Christ that is with the same Intention as Christ when hee said This of the Bread then in his hands the Priest saying This should intead and meane that This Bread whereof Christ spake and not that which is in his owne hands which now he intendeth to Consecrate and Consequently should he make no Consecration at all And what hereupon must become of your Romish Masse in your Transubstantiation Sacrifice and Adoration you may understand in the next Section The full Overthrow of the whole Doctrine of Transubstantiation Corporall Presence Personall Sacrifice and Adoration Consequently upon the former Confutation of your Romish Significative Pronunciation of Christ's words by the Priest SECT V. TRuly hath your Iesuite * See above in the Second Section Suarez expressed the Doctrine of your Church as followeth Except these words This is my Body be taken Significatively and formally they worke no Consecration nor can it be collected that that which is now in the hands of the Priest is the true Body of Christ So he alleging the Couâ—acel of Trent for his warrant But the words as they are pronounced by the Priest cannot possibly be taken Significatively but onely in the way of Rehearsing and Repeating them No one Iota in the Text or Context No one Testimonie of Antiquitie No one Reason or yet competent Example hath beene alleged by any of your Doctors for proofe of the Contrary This point needeth no more discussion onely for further Illustration-sake wee shall commend unto you a more proportionable Example than was any that hitherto your Sophisters have invented which because your Iesuites have affected the * See above in the first and second Sections Similitudes of Historicall and Comicall Representations wee shall likewise borrow from that Stage If therefore any Romish Priest should Act the part of Aäron in imitating an operative Speech of turning and Transubstantiating a Rod into a Serpent in saying to suppose Aäron to have said so This is my Serpent yet could not your Priest possibly deliver the same words Significatively as in the person of Aäron either in saying This because This Rod spoken of by the Priest is not the same Rod whereof Aäron said This nor yet in the word My because that wherof Aäron said My Serpent cannot possibly bee said accordingly My Serpent by the Priest as your selves well know And therefore doth this discover your Romish Intoxication in your Significative Exposition of these words This and My in the Speech of Christ THE THIRD BOOKE Treating of the First Romish Doctrinall Consequence pretended to arise from your former depraved Exposition of Christ's wordes This is my Body called TRANSVBSTANTIATION Your Doctrinall Romish Consequences are Five viz. the Corporall 1. Conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ called Transubstantiation in this Third Booke 2. Existence of the same Body of Christ in the Sacrament called Corporall Presence in the Fourth Booke 3. Receiving of the Body of Christ into the Bodies of the Communicants called Reall or Materiall Conjunction in the Fifth Booke 4. Sacrificing of Christ's Body by the hands of the Priest called a Propitiatory Sacrifice in the Sixth Booke 5. Worshipping with Divine Worship called Latria or Divine Adoration of the same Sacrament in the Seventh Booke After follow the Additionals in a Summary Discoverie of the Abominations of the Romish Masse and the Iniquities of the Defenders thereof in the Eighth Booke THese are the five Doctrinall Consequences which you teach and professe and which wee shall by God's assistance pursue according to our former Method of Brevity and Perspicuity and that by as good and undenyable Evidences and Confessions of your owne Authours in most points as either you can expect or the Cause it selfe require And because a Thing must have a Begetting before it have a manner of Being therefore before wee treate of the Corporall Presence wee must in the first place handle your Transubstantiation which is the manner as wee may so say of the Procreation thereof CHAP. I. The State of the Controversie concerning the Change and Conversion professed by Protestants which is Sacramentall And by the Papists defined to be Trans-substantiall First of the Sacramentall SECT I. THere lyeth a charge upon every Soule that shall communicate and participate of this Sacrament that herein hee Discerne the Lords Body which Office of Discerning according to the judgement of Protestants is not onely in the use but also in the Nature to distinguish the Object of Faith from the Object of Sense The First Object of Christian Faith is the Divine Alteration and Change of naturall Bread into a Sacrament of Christs Bodie This wee call a Divine Change because none but the same * See hereafter Chap. 4. §. 1. 2. Omnipotent power that made the Creature and Element of Bread can Change it into a Sacrament The Second Object of Faith is the Body of Christ it selfe Sacramentally represented and verily exhibited to the Faithfull Communicants There are then three Objects in all to be distinguished The First is before Consecration the Bread meerely Naturall Secondly After Consecration Bread Sacramentall Thirdly Christs owne Body which is the Spirituall and Supersubstantiall Bread truly exhibited by this Sacramentall to the nourishment of the soules of the Faithfull Secondly of the Romish Change which you call Transubstantiation SECT II. BVt your Change in the Councell of a Est conversio totius substantiae Panis in Corpus Christi totius substantiae Vini in sanguinem manentibus duntaxat speciebus Panis Vini quam quidem Conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissimè Transubstantiationem appellat Conc. Trid. Sess 13. Can. 2. Trent is thus defined Transubstantiation is a Change of the whole Substance of Bread into the Body of Christ and of Wine into his Blood Which by the Bull of b Ego N. N jurò hinc Conversionem fieri quam Catholica Ecclesia appellat Transubstantiationem Extrà quam fidem nemo salvus esse potest Bulla Pij 4. super formâ luram nit professionu Fidei Pius the Fourth then Pope is made an Article of Faith without which a man cannot bee saved Which Article of your Faith Protestants beleeve to bee a new and impious Figment and c Transubstantiationem Protestantes esse sceleratam Haeresin dicunt Bell. l. 3. de Euch. cap. 11. Heresie The Case thus standing it will concerne every Christian to build his Resolution upon a sound Foundation As for the Church of England shee professeth in her 28. Article saying of this Transubstantiation that It cannot bee proved by holy Writ but is repugnant to the plaine words of Scripture overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion unto MANY SVPERSTITIONS CHAP. II. The Question is to be examined by these grounds viz. I Scripture II. Antiquity III. Divine Reason IN all which wee shall make bold to borrow your owne Assertions and Confessions for the Confirmation of Truth The Romish Depravation of the Sense of Christ
his words This is my Body for proofe of Transubstantiation SECT I. YOu pretend and that with no small Confidence as a Truth avouched by the Councell of a Vt definitur in Conc. Trid. Sess 13 Can. 4. Ex sola veritate verborum Hoc est Corpus meum vera ac propria Transubstantiatio colligitur Vasquez les Disp 176. c. 6 Verba tà m per se clara cogere possint hominem non proterâ—â— Transubstantitionem admittere Bell. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23. §. Secundò Trent that Transubstantiation is collected from the sole true and proper Signification of these words This is my Body So you CHALLENGE WHerein you shew your selves to bee men of great Faith or rather Credulity but of little Conscience teaching that to bee undoubtedly True whereof notwithstanding you your selves render many Causes of Doubting For first you b Scotus quem Cameracensis sequtur Dicunt non extare locuÌ„ in Scripturis tà m expressum ut fine declaratione Ecclesiae evidentes cogat Transubstantiationem admittere Atque hoc non est omninò improbabile quià an ità sit dubitari potest cum homines acutissimi doctissimi qualis inprimis Scotus fuit contrarium sentiant Bellar. quo supra Cajetanus aliqui vetustiores audiendi non sunt qui dicunt panem definere esse non tà m ex Evangelio quà m ex Ecclesiae authoritate constare Alan lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34 pag. 419. grant that besides Cardinall Caejetane and some other Ancient Schoolemen Scotus and Cameracensis men most Learned and Acute held that There is no one place of Scripture so expresse which without the Declaration of the Church can evidently compell any man to admit of Transubstantiation So they Which your Cardinall and our greatest Adversary faith c See in the former Allegation at b Is not altogether improbable and whereunto your Bishop d Corpus Christi fieri per consecrationem non probatur nudis Evangelij verbis sine pia interpretatione Ecclesiae Roffens Episc con Capt. Bab. cap. 9. pag. 99. Roffensis giveth his consent Secondly which is also confessed some other Doctors of your Church because they could not find so full Evidence for proofe of your Transubstantiation out of the words of Christ were driven to so hard shifts as to e Hoc est pro Transit Bonaventura decet Idem ferè habet Oceam Hol cott insinuat etiam Waldensis Volunt Propositionem illam non esse substantivè sed Transitive interpretandam sc ut sit sensus Hoc est Corpus id est Transit in Corpus Sed hoc corrumpit significationeÌ„ verbi Est quod si permittitur nulla est vis in hujus modi verbis ad probandam realem praesentiam nec substantiam Panis hic non manere Et ità potuit Haereticus exponere Hoc est id est Repraesentat Corpus Suarez Ies Tom. 3. qu 78. Disp 58. Sect. 7. Art 1. pag. 754. Change the Verbe Substantive Est into a Verbe Passive or Transitive Fit or Transit that is in stead of Is to say It 's Made or It passeth into the Body of Christ A Sense which your Iesuite Suarez cannot allow because as hee truly saith It is a Corrupting of the Text. Albeit indeed this word Transubstantiation importeth no more than the Fieri seu Transire of Making or Passing of one Substance into another So that still you see Transubstantiation cannot bee extracted out of the Text without violence to the words of Christ âšœ The like violence is used by your Iesuit I Iac. Gordon Scotus Ies lib. Controv. 4. cap 3. n. 15. Propositiones practicae proferuntur per verba praesentis temporis non futuri ut certi 〈◊〉 de effectuve borum Haec verba Hoc est corpus meum practica sunt efficiunt quod significant Manduâ—â—â— ex hoc Bibite ex hoc ubique demonstrat corpus Christi futurum vel sanguinem ejus futorum Similis statuitur verbis Consecrationis alioqui ista communio esset merè speculativa non practica Gordon who to make Christs Speech to be Practicall for working a TransubstaÌ„tiation doth inforce the words This is my Body and Eat yee this and Drinke yee this being all spoken in the Present tense to signifie the future Which although it were true all Grammarians know to be the figure Enallage From these Premisses it is most apparent that the Romish Doctors cast themselves necessarily upon the hornes of this DileÌ„ma thus Either have these words of Christ This is my Body a Sense Practicall to signifie that which they worke and then is the Sense Tropicall as you have now heard them against your Romish Literall Sense to betoken an operative power and effect of working Bread into the Body of Christ or else they are not Practicall and then they cannot implie your Transubstantiation at all Wee might in the third place adde hereunto that the true Sense of the words of Christ is Figurative as by Scriptures Fathers and by your owne confessed Grounds hath beene already plentifully * See the former Booke throughout proved as an insallible Truth So groundlesse is this chiefe Article of your Romish Faith whereof more will be said in the sixt Section following But yet by the way wee take leave to prevent your Objection You have told us that * See the former Booke throughout the words of Christ are Operative and worke that which they signifie so that upon the pronunciation of the words This is my Body it must infallibly follow that Bread is changed into Christs Body which wee shall beleeve assoone as you shall bee able to prove that upon the pronuntiation of the other words of Christ This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood Luke 22. 20. the Cup is changed into the Testament of Christs Blood or else into his Blood it selfe The Noveltie of Transubstantiation examined as well for the Name as for the Nature thereof SECT II. The Title and Name of Transubstantiation proved to be of a latter date YOu have imposed the very Title of Transubstantiation upon the Faith of Christians albeit the word Transubstantiation as you grant f Fateor neque Antiquos Patres usos esse hoc nomine Transubstantiationis Christoph de Capite fontium Archicpis Caesar lib. de reali praesen cap. 5. 9. Artic. 4. was not used of any Ancient Fathers and that your Romish Change had not it's Christendome or name among Christians to be called Transubstantiation as your Cardinall g Concilium Lateranense sub Innocentio Tertio coactum ut Haereticis os obthurarer Conversionem hanc novo valdè significance verbo dixit Transubstantiationem Alan lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34. pag. 422. As for that objected place out of Cyrill of Alexandria Epist ad Caelosyrium Convertens ea in veritatem Carnis It is answered by Vasquez the Iesuite non habetur illa Epistola inter opera Cyrilli Vasquez in 3. Thom. Tom. 3. num 24.
Transubstantiation was hatched and which is contrary to his owne device of Conversion by Adduction wherein first he i Dicta Corpus Christi ex pane fieri non tanquà m ex materia sed tanquà m à Termino à quo ut mundus ex nihilo then confuting himselfe etiam sit ex aqua vinum that was not ex nihilo In praesenti negotio Conversio non est Productiva Panis enim convertitur in Corpus Christi praeexistens ergò Corpus Christi factum ex Pane ex Carne est idem Bell. l. 3. de Euc. c. 24. § Ad Tertium confoundeth himselfe and secondly his opinion hath beene scornfully rejected by your owne learned Doctors as being nothing lesse than Transubstantiation as you have heard Therefore may you make much of your Breaden Christ As for us Wee according to our Apostollicall Creec believe no Body of Christ but that which was Produced out of the Sanctified flesh of the Bl Virgin Mary for feare of k Alphonsus de Castro lib. 4 Tit. Christê° Haer. 2. Manichaei dixeruÌ„t Christum non ex utero Virginis prodijsse Et Apollinaris dixit Christum non assumpsisse carnem ex Virgine Item Chiliastae Democritae Melcluoritae ut Procli mitae pratcolus in Elench Haeret. in suic quique titulis Heresie This same Objection being made of late to a Iesuite of prime note received from him this Answer viz. God that was able to raise Children to Abraham out of stones can of Bread transubstantiate the same into that Body of Christ which was of the Virgin And hee againe received this Reply That the Children which should bee so raised out of stones howsoever they might bee Abraham's Children according to Faith yet could they not bee Children of Abraham according to the Flesh Therefore is there as great a Difference betweene that Body from Bread and the other from the Blessed Virgin as there must have beene betweene Children out of Stones and Children out of Flesh And this our Reason accordeth right well to the Ancient Faith professed within this Land in the dayes of Edgar a Saxon King as it is set out in an l Homily en Easter day pag. 35. Homily of that time which standeth thus Much is betweene the body that Christ suffered in and betweene the bodie of the hallowed Howsell The Body truly that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of the Virgin Mary with blood and with bone with skin and with sinewes in humane limbes and his Ghostly body which we call his Howsell is gathered of many Cornes without blood and bone without lâ—mbe and therefore nothing is to be understood heerein bodily but all is Ghostly to bee understood This was our then Saxons Faith wherein is plainly distinguished the Body of Christ borne of the blessed Virgin from the Sacramentall which is called Ghostly as is the Body of Flesh from the consecrated substance of Bread A Doctrine directly confirmed by * See Booke 4. cap. 4. §. 1. in the Challenge Saint Augustine Wherefore wee may as truly say concerning this your Conversion that if it be by Transubstantiation from Bread then it is not the Body which was borne of the Blessed Virgin as your owne Romish Glosse could say of the Predication * See above E. 2. Chap. 1. §. 4. If Bread bee Christ's Body then Something was Christs Body which was not borne of the Virgin Mary CHALLENGE I âšœ In vindication of the same Truth against the late Calumniation of a Iesuite THis Sentence I have seene lately canvassed by a Iesuite against a judicious and religious Knight S r. H. L. falsly imputing unto him divers Falsities pretending especially that the English Translation used by the Knight is differing from the Latine Which Exception of your Iesuite must needes have proceded either from ignorance if hee knew not that the Translation used by the Knight was taken out of the Originall Saxon-language and not out of the Latine or if he knew so much from downe-right boldnesse in charging him with a false Translation I omit his frivolous Cavillations upon words The maine question for the sense is whether in this sentence of the Saxons Faith the Body wherein Christ suffered and his Body celebrated in this Sacrament betoken not two kinde of Bodies essentially differing one from the other or but onely the two different manners of the Being of one Body Your Iesuite affirmeth them to signifie the same Body and he calleth the contrary opinion false His Reason For whereas it is said saith he that the spirituall flesh which is as much as to say our Saviour his flesh in the Sacrament according to the outward shew consisting of Granes of Corne hath no Bones nor Sinewes nor distinction of Parts Life or Motion Here the Iesuite cryeth out against falshood but why Because the Knight forsooth hath pretermitted saith he these words According to the outward shew consisting of granes Whereby he would have us believe the new â—â—mish Faith of a Subsistence of meere Accidents Who if he had meant to have dealt ingenuously he should have manifested that his Latine Translation to have accorded with the Originall Saxon Copie But to take him as wee finde him If his words According to the outward shew imply as it needs must if he will speake to any purpose that the Body of Christ in this Sacrament although in outward shew it be without Bones Sinewes Life and Motion yet it hath all these inwardly in it selfe as it is in this Sacrament then whilest he laboureth to confute one Protestant he contradicteth all his fellow Iesuites of the same Society * See Booke 4. Chap. â— Sect. 2. who deny all possibility of Motion of Christ's Body in this Sacrament by any naturall and voluntary Act without a miracle But to speake to the point This Body and That Body say wee do diversifie two Bodies the one Sacramentall of Bread called Spirituall because of the spirituall and mysticall Signification this Bread consisting of Granes And the other the Naturall Body of Christ consisting of Bones Sinewes c. In a word This and That in this Saxon narration accordeth with the Doctrine of * See Booke 4. Chap. 4. in the Challenge Bertram taken out of Saint Augustine namely That in heaven to differ as much from This on the Altar as did the Body borne of the Virgin Mary from the other which was not so borne But if this Homily will not advantage your Iesuite hee will wrest his prejudicate Conceite out of another Homily of AElfrick if it be possible where we reade thus As Christ before his Passion could convert the substance of Bread and Creature of Wine into his owne Body that suffered and into his Blood which afterwards was extant to be shed So also was he able in the Desert to Convert Manna and Water out of the Rock into his Blood So he citing a Testimonie as fully Opposite unto your Transubstantiation in sense as it seemeth
to be absolutely for it in sound it being just the same Doctrine which Augustine Anselme and Bede * See hereafter Booke 5. Chap. 3. §. 1. 2. taught when they said that the faithfull among the Iewes Ate the same spirituall meate Christs Flesh in eating Manna and dranke the same spirituall drink that is the blood of Christ in drinking the water that issued out of the Rocke which Christians now doe And therefore meant not a Corporall eating of Christ but a Sacramentall So say wee Christ could aswell then turne Manna and Water of the Rocke into a Sacrament of his Body and Blood for the nourishing of the soules of God's people of those times as he doth now Convert Bread and Wine into the Sacraments of his Body and Blood for the comfort of us Christians This Answer preventeth the Iesuites Objection 10 In his Booke of Spectacles p. 142. The Time saith he when the people received Manna in the Desert Christ was not in his humane nature therefore could not Manna be changed into his Body nor Water into his Blood So he very truly indeed And therfore must AElfrick his speech be understood Sacramentally as hath beene said which because the Iesuite refuseth to do therefore is he at difference with AElfrick denying that Christ was able to convert Manna into his Body which AElfrick said in expresse termes hee was able to do namely thorow his divine power by a Sacramentall Conversion because Omnipotencie is as properly necessary for the making of a divine Sacrament as it was for the creating of the World But was it not then kindly done thinke you of your Iesuit to lend his Spectacles to another when he had the most need of them himselfe by the which he might have discerned that as Christ Sacramentally and therefore figuratively called Bread his Body and Wine his Blood so did evermore all the faithfull of Christ This Lesson * See Booke 2. C. 2. Sect. 10. hath beene manifested by many pregnant Examples in a full Section which being once got by heart would expedite all the like Difficulties To conclude the former Saxon doctrine is againe confirmed by Saint * See Booke 4. Chap. 4. §. 1. in the Challenge Augustine Wherefore wee may as truly say concerning this your Conversion that if it be by Transubstantiation from Bread then it is not the Body which was Borne of the Blessed Virgin as your owne Romish Glosse could say of the Predication * See above B. 2. Chap. 1. §. 4. If Bread be Christ's Body then something was Christ's Body which was not borne of the Virgin Mary And this wee are now furthermore to evince out of your Pope Innocent the Third against your Councel of Trent He See the Margent of the former Section taught that when the Conversion is of the forme with the substance then is the Change Into that which is now made and was not before as when the Rod was turned into a Serpent So he shewing that the Serpent by that Change was therefore Made of that Rod. But your Tridentine Fathers you know have defined the Conversion of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body to be aswell in Forme as in Matter whereupon by the Iudgement of your Pope Innocent it must follow that the Body of Christ in your Eucharist is made of Bread and if made of Bread then could it not possibly be of the flesh of the Virgin Because there cannot be a Substantiall Change of a Substance into Substance except that the Substance of that whereinto the Conversion is wrought have it's Originall and Making from the Substance of that which was converted and changed Nor could the Contrary be hitherto proved by any Romish Doctor from any Example out of any conversion either naturall or miraculous which hath beene road of from the beginning of Times Our third Reason is taken from the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration but First of the State of this Question SECT III. VVEe wonder not why your Fathers of the Councell of Trent were so fierce in casting their great Thunderbolt of m Si quis dixerit remaneâ—â— substâ—ntiam Panâ—s Anathema sit Conc. Trident. Sess 13. Can. 2. Anathema and Curse upon every man that should affirme Bread and Wine to remaine in this Sacrament after Consecration which they did to terrifie men from the doctrine of Protestants who do all affirme the Continuance of the substance of Bread in the Eucharist For right well did these Tridentines know that if the Substance of Bread or Wine doe remaine then is all Faith yea and Conceit of Transubstantiation but a feigned Chimaera and meere Fancie as your Cardinall doth confesse in granting that n Panis eâ—si non annihilâ—tur tamen manet niâ—â—l in se ut Aqua post Conversionem in Vinum Neqque obstat quòd fouè materia manserit nam materia 〈◊〉 est Aqua Prima â—Ì„oditio in vera Conversione est 〈◊〉 quod convertitur 〈◊〉 esse Bessur lio 3 de Euch. c 18 〈◊〉 cap. 24. §. Ad Alterum It is a necessary condition in every Transubstantiation that the thing which is converted cease any more to bee as it was in the Conversion of Water into Wine Water ceased to bee Water And so must Bread cease to bee Bread This being the State of the Question wee undertake to give Good Proofes of the Existence and Continuance of Bread in the Eucharist the same in Substance after Consecration Our first Proofe is from Scripture 1. Cor. 10. 11. Saint Paul calling it Bread SECT IV. IN the Apostle his Comment that I may so call his two * 1. Cor. 11. 26 27. 10. 16. Chapters to the Corinthians upon the Institution of Christ we reade of Eating the Bread and Drinking the Cup thrice all which by the consent of all sides are spoken of Eating and Drinking after Consecration and yet hath hee called the ourward Element Bread You will say with Some It was so called onely because it was made of Bread as Aärons Rod turned into a Serpent was notwithstanding called a Rod. But this Answer is not Answerable unto the Similitude For first of the Bread the Apostle saith demonstratively This bread and of the other This Cup But of Aärons Rod turned into a Serpent none could say This Rod. And secondly it is contrary to Christian Faith which will abhorre to say in a proper sense that Christs Body was ever Bread Or else you will answer with Others It is yet called Bread because it hath the Similitude of Bread as the Brazen Serpent was called a Serpent But neither this nor any other of your Imaginations can satisfie for we shall proove that the Apostle would never have called it Bread after Consecration but because it was Substantially still Bread Our Reason is He had now to deale against the Prophaners of this Sacrament in reproving such as used it as Common Bread * 1. Cor. 11. 22. Not
Body especially from this Father S. Cyprian who teacheth every Christian how to interpret the sense of Christ's words in calling Bread his Body and Wine his Blood viz. 6 Cyprian de Vnctione Dedit Dominus in mensa in qua ultimum cum Apostolis participavit Convivium proprijs manibus Panem Vinum in Cruce vero manibus militum corpus tradidit vulnerandum ut in Apostolis exponeret quomodo Vinum Panis corpus esset sanguis Christi quibus rationibus causae cum effectibus convenirent diversa nomina vel species ad unam reducerentur essentiam significata significantia eisdem â—ocabulis censerentur Things signifying as Signes and things signified are called by the same termes or names What is if this be not our Protestant Doctrine And were it that Cyprian could possibly have meant a Creating of Christ's Body in this Sacrament properly yet could not such our Opposers have bewrayed more stupiditie or else obstinacie than by urging this Sentence whereby two Articles of your Councel of Trent are absolutely strangled The first is Transubstantiation which as you confesse is of Something Pre-existent Whereas Creation as all know is from a meere Nothing The second Tridentine Article is that the Body of Christ as it is in this Sacrament is whole in the whole Host and in every part thereof But Cyprian saith of that Body which hee calleth Created that It is divided Wee have light upon another sentence of Cyprian objected out of the same place and as vehemently pressed as any other out of Cyprian 7 Cyprian de Coenae Dom. in the place objected Ineffabiliter Sacramento visibili divina se infundit essentia ut esset Religioni circa Sacramenta devotio ut ad veritatem cujus corpus sanguis Sacramenta sunt syncerior paâ—eret accessus Objected by Dr. Heskins in his Parliament of Christ The Divine essence saith Cyprian infuseth it selfe into this Sacrament that wee should have a religious devotion towards it that a more sincere addresse may be had to be the Truth whereof the Body and Blood are Sacraments So he Now that you may know our willingnesse to go along with you in the exposition of this Sentence so farre as either the sense of the words will beare or Cyprian his owne direction will permit Wee grant first that the Divine Essence which is the divine power of Christ is exercised in every Sacrament by making it effectuall to the salvation of the Communicants Secondly that by the word Verity or Truth is meant the Reality of his Body and Blood And Thirdly that every one that approacheth to this Sacrament ought to come with a Religious Devotion and sincere affection The onely difference is how Christ's Body and Blood are said to bee Sacraments of the Reality of his Body and Blood here mentioned and your onely Answer is that Christ is a figure and signe of himselfe as hee is in this Sacrament which figment is easily confuted by a Catholike and universall doctrine of all Christian Churches which is that every Sacrament is a visible Signe of an invisible Grace But in this Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ properly taken are nothing lesse than Visible by your owne Confessions who teach them to bee so Invisible herein that they cannot bee discerned either by Angel or the Bodily eyes of Christ himselfe You perceive by this that your Boast of this Place of Cyprian is but a vaine blast Wherefore wee expound the words thus Christ's Body and Blood that is the outward Symbols carrying the names of his Body and Blood are Sacraments and Seales of that Verity of the same Body which was crucifyed and of the same Blood which was shed upon the Crosse for man's Redemption and are here Sacramentally exhibited to the soules of the Faithfull But you will aske who will warrant this our Exposition of the words of Cyprian and wee Answer that wee shall need no other Interpreter than Cyprian himselfe already alleged saying * See before at num 6. in the Morgin that Things signifying are called by the names of Things signifyed So he there and therefore so here are Bread and Wine called the Body and Blood of Christ being in themselves onely Sacraments and Signes whereof you have had example in his Saying that Christ herein created his Body by Body meaning Bread as your Cardinall hath confessed Which may give you a true Patterne of the genuine Idiome of the Fathers as often as they call the Bread Christ's Body or Wine his Blood and that all such Speeches are not more yours in sound than they are ours in true and Orthodox Sense The second Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Disputers for abuse of the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers is seene in objecting their deniall of Common and Bare Bread in this Sacrament for an Argument of Transubstantiation SECT III. TO this purpose Irenaeus saying that a Irenaeus lib. 4. contra Haer cap. 34. Non est Panis Communis Bellar. Obijcit lib. 2. de Euch. per totum It is not Common Bread Ergo say you not to be properly judged by Sense Vnconscionably knowing that b Sol. Chrysost in Psal 22. hom 16. De aqua Baptismi Non est aqua Communis Chrysostome and also other Fathers whom you moreover object saith likewise of the Sacrament of Baptisme * See in this Section liâ— c. h. Wee are to behold it not as common water The second is Iustine Martyr saying d Bellamin Oblustin Mart. lib 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Sol. Ratio quia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Eucharisticatus sivè sanctificatus Cibus Wee receive these not as Common Bread or Common Drinke Therefore say you we may not judge them by Sense Vnconscionably knowing that Iustine Martyr in the same place sheweth his Reason why it is not to be called Common even because saith he it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Sanctified meat And so Water in Baptisme is Sanctified as you know The third is Cyrill of Ierusalem saying e Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 13. Ob. Cyril Hieros Catech. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sol. Iâ—em Catech 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consider these not as Common Bread and Wine Ergo say you not to bee judged by Sense Vâ—conscionably knowing that the same Cyrill in the same place saith the same of the water of Baptisme It is not simple Water Yea but hee further saith say f Oh. Cyrill mystag 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you Thinke not of it as of bare Bread adding but the Body of Christ Ergo say you not to bee judged otherwise by Sense Vnconscionably knowing that the same Father in the same place for explanation sake saith likewise of g â—ot Sequiturs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem Catech. Mystag 3 Sacred Oyle viz. Even so that holy Oyle is not bare and simple Oyle Adding but the gift of Grace And that your Authours
Allegations tell us that they used it in a greater latitude and at liberty Secondly and more principally wheresoever you heare the Fathers naming Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Christ ô then behold Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ his Body and behold it 's Corporall presence and that most evidently this is your common shout And yet behold in your owne objected Sentences of Fathers that which was most really Bread and Wine of Melchisedech was notwithstanding by the forenamed Fathers called the Body and Blood of Christ A most evident Argument that the Fathers understood Christ's words in calling Bread his Body figuratively âšœ A Vindication of the Truth of my former Allegations against a Calumnious Romanist MY Lord of Durham saith hee cryes out against Bellarmine that his former Testimonies are unconscâ—onably alleaged and yet halfe of them hee skippeth over without any shew of Answer To the rest he answereth two things First that some of their Testimonies relate no further then to Bread and Wine making these Materials the Sacrifice of Christians To this purpose hee quoteth many Testimonies whereof no one doth justifie his Pretence but many of them doe plainely confute and directly contradict it Answer To have cryed out of Vnconscionablenesse against any man without just Cause had beene Injurious To have skipped over any Testimony which might be thought not sufficiently answered in the Confutation of the other Testimonies cited had beene Diffidence To have quoted them and not to the purpose had beene meere Childishnesse But so to have quoted them that they should contradict my purpose had beene starke madnesse The first point of my Vindication must be to set downe the other Testimonies which hee saith have beene skipped over This is now 3 Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 6. Theod. in Psal 109. Invenimus Melchisedech offerentem Deo Sacrificia non ratione carentia sed Panem Vinum Arnobius in Psalm 109. Christus per mysterium Panis Vini factus est Sacerdos in aeternum Eusebius Emissenus de Paschate Melchisedech in oblatione Panis Vini hoc nimirum quod in Eucharistia celebratur Christi Sacrificium figuravit Cassiodorus in Psalm 109 Quem ordinem inquit Melchisedech per mysticam similitudinem instituit quando Panis Vini fructus obtulit Remigius Euthymius non dissimilia scribunt As they are cited by Bellarmine performed in the Margin The next Exception is that they make nothing to my purpose my purpose being to shew that the Testimonies objected speake not of Christ's Body and Blood but only of the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine These are fully to this purpose how then do they Contradict this Pretence Give you mee but leave to Appeale to the Testimonies themselves which are here and in the former Section cited out of your owne Cardinall visible before you in the Margin and I shall desire no other Iudge than the most partiall among your Romish Priests to determine whether these Testimonies goe any further than was alleged to wit Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine which is now offered Item He sacrifised in Bread and Wine wherein hee dedicated this Sacrament of Christ But yet in Bread and Wine Item In Bread and Wine which the whole world now celebrateth Item In the same Bread and Wine now celebrated in the Eucharist and the like And in the last place I made good my Outcry against Bellarmine and other Objectors for their Vnconscionablenesse in concluding a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist from the Testimonies of Fathers * See this Treatise of the Masse Booke 6. Chap. 5. §. 1 which mentioned onely the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine herein which Sacrifice of Bread and Wine the Romish Objectours themselves do absolutely deny to be any Proper Sacrifice Than which maner of Arguing what can be more Vnconscionable and lesse to the purpose A second Vindication of my second kinde of Allegations and Exceptions against the Calumnies of the same Romish Seducer Heare your Romanist His second Pretence is that the other of the Fathers Testimonies say that Melchisedech offered the Body and Blood of Christ which yet is not said to be offered or continued by any of them but only by Saint Cyprian and Saint Hierome So hee Answer There needeth no more for my discharge than to apply the Sentences of the Fathers above-cited to the point in Question Christ saith Cyprian offered up the same which Melchisedech offered to wit his Body and Blood Plaine Againe Bellarmine in his Chapter concerning Melchisedech produceth Hierome saying of this Bread and Wine offered that it is the Body and Blood of Christ This is as Plaine Eucherius and Primasius do both say that Christ offered Bread and Wine that is the Body and Blood of Christ even as did Melchisedech As plaine as the former Now for any Romanist to reprove all this without any Proofe to the Contrary bewrayeth both Impotencie in not effecting and Impudencie in attempting his pretended Confutation âšœ That the Apostle to the Hebrewes in comparing Melchisedech with Christ did not intimate any Analogie betweene the Sacrifice of Melchisedeth and of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist SECT III. BVt a Bellar. Non videtur posse negari c. Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 6. § Accedit you pre-occupate viz. The Apostle speaking of Melchisedech saith Of whom I had much to say and that which is uninterpretable because you are dull of hearing Chap. 5. vers 11. Whence it may seeme saith your Cardinall a thing undeniable that the Apostle meant thereby the Mysterie of the Eucharist because it was above their capacity and therefore hee purposely forbare to mention either Bread or Wine So your Answerer To whom you may take for a Reply as in our behalfe the Confession of your much-esteemed Jesuite Ribera who telleth you that b Ribera Ies Id non ideò dixerat quod sermonem illuÌ„ tracere vellet erat enim id id quod in hac Epistolâ— agit valdè accommodatum sed ut magis illos excitatet studio audiendi intentiores redderet Non desperat Paulus quae scripturus est posse ab illis percipi si animuÌ„ attendant aut certè à nonnullis eorum qui eruditiores erant per quos caeteri etiam paulatim intelligerent CaÌ„ in Heb. 6. num 1. Where also hee hath these words Cum illorum imbecillitatem tarditatem accusat idcirco facit ut pudore ad melius intelligenda incitarentur Missa nunc faciamus rudimenta ad perfectionem seramur Hâ—c est Date operam ut mecum intelligatis quae perfectis dici solent The Apostle naming it a thing Inexplicable and calling them Dull meant not thereby to conceale the matter implyed which was so pertinent to that hee had in hand from them because of the want of their Capacity but did in so saying rather excite them to a greater Attention shewing thereby that hee did not despaire but that they were
accept of Christ but of the Gift for Christ's sake and to the honour of Christ in whom God is Propitious unto us wee say againe the Gift for Christ and not Christ for the Gift what can be more plaine against all Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament and to receive it into his Celestiall Altar but how by intercession of Angels No but expresly thus By Christ the Mediatour In the Liturgie of e Missa Chrysostomi antè Consecrationem Adhuc offerimus tibi rationabile incruentuÌ„ hoc obsequium Deposcimus ut mittas Spiritum sanctum super nos et super apposita munera Sequitur Consecratio Fac Panem istum preciosum Corpus c. Post Consecrationem Adhuc offerimus tibi rationabile hoc obsequium pro fideliter doâ—mientibê° c. Post Dominum deprecemur ut qui suscepit ea in sancto et coelesti Altari suo mittat nobis proprerea gratiam et donuÌ„ Spiritus sancti Chrysostome before Consecration God is prayed unto and supplicated thus Wee beseech thee to send thy Spirit upon us and upon the Gifts set before us Even as f Ambros de Sacram lib 4. cap. 6. post Consecrationem Offerimus tibi hunc Papem sanctum et Calicem et perimus ut hanc OblationeÌ„ suscipias in sublimi Altari tuo per manus Angelorum sicut accipere dignatus es munera pueri tui Abel c. Ambrose explaineth his Supplication after Consecration for God To accept this Oblation namely that which hee called Holy Bread and Cup. If therefore these former Formes may interpret your Romane Liturgie as it was Ancient the prayer therein to God desiring him to be Propitious must have relation to the things above specified called Holy Bread of life and Cup of Salvation as distinguished from Priest and People Wherefore your Romane Missals being so Ancient in this one point in praying God after Consecration to be Propitious to that which is called the Bread of life eternall and Cup of everlasting salvation lest it might carry a Sacrilegious Sense to wit that the Body of Christ is here the proper Subject of the Eucharist and consequently to need a Propitiation to God by virtue of mens prayers thereby greatly derogating from the meritorious Satisfaction of Christ you ought to reduce this your Romane Canon to the Orthodox meaning of Ancient Liturgies above mentioned and to understand it Sacramentally onely namely our Objective Representation Commemoration and Application thereof by us which is our Act of Celebration To the former vast heape of Sacrilegious Positions and Practices wee may adde your other many vile and impious g Booke 5. thorowout Indignities offered to the all-glorious Sonne of God in making his sacred Body in your owne opinions obnoxious to the Imprisoning in Boxes Tearing with mens Teeth Devouring Vomiting it by the Communicants and the Transmittance into your guts yea and into the parts inferior together with the Eating and Feeding thereupon by Dogs Mice Wormes and which transcendeth if it may be all your other Absurdities to be deprived of all naturall power of Motion Sense and Vnderstanding O Abominable Abominable A Synopsis of the Idolatrousnesse of the Romish Masse and Defence thereof by many Evidences from Antiquity SECT V. OVr first Argument is against the foundation thereof which is your Interpretation of the Article HOC by denying it to have Relation to Bread contrary to the verdict of an Inquest of Ancient Fathers shewing that the same pointeth out Bread as you have a Booke 2. Cha. 1. Sect. 6. heard whereby the monstrous Conception of Transubstantiation is strangled in the very wombe Insomuch that sometimes they expressely * Ibid. interpret it thus Christs Body and Blood that is say they The Bread and Wine Item Hee gave the name of the Signe to the thing signified Item Bread the Signe of his Body And lastly Bread is called Christs Body because it signifieth his Body Secondly in the point of Transubstantiation it selfe They calling the Eucharist which you dare not b Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 5. 11. Sect. 14. in Chrysost and by Cyprian his Confutation of the Aquarii ibid. Sect. 5. Book 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 3. Bread and c Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 5. Wine after Consecration and naming them * Ibid. Sect. 13. Earthly materialls and Matter of Bread and also as you have heard out of the Ancient Liturgies d Above in this Booke Ch. 1. Sect. 4. Fruits of the Earth and yet more plainely by way of Periphrasis describing them to consist of e Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. Divers granes and Divers grapes After by approving the Suffrage and judgement of our f Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 8 9 c. Senses in discerning all Sensible things and in speciall the Eucharist it selfe and at length affirming that there remaineth therein the g Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 11. Substance of Bread and Wine which are the Subject matter of your Divine Adoration All which are other Three Demonstrations of their meanings every singular point being avouched by the Suffrages of Antiquity Thirdly against your Faith concerning the maner of Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because so farre were the Fathers from beleeving that the Body of Christ could be in h Booke 4. thorowout divers places as you say in Millions at one time that by this property of Being in many places at once they have discerned Angells to be Finite Spirits and not God They have distinguished the Godhead of Christ from his Manhood and they have proved the Holy Ghost to be God and no Creature by the same Reason Than which Three Arguments none can be more Convincent Whereunto you may adde the Fathers speeches contradicting your Dreame of a Body whole in every part in whatsoever space or place by judging it Impossible and also concluding Christ his Ascension into Heaven to argue his Absence from Earth all which have i Ibid. Chap. 7. Sect 6. and Booke 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beene discussed from point to point Our Fourth Generall Argument is that whereas your Corporall Presence must needs inferre Corporall Eating thereof by the Communicants notwithstanding you have heard the contrary Sentences of Ancient Fathers against k Booke 5. thorowout Tearing and Swallowing of Christ's Body and Bodily Egestion Next concerning the Eaters that onely the Godly faithfull are partakers thereof insomuch that even the Godly under the old Testament did eat the same Then of the Remainders of the Consecrated Hosts that they were l Booke 1. Cha. 2. Sect. 10. Earen by the ordinance of the Church by Schoole-boyes and sometimes Burnt in the fire Besides they called them m Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. and Booke 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. Bits and Fragments of Bread broken after Consecration and diminished And lastly in respect of the End of Eating n Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. They held the
Durand l. 4. c. 1. is of the same minde calling this Institution of Christ Officium Missae Non dicit Hoc dicite sed Hoc facite quia mandat facere quod ipse fecit sc Accipere panem Gratias agere Consecrare Sumere Dare. Cajetan Card. la Lucam pag. 304. in sine determined with a large consent that the words DO THIS have Relation to all the aforesaid Acts even according to the judgement of ancient Fathers excepting onely the Time of the Celebration which was at Supper and which together with Vs b Coenantibus autem illis Postquam coenavit Non necesse est hujusmodi Sacramentâ— celebrationem aut coena praecedat â—ut consequatur nam Christus ante coenaverat non ut exemplum praeberet fecit sed necessariò quia oportebat vetera Sacramenta prius implere quà m nova instituere id est agnum palchalem priùs edere quam corpus sanguinem suum dare Agnus autem non alâ—o tempore quà m coenae edi poterat Mallon Ies in Mat. 26 super illa verba Coenantibus autem c. you say were put in not for Example but onely by occasion of the Passeover then commanded to be observed Thus you CHALLENGE THis Command of Christ being thus directly and copiously acknowledged by the best Divines in the Roman Church must needs challenge on both sides an answerable performance Vpon examination whereof it will appeare unto every Conscience of man which Professors namely whether Protestants or Romanists are the true and Catholike Executors and Observers of the last wil and Testament of our Testator Iesus because that Church must necessarily be esteemed the more lovall and legitimate Spouse of Christ which doth more precisely obey the Command of the celestial Bride-groome Wee to this purpose apply our selves to our busines by enquiring what are the Active Particulars which Christ hath given in charge unto his Church by these his expresse words Do this All which wee are to discover and discusse from point to point TEN TRANSGRESSIONS And Prevarications against the command of Christ DO THIS practised by the Church of Rome at this day in her Romane Masse SECT II. VVEe list not to quarrell with your Church for lighter matters albeit your owne Cassander forbeareth not to complaine that your c Has panis Oblatas quae nunc ad imaginem nummorum ad tenuissimam levissimam formam à veri panis specie alienam red actae sunt per contemptum ab ordinis Rom. Expositore vocari minutias nummulariarum Oblatarum quae panis vocabulo indignae sunt propter quas Ecclesiasticum officium ejusque religio per omnem modum confunditur Cassand Liturg. fol. 66. Bread is of such extreame thinnesse and lightnesse that it may seeme unworthy the name of Bread Whereas Christ used Solid and tough bread Glutinosus saith d Panis azymus glutinosus erat frangebatur five manu five cultro Lorin Ies in Act. 2. v. 42. § Indicat your Iesuit which was to be broken with hands or cut with knife Neverthelesse because there is in yours the substance of Bread therefore we will not contend about Accidents and shadowes but we insist upon the words of Christ his Institution The first Transgression of the now Church of Rome in contradicting Christ his Canon is collected out of these words AND HE BLESSED IT which concerne the Cousecration of this Sacrament SECT III. FIrst of the Bread the Text saith He blessed it next of the Cup it is said When he had given thankes Which words in e Non dubium est quin apud Evangelistas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idem sit quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nam quod Matthaeus Marcus dicunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 post de calice loquentes dicunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vicissim quod Matth. Marcus de pane dicunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lucas Paulus dicunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mâ—ld les in Mat. 26. and Stapleton Antidot in cum locum Promiscuè unum pro altero indefinenter accipi Salmeron les Tom. 9. Tract 12. Haec duo verba idem valent ut Cyrillus admonet sicut apparet ex Evangelistis S. Paulo Inde est quòd Ecclesia Latina pro eodem accipiens has voces simul conjunxit Idem ibid. pag. 76. Illud verbum Benedictionis est forma ejus Sacramenti idem est Benedicere uti verbis Consecrationis ad elementa proposita Alan l. 1. de Euch. cap. 15. p. 294. Et Catechismus Trident. dicit idem esse Benedicere Consecrare res propositas Idem ibid. Dixit S. Paulus Calix Benedictionis cui benedicimus i e. cui benedicendo Sacerdotes consecrant in altari ut exponit B. Remigius Salmeron Ies quo sup See also Ians Concor c. 131. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idem valere vide 1. Cor. 14. v. 16 17. Marc. 8. v. 6 7. Mat. 15. 36. your owne judgements are all one as if it should be said Hee blessed it with giving of thankes By the which word Blessing he doth imply a Consecation of this Sacrament So you The contrary Canon of the now Romane Masse wherein the Romish Church in her Exposition hath changed Christs manner of Consecration The Canon of the Romish Masse attributeth the property and power of Consecration of this Sacrament only unto the repetition of these words of Christ This is my body This is my blood c. and that from the judgement as f Communis sententia est non solùm Theologorum recentiorum sed etiam veterum Patrum Christum consecrâsse his verbis Hoc est corpus meum Hic est sanguis meus Bellar. lib. 4. de Euch. c. 13 §. Quod attinet Probatur ex Conc. Florentino Conc. Trident. sess 13. cap. 1. Barrad les Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 4. So also Suarez les Tom. 3. Disp 58. Sect. 1. §. Dicendum Omnes veteres his solis verbis dixerunt fieri consecrationem Maldon les Disp de S. Euch. pag. 134. Nè formae ignoratione turpissime peccetur ab Evangelistis Apostolis docemur illam esse formam Catechis Rom. de Euâ—h num 18. Tenet Sacerdos ambabus manibus hostiam profert verba Consecrationis distincte Hoc est corpus meum Missal Rom. jussu Pij Quinti Pont. edit Rubrica Canoniâ— Aquinas part 3. qu. 60. Art 8. Some say of your Councell of Florence and Trent Moreover you also alleage for this purpose your publique Catechisme and Romane Missall both which were authorized by the Councell of Trent and Command of Pius Quintus then Pope See the Marginals Whereupon it is that you use to attribute such efficacie to the very words pronounced with a Priestly intention as to change all the Bread in the Bakers shop and Wine in the Vintners Cellar into the body and blood of Christ And your * Summa Angelica tit Eucharistia num 25. de Pane.
Christ brake it but the Catholik Church meaning the Romane now doth not breake it but giveth it whole And this you pretend to doe for reverence sake Lest as your q A multo tempore non usurpâ—â—r fractio sed singuli panes seu minores hostiae consecrantur ad evitandum periculum decidentium micatum Lorin Ies in Act. 2. 42. Iesuite saith some crummes may fall to the ground Neither is there any Direction to your Priest to Breake the Bread either before or after Consecration in your Romane Masse especially that which is distributed to the people CHALLENGE BVt now see we pray you the absolute Confession of your owne Doctors whereby is witnessed first that Christ brake the bread into twelve parts r Fregit Nimirùm in toâ— particulas quot erant Apostoli manducaturi praeter suam quam Christus primus accepit Et ut quidam non indiligenter annotavit quemadmodùm unum calicem communem omnibus tradidit ad bibendum ità unâ palma panem in 12. buccellas fractum manibus suis dispensavit Salmer quo suprà Tract 12. §. Sequitur p. 77. Apostolus Act. 2. Vocat Eucharistiam fractionem panis ob ceremoniam frangendi panem in tot particulas quot sunt communicaturi ut Christus fecit in coena Quem morem longo tempore Ecclesia retinuit de quo Apostolus Panis quem frangimus nonne communicatio corporis Christi Domini in qua fractione pulchrè representatur Passio corporis Christi Idem Ies Tract 35. §. Vocat pag. 288 In fractione Panis Act 2. Indicat fractionis nomen antiquam consuetudinem partiendi pro astantibus sive manu sive cultro quià panis azymus glutinosus it à facilius dividitur Lorinus Ies in eum locum p. 138. col 2. Benedictionem sequitur hostiae fractio fractionem sequitur Communio Hunc celebrandi morem semper Ecclesia servavit tà m Graeca quà m Latina quarum Liturgiae etsi in verbis aliquandò discrepent certè omnes in eo conveniunt quòd partes has omnes Missae Christi exactè repraesentent nihil de essentialibus omittentes Vsus autem Ecclesiae ejus celebrandi ordonos docent qualis fuit Christi Missa quo illam ordine celebravit Archieâ— Caesar var. Tract p. 27. according to the number of Communicants Secondly that this Act of Breaking of bread is such a principall Act that the whole Celebration of this Sacrament hath had from thence this Appellation given to it by the Apostles to be called Breaking of Bread Thirdly that the Church of Christ alwayes observed the same Ceremonie of Breaking the bread aswell in the Greeke as in the Latine and consequently the Romane Church Fourthly that this Breaking of the Bread is a Symbolicall Ceremonie betokening not only the Crucifying of Christs bodie upon the Crosse but also in the common participation thereof representing the Vnion of the Mysticall body of Christ which is his Church Communicating together of one loafe that as many graines in one loafe so all faithfull Communicants are united to one Head Christ as the Apostle teacheth 1. Cor. 10. thus The bread which wee breake is it not the Communion of the bodie of Christ for we being many are one bread Wee adde as a most speciall Reason that this Breaking it in the distribution thereof is to apply the representation of the Bodie Crucified and the Bloud shed to the heart and soule of every Communicant That as the Bread is given Broken to us so was Christ Crucified for us Yet neverthelesse your Church contrarily professing that although Christ did breake bread yet BEHOLD she doth not so what is it else but to starch her face and insolently to confront Christ his Command by her bold Countermand as you now see in effect saying But doe not this A SECOND CHALLENGE AS for that truly-called Catholike Church you your selves do grant unto us that by Christ his first Institution by the Practice of the Apostles by the ancient and universall Custome of the whole Church of Christ aswell Greeke as Latine the Ceremony of Breaking bread was continually observed Which may bee unto us more than a probable Argument that the now Church of Rome doth falsly usurpe the Title of CATHOLIKE for the better countenancing and authorizing of her novell Customes although never so repugnant to the will of Christ and Custome of the truly-called Catholike Church Howbeit wee would not bee so understood as to thinke it an Essentiall Ceremonie either to the being of a Sacrament or to the Sacramentall Administration but yet requisite for the Commandement and Example-sake In the next place to your Pretence of Not-breaking because of Reverence Wee say Hem scilicet Quanti est sapere As if Christ and his Apostles could not fore-see that your Necessitie namely that by the Distributing of the Bread and by Breaking it some little crummes must cleave sometimes unto the beards of the Communicants or else fall to the ground Or as though this Alteration were to be called Reverence and not rather Arrogance in making your-selves more wise than Christ who instituted or than all the Apostles or Fathers of primitive times who continued the same Breaking of Bread Therefore this your Contempt of Breaking what is it but a peremptory breach of Christ his Institution never regarding what the Scripture saith * 1 Sam. 15. 22. Obedience is better then Sacrifice For indeed true Reverence is the mother of Obedience else is it not Devotion but a meere derision of that Command of Christ Doe this The third Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the sense of the next words of Christs Command viz. GAVE IT VNTO THEM SECT V. IT followeth in the Canon of Christ his Masse And he gave it unto them even to THEM to whom he said Take yee eate ye By which pluralitie of persons is excluded all private Massing forasmuch as our High Priest Christ Iesus who in instituting and administring of this Sacrament would not be alone said hereof as of the other Circumstances Doe this The Contrarie Canon of the now Romane Masse This holy Synod saith your a Missâ—s illas in quibus solus Sacerdos sacramentaliter communicat probat atque adeò commendat Concil Trid. Sess 22. cap 6. Councell of Trent doth approve and commend the Masses wherein the Priest doth Sacramentally communicate alone So your Church CHALLENGE BVt who shall justifie that her Commendation of the alone-communicating of your Priest which wee may justly condemne by the liberall b Sunt qui in Missâ— communionem recruirunt sic faceor à Christo institutum fuit ita olim fieri consu vit Eras Concord Eccles vers sinem Act. 2. Erant coÌ„municantes in Oratione communicatione fractionis Panis id est in Eucharistia non-minùs quà m oratione Lorinus Ies in Act. 2. 46. Odo Cameracens in Canonem seribit Missas solitarias antiquitùs in usu Ecclesiae non fuisse Et hunc fuisse
Laicos sub altera specie in multis Ecclesijs communicate consuevisse ut docet S. Thom. in Ioh. his verbis Secundum antiquae Ecclesiae consuetudinem omnes sicut communicabant corpore ità sanguine quod etiam adhuc in quibusdam Ecclesijs servatur ubi etiam Ministri altaris continuò corpore sanguine communicabant Salmeron les Tom 9. Tract 35. §. Secundum cortum pag. 284. Salmeron It is certaine saith he that the Church for these three or two hunded yeares hath used to communicate to the Laity under one kinde So they CHALLENGE NOw after that wee have proved out of your owne Confessions the length of the Custome of Both kindes to have beene in the Continuance above a thousand yeares after the first Institution of this Sacrament and for largenesse thereof in an universall consent thereunto without any exception by any example ordinary publike and legitimate and that you have heard also even the Fathers of your Church opposing against it a contrarie custome not above the Compasse of three hundred yeares and yet to call it Diutissima A Custome of longest continuance what Tergiversation could be more shamelesse But enough of this point In the next place because the same your Councel hath told us that your contrary Custome was brought in Rationabiliter with good Reason wee are forth-with to discusse the Reasons thereof Our sixt Comparison is of Reasons for the Vse of Both kindes collated with Reasons objested to the contrary SECT VI. A Sacrament according to the common definition is a Visible signe of an invisible Grace and so farre is a Signe true and perfect as it doth fully represent the things that are ordained to be signified thereby Signification being the very proper nature and end of a Signe as well in sacred as in prophane Rites Come now and let us industriously and calmly debate this matter which wee have in hand both in respect of the thing signified which is the Sacrament or spirituall Object as of the party Communicating who is the Subject thereof Our first Reason is taken from the due Perfection of this Sacrament which must necessarily be in Both kindes The things Spirituall as all Christians professe are the Body and Blood of Christ which are signified in the Sacrament of Bread and wine These two then are not two Sacraments but one Sacrament formally as you * See afterwards at the letter m. know which therfore ought to be performed in Both or else the Act will be a Sacrilegious dismembring of the Sacrament of Christ This shall we easily prove from the Principles and Confessions of your owne Schooles Your Church professeth to celebrate the Eucharist both as it is a Sacrifice and as it is a Sacrament As you hold it to be a Sacrifice you generally teach that Both kinds are necessarily to be received of the Priest because they both belong to the Essence thereof So your l Sed nos nullam scimus Sacramenti mutilationem neque partem dimidiam Laicis esse substractam siquidem duae species requiruntur necessariò ad Sacrificium sed ad essentiam Sacramenti quaelibet ex duobus sufficit Proinde Sacramentum sub specle panis est verum integrum Sacramentum quandò sumitur per modum â—nius refectionis Bellar Apol. con Praefar Monit pag. 102. And Alfons à Castro de nac Controv. pag. 157. Sacerdos hac lege devinctus est ut quotiescunque celebret nec panem sine vino nec vinum absque pane consecrari faciat quoniam etsi integer Christus sub qualibet specie lateat non tamen quaelibet species totum Christum significat sed panis solâ—m carnem significat species vini solum sanguinem repraesentat illiusque solius memoriam gerit Cardinall Consult with your m Vnum dicitur quod est perfectum sic cùm dicitur una domus unus homo Est autem unum in perfectione ad cujus integritatem concurrunt omnia quae requiruntur Aqum part 3. qu. 73. Art 12. Ex parte Sacramentâ— convenit ut utrumque sumatur scilicet corpus sanguis quòd in utroque consistit perfectio Sacramenti Idem thid quaest 80. Art 2. Etenim obligatio perficiendi istud Sacramentum illi solùm ex natura rei id est spectâ—tâ Sacramenti dignitate incumbit qui illud etiam conficit debet enim is quando-quidem rem tam divinam facit non utcunque facere Itaque tenetur inprimis utramque speciem consecrare tùm ut huic Sacramento omnis perfectio sua substantialis etiam quoad rationem individuam constet Valent. les de usu Eucharistiae cap. 6. §. Etenim pag. 492. Respondendum est eam actionem esse illis ipsis imperatam per illa verba Hoc facite c. See above Sect. 3. at g where Vasquez the Iesult is cited in 3. Them Disput 215. Aquinas your Iesuites Valentia and Vasquez and they will say as much in behalfe of the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament their reason is Because both kindes making but one Sacrament ought to be celebrated perfectly and therefore is the Priest bound to consecrate this Sacrament in both kindes by that command of Christ saying Do this nor can this be omitted without Sacrilege So they If such be the necessity of consecrating in both kindes under the hand of the Priest then lieth the same obligation upon the Church likewise for distributing it in both kindes unto the people to whom it is to be administred in token of Christ his Passion for them applicatorily both in his Body and Bloud but the Bread only can no more represent the Blood of Christ in the mouthes of people in the eating thereof than it can by Consecrating it in the hands of the Priest and consequently the dismembring thereof as you do must necessarily condemne both Priest and People A Consequence which your figment of * See hereafterr Sect 8. Concomitancie cannot possibly avoid A Corroboration of the same Reason against the Sacrilegious dismembring of this Sacrament by the Testimony of Pope Gelasius and a Vindication of Doctor Morton from the Traducement of other your Priests and Iesuites SECT VII THe Hereticall Manichees forbare the use of the Cup in this Sacrament in an opinion that wine was not created by God but by some evill spirit whom Pope Gelasius did therefore condemne by his publike Decree which Hereticall opinion as once I n Appeal lib. 2. Chap. 1. pag. 140. said cannot justly be imputed unto the Church of Rome in her manner of abstaining from the Cup in the Eucharist This Saying o In his Answer to his Majestie Master Fisher the Iesuite of late thought good to pervert to his owne use thus The Crime wherewith some Protestants charge us that our receiving under the sole forme of Bread is to jump in the opinion of the Manichees wee may as Doctour Morton confesseth reject as injurious saying with him that it was not the Manichees
significatio refectionis spiritualis quià unam eandem resectionis gratiam spiritualem significat â—â—bus potus Valent quo supr de legis usu Eucharist pag. 491. Iesuites from whom Master Fisher hath learned his Answer seeke to perswade their Readers that the Soules refection spirituall is sufficiently signified in either kinde whether in Bread or Wine But be it knowne unto you that either all these have forgotten their Catechisme authorized by the Fathers of the Councel of Trent and confirmed by Pope Pius Quintus or else Those their Catechists forgot themselves in teaching that b Optimo jure institutum est ut separatim duae consecrationes fierent primò enim ut Passio Domini in qua sanguis à corpore divisus est â—magis referatur Deinde maximè consentaneum fuit ut quoniam Sacramento ad alendam animam utendum nobis erat tanquam cibus potus institueretur ex quibus perfectum corporis alimentum constare perspicuâ—â— est Caâ—echis Rom. part 2. de Euch. num 29. This Sacrament was instituted so that two severall Consecrations should be used one of Bread and the other of the Cup to the end both that the Passion of Christ might be represented wherein his Blood was separated from his Body and because this Sacrament is ordained to nourish man's soule it was therefore to be done by Eating and Drinking in both which the perfect nourishment of mans naturall life doth consist Aquinas and your Iesuite Valentia with others are as expresse in this point as they were in the former who although they as we also hold that whole Christ is received in either kinde for Christ is not divided yet do they c Hoc Sacramentum ordinatur ad spiritualem refectionem quae conformatur corporali Ad corporalem autem refectionem Duo requiruntur scilicet cibus qui est alimentum siccum potus qui est alimentum humidum Et etiam ad integritatem hujus Sacramenti duo concuâ—â—â—unt scilicet spiritualis cibus spiritualis potus secundùm illud Ioh. 6 Caro mea verè est cibus Ergò hoc Sacramentum multa quidem est materialiter sed unum formaliter perfectivè Aqui. part 3. quaest 73. Art 2. Etsi negandum non est quin ejus refectionis spiritualis vis commoditas clarius utrâ—que re sâ—nul scilicet cibo potu atque adeò utraque specie significetur ideò enim hoc Sacramentum quod attiâ—â—et 〈◊〉 ad relationem individualem perfectus est in utraque simul specie quà m in altera Greg de Valent. les de usu Sacr. Each c. 6. §. Secundum p. 491. Hoc est convenientius usâ— hujus Sacramenti ut seorsim exhibeatuâ— fidelibus corpus Christi in cibum sanguis in potum Aquin. quo sup qu. 76. Art 2. maintaine that This Sacrament as it is conformable both to Eating and Drinking so doth it by Both kindes more perfectly expresse our spirituall nourishment by Christ and therefore it is more convenie it that both be exhibited to the faithfull severally as for Meate and for drinke So they For although in the Spirituall Receiving Eating and Drinking are both one even as the appetite of the Soule in hungring and thirsting is the same as where it is written Matth. 5. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousnesse c. yet in this Sacramentall communicating with bodily instruments it is otherwise as you know d Sub specie panis sanguis sumatur cum corpore sub specie vini sumatur corpus cum sanguine nec sâ—nguis sub specio panis bibitur nec corpus sub specie vâ—â— edituâ— quià sicut nec corpus â—bitur ità nec sanguis comeditur Duraad Ratitional lib. 4. cap. 42. pag. 326. The blood of Christ is not drunke in the forme of Bread nor is his Body eaten as meate in the forme of Wine because the Body cannot be said to be drunke nor the blood to be eaten So your Durand and so afterwards your * See hereafter Sect 10. âšœ Who also observeth that concerning spirituall Repast 8 â—â—aasen 〈◊〉 cap. 59. Dominus dicit unoâ—actu fidei famein tolli sitim ac proindè unico actu fidei dicitur manducare bibere Christ saith that by the onely act of Faith both hunger and thirst is taken away therefore wee are said both to eat and drinke by the same and onely act of Faith Wherefore you in with-holding the Cup from the People do violate the Testament of Christ who requireth in this a perfect representation visible of a compleate and a full Refection spirituall which is sufficient to condemne your Abuse whereby you also defraud God's people of their Dimensum ordained by Christ for their use Concerning this second e Answer to his Majestie Master Fisher one of the society of Iesuites was taught to Answer that the Full causality as he said and working of spirituall Effects of the soule cannot be a wanting to the Sacrament under one kind because of Christ his assistance So he We should aske whether a greater Devotion and a more plentifull Grace are not to be esteemed spirituall Effects for the good of the Soule which are f Secundum Alexandrum de Hales Major fructus ex perceptione utriusque speciei habetur Salmeron les Tom. 9. Tract 37. § Neque benè p. 303. Per accidens tutem non est â—ubium quin usus utriusque speciei possit esse fructuosior eò quod potest majorem devotionem commovere in percipiente Vndè fiat ut propter majorem dispositionem consequitur ille veriorem gratiam ex Sacramento Valent. les Ibid. pag. 493. §. Per accidens confessed to be enjoyed rather by Communicating in Both kinds âšœ Will you have any more know then that your Romane Pope Clement did absolutely teach that 9 Vasquez les in 3. Thom. quaest 80. Disput 215. cap. 2. Probabilior sententia mihi semper visa est eorum qui dicunt majorem-fructum gratiae ex utraque specie quà m ex aâ—â—erutra percipi proindè illos qui calicem sumunt novum augmentum Gratiae consequi Ità Alexander Cassalius Arboreus Clemens Pont. 6. Remandus Et iâ—margine suâ Hinc sententiam Suarez Disp 35. § 6. ut probabilem defendit Hanc sententiam absolutè secutiâ—s est Clemens 6. in Bullâ ad Regem Angliae 1341. in quo illâ— concessit ut in gratiae augmentum in utraque specie communicaret Sacramentum hoc institutum est in modum Convivij Ioh. 6. Caro mea verè est cibus languis meus verè est potus nam in Convivio nihil aliud est quà m cibus potus quorum quilibec suo particulari modo reficit A greater augmentation of Grace is obtained by Communicating in Both. Which was the Cause saith your Iesuite that Hee dispenced with the King of England to participate in Both. For consider we pray you that the Assistance of
acknowledged to have beene Apostolicall in their Resolutions the now Romish Church and her degenerate Profession must needs be judged Apostaticall Now 20 30 40 from the former Actuall we proceed to the Doctrinall points THE SECOND BOOKE Concerning the first Doctrinall Point which is the Interpretation of the words of Christ's Institution THIS IS MY BODY THIS IS MY BLOOD LVKE 22. The Doctrinall and Dogmaticall Points are to be distinguished into your Romish 1. Interpreation of the words of Christ his Institution This is my Body c. 2. Consequences deduced from such your Expositions such as are Transubstantiation Corporall Presence and the rest CHAP. I. Of the Exposition of the words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY The State of the Question in Generall BEcause as a In scripture explicandà haeresis est manifesta sicut figurata propriè accipere ità quae sunt propriè dicta ad TropicaÌ„ locutionem detorquere nam in verbis Eunuchi sunt qui se castraÌ„t propter regnum coelorum c. Aug. and to the same purpose also lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ Saint Augustine saith of points of faith It is as manifest an Heresie in the interpretation of Scriptures to take figurative speeches properly as to take Proper speeches figuratively And such is the CAVEAT which b Hoc cavendum nisi in manifestum Haerescos scopulum impingere velimus Salm. Ies Tom. â— Proleg 12. pag. 227. Salmeron the Iesuite giveth you it will concerne both You and Vs as we will avoid the brand of Heresie to search exactly into the true sense of these words of Christ especially seeing wee are herein to deale with the Inscription of the Seale of our Lord IESVS even the Sacrament of his Body and Blood In the which Disquisition besides the Authority of Ancient Fathers wee shall insist much upon the Ingenuity of your owne Romish Authours And what Necessitie there is to enquire into the true sense of these words will best appeare in the after-examination of the divers * See hereafter Booke 3. 4. 5. 6. Consequences of your owne Sense to wit your Doctrine of Transubstantiation Corporall and c Gratian Sacramenta Christi suscipiendo carnem ejus sanguinem materialiter significamus De consecrat dist 〈◊〉 Quà morte Materiall Presence Propitiatory Sacrifice and proper Adoration All which are Dependants upon your Romish Exposition of the former wordes of Christ The Issue then will be this that if the words be certainly true in a Proper and literall sense then wee are to yeeld to you the whole Cause But if it be necessarily Figurative then the ground of all these your Doctrines being but sandy the whole Structure and Fabricke which you erect thereupon must needs ruine and vanish But yet know withall that we do not so maintaine a Figurative sense of Christ his Speech concerning his Body as to exclude the Truth of his Body or yet the truly-Receiving thereof as the Third and Fourth Bookes following will declare That a Figurative sense of Christ his speech THIS IS MY BODY c. is evinced out of the words themselves from the Principles of the Romish Schooles SECT I. THere are three words which may be unto us as three keyes to unlocke the questioned Sense of Christs words wherof two are the Pronoune THIS and the Verbe IS not onely as they were then spoken by Christ himselfe but also as they are now pronounced by the Minister of Christ And the third key is the Pronoune MY whereof hereafter Wee begin with the word THIS The State of the Question about the word THIS When wee shall fully understand by your Church which a Conc. Trident. Sess 13. cap. 1. Verba illa à Christo commemorata à Divo Paulo repetita propriam significationem prae se ferunt holdeth a Proper and literall Signification what the Pronoune THIS doth demonstrate then shall wee truly inferre an infallible proofe of our figurative sense All Opinions concerning the Thing which the word THIS in the divers opinions of Authours pointeth at may be reduced to Three heads * âšœ Vasquez in 3. Thom. Disp 201. cap. 1. Omnes opiniones ad tres tantùm calsses reduci possunt nam quidam Hoc reserunt ad substantam panis alij ad aliquod commune quod statim post conversionem demonstret Denique nonnulli ad id solum quod in sine prolationis verborum quod est corpus as you likewise confesse namely to signifie either This Bread or This Body of Christ or else some Third thing different from them both Tell you us first what you hold to be the opinion of Protestants Lutherans and all Calvinists saith your b Lutherani omnes Calvinistae pronomen Hoc propane positum esse dicunt quià panem Christus in manu acceperat diâ—it Hoc est corpus meum Maâ—don Ies in Matth. 26. §. Hâ—c omnes Lutherus in verba Evangelistae Habent hunc sensum Hic panis est corpus meum Iesuite thinke that the Pronoune THIS pointeth out Bread But your Romane Doctors are at oddes among themselves and divided into two principall Opinions Some of them referre the word THIS to Christ's Body Some to a Third thing which you call Individuum vagum In the first place wee are to confute both these your Expositions and after to confirme our owne That the first Exposition of Romish Doctors of great learning referring the word THIS properly to Christ his Body perverteth the sense of Christ his Speech by the Confessions of Romish Doctors SECT II. DIvers of your Romish Divines of speciall note as well Iesuites as Others interpret the word This to note the Body of Christ as it is present in this Sacrament at the pronunciation of the last syllable of this speech Hoc est corpus meum Because they are words * See hereafter let k. n. o. c. Practicall say they that is working that which they signifie namely The Body of Christ And this sense they call Most cleare and in their Iudgements there can be no better than this So your c Hoc designat corpus ut est in termino prolationis hic est sensus luculentissimus Stapleton Prompt Cath. serm Heb. sacra upon these words Hoc est corpus meum Stapleton d Hoc nihil aliud quà m corpus Christi demonstrat Sand. de visib Monarch Ad annum 1549 p. 629. Sanders together with e Demonstrat corpus ipsum in quod panis convertitur in sine propositionis nec est Tautologia quemadmodum neque in illo Hic est filius dilectus Bâ—rrad Ies de Inst Euch. c. 4. Barradius f Vrique pronomen Hoc quod attributi locum tenet necessariò spectat Hoc est inquit Christus corpus meum id est opus quod ego panem accipiens benedicens operor conficio corpus meum est Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 9. pag. 120. §. Ad hoc Of which last
vagum of the Herbe which a man holdeth in his hand saying This hearbe groweth in my Garden how can you say it is true in the proper sense for if you take it determinately the same Hearb numero is not in the man's garden because it is in his hand and so it is yet Hoc Individuum determinatum And if you speake of it in a confused Notion no Abstract Notion can be held in a man's hand it being the function of the braine and not of the hand to apprehend mentall Notions or Generalls and so it is not Individuum at all But the Text saith of Christ his hand He tooke bread c. THIS which Christ in so saying pointed out with his finger saith your a Hoâ— est corpus meum Hoc quod Christus digito demonstrabat cùm illa verba protulit Sand. de visibil Monarch lib. 7. ad Ann. 1547. Sanders but a man will have much adoe to point out an Individuum vagum such as is an invisible or a confused Notion with a visible finger Wee would now conclude in the words of a Parisian Doctor b Petrus Picherellus de Missâ cap 3. Individui vagi commentum Authori Scoto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relinquo but that something els is to bee added Another may be your Cardinall his owne Assertion which he once made as a snare to catch himselfe in for in your c Cùm ante Consecrationem dicimus in Liturgiâ suscipe sancte Pater hanc immaculatam hostiam certè Pronomen Hanc demonstrat ad sensus id quod tunc manibus â—enemus id autem est panis Bellar. lib. 1. de Missâ c. 27. §. Prima proposito Romish Masse the Priest having the Hoast in his hand prayeth thus Receive holy father this immaculate Hoast If you shall aske him what in this prayer the Pronoune This doth demonstrate hee telleth you readily and asseverantly saying Certainly it demonstrateth unto sense that which the Priest hath in his hand which is Bread So he Now why there should not bee the like certainty of Relation of the Pronounce This to Bread in the speech of Christ as it hath in the prayer of the Priest none of you wee thinke shall ever be able to shew Lastly wee challenge you to shew within the space of a Thousand three hundreth yeeres after Christ out of all the Ancient Fathers any one Testimony that ever affirmed the Pronoune Hoc This to betoken any Individuum vagum or Common Substance orels to confesse that this your doctrine is new extravagant and Adulterate Nor yet can the Defenders therof say that this is all one as to say This that is that which is contained under the forme of Bread because this is like as when one shewing his purse shall say This is money meaning that which is in his purse which is a knowne figure Metonymia Yet were it granted that Hoc betokened an Individuum vagum as to use your owne Similitude when one saith of an herb in his hand This herb groweth in my garden so Christ should have sayd of bread in his hand This that is the like kind of bread is my Body yet would not this make the Speech of Christ proper or not figurative because Christ's Body could no more be properly predicated of the kind of wheat Bread than it could bee of that bread of wheate then in his hand as Christ himselfe hath taught us and as we are to prove unto you For speaking of his Body he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grane of wheat Iohn 12. 24. not This grane yet Christ's flesh is equally called improperly The grane as This grane of wheate whereof the ancient Father Theodoret will reade you all a Lesson in the sixt Section following And now this so open and extreme civill warre among your selves in confuting your owne Expositions will further and confirme peace among us in that one Exposition which we are in the next place to defend as followeth The third Proposition which is according to the judgement of Protestants that there is a Tropicall and unproper sense in the Pronoune THIS WEe reason first Hypothetically If the Pronoune This demonstrate Bread then the words of Christ are necessarily to bee taken improperly and figuratively But the Pronoune This doth demonstrate Bread Our Conclusion will be Therefore the words of Christ necessarily are to be taken figuratively All this will be proved confirmed and avouched by Reasons Authorities and Confessions which will admit no Contradiction We begin at our proofe of the Consequence of the Proposition That it is impossible for Bread to be called the Body of Christ or Wine his Blood without a Figure SECT IV. THe common Dictate of naturall Reason imprinted by God in man's heart is a Maxime and hath in it an universall Verity which neither man nor Divell can gain-say and is Confessed by your selves viz. Disparatum de disparato non propriè praedicatur That is nothing can be properly and literally affirmed joyntly of another thing which is of a different nature viz. It is impossible to say properly that an Egge is a Stone or to take your owne d Disparatum de disparato non pâ—aedicatur valet igitur argumentum Si â—oc est lac non est terrum ita etiam valebit Si hoc est corpus non est panis cum repugnet uâ—am nâ—turam de altâ—râ diversâ dici ut hominem eise equum citra tropum vel Metaphoram Salm Ies Tom 9. Tract 16. §. Primum igitur p. 109. examples wee cannot call A man an horse without a Trope or figure because their natures are repugnant So Salmeron And this he holdeth necessary Or thus e Ne ipse quidem Deus qui est summa veritas unquam efficiet ut hae propositiones uxor Lot est Sal aqua est vinum asinus est homo in sensu composito sint verae Archiep Caesar defens fid de Real Praes cap 58. God who is perfect Truth will never make those Propositions to bee true at the same time viz that the Wife of Lot is Salt or Water is Wine or an Asse a man So your Archbishop Yea to come nearer to the point f Observandum cum dicitur vinum est sanguis docetur esse sanguinem per similitudinem reipsâ autem propriè est vinum Et cum dicitur sanguis est vinum intelligitur vinum eâ—se pâ—r similitudinem nec enim reipsâ aut propriè esse potest aut vinum sanguis aut sanguis vinum cum res sunt ipsae diversae inter se termini ut vocant disparati Beld. 2. de Euch. c. 9. §. Observand Wee cannot say that this wine is blood or that this blood is wine but by a Similitude or Representation because they differ in nature So Bellarmine adding furthermore that it is g Non potest fieri ut vera sit Propositio in qua subjectum supponitur pro pane praedicatum pro
