witnessed first that Christ brake the bread into twelve parts Secondly that this Act of breaking of bread is such a principall Act that the whole Celebration of this Sacrament hath had from thence this Appellation given to it by the Apostles to be called Breaking of Bread Thirdly that the Church of Christ alwayes observed the same Ceremonie of breaking the bread aswell in the Greeke as in the Latine and consequently the Romane Church Fourthly that this Breaking of the Bread is a Symbolicall Ceremonie betokening not only the crucifying of Christ's bodie vpon the Crosse but also in the common participation thereof representing the vnion of the mysticall bodie of Christ which is his Church Communicating together of one loafe that as many graines in one loafe so all faithfull Communicants are vnited to one Head Christ as the Apostle teacheth 1. Cor. 10. thus The bread which we breake is it not the Communion of the bodie of Christ for we being many are one bread We adde as a most speciall Reason that this Breaking it in the distribution thereof is to apply the representation of the Bodie crucified and the Bloud shed to the heart and soule of every Communicant That as the Bread is given broken to vs so was Christ crucified for vs. Yet neverthelesse your Church contrarily professing that although Christ did breake bread yet BEHOLD she doth not so what is it else but to starch her face and insolently to confront Christ his Command by her bold Countermand as you now see in effect saying But doe not this A SECOND CHALLENGE AS for that truly called Catholike Church you your-selves doe grant vnto vs that by Christ his first Institution by the Practice of the Apostles by the ancient and universall Custome of the whole Church of Christ aswell Greeke as Latine the Ceremonie of Breaking bread was continually observed Which may be vnto vs more than a probable Argument that the now Church of Rome doth falsly usurpe the Title of CATHOLIKE for the better countenancing and authorizing of her novell Customes although neuer so repugnant to the will of Christ and Custome of the truly called Catholike Church In the next place to your Pretence of Not-Breaking because of Reverence We say Hem scilicet Quanti est sapere As if Christ and his Apostles could not fore-see that your Necessitie namely that by the Distributing of the Bread and by Breaking it some little crummes must cleaue sometimes vnto the beards of the Communicants or else fall to the ground Or as though this Alteration were to be called Reverence and not rather Arrogance in making your-selves more wise than Christ who instituted or then all the Apostles or Fathers of primitiue times who continued the same Breaking of bread Therefore this your Contempt of Breaking what is it but a peremptorie breach of Christ his Institution neuer regarding what the Scripture saith Obedience is better then Sacrifice For indeed true Reverence is the mother of Obedience else is it not Devotion but a meere derision of that Command of Christ Doe this The third Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the sence of the next words of Christs Command viz. GAVE IT VNTO THEM SECT V. IT followeth in the Canon of Christ his Masse And hee gaue it vnto them euen to THEM to whom hee said Take yee eate yee By which pluralitie of persons is excluded all private Massing forasmuch as our High Priest Christ Iesus who in instituting and administring of this Sacrament would not be alone said hereof as of the other Circumstances Doe this The Contrarie Canon of the now Romane Masse This holy Synod saith your Councell of Trent doth approue and commend the Masses wherein the Priest doth Sacramentally communicate alone So your Church CHALLENGE BVt who shall iustifie that her Commendation of the alone-communicating of your Priest which we may iustly condemne by the liberall Confessions of your owne Doctors who grant first that this is not according to the Institution of Christ saying in the Plurall To them Secondly nor to the practice of the Apostles who were Communicating together in prayer and breaking of bread Act. 2. 46. that is say they aswell in the Eucharist as in Prayer Thirdly Nor to the ancient Custome of the whole Church both Greek and Romane Fourthly neither to Two Councels the one called Nanetense the other Papiense decreâ—ing against Priuate Masse Fiftly nor to the very names of the true Sacramentall Masse which by way of Excellencie was sometime called Synaxis signifying as S. Basil saith the Congregation of the faithfull somtimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communion or Communicating and sometimes the Prayers vsed in euery holy Masse were called Collectae Collects because the people vsed to be collected to the celebration of the Masse it selfe Sixtly Nor to the very Canon of the now Romane Masse saying in the Plurall Sumpsimus we haue receiued And thereupon seuenthly repugnant to the Complaints of your owne men against your Abuse who calling the ioynt Communion instituted by Christ the Legitimate Masse doe wonder how your Priests sole Communicating euer crept into the Church and also deplore the contempt which your priuate Masse hath brought vpon your Church Hitherto see the Marginals from your owne Confessions Let vs adde the absurditie of the Commendation of your Councell of Trent in saying We commend the Priest's communicating alone A man may indeed possibly talke alone fret alone play the Traytor alone but this Communicating alone without any other is no better Grammar than to say that a man can conferre alone conspire alone contend or Couenant alone Caluine saith indeed of spirituall Eating which may be without the Sacrament as you also confesse that a faithfull man may feede alone of the Body and Blood of Christ But our dispute is of the Sacramentall Communicating thereof A SECOND CHALLENGE Against the former Prevarication condemning this Romane Custome by the Romane Masse it selfe VVEe make bold yet againe to condemne your Custome of Priuate Masse and consequently the Commendation giuen thereof by the Councel of Trent For by the Canon of your owne Masse wherein there are Interlocutorie speeches betweene Priest and People at the Celebration of this Sacrament the Priest saying Dominus vobiscum The Lord be with you and the People answering the Priest and saying And with thy Spirit your Cl. Espencaeus sometimes a Parisian Doctor one commended by Genebrard for his Treatise vpon this same Subiect of the Priuate Masse albeit he agreeth with the execrable Execration and Anathema of the Councell of Trent against them that hold Solitarie Masses to be vnlawfull yet after the expence of much paper to prove that some private Masse must needs haue anciently beene because Primitiuely Masse was celebrated almost in all Churches euery day and that S. Chrysostome did complaine of the absence of the people yet comming to determine of the poynt This
itch as hee himselfe called his owne humour which received a Salve that might have cured him of that itch to be medling with the same Doctor Yet the onely Exception which hath since come to this Doctor 's eares from your side is this now objected point concerning the Manichees whereupon you have heard them both so urgently and boastingly insist and not so onely but they have also divulged this pretended Contradiction in many Counties of this Kingdome to his reproach Will you be so kinde as but to heare an Answer and then either wonder at or hisse or applaude or him or them as you shall finde iust Cause Two things there were condemnable in the Manichees one was their Act and Practice in dismembring the Sacrament by not communicating in both kindes the other was their Opinion which they held for so doing which was as you have heard an hereticall Conceit that Wine was the Creature of the Devill Concerning this hereticall opinion no Protestant said Doctor Morton doth charge the Church of Rome but as for the Act of not Communicating in both kinds he called it Sacrilegious and concluded the Church of Rome in this respect to be as guilty of dismembring the Sacrament as were the Manichees And both these hee hath done by the Authority of Pope Gelasius who decreed in condemning the Manichees First against their Opinion saying Illinescio quâ superstitione docentur astringi c. That is They are intangled in a kind of Superstition Then for the Act of refusing the Cup Because saith he the dividing of the same Mystery cannot be done without grievous sacrilege therefore let these Manichees either receive the whole Sacrament or else let them be wholly excluded from receiving So Gelasius Seeing then Doctor Morton and all Protestants cleare the Church of Rome from the imputation of the Heresie of the Manichees in respect of their opinion and yet condemne them of the Manichean Sacrilege in respect of the Act of dismembring the Sacrament with what spectacles thinke you did your Priest and Iesuite reade that Answere of Doctor Morton to collect from thence either your Churches Iustification from a foule fault of Sacrilege or else the Doctors foule Contradiction to himselfe and that cleerely forsooth in the same respect who themselves are now found to have beene so subtilly witlesse as not to discerne Heresie from Sacrilege an opinion from a fact or a no-imputation of that whereof neither Doctor Whitaker nor any other Protestant ever accused them from a practice condemned by a Romane Pope himselfe Take unto you a Similitude A man being apprehended in the company of Traytors upon suspition of Felonie is fully and effectually prosecuted for Felonie onely if one should say of him that he was not conuicted or condemned of Treason but of Felonie were this either a Contradiction in the party speaking or a full Iustification of the party spoken of You are by this time we thinke ashamed of your Proctors and of their scornefull insultation upon the Doctor in the ridiculous tearmes of Rabbin and magnus Apollo who willingly forbeareth upon this Advantage to recompence them with like scurrility being desirous to be only Great in that which is called Magna est Veritas praevalet By which Truth also is fully discovered the vanity of the Answere both of Master Fisher and of your Cardinall saying that Gelasius condemned only the Opinion of the Manichees which is so transparant a falshood as any one that hath but a glympse of Reason may see through it by the sentence it â—elfe as hath beene proved Our second Reason is in respect of the perfect Spirituall Refection represented by this Sacrament SECT VIII ANother Object represented in this Sacrament is the food of man's soule in his faithfull receiving of the Bodie and Blood of Christ which because it is a perfect spirituall Refection Christ would have it to be expressed both in Eating and Drinking wherein consisteth the perfection of man's bodily sustenance and therefore are both necessarily to be used by law of Analogie betweene the outward signe and the thing signified thereby Two of your Iesuites from whome Master Fisher hath learned his Answere seeke to perswade their Readers that the soules refection spirituall is sufficiently signified in either kind whether in Bread or Wine But be it knowne unto you that either all these have forgotten their Catechisme authorized by the Fathers of the Councell of Trent and confirmed by Pius Quartus then Pope or else Those their Catechists forgot themselves in teaching that This Sacrament was instituted so that two severall Consecrations should be used one of Bread and the other of the Cup to the end both that the Passion of Christ might be represented wherein his Bloud was separated from his Body and because this Sacrament is ordained to nourish man's soule it was therefore to be done by Eating and Drinking in both which the perfect nourishment of man's naturall life doth consist Aquinas and your Iesuite Valentia with others are as expresse in this point as they were in the former who although they as we also hold that whole Christ is received in either kinde for Christ is not divided yet doe they mayntaine that This Sacrament as it is conformable both to Eating and Drinking so doth it by both kindes more perfectly expresse our spirituall nourishment by Christ and therefore it is more convenient that both be exhibited to the faithfull severally as for Meate and for Drinke So they For although in the Spirituall Receiving Eating and Drinking are both one even as the appetite of the Soule in hungring and thirsting is the same as where it is written Matth. 5. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousnesse c. yet in this Sacramentall communicating with bodily instruments it is otherwise as you know The blood of Christ is not dranke in the forme of Bread nor is his Bodie eaten as meate in the forme of Wine because the Bodie cannot be said to be dranke nor the bloud to be eaten So your Durand and so afterwards your Iansenius Wherefore you in with-holding the Cup from the People doe violate the Testament of Christ who requireth in this a perfect representation visible of a compleate and a full Refection spirituall which is sufficient to condemne your Abuse whereby you also defraud God's people of their Dimensum ordained by Christ for their vse Concerning this second Master Fisher one of the society of Iesuites was taught to Answere that the Full causality as he said and working of spirituall Effects of the soule cannot be a wanting to the Sacrament under one kind because of Christ his assistance So he We should aske whether a greater Devotion and 〈◊〉 more plentifull Grace are not to be esteemed spirituall Effects for the good of the Soule which are confessed to be enjoyed by Communicating in both kinds and why not rather than by one For consider we pray you
teach others their Grammer should be so far over-taken as to need to be put in mind of their Accidence if ever they learned it which telleth them that The neuter gender will agree with any thing that hath no life whether seene or not seene In which respect there might be a difference betweene Hoc de Patre and Hoc de Pane for although Priscian would cry out if hee heard one saying Hoc lana or Hoc lapis wherein Hoc is taken adiectively yet if a Question being raised concerning the lightnes and heavines of Wool and of Stone one shewing the Wool in his hand should say Hoc est leve the other pointing at the Stone should say Hoc est grave will any thinke that Priscian would be offended for Hoc in Latine more then others would be for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not to trouble you with that in your Summa Angelica wherein Hoc neutrally taken is made to agree with Cibus And although Protestants be so inexpert in the rudiments of learning yet will you not thinke that they whom you call Catholiques could be so deceived who as your Iesuite witnesseth were Many that taught that Hoc in the words of Christ put substantively may without any Inconvenience agree with Panis in This meaning This which I give you Are you not yet ashamed of your Rashnesse then must we now put you unto it In your owne vulgar Latin Translation it is said of Evah the the wife of Adam Hoc est os Gen. 2. what Insobriety then is this in your Disputers so eagerly to reach that blow unto the Protestants wherewith they must as necessarily buffe◠their owne Mother-Church by which the same Translation is made Authentique and wound their owne Consciences being themselves bound by Oath to defend it in all their disputations Away then with these Puerilities especially now being busied in a matter of so great importance wherein consisteth the foundation of all the maine Controversies concerning the Roman Masse For if the Pronoune This have Relation to Bread there needs no further dispute about the figurative sence of Christ's speech Wee returne to the Schoole of Christ the holy Scripture to consult about Christ's meaning with his Disciple Saint Paul where he professeth to deliver nothing concerning Christ his Institution of this Sacrament but that which hee had Received of the Lord. Him we desire to expound vnto vs the words of Christ delivered by Three Evangelists and to tell what hee gave unto them and what he called his Body and he telleth vs plainly saying The bread which we breake is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ alluding to those words of the Evangelists He brake it and that was Bread And that you may know that this was Catholique Doctrine in the dayes of Antiquity wee adioyne the next Proposition That it was Bread and Wine which Christ called his Body and Blood in the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers SECT VI. FOr proofe hereof behold a Torrent of Ancient Fathers pressing upon you Iraeneus Tertullian Origen Hierome Ambrose Augustine Cyrill of Hiernsalem Cyrill of Alexandria Theodoret Gaudentius Cyprian Clemens of Alexandria and Isidore Thirteene to the dozen whose sayings we may best know by their owne Idiome and Tenure of speech The first noting Christ to haue confessed bread to have beene his Body The second Christ to have called bread his Body The third that Christ's speech was spoken of bread The fourth that That which hee broke was bread The fift that It was bread which he brake The sixt that It was bread of the Lord and not bread the Lord. The seventh that the words My Body were spoken of the bread The eight that Christ saith of the bread This is my Body And the same Father as if he had studied to take away all Scales of doubtfulnesse from the eyes of your mindes illustrateth the matter thus So saith hee did Christ call his Body Bread as else-where hee calleth his flesh a Graine of Wheate Except the Graine of Wheate die it bringeth forth no fruit The ninth that Christ gave to the bread the name of his Body The tenth that Christ said of the Consecrated bread This is my Body The eleuenth that It was Wine which hee called his blood The twelfth that He blessed Wine when he said drinke And the last The bread strengthening man's body was therefore called the body of Christ All these so Learned and Ancient Fathers sufficient Grammarians we trow teaching the Pronoune This to demonstrate Bread doe as absolutely confute your Romish Exposition to prove the speech Figurative as any Protestant in the world could doe if hee were permitted to plead his owne Cause CHALLENGE VVE will try what a Syllogisme will doe that after your Posall in Grammar we may encounter you with Logique The Maior No Bread can possibly be called a Body of flesh without a figure This Proposition hath had the Vniversall consent of all Schooles by virtue of that Maxime of Maximes Disparatum de Disparato c. The Minor But in these words This is my Body the Pronoune This doth demonstrate Bread This hath beene the generall Exposition of Fathers The Conclusion Therefore the words of Christ This is my Body are to be taken figuratively Except you will contradict both the Generall confession of your owne Schooles and Vniversall consent of Ancient Fathers That it was Bread which Christ called his Body is proved manifestly from your owne Romish Positions and Principles SECT VII YOur first Position is this The word This must either point out Bread or the Body of Christ or that Third common Substance which you call Individuum vagum But to referre the word This unto the Body of Christ is as hath beene confessed Absurde And that the word This should signifie your Individuum vagum is an Exposition fall of Absurdities as hath beene also acknowledged It remaineth therefore that the Pronoune This pointeth out precisely Bread A second Principle you have to wit That these words This is my Body are wordes of Consecration and Operative so that by This is meant that which is Consecrated and as your Councell of Trent speaketh changed into the Body of Christ. But by the Decree of the same Councell not the Body of Christ nor any Third thing but Bread onely was then consecrated and changed into the Body of Christ Ergo the Pronoune THIS hath onely Relation to the Bread CHALLENGE A New Syllogisme would be had to put the matter out of question Maior No Sence which is Impossible can be given properly to the wordes of Christ This is my Body This needeth no proofe Minor But to call Bread Christ's Body properly is a Sence Impossible This hath beene your owne constant profession Conclusion Therefore cannot this Sence be given properly to the Body of Christ.
Testament could not properly be the Testament it selfe Yea your Iesuite Salmeron pointeth out in the same words a double Figure A double figure saith hee the Cup being put for the thing contained in the Cup and Testament being taken for the Legacy that is granted and given by the Testament With whom your Iesuite Barradius doth consent Hereunto may be added that in the sixt of Iohn where Christ calling that which he giveth to be eaten his flesh in the same Chapter he calleth his flesh which is to be eaten of the Faithfull bread which none of your side durst hitherto interpret without a Figure And yet againe the Apostle speaking of the Mysticall body of Christ which is his Church assembled at the holy Communion to participate of this Sacrament saith of them Wee being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread But why Even as one bread consisteth of many cornes so doth one Church of Christ of many faithfull persons saith your Aquinas Wee may not forget what your Iansenius said of Drinking To whome Master Brereley is ready to yeild his assent saying If we should attend to the Propriety of speech neither is his blood properly drunke out of the Chalice but onely the forme of Wine seeing the blood hath the same manner of Existing as under the forme of bread to wit not divided nor seperated from the body but included in the veines and then in the body Doe you not heare Christ's Blood is not properly drunke if not properly then figuratively as figuratively as if one swallowing the body of Christ should be said to drinke his Body Wee aske Master Brereley what then is that which is properly drunke out of the Chalice and he saith onely the forme of Wine that is to say a meere Accident Hardly can it be said that a man properly drinketh the Aire which he breatheth although it be a Substance And are you brought to believe meere Formalities to be truly Potable But to the point CHALLENGE REpeat now the Premises One figure in the word Bread another in Eat a third in Given a fourth in Shed a fift in Cup a sixt in Testament so many words confessed to be so many Figures in the very words of Christ his Institution beside other-more of the same equivalencie touching the Body of Christ both naturall Ioh. 6. and also mysticall which is his Church 1. Cor. 10. It can be no lesse then a matter of great astonishment to us to see our Romish Adversaries with such pertinacie to condemne Protestants for holding the Sacramentall speeches of Christ to be figurative calling them Tropists when as they themselves are constrained to acknowledge no fewer then Six Tropes in Christ his words as you have heard Of your Cardinall his Objection from the word Shed hereafter That the figurative sence of Christ's words is agreeable to the Iudgement of the more Ancient Church of Rome SECT V. YOur old and publique Romish Glosse saith plainly This heavenly Sacrament because it doth truly represent the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly not in the truth of the thing but in the mysticall Sence to wit it is called the body of Christ that is it signifieth his Body So your Glosse which you may not deny to be the glosse or Tongue of your whole Church because it hath beene confirmed by the same Authority of Pope Gregory the thirteenth wherewith your Extravagants and former Decrees of Popes have beene Authorised CHALLENGE IF all Protestants should meeteat once in one Synod and should conspire together as labouring to prove a figurative Sence in these words of Christ This is my body I suppose that a more exact perspicuous copious and ponderous Proofe could not be defined then hitherto hath beene evinced from your owne Confessions grounded as well upon sound and impregnable Reasons as upon direct Testimonies of holy Scriptures That the former Figurative Sence of the words of Christ is agreeable to the Iudgement of Antient Fathers of the Greeke Church SECT VI. YOu wil needs defend your litterall Exposition by the verdict of Ancient Fathers and we appeale to the Venerable Senate both of Greeke and Latine Fathers The Greeke generally calling the Elements of bread and wine in this Sacrament Some Types Antitypes and Symbols that is Figures and Signes Some calling Christ his Speeches Tropicall or Figurative and his Table Typicall Some saying that Christ would haue his Disciples hereby Represent the image of his Body And one as expressly as any Protestant can speake even Theodoret by name that Christ here gave to the Signe the name of his Body as elswhere he gave to his Body the name of the Signe You cannot deny but these Phrases of Signes and Symbols are most frequent in the writings of all the Greeke Fathers which we take to be a convincing Argument vntill you can give us some reasonable Solution hereunto To this purpose you leaving the principall Obiections fasten onely upon certaine Crotchets and thereupon you bestirre your selves THE FIRST CHALLENGE Against the first Romish Answere touching the word Type and Antitype vsed by the Greeke Fathers THree kinds of Answeres have beene applyed as Three wedges to dissolve this difficulty but a knot of wood cannot be loosed with a wedge of waxe such as every of your Answeres will appeare to be The first interpreting Types and Antitypes not to be taken for Signes but for Examples is at the first hearing reiected by your Cardinall and others The Second alleadged out of Damascen and much insisted upon by some favourers of your Romish Sence namely that the Fathers should call Bread and Wine Antitypes but not after Consecration So they And if so then indeed we should have no cause to oppose But this Answere is proved to be apparantly false by your Cardinall and others out of the expresse Testimonies of these Greeke Fathers viz. Dioâ—ysius Areopagita Clemens Iustine Macarius Basil and Nazianzene The third Answere is your Cardinals owne yet but faintly urged with a Peradventure they called them Antitypes but not Types after Consecration and he is encountred by your Suarez and Billius acknowledging that the words Types and Antitypes are used of the same Fathers in one and the same signification This our Obiection how strong it is may be seene by your much but vaine strugling Your quaintest device is yet behind A SECOND CHALLENGE Against the last and most peremptory Romish Pretence making Christ in this Sacrament to figure and to represent himselfe as a King in a Stage-play THe Solution which seemeth to your Disputers most perswasive is thus set downe by your Cardinall and your Iesuite Suarez viz. The Greeke Fathers called Bread and Wine Antitypes and Signes of the Body and Blood of Christ because the same Body and Blood of Christ as they are in this Sacrament vnder the forme of Bread and Wine are signes
by Protestants which is Sacramentall And by the Papists defined to be Trans-substantiall SECT I. First of the Sacramentall THere lieth a Charge upon every Soule that shall communicate and participate of this Sacrament that herein he Discerne the Lord's Body which Office of Discerning according to the iudgement of Protestants is not onely in the use but also in the Nature to distinguish the Obiect of Faith from the Obiect of Sense The First Obiect of Christian Faith is the Divine Alteration and Change of naturall Bread into a Sacrament of Christ's body This we call a Divine Change because none but the same Omnipotent power that made the Creature and Element of Bread can Change it into a Sacrament The Second Obiect of Faith is the Body of Christ it selfe Sacramentally represented and verily exhibited to the Faithfull Communicants There are then three Obiects in all to be distinguished The First is before Consecration the Bread meerely Naturall Secondly After Consecration Bread Sacramentall Thirdly Christ's owne Body which is the Spirituall and Super-substantiall Bread truly exhibited by this Sacramentall to the nourishment of the soules of the Faithfull Secondly of the Romish Change which you call Transubstantiation SECT II. BVt your Change in the Councell of Trent is thus defined Transubstantiation is a Change of the whole Substance of Bread into the whole Substance of the Body of Christ and of Wine into his Blood Which by the Bull of Pius the Fourth then Pope is made an Article of Faith without which a man cannot be saved Which Article of your Faith Protestans beleeve to be a new and impious Figment and Heresie The Case thus standing it will concerne every Christian to build his Resolution upon a sound Foundation As for the Church of England she professeth in her 28. Article saying of this Transubstantiation that It cannot be proved by holy Writ but is repugnant to the plaine words of Scripture overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion unto MANY SVPERSTIONS CHAP. II. The Question is to be examined by these ground viz. I. Scripture II. Antiquity III. Divine Reason IN all which wee shall make bold to borrow your owne Assertions and Confessions for the Confirmation of Truth The Romish Depravation of the Sence of Christ his words This is my Body for proofe of Transubstantiation SECT I. YOu pretend and that with no small Confidence as a Truth avouched by the Councell of Trent that Transubstantiation is collected from the sole true and proper Signification of these words This is my Body So you CHALLENGE VVHerein you shew your selves to be men of great Faith or rather Credulity but of little Conscience teaching that to be undoubtedly True whereof notwithstanding you your-selves render many Causes of Doubting For first you grant that besides Cardinall Cajetane and some other Ancient Schoolemen Scotus and Cameracensis men most Learned and Acute held that There is no one place of Scripture so expresse which without the Declaration of the Church can evidently compell any man to admit of Transubstantiation So they Which your Cardinall and our greatest Adversary saith Is not altogether improbable and whereunto your Bishop Roffensis giveth his consent Secondly which is also confessed some other Doctors of your Church because they could not find so full Evidence for proofe of your Transubstantiation out of the words of Christ were driven to so hard shifts as to Change the Verbe Substantive Est into a Verbe Passive or Transitive Fit or Transit that is in stead of Is to say It 's Made or It passeth into the Body of Christ A Sence which your Iesuite Suarez cannot allow because as hee truly saith It is a Corrupting of the Text. Albeit indeed this word Transubstantiation importeth no more than the Fieri seu Transire of Making or Passing of one Substance into another So that still you see Transubstantiation cannot be extracted out of the Text without violence to the words of Christ Wee might in the third place adde hereunto that the true Sence of the words of Christ is Figurative as by Scriptures Fathers and by your owne confessed Grounds hath beene already plentifully * proved as an Infallible Truth So groundlesse is this chiefe Article of your Romish Faith whereof more will be said in the sixt Section following But yet by the way wee take leave to prevent your Obiection You have told us that the words of Christ are Operative and worke that which they signifie so that upon the pronuntiation of the words This is my Body it must infallibly follow that Bread is changed into Christs Body which wee shall believe assoone as you shall be able to prove that upon the pronuntiation of the other words of Christ This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood Luc. 22. 20. the Cup is changed into the Testament of Christ's Blood or else into his Blood it selfe The Novelty of Transubstantiation examined as well for the Name as for the Nature thereof SECT II. The Title and Name of Transubstantiation proved to be of a latter date YOu have imposed the very Title of Transubstantiation upon the Faith of Christians albeit the word Transubstantiation as you grant was not used of any Ancient Fathers and that your Romish Change had not it's Christendome or name among Christians to be called Transubstantiation as your Cardinall Alan witnesseth before the Councell of Laterane which was 1215. yeares after Christ nor can you produce One Father Greeke or Latine for a Thousand yeares attributing any word equivalent in strict Sence unto the same word Transubstantiation untill the yeare 1100. which is beyond the Compasse of due Antiquitie At what time you finde note and â—rge Theophylact who saith of the Bread that It is Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ Which Phrase in what Sence hee vsed it you might best have learned from himselfe who in the very same place saith that Christ in a manner is Trans-elementated into the Communicant which how unchristian a Paradoxe it were being taken in strict and proper Sence we permit to your owne iudgements to determine Neither yet may you for the countenancing of the Noveltie of this word obiect the like use of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though it had beene in use before the Arian Controversie began because the Fathers of the Councell of Nice iudged the Obiection of the Novelty of that word Calumnious for that the use of it had beene Antient before their times as your Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe witnesseth You furthermore to prevent our Obiection demanding why the Antient Fathers never called your fancied Romish Change Transubstantiation if they had beene of your Romish Faith concerning the Substantiall Change of Bread into the Body of Christ haue shaped us this Answere namely that Although they used not the very word Transubstantiation yet have they words of the same signification to wit Conversion Transmutation Transition
ceased to be Water And so must Bread cease to be Bread This being the State of the Question we undertake to give Good Proofes of the Existence and Continuance of Bread in the Eucharist the same in Substance after Consecration Our First Proofe is from Scripture 1. Cor. 10. Saint Paul calling it Bread SECT IV. IN the Apostle his Comment that I may so call his two Chapters to the Corinthians upon the Institution of Christ we reade of Eating the Bread and Drinking the Cup thrice all which by the consent of all sides are spoken of Eating Drinking after Consecration and yet hath he called the outward Element Bread You will say with some It was so called onely because it was made of Bread as Aarons Rod turned into a Serpent was notwithstanding called a Rod. But this Answere is not answerable unto the Similitude For first of the Bread the Apostle saith demonstratively This Bread and of the other This Cup But of Aaron's Rod turned into Serpent none could say This Rod. And secondly it is contrary to Christian Faith which will abhorre to say in a proper sence that Christ's Body was ever Bread Or else you will answere with others It is yet called Bread because it hath the Similitude of Bread as the Brazen Serpent was called a Serpent But neither this nor any other of your Imaginations can satisfie for we shall prove that the Apostle would never have called it Bread after Consecration but because it was Substantially still Bread Our Reason is He had now to deale against the Prophaners of this Sacrament in reproving such as used it as Common Bread Not discerning therein Sacramentally exhibited the Lord's Body It had therefore concerned him to have honoured the Sacrament with Divine Titles agreeable to the Body of Christ hypostatically united to his God-head and to have denied it absolutely to have beene Bread considering that by the name of Bread the glory of the same Body might seeme to be abased and Ecclipsed if in Truth and Veritie hee had not beleeved it to have beene then Bread This Reason we guesse you are bound to approve off who in your opinion of the Corporall Presence of Christ his Body and Absence of Bread would never suffer any of your Professors to call it after Consecration by the name of Bread Whereupon it was that the Greeke Archbishop Cabasila complained of the Romish Professors for reprehending the Greeke Liturgies why Because saith he after the words of Christ This is my Body wee call the Symbols and Signes Bread and Wine So hee Which bewrayeth that the very naming of the Sacrament Bread and Wine is in the iudgement of the Church of Rome preiudiciall to their Transubstantiation and that if Saint Paul himselfe should deliuer the same words he did at this day hee should by your Romish Inquisitors be taught to use his Termes in another stile What need many words except in the words of Christ the word Body be properly predicated and affirmed of Bread farewell Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ's Body But that it is Impossible the Body of Christ should be properly predicated upon Bread hath beene the Generall Confession of your owne Doctours and the Conclusion of our second Booke Our Second Proofe of the Continuance of the Substance of Bread is from the speech of Christ touching the Continuance of Wine after Consecration Matth. 26. 29. by the Interpretation of Antiquity SECT V. THe same is as fully verified by our Lord and Master Christ himselfe in thesecond Element of Wine calling it This fruit of the Vine that is Wine after Consecration where the Pronoune This hath relation to the Wine in the Cup. For the proof of this our Exposition of the words of Christ we have the Consent of these and thus many holy Fathers Origen Cyprian Chrysostome Augustine Hierome Epiphanius Euthymius Theophylact and Bede as witnesseth your Iesuite Maldonate no one Father produced by him to the contrary Then answering But I saith hee cannot be thus perswaded So he Marke this you great Boasters of Accordance with Antiquity and yet this manner of answering the Fathers is most familiar with this Iesuite But he proceedeth telling you that The Fathers notwithstanding did not call it Wine as thinking it to be Wine but even as Christ did when hee called his flesh Bread Iohn 6. Then he addeth They that will follow the Exposition of These Fathers are thus to interpret them And gives his Reason of this his Aduertisement Lest the other Exposition saith he may seeme to agree with the opinion of the Calvinists So he For which his Answere Calvinists are as much beholding to him as are the Ancient Fathers with whom he hath made bold not only to reiect their Authority but also to pervert the plaine and evident meaning of their Testimonies who declare that they understood Naturall and Substantiall Wine as the Marginals doe manifest so plainly as to affirme that It was Wine which then Christ dranke and that hereby the practices of the Heretiques Aquarij are confuted who would drinke nothing but Water in the Eucharist It was the Wine saith Augustine which was used in the mysteries of our Redemption Even that Wine which was blessed saith Clemens Alexandrinus and your owne Bishop Iansenius doth confesse that these words of Christ had reference to the Cup in the Eucharist and not as some say to the Cup of the Passeover Marke you furthermore the Errour of the Aquarij and the Confutation thereof they used only Water in the Eucharist in pretence of Sobriety which Cyprian confuted only upon this ground viz. that this Practice was not warranted by the Institution of Christ wherein Christ ordained Wine and not Onely Water and now tell us if that your Doctrine of Transubstantiation had beene an Article of Faith in those dayes whether it had not concerned Cyprian to have stood exactly upon it for the more just condemnation of those Aquarij to let them know that if they would needs use only Water than according to your Doctrine their Consecration should be void and consequently their Adoration if it had beene then in use should have beene like wise Idolatrous The former Proofe confirmed by Analogie betweene Bread and Christ's Body both Naturall and Mysticall SECT VI. IN 1. Cor. 10. 16 17. The Bread which we breake saith the Apostle is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ for we being many are one Bread and one Body in as much as wee all partake of one Bread In this Sentence the word Bread hath a double Relation the First to Christ his Body Naturall Thus the joynt Participation of the Bread is called the Communion of the Body of Christ. The Analogie in this respect is excellently expressed by Isidore Bread saith hee because it strengtheneth the Body is therefore called Christ's Body and Wine because it turneth into Blood is therefore called Christ's Blood These two are
visibles but being sanctified by the holy Spirit are turned into a Sacrament of Christ's Body So hee This is indeed a true Analogie not to be performed by Accidents Could any of them whom you call Calvinists have spoken more significantly either in contradicting your Exposition of Christ's words for he saith that Christ called Bread his Body or in declaring the true proper Sence of the Sacramentall Conversion for he saith Bread is Changed into a Sacrament of Christ's Bodie or else in giving the Reason why Bread and Wine were chosen to be Sacraments and Signes of Christ's Body and Blood by which we are spiritually fed for hee sheweth that it is because of their Naturall Effects Bread substantially and therefore not Accidentally strengtheneth Man's Body Wine turneth in Blood Which overthroweth your third Figment of onely Accidents as if the Substance of Bread and Wine were not necessary in this Sacrament Say then doth the Accident of Roundnesse and Figure of Bread strengthen mans Body or doth the Accident Colour of Wine turne into Blood As well might you affirme the only Accident of Water in Baptisme to be sufficient to purge and cleanse the Body by the colour and coldnesse without the substantiall matter thereof The Second part of the Analogie is discerned in the Mysticall Body of Christ which is the Congregation of the Faithfull Communicants We are all one Body in as much as we are partakers of one Bread It standeth thus As many Granes of Corne make one Loafe of Bread and many Grapes make one measure of Wine in the Cup So many Christians partaking faithfully of this Sacrament become One mysticall Body of Christ by the Vnion of Faith and Love This Exposition as it is yeilded unto by your Cardinall Cajetan and authorized by your Romane and Tridentine Catechisme so is it also confessed to be used of Almost all holy Doctours Hee was held a most expert and artificiall Painter in Plinie that could paint Grapes so to life as to deceive Birds which came to feed on them But they are the only Sophisticall Doctors that offer in the Eucharist only Accidents as painted Colours in stead of naturall because where there is not a Reall Analogie there is no Sacrament You may not say that the Analogie consisteth in the matter before Consecration because every Sacramentall Analogie is betweene the Sacrament and the Thing Signified but it is no Sacrament before it be Consecrated CHALLENGE SAy now what Better Authour is there than Christ What better Disciple and Scholler than the Apostle of Christ or what better Commentary upon the words of Christ and his Apostle than the Sentences of Ancient Fathers calling the one part Wine the other Bread after Consecration as you have heard Our Third Proofe that the Substance of Bread remayneth after Consecration in the Sacrament is taken from the Iudgement of Sense necessarily First by the Authority of Scripture SECT VII ALthough man's Sense may be deceived thorow the inconvenient Diposition of the Medium thorow which he seeth as it hapneth in judging a straight Staffe to be Crooked which standeth in the Water and in thinking a White Obiect to be Greene in it selfe which is seene through a Greene glasse or Secondly by the unequall Distance of place as by conceiving the Sunne to be but two feet in breadth or the Rainbow to be a Colour and not Light or Thirdly by some defect in the Organ or Instrument of seeing which is the Eye whereby it commeth to passe that wee take One to be Two or mistake a Shadow for a Substance yet notwithstanding when our Eyes that see are of good Constitution and Temper the Medium whereby we see is perfectly disposed the Distance of the Obiect which we see is indifferent then say we the iudgement of Sense being free is True and the Concurrence and ioynt Consent of divers Senses in one arbitrement is infallible This Reason taken from Sence you peradventure will judge to be but Naturall and Carnall as those Termes are opposed to a true and Christian manner of Reasoning Wee defend the Contrary being warranted by the Argument which Christ himselfe used to his Disciples Luc. 24. 39. Handle mee and see Your Cardinall although he grant that this Reason of Christ was available to prove that his owne Body was no Spirit or Fancy but a true body even by the onely Argument from the Sence of Touching Yet saith he was it not sufficient in it selfe without other Arguments to confirme it and to prove it to have beene a humane body and the very same which it was So he Which Answere of your Cardinall we wish were but only false and not also greatly irreligious for Christ demonstrated hereby not onely that he had a body as your Cardinall speaketh but also that it was his owne same humane body now risen which before had beene Crucified and wounded to Death and buried according to that of Luke That it is even I. Luc. 24. 39. Now because It is not a Resurrection of a Body except it be the Same body Therefore would Christ have Thomas to thrust his hands into his sides and feele the print of his wounds to manifest the same body as Two of your Iesuites doe also observe the One with an Optimè the Other with a Probatum est Accordingly the Apostle Saint Paul laid this Argument taken from Sence as the foundation of a Fundamentall Article of Faith even the Resurrection of the same Body of Christ from the dead for how often doth he repeate and inculcate this He was seene c. And againe thrice more Hee was seene c. And Saint Iohn argueth to the same purpose from the Concurrence of three Sences That which wee have heard which we have seene and our hands have handled declare wee unto you The validity of this Reason was proved by the Effect as Christ averreth Thomas because thou hast seene that is perceiued both by Eye and hand thou hast beleeved The Validity of the Iudgement of Sense in THOMAS and the other Disciples confirmed in the second place by your owne Doctors SECT VIII PErerius a Iesuite confidently pleadeth for the Sense of Touch I feare not saith hee to say that the Evidence of Sense is so strong an Argument to prove without all doubt an humane Bodie that the Devill himselfe cannot herein delude the touch of man that is of vnderstanding and consideration As for the unbeleeving Disciples Christ his Handle me c. saith your Iesuite Vasquez was as much as if he had said to them Perceive you my true flesh as being a most efficacious Argument to prove the truth of an humane Body So he yea and Tolet another Iesuite did well discerne the case of Thomas to have beene an extreme Infidelity when hee said Except I put my finger into the print of the nailes and thrust my hand into his side I will not beleeve Which
now happen unto him but sine laesione that is without any hurt Wee answer that if hee should suffer nothing in his humanity passively to the Laesio corporis that is hurt of the Body yet should there be thereby in the opinion of men laesio dignitatis that is a lessening and obscuring of that his dignity which is set forth in Scripture and which our Article of faith concerning his Bodily sitting at the Right hand of God in Heaven teacheth us to be in all Celestiall glory and Maiestie This your Aquinas well saw when in regard of Indignity he iudged it An hainous wickednesse for any to thinke Christ should be inclosed in a Boxe appearing in his proper forme And what greater difference can it be for a Body to be Boxed under another forme more than when that one and the same Person is imprisoned whether open faced or covered whether in the day or in the night it mattereth not much for still the same person is shut up in Prison Againe if that these Circumstances now spoken of were not Arguments of Indignity why doe your Iesuites in a point of Opinion deny that Christ's Body is Transubstantiated into the flesh of the Communicant because of the Indignity against his Maiestie Come we to the point of Practice Let this be our lesson when there is Reverence in the use of a thing then there may be Irreverence and Indignity in the abuse thereof But your Church hath provided that the Priests be shaven and the Laicks abstaine from the Cup in a pretence of Reverence The first least some part of the Hoast which you beleeve to be the body of Christ should hang on the Priest's Beard the second least any whit of Christs Blood in the Cup should be split But how much more indignity must it needs be to be devoured of Mice Wormes and sometimes as your owne stories have related kept close in a Dunghill One word more If these seeme not sufficiently indigne because there is not Laesio corporis Hurt of the Body this being your onely Evasion what will you say of your framing a Christ unto your selves who as he is in this Sacrament Is you say without power of motion of sense and of understanding Why my Masters can there be Lamenesse Blindnesse Deafenesse and Impotencie it selfe without Hurt of the same partie so maymed c. This is worse than your dirty imagination of placing him in a Dunghill THE GENERALL CHALLENGE THese above specified Sixe Contradictions so plainly and plentifully proved by such forceable Arguments as the light of Divine Scripture hath authorized the profession of Primitive Fathers testified Confessions of Romish Doctors acknowledged and the Principles of your owne Romish learning in most points confirmed your Abrenunciation of your so many Grosse Errours may be as necessary as your persisting therein will be damnable Before we can end we are to consult with the Fathers of the Councell of Nice especially seeing that aswell Romanists as Protestants will be knowne to appeale to that Councell CHAP. X. Of the Canon of the Councell of Nice obiected for proofe of a Corporall Prescnce of Christ in the Eucharist SECT I. THis as it is delivered by your Cardinall taken out as he saith of the Vatican Library standeth thus Let us not here in this divine Table be in humblenesse intent unto the Bread and Cup which is set before us but lifting up our minds let us understand by faith the Lambe of God set upon that Table The Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the World offered unbloodily of the Priest And we receiving truly his Body and Blood let us thinke these to be the Symbols of our Resurrection For this Cause doe we receive not much but little that wee may understand this is not to satisfie but to sanctifie So the Canon The Generall approbation of this Canon by Both sides SECT II. SCarce is there any one Romish Author handling this Controversie who doth not fasten upon this Canon of Nice for the countenancing of your Romish Masse Contrarily Protestants as they are set downe by our Zanchy and your Bellarmine in great numbers among whom are Luther and Calvin with ioynt consent approve of this Canon one of them Bucer by name subscribing unto it with his owne hand in these words So I thinke in the Lord and I wish to appeare in this minde before the Tribunall Seat of God So they The right Explication of this Canon will be worthy our paines The state of the Difference concerning this Canon SECT III. THis as is propounded by your Cardinall standeth thus All saith he by the Lambe understand Christ as he is distinguished from the Symbols and Signes upon the Altar Next But the Protestants thinke saith he that the Councell admonisheth not to seeke Christ on the Altar but to ascend up unto him in Heaven by faith as sitting at the right hand of God But we all say saith he that the Councell would have us to attend unto the holy Table meaning the Altar below yet so that we see in it not so much the outward Symbols and Signes as that which lyeth hid under them viz. The Body and Blood of Christ So hee The difference then betweene him and us is no lesse than the distance betweene Aloft and Vnder that is betweene Heaven above and Earth below Let us set forward in our progresse but with easie and even paces to the end you may better understand the strength of our Proofes and rottennesse of your Obiections That the Nicene Councell is marvellously preiudiciall to your Romish Defence proved by five Observations Three here SECT IV. FIve points are chiefly observable in this Canon First is the nomination of Bread Secondly the mention of two Tables Thirdly the admonition to lift up our minds Fourthly the expression of the Reason thereof Fiftly the Confirmation of the same Reason First That which the Councell would that men be not too intent unto they call Bread after Consecration for the Errour which they would have avoyded was either the too much abasing of this Sacrament according to your Cardinals Glosse and then was it after Consecration because they needed not to have perswaded any to have too meane an estimation of the Bread unconsecrated which you your selves hold to be a common and prophane thing or else the Errour must have beene as indeed it was too high a valuation of the outward Element of Bread which must needs be so because it was consecrated and notwithstanding it being so consecrated in the Canon it is called Bread which your Fathers of the Councell of Trent would not have endured especially seeing that we find that your Latine Church was offended with the late Greeke Church for calling the parts of the Eucharist by the termes of Bread and Wine after the pronunciation of these words This is my Body by you called the words of Consecration Besides they so call them Bread
sacrificed by the hands of the Priest Here to wit on the Table below representatively as hereafter the Catholique Fathers themselves will shew And these two may easily consist without any necessity of the Priest reaching his hands as farre as the highest Heavens as your Cardinall pleasantly obiecteth Thirdly you alleage Wee are said to partake truly of the Body of Christ As though there were not a Truth in a Sacramentall that is Figurative Receiving and more especially which hath beene both proved and confessed a Reall and true participation of Christ's Body and Blood spiritually without any Corporall Coniunction But it is added saith he that These namely the Body and Blood of Christ are Symbols of our Resurrection which is by reason that our Bodies are ioyned with the Body of Christ otherwise if our Coniunction were onely of our soules onely the Resurrection of our soules should be signified thereby So hee that 's to say as successesly as in the former For the word HAEC These which are called Symbols of our Resurrection may be referred either to the Body and Blood of Christ immediatly spoken of and placed on the Table in Heaven which we Commemorate also in the Celebration of this Sacrament and in that respect may be called Symbols of the Resurrection of our Bodies because If Christ be risen then must they that are Christs also rise againe Or else the word These may have relation to the more remote after the manner of the Greekes to wit Bread and Cup on the first Table because as immediately followeth they are these whereof not much but little is taken as you have heard Which other Fathers will shew to be indeed Symbols of our Resurrection without any Consequence of Christ's Bodily Coniunction with our Bodies more than there is by the Sacrament of Baptisme which they call the Earnest of our Resurrection as doth also your Iesuite Coster call it The Pledge of our Resurrection But this our Coniunction with Christ is the subiect matter of the Fift Booke Lastly how the Eucharist was called of the Fathers a Sacrifice is plentifully resolved in the Sixt Booke THE FIFTH BOOKE Treating of the third Romish Doctrinall Consequence arising from your depraved Sence of the Words of Christs Institution THIS IS MY BODY concerning the manner of the present Vnion of his Body with the bodies of the Receivers by Eating c. CHAP. I. The state of the Question SECT I. A Christian man consisting of two men the Outward or bodily and the Inward which is Spirituall this Sacrament accordingly consisteth of two parts Earthly and Heavenly as Irenaeus spake of the bodily Elements of Bread and Wine as the visible Signes and Obiects of Sense and of the Body and Blood of Christ which is the Spirituall part Answerable to both these is the double nourishment and Vnion of a Christian the one Sacramentall by communicating of the outward Elements of Bread and Wine united to man's body in his Taking Eating digesting till at length it be transubstantiated into him by being substantially incorporated in his flesh The other which is the Spirituall and Soules food is the Body and Blood of the Lord therefore called Spirituall because it is the Obiect of Faith by an Vnion wrought by God's Spirit and man's faith which as hath beene professed by Protestants is most Reall and Ineffable But your Church of Rome teacheth such a Reall Vnion of Christ his Body and Blood with the Bodies of the Communicants as is Corporall which you call Per contactum by Bodily touch so long as the formes of Bread and Wine remaine uncorrupt in the bodies of the Receivers Our Method requireth that we first manifest our Protestant Defence of Vnion to be an Orthodoxe truth Secondly to impugne your Romish Vnion as Capernaiticall that is Hereticall And thirdly to determine the Point by comparing them both together Our Orthodoxe Truth will be found in the Preparations following That Protestants prosesse not only a Figurative and Sacramentall Participation and Communion with Christ's Body but also a spiritually Reall SECT II. ALl the Bookes of the Adversaries to Protestants are most especially vehement violent and virulent in traducing them in the name of Sacramentaries as though we professed no other manner of feeding and Vnion with Christ's body than only Sacramentall and Figurative For Confutation of which Calumny it will be most requisite to oppose the Apologie of Him who hath beene most opposed and traduced by your Disputers in this Cause to shew first what he held not and then what he held If you shall aske Calvin what he liked not he will answere you I doe abhorre your grosse Doctrine of Corporall Presence And I have an hundred times disclaimed the receiuing only of a Figure in this Sacrament What then did hee hold Our Catechisme teacheth saith hee not only a signification of the Benefits of Christ to be had herein but also a participation of the substance of Christ's flesh in our soules And with Swinckfeldius maintayning only a Figurative perception we have nothing to doe If you further demand what is the Feeding whereby we are united to Christ's body in this Sacrament hee tels you that it is IV. Not carnall but Spirituall and Reall and so Reall that the soule is as truly replenished with the lively virtue of his flesh by the powerfull worke of the Spirit of God as the body is nourished with the corporall Element of Bread in this Sacrament If you exact an Expression of this spirituall Vnion to know the manner hee acknowledgeth it to be above Reason If further you desire to understand whether he were not Singular in this opinion he hath avouched the iudgement of other Protestants professing not to dissent one Syllable from the Augustane Confession as agreeing with him in iudgement herein Accordingly our Church of England in the 28. Article saith that To such as worthily and with faith receive this Sacrament The Bread which we breake is a partaking of the Body of Christ which Body is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after a spirituall and heavenly manner the meane whereby is Faith That the Body of Christ by this Sacrament was ordained only for food to the Christian man's Soule SECT III. VVHat need wee seeke into the Testimonies of ancient Fathers which are many in this point of Dispute having before us the Iudgement of your Fathers of the Councell of Trent and of your Romane Catechisme authorized by the same Councell both which affirme that Christ ordained this Sacrament to be the spirituall food of man's soule In which respect the Body of Christ is called Spirituall in your Popes Decree That the Spirituall feeding and Vnion with Christs Body is more excellent and Reall than the Corporall Coniunction can be SECT IV. THe soule of man being the most essentiall and substantiall part of man because a Spirit immortall and the flesh
Fathers have declared what could these holy Fathers have thought of your Barbarous or rather Brutish faith that teacheth such a Corporall Vnion by a bodily Touch and Eating whereby according to your owne Doctrine Rats Wormes and Dogges and whatsoever vile beast may be as reall partakers of the bodie of Christ as Peter or Iohn or whosoever the essentiall member of Christ Wherefore you must suffer us to reason aswell against your Corporall Coniunction by bodily Touch as Many of your Divines have done against bodily Vnion by coniunction and commixture but why even Because the Sacrament was not ordained for a bodily but for a spirituall Coniunction So they So that wee need say no more but fore-seeing what you will obiect we adde the Propositions following CHAP. III. That wicked Communicants albeit they eate not bodily Christ's Bodie yet are they Guilty of the Lords Bodie for not receiving it spiritually namely thorow their Contempt for not receiving the Blessing offered thereby SECT I. THe Apostle 1. Cor. 11. 27. Whosoever saith hee Eateth this Bread and Drinketh this Cup unworthily he shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord And Vers 29. eateth and drinketh Damnation to himselfe not discerning the Lord's Bodie Your Rhemish Professors men not the least zealous for your Romish Cause obiecting this against the Protestants call upon you saying first Hereupon marke well that ill men receive the Body and Blood of Christ be they Infidels or ill livers for else they could not be guilty of that which they receive not Secondly That it could not be so hainous an offence for any to receive a piece of bread or a cup of wine though they were a true Sacrament for it is a deadly sinne for any to receive any Sacrament with will and intention to continue in sinne or without repentance of former sinnes but yet by the unworthy receiving of no other Sacrament is man made guilty of Christ's Bodie and Blood but here where the unworthy Receiver as Saint Chrysostome saith doth villany to Christ's owne person as the Iewes and Gentiles did that crucified him Which invincibly proveth against the Heretikes that Christ is herein really present And guilty is he for not discerning the Lord's Body that is because hee putteth no difference betweene this high meate and others So your Rhemists Your Cardinall also as though he had found herein something for his purpose fastneth upon the sentence of Cyprian who accounted them that after their deniall of Christ presented themselves to this Communion without repentance to offer more iniurie to Christ by their polluted handes and mouthes than they did in denying Christ and besides he recordeth Examples of God's miraculous vengeance upon those who violated the body of Christ in this Sacrament So hee All these points are reducible unto three heads One is that ill men might not be held guiltie of the Body of Christ except they did receive it as being materially present in this Sacrament Next is the Guilt of prophaning this Sacrament which being more hainous than the abuse of any other Sacrament therefore the iniury is to be iudged more personall The last that the Examples of God's vindicative Iudgements for Contempt hereof have beene more extraordinary which may seeme to be a Confirmation of both the former Before we handle these points in order take our next Position for a Directory to that which shall be answered in the VI. Section That some Fathers understood the Apostles words 1. Cor. 10. spiritually namely as signifying the Eating of Christ's Flesh and drinking his Blood both in the Old Testament and in the Newe SECT II. VPon those words of the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. v. 4. They ate of the same spirituall meate c. The Iewes received the same spirituall meate saith S. Augustine Yea saith your Cardinall the Iewes received the same among themselves but not the same with us Christians So hee Albeit the words of Augustine are plainly thus The same which we eat so plainly that divers of your own side doe so directly and truely acknowledge it that your Iesuite Maldonate not able to gain-say this Trueth pleaseth himselfe notwithstanding in fancying that If August were alive in this Age he would think otherwise especially perceiving Hereticall Calvinists and Calvin himselfe to be of his opinion So hee Was it not great pitty that Augustine was not brought up in the Schoole of the Iesuites surely they would have taught him the Article of Transubstantiation of the Corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament and Corporall Vnion against all which there could not be a greater Adversarie than was Augustine whom Maldonate here noteth to have beene the Greatest Enemie to all Heretickes whom Bertram followed in the same Exposition and by your leave so did your Aquinas also The same saith he which wee eate Thus much by the way Wee goe on to our Answeres That the wicked Receivers are called Guiltie of Christ's Bodie not for Eating of his Body unworthily but for unworthily Eating the Sacrament thereof SECT III. THe Distinction used by St. Augustine hath bene alwayes as generally acknowledged as knowne wherein hee will have us to discerne in the Eucharist the Sacrament from the thing represented and exhibited thereby Of the Sacrament hee saith that It is received of some to life and of some to destruction but the thing it selfe saith hee is received of None but to Salvation So hee No Protestant could speake more directly or conclusively for proofe First That in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Body of Christ is as well tendred to the wicked as to the Godly Secondly that the wicked for want of a living Faith have no hand to receiue it Thirdly that their not preparing themselves to a due receiving of it is a Contempt of Christ his Body and Blood Fourthly and Consequently that it worketh the iudgement of Guiltines upon them All which both the Evidence of Scripture and consent of Antiquity doe notably confirme For the Text obiected doth clearely confute your Romish Consequence because S. Paul's words are not Hee that eateth the Body of Christ and drinketh his Blood unworthily is guilty of his Body and Blood but Hee that eateth the Bread and drinketh the Cupp of the Lord unworthily c. which we have proved throughout the 2. Booke to signifie Bread and Wine the signes and Sacraments of his Body and Blood after Consecration And to come to Antiquity All the Fathers above cited Ch. 1. § 6. who denyed that the wicked Communicants are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ albeit knowing as well as you that all such unworthy Receivers are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ have thereby sufficiently confuted your Consequence which was that because the wicked are Guilty of Christ's bodie Ergò his Body is Corporally present in them But we pursue you yet further That a Guiltines of Contempt of Christ's Body and
upon which not upon whom which point is confirmed in that which followeth Thirdly therefore he illustrateth The Comparison saith he is not absolutely betweene the Sacrifice of Abel and of Christ but in respect of the faith and devotion of the Priest and people that they with like faith may offer as Abel did But this piece of Answer is that which is called in Musicke Discantus contra punctum for the prayer is directly Looke downe propitiously upon these as thou didst upon the gifts of Abel The Comparison then is distinctly betweene the Gifts and not betweene the Givers Yea but not absolutely so meant saith he be it so yet if it be so meant but in part that Christ who is Propitiation it selfe shall be prayed for to be propitiously and favourably looked upon by God the prayer is Sacrilegious in an high degree Fourthly his Reason It is knowen saith he that the Sacrifices of sheepe and Oxen had nothing in themselves whereby to pacifie or please God the Scripture saying that Abel offered a better Sacrifice than Cain And againe God had respect to Abel and to his Gifts So he Which is the very Reason that perswadeth Protestants to call that your Prayer most Sacrilegious because whereas the Gifts of Abel were but Sheepe c. you notwithstanding compare them with the offering up of Christ saying As thou didst the Gifts of Abel For although it be true that the Gift of Abel was accepted for the faith of the Giver and not the Giver for his Gift yet if you shall apply this to the point in Question then your Gift in your Opinion being Christ and your Givers but simply men whom you have called Priest People it must follow that Christ is accepted for the faith of the Priest and People and not the Priest and People for Christ which maketh your Prayer far more abominably Sacrilegious And not much lesse is that which followeth praying God to command his Angell to cary if the Gift be He Christ into heaven contrary to the Article of our Catholique Faith which teacheth us to beleeve his perpetuall Residence in heaven at the right hand of the Father Hee answereth It is not meant that God would command his Angell to cary Christs Body but our prayers and desires by their intercession unto God for us So he Which is as truly a false Glosse as the former for in the Tenour of your Masse the Subject of your prayer is Holy Bread of life and Cup of salvation The prayer is plainly thus Vpon which O Lord looke propitiously and immediately after Command These to be caried by thy Angell Marke These viz. That Bread of life and Cup of salvation even that which you call The Body and Blood of Christ as corporally Present which maketh your prayer to be Sacrilegious still and your Expositors that we may so say miserably Ridiculous That the former Romish Prayer as it was Antient doth in the then true meaning thereof condemne the now Romish Church of the former Sacrilegious Innovation SECT IV. FOR to thinke that it should be prayed that God would be propitious to Christ were an Execrable opinion even in the Iudgement of our Adversaries themselves who for avoidance thereof have obtruded an Exposition as farre differing from the Text as doth This from That or Christ from the Priest as you have heard But whither will hee now Your Cardinall telleth you that the words of your Romish Canon are antient such as are found in the Missalls of S. Iames of Clement Pope of Rome of Basil of Chrysostome and of Ambrose You will hold it requisite that wee consult with these Liturgies set out by your selves for the better understanding of the Tenour of your Romish Masse The Principall Quaere will be whether Antiquity in her Liturgies by praying to God for a propitious Acceptation and admittance into his celestiall Altar meant as your Cardinall answered Propitiousnesse towards Priest and People in respect of their faith and devotion and not towards the Things offered distinctly in themselves In the pretended Liturgie of S. Iames before Consecration the prayer to God is To accept the Gifts into his celestiall Altar even the Gifts which he called The fruits of the earth And then after for the Parties as well Priest as People To sanctifie their soules In the Liturgie of Basil before Consecration it is prayed to God that the Receiving the Gifts into his celestiall Altar would also concerning the Parties send his Graâ—e and Spirit upon them And no lesse plainly Pope Clemens teaching before Consecration to pray God who received the Gifts of Abel gratiously to behold these Gifts propounded to the honour of his Sonne Christ expressely differenceth this Sacrifice done in honour of Christ from Christ himselfe who is honoured thereby And after Consecration to Beseech God through Christ to accept the Gift offered to him and to take it into his Celestiall Altar where the prayer to God is not to accept of Christ but of the Gift for Christ's sake and to the honour of Christ in whom God is Propitious unto us wee say againe the Gift for Christ and not Christ for the Gift what can be more plaine against all Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament and to receive it into his Celestiall Altar but how by intercession of Angells No but expressely thus By Christ the Mediatour In the Liturgie of Chrysostome before Consecration God is prayed unto and supplicated thus We beseech thee to send thy Spirit upon us and upon the Gifts set before us Even as Ambrose explaineth his Supplication after Consecration for God To accept this Oblation namely that which hee called Holy Bread and Cup. If therefore these former Formes may interpret your Romane Liturgie as it was Antient the prayer therein to God desiring him to be Propitious must have relation to the things above specified called Holy Bread of life and Cup of Salvation as distinguished from Priest and People Wherefore your Romane Missalls being so Antient in this one point in praying God after Consecration to be Propitious to that which is called the Bread of life eternall and Cup of everlasting salvation lest it might carry a Sacrilegious Sence to wit that the Body of Christ is here the proper Subject of the Eucharist and consequently to need a Propitiation to God by virtue of mens prayers thereby greatly derogating from the meritorious Satisfaction of Christ you ought to reduce this your Romane Canon to the Orthodox meaning of Antient Liturgies above mentioned and to understand it Sacramentally only namely our Objective Representation Commemoration and Application thereof by us which is our Act of Celebration To the former vast heape of Sacrilegious Positions and Practices wee may adde your other many vile and impious Indignities offered to the all-glorious Sonne of God in making his sacred Body in your owne opinions obnoxious to the Imprisoning in Boxes Tearing with mens Teeth Devouring
proofe of a proper Sacrifice 1. Cor. 11. vers 28. So let him eat of this Bread and drinke of this cup. Opp. against Communion but in one kinde Booke 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. And Opp. for proofe of Bread after Consecration B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. Ibid. vers 27. Guilty of the Lord's body Ob. Booke 5. Chap. 3. Sect. 1 4. 1. Cor. 14. 16. How shall hee say Amen Opp. against unknowen Prayer Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. Heb. 5. Concerning Melchizedech Ob. for Sacrifice B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 2 4. Heb. 9. 22. Without shedding of Blood Opp. Booke 6. Ch. 10. Sect. 3. Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar Ob. B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. Faults committed in some Copies of the first five Bookes PAg. 3. lin 35. Read according to the. pag. 25. lin last but one read oppose pag. 36. lin 5. read Publike Procession pag. 53. â—ine last but foure read of longest pag. 61. lin last but two read kept fasting pag. 171. lin 15. for Chatters read Characters pag. 178. lin 24. crucified read circumscribed twice in that line pag. 211. lin 9. read in the Propositions pag. 232. lin 36 for Commandement read Commentary pag. 235. lin 33. read Tropologicall phrases Besides these there is an Omission pag. 108. in the lin 9. of § 4 where over against these words of the Context * Acts of this Councell were not published untill more than 200 read 300 yeares after for proofe thereof the Observation which the same Author under the name of M. Widdrington hath made may be thus inserted in the Margine * Conc. Lateranense non nisi post trecentos annos in lucem publicam prodiisse neque in Tomis Conciliorum à Jac. Merlin conscriptum esse And againe At si Conc. istud plenâ— absolutum fuisset aliquis intrà trecentorum Annorum spatium publicandum curâsset neque Joh. Cochlaei ope indiguissemus qui post totos tercentum annos Conc. istud non ex Bibliotheca Vaticana c. Faults in the three last Bookes PAg. 6. lin 24. for Translation read Interpretation pag. 9. lin 25. adde and read 6. yea and although pag. 36 lin 23. read two Scales pag 74. lin 4 read Veniall sins Ibid. lin 7. read namely not Christ pag. 80. lin last but six read shall eat c. Other Errata especially in the Marginalls by mis-accâ—â—ting of some Greeke words through the Correctors unskilfulnesse in the Character the inganious and ingenuous Reader may as easily amend 〈◊〉 espiâ— FINIS * See the Protestants Appeale in the beginning * In his Sober Reckoning * Booke 1. c. 3. §. 7. a Nomen antiquissimum Missa quod quidem fides Christiana profitetur ex Hebraica vel Chaldaica nomenclatura acceptum esse videtur Missah i. e. spontanea oblatio conueniens instituto Sacrificio Baron Cardin. Anno 34. num 59. Est Hebraicum Tolet. Ies Cardin. Instruct Sacerd li. 2. c. 4. Quidam vt Reulin Alcian Xaintes Pintus Pamelius existimant esse Hebraicum At Azor. Ies. reporteth in Inst Moral par 1. li. 10. ca. 18. b Latinum non Hebraicum est vt Neoterici studiosè exquitunt Binius Tom. 3. Conc. p. 110. Eodem modo interpretantur coÌ„plures Durant de Ritib l. 2. c. 2. p. 190 192. Magis spectat ad Latinam phrasin Salmeron Ies Epist ad Canis de nomine Missae So also Azor. the Ies in the place aboue cited Multò probabilius esse Latinam nam si vox Hebraica in vsu apud Apostolos fuisfet certè retinuissent eam Graeci Syri aliaeque Nationes vt retinuerunt vocem Hosanna Allelujah Pascha Sabbatum similes voces Apud Graecos nulla est hujus vocis mentio pro ea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicunt est autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aeunus siue ministerium publicum Bellar. l. 1. de Missa c. 1. Melius qui Latinam Suarez Ies in Thom. Tom. 3. disp 74. §. 3. where he alleageth Lindan Thom. Hug. de Vict. Leo primus quidem est author apud quem legerim Missae verbum Masson l. 2. de Episc Rom. in Leon. 1. And Ambrose is the ancientest that either Bellar. or Binius in the places before-quoted could mention Missa à Missione dicta est Salmeron Ies Tom. 16. pag. 390 391. It is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greeke Church and with Ilicet amongst the ancient Romanes See the Testimonie following c Missa à Missione dicta est quoniam Catechumeni â—â susceptâ foras de Ecclesia emitterentur vt in ritibus Paganorum dici consueuerat Ilicet quod per Syncopen idem est ac Ire licet Sic nostrum verbum Missa Ite missa est Salmeron Ies in the place aboue-cited p. 390 391. Sic accipitur in iure Canonico in Patribus etiam atque Concilijs Azor. Ies Inst. par 1 pag 850. Geminâ— Missio prima Catechumenorum alia peractis sacris Missâ completâ Binius in the place afore-cited Esse à dimissione per â—te missa est tenet Alcuin Amalar. Fortunat. Durant quo suprà And the other fore-named Authors who confesse the word to be Latine doe hold that it commeth of Ite Missa est â—or Iubebantur exire Catechumeni Poenitentes vt qui nondum ad communicandum praeparauerant Cassaud Consult Art 24. As also in his Tract de solit Missa p. 217. with others See more hereafter Chap. 2. §. 5. where this point is discussed As for the dismissing of the whole Congregation after the receiuing of the Sacrament by an Ite missa est it was vsed in the second place after the other See Binius aboue d Alij ut Isidorus de diuin offic dixerunt Missam appellatam esse quasi dimissionem à dimittendis Catechumenis antequam Sacrificium inchoaretur quaÌ„ sententiam colligo esse verissimam ex antiquiss Authoribus Clamabat enim Diaconus post CoÌ„cionem Catechumeni exeunto et qui communicare non possunt vt constat ex omnibus Liturgijs vbi non potest nomen Missae accipi pro Sacrificio Maldon Ies lib. dc 7 Sacram. Tract de Euch. §. Primum p. 335. * See Chap. 2. Sect. 9. * See below Chap. 2. Sect. 5. e Durand Ration lib. 4. c. 1. Durant de Ritib l. 2. c. 3. So Christoph de Capitâ— fontium Archiep. Caesar var. Tract de Christi Missa pag. 34. Liturgiae veteres partes Missae Christi exactè respondent Missa Christi Ecclesiae Missam declarat f Liturg. Trac 1. §. 1. * Confess Aug. Cap. de Coena Domini g Microl. de Eccl. obseruat c. 1. Propter hoc certe dicitur Missa quoniam mittendi sunt forà s qui non participant Sacrificio vel communione Sancta Teste Cassand Liturg fol 59. * See below c. 2. sect 9. h Attende Missam Christi c. Waldens de Missa i Hoc officium Christus instituit ubi dicitur Accepit Iesus panem Durand Ration l. 4. c. 1. p.
