Virtue are unproperly called Sacrifices All workes which consist in Action being transient as Bowing singing of Psalmes or the sole Commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Crosse together with all such Acts performed to God which otherwise are yielded to man as the Gesture of Vncovering the head in Gods Service Bowing the knee and all outward signes of Reverence yea and all inward and invisible Acts of man in his will and understanding All these spirituall Acts are esteemed by him to be unproperly called Sacrifices But that all these kinde of Acts so farre forth as they are exercised in the holy worship of God are called Sacrifices by
of Virginity at the Birth of Christ Objected against Antiquity p. 272. VNBLOODY Sacrifice Objected as attributed to the Eucharist by Ancient Fathers pag. 451. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for void of Blood by Antiquitie to the Confutation of the Objectors Ibid. The Fathers calling things utterly void of Blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is unbloody Ibid. Basil and Eusebius call Godly Actions a Sacrifice and oppose them to Bloody pag. 452. Nazian calleth the Eucharist an Vnbloody Sacrifice not which is Christ but whereby wee communicate with Christ pag. 453. Ambrose called Bread and Wine an Vnbloody Sacrifice Ibid. and Athanasius Bread and Wine of Melchisedech were a signe of an Vnbloody Sacrifice Ibid. and Cyrilâ— Alex. calleth them Vnbloody Spirituall pag. 464. VNIFORMITIE is no reason of withholding the Cup from the Laity p 78. VNION Romish of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants pag. 308. Romish Objections for this Vnconscionably alleaged pag. 358. The Romish Sophistry discovered pag. 365 366 c. The same Vnconscionablenesse discovered from their owne Confessions Ibid. The Objected Testimonies are proved to make against them pag. 367. Vnion with Christs Body by Touch is Capernaiticall pag. 333. And by Swallowing also Ibid. pag. 347. That the same Vnion in mens Bellies is Capernaiticall pag. 349. The Romish Vnion by Commixture with mens Bodies is also Capernaiticall pag. 354. And the Romish Objected Sentences of the Fathers Answered pag. 356. Out of their Similitudes pag. 366. The basest Maner of Romish Vnion of Christs Body in the Inferiour parts of mans Body by egestion into the Draught pag. 382. The Abominablenesse thereof pag. 384. VOMITERS of Christs Body such are the Romish p. 348. VOICE Not audible in uttering Christs words of Consecration is in the Romish Church a Transgression against Christs Institution pag. 22. The nature of a Voice to be perceived in divers places at once Objected by the Romish and confuted by themselves p. 258. VVLGAR Translation against Fundetur in the future tense confuteth the Romish Objection of the Present tense in a proper signification pag. 392. The Vulgar latine Translation corrupted leaving out the word Incense pag. 430. Condemned by the different Translations of other Fathers Ibid. The Objected Fathers confute the Romish Exposition of Malachie 5. Ibid. The vulgar Translation perjuriously sworne unto and rejected by Romish Disputers pag. 574. A speciall Instance out of the Fathers to confute the Vulgar Translation in the words of the Apostle Ephes 1. 14. which rendreth the Greeke word Arrhabo in Latine Pignus but according to the Originall should be translated in Latine Arra that is Earnest p. 576. W WATER mixed with the Wine in the Eucharist was not commanded by Christ p. 5. WINE may be had for a Sacramentall use in all Countries which is confessed pag. 78. WORMES ingendred in the Hâ—ast pag. 174. FINIS AN INDEX Of the Principall places of Scripture Opposed by Vs and Objected against us throughout this whole Controversie PSALM 72. 16. There shall be an handful of Corne. Object to prove the Romish Sacrifice pag. 4 3. MALAC. 5. 1. In every place shall Sacrifice and Oblation be offered in my name Ob. for a proper Sacrifice but vainely pag. 429 c. MATTH 19. 14. It is Easier for a Camel to passe through the eye of a Needle c. Ob. for the maner of Christs Presence pag. 275. MATTH 26. 26. LVC 22. 19 20. And hee Blessed it Op. p. 9. Brake it Op. pag. 15. And gave it to them Opp. pa. 17. And said unto them Opp. p. 22 And againe Opp. pag. 24. Take ye Opp. pag. 43. Eat yee Opp. pa. 45 And againe Opp. p. 48. In Remembrance of me p. 51. Drinke yee All of this p. 54. In like maner hee tooke the Cup. Ibid. 1. COR. 11. 25. As often as you shall doe it Ibid. THIS IS MY BODY The word This pag. 91. The Verbe Est Is. p. 107. That they are Figurative doe not make for Transsubstantiation p. 146. My Body Is farre different from that which is in the hands of the Priest p. 210. DO THIS Ob. for Sacrifice pag. 390. Is shed Is broken Is given Ob. for Sacrifice p. 392. Both unreasonably Ibid. Shed for remission of sinnes Ob. for a Sacrifice Propitiatory pag. 475. MATTH 26. 29. Fruit of the Vine Opp. against Transubstantiation pag. 163. MATTH 28. 6. Hee is not heere for hee is risen Opp. against Being in two places at once pag. 237. LVK. 24. 16. Their eyes were holden pag. 172. Knowne at Emmäus by Breaking of Bread p. 63. IO. 6. 54. Who so eateth my flesh Opp. pag. 339. And vers 63. It is the Spirit that quickeneth p. 340. And vers 53. Except you eat the flesh c. p. 352. IOH. 19. 33. They brake not his legs p. 394 423. ACT. 2. 42. They continued in fellowship Breaking of Bread pag. 66 67. ACT. 9. 3. Concerning Christs Apparance to Saul Ob. p. 239. ACT. 13. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ob. p. 400. 1. COR. 5. 7. Our Passeover is Sacrificed Ob. p. 422. 1. COR. 10. 4. The same Spirituall meat Opp. pag. 314. Ib. And that Rocke was CHRIST pag. 126. And verse 16. The Bread which we break Opp. Against Transubstantiation pag. 165 166. Ibid. vers 18. They which eat of the Sacrifices are Partakers of the Altar Ob. pag. 401. for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice 1. COR. 11. 25. Quotiescunque biberitis p. 54. 56. And vers 27. Whosoever eateth or drinketh unworthily c. p. 320. And vers 28. So let him eat of this Bread and drinke of this Cup. Opp. Against Communion but in one kinde pag. 65. And Opp. for proofe that it remaineth Bread after Consecration p. 161. And 1. COR. 14. 16. How shall he say Amen Opp. against Vnknowne Prayer p. 22 23. HEBR. 5. Concerning Melchisedech Ob. for Sacrifice p. 404. And Chap. 9. 22. Without shedding of Blood Opp. pag. 481. And Chap. 13. 10. Wee have an Altar c. Ob. 413 461. FINIS FAVLTS escaped in this Second Edition thorow the absence of the R. Author The Corrector's Negligence and the Printers Precipitancie PAg. 15. lin 13. Reade SECT IV. Pag. 53. lin 28. in the Margin Reade Aquin. part 3. Qu. 80. Art 9. Conclus Pag. 54. lin 6. Reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 61. at * in the Marg. R. See the next Sect. 3. at the letter x. Pag. 64. lin 29. Reade be represented by without the vvord but. Pag. 67. lin 24. Reade Synechdoche Pag. 81. lin 4 5. Reade used onely water Pag. 83 lin 27. R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 115. lin 29. in the Margin R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 120. lin last but 3. in the Marg. R. Epiphanius his words to be P. 123. l. 30. R. â—nd not to either the P. 124. lin 3. for Glosse R. Glosse P. 159. lin 30. in Marg. R. Chap. 4. Sect. 1. P. 180. lin 10. in the Marg. R. Chap. 9. Sect. 2. P. 200. lin 47. in the Marg. R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 209. lin 19 R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 288. l. 10. instead of Antecedents R. Accidents P. 295. l. 40. R. had not any existence P. 302. in the Marg. lit c. lin ult R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 343. l. 45. For Isychius Read Hesychius whose Testimonies in the Index ought to be under one title of Hesychius P. 360. l. 27. R. of their Bodies P. 361. Marg. at num 4. lin 3. R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 377. l. 24. For Cause R. Case P. 426. lin 2. R of a bloody Sacrifice P. 443. in the Marg. at let c lin 2. R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Other Errours Typographicall which have got into the small and obscurer Character of the Margin the Greeke especially an Ingenuous Reader however otherwise affected may equally pardon and correct as they shall come to his view
Christ doth especially concurre with his owne Ordinance and therefore much rather where the forme of a Sacrament ordained and instituted by himselfe is observed then where it is as of you so notoriously perverted and contemned Yet because you may think we rest upon either our owne or yet of other your Doctors Iudgement in this Defence we shall produce to this purpose the consonaâ—â— Doctrine of ancient Fathers Our third proofe is taken from the manifold Reasons of ancient Fathers for Confirmation of the Necessity of the Communicating in Both kinds SECT IX FOr the proofe of the necessary use of Both kindes in the solemne and publike dispensation of this Sacrament the particular Testimonies of many ancient Fathers might be produced but your owne Authors will ease us of that labour by relating and g Satis compertum est universalem Christi Ecclesiam in hunc usque diem OccideÌ„talem autem seu Romanam mille ampliù à Christo annis in solenn prae fertim ordinaria hujus Sacramenti dispensatione Vtramque panis vini speciem omnibus Christi membris exhibuisse atque ut ità facerent inductos fuisse primò Instituto exemploque Christi qui hoc Sacramentum corporis sanguinis sui duobus hisce panis vini symbolis Discipulis suis fidelium Communicantium personam repraesentantibus prebuit â—um quià in Sacramento sanguinis peculrarem quaÌ„dam virtutem gratiam hoc vini symbolo significatam esse credebant tùm ob rationes mysticas hujus Instituti quae à veteribus variè adducuntur viz. ad repraesentandam memoriam Passioâ—is Christi in oblatione corporis sanguinis effusione juxta illud Pauli Quoâ—iescunque comederitis panem hunc Calicem Domini biberitis mortem Domâ—â— annunciatis donec venerit Item ad significandam integram â—ofectionem sive nutritionem quae cibo potu constat quomodò Christus inquit Caro mea verus est cibus et sanguis meus verus est potus Item ad designandam redemptionem tuitionem corporis animae ut corpus pro salute corporis sanguis pro salute animae quae in sanguine est dari intelligatur Ad significandum quoque Christum utramque naturam assumpsisse corporis animae ut utramque redimeret Cassand Consult Art 22. pag. 166. 167 Christus licet totus sub una specie tamen administrari voluit sub duplici primò ut totam naturam assumpsisse se ostenderet ut utramque redimeret panis enim ad corpus refertur vinum ad animam Si in altera tantùm sumeretur tum mortem suam ad alterius salutem valere significaretur Pet. Lombard 4. Dist 11. Hic Calix pari cuactis conditione sit traditus Theoph in 1. Cor. 11. In veteri Testamento quaedam Sacerdos quaedam populus comedebat nec poterat populus participare illis quorum Sacerdos particeps erat nunc autem omnibus unum corpus proponitur unum poculum Chrysost in 2. Cor. Hom. 18. Coena Domini omnibus debet esse communis quum ille Christus Discipulis suis omnibus qui aderant aequalitèr tradidit Sacramenta Hier. in Cor. 11. Quomodò ad martyrij poculum eos idoneos fecimus si non ad poculum Domini adâ—â—mus Cyprian Epist 54. ad Cornel. Episc Rom. de pace lapâ—â— danda Etiam Lombardus lib. 4. dist 11. ex Ambrosio ad 1. Cor. 11. Valet ad tuitionem corporis animae quod percipimus quià caro Christi pro salute corporis sanguis verò pro anima nostra offertur confessing as much in effect as we did intend to prove viz. That the ancient Fathers were induced to the Continuance of the Custome in Both kindes First by the Example and Institution of Christ Secondly by some particular Grace which they held to be signified by the Cup. Thirdly for the Representation that it had to the Passion of Christ distinctly and respectively to his Body and Blood Fourthly to resemble the Redemption which man hath in his Body by Christ's Body and by his Blood in the soule Fiftly To expresse by these Symbols the perfect spirituall Nourishments wee have by his Body and Blood Sixtly To understand that this Sacrament doth equally belong to People as well as to Priests which they with great earnestnesse enforce with joynt consent as a necessary Ius and Right belonging to both Seventhly that the Cup of the Eucharist doth animate soules to receive the Cup of bloody Martyrdome when the time should be âšœ Eightly by the Precept of Christ 10 Vasquez in 3. Thom. Qu. 801. Disp 216. cap. 6. Iustinus in 2. Apolog pro Christianis postquam descripsit communionem sub utraque specie subjungit Apostoli enim in Commentatiâ—s suis quae Evangelia dicuntur ità sibi Christum praecepisse tradiderunt Respondeo Nullum aliud praeceptum Domini Iustinum ibi agnovisse praeter Hoc facite in memoriam mei Very well and Hoc facite is as full a Command us Hoc manducate or Hoc bibite Iustine one of the most ancient Guides in Christs Church saying plainely that Christ commanded Both kindes to be received And the Commandement which Iustine meant your Iesuite attributeth to Christs saying DO THIS And Cyprian as directly as succinctly 11 Cyprian Serm. de Coena Dom. Evangelium praecâ—pit ut bibatur Resp Satis est si bibatur à Sacerdotibus licet non à Laicis But this is refuted by the Fathers who will admit of no Inequality among Christians in communicating of this sacred Banquet The Gospell commandeth the drinking of it yea and Saint Augustine was so peremptory for the Common use of the Cup that hee called Christian mens 12 Aug. Ser. 2. Feriae Paseâ—ae Simul hoc sumimus simul bibimus quià simul vivimus Teste Cassandro in Exposit Homilijs in Hymnum aquinatis Nec corpus sine sanguine nec sanguis sine corpore jure communicatur 〈◊〉 atque is communicandi ritus usquè ad Tho. Aquinâ—tis â—â—tatem amplius in Ecclesia Catholica obtinuerat tandem ista antiquà Distributio non ut anâ—eà necessaria sed ut licita tantum haberi coeperit Ibid. Bibere in this Sacrament to bee their Vivere and that lawfully the one cannot bee communicated without the other âšœ Whereunto may bee added the Constant profession of the h Graeci dicunt esse necessariò sub utraque specie panis scilicet vini communicandum adeo quidem ut qui sub una specie tantùm communicat etiamsi laicus sit peccate dicatur quod ut aiunt contra Christi Praeceptum agat qui sub utraque specie communicare praecepit Prateol Elench Haeret. lib. 7. tit Graeci âšœ For proofe that the Cause of Priest and people in the receiving of this Sâ—crament is equall we have these Sayings of Antiquity Dominica coena omnibus debet esse communis quià dabatur omnibus Discipulis qui aderant Hier. in 1. Cor. c. 11. Est