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 8. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. pet 2. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 2 13 Greeke taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not to trouble you with that in your * Summa Angelica tit Eucharist quaest 23. Propositio esset magis propria si demonstrando Cibum diceretur Hoc est Corpus meum Summa Angelica wherein Hoc neutrally taken is made to agree with Cibus And although Protestants bee so inexpert in the rudiments of learning yet will you not thinke that others whom you call Catholikes could bee so deceived who as your Iesuite witnesseth p Dicent Calvinistae Pronomen illud Graecum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latinum Hoc Substantiva esse quod multi Catholici dixerunt ideò opus non esse ut genere conveniat sed posse esse Hoc quod vobis do est corpus meum Teste Maldon Com. in Matth. 26. pag. 633. were Many that taught that Hoc in the wordes of Christ put Substantively may without any Inconvenience agree with Panis in This meaning This which I give you âšœ Will not this suffice then advise you with your learned Bish Iansenius to know why he 9 Iansen Concord Evang. Cap. 131. in haec verba Bibite ex hoc omnes Graecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hic est sanguis meus ubi pro pronomine masculino verti potest neutrum Hoc ut ità sit Hoc est sanguis meus quae versio magis convenit ei quod pâ—aecedit Bibite ex hoc omnes Nam si dieas Hic est sanguis meus videtur esse sensus Hic sanguis est sanguis meus Certè Cyprâ—â—nus in Epist ad Caecil legit Bibite ex hoc omnes nec tamen malè noster vertit Interpres quiâ— frequenter hoc modo Hic ponitur pro Hoc ut Exod. 16. interrogantibus de Manna Quid est hoc respondit Ille est panis cum videretur dicendum Istud said of the other Hic est sanguis meus That it had beene more agreeable to have rendred it thus Hoc est sanguis meus where he giveth his Reason for it and fortifyeth it when he hath done by the same Translation Hoc est sanguis meus out of Saint Cyprian It would but vexe you to tell you furthermore that 10 Gabriel Biel. Lect. 48 pag 4 14 lit K. Hoc est corpus meum Ad similitudinem quâ diceremus viso Angelo sub specie Bumanâ Hoc est Angelus Gabriel Biel durst illustrate the same Hoc spoken of Panis by this Saying Hoc est Angelus spoken of an Angel in the shape of a man Lastly what will you thinke of the Schollership of your owne 11 Egid. Conicks Ies de Sacram. qu. 75. Art 1. num 36. Ibid. Loct 48. Bonaventura dicit Hoc quod est subjectum demonstrat panem Bonaventure who adventureth to say that Hoc the Subject of Christ's speech demonstrateth Panem Bread Are you not yet ashamed of your Rashnesse then must we now put you unto it In your owne vulgar Latin Translation it is said of Evah the wife of Adam q Saluteron Ies Tom 9 Tractat. 16. §. Nec tursus Adam de Evâ ex costâ ejus desumptâ Hoc nunc os ex offibus meis Hoc est os Gen. 2. what Insobriety then is this in your Disputers so eagerly to reach that blow unto the Protestants wherewith they must as necessarily buffet their owne Mother Church by which the same Translation is made Authentike and wound their owne Consciences being themselves bound by Oath to defend it in all their disputations Away then with these Puerilities especially now being bused in a matter of so great importance wherein consisteth the foundation of all the maine Controversies concerning the Romane Masse For if the Pronoune This have Relation to Bread there needs no further Dispute about the figurative sense of Christ's speech âšœ Notwithstanding Wee have not yet done but furthermore to put every one of you to his Grammer Wee have heard of a Romish Priest who having many unconsecrated Hoasts before him used this forme of Consecration Haec sunt Corpora mea These are my Bodies Which Report your * See afterwards Book 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. Author indifferently thinketh might have beene either true or fabulous however it justly occasioneth us to make this serious demand to wit when any of your Priests having before him on the Altar not one loafe alone as Christ had which he blessed saying This is my Body and after brake it into parts distributing them to his Disciples but many round hoasts now to be consecrated Wee aske by what congruity he can pronounce of such a multitude of these Hoasts which he meanes to consecrate This is my Body have you ô the onely Grammarians any Grammer for this We returne to the Schoole of Christ the holy Scripture to consult about Christ's meaning with his Disciple Saint Paul where he professeth to deliver nothing concerning Christ his Institution of this Sacrament but that which he had * 1. Cor. 11. 23. Received of the Lord. Him we desire to expound unto us the words of Christ delivered by Three Evangelists and to tell what hee gave unto them and what he called his Body and he telleth us plainly saying * 1. Cor. 10. 16. The Bread which wee breake is it not the Communion if the Body of Christ alluding to those words of the Evangelists He brake it and that was Bread And that you may know that this was Catholike Doctrine in the dayes of Antity wee adjoyne the next Proposition That it was Bread and Wine which Christ called his Body and Blood in the judgement of Ancient Fathers SECT VI. FOr proofe hereof behold a Torrent of Ancient r I. Irenaeus Accipiens panem Corpus suum esse confitebatur Lib. 4. cap. 57. II. Tertull. Christus panem corpus suum appellat Lib. adversus Iudaeos Cap. quod incipit Itaque III. Orig. Nec materia panis est sed super illum dictus sermo est qui prodest non indignè comedenti In Matto 15. IV. Hieron Nos audiamus panem quem frâ—git Dominus esse corpus Seâ—vatoris Epist ad Hebdib Qu. 2. V. Ambros Panem fractum tradidit Discipulis suis dicens Acâ—ipite Hoc c. Lib. 4. de Satrament cap 5. VI. August Iudas manducavit panem Domini c. Tract 59. in Iohan. VII Cyr. Hier. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech. Myâ—lag 4. pag. 518. VIII Cyr. Alex. Cùm Christus ipse sic affirmat ac dicat de Pane Hoc est corpus meum c. Câ—tech 4. Idem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dial. 1. cap. 8. And againe else-where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 X. Gaudent brixtens Cùm panem consecratum Discipulis porrigebat sic ait Hoc est Corpus meum Tract de ratione Sacram. XI
Cyprian Vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit Christus Epist 63. XII Clemens Alexand Benedixit vinum cum dixit Accipite Paedag. lib. 2. cap. 3. XIII Isidâ—r Panâ—s quia confirmat corpus ideò corpus Christi nuncupatur Lib. 1. de officijs cap. 18. Fathers pressing upon you Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Hierome Ambrose Augustine Cyril of Hierusalem Cyril of Alexandria Theodoret Gaudentius Cyprian Clemens of Alexandria and Isidore Thirteene to the dozen whose sayings wee may best know by their owne Idiome and Tenure of speech The first noting Christ to have confessed Bread to have beene his Body The second Christ to have called Bread his Body The third that Christ's speech was spoken of Bread The fourth that That which hee broke was bread The fift that It was Bread which he brake The sixt that It was Bread of the Lord and not Bread the Lord received of Iudas The seventh that the words My Body were spoken of the Bread The eighth that Christ saith of the Bread This is my Body And the same Father as if he had studied to take away all Scales of doubtfulnesse from the eyes of your mindes illustrateth the matter thus So saith hee did Christ call his Body Bread as else where he calleth his flesh a Grane of Wheate Except the Grane of Wheate die it bringeth forth no fruit The ninth that Christ gave to the Bread the name of his Body The tenth that Christ said of the Consecrated Bread This is my Body The eleventh that It was Wine which he called his Blood The twelfth that He blessed Wine when he said drinke And the last The Bread strengthning man's Body was therefore called the Body of Christ Yet need not this Father be reckoned for the Last if wee affected to be supersluous All these so Learned and Ancient Fathers sufficient Grammarians wee trow teaching the Pronoune This to demonstrate Bread do as absolutely confute your Romish Exposition to prove the speech Figurative â—s any Protestant in the world could do if hee were permitted to plead his owne Cause CHALLENGE WEe will try what a Syllogisme will do that after your Posall in Grammar wee may encounter you with Logike The Major No Bread can possibly be called a Body of flesh without a figure This Proposition hath had the Vniversall consent of all Schooles by virtue of that Maxime of Maximes * See above §. 4. Disparatum de Disparato c. The Minor But in these words This is my Body the Pronoune This doth demonstrate Bread This hath beene the generall Exposition of Fathers The Conclusion Therefore the words of Christ This is my Body are to be taken figuratively Except you will contradict both the Generall confession of your owne Schooles and Vniversall consent of Ancient Fathers besides the now cleare light of the words of Christ That it was Bread which Christ called his Body is proved manifestly from your owne Romish Positions and Principles SECT VII YOur first Position is this The word This must either point out Bread or the Body of Christ or that Third common Substance which you call Individuum vagum But to referre to word This unto the Body of Christ is as hath beene f See above §. 2. confessed Absurd And that the word This should signifie your Individuum vagum is an Exposition full of Absurdities as hath beene also t See above §. 3. acknowledged It remaineth therfore that the Pronoune This pointeth out precisely Bread A second Principle you have to wit That these words This is my Body are words of Consecration and Operative so that by This is meant that which is Consecrated and as your Councell u Concil Trident Sess 23. c. 4. Fit Conversio totius substantiae Panus in corpus Christi of Trent speaketh changed into the Body of Christ But by the Decree of the same Councell not the Body of Christ nor any Third thing but Bread only was then consecrated and changed into the Body of Christ Ergo the Pronoune THIS hath only Relation to the Bread âšœ We might adde for a third Principle the above ingenuous * See above Chap. 1. Sect. 2. Confession of your Iesuites granting that the Pronoune THIS in Christs words did designe That thing which was then present whereof Christ sayd This is my Body when as which hath likewise beene confessed That thing was neither Christs Body nor any third thing differing from Bread And therefore say we could betoken nothing but Bread CHALLENGE A New Syllogisme would bee had to put the matter out of question Major No Sense which is Impossible can be given properly to the words of Christ This is my Body This needeth no proofe Minor But to call Bread Christs Body properly is a Sense Impossible This hath beene your owne constant * See above § 4 profession Conclusion Therefore cannot this Sense be given properly to the Body of Christ How can you avoyd the necessity of this Consequence All arising from the nature of Predication in this Proposition wherein the Subject is Bread the Copula Is and Predicate Body of Christ Which because it cannot be properly predicated either of Bread determinate as to say This Bread in my hand is Christs Body or of Bread undeterminate which you cal vagum as to say This kind of Bread is the Body of Christ it demonstratively sheweth that your Doctors can have no greater Adversaries in this case than their owne Consciences which will appeare more fully in that which followeth âšœ A Confirmation that in the words Hoc est Corpus Meum This is my Body the Pronoune HOC THIS is expressely spoken of Bread by the Analogie it hath with the other Pronoune HOC THIS spoken of the Cup. SECT VIII AS all the motions of every wheele of a Watch have their activity from the spring so may We say that all the Controversies touching the Romish Masse in the Doctrinall parts thereof concerning Corporall Presence Transubstantiation Vnion and divine Adoration attributed to that which is in the hands of the Priest depend as on their of-spring upon the proper and Literall Sense of these words Hoc est corpus meum This is my Body and this their Interpretation resteth upon the proper signification of the Pronoune Hoc This as you have already heard Which if it betoken Literally Bread as all Protestants affirme then by Vniversall consent of even the Romish Doctors themselves the speech of Christ must as necessarily bee a Figurative and Tropicall speech as was that of Saint Paul saying The Rocke was Christ The Romish therfore to avoid this have devised other Interpretations of Christs words as you have heard Some for they are divided among themselves will have the Pronoune Hoc This to betoken Christs Body as if Christ had sayd This my Body is my Body The other Opinators holding the former to bee absurd say that by Hoc This is meant not this definite Bread it selfe but This Individuum vagum kinde of
Bread is my Body which hath beene condemned by their other parties and truly as an Exposition full of Absurdities Wee now pursue this point further by examination of the Speech of Christ concerning the other Element delivered Saint * Matth. 26. 27. Matthew and Saint * Mark 14. Mark thus He tooke the Cup and gave it the Cup to them saying Drinke you all of this viz. Cup For this namely still Cup is my Blood And is further proved to point out the Cup by Saint * Luk. 22. Luke and Saint * 1. Cor. 11. Paul who both deliver it thus This Cup is the new Testament c. But here in these words These Cup is c. the Word Cup by Vniversall Consent is taken Tropically for the liquor in the Cup. Therefore did not Christ intend in that which you call his Consecratorie Words a Proper and Literall Sense when otherwise it had been as easie to have said either according to the first Exposition This Blood in the Cup is my Blood or else answerably to your second Interpretation This kinde of Wine in the Cup is my Blood albeit this also bee as Tropicall and Figurative as to have said This Wine is my Blood Which your Church of Rome perceiued right well and therefore for avoyding the Trope and Figure hath shee devised a new forme thus Hic est calix sanguinis mei This is the Cup of my Blood different from all the Evangelists even in that which you call a Forme of Consecration as if in her high presumption shee had professed to correct the forme of Christ his Institution A perfect Argument of a novell naughtie ruinous and tottering Cause If any Protestant had made so bold with Scripture O what outcryes and vociferations should wee have heard and that this was done to facilitate your Answer where you say 12 Vasquez in 3. Thom. Disp 109. cap. 4. Ego existimo nullum esse Tropum in verbis essentialibus formae The Words or forme of Consecration Are without Tropes your Iesuite Vasquez collecteth Wherein notwithstanding hee forsaketh his Master Aquinas even now when hee doth Glosse and Comment upon him for sure it is 13 Aquin. part 3. Quaest 78. Artic. 3. ad 1. Dico Hic est calix sanguinis mei est locutio figurata uno modo est secundùm Metonymiam Continens pro Contento dquinas concludeth most directly saying of these Words This is the Cup in my Blood that It is a Figurative speech called Metonymia Hitherto of the first Key of explication of Christs words CHAP. II. The Second Key in Christ's Words Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body opening the Figurative Sense thereof is the Verbe EST IS FOr that Est in these words hath the same sense as Signifieth as if Christ had sayd expresly of the Bread This signifieth my Body and accordingly of the Wine This signifieth my Blood may be proved by three Propositions infringible Our first Proposition The Verbe EST being joyned with a thing that is a Signe is alwayes figurative and the very same with this word SIGNIFIETH SECT I. FOr although the Verbe Est be indeed so absolutely simple in it's owne nature that it cannot be resolved into any other word as all other Verbes may be in like Case yet doth it albeit accidentally necessarily inferre a figurative Sense and is as much as Signifieth or Representeth whensoever it joyneth the Signe and the Thing signified together As for Example A man pointing at a signe hanging before an Inne and saying This is Saint George the Verbe Is can inferre no other Sense than Signifieth Why even because the thing whereof it speaketh is a Signe signifying Saint George And Bread in this Sacrament is in all Catholike Divinity a Signe of Christs Body Therefore the Verbe Is can have no other Sense than Signifieth The former Proposition confirmed by all like Speeches whether Artificiall Politike or Mysticall SECT II. YOur owne Iesuites and common Experience it selfe will verifie this Truth First In things Artificiall as a Metonymia tropus est in Scripturis frequentissimus quâ continens pro contento contrà signatum pro signo usurpari solet ut ostensâ imagine Herculis dicimus Hic est Hercules Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. proleg 12. Can. 15. To say of the Picture of Hercules This is Hercules is a figure Secondly In things Politike as when a b Testamentum saepè sumitur pro Legato seu Re testatâ Bartrad Ies Institut lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5. Legacie given by Will and Testament is called the man's Will So they And indeed what is more Common than for a man to say of his Testament This is my Will Of his name subscribed This is my hand And of the waxe sealed This is my Seale When as his Will properly taken is in his heart his hand is affixed to his Arme And his seale may be in his pocket Thirdly In Mysticall and Divine Rites as in Sacrifice even among the Heathen according to that Example out of Homer which is notable The Greeâ—as and Trojans when they entred into a league which was to be ractified by a Sacrifice of Lambs upon which both sides were to take their Oathes this their Act is thus expressed c Salm Ies Tom 9. Tract 15. §. Malè eâ—â—m Idem priùs habuit noster Bezâ—â—in Luc. 22. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is They brought with them two Lambs their faithfull oathes Where Lambs the rituall signes of their faithfull Swearing are called Oathes An Example I say even among the Heathen which is as apposite to our purpose and opposite against your defence as can be Our Second Proposition answerable to the first All the like Sacramentall Speeches in Scripture are figuratively understood SECT III. IN all such like Sacramentall Speeches both in the old and new Testament wherein the Signe is coupled with the Thing signified the Speech is ever unproper and Figurative and the Verbe Est hath no other force than Signifieth This Truth is confirmed abundantly by the Testimonies of your owne Iesuites and others who come fraught with Examples First concerning the old Testament Noting that the Sacrifice of the d Pascha significat transitum quâ—à Angelus transivit domos Israelitâ—rum haec ratio nominis redditur cum dicitur Transibit enim Dominus â—um viderit sanguinem in utroque poste â—ansen Ipâ—sc Concord in Matth. 26. It was therefore more than boldnesse in Bellarmine l. â— de Euch. cap 11 §. Quaedam to say Agnus erat proprâ—è Transitus Agnus being in the Prediâ—ament of Substance and Transitus in the Predicament of Action Paschall Lambe being but a Signe was called the Passeover or passing-over Secondly that e 〈◊〉 hoc 〈◊〉 loco dicitur spiritualis ex qua Deus eduxit per miâ—â—culum aquam quià Signum 〈◊〉 è lâ—tgre Christi 〈…〉 Saâ—meron Ies in 1. Cor. 10 Petra autem erat Christus Id est Petra significab
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
volunt quà m habere Sacramenta maximam similitudinem cum ijs rebus quarum sunt Sacramenta Bellar. lib. 1. de Sâ—â—â—am in gerere cap. 9. The Greeke Fathers called Bread and Wine Antitypes and Signes of the Body and Blood of Christ because the same Body and Blood of Christ as they are in this Sacrament under the formes of Bread and Wine are Signes of the same his Body and Blood as they were on the Crosse Like as a King who having gotten a vistory in battell should represent himselfe in a Stage-Play as in a fight So They. But without any Sentence of any Father for countenancing so egregious a figment so farre were the Fathers from using that counterfeit Testimony which passeth under the name of Saint Augustine as if he had said The flesh of Christ is a Sacrament of his flesh and inferring from hence that The Body of Christ as it is in this Sacrament is a signe of it selfe as it was upon the Crosse And they are no small Babes who vent out this proofe by name d Billius com in Nazianz. orat 11. Audiamus quid Augustinus dicit in Prosperi sententijs Caro inquit ejus est quam forma panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus sanguis quem sub specie vini potamus Caro viz. carnis sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis carne sanguine utroque invisibilâ—\i intelligibili spirituali significatur corpus Christi visibile plenum gratiae diviâ—ae Majestatis Gardiner Episc Winton Augustini verba ut liâ—era sonat intelligit Item Claudius Sainctes repetur allegari ait ut corpus Christi ostenditur quatenus in Sacramento est seipsum significare ut erat in cruce suique Sacramentum esse figuram figuram esse passionis suae Eandem sententiam apertissime tuetur Roffâ—ns Iohan. Hessell Haec Billius Billius Gardiner Bishop of Winchester Claudius Sainctes one of name in the Councel of Trent Fisher Bishop of Rochester and Hessell But how prove They this Out of any of the works of Augustine No where then Wee are required to seeke it in Prosper where againe e Trithemius Ex sententijs Augustini versibus hexametris pentametris mixtum opus prosa pulâ—â—erriâ—â—um quod 〈◊〉 voluit Epiâ—â—â—mma sic incipit â—um Sacris c. But of the other Intituled Sententiarum ex operibus Augustini beginning thus Innocentia hee maketh no mention yea and even in this as it is now set out among the works of Prosper pâ—inted Coloniae Agrippinae An. 1609. apud Arnoldum Crithum It is not to bee sound it is not to be found Whither next forsooth it is so cited by Peter Lombard and there it appeareth that Peter Lombard had it out of his supposed Brother Gratian wee say Gratian whose bookes have beene lately reproved and condemned by one of your f Antonius Augustinus Archiepisâ—opus Tarracon De emeÌ„datione Gratiani Arch-bishops for many False allegations of Testimonies of Fathers And when all is done if either g Lombardus Attende his diligenter quia Tropo quodam utitur hic Augustinus quo solent res significantes rerum sortiri vocabula quas significant Visibilis species panis vocatur nomine Carnis species vini sanguinis c. Lib. 4. distinct 10. Apud Billium quo supra Peter Lombard or h Gratian. Caro Id est species Carnis sub quo later corpus Christi Est Sacramentum Câ—ruis Christi sanguis Id est species vini sub qua later sanguis Christi est Sacramentum sanguinis Christi De Consecrat dest 2. Cap. Hoc est quod in Glossa Gratian who are the Relators may be admitted to be the Interpreters of that coyned Sentence they will say that the word Flesh there specified is taken for the Shape or forme of flesh and the word Blood for the outward forme of Blood which spoyleth your Play quite wherein you will have the Flesh of Christ under the outward formes and shape in this Sacrament and not the outward formes and shape themselves to be the Signe of the same Body on the Crosse So easie it is for Hunters to pursue their Game with loud cries upon a false sent Wee returne to your Cardinall and to Suarez who invented the Similitude of the Stage-Play for their Answer which is indeed rather a Childish Playing than Theologicall reasoning yet it is but a mad sport to argue against Conscience as this your Cardinall must needs have done who i See above at c confessing that the Greeke Fathers did therefore call Sacraments Antitypes because of the great Similitude they have with the things they represent yet now adventureth to say that the Body of Christ as it is in the Eucharist is a Signe of the same Body of Christ as it was upon the Crosse notwithstanding the Body of Christ as it is in the Sacrament according to your owne faith is so k Christi corpus ut est in hoc Sacramento nullo oculo humano vel intellectu Angelico videri potest Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disp 53. Art 7. §. 4. 5. Sub singulis utâ—â—üsque speciei partibus Christus totus est et integer continetur Concil Trident. Sess 18. cap. 3. Invisible that it cannot be seene of Angels so Indivisible that it cannot be parted or divided and so Vnbloody that there is not the least tincture of Blood to be discerned therein Wherefore to perswade your Disciples that those grave Fathers ever taught that the Invisible Indivisible and Vnbloody Body of Christ as in this Sacrament was or could be the Signe of his visible torne crucified and bloody Body upon the Crosse and so to note an Antitype which is as you call it the l See above at c Greatest Similitude is all one as to finde out the greatest Similitude in the greatest Dissimilitude Which yet is the more intollerable because it is against the Confessed m Billius Eucharistiae Sacramentum dicitur Antitypon et Typus seu Symbolum ratione â—pecierum paâ—â—s et vini quae in oculorum sensum cadunt et haec est communis ratio quae à Theologis asâ—erri solet Haec ille Com. in Naz. orat 11. Common opinion of your owne Divines who have taught that The Sacrament of the Eucharist is called Type and Antitype because of the formes of Bread and Wine So your Billius May you not now discerne the notable perversnesse of your Disputers and that they devised this Stage-Play ad faciendum Populum to please and delude their Readers thereby to fit themselves the better for the Pageant whereof wee shall be occasioned to say more in the * Booke 6. c. 5. §. 7. sixth Booke That the onely Objection out of the Greeke Fathers concerning the Pronoune HOC in the Testimony of Epiphanius advantageth not the Romish Cause SECT VII COmpare but Epiphanius his owne a Epiphanius in Ancorato Videmus quod accepit Salvator in manus veluti Evangelista habet quod
surrexit à Coena accepit haec cum gratias egisset dixit Hoc meum est hoc videmus quod non aequale est neque simile non imagini in carne non invisibili deitati non lineamentis membrorum hoc enim rotundae formae est insensibile quantum ad potentiam voluit per gratiam dicere hoc meum est hoc nemo non fidem habet sermoni qui enim non credit ipsum esse verum excidit à gratia salute Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch cap. 20. words your Cardinall's b Cum docere vellet Epiphan hominem verè factum ad imaginem Dei licet non facile appâ—reat in quo consistat similitudo inter Deum et hominem cum Deus incorporalis sit immensus et dicit multa esse ejusmodi quae aliud sunt aliud videntur ponit exemplum de Eucharistia quae verè est corpus Christi tamen nihil minus est quam quod appareat exterius cum sit â—otundum et insensibile proinde validè dissimile corpori Christi Hic sanè locus omninò convinciâ— nam quod dicit oporet credere ipsum esse verum excludit Tropos praesertim cum addat excidere à Salute qui non credit quod etiam addit ciedendum esse licet sensus repugnent apertissime testatur non cum loqui de significatione sed de re ipsa words to be observed in the Greeke are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The last words shew that Insensible is taken according to power that is actively Objection and our Answer and then make your owne determination as you shall thinke good Man is said to be made after the Image of God Epiphanius not able to define what this Image consisted in whether it be man's soule or minde or virtue notwithstanding resolveth thatc All men have the Image of God in them but yet not according to nature namely that substantiall nature which is in God because God is Incomprehensible and infinite c. This is the maine point which Epiphanius will now illustrate but how By something saith your Cardinall which seemeth to be that which it is not And Epiphanius instanceth in the Eucharist wherein Christ taking into his hands those things which the Evangelists do mention he said of the one HOC This is mine viz. Body and of the other This is mine viz. Blood hereby understanding saith your Objector The Eucharist which is truely the Body of Christ although it seeme not to be so outwardly being of a round figure and Insensible or without sense and therefore farre unlike to be the Body of Christ So he Who thinking he hath overcome doth raise up his Iö and Triumph saying This argument is throughly convincent because Epiphanius addeth He who believeth not the words of Christ doth fall from Salvation adding further that they are to be beleeved although our senses gainesay it You have heard the Objection which seeming to so great a Champion so greatly Convincent you will give us licence to make a full Answer First by HOC ET HOC THIS AND THIS by the Interpretation of Epiphanius are meant The things which the Evangelist did mention and the Evangelist mentioned as you know Bread He tooke Bread He tooke the Cup meaning Wine in the Cup namely according to the * See above Chap. 1. §. 6. former generall Consent of the Fathers HOC signifyed Bread in one part of the Eucharist and Wine in the other But Bread neither in the Substance nor in the Accidents can be called Christs Body without a Trope as hath beene * See above Chap. 1. §. 4. Confessed which is our first confutation of your Cardinal who concludeth that Epiphanius excludeth all Tropes out of Christs Speech of HOC Secondly c Epiphanius in Ancorato Habent omnes id quod est secundùm Imaginem Dei sed non secundùm naturam non enim secundùm aequalitatem habent homines Deus enim mente incoÌ„ prehensibilis est cum spiritus sit super omnem spirituÌ„ All men saith Epiphanius have the Image of God although not according to nature or equality because God the Spirit of Spirits is Incomprehensible Then he seeketh a Similitude from the Eucharist an Image of a thing which seemeth to be that which in nature and equality it is not Now in the Eucharist there are two things to be distinguished the one is the Naturall the other is the Sacramentall Being thereof The Naturall Being of the Elements as of Bread and Wine cannot make this Similitude because whether they be taken as Substances or Accidents Hoc This hath no proportion with the word which is called Meum meaning Christs Body because the Hoc as Epiphanins saith is a Round figure But as Hoc and Hoc are Sacramentall Images representing Meum and Meum Christs Body and Blood the Bread broken to betoken his Body crucifyed and the Wine poured out a-part to signifie Christs Blood Shed so will the Similitude be most Harmonicall Even as Bread and Wine in the Eucharist although they differ in nature yet are they representative Signes and Images of the Body and Blood of Christ So the Image of God in man hath a resemblance of the Godhead although in respect of Nature and Equality it be as different as Finite and Infinite Comprehensible and Incomprehensible According to which Analogicall Mysticall and acramentall sense upon the hearing of these words of Epiphanius Whosoever will not believe Christs words as hee said falleth from grace wee willingly shall say Amen The rather because Epiphanius being an Adversarie to the Marcionites who denyed Christ to have a True Body but onely Phantasticall notwithstanding whatsoever proofe from mens senses who saw and felt them they could not digest the Faith of the Romish Church which teacheth that that which Epiphanius calleth Bread after Consecration should be contrary to the Demonstration of â—oure Senses as of Seeing Smelling Feeling and Tasting meere Accidents Thirdly a place as observable as any other He saith of this Hoc which is of a round figure and differing in nature and proportion from that Meum which is the Body of Christ that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Insensible But how Passively as not being able to be perceived No for then it could not be perceived to be Round But Actively as not able to perceive any thing in which respect hee opposeth it to Meum which is the Body of Christ Which againe manifestly contradicteth the abominable coÌ„mon doctrine of your Church as you have heard of Believing the Body of Christ as it is in this Sacrament to be unable either to see or heare or exercise any faculty of sense without a Miracle as is shewed Book 4. Chap. 9. Sect. 2. In the last place I require Iustice from your selves against a Proctor of yours The Case is this Bellarmine said quoth I that Epiphanius taught We are to believe these words of Christ although
Body hee proveth out of the Gospel where hee is found desirous to eate his owne Passeover with his Disciples when taking Bread he made it his Body saying This is my Body that is a figure of my Body So he as Protestantly as can be spoken Which our Collection your miserable shift how to ridde your selves of it doth rather confirme unto us 12 Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 7. Illud Tertulliani Hoc est corpus meum Id est non significat panem Eucharisâ—â—ae esse siguram corporis Domini sed quod fuit olim figura in Testamento veteri nunc in veritatem corporis mutatum esse Conjungitur enim figura corporis mei cùm hoc ut sit sensus Hoc Id est Panis qui olim fuit figura corporis mei The Sense is this saith your Cardinall THIS that is This Bread which was once namely in the old Testament a signe of my Body So he O the profundity of this Answer Is a Signe saith Tertullian that is Was a Signe saith your Cardinall If one saying of the Sun-rising It is in the East and your Cardinall should comment saying that is It was in the East would you believe him And that Tertullian meant directly that the Bread which he now spoke of signified not the Bread of the Old Testament but the Bread of the Eucharist as it was a Signe then representing the Body of Christ two reasons may perswade us First because Tertullian observeth that Christ concerning the participating of the Eucharist said That hee desired to eate his owne Passeover meaning the Eucharist as distinct from the Iewish Passeover Next because he confuteth the Heretikes who denyed that Christ had a true Body by this Sacrament because Bread herein was a figure of a Body And Christ's figures were not of things only imaginary but also reall and essentiall And this is confessed by your Iesuite 13 Maldon Ies de sacra Euchar. §. 13. Conjectura pag. 295. Dicet aliquis cur Tertullianus figuram vocavit potiùs quà m veritatem Respons Id propositam quaellionem postulasse volebat enim probare contra Marcionitas Christum habuisse verum corpus quia illi negare non poterant fuisse Eucharistâ—am figuram corporis Si autem fuit sigura fuit veritas quia fantasma siguram non caperet Maldonate to have beene the Argument of Tertullian who once againe sheweth that Christ called Bread his Body in saying This is my Body as the Prophet Ieremy called his Body Bread in saying Let us put Wood upon his Bread meaning his Body So Tertullian shewing them both to be spoken equally in a figurative sense These are so directly repugnant to your Romish doctrine that one of your Church in his Admonition before the words of Tertullian seemes to impute unto Tertullian the Heresie which you commonly lay to the charge of us Protestants 14 Beat. Rheâ—â—n Admonit ante lib. Tertull. Error putantium corpus Christi esse tantùm sub sigura condemnatur est Of thinking the Body of Christ to be onely in a figure in this Sacrament of the Eucharist Next Cyprian thus q Cyprian Serm. de Vact. Et significantia significata ijsdem vocabuliscenserentur Things signifying and signified are called by the same words Vpon the which ground he made bold to say that Christ's Body is Created in this Sacrament by Body understanding Bread saith your Cardinall Bellarmine Hierome r Hier. cont Iovia Typus sanguinis Wine the Type of Christ his Blood Gelasius s Gelas cont Eutych Quod in ejus imagine profitemur Apud Bibliothec. Patrum Tom. 5. p. 475. Bread the image of his Body Ambrose t Ambros de Inst mister cap 9. Post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur Et 1 Cor. 11. Mysterium esse Typum sanguinis After consecration Christ his Body is signified âšœ Whereupon we are compelled to complaine against your Cardinall Bellarmine who even there where he professedly laboureth to extract out of the Fathers your Romish sense from the words of Christ This is my Body for a proofe of the literall exposition thereof as they sound This is my Body and not as Protestants teach This signifieth my Body misallegeth the words of Saint Ambrose to his owne purpose thus Before the Benediction of Christ's words This is my Body one kinde of thing is named and after Consecration It is the Body of Christ insteed of these words After the Consecration 15 Bellar. lib 4. de Eucharist cap 13. §. Gregor Nyssen Explicat Ambrosius lib 4. de Sacrament cap. 4. quae sint verba Domini in quibus Sacramentum conficitur recitans illa Hoc est c. Et in lib. de Init. Myster cap. 9. Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus meum ante benedictionem verborum coelestium alia species nominatur post consecraticnem corpus Christi est the Body of Christ is signified Iust Protestantwise as can be Do but now tell us how you wish wee should censure this Errour whether as a wilfull Falsity and then should you eclipse his Credit and Authority or else only as a Temeritie and then ought you to Censure as indifferently of such escapes if any such happen of Protestants according to the Law of Equitie Veniam petimusque Damusque vicissim Saint Augustine whom one of your profession hath of late more choicely singled out for a Patron of your Romish defence hath unanswerably impugned your Romish Faith in this very point proving other Sacraments to agree with this in like of Predication and that herein the Eucharist hath not Prerogative above the rest u Aug. lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ Figurata locutio Idem cont Adimant Manich cap. 12. Non dubitavit dicere Hoc est corpus meum cum signuÌ„ daret corporis sui Idem Epist 23. ad Bonifac. Tom 9. Sacramenta propter similitudinem earum rerum quas repraesentant plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Sicut ergò secundùm quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi et Sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi ità Sacramentum fidei sides est Sicut de ipso Baptismo ait Consepulti sumus per baptismum in mortem Christi non dicit sepulturam significamus sed prorsus ait Consepulti sumus Sacramentum igitur tantae rei non nisi ejusdam rei vocabulo nuncupavit And intripreting that which he called Fidei Sacramentum hee sa 〈◊〉 Respondetur Parvulum baptizatum credere propter fidei Sacramentum Sacraments saith he for the very Similitude and likenesse wihich they have with the things wherof they are Sacraments do often take the names of those things which they do signific as when the Sacrament of Christ's Body saith he is after a certaine manner called the Body of Christ But how Hee addeth as if hee had meant to stop the Mouthes of all Opposites As it is said by the Apostle of Baptisme we are buried by
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
the way if wee shall consult with 18 Bertram de Corpore sanguine Domini after that he had cited Ambrose Hierome Austine Origen Fulgentius saith Animadvertat clarissimè Princeps sapientia vestra quod positis sanctarum â—rupturarum testimonijs sanctorum Patrum dictis evidentissimè monstratum est quod panis qui corpus Christi Calâ—s qui sanguis Christi appellatur figura sit quâ—à mysterium quod non parva differeâ—◠〈…〉 corpus quod per mysterium existit corpus quod passum est Quia hoc proptum Servatoris corpus â—st nec in eo aliqua figura est sed ipsa rei manifestatio At in isto quod per mysterium geritur figura est non solum proprij Christi corporis verumetiam credentis in Christum populi Bertram to know what he hath observed both out of Scriptures and Testimonies of Ancient Fathers by name Ambrose Augustine Hierome and Fulgentius he doth tell his Prince and Emperour that They demonstrate that the Bread which is called the Bodie of Christ is a figure because a Mysterie and that there is no small difference betweene the same Body which is the Mysterie and the Bodie which was crucified for that this is the proper Bodie of Christ and no figure but a manifestation But in that which is done by a Mysterie there is a figure both of the proper Bodie of Christ and also of the people that believe in him The same Orthodoxe Fathers of Primitive times thirteene in number have told us already that Christ called * See above B. 2. Chaâ— 1 Sect. 6. Bread his Body which hath beene the overthrow of your Romish Expositions of Christ's speech as you have heard Saint Cyprian saying that Christ created his owne Body thereby as your * â—yp ian See Book 3. 〈◊〉 4 Sect. 2. in 〈◊〉 second Ediâ—ion Cardinall confessed meaning Bread The Fathers of the Councel of Carthage forbidding any thing to be offered in this mysterie but Bread and Wine mixed with Water deliver their Canon thus 29 Conc. Carâ—â—ag Tempare Bontâ—â— Can 37. Or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lâ—tta apud Bin. Canon 4. In Sacramento corporis sanguinis Domini nihil amplius offeratur quà m quod Dominus prodidit hoc est Panis Vâ—num aquâ mixtum Which is a most corrupt Transtation and ought to bee thus Nihil amplius quà m corpus sanguis Domini id est Panis Vinum Which is recorded De Consecrat Cap. In Sacramento It can be no Answer to say that they meant the Layâ—â—ffering before Consecration becauâ—e they call that Offering now spoken of The Body and Blood of Christ which all know to bee spoken Sacerdotally before it was consecrated That nothing in those sacred mysteries be offered more than the Body and Blood of Christ as Christ himselfe hath ordained That is say they than the Bread and Wine Hereby plainly teaching that as they are called Christ's Bodie and Blood in their Sacramentall and Mysticall use and signification so are they Bread and Wine in their proper essence The foresaid Canon is registred among the Papall Decrees The Heretike Novatus binding some Receivers of the Eucharist to his part by saying 30 Euseb lib. 6. Cap. 35. Verba Novati Eucharistiam sumpturo Iura mihi per corpus sanguinem Domini te nunquà m me deserturum c. Whereupon Eusebius Miser ille homo non priùs degustavit Graec. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Here the Translator omitteth in his Translation the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bread Sweare to me by the Bodie and Blood of Christ not to depart from mee Hereupon Eusebius So the miserable man did not receive that Bread before he had said Amen that is given consent to the Motion of Novatus Where we finde Eusebius calling it Bread which had beene Consecrated by Novatus and named The Bodie of Christ This our Collection may be held so much the rather of some force because the Romish Translator which was Christoferson Bishop of Chichester according to his guise els-where did fairely leave out the word Bread but is a foule fault in a Translator of an History Will you have any more you may admit into the same Cuire these other Suffrages of Cyprian Hierome Eucherius and Primasius * See afterwards B. 6. C. 3. §. â— Melchizedech in his Oblation of Bread and Wine offered the Body and Blood of Christ Calling that the Body and Blood of Christ which then before Christ his incarnation in the flesh could bee essentially nothing but Bread and Wine because it was onely a Type of the Body and Blood of Christ to come And what will you say to the other * See afterwards B. 6. C. 5. §. 11. Fathers who affirmed hereof in as full an Emphasis that Christ is still Crucified bleeding and slaine in this Sacrament notwithstanding that our Christian Faith generally beleeved denyeth that this can happen to his glorified Body now after his Resurrection and therefore such Phrases were to be understood of the breaking of the Bread and powring out of Wine Sacramentally and Analogically that is Figuratively representing the Crucifying of his Body and Shedding of his Blood The Fathers who used this accent of speech were Alexander and Gregory both Popes of Rome Chrysostome Cyprian Hierome Cyrill of Hierusalem Hesychius Paschasius Eusebius Emissenus Enow one would thinke to silence all Oppositions of them who are instant in nothing more than in pressing the Improprieties of the speeches of Antiquitie in a literall sense and hereby verifying that Proverbe of Salomon Qui nimis emuâ—git elicit sanguinem Even so they who by the same Reason wherby they urge the sayings of Fathers literally for the proofe of an unbloody Sacrifice properly so called must be constrained likewise â—o admit against the Catholike faith of all Christians a Sacrifice properly slaine and bloodie therein The like will bee proved from their other Hyperboles and the Excessive termes of Antiquitie viz. of Tearing Christs Bodie and dying our teeth in his Blood and the like in the * Booke 5. thorow-out fifth Booke and from their checking their owne Phrase of offering the Sacrifice of his Bodie by recalling and correcting themselves immediatly thus Or rather a Memoriall thereof in the * Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 6. sixth Booke All these Observations are as demonstrable for the vindicating of the judgement of Ancient Fathers as any Child of the Catholike Church could have desired if the same holy Fathers had beene intreated to expound their owne meanings Wee returne to our former Argument Christ Instituting a Sacrament and in Taking Bread and Blessing Bread saying This is my Bodie must necessarily bee understood to have spoken Sacramentally that is Figuratively as hath beene prooved from Scripture as in all other Sacraments so likewise in the severall confessed Figurative words of Christ concerning this Sacrament by eight severall Instances in this second Booke This one Argument
of it selfe hath beene termed by Master Calvin Murus ahaeneus that is a wall of brasse and so will it bee found more evidently to bee when you shall perceive the same * Booke 3. thorrow-out Fathers judging that which they call a Change into Christs Flesh to bee but a Change into the Sacrament of his Flesh bread still remaining the same in the third Booke âšœ And now wee are to withstand your paper-bullets wherewith you vainely attempt in your Objections following to batter our defence withall CHAP. III. The Romish Objections from Reasons against the Figurative Sense Answered The first Objection SECT I. NOthing useth to bee more properlie and simplie spoken say a Primum Argumentum sumitur à materiâ est enim materia de quâ hic agitur Pactum Sacramentum Testamentum Novum fuisse à Domino institutum pater ex illis verbis Hic est calix Novi Testamenti in sanguine meo Iam verò nihil solet magis propriè simplicitèr aut exquisitè explicaâ—â— quà m Testamentum nè viz. detur occasio litigandi Pacta seu toedera sunt etiam ex eodem genera quae exquisitissimè proprijs verbis explicantur nè locus ullus relinquatur cavillis Sacramentum hoc esse de quo agitur nemo negat Sacramentum autem solere à Deo institui proprijs verbis ut in corum usu non cretur Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch c. 9. §. Primùm §. Deindè §. Poriò â—acramentum A Testament must be alwayes taken in a reall and substantiall meaning M. Maloun the Ies in his Reply you than words of Testaments and Covenants Ergò this being a Testamentary Phrase must be taken in the literall Sense CHALLENGE VVHat is this are Figurative speeches never used in Covenants and Testamentarie Language or is there not therfore sufficient perspicuity in Figures This is your rash and lavish Assertion for you your selves doe teach that b In ipsâ Scriptura dicitur Testamentum Instrumentum Quia pacta Dei soedera inita nobiscum continent ut patet in pacto Circumcisionis cum Abrahamo Ante omnia praefamur S. Scripturam uti Metaphoris non solum ob utilitatem nostram sed etiam propter necessitatem à pluribus Patribus traditur Sacram scripturam de Deo de Trinitate de Patre Filio Spiritu sancto propriè loqui non passe Quandò sermo est de vità aeterâ pâ—aemio siliorum Dei â—laâ—is rebus comparatur per Tropos est explicandus ut August ait Nullo genere lâ—cutionis quod in consuetudine humanâ reperitur Scripturae non utuntur quia utiqué hominibus 〈◊〉 Salâ—â—er Iâ—s Proâ—â—g lib. 1. p. 3. 4. lib. 21. pag. 371. 227. 229. 231. 234. The Old and New Testament are both full fraught with multitude of Tropes and Figures and yet are called Testaments Secondly That the Scripture speaking of the Trinitie and some divine things cannot but speake Improperly and siguratively Thirdly That Sacramentall speeches as The Rocke was Christ and the like words re * See above Chap. 2. Sect 3. let c. Tropicall and Figurative Fourthly That even in the Testamentary Speech of Christ at his Institution of this Sacrament saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood there is a Figure in the very word c See above Chap. 2 Sect. 4. p. q. Testament So have you confessed and so have you consequently confuted your owne Objection Hereto might bee added the Testament of Iacob prophesying of his sonnes and saying * Gen. 49. Reuben is my strength Iudah a Lions Whelpe Issachar a strong Asse Dan an Adder in the way All figurative Allusions Nay no man in making his Testament can call it his Will or say that hee hath set his hand and Seale unto it without Figures Namely that hee hath given by writing a Signification of his Will that the Subscription was made by his Hand and that he added unto it the Print of his Seale These Three Will Hand Seale every word Figurative even in a Testament The second Romish Objection against the Figurative Sense SECT II. LAwes and Precepts say d Verba Legum Praeceptorum debent este propria Bellar lib 1 de Eucharist cap 9. §. Sequitur you should bee in plaine and proper words But in the Speech of Christ Take eate you c. are words of Command Ergò They may not bee held Figurative CHALLENGE CAn you be Ignorant of these Figurative Precepts viz. of Pulling out a mans owne eye of cutting off his hand Mat. 5. Or yee of a Penitents Renting of his heart Ioel 2. Or of not hardening his heart Psalme 95. and the like Christ commanded his Disciples to prepare for his keeping the Passeover with his Disciples and the Disciples prepared the Passeover as Iesus commanded them saith the * Luc. 22. 8. Evangelist In this Command is the word Passeover We demand The word Passeover which is taken for the Sacrament and Signe of the Passeover is it taken Figuratively You cannot deny it And can you deny that a Commandement may bee delivered under a Figurative Phrase You can both that is say and gaine-say any thing like false Merchants onely so farre as things may or may not make for your owne advantage But to catch you in your owne snare your Doctrine of Concomitancy is this viz. Bread being turned into Christs Body is joyntly turned into whole Christ and Wine being changed into his Blood is likewise turned into whole Christ both Flesh and Blood If then when Christ commanded his Disciples saying * Matth. 26. 27. Drinke you All of this that which was Drunke was the whole substantiall Body of Christ either must his Disciples be sayd to have Drunke Christs Body properly or else was the Command of Christ figuratively spoken To say the first contradicteth the universall expression of mans speech in all Languages for no man is sayd to drinke Bread or any solid thing And â—o grant the Second that the speech is Figurative contradicteth your owne Objection Againe Christ commanded to Eate his Body yet notwithstanding have Three e Seâ— above Ch. 2. §. 4. l. Iesuites already confessed that Christs Body cannot bee sayd to have beene properly Eaten but Figuratively onely What fascination then hath perverted your Iudgements that you cannot but still confound your selves by your contrary and thwarting Languages Your third Romish Objection SECT III. DOctrinall and Dogmaticall speeches say f Praecipua dogmata c Bellar. quo supra §. Denota you ought to be direct and literall But these words This is my Body are Doctrinall CHALLENGE A Man would marvaile to heare such seely and petty Reasons to bee propounded by those who are accounted great Clerkes and those who know full well that the speech of Christ concerning Castrating or gelding of a man's selfe is g Abulen in eum loâ—um Christus non laudat cos qui castâ—ârunt se sed
charge that I doe say in this cause they saying It is given us in charge spake it in their owne person and not in the person of the King for the Charge was not given to the King but by the King to themselves And when they said I the King doe say in the Cause they spake not in their owne person but in the person of the King What need many words To speake the same words in a mans owne person and â—n the person of another saith your Iesuit Vasquez iâ— the Murgiâ— and that most trulie is Impossible and hee therefore standeth onely to that one Terâ—â—e Significatively which all your other Disputers held to bee necessarie for the Answering of the maine Objection But what need wee any Iesuit to plead our Cause seeing that the Text it selfe will clearelie evince the same That the words of Christ as they are pronounced by the Priest are meerely Narrative and not Significative is proved by the Text it selfe SECT III. IT was alwayes held by all Divines to bee a most necessary exact and securo Rule of interpreting of Scripture to expound a Text by the Context of the words preceding and the words following Ianus wise looking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The words of the first Text are these This is my Body of the Second these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this is the New Testament in my Blood as Saint Matthew hath it Now the words which goe immediately before the former Text concerning the Acts of Christ viz. He having taken Bread when hee had given thankes brake it saying This is c. are delivered by the Minister onely Narratively namely rehearsing what Christ had done long since and not any Act now in doing by the Priest in the person of Christ The words likewise preceding in the Second Text concerning the Cup stand thus After Hee Christ had supped hee tooke the Cup and when hee had given thankes hee sayd Drinke you all of this c. which all are Narratives repearing what Christ had done For the words are HEE Christ TOOKE and not I the Minister And HEE what Saying a word Narrative in it's owne proper Signification Next marke the succeeding words of both your supposed Consecratory Sayings of Christ concerning the Bread This is my Bodie it followeth HEE Christ taking the Cup as likewise secondly concerning the Cup the words succeeding which are SHED for Remission of sins are a Narration of the virtue of Christs Blood Shed expressed then by Christ We now demand seeing the whole Contexture whether going before or following after the Text in Controversie are all words onely rehearsing what Christ had done why should you conceive the Intervenient words This is my Bodie to be uttered in a different tenure of speech as in the person of Christ When wee should expect some warrant hereof from some one Father you are unanimously mute When wee further inquire into your Reason wee finde none more semblable than this That according to your familiar and frequent Similitude of a Stage-Play your Priest is here as it were Acting in a Play and exchanging his Parts now and then taking upon him the person of a Relator and Rehearser onely and againe in a middle Scene of a Significator That the Suggested Romish Significative Sense of Christ's words was never Patronized by any Ancient Father SECT IV. VVEe willingly grant that the Apostle speaking of Absolution 2 Cor. 2. saith If I have pardoned any thing I have pardoned in the person of Christ And againe 2 Cor. 5. Wee are Embassadors for Christ exhorting you in Christ's stead But these and the like words of the Apostle have no other meaning than that which your owne 3 Estius Professor Theol. Duacen in 2. Cor. 2. v. 10. Cui quid donavâ— in persona Christi donavi posset aeque verti In facie Christi quasi coram Christo in ejus praesentia et infia in hac eâdem Epistolà ca 4. legâ—ur in persona ubi nos habemus In facie Christi iursus cap. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ubi latinè Qui in facie gloriantur id est in his qui exterius apparent Hoc autem in persona Christi nihil est aliud quam in vice nomine authoritate Christi Theodoret. tanquam intuente Christo Theoph. coram Christo hoc est Christo jubente veluti ejus loco existens veluti ejus personam referens Chrysost Id est tanquam Christo hoc jubente Nos sensum reddamus verborum Apostoli facio tanquam Christi minister Delegatus cujus inâ—eaâ—re personam refero Salmoron in eum locum Vice Christi ad gloriam Christi Idem in 2 Cor. 5. Pro Christo legatione fungimur tanquà m Deo exhortante per nos Id est Lâ—gatione fungunur vice Christi Sensus est cum nos legatione fungimur exhortando obsecrando vos ut per poenitentiam reconciliemini Deo sic accipâ—re debetis ac si Deus exhortetur pernos Iesuite Estius rendreth out of the Fathers In the person of Christ is no more saith he but in the name of Christ and by the authoritie of Christ and as Christ himselfe commanding me and beholding me I being the Minister of Christ But the Priest in pronouncing the words of Christ in the Romish Significative sense is said to do it in a farre higher straine which your Cardinall Bellarmine will have you to consider * See above Sect. 1. The Priest saith he in this Action of Consecration dealeth farre otherwise than he doth in other Sacraments where he speaketh as the Minister of God in his owne person saying I Absolve thee I Baptize thee Do you marke Farre otherwise And yet the Apostle when hee spake of the Absolution which hee gave saying to the Corinthians If I have pardoned any hee added I have pardoned them in the person of Christ So that the word Person spoken of by the Apostle and Ancient Fathers is to be understood Farre otherwise than that which the Significative Romish sense doth exact which is that the Priest so uttereth Christ's words in the person of Christ that he delivereth them Significatively that is as to signifie the same Intention in himselfe in repeating those words which Christ himselfe had in the first uttering of them As for example it is your Cardinal 's owne Any one repeating these words spoken of the wicked Iewes Saying concerning Christ This man Blasphemeth if he should utter them Significatively that is with the same Intention of noting Christ to be a blasphemer he himselfe should Blaspheme â—ut delivering them onely Narratively by way of Repetition hee doth not Blaspheme because he meaneth not to say that Christ did Blaspheme but that the Iewes said so So he And so say wee That the Priest in repeating of Christ's words This is my Body pronounceth them Narratively onely and not Significatively For the Romish Priest if he should speake the words of Christ Significatively in the person of
manifest so plainly as to affirme that It was Wine which then Christ dranke and that hereby the Practices of the Heretikes Aquarij are confuted who would drinke nothing but Water in the Eucharist That which commeth out of the fruit of the Vine which certainly produceth wine and not water So Chrysost It was the Wine saith r August de dogmat Eccles cap. 75. Vinum fuit in redemptionis nostrae mysterijs cùm dixit Non bibam Augustine which was used in the mysteries of our Redemption Even that Wine which was blessed saith Å¿ Clemens Alex. Quòd Vinum esset quod benedictum fuit ostendit rursus dicens Non bibam de fructu Vitis Lib. Paedag. 2. cap. 2. sub finem Clemens Alexandrinus And your owne Bishop t Cùm Matthaeus Marcus nullius alterius Calicis secerint mentionem praeter sacri quod dicitur De genimine Vitis nullus alius Calix intelligi potest ab ijs demonstratus quà m cujus mem inerant Et omninò videtur ex Matthaeo Marco dictum hoc post consecrationem Iansen Episc Concord in eum locum pag. 914. Col. 2. Iansenius doth confesse that these words of Christ had reference to the Cup in the Eucharist and not as Some say to the Cup of the Passeover âšœ Yea to the Eucharist as your Pope Innocentius did 12 Innocent 3. de officio Missae lib. 4. cap. 2. Quod autem Vinum in Calice consecravit patet ex eo quod ipse subjunxit Non bibam ex eo donec c. teach you I say Innocentius the Pope That Christ consecrated Wine in the Cup is evident saith he by that which Christ added saying I will not henceforth drinke of it untill c. Marke you furthermore the Errour of the Aquarij and the Confutation thereof They used onely Water in the Eucharist in preteâ—ce of * See above Book 1. Chap. 3. §. 10. Sobriety which Cypriaen confuted onely upon this ground viz. that this practice was not warranted by the * See above Book 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 3. And here above in the Margin Institution of Christ wherein Christ ordained Wine and not Onely Water And now tell us if that your Doctrine of Transubstantiation had beene an Article of Faith in those daies whether it had not concerned Cyprian to have stood exactly upon it for the more just condemnation of those Aquarij to let them know that if they would needs use only Water then according to your Doctrine their Consecration should be void and consequently their Adoration if it had beene then in use should have beene likewise Idolatrous But wee heare no more of these your Exceptions The former Proofe confirmed by Analogie betweene Bread and Christ's Body both Naturall and Mysticall SECT VI. IN 1. Cor. 10. 16 17. The Bread which wee breake saith the Apostle is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ for we being many are one Bread and one Body in as much as wee all partake of one Bread In this Sentence the word Bread hath a double Relation the First to Christ his Body Naturall Thus the joynt Participation of the Bread is called the Communion of the Body of Christ The Analogie in this respect is excellently expressed by u Panis quià confirmat Corpus ideò Corpus Christi nominatur Vinum autem quià sanguinem operatur ideò ad sanguinem refertur Haec autem duo sunt visibilia sanctificata autem per Spiritum sanctum in Sacramentum divini Corporis transeunt Isidor Hisp de Offic. Lib. 1. cap. 18. See above Booke 2. Chap. 1. §. 9. at x Isidore Bread saith he because it strengtheneth the Body is therefore called Christ's Body and Wine because it turneth into Blood is therefore called Christ's Blood These are two Visibles but being sanctified by the holy spirit are turned into a Sacrament of Christ's Body So he This is indeed a true Analogie not to be performed by Accidents Could any of them whom you call Calvinists have spoken more significantly either in contradicting your Exposition of Christ's words for he saith that Christ called Bread his Body or in declaring the true proper Sense of the Sacramentall Conversion for he saith Bread is Changed into a Sacrament of Christ's Body or else in giving the Reason why Bread and Wine were chosen to be Sacraments and Signes of Christ's Body and Blood by which wee are spiritually fed for he sheweth that it is because of their Naturall Effects Bread substantially and therefore not Accidentally strengthneth Man's Body Wine turneth into Blood Which overthroweth your third Figment of onely x Substantia Panis non pertinet ullo modo ad rationem Sacramenti sed solùm Accidentia Bellar Lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 23 §. Respondeo substantiam Accidents as if the Substance of Bread and Wine were not necessary in this Sacrament Say then doth the Accident of Roundnesse and Figure of Bread strengthen man's Body or doth the Accident Colour of Wine turne into Blood As well might you affirme the only Accident of Water in Baptisme to be sufficient to purge and clense the Body by the colour and coldnesse without the substantiall matter thereof The Second part of the Analogie is discerned in the Mysticall Body of Christ which is the Congregation of the Faithfull Communicants * 1. Cor. 10. 17. Wee are all one Body in as much as wee are partakers of one Bread It standeth thus As many Granes of Corne make one Loafe of Bread and many Grapes make one measure of Wine in the Câ—p So many Christians partaking faithfully of this Sacrament become One mysticall Body of Christ by the Vnion of Faith and Love This Exposition as it is yielded unto by yoâ— Câ—â—inall y Vnus Panis unum Corpus multi sumus nam omnes in uno Pane participamus Significatum unit as fidei in unitate Pâ—nis ac unitate Corporis Metaphoricè ad similitudi nem multorum granorum ex quibus conficitur Coâ—tus unum Et attulit Panem propter id quod dixit Panis quem frangimus Cajctan Card in cum locum pag 137 Cajetant and authorized by your Romane and 〈◊〉 dentine z Vnum Ecclesiae corpus exmultis membris compositum est nullâ re elucet ea Coniunctio magis quà m Panis Vinique elementis Panis enim ex multis granis conficitur Vinum ex multitudine racemoâ—um existit Ità fidelis 〈◊〉 Catech. Roman part 2. dâ—â—â—ch pag. 177. Catechsmeâ—â— so is it also confessed to be used 〈◊〉 a Augustinus Dominus noster Christus inquit Corpus suum in ijs rebus command avit quae ad unum aliquod rediguntur ex multis enim granis Panis efficitur ex multis racemis unum Corpus confluit utuntur hac similitudine Saâ—â—cti propè omnes Doctores Teste Bozio de Signià Ecclesiae Tom. 2. lib. 14. cap. 6. â—â—most all holy Doctours He was held a most expert and artificiall Paâ—nter
benè tamen conjuncta probari cum testimonijs Prophetarum Ego tamen cùm Cajetano Argumentum illud Tactus efficacissimum fuisse ad comprobandum vetitatem Corporis humani in Christo Idem ibid. Vasquez was as much as if he had sayd to them Perceive you my true flesh as being a most efficacious Argument to proove the truth of an humane Body So hee yea and g Illud Thomae non credam c pertinaciae obdurationis vitium erat peccatum Infidelitatis Optimè Orig. lib. 2. con Celsum ubi docet Discipulos affirmâsse illum quem viderunt esse Christum in Corpore vero suo resuscitato nam Thomas sciebat animas interdùm apparere Corporibus proprias formare voces tamen non esse Corpora vera Quapropter non dixit solùm Nisi videro non credam sed adjunxit Nisi infero manum in vestigia Clavorum Tolet. Ies Com. in Ioh. 20. Tolet another Iesuite did well discerne the case of Thomas to have beene an extreme Infidelity when hee said Except I put my finger into the print of the nayles and thrust my hand into his side I will not beleeve Which prooveth the Efficaciousnesse of the Iudgement of Sense in reducing so extreme an Vnbeleever to beleeve Wherein your Authors are authorized by S. Augustine h Aug. de tempore Si fortè inquit Diceremus Thomae oculos fuisse deceptos at non possemus dicere maâ—us frustratas de Tactu non potest dubitari Et Greg. Pont. Plus nobis Thomae infidelitas ad fidem quà m fides credentium Discipulorum prosuit quià dubius ille Carnem palpando ad fidem reducitur mens nostra omni dubltatione postpositâ Teste Maldon Ies Com. in Ioh. 20. saying that Although Thomas his Eyes had beene deceived yet his touch was not frustrate And accordingly by Gregory Pope of Rome who sticketh not to say that The Infidelity of Thomas made more for confirmation of Christian Beliefe than did the faith of the other Apostles Because his Doubtfulnesse being convinced by the Sense of Touching wee are thereby freed from all doubtfulnesse in the faith And if this were not sufficient to confute your Cardinall he may be shackled with his owne Answer who to disable the Infallibilitie of the Sense of feeling said i See above at b That other Arguments were requisite for the certifying the judgement of Sense and among these Other hee reckoneth Christ his speaking eating and working Miracles All which what are they else wee pray you but equally Objects of Sense What Vertigo then may this be called in him to seeke to invalidate the verity of Sense by an Argument which justifieth the Certaintie of Sense A third Confirmation of the Truth of Senses as sufficient in Divine Causes for discerning Objects of Sense and particularly in perceiving Bread and Wine to continue the same in this Sacrament by the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers SECT IX HOw many Heretikes of old were there such as the Valentinians Montanists Marcionites who denyed that Christ had a True and Essentiall Body and how absolutely were they confuted of Ancient Fathers by the Evidence of mens Senses that heard saw and felt the Body of Christ Which sheweth plainly that a Demonstration by Sense standeth good and strong even in Christian Philosophie And to come to the point in Question to conclude againe from the Premises in the former Section who can deny this Consequence viz. By the same Evidence may a Christian man prove Bread to be truly Bread after Consecration whereby Christ proved his Body to be a Body of flesh after his Resurrection But this he did from the Infallibility of Sense Therefore this may be equally concluded by the same Argument of Sense And that there is the same Reason of both these the Ancient Father Theodoret sheweth in the Argument wherewith he confuted an Heretike by Sense thus k Eranistes apud Theod. Quia sicut Panis desinit esse Panis post Consecrationem sed mutatur in substantiam Corporis Christi Ita Corpus Christi post resurrectionem desinit esse propriè Corpus sed in Naturam divinam mutatur Orthodox Imò verò ut te capiam in laqueis his Signa mystica non recedunt à naturà suâ manent enim in priori suâ formâ figurâ substantià Theod Dial 2. c. 24. As after Consecration saith he Bread remaineth the same in substance So Christ his Body after the Resurrection remained in substance the same Thus much of the Analogie As for the word Substance more is to be spoken thereof * See hereafter Sect. 12. hereafter Yea and Saint Augustine will not suffer the Communicant to blind-fold himselfe whose Testimony digested by l Beda ex Augustino Serm. ad Insdâ—â—tes in cap. 10. ad Cor. fol. 139. apud Bedam Quod vidistis Panis est quod oculi vestri renunciant quod autem fides vostra c. Sicâ—â— ex multis granis tritici unus Panis Ita ex multitudine fidelium una assurgit Ecclesia Rede is this That which you have seene is Bread as your eyes do manifest unto you And he speaketh of Bread as this Sacrament was a Symbol and Signe of the mysticall Body of Christ which is his Church consisting of a multitude of Faithfull Communicants as one Loafe doth of many granes of wheat âšœ Give Chrysostome leave to put in his suffrage especially in that Sentence 13 Chrysost de Resurrect Objected by D. Heskins in his Parliam Book 2. Chap. 11. Non est meum meos ludificare Phantasmate vanam imaginem visus si timet veritatem corporis manus ac digitus exploret Possie fortassis aliqua oculos caligo decipere Palpatio Corporalis verum Corpus agnoscat Spiritus non habet caâ—nem ossa ut me sentitis habere Quòd ostia clausa penetravi sola est virtus divina non sola carnis substantia which is objected against us by your owne Doctor wherein that holy Father bringeth in Christ as speaking to his Disciples concerning the verity of the Sense of Feeling and delivereth two points especially remarkable One is that Although the Sight by reason of some defect might be easily deceived yet the Tryall by Touch in discerning a Body of flesh is beyond all peradventure The Second is that if Christ should have propounded any Object as being a Body wherein their Touch should be deceived he might then be said to have mocked and deluded his Disciples Whereunto accordeth the like Testimony of Pope Gregory above cited in the former Section And is not the Touch in discerning the bodily Creature of Bread and Flesh of equall efficacie yea and againe Augustine in another place objected by your owne selves 14 August in Ioh. Tract 26. Objected by Dr. Heskins Parl. Book 2. Chap. 219. Our Lord Iesus saith he commended his Body and Blood in those things which of many are brought into one certaine thing for the one is
made into one of many Granes and so Consisteth the other Cometh into one of many Grapes Consonantly S. Cyprian and as plainly 15 Cyprian lib. 1. Epist 6. ad Mag. Nam quando Dominus Corpus suum panem vocat de multorum granorum adunatione congestum Populum nostrum quem portabat indicat adunatum quando Sanquinem suum vâ—num appellat de botris 〈◊〉 expressum gregem item nostrum significat commixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatum luxta Edit Pamel Epi. 76 When Christ called his Body Bread saith he which Bread was made one by the Gathering together of many Cornes he thereby signifieth our people whom he bore shewing them united together and when he called Wine his Blood which Wine is pressed out of many Clusters of Grapes and so gathered into one he signifieth one stocke coupled together by Conjunction of a Multitude into One. Both these holy Fathers even as Chrysostome already Both. 3. chap. 3. Sect. 4. hath done teach as it were with one breath that the Outward Sacramentalls wherein Christ commendeth his Body and Blood being Substances compounded the one of divers Cornes in one loafe the other of divers Grapes in one liquor doe so continue the same still at the receiving thereof as the Analogie irrefutably proveth because these Both signifie the mysticall Body of Christ which is the Church of his faithfull by the union of multitudes of people in one But in your meere Accidents of Bread and Wine you can have no union either of Granes or of Grapes neither can you say that he spake not of the things Consecrated because the things were first Consecrated before they were commended to his Disciples to be eaten and dranke Athanasius will be content to deliver his vote after the other other now cited Primitive Fathers who in confutation of the Hereticall Manichees who fancied onely a Phantasticall Body of Christ observeth that 16 Athan. Tom. 2. Orat 2. in Assumpt Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ both did eate meate and permitted his Body to be touched of his Disciples that thereby they might have not onely their eyes but also their hands Witnesses of the Truth of his Body and remove all exception of the apparition of a Ghost yea and that By the continued sight hereof with their bodily eyes Christ insinuated Faith into their soules Gladly would wee know whether even any doctrine could more patronize that Hereticall doctrine of a Rhantasticall Body than this yours of your maner of the Presence of Christ's Body in the Eâ—charist doth where in these appeareth not so much as a Spectrum of that Body but onely as you â—each Accidents of Bread âšœ Tertullian hath a large Plea against the Academicks who denied the judgement of Sense wherein hee maintaineth the Truth of the Senses and in proofe thereof hee manifesteth the Perfection of Christ his Senses in Seeing Feeling Tasting Smelling and at length he falleth upon the point now in Question saying that m Tertull de Animà cap 7 ad finem Quid agiâ— Academice procacissime totum vitae flâ—tum evertis ipsius Dei providentiam excaecas non licet in dubium sensus istos revocare nè in Christo de fide eorum deliberetur nè fortè dicatur quòd falsò Patris vocem audicrit de ipso testificatam aut deceptus sit cum Petri socrum tetigit aut alium postea unguenti senserit spiritum quod in sepulturam suam acceptavit aâ—um posteà Vinâ—â—aporem quod in Sanguinis sui memoriam consecrâ—â—t Sic enim Mâ—rcion Phantasma cum maluit credere totius corporis in eo dedignaâ—us veritatem Atqui nè in Apostolis quidem ludificata natura est fidelis fuit visus auditus in Monte fidelis gustus Vinâ— in nupâ—â—js fidelis tactus Thomae Recita testationem Iohannis Quod audivimus inquit quod oculis vidimus maâ—us nostrae contrectârunt de sermone vitae Falsa utique testatio si oculorum aurium manuum sensus natura mentitur If wee yield not to the suffrages of Senses some may doubt whether Christ perceived afterwards another Sent of oyntment which hee received meaning another that the naturall Sunt thereof before his Buriall And immediaâ—ly hee addeth marke we pray you One might doubt also whether Christ tasted afterwards another taste of Wine than was that which he consecrated for the memoriall of his Blood That then which Christ Tasted was first Consecrated Next he invadeth the Heretike Marcion for denying the Truth of Christ's Body on earth and confuteth him by the fidelity of the Senses of the Apostles Faithfull saith he was their sight of Christ in the Mount Faithfull was their Taste of Wine at the Marriagè Faithfull was the Touch of Thomas c. then concluding VVhich Testifications saith he had not beene True if their Senses had beene Liars So he in his confutation not onely of the naturall Academicks but also of the Hereticall Marcionites who contrary to the demonstration of the Apostles Senses denied the truth of the humane Body of Christ CHALLENGE THis Apologie of Tertullian in behalfe of the verity of the Senses doth minister to all Christians foure Conclusions First not to conceit of Accidents without Subjects but to discerne of Subjects and Substances by their Accidents Secondly that our Outward Senses rightly constituted more especially the Sense of Feeling are Demonstrations of Truth in Sensible Objects Thirdly that this verification of Subjects by their Accidents is common with Christ his Apostles all Christians and with every reasonably man And lastly that VVine is to be discerned to be truly and naturally VVine after Consecration by the judgement of the Senses because he instanceth in this very point teaching that Christ had the same taste of Substantiall VVine afterwards which hee had before in that which hee consecrated even as he had also the same Sent of Substantiall Oyntment after which hee had before his Buriall And all this even now when he convinced Marcion of Heresie an Enemie to the Catholike Faith in denying the Truth of Christs humane naturall Body notwithstanding the Evidence of Man's Senses Here had beene a full and flat Evasion for that Heretike to say what tell you us of the validitie of the Evidence of two Senses concerning the Truth of Christ's Body seeing you yourselves gain-say the judgement of foure Senses at once in denying the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament This we say they must needs have replyed if that the Catholikes then had beene of your now Romane Beliefe to thinke that all the Senses are deceived in judging the matter of this Sacrament to continue Bread or wine and so might they have blowne away all this Catholike Confutation of Heretikes and Infidels with one and the same breath together with the like Instances against the same Heresie already specified as you have heard Come now hither all yee that say wee must renounce all Verdict of Senses in
or Sweet Whereunto we willingly subscribe As for the sayd Qualities which the latter Iusuite answereth to be 21 Ibiden Mihi semper verius est visum non solùm Quantitatem sed alias Qualitates hîc per se existere nullique Subjecto niti ac proinde calorem frigus similes Impressiones extrinsecùs immissas non recipi in Speciebus tanquam in Subjecto proprio sed penetrativè mutuo nexu commisceâ—i mingled with the other Accidents which were inherent in the Host before Consecration the former Iesuit gaine sayeth it because Accidents are not predicated of themselves in the Concrete to wit wee say not of Coldnesse it is cold or of Sweetnesse it is sweet but these are spoken of their Subjects which wee call either Sweet or Gold And this wee likewise approve Seeing then that no Accident can bee predicated but of some Subject and this Subject of Coldnesse Hotnesse Sweetnesse Sowernesse and of other the like Accidents hapning to the same Sacrament after Consecration cannot bee so called either in respect of Quantity or Quality it remaineth that the Subject of them must bee a materiall substance which as you your selves we know will sweare cannot bee the Body of Christ for you dare not say of it that it in your touch or tast is either Cold Sweet or Sower You must therefore give us leave to beleeve it to bee still the Substance of Bread And this our Argument taketh away your Fancy of Accidents without a Subject else must you affirme that he or shee whosoever shall make the Host after it bee Consecrated either Hote Sweet or Sowre doth in so doing make so many Miracles of Accidents which are void of their Subjects which unnecessary multiplication of Miracles both your old and new Schooles have ever controlled âšœ Our First Proofe that Bread remaineth Bread in Substance after Consecration in this Sacrament is by the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers First from due Inferences SECT XI TEstimonies of Ancient Fathers inferre a necessary Consequence for proofe of the Existence of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament as might bee proved partly by the repetition of many Arguments premised and partly by intimation of other Arguments afterwards expressed But wee shall be content with those few which do more properly appertaine to this present Dispute concerning the nature of a Body First Irenaeus speaking of the Eucharist after Consecration as being not now common Bread sayd that r Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. Sicut Panis qui est à tetrâ jam non Communis Panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terren à coelesti Sic Corpora nostra participantia Eucharistiam jam non sunt Corruptibilia sed spem Resurrectionis habentia It consisteth of an earthly part and an heavenly how even as the Bodies of the Communicants saith hee are no more corruptible having an hope of the Resurrection to come Scan these words by the Law of Similitude and it must infallibly follow that as our Bodies albeit substantially Earthly are notwithstanding called Incorruptible in respect of the Glory and Immortality in which through â—ope it hath an Interest Even so the Earthly substance of this Sacrament being Bread is neverthelesse indued with a sacred and Divine property of a Sacramentall Representation of Christ's Body Which Sacrament Origen calling Sanctified meat saith that the Å¿ Origen in Matth. 15. Ille Cibus qui sanstificatur per Verbum Dei Orationem juxtà id quod habet materiable in secessum emittitur And after hee calleth this Mâ—teriale Materia Panis super quem dictus est sermo ibid. Materiall part thereof goeth into the Draught or seege which no sanctified heart can conceive of Christ's Body whereof the Fathers often pronounce that It goeth not into the Draught But what is meant by Materiall in this place thinke you M. * Liturg. Tract 2. §. 11. Subd 3. Brerely namely Magnitude and other Sensible Accidents which in regard of their Significations are materialls So hee Very learnedly answered forsooth If Magnitudo that is Greatnesse bee a Materiall thing bee you so good as tell us what is the matter thereof for whatsoever is Materiall hath that appellation from it's Subject matter Is is the Body of Christ then must you grant which wee with the holy Fathers abhorre to thinke that the Body of Christ passeth into the Draught or is it Bread Then farewell Transubstantiation Nay will you say but they are meere Accidents And we Answer that it was never heard no not in your owne Schooles that meere Accidents were called which are Origen's words in this place either Meats or Materialls Yea and Origen that he might be knowne to understaud Materiall Bread furthermore calleth it now after Consecration Matter of Bread not of Accidents of Bread or yet Accidents signifying Bread for what Papist will say that the Formes of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament after Consecration are Symbols or Signes signifying Bread and Wine and not Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ S. Ambrose his Comparison is of like Consequence t Ambros lib. 4. de Sacrament cap. 4. Quanto magis est operatorius Sermo Christi ut sint quae erant in aliud convertantur Tu eras vetus Creatura postquam consecratus nova Creatura esse coepisti As one Baptized had beene an old Creature and was made a new one even so speaking of the Bread and VVine after Consecration they being changed into another thing remaine that which they were before But hee you know that was baptized remaineth after Baptisme in Substance the same man although in respect of Spirituall Graces he suffereth a Change Of which Testimony more * See below ch 4. Sect. 2. at the let 〈◊〉 hereafter Cyprian is a Father much alleaged and urged by you in defence of Transubstantiation but is now at hand to controll you u Cyprias lib. de Vnctione Dedit Dominus noster in Mensâ in qua ultimum Convivium cum Apostolis participavit propris manibus Panem Vinum in Cruce verò manibus miliâ—um corpus tradidiâ— vâ—â—â—tandum ut 〈◊〉 Apostolis secretiùs impressa sincera veritas vera sinceritâ—s exponeret Gentibus quomodò Panis Vinum Caro ejus essent Sanguiâ— quibus rationibus Causae effectis conrenirent diversa nomina vel species ad unam reducerentur essentiam ut significantia significata eisdem vocabulis conferentur Our Lord gave in this Banquet saith he Bread and VVine with his owne hands when hee partaked thereof with his Apostles but on the Crosse hee delivered up his Body to the Souldiers to be pierced with wounds to the end that sincere verity and true sincerity having an inward impression in the Apostles hee by them might manifest to the Gentiles how that Bread and wine is his Body and Blood and by what meanes there may be agreement betweene Causes and Effects and how different names