To Conclude Whosoever among you hath beene fascinated according to your Colliers Catechisme with that only Article of an Implicite Faith let him be admonished to submit to that Duety prescribed by the Spirit of God to Trie all things and to Hold that which is good And if any have a purpose to Reioyne in Confutation either of the Booke of the Romish Imposture or of this which is against your Masse I doe adiure him in the name of Christ whose trueth wee seeke that avoyding all deceitfull Collusions he proceed materially from Point to point and labour such an Answer which hee beleeveth he may answer for before the iudgement seate of Christ Our Lord Iesus preserve us to the glory of his saving Grace AMEN Tho Coven Lichff The principall Heads of the Tractate following I. BOOKE VNfoldeth the Ten Transgressions of the Canon of our Lord Christ his Institution in the now Romish Masse II. BOOKE Manifesteth the palpable Falshood of the Romish Exposition of Christ's words of Institution THIS IS MY BODY III. BOOKE Discovereth the Novelty and indeed Nullity of the Romish Article of Transubstantiation and proveth the Continuance of the substance of Bread after Consecration IV. BOOKE Reveileth the manifold Contradictions in the Romish Defence of a Corporall Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament and consequently a necessary Impossibilitie thereof without the impeachment of the Omnipotencie of God yea with the aduancement thereof Together with a Discovery of the falshood of their Thirteen Histories relating so many Apparitions of True Flesh and true Blood of Christ in the Eucharist As also shewing the Determination of the Generall Councell of Nice upon the the point of Corporall Presence V. BOOKE Noteth the three-fold Capernaiticall Conceit in the Romish pretended Corporall manner of Eating Swallowing and gâ—t-receiving of Christ's flesh VI. BOOKE Displayeth the manifold and grosse Sacrilegiousnes in the Romish Masse vpon their profession of a Proper and properly Propitious Sacrifice therein VII BOOKE Proveth the abhominable-double Idolatrousnes of the Romish Masse as well Formall as Materiall VIII BOOKE Besides the Three Synopses or Summarie Comprehensions First of the Superstitiousnes Secondly of the Sacriledge Thirdly of the Idolatrie of the Romish Masse it further declareth the diverse Periuries and Obstinacies of the Defenders and also the many notorious Heresies in the Defence thereof OF THE INSTITVTION OF THE SACRAMENT of the blessed Body and Blood OF CHRIST c. The first Booke Concerning the Actiue part of Christ his Institution of the Eucharist and the Ten Romish TRANSGRESSIONS thereof CHAP. I. That the Originall of the word MASSE nothing advantageth the Romish Masse SECT I. DIvers of your Romish Doctors would haue the word MASSE first to be in the first and primitiue Imposition and vse thereof Diuine Secondly in time more ancient than Christ Thirdly in signification most Religious deriued as They say from the Hebrew word Missah which signifieth Oblation and Sacrifice euen the highest homage that can be performed vnto God And all this to proue if it may be that which you call THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASSE CHALLENGE SO haue these your Doctors taught notwithstanding many other Romanists as well Iesuites as others of principall Note in your Church enquiring as it were after the natiue Countrie kinred and age of the Word MASSE doe not onely say but also prooue first that Hebrew-borne Secondly that it is not of Primitiue antiquitie because not read of before the dayes of S. Ambrose who liued about three hundred seuentie three yeeres after Christ Thirdly that it is a plaine Latine word to wit Missa signifying the Dismission of the Congregation Which Confessions being testified in our Margin by so large a consent of your owne Doctors prooued by so cleare Euidence and deliuered by Authors of so eminent estimation in your owne Church must not a little lessen the credit of your other Doctors noted for Neotericks who haue vainely laboured vnder the word MASSE falsely to impose vpon their Readers an opinion of your Romish Sacrificing Masse That the word MASSE in the Primitiue signification thereof doth properly belong vnto the Protestants and iustly condemneth the Romish manner of Masse SECT II. THe word MASSE by the Confession of Iesuites and others and that from the authoritie of Councels Fathers Canon-Law Schoolemen and all Latine Liturgies is therefore so called from the Latine phrase Missa est especially because the companie of the Catechumenists and those which were not prepared to communicate at the celebrating of this Sacrament after the hearing of the Gospell or Sermons were Dismissed and not suffered to stay but commanded To depart Which furthermore your Ies Maldonate out of Isidore the most ancient Authors and all the Liturgies is compelled to confesse to be the Most true meaning of Antiquity Which Custome of exempting all such persons being euery where religiously taught and obserued in all Protestant Churches and contrarily the greatest devotion of your Worshippers at this day being exercised onely in looking and gazine vpon the Priests manner of celebrating your Romane Masse without communicating thereof contrary to the Institution of Christ contrary to the practice of Antiquity and contrary to the proper vse of the Sacrament All which hereafter shall be plentifully shewed it must therefore follow as followeth CHALLENGE VVHereas there is nothing more rife and frequent in your speeches more ordinary in your outhes or more sacred in your common estimation than the name of the Masse yet are you by the signification of that very word convinced of a manifest Transgression of the Institution of Christ and therefore your great Boast of that name is to be iudged false and absurd But of this Transgression more hereafter The Name of CHRIST his MASSE how farre it is to be acknowledged by Protestants SECT III. THe Masters of your Romish Ceremonies and others naming the Institution of Christ call it his Masse And how often doe wee heare your vulgar people talking of Christ his Masse Which word MASSE in the proper signification already specified could not possibly haue beene so distastfull vnto us if you had not abused it to your fained and as you now see false sense of your kinde of Proper Oblation and Sacrifice Therefore was it a superfluous labour of Mr. Brereley to spend so many lines in prouing the Antiquity of the word MASSE CHALLENGE FOr otherwise Wee according the aboue-confessed proper Sense thereof shall together with other Protestants in the Augustane Confession approue and embrace it and that to the iust Condemnation of your present Romane Church which in her Masse doth flatly and peremptorily contradict the proper Signification thereof according to the Testimonie of Micrologus saying The Masse is therefore so called because they that communicate not are commanded to depart By all which it is euident that your Church hath forfeited the Title of Masse which shee hath appropriated to her selfe as a flagge of ostentation
whereof more hereafter In the Interim we shall desire each one of you to hearken to the Exhortation of your owne Waldensis saying ATTEND and obserue the Masse OF CHRIST Of the CANON OF CHRIST his MASSE and at what wordes it beginneth SECT IV. CHrist his Masse by your owne confession beginneth at these words of the Gospell concerning Christ's Institution of the Eucharist Math. 26. Luc. 22. And Iesus tooke bread c. which also we doe as absolutely professe What Circumstances by ioynt consent on both sides are to bee exempted out of this Canon of Christ his Masse or the wordes of his Institution It is no lesse Christian wisedome and Charitie to cut off vnnecessary Controversies than it is a serpentine malice to engender them and therefore we exempt those points which are not included within this Canon of Christ beginning at these wordes And Iesus tooke bread c. To know that all other circumstances which at the Institution of Christ his Supper fell out accidentally or but occasionally because of the then Iewish Passeouer which Christ was at that time to finish or else by reason of the custome of Iudaea doe not come within this our dispute touching Christ his Masse whether it be that they concerne Place for it was instituted in a priuate house or Time which was at night or Sexe which were onely men or Gesture which was a kind of lying downe or Vesture which was wee know not what no nor yet whether the Bread were vnleauened or the Wine mixed with water two poynts which as you know Protestants and your selues giant not to be of the essence of the Sacrament but in their owne nature Indifferent and onely so farre to bee observed as the Church wherein the Christian Communicants are shall for Order and Decencie-sake prescribe the use thereof The Points contained within the Canon of Christ his Masse and appertaining to our present Controuersie are of two kindes viz. 1. Practicall 2. Doctrinall SECT V. PRacticall or Active is that part of the Canon which concerneth Administration Participation and Receiuing of the holy Sacrament according to this Tenor Math. 26. 26. And Iesus tooke Bread and blessed it and brake it and gaue it to his Disciples and said Take eate c. And Luc. 22. 19 20. Doe this in remembrance of mee Likewise also after Supper be tooke the Cup and gaue thankes and gaue it to them saying Drinke yee all of this But the points which are especially to bee called Doctrinall are implied in these words of the Euangelists This is my Bodie And This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many for remission of sinnes We begin with the Practicall CHAP. II. That all the proper Active and Practicall points to wit of Blessing Saying Giving Taking c. are strictly commanded by Christ in these words DOE THIS Luc. 22. Matth. 26. 1. Cor. 11. SECT I. THere are but two outward materiall parts of this Sacrament the one concerning the element of Bread the other touching the Cup. The Acts concerning both whether in Administring or Participating thereof are charged by Christ his Canon vpon the Church Catholike vnto the ends of the World The Tenour of his Precept or command for the first part is Doe this and concerning the other likewise saying 1. Cor. 11. 25. This doe yee as often c. Whereof your owne Doctors aswell Iesuites as thers haue rightly determined with a large consent that the wordes DOE THIS haue relation to all the aforesaid Acts euen according to the iâ—dgement of ancient Fathers excepting only the Time of the Celebration which was at Supper and which together with us you say were put in not for example but only by occasion of the Passeouer then commanded to be observed Thus you CHALLENGE THis Command of Christ being thus directly and copiously acknowledged by the best Diuines in the Romane Church must needs challenge on both sides an answerable performance Vpon examination whereof it will appeare vnto euery Conscience of man which Professors namely whether Protestants or Romanists are the true and Catholike Executors and Obseruers of the last will and Testament of our Testator Iesus because that Church must necessarily bee esteemed the more loyall and legitimate Spouse of Christ which doth more precisely obey the Command of the celestiall Bride-groome Wee to this purpose apply our selues to our busines by enquiring what are the Actiue Particulars which Christ hath giuen in charge vnto his Church by these his expresse wordes Doe this All which wee are to discouer and discusse from point to point TEN TRANSGRESSIONS And Preuarications against the Command of Christ DOE THIS practised by the Church of Rome at this day in her Romane Masse SECT II. VVEe list not to quarrell with your Church for lighter matters albeit your owne Cassander forbeareth not to complaine that your Bread is of such extreame thinnesse and lightnesse that it may seeme vnworthy the name of Bread Whereas Christ vsed Solid and tough bread Glutinosus saith your Iesuit which was to be broken with hands or cut with knife Neuerthelesse because there is in yours the substance of Bread therefore we will not contend about Accidents and shadowes but wee insist vpon the words of his Institution The first Transgression of the now Church of Rome in contradicting Christ his Canon is collected out of these words AND HE BLESSED IT which concerne the Consecration of this Sacrament SECT III. FIrst of the Bread the Text saith He blessed it next of the Cup it is said When he had giuen thanks Which words in your owne iudgements are all one as if it should be said Hee blessed it with giuing of thankes By the which word Blessing he doth imply a Consecration of this Sacrament So you The contrary Canon of the now Romane Masse wherein shee in her Exposition hath changed Christ's manner of Consecration The Canon of the Romish Masse attributeth the property and power of Consecration of this Sacrament only vnto the repetition of these words of Christ This is my body and This my blood c. and that from the iudgement as Some say of your Councell of Florence and Trent Moreouer you also alleage for this purpose your publique Catechisme and Romane Missall both which were authorized by the Councell of Trent and command of Pius Quintus then Pope See the Marginals Whereupon it is that you vse to attribute such efficacie to the very words pronounced with a Priestly intention as to change all the Bread in the Bakers shop and wine in the Vintners Cellar into the body and blood of Christ As your Summa Angelica speaketh more largely concerning the Bread CHALLENGE BVt Christopherus your own Arch-bishop of Caesarea in his Booke dedicated to Pope Sixtus Quintus and written professedly vpon this Subject commeth in compassed about with a clowd of witnesses and Reasons to proue that the Consecration
that the Assistance of Christ doth especially concurre with his owne Ordinance and therefore much rather where the forme of a Sacrament ordained and instituted by himselfe is observed then where it is as of you so notoriously perverted and contemned Yet because you may thinke we rest upon either our owne or yet of other your Doctors Iudgement in this Defence we shall produce to this purpose the consonant Doctrine of ancient Fathers Our third proofe is taken from the manifold Reasons of ancient Fathers for Confirmation of the Necessity of the Communicating in both kinds SECT IX FOr the proofe of the necessary vse of both kindes in the solemne and publique dispensation of this Sacrament the particular Testimonies of many ancient Fathers might be produced but your owne Authours will ease us of that labour by relating and confessing as much in effect as we did intend to prove viz. That the ancient Fathers were induced to the Continuance of the Custome in both kinds First by the Example and Institution of Christ Secondly by some particular Grace which they held to be signified by the Cup. Thirdly for the Representation that it had to the Passion of Christ distinctly and respectively to his Bodie and Blood Fourthly to resemble the Redemption which man hath in his Body by Christ's Body and by his Blood in the soule Fifâ—ly To expresse by these Symbols the perfect spirituall Nourishments wee have by his Body and Blood Sixtly To understand that this Sacrament doth equally belong to People as well as to Priests Seventhly that the Cup of the Eucharist doth animate soules to receive the Cup of bloody Martyrdome when the time should be Whereunto may be added the Constant profession of the Greeke Church in obeying the Canon of Christ and holding it necessarily to be observed of the people also by receiving in both kindes and that otherwise wee transgresse against the Institution of Christ All these Testimonies of primitive Fathers under the Confession of your owne Doctors are so many Arguments of the Consonant Doctrine of Antiquity for proofe of an obligation of precept upon the Churches of Christ whatsoever for the preservation of the perfect forme of Christ's Ordinance in the administring of the Sacrament in both kindes Vpon this Evidence may you justly call your fellow-Priest Master Brereley to account for his bold Assumption saying that No Doctor speaking of ancient Fathers can be produced either expressely or else by necessary Consequence affirming the necessity of the Laicks receiving under both kinds Your selves perceiving now not only One but many ancient Doctors to have expressed not only One but many Necessities inferring the same And then you may furthermore question him for his next as lavish Assertion affirming in his fift Answere that The Authorities obiected for the necessity of both kinds speake not of a Sacramentall but only of a spirituall Receiving with the mouth of their hearts When shall we find conscionable dealing at this man's hands Having thus finished our Assumption we shall more expeditely satisfie such your Reasons or rather Pretences which you bring to disguize your sacrilegious Abuse The Romish Pretences for their Innovation and Alteration of Christ his Institution by the publique vse of but One kind SECT X. VVE heare the Councell of Trent pretending as they say Iust reasons of altering the primitive Custome and vse of both kinds but naming none which we may well thinke was because they deserved not the mention surely such they were that your Iesuite had rather that you should belieue them then try and examine them It being your part as hee saith Rather to thinke them inst than to discusse them But wee are not bound to your Rules of blinde Obedience God will have us to use the sight which he hath given us least If the blinde leading the blinde both fall into the Ditch And whether the Reasons which are given by your Doctors be not blinde Seducements wee are now to try Some of your Reasons are taken from extraordinary Cases some Instances are common to all other Churches Christian and some are made as being peculiar to the Church of Rome The first kind of Romish Pretences from extraordinary Cases The first Pretence is thus alleaged Many Northerne Countries are destitute of Wine and therefore one kinde is to be used for Concord and Vniformity-sake Will you be answered from your selves Aquinas making the same Obiection of want of Wine and Wheate in forreine Countries Resolveth that Notwithstanding Wheate and Wine may be transported easily to all parts Accordingly doth he resolve of the want of Balsame used in your Consecration and yet it is farre more scarce then Wine or Wheate Yet what Northerne Countrie almost can you name that hath not abundance of Wine for many persons even unto râ—ot and can they not as well have it in moderate measure for a sacred Rite But what talke you of Vniformity and Concord in this Case of Alteration which are your two next Pretences wherein notwithstanding the Church of Rome is dissenting from the Greeke and all other Christian Churches in the World Or if this were a necessary Cause why did not your Church allow the use of both kinds to the Church of Bohemia but twice raised a fierce warre against them for which your Iesuite Salmeron seemeth to be full sorrie marrie it was because that warre had not his wished successe Is their Concord in Hostilitie Againe because you thirdly pretend Vniformity also why then doe your consecrating Priests only receive both kinds sacramentally and all the other Priests in Communicating participate but in one or how is it that you allow a â—…priuiledge to Popes Cardinals Monkes and noble Personages to receive in both kinds and deny this liberty to others Is there likewise Vniformity in Disparity Your fourth Pretence is because divers are Abstemious and have an Antipathy against Wine and some sickly persons also can hardly receive without Irreverent casting it up againe If the particular reason which Aquinas giveth saying That Wine moderately taken of such can doe no hurt may not satisfie yet this being also a Cause accidentall and extraordinary you ought to be regulated by this generall Rule That extraordinary Cases ought not to iustle out ordinary Lawes and Customes For that Command of Christ to his Apostles Goe preach to every Creature of man stood good in the generall albeit many men happened to be deafe Saint Peter requireth of every Christian of fit yeares that he be prepared to give an answere of his faith to everyone that asketh which precept was not therefore alterable because of multitudes of many that were dumbe Finally to close vp with you hee that by the rule of Hospitality is to cheere up his Guests doth not prescribe that because some mens stomackes are queasie and not able to endure Wine or else some meates therefore all others should be kept from fasting from all meates and Drinkes and the
But with what reason were they reprehended Because saith the Councell that fashion iâ— not â—ound in the sacred Storie of the Evangelists All those ancient Popes who held the Example of Christ in his Institution and Apostolicall Customes to be necessary Directions of Christ his Church in such points concerning the ministration of this Sacrament being so utterly repugnant to your now Romish opinions and Practices it must follow that those former Popes being admitted for Iudges whom all Christians acknowledged to have beene Apostolicall in their Resolutions the now Romish Church and her degenerate Profession must needs be judged Apostaticall Now from the former Actuall wee proceed to the Doctrinall points THE SECOND BOOKE Concerning the first Doctrinall Point which is the Interpretation of the words of Christ's Institution THIS IS MY BODY THIS IS MY BLOOD LVKE 22. The Doctrinall and Dogmaticall points are to be distinguished into your Romish 1. Interpretation of the words of Christ his Institution This is my Body c. 2. Consequences deduced from such your Expositions such as are Transubstantiation Corporall Presence and the rest CHAP. I. Of the Exposition of the words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY The State of the Question in Generall BEcause as Saint Augustine saith of points of faith It is as manifest an Heresie in the interpertation of Scriptures to take figurative speechees properly as to take proper speeches figuratively And such is the CAVEAT which Salmeron the Iesuite giveth you it will concerne both You and Vs as wee will avoide the brand of Heresie to search exactly into the true sence of these words of Christ especially seeing wee are herein to deale with the Inscription of the Seale of our Lord IESVS even the Sacrament of his Body and Blood In the which Disquisition besides the Authority of Ancient Fathers wee shall insist much upon the Ingenuity of your owne Romish Authours And what Necessitie there is to enquire into the true sence of these words will best appeare in the after-Examination of the divers Consequences of your owne Sence to wit your Doctrine of Transubstantiation Corporall and Materiall Presence Propitiatory Sacrifice and proper Adoration All which are Dependants upon your Romish Exposition of the former wordes of Christ The issue then will be this that if the words be certainly true in a Proper and litterall sence then we are to yeild to you the whole Cause But if it be necessarily Figurative then the ground of all these your Doctrines being but sandy the whole Structure and Fabricke which you erect thereupon must needs ruine and vanish But yet know withall that we doe not so maintaine a figurative Sence of Christ his Speech concerning his Body as to exclude the Truth of his Body or yet the truly-Receiving thereof as the Third and Fourth Bookes following will declare That a Figurative sence of Christ his Speech THIS IS MY BODY c. is evinced out of the words themselves from the Principles of the Romish Schooles SECT I. THere are two words which may be unto us as two keyes to unlock the questioned sence of Christ's words viz. the Pronoune THIS and the Verbe IS We begin with the former The State of the Question about the word THIS When wee shall fully vnderstand by your Church which holdeth a Proper and litterall Signification what the Pronoune THIS doth demonstrate then shall We truly inferre an infallible proofe of our figurative sence All Opinions concerning the Thing which the word THIS in the divers opinions of Authours pointeth at may be reduced to Three heads namely to signifie either This Bread or This Bodie of Christ or else some Third Thing different from them both Tell you vs first what you hold to be the opinion of Protestants Lutherans and all Calvinists saith your Iesuite thinke that the Pronoune THIS pointeth out Bread But your Roman Doctors are at oddes among themselves and divided into two principall Opinions Some of them referre the word THIS to Christ's Body Some to a Third thing which you call Individuum vagum In the first place we are to confute both these your Expositions and after to confirme our owne That the first Exposition of Romish Doctors of great learning referring the word THIS properly to Christ his Body perverteth the sence of Christ his Speech by the Consessions of Romish Doctors SECT II. DIvers of your Romish Divines of speciall note as well Iesuites as others interpret the word This to note the Body of Christ as it is present in this Sacrament at the pronuntiation of the last syllable of this speech Hoc est corpus meum Because they are words Practicall say they that is working that which they signifie namely The Body of Christ And this sence they call Most cleare and in their Iudgements there can be no better then this So your Stapleton Sanders together with Barradius Salmeron Chavausius these last three being Iesuites to whome you may adde Master Brereley his Answere saying that these words Most evidently relate to Christ's Body As evidently saith also your Iesuite Malloun as one pointing at his Booke should say This is my Booke CHALLENGE ARe not these Opinators in number many in name for the most part of great esteeme their Assertion in their own opinion full of assurance and delivered to their Hearers as the onely Catholique Resolution And yet behold one whose name alone hath obtained an Authority equivalent to almost all theirs your Cardinall Bellarmine who speaking of the same opinion of referring the word This to the Body of Christ doth in flat tearmes call it ABSVRD but not without good and solid reason and that according to the Principles of Romish Schooles to wit because before the last syllable of the last word Me-um be pronounced the Body of Christ is not yet present and the word This cannot demonstrate a thing Absent and therefore can it not be said This body is my body A Reason pregnant enough in it selfe and ratified by your publique Romane Catechisme authorised by the then Pope and Councell of Trent yet notwithstanding your fore-named Irish Iesuite hearing this Argument obiected by Protestants rayleth downe right calling it Accursed as iudged by the Church Hereticall and indeed Abhominable So hee who with Others if they were of fit yeares might be thought to deserve the rod for forgetting their Generall Catechisme and for defending an Exposition which even in common sense may be pronounced in your Cardinal 's owne phrase very Absurde else shew vs if you can but the least semblance of Truth for that Opinion Similitudes obiected for defence of their former Exposition and confuted by their owne fellowes The Similitudes which are urged to illustrate your former Practicall and operative sense are of these kinds to wit Even as if one say They in drawing a Line or a Circle should say in the making thereof This is a Line or This
is a Circle or as if the Smith say Others in making of a Nayle should say This is a Nayle So by Christ his saying This is my Body it was made presently the Body of Christ at the very pronuntiation of the last word of this Sentence This is my Body But most conceitedly your Iesuite Malloune and that not without scurrility As a Taylor making a Kirtle and saying we shall change onely his last word This is a Kirtle for my Mistris CONVBINA So they CHALLENGE THese kind of Subtilties are frequent in the mouthes of most Romish Priests as often as they are compelled to shew what is demonstrated by the Pronoune This. But that these your Similitudes of making Circles Lines and Nayles are no better than Iugling and Gypsie-trickes of fast or loose and fond devises forged in the braines of idle Sophisters and uttered by your Circulary Priests your owne Authours are ready to manifest for these Examples of the Painter's touching a Line or a Circle as your Bellarmine sheweth making and saying This is a Circle Is no true Proposition untill the Circle be made And then it is a figurative speech and not a proper using the present Tence Is for the future Shall be So he In like manner your Iesuite Salmeron affirmeth with a PROFECTÃ’ and full asseveration that the speech of him who in drawing a Circle doth say This is a Circle cannot without a Trope or Figure be iudged true So he And furthermore who knoweth not that every Operative speech doth signifie not the Being of a thing but the Making thereof and bringing of it unto being For although the Painter be so nimble in drawing a Circle that his hand may goe before his tongue yet when the Operative virtue consisteth not in working by the agility of the hand but in the orderly pronouncing of the words of a speech with the tongue so that the Truth thereof dependeth upon the utterance of the last syllable It is impossible but the Priest in uttering distinctly these words Hoc est corpus meum must say This is before he come to the last syllable of me-um and consequently in his sence notifie This to be Christ's Body before according to his owne iudgement the Body of Christ can have there any being at all By this is discovered the notable vertigo and dizzinesse of your Iesuite Maldonate Hee to prove that the Pronoune This doth relate to Christ's Body standeth upon the like Operative speculation God saith he in creating man of the slime of the earth might have truly said thereof This is man Or in framing Woman of the Rib of man might have rightly said This is Woman or Christ in working his miracle in Cana of Galilee might have said shewing the water This is wine So he When notwithstanding he is inforced in every one to alter the Verbe Is thus Slime is changed into Man Rib is converted into Woman Water is made Wine as he himselfe confesseth expounding the words This is my Body thus Not that it was then his Body saith he which as yet it was not but was about to be nor that he signified the Bread to be his Body but to be changed into his Body So he As if any thing could be said properly to be that which as yet it Is not Hitherto of your first Interpretation That the second Romish Exposition referring the Pronoune THIS to demonstrate a Third thing called Individuum vagum or Indeterminate substance perverteth the sence of Christ his speech THIS IS MY BODY proved by the Confession of Romish Doctors SECT III. A Third thing differing both from Bread and the Body of Christ which Romish Sophisters have lately invented is that which they call Individuum vagum by which is meant a substance confusedly taken as when one to use your own e example having an Hearb in his hand shall say This hearb groweth in my garden in which speech the word Hearb which is demonstrated by the pronoune This is not taken determinately for that singular Herb in his hand for that doth not now grow in his garden but is taken vagè and confusedly for the common Species nature or kind of that hearb And this opinion is defended by Bellarmine with other Iesuites and Doctors of your Church b Sixteene in number as the only sufficient and conclusive Resolution of this point touching the proper Exposition of the words of Christ concerning the Pronoune THIS CHALLENGE VVHich Subtilty is notwithstanding discussed disclosed and exploded by your learned Arch-bishop of Cesarea and your Iesuite Maldonate as an Opinion both false and full of Absurdities 1. Because whensoever the Pronowne This is used in Speech as This man disputeth it is alwayes in proper sence as determinately taken 2. Christ spoke of that which was in his hand but that was no vagrant but a singular determinate Substance And it is grosse to say a man holdeth a confused substance in his hand Which seemed to your Mr. Harding so vncouth and fond an opinion that hee utterly refuseth to defend the Authors thereof This and much more have they written to the discovering and discarding of this idle figment wishing furthermore that the Defendants of this opinion of Individuum vagum may returne to their wits againe and cease to offer such violence to this holy Scripture This is my Body So They. And worthily for these two words Individuum and Vagum spoken of Hoc be termes as Contradictory as to call the same thing singular-common or determinate-confused As for example Quidam homo A certaine man is in Logique Individuum vagum as when Christ said A certaine man went from Hierusalem to Hiericho c. None of the Disciples hearing this could thereupon point him out saying This man or know thereby who or what hee was Wee for further manifestation of your Absurdity in this point will instance in your owne Example for your Individuum vagum The Hearbe which a man holdeth in his hand saying This hearb groweth in my Garden how can you say it is true in the proper sence for if you take it determinately the same Hearb numero is not in the man's garden because it is in his hand and so it is yet Hoc Individuum determinatum And if you speake of it in a confused Notion no Abstract Notion can be held in a man's hand it being the function of the braine and not of the hand to apprehend mentall Notions or Generalls and so it is not Individuum at all But the Text saith of Christ his hand He tooke bread c. THIS which Christ in so saying pointed out with his finger saith your Sanders but a man will have much adoe to point out an Individuum vagum such as is an invisible or a confused Notion with a visible finger Wee would now conclude in the words of a Parisian Doctor Individui vagi commentum Authori Scoâ—o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relinquo but that
somthing els is to be added Another may be your Cardinall his owne Assertion which he once made as a snare to catch himselfe in for in your Romish Masse the Priest hauing the Hoast in his hand prayeth thus Receive holy father This immaculate Hoast If you shall aske him what in this prayer the Pronowne This doth demonstrate hee telleth you readily and asseverantly saying Certainly it demonstrateth unto sence that which the Priest hath in his hand which is Bread So hee Now why there should not be the like certainty of Relation of the Pronounc This to Bread in the speech of Christ as it hath in the prayer of the Priest none of you we thinke shall ever be able to shew Lastly we challenge you to shew within the space of a Thousand three hundreth yeares after Christ out of all the Ancient Fathers any one Testimony that ever affirmed the Pronoune Hoc This to betoken any Individuum vagum or Common Substance or els to confesse that this your doctrine is new extravagant and Adulterate Nor yet can the Defenders thereof say that this is all one as to say This that is that which is contained vnder the forme of Bread because this is like as when one shewing his purse shall say This is money meaning that which is in his purse which is a knowne figure Metonymia Yet were it granted that Hoc betokened an Indiuiduum vagum as to use your owne Similitude when one saith of an herb in his hand This hearb groweth in my garden so Christ should have said of bread in his hand This that is the like kind of bread is my Body yet would not this make the Speech of Christ proper or not figurative because Christ's Body could no more be properly predicated of the kind of wheat Bread then it could be of that bread of wheate then in his hand as Christ himselfe hath taught vs and as we are to prove vnto you For speaking of his Body he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grane of wheate Ioh. 12. 24. not This grane yet Christ's flesh is equally called improperly The grane as This grane of wheate whereof the ancient Father Theodoret will read you all a Lesson in the sixt Section following And now this so open and extreame civill war among your selues in confuting your owne Expositions will further and confirme peace among us in that one Exposition which we are in the next place to defend as followeth The Third Proposition which is according to the iudgement of Protestants that there is a Tropicall and vnproper sence in the Pronoune THIS VVEe reason first Hypothetically If the Pronoune This demonstrate Bread then the words of Christ are necessarily to be taken improperly and figuratively But the Pronoune This doth demonstrate Bread Our Conclusion will be Therefore the words of Christ necessarily are to be taken figuratively All this will be proved confirmed and avouched by Reasons Authorities and Confessions which will admit no Contradiction Wee begin at our proofe of the Consequence of the Proposition That it is impossible for Bread to be called the Body of Christ or Wine his Blood without a Figure SECT IV. THe common Dictate of naturall Reason imprinted by God in man's heart is a Maxime and hath in it an universall Veritie which neither man nor Divell can gain-say and is Confessed by yourselves viz. Disparatum de disparato non propriè praedicatur That is nothing can be properly and literally affirmed ioyntly of another thing which is of a different nature viz. It is impossible to say properly that an Egge is a Stone or to take your owne example we cannot call A man an horse without a Trope or Figure because their natures are repugnant So Salmeron And this hee holdeth necessary Or thus God who is perfect Truth will never make those Propositions to be true at the same time viz. that the Wife of Lot is Salt or Water is Wine or an Asse a man So your Archbishop Yea to come nearer to the point We cannot say that this wine is blood or that this blood is wine but by a Similitude or Representation because they differ in nature So Bellarmine Adding furthermore that it is Impossible the Proposition should be true wherein the Subiect is Bread and the Predicate is taken for the Body of Christ And Bread and Christ's body saith your Sanders cannot be properly affirmed one of another And indeed it is as Impossible Bread should be properly a body of flesh as a body of flesh to be bread which is grounded upon our first Maxime which your Iesuite Salmeron expresseth thus As often as the Verbe EST IS ioyneth things of divers natures together we are necessarily to have recourse to a Trope and Figure Will you be content that your Glosse as the tongue of your Church may have the last word Then hearken to it If bread be Christ's body then something is Christ's body which is not borne of the Virgin Mary and then also the same body must be said to be liuing and not liuing both at once So your Glosse confessing hereby an Impossibilitie of this Predication Bread is Christs Body in a proper and literall sence Our Proposition then standeth firme and infallible our Assumption will be found as true That the Pronoune THIS doth as verily notifie Bread in the words of Christ as if hee had expressly said This Bread is my Body proved first by Scripture SECT V. THe Text of the Evangelist Luc. 22. is light sufficient in it selfe Iesus tooke bread blessed it brake it and gave it to them saying Take Eate THIS namely which they Tooke and they tooke THIS which he Gave and he gave THIS which he Brake and hee Brake THIS which hee Blessed and blessed THIS which hee himselfe Tooke and THIS which hee tooke was Bread Iesus tooke Bread Wee appeale to your owne Consciences who never hitherto could say that in all these sayings of Christ there was made any Change or alteration of THIS which he tooke till the last word pronounced by the Priest which is Meum nor yet can you deny but that he tooke that which was properly and substantially Bread At the writing of this Sorites we light vpon an Answere from one Mr. Maloune encountring it with another but a false Sorites invented by himselfe to the discountenancing of this true one onely wee intreat you that at the reading thereof you will not laugh at his foolery See the Margin Your Grammaticall Obiection is Childish Cardinall Bellarmine your chiefe Master and also your Schoole-fellow M. Breerly as if they would put Protestants to Schoole tell them that Hoc taken for a Substantive neuter cannot agree with Panis it being a Thing then seene and knowne and not being of the neuter gender no more than for a man to say De Patre Hoc est Pater meus A strange thing that great Clerkes when they take upon them to
How can you auoid the necessity of this Consequence All arising from the nature of Predication in this Proposition wherein the Subiect is Bread the Copula Is and Predicate Body of Christ Which because it cannot be properly predicated either of Bread determinate as to say This bread in my hand is Christ's Body or of Bread undeterminate which you call vagum as to say This kind of bread is the Body of Christ it demonstrately sheweth that your Doctors can have no greater Aduersaries in this case than their owne Consciences which will appeare as fully in that which followeth CHAP. II. The Second key in Christ's Words Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body opening the Figurative Sence thereof is the Verbe EST IS FOr that Est in these words hath the same sence as Signifieth as if Christ had said expresly of the Bread This signifieth my Body and accordingly of the Wine This signifieth my Blood may be proued by three Propositions infringible Our first Proposition The Verbe EST being ioyned with a thing that is a Signe is alwayes figurative and the very same with this word SIGNIFIETH SECT I. FOr although the Verbe Est be indeed so absolutely simple in it's owne nature that it cannot be resolved into any other word as all other Verbes may be in like Case yet doth it albeit accidentally necessarily inferre a figurative Sence and is as much as Signifieth or Representeth whensoever it ioyneth the Signe and the Thing signified together As for Example A man pointing at a signe hanging before an Inne and saying This is S. George on horse-backe the Verbe Is can inferre no other Sence than Signifieth Why even because the thing whereof it speaketh is a Signe signifying Saint George And Bread in this Sacrament is in all Catholique Divinity a Signe of Christ's Body Therefore the Verbe Is can have no other sence than Signifieth The former Proposition confirmed by all like Speeches whether Artificiall Politique or Mysticall SECT II. YOur owne Iesuits and common Experience it selfe will verifie this Truth First in things Artificiall as To say of the Picture of Hercules This is Hercules is a figure Secondly In things Politique as when a Legacie given by Will and Testament is called the man's Will So they And indeed what is more Common than for a man to say of his Testament This is my Will Of his name subscribed This is my hand And of the waxe sealed This is my Seale When as his Will properly taken is in his heart his hand is affixed to his Arme And his seale may be in his pocket Thirdly In Mysticall and Divine Rites as in Sacrifice even among the Heathen according to that Example out of Homer which is notable The Greekes and Troians when they entred into a league which was to be ratified by a Sacrifice of Lambs upon which both sides were to take their Oathes this their Act is thus expressed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is They brought with them two Lambes their faithfull Oathes Where Lambes the rituall signes of their faithfull Swearing are called Oathes An Example I say even among the Heathen which is as appo e to our purpose and opposite against your defence as can be Our Second Proposition answerable to the first All the like Sacramentall Speeches in Scripture are figuratively understood SECT III. IN all such like Sacramentall Speeches both in the old and new Testament wherein the Signe is coupled with the Thing signified the Speech is ever unproper and Figurative and the Verbe Est hath no other force than Signifieth This Truth is confirmed aboundantly by the Testimonies of your owne Iesuites and others who come fraught with Examples First concerning the old Testament Noting that the Sacrifice of the Paschall Lambe being but a signe was called the Passeover or passing over Secondly that The Rocke being but a signe of Christ was called Christ Thirdly that Circumcision being but a signe of the Covenant was called the Covenant So likewise in the new Testament both concerning Baptisme which in Christ his Speech to Nicodemus being but a signe of Regeneration is called Regeneration And Baptizing which being a Signe of the Buriall of Christ in the speech of Saint Paul is called Buriall Finally that the most proper Interpretation of the Verbe Est Is in such like speeches importeth no more than Significat your Iesuite Salmeron will testifie for us In these speeches saith he The seed is the Word I am the Doore The Rocke was Christ the Verbe Is and WAS must be interpreted for SIGNIFIETH or figureth not of it's owne nature but because the word Rocke cannot be otherwise ioyned with Christ than by a figure or signe So he Even as Master Sanders also is compelled to confesse in a like Case CHALLENGE THus have we argued from Induction and Enumeration of Texts of Scripture in all like Sacramentall Speeches which Exposition by Analogy of Scriptures was ever held of all Divines the most absolute and infallible manner of expounding the Scripture that can be The Truth whereof arieseth essentially out of the Definition of a Sacrament which as well the whole Catholique Church as your Romish hath defined to be a visible Signe But no visible Signe can be ioyned to any thing signified thereby in like Predication without a Figure as hath beene both copiously proved and confessed Our third Proposition viz. Many Figurative Speeches are used by Christ even in his Words of Institution of this Sacrament by your owne Confessions SECT IV. FIrst your Iesuites who otherwise shame not to call Protestants in scorne Tropists because they defend a Tropicall and Figurative sence in the speech of Christ are notwithstanding constrained to acknowledge many figures in other words of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament Lest that otherwise as Maldonate and Suarez confesse the Speeches of Christ should be false as for example When the body of Christ is said to be broken or eaten if they should be taken properly and without a figure called Metaphora So they And so in the words following Body given for you that is which shall be offered for you on the Crosse So your Iesuite Valentia Next The blood is shed for you Matth. 26. It is not denied saith your Iesuite Salmeron but that it is the manner of Scripture to speake of a thing as now done which is after to be done as in this place Is shed because very shortly after it was to be shed upon the Crosse Which is the figure Enallage Againe This Cup is the new Testament in my bloud Hearken to your Bishop These words cannot be taken properly whether the Cup be taken for the vessell used for drinking which was a temporall thing and therefore could not be the Testament of Christ which is eternall or else whether you take it for the matter within the Cup which is the figure Synecdoche for it being the blood of the new
of the same his Body and Blood as they were on the Crosse Like as a King who having gotten a victory in battell should represent himselfe in a Stage-Play as in a fight So They. But without any Sentence of any Father for countenancing so egregious a figment so farre were those Greeke Fathers from urging that counterfeit Testimony which passeth vnder the name of S. Augustine as if hee had said The flesh of Christ is a Sacrament of his flesh and inferring from hence that The Body of Christ as it is in this Sacrament is a Signe of it selfe as it was upon the Crosse And they are no small Babes who vent out this proofe by name Billius Gardiner Bishop of Winchester Claudius Sainctes one of name in the Councell of Trent Fisher Bishop of Rochester and Hessell But how prove They this Out of any of the works of Augustine No where then Wee are required to seeke it in Prosper where againe it is not to be found Whither next forsooth it is so cited by Peter Lombard and there it appeareth that Peter Lombard had it out of his supposed Brother Gratian wee say Gratian whose bookes have beene lately reproved and condemned by one of your Arch-bishops for many False allegations of Testimonies of Fathers And when all is done if either Peter-Lombard or Gratian who are the Relators may be admitted to be the Interpreters of that coyned Sentence they will say that the word Flesh there specified is taken for the Shape of flesh and the word Blood for the outward forme of Blood which spoyleth your Play quite wherein you will have the Flesh of Christ under the outward formes and shape in this Sacrament and not the outward formes and shape themselves to be the Signe of the same Body on the Crosse So easie it is for Hunters to pursue their Game with loud cries upon a false sent Wee returne to your Cardinall and to Suarez who invented the Similitvde of the Stage-Play for their Answere which is indeed rather a Childish Playing then Theologicall reasoning yet it is but a mad sport to argue against Conscience as this your Cardinall must needs have done who confessing that the Greeke Fathers did therefore call Sacraments Antitypes because of the great Similitude they have with the things they represent yet now adventureth to say that the Body of Christ as it is in the Eucharist is a Signe of the same Body of Christ as it was upon the Crosse notwithstanding the Body of Christ as it is in the Sacrament according to your owne faith is so Invisible that it cannot be seene of Angels so Indivisible that it cannot be parted or divided and so Vnbloody that there is not the least tincture of blood to be discerned therein Wherfore to perswade your Disciples that those grave Fathers ever taught that the Invisible Indivisible and Vnbloody Body of Christ as in this Sacrament was or could be the Signe of his visible torne crucified and bloody Body vpon the Crosse and so to note an Antitype which is as you call it the Greatest Similitude is all one as to find out the greatest Similitude in the greatest Dissimilitude which yet is the more intollerable because it is against the Confessed Common opinion of your owne Divines who haue taught that The Sacrament of the Eucharist is called Type and Antitype because of the formes of Bread and Wine So your Billius Ma◠you not now discerne the notable perversnesse of your Disputers and that they devised this Stage-Play ad faciendum Populum to please and delude their Readers thereby to fit themselves the better for the Pageant whereof we shall be occasioned to say more in the sixt Booke That the onely Obiection out of the Greeke Fathers concerning the Pronoune HOC in the Testimony of Epiphanius advantageth not the Romish Cause SECT VII COmpare but Epiphanius his owne words your Cardinal's Obiection and our Answere and then make your owne determination as you shall thinke good Man is said to be made after the Image of God Epiphanius not able to define what this Image consisted in whether it be man's soule or minde or virtue notwithstanding resolveth that c All men haue the image of God in them but yet not according to nature namely that substantiall nature which is in God because God is Incomprehensible and infinite c. This is the maine point which Epiphanius will now illustrate but how By something saith your Cardinall which seemeth to be that which it is not And Epiphanius instanceth in the Eucharist wherein Christ taking into his hands those things which the Evangelists doe mention he said of the one HOC This is mine viz. Body and of the other This is mine viz. Blood hereby understanding saith your Obiector The Eucharist which is truely the Body of Christ although it seeme not to be so outwardly being of a round figure and Insensible and therfore farre vnlike to be the Body of Christ So he who thinking he hath overcome doth raise up his Iō and Triumph saying This argument is throughly convincent because Epiphanius addeth He who believeth not the words of Christ doth fall from Saluation adding further that they are to be believed although our senses gain-say it You have heard the Obiection which seeming to so great a Champion so greatly Convincent you will give us licence to make a full Answere First by HOC ET HOC THIS AND THIS by the Interpretation of Epiphanius are meant The things which the Evangelist did mention and the Evangelist mentioned as you know Bread He tooke Bread Hee tooke the Cup meaning Wine in the Cup namely according to the former generall Consent of the Fathers HOC signified Bread in one part of the Eucharist and Wine in the other But Bread neither in the Substance nor in the Accidents can be called Christ's Bodie without a Trope as hath beene Confessed which is our first confutation of your Cardinall who concludeth that Epiphanius excludeth all Tropes out of Christ's speech of HOC Secondly THIS in the words of Christ hath neither equality of Proportion nor yet similitude of forme or figure being round with the body of Christ as Epiphanius willeth us to observe Which confuteth the Assumption of your Cardinall affirming that Epiphanius sought in the Eucharist a similitude of a Thing which seemed to be that which it is not Albeit Epiphanius expresly sheweth that there is no outward similitude betweene This and This spoken of that is to say Bread and Wine and that which is called Mine and Mine namely The Body and Blood of Christ Thirdly This spoken of by Christ in the Iudgement of Epiphanius as it is Round in figure so is it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Insensible but not passively as not perceiveable by sence for then it could not be said to be Round which with other outward Accidents are sensible to your selves but actively Insensible as not
having power sensibly to perceive which betokening Bread or the Accidents of bread as you see it doth confirmeth unto us the Tropicall speech of Christ in calling Bread his Body and consequently overthroweth your whole Cause Fourthly the Similitude of Epiphanius must stand thus That which is said to be after the Image of God is such which hath a substantiall being yet so that it be like but not the same in nature And so is Bread having a Sacramentall Analogie to Christ's Body the first as the substantiall meate of man's Body and the other as the supersubstantiall food of Man's Soule Which Conclusion namely that Bread as the signe of Christ's Body is not the same in nature with Christ's Body doth dash out the braines of the Monster Transubstantiation by the which Bread as your Tridentine Faith teacheth is wholly changed into the substantiall nature of Christ's Body As if you would have Epiphanius to have said The Image of God in man is God in nature Thus doe you find the Testimony of Epiphanius to be Convincent indeed but against your Romish Doctrine of Errour and against your Cardinall of a foule falsity who saith that Epiphanius will have us to believe something herein although it be repugnant to our Sences which word no man of Sence can find in Epiphanius He saith indeed that every man is bound upon his Salvation to believe the Truth of Christ his Speech which say wee none but an Infidell can deny because Christ being Truth it selfe therefore all the words of Christ whether spoken Literally or Tropically they are still the Truth of Christ That the same Greeke Fathers have expresly vnfolded their meanings touching a Figurative Sence SECT VIII THe Iudgement of a whole Councell of Greeke Fathers may well suffice for the manifestation of the Iudgement of that Church They in Constantinople at Trullo alluding to these words of Christ This is my Body saying Let nothing be offered but the Body and Blood of Christ that is say They Bread and Wine c. If we had not told you that this had been the speech of Greeke Fathers in a Councell you would have conceived they had beene uttered by some Heretique as your Charity useth to cal us Protestants Neither may the Authority of this Councell be rejected by you as unlawfull in the point of the Sacrament both because it is objected by your selves to prove it an vnbloody Sacrifice whereunto you are answered as also for that your Binius in opposing against some things in this Councell yet neuer tooke any Exception against this Canon We may not let passe another Testimony used by the Antient Father Theodoret namely That Christ called the Bread his Body as he called his Body Bread Matth. 12. saying thereof Except the grane of wheat die c. insomuch that Interchangeably in the one place He gave to the Signe the name of his Body and in the other He gave to his Body the name of the Signe So hee As Protestantly as either Calvin or Beza could speake And you cannot deny but that when Christ called his Body Bread it was an improper and figurative speech And therefore if you will believe Theodoret you are compellable to confesse that Christ in calling Bread his Body meant it not in a proper and literall sence Hitherto of the Greeke Fathers That the same Figurative sence of Christ's words is avouched by the Latine Fathers SECT IX SOme of the Latine Fathers we confesse seeme in some places to deny all Figurative sence but this they doe even by a figure called Hyperbole that is onely in the excesse of Speech thereby to abstract the minds of sensuall men from fixing their thoughts upon externall Rites and to rayse them up to a Sacramentall and Spirituall Contemplation of the Body and Blood of Christ But as for the direct and perspicuous Sentences of these Fathers they cleerely and exactly teach a figurative sence in the words of Christ to wit Tertullian This is my Body That is a figure thereof Cyprian Things signifying and signified are called by the same word Hierom. Wine the type of Christ his Blood Gelasius Bread the image of his Body Ambrose After consecration Christ his Body is signified Saint Augustine in many places may be unto Vs instar multorum To eate the flesh of Christ saith he is a figurative speech Againe In the banquet Christ gave to his Disciples the signe of his Body And yet againe Christ doubted not to say This is my Body when he gave a signe of his Body Lastly unanswerably proving other Sacraments to agree with this in this point and that herein the Eucharist hath no Prerogative above the rest Sacraments saith he for the very Similitude and likenesse which they have with the things whereof they are Sacraments doe often take the names of those things which they doe signifie as when the Sacrament of Christ's Body saith he is after a certaine manner called the Body of Christ But how Hee addeth as if hee had meant to stop the mouthes of all Opposites As it is said by the Apostle of Baptisme we are buried by Baptisme into the death of Christ He saith not wee signifie his buriall but absolutely saith Wee are buried therefore hath he called the Sacrament or Signe of so great a Thing by the name of the Thing signified thereby So he even the same He who will be found like himselfe in the following passages of this Booke especially when we shall handle the manner of Eating of Christ's body which Augustine will Challenge to be figuratively meant We shall take our farewell of the Latine Fathers in the Testimony of Bishop Isidore who will give you his owne Reason why Christ called Bread his Body Bread saith he because it strengtheneth the body is therefore 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 and so say we Accordingly Tertullian but least any may Cavill as some doe at his sentence above-cited wee adde his other sentence wherein he sheweth that Christ called Bread his Body in saying This is my body as the Prophet Ieremy called his Body Bread in saying Let us put wood upon his Bread meaning his Body So Tertullian shewing them both to be spoken equally in a figurative Sence CHALLENGE THese Sentences of these holy Fathers are so fully Consonant to the Doctrine of Protestans as that if the names of these Fathers had beene concealed our Reader might thinke that hee heard Bucer Calvin or Beza speake Goe you now and proclaime that all Ancient Fathers teach your Litterall sence of Christ his words and perswade your selves if you can that any man of Conscience and Iudgement can be seduced to believe you They say indeed that Bread is the Body of Christ
and why might they not use the same Tenure of Speech which our Lord Christ used before them But they say also that Bread is therefore called his Body as being an outward Sacrament Signe and Figure of his Body seeing that every Sacrament being a Signe or Figure the Sacramentall Speech must necessarily be Figurative as hath beene proved by Scripture as in all other Sacraments so likewise in the severall confessed Figurative words of Christ concerning this Sacrament in six severall Instances This one Argument of it selfe hath beene tearmed by Master Calvin Murus ahaeneus that is a brazen Wall and so will it be found more evidently to be when you shall perceive the same Fathers judging that which they call Change into Christ's flesh to be but a Change into the Sacrament of his flesh Bread still remayning the same and teaching that Melchisedech offered in his Sacrifice the Body and Blood of Christ when he offered onely the Types of both in the Sixt Booke And now we are to with-stand your Paper-bullets wherewith you vainely attempt in your Objections following to batter our Defence withal CHAP. III. The Romish Obiections against the Figurative Sence Answered The first Obiection SECT I. NOthing useth to be more properly and simply spoken say you than words of Testaments and Covenants Ergò this being a Testamentary Phrase must be taken in the literall Sence CHALLENGE WHat is this are Figurative speeches never used in Covenants and Testamentary Language or is there not therefore sufficient perspicuity in Figures This is your rash and lavish Assertion for you your selves doe teach that The Old and New Testament are both full fraught with multitude of Tropes and Figures and yet are called Testaments Secondly That the Scripture speaking of the Trinity and some divine things cannot but speake improperly and figuratively Thirdly That Sacramentall speeches as The Rocke was Christ and the like words are Tropicall and Figurative Fourthly That even in the Testamentary Speech of Christ at his Institution of this Sacrament saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood there is a Figure in the very word Testament So have you confessed and so have you consequently confuted your owne Obiection Hereto might be added the Testament of Iacob prophesying of his sonnes and saying Reuben is my strength Iudah a Lions Whelpe Issachar a strong Asse Danan Adder in the way All figurative Allusions Nay no man in making his Testament can call it his Will or say that he hath set his hand and Seale unto it without Figures Namely that he hath given by writing a Signification of his Will that the Subscription was made by his Hand and that he added unto it the Print of his Seale These Three Will Hand Seale every word Figuratiue even in a Testament The Second Romish Obiection against the Figurative Sence SECT II. LAwes and Precepts say you should be in plaine and proper words But in the Speech of Christ Take eate you c. are words of Command Ergò They may not be held Figurative CHALLENGE CAn you be Ignorant of these Figurative Precepts viz. of Pulling out a man 's owne eye of cutting off his hand Matth. 5. Or yet of a Penitents Renting of his heart Ioel 2. Or of not hardening his heart Psal 95. and the like Christ commanded his Disciples to prepare for his keeping the Passeover with his Disciples and the Disciples prepared the Passeover as Iesus commanded them saith the Evangelist In this Command is the word Passeover We demand The word Passeover which is taken for the Sacrament and Signe of the Passeover is it taken figuratively You cannot deny it And can you deny that a Commandement may be delivered under a Figurative Phrase You can both that is say and gaine-say any thing like false Merchants onely so farre as things may or may not make for your owne Advantage But to catch you in your owne snare your Doctrine of Concomitancy is this viz. Bread being turned into Christ's Body is ioyntly turned into whole Christ and Wine being changed into his blood is likewise turned into whole Christ both flesh and blood If then when Christ commanded his Disciples saying Drinke you All of this that which was Drunke was the whole substantiall Body of Christ either must his Disciples be said to have Drunke Christ's Body properly or else was the Command of Christ figuratively spoken To say the first contradicteth the universall expression of man's speech in all Languages for no man is said to drinke Bread or any solid thing And to grant the Second that the speech is Figurative contradicteth your owne Objection Againe Christ commanded to Eate his Body yet notwithstanding have Three Iesuites already confessed that Christ's Body cannot be said to have beene properly Eaten but figuratively onely What fascination then hath perverted your Iudgements that you cannot but still confound your selves by your contrary and thwarting languages Your Third Romish Obiection SECT III. DOctrinall and Dogmaticall speeches say you ought to be direct and literall But these words This is my Body are Doctrinall CHALLENGE A Man would maruaile to heare such silly and petty Reasons to be propounded by those who are accounted great Clerkes and those who know full well that the speech of Christ concerning Castrating or gelding of a man's selfe is Doctrinall and teacheth Mortification and yet is not literally to be understood as you all know by the literall errour of Origen who did really Castrate himselfe And the same Origen who thus wounded himselfe by that literall Exposition in his youth Hee in his Age expounding the words of Christ concerning the Eating of his flesh said of the literall sence thereof that It killeth Secondly these words This is the New Testament in my blood they are wordes as Doctrinall as the other This is my body and yet figurative by your owne Confession Thirdly the words of Christ Ioh. 6. of Eating his flesh are Doctrinall and yet by your owne Construction are not to be properly vnderstood but as Christ afterwards expounds himselfe Spiritually Fourthly where Christ thus said The bread which I shall give is my flesh Ioh. 6. 51. he saith also of his Body that it is True bread Verse 32. and bread of life Verse 48. and living bread whereof whosoever eateth liveth eternally Verse 51. All Divine and Doctrinall Assertions yet was his body figuratively called bread Fiftly that in those words of Christ to Peter Matth. 16. Vpon this Rocke will I build my Church And To thee will I give the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven And Ioh. 21. Feed my Sheepe In which texts of Scripture you place although most falsly your Doctrinall foundation of Popedome it selfe yet know you all these to be Tropicall Speeches Yea and what say you to the first Doctrinall Article and foundation of Christian Doctrine delivered by God unto man in the beginning The seed of
