this precept Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup 1 Cor. 11.28 And he further tells them That as oft as they did so they did shew forth the Lords death that is they did according to their duty attaine to the end of the Sacrament 2. The whole or both kinds are necessary for the obtaining of that end because 1. Otherwise the passion of Christ is represented Aquinas Aquin. 3. q. 76. Art 2. ad 1 m. saith of the whole Valet ad representandam c. It avails for the representation of the passion of Christ in which the blood was separated and apart from the body therefore in the forme of consecration of the blood there is mention of its effusion It s a great mistake of Papists that they look at Christ in the Sacrament not as suffering and shedding his blood but under another consideration whereas the end of the Sacrament is to shew forth the Lords death 2. Because otherwise whole Christ should not be received but his body only without his blood and consequently should have imperfect instead of perfect nourishment It s granted by Popish Schoolmen that although whole Christ be under the form of bread and whole Christ under the form of wine Aquin. Supr yet Ex vi Sacramenti c. i. e. by the power of the Sacrament the body of Christ only is under the species of bread and his blood only under the species of wine Petrus de Palude is full in this saith he There ought to be a two-fold matter of this Sacrament viz. the matter of meat and drink because the effect of the Sacrament ought to be representd perfectly and in a manner agreeable to nature because Sacraments work that which they figure but the effect of this Sacrament is the perfect nourishment of the soul therefore the matter representing ought to be by perfect refection of the body which is not but by meat and drink See more to this purpose in Cassand de Sacr. Com. sulutraque specie p. 1034. c. 4. The primitive Christians yea and all succeeding Christians for above a thousand years after Christ did practise according to Christs institution and example The first that rejected the Cup were the Manichees against whom Pope Gelasius made a Decree that they should either communicate in both kinds or in neither yea Christs institution was the ground of the first Christians practise as Cassander shews and with him Bonaventure Cass de Sacr. Com. c. p. 1019 1020 1021. Bon. apud Cass ibid. who saith the reason of both kinds is dispositively from nature but completively from divine institution which hath ordained these two signes to signifie one perfect refection The Eastern Churches have both kinds to this day and that upon this ground Sure then these Christians did more reverence Christs institution then the Popes followers do and looked upon it not as a bare example that may be rejected but as a divine precept whereby thy conceived themselves obliged to duty 3. You say Wherâ—fore thâ— Romane Church believing Christs institution of the Sacramâ—nt to have been under both kinds giveth to it its full due Reply 1. I wonder that you who are sometimes so generous as that you will give God more then you owe him or otherwhile so strict with him that he shall not have a mite more then his due But 2. How can you say you give the Sacrament its full due when you take away one of those signes which Christ hath ordained to be used in it I believe if you took away the bread and gave the people only the cup which crochet may come into the head of some Pope for any thing I know you would say you gave Christs institution its full due but if you give it its full due when you leave onely one kind what do you think they did who used both did they supererogate or were they superstitious Surely either you give too little or they too much to Christs institution 3. How silly is it to say You believe Christ did institute it under both kinds the Devills believe it so many Turks Pagans Jews yet give not Christs institution its full due They look upon Christs actions as of a private man eating and drinking with his Disciples but no way obligatory to them or others and you give it no more Lastly I appeal to any rational man whether Christs institution of the Sacrament under both kinds may not probably require from us a conformity of practise withall considering the practise of the Church of God in her purest times and the good or no apparent prejudice that can come to us by it It s evident that an Antichristian Spirit in Rome puts her on to thwart Christs institutions that so she may set up her own inventions Christ instituted Baptism in one only Element of water and as if that were defective the Roman Church hath added salt spiâ—â—le c. He institutes his Supper in two Elements of bread and wine and as if these were too many she restraines the people to the use of one only So that probably had Christ instituted bread onely you would have added the cup that the institution might have something of your Lord God's the Pope 4. You say For the Communion under one kind there being no Commandement forbidding the same it is rashness in an high degree and want of charity to condemn her as sacriledgious for so doing Reply 1. Whether it be rashness in us to condemn Rome of Sacriledg or in Rome to deprive Christian people of the Cup let any judge who doth but consider the fathers of this sacriledge the Manichees the rise of it Non ex constitutione aliqua Cassand supr p. 1035. c. Not by any constitution in any approved Primitive Councel but only by custom which is oft times the patron of much wickedness 2. If it be rashness to condemn Rome as sacrilegious c. one of your Popes was guilty of this high degree of rashness with us who expresly decrees that this division of one and the same mystery could not he made Sine grandi Sacrilegio without hainous Sacriledge 3. It is no rashness to condemn her of sacriledge for the Cup is an holy thing having divine Institution Apostolical and primitive Administration It must therefore needs follow that the taking away of this can be no less then Sacrilege Aquin. 22 ae q. 99. Art 3. nay according to Aquinas its the highest kind of Sacriledg But it s strange to see what little â—â—gard divine Institution or Apostolical practise hath with Papals â— though sometimes they accuse us of novelty and cry up themselves as the only followers of divine Institutions Apostolical traditions and primitive practice we must be branded with heresie for disceding from them yet here they are in another strain and because we use the Cup according to Christs Institution and primitive practice we are
probably understood of persons brought unto Jesus Christ from among the Gentiles Rom. 15.16.12.1 Isa 66.20 and of their religious services as praise Psal 50.13.14 Hebr. 13.15 Prayer Rev. 8.3 The ordinary gloss understands Thymiama orationum the incense of Prayers so doth Paulus Burgensis Orationes c. The Prayers of innocent and holy persons are acceptable to me in every place Thus Irenaeus Hos quoque offerre vult c. He will have us to offer our gift at the Altar without ceasing Iren. ado haers l. 4. c. 34. ad fin Now the Altar is in Heaven thither our Prayers and offerings are directed Remigius calls these spirituall sacrifices which succeed the Jews carnall ones than which what can be more plain against the sasacrifice of the Mass which is a carnall sacrifice 1.3 We grant the Eucharist is a sacrifice in those respects that some of the Ancients call it so 1. In respect of the prayers and praises which we offer to God in the administration of it Thus Eusebius saith Itaque sacrificamus Euseb apud Lyran in Mal. 1. c. Therefore we sacrifice and offer incense celebrating the memory of that great sacrifice according to the mysteries delivered to us giving thanks unto God for our Redemption and offering to him Religious Hymnes and holie Prayers we Sacrifice therefore to the most high God the Sacrifice of Praise c. Hence is the name Eucharist given to the Lords Supper 2. In respect of Christs Sacrifice which is there represented and as it were renewed by the memory of it Cassand Consult Act. 24. p. 999. Thus Christ is said to be crucified before the Galatians eyes Gal. 3.1 Cassander sets it forth thus according to the judgment of Antiquity Non hic novum Sacrificium c. Here is no new Sacrifice but the same which was offered on the Cross and a mystical commemoration of that Sacrifice which was performed on the Cross and a representation of Christs Priesthood and Sacrifice continued in heaven whereby here is not wrought any new expiation or remission of sins but we desire that Sacrifice which was oce offered on the Cross may become effectual unto us To this purpose he brings in the testimony of Ambrose or Chrysostome saying In Christo semel c. They once offered up a Sacrifice Christ sufficient for our salvation Why then do we everie day offer Although we dailie offer it s onlie in remembrance of Christs Death In respect of the natures of Bread and Wine which were brought by the people and as it were presented to God In this regard so far as I understand him Irenaeus calls the Lords Supper a Sacrifice and he hath divers expressions to this purpose Lib. 4. c. 33. Christ gave counsel to his Disciples to offer up to God the first fruits of his creatures If you ask how we are