and formes might be reduced to one Essence that things signifying and things signified might be called by the same names So hee A Catholike Father as all know whom if you aske what Consecrated thing it was which Christ had in his hands and gave to his Disciples hee answereth it was Bread and Wine and not absolutely that which he gave up to be Crucified on the Crosse by Souldiers namely his Body and Blood If againe you demand of Cyprian why Christ called the Bread which he had in his hand his Body he readily answereth saying The things signifying or Signes are called by the same names whereby the things signified are termed âšœ The Marcian Heretike held Bread and Wine to bee uncleane Creatures Tertullian confuteth them But how even by the Bread and Wine used of Christ in the Eucharist Because Christ saith he did not reject his Creature wherewith hee represented his owne Body In which Testimonie the word Representeth being spoken of the Eucharist it must needs note it as a thing Consecrated else could it not be said to Represent the Body of Christ And by calling this a Creature representing Christ's Body he distinguisheth it from Christ's Body And lastly the Heretike teaching the Substance and not the Accidents of the same Creature Bread to be uncleane and Tertullian disproving him by the Sacramentall Bread must as necessarily have meant a continuing of the Substance of Bread as all the Lawes of Arguing do proclame which teach all Answerers and Confuters to speake ad Idem âšœ A x Casaubon Exercit ad Baronij Annal c. 38. Ignatius Epist ad Epâ—es 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ad Philadelph de Eucharistia loqueas Panis inquit omnibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comminutus est Vox haec propriè de ijs usurpatur quae iâ— mâ—nutas partes comminuuntur Sunt qui eas micas vocant August in Epist 59. ad Paulinum Cum illud ait quod est in Domini mensâ benedicitur Sanctificatur ad distribuendum comminuitur Idem Casaub qua supra cap. 50. Olim in Ecclesia partes divisas vocabant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potiùs quà m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Patres in Synod Nicaen Can. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yea and Baronius himselfe Anno 57. num 149. Euchristiae partes Tert. de Monog Buccellas August ac Alij Particulas vocant Cyrillas in Ioh. l. 4. c. 14. Chrstus dedit fragmenta Panis Cyprianus de Coena Buccellam de manu Domini accipere And Aug. Burcella See 〈◊〉 5. c. 3. §. 2. Protestant of admirable learning unfolded unto you the Iudgement of Antiquitie from the Testimonies of divers Fathers in saying of this Sacrament after Consecration that The Bread by being divided is diminished that It is delivered by fragments that these are so little that they are to be called rather Bitts than Parts Thus they spake expressely of Bread Consecrated but to say that you eate Bitts and Fragments of whitenesse of Roundnesse and other Accidents who is so absurd among your selves and to affirme the same of Christ's Body who is so impious âšœ Onely it will be our duety to Answer the Objection of Doctor Heskins for proofe of the Corporall presence of Christ his Body who produceth the Cautions which Pope Clement in his second Epistle gave to the Priests and Deacons concerning the Fragments and pieces of that which he calleth Fragments of the Lords Body Charging them 22 Dr. Heskins in his Parliament of Christ That no Mice-dung may be seene among the Fragments of the Lords Portion Nor that they be Suffered to remaine rotten through their negligence We Answer First by the words Fragments of Christ's Portion are to be understood either meere Accidents and then are your Disputers unconscionable to argue from Fragments of meere Accidents for a Substantiall Existence of the Body of Christ Or else thereby you must believe they meant properly Christ's Body and then should you be altogether blasphemous to teach a Body of Christ rent into Fragments and Portions and the same pieces of the same Body to be in themselves subject unto the pollution of Mice-dung Putrification and Rottennesse Here indeed were there some use of the admirable * Below in the fourth Booke 〈◊〉 Nose of Ioane Martlesse above mentioned by your Iesuite to smell out the Abomination of this your Romish Doctrine Somewhat more of this Point when wee shall appeale to the Canon of that famous Councel of * See 〈…〉 c. 2. §. 10. in the Collenge Nice In the Interim wee may well thinke that that Primitive Church which abhorred to think the Body of Christ should be Devoured or passe into the Draught would never have consented as* Shee did to the Burying of the Sacrament which remained after the Communion if they had conceived it to bee Really the Body of Christ Another Inference wee may take from Antiquity in her calling this Sacrament Pignus a Pledge so y Hierom. in 1. Cor. 11. Dominus passionis suae ultimam nobis Commemorationem memoriam reliquit queÌ„admodùm siquis peregre proficiscens aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat ut possit eius amicitias beneficia commemorare Hierome and z Gaudent Tract 20. Christus crucifigendus istud haereditarium munus Testamenti ejus Novi tanquà m Pignus suae Praesentiae dereliquit Gaudentius of the Presence of Christ now departed from us A perfect Argument of the Bodily Absence of Christ by virtue of the Relation betweene the Person and his Pledge And so doth also * Primasius See-Booke 5. Chap. 9. §. 〈◊〉 Primasius The third and last Classis of Fathers may be viewed in the Section following A Confirmation of the same Iudgement of the Fathers acknowledging in expresse termes Bread to remaine after Consecration in Substance the same The First Father is THEODORET SECT XII THeodoret maketh a Dialogue or Conference betweene two Parties being in Controversie about the humane and bodily nature of Christ the one is named Eranistes upon whom is imposed the person of an Heretike for Defence of the Sect of the Eutychians who falsly held That the Body of Christ after his Ascension being glorified was swallowed up of his Deitie and continued no more the same humane and Bodily Essence as before his Resurrection it had beene The other Party and Disputer is named Orthodoxus signifying the Defender of the Truth of the Catholike Doctrine which Person Theodoret himselfe did sustaine in behalfe of the Catholike Church In this Dispute the Heretike is brought in for Defence of his Heresie arguing thus Even as Signes in the Eucharist after the words of Invocation or Consecration are not the same but are changed into the Body of Christ even so after his Ascension was his Body changed into a Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaning Substance of a Divine Essence Which both your Romanistes and Protestants confesse to have beene the Doctrine of these Heretikes This was that
Divine work without which the Element cannot be changed into a Sacrament either to signifie or yet to seale much lesse to convey any grace of God unto man And that wee may take you along with us It is the Doctrine of your Church with common consent saith your Romane g Solus Deus communi Consensu instituere Sacramenta ex authoritate potest quae gratiam efficiunt aut etiam infallibiliter significant Bellar. l. 1. de Sacram. in Gen. cap. 23. Cardinall that God onely can by his Authority institute a Sacrament because hee onely can give them power of conferring grace and of Infallible signification thereof So hee Well then aswell infallible Signification of Grace as the efficacious conveyance of Grace is the worke of the same Omnipocencie To this purpose more plainly your English Cardinall Alan speaking as hee saith from the judgement of Divines h Card. Alan de Sacram. in Gen. c. 17. 18. Sacramenti Institutionem neque ad Pontificem neque ad ullam Creaturam pertinere nec hoc solum sed etiam c propter solam significationem Gratiae quam Sacramentis omnibus Communem diximus dâ—bebant etiam vetera Sacramenta determinari per applicationem mortis Christi quia licet quidem in Creaturis ad signationem effectuum spiritualium aptitudo quaedam sit tamen ista aptitudo non nisi a divinâ institutione determinaâ—ur ad peculiarem effectum Habet enim Aqua ex natura sua ut munditiem significet at ut determinatè purgationem animae à peccato originali significet hominis sanctificationem repraesentet divinae tantùm institutionis est per quam elevatur Creatura haec supra naturae consuetudinem non solùm quoad vim operandi sed etiam significandi Non potest Sacramentum nisi à solo Deo Ordinari quià habent Sacramenta Supernaturalem Effectum ut in veteri lege quae debant munditiem legalem These hee saith that he speaketh Ex Theologorum Sententia telleth you that Although there be an aptnesse in every Creature to beare a signification of some spirituall effect yet cannot the aptnesse be determinatly applyed unto any peculiar effect no not so much as to signifie the outward Cleannesse of mans Body Sacramentally without a Divine Institution much lesse to represent mans sanctification but being so determinated and ordained of God the Creature saith hee is elevated above the Custome of nature not only in respect of the worke of sanctification but even of signification also So hee and that as well as wee could wish for this Omnipotent Change of a Creature into a Sacrament and this Iustrumentall Cause of conferring Sanctifying Grace to the Faithfull Communicant is the Generall Doctrine of all Protestants But what Change shall we thinke Of the Substance of Bread into the Substance of Christs Body as you teach No but as * Booke 2. Chap. 3. §. 6. before Isidore sayd The Change of visible things by the spirit of God into a Sacrament of Christs Body So hee This being a Change from a Property naturall into a Property Supernaturall which Change is Divine albeit but Accidentall whereunto accordeth that objected place of * See above at the letter c Augustine that This is sanctified by the Spirit of God to bee a Sacrament Seeing then that both Divine power and authority is required in every Sacrament to make it either infallibly significant or else efficaciously profitable to man and that it is by the same Divine power that the Element is Changed by being Elevated from a common unto a spirituall and divine property of a Sacramentall Signification as one of your Cardinalls hath sayd What an unconscionablenesse is it then in your Disputers from the termes of Omnipotencie and Divine working which is necessarily in all Sacraments to conclude a Change of the Element of Bread by Transubstantiation as you have heard But much more transparent will their Vnconscionablenesse bee if we consult with the Objected Fathers themselves For first Ambrose who observeth an Omnipotencie in the Change of this Sacrament explaineth himselfe what kind of Efficacy hee meant viz. such that i Ambros lib. 4 de Sac. am c. 4. Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini ut incipianâ— ess quae non erant quantò magis Operatorius est ut sint quae erant â—t in alâ—d convertantur Tu ipse eras verâ—â—s homo postquà m consecratus eras no vus homo esse coepisti The things changed into a divine Sacrament are still the same which they were before namely according to their natural property Which one Clause doth so strangle all conceit of Transubstantiation that it may seeme you have some reason to wipe this Testimony of S. Ambrose out of your new k These words ut sint quae erant are wanting in the Roman and Paris Editions Anno 1603 as Bishop Vsher 〈◊〉 nesseth in his Answer to the Tesuit Editions notwithstanding by Gods providence so much of Ambrose his tongue is preserved even in the same place as will convince your Objectors of wilfull Falshood telling you by a Similitude that the Change of Bread in this Sacrament is like to the Change whereby a Christian Regenerate l See above at 1 of an old Creature is made a new Creature which is as every Christian knoweth not a change in the substantiall nature of man but in the Accidentall properties So this Bread of a common bodily Food is made Sacramentall And the same Father who said of a man that by Baptisme hee is made a new Creature saith also of this Sacrament that m Per 〈…〉 â—or Explicatiâ—e Corpus significatur By Benediction Bread is made another nature namely of an Elementall become Sacramentall as you have heard and as his owne words import After Consecration the Body of Christ is Signified and that which was Wine Is called Blood In the Testimony of Cyprian you applaud your selves for to your Lindan n Lâ—ndan Aâ—ea 〈…〉 Cypriâ—ni vâ—â—o â—ie 〈…〉 advâ—gilate Evangâ—â—â— Dâ—vum Cypâ—anum orbâ—s totius Doctorem imòâ—n râ—culum judicem incorruptâ—â—lâ—m 〈◊〉 lib. 4 cap 6. The words of Cyprian appeare Goldenâ— and hee must needs provoke forsooth all Gospellers to hearken unto them which also seemeth to your o Hoâ— Testimonâ—um nullam admitâ—◠〈…〉 lib 2 〈…〉 c. 9. § 〈…〉 Cardinall To admit no solution Our Answer first unto the Author is to deny it to bee the Testimony of Cyprian may we noâ— This Sermon of the Supper of the Lord is by us saith your Master p Mr. 〈◊〉 Litâ—rg Praef. §. 14. pag 51. Brerely attributed to Cyprian Whom of your Side he mean by Vs you may bee pleased to aske him sure wee are your Cardinall doth tell us that q Author illius de Coena Domiâ—â—t non est Cyprianus â—ed aliquis post cum Bellar. â—â— 2. de Eâ—ch cap 9. §. Extet The Author of this Booke is not Cyprian but some other
Vnconscionablenesse may bee the more notorious in their Wresting of the Catholike meaning of the Fathers in this kind wee must tell you that there is no speech more familiar unto ancient Fathers than to esteeme as they ought all Sacramentall Signes Sacred and therefore no more Common or bare Elements Inso much that Gregory Nyssen speaking of a Ceremony inferior to this Sacrament which is the Altar or Table of the Lord hee saith that h Greg. Nysson Altare hoc sanctum cui adsistimus lâ—pis est naturâ Communis nihil differenâ— ab alijs crustis lapideâ—s ex quibus pavimenta nostra exornantur Sed quoniam Dei cultui consecratur dâ—dicatur benedictionem accepâ—t meÌ„sa facta Altare immaculatum est Orat de Sancto Baptismo Et nè contemnas divinum Lavacrum neque id Commune putes c. Although by nature it bee but as other stone wherewith the Pavements are garnished and adorned yet being Consecrated to Gods Service by Benediction it is an holy Table and Altar Adding also of Baptisme and saying The Divine Water is not to bee contemned nor to bee held as Common Yea and what lesse doth your Church say of your hallowed Balsome Beads and Bells and the like all which you distinguish from Common and bare Oyles and Metals because of their different use and service without Opinion of any Change of Substance at all The third Vnconscionablenes of your Disputers in urging for proofe of Transubstantiation the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers forbidding men to Discerne of this Sacrament by their Senses And first of their abusing the Testimony of Cyril by two egregious Falsifications SECT IV. VVEe may not easily passe over your Objection taken out of Cyrill being in the opinion of your Cardinall so impregnable Let us first here your Objector i Cyrilli Testimonium vel solum sufficere deberet est enim hujus Sancti antiquissimi ex opere ejus indubitâ—to clarissiâ—uâ— apertissimum ut nullo modo perverti possit est in Catechesi in quâ solent omnia propriè simplicâ—â—er explicari deniquè nemo unquam reprehendit Cyrillum erroris alicujas circa Eucharistiam Bâ—â—llâ—r lib 2. de Euch. cap. 13. This Testimony of Cyrill alone ought to suffice being the Sentence of an holy man and most ancient out of a worke which unquestionably was his yea and most cleare and plaine as that it cannot be perverted Besides it is in his Catechisme wherein the use of all things is delivered simply properly and plainly Nor was this Father Cyrill ever reproved of Error in his doctrine of the Eucharist Thus farre your Cardinall you see with as accurate an Oratory of Amplification as could bee invented What Protestant would not now if ever expect a deadly blow from this Father to our Catholike Cause but attend to the Issue First k Cyril Pro certissimo habeas Panem hunc qui videtur à nobis Panem non esse etiamsi gustus Panem esse senserit sed esse Corpus Christi Rursus Christus cui credamus Panem in Corpus Transmutavit Nam sub specie Panis datur tibi corpus sub specie Vini datur tibi sanguis Catech. Mystag 4. Cyril will not allow a man to credit his Taste but although Taste saith it is Bread yet undoubtedly to beleeve it to be the Body of Christ whereinto the bread is changed And he is brought in by your l Cyrillus apertè ponit Transmutationem Panis in corpus Christi solas species Panis remanere post Transmutationem quià dicit Corpus Domini sub specie Panis sumâ— distinguens Corpus à Pane. Bellar lib. 2 de Euch cap. 13. adding Hoc est Apertissimum Argumentum Cardinall to averre furthermore that The Body of Christ is given under the forme of Bread And so the Sentence seemeth to bee most manifest saith he But for what wee pray you That first forsooth the Change is the same with Transubstantiation and secondly that there is no more Substance of Bread but Accidents under the forme of Bread So he and Master * Liturg. Tractat 2. §. 2. Subd 4. pag. 116. Brerely from him as followeth Cyril saith under the forme of Bread his Body is given c. and then dancing in the same triumph addeth Can any Catholike of this Age write more plainely So he And we answer could any Iugglers deale more falsely For upon due examination it will appeare to be a manifest Delusion by a false Translation of Cyrils words The Body of Christ is given as your Cardinall doth render it sub specie Panis in or under the forme of Bread whereas it is in the Greeke m Cyril 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cateâ—â— Mystag 4. Russus Mystag 5. Non existimetis vos gustare Panem Vinum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnder the Type of Bread even as he saith afterwards Thinke not that you taste bread but the Antitype of Christ's Body In both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Type and Antitype not Forme or Figure of Bread Now there is a maine and manifest difference betweene Forme and Type For Accidentall Formes are things Reall and the determinate Objects of Sense but Types or Antitypes are onely Relatives and as such no Objects of Sense but of Reason and understanding onely As for example when a Iudge is set in his Scarlet upon the Bench the Eye seeth nothing but the colour and the fashion of the Gowne and outward figurature of his Face and so may every Child see him for these are Outward and Visible Accidents But to see that man as he hath upon him the person of a Iudge ordained to trie Causes betweene Parties is a sight of the minde which looketh upon his Office to discerne him by his Habit from common Subjects Even so is it in this Sacrament As the Bread and Wine are Round and White and Sweet in Taste our Bodily Senses perceive them but as they are Types and Antitypes that is Signes of the Body and Blood of Christ so are they spiritually discerned with our understanding onely As therefore it followeth not that the Scarlet Gowne of the Iudge because it is an Ensigne of his Office should be onely Colour and Fashion without the matter and Substance of the Cloth no more can any conclude from Cyril that because the Sacrament is a Type therefore this Type was onely Forme and outward Accidents without all Substance of Bread And thus your Cardinall his first Apertissimum Argumentum for proofe of Accidents without the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament is proved to be Apertissimum Figmentum void of all substance or almost shadow of Truth His next Observation is the Change by Transubstantiation and the errour of Sense in judging it to be Bread Wee call upon Cyril to decide this Controversie who is best able to interpret himselfe Hee therefore that said of the Eucharist after
Books following For this present we are to exhibit the different and contradictory maners concerning the Presence of Christ herein The maner of Presence of Christ his Body 1. According to the Iudgement of Protestants 2. In the profession of the Church of Rome That Protestants albeit they deny the Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament yet hold they a true Presence thereof in divers Respects according to the Iudgement of Antiquitie SECT II. THere may be observed Foure kinds of Truths of Christ his Presence in this Sacrament one is Veritas Signi that is Truth of Representation of Christ his Body the next is Veritas Revelationis Truth of Revelation the third is Veritas Obsignationis that is a Truth of Seale for better assurance the last is Veritas Exhibitionis the Truth of Exhibiting and deliverance of the Reall Body of Christ to the faithfull Communicants The Truth of the Signe in respect of the thing signified is to be acknowledged so farre as in the Signes of Bread and Wine is represented the true and Reall Body and Blood of Christ which Truth and Realty is celebrated by us and taught by ancient Fathers in contradiction to Manichees Marcionites and other old Heretikes who held that Christ had in himselfe no true Body but meerely Phantasticall as you a Marcionitae Manichaei alij Haeretici putabant corpus Christi verum non esse sed phantasticum esse Bellar. lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 24. §. Resp Argumentum your selves well know In confutation of which Heretikes the Father Ignatius as your b Ignatius citante Theodoret. Dial 3. Eucharistia est Caro Christi Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 2. Hoc scripsit Ignatius contra Haereticos qui negabant Christum habuisse Carnem veram sed tantùm visibilem apparentem Observandum est Haereticos illos non tam Sacramentum Eucharistiae quà m Mysterium Incarnationis oppugnâsse True and the Argument of Ignatius was the same which Tertullian used also against the same kinde of Heretikes Lib. 4. in Marcion Hoc est corpus meum Id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritas esset corpus See this in the place of Tertullian at large Cardinall witnesseth called the Eucharist it selfe the flesh of Christ Which Saying of Ignatius in the sense of Theodoret by whom hee is cited against the Heresie of his time doth call it Flesh and Blood of Christ because as the same Theodoret expounded himselfe it is a true signe of the true and Reall Body of Christ. So your Cardinall even as Tertullian long before him had explained the words of Christ himselfe This is my Body that is saith hee This Bread is a Signe or Figure of my Body Now because it is not a Signe which is not of some Truth * See above Booke 2. Chap. 2. 〈◊〉 9. for as much as there is not a figure of a figure therefore Bread being a Signe of Christs Body it must follow that Christ had a true Body This indeed is Theologicall arguing by a true Signe of the Body of Christ to confute the Heretikes that denyed the Truth of Christ's Body Which controlleth the wisedome of your c Concilium dicit verò contineri Corpus in Sacramento contra Sacramentarios qui volunt Christum adesse in Signo Figurâ Signa enim Veritati opponuntur Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 2. Councell of Trent in condemning Protestants as denying Christ to be Truly present in the Sacrament because they say hee is there present in a Signe As though there were no Truth of being in a Signe or Figure which were to abolish all true Sacraments which are true Figures and Signes of the things which they represent A second Truth and Realty in this Sacrament is called Veritas Revelationis as it is a Signe in respect of the Typical Signs of the same Body and Blood of Christ in the Rites of the old Testament yet not absolutely in respect of the matter it selfe but of the maner because the faithfull under the Law had the same faith in Christ and therfore their Sacraments had Relation to the same Body and Blood of Christ but in a difference of maner For as two Cherubins looked on the same Mercy-Seate but with different faces oppositely so did both Testaments point out the same Passion of Christ in his Body but with divers aspects For the Rites of the old Testament were as d Augustin contra Fauslum lib. 19. pag. 349. Tom. 6. Deltrat qui dicit mutaus Sacramentis res ipsas diversas esse quas ritus Propheticus pronunciavit implendas quas ritus Evangelicus annunciavit impletas aliter res annunciatur facienda aliter facta Saint Augustine teacheth Propheticall prenunciating and fore-telling the thing to come but the rites of the new Testament are Historicall annunciating and revealing the thing done the former shewed concerning Christ his Passion rem faciendam what should bee the latter rem factam the thing done and fulfilled As therefore the Truth of History is held to be more reall than the Truth of Prophecie because it is a declaration of a reall performance of that which was promised So the Evangelicall Sacrament may bee sayd to containe in it a more reall verity than the Leviticall Therefore are the Rites of the old Law called * Heb. 10. Shadowes in respect of the Sacraments of the Gospell according to the which difference Saint Iohn the Baptist was called by Christ a Prophet in that he * Ioh. 1. 15. fore-told Christ as now to come but hee was called more than a Prophet as demonstrating and * Ibid. 19. pointing him out to bee now come Which Contemplation occasioned divers Fathers to speake so Hyperbolically of the Sacrament of the Eucharist in comparison of the Sacraments of the old Testament as if the Truth were in these and not in them as e Origen Hom. 7. in Numer pag. 195. Illa in aenigmate designari quae nunc in nova Lege in specie veritate complentur Calling ours Truth yet not simply but comparatively ◠for a little after hee confesseth that they received Eandem Escam id est Christum Objected by Mr. Brerely Lirurg Tract 4. §. 2. Subd 4. Origen did Besides the former two there is Veritas Obsignationis a Truth sealed which maketh this Sacrament more than a Signe even a Seale of Gods promises in Christ for so the Apostle called Circumcision albeit a Sacrament of the old Law the * Rom. 4. 11. Seale of Faith But yet the print of that Seale was but dimme in comparison of the Evangelicall Sacraments which because they confirme unto the faithfull the Truth which they present are called by other ancient Fathers as well as by f August Tom. 4. de Catechizand rudib cap. 26. Signacula esse visibilia rerum divinarum Saint Augustine visible Seales of Divine things So that now we have in this Sacrament the
Body of Christ not onely under a Signe or Signification but under a Seale of Confirmation also which inferreth a greater degree of reall Truth thereby represented unto us This might have bin the reason why Saint Augustine taught Christ to be g August Tract 50. in Ich. Habemus Christum in praesenti ad Baptismatis Sacramentum habemus in praesenti ad Altaris cibum potum Tom. 9. Present both in Baptisme and at receiving the Lord's Supper A fourth Reason to be observed herein as more speciall is Veritas Exhibitionis a Truth Exhibiting and delivering to the faithfull Communicants the thing signified and sealed which Christ expressed when he delivered it to his Disciples saying Take eate this is my Body given for you and this is my Blood shed for you Thus Christ by himselfe and so doth he to other faithfull Communicants whersoever to the ends of the World by his Ministers as by his hands through virtue of that Royall Command DOE THIS Vaine therefore is the Objection made by your h Athanas apud Theodoret. Dial. 2. pag. 330. Corpus est cui dicit Sede à dexteris meis per quod corpus Pontifex fuit dictus est per id quod tradidit mysterium dicens Hoc est corpus meum This was objected by Bellarmine lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 11. Cardinall in urging us with the testimony of Athanasius to prove that Christ his Body is exhibited to the Receivers As though there were not a Truth in a mysticall and Sacramentall deliverance of Christ his Body except it were by a corporall and materiall presence therof which is a transparent falsity as any may perceive by any Deed of Gift which by writing seale and delivery conveyeth any Land or Possession from man to man yet this farre more effectually as afterwards will appeare But first wee are to manifest That the Romish Disputers do Odiously Slanderously and Vnconscionably vilifie the Sacrament of the Eucharist as it is celebrated by PROTESTANTS SECT III. BEllarmine with others i Christus nihil est illis nisi frustum panis vini portiuncula Salmeron Ies in Epist pauli disput 11. §. Septimo EucharistiaÌ„ esse tantùm figuram haeresis est antiqua haec Calvini haeresis Bellar. de Not. Ecclesiae c. 9. §. Quorundam Malè cocta bâ—ccella mysterium carnale nihil divini portentat Refigit inquiunt in memoriam Christi meritum ejusque generi nostrò collata beneficia Augustum sanè I nihil deterius ipsa praesta oculis nostris inspecta imago Crucifixi Westen de 3. hominis offic c. 16 Purus putus panis pistorius merum meracum sive vinum cauponarium Espenc de Adorat lib. 5. cap. 9. p. 188. object against Protestants saying that Their Sacrament is nothing else but a crust of Bread and pittance of Wine And againe A morsel of Bread ill baked by which the Protestants represent unto their memories the death of Christ and the benefits thereof A goodly matter so doth a Crucifix and to make the Sacrament onely a Signe is an ancient Heresie So they But have you not heard the Doctrine of the Protestants teaching the Eucharisticall Bread to be more than Bare Bread a Sacramentall Signe more an Evangelicall Signe more a Sacred Seale yet more an Exhibiting Instrument of the Body of Christ therein to the devout Receiver And have not these outragious Spirits read your owne Cardinall witnessing that the Protestants teach that k Docet Calvinus Symbola corpus Christi licet loco inter se plurimùm distenâ— tamen conjuncta esse non solum ratione signi quià unum est signum alterius sed quià per signum Deus verè nobis exhibet ipsum corpus verum sanguinem quo animae nostrae verè alantur Bellar. l. 1. de Euc. c. 1. â—it Calvinus affirmat saepiùs Christi corpus esse praesens in Sacramento quatenus ibi animis nostris verè unitur communicatur substantialiter sic enim loquitur secundum substantiam non modò secundum effectum Et Fortunatus Calvinista dicit in Sacramento corpus Christi versari realissimeque percipi Valent. Ies Tom. 4. disp 6. quaest 3. punct 1. §. 7. p. 9. Idem Sadael Beza sentiunt Idem ibid Haec est eorum sententia licet Christi corpus corporaliter essentialiter sit in coelo nihilominus duplici modo in hoc Sacramento verè percipi spiritualiter sacramentaliter spiritualiter quidem ore mentis non dentis id est per fidem coÌ„junctionem virtute Spiritus Sancti in animo communicantis sacramentaliter etiam ore quidem corporis sumendo non ipsum quidem corpus ejus sed signum corporis ejus panem vinum quae dicit esse sigilla certa quibus promissio redemptionis in corpore sanguine Christi fidelibus obsignatur Valent. quo supra Although the Body of Christ be still in Heaven yet is it received in this Sacrament first Sacramentally by Bodily mouthes in receiving the Bread the signe of Christ his Body and by which God doth truly albeit Sacramentally deliver unto the faithfull the reall Body of Christ and secondly spiritually to the mouth of the soule by Faith and so they truly and really participate of the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ So Bellarmine concerning Protestants which is so plainly professed by l Calvin in his Booke intituted Defensio Carvini de Sacramento Augustana Confessio In sacra Coenâ verè dari cum Pane Vino ipsum Corpus Christi Sanguinem Huic consenâ—um nostrum praebemus Absit verò ut nos vel Coenae Symbolo suam auferamus veritatem vel plus animas tanto privemus beneficio Defens pag. 28. Hujus rei non fallacem oculis figuram proponi dicimus sed pignus nobis porrigi cui res ipsa veritas conjuncta est quòd scilicet Christi Carne Sanguine animae nostrae pascantur Ibid. pag. 44 Sacram unitatem quam nos habemus cum Christo sensui carnis incomprehensibilem fatemur esse Ibid. 45. Spiritualem cùm dicimus fremunt quasi hac voce realem ut vulgò vocant tollamus Nos verò si reale pro vero accipiant ac fallaci imaginatio opponunt Barbare loqui mallemus quà m pugnis materiam praebere Scimus enim quà m non deceant logomachiae Christi servos Ibid. pag. 46. Quasi verò nobis cum Swinkfeldio quicquam sit commune qui nudum signum docuit Ibid. Defens 2. pag. 35. Figuraram esse locutionem fatemur modò non tollatur figurae veritas hoc est modò res quoque ipsa adlit Ibid. pag. 43. Substantiâ Corporis Christi animas nostras bene pasci fateor tamen substantialem praesentiam quam imaginantur repudio Ibid. pag. 55. Nec aliter sanctae memoriae Bucerum sensisse luculentissimis testimonijs probare mihi semper prompum erit Ibid. pag. 61. In veteri Testamento nondum carnem induerat filius
vinum sueceret §. Dico secundò Rursus Quòd Christus recedat statim ut Species deglutiantur antequam alterentur ffist contra generale principium §. Tertio That the Body of Christ remaineth so long under the formes of Bread and Wine whersoever as the same formes remaine in the same plight as that the same formes of Bread and Wine might be preserved And this hee calleth a Generall Principle in your Romish profession Insomuch that the Body of Christ is moved wheresoever the formes of Bread are moved be it into the dirt or into the Dunghill Secondly that according to your e Potest corpus Christi per accidens moveri ab eo qui potest especies consecratas secundùm locum mutare Suarez Tom. 3. quaest 76. Disp 2. Art 7. And Ad motum specierum movetur Christus Bellar. lib 3. de Euch. c. 19. Si per negligentiam aliquid de sanguine stillaverit in terram c. Decret D. 2. Cap. Si per negligentiam Nunquid cadente Sacramento cadit corpus Christi Dic quod sit Glossa ibid And Bozius lib. 14. de signis Eccles cap. 7. telleth of a woman that hid it in a Dunghill See above Chap. 1. Sect. 2. Romish Decrees and publike Missals the same Body of Christ is vomited up by the Communicant yea and you have f A Nauseabundis expuituir Suarez quo supra Si quis stomacho evomit illas species corpus Christi evomit si species possint discernab alijs debent cum reverentia sumi cremari cineres juxta Altare recondi Gloss Decret quo supra Summa Angel Tit. Eucharistia n. 5. pag. 147. Cases about the vomiting of it whether upon weakenesse of g Si fiatâ— usea Sacerdâ—â— pâ—r mâ—scam â—ciden em si aliquid venenâ—sum â—â—â—deret in calicem vel quod provocaset vomitum tum c. Missal Rom. Decreto jussâ— PijV. Pont. edit in instruct ante Missâ—m pag. 35. In hac parte distinctionis ponitur poenitentia corpus Christi vomentibus Decret de Conseâ—rat quo supra Stomacke or of h Si quis per ebrictatem vel voracitatem Eucharistiam evomuerit 40. diebus poeniteat Decret ibid. Dicunt isti quod corpus Christi non intrat ventrem quod falsum est cum species intrant quamdiu enim species manenâ— Christus latet integer sub ijs sic potest evomi Drunkennesse Next that it is devoured of i A muribus comâ—ditur quia Denominâ—tiones qua tanâ—ùm indicant motum localem perterminum ejus propriè tribuuntur corpori Christi à quocunque fiant huju smodi est commestio Suarez Tom. 3. qâ—aest 76. Disp 54. pag 706. Mice and blowne away with Wind for we read of your Church-Cases also for these in your * Si hostia consecrata dispareaâ— vel casu aliquo vel vento vel à mure accepta ut nequeat reperiri altera consecretur Missal Rom. quo supra pag. 32. Missals Nor are you satisfied with these but as if you had some hoggish Appetite delighted with dirt you will have it knowne that as you have * See above in this Booke Chap. â— Sect 2. found the Body of Christ Hid for many yeeres in a Dunghill so will you * See Booke 5. Chap. 11. Sect. 1. hereafter prove it to be found in Mans Seege and Draught That the Romish fore-sayd Indignities are contrary to holy Scriptures and Iudgement of Ancient Fathers SECT III. HOly Writ teacheth us that there is as great differerence betweene the Humiliation of Christ when hee was on Earth and his now Exaltation in glory in Heaven as there is betweene shame and Glory it being now * 1. Cor. 15. Philip. 2. 8. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Body of Glory Now for you to beleeve and professe the personall burning devouring regorging yea and the hiding of that glorious Body of Christ in a dunghill and the like are such execrable speeches as that wee stand astonished with horrour to heare them thinking that wee have heard in these the scoffes reproaches and blasphemies of some Pagans against Christian Religion rather than the opinion of any that take to themselves one syllable of the name of Christians If this had beene the ancient Faith some Fathers doubtlesse upon some occasion by some one sentence or other would have revealed their Judgement therein from whose diuerse and copious Volumes neither do you allege nor we read any one word of mans spewing up or Mice eating or so much as the Wind blowing away the Body of Christ much lesse of the other basenesse spoken of But contrariwise l Origen in Matth. 15. 27. Id quod materiale est in ventrem abit in secessum suum eijcâ—tur Origen and * Cyril Hier. Catech. Mystag 5. pag. 542. Panis hic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysost Hom. de Euch. in Lucam Num vides panem num vides vinum sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt absit sic ne cogites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyrill distinguishing betweene the spirituall Bread which is the Reall Body of Christ and the Bread Sacramentall say That not that Body but this Bread goeth into the Draught Which to affirme of Christs Body were an Assertion abominable âšœ Suffer us to aske you a question When in the dayes of old as you * See above Booke â— Chap 2. §. 10. in the Challenge know the Remainders of the Sacrament were committed to the fire tell us what that was which was burned was it onely Bread and Wine or yet the Accidents of them only This you cannot say whose Vniversall Doctrine is that so long as the Formes of Bread and Wine are uncorrupt the Body and Blood of Christ are Existent under them Or eâ—se was it the Body and Blood of Christ which was cast into the fire who will not abhorre to conceive such an Abomination to have beene willingly committed by Sacred and Primitive Antiquity and Consequently you ought to execrate all beliefe of a Corporall Existence of Christs Body in the Sacrament within the â—â—â—â—â—dents thereof âšœ That the Romish Answeres for defence of this their vile and beastly Opinion are but false and fond SECT IV. IT was sayd of Philosophers of old that nothing was so absurd but some one or other of them would take in hand to defend it the like may be sayd of our Romish Opposites whereof wee haue given you divers Instances throughout this whole Treatise as in the most particulars so for the point now in Question And although many of your Disputers have for modesties sake passed by it yet have two among you as it were putting on Visards on their faces come in with two fanaticall m Card. Bellar. and Master Brereley in places above-cited Answers Both which are taken from the condition of Christ his humane Body whilest he was in the World n Noâ—nulli vix ferre possunt ChristuÌ„ quoquo modo
your professing that Sole Accidents do nourish the Bodies whether of Man or Mouse as you teach But expresly contradicted by the Ancient Father Gregory Nyssen who held it Impossible for any thing which is not a Substance to nourish a Substance Lastly to his Additionall That wee are not in the discerning of the matter of this Sacrament to depend upon our Senses which is most Contradictory to the Doctrine of Antiquity For the Fathers besides these their Assertions * See Booke 3. throughout that we see Bread and Wine the Bread which consisteth of granes of Corne and Wine of Grapes have justified the Judgement of our Senses in sensible Objects and not this onely but by the same Argument taken from our Senses have furthermore confuted and confounded both the Heathen Academicks and Hereticall Marcionites Manichees Eunomians Eutychians and others the most grosly Absurd Heretikes of those Primitive Ages So that now you must conclude that either those Ancient Fathers ought to have submitted their Faith to those Absurd and damned Heretikes or else Master Fisher ought to recant this his pernicious and Hereticall Paradox of Beleeving Doctrines the Rather because they seeme to be Absurd Master-Fisher his Particular Confirmation of one of his Former Instances of a Body being in divers places at once by a quaint example of his owne Numb 9. The Bodie of Christ saith hee being glorious is as swift in operation as any Thought but a mans Thought is so quicke that one may be by Thought in two disjoyned places at once for example in London and at Rome Our Reply detecting the Stupidity of this Objection Wee to omit that which is more * He useth the Common Objection of Man's soule and God himselfe which hath beene confuted formerly See above cap. 6. Sect. 2. common note in Master Fisher now Objecting his owne fancy not so much a Seeming Absurdity as a palpable Stupidity in this his exemplifying the Possibility of the Being of a Body in divers places at once as namely at London and at Rome If Master Fisher thinking of Rome at his being in London should say that even then his Thought was Really at Rome it were easie for any man to guesse in what place of London hee himselfe was because that every Sober man will beleeve that Master Fisher in thinking of Rome had his Thought then in his owne Braine and not at Rome And though it should be possible for him to thinke both of Rome and London at once yet could not this any way exemplifie the Possibility of the Being of one and the same Body in two places in one moment For his Thought of London and of Rome are not one and the same Thought but as distinct and different about the subject matters of his Thoughts as namely the plotting of Treason in Rome and practising and exequuting the same in London should be Master Fisher his Particular Confirmation of the Possibility of Accidents to nourish a Substance from a rare example of his owne Numb 10. It seemeth difficult saith hee to conceive that Accidents can performe the office of any Substance as to nourish a man But wee should perchance find as great a difficultie to beleeve did wee not see it Glasse to be made of Ashes A Bird to be bred out of the rotten Barke of a Tree c. Our Reply manifesting his Absurd Exemplification This his Comparison of Likenesse as any one may discerne at the first sight consisteth meerely of unlikelihoods and Dissimilitudes for he laboureth to prove it to be an equall Difficulty for an Accident to nourish a Substance as it is in his Examples as for a Substance to nourish a Substance The Absurditie whereof is no lesse than for any to argue that because the Body of a man doth beget a Body So the shadow thereof can also beget a Body It is irkesome unto us to have stayd so long in Master Fishers Absurdities wee hasten to our Generall Challenge âšœ THE GENERALL CHALLENGE THese above specified Sixe Contradictions so plainly and plentifully proved by such forceable Arguments as the light of Divine Scripture hath authorized the profession of Primitive Fathers testified Confessions of Romish Doctors acknowledged and the Principles of your owne Romish learning in most points confirmed your Abrenunciation of your so many Grosse Errours may be as necessary as your persisting therein will be damnable Before we can end wee are to consult with the Fathers of the Councel of Nice especially seeing that as well Romanists as Protestants will be knowne to appeale to that Councel CHAP. XI Of the Canon of the Councell of Nice objected for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and against it SECT I. THis as it is delivered by your a Concilij verba Iterùm etiam hic in divina mensa nè humiliter intenti simus ad propositum panem calicem sed attollentes mentem fide intelligamus situm in sacra illa mensa agnum illum Dei tollentem peccata mundi incruentè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à Sacerdotibus immolatum et pretiosum ejus corpus sanguinem verè nos sumenâ—es credamus haec esse nostrae resurrectionis symbola Propâ—er hoc enim neque multum accipimus sed parum ut sciamus non ad saâ—iâ—tatem sed ad sanctificationem offerri Vt refert Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 10. Cardinall taken out as he saith of the Vatican Library standeth thus Let us not heere in this Divine Table bend our thoughts downewards upon the Bread and the Cup which is set before Vs but lifting up our minds let us understand by faith the Lambe of God set upon that Table The Lambe of God which taketh away the sins of the World offered unbloodily of the Priest And we receiving truly his Body and Blood let us thinke these to be the Symbols of our Resurrection For this cause do wee receive not much but little that wee may understand this is not to satisfie but to Sanctifie So the Canon The Generall approbation of this Canon by Both sides SECT II. SCarce is there any one Romish Author handling this Controversie who doth not fasten upon this Canon of Nice for the countenancing of your Romish Masse Contrarily Protestants as they are set downe by our b Hunc cano nem Conc. Niceni probatum fuisse Marpurgi Luthero alijs Martinus Bucerus dixit Ità in Domino senrio in hac sententia opto venire ad Tribunal Dei Manu meâ scripsi Teste Hier. Zanchio Miscell de Coena Domini pag. 152. He himselfe assenting unto the same Zanchy and your c Hoc testimonium Niceni Conc. primi in actis ejusdem Conc. in Vaticana Bibliotheca his verbis c. Hoc testimonium agnoscunt etiam Adversarij ut Oecolampadius Calvin Instit lib. 4. cap 17. §. 36. Petrus Boquinus Klebitius nituntur hoc testimonio ad gravissimam suam haeresin stabiliendam â— c. Bellar. ibid âšœ â—â— Greeke
thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 âšœ Bellarmine in great numbers among whom are Luther and Calvin with joynt consent approve of this Canon one of them Bucer by name subscribing unto it with his owne hand in these words So I thinke in the Lord and I wish to appeare in this minde before the Tribunall seat of God So they The right Explication of this Canon will be worthy our paines âšœ Where any man may discerne an Allusion of the Fathers to the words of Saint Paul Colos 3. Seeke those things that are above and not on Earth and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 referreth to things on Earth and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the things above in Heaven and that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoke of the Table opposite to that Table whereof it was sayd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as much as There to Here. âšœ The state of the Difference concerning this Canon SECT III. THis as is propounded by your Cardinall standeth thus d Per Agnum omnes intelligunt Christum ut distinguitut contra symbo la Bellar. quo supra Illi Protestantes quasi admoneaÌ„t nè quaerendum Christum in Altarâ— lapideo Sed monte conscendamus ad coelum in coelo sisum Agnum At vult Concilium ut ad sacram ipsam mensam attendamus sed in ipsa non tam Symbola quà m quae sub illis latent consideremus Ibidem per totum All saith hee by the Lambe understand Christ as hee is distinguished from the Symbols and Signes upon the Altar Next But the Protestants thinke saith hee that the Councel admonisheth not to seeke Christ on the Altar but to ascend up unto him in Heaven by faith as sitting at the Right hand of God But wee all say saith hee that the Councel would have us to attend unto the holy Table meaning the Altar below yet so that wee see in it not so much the outward Symbols and Signes as that which lyeth hid under them viz. The Body and Blood of Christ So hee The difference then betweene him and us is no lesse than the distance betweene Aloft and Vnder that is between Heaven above and Earth below Let us set forward in our progresse but with easie and even paces to the end you may better understand the strength of our Proofes and rottennesse of your Objections That the Nicene Councell is marveilously prejudiciall to your Romish Defence proved by divers Observations Three heere SECT IV. FIve Points are chiefly observable in this Canon First is the nomination of Bread Secondly the mention of two Tables Thirdly the admonition to lift up our minds Fourthly the expression of the Reason thereof Fiftly the Confirmation of the same Reason First That which the Councel would that men be not too intent unto they call Bread after Consecration for the Errour which they would have avoyded was either the too much abasing of this Sacrament according to your Cardinals e Iubet Concilium ut non inhaereamus speciebus panis vini quasi ibi nihil sit nisi quod oculi renuntiant Bellarm quo supra Glosse and then was it after Consecration because they needed not to have perswaded any to have too meane an estimation of the Bread unconsecrated w ch you your selves hold to be a common and prophane thing or else the Errour must have been as indeed it was too high a valuation of the outward Element of Bread which must needs be so because it was Consecrated and notwithstanding it being so Consecrated in the Canon it is called Bread Which your Fathers of the Councel of Trent would not have indured especially seeing that wee find that your f Nic. Cabasâ—las Latini dicunt eos qui panem vinum nominant tanquam nondum sanctificatis precantur sanctificationem post illa verba Hoc est Corpus meum rem supervacuam facere Expos Liturg. c. 29. Latine Church was offended with the late Greeke Church for calling the parts of the Eucharist by the termes of Bread and Wine after the pronunciation of these words This is my Body by you called the words of Consecration Besides they so call them Bread and Wine as they name them Symbols and Signes which properly they could not be untill after Consecration Secondly the g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Nicen Canon expresly noteth and distinguisheth two Tables in respect of place the one as Here being as much as to say The Table and the other opposed hereunto is instiled That Table I say And now be it knowne that The Table here which is not to be represented by the Antithesis of But that Table must necessarily inferre two distinct Tables as Here and There doe prove two distinct Places except one can make congruitie of these words That Table Here. Which I note in Confutation of a vaine and crotchetive Objector And of this Table Here the Councel forbiddeth Christians to looke Too attentively to the thing set before us But contrarily concerning That other Table they command men to Lift up their minds aloft And not thus only but they also distinguish them in respect of their different Objects The Object of the First Table Here they name Bread and the Cup the Objects of Sense And the other Object opposed to this is that on the other Table expressed to be the Lambe God the Object of our mindes Thirdly the Admonition or Caution which the Councel giveth concerning the Bread is not to be too intent to it but touching the Lambe Christ they command us to lift up our mindes aloft for so the world h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie not to be used wee thinke for an inward looking into the sublimiy of the mystery of the matter before us as your Cardinall fancieth but for looking up aloft unto the Lambe of God in Heaven according to the Catholike Sense of those words * See hereafter Book 7. Chap. 4. §. 2. SVRSVM CGRDA The next two Proofes out of the same Canon of Nice to manifest our Protestant profession touching the Question in hand SECT V. OVr next two Proofes out of the Canon are these First is their Reason of the former Caution The Second the Confirmation of that Reason Both are expresly set downe in the Canon it selfe Why then did those holy Fathers admonish us not to be too intent to the Bread and Wine set before us It followeth Because they are not ordained to satisfie our Naturall man namely by a full Eating and Drinking but for a Sacramentall participation of the Body and Blood of Christ to the sanctifying of our Soules whereas your Church doth attribute to that which you eat in this Sacrament a power of sanctifying the Body by it's Bodily touch But much more will the next Proofe undermine your Defence To confirme their Reason why the Sacrament was not ordayned for the satisfying of the
naturall man they adde saying For this canse wee receive not much but little Which one Clause most evidently proveth it to be spoken of Bread and Wine and not of the Body and Blood of Christ as your generall Romane Catechisme if you have not already learned it will now teach you to believe saying that i Catechis Rom. Christum Dominum esse in hoc Scramento non dicimus ut parvus aut magnus est sed ut substantia est Tract de Euchaâ— num 36. Christ is not great or small in this Sacrament And indeed none ever said of the Eucharist that hee ate a little of Christ Body or a little Christ but yet the Sacrament eaten is sometimes more sometime lesse Nor this onely but the Canon furthermore speaketh of taking a little of that whereof if much were taken saith it it might satiate the naturall man So the Canon But that the outward Sacrament can truely satisfie the naturall man you your selves will testifie in your Booke-Cases and Missals * See Book 3. chap. 3. §. 10. Chap 6. §. 1. 2. acknowledging men Drunke with the Sacrament even unto vomiting with the one part thereof and also making mention of Men and Mice being fed and nourished with the other So then the natuturall man may be satiated with this Sacrament but with what therein The Body and Blood of Christ you abhorre to thinke that with Accidents You may be ashamed to affirme it as from the Jâ—dgement of Antiquity seeing you were never able hitherto justly to produce one Father for proofe of the Existence of Accidents without their Subjects or of nourishing a Substance by meere Accidents Wherefore untill you can prove some one of all these give us leave to beleeve that all were of the mind of that one k Gregor Nyssen Quomodò enim res incorporea corpori cibus fiat In Orat. de vita Mosiâ— p. 509. Father who held it Impossible for an Incorporeall or not-Bodily thing to be food to a Bodily substance And so much the rather because the Fathers have manifoldly * See above Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 7. 10. c. acknowledged in this Sacrament after Consecration the substance of Bread Wherefore the Reasoning of the Councel touching the Eucharist was like as if one should say of Baptisme Wee take not too much but little lest it might be thought to have beene ordained not for a Sacramentall meanes of sanctifying the Soule but for the clensing of the Flesh None is so stupid as not to understand by Much and Little the substance of water and not onely the Accidents thereof And if you shall need a further Explication of the same sentence of the Fathers of Nice you may fetch it from the Fathers in another Councel held at Toledo in Spaine Anno 693. who shew this Reason why they l Conc. Tolet 16 Anno 693 Can 6. Integrum panem esse sumendum neque grande aliquid sed modica tantum oblata secundum id quod Ecclesiastica consuetudo retentat cujus reliquiae aut ad conservandum modico loculo absque aliqua injuria Sacrificijs confecrotur aut si sumendum fuerit necessarium non ventrem illius qui sumpserit gravis farciminis onere premat nec quid indigesticè vadat sed animum alimoniâ spirituali resiciat Take little portions of the Hoast namely say they lest otherwise the belly of him that taketh this Sacrament may be stuffed and over charged and lest it may passe into the Draught but that it may be nourishment for the Soule Hereby plainly teaching concerning the consecrated matter that were it so much as could burthen the belly it would through the supersluity thereof goe into the Draught whereas if Lesse it would serve as wel or better for a Sacramentall use to the replenishing of our soules in the spiritually receiving of the Body of Christ But never was any of the Primitive Age so farre bereft of his wits as to imagine that Much which stuffeth and after passeth into the Draught to be Christ's Bodie and you may sweare that the Fathers meant not meere * See above Book 3. Chap. 3 §. â—â— Accidents For meere Accidents have not the property of Substance through the Muchnesse thereof either to satiate the naturall appetite in feeding or to overcharge the belly by weight in prossing it downe to the Draught Never did any Father father such an Imagination What can be if this be not true reasoning and consequently a full confutation of your Romane Faith Therefore this one Canon of Nice being thus undoubtedly gained concerning he not seeking Christ Here on this Table is sufficient of it selfe to batter downe your Assertion by a five-fold force First by proofe of no Transubstantiation of Bread Secondly no Corporall Presence of Christs Body Thirdly no Corporall Conjunction with the Bodies of the Communicants and consequently Fourthly no Proper Sacrifice thereof and Lastly no Divine Adoration due unto it Therefore ought you to bid all these your Romish Doctrines and Delusions avaunt Your Objections from the former Canon answered SECT VI. FIrst you m Ob. 1. Cum dicit agnum Dei situÌ„ esse in sacra mensa eundem agnum opponit symbolis declarat agnum proprié esse in mensa non solùm ut per symbola reprae sentatur 2. Agnus dicitur à Sacerdotum manibus immolari quod non fit in coelo neque enim tà m longas manus habent Sacerdotes ut ad coelum pertingant 3. Dicimur verè sumere corpus Christi quòd non solùm corde sed corpore sumitur probatur quia corpus sanguis Domâ—ni dicuntur esse nostrae resurrectionis symbola quia cùm nostris corporibus conjunguntur Si autem solâ— esset animorum conjunctio solus animus resurrecturus signific 〈◊〉 Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 10. Object that The Lambe is said to be placed on the Table mistaking what Table is meant for the Canon specifying two Tables one Here which is of the Eucharist and another That Table namely in Heaven saith that Christ is placed on That Table according to our Faith of his sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven Secondly hee is said say you to be Sacrifised by the hands of the Priest which cannot be done as hee is in Heaven The words of the Canon truly resolved to cashiere this Objection as thus The Lambe of God set as that Table namely in Heaven is sacrifised by the hands of the Priest Here to wit on the Table below representatively as hereafter the Catholike Fathers themselves will shew And these two may easily consist without any necessitie of the Priest reaching his hands as farre as the highest Heavens as your Cardinall objecteth âšœ The Priest saith hee hath not so long hands as to reach it in Heaven So hee delicately and like a Romish Cardinall carnally conceiting onely a Touch by the Finger of Flesh never regarding the Primitive Doctrine of Touching
Christ by Faith whereof first Saint Ambrose 1 Ambrosius in Luc. 24. Paulus docuit ubi te reperire possiâ—â—â— ubi ait Si consurrexistis cum Christo quae sursum sunt sapâ—â—e non super terram Ergo non quae supra terram nec in terra nec secundum carnem te quaerere debemus si volumus invenire Nunc enim secundum carnem jam non novimus Christum Denique Stephanus non supra terram quae 〈◊〉 qui stantem 〈◊〉 ad dextram Dei vidit Maria autem quae quaerebat in terra tangere non potuit Stephanus teâ—igit quia quaesivit in coelo Many saith hee sought Christ on Earth but could not touch him But Stephen touched him who sought him in Heaven Consonantly Saint Augustine who to this Question If Mary touched not Christ on Earth what mortall man shall touch him in Heaven Answereth 2 Aug. tom 10. de Temp. Serm. 152. Sin in torra positum Christum Maria non tangio in coelo sedentem quis mortalium possit tangere Sed ille tactus fidem significat Tangit Christaâ— qui credit in eum There is a Touch by Faith hee that believeth in Christ Toucheth him âšœ Thirdly you allege Wee are said to partake truly of the Body of Christ As though there were not a Truth in a Sacramentall that is Figurative Receiving and more especially which * See above c. 1. Sect. 2. hath beene both proved and confessed a Reall and true participation of Christs Body aâ—d Blood spiritually without any Corporall Conjunction But it is added saith hee that These namely the Body and Blood of Christ are Symbols of our Resurrection which is by reason that our Bodies are joyned with the Body of Christ otherwise if our Conjunction were onely of our Soules onely the Resurrection of our Soules should be signified thereby So hee that 's to say as successesly as in the forâ—er For the word HAâ—C These which are called Symbols of our Resurrection may be referred either to the Body and Blood of Christ immediately spoken of and placed on the Table in Heaven which wee Commemorate also in the Celebration of this Sacrament and in that respect may be called Symbols of the Resurrection of our Bodies because * See below Booke 5. Cap. ◠§. 1. If Christ be risen then must they that are Christs also rise againe Or else the word These may have relation to the more remote after the maner of the Greekes to wit Bread and Cup on the first Table because as immediatly followeth they are these whereof not much but little is taken as you have heard Which other * See below Booke 5. Cap. ◠§. 1. Fathers will shew to be indeed Symbols of our Resurrection without any Consequence of Christs Bodily Conjunction with our Bodies more than there is by the Sacrament of Baptisme which they call the Earnest of our Resurrection as doth also your Jesuite m Ad futuram Resurrectionem per Baptismi Sacramentum jus pignus accepimus Coster institut Christ lib. 4. c. 4. See more in the Booke following c. 8. Sect. 6. Coster call it The pledge of our Resurrection But this our Conjunction with Christ is the Subject matter of the fift Booke Lastly how the Eucharist was called of the Fathers a Sacrifice is plentifully resolved in the * See Chap. 5. Sect. 4. 5. 6. sixt Booke THE FIFTH BOOKE Treating of the Third Romish Doctrinall Consequence arising from your depraved Sense of the words of Christs Institution THIS IS MY BODY concerning the maner of the present Vnion of Christs Body with the Bodies of the Receivers by eating c. CHAP. I. The State of the Question SECT I. A Christian man consisting of two men the Outward or bodily the Inward which is Spiritual this Sacrament accordingly consisteth of two parts Earthly and Heavenly as Irenaeus spake of the bodily Elements of Bread Wine as the visible Signes and Objects of Sense and of the Body and Blood of Christ which is the Spirituall part Answerable to both these is the Double nourishment and Vnion of a Christian the one Sacramentall by communicating of the outward Elements of Bread and Wine united to mans body in his Taking Eating Disgesting till at length it be Transubstantiated into him by being Substantially incorporated in his Flesh The other which is the Spirituall and Soules food is the Body and Blood of the Lord therefore called Spirituall because it is the Object of 〈◊〉 by an Vnion wrought by Gods Spirit and mans Faith which as hath beene professed by Protestants is most Reall and Ineffable But your Church of Rome teacheth such a Reall Vnion of Christ his Body and Blood with the Bodies of the Communicants as is Corporall which * See below Ch. â— Sect. â— you call Per contactum by Bodily touch so long as the formes of Bread and Wine remaine uncorrupt in the Bodies of the Receivers Our Method requireth that wee first manifest our Protestant Defence of Vnion to be an Orthodox Truth Secondly to impugne your Romish Vnion as Capernaiticall that is Hereticall And thirdly to Determine the Point by comparing them both together Our Orthodox Truth will be found in the Propositions following That Protestants professe not onely a Figurative and Sacramentall Participation and Communion with Christ's Body but also a Spiritually-Reall SECT II. IN all the Bookes of our Adversaries written against Protestants they are most especially vehement violent and virulent in traducing them in the name of Sacramentaries as though wee professed no other maner of feeding and Vnion with Christ's Body than onely Sacramentall and Figurative For Confutation of which Calumnie it will be most requisite to propose the Apologie of a Calvin in hiâ—s libris viz. Consensio in re Sacramentariaâ— Diâ—ensio contra 〈◊〉 et Explicatio de vera participat coenae Dom. I. Fâ—teor me abhorrere ab hoc crasso commento localis praesentiae Substantiâ Christi animae nostrae pasâ—untur sed secundùm Virtutem non secundùm Substantiam II. Signum tantum pâ—â—rigi centies contrà Quasi vero cum Swinckâ—â—ldio quiâ—quam nobis commune III. In Catechismo disserui non solùm beneficiorum Christi significationem habemus in coena sed substantive participes in nam cum eo vitam coalescimus Figurata locutio fateor modò non tellatur rei veritas IV. Neque enim tantùm dico applicari merita sed ex ipso Christi corpore alimentum percipere animas non secùs ac terreno pane corpus vescitur Vim carnis suae vivisicans spiritus sui gratiâ in nos transs sundit Spiritualem dicimus non carnalem quamvâ—â— realem ut haec vox provera contra fallacem sumitur non secundùm substantiam quam vis ex ejus substantia vita in animas nostras prosâ—uit V. Ergò in coena miraculum agnoscimus quod naturae sines sensus nostri modum ex supoâ—at quod Christi caro
nobis sit com nuuis nobis in alimentum datuâ— Modus incomprehensibilis VI. Si nos in consesu quem continet Augustana confessio complexos esse dixi non est quod quis me astutiae insimuleâ— Verbulum in ea Confessione qualis Ratisbonae edita fuit non extat doctrinae nostrae con trarium De Philippo Melancthone ejus Authore viro spectatae pietatis dico non magis me à Philippo quà m à proprijs visceribus divelli posse Et quidem non aliter sanctae memoriae Bucerum sensisse luculentis testimonijs probare mihi semper promptum erit Lutherus meae sententiae non ignarus propriâ tamen manu non gravatus est me salutare Quum Marpurgi essem diconciliatio facta est ab eo conventu digressus affirmat codem quo ante loco Oecolampadium Zuinglium habere quos illic fratrum loco posthà c fore sancte pollicitus est Hactenâ—â— Calvinus Him who hath beene most opposed and traduced by your Disputers in this Cause to shew first what hee held not and then what hee held If you shall aske Calvin what he liked not hee will answer you I. I do abhorre your grosse Doctrine of Corporall Presence And II. I have an hundred times disclamed the receiving onely of a Figure in this Sacrament What then did hee hold III. Our Catehisme teacheth saith hee not onely a signification of the Benefits of Christ to be had herein but also a participation of the substance of Christ's flesh in our soules And with Swinckfeldius maintaining onely a Figurative perception wee have nothing to do If you further demand what is the Feeding whereby wee are united to Christ's Body in this Sacrament hee tells you IV. that it is Not Carnall but Spirituall and Reall and so Reall that the Soule is as truely replenished with the lively virtue of his flesh by the powerfull worke of the Spirit of God as the Body is nourished with the Corporall Element of Bread in this Sacrament If you exact an expression of this Spirituall Vnion to know the maner hee acknowledgeth it to be V. above Reason If further you desire to understand whether hee were not Singular in this opinion hee hath avouched the judgement of other Protestants professing not to dissent one syllable from the VI. Augustane Confession as agreeing with him in judgement herein Accordingly our Church of England in the 28 Article saith that To such as worthily with faith receive this Sacrament The Bread which wee breake is a partaking of the Body of Christ which Body is given taken and eaten in the Supper onely after a spirituall and heavenly maner the meane whereby as Faith That the Body of Christ by this Sacrament was ordayned onely for food to the Christian man's Soule SECT III. WHat need wee seeke into the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers which are many in this Point of Dispute having before us the judgement of your b Summus Salvâ—tor hoc Sacramentum voluit esse tanquam spiritualem animarum cibum quo alamur confortemur viventes vita illius quo dixit Qui mand ucat me c. Concil Trid. Sess 13. ca. 2. Fathers of the Councell of Trent and of your c Sacramento utendum ad alendam animam Catech. Trid. de Euch. num 29. Romane Catechisme authorized by the same Councell both which affirme that Christ ordained this Sacrament to be the Spirituall food of man's Soule In which respect the Body of Christ is called Spirituall in your Popes d Decret ex Ambros de mysterijs Corpus Christi est Corpus Spirituale Disâ— 2. ca. In illo Decree The Consonant Doctrine of the Fathers will be found in the last Chapter and last Section of this Fift Booke That the Spirituall feeding and Vnion with Christ's Body is more excellent and Reall than the Corporall Conjunction can be SECT IV. THe soule of man being the most Essentiall and Substantiall part of man because a Spirit immortall and the flesh of Christ being the most Substantiall of all food and theréfore called as of ancient e Ambros lib. 5. de Sacram. cap. 4. Fathers even so by your Fathers of f Conc. Trident. Panem illum supersubstantialé frequenter accipiant Sess 13. ca. 8. Trent Supersubstantiall Bread it must necessarily follow that as it is named by Christ * Ioh. 6. 32. The true Bread and the Life thereby which is the Effect of the Spirituall eating thereof is the most true and Reall Life because Everlasting So the Vnion Spirituall which a Christian hath in his soules feeding is the most Reall and true Vnion as may sufficiently appeare by Analogie To wit that Bread and Wine being the most vitall nourishments for the conservation of man's bodily Essence are therefore chosen as the Fathers teach to represent and exhibit unto him although in themselves but Signes and Symbals the very Body and Blood of Christ Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ are our Reall nourishments in this Sacrament And such as is our food such must be our Vnion by feeding thereon which wee say is by Faith in this Sacrament and you may not gain-say it who to comfort your Disciples are g Alanus alij ex citatis Authoribus dicunt quando reipsa non potest suscipi hoc Sacramentum ad perficiendam hanc unionem sufficere quod hoc Sacramentum in voto suscipiatur quia hoc satis est ut homo fiat membrum Christi vivum uniatur illi Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disp 64. §. 3. p. 824. Satis est si spiritualiter manducatur in voto etiamsi non Sacramentaliter Acoâ—â—a Ies de Indorum Salute lib. 6. cap. 7. Vere Spiritualiter sumunt qui fide tenent sub iltis speciâ—bus verum esse corpus Christi simul ipsum desiderio recipendi ardeant Tolet. Ies Instruct Sacerd. lib. 21 cap. 29. taught to instruct them that even without this Sacrament the Spirituall Vnion may be presented to the Soule of man with the Body of Christ and that as a sufficient meanes of uniting him to Christ by a Spirituall maner of Eating And this you say is To receive Christ his Body truely albeit this be to receive him onely by faith and desire So you Whence you perceive our Inference viz. If our Spirituall Vnion with Christ his Body may be really and truly made by Faith and Desire without this Sacrament then in our Sacramentall Eating thereof may the Communicant be much more made partaker thereof by Faith and ardent Desire the Sacrament it selfe being a Sâ—â—le of this our Christian Faith CHAP. II. That onely the Godly-faithfull Communicants are Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ and thereby united to Christ in the judgement of Protestants SECT I. OVr Church of England in her 28. and 29. Article saith thus The Body of Christ is given to be eaten in this Sacrament onely after a Spirituall maner even by faith wherein the wicked and such as are voyd
of faith eat it not although they do visibly presse with their teeth the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ yet are they in no wise Partakers thereof But your Romish Church flatly otherwise as you all know and therefore hath your Sympresbyter Master h Mr. Brerely Tract 2. §. 5. Sub 2. Brerely endeavoured to assume some Protestants to be on your side whom hee hath alleged with like faithfulnesse as hee hath cited Master Calvin than whom hee could not have in this case a greater Adversary For although Calvin grant with all Protestants that the wicked and faithlesse receive truly by way of Sacrament the Body of Christ yet doth hee deny that they have in their Bodies any Corporall Conjunction or Vnion with Christ because the Vnion which wee have i Calvin Epist 372. yet in the same Epistie hee saith of Papists Damnantur qui dicunt non minus corporis Christi participem fuisse Iudam quam Petrum In his Institut lib. 4. cap. 17. Non alia quam fidei manducatio Sect. 8. Cordis sinum tantùm protendant quo praesentem amplexentur §. 12 Vinculum con junctionis est spiritus Christi §. 13. Non 〈◊〉 §. 16. Non contactu §. 33. Impij scelerati non edunt Christi corpus qui sunt ab eo alieni quia ipsa caro Christi in mysterio coenae non ramus spiritulis res est quà m salus aeterna Vnde colligimus quod quicunque vacui sunt spiritu Christi carnem Christi non posâ—e edere magis quam vinum bibere cui non conjunctus est Sapor Aliud tamen est offerri aliud recipi Spiritualem â—ibum omnibus porrigit Christus etiam indignis at non absquè fide recipitur §. 34. Saepius fateor occurrit apud Augustinum ista loquendi forma Comedi Corpus Christi ab infidelibus sed seipsum explicat c. Haec Calvinus saith hee is Onely Spirituall onely with the soule onely with the heart onely by faith and although it be offered to the wicked to be really received yet do they not receive it because they are Carnall Their onely Receiving therfore is but Sacramentall So Master Calvin It had beene good that your Priest had suspected his owne Iudgement and as well in this case as others by doubting his owne eye-sight had borrowed your k Sextum eorum pronunciatum est Improbos non suscipere Corpus Christi licet Symbola suscipiant Calvin Instit lib. 4. cap. 17. §. 33. Beza Teste Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 1. §. Porro Cardinall his Spectacles then would hee have clearly perceived that together with other Protestants Calvin held that The wicked although they receive the Symbols and outward Signes of Christ's body yet the Body it selfe they doe not receive So your Cardinall of the Doctrine of Protestants For although indeed Calvin sayd that The wicked eat the Body of Christ yet explayning himselfe hee added these two words In Sacramento that is Sacramentally which in Calvin's style is taken for Symbolically onely As for the Consent of Protestants herein wee put it to your great Cardinall and Champion their greatest Adversary to expresse l Ex Vbi quitistarum opinione sequitur corpus Christi non posse vere manducari ore corporali sed solum ore spirituali per fidem est ipsisima sententia Sacramentariorum Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 17. §. Secundo ex Hee joyneth Lutherans to the Calvinists in one Consent for denying the Orall and Corporall Eating thereof and for believing the Eating of it Onely by Faith Yet lest any may say that in receiving the same Sacrament hee doth not receive the thing signifyed thereby you may have a Similitude to illustrate your Judgements as thus The same outward word concerning Justification by Christ cometh to the eares of both Vnbelievers and Believers But the Believers onely are capable of Justification That the wicked Communicants albeit they eat not bodily Christ's Body yet are they Guilty of the Lord's Body for not receiving Spiritually namely through their Contempt in not receiving the Blessing offered thereby SECT II. THe Apostle 1. Cor. 11. 27. Whosoever saith hee Eateth this Bread and Drinketh this Cup unworthily hee shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. And vers 29. eateth and drinketh Damnation to himselfe not discerning the Lords Body Your Remish Professours men not the least zealous for your Romish Cause objecting this against the Protestants call upon you saying first m Rhemists Annot in 1. Cor. 11. vers 27. Here upon marke well that ill men receive the Body and Blood of Christ be they Infidels or ill livers for else they could not be guilty of that which they receive not Secondly That it could not be so hainous an offence for any to receive a piece of Bread or a Cup of Wine though they were a true Sacrament for it is a deadly sinne for any to receive any Sacrament with will and intention to continue in sinne or without repentance of former sinnes but yet by the unworthy receiving of no other Sacrament is man made guilty of Christs Body and Blood but here where the unworthy Receiver as Saint n Chrysost Hom 60. 61. ad Pop. Antioch Chrysostome saith do vill any to Christs owne Person as the Iewes and Gentiles did that crucified him Which invincibly proveth against the Heretikes that Christ is herein really present And guilty is hee for not dâ—scerning the Lords Body that is because hee putteth no difference betweene this high meat and others So your Rhemists Your Cardinall also as though hee had found herein something for his purpose o Bellar. Obijcit Cyprian Sterm de Lapsis de ijs qui post negatum Christum sine poenitententia accedunt plus cos jam manibus atquè ore delinquere quam cum Dominum negâ—runt Deinde Cyprianum recensere miracula facta in vindictam eorum qui corpus Christi tantum violant Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 9. See this answered in the 7. Sectioâ— following fasteneth upon the sentence of Cyprian who accounted them that after their denyall of Christ presented themselves to this Communion without repentance to offer more injurie to Christ by their polluted hands and mouthes than they did in denying Christ and besides hee recordeth Examples of Gods miraculous vengeance upon those who violated the Body of Christ in this Sacrament So hee All these points are reducible unto three heads One is that Ill men might not be held guilty of the Body of Christ except they did receive it as being materially present in this Sacrament Next is the Guilt of prophaning this Sacrament which being more hainous than the abuse of any other Sacrament therfore the injury is to be judged more personall The last that the Examples of Gods vindicative Iudgemeuts for Contempt hereof have beene more extraordinary which may seeme to be a Confirmation of both the former Before wee
handle these points in order take our next Position for a Directory to that which shall be answered in the sixt Section That some Fathers understood the Apostles words 1. Corinth 10. Spiritually namely as signifying the Eating of Christs Flesh and drinking his Blood both in the Old Testament and in the New SECT III. VPon those words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. verse 4. They ate of the same Spirituall meate c. The Iewes received the same Spirituall meate p Aug. Tract 26. in Ioh. sup illa verba Apostoli 1. Cor. 20. de fidelibus Iudaeis Omnes candem spiritualem escam in Manna edebant bibebant eundem potum spiritualem c. Corporalem escam diversam illi Manna nos aliud spiritualem sed candem aliud illi aliud nos bibimus sed aliud specie visibili idem autem significante virtute Item Eandem quam nos escam sed Patres nostri nèmpè fideles non Patres illorum Aug. Ibid. saith Saint Augustine namely they who were faithfull Yea saith your q At eandem inter se non nobis cum candem Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Quia Cardinall the Iewes received the same among themselves but not the same with us Christians So hee Albeit the words of Augustine are plainly thus The same which wee eate so plainely that divers on your owne side doe so directly and truly acknowledge it that your Jesuit r Iudaeos candem escam spiritualem edisse nobiscum exposuit hunc locum de Manna Augustinus qui eum secuti sunt multi ut Beda Strabo Author Glossae ordinariae reprobatum hoc esse a posterioribus Ego persuasum habeo Augustinum si nostra aetate fuisset longè aliter sensurum fuisse omni genti Hereticorum inimicissimum cum videret Calvinistas ad eundèm ferè modum hunc locum interpretari Maldon Ies in Ioh. 6. vers 50. col 706. Maldonate not able to gain-say this Truth pleaseth himselfe notwithstanding in fancying that If Augustine were alive in this Age hee would thinke otherwise especially perceiving Hereticall Calvinists and Å¿ Calvin Instit lib. 4. Cap. 14. Sect. 23. Eandem nobiscum contra Scholasticorum dogma quo docent veteri lege tantum adumbrari gratiam novâ praesentem conferri Calvin himselfe to be of his opinion So hee Was it not great pity that Augustine was not brought up in the Schoole of the Jesuites surely they would have taught him the Article of Transubstantiation of the Corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament and Corporall Vnion against all which there could not be a greater Adversary than was Augustine whom Maldonate here noteth to have beene the Greatest enemy to all Heretikes whom t Bertram de Corp. Dom. pag. 20. Quaeres fortasse quam eandem nimirum ipsam quam hodie populus credentium in Ecclesia manducat Non enim licet diversa intelligi quoniam unus idemque Christus qui populum in mare baptizatum carne suâ pavit eundem que potum in Petra Christum sui sanguinis 〈◊〉 populo praebuisse Vide nondum passum Christum esse etiam tamen sui corporis sanguinis mysterium operatum fuisse non enim putamus ullum fidelium dubitare panem illum Christi corpus fuisse effectum quod discipulis Dominus dicit Hoc est Corpus meum Bertram followed in the same Exposition and by your leave so did your u Eandem escam spiritualem id est Corpus Christi in signo spiritualiter intellecto idem quod nos sed aliam escam corporalem quam nos Aquinas in 1. Cor. 10. Aquinas also The same saith hee which wee eate Yea and Anselme imbraceth the same exposition in the very words of Saint Augustine The same which wee eat Thus much by the way Wee goe on to our Answers That the wicked Receivers are called Guilty of Christs Body not by properly Eating of his Body unworthily but for unworthily Eating the Sacrament thereof Symbolically SECT IV. THE Distinction used by Saint Augustine who is still a resolute Patron of our Cause hath beene alwayes as generally acknowledged as knowne wherein hee will have us to discerne in the Eucharist the Sacrament from the thing represented and exhibited thereby Of the Sacrament hee saith that * Aùg in Ioh. Tract 26. Sacramentum â—umitur a quiâ—â—â—dam ad vitâ—â—m 〈◊〉 quibuâ—dam 〈◊〉 exitium Reâ— vero ipsa cujus est Sacramenttum omni homini ad vitam null◠〈◊〉 mortem quicunquè ejus particips â—uerâ—â— It is received of some to Life and of some to destruction but the thing it selfe saith hee is received of None but to Salvation So hee No Protestant could speake more directly or Conclusively for proofe First That in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Body of Christ is as well tendred to the Wicked as to the Godly Secondly That the Wicked for want of a living faith have no Hand to receive it Thirdly That their not preparing themselves to a due receiving of it is a Contempt of Christ his Body and Blood Fourthly and Consequently that it worketh the judgement of Guiltinesse upon them âšœ If it shall be proved that the like judgement followeth upon the Wicked for absenting himselfe from receiving of this Sacrament in Contempt thereof as well as it doth upon the unworthy Receiver it Determinateth the Point in question to prove the inconsequence of your reason wherof you conclude that the Guiltinesse of Judgement ariseth from unworthy Corporall participation of Christs Body Now Saint Augustines words are that 1 Aug de Necessitate poeniâ—eâ—tiae Tom 10. Hom. 50. Verset ante oculos Imago futuri Iudiciâ— ut cum alij aâ—cedunt ad aliare Dei quô ipse non accedit conâ—â—git quà m sit contremiscenda illa poena qua percipiâ—ntibus alijs vitam aeternam alij in mortem praecipitentur aeternam Item 〈◊〉 Tom 6. contra 〈◊〉 Manichaeum lib. 13 c. 6. Qui autem manducaâ—â— contemnit non habet in se vitam ideo non pervenâ—â—t ad vitam aeteâ—nam Hee that contenineth to eate this hath no life in him and shall be deprived of life eternall Which is by his Contempt not in the Receiving but in the Not-Receiving thereof All which both the Evidence of Scripture and Consent of Antiquity do notably confirme For the Text objected doth clearely confute your Romish Consequence because Saint Pauls words are not Hee that eateth the Body of Christ and drinketh his Blood unworthily is guilty of his Body and Blood but Hee that enteth the Bread and drinketh the Cup of the Lord unworthily c Which wee have proved throughout the second Booke to signifie Bread and Wine the Signes and Sacraments of his Body and Blood after Consecration And to come to Antiquity All the Fathers hereafter cited who deny that the wicked Communicants are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ albeit knowing as well as you that all such unworthy Receivers are
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.