the woman shall breake the Serpents head Is not the latter part of the Article altogether Figurative yet signifying this Doctrinall point even the vanquishing of the power of Satan Your Fourth Romish Obiection SECT IV. THe Apostles saith your Cardinall were rude and simple Therefore needed to be Instructed by Christ in plaine tearmes without Figures So he CHALLENGE ANd yet Christ you know did often speake Figuratively unto them talking of Bread Leaven Seed c. And stiling them the Salt of the earth yea even in this Sacrament as hath beene confessed in the words Eate Shed Testament Another Iesuite witnesseth that The Apostles were illuminated and instructed by Christ that they might receive this Sacrament with all Reverence So he Therefore are they but rudely by you tearmed Rude and the rather because They who being commanded to prepare the Passeover perceived that by Passeover was figuratively vnderstood the Paschall Lambe and thereupon prepared the Passeover according to the Lord's Command could not be ignorant that in this like Sacramentall speech This is my body the Pronoune THIS did literally point out bread and figuratively signifie Christ's bodie Doubtlesse if the manner of Christ's speech in the Eucharist had not beene like the other in the Passeover they would have desired Christ to explaine his meaning as they did sollicitously in other doubts Their last Romish Obiection SECT V. VVE are never to let passe the Literall Sence saith your Cardinall except we be compelled thereunto by some Scripture or by some Article of Faith or by some common Interpretation of the whole Church So he CHALLENGE SVrely nor we without some one of these but that you may know the grounds of our perswasion to be more than one or yet all These And how bountifully we shall deale with you we shall shew in the Proposition following Ten Reasons for proofe of the Necessity of interpreting the wordâ— of Christ Figuratively SECT VI. FIrst We have beene compellable to allow a Figurative Sence by the consessed Analogie of Scripture in all such Sacramentall Speeches of both Testaments concerning Circumcision Rocke Baptisme as also that speech of Christ Ioh. 6. Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man as you have heard Secondly We are Challengable hereunto by our Article of Faith which teacheth but one naturall Body of Christ and the same to Remayne now in Heaven Thirdly We are inforced for feare of such Heresies as have followed in other Cases upon the literall sence for it was not the Figurative but the literall and proper sence of being borne againe by Baptisme lob 3. that begat the errour of Nicodemus and the like literall sence of God's Eyes Hands Feet c. brought forth the Anthropomorphites And so was it the literall sence of those words in the Canticles Tell me where thou lyest at noone which deluded the Donatists and of Origen you have heard that hee by the literall sense of these wordes Some there be that castrate themselves c. did fondly wrong himselfe Fourthly Wee are necessarily mooved to reject your literall sence by a confessed Impossibility taught by that Vniversall Maxime Disparatum de disparato c. shewing that Bread being of a different nature from flesh can no more possibly be called the flesh or Body of Christ literally than Lead can be called Wood. Fiftly We are perswaded hereunto by the former alleadged Interpretation of the Ancient Fathers both of the Greeke and Latine Church calling the Sacrament a Figure and expounding This is by This signifieth Sixtly Wee are urged by the Rule set downe by Saint Augustine for the direction of the whole Catholique Church that Whensoever the precept saith he seemeth to command that which is hainous as to eate the flesh of Christ it is figurative And of this Sacrament doth not Christ say Take Eate This is my body Seventhly A Motive it must needs be to any reasonable man to defend the figurative sence by observing the misery of your Disputers in contending for a literall Exposition thereof because their Objections have beene confuted by your owne Doctors and by Truth it selfe even the holy Scriptures Eightly your owne Vnreasonablenesse may perswade somewhat who have not beene able hitherto to confirme any one of your five former Obiections to the contrary by any one Father of the Church Ninthly For that the literall Interpretation of Christ's wordes was the foundation of the Heresie of the Capernaites and hath affinitie with divers other Ancient Heresies condemned by Antiquitie Tenthly Our last perswasion is the consent of Antiquity against the literall conversion of Bread into Christ's body which you call Transubstantiation against the Literall Corporall Presence against Literall Corporall Eating and Vnion and against a proper Sacrifice of Christ's body Subiectively All which are fully perswasive Inducements to inforce a figurative sence as the sundry Bookes following will cleerely demonstrate from point to point CHALLENGE YOu may not passe over the consideration of these points by calling them Schoole-subtilties and Logicall Differences as Master Fisher lately hath done thinking by this his slie Sophistrie craftily to draw the mindes of Romish Professors from the due discovery of your Romish false literall Exposition of Christ's words THIS IS MY BODY the very foundation of your manifold monstrously-erroneous Superstitious Hereticall and Idolatrous Consequences issuing from thence whereunto we now orderly proceed THE THIRD BOOKE Treating of the First Romish Doctrinall Consequence pretended to arise from your former depraved Exposition of Christ's wordes This is my Body called TRANSVBSTANTIATION Your Doctrinal Romish Consequences are Five viz. the Corporall 1. Conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ called Transubstantiation in this Third Booke 2. Existence of the same Body of Christ in the Sacrament called Reall Presence in the Fourth Booke 3. Receiving of the Body of Christ into the Bodies of the Communicants called Reall or Materiall Coniunction in the Fifth Booke 4. Sacrificing of Christ's Body by the hands of the Priest called a Propitiatory Sacrifice in the Sixth Booke 5. Worshipping with Divine Worship called Latria or Divine Adoration of the same Sacrament in the Seventh Booke 6. The Additionals in a Summary Discovery of of the Abhominations of the Romish Masse and Iniquities of the Defenders thereof in the Eight Booke THese are the Doctrinall Consequences which you teach and professe and which we shall by God's assistance pursue according to our former Method of Brevity and Perspicuity and that by as good and undenyable Evidences and Confessions of your owne Authours in most points as either you can expect or the Cause it selfe require And because a Thing must have a Begetting before it have a manner of Being therefore before we treate of the Corporall Presence we must in the first place handle your Transubstantiation which is the manner as wee may so say of the Procreation thereof CHAP. I. The State of the Controuersie concerning the Change and Conversion professed
Transformation Trans-elementation and the like So your Lorichius Reader of Divinitie among you who by his vast and rash boldnes might as iustly have inferred from the like Phrases of the Apostle viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are transformed that every Regenerate Christian is Transubstantiated into Christ or from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is transfigured say that the Diuell is Transubstantiated into an Angell of light or from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is changed used by Cyrill urge that whosoever the Spirit of God doth Sanctifie is Transubstantiated into another thing or from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Nazianzene conclude that Every Person Baptized is Transubstantiated into Christ Will you have the world imagine that so many so excellent and so Ancient Fathers with all that Divine and Humane Learning wherewith they were so admirably accomplished could not in a Thousand yeares space finde out either the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Latine Transubstantiatio and apply them to this Change if they had once dreamed of this your Article of Faith Will you permit us to learne a point of wisedome in your Cardinal Liberty of devising new words saith he is a thing most dangerous because new words by little and little bâ—get new things So hee Therefore may wee iustly place this your new word among those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which St. Paul will have Christians by all means to avoid els so new and barbarous a name must needs ingender a novell and brutish opinion such as this Article it selfe will appeare to be As followeth The Novelty of the Article of Transubstantiation is examined and shewen not to have beene before the Councell of Laterane namely not untill 1215. yeares after Christ SECT III. THis Aricle hath beene decreed as you haue heard by your Church as a necessary Doctrine of Faith and therefore presumed to be Ancient CHALLENGE THe first Imposition of this Article as of Faith your Cardinall Bellarmine noteth to have beene in the dayes of Pope Gregory the VIIth viz. 1073. yeares after Christ But surely at that time this could be but a private opinion of some few for Peter Lombard living 67. yeares after this Pope and esteemed the Master of the Romish Schoole when he had laboured to give Resolution to all doubts especially in this very Question whether the Conversion were substantiall or not confesseth plainely saying Definire non sufficio I am not able to Determine So he Anno 1140. Hitherto therefore this Article was but in Conception onely which caused your learned and subtile Schoole-man Scotus to descend lower to find out the Birth thereof Affirming that the Article of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith before the Councell of Laterane under Pope Innocent III. viz. Anno 1215. whom therefore your Cardinall doth taxe for want of Reading But either were your Iesuite Coster and Cardinall Perron as ignorant of Antient Learning as Scotus or els they gave small Credit to that Councell cited by Bellarmine under Gregory the VIIth For your Iesuite saith in direct tearmes that The name of Transubstantiation was used in the Councell of Laterane for clearer declaration that Christians might understand the Change of Bread into the Body of Christ Can you say then that it was universally so vnderstood before But your Cardinall Perrâ—n more peremptorily concludeth that If it had not beene for the Councell of Laterane it might be now lawfull to impugne it So hee A plaine acknowledgement that it was no Doctrine of Faith before that Councell even as Scotus affirmed before But we pursue this Chase yet further to shew That the Article of Transubstantiation was not defined in the Councell of Laternae vnder Pope Innocentius the III. SECT IV. YOur owne learned Romish Priest a long time Prisoner did under the name of Widdrington produce many Historians viz. Platina Nauclerus Godfridus Monumetensis Matth. Paris and others to testifie as followeth That many things fell under Consultation in that Councell but nothing was openly defined the Pope dying at Perâ—sium Insomuch that some of these Authors sticke not to say that This Generall Councell which seemed to promise bigg and mighty matters did end in scorne and mockery performing nothing at all Wee might adde that the supposed Acts of this Councell were not published vntill more than two hundred yeares after No marvell then if some Schoole-men among whom were Scotus and Biel held Transubstantiation not to have beene very antient And another that It was but lately determined in the Church Nay M. Breerly if his opinion be of any Credit among you sticketh not to say that Transubstantiation compleat that is both for forme and matter was not determined vntill the last Councell of Trent that is to say not untill the yeare of our Lord 1560. Doe you not see how much licking this ougly Beare and Beast had before it came to be formed and yet it will appeare to be but a Monstrum horrendum take it at the best as it is now to to be proved by the full discouering of the palpable Falshood thereof CHAP. III. The Definition of Transubstantiation in the Church of Rome and of the Falshood thereof SECT I. THe Councell of Trent saith your Cardinall hath defined that this Conversion is of the whole Substance of Bread that is as well forme as matter into the Substance of Christ his Body Our First proofe of the Falshood of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation by the Contradictions of the Defenders thereof whereby they bewray their No-Beleefe of the Article THe Opinions of the Doctours of your Church concerning the nature of this Conversion are by you reduced into these two manners namely that it is either by Production out of the substance of Bread or els by Adduction of the Body of Christ unto the forme of Bread CHALLENGE VVHatsoever it is which you will seeme to professe never shall you perswade us that you doe indeed believe either of the pretended Formes of Transubstantiation First not by Production because as the same Cardinall truely argueth Conversion by Production is when the thing that is produced is not yet extant as when Christ converted water into wine wine was not Extant before it was Produced out of the substance of water But the Body of Christ is alwaies Extant therefore can it not be said to be Produced out of the substance of Bread So he Which Productive manner of Transubstantiation could not be beleeved by your Iesuites Vasquez and Suarez by both whom it hath beene confuted And if the Change be not by Production then it must follow that it is not by Transubstantiation which is demonstrable in it selfe because the next manner which they insist vpon cannot possibly serue your turne This Second manner they name to be by Adduction which your Cardinall defineth to be a Bringing of the Substance of that
Body of Christ continuing still in heaven to be notwithstanding at the same time under the shapes of Bread on the Altar therfore called Substantiall but the Substance of Bread ceaseth to haue any Being when the Body of Christ succeedeth to be under the outward shapes of Bread So he And this is of late crept into the opinion of some few whereby you have created a new faith flat contrary to the faith of the Councell of Trent which defined a Change of the whole substance of Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ. So that Councell as you have heard Now by the Change of Substance into Substance as when Common Bread eaten is turned into the Substance of Man's flesh the matter of Bread is made the matter of Flesh But this your adduction is so far frō bringing in the Substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body that it professeth to bring the Body of Christ not so much as unto the Bread but to be under only the Outward Accidents formes of Bread Yet had this Figment some Favourers in your Schooles No Marvell therefore if there arose some out of your owne Church who did impugne this delusion calling it as your Cardinall himselfe witnesseth of them a Translocation onely and not a Transubstantiation and that truely if they should not have called it a Trans-accession or Trans-succession rather For who will say if he put on his hand a Glove made of a Lamb-skin which Lambe was long since dead and consequently ceasing to be that therefore his hand is Transubstantiated into the Body of the Lambe yet is there in this example a more substantial Change by much than can be imagined to be by your Adduction of a Body under onely the Formes and Accidents of the matter of Bread because there is in that a Materiall Touch betweene the Substance of the hand and the Lamb-skin but in this other there is onely a Coniunction of the Substance of one Body with the Accidents of another Which kind of meere Succession of a Substance your Iesuite Suarez will allow to be no more than a Translocation Wee Conclude that seeing Conversion whether by Production or by Adduction are so plainly proved by your selves to be contrary to Truth therefore it is not possible for you to beleeve a Doctrine so absolutely repugnant to your owne knowledge Observe by the way that they who gain-say the Productive and teach the Adductive yet doe all deny Locall mutation à Termino ad Terminum a Paradox which wee leave to your wisdomes to contemplate vpon Our Second Proofe of the Falshood of the Article of Transubstantiation is from the Article of our Christian Creed BORNE OF THE VIRGIN MARY SECT II. TRansubstantiation as hath beene defined by your Councell of Trent is a Conversion of the substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body Now in every such Substantiall Change there are Two Tearmes one is the Substance from which the other is the Substance whereinto the Substantiall Change is made as it was in Christ his miraculous Change of Water into Wine But this was by producing the Substance of Wine out of the Substance of Water as the matter from which the Conversion was made Therefore must it it be by Production of the Substance of Christ's Body out of the Substance of Bread Your Cardinall hath no Evasion but by denying the Conversion to be by Production which notwithstanding was formerly the Generall Tenet of the Romish Schoole ever since the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was hatched and which is contrary to his owne device of Conversion by Adduction wherein first he confoundeth himselfe and secondly his opinion hath beene scornfully reiected by your owne learned Doctors as being nothing lesse than Transubstantiation as you have heard Therefore may you make much of your breaden Christ As for vs We according to our Apostolicall Creed beleeve no Body of Christ but that which was Produced out of the Sanctified flesh of the blessed Virgin Mary for feare of Heresie This same Obiection being made of late to a Iesuite of prime note received from him this Answer viz. God that was ableto raise Children to Abraham out of stones can of bread transubstantiate the same into that Body of Christ which was of the Virgin And he againe received this Reply That the Children which should be so raised out of Stones howsoever they might be Abraham's Children according to Faith yet could they not be Children of Abraham according to the Flesh Therefore is there as great a Difference betweene that Body from Bread and the other from the Blessed Virgin as there must have beene betweene Children out of Stones and Children out of Flesh And this out Reason accordeth right well to the Ancient Faith professed within this Land in the dayes of Edgar a Saxon King as it is set out in an Homily of that time which being published standeth thus Much is betweene the body that Christ sufferedin and betweene the body of the hallowed Howsell The body truly that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of the Virgin Mary with blood and with bone with skin and with sinewes in humane limbes and his Ghostly body which we call his Howsell is gathered of many Cornes without blood and bone without limbe and therefore nothing is to be understood herein bodily but all is Ghostly to be understood This was our then Saxon's Faith wherein is plainely distinguished the Body of Christ borne of the blessed Virgin from the Sacramentall which is called Ghostly as is the Body of flesh from the Consecrated Substance of Bread A Doctrine directly confirmed by Saint Augustine Wherefore we may as truly say concerning this your Conversion that if it be by Transubstantiation from bread then it is not the Body which was borne of the blessed Virgin as your owne Romish Glosse could say of the Predication If Bread be Christ's Body then something was Christ's body which was not borne of the Virgin Mary Our Third Reason is taken from the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration But first of the State of this Question SECT III. VVE wonder not why your Fathers of the Councell of Trent were so fierce in casting their great Thunderbolt of Anathema and Curse upon every man that should affirme Bread and Wine to remayne in this Sacrament after Consecration which they did to terrifie men from the Doctrine of Protestants who doe all affirme the Continuance of the Substance of Bread in the Eucharist For right well did these Tridentines know that if the Substance of Bread or Wine doe remayne then is all Faith yea and Conceit of Transubstantiation but a feigned Chimaera and meere Fancy as your Cardinall doth confesse in granting that It is a necessarie Condition in every Transubstantiation that the thing which is Converted cease any more to be as it was in the Conversion of Water into Wine Water
proveth the Efficaciousnesse of the Iudgement of Sence in reducing so extreme an Vnbeleever to beleeve Wherein your Authours are authorized by Saint Augustine saying that Although Thomas his Eyes had beene deceived yet his touch was not frustrate And accordingly by Gregory Pope of Rome who sticketh not to say that The Infidelity of Thomas made more for confirmation of Christian beliefe than did the faith of the other Apostles because his Doubtfulnesse being convinced by the Sense of Touching we are thereby freed from all doubtfulnesse in the faith And if this were not sufficient to confute your Cardinall hee may be shackled with his owne answere who to disable the Infallibilitie of the Sense of feeling said That other Arguments were requisite for the certifying the iudgement of Sense and among these Other he reckoneth Christ his speaking eating and working Miracles All which what are they else wee pray you but equally Obiects of Sense What Vertigo then may this be called in him to seeke to invalidate the verity of Sense by an Argument which iustifieth the certainty of Sense A third Confirmation of the Truth of Senses as sufficient in Divine Causes for discerning Obiects of Sense and particularly in perceiving Bread and Wine to continue the same in this Sacrament by the judgement of Ancient Fathers SECT IX HOw many Heretiques of old were there such as the Valentinians Montanists Marcionites who denied that Christ had a True and Essentiall Bodie and how absolutely were they confuted of Ancient Fathers by the Evidence of men's Senses that heard saw and felt the Body of Christ Which sheweth plainly that a Demonstration by Sense standeth good and strong euen in Christian Philosophie And to come to the point in Question to conclude from the Premises in the former Section who can deny this Consequence viz. By the same Evidence may a Christian man prove Bread to be truly Bread after Consecration whereby Christ proved his Body to be a body of flesh after his Resurrection But this he did from the Infallibility of Sence Therefore this may be equally concluded by the same Argument of Sence And that there is the same Reason of both these the Ancient Father Theodoret sheweth in the Argument wherewith he confuted an Heretique by Sense thus As after Consecration saith he Bread remayneth the same in substance So Christ his Body after the Resurrection remayned in substance the same Thus much of the Analogie As for the word Substance more is to be spoken thereof hereafter Yea and Saint Augustine will not suffer the Communicant to blind-fold himselfe whose Testimony digested by Bede is this That which you have seene is Bread as your eyes doe manifest unto you And he speaketh of Bread as this Sacrament was a Symbol and Signe of the mysticall body of Christ which is his Church consisting of a multitude of Faithfull Communicants as one Loafe doth of many graines of wheate So Saint Augustine Ergò It is Bread after Consecration Tertullian hath a large Plea against the Academici who denied the iudgement of Sense wherein hee maintayneth the Truth of the Senses and in proofe thereof hee manifesteth the Perfection of Christ his Senses in Seeing Feeling Tasting Smelling and at length he falleth upon the point now in Question saying that If wee yeild not to the suffrages of Senses some may doubt whether Christ perceiued afterwards another Sent of oyntment which hee received meaning another than the naturall Sent thereof before his Buriall And immediatly he addeth marke we pray you One might doubt also whether Christ tasted afterwards another taste of Wine than was that which he consecrated for the memoriall of his blood That then which Christ Tasted was first Consecrated Next he invadeth the Heretique Marcion for denying the Truth of Christ's Bodie on earth and confuteth him by the fidelity of the Senses of the Apostles Faithfull saith hee was their sight of Christ in the Mount Faithfull was their Tast of Wine at the Marriage Faithfull was the Touch of Thomas c. then concluding which Testifications saith he had not beene True if their senses had beene Liars So he in his confutation not onely of the naturall Academici but also of the Hereticall Marcionites who contrary to the demonstration of the Apostles Senses denied the truth of the humane Body of Christ CHALLENGE THis Apologie of Tertullian in behalfe of the verity of the Senses doth minister to all Christians fower Conclusions First not to conceit of Accidents without Subiects but to discerne of Subiects and Substances by their Accidents Secondly that our Outward Senses rightly constituted more especially the Sense of Feeling are Demonstrations of Truth in Sensible Obiects Thirdly that this verification of Subiects by their Accidents is common with Christ his Apostles all Christians and with every reasonable man And lastly that Wine is to be discerned to be truly and naturally Wine after Consecration by the iudgement of the Senses because he instanceth in this very point teaching that Christ had the same taste of Wine afterwards which hee had before in that which he consecrated even as hee had also the same Sent of Oyntment after which hee had before his Buriall And all this even now when he convinced Marcion of Heresie an Enemy to the Catholique Faith in denying the Truth of Christ's humane naturall Body notwithstanding the Evidence of Man's Senses Here had beene a full and flat Evasion for that Heretique to say what tell you us of the validitie of the Evidence of two Senses concerning the Truth of Christ's Body seeing you your-selves gain-say the iudgement of foure Senses at once in denying the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament This we say they must needs have replyed if that the Catholiques then had beene of your now Romane Beliefe to thinke that all the Sences are deceived in iudging the matter of this Sacrament to continue Bread or Wine and so might they have blowne away all this Catholique Confutation of Heretiques and Infidels with one and the same breath Come now hither all yee that say we must renounce all Verdict of Senses in this Case and tell us whether any Protestant could have beene more opposite to your Doctrine than was Tertullian in his Defence of this Truth whereby hee also defendeth the Catholique Doctrine of the Resurrection of Christ and was never heereof questioned by any Catholique in or since his daies Let none of you obiect that of the Disciples in their way to Emmaus with Christ of whom it is said that They could not know him for the same Text giveth this Cause that their eyes were holden lest they should see him and after Their eyes were opened and they saw him So the Evangelist which is so farre from infringing any thing that hath beene said for the Infallibility of Sence rightly constituted and disposed that this thereby is notably confirmed Wee call vpon Hierome to witnesse saying The Error of not discerning
Christ when he was in the midst betweene them was not in Christ's Body but in their eyes because they were closed that they could not see Apply wee this unto the Eucharist Dare any Papist say that the Cause why any of you cannot see Christ in this Sacrament is not in his Bodie which you beleeve to be in it selfe invisible but in your Eyes as being shut vp when notwithstanding you will be knowne that these are open enough for discerning Colours and formes of Bread and Wine Our Fourth Proofe that the Substance of Bread remaineth after Consecration is taken from the Confessed Sensible Effects SECT X. THe Effects which you your selves have discerned to be sometimes in this Sacrament are these First That the Cup doth inebriate or make drunke Secondly The Hoast taken in great Quantity doth nourish Thirdly That it being poysoned it poysoneth Fourthly That having beene long reserved It engendreth wormes which are bred out of it and are also fed of the same Fiftly That their matter of Generation and nourishment is Substantiall and that the Contrary Opinion is false and Incredible Sixtly That this matter whereof wormes are bred and fed is the same Bread which was taken before Consecration So your owne prime Schoole-men Historians and Iesuites respectively If then the Bread now ingendring wormes be the Same that was taken to be Consecrated How say you that being Consecrated it is not still the same our Senses giving Testimony thereunto THE FIRST CHALLENGE HEre you have nothing to answer but that the Bread whereof new wormes are Bred whether it be the same that was or not yet being Bread it is wrought either by a Miraculous Conversion or by a New Creation What you who every where teach that none are to conceipt of any Miracle in this Sacrament without necessary Cause can you possibly be perswaded that there is or can be any necessary Cause why God should worke a Miracle either of Conversion into or of New Creation of Bread for Breeding or Feeding of wormes or of Wine for making such men Drunke as should tast too largely of the Cup yea or els to poyson our Enemy were hee Emperour or Pope Nay can it be lesse than Blasphemy to say that God worketh Miracles for the accomplishment of vaine wicked and mischievous effects But farre be it from vs to imagine that the Blessed Body of our Lord Christ who by his Touch cured so many diseases in the time of his mortality should now being glorified miraculously poyson his Guests whosoeuer they be Beleeve if you can that if God wrought as you say a Miracle to convert Accidents into Bread to engender or nourish vile wormes that hee would not much rather worke a miracle if any such miracle were herein to be expected to hinder the poysoning of his faithfull Communicants In all this wee appeale againe to true Antiquity and require of you to shew we say not some expresse Testimony of Primitive Fathers but so much as any intimation or insinuation were it but by way of a Dreame of a Miraculous Conversion of the Consecrated Host when it beginneth to putrifie by being changed againe into Bread or of Mice eating the Body of Christ or that being putrified it should breed wormes seeing it were rather a miracle they should not be so bred or any such kinde of Romish Fancies and delusions or otherwise to confesse your Obiectours to be miserable Proctours of a vile and desperate Cause Yet lest any of your may thinke that One comming into a Cellar full of new Wine and made drunke with the smell thereof therefore meere Accidents doe Inebriate your Iesuite will deny this and tell you that it is the Ayre infected with the odour which maketh man Drunke A SECOND CHALLENGE with a Caution YOur Common and most plausible Obiection to dementate vulgar people is to perswade them that you cannot attribute Credit to your Senses in this case without much derogation from Faith Therfore for Caution-sake be it knowne vnto you that we have not pleaded for the Truth of Senses as holding nothing Credible but that which may be proved by the Testimony of Senses This we vtterly abhorre as the Gulfe of Infidelity proper to the Athean Sect for wee accord to that saying of an holy Father Fides non habet meritum vbi Ratio aut Sensus habet experimentum and also to that other of Iustine In which respect we condemne the Incredulity of Thomas in that he would not beleeve except he should See yet notwithstanding we with our Saviour approve in Thomas that by Seeing he did beleeve For this is a true Tenet in Divinity Faith may be Supra above right reason or sence but never Contra against either It was never read that God required of any man a beleefe of any Sensible thing which was Contrary to the exact iudgement of his Senses And therefore your opposition in this Case as it is Sensles so it is indeed Faithlesse as we have already learned from Scripture and Fathers by whom the Iudgement of Sense hath beene acknowledged to be in Sensible Obiects a notable Ground of Faith Our Fift Proofe that Bread remaineth Bread in Substance after Consecration in this Sacrament is by the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers First from due Inferences SECT II. TEstimonies of Ancient Fathers inferre a necessary Consequence for proofe of the Existence of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament as might be proved partly by the repetition of many Arguments premised and partly by intimation of other Arguments afterwards expressed But wee shall be content with those few which doe more properly appertaine to this present Dispute concerning the nature of a Body First Irenaeus speaking of the Eucharist after Consecration as being not now common Bread said that It consisteth of an earthly part and an heavenly how even as the Bodies of the Communicants saith hee are no more corruptible having an hope of the Resurrection to come Scan these words by the Law of Similitude and it must infallibly follow that as our Bodies albeit substantially Earthly are notwithstanding called Incorruptible in respect of the Glory and Immortality in which through hope it hath an Interest Even so the Earthly Substance of this Sacrament being Bread is neverthelesse indued with a sacred and Divine property of a Sacramentall Representation of Christ's Body Which Sacrament Origen calling Sanctified meate saith that the Materiall part thereof goeth into the Draught or seege which no sanctified heart can conceive of Christ's Body whereof the Fathers often pronounce that It goeth not into the Draught But what is meant by Materiall in this place thinke you M. Breerly namely Magnitude and other Sensible Accidents which in regard of their Significations are materialls So hee Very learnedly answered forsooth If Magnitudo that is Greatnes be a Materiall thing be you so good as tell us what is the matter thereof for whatsoever is Materiall hath that appellation from it's
Subiect matter Is it the Body of Christ then must you grant which wee with holy Fathers abhorre to thinke that the Body of Christ passeth into the Draught or is it Bread Then farewell Transubstantiation Nay will you say but they were Accidents And we Answer that it was never heard no not in your owne Schooles that meere Accidents were called which are Origen's words in this place either Meates or Materialls Yea and Origen that hee might bee knowne to understand Materiall Bread furthermore calleth it now after Consecration Matter of Bread S. Ambrose his Comparison is of like Consequence As one Baptized had beene an old Creature and was made a new one euen so speaking of the Bread and Wine after Consecration they being changed into another thing remaine that which they were before But hee you know that was baptized remaineth after Baptisme in Substance the same man although in respect of Spirituall Graces hee suffereth a Change Of which Testimone more hereafter Cyprian is a Father much alleadged and urged by you in defence of Transubstantiation but is now at hand to controll you Our Lord gave in this Banquet saith he Bread and Wine with his owne hands when hee pertaked thereof with his Apostles but on the Crosse hee delivered vp his Body to the Souldiers to be pierced with wounds to the end that sincere verity and true sincerity having an inward impression in the Apostles hee by them might manifest to the Gentiles how that Bread and wine is his Body and Blood and by what meanes there may be agreement betweene Causes and Effects and how different names and formes might be reduced to one Essence that things signifying and things signified might be called by the same names So hee A Catholique Father as all know whom if you aske what Consecrated thing it was which Christ had in his hands and gave to his Disciples hee answereth it was Bread and Wine and not absolutely that which hee gave up to be Crucified on the Crosse by Soldiers namely his Body and Blood If againe you demand of Cyprian why Christ called the Bread which hee had in his hand his Body he readily answereth saying The things signifying or Signes are called by the same names whereby the things signifyed are termed A Protestant of admirable learning unfolded unto you the Iudgement of Antiquity from the Testimonies of divers Fathers in saying of this Sacrament after Consecration that The bread by being divided is diminished that It is delivered by fragments that these are so little that they are to be called rather Bitts then Parts Thus they spake expressly of Bread Consecrated but to say that you eate bitts and Fragments of whitenes of Roundnes and other Accidents who is so absurd among your selves And to affirme the same of Christs body who is so impious Somewhat more of this when we shall appeale to the Canon of that famous Councell of Nice Another Inference we may take from Antiquity in her calling this Sacrament Pignus a Pledge so Hierome and Gaudentius of the Presence of Christ now departed from us A Perfect Argument of the Bodily Absence of Christ by virtue of the Relation betweene the Person and his Pledge The third and last Classis of Fathers may be viewed in the Section following A Confirmation of the same Iudgement of the Fathers acknowledging in expresse tearmes Bread to remaine after Consecration in Substance the same The First Father is THEODORET SECT XII THeodoret maketh a Dialogue or Conference betweene two Parties being in Controversie about the humane and bodily nature of Christ the one is named Eramstes upon whom is imposed the person of an Heretike for Defence of the Sect of the Eutychians who falsly held That the Body of Christ after his Ascension being glorified was swallowed up of his Deity and continued no more the same humane and Bodily Essence as before his Resurrectiit had beene The other Party and Disputer is named Orthodoxus signifying the Defender of the Truth of the Catholique Doctrine which Person Theodoret himselfe did sustaine in behalfe of the Catholique Church In this Dispute the Heretike is brought in for Defence of his Heresie arguing thus Even as Signes in the Eucharist after the words of Invocation or Consecration are not the same but are changed into the Body of Christ Even so after his Ascension was his Body changed into a Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaning Substance of a Divine Essence Which both your Romanists and Protestants confesse to have beene the Doctrine of these Heretikes This was that Heretike his Obiection The Orthodoxe or Catholique which was Theodoret himselfe commeth to answer promising to catch the Heretique as he saith in his owne Snare by retorting his Argument of Similitude against him thus Nay But as the mysticall Signes in the Eucharist after Sanctification depart not from their former nature but continue in their former Figure Forme and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Substance So the Body of Christ after the Resurrection remaineth in its former Figure Forme Circumscription and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Substance which it had before You may perceive that the Assertion set downe in the name of a grand Heretike is absolutely your Romish Profession for Transubstantiation at this day to wit Bread is changed after Consecration into the Substance of Christ's Body and that also the Assertion of Theodoret in the person of the Catholique Professor being flat contradictory is as absolutely the Doctrine of Protestants defending that Bread after Consecration remaineth in Substance the same Wherefore if ever it now concerneth your Disputers to free your Romish Article from Heresie which divers have undertaken to doe by their Answeres but alas so absurdly that any reasonable man must needs laugh at and so false as which any man of conscience must as necessarily detest them The Principall Answere is that which your Cardinall giveth that Theodoret in saying that Bread remayneth the same in Figure Forme and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meant not Substance properly understood but the essence of Accidents So hee An Answere by your leave notoriously ridiculously and heretically False First Notoriously false because the Argument of Theodoret being taken from a Similitude and every Similitude consisting of two Propositions the first called Protasis and the other Apodosis it is necessary by the Rule of Logique as you know that the words and termes betokening the same Similitude be used in the same signification in both Propositions But in the Apodosis of Theodoret which is this So the Body of Christ after the Resurrection remaineth the same in Figure Forme and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was meant properly Substance because this was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the maine point in Question betweene Theodoret and the Heretique viz. whether the Substance of Christ's Body continued the same which it had beene in time
Bigne all which have intituled this Gelasius Pope of Rome Howsoever it is confessed on all sides that he was an Orthodoxe Father and very Ancient Now then Gelasius said that The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ being Divine things yet cease not to be the nature and substance of Bread and Wine In Answere whereunto both your foresaid Cardinals here as before by Substance interpret Accidents one of them labouring to prove that Gelasius somewhere else called Accidents Substances Were this granted yet the Argument which Gelasius hath in hand will compell the understanding Reader to acknowledge in this his Sentence a proper signification of Substance For whereas the Heretique Eutyches taught that Christ his Body was changed into the Substance of his Divinity after the Resurrection and that the substance of his Body remained no more the same Gelasius confuteth him by a Similitude and Comparison viz. That as the Substance of Bread remaineth after Consecration So Christ his Bodily Substance remained after the Resurrection Wherein if the word Substance be not in both places taken properly Gelasius should have made but a mad Reason as any reasonable man will confesse For albeit Similitudes doe not amble alwayes on foure feet yet if they halt upon the right foot which is the matter in Question they are to be accounted perfit Dissimilitudes Master Brereley would have you to know that this Gelasius whosoever hee were writeth against the same Eutychian Heresie that Theodoret did and thereupon useth accordingly to his like aduantage the words Substance and Nature in the same sence as did Theodoret. So he And he saith true and therefore must wee assure our selves of the consent of this Gelasius with us untill you shall be able to free your selves from our former Interpretation of Theodoret. But Mr. Brerely opposeth against us another sentence of Gelasius from whence he concludeth that Gelasius held Transubstantiation so that Gelasius must rather contradict himself then that he shal not consent to the Romish Tenet Whereas indeed hee saith no more than in a mysticall sence any Protestant must and will allow viz. that The Sacrament is a Divine thing and that whosoever eate spiritually the Body of Christ are by it made partakers of the blessing of his Divine Nature which dwelleth in Christ bodily saith the Apostle So Gelasius To which saying of Gelasius touching the Eucharist is answerable a like saying of Gregory Nyssen concerning Baptisme calling it a Divine Laver working miraculous effects Yea and Dionysius the Areopagite bestowed the same Attribute viz. Divine upon the Altar the Symbols the Priest the People and the Bread it selfe in the Eucharist If therefore the Epithet Divine must argue a Corporall Change what a number of Transubstantiations must you be inforced to allow Fie upon blind boldnesse This mans falsity in alledging Chemnitius I let passe It is further worthy your Reflection to observe your Disputers how earnest they have bin to prove that this Author was not Pope Gelasius contrary to the acknowledgement of your owne Historians May wee not therefore suspect that the Testimony obiected was distastfull unto them when they so greatly feared lest this Witnesse should be thought to have beene a Pope and Supreame Paster of your Church Two other Testimonies from Antiquity for the expresse acknowledgement of the Existence of Bread after Consecration in the Sacrament Chrysostome and Bertram SECT XIIII CHrysostome his words are these that Bread after Consecration is freed from the name of Bread being accounted worthy of the name of the Body of Christ albeit the nature of it remaineth therein still Your Exception is that this Epistle is not extant among the workes of Chrysostome This Answer might satisfie us were it not that it was extant sometime in the Libraries of Florence and Canterbury To whom may be adioyned the Authour of that Vnperfect worke still standing under the name of Chrysostome and by you upon any occasion obiected against vs wherein it is expressly said that The True Body of Christ is not contained within these sanctified Vessels It seemeth that your later Parisian Divines were offended with others who would have these words utterly dashed out of their last Editions which were published in the former as you have beene admonished by one most worthy and able to advertise in this kind Bertram is our next witnesse from Antiquity being about 800. yeares agoe and never noted of Errour antiently untill these later times of Booke-butchery that wee may so call your Index Expurgatorius denying altogether all liberty to all men of reading this Booke But why what saith he Hee maintaineth saith your Senensis that the Eucharist is the substance of Bread and Wine And indeed so he doth in his Booke dedicated to the Emperour Carolus Calvus which also he affirmeth to be written According to the truth of Scriptures and iudgement of Ancient Fathers before him This Author undergoeth also the Censure of the Vniversity of Doway which confessing him to have beene a Catholique Priest framed divers Answers whereby they meant to prevent all obiections which Protestants might peradventure urge vnder the Authority of this Author Bertram But how Marke this Romish Profession of answering Protestants as often as they shall insist in the Testimonies of antient Writers Let us say they in Disputation with our Adversaries obiecting ancient Authors tolerate many of their Errours extenuate and excuse them yea and oftentimes by some devised Comment deny them as also by feigning to apply some apt sence unto them So that Vniuersitie This being the guise and professed Art of your Schooles to use all their wits how to delude their Opposites in Disputation what great confidence shall any have of their sincerity in answering Let us leave Bertram under the Testification and Commendation of Abbot Trithemius for his Excellent Learning in Scripture his godly life his worthy Books and by name this now mentioned written expressly Of the Body and Blood of Christ CHAP. IV. Answeres to the Obiections of Romish Doctours taken from the Testimonies of Antient Fathers for Transubstantiation Or an Antidote to expell all their poysonsome Pretences in that behalfe SECT I. THis our Antidote is compounded of five Ingredients vsed for the Discovery of the Vnconscionablenes of your Disputers in their Obiecting the Testimonies of Fathers under False pretences First upon their terming the mysticall Act A Worke of Omnipotencie Secondly their denying of the Eucharist to be Naked and Bare Bread Thirdly in forbidding the Communicants to rely vpon the Iudgement of their Senses Fourthly in their mentioning the Change of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament and calling it Transmutation Transition and the like Fiftly and lastly in forcing of the speeches of Fathers which may seeme to make for Transubstantiation as absolutely spoken of the Sacrament of the Eucharist which the same Fathers doe apply as well to the Sacrament of Baptisme and
also to other sacred Rites wherein you beleeve there is not any Substantiall Change at all The First Vnconscionablenes of your Romish Disputers in obiecting the Fathers speeches ofâ—an Omnipotent Worke in this Sacrament for proofe of Transubstantiation SECT II. A Worke of Omnipotencie is attributed by divers Fathers to the Change which is made in this Sacrament which wee likewise confesse Ambrose compareth the Change by Benediction made in this Sacrament unto many miraculous workes of God yea even to the worke of Creation Cyprian speaketh of a Change in nature by divine Omnipotencie Augustine reckoning it among God's miracles saith that This Sacrament is wrought by the Spirit of God Accordingly we heare Chrysostome proclaiming that These are not workes of humane power He that changeth and transmuteth now is the same that he was in his last Supper Each one of these Testimonies are principally alleaged by your Disputers as the strongest fortresses for defence of your Article of Transubstantiation and being taken altogether they are esteemed as a Bulwarke impregnable but why Because saith your Cardinall Omnipotencie is not required to make a thing to be a Signe Significant Se he We answer first from your owne Confessions and then from the Fathers themselues There are two workes observable in every Sacrament one is to be not onely a Signe of an Invisible grace promised by God but also both a Seale and Pledge thereof as all Protestants hold and as your most opposed Calvin teacheth an Instrumentall cause of conferring grace to the partakers of the Sacraments In both which Respects there is required an Omnipotencie of a Divine work without which the Element cannot be changed into a Sacrament either to signifie or yet to seale much lesse to convey any Grace of God unto man And that wee may take you along with vs It is the Doctrine of your Church with common consent saith your Romane Cardinall that God only can by his Authority institute a Sacrament because he onely can give them power of conferring grace and of infallible signification thereof So hee Well then as well infallible Signification of Grace as the efficacious conveyance of Grace is the worke of the same Omnipotencie To this purpose more plainly your English Cardinall Alan speaking as he saith from the iudgement of Divines telleth you that Although there be an apt nes in every Creature to beare a signification of some spiritall effect yet cannot the aptnes be determinately applyed vnto any peculiar effect nâ— not so much as to signifie the outward Cleannes of man's Body Sacramentally without a Divine Institution much lesse to represent man's sanctification but being so determinated and ordained of God the Creature saith hee is elevated above the Custome of nature not onely in respect of the worke of sanctification but even of signification also So hee And that as well as we could wish for this Omnipotent Change of a Creature into a Sacrament and this Instrumentall Cause of conferring Sanctifying Grace to the Faithfull Communicant is the Generall Doctrine of all Protestants But what Change shall wee thinke Of the Substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body as you teach No but as before Isidore said The Change of visible things by the spirit of God into a Sacrament of Christ's Body Seeing then that both Divine power and authority is required in every Sacrament to make it either infallibly significant or els efficaciously profitable to man and that it is by the same Divine power that the Element is Changed by being Elevated from a common vnto a spirituall and divine property of a Sacramentall Signification as one of your Cardinals hath said What an unconscionablenes is it then in your Disputers from the termes of Omnipotencie and Divine working which is necessary in all Sacraments to conclude a Change of the Element of Bread by Transubstantiation as you have heard But much more transparent will their Vnconscionablenesse be if we consult with the Obiected Fathers themselves For first Ambrose who observeth an Omnipotency in the Change of this Sacrament explaineth himselfe what kind of Efficacy he meant viz. such that The things changed into a divine Sacrament are still the same which they were before namely according to their naturall property Which one Clause doth so strangle all conceit of Transubstantiation that it may seeme you have some reason to wipe this Testimony of Saint Ambrose out of your new Editions notwithstanding by Gods providence so much of Ambrose his tongue is preserved even in the same place as will convince your Obiectors of wilfull Falshood telling you by a Similitude that the Change of Bread in this Sacrament is like to the Change whereby a Christian Regenerate of an old Creature is made a new Creature which is as euery Christian knoweth not a change in the substantiall nature of man but in the Accidentall properties So this Bread of of a common bodily Food is made Sacramentall And the same Father who said of a man that by Baptisme hee is made a new Creature saith also of this Sacrament that By Benediction Bread is made another nature namely of an Elementall become Sacramentall as you have heard and as his owne words import After Consecration the Body of Christ is signified and that which was Wine Is called Blood In the Testimony of Cyprian you applaude your selves for to your Lindan The wordes of Cyprian appeare Golden and hee must needs provoke forsooth all Gospellers to hearken unto them which also seemeth to your Cardinall To admit no solution Our Answere first unto the Authour is to deny it to be the Testimony of Cyprian may we not This Sermon of the Supper of the Lord is by us saith your Master Brerely attributed to Cyprian Whom of your Side he meant by Vs you may be pleased to aske him sure we are your Cardinall doth tell us that The Authour of this Booke is not Cyprian but some other after him But not to disclaime your Authour all that he saith is that Bread is changed by God's Omnipotency not in Figure but in Nature This is all And all this hath beene but even now quitted by your owne Confessions granting a power of Omnipotency in every Sacramentall Change where the naturall Element is altered from it's common habitude into the nature of a Spirituall Instrument and use both signifying and exhibiting Divine Grace and so the word Nature doth import The Schooles distinguishing the Nature of Accidents from the Nature of Subiects shew that there is an Accidentall Nature as well as a Substantiall Theology teaching that By nature we are the children of wrath wherein Nature signifieth onely a vitious Quality This saying viz. Indifferent things in fact Change their nature when they are commanded Master Brerely alloweth of as for example a Surplesse being commanded by lawfull Authority the use thereof becommeth necessary so that the
nature thereof is Changed yet not in the Substance of the thing but in the legall necessitie of the use But to come nearer Answer us but this one Question Whereas all learning alloweth this saying that in Baptisme the nature of the Element and the nature of the Sacrament are different whereupon it is said The word comming to the Element maketh it a Sacrament when we shall say of the water in Baptisme that the Nature of it as of a Sacrament is more excellent than is the nature of it as it is a meere Element whether doth not the word Nature attributed to the Sacrament iustly accord unto the Phrase of Cyprian in the case of the Eucharist and so much the rather because that Cyprian in the words of immediatly following the Testimony obiected doth fully confute Transubstantiation by a Similitude comparing the Humanity and Deity of Christ with the Naturall and Spirituall parts of this Sacrament to wit As in Christ himselfe true humanity appeared in his flesh and his Deity was hid This was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and first part of this Similitude the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and next part followeth Even so in this visible Sacrament the Divine Essence infuseth it selfe So hee which by the law of a Similitude must stand thus Even so Bread in this Sacrament is seene and the Spirituall operation of God's power therein to the Faithfull is Invisible Like as we may say of the preaching of the Word of God to the Faithfull The words are audible and sensible but because of the inward working of God's Spirit for the Conversion of Man's soule it is called The Power of God unto salvation as likewise Baptisme is made the Lavacre of Regeneration whereof Greg. Nyssen affirmeth that It worketh marvellously by benediction and produceth marvellous Effects As for Augustine and Chrysostome not to be superfluous every Protestant doth both beleeve and professe namely a Divine Operation of God both by changing the Element into a Sacrament and working by that Sacrament Spirituall Effects to the good of Man's soule The second Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Disputers in abuse of the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers is seene in objecting their deniall of Common and Bare Bread in this Sacrament for an Argument of Transubstantiation SECT III. TO this purpose Irenaeus saying that It is not Common Bread Ergo say you not to be properly iudged by Sense Vnconscionably knowing that Chrysostome and also all other Fathers whom you moreover obiect saith likewise of the Sacrament of Baptisme Wee are to behold it not as common water The second i◠Iustine Martyr saying We receive these not as Common Bread or Common Drinke Therefore say you we may not iudge them by Sence Vnconscionably knowing that Iustine Martyr in the same place sheweth his Reason why it is not to be called Common euen because saith he it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Sanctified meate And so Water in Baptisme is Sanctified as you know The third is Cyril of Ierusalem saying Consider these not as Common Bread and Wine Ergò say you not to be iudged by Sense Vnconscionably knowing that the same Cyril in the same place saith the same of the water of Baptisme It is not simple Water Yea but he further saith say you Thinke not of it as of bare Bread adding but the body of Christ Ergò say you not to be iudged otherwise by Sense Vnconscionably knowing that the same Father in the same place for explanation sake saith likewise of Sacred Oyle viz. Even so that holy Oyle is not bare and simple Oyle Adding but the gift of Grace And that your Authours Vnconscionablenesse may be the more notorious in their wresting of the Catholique meaning of the Fathers in this kind wee must tell you that there is no speech more familiar unto ancient Fathers than to esteeme as they ought all Sacramentall Signes Sacred and therefore no more Common or bare Elements Insomuch that Gregory Nyssen speaking of a Ceremony inferiour to this Sacrament which is the Altar or Table of the Lord he saith that Although by nature it be but as other stone wherewith the Pavements are garnished and adorned yet being Consecrated to God's Service by Benediction it is an holy Table and Altar Yea and what lesse doth your Church say of your hallowed Balsome Beads and Bels and the like all which you distinguish from Common and bare Oyles and Metalls because of their different use and service without Opinion of any Change of Substance at all The third Vnconscionablenesse of your Disputers in urging for proofe of Transubstantiation the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers forbidding men to Discerne of this Sacrament by their Senses And first of their abusing the Testimony of Cyril by two egregious Falsifications SECT IV. VVE may not easily passe over your Obiection taken out of Cyril being in the opinion of your Cardinall so impregnable Let us first heare your Obiector This Testimony of Cyril alone ought to suffice being the Sentence of an holy man and most ancient out of a worke which unquestionably was his yea and most cleare and plaine as that it cannot be perverted Besides it is in his Catechisme wherein the use of all things is delivered simply properly and plainly Nor was this Father Cyril ever reproved of Errour in his doctrine of the Eucharist Thus farre your Cardinall you see with as accurate an oratory of Amplification as could be invented What Protestant would not now if ever expect a deadly blow from this Father to our Catholique Cause but attend to the Issue First Cyril will not allow a man to credit his Taste but although Tast saith it is Bread yet undoubtedly to believe it to be the Body of Christ whereinto the Bread is changed And hee is brought in by your Cardinall to averre furthermore that The Body of Christ is given under the forme of Bread And so the Sentence seemeth to be most manifest saith he But for what wee pray you That first forsooth the Change is the same with Transubstantiation and secondly that there is no more Substance of Bread but Accidents under the forme of Bread So hee and Master Brerely from him as followeth Cyril saith under the forme of Bread his Body is given c. and then dancing in the same triumph addeth Can any Catholique of this Age write more plainly So he And we answere could any Iugglers deale more falsly For upon due examination it will appeare to be a manifest Delusion by a false Translation of Cyril's words The Body of Christ is given as your Cardinall doth render it sub specie Panis under the forme of Bread whereas it is in the Greeke Vnder the Type of Bread even as hee saith afterwards Thinke not that you taste Bread but the Antitype of Christ's Body In both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Type and Antitype not Forme or Figure of Bread Now there is a maine and manifest difference betweene Forme and Type For Accidentall Formes are things Reall and the determinate Obiects of Sense but Types or Antitypes are only Relatives and as such no Obiects of Sense but of Reason and understanding onely As for Example when a Iudge is set in his Scarlet upon the Bench the Eye seeth nothing but red Scarlet and the fashion of the Gowne and outward figurature of his Face and so may every Childe see him for these are Outward and Visible Accidents But to see that man as hee hath upon him the person of a Iudge ordained to try Causes betweene parties is a sight of the minde which looketh upon his Office to discerne him by his Habit from common Subiects Even so is it in this Sacrament As the Bread and Wine are Round and White and Sweet in Taste our Bodily Senses perceive them but as they are Types and Antitypes that is Signes of the Body and Blood of Christ so are they spiritually discerned with our understanding only As therefore it followeth not that the Scarlet Gowne of the Iudge because it is an Ensigne of his Office should be only Colour and Fashion without the matter and Substance of the Cloth no more can any conclude from Cyrill that because the Sacrament is a Type therefore this Type was only Forme and outward Accidents without all Substance of Bread And thus your Cardinall his first Apertissimum Argumentum for proofe of Accidents without the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament is proved to be Apertissimum Figmentum void of all substance or almost shadow of Truth His next observation is the Change by Transubstantiation and the errour of Sense in iudging it to be Bread Wee call vpon Cyrill to decide this Controversie who is best able to interprete himselfe Hee therefore that said of the Eucharist after Consecration It is not Bare Bread but the Body of Christ affirmed as much of Consecrated Oyle saying It is 〈◊〉 Bare Oyle But we are answered that Cyrill in denying the Eucharist to be Common Bread called it after Consecration Christ's Body but in denying Oyle to be Bare Oyle hee called it yet still Chrisme that is Sanctified Oyle after Consecration So your Cardinall And so are wee posed for ever But behold another Iesuiticall Fraud For Cyrill as he called the Consecrated Bread Christ's Body after Consecration so doth he call the Consecrated Oyle Charisma that is the Gift of the Grace of Christ and not Chrisma that is Chrisme or Oyntment as your Cardinall rendreth it Wee say againe he calleth that Charisma which notwithstanding hee saith was after Consecration still Oyle wherewith their Foreheads were anointed This must we iudge to have beene a notable Falsification of Bellarmine except you would rather we should thinke that when hee was now to prove that our Senses are deceived in iudging of Bread to be Bread he meant to prove it by seeming to be deceived himselfe in thus mistaking the word Chrisma for Charisma and so utterly perverting the Iudgement of Cyrill by whom we are contrarily taught that the Sight is no more deceived in iudging Bread to be Bread than in discerning Oyle to be Oyle For neither was the other Bare Oyle being a Type of a spirituall Gift nor yet was it therefore changed into the Spirituall Grace it selfe because it is so called but onely is a Type and Symbol thereof Which One Parallel of Oyle with Bread doth discover the Vnconscionable pertinacie and Perversnes of your Disputers in urging the Testimony of Cyrill The like Romish Obiection out of Chrysostome and as Vnconscionable SECT V. SAint Chrysostome his Testimony may in no wise be omitted which seemeth to your Disputers to be so Convincent that your Cardinall placed it in the front of his host of the Fathers whom he produceth as able to breake through an army of Aduersaries alone and Mr. Breerely reserved it to the last of the Testimonies which hee alleaged as that which might serve for an Vpshot I will conclude saith hee admonishing the Christian Reader with Saint Chrysostome his Saying you long to heare it wee thinke Although Christ his speech saith Chrysostome may seeme absurd vnto Sense and Reason Iexhort you notwithstanding that especially in mysteries we looke not unto that which is before us but observe Christ's words for we cannot be disappointed of that which he saith but Sences may be deceived Wherefore because he said This is my Body we are altogether to beleeve it for hee deliuereth no sensible things unto us but all which he delivereth in things sensible are insensible even as in Baptisme the gift of Regeneration granted us is Intelligible For if thou wert without a Body then things only unbodily should be given unto thee but now because thy Soule is ioyned with a Body therefore in things sensible hath Christ delivered unto thee things intelligible So Chrysostome Now what of all this Chrysostome saith your Cardinall could not speake more plainly if he had had some Calvinist before him whom he meant to exhort to the Faith So he meaning the Faith of Transubstantiation which as hath beene confessed was no doctrine of Faith untill more than a Thousand yeares after Christ But to returne to Chrysostome whose Sentence we may compare to a Nut consisting of a Shell and a Kernell The Shell wee may call his Figurative Phrases the Kernel we may terme his Orthodox meaning Of both in the Section following Of the Rhetoricall and Hyperbolicall Phrases of Chrysostome SECT VI. TO begin with the Shell First we are to know that Hyperbole is a Rhetoricall Trope or Figure which may be defined to be an Excessive speech signifying a Truth in an Vntruth As to say Something is more darke than darknesse it selfe which being strictly taken were an Impossibility and Vntrue but it doth imply this Truth namely that the thing is wonderfully and extremely darke Secondly that Chrysostome was most frequent in this Figure Hyperbole your owne Senensis doth instruct you where giving a generall Caution that Fathers in their Sermons doe use to declame Hyperbolically he doth instance most specially by name in Chrysostome Thirdly that the Excessive Phrases of Chrysostome upon this Sacrament doe verifie as much viz. to tell his people that Their Teeth are fixed in the flesh of Christ that Their tongues are bloodied with his Blood and that The Assembly of the People are made red therewith Fourthly that he is as Hyperbolicall in denying in the Celebration of this Sacrament the iudgement of Senses saying Doe we see Bread or Wine which is spoken in as great an exuberancie of speech as are the next wordes immediatly following saying Thinke not that you receive the Body from a man but fire from a Seraphin or Angell with a paire of Tongs You will thinke notwithstanding those kind of Phrases that Chrysostome thought he saw as well Bread
