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
sanguis Testamenti quod mandavit ad vos Deus De quo Marc. 14. Hic est sanguis Novi Testamenti Sic argumeÌ„tamur Sanguis Testamenti veteris erat sanguis victimae jam immolate et verè sacrificatae Exod. 24. Ergò sanguis novi Testamenti apud Christum est sanguis victimae verè propriè sacrificatae Est autem sanguis ille Christi ut ipse dicit Hic est sanguis meus Ergo ipse fuit victima in coena immolata et sacrificata The Blood of the Old Testament was the Blood of an Hoast truly sacrifised Therefore the Blood of the New Testament mentioned in the Eucharist whereof the other was a figure must needs be the Blood of Christ properly sacrifised therein So hee heaping up Reason upon Reason as it were to make a mountaine and presently after his much working and heaving cometh one of his owne family of the Iesuites Vasquez by name and kicketh all downe with his heeles as it had beene but a Mole-hill saying 16 Vasquez Ies in 3. Tho. Disp 190. num 15. Novum TestamentuÌ„ in sanguine meo apud Evangelistas Paulum in sanguine Christi prout est in hoc sacramento non convenit Nam quaÌ„vis sacramentum Eucharistiae sit sacramentum Novi Testamenti hac ratione dici posset Novi Testamenti tamen longè alio sensu dicitur Novi Testamenti aut Novum Testamentum quòd sit confirmatio consummatio Novi Testamenti hoc est gratiae quam Christus promeruit generi humano de quo Hebr. 9. Testamentum in mortuis confirmatum est hoc est morte Testatoris undè sequitur neque vetus Testamentum sine sanguine dedicatur iude colligit Novum sanguine Christi confirmari Et rursus ubi Testamentum ibi mors intercedat Testatoris necesse est tandem sic concludit Caput Apostolus sic Christus semel oblatus est ad multorum exhaurienda peccata constat igitur sanguinem Testamenti dici eatenus quatenus est effusus in confirmatione illius sicut hac ratione sanguis hircorum vitulorum essusus est Exod. 24. hic est sanguis Testamenti nam sacrificium incruentum in Eucharistia non erat causa universalis Redemptionis illud ergo Effundetur in Remissionem peccatorum significat futuram Effusionem in Passione That it is called The Blood of the New Testament by Christ not as it is in this Sacrament but as it referreth to the Sacrifice of Christes Passion Which hee confirmeth by the most Authenticall kinde of proofe even from the Scripture out of one Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrewes in severall places One from these words A Testament is confirmed in men dead The next Heb. 9. Where a Testament is there doth necessarily intervene the death of the Testator And againe Christ was once sacrifised to take away the death of many He might have added a fourth vers 15. Christ is the mediator of the New Testament that death coming betweene for Redemption c. Each one of these pointing out Christs Bloody Sacrifice on the Crosse teacheth us to deale with you by law of Retortion thus The Old Testament was confirmed by the Death and Blood-shed of the Creature sacrifised And so according to the Apostles Comparison was the New Testament confirmed by the Death and Blood-shed of Christ our Testator Therefore could not the Bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testament be a Figure of an Vn-bloody Sacrifice in the New That your Cardinall Bellarmine hath Contradicted the Doctrine of the Ancient Church of Rome taught by Pope Leo the First SECT XII POpe Leo is hee whom the Church of Rome will be thought to esteeme as equall with the best of Popes and therefore hath honoured him with the singular Title of Magnus Ob insignem sanctitatem doctrinam eloquentiam saith your Iesuit * Possevin Apparat Tit. Leo. Possevin who lived above a thousand yeares since Him doth your 17 Bellar Lib. 1. de Missa Cap. 7. Leo Sermone 7. de Passione Domini Vt umbrae cederent Corpori ceâ—â—arent imagines sub praesentia veritatis antiqua observantia novo tollitur Sacramento hostia in hostiam transit sanguinem sanguis excludit legalis festivitas dum mutatur Impletur 〈◊〉 infra de sacramenti institutione loquens vetus Testamentum consummabat Novum Pascha condebat Cardinall object for proofe of the Sacrifice of the Masse from the Signe of the Paschall Lambe in a Sentence which in it selfe is sufficient to tell us what was the Faith of the Church of Rome in his dayes and to direct you in the point now in Question in manifesting that your Cardinall hath egregiously abused his Testimony for proofe of an