Eucharist in the dayes of S. Augustine both which that holy Father did utterly explode The first was by the Manichees who teaching that o August◠〈…〉 ib. 20. cap 1â— Ex fabula vestâ—â de Sp. Sancto cerra concipiens gignâ—t patibâ—â—em Iesum qui est salus omnium hominum suspensus ex ligno c Cap. 12. Cui non totum 〈◊〉 unus Christus si propter unam substantiam 〈◊〉 in aâ—borâ—bus Christus in persecutione Iudae orum Christus in sole in luna Christus c. Cap. 13. In uva agnoscunt Deum suum in cupâ— nolunt quasi aliquid eos caleatus inclusus offenderit noster autem panis calix non quilibet quasi propter Christum in 〈◊〉 sarmentis ligatum sicut Illi desipiunt sed cerâ—â consecratione mysticuâ—â— fit nobis non nascitur proinde quin ita fit quamvis sit panis caliâ— alimentum refectionis est non Sacramentum religionis nisi quod beâ—â—dicimuâ— gratiasque agimus Domine in omni munâ—re ejus non solum spirituali yerum etiam corpotali Vobis autem per fabulam vestram in eâ—â—is omnibus Christus ligatus opponitur adhuc ligandus vestris visceribus solvendusquè ructatibus nam 〈◊〉 manducatis Dei vâ—stri defectione vos reficitis cum digeritis illius refectione deficiâ—tis Quomodo ergo comparas panem calicem nostum parem religionem dicis â—rrorem loâ—ge 〈◊〉 veritate discretum pejus enim decipimus quam nonnulli qui nos propter panem calicem Cererem Liberum colere existimant Sicut enim a Cerere Libero Paganorum Dijs longe absumus quamvis panis calicis Sacramentum quod ita laud 〈◊〉 ut in eo nobis pares esse volueritis â—itu nostro amplectamur c. Edit Paâ—iâ—ijs Anno. 1555. Christ was Hanged on every tree and tyed unto all meates which they eate would needes have their Religion to be somewhat agreeable to the Catholike Profession An Imputation which Saint Augustine did abhorre namely that it should be thought that there was the same reason concerning Christs Body of the opinion of Mysticall Bread among the Orthodox which the Manâ—chees had of their Corporall Bread As for example that Christ should be fastned or tyed to mens guts by eating and let loose againe by their belching Which Hereticall Doctrine how shall it not accord with your Romish which hath affirmed a passage and Entrance of Christs Body into and Cleaving unto mens * See Chap. 7. Sect. 1. Guts by eating and a Repasse againe by Vomiting albeit the matter so fast and so loose be in the judgement of Saint Augustine Bread still after Consecration The Second Calumniation aginst the True Professours was by others who testifyed that Catholikes in the Eucharist adored Ceres and Bacchus after the maner of the Pagans What answer do you thinke would a Romish Professour have made in this Case doubtlesse according to your Doctrine of Corporall Presence by saying thus Whereas some affirme that wee do adore Bread and Wine in this Sacrament yet the truth is wee adore that whereunto Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated to wit the Body and Blood of Christ the sonne of God But Saint Augustine as one fancying nothing lesse Wee saith hee are farre from the gods of the Pagans for â—ee embrace the Sacrament of Bread and Wine This is all and all this hee spake after Consecration Whereupon wee are occasioned to admonish our Christian Reader to take heed of the fraudulent practice of the Romish Sect because of their abusing of the Writings of ancient Fathers whereof take unto you this present p Editio Paris Anno 1614 Noster panis mysticus fit nobis Corpus Christi non nascitui Whereas the direct sense is that Bread Consecrated is not naturally bread as it were the spicae that is Eareâ— of Corne spoken of by the Mani chees but made My sticall and Sacramentall by CoÌ„secration Example The Paris Edition An. 1555. hath the Sentence of Saint Augustine thus Noster panis Mysticus fit nobis non nascitur But the last Paris Edition Ann. 1614. hath foisted in and inserted Corpus Christ albeit the sense be full without this Addition to signifie that Common Bread is by Consecration made Mysticall or Sacramentall according to Saint Augustines owne Exposition saying that wee embrace the Sacrament of Bread and Cup and also the Phrase of Panis fit Corpus Christi Bread is made Christs Body be repugnant to a common Principle of all Christianity which never believed a Body of Christ made of Bread So that the aforesayd Addition is not a Correcting but a Corrupting of the Text. âšœ The miserable straights of Romish Disputers in answering the Definitive Sentence of Saint Augustine concerning Christs words of Eating his flesh and of the Romish Shift in saying they do but Swallow it SECT IV. SAint q Aug. de Doctr Christ lib. 3. cap. 16. Si praeceptiva locutâ—o flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere figurata est ut Nisi mandâ—â— averitis caâ—nem meam facinus videtur jubere Ergo figura est praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum suaviter utiliter recondendum in memora quia pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa vulneata sit Augustines Determination is set downe in that his one famous Sentence for the expounding of those words of Christ Except you eat the flesh of the Sonne of man c. Ioh. 6. thus Whensoever wee find in Scripture any speech seeming to forbid any laudable good thing or to command any haynous evill Act the speech is Figurative Vt cum aicitur Nisi manducaveritis that is As when it is sayd Except you eat my flesh which seemeth to command some hainous Sinne therefore it is Figurative commanding us to communicate with Christs passion and sweetly and profitably record in our memory that his flesh was crucifyed and slaine for us So Saint Augustine which one Sentence hath beene alwayes held of Protestants to be convincent for strangling of your Romish Cause Which your Cardinall seeing as it were gasping hasteneth to give it some short breath r Bellar. lib. 1 de Euch. cap. 7. Non vult Augustinus dicere carnem Christi Tropice manducari si essentiam manducationis spectemus quae solum requirit ut verus cibus ab ore traijciatur in stomachum per instrumenta vitalia sed vult dicere Tropice manducari quoad modum nam Ordinanus proprius modus manducandi est ut caro visibiliter secetur in partes particulatim sumatur cocta non creda Caro autem Christi sumitur integra invisibiliter et sine ulla laesione sui qua manducatione figurate significamus representamus passionem Christi 1. probatur quia non est scelus carnem Christi spirituali modo sine fuilaesione sumere 2. quia per scelus intelligâ—â— modum edendi Capernaiticum nempe tatnem lanâ—ando Augustine saith hee
the Word is to the Spirit working by a more excellent power for Eternity than can our Carnall Nutriments for our Temporall life and Being So hee Nothing now remaineth but the last exercise of Faith which is by Application in Speciall taught by our Saviour in saying to his Disciples Take ye Eat this is my Body given for you and This is my Blood of the New Testament shed for you Hereby although it be spoken as hath beene proved Sacramentally and Figuratively to instruct every of his Disciples in taking thereof to apply those words Body given for you c. as verily spoken to himselfe as if hee had sayd Take thou Iohn and Take thou Peter My Body given for thee Iohn and for thee Peter c. in a Sacramentall Analogie So then as my Bodily hand taketh the Sacramentall Bread the Signe of Christs Body and my Bodily mouth eateth and my Bodily stomacke digesteth and turneth it as nourishment into my flesh so my Soule saith that I believe that the Body of my Saviour was Crucifyed and his Blood shed for mee whole man Body and Soule And that thereby I have an Interest in the power of his Passion both for Redemption and for Everlasting Salvation whereof I have a Sacramentall Pledge by the converting of Bread into the Substance of mine owne Flesh According to the Consonant Doctrine of Antiquity set downe in the last Chapter of this Fift Booke âšœ CHAP. X. Of the Romish Historicall Objections Chiefely insisted upon out of Iustine concerning the Slander raysed against Christians of Eating mans flesh sprung as is pretended from the Catholike Doctrine of Eating Christs Body in the Eucharist which is their First Argument SECT I. MAny leaves are spent by M. a Mr. Brerely in his Liturgie Tra. 2. §. 2. Subd 4. p. 121. Where in his Margin hee citeth Vadian whom hee nameth a Zuinglian And if so how farâ—e hee was from confessing a Corporall Presence the Romish Authors who condemne him for the contrary opinion doe prove See above Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Brerely in pressing this Objection the strength of his Inforcement standeth thus Iustine Martyr in the yeare 130. writing an Apologie to the Heathen Emperour when he was in discourse of the Eucharist The reported Doctrine whereof concerning the Reall Presence was the true and confessed Cause of this Slander and when hee should have removed the suspicion thereof did notwithstanding call the Eucharist No common Bread but after Consecration the food wherewith our Flesh and Blood is fed c. Then hee proceedeth in urging his other Argument as followeth borrowed from the b Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4. Cardinall to wit Iustine his comparing the Change in the Eucharist to be a worke of Omnipotencie and for his not expounding the words of Christ Figuratively Then is brought in * In the Margin of Master Berely Ibid. Attalas the Martyr whilest he was under the Tortures and Torments of his Persecutors saying Behold your Doing Hoc est homines devorare This is a Devouring of men wee Christians do not Devoure men To whom is joyned Tertullian making mention of the same Clamour of Sacrifising a Childe and Eating his flesh Ad nostrae Doctrinae notam To the infamie of our Profession At length Master Brerely concludeth as followeth So evidently doth this Slander thus given forth by the Iewes argue sufficiently the Doctrine of Reall presence and Sacrifice and for as much as the Slander went so generally of all Christians it is probable that it did not arise from any sort of one or other Christian in particular So hee âšœ And so long before him Doctor Heskins 1 Heâ—kins in his Parliament B. 2. Cap. 42. fol. 156. This fame among the Infidels being grounded upon the same faith of Christians proveth the Presence Meaning the Corporall Presence and Existence of Christs Body in the Eucharist That the Romish Objection is in it selfe most Slanderous against the Historicall Truth taught by the Ancient Fathers and Confessed by the Romish Doctors themselves SECT II. VVHat That the Catholike Doctrine of Ancient times concerning our Eating of Christ's Body in this Sacrament should have beene the Cause yea or yet the Occasion to the Heathen and Iewes of imputing to the Christians a Capernaiticall Eating of Man's flesh This is the first Argument which your Objectors from Historicall Relations use for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist out of this Ancient Father Iustine Martyr In Confutation whereof wee produce see the Margin the Testimonies of these Ancient Fathers 2 Aug. Haeres 26. Cataphryges Sacramenta perhibentur funesâ—a habere Nam de infanti anniculi sanguine quem de toto ejus corpore minutis punctionum vulneribus extorquent quasi Eucharistiam suam conficere perhibentur miscentes eum fariâ—ae panemquê inde facientes qui pâ—er si mortuus fuerit habent illum pro Martyre sin vivus pro Magno Saceâ—dote Augustine 3 Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 24. Gentes videntes quae sunt illorum Haereticorum omnes nos blasphemant avertunt aures a praeconio veritatis Irenaeus 4 Terâ—ull ad uxorem Non sciet Maritus quid secreto ante cibum gustes Agapae verò non nisi Vespere Tertul. Apolog. 16. Alij Asini caput per ludibrium Christiani appellabantur Asinarij c. Tertullian 5 Epiphan Haeres 26. Foelum jam natum detractum pistillo â—undunt omnes contusi pueri participes facti esu peracto c. Epiphanius and 6 Origen testatur opera Iudaeorum has calumâ—ias adversus Christianâ—s diâ—â—igatus lib. 1. contra Celsum 〈…〉 Origen together with the Confessions of your owne Romish Authors 7 Maâ—donat lib. 7. de Sacramentis Tom. de Eucharislia §. Sexta Questio Montanistae Peputiani ut Author est August lib. de Haeres c. 27. Epiph. in Haeres 49. Infantem conspersum farinâ solebant compungere sanguinem ab illa expressum miscere farinâ ex eo panem conficere ad Eucharistiam Vnde credo natam fuisse illam notam quam Gentiles inurebant Christianis quod infantes occiderent Maldonat 8 Baronius Anno 120. num 22. usque ad numerum 36. Quae Gnostici agebant in occulto palam facta coÌ„vertebant in Christianos nam Epiphanius Haeres 26. Foetum jam natum detractum pistillo tundunt omnes contusi pueri participes facti esu peracto c. Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 24. Gentes videntes quae sunt illorum Haereticorum omnes nos blasphemant averâ—unt aures a praeconio veritatis Origenes testatur opera Iudaeorum has calumnias adversus Christianos divulgatas lib. 1. con Celsum Caecilius Ethnicus apud Minutium Felicem obijcit in Octavium Baronius locis supra notatis Sic jam de initiandis tyronibus fabula tam detestanda quam nota est c. Lorinus Ies in Sap. cap. 12. v. 5. Striges Magi nostri puerorum sanguinem
names of the Things signifyed thereby whereof you have heard a Memorable example out of * See above Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. Homer where even as Christ sayd of Consecrated Bread This is my Body So those Heathen in Sacrifising of Lambes for Ratification of their Oaths and Covenants called those Sacrifices their Oaths And that nothing was more familiar among the Heathen you may know by that Proverbiall speech Sine Cerere Libero friget Venus without Ceres and Bacchus Lust doth languish where they give to Bread the name of the Goddesse Ceres and the name of God Bacchus to Wine Secondly and more especially may this appeare out of Iustine immediatly after the place now objected thus 15 Iustin Loco supracitat Hoc est sanguis meus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ saith Iustine receiving Bread saith This is my Body and taking the Cup sayd This is my Blood and delivered them onely in those words the which also even the wicked Devils by Imitation have taught to be done in the Mysteries of their Mithra namely for that Bread and a Pot of Water is put in the Sacrifices of him that is initiated unto their Communion in the Sacrifices by Addition of certaine words as you either know or might have knowne So Iustine To the Heathen Emperour Do you not see how the Devils in their Sacrifices and Mysteries as 16 Tertul. de Corâ—na 〈…〉 Agnoseamus ingenia 〈◊〉 ideuco quaedam de divims assectantis ut nos de suoruâ— fide confundat et â—udâ—cet Idem de Praesâ—ription Ipsus res Sacramentorum devinorum in Idol â—rum mysterâ—â—s aemulatur Tiâ—git ipse quosdam celebrat et panis oblationem et imaginem Resurrectionis inducit Tertullian witnesseth affect Divine Rites And by Imitation play Christs Apes as other Fathers use to speake And that not onely in their Materiall Ceremonies such as are Bread and Cup but also in their Verball by Addition of words as Iustine sheweth Where you may perceive how Iustine argued with those Heathen out of their owne Mysteries and that wee may so call them Sacraments even as Saint Paul did with the Athenians out of the Inscription of their owne Altar It happened not above a quarter of a yeare after that had set downe this Observation that in reading a Booke of that never too worthily Commended Mirrour of Learning Master Isaac Casaubone I found this my Opinion fortifyed and as it were animated with his most acurate Judgement shewing out of his most exquisite Reading that 17 Isaac Casaub in 〈◊〉 exercitat 16. Iustinus in Apologia altera narrat malos Daemonas in Mithâ—ae mysterijs S. Eacharâ—â—liae aemulationem quandam tradidisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecce panem et poculum sed aquae ut dixi non vin◠〈◊〉 verba solemnia super Symbolis proferri solita id enim significat isto in loco vox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qâ—d super dicta qua voce utuntur Iuris consulti Etiam Arrianus loco paulo ante indicato sacras mysteriorum voces commemorat quas magnà cum reverentiâ excipi solitas ostendit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum Eucharistia et sit et dâ—catur Communio sicut ante est expositum inâ—â—dem Mithrâ—â— mysterijs Communio quae est omnibus animantibus inter se miro Symbolorum genere expriâ—â—baâ—ur The Devils did in aemulation of Christians use in their Mysteries of Mythra Symbols of Bread and Cup adding solemne Mysticall words Hee furthermore sheweth out of Porphyrie that in their Religious Communion they had certaine Aenigmaticall expressions Calling their Communicants if Men Lions if Women Hyenas and if Ministers Crowes Still as you see using Mysticall and Figurative Appellations in their Ceremoniall Rites Vpon which evidence wee may easily encounter your Cardinalls Dilemma with this that followeth Either the Emperour and the Heathen people did perceive that the words of Christ now published by Iustine were spoken Figuratively signifying the Outward Eating of his Body Bodily in a Signe onely or they did not If they did know so much then could they not be offended with Orthodoxe Christians or Scandalized thereby And if they did not know that they were Figuratively and Mystically to be understood then would not those Emperours have absolved Christians from all blame as you see they did but punished them for Sacrificing of Infants which Act among these Heathen was held to be Criminall and Capitall And that Iustine did not Praevaricate by concealing his Figurative sense of Christs words it is as manifest by that he Instructed them therein out of their own Phrases used in their Ceremonies of their God Mithra The Impossibility that any Heathen could be offended at the former words of Justine SECT VI. NO Heathen that heard of the Catholike Faith of Christians concerning the Body of Christ in those Primitive times published by Ancient Fathers and by Iustine himselfe could except it were against their Consciences impute unto Christians a Corporall Eating of the Body of Christ For first the Articles of Christian Faith for which so many Armies of Martyrs conquered the Infidelity of the world by Martyrdome being this that Christ the Saviour of the world God and Man ascended into Heaven and there now reigneth in the Kingdome of everlasting Blessednesse adored of all Christians with Divine worship Another Article Vniversally held of those Catholike Fathers as hath been * See Book 4. c. 5. §. 5. proved that the Body of Christ was ever notwithstanding his Resurrection and Ascension Circumscribed in one place And thirdly All knowing that this Principle was universally and infallibly believed of all the Heathen namely To thinke it Impossible for one Body to be in many places at once Therefore was it Impossible for the Heathen to conceive that the Christians taught a Corporall Eating of that Body on Earth which they believed was Circumscribed and conteined in Heaven Fourthly That this was the Faith which the same Ancient Father Iustine did professe and publish at that time is now to be tryed out of the Bookes of Iustine himselfe That Iustine himselfe did accordingly argue against the Possibility of Christs Bodily Presence on Earth And that Attalas objected condemneth the Romish Capernaiticall Swallowing of Christs Body SECT VII IVstine in the same Apologie now objected and by him directed unto the Heathen Emperor Antoninus sirnamed the Godly before his words of Eating Christs flesh setteth down the Christian Article of his Ascension into Heaven saying 18 Iustin in Apologia secund pag. 64. Deus Christum post Resurrectionem illaturus coelo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. adversantes Daemones percutiat et bonorum numerum expleatur propter quos nondum extremum Decretum et consummationem fecit that God the Father assumed Christ after his death into Heaven there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is To detaine him untill hee vanquished the Devils and filled up the number of the Godly An
Missae Petrus de Palude Non potest evomi nisi quod in stomachum est trajectum Et quod dicit 〈◊〉 illa Glossa quod in secessum non emittitur sed per sudorem aliter emanat fatuum est fingere qui per secessum taliter emitti possunt species sicut emitteretur substantia panis vin non aliter Illa autem quanquam non corrupta emituntur ut in habentibus fluxum ergo species propter quod non est danda Eucharistia habenti talem fluxum quia se emittit integrum quod sumit sicut nec habenti vomitum 〈◊〉 istud magis cederet in irreverentiam Sacramenti quam illud Igitur Corpus Sanguis Christi tamdiu manet in ventre stomacho vel vomitu quocunque alibi quamdiu species manet sicut substantia conversa mansistet si species incorruptae evomuntur vel egrediuntur ut ibi verè Corpus Christ The formes of Bread and Wine do as verily goe into the Stomack and so after into the Draught as could the Substance of either of them if they were there and yet sometimes passe out uncorrupted in Bodies infirme and especially those that labour of the Fluxe Because some so diseased persons do let passe from them that which they eat as uncorrupt as they received it whether it be by Vomit or by Egestion into the Seege So hee Which againe is a Doctrine so verily Romish that your owne Casust in his Booke enstiled Morall Resolutions propoundeth two Cases and afterwards manerly saving your presence resolveth them thus 25 Iohannes Baptista de Bertis Qu. 5. Art 6. Dub. 5. Quid agendum sit si post sumptionem sanguinis patiatur Sacerdos vomitum vel ex infirmitate emittit per secessum quod sumpsit Et idem Iohann Baptista Qu. 5. Artic 3. Dub. 5. Quid agendum si quis post sumptionem sanguinis Christi statim patiatur vomitum Resp Reverenter colligantur species panis si decerni possunt reponantur in sacrario vel sumantur ab aliquo si saltem adsit aliquis ad sumendum dispositus absque nausea ea in quibus inventae fuerunt species comburantur cineres in Sacrario recondantur idem dicendum est si ex infirmitate statim emittat per secessum that If any after the receiving of the Body of Christ shall be provoked by Vomit upward or else by Egestion to cast them out then that the formes of both may be Reverently licked up if any can performe this without loathsomnesse So hee Might this be Possible Wee returne to your Relater Antoninus out of Plaudanus giving you an example of a Devout man much commended by one 26 Antoniâ—â— quo supra Et siquidem homo esset tanti fervoris quod hujusmodi non horreret sed sumeret commendandus esset si tamen esset jejunâ—s Sic Beatus Hugo Cluniacus commendavit Goderanum sumendo partiunculas Hostiae quas leprosus cum vilissimo sputu evomuerat dicens Cratuculam Laurentij esse tollerabiliorem Nec puto eos sibi contrarios sed dictum Thomae videtur intelligendum cum jam videtur species Sacramenti alierata scilicer quod debet comburi animal Dictum verò Petri cum factum est ita recens quòd adhuc creditur species Sacramenti permanere in stomacho tunc debet exenterari Hugo For Licking up the Hoast vomited and after affirming that the suffering on Saint Laurence his Gridiron had beene more tolerable than this So they How like you this For mislike it you may not it being the naturall Brat and Off-spring of your Generall Romish faith Believing as hath beene sayd that the Body and Blood of Christ is under the Consecrated formes of Bread and of Wine wheresoever so long as the same formes remaine uncorrupted This Theme will not permit much Discussion for as the Saying is Omne Coenum maâ—è olet commove senties odorem Wee hasten to the next Section That the very Imagination of this Former Romish Beastly Doctrine would have beene held of the Ancient Fathers most Abominable SECT II. THe Holy Fathers if they had beene of your Romish Faith concerning the Corporall Presence of Christs Body in this Sacrament must have held also your Romish Conclusion of a Possibility of Egestion the Conceipt whereof they did greatly abhorre For * Cyril Hierosol See above Booke 4. cap â—◠§. â— Cyril of Ierusalem to the end that hee might abstract mens mindes from all such monstrously-prophane and Base thoughts and conceptions concerning the Body of Christ denyed peremptorily that Christs Body can passe into the Seege Which also seemed to be so unsavorie and loathsome to * Chrysost Ibid. Chrysostome that hee spit at the first thought thereof with an Absit as much as to say Fy upon it in execration thereof Some Creatures are said for keeping Hunters from pursuing them to cast Dung and Filth backward in their faces and so it falleth out in a maner here where the Turpitude and Beastlinesse of your Doctrine forbiddeth us to inlarge our Confutation and therefore wee hasten to a Conclusion That the Institution of this Sacrament was ordained to be Food onely for the Soule and not for the Body according to the Iudgement of Antiquitie SECT III. THis Proposition hath beene already * See above ch 2. § 3. confessed by your Councel of Trent and Romane Catechisme and confirmed by the Consent of * See above ch 10. §. 5. Antiquity it selfe where it was manifested that albeit they sometime make mention of it's being Food and Life to the Body also yet was not this as your Jesuites have * Ibid. confessed so sayd in respect of any immediate Bodily preservation therof in this Life but in the Everlasting Life of Glorification in the Day of Resurrection after it be reunited to the Soule according to that Promise of Christ Ioh. 6. excepting only the Analogicall and Sacramentall maner of Feeding which wee defend that is to say As the Body Feedeth Corporally on the Sacrament Bread so is the Soule nourished Spiritually with Christs Body and Blood Otherwise the Ancient Fathers maintayned a sole Soule-feeding on Christs Body in which respect as one of your 27 Casaub Ex. erâ—it 16. cap. 39. Vocant Graeci Patres hoc Sacramentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 owne learned Authors hath informed you The Greek Fathers called that which wee receive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Supersubstantiall Bread 28 Tertull. de Orat. Aug. Epist 121. Isidor Hisp de â—ffic lib. 1. cap. 5. Ambros lib. 5. de Sacramentis Non est iste cibus qui vadit in corpus sed qui animae substantiam fulcit Bertram de Corpore Domini Vbi loquitur Ambrosius de Corpore Domini Origen in Genes cap. 24. Christus est panis vitae pascit animas esâ—rientes Tertull de Resurrect de Carne Christi Panis coelestis auditu devoranduâ— intellectu ruminandus fide
the Question is brought to be tried by the judgement of such Fathers who have called it a Sacrifice Wherefore wee yeeld unto you the full scope and suppose with your * Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 6. Cardinall that the Bread and Wine brought forth had beene sacrificed by Melchisedech to God and not as a Sacrifice administred by him to his Guests Now because whatsoever shall be objected will concerne either the matter of Sacrifice or else the Priest-hood and office of the Sacrificer wee are orderly to handle them both That the Testimonies of the Fathers for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist from the Type of Melchisedech's Sacrifice are Sophistically and unconscionably objected out of Psalm 110. and Heb. 5. SECT II. SOme of the objected Testimonies See the a Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 6. ex Ambrosio Panem Vinum obtulit De Sacram. lib. 5. cap. 1. Quod toto orbe celebratur lib. 4. de Sacram cap. 4. 6. August lib. 17. de Civit. Dei cap. 17. alibi Primum apparuit Sacrificium quod nunc offertur Deo toto orbe terrarum quod protulit Melchisedech Et Epist 95. ad Innocent Prolato Sacramento mensae Dominicae Chrysost Hom. 36. in Gen. Panem Vinum attulit Primas in cap. 5. ad Heb. Panem offerens Deo non lauta animalia Similiter Cassiod in Psal 109. Oecum in 5. ad Heb. Theophyl in 5. ad Hebr. Hic solus Melchisedech in morem illius Pane Vino sacrificabat Rabbi Samuel Sacrificans Panem Vinum sacrificans Rabbi Phinëes Tempore Messiae omnia Sacrificia cessabunt sed Sacrificium Panis Vini non cessabit Haec Bell. loco supra citato M. Brereley citeth August de Civit Dei lib. 10. cap. 19. Visibile Sacrificium In his Liturgie Tract 3. Margin comparing the Sacrifice of Melchisedech to the Eucharist in the name of a Sacrifice do relate no further than Bread and Wine calling these Materialls The Sacrifice of Christians such are the Testimonies of Ambrose Augustine Chrysostome Theophylact Oecumenius and Cassidore together with two Iewish Rabbins promising that at the coming of Christ all Sacrifices should cease Except the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist This is your first Collection for proofe that the Eucharist is a Proper Visible Sacrifice But first Vnconscionably knowing and * See hereafter Chap. 5. Sect. 1. confessing it to be no better than a Iewish Conceipt to thinke the Bread and Wine to be properly a Sacrifice of the new Testament Wherefore to labour to prove a Proper Sacrifice in that which you know and acknowledge to be no Proper Sacrifice do you not blush How much better had it becomne you to have understood the Fathers to have used the word Sacrifice in a large sense as it might signifie any sacred ministration as Isidore doth instruct you Who if you aske him what it is which Christians do now offer after the order of Melchisedech he will say that it is Bread and Wine b Isidor Victimas jam non quales Iudaei sed quales Melchisedech offerunt credentes id est Panem Vinum id est Corporis Sanguinis Sacramentum Lib. de Vocat Gent. cap. 26. That is saith hee the Sacrament of the Body and Blood Even as Hierome long before him c Hiero. Epist ad Evag. Pane Vino simplice puroque Sacrificio Christo dedicaverit Sacramentum Melchisedech in plaine Bread and Wine did dedicate the Sacrament of Christ distinguishing both the Sacrament from a Proper Sacrifice and naming the thing that is sayd in a sort to be offered Not to be the Body and Blood of Christ but the Sacrament of both âšœ And as well might you have produced Augustine who is as expresse as any teaching that the Church now as well as Melchisedech then 2 Aug. contr Advers Leg. Proph. lib. 3. cap. 20. Tom. 6. Noverunt qui legunt quid protulit Melchizedech quando benedixit Abraham jam hic participes ejus vident tale Sacrificium nunc offerri Deo toto orbe terrarum Idem de fide ad Petrum cap. 19. Tom. 3. Sacrificium Panis Vini Ecclesia per universum orbem nunc offerre non cessat Et Tom. 4. Quaest 83. quaest 61. Christus obtulit holocaustum pro peccatis nostris ejus Sacrificij similitudinem celebrandam in suae passionis memoriam commendavit ut illud quod Melchizedech obtulit Deo jam per totum orbem terrarum in Christi Ecclesia videamus offerri Offereth the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine âšœ Your second kinde of objected Sentences of Fathers do indeed compare the Bread and Wine of Melchisedech with the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist In this Ranke wee reckon the d Cyprian lib. 2. Epist 3 ad Cecil Christus idem obtulit quod Melchisedech Panem Vinum se suum Corpus Sanguinem Euseb Caesar lib. 5. Demonstâ— cap 3. Sacerdotes Vino Pane Corporis Sanguinis ejus mysteria repraerentant quae 〈◊〉 mysteria Melchisedech tanto ante Spiritu divino cognoverat Hieron Epâ—â— ad Marcel Melchisedech in Typo Christi Panem Vinum obtulit Mysterium Christianum in Salvatoris Sanguine Corpore dedicavit Et Quaest in Genes Melchisedech oblato Pane Vino i.e. Corpore Sanguine Domini Iesu Eucher Lugdun lib. 2 cap. 18. in Gen. Vt oblationem Panis Vini i. e Corporis Sanguinis ejus Sacramentum in SacrificiuÌ„ offeramus Primasius Christus instar illius Melchiz offerens Panem Vinuâ— Carnem viz. Sanguinem suum Haec Bellarm lib. 1 de Missa cap. 6. Testimonies of Cyprian and Hierome as also of Eusebius who doth onely make an Analogie betweene the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist and the Bread and Wine which Melchisedech brought forth and wherein Hee as in Types saw the Mysteries of Christs Body and Blood Eucherius and Primasius both say that Christ offered Bread and Wine that is his Body and Blood like as Melchisedech did or according to the order of Melchisedech which Body and Blood of Christ you will All sweare wee dare say was not the proper Subject matter of the Sacrifice of Melchisedech who performed his Sacrifice many thousands of yeares before our Lord Christ was incarnate in the flesh to take unto him either Body or Blood And therefore could not the Fathers understand by the Sacrifice of Christs Body and Blood any thing but the Type of Christ his Body and Blood these being then the Object of Melchisedech's faith as the cited Sentences of Hierome and Eusebius do declare Which is a second proofe of the unconscionable dealing of your Disputers by inforcing Testimonies against common sense But will you see furthermore the Vnluckinesse of your game and that three maner of wayes First your ordinary guize is to object the word Sacrifice out of the Fathers as properly used whereas your
Ergo hee spake of 〈◊〉 bloody Sacrifice And if these Prefigurations of the Old Law in the Sacrifice of the Lambe do properly point at the Bloody Sacrifice of Christ then were they not properly Types of any Sacrifice in the Masse And lest you might thinke that Leo was singular In this Opinion your Iesuit will have you know that Chrysostome hath also the same words Now whether you are bound rather to believe an Ancient Romane Pope or a late Romane Cardinall judge you In the last place wee are to remove an Objection An Objection taken from the Comparison between the figure of the Old Testament and the thing figured in the New earnestly insisted upon and as easily refuted SECT XIII THe Briefe of your Reason is this 19 Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 3. De figuris veteris Testamenti Sumitur hoc Argumentum Figurae necessario inferiores esse debent rebus figuraris Sed veteris Testamenti Sacramenta panis Melchisedech panis Propositionū Agnus Paschalis Manna erant figurae Eucharistiae simplici pani aequales vel praestantiotes Ergo Eucharistianon est simplex panis significans corpus Christi sed et ipsum corpus Christi Majorem et Minorē probam ex Patribus Figures are necessarily inferiour unto the Things prefigured But In the Old Testament the Bread of Melchisedech the Shew-bread the Bread of Manna and the Paschall Lambe were figures of the Eucharist in the New Testament Therefore the matter in the Eucharist is not simply Bread but the Body of Christ. Thus your Cardinall Your D r. Heskins also playeth his descant upon this Base and runneth voluntary in a large discourse from the 20 Dr. Heskins in his parlam lib. 3. chap. 14. Brazen Serpent on a Pole the figure of Christ Crucified From Ionas in the Belly of the Whale a figure of Christ's Resurrection and from the Paschall Lambe a figure of Christ offered in the Eucharist Now the Thing being better than the Signe therefore Christ herein offered is better than the Lambe But if as the Sacramentaries say the Eucharist be but a Signe then was the Paschall Lambe but the figure of a Piece of Bread wherewith there is no Similitude But that the things prefigured are more excellent than their Signes is proved out of the Epistle to the Hebrewes in preferring the New Testament before the Old Whereby I may Conclude saith hee that the Paschall Lambe being a Signe of this Sacrament this is not Bread but the Body of Christ So hee The Answer is easie by a Distinction of Things prefigured Some are Figures Principall which are called Arche-types and some lesse principall called onely Antitypes We shall make the matter plaine by Authenticall Examples 1. Cor. 10. 2. Wee are Baptized into Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea Hence all Expositors aswell as your 21 Aquinas upon the same place Aquinas teach that The Sea thorow which the Iraelites passed under Moses was a Signe of Baptisme by which Baptisme wee are buryed into Christs death Rom. 6. This Exposition standeth firme without any Contradiction Whereby you may perceive that the Archetypon or thing Principally prefigured by that Sea is Christ's buriall and Water in Baptisme is but as the Antitype or thing lesse principally prefigured thereby If then you shall compare the Type or Figure with the Thing prefigured as Archetype or Principall thing figured or prefigured wee are bound by Christian verity to believe your Proposition to be most true to wit Christ's buriall is infinitely more excellent than either the Type in the Old Testament which was the Sea they passed thorow or yet than Water in Baptisme in the New Testament as the Antitype thereof But if you compare the Type of the Old Testament with the Antitype or figure of the New then can nothing be more false than is this your generall Proposition affirming that Figures and Signes are inferiour to the thing prefigured as you may see in the Apostles Example The Sea under Moses a figure of Baptisme under Christ 22 Athanasius Interpret Parabol de Baptismo post quaest 103. Tom. 2. Baptisma secundum erat Mare rubrum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For as the Sea was there saith Athanasius so is Water here Yet was not the Element of Water in the Sea of lesse worth in Substance than is the Element of Water in the Font of Baptisme both having equally in them the Substantiall Properties of Water Our next Example in the same Chapter is this They to wit the Jewes ate of the same spirituall meate and dranke of the same spirituall drinke namely Christ's Body and Blood the one whereof was prefigured by Manna the other by the Water out of the Rocke in the Old Testament Even as the same Body of Christ is configured by Bread and his Blood by Wine in the Eucharist which is the Sacrament of the New Testament as hath beene proved from Fathers and Others in a full * See above B. 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. Section And for this cause Gregorie Nazianzen 23 Greg. Nazian Orat. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I dare say saith hee that the Legall Passeover was a Figure of a figure but somewhat more obscure So hee Which scarce any of your Doctors dare say lest that the Eucharisticall Oblation should be judged a Figure of Christ's Sacrifice and not the Proper Sacrificing of Christ Now then Compare Manna and Bread with Christ's Body and the Water of the Rocke and Water of Baptisme with his Blood and your Consequence is most Divine viz. The Thing prefigured excelleth beyond all Comparison the Signes thereof But yet againe Compare the Signes and Antitypes viz. Manna with Bread and the Water of the Rocke with Wine in the Cup and in their Natures and Substances the one doth not exceed the other You will then aske If the Sacraments of both Testaments were in this maner joynt Antitypes that is Correspondent Signes of the same Body and Blood of Christ wherein then consisteth the Excellencie of the Sacraments of the New if it be not in respect of their naturall and substantiall properties Wee were about to tell you namely that Although these former Sacraments of both Testaments be but Corporall food and drinke yet have the Sacraments of the Gospell a threefold Privilege above the other The First is in respect of the Efficacie of the Signification Signes of the Old being Propheticall and darkly promising Christ's Body and Blood to come But Signes of the New are Historicall poynting out unto life Christ already come and crucified in his Body and his Blood shed The Second in respect of the Efficacie of Application and Exhibition of both these arising from the former Ground For Saint Paul said more effectually Christ who dyed for mee and gave himselfe for mee than any Israelite under the Law could say Christ who shall dye for mee and shall give himselfe for mee The Third is the Excellencie of Duration for those Signes as
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
from his Body which you believe to be in this Sacrament can no more possibly represent the Separation and Shedding of Christ's Blood from his Body which all Christians believe to have beene in his Sacrifice on the Crosse than Crookednesse can resemble Straightnesse or Light Darknesse Therefore is not the Romish Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ Representative of his Body and Blood on the Crosse notwithstanding that as hath beene confessed this Representation be the end of the Celebration of the Eucharist ⚜ The Sixth Demonstration Of the No-Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist because divers Epithets objected as given by Fathers to this Sacrifice are used also by them where there is no Proper Sacrifice SECT VIII IT is objected by your Cardinall that Ancient Fathers gave certaine Epithets and Attributes to the Eucharist I. Some calling it a Full Pure II. Some Terrible Sacrifice III. Some termed it in the Plurall number Sacrifices and Victimes His Argument in the Margin is this If the Fathers had held the Sacrifice of the Eucharist to be but onely Representative They would not have called them in the Plurall number Sacrifices So hee a Bellar. lib. 1. de Miss cap 15. §. Quintò Patres ad nomen Sacrificij Epitheta saepè addunt quae soli vero Sacrificio conveniunt quae ineptè dicerent de sola repraesentatione Cyp. l. 2. Epist 3. Plenum verum Sacrificium Chrysost Hom. ad Pop. Antioch et omnes Graeci Passim terribile Sacrificium horroris plenum Aug. lib. 10. de Civit. Dei cap. 20. Summum verumque Sacrificium Euseb lib. 1. Demonst Evang cap. ult Sacrificium Deo plenum This last is not undoubtedly spoken of the Eucharist Ibid. §. Secondo Si Patres putâssent Sacrificium Eucharistiae non esse Sacrificium nisi epraesentativum nunquam dixissent in numero multitudims offeri Deo Victimas Sacrificia concluding from each of these that they meant thereby a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist Wee encounter all these foure kinde of Instances with like Epithets given by the same b August de Civit Dei lib. 10. cap. 6 Verum Sacrificium omne opus bonum ut Deo adhaereamus factum Tertull. In omni loco Sacrificium mundum gloriae scilicet rogatio benedicto laus hymni Lib. 3. advers Marcionem Rursus Sacrificium mundum oratio simplex de purâ Conscientiâ Ibid. lib. 4. paulò post initium Iustin Dialog cum Tryphon Preces Gratiarum actiones 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fathers to other Things in your owne judgement Improperly called Sacrifices as namely to Prayers Praises Giving Thankes and Hymnes instiled True Pure and Cleane and the onely perfect Sacrifices by Primitive Fathers Secondly they are as zealous concerning the second c Cyril Apol. Lectio Scripturarum terribilium Testae Iewello art 17. Chrysost in 1. Corinth Hom. 40 De Baptismate paulò post initium Post pronunciationem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Point in terming holy Scriptures Terrible the Rules touching Baptisme Terrible Words and Horrible Canons and the Christian duly considering the nature of Baptisme One compassed about with Horror and Astonishment Whereof more * See Booke 7. Chap. 2. Sect. 1. hereafter And indeed what is there whereby wee have any apprehension of Gods Majesty and Divine Attributes which doth not worke a holy Dread in the hearts of the Godly And the third Instance is as idle as any of the rest because the holy d Euseb lib. 1. Demonst Evang. cap. 10. Porrò has rursus incorporeas intelligentia praeditas hostias prophetica nunciant oracula Immola Deo Sacrificium laudis Orationes sanctas c. Iust Martyr Dialog cum Triphon pag. 269. Suppicationes gratiarum actiones solas esse charas Victimas Deo Fathers named Prayers Giving of Thankes and other holy Actions and Commemorations themselves Sacrifices and Hoasts in the Plurall number And is not there in the Eucharist Prayers Hymnes and Thanksgivings Nay but know that inasmuch as the Fathers have called the Eucharist in the Plurall number Hoasts and Sacrifices it proveth that they were not of your Romish Beliefe of Concomitancie to thinke with you that Bread being changed into Christ's Body and Wine into his Blood make but one Sacrifice for there can be no Identity in Plurality ⚜ A Vindication of the Truth of an Answer concerning the objected Testimonie of Eusebius against a Romish Seducer EVsebius is objected in the Margin as naming the Eucharist Sacrificium Deo plenum My Answer there is that these three words Are not undoubtedly spoken of the Eucharist Which a Romish Seducer of late traduced as untruly answered but yet giveth no Reason of his Exception but as blindly as bluntly telleth mee that my Answer is False But if I be mistaken then hath Eusebius himselfe seduced mee who before the same words speaketh of Hostias incorporeas intelligentiâ praeditas specifying the Sacrifice of a contrite heart and Sacrifice of Prayse And againe immediately after At Sacrificium Deo spiritus contritus Then after this hee adjoyneth Memoriam magni illius Sacrificij The Memoriall of that great Sacrifice Meaning the Eucharisticall Commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Crosse as any that looketh not a-squint upon the place will easily perceive Besides all the Sacrifices of the New Testament by him mentioned hee calleth Incorporeall and indued with Vnderstanding But you do as truly grant the Eucharist to be a Corporall Substance as you wickedly * See above Booke 4. c. 9. §. 2 say that Christ's Body therein is Without Vnderstanding A Second Vindication of the Truth of our Answers to the former objected * See above in this 8. Sect. Epithets out of Ancient Fathers against the said late Calumnious Romish Seducer His words are these Bellarmine lib. 1. de Missa Cap. 15. To prove that the Fathers when they called the Eucharist a Sacrifice meant a Proper Sacrifice useth eight usuall Epithets which the Fathers in this Case give to the word Sacrifice My * Treatise of the Masse Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 8. Lord of Durham undertakes to encounter him with the like given to the word Sacrifice when they manifestly speake of improper Sacrifices This hee undertakes but performes nothing for hee allegeth no saying of any Father where any thing of this nature is called Sacrificium Terribile Plenum Horroris Sacrificium Summum Sacrificium Verissimum Sacrificium Singulare Sacrificium Deo Plenum So hee That which should have been performed by mee in this Treatise was to shew that there were none of these Attributes which Bellarmine collected out of the Fathers as proper to your Romish Sacrifice of the Masse but have beene as effectually applyed by Ancient Fathers unto Prayers Praises Baptisme and other the like holy and pious Actions Which the same your Bellarmine himselfe confesseth to be No proper Sacrifice Notwithstanding have I lately beene Challenged by one who saith as becomes an egregious
instrumentis neque locis in quibus ipse quidem est Pontifex ut mansuetudo pationtia c. Sacrificium laudis justitiae spiritus contribulati Reasonable Service saith hee is that which is performed with the minde without Bodily helpe âšœ The which Athanasius attributeth to Baptisme 13 Athanas cont Macedon Dial. 1. de Baptismo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This saith hee is a Reasonable and living Worship whereof the Apostle saith Yield up your Bodies an holy lively Sacrifice c. âšœ Thirdly The Vnbloody Sacrifice is called Spirituall as you heare how shall this be properly applyed to the Body of Christ You will say not in it's naturall Essence but in the maner of being Invisible Impalpable and the like But wee demand the same head of a mans Body is it more Spirituall in the darke than in the light Lastly all these termes in these Liturgies of Vnbloody Sacrifice Reasonable Service and Spirituall are spoken before Consecration when the Body of Christ even in your owne Faith as yet can have no being in the Eucharist and therefore cannot be the Vnbloody Sacrifice here meant by you Will you have the full substance of all these Reasons The word Vnbloody whether it point out Bread and Wine or the Act of outward Worship in this celebration called a Reasonable Service and Spirituall Sacrifice it must betoken a thing void of Blood which no Christian Professor dare attribute to the Body of Christ Wee proceed Eusebius saith indeed g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Caesar lib. 4. De Vita Constant cap. 45. de Euchar. Alij sacras literas interpretantur Alij 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mysticis consecrationibus divinum numen placabant supplices preces pro communi pace offerebant Et Demonst Lib. 1. Cap. 6. Sacrificium mundum Wee offer an Vnbloody Sacrifice but what hee meant thereby hee doth not expresse whether the Signes of Bread and Wine which hee elsewhere with others as you have heard called Sacrifices or whether as Basil and Chrysostome have done hee understood together the Publike Service in celebrating the Memory of Christ's Death This then concludeth not for an Existence of the Body of Christ as of the Vnbloody Subject herein But whereas furthermore your may observe that Eusebius objected calleth h Non per cruores sed per quas actiones summo Deo offerendas After there followeth an Oration of Constantine Ad Sanctorum coetum Tale SacrificiuÌ„ peragitur vacuum sanguine ab omni violentiâ As 〈◊〉 Dadraeus Doctor Parisâ— translateth it Godly Actions a pure Sacrifice and opposeth this against Bloody Sacrifices and also termeth i Againe Demonst Evang. li. 1. ca. 10 Has rursus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. materiae expertia Sacrificia intelligeÌ„â—â—â praeditas hostias Prophetica nuntiant â—racula Immola Deo Sacrificium laudis Hymnos sanctâ—â— Orationes celebrantes And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eâ—od lib. Holy Prayers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Without Materiall Substance as hee did the Celebration of the Sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Vnbloody And yet againe of this Sacrament A Memoriall saith hee instead of a Sacrifice These shew that Eusebius meant a Sacrifice void of Blood which neither the word of God will permit us nor your Councell of Trent will suffer you to impute to the Body of Christ and therefore must needs wound your Romane Oblation of Body and Blood to the very heart Nazianzen objected is as directly opposite to your Masse as East is to West and will strike the matter dead calling it k Nazian Invect 1. advers Iulian. ante med 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Vt ab incruento Sacrificio manê° elueret per quod nos Christo ipsiusque passionibus divinitate coÌ„municamus Marke IncruentuÌ„ per quod is distinguished from Christo therfore was not Christ the Incruentum objected by the Rhemists Angotat in Luc. 22. 19. The unbloody Sacrifice whereby saith hee wee Communicate with Christ Flatly differencing the unbloody Sacrifice whereby from Christ himselfe with whom the Faithfull docommunicate in this Sacrament Ambrose objected prayeth to God l Ambr. lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 6. Sacerdos dicit Ergo memores gloriosissimae ejus passions offerimÌ„us Tibi immaculatam hanc hostiam incruentani hunc panem sanctum hanc oblationem salutis aeternae To accept of this immaculate and unbloody Hoast which are the very words of your Romane m Suscipias in sublimi Altariâ—uo perimentis 〈◊〉 lorum sicut accipere dignatus es munera Abel c. To be expounded as Bellarmine doth 〈◊〉 the same words in the Roman Masse Masse and which your Cardinall seeketh to justifie by Saint Ambrose But this hee cannot do except their meaning be both the same Let then your Cardinall but tell us the meaning of the Canon of your Masse and you will soone apprehend the Iudgement of Saint Ambrose In our Masse saith your n Accipiendo sacrificium pro re quae sacrificatur negari non 〈…〉 〈…〉 in Missa offerri ac proinde pertinere ad rem quae sacrificatur Nam cùm autè Constrationem dicimus Suscipe Pater haue immacuâ—â—tam Hostiam certè Pronomen Hanc demonstrat ad sensum id quod manibus tenemus id autem panis 〈◊〉 Bellarm. 〈…〉 de Missa cap. 27. §. Respondeo it Because the Cardinall doth often in this and other Chapters justifie the Romane terme of Masse by the 〈◊〉 in Ambrasâ—â— Cardinall it is sayd Receive holy Father this immaculate Hoast where the Pronounce This saith hee doth domonstrate Bread and Wine because spoken before Consecration So hee And the Body and Blood of Christ you know are not Bread and Wine Let Athanasius put a Period to this Section who saith that o 〈◊〉 Melchisedech dedit Abrahamo vinum meracum addito panis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frusto hic typus fuit offerendi Sacrificium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 incruentum sanctam oblationem Hist de Melchizedech ad sinem Tom. 2. Melchisedech in giving Bread and Wine was the first Type of an unbloudy Sacrifice But Melahisedechs was Vnbloody negatively having no Blood at all in it So was never the Body of Christ since his Resurrection according to our Christian Beliefe CHALLENGE WHat a faire piece of service do you thinke have these Objectors done for the patronizing of your Romane Sacrifice out of the Sentences of Ancient Fathers whilest they alleging their words citing their Bookes and quoting their Chapters have so handled the matter as if they had meant by prevaricating in their owne Cause to betray it seeing that it is apparent that they have delivered unto us the worship in stead of the thing worshipped out of the Councell of Ephesus Basil Chrysostome and Eusebius Next by the word Vnbloody being spoken before Consecration and therefore concerneth not the Vnbloody Body of Christ they have obtruded the
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
enim non putrescit cor si levetur ad Deum Teste Pamel Tom. 1. Missal in Missa Aug. 〈◊〉 pag. 527. Augustine interpret this Admonition to be A lifting up of hearts to heaven Whom as you have * See above B. 6. Chap. 3. Sect. 8. heard leaving our Eucharisticall Sacrifice on this Altar so would hee have us to seeke for our Priest in heaven namely as Origen more expresly said Not on earth but in heaven accordingly Oecumenius placing the Host and Sacrifice where Christs Invisible Temple is even in heaven âšœ Agreeable to this are the words of Hierome whom notwithstanding your owne 1 Dr. Heskins Parliam Booke 2. Ch. 53. out of Hier. Epist ad Hebdib qu. 2. Doctor hath objected as a Patron for defence of your Romish Masse 2 Hier ad Hebdib cap. 2. Ascendamus igitur cum Domino ad coenaculum magnum stratum accipâ—amus ab eo sursum Calâ—cem Novi Testamenti Ibique cùm eo Pascha celebrantes inebriemur ab eo Vino sobrietatis Let us ascend with our Lord into the great Chamber prepared and made cleane and let us receive of him the Cup of the new Testament and there keeping the Passeover with him let us be made drunke with the wine of Sobriety All as plaine as plainnesse it selfe âšœ Will you suffer one whom the world knoweth to have been as excellently versed in Antiquity as any other to determine this Point Hee will come home unto you h Tempore veters Ecclesiae Romanae populus non cursitabat ad videndum id quod Sacerdos ostendit sed prostratis humi corporibus animis in coelum erectis gratias agebant Redemptori Eras lib. de amab Eccles Concord In the time of the ancient Church of Rome saith hee the people did not run hither and thither to behold that which the Priest doth shew but prostrating their Bodies on the ground they lift up their minds to heaven giving thanks to their Redeemer So hee Thus may wee justly appeale as in all other Causes of moment so in this from this degenerate Church of Rome to the sincere Church of Rome in the Primitive times like as one is reported to have Appealed from Caesar sleeping to Caesar waking Our difference then can be no other than was that betweene Mary and Stephen noted by Ambrose i Ambros in Luc. cap. 24. Maria quae quaerebat Christum in terra â—angere non potuit Stephanus tetigit qui quaesivit in coelo Mary because shee sought to touch Christ on earth could not but Stephen touched him who sought him in heaven A third Argument followeth That the ancient Fathers cendemned the Romish worship by their Descriptions of Divine Adoration SECT III. ALl Divine Adoration of a meere Creature is Idolatry hereunto accord these sayings of k Aug Tom. 2 Epist 44. ad Maxim Christianis Catholicis nihil ut numen adoratur quod conditum est a Deo IdeÌ„ Tom. 8. in Psalm 98. Timeo terram adorare ne me damnet qui fecit coelum terram Nazianz. Orat 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antiquity No Catholike Christian doth worship as a Divine Power that which is created of God Or thus I feare to worship earth lest hee condemne mee who created both Heaven and earth Or thus If I should worship a Creature I could not be named a Christian It were a tedious superfluity in a matter so universally confessed by your selves and all Christians to use Witnesses unnecessarily Wee adde the Assumption But the Romish Adoration of the Sacrament is an attributing of Divine Honour to a meere Creature the Consecrated Bread For that it is still Bread you shall find to have beene the Doctrine of Primitive Fathers if you shall but have the patience to stay untill wee deliver unto you a * See Booke 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Synopsis of their Catholike Iudgement herein after that wee have duly examined your Romish Doctrine by your owne Principles which is the next point CHAP. V. An Examination of the Romish Adoration of the Sacrament in the Masse to prove it Idolatrous by discussing your owne Principles The State of the Question IDolatry by the Distinction of your Iesuites is either Materiall or Formall The Materiall you call that when the Worshipper adoreth something in stead of God in a wrong perswasion that it is God otherwise you judge the Worship to be a Formall Idolatry Now because many of your seduced Romanists are perswaded that your Romish worship in your Masse cannot be subject either to Materiall or Formall Idolatry it concerneth us in Conscience both for the honour of God and safety of all that feare God to prove Both. Wee begin at that which you confesse to be a Materiall Idolatry That the Romish Adoration of the Host in the hand of the Priest is necessarily a Materiall Idolatry by reason of many hundred confessed Defects whereof Seven concerne the Matter of the Sacrament SECT I. IT is a point unquestionable among you that if the thing in the hand of the Priest be not duly Consecrated then the Matter Adored is but a meere Creature and your Adoration must needs be at the least a Materiall Idolatry The Seven defects set downe in your Romane a Missal Rom. pag. 31. Vbi debita materia deficit non conficitur Sacramentum Si non sit panis triticeus vel si alioqui corruptus Et pag. 32. Si Vinum sit factum acetum vel penitùs putidum vel de uvis acerbis non maturis expressum vel admixtum aquae ut sit corruptum non conficitur Sacramentum Missall and by your b Dico species consecratae perfectè misceri possunt cum liquore specie distincto tum non manet sub eis sanguis Christi Ità Thomas Teste Suar. Ies in 3. Thom. Disp 67 Sect. 4. § Dico Et Durand Si plus apponatur Aquae quà m Vini erit irritum Sacramentum Lib. 4. cap. 42. Iesuite are these First If the Bread be not of Wheat or secondly Be corrupt or thirdly the Wine be turned Vinegar or fourthly of sowre or fifthly unripe Grapes or sixthly be stinking or imperfectly mixt with any liquor of any other kinde the Consecration is void so that neither Body or Blood of Christ can be there present seventhly yea and if there be more Water than Wine So you All which Defects how easily they may happen beyond the understanding of every Consecrating Priest let Bakers and Vintners judge That there are Sixe other c Missal Roman in Can. Missâ—e Sex modis contingere potest formae variatio nunâ—rùm per Additionem detractionem alicujus vocis mutationem vel si una ponâ—tur loco alterius corruptionem vocis alicujus detrahendo vel mutando syllabam aliquam transpositioneÌ„ id est ordinis dictionum variatione ac deinde per interruptionem ut pronunciando unaÌ„ partem formae ac quicscendo per aliquod spacium vel loquendo aliquid
Counterfeiting of the Seale of Christ II. By making this Sacrifice in her pretence Christian but indeed c Booke 6. Cha. 5. Sect. 1. Earthly and Iewish III. By dignifying it with a Divine property of d Ibid. Chap. 10. Meritorious and Satisfactorie Propitiation IV. By professing another properly Satisfactory and c Ibid. and after c. Propitiatory Sacrifice for Remission of Sins besides that which Christ offered upon the Crosse As if after one hath paid the Debts of many at once upon condition that such of those Debters should be discharged whosoever submissively acknowledging those Debts to be due should also professe the favour of their Redeemer It cannot but be extreme folly for any to thinke that the money once paid should be tendred and offered againe as often as One or Other of the Debters should make such an acknowledgment the Surety having once sufficiently satisfied for all So Christ having once for all satisfied the justice of God by the price of his Blood in the behalfe of all penitent Sinners who in Contrition of heart and a living Faith apprehend the Truth of that his Redemption it cannot but be both injurious to the justice of God and to the merit of Christ that the same satisfactory Sacrifice as it were a new payment ought againe by way of Satisfaction be personally performed and tendred unto God V. By detracting from the absolute Function of Christ his f B. â—â— Chap. 3. Sect. 7. Priesthood now eminent and permanent before God in Heaven and thereupon stupifying the mindes of Communicants and as it were pinioning their thoughts by teaching them so to gaze and meditate on the matter in the hands of the Priest that they cannot as becometh Spirituall Eagles soare aloft and contemplate upon the Body of Christ where it 's infallible Residence is in that his heavenly Kingdome VI. By transforming as much as they can the Sacrament ordained for Christians to eat with their owne mouthes into a g Ibid. Theatricall Sacrifice wherein to be fed with the mouth of the Priest VII By abasing the true value of Christ his Blood infinitely exceeding all valuation in making it but h Ibid. Chap. 10. Sect. 4. finite whereas Christ being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and Man in one person every propitiatory worke of his must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore of a infinite price and power VIII By denying the Effect of his * Ibid. Chap. 11. Propitiation for sinne to be plenary in the Application thereof IX There hath beene noted by the way the Portion appropriated to the Priest out of your Sacrifice and to be applyed to some particular Soule for money being an Invention as hath beene confessed void of all i Ibid. Chap. 11. Sect. 4. Warrant either by Scripture or by Ancient Tradition To say nothing of your fine Art of cheating mens Soules by Priestly Fraud whereof as also of the Rest wee have discoursed at k Booke 6. thorowout large A New Instance for proofe of Romish Sacrilegiousnesse in the Prayer set downe in the Liturgie of their Masse SECT III. IN your Missall after Consecration it is prayed thus a Missal Rom. Offerimus Majestati tuae Domine immaculatam Hostiam sanctum panem vitae aeternae Calicem salutis perpetuae supra quae propitio vultu respicere digneris sicut dignatus es munera justi pueri tui Abel And in the next place Iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli in sublime Altare tuum coeleste Wee offer unto thy Majestie O Lord this immaculate Host this holy Bread of eternall life this Cup of everlasting salvation upon which vouchsafe to looke with a propitious and favourable Countenance as thou didst accept the gifts of thy holy servant Abel and command these to be carried up into thy celestiall Altar c. So the Canon of your Masse Some Protestants in their zeale to the glory of Christ impute unto you hereupon a Sacrilegious Profanenesse whilest you beleeving That Host and That Cup to be the very Body and Blood of Christ and a Propitiatory Sacrifice in it selfe yet do so pray God to be propitious unto it and to accept it as hee did the Sacrifice of Abel yeelding thereby no more estimation to Christ than to a vile sheepe which was offered by Abel At the hearing of this your Cardinall See the b Bellarm. lib. 2. de Missa cap. 24. Facilis est responsio Non petimus pro Christi reconciliatione apud Patrem sed pro nostra infirmitate etsi enim oblatio consecrata ex parte rei quae offertur ex parte Christi principalis offerentis semper Deo placebat tamen ex parte Ministri populi astantis qui simul etiam offerunt fieri potest ut non place at Paulò post Comparatio non est inter Sacrificium nostrum Sacrificium Abelis sed tantùm ratione fidei devotionis offerentium ut nimirùm tantâ fide offerant quantâ Abel quod Sacrificium Abelis non haberet in se quod Deo placere eumque placare possit quaâ—e dicitur Heb. 11. per fidem obtulit Abel Deo Sacrificium melius Ratio Gen 4. Respexit Deus ad Abel Sacrificium post §. Porrò Deferii Sacrificium per manus Angeli nihil aliud est quà m intercessione Angeli commendari Deo nostrum obsequium cultum So also Suarez Tom. 3. Disp 83. Art 4. Iube haec id est Vota nostra Et Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 32. sub finem Margin 1. Prefaceth 2. Answereth 3. Illustrateth 4. Reasoneth First of his Preface The Answer saith hee is easie As if that Objection which seemeth to us a huge logg in your way were so little an obstacle that any might skip over it But have you never seene men in trusting too much to their nimblenesse to over-reach themselves in their leape stumble fall and breake their limbes Semblably hee in his Answer which is the second point The meaning of our Church saith hee is not to pray for Christs reconciliation who was alwayes well pleasing to God but in respect of the infirmity of the Priest and people that the offering may be accepted from them So hee But whatsoever the meaning of the Priest in his praying is sure wee are this cannot be the meaning of the Prayer for the matter prayed for is set downe to be Holy Bread of life and Cup of Salvation which you interpret to be Substantially the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament and the tenour of prayer expressely is Vpon which Lord looke propitiously wee say upon which not upon whom which point is confirmed in that which followeth Thirdly therefore hee illustrateth The Comparison saith hee is not absolutely betweene the Sacrifice of Abel and of Christ but in respect of the faitb and devotion of the Priest and people that they with like faith may offer as Abel did But this piece of Answer is
that which is called in Musicke Discantas contra punctum for the prayer is directly Looke downe propitiously upon these as thou didst upon the gifts of Abel The Comparison then is distinctly betweene the Gifts and not betweene the Givers Yea but not absolutely so meant saith hee be it so yet if it be so meant but in part that Christ who is Propitiation it selfe shall be prayed for to be propitiously and favourably looked upon by God the prayer is Sacrilegious in an high degree Fourthly his Reason It is knowne saith hee that the Sacrifices of Sheepe and Oxen had nothing in themselves whereby to pacifie or please God the Scripture saying that Abel offered a better Sacrifice than Cain And againe God had respect to Abel and to his Gifts So hee Which is the very Reason that perswadeth Protestants to call that your Prayer most Sacrilegious because whereas the Gifts of Abel were but Sheepe c. you notwithstanding compare them with the offering up of Christ saying As thou didst the Gifts of Abel For although it be true that the Gift of Abel was accepted for the Faith of the Giver and not the Giver for his Gift yet if you shall apply this to the point in Question then your Gift in your Opinion being Christ and your Givers but simply men whom you have called Priest and People it must follow that Christ is accepted for the Faith of the Priest and People and not the Priest and People for Christ which maketh your Prayer farre more abominably Sacrilegious And not much lesse is that which followeth praying God to command his Angel to carry if the Gift be Hee Christ into heaven contrary to the Article of our Catholike Faith which teacheth us to believe his perpetuall Residence in heaven at the right hand of the Father Hee answereth c Bellarm. sup And so Doctor Heskins out of Hugo de sancto victore in his Parliament of Christ Booke 3. Chap. 395. It is not meant that God would command his Angel to carry Christ's Body but our prayers and desires by the intercession of the Angel unto God for us So hee Which is as truly a false Glosse as the former for in the Tenour of your Masse the Subject of your prayer is Holy Bread of life and Cup of salvation The prayer is plainly thus Vpon which O Lord looke propitiously and immediately after Command These to be carried by thy Angel Marke These viz. That Bread of life and Cup of salvation even that which you call The Body and Blood of Christ as Corporally Present which maketh your prayer to be Sacrilegious still and your Expositors that wee may so say miserably Radiculous That the former Romish Prayer as it was Ancient doth in the then true meaning thereof condemne the now Romish Church of the former Sacrilegious Innovation SECT IV. FOr to thinke that it should be prayed that God would be propitious to Christ were an Execrable opinion even in the Iudgement of our Adversaries themselves who for avoydance thereof have obtruded an Exposition as farre differing from the Text as doth This from That or Christ from the Priest as you have heard But whither will hee now Your Cardinall telleth you that the words of your Romish Canon are ancient such as are found in the a Bellarm. l. 2. de Missa cap. 24. Super quae propitio c. habentur apud Ambrosium post consecrationem Lib 4. de Sacram. cap. 6. Rursus Bellar. ibid. Haec verba posita sunt post consecrationem apud Ambrosium lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 6. in Liturgijs Iacobi Clementis Basilij Chrysostomi Missals of Saint Iames of Clement Pope of Rome of Basil of Chrysostome and of Ambrose You will hold it requisite that wee consult with these Liturgies set out by your selves for the better understanding of the Tenour of your Romish Masse The Principall Quaere will be whether Antiquity in her Liturgies by praying to God for a propitious Acceptation and admittance into his Celestiall Altar meant as your Cardinall answered Propitiousnesse towards Priest and People in respect of their Faith and devotion and not towards the Things offered distinctly in themselves In the pretended Liturgie of b Liturgia Iacobi antè Conjecrationem Diaconus Oremus pro sanctificatis tremendis donis ut Dominus acceptis eis in super-coeleste spirituale Altare suum in odorem suavitatis mittat nobis divinam gratiam Tum Sacerdos Deus ac Pater Domini Dei Servatoris qui tibi oblata munera frugum oblationes accepisti in odorem suavitatis sanctifica animas nostras Post Sacerdos censecrans verba Consecrationis adhibet Sancte qui in sanctis requiescis suscipe hymnum incorruptum in sanctis incruentis Sacrificijs tuis Saint Iames before Consecration the prayer to God is To accept the Gifts unto his celestiall Altar even the Gifts which hee called The fruits of the earth And then after for the Parties aswell Priest as People To sanctifie their soules In the Liturgie of c Liturgia Bafilij ante Consecrationem Pontifex Suscipe nos ut simus digni offerre rationabile illud absque sanguine Sacrificium vide super servitutem nostram ut suscepisti munera Abel sic ex manibus nostris suscipe ista ex benignitate tuâ Et rursus Diac. Pro oblatis sanctificatis honorificentissimis muneribus Deum postulemus ut qui accepit ea in sancto supercoelesti Altari suo in odorem suavitatis emittat gratiam spiritum nobis c. Post sequitur Consecratio Pontifex Respice Domine Iesu Et post Consecrationem Gratias agimus Basil before Consecration it is prayed to God that hee Receiving the Gifts into his celestiall Altar would also concerning the Parties send his Grace and Spirit upon them And no lesse plainly Pope d Clement Constitut lib. 8. cap. 16. called Constitutio Iacobi apud Binium Tu qui Abelis Sacrificium suscepisti And after Pro omnibus tibi gloria c. cap. 17. Benignè aspicere digneris super haec dona proposita in conspectu tuo complaceas tibi in eis in honorem Christi mittas spiritum super hoc Sacrificium testem passionum ejus ut ostendas hunc panem corpus ejus c. Post Consecrationem cap. 19. Etiam rogemus Deum per Christum suum pro munere oblato Domino ut Deus qui bonus est suscipiat illud per Mediatorem Christum in coeleste Altare suum in odorem suavitatis pro hâc Ecclesiâ c. Clemens teaching before Consecration to pray God who received the Gifts of Abel graciously to behold these Gifts propounded to the honour of his Son Christ expresly differencing this Sacrifice done in honour of Christ from Christ himselfe who is honoured thereby And after Consecration to Beseech God through Christ to accept the Gift offered to him and to take it into his Celestiall Altar where the prayer to God is not to
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
the Godly onely are partakers of Christs Body p. 320 321. that Our Tongues are made red with his Blood pag. 342. and Wee teare him with our teeth Ibid. His frequent Hyperbolicall speeches confessed Ibid. Hee is objected for Christs bodily nourishing of our bodies pag. 356. 357. And for Corporall union by Mixture with the bodies of the Communicants Ibid. By Baptisme wee are made Bone of his Bone Ibid. And Christ received first himselfe of the Passeover to induce others to take it with a quiet mind pag. 367. His saying To understand Christs words carnally is to understand them literally p. 368. Hee is urged for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse from the act of Melchisedeth pag 404. That Christ transmitted not his Priesthood to any Successor 411. But exerciseth it now in Heaven 417. Not to play the Iay. Ibid. That all the Lambs sacrificed under the Law prefigured the death of Christ p. 426. The Passeover was a signe of Christs Passion p. 424. Hee is objected for the Romish Exposition of the word Sacrifice in Malachie 5. pag. 431. Confuteth their Objections pag. 433. Hee nameth the Eucharist the same Sacrifice with this Correction or rather a Remembrance thereof pag. 443. Ob. Hee saith of the Eucharist a Terrible Sacrifice Sol. So of Baptisme Terrible Baptisme pag 448. Hee cals it an unbloody Sacrifice p. 452. Ob. That Christ's Body is an unbloody Sacrifice yet slaine on the Crosse pag. 455. Sol. Baptisme is is Christ's Passion p. 457. His saying Wee see Christ lying on the Altar Objected and Answered pag. 506. And his calling of the Sacrament Dreadfull Ibid. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Objected p. 512. Answered by the like saying of Baptisme Ibid. His saying that The Priest did take a little piece and held it up a little p. 513. His saying of the Priests inclining towards the Eucharist p. 515. His Liturgie to receive propitiously the Guift 562. 563. c. CHVRCH of Rome long time in an errour of Administring the Eucharist to Infants p. 51. Her Authority contradicted by the now Romish Ibid. CIRCVMSCRIPTION and Vncircumscription the distinct differences of the God-head and Man-hood of Christ 243 244. c. CLEMENS ALEX. Against Prayer in an unknowne tongue p. 36. He expoundeth the fruit of the Vine Matth. 26. 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine p. 164. c. CLARKE of the Parish was no office in the Apostles times p. 30. CLOVD in the Sea compared with Baptisme p. 427. CO-ADORATION is Idolatrous p. 541. 542 p. 543. 544. COLOVR The Nature hereof to be perceived in divers places at once Objected by the Romish and confuted by themselves 258. COMMEMORATIVE Sacrifice used by Protestants how p 440. 441. c. COMMVNICANTS onely were anciently admitted to the Eucharist and Gazers on excluded p. 45. 46 c. COMMVNION in both kinds commanded by Christ both to all Priests and People that are present at the Communion p. 56. Evasion Romish against the perpetuall custome of the Greeke Church p. 57. Against the precept of Christ p. 56. Against the Example of Christ pag. 62. Against Apostolicall Practice p 65 Against Primitive Custome p. 68. Against Theologicall Reasons p. 70 71 c. Against the ancient Fathers pag. 76. Ob. from Christ at Emmaus Answered p. 65. Romish Pretence of Alteration answered pag. 78 79. A Comparison betweene the Alterations and Observations and betweene the Alterers and Observers p. 83. More Perfection more Spirituall Grace and Refection is obtayned by Receiving in both Kinds p. 75. CONCEALEMENT of the words of Christs Institution by the Fathers from the Catechumenists and Pagans Objected for Corporall Presence pag. 511. And Fideles norunt the same sayd they of Baptisme 512 c. COVNCEL OF AQVISGR Against Prayer in an Vnknowne Tongue p. 35. of BRACARA Against any Alteration of the Institution of Christ in the Eucharist p. 63. of CARTHAGE Against Administring the Eucharist to Infants pag. 53. Which expoundeth the words of Christ in the Eucharist to be taken Tropically 130. The words of the same Councel corruptly translated by Binius Ibid. of COLON saith that Contempt in not Receiving of this Sacrament offereth violence to Christ p. 316. of CONSTANCE Against Communion in both kindes p. 55. of EPHESVS The Body which Christ united to his Godhead as palpable and unpalpable pag. 276. Holds that we have expiation in the Eucharist by the Blood of Christ as remembred herein that is Objectively p. 478. of LATERAN The first that invented the word Transubstantiation p. 149. As also the Article it selfe as is Confessed p. 151. It taught only a Transubstantiation in Matter and not Forme The Councel of Trent both p. 153. of NANATENS Against Private Masse p. 18. of NICE Baptisme is not to be beholden with the eyes of our Body p. 207. This Councel is objected by both Protestants and Papists for the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist p. 301. Calling the thing Eaten Bread after Consecration pag. 302. and the Place a Table Ibid. Much of the Sacrament would satiate and presse downe An Argument that the Substance of Bread remaineth after Consecration pag. 304. It useth Lift up your hearts aloft pag. 202. Romish Objections Answered p. 203 204 c. It calleth the Eucharist Viand pag. 366 c. of PAPIENS Against Private Masse pag. 18. of TOLEDO is for the Receiving of the Eucharist with Hands pag. 44. Forbiddeth Innovations in receiving of the Eucharist which are repugnant to the Institution of Christ. p. 89. Take a little not much les t the Belly be overcharged that it may be food for thy Soule p. 305 of TRENT Against Christ his Institution of the Eucharist in Forme of Consecration p. 9. And in Private Masse p. 17. And in muttering the words of Christ. pag. 22. And in prescribing of a strange Tongue p. 24. And in Inviting Non-Communicants to gaze vpon the Eucharist p. 45. And in reserving the Eucharist for Procession p. 48. And in Administring the Eucharist to Infants p. 51. And in with-drawing the cup from the Communicants p. 55 c. It defineth a Proper Sense of Christs words This is my Body p. 95. Falsly imposed Transubstantiation as collected out of these words This is my Body pag. 147. Transubstantiation compleat was not defined before the Councel of Trent p. 152. And that the same Councel of Trent held Transubstantiation contrary to the Councel of Laterane Ibid. It Defined the whole Body of Christ to be in every least part of the Hoast p. 270. Which is confuted by Romish Doctors p. 271 272. And by Saint Angustine p. 274. Eucharist is food for the Soule p. 310. In Expounding 1. Cor. 10. 18. turneth a Table into an Altar p. 402. of TRVLLO is for receiving the Eucharist with Hands pag. 44. It interpreteth Christs words This is my Body Tropically pag. 122. CONCOMITANCIE The pretence hereof no just cause to with-hold the Cup from the Laity pag. 81. 82. This Romish Conceit spoyleth
their Stage-play of Representing Christs Body on the Crosse by his Body in the Masse pag. 447. CONSECRASION of the Eucharist was anciently by Prayer p. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. c. Romish Prevarications herein Ibid. A Distinction of Consecration the one by Ordination the other by Benediction p. 14. Consecration of both kinds by the Priest confessed to be necessary pag. 62 63 64 c. Consecrative and Operative words viz. these This is my Body cannot be as they are pronounced by the Priest by reason of the Pronoune Meum p. 138. Words of consecration of the Eucharist are not delivered by any ancient Father saith S. Basil of the Primitive times p. 520. Words of Consecration in the Greeke Liturgies are by prayer to God Ibid. called of Cyril of Ierusa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. And Augustine confirming the same out of Basil Ibid. Consecration of Popes not Infallible pag. 530. The Romish consecration made frustrate by seven defects concerning the matter of the Eucharist p. 528. Six moe by not consecrating p. 529. Fower in the Intention pag. 530. Six moe for want of due Baptisme and Ordination pag. 530 531 532 c. CONTEMPT of the Eucharist and holy things revenged by God Examples thereof p. 318. 319. CONTRADICTION is an absolute Argument of Impossibility p. 229. 230. Six Romish Contradictions in the defence of the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist pag. 232 c. First is in making one not one but many 235. Second is in contradictory Relations of one Body being on the right side and left side of it selfe 252. Third by making Christs body finite and not finite pag. 264. Fourth in absolute Qualities having no Relation to place as to have Vnderstanding and not Vnderstanding p. 255. c. Fift by making it perfect and imperfect p. 281. Sixth by making it glorious and inglorius 282. CVP. Ioynt use of the Cup both in the Priest and people necessary by the precept of Christs practice Iudgement of Apostles and primitive Fathers notwithstanding any Romish pretence p. 54. 55. 56. c. The word Cup in Christs speech taken Figuratively p. 112. See Communion in both kinds See Innovation CVSTOME of 300. yeares preferred by the Romish before a more ancient of a thousand p. 68. 69. CYPRIAN is against Reservation of the Eucharist by the example of Christ. p. 50. Against the Alteration of the Institution p. 62. He is against Communion but in one kind p. 77. Christ commandeth drinking Ibid. Hee teacheth that Hoc in Christs speech Hoc est corpus demonstrateth Bread p. 103. And a Figurative sense in Christs speech This is my Body p. 125. Hee interpreteth Christs words Matth. 26. 29. of the fruit of the Vine p. 163. His saying Bread changed by Nature Objected p. 202. And againe calumniously objected p. 495 His calling the Bread Christs Body after Consecration the Bread which is collected into one of many graines pag. 170. His saying Christ doth create his more holy Body now pag. 192 As his humanity was flesh p. 188. Things signifying and signified p. 193. Change in Nature by Omnipotencie p. 188. Objected As also Divine Essence infuseth it selfe p. 193. Christ at the Table gave Bread and Wine to his Disciples but on the Crosse hee gave his Body to the Souldiers to be wounded p. 178. Ob. Wee make bits of it pag. 179. Ob. That the Godlesse Communicants are partakers of Christs Body p. 313. Ob. Wee are joyned with Christ inwardly in soule and outwardly pag 344. albeit hee standeth for the onely Soule-eating Ibid. Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine that is the Body and Blood of Christ pag. 405. Of the word Sacrifice Malachie 5. pag. 433. A pure and full Sacrifice pag. 450. Of Christs bloody Sacrifice slaine in the Eucharist p. 456. meant of the Passion of the Crosse Confessed p. 479. c. CYRIL ALEX. Objected for the proper sense of Christs word This is my Body p. 116. defendeth Circumcision in one place to distinguish Christs Man-hood from his Godhead pag. 243. saying If God were a Body hee should be circumscribed Ibid. Hee proveth the Holy Ghost to be God because in divers places at once Ibid. Against Penetration of the doores by Christs Body p. 176. Objected unconscionably for corporall Vnion by Christs bodily nourishing of our bodies p. 363. And at large for a corporall conjunction of Christ with our bodies as Waxe with Waxe Ibid. Confessed to be abused Ibid. His Answer to Iulian the Apostate who upbraided Christians with the want of al Sacrifice as well as want of Circumcision and how hee called the Eucharist unbloody p. 464. CYRIL HIER Teacheth that Hoc in Christs speech Hoc est corpus demonstrateth Bread p. 103. Calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype yeeldeth to a Figurative sense of Christs words pag. 116. His saying that Christians received the spirit when they received onely the Operation thereof Ibid. His saying Although it tast Bread yet beleeve it to be the body of Christ under the formes of Bread egregiously abused by Bellarmine p. 195. c. This is againe calumniously objected pag. 496. His calling the Bread Christs body as hee calleth holy Oyle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Guift of grace p. 197. His not bare Oyle and Wine Objected 195. Bread remaineth in the Eucharist after consecration proved from him p. 196. The body of Christ goeth not into the Draught 370. His Wee are carriers of Christ 363. His calling the Eucharist spirituall and unbloody Sacrifice p. 455. And Christs body is a bloody Sacrifice and slaine in the Eucharist Ibid. His Bowing before the Eucharist Objected and Answered p. 520. CYRIL of CONSTANTINOP This CYRIL now Patriarch of Constantinople in the name of the whole East and Greeke Churches saith thus Wee professe not Transubstantiation p. 205. D DAMASCEN his errour upon the use of the word Antitype p. 116. He defendeth Circumscription in one place to distinguish Christs Manhood from his God-head pag. 243. And that every Angell hath its prescript place or space p. 261. That they cannot possibly be in moe than one place at once p. 262. Is likewise against Penetration of bodies pag. 275. His saying It is mingled with our soules p. 357. DEVOVRERS of Christs body by Swallowing such are the Romish p. 347. who say that Beasts devoure it pag. 348. Who if by Chewing are made capernaiticall Tearers Ibid. Devouring of their God imputed to Christians by Averroes was occasioned by the then Romish Doctrine of tearing Christ with their teeth in the Eucharist from the dayes of Pope Nicholas p. 381. Attalas the Martyr denied all Devouring of Christ p. 382. DIDYMVSALâ—X proveth the Godhead of the Holy Ghost by its being in divers places at once pag. 267. DILEMMA of Bellarmine to prove Iustine to have held a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament pag. 377. His Insoluble Dilemma answered and requited with two other Dilemma's p. 377. 378 379. c. DIONYSIVS AREOP Standeth for Consecration
by Prayer pag. 10. He is against the Romish Custome of Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist pag. 46. His calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype noteth a Figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body pag. 115. His naming the Eucharist Divine Sacrament as hee did Divine Altar Divine Bread Divine Table c. pag. 185. Is against the Comparison of the Inapprehensiblenesse of other things in respect of the nature of God pag. 297. His Testimonie for Veneration at Elevation notably corrupted by Dâ—â—â—ntus pag. 513. His O Divine Sacrament reveale unto us c. properly objected for proofe of Divine Adoration of the Eucharist p. 518. DISPENCE the blasphemous Romish Dispensation against Christs command of Communion in both kinds pag. 87. DISTINCTION of Consecration one of Ordination and another of Benediction pag 14. A Distinction of the Presence of Christs Body as a Sacrifice namely as an Object and not as a Subject of the Celebration pag. 440. DIVINE This word applyed anciently by Dionys the Areop to divine and consecrative things p. 185. pag. 518. DOCTRINALL words may be Figurative pag. 134. DOMINVS VOBISCVM in the Romish Masse condemneth the now Romish Private Masse p. 19. DRAVGHT That which is eaten if it enter into the Mouth it is said to passe into the Draught by the Councell of Nice and Toledo pag. 305. By Origen pag. 287. 340. But the Body of Christ is denied to passe into the Draught by Chrysostome and Cyril of Alex pag. 287. 349. 350. Ambros Not into the Belly Ibid. pag. 350. DRINKE YOV ALL OF THIS not spoken of the Priest onely pag. 54. Drinke in Christs words of Institution to be taken Tropically as meant of his Blood pag. 111. E EATERS onely and not Gazers were Anciently admitted to the Eucharist pag. 46. 47. Eating and Drinking are both required of all Communicants for a Sacramentall Refection Confessed against Communicating in one kind pag. 74. 75. Eate in Christs speech of Institution taken Figuratively pag. 111. Eating Christs flesh onely in Vow and Desire pag. 311. in the judgement of Protestants Ibid. Onely Godly and Faithfull are Partakers of Christs Flesh pag. 311. 312. They of the Old Testament ate Christs Flesh pag. 314. Eating onely is Capernaiticall pag. 328. How the wicked Communicants are Guilty pag. 315. Eating with the Mouth delivered in the Church of Rome in the dayes of Poge Nicholas was professedly Capernaiticall pag. 335. Eating Christs Body properly taken is condemned of ancient Fathers p. 349. Eating it Capernaitically by tearing with teeth was taught as an Article of Faith by Pope Nicholas pag. 335. which is yet defended by some Romanists Ibid. Which is against the Faith taught by Pope Innocent pag. 336. That Pope Nicholas his doctrine is Capernaitically haereticall 337. That the maner of the eating of Christs Body in the Church of Rome is yet as faithlesse amongst themselves p. 336. 337. Romish Objections out of the Fathers most unconscionably urged for proofe of a corporall eating as is proved by the Fathers themselves pag 349. 350. 351. And out of other confessions of the Romish Disputers themselves pag. 352. Against either Presence Touching Tasting Breaking Eating of Christs flesh or sprinkling of his Blood p. 353. Vnion with Christs Body by a bodily commixture is Capernaitically Romish pag. 355. See Vnion See Orall See Capernaits See Swallowing ELEVATION of the Hoast objected for adoration of it p. 513. Confessed not to have bin Instituted by Christ and not to have bin alwayes in use p. 513 Elevation of the Chalice not before the dayes of Tho. Aquinas Ibid. EVPHRAIMIVS proveth first that Bread is called Christs Body figuratively and that the Substance of Bread remaineth p 187. EPIPHANIVS Objected most impertinently for the proper sense of Christs speech Hoc est Corpus p. 120. And againe p. 491. Hee expoundeth the fruit of the Vine to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine p. 163. He standeth for Christs bodily opening the Cell of the Blessed Virgin at his birth 277. EPITHETS of Sacrifice attributed by the Fathers to the Eucharist Objected although ascribed to things that are not properly called Sacrifices p. 448. 449. c. ERROVR Pretense of Not-erring the cause of the Romish Errour in continuing the witholding the Cup from the Laity pag. 78. 79. c. EST in the speech of Christ Hoc est Corpus See Figurative EVCHARIST The Remainders hereof after the Consecration were anciently given to Children p. 48. 49. c. Called anciently the Supper of the Lord. p. 47. Anciently burned p. 48 287. They are Symbols of our Resurrection p. 307. It is food onely for the soule pag. 309. 310. 311. c. EVCHERIVS Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine that is the Body and Blood of Christ p. 405. EVSEEIVS by calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype yeeldeth to a Figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body pag. 115. His words Bread is the Body of Christ Objected pag. 201. Hee taught the blessed Virgins opening her Cell and is against Heretikes that denied the truth of his body p. 278. Hee is objected for the Romish Exposition of the word Sacrifice Malachie 5. and confuteth the Objector p. 432. His saying The same Sacrifice with this correction or rather a Remebrance thereof p. 443. His saying A Sacrifice full of God objected pag. 448. and Vindicated 449 Holy Prayers are Incorporeall Vnderstanding Sacrifices 449. and calling Actions that are Godly a pure Sacrifice and opposeth them to a Bloody Sacrifice p. 453. That wee have Expiation here in the Eucharist by the Blood of Christ as remembred herein p. 478. which is objectively EVSEBIVS EMISSENVS saith that Christs Body is a bloody Sacrifice and slaine in the Eucharist p. 445. Hee is calumniously objected pag. 449. That Melchisedech as Christ offered Bread and Wine p. 405. EVTHYMIVS expoundeth the fruit of the Vine Matth. 26. 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine pag. 163. EXPOSITIONS of Scripture according to the unanimous consent of ancient Fathers falsely pretended and perjuriously transgressed by Romish Disputers p. 576. 577. c. Exposition of Scripture according to the Tenet of the Church of Rome perjuriously sworne unto Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Iuge Sacrificium not rightly applied to the Romish Masse pag. 418. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 22. 20. The word objected and discussed p. 363. c. F FACVNDVS teacheth a Figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body as plainely as any Protestant p. 128. FAITH Infallible required in every divine worship p. 535. c. FIGVRATIVE speech of Christ in the word Hoc which without absurditie can neither referre to Christs Body as is confessed p. 93. Nor to any Individuum vagum p. 96. The same Pronoune Hoc as demonstrating Bread cannot possibly be without a Figure Confessed p. 99. That Hoc demonstrateth Bread is proved by the Text and is to be taken Neutrally according to Grammar p. 100. 101. c. Proved to
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
Materiall Idolatry p. 533. 534. c. IDOLATRIE what it is p. 528. Romish Adoration of the Eucharist is Materially Idolatrous as is confessed by many hundred maner of wayes because of so many defects of due Consecration Ibid. pag. 533. That it is Formall Idolatry pag. 534. c. notwithstanding any Pretence p. 553. either of Morall Certainety pag. 534. As ill as the heathen p 547. In one respect worse p. 549. The same is formally idolatrous p. 540. this is proved by Romish Principles p. 541. By Co-adoration Ibid. By Canonization of Saints p. 542. By Consecration of Popes pag. 544. The false Scales which a Romish Seducer maketh for weighing the difference betweene Protestants Not-Adoring and Papists Adoring of Christ in the Sacrament pag. 545 c. The Idolatrousnesse of the Romish Masse Epitomized in a Generall Synopsis p. 568 569 c. IEALOVSY of God ought to deterre us from Adoring the Eucharist pag. 534 c. IEWES ate the same Spirituall meat with Christians pag. 314. Iewish Rabbins Objected concerning the Sacrifice of Melchisedech pag. 404. Iewish Sacrifices how proper in themselves and yet Representative which nothing advantageth the Romish p. 440 441 c. IMPOSSIBLE Somthing so called even to the Advancement of Gods Omnipotencie by the Iudgement of Antiquity pag. 229. Pretence of Omnipotencie was the Sanctuary of Heretikes as of the Arians Ibid. Acknowledgement of the same Impossibility by the Romish Doctors upon the same Reason because of Contradiction p. 230. Impossibility of Christs Body to be in diverse places at once Confessed by Aquinas Vasquez and other Schoole-men pag. 240 241. Impossibilities by reason of Contradiction as for the same Body to be hot and cold and the like at once p. 255 256 c. IMMOLATION of the Priest is called by S. Augustine Christs Passion as Bread his Body that is Improperly saith the Romish Glosse p. 127. INDIGNITIES most vile attributed by the Romish faith to the supposed Body of Christ in the Eucharist p. 286. Contrary to Antiquity p. 287. Romish Answers to this pag. 288. Master Fishers most absurd Answer for Defense of all seeming Absurdities and Indignities of Romish Doctrine concerning the Body of Christ in the Eucharist pag. 291 292 293 294 c. INDIVIDUUM VAGUM Romishly taught Confessed to be a sense full of Absurdities pag. 96 97 c. INFANTS made Partakers of the Eucharist in the dayes of Pope Innocent erroneously p. 51. Their flesh eaten of Heretikes occasioned the slander thereof by the Heathen upon the whole Christian Church pag. 375 c. INNOVATIONS Ten in the Church of Rome against the Cōmand of Christ DOE THIS repugnant to both the Apostolicall and Primitive Traditions concerning Christs Institution of the Eucharist p. 9. 10 11 c. Novelty preferred before sage Antiquity by the Church of Rome in her Alienation of the Cup from the the Laicks pag. 68. The Innovation of the Church of Rome in Altering Christs Ordinance is maintained by her Advocates with an Odious Vncharitablenesse in preferring a meanes of Lesse Grace before a meanes of More with Arrogancie in attributing more Wisedome to the now present than to the then Ancient Church of Rome By Perjury in swearing to maintaine the Apostolicall Traditions and protesting to disclame them By Blasphemy in teaching the Pope to dispense with the expresse Command of Christ p. 85 86 87 c. INSTITUTION of the Eucharist where it beginneth p. 4. What Circumstances excepted p. 5. It is violated by Ten Romish Transgressions pag. 9. 10 c. It Containeth neither Precept nor Practice of any Divine Adoration of the Eucharist p. 504 505. See TRANSGRESSION INTENT Defects of this in the Priest is cause of Romish Idolatry p. 530. Intent though good cannot free the Romish Adoration of the Eucharist from Formall Idolatry pag. 536 c. INVOCATION used by Gorgonia perversly Objected for Divine Adoration of the Eucharist pag. 516 517 c. IOANE MARTLESSE A miraculous wench Discerning by her Smell one Consecrated Hoast out of a thousand Vnconsecrated p. 173. IRENAEVS teacheth that Hoc in in Christ's Speech demonstrateth Bread p. 103. His Saying It Consisteth of an Earthly part and an Heavenly p. 177. And It is no Common Bread p. 104. Calumniously Objected p. 493. That the Godly are onely Partakers of Christs Body pag. 321. Objected Vnconscionably for Vnion with Christs Body by a Bodily Commixture and nourishing the Bodies of the Communicants p. 365. Confessed p. 356. That they spake of a Permanent Vnion Confessed p. 365. That speaking of the Nourishment of mens Bodies by the Sacrament he meant not any Substantiall Change thereby as is Confessed p. 362. Hee is Objected for the Romish Exposition of the word Sacrifice Malach. 5. Which place Confuteth the Objector pag. 432. Hee is Vnconscionably Objected by Bellarmine for Proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse p. 439. His Saying The Altar in Heaven pag. 419. ISYCHIVS His Saying Wee perceive the truth of his Blood pag. 343. And that Christs Body is a Bloody Sacrifice and slaine in the Eucharist p. 455. Meant of the Passion of the Crosse Confessed p. 479. ISIDORE HISP Against Prayer in an Vnknowne Tongue p. 35. Hee teacheth Hoc in Christs words Hoc est Corpus to demonstrate Bread p. 103. Hee teacheth a Figurative Sense of Christs words This is my Body p. 128. He saith Bread is called Christs Body because it strengtheneth mans soule p. 165. He saith also It is Changed into the Sacrament of Christs Body Ibid. And that Melchisedech offered the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood p. 404. ISIDORE PE LUSIOTA is for the Blessed Virgins opening her Cell at the birth of Christ against Heretiks that denyed the truth of his Body p. 278. IVDGEMENT of God upon Contemners of Holy things p. 318 319 c. IVLIAN the APOSTATE Objecting the No-Altar and Sacrifice among Christians as a note of Atheisme p. 464. IVSTINIAN the Emperour against Prayer in a Tongue Vnknowne p. 36. and against an Vnaudible Voice p. 23 c. IVSTINE is for Consecration by Prayer pag. 13. His calling the Eucharist a Type and Antytipe doth yield a Figurative sense in Christs words This is my Body p. 116. And is against Individuum vagum 118. He is Objected in saying It is no Common Bread p. 194. Hee is against the Romish maner of Christs Bodily Penetrations of the Doores p. 276. as is there Confessed His saying Wee are made one by Baptisme not only in affection but also in nature pag. 356. His Apologie to the Heathen Emperour concerning a slander against Christians for Eating the flesh of an Infant p. 374. Where a meere Slander is vehemently and unconscionably Objected by the Romish for proofe of the Orall-Eating of Christs flesh in the Eucharist Ibid. Bellarmines Dilemma thereupon p. 377. And a Dilemma against him pag. 378. Two Testimonies out of Iustine against the Romish Corporall Presence pag. 380 381. Hee saith that Giving of thankes and Praise is