to consider God when we offer to him he tells us a little after The Church in the whole world doth offer unto God who gives us food the first fruits of his gifts More fully to this purpose c. 34. It behoves us to offer unto God the first fruits of his creatures as Moses saith thou shalt not appear before the Lord emptie and the reason is Gods Dominion over us in regard whereof the Jewes had their Tythe consecrated to God and we that have obtained greater libertie then they ought freely to devote what we have to the Lords use as the poor Widdow gave her Mite into the Treasures Again in this same Chapter we ought to be thankful to our Maker offering unto him of the first fruits of his creatures and this Oblation the Church onlie offers to God in a pure manner offering unto him of his creatures with thanksgiving Now the Jewes they offer not because their hands are full of blood and they receive not the word by whom we offer unto God Mark it not said whom but by whom we offer unto God Now that this Father was ignorant of Transubstantiation is most evident by what he saith lib. 5. When therefore the Wine and Bread receive the Word of God they become the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ of which our bodily substance is made and increased which cannot be said of meer species of bread or Christs body Erasmus ingeniously confesseth of him that he saith nothing clearly of Transubstantiation I have been longer in this Father because you seem to build much upon him 4. Inst Altars We have an Altar whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle Hebr. 13. Answ Although many Protestants dislike the name Altar Yet the thing it self is not disliked by any whether you understand by this text Christ as Theodoret apud Lyran and the glosse or that which the Apostle calls the table of the Lord. 1 Cor. 10.21 and which is called by Gregory Nissen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an holy table an Altar inviolable One and the same thing is an Evangelical Altar and an holy Table 5. Inst Power in Priests to forgive sins whose sins ye shall forgive they are forgiven them and whole sins ye shall retain they are retained John 20. Answ No Protestants do deny power of forgivenesse of sins to the Ministers of Christ The differenc betwixt you and us is not about the thing it selfe whether there be a power in them but about the quality of it as whether it be a judiciary or a Ministerial power whether they properly forgive or but declare Gods forgivenesses of penitent sinners We deny them a judiciary and proper power of forgiveness which belongs only to God but acknowledge their Ministerial 6. Confession Confesse your sins one to another Jam. 5. And many of them that believed came confessing their Sins Act. 19. Answ Protestants acknowledg the usefulnesse of confession when a Christian is troubled with the burden of some sin whether it be made to a Christian friend that is able to advise comfort or pray for him or to a Minister of the Word but deny the absolute necessity of set confession of all known sins in the ears of a Priest The Scriptures you urge prove not Popish confession Not the former for it bids us confesse one to another i. e. according to the glosse Coaequalibus to our equals but your Priests would be loath to be numbred among the common people as their equals only Nor the later for that speaks of some only that came and of their confession of their Deeds as the Rhemists only And it s very probable only their sorceries and witchcraft which they manifested their dislike of by the burning of their books whereby they had learned to practise their wicked deeds 7. Inst Justification by works Do you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith only Jam 2. Answ We own and subscribe to the truth of St James's assertion yet believe it must not clash with that of Saint Paul Rom. 3.28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified
us Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law being made a curse for us that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles Surely he hath born our griefs carried our sorrows He was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed All which refer to this state of humiliation from which we have long since passed I would have L. B. or any Papist to shew me what benefit we have by these sufferings or how they tend to our redemption and salvation When dogs cats mice eat and tare in pieces Christ's body or a weak stomackt Priest spues up the body of Christ into some filthy place are we advantaged hereby or can we glory in these sufferings in this Cross of Christ 2. There may be other things infer'd as 1. That the Priest that either through negligence suffers Christs body to be torn in pieces of dogs cats mice or that willingly deliver it to wicked men and miscreants is a Judas a betrayer of Christ and you may know him by his sop dipt in the wine which none of the people partake of 2. That the Jews and heathenish Romans were more mercifull to Christ then the present Priests and Pharisees of Rome Antichristian Those delivered him into the hands of men these give him into the mouths of dogs cats mice Those preserved him whole not breaking a bone of him these tare him in pieces by wild beasts Those gave him an honourable interment He made his grave with the rich these buried him in the bellyes of beasts or cast him into the draught 2. I come to shew the contrariety of this Doctrine to Scripture 1. Some Scriptures affirm that Christ is in Heaven and must be contained there till the restitution of all things Acts 3.21 That the Apostle Heb. 9.24 gives the reason of it He is entred into Heaven it â—elf now to appear in the presence of God for us which is the work of the High Priest within the vaile and Primasius to this purpose saith Introire autem Iesum c. We say that Jesus is entred into Heaven according to his Manhood Primas apud Lyr. in Heb. 9.12 for as God he is every where Again Joh. 16.28 I come forth from the Father and am come into the world again I leave the world and go to the Father If you ask how he left the world the Interlineary truely tells you he did it Corporali discessione non gubernatiâ—ne presentiae By a removall of his body c. He speaks of his local removing not of his lying hid in the world Indeed ver 16. he speaks of his invisibility A little while and ye shall not see me but the reason was not because he would goe up and downe hid under the forms and species of bread and wine but because he went to the Father as Theophilact from the Text doth truely note Yea further we finde the Scripture expresly denying his presence on earth and that by a weightie reason Heb. 8.4 If he were on earth he should not be a Priest is he could not perform all the rites of his Priesthood For some of them require his presence in the Holy of Holies and there he could not be if he were on earth this is clearly the Apostles Argument Christ could not be in the state of humiliation and exaltation at one and the same time if he be in that state he is not in that too 2. We finde the Scriptures expresly denying that Christs corporall presence is in divers places at once Matth. 28.6 He is not here for he is risen which were no reason if your Doctrine were good for he might be there and risen too To conclude there is not any part of Gods Word which gives the least countenance or incouragement to this Popish absurditie You answer The Word of God is plain and express for the presence of Christs body in the Sacrament and consequently in many places at once Reply You truly infer that if Christs body be really present in the Sacrament it must needs be in many places at once but this presence is not plainly and expresly delivered in Scripture The word This is my body which you mention do neither plainly nor expresly deliver it There are two things oppose your exposition of those words 1 The judgement of Fathers Tertul. lib. 4. contr Marc. c. 40. L. 3. c. 19. Theod. Dial. 1. 2. Aug. c. 12. contr Adimant Ep. 23. ad Bonif Concil Carth. 3. Can. 24. Bellarm. l. 3. de Eucharist cap. 23. Vasq in 3. part Thom. disp 180. t. 5. Cajet in 3. Thom. q. 75. Schoolmen and others Tertullian Theodoret and Augustine understand the words figuratively The third Councill of Carthage saith that here is in the Sacraments no more offered to God than bread and wine mingled with water c. Scotus affirms Non exstare c. That there is not any place of Scripture so express that without the Churches Declaration it can evidently compell us to admit Transubstantiation And this saith Bellarmine is not altogether improbable Yea Vasques further tells us that Scotus affirmed That the truth of these words of Consecration may be retained although the substance of bread and wine should remain in the Eucharist and blames certain professours of Divinitie that side with him and in speciall Cardinall de Alliaio for affirming that this way is possible and neither contrary to reason nor the authority of Scriptures yea its easier to be understood and more rationall than any other of this judgement is also Cajetan 2. Reason which teacheth first that neither one desperate can predicate of another i. e. as you express it when two distinct things of different kinds are affirmed of each other which you say cannot be true nor one thing of it self in the same consideration or respect and whereas you say that the body of Christ out of the Sacrament before the words began is affirmed to be in the Sacrament after they are ended This is not plainly or expresly delivered in the words of Christ for he must either have said That which was my body before the Sacrament is now my body in the Sacrament or this was my body before the Sacrament In saying This and is he informs us that he speaks of the Subject in its present capacity and therefore some by This understand Bread which is most agreeable to the context Christ took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat This is my body That which Christ took blessed brake and gave to them was Bread 1 Cor. 10.16 Now this is predicated improperly of Christs body Thus Christ is called a Doore John 10.7 a Rocke 1 Cor. 10.4 Circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 17.10 The Sacramentall Cup is called the New Testament in Christs blood Luk. 22.20 I pray satisfie me what may be the reason why
