necessitate Sacramenti Et haec posterior sententia sequenda videtur Ex qua consequenter sequitur Hoc praeceptum esse per Ecclesiam dispensabile Accordingly the Iesuite Vasquez using the same Reasons and Authorities In 3. Thom. qu. 54 Disp 177. Cap. 2. Concludeth Praecepto tamen solo humano non divino eam nos miscere debere vera sententia est Haec doctrina est caeterorum omnium Scholasticorum quos non est opus sigillatim referre id enim omnes expresse dixerunt ut supra notavi Iosephus Angles Flor. Theol. Qu. 1. Non est mixtio aquae ex necessitate Sacramenti quià solùm propter significationem unionis Christi cum populo Graeci autem verè conficiunt tamen aquam non miscent Idem Iosephus Part. 3. Tit. 4 Pag. 142. ex Aquin. part 3. qu. 74. Art 6. Conclu Debet aqua misceri probabiliter quidem creditur quod Dominus hoc Sacramentum instituerit in Vino aquâ permixto secundum morem istus terrae This point of mixture of water with wine was not commanded of Christ but afterwards enjoyned by the Church This being as Iesuites and others doe witnesse a Doctrine generally consented unto by your Schoolmen and they themselves giving their Amen thereunto as also alleaging for their owne better confirmation herein the judgement of two late Romish Councils Florence and Trent besides their dint of Reasons wherof one was the ground of my Assertion to wit Because if it had been commanded by Christ or ordained by necessity of a Precept of Christ it should be likewise of the necessity or Essence of the Sacrament which Necessitie the Church of Rome universally excludeth The Consequence therfore is evident for whatsoever was instituted as the matter of a Sacrament was ever held to bee of the necessitie of the Essence of the same Sacrament Wherefore wee may reckon this Mixture amongst those Circumstances of Christs Actions which were Occasionall by reason of the use and Custome of that Countrey of Iudaea at that time for the tempering and allaying of their Wine with Water 5 Iac. Gordon lib. Contr. 9. cap. 7. Praetereà in calida illa regione omnes solebant miscere aquam vino vinum autèm merum bibebat nemo pag. 320. That region being so hot saith your Iesuit that none dranke meere Wine but mixt with water âšœ The Poynts contained within the Canon of Christ his Masse and appertaining to our present Controversie are of two kindes viz. 1. Practicall 2. Doctrinall SECT V. PRacticall or Active is that part of the Canon which concerneth Administration Participation and Receiving of the holy Sacrament according to this Tenour Matth. 2◠〈◊〉 And Iesus tooke Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples and said Take eat c. And Luc. 2â— 19. â—â— Do this in remembrance of me Likewise also after Supper he tooke the Cup and gave thankes and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of this But the Points which are especially to be called Doctrinall are implied in these words of the Evangelists THIS IS MY BODY And THIS IS MY BLOOD of the new Testament which is shed for you and for many for remission of sinnes We begin with the Practicall CHAP. II. That all the proper Active and Practicall points to wit of Blessing Saying Giving Taking c. are strictly commanded by Christ in these words DOE THIS Luke 22. Matth. 26. 1. Cor. 11. SECT I. THere are but two outward materiall parts of this Sacrament the one concerning the element of Bread the other touching the Cap. The Acts concerning Both whether in Administring or Participating thereof are charged by Christ his Canon upon the Church Catholike unto the ends of the World The Tenour of his Precept or Command for the first part is Doe this and concerning the other likewise saying 1. Cor. 11. â—5 This doe ye as often c. Whereof your owne Doctors aswell Iesuites as Others have rightly a Hoc facite Alter sensus est Facite viz. quod feci Christus accepit panem gratias egit benedixit c. idipsumque praecepit Discipulis corumque successoribus Sacerdotibus Barrard Ies Tom. 4. lib. 3. cap â—6 pag. 82. col 2 which sense hee also embraceth although he excludeth not a second Illud Hoc facite posuit post datum Sacramentum ut intelligeremus jussisse Dominum ut sub c. Bellar. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 25. §. Resp mirab Idem Hoc facite illud jubet ut totam actionem Christi imitemur Ib. c. 13. §. Quod â—lla Pronomen Hoc non tantum ad sumptionem sed ad omnia quae mox Christus fecisse dicitur refertur mandat n. facere quod ipse fecit nempè Accipere panem gratias agere Iansen Episc Concord c. 131. pag. 903. Againe Bellar. Videtur tn sententia Iohannis à Lovanio valde probabilis qui docet verba Domini Hoc facite aâ—ud Lucam ad omnia referri id est ad id quod fecit Christus id quod egerunt Apostoli ut sit sensus Id quod nâ—nc agimus Ego dùm consecro porrigo yos dùm accipitls c. frequentate usque ad mundi consummationem Profert n. idem Author veteres Patres qui illa verba modò referunt ad Christi actionem Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 3 Damas l. 4. de fide c. 14. modò ad actionem Discipulorum ut Basil reg mor. 21. Cyril Alex. lib. 12. in Ioh. c. 58. Thus farre Bellar. lib. 4. de Euch. c. 25. §. Videtur Hoc facite Praeceptum hoc non potest referri ad ea quae verbis antecedentibus in ipsa narratione Institutionis habentur Viz. to those circumstances which goe before that He tooke bread c nam ea vis est Pronominis demonstrativi Hoc verbi Facite ut praeceptum quod his duobus verbis continetur ad eas tantum actiones referatur quas tum in praesentia Christus vel faciebat vel faciendas significabat quae quidem actiones continentur in ipsa narratione Institutionis quae incipit ab illis verbis Accipiens panem Greg. Valent. les Tract de usu alterius spec in Euch. c. 2 §. Id manifestè Hoc facite Ex tribus Evangelistis ex Paulo 1. Cor. 11. constat Christum sumptionem vini suo facto praeceptione Ecclesiae commendasse Alan Card. de Euch. c. 10. p. 255. Hoc facite Pertinet ad totam actionem Eucharisticam à Christo factam tà m à Presbyteris quà m à plebe faciendam Hoc probatur ex Cyrillo l. 12. in Ioh. c. 58. ex Basil moral reg 21 c. 3. Idem Alan ib. c. 36. p. 646. Hoc facite Idem habet Paulus 1. Cor. 11 qui naâ—rat id ipsum dici circa calicem ea omnia complectens quae dicuntur de poculo accipiendo c. Quod Lucas complexus est dicens Similiter calicem Iansen Concord c. 131. p. 905.
Bread is my Body which hath beene condemned by their other parties and truly as an Exposition full of Absurdities Wee now pursue this point further by examination of the Speech of Christ concerning the other Element delivered Saint * Matth. 26. 27. Matthew and Saint * Mark 14. Mark thus He tooke the Cup and gave it the Cup to them saying Drinke you all of this viz. Cup For this namely still Cup is my Blood And is further proved to point out the Cup by Saint * Luk. 22. Luke and Saint * 1. Cor. 11. Paul who both deliver it thus This Cup is the new Testament c. But here in these words These Cup is c. the Word Cup by Vniversall Consent is taken Tropically for the liquor in the Cup. Therefore did not Christ intend in that which you call his Consecratorie Words a Proper and Literall Sense when otherwise it had been as easie to have said either according to the first Exposition This Blood in the Cup is my Blood or else answerably to your second Interpretation This kinde of Wine in the Cup is my Blood albeit this also bee as Tropicall and Figurative as to have said This Wine is my Blood Which your Church of Rome perceiued right well and therefore for avoyding the Trope and Figure hath shee devised a new forme thus Hic est calix sanguinis mei This is the Cup of my Blood different from all the Evangelists even in that which you call a Forme of Consecration as if in her high presumption shee had professed to correct the forme of Christ his Institution A perfect Argument of a novell naughtie ruinous and tottering Cause If any Protestant had made so bold with Scripture O what outcryes and vociferations should wee have heard and that this was done to facilitate your Answer where you say 12 Vasquez in 3. Thom. Disp 109. cap. 4. Ego existimo nullum esse Tropum in verbis essentialibus formae The Words or forme of Consecration Are without Tropes your Iesuite Vasquez collecteth Wherein notwithstanding hee forsaketh his Master Aquinas even now when hee doth Glosse and Comment upon him for sure it is 13 Aquin. part 3. Quaest 78. Artic. 3. ad 1. Dico Hic est calix sanguinis mei est locutio figurata uno modo est secundùm Metonymiam Continens pro Contento dquinas concludeth most directly saying of these Words This is the Cup in my Blood that It is a Figurative speech called Metonymia Hitherto of the first Key of explication of Christs words CHAP. II. The Second Key in Christ's Words Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body opening the Figurative Sense thereof is the Verbe EST IS FOr that Est in these words hath the same sense as Signifieth as if Christ had sayd expresly of the Bread This signifieth my Body and accordingly of the Wine This signifieth my Blood may be proved by three Propositions infringible Our first Proposition The Verbe EST being joyned with a thing that is a Signe is alwayes figurative and the very same with this word SIGNIFIETH SECT I. FOr although the Verbe Est be indeed so absolutely simple in it's owne nature that it cannot be resolved into any other word as all other Verbes may be in like Case yet doth it albeit accidentally necessarily inferre a figurative Sense and is as much as Signifieth or Representeth whensoever it joyneth the Signe and the Thing signified together As for Example A man pointing at a signe hanging before an Inne and saying This is Saint George the Verbe Is can inferre no other Sense than Signifieth Why even because the thing whereof it speaketh is a Signe signifying Saint George And Bread in this Sacrament is in all Catholike Divinity a Signe of Christs Body Therefore the Verbe Is can have no other Sense than Signifieth The former Proposition confirmed by all like Speeches whether Artificiall Politike or Mysticall SECT II. YOur owne Iesuites and common Experience it selfe will verifie this Truth First In things Artificiall as a Metonymia tropus est in Scripturis frequentissimus quâ continens pro contento contrà signatum pro signo usurpari solet ut ostensâ imagine Herculis dicimus Hic est Hercules Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. proleg 12. Can. 15. To say of the Picture of Hercules This is Hercules is a figure Secondly In things Politike as when a b Testamentum saepè sumitur pro Legato seu Re testatâ Bartrad Ies Institut lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5. Legacie given by Will and Testament is called the man's Will So they And indeed what is more Common than for a man to say of his Testament This is my Will Of his name subscribed This is my hand And of the waxe sealed This is my Seale When as his Will properly taken is in his heart his hand is affixed to his Arme And his seale may be in his pocket Thirdly In Mysticall and Divine Rites as in Sacrifice even among the Heathen according to that Example out of Homer which is notable The Greeâ—as and Trojans when they entred into a league which was to be ractified by a Sacrifice of Lambs upon which both sides were to take their Oathes this their Act is thus expressed c Salm Ies Tom 9. Tract 15. §. Malè eâ—â—m Idem priùs habuit noster Bezâ—â—in Luc. 22. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is They brought with them two Lambs their faithfull oathes Where Lambs the rituall signes of their faithfull Swearing are called Oathes An Example I say even among the Heathen which is as apposite to our purpose and opposite against your defence as can be Our Second Proposition answerable to the first All the like Sacramentall Speeches in Scripture are figuratively understood SECT III. IN all such like Sacramentall Speeches both in the old and new Testament wherein the Signe is coupled with the Thing signified the Speech is ever unproper and Figurative and the Verbe Est hath no other force than Signifieth This Truth is confirmed abundantly by the Testimonies of your owne Iesuites and others who come fraught with Examples First concerning the old Testament Noting that the Sacrifice of the d Pascha significat transitum quâ—à Angelus transivit domos Israelitâ—rum haec ratio nominis redditur cum dicitur Transibit enim Dominus â—um viderit sanguinem in utroque poste â—ansen Ipâ—sc Concord in Matth. 26. It was therefore more than boldnesse in Bellarmine l. â— de Euch. cap 11 §. Quaedam to say Agnus erat proprâ—è Transitus Agnus being in the Prediâ—ament of Substance and Transitus in the Predicament of Action Paschall Lambe being but a Signe was called the Passeover or passing-over Secondly that e 〈◊〉 hoc 〈◊〉 loco dicitur spiritualis ex qua Deus eduxit per miâ—â—culum aquam quià Signum 〈◊〉 è lâ—tgre Christi 〈…〉 Saâ—meron Ies in 1. Cor. 10 Petra autem erat Christus Id est Petra significab
witnesses âšœ It followeth in the words of Christs Institution This is the Cup of the new Testament in my blood Now what of this hearken to your Bishop Iansenius m Hic Calix est novum Testamentum Non potest accipi in proprio sensu sed in eo quem clariâ—ra verba Matthaei et Mâ—rci indicant exigunt Sivè enim Calix suâ—atur provascâ—â— potorio sive Synechdochicâ— pro sanguine in poculo contento non potest consistere ut in ijs verbis sit propria locutio Nemo enim dix erit propriâ locutione vasculum illud potorium fuisse novum Testamentum cùm incertum sit an adhùc exstet illud poculum at novum Testamentum est aeternum Sed nec sanguis in calice contentus potest esse novum Testamentum propria locutione quià lex Evangelica in Epist ad Heb dicitur novum Testamentum apuâ—l Matth. Marcum sanguis dicitur hovâ— Testamenti At unicâ—m est nâ—â—um Testamentum Ianseâ— Concord in 〈◊〉 locum pag. 910. These wordes saith he cannot not be taken properly whether the Cup bee taken for the vessell used for drinking which was a temporall thing and therfore could not bee the Testament of Christ which is aeternall or else whether you take it for the matter in the Cup which is a Figure called Synechdoche for it being the blood of the new Testament could not bee properly the Testament it selfe Yea and your Iesuite Salmeron pointeth out in the same words a double Figure h Subest in his duplex Metonymia 1. quuà Conâ—inâ—ns ponâ—â—ur pro Contento id est poculum sive Calix pro vino eò quod vinum in ipso continetur 2. est cò quod contentum in poculo foedus vel Testamentum dicitur novum cùm sit ejus symbolum propter species Testamentum hoc in loco potest sumi prolege Evangelica quae veteri legi opponitur ut rem Testamento legatam testatamvè significet Quemadmodùm haeres diceâ—solet Hic fundus est Testamentum Patris me Id est portio haereditatis à patre meo legata in quem sensum Apostolus loquitur ad Heb. Iesus est sponsor melioris Testamenti Id est haereditatis Salm. Ies Tom 9. Tract 15. § 3. p. 98. A double Figure saith he is here the Cup being put for the thing contained in the Cup and Testament being taken for the Legacie that is granted and given by the Testament wiâ—h whom the o Testamentum sumitur pro legâ—to Metonymiâ—è continens Testamentum sumitur pro contento legate sâ—u haereditate quae Testamento continetur Barrad lib. 3. de Euch. c. 5 pag. 79. Tom. 4. Iesuite Barradas doth consent Hereunto may be added Christs Tropicall Saying in the 6. of Iohn where Christ calling that which he giveth to be eaten his Flesh in the same Chapter he calleth his Flesh which is to bee eaten of the faithfull Bread Which none of your side durst hitherto interpret without a Figure And yet againe the Apostle speaking of the Mysticall body of Christ which is his Church assembled at the holy Communion to participate of this Sacrament saith of them * 1. Cor. 10. 17. Wee being many are one bread and one Body for wee are all partakers of that one Bread But why Even as one Bread consisteth of many cornes so doth one Church of Christ of many faithfull persons saith your p Sicut unus panis ex multis granâ—s c. Aquia in cum locum Aquinas But none of you will deny that the Apostles naming the Communion of the Faithfull to bee one Bread or Loafe is altogether Figurative CHALLENGE COllect wee now the Parcels above-mentioned First in the word This necessarily referred to Bread inferring one Figure in the former Chapters And next in this Section one Figure in the word Broken Another in the word Eate A third in the word Drinke A fourth in the word Given A fift and sixt in the word Shed A seaventh in the word Cup An eighth in the word Testament nine in all and then your Gybes and Tants against our Figurative Exposition of Christs words as so many bolts shot upwards must fall directly upon your own pares Of your Bellarmines Objection of the word Shed hereafter in the sixt Booke and 2. Chapter âšœ It is no better than Hemlocke which you put into your Disciples mouthes to stupifie them withall when you reach them to stand to the Literall words of Christ lest that otherwise Christs speech should bee accounted a Lie First against your owne knowledge who are not ignorant that Truth is not opposed to Figurative but to False speech else all the Parables of Christ which are altogether Figurative should be called false which were Blasphemie to affirme And also against the acknowledgement already specified confessing that Bread cannot in a proper and Literall sense be truly called Christs Body And the generall Rule is that Truth in a Figurative sense cannot be so in a Literall no more than a Literall Truth can be Figurative and Tropicall âšœ That the Figurative sense of Christ's words is agreeable to the Iudgement of the more Ancient Church of Rome SECT V. YOur old and publike Romish Glosse saith plainly q Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur Corpus Christi sed impropriè unde dicitur suo more sed non reâ— veritate sed significante mysterio ut fit sensus vocatur Corpus Christi id est significatur Gloss Decret de Consecrat Dist 2. Can. Hoc est This heavenly Sacrament because it doth truely represent the flesh of Christ is called the Body of Christ but improperly not in the truth of the thing but in the mysticall Sense to wit it is called the Body of Christ that is it signifieth his Body So your Glosse which you may not deny to be the glosse or Tongue of your whole Church because it hath beene confirmed by the same Authority of Pope * Gregorius XIII Papa In the privilege before the body of the Canon Law Gregory the thirteenth wherewith your Extravagants and former Decrees of Popes have beene Authorized CHALLENGE IF all Protestants should meete at once in one Synod and should conspire together as labouring to prove a figurative Sense in these words of Christ This is my Body I suppose that a more exact perspicuous copious and ponderous Proofe could not be desired than hitherto hath beene evinced from your owne Confessions grounded aswell upon sound and impregnable Reasons as upon direct Testimonies of holy Scriptures That the former Figurative Sense of the words of Christ is agreeable to the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers of the Greeke Church SECT VI. YOu will needs defend your literall Exposition by the verdict of Ancient Fathers and wee appeale to the Venerable Senate both of Greek and Latin Fathers The r Graeci Patres vocant Eucharistiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae sunt apud nostros figurae Sacramenta
of it selfe hath beene termed by Master Calvin Murus ahaeneus that is a wall of brasse and so will it bee found more evidently to bee when you shall perceive the same * Booke 3. thorrow-out Fathers judging that which they call a Change into Christs Flesh to bee but a Change into the Sacrament of his Flesh bread still remaining the same in the third Booke âšœ And now wee are to withstand your paper-bullets wherewith you vainely attempt in your Objections following to batter our defence withall CHAP. III. The Romish Objections from Reasons against the Figurative Sense Answered The first Objection SECT I. NOthing useth to bee more properlie and simplie spoken say a Primum Argumentum sumitur à materiâ est enim materia de quâ hic agitur Pactum Sacramentum Testamentum Novum fuisse à Domino institutum pater ex illis verbis Hic est calix Novi Testamenti in sanguine meo Iam verò nihil solet magis propriè simplicitèr aut exquisitè explicaâ—â— quà m Testamentum nè viz. detur occasio litigandi Pacta seu toedera sunt etiam ex eodem genera quae exquisitissimè proprijs verbis explicantur nè locus ullus relinquatur cavillis Sacramentum hoc esse de quo agitur nemo negat Sacramentum autem solere à Deo institui proprijs verbis ut in corum usu non cretur Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch c. 9. §. Primùm §. Deindè §. Poriò â—acramentum A Testament must be alwayes taken in a reall and substantiall meaning M. Maloun the Ies in his Reply you than words of Testaments and Covenants Ergò this being a Testamentary Phrase must be taken in the literall Sense CHALLENGE VVHat is this are Figurative speeches never used in Covenants and Testamentarie Language or is there not therfore sufficient perspicuity in Figures This is your rash and lavish Assertion for you your selves doe teach that b In ipsâ Scriptura dicitur Testamentum Instrumentum Quia pacta Dei soedera inita nobiscum continent ut patet in pacto Circumcisionis cum Abrahamo Ante omnia praefamur S. Scripturam uti Metaphoris non solum ob utilitatem nostram sed etiam propter necessitatem à pluribus Patribus traditur Sacram scripturam de Deo de Trinitate de Patre Filio Spiritu sancto propriè loqui non passe Quandò sermo est de vità aeterâ pâ—aemio siliorum Dei â—laâ—is rebus comparatur per Tropos est explicandus ut August ait Nullo genere lâ—cutionis quod in consuetudine humanâ reperitur Scripturae non utuntur quia utiqué hominibus 〈◊〉 Salâ—â—er Iâ—s Proâ—â—g lib. 1. p. 3. 4. lib. 21. pag. 371. 227. 229. 231. 234. The Old and New Testament are both full fraught with multitude of Tropes and Figures and yet are called Testaments Secondly That the Scripture speaking of the Trinitie and some divine things cannot but speake Improperly and siguratively Thirdly That Sacramentall speeches as The Rocke was Christ and the like words re * See above Chap. 2. Sect 3. let c. Tropicall and Figurative Fourthly That even in the Testamentary Speech of Christ at his Institution of this Sacrament saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood there is a Figure in the very word c See above Chap. 2 Sect. 4. p. q. Testament So have you confessed and so have you consequently confuted your owne Objection Hereto might bee added the Testament of Iacob prophesying of his sonnes and saying * Gen. 49. Reuben is my strength Iudah a Lions Whelpe Issachar a strong Asse Dan an Adder in the way All figurative Allusions Nay no man in making his Testament can call it his Will or say that hee hath set his hand and Seale unto it without Figures Namely that hee hath given by writing a Signification of his Will that the Subscription was made by his Hand and that he added unto it the Print of his Seale These Three Will Hand Seale every word Figurative even in a Testament The second Romish Objection against the Figurative Sense SECT II. LAwes and Precepts say d Verba Legum Praeceptorum debent este propria Bellar lib 1 de Eucharist cap 9. §. Sequitur you should bee in plaine and proper words But in the Speech of Christ Take eate you c. are words of Command Ergò They may not bee held Figurative CHALLENGE CAn you be Ignorant of these Figurative Precepts viz. of Pulling out a mans owne eye of cutting off his hand Mat. 5. Or yee of a Penitents Renting of his heart Ioel 2. Or of not hardening his heart Psalme 95. and the like Christ commanded his Disciples to prepare for his keeping the Passeover with his Disciples and the Disciples prepared the Passeover as Iesus commanded them saith the * Luc. 22. 8. Evangelist In this Command is the word Passeover We demand The word Passeover which is taken for the Sacrament and Signe of the Passeover is it taken Figuratively You cannot deny it And can you deny that a Commandement may bee delivered under a Figurative Phrase You can both that is say and gaine-say any thing like false Merchants onely so farre as things may or may not make for your owne advantage But to catch you in your owne snare your Doctrine of Concomitancy is this viz. Bread being turned into Christs Body is joyntly turned into whole Christ and Wine being changed into his Blood is likewise turned into whole Christ both Flesh and Blood If then when Christ commanded his Disciples saying * Matth. 26. 27. Drinke you All of this that which was Drunke was the whole substantiall Body of Christ either must his Disciples be sayd to have Drunke Christs Body properly or else was the Command of Christ figuratively spoken To say the first contradicteth the universall expression of mans speech in all Languages for no man is sayd to drinke Bread or any solid thing And â—o grant the Second that the speech is Figurative contradicteth your owne Objection Againe Christ commanded to Eate his Body yet notwithstanding have Three e Seâ— above Ch. 2. §. 4. l. Iesuites already confessed that Christs Body cannot bee sayd to have beene properly Eaten but Figuratively onely What fascination then hath perverted your Iudgements that you cannot but still confound your selves by your contrary and thwarting Languages Your third Romish Objection SECT III. DOctrinall and Dogmaticall speeches say f Praecipua dogmata c Bellar. quo supra §. Denota you ought to be direct and literall But these words This is my Body are Doctrinall CHALLENGE A Man would marvaile to heare such seely and petty Reasons to bee propounded by those who are accounted great Clerkes and those who know full well that the speech of Christ concerning Castrating or gelding of a man's selfe is g Abulen in eum loâ—um Christus non laudat cos qui castâ—ârunt se sed
his words This is my Body for proofe of Transubstantiation SECT I. YOu pretend and that with no small Confidence as a Truth avouched by the Councell of a Vt definitur in Conc. Trid. Sess 13 Can. 4. Ex sola veritate verborum Hoc est Corpus meum vera ac propria Transubstantiatio colligitur Vasquez les Disp 176. c. 6 Verba tà m per se clara cogere possint hominem non proterâ—â— Transubstantitionem admittere Bell. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23. §. Secundò Trent that Transubstantiation is collected from the sole true and proper Signification of these words This is my Body So you CHALLENGE WHerein you shew your selves to bee men of great Faith or rather Credulity but of little Conscience teaching that to bee undoubtedly True whereof notwithstanding you your selves render many Causes of Doubting For first you b Scotus quem Cameracensis sequtur Dicunt non extare locuÌ„ in Scripturis tà m expressum ut fine declaratione Ecclesiae evidentes cogat Transubstantiationem admittere Atque hoc non est omninò improbabile quià an ità sit dubitari potest cum homines acutissimi doctissimi qualis inprimis Scotus fuit contrarium sentiant Bellar. quo supra Cajetanus aliqui vetustiores audiendi non sunt qui dicunt panem definere esse non tà m ex Evangelio quà m ex Ecclesiae authoritate constare Alan lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34 pag. 419. grant that besides Cardinall Caejetane and some other Ancient Schoolemen Scotus and Cameracensis men most Learned and Acute held that There is no one place of Scripture so expresse which without the Declaration of the Church can evidently compell any man to admit of Transubstantiation So they Which your Cardinall and our greatest Adversary faith c See in the former Allegation at b Is not altogether improbable and whereunto your Bishop d Corpus Christi fieri per consecrationem non probatur nudis Evangelij verbis sine pia interpretatione Ecclesiae Roffens Episc con Capt. Bab. cap. 9. pag. 99. Roffensis giveth his consent Secondly which is also confessed some other Doctors of your Church because they could not find so full Evidence for proofe of your Transubstantiation out of the words of Christ were driven to so hard shifts as to e Hoc est pro Transit Bonaventura decet Idem ferè habet Oceam Hol cott insinuat etiam Waldensis Volunt Propositionem illam non esse substantivè sed Transitive interpretandam sc ut sit sensus Hoc est Corpus id est Transit in Corpus Sed hoc corrumpit significationeÌ„ verbi Est quod si permittitur nulla est vis in hujus modi verbis ad probandam realem praesentiam nec substantiam Panis hic non manere Et ità potuit Haereticus exponere Hoc est id est Repraesentat Corpus Suarez Ies Tom. 3. qu 78. Disp 58. Sect. 7. Art 1. pag. 754. Change the Verbe Substantive Est into a Verbe Passive or Transitive Fit or Transit that is in stead of Is to say It 's Made or It passeth into the Body of Christ A Sense which your Iesuite Suarez cannot allow because as hee truly saith It is a Corrupting of the Text. Albeit indeed this word Transubstantiation importeth no more than the Fieri seu Transire of Making or Passing of one Substance into another So that still you see Transubstantiation cannot bee extracted out of the Text without violence to the words of Christ âšœ The like violence is used by your Iesuit I Iac. Gordon Scotus Ies lib. Controv. 4. cap 3. n. 15. Propositiones practicae proferuntur per verba praesentis temporis non futuri ut certi 〈◊〉 de effectuve borum Haec verba Hoc est corpus meum practica sunt efficiunt quod significant Manduâ—â—â— ex hoc Bibite ex hoc ubique demonstrat corpus Christi futurum vel sanguinem ejus futorum Similis statuitur verbis Consecrationis alioqui ista communio esset merè speculativa non practica Gordon who to make Christs Speech to be Practicall for working a TransubstaÌ„tiation doth inforce the words This is my Body and Eat yee this and Drinke yee this being all spoken in the Present tense to signifie the future Which although it were true all Grammarians know to be the figure Enallage From these Premisses it is most apparent that the Romish Doctors cast themselves necessarily upon the hornes of this DileÌ„ma thus Either have these words of Christ This is my Body a Sense Practicall to signifie that which they worke and then is the Sense Tropicall as you have now heard them against your Romish Literall Sense to betoken an operative power and effect of working Bread into the Body of Christ or else they are not Practicall and then they cannot implie your Transubstantiation at all Wee might in the third place adde hereunto that the true Sense of the words of Christ is Figurative as by Scriptures Fathers and by your owne confessed Grounds hath beene already plentifully * See the former Booke throughout proved as an insallible Truth So groundlesse is this chiefe Article of your Romish Faith whereof more will be said in the sixt Section following But yet by the way wee take leave to prevent your Objection You have told us that * See the former Booke throughout the words of Christ are Operative and worke that which they signifie so that upon the pronunciation of the words This is my Body it must infallibly follow that Bread is changed into Christs Body which wee shall beleeve assoone as you shall bee able to prove that upon the pronuntiation of the other words of Christ This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood Luke 22. 20. the Cup is changed into the Testament of Christs Blood or else into his Blood it selfe The Noveltie of Transubstantiation examined as well for the Name as for the Nature thereof SECT II. The Title and Name of Transubstantiation proved to be of a latter date YOu have imposed the very Title of Transubstantiation upon the Faith of Christians albeit the word Transubstantiation as you grant f Fateor neque Antiquos Patres usos esse hoc nomine Transubstantiationis Christoph de Capite fontium Archicpis Caesar lib. de reali praesen cap. 5. 9. Artic. 4. was not used of any Ancient Fathers and that your Romish Change had not it's Christendome or name among Christians to be called Transubstantiation as your Cardinall g Concilium Lateranense sub Innocentio Tertio coactum ut Haereticis os obthurarer Conversionem hanc novo valdè significance verbo dixit Transubstantiationem Alan lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34. pag. 422. As for that objected place out of Cyrill of Alexandria Epist ad Caelosyrium Convertens ea in veritatem Carnis It is answered by Vasquez the Iesuite non habetur illa Epistola inter opera Cyrilli Vasquez in 3. Thom. Tom. 3. num 24.
