whereof more hereafter In the Interim we shall desire each one of you to hearken to the Exhortation of your owne Waldensis saying ATTEND and obserue the Masse OF CHRIST Of the CANON OF CHRIST his MASSE and at what wordes it beginneth SECT IV. CHrist his Masse by your owne confession beginneth at these words of the Gospell concerning Christ's Institution of the Eucharist Math. 26. Luc. 22. And Iesus tooke bread c. which also we doe as absolutely professe What Circumstances by ioynt consent on both sides are to bee exempted out of this Canon of Christ his Masse or the wordes of his Institution It is no lesse Christian wisedome and Charitie to cut off vnnecessary Controversies than it is a serpentine malice to engender them and therefore we exempt those points which are not included within this Canon of Christ beginning at these wordes And Iesus tooke bread c. To know that all other circumstances which at the Institution of Christ his Supper fell out accidentally or but occasionally because of the then Iewish Passeouer which Christ was at that time to finish or else by reason of the custome of Iudaea doe not come within this our dispute touching Christ his Masse whether it be that they concerne Place for it was instituted in a priuate house or Time which was at night or Sexe which were onely men or Gesture which was a kind of lying downe or Vesture which was wee know not what no nor yet whether the Bread were vnleauened or the Wine mixed with water two poynts which as you know Protestants and your selues giant not to be of the essence of the Sacrament but in their owne nature Indifferent and onely so farre to bee observed as the Church wherein the Christian Communicants are shall for Order and Decencie-sake prescribe the use thereof The Points contained within the Canon of Christ his Masse and appertaining to our present Controuersie 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 Receiuing of the holy Sacrament according to this Tenor Math. 26. 26. And Iesus tooke Bread and blessed it and brake it and gaue it to his Disciples and said Take eate c. And Luc. 22. 19 20. Doe this in remembrance of mee Likewise also after Supper be tooke the Cup and gaue thankes and gaue it to them saying Drinke yee all of this But the points which are especially to bee called Doctrinall are implied in these words of the Euangelists This is my Bodie 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 Luc. 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 Cup. The Acts concerning both whether in Administring or Participating thereof are charged by Christ his Canon vpon the Church Catholike vnto 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. 25. This doe yee as often c. Whereof your owne Doctors aswell Iesuites as thers haue rightly determined with a large consent that the wordes DOE THIS haue relation to all the aforesaid Acts euen according to the iâ—dgement of ancient Fathers excepting only the Time of the Celebration which was at Supper and which together with us you say were put in not for example but only by occasion of the Passeouer then commanded to be observed Thus you CHALLENGE THis Command of Christ being thus directly and copiously acknowledged by the best Diuines in the Romane Church must needs challenge on both sides an answerable performance Vpon examination whereof it will appeare vnto euery Conscience of man which Professors namely whether Protestants or Romanists are the true and Catholike Executors and Obseruers of the last will and Testament of our Testator Iesus because that Church must necessarily bee esteemed the more loyall and legitimate Spouse of Christ which doth more precisely obey the Command of the celestiall Bride-groome Wee to this purpose apply our selues to our busines by enquiring what are the Actiue Particulars which Christ hath giuen in charge vnto his Church by these his expresse wordes Doe this All which wee are to discouer and discusse from point to point TEN TRANSGRESSIONS And Preuarications against the Command of Christ DOE THIS practised by the Church of Rome at this day in her Romane Masse SECT II. VVEe list not to quarrell with your Church for lighter matters albeit your owne Cassander forbeareth not to complaine that your Bread is of such extreame thinnesse and lightnesse that it may seeme vnworthy the name of Bread Whereas Christ vsed Solid and tough bread Glutinosus saith your Iesuit which was to be broken with hands or cut with knife Neuerthelesse because there is in yours the substance of Bread therefore we will not contend about Accidents and shadowes but wee insist vpon the words of his Institution The first Transgression of the now Church of Rome in contradicting Christ his Canon is collected out of these words AND HE BLESSED IT which concerne the Consecration of this Sacrament SECT III. FIrst of the Bread the Text saith He blessed it next of the Cup it is said When he had giuen thanks Which words in your owne iudgements are all one as if it should be said Hee blessed it with giuing of thankes By the which word Blessing he doth imply a Consecration of this Sacrament So you The contrary Canon of the now Romane Masse wherein shee in her Exposition hath changed Christ's manner of Consecration The Canon of the Romish Masse attributeth the property and power of Consecration of this Sacrament only vnto the repetition of these words of Christ This is my body and This my blood c. and that from the iudgement as Some say of your Councell of Florence and Trent Moreouer you also alleage for this purpose your publique Catechisme and Romane Missall both which were authorized by the Councell of Trent and command of Pius Quintus then Pope See the Marginals Whereupon it is that you vse to attribute such efficacie to the very words pronounced with a Priestly intention as to change all the Bread in the Bakers shop and wine in the Vintners Cellar into the body and blood of Christ As your Summa Angelica speaketh more largely concerning the Bread CHALLENGE BVt Christopherus your own Arch-bishop of Caesarea in his Booke dedicated to Pope Sixtus Quintus and written professedly vpon this Subject commeth in compassed about with a clowd of witnesses and Reasons to proue that the Consecration
How can you auoid the necessity of this Consequence All arising from the nature of Predication in this Proposition wherein the Subiect is Bread the Copula Is and Predicate Body of Christ Which because it cannot be properly predicated either of Bread determinate as to say This bread in my hand is Christ's Body or of Bread undeterminate which you call vagum as to say This kind of bread is the Body of Christ it demonstrately sheweth that your Doctors can have no greater Aduersaries in this case than their owne Consciences which will appeare as fully in that which followeth CHAP. II. The Second key in Christ's Words Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body opening the Figurative Sence thereof is the Verbe EST IS FOr that Est in these words hath the same sence as Signifieth as if Christ had said expresly of the Bread This signifieth my Body and accordingly of the Wine This signifieth my Blood may be proued by three Propositions infringible Our first Proposition The Verbe EST being ioyned 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 Sence and is as much as Signifieth or Representeth whensoever it ioyneth the Signe and the Thing signified together As for Example A man pointing at a signe hanging before an Inne and saying This is S. George on horse-backe the Verbe Is can inferre no other Sence than Signifieth Why even because the thing whereof it speaketh is a Signe signifying Saint George And Bread in this Sacrament is in all Catholique Divinity a Signe of Christ's Body Therefore the Verbe Is can have no other sence than Signifieth The former Proposition confirmed by all like Speeches whether Artificiall Politique or Mysticall SECT II. YOur owne Iesuits and common Experience it selfe will verifie this Truth First in things Artificiall as To say of the Picture of Hercules This is Hercules is a figure Secondly In things Politique as when a 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 Greekes and Troians when they entred into a league which was to be ratified by a Sacrifice of Lambs upon which both sides were to take their Oathes this their Act is thus expressed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is They brought with them two Lambes their faithfull Oathes Where Lambes the rituall signes of their faithfull Swearing are called Oathes An Example I say even among the Heathen which is as appo e 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 aboundantly 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 Paschall Lambe being but a signe was called the Passeover or passing over Secondly that The Rocke being but a signe of Christ was called Christ Thirdly that Circumcision being but a signe of the Covenant was called the Covenant So likewise in the new Testament both concerning Baptisme which in Christ his Speech to Nicodemus being but a signe of Regeneration is called Regeneration And Baptizing which being a Signe of the Buriall of Christ in the speech of Saint Paul is called Buriall Finally that the most proper Interpretation of the Verbe Est Is in such like speeches importeth no more than Significat your Iesuite Salmeron will testifie for us In these speeches saith he The seed is the Word I am the Doore The Rocke was Christ the Verbe Is and WAS must be interpreted for SIGNIFIETH or figureth not of it's owne nature but because the word Rocke cannot be otherwise ioyned with Christ than by a figure or signe So he Even as Master Sanders also is compelled to confesse in a like Case CHALLENGE THus have we argued from Induction and Enumeration of Texts of Scripture in all like Sacramentall Speeches which Exposition by Analogy of Scriptures was ever held of all Divines the most absolute and infallible manner of expounding the Scripture that can be The Truth whereof arieseth essentially out of the Definition of a Sacrament which as well the whole Catholique Church as your Romish hath defined to be a visible Signe But no visible Signe can be ioyned to any thing signified thereby in like Predication without a Figure as hath beene both copiously proved and confessed Our third Proposition viz. Many Figurative Speeches are used by Christ even in his Words of Institution of this Sacrament by your owne Confessions SECT IV. FIrst your Iesuites who otherwise shame not to call Protestants in scorne Tropists because they defend a Tropicall and Figurative sence in the speech of Christ are notwithstanding constrained to acknowledge many figures in other words of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament Lest that otherwise as Maldonate and Suarez confesse the Speeches of Christ should be false as for example When the body of Christ is said to be broken or eaten if they should be taken properly and without a figure called Metaphora So they And so in the words following Body given for you that is which shall be offered for you on the Crosse So your Iesuite Valentia Next The blood is shed for you Matth. 26. It is not denied saith your Iesuite Salmeron but that it is the manner of Scripture to speake of a thing as now done which is after to be done as in this place Is shed because very shortly after it was to be shed upon the Crosse Which is the figure Enallage Againe This Cup is the new Testament in my bloud Hearken to your Bishop These words cannot be taken properly whether the Cup be taken for the vessell used for drinking which was a temporall thing and therefore could not be the Testament of Christ which is eternall or else whether you take it for the matter within the Cup which is the figure Synecdoche for it being the blood of the new Testament could
and why might they not use the same Tenure of Speech which our Lord Christ used before them But they say also that Bread is therefore called his Body as being an outward Sacrament Signe and Figure of his Body seeing that every Sacrament being a Signe or Figure the Sacramentall Speech must necessarily be Figurative as hath beene proved by Scripture as in all other Sacraments so likewise in the severall confessed Figurative words of Christ concerning this Sacrament in six severall Instances This one Argument of it selfe hath beene tearmed by Master Calvin Murus ahaeneus that is a brazen Wall and so will it be found more evidently to be when you shall perceive the same Fathers judging that which they call Change into Christ's flesh to be but a Change into the Sacrament of his flesh Bread still remayning the same and teaching that Melchisedech offered in his Sacrifice the Body and Blood of Christ when he offered onely the Types of both in the Sixt Booke And now we are to with-stand your Paper-bullets wherewith you vainely attempt in your Objections following to batter our Defence withal CHAP. III. The Romish Obiections against the Figurative Sence Answered The first Obiection SECT I. NOthing useth to be more properly and simply spoken say you than words of Testaments and Covenants Ergò this being a Testamentary Phrase must be taken in the literall Sence CHALLENGE WHat is this are Figurative speeches never used in Covenants and Testamentary Language or is there not therefore sufficient perspicuity in Figures This is your rash and lavish Assertion for you your selves doe teach that 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 Trinity and some divine things cannot but speake improperly and figuratively Thirdly That Sacramentall speeches as The Rocke was Christ and the like words are 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 Testament So have you confessed and so have you consequently confuted your owne Obiection Hereto might be added the Testament of Iacob prophesying of his sonnes and saying Reuben is my strength Iudah a Lions Whelpe Issachar a strong Asse Danan Adder in the way All figurative Allusions Nay no man in making his Testament can call it his Will or say that he hath set his hand and Seale unto it without Figures Namely that he 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 Figuratiue even in a Testament The Second Romish Obiection against the Figurative Sence SECT II. LAwes and Precepts say you should be in plaine and proper words But in the Speech of Christ Take eate you c. are words of Command Ergò They may not be held Figurative CHALLENGE CAn you be Ignorant of these Figurative Precepts viz. of Pulling out a man 's owne eye of cutting off his hand Matth. 5. Or yet of a Penitents Renting of his heart Ioel 2. Or of not hardening his heart Psal 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 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 be 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 Christ's Body is ioyntly 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 Drinke you All of this that which was Drunke was the whole substantiall Body of Christ either must his Disciples be said to have Drunke Christ's Body properly or else was the Command of Christ figuratively spoken To say the first contradicteth the universall expression of man's speech in all Languages for no man is said to drinke Bread or any solid thing And to grant the Second that the speech is Figurative contradicteth your owne Objection Againe Christ commanded to Eate his Body yet notwithstanding have Three Iesuites already confessed that Christ's Body cannot be said 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 Obiection SECT III. DOctrinall and Dogmaticall speeches say you ought to be direct and literall But these words This is my Body are Doctrinall CHALLENGE A Man would maruaile to heare such silly and petty Reasons to be 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 Doctrinall and teacheth Mortification and yet is not literally to be understood as you all know by the literall errour of Origen who did really Castrate himselfe And the same Origen who thus wounded himselfe by that literall Exposition in his youth Hee in his Age expounding the words of Christ concerning the Eating of his flesh said of the literall sence thereof that It killeth Secondly these words This is the New Testament in my blood they are wordes as Doctrinall as the other This is my body and yet figurative by your owne Confession Thirdly the words of Christ Ioh. 6. of Eating his flesh are Doctrinall and yet by your owne Construction are not to be properly vnderstood but as Christ afterwards expounds himselfe Spiritually Fourthly where Christ thus said The bread which I shall give is my flesh Ioh. 6. 51. he saith also of his Body that it is True bread Verse 32. and bread of life Verse 48. and living bread whereof whosoever eateth liveth eternally Verse 51. All Divine and Doctrinall Assertions yet was his body figuratively called bread Fiftly that in those words of Christ to Peter Matth. 16. Vpon this Rocke will I build my Church And To thee will I give the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven And Ioh. 21. Feed my Sheepe In which texts of Scripture you place although most falsly your Doctrinall foundation of Popedome it selfe yet know you all these to be Tropicall Speeches Yea and what say you to the first Doctrinall Article and foundation of Christian Doctrine delivered by God unto man in the beginning The seed of the