Vn-bloody Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Eucharist which Leo spake so evidently and expresly of the Sacrifice of his Passion that your Iesuite Vasquez was enforced to 18 Leo Papa de Passione Domini Serm. 7. In solemnitate Pasch li exercendi furoris sui Iudaei acciperent potestatem Opportebat enim ut manifesto implerentur effectu quae diu fuerant figurato promissa mysterio ut ovem significativam â—vis vera removeret ut uno explereâ—ur Sacrifiâ—ro varsarunt differentia victimarum Nam omnia illa quae de Immolatione agni diviniâ—us per Moysen fuerant praestituta Christum prophetarunt Christi occisionem propriè nunciarunt Vt ergo umbrae cederent corpori cessarent imagines sub praesentia veritatis antiqua observantia novo tollitur sacramento hostia in hostiam transit sanguinem sanguis excludit legalis festivitas dùm mutatur impletur Teste Vasquez Ies in 3. Tho. Disp 223. Quest 83. Cap. 6. Againe Solet ex Leone probari Missae sacrificium unicum esse ex Sermone 7. de Paschate Opportebat c. Verùm ibi loquitur de sacrificio cruento Christi subdit enim omnia illa Christi occisionem pronuneiârant per occisionem planè intelligit cruentum sacrificum Eadem ferè verba habâ—t Chrysostomus in Psalm 95. Lest the word Sacrament in the Sentence of Leo may move any to conceive that it is spoken of the Eucharist or yet of any other Sacrament of the Church of Rome It is to bee observed that nothing is more familiar with Leo than to call every Mysterie and Christian Article Sacramentum As for Example in the beginning of this Sermon hee calleth the Feast of Easter Sacramentum Salutis De Festo Nativitatis Serm. 2. Reparator nobis salutis nostrae annua revolutione Sacramentum Et Serm. 16. De voce Christi Transeat Calix iste quod non sit exaudita magna est Expositio Sacramenti confesse thus much even then when hee sought to defend the Romish Sacrifice of the Eucharist The words of Leo are generall All those things which were performed concerning the Sacrificing of the Lambe by Moyses from Gods command were prophesied of Christ and did properly declare the Slaying of Christ So hee
words THIS IS MY BODY by their Corporall Vnion with Christs Body p. 308 c. Chap. I. Protestants professe an Vnion Spiritually-reall pag. 309 c. Chap. II. That onely the Godly and Faithfull Communicants are Partakers of the Vnion with Christ by this Sacrament pag. 311 c. âšœ That onely the Godly are united to Christ by this Sacrament in the Iudgement of Antiquity pag. 320 321 c. And Saint Augustines accurate Iudgement herein pag. 323. With a Vindication of Saint Augustines Testimony against the notable corruption thereof by Doctor Heskins pag. 325 to 328. âšœ Chap. III. Of the Capernaiticall Heresie of the Corporall Eating of Christs flesh pag. 328. âšœ Tertullians Saying that Christs flesh is not truly Eaten pag. 331. And Saint Augustines Testimony about the mention of Christs Ascention into Heaven in Answering the Capernaites pag. 331 c.. âšœ Chap. IV. That the Romish maner of Eating of Christ's Body is sufficiently Capernaiticall in Five kinds pag. 333. First by Bodily Touch. âšœ That the Fathers are not Conscionably Objected as touching that poinâ— Ibid. c. âšœ Chap. V. II. Romish Capernaiticall maner of Eating is Orall Eating by Tearing in the dayes of Pope Nicolas the Second pag. 335. âšœ The contrary Iudgement of Pope Innocent the Third pag. 336. And Saint Augustine his Sentence Wee Eate in significante Mysterio pag. 344. And that the same Vnconscionablenesse of Objecting is proved by some Romish Doctors themselves very largely pag. 346 347 c. âšœ Chap. VI. Of the Third Romish Corporall Vnion of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants by Swallowing it downe pag. 347 c. âšœ A further Evidence of Origen his exact Iudgement pag. 350. And the miserable straights of Romish Doctors in Answering the Sentence of Augustine concerning the Eating of Christs flesh pag. 352 c. âšœ Chap. VII Of the Fourth maner of Romish Corporall Vnion with Christs Body by a Bodily Mixture pag. 354 c. Chap. VIII The Romish Objections of the Sentences of the Fathers for a Corporall Vnion by Mixture of Christs Body with mens Bodies proved to be Vnconscionable pag. 356 357. âšœ The Sentences of Hilarie and Cyril of Alexandria so much pressed at large pag. 358. And also a Confutation of the Romish Objections out of their owne Confessions pag. 362. And further that the Objected Testimonies of these Fathers make against the Romish Corporall Vnion pag. 365. Shewing that onely