bread should become the body of Christ to us and that the Pascall Lamb or Manna should be so to the Jewes for Christ is called the Passover of Manna yea in these Sacraments Christ was truely and savingly received by them they did eat the same spirituall meat with us and drank the same spirituall drink for they drank of the Rock that followed them And that Rock was Christ What can be more express than these last words yet Papists will not here allow of Transubstantiation 2. That Bodies are the object of Sense yea and that the Senses cannot be deceived in judging of them whilest the Organ is rightly disposed the medium is convenient the distance equall the Sences of more then one concur in judgeing and that the phantasies be not hurt But here if the words be taken properly is a body which is not the object of Sense though the sences be rightly disposed the medium convenient the distance equall c. If you say it may be done by a miracle I answer first amongst the miracles of the Primitive Church this was never numbred by them or any others that I have read though its a greater miracle if a miracle than any others that are mentioned 2. In those miracles recorded in Scripture which were wrought by transmutation there was no deceiving of the Sense When Moses rod was turned into a Serpent as it was a true Serpent so the Senses did truely discern a Serpent When the waters were turned into blood the blood had the last colour effect of blood slaying the fish in it When by our Saviour the waters were turned into wine as it was true wine so it had sensible qualities as the last smell c. of wine It was the practice of the Sorcerers of Egypt to cause an appearance when there was no reall existance It s the practice of Papists to urge a bodily existence without the least appearance like their forefathers the Valentinians whom Irenaeus chargeth with saying of Christ Aliud erat aliud videbatur when some affirmed in the Sacrament there was no true fraction but onely in appearance Lorichius answers out of Ambrose Nihil falsum putandum in Sacramento veritatis c. We must not think of any falshood in this true Sacrament in the inchantments of Magitians the eyes are deceived that that seems to be which is not but it s otherwise in the Sacrament of Truth Gerrhard Lorich Instit Cathol de sacr Eucharist pag. 72. 2. To this I may adde that the materiall parts of Sacraments must be sensible objects such were the Sacraments of the Jewes and such without controversie is Baptisme where the materiall part is water which the Senses see feel c. Therefore it must be so in the Eucharist for there can no reason of a difference be given You cannot say that the materiall parts of it are bread and wine for you teach that in the Sacrament there is neither bread nor wine though there was before Consecration and the body of Christ cannot be it for it s not a sensible object being neither seen nor felt nor tasted and accidentall forms are distinct from matter Aquinas delivers this Conclusion Cum naturale sit homini c. Whereas its naturall for man to attain to the knowledge of intelligible objects by those which are sensible A Sacrament which signifies spirituall and intelligible good ought to be a sensible thing which how you will find it in your Sacrament I know not 3. That humane flesh is not to be eaten But if these words This is my Body be taken properly then Christs flesh should be carnally eaten which is doctrine for Cannibals not for Christians Saint Augustine upon this very ground understands those words John 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh c. figuratively and delivers this generall rule Aug. de doctr Christ l. 5. c. 16 Si aut facinus vel flagitium c. If the Scripture seem to command that which is hainous and wicked it s a figurative speech and instances in those words in S. John Papists give this reason of the invisibility of Christs body in this Sacrament because man abhors to eat humane flesh in the proper shape But what difference between one man seeing the shape of humane flesh and anothers hearing of such a thing to be humane flesh though he see it not It s the thing it self not the form or shape of it that is abominable a piece of humane flesh might be brought into such a form as it could not by the eye be distinguished from other flesh yet tell a man its humane flesh and he shall loath it upon that very report Though your seduced followers do not see flesh in thr Sacrament yet you tell and perswade them that the Host is humane flesh with its blood in it so that I must needs say they have either weak faith or strong stomacks To conclude Let me know to what end is this eating of Christs body for it s not turned into the substance of our body whereby it should nourish the body for then our bodies should consist of Christ which were a blasphemous assertion and for the soul it s not nourisht by carnal meat as flesh and blood spirits do not eat or drink nor are they capable of nutrition there is no Spirituall advantage comes by it Besides when our Saviour had been speaking so fully of eating his flesh and drinking his blood to prevent their carnall conceits of this spirituall Doctrine he addi this wholsome and seasonable doctrine that for his body it was to ascend up into Heaven where he was before and therefore his words were to be understood not carnally but Spiritually The words that I speak are Spirit John 6.63 You answer that these words do not run counter to your said truth in as much as these words were uttered to the Capernaits in answer to their question of Christs Power and not of the signification of his words Reply 1. I desire to know your ground for this Exposition I cannot finde that it is the Churches and I thought you an enemy to the private spirit 2. It s most evident that these words are uttered for explication of the words precedent for having told them that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood if they had life by him they question what he may mean by eating his flesh and drinking his blood and they seem to answer their own question by a carnall conceit which was as the Rhemists observe They imagined that he would kill himself and cut and mangle his flesh into parts and so give it them raw or rost to be eaten among them which could not be meant saith Augustine for that had contained an hainous and barbarous fact c. He tells them therefore they must understand his words spiritually of our abiding in him and he in us according to Augustine Tract 27. in Joan. tom 9. Lyra. in text Lyranus speaks very well to this purpose
still hereticks and cursed to hell by the Tridentine Conventicle To say there is no express command for the Cup therfore it cannot be sacriledge to take it away is false for it may be sacriledge to take away an holy thing though there be no express command for the thing You say there is no command for the people to use the Cup. Now if this be so I am confident you cannot shew me an express command for the peoples eating the bread which you seem to grant in saying that in the primitive times the people sometimes received the cup not the bread which they durst not have done if there had been an express command for receiving the bread Now I pray resolve us whether it would be sacriledg to take away from the people both bread and wine If it be not sacrilegious then it is evident your people stand at the Popes mercy for their partaking at all of the Sacrament and for any thing I see he may take it quite from them If it be sacrilegious then it s as evident that sacriledge depends not absolutely on a particular command and that its truely sacrilegious to take away the cup from them 4. There is a Command for both Let a man examine himselfelf and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup 1 Cor. 11.28 v. 25. from whence Dionysius Carthusiensis infers that in the Primitive Church the Sacrament was administred under both kinds This do ye as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me i. e. as Dionysius expounds it take this cup and drink of it So t is said He took the Cup and gave thankes and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it