Body cannot now be broken and divided for it is whole in every part What then will some say doth the word Broken signifie in the speech of Christ and your Iesuite Salmeron is ready to instruct them out of the Fathers that d Salm. ron Ies See afterwards B. 6. Chap. â— Sect. 2. It signifieth the crucifying of his Body with speare and nayles upon the Crosse The like will be confessed of the Verbe EATE in those speeches of Christ Take Eate which being properly taken say the above-named e See above in the Margin at the lâ—tter a Iesuites would make the speech of Christ to be false because not the Body of Christ but the Sacrament is properly Eaten The Reason is expressed by your Iesuite Salmeron f Salmeron See afterwards Book 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. Reall eating saith he requireth a reall touch and tearing of that which is eaten but Christ's Body is not torne with the teeth because this is Impartible So he Which is as plaine as can be to prove the word Eate as it is applied to Christ's Body to be absolutely figurative In like manner in the words of Christ's Institution Wee reade that he said DRINKE you all of this which you referre properly to Christ's Blood albeit you holding Concomitancie as g See above B. 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 8. Out of Iansenius and Durand you do that is that Christ's Blood is not separated out of his Body more in this Sacrament than it is out of the Sacrament but is still the same Body which hath its Blood in the veines thereof therefore you cannot affirme truely that Christ's Blood is properly Drunke Witnesse your great Pedagogue M r. Brerely * Mr. Brereley Liâ—â—rg Tractat. 4. §. 8. If we should attend to the propriety of speech neither is his Blood properly drunke in 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 separated from the Body but included in the veines and then in the Body Do 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 Brerely 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 he said that a man properly drinketh the Ayre which he breatheth although it be a substance and are you brought to believe meere Formalities to be truely Potable VVee passe to two other Figuratives whereof wee reade for the first part Take this is my Body which is Given for you and of the other This is the newe Testament in my Blood which is Shed for you In both which words GIVEN and SHED as they are spoken in respect of the time Wee expect from you a Confession of the figure Enallage which is the using of the present tense for the future your Iesuite h Corpus quod proâ—vobis datur Id est quod offeretur pro vobis in cruce mactatum Valent. Ies lib. 1. de Missa cap. 3. §. Igitur Of the word Eato literally false so your Iesuites See Book 5. Chap. 4. §. 2. Valentia testifying for the first Given that is saith he which shall be offered upon the Crosse And your Iesuite Salmeron for the other Blood which is Shed i Graecus Textus Effunditur Non est negandum morem esse Scripturae ea dicere jam esse quae futura sint uâ—hìc effunditur quià paulò post in cruce essundendus Salmeron Ies in 1. Cor. 11. p. 154 Sa. Ies in Matth. 26. Graecè Effunditur praesens pro futuro So Cajetan in Matth. 26 Effunditur nempè tempore passionis jam enim inceperat effundi It is not denyed saith he but that it is the manner of Scripture to speake of a thing as now done which is after tobe done as in this place Is shed because shortly after it was to bee shed upon the crosse So likewise your Iesuite Sa. And that this is among you the true and Common exposition of these words of Christ your Bishop k Iansenius See afterwards Book 6. Chap. 1. §. 2. at q Iansenius doth not forbeare to testifie So then in both these words Given and Shed there are two figures in respect of the Time Wee are furthermore to consider the Word Shed in respect of the Act wherof your owne l See Book 6. Chap. 1. §. 4. for the three first and Book 4. Chap. 2. § 3. for the last Doctors have thus determined 1. your Bellarmine Christs blood at his Institution of this Sacrament did not passe out of his Body 2. your Alfonsus Christs blood was never Shed after his Resurrection 3. your Iesuite Coster True effusion of blood is a separating it from the Body which in Christ was onely on the Crosse 4. you may adde to these the stiffe Resolution of your Iesuit Suarezâ— Christs blood to be separated out of his Veines who can beleeve And if this bee not to bee beleeved then to say that it is not Figuratively sayd to be Shed is altogether as incredible âšœ Will you be pleased that your Iesuite Vasquez may determine this point throughout He 2 Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom. Qu. 78. Art 3. Disp 199. cap. 1. Ego verò existimo utrumque verbum Datur Frangitur Effundetur sen Effunditur quae ponuntur in additamentis formarum multò meliùs ad passionem crucem referri quà m ad fractionem effusioneÌ„ Eucharistiae Alleaging to this purpose the consent of Cajetan Theophylact Euthymius Anselm and Chrysost Adding Rationes verò pro hac nostra sententia interpretatione sunt me Iudice quidem efficacissimae paulò post Non est effusio sanguiâ—is in Eucharistia per modum Sacrificij sed repraesentatio sigura illius in calice enim Domininon separatur sanguis à corpore Christi ac proindè reipsa non effunditur concludeth all these words Broken Given Shed to relute to Christs Passion in a future sense bringing with him Cajetan Theophylact Euthymius Anselm and Chrysostome for his Authors and will have you to know that hee hath most forcible Reasons for this Interpretation besides this his owne to wit That the Blood of Christ cannot bee sayd to bee Shed which is not properly separated out of his Body in the Sacrament Aquinas will speake as confidently of Breaking that * See above confessed It is impossible it should bee broken which is a dividing into many parts Now furthermore concerning the same words Broken Given Shed in respect of the Time as that they signifie the Future time of Christs Passion you * Booke 6. Chap. 1. §. 2. 〈◊〉 shall have yet moe of your owne Docotors averring as much so that your Romish Suggester shall have little cause to complaine of the paucity of our
it selfe onely the Sacrament of his Bodie III. Yea but say your Doctors The Body of Christ herein is a Sacrament and â—gne of himselfe as he was on the Crosse Nay will S. Augustine say not so for the Body of Christ is Invisible and insensiblâ— unto us but the Sacrament is a thing representing unto us a visible palpable and mortall Body of Christ IV. Your men are still instant to interpret it of Christ's Body Corporally present therein and S. Augustine offereth to illuminate your understandings by the light of a Similitude saying The thing in the hands of the Priest is so called Christ's Flesh as his Immolation of Christ's Body heerein is called Christ's Passion and that it is not properly and lively so meant but Suo modo that is as your owne Glosse expoundeth it IMPROPERLY Can any thing be more repugnant to your Romish Doctrine of this Sacrament than this one Testimony of Saint Augustine is from point to point The Bp. Facundus who lived about the yeare 546. an Author much magnified by your 23 Iac. Sirmundus Ies Epist Dedic ante lib. Facundi Maximam Romanae sedis potestatem celebrat and Baron Ann. Chri. 546. num 24. Prudentissimus Ecclesiasticus Agonistes Facundus Iesuit as one who extolleth the Authority of the See of Rome and by your Cardinall as a most wise Champion of the Church must needs deserve of you so much credit as to think that he would write nothing concerning this Sacrament of Christ which hee judged not to be the received Catholike doctrine of that his Age. Hee thus 24 Facundus l. 9. defens Trin. Cap. 5. Sacramentum Adoptionis suscipere dignatus est Christus quandò circumcisus est quandò baptizatus potest Sacramentum Adoptionis Adoptio nuncupari sicut Sacramentum corporis sanguinis ejus quod est in pane poculo consecrato corpus ejus sanguinem dicimus non quòd propriè id Corpus ejus sit Panis poculum sanguis sed quod in se mysterium Corporis sanguinis continet The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ which is in the Bread and Cup wee call his Body and Blood not that it is properly his Body and Blood but because it containeth a mysterie of his Body and Blood Iust the dialect of Protestants Your Iesuit vainly labouring to rectifie this sentence by the sentences of other Fathers in the end is glad to perswade the Readers to pardon this Father Facundus If Peradventure 25 Idem Sirmundus Ies Annot. in locum istum Facundi pag. 404. Quod si durius hic fortasse obscurius quippiam locutus videatur dignus est veniâ qui à benigno interprete vicem officij recipiat quod alijs studisè quorum dicta notabantur non semel exhibuit saith hee hee hath spoken somewhat more harshly or obscurely as one who himselfe having interpreted other mens Sayings favourably may deserve the like Courtesie of others Thus that Iesuite But what Pardon can the Iesuite himselfe merit of his Reader in calling the Testimony Obscure and darke which the Father Facundus himselfe by a Similitude maketh as cleare as day Thus As Christ being Baptized received the Sacrament of Adoption the Sacrament of Adoption may be called Adoption even as the Sacrament of Christ's Body is called Christ's Body A saying which in your Church of Rome is now accounted a downe-right Heresie âšœ We shall take our Farewell of the Latine Fathers in the Testimony of Bish Isidore who will give you his owne Reason why Christ called Bread his Body * Isidor Hispalensis Panis quem frangimus corpus Christi est qui dicit Ego sum panis vivus c. Vinum autem sanguis ejus est hoc est quod scriptum est Ego sum vitis vera Sed Panis quià confirmat Corpus ideò corpus Christi nuncupatur Vinum autem quià sanguinem operatur in carne ideò ad sanguinem Christi resertut Haec autem sunt visibilia sanctificata tamen per spiritum Sanctum in Sacramentum divini corporis transeunt Lib. 1. de Offic. cap. 18. Bread saith he because it strengthneth the Body is therfore 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 âšœ A Cleare Glasse wherein the judgment of Antiquitie for a Figurative sense of Christ's words This is my Body may be infallibly discerned SECT X. POnder with your selves for Gods cause the accurate judgement of Ancient Fathers in their direct dilucidations and expressions of their understanding of Christ's meaning in calling Bread his Body in this sense viz. that It signifieth his Body as a Signe thereof The * Councel of Trùllo See above Sect 8. Councel of Trullo Bodie and Blood of Christ that is Bread and Wine Chrysostome a Greeke Father * Chrysost See above Sect. 6. Challenge 2. The faithfull are called his Bodie * Theodor. See ibid. Theodoret Hee gave the name of Bodie to Bread as elsewhere hee gave the name of Bread to his Bodie * Tertull. See above Sect. 9. let p. Tertullian This is my Bodie that is A figure thereof And againe 27 Tertull. advers Marcion l. 3. p. 180. Venite mittamus lignum in panem ejus Ier. 11. Vtique in corpus sic enim Deus in Evangelio panem corpus suum appellans Vt. hiac jam intelligas corporis sui figuram panem dedisse cujus retrò corpus in panem Propheta figuravit Christ gave his Bodie in a figure as his Body in the Prophet figured Bread * Cyprian See above Sect. 9 q Cvprian Things signifying and things signified are called by the same names * August See ibid. Augustine When hee said This is my Bodie hee gave a Signe of his Bodie And * See afterwards B. 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 5. Bread his Bodie as he called Baptisme a Buriall And yet againe As the Priest's Immolation is called Christ's Passion * Facundus Set above Sect. 9. Facundus Not that it is properly his Bodie and Blood but that it containeth a mysterie of them being called his Bodie and Blood as the Sacrament of Adoption meaning Baptisme is called Adoption * Isidor ibid. x. Isidore Called Christ's Body because turned into a Sacrament of his Bodie Chrysostome * See Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 14. Bread hath the name of Christ's Bodie albeit it remaine in nature the same And Ephraimius naming it Christ's Bodie which is received of the faithfull saith * See ibid. It loseth nothing of it's Sensible Substance Then Bread sure as followeth by his parallelling it with Baptisme And Baptisme being One representeth the propriety of its Sensible Substance of Water These are as direct as ever Bucer or Calvin could speake Somewhat more for Corroboration sake But yet by