Body of Christ in the Eucharist p. 283. His saying Gustamus Carnem Christi Corruply alleged for Gestamus p. 343. He is Objected for Corporall Vnion of Christs Bodily nourishing our Bodies pag. 356. And that hee spake of a Permanent Vnion pag. 365. His saying By Baptisme the Regenerate is made the Body of Christ crucifyed pag. 357. Hee is also Objected to proove the Paschall Lambe to have prefigured Christ in the Masse and therein egregiously abused pag. 425. POPE NICHOLAS his Decree and Romish Doctrine of Eating Christs flesh Corporally by Tearing it with Teeth the Occasion of Averroes his imputing to Christians the Devouring of their God p. 381. PO. PIVS the Fourth forbad the Eucharist to be carried to the Sicke only for Adoration-sake p. 50. POPE ZePHERINUS Ordayned that the Chalices should be Glasses pag. 514. PRAYER in an Vnknown Tongue Condemned by Antiquity pag. 24 25 26 c. The Practice of Vnknowne Prayer in Divine Service in the Romish Masse is Sacrilegiously derogatory to the Dignity of Christ pag. 558 559 c. Their Praying for Propitiousnesse towards Christ as towards a Sheep p. 560 561 c. PRECEPT Words of Precept may be Figurative p. 133. PRESENCE How Christs Body may be sayd to be present in the Eucharist of Protestants in a foure-fold Truth pag. 212 213. That the Presence of Christs Body Corporally is the Romish maner p. 217. PRETENCE of Reverence is often cause of Disobedience pag 80 81. See Reverence PRIESTS bring present at the Communion ought to Communicate pag. 57 58 c. A Priest hath no more Privilege for the use of the Cup by the Iudgement of Antiquity than any other Faithfull Communicant Ibid. The word Priest as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not used of the Apostle as is Confessed pag. 461. And that Priest as from Presbyter cannot relate to a Proper Sacrifice Ibid. And that Sacerdos is more proper to the Old Testament Ibid. PRIESTHOOD of Melchisedech is agreeable to the Priesthood of Christ pag. 409. And as Disagreeable to the Romish Priesthood pag. 410 411 c. It is denyed to be now exercised in Heaven which is Confuted by Scripture pag. 412 413. Bellarmine his Sacrilegious detracting from it Ibid. Proved by Ancient Fathers pag. 415. The Priesthood of Christ for ever Confessed by a learned Iesuite out of the Fathers pag. 418. See Melchisedech PRIMASIVS by terming the Eucharist a Pledge held a Continuance of Bread therein pag. 180. Hee is fondly Objected for calling the Eucharist a Pledge pag. 369. Hee saith that Christ as Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine that is his Body and Blood pag. 404. His expounding of 1. Cor. 10. 18 Partakers of Devills pag. 401. Hee nameth the Eucharist The same Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse with this Correction or rather Remembrance thereof pag. 442. And that which was borne of the Virgin not now great and now lesse Ibid. PRIVATE MASSE is a Transgression of Christs Command pag. 17 18. And repugnant to Antiquity p. 19 c. PROCESSION with the Sacrament for Adoration is Contrary to Antiquity pag. 48 49 c. And defended by Pamelius out of Tertullian pag. 50. PRODVCTION pretended to be the sole maner of Transubstantiation by divers Romanists and Confuted as Absurd by some others of them pag. 153 154 155 c. PROPITIATORY Sacrifice cannot be properly Attributedâ— to the Eucharistâ— pag. 474 475 c. Our Distinction Ibid. The Romish Sacrifice hath no foundation in Christs Institution pag. 475. Divers Acts unproperly called Propitiatory pag. 476. That it is Propitiatory because of the Remembrance of the bloody Sacrifice and by Application of that Confessed pag. 480. Not Propitiatorie without Relation unto the Crosse pag. 481. That onely Bloody is Propitiatory Ibid. The Romanists Propitiatory of Finite Virtue Ibid. 482. The Church of Rome not yet resolved of the value of their Propitiatory Sacrifice pag. 483. The Romish Application for lucre-sake pag. 486. The Priests Portion therein Ibid. Protestants Application for a Propitiatory Sacrifice more true pag. 487. And absolute pag. 488. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word not justly objected for Divine Adoration of the Eucharist pag. 507. 508. c. PROTESTANTS doe all agree with the Augustane Confession in the point of Vnion of Christs Flesh with the Bodies of the Receivers pag. 310. Their Security from the Romish Perplexities in Adoration of the Eucharist pag. 550. PROVIDENCE of God admired by two Cardinals in these words Quotiescunque Biberitis p. 56. 57. c. Their three Evasions which are by Gods Providence confounded by the contrariety of their owne tongues Ibid. PSALMES vulgarly sung in the publicke worship of God Primitively p. 28. 29. c. PVNICK Tongue not so well knowne to Punicks as the Latine p 42. PVRGATORIE The place of Romish Purgatorie lest it should be evacuated they devised the Sacrifice of Christ to be but of a finite virtue in the Masse p. 486. Q QVANTITIE can be no Similitude for resembling the Being of God in Place but Quantity p. 255. QVOMODO There is a double Quomodo the one Prudentiae the other Infidelitatis pag. 211. 250. R RABBINS of the Iewes wrongfully urged for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse from the Act of Melchisedech p. 404. REASON Romish Objections against our Naturall Reasons in Confutation of the Romish Corporall Presence of Christs Body Answered pag. 263. REASONABLE Service in the Liturgies what it signifieth p. 451. Reasonable Sacrifice attributed to the Eucharist objected for a proper Sacrifice although ascribed by other Fathers to unproper Sacrifices by Chrysostome of Prayses by Athanasius to Baptisme p. 452. RELATIONS Contrary Relations fondly attributed to the same body of Christ as to be above and below it selfe 245. although denied by others Ibid. REMAINDERS of the Eucharist were anciently burnt p. 514. Confessed REMEMBRANCE and Discretion required in the Communicant p. 51. REPRESENTATIVE Sacrifice of the old Law how p. 442. The Eucharist onely Representative Ibid. The Romish after a manner of a Stage-play p. 445. See Commemorative RESERVATION of the Eucharist for Romish Procession contradicted by Antiquity p. 48. With whom the end of Reservation was still to be eaten Ibid. REVERENCE most due to Christ is our Obedience p. 81. c. That it is no sufficieÌ„t Reason to with-hold the Cup from the Laity Ibid. What Reverence is lawfull in receiving the Eucharist pag. 551. The reverence of Kneeling justifiable Ibid. ROMISH Doctors divided about the word Masse p. 3 And about Consecration that it was by Prayer p. 9. In the ancient Romane Church Consecration was by Prayer Ibid. And did Brâ—ake Bread Ibid. They gaine-said Private Masse pag. 17. 18. c. And the uttering of Christs words in an unaudible voice pag. 22. 23. c. That a knowne Tongue was used in Gods Service pag. 24. Their Objections for the Communion but in one kind from Antiquity Answered pag. 68. That there is a more spirituall grace and refection
The Lords Supper OR A VINDICATION OF THE SACRAMENT Of the Blessed BODY BLOOD OF CHRIST According to its Primitive Institution In Eight BOOKS Discovering the Superstitious Sacrilegious and Idolatrous Abominations of the Romish Masse Together with the Consequent Obstinacies Overtures of Perjuries and the Heresies discernable in the DEFENDERS thereof By THOMAS MORTON D. D. BP of Duresme THE SECOND EDITION Much enlarged for CORROBORATION of sundry Points throughout the whole Together with particular Answers to such Objections and Cavils as have been hitherto made and raised by the Advarsary against this Work LONDON Printed for R 〈…〉 And part of the Impression to be Vended for the Use and Benefit of Edward Minshew Gentleman M. D.C.LVI â—OTIUM CUM DIGNITATE The Right Hon. ble Charles Lord Halifax 1702 VTRIVSQVE ACADEMIAE CANTABRIG OXON Praeclaris Luminibus ac Ornamentis caeterisquè Sacrae Theologiae Candidatis sincerioris Literaturae Studiosis Gratiam Salutem in CHRISTO IESV SI quanto amoris studio Vtramque Academiam prosequor tanto Honoris testimonio adornare eas possem Viri Clarissimi certè quidem hoc qualecunqne Opus meum vestro praesertim Nomini inscriptum usque adeò excellens singulare fuisset ut nec ad conciliandam gratiam nec ad culpam deprecandam Praefatione ullâ indigeret In quo tamen si quae fortè Vobis occurrant ut sunt sanè plurima à nullo hactenùs ex nostris partibus Authore praevio in medium prolata vestrae perspicacitatis erit quanti momenti illa fuerint dijudicare quorum duntaxat Apices aliquot saltem attingere operae-precium esse duxi Sacramento Eucharistiae Resp Christiana nihil unquam sublimius nihil sanctius habuit atque Augustius quo Christiani quodammodò in Christum ipsum transformamur Huic Institutioni in frontispicio libri ex aliorum Placitis MISSAE cognomentum adjicio quam vocem aliquis fortassis omissam nimis velit Quin esto tu bono animo quisquis es pius zelôtes Papisticae Missae exosor vehemens Etenim nomen Missa secum omen suum apportat quod cum à Dimittendis ijs qui Eucharistiae participes esse nolunt ortum suum traxerit Romanam Missam planè jugulat quae veluti Amasios suos Spectatores meros omnibus lenociniis ad se allicit atque invitat ac si in illo uno Theatrico spectaculo Religio ipsa Christiana ferè tota consisteret quos tamen modò Eucharistiae capaces Antiquitas Catholica apud Graecos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud Latinos Discedere jussit et in persistentes ut in homines praefractos impudentes graviter acerbeque invecta est Haec de Operis Titulo praefari mihi libuit nè in isthoc vocabulo Missae veluti in ipso vestibulo impegisse videar Ex parte Operis primâ quam Practicam dicimus constat Institutionis Christi Canones decem per Tridentinos Canones in Romana Missa perfringi tantumnon jugiter et violari sed majorinè impudeÌ„tiâ an impietate difficile est dicere nam Depravationibus istis sufflaminandis mille annoruÌ„ Consuetudini universali anteponuÌ„t sequioris aetatis Diutissimè scilicet retentam ut aiunt trecentorum annorum modernae Ecclesiae Romanae en sapientioris usum contrarium Deinde Praeceptum praximque Apostolicam à Pontifice Rom. Abrogari posse garriunt quin adversus Exemplum Christi multis retrò seculis vel ab ipsis Rom. Pontificibus sanctè religioseque observatum obtendunt Consuetudinem contrariam habendam esse pro lege quin porrò hoc quoque parum est quià quamvis de contrario Praecepto Christi constaret nihilo-minùs Ius ipsum divinum à Pontifice Romano relaxari posse Iesuita blasphemo ore pronunciat Sequitur pars altera quam Dogmaticam nominamus in multa Membra se diffundens ità tamen ut horum verborum Christi HOC EST CORPVS MEVM * c. âšœ Quâ quidem Particusâ integram Institutionis Christi narrationem Institutionis inquaÌ„ non autem Romanae ut dicitur Consecrationis formam disertis verbis significavi Ex quâ tamen mirum quantos clamores excitavit Papista quidam vit sanè nobilis cujus Postulatis justo quodam Tractatu qui Anglicè inscribitur A Discharge â—atis superque factuÌ„ est âšœ c. Expositioni literali Mysterij Romani de Eucharistia moles tota nitatur Quanquà m dum in istis explicandis Adversarij nonnulli Fridentinorum Patrum spiritu afflati Tropum omnem ab eisdem longè exulare jubent Alij tamen Tropos saltem Sex velint nolint coguntur agnoscere Porrò in una Particula HOC totius Controversiae cardo vertitur de qua cum quaeritur quid ea proprie designet Pontificij Doctores in duas easque contrarias Opiniones distrahuntur Alij enim per Hoc Christi corpus denotari volunt Alij ad aliud quod ipsi commenti sunt Individuum Vagum Pronomen illud referunt ità tamen ut utrique Andabatarum more à se invicèm vapulent dùm hi priorem sententiam prorsus Absurdam illi posteriorem Absurditatum plenam non dicunt modò verum-etiam solidis Argumentis evincunt Iam igitur hoc uno fundamento ipsorum Pontificiorum Contradictionibus ut olim Turre Babel diruto atque dejecto alia de Transsubstantiatione de Corporali Christi Praesentia Conjunctione què cum corporibus Communicantium de propriè dicto Sacrificio de divina denique Adoratione superstructa portentosa Dogmata omnia corruere labefactari necesse est De singulis si placet pauca delibemus Primo in loco Transsubstantiationis non Dogma modò sed vox ipsa contra quà m pisces novitate sua foetet Ecquid habent quod opponant nonnihil nempè Patres antiqui inquiunt de Conversione hujus Sacramenti verba facientes Transformationis Transitionis Transmutationis Transelementationis vocabula frequenter usurpârunt unde ipsissimam suam Transsubstantiationem dilucidè probari gens Romana clamitat vociferatur Cum tamen Adversarios nostros minimè lateat eosdem Sanctos Patres pari libertate sermonis judicijque synceritate easdem voces singulas ad alias conversiones transtulisse ut Exempli gratiâ nunc Verbi praedicati in Auditorem nunc Corporis Christi in Ecclesiam nunc hominis Christiani in Christum nunc denique Corporum Christianorum in ipsam Christi carnem Vndè sequitur ut quâ ratione praeclari isti Disputatores unam duntaxat Transsubstantiationem astruere conantur eâdem ex ipsa lege Parium ô homines miserè fascinatos aliosque miserrimè fascinantes quatuor alias teneantur admittere In Membro tertio partis Dogmaticae quaestio de Corporali praesentia Christi in Eucharistia agitatur quaeque hùc pertinent omnia ad hoc unum Caput reducuntur Quid sit illud quod juxta Christi institutionem jam intelligitur Corpus meum Hoc Catholica Ecclesia per multa Secula ab Apostolicis
perversion of a Testimony in Saint Ambrose pag. 125. With a Supply of other Latine Fathers as of Tertullian pag. 124. Saint Augustine pag. 126 127. And of Facundus pag. 128. Together with a cleare Myrror wherein to discerne the Iudgement of Antiquity for a Figurative sense of Christs words pag. 129. âšœ Chap. III. Romish Objections against the Literall sense Answered pag. 132. thorow-out Chap. IV. âšœ The Pronoune Possessive MY Added as the third Key for opening of the Figurative sense of Christs words THIS IS MY BODY pag. 138. Whether it be taken Narratively or Significatively pag. 139. âšœ BOOKE III. OF the first Romish Consequence arising from the depraved sense of Christs words which is called TRANS-SVESTANTIATION pag. 145. Chap. I. Conversion held by Protestants is Sacramentall but that which is defended by the Romanists is Trans-substantiall c. pag. 146. thorow-out Chap. II. Romish Transsubstantiation not absolutely proved by Scripture it selfe as is Confessed p. 147. It is an Innovation both in Name and in the Article it selfe pag. 151 c. Chap. III. Romish maner of Transsubstantiation whether by Adduction or Production both confuted by Romish Doctors as Absurd pag. 153 c. âšœ The Testimonies of two Popes contradicting one another about Formall Transsubstantiation p. 155. And a Confutation of both maners of Conversion by their owne principles pag. 156. With a Vindication against a late Calumniator concerning the ancient Saxons faith in the Doctrine of the Eucharist pag. 158 c. And a Confirmation thereof from Christs speech pag. 163. And of Pope Innocent the third pag. 164. And from other Testimonies of Antiquity pag. 169 170. The Iesuite Mallounes Instance in Ioane Martlesse her nose for her admirable faculty of smelling pag. 873. And from the existence of some new Accidents after Consecration pag. 176. Further adding to the Testimonies of Antiquity that of Tertullian p. 178. and an Objected Testimony of Pope Clement pag. 179. and out of Athanasius what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is pag. 182. Together with the Testimony of Euphraimius Bishop of Antioch pag. pag. 187. âšœ Chap. IV. The Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Doctors in Objecting for Transsubstantiation the Fathers there calling it a Change by Omnipotentie pag. 188. âšœ The Testimony of Hilarie pag. 191 And a Vindication of Cyprian's Saying Christs Body is created herein p. 192. and of another of his Infusing Divine essence pag. 193 c. âšœ Their further Vnconscionablenesse in alleging the Fathers as denying it to be Common Bread pag. 194 c. Their forbidding us to judge it by Sense pag. 195 c. âšœ The Iudgement of Master Isaac Casaubon concerning Saint Cyril pag. 197 198. âšœ Their other Objections out of other Fathers anew pag. 198 201 c. âšœ Two Testimonies of Gregory Nyssen pag. 203. And of Cyrill the moderne Patriarch of Constantinople against Transubstantiation pag. 205. With Master Isaac Casaubon his Iudgement concerning the Doctrine of Antiquity for this point pag. 209 c. âšœ BOOKE IV. OF the Second Consequence of the Romish Depravid Exposition of Christs words THIS IS MY BODY viz. The Corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist p. 210. Chap. I. The Difference of Opinions De modo of Christs Being in the Eucharist pag. 210. âšœ A double question concerning the Quomodoâ— p. 211. âšœ Chap. II. Twelve miraculous Apparitions of True Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist by Popish Historians related and judicially proved by their owne Doctors to be but so many Illusions pag. 217. unto pag. 227. âšœ The Iesuite Malloun's vaunt of such like Miracles pag. 221. And the Opinion of Vasquez the Iesuite to the Contrary p. 222 c. With a Digression for the Discussion of the miraculous separation of Christs Blood from his Body out of a Romish Doctor Collius p. 225 c. And of Blood issuing out of Christs Images from the same Author pag. 227 c. âšœ Chap. III. Of the Impossibility of the Romish Corporall Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist by reason of Contradiction pag. 228. âšœ The Testimonies of Theophylact and Iustine Martyr for that purpose pag 229. âšœ Confessed by Romish Doctors pag. 230 c. Of Sixe Contradictions implyed in the Romish Profession of the Corporall Presence p. 231 c. Chap. IV. I. Romish Contradiction is to make the same Body to be Borne and not Borne of the B. Virgin Mary pag. 232 c. Chap. V. II. Romish Contradiction is to make One Body not One by teaching it to be in diverse places at once pag. 234. âšœ The Confession of Conincks the Iesuite pag. 235 c. And the Profession of Saint Augustine in this point pag. 244 245. And that the Romish Objections out of Antiquity are frivolous 247. Adding another Testimony out of Chrysostome pag. 248. And Greg. Nyssen Ibid. Saint Augustines Quodammodo expounded by Suarez pag. 251 c. With a Comparison that Christs Body cannot be above nor below it selfe p. 254. The Testimony of Vasquez in this point p. 256. And of the Iesuite Conincks Ibid. Chap. VI. Romish Objections and Preâ—ences for proofe of a Body in divers places at once from Colour and Voice Confuted pag. 258 to 264. âšœ The Sentence of Pope Innocent pag. 258. âšœ Chap. VII III. Romish Contradiction in making Christs Body Finite to be Infinite pag. 264. âšœ The Testimony of Hilarie pag. 266. and of Athanasius Ibid. And the Enthymeme of the Fathers pag. 287. And the Doctrine of the Lutherans Ibid. And the Infatuation of the Iesuite Lessius framing an Army of but One man p. 268 c. âšœ Chap. VIII IV. Romish Contradiction by teaching Christs Organicall Body not to be Organicall pag. 269. Contrary to the Iudgement of Antiquity pag. 273 c. âšœ Chrysostomes Testimony for Demonstration of Christs Body by Touch. pag. 276. And Cyrill of Alexandria Ibid. And the Testimony of the Iesuite Lessius according thereunto pag. 277. And of the Camels passing through the Needles eye in the Iudgement of Hierome pag. 279. And a Vindication of the Testimony under Pope Hilaries name for proofe of an whole Body in every part of the Host p. 279 c. Chap. IX V. Romish Contradiction is in making Christs Perfect Body Vnperfect pag. 281. By their vile Doctrine of a Body of Christ in the Sacrament voyd of all power of Motion Sense and Vnderstanding Ibid. âšœ The Testimonies of other Iesuites pag. 282 283. And that this is both Contrary to Scriptures and Fathers p. 283. 285. âšœ Chap. X. VI. Romish Contradiction is in making Christs Glorious Body Inglorious pag. 286 c. âšœ A pertinent Question pag. 287. And a Vindication of Truth against Master Fisher a Iesuite his Defence of all Romish Seeming Indignities and Absurdities which by their Doctrine of Christs Bodily Presence do Consequently ensue pag. 291 to 300. And the Testimonies of the Fathers against Bellarmines jeere and scoffe pag. 306 c. âšœ BOOKE V. Of the Third Romish Consequence of their depraved sense of Christs
c. Chap. VII The Fourth Examination of the Doctrine of Protestants in the point of Sacrifice pag. 407. And of the Veritie thereof Ibid. âšœ A Confirmation thereof out of the Romish Masse pag. 474 c. âšœ Chap. VIII Of the Romish Sacrifice as it is called Propitiatory pag. 474 c. Chap. IX How called Propitiatory by Antiquity in a farre Different Sense pag. 477. Namely Objectively onely and not Subjectively even as Protestants doe pag. 478 c. Chap. X. The Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice Confuted by Romish Principles pag. 479 c. Chap. XI Of the Romish Irreâ—olute Doctrine for Approbation of their Sacrifice pag. 483. Repugnant to Antiquity pag. 485 c. Chap. XII The Protestants Offering of Sacrâ—fice Propitiaâ—ory of Complacencie not of Satisfaction pag. 487. âšœ A Vindicatâ—on of some Allegations against the unjust Imputations of one Popishly inspired in diverse passages pag. 491 c. unto pag. 502 c. âšœ BOOK VII OF the last Romish Consequence issuing from the Romish depraved sense of Christs words called Divâ—ne Adoration of this Sacrament pag. 503 c. Chap. I. That there was no Precept for nor Practice of Divâ—ne Adoratioâ— of the Sacrameâ—t at the time of Christ his Institution thereof pag. 504 c. Chap. II. The Objected Testimonies of the Fathers in their Sentenâ—es fall farre short of the marke which is Divine Adoration pag. 506 c. âšœ An Addition of a Sentence of Sainâ— Augustine p. 509. And of Saint Ambrose p. 510 c. âšœ Chap. III. No Act Recorded and Objected out of Antiquity doth sufficiently prove a Divine Adoration of this Sacrament pag. 511. âšœ A necessary Vindication of the Testimonies of Dionysius Pachymeres and Nazianzen against the false traducement of a Romish Seducer p. 521 c. âšœ Chap. IV. Divine Adoration of the Sacrament is thrice reâ—ugnant to the Iudgement of Antiquity pag. 524 Generally in their Sursùm Corda pag. 526. âšœ A Testimony of Saint Hierome p. 527 c. âšœ Chap. V. Romish Adoration of the Masse proved to be Idolatrous by discussing their owne Principles pag. 528. Both Materially unto pag. 533. and Chap. VI. Romish Masse-Adoration proved to be Formally Idola rous notwithstanding any Pretence that is or can be made p. 533 c. Chap. VII The same Idolatrous Adoration proved out of Foure grounds of Romish Profession pag. 541. âšœ An Answer to a Conceipted Deceiptfull and Impious Objection of a Iesuite a Spectacle-maker shewing his Spectacles to be false-sighted pag. 545 c. âšœ Chap. VIII Of the Romish Idolatrous worship in their Masse by Comparison equall to the Heathen and in one point worse pag. 547 c. Chap. IX An Examination of the Worship and Reverence at the Reciving of this Sacrament professed by Protestants pag. 550 c. And their Security in respect of Sixe Romish Perplexities pag. 552 c. BOOK VIII Conteining the former Additionals of divers Execrable points in the Defence of the Romish Masse and the Iniquities of the Defenders thereof by divers Synopses and Generall viewes pag. 557 c. Chap. I. Of the Superstitiousnesse p. 557. Sacrilegiousnesse p. 558. and Idolatrousnesse of the Romish Masse pag. 564. Chap. II. Of the Exceeding Obstinacie of the Defenders of the Romish Masse pag. 566. Demonstrated in a Synopsis wherein Baptisme is paralleled with the Eucharist by the Testimonies of Antiquity pag. 567. Overtures of Perjuries in Defense of the Romish Masse pag. 574. Mixtures of many old Heresies with their Defence of the Masse pag. 581. to the End FINIS OF THE INSTITVTION OF THE SACRAMENT of the blessed Body and Blood OF CHRIST c. The first Booke Concerning the Active part of Christ his Jnstitution of the Eucharist and the TEN Romish TRANSGRESSIONS thereof Chap. I. That the Originall of the word â—ASSE nothing advantageth the Romish Masse SECT I. DIvers of your Romish a Nomen antiquissimum Missa quod quidem fides Christiana profitetur ex Hebraica vel Chaldaica nomenclatura acceptum esse videtur Missah i. e. spontanea oblatio conveniens instituto Sacrificio Baron Cardin. Anno 34. num 59. Est Hebraicum Tolet. les Cardin. Instruct Sacerd lib. 2. cap. 4. Quidam ut Reulin Alcian Xaintes Pintus Pamelius existimant esse Hebraicum As Azor. les reporteth Inst Moral par 1. lib. 10. cap. 18. and Master Malâ—un Reply Sect. 4. pag. 231. Doctors would have the word MASSE first to bee in the first and primitive Imposition and use thereof Divine Secondly in Time more ancient than Christ Thirdly in Signification most Religious derived as They say from the Hebrew word Missah which signifieth Oblation and Sacrifice even the highest Homage that can bee performed unto God And all this to prove if it may bee that which you call THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASSE CHALLENGE SO have these your Doctors taught notwithstanding many other Romanists as well Iesuites as others of principall Note in your Church enquiring as it were after the native Countrey kinred and age of the Word MASSE doe not only say but also proove first that It is no Hebrew-borne Secondly that it is not of Primitive Antiquitie because not read of before the dayes of Saint Ambrose who lived about three hundred seventie three yeares after Christ Thirdly that it is a plaine Latine word to wit Masse signifying the Dismission of the Congregation Which Confessions being testified in our b Latinum non Hebraicum est ut Neoterici studiosè exquirunt Binius Tom. 3. Conc. p. 110. Eodem modo interpretantur complures Durant de Ritib l. 2. cap 2. pag. 190. 192. Magis spectat ad Latinam phrasin Salmeron les Epist ad Canis de nomine Missae So also Azor the Iesuit in the place above-cited Multò probabilius esse Latinam nam si vox Hebraica in usu apud Apostolos fuisset certè retinuissent eâ—m Graeci Syri aliaeque Nationes ut retinuerunt vocerâ— Hosanna Allelujah Pascha Sabbatum similes voces Apud Graecos nulla est hujus vocis mentio pro ea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicunt est autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 munus sive ministerium publicum Bellarm lib. 1. de Missa cap. 1. Melius qui Latinam Sudrez les in Thom. Tom. 3. disp 74. § 3. where he alleageth Lindan Thom. Hug. de Vict. Leo primus quidem est author apud quem legerim Missae verbum Masson lib. 2 de Episc Rom. in Leon. 1. And Ambrose is the ancientest that either Bellarmine or Binius in the places before-quoted could mention Missa à Missione dicta est Salmeron les Tom. 16. pag. 390. 391. It is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greeke Church and with Ilicet amongst the ancient Romanes See the Testimonie following at c. Margin by so large a Consent of your owne Doctors prooved by so cleare Evidence and delivered by Authors of so eminent estimation in your owne Church must not a little lessen the credit of your other Doctors
necessitate Sacramenti Et haec posterior sententia sequenda videtur Ex qua consequenter sequitur Hoc praeceptum esse per Ecclesiam dispensabile Accordingly the Iesuite Vasquez using the same Reasons and Authorities In 3. Thom. qu. 54 Disp 177. Cap. 2. Concludeth Praecepto tamen solo humano non divino eam nos miscere debere vera sententia est Haec doctrina est caeterorum omnium Scholasticorum quos non est opus sigillatim referre id enim omnes expresse dixerunt ut supra notavi Iosephus Angles Flor. Theol. Qu. 1. Non est mixtio aquae ex necessitate Sacramenti quià solùm propter significationem unionis Christi cum populo Graeci autem verè conficiunt tamen aquam non miscent Idem Iosephus Part. 3. Tit. 4 Pag. 142. ex Aquin. part 3. qu. 74. Art 6. Conclu Debet aqua misceri probabiliter quidem creditur quod Dominus hoc Sacramentum instituerit in Vino aquâ permixto secundum morem istus terrae This point of mixture of water with wine was not commanded of Christ but afterwards enjoyned by the Church This being as Iesuites and others doe witnesse a Doctrine generally consented unto by your Schoolmen and they themselves giving their Amen thereunto as also alleaging for their owne better confirmation herein the judgement of two late Romish Councils Florence and Trent besides their dint of Reasons wherof one was the ground of my Assertion to wit Because if it had been commanded by Christ or ordained by necessity of a Precept of Christ it should be likewise of the necessity or Essence of the Sacrament which Necessitie the Church of Rome universally excludeth The Consequence therfore is evident for whatsoever was instituted as the matter of a Sacrament was ever held to bee of the necessitie of the Essence of the same Sacrament Wherefore wee may reckon this Mixture amongst those Circumstances of Christs Actions which were Occasionall by reason of the use and Custome of that Countrey of Iudaea at that time for the tempering and allaying of their Wine with Water 5 Iac. Gordon lib. Contr. 9. cap. 7. Praetereà in calida illa regione omnes solebant miscere aquam vino vinum autèm merum bibebat nemo pag. 320. That region being so hot saith your Iesuit that none dranke meere Wine but mixt with water âšœ The Poynts contained within the Canon of Christ his Masse and appertaining to our present Controversie are of two kindes viz. 1. Practicall 2. Doctrinall SECT V. PRacticall or Active is that part of the Canon which concerneth Administration Participation and Receiving of the holy Sacrament according to this Tenour Matth. 2◠〈◊〉 And Iesus tooke Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples and said Take eat c. And Luc. 2â— 19. â—â— Do this in remembrance of me Likewise also after Supper he tooke the Cup and gave thankes and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of this But the Points which are especially to be called Doctrinall are implied in these words of the Evangelists THIS IS MY BODY And THIS IS MY BLOOD of the new Testament which is shed for you and for many for remission of sinnes We begin with the Practicall CHAP. II. That all the proper Active and Practicall points to wit of Blessing Saying Giving Taking c. are strictly commanded by Christ in these words DOE THIS Luke 22. Matth. 26. 1. Cor. 11. SECT I. THere are but two outward materiall parts of this Sacrament the one concerning the element of Bread the other touching the Cap. The Acts concerning Both whether in Administring or Participating thereof are charged by Christ his Canon upon the Church Catholike unto the ends of the World The Tenour of his Precept or Command for the first part is Doe this and concerning the other likewise saying 1. Cor. 11. â—5 This doe ye as often c. Whereof your owne Doctors aswell Iesuites as Others have rightly a Hoc facite Alter sensus est Facite viz. quod feci Christus accepit panem gratias egit benedixit c. idipsumque praecepit Discipulis corumque successoribus Sacerdotibus Barrard Ies Tom. 4. lib. 3. cap â—6 pag. 82. col 2 which sense hee also embraceth although he excludeth not a second Illud Hoc facite posuit post datum Sacramentum ut intelligeremus jussisse Dominum ut sub c. Bellar. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 25. §. Resp mirab Idem Hoc facite illud jubet ut totam actionem Christi imitemur Ib. c. 13. §. Quod â—lla Pronomen Hoc non tantum ad sumptionem sed ad omnia quae mox Christus fecisse dicitur refertur mandat n. facere quod ipse fecit nempè Accipere panem gratias agere Iansen Episc Concord c. 131. pag. 903. Againe Bellar. Videtur tn sententia Iohannis à Lovanio valde probabilis qui docet verba Domini Hoc facite aâ—ud Lucam ad omnia referri id est ad id quod fecit Christus id quod egerunt Apostoli ut sit sensus Id quod nâ—nc agimus Ego dùm consecro porrigo yos dùm accipitls c. frequentate usque ad mundi consummationem Profert n. idem Author veteres Patres qui illa verba modò referunt ad Christi actionem Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 3 Damas l. 4. de fide c. 14. modò ad actionem Discipulorum ut Basil reg mor. 21. Cyril Alex. lib. 12. in Ioh. c. 58. Thus farre Bellar. lib. 4. de Euch. c. 25. §. Videtur Hoc facite Praeceptum hoc non potest referri ad ea quae verbis antecedentibus in ipsa narratione Institutionis habentur Viz. to those circumstances which goe before that He tooke bread c nam ea vis est Pronominis demonstrativi Hoc verbi Facite ut praeceptum quod his duobus verbis continetur ad eas tantum actiones referatur quas tum in praesentia Christus vel faciebat vel faciendas significabat quae quidem actiones continentur in ipsa narratione Institutionis quae incipit ab illis verbis Accipiens panem Greg. Valent. les Tract de usu alterius spec in Euch. c. 2 §. Id manifestè Hoc facite Ex tribus Evangelistis ex Paulo 1. Cor. 11. constat Christum sumptionem vini suo facto praeceptione Ecclesiae commendasse Alan Card. de Euch. c. 10. p. 255. Hoc facite Pertinet ad totam actionem Eucharisticam à Christo factam tà m à Presbyteris quà m à plebe faciendam Hoc probatur ex Cyrillo l. 12. in Ioh. c. 58. ex Basil moral reg 21 c. 3. Idem Alan ib. c. 36. p. 646. Hoc facite Idem habet Paulus 1. Cor. 11 qui naâ—rat id ipsum dici circa calicem ea omnia complectens quae dicuntur de poculo accipiendo c. Quod Lucas complexus est dicens Similiter calicem Iansen Concord c. 131. p. 905.
Which Answere besides the falsity thereof Wee take to be no better than a reproach against Antiquitie and all one as to say that those venerable Witnesses of Truth would professe one thing in the Cellar and proclaime the contrarie on the house-top It were to be wished that when you frame your Answeres to direct other mens Consciences you would first satisfie your owne especially being occupied in soules-businesses Wee conclude Seing that Forme as all learning teacheth giveth Being unto all things therefore your Church albeit shee use Prayer yet erring in her judgement concerning the perfect manner and Forme of Consecration of this Sacrament how shall shee be credited in the materialls wherein shee will bee found aswell as in this to have Transgressed the same Injunction of Christ DO THIS Neverthelesse this our Conclusion is not so to be interpreted as hearken o It was Mr Brereley his error Liturg. p. 101. in alleaging Irenaeus lib. 5. c. 1. Quandò mixtus calix fractus panis percepit verbum Dei fit Eucharistia Here by verbum Dei is not meant the words of Hoc est c. but Prayer and the word of Blessing commanded by the Word of Christ who blessedit and commanded his Church saying Doe this as appeareth by Iren. lib. 4. c. 34. when he saith Panis percipiens vocationem for Invocationem Dei non est communis panis In the next place Ambrose l. 4. c. 4. de Sacr. Consecratio igitur quibus verbis fit Domini Iesu c. Ergò â—ermo Christi conficit hoc Sacramentum nempe is quo facta sunt omnia jussit factum est This is the Allegation whereas if hee had taken but a little paines to have read the Chapter following hee should have received Saint Ambrose his plaine Resolution that they meant the words of Prayer Vis scire quibus verbis coelestibus consecratur Accipe verba Dicit Sacerdos Fac nobis hanc Oblationem acceptam c. Then he proceedeth to the Repetition of the whole institution as the complement of Consecration in the words Take eat This is my body but not only in these words This is my body We see then that the Latine Church had this forme Fac even as the Greeke had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in Prayer but neither of both without reciting the forme of Institution M r. Brerely to exclude out of the words of this Celebration the Repetition and pronuntiation of these words This is my Body and This is my Bloud of the new Testament Farre be this from us because wee hold them to bee essentially belonging to the Narration of the Institution of Christ and are used in the Liturgie of our Church for although they bee not words of Blessing and Consecration because not of Petition but of Repetition yet are they Words of Direction and withall Significations and Testifications of the mysticall effects thereof âšœ A Vindication against the possible adverse Conceipts of Some For a further manifestation hearken you unto that which is written * 1. Tim. 4. 4. Every Creature of God is good if it be sanctified with the word of God and with Prayer Wherein wee finde a double acception of Sanctification the one of Ordination by The word of God the other of Benediction namely by Prayer For example The eating of Swines flesh is sanctified to the use of a Christian first by Ordination because the word of God in the new Testament hath taught us the lawfull use of Swines flesh and secondly by Benediction by Prayer or giving of thanks in which respect it is that the Apostle calleth the one part the Cup of Blessin 1 Cor. 10. 16. Both of these are to be found in our Sacramentall food wherein wee have the Sanctification thereof both by the Word of Christ in the tenour of his first Institution Hee tooke bread c. adding Do this as also by publike blessing in Prayer which is more properly called Consecration And although in our Domestical feasts the second Course is blessed in the grace which was said upon the first service so the second supply of Bread and Wine if it shall inordinately so happen may not altogether be denied to be consecrated by the blessing pronounced upon the first even as the Sanctifying of the Sheafe of Corn was the hallowing of the whole field Notwithstanding our Church hath cautelously ordained that the words of Institution He tooke bread c. be applyed to every oblation of new Bread and Wine for accommodation-sake as they are referred in our Liturgie wherein they are necessarily joyned together with the words of Prayer and Benediction Therefore where you shall finde in the Fathers the words of Christ's Institution called Consecration 5 âšœ Chrys Tom. 3 Hom. 30. dè Proditione Iudâ— Ioc est Corpus meâ—â— â—ubus verbis res productae Consecrantur and Anthros lib â— de Sacram. c. 4. Verba Christi faciunt hoc Sacramentum Ibid. c. 5. Vis scire quibus verbis Secramentum consecratur Sacerdos dicit Fac Deus hanc nobis oblationem Then he repeateth the words of Institution as it is in Chrysostome and Ambrose it must be understood as joyned with Prayer as the Benediction it selfe which hath beene * See more in the Margent above in the beginning of this Section âšœ already copiously confessed as well as it is furthermore acknowledged by your Iesuit that 6 Cressollius les lib 1. Mystag cap. 19. Diaconi vocati sunt Consecrantes in gestis S. Laurentii in hunc modum Cui commisisti Domanici sanguinis consecrationem Illa etiam vox Consecratio reperiebatur apud S. Ambros lib. 1. offic c. 41. Qui locus non esse mendosus existimandus est quia Ambrosius summa side narrationem suam texuerat ex actis S. Laurentij neque hîc Consecratio propriè et definitè sumitur quasi Diaconus hostiam consecraret sed ex communi Ecclesiae usu totam sacram actionem significat Sometime the whole sacred Action was called Consecration insomuch that the Deacon who doth not meddle with the words of Consecration is notwithstanding called a Consecrator in Saint Ambrose So he âšœ The second Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse is in their Contradicting the sense of the next words of Institution HE BRAKE IT SECT VI. HE brake it So all the Evangelists doe relate Which Act of Christ plainely noteth that hee Brake the Bread for distributing of the same unto his Disciples And his Command is manifest in saying as well in behalfe of this as of the rest Doe this Your Priest indeed Breaketh one Hoast into three parts upon the Consecration thereof but our Question is of Fraction or Breaking for Distribution to the people The contrary Canon of the now Romane Masse p Ecce in coena Christus fregit panem tamen Ecclesia Catholica modò non frangit sed integrum dat Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 34. §. Nam p. 275. BE HOLD say You
antiquum Ecclesiae Romanae morem ut plures de eodem Sacrificio participent doctissimi quique agnoscunt Itáque hac nostra aetate Rev. Pater vir doctiss Iohan. Hoffmeâ—sterus his verbis suam sententiam declaravit Res inquit clamat tà m in Graeca quà m in Latitia Ecclesia non solùm Sacerdotem sacrificantem sed reliquos Praesbyteros Diaconos necnon reliquam plebem aut saltem plebis aliquam partem communicâsse quod quomodò cessavit mirandum est Et aliquos cùm Sacerdote adfuisse qui sacrificia laudis offerebant Sacramentorum participabant Canonis Romani verba manifestè significant viz. Quot ex hac Altaris participatione sacrosanctum corpus sanguinem filij tui sumpserimus c. Item Prosint nobis divina Sacrificia quae sumpsimus Teste G. Cassandro Consult Art 24. pag. 216 217 223. c. Confessions of your owne Doctors who grant first that this is not according to the Institution of Christ saying in the Plurall VNTO THEM Secondly nor to the practice of the Apostles who were Communicating together in prayer and breaking of bread Act. 2. 46. That is say they aswell in the Eucharist as in Prayer Thirdly Nor to the ancient Custome of the whole Church both Greeke and Romane Fourthly c Idem Ioh. Hoffmeisterus Quomodò inquit ordo antiquus cessaverit mirandum est ut bonus ille usus revocetur laborandum Nunc verò postquà m communionis ordo à nobis observari desijt idque per negligentiam tà m plebis quà m Sacerdotum ut ait Hospin Ex Canone quodam Conc. Nannetensis Sacerdos solus Missam celebrate vetatur absurdum enim est ut dicat Dominus vobiscum Sursum corda Gratias agimus Deo Domino nostro cùm nullus est qui respondeat aut ut dicat Oremus cùm nullus adest qui secum oret Et simile Dâ—cretum reperitur in Concilio Papiensi ut nullus Presbyter Missam celebrare praesumat Cur autem Canon noster Speaking of the forme of the Romane Mosse alijs in superstitionem alijs in contemptum adductus sit in causa potissimum est mutatio prisci ritus Georg Cassand quo sup neither to Two Councels the one called Nanetense the other Papiense decreeing against Private Masse Fiftly nor to the very names of the true d Act. 2. 42. Erant communicantès c. Vsus suit quondam frequentandae quotidiè Eucharistiae non minùs quà m Orationis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sumitur pro usu istius Sacramenti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eadem est vis etiam vocis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro congregatione fidelium ut interpretatur Basilius Lorin Ies loco supra-citato Sacramentall Masse which by way of Excellencie was sometime called Synaxis signifying as Saint Basil saith the Congregation of the faithfull sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communion or Communicating and sometimes the Prayers used in every holy Masse were called Collectae Collects because the people used to be collected to the celebration of the Masse it selfe Sixtly Nor to the very * See above at b Canon of the now Romane Masse saying in the Plurall Sumpsimus wee have received And thereupon seventhly repugnant to the Complaints of your owne men against your Abuse who calling the joynt Communion instituted by Christ the Legitimate Masse do wonder how your Priests sole-Communicating ever crept into the Church and also deplore the contempt which your private Masse hath brought upon your Church Hitherto see the Marginals from your owne Confessions Let us adde the Absurditie of the Commendation of your Councell of Trent in saying Wee commend the Priest's communicating alone A man may indeed possibly talke alone fret alone play the Traytour alone but this Communicating alone without any other is no better Grammar than to say that a man can conferre alone conspire alone contend or covenant alone Calvin saith indeed of spirituall Eating which may be without the Sacrament as you also g Qui dicunt Christum manducari spiritualiter à fidelibus posse etiamsi Sacramentaliter non manducetur atque eo cibo animam ali vera quidem asseiunt Acosta les de procur Indorum Salut c. 7. p. 532. confesse that a Faithfull man may feede alone of the Body and Blood of Christ But our dispute is of the Corporall and Sacramentall Communicating thereof e Collectae per figuram dicebantue Preces ab ipsa celebratione Missae quùm ad eam populus colligebatur Bellar. l. 2. de Missa cap. 16. §. Post salutationem f Generaliter autem dicendum est quôd illa est legitima Missa in qua sunt Sacerdotes Respondens Offerens atque Communicans sicut ipsa precum compositio evidenti ratione demonstrat Durand l. 4. c. 1. pag. 174. Walfridus Strabo etiam aliqui antiquiores Scholasticorum Interpretes solam legitimam Missam fatentur cui intersuit Sacerdos Respondentes Offerentes atque Communicantes Cossand quo supra * See above at the letter a A SECOND CHALLENGE Against the former Prevarication condemning this Romane Custome by the Romane Masse it selfe WEe make bold yet againe to condemne your Custome of Private Masse and consequently the Commendation given thereof by the Councel of Trent For by the Canon of your Masse wherein there are interlocutorie speeches between Priest and People at the celebration of this Sacrament the Priest saying Dominus vobiscum The Lord be with you and the People answering the Priest and saying And with thy Spirit your Claudius Espencaeus sometimes a Parisian Doctour one commended by h Claudij Espencaeâ— Theologi Parisiensis Tractatus de utraque Mâ—ssa qâ—arum alteram publicam alteram privatam appellant 〈◊〉 Gilberti Theologi Parisiensis Genebrard Genebrard for his Treatise upon this same Subject of the Private Masse albeit he agreeth with the execrable Execration and Anathema of the Councel of Trent against them that hold Solitarie Masses to be unlawfull yet after the expence of much paper to prove that some private Masse must needs have anciently beene because Primitively Masse was celebrated almost in all Churches every day and that Saint * See below at the letter p Chrysostome did complaine of the absence of the people yet comming to determine of the poynt i Haec similia pro privatatuÌ„ Mislarum usu vetustate probabilâ—â— quidem sunt sed minus â—perta nec n. qui oblatum dicunt communicatum negant c. Espen Tract de utraque Missa fol. 226. where also had beene objected the complaint of Chrysoslome so fol 222. This Reason saith he is onely probable but not evident for although they affirme a dayly celebration of the Masse yet doe they not deny a daily Communion Afterwards he seeketh the Originall and beginning of privat Masses out of private k Monachos plus alioqui jam satis gravatos invid â primos privatà rum Missarum Authores fuisse quidaâ—â— faciunt Espenc ibid.
abstinence from wâ—ne but the reason of their forbearance that was judged Hereticall So hee But this mans march is but slow Master Brerely p In his Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse Tract 4. §. 4. pag. 407. a Romish Priest one well esteemed among you for his exceeding labour and paines in defending the Romish Cause to his power by his many Bookes almost in every particular commeth on more roundly as followeth Doctor Morton himselfe saith he shall plead in our behalfe who saith that the Manichees did heretically celebrate the Eucharist onely in one kind in an opinion that wine was not created by God but by some evill spirit and were therefore anciently condemned for Heretiques but the Romanists are not to bee accused of this heresie of the Manichees in their not distributing of both elements of bread and wine And to object this against that Church were an accusation injurious for it was not the Manichees abstinence from wine but their reason thereof which made them hereticall said hee So your Priest yet what of all this So clearely doth Doctor Morton saith hee cleare us from the foule and false imputation urged against us by Doctor Whitaker who noted the Administration but in one kind now used by the Romish Church to have had it's originall from the Manichees and so clearely doth hee contradict both Master Whitaker and himselfe in one place accusing us in another excusing us in one and the same Respect of which foule fault of Contradiction in so great a Rabbin when he cleareth himselfe instead of being Bishop of Litchfield hee shall bee unto mee ever Magnus Apollo Thus farre Master Brerely Alas what will become of the Doctor being as you see thus fiercely assaulted by two at once one a Iesuite the other a Romish Priest both conspiring together to make the Doctor ridiculous CHALLENGE IT is now about twenty yeeres since the sayd Doctor in Confutation of a booke of Master Brerelyes intituled an Apologie published a Treatise called the Protestants Appeale wherein were discovered many hundred of Master Brerelyes Ignorances Falsities and Absurdities who ever since hath had Master Parson 's itch as hee himselfe called his owne humour which received a Salve that might have cured him of that itch to bee medling with the same Doctor Yet the only Exception which hath since come to this Doctor 's eares from your side is this now objected point concerning the Manichees whereupon you have heard them both so urgently and boastingly insist and not so onely but they have also divulged this pretended Contradiction in many Counties of this Kingdome to his reproach Will you be so kinde as but to heare an Answer and then either wonder at or hisse or applaude or him or them as you shall find just Cause Two things there were condemnable in the Manichees one was their Act and Practice in dismembring the Sacrament by not communicating in Both kinds the other was their Opinion which they held for so doing which was as you have heard an Hereticall Conceit that Wine was the Creature of the Devill Concerning this Hereticall opinion no Protestant sayd q Protestants Appeale lib. 2. chap. 4. Sect. 3. Doctor Morton doth charge the Church of Rome but as for the Act of not Communicating in Both kinds r In the same Appeale lib. 4. chap. 22. Sect. 10. he called it Sacrilegious and concluded the Church of Rome in this respect to bee as guilty of dismembring the Sacrament as were the Manichees And both these hee hath done by the Authority of Pope Å¿ Comperimus quòd quidam sumptâ tantummodò corporis sacri portione à Calice sacri cruoris abstineante qui proculdubiò quoniam nescio qua supersticione docentur astringi aut Sacramenta integra percipiant aut ab integris arceantur quià divisio unius ejusdemque mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire Gelasâ—apud Gratian de Consecrat cap. Comperâ—mus D. 2. Gelasius who decreed in condemning the Manichees First against their Opinion saying Illi nescio quâ superstitione docentur astringi c. That is They are intangled in a kinde of Superstition Then for the Act of refusing the Cup Because saith hee the diving of the same Mystery cannot be done without grievous sacrilege therefore let these Manichees either receive the whole Sacrament or else let them be wholly excluded from receiving So Gelasius Seeing then Doctor Morton and all Protestants cleare the Church of Rome from the imputation of the Heresie of the Manichees in respect of their opinion and yet condemne them of the Manichean Sacrilege in respect of the Act of dismembring the Sacrament with what spectacles thinke you did your Priest and Iesuite reade that Answere of Doctor Morton to collect from thence either your Churches Iustification from a foule fault of Sacrilege or else the Doctors foule Contradiction to himselfe and that clearely forsooth in the same respect who themselves are now found to have beene so subtilly witlesse as not to discerne Heresie from Sacrilege an opinion from a fact or a no-imputation of that whereof neither Doctor Whitaker nor any other Protestant ever accused them from a practice condemned by a Roman Pope himselfe Take unto you a Similitude A man being apprehended in the company of Traytors upon suspicion of Fellony is fully and effectually prosecuted for Fellony onely if one should say of him that he was not convicted or condemned of Treason but of Fellony were this either a Contradiction in the party speaking or a full Iustification of the party spoken of You are by this time wee thinke ashamed of your Proctors and of their scornefull insultation upon the Doctor in the ridiculous tearmes of Rabbin and Magnus Apollo who willingly forbeareth upon this Advantage to recompence them with like scurrility being desirous to be onely Great in that which is called Magna est Veritas praevalet By which Truth also is fully discovered the vanity of the Answer both of M r. Fisher of your Cardinall saying that Gelasius condemned only the Opinion of the Manichees which is so transparant a falshood as any one that hath but a glympse of Reason may see throught it by the sentence it selfe as hath been proved Our second Reason is in respect of the perfect Spirituall Refection represented by this Sacrament SECT VIII ANother Object represented in this Sacrament is the food of mans soule in his faithfull receiving of the Bodie and Blood of Christ which because it is a perfect spirituall Refection Christ would have it to be expressed both in Eating and Drinking wherein consisteth the perfection of man's bodily sustenance and therefore are both necessarily to be used by law of Analogie betweene the outward Signe and the thing Signified thereby Two of your a Nam in alterutra 〈◊〉 sive panis sive vinâ— significatur sufficienter refectâ—â— animae Bellar. lib. 4. de Eucharist cap. 20. §. Vtranuc pag. 639. Est etiam in specie quod 〈◊〉
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
these judged by Pope Gelasius to be Sacrilegious âšœ Hence was it that your Iesuite demanded 13 Nic. Causin Ies in his booke called the Holy Court pag. 539. How was it possible saith he that the Heresie of Eutyches being nousled under a false zeale of Reverence towards the person of the Sonne of God might not insnare the Empresse Pulcheria a woman Yea and what greater defence had the Pharisees for all their Superstitions than that of Reverence whom notwithstanding Christ did pierce thorow with so many Vae's for annulling of the Precepts of God by their Traditions under the pretence of religious Reverence and sanctity In briefe It was the opinion of Reverence that made Saint Peter to contradict our Lords Command when he said Thou shalt never wash my feete yet how dangerous it had beene for Peter to have persisted in opposition the Reply of our Saviour doth declare If I wash not thy feete faith Christ thou hast no part with me c. Vpon which Text Saint Å¿ Discamus Christum prout vult venerari honorato namque jucundissimus est honor non quem nos putamus nam eum Petrus honorare putabat cùm sibi pedes eum lavare prohibuit sed non erat honor quem agebac sed contrarium Chrysost Hom. 60. ad pop Antioch Tom. 1. Chrysostome readeth unto you this Lecture Let us therefore learne saith he to honour and reverence Christ as he would and not as wee thinke meete And sure we are that he would that same which he commanded saying Do this Therefore our next Difference betweene our defence and yours is no other than obedient Reverence and irreverent or rather irreligious Disobedience As for your Pretence of manifesting hereby a t Si sic tanta esset degnitas Laicorum circà sumptionem corporis Christi quanta Clericorum Gerson Tract de utraque specie Greater dignity of Priests than of Laicks it is too phantasticall for the singularity too harsh for the noveltie and too gracelesse for the impietie thereof seeing that Christ who gave his Body and Blood an equall price of Redemption for all sorts would have the Sacrament of his Body and Blood equally administred to People as to Priests as you have heard the Fathers themselves professe The Third kinde of Romish Pretences which are more peculiar to their owne Church in two points First because a Movit Ecclesiam ad hunc usum stabiliendum lege firmandum quòd videret ab Haereticis et ex errore oppugnari Sacramentarij autem non credunt Concomitantiam sanguinis Domini cùm corpore in specie panis undè etiam ij Lutheranorum maximè urgent utramque speciem qui cum Sacramentarijs rident Concomitaâ—â—tiam Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 28. §. Secundò Heretikes saith Bellarmine and meaning Protestants do not believe Concomitancie that is to say that the blood of Christ is received under the forme of bread but for this Concomitancie the Church was moved to prescribe the use of the Eucharist in one kinde So he And this point of Concomitancse is that which b In his booke dedicated to K. Iames. Master Fisher and c In his Liturg. of the Masse pag. 396. Master Brerely most laboured for or rather laboured upon And albeit your Romane d Maximè omnium ad convellendam eorum haeresin qui negabant sub utraque specie corpus Christi contineri Catech. Rom. par 2. c. 4. nu 50. Catechisme judgeth this the principall Cause of inducing your Church to preferre one kinde yet wee whom you call Heretikes believe that the devout Communicant receiving Christ spiritually by faith is thereby possessed of whole Christ crucified in the inward act of the Soule and only deny that the Whole is received Sacramentally in this outward act under one onely part of this Sacrament which is the present Question And in this wee say no more than your Bishop Iansenius judged reasonable who hath rightly argued saying e Verùm non facilè apparet quomodò apertè exterior illa sumptio dici possit bibitio manducatio rectè dicitur quià sumitur aliquid ibi per modum cibi sed quomodò bibitio cùm nihil sumatur per modum potus non n. diceremus eum manducare et bibere qui panem tinctum vino sumeret quamvis sumat quod famem tollat et sitim Proindè secundùm horum sententiam videtur omninò dicendum cum dicitur manducare bibere non ratione actus exterioris qui manducationis tantùm speciem habet sed ratione actus interioris nempe ratione fidei Iansen Concord in Evang. pag. 457. It doth not easily appeare how the outward receiving of Christ under the forme of Bread should he called Drinking but onely Eating being received after the manner of meates as that is called Drinking onely which is received after the manner of drinke Drinking therfore and Eating are distinguished by Christ in the outward Act. So he even as your owne * Durand Rationale lib. 4. c. 54. Vna pars absque alia sumpta non est completum Sacramentum cùm panis corpus significat non potest sacramentaliter sumi sinè altera specie before him had truly concluded with whom Master * See Booke 2. Cap. 2. § 4. Brerely will beare a part Therefore your Concomitancie if wee respect the Sacramentall manner of Receiving is but a Chimaera and as great a Solecisme as to say that the Body and Bones of Christ are drunke and his Blood eaten contrary to the Sacramentall representation in receiving Bread and Wine as hath beene proved Next when wee aske you why onely your Church will not reforme and regulate her Custome according to the Institution of Christ and the long practice of the primitive Church you answer plainly and without Circumlocution that the Reason is Lest that your Church might seeme to have erred in her alteration if the ancient Custome And this your f Secunda ratio quià qui Concomitantiam negant ex alio pernitioso errore petunt utramque speciem quià nimirum existimant jure divino esse praeceptum propterea totam Ecclesiam longo tempore in hac re turpiter enâssè Bellar. quo sup §. Secundo Cardinall Bellarmine and the Iesuite g Rectissimè facit Ecclesia quod ipsa praxi contratiâ refutat eorum haeresin qui utramque speciem jure divino necessariam omnibus esse perperam contendunt Quae ratio jure optimo inter caetera cosiderata est in Conc. Constant contra Bohemos in Conc. Trident. contra recenâ—iores Sectarios Greg. de Valent. Ies Tract de usu Eucharist cap 10 §. Deindè pag 499. Valentian use and urge as a necessary Reason for confutation of Protestants who held the necessity of publike Communion in Both kindes Which Reason your owne Orator Gaspar Cardillo proclaimed as in a manner the sole cause of continuing your degenerated use h Ego existimo Patres
Signa haec omnia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accepere Alan lib. 1. de Euch. c. 30. p. 383. Diony s c. 1 de Eccle. Hier. Theod. Dial. 1. Macarius Hom. 27. Nazianzen Orat. in Gorgon vocant Eucharistiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 post recitationem horum verborum Hoc est corpus meum Teste Bellarmin lib. 2. de Eucharist cap. 15. §. Sed. Dionys Ep. 9. ad Titum loquens de saris Signis tropicis locutionibus dicit Christum Iesum in Parabolis per typicae mensae apparatum deifica mysteria trà dere Eodem modo Gregor Nâ—zianz Orat. 11. vocat Antitypum pretiosi corporis sanguinis Domini Euseb lib 8. Demonstrat in fine Christus Discipulos hortatur ut sui ipsius corporis imaginum repraesentent Teste Suarez Tom. 3. in Thom Quest 74. Disp 46. §. 4. pag. 547 â—52 Theod. Dial. 1. cap. 8. Scis quod Deus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ipse igitur Salvator noster 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paulò post interrogando docet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek generally calling the Elements of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament Some Types Antitypes and Symbols that is Figures and Signes Some calling Christ his Speeches Tropical or Figurative and his Table Typicall Some saying that Christ would have his Disciples hereby Represent the image of his Body And one as expressely as any Protestant can speake even Theodoret by name that Christ here gave to the Signe the name of his Body as else-where he gave to his Body the name of the Signe âšœ And againe 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Origen also in Matth. 15. calleth materiam panis Symbolicum corpus Christ as hee called the mysticall fruit of the Vine after sanctification the Blood of the Lord So the fruit of the naturall Vine did he call the Blood of the Vine So he Marke no otherwise is the Wine in the Eucharist called Christ's Blood after Consecration than the juyce of the Grape is called The Blood of the Vine Which who knoweth not to be improperly and figuratively spoken âšœ You cannot deny but these Phrases of Signes and Symbols are most frequent in the writings of all the Greeke Fathers which wee take to be a convincing Argument untill you can give us some reasonable Solution hereunto To this purpose you leaving the principall Objections fasten onely upon certaine Crotchets and thereupon you bestirre your selves THE FIRST CHALLENGE Against the first Romish Answer touching the word Type and Antitype used by the Greeke Fathers THree kindes of Answers have beene applyed as Three wedges to dissolve this difficulty but a knot of wood cannot be loosed with a wedge of waxe such as every of your Answers will appeare to bee The first interpreting Types and Antitypes not to be taken for Signes but for Examples is at the first hearing rejected by your Å¿ Prima solutio Vocem Antitypon non accipi pro Signo sed pro Exemplari c. sed haec opinio facilè rejici potest quia vox ea nunquam sumituâ— pro exemplari Bellarm. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 15. Cardinall and others The Second alleged out of Damasâ—en and much insisted upon by some favourers of your Romish Sense namely that the Fathers should call Bread and Wine Antitypes but not after Consecration So they And if so then indeed we should have no cause to oppose But this Answer is proved to be apparantly false by your t Altera solutio est aliorum Panem Vinum Antitypon dicâ— sed ante Consecrationem non posteà ita respondit olim Ioh. Damasc lib. 4. de fide cap. 14. Et Epi. in 7. Syn. Art 6. Tom. 3. sed invenimus apud Basilium Eucharistiam dici Antitypon corporis post recitationem istorum verborum Hoc est corpus meum Tamen Theod. apertiffimè eam sic vocat Dial. 1. Macar AEgypt Hom. 27. imò Dion Arcop Eccl. Hier. c. 1. Naz. orat in Teste Gorgon Bellar. ibid. Etiam Clemens in Constit Billius Com. ad Eliam Cretensem in Orat. 11. Nazianz Hanc interpretationem Damasceni refellunt Bessarion Card. Turrian Durant de Rit lib. 2. cap. 39. Cardinall and others out of the expresse Testimonies of these Greeke Fathers viz. Dionysius Areopagita Clemens Iustine Macarius Basil and Nazianzene The third Answer is your Cardinals owne yet but faintly urged with a a Fortassis Basilius alij Graeci Patres non vocant Typum aut Figuram sed Antitypa quia Antitypa non sunt quaelibet figurae sed illa tantùm quae nihil fere differunt à veritate Bellar. ib. quo supra Peradventure they called them Antitypes but not Types after Consecration and hee is encountred by your b Negari non potest quin nonnunquam nomen Typi inveniatur in Patribus ut ex Hieronymo paulò ante notavi Idem reperitur apud Chrysostomum Hom. 16. ad Heb. Billius apud Nazianz. Annot in orat 11. in sine Quare probabile valdè existimo vocem Antitypi in eadem significatione usurpari hoc loco quo Typi seu Figurae Suarez Ies quo supra pag. 554. Suarez and Billius acknowledging that the words Types and Antitypes are used of the same Fathers in one and the same signification âšœ As doth likewise your Iesuite 4 Vasquez in 3. Thom. Quest 78. Artic. 1. Disput 197. cap. 4. Noster Turtanus putat non posse hoc Sacramentum vocari Typum corporis Christi sed benè Antitypon quin Typus significat figuram rei quae tem ipsam non continet Antitypon autem figuram quae rem ipsam in se habet Haec tamen sententia mihi non probatur Vasques maintaine against your Iesuite Turrian âšœ This our Objection how strong it is may be seene by your much but vaine strugling âšœ A Corroboration of the Iudgement of Antiquitie in naming the Eucharist Type and Antitype None can need any better Instructor in this point than was one albeit a Protestant most conversant in Greek Antiquity namely M r. Isaac Casaubon He instanceth most especially in Cyrill of Hierusalem 5 Cyrillus p. 522. de Chrysmate disserens ait fideles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Locus ille consideratione digniffimus Sic enim docet Quando fideles baptizantur eos accipere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 At de isto Christo ita loquitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecce opponuntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sp. Sancti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christum in Baptismo suo accepisse ipsam essentiam Sp. Sancti in se advenientis sed nos accipere tantùm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod tamen ipse appellat Sp. Sanctum Et sanè ita passim legimus in S. S. hos aut illos accepisse Spiritum Sanctum quùm intelligamus non ipsam essentiam Sp. Sancti sed vim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sp. Sancti Cur non idem dicemus de S. Eucharistiâ Patres vetustissimi dicunt nos in eâ accipere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
they be repugnant to our senses which last words Although they be repugnant to our senses said I No man of sense can find in Epiphanius This saith the Proctor is a false Taxation And I for my Iustification shall desire no other Advocate than Bellarmines owne words Hic locus Epiphanij omninò convincit quia addit etiam nimirum Epiphanius Hoc esse credendum licet sensus repugnent And now when you shal summ up the Premises you will easily judge how the Testimonie of Epiphanius will be held to be Convincent That the same Greeke Fathers have expresly unfolded their Meanings touching a Figurative Sense SECT VIII THe Iudgement of a whole Councel of Greek Fathers may well suffice for the manifestation of the Iudgement of that Church They in their Councel at Trullo alluding to these words of Christ This is my Body saying Let nothing be offered but the Body and Blood of Christ that is say n In sanctis nihil plus quà m corpus sanguis Christi offeratur ut ipse Dominus tradidit hoc est panis vinuÌ„ aquâ mixtum Concil ConstaÌ„t apud Binium which Canon was made against the Aquaâ—ij those who would use no Wine Can. 32. called Synodus quinisexta They Bread and Wine c. If we had not told you that this had been the speech of Greek Fathers in a Councel you would have conceived they had bin uttered by some Heretike as your Charity useth to call us Protestants Neither may the Authority of this Councel be rejected by you as unlawfull in the point of the Sacrament because your Binius in opposing against some things in this Councel yet never tooke any Exception against this Canon We may not let passe another Testimony used by the ancient Father o See above §. 6. at the Let. x Theodoret namely That Christ called the Bread his Body as he called his Body Bread Matth. 12. saying therof Except the grane of wheat die c. insomuch that interchangably in the one place He gave to the Signe the name of his Body and in the other He gave to his Body the name of the Signe So he As Protestantly as either Calvin or Beza could speak And you cannot deny but that when Christ called his Body Bread it was an improper and Figurative speech And therfore if you will believe Theodoret you are compellable to confesse that Christ in calling Bread his Body ment it not in a proper literal sense âšœ Wee were about to proceed but that your Doctor Heskins will needs crosse us in our way by objecting the Current of Oecumenius in his Exposition of those words of the Apostle Wee are all one Body inasmuch as wee are partakers of one Bread saying 11 Dr. Heskins in his Parliam of Christ Booke 3. C. 28. OecuÌ„ in 1. Cor. 11. Quid est panis Corpus Christi Quid efficiunturij qui participant Corpus sanè Christi quia ait Apostolus unus panis unum corpus sumus quia de uno pane participamus ex multis namque granis ut exempli gratia loquamur unus panis factus est nos multi ex uno pane participantes efficimur unum corpus Christi What is one Bread the Body of Christ and what are they made that partake of this one Bread The Body of Christ for this one Bread is made of many granes and we being many partakers of one Bread are made one Body Hence your Doctor In my judgement this needeth no explanation for asking a question what is Bread he answereth The Body of Christ Note then Reader he saith not it is a Signe of Christs Body but the Body of Christ VERILY where he speaketh both of the Bread partaken which he saith is Verily Christs Body and also of the Partakers who be made the mysticall Body of Christ wherein the Reader may see how rightly he confirmeth the Catholike faith So he And so wee thinke he doth but then must not your Popish be this Catholike faith because Oecumenmus calleth so Bread the Body of Christ Sacramentally as hee calleth the Partakers of the same Bread or Loafe the mysticall Body of Christ. But the Partakers and Communicants are Christs mysticall Body only Figuratively and by Analogy therfore the Bread is named the Naturall Body of Christ Figuratively and as the Symboll thereof as Christ himselfe calleth it by the Iudgement of Antiquitie throughout the Second Booke Which therfore the Apostle here calleth Bread after Consecration and as Oecumenius noteth such Bread as consisteth of many granes of Corne which must needs be Substantially Bread thereby to represent the people consisting of many Persons in one Communion â—o but Oecumenius saith your Doctor speaking of Bread called Christs Body nameth it VERILY Christs Body which is if it be lawfull to speake rudely a very-Lye For the words Verè Corpus Christi Verily Christs Body are attributed to the Partakers of the Bread which are the mysticall Body of Christ and not either to the Bread or Naturall Body of Christ Hitherto of the Greeke Fathers That the same Figurative Sense of Christs words is avouched by the Testimonies of the Latine Fathers more largely now insisted on SECT IX SOme of the Latine Fathers we confesse seeme in some places to deny all Figurative sense but this they doe even by a Figure called * As is afterwards many wheres discovered Hyperbole that is only in the excesse of Speech thereby to abstract the minds of sensuall men from fixing their thoughts upon externall Rites and to raise them up to a Sacramentall and Spirituall Contemplation of the Body and Blood of Christ But as for the direct and perspicuous Sentences of these Fathers they clearely and exactly teach a Figurative sense in the words of Christ to wit p Tertull. contra Marcion lib. 4. pag. 233. Edit Paris Profellus est Christus se concupivisle edere Pascha ut suum indignum enim ut aliquid alienum concupisceret Deus acceptum panem distributum Discipulis corpus suum fecit Hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est Figura corporis mei figura enim non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Caeterum vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non potest Tertullian whose words are as plaine as any glasse can be saying of Christ Hee distributed his Body that is a Signe of his Body âšœ The Fantastike Marcionites held that Christ had no essentiall Body but onely a figurative and Fantasticall These Heretikes Tertullian confuteth by Christ his Institution of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood as the * At the let p. Margin will shew you thus Nothing that is fantasticall is capable of a figure because this were to make a signe of a Signe or figure But Christ in this Sacrament gave a Signe of his Body Therefore Christ had namely in himselfe a Reall and Substantiall Body and not fantasticall That he gave a Figure of his
Baptisme into the death of Christ He saith not we signifie his buriall but absolutely saith we are buried therfore hath he called the Sacrament or Signe of so great a thing by the name of the thing signified thereby So hee even the same Hee who will bee found like himselfe in the following passages of this and other books especially when wee shall handle the Manner of eating of Christs Body which Augustine will challenge to bee Figuratively meant âšœ Your Answerers are so puzzled with Saint Augustine his Testimonies that you may doubt whether rather to pity their perplexities or else to hate their perversenesse as you may see by another Testimony of the same Father which wee may not let passe * Aug. con Adimant cap. 12. Scriptum est sanguinem precoris animam ejus esse Possum interpretari praeceptum illud in signo esse positum non enim dubitavit Christus dicere Hoc est corpus meum cum signum dedit corporis sui Christ doubted not to say This is my Body when hee gave a Signe of his Body even as hee saith hee might interpret that Scripture * Deut. 12. The blood of the Beast is the life of the Beast The blood is a signe thereof Where his sole ayme is to expound the Verbe Est to bee no more than it Is a Signe or Signifieth But whether as your 16 Bell. l. 2. de Euch. cap. 24. in his two last as it were in his best Answeres Aug. intelligere non nudum signum sed cum re ipsa conjunctum nec corporis absentis ut sanguis signum non animae absentis 2. Sol. Signum corporis immolari in Cruce Cardinall fancieth it was a Signe of Christ's Body present in the Eucharist or rather as absent after on the Crosse Aug. regardeth not to mention but meerly to teach here which he doth more exactly else-where that wheresoever any thing is predicated and affirmed of another thing of a different nature as when the Signe is called by the name of the thing signified the speech is Figurative as Christ by the Apostle is called Rocke 17 August quaest super Levit. cap. 57. Non est dictum Petra significat Christum sed Petra erat Christus sic solet loqui Scriptura res significaÌ„tes tanquà m res quae significantur appellans Tract 77. It is not said saith Saint Augustine The Rocke signifieth Christ but the Rocke is Christ which is usuall saith he in Scripture which calleth signes of things by the names of the things themselves which are signified thereby It will not be impertinent to adjoyne hereunto your Iesuiticall Interpretation of these words of the Apostle The Rocke was Christ and after to compare it with this of Saint Augustine that thereby we may the better discerne Light from darkenesse 18 Iaâ— Gordon Ies lib. Controv. 3. cap. 7. num 21. Petra erat Christus 1. Cor. 10. Germanus literalis sensus non est iste Petra significat Christum ut putant Adversarij qui ex hoc loco contendunt probare verbum sub stantivâ—n Est aliquandò usurpari pro significat ut indè faciliùs ignâ—ris persuadeant verbum Est in verbis Christi idem valere quod significat The Literall and Proper Sense of these words saith hee is not that which our Adversaries meaning Protestants doe hold The Rocke signified Christ contending hereupon to prove that the Verbe EST is sometime used for SIGNIFIETH that thereby they may the more easily perswade that the word EST in Christs Speech is the same in Sense with SIGNIFIETH So hee What Heretike could have more confronted Saint Augustine than your Iesuite hath by denying the words The Rocke was Christ to bee in true Sense Did Signifie Christ Secondly that Est elsewhere is used in Scripture for Significat in both which Saint Augustine is as absolute an Adversarie and yet no more in these than indeed in the whole Cause concerning the Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament And the cause of Saint Augustines interpretation is plaine For Adimantus the Manichee objected to the Iewe 19 Aug. cont Adimant quo sap Adimantus Manichaeus â—it secundùm intellectum Iudaeorum qui dicunt sanguinem esse animam sequi c. That they understood by the other Text The blood of the Beast is the soule thereof not that it was conteined in the soule or joyned with the soule but that it is the soule it selfe This is that Literall interpretation which Augustine declineth and expoundeth the words as spoken Figuratively Signe for the thing signified as * See above at the letter u hee did in the speech of Christ saying of Bread This is my Body And doth not 20 Cyril Hier. Catech. Mistag 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril call Baptisme the Antitype of Christs Passion Saint Augustine desireth to have one word more 21 Aug. in lib. Sent. Prosperi De Consecrat Dist â—â— Cap. Hoc est quod dicimus sicut ergò coelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cum reverâ sit SacrameÌ„ u n corporis Christi illius videlicet quod visibile quod palpabile 〈◊〉 mortale in cruze positum est vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus sit Christi passio mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio The Heavenly Bread saith hee which is Christ's flesh is called after a maner the Body of Christ when as indeed it is the Sacrament of Christ's Body to wit of that Body which is visible palpable mortall and the Immolation of his flesh which is done by the hands of the Priest is called Christ's Passion Death and Crucifixion but not in the veritie of the thing but in a Significant mysterie So he Which words if they should need a Comment can have no better than is your owne publike privileged Romish Glosse upon them saying 22 Glâ—ssa in eum locum Coelestis Id est Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè unde dicitue suo modo non rel veritate sed signisicante mysterio ut sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est Significat The Heavenly Sacrament which truly representeth Christ's flesh is called the Body of Christ IMPROPERLY where it is said to be after a certaine maner the Bodie of Christ There are foure principall Observables in this one sentence of Saint Augustine I. Your Doctors have vilified our Sacrament because wee judging it to be Bread do but onely account it a Sacrament of Christ's Body Saint Augustine doth here reprove them as directly as if hee had said Though it be but a Sacrament of Christ's Body yet is it to be esteemed as Heavenly Bread II. As often as you reade of the Bread called Christ's Body you straine it to your owne sense as directly demonstrating Christ's Body Saint Augustine telleth you that it is in
beene * Vid Protestants Appeale Book 2. ch 2. §. 10. confuted for urging the former Objection notwithstanding concealing the Answer he blusheth not to regest the same albeit as one conscious to himselfe of the futility therof he leaveth it presently falling foule upon Theodoret as though that Father had beene in some distemper when he so writ d In his Liturgâ—â— of the Masse Tract 2. §. 2 subd 3. p. 254. saying first that Theodoret used that his Retortion in his * Not so for he was now not iâ—â—a personall Dispute but deliberately writing against thâ— Heresia of the Eutychiant heate of Dispute Then hee taketh part with the Heretike saying It is not likely that an Heretike should have urged against a Catholike sentence for Transubstantiation as for a point of Faith well knowne if the same Doctrine had beene then either unknowne or else condemned as False So hee who might aswell have reasoned in the behalfe of the Sadduces condemned by Christ saying It is not likely that they would so expressely have denyed that there aâ—e any Spirits in their Dispute against Christ if that Doctrine had beene then either unknowne or condemned as False by the Church of God among the Iewes And yet it is certaine that the Heresie of the Sadduces was judged execrable in that Church Now if the Eutychian Heretike finde such Patronage at the hands of your Priest alas what will become of the Father Theodoret Hearken Theodoret being an Orthodoxe Bishop saith hee could not have propounded the Heretikes Argument as grounded upon the Churches received Doctrine of Transubstantiation had the same beene then unknowne and reputed False So he who if hee had not lost his Logike would certainly have argued contrarily saying Theodoret being an Orthodoxe and Catholike Bishop would never have set downe an Objection for Transubstantiation in the name of a ranke Heretike and after himselfe impugned and confuted the same except he had knowne it to be flatly repugnant to the Catholike Church in his time Wherefore if you be men of Faith and not rather of Faction let the miserable perplexities of your Disputers discovered both here and throughout this whole Treatise move you to renounce them as men of prostituted Consciences and their Cause as forlorne of all Truth For a further Evidence take unto you an Answer of your Iesuite Valentia to this and the like Testimonies of Antiquity It is not to be held any marvell saith * Valent. Ies l. 2. de Transub c. 7. Dabimus aliud breve simplex sine ullo incommodo responsum Enimverò antequam quaestio ista de Transubstantiatione palà m in Ecclesia agitaretur minime mirûm est si unus aut alter aut etiam aliqui minùs considerarè rectè hac de re senserint scripserint maximè cum non tractarâ—nt ex instituto ipsam quaestionem he why some Ancients have writ and thought lesse considerately and truly before that Transubstantiation was handled publikely in the Church especially they not handling the same Question of purpose So hee and this hee calleth a Briefe and plaine Answer And so it is whereby in granting that Transubstantiation had not beene so Anciently handled in the Church he plainly confuteth your now Romane Church which judgeth it to have beene alwayes an Article of Faith And affirming that the same Fathers Handled not the point of purpose it is as plainly confuted by Theodoret who in this Dispute did not argue against the Heretike 〈◊〉 extemporall speech personally but deliberately and punâ—â—lly by writing and therefore of Purpose The Second Father expresly defending the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration is Pope GELASIVS SECT XIII THis Author have Protestants called Pope Gelasius and urged his Testimony Your Disputers civill First at the name of the Author calling Protestants e Non fuit hic Papa Gelasius ut Adversarij impudentèr jactant sed Gelasius Caesariensis Episcopus Bellar. lib. â— de Euch. c. 27. Impudent for stiling him Pope Gelasus But if hee were not that Pope Gelasiue what Gelasius might hee bee then Gelasius Bishop of Caesâ—rea saith your Cardinall Bellarmine Contrarily your f Baronius himselfe â—â—tendeth that it was not that Pope Gelasius Anno 496 num 123. c. yet comming to answer to the Sentence of Gelâ—siuâ— doth expound toe doubtful words there of by the phrases of Pope Gelasius ex Epist ad Pâ—â—enos Dardan Episc num 13. 14. which Epistles he before cited as the true Epistles of Pope Gelasius Anno 493. num 23. and Anno 494. num 2. And after Anno 496. num 17. telleth his Reader saying Vides Lector ex usu verborum Phrasiquè dâ—ceÌ„di Gelasij Papae alia ejus sententia perspicuâ— demonstratum esse c. Et Anâ—o 996 num 13. Gelâ— in Epist ad Picen est Peccato Originall substantiam hominis esse depravatâ—m eum tamen eadem substantia mansit Accidentia ut pote justitia originalis alia dona 〈◊〉 Cardinall Baronius contendeth that hee is a more ancient Gelasius Anno 47. namely Gelasius Cyzicenus yet so as confounding himselfe insomuch that hee is forced to expound the speeches of this Gelasius by the propriety of the speech as he confesseth of Gelasius â—ope of a Rome But what shall we answer for the Impudent Protestants as yoâ— Cardinall hath called them Surely nothing but wee 〈◊〉 more modesty in him who hath so called them considering that Protestants had no fewer Guides nor meane to follow than these g Gelasius Papa scripsit contra Eutycheâ—em Genad de scriptoribus Eccles c. 14. Anastas de vita 〈◊〉 Margarinus de la Bigat lib. 5. Biblioth Patrum pag. 467. Masson de Episc Rom. in vita â—elasij Aâ—pâ—onl lib. de naeres Tit. Christus haeres 3. in fine Onuphrius de Creat Pontif. Cardin Gelâ—sius 〈◊〉 scripsit volumen adversus Eutychetem Nessorium Fuisse Caesariensem Episcopum non posse jure affirmari videtur And proveth why not Historians viz. Genadius yea your Bibliothe carie Anastasiùs Alphonsus de Castro Onuphrius Massonius Margarinus la Bigne all which have intituled this Gelasius Pope of Rome Howsoever it is confessed on all sides that hee was an Orthodox Father and very Ancient Now then Gelasius sayd that h Gelasius lib. de duab natur cont Eutych Sacramenta certa 〈…〉 corporis sanguinis Christi divina res est propter quodper eadem divinae efficimur participes naturae tamen non definit esse substantia vel natura panis viaâ— certè imago similitudo corporis sanguinis Christin in Actione mysticâ celebratur And againe Permanent in proprietate naturae The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ being Divine things yet cease not to bee the nature and substance of Bread and Wine In Answer whereunto both your foresaid i Bellar. Baton quo supra At dicit Gelasius In Divinaru transcunt Spiritu sancto
ancient Writers y Iulicium Vnivâ—sitâ—tâ—s Duâ—censis Bertrâ—m Catholicus Presâ—yter Monachus Corvinensis â—a Câ—hoâ—cis vereâ—bas â—â—â—larimos 〈◊〉 errores extenaemus excuâ—emus excogitâ—to Commenâ—â—â—aepè negemus câ—nmodum eâ—s sensum assingamas duâ—nâ—obâ—â—â—acur 〈◊〉 Dispâ—â—aâ—â—onibus cum Adâ—ersâ—â—js Index Exâ—urg juxta Conc. Trideâ—t Decret 2. Philippi 2. Reg. Hispan Jussu Anno 1571. Let us say they in Dâ—sputation with our Adversaries objecting ancient Authors tolerate many of their Errours extenuate and excuse them yea and oftentimes by some devised Comment or shift deny them as also by feigning to apply some apt sense unto them So that Vniversiâ—ie This being the guise and professed Art of your Schooles to use all their wits how to delude their Opposites in Disputation what great confidence shall any have of their sincerity in answering Let us leave Bertram under the Testification and Commendation of Abbot z Bertramus Presbyter qui in divinis Scriptuâ—s valdè peritus non mâ—â—ùs vitâ quà m doctrinâ iâ—signis multa scripsit praeclara Opuâ—cula de quibus ad meam notiâ—â—m pauca pervenerunt Ad Câ—rolum Regem fratrem Lotharij Imperaroris scripsit Commendabâ—le opus de Praedestinatione libruâ— uâ—uâ—â—e Corpore Sanguine Dâ—nâ—i Trithem Abbas Trithemius for his Excellent Learning in Scripture his godly life his worthy Books and by name this now-mentioned written expresly of the Body and Blood of Christ âšœ Ephraimius Bishop of Antioch of primitive Antiquity whose Sentence is recorded by Photius standeth thus 24 Photius Bibliothec ex Ephrâ—mio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 415. Edit Augustâ—ae Vindelic 1601. The Body of Christ which is received by the faithfull loseth nothing of it's sensible substance nor is it separable from grace as Baptisme which is spirituall being intirely one in it selfe preserveth the property of it's sensible substance I meane water and loseth not that which it was So hee Expresly reveiling unto us in what Sense Antiquity called Bread the Bodie of Christ namely as other Fathers in good number have already unfolded because it is a Sacrament representing Christs Body For hee clearly speaketh of that which loseth nothing of it's sensible substance no more than water in Baptisme doth lose ought of it's sensible substance Which Analogie of the Eucharist with Baptisme will in the last * Booke in a full Synopsis give an upshot to the whole Cause concerning the generall Iudgement of the Fathers from point to point See the like Argument of Cyrill of Ierusalem afterwards Chap. 4. Sect. 4. CHAP. IV. Answers to the Objections of Romish Doctours taken from the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers for Transubstantiation Or an Antidote to expell all their poysonsome Pretences in that behalfe SECT I. THis our Antidote is compounded of five Ingredients used for the Discovery of the Vnconscionablenesse of your Disputers in their Objecting the Testimonies of Fathers under false Pretences First upon their terming the mysticall Act A Worke of Omnipotencie Secondly their denying of the Eucharist to bee Naked and Bare Bread Thirdly in forbidding the Communicants to rely upon the Iudgement of their Senses Fourthly in their mentioning the Change of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament and calling it Transmutation Transition and the like Fiftly and lastly in forcing of the speeches of Fathers which may seeme to make for Transubstantiation as absolutely spoken of the Sacrament of the Eucharist which the same Fathers do apply as well to the Sacrament of Baptisme and also to other sacred Rites wherein you beleeve there is not any Substantiall Change at all The First Vnconscionablenesse of your Romish Disputers in objecting the Fathers speeches of an Omnipotent Worke in this Sacrament for proofe of Transubstantiation SECT II. A Worke of Omnipotencie is attributed by divers Fathers to the Change which is made in this Sacrament which we likewise confesse a Ambros Sermo Christâ— qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant c. De myster iâ—tianâ— c. 9. At omnipotentia non requiritur ad faciendum ut res aliquid significet Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 14. Ambrosius ostendit multis miraculis in Eucharistia non esse id quod natura formavit sed quod Benedictio consecravit Idem ibid. c. 24. §. Posterior Aug lib. 3. de Trinitate cap. 4. Ambrose compareth the Change by Benediction made in this Sacrament unto many miraculous Works of God yea even to the worke of Creation b Ex Cyprian de Coena Dâ—mini §. Secundum Panis iste non effigie sed naturâ mutatus omnipotentiâ verbi factus est Caro. Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas apparebat latebat Divinitas ità Sacramento visibili divina â—â—effundit essentia Ob. Bellaâ— lib 2 de Euch. cap. 9. Whereas Naturâ mutatus signifieth not the Substance but the Condition Et factus Caro is no more than a Sacramentall and mysticall Being of the Body of Christ as all other places of Cyprian sheweâ— Cyprian speaketh of a Change in nature by Divine Omnipotencie c Aug. de Trinitate lib. 3. Non sanctificat ut sit magnum Sacramentum nisi operante spiritu Dei quae per illos cum haec omnia Corporales motùs sint Deus operatur Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 24. §. Sed Paulo Augustine reckoning it among God's miracles saith that This Sacrament is wrought by the Spirit of God Accordingly we heare d Chrysost hom 83 Non sunt humanae vâ—tutis haec opera quae tunc in idâ Coeâ—â confecit ipse nunc quoque operatur ipse perficit ministrorum nos crdinem tenemus qui vera â—aec sanctificat atque transmutat ipse est This is objected by Mr. Brerely Tract 2. §. 2. Subd a. pag. 111. Liturg. Chrysostome proclaiming that These are not workes of humane power Hee that changeth and transmuteth now is the same that hee was in his last Supper Each one of these Testimonies are principally alleged by your Disputers as the strongest fortresses for defence of your Article of Transubstantiation and being taken altogether they are esteemed as a Bulwarke impregnable but why e See above in his objecting of Ambrose Because saith your Cardinall Omnipotencie is not required to make a thing to be a Signe Significant So he Wee answer first from your owne Confessions and then from the Fathers themselves There are two workes observable in every Sacrament one is to be a Signe of an Invisible grace promised by God the other to be a Seale and Pledge therof as all Protestants hold and as your most opposed f Calvia Semper memoriâ repetendum est Sacramenta nihil quà m â—ustrumentales esse confetendae nobis gratiae Causas Antid in Conc. Trid. Sess 7 Can. 5. Calvin teacheth an Instrumentall cause of conferring grace to the partakers of the Sacraments In both which Respects there is required an Omnipotencie of a
107. De recipiente semen ut terra bonâ— Qui verbum recipit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Trans elementing in a sort of the word of God into the good Iearer Againe Theophylact is objected as saying x Theophyl in Math. 26. Panis ineffâ—bili modo transformatur Panis quidem apparet sed caro est Objected by Mr. Ererely Laturg Tract 2 §. 2. Sâ—bd As for est caro this Phrase 〈◊〉 beene already answered See above at s The Bread is after an ineffable maner Transformed It is true Hee saith so and so doth Hierome say that y Hier. in Marc. 14. Accepit Iesus Panem bâ—nedixit fregiâ— Transfigurans Corpus suum in Panem quod est Ecclesia praesens quae frangitur in passionibus Christ in breaking Bread did Transfigure or Transforme his Body into his Church broken with afflictions and Pope Leo sticketh not to say that 1 Leo. Non alia igitur participatio Corpous quà m ut mâ—id quâ—d summus transeamus De Passione Serm. 24 Wee Christians in communicating Transimus turne or are Changed into Christ his Body So these ancient Fathers Are you not yet out of breath with objecting Testimonies of Fathers Vnconscionably and imperâ—inently No for Master Brerely for a Close desireth to be heard and to try us with an Objection out of the Greeke Church these latter times as followeth a Mr. Brereley in his Apologie of the first Edition concerning the Faith of the ancient Greeke Church It appeareth by a Treatise published by the Protestant Divines at Wittenberge Anno Domini 1584. intituled Acta Theologorum Wittenbergensium Hieremiae Patriarchae Constantinop c. that the Greeke Church at this day although divided from the Latine professeth to beleeve Transubstantiation So he of the Patriarch Hieremâ—as which Patriarch if he were alive would very hardly containe himselfe from answering this your Brother with some indignation calling him both rash and precipitant seeing that the same Patriarch expresly said that b Hier. Patriarch Non enim hic nominus tantùm communicatio est sed rei identitas etenim verè Corpus Sanguis Christi mysteria sunt non quòd haec in corpus humanum transmutentur sed nos in illa melioribus praevalentibus Which is his Answer in this Poynt to the Doctors of Witâ—enbèrge The Body and Blood of Christ are indeed Mysteries which are not changed into humane flesh but wee into them So that Patriarch âšœ Neverthelesse another bold Romish 17 Franciscus de Sancta Clara. Exposit Artic. Confess Angi in Art 28 Orientalis Ocâ—identalis Ecclesia in hoc Articulo Transubstantiationis conveniunt Hieremus Patriarcha in sua Censura contra Lutherum idem fatetur Priest durst boast of your alliance in this doctrine of Transubstantiation not only with this forenamed Patriarch of Constantinople but also with the whole Easterne and Greeke Church But behold Cyril now Patriarch of Constantinople ready at hand to strangle this false bragge saying as he himselfe speaketh 18 Confâ—ssio fidei â— Reverendissima Cyrillo Patriarchia Constantiâ—op nomine omnium Ecclesiarum Orientalium Edit Anno 1632. In Eucharistiae Administratione Piaesentiam veram realem Christi consitemur prâ—fitemur at illam quam Fides nobis offert non autem quam excogitata docet Transubstantiatio In the name of the East and Greeke Churches Wee professe a true and reall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament but that which is offered by faith not that saith he which the devised Transubstantiation teacheth So he namely so as wee Protestants do likewise professe as will be declared in the next Booke at large And that the Grecians who were present at the Councell of Florence did not yield Assent to that Article of Transubstantiation although your Iesuite 19 Gordon Ies Controv. 4. cap. 4. num 25. Quod de Graecis in Concilio Florentino congregatis coÌ„miniscuntur Adversarij cos nimirum nègâsse Transubstantiationem apertum est Commentum Nam Disputatio tantùm erat quibus verbis fieret Transubstantiatio seu Consecratio Gordon would qualifie and mince the businesse yet Binius the Publisher of that Councell 20 Binius Tom. 4. Not. in Conc. Florent Sess 25. In vobis c. Cùm Pontifex egisset ut Graeci dicerent quid statuerent de Processione Spiritus de Purgatorio deque divina Transubstantiatione panis Cumque respondissent se admittere Purgatorium c. De Transubstantiatione verò Panis Suorum sententiae inhaesissent confesseth that they did therein Persist in the opinion of their owne Doctors Master Brerely would thinke it an injury done unto himselfe if we should pretermit his objected Authority of Pope Gregory for Doctor Humphrey saith hee doth charge Gregory the Great with Transubstantiation So Master Brerely who objected this in his Apologie many yeares agoe and had a full Answer in an * Appeale lib. 1. Chap. 2. §. 7. The testimony it self cited out of Greg. by Mâ— Brereley is answered in the first Book concerning EATING Appeale made purposely in confutation of his whole Apologie The Summe of that Answer is this Doctor Humphrey did not speake that as grounded upon any sentence of Gregory but onely upon the report of a Romish Legend supposing it to be true which in the â—udgement of Romish Doctors themselves whose Testimonies are there cited Is unworthy to report the memory of the fact being in it selfe fond filthy and frivolous the Author whereof may seeme to have a face of Iron and a heart of Lead and the Objector namely Master Brerely for grounding his Objection on a Legendary History A Falsisier of his owne promise This Answer was home one would thinke and might justly have provoked him to satisfie for himself if hee could have found any Errour therein yet notwithstanding for want of better service bringeth he in these Cole-worts twise sod CHALLENGE VVHat greater Vnconscionablenesse could your Disputers bewray than by so torturing the Hyperbolicall Figurative and Sacramentall Sayings of Ancient Fathers for proofe of the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ insomuch that they must bee consequently constrained by the force of some Phrases contrary both to the meaning of the same Fathers and to the Doctrine of your owne Romish Church to admit of three other Transubstantiations viz. First of Christ his Body into whatsoever the Appetite of the Communicant shall desire Secondly of Christ his Body into the Body of every Christian And Thirdly of the Body of every Christian into the Body of Christ As the Testimonies objected plainly pronounce âšœ Besides which you may adde a Fourth of Bread into the Deity of Christ And againe a Fift out of Chrysostome of the Wicked receivers turned into Wolves as you have heard As also for a Sixt from others of the Change of * Set the 9 §. following Dioâ—ysius Godly Receivers into God A Seaventh out of Saint Augustine of Changing saith he of Christ * See Booke 5.