by Protestants which is Sacramentall And by the Papists defined to be Trans-substantiall SECT I. First of the Sacramentall THere lieth a Charge upon every Soule that shall communicate and participate of this Sacrament that herein he Discerne the Lord's Body which Office of Discerning according to the iudgement of Protestants is not onely in the use but also in the Nature to distinguish the Obiect of Faith from the Obiect of Sense The First Obiect of Christian Faith is the Divine Alteration and Change of naturall Bread into a Sacrament of Christ's body This we call a Divine Change because none but the same Omnipotent power that made the Creature and Element of Bread can Change it into a Sacrament The Second Obiect of Faith is the Body of Christ it selfe Sacramentally represented and verily exhibited to the Faithfull Communicants There are then three Obiects in all to be distinguished The First is before Consecration the Bread meerely Naturall Secondly After Consecration Bread Sacramentall Thirdly Christ's owne Body which is the Spirituall and Super-substantiall Bread truly exhibited by this Sacramentall to the nourishment of the soules of the Faithfull Secondly of the Romish Change which you call Transubstantiation SECT II. BVt your Change in the Councell of Trent is thus defined Transubstantiation is a Change of the whole Substance of Bread into the whole Substance of the Body of Christ and of Wine into his Blood Which by the Bull of Pius the Fourth then Pope is made an Article of Faith without which a man cannot be saved Which Article of your Faith Protestans beleeve to be a new and impious Figment and Heresie The Case thus standing it will concerne every Christian to build his Resolution upon a sound Foundation As for the Church of England she professeth in her 28. Article saying of this Transubstantiation that It cannot be proved by holy Writ but is repugnant to the plaine words of Scripture overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion unto MANY SVPERSTIONS CHAP. II. The Question is to be examined by these ground viz. I. Scripture II. Antiquity III. Divine Reason IN all which wee shall make bold to borrow your owne Assertions and Confessions for the Confirmation of Truth The Romish Depravation of the Sence of Christ his words This is my Body for proofe of Transubstantiation SECT I. YOu pretend and that with no small Confidence as a Truth avouched by the Councell of Trent that Transubstantiation is collected from the sole true and proper Signification of these words This is my Body So you CHALLENGE VVHerein you shew your selves to be men of great Faith or rather Credulity but of little Conscience teaching that to be undoubtedly True whereof notwithstanding you your-selves render many Causes of Doubting For first you grant that besides Cardinall Cajetane 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 saith Is not altogether improbable and whereunto your Bishop 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 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 Sence 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 be extracted out of the Text without violence to the words of Christ Wee might in the third place adde hereunto that the true Sence of the words of Christ is Figurative as by Scriptures Fathers and by your owne confessed Grounds hath beene already plentifully * proved as an Infallible 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 Obiection You have told us that the words of Christ are Operative and worke that which they signifie so that upon the pronuntiation of the words This is my Body it must infallibly follow that Bread is changed into Christs Body which wee shall believe assoone as you shall be able to prove that upon the pronuntiation of the other words of Christ This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood Luc. 22. 20. the Cup is changed into the Testament of Christ's Blood or else into his Blood it selfe The Novelty 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 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 Alan witnesseth before the Councell of Laterane which was 1215. yeares after Christ nor can you produce One Father Greeke or Latine for a Thousand yeares attributing any word equivalent in strict Sence unto the same word Transubstantiation untill the yeare 1100. which is beyond the Compasse of due Antiquitie At what time you finde note and â—rge Theophylact who saith of the Bread that It is Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ Which Phrase in what Sence hee vsed it you might best have learned from himselfe who in the very same place saith that Christ in a manner is Trans-elementated into the Communicant which how unchristian a Paradoxe it were being taken in strict and proper Sence we permit to your owne iudgements to determine Neither yet may you for the countenancing of the Noveltie of this word obiect the like use of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though it had beene in use before the Arian Controversie began because the Fathers of the Councell of Nice iudged the Obiection of the Novelty of that word Calumnious for that the use of it had beene Antient before their times as your Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe witnesseth You furthermore to prevent our Obiection demanding why the Antient Fathers never called your fancied Romish Change Transubstantiation if they had beene of your Romish Faith concerning the Substantiall Change of Bread into the Body of Christ haue shaped us this Answere namely that Although they used not the very word Transubstantiation yet have they words of the same signification to wit Conversion Transmutation Transition
Fathers have declared what could these holy Fathers have thought of your Barbarous or rather Brutish faith that teacheth such a Corporall Vnion by a bodily Touch and Eating whereby according to your owne Doctrine Rats Wormes and Dogges and whatsoever vile beast may be as reall partakers of the bodie of Christ as Peter or Iohn or whosoever the essentiall member of Christ Wherefore you must suffer us to reason aswell against your Corporall Coniunction by bodily Touch as Many of your Divines have done against bodily Vnion by coniunction and commixture but why even Because the Sacrament was not ordained for a bodily but for a spirituall Coniunction So they So that wee need say no more but fore-seeing what you will obiect we adde the Propositions following CHAP. III. That wicked Communicants albeit they eate not bodily Christ's Bodie yet are they Guilty of the Lords Bodie for not receiving it spiritually namely thorow their Contempt for not receiving the Blessing offered thereby SECT I. THe Apostle 1. Cor. 11. 27. Whosoever saith hee Eateth this Bread and Drinketh this Cup unworthily he shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord And Vers 29. eateth and drinketh Damnation to himselfe not discerning the Lord's Bodie Your Rhemish Professors men not the least zealous for your Romish Cause obiecting this against the Protestants call upon you saying first Hereupon marke well that ill men receive the Body and Blood of Christ be they Infidels or ill livers for else they could not be guilty of that which they receive not Secondly That it could not be so hainous an offence for any to receive a piece of bread or a cup of wine though they were a true Sacrament for it is a deadly sinne for any to receive any Sacrament with will and intention to continue in sinne or without repentance of former sinnes but yet by the unworthy receiving of no other Sacrament is man made guilty of Christ's Bodie and Blood but here where the unworthy Receiver as Saint Chrysostome saith doth villany to Christ's owne person as the Iewes and Gentiles did that crucified him Which invincibly proveth against the Heretikes that Christ is herein really present And guilty is he for not discerning the Lord's Body that is because hee putteth no difference betweene this high meate and others So your Rhemists Your Cardinall also as though he had found herein something for his purpose fastneth upon the sentence of Cyprian who accounted them that after their deniall of Christ presented themselves to this Communion without repentance to offer more iniurie to Christ by their polluted handes and mouthes than they did in denying Christ and besides he recordeth Examples of God's miraculous vengeance upon those who violated the body of Christ in this Sacrament So hee All these points are reducible unto three heads One is that ill men might not be held guiltie of the Body of Christ except they did receive it as being materially present in this Sacrament Next is the Guilt of prophaning this Sacrament which being more hainous than the abuse of any other Sacrament therefore the iniury is to be iudged more personall The last that the Examples of God's vindicative Iudgements for Contempt hereof have beene more extraordinary which may seeme to be a Confirmation of both the former Before we handle these points in order take our next Position for a Directory to that which shall be answered in the VI. Section That some Fathers understood the Apostles words 1. Cor. 10. spiritually namely as signifying the Eating of Christ's Flesh and drinking his Blood both in the Old Testament and in the Newe SECT II. VPon those words of the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. v. 4. They ate of the same spirituall meate c. The Iewes received the same spirituall meate saith S. Augustine Yea saith your 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 we eat so plainly that divers of your own side doe so directly and truely acknowledge it that your Iesuite Maldonate not able to gain-say this Trueth pleaseth himselfe notwithstanding in fancying that If August were alive in this Age he would think otherwise especially perceiving Hereticall Calvinists and Calvin himselfe to be of his opinion So hee Was it not great pitty that Augustine was not brought up in the Schoole of the Iesuites 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 Adversarie than was Augustine whom Maldonate here noteth to have beene the Greatest Enemie to all Heretickes whom Bertram followed in the same Exposition and by your leave so did your Aquinas also The same saith he which wee eate Thus much by the way Wee goe on to our Answeres That the wicked Receivers are called Guiltie of Christ's Bodie not for Eating of his Body unworthily but for unworthily Eating the Sacrament thereof SECT III. THe Distinction used by St. Augustine hath bene 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 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 receiue 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 iudgement of Guiltines upon them All which both the Evidence of Scripture and consent of Antiquity doe notably confirme For the Text obiected doth clearely confute your Romish Consequence because S. Paul's 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 eateth the Bread and drinketh the Cupp of the Lord unworthily c. which we have proved throughout the 2. 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 above cited Ch. 1. § 6. who denyed 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 guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ have thereby sufficiently confuted your Consequence which was that because the wicked are Guilty of Christ's bodie Ergò his Body is Corporally present in them But we pursue you yet further That a Guiltines of Contempt of Christ's Body and