5. §. Neque And Baronius Si qua fides adhibenda est Metaphrasti qui nullaÌ„ hic meretur fidem Ann. 44. num 38. I am not much moved with what Metaphrastes saith And if the Fore-man of the inquest be of no better esteeme what shall one then thinke of the whole Packe As for the testimony under the name of Amphilochius objected by your * Coccius Thesaur Catho de Eucharistia And Dr. Heskins in his Parlia of Christ Coccius writing the life of Basil and mentioning the like Apparitions of Flesh wee make no more account of it than do your two r Sed haud dubio falsa vel supposititia Lib. de Script Eccles Tit. Amphilochius Cardin. Baron ad Ann. 378. num 10. Cardinalls by whom it is rejected as Supposititious and Bastardly But the Suggesters of these Apparitions what were they a matter observable ordinarily Priests together with either old men women and sometimes young Girles who wheresoever Superstition raigneth are knowne to bee most prone thereunto That we say nothing of the lewd Iuglings of your Priests who in other kinds have bin often discovered amongst us and in other Countries Wee conclude A true Miracle for confirmation of Religion wee are sure is Divinum opus the Infidell Magicians being inforced to confesse as much saying * Exod. 8. 19. Digitus Dei hic est And as sure are wee that a fained miracle although it be in behalfe of Religion is impious and blasphemous against God who being the God of Truth neither will nor can be glorified by a lie * Iob. 13. 7. Hath God need of a Lie saith holy Iob. Wee right willingly acknowledge that divers Miracles have bin wrought for verifying the Eucharist to be a Divine Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ but to be it selfe the true and substantiall flesh of Christ not one When a * Socrat. hist lib. 7. cap. 17. Iew that had beene once Baptized by one Bishop betooke himselfe to another Bishop to be againe Baptized of him in hope of profit The Water in the Font presently vanished away s Aug. de Civit. lib. 22. cap. 8. Medicum podagricum non solùm dolore quo ultrà solitum câ—ue abatur verumetiam podagrâ caâ—tusse nâ—c amplius quam dâ—â— vixisset pedes doluisse Saint Augustine telleth of a Physician who was vexed extremely with the Gout and at his Baptisme was freed from all paine and so continued all his life long t Baron An. 384. Num. 19. Baronius reporteth another of a Child fallen into a little Well prepared for men of age to be Baptized in and after that it was held for drowned in the opinion of all by-standers at the prayer of Damascus it arose from the bottome as whole and sound as it was before These Miracles happened not for the dignifying of the Matter which was the water of Baptisme but of the nature of the Sacrament it selfe albeit voyd of the Corporall presence of Christ Not to tell you which your u Tanta suit Evangelij authoritas ut etiam codices ipsi miracula ediderint ut Gregorius Tureneusis in vità Patrum narrat de S Gallo qui Evangeliorum codice accepto civitatis incendium tesâ—â—it 〈◊〉 S Marâ—â—us Ecclesià S. Anastasiae slagrante teste Nicephoro lib. 5. cap. 22. Durant de Ritibâ— lib. 2. cap. 23. num 22. Durantus will have you to know of Miracles wrought by the Booke of the Gospell for the extinguishing of Fâ—ers And the former Histories do in most of the premised Examples report as well the Adoration given to the former Apparitions of a No-Christ and of his No-Flesh as they doe unto Christ himselfe which beside the Absurditie of their Opinion doth involve them in a grosse Idolatrie whereof Wee are to treate in the seaventh Booke âšœ A Digression upon occasion of a late Discourse of a greatly priviledged Doctor concerning the Histories mentioning the Blood of Christ miraculously Separated from his Body which will be pertinent to the Point in question wherein wee may finde many Observables SECT VI. FRancis Collius Professor of Divinitie at Millan is the Author whose Booke is Authorized as the 4 Francisus Collius Tâ—eologiae Dactor De Sanguine Christi mâ—raculo 〈◊〉 Anno 1618. Cum privilegio per Rusâ—am Coâ—â—gij Ambrofiant Praesiaem Collegarum nomine Libri quâ—que omnium Doctorum conâ—e suâ—cepri etiam Aâ—â—s Consultâ—r Officâ— pro â—everâ—dissimo Inquisitore c. Margin sheweth With a publike privilege and Commendation of ALL the Doctors of the College of Saint Ambrose His whole Discourse is of this onely Subject THE BLOOD OF CHRIST Out of which wee have singled Three especiall Points incident to our present purpose concerning The Blood of Christ Separated out of his Body specified in Romish Histories The first Separation thereof is said to be made in the miraculous Apparitions in the Eucharist The Second out of the Images and Reliques The Third of the Blood which issued out of Christ's side at his Passion wherof Some parts are also storied to be kept as Reliques in divers Countries in Christendome I. Of that Blood which is reported to have Miraculously Issued out of Christ's Body visibly in the Eucharist Of this First kinde you have heard the Romish Stories in good number objected by your Priests and Iesuites in great earnest for proofe of a Corporall presence in the Sacrament in the name of True Blood and Visible flowing out of the same Body and thereupon the Common and solemne worship given thereunto wheresoever the aforesaid Apparitions are recorded to have beene Now entreth in your Author Collius speaking unto you in an higher straine in the Margin than this is which wee shall render unto you in English His first Generall Declamation is this 5 Idem Collius Lib. 4. cap. 3. Disp 9 Cujus â—ures auaire non refugiunt sanguinem Christi post gloriosam à motrus Resurrectionem è naturalibus venarum conceptaculis non semel distractuÌ„ fuisse imò quis non perhorrescit hoc intelligere cum compertum sit diuturnitate temporis evanescere seu ut verius dicam contabescere id quod â—b Alense verus sanguis Christi putatur Cap. 4. Quanquam possit hoc Deus potenti virtutis imperio tamen tutissime videtur asserendum nunquam spectasse mortales oculos verum Salvatoris nostri sanguinem postquam Triumphator caelos penetravit Cap. 5. Solâ—â—igitur sententia Thomae tenenda juxtà concordem insignium Theologorum sententiam cruorem ex sacra Synaxi emergentem non esse ex Christi venis haustum Cap. 6. Sâ— non est verus Christi sanguis ille miraculosus cujus tandem conditionis et naturae est Belluarumnè an hominum potius num à Deo recenter creatus an solummodo Commentitius fictitius sanguis Si per longa inter valla durat verus est sanguis Cap 7. Sanguis qui brevissimo tempore vel in transcuâ—u cernitur non
vâ—us sed aduâ—bratus sanguis duntaxat putaâ— dâ—s est Whose Eares can abide to heare the Blood of Christ now after his glorious Resurrection to have been separated out of the naturall receptacles of his veines Yea who can without horror thinke therof especially seeing Experience telleth us that the same Blood which appeared did vanish away putrifie and corrupt Wherfore It will be our safest Resolution according to the Consent of Divines to affirme that no mortall eye of man did ever behold the TRVâ— BLOOD of Christ since his Triumphant piercing of the Heavens Hitherto your publike Professor according herein with Thomas Aquinas whom hee calleth the Angelicall Doctor and with other famous Divines But presently whereas his cited Doctors furthermore Conclude None of those Apparitions to have beene of any True flesh at all but onely Shaddowes and Representations thereof hee craveth leave to depart from them affirming it to be although not the True flesh of Christ yet True flesh and leaveth them questioning against this his Assertion concerning these Miraculous Apparitions What True flesh then it might be Whether the flesh of Beâ—sts or of a Man Whether newly Created or Commentitiously obtruded Hee answereth yet so that whereas your Stories and all their Reporters and Worshippers of such Apparitions do equally esteeme of All as being a like Truely flesh hee teacheth them to distinguish of the Apparitions which are said to have vanished shortly after their first shew the other that were of a longer continuanceâ— and to acknowledge the Existence of the True flesh onely in the Second kinde In the last place opposing against the Generall Opinion of Thomas and other of your choicest Divines above-mentioned who held these to be meerly Apparitions without any Substance of flesh Hee albeit granting that a Fictitious Apparition may be truly Miraculous yet to make the same Opinion Ridiculous breaketh out and inveigheth in this maner 6 Quoâ—sunt C. 6. contra eos qui dicunt tantùm fictitum esse sanguinem illum qui per long a intervaâ—â—a corspicitur IdeÌ„ Author Collius Quis sibi persuadere poterit largissimos rubri coloris liquores qui ex sacra mensa non semel eruperunt nulla procreata substantia effâ—uere vasa atque calices implerè posse certe capiant si liber istud credant alij mihi enim uti captu ita creditu semper difficillimum visum est Qui tâ—mâ—n paulò post An credant illa Accidentia esse quâ—sia fides Catholica consecrati calicis in Eucharistia scimus esse Cap. 7. Ego opinor Basim ac firmamentum Accidentium sanguinis ijs ipsis accidentibus quae in calice supersunt ascribendum esse Who Can perswade himselfe that such abundance of lâ—quor of red colour which is said to have issued out of the Eucharist filling the Chalices and other vessels should be wholly Fictitious and Accidents without Substances Let others understand and believe this if they please for my part I must confesse it was alwayes beyond my Capacity and Credulity So your Doctor of his supposed Miraculous Apparitions Notwithstanding he hath no more Foundation either out of Scripture or from any Tradition out of the Primitive Church of Christ for Meere Accidents without Substance in that which he saith he believeth than he hath in the other which he believeth not but declameth against as you have heard II. The same Authors Discourse upon the Romish Stories concerning the mentioned Reliques of Christs Blood issued out Miraculously from Images SECT VII VVHereas Aquinas with Others out of many Histories have approved of many Apparitions of Blood in great abundance at Mantua Venice Rome and els-where flowing out of Images This your Doctor concludeth with himselfe that 7 Idem Collius lib. 5. Disp 8. cap. 2. Verum Christi Sanguinem in terus esse memoriae atque literis proditum est Cap. 3. Quid de allâ—tis historiis censenâ—â—um sit Sicut certam mihi elicere posse videar assertionem non nihil istius sanguinis Christi apud nos remansisse ita adduci non possum ut assentiar tantam effusi sanguinis copiam qualis ea esse convincituâ— ex iis â—bsque certo naturae Christi rèviviscentis detrimento absolutae corporis Christi Perfectioni repugnante Difficile est satisfacere ijs omnibus qui de vero Christi sanguinâ— gloriantuâ— cùm â—â—n cuiâ— pulchrum sit ut fâ—rt Proverbâ—um ut quispiam pâ—udens inducet animum suum credere tot vascula sacro Domini cruore referta nunc etiam in terris reperiri Si quis credit audiat illam infignem sententiam Qui citò credit levis est corde Cap. 4. Objectis rationibus respondetur Cap. 5. An cum fide Catholica repugnet nihil sanguinis Christi tem ansisse in terris Cardinalis Sancti Petri ad Vin. putat non sine haeresi negari posse Ex testimonio Bullae Pij Secundi Pontificis ex Revelatione Brigittae alij alij ut Thomas affirmat de sanguine Christi nutrimentali non de vitali sed Distinctio haec inanis Ob. Athanasius de passione imaginis Domini Cap. 7. Sanguis Dominicus c. cujus Authoritas approbata est in septimo Synodo Nvcena Act. 4. quibus rationibus Angelicus Doctor Quodilibet 5. a 3. â—â—dem cap. refert ad sanguinem Christi sed ego minime subscribendum esse arbitor Ob. Leo tertius Respondeo Non verum Christi sanguinem Manituae existentem fuisse à Leone comprobatum sed fuit certa Inventi liquoris Approbatio utpote qui veneratione dignus imò etiam pium videri istum liquorem ut Christi sanguinem pâ—c colendum Ob. Sol. Diploma Pij Secundi tantum dicit non repugnare Fidei doctrinae sanguinem Christi aliquem relictum esse in terris Ob Sol. Non solum probabilis ac vera propemodum opinio est eam historiam de percussu Imaginis Christi non fuisse Athanastâ— magni sed alterius Doctoris ejusdem nominis quae tamen si ejus fuisse dicatur tamen unius Sancti Patris authoritas ad râ—m tanquam de fide stabiliendam non sufficiet Et approbatio Synodi Nycenae secundae non est existimanda cadere in totum ac singulas Istius historiae partes sed solum quadrare in historiam perfossae Imaginis c. Quod ad Brigittae Revelationem spectat etsi sit eâ— maximi ponderis tamen non tanâ— tamque efficacis censenda est ut ab ea discedere impium ac iâ—â—â—ligiosum fuit Albeit Some portion of the Blood of Christ might be sayd to remaine on earth yet can it not be thought that such a copious measure of Blood as is reported should have bin Because although each Country glory and boast of such their Reliques as being Christs Blood for that as the Proverb is EVERY ONE THINKETH HIS OVVNE BEST yet could not so great Quantities of Blood as filled whole vessels be sayd to issue out of Christs Body