Dei modus igitur edendi Patribus à nostro diversus quia Substantialis hodiè manducatio quae tunc esse non potuit nempe dum carne pro nobis immolatâ Christus nos pascit ut vitam ab ejus substantia hauriamus Ibid. pag. 83. Calvin himselfe as would make any Romish Adversary blush at your former Calumnies who hath not abandoned shamefastnesse it selfe ⚜ As that your Doctor must needs have done 1 Dr. Heskins in his Parliam of Christ Book 3. cap. 48. who therefore upbraided Protestants with their Common Bread onely because they denyed it to be Transubstantiated into Christ's Body even in the same his Booke wherein notwithstanding he confesseth the Shew-Bread delivered to David by Abimelech to have beene no Common Bread Which because it was before Christ incarnate in the flesh you your selves will sweare was not Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ and yet notwithstanding was it no Common Bread CHALLENGE THus may you see that wee have not hitherto so pleaded for the Existence of the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration as thereby to exclude all Presence of Christ his Body nor so maintained the proprietie of a Signe or Figure as not to beleeve the thing signified to be exhibited unto us as you have heard With what blacke spot of malignity and falshood then were the Consciences of those your Doctors defiled thinke you who have imputed to Protestants a Profession of using onely bare Bread which they notwithstanding teach and beleeve to bee a Sacred Signe of the true Body of Christ in opposition to Heretikes an Evangelicall Signe of the Body of the Messias crucified against all Iewish conceit yea a Seale of Ratification yea and also a Sacramentall Instrument of conveying of the same precious Body of Christ to the soules of the faithfull by an happy and ineffable Conjunction whereof more hereafter in the * In the fift Book throughout Booke following where the consonant doctrine of the Church of England will likewise appeare And as your Disputers are convinced of a malicious Detraction by the confessed positions of Protestants so are they much more by your owne Instance of a Crucifix◠for which of you would not hold it a great derogation from Christ that any one seeing a Crucifix of wood now waxen old should in disdaine thereof call it a wooden or rotten Blocke and not account them irreligious in so calling it but why onely because it is a signe of Christ crucified Notwithstanding were the Crucifix as glorious as either Art could fashion or Devotion affect or Superstition adore yet is it but a signe invented by man And therefore how infinitely more honourable in all Christian estimation must a Sacramentall Signe be which onely the God of Heaven and Earth could institute and Christ hath ordained to his Church farre exceeding the property of a bare signe as you have heard A Father delivering by politike assurances under hand and seale a portion of Land although an hundred miles distant and conveying it to his Sonne by Deed if the Sonne in scorne should terme the same Deed or writing blacke Inke the Seale greasie Waxe and the whole Act but a bare signe were he not worthy not only to loose this fatherly Benefit but also to be deprived of all other the temporall Blessings of a Father which hee might otherwise hope to enjoy yet such like have beene your Calumnies and opprobrious Reproaches against our celebration of the Sacrament of Christ The Lord lay not them to your Charge Now you who so oppose against the Truth of the Mysticall Presence will not conceale from us that Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ which your Church doth so extremely dote on CHAP. II. The Romish professed maner of Presence of Christs Body in this Sacrament SECT I. OVr Methode requireth to consult in the first place in all Questions with the words of Christ his Institution but seeing that you can allege nothing for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament but only a literall Exposition of Christ's words This is my Body which by Scriptures Fathers your owne Principles and by unanswerable Reasons hath beene * Booke 2. proved to be most grosly false wee shall not need to insist further upon that only wee shall but put you in mind of Saint Pauls words in teaching the use and end of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament to wit The shewing of Christ's death untill his coming againe meaning corporally at the last day Which word VNTILL being spoken of a last day doth exclude your coming againe of Christ in his Corporall Presence every day for the Apostles word is absolutely spoken of his Bodily Coming and not of the maner therof albeit other Scripture teach that his Coming must be in all glorious Visibility We goe on In the Eucharist saith your m Si quis negaverit in sanctissima Eucharistia contineri verè realiter substantialiter corpus sanguinem Christi Anathema sit Concil Trid. Sess 13. Can. 1. Nos dicimus Dominum Christum corporalitèr sub specie panis conemeri Gre. Valent. Tom. 4. disp 6. qu. 3. pag 1. Councell of Trent is contained truly really and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ and they account him Accursed whosoever shall not beleeve this By all which is signified a Corporall maner of presence excepting onely Relation to place which we say is in many respects impossible as wee shall prove but first wee are to remove two Mil-stones for so you esteeme your Objections which you cast in our way of Demonstration of a Corporall Presence First de facto from as you say Miracles manifesting the same And the Second is your Pretence of Omnipotencie for the effectuating that Presence The pretended principall Romish Demonstration of a Corporall Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in this Sacrament taken from pretended n Supremus Iorus detur miraculis veluti testimonis 〈◊〉 Dei Bozius de finis Eccles lib 14. cap. 7. pag. 170. Miraculous Apparitions of visible Flesh and Blood revealed to the World SECT II. TRue Miracles wee shall hold as Gods Seales of Divine Truth if therefore you shall allege any such for proofe of a Corporall Presence see they be true else shall wee judge them not to be Gods Seales but the Devills Counterfaits Your Bozius one of the number of the Congregation of the Oratory in Rome professedly studied in historicall learning and appointed to extract out of all Authors whatsoever may make for defence of all Romish Causes after his diligent search into all ancient Records as it were into the Ware-houses of all sorts of stuffes having collected a packet of Apparences useth his best Eloquence to set forth his merchandize to sale telling us by the way of Preface o Hic ea tantummodò referemus quibus est palam factum divinitus in Eucharistia verum corpus esse oculi humani viderunt quod est omnium
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
includi in paâ—vâ pixide cadere in terram coÌ„mburi rodi à bestâ—a Annon credunt Christum parvulum inclusum in angustissimo utero eundem potuisse in via caâ— ere humi jacuisse remoto miraculo à bestia morderi combuâ—i potuisse si ita pati potuit in propria specie cur miâ—um videtur si illa sine laesione in specie aliena eidem accidere posse dicamus Bellar. l. 3 de Euc. cap. 10. §. Deniquè Many saith your Cardinall can scarce endure to heare that Christ is included in a Boxe fallen to the earth burnt or eaten of Beasts as though wee doe not read that Christ was included in the Wombe of the Virgin lay upon the Earth and might without any Miracle have beene eaten of Beasts why may not such things now happen unto him but sine laesione without any hurt at all So hee Joyne with this the Determination of your o Aquinas Etiamsi caâ—is hostiam consecratam manducet substantia corporis Christi non definit esse sub speciebus part 3. quaest 80. art 3. Schoole That the Substance of Christ his Body remaineth still although the Hoast be eaten with Dogs But Master Brerely more cunningly that hee might not only disguise your opinions but also make Protestants odious if it might be for their exceptions against them doth readily tell us that Pagans Iewes and Heretikes conceived Indignities against some mysteries of Christian Religion as against Christ his Incarnation and his Crucifying So he Both which Answers are but meere tergiversations by confounding the two most different conditions of Christ That then in the state of his humiliation with This which is Now in the highest exaltation of Glory Wee therefore rejoyne as followeth Your Disputers have so answered as if Christ his Incarnation in the Wombe of a Virgin his Conversation upon earth and his Passion upon the Crosse were not objects of Indignity notwithstanding the Spirit of God hath blazed them to the world to have beene the Indignities of all Indignities Thus * Philip. 2. 6. Who being in the forme of God and thinking it no robbery to be equall wiâ—h God yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made himselfe of no reputation but tooke upon him the forme of a servant such was his Incarnation and became obedient to death even spoken for aggravating the Indignity thereof The shamefull death of the Crosse Than which never any thing could make more either for the magnifying of Gods grace and mercy or for the dignifying of Christ his merit for man as it is written * Ioh. 3. 16. God so loved the World that he sent his Sonne namely to suffer that whosoever should believe in him should not perish but have life everlasting How could your Aâ—swerers but know that it was not the observation of the Indignities which Christ suffered that wrought to the condemnation of Pagans Iewes and Heretikes but their faithlessenesse in taking such scandall thereat as to deprive themselves by their Infidelity of all hope of life by Christ crucified Hearken furthermore That the state of Christ his Humanity cannot be now obnoxious to bodily Indignities and that the Comparing both the Estates in your answering is unworthy the learning of very Catechumenists and Petties in Christian Religion SECT V. THis Disproportion betweene Christ his estate in the dayes of his flesh in this World and his now present Condition at the right hand of God is as extreamely disproportionable as is * 1. Cor. 15. Mortality and Immortality Shame and Glory Misery and Blessednesse Earth and Heaven that being his state of Humaliation and this Contrariwise of his Exaltation as all Christians know and professe And although the Body of Christ now in eternall Majesty be not obnoxious to Corporall injuries yet may Morall and Spirituall abasements be offered unto Christ as well in the Opinion as in the Practise of men Of the Opinion we have an Example in the Capernaites concerning Christ whensoever hee should give his Flesh to be eaten carnally for the Practice you may 〈◊〉 before you the Corinthians who abusing the Sacrament of the Lord did thereby contemne him and were made guilty of high Prophanation against the glorious Body of Christ And what else soundeth that Relative injury against Christ by murthering his Saints on earth complained off by his voice from Heaven * Act. 9. 4. Saul Saul why persecutest thou mee Your Cardinall in answer to the Objection of Indignity offered to Christ by putting him in a Boxe and of being Eaten with Wormes and the like opposed as you have heard saying Why may not such things now happen unto him but sine laesione that is without any hurt Wee answer that if he should suffer nothing in his humanity passively to the Laesio corporis that is hurt of the Body yet should there be thereby in the opinion of men Laesio dignitatis that is a lessening and obscuring of that his Dignity which is set forth in Scripture and which our Article of faith concerning his Bodily sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven teacheth us to be in all Celestiall glory and Majesty This your Aquinas well saw when in regard of Indignity hee judged it a Nesas nunc esset Christum in propriâ specie in pixiâ—le includi putare A. quin. part 3. quaest 76. art 8. An hainous wickednes for any to thinke Christ should be inclosed in a Boxe appearing in his proper forme And what greater difference can it be for a Body to be Boxed under another forme more than when that one and the same Person is knowne to be imprisoned whether open-faced or covered whether in the day or in the night it mattereth not much for still the same person is shut up in prison Againe if that these Circumstances now spoken of were not Arguments of Indignity why do your Jesuites in a point of Opinion deny that Christs Body is Transubstantiated into the flesh of the Communicant because of the * See hereafter Booke 5. Chap. 7. §. â— Indignity against his Majesty Come wee to the point of Practice Let this be our Lesson when there is Reverence in the use of a thing then there may be Irreverence and Indignity in the abuse thereof But your Church hath provided that the Priests Beards be shaven and that the Laicks abstaine from the Cup in a pretence of Reverence The first lest some part of the Hoast which you beleeve to be the Body of Christ should hang on the Priest's Beard the second lest any whit of Christs Blood in the Cup should be spilt But how much more Indignity must it needs be to be devoured of Mice Wormes and sometimes as your owne * See above in this Book C. 2. Sect. 2. stories have related kept close in a Dunghill One word more If these seeme not sufficiently indigne because there is not Laesio corporis Hurt to the Body this being your onely Evasion what will you say of
your framing a Christ unto your selves who as hee is in this Sacrament Is you say without power of motion of sense and of understanding Why my Masters can there be Lamenesse Blindnesse Deafenesse and Impotencie it selfe without Hurt of the same party so maymed c. This is worse than your dirty imagination of placing him in a Dunghill âšœ A Vindication of the former Truth against the palpably-Absurd albeit amongst you most plausible Defence of your seeming Romish Absurdities in Master Fishers Answer to KING JAMES of Blessed and ever surviving Memory SECT VI. HIs Tractate upon Transubstantiation so greatly magnified of the Romish Professors is very large wee shall draw his principall Points into a Compendium which consisteth of two Generalls and of divers Particulars His two Generalls are his Position and Supposition Master Fisher his Generall Position for Defence of Romish Absurdities the Consequences of your Transubstantiation Numb 1. A Christian Catholike saith he Seeing in the doctrine of Transubstantiation many seeming Absurdities that presse carnall Imaginations to the ground growes more and more strong to believe them imbracing these difficulties as signes of that doctrine which was believed of the Primitive Church And againe The seeming Absurdities should rather incline a Christian to beleeve this mystery Our Reply in Generall to prove that his former Assertion may truly be termed FISHERS FOLLIE For if the Absurder a thing be it shall deserve a more beliefe then the Pagans of whom Tully could say There is nothing so Absurd which is not taught of some Philosopher even to the affirming of Snow to be Blacke should be held to be more faithfull than the best of Christians and Heretikes who have turned their Phantasticall dreames into Articles of Faith should be judged to be more true Beleevers than are true Catholikes And sure wee are that by this Position the Jewish Rabbins who taught the people to beleeve in an implicit Faith all their Doctrines albeit it were to hold his Left hand was his Right should bee esteemed no lesse Faithfull than the Papist who by like Doctrine of blind Obedience have professed that Christ his Bodie being in divers Hoasts taketh the Right hand and left hand of it selfe And by the same Assertion shall Master Fisher thinke himselfe to be a better Catholike than were any of the ancient Fathers or yet any Romish Doctor yea or than is M. Fisher himselfe as will appeare in the sequele of our Reply The second Generall is Master Fisher his Supposition Numb 2. Master Fisher his Supposition is That although the Absurdities which are imputed by Protestants to your Doctrine of Transubstantiation seeme to be such Because they are not apprehensible by reason yet are they therefore saith he the rather to be beleeved notwithstanding whatsoever Impossibilities that can be pretended So hee Our Confutation must be accordingly two-fold The first in respect of Impossibilities and the next of Indignities Our Reply displaying the Absurditie of Master Fishers Supposition in respect of Impossibilities by the Generall Doctrine of Fathers Consent of Romish Divines and by his owne particular Praevarication First the Ancient Fathers of the Primitive age have unanimously professed a Doctrine of an Absolute Impossibility in all such things which imply any Contradiction as you have * See above in this B. 4. cap. 3. Sect. 2. 3. heard and maintaining this Doctrine of granting an Impossibilitie in such Cases to be a Truth greatly magnifying the Omnipotencie and Almighty power of God even by reason of Contradiction in them which is an affirming and denying of the same thing Concluding furthermore that gain-saying of Impossibilitie in things contradictory hath beene anciently The Sanctuary of Heretikes So the holy Fathers Secondly all the Doctors of the Romish Schooles of whatsoever Age Sect Society or Denomination have subscribed to the judgement of those Ancient Fathers in the same point of Impossibilitie but why Impossibility Because say they that such things are unconceivible in mans reason and that they seeme Absurd because of Contradiction And hereupon have concluded of many Impossibilities touching a Body as for example * See above c. 3. Impossible for a Body to be produced in divers places at once Impossible for a quantitie of a Bodie not to possesse a place Impossible for Christs Body as in this Sacrament to goe from one place to another Impossible for the same Bodie to be equall with a greater quantity and many other more Impossibilities have they reckoned upon the same ground that the Reason of man could apprehend nothing in such points but an implication of Contradiction And now all these great pillars of Christianity as well in the Vniversall Church Primitive as in the now Romish must by Master Fishers former Assertion be held to have beene no better than underminers of the Christian Faith in that they did not Rather beleeve those things to be possible even because they seemed Impossible by reason of Contradiction Lastly to come to Master Fisher his owne Praevarication * Mr. Fisher in his Answere to the 〈◊〉 upon the seventh point which is the â—ommunion in both kinds How can the Body of Christ saith hee be without either Blood or Soule unlesse it were dead and so should Christ be massacred in this Sacrament and that Eucharist be a Bloody Sacrifice and Christ glorious in Heaven cannot say truly that a Body voyd of Soule Blood and Sense is his Body Yea as Calvin himselfe confesseth It is an Absurd maner of speech to terme Christ the meere Bodie of Christ So hee Whereupon hee will be found so implicated within the horâ—es of a Dilemma that hee cannot expedite himselfe For say good Master Fisher should a Christian man as you have sayd the rather beleeve a Doctrine because it seemeth to be Absurd wee speake of sensible Objects why then do you not beleeve these Absurdities which you your selfe now do so utterly therefore condemne But do you indeed condemne them because they seeme impossible and Absurd why then have you broached a Doctrine of Rather beleeving things because of their seeming Impossiblities So easie it is for a Patron of Absurdities to prove himselfe notably Absurd Master Fisher his Generall Supposition in respect of Seeming Indignities happening to the Bodie of Christ from the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Numb 3. As hee sayd of Absurdities in respect of Impossibilitie so doth hee also argue from Seeming Indignities condemning Protestants for arguing against Transubstantiation because of Seeming Indignities As in not conceiving Christs Bodie saith hee to be combined unto the Consecrated formes of Bread and not to be polluted with such Indignities and Obscenities So he Our Reply As though no other Indignities might be imputed to Romish Doctrine except it were in such like Cases wherein the Bodie of Christ should receive some Corporall hurt or pollution There were and are amongst the Romish * See Booke 5. cap. 7. Sect. 1. Professors and that no small Babes who have taught a
guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ will thereby sufficiently confute your Consequence which is that because the Wicked are guiltie of Christs Body Ergo his Body is Corporally present in them But wee pursue you yet further That a Guiltinesse of Contempt of Christs Body and Blood is to be acknowledged in all Prophane Neglect even in not communicating thereof by whatsoever person capable of this Blessed Sacrament SECT V. GVilty of the Lords Body that is Guilty of the Contempt thereof as you well know Now because Contempt of a good thing is as well seene in a wilfull refusing to receive as in a Contemptuous maner of Receiving the Guiltinesse by the same Contempt must needs be against the thing offered whether it be Corporall or Spirituall and Consequâ—ntly against the Giver himselfe In which respect Christ compareth the Refusers of the promises of the Gospell of Salvation unto beastly Hogs which trample under their feete Pearles of highest price even because they would not beleeve them Beleeving being our Spirituall Receiving From the same Guilt of Contempt followeth the Obnoxiousnesse to punishment denounced by our Saviour * Luc. 9. 5. To shake off the dust of their feate for a testimony against them in not receiving the Gospell of Peace Therefore is that saying of Hierome common to every Sacrament * Below Sect. 6. Contempt of a Sacrament saith hee is the Contempt of him whose Sacrament it is As also that other of Rupertus saying y Rupertus in Ioh. 6. Si quis existimat illo SacrameÌ„to se non egere in eo ipso quod manducare bibâ—ere contemnit quantumvis Catholicae professionis homo sit a Societate membrorum Christi quae est Ecclesia se praecidit c. The not receiving the Eucharist if it be in Contempt doth separate the Contemner from the society of the members of Christ Hence it was that whereas a Quemadmodum enim accedere frigidè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sic non communicare de istis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in 1. Câ—â— â—0 Hom. 24 Chrysostome called mans Indâ—votion in receiving the Eucharist Dangerous hee named the Contempt of Not participating thereof Pestilence and death it selfe But not to presse you further with other such like speeches of the Fathers wee shall referre you to your Divines of Collen who in their Councel censured those who Contemptuously refused to Communicate of this Sacrament to be but b Conc. Provinciaâ—e Coloniense fol. 29. Cap. 14. Qui non 〈◊〉 hunc panem vitae qui de coelo descendit accipere desideâ—ant homines solo nomine Christiani sunt Capernaitis deterioâ—es etiam voluntariè in filium Dei peccantes 〈◊〉 Coâ—pori Dominico sanguini contumeliam inferentes terribilis quaedam expectatio jâ—dicij manet only in name Christians worse say they than the Capernaits offering Contumely marke wee pray you against your Rhemists to the Body and Blood of Christ and are made thereby Obnoxious to the terrible judgement of God A Conclusion whereby is satisfied from your owne Doctors your owne maine Objection even in Terminis terminantibus as the Schoole speaketh professing both mans Guiltinesse of Christs Body in not receiving this Sacrament and Obnoxiousnesse thereupon unto Gods judgement as also hath beene evinced by the Judgement of S. Augustine in the former Section As for the objected speech of Saint * Objected by Bellarmine above §. 2. Cyprian it is of â—asie disgestion because Comparisons of Magis and Minus as learning teacheth are altered upon all different respects Some in persecution denyed Christ in the extremity of their feare and some in their wilfullnesse prophaned the Sacrament of the Eucharist instituted by Christ This latter is the greater sinner before God who judgeth sinne not onely Secundum actum aut effectum according to the wicked deed done but Secundum Affectum that is but much more according to the Depraved Affection and Disposition of the mind of the Doer In which respect wee may well thinke that Iudas his traiterous and scornefull Kisse was more hainous than Peters perjurie Have you not read what the Apostle hath written against such as Apostate from their Faith and vow of Baptisme saying * Hebr. 6. 6. They Crucifie unto themselves the Sonne of God which is much more than Cyprian spake of the Guilty Receiver of the Eucharist yet dare not you conclude that therefore there is a Corporall presence of Christ in the Water of Baptisme And as in the Guilt of sinne so is it in the Guilt of punishment also which followeth sinne as a shadow doth a Body In which consideration Augustine doth parallell Baptisme and the Eucharist together saying c Aug. lib â—ontra Fulgent 〈◊〉 Sicut qui manduâ—â—t bibit sanguinem Domini indignè judicium sibi manducat bibit Sic qui indignè accipit Baptisâ—a judicium sibi accipit noâ— salutem As hee that drinketh the Blood of the Lord unworthily drinketh his owne judgement So doth hee who receiveth Baptisme unworthily By these Premises you will furthermore easily discerne that you other Romish Doctors have beene no lesse ignorant than they were arrogant in concluding it to be an Infallible Consequence that because Christ receiveth an injury in his Body and Blood by the abuse of the Sacrament of the Eucharist therefore his Body and Blood is Corporally present therein As if they would teach by the like Inference that because the Empresse d Contumelia illata imagini ad personam repraesentatam pertinere censetur Nota est historia Theodo siâ— de vindicta quam in Antiochenos exercuit propter dejectam Imperatâ—cis imaginem Niceph. lib. 13. Hist c. 43. Teste Suarez Ies Tom. 1. in 3. Thom. Disp â—4 §. 3. Eudocia was as is confessed reproached by the Citizens of Antioch in their despight wrought upon her Image therefore was shee personally present in the same Image Yea and your selves when you plead for the Reverend use of Images can be content to take your reason from the e Non enim levem injuriam seculi Principes sibi putabunt illatam in quolibet numismate a Subjectis despici noverint calcari Speculum antiquae devotâ—onis circa Missam a Ioh. Coclâ—o ex Walfrido Cap 8. Example of Kings or Princes as being injured by the abuse of their pictures You seeme to be zealously bent against all unworthy usage of this â—oly Sacrament it is well yet were it better that you saw your owne Guiltinesse to repentance Forasmuch as every one is an Vnworthy Receiver in the judgement of Saint f Ambros in 1. Cor. 11. Indignus est Domino qui aliter mysterlum celebrat quam ab â—o traditum est Ambrose who doth celebrate it otherwise than was appointed by Christ himselfe Your Ten Transgressions of Christ his Institution in this Sacrament discovered in the First Booke convinceth you of a Ten-fold Guiltinesse of the Vnworthy Receiving of this Mysterie Your last Objection
out of Theodoret. That Christ gave to Iudas his precious Body And Lastly out of Saint Augustine 8 In 1. Cor. 11. Aug. lib. contra â—ulgent Donatist Dr. Heskins in his parliament of Christ Chap. 48 fol 369. That hee that drinketh the Blood of the Lord unworthily drinketh Iudgement unto himselfe So your Doctor Wee shall helpe him with another Testimonie of 9 Aug. lib. 5. de Baptismo Chap. 8. Iudas peccavit corpus Domini non malum accipiendo sed malâ— pag 369 Tract 6. 〈◊〉 Apostolus ait Qui edit indigne Reus est corporis Domini de ijs dictum qui corpus Do mini velut quem libet cibum sumebant c. Augustine that Iudas sinned in wickedly receiving the Body of Christ. But not to usurpe in this place the Answer of your owne Doctors unto the Ordinary speeches of Chrysostome in his Homilies noting his Rhetoricall Hyperboles wee answer directly from Saint Augustine himselfe who hath already told you that the calling Bread the Body of Christ is not spoken in the strictnesse of the truth of the thing but in a Mysticall Signification that is said your owne Romish * See above â— 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. Glosse unproperly The same Answer may serve for the Objected place of 10 Cypriâ—n de Coena Dâ—m Sacramenta quidem quantum in se sunt sine propria virtute esâ—e non possunt nec ullo modo divina majetas absentat se mysterijs sed quamvis ab indignis se sumi contingi Sacramenta permittant non possunt tamen spiritus esse participes quorum infidelitas tantae sanctitudini contradicit And a 〈◊〉 after Sicut corporea natura substantiâ potus esuâ— ita vita spiritus hoc proprio alimento nutritur A little before Haec mâ—â—erâ— alijs odo viâ—ae in vitam alijs mortis in mortem quia omâ—no justum ut tanto priventur beneficio graâ—â—ae contemptores Objected by Dr. Heskins in his Parliament of Christ B. 3. c. 49. Cyprian wherein furthermore wee find a cleare Distinction betweene the Being of Christs Body Sacramentally in the Eucharist together with the Receiving thereof and it 's Being Spiritually Concerning the Sacramentall virtue namely the thing signified which is ministerially offered to every Communicant in every Divine Sacrament but that this should be effectuall to any Communicant it is necessary that his Receiving be Spirituall For Grace is the virtue of Baptisme to every Person baptized yet according to the termes of Schooles Hee who either by his Infidelity or Impenitency shall Obicem ponere that is set a Barre and resist that Grace hee doth not receive it A man that receiveth with his hand a politike Instrument and Scale offered unto him yet if hee yeeld not his Consent to accept of the Guift it selfe therby conveyed and in the maner that hee ought it may well be sayd that the thing thus bequeathed is really tendered yet in respect of the Parties Contemning it although it be touched and taken after the publike and Civill touch yet notwithstanding is hee not partaker thereof For which Cause it is added in Cyprian that These are therefore the Savour of Life unto Life to some and the Savour of Death unto the Contemners of them which as the Scripture teacheth is common to the preaching of the Word of God likewise Besides do you not marke thaâ— Cyprian speaketh of Sacramenta Sacraments in generall But you have * See above â— 1. c. 3. § 6. at 〈◊〉 told us that the two parts of the Eucharist make but One Sacrament and then may you by the same Alchymie as well extract a Corporall Presence of Christ out of Baptisme as out of the Eucharist That the Vngodly do not Communicate of Christs Body in Receiving the Eucharist is the Determinate Iudgement of Antiquity and Consequently argueth a No-Corporall presence of Christ as an Vnion with him in the Eucharist SECT VIII AFter that you have heard the Symbolicall Phrases of the Fathers so Dissonantly objected for proofe of a Bodily Presence of Christ in the Eucharist Hearken I pray you to their accurate and Determinate Resolutions to the Contrary The Fathers in the Margin deliver their Judgements sometime in an Affirmative locution concerning each true Communicant and partaker of Christs Sacred Body and Blood saying of every such a one that 11 Irenaeâ— adversus Haeres lib. 5. confesseth Caro sanguine Christi nutrita membrum ejus est Hee is a member of Christ So Irenaeus And 12 Cyrill Alex. in Ioh lib. 11. c 26. Vnio haec per quam nos inter nos omnes cum Deo conjungimur Et l. 4. c. 10. Qui edunt panem viâ—ae immortalitatem consequuntur Et lib. 10. c. 13. Christum in nobis habitatuâ—um Hee that eateth this Bread of life is joyned with Christ and Christ dwelleth in him So Cyrill And 13 Origen in Matth 15 Verbum caâ—o factum est quem â—â—bum qui comedit vivet iâ— aeternum quem nullus malus potest comedere alioqui scriptum non esset qui edit vivet in aeternum Whosoever eateth of this meate shall live for ever So Origen And 14 Ambrosius de ijs qui myster initiant c. 8. Est panis iste vivus quem qui comedit vivet in aeternum It is living Bread which who so eateth liveth everlastingly So Ambrose 15 Chrysost Hom. 61. ad Pop. Antioch Tradit unâ—onem ratione cujus dicuntur membra Christi The Vnion is that whereby the Eaters are sayd to be the members of Christ So Chrysostome Sometime more Emphatically in a Negative style 16 Origen vide paulâ— sup Origen No wicked one can eate this meat As also Hierome 17 Hiâ—ronym in Malac. Sordidi mundum sanguinem bibunt namely Sacramentally for the signe of his Body who himselfe in lib. 1. contra â—ovianum calleth it Typus sanguinis And againe in Isaiâ—â—â— 66. speaking conclusively saith Omnes qui non sunt sancti spiâ—itu corpore non comedunt carnem nec bibunt sanguinem eius All that are not holy do not eate Christs Flesh or drinke his Blood Wee reserve Saint Augustine for a peculiar Section and our reason is because your Disputers do so earnestly struggle to draw him to your part but yet most vainely and unconscionably as will appeare in the Section following Now whether side yours or ours can more satisfactorily reconcile the seeming Contradictions of the Fathers in saying and gain-saying the Eating of Christs Flesh by the Wicked it will stand with equity and good Conscience that they may carry the Cause Your All-answer and the Answer of you All is by Distinction saying that The wicked eate the Body of Christ Corporally in this Sacrament by a Bodily Touch but they eate it not Spiritually for they eate it not worthly and in that respect are said not to eate it So you As if the Fathers in denying the Wicked to be partakers
Notandum non corde tantum sed etiam ore dici Bellar. Ibid. yet it followeth immediatly in S. Augustine giving this generall Rule for such Sayâ—ngsâ— Agi in omnibus Scripturis secundùm sanae fidei regulam â—igurativè dictum vel factum si quid exponitur de quibusâ—ibet rebus verbis quae in sacris paginis continentur expositio illa duâ—atur c. Teaching in all other Scriptures as in this a figurative sense wherein any matter of Horror or Turpitude may seeme to be contained Objector noteth as being very not able for the Orall Receiving Corporally albeit the same S. Augustine immediatly expresseth that this all other such speeches are to be understood figuratively and unproperly V. But Pope Leo is brought in saying r Leo Serâ— 14. de passione Christi Ipsum per omnia spiritu catne gustemus Ob Bellar. quo supra cap. 28. Gustemuâ—â— pro Gestamus for hee speakes of Baptisme lawfully administred where by we are said to put on Christ Gal. 3. By which saith hee Corpus regenerati fiat caro Crucisixi Other places objected out of Leo wee grant as Serm. 6. de 〈◊〉 7. Hoc ore sumitur quod cordâ— creditur And so say we Ore Sacramentally Gustamus Wee tast with our Flesh the Flesh of Christ Nay but you have corrupted his Saying for his word is Gestamus We beare or carrie it namely by being Baptized as there is expressed whereof the Apostle sayd You have put on Christ VI. But Pope Gregorie say you saith Å¿ Greg Papa Hom. 22. in Evang. Qui sanguis super â—â—â—que postem ponitur quando non solum ore corpous sed etiam ore cordis hauritur Ob. Rollar lib 2 de Euch. cap. 23. But Gregorie a little after of Baptisme Et in superlim nare domus agni sanguinem poâ—imus quia crucem illius passionis in fronte portamus The Blood of Christ is sprinkled upon both Posts when we receive it both with heart and mouth Which we say he spake with the same Impropriety of speech wherein he addeth equivalently that The Blood of Christ is sprinkled upon the upper postes when wee carry in our fore-heads by Baptisme the Signe of the Crosse VII But t Isych l. 6. in Levit. c. â—2 Per ignorantiam percipit qui nescit quia corpus hoc sanguis est secundùm veritatem c. Ob. Bellar quo supra Yet the same Isych lib. â— in Levit. cap. â— Carnem aptam cibo feclt post passioneâ— si enim non fuiâ—â—et crucifiâ—us sacrificium ejus corporis minime concederemus comedimus autem nunc cibum suâ—ences memoriam passionis None receiveth saith Hesychius save hee that perceiveth the truth of his Blood But how even as hee himselfe there addeth By receiving the memory of his Passion âšœ In all the former Sentences of Saint Augustine Pope Leo and Pope Gregorie all that wee reade of is that the Body of Christ is Received in the Sacrament not onely with the heart or by Faith but also with the mouth And so will any Protestant affirme not only in the same words of the Fathers but also in their owne genuine Sense if Saint Augustine who is objected in the first place may interpâ—et his other Contests who in a Section before sayes as you have heard that Bread is called Christs Body not in the Truth of the things namely of propriety of speech according to the letter but in a Significant mysterie or Mysticall Signification To signifie unto us that Christs Body is in our heart Really and in our mouths Sacramentally âšœ VIII But Optatus tels us u Optat. Milevit lib. 6. contr Parmen In Altaribus Christi membra sunt portata Altare sedes est corporis sanguinis Christi Immane facinus quando fregistis calices sanguinis Christi Obijcit Bellarm. quo supra Albeit the same Optatus paulò post Iudaeos estis imitati illi injecerunt manus Christo à vobis passus est in Altari Idem Ibidem Altaria in quibus membra Christi portata sunt Paulò post Dum impiè persequimini manus nostras illic ubi corpus Christi habitabat fecistis vestras Hoc modo Iudaeos imitati estis illi injecerunt manus Christo in cruce à vobis passus est in Altari that The members of Christ are upon the Altar And that The Altar is the Seat of his Body and Blood and that it is an bainous thing to breake the Chalices of the Blood of Christ c. Wee grant these to be the Phrases of Optatus indeed which you have objected but alas my Masters will you never learne the Dialect of Ancient Fathers after so many examples as it were lights to illuminate your judgements Wherein as other Fathers have done Optatus will instruct you in his owne language who presently after inveighing against the same Donatists saith Christ is now beaten by you on the Altar So hee by the Hyperbole making Christ to be beaten wherewith hee sayd Christ was seated on the Altar Yea and that the Members of Christ are carried also on the same Altars meaning thereby the Faithfull Communicants as is confessed by your owne * Gabriel Albispin Episc Aureliens Not. in illud Caput Membra Christi Praeter corpus Christi quod in Altari offertur fideles etiam qui cum eo corpore uniti adunati sunt offeruntur 〈◊〉 nostras Id est Sacrificia nostra Fecistis vestras Id est Sacrificia vestra Bishop in the margin Namely in the same Rhetoricall sense wherwith x Aug. Vos estis in Calice vos estis in mensa Teste Beda in 1. Cor. 10. Augustine sayd of all the Faithfull Christian Communicants You are on the Table you are in the Cup. IX Augustine doubted not to say of this Viâ—â—â— word the Sacrament of Christ y De Consecrat Dist 2. Can. Cùm frangitur Dum sanguis de calice in orâ— fidelium funditur Aug. The Lords Blood is poâ—â—ed out into the mouthes of the faithfull And Hierome is as bold to say of the audible word of God that when it is preached z Hier. in Psal 147. Quando audimus sermonem Dei 〈◊〉 Christi sanguis ejus in auribus fidelium sunditur The Blood of Christ by it is powred into the eares of the Hearers Master a Master Brerely Cyprian de Coena Dom. Christus pincerna porrexit hoc pâ—culum docuit ut non solùm exterius hoc sanguine frueremur sed inteâ—ius aspâ—isione omnipotenti animâ muniremur Liturg. Tract 2. §. 2. Subd 4. Brerly would thinke much not to be suffered to put in his Vie in the name of Cyprian Wee are joyned with his Blood not onely outwardly ' but also inwardly our soules are fortified with the Sprinkling thereof So Cyprian What meaneth this not onely outwardly meaning in Body saith Master Brerely and addeth which convinceth our Bodliy Receiving therof So hee From the same
Cyprian who in the same place saith in the same style b Cyprian paulò post Cruci haeremus sanguinem sugimus intra ipsa Redempptoris vulnera figimus linguam c. Wee cleave to his Crosse sucke his Blood and fixe our tongues within the wounds of our Redeemer which are all Sacramentall Allegoricall and Tropologicall Phrases as Cyprian will clearely expresse himselfe in respect of our outward man and spiritually of the inward Wee shall desire Cyprian to be Moderator betweene us in this question before wee come to an end of this Booke CHALLENGE BY this time it may appeare that all your so serious and exquisite Collections out of the Fathers for proofe of a Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament and Vnion with the Partakers thereof are found by this Encounter of just Parallels to be indeed the idle imagination of your Teachers and the erroneous Intoxications of all their Disciples who yeeld assent unto them For to interpret the Figurative speeches of the Fathers literally is all one as to sticke Goose-feathers in their Caps and plainely to befoole them by making them of all others the most egregiously absurd as you have already heard and no lesse fond in the outward letter than are these others that follow to wit of Gaudentius c Gaudent Tract 2. Jubemur Caput Divinitatis ejus cum pedibus Incarnationis manducare Wee are commanded to eate the head of Christ's Deity with the feete of his Incarnation Or the saying of Saint Hierome d Hier. in Psal 147. Ego corpus Iesu Evangelium puto Et cum dicit Qui bibit sanguinem meum licet in mysterio possit intelligi tamen verius sanguis ejus sermo scripturarum est When Christ sayd Hee that drinketh my Blood although it may be understood in a Mystery yet the truer blood saith hee is the word of Scripture Or as before him Origen e Origen in Numb 23. Hom. 16. Bibere dicimur sanguinem Christi non solum Sacramentorum ritu sed cum Doctrinae ejus verba recipimus in quibus vita consistit sicut ipse dicit Ioh. 6. Verba mea Spiritus sunt vita Wee drinke the Blood of Christ saith hee not onely by the rite of a Sacrament but also in receiving his word whereof it is sayd My words are Spirit and Life So they And so just Cause have wee to complaine of the Vnconscionablenesse of your Objectors by their so often abusing the Testimonies of these holy Fathers insomuch that you had need of the often Admonition of your owne Senensis f Saepe monuimus non esse Concionatorum verba semper in rigore accipienda multa enim Declamatores per Hyperbolen enuncâ—t inculcant vel occasione personaâ—um inducti vel affectuum impetu vel orationis cursu rapti Hoc interdum Chrysostomo contigit Sixtuâ— Senenfis Biblioth lib 6. Annot. 152. I have often given warning saith hee that the Sayings of Fathers be not urged in the rigidnesse of their words because they use to speake many times HYPERBOLICALLY and in excesse being either transported by the vehemency of their Affections or carried with the Current of their Speech So hee âšœ Thus have wee satisfied the objected Testimonies of the Fathers by the Fathers owne Equivalent Phrases and Expressions All which challenge your Objectours of Vnconscionablenesse for alleging them contrary to their owne Sense Our next Section of Vnconscionablenesse will pierce deeper by proving that you have alleged the fore-sayd Testimonies of the Fathers against your owne more direct and free Confessions The Vnconscionablenesse of the Romish Disputers in Objecting the former Testimonies of Ancient Fathers from the Confessions of the Romish Doctors themselves SECT VII THis Section is to be divided into two Classes of Authors One is of the Sayings of the Fathers which you have earnestly objected And the other must be of the Confessions of your owne Doctors as well Iesuites as others by whom the literall sense of the same Sayings and Phrases of the Fathers are as liberally and expresly rejected The Termes of the Fathers which have beene alleged in the two former Sections were of these kinds to wit Christs Body received in this Sacrament is Tasted Divided Broken Torne with the Teeth And his Blood Sprinkled and Powred into our mouths and Drunken If any Protestant should say that these speeches of the Fathers are all Improper Figurative and therfore prove not your Conclusion which is that they meant Really a Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament you would say that he interpreted the sayings of the same Orthodox Fathers falsly Heretically according to your maner of phrasing and enâ—tyling Protestants to make their Answerâ— seeme Odious Wherefore wee now crave leave of you that wee may beleeve your owne Doctors themselves from their owne Confessions See the Margin wee meane such who without exception are privileged in your Church By name Lumbard Aquinas Alphonsus de Castrâ— together with your Jesuites Bellarmine Suarez Maldonate Salmeron Sa Vasquez Costerus and others all which tell us * See these in the margin following Luâ—bard lib 4. Dist Dist 12. lit c Veâ—a fractio non fit in corpore Christi sed in specie forma panis Maldonat de Euch. To. 1. Sect. Secundum genus Argumentor Rat. 2. p. 243. Corpus Christi non vere atteritur nec vere frangitur Maldon de Euch. lib. 1. cap. 11. Si aâ—â—ritio actu sit de essentia manducantis dici Christi Corpus non proprié mandueari sed Improprâ—e Tropice Salmâ—ron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 20. Dici Christum non deâ—â—tibus atteri est enim impartibilis manducatâ—o autem realis requirit ut posset Dividi Suâ—rez Ies in 3. Tho. qu. 75. Disp 47. Art 1. §. 4. Frangi metaphorica non propria locutio est ut colligitur ex Tho. qu. 77. Art 7. quià fractio propriè significat divisionem et discontinuationem partium quam constat non fieri in corpore Christi Maldon Ies Si proprie loqui velimus falsae sunt istae propositiones Corpus Christi manducatur a nobis teritur frangitur quia non convenire corpori Christi sed Sacramento teri intelligi quia non proprie Christus frangitur sed Sacramentum So he Lib de Sacramento in genere To. ◠§. Qua propter Vasquez Ies in 3. Tho 〈◊〉 76. 〈◊〉 7. Disp 193. Cap. 2. Hae 〈◊〉 ratione Specierum Christo per figuram tribuuntur quae referuntur ad aliquem sensum vel etiam ad manducationem quae etiam in 〈◊〉 guâ—us consistit Rursus Ratione specierum manducari dicitur nequè enim manducare solum denotat actionem secundum motum quoad locum sed etiam peculiarem actionem sensut gustus mandâ—catio est quaedâ—m actio praevia quae idem videtuâ— arqâ—cibum dentibus premere See lib. 6. cap. 1. §. 4. Bellor Costet Ies Alphonsus Mr. Brereley See above Booke 2. Cap. 2.
§. 4. Dansqueius See above Booke 5. Cap. 4. Sect. 2. Dicere immortales artus Corporis Christi dentibus teri oris Blasphemi est mentis nequissimae Dansqueluâ— pag. 2. 〈◊〉 Respectively I. Of Taste Wee cannot say that one doth Taste of Christs Body properly but by a Figure II. Of Dividing Christ in this Sacrament is whole in every part thereof and cannot be Divided because hee is impartible III. Of Broken Christs Body is not sayd to be Broken in it selfe but onely in the Sacrament of Bread and to say that Christs Body is properly Broken were a false speech and not agreeable to Christs Body IV. Of Tearing Christs Bodie say they cannot be sayd to be Torne but onely Tropically because it is not Divisible and to say that your Church of Rome holds that Christs Body is Torne with the teeth of the Communicants is Blasphemous V. Of Eating The Body of Christ is not absolutely Eaten because if absolutely Eaten then should it be torne with the Teeth and if so then also divided into parts It is therefore sayd to be torne by a Figure because the formes of Bread are torne with the Teeth Of the VI and VII Sprinkling and Powring out of Blood Those are not to be attributed to Christs Blood in the Sacrament because these betoken a Shedding thereof which is a Separation of it from his Body which was never but once on the Crosse nor is it properly Drunken So they That is to say So have they Objected the Sentences of the Fathers and So have they answered and consequently So have also confuted themselves âšœ CHAP. VI. The Third Romish Corporall Vnion of the Bodie of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants is with Swallowing it downe SECT I. YOur Generall Tenet is That the Body of Christ is present in the Bodies of the Receivers So long as the formes of Bread and Wine do continne Nex that a Satis est ut transmissio fiat in stomachum deglutiendo Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euc. cap. 11. It is swallowed downe and transmitted unto the Stomach Yet further that your Priest in your Romane Masse is injoyned to pray saying b Missale Roman authoritate Concilij Tridentini Papa Pij Quarti Ordinarium Missae Corpus tuum Domine quod sumpsi sanguis quem potavi adhaereat visceribus meis O Lord let thy Body which I have taken and Blood which I have drunke cleave unto my Guts or Entrails And a lesse c Missale par 〈◊〉 pro Sacerdotibuâ— in Anglia Iussu Pauls Quintâ— Papae editum Deus qui humani generis utramque substantiam praesentium munerum alimento vegetas renovas Sacramento tribue quaesuâ—us ut 〈◊〉 corporibus nostris subsidium non desit mentibus Missall but yet of equall Authority teacheth all you English Priests to pray saying O God who refreshest both our Substances with this food grant that the supply and helpe hereof may not be awanting either to our Bodies or Soules âšœ Insomuch that your Aquinas concludeth 1 Aquinâ— in 3. qu. 7â— Art 6. ed 3. Subst 〈◊〉 Corporis Christi non desinit esse sub speciebus paâ—is quamdiâ— spâ—cieâ— illa manet That the Body of Christ ceaseth not to be in this Sacrament so long as the forme of Bread continueth in the Eater thereof So hee Not excepting any Eater whether it be Man or Beast thereby embracing this Opinion namely 2 Iosephus Angles Quest de Susâ—â—ption Euch. Art â— Dist Contraria Opinio est Communis Conclusio Brutum comedens Sacramentum verum Corpus Christi divotat fuit expressè definita per Gregorium undecimum Testo nostro Rivâ—to Pictavio in Academ Battaviae Prosessore in lib. Orthodox Cathol Tract 3. qu. 18. That a Beast eating this Sacrament thereby doth Devoure the true Body of Christ which you call The Common Opinion of your Church taught and defined by Pope Gregory the Eleventh âšœ That this former Doctrine is fully and filthily Capernaiticall SECT II. IN this Romish Profession every one may see in your Corporall presence two most vile and ugly Assumptions One is of your Devouring of Christ and feeding bodily on him The other is a Possibility of saying your presence passing him downeward Into the Draught and Seege that being as ill this peradventure worse than any Capernaiticall Infatuation for which cause it was that your Jesuite Maldonate although granting that you do Corporally receive it into your stomachs yet * See above cha 4. §. 2. denyed for shame that you are Devourers thereof But I beseech you what then meaneth that which your Romish Instructions Decrees and Missals as wee have * Ibid. §. 1. heard do teach you to do with the Hoast in case that any either through Infirmity or by Surfet and Drunkennesse shall cast up the same Hoast out of his stomach Wee demand may your Communicants be Vomitores to cast it up againe and can you deny but that they must first have beene Voratores to have devoured that which they do so Disgorge Will you beleeve your Jesuire f 〈◊〉 Ies Tom. 2. Cont. 2. in Ioh. ◠〈◊〉 mea veâ—os est cibus c. votare est â—ine masticatione glutire Osorius To Devoure a thing saith he is to swallow it downe by Chewing Say now do you Swallow the Sacrament by Chewing it then are you Capernaiticall Tearers of Christs Body But do you Swallow it without Chewing then are you Capernaiticall Devourers thereof Say not that because the Bodie of Christ suffereth no hurt therefore he cannot be said by Corporall Swallowing to be Devoured for his Body was not corrupted in the Gâ—ave and yet was it truly Buried and his Type thereof even Ionas without Mastication was Swallowed up into the Belly of the Whale and yet had no hurt Notwithstanding he was first caught and devoured who was afterward cast up and vomited That the same Romish maner of Receiving it downe into the Belly is proved to be Capernaiticall by the Iudgement of Antiquity SECT III. TTheophylact g Theoph. in Ioh. 6. p. 304. Capernaitae putabant quod Christus cogeret eos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voratores carnis suae esse nos hic spiritualiter intelligimus neque carnium voratores sumus noted the Capernaites Opinion to have bin that the Receivers of the Body of Christ are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Devourers of flesh where as the words of Christ saith he are to be understood Spiritually and so will it be knowne that wee Christians what are not Devourers of Christ So he But that Swallowing properly taken is a Devouring hath beene proved and if Devoured then why not also that which is the Basest of all Basenesse passed downe by Egestion into the Seege whereof the Antient Fathers have thus Determined Origen that h Origen in Matth. ca. 15 Quod si quicquid in os ingreditur in ventrem abit in secessum eijcitur Et ille cibus sanctificatus
shewed in the Third Booke III. Vpon the same Sacramentall and Analogicall reason they have used to say that wee See Touch Tast and Eat Christs Body albeit Improperly as hath beene plentifully declared and confessed in this Fift Booke IV. Because Eating produceth a Nourishing and Augmentation of the Body of the Eater by the thing Eaten they have attributed like Phrases of our Bodily Nourishment and Augmentation by Christs Body which you your selves have confessed to be most Improperly spoken in the same Booke V. Almost all the former Vnions Corporall of our Bodies with Christ have beene ascribed by the same Fathers unto the Sacrament of Baptisme wherein there cannot Properly be any Corporall Touch or Conjunction at all As for example in saying I. That Wee in Baptisme hold the feet of Christ II. Are Sprinkled with his Blood III. Do Eat his flesh have Vnion with him in Nature and not onely on Affection IV. Being made Bone of his Bone and Flesh of his Flesh V. Thereby have a Pledge of our Resurrection to Life And a Pledge as you have now heard is of that which is Absent Each one of these and many other the like are abundantly alleged in the Eighth Booke of this Treatise of the Masse The summe of all these Premises is that wee are to acknowledge in the Objected Testimonies of Fathers concerning the Symbol and Sacrament of Christs Body their Symbolicall and Sacramentall that is Figurative Meanings And lest you may Doubt of the reason hereof we adjoyne the Section following The Divine Contemplations which the Holy Fathers had in uttering their Phrases of our Naturall and Corporall Conjunction with Christs Body and Nourishment thereby to Immortality for the Elevating of our minds to a Spirituall apprehension of his Body and Blood SECT V. YOur Jesuites Bellarmine Tolet Suarez and Vasquez have already instructed you not to take such Sayings of the Fathers as they are uttered lest the Fathers might be held to be Absurd in themselves or Derogatory to the Dignity and Majesty of this Sacrament And they say well But it had beene better if they had furthermore unfolded unto us the Fathers true Mysticall meaning therein which wee must endeavour to do out of the premised Sentences of the same Fathers to the end that you and wee may make an holy and comfortable use of their Divine meditations upon this Sacrament They have sayd I. That Christ hath a Naturall Vnion by his Godhead with God the Father II. That this Godhead of Christ by his Incarnation is united Hypostatically into our Nature of Manhood in him whereby wee have with Christ our Naturall and Corporall Conjunction III. That by the same Hypostaticall Vnion of his Divine and Humane Nature together his Bodily Flesh is become the Flesh of God his Blood the Blood of God IV. That these being the Flesh and Blood of God are become thereby to be Vivificall that is giving Life Blisse and Immortality both to the Bodies and Soules of the Faithfull in Christ V. That the Faithfull by Reason of the Specificall Vnion of their Humane nature with the Humane Nature of Christ are made partakers the reby of his Divine Nature and of all the Infinite Vivification and power of grace in this world and of Glory and Immortality in the world to come wrought by his Death and Passion VI. Both by Baptisme and by the Eucharist wee have a Naturall and Corporall Vnion with the Body of Christ mystically in as much as the Sacrament of Bread and Wine the Choycest Refections of mans Bodily Life are Touched Tasted Eaten and Sensually mixed with our Flesh to the nourishing and augmenting the same untill it become of the Essence of our Bodily Substance unseparably Therfore hath this Sacrament most aptly beene called a Pledge of an unspeakable Vnion of Christs Body with ours unto Immortality and an Earnest of our Resurrection Lastly from this Sacrament there resulteth a Spirituall Vnion continuing in the Faithfull after the Receiving of this Sacrament even all their life long and notwithstanding called by the same Fathers Corporall and Naturall that is as they interpret themselves from the Nature of Faith by believing that Christ had truly a Naturall and Bodily flesh the same Specifically with ours Which Vnion your Jesuites have beene enforced to acknowledge to be in it selfe not Properly a Corporall and Naturall Vnion but Spirituall and Mysticall wrought onely in the Soule But how This indeed is worthy our knowledge as a matter full of Christian Comfort Thus then The Disposition of the Body in Christian Philosophy followeth the Disposition of the Soule For when the Soules of the Faithfull departing this life in the state of Grace and the Soules likewise of the Vngodly passing but from hence into the thraldome of Sin shall resume their owne Bodies by virtue of that Resumption shall be made possessors of Life and Blisse both in Body and Soule and the Wicked contrarily of Curse and Damnation in both according to that Generall Doome Come you Blessed unto the one c. and Goe you Cursed to the other c. Nor will your learned Suarez deny this 22 Suarez in 3. Tho. qu 79. Disp 64. §. 2. Gloria corporis respondet gloriae animae sicut beatitudo animae respondet gratiae charitati ut sicut hoc Sacramentum neque habet nequè haberé potest aliam efficaciam circa gloriam animae praeter eam quam habet circa gratiam charitatem itaque neque aliter pâ—â—est efficere gloriam corporis quam gloriam animae CoÌ„dudit Hoc Sacramentum non aliam conferre vitam immortalitatem corporis quam nutriendo conservando charitatem gratiam The Glory of the Body saith hee dependeth upon the Glory of the Soule and the Happinesse of the Soule dependeth upon Grace therein neither doth the Sacrament any otherwise conferre Immortality to the Body but by nourishing and preserving grace in the Soule Which is Divinely spoken And yet wee have a more Ancient than your Jesuite even Cyprian one of the Ancientest of the Primitive Fathers whose words may serve us for a Comment upon the former objected Sayings of other Fathers Hee in his Discourse of the Supper of the Lord the Blessed Sacrament of our Vnion which the Faithfull Communicants have in receiving it 23 Cyprian de Câ—na Dom. Potus Esus ad eandem pertinent rationem quibus sicut corporea nutritur substantia vivit â—â—colum 〈◊〉 perseâ—erat ita vita spiritus hoc propâ—io alimento nutritur quod est esâ—a 〈◊〉 hoc animae est fides quod cibus corporiâ— est verbum spiritui excellentiori virtute peragens aeternaliter quod agant alimenta carnalia temporaliter As by meat and drinke saith hee the Substance of our Bodies is nourished and liveth in health so the life of the Spirit is nourished with this Aliment For what Meat is to the Flesh that is Faith to the Soule and what Food is to the Body that
digerendus Aug. Tract 26. in Ioh. Panis iste quaerit esurlem interioris hominis Basil in Psalm Est quiddam interni hominis os quo pascitur recipiens verbum vitae qui panis descendit de caelo Wee adde the particular accordant Testimonies of diverse Fathers of whom if you aske What the Meat is which you must believe to Eat in this Sacrament They will tell you Not of the Body but of the Soule If Who must be the Eater Not the outward but the Inward man If What it is that hungreth for this The Inward Soule If What must taste it The Soule If with What mouth That whereof Tertullian said speaking of Christs Flesh It is to be devoured with the Eare ruminated with the Minde and disgested with Faith If How Let Saint Augustine make up the whole harmony Eat his Flesh * See above ch 6. §. 4. This saith hee is a Figurative Speech commanding us to communicate of his Passion and sweetly and profitably close up in our memories that his Flesh was wounded and crucifyed for us So the Fathers Besides many other like Sayings by us already related in the former Sections wherein hath beene opposed out of the Fathers against your Corporall Touch saying of Christ Touch mee not against your Orall Eating thus Not meat of the Tooth but of the Minde against your Swallowing thus Wee Devour not Christs Flesh against your Corporall mixture therewith thus Wee mingle not the Persons and Substances And against your Corporall Transmitting the same Body downe by Egestion thus It descendeth not into the Draught Wee therefore according to the genuine sense of Primitive Fathers answerable to the Doctrine of Christ conclude that such as is our Feeding of Christs Body in this Sacrament such also must be our Eating because Eating is ordained for Feeding But by the universall Consent of all Christian Professours of all ages whether Primitive or Successive Greeke or Romane Protestants or Papists our Spirituall Feeding of Christ Body in this Sacrament is devoyd of all Corporall Instrument or effect Therefore our Spirituall Eating is no way Corporall âšœ CHALLENGE THrice therefore yea foure times unconscionable are your Disputers in Objecting the former Sentences of holy Fathers as teaching a Corporall and Naturall Vnion of Christs Body with the Bodies of the Communicants once because they in true sense make not at all for your Romish Tenet next because they make against it then because the Corporall Conjunction though it be of the Body of Christ and Bodies of Christians in respect of the Object yet for the Matter and Subject it is of Sacramentall Bread united with our owne Bodies in a Mysticall Relation to the Body of our Redeemer and lastly and that principally because they meant a Spirituall Conjunction properly and perpetually belonging to the Sanctifyed Communicants and herein consonant to the profession of Protestants Wherefore Primitive and Holy Fathers would have stood amazed and could not have heard without horrour of your Corporall Conjunction of Christ his Body in Boxes and Dunghills in Mawes of Beasts in Guts of Mice Wormes and Dogs and at length into the Seege as you have taught Fie Fieâ— Tell it not in Gath nor let it be once heard of in any Heathenish Nation to the Blaspheming of the Christian profession and Dishonouring of the Broad Seale of the Gospel of Christ which is the Blessed Sacrament of his precious Body and Blood âšœ Thus much of the Romish Consequence from their Proper and Literall sense of Christs words This is my Body so farre as concerneth Corporall Vnion The next Consequence will be touching the Proper Sacrificing thereof whereunto wee proceed nothing doubting but that wee shall finde your Romish Disputers the same men which hitherto they have appeared to be Peremptory in their Assertions Vnconscionable in their Inforcements of the Sentences of Antiquity Contradictory to themselves and Vaine and Absurd in their Inferences and Conclusions âšœ THE SIXTH BOOKE Entreating of the fourth Romish Consequence which concerneth the pretended proper Propitiatorie Sacrifice in the Romish Masse arising from the depraved Sense of the former words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY and confuted by the true Sense of the words following IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE The State of the Controversie WHo soever shall deny it say your Fathers of a Si quie dixerit non offerri Deo verum proprium Sacrificium aut non esâ—t Propitiatorium Aâ—athema sit cone Triâ— Sess 22. Cap. 1. 3. Visibile cap. 1. Sacramentum verè propitiatorium cap. 2. Trent to bee a true and proper Sacrifice or that it is Propitiatory Let him bee Anatherna or Accisrsed Which one Canon hath begot two Controversies as you b Prima Controversia est 〈◊〉 Missa verè propriè dictum Sacrificium Seâ—undâ— sit nè Propitiatorium Bellar. Prafâ—â—â—â— Tract de Missa know One Whether the Sacrifice in the Masse be a proper Sacrifice 2. Whether it bee truly Propitiatory Your Trent-Synode hath affirmed both Protestants deny both so that Proper and Improper are the distinct Borders of both Controversies And now whether the Affirmers or Deniers that is the Cursers or the parties so Cursed deserve rather the Curse of God wee are forthwith to examine Wee begin with the Sacrifice as it is called Proper This Examination hath foure Trials 1. By the Scripture 2. By the Judgement of Ancient Fathers 3. By Romish Principles and 4. By Comparison betweene this your Masse and the Protestants Sacrifice in the Celebration of the holy Eucharist CHAP. I. Our Examination by Scripture SCriptures alleaged by our Disputers for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice are partly out of the new Testament and partly out of the old In the new some Objections are collected out of the Gospell of Christ and some out of other places We beginning at the Gospell assuredly affirme that if there were in it any note of a Proper Sacrifice it must necessarily appeare either from some speciall word or else from some Sacrificing Act of Christ at his first Institution First of Christs words That there is no one word in Christ his first Institution which can probably inferre a Proper Sacrifice not the first and principall words of Luc. 22. Hoc FACITE DOE THIS SECT I. WHen wee call upon you for a Proofe by the words of Christ we exact not the very word Offering or Sacrifice in the same Syllables but shall bee content with any Phrase of equivalencie amounting to the sense or meaning of a Sacrifice In the first place you object those words of Christ Hoc facite Doe this from which your Councell of a Hoc facite Tunc utà Sancto Synodo definitum est Christus Sacerdotes instituit praecepirgue ut ipsi qui 〈…〉 eis essent corpus ejus immolarent Catechis Trid. de Euch. Num. 58. Trent hath collected the Sacrificing of the Body of Christ which your Cardinall avoucheth with his b Cerium est probari Sacrificium Missae his
Valent Ies lib. 1. de Sacrif Missa c. 4. §. Fatentur p. 519. Eam vim habet verbum Faciendi ut cum Poeta dicit Cùm faciam Vitulà c. Salmer Ies Tim. 9. Tract 27. pag. 205. §. Septiâ—â— Iesuites themselves of your Bellarmines owne Society who in like maner have consulted with the Poet Virgil about his Calfe but as wisely according to our Proverb as Walton's Calfe which went c. For the matter Subject of the Poets Sacrifice is there expressed to have beene Vitula a Calfe You have failed in your first Objection That a Proper Sacrifice cannot be collected out of any of these words of Christs Institution Is GIVEN Is BROKEN Is SHED SECT II. THe Text is Luc. 22. 20. Which Is broken Is given Is shed in the Present Tense and This Is the Cup of the new Testament in my Blood wherein according to the Greeke there is a varying of the Case whereupon your Disputers as if they had cryed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are commonly more Instant in this Objection than in any other some of them spending eight full leaves in pressing this Text by two Arguments one in respect of the Case and another in regard of the Time Of the Grammer point concerning the Case This is the new Testament in my Blood â— Now what of this a Bellarm. de Missa lib. 3. cap. 12. In Graeco Textu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicit Calix qui funditur non hic est sanguis qui funditur itaque indicant sanguinem fundi ut erat in Calice It is not said saith your Cardinall This is the Blood shed for you but This is the Cup shed for you Therefore is hereby meant The Blood which was in the Chalice because wine could not be said to bee shed for us for remission of sinnes But how gather you this Because in the b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greeke saith M. c M. Breerly Liturg. tract â— c. 3. subd 2. Brerely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Cup shed for you varieth the Case from the word Sanguine and the Genus from the word Testamentum and agreeth evidently with Calix so that the Cup being said to be shed proveth the Blood spoken of to bee shed verily in the Cup which drives Beza unto a strange Answer saying that this is a Soloe cophanes or Incongruity of speech So he which Objection he learned peradventure of the d Rhemists Annot. upon Luc. 22. 20. Rhemists who are vehement in pressing the same their Conclusion is This proveth the Sacrifice of Christ's blood in the Chalice as also your Iesuite 2 Gordonus Scotus Ies l. 1. Controvers 3. c. 12. nu 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est nominativi casus necessariò referenduÌ„ ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non dativi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut pertineatad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gordon hath done In which one Collection they labour upon many ignorances 1. As if a Soloecophanes were a prophanation of Scripture by Incongruity of speech which as one e Rodolph Goclenius Professor Marpurg Problem Gram. lib â— Demosthenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cic. 2. de Orat. Bene dicere antem quod est perite loqui non habet definitam aliquam regidnem cujus terminis septa teneatur Voâ— Septa non congruit cum â—â— Bene dicete sed referenda est ad voccm Eloquentiae Ne observeth the like in Plato Virgil Homer pag. 232 233 261 262. Protestant hath proved is used as an Elegancie of speech by the two Princes of Orators Demosthenes for the Greeke and Tully for the Latine and by the two Parents of Poets among the Greeks Homer and by Virgil among the Latines 2. As though these our Adversaries were fit men to upbraid Beza with one Soloecophanes which is but a Seeming Incongruity like a Seeming Limping who themselves confesse f Sixtus Senensis Biblioth lib. 8. pag. ult Nos ingenuè fatemur nonnullas mendas in hac nostra editlona inveniri etiam Soloecismos Barbarismos hyperbata c. Ingenuously that in their Vulgar Latine Translation which is decreed by the Councell of Trent to be Authenticall there are meere Solecismes and Barbarismes and other faults which wee may call in point of Grammar downe right halting 3. As if a Truth might not be delivered in a Barbarous speech or that this could be denied by them who defend Solecismes and Barbarismes which had crept into the Translation of Scriptures saying that g Rhemists Preface before the New Testament Ancient Fathers and Doctors have had such a religious care of former Translations that they would not change their Barbarisines of the Vulgar Latine Text as unbent unbentur and the like 4. As if there were not the like Soloecophanes of Relatives not agreeing with their Antecedents in case whereof you have received from h D. Fulke against Greg. Martin D. Fulke divers * Apoc. l. 4 8. 9. 3. 12 c. Examples 5. As if this Soloecophanes now objected were not justifiable which is defended by the Mirrour of Grammarians i Ioseph Sciligeri Nota in novum Testamentum Luc. 22. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mera est Antiptósis pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza rectè exponit ait duplicem esse Metonymiam Ioseph Scaliger by a figure Antiptôsis and Beza saith hee doth truly expound it Besides it is explained anciently by k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil Reg. Moral 21. Basil a perfect Greek Father referring the Participle Shed unto the word Blood and not unto the Chalice which marteth your Market quite And that this is an undeniable Truth will appeare in our Answer to the next Objection of Time for if by Given Broken and Shed is meant the time future then these words Shed for you for remission of sinnes flatly conclude that hereby is not meant any proper Sacrifice of Christs Blood in the Cup but on the Crosse âšœ Lastly if wee shall answer that the Cup indeed is taken for the Liquor in the Cup which is called Christs Blood per Metonymiain that is Figuratively the signo for the name of the thing Signified whereof you have heard plentifull examples thorowout the second Book you shall never be able to make any Reply One word more Seeing that it is the universall Confession of all your Doctors yea even of the Objectors themselves that * See Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. and in this Sect. in their owne words Christs blood is not perfectly shed in the Eucharist how then can it stand with common modesty to pretenda Proper Sacrifice in the word Shed âšœ Let us proceed therefore to that point that you may know that Beza needed not a Soloecophanes to assoile this doubt Of the Time signified by the Participles Given Broken Shed These words being of the Present time Therefore it plainly followeth that Breaking Giving Christs Body and shedding his Bloud is in the Supper
nisi in cruento sacrificio Crucis Optimè confirmatur testimonio Chrysost in 1 Cor. 11 Effundetur ostendit passionem Et Cap. 3. Frangi dicitur in Cruce quia clavis confixus est Refortur reverand Calicem Relativum Qui Verùm quia effusio non propriè convenit Calici Ideirâ—ò estratione sanguinis qui effundetur in Cruce Barradas Ies Tom. 4. in Evang. lib. 3. cap. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adjoyning a second opiniâ—n in confuting this De effusione in Eucharistia interpretantur Iansenius Bellarminus Maldonasus Verum Ob. Sol. Caliâ— effunditur Continens pro contento sanguine qui effundebatur in cruce Ob. Pro multis dicit pro vobis Sol. Omnes multi sunt ut Entâ—ymius Theophylactus ex Mat. 10. Iesuites Vasquez and Barradas both contending as absolutely for the sense of the Future Tense by both reasons and Fathers and out of them confuting the opinion of Bellarmine by name Each one of which our Premises might be sufficient to free us out and to ensnare you in the Great Straits which your Brother M. Breerly pleasantly talks of âšœ One word more with M. Breerly as only desirous to know of him if he allow of the Tense either Present or Future whether it was straitnesse or loosnesse that occasioned him to deliver it in the Preterimperfect Tense t Liturg. Tract 3. c. 3. subd â— p. 145. Was shed But he will expect that wee answer his reason He urged the word Broken that because this could not be meant of Broken on the Crosse for that His Legs were not there broken according as it was prophesied therefore it must inferre it to have beene Broken at his Supper when he uttered the word Broken Which is like his other maner of Reasons blunt and broken at the point as it became one not much conversant in Scripture else might he have answered himselfe by another Prophecie teaching that the word Broken is taken Metaphorically by the Prophet Esay Chap. 53. speaking of the crucifying and Agonies of Christ and saying He was Broken for our iniquities namely as two of your u Saâ—â—â—ron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 3. c. 3. p. 90. Frangituri â— Clavis Lancâ—â Flagellis â—aniandum est Barradas Tom. 4. in Concord c. 4. è Chrysost in 1 Cor. hom 24. Quod frangitur hoc est quod Clavis frangitur Iesuites acknowledge By nailes speare and whips and is to bee applied to the Breaking of his sinewes nerves and veines as your x Bellarm. Vâ—cunque possit fractio c. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 12. §. Ad quartum Cardinall confesseth That the words of Christ Given Broken Shed are taken for the Future Time proved by the same Text of Scripture and consent of Ancient Fathers SECT III. AS for our selves we before all other Reasons and against all opposition whatsoeuer take our light from the same Scripture immediately after the Text objected wherein it is said of Iudas * Luc. 22. 2â— He that betrayeth me and againe Christ of himselfe * Vers 22. I goe my way both in the Present Tense but both betokening the Futurâ— because neither Iudas at that instant being then present practised any thing nor did Christ move any whit out of his place Even as Christ speaking of his Passion long before this had said in the Present Tense * 〈◊〉 it is in the Greeke Text 〈◊〉 rendred by your Iesuites Maldonate and Tolet upon that 〈◊〉 I lay downe my life Ioh. 10. 17. spoken of the Future Time of his death Lastly if ancient Fathers may be held for indifferent and competent a Origen Hom. 9. in Levit. Effundetur Teste Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 8. Tertull. l. 5. in Marc. Tradetur Teste Bellar. ibid. c. 7. Ambros lib. 4. de Sacram c. 5. Confringetur Athanas in 1. Cor. 11. Tradetur Missa Basilj Effundetur Isidor Comment in Exod. 1 50 Effundetur Theodoret. in eundem locum Tradetur Alexand. Epist 1. Decret Tradetur Fundetur Teste Greg. Valent. Ies lib. 2. de Sacrific Missae c. 5. p. 627. Chrysost Dabitur in 1. Cor. 11. Expositors we have Origen Tertullian Athanasius Basil Ambrose Theodoret Isidore Pope Alexander and Chrysostome All for the Future Tense by their Confringetur Tradetur Effundetur What my Masters is there no learning but under your Romish caps That the Objected words of Christ and the whole Text do utterly overthrow the pretended Sacrifice in the Romish Masse SECT IV. AMong the words of Institution the first which offereth it selfe to our use is the formerly-objected word BROKEN which word said your Iesuite * See above Booke 2. Chap. 2. Suarez is taken unproperly because in the proper and exact acception it should signifie a dividing of the Body of Christ into parts So hee and that truely Else why wee pray you is it that your Romane Church hath left out of her Masse the same word Broken used by Christ in the words which you terme Words of Consecration But although you peradventure would be silent yet your Bishop a Ex qua intellige ea verba Quod pro vobis frangitur non esse ad Consecrationem necessaria sed consultò a Latinis praetermissa ne esset locus absurdaâ— intelligentiae quà quis existimare possit vere frangi Corpus Christi Ians Concord c. 131. in Matth. 26. Iansenius will not forbeare to tell us that It was left out lest that any man might conceive so fondly as to thinke the Body of Christ to be truly Broken So hee It is well The word Shed is the next which properly signifieth the issuing of blood out of the veines of Christ But That Blood of Christ saith your b Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa c. 12. §. Ad secundum Sanguis Christi reipsa non egreditur de Corpore Cardinall speaking of the first Institution did not passe out of his Body Even as * See above Booke 4. Chap. 2. Sect. 3. Aquinas had said before him But most emphatically your Alphonsus c Alfonsus lib 6 adversus Haeres Tit. Eucharistia haeres ult Cum Sanguinem pro nobis semel in ara Crucis effusum post resurrectionem nunquÌ„ eum fuâ—urus sit convincitur inde etiam nunquaÌ„ sanguinem verum illius integrè alicubi esse sine ejus corpore vero Sol. Ob. Quamvis sub specie vini totus Christus lateat non tamen species illae totum Christum significant sed solùm sangumem effusum in Cruce à corpore separatum Christ his Blood was once Shed upon the Crosse never to be Shed againe after his Resurrection which cannot be perfectly separated from his Body And accordingly your Jesuite d Costeâ— Enchirid c. 9. de Sacrificio §. Ex quibus Christus veram sanguinis effusionem passus in cruce sanguine ipso à Corpore separato Hic vero tantum illius mortis repraesentatio Coster The true effusion of his Blood which is by separating it
from the Body was onely on the Crosse So they Hearken now These words Blood shed and Body broken were spoken then by Christ and are now recited by your Priest either in the proper Sense of Shedding or they are not If in a proper Sense then is it properly separated from his Body against your former Confession and Profession of all Christians But if it be said to be Shed unproperly then are your Objectors of a proper Sense of Christ his words to be properly called deceitfull Sophisters as men who speak not from conscience but for contention who being defeated in their first skirmish about Christs words do flie for refuge to his Acts and Deedes whither wee further pursue them That there was no Sacrificing Act in the whole Institution of Christ which the Romish Church can justly pretend for defence of her Proper Sacrifice proved by your owne Confessions SECT V. THere are sixe Acts which your Proctors who plead for a proper Sacrifice do pretend for proofe thereof as being ascribable to the Institution of Christ and are as readily and roundly confuted by their owne fellowes as they were by others frequently and diligently sought out or vehemently objected which the Marginals will manifest unto you in every particular to be no essentiall Acts of a proper Sacrifice 1. Not a Sotus cum alijs hanc Elevationem ut Oblationem pertinete aliquo modo ad substantiam hujus Sacrificij existimant Sed dico esse tantùm Ceremonialem actonem ab Ecclesia institutam nec semper fuisse in Ecclesia Suarez Ies tom 3. disp 75. §. 3. Per hanc primam actionem negandum est Christum sacrificare Bellarmin lib. 1. de Missa cap. 27. 29. Elevatio vocalis oblatio non ad essentiam pertinent Alan de Euch. lib. 2. cap. 15. Alij Elevation because it was not instituted by Christ 2. Not the b Non consistit in fractione quia non est haec necessaria Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 29. pag. 222 223. Breaking of Bread because you say it is not necessary 3. Not Consecration although it be held by c Pro sola Consecratione facit omnis nostra superior Explicatio Alan lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 15. And Lessius Ies Opusâ— var. l. 12. c. 13. Consistit Sacrificium in Consecratione juxta hunc modum peragitur hoc Sacrificium non gladio materia 〈◊〉 sed gladio verbi your Cardinall Alan The only essentiall Act yet as * Quorundam opinio est non esse de essentia hujus Sacrificij ipsam Consecrationem Suarez quosupr pag. 966. Ioseph Angles â—lor Theol. Quaest 6. Art 4. Neque Hostiae Consecratio est de ratione Sacrificij neque sanguinis sumptio quia in seria sexta majoris Hebd non sumitur sanguis sed hostia Some thinke It is not of the Essence of a Sacrifice And why should not they so judge say wee for many things are Sacrata that is Consecrated which are not Sacrificata that is Sacrifised Else what will you say of Water in Baptisme yea of your Holy-water sprinckle of your Pots Bells Vestments which being held by you as Sacred are notwithstanding not so much as Sacramentals Besides if Consecration made the Sacrifice then Bread and Wine being only consecrated they alone should be the Sacrifice in your Masse against your former Assertions 4. d Post Consecrationem oblatio vocalis his verbis Memento Domâ—ne Alij dicunt esse de essentia Sed dieo tam certum esse hanc oblationem non esse de essentia quam illam alteram Oblationem ante Consecrationem I. quia Christus non adhibuit eam in coena II. Quia non constat Ecclesiam eam semper adhibuisse nec est de Institutione Christi sed Ecclesiae Suarez Ies quo sup p. 964. Non est de essentia quòd Dominus nec Apostoli in principio eâ usi sunt nec sit in persona Christi sed Ministri Ecclesiae Bellar. lib. 1 de Missa cap. ult §. Quinta Prop. Not Oblation whether before or e Oblatio praecedens Consecrationem non pertinet ad essentiam nec oblatio quae consequitur Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 27. §. Quarta Quinta after Consecration 5. f Immersio in calice Hanc tenuit Canus Sed constat Christum per illam actionem non sacrificari Suarez quo sup Not dipping of the Hoast in the Chalice 6. Yea and although your g Consumptio utriusque speciei per oâ— Sacerdotis quatenus est immolatio victimae oblatae Bellar. quo sup Cardinall preferred this before all others h Consumptio non videtur pertinere ad Essentiam quia Scriptura discernit inter Sacrificium participationem ipsius 1. Cor. 10 Nonne qui edunt hostiaâ— participes sunt Alâ—aris Salmer Tom. 9. Tract 29. p. 233. Not the Consumption of the Hoast by the Priests eating it Which your Iesuite Salmeron Cardinall i Non in Consumptione quia aliud est Immolare aliud de Immolatis participare rationem potiùs habet Sacramenti quà m Sacrificij Et frequenter reservatas ad populi communionem non esse perfectè sacrificatas vel saltem tum quando concâ—luntur à populo sacrificari Alan l. 2. de Euch. c. 17. Alan together with your Iesuit k Suarez Sumptionem Sacerdotalem non esse de essentia tenent Thomas Bonaventura Major ex modernis Alan Cassalius Catharinus Palacius Turrian In 3. Thom Disp 75. §. 5. And Suarez himselfe Sola Consecratio esst sufficiens ut in qua tota essentia constat Ibid. âšœ Aegid Conincks Ies de Sacram. qu. 83. art 1. num 90. Consumptio Hostiae facta non est pars essentialis Sacrificij quia Sacerdos in Ordinatione nullam talem potestatem directam accipit quia consumendo nihil Deo offerimus Num. 92 âšœ Suarez who is accompanied with his fellow-Iesuite Conincks and seven other of your Schoole-men do gaine-say because this is Rather proper to a Sacrament than to a Sacrifice And for that also if it were essentiall the People might be held Sacrficers as well as Priests âšœ If you shall give your Iesuite 6 Vasquez Ies in 3 Thâ—â— quâ—â— 83. 〈…〉 Immolandi Opinio prima corum qui voluâ—â— consisteâ— in oblatione qui non dicunt eam in Consecratione esse 〈◊〉 qâ—â—a haec tanâ—â—â— praeparatio ad â—â—â—â—ficium At non in oblatione â—â—st ConsecrationeÌ„ 〈◊〉 Christus non potest affirmari tum se obtulisse 〈◊〉 Cap. 2. Opinio secunda In fractione At fractio ante Consecrationem non pertinet ad Sacrificium post per Christum 〈…〉 3. Opâ—n 3. Contumpâ—ione facta à Sacerdoâ—e Et 〈◊〉 non minus istud consumunt quam Sacerdotes Cap. 4. Et sequeretur tunc hoc Sacrificium fieri non in Altari sed in Stomacho Sacerdotis domi fortâ—ssis ad mensam Cap. 5. Op. 4. In sola Consecratione tota Sacrificij estentia est posita