the Godly are Vnited to Christ Ibid. âšœ Chap. IX âšœ The Second kind of Romish Objections which is from Similitudes used by the Fathers from Feast Guest Viands and Pledge but most unconscionably Objected by the Romanists pag. 366. yea that the same Testimonies plainely Confute the Romish Presence together with the Reconciling of the seeming Repugnances of the Sentences of the Fathers in Opposition to the Romish and in an accordance with our Protestant Profession pag. 369 c. Adding likewise the Divine Contemplation of the Fathers in their phrasing of a Corporall Vnion of Christs body with the Bodies of the Faithfull Communicants p. 372 c. âšœ Chap. X. Of Romish Historicall Objections insisted upon out of Iustine Martyr from the slander then raised against Christians for Eating of mans flesh pag. 374. âšœ That this Objection is slanderous Ibid. And against the Historicall Truth pag. 375. As wilde is their second proofe because say they Iustine wrote to an Heathen Emperour pag. 376. Confuted out of Iustine himselfe and the Cardinall's Dilemma by a more just Dilemma and pertinent pag. 378 379 c. As also by an Impossibility that the Heathen could be offended at the words of Iustine pag. 380. Proved out of Iustine and Attalas Ibid. An Answer to Averroes his imputing to Christians the Devouring of Christs flesh pag. 381 c. âšœ Chap. XI âšœ The Fift and last most base Romish Vnion of Christs Body in passing it downe by Egestion into the Draught pag. 382. Which to Antiquity would have beene held most abominable pag. 384. That the Institution of the Sacrament was ordained to be food only for the Soule by the Doctrine of Antiquity p. 385 c. âšœ BOOK VI. OF the Fourth Romish Consequence from their depraved sense of Christs words THIS IS MY BODY by esteeming Christs Body present to be a Properly and Truly Propitiatory Sacrifice pag. 389 c. Chap. I. That there is no Proper Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Eucharist from any word of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament pag. 390. But absolutely Confuted thereby pag. 393 394. II. Not proved by any Sacrificing Act of Christ at his first Instituting this Sacrament pag. 398. âšœ The Testimony of the Iesuite Vasquez pag. 399. Chap. II. Proper Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Eucharist not proved by any other Scripture of the New Testament pag. 400. âšœ The Saying of the Councel of Trent pag. 402 c. âšœ Chap. III. The Proper Sacrifice of Christs Body not proved by any Scripture out of the Old Testament pag. 403 c. âšœ A Vindication of the Allegations of some Testimonies of Fathers against a Calumnious Romanist pag. 405. A Second Vindication of some other Testimonies Objected p. 406. As also an Argument against the Sacrifice according to the Order of Melchisedeeh pag. 408 c. And a Testimony of Athanasius against the Translation of the Priesthood of Christ to any other with whom agreeth Theodoret and Chrysostome pag. 411. To whom is joyned the Confession of the Iesuite Estius against Bellarmine pag. 414. Besides a speciall Challenge against Bellarmine in the point of Christs eternall Priesthood out of the Confession of Vasquez at large pag. 420. Adding also a Typicall Scripture Exod. 24. The Blood of the Testament Objected by Bellarmine and Answered by the Iesuite Vasquez pag. 424. And by Pope Leo long since pag. 425. An Objection Ro. from the Comparison of the Figures of the Old Testament with the Sacraments of the New Answered pag. 426. With the Testimony of Athanasius pag 427 c. Chap. IV. Of Propheticall Scriptures Objected for the Romish Sacrifice pag. 429. Malachie 5. Ibid. And Psalme 72. Of an Handfull of Corne. p. 433. âšœ A Vindication of a Truth of an Allegation against a Rash Seducer pag. 434. A Vindication against another Romish Detractor shewing that Cardinall Bellarmine hath not Objected Propheticall Scriptures judiciously pag. 435. And against the Objected Iuge Sacrificium pag. 436 c. âšœ Chap. V. Examination of the point of Sacrifice from the Iudgement of Antiquity by Eleven Demonstrations pag. 437 c. âšœ A Discovery of a Romish Absurd Defence concerning the Bloody Representative Sacrifice of Christ pag. 446 447 c. And an Argument for the dignifying of the Table of the Lord so called although alià s termed an Altar pag. 462 463 c. âšœ Chap. VI. The Third Examination of the Poâ—m of Romish Sacrifice is to Confute it by Romish Principles and proving that there is no Sacrificing Act therein pag. 466.