Luc. 2. 23. Disputers with the blacke marke of the Heresie of those wicked Spirits who taught the Corruption of her Virginitie Which objection nothing but personall malice could make or Impudency defend as the Objecters themselves well knew one of them confessing that divers Fathers in interpreting that Scripture which is by the Evangelist applyed to the Virgin Mary and Birth of Christ viz. Every Male child that openeth the Wombe shall be holy unto the Lord Luk. 2. did teach that n Docuerunt solum Christum aperuisse vulvam Mald. in Luc. 2. Christ alone did properly open the Wombe of a Woman who onely found it shut Hee reckoneth for this opinion these holy o Origen in hunc locum Hom. 14. Tert. de carne Christi Ambr Greg. Nyssen in Testimonijs ex vet Testamento collectis Epiphâ—n Haeies 78. Hier lib. 2. cont pelag Theophylact. Euseb That which hee addeth of their pius sensus is frivolous even as his Impuration to Protestants saying that they deny that Mary the Mother of our Lord was a Virgin in her birth is standerous and Ianseniâ—â— Conco cap. 13. Alij Patres hanc legem aperiundi vulvam ad solum Christum properiè pertinuâ—â—e asserunt Theophyl Ambr. Non enim virilis coitus virginalis secreta reseravit Similia habet Origenes Hom. 14 In Luc. Aed Beatâ—â— Rhenanus in Tert. de carne Christi before that he fell into the hand of Inquisitors and their Index Expurgat durst say Tert. contra Recentiorum placita dixit Mariam patefacti coporis lege peperiss Fathers Origen Tertullian Ambrose Gregory Nyssen Epiphanius Hierome Theophylact Eusebius So hee A faire company of fellow Heretikes with Protestants wee trowe to whom the same Jesuite joyneth divers Doctors of your Romish Church whom he calleth Docti Catholici Thus your owne spirit of Contradiction whereas two words might have quit the Heresie maintained the Miracle and defended the Integrity of that sanctified Wombe of the Blessed Virgin to wit that the Virginall cell might be said to open it selfe which was shut in respect of other Women who necessarily suffer violent rupture by the Birth being preserved from all hurtfull violence either from within or without which could not be without a perfect Miracle Furthermore hearken to the Answer of some other Doctors of your Church and you shall find your owne Doctrine to smell ranke of the Heresie of the Marcionites in the opinion of the fore-cited ancient Fathers for your fore-named a Apud Maldon Ies in Luc. â— Id Patrea dixisse ardore abreptos disputationis contra Marcionitas ne Christum corporeum phantasma facere viderntur si dixissent matris uterum non aperuisse Jesuite telleth you of some Doctors in your Church whom hee himselfe approveth who taught that The Fathers who sayd that Christ did open the Matrix of his Mother spake it in the heat of Dispute against the Hereticall Marcionites who denyed that Christ had any true Body because that els the sayd Fathers should seeme to make Christ his Body to be no better than an Incorporeall and only imaginary thing So they Which proveth that in the judgment of those Ancient Fathers all your defence in this Case is at least Phantasticall Let Isiodore Pelusiota his sufferage be aded to the rest who in an Epistle calmely and as it were in coole blood teacheth that b Ibid. Pelusiot lib. 1. Epist 23. Apeâ—iâ—e vulvam Luc. 2. non dicitur de quovis primogenito 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ is the onely he who by his Birth opened his Mothers Wombe and left it shut and sealed up againe And maketh bold to tearme them Vnlearned that thinke the contrary who living above a thousand yeeres agoe is therefore so much the more competent a witnesse of the Catholike truth âšœ Yet that you may know this Father not to be alone in this Doctrine peruse the 7 The Fathers in their places above cited Origen Non sic quisquam aperuit vulvam matris absque coitu Ambros in eum locum Non virilis coitus vulvae secreta reserâ—vit hic solus apeâ—uâ—t sibi vulvam Hieron Solus Christus clausas portas vulvae virginitatis aperuit quae tamen clausae vigiter permanserunt Theoph. ineum locum In Christum solum hoc propri◠〈◊〉 is enim virginis vulvam aperuit cum reliquis mattribus vir aperuit Tert. Dei filius quis propâ—tè vulvam matris suae aperuit quam qui clausam patefecit â—bio Tert. Virgo quantum à viro non quantum à partu Leo ad Flaviam cap. 4. pag. 36. Quiâ inviolata virginitas concupiscentiam nescivit Aug. de Symbolo cap. 5. Quae virum nesciens sibi portat Erasmus Annot. in Luc. 2. Certe Ambrosius ab Originis sencentia non abhorruit Ianscinius Concord in Luc. 2. Christum matris vulvam propriè adaperuisse est sententia Theophylacti in hunc locum Ambrosij Originis As for the Entrance of the * Matt. 19. 24 Camell which is said by Christ to passe through the eye of a needle the subtlty of your Objection is not so needle-sharpe but that it may be easily blunted for Christ spake by way of comparison and implyed as well an Impossibility as a Possibility Thus as it is simply Impossible for a Camell be it Rope or be it Beast to passe through the eye of a Needle retaining the same Dimension and Property so is it Impossible for a Rich man so long as hee hath on him a great Bunch or grossenesse of confidence in his riches and worldly affections to enter into the Kingdome of God Although otherwise as it is possible for God by his miraculous power so to contract the Camell that it may passe through the Needles eye so is it as possible to him by his Omnipotent power of Grace to abate the swelling bunch of worldly Confidence in the heart of the Rich-man that hee being truly mortified may repose his whole trust in God himselfe and at length enter into the Kingdome of Heaven âšœ This you might have learned from Saint Hierome who saith that in this Similitude 8 Hieron advers pelag lib. 2. Vndè difficultas difficultati imo impossibile impossibili comparatur quià nec Camelus potest intrare per foramen acus nec divites in Regnum Dei Impossibilitie is compared with Impossibilitie because as a Camell cannot passe through the Needles eye no more can richmen enter into the Kingdome of Heaven So he speaking of the Rich-man in Sensu Compositio so living and dying as making Mammon their God and not using them unto works of Piety and Charity for so the same holy Father expresseth himselfe 9 Hieron in Matth. 19. v. 24. Sed si legamus Esaram quomodo Cameli Madiam Epha veniant Hierusalem cum donis atque muâ—â—â—bus qui pâ—ius curvi erant vitiorum pravitate distotâ—i ingrediantur portâ—s Hierusalem videbimus quomodo â—sti Camâ—li
of Guiltinesse hath beene taken from the Executions of Gods punishments Wee therefore rejoyne That the Examples of Gods Vindicative Justice have appeared against the Contemners of many holy things without respect to the Corporall presence of Christ therein SECT VI. COme wee to the open judgements and punishments of God upon the Contemners of this Sacrament The visible Testimonies of his Justice and Arguments of the preciousnesse and holinesse of this Mysterie These wee beleeve to be true And the Apostle hath made it manifest where speaking of the great plague which fell upon the Corinthians who had prophaned this Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ hee pointeth this out as their sinne saying * 1. Cor. 11. vers â—0 Ob hanc causam For this cause are many sicke among you and many sleepe c. Yet was not this for no Discerning the Body of Christ to be Corporally in the Eucharist as your Disputers pretend but to use Saint g Hier. in 1. Cor. 11. Reus erit Corporis sanguinis Christi qui tanti mysterij Sacramentum pro vili despeâ—etit Hieromes words They were guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ because they despised the Sacrament of so great a Mysterie namely by their prophane behaviour at their receiving thereof as if they had beene at the Heathenish Bacchanalls or as Primasius yeeldeth the Cause h Primas in â—und locum Quia acciperent quasi cibum communem For that they tooke it as homely as their common bread âšœ And why should you conceive that to be singular in this one Sacrament which Saint Hierome teacheth to be common in all other 2 Hier. Com. in Malach. c. 1. Dum Sacramenta violantur ipse cujus sunt violatur When the Sacraments saith hee are violated hee whose Sacraments they be is violated and vilified âšœ All can point at the dolefull Example of Gods vengeance upon Iudas the first unworthy Receiver and therefore the subject of the first Document of Gods judgement notwithstanding that hee received but the Sacrament onely and not the very Body of Christ as Saint Augustine observed saying * See after in Sect. 10. Hee received not the Bread the Lord but the Bread of the Lord. And how justly may wee thinke did God punish certaine k Optatus lib. 2. Donatists who casting the holy Sacrament to Dogs were themselves devoured of Dogs Neither have these kindes of Gods judgements beene proper to the Abuse of this Sacrament onely as you have instructed men to believe for looke into the sacred story and you shall find the men of * 1. Sam. 5. Ashdod for modling with the Arke of God afflicted with Emrods the men of * 1. Sam. 6. Bethshemesh smitten with a great slaughter for but peeping into Gods Arke Also * 2 Sam. 6. Vzzah no Priest doth but touch the same Arke albeit with a good intent to support it and hee is suddainly strucke dead * Levit. 10. Nadab and Abihâ— prophaned the Altar of the Lord with offering stâ—aâ—ge fire thereon and both of them were immediately burnt with fire from Heaven and perished * Dan. 5. Belshazzar will needs carouze in the sacred boles of Gods Temple in the Contempt of God and of his Law and behold a Writing upon the wall signifying that his Dayes were at an end as it came to passe And yet was there not any peculiar existence of God in these Things * 2 King 2. Boyes are mocking Gods â—rophet in Bethel by noting him for a Bald pate and are devoâ—red by Beares Thâ— * Numb 11. People loathing Manna are choaked with Quailâ—â— If sacred stories will not prevaile peradventure your owne Legends will rellish better with you so theâ— your l Quidam qui sancti Anthonij Imaginem abolere cupiebant non tulerunt illud scelus impune sed è vestigio peste illa quae dicitâ—o Antonij correpti interierunt Bozius de signis Eccles lib. 15. c. 12. ex Lindano Bozius will tell you of them who were suddainly strucke with the plague called Saint Anthonies plague one by for seeking to pull downe and demolish Saint Anthonies Image Have you faith to believe this and can you not conceive a like right Judgement against the Prophaners of the Sacramentall Image of Christ himselfe Be it therefore furthermore knowne unto you that the Sacrament which is celebrated by Protestants although it conteine no Corporall Vnion of the Body of Christ yet is it not so Bare Bread as your Doctors have calumniously suggested unto you but that God hath manifested his Curses upon prophane Communicants and Contemners of this holy Mystery which hath in it a Sacramentall Vnion of the Body and Blood of Christ One example whereof wee reade is of one that being afflicted in Conscience for his abuse of the Sacrament in receiving it but in one kind m Manlius locorum Communium Collect. Minister cujusdam Sartoris Lipsiae Anno 1553. Ob temeratam institutionem divinam quâ praecipitur species utraque administretur unicam tantum recipiens conscientiae crimine oppressus exclamavit ô inquit Ego sum c. Did cast himselfe head-long out of a window and so dyed The other is that which hee who now writeth these things saw and can testifie viz. n Sir Booth of S. Iohn's Coll. in Cambridge A Bachelour of Arts being Popishly affected at the time of the Communion tooke the Consecrated Bread and forbearing to eat it conveyed and kept it closely for a time and afterwards threw it over the walls of the College but a short time after not induring the torment of his guilty Conscience hee threw himselfe head-long over the Battlements of the Chappell and some few houres after ended his Life That onely the Godly Christians are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ and thereby Vnited unto him is not Contrary to the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers as is Objected SECT VII YOur Doctor hath performed great diligence in collecting Sentences of Ancient Fathers sounding to the Contrary out of 3 Dr Heskias in his Parlia of Christ Book 3. cap. 48. fâ—l 367. out of Chrysostome Hom. 30. de proditione Iudae Chrysostome Speaking saith hee of the traytor Iudas his Receiving Christs Body and what satisfaction saith Chrysostome shall wee give if after wee have beene nourished with this Lambe wee shall be turned into Wolves And againe 4 B. 2. c. 55. Out of his Hom 51. upon Marc. 14. B. 3. c 46 out of the Hom. in Matth. 26. I will suffer rather than deliver Christs Body to the unworthy Receiver Thirdly 5 â—ooke 3. c. 54. out of Hom. 3. in Ephs Thou art bold with uncleane hands and lips to touch the Body of Christ thou wouldest not kisse the King with a stinking breath Fourthly out of Basil 6 Book 3. c. 47. out of Basil The ungodly handleth the Body of Christ Fiftly out of Theodoret 7 Book 3. c. 52.