And they all drank of it Mat. 26.27 You answer These words indeed Doe thâ—s in commemoration of me Drink ye all of this imply a Commandement but concerning onâ—ly Priests to whom as the pâ—wer of making so the Obligation of taking under both kinds is peculiar and proper The Reason is because hereby as the words clearly bear he chiefly aâ—mes at a remembrance of his death and passion which including a separation of his soul from his body and of his blood from his flesh cannot be so lively and so fully represented under one kind Reply 1. Do the words onely imply a command are they not as express and full a command as can be 2. How may it appear that it concerns onely Priests that the Obligation of taking under both kinds is peculiar and proper to them there are divers reasons to the contrary 1. If it concerned onely Priests then the people could not be able to produce any precept of Christ for their receiving at all because with this is joyned the command of eating the bread and to these all precepts of this nature are reducible 2. Christ you say in the words doth chiefly aim at a remembrance of his death and passion which cannot be so lively and so fully represented under one kinde But the people are able to remember Christs death and passion as well as the Priests yea and are as much obliged thereto in regard of their particular interest in the benefits of Christ represented in the Sacrament and particularly by the Cup. Which benefits are the ground of our receiving of this Element as appears by the Evangelist Drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sin Supr It cannot be denied but the reason of this Precept doth as much concern the people as the Priests the precept therefore must also concern them 3. There were no Priests present with Christ at his Institution for according to Papals none were present but the twelve Apostles Now they were not Massing Priests for first its the common opinion amongst you that the order of Priesthood was not actually conferd till after Christs resurrection when he sent them and breathed on them Joh. 20. He could not therefore give a command to Priests when there were no Priests with him 2. The twelve Apostles according to the Popish Schoolmen and others did represent Bishops not ordinary Priests who as Aquinas severall times affirms were the successours of the seventie Disciples 4. If none were with Christ but the twelve which is questionable it is most evident that they did represent believers and that the command concerned them Cassander shews this out of divers antient Authors viz. Paschasius Rathertus Chrysostome Theophylactus Cyprian Origen and Augustine Cass de sacr Com. sub utraque spec p. 1019. And certainly if it were not thus the Apostle did in vain urge the Institution and Precept of Christ to the Saints or private Christians in Corinth and that in order to their practice they might have told him that it concern'd himself and such as he but not them You bolster up your selves much by your word Make to whom as the power of making c. hereby endeavouring to perswade us that Christ speaks to sacrificers about sacrificing hereby shut out the people froÌ„ the cup. But without any reason for if it could prove any thing it should seem rather to appropriate the use of the bread to the Priests then the Cup seeing they have Christned it an incruent sacrifice the wine after consecration being reall and true blood But I wonder seeing our criticall adversaries are so full of this word that the hot headed Rhemists did not translate it Make this if it were for nothing but to oppose the Heretical Calvinisti that render the Greek Do this Sure they were convinced that this conceit was but worthy of private observation and therefore creeps in with the note onely but further its observable that S. Matthew and S. Mark say onely Take eat This is my body drink you all of it He gave it to them and they all drank of it S. Luke saith Do this not mentioning taking or eating or drinking of it S. Paul unites them in one saying Take Eat This do in remembrance of me So that to do this is to take and eat the bread and drink the wine according to Christs Institution which doth principally concern the people And this Dyonisius Carthusiensis doth propound as probable And its further observable that whereas S. Luke onely of all the Evangelists doth use the words Do this he onely useth it with reference to the bread which belongs say you to the people not to the Cup which is the sacrificers portion The precept which you mention out of S. John Vnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood c. which you say extends to the Laitie I shall not much build upon because I conceive it s not spoken of the Sacramentall eating and drinking This onely I shall gather from it that Christ is perfect nourishment and that as his flesh is meat so his blood is drink both necessary for our nourishment and that therefore as we have the Bread in the Sacrament to assure
us of nourishment by his Body so we ought to have the Cup to assure us of an interest in his blood bread it self being neither naturally nor Ex Instituto any representation of blood Cass supr And certainly from hence divers of the Fathers did conclude the use of the Cup necessary for the people See Origen and Augustine cited by Cassander to this purpose Lastly you say For Confirmation look up into the Primitive times even of the Apostles and Christ Act. 2.42.46 and you will find by their promiscuous Communion sometimes under one kinde sometimes under another and sometimes under both that they never understood of any Commandement of Communicating undâ—r both kindes Reply 1. The Councell of Constance acknowledgeth that as Christ did Institute and Administer it under both kinds so the Primitive Christians did use it 2. What reason can be given why in other Sacraments Jewish and Christians the materiall part should be determined and appointed and that in this it should be left to the discretion of a Pope 3. If it was such a matter of indifferency in the Primitive times whether Christians did communicate in either or both kinds How comes it now to be a matter of necessitie so as Christians may not Communicate under both kinds But 4. I challenge you to name one ancient and approved Author who asserts that the Primitive Christians did communicate in wine onely or in bread onely which will be as hard for you to do as for the Artotyritae to prove that they communicated in bread and cheese 5. The Text you urge proves not your assertion For first there is no mention of their communicating in wine onely which is one part of your assertion 2. Breaking of Bread doth not infer their Sacramentall receiving of Bread onely It s a noted Hebrew phrase and is as much as giving or eating of meat of what kind soever as Lament 4.4 Isai 58.7 Sanctius upon the Text you mention saith Omnis cibus c. All kinde of meat in Scripture languge is called Bread But beside how will it be proved to be meant of the Lords Supper Lyranus understands it of ordinary eating so do Chrysostome and Oecumenius and why may it not be understood of their Love-feasts which were means of preserving Charity amongst Christians or of the distribution of meat out of the common stock for the relief of poor Christians according to the custome of those times related by Sanctius And thus it very well answers the Hebrew phrase Isa 58. where you reade of breaking bread to the hungry Lastly supposing it to be understood of the Lords Supper it must give way to a Sonecdoche the Bread being put for both Elements else the Apostles did either not communicate with them which is against the Text or if they did they were sacrilegious in Communicating in one kind onely there being as you say a Command for them to Communicate in both 2. Else it was no Sacrament Commemorative of Christs death because this cannot be lively and fully set forth under one kind as your self have acknowledge It must therefore either not be meant of the Sacrament or if it be Bread must be taken for both Elements and either of these doth destroy the inferences you raise from the Text. To conclude Look you into the Primitive times of the Apostles and Christ and see if you find Communion under one kind an Article of Faith as now it is and if you find it not as I am sure you cannot ceas that loud cry of the antiquity of your Faith wherewith you fil the ears and puzzle the heads of illiterate and credulous persons The Epilogue I have done with the book The Epilogue only remains shuft up with fained and flattering words to deceive the simple Reader containing more Rhetorick than Logick more of words than reason and therefore not worthy any particular inquisition and confutation yet in imitation of it I shall address my self to the Reader by way of advice against the delusiv charms of this Syren Desiring thee to consider his assertions and my answers to them and weigh them by Scripture and reason and what thou findest according to these receive and intertain I would not with this Authour perswade thee to a groundless credulitie that thou shouldest receive a way without trying it whilest he cries out It behoves you to effect it with speed and not stand reasoning hâ—w this why the other replies beget