Kings 18. 23. where Elias speaking of the Priests of Baal and telling them that he meant to have a Sacrifice said Doe or Make. So he together with some other Iesuites But vainely ridiculously and injuriously I. Vainely because the word Doe in those Scriptures did not simply in it selfe import a Sacrifice but only consequently to wit by reason of the matter subject then spoken of which was a matter of Sacrifice and are so explaned by just circumstances as may appeare in the places objected Levit. 15. where was speech of a Turtle-dove appointed for a Sacrifice And so likewise in 1. Kings 18. 23. was there mention of a Bullocke to be ordained for a Sacrifice Whosoever having spoken of his Riding shall command one servant saying Make ready and after being an hungrie and having spoken of meat shall command another saying likewise Make ready None can bee so simple as to confound the different sences of the same word Make but knoweth right well that the Significations are to bee distinguished by the different subjects of Speech the first relating to his horse and the other to his meat and the like wherein the different Circumstances doe diversifie the sence of the same word II. Ridiculously For if the Hebrew and Greeke Editions which signifie Doe this doe necessarily argue a sacrificing act or Sacrifice then shall you be compelled to admit of strange and od kindes of Sacrifices one in Gedeon his destroying of the Altar of Baal another in Moses his Putting off of his shooes A third in Christs washing of his Disciples feet A fourth to goe no further in the Mans Loosing of his Colt In all which Instances there are the same originall words now objected by interpretation Doe or Make. III. Injuriously First to the Text of Christ wherein the word is not indefinite Doe but determinate Doe this Next Injurious to your owne many Authors for the words Doe this by the confessions of your owne Iesuites and others have reference to all the former Acts of Christ his Celebration then specified as namely Blessing Breaking Eating c. Yea and if your Cardinalls Answer were held so Certaine among your selves then would not your Iesuite Maldonate have so farre slighted it as to say I will not contend that in this place the word Doe signifieth the same with Doe sacrifice Next Injurious to antiquitie which as is confessed called Doing Masse the Celebration of the Sacrament Besides Injurious to your owne Masse in the Canon inserted by Alexander Pope and Martyr of the Primitive age in these words Doe this as often that is Blesse it Breake it Distribute it c. A plaine and direct Interpretation of the words Doe this Lastly Injurious to S. Paul who in his Comment upon the words of Christ his Institution doth put the matter out of question 1. Cor. 11. where after the words Doe this as often as you doe it in remembrance of mee vers 25. immediately expounding what was meant by Doing expresseth the Acts of Doing thus As often as you shall eat this Bread and drinke this Cup c. Which his Command of Doing by Eating and Drinking was spoken generally to all the faithfull in Corinth that you may not imagine it was wholly restrained to the sacrificing Priests Other Romish Doctors also if they had beene so sure of the force of the word FACITE as your Cardinall seemeth to be then surely would they not have sought to prove it from Virgils Calfe where it is said Cùm faciam Vitulâ and were therefore noted by Calvin and Chemnitius of bold Ignorance But these two Protestants for so saying have beene since branded by your Cardinall with a marke of Imposture as if they had falsly taxed your Romish Authors of such fondnesse But now what shall wee say to such a Gnostick who as though he had knowen what all the Doctors in the Church of Rome had then written and â—ented durst thus engage his word for everie one It may bee hee presumed that none of them could bee so absurd But your Iansenius will quit the report of Calvine and Chemnitius from the suspicion of Falshood who witnesseth concerning some Romish Authors of his time saâ—ing There are some who endeavour to prove the word Facere to be put for Sacrificare by that saying of Virgil Cùm faciam vitula So he And why might not they have beene as absurd as some others that came after yea by your leave Iesuites themselves of your Bellarmines owne Societie who in like manner have consulted with the Poet Virgil about his Calfe but as wisely according to our Proverb as Walton's Calfe which went c. For the matter subject of the Poets Sacrifice is there expressed to have beene Vitula a Calfe You have failed in your first Objection That a Proper Sacrifice cannot be collected out of any of these words of Christs Institution Is GIVEN Is BROKEN Is SHED SECT II. THe Text is Luc. 22. 20. Which Is broken Is given Is shed in the Present Tense and This Is the Cup of the new Testament in my Bloud wherein according to the Greeke there is a varying of the Case whereupon your Disputers as if they had cried 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are commonly more Instant in this Objection than in any other some of them spending eight full leaves in pressing this Text by two Arguments one in respect of the Case and another in regard of the Time Of the Grammar point concerning the Case This is the new Testament in my Bloud Now what of this It is not said saith your Cardinall This is the Blood shed for you but This is the Cup shed for you Therefore is hereby meant The Bloud which was in the Chalice because wine could not be said to bee shed for us for remission of sinnes But how gather you this Because in the Greeke saith M. Breerly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 varieth the Case from the word Sanguine and the Genus from the word Testamentum and agreeth evidently with Calix which drive Beza unto a strange Answer saying that this is a Soloe cophanes or Incongruitie of speech So he which Objection he learned peradventure of the Rhemists who are vehement in pressing the same their Conclusion is This proveth the Sacrifice of Christ's Blood in the Chalice In which one Collection they labour upon many ignorances 1. As if a Soloe cophanes were a prophanation of Scripture by Incongruitie of speech which as one Protestant hath proved is used as an Elegancie of speech by the two Princes of Orators Demosthenes for the Greeke and Tully for the Latine and by the two Parents of Poets among the Greekes Homer and by Virgil among the Latines 2. As though these our Adversaries were fit men to upbraid Beza with one Soloecophanes which is but a Seeming Incongruitie like a Seeming Limping who themselves confesse Ingeniously that in their Vulgar Latine Translation which is decreed by the
This being known will set all straight And Clemens telleth you that it is his Precious Body and his Blood shed which properly taken all Christians professe to be Proper to his Body crucified and Blood shed on the Crosse for the proper object of our Typicall Remembrance as we have formerly proved and you your selves confessed already Cyril of Hierusalem doth attend upon Pope Clemens and in a sort treadeth in his steps The manner of our Celebrating the memory of Christ's death he calleth a Spirituall Sacrifice and an Vnbloody worship wherein against the Iewish Sacrifice he opposeth Spirituall against Corporall as he doth Vnbloody against Bloody But by Spirituall he meant that which wanteth a Body Therefore by Vnbloody he meant that which was properly void of Blood So farre was Cyril from signifying thereby the Vnbloody Body of Christ as the subject matter in the Eucharist As for the Body and Blood of Christ it selfe which hee calleth Propitiation Cyril expoundeth himselfe to meane for so he nameth it Christ slaine for our sinnes which still wee say and you cannot deny is only the Object of our whole spirituall service of Remembrance and Commemoration Both these former Witnesses have delivered their Testimonies as spoken under a forme of Prayer whereunto whether You or Protestants may more justly say Amen judge you The eighth Demonstration of the no Proper Sacrifice of the Masse Because the Ancient Fathers called the Eucharist a Bloody Sacrifice which all you will confesse to be Vnproperly spoken SECT XI TAke but unto you your owne Allegations set downe in the Margent of the Sentences of Antiquit◠and you shall finde how the Ancient Fathers doubted not to say that Christ suffereth is slaine slayeth himselfe suffereth often in this Sacrament and that His Passion and bloody Sacrifice is offered herein Sayings of the highest Accent as you see and of no fewer nor meaner Fathers than these Alexander Gregory both Popes Chrysostome Cyprian Hierome Cyril of Ierusalem Hesychius Pascatius What thinke you of such sayings Can Christ be said properly to be Dead in this Sacrament Never any Catholike said so saith your Iesuit Ribera What then could be the meaning of such words If you should be ignorant your Cardinall Alan would teach you and he would have you Observe what he saith Christ is said by the Fathers to suffer saith he and to die in this Sacrament only so farre as his Death and Passion is commemorated and represented herein And so speaketh also your Roman Glosse What now hindreth but that whensoever we heare the same Fathers affirming that the same Body and Blood of Christ are Sacrificed in the Eucharist we understand them in the same impropriety of speech that they meant onely Representatively especially when as we see your other grand Cardinall comming somewhat home towards us and to confesse as followeth If Catholikes should say that Christ doth truly die in this Sacrament this Argument might be of some force but they say he dieth not but in a Sacrament and Signe representing So he which yet alas is too little a Crevase for so great a Doctor to creepe out at First because there is as well a Figurative as there is a literall Truth for If I should say of Easter day said Augustine it is the day of Christ's Resurrection I should not lie and yet it is but the Anniversary day betokening the other When Christ said of one part of this Sacrament This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood he spake by a double figure said your Iesuit Salmeron yet truly Secondly Christ who is Truth it selfe in saying of Bread This is my Body or Flesh spake a Truth as you all professe and was it not likewise a Truth when he called his Flesh Bread yea and also The true Bread Thirdly the Fathers as they said that Christ is dead suffereth as you now object in this Sacrament in a Mysterie so have They also said of his Body in respect of the Eucharist It is sacrificed in an Image in a Sacrament or Mysterie according to that their generall Qualification saying It is the same Sacrifice which Christ offered or Rather a Remembrance thereof And lastly the Fathers who named Baptisme a Sacrifice as well as the Eucharist doubted not to stretch Baptisme up to as high a note as they have done the Eucharist saying Baptisme is the passion of Christ and In Baptisme we crucifie Christ To signifie that the Body of Christ is the Represented Object and not the Representative Subject of this Sacrament An Elucidation of the Premises by a Similitude of a Stage-play manifesting how the same Vnproper Sacrifice might furthermore have beene called both Bloody and Vnbloody by Antient Fathers SECT XII A Similitude for explanation sake would be had give us leave to borrow one from the Stage-play for manifesting a Truth as well as you have done another from thence for palliating a Falshood You may recognize with us that Tragicall end of the Emperour Mauritius by the command of one Phocas once his slave that grand Patrone of the Popedome by privileging the Church of Rome to be the Head of all Churches as divers of your owne Historians doe relate But to the point By the commandment of this Phocas as you know were slaine two of Mauritius his sonnes three daughters and his wife and all these before his owne eyes and at last the Emperour Mauritius himselfe was also murthered Were now this dolefull Spectacle acted on a Stage might not any Spectator say at the horrid sight thereof This is a bloody Tragedie namely in respect of the Object represented herein And might he not also say as truly This is an Vnbloody Tragedie to wit in respect of the representative Subject Action Commemoration it selfe wherein there is not shed any one drop of mans Blood And from the same Evidence it will be easie to perceive that the Greeke Fathers used to terme the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latines Tremendum that is a Terrible and Dreadfull Sacrifice namely for the Semblance-sake and Analogie it hath with Christ's Death even as one would call the Act representing the cruell Butchering of the Emperour Mauritius an horrible and lamentable Spectacle This is a cleare glasse wherein any may discerne the open visage of Truth from the fained Vizard of Error The ninth Demonstration Because Antient Fathers likewise called the Sacrament of Baptisme a Sacrifice for the Representation-sake which it hath of Christ's Death which is Argumentum à paribus SECT XIII WE shall not urge the Antecedent of this Argument taken from Baptisme before that we have made knowne the force of the Consequence thereof First one of your Cardinalls thus If the Fathers had held the Eucharist onely a Sacrament and not also a Sacrifice there had beene no cause why they should not have called Baptisme a Sacrifice it being a Representation of Christ's
vsed by our Sauiour was performed by that his Blessing by Prayer which preceded the pronouncing of those words Hoc est corpus meum This is my bodie c. To this purpose hee is bold to averre that Thomas Aquinas and all Catholikes before Caietane have confessed that Christ did consecrate in that his Benedixit that is He blessed it And that Saint Iames and Dionyse the Areopagite did not Consecrate only in the other words but by Prayer Then he assureth vs that the Greeke Churches maintained that Consecration consisteth in Benediction by Prayer and not in the only repetition of the words afore-said After this hee produceth your subtilest Schooleman Scotus accompanied with divers others Who Derided those that attributed such a supernaturall vertue to the other forme of words After steppeth in your Lindan who avoucheth Iustin one of the ancientest of Fathers as Denying that the Apostles consecrated the Eucharist in those words Hoc est c. and affirming that Consecration could not be without Prayer Be you but pleased to peruse the Marginals and you shall further find alleadged the Testimonies of Pope Gregorie Hierome Ambrose Bernard and to ascend higher the Liturgies of Clement Basil Chrysostome and of the Romane Church it selfe in gain-saying of the Consecration by the only words of Institution as you pretend And in the end he draweth in two Popes contradicting one the other in this point and hath no other meanes to stint their iarre but whereas the authoritie of both is equall to thinke it iust to yeild rather to the better learned of them both Whosoever requireth more may be satisfied by reading of the Booke itselfe It will not suffice to say that you also vse Prayer in the Romish Liturgie for the question is not meerely of Praying but wherein the forme of Benediction and Consecration properly doth consist Now none can say that he consecrateth by that Prayer which he belieueth is not ordained for Consecration We may furthermore take hold by the way of the Testification of Mr. Brereley a Romish Priest who out of Basil and Chrysostome calling one part Calix benedictione sacratus alloweth Benediction to haue beene the Consecration thereof All this Armie of Witnesses were no better than Meteors or imaginarie figures of battailes in the aire if that the Answere of Bellarmine may goe for warrant to wit that the only Pronuntiation of these words Hoc est corpus meum imply in them as hee saith an Invocation or Prayer Which words as any man may perceiue Christ spake not supplicatorily vnto God but declaratiuely vnto his Apostles accordingly as the Text speaketh Hee said unto them as is also well observed by your fore-said Arch-bishop of Caesarea out of Saint Hierome But none of you we presume will dare to say that Christ did Invocate his Disciples These words therefore are of Declaration and not of Invocation Which now Romish Doctrine of Consecrating by reciting these words This is my bodie c. your Divines of Colen haue iudged to be a Fierce madnesse as being repugnant both to the Easterne and Westerne Churches But we haue heard divers Westerne Authours speake giue leave to an Easterne Archbishop to deliuer his minde No Apostle or Doctor is knowne to affirme saith hee those sole words of Christ to haue beene sufficient for Consecration So he three hundred yeares since satisfying also the Testimonie of Chrysostome obiected to the contrarie As miserable and more intolerable is the Answere of others who said that the Evangelists haue not observed the right order of Christ his actions as if hee had first said This is my bodie by way of Consecration and after commanded them to Take and eat Which Answere your owne Iesuite hath branded with the note of Falsitie yea so false that as it is further avouched all ancient Liturgies aswell Greeke as Latine constantly held that in the order of the tenour of Christ his Institution it was first said Takâ— yee before that he said This is my Bodie Lastly your other lurking-hole is as shameful as the former where when the iudgement of Antiquitie is obiected against you requiring that Consecration be done directly by Prayer vnto God you answere that some Fathers did use such speeches in their Sermons to the people but in their secret instraction of Priests did teach otherwise