and Wine in this Sacrament as he could discerne either Man from a Seraphin or Spirit or his own Fingers from a paire of Tongs Fiftly that the Sentence obiected against us is adorned with the same figure Hyperbole when he saith that No sensible thing is delivered unto us in this Sacrament and that our Senses herein may be deceived Words sore pressed by you yet twice unconscionably both because every Sacrament by your owne Church is defined to be A Sensible Signe and also for that you your selves confesse that Our senses cannot be deceived in their proper sensible Obiects Sixtly that Chrysostome himselfe well knew he did Hyperbolize herein who after that he had said No sensible thing is delivered unto us in this Sacrament notwithstanding he addeth immediately saying of this Sacrament that In things Sensible things Intelligible are given unto us Thus farre of the Rhetorique of Chrysostome Now are we to shew his Theologie and Catholique meaning as it were the Kernell of his speech Hee in the same Sentence will have us understand Man to consist of Body and Soule and accordingly in this Sacrament Sensible things are ministred to the Body as Symbols of Spirituall things which are for the Soule to feed upon So that a Christian in receiving this Sacrament is not wholly to exercise his mind upon the bodily Obiect as if that were onely or principally the thing offered unto us No for then indeed our Senses would deceive our Soules of their spirituall Benefit As for Transubstantiation and Absence of Bread Chrysostome in true Sence maketh wholly against it by explaining himselfe and paralleling this Sacrament with Baptisme As in Baptisme saith hee Regeneration the thing intelligible is given by water the thing sensible the Substance of water remaining Which proportion betweene the Eucharist and Baptisme is held commonly by ancient Fathers to the utter overthrow of Transubstantiation And that Chrysostome beleeved the Existence of Bread after Consecration hath beene already expressly shewne and is here now further proved For he saith of Bread after Consecration that Wee are ioyned together one with another by this Bread And now that you see the Nut cracked you may observe how your Disputers have swallowed the shell of Hyperbolicall Phrases and left the kernell of Theologicall Sence for us to content our selves withall Furthermore for this is not to be omitted the other Testimony of Chrysostome is spun and woven with the same Art which saith of Consecrating this Sacrament that Man is not to thinke it is the hand of the Priest but of Christ himselfe that reacheth it unto him seeing immediately after as it were with the same breath it is added It is not the Minister but God that Baptizeth thee and holdeth thy head Thus farre concerning the Iudgement of Sences which hath beene formerly proved at large both by Scriptures and Fathers wee draw nearer our marke which is your Transubstantiation Fourthly the Vnconscionablenes of your Disputers in urging other Figurative Sayings and Phrases of the Fathers of Bread Changed Transmuted c. into the Body of Christ for proofe of a Transubstantiation thereof in a Proper Sence SECT VII SVch words as these Bread is the Body of Christ It is made the Body of Christ It is Changed Translated Trans-muted Transelementated into the Body of Christ are Phrases of the highest Emphasis that you can find in the Volumes of Antiquity which if they were literally meant according to your Romish Sence there ought to be no further Dispute But if it may evidently appeare by the Idiome of speech of the same Fathers that such their sayings are Tropicall and sometimes Hyperbolicall then shall we have iust Cause to taxe your Disputers of as great Vnconscionablenes if not of more in this as in any other For whensoever they find in any Father as in Eusebius these words The Bread is the Body of Christ they obiect it for Transubstantiation but Vnconscionably First seeing that the Fathers doe but herein imitate our Lord and Master Christ who said of the Bread This is my Body which hath beene proved by Scriptures and Fathers to be a Figurative and unproper speech Secondly seeing that they use the same Dialect in other things as Cyrill of Sacred Oyle saying this is Charisma the Gift of Grace as hee called also the Holy Kisse a Reconciliation and others the like as you have heard Thirdly seeing that you your selves have renounced all proper Sence of all such Speeches because things of different natures cannot possibly be affirmed one of another for no more can it be properly said Bread is man's Body than we can say An Egg is a Stone as you have confessed Againe Some Fathers say Bread is made Flesh as S. Ambrose obiected but Vnconscionably knowing First that you your selues are brought now at length to deny the Body of Christ to be Produced out of Bread Secondly knowing the like Idiome of Fathers in their other speeches Chrysost saying that Christ hath made us his owne Body not only in Faith but in deed also And Augustine saying that Christians themselves with their Head which ascended into heaven are one Christ yea and Pope Leo saying of the party Baptized that Hee is not the same that he was before Baptisme by which saith he the Body of the party Regenerate is made the Flesh of Christ crucified Finally Venerable Bede saith Wee are made that Body which we receive In all which the word Made you know is farre from that high straine of Transubstantiation Wee draw yet nearer to the Scope Wee may not deny but that the Fathers sometimes extend their voyces higher unto the Praeposition Trans as Transit Transmutatur signifying a Change and Trans-mutation into the Body of Christ Every such Instance is in the opinion of your Doctours a full demonstration of Transubstantiation it selfe and all the wits of men cannot saith one Assoyle such Obiections Wherein they shew themselves altogether Vnconscionable as hath beene partly declared in Answering your Obiected Sayings of Ambrose In aliud Convertuntur of Cyprian his Panis naturâ mutatus of Cyrils Trans-mutavit and as now in this Section is to be manifested in answering your other Obiections to the full The Father Greg. Nyssen comparing the Body of Christ with Manna which satisfied every man's tast that received it saith that The Body of Christ in this Sacrament is changed into whatsoever seemeth to the Receivers appetite convenient and desired This is obiected by your Cardinall to prove Transubstantiation but First Vnconscionably because it is in it selfe being literally understood euen in your owne iudgements incredible For what Christian will say that the Body of Christ is Transubstantiated into any other thing much lesse into whatsoever thing the appetite of the Receiver shall desire No. But as Manna did satisfie the bodily Appetite so Christ's Body to the Faithfull is food satisfying the Soule
in the Spirituall and heavenly desire thereof Secondly Vnconscionably obiected because the same Father expresseth his Hyperbolicall mannet of speech likewise saying that Christ's Body doth change our Bodies into it selfe which in the Literall Sence according to your arguing would prove a Transubstantiation of Mens Bodies into Christ Chrysostome is found admiring these mysteries and is obiected by Mr. Breerly for proofe of the wonderfull Effects of this Sacrament Why what saith he Wee our selves saith hee are converted and changed into the Flesh of Christ Which was the former saying of Greg. Nyssen Will your Disputers never learne the Hyperbolicall language of ancient Fathers especially when they speake of Sacramentall and mysticall things more especially Chrysostome who when he falleth upon this Subiect doth almost altogether Rhetoricate but chiefly when they cannot be ignorant that such words of the Fathers in the Literall straine are utterly absurd For what greater Absurdity than as is now obiected for our Bodies to be Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ Now are wee past the limits of due Antiquity you descend lower Theophylact will say hard to vs who speaking of this Sacrament saith indeed that The Bread is Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ which your Cardinall will have to be in the same Fathers sence Equivalent with your Transubstantiation Vnconscionably for doth not the same Father say likewise that A Christian is in a manner Trans-elementated into Christ Like as Isidore Pelusiota spake of Trans-elementing in a sort of the word of God into the good hearer Againe Theophylact is obiected as saying The Bread is after an ineffable manner Transformed It is true Hee saith so and so doth Hiâ—rome say that Christ in breaking Bread did Transfigure or Transforme his Body into his Church broken with afflictions and Pope Leo sticketh not to say that Wee Christians in communicating Transimus turne or are Changed into Christ his Body So these ancient Fathers Are you not yet out of breath with obiecting Testimonies of Fathers Vnconscionably and Impertinently No for Mr. Breerly for a Close desireth to be heard and to try us with an Obiection out of the Greeke Church of these latter times as followeth It appeareth by a Treatise published by the Protestant Divines at Wittenberge Anno Domini 1584. intituled Acta Theologorum Wittembergensium Hieremiae Patriarchae Constantinop c. that the Greeke Church at this day although divided from the Latine professeth to beleeve Transubstantiation So hee of the Patriarch Hieremias which Patriarch if wee were alive would very hardly conteyne himselfe from answering this your Brother with some indignation calling him both rash and praecipitant seeing that the same Patriarch expressly said that These Mysteries are not changed into humane Flesh Mr. Breerly would thinke it an iniury done unto himselfe if wee should praetermit his obiected Authority of Pope Gregory for Doctor Humphrey saith hee doth charge Gregory the Great with Transubstantiation So Mr. Breerly who obiected this in his Apologie many yeares agoe and had a full Answer in an Appeale made purposely in confutation of his whole Apologie The Summe of that Answer is this Doctor Humphrey did not speake that as grounded upon any Sentence of Gregory but onely upon the report of a Romish Legend supposing it to be true which in the iudgement of Romish Doctors themselves whose Testimonies are there cited Is unworthy to report the memory of the fact being in it selfe fond filthy and frivoloâ—s the Author whereof may seeme to have a face of Irâ—n and a heart of Leade and the Obiectour namely Mr. Breerly for grounding his Obiection on a Legendary Historie A Falsifier of his owne promise This Answer was home one would thinke and might iustly have provoked him to satisfie for himselfe if he could have found any errour therein yet notwithstanding for want of better service bringeth he in these Coleworts twise sod CHALLENGE VVHat greater Vnconscionablenesse could your Disputers bewray than by so torturing the Hyperbolicall Figurative and Sacramentall Sayings of Ancient Fathers for proofe of the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ insomuch that they must be consequently constrained by the force of some Phrases contrary both to the meaning of the same Fathers and to the Doctrine of your owne Romish Church to admit of three other Transubstantiations viz. First of Christ his Body into what soever the Appetite of the Communicant shall desire Secondly of Christ his Body into the Body of every Christian And Thirdly of the Body of every Christian into the Body of Christ as the Testimonies obiected plainly pronounce In all which Obiections they doe but verifie the Proverbe Qui nimis emâ—ngit elicit sanguinem Fiftly the like Vnconscionablenesse of your Romish Disputers is unmasked by laying open the Emphaticall Speeches of the Fathers concerning Baptisme answerable to their Sayings obiected for proofe of Transubstantiation in the Eucharist SECT VIII COncerning Baptisme we have heard already out of the Writings of Antiquity as efficacious Termes as you could obiect for the Eucharist First of the Party Baptized Changed into a new Creature Secondly that no Sensible thing is delivered in Baptisme Thirdly that The Baptized is not the same but changed into Christ his flâ—sh Fourthly to thinke that It is not the Priest but God that Baptizeth who holdeth thy head Lastly Baptisme saith the Councell of Nice is to be considered not with the Eyes of the Body Of these already and hereafter much more in a Generall Synopsis reserved for the Eight Booke CHALLENGE ONly give us leane to spurre you a Question before we end this third Booke Seeing that Transubstantiation cannot properly be by your owne Doctrine except the Substance of Bread ceasing to be there remaine onely the Accidents thereof this Position of the continuance of Onely Accidents without a Subiect being your Positive Foundation of Transubstantiation Why is it that none of all your Romish Disputers was hitherto ever able to produce any one Testimony out of all the Volumes of Antiquity for proofe of this one point excepting only that of Cyril which hath beene as you haue heard egregiously abused and falsified Learne you to Answere this Question or else shame to obiect Antiquity any more but rather confesse your Article of Transubstantiation to be but a Bastardly Impe. Wee might enlarge our selves in this point of your Vnconscionablenesse in obiecting Testimonies of Fathers for proofe aswell of Transubstantiation as of the other Articles above-mentioned but that they are to be presented in their proper places to wit in the following Treatises concerning Corporall Presence Corporall Vnion Corporall Sacrifice of Christ's Body in the Sacrament and the Divine Adoration thereof so plainly that any man may be perswaded our Opposites meane no good Faith in arguing from the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers Hitherto of the First Romish Consequence THE FOVRTH BOOKE Treating of the second Romish Consequence arising
from the false Exposition of these words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY called Corporall Presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist THe Sacramentall Presence hath a double Relation one is in respect of the thing sensibly received which is the Sacrament it selfe the other in respect of the Receiver and Communicant Both which are to be distinctly considered as well for our right discerning of the matter in hand as also for Method's sake The first is handled in this Booke the second in that which followeth CHAP. I. Of the state of this point of Controversie That notwithstanding the difference of opinion of Christ's Presence be only De modo that is of the manner of Being yet may the Romish Doctrine be Hereticall and to hold the contrary is a pernitious Paradoxe SECT I. IT would be a wonder to us to heare Any of our owne profession to be so extremely Indifferent concerning the different opinions of the Manner of the Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament as to thinke the Romish Sect therefore either Tollerable or Reconciliable upon Pretence that the Question is only De modo that is of the manner of Being and that consequently all Controversie about this is but vaine Iangling Such an one ought to enter into his second thoughts to consider the necessity that lieth upon every Christian to abandon divers Heresies albeit their difference from the Orthodoxe profession were only De modo As for example First The Gnostick taught man's soule to have it's beginning by manner of Production from the substance of God The Catholikes said nay but by manner of Creation of nothing The Pelagians maintained a free will in spirituall Acts from the grace of Nature The Catholikes nay but by speciall grace of Christ freeing the will through the efficacious operation of his holy Spirit The Catharists held themselves pure in a purity of an absolute perfection The Catholikes nay but by an Inchoative comparative and imperfect perfection of purity Furthermore against our Christian Faith of beleeving God to be absolutely a Spirit the Anthrepomorphites conceived of God as of one after the manner of men consisting of Armes and Legges c. Not to be tedious We come to the Sacraments The Cataphrygae did not baptize in the name of the blessed Trinity after the manner of the Catholikes The Artotyritae celebrated the Eucharist in Bread and Cheese To omit many others take one poniard which we are sure will pierce into the entrailes of the Cause to wit the heresie of the Capernaits in the dayes of our Saviour Christ who hearing his Sermon teaching men to Eate his flesh and conceiving thereby a carnall manner of Eating irreconciliably contrary to the spirituall manner which was beleeved by the true Disciples of Christ departed from Christ and Apostated from the Faith And that the Romish manner of Eating Christ his Body is Capernaiticall her manner of Sacrifice sacrilegious her manner of Divine Adoration thereof Idolatrous and all these manners Irreconciliable to the manner of our Church is copiously declared in the Bookes following For this present we are to exhibit the different and contradictory manners concerning the Presence of Christ herein The manner of Presence of Christ his Body 1. According to the Iudgement of Protestants 2. In the profession of the Church of Rome That Protestants albeit they deny the Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament yet hold they a true Presence thereof in divers respects according to the Iudgement of Antiquitie SECT II. THere may be observed foure kindes of Truths of Christ his Presence in this Sacrament one is veritas Signi that is Truth of Representation of Christ his Body the next is Veritas Revelationis Truth of Revelation the third is Veritas Obsignationis that is a Truth of Seale for better assurance the last is Veritas Exhibitionis the truth of Exhibiting and deliverance of the Reall Body of Christ to the faithfull Communicants The Truth of the Signe in respect of the thing signified is to be acknowledged so farre as in the Signes of Bread and Wine is represented the true and Reall Body and Blood of Christ which Truth and Reality is celebrated by us and taught by ancient Fathers in contradiction to Manichees Marcionites and other old Heretikes who held that Christ had in himselfe no true Body but meerely Phantasticall as you your selves well know In confutation of which Heretikes the Father Ignatius as your Cardinall witnesseth called the Eucharist it selfe the flesh of Christ. Which saying of Ignatius in the sence of Theodoret by whom he is cited against the Heresie of his time doth call it Flesh and Blood of Christ because as the same Theodoret expounded himselfe it is a true signe of the true and Reall Body of Christ and as Tertullian long before him had explained the words of Christ himselfe This is my Body that is saith hee This Bread is a Signe or Figure of my Body Now because it is not a Signe which is not of some Truth for as much as there is not a figure of a figure therefore Bread being a signe of Christs Bodie it must follow that Christ had a true Body This indeed is Theologicall arguing by a true Signe of the Body of Christ to confute the Heretikes that denied the Truth of Christ's Body Which controlleth the wisdome of your Councell of Trent in condemning Protestants as denying Christ to be Truly present in the Sacrament because they say he is there present in a Signe As though there were no Truth of being in a Signe or Figure which were to abolish all true Sacraments which are true Figures and Signes of the things which they represent A second Truth and Reality in this Sacrament is called Veritas Revelationis as it is a signe in respect of the Typicall Signes of the same Body and Blood of Christ in the Rites of the old Testament yet not absolutely in respect of the matter it selfe but of the manner because the faithfull under the Law had the same faith in Christ and therefore their Sacraments had Relation to the same Body and Blood of Christ but in a difference of manner For as two Cherubins looked on the same Mercy Seate but with different faces oppositely so did both Testaments point out the same Passion of Christ in his Body but with divers aspects For the Rites of the old Testament were as Saint Augustine teacheth Propheticall prenunciating and fore-telling the thing to come but the rites of the new Testament are Historicall annunciating and revealing the thing done the former shewed concerning Christ his Passion rem faciendam what should be the latter rem factam the thing done and fulfilled As therefore the Truth of History is held to be more reall than the Truth of Prophesie because it is a declaration of a reall performance of that which was promised So the Evangelicall Sacrament may be said to containe in it a more reall verity then the Leviticall Therefore
are the Rites of the old Law called 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 hee foretold Christ as now to come but he was called more then a Prophet as demonstrating and pointing him out to be 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 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 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 Saint Augustine visible Seales of divine things So that now we have in this Sacrament the Body of Christ not only under a Signe or signification but under a Seale of Confirmation also which inferreth a greater degree of reall Truth thereby represented unto us This might have beene the reason why Saint Augustine taught Christ to be Present both in Baptisme and at receiving the Lord's Supper A fourth Reason to be observed herein as more speciall is Veritas Exhibitionis a Truth Exhibiting and delivering to the faithfull Communicants the thing signified and sealed which Christ expressed when he delivered it to his Disciples saying Take eate this is my Body given for you and this is my Blood shed for you Thus Christ by himselfe and so doth he to other faithfull Communicants wheresoever to the ends of the World by his Ministers as by his hands through virtue of that Royall Command DOE THIS Vaine therefore is the Obiection made by your Cardinall in urging us with the testimony of Athanasius to prove that Christ his Body is exhibited to the Receivers As though there were not a Truth in a mysticall and sacramentall deliverance of Christ his Body except it were by a corporall and materiall presence thereof which is a transparent falsity as any may perceive by any Deed of Gift which by writing seale and delivery conveyeth any Land or Possession from man to man yet this farre more effectually as afterwards will appeare But first we are to manifest That the Romish Disputers doe odiously slanderously and unconscionably vilifie the Sacrament of the Eucharist as it is celebrated by PROTESTANTS SECT III. BEllarmine with others obiect against Protestants saying that Their Sacrament is nothing else but a crust of Bread and pittance of Wine And againe A morsell of Bread ill baked by which the Protestants represent unto their memories the death of Christ and the benefits thereof A goodly matter so doth a Crucifix and to make the Sacrament only a Signe is an ancient Heresie So they But have you not heard the Doctrine of the Protestants teaching the Eucharisticall Bread to be more than bare Bread a Sacramentall signe more an Evangelicall signe more a sacred Seale yet more an exhibiting Instrument of the Body of Christ therein to the devout Receiver And have not these outragious Spirits read your owne Cardinall witnessing that the Protestants teach that Although the Body of Christ be still in Heaven yet is it received in this Sacrament first Sacramentally by Bodily mouthes in receiuing the Bread the signe of Christ his Body and by which God doth truly albeit Sacramentally deliver unto the faithfull the reall body of Christ and secondly spiritually to the mouth of the soule by faith and so they truly and really participate of the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ So Bellarmine concerning Protestants which is so plainly professed by Calvin himselfe as would make any Romish Adversary blush at your former Calumnies who hath not abandoned shamefastnesse it selfe CHALLENGE THus may you see that we have not hitherto so pleaded for the Existence of the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration as thereby to exclude all Presence of Christ his body nor so maintained the proprietie of a Signe or Figure as not to beleeve the thing signified to be exhibited unto us as you have heard With what blacke spot of malignity and falshood then were the Consciences of those your Doctors defiled thinke you who have imputed to Protestants a Profession of using onely bare Bread which they notwithstanding teach and beleeve to be a Sacred Signe of the true Body of Christ in opposition to Heretikes an Evangelicall Signe of the Body of the Messias crucified against all Iewish conceit yea a Seale of Ratification yea and also a Sacramentall Instrument of conveying of the same precious Body of Christ to the soules of the faithfull by an happy and ineffable Coniunction whereof more hereafter in the Booke following where the consonant Doctrine of the Church of England will likewise appeare And as your Disputers are convinced of a malitious Detraction by the confessed positions of Protestants so are they much more by your owne instance of a Crucifix for which of you would not hold it a great derogation from Christ that any one seeing a Crucifix of wood now waxen old should in disdaine thereof call it a wooden or rotten Blocke and not account them irreligious in so calling it but why onely because it is a signe of Christ crucified Notwithstanding were the Crucifix as glorious as either Art could fashion or Devotion affect or Superstition adore yet is it but a signe invented by man And therefore how infinitely more honourable in all Christian estimation must a Sacramentall Signe be which onely the God of Heaven and Earth could institute and Christ hath ordained to his Church farre exceeding the property of a bare signe as you have heard A Father deliuering by politique assurances under hand and seale a portion of Land although an hundred miles distant and convaying it to his sonne by Deed if the sonne in scorne should terme the same Deed or writing blacke Inke the Seale greasie Waxe and the whole Act but a bare signe were he not worthy not onely to loose this fatherly benefit but also to be deprived of all other the temporall Blessings of a Father which hee might otherwise hope to enioy yet such like have beene your Calumnies and opprobrious Reproaches against our celebration of the Sacrament of Christ The Lord lay not them to your Charge Now you who so oppose against the Truth of the mysticall Presence will not conceale from us that Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ which your Church doth so extremely dote on CHAP. II. The Romish professed manner of Presence of Christ's Body in this Sacrament SECT I. OVr Methode requireth to consult in the first
place in all questions with the wordes of Christ his Institution but seeing that you can alleage nothing for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament but onely a literall Exposition of Christ's words This is my Body which by Scriptures Fathers your owne Principles and by unanswerable Reasons hath beene proved to be most grosly false wee shall not need to insist further upon that only we shall but put you in minde of Saint Paul's words in teaching the use and end of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament to wit The shewing of Christ's death untill his comming againe meaning corporally at the last day Which word VNTILL being spoken of a last day doth exclude your comming againe of Christ in his Corporall Presence every day for the Apostles word is absolutely spoken of his Bodily Comming and not of the manner thereof albeit other Scripture teacheth that his Comming must be in all glorious Visibility We goe on In the Eucharist saith your Councell of Trent is contained truly really and substantially the Body and blood of Christ and they account him Accursed whosoever shall not beleeve this By all which is signified a Corporall manner of presence excepting onely Relation to place which we say is in many respects impossible as we shall prove but first we are to remove a Mil-stone for so you esteeme an Obiection which you cast in our way of Demonstration of a Corporall Presence de facto from as you say Miracles manifesting the same The pretended principall Romish Demonstration of a Corporall Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in this Sacrament taken from pretended Miraculous Apparitions of visible Flesh and Blood revealed to the World SECT II. TRue Miracles we shall hold as God's Seales of Divine Truth if therefore you shall alleage any such for proofe of a Corporall Presence see they be true else shall wee iudge them not to be God's Seales but the Deuils Counterfaits Your Bozius one of the number of the Congregation of the Oratory in Rome professedly studied in historicall learning and appointed to extract out of all Authors whatsoever may make for defence of all Romish Causes after his diligent search into all ancient Records as it were into the Ware-houses of all â—orts of stuffes having collected a packet of Apparances useth his best Eloquence to set forth his merchandize to sale telling us by the way of Preface that he will report onely such Stories whereby it is made Evident by God himselfe that the Body of Christ is in the Eucharist even by the Testimony of mens eyes that have seene it A thing saith hee most miraculous which every one that hath eyes may yet see So he even as Coccius before him in every particular and after both Master Brereley thus prefacing Miracles sent by God confirme the same wherin at the breaking of the Hoast sundry times great copie of blood issued out as is testified by many Writers We are now attentive to the Relation of your Oratour and Others and afterwards as you shall perceive to give that credit unto them which the cause it selfe shall require We will take their Relations according to the order of Times 1. Anno CCCC Simon Metaphrastes saith Bozius telleth in the dayes of Honorius the Emperour for the confirmation of the faith of an Eremite that the Sacrament being propounded presently Infans visus est a living Infant was seene by three old men on the Altar and whilst the Priest divided the Bread an Angell was seene and seemed to divide and cut in peeces the flesh of the Child and so Senex carnis cruentae apertè particeps factus est resipiscit The old Heremite being made partaker evidently of the Bloody flesh repented 2. Anno 600. A woman as Bozius reporteth and with him Coccius had laughed to heare the Bread called the Body of Christ which she her selfe had made with her owne hands and was observed to laugh by Pope Gregory who thereupon fell to prayer with the people and by and by looking aside upon the Hoast behold the formes of Bread were vanished and he saw Veram carnem true flesh Then the people wondred the woman repented and the Hoast at the prayer of the Priest in pristinam formam reversa est Returned into its owne shape againe 3. Anno 800. A certaine Priest called Phlegis being desirous to see Christ in the Eucharist not that hee doubted thereof but that hee might receive some heavenly comfort Divinitùs from God after prayers for this purpose he saw after Consecration Puerum Iesum The Child Iesus in the Hoast amplexatus est eum post multam deosculationem c. he embraced him and after much kissing of him he desired to receive the Sacrament and the Vision vanished and he received it So he These two last are also alleaged by your Cardinall Bellarmine 4. Not many yeares after a fourth in Italy A Priest saying Masse and finding Veram carnem super Altare verumque sanguinem in Calice True flesh upon the Altar and true Blood in the Câ—p fearing to receive it forthwith reported it to the Bishop demanding what he should doe The Bishop consulteth with the other Bishops his Brethren by whose common consent the Priest taking the Cup and the flesh shut them up in the middest of the Altar Haec pro divinissimis miraculis summa cum reverentia servanda decrevit The Bishop decreed that these should be perpetually reserved and kept as most divine Reliques 5. Anno 1050. Cardinall Baronius will needs have you know that Berengarius was confirmed by a like miracle from God as the Bishop of Amalphi saith he witnesseth to Pope Stephen upon his oath That when hee was doubting of the truth of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament at the breaking of the Hoast Rubra perfecta caro inter eius manus apparuit it a ut digitos eius â—râ—entaret Red and perfect flesh appeared betwixt his hands insomuch that his hands were bloodied therewith 6. Anno 1192. Behold an History saith your Cardinall Baronius most worthy of beliefe you must beleeve it At Thuring after that the Priest had given the Sacrament to a yong Girle then sicke and had washed his fingers in a pot of water she observing it very diligently willed them that were by to vncover the water for I saw said shee a piece of the Eucharist fall out of the hands of the Priest into it which being brought unto her to drinke all the water was turned into Blood and the piece of the Hoast albeit no bigger than a mans finger was turned In sanguineam carnem into a bloody flesh All that see it are in horrour the Priest himselfe suspecting his owne negligence feareth and wisheth that it may be burned After was this made knowne and divulged to the Bishop of Mentz This Archbishop commandeth his Clergy to attend upon this whilst it should be carried in publike
make a thing ioyntly to be and not to be This is a Contradiction and were not Omnipotencie but Impotencie not an effect but a defect To conclude Every thing either is or is not take away this Principle say you and farewell all learning and knowledge So you and that without contradiction most truely As your Doctors have taught the truth in Thesi and Doctrine so will they manifest the same in Hypothesi by examples of Impossibilities because of Contradiction namely that it is Impossible for God to be contained in one place Secondly for a Spirit to be divided into parts Thirdly for Bread to be the Body of Christ at the same instant when it is Bread Fourthly for the same thing to be present together at divers times Fiftly for one thing to be twice produced in divers places at once Sixtly for a Body having quantity not to be able to possesse a place Seaventhly It is impossible for Christ his Body as it is in the Sacrament to come from one place into another Eighthly Impossible it is to vndoe that which is once done because this were to make that which is true to be false So your Iesuites with others III. That the Doctrine of Calvin who is most traduced in this point accordeth to the former Iudgement of ancient Fathers SECT IV. IT is no new Calumny which you have against Calvin as if he had impugned the Omnipotencie of God in this Question of the Sacrament which Calvin himselfe did refute in his life-time professing that he is farre from subiecting the power of God to man's reason or to the order of nature and beleeving that even in this Sacrament it exceedeth all naturall principles that Christ doth feed men's soules with his Blood But his only exception is against them who will impose upon God a power of Contradiction which is no better than infirmity it selfe Wee saith hee are not so addicted to naturall reason as to attribute nothing to the power of God which exceedeth the order of nature for we confesse that our soules are fed with the flesh of Christ spiritually above all Physicall or naturall vnderstanding but that one should be in divers places at once and not contained in any is no lesse absurdity then to call light darknesse God indeed can when hee will turne light into darknes but to say light is darknesse is a perverting of the order of Gods wisedome So Calvin and Beza accordingly with him And so say we that it is possible for Christ as God if he were so pleased to make of Bread an humane body as easily as of stones to raise up Children to Abraham for there is involved no Contradiction in this But to make Bread to be flesh while it is Bread is a Contradiction in it selfe and as much as to say Bread is no Bread and therefore to the honour of the Omnipotencie of Christ wee iudge this saying properly taken to be Impossible CHAP. IV. That the Romish Doctrine of the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament doth against that which Christ called CORPVS MEVM MY BODY imply sixe Contradictions The first Romish Contradiction in making it Borne and not borne of a Virgin SECT I. THe Catholique Faith hath alwayes taught concerning the Body of Christ That it was borne of the Virgin Mary Secondly that this so borne was and is but One Thirdly that this one is Finite Fourthly that this finite is Organicall and consisting of distinct parts Fiftly that this Organicall is now Perfect and endued with all Absolutenesse that ever any humane body can be capable of Sixtly that this Perfect is now also Glorious and no more subiect to vilification or indignity here on earth But your now Romish Doctrine touching Corporall Presence in this Sacrament doth imply Contradictions touching each of these as now we are to manifest beginning at the first Our Apostolicall Article concerning the Body of Christ is expresly this Hee was borne of the Virgin Mary which is the ancientest Article of Faith concerning Christ that is read of in the Booke of God The seed of the woman c. Gen. 3. to shew that it was by propagation But your Romane Article of bringing the Body of Christ into this Sacrament is that The substance of Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Body which inferreth a Body made of the substance of Bread as we have already proved and as all substantiall Conversions doe shew whether they be naturall or miraculous When the substance of Ayre is naturally changed into the substance of Water this water is made of Ayre when the substance of Water was miraculously changed into Wine the substance of the Wine was produced out of the substance of water when the Body of Lots Wife was turned into a pillar of salt the substance of that salt was made of the substance of her Bodily flesh CHALLENGE DOe you then beleeve your Doctrine of Transubstantiation that it is the substantiall Change by the operative wordes of Consecration of Bread into a Body which you call the Bodie of Christ then is this Body not borne but made nor by Propagation from the Blessed Virgin but by Production and Transubstantiation from Bread which differences Borne of the Virgin Mary and not borne of the Virgin Mary are plainly contradictory which was the cause that Augustine as Bertram sheweth distinguished betweene the Body borne of the Virgin and that which is on the Altar as betweene Aliud and Aliud one and another thing And this Argument hath beene fortified before and is furthermore confirmed by Saint Augustine afterwards The second Romish Contradiction to the ouerthrowing of that which Christ called MY BODY by making one Body of Christ not one but many SECT II. YOur Profession standeth thus The Body of Christ albeit now in Heaven yet is say you substantially in many places here on earth even wheresoever the Hoast is consecrated So you Next your Master Brerely laboureth earnestly to draw Calvin to professe a Possibility of Christ's Bodily presence in divers places at once contrary to Master Caluins plaine and expresse profession in the same Chapter where he directly confuteth this Romish Doctrine of Madnesse saying thus To seeke that Christ his Bodie should be in many places at once is no lesse madnesse than to require that God should make his body to be flesh and not to be flesh at one time whereas not Aristotle but the Spirit of God saith he hath taught us that this his body is to be contained in Heaven untill the last day Afterwards Calvin inveigheth against the folly of your Church which will not acknowledge any presence of Christ in this Sacrament except it be locall on earth As if saith he she would pull Christ out of his Sanctuary of Heaven And at last after that he had said Christ his Body is united to the soule of the Communicant he so explaineth himselfe that hee meant a spirituall Vnion so
he is here present not carrying the fire but the holy Ghost These and the like sayings of Chrysostome doe verifie the Censure of your Senensis upon him that he was most frequent in figurative Amplifications and Hyperbole's Another Obiection is commonly made out of Chrysostome of a double Elias one above and another below meaning by Elias below the sheepe-skin or mantle of Elias received by Helisaeus namely that Christ ascending into Heaven in his owne flesh left the same but as Elias did his Mantle being called the other Elias to wit figuratively so the Sacrament a token of Christ's flesh is called his flesh Which must needs be a true Answere unles you will have Chrysostome to have properly conceited as a double Elias so consequently a double Christ As for the next Testimonie it is no more than which every Christian must confesse namely that it is the same whole undivided Christ which is spiritually received of all Christians wheresoever and whensoever throughout the world the same we say Obiectively although not Subiectively as the Sixt Booke Chap. 6. and § 3. will demonstrate That your most plausible Obiection taken out of Augustine concerning Christ his Carrying himselfe in his owne hands is but Sophisticall SECT VIII AVgustine in expounding the 33. Psalme and falling vpon a Translation where the words 1. Sam. 21. are these by interpretation Hee carryed himselfe in his owne hands saith that these words could not be understood of David or yet of any other man literally for Quomodo fieri potest saith he How could that be c. And therefore expoundeth them as meant of Christ at what time he said of the Eucharist This is my Body This is the testimonie which not onely your Cardinall but all other your Disputers upon this subiect doe so ostentatively embrace and as it were hugge in their armes as a witnes which may alone stop the mouth of any Protestant which therefore above all other they dictate to their Novices and furnish them therewith as with Armour of proofe against all Opposites especially seeing the same testimony seemeth to be grounded upon Scripture Contrarily we complaine of the Romish Disputers against this their fastidious and perverse importunitie in urging a testimonie which they themselves could as easily have answered as obiected both in taking exception at the ground of that speech to shew that it is not Scripture at all and also by moderating the rigidity of that sentence even out of Augustine himselfe THE FIRST CHALLENGE Shewing that the Ground of that Speech was not Scripture PRotestants you know allow of no Authenticall Scripture of the old Testament which is not according to the Originall namely the Hebrew text and the Church of Rome alloweth of the Vulgar Latine Translation as of the only Authenticall But in neither of them are these words viz. Hee was carried in his owne hands but only that David now playing the Mad-man slipt or fell into the hands of others as your Abulensis truely observeth So easily might the Transcribers of the Septuagints erre in mistaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so impossible it is for you to ground the obiected sentence upon divine Scripture even in your owne iudgement THE SECOND CHALLENGE Shewing that the Romanists cannot stand to the QVOMODO of Augustine THis word Quomodo How implying it to be impossible for David or any other man to carry himselfe in his owne hands excepting Christ as you defend must argue either an absolute Impossibility or not if it intend an absolute Impossibility of any man to be carried in his owne hands in a literall sence then could not Christ as man be carried in his own hands and if it do not intimate an absolute Impossibility then might David or any other man by the power of God have carried himselfe in his owne hands So that whether thus or so you will make Augustine contradict himselfe if his words be taken in the Precisenesse and strictnesse of that which is a Literall sence THE THIRD CHALLENGE Shewing that Augustine in another word following to wit QVODAMMODO doth answere Saint Augustine himselfe to his owne formerly obiected word QVOMODO SAint Augustine after hee had said Quomodo How a word seeming to signifie an Impossibility left that it being taken absolutely might imply a direct carying of himselfe in his hands at his Supper hee qualifieth that his speech somewhat after saying Quodammodò c. that is After a certaine manner Christ caried himselfe in his owne hands Which is a modification and indeed a Correction of the excesse of his former sentence Our next labour must be to find out the meaning of his Quodammodo and what â—his manner of Christ's carying himselfe was in the iudgment of Saint Augustine THE FOVRTH CHALLENGE Shewing Saint Augustine to be an utter enemy to the Romish Cause in all their other conceited manners concerning Christ in this Sacrament AGainst your manner of interpreting the words of Christ HOC EST CORPVS MEVM properly you have heard Augustine often pleading for a Figurative sence Secondly against your manner of bringing in the Body of Christ by Transubstantiation hee hath acknowledged in this Sacrament after Consecration the Continuance of Bread Thirdly Against your Corporall Existence of Christ in many places at once in this Sacrament or else-where without dimension of Place or Space he hath already contradicted you in both holding them Impossible and also by arguing that therefore his flesh is not on earth because it is in Heaven Fourthly Your manner of properly Eating Christ's Body Corporally hee will renounce hereafter as an execrable Imagination Wherefore Augustine holding it Impossible for Christ's Body to have any Corporall Existence in this Sacrament it is Incredible he could haue resolvedly concluded of Christ's Corporall carrying of his Body properly in his owne hands THE FIFTH CHALLENGE Shewing that the QVODAMMODO of Saint Augustine is the same manner which the Protestants doe teach DOe you then seeke after the manner which Augustine beleeved what need you having learned it of Augustine himselfe by his Secundùm quendam modum where he saith this Sacrament after a sort is the Body of Christ what literally Nay but for so hee saith As Baptisme the Sacrament of Faith is called Faith And if you have not the leisure to looke for Augustines iudgement in his writings you might have found it in your owne Booke of Decrees set out by Gratian where Augustine is alleaged to say that This holy Bread is after its manner called the Body of Christ as the offering thereof by the hands of the Priest is called Christ's Passion Dare you say that the Priest's Oblation is properly and literally in strict sence the Passion of Christ or that Aug. meant any such a Manner You dare not yet if you should your Romish Glosse in that place would presently reprove you saying that by this comparison is meant that The Sacrament
your severall Churches What shall we then further say concerning a Being of a Body in divers places at once Surely that which hath beene plentifully proved already that such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is egregiously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well in Divine as in naturall Philosophy because as this whole Discourse sheweth they have verified that saying of Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAP. VII Of the fourth Romish Contradiction against the words of Christ MY BODY by teaching it to be Organicall and not Organicall Divisible and Indivisible SECT I. THe Question is not now of the Mysticall presence of Christ his Body in the Sacrament which we with the Fathers especially Greg. Nyssen confesse to be whole as well in a part of Bread consecrated as in the whole loafe even as the Image of the King may be as perfect in a penny as in a shilling But neither hee nor any Father ever said that a little Hoast which boast you call Christ is equall with a great Hoast No for the Fathers in the Councell of Nice absolutely denyed this nor yet is Christ wholly represented in the least part of the Hoast as your Fathers of Trent have taught because no such part can resemble Totum Christum whole Christ Sacramentally which is not of sufficient bignes to be sensibly eaten in the nature of nourishment thereby to resemble the Spirituall nourishment of our Soules which is the Body of Christ So that all you have said maketh iust nothing for the Corporall and materiall Presence of Christs Body which we further impugne That it is necessary the Body of Christ wheresoever consist of distinct members and proportions of a Bodie SECT II. THe Body of Christ as we professe had perfect Dimensions and Distinctions of parts an head exposed to pricking with thornes a face to buffers a backe to scourges eyes to visible noddings and mockings eares to blasphemies hands and feet to piercing with nayles This is that Body which we confesse to be the Body of Christ and which we celebrate in the use of this Sacrament in Remembrance that he had a Body consisting of proportion of divers parts distinct one from another Two of your Cardinals doe both answere that Quantity magnitude proportion and extension of parts are unseparably united to the Body of Christ in this Sacrament or else saith one If the Nose should stand where the Eye is and the Eye where the Nose is it should be a confused Monster So they So necessary it is even in your owne faith that the Bodie of Christ consist of Organicall parts distinct one from another That the Romish Church hath decreed a doctrine of Corporall Presence of a Body of Christ withall the parts thereof in the least indivisible point of the Hoast SECT III. THe Canons of that Councell of Trent decreed as a Doctrine of Faith necessary to salvation to beleeve That the Body of Christ in this Sacrament is whole in every part of the Hoast whereby is meant saith your Iesuite The whole Body of Christ is in every albeit the least part of the Hoast So he But we demand how then shall the Body of Christ but want proportion of distinct parts which you say are Vnseparably united to a Body You distinguish that the Body of Christ being in this Sacrament hath extension of parts of a Body distinctly in it selfe but in respect of the Place or of the formes of Bread under which it is the whole Body is without distinction in every least Part and indivisible Point thereof CHALLENGE THis is the common Resolution of the now Church of Rome The exact discussion of this one point will in it selfe illuminate the eyes of any Reader to discerne betweene the Spirit of Truth and of Errour namely to know that there cannot be a greater Contradiction and consequently Impossibility than for a Body consisting of proportionable dimensions of Parts such as are Hands Legs Eyes and other Organicall members to have Being any where without Extension Commensuration and distinct Proportion of the same to the space wherein it is as the Propositions following will prove That the former Romish Tridentine Article is new and contrary to the nature of an Organicall and humane Body in the Iudgement of Romish Doctors of latter times SECT IV. ALbertus Scotus Aegidius are recounted amongst your learned and Ancient Schoolemen who as your Iesuite testifieth Thought it impossible that a Body that hath extension of parts should be contained in an indivisible point The same opinion is ascribed by your Iesuites as ancient unto Durand and Occham Now what greater iniury can there be than after that it was lawfull for a thousand and foure hundreth yeares since the Ascension of Christ for any Christian to professe with your ancient Schoole-men an Impossibility that The Body of Christ is whole in everie the least part of the Hoast to impose upon men's consciences as an Article of Faith so fond and so palpable a figment That which seemed to the above-named Durand and Occham such an Opinion whence as they thought it must needes follow that the Eyes must be where the Nose is the hand confounded with the legges which as your Cardinall Alan truly said were to make of the Body of Christ a confused Chaos and altogether monstrous That the Organicall parts of the Body of Christ must be proportionable to the Dimension of the places wherein they are is proved by the confessed Romish Principle it selfe SECT V. THe reason which your Cardinall layeth downe to prove it necessary that Christ his Body should have in it selfe according to the nature of a Body distinct parts of head and eyes and other Organs fit for the use of a reasonable Soule hee taketh from Magnitude which is an Extension of parts into their proportionable length bredth and depth this saith he is inseparably united to Christ his Body in its owne intrinsecall disposition in it selfe but not so saith he in regard of the place CHALLENGE THis your owne Reason may wee iustly retort upon your selves proving that if the naturall disposition of the Bodie of Christ be thus proportionably extended in it selfe it must be so likewise in respect of place and space because the three dimensions of the Body of Christ as you have confessed stand thus that one is an extension in Length another in Breadth the third in Depth and each of these three are distinct one from another Well then The arme must be here and thus farre longer than the foot the legge here and thus farre thicker than the finger the hand here and thus farre broader than the toe and accordingly distinctly in other parts But Hîc and Hucusque Heere and There thus farre and so farre being Relatives of space and place doe demonstratively shew that that Extension of distinct parts of the Body which they have in themselves divisibly the same they must necessarily have in respect of the Vbi place
to be destitute of naturall and voluntary motion of Sence and of Vnderstanding SECT II. CAtholique Faith never conceived otherwise of the humane nature of Christ after the Resurrection but that he was able naturally of himselfe as hee was man to performe the perfect Acts which other men can who are of right constitution of Body and of sound understanding such as are the functions of Iudgement and reason and of appetite sence motion according to the liberty of his own will This Doctrine was above 1000. yeers Catholike But your now Romane faith is to beleeve as followeth in the conclusions set down by your Iesuite Suarez without as he saith the contradiction of any Divine in your Church First that Christ as he is in this Sacrament hath no power naturally of himselfe to move himselfe And this your owne daily experience hath brought you vnto whilst beleeuing Christs Corporall presence in the Hoast you shut him vp in a Boxe where you still find the same lying as destitute of power of motion as any other unconsecrated Bread which being put together with it lyeth so long untill they both equally waxe mouldy putrifye and ingender wormes Secondly that Christ in himselfe as being in this Sacrament hath no naturall faculty of sence nor ability without a miracle to heare or see c. Thirdly That he is voyd of all sensible appetite Lastly that without some miraculous power he cannot possibly apprehend in his vnderstanding any thing present nor yet remember any notions past So he That this is a new brutish and barbarous Doctrine destitute of all ancient Patronage either of written or of unwritten Tradition SECT III. HAve you any Text yea or yet pretext either of Scripture or humane Tradition for countenancing this so prodigious and monstrous a conception Certainly Scripture telleth us that Christ his Body by Resurrection is perfected in sense and Agility and his soule in Iudgement and Capacity Nor can you shew any Father in the Church of Christ within the Circumference of 1400. years after Christ who held this your doctrine so much as in a Dreame or who hath not esteemed the Body of Christ to be of the most absolute perfection we say no one Father or Teacher of the Evangelicall Truth once fancied this unchristian and false faith You must therefore derive this from him whom Christ calleth the Father of lies VVe shall give you good reason for this our Declamation That this Romish Doctrine is blasphemously Derogatory from the Maiesticall Body of Christ SECT IV. VVHat is this which we have heard Christ his humanity after his Resurrection not to have so much Capacity as a Child which is as he is here to vnderstand or imagine any thing done not thè power of a Moale or Mouse which is to heare or see not the faculty of a little Aut so as to move it selfe as if this were not an Antichristian blasphemy against that all-Maiesticall Body humane nature of Christ which being once sowen in infirmity is as the Scripture saith since risen in power Doe you heare In power saith the spirit of God shewing that Infirmity is changed into Potencie in the Body of every Christian and you have turned power into infirmitie even in Christ himselfe whom you have now transformed into an Idoll having eyes and seeth not eares and heareth not feete and walketh not heart and imagineth not and yet this you professe to adore as the person of the Sonne of God O the strength of Satanicall Delusion That this Romish Doctrine contradicteth your owne Principle SECT V. REmember your former generall Principle which wee acknowledged to be sound and true viz. All such Actions and Qualities which are reall in any Body without any relation to place cannot be said to be multiplied in respect of divers places wherein a Body is supposed to be As for Example The Body of Christ cannot be cold in one Altar and hot in another wounded and whole in ioy and griefe dead and alive at the same time The reason These are impossible say you because of Contradiction for that the same thing should be capable of such contrarieties it is repugnant to the understanding of man So you which is an infallible Truth when the Modus or Manner of a thing is compared to it selfe and not to any thing else it is necessary that at one and the same time the Modus be onely one the same Iesuite cannot be sicke in Iapan and sound and in health at Rome in the same instant CHALLENGE NOw say we beseech you is there not the like Contradiction to make the same Christ at the same time as hee is in Heaven intelligent and sensitive and as on earth ignorant and senslâ—sse Or powerfull to move of himselfe on the throne of Maiestie and absolutely Impotent as hee is on the Altar because these Attributes of Christ being Intelligent and potent equally have no Relation to place Notwithstanding all which you shame not to professe a senslesse ignorant and feeble Christ O come out of Babylon and be no more be witched by such her Sorceries CHAP. IX The sixt kind of Romish Contradiction against these words of Christ MY BODY as it is now most Glorious by making it most Inglorious SECT I. BEfore we proceed in discovering the ouglinesse of the Romish Doctrine in this point wee are willing to heare your Master Brerely his preface in your defence The carnall man saith hee is not for all this satisfied but standeth still offended at sundry pretended absurd and undecent indignities Calvin saying That he reiected them as unworthy of the Maiestie of Christ And Doctor Willet saith That they are unseemely and against the dignity of the glorious and impassible Body of Christ So he at once relating and reiecting their opinions That the Indignities whereunto the Body of Christ is made subiect by the Romish Doctrine are most uile and derogatory to the Maiestie of Christ SECT II. ALl Christian Creeds tell us that Christ our Saviour sitteth at the right hand of God that is in perfection of glory But your Iesuite Suarez delivereth it in the generall Doctrine of the Romish Divines That the Body of Christ remaineth so long under the formes of Bread and wine wheresoever untill they be corrupted And this he calleth a Generall Principle in your Romish profession Insomuch that the Body of Christ is moved wheresoever the formes of Bread are moved be it into the dirt or into the Dunghill Secondly that according to your Romish Decrees and publique Missals the same Body of Christ is vomited up by the Communicant yea and you have Cases about the vomiting of it whether vpon weaknes of Sâ—omacke or of Drunkennes Next that it is devoured of Mice and blowne away with wind for wee read of your Church Cases also for these in your Missals VVee thirdly demand whether you thinke it possible for meate that is undigested by reason of