delayes and delayes are seldome out of the ill company of danger Epil pag. 124. Himselfe delivers better Doctrine and safer for thee when he tells thee That Christianitie is not against reason and he is to be reputed silly and light that hastneth upon a truth Ecclus 19. however propoâ—ed without examination of its credibilitie and consistence with nature which must be the work of reason nay more Page 25. that belief is beholding to reason even for discerning and finding out her guide the true Church which sentences I leave this Doctor to reconcile Be not of those silly and light ones The Apostle bids us prove all things and hold fast that which is good That which is suddenly believed is as easily rejected as before received Deliberations are means of setledness Art thou out of the way of truth return and live Angels will rejoyce over thee though not in expectation of the reparation of their ruines as this Author speaks they being happy and from the beginning above the verge of a ruinous estate Seek the way to Sion peace is within her walls and prosperity within her palaces Hast thou received the truth hold it fast contend earnestly for it sell it not Let not the Images of Babylon the images of men pourtrayed upon the walls pourtrayed with vermilion girded with girdles upon their loyns exceeding in dyed attire upon their heads c. allure thee that thou shouldest commit Adultery with them and that the Babylonians should come into thy bed of love and defile thee with their whoredoms and thy mind be alienated from the true Church where the word of God is purely preached and the Sacraments rightly administred where is purity without pomp divine verities without humane traditions religious worship without superstition Finally where Christ Jesus is exalted in his Person Natures Offices and the Elect called edified comforted and out of which ordinarily there is no Salvation These are the Badges of the Reformed Churches in which thou mayest ride safely till at last thou be set on shore in that Country where thou shalt find an eternal and exceeding weight of glory the free reward of thy constancy prepared for thee and shalt for ever sing praises to God and to the Lamb that sits upon the Throne whom thou hast served FINIS Reader thou art desired to mend these Errata's with thy Pen there are some other litteral faults escaped which thou mayest discern in reading and so receive no prejudice PAge 6. l. 21. r. Christianis p. 10. l. 12. r. Cuivis p. 12. l. 1. r. Gospels p. 14. l. 22. r. you p. 16. l. 21. fo 1. r. 5. p. 19. l. 28. r. praelati p. 31. l. 5. for Church r. Pope p. 33. l. 26. r. not p. 52. l. 23. for men r. Pen p. 59. l. 27. r. Successors p. 65. l. 4. r. by p. 70. l. 19. r. Dowaists p. 76. l. 22. r. as if p. 81. l. 22. r. mendata 24. r. us p. 92. l. 1. for hope r. Pope p. 103. l. 1. r. are p. 105. l. 30. r. be p. 122. l. 24. r. its l testimony p. 130. l. 2. r. i. e. p. 133. l. 7. r. 1 trow p. 153. .27 r. mediation p. 136. l. 28. r. mediation 137. l. 18. r. valid p. 144. l. 12. r. leaning p. 170. l. 12. r. exorcise p. 178. l. 10. r. naming 185. l. 18. r. way p. 189. l. 2. r. gross carnal presence p. 215. l. 8. r. private 217. l. 25. r. Rom. 8.8 by Syricius p. 221. l. 1. are p. 222. l. 19. r. Azorius l. 30. r. Azorius p. 236. l. 1. r. omit p. 237. l. 16. r. in them p. 239. l. 24. r. to your selves p. 253. l. 22. r. unaccompanied p. 259. l. 24. r. seven p. 275. l. 20. r. individed p. 286. l. 9. r. he hath p. 291. l. 1. r. should not p. 292. l. 1. 5. r. taste p. 310. l. 23. r. not without p. 312. l. 1. r. again p. 317. l. 15. dele he p. 321. l. 2. 7. r. meanness p. 329. l. 11. r. she p. 343. l. 10. r. bring p. 347. l. 12. for three r. thirdly p. 351. l. 2. r. tearming l. 4. r. suppose
invent different Doctrines and new heresies Seperation from a Church cannot but suppose a different judgment in them that seperate The Donatists whom Bellarmine brings in to prove your argument go under the name of heretiques and did indeed hold doctrines different from the Apostles Doctrines To these arguments grounded on your assertions I will adde two more 1. Papists themselves urge consent of Doctrine with the Doctrine of the Apostles and ancient Church a note of the true Church this is Bellarmine's sixt note but it seemes Papists may make that a note of the true Church which Protestants may not 2. The Doctrine say some of you in answer to us is the form of the true Church therefore In inferre it cannot agree to any false one the form being intrinsecall and proper to that which it doth inform not common to others as Rationality cannot be predicated of beasts so neither can Profession of the true Apostolicall Doctrine agree to a fals and unsound Church according to your judgements But you urge two things viz. 1. Doctrine is as divers as there are divers seeming Churches and so not affording any determinate notion draweth in opposition of a mark of truth Answ 1. The question is not whether doctrine indefinitely be a mark of truth as you propound it but whether true Doctrine that is the doctrine of the Apostles clearly declaclared in the Scriptures and professed by Christians be a mark of the true Church we affirm it is 2. Though Doctrine in generall be divers yet true Apostolicall Doctrine is not divers but one and the same as there is one Lord one Spirit one Church so is there one faith which the Scripture reveals unto us 2. Doctrine supposeth Bishops and Pastors as the means whereby it is conveyed to us therefore it importeth as much to name Bishops and Pastors before may be given to mention Doctrine as it is necessary passing from one extreem to another to touch first the middle Answ 1. But that your memory is weak you might remember that we have been mentioning Bishops and Pastors and that before we mentioned Doctrine What else is the subject of the four precedent shapes 2. If you were acquainted with our judgement you might find that when we say True Doctrine is a mark of the true Church we explain our selves to mean the preaching of true Doctrine and this doth suppose Pastors and Teachers 3. Truth of Doctrine is a more proper note of the Church and more necessary than Bishops and Pastors That Doctrine which is consonant to the Apostles Doctrine is alwayes true but Pastors that succede them are not alwayes true Pastors but sometimes Wolves and therefore if you had not misled us we would first have begun with Doctrine as the more worthy 2. You answer It is no less untrue that Protestants maintain the Apostles Doctrine delivered in Scriptures they professing a Doctrine clean contrarie and opposite to that which in them is in plain and formall tearms expressed Rep. Prove this and you carry the victory but I know you cannot do it your instances are insufficient some of them being not in Scripture others not the Apostles Doctrine which you were to have proved not by consequence but expresly in plain and formall tearms Lastly some Texts are brought in against us with which we fully joyn But I will particularly examine your Instances 1 Inst Traditions 2 Thess 2. Hold the traditions whether it be by word or Epistle Answ 1. It s most evident that the Apostle by Tradition understands whatsoever he had delivered to the Thessalonians either by preaching or writings Tradition being then of a larger talent than now it is and it is no less evident that what the Apostle did preach was nothing but Scripture Act. 26.20.22 Especially see Act. 17.1 2 3 13. where you finde what Paul preached at Thessalonica even nothing but the Word of God contained in the Scriptures Annot. on Deutr. 4.2 Your Dowaists say unwritten traditions are contained implied included in the Scriptures such the Apostle preached 2. True and Apostolick traditions we willingly imbrace yea we account them worthy of Anathema who do not receive them That which Clemnitius saith is the judgement of Protestants Apostoli multa tradiderunt unâ voce c. The Apostles delivered many things by word of mouth which their immediate successours received from them Exam. Concil trident p. 1. d. trad p. 68. and delivered to their Disciples but all these as Irenaeus saith were agreeable to Scripture and we reject none of them but whatsoever are agreeable to Scripture we receive and reverence So another saith if Papists will prove their Traditions by the ancient and Apostolick Church and the universall Church since even till our time we receive them and this is Apostolicall Tradition according to Hierom. for conclusion I appeal to Medina Medri l. 6. de sacr hom Continent c. 106. whether we or not rather Papists be guilty of not holding Apostolicall Traditions of 84. Canons saith he gathered together by Clemens and the Disciples of the Apostles the Latine Church scarce observeth 6. or 8. 2 Inst Reall presence Joh. 6.51.55 56 57. Luk 22.19 Matth. 26.28 Ans This is a Jesuitical slander for protestants do not deny the Reall presence nor is the Controversie between the Papists and us about it Rivel sum Contr. Tan. 1. Tract 3. q. 18. Inst we both hold that the body and blood of Christ is truly and really present in the Sacrament as learned Rivet observes this is also affirmed by Dr. White in his reply to Fisher who objecting that Protestants hold not a true or reall presence but onely a presence by imagination and conceit is answered in these words His most excellent Majestie and all his orthodoxall people believe reall presence T is true we hold not a gross i. e. as the same Author explains it When the thing signified and presented is according to the naturall substance thereof contained under the shapes of outward signes and together with them conveyed into the mouth stomack and bodily parts but we maintain a true and effectuall presence of the body and blood of Christ so as man receiving the externall signes by his naturall parts receiveth also the thing signified and presented by the action of his spirituall facultie to wit by an operative faith and this is most evident by that 6. of John 3. Inst Sacrifice from the rising of the Sun to the going down great is my name among the Gentiles and in every place there is sacrificing and there is offered to my Name a clean oblation Mal. 1. Answ 1. This Text is in none of the Apostles writings however being Scripture I answer 2. The sacrifice of the Mass is not in plain and formall tearms expressed in it It s your fals reading that brings in the word sacrificing Vatablus reads it Incensum offertur Incense is offered Pagnin and Arias Montanus speake to the same purpose 3. It may be more