Which Answere besides the falsitie thereof Wee take to be no better than a reproach against Antiquitie and all one as to say that those venerable Witnesses of Truth would professe one thing in the Cellar and proclaime the contrarie on the house-top It were to be wished that when you frame your Answeres to direct other men's Consciences you would first satisfie your owne especially being occupied in soule's-businesses We conclude Seeing that Forme as all learning teacheth giveth being vnto all things therefore your Church albeit shee vse Prayer yet erring in her iudgement concerning the perfect manner and Forme of Consecration of this Sacrament how shall shee be credited in the Materialls wherein she will be found aswell as in this to haue Transgressed the same Iniunction of Christ DOE THIS Neuerthelesse this our Conclusion is not so bee interpreted as hearken Mr. Brereley to exclude out of the words of this Celebration the Repetition and pronunciation of these words This is my Bodie and This is my Bloud of the new Testament Farre be this from vs because wee hold them to be essentially belonging to the Narration of the Institution of Christ and are vsed in the Liturgie of our Church for although they be not words of Blessing and Consecration because not of Petition but of Repetition yet are they Words of Direction and withall Significations and Testifications of the mysticall effects thereof Your Obiection out of the Fathers is answered The second Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse is in their Contradicting the sence of the next words of Institution HE BRAKE IT SECT IV. HE brake it So all the Evangelists doe relate Which Act of Christ plainly noteth that hee Brake the Bread for distributing of the same vnto his Disciples And his Command is manifest in saying as well in behalfe of this as of the rest Doe this Your Priest indeed Breaketh one Hoast into three parts vpon the Consecration thereof but our Question is of Fraction or Breaking for Distribution to the People The Contrarie Canon of the now Romane Masse BEHOLD say you Christ brake it but the Catholike Church meaning the Romane now doth not breake it but giueth it whole And this you pretend to doe for Reverence-sake Lest as your Iesuite saith some crummes of Bread may fall to the ground Neither is there any Direction to your Priest to Breake the Bread either before or after Consecration in your Romane Masse especially that which is distributed to the people CHALLENGE BVt now see wee pray you the absolute Confession of your owne Doctors whereby is
itch as hee himselfe called his owne humour which received a Salve that might have cured him of that itch to be medling with the same Doctor Yet the onely Exception which hath since come to this Doctor 's eares from your side is this now objected point concerning the Manichees whereupon you have heard them both so urgently and boastingly insist and not so onely but they have also divulged this pretended Contradiction in many Counties of this Kingdome to his reproach Will you be so kinde as but to heare an Answer and then either wonder at or hisse or applaude or him or them as you shall finde iust Cause Two things there were condemnable in the Manichees one was their Act and Practice in dismembring the Sacrament by not communicating in both kindes the other was their Opinion which they held for so doing which was as you have heard an hereticall Conceit that Wine was the Creature of the Devill Concerning this hereticall opinion no Protestant said Doctor Morton doth charge the Church of Rome but as for the Act of not Communicating in both kinds he called it Sacrilegious and concluded the Church of Rome in this respect to be as guilty of dismembring the Sacrament as were the Manichees And both these hee hath done by the Authority of Pope Gelasius who decreed in condemning the Manichees First against their Opinion saying Illinescio quâ superstitione docentur astringi c. That is They are intangled in a kind of Superstition Then for the Act of refusing the Cup Because saith he the dividing of the same Mystery cannot be done without grievous sacrilege therefore let these Manichees either receive the whole Sacrament or else let them be wholly excluded from receiving So Gelasius Seeing then Doctor Morton and all Protestants cleare the Church of Rome from the imputation of the Heresie of the Manichees in respect of their opinion and yet condemne them of the Manichean Sacrilege in respect of the Act of dismembring the Sacrament with what spectacles thinke you did your Priest and Iesuite reade that Answere of Doctor Morton to collect from thence either your Churches Iustification from a foule fault of Sacrilege or else the Doctors foule Contradiction to himselfe and that cleerely forsooth in the same respect who themselves are now found to have beene so subtilly witlesse as not to discerne Heresie from Sacrilege an opinion from a fact or a no-imputation of that whereof neither Doctor Whitaker nor any other Protestant ever accused them from a practice condemned by a Romane Pope himselfe Take unto you a Similitude A man being apprehended in the company of Traytors upon suspition of Felonie is fully and effectually prosecuted for Felonie onely if one should say of him that he was not conuicted or condemned of Treason but of Felonie were this either a Contradiction in the party speaking or a full Iustification of the party spoken of You are by this time we thinke ashamed of your Proctors and of their scornefull insultation upon the Doctor in the ridiculous tearmes of Rabbin and magnus Apollo who willingly forbeareth upon this Advantage to recompence them with like scurrility being desirous to be only Great in that which is called Magna est Veritas praevalet By which Truth also is fully discovered the vanity of the Answere both of Master Fisher and of your Cardinall saying that Gelasius condemned only the Opinion of the Manichees which is so transparant a falshood as any one that hath but a glympse of Reason may see through it by the sentence it â—elfe as hath beene proved Our second Reason is in respect of the perfect Spirituall Refection represented by this Sacrament SECT VIII ANother Object represented in this Sacrament is the food of man's soule in his faithfull receiving of the Bodie and Blood of Christ which because it is a perfect spirituall Refection Christ would have it to be expressed both in Eating and Drinking wherein consisteth the perfection of man's bodily sustenance and therefore are both necessarily to be used by law of Analogie betweene the outward signe and the thing signified thereby Two of your Iesuites from whome Master Fisher hath learned his Answere seeke to perswade their Readers that the soules refection spirituall is sufficiently signified in either kind whether in Bread or Wine But be it knowne unto you that either all these have forgotten their Catechisme authorized by the Fathers of the Councell of Trent and confirmed by Pius Quartus then Pope or else Those their Catechists forgot themselves in teaching that This Sacrament was instituted so that two severall Consecrations should be used one of Bread and the other of the Cup to the end both that the Passion of Christ might be represented wherein his Bloud was separated from his Body and because this Sacrament is ordained to nourish man's soule it was therefore to be done by Eating and Drinking in both which the perfect nourishment of man's naturall life doth consist Aquinas and your Iesuite Valentia with others are as expresse in this point as they were in the former who although they as we also hold that whole Christ is received in either kinde for Christ is not divided yet doe they mayntaine that This Sacrament as it is conformable both to Eating and Drinking so doth it by both kindes more perfectly expresse our spirituall nourishment by Christ and therefore it is more convenient that both be exhibited to the faithfull severally as for Meate and for Drinke So they For although in the Spirituall Receiving Eating and Drinking are both one even as the appetite of the Soule in hungring and thirsting is the same as where it is written Matth. 5. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousnesse c. yet in this Sacramentall communicating with bodily instruments it is otherwise as you know The blood of Christ is not dranke in the forme of Bread nor is his Bodie eaten as meate in the forme of Wine because the Bodie cannot be said to be dranke nor the bloud to be eaten So your Durand and so afterwards your Iansenius Wherefore you in with-holding the Cup from the People doe violate the Testament of Christ who requireth in this a perfect representation visible of a compleate and a full Refection spirituall which is sufficient to condemne your Abuse whereby you also defraud God's people of their Dimensum ordained by Christ for their vse Concerning this second Master Fisher one of the society of Iesuites was taught to Answere that the Full causality as he said and working of spirituall Effects of the soule cannot be a wanting to the Sacrament under one kind because of Christ his assistance So he We should aske whether a greater Devotion and 〈◊〉 more plentifull Grace are not to be esteemed spirituall Effects for the good of the Soule which are confessed to be enjoyed by Communicating in both kinds and why not rather than by one For consider we pray you that
Reason which might not likewise haue moued the ancient Church of Christ both Greeke and Romane to the same manner of Pronunciation Whereas the Catholike Church notwithstanding for many hundred yeares together precisely observed the ordinance of Christ THE SECOND CHALLENGE In respect of the necessitie of a Lowde voice especially by the Romish Priest in uttering the words of Consecration THe greatest silence which is vsed by the Romane worshippers is still in the Priests vttering or rather muttering the words of Institution Hoc est corpus meum and Hic est sanguis meus albeit here is the greatest and most necessarie Cause of expressing them for the satisfaction of euery vnderstanding Hearer among you For those you call the Words of Consecration the iust pronunciation whereof you hold to be most necessarie because if the Priest in vttering of them faile but in one syllable so farre as to alter the sence of Christs words which as you say may happen by six manner of Defects then the whole Consecration is void and the thing which you adore is in substance meerely Bread still If therefore the People shall stand perplexed in themselves whether the words which are concealed be duely vttered by the Priest to himselfe how shall it not concerne them to heare the same expresly pronounced lest that according to your owne Doctrine they be deluded in a point of faith and with divine worship adore Bread instead of the person of the Sonne of God Whereof we are to entreate at large in due place if God permit Your fift Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse is a second Contradiction against the Sence of the former words of Christ SAID VNTO THEM SECT VII AGaine that former Clause of the Canon of Christ to wit He said unto them teacheth that as his voice Saying unto them was necessarily audible to reach their eares so was it also Intelligible to instruct their vnderstanding and therefore not vttered in a Tongue vnknowne Which is evident by that hee giveth a Reason for the taking of the Cup Enim For this is the bloud c. which particle For saith your Cardinall is implyed in the first part also Now whosoeuer reasoneth with another would bee vnderstood what he saith The contrarie Canon of the now Romane Masse The Councel of Trent saith your Iesuite decreed that it is not expedient that the Diuine seruice should be celebrated in a knowne tongue Whereupon you doubt not to censure the contrarie Doctrine of Protestants to be Hereticall and Schismaticall and no wayes to be admitted But why Lest say you the Church may seeme a long time to haue beene asleepe and to haue erred in her contrarie Custome So you Our Church of England contrarily thus It is a thing repugnant to the Word of God and Custome of the Primitiue Church to haue publike prayer and ministring of the Sacraments in a tongue not knowne of the people This occasioneth a double Plea against your Church of Rome first in defence of the Antiquitie and Vniversalitie next for the Equitie of Prayers in a knowne tongue in the publike service of God I. CHALLENGE Against the Romish Alteration of the Catholike and vniversall practiceâ— of the Church and the Antiquity thereof IN the examination of this point Consider in the first place your owne Confessions given by your Iesuits and others acknowledging that In the dayes of the Apostles and a long time after euen for a thousand yeares and more the whole Church and in it the People of Rome had knowledge of this part of service concerning the Sacrament and vsed to say AMEN So you And this is as much as we need to require concerning the judgement and practice of the true Antiquitie of this Custome You will rather doubt we suppose of the Vniversalitie thereof because you vsually goe no farther then your Dictates which teach that because there were generally but three generall and knowne tongues Hebrew Greeke and Latine therefore the divine seruice was celebrated thorow-out the Church in one of these three And because these could not be the vulgar language of euery Christian Nation it must follow say they that the People of most Nations vnderstood not the publike Prayers vsed in their severall Churches And with this Perswasion doe your Doctors locke vp your consciences in a false beleefe of an vniversall Custome of an vnknowne service of God Which you may as easily vnlocke againe if you shall but vse as a key this one Observation viz. That the three common tongues namely Hebrew Greeke and Latine although they were not alwayes the vulgar Languages yet were they knowne Languages commonly to those people that vsed them in Divine Service Which one only Animadversion will fully demonstrate vnto vs the truth of our Cause It is not denyed but that the three Languages Hebrew Greeke and Latine were in primitiue ages most vniuersall insomuch that the Hebrew was spoken albeit corruptly thorowout almost the whole Easterne Church The Greeke was currant thorow the whole Greeke Church also and in the lesser Asia And the Latine was dispersed ouer a great part of Europe It will now be fully sufficient to know that the most of these languages were certainly knowne in publike worship vnto all them of whom they were vsed in publike Sermons and preachings For your owne Church howsoever she decreed of Praying yet doth she forbid Preaching in an vnknowne tongue Now therefore ioyne we beseech you the eyes of your bodies and mind together in beholding and pondering our Marginals and you shall finde first if we speake of the Greeke Language that there was a generall knowledge thereof even among the vulgar people of the Churches of Antioch Caesarea Alexandria and thorowout Asia Secondly if of the Latine you may behold anciently the familiar knowledge thereof in the Church of Rome whereof St. Hierome hath testified that The people were heard in the Churches of Rome resounding and thundring out their Amen! This in Churches vnmixt Thirdly in mixt Congregations of Greeke and Latine that the Seruice was said both in Greeke and Latine Fourthly your owne generall Confession yeelding a common knowledge of the Latine tongue to the people of a great part of Europe and wee say also of Africke insomuch that Augustine doth openly teach that the Latine tongue was better knowne to his Africanes than was the Punicke although this were their natiue Language And also of France Spaine Italie Germanie Pannonia Dalmatia and many other Nations in the North and West particularly manifested by the Latine Homelies and writings made to the people of Africke by Tertullian Cyprian and Augustine and in France and Germanie by the people praying and ioyntly saying AMEN Not to tell you of the now-Custome of the remote Christian Churches such as are the Egyptians Russians Ethiopians Armenians and others All which exercise their publike Service in the vulgar and mother-tongues