handle these points in order take our next Position for a Directory to that which shall be answered in the sixt Section That some Fathers understood the Apostles words 1. Corinth 10. Spiritually namely as signifying the Eating of Christs Flesh and drinking his Blood both in the Old Testament and in the New SECT III. VPon those words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. verse 4. They ate of the same Spirituall meate c. The Iewes received the same Spirituall meate p Aug. Tract 26. in Ioh. sup illa verba Apostoli 1. Cor. 20. de fidelibus Iudaeis Omnes candem spiritualem escam in Manna edebant bibebant eundem potum spiritualem c. Corporalem escam diversam illi Manna nos aliud spiritualem sed candem aliud illi aliud nos bibimus sed aliud specie visibili idem autem significante virtute Item Eandem quam nos escam sed Patres nostri nèmpè fideles non Patres illorum Aug. Ibid. saith Saint Augustine namely they who were faithfull Yea saith your q At eandem inter se non nobis cum candem Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Quia Cardinall the Iewes received the same among themselves but not the same with us Christians So hee Albeit the words of Augustine are plainly thus The same which wee eate so plainely that divers on your owne side doe so directly and truly acknowledge it that your Jesuit r Iudaeos candem escam spiritualem edisse nobiscum exposuit hunc locum de Manna Augustinus qui eum secuti sunt multi ut Beda Strabo Author Glossae ordinariae reprobatum hoc esse a posterioribus Ego persuasum habeo Augustinum si nostra aetate fuisset longè aliter sensurum fuisse omni genti Hereticorum inimicissimum cum videret Calvinistas ad eundèm ferè modum hunc locum interpretari Maldon Ies in Ioh. 6. vers 50. col 706. Maldonate not able to gain-say this Truth pleaseth himselfe notwithstanding in fancying that If Augustine were alive in this Age hee would thinke otherwise especially perceiving Hereticall Calvinists and Å¿ Calvin Instit lib. 4. Cap. 14. Sect. 23. Eandem nobiscum contra Scholasticorum dogma quo docent veteri lege tantum adumbrari gratiam novâ praesentem conferri Calvin himselfe to be of his opinion So hee Was it not great pity that Augustine was not brought up in the Schoole of the Jesuites surely they would have taught him the Article of Transubstantiation of the Corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament and Corporall Vnion against all which there could not be a greater Adversary than was Augustine whom Maldonate here noteth to have beene the Greatest enemy to all Heretikes whom t Bertram de Corp. Dom. pag. 20. Quaeres fortasse quam eandem nimirum ipsam quam hodie populus credentium in Ecclesia manducat Non enim licet diversa intelligi quoniam unus idemque Christus qui populum in mare baptizatum carne suâ pavit eundem que potum in Petra Christum sui sanguinis 〈◊〉 populo praebuisse Vide nondum passum Christum esse etiam tamen sui corporis sanguinis mysterium operatum fuisse non enim putamus ullum fidelium dubitare panem illum Christi corpus fuisse effectum quod discipulis Dominus dicit Hoc est Corpus meum Bertram followed in the same Exposition and by your leave so did your u Eandem escam spiritualem id est Corpus Christi in signo spiritualiter intellecto idem quod nos sed aliam escam corporalem quam nos Aquinas in 1. Cor. 10. Aquinas also The same saith hee which wee eate Yea and Anselme imbraceth the same exposition in the very words of Saint Augustine The same which wee eat Thus much by the way Wee goe on to our Answers That the wicked Receivers are called Guilty of Christs Body not by properly Eating of his Body unworthily but for unworthily Eating the Sacrament thereof Symbolically SECT IV. THE Distinction used by Saint Augustine who is still a resolute Patron of our Cause hath beene alwayes as generally acknowledged as knowne wherein hee will have us to discerne in the Eucharist the Sacrament from the thing represented and exhibited thereby Of the Sacrament hee saith that * Aùg in Ioh. Tract 26. Sacramentum â—umitur a quiâ—â—â—dam ad vitâ—â—m 〈◊〉 quibuâ—dam 〈◊〉 exitium Reâ— vero ipsa cujus est Sacramenttum omni homini ad vitam null◠〈◊〉 mortem quicunquè ejus particips â—uerâ—â— It is received of some to Life and of some to destruction but the thing it selfe saith hee is received of None but to Salvation So hee No Protestant could speake more directly or Conclusively for proofe First That in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Body of Christ is as well tendred to the Wicked as to the Godly Secondly That the Wicked for want of a living faith have no Hand to receive it Thirdly That their not preparing themselves to a due receiving of it is a Contempt of Christ his Body and Blood Fourthly and Consequently that it worketh the judgement of Guiltinesse upon them âšœ If it shall be proved that the like judgement followeth upon the Wicked for absenting himselfe from receiving of this Sacrament in Contempt thereof as well as it doth upon the unworthy Receiver it Determinateth the Point in question to prove the inconsequence of your reason wherof you conclude that the Guiltinesse of Judgement ariseth from unworthy Corporall participation of Christs Body Now Saint Augustines words are that 1 Aug de Necessitate poeniâ—eâ—tiae Tom 10. Hom. 50. Verset ante oculos Imago futuri Iudiciâ— ut cum alij aâ—cedunt ad aliare Dei quô ipse non accedit conâ—â—git quà m sit contremiscenda illa poena qua percipiâ—ntibus alijs vitam aeternam alij in mortem praecipitentur aeternam Item 〈◊〉 Tom 6. contra 〈◊〉 Manichaeum lib. 13 c. 6. Qui autem manducaâ—â— contemnit non habet in se vitam ideo non pervenâ—â—t ad vitam aeteâ—nam Hee that contenineth to eate this hath no life in him and shall be deprived of life eternall Which is by his Contempt not in the Receiving but in the Not-Receiving thereof All which both the Evidence of Scripture and Consent of Antiquity do notably confirme For the Text objected doth clearely confute your Romish Consequence because Saint Pauls words are not Hee that eateth the Body of Christ and drinketh his Blood unworthily is guilty of his Body and Blood but Hee that enteth the Bread and drinketh the Cup of the Lord unworthily c Which wee have proved throughout the second Booke to signifie Bread and Wine the Signes and Sacraments of his Body and Blood after Consecration And to come to Antiquity All the Fathers hereafter cited who deny that the wicked Communicants are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ albeit knowing as well as you that all such unworthy Receivers are
Valent Ies lib. 1. de Sacrif Missa c. 4. §. Fatentur p. 519. Eam vim habet verbum Faciendi ut cum Poeta dicit Cùm faciam Vitulà c. Salmer Ies Tim. 9. Tract 27. pag. 205. §. Septiâ—â— Iesuites themselves of your Bellarmines owne Society who in like maner have consulted with the Poet Virgil about his Calfe but as wisely according to our Proverb as Walton's Calfe which went c. For the matter Subject of the Poets Sacrifice is there expressed to have beene Vitula a Calfe You have failed in your first Objection That a Proper Sacrifice cannot be collected out of any of these words of Christs Institution Is GIVEN Is BROKEN Is SHED SECT II. THe Text is Luc. 22. 20. Which Is broken Is given Is shed in the Present Tense and This Is the Cup of the new Testament in my Blood wherein according to the Greeke there is a varying of the Case whereupon your Disputers as if they had cryed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are commonly more Instant in this Objection than in any other some of them spending eight full leaves in pressing this Text by two Arguments one in respect of the Case and another in regard of the Time Of the Grammer point concerning the Case This is the new Testament in my Blood â— Now what of this a Bellarm. de Missa lib. 3. cap. 12. In Graeco Textu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicit Calix qui funditur non hic est sanguis qui funditur itaque indicant sanguinem fundi ut erat in Calice It is not said saith your Cardinall This is the Blood shed for you but This is the Cup shed for you Therefore is hereby meant The Blood which was in the Chalice because wine could not be said to bee shed for us for remission of sinnes But how gather you this Because in the b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greeke saith M. c M. Breerly Liturg. tract â— c. 3. subd 2. Brerely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Cup shed for you varieth the Case from the word Sanguine and the Genus from the word Testamentum and agreeth evidently with Calix so that the Cup being said to be shed proveth the Blood spoken of to bee shed verily in the Cup which drives Beza unto a strange Answer saying that this is a Soloe cophanes or Incongruity of speech So he which Objection he learned peradventure of the d Rhemists Annot. upon Luc. 22. 20. Rhemists who are vehement in pressing the same their Conclusion is This proveth the Sacrifice of Christ's blood in the Chalice as also your Iesuite 2 Gordonus Scotus Ies l. 1. Controvers 3. c. 12. nu 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est nominativi casus necessariò referenduÌ„ ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non dativi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut pertineatad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gordon hath done In which one Collection they labour upon many ignorances 1. As if a Soloecophanes were a prophanation of Scripture by Incongruity of speech which as one e Rodolph Goclenius Professor Marpurg Problem Gram. lib â— Demosthenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cic. 2. de Orat. Bene dicere antem quod est perite loqui non habet definitam aliquam regidnem cujus terminis septa teneatur Voâ— Septa non congruit cum â—â— Bene dicete sed referenda est ad voccm Eloquentiae Ne observeth the like in Plato Virgil Homer pag. 232 233 261 262. Protestant hath proved is used as an Elegancie of speech by the two Princes of Orators Demosthenes for the Greeke and Tully for the Latine and by the two Parents of Poets among the Greeks Homer and by Virgil among the Latines 2. As though these our Adversaries were fit men to upbraid Beza with one Soloecophanes which is but a Seeming Incongruity like a Seeming Limping who themselves confesse f Sixtus Senensis Biblioth lib. 8. pag. ult Nos ingenuè fatemur nonnullas mendas in hac nostra editlona inveniri etiam Soloecismos Barbarismos hyperbata c. Ingenuously that in their Vulgar Latine Translation which is decreed by the Councell of Trent to be Authenticall there are meere Solecismes and Barbarismes and other faults which wee may call in point of Grammar downe right halting 3. As if a Truth might not be delivered in a Barbarous speech or that this could be denied by them who defend Solecismes and Barbarismes which had crept into the Translation of Scriptures saying that g Rhemists Preface before the New Testament Ancient Fathers and Doctors have had such a religious care of former Translations that they would not change their Barbarisines of the Vulgar Latine Text as unbent unbentur and the like 4. As if there were not the like Soloecophanes of Relatives not agreeing with their Antecedents in case whereof you have received from h D. Fulke against Greg. Martin D. Fulke divers * Apoc. l. 4 8. 9. 3. 12 c. Examples 5. As if this Soloecophanes now objected were not justifiable which is defended by the Mirrour of Grammarians i Ioseph Sciligeri Nota in novum Testamentum Luc. 22. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mera est Antiptósis pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza rectè exponit ait duplicem esse Metonymiam Ioseph Scaliger by a figure Antiptôsis and Beza saith hee doth truly expound it Besides it is explained anciently by k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil Reg. Moral 21. Basil a perfect Greek Father referring the Participle Shed unto the word Blood and not unto the Chalice which marteth your Market quite And that this is an undeniable Truth will appeare in our Answer to the next Objection of Time for if by Given Broken and Shed is meant the time future then these words Shed for you for remission of sinnes flatly conclude that hereby is not meant any proper Sacrifice of Christs Blood in the Cup but on the Crosse âšœ Lastly if wee shall answer that the Cup indeed is taken for the Liquor in the Cup which is called Christs Blood per Metonymiain that is Figuratively the signo for the name of the thing Signified whereof you have heard plentifull examples thorowout the second Book you shall never be able to make any Reply One word more Seeing that it is the universall Confession of all your Doctors yea even of the Objectors themselves that * See Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. and in this Sect. in their owne words Christs blood is not perfectly shed in the Eucharist how then can it stand with common modesty to pretenda Proper Sacrifice in the word Shed âšœ Let us proceed therefore to that point that you may know that Beza needed not a Soloecophanes to assoile this doubt Of the Time signified by the Participles Given Broken Shed These words being of the Present time Therefore it plainly followeth that Breaking Giving Christs Body and shedding his Bloud is in the Supper
Ergo hee spake of 〈◊〉 bloody Sacrifice And if these Prefigurations of the Old Law in the Sacrifice of the Lambe do properly point at the Bloody Sacrifice of Christ then were they not properly Types of any Sacrifice in the Masse And lest you might thinke that Leo was singular In this Opinion your Iesuit will have you know that Chrysostome hath also the same words Now whether you are bound rather to believe an Ancient Romane Pope or a late Romane Cardinall judge you In the last place wee are to remove an Objection An Objection taken from the Comparison between the figure of the Old Testament and the thing figured in the New earnestly insisted upon and as easily refuted SECT XIII THe Briefe of your Reason is this 19 Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 3. De figuris veteris Testamenti Sumitur hoc Argumentum Figurae necessario inferiores esse debent rebus figuraris Sed veteris Testamenti Sacramenta panis Melchisedech panis Propositionū Agnus Paschalis Manna erant figurae Eucharistiae simplici pani aequales vel praestantiotes Ergo Eucharistianon est simplex panis significans corpus Christi sed et ipsum corpus Christi Majorem et Minorē probam ex Patribus Figures are necessarily inferiour unto the Things prefigured But In the Old Testament the Bread of Melchisedech the Shew-bread the Bread of Manna and the Paschall Lambe were figures of the Eucharist in the New Testament Therefore the matter in the Eucharist is not simply Bread but the Body of Christ. Thus your Cardinall Your D r. Heskins also playeth his descant upon this Base and runneth voluntary in a large discourse from the 20 Dr. Heskins in his parlam lib. 3. chap. 14. Brazen Serpent on a Pole the figure of Christ Crucified From Ionas in the Belly of the Whale a figure of Christ's Resurrection and from the Paschall Lambe a figure of Christ offered in the Eucharist Now the Thing being better than the Signe therefore Christ herein offered is better than the Lambe But if as the Sacramentaries say the Eucharist be but a Signe then was the Paschall Lambe but the figure of a Piece of Bread wherewith there is no Similitude But that the things prefigured are more excellent than their Signes is proved out of the Epistle to the Hebrewes in preferring the New Testament before the Old Whereby I may Conclude saith hee that the Paschall Lambe being a Signe of this Sacrament this is not Bread but the Body of Christ So hee The Answer is easie by a Distinction of Things prefigured Some are Figures Principall which are called Arche-types and some lesse principall called onely Antitypes We shall make the matter plaine by Authenticall Examples 1. Cor. 10. 2. Wee are Baptized into Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea Hence all Expositors aswell as your 21 Aquinas upon the same place Aquinas teach that The Sea thorow which the Iraelites passed under Moses was a Signe of Baptisme by which Baptisme wee are buryed into Christs death Rom. 6. This Exposition standeth firme without any Contradiction Whereby you may perceive that the Archetypon or thing Principally prefigured by that Sea is Christ's buriall and Water in Baptisme is but as the Antitype or thing lesse principally prefigured thereby If then you shall compare the Type or Figure with the Thing prefigured as Archetype or Principall thing figured or prefigured wee are bound by Christian verity to believe your Proposition to be most true to wit Christ's buriall is infinitely more excellent than either the Type in the Old Testament which was the Sea they passed thorow or yet than Water in Baptisme in the New Testament as the Antitype thereof But if you compare the Type of the Old Testament with the Antitype or figure of the New then can nothing be more false than is this your generall Proposition affirming that Figures and Signes are inferiour to the thing prefigured as you may see in the Apostles Example The Sea under Moses a figure of Baptisme under Christ 22 Athanasius Interpret Parabol de Baptismo post quaest 103. Tom. 2. Baptisma secundum erat Mare rubrum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For as the Sea was there saith Athanasius so is Water here Yet was not the Element of Water in the Sea of lesse worth in Substance than is the Element of Water in the Font of Baptisme both having equally in them the Substantiall Properties of Water Our next Example in the same Chapter is this They to wit the Jewes ate of the same spirituall meate and dranke of the same spirituall drinke namely Christ's Body and Blood the one whereof was prefigured by Manna the other by the Water out of the Rocke in the Old Testament Even as the same Body of Christ is configured by Bread and his Blood by Wine in the Eucharist which is the Sacrament of the New Testament as hath beene proved from Fathers and Others in a full * See above B. 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. Section And for this cause Gregorie Nazianzen 23 Greg. Nazian Orat. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I dare say saith hee that the Legall Passeover was a Figure of a figure but somewhat more obscure So hee Which scarce any of your Doctors dare say lest that the Eucharisticall Oblation should be judged a Figure of Christ's Sacrifice and not the Proper Sacrificing of Christ Now then Compare Manna and Bread with Christ's Body and the Water of the Rocke and Water of Baptisme with his Blood and your Consequence is most Divine viz. The Thing prefigured excelleth beyond all Comparison the Signes thereof But yet againe Compare the Signes and Antitypes viz. Manna with Bread and the Water of the Rocke with Wine in the Cup and in their Natures and Substances the one doth not exceed the other You will then aske If the Sacraments of both Testaments were in this maner joynt Antitypes that is Correspondent Signes of the same Body and Blood of Christ wherein then consisteth the Excellencie of the Sacraments of the New if it be not in respect of their naturall and substantiall properties Wee were about to tell you namely that Although these former Sacraments of both Testaments be but Corporall food and drinke yet have the Sacraments of the Gospell a threefold Privilege above the other The First is in respect of the Efficacie of the Signification Signes of the Old being Propheticall and darkly promising Christ's Body and Blood to come But Signes of the New are Historicall poynting out unto life Christ already come and crucified in his Body and his Blood shed The Second in respect of the Efficacie of Application and Exhibition of both these arising from the former Ground For Saint Paul said more effectually Christ who dyed for mee and gave himselfe for mee than any Israelite under the Law could say Christ who shall dye for mee and shall give himselfe for mee The Third is the Excellencie of Duration for those Signes as
as a perfect Sacrifice of Christ But how to wit saith hee as slaine His Reason for a Body having life saith hee cannot be fit to be eaten So hee Than which nothing can make more against your Eating of Christs Body as Corporally Present or yet against a Proper Sacrifice therein âšœ What thinke you of such Sayings Can Christ be said properly to be Dead in this Sacrament b Quis unquà m Catholicê° dixit Christum rursùs mori Ribera Ies Com. in Heb. 10. num 25. Never any Catholike said so saith your Iesuite Ribera What then could be the meaning of such words If you should be ignorant your Cardinall Alan would teach you he would have you c Observandum est Christum licet modo impassibili existat in Sacramento tamen dici à Patribus mortalem imomortuum passum in Sacramento eatenus quidem quatenùs ox modo Consecrationis ipsaque vi significationis Sacramentalis mors passio Domini commemorantus atque repraesentantur Alan Card. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 38. sub finem Observe what hee saith Christ is said by the Fathers to suffer saith hee and to dye in this Sacrament onely so farre as his Death and Passion is commemorated and represented herein And so speaketh also your Romane d Glossa de Consecrat Dist â— Quid fit Hoc est ejus Mors repraesentatur Glosse What now hindreth but that whensoever wee heare the same Fathers affirming that the same Body and Blood of Christ are Sacrificed in the Eucharist wee understand them in the same impropriety of Speech that they meant onely Representatively especially when as wee see your other Grand Cardinall coming somewhat home towards us and to confesse as followeth e Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 29. §. Respondeo si c. Si Catholici dicerent in Sacrificio Missae vere Christum mori argumentum Calvini haberet aliquid virum sed cum dicunt omnes eum non mori nisi in Sacramento signo repraesentante mortem ejus quam uliquando obijâ— tantùm abest ut Missa oblâ—â—eret Christi mortem ut potiùs efficiat ut nunquam obliteretur If Catholikes should say that Christ doth truly dye in this Sacrament this Argument might be of some force but they say hee dyeth not but in Sacrament and Signe representing So hee which yet alas is too little a crevase for so great a Doctor to creepe out at First because there is aswell a Figurative as there is a Literall Truth for If I should say of Easter day said * See above Chap. 5. Sect. 5. Augustine it is the day of Christ's Resurrection I should not lye and yet it is but the Anniversarie day betokening the other When Christ said of one part of this Sacrament This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood hee spake by a double Figure said your Iesuite * Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. Salmeron yet truly Secondly Christ who is Truth it selfe in saying of Bread This is my Body or Flesh spake a Truth as you all professe and was it not likewise a Truth when hee called his Flesh Bread yea and also * Ioh. 6. The true Bread Thirdly the Fathers as they said that Christ is Dead and suffereth as you now object in this Sacrament in a Mysterie so have they also said of his Body in respect of the Eucharist It is Sacrificed in an * Ambrose Aug. above Chap. 5. Sect. 5. Image in a Sacrament or Mysterie according to that their generall Qualification saying It is the same Sacrifice which Christ offered or * Above Chap. 5. Sect. 6. rather a Remembrance thereof And Lastly the Fathers who named Baptisme a Sacrifice aswell as the Eucharist doubted not to stretch Baptisme up to as high a note as they have done the Eucharist saying f Chrysost in Epist ad Heb. Hom. 16. Baptismus est passio Christi Baptisme is the Passion of Christ and g Ambros de Poenitent lib. 2. cap. 1. In Baptismo crucifigimus in nobis filium Dei In Baptisme wee crucifie Christ To signifie that the Body of Christ is the Represented Object and not the Representative Subject of this Sacrament An Elucidation of the Premises by a Similitude of a Stage-play manifesting how the same Vnproper Sacrifice might furthermore have beene called both Bloody and Vnbloody by Ancient Fathers SECT XII A Similitude for explanation-sake would be had give us leave to borrow one from the Stage-Play for manifesting a Truth aswell as * Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. and Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 7. you have done another from thence for palliating a Falshood You may recognize with us that Tragicall end of the Emperour Mauritius by the command of one Phocaâ— once his Slave that Grand Patrone of the Popedome by Privileging the Church of Rome to be the Head of all Churches as divers of your owne Historians do relate But to the Point By the commandement of this Phocas as you * See Baron Anno 602. c. know were slaine two of Mauritius his Sons three Daughters and his Wife and all these before his owne eyes and at last the Emperour Mauritius himselfe was also murthered Were now this dolefull Spectacle acted on a Stage might not any Spectator say at the horrid sight thereof This is a Bloody Tragedie namely in respect of the Object represented herein And might hee not also say as truly This is an Vnbloody Tragedie to wit in respect of the Representative Subject Action and Commemoration it selfe seeing that there is not here shed any one drop of mans Blood And from the same Evidence it will be easie to perceive that the Greeke Fathers used to terme the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latines Tremendum that is a Terrible and Dreadfull Sacrifice namely for the Semblance-sake and Analogie it hath with Christ's Death even as one would call the Act representing the cruell Butchering of the Emperour Mauritius an Horrible and Lamentable Spectacle This is a cleare Glasse wherein any may discerne the open visage of Truth from the feigned Vizard of Errour The ninth Demonstration Because Ancient Fathers likewise called the Sacrament of Baptisme a Sacrifice for the Representation-sake which it hath of Christ's Death which is Argumentum à paribus SECT XIII WEe shall not urge the Antecedent of this Argument taken from Baptisme before that wee have made knowne the force of the Consequence thereof First one of your Cardinals thus a Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 15. Si Patres existimarunt Eucharistiam solùm esse Sacramentum non etiam Sacrificium nulla esset causa cur aliter loquerentur de Eucharistia quà m de Baptismo Nusquam autem Patres Baptismum vocant Sacrificium nec dicunt Baptizare esse Sacrificare vel immolare Quo modo igitur possibile est Patres in modo loquendi nobiscum in sententia cum Adversarijs convenisse §. Hic igitur