liberty of interpretation absolutely but as to such times and places and there is none of us pleads for private mens interpretation of Scripture publickly 4. You confound construction of Law by right reason and by corrupt affection this latter no man that hath right reason can plead for in the behalf of any people for indeed that would bring confusion but the former cannot be denyed to any for the Law is founded upon right reason and so far as this takes place the expounding of the Law cannot be prejudicial to any Commonwealth though it be done by private persons 2. You infer If this be true as it is what an undervaluing must it be of Gods wisdome and providence to think in a Commonwealth of his own immediate establishing as the Church is he hath left indifferently to all a liberty to make what sence they will of his Law Answ 1. We allow not that the sence men give of Scripture should be after their own lusts or wills If any man give a sence contrary to the mind of God it deserves to be rejected God hath not left to any one man much lesse indifferently to all a liberty to make what sence he will of Gods Law The Pope can no more claim that liberty than the meanest Laick and therefore you either play the fool or worse to disprove a liberty which no Protestant in the World pleads for 2. Yet I say God hath not left any of his children without means in the use whereof they may attain to know what is the Will of God in his Word Rom. 12.2 Indeed God hath set certain select persons of integrity and ability to dispence his Law but this is not opposite to private study and meditation in Gods Law the very principal charecter of a blessed man Psal 1. and 119. and is not study and meditation in Gods Law in order to the interpretation of it The Saints of God have earnestly studied Gods Law Yet this was never thought to tend to bring the peace and safety of the Church into danger of shipwrack nor to be the source of jars and garboils of Seperatists as you wickedly suggest Misapplying and wresting of Scripture may have those effects you speak of but what is this to the reading and right interpretation of it Your reason for this your unsavory speech is say you clear because all men are not apt to understand alike for being for the most part of different tempers and composures they have various fancies which of necessity will beget a diversity of understanding Answ 1. You are Aesops man qui ex uno ore calidum promis frigidum in your fourth Chapter you proved the Churches infallibility by this argument viz. that it was framed up of men of several Nations different tempers and interests therefore neither could nor can meet or conspire to cheat themselves and posterity with a lye p. 15 16. But here the same argument proves the Churches fallibility the fruit of diversity of understanding 2. I say If Christians were considerable only as men of different tempers and composures as you represent them and that their different tempers and composures were the directive causes of understanding I beleeve what you say of seperatists would be true of all Christians yea of all men in the World and there would be nothing but jars and garboils in every place Yea it may as truly be said of your great Rabbies the only interpreters of Scripture for are not they of different tempers and composures and so according to your doctrine have various fancies which of necessity must beget a diversity of understanding If you answer that these have the Spirit of God to guid them in understanding I reply so have all true Christians as I have already proved I deny not but there is corruption in the best and darknesse in their understandings they but see through a glasse and that darkly and therefore may mistake a wrong exposition sometimes for a true one and thus it is not only with Luther Zuinglius Calvin whose names will survive Romes obloquy and reproach of them but with your own Doctors whose expositions are not always the same But we must believe if we will that only schismatical Protestants such as Luther Zuinglius Calvin have different understandings and expositions of Scripture for say you they made no lesse then three contrary and repugnant senses of those plain words this is my body this is my blood p. 70. Answ 1. You tell us not what these three contrary and repugnant sences are and I am perswaded they may easily be reduced to two for though Luther and Zuinglius differed about the sence of the words yet I find not that Calvin and Zuinglius did and I rather think they did not for the opinion that some appropriate to Zuinglius Bellarmine chargeth upon Calvin in these words Bellarmine saith the opinion of Calvin reverâ nihil differt a sententia Zuinglii de Ludib lib. 1. c. 1. Haeresis erat c. It was the Heresie of some that the Eucharist was onely a figure of Christs body this Heresie doth Calvin teach 2. If the words be so plain how comes it that Papists do so much differ in their Expositions of them every word almost brings variety of Popish sences If we were to learn what the Pronoun This the very first of those pain words means we might go unsatisfied away for any resolution we should have from you One tells us it signifies Nothing another The Bread presently to be transubstantiate A third an individuum vagum contained under the forms of Bread A fourth the Body of Christ And now Sir I dare be bold to say that there is less agreement amongst Popish Expositors who yet profess to follow the Church in all their Expositions then amongst Luther Zuinglius and Calvin There being but three rather two Expositions of these words given by Protestants whereas there is at least four amongst Papists of one of the words For conclusion you bring us in objecting for our selves thus Those selected Persons intrusted with the administring and dispensing of the Lawes utter by mouth what they understand and they understand no more then what their private reading and reasoning are able to inform them so that even this way men would be to seek To this you answer 1. Judges have not onely their reading and reasoning to inform and direct them but likewise the practice of former Courts from the very promulgation of the Law at which time the sence and meaning of the same was declared by the Law-makers themselves Reply 1. You unlearnedly distinguish betwixt their reading and their knowledge of the practice of former Courts as if the practice of former Courts were not known by reading whereas you cannot mention any other means thereof unless you can make out a constant unwritten Tradition from the Lawmakers themselves which hath been propogated from one to another and the particular cases of former Courts have been so various