not properly be the Testament it selfe Yea your Iesuite Salmeron pointeth out in the same words a double Figure A double figure saith hee the Cup being put for the thing contained in the Cup and Testament being taken for the Legacy that is granted and given by the Testament With whom your Iesuite Barradius doth consent Hereunto may be added that in the sixt of Iohn where Christ calling that which he giveth to be eaten his flesh in the same Chapter he calleth his flesh which is to be eaten of the Faithfull bread which none of your side durst hitherto interpret without a Figure And yet againe the Apostle speaking of the Mysticall body of Christ which is his Church assembled at the holy Communion to participate of this Sacrament saith of them Wee being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread But why Even as one bread consisteth of many cornes so doth one Church of Christ of many faithfull persons saith your Aquinas Wee may not forget what your Iansenius said of Drinking To whome Master Brereley is ready to yeild his assent saying If we should attend to the Propriety of speech neither is his blood properly drunke out of the Chalice but onely the forme of Wine seeing the blood hath the same manner of Existing as under the forme of bread to wit not divided nor seperated from the body but included in the veines and then in the body Doe you not heare Christ's Blood is not properly drunke if not properly then figuratively as figuratively as if one swallowing the body of Christ should be said to drinke his Body Wee aske Master Brereley what then is that which is properly drunke out of the Chalice and he saith onely the forme of Wine that is to say a meere Accident Hardly can it be said that a man properly drinketh the Aire which he breatheth although it be a Substance And are you brought to believe meere Formalities to be truly Potable But to the point CHALLENGE REpeat now the Premises One figure in the word Bread another in Eat a third in Given a fourth in Shed a fift in Cup a sixt in Testament so many words confessed to be so many Figures in the very words of Christ his Institution beside other-more of the same equivalencie touching the Body of Christ both naturall Ioh. 6. and also mysticall which is his Church 1. Cor. 10. It can be no lesse then a matter of great astonishment to us to see our Romish Adversaries with such pertinacie to condemne Protestants for holding the Sacramentall speeches of Christ to be figurative calling them Tropists when as they themselves are constrained to acknowledge no fewer then Six Tropes in Christ his words as you have heard Of your Cardinall his Objection from the word Shed hereafter That the figurative sence of Christ's words is agreeable to the Iudgement of the more Ancient Church of Rome SECT V. YOur old and publique Romish Glosse saith plainly This heavenly Sacrament because it doth truly represent the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly not in the truth of the thing but in the mysticall Sence to wit it is called the body of Christ that is it signifieth his Body So your Glosse which you may not deny to be the glosse or Tongue of your whole Church because it hath beene confirmed by the same Authority of Pope Gregory the thirteenth wherewith your Extravagants and former Decrees of Popes have beene Authorised CHALLENGE IF all Protestants should meeteat once in one Synod and should conspire together as labouring to prove a figurative Sence in these words of Christ This is my body I suppose that a more exact perspicuous copious and ponderous Proofe could not be defined then hitherto hath beene evinced from your owne Confessions grounded as well upon sound and impregnable Reasons as upon direct Testimonies of holy Scriptures That the former Figurative Sence of the words of Christ is agreeable to the Iudgement of Antient Fathers of the Greeke Church SECT VI. YOu wil needs defend your litterall Exposition by the verdict of Ancient Fathers and we appeale to the Venerable Senate both of Greeke and Latine Fathers The Greeke generally calling the Elements of bread and wine in this Sacrament Some Types Antitypes and Symbols that is Figures and Signes Some calling Christ his Speeches Tropicall or Figurative and his Table Typicall Some saying that Christ would haue his Disciples hereby Represent the image of his Body And one as expressly as any Protestant can speake even Theodoret by name that Christ here gave to the Signe the name of his Body as elswhere he gave to his Body the name of the Signe You cannot deny but these Phrases of Signes and Symbols are most frequent in the writings of all the Greeke Fathers which we take to be a convincing Argument vntill you can give us some reasonable Solution hereunto To this purpose you leaving the principall Obiections fasten onely upon certaine Crotchets and thereupon you bestirre your selves THE FIRST CHALLENGE Against the first Romish Answere touching the word Type and Antitype vsed by the Greeke Fathers THree kinds of Answeres have beene applyed as Three wedges to dissolve this difficulty but a knot of wood cannot be loosed with a wedge of waxe such as every of your Answeres will appeare to be The first interpreting Types and Antitypes not to be taken for Signes but for Examples is at the first hearing reiected by your Cardinall and others The Second alleadged out of Damascen and much insisted upon by some favourers of your Romish Sence namely that the Fathers should call Bread and Wine Antitypes but not after Consecration So they And if so then indeed we should have no cause to oppose But this Answere is proved to be apparantly false by your Cardinall and others out of the expresse Testimonies of these Greeke Fathers viz. Dioâ—ysius Areopagita Clemens Iustine Macarius Basil and Nazianzene The third Answere is your Cardinals owne yet but faintly urged with a Peradventure they called them Antitypes but not Types after Consecration and he is encountred by your Suarez and Billius acknowledging that the words Types and Antitypes are used of the same Fathers in one and the same signification This our Obiection how strong it is may be seene by your much but vaine strugling Your quaintest device is yet behind A SECOND CHALLENGE Against the last and most peremptory Romish Pretence making Christ in this Sacrament to figure and to represent himselfe as a King in a Stage-play THe Solution which seemeth to your Disputers most perswasive is thus set downe by your Cardinall and your Iesuite Suarez viz. The Greeke Fathers called Bread and Wine Antitypes and Signes of the Body and Blood of Christ because the same Body and Blood of Christ as they are in this Sacrament vnder the forme of Bread and Wine are signes
the false Exposition of these words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY called Corporall Presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist THe Sacramentall Presence hath a double Relation one is in respect of the thing sensibly received which is the Sacrament it selfe the other in respect of the Receiver and Communicant Both which are to be distinctly considered as well for our right discerning of the matter in hand as also for Method's sake The first is handled in this Booke the second in that which followeth CHAP. I. Of the state of this point of Controversie That notwithstanding the difference of opinion of Christ's Presence be only De modo that is of the manner of Being yet may the Romish Doctrine be Hereticall and to hold the contrary is a pernitious Paradoxe SECT I. IT would be a wonder to us to heare Any of our owne profession to be so extremely Indifferent concerning the different opinions of the Manner of the Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament as to thinke the Romish Sect therefore either Tollerable or Reconciliable upon Pretence that the Question is only De modo that is of the manner of Being and that consequently all Controversie about this is but vaine Iangling Such an one ought to enter into his second thoughts to consider the necessity that lieth upon every Christian to abandon divers Heresies albeit their difference from the Orthodoxe profession were only De modo As for example First The Gnostick taught man's soule to have it's beginning by manner of Production from the substance of God The Catholikes said nay but by manner of Creation of nothing The Pelagians maintained a free will in spirituall Acts from the grace of Nature The Catholikes nay but by speciall grace of Christ freeing the will through the efficacious operation of his holy Spirit The Catharists held themselves pure in a purity of an absolute perfection The Catholikes nay but by an Inchoative comparative and imperfect perfection of purity Furthermore against our Christian Faith of beleeving God to be absolutely a Spirit the Anthrepomorphites conceived of God as of one after the manner of men consisting of Armes and Legges c. Not to be tedious We come to the Sacraments The Cataphrygae did not baptize in the name of the blessed Trinity after the manner of the Catholikes The Artotyritae celebrated the Eucharist in Bread and Cheese To omit many others take one poniard which we are sure will pierce into the entrailes of the Cause to wit the heresie of the Capernaits in the dayes of our Saviour Christ who hearing his Sermon teaching men to Eate his flesh and conceiving thereby a carnall manner of Eating irreconciliably contrary to the spirituall manner which was beleeved by the true Disciples of Christ departed from Christ and Apostated from the Faith And that the Romish manner of Eating Christ his Body is Capernaiticall her manner of Sacrifice sacrilegious her manner of Divine Adoration thereof Idolatrous and all these manners Irreconciliable to the manner of our Church is copiously declared in the Bookes following For this present we are to exhibit the different and contradictory manners concerning the Presence of Christ herein The manner 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 kindes 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 Reality 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 your selves well know In confutation of which Heretikes the Father Ignatius as your Cardinall witnesseth called the Eucharist it selfe the flesh of Christ. Which saying of Ignatius in the sence of Theodoret by whom he 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 and 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 for as much as there is not a figure of a figure therefore Bread being a signe of Christs Bodie 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 denied the Truth of Christ's Body Which controlleth the wisdome of your Councell of Trent in condemning Protestants as denying Christ to be Truly present in the Sacrament because they say he 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 Reality in this Sacrament is called Veritas Revelationis as it is a signe in respect of the Typicall Signes 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 manner because the faithfull under the Law had the same faith in Christ and therefore their Sacraments had Relation to the same Body and Blood of Christ but in a difference of manner 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 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 be 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 Prophesie because it is a declaration of a reall performance of that which was promised So the Evangelicall Sacrament may be said to containe in it a more reall verity then the Leviticall Therefore
stand you still confuted by your owne domesticall witnesses Wee may adde this Reason why there could be no Resemblances of Truth because all the personall Apparitions are said to be of an Infant and of the Childe Iesus albeit Christ at his ascension out of this world was 34. yeares of age and yet now behold Christ an Infant 34. yeares old as if your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had beheld Christ with the Magi in Bethlehem at the time of his birth and not in Bethaven with his Disciples at the instant of his Ascension Of the Suggesters of such Apparitions and of their Complices SECT V. THe first Apparition of flesh above-mentioned was not before the dayes of the Emperour Arcadius which was about the yeare 395. The second not untill 700. yeares after Christ nor is it read of any like Apparition in all the dayes of Antiquity within the compasse of so long a time excepting that of one Marcus recorded by Irenaeus who faigned to Make the mixed wine in the Cup through his Invocation to seeme redd that it might be thought that grace had infused Blood into the Cup which the same Father noteth to have beene done by Magicke at what time there were dayly Proselytes and new Converts to the Christian Religion and on the other side divers Rankes of Heretiques as namely Valentinians Manichees Marcionites and others who all denyed that Christ had any corporall or Bodily Substance at all Were it not then a strange thing that so many Apparitions should be had in after-times in Churches established in Christian Religion and no such one heard of in these dayes of Antiquity when there seemed to be a farre more necessary use of them both for confirming Proselytes in the faith and reducing Heretiques from their Errour that Apparition onely of Marcus excepted which the Church of Christ did impute to the Diabolicall Art of Magicke As for the Reporters much need not to be said of them Simon Metaphrastes is the first who was of that small Credit with your Cardinall that in Answere to an Obiection from the same Author hee said I am not much moved with what Metaphrastes saith And if the Fore-man of the inquest be of no better esteeme what shall one then thinke of the whole Packe As for the testimony under the name of Amphilochius obiected by your Coccius writing the life of Basil and mentioning the like Apparitions of Flesh we make no more account of it then doe your two Cardinals by whom it is reiected as Supposititious and Bastardly But the Suggesters of these Apparitions what were they a matter observable ordinarily Priests together with either old men weomen and sometimes young Girles who wheresoever superstition raigneth are knowne to be most prone thereunto That we say nothing of the lewde Iugglings of your Priâ—sts who in other kinds have beene often discovered amongst us and in other Countries We conclude A true Miracle for Confirmation of Religion we are sure is Divinum opus the Infidell Magicians being enforced to confesse as much saying Digitus Dei hic est And as sure are we that a fained miracle although it be in behalfe of Religion is impious and blasphemous against God who being the God of Truth neither will nor can be glorified by a lie Hath God need of a Lye saith holy Iob. Wee right willingly acknowledge that diuers Miracles have beene