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
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
witnesses âšœ It followeth in the words of Christs Institution This is the Cup of the new Testament in my blood Now what of this hearken to your Bishop Iansenius m Hic Calix est novum Testamentum Non potest accipi in proprio sensu sed in eo quem clariâ—ra verba Matthaei et Mâ—rci indicant exigunt Sivè enim Calix suâ—atur provascâ—â— potorio sive Synechdochicâ— pro sanguine in poculo contento non potest consistere ut in ijs verbis sit propria locutio Nemo enim dix erit propriâ locutione vasculum illud potorium fuisse novum Testamentum cùm incertum sit an adhùc exstet illud poculum at novum Testamentum est aeternum Sed nec sanguis in calice contentus potest esse novum Testamentum propria locutione quià lex Evangelica in Epist ad Heb dicitur novum Testamentum apuâ—l Matth. Marcum sanguis dicitur hovâ— Testamenti At unicâ—m est nâ—â—um Testamentum Ianseâ— Concord in 〈◊〉 locum pag. 910. These wordes saith he cannot not be taken properly whether the Cup bee taken for the vessell used for drinking which was a temporall thing and therfore could not bee the Testament of Christ which is aeternall or else whether you take it for the matter in the Cup which is a Figure called Synechdoche for it being the blood of the new Testament could not bee properly the Testament it selfe Yea and your Iesuite Salmeron pointeth out in the same words a double Figure h Subest in his duplex Metonymia 1. quuà Conâ—inâ—ns ponâ—â—ur pro Contento id est poculum sive Calix pro vino eò quod vinum in ipso continetur 2. est cò quod contentum in poculo foedus vel Testamentum dicitur novum cùm sit ejus symbolum propter species Testamentum hoc in loco potest sumi prolege Evangelica quae veteri legi opponitur ut rem Testamento legatam testatamvè significet Quemadmodùm haeres diceâ—solet Hic fundus est Testamentum Patris me Id est portio haereditatis à patre meo legata in quem sensum Apostolus loquitur ad Heb. Iesus est sponsor melioris Testamenti Id est haereditatis Salm. Ies Tom 9. Tract 15. § 3. p. 98. A double Figure saith he is here the Cup being put for the thing contained in the Cup and Testament being taken for the Legacie that is granted and given by the Testament wiâ—h whom the o Testamentum sumitur pro legâ—to Metonymiâ—è continens Testamentum sumitur pro contento legate sâ—u haereditate quae Testamento continetur Barrad lib. 3. de Euch. c. 5 pag. 79. Tom. 4. Iesuite Barradas doth consent Hereunto may be added Christs Tropicall Saying in the 6. of Iohn where Christ calling that which he giveth to be eaten his Flesh in the same Chapter he calleth his Flesh which is to bee eaten of the faithfull Bread Which none of your side durst hitherto interpret without a Figure And yet againe the Apostle speaking of the Mysticall body of Christ which is his Church assembled at the holy Communion to participate of this Sacrament saith of them * 1. Cor. 10. 17. Wee being many are one bread and one Body for wee are all partakers of that one Bread But why Even as one Bread consisteth of many cornes so doth one Church of Christ of many faithfull persons saith your p Sicut unus panis ex multis granâ—s c. Aquia in cum locum Aquinas But none of you will deny that the Apostles naming the Communion of the Faithfull to bee one Bread or Loafe is altogether Figurative CHALLENGE COllect wee now the Parcels above-mentioned First in the word This necessarily referred to Bread inferring one Figure in the former Chapters And next in this Section one Figure in the word Broken Another in the word Eate A third in the word Drinke A fourth in the word Given A fift and sixt in the word Shed A seaventh in the word Cup An eighth in the word Testament nine in all and then your Gybes and Tants against our Figurative Exposition of Christs words as so many bolts shot upwards must fall directly upon your own pares Of your Bellarmines Objection of the word Shed hereafter in the sixt Booke and 2. Chapter âšœ It is no better than Hemlocke which you put into your Disciples mouthes to stupifie them withall when you reach them to stand to the Literall words of Christ lest that otherwise Christs speech should bee accounted a Lie First against your owne knowledge who are not ignorant that Truth is not opposed to Figurative but to False speech else all the Parables of Christ which are altogether Figurative should be called false which were Blasphemie to affirme And also against the acknowledgement already specified confessing that Bread cannot in a proper and Literall sense be truly called Christs Body And the generall Rule is that Truth in a Figurative sense cannot be so in a Literall no more than a Literall Truth can be Figurative and Tropicall âšœ That the Figurative sense of Christ's words is agreeable to the Iudgement of the more Ancient Church of Rome SECT V. YOur old and publike Romish Glosse saith plainly q Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur Corpus Christi sed impropriè unde dicitur suo more sed non reâ— veritate sed significante mysterio ut fit sensus vocatur Corpus Christi id est significatur Gloss Decret de Consecrat Dist 2. Can. Hoc est This heavenly Sacrament because it doth truely represent the flesh of Christ is called the Body of Christ but improperly