Benedicts in their names Can there be then any Analogie betweene your High Romane Priest and Christ the Prototype to Melchisedech in so manifold Repugnancies yet notwithstanding every one of you must be forsooth a Priest after the order of Melchisedech Nay but not to multiply many words the Novelty of your Pretence doth bewray it selfe from k Lambard de Ordinat Presb. Accipiunt etiam calicem cum vino patinam cum Hostijs ut sciant se accepisse potestatem placabiles Deo hostias offerendi Hic ordo à filijs Aaron sumpsit initium c. Lib. 4. Distinct 24. 〈◊〉 I. Peter Lombard Master of the Romish Schoole who Anno 1145. taught how truly looke you to that that every Priest at his Ordination in taking the Chalice with Wine and Platter with the Hoast should understand that his power of Sacrificing was from the order of Aaron Nor may you thinke that this was his private opinion for Hee saith your l Pet. Lombardus collegit sententias Theologoorum Magister Theologotum scholasticorum dici meruit Lib. de Script Eccles Tit. Petrus Lombardus Cardinall of him collected the Sentences of Divines and deserved to be called the Master of Schoolemen Thus farre of the Person of Christ as Priest in the next place wee are to enquire into his Priestly Function Of the Function of Christ his Priesthood now after his Ascension into Heaven and your Cardinall his Doctrine Sacrilegiously detracting from it SECT VII BY the Doctrine of your Cardinall in the name of your Church a Bellar. Crucis Sacrificium non est perpetuum sed effectum ejus nec dicitur aeternuÌ„ quod non jugiter sacrificatur non in caelis jam Sacerdos per solam orationeÌ„ nec mediante oblatione Victimae quià tun necesse est eum semper offerre Ergo Eucharistia Sacrificium quod jugiter offertur Oblatio in coelis non est propriè dictum Sacrificium Ergò non est verè ac propriè Sacerdos cùm verum ac proprium Sacrificium offerre non potest Lib. 1. de Missa c. 6 sparsim And Christus non sacrificat nunc per se visibiliter nisi in Eucharistia Bell. ibid c. 25. § Quod autem And Sacrificium câ—â—cis respectu Christianorum â—b c. 20. And Per Ministros suos perpetuò sacrificat seipsum in Eucharistia hoc enim solummodo perpetuum habet Sacerdotium Bellar. ibid. cap. eod ad finem The old Priesthood of Aaron was translated into the Priesthood of Christ Every Priest saith the Apostle must have something to offer else hee were no Priest Thus his Priesthood is called Eternall and must have a perpetuall offering which was not that upon the Crosse Nor can that suffice which the Protestants say That his Priesthood is perpetuall because of the perpetuall virtue of his Sacrifice upon the Crosse or bicause of his perpetuall Act of Intercession as Priest in Heaven or of presenting his passion to his Father in Heaven whither his Priesthood was translated No but it is certaine that Christ cannot now properly sacrifice by himselfe Hee doth it by his Ministers in the Eucharist Because the Sacrifice of the Crosse in respect of Christians is now invisible and seene onely by Faith which although it be a more true Sacrifice yet it is not as our Adversaries say the only Sacrifice of Christian Religion nor sufficient for the Conservation thereof And againe His sacrificing of himselfe in the Sacrament by his Ministers is that by which onely hee is said to have a perpetuall Priesthood Accordingly your Cardinall b Alan Christus in 〈◊〉 coelo 〈◊〉 aliquid Sacerdotalâ— facit nisi respectu nostri Sacramenti quod ipse per nostruÌ„ ministerium efficit continuò offert Lib. 2. â— Euchar. ca. 8 §. Reliqua Alan Christ saith hee performeth no Priestly Function in Heaven but with relation to our Ministery here on earth whereby hee offereth So they for the dignifying of their Romish Masse as did also c Rhemists Christ his Priesthood consisteth in the perpetuall offring of Christ his Body and Blood in the Church Annot. in Heb. 7. 17. your Rhemists but with what Ecclipse of Iudgement and good Conscience is now to be declared If wee take the Sacrifice of Christ for the proper Act of Sacrificing which is destructive so was Christ his Sacrifice but One and Once Heb. 7. and 8. But understanding it as the subject matter of the same Sacrifice once so offered to God upon the Crosse and after his Ascension entred into Heaven and so is it a perpetuall Sacrifice presentative before God For as the High-Priest of the Law after the Sacrifice was killed entred into the Holy place once a yeare but not without Blood Heb. 9. 7. so Christ having purchased an eternall redemption by his Death upon the Crosse went into the Holy place of Heaven with the same his owne Blood Vers 12. To what end Alwayes living to make supplication for us Chapt. 7. Vers 3. and 25. Hence followeth the continuall use which the soules of the faithfull have of his immediate Function in Heaven Having a perpetuall Priesthood hee is able continually to save them that come to God by him Vers 24 25. Whence issueth our boldnesse and all-confidence alwayes to addresse our prayers to him or by him unto God Wee having an High-Priest over the house of God let us draw nere with a true heart in full assurance of faith having our hearts sprinckled from an evill Conscience Chap. 10. 22. The evidence of these Scriptures hath drawne from your Iesuite Ribera even then when hee professeth himselfe an earnest defender of your Romane Masse these Acknowledgements following d Ribera Ies in his Comment upon the places alleged Chap. 7. 23. Chap. 8. 2. 3. Chap. 9. 23. His Book is familitar with you where you may peruse the places viz. upon the Chap. 7. 23. That Christ is a true Priest and all other do partake of his Priesthood in offering Sacrifice only in remembrance of his Sacrifice And that hee did not performe the office of Priesthood onely upon earth but even now also in heaven which Function hee now dischargeth by the virtue of his Sacrifice upon the Crosse Hee proceedeth No man saith hee will deny this Position namely that Christ now ever exerciseth the office of a Priest by presenting himselfe for us So hee Another Theologicall Professour of Bellarmines owne Society in the place where hee noteth Bellarmine to walke in his owne opinion alone procedeth further 8 Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom Disp 225. c. 2. Nullus quic em ex Doctoribus quos recentiores Theologi pro hac sententia allegarunt praeter nostrum Bellarminum qui expressè asserit Christum esse principalem offerentem in hoc Sacramento Dicunt Patres Cyprian Ambros alij Nos Sacrificia offerre vice Christi Signifitant nos esse Christi Ministros in hoc Sacrificio non quod Christus hoc Sacramentum offerat
Vt Christus verè dicatur Sacerdos secundùm ordinem Melchisedech non indiget Sacrificio usque ad finem mundi siquidem post mundi finem remanebit Sacerdos tamen nullum propriè dictum sactificum habebit affirming that Christ needeth not a Sacrifice to continue to the ends of the world to the intent hee should become a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech because hee is to continue a Priest for ever even after the end of the world when hee shall not have any proper Sacrifice at all Yet lest this Iesuite might seeme but to lispe it by mentioning an Eternity of the Priesthood of Christ onely in respect of his person your Iesuite Estius cometh off roundly 9 Estius Ies Com. in Heb. cap. 7. vers 17. Ex quibus omnibus intelligitur Christum vocari Sacerdotem in Aeternum ratione Personae ratione Officij ratione Effectus Personae quidem ratione quoniam nullus ei Successurus Officij ratione quià semper in coelis interpellat pro nobis quod est Sacerdotis Officium Nec caret hoc Sacrificium sua oblatione qulà seipsum hominem vulnerum signa quae passus est exhibet offert Patri pro salute Electorum Denique ratione Effectus quià per Sacrificium pro nobis oblatum factus est nobis Causa redemptionis salutis aeternae confessing a Priesthood of Christ both in Person Office and Effect from the Concurrence of the Text as followeth From all these wee may understand saith he that Christ is called a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech First in respect of his Person because there is none to succede him Secondly in respect of his Office by making supplication in heaven for us Nor doth hee want an Oblation which is the presenting of his Body that suffered to the Father for our Salvation And thirdly in respect of the Effect being made for us by his Sacrifice of the Crosse the cause of our Redemption So hee as just Protestantiall as can be âšœ This is still Christs Function of Priesthood whereunto this Apostle exhorteth all Christians at all times of need to make their addresse which Saint Iohn propoundeth as the onely Anchor-hold of Faith in his Propitiation 1. Iohn 2. If any sinne wee have an Advocate with the Father Iesus Christ the righteous and hee is what The Propitiation for our sinnes The which every faithfull Christian doth apply by faith unto himselfe as often as hee prayeth to God in Christs name for the remission of sinnes saying Through Iesus Christ our Lord. How therefore can this his Function of Priesthood without extreme sacrilege be held Insufficient to his Church for obtaining pardon immediatly from God who seeth not As for other your ordinary Objections taken from two sentences of the Apostle speaking of the Examples of things celestiall and of Purging sinnes now with better Sacrifices you should not have troubled us with them knowing them to be satisfyed by your owne Authors e Ribera Ies Thomas Expositionem alteram praefert nempè per Coelestia appellari ipsum coelum cujus â—igura erat tabernaculum Et emundari dicitur quia homines per Christum emundati sunt qui in illud ingredientur Thomam sequutus est Lyranus Mihi etsi Emundatio ista non placet placet tamen Coelestia appellari coelum ipsum quià ita Vocabulum propriè accipitur Et cogit quod sequitur Non enim in manufacta sancta Iesus est ingressus sed in exemplaria verorum nempè Coeli quod cap. 8. dicitur Tabernaculum verum quod Deus fixit non homo Etiam coelum polluebatur ab hominibus In eum locum Ribera and f Aquinas Melioribus hostijs Id est meliori sanguine Ob. Illa erat una hostia Resp Licet non sit in se tamen pluribus hostijs veteris Legis â—igurabatur In Heb. 9. 〈◊〉 that the Apostle used the Plurall number because he was now in Speech of Multitudes of Sacrifices Aquinas long-agoe That the former Romish Sacrilegious Derogation from Christs Priestly Function in Heaven is contradicted by ancient Fathers first in respect of Place or Altar and Function SECT VIII THeodoret is a Theod. in Psal 109. Sacerdos nunc est Christus non ipse aliquid offerens sed vocatur Caput Offerentium quandoquidèm corpus suum Ecclesiam vocaâ— Objected by Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 6. alleged by you as denying that Christ now offereth any thing by himselfe but onely in the Church albeit hee saith not so simply but that hee offereth not in the Church personally which all confesse for otherwise Theodoret presently after b His words immediately following are these Et propterea Sacerdotio fuâ—gitur ut homo recipit autem ea quae offeruntur ut Deus Offert autem Ecclesia Corporis ejus sanguinis symbola So Theod. expresseth that Christ exerciseth his Priesthood still as man As for the Church his words are not that Shee offereth the Body and Blood of Christ in Sacrifice but The Symbols of his Body and Blood Therfore is this his Testimony unworthily and unconscionably objected But wee will consult with the direct speeches of Antiquity First if you aske the Offering Ambrose answereth you that c Ambros Nunc Christus offertur hî◠in Imagine ibi in veritate ubi apud Patrem Advocatus pro Nobis Lib. 1 de offic cap. 48. sub finem The offering of Christ here below is but in an image but his offering with the Father is in truth If of the Priest Augustine telleth you d Aug. in Psal 94. Imponimus in aâ—a Sacrificium quando Deum laudamusâ— at verò Sacerdotem si requiras super coelos est inter pellat pro te qui in terris mortuus est pro te The Priest is to be sought for in heaven even Hee who on earth suffered Death for thee There is some difference then sure As little reason have your Disputers to object that one and onely Testimony of Augustine f Aug. lib. 20. de Civit. cap. 10. Episcopi Presbyteri inquit sunt propriè Sacerdotes Bellarm. obijcit lib. 1. de Missa cap 17. Sed erunt omnes Sacerdotes Dei Christi regnabunt cum eo mille annis Apoc. 20. Non utique de solis Episcopis Presbyteris dictum qui propriè jam Vocantur Sacerdotes sed sicut omnes Christianos dicimus propter mysticum Chrisma sic omnes Sacerdotes quoniam membra sunt unius illius Sacerdotis Presbyteri propriè Sacerdotes which hee spake not absolutely but comparatively namely in respect of Lay-Christians who in Scripture are otherwise called Priests As your owne * Duplex Sacerdotium alterum Interius omnium fidelium qui aquâ salutari abluti sunt Apoc. 1. 16. alterum Exterius tantùm eorum qui externo Sacramento ordinis ad aliquod proprium sacrumque ministerium ascribuntur Catechis Rom. par 2. de
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
Antichrist So hee But yet the same Jesuite perceiving that this reached not home to the Sacrifice of your Masse straineth courtesie with the Fathers and without any their Authority or rather against it cometh in with his QVANQVAM Notwithstanding saith hee this name of Continuall Sacrifice may be referred to the Sacrifice of the Masse because that is not as the Sacrifice of the Iewes in one place onely or at morne and night but continually in all places and at all times So hee Which any Iew if hee heard it would thinke were unadvisedly spoken saying of their Iewish Continuall Sacrifice that it Continued to be offered both in their Morning and Evening worship whereas the time of your Romish is prefixed but in the Morning Service onely and therefore cannot be so justly called Iuge or Continuall as the Jewish was because nothing can be called Iuge in respect of Place but onely in respect of Time âšœ CHAP. V. Of our Second Examination of this Controversie by the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers shewing that they never called the Eucharist a Sacrifice Properly Our Generall Proposition The ancient Fathers never called the Eucharist Properly a Sacrifice proved by many Demonstrations THe Demonstrations which wee are to speak of are many some taken from the proper and some from the pretended Subject of the Eucharist some from the parity of like speeches of Fathers as well in other Sacraments Acts and Adjuncts as in these which are belonging to the Eucharist The first Demonstration That the Fathers called Bread and Wine a Sacrifice but Improperly as being the Subject matter of the Eucharist SECT I. THat Ancient Fathers called Bread and Wine a Sacrifice even before Consecration wee have it confessed asseverantly by your owne a Maldonat Ob. Irenaeum lib 4. cap. 32. 34. Scribit Christianos Deo offerre primitias creaturaruÌ„ panem vinum Dicebatur etiam sacrificare homo profanus qui Sacerdoti tradebat victimam ut eam pro se sacrificaret non quòd illa traditio esset Sacrificium Ita locuti sunt etiam Christiani antiqui ut constat ex verbis Cypriani in Serm. de Eleemos Locuples matrona sine Sacrificio in Dominicum venienâ— Nec necesse est ut Irenaeus loquitur de proprio Sacrificio quia nefas est credere Ecclesiam obtulisse rem ullam corpoream terrestrâ—m Deo post abrogata omnia hujusmodi Sacrificia terrena Maldon loco citato Accipiendo Sacrificium pro re quae sacrificatur negari non debet panem vinum aliquo modo in Missa offerri proinde pertinere ad rem praesentem nam cùm ante Consecrationem dicimus Suscipe Sancte Pater hanc tuam immaculatam Hostiam certè pronomen Hanc de monstrat ad sensum id quod tunc manibus tenemus id autem panis est Et similes sunt in Liturgia non paucae sententiae quae panem offerri apertè sanè demonstrant Denique veteres Patres passim idem tradunt Iren. lib. 4. cap. 32. dicit Ecclesiam offerre Sacrificium ex creaturis Et Cyprian lib. 2. Ep. 3. Christum obtulisse Calicem vino aqua mixtà m Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 27. §. Respondeo ut Iesuite where hee will have you furthermore to observe that Bread and Wine before Consecration is called an Immaculate Sacrifice even in your Romane Masse And that the Primitive Fathers called Bread and Wine Sacrifice after Consecration also wee have likewise proved in two full * See above Chap. 3. Sect. 2. Sections which your Cardinall is bound to acknowledge who to prove that Melchisedech Sacrificed Bread Wine produced the Testimonies of Ambrose August Chrysost Oecumenius and Theophylact to conclude them to have beene Figures of the Eucharist which wee desire you to carry still in minde untill wee end this Section Hereupon wee demand whether you thinke that Bread and Wine in the Eucharist can be called of Christians a Sacrifice Properly either before or after Consecration No saith one b Valent. Ies objicienti Melchisedechum obtulisse panem vinum tantùm Resp Sacerdotium Christi secundum ordinem Melchisedech Etiam ratione rui oblatae non quatenus oblatione illius substantiae determinatae scilicet panis vini exercebatur Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 4. Iesuite because it is not agreeable to our Priesthood No saith a c Bellarmin respondens quaestioni An cum solus Panis mutatur si propriâ— sacrificaâ—etur Inquit Id absurdissimum esset tum haberet Ecclesia Sacrificium inanimum vilius multo quà m habuerint olim Hebraei Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 27. §. Sed haec Second because it were most absurd that the Church of Christ should have a livelesse Sacrifice and consequently more vile than was the Iewish No saith a d Nefas est crâ—dere Ecclesiam obtulisse rem ullam corpoream terrestrem Deo post abrogata omnia hujusmodi Sacrificia terrena Maldonat Lib. de 7. Sacram. Tom. 1. de Eucharist part 3. §. Primum Argumentum Third because it were an heinous impiety now after the abrogation of the terrene Sacrifices of the Iewes to believe that the Church of God should professe an Offering of Corporall and earthly Sacrifices No saith a e Salmeron Communis sensus est omnium Christianorum non esse aliud Sacrificium quà m Corpus Sanguinem Christi At si panis esset Sacrificium sequeretur quòd res inanimata sacrificaretur Et quòd summa Lattia esset circa panem vinum Tom. 9. Tract 12. § Quinta Fourth for it is the judgement of all Christians that there is no Sacrifice in Christian Religion but the Body and Blood of Christ because otherwise the Act of Sacrificing thereof being a Divine worship should be exercised upon Bread and Wine So they Wee would be glad to take the Apostle of Christ to be our Guide for our better security hee as is likewise f Bellarmin Apostolus declarat non esse terrenum aliquid quod offert Christus si esset super terram ex Heb. 8. 4. Et ostendit nunc meliores hostias offerrâ— Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 6. sect Resp quid See above Chap. 3. Sect. 2. confessed teacheth that God now is not to be worshipped by way of Sacrifice with any outward thing Oh that your Divines would exercise their quils in publishing such sound Truths as this is wee then would wish them Good speed in all their Writings Notwithstanding upon consideration of the Premises wee are inforced to complaine of the Vnconscionablenesse of your Cardinal who to prove a proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist did as you may remember produce the Testimonies of five Fathers wherein that which they called a Sacrifice they expressed to be Bread and Wine which by the joynt and consonant Confession of the Cardinall himselfe and other prime Iesuites of his owne society cannot be held to be Proper Sacrifices without Absurdity and Impiety And the like obliquity of Iudgement
ipsi sine sanguine immolamus Ita quideÌ„ Sed Christi tunc reminiscimur obitus una nobis est immolatio non multae quandoquideÌ„ ille semel immolatus est EundeÌ„ sempeâ— offerimus quin potiùs Oblationis illius memoriam facimus perinde aâ—si esset hoc tempore immolatus Quocirca unum esse hoc nostruÌ„ Sacrificium constar Vnicum est semel oblatum nam unus est sanguis semel fusus Theophylact c Theod. in Heb cap. 8. Cum essecit ut alia Sacrificia non essent necessaria cur novi Testamenti Sacerdotes mysticam Liturgâ—â—m seu Sacrificium peragant sed clarum est ijs qui sunt in rebus divinis cruditi nos non aliud Sacrificium offerre sed unius illius salutaris memoriam peragere Dixit enim Hoc facite in memoriam mei Theodoret d Ambros in Hebr. â—0 Osterimus quidem sed Recordationem salutaris mortis ejus una haec Hostia non multae Ambrose e Euseb Demonst Evangelic lib. 1 cap. 10. Sacrificamus incendimus aliâs autem magni Sacrificij illius memoriam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius and f Primasius in Heb. cap. 10. Quod Deus c. Offerunt quidem Sâ—cerdotes nostâ—i sed ad recordationem mortis ejus sicut ipse dixit Hoc facite in Commemorationem mei Vna hostia non multae Corpus unum cum illo quod suscepit in utero virginali non autem multa Corpora nec nunc quidem aliud magnum aliud minus Primasius Your onely Answer is that their Exception here used was not to note that it is not the same Body of Christ here Corporally present which was offered upon the Crosse but that it is not offered in the same maner by effusion of Blood as that was which is indeed a Part but not the whole Truth For survey the Marginalls and then tell us If that your Sacrifice were the same Body of Christ Corporally present why should Theophylact apply his qualification not to the maner whether Bloody or Vnbloody but to the person of Christ saying Wee offer the same Christ who was once offered or rather a Memoriall of his Oblation And Theodoret applying it directly to the thing Non aliud Wee offer not another Sacrifice but a memoriall therof Why Eusebius Wee offer a Memoriall in stead of a Sacrifice Why Chrysostome The same Sacrifice or rather a Commemoration of it every one directly requiring that the Thing which wee offer be the same crucifyed Bloody Sacrifice of Christs Death which S. Augustine but even now named The onely true Sacrifice of Christ in the former Section but that they plainly notifyed unto us that they meant the same very Body which was the Subject of the Sacrifice on the Crosse to be the now proper Object of our Remembrance in the Eucharist but not the Subject therein Which agreeth with that which in the former Section was said by Ambrose Our offering up of Christ in an Image and Augustine his celebrating of this Sacrament of Remembrance Semblably as Hierome speakes of the Priest who is said to take the Person of Christ in this Sacrament so that He saith g Hier. Tom. 5. lib. 13. Com. in Ezec. cap. 44. Qui offerat Deo Sacrificium ita ut verus Sacerdos sit imò Imitator ejus qui est Sacerdos secundùm ordineÌ„ Melchisedech Idem Tom. 9. lib. 4. cap. 26. in Matth. Sicut Melchisedech panem vinum offerens ipse quoque veritateÌ„ corporis sanguinis sui repraesentat Hierome be a true Priest or rather an Imitator of him But a Priest and an Imitator is not Identically the same that is represented Master Brerely is not Christ âšœ Yea and Saint Hierome will speake as directly of the Differences of the two Sacrifices as hee doth of the two Priests for distinguishing betweene them 3 Hier. in Levit. extat in Decret de Consec dist 2. Can. De hac De hac quidem hostia quae in Christi commemorationem mirabiliter fit edere licet de illa verò quam Christus in ara crucis obtulit secundùm se nulli edere licet In this Sacrifice saith hee which is marveilously done in commemoration of Christ one may eat but that which hee offered of himself upon the Crosse no man may eat Where hee noteth two Sacrifices One Here and another on the Crosse the first offered by Another and the second by Himselfe And hee separateth them in respect of the Subject as THIS from THAT which if they were subjectively really and personally the same then the Eating of the one should be the Eating of the other which S. Hierome denyeth Of THIS one may eat saith hee but not of THAT âšœ Lastly The same said * See the former Marginalls at the letter f. Primasius in all places which was born of the Virgin not now great now lesse So he But have wee not heard you number your many Hosts on one Altar at one Time and yet the Fathers say Wee offer not many but the same which must needs be the same one as Object else shew us where ever any Father denyed but that upon diverse Altars were diverse Breads or that but according to their outward Dimensions they were now greater now lesse which no way agreeth with the Body of Christ as hath beene proved in discussing the * See above B. 4. Chap â—â— Sect. 5. Canon of the Councell of Nice The fifth Demonstration Because the Body and Blood of Christ as they are pretended by the Romish Church to be in this Sacrament cannot be the Representative Sacrifice spoken of by Ancient Fathers against your vaine Instance in a Stage-play being the last refuge of your desperate Disputers wherein their whole Defense consisteth SECT VII THat the Subject matter of this Sacrament by you called the same Sacrifice which Christ offered up upon the Crosse ought to be Representative and fit to resemble the same Sacrifice of his Passion is a matter unquestionable among all In which respect the Fathers have so often called it a Sacrifice of Commemoration Representation and Remembrance and that the thing to be represented is his Body crucifyed and his Blood shed in that Sacrifice of his Passion is a point as questionlesse which accordeth both to the words of Christ his Institution Do this in remembrance of mee and to the Exposition of Saint Paul to be a shewing forth of the Lords death untill hee come yea and is also consonant to the last mentioned Doctrine of the Fathers calling it A Sacrifice of Christ or rather a Remembrance thereof The onely Question will be how This which you call The same Sacrifice meaning the Body of Christ subjectively in the Eucharist being invisible can be said to represent figure and resemble the same Body as it was the Sacrifice on the Crosse Wee yielding unto you a possibility that one thing in some respects may be a Representation
Seducer that I have performed hereof nothing at all Do you heare Flatly Nothing at all Meaning that none of the Epithets above-mentioned by Bellarmine out of the Fathers were at any time attributed by them to any other thing but to your Sacrifice of the Masse But what Nothing at all I. Not the Epithet Terrible False For I proved that the Fathers called Baptisme a 5 Treatise of the Masse Booke 6. Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 3. Sacrifice and inscribed it 6 Ibid. Sect. 8. Terible II. Not the Epithet Summum that is Chiefe False For the Father 7 See Booke 6. Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Pelusiota is alleged naming a Pure mind and chaste Body the Best Sacrifice III. Not the Epithet Truest False For there is produced Saint 8 August See Booke 6. cha 7. Sect. 2 Augustine not onely enstiling Every pious worke a True Sacrifice Vero nihil verius saith the Philosopher but also nothing that Where God saith I will have Mercie and not Sacrifice Mercie saith hee is a Sacrifice most Excellent and whereof the other are but Signes IV. Not the Epithet Deo Plenum False For it was proved effectually enough in that the Preaching of the word which is called of the Apostle The Power of God unto Salvation is termed of 9 Chrysost See oke 6. Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Bo Chrysostome a Pure and immortall Sacrifice And what would you say to your Divines of Collen 10 Enchiridion Coloniens fol. 107. Hic Ecclesia quae Corpus Christi mysticum est se totam Deo consecrat adeò ut Cyprianus tale Sacrificium verum et plenum Sacrifiâ—um non dubitaverit appellare who will have you observe Cyprian naming the Church of Christ as his Mysticall Body consecrated to God a pure and full Sacrifice Lastly Not the last Epithet which is Singulare Sacrificium whereof your Romish Seducer boastingly saith as followeth Singular Sacrificium a Singular Sacrifice which is the most convincing Epithet of all the rest proveth the Eucharist not onely to be a Sacrifice but also to be the onely Sacrifice of the Church whereas there be many improper Sacrifices This the Lord Bishop passeth over with Silence and shutteth out for a Wrangler So hee Who might thinke it hapned well to himselfe if hee should be but onely Shut out for a Wrangler and not called in Question for a false and presumptuous Traducer and Seducer for denying that to be performed at all which I did discharge with an Advantage alleging that Ancient Father 11 See Booke 6 Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Iustine naming Prayers and Thanksgivings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The perfect and onely Sacrifices well pleasing unto God Can there be any thing more Singular than that which is Onely The voice of Saint Augustine is full as loud for the Sacrifice of Christ's Passion The Death of Christ saith 12 August See 〈◊〉 Chap. 5. Sect. 5. hee is the onely Sacrifice which being the onely true Sacrifice must necessarily exclude the Hoast in your Masse from the property of a true Sacrifice If therefore this Epithet be an Argument most convincing above all the rest as is here objected then must it follow that Bellarmine thus amply confuted in this one is in effect convinced of Rashnesse and Weaknesse in his arguing aswell as this Seducer is of Falshood and Malice in his detracting in all the Rest âšœ The Seventh Demonstration Of No-Proper Sacrifice in the Euchrist Because the Principall Epithet of Vnbloody Sacrifice used by the Fathers and most urgently objected by your Doctors for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice doth evince the Contrarie SECT IX IT hath beene some paines unto us to collect the objected Testimonies of Fathers for this Point out of your divers Writers which you may peruse now in the Margin with more ease and presently perceive both what maketh not for you and what against you but certainly for you just nothing at all For what can it helpe your cause that the Celebration of the Eucharist is often called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is An unbloody Sacrifice a Reasonable and unbloody Service or Worship In the first place three b Basil in his Masse ob by Salmeron Tom. 9. Tractat. 30. §. Sed confutans and by Lindanuâ— Panop lib. 4. cap. 53. Nos appropinquantes Altari tuo suscipere dignissimos offerre hanc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lindanus non carnis sed mentis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Salmeron Ies Absque sanguine hostiam admittee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And not till long after the words of Consecration beginning at Respice Domine Missa Chrysost Ob. ab eisdem quo supra Hanc nostram supplicationem tanquaÌ„ ad altare admittere non recuses fac nos idoneos qui Tibi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nostris pro peccatis offerimus Idem Salmeron Offetimus Tibi rationabile incruentum obsequium Which words are in the body of your Liturgies put before the words of Consecration Edit Antuerp ex officiâ—a Plantin 1560. cum pri vilegio Regis but which Lindan will have to be set after Consecration The Liturgie of S. Iames Pro oblatis sanctisicatis pretiosis immaculatis donis divinis oremus Dominum acceptis eis in supercoeleste mentale spirituale Altare in odorem spiritualis frâ—grantiae c. Paulo post Deus Pater qui oblata tibi dona mera frugum oblationes accepisti in odorem suavitatis And after follow the words of Consecration Sancto qui in Sanctis c. Suscipe incorruptum Hymnum in sanctis incruentis Sacrificijs tuis Liturgies or if you will Missals are objected to prove that by Vnbloody Sacrifice and Reasonable and unbloody Worship is betokened the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood in the Masse one of Basil another of Chrysostome and by some others the Masse of Saint Iames of Ierusalem In which Epithet of Vnbloody say wee could not be signified Christ's Body Our Reasons because as the Margin sheweth the word Vnbloody hath sometime Relation unto the Bread and Wine both unbloody before Consecration called in Saint Iames his Liturgie Gods gifts of the first fruit of the Ground who also reckoneth Hymnes among Vnbloody Sacrifices But Christ's Body is the fruit of the Wombe or else sometime it is referred to the Acts of Celebration in Supplication Thanksgiving and Worship of God all Vnbloody naming that A Reasonable and Vnbloody Service which they had termed an Vnbloody Sacrifice as Lindan your Parisian Doctor hath truly observed Which Chrysostome also stiled Spirituall marke you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Service or Worship Was ever Christ called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is himselfe rather the Person to be worshipped Secondly Reasonable could this point out Christ's Body in the Sense of the objected Fathers Suffer Chrysostome to resolve us c Chrysost Hom. 11. Quid est rationabile obsequium quod per animam quod secundùm Spiritum offertur quicquid non indiget corpore quicquid non indiget
thing Distinguished from Christ in stead of Christ in the Testimony of Nazianzen But especially because in the most of the * Do but examine the places againe and you shall find Basil to have spoken of Seruice before Consecration Chrysest Of Blood and Wine before Consecration Eusebius in one place is interpreted by your owne Doctor and Translator to have spoken of a Sacrifice void of Blood Nazianzene speaketh of something in the Eucharist differing from Christ to whom you may joyn Athanasius Sentences the word Vnbloody must needs be taken negatively for want or absence of Blood and so you may bid your Corporall Presence adieu All which may be strong Arguments unto us both of the deplorable Consciences of your Doctors and of the desperatenesse of your Cause Other Testimonies wherein there is mention of Christs Body and Blood come now to be discussed A Confirmation of the former Demonstration from the use of the word Vnbloody in the objected Sentences wherein the Fathers make mention of the Body and Blood of Christ SECT X. THis Objection seemeth to be of better moment than the former but onely seemeth Clemens Bishop of Rome the first of that name calleth indeed the Eucharisticall Celebration a Clemens Rom. Const lib. 6. cap. 23. Pro Sacrificio cruento Rationale incruentum ac illud mysticum Sacrificium corporis sanguinis Christi quod in symbolum mortis ejus celebratur Et lib. 7. Coâ—â—â— cap. 26. Adhuc agimus tibi grarias Pater noster pro prerâ—oso corpore sanguine effuso cujus haec Antitypa celebramus ut mortem ejus denunciaremus per ipsum enim tibi gloria Amen An unbloody Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ In which sentence the Vnbloody Sacrifice is plainly distinguished from the Body and Blood whereof it is a Sacrifice even as both the Act and Service of Commemoration have beene oftentimes above and are hereafter called of the Fathers a Sacrifice in respect of the Object thereof which is the Body and Blood of Christ on the Crosse This is manifest by two especiall Reasons the first because that which hee calleth Vnbloody hee termeth also a Reasonable Service Secondly Clemens calleth the same Vnbloody Sacrifice the Signe and Type of Christs Body and Blood thereby distinguishing them from that Body and Blood whereof they are but Types You will then aske what is this Body and Blood whereof they are sayd to be Types Yea marry This being knowne will set all straight And Clemens telleth you that it is his Precious Body and his Blood shed which properly taken all Christians professe to be Proper to his Body crucifyed and Blood shed on the Crosse for the proper Object of our Typicall Remembrance as wee have formerly * See B. 2. Ch. 2. § 4 and this B. 6. Ch. 1. § 2. proved and you your selves have confessed already c Cyril Hierosol Mystag 5. Postquà m consecimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aliquanto post Obsecramus Deum pro c. Et ChristuÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ob. â— Salmerone Ies Tom. 9. Tract 30. Cyril of Hierusalem doth attend upon Pope Clemens and in a sort treadeth in his steps The maner of our Celebrating the memory of Christs death hee calleth a Spirituall Sacrifice and an Vnbloody worship wherein against the Iewish Sacrifice hee opposeth Spirituall against Corporall as hee doth Vnbloody against Bloody But by Spirituall hee meant that which wanteth a Body Therefore by Vnbloody hee meant that which was properly voyd of Blood So farre was Cyril from signifying thereby the Vnbloody Body of Christ as the Subject matter in the Eucharist As for the Body Blood of Christ it selfe which hee calleth Propitiation Cyril expoundeth himselfe to meane for so hee nameth it Christ slaine for our sinnes which still wee say and you cannot deny is onely the Object of our whole Spirituall service of Remembrance and Commemoration Both these former Witnesses have delivered their Testimonies as spoken under a forme of Prayer whereunto whether You or Protestants may more justly say Amen judge you Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria accordingly * See below Sect. 15 acknowledgeth a Sacrifice Vnbloody Spirituall and Mentall The eighth Demonstration Of the no-Proper Sacrifice of the Masse Because the Ancient Fathers called the Eucharist a Bloody Sacrifice which all you will confesse to be Vnproperly spoken SECT XI TAke but unto you your owne Allegations set downe in the a Saâ—mer Tom. 9. Tract 29 pag. 225. Hesychius lib. 2. c. 8. in Levit. Dicit Christum cum coenaret seipsum occidisse Chrysost in 1. Cor. Hom 24. In Eucharistia ChristuÌ„ paâ—i occidi Rursus Tract 31. pag. 238. 〈◊〉 decent in Eucharistia offenri eruentum Sacrificium Alexander Papa Epist 1. Cyâ—r lib. 2. Epist 3. Passio Domini est Sacrificium quod offerimus Hieron in Dialog advers Lucifer Christum pluries passum confitemur Pascasius de â—orpore Sanguine Domini Sacrificium Crucis iteratur âšœ Euseb Emissen Sabbaâ—o post Domin 2. To ties tamen occiditur à fidelibus comeditur quoties in hoc Altaris Sacramento 〈◊〉 âšœ Margin of the Sentences of Antiquity and you shall finde how the Ancient Fathers doubted not to say that Christ suffereth is slaine slayeth himselfe suffereth often in this Sacrament and that His Passion and Bloody Sacrifice is offered herein âšœ And againe As often as Christ is offered on the Altar so often is hee slaine and eaten of the faithfull Do you marke 〈◊〉 even so eaten as hee is slaine but onely so as slaine which no living man will say can be spoken Properly of Christs Body after his Resurrection âšœ These are Sayings of the highest Accent as you see and of no fewer nor meaner Fathers than these Alexander Chrysostome Cyprian Hierome Cyril of Hierusalem Hesychius Pascasins and Eusebius Emissenus âšœ Vnto this holy Assembly Gregory Nyssen joyneth himselfe who although last in place yet will appeare to be as forward in sense as the formost Hee speaking of the Body of Christ as it was a Sacrifice eaten of his Disciples in his last Supper held the Crucifyed Body of Christ to have beene even then so necessary an Object for his Disciples Eating thereof that hee saith 14 Greg. Nyssen Orat. 1. de Resurrect Christi Pro ineffabili arcanoque qui ab hominibus cerni nequit Sacrificij modo suâ dispositione administratione praeoccupat impetum violentum ac sese oblationeÌ„ ac victimam offert pro nobis Sacerdos simul agnus Dei qui tollit peccatum mundi Quando hoc accidit Cùm corpus suum ad comedendum sanguinem bibendum praebuit Cuilibet enim hoc perspicuum est quòd ore vesci homo non potest nisi comestionem mactatio praecesserit Qui igitur dedit Discipulis suis corpus suum ad comedendum apertè demonstrat jam perfectam agni immolationem Non enim ad edendum idoneum esset corpus animatum It was even then eaten
as a perfect Sacrifice of Christ But how to wit saith hee as slaine His Reason for a Body having life saith hee cannot be fit to be eaten So hee Than which nothing can make more against your Eating of Christs Body as Corporally Present or yet against a Proper Sacrifice therein âšœ What thinke you of such Sayings Can Christ be said properly to be Dead in this Sacrament b Quis unquà m Catholicê° dixit Christum rursùs mori Ribera Ies Com. in Heb. 10. num 25. Never any Catholike said so saith your Iesuite Ribera What then could be the meaning of such words If you should be ignorant your Cardinall Alan would teach you he would have you c Observandum est Christum licet modo impassibili existat in Sacramento tamen dici à Patribus mortalem imomortuum passum in Sacramento eatenus quidem quatenùs ox modo Consecrationis ipsaque vi significationis Sacramentalis mors passio Domini commemorantus atque repraesentantur Alan Card. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 38. sub finem Observe what hee saith Christ is said by the Fathers to suffer saith hee and to dye in this Sacrament onely so farre as his Death and Passion is commemorated and represented herein And so speaketh also your Romane d Glossa de Consecrat Dist â— Quid fit Hoc est ejus Mors repraesentatur Glosse What now hindreth but that whensoever wee heare the same Fathers affirming that the same Body and Blood of Christ are Sacrificed in the Eucharist wee understand them in the same impropriety of Speech that they meant onely Representatively especially when as wee see your other Grand Cardinall coming somewhat home towards us and to confesse as followeth e Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 29. §. Respondeo si c. Si Catholici dicerent in Sacrificio Missae vere Christum mori argumentum Calvini haberet aliquid virum sed cum dicunt omnes eum non mori nisi in Sacramento signo repraesentante mortem ejus quam uliquando obijâ— tantùm abest ut Missa oblâ—â—eret Christi mortem ut potiùs efficiat ut nunquam obliteretur If Catholikes should say that Christ doth truly dye in this Sacrament this Argument might be of some force but they say hee dyeth not but in Sacrament and Signe representing So hee which yet alas is too little a crevase for so great a Doctor to creepe out at First because there is aswell a Figurative as there is a Literall Truth for If I should say of Easter day said * See above Chap. 5. Sect. 5. Augustine it is the day of Christ's Resurrection I should not lye and yet it is but the Anniversarie day betokening the other When Christ said of one part of this Sacrament This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood hee spake by a double Figure said your Iesuite * Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. Salmeron yet truly Secondly Christ who is Truth it selfe in saying of Bread This is my Body or Flesh spake a Truth as you all professe and was it not likewise a Truth when hee called his Flesh Bread yea and also * Ioh. 6. The true Bread Thirdly the Fathers as they said that Christ is Dead and suffereth as you now object in this Sacrament in a Mysterie so have they also said of his Body in respect of the Eucharist It is Sacrificed in an * Ambrose Aug. above Chap. 5. Sect. 5. Image in a Sacrament or Mysterie according to that their generall Qualification saying It is the same Sacrifice which Christ offered or * Above Chap. 5. Sect. 6. rather a Remembrance thereof And Lastly the Fathers who named Baptisme a Sacrifice aswell as the Eucharist doubted not to stretch Baptisme up to as high a note as they have done the Eucharist saying f Chrysost in Epist ad Heb. Hom. 16. Baptismus est passio Christi Baptisme is the Passion of Christ and g Ambros de Poenitent lib. 2. cap. 1. In Baptismo crucifigimus in nobis filium Dei In Baptisme wee crucifie Christ To signifie that the Body of Christ is the Represented Object and not the Representative Subject of this Sacrament An Elucidation of the Premises by a Similitude of a Stage-play manifesting how the same Vnproper Sacrifice might furthermore have beene called both Bloody and Vnbloody by Ancient Fathers SECT XII A Similitude for explanation-sake would be had give us leave to borrow one from the Stage-Play for manifesting a Truth aswell as * Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. and Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 7. you have done another from thence for palliating a Falshood You may recognize with us that Tragicall end of the Emperour Mauritius by the command of one Phocaâ— once his Slave that Grand Patrone of the Popedome by Privileging the Church of Rome to be the Head of all Churches as divers of your owne Historians do relate But to the Point By the commandement of this Phocas as you * See Baron Anno 602. c. know were slaine two of Mauritius his Sons three Daughters and his Wife and all these before his owne eyes and at last the Emperour Mauritius himselfe was also murthered Were now this dolefull Spectacle acted on a Stage might not any Spectator say at the horrid sight thereof This is a Bloody Tragedie namely in respect of the Object represented herein And might hee not also say as truly This is an Vnbloody Tragedie to wit in respect of the Representative Subject Action and Commemoration it selfe seeing that there is not here shed any one drop of mans Blood And from the same Evidence it will be easie to perceive that the Greeke Fathers used to terme the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latines Tremendum that is a Terrible and Dreadfull Sacrifice namely for the Semblance-sake and Analogie it hath with Christ's Death even as one would call the Act representing the cruell Butchering of the Emperour Mauritius an Horrible and Lamentable Spectacle This is a cleare Glasse wherein any may discerne the open visage of Truth from the feigned Vizard of Errour The ninth Demonstration Because Ancient Fathers likewise called the Sacrament of Baptisme a Sacrifice for the Representation-sake which it hath of Christ's Death which is Argumentum à paribus SECT XIII WEe shall not urge the Antecedent of this Argument taken from Baptisme before that wee have made knowne the force of the Consequence thereof First one of your Cardinals thus a Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 15. Si Patres existimarunt Eucharistiam solùm esse Sacramentum non etiam Sacrificium nulla esset causa cur aliter loquerentur de Eucharistia quà m de Baptismo Nusquam autem Patres Baptismum vocant Sacrificium nec dicunt Baptizare esse Sacrificare vel immolare Quo modo igitur possibile est Patres in modo loquendi nobiscum in sententia cum Adversarijs convenisse §. Hic igitur
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
neither would nor ought to have concealed the words and names lest thereby they might have seemed to have abhorred the proper Characters of our Christian Profession Wee descend to the Fathers It is not unknowne unto you how the Fathers delighted themselves in all their Treatises with Iewish Ceremoniall Termes onely by Allegoricall Allusions as they did with the word Synagogue applying it to any Christian assembly as Arke to the Church Holocaust to Mortification Levite to Deacons Incense to Prayers and Praises and the word Pascha to the day of the Resurrection of Christ But if any should say that these Fathers used any of these words in a proper Signification hee should wrong both the common sense of these Fathers and his owne Conscience It were superfluous to urge many Instances where one will serve The word Altar applyed to the Table of the Lord which anciently stood in the g Euseb Hist lib. 10. cap. 4. Ex Orat Danegyr Paulino Tyriorum Episcopo dedicata qui Basilicam ibi construxit Sanctuario hoc modo absoluto perfecto sellisque quibusdam in altissimo loco ad Praesidum Ecclesiae honorem collocatis subsellijs ordine dispensatis Altarique denique tanquà m Sancto Sanctorum Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in medio Sanctuarij sito c. Cocclus Tom. 2. Tract de Altari Athanasio in vita Antonij Altare Domini multorum multitudine circumdatum Chrysost de visione Angelorum lib. 6. de Saerdotio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionys Hierarch Eccles cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 August de Verbis Dom. Serm. 46. de eo quod scriptum Qui mandueat Christus quotidie pascit mensa Ipsius est illa in medio constituta These Testimonies verifie the same Assertion of Doctor Falke against Gregory Martin cap. 17. The Table stood so that men might stand round aboue it Midst of the Chancell so that They might compasse it round was more rarely called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greekes or Altare of the Latines than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Mensa that is Table which they would not have done if Altar had carryed in it the true and absolute property of an Altar nay but they used therein the like liberty as they used to do in h August quaest super Exod. lib. 2. cap. 9. Altare est populus Dei Lib. 1. de Serm. in monte Altare in interiore Dei templò id est fides Lib. 10. de Civitat Dei cap. 4. Ejus est Altare cor nostrum And other Fathers ordinarily applying the name Altar to Gods People and to a Christian man's Faith and Heart ⚜ All this notwithstanding you are not to thinke that wee do hereby oppugne the Appellation of Priest and Altar or yet the now Situation thereof in our Church for use as Convenient and for order more Decent but onely the Romish Opinion and Doctrine whereby you hold them in the verie proprietie of words and not as the Fathers did onely by way of Allusion For your better Apprehension of this Truth if you will be pleased to observe that Christ in the time of the first Institution and Celebration of this Sacrament propounded it in the place where hee with his Disciples gave it unto them to be Eaten and Drunken then tell us where it was ever knowne that any Altar was ordained for Eating and Drinking In Gods Booke wee find Levit. 9. that the Priests themselves were not permitted to eate their Oblation On but Besides the Altar Neither may you thinke it any Derogation to this Sacrament that the place whereon it is Celebrated is not called an Altar of the Lord seeing the Spirit of God by his Apostle hath dignified it with as equivalent Attributes for the Apostle as hee called this Sacred Banquet purposely The Supper of the Lord and the Vessell prepared for the Liquid The Cup of the Lord so did hee name the place whereon it was set The Table of the Lord and the Contemners thereof Guiltie of the Body and Blood of the Lord and thereupon did denounce the Vengeance and Plague which fell upon prophane Communicants The Iudgement of the Lord and all these in one Chapter 1. Cor. 11. The like Difference may be discerned betweene your maner of Reverence in Bowing towards the Altar for Adoration of the Eucharist onely and ours in Bowing aswell when there is no Eucharist on the Table as when there is which is not to the Table of the Lord but to the Lord of the Table to testifie the Communion of all the Faithfull Communicants thereat even as the People of God did in Adoring him before the Arke his Footstoole Psal 99. 5. and 1. Chron. 28. 2. as Daniels Bowing at Prayer in Chaldea looking towards the Temple of Ierusalem where the Temple of Gods Worship was Dan. 6. 10. And as David would be knowne to have done saying Psal 5. 7. I will Worship towards thy holy Temple Will you suffer us to come home to you The Father Gregory Nazianzen for his soundnesse of Iudgement Sirnamed the Divine comparing this Inferiour Altar and Sacrifice on earth with the Body of Christ seated in Heaven faith that the Sacrifices which hee offereth in his Contemplation at the Altar in Heaven are i Nazian orat 28. Esto ego pellor ab Altari in Ecclesia at novi aliud Altare mentis contemplationis in coelo ibi adstabo Deo offeram Sacrificia quae sunt tanto acceptiora quà m ea quae offerimus ad Altare quanto pretiosior est veritas quà m umbra More acceptable than the Sacrifices which are offered at the Altar Below as much as Truth is more excellent than the Shadow So hee Therefore say wee the Sacrifice of Christ his Body and Blood are subjectively in Heaven but objectively here in the Eucharist here Representative only as in a Shadow but in Heaven presentatively in his Bodily presence So vainly your Disputers hitherto whilst that wee required Materials have objected against us bare words phrases and very shadowes Lastly Cyril of Alexandria k Cyril Alexand. cont Iulian. lib. 9 Iulian Ob. Iudaei sacrificant vos autem invento novo Sacrificio quare non sacrificatis illud commune nobiscum habent etiam Templa Altaria c. Resp Cyril multò post Vitae honestas ad meliora propensio est Sacrificium fragrantissimum Et Paulus hortatur nos exhibere corpora nostra Sacrificium sanctum rationalem cultum nostrum Deo Igitur etsi Iudaei sacrificarent ut in umbris praecepta implerent nos tamen latâ viâ euntes ad id quod rectum est veniemus nempè spiritualem immortalem cultum proficientes Iulian. Mosi dicitur septem diebus azymis vescemini vobis parum est abstulisse Cyril Resp Impletur Lex à nobis in azymis maximè fide justificatis in Spiritu mentalemque cultum praeponentibus tali modo Vnde scribit D. Paulus ut diem agamus in azymis sinceritatis veritatis Rursus
ut you say Is sometime taken for the thing sacrificed and also for the proper sacrificing Act. So your Cardinall and indeed both these are necessary in a Proper Sacrifice yet neither of these can possibly be found in your pretended Sacrifice of your Romish Masse That the Thing pretended to be Sacrificed is not Properly in the Romane Masse SECT I. THe things which your Romish Beliefe professeth to be Sacrificed in your Masse is the Body and Blood of Christ corporally extant therein as the proper Subject thereof But that there is no Corporall Existence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist was the Conclusion of our second third and fourth Bookes And that the same Body and Blood of Christ is not the proper subject matter of the Sacrifice used in your Masse is our Conclusion throughout this whole Booke Of both which you may have a Synopsis and generall view in the last Booke Thus of the thing Sacrificed now that which followeth concerning your Romish Sacrificing Act is a Point briefly expedited by two Propositions I. That no Act now used in the Romane Masse can truly be called a proper Sacrificing Act proved by your owne Principles SECT II. VVHatsoever Sacrificing Act your Advocates have held as Proper to a Sacrifice and assumed as belonging to the Sacrifice of your Masse have each one beene * See above Chap. 1. Sect. 5. Confuted by Doctors of your owne Church of singular estimation and rejected as utterly insufficient to prove any Proper Sacrificing Act in the Institution of Christ to wit not Elevation not Fraction not Oblation not Consecration and lastly not Consumption of the Eucharist by the mouth of the Priest Non licet actum agere said one and Non libet say wee But now are wee to discusse such Properties as are yet awanting in your Romish Execution II. That that which is properly a Sacrificing Act is wanting in the Romane Masse proved by your owne Principles SECT III. THree Properties are required of you as necessary to a properly Sacrificing Act the first is that the Action be exercised upon a thing a Concil Trid. Christus tradebat visibile Sacramentum sub specie panis vini Sess 22. et Bellarm lib. 1. de Missa cap. 27. §. Secundo Visible Secondly that the thing sacrificed be of b Septimò ritu mystico consecratur nam debet res illa quae Deo offertur ex profanà fieri sacra Idem significat Sacrificare quod sacrum facere Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. âšœ Maldonat de Eucharist pa. 353. Nostra Sententia est In eo tantum consistit Sacrificium quod ex re prophana fiat sacra âšœ Prophane made sacred by the Act of Consecration Thirdly that the Act be a c Bellar. Octavò traÌ„smutatur quià ad verum Sacrificium requiritur ut id quod offertur Deo plane destruatur id est ita mutetur ut desinat esse id quod antè erat Iâ— quo differt à simplici oblatione quae interdum mystico ritu elevabatur coram Deo sed non destruebatur nisi quando verè sacrificabatur Ratio duplex 1. ob significationeÌ„ mortis Christi 2. ad protestationeÌ„ subjectionis nostrae corùm Deo Ideò requiritur ut non solum usus sed etiam substantia consumatur Sacrificium requirâ—â— Consumptionem Patet 〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mactare Math. 22. Altilia dicuntor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occisa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Exlialatio in quo diffent ab oblatione Item 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consumo Probatur ex Scriptura ubi omnia Sacrificia destruenda erant si viventia per occisionem si inanimata Tolida per combustionem si liquida per effusionem Ex inanimis solidis per immolationes sic dictas à mola vel molendo quamvis vox Immoltare pro sacrificare sumaâ—ur Lib. â— de Missa ca. 2. per totum Et idem ibid. cap. 4. § Nunc. âšœ Gordon Iesâ—â— Controv. 9. cap. 1. nu 25. In Sacrificio propriè dictò necesse est ut adsit res visibilis permanens quae offeratur Et post num 26. Requirit etiam Interitum destructionem ejus rei quae Deo offertur ut post Thomam bene notat Bellarminus âšœ Destructive Act whereby the thing offered be truly destroyed and cease to be in substance that which it was According to your owne objected words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying a Consumption and therein answerable to the Sacrifices of the Old Law all which suffered Destruction things living by slaughter things without life if solid by burning if liquid by powring out and shedding c. So you in Thesi wee descend to the Hypothesis But before wee enter into this Disquisition wee shall desire you to take unto you the spirits of reasonable men whilest wee reason the matter with you in few words First it cannot be called Properly Visible which is not Visible in it selfe But the Body of Christ which you call the thing sacrificed is not Visible in it selfe but onely as your Councell of d Conc. Trid. and Bellarm above cited §. 3. at a. Trent hath taught In the forme of Bread and then how invisible it is onely blinde men can be ignorant Nor will wee thinke All among you to be so blinde seeing that wee heare one and that a Iesuite acknowledging his eye-sight and plainly without Parables saying that e Salmeron Christus cruentus incruentus non differunt sed quod ille visibilis hic invisibills Tom 9 Tract 29. § Iam de Christ in the Eucharist is invisible So hee Therefore the first Property of a proper Sacrificing Subject is wanting in your Romane Masse Secondly wee will not judge any of you so blasphemous as to say that the Body of Christ by your Consecration is of a Prophane thing made sacred which wee are sure your ancient Romish Schoole did deny which concluded that f Aquinas Benedictio sacerdotalis fertur super terminuÌ„ à quo non super terminum ad quem i. e. super corpus Christi In 1. Cor. 10. It is not Christ that is made sacred by benediction of the Priest but that which the Priest first taketh in his hands to blesse And so your Act of Consecration by defect of the second property is no proper Sacrificing Act of the Body and Blood of Christ Thirdly it will be as incredible even in your owne Iudgements that the Body of Christ should be properly Destroyed Wee say in your owne Iudgements who therefore are constrained to say g Bellar. Corpus Christi per consecrationem accepit formam cibi ad comestionem destructionem ordinatur licet nullam laesionem patiatur in se neque amittit suum esse naturale sed amittit Sacramentale Esse proinde desinit esse realiter in Altari desinit esse cibus sensibilis Lib. 1.
de Missa Cap. 27. §. Tertiò that The Body of Christ indeed suffereth not herein any naturall Destruction but onely Sacramentall that is Metaphoricall Ergo your Romish Masse is destitute of the proper Sacrificing Act of Destruction And againe whereas the word Immolation is taken of h Lombardus cum quaeritat quid Sacerdos gerit sit dicendum Sacrificium aut Immolatio accipit nomen Immolationis pro occisione respondet autem rectissimè Christum semel tantùm immolatum id est occisum fuisse non autem immolari id est occidi in Sacramento repraesentatione Bellorm lib. 1. de Missa cap. 15. Rursus paulò superius § Ad hanc Cruenta Immolatio semel tantùm verè propriè facta est nunc autem non propriè sed pâ—r Repraesentationem Lib. 4. Dist 12. §. Post haec Lombard for being Slaine or suffering by Death It was most truly said by him saith your Cardinall that Christ is not properly immolated meaning not slaine but onely in Representation Well then the State of the Question as your Cardinall himselfe hath set it downe is seeing that every Proper Sacrifice requireth a Proper Destruction and if it be a living Sacrifice a Destruction by death Whether Christ be properly Sacrificed or no. Marke wee pray you your Cardinal's Resolution His bloody Sacrifice was but once truly and properly done but now it is not properly done but by Representation O Spirit of Contradiction For that which is but once onely properly offered can never be said to be againe properly offered and that which is a Bloody Oblation by your owne learning cannot be Vnbloody And as great an Intoxication is to be seene in your Disputers in respect of the other part of the Sacrament touching the Cup For your Cardinall Alan defendeth a Reall Destruction in this maner i Alanus de Eucharist lib. 2 cap. 13. In carnis sanguinis separatione undè propriè in animalibus mactatio consistit vis hujus mysterij ut in eo solo cernatur divinae mortis repraesentatio sequitur Christum esse praesentem modò immolatio quod sunditur in remissione peccatorum ergo per modum Victimae praesens est imò Christus hic praesens induit eum modum quem habuit ut se offerens in Sacrificio Crucis Aliquantò post haec Propter concomitantiam de qua superius diximus in seipso non moritur In creatures living saith hee the thing sacrificed must be slaine and in this slaying by the separation of blood from the Body doth consist all force and virtue of this Mystery because Christ is herein after the maner of Sacrifice taking upon him the maner of Sacrificing which hee had in offering himselfe upon the Crosse by separation of his Blood So hee All which doth inferre a Reall and Proper separation and effusion of Blood yet immediatly after standeth hee to the Defence of Concomitancie which teacheth an Vnion of Body and Blood together in as full a maner as it was in Christ his most perfect estate But Blood Separated and Vnited are as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrarie as can be How much better would it beseeme you to confesse plainly and truly with your Costerus that k Costerus Christian Institut lib. 1. cap. 10. Christus in cruce solus seipsum obtulit per veraÌ„ sanguinis effusionem mortem hic per Sacerdotem tanquam ministrum se offert sine Sanguinis effusione morte sed per utrâ—usque repraesentationem Christ is not offered herewith effusion of Blood but by a representation thereof Thus still wee see your owne Doctors come in your most controverted points towards us albeit as Rowers looking backwards to their owne purposes and conclusions CHALLENGE A Syllogisme will quit the Businesse as for Example Every proper Sacrifice is properly Visible of Prophane is made Sacred and properly suffereth Destruction This is your owne Proposition in each part But the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is neither properly Visible nor properly of Prophane made Sacred nor suffereth any proper Destruction This is also your owne Assumption Therefore the Body of Christ in this Sacrament is not a proper Sacrifice nor properly Sacrificed This except men have lost their braines must needs be every mans Conclusion And that so much the rather because it cannot be sufficient that Christs Body be present in the Eucharist to make it a Sacrifice without some Sacrificing Act. A Sheepe is no Sacrifice whil'st it remaineth in the Fold nor can every Action serve the turne except it be a Destructive Act for the Sheep doth not become therefore a Sacrifice because it is shorne nor yet can any Destructive Act be held Sacrificing which is not prescribed by Divine Authority which onely cun ordaine a Sacrifice as hath beene confessed But no such divine ordinance hath hitherto beene proved Is it not then a miserable case which you are in to suffer your selves to be deceived by such Mountebankes who pretend to direct mens Consciences in the Mysteries of Christian Faith and particularly concerning this high point of Proper Sacrifice and in the end give no other satisfaction than by meere Riddles of a Visible not Visible Consecrated not Consecrated Destroyed and not Destroyed with Blood separated and not separated from the Body and each one spoken of the same Body of Christ Our last point concerning a proper Sacrifice followeth CHAP. VII Our Fourth Examination is of the Doctrine of PROTESTANTS in the point of Sacrifice IN discussion whereof wee are to consider first the Acts which are incident unto the Celebration of this Sacrament and then the Object thereof which is the true and reall Body of Christ as it was Sacrificed upon the Crosse In respect of the Acts wee say I. That Spirituall Sacrifices albeit Vnproper are in one respect more true and do farre excell all merely Corporall Sacrifices according to Scripture SECT I. WHen Christ called himselfe the True Vine the True light the True Bread in respect of the Naturall Vine Light and Bread Hee taught us to distinguish betweene a Truth of Excellencie and a Truth of Propriety by their different Effects That which hath the naturall property of Bread although Manna preserveth but the temporall life for * Iohn 6. See above Booke 5. Sect. 6. They ate Manna and dyed but the Bread of Excellencie which is Christs Body preserveth to * Ibid. Immortality It is a good Observation which your Canus hath that a Canus Quià per Sacrificia legis externae res quaedam spirituales potiores praesignabantur has omninò res Sacrificia holocausta hostias sacrae literae appellant ut mactationes brutorum animalium figurae erant mortificationis Loc. Theolog. lib. 12. cap. 12. §. In secundo Many spirituall things are called Sacrifices in Scriptur because they were prefigured by the outward bodily Sacrifices of the Lambe as the killing of Beasts were signes of mortification which is a killing of sinne So hee
and reasonable Sacrifice unto thee Next a Sacrifice Eucharisticall saying Wee desire thy fatherly goodnesse mercifully to accept of our Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving And why may wee not with the Scripture call this a Sacrifice seeing that your Bishop Iansenius held it for an Argument of proving Christ to have offered a Sacrifice even b Iansen ChristuÌ„ in coena Sacrificium obtuliâ—â—e primuÌ„ quidem satis est significatum cum dicitur Gratias egisse Gratiarum enim actio est quoddam Sacrificium à qua Christi actione Sacramentum corporis sanguinis Domini nomen illud ab initio Ecclesia accepit Concord cap. 131. Because hee gave Thanks giving of Thanks being a kinde of Sacrifice So hee Thirdly a Sacrifice Latreuticall that is of Divine worship saying And although wee be unworthy to offer up any Sacrifice yet wee beseech thee to accept of our bounden duty and service c. This performance of our Bounden Service is that which * See above Chap. 3. Sect. 5 Ancient Fathers called an Vnbloody Sacrifice Nor is our Church of England alone in this Profession this Truth wee referre unto the Report of your c Bellarm. Melancthon Eucharistiam Sacrificium esse vult Calvinus non solùm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse vult sed etiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. §. Ac primum §. Expendamus Cardinall and of d Canus Lutherani in Apologia Augustana perperam Sacrificium definiebant esse opus à nobis Deo redditum ut cum honore afficiamus Loc. Theolog. lib. 12. ca. 12. §. Quibus rebus Bellar. Melancthon dicit Missam dici posse Sacrificium quaetenùs sumptio Eucharistiae fieri potest ad laudem Dei sicut caetera bona opera Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. §. Ac primum Et Calvinus dicit Sacrificium generaliter acceptum complectitur quicquid Deo offertur Ibid. §. Expendamus Kemnitius dicit Sacrificium à Patribus dici Oblationem Immolationem Sacrificium quia est commemoratio repraesentatio veri Sacrificij Christi Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 15. §. Alter modus Canus by whom you may understand the agreement betweene them whom you name Lutherans in their Augustane Confession and of Calvin by acknowledging not some one Act but the whole worke of this Celebration according to the Institution of Christ both in Communication Commemoration and Representation of his Death with Praise and Thanksgiving to be a Sacrifice Eucharisticall And also to use the words of Calvin Latreuticall and Sebasticall that is a Sacrifice of Worship and Veneration which every Christian may and must professe who hath either eyes in his head or faith in his heart the Celebration of this Sacrament in Remembrance of his absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption being the Service of all Services that wee can performe to God Now wherein and in what respect wee may furthermore be said to offer to God a Sacrifice propitiatory improperly will after appeare when wee consider Christ's Body as the Object heerein That Protestants in their Commemoration offer up the same Body and Blood of Christ which was Sacrificed on the Crosse as the Object of Remembrance and most absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption which is partly justified by the Romish Masse it selfe SECT IV. NOw wee are come to the last most true and necessary Point which is the Body and Blood as the Object of our Commemoration Still still do you urge the Sayings of Fathers where they affirme that wee offer unto God The same Body and Blood of Christ on this Altar even the same which was sacrificed on the Crosse which therefore you interpret as being the same subject matter of our Commemoration As is a King acting himselfe upon a Stage as hath beene * See above Chap. 5. Sect. 7. shewen Wee as instantly and more truly proclame that wee offer Commemoratively the same undoubtedly the very same Body and Blood of Christ his All-sufficient Sacrifice on the Crosse although not as the Subject of his Proper Sacrifice but yet as the only adequate Object of our Commemoration as the Emperour Mauritius is sayd to be represented in a Stage-play wherein wee cannot possibly erre having Truth it selfe for our Guide who said Do this in remembrance of mee namely of the same Mee meaning Christ as crucified on the Crosse as the Apostle commenteth saying Hereby you shew the Lords Death till hee come even the Same Body as the Same Death whereunto beare all the Fathers witnesse throughout this Treatise Wee say againe for your better Observation the Same Body as the Same Death but it cannot be the Same Death but objectively onely Ergò can it not be the Same Body but onely Objectively Whereby it will be easie for us to discerne the subject Sacrifice of Christ from ours his being the Reall Sacrifice on the Crosse ours onely the Sacramentall Representation Commemoration and Application thereof âšœ For your better satisfaction Wee exhibit unto you the ancient Practise of your Romish Church in the Service of the Masse celebrated every Saturday in the Passion-weeke wherein as your 2 Bellar. Recog Librorum de Missa Feriâ sextâ majoris hebdomadae non celebratur Missae sacrificium quaÌ„vis in illa Actione dicat Sacerdos Orate Fratres ut et meum et vestruÌ„ Sacrificium c. Et paulò antè Sic fiat Sacrificium nostruÌ„ in conspectu tuo ut placeat Tibi Domine Deus In his duobus lotis vox SacrificiuÌ„ non videtur propriè accipienda sed largo modo pro tota ista Actione Et quòd in ista feria Missa non propriè celebretur legimus in Ordine Romano antiquissimo c. Cardinall doth certifie you and us the Priest in your Missall Prayeth twice to God to receive His Sacrifice although it be properly but onely a Sacrament the whole Action thereof being called a Sacrifice So hee even as directly for our purpose as wee could wish hereby justifying our Calling the Whole Celebration of the Eucharist albeit Properly a Sacrament onely a Sacrifice in a Large and qualified Sense according to the Practise of ancient Fathers as wee have proved throughout the whole Sixt Booke by Eleven Demonstrations âšœ CHAP. VIII Of the Second Principall part of this Controversie which concerneth the Romish Sacrifice is as it is called Properly Propitiatory THis part is divided into an 1. Explication of that which you call Propitiatory 2. Application thereof for Remission of Sinnes The State of the Question of Propitiatory what it is SECT I. THe whole Difference standeth upon this whether the subject matter of our Representation in the hands of the Priest be Properly a Propitiatory Sacrifice or no. Now Propitiatory is either that which pacifieth the wrath of God and pleaseth him by it's owne virtue and efficacie which as all confesse is onely the Sacrifice of Christ in his owne selfe or else a thing is said
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
apud Patrem Lib. 1. de offic cap. 48. Here is an Image offered Quasi that is as it were a man as it were suffering a Passion offering himselfe as it were a Priest that he may forgive our sinnes And of his now being * See above Cha. 3. Sect. 8. at the letter c elsewhere hee saith The truth is in Heaven there is Hee in truth with the Father So hee Whereby is confuted your Conclusion of a Subjective Body of Christ present herein from Quasi homo offertur for this any one may perceive to be but a Quasi Argument for a Corporall presence and to make fully for our Distinction and Defence thereby Enough of the Iudgement of Antiquity Our third Examination followeth CHAP. X. Of the pretended Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice confuted by Romish Principles as destitute of foure Properties of Propitiation THe first is the Imperfection of the Sacrificer The next the no proper Destruction of the thing sacrificed The third the Vnbloodinesse of the same And the last the but finite Virtue and value which you attribute unto it I. Confutation from the confessed Imperfection of the Sacrifice SECT I. FIrst the Reason why you account your Propitiatory Sacrifice to be but of finite Virtue is a Bellar. Ratio 2. Quare Sacrificium Crucis sit tanti valoris hoc autem siniti sumitur ex parte offerentis nam Sacrificio Crucis ipse osterens est fillus Dei per se 3 at in Sacrificio Missae est ipse offerens per Ministrum Illa actio immediatè producta à divino supposito ipsa ab humano Lib. 2. de Missa cap. 4. Because it is not immediately offered up by Christ himselfe as that was of the Crosse but by his Minister And the Reason of this you say is b Salmeron Ies Modò Christus in Eucharistia personaÌ„ induit rei oblatae quamvis Christus offerat per Sacerdotes ut Administros ejus tamen virtus causa universalis pro ratione causae secundariae operatur Sacerdos igitur ejus nomine induit personam offerentis Tom. 9. Tract 33. pag 266. de Missis privatis Because the Vniversall Cause worketh according to the limitation of the second Causes So you Vnderstanding by Sacrifice not the Object of your Remembrance which is the Body of Christ as crucified but the Subject matter in the hand of the Priest From whence this Consequence must issue whether you will or no namely that Perfection of the Sacrifice being a necessary propertie of a true Propitiatory Virtue and efficacie in prevailing with God for man it is impossible for any of your Priests because All are imperfect to offer up Properly a Propitiatory Sacrifice unto God None may hereupon oppose unto us the Propitiatory Sacrifices under the Law because they also were twice imperfect once in respect of the Sacrificer who was but a meere man and secondly in respect of the matter of Sacrifice it selfe which was some unreasonable beast and had no Virtue of Propitiation in it selfe for remission either of guilt or of the eternall punishment of sinne as hath beene * See above Chap. 5. Sect. 4. Confessed and therefore not Properly Propitiatory but Figuratively onely as Types of the Sacrifice of Christ. II. Confutation from the Romish Definition of a Propitiatory Sacrifice SECT II. SEcondly in your c Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. See above Chap. 6. Sect. 3. Romish definition it is required that the Thing propitiatorily sacrificed suffer a Reall Destruction so that it cease to be in the substance thereof and a Bodily Consumption Notwithstanding you are absolutely free from the Blasphemy to say that Christ his Body doth in the Eucharist suffer properly a Reall Destruction Ergo say wee by your owne Principle there cannot be herein a Sacrifice properly Propitiatory III. Confutation from the Apostles Position against the Vnbloodinesse thereof SECT III. THe Apostles Position is this that Without the shedding of Blood there is no Remission Heb. 9. 22. Your Romish Assumption is The Sacrifice of the Romish Masse is unbloody Our Conclusion necessarily followeth which is this Ergo say wee your Masse-Sacrifice cannot be properly Propitiatory Your Cardinall in Answering first that the d Loquitur Apostolus de Sacrificijs veteris Legis Potest etiam absolutè genetatim â—ccipi quod quotiescunque fit remissio fit sangumis effusio sed non nisi virture effusionis sive nunc facta sive post futura Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 25. §. Ad illud Apostle spake this of the Sacrifice of the Old Law onely standeth twice convicted of a foule Tergiversarion first by the Apostles Explication of himselfe who although hee spake from the observation of the Old Testament Heb. 9. 22. yet doth he apply it to the state of the New Testament in the same Chapter vers 13 14. But much more by his owne Conscience who having spent some Chapters in proving that the Sacrifices of the Law were Types of the Sacrifice in the Masse doth now deny that this Proposition of No Remission of sinnes without sheedding of Blood is to be applyed to the Eucharist Hee is glad therefore to adde a second Answer given by your Maldonate who finding no security in the former Refuge betaketh himselfe to another saying that e Si accommodemus ad Evangelium dicendum est peccata nunc remitti non propter praesentem effusionem sed per prae eritam Maldon Ies lib. de 7. Sacram. Tract de Euch. immediatè ante exitum Tom. 1. Remission of sinnes is not now for any present effusion of Blood but for that effusion which had been Which Answer if wee may so interpret it is a plaine Prevarication The Reason may be this because there was never Bloody Sacrifice Christ on the Crosse excepted which onely was of infinite virtue as well to times past as to come but it was alwayes actually by the Effusion of Blood at the time of Sacrificing These kindes of so ordinary Doublings and Turnings which your Disputers use as men in a maze do plainly Demonstrate either their irresolute Iudgements or else their dissolute Consciences and in either of both their desperate Cause Wee have not done yet but give you further to understand that as you could finde no proper Sacrificing Act to make your Masse properly a Sacrifice so neither can ye shew any propitiating Act to make it properly a Sacrifice propitiatory This wee prove out of your Councel of Colen which f Si respicimus corpus Christi quod continetur in Euch. quis negat esse propitiatorium non ratione oblationis quam Sacerdos facit sed ratione Oblationis factae in cruce Conc. provinc Colon. de Missa fol. 105. And a little after Non propitiatorium ratione Sacrificij quod est situm in actione Sacerdoris seu Mislae communicaÌ„tum aut Ecclesiae sed ratione Sacrificij quod in cruce oblatum Concludeth that your Masse-Sacrifice cannot be called
expounding them of all sins adding also Ego verâ— nunquam invenio hujus Sacrificij usum à Patribus ad pauciora restringi peccata quam ipsa immolatio crucis Ibid. pag. 626. Alan hath put into our hands a consent of some Fathers for proofe of an Application for remission of all sinnes for which Christ died The Fathers whom hee produceth are these Chrysostome Theophylact Cyprian and Origen If these will not suffise you may take unto you these b Calix sive medicamentum holocaustum ad sanandas infirmitates purgandas iniquitates Cyprian de Coena Domini Vt cum Deo acceptum fuerit peccata dimittantur August de Civiâ— lib. 20. cap. 25. Omnis nocumenti est reparatio omnis sortis purgatio Damasc lib. 4. de â—ide cap. 14. Omne crimen Iuâ— Papa apuâ— Gratian de Consecrat Dist 2. Vt peccata nostra dimittat Ambros lib. 1. de Oâ—â—ic cap. 48. There might be added â—ustine Martyr Dial. cum Triphone Chrysost Hom. 13. in Ephes Orig. Hom. 13. in Levit. besides the Liturgies of Basil and others that are extant other Iulius Pope of Rome Iustine Martyr Augustine Cyril and Basil Do you require any more What needeth it seeing that the same Cardinall further saith There is found no Father to the contrary Thus much of the Application which is to be made by this Sacrament the next is For whom That the Romish Vse of a singular Application of the Sacrifice of the Masse to Non-Communicants because of their present Attendance is repugnant to the Doctrine of Antiquity SECT III. THe Greeke and Latine Churches anciently made up the whole Catholike Church The Greeke pronounced an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Be-gone to all Non-Communicants the Latine Church also ordained that the Deacon should Proclame all Not-Communicants to Depart From which Custome afterwards the word Masse had it's Originall namely from the words Ite missa est as * See above Booke 1. Chap. â— Sect. â— â— hath beene confessed But now the Case is so altered that if any Non-Communicant being present shall in Devotion apply himselfe to your Romish Masse your c Canon Missae De Applicatione omnium Circumstantium quorum tibi fides cognita est nota devotio pro quibus Tibi offerimus c. Canon of the Masse provideth that Application of your Sacrifice be made unto him for Remission of sinnes And that as your Iesuite teacheth d Hinc Suarez Ies Quia oblatio hujus Sacrificij est fructuosa ex opere operato ergò rationi consentaneum est ut omnes qui ad illum verè concurrunt vel per proprium actum seu concursum moralem participent hujusmodi fructum talis oblationis In 3. Thom. qu. 83. Art 1. Disp 79. §. â— The Fruit of the Sacrifice Ex opere operato redoundeth unto him and not this onely but also to be e Costerus Christian Institut lib. 1. cap 8 de sacro Missae officio quotidiâ— audiendo Quotquot adsunt dignè se paraÌ„t spiritualiter corpore Domini reficiuntur per os Sacerdotis Spiritually refreshed by the mouth of the Priest Be you therefore intreated to lend your Attention but for an Instant of time and then tell us whether wee speake Reason unto you or no. All Antiquity Catholike as hath beene generally * See Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 9. confessed by your selves never admitted to that part of the Masse which you call a Sacrifice any but such as were prepared to Communicate by receiving the Sacrament but shut all others out of Doores which wee say they neither would nor could lawfully have done if they had beene of your now Romish Faith to believe that it is a Sacrifice Propitiatory for all such as devoutly attend to behold it For wheresoever there was a Sacrifice of Expiation among the Iewes under the Law all persons had liberty to partake thereof Wee thinke that this Argument sticketh fast in the Bowels of this Cause That the Romish Church lesseneth the due estimation of Christ's Passion in her Applying of it to others for the increasing of falsly-devised and unjust Gaine in behalfe of the Priest without all warrant of Antiquity SECT IV. HItherto wee have expected some Reasons which might move your Church so to lessen the proportion of Christ's Passion in the Application therof for Remission either of sinnes or punishments And now at length your Iesuite Salmeron cometh to resolve us saying a Salmeron Ies Si hoc esset infiniti valoris celebrata esset Missa pro redemptione omniuÌ„ animarum quae in expiatorio carcere contiuentur totum evacuaret Purgatorium quod non est credendum quia frustrà tot Missae prâ—o uno defuncto celebrarentur Tom. 9. Tract 33. pa. 268. De Missis privatis If the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood were of infinite value then one Masse being said for all the soules in the Dungeon of Purgatory would evacuate and empty the whole place and then should it be in vaine to say many Masses for one soule So hee Wee may not so farre digresse as to enter into this Controversie of Purgatory because wee are to finish that which wee have now in hand Else were it easie to shew that the infinite gaine which your Alchemists worke out of your forge of Purgatory-fire hath occasioned this Heterodoxe and graceles Doctrine of disannulling the infinite efficacie of Christ's Blood which is so utterly forlorne of all Approbation from Antiquity that your Disputers have not alleged so much as one Iota out of any Father for warrant thereof Next in the Sacrifice of your Masse there is say b Valent. Ies Quaedam portio remissionis competit Sacerdoti ministranti quaedam ei cui Sacerdos vult peculiari intentione applicare Quae intentio non tantum valet pro pluribus ac si pro uno solo celebretur Lib. 1. de Missa cap. ult §. Ac primum Et Alan lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 34. Vt qui Sacrificium pro Petro oâ—â—eit ratione stipendij Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disp 79. §. 9. pag. 1021. you a Portion thereof appropriated to the Priest alone which is a power to apply by his Memento the same Sacrifice to whom hee will so farre forth that hee extend his Memento upon any one to whom hee shall be pleased to intend it upon Condition to receive money therefore insomuch that It will be more availeable for that one than if it were extended to many So you Very well but by what Law came your Priests to this peculiar power of dispensing a Portion for their owne advantage Cardinall c Alan In certarum personarum Causis certam Sacrificij aestimationem â—c fructus quantitatem desinire non tam certa loquimur quia ad ista particularia nec Scripturae nec Patres quicquam conferunt Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 34. pag. 635. Alan your Advocate is ready to answer for you and wee are attentive to heare what
he saith There is not either any Scripture saith hee or Father shewing any such thing for such a maner of esteeming the fruit of Christ's Sacrifice So hee In the third place whiles wee are in this speculation wee heare one of you putting this Case If the Priest shall receive a stipend of Peter upon Condition that hee shall apply his Memento and Intention upon the soule of Iohn departed this life and hee notwithstanding doth apply it unto the good of the soule of Paul whether now the Priests Memento should worke for the good of the soule of Iohn according to the Priests Obligation upon the Condition made with Peter or else for the good of the soule of Paul according to the Priests immediate Intention Here although some of you stand for the justice of the d Inquiri potest an tenetur Sacerdos ex justitia applicare Sacrificium Petro ratione ab eo accepti stipenâ—ij nihilominus applicat Paulo vel cum jubetur offerre Sacrificium pro tali Defuncto offert pro se Quidam dicunt Sacrificium operari in hujusmodi casibus non secundùm voluntatem Ministri sed secundùm obligationem quâ tenetur pro hoc vel illo offerre Aliâ— volunt obligationem tenere Sed operatur secundùm intentionem Ministri quatenùs est Christi Minister Suarez quo supra But your Cardinall Sed injustè facere Alan quo supra cap. 35. pag. 640. Priests Obligation yet some others Resolution is that the Priests intention albeit unjust must stand for good Wee have done CHALLENGE VVHereas it is now evident that your Romish Masse serveth so well for your no small gaine by appropriating of a Priestly portion to be dispensed for some one or other soule for money as it were the Cookes fee and that but onely for the paines of a Spirituall intention yea though it be to the Injury of the Purchaser It can be no marvell that wee heare so often and as loud shouts for your magnifying of the Romane Masse as ever Demetrius and his fellow Craft-mates made for Diana the Goddesse of the Ephesians It remaineth that wee deliver unto you a Synopsis of the Abominations of your Romish Sacrifice which wee have reserved to be discovered in the eighth Booke Wee hasten to the last Examination which is of Proâ—estants CHAP. XII That the Protestants in their Celebration offer to God a Spirituall Sacrifice which is Propitiatory by way of Complacencie SECT I. CAll but to mind our former * See above Chap. 〈…〉 Distinction of a double kinde of Propitiousnesse one of Complacencie and Acceptation and the other of Merit and Equivulencie and ioyne hereunto your owne definition of Propitiousnesse by way of gracious acceptance when you confesse that Every religious Act whereby man in devotion adhereth intirely unto God in acknowledgement of his Soveraigntie mercie and bountie is propitious unto God Now then Protestants celebrating the Eucharist with Faith in the Sonne of God and offering up to God the Commemoration of his death and mans Redemption thereby a worke farre exceeding in worth the Creation if it so were of a thousand Thousand worlds and thereby powring out their whole spirit of Thankfulnesse unto God in which respect this Sacrament hath obtained a more singular name than any other to be called Eucharistia that is A Giving of Thankes and that most worthily forasmuch as the end and efficacie of Christ's Passion is no lesse than our Redemption from the eternall paines of hell and purchase of our everlasting salvation All these I say and other essentiall Duties of holy Devotion being performed not according to Mans Invention as yours but to that direct and expresse Prescript and ordinance of Christ himselfe Do this It is not possible but that their whole complementall Act of Celebration must needs be through Gods favour Propitious and well-pleasing in his sight Take unto you our last Proposition concerning the second kinde of Propitiousnesse That the Protestants may more truly be said to offer to God a meritoriously Propitiatory Sacrifice for Remission of Sinne than the Romish do SECT II. BEfore wee resolve any thing wee are willing to heare your Cardinals Determination The Death of Christ saith a Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 3. Mors Christi est Sacrificium prop iè dictum perfectissimum hee is a proper and most perfect Sacrifice So hee most Christianly But after noting the Profession of Protestants to hold that the same Most perfect Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse is the onely proper Sacrifice of Christian Religion hee denyeth this because saith b Bellarm. Ibid. cap. 20. §. Probatur Sublato Sacrificio Missae nullum restat in Ecclesia Sacrificium propriè dictum Nam si ullum esset id esset Sacrificium 〈◊〉 illud enim unum Adversarij assignant unicum esse Christianae religionis Sacrificium At hoc commune omnibus veris Religionibus sed semel poractum maneâ— quoad essectum virtutem hee This is common to all true Religions and being but once done ceaseth to be any more but onely in the virtue and efficacie thereof And all this hee doth for establishing of another properly Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Romish Masse by the hands of the Priest But wee believing that That Sacrifice of Christ's death was but once offered as according to our other distinction the onely subjective meritorious and properly Propitiatory Sacrifice therefore it ceaseth to be so any more but yet is still objectively perpetuall in the Church of God as the object of our Remembrance of his Death Representatively and Commemoratively both in our Acts of Celebration and in our Prayers and Praises offered up to God in the true apprehension of the Efficacie and Virtue thereof In which respect as Christian Beliefe professeth Christ is called * Apoc. 5. 12. The Lambe slaine from the beginning of the world so is hee the same still and ever will be untill the end thereof for which cause our Celebration is called of the Apostle A shewing of the Lords Death till hee come So that as by the Bodily Eye beholding the * Iohn 3. Serpent on a pole in the Wildernesse they that were stung with the deadly poyson of Fiery Serpents were healed even so All who by Faith the Eye of the soule behold the Sonne of God lift upon the Crosse shall not perish but have everlasting life But what is that Propitiousnesse of the Sacrifice of Christ's Body will you say which you Protestants will be said to offer more truly to God than that wee Romanists do and wherein doth the difference consist Be you as willing to heare as to aske and then know that first although the whole Act of our Celebration in Commemoration of Christ's Death as proceeding from us be a Sacrifice propitious as other holy Acts of Devotion onely by Gods Complacencie and Acceptance Yet the object of our Commemoration being the Death and Passion of Christ in his Body and Blood is to us