mans infirmity to descend raw through the Body into the Draught which in other meates is knowne sometime to be certaine you falling into this speculation tell us concerning the Egestion that it is held Probable that the Body of Christ doth not passe with the formes into the Draught in that Case So you affirming this to be but onely Probable whereas whosoever shall teach that the Body of Christ is not severed from the forme of Bread so long as it is uncorrupt which is your generall Tenet they must hold that the same Body in the like case of mans bodily infirmity doth passe by Egestion in like sort into the seege For if as you do also say the same Body of Christ hath beene once hidden in a Dunghill why may you not as wickedly beleeve that it may passe into the Draught That the Romish foresaid Indignities are contrary to holy Scriptures and iudgement of Ancient Fathers SECT III. HOly Writ teacheth us that there is as great difference betweene the humiliation of Christ when he was on earth and his now Exaltation in glory in Heauen as there is betweene Shame and Glory it being now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Body of Glory Now for you to believe and professe the personall burning devouring regorging yea and the hiding of that glorious Body of Christ in a dung hill and the like are such execrable speeches as that we stand astonished with horrour to heare them thinking that we have heard in these the scoffes reproaches and blasphemies of some Pagans against Christian Religion rather than the opinion of any that take to themselves one syllable of the name of Christians If this had beene the ancient Faith some Fathers doubtlesse upon some occasion by some one sentence or other would have revealed their Iudgement therein from whose diuerse and copious Volumes neither doe you alleage nor we reade any one word of mans spewing up or Mice eating or so much as the winde blowing away the Body of Christ much lesse of the other basenesse spoken of But contrariwise Origen and Cyrill distinguishing betweene the spirituall Bread which is the Reall Body of Christ and the Bread Sacramentall say That not that Body but this Bread goeth into the Draught Which to affirme of Christs Body were an Assertion abhominable That the Romish Answeres for defence of this their vile and beastly Opinion are but false and fond SECT IV. IT was said of Philosophers of old that nothing was so absurd but some one or other of them would take in hand to defend it the like may be said of our Romish Opposites whereof wee have given you divers Instances throughout this whole Treatise as in the most particulars so for the point now in Question And although many of your Disputers have for modesties sake passed by it yet have two among you as it were putting on Vizards on their faces come in with two fanaticall Answeres Both which are taken from the condition of Christ his humane Body whilest he was in the world 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 we 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 he Ioyne with this the Determination of your Schoole That the substance of Christ his Body remaineth still although the Hoast be eaten with Dogs But Master Brerely more cunningly that he might not 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 Heretiques conceived Indignities against some mysteries of Christian Religion as against Christ his Incarnation and his Crucifying So he Both which Answeres 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 reioyne 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 obiects of Indignity notwithstanding the Spirit of God hath blazed them to the world to have beene the Indignities of all Indignities Thus Who being in the forme of God and thinking it no robbery to be equall with 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 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 Answerers 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 Infidelitie 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 Mortality and Immortality Shame and Glory Misery and Blessednes Earth and Heaven that being his state of humiliation and this contrariwise of his exaltation as all Christians know and professe And although the Body of Christ now in eternall Maiesty be not obnoxious to Corporall iniuries yet may Morall and Spirituall abasements be offered unto Christ as well in the Opinion as in the Practice of men Of the opinion wee have an Example in the Capernaites concerning Christ whensoever he should give his flesh to be eaten carnally for the Practice you may set 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 iniury against Christ by murthering his Saints on earth complained off by his voice from Heaven Saul Saul why persecutest thou me Your Cardinall in answere to the Obiection 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
and Wine as they name them Symbols and Signes which properly they could not be untill after Consecration Secondly the Canon expresly noteth and distinguisheth two Tables in respect of place the one as Here being as much as to say This Table and the other opposed hereunto is instiled That Table And of this Table Here the Councell forbiddeth Christians to looke Too attentively to the thing set before us But contrarily concerning That other Table they command men to Lift up their minds aloft And not thus onely but they also distinguish them in respect of their different Obiects The Obiect of the First Table Here they name Bread and the Cup the obiects of sense And the other obiect opposed to this is that on the other Table expressed to be the Lambe of God the obiect of our mindes Thirdly the Admonition or Caution which the Councell giveth concerning the Bread is not to be too intent to it but touching the Lambe of Christ they command us to lift up our mindes aloft for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie not to be used we thinke for an inward looking into the sublimity of the mystery of the matter before us as your Cardinall fancieth but for looking vp aloft unto the Lambe of God in Heaven according to the Catholike fence of those words SVRSVM CORDA The next two proofes out of the same Canon of Nice to manifest our Protestant profession touching the question in hand OVr next two proofes out of the Canon are these First is their Reason of the former Caution the Second the Confirmation of that Reason both are expresly set downe in the Canon it selfe Why then did those holy Fathers admonish us not to be too intent to the Bread and Wine set before us It followeth Because they are not ordained to satisfie our naturall man namely by a full eating and Drinking but for a Sacramentall participation of the Body and Blood of Christ to the sanctifying of our soules whereas your Church doth attribute to that which you eate in this Sacrament a power of sanctifying the Body by it's Bodily touch But much more will the next proofe vndermine your defence To confirme their Reason why the Sacrament was not ordained for the satisfying of the naturall man they adde saying For this cause we receive not much but little which one Clause most evidently proveth it to be spoken of Bread and Wine and not of the Body and Blood of Christ As your generall Romane Catechisme if you have not already learned it will now teach you to beleeve saying that Christ is not great or small in this Sacrament And indeed none ever said of the Eucharist that he eat a little of Christ's Body or a little Christ but yet the Sacrament eaten is sometimes more sometime lesse Nor this onely but the Canon furthermore speaketh of taking a little of that whereof if much were taken saith it it might satiate the naturall man So the Canon But that the outward Sacrament can truly satisfie the naturall man you your selves will testifie in your Booke-Cases and Missals acknowledging men Drunke with the Sacrament even unto vomiting with the one part thereof and also making mention of Men and Mice being fed and nourished with the other So then the naturall man may be satiated with this Sacrament but with what therein The Body and Blood of Christ you abhorre to thinke that with Accidents You may be ashamed to affirme it as from the Iudgement of Antiquity seeing you were never able hitherto iustly to produce one Father for proofe of the Existence of Accidents without their Subiects or of nourishing a substance by meere Accidents Wherefore untill you can prove some one of all these give us leave to beleeve that all were of the mind of that one Father who held it Impossible for an Incorporeall or not-bodily thing to be food to a bodily substance And so much the rather because the Fathers have manifoldly acknowledged in this Sacrament after Consecration the substance of Bread Wherefore the Reasoning of the Councell touching the Eucharist was like as if one should say of Baptisme We take not too much but little lest it might be thought to have beene ordained not for a Sacramentall meanes of sanctifying the Soule but for the clensing of the Flesh None is so stupid as not to understand by Much and Little the substance of water And if you shall need a further Explication of the same sentence of the Fathers of Nice you may fetch it from the Fathers in another Councell held at Toledo in Spaine Anno 693. who shew this Reason why they Take little portions of the Hoast namely say they least otherwise the belly of him that taketh this Sacrament may be stuffed and over-charged and least it may passe into the Draught but that it may be nourishment for the soule Hereby plainly teaching concerning the consecrated matter that were it so much as could burthen the belly it would through the superfluitie thereof goe into the Draught whereas if Lesse it would serve as well or better for a Sacramentall use to the replenishing of our soules in the spiritually receiving of the Body of Christ But you are not so farre bereft of your wits as to imagine that Much which stuffeth and after passeth into the Draught to be Christ's Bodie and you may sweare that the Fathers meant not meere Accidents For mere Accidents have not the property of Substance through the Muchnesse thereof either to satiate the naturall appetite in feeding or to over-charge the Belly by weight in pressing it downe to the Draught Never did any Father father such an Imagination What can be if this be not true reasoning and consequently a full confuration of your Romane Faith Therefore this one Canon of Nice being thus undoubtedly gained concerning the not seeking Christ Here on this Table is sufficient of it selfe to batter downe your Assertion by a five-fold force First by proofe of no Transubstantiation of Bread Secondly no Corporall Presence of Christ's Bodie Thirdly no Corporall Coniunction with the Bodies of the Communicants and consequently Fourthly no proper Sacrifice thereof And lastly no Divine Adoration due unto it Therefore ought you to bid all these your Romish Doctrines and Delusions avant Your Obiections from the former Canon answered SECT V. FIrst you Obiect that The Lambe is said to be placed on the Table mistaking what Table is meant for the Canon specifying two Tables one Here which is of the Eucharist and another That Table namely in Heaven saith that Christ is placed on That Table according to our Faith of his sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven Secondly hee is said say you to be sacrificed by the hands of the Priest which cannot be done as hee is in Heaven The words of the Canon truly resolved doe cashiere this Obiection as thus The Lambe of God set at that Table namely in Heaven is
of Christ being the most substantiall of all food and therefore called as of ancient Fathers so even by your Fathers of Trent Supersubstantiall Bread it must necessarily follow that as it is named by Christ The true Bread and the Life thereby which is the effect of the spirituall Eating thereof is the most true and Reall Life because Everlasting So the Vnion spirituall which a Christian hath in his soules-feeding is the most Reall and true Vnion as may sufficiently appeare by Analogie To wit that Bread and Wine being the most vitall nourishments for the conservation of man's bodily essence are therefore chosen as the Fathers teach to represent and exhibit unto him although in themselves but Signes and Symbols the very Body and Blood of Christ Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ are our Reall nourishments in this Sacrament And such as is our food such must be our Vnion by feeding thereon which wee say is by Faith in this Sacrament and you may not gain-say it who to comfort your Disciples are taught to instruct them that even without this Sacrament the spirituall Vnion may be presented to the soule of man with the Body of Christ and that as a sufficient meanes of uniting him to Christ by a spirituall manner of Eating And this you say is To receive Christ his Body truly albeit this be to receive him only by faith and desire So you Whence you perceive our Inference viz. If our spirituall Vnion with Christ his Body may be really and truly made by Faith and Desire without this Sacrament then in our Sacramentall eating thereof may the Communicant be much more made partaker thereof by Faith and ardent Desire the Sacrament it selfe being a Seale of this our Christian Faith CHAP. II. That only the Godly faithfull Communicants are Partakers of the Bodie and Blood of Christ and thereby united to Christ in the iudgement of Protestants SECT I. OVr Church of England in her 28. and 29. Article saith thus The Body of Christ is given to be eaten in this Sacrament only after a spirituall manner even by faith wherein the wicked and such as are void of faith eate it not although they doe 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 Brereley endevoured to assume some Protestants to be on your side whom he hath alleaged with like faithfulnesse as he hath cited Master Calvin then whom he 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 he deny that they have in their bodies any Corporall coniunction or Vnion with Christ because the Vnion which we have saith he is Only spirituall only with the soule onely with the heart onely by faith and although it be offered to the wicked to be really received yet doe they not receive it because they are Carnall Their onely Receiving therefore is but Sacramentall So Mr. Calvin It had beene good that your Priest had suspected his Iudgement and as well in this Case as in others by doubting his owne eye-sight had borrowed your 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 said that The wicked eate the Body of Christ yet explaining himselfe he added these two words In Sacramento that is Sacramentally which in Calvins stile is alwayes taken for Symbolically only As for the consent of Protestants herein we put it to your great Cardinall and Champion their greatest Adversary to expresse He ioyneth Lutherans to the Calvinists in one consent for denying the Orall and Corporall Eating thereof and for believing the Eating of it to be Only by Faith Yet left any may say that in receiving the same Sacrament he doth not receive the thing signified thereby you may haue a Similitude to illustrate your iudgments as thus The same outward word concerning Iustification by Christ commeth to the eares of both Vnbeleevers and Beleevers But the Beleevers only are capable of Iustification That only the Godly-faithfull are Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ and thereby Vnited unto him in the iudgement of Ancient Fathers SECT II. CHrist speaking of that which is the most Reall Eating saith Ioh. 6. He that eateth me remaineth in me and shall live for ever Vpon which Text Saint Hierome concludeth The men that live in pleasure neither eate the flesh of Christ nor drinke his Blood Next Origen inferreth that No wicked man can eat Christ his flesh And Saint Augustine most peremptorily Without doubt saith he they doe not spiritually eate the flesh of Christ nor drinke his blood although that they doe visibly and carnally presse the Sacrament thereof with their teeth and notwithstanding eate their condemnation So he thereby distinguishing the inward soules Eating Spirituall from the outward and Sacramentall Eating as he doth man's Spirit from his Teeth In which respect he as verily denied that Indas ate his Lord the bread as hee affirmed him to have eaten The bread of the Lord. Therefore the Bread Sacramentall was not the Bread the Lord. Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria teacheth that whosoever doth truly receive the body of Christ Is in Christ and Christ in him both so ioyned one with the other as waxe melted with waxe is united together All these so evident Testimonies of so ancient Fathers doe inferre this Conclusioâ— against you that none doe really eate the Body of Christ who receive him but only Sacramentally And afterwards other Fathers will be found to ioyne their Consent hereunto where they teach that none eate his flesh with whom Christ hath not a perpetuall vnion Now for you to answere that their meaning is not that the ungodly eate it not really but that they eate it unworthily and therefore unprofitably for their salvation is but recoyling and giving backe when you want a shield for your defence For the Testimonies alleaged which deny that the faithlesse and godlesse men Eate Christ's Body speake directly of the Act of spirituall Eating and not only of the Effect as you fancie Peruse you their Testimonies and be you our Iudges That by Spirituall Eating your Romish Corporall Vnion through Sacramentall Eating is excluded SECT III. SAcramentall Eating and Vnion professed by your Church is as you may remember said to be Corporall by Christ's bodily Touch of the body of the Receiver but seeing the godly and faithfull man only can be partaker of the body and blood of Christ and be really united unto it as the
blood is to be acknowledged in all prophane Neglect by whatsoever person capable of this Blessed Sacrament SECT IV. GVilty of the Lords Body that is Guilty of the Contempt thereof as you well know Now because Contempt of a good thing is as well seene in a wilfull refusing to receive as in a contemptuous manner of receiving the Guiltines by the same Contempt must needs be against the thing offered whether it be Corporall or Spirituall and consequently against the Giver himselfe In which respect Christ compareth the Refusers of the promises of the Gospell of Salvation vnto beastly Hogs which trample under their feet pearles of highest price even because they would not beleeve them Beleeving being our spirituall Receiving From the same guilt of Contempt followeth the Obnoxiousnes to punishment denounced by our Saviour To shake of the dâ—st of their feeâ—â— for a testimonie against them in not receiving the Gospell of peace Therefore is that saying of Hierome common to every Sacrament Contempt of a Sacrament saith he is the contempt of him whose Sacrament it is As also that other of Rupertus saying The not receiving of the Eucharist if it be in contempt doth separate the Contemner from the societie of the members of Christ Hence it was that whereas Chrysostome called man's Indevotion in receiving the Eucharist Dangerous hee named the Contempt of not participating thereof Pestilence and death it selfe But not to presse you further with other such like speeches of the Fathers wee shall referr you to your Divines of Collen who in their Councell censured those who Contemptuously refused to communicate of this Sacrament to be but onely in name Christians worse say they than the Capernaites offering contumely marke we pray you against your Rhemists to the Body and Blood of Christ and are made thereby obnoxious to the terrible iudgement of God A Conclusion whereby is satisfied from your owne Doctors your owne maine Obiection even in Terminis Terminantibus as the Schoole speaketh professing both a guiltines of Christ's Body in not receiuing it and an obnoxiousnes thereupon unto Gods Iudgement As for your obiected speech of St. Cyprian it is of easie disgestion because Comparisons of Magis and Minus as learning teacheth are altered upon all different respects Some in persecution denyed Christ in the extremity of their feare and some in their wilfulnes profaned the Sacrament of the Eucharist instituted by Christ this latter is the greater sinner before God who iudgeth sinne not onely secundùm actum aut effectum according to the wicked deed done but secundum Affectum that is but much more according to the depraved Affection and Disposition of the mind of the Doer In which respect wee may well thinke that Iudas his traiterous and scornefull kisse was more hainous than Peters periury Have you not read what the Apostle hath written against such as Apostate from their Faith and vow of Baptisme saying They crucifie unto themselves the sonne of God which is much more than Cyprian spake of the Guiltie Receiver of the Eucharist yet dare not you conclude that therefore there is a Corporall Presence of Christ in the water of Baptisme And as in the Guilt of sinne so is it in the Guilt of punishment also which followeth sinne as a shadow doth a Body In which consideration Aâ—gâ—stine doth parallell Baptisme and the Eucharist together saying As he that drinketh the Blood of the Lord unworthily drinketh his owne iudgement so doth he who receiveth Baptisme unworthily By these Premisses you will furthermore easily discerne that your other Romish Doctors have beene no lesse ignorant than they were arrogant in concluding it to be an Infallible Consequence that because Christ receiveth an iniurie in his body and blood by the abuse of the Sacrament of the Eucharist therefore his Body and blood is carnally present therein As if they would teach by the like Inference that because the Empresse Eâ—docia was as is confessed reproached by the Citizens of Antiâ—ch in their despight wrought upon her image therefore was she personally present in the same Image You seeme to be zealously bent against all unworthy usage of this holy Sacrament it is well yet were it better that you saw your owne guiltines herein to repentance For inasmuch as every one is an unworthy Receiver in the iudgement of S. Ambrose who doth celebrate it otherwise than was appointed by Christ himselfe your Ten Transgressions of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament discovered in the first Booke convinceth you of a ten-fold Guiltines of the Vnworthy Receiving of this Mistery Your last obiection of Guiltines is taken from the Executions of Gods punishments Wee therefore reioyne That the Examples of Gods vindicative Iustice have appeared against the Contemners of many holy things without respect to the Corporall Presence of Christ therein SECT V. COme wee to the open iudgements and punishments of God upon the Contemners of this Sacrament the visible Testimonies of his Iustice and Arguments of the pretiousnesse and holinesse of this mystery These we beleeve to be true and the Apostle hath made it manifest where speaking of the great plague which fell upon the Corinthians who had prophaned this Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ he pointeth this out as their sinne saying Ob hanc causam For this cause are many sicke among you and many sleepe c. Yet was not this for not Discerning the body of Christ to be corporally in the Eucharist as your Disputers pretend but to use Saint Hierome's words They were guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ because they despised the Sacrament of so great a mystery namely by their prophane behaviour at their receiving thereof as if they had beene at the Heathenish Bacchanals or as Primasius yeeldeth the Cause For that they tooke it as homely as their common bread All can point at the dolefull Example of God's vengeance upon Iudas the first unworthy Receiver and therefore the subiect of the first Document of Gods iudgement notwithstanding that hee received but the Sacrament only and not the very body of Christ as Saint Augustine observed saying Hee received not the bread the Lord but the bread of the Lord. And how iustly may we thinke did God punish certaine Donatists who casting the holy Sacrament to Dogges were themselves devoured of Dogges Neither have these kind of God's iudgements beene proper to the Abuse of this Sacrament only as you have instructed men to beleeve for looke into the sacred story and you shall find the men of Ashdod for medling with the Arke of God Afflicted with Emrods the men of Bethshemesh smitten with a great slaughter for but peeping into God's Arke Also Vzzah no Priest doth but touch the same Arke albeit with a good intent to support it and he is suddainly strucke dead Nadab and Abihu prophaned the Altar of the Lord with offering strange
fire thereon and both of them were immediatly burnt with fire from Heaven and perished Belshazzar will needs carouze in the sacred bowles of Gods Temple in the contempt of God and of his Law and behold a writing upon the wall signifyng that his dayes were at an end as it came to passe And yet was there not any peculiar existence of God in these Things Boyes are mocking God's Prophet in Bethel by noting him for a Bald-pate and are devoured by Beares The People loathing Manna are choaked with Quailes If sacred stories will not preuaile peradventure your owne Legends will rellish better with you so then your Bozius will tell you of them Who were suddainly strucke with the plague called Saint Anthonies plague only for seeking to pull downe and demolish Saint Anthonies Image Have you faith to beleeve this and can you not conceive a like right of Iudgement against the Prophaners of the Sacramentall Image of Christ himselfe Be it therefore furthermore knowne unto you that the Sacrament which is celebrated by Protestants although it containe no Corporall Vnion of the body of Christ yet is it not so bare Bread as your Doctors have calumniously suggested unto you but that God hath manifested his Curses upon prophane Communicants and Contemners of this holy Mysterie which hath in it a Sacramentall Vnion of the Bodie and Blood of Christ One example whereof we reade is of one that being afflicted in Conscience for his Abuse of the Sacrament in receiving it but in one kind Did cast himselfe head-long out of a window and so died The other is that which he who now writeth these things saw and can testifie viz. A Batchelour of Arts being Popishly affected at the time of the Communion tooke the Consecrated Bread and forbearing to eate it convayed and kept it closely for a time and afterwards threw it over the wall of the Colledge but a short time after not induring the torment of his guilty Conscience he threw himselfe head-long over the Battlements of the Chappell and some few houres after ended his life Thus farre of this Subiect concerning an Vnion with Christ as it is professed in our Church A Confutation of the Romish professed Corporall Coniunction of Christ his Bodie with the Bodies of the Communicants SECT VI. I. That the Errour of the Capernaites Ioh. 6. was an opinion of the Corporall Eating of the flesh of Christ MAster Brerely the Author of the Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse lately published and largely applauded by all of your profession doth bestow a whole Section in explicating the Errour of the Capernaites so that it must wholy reflect forsooth upon the Protestants It is not needfull we should deny that in this Chapter of Saint Iohn Christ doth speake of the Eucharist which if we did we might be assisted by your owne Bishop Iansenius together with divers others whom your Iesuite Maldonate confesseth to have beene Learned Godly and Catholique yet fretteth not a little at them for so resolutely affirming that in this Chapter of Saint Iohn there was no speech of the Eucharist because by this their opposition hee was hindred as the c Iesuite himselfe saith That he could not so sharply and vehemently inueigh against Protestants Let it then be supposed as spoken of Sacramentall eating with the mouth as some of the Fathers thought but yet only Sacramentally and not properly as by them will be found true We returne to the Discourse of your Romish Priest Christ having spoken saith he of eating his flesh and the Capernaites answering How can he give us his flesh to eate They undorstood eating with the mouth yet were a speciall observation never reproved of Christ for mistaking the meaning of his words a strong reason that they understood them rightly but for not believing them and Christ often repeating the eating of his flesh and drinking of his Blood and requiring them to beleeve and when he saith The flesh profiteth nothing it is the Spirit that quickeneth it is not spoken to exclude the Reall Presence or to qualifie his former sayings but to admonish them not to iudge things by carnall reason and yet more euidently in the words following There are some of you that beleeve not He said not saith Saint Augustine there be some among you that understand not So plainly did hee hereby instruct them not how to understand but to beleeve for had he for their better understanding intended hereby to have qualified or corrected his former sayings as to be meant Eating spiritually by Faith he would have explained himselfe in plaine tearmes and so have satisfied the Iewes Vpon which premises I doe conclude that because our Sauiour did reprove his sorupulous hearers not for want of understanding but for want of beleefe it doth from thence and other premises abundantly follow that his fore-said promise was not obscure and figurative but plaine and literall for our reciving of him without out our bodily mouthes Thus farre your celebrious Priest namely so as in almost all other his Collections not understanding the Truth of the matter His Inferences stand thus First Christ reprehended the Capernaites for not Beleeving his words concerning Eating his Flesh but not for not for understanding them Therefore it followeth that they understood his words of Eating his flesh right well Secondly They understood his speech Therefore Christ in saying The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit that quickneth did not thereby qualifie his former speech to instruct their understanding Thirdly They needed no instruction for their understanding Therefore Christs words of Eating his flesh were not figurative Fourthly these his words were not figurative Therefore his words of Eating his flesh teach a Corporall Presence thereof in the Sacrament Each of these Consequences are delivered as ignorantly as confidently For common learning teacheth that there is a double consideration of Truth in every True speech the one is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is True the second is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is the Truth or true sence thereof To the apprehending of the first is required Beliefe whereupon Aristotle gave that Rule to every Scholler that intendeth to learne the principles of any Art to wit Oportet discentem credere A Scholler is bound to beleeve The other point touching the Truth or true sence what it is is the obiect of man's understanding so that there is a great difference betweene both These in the case of a Reprehension As for example the Master teaching the definition of Logicke saying It is an Art of disputing rightly may iustly reproue his Scholler for his not beleeving it because his not beleeving is wilfull so can hee not for his not understanding it for that hee therefore learneth because hee doth not understand except it be that being taught he either through carelesse negligence or else affected ignorance will not understand This agreeth with the Current of Scripture Ioh.
Papall Decrees and the Body of these Decrees hath beene lately ratified by the Bull of P. Gregory the thirteenth The same Faith was embraced afterwards of some Schoole-men who without any distinction vsed the same phrase of Tearing with Teeth Secondly of after-times your Canus asseverantly inferreth of the Body of Christ that If it be eaten then certainly it is broken and torne with the teeth But most emphatically your Cardinall Alan It is said saith he to be torne with the teeth of the faithfull no lesse properly than if it should be said so of the Bread if it were eaten Yea and your Cardinall Bellarmine for proofe of Transubstantiation hath recourse unto the same Roman Councell which he stileth Generall and noteth the thing defined to have beene the iudgement of the Church and that the same Iudgement was delivered under the Censure of an Anathema and Curse against the Gain-sayers and therefore he with his Disciple Mr. Fisher who also alleageth the same are challengeable to hold it according to the literall sence therof because it will not admit of any qualification by any Trope or figure that can be devised First because the words are purposely set downe as a forme of Recantation and Abiuration of Heresie but as you confesse There are no formes of speech more exact and proper in phrase concerning the matter of faith than such as are used by them that abiure Heresie And Secondly for that this forme of words of Tearing with the teeth the flesh of Christ was also made purposely for Abiuration and abandoning all figurative Sence for the defence of the literall Exposition of the words of Christ This my Body c. therefore was it taken literally But what thinke you will Cavin say to this your then Romish forme of Profession in the literall sence A man should rather wish to die an hundred times saith he than once to intangle himselfe in a Doctrine so monstrously sacrilegious Which Censure of his wee now endeavour to make good That the former Romane Faith of Properly Eating the Body of Christ is Capernaitically-Hereticall at this day as is proved by some of your owne Doctors of the now Romane Church SECT II. YOu have heard of Berengarius his Abrenunciation of Heresie according to the faith of the then Romane Church in Breaking the Body of Christ and tearing it sensibly with their teeth Hearken now a little and you shall heare in a manner an Abrenunciation of that then Romane faith by denying it to be either properly Broken or yet really Torne even by the Iesuites themselves Reall Eating saith your Salmeron requireth a reall touch and tearing of the thing which is eaten but the Body of Christ is not torne with the teeth or touched by them that eate him because he is herein impartible So he Your Iesuite and Cardinall Bellarmine is as it were in a maze saying and gain-saying as you may perceive yet notwithstanding whether he will or no must perforce confesse no lesse when he saith that The Body of Christ is not absolutely eaten but eaten vnder the formes of Bread and that is to say saith he the formes of Bread are sensibly and visibly eaten So hee If this imported a literall manner of eating then might your Cardinall have said as literally of himselfe My clothes are torne therefore my body is rent in pieces Not to trouble you with the Cardinal's Philosophie that talketh of Eating and tearing of Colours But to the point If onely the Accidents of Bread be as he saith Sensibly eaten then was Pope Nicolas his Prescription of Eating Christ's body sensibly in your Cardinal's opinion not true And upon the same ground it is that your Iesuite Suarez out of Thomas and other Schoole-men affirmeth the word Broken to bee a Metaphoricall phrase not properly belonging to the body of Christ because it requireth that there should be a Separation of the parts of that which is properly broken So hee as also your Canus hath concluded And your Iesuite Maldonate is so bold as to tell you that these Propositions The Body of Christ is eaten is Broken Torne with the Teeth or Devoured of us properly taken are false Thus your Iesuites as if they had expressly said that to thinke the Body of Christ to be eaten torne or devoured properly taken is a carnall Capernaiticall and as your owne Glosse in Gratian concludeth an Hereticall opinion Will your have any more It is but the last day in respect when one of your grave Criticks so much abhorred the conceit of proper Tearing Christ's Bodie that he called the Obiecting thereof against your Church in his blinde zeale Blasphemie and answereth that you doe no more Teare Christ's flesh than Caiphas tore his when he rent his clothes The Case then is plaine That the former Romish and Popish Faith for the manner of of receiving of the Body of Christ is but somewhat altered yet miserably inconstant and faithlesse SECT III. PRotestants may have in this place iust matter of insulation against your Romish Professors to prove their infidelity in that which they seeme to professe As first that the ground of your Doctrine of Corporall presence is the literall and proper interpretation of the words of Christ when he said Take eate this is my Body yet now are you compelled to say that Properly eaten is no proper but a false sence Your Second Doctrine is that the iudgement of a Romane Pope in a Romane Councell in a matter of faith is Infallible Notwithstanding Pope Nicolas with his Romane Councell is found to haue grossly erred in a tenor of Abiuration which of all others as hath beene confessed is most literall and was therefore purposely devised against a figurative sence of the words of Christ and forthwith published throughout Italie France Germany c. to direct men in the faith of sensuall eating breaking and tearing the flesh of Christ with their teeth yet notwithstanding your common Iudgement being now to reiect such phrases taken in their proper signification and in a manner to abrenounce Berengarius his Abrenunciation what is if this be not an argument that either you say you care not or else beleeve you know not what Let us goe on in pursuite of your Doctrine of the Corporall manner of eating which you still maintaine and it will be found to be Capernaiticall enough CHAP. V. That the now Romish manner of Eating and bodily receiving of the Body of Christ is sufficiently Capernaiticall in three kindes TEll vs not that no Doctrine of your Church can be called Hereticall before that it be so iudged by some generall Councell no for Rectum est Index sui obliqui and therefore an evident Truth written in the word of God doth sufficiently condemne the contrary of Heresie as well as light doth discover and dispell Darknes And this is manifest by the example which we have now in
hand of the Capernaites old Heretickes as all know even because they are set downe in Scripture to have perverted the sence of Christ his words of Eating his flesh and thereupon to have departed from Christ Iohn 6. Your Romish particular manner of Corporall Receiving of the Body of Christ in this Sacrament is three-fold 1. Orall in the Mouth 2. Gutturall in the Throat and permit vs this word 3. Ventricall in the Belly of the Communicant That the Romish Orall manner of Receiving Corporally the Body of Christ with the mouth is Capernaticall SECT I. CHewing the Sacrament with the Teeth was the forme of Eating at the time of Christ his Institution as is proved by your owne Confession in granting that the vnleavened bread which Christ used was glutinosus that is gluish clammie and such as was to be cut with a knife But that the same manner of Eating by Chewing was altered in the Apostolicall or Primitive times is not read of by any Canon yea or yet admonition of any Father in the Church whether Greek or Latine That also Chewing continued in the Romish Church til a thousand and fiftie yeares after Christ is not obscurely implyed in the former tenour of the Recantation of Berengarius prescribed by the same Church which was to eat as you have heard By tearing it with the teeth And lastly that this hath since continued the ordinary custome of the same Church is as evident by your Cardinall Alan and Canus who have defended the manner of eating by Tearing Nor was Swallowing prescribed by any untill that the queazie Stomacke of your Iesuites not enduring Chewing perswaded the contrarie Which kinds of Eating whether by Chewing or Swallowing of Christ's flesh being both Orall none can deny to have beene the opinion of the Capernaites First of not Chewing and then of Swallowing in the VI. Chapter following That the Corporall and Orall Eating of Christ's flesh is a Capernaiticall Heresie is proved by the Doctrine of Ancient Fathers SECT II. SOmetime doe Ancient Fathers point out the Errour of the Capernaites set downe Ioh. 6. concerning their false interpreting the words of Christ when hee speaketh of Eating his flesh which they understood literally But this literall sence Origen calleth a killing letter that is a pernitious interpretation even as of that other Scripture He that hath not a sword let him buy one c. but this latter is altogether figurative as you know and hath a spirituall understanding therefore the former is figurative also Athanasius confuting the Capernaiticall conceit of Corporall eating of Christ's flesh will have us to observe that Christ after hee spake of his flesh did forthwith make mention of his Ascension into Heaven but why That Christ might thereby draw their bodily thoughts from the bodily sence namely of eating it corporally upon earth which is your Romish sence Tertullian likewise giveth the Reason of Christ's saying It is the spirit which quickeneth because the Capernaites so understood the wordes of Christ's speech of Eating his flesh As if saith Tertullian Christ had truly determined to give his flesh to be eaten Therefore it was their Errour to dreame of a truly corporall eating Augustine out of the â—ixt of Iohn bringeth in Christ expounding his owne meaning of eating his flesh and saying You are not to eate this flesh which you see I have commended unto you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall revive you Plainly denying it to be Christs Body which is eaten Orally and then affirming it to be the Sacrament of his Body and as plainly calling the manner of Corporall Eating a Pressing of bread with the teeth We say Bread not the Body of Christ For when he commeth to our Eating of Christ's flesh he exempteth the corporall Instruments and requireth only the spirituall saying Why preparest thou thy Tooth It is then no corporall Eating and hee addeth Beleeve and thou hast eaten Saint Augustine goeth on and knowing that corporall Eating of any thing doth inferre a Chewing by dividing the thing eaten into parts as your owne Iesuite hath confessed lest we should understand this properly he teacheth us to say Christ is not divided into parts Contrarily when we speake Sacramentally that is figuratively and improperly hee will have us to grant that Christ his flesh is divided in this Sacrament but remayneth whole in Heaven Say now will you say that Christ's Body is Divided by your eating the Eucharist in a literall sence your owne Iesuits have abhorred to thinke so And dare you not say that in Eating this Sacrament you doe Divide Christs Body in a literall sence then are you to abhorre your Romish literall Exposition of Christ's speech which cannot but necessarily inferre a proper Dividing of the flesh of Christ Lastly doe but call to remembrance Saint Augustines Observation iust the same with the now-cited Testimonie of Athanasius to wit Christ's mention of his Ascension in his Bodie from earth lest that they might conceive of a Carnall Eating of his Flesh and these premises will fully manifest that Saint Augustines Faith was farre differing from the now Romish as Heaven is distant from Earth Wee still stand unto Christ's Qualification of his owne speech when hee condemned all Carnall Sence of Eating his flesh saying thereof The flesh profiteth nothing c. For conclusion of this point you may take unto you the commandement of Saint Chrysostome as followeth Did not Christ therefore speake of his flesh farre be it from us saith he so to thinke for how shall that flesh not profit without which none can have life but in saying The flesh profiteth nothing is meant the carnall understanding of the words of Christ And that you may know how absolutely he abandoneth all carnall understanding of Christ's words of Eating his flesh hee saith They have no fleshly or naturall Consequence at all So he Ergo say we to the Confutation of your Romish beliefe no corporall touch of Christ in your mouthes no Corporall eating with your Teeth no Corporall swallowing downe your Throate how much lesse any Corporall mixture in your bellies or guts CHALLENGE VVHether therefore the Capernaites thought to eate Christ his flesh raw or rosted torne or whole dead or alive seeing that every Corporall eating thereof properly taken is by the Fathers held as Carnall and Capernaiticall it cannot be that the Romish manner of Eating should accord in the iudgement of Antiquity with the doctrine of Christ Notwithstanding you cite us to appeare before the Tribunall of Antiquity by obiecting counter-Testimonies of ancient Fathers and we are as willing to give you the Answering The extreme Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Disputers in wresting the figurative Phrases of Ancient Fathers to their Literall and Corporall manner of Receiving the Body of Christ SECT III. IT is a miserable thing to see how your Authours delude their Readers by obtruding upon them the Sentences of Fathers in
of the Communicants is with Swallowing it downe SECT I. YOur Generall Tenet is That the Body of Christ is present in the Bodies of the Receivers so long as the formes of Bread and Wine continue Next that It is swallowed downe and transmitted into the stomacke yet further that your Priest in your Romane Masse is enioyned to pray saying O Lord let thy bodie which I have taken and blood which I have drunke cleave unto my Guts or Entrailes And a lesse Missall but yet of equall Authoritie teacheth all you English Priests to pray saying O God who refreshest both our substances with this food grant that the supply and helpe hereof may not be awanting either to our bodies or soules So that finally If through infirmity of the eater it passe from the stomacke downewards it then goeth into the Draught and place of egestion As hath beene evicted from your owne Conclusions That this former Doctrine is fully and filthily Capernaiticall SECT II. IN this Romish Profession every one may see in your Corporall Presence two most vile and ougly Assumptions One is of your Devouring of Christ and feeding bodily of him The other is a possibilitie of sauing your presence passing him downeward into the Draught or Seege that being as ill this peradventure worse than any Capernaiticall infatuation for which cause it was that your Iesuite Maldonate although granting that you doe corporally receive it into your stomackes yet denied for shame that you are Devourers thereof But I beseech you what then meaneth that which your Romish Instructions Decrees and Missals as we have heard doe teach you to doe with the Hoast in case that any either through Infirmitie or by Surfet and Drunkennes shall cast up the same Hoast out of his stomacke We demand may your Communicants be Vomitores to cast it up againe and can you deny but that they must first have beene Voratores to have devoured that which they doe so disgorge Will you beleeve your Iesuite Osorius To Devoure a thing saith he is to swallow it downe without chewing Say now doe not you swallow the Sacrament with chewing it then are you Capernaiticall Tearers of Christ's Body But doe you Swallow it without Chewing then are you Capernaiticall Devourers thereof Say not that because the Bodie of Christ suffereth no hurt therefore hee cannot be said by Corporall swallowing to be Devoured for his Bodie was not corrupted in the grave and yet was it truly buried and his Type thereof even Ionas without maceration was swallowed vp into the belly of the Whale and yet had no hurt Notwithstanding he was first caught and devoured who was after cast up and vomited That the same Romish manner of Receiving it downe into the Belly is proved to be Capernaiticall by the Iudgement of Antiquity SECT III. THeophylact noted the Capernaites opinion to have beene that the Receivers of the Body of Christ are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Devourers of flesh whereas the words of Christ saith hee are to be understood spiritually and so will it be known that we Christians what are not Devourers of Christ So hee But that Swallowing properly taken is a Devouring hath beene proved and if Devoured then why not also that which is the Basest of all Basenesse passed downe by â—gestion into the Seege whereof the Ancient Fathers have thus determined Origen that The materiall part of this sanctified meate passeth into the Draught which saith he I speake of the symbolicall Bodie c. Here will be no place for your Cardinal's Crotchets who confessing Origen to have spoken all this of the Eucharist would have vs by Materials to understand Accidents in respect saith hee of sanctification which they had and of Magnitude which belongeth rather to the matter of a thing then to the forme and by Symbolicall Body to conceive that this was meant of the Body of Christ it selfe as it is present in this Sacrament a Signe or Symboll of it selfe as it was on the Crosse So he as if he meant to crosse Origen's intention throughout every part of his Testimony For first That which he called Bread he calleth also meate sanctified Secondly that meate he teaâ—meth materiall Thirdly This materiall he saith passeth into the Draught Lastly concluding his speech concerning the Sacramentall Body and saying Hitherto have I spoken of the symbolicall body immediately he maketh his Transition to speake of the incarnate Body of Christ as it is the True soules meate But first meerly Accidents were never called by the Ancient Fathers Meates Secondly never Materials Thirdly never Magnitude in it selfe without a Subiect was iudged otherwise then Immateriall Fourthly never any Immateriall thing to have Gravitie or weight in pressing the guts to make an egestion into the Draught If every one of these be not yet all as a foure-fold cord may be of force to draw any Conscionable man to grant that Origen was of our Protestants faith And that which is more than all hee in his Transition expresly sheweth his faith concerning Christ's Body as Spirituall Bread by discerning it from the Sacramentall which he named a Symbolicall Body as one Body distinctly differing from the other As for your Cardinals pageant of Christ's Body in this Sacrament as being a Signe and Symbol of it selfe as it was on the Crosse it hath once already and will the second time come into play where you will take small pleasure in this figment Againe concerning the Body of Christ it selfe Cyrill Christianly denyeth it to goe either into the Belly or into the Draught and Chrysostome as iudging the very thought thereof Execrable denyeth it with an Absit Finally Ambrose is so farre from the proper swallowing of Christ in this Sacrament that distinguishing between Corporall Bread and the Body of Christ which he calleth super substantiall Bread and Bread of everlasting life for the establishing of man's soule hee denyeth flatly that this is that Bread which goeth into the Body If any mouse which your say may run away with the hoast be wholly fed thereon for a monthes space the Egestion of that Creature will be as absoute a Demonstration as the world can have that the matter fed upon after Consecration is Bread And why may you not aswell grant a power of Egestion as confesse which you doe in that Creature a digestion thereof Two false Interpretations fell upon the Catholike Profession concerning the Doctrine of the Eucharist in the dayes of Saint Augustine both which that holy Father did utterly explode The first was by the Manichees who teaching that Christ was Hanged on every tree and tied unto all meates which they eate would needs have their Religion to be somewhat agreeable to the Catholike Profession An Imputation which Saint Augustine did abhorre namely that it should be thought that there was the same reason of the opinion of Mysticall bread among the Orthodoxe which the
Manichâ—es had of their Corporall bread As for example that Christ should be Fastened or tied to mens guts by eating and let loose againe by their belching Which Hereticall Doctrine how shall it not accord with your Romish which hath affirmed a passage and Entrance of Christs body into and Cleaving unto mens Guts by eating and a Repasse againe by Vomitting albeit the matter so fast and loose in the iudgement of St. Augustine be Bread still after Consecration The Second Calumniation against the true Professours was by others who testified that Catholikes in the Eucharist adored Ceres and Bacchus after the manner of the Paganes What answere doe you thinke would a Romish Professor have made in this Case doubtles according to your doctrine of Corporall presence by saying thus Whereas some affirme that we adore Bread and Wine in this Sacrament yet the truth is wee adore that whereinto Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated to wit the Bodie and blood of Christ the sonne of God But S. Augustine as one fancying nothing lesse Wee saith he are farre from the Gods of the Pagans for we embrace the Sacrament of Bread and wine This is all and all this he spake after Consecration Whereupon we are occasioned to admonish our Christian Reader to take heed of the fraudulent practice of the Romish Sect because of their abusing of the Writings of ancient Fathers Whereof take unto you this present example The Paris Edition An. 1555. hath the Sentence of S. Augustine thus Noster Panis Mysticus fit nobis non nascitur But the last Paris Edition Ann. 1614. hath foisted in and inserted Corpus Christi albeit the sence be full without this Addition to signifie that Common Bread is by Consecration made Mysticall or Sacramentall according to S. Augustine his owne exposition saying that Wee embrace the Sacrament of Bread and Cup and also the Phrase of Panis fit corpus Christi Bread is made Christs Bodie be repugnant to a common Principle of all Christianity which never beleeved a Body of Christ made of Bread So that the foresaid Addition is not a correcting but a Corrupting of the Text. CHALLENGE HOw might it concerne you upon these premises if there be in you any spirit of Christianity to suffer S. Augustine to be your Moderator in this whole Cause who upon the speech of Christ Except you eate my flesh giveth this generall Rule That whensoever we fiâ—d in Scripture any speech of commanding some â—eynous Act or forbidding some laudable thing there to hold the speech to be figurative even as this is of eating the flesh of Christ So hee And what this figurative speech signifieth this holy Father declareth in the next words It Commandeth saith hee that wee doe Communicate of the passion of Christ and sweetly and profitably keepe in memory that his flesh was crucified for us Thus you see hee excludeth the Corporall Sensuall and Carnall Eating that hee might establish the spirituall of mind and Memory If St. Augustine by this his counsell might have prevailed with your Disputers and Doctors they never had fallen upon so many Rocks and Paradoxes nor sunke into such puddles of so nastie and beastly Absurdites as have beene now discovered which by your Doctrine of Corporall Presence you are plunged into CHAP. VII The Third Corporall manner of Vnion of Christ his Body by a Bodily mixture with the Bodies of the Communicants professed by some Romanists at this day is Capernaiticall SECT I. WEe heare your Iesuite reporting that Many latter Divines in your Church have beene authorized in these daies to write labouring to bring the Romane Faith to so high a pitch as to perswade a Reall naturall corporall and substantiall Vnion of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants even almost all of late saith he who have written against Heretiques So hee Among others we find your Cardinall Alan who will have it Really mingled with our flesh as other meates Transubstantiation onely excepted as did also Cardinall Mendoza And what else can that sound which we have heard out of your Roman Missal praying that The Bodie of Christ eaten may cleave unto your gutts iust Manichean-wise as you have heard even now out of St. Augustine CHALLENGE Confuting and dispelling this foggie myst of Errour by your owne more common confessions THis first opinion of mingling the Body of Christ corporally with man's Bodily parts what thinke you of it your Iesuite calleth it Improbable and as repugnant to the dignity and maiesty of this Sacrament Rash and absurd Iustly because if this Doctrine were true you must likewise grant that the same Bodie of Christ which you say is eaten of myce and Rats is mingled within their guts and entrails and so such vile Creatures should be as really capable of Communion with Christ's Body as the most sanctified among Christians can be for which the Beasts themselues if they could speake would as the Asse unto Balâ—am condemne the foolishnes of your Prophets namely those of whom you have heard your Iesuite confessing that this is the Doctrine of Almost all late Diuines which is to adde one Capernaiticall Absurdity to another It onely remaineth to know with what Spirits these your New Divines have thus written your Suarez telleth vs saying That they speake so in hatred of Heretiques meaning Protestants against whom they writ Who would not now magnifie the Profession of Protestants to observe their Adversaries to be so farre transported with the Spirit of malignity and giddines against them that by the iust Iudgement of God they are become so starke blind in themselves as that they fall into opinions not onely as is confessed Rash and Absurd but also Capernaitically-Hereticall And indeed they who imagined a Corporall Eating how should they not aswell have conceived a Corporall fleshly Commixtion CHAP. VIII Of the Romish Obiections out of the Fathers for proofe of Corporall Presence and Corporall vnion with the Bodies of the Communicants SECT I. IT cannot be denyed but that many antient Fathers are frequent in these kind of Phrases Our Bodies are nourished and augmented by the flesh of Christ and his Body is mingled with our flesh as melted waxe with waxe yea we have a corporall and naturall vnion with him These kind of sayings of the Holy Fathers have beene obiected not onely by your new Divines for proofe of a Corporall Coniunction of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants but also by your Cardinall and all other like Romish Professors for defence of a Corporall Presence of the Body of Christ in this Sacrament but with what coloured Consciences white or blacke they have beene so obiected commeth now to be scanned by iust Processe That the obiected Sentences of Fathers doe not intend a Corporall Coniunction so properly called even by the Confession of Romish Divines of best esteeme SECT II. ALl your Obiectors produce the Testimonies of Fathers for proofe
Traâ—sient and Passable but permanent and durable which hee proveth both from their expresse words and also by the ground of their Speech which is the Doctrine of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 10. For we being many are one Bread in as much as we are partakers of one bread which are spoken of a permanent Vnion of Christians as they are members of Christ As for the second note of Vnion professed by holy Fathers we have already learned from this their generall Doctrine that the Godly onely are truly Partakers of the flesh of Christ And that our Vnion with Christ by virtue of this Sacrament is proper to the Godly and Faithfull is now further confirmed by the Testimonies obiected Some expressing the Vnion to be such whereby Christ abideth in us and we in him as you have heard and some that whosoever hath it hath spirituall life by it whereas They who eate the Bread of iniquity doe not eate the flesh of Iesus nor drinke his Blood saith Hierome whereas your Popish Vnion is common to both For indeed what is it for Christ his Body to be receiued of the wicked but as it were to have him buried in a grave againe And to feed the ungodly with such precious food is like as if a man should put meate into the mouth of a dead Carkasse The former Assertion being so generally the Doctrine of primitive Fathers it is in it selfe a full and absolute Confutation of the Romish Defence throughout the whole Controversie touching the Corporall Vnion with the Body of Christ as properly so taken Have not then your Disputers in urging the iudgement of holy Fathers spun a faire thred trow yee whereby they have thus evidently strangled their whole Cause A Determination of this point in question I. That the former obiected Sentences of Fathers concerning Corporall Vnion are Sacramentally and Spiritually to be understood as proper to the Godly and Faithfull Receiver SECT V. HOwsoever the sound of their words have seemed unto some of you to teach a proper Corporall Vnion with the Bodies of the Communicants yet the Reasons wherewith the said Sentences are invested doe plainly declare they meant thereby a Spirituall Vnion onely first and principally because they ground their sayings upon that of Saint Iohn He that eateth my flesh abideth in me and hath life and I will raise him up at the last day He dwelleth in me and I in him which many of your owne Doctours have expounded to be taken spiritually as doth also your Bishop Iansenius out of Augustine Secondly because they make the Vnion perpetuall to the Receiver Thirdly because they hold this Vnion proper to the spirituall Communicant excluding the prophane from any reall participation of Christs flesh Fourthly because they taught the same Vnion whereof they speake to be made without this Sacrament even by Baptisme and that Really as your Iesuite Tolet hath said Fiftly because they have compared this Vnion to the continued-Vnion betweene Man and Wife Good and solid Reasons we thinke to perswade any reasonable man that they meant no proper Corporall Vnion Whereby peradventure your Iesuite Tolet was induced to grant that Hilarie and Cyril by the Corporall Vnion of Christ's Bodie with ours meant the Vnion by Faith and Charitie As also whereas Damascene saith That by this Communion wee are made ioynt-bodies with Christ And lastly Cyril of Ierusalem calleth the Communicants by reason of their participation of the Bodie and Blood of Christ Christophers that is being interpreted Carriers of Christ and that hereby we are made partakers of that divine nature a Sentence much urged by your Disputers notwithstanding your Suarez seeth nothing in it but a Spirituall Vâ—ion by Grace and Affection Which two Testimonies we may adde to the former Fathers for proofe that onely the Godly have Vnion with Christ II. That the obiected Ancient Fathers without Contradiction to themselves have both affirmed and denied a Corporall and perpetuall Vnion of Christ's Bodie with the Bodies of the Communicants SECT VI. THree acceptions there may be of the word Corporall Vnion the first Literall and proper which this whole Booke proveth out of the Fathers to be Capernaiticall by Corporall Touching Corporall Tearing with Teeth Corporall Swallowing and Devouring and Corporall mixture with our flesh a sence seeming pernicious to Origen and to Augustine odious and flagitious as hath beene proved The second is a Corporall Coniunction Sacramentall that as they called Bread broken the Bodie of Christ by reason of the Sacramentall Analogie with his Bodie Crucified as hath beene plentifully demonstrated so have they called the Sacrament all Vnion with our Bodies the Corporall Vnion of his Body with ours namely that as the Bread is eaten swallowed disgested by vs and incorporated into our Bodies to the preservation of this life so by the virtue of Christ's humanity dying and rising againe for us our Bodies shall be restored to life in that day In which respect Bread the Sacrament of Christ's Body being so changed into the Substance of our flesh is in us a perpetuall pledge of our Resurrection to glory The last is a Spirituall Vnion that as the Body of Christ is immediately foode of the Soule onely so is the Vnion thereof immediately wrought in the Soule and because in Christian Philosophy the Body followeth the Condition of the Soule according to the tenour of Iudgement used in the last day when as the vngodly Soule shall take unto it selfe it 's owne sinfull Body and carrie it into Hell and the regenerate Soule shall returne to it 's owne Bodie and being united thereunto be ioyntly raised to immortalitie and blisse and all this by our Spirituall and Sacramentall for they are not divided in the Godly Communicating of the Bodie and Blood of Christ This ought not to seeme unto you any novell Doctrine having heard it professed by your Iesuite in your publique Schooles saying The glory of the Bodie depends on the glorie of the soule and the Happinesse of the soule depends on Grace therein neither doth this Sacrament saith he any otherwise conferre immortalitie to the Bodie than by nourishing and preserving grace in the soule So hee In which respect wee concurre with the iudgement of ancient Fathers who call this Sacrament the Symbol and Token of the Resurrection the Medicine of Immortality by which our verie bodies have hope of Immortality So they Yea and which is a further Evidence as your obiected Optatus called the Eucharist The pledge of Salvation and hope of the Resurrection so doth Basil speake of Baptisme tearming it our Strength unto Resurrection being a Sacrament both of his death and Resurrection and the Earnest thereof Nor can wee desire a more pregnant confutation of your Corporall Presence than that the Eucharist is called of the Fathers a Pledge as you have obiected To this purpose wee are to consult with Primasius hee telleth vs that Christ