words THIS IS MY BODY by their Corporall Vnion with Christs Body p. 308 c. Chap. I. Protestants professe an Vnion Spiritually-reall pag. 309 c. Chap. II. That onely the Godly and Faithfull Communicants are Partakers of the Vnion with Christ by this Sacrament pag. 311 c. âšœ That onely the Godly are united to Christ by this Sacrament in the Iudgement of Antiquity pag. 320 321 c. And Saint Augustines accurate Iudgement herein pag. 323. With a Vindication of Saint Augustines Testimony against the notable corruption thereof by Doctor Heskins pag. 325 to 328. âšœ Chap. III. Of the Capernaiticall Heresie of the Corporall Eating of Christs flesh pag. 328. âšœ Tertullians Saying that Christs flesh is not truly Eaten pag. 331. And Saint Augustines Testimony about the mention of Christs Ascention into Heaven in Answering the Capernaites pag. 331 c.. âšœ Chap. IV. That the Romish maner of Eating of Christ's Body is sufficiently Capernaiticall in Five kinds pag. 333. First by Bodily Touch. âšœ That the Fathers are not Conscionably Objected as touching that poinâ— Ibid. c. âšœ Chap. V. II. Romish Capernaiticall maner of Eating is Orall Eating by Tearing in the dayes of Pope Nicolas the Second pag. 335. âšœ The contrary Iudgement of Pope Innocent the Third pag. 336. And Saint Augustine his Sentence Wee Eate in significante Mysterio pag. 344. And that the same Vnconscionablenesse of Objecting is proved by some Romish Doctors themselves very largely pag. 346 347 c. âšœ Chap. VI. Of the Third Romish Corporall Vnion of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants by Swallowing it downe pag. 347 c. âšœ A further Evidence of Origen his exact Iudgement pag. 350. And the miserable straights of Romish Doctors in Answering the Sentence of Augustine concerning the Eating of Christs flesh pag. 352 c. âšœ Chap. VII Of the Fourth maner of Romish Corporall Vnion with Christs Body by a Bodily Mixture pag. 354 c. Chap. VIII The Romish Objections of the Sentences of the Fathers for a Corporall Vnion by Mixture of Christs Body with mens Bodies proved to be Vnconscionable pag. 356 357. âšœ The Sentences of Hilarie and Cyril of Alexandria so much pressed at large pag. 358. And also a Confutation of the Romish Objections out of their owne Confessions pag. 362. And further that the Objected Testimonies of these Fathers make against the Romish Corporall Vnion pag. 365. Shewing that onely the Godly are Vnited to Christ Ibid. âšœ Chap. IX âšœ The Second kind of Romish Objections which is from Similitudes used by the Fathers from Feast Guest Viands and Pledge but most unconscionably Objected by the Romanists pag. 366. yea that the same Testimonies plainely Confute the Romish Presence together with the Reconciling of the seeming Repugnances of the Sentences of the Fathers in Opposition to the Romish and in an accordance with our Protestant Profession pag. 369 c. Adding likewise the Divine Contemplation of the Fathers in their phrasing of a Corporall Vnion of Christs body with the Bodies of the Faithfull Communicants p. 372 c. âšœ Chap. X. Of Romish Historicall Objections insisted upon out of Iustine Martyr from the slander then raised against Christians for Eating of mans flesh pag. 374. âšœ That this Objection is slanderous Ibid. And against the Historicall Truth pag. 375. As wilde is their second proofe because say they Iustine wrote to an Heathen Emperour pag. 376. Confuted out of Iustine himselfe and the Cardinall's Dilemma by a more just Dilemma and pertinent pag. 378 379 c. As also by an Impossibility that the Heathen could be offended at the words of Iustine pag. 380. Proved out of Iustine and Attalas Ibid. An Answer to Averroes his imputing to Christians the Devouring of Christs flesh pag. 381 c. âšœ Chap. XI âšœ The Fift and last most base Romish Vnion of Christs Body in passing it downe by Egestion into the Draught pag. 382. Which to Antiquity would have beene held most abominable pag. 384. That the Institution of the Sacrament was ordained to be food only for the Soule by the Doctrine of Antiquity p. 385 c. âšœ BOOK VI. OF the Fourth Romish Consequence from their depraved sense of Christs words THIS IS MY BODY by esteeming Christs Body present to be a Properly and Truly Propitiatory Sacrifice pag. 389 c. Chap. I. That there is no Proper Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Eucharist from any word of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament pag. 390. But absolutely Confuted thereby pag. 393 394. II. Not proved by any Sacrificing Act of Christ at his first Instituting this Sacrament pag. 398. âšœ The Testimony of the Iesuite Vasquez pag. 399. Chap. II. Proper Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Eucharist not proved by any other Scripture of the New Testament pag. 400. âšœ The Saying of the Councel of Trent pag. 402 c. âšœ Chap. III. The Proper Sacrifice of Christs Body not proved by any Scripture out of the Old Testament pag. 403 c. âšœ A Vindication of the Allegations of some Testimonies of Fathers against a Calumnious Romanist pag. 405. A Second Vindication of some other Testimonies Objected p. 406. As also an Argument against the Sacrifice according to the Order of Melchisedeeh pag. 408 c. And a Testimony of Athanasius against the Translation of the Priesthood of Christ to any other with whom agreeth Theodoret and Chrysostome pag. 411. To whom is joyned the Confession of the Iesuite Estius against Bellarmine pag. 414. Besides a speciall Challenge against Bellarmine in the point of Christs eternall Priesthood out of the Confession of Vasquez at large pag. 420. Adding also a Typicall Scripture Exod. 24. The Blood of the Testament Objected by Bellarmine and Answered by the Iesuite Vasquez pag. 424. And by Pope Leo long since pag. 425. An Objection Ro. from the Comparison of the Figures of the Old Testament with the Sacraments of the New Answered pag. 426. With the Testimony of Athanasius pag 427 c. Chap. IV. Of Propheticall Scriptures Objected for the Romish Sacrifice pag. 429. Malachie 5. Ibid. And Psalme 72. Of an Handfull of Corne. p. 433. âšœ A Vindication of a Truth of an Allegation against a Rash Seducer pag. 434. A Vindication against another Romish Detractor shewing that Cardinall Bellarmine hath not Objected Propheticall Scriptures judiciously pag. 435. And against the Objected Iuge Sacrificium pag. 436 c. âšœ Chap. V. Examination of the point of Sacrifice from the Iudgement of Antiquity by Eleven Demonstrations pag. 437 c. âšœ A Discovery of a Romish Absurd Defence concerning the Bloody Representative Sacrifice of Christ pag. 446 447 c. And an Argument for the dignifying of the Table of the Lord so called although alià s termed an Altar pag. 462 463 c. âšœ Chap. VI. The Third Examination of the Poâ—m of Romish Sacrifice is to Confute it by Romish Principles and proving that there is no Sacrificing Act therein pag. 466.
Which Answere besides the falsity thereof Wee take to be no better than a reproach against Antiquitie and all one as to say that those venerable Witnesses of Truth would professe one thing in the Cellar and proclaime the contrarie on the house-top It were to be wished that when you frame your Answeres to direct other mens Consciences you would first satisfie your owne especially being occupied in soules-businesses Wee conclude Seing that Forme as all learning teacheth giveth Being unto all things therefore your Church albeit shee use Prayer yet erring in her judgement concerning the perfect manner and Forme of Consecration of this Sacrament how shall shee be credited in the materialls wherein shee will bee found aswell as in this to have Transgressed the same Injunction of Christ DO THIS Neverthelesse this our Conclusion is not so to be interpreted as hearken o It was Mr Brereley his error Liturg. p. 101. in alleaging Irenaeus lib. 5. c. 1. Quandò mixtus calix fractus panis percepit verbum Dei fit Eucharistia Here by verbum Dei is not meant the words of Hoc est c. but Prayer and the word of Blessing commanded by the Word of Christ who blessedit and commanded his Church saying Doe this as appeareth by Iren. lib. 4. c. 34. when he saith Panis percipiens vocationem for Invocationem Dei non est communis panis In the next place Ambrose l. 4. c. 4. de Sacr. Consecratio igitur quibus verbis fit Domini Iesu c. Ergò â—ermo Christi conficit hoc Sacramentum nempe is quo facta sunt omnia jussit factum est This is the Allegation whereas if hee had taken but a little paines to have read the Chapter following hee should have received Saint Ambrose his plaine Resolution that they meant the words of Prayer Vis scire quibus verbis coelestibus consecratur Accipe verba Dicit Sacerdos Fac nobis hanc Oblationem acceptam c. Then he proceedeth to the Repetition of the whole institution as the complement of Consecration in the words Take eat This is my body but not only in these words This is my body We see then that the Latine Church had this forme Fac even as the Greeke had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in Prayer but neither of both without reciting the forme of Institution M r. Brerely to exclude out of the words of this Celebration the Repetition and pronuntiation of these words This is my Body and This is my Bloud of the new Testament Farre be this from us because wee hold them to bee essentially belonging to the Narration of the Institution of Christ and are used in the Liturgie of our Church for although they bee not words of Blessing and Consecration because not of Petition but of Repetition yet are they Words of Direction and withall Significations and Testifications of the mysticall effects thereof âšœ A Vindication against the possible adverse Conceipts of Some For a further manifestation hearken you unto that which is written * 1. Tim. 4. 4. Every Creature of God is good if it be sanctified with the word of God and with Prayer Wherein wee finde a double acception of Sanctification the one of Ordination by The word of God the other of Benediction namely by Prayer For example The eating of Swines flesh is sanctified to the use of a Christian first by Ordination because the word of God in the new Testament hath taught us the lawfull use of Swines flesh and secondly by Benediction by Prayer or giving of thanks in which respect it is that the Apostle calleth the one part the Cup of Blessin 1 Cor. 10. 16. Both of these are to be found in our Sacramentall food wherein wee have the Sanctification thereof both by the Word of Christ in the tenour of his first Institution Hee tooke bread c. adding Do this as also by publike blessing in Prayer which is more properly called Consecration And although in our Domestical feasts the second Course is blessed in the grace which was said upon the first service so the second supply of Bread and Wine if it shall inordinately so happen may not altogether be denied to be consecrated by the blessing pronounced upon the first even as the Sanctifying of the Sheafe of Corn was the hallowing of the whole field Notwithstanding our Church hath cautelously ordained that the words of Institution He tooke bread c. be applyed to every oblation of new Bread and Wine for accommodation-sake as they are referred in our Liturgie wherein they are necessarily joyned together with the words of Prayer and Benediction Therefore where you shall finde in the Fathers the words of Christ's Institution called Consecration 5 âšœ Chrys Tom. 3 Hom. 30. dè Proditione Iudâ— Ioc est Corpus meâ—â— â—ubus verbis res productae Consecrantur and Anthros lib â— de Sacram. c. 4. Verba Christi faciunt hoc Sacramentum Ibid. c. 5. Vis scire quibus verbis Secramentum consecratur Sacerdos dicit Fac Deus hanc nobis oblationem Then he repeateth the words of Institution as it is in Chrysostome and Ambrose it must be understood as joyned with Prayer as the Benediction it selfe which hath beene * See more in the Margent above in the beginning of this Section âšœ already copiously confessed as well as it is furthermore acknowledged by your Iesuit that 6 Cressollius les lib 1. Mystag cap. 19. Diaconi vocati sunt Consecrantes in gestis S. Laurentii in hunc modum Cui commisisti Domanici sanguinis consecrationem Illa etiam vox Consecratio reperiebatur apud S. Ambros lib. 1. offic c. 41. Qui locus non esse mendosus existimandus est quia Ambrosius summa side narrationem suam texuerat ex actis S. Laurentij neque hîc Consecratio propriè et definitè sumitur quasi Diaconus hostiam consecraret sed ex communi Ecclesiae usu totam sacram actionem significat Sometime the whole sacred Action was called Consecration insomuch that the Deacon who doth not meddle with the words of Consecration is notwithstanding called a Consecrator in Saint Ambrose So he âšœ The second Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse is in their Contradicting the sense of the next words of Institution HE BRAKE IT SECT VI. HE brake it So all the Evangelists doe relate Which Act of Christ plainely noteth that hee Brake the Bread for distributing of the same unto his Disciples And his Command is manifest in saying as well in behalfe of this as of the rest Doe this Your Priest indeed Breaketh one Hoast into three parts upon the Consecration thereof but our Question is of Fraction or Breaking for Distribution to the people The contrary Canon of the now Romane Masse p Ecce in coena Christus fregit panem tamen Ecclesia Catholica modò non frangit sed integrum dat Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 34. §. Nam p. 275. BE HOLD say You
the Word is to the Spirit working by a more excellent power for Eternity than can our Carnall Nutriments for our Temporall life and Being So hee Nothing now remaineth but the last exercise of Faith which is by Application in Speciall taught by our Saviour in saying to his Disciples Take ye Eat this is my Body given for you and This is my Blood of the New Testament shed for you Hereby although it be spoken as hath beene proved Sacramentally and Figuratively to instruct every of his Disciples in taking thereof to apply those words Body given for you c. as verily spoken to himselfe as if hee had sayd Take thou Iohn and Take thou Peter My Body given for thee Iohn and for thee Peter c. in a Sacramentall Analogie So then as my Bodily hand taketh the Sacramentall Bread the Signe of Christs Body and my Bodily mouth eateth and my Bodily stomacke digesteth and turneth it as nourishment into my flesh so my Soule saith that I believe that the Body of my Saviour was Crucifyed and his Blood shed for mee whole man Body and Soule And that thereby I have an Interest in the power of his Passion both for Redemption and for Everlasting Salvation whereof I have a Sacramentall Pledge by the converting of Bread into the Substance of mine owne Flesh According to the Consonant Doctrine of Antiquity set downe in the last Chapter of this Fift Booke âšœ CHAP. X. Of the Romish Historicall Objections Chiefely insisted upon out of Iustine concerning the Slander raysed against Christians of Eating mans flesh sprung as is pretended from the Catholike Doctrine of Eating Christs Body in the Eucharist which is their First Argument SECT I. MAny leaves are spent by M. a Mr. Brerely in his Liturgie Tra. 2. §. 2. Subd 4. p. 121. Where in his Margin hee citeth Vadian whom hee nameth a Zuinglian And if so how farâ—e hee was from confessing a Corporall Presence the Romish Authors who condemne him for the contrary opinion doe prove See above Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Brerely in pressing this Objection the strength of his Inforcement standeth thus Iustine Martyr in the yeare 130. writing an Apologie to the Heathen Emperour when he was in discourse of the Eucharist The reported Doctrine whereof concerning the Reall Presence was the true and confessed Cause of this Slander and when hee should have removed the suspicion thereof did notwithstanding call the Eucharist No common Bread but after Consecration the food wherewith our Flesh and Blood is fed c. Then hee proceedeth in urging his other Argument as followeth borrowed from the b Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4. Cardinall to wit Iustine his comparing the Change in the Eucharist to be a worke of Omnipotencie and for his not expounding the words of Christ Figuratively Then is brought in * In the Margin of Master Berely Ibid. Attalas the Martyr whilest he was under the Tortures and Torments of his Persecutors saying Behold your Doing Hoc est homines devorare This is a Devouring of men wee Christians do not Devoure men To whom is joyned Tertullian making mention of the same Clamour of Sacrifising a Childe and Eating his flesh Ad nostrae Doctrinae notam To the infamie of our Profession At length Master Brerely concludeth as followeth So evidently doth this Slander thus given forth by the Iewes argue sufficiently the Doctrine of Reall presence and Sacrifice and for as much as the Slander went so generally of all Christians it is probable that it did not arise from any sort of one or other Christian in particular So hee âšœ And so long before him Doctor Heskins 1 Heâ—kins in his Parliament B. 2. Cap. 42. fol. 156. This fame among the Infidels being grounded upon the same faith of Christians proveth the Presence Meaning the Corporall Presence and Existence of Christs Body in the Eucharist That the Romish Objection is in it selfe most Slanderous against the Historicall Truth taught by the Ancient Fathers and Confessed by the Romish Doctors themselves SECT II. VVHat That the Catholike Doctrine of Ancient times concerning our Eating of Christ's Body in this Sacrament should have beene the Cause yea or yet the Occasion to the Heathen and Iewes of imputing to the Christians a Capernaiticall Eating of Man's flesh This is the first Argument which your Objectors from Historicall Relations use for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist out of this Ancient Father Iustine Martyr In Confutation whereof wee produce see the Margin the Testimonies of these Ancient Fathers 2 Aug. Haeres 26. Cataphryges Sacramenta perhibentur funesâ—a habere Nam de infanti anniculi sanguine quem de toto ejus corpore minutis punctionum vulneribus extorquent quasi Eucharistiam suam conficere perhibentur miscentes eum fariâ—ae panemquê inde facientes qui pâ—er si mortuus fuerit habent illum pro Martyre sin vivus pro Magno Saceâ—dote Augustine 3 Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 24. Gentes videntes quae sunt illorum Haereticorum omnes nos blasphemant avertunt aures a praeconio veritatis Irenaeus 4 Terâ—ull ad uxorem Non sciet Maritus quid secreto ante cibum gustes Agapae verò non nisi Vespere Tertul. Apolog. 16. Alij Asini caput per ludibrium Christiani appellabantur Asinarij c. Tertullian 5 Epiphan Haeres 26. Foelum jam natum detractum pistillo â—undunt omnes contusi pueri participes facti esu peracto c. Epiphanius and 6 Origen testatur opera Iudaeorum has calumâ—ias adversus Christianâ—s diâ—â—igatus lib. 1. contra Celsum 〈…〉 Origen together with the Confessions of your owne Romish Authors 7 Maâ—donat lib. 7. de Sacramentis Tom. de Eucharislia §. Sexta Questio Montanistae Peputiani ut Author est August lib. de Haeres c. 27. Epiph. in Haeres 49. Infantem conspersum farinâ solebant compungere sanguinem ab illa expressum miscere farinâ ex eo panem conficere ad Eucharistiam Vnde credo natam fuisse illam notam quam Gentiles inurebant Christianis quod infantes occiderent Maldonat 8 Baronius Anno 120. num 22. usque ad numerum 36. Quae Gnostici agebant in occulto palam facta coÌ„vertebant in Christianos nam Epiphanius Haeres 26. Foetum jam natum detractum pistillo tundunt omnes contusi pueri participes facti esu peracto c. Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 24. Gentes videntes quae sunt illorum Haereticorum omnes nos blasphemant averâ—unt aures a praeconio veritatis Origenes testatur opera Iudaeorum has calumnias adversus Christianos divulgatas lib. 1. con Celsum Caecilius Ethnicus apud Minutium Felicem obijcit in Octavium Baronius locis supra notatis Sic jam de initiandis tyronibus fabula tam detestanda quam nota est c. Lorinus Ies in Sap. cap. 12. v. 5. Striges Magi nostri puerorum sanguinem