ejus ex hoc mundo ad Patrem Tolet. Ies Com. in cum locum Tolet your Cardinall Jesuit When he came to the celebrating of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood that is at his last Supper But what was meant hereby namely Christ alluded unto the Iewish Passeover saith hee in signification of his owne passing over by death to his Father So he So also your Jesuit d August in Psalm 68. Cum Venit Dominus ad Sacranientum Sangoinis Corporis sui 〈…〉 venit ut 〈◊〉 ad Patrem dâ—mundo Qâ—bus veâ—bis expressâ—◠〈◊〉 Paschae Testepâ—rerio Ies in Exod. cap. 12 Disp 8. Pererius out of Augustine Secondarily to the Scripture objected 1. Cor. 5. Our Passeover is offered up Christ that is As the figurative paschall Lambe was offered up for the deliverance of the people of Israel out of Egypt so Christ was offered up to death for the Redemption of his people and so passed by his passion to his Father So your e 1. Cor. 6. Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus orgò epulemur Azymis 〈◊〉 veritatis Aquinas assignat 〈◊〉 quare fideles 〈◊〉 esse Azymi quae quidem Ratio sumituâ— ex mysterio Passionisâ— Sicut Agnus figuralis iâ—molaâ—us est 〈…〉 Israel ut populus liberaretur ità Christus occisus ab Israëlitis ut populus liberareâ—â—r à servitute Diaboli Christus enim per passionem transâ—it ex mundo ad patrem Ioh. 13. Haec Aquin. Com. in 1. Cor. 5. And Tollet in his Testimonie before cited So Becanus Ies Aquinus Our Passeover Namely By his Sacrifice in shedding his Blood on the Crosse So your Jesuit f Pascha nostrum 1. Cor. 5. Nempè per immolationem in cruce effusionem sanguinis illius liberatum est genus humanum Analog utriusque Testam cap. 13. pag. 313. Becanus And By this his Passeover on the Crosse was the Passeover of the Iewes fulfilled So your Bishop g Impleta erat figura Paschalis quando veruÌ„ nostruÌ„ Pascha est immolatus Christus Iesus hos per ejus sanguinem liberatâ—â—eramus Iâ—â—sen Concord Evang. cap. 13â— pag. 895. Iansenius as flat diameter to your Cardinalâ—s Objection as can be A third Scripture wee find Joh. 19. They broke not his legs that the Scripture might bee fulfilled which is written A bone of him shall not be broken which your h Ioh. 19. Crura non confregerant ut impleretur quod scriptum est Os non comminuetis ex eo Bellar. quo supra yet gaine saith with his Tamen c. §. Illud Cardinall himselfe confesseth to relate onely to Christ's Sacrifice on the Crosse and notwithstanding dare immediatly oppose saying Neverthelesse the Ceremony of the Paschall Lambe did more immediatly and properly prefigure the Eucharist than Christ's passion wherein whether he will or no he must be an Adversary to himselfe For there is no Ceremony more principall in any Sacrifice than are these two viz. The matter of Sacrifice and the Sacrificing Act thereof Now the matter of the Sacrifice was a Lambe the Sacrificing Act was the killing thereof and offering it up killed unto God Whether therefore the Paschall Lambe did more principally prefigure the visible Body of Christ on the Crosse or your imagined Invisible in your Masse whether the slaine Paschall Lambe bleeding to death did more properly and immediatly prefigure and represent a living and perfect Body of Christ than that his Body wounded to death and blood-shed Common sense may stand for Judge The Ancient Fathers when they speake of the Sacrifice of Christ's passion in a precise proprietie of speech do declare themselves accordingly If in generall then as i Origen Sacrificium pro quo haec omnia Sacrificia in typo figura praecesserunt unum perfectum immolatus est Christus Hujus Sacrificij carnem quisquis tetigerit sanctificabitur In Levit. cap. 6. Hom. 4. Origen All those other Sacrifices saith hee were perfigurations of this our perfect Sacrifice If more particularly then as k Chrysostomus de 〈◊〉 Latrone 1. Cor. 5. Pascha â—ostrum immolatus est Christus sestivitas ergò c. Vide crucis intuitu porceptam laetitiam in cruce enim immolatus est Christus Vbi immolatiòtiò 〈◊〉 peccatorum ubi ampucatio peccatorum reconciliatio Domini novum Sacrificium nam ipse Sacrificium erat Sacerdos Sacrificium secundùm carnem Sacerdos secundùm Spiritum offerebat secundùm Spiritum offerebâ—tur secundùm carnem Altare Crux fuit Chrysost Tom. 3. pag. 826. Chrysostome from the objected Text of the Apostle 1. Cor. 5. Our Passeover is offered up Christ Let us therefore keepe our Feast c. Dost thou see saith hee in beholding the Crosse the joy which wee have from it for Christ is offered upon the Crosse and where there is an Immolation there is Reconciliation with God this was a new Sacrifice for in this the flesh of Christ was the thing sacrificed his Spirit the Priest and Sacrificer and the Crosse his Altar Insomuch that else-where hee teacheth every Christian how as a spirituall Priest hee may l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem Tom. 5. Ser. 88. Ediâ— Savil. pag. 602. Alwaies keepe the Passeover of Christ âšœ And yet againe the same Father as if hee had thought this point deserved to be got by heart of every Christian âšœ* Idem in Ioh. â— Homil. 13. Vt de passione incipiamus quid dicit figura Sacrificate Agnum Christus autem nihil hujusmodi praecipit sed ipse sactus est Sacrificium oblationem offereos seipsum âšœ That wee may speake of Christs Passion saith hee what saith the Figure Take unto you a Lambe but Christ commandeth no such thing for hee himselfe namely at his Passion offered up himselfe to the Father So hee âšœ What greater plainenesse can be desired and yet behold if it be possible a greater from m Socrat. Hist lib. 5. cap. 22. Origenes Doctor valdè sapiens cum animadverteret Legis Mosaicae praecepta ad literam non posse intelligi praeceptum de paschate ad divinam contemplationeÌ„ traducit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen calling the Sacrifice on the Crosse the Onely true Passeover Which saying his Reporter Socrates imbraceth as a Divine Contemplation âšœ That the third objected Typicall Scripture out of Exod. 24. The Blood of the Testament is not justly objected for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse SECT XI THis Text Exod. 24. speaking of the Sacrifice of the Old Testament This is the Blood of the Testament being so consonant to the words of Christ delivered in his Institution of the Eucharist This is the Blood of the New Testament in the Gospell seemeth to your Cardinall to be an Argument of great force and therefore doth hee dart it against us with all his strength of Arguing saying 15 Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 8. Terrium nostrum Argumentum sumitur ex Exod. 24. et Heb. Hic est
you may finde in your Rhemish Divines in * Rhemists Annot in Luc. 22. 19. alleging the Testimonies of Irenaeus for proofe of the Sacrifice of your Masse which your Iesuite Maldonate hath truly observed to have beene spoken of Bread and Wine even * See above at a. before Consecration One word more By this you may perceive another proofe of the Idiome of Ancient Fathers in Extending the word Sacrifice beyond it's literall sense which beside the former the last annexed Testimonie of g To these former wee add another objected Testimony of Augustine Lib. de side ad Pet. Diac. cap. 19. Nullâ—tenus dubites unigenitum Dei filium obtulisse hostiam Deo pro nobis cui nunc cum Patre Spiritu Sancto offerimus Sacrificium panis vini in side charitate in Catholica Ecclesia per universum mundum Augustine confirmeth shewing that now there is in this our Sacrifice no other Subject but Bread and Wine This may serve for the present concerning the true and proper Subject of the Eucharist Bread and Wine Wee in the next place are to examine the pretended Subject which your Church will have to be the Body and Blood of Christ Our Second Demonstration That the Ancient Fathers held not the Body and Blood of Christ to be the proper Subject matter of the Eucharist in calling it a Sacrifice SECT II. HOw cometh the Body and Blood of Christ to be a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist Your Cardinall will tell us to wit Bread and Wine are consecrated and by Consecration made the Body and Blood of Christ so that now a Bellarm. lib. 1 de Missa cap. 27. §. His igitur In Missae Sacrificio requiritur ut res profana sit sacra sic hic ubi panis convertitur in corpus Christi §. Respondeo c. Non panis sed quod expane factum propriè sacrificatur For still the Question is that of Lombards Quaeritur si quod gerit Sacerdos sit propriè sacrificium Lombard lib. 4. Dist 12. lit G. Not Bread saith hee but the Body of Christ is the thing sacrificed This is plaine dealing and as much as if hee had said If there be in the Eucharist no Transubstantiation of the Bread into Christs Body by Consecration then cannot Christs Body be a proper Sacrifice But that there is no such Transubstantiation or Corporal Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament hath beene proved to be the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers by many Demonstrations thorow-out the third and fourth Bookes A stronger Argument there needeth not Our Third Demonstration is Because the objected places of Antiquity for proofe of a Representative Sacrifice Properly so called do not point out anywhere the Body of Christ as the proper Subject but only as the Object of the Sacrifice spoken of SECT III. The necessary use of this Distinction OVr Distinction is this These words The Body and Blood of Christ as they are applyed to the Eucharist in the name of Sacrifice may admit of a double Acception one is to take them Subjectively as being the proper Materiall Subject of this Sacrament the other is to understand them Objectively that is to accompt the Body and Blood of Christ as they were the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse to be onely the proper Object of a Christian Celebration according to the Direction and Institution of Christ saying Do this in remembrance of mee Your Romish Church professeth the Body and Blood to be the proper Subject Wee nay but the proper Object of our Celebration This Distinction well learned will be unto our Reader as an Ariadne's thred to winde him out of the Labyrinth of all Obscurities and seeming Repugnancies of Ancient Fathers out of all the confused Subtilties and equivocall Resolutions of your Romish Disputers and out of the Perplexities wherewith some Protestants also may seeme in some sort to have beene intangled The Demonstration it selfe Because the Eucharist being onely Commemorative and Representative cannot be a Proper Sacrifice answering the Romish Objection taken from the Sacrifices under the Law SECT IV. THat it cannot be called properly a Sacrifice which is onely for Commemoration and Representation is the Conclusion of your owne a Bellarm. Si sola repraesentatio Sacrificij crucis tùm non potest dici oblatio in hunc modum Offero tibi Pater c. ac à Patribus Oblatio dicitur Lib 1. de Missa cap. 15. §. Quartò Cardinall although it cannot be denyed but that Improperly it may be so called aswell as you may call the Image of Christ crucified the Crucifix But to come to your Objection your b Rhemists Aâ—notat in Luke 22â— and Bellarm. Finis erat SacrificioruÌ„ praecedentium repraesentare Sacrificium Crucis ut futurum sicut vetera Sacrificia non amittebant veram propriam rationem Sacrificij ex eo quòd essent repraesentativa ita nec Sacrificum Eucharistiae amittit propriam Sacrificij rationeÌ„ propter Commemorationem Lib. 1. de Mâ—ssa cap. 12. §. Qâ—od verò Rhemish Divines and Romish Cardinall are very earnest and instant in proving that because the Iewish Sacrifices being Representations of the Passion of Christ were notwithstanding True and proper Sacrifices Therefore the Being Representative can be no hindrance that the Eucharist should be a proper Sacrifice So they But yet so as if they had meant to say nothing to the purpose because the Iewish Sacrifices albeit they were Representations of Christs Passion yet were they not onely Representations thereof as the Eucharist is but were also beside that Sacrifices in themselves and so ordained to be by God first in their matter as Bulls Sheepe Goates next in their Sacrificing Act which was Destructive as to be slaine and lastly in their proper and peculiar end which was as your c Bellarm. Sacrificia illa Levitica non culpam poenam aeternam sed immunditiem legalem poenam temporalem expiabant Patet ex Dei promissione de remissione peccatorum ex mensura Sacrificij majoris minoris pro majore 〈◊〉 delicto Levit. 6. 4 5. At pro peccatis gravioribus ut blasphemia homicidio c. nulla videmus instituta Sacrificia Lib. 4. de poeaitent cap. 15. §. Respondeo §. Ex his Non quoad culpam poeâ—am Gehennae nisi quatenus signa erant protestantia fidem in Christum ut docent communiter Theologi Idem l. 2. de effect Sacram. c. 17. Et omnia illa erant Sacrificia vera signacula promissionis Christi venturi morituri Idem lib. 1. de Missa cap. 24. Cardinall witnesseth For expiation of legall Pollutions and remission of temporall Punishments Each one of these may satisfie your Objection âšœ And as your 1 Vasquez in 3. Thom. Disp 222. cap. 8. Discrimen inter Reprae sentationem mortis Christi in hoc Sacramento in Sacrificijs antiquae legis est quod illa non erant ideo