dying left us a Pledge for our Memorandum of him after his death By which Pledge what Christian as often as hee shall be put in minde of his death can then containe himselfe from weeping if he doe perfectly love him The comparison here is taken from a man who before his death willeave some thing of worth with his friend as a Pledge of his love and a token of his Remembrance of him after his death But the Pledge and the Pledger are two different things in themselves and as different in place the Pledge being a present token of a Friend absent Nothing now remaineth but some one Father to be Moderator in this Point and no-one more fit than he who is as vehemently obiected against us as any other namely Cyprian who speaking without all Ambages and Hyperboles saith that our Participation of this Sacrament Worketh not any consubstantiall Vnion that the Coniunction of Christ with us hath in it no mixture of persons vz. of Christ and Christians that it uniteth not the substances but ioyneth affections and affianceth our wils After this hee elegantly expresseth the Analogie betweene the Sacramentall and Spirituall nourishment As by Eating and drinking saith hee of the bodily substance our Bodies are fed and live so is the life of the soule nourished with this food So he III. That the former Doctrine of the Fathers is consonant to the Profession of Protestants SECT VII IF you take the Corporall Vnion of Christ's bodie with ours as you doe by a Bodily Touch bodily Eating Swallowing and Mixture with our bodies We abhorre this as much as did the Ancient Fathers in these their precedent Item's to wit First Ambrose opposing hereunto Christs Noli me tangere Touch me not which was spoken to Mary Against your Touch. Secondly Augustines Non dentis sed mentis Against your proper eating Thirdly Theophylact's We devoure not his flesh Against your Swallowing Fourthly Cyprians We mingle not persons Against your Transmitting him into your Bowels and Entrailes And for a further Discoverie of Romish stupidity in your Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Analogie betweene the Sacrament and Christ in the Doctrine of Antiquity is alwayes of the substance of Bread and Wine with his Bodie and Blood But we never read in ancient Bookes of your Sacramentall Eating of Accidents Drinking of Accidents or being fed and living by Accidents Wherefore muster you all those Testimonies of Fathers which speake of the Nourishment augmentation and subsistence of our Bodies by the bodie and blood of Christ and all such Sentences will be so many witnesses of your incredible pervicacie who seeke to prove an Augmentation of our bodies by the bodie and blood of Christ in the Eucharist and yet professe according to your owne Romane faith that as soone as the Formes of Bread and Wine eaten and drunke are corrupted which you know is done in a very short time the Bodie and Blood of Christ hath no longer Residence in the bodie of the Communicant CHALLENGE THrice therefore yea foure-times unconscionable are your Disputers in obiecting the former sentences of holy Fathers as teaching a Corporall and Naturall Vnion of Christ's body with the bodies of Christian Communicants once because they in true sence make not at all for your Romish Tenet next because they make against it then because the Corporall Coniunction though it be of the Bodie of Christ and Bodies of Christians in respect of the obiect yet for the matter and subiect it is of Sacramentall Bread united with our owne Bodies in a mysticall relation to the Body of our Redeemer and lastly and that principally because they meant a Spirituall Coniunction properly and perpetually belonging to the Sanctified Communicants and herein consonant to the profession of Protestants Wherefore primitive and holy Fathers would have stood amazed and could not have heard without horrour of your Corporall Coniunction of Christ his Body in Boxes and Dunghils in Mawes of Beasts in Guts of Wormes Mice and Dâ—gges as you have taught Fie Fie Tell it not in Gath nor let it be once heard off in any heathenish Nation to the Blaspheming of the Christian profession and dishonouring of the broad Seale of the Gospell of Christ which is the blessed Sacrament of his precious Bodie and Blood Before we can proceed to the next Booke wee are to remove a rub which lyeth in our way CHAP. IX That the Obiection taken from the slanders of Iewes and Pagans against Christians by imputing the guilt of Eating man's flesh unto them in receiving of the Sacrament is but ignorantly and idly urged by your Disputers SECT I. MAny leaves are spent by Master Brereley in pressing this Obiection the strength of his inforcement standeth thus Iustine Martyr in the yeare 130. writing an Apologie to the heathen Emperour when hee 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 he should have removed the suspition thereof did notwithstanding call the Eucharist No common Bread but after Consecration the food wherewith our Flesh and Blood are fed c. Then he proceedeth in urging his other Argument borrowed from the 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 Attalus the Martyr whilst he was under the tortures and torments of his Persecutors saying Behold your doing Hoc est homines devorare This is a devouring of men We Christians doe not devoure men To whom is ioyned Tertullian making mention of the same slander of Sacrificing 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 he THE FIRST CHALLENGE Against the Ignorance of the Obiector and the falfe ground of his Obiection SECT II. THe confessed light of History will discouer the mist of Preiudice in our opposites for Irenaeus Augustine and Epiphanius doe all declare that the ground of this Slander against Christians for eating man's flesh was the detestable fact of some Heretiques who professing themselves Christians notwithstanding in Celebration of the Eucharist did indeed eate man's flesh as your Iesuite Maldonate and Cardinall Baronius doe both witnesse The former of these fixing a Credo upon it against your obiected Probabile to the contrarie Againe looke but into the Testimones as they are alleaged by the Obiector and recorded in the Histories themselves and it is found that that Slander raised against Christians was alwayes for eating the flesh of a Child or Infant
for sole Praying where there is no note or occasion of Sacrifice and he instanceth in the Fathers mentioning the Morning and Evening 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Church But you will not say wee thinke that there was any proper Evening Sacrifice in use in those times What can you say for your Cardinall his former lavish assertion who is thus largely confuted Nay how shall you justifie your selves who are bound by Oath not to gain-say in your Disputations the Vulgar Latine Translation which hath rendred the same Greeke words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministrantibus eis that is They ministring and not They sacrificing which might be said as well of preaching praying administring the Sacrament all which to meâ—t with your other Objection being done according to the will of God and belonging to his worship and service might be properly said to have beene done unto God That the Second objected place out of the new Testament to witt 1 Cor. 10. cannot inferre any Proper Sacrifice SECT II. 1. Cor. 10. 18. BEhold Israel are not they who cat of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar then vers 20 21 22. But that which the Gentiles offer they offer to Devills and not unto God and I would not have you partakers with Devills yee cannot drinke of the Cup of the Lord and the cup of Devills you cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord and the table of Devills Hence Bellarmine Here saith hee the Table of the Lord is compared with the Altar of the Gentiles Therefore is the Table of the Lord certainly an Altar and therefore it hath a Sacrifice 2. Because the Eucharist is so offered as were the Sacrifices of the Iewes And 3. Because he that eateth the Eucharist is said so to be partaker of the Lord's Altar as the Heathen of things sacrificed to Idolls are said to be partakers of the Idolls Altar So hee following only his owne sence and not regarding the voyce or judgement of any other If we should say in Answer to his first Objection that your Cardinall wanted his spectacles in reading of the Text when hee said that the Apostle compareth the Table of the Lord whereon the Eucharist is placed with the Altar of the Gentiles which was the Altar of Devills it were a friendly answer in his behalfe for the words of the Text expressely relate a Comparison of the Table of the Lord with the Table of Gentiles and Devills and not with their Altar And although the Heathen had their Altars yet which crosseth all the former Objections their common Eating of things sacrificed unto Idolls was not upon Altars but upon Tables in feasting and partaking of the Idolothytes and not in Sacrificing as did also the Gentiles The whole scope of the Apostle is to dehort all Christians from communicating with the Heathen in their Idoll Solemnities whatsoever and the summe of his Argument is that whosoever is Partaker of any Ceremony made essentiall to any worship professed hee maketh himselfe a partaker of the profession it selfe whether it be Christian vers 16. or Iewish vers 18. or Heathenish and Devillish vers 20. And againe the Apostle's Argument doth aswell agree with a Religious Table as with an Altar with a Sacrament as with a Sacrifice and so it seemeth your Aquinas thought who paraphraseth thus upon the Text You cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord in respect of the Sacrament of the Lords Body and of the table of Devills To an Objector who avoucheth no Father for his Assertion it may be sufficient for us to oppose albeit but any one Primasius therefore expounding this Scripture maketh the Comparison to stand thus As our Saviour said Hee that eateth my flesh abideth in mee so the eating of the Bread of Idols is to be partakers of the Devills But this participation of Devills must needs be spirituall and not corporall you know the Consequence CHAP. III. That no Scripture in the old Testament hath been justly produced for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist THe Places of Scripture selected by your Disputers are partly Typicall and partly Propheticall That the first objected Typicall Scripture concerning Melchisedech maketh not for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist SECT I. The State of the Question WEE are loth to trouble you with Dispute about the end of Melchisedech his ministring Bread and Wine to Abraham and his Company whether it were as a matter of Sacrifice unto God or as Divers have thought only of refreshing the wearie Souldiers of Abraham because the Question is brought to be tried by the judgement of such Fathers who have called it a Sacrifice Wherefore we yeeld unto you the full scope and suppose with your Cardinall that the Bread and Wine brought forth had beene sacrificed by Melchisedech to God and not as a Sacrifice administred by him to his Guests Now because whatsoever shal be objected will concerne either the matter of Sacrifice or else the Priest-hood office of the Sacrificer we are orderly to handle them both That the Testimonies of the Fathers for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist from the Type of Melchisedech's Sacrifice are Sophistically and unconscionably objected out of Psalm 110. and Heb. 5. SECT II. SOme of the objected Testimonies See the Margent comparing the Sacrifice of Melchisedech to the Eucharist in the name of a Sacrifice doe relate no further than Bread and Wine calling these Materials The Sacrifice of Christians such are the Testimonies of Ambrose Augustine Chrysostome Theophylact Oâ—cumenius and Cassiodore together with two Iewish Rabbins promising that at the comming of Christ all Sacrifices should cease Except the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist This is your first Collection for proofe that the Eucharist is a Proper Visible Sacrifice But first Vnconscionably knowing and confessing it to be no better than a Iewish Conceit to thinke the Bread and Wine to be properly a Sacrifice of the new Testament Wherefore to labour to prove a Proper Sacrifice in that which you know and acknowledge to be no Proper Sacrifice doe you not blush How much better had it becomne you to have understood the Fathers to have used the word Sacrifice in a large sence as it might signifie any sacred ministration as Isidore doth instruct you Who if you aske what it is which Christâ—ans doe now offer after the order of Melchisedech he will say that it is Bread and Wine That is saith he the Sacrament of the Body and Blood Even as Ierome long before him Melchisedech in Bread and Wine did dedicate the Sacrament of Christ distinguishing both the Sacrament from a Proper Sacrifice and naming the thing that is said in a sort to be offered Not to be the Body and Blood of Christ but the Sacrament of both Your second kinde of objected Sentences of Fathers doe indeed compare the Bread and Wine of Melchisedech with the Body and Blood
of Christ in the Eucharist In this Rancke wee reckon the Testimonies of Cyprian Hierome Eusebius and Eucherius saying that Melchisedech himselfe offered up the Body and Blood of Christ in this Sacrifice which Body and Blood of Christ you will All sweare we dare say was not the proper Subject matter of the Sacrifice of Melchisedech who performed his Sacrifice many thousands of yeares before our Lord Christ was incarnate in the flesh to take unto him either Body or Blood And therefore could not the Fathers understand by the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood any thing but the Type of Christ his Body and Blood these being then the Object of Melchisedech's faith as the cited Sentences of Hierome and Eusebius doe declare Which is a second proofe of the unconscionable dealing of your Disputers by inforcing Testimonies against common sence But will you see furthermore the Vnluckinesse of your game and that three manner of wayes First your ordinarie guize is to object the word Sacrifice out of the Fathers as properly used whereas your Allegations tell us that they used it in a greater latitude and at libertie Secondly and more principally wheresoever you heare the Fathers naming Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Christ ô then behold Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ his Body and behold it 's Corporall presence and that most evidently this is your common shout And yet behold in your owne objected Sentences of Fathers that which was most really Bread and Wine of Melchisedech was notwithstanding by the fore-named Fathers called the Body and Blood of Christ A most evident Argument that the Fathers understood Christ's words in calling Bread his Body figuratively That the Apostle to the Hebrewes in comparing Melchisedech with Christ did not intimate any Analogie betweene the Sacrifice of Melchisedech and of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist SECT III. BVt you pre-occupate viz. The Apostle speaking of Melchisedech saith Of whom I had much to say and that which is uninterpretable because you are dull of hearing Chap. 5. vers 11. Whence it may seeme saith vour Cardinall a thing undeniable that the Apostle meant thereby the mysterie of the Eucharist because it was above their capacitie and therefore hee purposely forbare to mention either Bread or Wine So your Answerer To whom you may take for a Reply as in our behalfe the Confession of your much-esteemed Iesuite Ribera who telleth you that The Apostle naming it a thing Inexplicable and calling them Dull meant not thereby to conceale the matter implyed which was so pertinent to that hee had in hand from them because of the want of their Capacitie but did in so saying rather excite them to a greater Attention shewing thereby that he did not dispaire but that they were capable of that which hee would say at least the learned among them by whom others might have learned by little and little So hee proving the same out of those words of the Apostle Passing by the Rudiments c. Let us goe on unto perfection that is saith he Doe your diligence in hearing that you may attaine unto the understanding of these things which are delivered unto those that are perfect This is the Briefe of his large Comment hereupon Notwithstanding what our Opposites faile of in the point of Sacrifice They intend to gaine from the Title of Priesthood Of the Priesthood of Melchisedech as it is compared with the pretended Romish Priesthood out of the Epistle to the Hebrewes SECT IV. The State of the Question Aarons Priesthood said your Cardinall is translaâ—ed into the Priesthood of Melchizedech and this into the Priesthood of Christ A Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedech which because it is perpetuall and eternall cannot be performed properly by Christ himselfe and therefore must be executed by his Ministers â—s Vicars on earth So he accordingly as your Councell of Trent hath decreed Insomuch that M. Sanders will have the whole Ministerie of the new Testament to issue Originally from Melchizedech This is a matter of great moment as will appeare which we shall resolve by oâ—rtaine Positions The foundation of all the Doctrine concerning Christ and Melchizedech is set downe in the Epistle to the Hebrewes That the Analogie betweene Melchizedech his Priesthood and the eternall Priesthood of Christ in himselfe is most perfect and so declared to be Heb. 5 6 7 Chapp SECT V. THe holy Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrewes comparing the Type Melchizedech with the Arch-Type Christ Iesus in one order of Priesthood sheweth betweene Both an absolute Analogie although not in equalitie of Excellence yet in similitude of qualities and offices As first in Royaltie Melchizedech is called The King of Iustice and Peace So Christ but infinitely more is called Our Iustice and Peace Secondly Melchizedech in respect of Generation was without Generation from Father or Mother according to the formalitie of Sacred Storie so Christ according to the veritie of his Humanitie without Father and in his divine nature without Mother of whom also it is written Who shall declare his Generation Thirdly in Time Melchizedech a Priest for ever having neither beginning nor end of Dayes according to the same Historicall Tenure so Christ an eternall Priest Chap. 5 6. Fourthly in Number only One who had no Predecessor nor Successor So Christ who acknowledged no such Priest before him nor shall finde any other after him for ever Fifthly Christ was Vniversally King and Priest as the Apostle noted Chap. 7. 4. saying That the Priesthood was changed from Aaron and Levi to Christ in Iuda That is that Christ's Power might be both Regall and Sacerdotall saith Chrysostome which was a singular dignity as your Iesuite well observeth That the nature of everie other Priesthood be it of your Romish High-Priest dissenteth as much from the Priesthood of Melchizdech as the Priesthood of Melchizedech agreeth with the Priest-hood of Christ SECT VI. IF Comparison might be made of Priesthood whom would you rather that we should instance in than in your intituled Summus Pontifex that is the High Priest your Pope who notwithstanding cannot be said to be a King as Melchizedech much lesse as Christ Everlasting Secondly Much lesse a King of Peace who hath beene reproved by Antiquitie for being A Troubler of the Peace of Christ's Church And generally complained of by others as being Nothing lesse than the Vicar of the God of Peace because of his raising hostile wars against Princes of the same Nation Blood and Faith And for Distracting the Estates of Princedome and Priestdome Thirdly not King of Iustice because some Popes have excited Subjects and Sonnes to rebell against their Leige Soveraignes and Parents Fourthly not Originally without Generation by either Father or Mother some of them having beene borne in lawfull wedlocke and of knowne honest Parents albeit of other-some the mothers side hath beene much the surer It will
you shall thinke it credible that the same men should be both devout and profane in one prescribed Service of God To the last Malachy in the same sentence and as it were with the same breath equally taketh exceptions to the Iewish Priests in both Sacrifice and Incense Therefore as the word Incense so accordingly the word Sacrifice was used improperly of the Fathers Doe you not now see what reason your Cardinall had to make choise of a corrupt Text wanting the word Incense which he peradventure foresaw would prove as bitter as Coloquintida in his Pottage The second word in Malachy is Levite I will purge the sonnes of Levi which was spoken as your Cardinall confesseth of the Ministers of the new Testament Well then did the Prophet call the Ministery service of the new Testament Pure Sacrifice And did he not in the like manner call the Ministers of the new Testament Purged Levites as also some of the Ancient Fathers you know used to doe And as your Church in degrading of Arch-Bishop Cranmer from his order of Deaconship once did Therefore both alike were used Improperly in imitation of this Prophet and also of that in Isaiah I will send them Priests and Levites That the Text of the Prophet Malachy doth confute the Romish Pretence of Sacrifice even by the objected Testimonies of Ancient Fathers SECT III. PErmit you us for brevity sake to contrive this Section into Ob. and Sol. your Cardinal's Objections and our Solutions or Answers 1. Ob. Sacrifice is called pure Ergo Christs Body Sol. And Chrysost who is objected termeth Prayers Pure Incense 2. Ob. The word Sacrifice signifieth not Prayers Praises or Pious Actions for these are improperly called Sacrifices Ergo c. Sol. First Tertullian objected expounded the word Sacrifice to signifie Benedictions and Praises And secondly Eusebius objected calleth this Pure Sacrifice Pious Actions and Prayers Which your Cardinall could not Answer but with a marvellous and miserable Illusion 3. Ob. By the word Sacrifice were not meant Spirituall Sacrifices c. Sol. Yet Hierome objected expresly nameth the Sacrifice in Malachy Spirituall To come to your Cardinals principall Reason 4. Ob. The Iewish Sacrifices were called Vncleane not in respect of the Offerers but of the Offerings intimating thereby that this Offering in the new Testament can be no lesse than the very Body of Christ Sol. Irenaeus objected plainly putteth the difference to be made by Malachy betweene the Sacrifices as they were the Offerings of the wicked Iewes and the Sacrifices of godly Christians and he giveth this Reason because The Iewes saith he offered up their Oblations with wicked hearts but the Christians performe theirs with pure Consciences And that the Iewish Sacrifices were not rejected for themselves but for the impiety of their Sacrificers your owne Iesuit Ribera confirmeth both by the Constitutions of Pope Clement and also by this Testimony of Irenaeus A Truth so evident to your Divines of Collen that they presume None to be ignorant for that the Sacrifices of the old Testament were all cleane and pure because God hath ordained them and they became impure by the wicked hearts of the Offerers And Tertullian giveth the same Observation for the Reason why God in rejecting them said I will no more of your Sacrifice and not of my Sacrifice But you will say Some of the Fathers spake directly of the Proper Sacrifice of the new Testament We answer that as they apply it to the Eucharist they meant no proper Sacrifice as the Subject but onely as the Object therein which was that of the Crosse In which respect Chrysostome objected calleth it that Sacrifice whereof Saint Paul writeth saying Christ gave himselfe up a Sacrifice for his Church Eph. 5. Lastly Cyprian objected calleth it the New Sacrifice of Praise which is you know a Spirituall and no Corporall or Proper Sacrifice The first Propheticall Text is finished The second Propheticall Text as is pretended is Psal 72. 16. concerning an Handfull of Corne in the Top of the Mountaines objected to proue a Sacrifice in the Romish Masse but yet as very Romishly as were the rest SECT IV. OF this Corne your Disputers Coccius Duraeus Sanctesius Genebrard out of Galatinus and He out of the Chaldee Translation and other his supposed Iewish Rabbins have observed a Cake on the top of the Mountaines But what of this This Cake forsooth was by their Doctrine a Propheticall prediction of the Romish Wafer-Cake which is heaved up over the head of the Priest for a Sacrifice And this is called by Master Breerly A most strong Argument in behalfe of the said Doctrine But wee must tell you that your Galatinus is too credulous and that his Rabbinicall Abstracts are no better than the Gibeonites old torne shooes and mooldy bread seeming to have come from farre even from old Rabbins when as they were invented and brought from their latter Rabbins and Glozers as it were from the next bordering Countries because your Author Galatinus who produceth the foresaid Rabbinish prediction of that Cake is branded for such like his Conceipts with the marke of a Vaine man by your judicious Senensis And the Chaldee Paraphrase which talketh of your Sacrificed Cake is rejected as being a corrupt Puddle of Iewish Fables and fabulous in this very point by your great Romane Dictator Bellarmine Which we speake not as being offended to heare any Rabbi calling that which is in the hand of your Priest and above his head A Cake which in your Romish Phrase is called a Wafer-cake for if it be indeed truly a Cake then is not it Accidents only but hath still in it the substance of Bread And so farewell your Helena of Trent called Transubstantiation Now because the Sacrifice can be no better than the matter thereof will permit it it followeth that the Sacrifice is not properly the Body of Christ but the Element of Bread And thus your Authors after their laborious kneading and moulding their greedy longing and their sweetly chewing hereof are at length in a manner choaked with their owne Cake CHAP. V. Of our Second Examination of this Controversie by the Iudgment of Ancient Fathers shewing that they never called the Eucharist a Sacrifice properly Our generall Proposition The ancient Fathers never called the Eucharist properly a Sacrifice proved by many Demonstraations THE Demonstrations which we are to speake of are many some taken from the proper and some from the pretended Subject of the Eucharist some from the paritie of like speeches of Fathers as well in other Sacraments Acts and Adjuncts as in these which are belonging to the Eucharist The first Demonstration is That the Fathers called Bread and Wine a Sacrifice as being the Subject matter of the Eucharist but Vnproperly SECT I. THat Antient Fathers called Bread and Wine a Sacrifice even before Consecration we have it
confessed asseverantly by your owne Iesuit where he will have you furthermore to observe that Bread and Wine before Consecration is called an Immaculate Sacrifice even in your Roman Masse And that the Primitive Fathers called Bread and Wine Sacrifice after Consecration also we have likewise proved in two full Sections which your Cardinall is bound to acknowledge who to prove that Melchizedech Sacrificed Bread and Wine produced the Testimonies of Ambrose Augustine Chrysostome Oecumenius and Theophylact to conclude them to have beene Figures of the Eucharist which we desire you to cary still in minde untill we end this Section Hereupon we demand whether you think that Bread and Wine in the Eucharist can be called of Christians a Sacrifice properly either before or after Consecration No saith one Iesuit Because it is not agreeable to our Priest-hood No saith a Second because it were most absurd that the Church of Christ should have a lifelesse Sacrifice and consequently more vile than was the Iewish No saith a Third because it were an heinous impiety now after the abrogation of the terrene Sacrifices of the Iewes to beleeve that the Church of God should professe an Offering of Corporall and earthly Sacrifices No saith a Fourth for it is the judgement of all Christians that there is no Sacrifice in Christian Religion but the Body and Blood of Christ because otherwise the Act of Sacrificing thereof being a Divine Worship should be exercized upon Bread and Wine So they Wee would be glad to take the Apostle of Christ to be our Guide for our better security he as is likewise confessed teacheth that God now is not to be worshipped by way of Sacrifice with any outward thing Oh that your Divines would exercise their quils in publishing such sound Truths as this is we then would wish them Good speed in all their Writings Notwithstanding upon consideration of the Premises we are inforced to complaine of the Vnconscionablenesse of your Cardinall who to prove a proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist did as you may remember produce the Testimonies of five Fathers wherein that which they called a Sacrifice they expressed to be Bread and Wine which by the joynt and consonant Confession of the Cardinall himselfe and other prime Iesuites of his owne society cannot be held to be proper Sacrifices without Absurdity and Impiety And the like obliquity of Iudgement you may finde in your Romish Divines in alleaging the Testimonies of Irenaeus for proofe of the Sacrifice of your Masse which your Iesuit Maldonat hath truly observed to have beene spoken of Bread and Wine even before Consecration One word more By this you may perceive another proofe of the Idiome of Ancient Fathers in Extending the word Sacrifice beyond it's literall sense which beside the former the last annexed Testimony of Augustine confirmeth shewing that now there is in this our Sacrifice no other Subject but Bread and Wine This may serve for the present concerning the true and proper Subject of the Eucharist Bread and Wine We in the next place are to examine the pretended Subject which your Church will have to be the Body and Blood of Christ Our Second Demonstration is that the Ancient Fathers held not the Body and Blood of Christ to be the proper Subject matter of the Eucharist in calling it a Sacrifice SECT II. HOw commeth the Body and Blood of Christ to be a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist Your Cardinall will tell us to wit Bread and Wine are consecrated and by Consecration made the Body and Blood of Christ so that now Not Bread saith he but the Body of Christ is the Thing sacrificed This is plaine dealing and as much as if he had said If there be in the Eucharist no Transubstantiation of the Bread into Christ's Body by Consecration then cannot Christ's Body be a proper Sacrifice But that there is no such Transubstantiation or Corporall Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament hath beene proved to be the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers by many Demonstrations thorow-out the third and fourth Bookes A stronger Argument there needeth not Our Third Demonstration is because the objected places of Antiquity for proofe of a Representative Sacrifice properly so called doe not point out any where the Body of Christ as the proper Subject but only as the Object of the Sacrifice spoken of SECT III. The necessary use of this Distinction OVr Distinction is this These words The Body and Blood of Christ as they are applyed to the Eucharist in the name of Sacrifice may admit of a double Acception one is to take them subjectively as being the proper Materiall Subject of this Sacrament the other is to understand them objectively that is to accompt the Body and Blood of Christ as they were the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse to be only the proper Object of a Christian Celebration according to the Direction and Institution of Christ saying Doe this in remembrance of me Your Romish Church professeth the Body and Blood to be the proper Subject we nay but the proper Object of our Celebration This Distinction well learned will be unto our Reader as an Ariadne's thred to winde him out of the Labyrinth of all Obscurities and seeming Repugnancies of Ancient Fathers out of all the confused Subtilties and equivocall Resolutions of your Romish Disputers and out of the Perplexities wherewith some Protestants also may seeme in some sort to have beene intangled The Demonstration it selfe is Because the Eucharist being only Commemorative and Representative cannot be a proper Sacrifice answering the Romish Objection taken from the Sacrifices under the Law SECT IV. THat it cannot be called properly a Sacrifice which is onely for Commemoration and Representation is the Conclusion of your owne Cardinall although it cannot be denied but that Improperly it may be called as well as you may call the Image of Christ crucified the Crucifix But to come to your Objection your Romish Divines and Romish Cardinall are very earnest and instant in proving that because the Iewish Sacrifices being Representations of the passion of Christ were notwithstanding true and proper Sacrifices Therefore the being Representative can be no hindrance that the Eucharist should be a proper Sacrifice So they But yet so as if they had meant to say nothing to the purpose because the Iewish Sacrifices albeit they were Representations of Christs Passion yet were they not only Representations thereof as the Eucharist is but were also beside that Sacrifices in themselves and so ordained to be by God first in their matter as Bulls Sheepe Goats next in their Sacrificing Act which was destructive as to be slaine and lastly in their proper and peculiar end which was as your Cardinall witnesseth for expiation of legall Pollutions and remission of temporall punishments Each one of these may satisfie your Objection The Confirmation of the former Demonstration out of the Fathers first
Explaining of themselves SECT V. SAint Ambrose setting forth two kinde of Offerings of Christ here on earth and above in Heaven he saith that Christ here is offered as one suffering and above he himselfe Offereth himselfe an Advocate with the Father for us And this our offering of him he calleth but an Image and that above he calleth the Truth Clearly shewing that we have in our Offering Christ's Body only as it is Crucified which is the Object of our Commemoration But the same Body as it is now the personall subject of a present Time and Place they behold it in Heaven even the same Body which was once offered on the Crosse by his Passion now offered up by himselfe to God by Presentation in Heaven here in the Church only by our Representation Sacramentally on earth Saint Augustine dealeth as plainly with us where distinguishing three States of Offerings up to Christ he saith first that under the Law Christ was promised In the similitude of their Sacrifices meaning his bloody death was prefigured by those bloody Sacrifices Secondly in the offering at his Passion he was Delivered up in truth or proper Sacrifice this was on the Crosse And thirdly after his Ascension The memory of Him is celebrated by a Sacrament or Sacramentall Representation So he For although the Sacrifices of the Iewes were true Sacrifices yet were they not truly the Sacrificings of Christ Note you this Assertion Againe speaking of his owne Time when the Sacrament of the Eucharist was daily celebrated he saith That Christ was once sacrified namely upon the Crosse and Is now daily sacrificed in the Sacrament nor shall he lie saith he that saith Christ is sacrificed So he No holy Augustine shall he not lye who saith that Christ as the personall Subject of this Sacrament is a proper Sacrifice in the literall Sense for whether Proper or Vnproper are the two Seales of this Controversie Now interpose your Catholike Resolution Say first why is it called a Sacrament tell us If Sacraments had not a similitude of things which they represent they were no Sacraments from which similitude they have their Appellation and name of the things to wit The Sacrament of the Body of Christ is called his Body as Baptisme is called a Buriall Be so good as to explaine this by another which may illuminate even a man in the point of Sacrifice also although otherwise blinded with prejudice As when the day of Christ's Passion faith he being to morrow or the day of his Resurrection about to be the next day but one we use to say of the former To morrow is Christ's Passion and of the other when it commeth it is Christ's Resurrection yet will none be so absurd as to say we lye in so saying because we speake it by way of Similitude even so when we say this is sacrificed c. So Saint Augustine Who now seeth not that as the Buriall of Christ is not the Subject matter of Baptisme but only the Representative Object thereof and as Good Fryday and Easter-day are not properly the daies of Christ his Passion or Resurrection but Anniversary and Represensative or Commemorative Resemblances of them So this Sacrifice is a Similitude of the Sacrifice of Christ's on the Crosse and not materially the same We omit Testimonies of other Fathers which are dispersed in this and other Sections Although this one Explanation might satisfie yet shall we adjoyne others which may satiate even the greediest Appetite The fourth Demonstration from the Fathers Explanation of their meaning by a kinde of Correction SECT VI. ANcient Fathers in good number call that which is represented in the Eucharist and which we are said to offer The same Host not many the same Oblation no other the same Sacrifice and none but it but they adde by a Figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Correction of the excesse of their speech or rather for Caution-sake least their Readers might conceive of the same Sacrifice herein as properly presâ—nt saying in this manner We offer the same Sacrifice or Rather the Remembrance thereof alluding sometime expresly to the Institution of Christ Doe this in remembrance of me The Fathers are these viz. Chrysostome Theophylact Thodoret Ambrose Eusebius and Primasius Your only Answer is that their Exception here used was not to note that it is not the same Body of Christ here Corporally present which was offered upon the Crosse but that it is not offered in the same manner by effusion of Blood as that was which is indeed a Part but not the whole Truth For survay the Marginals and then tell us If that your Sacrifice were the same Body of Christ Corporally present why should Theophylact apply hâ—s qualification not to the manner whether Bloody or Vnbloody but to the person of Christ saying We offer the same Christ who was once offered or rather a Memoriall of his Oblation And Theodoret applying it directly to the thing Non aliud We offer not another Sacrifice but a memoriall thereof why Eusebius Wee offer a Memoriall in stead of a Sacrifice plainly notifying unto tis that they meant the same very Body which was the Subject of the Sacrifice on the Crosse to be the now proper Object of our Remembrance in the Eucharist but not the Subject therein Which agreeth with that which in the former Section was said by Ambrose Our offering up of Christ in an Image and Augustine his celebrating of this Sacrament of Remembrance Semblably as Hierome speakes of the Priest who is said to take the Person of Christ in this Sacrament so that He saith Hierome be a a true Priest or rather an Imitator of him But a Priest and an Imitator is not Identically the same that is represented Master Breeley is not Christ Lastly The same said Primasius in all places which was borne of the Virgin and not now great and now lesse So he But have we not heard you number your many Hoasts on one Altar at one Time and yet the Fathers say We offer not many but the same which must needs be the same one as Object else shew us where ever any Father denied but that upon divers Altars were divers Breads or that but according to their outward Demensions they were now greater now lesse which no way agreeth with the Body of Christ as hath beene proved in discussing the Canon of the Councell of Nice The fifth Demonstration Because the Body and Blood of Christ as they are pretended by the Romish Church to be in this Sacrament cannot be the Representative Sacrifice spoken of by Ancient Fathers against your vaine Instance in a Stage-play SECT VII THat the Subject matter of this Sacrament by you called the same Sacrifice which Christ offered up upon the Crosse ought to be Representative and fit to resemble the same Sacrifice of his Passion is a matter unquestionable among all In which respect the
Fathers have so often called it a Sacrifice of Commemoration Representation and Remembrance and that the thing to be represented is his Body crucified and his Blood shed in that Sacrifice of his Passion is a point as questionlesse which accordeth both to the words of Christ his Institution Doe this in remembrance of me and to the Exposition of Saint Paul to be a shewing foâ—th of the Lords death untill he come yea and is also consonant to the last mentioned Doctrine of the Fathers calling it A Sacrifice of Christ or rather a Remembrance thereof The only Question will be how This which you call The same Sacrifice meaning the Body of Christ subjectively in the Eucharist being invisible can be said to represent figure and resemble the same Body as it was the Sacrifice on the Crosse We yeelding unto you a possibility that one thing in some respects may be a Representation of it selfe Your Tridentine Fathers to this purpose say that Christ left this visible Sacrifice to his Church whereby his Body sacrified upon the Crosse should be represented So they From whom it may seeme your Rhemists learned that lesson which they taught Others that Christ's Body once visibly sacrificed upon the Crosse In and By the selfe same Body is immolated and sacrificed under the shapes of Bread Wine and is most perfectly thereby resembled and therefore iâ— most properly Commemorative being called the same Sacrifice by the Ancient Fathers And againe This nearely and lively resembleth that So they But this we utterly deny because although a thing may in some sort be represented by it selfe yet say we there is no Representative quality of any Body and Blood of Christ as it is said by you to be in the Eucharist of his Body and Blood Sacrificed upon the Crosse And upon the Truth or Vntruth of this our Assertion dependeth the gaining or losing of the whole Cause concerning the Question of Sacrifice now controverted betweene us Two of yout Iesuits have undertaken to manifest your Representation by a more fit example than doe your Rhemists thus Even as a King say They having got a Victory should represent himselfe after his warre in a Stage-play in sight c. So they even in earnest which hath beene as earnestly yet easily confuted by us already although indeed the Play deserveth but laughter and that so much the rather because the Representative part as your Councell of Trent hath defined is in your Masse a visible Sacrifice whereby the Bloody Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse might be represented as you have heard CHALLENGE YOu except you will be Players and not Disputers must tell us where ever it was seene or heard of a King as Conquerour or yet of any other of what condition soever acting himselfe and that visibly perfectly and truly as you have said yea or else any way semblably representing himselfe when as yet the same King or party was to all the Spectators altogether Invisible If you can then shew where this was acted whether it were not in Vtopia and who was the Actor if not 〈◊〉 and of what disposition the Spectators were whether not like the man of Argos who is said daily to have frequented the Theater and Stage alone void of all Actors yet seeming to himselfe to see all Varieties of Actions occasioning him to laugh and applaud at that which he saw represented to himselfe onely in his owne phantasticall braine Now have you nothing else to answer but which you have already said that The Body and Blood in the Eucharist are visible by the visible shapes of Bread and Wine Whereas it had beene much better you had answered indeed nothing at all rather than not only to contradict that which was said by your Fathers of Trent decreeing the Representation to be made By the Sacrifice on the Altar it selfe and more expresly by your Rhemists In and by the same Body in the Eucharist but also to expose your selves to the reproofe of your Adversaries and Scorne of any man of Common sence as if you would perswade him his money is Visible to any that will use his eyes which he hath therefore locked up close in his Coffer least any man might see it But this we have discussed sufficiently in the 2. Booke and 2. Chapter § 6. The sixth Demonstration of the no Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist because divers Epithets objected as given by Fathers to this Sacrifice are used also by them where there is no Proper Sacrifice SECT VIII IT is objected by your Cardinall that Ancient Fathers gave certaine Epithets and Attributes to the Eucharist 1. Some calling it a Full and pure 2. some terrible Service 3. some termed it in the plurall number Sacrifices and Victimes and 4. some Anunbloody Sacrifice So hee concluding from each of these that they meant thereby a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist We encounter all these foure kinde of Instances with like Epithets given by the same Fathers to other Things in your owne judgement improperly called Sacrifices as namely to Prayers Praises giving Thankes and Hymnes instiled True Pure and Cleane and the only perfect Sacrifices by Primitive Fathers Secondly they are as zealous concerning the second point in terming holy Scriptures Terrible the Rules touching Baptisme Terrible words and Horrible Canons and the Christian duly considering the nature of Baptisme One compassed about with Horror and Astonishment Whereof more hereafter And indeed what is there whereby we have any apprehension of Gods Majesty and Divine Attributes which doth not worke a holy Dread in the hearts of the Godly And the third Instance is as idle as any of the rest because the holy Fathers named Prayers Giving of Thankes and other holy Actions Sacrifices and Hoasts in the plurall number And is not there in the Eucharist Prayers Hymnes and Thanksgivings nay but know that in as much as the Fathers have called the Eucharist in the plurall number Hoasts and Sacrifices it proveth that they were not of your Romish Beleefe of Concomitancy to thinke with you that Bread being changed into Christ's Body and Wine into his Blood make but one Sacrifice for there can be no Identity in Plurality The Answer to the fourth Epithete followeth The seventh Demonstration of no Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist Because the principall Epithet of Vnbloody Sacrifice used by the Fathers and most urgently objected by your Doctors for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice doth evince the Contrary SECT IX IT hath beene some paines unto us to collect the objected Testimonies of Fathers for this point out of your divers Writers which you may peruse now in the Margent with more ease and presently percelve both what maketh not for you and what against you but certainly for you just nothing at all For what can it helpe your cause that the Celebration of the Eucharist is often called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is An unbloody Sacrifice a Reasonable
unbloody Service or Worship In the first place three Liturgies or if you will Masses are objected to prove that by unbloody Sacrifice and Reasonable and unbloody worship is betokened the Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood in the Masse one of Basil another of Chrysostome and by some others the Masse of Saint Iames of Ierusalem In which Epithet of Vnbloody say we could not be signified Christ's body Our reasons because as the Margent sheweth the word Vnbloody hath sometime Relation unto the Bread and Wine both unbloody before Consecration called in Saint Iames his Liturgy Gods gifts of the first fruit of the ground who also reckoneth Hymnes among unbloody Sacrifices But Christ's Body is the fruit of the wombe or else sometime is it referred to the Acts of Celebration in Supplication Thanksgiving and Worship of God all unbloody naming that Areasonable and unbloody Service which they had termed an unbloody Sacrifice as Lindan your Parisian Doctor hath truly observed Which Chrysostome also stiled Spirituall marke you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Service or Worship Was ever Christ called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is himselfe rather the person to be worshipped Secondly Reasonable could this point out Christ's Body in the sence of the objected Fathers suffer Chrysostome to resolve us Reasonable Service saith he is that which is performed with the minde without Bodily helpe Thirdly The vnbloody Sacrifice is called Spirituall as you heare how shall this be properly applyed to the Body of Christ You will say not in it's naturall Essence but in the manner of being Invisible Impalpable and the like But we demand the same head of a mans Body is it more Spirituall in the darke than in the light Lastly all these termes in these Liturgies of Vnbloody Sacrifice Reasonable Service and Spirituall are spoken before Consecration when the Body of Christ even in your owne Faith as yet can have no being in the Eucharist and therefore cannot be the Vnbloody Sacrifice here meant by you Will you have the full substance of all these Reasons The word Vnbloody whether it point out Bread and Wine or the Act of outward worship in this celebration called a Reasonable Service and Spirituall Sacrifice it must betoken a thing void of Blood which no Christian Professor dare attribute to the Body of Christ We proceed Eusebius saith indeed We offer an unbloody Sacrifice but what he meant thereby he doth not expresse whether the Signes of Bread Wine which he elsewhere with others as you have heard called Sacrifices or whether as Basil and Chrysostome have done he understood together the publike Service in celebrating the Memory of Christ's Death This then concludeth not for an Existence of the Body of Christ as of the Vnbloody Subject herein But whereas furthermore you may observe that Eusebius objected calleth Godly Actions a pure Sacrifice and opposeth this against Bloody Sacrifices and also termeth Holy Prayers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is without Materiall Substance as he did the Celebration of the Sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Vnbloody These shew that Eusebius meant a Sacrifice void of Blood which neither the word of God will permit us nor your Councell of Trent will suffer you to impute to the Body of Christ and therefore must needs wound your Roman Oblation of Body and Blood to the very heart Nazianzene objected is as directly opposite to your Masse as East is to West and will strike the matter dead calling it The unbloody Sacrifice whereby saith he we communicate with Christ Flatly differencing the unbloody Sacrifice whereby from Christ himselfe with whom the Faithfull doe communicate in this Sacrament Ambrose objected prayeth to God To accept of this immaculate and unbloody Hoast which are the very words of your Roman Masse and which your Cardinall seeketh to justifie by S. Ambrose But this he cannot doe except their meaning be both the same Let then your Cardinall but tell us the meaning of the Canon of your Masse and you will soone apprehend the Iudgement of Saint Ambrose In our Masse saith your Cardinall it is said Receive holy Father this immaculate Hoast where the Pronoune This saith he doth demo astrate Bread and Wine because spoken before Consecration So he And the Body and Blood of Christ you know are not Bread and Wine Let Athanasius put Perâ—od to this Section who saith that Melchizedech in giving â—read and Wine was the first Type of an unbloody Sacrifice But Melchizedech's was Vnbloody negatively having no Blood at all in it So was never the Body of Christ since his Resurrection according to our Christian Beleefe CHALLENGE WHat a faire peece of service doe you thinke have these Objecters done for the patronizing of your Romane Sacrifice out of the Sentences of Ancient Fathers whilest they alleaging their words citing their Bookes and quoting their Chapters have so handled the matter as if they had meant by prevaricating in their owne Cause to betray it seeing that it is apparant that they have delivered unto us the worship in stead of the thing worshipped out of the Councell of Ephesus Basil Chrysostome and Eusebius Next by the word Vnbloody being spoken before Consecration and therefore concerneth not the Vnbloody Body of Christ they have obtruded the thing Distinguished from Christ instead of Christ in the Testimony of Nazianzene But especiaily because in the most of the Sentences the word Vnbloody must needs be taken negatively for want or absence of of Blood and so you may bid your Corporall Presence adiâ—u All which may be strong Arguments unto us both of the deplorable Consciences of your Doctors and of the desperatenesse of your Cause Other Testimonies wherein there is mention of Christ's Body and Blood come now to be discussed A Confirmation of the former Demonstration from the use of the word Vnbloody in the objected Sentences wherein the Fathers make mention of the Body and Blood of Christ SECT X. THis Objection seemeth to be of better moment than the former but only seemeth Clemens Bishop of Rome the first of that name calleth indeed the Eucharisticall Celebration 〈◊〉 unbloody Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ In which sentence the Vnbloody Sacrifice is plainly distinguished from the Body and Blood whereof it is a Sacrifice even as both the Act and Service of Commemoration have beene oftentimes above and are hereafter called of the Fathers a Sacrifice in respect of the Object thereof which is the Body and Blood of Christ on the Crosse This is manifest by two especiall Reasons the first because that which he calleth Vnbloody he termeth also a Reasonable Service Secondly Clemens calleth the same Vnbloody Sacrifice the Signe and Type of Christ's Body and Blood thereby distinguishing them from that Body and Blood whereof they are but Types You will then aske what is this Body and Blood whereof they are said to be Types Yea marry
This being known will set all straight And Clemens telleth you that it is his Precious Body and his Blood shed which properly taken all Christians professe to be Proper to his Body crucified and Blood shed on the Crosse for the proper object of our Typicall Remembrance as we have formerly proved and you your selves confessed already Cyril of Hierusalem doth attend upon Pope Clemens and in a sort treadeth in his steps The manner of our Celebrating the memory of Christ's death he calleth a Spirituall Sacrifice and an Vnbloody worship wherein against the Iewish Sacrifice he opposeth Spirituall against Corporall as he doth Vnbloody against Bloody But by Spirituall he meant that which wanteth a Body Therefore by Vnbloody he meant that which was properly void of Blood So farre was Cyril from signifying thereby the Vnbloody Body of Christ as the subject matter in the Eucharist As for the Body and Blood of Christ it selfe which hee calleth Propitiation Cyril expoundeth himselfe to meane for so he nameth it Christ slaine for our sinnes which still wee say and you cannot deny is only the Object of our whole spirituall service of Remembrance and Commemoration Both these former Witnesses have delivered their Testimonies as spoken under a forme of Prayer whereunto whether You or Protestants may more justly say Amen judge you The eighth Demonstration of the no Proper Sacrifice of the Masse Because the Ancient Fathers called the Eucharist a Bloody Sacrifice which all you will confesse to be Vnproperly spoken SECT XI TAke but unto you your owne Allegations set downe in the Margent of the Sentences of Antiquit◠and you shall finde how the Ancient Fathers doubted not to say that Christ suffereth is slaine slayeth himselfe suffereth often in this Sacrament and that His Passion and bloody Sacrifice is offered herein Sayings of the highest Accent as you see and of no fewer nor meaner Fathers than these Alexander Gregory both Popes Chrysostome Cyprian Hierome Cyril of Ierusalem Hesychius Pascatius What thinke you of such sayings Can Christ be said properly to be Dead in this Sacrament Never any Catholike said so saith your Iesuit Ribera What then could be the meaning of such words If you should be ignorant your Cardinall Alan would teach you and he would have you Observe what he saith Christ is said by the Fathers to suffer saith he and to die in this Sacrament only so farre as his Death and Passion is commemorated and represented herein And so speaketh also your Roman Glosse What now hindreth but that whensoever we heare the same Fathers affirming that the same Body and Blood of Christ are Sacrificed in the Eucharist we understand them in the same impropriety of speech that they meant onely Representatively especially when as we see your other grand Cardinall comming somewhat home towards us and to confesse as followeth If Catholikes should say that Christ doth truly die in this Sacrament this Argument might be of some force but they say he dieth not but in a Sacrament and Signe representing So he which yet alas is too little a Crevase for so great a Doctor to creepe out at First because there is as well a Figurative as there is a literall Truth for If I should say of Easter day said Augustine it is the day of Christ's Resurrection I should not lie and yet it is but the Anniversary day betokening the other When Christ said of one part of this Sacrament This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood he spake by a double figure said your Iesuit Salmeron yet truly Secondly Christ who is Truth it selfe in saying of Bread This is my Body or Flesh spake a Truth as you all professe and was it not likewise a Truth when he called his Flesh Bread yea and also The true Bread Thirdly the Fathers as they said that Christ is dead suffereth as you now object in this Sacrament in a Mysterie so have They also said of his Body in respect of the Eucharist It is sacrificed in an Image in a Sacrament or Mysterie according to that their generall Qualification saying It is the same Sacrifice which Christ offered or Rather a Remembrance thereof And lastly the Fathers who named Baptisme a Sacrifice as well as the Eucharist doubted not to stretch Baptisme up to as high a note as they have done the Eucharist saying Baptisme is the passion of Christ and In Baptisme we crucifie Christ To signifie that the Body of Christ is the Represented Object and not the Representative Subject of this Sacrament An Elucidation of the Premises by a Similitude of a Stage-play manifesting how the same Vnproper Sacrifice might furthermore have beene called both Bloody and Vnbloody by Antient Fathers SECT XII A Similitude for explanation sake would be had give us leave to borrow one from the Stage-play for manifesting a Truth as well as you have done another from thence for palliating a Falshood You may recognize with us that Tragicall end of the Emperour Mauritius by the command of one Phocas once his slave that grand Patrone of the Popedome by privileging the Church of Rome to be the Head of all Churches as divers of your owne Historians doe relate But to the point By the commandment of this Phocas as you know were slaine two of Mauritius his sonnes three daughters and his wife and all these before his owne eyes and at last the Emperour Mauritius himselfe was also murthered Were now this dolefull Spectacle acted on a Stage might not any Spectator say at the horrid sight thereof This is a bloody Tragedie namely in respect of the Object represented herein And might he not also say as truly This is an Vnbloody Tragedie to wit in respect of the representative Subject Action Commemoration it selfe wherein there is not shed any one drop of mans Blood And from the same Evidence it will be easie to perceive that the Greeke Fathers used to terme the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latines Tremendum that is a Terrible and Dreadfull Sacrifice namely for the Semblance-sake and Analogie it hath with Christ's Death even as one would call the Act representing the cruell Butchering of the Emperour Mauritius an horrible and lamentable Spectacle This is a cleare glasse wherein any may discerne the open visage of Truth from the fained Vizard of Error The ninth Demonstration Because Antient Fathers likewise called the Sacrament of Baptisme a Sacrifice for the Representation-sake which it hath of Christ's Death which is Argumentum à paribus SECT XIII WE shall not urge the Antecedent of this Argument taken from Baptisme before that we have made knowne the force of the Consequence thereof First one of your Cardinalls thus If the Fathers had held the Eucharist onely a Sacrament and not also a Sacrifice there had beene no cause why they should not have called Baptisme a Sacrifice it being a Representation of Christ's
the Eucharist to make it a Sacrifice without some Sacrificing Act. A Sheepe is no Sacrifice whilst it remaineth in the fold nor can every Action serve the turne except it be a destructive Act for the Sheepe doth not become therefore a Sacrifice because it is shorne nor yet can any destructive Act be held Sacrificing which is not prescribed by Divine Authority which onely can ordaine a Sacrifice as hath beene confessed But no such divine ordinance hath hitherto beene proved Is it not then a miserable case which you are in to suffer your selves to be deceived by such Mountebankes who pretend to direct mens Consciences in the Mysteries of Christian Faith and particularly concerning this high point of Proper Sacrifice and in the end give no other satisfaction than by meere Riddles of a Visible not Visible Consecrated not Consecrated Destroyed and not Destroyed with Blood separated and not separated from the Body and each one spoken of the same Body of Christ Our last point concerning a proper Sacrifice followeth CHAP. VII Our Fourth Examination is of the Doctrine of PROTESTANTS in the point of Sacrifice IN discussion whereof we are to consider first the Acts which are incident unto the Celebration of this Sacrament and then the Object thereof which is the true and reall Body of Christ as it was Sacrificed upon the Crosse In respect of the Acts we say I. That Spirituall Sacrifices albeit Vnproper are in one respect more true and doe farre excell all merely Corporall Sacrifices according to Scripture SECT I. WHen Christ called himselfe the True Vine the True light the True Bread in respect of the naturall Vine Light and Bread He taught us to distinguish betweene a Truth of Excellency and a Truth of propriety by their different Effects That which hath the naturall property of Bread although Manna preserveth but the temporall life for They are Manna and died But the Bread of Excellency which is Christ's Body preserveth to Immortalitie It is a good Observation which your Canus hath that Many spirituall things are called Sacrifices in Scripture because they were prefigured by the outward bodily Sacrifices of the Lambe as the killing of Beasts were signes of mortification which is a killing of sinne So he And the Thing prefigured you know is alwaies held more excellent than the figure thereof First the Sacrifice of Contrition Psal 51. 17. The Sacrifice of God is a Contrite heart Secondly of Righteousnesse by Mortification Psal 4. 5. Offer the Sacrifice of Righteousnesse And Rom. 12. 1. Present your Bodies a living Sacrifice holy and acceptable unto God which is your reasonable Service Thirdly the Sacrifice of Prayer and Praise Hosea 14. 2. We will render the Calves of our lips Fourthly of Almes-workes Heb. 13. 16. With such Sacrifices God is well pleased Fifthly Sacrifice of Preaching Rom. 15. 16. That I ministring the Gospell that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the holy Ghost Sixthly the Sacrifice of Martyrdome Phil. 2. 17. Yea and if I be offered up upon the Sacrifice and Service of your faith c. Next we say II. That all these Spirituall Acts although improperly called Sacrifices yet are they more excellent than all merely Corpoporall and proper Sacrifices in the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers SECT II. VPon this Contemplation Ancient Fathers have breathed out many divine Ejaculations for the expressing of the excellent Prerogatives of Spirituall Sacrifices in respect of Corporall Of the Sacrifice of Contrition thus Gods wrath is to be appeased with Spirituall Sacrifices And They were then Sacrifices for sinne which are now Sacrifices of Repentance for sinne And God sheweth he will not have the Sacrifice of a slaine beast but of a contrite breast Of the Sacrifice of Righteousnesse thus He that dieth to the world is for himselfe a Sacrifice And Then were creatures slaine to cleanse mens bodies but now are men to mortifie their vices Every one being made a Priest over his owne body to over-rule vices And They offered those grosse bodies of sheepe but we the more subtile and pure of vertues because unbloody things best agree with God And This is a new and admirable Sacrifice And The best Sacrifice is to have a pure minde and a chaste Body Of the spirituall Sacrifice of Prayer and Praises unto God thus These are most perfect and onely Sacrifices acceptable to God Of Preaching the word of God thus We stay vices with the sword of the word And of The Function Evangelicall It is a pure Sacrifice and immaculate And A Sacrifice sweeter than all Spices Of Almes-workes thus These God testifieth to be more pleasant unto him than all the Sacrifices And This is a true Sacrifice whereof the other Sacrifices are but Signes Of Martyrdome thus We are God's Temple our hearts his Altars we then offer up our bloody Sacrifice when we contend for the truth with our blood In briefe Every good worke done to the end that we may enjoy God is a true Sacrifice Hitherto of our Proposition by the Determination of holy Fathers In the next place we say for the Assumption III. That Protestants professe in their Celebration divers Sacrifices of chiefe Excellency SECT III. COrporall and Spirituall Sacrifices are by you distinguished calling the first Proper and the other Improper but the spirituall excelleth by infinite Degrees as you have heard In which kinde Protestants in their Celebration professe foure sorts of Sacrifices For proofe hereof we may instance in our Church of England most happily reformed and established First the Sacrifice of Mortification in Act and of Martyrdome in Vow saying We offer unto thee O Lord our selves our soules and bodies to be an holy lively and reasonable Sacrifice unto thee Next a Sacrifice Eucharisticall saying We desire thy fatherly goodnesse mercifully to accept of our Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving And why may we not with the Scripture call this a Sacrifice seeing that your Bishop Iansenius held it for an Argument of proving Christ to have offered a Sacrifice even Because he gave Thanks giving of Thankes being a kinde of Sacrifice So he Thirdly a Sacrifice Latreuticall that is of Divine worship saying And although we be unworthy to offer up any Sacrifice yet we beseech thee to accept of our bounden duty and service c. This performance of our Bounden Service is that which Ancient Fathers called an Vnbloody Sacrifice Nor is our Church of England alone in this Profession This Truth we refer unto the Report of your Cardinall and of Canus by whom you may understand the agreement betweene them whom you name Lutherans in their Augustane Confession and of Calvin by acknowledging not some one Act but the whole worke of this Celebration according to the Institution of Christ both in Communication Commemoration and Representation of his Death with