he will gather strength by observing that the above named Luther Zuinglius Calvin c. But few days or months before their opposition held as the rest of Christians did in alâ— points with the said Company and that neither they nor any of them have left to posterity the least mention of any number of men in being before their opposition with whom to joyn and side to make good the same c. Ans 1. How this strengthens your proof I see not Should the Jews have objected against our Saviours and the Apostles Converts that their Jewish Doctrine was generally received and preached yea and that these Converts as Paul c. but a few days or months before their opposition held as other Jews did Would this think you make for them that they were the true Church The Gentiles the greatest part of the World profest against Christ and his truth and those who were called out of them to receive the truth did but a little before comply with the Gentiles against Christ Must this therefore strengthen the Gentiles cause against the truth It may be your self and others who have apostalized from the true religion but a few months before your opposition held as the rest of true Orthodox Christians did yet this will not even in your conceit advance your cause 2. It s questionable whether Luther Zuinglius and Calvin did hold with you in all points and that but a few days or months before their publique opposition of you The Speech of Alphonsus à Castro seems to import the contrary when he tells us that a great company seemed to wait for Luther and joyned with him as soon as he appeared I cannot think but that Luther was against the sale of indulgencies longer then a few weeks or months before his opposition 3. It s a gross lye that there is not left the least mention of any number of men in being before their opposition with whom to joyn and side I have fully shewed the contrary to this and therefore remitting the Reader to what I have formerly said I come to his next Argument Arg. 3. That Company composeth and maketh up the Catholick Church which is acknowledged even by their adversaries to be Apostolical but the above mentioned Company is acknowledged even by their adversaries to be Apostolical therefore that Company composeth and maketh up the Catholick Church The first Proposition say you is evident forasmuch as Apostolical in a right and genuine sence signifieth to believe as the Apostles believed which is to be Catholick Arg. 1. It seems now that profession of Apostolical Doctrine is a convincing argument to prove a Company to be the Catholick Church But Sir why did you not approve of this argument when we brought it for the Protestant Church Or how could you without blushing tell us That true Doctrine which is none other then Apostolical doctrin they being reciprocal is no mark of a true Church it being often found among Schismaticks who for want of Communion cannot make a true Church pag. 60. If Protestants can prove they believe those doctrines the Apostles believed will you acknowledge them the true Apostolical and Catholick Church We desire no more but that leaving humane constitutions and traditions you would examine our Doctrines by Scripture the true Epitome of Apostolical Doctrines and if we consent not hereunto proclaim us Hereticks 2. Your Explication of the word Apostolical is good and it evidently shews that Personal Succession is inferiour to Doctrinal in denominating a Church Apostolical and Catholick and that the Protestants supposed want of Personal uninterrupted Succession is no hinderance to their being the Catholick Church All which doth extreamly weaken your former doctrines 3. I deny your Minor Proposition and come to examine your proof of it You say It appears no less clear in several Protestant Writers who expresly account that the Apostles first planted the Christian Faith in England that the same was retained by Bishops and Pastors from the first Plantati n to S. Austine that in substance it differed not from that which S. Austine brought in that S. Austine was sent by Gregory the Great Bishop of Rome to convert the Saxons in England to the Roman Faith that the Roman Church in Gregory tâ—e Greats time was the same it is at this present c. All which you reduce to this Syllogism S. Austins Church and Doctrine were Apostolical S. Austins Church Doctrine were the same with the now Roman therefore the Roman Church and Doctrine are Apostolical I answer 1. By S. Austins Church I suppose you mean the Roman Church in S. Austins time as when you say The Roman Church in Gregory the Great 's â—ime was the same it is at this present Hereupon I particularly answer Gregory 1. To your Major That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the time of Austin and Gregory was the same with the Doctrine of the Apostles 1. The Apostle tells us That even in his time the mystery of iniquity did begin to work and succeeding Ages discover its progress Most Ages did contribute some materials towards Rome's Temple though the nearer to the Apostles were more opposite and so more sparing in their contributions to it Hence it was that in the first five hundred years there is little to be found tending to Popery and that which is is rather in notions and terms then propositions as in most ancient Fathers we read the words Altar Sacrifice Merit c. yet it will never be proved that they used them for that which Papists now will have theÌ„ to signifie In the next age there was a greater decay of purity than before ignorance did much aboudd superstitioÌ„ attendant on it In this age did Gregory Austin live the former being sirnamed Rainold praelect de lib. Ap c. tom 1. prael 39. p. 365 Sixt. Senen bill Stae l. 5. Au. 137 F. Hier. Porter in the life of S. Gregory p. 266. Chronic. Carion lib. 4. p. 552 The Great indeed he was great as learned Rainolds observeâ— in comparison of those who succeeded him some of them who were before him yet was he short of apostolical purity being guilty of superstition and errour in divers points as the adjudging of children unbaptized to the torments of Hell extending Gods promise of Salvation even to Reprobates making Gods decree mutable and praying for such as are already damned as in the Case of Trojan Carion in his Chronicles attributes to him divers errours as Invocation of Saints and dedication of Temples to them a wrong perswasion of Monkish profession Works of Supererrogation Satisfactions Vows Virginity an opinion of sacrificing Christs body and blood for the dead whereunto he was moved by the report of Apparitions And besides all these he is noted as superstitious in imposition of Ceremonies and those some of them Jewish which are not fit to be imposed on the Church of Christ And as Gregory was guilty so
but one numericall body and the three continents are but parts of the same place 2 Nor the second for first voice or sound is no body Secondly it is a question whether it be one and the same voice that comes to thousands of ears at once or a multiplied voice or sound Magyr Physiol l. 6. c. 8. Com. ad finem see Magyrus where the contrary is asserted upon this very ground Thirdly the place of sound or its proper subject is the Aire not mens ears 3 Nor yet the third for there is not one body really in two places no more than if one man were pictured in severall frames neither of which bears any resemblance of this Phylosophy of reall bodies Fourthly you answer Should we believe onely that which we understand there would not be any belief in us of mysteries of faith they being all above the reach of humane capacity Reply 1. If knowledge or understanding were not necessary to faith why hath faith the name of knowledge given it in Scripture Isai 53.11 and John 17.3 If faith be an assent as Papists tell us then faith doeth necessarily require knowledge for we must know what is truth if we believe that it is so I confess there are some things which in some respects are not fully conceivable but for those we have an express Word of God informing us of them which is the ground of our faith but this we have not for a carnall presence in many places and therefore cannot command our belief of it Fifthly by way of answer you introduce an objection against the Polytopie of Christs body but is directly against bodily presence in any place It is taken from the strange irreverencies and absurdities which would ensue thereof as to be subject to the eating and tearing in piecs of dâ—gs cats mice and to the abuse of wicked me and miscreants to which you answer He that is of power to render a body really present in severall places at once witâ—out doubt is able to defend and keep the same from all outrages as God is pleased to do in this mystery by removing locall extension and by consequenâ—e possibility by means whereof dogs cats and mice can onely tear and destroy the accidents of bread and wine Reply first the foundation is already overthrown Secondly I believe you are not perswaded that Gods power is imployed about Christs body to keep it from irreverences if you were why is it that you dare not give the Cup to the people is not God able to prevent drops of the blood from sticking to the peoples beards or falling to the ground Why do you make an invisible body to prevent the faithfull's loathing and the profane's scorning of the Ordinance is not God able to keep the faithfull from loathing flesh and blood visibly and really appearing such as well as intellectually represented to their understandings if Gods power must support one absurdity why may it not another 3 Though you speak irrationally of tearing the species of bread and wine yet others of your fraternitie speak plainly of the body of Christ Among the penitentiall Canons in the end of the old editions of the Roman Decree Can. 39. are these words Quando muâ— corrodit aut comedit Corpus Christi c. i. e. When a mouse gnaweth or eateth the body of Christ c. he saith not the species of bread and wine but the very body of Christ And in the new Mass book t is said De defect circa Missam occurrent c. 3. Sect. 7. Si Hostia Consecrata c. If the consecrated Host vanish away by some accident as if it be carried away with the wind or by some miracle or eaten up by some beast and cannot be found then let another be consecrated I suppose your Host or Sacrifice is not the meer species of bread and wine but the body of Christ Now this Host it seemes may be blown away with the winde or be eaten of beasts sure you take calm weather and tie up your beasts when you goe in Procession Ib. c. 10. Sect. 14. What