ejus ex hoc mundo ad Patrem Tolet. Ies Com. in cum locum Tolet your Cardinall Jesuit When he came to the celebrating of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood that is at his last Supper But what was meant hereby namely Christ alluded unto the Iewish Passeover saith hee in signification of his owne passing over by death to his Father So he So also your Jesuit d August in Psalm 68. Cum Venit Dominus ad Sacranientum Sangoinis Corporis sui 〈…〉 venit ut 〈◊〉 ad Patrem dâ—mundo Qâ—bus veâ—bis expressâ—◠〈◊〉 Paschae Testepâ—rerio Ies in Exod. cap. 12 Disp 8. Pererius out of Augustine Secondarily to the Scripture objected 1. Cor. 5. Our Passeover is offered up Christ that is As the figurative paschall Lambe was offered up for the deliverance of the people of Israel out of Egypt so Christ was offered up to death for the Redemption of his people and so passed by his passion to his Father So your e 1. Cor. 6. Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus orgò epulemur Azymis 〈◊〉 veritatis Aquinas assignat 〈◊〉 quare fideles 〈◊〉 esse Azymi quae quidem Ratio sumituâ— ex mysterio Passionisâ— Sicut Agnus figuralis iâ—molaâ—us est 〈…〉 Israel ut populus liberaretur ità Christus occisus ab Israëlitis ut populus liberareâ—â—r à servitute Diaboli Christus enim per passionem transâ—it ex mundo ad patrem Ioh. 13. Haec Aquin. Com. in 1. Cor. 5. And Tollet in his Testimonie before cited So Becanus Ies Aquinus Our Passeover Namely By his Sacrifice in shedding his Blood on the Crosse So your Jesuit f Pascha nostrum 1. Cor. 5. Nempè per immolationem in cruce effusionem sanguinis illius liberatum est genus humanum Analog utriusque Testam cap. 13. pag. 313. Becanus And By this his Passeover on the Crosse was the Passeover of the Iewes fulfilled So your Bishop g Impleta erat figura Paschalis quando veruÌ„ nostruÌ„ Pascha est immolatus Christus Iesus hos per ejus sanguinem liberatâ—â—eramus Iâ—â—sen Concord Evang. cap. 13â— pag. 895. Iansenius as flat diameter to your Cardinalâ—s Objection as can be A third Scripture wee find Joh. 19. They broke not his legs that the Scripture might bee fulfilled which is written A bone of him shall not be broken which your h Ioh. 19. Crura non confregerant ut impleretur quod scriptum est Os non comminuetis ex eo Bellar. quo supra yet gaine saith with his Tamen c. §. Illud Cardinall himselfe confesseth to relate onely to Christ's Sacrifice on the Crosse and notwithstanding dare immediatly oppose saying Neverthelesse the Ceremony of the Paschall Lambe did more immediatly and properly prefigure the Eucharist than Christ's passion wherein whether he will or no he must be an Adversary to himselfe For there is no Ceremony more principall in any Sacrifice than are these two viz. The matter of Sacrifice and the Sacrificing Act thereof Now the matter of the Sacrifice was a Lambe the Sacrificing Act was the killing thereof and offering it up killed unto God Whether therefore the Paschall Lambe did more principally prefigure the visible Body of Christ on the Crosse or your imagined Invisible in your Masse whether the slaine Paschall Lambe bleeding to death did more properly and immediatly prefigure and represent a living and perfect Body of Christ than that his Body wounded to death and blood-shed Common sense may stand for Judge The Ancient Fathers when they speake of the Sacrifice of Christ's passion in a precise proprietie of speech do declare themselves accordingly If in generall then as i Origen Sacrificium pro quo haec omnia Sacrificia in typo figura praecesserunt unum perfectum immolatus est Christus Hujus Sacrificij carnem quisquis tetigerit sanctificabitur In Levit. cap. 6. Hom. 4. Origen All those other Sacrifices saith hee were perfigurations of this our perfect Sacrifice If more particularly then as k Chrysostomus de 〈◊〉 Latrone 1. Cor. 5. Pascha â—ostrum immolatus est Christus sestivitas ergò c. Vide crucis intuitu porceptam laetitiam in cruce enim immolatus est Christus Vbi immolatiòtiò 〈◊〉 peccatorum ubi ampucatio peccatorum reconciliatio Domini novum Sacrificium nam ipse Sacrificium erat Sacerdos Sacrificium secundùm carnem Sacerdos secundùm Spiritum offerebat secundùm Spiritum offerebâ—tur secundùm carnem Altare Crux fuit Chrysost Tom. 3. pag. 826. Chrysostome from the objected Text of the Apostle 1. Cor. 5. Our Passeover is offered up Christ Let us therefore keepe our Feast c. Dost thou see saith hee in beholding the Crosse the joy which wee have from it for Christ is offered upon the Crosse and where there is an Immolation there is Reconciliation with God this was a new Sacrifice for in this the flesh of Christ was the thing sacrificed his Spirit the Priest and Sacrificer and the Crosse his Altar Insomuch that else-where hee teacheth every Christian how as a spirituall Priest hee may l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem Tom. 5. Ser. 88. Ediâ— Savil. pag. 602. Alwaies keepe the Passeover of Christ âšœ And yet againe the same Father as if hee had thought this point deserved to be got by heart of every Christian âšœ* Idem in Ioh. â— Homil. 13. Vt de passione incipiamus quid dicit figura Sacrificate Agnum Christus autem nihil hujusmodi praecipit sed ipse sactus est Sacrificium oblationem offereos seipsum âšœ That wee may speake of Christs Passion saith hee what saith the Figure Take unto you a Lambe but Christ commandeth no such thing for hee himselfe namely at his Passion offered up himselfe to the Father So hee âšœ What greater plainenesse can be desired and yet behold if it be possible a greater from m Socrat. Hist lib. 5. cap. 22. Origenes Doctor valdè sapiens cum animadverteret Legis Mosaicae praecepta ad literam non posse intelligi praeceptum de paschate ad divinam contemplationeÌ„ traducit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen calling the Sacrifice on the Crosse the Onely true Passeover Which saying his Reporter Socrates imbraceth as a Divine Contemplation âšœ That the third objected Typicall Scripture out of Exod. 24. The Blood of the Testament is not justly objected for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse SECT XI THis Text Exod. 24. speaking of the Sacrifice of the Old Testament This is the Blood of the Testament being so consonant to the words of Christ delivered in his Institution of the Eucharist This is the Blood of the New Testament in the Gospell seemeth to your Cardinall to be an Argument of great force and therefore doth hee dart it against us with all his strength of Arguing saying 15 Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 8. Terrium nostrum Argumentum sumitur ex Exod. 24. et Heb. Hic est
sanguis Testamenti quod mandavit ad vos Deus De quo Marc. 14. Hic est sanguis Novi Testamenti Sic argumeÌ„tamur Sanguis Testamenti veteris erat sanguis victimae jam immolate et verè sacrificatae Exod. 24. Ergò sanguis novi Testamenti apud Christum est sanguis victimae verè propriè sacrificatae Est autem sanguis ille Christi ut ipse dicit Hic est sanguis meus Ergo ipse fuit victima in coena immolata et sacrificata The Blood of the Old Testament was the Blood of an Hoast truly sacrifised Therefore the Blood of the New Testament mentioned in the Eucharist whereof the other was a figure must needs be the Blood of Christ properly sacrifised therein So hee heaping up Reason upon Reason as it were to make a mountaine and presently after his much working and heaving cometh one of his owne family of the Iesuites Vasquez by name and kicketh all downe with his heeles as it had beene but a Mole-hill saying 16 Vasquez Ies in 3. Tho. Disp 190. num 15. Novum TestamentuÌ„ in sanguine meo apud Evangelistas Paulum in sanguine Christi prout est in hoc sacramento non convenit Nam quaÌ„vis sacramentum Eucharistiae sit sacramentum Novi Testamenti hac ratione dici posset Novi Testamenti tamen longè alio sensu dicitur Novi Testamenti aut Novum Testamentum quòd sit confirmatio consummatio Novi Testamenti hoc est gratiae quam Christus promeruit generi humano de quo Hebr. 9. Testamentum in mortuis confirmatum est hoc est morte Testatoris undè sequitur neque vetus Testamentum sine sanguine dedicatur iude colligit Novum sanguine Christi confirmari Et rursus ubi Testamentum ibi mors intercedat Testatoris necesse est tandem sic concludit Caput Apostolus sic Christus semel oblatus est ad multorum exhaurienda peccata constat igitur sanguinem Testamenti dici eatenus quatenus est effusus in confirmatione illius sicut hac ratione sanguis hircorum vitulorum essusus est Exod. 24. hic est sanguis Testamenti nam sacrificium incruentum in Eucharistia non erat causa universalis Redemptionis illud ergo Effundetur in Remissionem peccatorum significat futuram Effusionem in Passione That it is called The Blood of the New Testament by Christ not as it is in this Sacrament but as it referreth to the Sacrifice of Christes Passion Which hee confirmeth by the most Authenticall kinde of proofe even from the Scripture out of one Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrewes in severall places One from these words A Testament is confirmed in men dead The next Heb. 9. Where a Testament is there doth necessarily intervene the death of the Testator And againe Christ was once sacrifised to take away the death of many He might have added a fourth vers 15. Christ is the mediator of the New Testament that death coming betweene for Redemption c. Each one of these pointing out Christs Bloody Sacrifice on the Crosse teacheth us to deale with you by law of Retortion thus The Old Testament was confirmed by the Death and Blood-shed of the Creature sacrifised And so according to the Apostles Comparison was the New Testament confirmed by the Death and Blood-shed of Christ our Testator Therefore could not the Bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testament be a Figure of an Vn-bloody Sacrifice in the New That your Cardinall Bellarmine hath Contradicted the Doctrine of the Ancient Church of Rome taught by Pope Leo the First SECT XII POpe Leo is hee whom the Church of Rome will be thought to esteeme as equall with the best of Popes and therefore hath honoured him with the singular Title of Magnus Ob insignem sanctitatem doctrinam eloquentiam saith your Iesuit * Possevin Apparat Tit. Leo. Possevin who lived above a thousand yeares since Him doth your 17 Bellar Lib. 1. de Missa Cap. 7. Leo Sermone 7. de Passione Domini Vt umbrae cederent Corpori ceâ—â—arent imagines sub praesentia veritatis antiqua observantia novo tollitur Sacramento hostia in hostiam transit sanguinem sanguis excludit legalis festivitas dum mutatur Impletur 〈◊〉 infra de sacramenti institutione loquens vetus Testamentum consummabat Novum Pascha condebat Cardinall object for proofe of the Sacrifice of the Masse from the Signe of the Paschall Lambe in a Sentence which in it selfe is sufficient to tell us what was the Faith of the Church of Rome in his dayes and to direct you in the point now in Question in manifesting that your Cardinall hath egregiously abused his Testimony for proofe of an Vn-bloody Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Eucharist which Leo spake so evidently and expresly of the Sacrifice of his Passion that your Iesuite Vasquez was enforced to 18 Leo Papa de Passione Domini Serm. 7. In solemnitate Pasch li exercendi furoris sui Iudaei acciperent potestatem Opportebat enim ut manifesto implerentur effectu quae diu fuerant figurato promissa mysterio ut ovem significativam â—vis vera removeret ut uno explereâ—ur Sacrifiâ—ro varsarunt differentia victimarum Nam omnia illa quae de Immolatione agni diviniâ—us per Moysen fuerant praestituta Christum prophetarunt Christi occisionem propriè nunciarunt Vt ergo umbrae cederent corpori cessarent imagines sub praesentia veritatis antiqua observantia novo tollitur sacramento hostia in hostiam transit sanguinem sanguis excludit legalis festivitas dùm mutatur impletur Teste Vasquez Ies in 3. Tho. Disp 223. Quest 83. Cap. 6. Againe Solet ex Leone probari Missae sacrificium unicum esse ex Sermone 7. de Paschate Opportebat c. Verùm ibi loquitur de sacrificio cruento Christi subdit enim omnia illa Christi occisionem pronuneiârant per occisionem planè intelligit cruentum sacrificum Eadem ferè verba habâ—t Chrysostomus in Psalm 95. Lest the word Sacrament in the Sentence of Leo may move any to conceive that it is spoken of the Eucharist or yet of any other Sacrament of the Church of Rome It is to bee observed that nothing is more familiar with Leo than to call every Mysterie and Christian Article Sacramentum As for Example in the beginning of this Sermon hee calleth the Feast of Easter Sacramentum Salutis De Festo Nativitatis Serm. 2. Reparator nobis salutis nostrae annua revolutione Sacramentum Et Serm. 16. De voce Christi Transeat Calix iste quod non sit exaudita magna est Expositio Sacramenti confesse thus much even then when hee sought to defend the Romish Sacrifice of the Eucharist The words of Leo are generall All those things which were performed concerning the Sacrificing of the Lambe by Moyses from Gods command were prophesied of Christ and did properly declare the Slaying of Christ So hee
exaudiantur Which made Bellarmine to blaster after this manner Ad Novellam responderi possit imprimis ad Imperatorem non peâ—â—inere de ritu sacrificandi leges ferre proinde non multum referre quid ipse sanxerit Bellar. l. 2. de Missa c. 12. §. ad Novellam you know that The Priest should pronounce the words with a cleare voice that they may bee heard of the people Whose authoritie you peremptorily contemne as though it did not belong to an Emperor to make Lawes in this kind But forasmuch as the King of Kings and the High Priest of Priefls the Sonne of God hath said of this as of the other such Circumstances Do this who are you that you should dare to contradict this Injunction by the practice of any Priest saying and speaking yet not as Christ did unto Them but only to himselfe without so much as any pretence of Reason e Vtile est ad reverentiam tanti Sacramenti ut Basil rectè docet lib. de Spiritu Sancto c. 27. multum confert ad dignitatem reverentiam mysteriorum ut non assuescant homines eadem saepiùs audire vel potiùs ut non offerrentur ad aures vulgi Et in Liturgijs Graecis Basilij Chrysostomi praescribunt quaedam sub silentio dicenda In Liturgijs Chrysostomi Sacerdos orat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod non significat moderatâ vocae sed planè secretò In Latinis Liturgijs Innocentio teste praecipua pars Missae secreta erat Bellar quo supra We oppose 1. Never were any words held secret so as not to be heard of them that were baptized and were allowed to bee Communicants Basil speaketh of the rites of Baptisme to be kept secret but to whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and how secret by silence of voice in the Congregation no but Non convenit circumferri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And of what of words nay but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither doth Chrysostome's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor Innocentius his Secretò inferre any more than such a Service in respect of them that were not to be partakers of the Communion Secondly wee oppose concerning the poynt in question that the words of Institution were in those times pronounced with an audible voyce both in the Greeke an Latine Churches as hath beene confessed and their owne Writings doe verifie Bafil Liturg Sacerdos benedicens panem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 altâ voce dicens Accipite Hoc est corpus meum Chrysost in 1. Cor. 15. Hom. 40. Vobis qui mysterijs estis initiati 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 volo in memoriam revocate eam dictionem c. secundùm Graecam Edit which might not likewise have moved 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 Lowd voice especially by the Romish Priest in uttering the words of Consecration THe greatest silence which is used by the Romane worshippers is still in the Priests uttering or rather muttering the words of Institution HOC EST CORPVS MEVM and Hic est sanguis meus albeit heere is the greatest and most necessarie Cause of expressing them for the satisfaction of everie understanding Hearer among you For those you call the words of Consecration the just pronuntiation whereof you hold to be most necessary because if the Priest in uttering of them faile but in one syllable so farre as to alter the sense 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 * See Booke 7 c. 5. §. 2. Bread still If therefore the People shall stand perplexed in themselves whether the words which are concealed be duly uttered 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 entreat at large in due * Ibidem place if God permit Your fift Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse is a second â—ontradiction against the Sense 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 voyce Saying unto them was necessarily audible to reach their eares so was it also Intelligible to instruct their understanding and therefore not uttered in a Tongue unknowne Which is evident by that he giveth a Reason for the taking of the Cup Enim For this is the bloud c. which particle For saith your f ENIM Ea particula intelligitur in forma panis Bellar l. 4. de Euch. c. 14 Cardinall is implyed in the first part also Now whosoever reasoneth with another would be understood what he saith The contrarie Canon of the now Romane Masse The Councell of Trent saith your g Concil Trident. Sess 22 c. 8. Statuit non expedire ut divinum Officium vulgari passim linguâ celebretur Azor. les Inst Moral par 1. l. 8. c. 26. §. Verum enim-verò Iesuite decreed that it is not expedient that the Divine service should be celebrated in a knowne tongue Whereupon you doubt not to censure the contrarie Doctrine of Protestants to be h Asserere Missas celebrandas esse linguâ vulgari consilium est Schismaticum Haereticum non acceptandum nè Ecclesia dormitâsse aliquandò atque adeò errâsse videatur Salmeron les Tom. 9. Tract 32. Sect. 5. p. 251. Hereticall and Schismaticall and no wayes to be admitted But why Lest say you the Church may seeme a long time to have beene asleepe and to have erred in her contrarie Custome So you Our Church of England contrarily thus * Article 24. It is a thing repugnant to the Word of God and Custome of the Primitive Church to have publicke 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 publicke service of God I. CHALLENGE Against the Romish Alteration of the Catholicke and Vniversall practice of the Church and the Antiquitie thereof IN the examination of this point Consider in the first place your owne Confessions given by your i Tempore Apostolorum totum populum respondere soliâ—uÌ„ in divinis officijs â—â—t longo tempore post in Occidente Oriente Ecclesia Tempore Chrysostomâ— Cypriani atque Hieronymi eadem Consuetudo invaluit Et Hieronymus scribit in prâ—efat lib. 2. ad Gal. In Ecclesijs urbis Romae quasi coeleste tonited audiri populum
significatio refectionis spiritualis quià unam eandem resectionis gratiam spiritualem significat â—â—bus potus Valent quo supr de legis usu Eucharist pag. 491. Iesuites from whom Master Fisher hath learned his Answer seeke to perswade their Readers that the Soules refection spirituall is sufficiently signified in either kinde whether in Bread or Wine But be it knowne unto you that either all these have forgotten their Catechisme authorized by the Fathers of the Councel of Trent and confirmed by Pope Pius Quintus or else Those their Catechists forgot themselves in teaching that b Optimo jure institutum est ut separatim duae consecrationes fierent primò enim ut Passio Domini in qua sanguis à corpore divisus est â—magis referatur Deinde maximè consentaneum fuit ut quoniam Sacramento ad alendam animam utendum nobis erat tanquam cibus potus institueretur ex quibus perfectum corporis alimentum constare perspicuâ—â— est Caâ—echis Rom. part 2. de Euch. num 29. This Sacrament was instituted so that two severall Consecrations should be used one of Bread and the other of the Cup to the end both that the Passion of Christ might be represented wherein his Blood was separated from his Body and because this Sacrament is ordained to nourish man's soule it was therefore to be done by Eating and Drinking in both which the perfect nourishment of mans naturall life doth consist Aquinas and your Iesuite Valentia with others are as expresse in this point as they were in the former who although they as we also hold that whole Christ is received in either kinde for Christ is not divided yet do they c Hoc Sacramentum ordinatur ad spiritualem refectionem quae conformatur corporali Ad corporalem autem refectionem Duo requiruntur scilicet cibus qui est alimentum siccum potus qui est alimentum humidum Et etiam ad integritatem hujus Sacramenti duo concuâ—â—â—unt scilicet spiritualis cibus spiritualis potus secundùm illud Ioh. 6 Caro mea verè est cibus Ergò hoc Sacramentum multa quidem est materialiter sed unum formaliter perfectivè Aqui. part 3. quaest 73. Art 2. Etsi negandum non est quin ejus refectionis spiritualis vis commoditas clarius utrâ—que re sâ—nul scilicet cibo potu atque adeò utraque specie significetur ideò enim hoc Sacramentum quod attiâ—â—et 〈◊〉 ad relationem individualem perfectus est in utraque simul specie quà m in altera Greg de Valent. les de usu Sacr. Each c. 6. §. Secundum p. 491. Hoc est convenientius usâ— hujus Sacramenti ut seorsim exhibeatuâ— fidelibus corpus Christi in cibum sanguis in potum Aquin. quo sup qu. 76. Art 2. maintaine that This Sacrament as it is conformable both to Eating and Drinking so doth it by Both kindes more perfectly expresse our spirituall nourishment by Christ and therefore it is more convenie it that both be exhibited to the faithfull severally as for Meate and for drinke So they For although in the Spirituall Receiving Eating and Drinking are both one even as the appetite of the Soule in hungring and thirsting is the same as where it is written Matth. 5. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousnesse c. yet in this Sacramentall communicating with bodily instruments it is otherwise as you know d Sub specie panis sanguis sumatur cum corpore sub specie vini sumatur corpus cum sanguine nec sâ—nguis sub specio panis bibitur nec corpus sub specie vâ—â— edituâ— quià sicut nec corpus â—bitur ità nec sanguis comeditur Duraad Ratitional lib. 4. cap. 42. pag. 326. The blood of Christ is not drunke in the forme of Bread nor is his Body eaten as meate in the forme of Wine because the Body cannot be said to be drunke nor the blood to be eaten So your Durand and so afterwards your * See hereafter Sect 10. âšœ Who also observeth that concerning spirituall Repast 8 â—â—aasen 〈◊〉 cap. 59. Dominus dicit unoâ—actu fidei famein tolli sitim ac proindè unico actu fidei dicitur manducare bibere Christ saith that by the onely act of Faith both hunger and thirst is taken away therefore wee are said both to eat and drinke by the same and onely act of Faith Wherefore you in with-holding the Cup from the People do violate the Testament of Christ who requireth in this a perfect representation visible of a compleate and a full Refection spirituall which is sufficient to condemne your Abuse whereby you also defraud God's people of their Dimensum ordained by Christ for their use Concerning this second e Answer to his Majestie Master Fisher one of the society of Iesuites was taught to Answer that the Full causality as he said and working of spirituall Effects of the soule cannot be a wanting to the Sacrament under one kind because of Christ his assistance So he We should aske whether a greater Devotion and a more plentifull Grace are not to be esteemed spirituall Effects for the good of the Soule which are f Secundum Alexandrum de Hales Major fructus ex perceptione utriusque speciei habetur Salmeron les Tom. 9. Tract 37. § Neque benè p. 303. Per accidens tutem non est â—ubium quin usus utriusque speciei possit esse fructuosior eò quod potest majorem devotionem commovere in percipiente Vndè fiat ut propter majorem dispositionem consequitur ille veriorem gratiam ex Sacramento Valent. les Ibid. pag. 493. §. Per accidens confessed to be enjoyed rather by Communicating in Both kinds âšœ Will you have any more know then that your Romane Pope Clement did absolutely teach that 9 Vasquez les in 3. Thom. quaest 80. Disput 215. cap. 2. Probabilior sententia mihi semper visa est eorum qui dicunt majorem-fructum gratiae ex utraque specie quà m ex aâ—â—erutra percipi proindè illos qui calicem sumunt novum augmentum Gratiae consequi Ità Alexander Cassalius Arboreus Clemens Pont. 6. Remandus Et iâ—margine suâ Hinc sententiam Suarez Disp 35. § 6. ut probabilem defendit Hanc sententiam absolutè secutiâ—s est Clemens 6. in Bullâ ad Regem Angliae 1341. in quo illâ— concessit ut in gratiae augmentum in utraque specie communicaret Sacramentum hoc institutum est in modum Convivij Ioh. 6. Caro mea verè est cibus languis meus verè est potus nam in Convivio nihil aliud est quà m cibus potus quorum quilibec suo particulari modo reficit A greater augmentation of Grace is obtained by Communicating in Both. Which was the Cause saith your Iesuite that Hee dispenced with the King of England to participate in Both. For consider we pray you that the Assistance of