good of the soule of Paul according to the Priest's immediate Intention Here although some of you stand for the justice of the Priest's Obligation yet some others Resolution is that the Priest's intention albeit unjust must stand for good We have done CHALLENGE WHereas it is now evident that your Romish Masse serveth so well for your no small gaine by appropriating of a Priestly portion to be dispensed for some one or other soule for money as it were the Cookes fee and that but onely for the paines of a Spirituall Intention yea though it be to the Injury of the Purchaser It can be no marvell that we heare so often and as loud shouts for your magnifying of the Romane Masse as ever Demetrius and his fellow Crafts-mates made for Diana the Goddesse of the Ephesians It remaineth that we deliver unto you a Synopsis of the Abominations of your Romish Sacrifice which we have reserved to be discovered in the eighth Booke We hasten to the last Examination which is of Protestants CHAP. XII That the Protestants in their Celebration offer to God a Spirituall Sacrifice which is Propitiatory by way of Complacency SECT I. CAll but to minde our former Distinction of a double kinde of Propitiousnesse one of Complacency and Acceptation and the other of Merit and Equivalency and joyne hereunto your owne definition of Propitiousnesse by way of gracious acceptance when you confesse that Every religious Act whereby man in devotion adhereth intirely unto God in acknowledgement of his Soveraignty mercy and bounty is propitious unto God Now then Protestants celebrating the Eucharist with Faith in the Sonne of God and offering up to God the Commemoration of his death and man's Redemption thereby a worke farre exceeding in worth the Creation if it so were of a thousand Thousand worlds and thereby powring out their whole spirit of Thankfulnesse unto God in which respect this Sacrament hath obtained a more singular name than any other to be called Eucharistia that is A Giving of Thankes and that most worthily for as much as the end and efficacy of Christ's Passion is no lesse than our Redemption from the eternall paines of hell and purchase of our everlasting salvation All these I say and other Duties of holy devotion being performed not according to Mans Invention as yours but to that direct and expresse Prescript and ordinance of Christ himselfe Doe this It is not possible but that their whole complementall Act of Celebration must needs be through Gods favour propitious and well-pleasing in his sight Take unto you our last Proposition concerning the second kinde of Propitiousnesse That the Protestants may more truly be said to offer to God a meritoriously Propitiatory Sacrifice for Remission of Sinne than the Romish doe SECT II. BEfore we resolve any thing we are willing to heare your Cardinals Determination The Death of Christ saith he is a proper and most perfect Sacrifice So he most Christianly But after noting the Profession of Protestants to hold that the same Most perfect Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse is the only proper Sacrifice of Christian Religion he denieth this because saith he This is common to all true Religions and being but once done ceaseth to be any more but onely in the virtue and efficacy thereof And all this he doth for establishing of another properly Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Romish Masse by the hands of the Priest But we beleeving that That Sacrifice of Christ's death was but once offered as according to our other distinction the only subjective meritorious and properly Propitiatory Sacrifice therefore it ceaseth to be so any more but yet is still objectively perpetuall in the Church of God as the object of our Remembrance of his Death Representatively and Commemoratively both in our Acts of Celebration and in our Prayers and Praises offered up to God in the true apprehension of the Efficacy and Virtue thereof In which respect as Christian Beleefe professeth Christ is called The Lambe sâ—aine from the beginning of the world so is he the same still and ever will be untill the end thereof for which Cause our Celebration is called of the Apostle A shewing of the Lord's Death till he come So that as by the Bodily Eye beholding the Serpent on a pole in the Wildernesse they that were stung with the deadly poison of fiery Serpents were healed even so All who by Faith the Eye of the soule behold the Sonne of God lift upon the Crosse shall not perish but have everlasting life But what is that Propitiousnesse of the Sacrifice of Christ's Body will you say which you Protestants will be said to offer more truly to God than that we Romanists doe and wherein doth the difference consist Be you as willing to heare as to aske and then know that first although the whole Act of our Celebration in Commemoration of Christ's Death as proceeding from us be a Sacrifice propitious as other holy Acts of Devotion only by God's Complacency and Acceptance Yet the object of our Commemoration being the Death and Passion of Christ in his Body and Blood is to us by the efficacy thereof a truly and properly propiatory Sacrifice and Satisfaction for a perfect remission of all sinnes Thus concerning Protestants As for you if we consider your owne outward Acts of Celebration where in Ten Circumstances we finde Ten Transgressions of the Institution of Christ and therefore provocatory to stir up Gods displeasure we thinke not that it can be Propitiatory so much as by way of God's Acceptance Next when we dive into the mystery of your Masse to seeke out the subject matter of your Sacrifice in the hands of your Priest which according to the faith of your Church is called a Proper propitiatory Sacrifice in it selfe it hath beene found besides our proofes from Scriptures and your owne Principles by Ten Demonstrations out of Ancient Fathers to be Sacramentall Bread and Wine and not the Body and Blood of Christ Wherefore the Subject of your Sacrifice can be no more properly that is Satisfactorily in it selfe Propitiatory than naturall Bread can be Christ Lastly in examining the End of the Propitiation by the Masse We perceive your Doctors in suspense among themselves whether you be capable of Propitiation for Remission of sinnes or else of Temporall Punishments due to such Sinners or if of Sinnes whether of mortall sinnes or else of venall sinnes onely to wit such as you thinke may be washed away by your owne Holy-water sprinckle Marke now we pray you these three First what you offer namely not to Christ but his Sacrament Secondly by what Acts of Celebration to wit most whereof are not Acts of Obedience but of Transgression Thirdly to what End viz. not for a Faithfull but for a doubtfull not for an absolute but for a partiall Remission and that also you know not whether of sinnes or of punishments and then must you necessarily acknowledge the happinesse
lying on this Altar who teach that as he is in this Sacrament hee hath no locall Site Posture or Position at all It is also true of the Angels he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they stand in dread and the sight is fearefull And he saith no lesse of the festivall day of Christ's Nativity that It is most venerable and terrible and the very Metropolis of all others Yet doth not this argue any Corporall Presence of Christ in respect of the day This answer taken from Chrysostome may satisfie for Chrysostome We grant furthermore to your Cardinall That all the Greeke Fathers call the Eucharist terrible and full of dread But what As therefore implying a Corporall presence of Christ and Divine Adoration thereupon This is your Cardinall's scope but to prove him an ill marke-man take unto you an answer from your selves who teach with the Apostle that All prophane commers to this Sacrament make themselves guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ in which respect we doe acknowledge it to be Dreadfull indeed especially to the wicked but yet making no more for a Corporall presence than the contempt of Baptisme whereby a man maketh himselfe obnoxious to God's iudgements as Augustine hath compared them can infer the same Another answer you may receive from Ancient Fathers who together with the Eucharist have called the reading of Scriptures Terrible and so were the Canons of Baptisme called Terrible even by Chrysostome himselfe As for your objected assistance of Angels at the Celebration of the Eucharist it is no such a Prerogative but that the Prayers of the faithfull and Baptisme will plead for the same honour your Durandus granting of the first that The Angels of God are present with us in our prayers and for the second Divine Nazianzene teacheth that The Angels are present at Baptisme and doe magnifie or honour it with their presence and observance notwithstanding none of you ever defended either Corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Baptisme or yet any Adoration of the consecrated Element of water therein If these two may not serve take unto you this saying of Augustine spoken of persons baptized They saith he with feare are brought unto Christ their Physician that is for so he expoundeth himselfe unto the Sacrament of eternall Salvation Which one saying of so Oxthodox a Father doth instruct us how to interpret all your objected Testimonies to with that Whosoever come to the receiving of the Sacrament of Christ they ought to come with feare as if they were in the presence of Christ And thus is your unanswerable Objection answered so that this your Cable-rope being untwisted is become no better than loose tow Now to your third Objection That the most earnestly-objected Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Adoration used of the Fathers doth not necessarily inferre any Divine Worship of the Eucharist SECT III. WEE finde not your Disputers more pressing and urgent in any Argument than in objecting the word Reverence Honour and especially Adoration for proofe that Divine Honour is due to the Eucharist as to Christ himselfe whensoever they finde the use of that Phrase applyed by Antiquity unto this Sacrament Our answer is first in Generall That the words Reverence Honour and Adoration simply in themselves without the adjunct and Additament Divine cannot conclude the Divine worship proper to God To this purpose we desire you not to hearken unto us but to heare your selves speake The Pontificall Vestments Chalices and the like are to be honoured say you but how with divine Honour you will not say it nor will you hold that ancient Bede worthy of Divine Worship albeit you entitle him Venerable in a Religious respect Yea under the degree of divine worship we our selves yeeld as much to the Eucharist as Augustine did to Baptisme when he said We reverence Baptisme wheresoever it is Accordingly of the word Adoration your Cardinall and other Iesuits are bold to say that It is sometimes used also in Scriptures for an honour common to creatures as to Angels to Kings to Martyrs and to their Tombs And although your Disputers should conceale this Truth yet would the Fathers themselves informe us in what a Latitude they used the same word Adoration Among the Latine Fathers one who knew the propriety of that Language as well as any viz. Tertullian saying I adore the plenitude of Scriptures and Gregory Nazianzene among the Greeke for his excellency in divine knowledge surnamed the Divine and therefore may not be thought to apply words belonging to Divine Worship preposterously or improperly instructed the partty baptized to say thus to the Devill Fall downe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and worship me Thus much in Generall Let us proceed You to your particular Objections and We to our Answers 1. Ob. Ambrose saith that We adore in these mysteries the flesh of Christ as the foot stoole of his Deity You call this an Argument infallible nay say we but false because Ambrose doth not say that we adore the Sacrament which is the point in Question but that in our mysticall Celebration of the memory of Christ his Passion we are to adore his humanity namely as it is hypostatically united to the person of his God-head which all Christians professe as well as you yea even in Baptisme also 2. Ob. None saith Augustine doth eat the flesh of Christ before he adore it A Testimony which seemeth to you Notable but which we judge to be indeed not able at all to prove the Divine Adoration of the Sacrament even in the Iudgement of Saint Augustine who hath every-where distinguished betweene the Sacrament and Christ's Flesh as betweene Bread and Christ's Body as hath beene often demonstrated His meaning therefore is no more but this that whosoever shall communicate of this Sacrament the Symbole of Christ must first be a true Christian beleeving that Christ is not onely man but God also and adore him accordingly with Divine honour as well before and without the Sacrament as at the receiving thereof Even as Athanasius spake of Baptisme saying that The Catechumenists did first adore the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost before that they were to be baptized in their names And is there any of your Priests so unchristian as not to adore Christ before he come to the Communion A plaine Case Will you have any more The places alleaged out of Saint Augustine by you are like Bellerophons Letters to confute you for lest Saint Augustines Reader might mis-construe the meaning of Christ's words by perverting them to a Corporall and Orall eating of his Flesh Saint Augustine addeth bringing Christ speaking to the Iewes concerning the eating of his flesh You are not to eat this flesh which you see he saith not You are not to see the flesh which you shall not eat which is your Romish Iuggling But thus You are not to eat the flesh
used after Consecration doth not so much as Probably prove it was for Adoration-sake because it was as well in use in your lifting up of the Host before Consecration as your objected Missal's of Saint Iames and Basil doe manifest Lastly that where Elevation was practised after Consecration the objected Authors confute your Assertion for in Chrysostome it is read That the Priest did take a portion out of the dish and held it up but a little this is not lifting it over the Head or very high as your reason for Adoration would require And in your objected Saint Denis there is no more but that The sacred celebrated Symbols were brought into light which after Consecration he termeth Vncovered Bread divided of the Priest into many parts Bread we say broken after Consecration which is the break-necke of your whole Defence Your third Objection is the diligent Caution given by Ancient Fathers to take heed Lest that any Crum should fall to the ground and if any little part thereof should fall it should be left to the Priest and the Remainder of the Sacrament after the Masse say you should be burnt to ashes and the ashes laid up So you Pharoah his Butler and â—aker we are sure would have beene loth to miscarry in spilling or letting fall any part of their carriage when they were to present their service unto their King much more carefully ought every Christian in executing his sacred Function to observe the Lawes of Decorum Marke we by the way Master Breerly durst not call the part falling any thing but a Part not A part of Christ's Body that were Impious not a part of Accidents that were absurd what meaneth this childish Fabling trow we but that if they should speake out they should betray their Cause in calling that little part a part of Bread as your objected Dionysius spake And when all is said we heare no proofe of Divine Adoration of the Hoast But we leave you to take your Answer from your Cardinall who hath told you that Casuall spilling of the Cup is no sinne Only we must againe insist in the former Observation to wit the frequent speeches of the Fathers telling us of Crums Fragments little parts of this Sacrament and of Burning them into ashes after the Celebration ended Now answer us in good sadnesse was it ever heard of we say not of ancient Fathers but of any professing Christianity were they Catholikes or Heretikes who would not have judged it most execrable for any to say or thinke that A crum or little part of Christ's body falleth or that by a dash of the Cup the blood of our Lord is spilt or that the Primitive Fathers in the Remainder of the Sacrament Burned their Saviour Yet these must they both have thought and said if as you speake of Eating Swallowing feeding Corporally of Christ's Body the Body of Christ were the proper Subject of these accidentall Events That the Objection taken from any Gesture used in the daies of Antiquity doth not prove a Divine Adoration of the Eucharist SECT III. GEsture is one of the points which you object as more observable than the former but how Because Chrysostome will have the Communicant take it with Inclining hit head downe before the holy Table Cyril by Bowing after the manner of Adoring You will be still like your selves insisting upon Heterogenies and Arguments which conclude not ad idem For first the Examples objected speake not of Bowing downe to the Sacrament but of our Bowing downe our heads to the ground in signification of our Vnworthinesse which may be done in Adoring Christ with a Sursum corda that is Lifting up our hearts to Christ above And this may become every Christian to use and may be done without divine Adoration of the thing before us Nay and that no Gesture either standing sitting or kneeling is necessary for such an Adoration your greatest Advocate doth shew out of Antiquitie and affirmeth this as a Point as he saith agreed on by all adding that Divine Adoration consisteth not in the outward Gesture but in the Intention of the minde For indeed there is no one kinde of outward Gesture which as you have confessed is not also communicable to man so that although that were true which is set downe in the Rubricke of Chrysostomes Liturgie that the Ministers did use to Incline their Bodies to the Altar yet none can be so simple to thinke that they did yeeld divine honour unto an Altar Nay your owne great Master of Ceremonies Durantus hath observed the like Bowing downe of the Priest in the preparation of this Sacrament even Before consecration and one of your Iesuits reporteth your objected Greeke Church at this day to Adore the Bread and Wine unconsecrated albeit they beleeve no Presence of Christ herein This being knowne how can you in any credibility conclude as you have done a Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament after Consecration from a Reverence which hath beene yeelded to the same Sacrament before it was consecrated In which consideration your Disputers stand so much the more condemnable because whereas they shew some Examples of a Bodily Inclining to the Sacrament done before Consecration yet after Consecration they have not produced any one But what newes now We blush in your behalfe to repeat the Instance which you have out of your Legends of a Brute Beast prostrating it selfe before the Host and doing Reverence unto it We would have concealed this but that you seeme to glory herein as being for your Instruction like to the reproofe given miraculously to Balaam by his Asse Well might this Legend have become that latter time of darknesse wherein it was first hatched but not these cleare daies wherein your mysteries of Delusions have beene so often revealed and when all Christians almost in all Countries have taken knowledge of an Horse taught by Art to kneele to any person at his Masters command and once in France when by the Suggestion and Instigation of Romish Priests his Master was called into question for Sorcery he for vindication of his credit with them commanded his horse to kneele before a Crucifix and thereby freed himselfe from suspition of Diabolicall familiarity according to the Principles of their owne superstition And for any one to conclude this to have been God's miraculous worke in that Horse as the other was in that Asse would seeme to be the Reason of an unreasonable man because all Miracles alwaies exceed all power both of Art and Nature else were they no Miracles at all Thus to your fourth Objection from outward Acts we passe on to Examples That no Example of Invocation objected out of Antiquity can infer the Divine Honour of the Sacrament as is pretended SECT IV. YOur Instances are Three the principall in Gorgonia the Sister of Gregory Nazianzen in whose Oration at her funerall we finde that She having beene troubled
to a meere Creature Bread For that it is still Bread you shall finde to have beene the Doctrine of Primitive Fathers if you shall but have the patience to stay untill we deliver unto you a Synopsis of their Catholike Iudgement herein after that we have duly examined your Romish Doctrine by your owne Principles which is the next point CHAP. V. An Examination of Romish Adoration of the Sacrament in the Masse to prove it Idolatrous by discussing your owne Principles The State of the Question IDolatry by the Distinction of your Iesuites is either Materiall or Formall The Materiall you call that when the Worshipper adoreth something in stead of God in a wrong perswasion that it is God otherwise you judge the worship to be a formall Idolatry Now because many of your seduced Romanists are perswaded that your Romish worship in your Masse cannot be subject either to Materiall or Formall Idolatry it concerneth us in Conscience both for the honour of God and safety of all that feare God to prove both Wee begin at that which you confesse to be a Materiall Idolatry That the Romish Adoration of the Host in the hand of the Priest is necessarily a Materiall Idolatrie by reason of many hundred confessed Defects whereof Seven concerne the Matter of the Sacrament SECT I. IT is a point unquestionable among you that if the thing in the hand of the Priest be not duly Consecrated then the matter Adored is but a meere Creature and your Adoration must needs be at the least a materiall Idolatry The Seven defects set downe in your Romane Missall and by your Iesuite are these First If the Bread be not of Wheat or secondly Be corrupt or thirdly the Wine be turned Vinegar or fourthly of sowre or fifthly unripe Grapes or sixthly be stinking or imperfectly mixt with any liquor of any other kinde the Consecration is void so that neither Body or Blood of Christ can be there present seventhly yea and if there be more Water than Wine So you All which Defects how easily they may happen beyond the understanding of every Consecrating Priest let Bakers and Vintners judge That there are Six other confessed Defect's incident to either Element in the Eucharist which may hinder the Consecration and necessarily infer an Idolatrous Adoration in respect of the forme of Consecrating SECT II. AS thus If the Priest faile in Pronunciation of these words Hoc est corpus meum or in these Hic est calix sanguinis mei novi aeterni Testamenti mysterium fidei qui pro vobis pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum Which your Romane Missall and Doctors say may happen in either of both six manner of waies first by Addition or secondly by Omission thirdly by Mutation and Change of any one Syllable which may alter the sence of the speech fourthly by Interruption of voice and by too long pausing in uttering of the words fifthly by Corruption of any word sixthly by some Interposition of words betweene which are impertinent Each one of these faults say you concerning either Element doth so disannull the Consecration that The thing Adored is still but Bread and Wine and therefore the worship thereof must be a materiall Idolatry So you And how easie it is for the Priest that we may use your owne Examples to say Hoc est Cor meum or Hoc est Cor-pus or Meum corpus est or Hic Erit Calix or as the Tale goeth of a Priest who having many Hosts before him to be Consecrated lest he might erre in his Grammar in using the singular number for the plurall Consecrated in these words Haec sunt corpora mea These are my Bodies we say for the possibility of these and the like Lapses beside this last from the want of wit the manifold infirmities of man's speech either upon Amazement or Temulency or Temerity and negligence or imperfection of a Stammering tongue can give you a shrewd guesse That there are Foure other confessed kinde of Defects in respect of the Priest's Intention whereby the Consecration being hindred the Romish Adoration must needs be materially Idolatrous SECT III. AS for Example first If the Priest in Consecrating saith your Cardinall have no intention to consecrate at all or to speake from your Romish Missall it selfe secondly If his virtuall Intention in consecrating be not to doe aâ— the Church doth or thirdly If he should consecrate but in mockery or fourthly He having more Hosts before him than he is ware of if he intend to Consecrate fewer than there is before him and yet not knowing which of them all to omit Of the Easines of all these Defects the possibility of retchlesnesse of infidelity of mockery and of obliviousnesse in some Priests may sufficiently prognosticate each of which inferreth a confessed Materiall Idolatry That there are Six other Defects able to frustrate the Consecration by reason of the person of the Priest himselfe as being incompetent for want of due Baptisme SECT IV. FOr first you have a Case of one being a Priest who had not beene baptized and next concerning Defects of Baptisme you resolve as before of pronunciation of the forme of the Eucharist that if in pronunciation of the words of Baptisme Baptizo te in nomine Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti the Minister whether man or woman shall vary one word which may corrupt the true sence of the words although but in one Syllable or Letter be it either by adding removing changing or by any of the six Defects already spoken of as in saying Ego te baptizo in nomine Patriae c. or the like then the whole Consecration is of no effect The possibility of womens erring in their Ministery of Baptisme Cardinall Pole may seeme to teach in that his Article whereof it is inquired Whether Parsons Vicars and Curates be diligent in teaching women to Baptize Children after the manner of the Church Take with you another Case supposed by your selves the Author delivereth it at length the briefe is this The woman baptizeth an Infant because it as the Childe of a noble man in Rose-water the Baptisme is void the Childe is afterwards ordained a Bishop and hee is after that sent by the Pope into divers parts of the world and by him innumerable Priests are ordained after the death of the Bishop the case is made knowne but who they were that had beene ordained cannot possibly be knowne whose Ordinations are all invalid and their ministery and Consecrations of no effect What remedy now in this Case None saith the Author at all except there be a Privilege in the Pope to constitute all them Priests who had beene so irregularly ordained only by his word Dicendo sint Sacerdotes saying Be they all Priests So he who notwithstanding had rather thinke the Case could not possibly happen than to trust to this Remedy How-ever it might be in this one the
taught both the nature and necessity of Faith in Divine Worship But Morall and Conjecturall Certainty is not Hypostasis which impliâ—th an Infallibility of Truth but an Hypothesis and supposition of that which may be otherwise and hath in it nothing but Vncertainty at all of which more hereafter Thirdly God himselfe commandeth his people by his Prophet saving Thou shalt worship me and in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shalt sweare by my Name Swearing then is an Adoration by Invocating of God and his owne peculiar Prerogative Hearken now By this Law of God none may sweare by any thing as God which he dare not sweare is God But your Romish Professors in your Masse Invocate this Sacrament thus O Lambe of God which takest away the sinnes of the world have mercy upon us And what Romish Professor is there who sweareth not by the Masse meaning the Consecrated Host as by Christ himselfe Notwithstanding no one of your Romish Priests by reason of the manifold Defects incident thereunto as you have heard durst eversweare that this which is now Consecrated by him on the Altar is not substantially Bread or that it is the Body of Christ It must therefore follow that your Adoration having no better Certainty than as you have confessed to adore it with an if it be Christ is a faithlesse profanation of the name of the Sonne of God and of his worship This point concerning Faith in every Worshipper will be confessed afterwards In the last place that we may ruinate the very foundation of your Excuse your Pretence of Morall Certainty commeth to be examined which you have exemplified by one giving an Almes to a poore man who peradventure hath no need and of Iacobs lying ignorantly with her that was not his wife These say we are Cases farre different from this which we have in hand because God's Almoner you know is not bound to enquire of a man whom he seeth to appeare to be miserable and poore whether he be a Counterfeit or no for Charity is not suspicious saith the Apostle Saint Paul Iacob indeed was bound to know onely his owne wife but if he had had any probable or Morall Cause of doubt would that holy Patriarke thinke you have beene so deluded or over-reached a second and a third time to defile his Body by an unchaste Bed But the Causes of your Doubtings are set forth and numbred by Threes Sixes Twenties Hundreds untill you come to a Thousand and as your Iesuite hath said Almost infinite Defects For indeed if there be as appeareth a Thousand hazards in every Masse of any one Priest then in two Priests as many more and so forward so that if one should heare in his time the Masses of Ten and Twenty Priests what multitudes of thousands of Defects would the reckoning make But we need say no more than hath already beene confessed of Almost infinite and consequently as many Doubts of an Idolatrous worship wherein there cannot be so much Morall Certainty as that in any one generation of men from Christ's time each one of that off-spring hath beene chastly borne whereunto what Christian is there that dare be sworne CHALLENGE COnsider we beseech you for God's Cause for we are now in the Cause of God whether our God who will be knowne to be transcendently Iealous of his owne Honour would ever ordaine such a worship of a Sacrament whereby men must needs be still more obnoxious to that which you call a Materiall Idolatry by many hundred-fold than possibly any can be to any materiall Parricide or materiall Murther or materiall Adultery or any other hainous and materiall Transgression that can be named under the Sunne Thus much of your first Pretence for this present untill we come to receive the Confessions of your owne Doctors in this very point That the Second Romish Pretence which is of a Good Intent cannot free your Adoration of the Host from Formall Idolatry SECT III. LET us heare your Cardinall Honour saith he dependeth upon the Intention so that as he who should contemptuously abuse the unconsecrated Bread thinking it to be Conserated should grievously offend Christ contrariwise he who certainly beleeving the Bread to be Christ's Body shall Adore the same doth principally and formally Adore Christ and not the Bread So he even with the same Sophistry from only such a seeming Contrariety wherewith you use to plead for Merits to wit if evill works deserve damnation then good workes deserve eternall life But will you be pleased to heare the same Cardinall speake in earnest from the Principles of true Logicke Although an evill Intention doth vitiate and corrupt an Act otherwise good yet it followeth not that a good intent should justifie an evill Act because no Act is good except all the Causes thereof be good but any Act is evill upon any one Defect So he which his Conclusion is held as universally true in all Schooles whether Christian or Heathen as any point of Morality can be Wherefore it followeth not that because a man doth something to the Contempt of Christ in abusing that which he thinketh to be Christ that therefore the honour which he doth to that which he falsely beleeveth to be Christ should be an Adoration of Christ as all Heathenish Idolatry in worshipping stocks and stones in an opinion of adoring the true God doe witnesse to the world as your owne Confessions will confirme CHALLENGE DOE you not perceive what a patched Cloake of Sophistry your Cardinall cast upon your Good Intent in your Adoration to cover the filthinesse thereof if it might be and how by another Position he rent the same in peeces when he had done Againe you stand thus farre furthermore condemnable in your selves in this point whilest as you seeke to free your Adoration from Idolatry by Pretence of a Good Intent and notwithstanding hold a Good Intention not to be sufficient thereunto except it be qualified and formed with an habituall Condition which is your Third and last Pretence as fond and false as either of the former That the Third Romish Pretence of an Habituall Condition in the Worshipper excuseth him not from formall Idolatry proved first by Scripture SECT IV. HAbituall Condition you have interpreted to stand thus If he that chanceth to worship onely Bread be in that Act so disposed in himselfe that he would not worship the same Bread as Christ if he knew it were but Bread and not Christ and by this you teach that the Act which you call a materiall Idolatry is made not onely excusable but your owne words honest and commendable also So you What execrable Doctrine is this that we heare which cannot be justifiable except you will justifie the Murtherers of the members of Christ and of Christ himselfe First of the members of Christ we reade of one Saul afterwards Paul breathing out threatnings and slanders against them Act. 9. 1. and persecuting the
owne Confessions and for feare of this kinde of Idolatry your Claudius Sainctes taught that The signes in the Eucharist are not to be adored with the same honour as Christ is And that therefore Bread is not to be adored in the Sacrament with Christ's Body least that the People being not able to distinguish the Body of Christ from Bread should fall into Idolatry And the person communicating orally as you say the Body of Christ now in his mouth is not to be adored Regularly but why Because say you man being capable of honour it might fall out by little and little that he should be honoured as God So your owne Iesuits and Others Yet not to doe you wrong in this Contemplation Christ by reason of the Hypostaticall Vnion of his God-head being no meere Creature is wholly excepted whom we are taught by the Fathers of a Generall Councell to adore not in both his distinct natures but whole Christ CHALLENGE WEE suppose that there is not any of your owne Romish Sect albeit most superstitious who would worship with Divine Worship either the Signes or the Appearance of flesh or the Priest whiles the Sacrament is in his mouth without at least a Morall Perswasion viz. that he may so doe nor without a Good intent viz. that it is well done nor without habituall Condition viz. not to doe so if he knew they were but Signes Apparance of flesh or hee meerely a Priest If therefore there be any Idolatry in adoring any of these things with Christ then certainly much rather which is your Case is it Idolatry to worship with Divine Honour Bread it being without Christ III. That the Romish Worship is proved to be formally Idolatrous in your Masse by a Consequence from Romish Doctrine touching Canonization of Saints SECT III. COncerning your Popes Canonizing of Saints see the Marginals you shall finde that the Common opinion of your Church directeth you to thinke that your Church cannot erre in this function and that all Christians are bound to beleeve the same but how upon a Morall and Conjecturall perswasion onely No upon a Divine and infallible Certitude and why Because say they if one Saint may be doubted of then might also the Canonization of others be called into Question so that it would be dangerous to worship any Saint lest that we should worship a dead and a rotten instead of a lively member of Christ which were an Error pernicious seeing that every lye figment and falshood in religious worship must needs be abominable unto God So your Arch-bishop with others You will aske what maketh all this to the Question in hand give us leave to tell you CHALLENGE THE same Arch-Bishop Catharinus deduceth a necessity of an infallible assurance of the Canonization of every Saint from the Infallibility which ought to be had concerning the Consecration of the Eucharist Thus If the Worshipper may be deceived in adoring the Host by mistaking Bread for the Body of Christ then should it be I dolatry saith he as well in the Heathen who adored Heaven in stead of God So he Doe you marke as well Idolatry as that of the Heathen whom neither Morall Certainty nor Good Intent or habituall Condition could ever free from a formall Idolatry Our Argument from your owne Confessions will be this Whosoever may be mistaken in adoring Bread in stead of Christ's Body may therein be held as Formall an Idolater as any Heathen This is your Bishops Proposition The Assumption But any man may manifoldly be deceived in taking Bread for Christ's Body Which hath beene your generall Confession Our Conclusion must be Therefore any of you may be a Formall Idolater IV. That the Romish Worship is proved to be a Formall Idolatry by the Consequence used from the Consecration of your Popes SECT IV. SAlmeron a Iesuite of prime note in your Church endevoureth to prove that all men are bound to beleeve the new Pope whensoever he is consecrated to be the true Pope not only with a Morall or Humane Assurance but with a Divine and infallible faith as were the Iewes bound to beleeve Christ Iesus at his comming to be the true Messias that is saith he with a faith that cannot possibly be deceived We have nothing to doe with your Iesuits Position in this place concerning the Infallibity of Beleefe of the Consecration and Election of your Popes which we have else where proved to be a Grosse Imposture But we are to argue from his Supposition as for Example CHALLENGE YOur Iesuite grounded his Assertion of an Infallible faith due to be had touching the Consecration of your Popes upon a Supposition and his Conclusion upon the like infallible Beliefe which men ought to have concerning the Consecration of the Eucharist wherein saith he if there should be any Vncertainty so that our faith should depend upon the Intention of the Priest in like manner might every one doubt whether he may adore the Sacrament as being not truly consecrated as also make doubt of the Priest himselfe as being not rightly ordained So he who therefore in all these requireth a faith infallible All these forecited Confessions of your owne Divines as first concerning your Definition of Idolatry next in the point of Coadoration of the Creature together with the Creator Thirdly in your Beleefe of the â—anonization of Saints and lastly in the Consecration of the Pope which are but humane Institutions doe enforce much more a necessity of Infallibility in every Adoration instituted by God Now among all the Schismes of Anti-Popes sometimes of two sometimes of three at once and that for forty or fifty yeares space together if any one of those Popes in his time had heard any Papist saying to him you may not be offended although I hold your Adversary as for example Vrbane to be the true Pope and yeeld to him all Fealtie and Obedience for I doe this to a Good Intent in a Morall Certainty that he is truly elected Pope and in an habituall Condition not to acknowledge him if I knew him not to be Pope wherein if I erre it is but a Materiall Disloyalty would not the Pope notwithstanding all these Pretenses judge this man to be formally an Anti-Papist and pierce him with his Thunder-bolt of Anathema as Popes have often dealt with Cardinals Princes and Emperours in like Case yet what is this Glo-wormes slimy shine to the glory of Divine Majesty CHAP. VIII Of the Romish manner of Adoration in Comparison with the Heathen That the Romish Adoration by your former Pretences justifieth the vilest kinde of Idolatry among the Heathen SECT I. THere is a double kinde of Worship the one is Direct and terminate which pitcheth immediatly upon the Creature without Relation to the Creator whereof your Cardinall Alan hath resolved saying The terminating and fixing of Divine Honour upon any Creature is a notorious Idolatry The second kinde is Relative Honour having
Relation to Christ whereof your Cardinall Bellarmine hath determined saying When Latria or divine worship is given to an Image because of the Relation it hath to Christ this is Idolatry although it be given for Christ or God whether it be internall or else externall as Sacrifice So he This we say first to put you in minde of Very many of your Romish People who adore Images Idolatrously which although you would cloake yet the Complaints and outcries of your owne Romish Authors will not suffer it to be concealed One of them saying that this your worship is more manifest than can be denied even immediatly and terminately given by your people to the thing it-selfe which they see and adore and which all Christian learning teacheth to be Heathenish in an high Degree And also note infinite numbers of your Worshippers who adore Idolatrously in the same manner of Relation that which is here condemned by your Cardinall But to the point your owne Iesuites report that some Heathen Idolaters did worship Idols beleeving that They were inspired with a Divine Spirit next that they had foure kinde of perswasions for this their Beleefe to wit the Instructions of their Paganish Priests the Example of the whole world in their times the power of Devils speaking in the Images and lastly the humane shape which was presented unto them neverthelesse so that they sometimes honoured not the things themselves but the Spirit which they thought them possessed withall Will you permit us to compare this with that which you have called but your Materiall Idolatry To this end we are to try whether there hath beene any Pretence for justifying your Romish which might not as truly excuse and warrant that Heathenish Worship which notwithstanding no Christian will deny to have beene most Formally and properly Idolatrous Your Morall and Conjecturall Certainty would be compared in the first place This the Heathens might pretend by the Reasons by you already confessed to wit the Prescriptions of their Priests their Idols speaking and the Example of almost the whole vast world adoring them Secondly you please your selves with your Good Intent that in worshipping the Bread you thinke to adore Christ and the Pagans which also the whole world of Idolaters professed of themselves and you your selves have confessed of them in their most Formall Idolatry were perswaded they worshipped a True God Thirdly you rely upon an Habituall Condition namely that although the thing which you adore be Bread yet your inward Resolution is not to give Divine Honour unto it if you knew it were but Bread and not Christ But inquire you now into your owne Bibles and you shall finde that the Heathen were not inferiour unto you in this Modification also for in the History of Bel and the Dragon it is read that the King of Babel and other Babylonians worshipped Bel with Divine Honour thinking it to live untill such time as Daniel had discovered it to be but an Idoll and no sooner had the King perceived the Delusion but presently commanded it should be demolished The Case then is plaine He and they who abhorred and utterly destroyed that Idol as soone as they knew it not to be God were therefore before that habitually in their hearts resolved not to honour it if they could have beene perswaded it had not beene a God In such just Equipage doe these your Romish and those Heathenish walke together that from these your owne Premisses you may take your Conclusion out of the mouth of your owne Arch-Bishop whom you have heard affirme that If in the worship of this Sacrament saith he we may be deceived in mistaking Bread instead of Christ then in this worship as madly Idolatrous as was that of the Heathen So he Which sheweth your Cause and theirs in these Respects to be all one We proceed a step further That the Romish Worship of that which may possibly be Bread may seeme to be in one respect worse than almost the worst of the Pagans SECT II. ALthough the very title of this Section may seeme unto you fully odious yet let Truth in what apparrell soever it shall appeare be gracious unto you Costerus is a Iesuite much privileged by your Church who doubted not to aâ—â—irme that If Christ be not in this Sacrament but Bread only the Error saith he is more intolerable than was the Error of the Heathen in worshipping either a golden Statue or a Red Clout So he What reason he had to speake so broad Language we referre to your Inquisitors to question him for it But what Cause we have for the confirming our Title of this Section we shall not forbeare to impart unto you It is the profession of your Church to Adore Bread in the Eucharist with Divine Worship notwithstanding whatsoever Vncertainty of the presence of Christ therein by reason of as your Iesuite Suarez speakes almost infinite Defects which may possibly happen to cause the same Contrariwise the Heathen Idolaters touching the things which they worshipped Credebant said your Iesuite They beleeved them certainly to have beene Gods For although some Heathen would sometime make some doubt of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what or who the God was whom they did adore as they that said Sive tu Deus es sive tu Dea es Whether thou â—e God or Goddesse And the Athenians had an Altar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To an unknowne God yet hardly shall you ever finde any Example of the Heathen doubting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether it were a God which they worshipped as God those of Calecute and such like Devillish Nations excepted who are said knowingly to have Adored Devils but as some people sometime doe homage to Tyrannous Vsurpers knowing them not to be their lawfull Soveraignes only Nâ—â—â—ceant for feare of hurt So abominable is your Masse worship being both contrary to expresse Scripture which exacteth of every man That commeth to God that he must beleeve what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he be no but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he is God and also against the light of grace in all Christians before the darknesse of Popery began yea and against the light of nature in the very Pagans For although you doe but seeme to symbolize with them in that one part of Idolatry thus described by the Prophet He taketh wood burneth it maketh Bread and of a part thereof maketh a God and falling downe before it prayeth Deliver me for thou art my God Like as is the taking a lumpe of Dough baking it and with part of it to feed our Bodies of another part to make a God worship it and invocate upon it according to your owne vulgar Rimes Non est Panis sed est Deus Homo liberator meus fit cibus expane caro Deus exelemento Qui me creavit sine me creatur mediante me yet notwithstanding doe you farre exceed
Custome of the Church Catholique and that without respect had to the due Honour of God in his worship or Comfort and Edification of his People And then is Superstition most bewitching when it is disguised under the feigned vizard of false Pretences which have beene many devised by the new Church of Rome in an opinion of her owne wisdome to the befooling and vilifying of the Antient Cathólique Church of Christ which never esteemed the same Reasons reasonable enough for making any Alteration but notwithstanding such imaginations precisely observed the Precept and Ordinance of Christ But that which exceedeth all height of Superstition is when upon the will-worship of man are stamped counterfeit Seales of forged Miracles as if they had beene authorized by the immediate hand of God whereof your Legendaries have obtruded upon their Readers Thirteene Examples to wit of Fictitious Apparitions of visible Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist which maketh your Superstition Blasphemous as if God should be brought in for the justifying of Falshood a Sinne abhorred by holy Iob saying to his Adversaries You are Forgers of Lies will you speake deceitfully for God And furthermore how Sacrilegious and Idolatrous your Romish Superstition is you may behold in the Sections following Of the Sacrilegiousnesse of the Romish Masse and Defence thereof in the point of Sacrifice comprized in this Synopsis SECT II. SAcrilege is whatsoever Violation of any sacred Person Place or Thing Now omitting to speake of your Dismembring the Eucharist by administring it but in One kinde which your Pope Gelasius condemned for Grand Sacrilege or of the like points formerly discovered we shall insist only in your Churches Doctrine of Sacrifice wherein your Sacrifice is found to be grossely Sacrilegious in the Tractate of the Sixth Booke I. By Creating a new Sacrifice as Proper and thereby assuming to her selfe that Excellencie of Prerogative which is proper to Christ alone the high Priest and Bishop of our Soules namely the power of ordaining Sacraments or if need were Sacrifices in his Church Which Guiltinesse we may call a Counterfeiting of the Seale of Christ II. By making this Sacrifice in her pretence Christian but but indeed Earthly and Iewish III. By dignifying it with a Divine property of Meritorious and Satisfactorie Propitiation IV. By professing another properly Satisfactorie and Propitiatory Sacrifice for Remission of sinnes besides that which Christ offered upon the Crosse As if after one hath paid the Debts of many at once upon condition that such of those Debters should be discharged whosever submissively acknowledging those Debts to be due should also professe the favour of their Redeemer It cannot but be extreme folly for any to thinke that the money once paid should be tendred and offered againe as often as One or Other of the Debters should make such an acknowledgement the Surety having once sufficiently satisfied for all So Christ having once for all satisfied the justice of God by the price of his blood in the behalfe of all penitent Sinners who in Contrition of heart and a living Faith apprehend the Truth of that his Redemption it cannot but be both injurious to the justice of God and to the merit of Christ that the same satisfactory Sacrifice as it were a new payment ought againe by way of Satisfaction be personally performed and tendred unto God V. By detracting from the absolute Function of Christ his Priesthood now eminent and permanent before God in Heaven and thereupon stupifying the mindes of Communicants and as it were pinioning their thoughts by teaching them so to gaze and meditate on the matter in the hands of the Priest that they cannot as becommeth Spirituall Eagles soare alost and contemplate upon the Body of Christ where it 's infallible Residence is in that his heavenly Kingdome VI. By transforming as much as they can the Sacrament ordained for Christians to eat with their owne mouthes into a Theatricall Sacrifice wherein to be fed with the mouth of the Priest VII By abasing the true value of Christ his Blood infinitely exceeding all valuation in making it but finite whereas Christ being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and Man in one person every propitiatory worke of his must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore of an infinite price and power VIII By denying the Effect of his Propiâ—iation for Sinne to be plenary in the Application thereof IX There hath beene noted by the way the Portion appropriated to the Priest out of your Sacrifice and to be applyed to some particular Soule for money being an Invention as hath beene confessed voyd of all Warrant either by Scripture or by Antient Tradition To say nothing of your fine Art of cheating mens Soules by Priestly Fraud whereof as also of the Rest wee have discoursed at large A New Instance for proofe of Romish Sacrilegiousnesse in the Prayer set downe in the Liturgie of their Masse SECT III. IN your Missall after Consecration it is prayed thus Wee offer unto thy Majesty O Lord this immaculate Host this holy Bread of eternall life this Cup of everlasting salvation upon which vouchsafe to looke with a propitious and favourable Countenance as thou didst accept the gifts of thy holy servant Abel and command these to be caried up into thy celestiall Altar c. So the Canon of your Masse Some Protestants in their zeale to the glory of Christ impute unto you hereupon a Sacrilegious Profanenesse whilest you beleeving That Host and That Cup to be the very Body and Blood of Christ and a Propitiatory Sacrifice in it selfe yet doe so pray God to be propitious unto it and to accept it as hee did the Sacrifice of Abel yeelding thereby no more estimation to Christ than to a vile sheepe which was offered by Abel At the hearing of this your Cardinall See the Margent 1. Prefaceth 2. Answereth 3. Illustrateth 4. Reasoneth First of his Preface The Answer saith he is easie As if that Objection which seemeth to us a huge logg in your way were so little an obstacle that any might skip over it But have you never seene men in trusting too much to their nimblenesse to over-reach themselves in their leape stumble fall and breake their limbes Sembably he in his Answer which is the second point The meaning of our Church saith he is not to pray for Christs reconciliátion who was alwayes well pleasing to God but in respect of the infirmity of the Priest and people that the offering may be accepted from them So he But whatsoever the meaning of the Priest in his praying is sure we are this cannot be the meaning of the Prayer for the matter prayed for is set downe to be Holy Bread of life and Cup of Salvation which you interpret to be substantially the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament and the tenour of prayer expressely is Vpon which Lord looke propitiously wee say
Vomiting it by the Communicants and the Transmittance into your guts together with the Eating and Feeding thereupon by Dogs Mice Wormes and which transcendeth if it may be all your other Absurdities to be deprived of all naturall power of Motion Sence and Vnderstanding O Abominable Abominable A Synopsis of the Idolatrousnesse of the Romish Masse and Defence thereof by many Evidences from Antiquity SECT V. OVR first Argument is against the foundation thereof which is your Interpretation of the Article HOC by denying it to have Relation to Bread contrary to the verdict of an Inquest of Antient Fathers shewing that the same pointeth out Bread as you have heard whereby the monstrous Conception of Transubstantiation is strangled in the very wombe Insomuch that sometimes they expressely interpret it thus Christs Body and Blood that is say they The Bread and Wine Item Hee gave the name of the Signe to the thing signified Item Bread the Signe of his Body And lastly Bread is called Christs Body because it signifieth his Body Secondly in the point of Transubstantiation it selfe they calling the Eucharist which you dare not Bread and Wine after Consecration and naming them Earthly materialls and Matter of Bread and also as you have heard out of the Antient Liturgies Fruits of the Earth and yet more plainly by way of Periphrasis describing them to consist of Divers graines and Divers grapes After by approving the Suffrage and judgement of our Senses in discerning all Sensible things and in speciall the Eucharist it selfe and at length affirming that there remaineth therein the Substance of Bread and Wine which are the Subject matter of your Divine Adoration All which are other Three Demonstrations of their meanings every singular point being avouched by the Suffrages of Antiquity Thirdly against your Faith concerning the manner of Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because so farre were the Fathers from beleeving that the Body of Christ could be in divers places as you say in Millions at one time that by this property of Being in many places at once they have discerned Angells to be Finite Spirits and not God They have distinguished the Godhead of Christ from his Manhood and they have proved the Holy Ghost to be God and no Creature by the same Reason Than which Three Arguments none can be more Convincent Whereunto you may adde the Fathers speeches contradicting your Dreame of a Body whole in every part in whatsoever space or place by judging it Impossible and also concluding Christ his Ascension into Heaven to argue his Absencâ— from Earth all which have been discussed from point to point Our Fourth Generall Argument is that whereas your Corporall Presence must needs inferre Corporall Eating thereof by the Communicants notwithstanding you have heard the contrary Sentences of Antient Fathers against Tearing and Swallowing of Christ's Body and Bodily Egestion next concerning the Eaters that only the Godly faithfull are partakers thereof insomuch that even the Godly under the old Testament did eat the same Then of the Remainders of the Consecrated Hosts that they were Eaten by the ordinance of the Church by Schoole-boyes and sometimes Burnt in the fire besides they called them Bits and Fragments of Bread broken after Consecration and diminished and lastly in respect of the End of Eating They held the thing present to be a pledge of Christ's Body absent and also allowed such a Touch of his Body by Faith that whosoever so toucheth him is Sanctified Which Observations concerning our Fourth Generall Argument doe minister unto us five particular Reasons which make our Defence to be Impregnable Fifthly forasmuch as you teach the Subject matter of the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ as a proper Sacrifice propitiatory wee upon due inquisition into the doctrine of Antiquity have found the Antient Fathers 1. Noting that which they called Sacrifice herein to be Bread and Wine saying thereupon that Melchizedech in that his Bread and Wine offered the Body and Blood of Christ 2. Such a Subject which being taken in great Quantity doth nourish and satiate mans Bodily Nature 3. Such as needeth prayer to God that it may be Acceptable to God as was the Sacrifice of Abels sheepe 4. Sonaming it an Vnbloâ—dy Sacrifice as meaning thereby void of Blood which cannot agree to the Body of Christ now risen from death 5. So qualifying their other Exuberances and Excesse of speech wherein they named it The same Sacrifice of Christ once offered by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 correcting it thus A Sacrifice or rather a Memoriall thereof 6. By placing the Sacrifice of Christ his Body as now Presentative only in Heaven and the thing offered on Earth but a Signe 7. In all your objected Testimonies for proofe of the same Body of Christ in the Eucharist which suffered on the Crosse they understood the same as the Object of our Remembrance and not as the Subject of Offering which make up so many Arguments moe 8. By paralleling Baptisme with the Eucharist in like tenour of speech from point to point 9. By praying God to be Propitious to that which is offered Sixthly upon the same Doctrine of Corporall Presence you have erected and fastened the roofe of all your Building which is Divine Adoration of the Host yet notwithstanding have you not beene able by the testimonies of any ancient Father to free your selves from Formall Idolatry by any of your Pretences devised for your excuse either of Good Intent Morall Certainty or of Habituall Condition especially seeing that the Fathers by that their universall Invitation Lift up your Hearts abstracted still the thoughts of the Communicants from contemplating of any Subject present here Below that they might be drawen to the meditation of the Body of Christ as it is in Heaven Lastly in your owne Romish Masse praying after Consecration God to be propitious to the thing offered as to Abel's Sacrifice which was but a sacrificed Sheepe Compute all these Particulars and you shall finde about sixteene Arguments to prove you to be absolutely Idolaters Wee having thus revealed these Three Principall and Fundamentall Abominations doe now proceed to their Concomitants and Consequences which are Mixtures of Heresie in many Overture of Perjury in some and Obstinacie in all We begin at the last CHAP. II. Of the stupendious Obstinacie of the Romish Disputers made palpable by their owne Contradictions and of the Defence thereof as being Contradictory in it selfe SECT I. ALL your Disputers shew themselves in nothing more zealous than in maintenance of your Romish Masse which they contend for by objecting Scriptures Fathers Reasons notwithstanding their Expositions of Scriptures their Inferences out of the Fathers their devised Reasons and almost all their Confutations are confuted rejected contradicted by their owne fellowes as the Sections thorowout this whole Tractate doth plainly demonstrate We cannot
therefore otherwise judge but that as Prejudice is the chiefe Director so Obstinacie is the greatest Supporter of your Cause How much more when the Defence it selfe is found to consist upon mere Contradictories whereof you may take a Taste out of your Doctrine of Corporall Presence and of a proper Sacrifice In the first by obtruding on mens Consciences a Beleefe upon due Consequence of a Body of Christ Borne and not Borne of the Virgin Mary One and not One Finite and not Finite Divisible and not Divisible Perfect and not Perfect and also Glorious and not Glorious as hath beene proved in each point 2. In a point of properly Sacrificing of Christ's Body your Musicke stands upon the same kinde of Discords of Teaching a Body Broken and not Broken a matter visible not visible of Blood shed and not shed and of a suffering Destruction and not suffering Destruction Evident Arguments of Obstinacie one would thinke and yet behold a plainer if it may be One Example in stead of many of a stupendious Obstinacie in urging the Iudgement of Antiquity for Defence of your Romish Masse in the chiefest parts thereof proved by instancing only in their like Sayings concerning Baptisme SECT II. THree chiefe Iesuites besides others have beene as you may remember extremely urgent and important with Protestants to shew if they could the like Phrases of the Fathers in Baptisme as were used of them concerning the Eucharist in the question of Sacrifice as if the just paralleling of these Two might be a Satisfaction unto themselves concerning that one point Wee are to deale more liberally with them and whereas they assume unto themselves the suffrages of Antiquity 1. For a Literall Exposition of Christ's words This is my Body 2. For a Change of Bread by Transubstantiation into his Body 3. For a Corporall Presence of the same Body in the Sacrament 4. For a Bodily Vnion with our Bodies 5. For a Proper Sacrifice of the Eucharist And lastly for a Divine Adoration thereof wee answer them from the Fathers in their like sayings concerning Baptisme thorowout every particular A Synopsis of the Speeches of Fathers objected in the Defence of the Masse-points and paralleled and consequently satisfied by the like Equivalent speeches of the Fathers touching Baptisme SECT III. THe two Proper Sacraments as the two Seales of the new Testament Baptisme and the Eucharist use to goe in equipage in the writings of Antiquity The Parallel doth consist in these two your Objections in urging the Fathers Phrases and wresting them to your Romish Literall Sence concerning the Eucharist and our Solutions by the equivalent Termes of the same Fathers given unto Baptisme and thereby instructing us of their Sacramentall and Figurative Interpretation OB. 1. The Fathers say you called the Eucharist an Antitype because an Antitype is not every Signe but that which differeth almost nothing from the Truth Ergò the word Antitype doth not prove a figurative Sence And againe they call Bread The Body of Christ SOL. The Fathers accordingly call Baptisme The Antitype of Christ's Passion And againe they observe that S. Paul calleth it a Buriall Ergo neither of both make for a Literall Sence OB. 2. You contend by the Fathers to prove a Corporall Change of Bread into Christ's Body because they say of it after Consecration It is not now Common Bread Nor are wee to consider it as Bare Bread yea no sensible thing is delivered herein And it is changed by Divine Omnipotencie into another nature Ergo they meant a Corporall Presence of Christ SOL. Your Consequence is lame and out of joynt in every part because the Fathers speaking of Baptisme have said as much to wit We are not to behold this as common Water Nor is it simple Water Nor to be discerned with our eyes but with our mindes Wherein no Sensible thing is given seeing the Water by benediction is made a Divine Laver working miraculous effects whereby the party baptized is made a new Creature and his Body made the Flesh of Christ crucified OB. 3. You labour to prove a Corporall Presence out of the Fathers where they say Christ is herein without mention of Presence and where they adde saying Thinke not it is the Priest but Christ that reacheth it unto â—hee SOL. As though such Phrases of the Fathers were still Literally meant or that you are ignorant of their like sayings in behalfe of Baptisme viz. Wee have Christ Present at the Sacrament of Baptisme where Not the Minister but God holdeth the head of the party baptized OB. 4. To evince a Corporall Participation of Christ in communicating of the Eucharist and consequently the Bodily Presence are alleaged the speeches of the Fathers of our Touching Christ's Body and Eating Christ's flesh of Naturall union with his Body and that the Eucharist is our Viaticum and Pledge of our Resurrection whereunto is added that Contemptuous Communicants doe more injury to Christ than they that denied him Eating and drinking their owne judgement SOL. And what of Baptisme concerning Touching the Fathers teach that wee Take hold of the feet of Christ concerning Eating that the partie Baptized may be said to Eat the Flesh of Christ in respect of the thing it selfe concerning Vnion with Christ they adde We are hereby One with him not only by assent of will but even naturally and Incorporate in him made thereby bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh Even The flesh of Christ crucified Concerning the Effect they hold that Baptisme is our Viaticum and the Earnest of our Resurrection and salvation whereunto is added out of the Apostle concerning the Contemners of their vow of Baptisme that They crucifie unto themselves the Sonne of God And he that receiveth Baptisme unworthily is guilty of judgement OB. 5. To beget an opinion of the proper Sacrifice of the Eucharist and consequently a Corpor all Presence of Christ herein you insist upon such Phrases of the Fathers as call it a Sacrifice still exacting of Protestants to shew if ever any Father said as much of Baptisme to name it a Sacrifice or the Celebration thereof The Immolation of Christ SOL. And you have beene plentifully satisfied in both out of the Testimonies of Antiquity often calling Baptisme a Sacrifice and sometimes also the Passion of Christ OB. 6. Your last and worst Contention is in Defence of a Divine Adoration of the Eucharist and consequently a Corporall Presence of Christ in the same as from the judgement of Antient Fathers by manifold Arguments wherein you may be pleased for Brevity sake to let your Ob. for the Eucharist and our Sol. for Baptisme wrastle and grapple together Your first Ob. is taken from their Reverend Silence for they instruct Communtcants not to speake of the Eucharist before Catechumenists or Insidels