Hyperbolizing Preacher of all the Fathers and therefore hath given unto all Divines a speciall Caution against his Rhetorick in the point of this Sacrament lest wee understand him literally Of which kinds you may have some Instances out of the very places objected where b Chrys Orat. in Philogon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem paulò superius Chrysostome saith indeed That wee see that Lambe lying on the Altar And said hee not also even in the same Oration Wee see here Christ lying in the Manger wrapped in his clouts a dreadfull and admirable spectacle So hee But say do you see herein either Cratch or Clothes or can you talke of Christ's lying on this Altar who teach that as hee is in this Sacrament hee hath no locall Site Posture or Position at all It is also true of the Angels hee said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they stand in dread and the sight is fearefull And hee saith no lesse of the Festivall day of Christ's Nativity that It is most venerable and terrible and the very Metropolis of all others Yet doth not this argue any Corporall Presence of Christ in respect of the day This Answer taken from Chrysostome may satisfie for Chrysostome Wee grant furthermore to your c Bellar. lib 2 de Missa 〈◊〉 15. § Quinto Omnes Graeci Patres passim vocant terribile Sacrificium horroris plenum Cardinall That all the Greeke Fathers call the Eucharist terrible and full of dread But what As therefore implying a Corporall presence of Christ and Divine Adoration thereupon This is your Cardinals scope but to prove him an ill marke-man take unto you an answer from your selves * See above Booke 5. Cha. 2. Sect. 4. who teach with the Apostle that All prophane comers to this Sacrament make themselves guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ in which respect wee do acknowledge it to be Dreadfull indeed especially to the 〈◊〉 yet making no more for a Corporall presence than the contempt of Baptisme whereby a man maketh himselfe obnoxious to Gods judgements as * See above B. 5. Chap 2. Sect 3 Augustine hath compared them can 〈◊〉 same Another answer you may receive from Ancient Fathers who together with the Eucharist have * See above B. 6. Chap 5 Sect 8. called the reading of Scriptures Terrible and so were the Canons of Baptisme called Terrible even by * Ibidem Chrysostome himselfe As for your objected assistance of Angels at the Celebration of the Eucharist it is no such a Prerogative but that the Prayers of the Faithfull and Baptisme will plead for the same honour your Durandus granting of the first that d Durand Angeli adâ—uur semper nobis orantibus Lib. 7. cap. 12. The Angels of God are present with us in our Prayers and for the second Divine Nazianzen teacheth that e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 40 de Baptismo The Angels are present at Baptisme and do magnifie or honour it with their presence and observance notwithstanding none of you ever defended either Corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Baptisme or yet any Adoration of the consecrated Element of Water therein If these two may not serve take unto you this Saying of Augustine spoken of persons baptized f August de meritis de 〈…〉 Christum portantur They saith hee with feare are brought unto Christ their Physician that is for so hee expoundeth himselfe unto the Sacrament of eternall Salvation Which one Saying of so Orthodox a Father doth instruâ— us how to interpret all your objected Testimonies to wit that Whosoever come to the receiving of the Sacrament of Christ they ought to come with feare as if they were in the presence of Christ And thus is your unanswerable Objection answered so that this your Cable rope being untwisted is become no better than loose towe Now to your third Objection That the most earnestly-objected Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Adoration used of the Fathers doth not necessarily inferre any Divine Worship of the Eucharist SECT III. WEe find not your Disputers more pressing and urgent in any Argument than in objecting the word Reverence Honour and especially Adoration for proofe that Divine Honour is due to the Eucharist as to Christ himselfe whensoever they finde the use of that Phrase applyed by Antiquity unto this Sacrament Our answer is first in generall That the words Reverence Honour and Adoration simply in themselves without the Adjunct and Additament Divine cannot conclude the Divine worship proper to God To this purpose wee desire you not to hearken unto us but to heare your selves speake a Mr. Brerely Pontificales vestes calices coeperunt esse honorandi Sacramenti causâ Liturg. Tract 2. §. 8. Subd 2. The Pontificall Vestments Chalices and the like are to be honoured say you but how with divine honour you will nor say it nor will you hold our ancient Bede worthy of Divine worship albeit you entitle him Venerable in a Religious respect Yea under the degree of Divine worship wee our selves yield as much to the Eucharist as b August Epist 164. Baptismum Christi ubique veneramur Augustine did to Baptisme when hee said Wee reverence Baptisme wheresoever Accordingly of the word Adoration your Cardinall and other Iesuites are bold to say that c Ribera Ies in Apoc. 19. Item Viegas Ies in eundem locum Nec nos moveat verbum hoc Adorare cum vulgatum sit hoc creaturis tribui ut Loth cum vidisset Angelos surrexit adoravit eos pronus in terram 3. Reg. 1. Inclinabat se adorabat Bersheba Regem prona in terram Rectè igitur Iohannes adoravit Angelum laeta nunciantem Cur Angelus recusavit Gregor Hom. 8. in Evan. Angelos antè adventura Christi adoraton post assumptam humanitatem adorationem recusasse Eodem modo Glossa Hugo Rupertus alij nonnulli c. So Suarez Tom. 1. Disp 54. Bellarm. Hieronymus non ignorabat Adorationis multa genera aliam soli Deo aliam rebus deberi sacris Apol. c. 1. § PrimuÌ„ And hereckoneth Adoration of Reliques Tombes of Martyrs c. It is sometimes used also in Scriptures for an honour common to Creatures as to Angels to Kings to Martyrs and to their Tombes And although your Disputers should conceale this Truth yet would the Fathers themselves informe us in what a Latitude they used the same word Adoration Among the Latine Fathers one who knew the propriety of that Language as well as any viz. Tertullian saying d Adoro plenitudinem Scripturarum Adversus Hermog post medium pag. 350. I adore the plenitude of Scriptures and Gregory Nazianzene among the Greeke for his excellencie in divine knowledge e Greg. Nazian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 40. sirnamed the Divine and therefore may not be thought to apply words belonging to Divine worship preposterously or improperly instructed the party baptized to say thus to
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
they shew some Examples of a Bodily Inclining to the Sacrament done before Consecration yet after Consecration they have not produced any one But what newes now We blush in your behalfe to repeat the Instance which you have out of your Legends of a f Mr. Brerely Liturg. Tract 2. §. 9. Subd 3. Out of Bellarm and Bellar. out of Antoninus When not unlike to the reproofe which God miraculously gave to Balaam by the speech of an Asse a bruit-beast for our instruction did prostrate himselfe in reverence before the blessed Sacrament Brute Beast prostrating it selfe before the Host and doing Reverence unto it Wee would have concealed this but that you seeme to glory herein as being for your Instruction like to the reproofe given miraculously to Balaam by his Asse Well might this Legend have become that latter time of darknesse wherein it was first hatched but not these cleare daies wherein your mysteries of Delusions have beene so often revealed and when all Christians almost in all Countries have taken knowledge of an * BANKS HIS HORSE according to his Masters owne Relation Horse taught by Art to kneele to any person at his Masters command and once in France when by the Suggestion and Instigation of Romish Priests his Master was called into question for Sorcerie hee for vindication of his credit with them commanded his Horse to kneele before a Crucifix and therby freed himselfe from suspition of Diabolicall familiarity according to the Principles of their owne superstition And for any one to conclude this to have bin Gods miraculous work in that Horse as the other was in that Asse would seeme to be the reason of an unreasonable man because all Miracles alwaies exceed all power both of Art and Nature else were they no Miracles at all Thus to your fourth Objection from outward Acts we passe on to Examples That no Example of Invocation objected out of Antiquity can inferre the Divine Honour of the Sacrament as is pretended SECT IV. YOur Instances are Three the principall in Gorgonia the Sister of Gregory Nazianzen in whose Oration at her Funerall we find that a Greg. Nazian Orat. 11 de Gorgonia Soror Gorgonia adversà corporis valetudine laborabat eratque prodigiosum morbi genus quod nec medicorum arte nec parentum lachrymis nec publicis precibus sanari potuit desperatis omnibus alijs auxilijs intempestà nocte captatâ ad Altare cum side procumbit eumque qui super isto honoratur ingenti clamore invocans cum caput suuÌ„ part cum clamore Altari admovisset deinde hoc pharmaco i.e. Lachrymarum ut exponit Elias Cretensis perfudisset si quid uspiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 AntityporuÌ„ preciosi Corporis Sanguinis manu recondrderat ad lachrymis admiscursset ô rem admirandam statim se morbo liberatam sentit She having been troubled with a prodigious disease after that neither the Art of Physick nor teares of her Parents nor the publike Prayers of the Church could procure her any health went and cast her selfe downe at the Altar Invocating Christ who is honoured on the Altar saying that she would not remove her head from the Altar untill shee had received her health when Oh admiable event she was presently freed from her dâ—sease This is the Story set downe by Gregory Nazianâ—en Hence your Cardinall concludeth that Gorgonia invocated the Sacrament as being the very Body and Blood of Christ and calleth this An hot and stinging Argument and so indeed it may be named yet onely in respect of them whose consciences are scorched or stung with their owne guiltinesse of in forcing and injuring the Story as will now appeare For first why should wee thinke that she invocated the Sacrament Because saith your b Bellar. Procumbens ante Altare coraÌ„ venerabili Sacramento Quid autem super altare colatur dubium esse non potest cum nihil ibi ponatur nisi Panis Vinum mutanda in corpus sanguinem Christi Petium MartyreÌ„ valdè ussit pupugitque hic locus Lib. 2. de Euch cap 14 Cardinall she prostrated her selfe at the Altar before the Sacrament which words Before the Sacrament are of his owne coyning and no part of the Story His next reason Because she is said to have invocated him who is honored on the Altar As though every Christian praying at the Table of the Lord to Christ may not be justly said to Invocate him who is used to be Honoured by the Priest celebrating the memory of Christ thereon Nay and were it granted that the Sacramentall Symbols had beene then on the Altar yet would it not follow that she invocated the Sacrament as betokening a Corporall presence of Christ as your Disputers have fancied no more than if the said godly woman upon the same occasion presenting her selfe at the sacred Font wherin she had beene baptized could be thought to have invocated the water therein because she was said to have invocated him who is honoured in the Administration of Baptisme And furthermore it is certaine that the Remainders of the Sacrament in those daies were kept in their Pastophorium a * See above Book 4. Chap. 1. Sect. 10. As further also appeareth in the Liturgie of pope Clement Accipiant Diacont reliquias portent in Pastophoria Doubtlesse from the Altar to a place remote Teste pamelio Tom 1 Missal Patrion Latin pag 118. place severed from the Altar especially at this time of her being there which was in the Night as the Story speaketh O! but she was cured of her disease at the Altar And so were other miraculous Cures wrought also at the Font of * See above Book 4. Chap. â— Sect. 5. Baptisme But for a Conclusion wee shal willingly admit of Gregory Nazianzen to be Vmpier betweene us He in relating the Story saith of the Sacrament of the Eucharist 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 11. quo supra If shee at the time of her invocating had laid up any part of the Antitypes or Symbols of the precious Body and Blood of Christ that shee mingled with her teares So hee calling the consecrated Sacrament Antitypes or Signes of Christ's Body therby signifying that the Sacrament is not the Body and Blood of Christ as hath been * Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. proved unto you at large out of Nazianzen and other Greeke Fathers Whereas if indeed he had meant that the Body and Blood of Christ had beene there corporally present as that which was Invocated then now if ever it had concerned this holy Father to have expresly delivered his supposition thus viz. If she had at that time of her Invocating laid up any whit of the precious Body and Blood of Christ Wee say of the Body and Blood of Christ and not as hee said of the Antitypes or Signes of his Body and Blood Thus is your hot and stinging Reason become chilly cold and altogether dronish Your second Instance is
which is transcendently Religious and Spirituall And the Outward is common to each Degree three onely outward Acts excepted Sacrificing Vowing unto and Swearing by Homages appropriated to the Majestie of God Sacrifice to betoken his Soveraignty Vowing to testifie his Providence and Swearing for the acknowledging of his Wisedome in discerning Iustice in condemning and Omnipotencie in revenging all Perjury be it never so secret That the Reverence used by Protestants in receiving this Sacrament is Christianly Religious SECT II. THeir Inward is their religious Estimation of this Sacrament in accounting the Consecrated Elements to be in themselves Symbols and Signes of the precious Body and Blood of Christ a Memoriall of his death which is the price of mans Redemption and to the Faithfull a Token of their spirituall Vnion with all the Members of Christ and by the incorporation of them in their flesh a Pledge of their Resurrection unto life Secondly their outward Application for testifying their inward estimation consisteth not essentially in any one peculiar Gesture in it selfe as you will a Conc. Carth. 6. Can. 20. Quoniam sunt quidam qui die Dominico slectunt genua in diebus Pentecostes placuit sanctae magnae Synodo cunctos stantes Deum orare debere Durant de Ritib lib. 3. cap. 2. num 21. Hoc ipsum diebus quinquaginta à Pascha usque ad Pentecosten observari consuetum veteres Patres testantur Ratio ex Ambrosio Serm. 21. de Pentecoste quia Resurrectionem Domini celebremus ut Hieron Proem in Epist ad Ephes Non â—lectimus genua non cuâ—vamur in terra sed cum Domino surgentes ad alta sustollimus confesse from Antiquity whether it be in Standing Bowing Kneeling or the like even because the Gestures of Vncovering Bowing and Kneeling are outward behaviours communicable to other persons besides God according to their Naturall Morall Politike and Religious respects Howbeit any of these outward Gestures which carry in them a greater respect of Reverence may be injoyned by the Church whereunto obedience is due according to the just occasions inducing thereunto And where there is no such necessary occasion there the publike observation of the Rites of Communicating commanded by Christ in his first Institution performed namely by Supplications and Praises is a plaine profession of Reverence and more especially that Invitation used in most Churches Christian of the Priest to the People Lift up your hearts and their answerable Conclamation Wee lift them up unto the Lord. It will be objected by Some who pretend to have some Patronage from Calvin that Kneeling at the receiving of the Communion is Vnlawful Every such One is to be intreated to be better acquainted with Calvin where speaking of the Reverence of kneeling hee saith b Calvin Institut lib. 4. §. 37. Iam verò longius prolapsi sunt viz. Papistae ritus enim excogitârunt prorsùs extranâ—os in hoc ut signum divinis honoribus afficiant At Christo inquiunt hanc venerationem deferimus Primùm si in coena hoc fieret dicerem eam esse adorationem legitimam quae non in signo residet sed ad ChristuÌ„ in coelo sedentem dirigitur It is lawfull if it be directed not to the Signe but to Christ himselfe in Heaven which is the resolute profession of our English Church in the use of this Gesture âšœ And the use of Bowing towards the Lords Table hath in it no other nature or meaning than Daniel his Kneeling with his face towards Ierusalem and the Temple For as this was a Testification of his joynt-Society in that religious worship which had beene exercised in the Temple and Altar thereof at Hierusalem so ours is a Symbol of our union in profession with them who do faithfully Communicate at the Table of the Lord. âšœ But to returne unto you who thinke it no Reverence which is not given by Divine Adoration of this Sacrament wee aske Do not you use the Sacrament of Baptisme Reverently you do yet do you not adore the water with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you yield unto the Eucharist All this notwithstanding Calvin his estimation of this Sacrament seemeth but prophane to many of you but the Reason is you would rather condemne him than judge him lest that his Doctrine if it come to examination might condemne you For albeit hee abhorre your Divine Adoration of the Host yet doth he also c Calvin deâ—ens Sanct. Doctâ— advers Westphal Sive utilitas nostra spectetur sive dignitas reverentia quam Sacramento deferri par est pag. 25. Rursus Profani quià sacrae coÌ„municationis pignus quod reverenter suscipere decebat non mirum si corporis sanguinis Christi rei censeantur Ibid pag. 39. condemne every Prophane man who shall partake thereof in the state of Impenitencie To be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ Your next Question will be after this our Discovery of the manifold Perplexities wherein you by your Romish Doctrine are so miserably plunged how Protestants can avoid in many of them the like Intanglements That Protestants in their Profession and Practice stand secure from the first two Romish Perplexities in respect of Preparation of the Elements and undue Pronunciation of the words of Consecration SECT III. OVr Church commandeth that the best Bread and Wine be provided for this best of Banquets the Supper of our Lord yet doth it beleeve that Christ the Ordainer thereof will not deprive the soules of his guests of their desired spirituall Blessings for the negligence of his steward in being defective to provide the Materiall Elements if so be that there be therein according to Christ his Institution the substance of Bread and Wine As for Pronunciation you know Protestants make their Celebration in a tongue knowen unto all the people communicating and in a loud voice according to the universall Practice of the Church of Christ in primitive times as * See above Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. 7. hath beene confessed So that the Peoples eares may be their owne witnesses whether the words of Consecration either by Prayer or together with the forme of Repetition of the words of Institution be truly delivered which freeth them from your Romish perplexity of not knowing whether the Priest hath truly Consecrated by his muttering of the words in an unaudible voice The Protestants Security in respect of the third Romish Perplexity of Adoring in a Morall Certaintie SECT IV. OVr Profession is to adore Christ with an infallible faith and not with a conjecturall Credulity or Probability as wee are taught by the holy Scripture the Canonicall foundation of Christian faith defining Faith to be an * Heb. 11. 1. Evidence of things not seene namely a more infallible apprehension of the minde than any perception of sight can be a faith required of every one which shall approach in supplication to God * Heb. 11. 6. Hee that cometh to God must beleeve that God
you will a transformed Devill yet the seed being Gods it may be fruitfull whatsoever the Seed-man be if the ground that receiveth it be capable Therefore here might wee take occasion to compare the Ordination Romish and English and to shew ours so farre as it consenteth with yours to be the same and wherein it differeth to be farre more justifiable than yours can be if it were lawfull upon so long travelling to transgresse by wandring into by-pathes Our last Securitie from the Romish Perplexity of Habituall Condition SECT VII HAbituall or virtuall Condition as it is conceived by your Professors standeth thus I adore this which is in the hands of the Priest as Christ if it be Christ being otherwise not â—illing so to do if it be not Christ What my Masters Iffs and And 's in divine worship These can be no better in your Church than leakes in a ship threatning a certaine perishing if they be not stopped which hitherto none of your best Artificers were ever able to do For as touching your profane Lecturer c Suarez Ies Simpliciter adorandus est Christus in Eucharistia aliud exigere ex iis esset superstitiosum vanis scrupulis superstitionibus exposituÌ„ neque enim est consentaneum ibi trepidare ubi non est vel probabilis ratio timendi sed potiùs periculum nè dubitatione devotio animi minuatur Tom. 3. qu. 79. Art 8. Disp 65. Sect. 2. Suarez labouring to perswade you to Adore Christ in the Eucharist simply without all scrupulizing saying It is not fit to feare where no feare is When as hee himselfe as you have heard hath told us that there are possibly incident * See above Chap. 5. Sect. 6. at a Almost Infinite Defects and consequently as many Causes of doubting which may disannull the âšœ whole Act of Consecration âšœ Every Morall Certaintie as your other i Lessius Ies Opusc Tract de Praescien condit cap. 21. §. Sed contra Moralis certitudo non est absoluta sed secundùm quid qualis nimiùm per conjecturas possit haberi ex signis cum quibus non necessariò conjungitur veritas rei signatae Iesuit and you all confesse being but conjecturall âšœ Therefore there needeth none other Confutation than this of his owne shamelesse Contradiction which as you may see is palpably grosse So impossible it is for any of you to allay the detestable stench of plaine Idolatry Certainely if S. Augustine had heard that a Worship of Latria which hee every-where teacheth to be proper to God were performed to Bread and Wine as the matter of Divine Adoration hee neither would nor could have said in defence thereof as hee did of the Celebration of the Eucharist in his owne time viz. d Aug. contr Faust Manich. lib. 20 cap. 21. Nos à Cerere Libero Paganorum Diis longè absumus Wee are farre from your Paganish worshipping of Ceres and Bacchus But as for us Protestants wee professe no Divine worship of God but with a Divine that is an Infallible Faith that * ⎠* it is God whom wee worship who will not be worshipped but in spirit and truth What furthermore wee have to say against your Romish Masse will be discovered in the Booke following THE EIGHTH BOOKE Of the Additionalls by a Summary Discovery of the manifold Abominations of the Romish Masse and of the Iniquities of the Defenders thereof THese may be distinguished into Principals which are Three the Romish Superstitiousnesse Sacrilegiousnesse and Idolatrousnesse of your Masse and Accessories which are These Obstinacies manifold Overtures of Perjuries Mixture of many ancient Heresies in the Defenders thereof CHAP. I. Of the peremptory Superstitiousnesse of the Romish Masse in a Synopsis SECT I. MAny words shall not need for this first point Superstition is described by the Apostle in this one word * Coloss 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Mans will-worship as it is opposite to the worship revealed by the will of God What the will of Christ is concerning the Celebration of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood wee have learned by his last Will and Testament expresly charging his Church and saying Do THIS pointing out thereby such proper Acts which concerned either the Administring or the Participating of the same holy Sacrament But now cometh in Mans will-worship ordained in the Church of Rome as flatly contradictory to the same Command of Christ by Ten notorious Transgressions as if it had beene in direct Termes countermanded thus Do not This as hath been * Booke 1. thorowout proved notwithstanding the former direct Injunction of Christ or conformable Observation of the holy Apostles or Consent and Custome of the Church Catholike and that without respect had to the due Honour of God in his worship or Comfort and Edification of his People And then is Superstition most bewitching when it is disguized under the feigned vizard of false Pretences which have bin many devised by the new Church of Rome in an opinion of her own wisdome to the befooling vilifying of the Ancient Catholike Church of Christ which never esteemed the same Reasons reasonaable enough for making any Alteration but notwithstanding such imaginations precisely observed the Precept and Ordinance of Christ But that which excedeth all height of Superstition is when upon the will-worship of man are stamped counterfeit Seales of forged Miracles as if they had beene authorized by the immediate hand of God whereof your Legendaries have obtruded upon their Readers * Booke 4. Ca. 2 〈◊〉 Thirteene Examples to wit of Fictitious Apparitions of visible Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist which maketh your Superstition Blasphemous as if God should be brought in for the justifying of Falshood a Sin abhorred by holy Iob saying to his Adversaries * Iob 13. 4 7 You are Forgers of Lies will you speake deceitfully for God And furthermore how Sacrilegious and Idolatrous your Romish Superstition is you may behold in the Sections following Of the Sacrilegiousnesse of the Romish Masse and Defence thereof in the point of Sacrifice comprized in this Synopsis SECT II. SAcrilege is whatsoever Violation of any sacred Person Place or Thing Now omitting to speake of your Dismembring the Eucharist by administring it but in One kinde which your Pope a Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 7. in the Challenge Gelasius condemned for a Grand Sacrilege or of the like points formerly discovered in the first Booke wee shall insist onely in your Churches Doctrine of Sacrifice wherein your Sacrifice is found to be grossely Sacrilegious in the Tractate of the Sixth Booke I. By Creating a new Sacrifice as Proper and thereby assuming to her selfe that b Booke â— Cha. â— Sect. â— Excellencie of Prerogative which is proper to Christ alone the High Priest and Bishop of our Soules namely the power of ordaining Sacraments or if need were Sacrifices in his Church Which Guiltinesse wee may call a
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
The Fathers Doctrine herein Ibid. Repugnant to the Romish p. 484 485. And that this is for false Gaine p. 486. AQVARII Heretikes what they were p. 62. 81. ARMY Consisting of one man pag. 268. ARNOBIVS That Melchisedech as Christ offered Bread and Wine pag. 406. ATHANASIVS against the Hereticall Manichees for the Certitude of the Sense of Touching p. 170. That Angels are but in one place p. 262. So the Holy Ghost is in all places Ibid. He is against the Apparitions of souls departed in diverse places at once because that this is proper to God Ibid. The Body of Christ is to rise in all Perfection pag. 283. Apparitions of some in two places at once objected out of Athanasius and Answered pag. 261 262 c. His Saying that Christ mentioned his Ascension to prevent the Capernaiticall sense of Eating his flesh pag. 340. And Wee by the Incarnation of Christ are Deifyed p. 361. And By Baptisme are made alive with Christ and our flesh no more Earthly but made the same word which was made flesh Ibid. His Saying That Christ transmitteth not his Priesthood to any Successor p. 411. And that Bread and Wine of Melchisedech were a signe of an unbloody Sacrifice p. 453. â—ine And that Wee adore the Trinity before we be baptized in their names p. 509 ATTALAS the Martyr denyeth the Devouring of Christ p. 375 382. AVERROES his Imputing unto Christians the Devouring of their God because of the Romish false Profession p. 381. AVGVSTINE against Prayer in a Language Vnknowne p. 29. Vnconscionably objected to the Contrary p. 34. Hee is for Consecration by Prayer p. 11. And is against the Communion but in one kinde p. 77. He teacheth Hoc in Christs words to demonstrate Bread p. 103. Corruptly and Vnconscionably alleged by many Romanists for making Christ in the Eucharist a Figure of himselfe as he was on the Crosse p. 118 119. He dignifyeth the Bread as it is Sacramentall with the arme of Heavenly Bread p. 127. And teacheth a Figurative sense in Christs words This is my Body Eat my flesh p. 127. 136. His Saying That which you see is Bread pag. 169. That on the Altar not borne of the Virgin Mary p. 158 233. Hee expoundeth the Fruite of the Vine Math. 26 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine pag. 164. His Saying Of the Sacramentall part one consisteth of many Graines p. 170. His Saying That which is distributed on the Lords Table is to be diminished p. 179. I. He is against the Being of a Body in two places at once p. 245. II That Christs Body removing cannot be in the place from whence it is removed Ibid. III. He is not alwayes with men here on earth because ascended Ibid. IV. Christs Body cannot be both in Sun and Moone p. 246. V. The Divine abideth still on Earth the Humane is in one place in Heaven Ibid. He is objected for Christs carrying himselfe in his owne hands p 249 His Saying that The Soule of Christ could not be in Heaven and Hell both at once p. 262 Ob. For Penetration of the Doores by Christs Body Answered p. 275. He is against the Romish Article of any Bodies Being in every part of the space of its Existence pag. 274. Hee saith that Christâ—s Bodily Presence is to be sought after onely in Heaven pag. 306. That Iewes ate the same Spirituall meate with Christians 314. That only the Godly participate of Christs Body p. 315. The wicked saith hee receive the Sacrament but not the virtue thereof by Virtue signifying The Body of Christ 324 325 326. He saith that The â—apernaits understood not Christs meaning p. 330. And that Christ confuted them by mentioning his Ascension Ibid. He is against the Manichees their belching Christ out p. 351. And against them that impâ—ted to Christians a worship of Ceres and Bacchus Ibid. His Testimony Fit Panis mysticus Corrupted by adding Corpus Christi p. 352. His Saying You eat not the Body which you see 340. Wee receive with mouth and heart fondly Objected p. 343. And Christs Blood is powred out into our mouths Ibid. His Saying By Baptisme wee are incorporated into Christ pag. 357. Hee is for onely the Soule-eating of Christs Body p. 385. Hee is wrongfully urged for a Proper Sacrifice from the Act of Melchisedech pag. 404. Hee is for Christs exercising his Priesthood now in Heaven pag. 415. How Presbyteri are Priests Ibid. Sacrifice is called as Easter day is called Christs Passion p. 442. The Death of Christ the onely True Sacrifice Ibid. Hee and other Doctors before him held Baptisme to be a Sacrifice of Christs Passion p. 459. But Metaphorically Ibid. Every Good worke is a True Sacrifice p. 471. The Blood of Christ reveiled herein that is Objectively pag. 478. Baptized are brought thither by feare p. 507. To reverence Baptisme wheresoever it is pag. 508. None Eateth Christs â—â—esh before hee adore it Ibid. Wee are to Reverence the Sacrament of Baptisme and Celebration of the Eucharist without carnall sense p. 509. He is for Prostrating of the Body lifting up of the mind to Heaven p. 526 AVGVSTANA CONFESSIO or the Confession of Auspurge consented unto by all Protestants p. 310. See LVTHERANS B BAPTISME is called a Buriall as Bread is called Christs Body p. 125 As Baptisme the Sacrament of Adoption is called Adoption so Bread is Christs Body p. 128. Euphramius his comparison of Water of Baptisme with Bread in the Eucharist p. 129 It is paralleld with the Eucharist almost in all the Sayings of the Ancient Fathers which the Romish Disputers allege for proof of either a Literall Exposition of Christs words This is my Body or for Transubstantiation or Corporall Presence or Bodily Vnion or Proper Sacrifice or Divine Adoration to the Confutation of the Objectors in each one p. 568 569 570 571 572 573. in a Generall Synopsis BASIL against Prayer in an Vnknowne Tongue p. 36. He is for Consecration by Prayer p. 10. Hee is for an Audible voice in the Priest p. 23. Hee calls the Eucharist a Viand p. 366. and Baptisme the Pledge and earnest of Blessing to come p. 367. Hee calleth the Eucharist an Vnbloody Sacrifice p. 451. His Liturgie for offering a Reasonable Service Objected and Answered Ibid. pag. 452 c. Hee saith that the Mysteries of Baptisme were kept secret p. 512. His saying that No Father left in writing the words of Invocation 519. Bellarmine absurdly mistaken in the word Invocation 518. proved 520. Basil's Liturgie in praying to God propitiously to receive the Gift doth confute the Romish Doctrine of a Corporall Presence and Sacrificatory Presence of Christ in the Eucharist p. 562. BEASTS to Eat and Swallow the Body of Christ is the Beastly and Capernaiticall Romish Doctrine p 348. A Beast adoring the Host absurdly objected by Bellarmine p. 516. BEDA expoundeth the Fruite of the Vine to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine p. 163. BERENGARIVS his forme of
the onely perfect Sacrifice p. 445. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Calumniously objected p. 496. K KNEELING Confessed by Romanists not to be Absolutely necessary in Reverence performed at the Receiving of the Eucharist pag. 515. Which cannot conclude it not to be expedient with us Ibid. L LIFT VP YOVR HEARTS used of the Councell of Nice p. 303. Vsed also of the Fathers against the Conceipt of Corporall Presence p. 525. LITVRGIES Anciently against the Romish Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist in the Masse p. 46 c. They Confute the Romish Sacrilegiousnesse in their Masse p. 562 563. S. Iames S. Basil S. Chrysostome Pope Clement Ibid. LVTHERANS Opinion touching Christs Presence in the Eucharist agreeth with the Augustane Confession p. 310. See Augustane Confession M MACARIVS His Opinion concerning the word Antitype p. 116. MADE Wee are made the same Body which wee receive So Chrysost and Bede pag. 202. MAD-MEN made Capable of the Eucharist is a Romish Innovation pag. 53 c. MALACH 5. In every place shall Sacrifice be offered in my name Objected for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse but upon a false foundation p. 429 430 c. It maketh against the Romish Sacrifice by the Exposition of the Fathers p. 434. Other Propheticall Scriptures constrainedly applyed to the Masse p. 435 c. MANNA A Spirituall meat to the Iewes p. 159. It is compared with the Eucharist p. 426 427. MANER Although the Controversie be onely De modo of Christs Presence in the Eucharist yet may the Romish Doctrine be Hereticall pag. 210 211. There is a double Quomodo the one Prudentiae the other Infidelitatis p. 211. MASSE The word Masse is derived from the Latine word Missa est pag. 2. It Confuteth the Romish practice of Non-communicants seeing Masse p. 3. Private Masse a Transgression of Christs Institution pag. 17. Against Antiquity p. 19. The Romish Masse is destitute of whatsoever is pretended to be Properly a Sacrificing Act therein p. 466. MELCHIZEDECH his ministring of Bread and Wine to Abraham not justly Objected for proofe of a Type of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse pag. 404 c. Fathers forcedly Objected for that purpose See Priesthood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not used of the Greekes concerning the Change in the Eucharist pag. 150. MEVM in Christs words Hoc est corpus meum as uttered by the Priest is Figurative pag. 138. That they cannot be Consecratory and Operative words as they are uttered by the Priest Ibid. See Figurative MIRACVLOVS Penetrations of Christs Body Objected p. 275. Thirteene miraculous Apparitions of the true Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist falsly pretended for proofe of a Corporall Presence p. 218 219 220 c. MORAL CERTAINTY No sufficient excuse against the Imputation of Formall Idolatry in the Romish Masse pag. 534 535 c. Protestants security in this respect p. 553 N NATVRE IS CHANGED This Phrase cannot inferre a Corporall Change in the Eucharist pag. 191. Christs two different Natures pag. 242 243 c. NAZIANZEN by his calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype yieldes to a Figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body p. 115. Hee noteth something to be Impossible even to the Advancement of Gods Omnipotencie p. 229. Hee holdeth it as a Doctrine of Faith that Every Angell hath allotted unto him a prescript place or space p. 261. His Answer to Apollinarius denying Christ to be God and man for then two Natures should be in one The reason saith hee of two being in one and of God-head and Man-hood in one are not Comparable p. 263. Hee is Objected for the Penetration of the Doores by Christs Body pag. 275. One place is not Capable of many Bodies pag. 259. Hee called the Eucharist a Viand pag. 366. His saying I have another Altar in Heaven whereof these are but signes pag. 417. His saying The Legall Passeover is a more obscure figure than the Eucharist p. 427. Hee calls the Eucharist an Vnbloody Sacrifice pag. 453. Hee differenceth the Altar below from the Altar in Heaven as the Lesse and more acceptable to God pag. 463. His saying Angels are present at Baptisme pag. 507. His Oration of Gorgonia vainly Objected for proofe of Divine Adoration of the Euchrist p. 517. His saying of Gorgonia That she mingled her teares with the Antitypes of Christs body and blood Ibid. His Pastophorie Ibid. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 518. His saying of ô Pascha Vindicated as spoken of the Feast of Easter and not of the Eucharist pag. 521 522 c. NORTHERN People not utterly destitute of Wine pag. 78. NICETAS is an Expounder of the words of Nazianzen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 522. GREG. NYSSEN is Objected in his Catech. Oration saying The Body of Christ is changed into whatsoever the Receiver will And Christs Body doth change our Bodies into it selfe pag. 202. Hee saith No Incorporcall thing can be Meate to a Corporall thing pag. 305. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seemeth nothing for Transubstantiation pag. 208. He calleth Baptisme a Divine Lavar working merveilous effects pag. 185. And Divine not common Water pag. 195. Hee is objected for Corporall Presence in diverse places at once but unconscionably pag. 248. Hee affirmes the Blessed Virgins opening of her Cell at Christs Birth pag. 277. Hee is Objected unconscionably for Corporall Vnion of Christ by Bodily nourishing our Bodies pag. 362. Confessed that hee spake of a Permanent Vnion pag. 365. That hee speaking of the nourishment of mens Bodies by this Sacrament meant not any Substantiall nourishment thereby which were Absurd as is Confessed Ibid. pag. 362. Hee is againe Objected pag. 500. Hee saith that Christ offered himselfe to his Disciples but was first slaine pag. 456. All such Sayings as this are Confessed to meane Commemoratively and Representatively onely and in a Sacrament or Mystery Ibid. Suffering in a Mystery Ergò Eaten in a Mystery Present in a Mystery Hee called Baptisme Blood in a Mystery Ibid. O OBSTINACY of Romish Disputers made Palpable in a full Synopsis p. 568 569 c. OECVMENIVS wrongfully Objected for a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse from the Act of Melchisedech pag. 404. Hee disclaiming all Properly called Altar Priesthood and Sacrifice p. 417. OMNIPOTENCY is required in making a Sacrament pag. 188 189 c. Omnipotencie attributed of the Fathers to the Eucharist no Argument of Transubstantiation pag. 188. Calvin and Beza Vujustly charged with Denying God's Omnipotencie pag. 231. Omnipotencie Falsely pretended for Defence of the Eutychian Heresie pag. 267. 277. OMNIPRESENCY of God impudently Objected to proove a Possibility of a Bodily Presence in diverse places at once pag. 260 261. Confuted by Ancient Fathors pag. 262. OPTATâ—S his Saying The Mâ—mbers of Christ are upon the Altar And the Altar is the Seate of Christs Body And it is an haynous thing c. Vnworthily Objected pag. 344. And his Saying of the Eucharist that It is a Pledge of our Salvation
unconscionably Objected for our Corporall Vnion with Christ in the Sacrament pag. 367. ORALL-EATING is Capernaiticall p. 399 340 c. ORDINATION Want of this in the Priest is cause of Romish Idolatry pag. 531. Much more in respect of the same want in the Ordainers by many hundred Possible Defects pag. 532. Protestants Securitie in their Beliefe in respect of this pag. 554. ORGANIZATION of Christs Body Denyed by the Romish pag. 269 270 c. See Body of Christ ORIGEN Objected untruly for an Vnknowne Prayer pag. 35 Hee is against Reservation of the Eucharist to any other end but Eating pag 49. Hee Teacheth Hoc in Christs words to demonstrate Bread pag. 103. Hee expoundeth the Fruite of the Vine Matth. 26. 29. to Signifie the Eucharisticall VVine pag. 163. His Saying The Materiall goeth into the Draught pag. 177 187. Hee holdeth it as a Doctrine of Faith that Every Angell hath allotted unto him a prescript place or space pag. 261. Hee standeth for the Blessed Virgins opening her Cell at Christs Birth pag. 277. Hee saith that Onely the Godly are Partakers of Christs Body pag. 321. Hee calleth the Sacrament after Consecration Bread and materiall meat pag 349 350. And No wicked man can eate Christs flesh else hee should live for ever pag. 350. Hee is against the Literall Eating of Christs flesh pag. 339. His Saying Christ entreth under the roofe of his mouth Vnconscionably Objected pag. 342. His Saying Wee Drinke Christs Blood by Receiving his Word pag. 345. The Naturall Sanctifyed and Symbolicall Body meat eaten may goe into the Draught pag. 349. Hee saith Christ is the onely true Passeover pag. 423. And Christ our Priest not to be sought here at all but in Heaven pag. 417. And that The Passeover was onely Signe of Christs Passion p. 443. Hee saith The onely Commemoration is a Proper Sacrifice pag. 477. His Saying I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter into my mouth Objected fondly for Adoration of the Eucharist pag. 521. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Properly taken for Substance in Theodoret. pag. 180 181 182 c. And among the Grecians as well Catholikes as Heretikes Substance falsely interpreted Accidents Ibid. P PACHYMERES upon the words of Dionysius O Divine Sacrament pag. 518. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Which is vindicated againe against a late Calumnious Seducer p. 521. PAMELIVS his Abuse of the Testimony of Tertullian for Procession with the Eucharist p. 50. PAPAL Authority equalled with the Apostolicall and opposed unto it pag. 65 66 c. PARALLâ—LS Answering by Parallels and equivalent termes and phrases of the Fathers is justifyable and necessary pag. 366. PASCHATIVS saith that Christs Body is a Bloody Sacrifice and slaine in the Eucharist p. 455. That he meant it of the Passion of the Crosse is Confessed p. 456. PASSE-OVER a Figure of the Old Law Objected as a Type of the Masse which was a Type of Christ upon the Crosse p. 422 423 c. Proved out of the Fathers Ibid. PASTOPHORIVM was wherein the Sacrament was reserved in a Chamber not in a Boxe p. 49. PENETRATION of Dimensions denyed by Damascen p. 275. PERIVRâ—â—S of the Romish Disputers and Instances thereof pag. 574 575 c. In Translations and Expositions of Scripture pag. 576 577 c. In affirming Consent of Antiquity and in their supposed necessity of their Doctrines pag. 580 581 c. PERPLEXITIES of Romish Worship in the Adoration of the Eucharist in respect of their Pronunciation of Christs words pag. 552. Of Morall Certainty pag. 553. Priestly Intention Ibid. Of Ordination Ibid. p. 554. from Habituall Condition p. 555. PHILO IVDAEVS Against Prayer in a Language Vnknowne pag. 29. PLACE A Body in two Places at once See Body See Angels And see Circumscription PLEDGE So was the Eucharist called pag. 366. Objected and Answered Ibid. POPE A Pope of Rome against Prayer in an Vnknowne Tongue pag. 35. Popes farre from being Priests after the Order of Melchisedech pag. 410 411. c. PO. ALEXANDER saith that Christs Body is a Bloody Sacrifice and slaine in the Eucharist pag. 455. meant of the Passion of the Crosse Confessed p. 479. PO. GALIXTVS against the Romish Custome of Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist in the Masse pag. 46. POPE CLEMENT by his Calling the Encharist Type and Antitype yeildeth to a Figurative sense of Christs Words This is my Body pag. 116. Hee saith also Wee divide it into Fragments pag. 179. And nameth Haec Antityppa speaking of the Body and Blood of Christ shed pag. 454. PO. CORNELIVS standeth for the Receiving of the Eucharist with Hands p. 44. POPE GALASIVS is against the Communion but in one kinde pag. 71 c. Speaking also of Bread and Wine Consecrated saith They cease not to be in substance the same pag. 148. That the same Gelasius was indeed Pope Ibid. Hee is Objected for calling the Eucharist Divine but as did Gregory Nyssen call Water of Baptisme Divine and Dionysius other sacred things pag. 185. POPE GREGORY is against the Romish Private Masse of the Priests Communicating alone pag. 20. And against the Romish Custome of Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist in the Masse pag. 46. He saith that the Infidelity of Thomas was Convinced by Touch. pag. 68. And affirmeth that Angells are Circumscribed in place pag. 262. Hee writeth against the Heretikes who taught the Body of Christ to be brought into an airy substance pag. 274. Against the Eunomians who held the Body of Christ to be Impalpable His Saying Christs Blood is sprinckled on our Posts Vnconscionably Objected pag. 343. And taught that Christ exercised his Priesthood in Heaven p. 419. POPE INNOCENT the Third is against Prayer in a Tongue Vnknowne pag. 35. And against the Romish Private Masse pag. 21. His Errour of Administring the Eucharist to Infants pag. 51 52. Pope Innocent and Pope Iulius Repugnant in the point of Transubstantiation pag. 155. And Expoundeth the fruite of the Vine Matth. 26. 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine pag. 164. Hee held Transubstantiation onely in matter and the Councell of Trent both in matter and in forme pag. 155. His Similitude of a Bodies being in diverse places at once from Voice pag. 258. Hee saith that Christs Body should be Mortall and Immortall it is Incredible pag. 256. And of Vasquez his Blacks and Whites Ibid. Hee saith that Agility is one of the Indowments of a Glorifyed Body pag. 285. POPE IVLIVS is against the Alteration of the Institution of Christ in the Eucharist pag. 62. And in reproving Innovations concerning the Eucharist hee challengeth all to follow Christs Institution who allowed the use of both Bread and Cup. pag. 88. Hee held Transubstantiation to be both in matter and forme p. 155. POPE LEO sayd of the Baptised He is not the same hee was but made the flesh of Christ 202. And the Regenerate is made the Body of Christ crucifyed Ib. He is against the abominable Romish Doctrine of an Imperfect
perficiente substantiam permanent tamen suâ proâ—â—etate naturae By this it may bee seene indeed that this Gelasius was a Latine Author but what is this to the Greeke Theodoret when the Latine Language was not so perfect and that he did use the word equivocallâ— but yet so that the matter it selfe doth challenge a proper use thereo when hee speaketh of the Substancè of Bread for confutation of the same heresie Cardinalls here as before by Substance interpret Accidents one of them labouring to prove that Gelasius somewhere else called Accidents Substances Were this granted yet the Argument which Gelasius hath in hand will compell the understanding Reader to acknowledge in this his Sentence a proper signification of Substance For where as the Heretike Eutyches taught that Christ his Body was changed into the Substance of his Divinity after the Resurrection and that the substance of his Body remained no more the same Gelasius confuteth him by a Similitude and Comparison viz. That as the Substance of Bread remaineth after Consecration So Christ his Bodily Substance remained after the Resurrection Wherein if the word Substance bee not in both places taken properly Gelasius should have made but a mad Reason as any reasonable man will confesse For albeit Similitudes doe not amble alwayes on foure feet yet if they halt upon the right foot which is the matter in Question they are to be accounted perfit Dissimilitudes Master k Master Brereley Liturg. Tract 2. §. 2. Subd 3. pag. 259. Brerely would have you to know that this Gelasius whosoever he were writeth against the same Eutychian Heresie that Theodoret did and thereupon useth accordingly to his like advantage the words Substance and Nature in the same sense as did Theodoret. So he And he saith true and therefore must wee assure our selves of the consent of this Gelasius with us untill you shall be able to free your selves from our former Interpretation of Theodoret. But Master Brerely opposeth against us another sentence of Gelasius from whence he concludeth that Gelasius held Transubstantiation so that Gelasius must rather contradict himselfe than that he shall not consent to the Romish Tenet Whereas indeed he saith no more than in a mysticall sense any Protestant must and will allow viz. that The Sacrament is a Divine thing and that whosoever eate spiritually the Body of Christ are by it made partakers of the blessing of his Divine Nature which dwelleth in Christ bodily saith the Apostle So Gelasius Whereof copiously throughout the fift Booke To which Saying of Gelasius touching the Eucharist is answerable a like Saying of Gregory Nyssen concerning Baptisme calling it a l Greg Nyssen A quam per benedictionem sic mutari ut divinum Lavacrum sit à quo mirabiles existunt effectus Orat. de Baptismo Divine Laver working miraculous effects Yea and Dionysius the m Dionys Hierarch Eccles cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 §. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Areopagite bestowed the same Attribute viz. Divine upon the Altar the Symbols the Priest the People and the Bread it selfe in the Eucharist If therefore the Epithet Divine must argue a Corporall Change what a number of Transubstantiations must you bee inforced to allow whereas by naming it Divine Bread as hee did terme Priest Divine People Divine it proveth that hee meant no Substantiall Change Fie upon blind boldnesse This mans falsity in alleging Chemnitius I let passe It is further worthy your Reflection to observe your Disputers how earnest they have beene to prove that this Author was not Pope Gelasius contrary to the acknowledgement of your owne Historians May we not therefore suspect that the Testimony in an extemporall speech personally but deliberatly and punally by writing and therefore of Purpose The Second Father expresly defending the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration is Pope GELASIVS SECT XIII THis Author have Protestants called Pope Gelasius and urged his Testimony Your Disputers cavill First at the name of the Author calling Protestants e Non suit hic Papa Gelasius 〈…〉 Adversarij impudentèr jactant sed Gelasius Caesariensis Episcopus Bellar. lib. â— de Euâ—h c. 27. Impudent for stiling him Pope Gelasius But if hee were not that Pope Gelasiue what Gelasius might hee bee then Gelasiue Bishop of Caesarea saith your Cardinall Bellarmine Conâ—rarily your f Baronius himselfe contendeth that it was not that Pope Gelasius Anno 496 num 123. c. yet comming to answer to the Sentence of Gelasiuâ— dâ—th expound the doubtful words there of by the Phrases of Pope Gelasius ex Epist ad Picenos Dardan Episc num 13. 14. which Epistles he before cited as the true Epistles of Pope Gelasius Anno 493. num 23. and Anno 494. num 2. And after Anno 496. num 17. telleth his Reader saying Vides Lector ex usu verborum Phrasiquè dâ—ceÌ„di Gelasiâ— Papae alia ejus sententia perspicuâ— demanstâ—â—tum esse c. Et Anâ—o â—96 num 13. Gel. 〈◊〉 Epist ad Pice◠〈◊〉 Peccato Origiâ—all substantiam hominis esse depravatâ—â—m cum tamen eadem substantiam hominis esse depravatam cum tamen eadem substantia mansit Accidentia ut pote justitia originalis alia dona erant 〈◊〉 Cardinall Baronius contendeth that hee is a more ancient Gelasius Anno 47. namely Gelasius Cyzicenus yet so as confounding himselfe insomuch that hee is forced to expound the speeches of this Gelasius by the propriety of the speech as he confesieth of Gelasius Pope of Rome But what shall we answer for the Impudent Protestants as your Cardinall hath called them Surely nothing but wee 〈◊〉 more modesty in him who hath so called them considering that Protestants had no fewer Guides nor meaner to follow than these g Gelasius Papa scripsit contra Eutychetem Genaâ— de scriptoribus Eccles c. 14. Anastas de vita Gelasij Margariâ—us de la Bigaâ— lib. 5. Bibliâ—th Patâ—um pag. 467. Masson de Episc Rom. in vita Gelasij Alpâ—â—s lib. 〈◊〉 Daeres Tit. Christus â—aeres 3. in fine Onâ—plarius de Creat Pâ—nti◠〈◊〉 Cardin Gelasius 〈…〉 scripsit volumen adversus Eutychetem Nestorium Fuisse Caesariensem Episcopum non posse jure affirmaâ— videâ—ur And proveth why not Heslorians viz. Genadius yea your 〈◊〉 the carie Anastasius Alphonsus de Castro Onuphrius Massonius Margarinus la Bigne all which have intituled this Gelasius Pope of Rome Howsoever it is confessed on all sides that hee was an Orthodox Father and very Ancient Now then Gelasius sayd that h Gelasius lib. de duab natur cont Eutych Sacramenta certa qua suâ—â—us corporis sanguinis Christi divina res est propter quod per eadem divinae efficimur participes naturae tamen non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis vâ—â— certè imago similitudo corporis â—â—nguinis Christi in Actione mysticâ celebratur And againe Permanent in proprietate naturae The Sacraments of the Body and
Blood of Christ being Divine things yet cease not to bee the nature and substance of Bread and Wine In Answer whereunto â—oth your foresaid i Bellar. Baâ—on quo supra At dicit Gelasius In Divinaâ—u transeunt Spiritu sancto perficiente substantiam permanent tamen suâ propâ—ietate naturae By this it may bee seene indeed that this Gelasius was a Latine Author but what 〈◊〉 this to the Greeke Theodoret when the Latine Language was not sâ— perfect and that he did use the word equivocallâ— but yet so that the matter it selfe doth challenge a proper use thereâ— when hee speaketh of the Substaâ— of Bread for confutation of the same heresie Cardinalls here as before by Substance interpret Accidents one of them labouring to prove that Gelasius somewhere else called Accidents Substances Were this granted yet the Argument which Gelasius hath in hand will compell the understanding Reader to acknowledge in this his Sentence a proper signification of Substance For where as the Heretike Eutyches taught that Christ his Body was changed into the Substance of his Divinity after the Resurrection and that the Substance of his Body remained no more the same Gelasius confuteth him 〈…〉 That as the Substance of 〈…〉 Christ his Bodily Substâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 â—herein if the word Su 〈…〉 perly Gelasius should 〈…〉 reasonable man wi 〈…〉 amble alwayes on 〈…〉 t foot which is the 〈…〉 d perfit Dissimili 〈…〉 Master 〈…〉 s Gelasius k Master Brereley Liturg. Tract 2. §. 2. Subd 3. pag. 259. whosoeâ—◠〈…〉 â—â—â—â—â—â—ian Heresie that 〈…〉 ly to his like advantâ—â—◠〈…〉 me sense as did Theod 〈…〉 ore must wee assure 〈…〉 us untill you shal 〈…〉 er Interpretation o◠〈…〉 against us another ser 〈…〉 deth that Gelasius he 〈…〉 st rather contradict 〈…〉 Romish Tenet W 〈…〉 mysticall sense any 〈…〉 e Sacrament is a T 〈…〉 ally the Body of Châ—â—◠〈…〉 his Divine Natâ—â—◠〈…〉 Apostle So Gelas 〈…〉 ooke To wh 〈…〉 st is answerable a 〈…〉 Baptisme calling it a l Greg Nyssen A quam per benedictionem sic mutari ut divinum Lavacrum sit à quo mirabiles existunt effectus Orat. de Baptismo Yea and Dionysius the m Dionys Hierarch Eccles cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Areopagite bestowed the same Attribute viz. Divine upon the Altar the Symbols the Priest the People and the Bread it selfe in the Eucharist If therefore the Epithet Divine must argue a Corporall Change what a number of Transubstantiations must you bee inforced to allow whereas by naming it Divine Bread as hee did terme Priest Divine it proveth that hee meant no Substantiall Change Fie upon blind boldnesse This mans falsity in alleging Chemnitius I let passe It is further worthy your Reflection to observe your Disputers how earnest they have beene to prove that this Author was not Pope Gelasius contrary to the acknowledgement of your owne Historians May we not therefore suspect that the Testimony objected was distastfull unto them when they so greatly feared lest this Witnesse should be thought to have beene a Pope and Supreme Pastor of your Church Two other Testimonies from Antiquity for the expresse acknowledgement of the Existence of Bread after Consecration in the Sacrament Chrysostome and Bertram to whom is added Ephraimius SECT XIIII C Hrysostome his words are these that n Chrysost Ante Consecrationem Panem vocamus Divinâ verò gratiâ Sacerdotis ministerio sanctificatur digna appellatione Dominici Corporis habetur etsi natura Panis in ipso permansit Epist ad Caesar See of this Doct. Vsher ad Ann. 400. in his Answer to the Iesuits Challenge pag. 64 Bread after Consecration is freed from the name of Bread being accounted worthy of the name of the Body of Christ albeit the nature of it remaineth therein still Your Exception is that this Epistle is not extant among the workes of Chrysostome This your Answer might satisfie us were it not that it was extant sometime in the Libraries of o So our Peter Martyr Florence and p So your Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester lib. 2. de Euch. as he is cited Canterbury To whom may bee adjoyned the Author of that Vnperfect worke still standing under the name of Chrysostome and by you upon any occasion objected against us wherein it is expresly sayd that q Author operis imperfecti in Matth. Hom. 11. Si ergò haec vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre sit periculosum in quibus non est Corpus Christi sed Mysterium Corporis ejus continetur quantò magis vasa Corporis nostri quae sibi Deus ad habitandum praeparavit The True Body of Christ is not contained within these sanctified Vessels but the mysterie of his Body It seemeth that your later Parisian Divines were offended with others who would have these words utterly dashed out of their last Editions which were published in the former as you have beene admonished by one r Dr. Iames in his Specimen Corruptelarum c. Haec veba habentur in editione Antwerâ—â—◠â Anno 1537. Apua Ioh. Steelsium iâ— Parisiensi An. 1543. Apud Ioh. Roydwey ut in Parisiensi aliâ apud Andraeam Parvum Ann. 1557. most worthy and able to advertise in this kind Bertram is our next witnesse from Antiquity being about 800. yeeres agoe and never noted of Errour anciently untill these later times of Booke-butchery that we may so call your Index Expurgatorius s Bertramus Gallus circa Annum Domini 810. de Corpore Sanguine Christi Prohibitum est omninò à Clmente octavo in postremo Indice librorum prohibitorum Possevin Apparat. Tit. Bertram denying altogether all liberty to all men of reading this Booke But why what saith he He maintaineth saith your t Bertramus vult Eucharistiam esse Panis Vini substantianâ— quae figuram similitudâ—nem appellationem Sanguinis Christi gerit Senens Biblioth lib. 6. Anno 196. Senensis that the Eucharist is the substance of Bread and Wine And indeed so hee doth in his u Bertramus Secundùm Creaturarum substantiam quod fuerant ante Consecrationem hoc posteà consâ—â—unt Panis Vinum priùs extitêre in qua etiam specie consecrata sunt permanere videntur de Corpore Domini pag. 38. Booke dedicated to the Emperour Carolus Calvus which also hee affirmeth to bee written x Animadvertat Clarissime Princeps sapientia vestra quod positis Scripturarum sacrarum testimonijs Patium dictis c. Idem pag. 65. According to the truth of Scriptures and judgement of Ancient Fathers before him This Author undergoeth also the Censure of the Vniversity of Doway which confessing him to have beene a Catholike Priest framed divers Answers whereby they meant to prevent all Objections which Protestants might peradventure urge under the Authority of this Author Bertram But how Marke this Romiâ—h Profession of answering Protestanâ—s as often as they shall iâ—iâ—t in the sestmonies of
after him But not to disclaime your Author all that he saith is that r Cyprian de Coena Dâ—n Paâ—s â—ste natuâ—à muâ—â—tus omâ—â—potentia veâ—bâ— factus est Câ—ro c. Bread is changed by Gods Omnipotency not in Figure but in Nature This is ill And all this hath beene but even now quitted by your owâ—e Confessions granting a power of Omnipotency in every Sacramentall Change where the naturall Element is altered from it's common habitude into the nature of a Spirituall Instrument and use both signifying and exhibiting Divine Grace and so the word Nature doth import The Schooles distinguiâ—hing the Nature of Accidents from the Nature of Subjects shew that there is an Accidentall Nature as well as a Substantiall Theology teaching that * Ephes 2. 3. August Ipsam naturam aâ—â—ter dicem cum propâ—â—è loquimuâ— naturam homâ—â—s incalpâ—biâ—s factus est By nature wee are the children of wrath wherein Nature signifieth onely a vitious Quality This saying viz. Indifferent things in fact Change their nature when they are commanded Master * Lituâ—g Tract 4. § 6. Brerely alloweth of as for example a Surplesse being commanded by lawfull Authority the use thereof becometh necessary so that the nature therof is Changed yet not in the Substance of the thing but in the legall necessity of the use âšœ And what will you thinke of that of Saint Hilarie saying of all persons Regenerate that 1 Hilar de Trin. lib 8 Per naturam sidei unum sumus renati ad innocentiam immortalitatem regenerati in umus AEternitatis naturam By the nature of faith they are changed into Immortality and into one nature of Eternity In both which the Proprieties and qualities of things are called the Natures thereof In which respect we embrace the saying of Saint Ambrose when hee affirmeth the 2 Ambros de jis qui initiantur myster cap. ult Major benedictionis omnis virtus quà m naturae quià benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur Nature of Bread to bee changed in this Sacrament Certainly even as it is in all other Mysteries wherin as Saint Augustine speaketh 3 Aug. Tom. 9. in Seâ—m de Cataclysmo Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum As much as to say the Element as Bread is Changed into a Sacrament as * See above Booke 2. cap. 2. §. 16. Isidore spake which is called the Body of Christ because of the Sacramentall property of speech calling the Signe by the name of the thing signified as the same * Father with divers Others hath amply declared âšœ But to come neerer Answer us but this one Question Wheras all learning alloweth this saying that in Baptisme the nature of the Element and the nature of the Sacrament are different whereupon it is sayd The word coming to the Element maketh it a Sacrament when wee shall say of the water in Baptisme that the Nature of it as of a Sacrament is more excellent than is the nature of it as it is a meere Element whether doth not the word Nature attributed to the Sacrament justly accord unto the Phrase of Cyprian in the case of the Eucharist and so much the rather because that Cyprian in the words immediatly following the Testimony objected doth fully confute Transubstantiation by a Similitude comparing the Humanity and Deity of Christ with the Naturall and Spirituall parts of this Sacrament to wit Å¿ Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebat Divinitas ità Sacramento visibili ineffabilitèr divina se effundit essentia Author Coenae Ibid. §. Quarto As in Christ himselfe true humanitie appeared in his flesh and his Deity was hid This was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and first part of this Similitude the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and next part followeth Even so into this visible Sacrament the Divine Essence infuseth it selfe So hee which by the law of a Similitude must stand thus Even so Bread in this Sacrament is seene and the Spirituall operation of Gods power therein to the Faithfull is Invisible Like as we may say of the preaching of the Word of God to the Faithfull The words are audible and sensible but because of the inward working of Gods Spirit for the Conversion of Mans soule it is called * Rom. 1. 16. The power of God unto salvation as likewise Baptisme is made the Lavacrâ— of Regeneration whereof Gregory Nyssen affirmeth that t Greg. Nyssen erat de Baptism Divinum LavacruÌ„ magnum quid operatur per Benedictionem mirabiles producit Effectus It worketh marvellously by benediction and produceth marvellous Effects As for Augustine and Chrysostome not to bee superfluous every Protestant doth both beleeve and professe namely a Divine Operation of God both by changing the Element into a Sacrament and working by that Sacrament Spirituall Effects to the good of Mans soule âšœ A Vindication of divers Testimonies of Saint Cyprian by Romish Torturers forced for proofe of Transubstantiation BVt you have not done with Cyprian he is found saying concerning this Sacrament that 4 Cyprian de Coena Dom. Christus usquè hodie verissimum Sanctissimum suum Corpus creat sanctificat benedicit piè sumentibus dividit Objected by Dr. Heskins Parl. Booke 2. Chap. 8. Christ daily Createth his most true and most holy Body sanctifieth and blesseth it This in the Opinion of your Objector must needs prove a proper Existence of Christ in the Eucharist because Christ createth not an imaginary Body but that which is called a most true Body Which words notwithstanding in true sense make nothing against our Defence but against your Romish Tenets as much as any Protestant can require This is soone tryed The words of Cyprian are that Christ doth Create his most true Body the onely Question is of the word Create whereunto it is to be referred properly This must be either to Bread or to Christ's Body and your Cardinall abhorring to say that Christ's Body is properly created in this Sacrament 5 Bell. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 9. In verbis Cypriani illa Creas sanctisicas benedicis referuntur ad materiam unde consicitur Corpus Christi agimus enim gratias quod per Christum primò panem crëet deindè per eundem sanctificat benedicat convertendo in Corpus suum Quod autem Cyprianus loquitur de vero Corpore suo non de signo patet ex eo quòd veracissimum illud appellat Wee grant that Christ spake of his true body for this Sacrament wee say is a figure not of a fantasticall but of a substantiall Body Answereth that the words Create Sanctifie and Blesse are to be referred to Bread which is first Created saith he before it is converted into Christ's Body If then Cyprian by the words Christ's Body meant Bread which is the Signe of his Body is it not a wilfull blindnesse in your Disputers to conclude from a Signe the reall presence of a
your own Legendae telling you of the 1 In libro qui inscribitur Speculum exemplar Vâ—onem Archiepiscopum Magdoburgensem Capite multatum fuisse ex cujus visceribus one antequam plectetetur capite Virgo Maria hostias desumpsisse dicitur in calicem misisse Referente Christiano Franken quondam Iesuitâ— Tract de Bestialissima Adoratione panis vini in Eucharistia Hoast taken out of the Guts of a Malefactor by the Virgin Mary before his Execution âšœ The Confutation and Expulsion of this Foggie Mist of Error by your owne more Common Confessions SECT II. THis first opinion of mingling the Body of Christ Corporally with mans Bodily parts what thinke you of it Your Iesuite calleth it f Suarez in 3. Tho. qu 79. Disp 64. Sect. 3. Nihilominus haec sententia improbabilis aliena dignitate majestate hujus Sacramenti quod non propter corporalem conjunctionem sed propter spiritualem institutum est dicente Christo Mea verba spiritus sunt vita Ioh. 6. p. 822. Improbable and as repugnant to the dignitie and majestie of this Sacrament * See above in the first § at the letter D Rash and Absurd Iustly because if this Doctrine were true you must likewise grant that the same Body of Christ which you say is eaten of Mice and Rats is mingled within their guts and entrailes and so such vile Creatures should be as really Capable of the Communion of Christs Body as the most sanctifyed among Christians can be for which the Beasts themselves if they could speake would as the Asse unto Balaam condemne the foolishnesse of your Prophets namely those of whom you have * See above at B heard your Iesuit confessing that this is the Doctrine of Almost all late Divines which is to adde one Capernaiticall Absurdity to another It onely remaineth to know with what Spirit these your New Divines have thus written your * See above his Testimonie cited at the letter A Suarez telleth us saying That they spake so in hatred of Heretikes meaning Protestants against whom they write Who would not now magnifie the Profession of Protestants to observe their Adversaries to be so farre transported with the Spirit of malignity and giddinesse against them that by the just judgement of God they are become so strake blind in themselves as that they fall into opinions not onely as is confessed Rash and Absurd but also Capernaitically-Hereticall And indeed they who imagined a Corporall Eating how should they not as well have conceived a Corporall fleshly Commixtion CHAP. VIII Of the Romish Objections out of the Fathers for proofe of an Vnion of Christs Body by a Bodily Commixture with the Bodies of the Communicants SOme of their Objections are taken from the Sentences of the Fathers Some from their Similitudes and Some from their Historicall Reports Wee beginne with their Sentences That the Objected Sentences of Fathers make not for the Romish Corporall Vnion but are proved by their owne Dialect to be unconscionably alleged SECT I. THe expresse Testimonies of the Objected Fathers you may reade in the Margin as they are marshalled by your owne Iesuit a Suarez Ies in 3. Tho. Disp 64. §. 3. recenset I. viz. Irenaeum Quandò mixtus calix fractus panis percipit verbum Dei fit Eucharistia ex quibus augetur consistit carnis nostrae substantia Lib. 5 contra Heres cap. 2. II. Chrysostom Nos secum in unam massam reduxit nequè id fide solum sed reipsa nos suum corpus effecit Hom. 88 in Matth. Vt non solum per dilectionem sed re ipsa in illam carnem convertamur Hom 5. in Ioh. III. Cyril Alex Qui manduâ—at meam carnem in me manet ego in illo Sicut si quis iquefactae cerae aliam ceram insuderit alteram cum altera commisceat necesse est ita qui carnem ecipit cum ipso conjungitur ut Christus in ipso ipse in Christo inveniatur Lib. 4. in Ioh. Cap. 17. Rursus Christus vitis nos palmites qui vitam inde nobis acquirimus Audi Paulum Omnes unum Christi corpus qui de uno pane participamus quae cum ita fiat nonne corporaliter facit communicatione carmis ejus Christum in nobis habitare Lib. 10. cap. 13. IV. Greg. Nyssen Sicut parum fermenti assimulat totam massam aspersione ita Corpus Christi cum fuerit intra nostrum ad se transmutat transfert Orat. Catech. Cap. 37. V. Leo Papa Vt accipientes virtutem coelestis cibi in carnem ipsius qui caro nostra factus est transeamus Epist 23. VI. Hilarius Not vere verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus quo modo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est naturam carnis suae ad naturam aeternitatis sub Sacramento nobis communicandae carnis admiseuit Lib. 8. de Trinit Hee might have added Iustin Martyr and others Docet Apostolus ex natura Sacramentorum esse hanc fidelium unitatem ad Galatas scribens Quotquot Baptizati estis in Christo Christum induistis Quod unum sunt in tantâ gentium conditionum Sexuum diversitate nunquid ex assensu voluntatis an ex Sacramenti unitate quia his Baptisma sit unum itaque qui per candem rem sunt unum natura unum suntâ— Hilar. de Trinit lib. 8. Suscipiens Christum non idem sit post Iavacrum qui ante Baptismum fuit sed corpus regenerati fiat caro crucifixi Leo. Serm. 14. de Passione Demini Suarez to wit Irenaeus Chrysostome Cyril Alexand. Greg. Nyssen Pope Leo and Hilarie The summe is The mixture of Christs Body with ours by a Corporall and Naturall Vnion indeed and not onely in faith or affection Two kind of Semblances are to be Observed one in their like Hyperbolicall Phrasing concerning Baptisme and the other touching our Conjunction with Christ Of Baptisme Hilarie the VI. objected saith Christians by Baptisme which is one are made one not onely in affection but also in nature Leo the V. objected saith also that By Baptisme the Body of the Regenerate is made the flesh of Christ crucifyed And furthermore marke what your Cardinall Tolet hath collected from Augustine namely that b Tolet. Com. in Iob. â— Aâ—not 26. Dâ—cet Augustimus lib. 1. de Pecâ— merit Parvulos per B. pâ—â—smum participes fieri hujus Sacramenti Eucharistie quod nac 〈…〉 nam per Baptismum sunt de corpore mystico Ecclesiae ad unitatem Christi pertinent hoc Sacramentum hujus unitatis corporis signum est ideo hoc Sacramento aliquo modo participant nempe quantum rem significatam dici possunt carnem Christi manducare bibere sanguinem Infants by being Baptized are made partakers of the Eucharist because they are Members of the Mysticall Body and are so made in a sort partakers of this Sacrament that is to say of the thing signifyed Eating
his flesh and Drinking his Blood So hee By which your Objectour must be inforced to admit a like Reall Conjunction and Consequently of a Reall presence of Christ in Baptisme as they have for the Bodily Vnion and Presence of Christ in and by the Eucharist Yea and the Fathers with the like accent and Emphasis of speech say as much of other things c Isidor Pelus Verbum Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 2. Epist 281. Item Greg. Nyssen de soncto Stephano Gratiâ spiritus sancti permixtus est contemperatus Isidore Pelusiota of the word of God that It feedeth mens soules and is in a maner mingled therewith Of the Baptized that by Baptisme d August apud Gratian. de Consecrat Dist 4. Ad hoc Ad hoc Baptismus valet ut Baptizaâ—i Christo incorporentur They are incorporate into Christ saith Augustine And that thereby e Chrysost in Ephes Hom. 20 de Baptismo Facti sumus os ex ossibus caro ex carne ejus in lavaero They are made bone of Christs bone and flesh of his flesh saith Chrysostome Of the Eucharist f Domase Epist ad Zachar. Episc Dâ—arorum Quod accipitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Teste Casaub in Baron Exercit. 16. cap. 39. It is mingled with our soules So Damascen Of the participation of the Bread of Idolaters with the participation of the Sacramentall Bread of the Lords Supper that g Primasius in 1. Cor. 10. Sicut salvator dixit Qui manducâ—at carnem meam in me manet Sic Idolorum panis Daemonum participatio est Et ut multi de uno pane participantes unum corpus sumus Sic si de eodem pane manducamus unius Idololatriae unum cum illis corpus efficimur As by the one Christians are made partakers of Christs flesh so by that other are men made partakers with Devils So Primasius Wherefore your Disputers by comparing these Sentences of the Fathers with the former if they shall take them as spoken properly and not Sacramentally and Figuratively shall be compelled to allow proper Commixtures and nourishings of mans soule by the word First a proper Mingling of Gods spirit with Man Secondly a proper Incorporating of man into Christ and a proper Mixture of Man with Devils And againe upon due Comparison of the Testimonies of Fathers objected by you with these now alleged by us concerning the Eucharist it selfe it will necessarily follow that by the same reason wherewith you have sought to prove one kind of Proper presence of Christs Body and Transubstantiation and Vnions you must allow h August Confess lib. 7. cap. 10 Munducabis me Tu me in te mutabis Tu mutaberis in me Theophyl in Ioh. 6. Qui manducat me vivet propter me quodammodò miscetur mihi Cyril in Ioh. 11. cap. 26. Suo corpore Christus credentes per Communionem mysticam benedicens nos secum inter nos unum corpus fecit Suarez in 3. Tho. quaest 79. Art 8. Disp 64. §. 3. Vnionem hanc Patiâ—â— dicunt non esse solum inter Christum nos sed etiam inter noâ—metipsos quarenùs sumus membra Christi Primisius his Testimonie is at the letter g immediately before Foure more One of Christs Body into the Body of the Communicant a Second of a Christian Communicant into Christ Body a Third of a Naturall bodily Vnion of Christians among themselves And Fourthly which is Damascen's of Christs Body into mens soules All which kind of Presences Vnions Mixtures and Transubstantiations taken in a proper sense you cannot but condemne as Atheologicall and senselesse in your owne Judgement notwithstanding all the former alleged Phrases of ancient Fathers for your Corporall Conjunction âšœ The Romish Objections out of the Sentences of Ancient Fathers more vehemently and as unconscionably insisted upon for a Proper Corporall Mixture out of the Testimonies of Cyril Alexand. and Hilarie Pictav SECT II. WEe have therefore singled apart the Testimonies of these two i Cyrillus 〈◊〉 10. cap. 13. in Ioh. Filius per benedictionem mysticam ut homo unitur spiritualiter autem ut Deus sui spiritus gratia nos ad novam vitam divinae naturae participationem redintegrans Et lib. 11. cap. 26. Fortasse etiam corporali unione coÌ„jungimur licet Disparati sums Nam si Petrus Paulus unum unitate in Christo sunt Petrus tamen Paulus non est age igitur cum Trinitas unum natura sit consideremus etiam quod nos inter nos corporaliter cum Deo spiritualiter unum simus Et lib. 9. cap. 47. Christus etiam nos in seipso habet quoniam naturam nostram assumpsit corpus nostrum corpus unum sactum est propterea divinae naturae participes facti sumus filij etiam naturales Ita ego in Patre sum quia ex ipso natus sic vos participes facti divinae naturae cum spiritum meum in vobis habitate sciverim Christus enim per spiritum in nobis est corruptibilitatem nostram ad incorruptibilitatem permutans Et cap. 39. opus est nos participes naturae suae fieri in novam vitam transformari quod a liter quam per participationem spiritus fieri ne quit Et. c. 38. Nullus ambigit cum ad coelos asconderit quin virtute spiritus semper adfuerit um praesentia tamen carnis abfuerit Et l. 11. cap. 3. Cum post passionem in coelum ascenderit spiritum misit non enim cum Apostolis conversari poterat cum ad Patrem ascenderat Dialog 2. in Trin. Si verè sectionem partitionem divina natura receiperet intelligeretur ut corpus si autem hoc in loco omnino in magnitudine in quantitate non essugiat circumscriptionem Lib. 11. cap. 26. in illa verba ut ipse in vobis sit sicut ego in Patre considerandum est si ad unionem consensus et voluntatis naturalem etiam invenire possimus per quam nos inter nos et omnes cum Deo conjungimar Lib. 12. cap. 58. in Ioh. Christus omnibus apparet visibiliter et invisibiliter Invisibiliter ut Deus visibiliter ut humo praebet etiam nobis carnem suam tangendam Lib. 4. cap. 14 Quommodò non vivemus cum carnem illam vivificatricem gustamus manducamus Et lib. 11. cap. 22. Caro non prodest quicquam spiritus est qui vivificat ad sanctificandum et vivificandum nihil prodesse carnem ostendit in quantum scil humanae naturae caro est cum igitur Deitati salvatio tribuitur non debetis carnis praesentiam propter hoc desiderare Idem Cyril de Trin. Qui mysticae benedictionis participes unum cum Christo corpus sunt unionem cum illo por fidem sortiti Et lib 4. cap. 17. in Ioh. Sicut si quis liquefactae cerae aliam ceram infuderit alteram cum altera per totum
Recantation p. 335. BERTRAM his saying The Body of Christ in Heaven differeth from that on the Altar as much as that which was borne of the Virgin Mary and that which was not pag 159. His saying Bread remaineth in the Eucharist after Consecration pag. 186. The Romish Profession is to delude the Testimonies of Antiquity Ibid. pag. 187. His saying Iewes ate the same Spirituall meat with Christians p. 314. Bâ—ZA unjustly charged with denying Gods Omnipotencie p 231. BLASPHEMIE of a Romish Iesuite Teaching the Pope to dispence with the expresse Command of Christ pag. 87 BLESSED IT was Christs Consecration p. 9. BLOOD A Discourse of Fr. Collius a Romish Doctor of the miraculous Issuings of Christs Blood in the Eucharist p. 225 c. Blood of the Testament Exo. 24. objected for the Sacrifice of the Masse and Confuted by their owne Iesuite 424. Not infused in the Eucharist pag. 469. How the Fathers call the Eucharist both a Bloody and Vâ—bloody Sacrifice p. 455 456 457 c. BODY of Christ changed into whatsoever the Receiver desireth vainely Objected out of Greg. Nyssen pag. 202. Hee saith So doth Christs Body change our Bodies into it self Ibid. And Chrysost Christ hath made us his owne Body not by Faith but in deed also Ibid. An Objected Possibility of a Bodies being in diverse places at once from the like existence of Voice and Colour and of the soule of a man in the parts of his Body p. 259 260 261. Romish Objections against our using of Naturall reason to disprove the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist p. 263. A Body cannot take the right hand and left hand of it selfe pag. 254. The entrance of Christs Body miraculously through the doores p. 275 c. The Body of Christ opened the Cell of the Blessed Virgin p. 2777punc 278. In the Body of Christ by Popish Doctrine his head is not distant from his feet pag. 272. Body of Christ is held by the Romish Sect to be voyd of all sense and understanding as hee is in this Sacrament p 282. Christs Body is the Spirituall and Supersubstantiall food of the Soule p. 310. Eaten in vow and desire Ibid. Christs Body united to the Bodies of the Communicants See VNION See EATE Christs Body not suffering Destruction 467. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. BREAD Sacramentall albeit Bread is dignifyed by Saint Augustine with the name of Celestiall p 127. That Bread remaineth after CoÌ„secration is proved by Scripture p. 162. Consisting of Graines p. 163. Proved by Antiquity p. 163 164. By Sense 169. By the Analogie of Bread consisting of multitudes of Graines of Corne. Ibid. 165. Bread remaineth the same in Substance by the Iudgemen of Antiquity p. 169 Proved by the Councel of Nice p. 303. Bread and Wine called a Sacrifice by Ancient Fathers but Improperly p. 404 405 c. BREAKING of Bread used by Antiquity Contrary to the now Romish Practice pag 15. Breaking in Christs speech is Tropicall Ibid. Broken in the Present tense for proof of a Sacrifice and yet confessed by the Romish to betâ—ken the future pag. 397. C CABASILAS Gr Archb for the forme of Romish Consecration calumniously Objected 493. CAKE upon the Mountaines Objected out of the Psalmes and confuted by Popish Doctors pag. 433. CALVIN unjustly charged with denying Gods Omnipotencie pag. 231. CANON of the Masse Dominus vobiscum contradicteth the Private Masse p. 19. CANONIZATION of Saints fallibly is the ground of Superstitiousnesse p. 542. 543. CAPERNAITICAL Eating of Christs flesh 329. c. The Romish Eating of Christs Body is Capernaiticall p. 335. 336. c. See Vnion See Eating See Swallowing Mr. CASAVBON his large discourse teaching the universall practise of Antiquity to understand the tongue wherein they prayed p. 36. His Satisfaction to the Objected Testimonies of Antiquitie for Transubstantiation and Corporall Presence p. 207. His Iudgement upon the Fathers in the point of Fragments p 179. And upon the Objected Testimonie of Cyrill of Ierusalem pag. 177. His Answere to the Obcted Testimonie of â—ustine concerning the Sacrifice to Mithra among the Heathen pag. 379. His Exposition upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 400. CASSIODORE wrongfully urged for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse from the act of Melchisedech p. 406. That Melchisedech as Christ offered Bread and Wine Ibid. CATECHISME of TRENT saying All Baptized are Sacerdotes and so August p. 314. CAVTION of Antiquity in not suffering any part of the Eucharist in solid or liquid to fall to the ground Objected and Answered pag. 514. CHâ—VVING the Continuall maner of Eating of the Sacrament p. 339. CHRIST'S Acts of Excellency not to be imitated of any such as was his not compleat Sacramentall communicating in Emmaus pag. 63. 64. c. CHRYSOSTOME against Prayer in an unknowne tongue pag. 35. Hee is vainely objected for the Private Masse of the alone Communicating Priest pag. 21. Hee is for Consecration by Prayer p. 14. Hee is vehement against the Romish Custome of Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist pag. 47. Reverence to Christ is our Obedience pag. 81. Hee is against the Communicating but in one kind p. 77. Hee is for the Figurative sense in Christs words This is my Body and for the Continuance of Bread after Consecration p. 116. 117. c. His Question What is Bread The Body of Christ as the faithfull Communicants are the Body of Christ pag. 117. Hee expoundeth the fruit of the Vine Matth. 26. 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine pag. 163. 164. Hee saith If Christ had given onely an Image of his Body at his Resurrection hee had deluded his Disciples p. 169. And that in things sensible the Substance remaineth p. 198. And that Christ hath made us his owne Body not onely in faith but in deed also p. 202. Ob Thinke not that it is the Priest that reacheth it but God Sol. Not the Priest but God holdeth the head of the Baptized p. 200. Bread unworthy of the name of Christ's Body albeit the Nature of Bread remaineth still pag. 186. His Testimony blotted out by the Parisian Doctors p. 186 Changed by Divine power 189. Our senses may be deceived wee are altogether to believe it 198. His Hyperbolicall maner of speech confessed 199. Hee saith Something is Impossible to God even to the advancement of Gods Omnipotencie p. 229. Hee is objected for Christs Corporall Presence both in Heaven and in Earth unconscionably pag. 247. Answered Ibid. His Hyperbolicall speeches Ibid. Ob. Hee left his flesh as Elias his Mantle Ibid. Hee holdeth that Angels have allotted unto them a prescript place or space p. 261. Hee is objected for the Romish Penetration of the Doores by Christ's Body Vnconscionably 275. Hee is against the Impalpability of Christs Body p. 276. and against the Passing of Christ's Body into the Seege p. 287. Hee is objected that Godlesse Communicants partake of Christs Body pag. 313. Yet saith that