it selfe onely the Sacrament of his Bodie III. Yea but say your Doctors The Body of Christ herein is a Sacrament and â—gne of himselfe as he was on the Crosse Nay will S. Augustine say not so for the Body of Christ is Invisible and insensiblâ— unto us but the Sacrament is a thing representing unto us a visible palpable and mortall Body of Christ IV. Your men are still instant to interpret it of Christ's Body Corporally present therein and S. Augustine offereth to illuminate your understandings by the light of a Similitude saying The thing in the hands of the Priest is so called Christ's Flesh as his Immolation of Christ's Body heerein is called Christ's Passion and that it is not properly and lively so meant but Suo modo that is as your owne Glosse expoundeth it IMPROPERLY Can any thing be more repugnant to your Romish Doctrine of this Sacrament than this one Testimony of Saint Augustine is from point to point The Bp. Facundus who lived about the yeare 546. an Author much magnified by your 23 Iac. Sirmundus Ies Epist Dedic ante lib. Facundi Maximam Romanae sedis potestatem celebrat and Baron Ann. Chri. 546. num 24. Prudentissimus Ecclesiasticus Agonistes Facundus Iesuit as one who extolleth the Authority of the See of Rome and by your Cardinall as a most wise Champion of the Church must needs deserve of you so much credit as to think that he would write nothing concerning this Sacrament of Christ which hee judged not to be the received Catholike doctrine of that his Age. Hee thus 24 Facundus l. 9. defens Trin. Cap. 5. Sacramentum Adoptionis suscipere dignatus est Christus quandò circumcisus est quandò baptizatus potest Sacramentum Adoptionis Adoptio nuncupari sicut Sacramentum corporis sanguinis ejus quod est in pane poculo consecrato corpus ejus sanguinem dicimus non quòd propriè id Corpus ejus sit Panis poculum sanguis sed quod in se mysterium Corporis sanguinis continet The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ which is in the Bread and Cup wee call his Body and Blood not that it is properly his Body and Blood but because it containeth a mysterie of his Body and Blood Iust the dialect of Protestants Your Iesuit vainly labouring to rectifie this sentence by the sentences of other Fathers in the end is glad to perswade the Readers to pardon this Father Facundus If Peradventure 25 Idem Sirmundus Ies Annot. in locum istum Facundi pag. 404. Quod si durius hic fortasse obscurius quippiam locutus videatur dignus est veniâ qui à benigno interprete vicem officij recipiat quod alijs studisè quorum dicta notabantur non semel exhibuit saith hee hee hath spoken somewhat more harshly or obscurely as one who himselfe having interpreted other mens Sayings favourably may deserve the like Courtesie of others Thus that Iesuite But what Pardon can the Iesuite himselfe merit of his Reader in calling the Testimony Obscure and darke which the Father Facundus himselfe by a Similitude maketh as cleare as day Thus As Christ being Baptized received the Sacrament of Adoption the Sacrament of Adoption may be called Adoption even as the Sacrament of Christ's Body is called Christ's Body A saying which in your Church of Rome is now accounted a downe-right Heresie âšœ We shall take our Farewell of the Latine Fathers in the Testimony of Bish Isidore who will give you his owne Reason why Christ called Bread his Body * Isidor Hispalensis Panis quem frangimus corpus Christi est qui dicit Ego sum panis vivus c. Vinum autem sanguis ejus est hoc est quod scriptum est Ego sum vitis vera Sed Panis quià confirmat Corpus ideò corpus Christi nuncupatur Vinum autem quià sanguinem operatur in carne ideò ad sanguinem Christi resertut Haec autem sunt visibilia sanctificata tamen per spiritum Sanctum in Sacramentum divini corporis transeunt Lib. 1. de Offic. cap. 18. Bread saith he because it strengthneth the Body is therfore called the Body of Christ and Wine because it maketh Blood is therefore referred to Christ's Blood but these two being sanctified by the Holy Ghost are changed into a Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ So he âšœ A Cleare Glasse wherein the judgment of Antiquitie for a Figurative sense of Christ's words This is my Body may be infallibly discerned SECT X. POnder with your selves for Gods cause the accurate judgement of Ancient Fathers in their direct dilucidations and expressions of their understanding of Christ's meaning in calling Bread his Body in this sense viz. that It signifieth his Body as a Signe thereof The * Councel of Trùllo See above Sect 8. Councel of Trullo Bodie and Blood of Christ that is Bread and Wine Chrysostome a Greeke Father * Chrysost See above Sect. 6. Challenge 2. The faithfull are called his Bodie * Theodor. See ibid. Theodoret Hee gave the name of Bodie to Bread as elsewhere hee gave the name of Bread to his Bodie * Tertull. See above Sect. 9. let p. Tertullian This is my Bodie that is A figure thereof And againe 27 Tertull. advers Marcion l. 3. p. 180. Venite mittamus lignum in panem ejus Ier. 11. Vtique in corpus sic enim Deus in Evangelio panem corpus suum appellans Vt. hiac jam intelligas corporis sui figuram panem dedisse cujus retrò corpus in panem Propheta figuravit Christ gave his Bodie in a figure as his Body in the Prophet figured Bread * Cyprian See above Sect. 9 q Cvprian Things signifying and things signified are called by the same names * August See ibid. Augustine When hee said This is my Bodie hee gave a Signe of his Bodie And * See afterwards B. 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 5. Bread his Bodie as he called Baptisme a Buriall And yet againe As the Priest's Immolation is called Christ's Passion * Facundus Set above Sect. 9. Facundus Not that it is properly his Bodie and Blood but that it containeth a mysterie of them being called his Bodie and Blood as the Sacrament of Adoption meaning Baptisme is called Adoption * Isidor ibid. x. Isidore Called Christ's Body because turned into a Sacrament of his Bodie Chrysostome * See Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 14. Bread hath the name of Christ's Bodie albeit it remaine in nature the same And Ephraimius naming it Christ's Bodie which is received of the faithfull saith * See ibid. It loseth nothing of it's Sensible Substance Then Bread sure as followeth by his parallelling it with Baptisme And Baptisme being One representeth the propriety of its Sensible Substance of Water These are as direct as ever Bucer or Calvin could speake Somewhat more for Corroboration sake But yet by
charge that I doe say in this cause they saying It is given us in charge spake it in their owne person and not in the person of the King for the Charge was not given to the King but by the King to themselves And when they said I the King doe say in the Cause they spake not in their owne person but in the person of the King What need many words To speake the same words in a mans owne person and â—n the person of another saith your Iesuit Vasquez iâ— the Murgiâ— and that most trulie is Impossible and hee therefore standeth onely to that one Terâ—â—e Significatively which all your other Disputers held to bee necessarie for the Answering of the maine Objection But what need wee any Iesuit to plead our Cause seeing that the Text it selfe will clearelie evince the same That the words of Christ as they are pronounced by the Priest are meerely Narrative and not Significative is proved by the Text it selfe SECT III. IT was alwayes held by all Divines to bee a most necessary exact and securo Rule of interpreting of Scripture to expound a Text by the Context of the words preceding and the words following Ianus wise looking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The words of the first Text are these This is my Body of the Second these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this is the New Testament in my Blood as Saint Matthew hath it Now the words which goe immediately before the former Text concerning the Acts of Christ viz. He having taken Bread when hee had given thankes brake it saying This is c. are delivered by the Minister onely Narratively namely rehearsing what Christ had done long since and not any Act now in doing by the Priest in the person of Christ The words likewise preceding in the Second Text concerning the Cup stand thus After Hee Christ had supped hee tooke the Cup and when hee had given thankes hee sayd Drinke you all of this c. which all are Narratives repearing what Christ had done For the words are HEE Christ TOOKE and not I the Minister And HEE what Saying a word Narrative in it's owne proper Signification Next marke the succeeding words of both your supposed Consecratory Sayings of Christ concerning the Bread This is my Bodie it followeth HEE Christ taking the Cup as likewise secondly concerning the Cup the words succeeding which are SHED for Remission of sins are a Narration of the virtue of Christs Blood Shed expressed then by Christ We now demand seeing the whole Contexture whether going before or following after the Text in Controversie are all words onely rehearsing what Christ had done why should you conceive the Intervenient words This is my Bodie to be uttered in a different tenure of speech as in the person of Christ When wee should expect some warrant hereof from some one Father you are unanimously mute When wee further inquire into your Reason wee finde none more semblable than this That according to your familiar and frequent Similitude of a Stage-Play your Priest is here as it were Acting in a Play and exchanging his Parts now and then taking upon him the person of a Relator and Rehearser onely and againe in a middle Scene of a Significator That the Suggested Romish Significative Sense of Christ's words was never Patronized by any Ancient Father SECT IV. VVEe willingly grant that the Apostle speaking of Absolution 2 Cor. 2. saith If I have pardoned any thing I have pardoned in the person of Christ And againe 2 Cor. 5. Wee are Embassadors for Christ exhorting you in Christ's stead But these and the like words of the Apostle have no other meaning than that which your owne 3 Estius Professor Theol. Duacen in 2. Cor. 2. v. 10. Cui quid donavâ— in persona Christi donavi posset aeque verti In facie Christi quasi coram Christo in ejus praesentia et infia in hac eâdem Epistolà ca 4. legâ—ur in persona ubi nos habemus In facie Christi iursus cap. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ubi latinè Qui in facie gloriantur id est in his qui exterius apparent Hoc autem in persona Christi nihil est aliud quam in vice nomine authoritate Christi Theodoret. tanquam intuente Christo Theoph. coram Christo hoc est Christo jubente veluti ejus loco existens veluti ejus personam referens Chrysost Id est tanquam Christo hoc jubente Nos sensum reddamus verborum Apostoli facio tanquam Christi minister Delegatus cujus inâ—eaâ—re personam refero Salmoron in eum locum Vice Christi ad gloriam Christi Idem in 2 Cor. 5. Pro Christo legatione fungimur tanquà m Deo exhortante per nos Id est Lâ—gatione fungunur vice Christi Sensus est cum nos legatione fungimur exhortando obsecrando vos ut per poenitentiam reconciliemini Deo sic accipâ—re debetis ac si Deus exhortetur pernos Iesuite Estius rendreth out of the Fathers In the person of Christ is no more saith he but in the name of Christ and by the authoritie of Christ and as Christ himselfe commanding me and beholding me I being the Minister of Christ But the Priest in pronouncing the words of Christ in the Romish Significative sense is said to do it in a farre higher straine which your Cardinall Bellarmine will have you to consider * See above Sect. 1. The Priest saith he in this Action of Consecration dealeth farre otherwise than he doth in other Sacraments where he speaketh as the Minister of God in his owne person saying I Absolve thee I Baptize thee Do you marke Farre otherwise And yet the Apostle when hee spake of the Absolution which hee gave saying to the Corinthians If I have pardoned any hee added I have pardoned them in the person of Christ So that the word Person spoken of by the Apostle and Ancient Fathers is to be understood Farre otherwise than that which the Significative Romish sense doth exact which is that the Priest so uttereth Christ's words in the person of Christ that he delivereth them Significatively that is as to signifie the same Intention in himselfe in repeating those words which Christ himselfe had in the first uttering of them As for example it is your Cardinal 's owne Any one repeating these words spoken of the wicked Iewes Saying concerning Christ This man Blasphemeth if he should utter them Significatively that is with the same Intention of noting Christ to be a blasphemer he himselfe should Blaspheme â—ut delivering them onely Narratively by way of Repetition hee doth not Blaspheme because he meaneth not to say that Christ did Blaspheme but that the Iewes said so So he And so say wee That the Priest in repeating of Christ's words This is my Body pronounceth them Narratively onely and not Significatively For the Romish Priest if he should speake the words of Christ Significatively in the person of
Books following For this present we are to exhibit the different and contradictory maners concerning the Presence of Christ herein The maner of Presence of Christ his Body 1. According to the Iudgement of Protestants 2. In the profession of the Church of Rome That Protestants albeit they deny the Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament yet hold they a true Presence thereof in divers Respects according to the Iudgement of Antiquitie SECT II. THere may be observed Foure kinds of Truths of Christ his Presence in this Sacrament one is Veritas Signi that is Truth of Representation of Christ his Body the next is Veritas Revelationis Truth of Revelation the third is Veritas Obsignationis that is a Truth of Seale for better assurance the last is Veritas Exhibitionis the Truth of Exhibiting and deliverance of the Reall Body of Christ to the faithfull Communicants The Truth of the Signe in respect of the thing signified is to be acknowledged so farre as in the Signes of Bread and Wine is represented the true and Reall Body and Blood of Christ which Truth and Realty is celebrated by us and taught by ancient Fathers in contradiction to Manichees Marcionites and other old Heretikes who held that Christ had in himselfe no true Body but meerely Phantasticall as you a Marcionitae Manichaei alij Haeretici putabant corpus Christi verum non esse sed phantasticum esse Bellar. lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 24. §. Resp Argumentum your selves well know In confutation of which Heretikes the Father Ignatius as your b Ignatius citante Theodoret. Dial 3. Eucharistia est Caro Christi Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 2. Hoc scripsit Ignatius contra Haereticos qui negabant Christum habuisse Carnem veram sed tantùm visibilem apparentem Observandum est Haereticos illos non tam Sacramentum Eucharistiae quà m Mysterium Incarnationis oppugnâsse True and the Argument of Ignatius was the same which Tertullian used also against the same kinde of Heretikes Lib. 4. in Marcion Hoc est corpus meum Id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritas esset corpus See this in the place of Tertullian at large Cardinall witnesseth called the Eucharist it selfe the flesh of Christ Which Saying of Ignatius in the sense of Theodoret by whom hee is cited against the Heresie of his time doth call it Flesh and Blood of Christ because as the same Theodoret expounded himselfe it is a true signe of the true and Reall Body of Christ. So your Cardinall even as Tertullian long before him had explained the words of Christ himselfe This is my Body that is saith hee This Bread is a Signe or Figure of my Body Now because it is not a Signe which is not of some Truth * See above Booke 2. Chap. 2. 〈◊〉 9. for as much as there is not a figure of a figure therefore Bread being a Signe of Christs Body it must follow that Christ had a true Body This indeed is Theologicall arguing by a true Signe of the Body of Christ to confute the Heretikes that denyed the Truth of Christ's Body Which controlleth the wisedome of your c Concilium dicit verò contineri Corpus in Sacramento contra Sacramentarios qui volunt Christum adesse in Signo Figurâ Signa enim Veritati opponuntur Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 2. Councell of Trent in condemning Protestants as denying Christ to be Truly present in the Sacrament because they say hee is there present in a Signe As though there were no Truth of being in a Signe or Figure which were to abolish all true Sacraments which are true Figures and Signes of the things which they represent A second Truth and Realty in this Sacrament is called Veritas Revelationis as it is a Signe in respect of the Typical Signs of the same Body and Blood of Christ in the Rites of the old Testament yet not absolutely in respect of the matter it selfe but of the maner because the faithfull under the Law had the same faith in Christ and therfore their Sacraments had Relation to the same Body and Blood of Christ but in a difference of maner For as two Cherubins looked on the same Mercy-Seate but with different faces oppositely so did both Testaments point out the same Passion of Christ in his Body but with divers aspects For the Rites of the old Testament were as d Augustin contra Fauslum lib. 19. pag. 349. Tom. 6. Deltrat qui dicit mutaus Sacramentis res ipsas diversas esse quas ritus Propheticus pronunciavit implendas quas ritus Evangelicus annunciavit impletas aliter res annunciatur facienda aliter facta Saint Augustine teacheth Propheticall prenunciating and fore-telling the thing to come but the rites of the new Testament are Historicall annunciating and revealing the thing done the former shewed concerning Christ his Passion rem faciendam what should bee the latter rem factam the thing done and fulfilled As therefore the Truth of History is held to be more reall than the Truth of Prophecie because it is a declaration of a reall performance of that which was promised So the Evangelicall Sacrament may bee sayd to containe in it a more reall verity than the Leviticall Therefore are the Rites of the old Law called * Heb. 10. Shadowes in respect of the Sacraments of the Gospell according to the which difference Saint Iohn the Baptist was called by Christ a Prophet in that he * Ioh. 1. 15. fore-told Christ as now to come but hee was called more than a Prophet as demonstrating and * Ibid. 19. pointing him out to bee now come Which Contemplation occasioned divers Fathers to speake so Hyperbolically of the Sacrament of the Eucharist in comparison of the Sacraments of the old Testament as if the Truth were in these and not in them as e Origen Hom. 7. in Numer pag. 195. Illa in aenigmate designari quae nunc in nova Lege in specie veritate complentur Calling ours Truth yet not simply but comparatively ◠for a little after hee confesseth that they received Eandem Escam id est Christum Objected by Mr. Brerely Lirurg Tract 4. §. 2. Subd 4. Origen did Besides the former two there is Veritas Obsignationis a Truth sealed which maketh this Sacrament more than a Signe even a Seale of Gods promises in Christ for so the Apostle called Circumcision albeit a Sacrament of the old Law the * Rom. 4. 11. Seale of Faith But yet the print of that Seale was but dimme in comparison of the Evangelicall Sacraments which because they confirme unto the faithfull the Truth which they present are called by other ancient Fathers as well as by f August Tom. 4. de Catechizand rudib cap. 26. Signacula esse visibilia rerum divinarum Saint Augustine visible Seales of Divine things So that now we have in this Sacrament the
in a Boxe appearing in his owne forme Thirdly Because Christs Blood to issue and sprinkle out of his veines who can easily beleeve yea and your Iesuite Coster with some Others spare not to professe as well as wee that * See the fixt Booke Chap. 1. §. 4. Shedding of Christs Blood out of his Body was onely on the Crosse Fourthly Because it were Vndecencie to reserve such Reliques experience teaching that they do putrifie Thus your owne Schoole-men produced and approved by Suarez the Iesuite whose Conclusion and Resolution is that The flesh thus appearing is not only not the flesh of Christ but even no true flesh at all but onely a colour and signe thereof âšœ Fiftly You have here before you in the Margin your Iesuite Vasquez denying those to bee the Apparitions of true Flesh and as though none but simple people were deceived with such Apparitions he holdeth it sufficient that 3 Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom. Quaest 76. Art 8 Disput 193. Cap. 2. Respondeo Neque apparere carnem Christi neque alterius quae reverà caro sit sed carnis solùm effigieÌ„ Quod autem simplices decipiantur credant ibi esse carnem Christi divisibili cruento modo parum refert haec enim deceptio instructione verâ Doctorum Pastorum corrigendus est Their Deception herein may bee corrected by the true instruction of the Learned How will your Bozius Coccius Bellarmine and your many other Doctors together with their Beleevers disgest this to bee thus ranked by this your Iesuite among the Simple and Ignorant people in this their deliration concerning such fictitious Apparitions âšœ Do you not then see the different faith of your owne Historians and of your owne Divines namely that those Historians as uncleane Beasts swallow downe at the first whatsoever cometh into their mouthes but those your Divines like more Cleane creatures do ruminate and distinguish truth from falsehood by sound reason and judgement and prove the Authors of such Apparitions flat lyars the Reporters uncredible Writers and the Beleevers of them starke Fooles That the Romish Answer to free their former pretended Miraculous Apparitions from suspicion of Figments or Illusions is Vnsufficient SECT IV. ALbeit in these Apparitions there be not true flesh say m Quamvis non fiat ut vera caro Christi vel reverà vera caro ut respondent Thomistae sed tantum color figura ejus tamen quòd sit externa species sive imago divinitùs facta sufficiens est ad confirmationem veritatis Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disput 55. Sect. 2. some of your Doctors yet such Apparitions being miraculously wrought are sufficient Demonstrations that Christs Flesh is in the Eucharist But why should not wee yeeld more credit to those Schoole-men who say n Alens Gabriel Palacius dicunt quòd miracula siunt veris non apparentibus signis figuris Asserunt talem apparitionem non esse factam virtute Dei sed Daemonis Suarez Ibid. Where hee addeth Hoc ab ijs gratis dictum est True miracles use to bee made in true signes and not in such as seeme onely so to bee because seeming signes are wrought by the Art of the Devill And wee take it from the Assurance which your Iesuite giveth us that o Potest Daemon repraesentare figuras quarum libet rerum ut argenti auti epul rum quemadmodum perâ—ssimi Sculprores Pictores vâ—tias foâ—mas figurâ— rerum ità finguam ut interdum verae esse videantur Sed verè propriè miraculum id dicitur opus quod omnis â—aturae creatae vum atque potentiam excedit Et una differentia quâ vera miracula possunt à falsis discerni haec est quòd falsa sunt phaÌ„tastica simulata ideoque non diturna vel sunt planè inutilia Perer. Ies in Exâ— 7 Disp 4. Num. 34. D. 5. N. 36 38. Tertia ratio sum potest ad confirmandam veritatem Corporis ex dignitatâ— personae corpus assumentis quae cum sit veritas non decuit ut in ejus opere aliqua sictio insit Aquin. part 3. qu. 5. Ait 2 Devils and Painters can make such semblances and Similitudes and that true Miracles are to bee discerned from false in that false Miracles carry onely a likenesse of things and are unprofitable Furthermore yourp Aquinas proveth against the Heretikes from Sense that Christ had a true Body Because it could not agree with the dignity of his person who is Truth that there should be any fiction in any worke of his Thus 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 bee of an Infant and of the Child Iesus albeit Christ at his Ascension out of this World * Baron Aâ—n 34. 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 Bethelehem 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 Antiquitie within the compasse of so long a time excepting that of one Marcus recorded by p Irenaeus adversus Haereses lib. 1. c. 9. Marcus purpureum rubicundum apparere facit ut puraretur ea gratia sanguinem stillare in Calicem per invocationem per maguâ— illum Irenaeus who faigned to Make the mixed Wine in the Cup through his Invocation to seeme red that it might bee 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 Heretikes 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 concerning the truth of Christs Body and no such one heard of in these dayes of Antiquity when there seemed to bee a farre more necessary use of them both for confirming Proselytes in the faith and reducing Heretikes from their Errour that Apparition only 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 Answer to an Objection from the same Author he sayd q Bellar. lib. 2. de Pont. c.