wrought for verifying the Eucharist to be a Divine Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ but to be it selfe the true and substantiall flesh of Christ not one When a Iew that had beene once Baptized by one Bishop betooke himselfe to another Bishop to be againe Baptized of him in hope of profiâ— The Water in the Font presently vanished away S. Augustine telleth of a Physitian who was vexed extreamly with the Gout and at his Baptisme was freed from all paine and so continued all his life long Baronius reporteth another of a Child fallen into a little well prepared for men of age to be Baptized in and after that it was held for drowned in the opinion of all by-standers at the prayer of Damascus it arose from the bottome as whole and sound as it was before These Miracles happened not for the dignifying of the matter which was the water of Baptisme but of the nature of the Sacrament it selfe albeit voyd of the Corporall presence of Christ Not to tell you which your Durantus will have you to know of Miracles wrought by the Booke of the Gospell for the extinguishing of Fiers This first Obstacle being removed out of the way our passage will be so much the more easier in the following Discourse CHAP. III. That the Romish manner of the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament is manifoldly Impossible SECT I. NO sooner doe you heare Protestants talke of the Impossibility of your manner of Presence which your Church prescribeth but you presently cry out upon them as vpon Blasphemous Detractors from the Omnipotencie of God as if they meant To tie God to the Rules of Nature as your Authors are pleased to suggest Wee hold it necessary therefore to remoue this scandall thus cast in the way for simple people to stumble upon before wee can conveniently proceed to the maine matter and this wee shall endeavor to doe by certaine Propositions That by the Iudgement of ancient Fathers some things by reason of Contradiction in them may be called Impossible without the impeachment of the Omnipotencie of God yea with th great advancement thereof SECT II. THis Proposition accordeth to the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers shewing that God cannot doe something even because he is omnipotent as not die not sinne not lye because such Acts proceed not from power but from impotencie and infirmity So the Fathers It is not long since you have beene taught by an exceeding worthy Scholler that in such Cases as imply Contradiction the ancient Fathers noted the pretence of Gods omnipotencie to have beene anciently The Sanctuary of Heretiques And they give an instance in the Arrians who denying Christ to have beene God eternall beleeved him to have beene created God in time as if it were possible there should be a made God whose property is to be eternall Their onely pretence was Gods Omnipotencie to make false things true wherein they proved themselves the greatest Lyars Take unto you a second Proposition II. That the Doctrine of the same Impossibility by reason of Contradiction doth magnifie the power of God by the universall consent of Romish Doctors and their divers examples of Impossibility concerning a Bodie SECT III. YOur owne Iesuites doe lay this for a ground All Divines affirme say they that God is omnipotent because hee can doe any thing that implyeth not contradiction for that Contradiction both affirmeth and denyeth the same thing making it to be and not to be that it is But God who is Being in himselfe cannot
now happen unto him but sine laesione that is without any hurt Wee answer that if hee should suffer nothing in his humanity passively to the Laesio corporis that is hurt of the Body yet should there be thereby in the opinion of men laesio dignitatis that is a lessening and obscuring of that his dignity which is set forth in Scripture and which our Article of faith concerning his Bodily sitting at the Right hand of God in Heaven teacheth us to be in all Celestiall glory and Maiestie This your Aquinas well saw when in regard of Indignity he iudged it An hainous wickednesse for any to thinke Christ should be inclosed in a Boxe appearing in his proper forme And what greater difference can it be for a Body to be Boxed under another forme more than when that one and the same Person is imprisoned whether open faced or covered whether in the day or in the night it mattereth not much for still the same person is shut up in Prison Againe if that these Circumstances now spoken of were not Arguments of Indignity why doe your Iesuites in a point of Opinion deny that Christ's Body is Transubstantiated into the flesh of the Communicant because of the Indignity against his Maiestie Come we to the point of Practice Let this be our lesson when there is Reverence in the use of a thing then there may be Irreverence and Indignity in the abuse thereof But your Church hath provided that the Priests be shaven and the Laicks abstaine from the Cup in a pretence of Reverence The first least some part of the Hoast which you beleeve to be the body of Christ should hang on the Priest's Beard the second least any whit of Christs Blood in the Cup should be split But how much more indignity must it needs be to be devoured of Mice Wormes and sometimes as your owne stories have related kept close in a Dunghill One word more If these seeme not sufficiently indigne because there is not Laesio corporis Hurt of the Body this being your onely Evasion what will you say of your framing a Christ unto your selves who as he is in this Sacrament Is you say without power of motion of sense and of understanding Why my Masters can there be Lamenesse Blindnesse Deafenesse and Impotencie it selfe without Hurt of the same partie so maymed c. This is worse than your dirty imagination of placing him in a Dunghill THE GENERALL CHALLENGE THese above specified Sixe Contradictions so plainly and plentifully proved by such forceable Arguments as the light of Divine Scripture hath authorized the profession of Primitive Fathers testified Confessions of Romish Doctors acknowledged and the Principles of your owne Romish learning in most points confirmed your Abrenunciation of your so many Grosse Errours may be as necessary as your persisting therein will be damnable Before we can end we are to consult with the Fathers of the Councell of Nice especially seeing that aswell Romanists as Protestants will be knowne to appeale to that Councell CHAP. X. Of the Canon of the Councell of Nice obiected for proofe of a Corporall Prescnce of Christ in the Eucharist SECT I. THis as it is delivered by your Cardinall taken out as he saith of the Vatican Library standeth thus Let us not here in this divine Table be in humblenesse intent unto the Bread and Cup which is set before us but lifting up our minds let us understand by faith the Lambe of God set upon that Table The Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the World offered unbloodily of the Priest And we receiving truly his Body and Blood let us thinke these to be the Symbols of our Resurrection For this Cause doe we receive not much but little that wee may understand this is not to satisfie but to sanctifie So the Canon The Generall approbation of this Canon by Both sides SECT II. SCarce is there any one Romish Author handling this Controversie who doth not fasten upon this Canon of Nice for the countenancing of your Romish Masse Contrarily Protestants as they are set downe by our Zanchy and your Bellarmine in great numbers among whom are Luther and Calvin with ioynt 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 The state of the Difference concerning this Canon SECT III. THis as is propounded by your Cardinall standeth thus All saith he by the Lambe understand Christ as he is distinguished from the Symbols and Signes upon the Altar Next But the Protestants thinke saith he that the Councell 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 we all say saith he that the Councell would have us to attend unto the holy Table meaning the Altar below yet so that we 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 betweene 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 Obiections That the Nicene Councell is marvellously preiudiciall to your Romish Defence proved by five Observations Three here 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 Councell 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 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 which you your selves hold to be a common and prophane thing or else the Errour must have beene 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 Councell of Trent would not have endured especially seeing that we find that your 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
Councell of Trent to be Authenticall there are meere Solecismes and Barbarismes and other faults which wee may call in point of Grammar down right halting 3. As if a Truth might not be delivered in a Barbarous speech or that this could be denied by them who defend Solecismes and Barbarismes which had crept into the Translation of Scriptures saying that Ancient Fathers and Doctors have had such a religious care of former Translations that they would not change their Babarismes of the Vulgar Latine Text as nubent nubentur and the like 4. As if there were not the like Soloecophanes of Relatives not agreeing with their Antecedents in case whereof you have received from D. Fulke divers Examples 5. As if this Soloecophanes now objected were not justifiable which is defended by the Myrrour of Grammarians Ioseph Scaliger by a figure Antiptôsis and explaned anciently by Basil a perfect Greeke Father referring the Participle Shed unto the word Blood and not unto the Chalice which marreth your Market quite And that this is an undeniable Truth will appeare in our Answer to the next Objection of Time for if by Given Broken and Shed is meant the time future then these words Shed for you for remission of sinnes flatly conclude that hereby is not meant any proper Sacrifice of Christs Blood in the Cup but on the Crosse Let us proceed therefore to that point Of the Time signified by the Participles Given Broken Shed These words being of the Present time Therefore it plainly followeth that Breaking Giving Christ's Body and shedding his Blood is in the Supper and not on the Crosse So your Cardinall most invincibly say your Rhemists and M. Breerly as dancing merily after their Pipes This point saith hee is cleerely determined by the Evangelists themselves in their owne origin all writings Broken Given Shed And The Evasions which our Adversaries seeke whereby to avoid this are enforced racked and miserable shifts And againe for corroboration sake The word Broken also spoken in regard of the outward formes which are in time of Sacrificing is more forcible because not meant of the Crosse for when they saw hee was dead fulfilling the Prophecie A Bone of him shall not be Broken they brake not his legs Ioh. 19. 33. So hee and so they Alas what huge Anakims and Gyants have wee to deale withall no Argument can proceed from them but most Evident Forcible and Invincible yet may we not despaire of due Resistance especially being supported by your owne Brethren as well the Sonnes of Anak as were the other besides some better aid both from Fathers and Scriptures for proofe that these words Broken Given Shed spoken in the Present time doe signifie the Future time of Christs Body being Broken and Bloodshed and both Given up as a Sacrifice instantly after upon the Crosse What Authors on your side may satisfie you whether your Two choyse Iesuites Salmeron and Valentia or will you be directed by most voices whereby it is confessed namely that By Blood shed is commonly understood of it shed upon the Crosse But what need have wee of the severall members when as the whole Body of your Romish Church is for us rendring the word shed in the Future Tense Fundetur shal be shed as referred to the Crosse What thinke you by this say M. Breerly Our Adversaries are in great straights when they are glad to appeale from the Originall Greeke Text which they call Authenticall unto the Latine Vulgar Translation which they call old rotten and full of corruptions This were well objected indeed if that Protestants should alledge your Vulgar Latine Edition as a purer Translation and not as a true Translation of the words of the Text to teach you that it is meant of the Future Time and that this were urged by them as a ground of Perswasion to themselves and not rather as it were by the Law of Armes an Opposition and indeed Conviction upon their Adversaries who by the Decree of your Councell of Trent are bound Not to reject it upon any pretence whatsoever And to have this your owne Authenticall Translation to make against you is to be in straights indeed because all the Decrees of that Councell by the Bull of Pope Pius 4. are put upon you to bee beleeved under the bond of an Oath Is it possible for you to shake off these shackles Yes M. Breerly can by an admirable Tricke of wit Neverthelesse saith hee I answer in behalfe of the Vulgar Interpreter that as hee translateth in the Future Tense which shall bee shed so doth hee use the Present Tense in the other words Given and Broken to signifie that it was then given in the Sacrament and afterwards to bee given upon the Crosse both together As if you should tell us in plaine English that your Church in her Vulgar Latine Text doth equivocate teaching that It shall be shed in the Future doth signifie also the Present Tense Is shed that is It is shall be A fit man forsooth to inveigh against a Soloecophanes But how then can Protestants interpret the Present to signifie the Future Wee tell you because you have in Scriptures and other Authors thousands of Examples of the Present Tense put for the Future to signifie the certaintie or instancie of that which is spoken but was it never heard nor read that the Future Tense was taken for the Present Tense because there is no Course nor Progresse to the time past And if Shed bee taken not in true sence then shall it be lawfull for everie pettie Romish Priest at every Masse-saving to correct your Romish Missall authorized by the same Tridentine Fathers which hath it Shall be shed One word more with M. Breerly only desirous to know of him if hee allow of the Tense either Present or Future whether it was straightnesse or loosenesse that occasioned him to deliver it in the Preterimperfect Tense Was shed But he will expect that wee answer his Reason Hee urged the word Broken that because this could not be meant of Broken on the Crosse for that His Legs were not there Broken according as it was prophesied therefore it must inferre it to have beene Broken at his Supper when hee uttered the word Broken which is like his other manner of Reasons blunt and broken at the point as it became one not much conversant in Scripture else might he have answered himselfe by another Prophecie teaching that the word Broken is taken Metaphorically by the Prophet Esay chap. 53. speaking of the crucifying and Agonies of Christ and saying Hee was Broken for our iniquities namely as two of your Iesuites acknowledge By nailes speare and whips and is to be applyed to the Breaking of his sinewes nerves and veines as your Cardinall confesseth That the words of Christ Given Broken Shed are taken for the Future Time proved by the same Text of Scripture and