not in the truth of the thing but in the mysticall Sense to wit it is called the Body of Christ that is it signifieth his Body So your Glosse which you may not deny to be the glosse or Tongue of your whole Church because it hath beene confirmed by the same Authority of Pope * Gregorius XIII Papa In the privilege before the body of the Canon Law Gregory the thirteenth wherewith your Extravagants and former Decrees of Popes have beene Authorized CHALLENGE IF all Protestants should meete at once in one Synod and should conspire together as labouring to prove a figurative Sense in these words of Christ This is my Body I suppose that a more exact perspicuous copious and ponderous Proofe could not be desired than hitherto hath beene evinced from your owne Confessions grounded aswell upon sound and impregnable Reasons as upon direct Testimonies of holy Scriptures That the former Figurative Sense of the words of Christ is agreeable to the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers of the Greeke Church SECT VI. YOu will needs defend your literall Exposition by the verdict of Ancient Fathers and wee appeale to the Venerable Senate both of Greek and Latin Fathers The r Graeci Patres vocant Eucharistiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae sunt apud nostros figurae Sacramenta
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
micâ—bilissimum videre adhuc possint panem conversum in ipsam carnem Christi Bozius de Sig. Eccles lib. 14. cap. 7. that he will report onely such Stories wherby it is made Evident by God himselfe that the Body of Christ is in the Eucharist even by the Testimony of mens eyes that have seene it A thing saith hee most miraculous which every one that hath eyes may yet see So he even as p Coccius Thesaur Cathol lib. 6. de Eucharistia Coccius before him in every particular and after both M. * In the place below-cited Brerely thus prefacing Miracles sent by God confirme the same wherein at the breaking of the Hoast sundry times great copie of blood issued out as is testified by many Writers Wee are now attentive to the Relation of your Orator and Others and afterwards as you shall perceive to give that credit unto them which the cause it selfe shall require We will take their Relations according to the order of Times I. Anno CCCC Simon Metaphrastes saith q Simon Metaphrastes narrat c. Bozius ibid. Bozius telleth in the dayes of Honorius the Emperour for the confirmation of the faith of an Eremite that the Sacrament being propounded presently Infans visus est a living Infant was seene by three old men on the Altar and whilest the Priest divided the Bread an Angell was seene and seemed to divide and cut in pieces the flesh of the Child and so Senex carnis cruentae apertè particeps factus est resipiscit The old Heremite being made partaker evidently of the Bloody flesh repented II. Anno 600. A woman as r Iohannes Paulus Diaconus in vita Gregorij narrat c. Bozius ibid. Coccius Thesaur li. 6. de Euch. art 8. Anno 590. And Masser Brerely Tract 4. §. 3. Subd 1. out of Paulus Diaconus de vita Greg. lib. 2. cap. 41. Bozius reporteth and with him Coccius had laughed to heare the Bread called the Body of Christ which she her selfe had made with her owne hands and was observed to laugh by Pope Gregory who thereupon fell to prayer with the people and by and by looking aside upon the Hoast behold the formes of Bread were vanished and he saw Veram carnem true flesh Then the people wondred the woman repented and the Hoast at the prayer of the Priest in pristinam formam reversa est Returned into it's owne shape againe III. Anno 800. Å¿ Ante Annos propè octingentos ut narrat Pascasius quidam Presbyter c. Bozius ibid. Coccius A certaine Priest called Phlegis being desirous to see Christ in the Eucharist not that he doubted thereof but that he might receive some heavenly comfort Divinitùs from God after prayers for this purpose he saw after Consecration Puerum Iesum The Child Iesus in the Hoast amplexatus est eum post multam deosculationem c. he embraced him and after much kissing of him he desired to receive the Sacrament and the Vision vanished and hee received it So hee These two last are also alleged by your Cardinall t Bellar. lib. 3. de Euâ—â—r cap. 8. Deus non est testis mendaâ—â— c. Bellarmine IV. Not many yeares after a fourth in Italy u Eâ— Guitmun lo Lanfâ—â—nco Bozius Coccius Ibid. A Priest saying Masse and sinding Veram carnem super Altare verumque sanguinem in Calice True flesh upon the Altar and true Blood in the Cup fearing to receive it forthwith reported it to the Bishop demanding what hee should do The Bishop consulted with the other Bishops his Brethren by whose common consent the Priest taking the Cup and the flesh shut them up in the middest of the Altar Haec pro divinissimis miraculis summa cum reverentia servanda decrevit The Bishop decreed that these should be perpetually reserved and kept as most divine Reliques V. Anno 1050. a Tempore quo urgente nefando Berengario haec in controversiam sunt adducta ut Deus adstipulatus intelligâ—tur veritati refragatus errori c. Baronius Anno 1059. num 20. ex Petro Damino Cardinall Baronius will needs have you know that Berengarius was confirmed by a like miracle from God as the Bishop of Amalphi saith he witnesseth to Pope Stephen upon his oath That when he was doubting of the Truth of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament at the breaking of the Hoast Rubra perfecta caro inter ejus manis apparuit ita ut digitos ejus cruentaret Red and perfect flesh appeared betwixt his hands insomuch that his hands were bloodied therewith VI. Anno 1192. Behold an Historie saith your b Quae admiranda hoc seculo in Sâ—lavorum Historiâ authore Helmoldo Abbate hujus seculi narrantur fide dignissima accipe His ferme diebus c. Baron An. 119â— num 20. 