includi in paâ—vâ pixide cadere in terram coÌ„mburi rodi à bestâ—a Annon credunt Christum parvulum inclusum in angustissimo utero eundem potuisse in via caâ— ere humi jacuisse remoto miraculo à bestia morderi combuâ—i potuisse si ita pati potuit in propria specie cur miâ—um videtur si illa sine laesione in specie aliena eidem accidere posse dicamus Bellar. l. 3 de Euc. cap. 10. §. Deniquè Many saith your Cardinall can scarce endure to heare that Christ is included in a Boxe fallen to the earth burnt or eaten of Beasts as though wee doe not read that Christ was included in the Wombe of the Virgin lay upon the Earth and might without any Miracle have beene eaten of Beasts why may not such things now happen unto him but sine laesione without any hurt at all So hee Joyne with this the Determination of your o Aquinas Etiamsi caâ—is hostiam consecratam manducet substantia corporis Christi non definit esse sub speciebus part 3. quaest 80. art 3. Schoole That the Substance of Christ his Body remaineth still although the Hoast be eaten with Dogs But Master Brerely more cunningly that hee might not only disguise your opinions but also make Protestants odious if it might be for their exceptions against them doth readily tell us that Pagans Iewes and Heretikes conceived Indignities against some mysteries of Christian Religion as against Christ his Incarnation and his Crucifying So he Both which Answers are but meere tergiversations by confounding the two most different conditions of Christ That then in the state of his humiliation with This which is Now in the highest exaltation of Glory Wee therefore rejoyne as followeth Your Disputers have so answered as if Christ his Incarnation in the Wombe of a Virgin his Conversation upon earth and his Passion upon the Crosse were not objects of Indignity notwithstanding the Spirit of God hath blazed them to the world to have beene the Indignities of all Indignities Thus * Philip. 2. 6. Who being in the forme of God and thinking it no robbery to be equall wiâ—h God yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made himselfe of no reputation but tooke upon him the forme of a servant such was his Incarnation and became obedient to death even spoken for aggravating the Indignity thereof The shamefull death of the Crosse Than which never any thing could make more either for the magnifying of Gods grace and mercy or for the dignifying of Christ his merit for man as it is written * Ioh. 3. 16. God so loved the World that he sent his Sonne namely to suffer that whosoever should believe in him should not perish but have life everlasting How could your Aâ—swerers but know that it was not the observation of the Indignities which Christ suffered that wrought to the condemnation of Pagans Iewes and Heretikes but their faithlessenesse in taking such scandall thereat as to deprive themselves by their Infidelity of all hope of life by Christ crucified Hearken furthermore That the state of Christ his Humanity cannot be now obnoxious to bodily Indignities and that the Comparing both the Estates in your answering is unworthy the learning of very Catechumenists and Petties in Christian Religion SECT V. THis Disproportion betweene Christ his estate in the dayes of his flesh in this World and his now present Condition at the right hand of God is as extreamely disproportionable as is * 1. Cor. 15. Mortality and Immortality Shame and Glory Misery and Blessednesse Earth and Heaven that being his state of Humaliation and this Contrariwise of his Exaltation as all Christians know and professe And although the Body of Christ now in eternall Majesty be not obnoxious to Corporall injuries yet may Morall and Spirituall abasements be offered unto Christ as well in the Opinion as in the Practise of men Of the Opinion we have an Example in the Capernaites concerning Christ whensoever hee should give his Flesh to be eaten carnally for the Practice you may 〈◊〉 before you the Corinthians who abusing the Sacrament of the Lord did thereby contemne him and were made guilty of high Prophanation against the glorious Body of Christ And what else soundeth that Relative injury against Christ by murthering his Saints on earth complained off by his voice from Heaven * Act. 9. 4. Saul Saul why persecutest thou mee Your Cardinall in answer to the Objection of Indignity offered to Christ by putting him in a Boxe and of being Eaten with Wormes and the like opposed as you have heard saying Why may not such things now happen unto him but sine laesione that is without any hurt Wee answer that if he should suffer nothing in his humanity passively to the Laesio corporis that is hurt of the Body yet should there be thereby in the opinion of men Laesio dignitatis that is a lessening and obscuring of that his Dignity which is set forth in Scripture and which our Article of faith concerning his Bodily sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven teacheth us to be in all Celestiall glory and Majesty This your Aquinas well saw when in regard of Indignity hee judged it a Nesas nunc esset Christum in propriâ specie in pixiâ—le includi putare A. quin. part 3. quaest 76. art 8. An hainous wickednes for any to thinke Christ should be inclosed in a Boxe appearing in his proper forme And what greater difference can it be for a Body to be Boxed under another forme more than when that one and the same Person is knowne to be imprisoned whether open-faced or covered whether in the day or in the night it mattereth not much for still the same person is shut up in prison Againe if that these Circumstances now spoken of were not Arguments of Indignity why do your Jesuites in a point of Opinion deny that Christs Body is Transubstantiated into the flesh of the Communicant because of the * See hereafter Booke 5. Chap. 7. §. â— Indignity against his Majesty Come wee to the point of Practice Let this be our Lesson when there is Reverence in the use of a thing then there may be Irreverence and Indignity in the abuse thereof But your Church hath provided that the Priests Beards be shaven and that the Laicks abstaine from the Cup in a pretence of Reverence The first lest some part of the Hoast which you beleeve to be the Body of Christ should hang on the Priest's Beard the second lest any whit of Christs Blood in the Cup should be spilt But how much more Indignity must it needs be to be devoured of Mice Wormes and sometimes as your owne * See above in this Book C. 2. Sect. 2. stories have related kept close in a Dunghill One word more If these seeme not sufficiently indigne because there is not Laesio corporis Hurt to the Body this being your onely Evasion what will you say of
your professing that Sole Accidents do nourish the Bodies whether of Man or Mouse as you teach But expresly contradicted by the Ancient Father Gregory Nyssen who held it Impossible for any thing which is not a Substance to nourish a Substance Lastly to his Additionall That wee are not in the discerning of the matter of this Sacrament to depend upon our Senses which is most Contradictory to the Doctrine of Antiquity For the Fathers besides these their Assertions * See Booke 3. throughout that we see Bread and Wine the Bread which consisteth of granes of Corne and Wine of Grapes have justified the Judgement of our Senses in sensible Objects and not this onely but by the same Argument taken from our Senses have furthermore confuted and confounded both the Heathen Academicks and Hereticall Marcionites Manichees Eunomians Eutychians and others the most grosly Absurd Heretikes of those Primitive Ages So that now you must conclude that either those Ancient Fathers ought to have submitted their Faith to those Absurd and damned Heretikes or else Master Fisher ought to recant this his pernicious and Hereticall Paradox of Beleeving Doctrines the Rather because they seeme to be Absurd Master-Fisher his Particular Confirmation of one of his Former Instances of a Body being in divers places at once by a quaint example of his owne Numb 9. The Bodie of Christ saith hee being glorious is as swift in operation as any Thought but a mans Thought is so quicke that one may be by Thought in two disjoyned places at once for example in London and at Rome Our Reply detecting the Stupidity of this Objection Wee to omit that which is more * He useth the Common Objection of Man's soule and God himselfe which hath beene confuted formerly See above cap. 6. Sect. 2. common note in Master Fisher now Objecting his owne fancy not so much a Seeming Absurdity as a palpable Stupidity in this his exemplifying the Possibility of the Being of a Body in divers places at once as namely at London and at Rome If Master Fisher thinking of Rome at his being in London should say that even then his Thought was Really at Rome it were easie for any man to guesse in what place of London hee himselfe was because that every Sober man will beleeve that Master Fisher in thinking of Rome had his Thought then in his owne Braine and not at Rome And though it should be possible for him to thinke both of Rome and London at once yet could not this any way exemplifie the Possibility of the Being of one and the same Body in two places in one moment For his Thought of London and of Rome are not one and the same Thought but as distinct and different about the subject matters of his Thoughts as namely the plotting of Treason in Rome and practising and exequuting the same in London should be Master Fisher his Particular Confirmation of the Possibility of Accidents to nourish a Substance from a rare example of his owne Numb 10. It seemeth difficult saith hee to conceive that Accidents can performe the office of any Substance as to nourish a man But wee should perchance find as great a difficultie to beleeve did wee not see it Glasse to be made of Ashes A Bird to be bred out of the rotten Barke of a Tree c. Our Reply manifesting his Absurd Exemplification This his Comparison of Likenesse as any one may discerne at the first sight consisteth meerely of unlikelihoods and Dissimilitudes for he laboureth to prove it to be an equall Difficulty for an Accident to nourish a Substance as it is in his Examples as for a Substance to nourish a Substance The Absurditie whereof is no lesse than for any to argue that because the Body of a man doth beget a Body So the shadow thereof can also beget a Body It is irkesome unto us to have stayd so long in Master Fishers Absurdities wee hasten to our Generall Challenge âšœ THE GENERALL CHALLENGE THese above specified Sixe Contradictions so plainly and plentifully proved by such forceable Arguments as the light of Divine Scripture hath authorized the profession of Primitive Fathers testified Confessions of Romish Doctors acknowledged and the Principles of your owne Romish learning in most points confirmed your Abrenunciation of your so many Grosse Errours may be as necessary as your persisting therein will be damnable Before we can end wee are to consult with the Fathers of the Councel of Nice especially seeing that as well Romanists as Protestants will be knowne to appeale to that Councel CHAP. XI Of the Canon of the Councell of Nice objected for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and against it SECT I. THis as it is delivered by your a Concilij verba Iterùm etiam hic in divina mensa nè humiliter intenti simus ad propositum panem calicem sed attollentes mentem fide intelligamus situm in sacra illa mensa agnum illum Dei tollentem peccata mundi incruentè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à Sacerdotibus immolatum et pretiosum ejus corpus sanguinem verè nos sumenâ—es credamus haec esse nostrae resurrectionis symbola Propâ—er hoc enim neque multum accipimus sed parum ut sciamus non ad saâ—iâ—tatem sed ad sanctificationem offerri Vt refert Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 10. Cardinall taken out as he saith of the Vatican Library standeth thus Let us not heere in this Divine Table bend our thoughts downewards upon the Bread and the Cup which is set before Vs but lifting up our minds let us understand by faith the Lambe of God set upon that Table The Lambe of God which taketh away the sins of the World offered unbloodily of the Priest And we receiving truly his Body and Blood let us thinke these to be the Symbols of our Resurrection For this cause do wee receive not much but little that wee may understand this is not to satisfie but to Sanctifie So the Canon The Generall approbation of this Canon by Both sides SECT II. SCarce is there any one Romish Author handling this Controversie who doth not fasten upon this Canon of Nice for the countenancing of your Romish Masse Contrarily Protestants as they are set downe by our b Hunc cano nem Conc. Niceni probatum fuisse Marpurgi Luthero alijs Martinus Bucerus dixit Ità in Domino senrio in hac sententia opto venire ad Tribunal Dei Manu meâ scripsi Teste Hier. Zanchio Miscell de Coena Domini pag. 152. He himselfe assenting unto the same Zanchy and your c Hoc testimonium Niceni Conc. primi in actis ejusdem Conc. in Vaticana Bibliotheca his verbis c. Hoc testimonium agnoscunt etiam Adversarij ut Oecolampadius Calvin Instit lib. 4. cap 17. §. 36. Petrus Boquinus Klebitius nituntur hoc testimonio ad gravissimam suam haeresin stabiliendam â— c. Bellar. ibid âšœ â—â— Greeke
of faith eat it not although they do visibly presse with their teeth the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ yet are they in no wise Partakers thereof But your Romish Church flatly otherwise as you all know and therefore hath your Sympresbyter Master h Mr. Brerely Tract 2. §. 5. Sub 2. Brerely endeavoured to assume some Protestants to be on your side whom hee hath alleged with like faithfulnesse as hee hath cited Master Calvin than whom hee could not have in this case a greater Adversary For although Calvin grant with all Protestants that the wicked and faithlesse receive truly by way of Sacrament the Body of Christ yet doth hee deny that they have in their Bodies any Corporall Conjunction or Vnion with Christ because the Vnion which wee have i Calvin Epist 372. yet in the same Epistie hee saith of Papists Damnantur qui dicunt non minus corporis Christi participem fuisse Iudam quam Petrum In his Institut lib. 4. cap. 17. Non alia quam fidei manducatio Sect. 8. Cordis sinum tantùm protendant quo praesentem amplexentur §. 12 Vinculum con junctionis est spiritus Christi §. 13. Non 〈◊〉 §. 16. Non contactu §. 33. Impij scelerati non edunt Christi corpus qui sunt ab eo alieni quia ipsa caro Christi in mysterio coenae non ramus spiritulis res est quà m salus aeterna Vnde colligimus quod quicunque vacui sunt spiritu Christi carnem Christi non posâ—e edere magis quam vinum bibere cui non conjunctus est Sapor Aliud tamen est offerri aliud recipi Spiritualem â—ibum omnibus porrigit Christus etiam indignis at non absquè fide recipitur §. 34. Saepius fateor occurrit apud Augustinum ista loquendi forma Comedi Corpus Christi ab infidelibus sed seipsum explicat c. Haec Calvinus saith hee is Onely Spirituall onely with the soule onely with the heart onely by faith and although it be offered to the wicked to be really received yet do they not receive it because they are Carnall Their onely Receiving therfore is but Sacramentall So Master Calvin It had beene good that your Priest had suspected his owne Iudgement and as well in this case as others by doubting his owne eye-sight had borrowed your k Sextum eorum pronunciatum est Improbos non suscipere Corpus Christi licet Symbola suscipiant Calvin Instit lib. 4. cap. 17. §. 33. Beza Teste Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 1. §. Porro Cardinall his Spectacles then would hee have clearly perceived that together with other Protestants Calvin held that The wicked although they receive the Symbols and outward Signes of Christ's body yet the Body it selfe they doe not receive So your Cardinall of the Doctrine of Protestants For although indeed Calvin sayd that The wicked eat the Body of Christ yet explayning himselfe hee added these two words In Sacramento that is Sacramentally which in Calvin's style is taken for Symbolically onely As for the Consent of Protestants herein wee put it to your great Cardinall and Champion their greatest Adversary to expresse l Ex Vbi quitistarum opinione sequitur corpus Christi non posse vere manducari ore corporali sed solum ore spirituali per fidem est ipsisima sententia Sacramentariorum Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 17. §. Secundo ex Hee joyneth Lutherans to the Calvinists in one Consent for denying the Orall and Corporall Eating thereof and for believing the Eating of it Onely by Faith Yet lest any may say that in receiving the same Sacrament hee doth not receive the thing signifyed thereby you may have a Similitude to illustrate your Judgements as thus The same outward word concerning Justification by Christ cometh to the eares of both Vnbelievers and Believers But the Believers onely are capable of Justification That the wicked Communicants albeit they eat not bodily Christ's Body yet are they Guilty of the Lord's Body for not receiving Spiritually namely through their Contempt in not receiving the Blessing offered thereby SECT II. THe Apostle 1. Cor. 11. 27. Whosoever saith hee Eateth this Bread and Drinketh this Cup unworthily hee shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. And vers 29. eateth and drinketh Damnation to himselfe not discerning the Lords Body Your Remish Professours men not the least zealous for your Romish Cause objecting this against the Protestants call upon you saying first m Rhemists Annot in 1. Cor. 11. vers 27. Here upon marke well that ill men receive the Body and Blood of Christ be they Infidels or ill livers for else they could not be guilty of that which they receive not Secondly That it could not be so hainous an offence for any to receive a piece of Bread or a Cup of Wine though they were a true Sacrament for it is a deadly sinne for any to receive any Sacrament with will and intention to continue in sinne or without repentance of former sinnes but yet by the unworthy receiving of no other Sacrament is man made guilty of Christs Body and Blood but here where the unworthy Receiver as Saint n Chrysost Hom 60. 61. ad Pop. Antioch Chrysostome saith do vill any to Christs owne Person as the Iewes and Gentiles did that crucified him Which invincibly proveth against the Heretikes that Christ is herein really present And guilty is hee for not dâ—scerning the Lords Body that is because hee putteth no difference betweene this high meat and others So your Rhemists Your Cardinall also as though hee had found herein something for his purpose o Bellar. Obijcit Cyprian Sterm de Lapsis de ijs qui post negatum Christum sine poenitententia accedunt plus cos jam manibus atquè ore delinquere quam cum Dominum negâ—runt Deinde Cyprianum recensere miracula facta in vindictam eorum qui corpus Christi tantum violant Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 9. See this answered in the 7. Sectioâ— following fasteneth upon the sentence of Cyprian who accounted them that after their denyall of Christ presented themselves to this Communion without repentance to offer more injurie to Christ by their polluted hands and mouthes than they did in denying Christ and besides hee recordeth Examples of Gods miraculous vengeance upon those who violated the Body of Christ in this Sacrament So hee All these points are reducible unto three heads One is that Ill men might not be held guilty of the Body of Christ except they did receive it as being materially present in this Sacrament Next is the Guilt of prophaning this Sacrament which being more hainous than the abuse of any other Sacrament therfore the injury is to be judged more personall The last that the Examples of Gods vindicative Iudgemeuts for Contempt hereof have beene more extraordinary which may seeme to be a Confirmation of both the former Before wee
Second place the Eucharist is called in the Greeke 3 In Liturgijs ut patet ex Casaubon Exerc. 16. cap. 52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Liturgies and in the Councell of * Conc. Nicen can 13. Si quis egreditur de corpore ultimo necessario viatico non privetur c. Nice the Viaticum that is Viand or Provision for our Travell in our way to Life everlasting A word objected by your 4 Aquinas part 3. quaest 73. Art 4. Hoc Sacramentum est praefigurativum fruitionis Dei quae erit in patria ideo dictum viaâ—icum quia hic praebet nobis viam illuâ— perveniendi Aquinas and others which notwithstanding can prove no more for your properly Corporall Receiving the Eucharist than it can for receiving the same Corporally in Baptisme which is called by 5 Basil Exhort ad Baptismum De Baptisme sic monet Iuvenem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil and 6 Nazian Orat. 40. de Baptismo vult morientem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregorie Naxianzene our Viaticum See the 7 Gahrieâ— Albispin Episc lib. Observat 11. Qui hoc viaticum in omnibus Canonibus Eucharistiam interpretantur non mious labantur cum tot sint genera viatici quot sunt modi viae ad Ecclesiae communionem obtinendam Consideres nihil aliud dici viaticum nisi quod in morte sumitur in alteram vitam proficiscenti prodesse potest At Baptismus Absolutio quando morientibus impartiuntur quid ni viatica censeri possint Margin The Third is the Title of Pledge which your 8 Bellar. lib. 2. 〈◊〉 cap. 17. ex Optato Optatus vocet Eucharistâ—◠〈…〉 fidei et spem Resurrectionis Cardinall hath urged out of Optatus naming the Eucharist the Pledge of Salvation helpe of Faith and hope of our Resurrection Which are say wee delivered in the same Teâ—or and sense of speech wherein 9 Basil exhort ad Baptis Baptismus namque ad resurrectionem facultas quaedam et aâ—â—abo c. Basil and 10 Theodoret. in Divinorum Decretorum Epitome de Baptismo Baptismus est pignus et Aâ—â—a futuroruÌ„ bonorum et futurae Resurrectionis Theodoret termed Baptisme the Pledge and Earnest of Blessings to come and of our future Resurrection The Common Idâ—ome of Antiquity being so frequent and familiar equally for Baptisme as for the Eucharist who can but admire the Boldnesse of our Adversaries in their so instant pressing and inculcating of those former Sentences which cannot be more earnestly Objected for the one than they may be easily Confuted by the other as will be more conspicuous in our Relation in the next Section following That the former Objected Sentences of Antiquity concerning Feast and Guest c. Viand and Pledge do in themselves altogether Confute your Romish Pretence to the further manifestation of the Vnconscionablenesse of your Romish Disputers SECT II. CHrist by Saint Hierome as you have heard is said in receiving this Sacrament at his first Institution thereof to have beene both Convivium and Convivam that is both Feast and Guest Eating his owne Body And your Doctor Heskins Instanâ—eth in the like speech of Chrysostome saying that 11 Dr. Heskins in his Parliament of Christ Book 2. cap 55. objected out of Chrysostome in Matth 26. Hom. 83. Ipse quoque orbit ex eo ne 〈◊〉 â—â—â—bis illis dicerent Quid 〈◊〉 sanguiâ—â—m bibimus et carnem 〈◊〉 ac ideo perâ—urbarentur Ne igitur tunc quoque id accideret primus ipse 〈◊〉 fecit ut Tranquâ—lo animo ad communicationem mysteriorum induceret Christ himselfe dranke thereof in the behalfe of his Disciples lest they should be troubled with his words of Eating his Flesh and Drinking his Blood therefore did hee himselfe first receive that hee might induce them to take it with a Quiet Minde So Chrysostome whom your Doctor allegeth for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ and then applying himselfe to his Reader Now you have heard saith hee the mind of Chrysostome upon the words of Christ and by the same also you may know both how He and how also the Apostles who first received the Cup at Christs hand did believe So hee And wee shall as willingly subscribe to the Orthodoxe meaning of Hierome and Chrysostome for they Both agree in one Thus then Christ must have beene a Guest and Feast himselfe unto himselfe in Eating his owne Body either Naturally or Spiritually or Romishly or else Sacramentally But not Naturally to have his Body fed by the same his owne Body for this Conceipt in your * See above own Judgement is Absurd Nor Spiritually Because hee needeth not any Spirituall helpe of any Sacrament for nourishing or augmenting any Grace in his Soule Nor yet Romishly by a Bodily Touch which is your Professed Corporall Vnion Because it was never heard that any man was fed and feasted by an onely Touch. A Bullet for example transmitted into the Belly doth Touch not feed Nutrition and Feeding being Properly a Substantiall Change of a thing Nourishable into the Substance of the Body Nourished And againe what can be more grosse than to imagine albeit but in a Dreame of a man Eating with his Mouth his owne Mouth Swallowing with his Throat his owne Throat Disgesting with his Stomacke his owne Stomacke All which Consequences follow upon a mans wholly Eating his owne Body Therefore must wee apprehend such Speeches of the Fathers in a fourth sense to wit Sacramentally by attributing the name of the Thing unto the Signe as wee teach which sense the Objected Testimony of Chrysostome doth confirme unto us who saith not that Christ Dranke or Ate himselfe but that hee dranke of the Passeover lest they that heard him should say What shall wee drinke his Blood which is as much as if Chrysostome had directly sayd that Christ therefore dranke of the Cup that they seeing him drinke might thereby understand that Hee did no more drinke his owne Blood than Hee in Eating did appeare to Eat his owne Flesh Hee therefore Dranke saith Chrysostome lest they should be troubled to thinke what what but that hee Dranke his owne Blood which sense of Chrysostomes the sentence it selfe doth evince lest that saith hee they should say within themselves Shall wee drinke his Blood Such Interrogative speeches as your owne Schoole teaches you have Vim Negationis that is imply a Negation and import as much as to thinke that Christ did not Drinke his owne Blood Will you have any more Chrysostome explayning the words of Christ Ioh. 6. of Eating his Flesh and Drinking his Blood giveth all Christians a Caveat not to understand them Carnally 12 Chrysost in Ioh. 6. Hom. 46. Quid est carnaliter intelligere simpliciter ut res dicuntur neque aliud quippiam excogitate And what is it saith hee to understand them Carnally even to understand them simply as they are spoken and not conceive any thing else