of it selfe Your Tridentine Fathers to this purpose say that a Concil Trident. Christum reliquisse Sacrificium Ecclesiae suae visibile quo cruentum istud in Cruce peragendum repraesentaretur Ses 22. ca. 1. Christ left this visible Sacrifice to his Church whereby his Body sacrificed on the Crosse should be represented So they From whom it may seeme your Rhemists learned that Lesson which they taught others that b Rhemists Annot. in Luc. 22. Christs Body once visibly sacrificed upon the Crosse In and By the selfe same Body is immolated and Sacrificed under the shapes of Bread and Wine and is most perfectly thereby resembled and therefore is most properly Commemorative being called the same Sacrifice by the Ancient Fathers And againe This neerely and lively resembleth that So they But this wee utterly deny because although a thing may in some sort be represented by it selfe yet say wee there is no Representative quality of any Body and Blood of Christ as it is said by you to be in the Eucharist of his Body and Blood sacrificed upon the Crosse And upon the Truth or Vntruth of this our Assertion dependeth the gaining or losing of the whole Cause concerning the Question of Sacrifice now controverted betweene Vs. Two of your Iesuites have undertaken to manifest your Representation by a more fit example than do your Rhemists thus c Barradas Ies En tibi stupendam Dei adinventionem notam facimus Animo concipiamus Regem aliquem post reportatam de Hostibus Victoriam c. Sic Christi corpus veluti in scena personatur id est speciebus panis vini velatur c. Tom. 4. Concord Evang lib. 3. cap. 13. §. Optimus And Bellarmine Even as a King say they having got a victory should represent himselfe after his warre in a Stage-play in fight c. ⚜ Or as your Cardinall Peron is said to have fancied As David might have represented his owne Combate with Goliah in a Theater ⚜ So they even in earnest which hath beene as earnestly yet easily confuted by us * See above Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. there answered Corpus sanguis Domini sub specie panis vini signa sunt corporis ejus passi sanguinis effusi c. See above also in the same place Chap. 3. already although indeed the Play deserveth but laughter And that so much the rather because the Representative part as your Councell of * See hereafter Chap. 6. Sect. 1. Trent hath defined is in your Masse a visible Sacrifice whereby the Bloody Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse might be represented as you have heard ⚜ For here is no visibly-represented person but the Priest no visily-represented or crucified Body but the Bread Broken But no more is the Bread Christ's Body than the Breaking thereof is his Crucifying or yet the Priest Christ ⚜ CHALLENGE Displaying furthermore the Stollidity of this your onely Romish Defence concerning an Vnbloody Representative Sacrifice of Christ's Body sacrificed on the Crosse from another Romish Principle and from the Absurdity of the Defence it selfe ALl Christians be they Protestants or Romanists whensoever they allow of the name of Sacrifice whether in a large and common or in a strict and proper Sense they evermore professe it to be the Representative and Commemorative of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse But how it is Representative is become the maine hinge of the whole Controversie Protestants hold and teach this to consist onely in the Analogie betweene the Consecrated Elements of Bread and Wine and the use thereof in the Eucharist and the Body and Blood of Christ on the Crosse But you Romish maintaine a Representation of Christs Sacrifice on the Crosse by Analogie with his Body and Blood as it is in this Sacrament The Analogie of Representation held by Protestants is such as your owne Doctors will grant to be true in every part and point First for the End of the Celebration of the Eucharist it is confessed that 4 Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom. Disp 220. Vt finis Sacrificij veteris legis erat repraesentare Sacrificium Crucis ut futurum sic finis est Sacrificij Eucharistiae repraesentare Sacrificium Crucis up praeteritum The end thereof is to represent the Sacrifice on the Crosse Secondly Nor will any of you deny but the formes of Bread and Wine do Represent the Body and Blood of Christ Nor thirdly will you gaine-say that the Separation of Bread from the Wine in the Eucharist doth represent the Separation of Christ's Body and Blood on the Crosse Which are the three Summarie Points of Representation held by Vs contrarie to your professed Representation made as you have said by Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist of the same his Body and Blood separated on the Crosse as it were in a Stage-play ⚜ You therefore except you will be Players and not Disputers must tell us where ever it was seene or heard of a King as Conquerour or yet of any other of what condition soever acting himselfe and that Visibly Perfectly and Truly as you have said yea or else any way semblably Representing himselfe when as yet the same King or party was to all the Spectators altogether Invisible If You can then shew where this was Acted whether it were not in Vtopia And who was the Actor if not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of what Disposition the Spectators were whether not like the Man of Argos who is said daily to have frequented the Theater and Stage alone void of all Actors yet seeming to himselfe to see all Varieties of Actions occasioning him to laugh and applaud at that which hee saw represented to himselfe onely in his owne phantasticall Braine Now have you nothing else to Answer but which you have already said that The Body and Blood in the Eucharist are visible by the visible shapes of Bread and Wine Whereas it had beene much better you had answered indeed nothing at all rather than not onely to contradict that which was said by your Fathers of Trent decreeing the Representation to be made By the Sacrifice on the Altar it selfe and more expressely by your * See above at ◠Rhemists In and by the same Body in the Eucharist but also to expose your selves to the reproofe of your Adversaries and Scorne of any man of common Sense as if you would perswade him his money is Visible to any that will use his eyes which hee hath therefore locked close up in his Coffer lest any man might see it ⚜ Besides this your Romish Principle and Doctrine of Concomitancie is not unknowne unto you which is that notwithstanding whatsoever Consecration of Bread severally from the Wine yet the Body and Blood of Christ are continually in the Eucharist as Veseparably united together his Blood being in the veines of the same Body as verily as it was before his Passion Hence wee argue that this Inseparation of Christ's Blood
to be Propitiatory and pleasing to God by God's Gracious acceptance and indulgence The Romish professe the Sacrifice of their Masse to be such in the proper Virtue of that which the Priest handleth For the Tridentine Faith concerning your Propitiatory Sacrifice is this viz. a Synod Trid. Sacrificium verè propitiatorium Hujus oblatione placatur Deus gratiam donum poenitentiae concedens dimittit peccata una enim eademque hostia est idem nam offerens Sacerdotum ministerio qui seipsum in cruce obtulit Sess 22. cap. 2. It is that whereby God being pacified doth pardon sinnes And least that there might be any ambiguity how it doth pacifie God whether by his gracious Acceptance or the Efficacie of offering your generall Romane Chatechisme authorized both by your Councell of Trent and the then Pope Pius the fift for the direction of your whole Church instructeth you all concerning your Sacrifice of the Masse that b Catechis Rom. Jussu Conc. Trident. Pij Quinti Pont. editus Vt Sacrificium est non solum merendi sed satisfaciendi quoque efficaciam habet De Euch. num 55. Oserius Ies Conc. Tom. 4. de Missae Sacrificio in Psalm 4. Sacrificare Sacrificium Vnicum hoc SacrificiuÌ„ est Sacrificium laudis gratiarum actionis expiatorium satisfactorium pro peccatis impetratorium pro vivis defunctis Ita tradit Conc. Trid. As it is a Sacrifice it hath an Efficacie and Virtue not onely of merit but also of satisfaction So they as truly setting downe the true nature of a Propitiatory Sacrifice as they do falsly assume and apply it unto the Sacrifice of your Masse which Protestants abhorre and impugne as a Doctrine most Sacrilegious and onely grant the Celebration to be Propitiatory Improperly by God's Complacencie and favourable acceptance wherewith hee vouchsafeth to admit of the holy Actions and Affections of his faithfull Tryall of all this is to be made by Scriptures and Fathers by your owne Romish Principles and by the Doctrine of Protestants In the Interim be it knowne that our Church of England in her 31. Article saith of your Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Masse as it is taught by you that it is A Blasphemous Fable and Dangerous Deceit That the Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice hath no foundation in the Institution of Christ SECT II. YOur onely Objection is that Christ in the words of his first Institution said Take this is the New Testament in my Blood shed for you and for many for the Remission of sinnes Heare your Cardinall a Bellarm. Secundum ArgumentuÌ„ sumitur ex his verbis Institutionis quae apertissimè docent Christum obtulisse in coena pro peccatis Apostolorum Lib. 2. de Missa cap. 2. §. Secundum These words do most evidently teach that Christ now in his Supper offered up his Blood for the sinnes of his Apostles So hee But if this his Exposition of Christ's word 's be most evident alas what a number of other blinde Guides of great estimation among you hath your Church favoured pampered privileged and authorized who could see nothing in the words of Christ but the flat contrary namely that they were Spoken in the Present Tense Tropically For the Future not that it was then shed but that it was to be shed on the Crosse immediately after among whom have * See above Chap. 1. Sect. 2. beene reckoned Gregory de Valentia Salmeron Barradas Vasquez and Suarez five prime Iesuites your Bishop Iansenius yea and the Author of your Vulgar Translation and the Authorizers thereof And that you may the better discerne how hard the foreheads heads of your Cardinall of your Rhemists of Master Brerely and of such others are who have made that Objection you have beene likewise advertised that in the very tenour of your owne Romish Masse it selfe the word is expresly * In the 〈◊〉 place Effundetur It shall be shed Wee say in the Tenour of your Romish Masse published by the Authority of Pope Pius the fift repeated by every one of your selves you being Romish Priests and accordingly believed of all the Professors of your Romish Religion Which Interpretation was furthermore confirmed by * See above 1. Sect. 3. Fathers and by Scripture in the places objected and by a Reason taken from your owne Generall Confession granting that Christ his Blood was not Really shed in his last Supper This is that which wee had to oppose unto that your Cardinals Most evident Argument as Sun-shine to Moone-light That many things are said to pacifie and please God which are not properly Propitiatory by their owne Virtue according to criptures and your owne Confessions SECT III. IN Scripture our Mortification of the flesh is called a Sacrifice well-pleasing to God Rom. 12. 1. Almes Workes of Charity are likewise called Sacrifices wherewith God is delighted Heb. 13. 16. Comforting and cherishing the Ministers of God is called A Sacrifice acceptable and well-pleasing to God Phil. 4. 18. So the Scripture And that spirituall Sacrifices are more pleasing unto God than all the Hecatombs of Corporals could be is a Confession which wee will take from the quill of Valentia the Jesuite saying that a Valent. Omnes actiones rectae rectè propitiare Deum aliquâ ratione censeri debent Lib. 2 de Missa cap. 5. Idem Peculiari ratione Precibus propitiandi vis in Scriptura tribuitur quatenê° beneficia divina ex misericordia Dei per illas impetramus Ibid. All right and just Actions may be said in some sort to bee Propitiatory and to pacifie God As likewise of Prayer Scripture saith hee attributeth a Propitiatory force unto Prayers so farre forth as wee obtaine many Blessings of God through his mercie by them So hee Which confirmeth our former Distinction of Propitiatory by the mercifull Acceptation of God distinct from your Propitiatory which is of meritorious Satisfaction by its owne virtue which meere man must let alone for ever Thus of our Examination from Scripture The Doctrine of Ancient Fathers concerning a Propitiatory Sacrifice SECT IV. ALbeit our Premises in the former part of this Controversie touching Sacrifice and proving both by Scripture and ancient Fathers that the Eucharist is not properly a Sacrifice might give a Supersedeas to all your further contending by their Authority for Defence of a Sacrifice properly Propitiatory because that which is not properly a Sacrifice can no more be a Sacrifice properly Propitiatory than that which is not properly a stone can be properly called a Mil-stone Notwithstanding wee would be loath to be indebted unto you for an Answer to your objected Fathers in this Point also The Objections which you use and urge are of two kindes some wherein there is no mention of the Body and Blood of Christ at all and the other sort such wherein they both are named and expressed CHAP. IX That the objected Testimonies of Ancient Fathers might well be understood to call the Celebration of
by the efficacie therof a truly and properly propitiatory Sacrifice and Satisfaction for a perfect Remission of all sinnes Thus concerning Protestants As for you if wee consider your owne outward Acts of Celebration wherein in Ten Circumstances wee â—inde Ten Transgressions of the Institution of Christ and therefore provocatory to stir up Gods displeasure wee thinke not that it can be Propitiatory so much as by way of Gods Acceptance Next when we dive into the mysterie of your Masse to seeke out the subject matter of your Sacrifice in the hands of your Priest which according to the faith of your Church is called a Proper propitiatory Sacrifice in it selfe it hath beene found besides our Proofes from Scriptures and your owne Principles by * See a Syâ—opsis hereof Booke 8. Ten Demonstrations out of Ancient Fathers to be Sacramentall Bread and Wine and not the Body and Blood of Christ Wherefore the Subject of your Sacrifice can be no more properly that is Satisfactorily in it selfe Propitiatory than substantiall Bread can be Christ Lastly in examining the End of the Propitiation by the Masse Wee perceive your Doctors in suspense among themselves whether you be capable of Propitiation for Remission of sinnes or else of Temporall Punishments due to such Sinners or if of Sins whether of Mortall sinnes or else of Veniall sinnes only to wit such as you thinke may be washed away by your owne Holy-water-sprinckle Marke now wee pray you these three First what you offer namely not Christ but his Sacrament Secondly by what Acts of Celebration to wit most whereof are not Acts of Obedience but of Transgression Thirdly to what End viz not for a Faithfull but for a doubtfull not for an absolute but for a partiall Remission and that also you know not whether of sinnes or of punishments and then must you necessarily acknowledge the happinesse of our Protestants profession concerning the Celebration of the Eucharist in comparison of your Romish How much more when you shall see discovered the Idolatry thereof which is our next Taske A Vindication of certaine Testimonies alleged in the II. III. IV. and V. Bookes of the preceding Treatise against the Vnjust Imputations of one whosoever Popishly inspired To the greater Disadvantage of the Romish Cause wherein hee hath so much laboured THese kinde of Vindications ought not to seeme unnecessary to any Reader who would wish either estimation to the Author or just advantage to the Cause when he shal perceive extreme diligence joined with an unstanchable malignancie in sifting every corner and weighing every grane Howbeit that these Exceptions such as they are may worke both for the Correction of the Print where it is requisite and further Confutation of Romish Cavillers yet I must say unto this Objector as unto others of his kin Etiamsi gratiae causâ nihil facis omnia tamen grata sunt quae facis Only I wish these his Exceptions had come in due time to my hands before the fift and part of the sixt Booke had beene reprinted in this second Edition that my Answers unto them might have bene inserted in their proper places But now to the objected Testimonies of which that in Epiphanius being altered in this second * Pag. 121. Edition Wee will take the rest in due order The first Passage concerneth a Testimony of S. EPIPHANIVS Alleged in the * Edit 1. pag. 92. Pag. 120. of this second Edition TO leave the Objectors verball Exceptions because now satisfyed in the second Edition and to try that which hee