21. Haec de Transubstantiâ—â—one consutavit item idem miraculum Haeresin nuper obortam negantium aquam vino mixtam mutari in sanguinem Baronius ibid. num 24. Cardinall Baronius most worthy of beliefe you must believe it At Thuring after that the Priest had given the Sacrament to a young Girle then sicke and had washed his fingers in a pot of water shee observing it very diligently willed them that were by to uncover the water for I saw said shee a piece of the Eucharist fall out of the hands of the Priest into it which being brought unto her to drinke all the water was turned into Blood and the piece of the Hoast albeit no bigger than a mans finger was turned In sanguineam carnem into a bloody flesh All that see it are in horrour the Priest himselfe suspecting his owne negligence feareth and wisheth that it may be burned After was this made knowne and divulged to the Bishop of Mentz This Archbishop commandeth his Clergie to wait upon this whilst it should be carried in publike procession untill they came into the Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary where prayers are made by the Archbishop that God would be pleased to retransforme this in primam substantiam panis vini into the former substance of Bread and Wine and so at length it came to passe Thus far the Story This saith the same Cardinall maketh for Transubstantiation and confuteth the Heresie of those that deny that water mixed with the Eucharist is turned into Blood So hee VII Anno 1230. c Bozius quo supra ex Filiano A Priest in Florence looking into the Chalice saw drops of Blood divided into parts and joyning together againe in Abbesse lendeth the Priest a Violl to put the Blood in which the third day after appeared to be flesh This flesh is still reserved in a Cristall glasse in the Church of Saint Ambrose in Florence and although the outward formes therof be somewhat darke yet are they to be seene of all Travellers So hee VIII Anno 1239. d Bozius quo supra In the Kingdome of Valentia Verè
memorabile a thing truly memorable In the time of the warres betweene the Christians and Mahumetans there was seene of the Priest in the Altar pieces of the Hoast inclosed in linnen and sprinkled with drops of Blood which Hoast afterwards by advice was laid with all reverence on the backe of a Mule to be carried to that place wheresoever the Mule should make a stand The Mule although inticed often by Provander to stand els-where never made stay untill hee came to an Hospitall of Dorchara where falling downe upon his knees lest hee might afterwards carry any thing lesse noble and worthy than that Hoast protenus expiravit hee suddenly died IX e Bozius ibid. ex Villano c. Anno 1258. When the Priest celebrated the Masse in the Kings Chappel at Paris and was now in elevating the Hoast to shew it unto the people many of them presently saw formosissimum puerum a most beautifull Child And out of the Eucharist sanguis copiosus emanavit much Blood issued so that this cannot bee imputed to the Art of the Devill X. Anno 1261. f Bozius ibid. and Onuphrius in Vita Vrbani Quarti Vivus Sanguis ex Hostia manavit totam mappam quam Corporale vocant tinxiâ— Illustrissimum illud The most famous upon occasion whereof the Feast of Corpus Christi day was first instituted which Panvinus mentioneth in the life of Pope Vrban the Fourth when there issued out of the Eucharist sanguis copiosus Abundance of Blood So that it cannot be attributed to the cunning of the Devill XI Anno 1273. g Bozius ibid. A Miracle was seene at Picenum where a woman reserved the Eucharist which shee should have eaten and kept it with purpose to abuse it for recovering the love of her Huband by Magicke The Hoast shee laid on Coales and it presently turned into flesh Shee was astonished but concealed it by the space of seven yeares at length shee discovereth it to a Priest hee found this flesh being hid so long in a Dung-hill intactam illaesam perfect and entire hee published this Miracle which moved infinite numbers to come and see it And even now after it doth yet incite men to come and visit it for the flesh is seene after so many yeares uncorrupt to the eternall memory thereof XII Anno 1510. h Bozius ibid. At Knobloch a Village under the Marquisate of Brandenburgh one Paulus Formosus on a night stole the Pix wherein the Eucharist was reserved hee sold it to a Iew The Iew pierced it through with a Dagger and Blood flowed out c. Most of all these are related by Master i Master 〈◊〉 in his Booke of the Laturgie of the Massâ— pag. 188. 