names of the Things signifyed thereby whereof you have heard a Memorable example out of * See above Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. Homer where even as Christ sayd of Consecrated Bread This is my Body So those Heathen in Sacrifising of Lambes for Ratification of their Oaths and Covenants called those Sacrifices their Oaths And that nothing was more familiar among the Heathen you may know by that Proverbiall speech Sine Cerere Libero friget Venus without Ceres and Bacchus Lust doth languish where they give to Bread the name of the Goddesse Ceres and the name of God Bacchus to Wine Secondly and more especially may this appeare out of Iustine immediatly after the place now objected thus 15 Iustin Loco supracitat Hoc est sanguis meus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ saith Iustine receiving Bread saith This is my Body and taking the Cup sayd This is my Blood and delivered them onely in those words the which also even the wicked Devils by Imitation have taught to be done in the Mysteries of their Mithra namely for that Bread and a Pot of Water is put in the Sacrifices of him that is initiated unto their Communion in the Sacrifices by Addition of certaine words as you either know or might have knowne So Iustine To the Heathen Emperour Do you not see how the Devils in their Sacrifices and Mysteries as 16 Tertul. de Corâ—na 〈…〉 Agnoseamus ingenia 〈◊〉 ideuco quaedam de divims assectantis ut nos de suoruâ— fide confundat et â—udâ—cet Idem de Praesâ—ription Ipsus res Sacramentorum devinorum in Idol â—rum mysterâ—â—s aemulatur Tiâ—git ipse quosdam celebrat et panis oblationem et imaginem Resurrectionis inducit Tertullian witnesseth affect Divine Rites And by Imitation play Christs Apes as other Fathers use to speake And that not onely in their Materiall Ceremonies such as are Bread and Cup but also in their Verball by Addition of words as Iustine sheweth Where you may perceive how Iustine argued with those Heathen out of their owne Mysteries and that wee may so call them Sacraments even as Saint Paul did with the Athenians out of the Inscription of their owne Altar It happened not above a quarter of a yeare after that had set downe this Observation that in reading a Booke of that never too worthily Commended Mirrour of Learning Master Isaac Casaubone I found this my Opinion fortifyed and as it were animated with his most acurate Judgement shewing out of his most exquisite Reading that 17 Isaac Casaub in 〈◊〉 exercitat 16. Iustinus in Apologia altera narrat malos Daemonas in Mithâ—ae mysterijs S. Eacharâ—â—liae aemulationem quandam tradidisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecce panem et poculum sed aquae ut dixi non vin◠〈◊〉 verba solemnia super Symbolis proferri solita id enim significat isto in loco vox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qâ—d super dicta qua voce utuntur Iuris consulti Etiam Arrianus loco paulo ante indicato sacras mysteriorum voces commemorat quas magnà cum reverentiâ excipi solitas ostendit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum Eucharistia et sit et dâ—catur Communio sicut ante est expositum inâ—â—dem Mithrâ—â— mysterijs Communio quae est omnibus animantibus inter se miro Symbolorum genere expriâ—â—baâ—ur The Devils did in aemulation of Christians use in their Mysteries of Mythra Symbols of Bread and Cup adding solemne Mysticall words Hee furthermore sheweth out of Porphyrie that in their Religious Communion they had certaine Aenigmaticall expressions Calling their Communicants if Men Lions if Women Hyenas and if Ministers Crowes Still as you see using Mysticall and Figurative Appellations in their Ceremoniall Rites Vpon which evidence wee may easily encounter your Cardinalls Dilemma with this that followeth Either the Emperour and the Heathen people did perceive that the words of Christ now published by Iustine were spoken Figuratively signifying the Outward Eating of his Body Bodily in a Signe onely or they did not If they did know so much then could they not be offended with Orthodoxe Christians or Scandalized thereby And if they did not know that they were Figuratively and Mystically to be understood then would not those Emperours have absolved Christians from all blame as you see they did but punished them for Sacrificing of Infants which Act among these Heathen was held to be Criminall and Capitall And that Iustine did not Praevaricate by concealing his Figurative sense of Christs words it is as manifest by that he Instructed them therein out of their own Phrases used in their Ceremonies of their God Mithra The Impossibility that any Heathen could be offended at the former words of Justine SECT VI. NO Heathen that heard of the Catholike Faith of Christians concerning the Body of Christ in those Primitive times published by Ancient Fathers and by Iustine himselfe could except it were against their Consciences impute unto Christians a Corporall Eating of the Body of Christ For first the Articles of Christian Faith for which so many Armies of Martyrs conquered the Infidelity of the world by Martyrdome being this that Christ the Saviour of the world God and Man ascended into Heaven and there now reigneth in the Kingdome of everlasting Blessednesse adored of all Christians with Divine worship Another Article Vniversally held of those Catholike Fathers as hath been * See Book 4. c. 5. §. 5. proved that the Body of Christ was ever notwithstanding his Resurrection and Ascension Circumscribed in one place And thirdly All knowing that this Principle was universally and infallibly believed of all the Heathen namely To thinke it Impossible for one Body to be in many places at once Therefore was it Impossible for the Heathen to conceive that the Christians taught a Corporall Eating of that Body on Earth which they believed was Circumscribed and conteined in Heaven Fourthly That this was the Faith which the same Ancient Father Iustine did professe and publish at that time is now to be tryed out of the Bookes of Iustine himselfe That Iustine himselfe did accordingly argue against the Possibility of Christs Bodily Presence on Earth And that Attalas objected condemneth the Romish Capernaiticall Swallowing of Christs Body SECT VII IVstine in the same Apologie now objected and by him directed unto the Heathen Emperor Antoninus sirnamed the Godly before his words of Eating Christs flesh setteth down the Christian Article of his Ascension into Heaven saying 18 Iustin in Apologia secund pag. 64. Deus Christum post Resurrectionem illaturus coelo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. adversantes Daemones percutiat et bonorum numerum expleatur propter quos nondum extremum Decretum et consummationem fecit that God the Father assumed Christ after his death into Heaven there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is To detaine him untill hee vanquished the Devils and filled up the number of the Godly An
neither would nor ought to have concealed the words and names lest thereby they might have seemed to have abhorred the proper Characters of our Christian Profession Wee descend to the Fathers It is not unknowne unto you how the Fathers delighted themselves in all their Treatises with Iewish Ceremoniall Termes onely by Allegoricall Allusions as they did with the word Synagogue applying it to any Christian assembly as Arke to the Church Holocaust to Mortification Levite to Deacons Incense to Prayers and Praises and the word Pascha to the day of the Resurrection of Christ But if any should say that these Fathers used any of these words in a proper Signification hee should wrong both the common sense of these Fathers and his owne Conscience It were superfluous to urge many Instances where one will serve The word Altar applyed to the Table of the Lord which anciently stood in the g Euseb Hist lib. 10. cap. 4. Ex Orat Danegyr Paulino Tyriorum Episcopo dedicata qui Basilicam ibi construxit Sanctuario hoc modo absoluto perfecto sellisque quibusdam in altissimo loco ad Praesidum Ecclesiae honorem collocatis subsellijs ordine dispensatis Altarique denique tanquà m Sancto Sanctorum Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in medio Sanctuarij sito c. Cocclus Tom. 2. Tract de Altari Athanasio in vita Antonij Altare Domini multorum multitudine circumdatum Chrysost de visione Angelorum lib. 6. de Saerdotio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionys Hierarch Eccles cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 August de Verbis Dom. Serm. 46. de eo quod scriptum Qui mandueat Christus quotidie pascit mensa Ipsius est illa in medio constituta These Testimonies verifie the same Assertion of Doctor Falke against Gregory Martin cap. 17. The Table stood so that men might stand round aboue it Midst of the Chancell so that They might compasse it round was more rarely called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greekes or Altare of the Latines than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Mensa that is Table which they would not have done if Altar had carryed in it the true and absolute property of an Altar nay but they used therein the like liberty as they used to do in h August quaest super Exod. lib. 2. cap. 9. Altare est populus Dei Lib. 1. de Serm. in monte Altare in interiore Dei templò id est fides Lib. 10. de Civitat Dei cap. 4. Ejus est Altare cor nostrum And other Fathers ordinarily applying the name Altar to Gods People and to a Christian man's Faith and Heart ⚜ All this notwithstanding you are not to thinke that wee do hereby oppugne the Appellation of Priest and Altar or yet the now Situation thereof in our Church for use as Convenient and for order more Decent but onely the Romish Opinion and Doctrine whereby you hold them in the verie proprietie of words and not as the Fathers did onely by way of Allusion For your better Apprehension of this Truth if you will be pleased to observe that Christ in the time of the first Institution and Celebration of this Sacrament propounded it in the place where hee with his Disciples gave it unto them to be Eaten and Drunken then tell us where it was ever knowne that any Altar was ordained for Eating and Drinking In Gods Booke wee find Levit. 9. that the Priests themselves were not permitted to eate their Oblation On but Besides the Altar Neither may you thinke it any Derogation to this Sacrament that the place whereon it is Celebrated is not called an Altar of the Lord seeing the Spirit of God by his Apostle hath dignified it with as equivalent Attributes for the Apostle as hee called this Sacred Banquet purposely The Supper of the Lord and the Vessell prepared for the Liquid The Cup of the Lord so did hee name the place whereon it was set The Table of the Lord and the Contemners thereof Guiltie of the Body and Blood of the Lord and thereupon did denounce the Vengeance and Plague which fell upon prophane Communicants The Iudgement of the Lord and all these in one Chapter 1. Cor. 11. The like Difference may be discerned betweene your maner of Reverence in Bowing towards the Altar for Adoration of the Eucharist onely and ours in Bowing aswell when there is no Eucharist on the Table as when there is which is not to the Table of the Lord but to the Lord of the Table to testifie the Communion of all the Faithfull Communicants thereat even as the People of God did in Adoring him before the Arke his Footstoole Psal 99. 5. and 1. Chron. 28. 2. as Daniels Bowing at Prayer in Chaldea looking towards the Temple of Ierusalem where the Temple of Gods Worship was Dan. 6. 10. And as David would be knowne to have done saying Psal 5. 7. I will Worship towards thy holy Temple Will you suffer us to come home to you The Father Gregory Nazianzen for his soundnesse of Iudgement Sirnamed the Divine comparing this Inferiour Altar and Sacrifice on earth with the Body of Christ seated in Heaven faith that the Sacrifices which hee offereth in his Contemplation at the Altar in Heaven are i Nazian orat 28. Esto ego pellor ab Altari in Ecclesia at novi aliud Altare mentis contemplationis in coelo ibi adstabo Deo offeram Sacrificia quae sunt tanto acceptiora quà m ea quae offerimus ad Altare quanto pretiosior est veritas quà m umbra More acceptable than the Sacrifices which are offered at the Altar Below as much as Truth is more excellent than the Shadow So hee Therefore say wee the Sacrifice of Christ his Body and Blood are subjectively in Heaven but objectively here in the Eucharist here Representative only as in a Shadow but in Heaven presentatively in his Bodily presence So vainly your Disputers hitherto whilst that wee required Materials have objected against us bare words phrases and very shadowes Lastly Cyril of Alexandria k Cyril Alexand. cont Iulian. lib. 9 Iulian Ob. Iudaei sacrificant vos autem invento novo Sacrificio quare non sacrificatis illud commune nobiscum habent etiam Templa Altaria c. Resp Cyril multò post Vitae honestas ad meliora propensio est Sacrificium fragrantissimum Et Paulus hortatur nos exhibere corpora nostra Sacrificium sanctum rationalem cultum nostrum Deo Igitur etsi Iudaei sacrificarent ut in umbris praecepta implerent nos tamen latâ viâ euntes ad id quod rectum est veniemus nempè spiritualem immortalem cultum proficientes Iulian. Mosi dicitur septem diebus azymis vescemini vobis parum est abstulisse Cyril Resp Impletur Lex à nobis in azymis maximè fide justificatis in Spiritu mentalemque cultum praeponentibus tali modo Vnde scribit D. Paulus ut diem agamus in azymis sinceritatis veritatis Rursus
of Christ's Body that were Impious not a part of Accidents that were absurd what meaneth the childish Fabling trow wee but that if they should speake out they should betray their Cause in calling that little part a part of Bread as your objected Dionysius spake And when all is said wee heare no proofe of Divine Adoration of the Host But we leave you to take your Answer from your Salmeron who hath told you that * See above B. 1. Chap 3. Sect. 10. in Answer to the second pretence Casuall spilling of the Cup is no sinne âšœ Howbeit wee aske you whether it were a Veniall sin in your Cardinall to allege the words of Tertullian as spoken of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist which by the judgement of your owne 5 Gabriel Episâ— Albisp lib. 2. Observat 35. in lib. Tert. ad uxorem Calicis panis nostrialiquid in terram decuti anxiè patimur Pameliusin eum locum Quod addit inquit panis nostri facit ad distinctionem Bucharistiae Sacramenti in quo non calix panis communis proponuâ—tur And the Bishop himselfe Tertul. laudat aetatis suae morem quo aegrè ferebant si casu communis panis vini aliquid in terram exciderit Authors were spoken of Common and ordinary Bread and Wine It were well that this kind of oversight both in Cardinall Bellarmine and Master Brerely were not in them a fault Common and ordinarie Howsoever wee could tell you that if the hazard were so great as your Objections imply namely that any subject matter of Adoration had been believed to be in it than was the holy Bishop Exuperius whom notwithstanding Saint Hierome commendeth much blameable for 6 Hier. ad Rustic cap. 4. commending the Bp. Exuperius Nihil de illo dicimus qui corpus in canistro sanguinem portabat in vitro Carrying it in a Glasse And much more condemnable should that godly Pope Zephyrinus have beene 7 De Consec D. 1. C. Vasa Zepherinus Episcopus patenis vitrcis Missas celebrare constituit Who ordained that the Masse should be celebrated in Chalices of Glasse which the more brittle they were the more solidly they confirme unto us this Truth that Antiquity harboured not your beliefe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament âšœ Only we must againe insist in the former Observation to wit the frequent speeches of the Fathers telling â—s of Crums Fragments little parts of this Sacrament and of Burning them into ashes after the Celebration ended Now answer us in good sadnesse was it ever heard of we say not of ancient Fathers but of any professing Christianity were the Catholikes or Heretikes who would not have judged it most execrible for any to say or thinke that A crum or little part of Christ's Body falleth or that by a dash of the Cup the Blood of our Lord is spilt or that the Primitive Fathers in the Remainder of the Sacrament Burned their Saviour Yet these must they both have thought and said if as you speake of Eating Swallowing feeding Corporally on Christ's Body the Body of Christ were the proper Subject of these accidentall Events That the Objection taken from any Gesture used in the daies of Antiquity doth not prove a Divine Adoration of the Eucharist SECT III. GEsture is one of the points which you object as more observable than the former but how because Chrysostome will have the Communicant take it with a Chrysost in Liturg Posteà similiter Sacerdos sumit sanctum panem inclinato capite ante sacram mensam orans Inclining his head downe before the holy Table Cyril by b Cyril Hieros Mystag 5. Accede ad calicem sanguinis illius pronus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bowing after the maner of Adoring You will be still like your selves insisting upon Hâ—terogenies and Arguments which conclude not ad idem For first the Examples objected speake not of Bowing downe to the Sacrament but of our Bowing downe our heads to the ground in signification of our Vnworthinesse which may be done in Adoring Christ with a Sursum corda that is Listing up our hearts to Christ above And this may become every Christian to use and may be done without Divine Adoration of the thing before us Nay and that no Gesture either Standing Sitting or Kneeling is necessary for such an Adoration your greatest Advocate doth shew out of Antiquity and affirmeth this as a Point as c Espencaeus Nec disputatio super Adorandi gestu cum de Adorationis substantia inter omnes semper convenerit ac etiamnum convenit stantes aut sedentes proni aut supini erecti aut geniculati Christum in Eucharistia praesentissimum adoremus per se non refert cùm Adoratio non tam in externo cultu quà m intimo mentis affectu cernitur Lib. 2. de Adorat cap. 16. initio he saith agreed on by all adding that Divine Adoration consisteth not in the outward Gesture but in the Intention of the mind For indeed there is no one kind of outward Gesture which as you have confessed is not also communicable to man so that although that were true which is set down in that Rubrick of * The Latine is Inclinantes Altari but since I finde it in the Greeke before Consecration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so thrice the like After Consecration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Behinde the Table bowing downe his head And againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostomes Liturgie that the Ministers did use to Incline their Bodies to the holy Table yet none can be so simple to thinke that they did yield Divine honour unto the Table Nay your owne great Master of Ceremonies d Durant Peractâ thurificatione Sacerdos leviteâ— incurvescit ante Altare dum autem inclinat Sacerdos humilitatem Christi significat Sacerdos reflexus ad Altare cum paratur Consecratio Lib. 2. de Ritib cap. 25. Durantus hath observed the like Bewing downe of the Priest in the preparation of this Sacrament even Before Consecration and one of your Iesuites witnesseth that the objected e Vasquez Ies Graecâ— Ecclesia antè Consecrationem reverenter adorat etiaÌ„ si non sit ibi Christus De Adorat lib. 2. c. 11. Falsly commenting that this was Divine honour and iust Greek Church at this day doth Reverently adore before Consecration of the Bread and Wine albeit Christ be not therein And lest you may thinke your Posture of Kneeling to be absolutely necessarie wee referre you for your ample satisfaction to your owne learned French Bishop * Gabriel Episc Albisp Observat sacr lib. 1. Observ 12. professedly discussing this Point This being knowne how can you in any credibility conclude as you have done a Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament after Consecration from a Reverence which hath been yielded to the same Sacrament before it was consecrated In which consideration your Disputers stand so much the more condemnable because whereas
you will a transformed Devill yet the seed being Gods it may be fruitfull whatsoever the Seed-man be if the ground that receiveth it be capable Therefore here might wee take occasion to compare the Ordination Romish and English and to shew ours so farre as it consenteth with yours to be the same and wherein it differeth to be farre more justifiable than yours can be if it were lawfull upon so long travelling to transgresse by wandring into by-pathes Our last Securitie from the Romish Perplexity of Habituall Condition SECT VII HAbituall or virtuall Condition as it is conceived by your Professors standeth thus I adore this which is in the hands of the Priest as Christ if it be Christ being otherwise not â—illing so to do if it be not Christ What my Masters Iffs and And 's in divine worship These can be no better in your Church than leakes in a ship threatning a certaine perishing if they be not stopped which hitherto none of your best Artificers were ever able to do For as touching your profane Lecturer c Suarez Ies Simpliciter adorandus est Christus in Eucharistia aliud exigere ex iis esset superstitiosum vanis scrupulis superstitionibus exposituÌ„ neque enim est consentaneum ibi trepidare ubi non est vel probabilis ratio timendi sed potiùs periculum nè dubitatione devotio animi minuatur Tom. 3. qu. 79. Art 8. Disp 65. Sect. 2. Suarez labouring to perswade you to Adore Christ in the Eucharist simply without all scrupulizing saying It is not fit to feare where no feare is When as hee himselfe as you have heard hath told us that there are possibly incident * See above Chap. 5. Sect. 6. at a Almost Infinite Defects and consequently as many Causes of doubting which may disannull the âšœ whole Act of Consecration âšœ Every Morall Certaintie as your other i Lessius Ies Opusc Tract de Praescien condit cap. 21. §. Sed contra Moralis certitudo non est absoluta sed secundùm quid qualis nimiùm per conjecturas possit haberi ex signis cum quibus non necessariò conjungitur veritas rei signatae Iesuit and you all confesse being but conjecturall âšœ Therefore there needeth none other Confutation than this of his owne shamelesse Contradiction which as you may see is palpably grosse So impossible it is for any of you to allay the detestable stench of plaine Idolatry Certainely if S. Augustine had heard that a Worship of Latria which hee every-where teacheth to be proper to God were performed to Bread and Wine as the matter of Divine Adoration hee neither would nor could have said in defence thereof as hee did of the Celebration of the Eucharist in his owne time viz. d Aug. contr Faust Manich. lib. 20 cap. 21. Nos à Cerere Libero Paganorum Diis longè absumus Wee are farre from your Paganish worshipping of Ceres and Bacchus But as for us Protestants wee professe no Divine worship of God but with a Divine that is an Infallible Faith that * ⎠* it is God whom wee worship who will not be worshipped but in spirit and truth What furthermore wee have to say against your Romish Masse will be discovered in the Booke following THE EIGHTH BOOKE Of the Additionalls by a Summary Discovery of the manifold Abominations of the Romish Masse and of the Iniquities of the Defenders thereof THese may be distinguished into Principals which are Three the Romish Superstitiousnesse Sacrilegiousnesse and Idolatrousnesse of your Masse and Accessories which are These Obstinacies manifold Overtures of Perjuries Mixture of many ancient Heresies in the Defenders thereof CHAP. I. Of the peremptory Superstitiousnesse of the Romish Masse in a Synopsis SECT I. MAny words shall not need for this first point Superstition is described by the Apostle in this one word * Coloss 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Mans will-worship as it is opposite to the worship revealed by the will of God What the will of Christ is concerning the Celebration of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood wee have learned by his last Will and Testament expresly charging his Church and saying Do THIS pointing out thereby such proper Acts which concerned either the Administring or the Participating of the same holy Sacrament But now cometh in Mans will-worship ordained in the Church of Rome as flatly contradictory to the same Command of Christ by Ten notorious Transgressions as if it had beene in direct Termes countermanded thus Do not This as hath been * Booke 1. thorowout proved notwithstanding the former direct Injunction of Christ or conformable Observation of the holy Apostles or Consent and Custome of the Church Catholike and that without respect had to the due Honour of God in his worship or Comfort and Edification of his People And then is Superstition most bewitching when it is disguized under the feigned vizard of false Pretences which have bin many devised by the new Church of Rome in an opinion of her own wisdome to the befooling vilifying of the Ancient Catholike Church of Christ which never esteemed the same Reasons reasonaable enough for making any Alteration but notwithstanding such imaginations precisely observed the Precept and Ordinance of Christ But that which excedeth all height of Superstition is when upon the will-worship of man are stamped counterfeit Seales of forged Miracles as if they had beene authorized by the immediate hand of God whereof your Legendaries have obtruded upon their Readers * Booke 4. Ca. 2 〈◊〉 Thirteene Examples to wit of Fictitious Apparitions of visible Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist which maketh your Superstition Blasphemous as if God should be brought in for the justifying of Falshood a Sin abhorred by holy Iob saying to his Adversaries * Iob 13. 4 7 You are Forgers of Lies will you speake deceitfully for God And furthermore how Sacrilegious and Idolatrous your Romish Superstition is you may behold in the Sections following Of the Sacrilegiousnesse of the Romish Masse and Defence thereof in the point of Sacrifice comprized in this Synopsis SECT II. SAcrilege is whatsoever Violation of any sacred Person Place or Thing Now omitting to speake of your Dismembring the Eucharist by administring it but in One kinde which your Pope a Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 7. in the Challenge Gelasius condemned for a Grand Sacrilege or of the like points formerly discovered in the first Booke wee shall insist onely in your Churches Doctrine of Sacrifice wherein your Sacrifice is found to be grossely Sacrilegious in the Tractate of the Sixth Booke I. By Creating a new Sacrifice as Proper and thereby assuming to her selfe that b Booke â— Cha. â— Sect. â— Excellencie of Prerogative which is proper to Christ alone the High Priest and Bishop of our Soules namely the power of ordaining Sacraments or if need were Sacrifices in his Church Which Guiltinesse wee may call a