thinketh materiall His OB. Bellarmine cannot be guilty of that falsity which you impute unto him of adding to Epiphanius and making him say This is to be believed although it be repugnant to our Senses for these words Although they be repugnant to our Senses hee allegeth not as the words of Epiphanius because hee hath them in a different Character ANSW It will be sufficient to set downe the words of Bellarmine his owne thus ETIAM ADDIT Epiph. ID ESSâ— CREDENDVM LICET SENSVS REPVGNENT that is HEE speaking of Epiphanius ALSO ADDETH THAT IT IS TO BE BELIEVED ALTHOVGH IT BE REPVGNANT TO OVR SENSES How then can it be denyed that Bellarmine delivered those words REPVGNANT TO OVR SENSES as the words of Epiphanius hearing Bellarmine himselfe affirming that they were ADDED by Epiphanius If I had denyed this I would have given my Objector leave to say I had beene out of my Senses The Second Passage Book 2. * Edit 1. pag. 95. Pag. 129. TERTVLLIAN OB. I. THe words of Tertullian are these Christum corporis sui figuram panis dedisse you instead of Panis have Panem for your Advantage contrary to the faith of that Edition which you follow of Laur. de la Barre pag. 180. ANSVV. A sore Taxation which pincheth upon my Fidelity I shall then give a summarie Answer after that I have received my full Charge Oâ— II. Bellar. lib. 2. de Enchar cap. 7. argueth against Protestants for the words of Tertullian thus Those words saith hee do not signifie that Christ gave a Signe of his Body and not his Body it selfe otherwise he would not have said that Christ Corporis sui figuram panis dedisse How then should it have beene I pray you OB. III. It should have beene Panis or rather Pani as Pamelius upon that place hath it ANSVV. So then the Objector hath chosen Pamelius a learned Commentator upon the same words of Tertullian and Romishly professed for his Arbitrator and I shall not gain-say his owne choice Pamelius therefore in the very * Edit Paris 1580. Edition and page cited by the Objector ingenuously confesseth saying TERTVLLIANVS DICENS CHRISTVM CORPORIS SVI FIGVRAM PANIS DEDISSE SVBAVDIT MORE SVO ACCVSATIVUM By which words of Pamelius wee have gained fowre Advantages I. A Iustification of the sense of the Accusative PANEM as Pamelius sheweth II. A Condemnation of the Objector his Falsehood who said that Pamelius had it PANI III. A Consutation of Bellarmine who because the word was PANIS and not PANEM would needs inferre that Christ gave not onely a Signe of his Body but the Body it selfe whereas Tertullian saith Pamelius used the Genitive-case PANIS instead of the Accusative PANEM how MORE SVO that is AS TERTVLLIAN VSED To Do which plainly sheweth that Bellarmine was either ignorant of the style of Tertullian or rather if hee knew it guilty of Dissimulation herein namely More suo The Last is a Manifestation of an egregious fondnesse in them Both by insisting upon Tertullian's style so rigidly in the Genitive-case which in English must needs stand thus Christ to have given a Signe of his owne Body of Bread which is plainly a Non-sense as any may perceive so that I may well conclude ô felix error of changing the word PANIS into PANEM although it were but by chance and onely to make true Latine according to ordinary Construction By occasion whereof so much Ignorance
of Christ's Body that were Impious not a part of Accidents that were absurd what meaneth the childish Fabling trow wee but that if they should speake out they should betray their Cause in calling that little part a part of Bread as your objected Dionysius spake And when all is said wee heare no proofe of Divine Adoration of the Host But we leave you to take your Answer from your Salmeron who hath told you that * See above B. 1. Chap 3. Sect. 10. in Answer to the second pretence Casuall spilling of the Cup is no sinne âšœ Howbeit wee aske you whether it were a Veniall sin in your Cardinall to allege the words of Tertullian as spoken of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist which by the judgement of your owne 5 Gabriel Episâ— Albisp lib. 2. Observat 35. in lib. Tert. ad uxorem Calicis panis nostrialiquid in terram decuti anxiè patimur Pameliusin eum locum Quod addit inquit panis nostri facit ad distinctionem Bucharistiae Sacramenti in quo non calix panis communis proponuâ—tur And the Bishop himselfe Tertul. laudat aetatis suae morem quo aegrè ferebant si casu communis panis vini aliquid in terram exciderit Authors were spoken of Common and ordinary Bread and Wine It were well that this kind of oversight both in Cardinall Bellarmine and Master Brerely were not in them a fault Common and ordinarie Howsoever wee could tell you that if the hazard were so great as your Objections imply namely that any subject matter of Adoration had been believed to be in it than was the holy Bishop Exuperius whom notwithstanding Saint Hierome commendeth much blameable for 6 Hier. ad Rustic cap. 4. commending the Bp. Exuperius Nihil de illo dicimus qui corpus in canistro sanguinem portabat in vitro Carrying it in a Glasse And much more condemnable should that godly Pope Zephyrinus have beene 7 De Consec D. 1. C. Vasa Zepherinus Episcopus patenis vitrcis Missas celebrare constituit Who ordained that the Masse should be celebrated in Chalices of Glasse which the more brittle they were the more solidly they confirme unto us this Truth that Antiquity harboured not your beliefe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament âšœ Only we must againe insist in the former Observation to wit the frequent speeches of the Fathers telling â—s of Crums Fragments little parts of this Sacrament and of Burning them into ashes after the Celebration ended Now answer us in good sadnesse was it ever heard of we say not of ancient Fathers but of any professing Christianity were the Catholikes or Heretikes who would not have judged it most execrible for any to say or thinke that A crum or little part of Christ's Body falleth or that by a dash of the Cup the Blood of our Lord is spilt or that the Primitive Fathers in the Remainder of the Sacrament Burned their Saviour Yet these must they both have thought and said if as you speake of Eating Swallowing feeding Corporally on Christ's Body the Body of Christ were the proper Subject of these accidentall Events That the Objection taken from any Gesture used in the daies of Antiquity doth not prove a Divine Adoration of the Eucharist SECT III. GEsture is one of the points which you object as more observable than the former but how because Chrysostome will have the Communicant take it with a Chrysost in Liturg Posteà similiter Sacerdos sumit sanctum panem inclinato capite ante sacram mensam orans Inclining his head downe before the holy Table Cyril by b Cyril Hieros Mystag 5. Accede ad calicem sanguinis illius pronus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bowing after the maner of Adoring You will be still like your selves insisting upon Hâ—terogenies and Arguments which conclude not ad idem For first the Examples objected speake not of Bowing downe to the Sacrament but of our Bowing downe our heads to the ground in signification of our Vnworthinesse which may be done in Adoring Christ with a Sursum corda that is Listing up our hearts to Christ above And this may become every Christian to use and may be done without Divine Adoration of the thing before us Nay and that no Gesture either Standing Sitting or Kneeling is necessary for such an Adoration your greatest Advocate doth shew out of Antiquity and affirmeth this as a Point as c Espencaeus Nec disputatio super Adorandi gestu cum de Adorationis substantia inter omnes semper convenerit ac etiamnum convenit stantes aut sedentes proni aut supini erecti aut geniculati Christum in Eucharistia praesentissimum adoremus per se non refert cùm Adoratio non tam in externo cultu quà m intimo mentis affectu cernitur Lib. 2. de Adorat cap. 16. initio he saith agreed on by all adding that Divine Adoration consisteth not in the outward Gesture but in the Intention of the mind For indeed there is no one kind of outward Gesture which as you have confessed is not also communicable to man so that although that were true which is set down in that Rubrick of * The Latine is Inclinantes Altari but since I finde it in the Greeke before Consecration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so thrice the like After Consecration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Behinde the Table bowing downe his head And againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostomes Liturgie that the Ministers did use to Incline their Bodies to the holy Table yet none can be so simple to thinke that they did yield Divine honour unto the Table Nay your owne great Master of Ceremonies d Durant Peractâ thurificatione Sacerdos leviteâ— incurvescit ante Altare dum autem inclinat Sacerdos humilitatem Christi significat Sacerdos reflexus ad Altare cum paratur Consecratio Lib. 2. de Ritib cap. 25. Durantus hath observed the like Bewing downe of the Priest in the preparation of this Sacrament even Before Consecration and one of your Iesuites witnesseth that the objected e Vasquez Ies Graecâ— Ecclesia antè Consecrationem reverenter adorat etiaÌ„ si non sit ibi Christus De Adorat lib. 2. c. 11. Falsly commenting that this was Divine honour and iust Greek Church at this day doth Reverently adore before Consecration of the Bread and Wine albeit Christ be not therein And lest you may thinke your Posture of Kneeling to be absolutely necessarie wee referre you for your ample satisfaction to your owne learned French Bishop * Gabriel Episc Albisp Observat sacr lib. 1. Observ 12. professedly discussing this Point This being knowne how can you in any credibility conclude as you have done a Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament after Consecration from a Reverence which hath been yielded to the same Sacrament before it was consecrated In which consideration your Disputers stand so much the more condemnable because whereas
seemeth not to me to be the Sense of this place which All whom I have read except Hilarie do thinke Item Their Opinions are divers I rest upon of them all Item All Ancients almost do so expound this Text but this is no fit Interpretation Item Thus I expound this Scripture and albeit I have no Author of this Exposition yet I do approve it rather than that of Augustine or of Others although otherwise most probable even because it is repugnant to the Sense and Exposition of the CALVINISTS So hee and that usually O dura ilia With what Stomach could this man swallow that Oath Salmeron the Iesuite may stand for the Third upon that Text Rom. 5. In whom all have sinned which teacheth the universall Guilt of Originall Sin of mankinde What the Sense of the Fathers was from this Text your Canus will certifie you g Canus 〈◊〉 Theol lib. 7. cap. 3. Sanct omnes qui in ejus rei mentionem incidôre uno ore asseruerunt B. Virginem in originali peccato conceptam fuisse And then hee rechoneth adding Et si nullos contravenerit infirmum tamen ex omnium autoritate ArgumentuÌ„ All they saith hee who have formerly fallen upon this subject matter have confessed as it were with one mouth that the Virgin Mary was conceived in Originall sin no one contrarying this Opinion So hee of the Iudgement of Antiquity which notwithstanding hee durst contradict But wee returne to your Iesuite who premising that this Question doth belong to Faith propoundeth h Saloteron Ies in Rom 5. Disp 49. In quo omnes peccaverunt Mariam conceptam in originali peccato etsi non sit haeresis damnata nempè tamen ad fidem spectat Item Disp 51. A qua multitudine Patrum locum ab autoritate infirmum Pauperis est numerare pecus Exod. 13. In judicio plurimorum non acquitsces sententiae ut à vero demas multitudinem multitudini opponimus At Devoti erga D. Virg. Resp Totam Devotionem erga illam non consistere in Patribus ut in Bernardo c. At Antiqui Resp Quilibet senex laudator temporis actiâ—sed illud asserimus quo juniores eo perspicactores Doctores esse After hee wrangleth and wresteth some sayings of Fathers to his part In celeberrimâ Pansiensium Academâ nullus in Theologia titolo Doctoris dignus habetur qui non primum jusjurandi religione se adstrinxerit ad hoc Virginis privilegium tuendum Objections made out of the Fathers for proofe that the Virgin Mary hath the same Originall defect in her owne naturall Generation and shapeth Answers full of regret and reluctancie For first To this Objection The Fathers did consent Hee answereth thus The Argument from Authority is infirme II. To this The Fathers were Ancient Thus The younger Divines are more quicke of understanding III. To this The Fathers were many Hee answereth Hee is but a poore man that can number his Cattell And againe confronting the Ancient Fathers and preferring novell Divines hee saith Wee oppose multitude to multitude IV. But The Fathers were Devout hee answereth Yet all Devotion towards the Blessed Virgin resteth not in the Fathers And when one of the Devoutest of them Bernard by name is objected who had said of the point now in Question i Bernard Epist 174. Hanc prolis praerogaâ—ivam B. Mariae tribuere non est honorate Virginem sed honori detrahere Et Paulò antè Nunquid Patribus doctiores aut devotiores simus To ascribe the prerogative of the Son to the Blessed Virgin is not an honouring but a dishonouring her wherein the same holy Bernard appealeth to Antiquity saying Are wee either more Learned or more Devout than the Fathers Your Iesuite answering to him by name casteth him off with the Rest Here wee see an Oath exacting a Consent to the Vnanimous Expositions of Fathers and heare notwithstanding as plaine a Dissent of your Iesuites opposition unto Vnanimous Consent of Fathers which is the ordinary guise of your Disputers in their expounding of Scriptures and yet behold you forsooth the native children and heires of the Doctrine of Ancient Fathers Your Fathers of the Councel of Trent have set it downe for a Canon whereunto you are also sworne that the words of Christ his Institution concerning the giving of his Body and Blood * Booke 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 1. Have a plaine and proper signification without Tropes which notwithstanding the same words of Christ have beene evinced to be Figurative not onely by the Vnanimous Consent of k Booke 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. and Chap. 2. Sect. 6. 7. Antiquity but also by the expresse l Booke 2. Cha. 2. Sect. 4. See also B. 3. Ch. 3. in the words The fruit of the Vine Sect. 5. Confessions of your owne Iesuites in the words Eate Breake Cup c. and wherin your selves have acknowledged divers Tropes Besides the whole former Treatise is but a displaying of your unconscionable wresting of the Testimonies of ancient Fathers Ponder you these Observations with your selves and then judge whether your Swearing be not Perjury it selfe IV. Overture of Perjury in the Defenders of the Romish Masse is in respect of the pretended Necessity of their Doctrine IN the last Clause of the Oath prescribed in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth you are sworne that every Article therein is the a See above in this Sect. 4. Initio at the letter a. True Catholike Faith without which none can be saved among which is the Article already mentioned swearing to whatsoever was declared in the Councel of Trent by which Councel your now Romane b Synod Trident Sess 15. Missall or Masse-booke is approved Now take a Taste of your Oath in every Epithet First True and hereby are you sworne that in the dayes of Pope Innocentius the third the Administration of the Eucharist to Infants was not held necessary which your owne Authors have c Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 11. confessed and proved to be false Secondly that the presence of them who at the administration of the Eucharist do not communicate is * Ibid. Sect. 5. Sect. 10. Commendable and held a Doctrine Catholike that is anciently Vniversall which was generally condemned by Ancient Fathers and even in the Church of Rome it selfe abandoned by two d Booke 1. Cha. 2. Sect. 9. Popes Lastly in the point of Necessity to salvation To sweare that whosoever believeth not that one may be said to c Booke 1. Cha. 2. Sect. 5. Communicate alone is damned that whosoever believeth not that the Priest in the Masse being alone can duly say The Lord be with you hee is damned or that the f See Booke 4. Body of Christ may not be run away with Mice and be blowne away with the wind hee is damned and a number other like extreme foolish Crotchets set downe in your Missals which wee willingly omit The Summe of all these is that