399. Brerely Priest whereupon hee maketh this Conclusion Miracles shewed by God saith he do forceably confirme the same for at breaking of the Hoast at sundry times great copie and abundance of Blood issued out as hath beene formerly testified So they It were pitie when as so many Countries have beene graced with such Miracles England should be thought unworthy of like honour nay here also wee heare there was Anno 950. at Canterbury * Master Foxe Acts and Monuments pag. 11â— Ex Oâ—berac in vita 〈◊〉 a Miracle wrought for confirming divers Clergy men then wavering in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation by a Bloody dropping of the Hoast at Masse Such as these are the Miracles whereof your Iesuite boasteth saying 2 Mr. Mallon Ies his Reply Epist to the Read r. I have enlarged my selfe in the Article of the Reall Presence because it is a matter of great importance in which Argument I have alleged many miraculous Demonstrations recorded by Writers of great credit in Confirmation of the Catholike Cause So he But of what credit your Historians are who report these what Conscience your Disputers have to object these give us first leave to diseusse and wee shall easily permit it to the Iudgement of any Conscionalâ—â— man to make his owne Conclusion âšœ That these were not Apparitions of true Flesh and true Blood of Christ by the judgement of Romish Schoole-men SECT III. YOur Bellarmine Baronius Bozius Master Brerely and Coccius have for proofe of the Corporall Presence of Christ insisted upon Apparitions of as they have sayd true flesh red flesh perfect flesh of the Infant Iesus and the child Iesus seene embraced and kissed in the Eucharist of Wine turned into blood of Drops of Blood sprinkling drops of Blood issuing out and bloodying the fingers of the Priest that saw it But wee rather beleeve your Schoole-men of whom besides many k Revera videri Christum in specie pueri aut carnis opiâ—antur sed cum duâ—â—tione Alensis Gâ—briel Palacius Sâ—â—rez Ies Tom 3. Disp â—5 §. 2 p. 710. that doubted divers together with Thomas Aquinas with the Thomists other Authors alleged by your Iesuit Suarez denyed all this saying l Dicendum est in hujusmodi apparitione non videri Christum in se ita Thomas omnes Thomistae Suarez ibid Quandò appâ—et this species quidam dacunt quod est propria species Christi corporis nec obstare dicunt quod aliquas tautium paâ—s carnis aut quod species pueri appareat quâ—à potest Christus â— qua vult specie apparere in propriâ—a sivâ—aâ—ena sed hoc est inconveniens quia species Christi non potest in propria specie videri nisi â— uno locò in quo definitive continent undè videatur in propria specie in coelis non videtur in hoc Sacramento Legitur quod loque multorum Episconorum Concilio in paxide reservatum quod nefas est de Christo in propria specie feature Aqâ—inas par 3. qu. 76. art 8. Quis facile credat quando visus est sanguis ab hostia flucie illud esse sangumâ—n Christi vel quando Calix visus est replâ—ri Christi sanguine ibi esse Christi sangumeâ— extra venas corpons ita uâ— rang aut bibi possit Et simile est quandò appareat quasi frustum Caâ—s quod illa sit vera Christi caro nam per seâ—e apparent indecentiâ— five multo sive parvo tempore 〈◊〉 Et nulla est necessitas impultiplicandi miracula Experientia docet mutari tabescere id quod videbatur caro sanguis quod non-potest ulla ratione carni guinem Christi sed non elle verum sanguinem aut veram carnem sed colore tantùm et figurâ Suarez Iesuit quo supra And the Iesuite Sillivitius Seneasie Moral quaest Tom. 1. Tract 4 cap. 4. 5. Num. 142. 101. In istis apparitionibus non videtur caro et sanguis in se sed tantùm figura et color illam referens That in such Apparitions there is no True flesh nor true Blood of Christ at all Their Reasons First Becausè Christ say they cannot appeare in his owne proper forme in two places at once Secondly Because it were hainous wickednesse to inclose Christ
Second place the Eucharist is called in the Greeke 3 In Liturgijs ut patet ex Casaubon Exerc. 16. cap. 52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Liturgies and in the Councell of * Conc. Nicen can 13. Si quis egreditur de corpore ultimo necessario viatico non privetur c. Nice the Viaticum that is Viand or Provision for our Travell in our way to Life everlasting A word objected by your 4 Aquinas part 3. quaest 73. Art 4. Hoc Sacramentum est praefigurativum fruitionis Dei quae erit in patria ideo dictum viaâ—icum quia hic praebet nobis viam illuâ— perveniendi Aquinas and others which notwithstanding can prove no more for your properly Corporall Receiving the Eucharist than it can for receiving the same Corporally in Baptisme which is called by 5 Basil Exhort ad Baptismum De Baptisme sic monet Iuvenem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil and 6 Nazian Orat. 40. de Baptismo vult morientem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregorie Naxianzene our Viaticum See the 7 Gahrieâ— Albispin Episc lib. Observat 11. Qui hoc viaticum in omnibus Canonibus Eucharistiam interpretantur non mious labantur cum tot sint genera viatici quot sunt modi viae ad Ecclesiae communionem obtinendam Consideres nihil aliud dici viaticum nisi quod in morte sumitur in alteram vitam proficiscenti prodesse potest At Baptismus Absolutio quando morientibus impartiuntur quid ni viatica censeri possint Margin The Third is the Title of Pledge which your 8 Bellar. lib. 2. 