Counterfeiting of the Seale of Christ II. By making this Sacrifice in her pretence Christian but indeed c Booke 6. Cha. 5. Sect. 1. Earthly and Iewish III. By dignifying it with a Divine property of d Ibid. Chap. 10. Meritorious and Satisfactorie Propitiation IV. By professing another properly Satisfactory and c Ibid. and after c. Propitiatory Sacrifice for Remission of Sins besides that which Christ offered upon the Crosse As if after one hath paid the Debts of many at once upon condition that such of those Debters should be discharged whosoever submissively acknowledging those Debts to be due should also professe the favour of their Redeemer It cannot but be extreme folly for any to thinke that the money once paid should be tendred and offered againe as often as One or Other of the Debters should make such an acknowledgment the Surety having once sufficiently satisfied for all So Christ having once for all satisfied the justice of God by the price of his Blood in the behalfe of all penitent Sinners who in Contrition of heart and a living Faith apprehend the Truth of that his Redemption it cannot but be both injurious to the justice of God and to the merit of Christ that the same satisfactory Sacrifice as it were a new payment ought againe by way of Satisfaction be personally performed and tendred unto God V. By detracting from the absolute Function of Christ his f B. â—â— Chap. 3. Sect. 7. Priesthood now eminent and permanent before God in Heaven and thereupon stupifying the mindes of Communicants and as it were pinioning their thoughts by teaching them so to gaze and meditate on the matter in the hands of the Priest that they cannot as becometh Spirituall Eagles soare aloft and contemplate upon the Body of Christ where it 's infallible Residence is in that his heavenly Kingdome VI. By transforming as much as they can the Sacrament ordained for Christians to eat with their owne mouthes into a g Ibid. Theatricall Sacrifice wherein to be fed with the mouth of the Priest VII By abasing the true value of Christ his Blood infinitely exceeding all valuation in making it but h Ibid. Chap. 10. Sect. 4. finite whereas Christ being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and Man in one person every propitiatory worke of his must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore of a infinite price and power VIII By denying the Effect of his * Ibid. Chap. 11. Propitiation for sinne to be plenary in the Application thereof IX There hath beene noted by the way the Portion appropriated to the Priest out of your Sacrifice and to be applyed to some particular Soule for money being an Invention as hath beene confessed void of all i Ibid. Chap. 11. Sect. 4. Warrant either by Scripture or by Ancient Tradition To say nothing of your fine Art of cheating mens Soules by Priestly Fraud whereof as also of the Rest wee have discoursed at k Booke 6. thorowout large A New Instance for proofe of Romish Sacrilegiousnesse in the Prayer set downe in the Liturgie of their Masse SECT III. IN your Missall after Consecration it is prayed thus a Missal Rom. Offerimus Majestati tuae Domine immaculatam Hostiam sanctum panem vitae aeternae Calicem salutis perpetuae supra quae propitio vultu respicere digneris sicut dignatus es munera justi pueri tui Abel And in the next place Iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli in sublime Altare tuum coeleste Wee offer unto thy Majestie O Lord this immaculate Host this holy Bread of eternall life this Cup of everlasting salvation upon which vouchsafe to looke with a propitious and favourable Countenance as thou didst accept the gifts of thy holy servant Abel and command these to be carried up into thy celestiall Altar c. So the Canon of your Masse Some Protestants in their zeale to the glory of Christ impute unto you hereupon a Sacrilegious Profanenesse whilest you beleeving That Host and That Cup to be the very Body and Blood of Christ and a Propitiatory Sacrifice in it selfe yet do so pray God to be propitious unto it and to accept it as hee did the Sacrifice of Abel yeelding thereby no more estimation to Christ than to a vile sheepe which was offered by Abel At the hearing of this your Cardinall See the b Bellarm. lib. 2. de Missa cap. 24. Facilis est responsio Non petimus pro Christi reconciliatione apud Patrem sed pro nostra infirmitate etsi enim oblatio consecrata ex parte rei quae offertur ex parte Christi principalis offerentis semper Deo placebat tamen ex parte Ministri populi astantis qui simul etiam offerunt fieri potest ut non place at Paulò post Comparatio non est inter Sacrificium nostrum Sacrificium Abelis sed tantùm ratione fidei devotionis offerentium ut nimirùm tantâ fide offerant quantâ Abel quod Sacrificium Abelis non haberet in se quod Deo placere eumque placare possit quaâ—e dicitur Heb. 11. per fidem obtulit Abel Deo Sacrificium melius Ratio Gen 4. Respexit Deus ad Abel Sacrificium post §. Porrò Deferii Sacrificium per manus Angeli nihil aliud est quà m intercessione Angeli commendari Deo nostrum obsequium cultum So also Suarez Tom. 3. Disp 83. Art 4. Iube haec id est Vota nostra Et Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 32. sub finem Margin 1. Prefaceth 2. Answereth 3. Illustrateth 4. Reasoneth First of his Preface The Answer saith hee is easie As if that Objection which seemeth to us a huge logg in your way were so little an obstacle that any might skip over it But have you never seene men in trusting too much to their nimblenesse to over-reach themselves in their leape stumble fall and breake their limbes Semblably hee in his Answer which is the second point The meaning of our Church saith hee is not to pray for Christs reconciliation who was alwayes well pleasing to God but in respect of the infirmity of the Priest and people that the offering may be accepted from them So hee But whatsoever the meaning of the Priest in his praying is sure wee are this cannot be the meaning of the Prayer for the matter prayed for is set downe to be Holy Bread of life and Cup of Salvation which you interpret to be Substantially the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament and the tenour of prayer expressely is Vpon which Lord looke propitiously wee say upon which not upon whom which point is confirmed in that which followeth Thirdly therefore hee illustrateth The Comparison saith hee is not absolutely betweene the Sacrifice of Abel and of Christ but in respect of the faitb and devotion of the Priest and people that they with like faith may offer as Abel did But this piece of Answer is
that which is called in Musicke Discantas contra punctum for the prayer is directly Looke downe propitiously upon these as thou didst upon the gifts of Abel The Comparison then is distinctly betweene the Gifts and not betweene the Givers Yea but not absolutely so meant saith hee be it so yet if it be so meant but in part that Christ who is Propitiation it selfe shall be prayed for to be propitiously and favourably looked upon by God the prayer is Sacrilegious in an high degree Fourthly his Reason It is knowne saith hee that the Sacrifices of Sheepe and Oxen had nothing in themselves whereby to pacifie or please God the Scripture saying that Abel offered a better Sacrifice than Cain And againe God had respect to Abel and to his Gifts So hee Which is the very Reason that perswadeth Protestants to call that your Prayer most Sacrilegious because whereas the Gifts of Abel were but Sheepe c. you notwithstanding compare them with the offering up of Christ saying As thou didst the Gifts of Abel For although it be true that the Gift of Abel was accepted for the Faith of the Giver and not the Giver for his Gift yet if you shall apply this to the point in Question then your Gift in your Opinion being Christ and your Givers but simply men whom you have called Priest and People it must follow that Christ is accepted for the Faith of the Priest and People and not the Priest and People for Christ which maketh your Prayer farre more abominably Sacrilegious And not much lesse is that which followeth praying God to command his Angel to carry if the Gift be Hee Christ into heaven contrary to the Article of our Catholike Faith which teacheth us to believe his perpetuall Residence in heaven at the right hand of the Father Hee answereth c Bellarm. sup And so Doctor Heskins out of Hugo de sancto victore in his Parliament of Christ Booke 3. Chap. 395. It is not meant that God would command his Angel to carry Christ's Body but our prayers and desires by the intercession of the Angel unto God for us So hee Which is as truly a false Glosse as the former for in the Tenour of your Masse the Subject of your prayer is Holy Bread of life and Cup of salvation The prayer is plainly thus Vpon which O Lord looke propitiously and immediately after Command These to be carried by thy Angel Marke These viz. That Bread of life and Cup of salvation even that which you call The Body and Blood of Christ as Corporally Present which maketh your prayer to be Sacrilegious still and your Expositors that wee may so say miserably Radiculous That the former Romish Prayer as it was Ancient doth in the then true meaning thereof condemne the now Romish Church of the former Sacrilegious Innovation SECT IV. FOr to thinke that it should be prayed that God would be propitious to Christ were an Execrable opinion even in the Iudgement of our Adversaries themselves who for avoydance thereof have obtruded an Exposition as farre differing from the Text as doth This from That or Christ from the Priest as you have heard But whither will hee now Your Cardinall telleth you that the words of your Romish Canon are ancient such as are found in the a Bellarm. l. 2. de Missa cap. 24. Super quae propitio c. habentur apud Ambrosium post consecrationem Lib 4. de Sacram. cap. 6. Rursus Bellar. ibid. Haec verba posita sunt post consecrationem apud Ambrosium lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 6. in Liturgijs Iacobi Clementis Basilij Chrysostomi Missals of Saint Iames of Clement Pope of Rome of Basil of Chrysostome and of Ambrose You will hold it requisite that wee consult with these Liturgies set out by your selves for the better understanding of the Tenour of your Romish Masse The Principall Quaere will be whether Antiquity in her Liturgies by praying to God for a propitious Acceptation and admittance into his Celestiall Altar meant as your Cardinall answered Propitiousnesse towards Priest and People in respect of their Faith and devotion and not towards the Things offered distinctly in themselves In the pretended Liturgie of b Liturgia Iacobi antè Conjecrationem Diaconus Oremus pro sanctificatis tremendis donis ut Dominus acceptis eis in super-coeleste spirituale Altare suum in odorem suavitatis mittat nobis divinam gratiam Tum Sacerdos Deus ac Pater Domini Dei Servatoris qui tibi oblata munera frugum oblationes accepisti in odorem suavitatis sanctifica animas nostras Post Sacerdos censecrans verba Consecrationis adhibet Sancte qui in sanctis requiescis suscipe hymnum incorruptum in sanctis incruentis Sacrificijs tuis Saint Iames before Consecration the prayer to God is To accept the Gifts unto his celestiall Altar even the Gifts which hee called The fruits of the earth And then after for the Parties aswell Priest as People To sanctifie their soules In the Liturgie of c Liturgia Bafilij ante Consecrationem Pontifex Suscipe nos ut simus digni offerre rationabile illud absque sanguine Sacrificium vide super servitutem nostram ut suscepisti munera Abel sic ex manibus nostris suscipe ista ex benignitate tuâ Et rursus Diac. Pro oblatis sanctificatis honorificentissimis muneribus Deum postulemus ut qui accepit ea in sancto supercoelesti Altari suo in odorem suavitatis emittat gratiam spiritum nobis c. Post sequitur Consecratio Pontifex Respice Domine Iesu Et post Consecrationem Gratias agimus Basil before Consecration it is prayed to God that hee Receiving the Gifts into his celestiall Altar would also concerning the Parties send his Grace and Spirit upon them And no lesse plainly Pope d Clement Constitut lib. 8. cap. 16. called Constitutio Iacobi apud Binium Tu qui Abelis Sacrificium suscepisti And after Pro omnibus tibi gloria c. cap. 17. Benignè aspicere digneris super haec dona proposita in conspectu tuo complaceas tibi in eis in honorem Christi mittas spiritum super hoc Sacrificium testem passionum ejus ut ostendas hunc panem corpus ejus c. Post Consecrationem cap. 19. Etiam rogemus Deum per Christum suum pro munere oblato Domino ut Deus qui bonus est suscipiat illud per Mediatorem Christum in coeleste Altare suum in odorem suavitatis pro hâc Ecclesiâ c. Clemens teaching before Consecration to pray God who received the Gifts of Abel graciously to behold these Gifts propounded to the honour of his Son Christ expresly differencing this Sacrifice done in honour of Christ from Christ himselfe who is honoured thereby And after Consecration to Beseech God through Christ to accept the Gift offered to him and to take it into his Celestiall Altar where the prayer to God is not to
Recantation p. 335. BERTRAM his saying The Body of Christ in Heaven differeth from that on the Altar as much as that which was borne of the Virgin Mary and that which was not pag 159. His saying Bread remaineth in the Eucharist after Consecration pag. 186. The Romish Profession is to delude the Testimonies of Antiquity Ibid. pag. 187. His saying Iewes ate the same Spirituall meat with Christians p. 314. Bâ—ZA unjustly charged with denying Gods Omnipotencie p 231. BLASPHEMIE of a Romish Iesuite Teaching the Pope to dispence with the expresse Command of Christ pag. 87 BLESSED IT was Christs Consecration p. 9. BLOOD A Discourse of Fr. Collius a Romish Doctor of the miraculous Issuings of Christs Blood in the Eucharist p. 225 c. Blood of the Testament Exo. 24. objected for the Sacrifice of the Masse and Confuted by their owne Iesuite 424. Not infused in the Eucharist pag. 469. How the Fathers call the Eucharist both a Bloody and Vâ—bloody Sacrifice p. 455 456 457 c. BODY of Christ changed into whatsoever the Receiver desireth vainely Objected out of Greg. Nyssen pag. 202. Hee saith So doth Christs Body change our Bodies into it self Ibid. And Chrysost Christ hath made us his owne Body not by Faith but in deed also Ibid. An Objected Possibility of a Bodies being in diverse places at once from the like existence of Voice and Colour and of the soule of a man in the parts of his Body p. 259 260 261. Romish Objections against our using of Naturall reason to disprove the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist p. 263. A Body cannot take the right hand and left hand of it selfe pag. 254. The entrance of Christs Body miraculously through the doores p. 275 c. The Body of Christ opened the Cell of the Blessed Virgin p. 2777punc 278. In the Body of Christ by Popish Doctrine his head is not distant from his feet pag. 272. Body of Christ is held by the Romish Sect to be voyd of all sense and understanding as hee is in this Sacrament p 282. Christs Body is the Spirituall and Supersubstantiall food of the Soule p. 310. Eaten in vow and desire Ibid. Christs Body united to the Bodies of the Communicants See VNION See EATE Christs Body not suffering Destruction 467. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. BREAD Sacramentall albeit Bread is dignifyed by Saint Augustine with the name of Celestiall p 127. That Bread remaineth after CoÌ„secration is proved by Scripture p. 162. Consisting of Graines p. 163. Proved by Antiquity p. 163 164. By Sense 169. By the Analogie of Bread consisting of multitudes of Graines of Corne. Ibid. 165. Bread remaineth the same in Substance by the Iudgemen of Antiquity p. 169 Proved by the Councel of Nice p. 303. Bread and Wine called a Sacrifice by Ancient Fathers but Improperly p. 404 405 c. BREAKING of Bread used by Antiquity Contrary to the now Romish Practice pag 15. Breaking in Christs speech is Tropicall Ibid. Broken in the Present tense for proof of a Sacrifice and yet confessed by the Romish to betâ—ken the future pag. 397. C CABASILAS Gr Archb for the forme of Romish Consecration calumniously Objected 493. CAKE upon the Mountaines Objected out of the Psalmes and confuted by Popish Doctors pag. 433. CALVIN unjustly charged with denying Gods Omnipotencie pag. 231. CANON of the Masse Dominus vobiscum contradicteth the Private Masse p. 19. CANONIZATION of Saints fallibly is the ground of Superstitiousnesse p. 542. 543. CAPERNAITICAL Eating of Christs flesh 329. c. The Romish Eating of Christs Body is Capernaiticall p. 335. 336. c. See Vnion See Eating See Swallowing Mr. CASAVBON his large discourse teaching the universall practise of Antiquity to understand the tongue wherein they prayed p. 36. His Satisfaction to the Objected Testimonies of Antiquitie for Transubstantiation and Corporall Presence p. 207. His Iudgement upon the Fathers in the point of Fragments p 179. And upon the Objected Testimonie of Cyrill of Ierusalem pag. 177. His Answere to the Obcted Testimonie of â—ustine concerning the Sacrifice to Mithra among the Heathen pag. 379. His Exposition upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 400. CASSIODORE wrongfully urged for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse from the act of Melchisedech p. 406. That Melchisedech as Christ offered Bread and Wine Ibid. CATECHISME of TRENT saying All Baptized are Sacerdotes and so August p. 314. CAVTION of Antiquity in not suffering any part of the Eucharist in solid or liquid to fall to the ground Objected and Answered pag. 514. CHâ—VVING the Continuall maner of Eating of the Sacrament p. 339. CHRIST'S Acts of Excellency not to be imitated of any such as was his not compleat Sacramentall communicating in Emmaus pag. 63. 64. c. CHRYSOSTOME against Prayer in an unknowne tongue pag. 35. Hee is vainely objected for the Private Masse of the alone Communicating Priest pag. 21. Hee is for Consecration by Prayer p. 14. Hee is vehement against the Romish Custome of Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist pag. 47. Reverence to Christ is our Obedience pag. 81. Hee is against the Communicating but in one kind p. 77. Hee is for the Figurative sense in Christs words This is my Body and for the Continuance of Bread after Consecration p. 116. 117. c. His Question What is Bread The Body of Christ as the faithfull Communicants are the Body of Christ pag. 117. Hee expoundeth the fruit of the Vine Matth. 26. 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine pag. 163. 164. Hee saith If Christ had given onely an Image of his Body at his Resurrection hee had deluded his Disciples p. 169. And that in things sensible the Substance remaineth p. 198. And that Christ hath made us his owne Body not onely in faith but in deed also p. 202. Ob Thinke not that it is the Priest that reacheth it but God Sol. Not the Priest but God holdeth the head of the Baptized p. 200. Bread unworthy of the name of Christ's Body albeit the Nature of Bread remaineth still pag. 186. His Testimony blotted out by the Parisian Doctors p. 186 Changed by Divine power 189. Our senses may be deceived wee are altogether to believe it 198. His Hyperbolicall maner of speech confessed 199. Hee saith Something is Impossible to God even to the advancement of Gods Omnipotencie p. 229. Hee is objected for Christs Corporall Presence both in Heaven and in Earth unconscionably pag. 247. Answered Ibid. His Hyperbolicall speeches Ibid. Ob. Hee left his flesh as Elias his Mantle Ibid. Hee holdeth that Angels have allotted unto them a prescript place or space p. 261. Hee is objected for the Romish Penetration of the Doores by Christ's Body Vnconscionably 275. Hee is against the Impalpability of Christs Body p. 276. and against the Passing of Christ's Body into the Seege p. 287. Hee is objected that Godlesse Communicants partake of Christs Body pag. 313. Yet saith that
point out Bread by an Inquest of ancient Fathers pag. 103. and by a Romish Principle p. 104 The same is confirmed by the other This expresly spoken of the Cup which demonstrateth the very Cup and not Christs Blood p. 105. 106. That the Verbe Est hath the sense of Signifieth p. 107. A Figurative speech in other Sacramentall words in Scripture p. 108. Eight words Tropically understood in the very speech of Christs Institution p. 110. 111. 112. c. A Glasse or Synopsis of the Exposition of the Fathers upon the words of Christ This is my Body to prove them to be Tropicall p. 129. c. Romish Objections for a proper sense of Christs words answered by Reason p. 132. That Testamentary words may be Figurative Ibid. Words of Precept Figurative p. 133. Words Doctrinall Figurative p. 134. When the Figurative sense is to be held p. 135. Ten Reasons for the Figurative sense of Christs words p. 136. Third Key for opening the Figurative sense in the Pronoune Adjective Meum as it is pronounced by the Priest pag. 138. Figures of the old Testament objected to be better than the signes or Sacraments in the new for proofe of a materiall Presence of Christ but is confuted pag. 426. c. The Cloud in the Sea compared with Baptisme and Manna with the Eucharist Ibid. FINITE and Infinite doe diversiâ—ie the two Natures of Christ p. 204. 205. 206 c. FRAGMENTS and Bits of the Eucharist p. 179. FRANCIS DE St. CLARA his Paraphrasticall Reconciliation is but Phantasticall p. 37. 38. 39. c. FVLGENTIVS proveth the God-head of the Holy Ghost to be in divers places at once p. 266. Hee defendeth Circumscription in one place to distinguish Christs Man-hood from his God-head p. 243. G GAVDENTIVS teacheth Hoc in Christs speech to demonstrate Bread p. 103. His saying Christ reacheth his Body unconscionably objected p. 343. Answered p. 345. Objected calling the Eucharist a pledge p. 369 GAZERS onely at the Eucharist were commanded anciently to depart p. 46. 47. GESTVRE of the Body used in the dayes of Antiquity proveth not a divine Adoration of the Eucharist p. 515. GHOST The Holy Ghost proved to be God by Antiquity from its being in divers places at once p. 266. 267. Against Heretikes that denied the God-head of Christ Ibid. GIVEN in Christs speech of Institution taken Figuratively p. 11. It is objected to be in the Present tense for proofe of a Sacrifice and yet confessed by themselves to betoken the Future p. 393. 394. 395. c. A GLASSE wherein to discerne the Consonant Iudgement of Antiquity for a Figurative sense in Christs words This is my Body p. 129. 130. c. GLASSE-CVPS used anciently in the Eucharist p. 514. GLOSSE in the Popes Decrees granteth that This is my Body is in sense This signifieth my Body 114. GODLY onely Partakers of Christs Body so Protestants p. 311. 312 Wicked notwithstanding guilty of the Lords Body p. 313. That the Godly onely are Partakers in the Iudgement of Antiquity 320. And not the Wicked p. 321. S. Augustine accordeth hereunto p. 323. GORGONIA her Example idely objected for Divine Adoration p. 517. GRAMMAR in the Particle Hoc Neutrally with Panis and the like pag. 100. GREEKE FATHERS for the Consecration by Prayer p. 12. 13. GVEST and FEAST Christ is so called anciently p. 366. c. GVILTY of the Lords body not by receiving it but by contemptuous receiving of the Sacrament thereof pag. 313. yea and Guiltinesse of Contempt even by not receiving it p. 316. Guilty of Gods Vindicative Iudgement in all contempts of holy things pag. 318. and Fathers opposed p. 319. 320. c. H HABITVALL CONDITION cannot free the Romish Adoration of the Hoast from formall Idolatry p. 538. The Protestants security herein pag. 555. HERESIES in great number mingled with the doctrine of the Romish Masse in their Affinity and sometimes Consanguinity with ancient Heresies p. 581. c. HANDS Anciently the Eucharist was received with Hands p. 43. HEGESIPPVS objected for Apparitions of some in two places at once pag. 241. and answered by Vasquez Ibid. HESYCHIVS calleth the Eucharist a bloody Sacrifice and the slaying of Christ p. 455. HIEREMIE Patriarch of Constantinople denying Transubstantiation said These Mysteries are not changed into a humane body p. 205. S. HIEROME against the pretended priviledging of the Romish Priest in his onely participating in both kinds pag. 76. Teaching Hoc in Christs words to demonstrate Bread p. 103. And the Figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body p. 125. Hee expoundeth the fruit of the Vine Matth. 26. 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine p. 163. Hee is against the Romish manner of Christs passage through the Doores pag. 276. Hee standeth for Christs bodily Opening the Cell of the blessed Virgin at his Birth p. 278. Interpreteth the Camells passing through the needles eye 279. That the wicked are not partakers of Christs body pag. 321. His calling Christ Feast and Guest unconscionably objected for a Corporal union pag. 366. His calling the Eucharist a Pledge p. 369. Hee said that Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine that is the Body Blood of Christ p. 404. Hee is objected for the Romish Exposition of the word Sacrifice Malachie 5. and confuteth the Objector pag. 432. Hee is against the Romish sense of Iuge Sacrificium p. 435. To shew that this on the Altar is not the same subjectively with that on the Crosse saith that Of this one may eate but not of that p. 444. Of the Minister a true Priest or rather an Imitator Ibid. Hee is objected that Christs Body is a bloudy Sacrifice and slaine in the Eucharist pag. 455. That anciently they carried the Blood in a Glasse 514. That the Cup was a Glasse Ibid. Hee saith Let us keep our Passover above with Christ p. 527. HILARIE proveth the Holy Ghost to be God because it is proved in Scripture to be in diverse places at once p. 266. He is Vnconscionably Objected for a Corporall Vnion by Christs Bodily nourishing our Bodies p. 359. That he spake of a permanent Vnion p. 365. Objected to say We are made one with Christ not onely in affection but also in nature He saith the very same of Baptisme Wee are one with Christ not only in affection but also in nature p. 356. That hee speaking of the nourishment of mens Bodies by the Sacrament meant not any Substantiall nourishment thereby where were Absurd as is Confessed p. 362. Objected at large for Naturall and Corporall Conjunction of Christs Body with the Bodies of the Communicants p. 359. Hoc in Christs words Hoc est Corpus is Figurative p. 99. See the word Figurative Hoc FACITE Doe this No proofe of Romish Sacrifice pag. 390. c. HOLY-GHOST See the word Ghost HOLY things contemned See Contempt HYPERBOLES of Chrysostome pag. 199. and of other Fathers p. 342. 343. I IACOB his taking Leah for Rachael objected prophanely and absurdly for