point out Bread by an Inquest of ancient Fathers pag. 103. and by a Romish Principle p. 104 The same is confirmed by the other This expresly spoken of the Cup which demonstrateth the very Cup and not Christs Blood p. 105. 106. That the Verbe Est hath the sense of Signifieth p. 107. A Figurative speech in other Sacramentall words in Scripture p. 108. Eight words Tropically understood in the very speech of Christs Institution p. 110. 111. 112. c. A Glasse or Synopsis of the Exposition of the Fathers upon the words of Christ This is my Body to prove them to be Tropicall p. 129. c. Romish Objections for a proper sense of Christs words answered by Reason p. 132. That Testamentary words may be Figurative Ibid. Words of Precept Figurative p. 133. Words Doctrinall Figurative p. 134. When the Figurative sense is to be held p. 135. Ten Reasons for the Figurative sense of Christs words p. 136. Third Key for opening the Figurative sense in the Pronoune Adjective Meum as it is pronounced by the Priest pag. 138. Figures of the old Testament objected to be better than the signes or Sacraments in the new for proofe of a materiall Presence of Christ but is confuted pag. 426. c. The Cloud in the Sea compared with Baptisme and Manna with the Eucharist Ibid. FINITE and Infinite doe diversiâ—ie the two Natures of Christ p. 204. 205. 206 c. FRAGMENTS and Bits of the Eucharist p. 179. FRANCIS DE St. CLARA his Paraphrasticall Reconciliation is but Phantasticall p. 37. 38. 39. c. FVLGENTIVS proveth the God-head of the Holy Ghost to be in divers places at once p. 266. Hee defendeth Circumscription in one place to distinguish Christs Man-hood from his God-head p. 243. G GAVDENTIVS teacheth Hoc in Christs speech to demonstrate Bread p. 103. His saying Christ reacheth his Body unconscionably objected p. 343. Answered p. 345. Objected calling the Eucharist a pledge p. 369 GAZERS onely at the Eucharist were commanded anciently to depart p. 46. 47. GESTVRE of the Body used in the dayes of Antiquity proveth not a divine Adoration of the Eucharist p. 515. GHOST The Holy Ghost proved to be God by Antiquity from its being in divers places at once p. 266. 267. Against Heretikes that denied the God-head of Christ Ibid. GIVEN in Christs speech of Institution taken Figuratively p. 11. It is objected to be in the Present tense for proofe of a Sacrifice and yet confessed by themselves to betoken the Future p. 393. 394. 395. c. A GLASSE wherein to discerne the Consonant Iudgement of Antiquity for a Figurative sense in Christs words This is my Body p. 129. 130. c. GLASSE-CVPS used anciently in the Eucharist p. 514. GLOSSE in the Popes Decrees granteth that This is my Body is in sense This signifieth my Body 114. GODLY onely Partakers of Christs Body so Protestants p. 311. 312 Wicked notwithstanding guilty of the Lords Body p. 313. That the Godly onely are Partakers in the Iudgement of Antiquity 320. And not the Wicked p. 321. S. Augustine accordeth hereunto p. 323. GORGONIA her Example idely objected for Divine Adoration p. 517. GRAMMAR in the Particle Hoc Neutrally with Panis and the like pag. 100. GREEKE FATHERS for the Consecration by Prayer p. 12. 13. GVEST and FEAST Christ is so called anciently p. 366. c. GVILTY of the Lords body not by receiving it but by contemptuous receiving of the Sacrament thereof pag. 313. yea and Guiltinesse of Contempt even by not receiving it p. 316. Guilty of Gods Vindicative Iudgement in all contempts of holy things pag. 318. and Fathers opposed p. 319. 320. c. H HABITVALL CONDITION cannot free the Romish Adoration of the Hoast from formall Idolatry p. 538. The Protestants security herein pag. 555. HERESIES in great number mingled with the doctrine of the Romish Masse in their Affinity and sometimes Consanguinity with ancient Heresies p. 581. c. HANDS Anciently the Eucharist was received with Hands p. 43. HEGESIPPVS objected for Apparitions of some in two places at once pag. 241. and answered by Vasquez Ibid. HESYCHIVS calleth the Eucharist a bloody Sacrifice and the slaying of Christ p. 455. HIEREMIE Patriarch of Constantinople denying Transubstantiation said These Mysteries are not changed into a humane body p. 205. S. HIEROME against the pretended priviledging of the Romish Priest in his onely participating in both kinds pag. 76. Teaching Hoc in Christs words to demonstrate Bread p. 103. And the Figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body p. 125. Hee expoundeth the fruit of the Vine Matth. 26. 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine p. 163. Hee is against the Romish manner of Christs passage through the Doores pag. 276. Hee standeth for Christs bodily Opening the Cell of the blessed Virgin at his Birth p. 278. Interpreteth the Camells passing through the needles eye 279. That the wicked are not partakers of Christs body pag. 321. His calling Christ Feast and Guest unconscionably objected for a Corporal union pag. 366. His calling the Eucharist a Pledge p. 369. Hee said that Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine that is the Body Blood of Christ p. 404. Hee is objected for the Romish Exposition of the word Sacrifice Malachie 5. and confuteth the Objector pag. 432. Hee is against the Romish sense of Iuge Sacrificium p. 435. To shew that this on the Altar is not the same subjectively with that on the Crosse saith that Of this one may eate but not of that p. 444. Of the Minister a true Priest or rather an Imitator Ibid. Hee is objected that Christs Body is a bloudy Sacrifice and slaine in the Eucharist pag. 455. That anciently they carried the Blood in a Glasse 514. That the Cup was a Glasse Ibid. Hee saith Let us keep our Passover above with Christ p. 527. HILARIE proveth the Holy Ghost to be God because it is proved in Scripture to be in diverse places at once p. 266. He is Vnconscionably Objected for a Corporall Vnion by Christs Bodily nourishing our Bodies p. 359. That he spake of a permanent Vnion p. 365. Objected to say We are made one with Christ not onely in affection but also in nature He saith the very same of Baptisme Wee are one with Christ not only in affection but also in nature p. 356. That hee speaking of the nourishment of mens Bodies by the Sacrament meant not any Substantiall nourishment thereby where were Absurd as is Confessed p. 362. Objected at large for Naturall and Corporall Conjunction of Christs Body with the Bodies of the Communicants p. 359. Hoc in Christs words Hoc est Corpus is Figurative p. 99. See the word Figurative Hoc FACITE Doe this No proofe of Romish Sacrifice pag. 390. c. HOLY-GHOST See the word Ghost HOLY things contemned See Contempt HYPERBOLES of Chrysostome pag. 199. and of other Fathers p. 342. 343. I IACOB his taking Leah for Rachael objected prophanely and absurdly for
from receiving in both kinds pag. 71. That the ancient Romane Church had their Communion in both kinds p. 68. The now Romish doe alter the forme of Christs words of Institution called by them the words of Consecration pag. 138. Romish Objections of the Sayings of the Fathers for proofe of Orall-Eating even against the Confessions of the same Doctors pag. 342. 343. c. Romish Church See Innovation S SACRAMENT is to be instituted onely by God pag. 189. Confessed Ibid. The Sacrament of the Eucharist is no Sacrament but in the Sacramentall use of Eating it Sacramentally and that it was delivered to boyes to be eaten onely as Holy Bread and not as a Sacrament p. 48. 49. c. SACRIFICE The Question discussed pag. 389. No word of Christs Institution that can imply a Sacrifice pag. 390. No act of proper Sacrifice pretended in the Romish that can be evinced out of the Institution of Christ No not by their owne Customes pag. 398. Not that in Act. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 400. Not that of 1. Cor. 10. 18. Are Partakers of the Altar pag. 401. Nor out of the old Testament concerning Melchisedech The Fathers speaking often of the Sacrifice of Christians in Bread and Wine pag. 407. 408. But improperly as is confessed pag 438. The Bread and Wine cannot be the Sacrament of the New Testament by the generall confessions of the Romish Doctors Ibid. Proofe of a No-Transubstantiation disproveth the Romish Sacrifice in the Masse p. 439. A Distinction that the word Sacrifice of Christs Body is taken of the Fathers Objectively and not Subjectively The necessity and verity of this Distinction p. 404. A Sacrifice onely Representative pag. 441. How the Sacrifice may be called the same which Christ offered pag. 443. Epithets of the Fathers added to the word Sacrifice unconscionably by Romish Disputers p. 448. and in the Vindication following How it is called of the Fathers a Bloody Sacrifice pag. 455. 456. c. The word Sacrifice attributed by the Fathers to many acts which are confessed not to be proper Sacrifices p. 459. Nothing properly sacrificed in the Romish Masse pag. 467. Sacrificing Acts there be three Visible Sacred and Destructive All wanting in the Romish Masse Ibid. The Sacrifice professed by Protestants The Spirituall more excellent than any Corporall except Christs on the Crosse p. 470. Proved out of the Fathers p. 471. Their different kinds p. 472. They offer the same Sacrifice of the Crosse Objectively p. 473. See Commemorative and Propitiatorie See Priesthood and Melchisedech See Stage-play See Vnbloody and Representative SACRILEGIOVSNESSE of the Romish Masse shewen in a full Synopsis p. 558. 559. Instances thereof p. 562. and of Prayers Ibid. SAXONS Faith in the dayes of King Edgar is contrary to the now Romish in the point of Transubstantiation p. 158. A Vindication thereof against a late Romish Calumniator Ibid. SENSE Iudgement of sense is able to prove that Bread is not Transubstantiated p. 467. Resurrection of Christs Body proved thereby Ibid. By the Act of Thomas pag. 478. Argument of Sense is justified by Ancient Fathers pag. 479. That not to beleeve Sense in sensible Objects is as faithlesse as senselesse pag. 173. See Touch and Smell SHED in Christs speech of Institution is taken Figuratively pag. 110. The word is objected in the Present tense for proofe of a Sacrifice and yet confessed by themselves to be token the Future pag. 392. 393. c. See Blood SICK prayed for in the Church was anciently used for the sicke in particular as for Gorgonia pag. 517. SIGNIFICATIVELY A terme used for the Romish Defence of the Priests Operative Consecrating of the Bread to turne it into the Body of Christ altogether in vaine which the Iesuites with all their wits have not beene able to make good p. 138. 139. c. SIMILITVDES used of the Iesuites for shewing that the words of Christ are spoken Significatively and Operatively by the Priest for Conversion of Bread into Christs Body by saying This is my Body are all lame As their Similitude of saying This is a Circle is the making thereof and the like is confessed to be fond and extravagant pag. 94. Their Similitude of a Stage-play to illustrate Christs Representing of himselfe in the Eucharist urged by the Romish shewen to be most Absurd pag. 118. Their Similitude of Voice and Colour objected for proofe of the Being of a Body in divers places at once most fondly pag. 258. 274. Their Similitude of Mans soule and of God to prove the Presence of Christs Body in divers places at once is silly and senselesse Ibid. Their Similitude of Christs being called Feast and Guest Viand and Pledge of Ancient Fathers fondly and falsely objected by the Romish Doctors for proofe of a Corporall Presence in the Eucharist pag. 366. and that it plainely confuteth it pag. 367. Their Similitude of a Stage-play againe not rightly applyed to shew that the same may be called a Blood and Vnbloody Sacrifice pag. 457. Their Similitude of Iacobs taking to him Leah instead of Rachael for Defence of the Romish Idolatry pag. 533. 545 SLANDER against the Christian Church in Primitive times as if they had eaten an Infant in the Celebration of the Eucharist falsely objected by Romanists pag. 334. SMELL miraculous of Ioane Martlesse in discerning one Consecrated Hoast amongst a thousand Vnconsecrated pag. 173. SOCRATES Miracles have beene wrought by the Eucharist pag. 223. c. SOLOE COPHANES is no Errour in Scripture p. 393. c. SOVLE of man objected as being in many parts of the Body for proofe of the possibilitie of a Bodily presence in divers places at once pag. 261. c. Soules of Saints departed have not their Apparitions in divers places at once Ibid. The soule of Christ could not be in Heaven and Hell both at once saith S Augustine Ibid. SPIRITVALL Sacrifices of six kinds mentioned by the Fathers pag. 471. STAGE-PLAY The Romish Maner of Christs Body on the Crosse by the same Body in the Eucharist after a Maner of a Stage-play displayed to be most false and contradictory to it selfe pag. 445. c. See Similitude STATIONS Anciently what they were pag. 515. in the Margin SVESTANCE is falsely interpreted Accidents pag. 181. SVPERSTITIOVSNESSE of the Romish Masse seene in a full Synopsis pag. 557. SVPPER of the Lord so commonly called by Antiquity pag. 45. 46. c. SVRSVM CORDA used of the Fathers to signifie the not-intending the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist pag. 525. Cyril of Ierusalem To have our hearts in Heaven S. Augustine Not to Earth but Heaven where the heart cannot putrifie The same is confessed concerning the Custome of the Primitive Church that it was a Prostrating of the Body and a lifting up of the mind to Heaven Ibid. Which should not need if they had beleeved they had had Christ on Earth Hieron Let us ascend up with Christ into the great Chamber Ibid. SVVALLOVVING of the