discerned of the two-fold acception of a Proper Sacrifice which as you say Is sometime taken for the thing sacrificed and also for the proper sacrificing Act. So your Cardinall and indeed both these are necessary in a proper Sacrifice yet neither of these can possibly be found in your pretended Sacrifice of your Romish Masse That the Thing pretended to be Sacrificed is not properly in the Romane Masse SECT I. THe things which your Romish Beleefe professeth to be Sacrificed in your Masse is the Body and Blood of Christ corporally extant therein as the proper Subject thereof But that there is no Corporall existence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist was the Conclusion of our second third and fourth Bookes And that the same Body and Blood of Christ is not the proper subject matter of the Sacrifice used in your Masse is our Conclusion thorow out this whole Booke Of both which you may have a Synopsis and generall view in the last Booke Thus of the thing Sacrificed now that which followeth concerning your Romish Sacrificing Act is a point briefly expedited by two Propositions I. That no Act now used in the Romane Masse can truly bee called a proper Sacrificing Act proved by your owne Principles SECT II. WHatsoever Sacrificing Act your Advocates have held as Proper to a Sacrifice and assumed as belonging to the Sacrifice of your Masse have each one beene Confuted by Doctors of your owne Church of singular estimation and rejected as utterly insufficient to prove any proper Sacrificing Act in the Institution of Christ to wit not Elevation not Fraction not Oblation not Consecration and lastly not Consumption of the Eucharist by the mouth of the Priest Non licet actum agere said one and Non libet say we But now are we to discusse such Properties as are yet awanting in your Romish Execution II. That that which is properly a Sacrificing Act is wanting in the Romane Masse proved by your owne Principles SECT III. THree properties are required of you as necessary to a properly Sacrificing Act the first is that the Action be exercised upon a thing Visible Secondly that the thing sacrificed be of Prophane made sacred by the Act of Consecration Thirdly that the Act be a Destructive Act whereby the thing offered be truly destroyed and cease to be in substance that which it was According to your owne objected words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying a Consumption and therein answerable to the Sacrifices of the old Law all which suffered Destruction things living by slaughter things without life if solid by burning if liquid by powring out and shedding c. So you in Thesi wee descend to the Hypothesis But before we enter into this Disquisition we shall desire you to take unto you the spirits of reasonable men whilest we reason the matter with you in few words First it cannot be called Properly Visible which is not Visible in it selfe But the Body of Christ which you call the thing sacrificed is not Visible in it selfe but only as your Councell of Trent hath taught In the forme of Bread and then how invisible it is only blinde men can be ignorant Nor will we thinke All among you to be so blinde seeing that we heare one and that a Iesuite acknowledging his eye-sight and plainly without Parables saying that Christ in the Eucharist is invisible So he Therefore the first Property of a proper Sacrificing Subject is wanting in Roman Masse Secondly we will not judge any of you so blasphemous as to say that the Body of Christ by your Consecration is of a Profane thing made sacred which we are sure your Ancient Romish Schoole did deny which concluded that It is not Christ that is made sacred by benediction of the Priest but that which the Priest first taketh in his hands to blesse And so your Act of Consecration by defect of the second property is no proper Sacrificing Act of the Body and Blood of Christ Thirdly it will be as incredible in your owne Iudgements that the Body of Christ should be properly Destroyed We say in your owne Iudgements who therefore are constrained to say That the Body of Christ indeed suffereth not herein any naturall Destruction but onely Sacramentall that is Metaphoricall Ergo your Romish Masse is destitute of the proper Sacrificing Act of Destruction And againe whereas the word Immolation is taken of Lombard for being Slaine or suffering by Death It was most truly said by him saith your Cardinall that Christ is not immolated meaning not slaine but only in Representation Well then the State of the Question as your Cardinall himselfe hath set it downe is seeing that every Proper Sacrifice requireth a Proper Destruction and if it be a living Sacrifice a Destruction by death Whether Christ bee properly Sacrificed or no. Marke we pray you your Cardinal's Resolution His bloody Sacrifice was but once truly and properly done but now it is properly done but by Representation O Vertigo For that which is but once onely properly offered can never be said to be againe properly offered and that which is a Bloody Oblation by your owne learning cannot be Vnbloody And as great an Intoxication is to be seene in your Disputers in respect of the other part of the Sacrament touching the Cup For your Cardinall Alan defendeth a Reall Destruction in this manner In creatures living saith he the thing sacrificed must be slaine and in this slaying by the separation of blood from the Body doth consist all force and virtue of this Mystery because Christ is herein after the manner of Sacrifice taking upon him the manner of Sacrificing which he had in offering himselfe upon the Crosse by separation of his Blood So he All which doth inferre a Reall and Proper separation and effusion of Blood yet immediatly after standeth he to the Defence of Concomitancy which teacheth an Vnion of Body and Blood together in as full a manner as it was in Christ his most perfect estate But Blood Separated and Vnited are as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrary as can be How much better would it beseeme you to confesse plainly and truly with your Costerus that Christ is not offered here with effusion of Blood but by a representation thereof CHALLENGE A Syllogisme will quit the Businesse as for Example Every proper Sacrifice is properly Visible of Prophane is made Sacred and properly suffereth Destruction This is your owne Proposition in each part But the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is neither properly Visible nor properly of Prophane made Sacred nor suffereth any proper Destruction This is also your owne Assumption Therefore the Body of Christ in this Sacrament is not a proper Sacrifice nor properly Sacrificed This except men have lost their braines must needs be every mans Conclusion And that so much the rather because it cannot be sufficient that Christ's Body be present in
used after Consecration doth not so much as Probably prove it was for Adoration-sake because it was as well in use in your lifting up of the Host before Consecration as your objected Missal's of Saint Iames and Basil doe manifest Lastly that where Elevation was practised after Consecration the objected Authors confute your Assertion for in Chrysostome it is read That the Priest did take a portion out of the dish and held it up but a little this is not lifting it over the Head or very high as your reason for Adoration would require And in your objected Saint Denis there is no more but that The sacred celebrated Symbols were brought into light which after Consecration he termeth Vncovered Bread divided of the Priest into many parts Bread we say broken after Consecration which is the break-necke of your whole Defence Your third Objection is the diligent Caution given by Ancient Fathers to take heed Lest that any Crum should fall to the ground and if any little part thereof should fall it should be left to the Priest and the Remainder of the Sacrament after the Masse say you should be burnt to ashes and the ashes laid up So you Pharoah his Butler and â—aker we are sure would have beene loth to miscarry in spilling or letting fall any part of their carriage when they were to present their service unto their King much more carefully ought every Christian in executing his sacred Function to observe the Lawes of Decorum Marke we by the way Master Breerly durst not call the part falling any thing but a Part not A part of Christ's Body that were Impious not a part of Accidents that were absurd what meaneth this childish Fabling trow we but that if they should speake out they should betray their Cause in calling that little part a part of Bread as your objected Dionysius spake And when all is said we heare no proofe of Divine Adoration of the Hoast But we leave you to take your Answer from your Cardinall who hath told you that Casuall spilling of the Cup is no sinne Only we must againe insist in the former Observation to wit the frequent speeches of the Fathers telling us of Crums Fragments little parts of this Sacrament and of Burning them into ashes after the Celebration ended Now answer us in good sadnesse was it ever heard of we say not of ancient Fathers but of any professing Christianity were they Catholikes or Heretikes who would not have judged it most execrable for any to say or thinke that A crum or little part of Christ's body falleth or that by a dash of the Cup the blood of our Lord is spilt or that the Primitive Fathers in the Remainder of the Sacrament Burned their Saviour Yet these must they both have thought and said if as you speake of Eating Swallowing feeding Corporally of Christ's Body the Body of Christ were the proper Subject of these accidentall Events That the Objection taken from any Gesture used in the daies of Antiquity doth not prove a Divine Adoration of the Eucharist SECT III. GEsture is one of the points which you object as more observable than the former but how Because Chrysostome will have the Communicant take it with Inclining hit head downe before the holy Table Cyril by Bowing after the manner of Adoring You will be still like your selves insisting upon Heterogenies and Arguments which conclude not ad idem For first the Examples objected speake not of Bowing downe to the Sacrament but of our Bowing downe our heads to the ground in signification of our Vnworthinesse which may be done in Adoring Christ with a Sursum corda that is Lifting up our hearts to Christ above And this may become every Christian to use and may be done without divine Adoration of the thing before us Nay and that no Gesture either standing sitting or kneeling is necessary for such an Adoration your greatest Advocate doth shew out of Antiquitie and affirmeth this as a Point as he saith agreed on by all adding that Divine Adoration consisteth not in the outward Gesture but in the Intention of the minde For indeed there is no one kinde of outward Gesture which as you have confessed is not also communicable to man so that although that were true which is set downe in the Rubricke of Chrysostomes Liturgie that the Ministers did use to Incline their Bodies to the Altar yet none can be so simple to thinke that they did yeeld divine honour unto an Altar Nay your owne great Master of Ceremonies Durantus hath observed the like Bowing downe of the Priest in the preparation of this Sacrament even Before consecration and one of your Iesuits reporteth your objected Greeke Church at this day to Adore the Bread and Wine unconsecrated albeit they beleeve no Presence of Christ herein This being knowne how can you in any credibility conclude as you have done a Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament after Consecration from a Reverence which hath beene yeelded to the same Sacrament before it was consecrated In which consideration your Disputers stand so much the more condemnable because whereas they shew some Examples of a Bodily Inclining to the Sacrament done before Consecration yet after Consecration they have not produced any one But what newes now We blush in your behalfe to repeat the Instance which you have out of your Legends of a Brute Beast prostrating it selfe before the Host and doing Reverence unto it We would have concealed this but that you seeme to glory herein as being for your Instruction like to the reproofe given miraculously to Balaam by his Asse Well might this Legend have become that latter time of darknesse wherein it was first hatched but not these cleare daies wherein your mysteries of Delusions have beene so often revealed and when all Christians almost in all Countries have taken knowledge of an Horse taught by Art to kneele to any person at his Masters command and once in France when by the Suggestion and Instigation of Romish Priests his Master was called into question for Sorcery he for vindication of his credit with them commanded his horse to kneele before a Crucifix and thereby freed himselfe from suspition of Diabolicall familiarity according to the Principles of their owne superstition And for any one to conclude this to have been God's miraculous worke in that Horse as the other was in that Asse would seeme to be the Reason of an unreasonable man because all Miracles alwaies exceed all power both of Art and Nature else were they no Miracles at all Thus to your fourth Objection from outward Acts we passe on to Examples That no Example of Invocation objected out of Antiquity can infer the Divine Honour of the Sacrament as is pretended SECT IV. YOur Instances are Three the principall in Gorgonia the Sister of Gregory Nazianzen in whose Oration at her funerall we finde that She having beene