〈◊〉 cap. 17. ex Optato Optatus vocet Eucharistâ—◠〈…〉 fidei et spem Resurrectionis Cardinall hath urged out of Optatus naming the Eucharist the Pledge of Salvation helpe of Faith and hope of our Resurrection Which are say wee delivered in the same Teâ—or and sense of speech wherein 9 Basil exhort ad Baptis Baptismus namque ad resurrectionem facultas quaedam et aâ—â—abo c. Basil and 10 Theodoret. in Divinorum Decretorum Epitome de Baptismo Baptismus est pignus et Aâ—â—a futuroruÌ„ bonorum et futurae Resurrectionis Theodoret termed Baptisme the Pledge and Earnest of Blessings to come and of our future Resurrection The Common Idâ—ome of Antiquity being so frequent and familiar equally for Baptisme as for the Eucharist who can but admire the Boldnesse of our Adversaries in their so instant pressing and inculcating of those former Sentences which cannot be more earnestly Objected for the one than they may be easily Confuted by the other as will be more conspicuous in our Relation in the next Section following That the former Objected Sentences of Antiquity concerning Feast and Guest c. Viand and Pledge do in themselves altogether Confute your Romish Pretence to the further manifestation of the Vnconscionablenesse of your Romish Disputers SECT II. CHrist by Saint Hierome as you have heard is said in receiving this Sacrament at his first Institution thereof to have beene both Convivium and Convivam that is both Feast and Guest Eating his owne Body And your Doctor Heskins Instanâ—eth in the like speech of Chrysostome saying that 11 Dr. Heskins in his Parliament of Christ Book 2. cap 55. objected out of Chrysostome in Matth 26. Hom. 83. Ipse quoque orbit ex eo ne 〈◊〉 â—â—â—bis illis dicerent Quid 〈◊〉 sanguiâ—â—m bibimus et carnem 〈◊〉 ac ideo perâ—urbarentur Ne igitur tunc quoque id accideret primus ipse 〈◊〉 fecit ut Tranquâ—lo animo ad communicationem mysteriorum induceret Christ himselfe dranke thereof in the behalfe of his Disciples lest they should be troubled with his words of Eating his Flesh and Drinking his Blood therefore did hee himselfe first receive that hee might induce them to take it with a Quiet Minde So Chrysostome whom your Doctor allegeth for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ and then applying himselfe to his Reader Now you have heard saith hee the mind of Chrysostome upon the words of Christ and by the same also you may know both how He and how also the Apostles who first received the Cup at Christs hand did believe So hee And wee shall as willingly subscribe to the Orthodoxe meaning of Hierome and Chrysostome for they Both agree in one Thus then Christ must have beene a Guest and Feast himselfe unto himselfe in Eating his owne Body either Naturally or Spiritually or Romishly or else Sacramentally But not Naturally to have his Body fed by the same his owne Body for this Conceipt in your * See above own Judgement is Absurd Nor Spiritually Because hee needeth not any Spirituall helpe of any Sacrament for nourishing or augmenting any Grace in his Soule Nor yet Romishly by a Bodily Touch which is your Professed Corporall Vnion Because it was never heard that any man was fed and feasted by an onely Touch. A Bullet for example transmitted into the Belly doth Touch not feed Nutrition and Feeding being Properly a Substantiall Change of a thing Nourishable into the Substance of the Body Nourished And againe what can be more grosse than to imagine albeit but in a Dreame of a man Eating with his Mouth his owne Mouth Swallowing with his Throat his owne Throat Disgesting with his Stomacke his owne Stomacke All which Consequences follow upon a mans wholly Eating his owne Body Therefore must wee apprehend such Speeches of the Fathers in a fourth sense to wit Sacramentally by attributing the name of the Thing unto the Signe as wee teach which sense the Objected Testimony of Chrysostome doth confirme unto us who saith not that Christ Dranke or Ate himselfe but that hee dranke of the Passeover lest they that heard him should say What shall wee drinke his Blood which is as much as if Chrysostome had directly sayd that Christ therefore dranke of the Cup that they seeing him drinke might thereby understand that Hee did no more drinke his owne Blood than Hee in Eating did appeare to Eat his owne Flesh Hee therefore Dranke saith Chrysostome lest they should be troubled to thinke what what but that hee Dranke his owne Blood which sense of Chrysostomes the sentence it selfe doth evince lest that saith hee they should say within themselves Shall wee drinke his Blood Such Interrogative speeches as your owne Schoole teaches you have Vim Negationis that is imply a Negation and import as much as to thinke that Christ did not Drinke his owne Blood Will you have any more Chrysostome explayning the words of Christ Ioh. 6. of Eating his Flesh and Drinking his Blood giveth all Christians a Caveat not to understand them Carnally 12 Chrysost in Ioh. 6. Hom. 46. Quid est carnaliter intelligere simpliciter ut res dicuntur neque aliud quippiam excogitate And what is it saith hee to understand them Carnally even to understand them simply as they are spoken and not conceive any thing else
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
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
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
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
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