should I speak of your vomiting and against licking up the vomited Host or in case of loathing putting it up for a relique such stuff is fit for such beasts as return to their vomit or lye wallowing in the mire 2. You answer to the Objection Wicked men and miscreants offer violence to the same but not hurt or anoy the Body of Christ no more then he were of force to wrong the Godhead that surprised with a raging fit should strike at the aire with an intention to do him mischief Reply Every thing you say ads to the miracle Christ hath a body to be eaten that yet is not seen nor tasted nor passible yea is like unto God or a Spirit that cannot be hit or wounded What could Eutiches have said more Doth not this prove that Christs body is no real body but only imaginary and phantastical or if real yet it s not according to your doctrine really present Will it follow that because God or another spiritual Substance is impassible by humane force therefore a true natural body is so to It must be Popish Logick that will make this a good Consequence 3. You answer Admit these pretended inconveniences should follow that the body of Christ should be eaten and torn in pieces of dogs bats mice c. I do not conceive there could be inferr'd any other then a continuation of that ardent love of Christ which he shewed to man when he estranged himself from his Eternal Father to bear with patience and mildness hunger cold whippings spittings thorns and last of all the bitter and disgraceful death of the Cross Reply 1. This ardent Love of Christ to man cannot be from hence inferred All sufferings of Christ are not the effects of his ardent Love What Love of Christ is manifested in wicked mens crucifying to themselves afresh the Son of God Heb. 6.6 10.29 and putting him to an open shame or in their treading under foot the Son of God and accounting the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing and doing despight to the Spirit of grace What Love of Christ is manifested when his body is torn in pieces of dogs cats mâ—ce or blown away with the wind or spued out of some drunken Priests mouth and lickt up again It s a most evident truth that those sufferings of Christ only are the expressions of his love which do tend to mans redemption and salvation and without which these could not be attained Of this kind were the sufferings of Christ by the Jews and Romans in the time of his incarnation Hence are those expressions The Love of God is shed abroad in our hearts Rom. 5.5 6 7 8 Gal. 3.13 14 Isai 53.4 c. for when we were yet without strengh in due time Christ dyed for the ungodly God commendeth his love to us in that when we were yet sinners Christ dyed for
Spiritus c. They are Spirit as if he should say the words I have spoken have a Spirituall sence and so they vivifie they have a Spirituall understanding the flesh of Christ is eaten in this Sacrament in a spiritual manner Your pleas for this opinion are vain 1. You say The question was not what says he that they knew would be trifling and ridiculous Christ having immediately before confirmed the signification of his first words This is my Body By other latter Vnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you shall have no life in you and they both heard and understood the language he spake in Reply 1. Pray where are those first words This is my Body You shut your eyes and laid aside your honesty when you brought them in as spoken by Christ before his supposed answer But suppose them there tell us next how those latter words doe confirme the signification of them 2. When you tell us they knew what he said and both heard and understood the language he spake in you will shew your self a notorious trifler Wil it follow that because they knew his words heard understood his language that therfore they understood his meaning I trow not Those that read the hard of places of Pauls Epistles did both hear understand the language he spake in yet knew not his meaning and therefore wrested them to their own perdition The Jews both heard and understood the language Christ delivered his parables in yet it was not given them to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven Nicodemus understood Christs language but not his meaning about regeneration You cannot deny but the Laity may both hear and understand the language whereinto the Scriptures are translated yet their private Spirit must not think of understanding the Scriptures meaning Thus though these Capernaits might and did understand his language yet they did remaine ignorant of their true meaning as all prudent Expositors confess and your Rhemists expresly affirm saying Their gross and carnal conceiving of his words of his flesh and the manner of eating the same was unprofitable which is plain by the sentence following where he warneth tâ—em that his words be spiri life of high mystical meaning and not vulgarly and grosly to be taken as they took them 2. You adde Therefore except you will say that Christ answered not to the purpose his scope and aime must be to declare his power to the â—nd to convince the Capernaits that he was full able to perform what he said Reply 1. If you will have it the aim of Christ to declare his power to perform what he said and that directly in answer to the Caperâ—aits question you must grant that Christ did declare his ability to give them his body cut mangled into pieces for so they understand the eating of his flesh and thereupon grounded their question How can this man give us his flesh cut and mangled into pieces for the effecting of this they expected a proof of his power if you will have it so Now this your selfe will grant impossible being contrary to the will of God the measure of his power therefore you must confess that Christ spake not to the purpose as you object against us Or grant as the truth is that they understood not Christ's meaning and therefore that he answered concerning the manner of their eating not his power of giving his flesh c. 2. We do not find how Christ declares any power in these words You answer He doth it effectually and home by saying my words are spirit A Spirit having strength and vertue to do more then all bodyes put together can either do or conceive Reply A goodly Argument and fit for your children that are content with stones in stead of bread Christ is a Spirit is he therefore able to give his flesh to be eaten then all Spirits have the same power But Sir why cannot a man a body give his flesh to be eaten carnally I see no difficulty in it nor need of any spiritual power to effect it if there be but Popish or other Cannibals that will eat it 2. How can the words of Christ be called a Spirit in your sence for you take not spirit for breath but properly Are words living and intelligent beings as Spirits are But I suppose this quaint Exposition was hammered out of your own brain and though it agrees neither with Fathers nor your elder brethren yet because it opposeth the wicked Calvinists you like it well And indeed so do I both because it shews you to be a most ingenious learned acute and reverend Expositor and also discovers the goodness of your cause that needs such Expositions Objection 2. The second Objection say you The Roman Church committeth idolatry in her adâ—ration at Mass bowing to the Name of Jesus Altars Images and Relicks You answer 1. By the Commandment Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any graven thing nor adore it Exod. 20. is neither forbid the Art of Engraving Carving Printing Painting Casting Sowing Embroydering nor yet all manner of religious honour to be given to creatures Reply 1. The Art of Engraving c. is certainly lawful yet the exercise of it hath its limitations which I conceive may be reduced to these two heads 1. That nothing be engraven c. but what ought to be engraven c. whereby is forbidden the engraving carving painting any lascivious pictures tending to excite lust but especially as to our purpose painting engraving and carving any images of the divine Persons thus Moses tells the Jews Ye heard the voice of the words but saw no similitude only ye heard a voyce Take ye therefore good heed unto your selves for ye saw no maÌ„ner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire lest ye corrupt your selves Deut. 4.14 15 16. and make you a graven image the similitude of any figure the likenesâ— of male and female c. For this reason Eusebius refused to send Constantia the Image of Christ Euseb Eccles l. 7. c. 17. and imputes the Erection of Christs Image to an heathenish Custome saying It is not any marvel at all that they which of the Gentiles were cured by our Saviour made and set up such things for the men of old of an Heathenish custome were wont to honour after this manner such as they counted Saviours Lorichius doth excellently set forth this Ger. Lorich instit Cathol in praecept fol. 95. Est praeterea abusus imaginum c. There is saith he besides an abuse of Images in that we presume to express the sacred Trinity which is truly a most pestilent heresie for what can be more contrary to the Holy Trinity then to paint the Father like a crooked old man the Son in the form of a young man and the Holy Ghost like a flying fowle What can Ideots learn from such a