SECT V. FOr the necessitie of the Priests due Intention in consecrating your Cardinall alleageth the Authority addeth the consent of your Doctors except Catharinu◠produceth the opinion of Luther and Calvin condemning this Romis◠Doctrine and condemneth their Censure as Hereticall But wee permit it to vour discreet Iudgements whether to yeeld to this ostentative flourish of your Cardinall or to the exact and accurate discourse of your Iesuite Salmeron to the contrarie grounded upon sound Reasons among others this that this Perplexity and doubt whether the Priest hath a Due intention in consecrating worketh to the tormenting of mens Consciences injurie to Gods exceeding bountie and goodnesse contrary to the Iudgement of Antiquity and in speciall against that of S. Augustine Saepèmihi ignotaest Conscientia aliena sed semper certus sum de divina misericordia And lastly because of the Affinity which it hath with the heresie of the Donatists So hee All which turneth to the condemnation of your Doctrine teaching a necessary Priestly Intention of Novelty Impiety and relish of Heresie We adde to this that saying of the Apostle If the word be preached whether of envie and vaine glory or of good will I rejoyce and will rejoyce which proveth that the evill Intention of the Messenger cannot impeach the Benefit of the message of Salvation and embassage of God Now there is the like Reason of the word visible which is the Sacrament as there is of the Audible Take unto you a Similitude in the marginall Testimony of your Iesuite Salmeron of a Notary publique making a true Instrument according to the forme of Court in the time when hee was distracted in his wits neverthelesse the same Instrument is of use and for the benefit of the partie who hath it not through the Intention of the Scribe but by the will of the Ordainer and willingnesse and consent of the Receiver Our fifth Security from your Romish Perplexity touching Ordination SECT VI. TO passe over matters not controverted betweene us whether the Minister that consecrateth this Sacrament ought to be consecrated by Ecclesiasticall Ordination to this Function a matter agreed upon on both sides the only question is if hee that ministreth happen to be an Intruder and no consecrated Minister whether this his Defect doe so nullifie his Consecration of the Eucharist that it becommeth altogether unprofitable to the devout Communicant Your Church in this case sendeth you to inquire after the Godfathers Godmothers Priest or Midwife that baptizeth to know whether he have beene rightly baptized and this not satisfying she will have you seeke forth the Bishop by whom he was ordained and so to the Ordainer of that Bishop and so to spurre further and further untill you come to S. Peter to see whether each of these were rightly consecrated a Priest and then to search into so many Church-bookes to know the Baptisme of each one without which the Act of this Priest now consecrating is frustrate and your Adoration Idolatrous Contrari-wise we in such an indeprehensible Case wherein the Actor or Act hath no apparent Defect are no way scrupulous knowing that things doe worke Ad modum Recipientis as you have heard in the Example of preaching the word of God were it by Iudas or if 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-paths Our Securitie from the Romish Perplexity of Habituall Condition SECT VII HAbituall or virtuall Condition as it is conceived by your Professours standeth thus I adore this which is in the hands of the Priest as Christ if it be Christ being otherwise not willing so to doe 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 doe For as touching your profane Lecturer 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 Almost Infinite Defects and consequently as many Causes of Doubting which may disannull the whole Act of Consecration there needeth no 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 Certainly if S. Augustine had heard that a Worship of Latria which he every-where teacheth to be proper to God were performed to Bread and Wine as the matter of Divine Adoration he neither would nor could have said in defence thereof as he did of the Celebation of the Eucharist in his owne time viz. We are farre from your Paganish worshipping of Ceres and Bacchus But as for us Protestants we professe no Divine Worship of God but with a Divine that is an Infallible Faith that it is God whom we worship who will not be worshipped but in spirit and truth What furthermore we 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 many-fold Abhominations 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 Accessaries 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Man's 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 expressely charging his Church and saying DOE THIS pointing out thereby such proper Acts which concerned either the Administring or the Participating of the same holy Sacrament But now commeth in Mans's 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 Doe not This as hath beene proved notwithstanding the former direct Injunction of Christ or conformable Observation of the holy Apostles or Consent
and Custome of the Church Catholique 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 disguised under the feigned vizard of false Pretences which have beene many devised by the new Church of Rome in an opinion of her owne wisdome to the befooling and vilifying of the Antient Cathólique Church of Christ which never esteemed the same Reasons reasonable enough for making any Alteration but notwithstanding such imaginations precisely observed the Precept and Ordinance of Christ But that which exceedeth 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 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 Sinne abhorred by holy Iob saying to his Adversaries 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 Gelasius condemned for Grand Sacrilege or of the like points formerly discovered we shall insist only 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 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 we may call a Counterfeiting of the Seale of Christ II. By making this Sacrifice in her pretence Christian but but indeed Earthly and Iewish III. By dignifying it with a Divine property of Meritorious and Satisfactorie Propitiation IV. By professing another properly Satisfactorie and Propitiatory Sacrifice for Remission of sinnes besides that which Christ offered upon the Crosse As if after one hath paid the Debts of many at once upon condition that such of those Debters should be discharged whosever submissively acknowledging those Debts to be due should also professe the favour of their Redeemer It cannot but be extreme folly for any to thinke that the money once paid should be tendred and offered againe as often as One or Other of the Debters should make such an acknowledgement the Surety having once sufficiently satisfied for all So Christ having once for all satisfied the justice of God by the price of his blood in the behalfe of all penitent Sinners who in Contrition of heart and a living Faith apprehend the Truth of that his Redemption it cannot but be both injurious to the justice of God and to the merit of Christ that the same satisfactory Sacrifice as it were a new payment ought againe by way of Satisfaction be personally performed and tendred unto God V. By detracting from the absolute Function of Christ his Priesthood now eminent and permanent before God in Heaven and thereupon stupifying the mindes of Communicants and as it were pinioning their thoughts by teaching them so to gaze and meditate on the matter in the hands of the Priest that they cannot as becommeth Spirituall Eagles soare alost and contemplate upon the Body of Christ where it 's infallible Residence is in that his heavenly Kingdome VI. By transforming as much as they can the Sacrament ordained for Christians to eat with their owne mouthes into a Theatricall Sacrifice wherein to be fed with the mouth of the Priest VII By abasing the true value of Christ his Blood infinitely exceeding all valuation in making it but finite whereas Christ being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and Man in one person every propitiatory worke of his must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore of an infinite price and power VIII By denying the Effect of his Propiâ—iation for Sinne to be plenary in the Application thereof IX There hath beene noted by the way the Portion appropriated to the Priest out of your Sacrifice and to be applyed to some particular Soule for money being an Invention as hath beene confessed voyd of all Warrant either by Scripture or by Antient Tradition To say nothing of your fine Art of cheating mens Soules by Priestly Fraud whereof as also of the Rest wee have discoursed at large A New Instance for proofe of Romish Sacrilegiousnesse in the Prayer set downe in the Liturgie of their Masse SECT III. IN your Missall after Consecration it is prayed thus Wee offer unto thy Majesty O Lord this immaculate Host this holy Bread of eternall life this Cup of everlasting salvation upon which vouchsafe to looke with a propitious and favourable Countenance as thou didst accept the gifts of thy holy servant Abel and command these to be caried up into thy celestiall Altar c. So the Canon of your Masse Some Protestants in their zeale to the glory of Christ impute unto you hereupon a Sacrilegious Profanenesse whilest you beleeving That Host and That Cup to be the very Body and Blood of Christ and a Propitiatory Sacrifice in it selfe yet doe so pray God to be propitious unto it and to accept it as hee did the Sacrifice of Abel yeelding thereby no more estimation to Christ than to a vile sheepe which was offered by Abel At the hearing of this your Cardinall See the Margent 1. Prefaceth 2. Answereth 3. Illustrateth 4. Reasoneth First of his Preface The Answer saith he is easie As if that Objection which seemeth to us a huge logg in your way were so little an obstacle that any might skip over it But have you never seene men in trusting too much to their nimblenesse to over-reach themselves in their leape stumble fall and breake their limbes Sembably he in his Answer which is the second point The meaning of our Church saith he is not to pray for Christs reconciliátion who was alwayes well pleasing to God but in respect of the infirmity of the Priest and people that the offering may be accepted from them So he But whatsoever the meaning of the Priest in his praying is sure we are this cannot be the meaning of the Prayer for the matter prayed for is set downe to be Holy Bread of life and Cup of Salvation which you interpret to be substantially the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament and the tenour of prayer expressely is Vpon which Lord looke propitiously wee say
upon which not upon whom which point is confirmed in that which followeth Thirdly therefore he illustrateth The Comparison saith he is not absolutely betweene the Sacrifice of Abel and of Christ but in respect of the faith and devotion of the Priest and people that they with like faith may offer as Abel did But this piece of Answer is that which is called in Musicke Discantus contra punctum for the prayer is directly Looke downe propitiously upon these as thou didst upon the gifts of Abel The Comparison then is distinctly betweene the Gifts and not betweene the Givers Yea but not absolutely so meant saith he be it so yet if it be so meant but in part that Christ who is Propitiation it selfe shall be prayed for to be propitiously and favourably looked upon by God the prayer is Sacrilegious in an high degree Fourthly his Reason It is knowen saith he that the Sacrifices of sheepe and Oxen had nothing in themselves whereby to pacifie or please God the Scripture saying that Abel offered a better Sacrifice than Cain And againe God had respect to Abel and to his Gifts So he Which is the very Reason that perswadeth Protestants to call that your Prayer most Sacrilegious because whereas the Gifts of Abel were but Sheepe c. you notwithstanding compare them with the offering up of Christ saying As thou didst the Gifts of Abel For although it be true that the Gift of Abel was accepted for the faith of the Giver and not the Giver for his Gift yet if you shall apply this to the point in Question then your Gift in your Opinion being Christ and your Givers but simply men whom you have called Priest People it must follow that Christ is accepted for the faith of the Priest and People and not the Priest and People for Christ which maketh your Prayer far more abominably Sacrilegious And not much lesse is that which followeth praying God to command his Angell to cary if the Gift be He Christ into heaven contrary to the Article of our Catholique Faith which teacheth us to beleeve his perpetuall Residence in heaven at the right hand of the Father Hee answereth It is not meant that God would command his Angell to cary Christs Body but our prayers and desires by their intercession unto God for us So he Which is as truly a false Glosse as the former for in the Tenour of your Masse the Subject of your prayer is Holy Bread of life and Cup of salvation The prayer is plainly thus Vpon which O Lord looke propitiously and immediately after Command These to be caried by thy Angell Marke These viz. That Bread of life and Cup of salvation even that which you call The Body and Blood of Christ as corporally Present which maketh your prayer to be Sacrilegious still and your Expositors that we may so say miserably Ridiculous That the former Romish Prayer as it was Antient doth in the then true meaning thereof condemne the now Romish Church of the former Sacrilegious Innovation SECT IV. FOR to thinke that it should be prayed that God would be propitious to Christ were an Execrable opinion even in the Iudgement of our Adversaries themselves who for avoidance thereof have obtruded an Exposition as farre differing from the Text as doth This from That or Christ from the Priest as you have heard But whither will hee now Your Cardinall telleth you that the words of your Romish Canon are antient such as are found in the Missalls of S. Iames of Clement Pope of Rome of Basil of Chrysostome and of Ambrose You will hold it requisite that wee consult with these Liturgies set out by your selves for the better understanding of the Tenour of your Romish Masse The Principall Quaere will be whether Antiquity in her Liturgies by praying to God for a propitious Acceptation and admittance into his celestiall Altar meant as your Cardinall answered Propitiousnesse towards Priest and People in respect of their faith and devotion and not towards the Things offered distinctly in themselves In the pretended Liturgie of S. Iames before Consecration the prayer to God is To accept the Gifts into his celestiall Altar even the Gifts which he called The fruits of the earth And then after for the Parties as well Priest as People To sanctifie their soules In the Liturgie of Basil before Consecration it is prayed to God that the Receiving the Gifts into his celestiall Altar would also concerning the Parties send his Graâ—e and Spirit upon them And no lesse plainly Pope Clemens teaching before Consecration to pray God who received the Gifts of Abel gratiously to behold these Gifts propounded to the honour of his Sonne Christ expressely differenceth this Sacrifice done in honour of Christ from Christ himselfe who is honoured thereby And after Consecration to Beseech God through Christ to accept the Gift offered to him and to take it into his Celestiall Altar where the prayer to God is not to accept of Christ but of the Gift for Christ's sake and to the honour of Christ in whom God is Propitious unto us wee say againe the Gift for Christ and not Christ for the Gift what can be more plaine against all Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament and to receive it into his Celestiall Altar but how by intercession of Angells No but expressely thus By Christ the Mediatour In the Liturgie of Chrysostome before Consecration God is prayed unto and supplicated thus We beseech thee to send thy Spirit upon us and upon the Gifts set before us Even as Ambrose explaineth his Supplication after Consecration for God To accept this Oblation namely that which hee called Holy Bread and Cup. If therefore these former Formes may interpret your Romane Liturgie as it was Antient the prayer therein to God desiring him to be Propitious must have relation to the things above specified called Holy Bread of life and Cup of Salvation as distinguished from Priest and People Wherefore your Romane Missalls being so Antient in this one point in praying God after Consecration to be Propitious to that which is called the Bread of life eternall and Cup of everlasting salvation lest it might carry a Sacrilegious Sence to wit that the Body of Christ is here the proper Subject of the Eucharist and consequently to need a Propitiation to God by virtue of mens prayers thereby greatly derogating from the meritorious Satisfaction of Christ you ought to reduce this your Romane Canon to the Orthodox meaning of Antient Liturgies above mentioned and to understand it Sacramentally only namely our Objective Representation Commemoration and Application thereof by us which is our Act of Celebration To the former vast heape of Sacrilegious Positions and Practices wee may adde your other many vile and impious Indignities offered to the all-glorious Sonne of God in making his sacred Body in your owne opinions obnoxious to the Imprisoning in Boxes Tearing with mens Teeth Devouring