herein both of them correcting the Vulgar Translation in the word Pledge and one of them giving an Absitâ—l against this Sence of it The Reason of both is because he that giveth a Pledge taketh it againe when the Thing for which it was pledged is received But he that giveth an Earnest will have it continue with him to whom it was given And so God assuring his Chosen by his Spirit doth for their greater Confidence give it as an Earnest and not as a Pledge So they Thereby advancing Gods gracious love towards man and man's faith in God's love Here will be no corner of Pretence that this being an Errour of Print and not of Doctrine may be rejected by you without Prejudice to your Oath no for Errour of Print ariseth from some affinity of words as where these words This is a sound reason being delivered to the print was returned from the Presse thus This is a fond reason But betweene Pignus and Arrhabo there is no more Symphony than betweene an Horse and a Saddle Nor will it availe you to say that the Originall Greeke was corrupted for it is the same Greeke word which Hierome himselfe who as you know used the perfectest Greeke Text doth here avow to be True II. Overture of Perjury in your Disputers is in swearing to the Romish Expositions of Scripture THe Tenour of the Oath in this respect is I admit the sacred Scriptures in that Sense which the Mother Church hath held and doth hold By Mother Church understanding the Church of Rome as without which there is no salvation which is expressed in the same Oath as another Article therein and which else-where we have proved to be a GRAND IMPOSTVRE in a full Tractate from the Doctrine of the Apostles of Generall Councells of severall Catholique Churches and from such Primitive Fathers whose memories are at this day registred in the Romish Calender of Saints How then can the Oath for this point be taken without danger of Perjury But to come to the Article concerning the Expositions of Scriptures According to the sence of the Church of Rome which would thereby be thought to Hold no Sence of Scripture now which she had not Held in more Antient Times We for Triall hereof shall for this present seeke after no other Instances than such as in this Treatise have been discussed and for brevity-sake single out of many but only Three A first is in that Scripture Ioh. 6. Except you eat the flesh of the Sonne of man you cannot have life The word Except was extended unto Infants in the dayes of Pope Innocent the First continuing as hath beene confessed six hundred yeares together when the Church of Rome thereupon Held it necessary for Infants to receive the Eucharist Contrarily the now Romane Church Holdeth it Inexpedient to administer the Eucharist unto Infants as you have heard Secondly Luc. 22. Take Eat c. Your Church of Rome in the dayes of Pope Nicolas in a Councell at Rome Held that by the word Eate was meant an Eating by Tearing the Body of Christ sensually with men's teeth in a Literall sence Which your now Romane Church if we may beleeve your Iesuites doth not Hold as hath appeared Thirdly the Tenour of the Institution of Christ concerning the Cup was Held in the dayes of Pope Gelasius to be peremptory for the administration thereof to prove that the Eucharist ought to be administred in both kindes to all Communicants and judging the dismembring of them a Grand Sacrilege as you have heard whereas now your Romish Church Holdeth it not only lawfull but also religious to withhold the Cup from all but only consecrating Priests Vpon these omitting other Scriptures which you your selves may observe at your best leasure we conclude You therefore in taking that Oath swearing to admit all Interpretations of Scripture both which the Church of Rome once Held and now Holdeth the Proverbe must needs be verified upon you viz. You hold a Wolfe by the eare which howsoever you Hold you are sure to be Oath-bit either in Holding TENVIT by TENET or in Holding TENET by TENVIT III. Overture of Perjury in your Disputers is in swearing to the pretended Consent of Fathers in their Expositions of Scriptures HEare your Oath Neither will I ever interpret any Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of Fathers Here the word Fathers cannot betoken Bishops and Fathers assembled in a Councell where the major part of voices conclude the lesse for Councell never writ Commentaries upon Scriptures but from Scriptures collect their Conclusions And although the word Vnanimous doth literally signifie the universall Consent which would inferre an Impossibility because that all Fathers have not expounded any one Scripture and very few All yet that you may know we presse not too violently upon you we shall be content to take this word Morally with this Diminution For the most part and hereupon make bold to averre that your Iuror by this Oath is sworne to a flat Falsity because you cannot deny but that the Fathers in their Expositions dissent among themselves sometimes a Greater part from the lesse insomuch that you your selves are at difference among your selves which part to side with With the greater saith Valentia nay but sometime with the Lesser saith Canus Can you dreame of an Vnanimity in Disparity Sometime there is a Non-Constat what is the Iudgement of the Fathers in some points which you call matter of Faith What then Then saith your Iesuite the Authority of the Pope is to take place who being guided by other rules may propound what is the Sence Behold here the very ground of that which we call Popery which is devising and obtruding upon the Church of Christ new Articles of Faith unknowen for ought you know to Ancient Fathers And is it possible to finde an Vnanimity of Consent in an Individuall Vnity or rather a Nullity for what else is an ignorance what the Sence of the Fathers is whether so or so Next that it may appeare that this Article touching the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers is a meere Ostentation and gullery and no better than that Challenge made by the wise man of Athens of all the Ships that entred into the Road to be his owne as if you should say All the Fathers doe patronize your Romish Cause We shall give you one or two Examples among your Iesuites as patternes of the Disposition of others in neglecting sleighting and rejecting the more Generall Consent of Fathers in their Expositions of Scriptures One Instance may be given in your Cardinall who in his Commentaries upon the Psalmes dedicated to the then Pope professeth himselfe to have composed them Rather by his owne meditation than by reading of many bookes whereas he that will seeke for Vnanimous Consent of Fathers must have a perusall of them all In the second place hearken unto the Accents of your Iesuite Maldonate in his
rejecting the Expositions of the Fathers as for Example So indeed said the Fathers but I beleeve the Contrary Item This seemeth not to me to be the Sence of this place which All whom I have read except Hilary doe thinke Item Their opinions are divers I rest upon none of them All. Item All Antients almost doe so expound this Text but this is no fit Interpretation Item Thus I expound this Scripture and albeit I have no Author of this Exposition yet I doe approve it rather than that of Augustine or of others although otherwise most probable even because it is repugnant to the Sense and Exposition of the Calvinists So hee and that usually O dura ilia With what Stomach could this man swallow that O ath Salmeron the Iesuite may stand for the third upon that Text Rom. 5. In whom all have sinned which teacheth the universall Guilt of Originall Sinne of mankinde What the Sence of the Fathers was from this Text your Canus will certifie you All they saith he who have formerly fallen upon this subject matter have confessed as it were with one mouth that the Virgin Mary was conceived in originall sinne no one contrarying this opinon So he of the Iudgement of Aâ—tiquity which notwithstanding he durst contradict but wee returne to your Iesuite who premising that this Question doth belong to Faith propoundeth Objections made out of the Fathers for proofe that the Virgin Mary hath the same Originall defect in her owne naturall Generation and shapeth Answers full of regret and reluctancy For first To this Objection The Fathers did consenâ— Hee answereth thus The Argument from Authority is infirme 2. To this The Fathers were Antient Thus The younger Divines are more quicke of understanding 3. To this The Fathers were many hee answereth Hee is but a poore man that can number his Cattell And againe confronting the Antient Fathers and preferring novell Divines he saith Wee oppose multitude to multitude 4. But The Fathers were Devout he answereth Yet all Devotion towards the Blessed Virgin resteth not in the Fathers And when one of the Devoutest of them Bernard by name is objected who had said of the point now in Question To ascribe the prerogative of the Sonne to the Blessed Virgin is not an honouring but a dishonouring her wherein the same holy Bernard appealeth to Antiquity saying Are wee either more learned or more Devout than the Fathers Your Iesuite answering to him by name casteth him off with the Rest Here we see an Oath exacting a Consent to the Vnanimous Expositions of Fathers heare notwithstanding as plaine a Dissent of your Iesuites opposition unto Vnanimous Consent of Fathers which is the ordinary guise of your Disputers in their expounding of Scriptures and yet behold you forsooth the native children and heires of the Doctrine of Antient Fathers Your Fathers of the Councell of Trent have set it downe for a Canon whereunto you are also sworne that the words of Christ his Institution concerning the giving of his Body and Blood Have a plaine and proper signification without Tropes which notwithstanding the same words of Christ have beene evinced to be Figurative not only by the Vnanimous Consent of Antiquity but also by the expresse Confessions of your owne Iesuites in the words Eate Breake Cup c. and wherein your selves have acknowledged divers Tropes Besides the whole former Treatise is but a displaying of your unconscionable wresting of the Testimonies of ancient Fathers Ponder you these Observations with your selves and then judge whether your Swearing be not Perjury it selfe IV. Overture of Perjury in the Defenders of the Romish Masse is in respect of the pretended Necessity of their Doctrine IN the last Clause of the Oath prescribed in the Bull of Pope Pius IV. you are sworne that every Article therein is the True Catholique Faith without which none can be saved among which is the Article already mentioned swearing to whatsoever was declared in the Councell of Trent by which Councell your now Romane Missall or Masse-booke is approved Now take a Taste of your Oath in every Epithet First True and hereby are you sworne that in the dayes of Pope Innocentius the third the Administration of the Eucharist to Infants was not held necessary which your owne Authors have confessed and proved to be false Secondly that the presence of them who at the administration of the Eucharist doe not communicate is Commendable and held a Doctrine Catholique that is antiently Vniversall which was generally condemned by Ancient Fathers and even in the Church of Rome it selfe abandoned by two Popes Lastly in the point of Necessity to Salvation To sweare that whosoever beleeveth not that one may be said to Communicate alone is damned that whosoever beleeveth not that the Priest in the Masse being alone cannot duly say The Lord be with you he is damned or that the Body of Christ may not be run away with Mice be blowen away with the wind he is damned and a number other like extreme foolish Crotchets set downe in your Missalls which wee willingly omit The Summe of all these is that the same your Oath made to damne others doth serve chiefly to make the Swearers themselves most damnable If peradventure any of you shall oppose saying that none of you within this Kingdome which never admitted of the Councell of Trent nor of the Bull of Pope Pius IV. are yet bound to that Oath let him know that although this may excuse him from an Actuall Perjury yet can it not free him from the Habituall which is that hee is disposed in himselfe to take it whensoever it shall be offered unto him in any Kingdome that doth imbrace and professe the same Our Last Advertisement followeth Of the Mixture of many old Heresies with the former Defence of the Romish Masse SECT V. THe more odious the Title of this Section may seeme to be the more studious ought you to shew your selves in examining the proofes thereof that so you may either confute or confesse them and accordingly re-assume or renounce your Romish Defence Heresie hath a double aspect One is when it is direct having the expresse termes of Heresie the Other is oblique and by consequence when the Defence doth inferre or imply necessarily the same Hereticall Sence even as it may be said of Treason For to say that Caesar is not King is a Treasonable speech Directly in a plaine Sence and to say that Tribute money is not due to Caesar is as Treasonable in the Consequence Thus much being premised we are now to recognize such Errrours wherein your Disputers may seeme to have accordance with old Heretiques which point we shall pursue according to the order of the Bookes BOOKE I. Wherein your Church is found altering almost the whole forme of Christ his Institution and the Custome of the Catholique Church descended from the Apostles which Presumption Pope Iulius
condemned in divers who sopped the Bread in the Chalice and squeezed Grapes in the Cup and so received them even as did the Artoryritae in mingling Bread with Cheese censured for Heretiques by your Aquinas In which Comparison your Aberration from Christ's Example is so much greater than theirs as you are found Guilty in defending Ten Innovations for one 2. Your Pope Gelasius condemned the Hereticall Manichees for thinking it lawfull not to receive the Cup in the Administration of the Eucharist judging it to be Greatly Sacrilegious notwithstanding your Church authorizeth the same Custome of forbidding the Administration of the Cup to fit Communicants 3. As you pretend Reverence for withdrawing the Cup so did the Aquarii forbeare wine and used only Water under a pretence of Sobriety 4. Sometime there may be a Reason to doe a thing when as yet there is no right nor Authority for him that doth it Wee therefore exact of you an Autority for altering the Apostles Customes and Constitutions and are answered that your Church hath Authority over the Apostles Precepts Iumpe with them who being asked why they stood not unto the Apostles Traditions replyed that They were herein above the Apostles whom therefore Irenaeus reckoneth among the Heretikes of his Time BOOKE II. It is not nothing which hath beene observed therein to wit your Reasoning why you ought not to interpret the words of Christ This is my Body literally and why you urge his other saying Except yoâ—… eat my flesh for proofe of Bodily Eating so that your Priest may literally say in your Masse that The Body of Christ passeth into your bellies and entrâ—ils because forsooth the words of Christ are Doctrinall And have you not heard of one Nicodemus who hearing Christ teach that every man must be Borne againe who shall be partaker of God's Kingdome and that hee expounding them in a Literall Sence conceited a new Entrance into his Mothers wombe when as nothing wanted to turne that his Errour into an Heresie but only Obstinacie But of the strong and strange Obstinacies of your Disputers you have received a full Synopsis BOOKE III. After followeth your Article of Transubstantiation I. Your direct profession is indeed to beleeve no Body of Christ but that which was Borne of the Virgin Mary But this your Article of Transubstantiation of Bread into Christs Body generally held according to the proper nature of Transubstantion to be by Production of Christs Body out of the Substance of Bread it necessarrly inferreth a Body called and beleeved to be Christ's which is not Borne of the Blessed Virgin as S. Augustine hath plainly taught diversifying the Bodily thing on the Altar from the Body of Christ borne of the Virgin Therefore your Defence symbolizeth with the heresie of Apollinaris who taught a Body not Borne of the Virgin Mary Secondly you exclude all judgement of Senses in discerning Bread to be trâ—… Bread as did the Manichees in discerning Christ's Body which they thereupon held not to have beene a True but a Phantasticall Body Tertullian also challengeth the Verity of Sense in judging of Wine in the Eâ—charist after Consecration in confutation of the same Errour in the Marcioniâ—es Thirdly for Defence of Christ his invisible Bodily Presence you professe that after Consecration Bread is no more the same but changed into the Body of Christ which Doctrine in very expresse words was bolted out by an Eâ—tychian Heretique and instantly condemned by Theodoret and as fully abandoned by Pope Gelasâ—… BOOKE IV. Catholique Fathers were in nothing more zealous than in defending the distinct properties of the two natures of Christ his Deity and Humanity against the pernicious heresies of the Manichees Marcionites Eâ—tychians and Eâ—nomians all of them diversly oppugning the Integrity of Christ's Body sometime in direct tearmes and sometime by irrefragrable Consequences whether it were by gaine-saying the Finitenesse or Solidity or else the compleat Perfection thereof wherein â—ow farre yee may challenge affinity or kindred with them be you pleased to examine by this which followeth 1. The Heretiques who undermined the property of Christ's Bodily Finitenesse said that it was in divers places at once as is confessed even as your Church doth now attribute unto the same Body of Christ both in Heaven and in Earth yea and in Millions of distant Altars at the same time and consequently in all places whatsoever Now whether this Doctrine of Christ's Bodily Presence in many places at once was held of the Catholique Fathers for Hereticall it may best be seene by their Doctrine of the Existence of Christ's Body in one only place not only Definitively but also Circumspectively both which doe teach an absolute Impossibility of the Existence of the same in divers places at once And they were as zealous in professing the Article of the manner of Christ's Bodily Being in place as they are in instructing men of the Article of Christ's Bodily Being lest that the deniall of it's Bodily manner of being might destroy the nature of his Body To which end they have concluded it to be absolutely but in one place sometime in a Circumspective Finitenesse thereby distinguishing them from all created Spirits and sometime by a Definitive Termination which they set downe first by Exemplifications thus If Christ his Body be on Earth then it is absent from Heaven and thus Being in the Sunne it could not be in the Moone Secondly by divers Comparisons for comparing the Creature with the Creator God they conclude that The Creature is not God because it is determinated in one place and comparing the humane and divine Nature of Christ together they conclude that they are herein different because the humane and Bodily Nature of Christ is necessarily included in one place and laâ—tly comparing Creatures with the Holy Ghost they conclude a difference by the the same Argument because the Holy Ghost is in many places at once and all these in confutation of divers Heretiques A thing so well knowen to your elder Romish Schoole that it confessed the Doctrine of Existence of a Body in divers places at once in the judgement of Antiquity to be Hereticall 2. The property of a Solidity likewise was patronized by Antient Fathers in confutation of Heretiques by teaching Christ's Body to be necessarily Palpable against their Impalpabilitie and to have a Thicknesse against their feigned subtile Body as the Aire and furthermore controlling these opinions following which are also your Crotchets of a Bodies Being whole in the whole space and in every part thereof and of Christ's Body taking the Right hand or left of it selfe 3. The property of Perfection of the Body of Christ wheresoever in the highest Degree of Absolutenesse This one would thinke everie Christian heart should assent unto at the first hearing wherefore if that they were judged Heretiques by Antient
Fathers who taught an Indivisible Vnion of mens soules with their Bodies naturally still subiect to corruption after the resurrection who can imagine that the holy Catholique Fathers would otherwise have judged of this your generall Tenet viz. to beleeve a Body of Christ now since his Glorification which is destitute of all power of naturall motion sence appetite or understanding otherwise than of a senslesse and Antichristian Deliration and Delusion Yea and that which is your only Reason you alleage to avoid our Objection of Impossibilities in such cases to wit The Omnipotencie of God the same was the Pretence of Heretiques of old in the like Assertions which occasioned the Antient Fathers to terme the Pretence of Omnipotencie The Sanctuary of Heretiques albeit the same Heretiques as well as you intended as a Father speaketh to magnifie God thereby namely in beleeving the Body of Christ after his Ascension to be wholly Spirituall To which Heretiques the same Father readily answered as wee may to you saying When you will so magnifie Christ you doe but accuse him of falshood not that wee doe any whit detract from the Omnipotencie of Christ farre be this Spirit of Blasphemy from us but that as you have beene instructed by Antient Fathers the not attributing an Impossibility to God in such Cases of Contradiction is not a diminishing but an ample advancing of the Omnipotencie of God BOOKE V. Your Orall Eating Gutturall Swallowing and Inward Digestion as you have taught of the Body of Christ into your Entrails hath beene proved out of the Fathers to be in each respect sufficiently Capernaiticall and termed by them a Sence both Pernicious and Flagitious Besides you have a Confutation of the Hereticall Manichees for their Opinion of Fastning Christ to mens guts and loosing him againe by their belchings Consonant to your Romish Profession both of Christ's Cleaving to the guts of your Communicants and Vomiting it up againe when you have done BOOKE VI. This is spent wholly in examining the Romish Doctrine of Masse-Sacrifice and in proving it to be Sacrilegiousnesse it selfe as you have seene in a former Synopsis BOOKE VII This containeth a Discoverie of your Masse-Idolatry not onely as being equall with the Doctrine of some Heretiques but in one respect exceeding the inâ—atuation of the very Pagans besides the Generall Doctrine of the power of your Priests Intention in consecrating hath beene yoaked by your owne Iesuite with the Heresies of the Donatists When you have beheld your owne faces in these divers Synopses as it were in so many glasses we pray to God that the sight of so many and so prodigious Abominations in your Romish Masse may draw you to a just Detestation of it and bring you to that true worship of God which is to be performed in Spirit and in Truth and to the saving of every one of your soules through his Grace in Christ Iesus AMEN ALL GLORY BE ONELY TO GOD. I. INDEX OF THE PRINCIPALL MATTERS Discussed thorow-out the eight Bookes of the whole former Treatise A ACcidents merely feed not Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 10. Nor inebriate c. Ibid. Not without Subject according to the ancient Fathers Ibid. See more in the words Bread Councell Cyrill Adoration of the Eucharist Romish Booke 7. Chap. 1. Sect. 1. Not from Christ's Institution Chap. 2. Nor from Antiquity Ibid. Sect. 1. Not by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 3. Romish Adoration Idolatrous by their owne Principles Booke 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 1. Eucharist forbid to be carried to the sicke for Adoration Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 10. Romish manner of Adoration of the Host Book 7. Chap. 7. Sect. 1. Coadoration may be Idolatrous Sect. 2. See the words Gesture Idolatry Invocation Reverence Altar unproperly used of the Fathers Book 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 13 15. Angels not possibly in two places at once Book 4. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Apparitions of Christ's flesh and blood in the Sacrament fictitious Booke 4. Chap. 2 c. See more in the word Miracles Application of Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice not yet resolved of Booke 6. Chap. 11. Sect. 1. Otherwise the Fathers Ibid. Sect. 2. Romish Application not sufficient for all in Purgatory Sect. 3. Application of Protestants Propitiously how justifiable Ib. Ch. 2. Sect. 1 2. B. BAptisme called a Sacrifice of the Fathers Book 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 15. Want of it in the Romish Priest inferreth Idolatry Booke 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 4. Paralleled with the Eucharist in most points Booke 8. Chap. 2. Sect. 2 3. Beast prostrate before the Host Objected Ridiculously for Adoration Booke 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 3. Blood of Christ not properly shed Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. Body of Christ not properly broken Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. That in the Eucharist not borne of the Virgin Mary Booke 4. Chap. 4 5. By Corporall Presence not one Ibid. Sect. 2. Infinite Ibid. Chap. 6. Not organicall Chap. 7. not perfect Chap. 8. nor glorious and subject to vile indignities Chap. 9. See more in Vnion Bread not duly broken in the Romish Masse Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. Remaining after Consecration Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 4 5. Proved by many Arguments Ibid. unto Sect. 9. Engendring Wormes Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 10. See Accidents Broken Body of Christ unproperly Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. and Booke 6. Chap. 1. Sect. 4. The word Broken in S. Luke signifies the Present Tense Booke 6. Chap. 2. Sect. 3. C CAnonization of Saints a Case doubtfull and dangerous Book 7. Ch. 7. Sect. 3. Capernaiticall conceit of eating Christ's flesh Bodily Booke 5. Chap. 4. Sect. 1. Such was the Romish and is Sect. 3. As also in swallowing and bodily mixture Ibid. Chap. 7 8. See Vnion Christ's Priesthood See Priest-hood Church of Rome hath erred in her opinion of administring the Eucharist to Infants Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 11. Her Doctrine made necessary to Salvation Book 8. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. Concomitance of Blood under the forme of Bread how Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 6. Consecration used of Christ by prayer Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. Now transgressed in the Romish Church Ibid. Sect. 4. Forme thereof not set downe either in Scripture or in ancient Tradition Book 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 4. Many Defects incident to make void the Act and to inferre Idolatry Book 7. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. Contradictions Romish VI. against these words of Christ My Body Booke 4. Ch. 4. Cup is to be administred to all the Communicants Book 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. By Christ's precept and example Sect. 2 3. By Apostolicall practice and Fathers c. Ibid. Custome of 300. yeares preferred by the Romish before a more ancient of a thousand Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 5. D. DEvouring Christ's flesh such is the Romish Swallowing of Christ Booke 5. Chap. 6. Sect. 1 2. and Chap. 9. Distinction of the Sacrifice of Christ's Body as Subjectively or
Perplexity in the Romish worship Book 7. Chap. 9. Sect. 3. Propitiatory Sacrifice distinguished B. 6. Ch. 8. Sect. 1. Objectively Chap. 9. Sect. 2. The Romish Propitiatory void of Propitiatory qualities Booke 6. Chap. 10. Sect. 1 c. Protestants professe an Vnion with Christ more than figurative B. 5. Ch. 2. They professe a Sacrifice both Encharisticall and Latreuticall B. 6. Ch. 7. Sect. 1 c. And offer Christ's Propitiatory Sacrifice objectively Ib. Sect. 4. Slandered as celebrating Bare Bread Book 4. Ch. 1. Sect. 3. In the celebration of the Eucharist they use due Reverence and are free from all Perplexities wherewith the Romish are intangled in their worship Booke 7. Ch. 9. Sect. 3. See Vnion Q. QVantity and Quality differ extremely in respect of their being in place or space Booke 4. Chap. 6. Sect. 6. R. REservation of the Eucharist to other ends than eating is an Innovation Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 10. Reverence of this Sacrament falsly pretended for an Alteration of Christ's Institution Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 10. Reverence professed by Protestants B. 7. Ch. 9. What are the properties of due Reverence Ibid. See Adoration and Idolatry S. SAcrifice not properly so called in the now Testament Book 6. Chap. 1. and so thorowout the Book 6. Not proved by Christ's Institution or any Scripture whether Typicall or Propheticall Chap. 3 c. Commemorative only not proper Ch. 5 c. The Romish Masse is destitute of all Sacrificing Acts Chap. 6. Sect. 1. Sacrifice how professed by Protestants Ch. 7. Sect. 1. Sacrilegiousnesse of the Romish Masse in a Synopsis Booke 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 2. Scriptures their Exposition impudently appropriated to the Romish Church Booke 8. Ch. 2. Sect. 8. Shed in Christ's Institution taken unproperly without effusion of Blood B. 6. Ch. 1. Sect. 4. Of the Present Tense B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 4. Similitude of making a Circle is but a juggling Invention for proofe of Transubstantiation or the literall sence of Christ's words B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 2. Another of a Stage-play for proofe of a proper Sacrifice â—idioulously objected B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. Chall 2. B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 7. Ch. 5. Sect. 12. Slander of Iewes Pagans against Christians as eating a Childe foolishly objected for proofe of a Corporall eating of Christ's flesh B. 5. Chap. 9. Sect. 1. Against Protestants as denying God's omnipotency B. 4. Ch. 3. Sect. 1 4. And as if they held but bare bread in the Sacrament Booke 4. Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Soule fondly objected for proofe of a possibility of a Bodies existence in many places at once Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 2. A great difference betweene Body and Soule B. 4. Ch. 7. Sect. 7. Stage-play See Similitude Superstitiousnesse of the Romish Masse in a Synopsis Book 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 1. T. TOngue unknowen unlawfull in Gods Service Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. Translation called the Vulgar Latine rejected by the Romish Disputers notwithstanding their Oath to the contrary Booke 8. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. Booke 〈◊〉 Chap. 1. Sect. 2. And yet objected B. 6. Ch. 4. Sect. 1. Transubstantiation not proved by Christ's words This is my Body Booke 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 1. Novelty of the word and Article Ibid. Bread remaineth Sect. 4 c. As well foure Transubstantiations evinced out of the same Testimonies of Fathers whereby the Romish Disputers seeke to prove one B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 3. Types and Antitypes how applyed to the Eucharist by the Fathers B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. V. VIaticum spoken of by the Fathers objected idly B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 3. Vnbloody Sacrifice so termed of the Fathers to signifie void of blood as in the Sacrifice of Melchizedech B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 9. which they also call a Bloody Sacrifice Ibid. Ch. 5. Sect. 11. Vnion of Christ's body with the bodies of the Communicants by this Sacrament is spirituall B. 5. Ch. 1 2. The wicked are not united and yet guilty of Christ's blood Chap. 3. Corporall Vnion how understood by the Fathers B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 5 c. See Capernaites Voice objected seelily for proofe of a possibility of a Body to be indivers places at once B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 1. Vulgar Translation See Translation II. Index of the Generall Consent of ancient Fathers in points controverted thorow-out the eight former Bookes BOOKE I. ANtiquity in generall against the Romish forme of Consecration Ch. 2. Sect. 3. Against their Not Breaking of Bread in the distributing thereof Sect. 4. Against Private Masse Sect. 5. Against uttering the words of Consecration in a low voice Sect. 6. Against an Vnknowen tongue in the publike service of God Sect. 7. Against the presence of Persons not Communicating Chap. 2. Sect. 9. Against Reservation of the Eucharist for Procession or other like ends Sect. 10. Against Communicating but in one kinde Chap. 3. Sect. 5. The Objections out of the Fathers in this point answered Ibid. The Father 's many Reasons for the common use of the Cup. Sect. 9. BOOKE II. ANtiquitie agreeing in the Exposition of the words of Christ This is my Body by referring Hoc This to Bread Chap. 1. Sect. 6. And in yeelding unto them a Figurative Sence Chap. 2. Sect. 6 c. BOOKE III. ANtiquity never mentioning the word Transubstantiation Chap. 2. Sect. 2. Expounding these words Fruit of the Vine to meane Wine after Consecration Chap. 3. Sect. 5. Acknowledging the verity of Sence Sect. 9. And Bread remaining after Consecration Sect. 11. Never speakes of Accidents without Substance Sect. 11. Chap. 3. Sect. 14. Nor of any Miraculous Conversion of the Sacrament putrified into Bread againe Ibid. Romish Art in deluding the Testimonies of Antiquity Ibid. Antiquity objected and answered Chap. 4. thorow-out BOOKE IV. ANtiquity against the Possibility of the Being of a Body in moe places than one at once Chap. 6. Sect. 6 c. or yet Angels Chap. 5. Sect. 3. For the manner of the birth of Christ in opening the wombe Chap. 7. Sect. 7. BOOKE V. ANtiquity agreeing that only the Godly are partakers of Christ's body and blood Chap. 2. Sect. 2. In expounding the words The flesh profiteth nothing spiritually Chap. 5. Sect. 2. The Fathers Hyperbole's necessarily to be observed Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Objected for mens being nourished with Christ's flesh unconscionably Chap. 8. Sect. 1. As also for Mixture with mens Bodies Chap. 8. Sect. 3. whereby they must as well provâ— foure Transubstantiations as one 〈◊〉 Agreeing that Noneâ—… Christ in whâ—m Christ doth â—ot remaine Ibid. How they are to be understood concerning Corporall Vnion Ch. 8. Sect. 4 c. See Liturgies BOOKE VI. ANtiquity unconscionably objected for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice from the Sacrifice of Melchizedeâ—h Ch. 3. Sect. 2. And in the Exposition of Malachy Ch. 4. Sect. 2 c. Agreeth for Christ's Priestly Function in heaven Chap. 3. Sect. 8. Explane themselves to signifie a Sacrifice unproperly Chap. 4. Sect. 5 6.
Vnconscionable Objections from their Epithets of Terrible Chap. 5. Sect. 8. and Vnbloody Sect. 9. which They call also Bloody Sect. 11. And also Baptisme a Sacrifice Sect. 13. And other Spirituall Acts. Sect. 14. Vnconscionable Objections from their words Altar and Priest Sect. 15. Spirituall Acts called Sacrifices unproperly Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Yea and also Propitious Chap. 8. Sect. 1. BOOKE VII ANtiquity unconscionably objected for a Divine Adoration of the Sacrament from any of their words Chap. 2. Sect. 1. as also from any of their Acts either of their Concealement of this Mystery Ch. 3. Sect. 1. or Elevation Sect. 2. or Gesture Sect. 3. or Invocation Sect. 4. Which was never taught by them Ch. 5. Sect. 1. Nay Antiquity was against Divine Adoration of the Eucharist by their Common Admonition Lift up your hearts c. Chap. 4. Sect. 2. BOOKE VIII ANtiquity against the Romish Sacrilegiousnesse in a Synopsis Chap. 1. Sect. 4. Against their Idolatrousnesse teaching Bread to remaine Sect. 5. Their Testimonies unconscionably objected for Corporall Presence Proper Sacrifice and Divine Adoration as appeareth in a Synopsis Instance in Baptisme by paralleling their like speeches of it with the Eucharist Chap. 2. Sect. 2 3. Antiquity insolently rejected and falsly boasted of by our Adversaries Ch. 2. Sect. 4. III. Index of the particular Iudgements of Fathers severally as also of Councels and Popes both in our Oppositions and in the Romish Objections besides those here omitted which have beene otherwise answered in the Generall thorow-out the former TREATISE AMbrose Opp. against unknowen Prayer B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 7. And that the words of Christ are figurative Book 2. Sect. 9. and That Christ gave bread B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. And for a figurative Sence in the words This is my Body B. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 9. And for Bread remaining B. 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 11. Ob. his terming it a Miraculous worke unconscionably Ch. 4. Sect. 2. And for saying Bread is made man's flesh Sect. 7. And that Bread is changed into another thing Ibid. Opp. Hee teacheth Christ's Priestly Function in Heaven B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. And an Vnproper Sacrifice Ib. Ch. 5. Sect. 5. and correcteth his Excessive speech of Sacrifice B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 6. Ob. For naming it an Vnbloody Sacrifice Vnconscionably B. 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 9. And for Adoration of Christ's footstoole B. 7. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. And Christ's appearing to Saul from Heaven Booke 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 5. Opp. proving the Holy Ghost to be God by it's Being in divers places at once Booke 4. Chap. 6. Sect. 2. Athanasius Opp. for a necessitie of Circumscription of a Body in one place only Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. And for Impossibility of Angels being in many places at once B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. And for the spirituall Exposition of those words The flesh profiteth nothing B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. And that Angels cannot be in divers places at once B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. Augustine fondly Ob. for an unknowne tongue Booke 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 7. Chall 6. And for proofe that Christ in the Sacrament was a Figure of himselfe on the Crosse B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. Chall 2. Opp. That Bread was called Christs body B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. And that hee alloweth the Iudgement of Sence in this Sacrament B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 9. And for a Figurative Sence in the words This is my Body B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 9. Ob. for Transubstantiation because a powerfull worke Book 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 2. Opp. For necessary Circumscription of a Body in one place B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. Ob. That Christ Efferebatur manibus ejus Ibid. Sect. 8. Opp. For the Being of Christ's soule but in one place Ibid. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. And that the godly only partake Christ's Body Booke 5. Ch. 2. Sect. 2. Ch. 3. Sect. 3 4. Ob. that the Flesh of Christ in the Eucharist is a signe of it selfe on the Crosse fraudulently B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. Chall 2. Opp. for expounding that Scripture The flesh profiteth nothing B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. Ob. that the Capernaites understood not Christ unconscionably B. 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. And that Wee receive with our mouths Christ's Body Ibid. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. And also his Fideles nôrunt B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. And None eateth before he adore Booke 7. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. And for Priests properly Book 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. Opp. Eucharist an unproper Sacrifice Ibid. Chap. 5. Sect. 5. and hee is an utter Adversary to the whole Romish Cause B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 8. Chall 4 5. And that Christ appeared to Saul from heaven Ibid. Sect. 5. And hee proveth the Holy Ghost to be God by it's being in divers places at once Booke 4. Ch. 6. Sect. 2. And is against a Bodies being without Commensuration to place and space Ibid. Sect. 6. And that no Body can be whole in any one part of place Chap. 7. Sect. 6. And that Angels cannot be in divers places at once Ibid. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Basil Opp. proving the Holy Ghost to be God by it's being in many places at once Booke 4. Ch. 6. Sect. 2. Ob. What were the words of Invocation And for Adoration of the Eucharist most grossely B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. Opp. That hee called the Eucharist Bread after Consecration B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. Bertram Opp. for the existence of Bread after Consecration B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 14. Chrysostome Opp. against Gazers on the Sacrament B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. Ob. for private Masse Ibid. Sect. 5. Chall 3 Opp. teaching Bread to remaine after Consecration B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 14. Ob. for Transubstantiation in his words Change by divine power Ibid. Chap. 4. Sect. 3. And his Exception saying Although it seeme absurd to Sense B. 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 5. and his Hyperbolicall Phrases Ibid. and his words It is made Christ's body indeed Ibid. Sect. 7. and these Wee are changed into the flesh of Christ Ibid. And that the wicked are guilty of Christ's Body for corporall presence B. 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. His 〈◊〉 miracle saying Christ in heaven is handled here on earth And of a double Elias B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 7. and for Christ's passing thorow the doores Ibid. Opp. his expounding the words Flesh profiteth not figuratively Booke 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. Ob. The words Tearing with teeth Ibid. Sect. 3. and these Christ is held in the hands of the Priest Ibid. And Christ hath made us his body B. 5. Chap. 8. Sect. 3. Opp. Christ's Priestly Residence in heaven B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. And Sacrifice or rather a Memoriall thereof Ch. 5. Sect. 6. Ob. Sacrifice Pure and Terrible Ibid. Sect. 8. And Lambe lying on the Altar Terrible and Angels present B. 7. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. and Fideles nôrunt Ch. 3. Sect. 1. and Elevation Ibid. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. and Bowing before the Table Booke 7. Chap.
5. Sect. 3. Opp. Angels cannot be in divers places at once B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. jet Ob. for Christ's presence in divers places at once Vnconscionably B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 7. Clemens Alexandrinus opp calling Bread Christ's body B. 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 6. and calling Bread and Wine Antitypes after Consecration Ibid. Naming it a Sacrifice of Christs body Clemens Bishop of Rome See Pope Councell of Collen opp that contemptuous Refusers to communicate are guilty of the body of Christ B. 5. Chap. 3. Sect. 4. Of Constance ob for Communion in one kinde B. 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. Of Ephesus opp for a palpable Body of Christ B. 4. Ch. 7. Sect. 7. Of Lateran 4. ob for Transubstantiation B. 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. Of Naunts opp against private Masse Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. Of Nice Lambe of God on the Table ob unconscionably for a corporall presence and proper Sacrifice B. 4. Ch. 10. Sect. 3. And for calling the Eucharist a Pledge of the Resurrection B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 6. opp the same Councell against both corporall presence and proper Sacrifice Booke 4. Ch. 10. and against sole Accidents Ibid. Sect. 2. Of Toledo and Trullo opp for receiving the Sacrament with hands Book 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. And of Toledo against Innovating in the Eucharist Booke 1. Ch. 3. Sect. ult And against Transubstantiation and Corporall Eating Booke 4. Chap. 10. Sect. 3. and against sole Accidents Ibid. Chap. 10. Sect. 2. And of Trullo to prove that which is called Body to be Bread B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 8. Of Trent opp for reporting the Errour of the Romish Church about ministring the Eucharist to Infants B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 11. Cyprian calling it a worke of omnipotency ob Booke 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 2. and Bread changed in nature Ibid. Figurative Sence of Christ's words This is c. Opp. B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. and calling Bread Christ's body B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. Against Reservation of the Sacrament B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 10. Ob. Wicked men guilty of Christ's body B. 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. and Wee are anoynted with his blood inwardly B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. Opp. calling it a True and Pure Sacrifice Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 8. Cyril Alexand. Opp. Godly only partakers of Christ his Body B. 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. ob that wee have a naturall conjunction hereby with Christ B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 8. and Ob. his Similitude As Wax melted Ibid. Ch. 8. Sect. 3. And Christ dwelleth in us Ibid. Opp. Body as well circumscribed in one place as God uncircumscribed B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. Cyril Hierosol ob Thinke not thou takest bread unconscionably B. 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 4. and under the forme of bread for proofe of only Accidents fraudulently and Species for Typus Ibid. and Chrisma for Charisma Ibid. and Sacrifice of Christ's Body B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 10. and Bowing for Adoration B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 3. Opp. against Christs body going into the draught B. 4. Ch. 9. Sect. 3. Damascen opp that Angels cannot possibly be but in one place B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. Circumscription of a Body necessary Ib. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. and against penetration of Bodies Chap. 7. Sect. 6. And for teaching the word Antitype to have beene used only before Consecration falsly Yet ob B. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. And for naming Elevation is ob for Adoration unconscionably Book 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. and for his O Divine Sacrament unconscionably Ib. Sect. 4. Dionysius Areopag opp Calling the Sacrament Antitype after Consecration Booke 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. Didymus Alexand. opp Proving the Holy Ghost God by it's being in divers places at once Book 4. Ch. 6. Sect. 2. Epiphanius his Hoc est meum Hoc objected B. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 7. Eusebius ob his saying It is Christ's body unconscionably B. 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 7. Opp. his correcting of his speech saying Or rather a Memoriall of a Sacrifice B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 6. Ob. naming the Sacrament a bloody Sacrifice unconscionably B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 9. Fulgentius opp For necessary circumscription of a Body Book 4. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. Gaudentius opp calling that which is present A pledge of Christ's body absent Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 11. and calling Bread Christ's body Book 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 6. His saying ob Body which Christ reacheth Book 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Gelasius See Pope Gregory Nazian opp against the possibility of the being of one Body in divers places at once B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 1. and also of the Angels Ibid. Sect. 3. and that Christ's Priestly Function is in heaven B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. Ob. his naming the Eucharist a Bloody Sacrifice unconscionably Chap. 5. Sect. 9. Opp. against Proper Sacrifice he saith that This is not so acceptable as that in heaven Ibid. Sect. 9 15. and calleth the Symbols after Consecration Antitypes B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. Ob. hâ—s sister Gorgonia for Adoration unconscionably Book 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. Gregory Nyssen ob his saying It is changed into whatsoever c. unconscionably Book 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 7. as also these other words Christ's body when it is within ours c. B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 3. Againe One body divided to thousands and undivided B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 7. Gregory the Great See Pope Hesychius ob for Praying Perceiving the truth of blood B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. unconscionably Hierome opp that the words of Christ This is my body are figurative B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. and calling the Sacrament present a Pledge of his Body absent B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. and that only the Godly are partakers of Christ's body Book 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. Hilary ob for saying Wee are nourished in our bodies by Christ's body B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 2. unconscionably As also ob That Christ is naturally within us Ibid. Sect. 3. Irenaeus opp For the remaining of Bread after Consecration B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. Ob. For denying the Sacrament to be common bread Ibid. Chap. 4. Sect. 3. unconscionably And that our bodies are nourished with his body B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 2. and for his saying that our Bodies are not now corruptible Ibid. Sect. 6. Opp. his saying that it was Bread which was called Christs body B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. Isidore Hispal opp For a figurative Sence of Christ's words This is my Body B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. Opp. against Conversion by Transubstantiation Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 6. and for the Sence of the word Masse B. 1. Ch. 1. Sect. 2. and for calling the thing sacrificed after the order of Melchizedech Bread and Wine B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. and calling it Bread changed into a Sacrament after Consecration B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. and against Prayer in an unknowen tongue B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 7. Isidore Pelus opp that Christ spake from heaven to Saul B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 5. and for Christ's
opening the wombe of the Blessed Virgin at his birth Ibid. Ch. 7. Sect. 7. Iulius See Pope Iustine Martyr ob his Apologie against the slander of Christians as eating an Infant B. 5. Ch. 9. Sect. 1 3. unconscionably And for calling it no common bread B. 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 3. unconscionably Opp. Calling the Symbols Antitypes after Consecration B. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. and against the altering of Christ's body in his entrance thorow the doore B. 4. Ch. 7. Sect. 7. Leo. See Pope Nicholas See Pope Oecumenius Opp. For Christ's Priestly Function in Heaven B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. Optatus Ob. his calling the Altar the seat of Christ B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. and that the Eucharist is the Pledge of our Salvation B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 6. Origen ob For bread remaining after Consecration B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. Opp. Against prayer in an unknowen tongue Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 7. Chall 6. and against Christ's body going into the draught Book 4. Chap. 9. Sect. 3. and that only the Godly are Partakers of the body of Christ B. 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. and for expounding Iob. 6. The flesh profiteth nothing B. 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. Ob. his saying Not worthy that Christ should come under the roofe of our mouthes Ibid. Sect. 3. and for Christ's Priestly Function in Heaven B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. and that it was bread which was called Christ's body Booke 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 6. Pope Calixtus opp against Gazers only at the celebration of the Sacrament Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 9. and for calling Communion but in one kinde Sacrilegious B. 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 7. For the existence of Bread after Consecration B. 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 13. Clemens ob for unbloody Sacrifice B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 10. Greg. 1. opp against Gazers on the Eucharist Booke 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. Ob. for Transubstantiation out of a Legend Booke 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 7. and for his saying Blood sprinckled upon the posts B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. unconscionably Opp. Angels cannot be in divers places at once B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. Gregory 7. Pope ob for Transubstantiation B. 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. Iulius opp against Innovation in the Eucharist B. 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Leo Ob. his saying Let us taist with our flesh B. 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Opp. against them who erre in pretence of Omnipotency B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. Nicholas ob his Tearing sensibly Christ's flesh with teâ—th B. 5. Ch. 4. Sect. 1. Pius 2. against an unknowen tongue in Gods service B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 7. Chall 5. Primasius opp his correction Sacrifice or rather a Memoriall B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 6. Tertullian opp for his expounding Christ's words This is my body figuratively B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 9. and for verifying the Truth of Sence in this Sacrament B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 9. and for expounding the words of Ioh. 6. Flesh profiteth nothing B. 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. and that Angels are not in many places at once Book 4. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. and mans being in many places at once impossible B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. and that it was Bread which he called his Body B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. Theodoret opp For his expounding Christ's words This is my body figuratively B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6 8. and of bread remaining after Consecration B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 9 12. and that one thing cannot have the right hand and left of it selfe Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 9. and for Christ's Priestly Function in heaven B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. and for correcting himselfe a Sacrifice or rather a Memoriall Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 6. and for circumscription of a body in one place necessarily B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. ob his Symbols adored B. 7. Ch. 2. unconscionably Opp. That it was bread which he called his body Book 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. Theophylact ob for Transubstantiation B. 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 2. Ch. 4. Sect. 7. unconscionably Opp. for correcting himselfe saying Sacrifice or rather a Memoriall B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 6. Vigilins Opp. For circumscription of Christ's body in one place B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. IV. Index of the principall places of Scriptures opposed by us and objected against us thorow-out this Controversie PSal 72. 16. There shall be an handfull of corne Ob. to prove the Romish Sacrifice Booke 6. Chap. 4. Sect. 4. Malach. 5. 1. In every place shall Sacrifice and Oblation be offered to my name Ob. For a proper Sacrifice but vainly B. 6. Ch. 4. Sect. 1 3. Matth. 19. 14. Easier for a Camel to passe thorow the eye of a needle c. Ob. For the manner of Christ's presence B. 4. Ch. 7. Sect. 7. Matth. 26. 29. Fruit of the vine Opp. against Transubstantiation B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 5. Matth. 26. 26 c. And he blessed it Opp. B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. Brake it Ibid. Sect. 4. Said unto them Ibid. Sect. 5 6. Take Ibid. Sect. 7. Eat yee B. 1. Ch. 1. Sect. 9. In remembrance Ibid. Sect. 11. Drinke yee all of this Book 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. In like manner he tooke the cup. Ibid. As often as you shall doe this Ibid. THIS IS MY BODY The word This B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 1 c. The verbe Est Ibid. Ch. 2. Sect. 1. Figurative and not making for Transubstantiation Book 3. Ch. 1. Sect. 1. My body Farre differing from that which is in the hands of the Priest B. 4. thorow out Doe this Ob. for Sacrifice B. 6. Ch. 1. Sect. 1. Is shed Is broken Is given Ob. for Sacrifice Ibid. Sect. 2. Both unreasonably In remembrance of mee B. 6. thorowout Shed for remission of sins Ob. for a Sacrifice Propitiatory B. 6. Ch. 8. Sect. 2. Matth. 28. 6. He is not here for he is risen Opp. against Being in two places at once Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 4. Luc. 24. 16. Their eyes were holden Ob. B. 4. Ch. 3. Sect. 9. Ibid. Knowen at Emmaus by breaking of bread Ob. Book 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 3. Ioh. 6. 54. Who so eateth my flesh Opp. Booke 5. Ch. 4. Sect. 1. Ibid. vers 63. It is the Spirit that quickneth Ibid. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. Chap. 3. Sect. 6. Ioh. 19. 33. They brake not his legs Ob. B. 6. Ch. 1. Sect. 2. Ch. 3. Sect. 10. Acts 2. 42. They continued in fellowship breaking of bread Ob. B. 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. Acts 9. Concerning Christ's Apparance to Saul Ob. B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 5. Acts 13. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ob. B. 6. Ch. 2. Sect. 1. 1. Cor. 5. 7. Our Passeover is sacrificed Ob. B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. 1. Cor. 10. 3. The same spirituall meat Opp. Booke 5. Chap. 3. Sect. 1. Ibid. vers 16. The Bread which wee breake Opp. against Transubstantiation Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. Ibid. vers 18. They which eat are partakers of the Altar Ob. B. 6. Ch. 2. Sect. 10. for
sit sensus Hoc est Corpus id est Transit in Corpus Sed hoc corrumpit significationem verbi Est quod si permittitur nulla est vis in huiusmodi verbis ad probandam realem praesentiam nec substantiam Panis hîc non manere Et ità potuit Haereticus exponere Hoc est id est Repraesentat Corpus Suarez Jes Tom. 3. qu. 78. Disp 58. Sect. 7. Aâ—t 1. pag. 754. * See the former Booke throughout f Fateor neque Antiquos Patres usos esse hoc nòmine Transubstantiationis Christoph de Capite fontium Archiâ—p Caesar lib. de reali Praesent cap. 59. art 4. g Conc. Lateran ense sub Innocentio Tertio coactum ut Haereticis os obthuraret Conversionem hanc novo valdè significante verbo dixit Transubstantiationem Alan lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34. p 422. As for that obiected place out of Cyrill of Alexandria Epist ad Coelosyrium Convertens ea in yeritatem Carnis It is answered by Vasquez the Iesuite non habetur illa Epistola inter opera Cyrilli Vasquez in 3. Tâ—om Tom. 3. num 24. h Theoph. in Ioh. 6. De Christo perfidem manducato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Calumniam hanc Patres Antiqui aptissimè confuâ—âtunt atque ostendâ—runt non inventum fuisse hoc nomen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Concilio Nicaeno sed fuisse antè in usu Patrum at illud iam vocabulum vsur pari quo sui Maiores usi fuissent Bellarm. quo supra c. 3. k Etsi veteres Ecclesiae Doctores non sint usi voâ—â— TraÌ„substantiationis tamen usi sunt vocibus idem significantibus ut Conversioniâ— Transmutationis Transitionis Transformationis Transelementationis similibus Lorich Fortalit fidei Tract de Eucharist §. Nota pro solutione Argumentorum fol. 117. * 2. Cor. 3. 18. * 2 Cor. 11. 14. l Quicquid Spiritus Sanctus teâ—igerit Sanctificat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyrill Hieros Catech. 5. m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz. Orat. 40. p. 643. Edit Paris n Periculosa est vocum novaâ—um Libertas in Ecclesia cum paulatim ex vocibus novâ—… eriam res oriantur cùm cuique licet in rebus Divinis nomina â—ingere Bell. lib. dâ— Sacram. in Genere c. 7. §. Ex quibus * 1. Tim. 6. 20. * See above Chap. 1. §. 2. o Bell. l. 3. de Euch. cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen p Si quaeratur qualis sit Conversio viz. Panis in Eucharistia an formalis an substantialis an alterius generis definire non sufficio Quibusdam videtur esse substantialis dicentibus substantiam converti in substantiam Lomb. Sent. lib. 4. distinct 11. lit a. q Scotus dicit ante Concil Lateranense non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantiationem Id ille dixit quiá non legerat Conc. Rom. sub Gregorio 7. nec consensum Patrum quem nos produximus Bellar. lib. 3. de Euchar. cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen r Ante trecentos Annos in Conc. Lateran ad istius rei tà m admirabilis clariorem explicationem usurpatum fuit nomen Transubstantiationis ut intelligant Christiani substantiam Panis in substantiam corporis Christi converti Coster Ies Enchir c. 8. §. De Transubstantiatione s Si nihil planè ad Doctrinam Ecclesiasticam spectans in Cone Lateran ex communi Patrum assensu Decretum esset sequeretur posse â—t falsum impugnari Articulum de Transubstantiatione Card. Per. ensa Harangue au tiers Estats p. 33. As witnesseth our P. Preston alias Widdrington Discuss Conc. Later part 1. §. 1. pag. 12. t Venêre multa in Consultationem nec decerni quicquamtamen a ptè potuir cò quòd Pontifex quo profectus est tollendae Discordiae gratiâ mortuus est Perusij Platina in vita Innocentij Decerni nihil apertè potuit edira suÌ„â— quaedam c. Nauclerus Anno 1215. meaning after the Councell Ad festum Sanctae Andreae protractum nihil dignum memoriâ actum nisi quod Orientalis Ecclesia c. Godfridus Monumetensis Math. Paris Histor minor Concilium illud Generale quod primâ fronte grandia prae se tulit in risum scomma desijt in quo Papa omnes accedentes Iudificatus est illi enim cum nihilin eo Concilio geri cernerent redeundi veniam petierunt Thus farre out of Widdrington alias Preston in his Booke above cited u Scholastici quidam haue Doctrinam de Transubstantiatione non valde Antiquam esse dixerunt inter quos Scotus Gabriel Biel. Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disp 50 §. 1. x In Synaxi serò definivit Ecclesia Transubstantiationem diù satis erat Credere sivè sub pane sive sub quocunque modo adesse verum Corpus Christi Eras in 1. Cor. 7. pag. 373. y Mr. Breerly in his Liturgie Tract 2. §. 11. pag. 158. a Conc. Trid. dicit fieri Conversionem totius substantiae Panis id est tà m formae quà m materiae in Substantiam Corporis Christi Bell. lib. 3. de Eucharist Chap. 18. §. Si Objicias Concil Trid. Sess 13. Cap. 4. b Productio est quandò Terminuâ— ad quem non existir ideò vi Conversionis necessariò producitur ut aqua in vinum Adductiva auterm c. Bell. ibid. §. Secundò notandum Productiva non est quià Corpus Domini praeexistit Idem ibid. §. Exhis c De rarione Transubstantiationis non est ut Substantia in quam dicitur fieri Transubstantiatio producatur aut conservetur perillam imò qui hoc modo defendunt Transubstantiationem in Sacramento ad quod dam genus Philosophiae excogitatum potius quam ad verum necessarium rem reducere videntur Vasq Ies To. 2. disp 214. c. 4. d Praeter Adductiuam Conversionem evidentèr refutavimus omnes modos Conversionis qui vel dici vel fingi possunt Suarez Ies Tom. 3. qu. 7â— disp 50 §. 5 §. Tertio Principaliter M. Fisher in his Reioynder talketh fondly of a Reproduction as of Careases converted into men in which Change any One may see that as much as is Produced is not Extant for Dust is not Flesh But since he cannot apply this Reproduction to Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ his Answer is impertinent and he may be produced for an idle Disputer e Si Terminus ad quem Corpus Christi existat sed non in co loco ubi Terminus à quo i. e. Panis tum ui Conversionis adducetur ad eum locum Indè vocatur Conversio adductiva nam corpus Christi praeexistit antè Conversionem sed non sub speciebus Panis Conversio igitur non facit ut corpus Christi simplicitèr esse incipiat sed ut incipiat esse sub speciebus non quod per motum localem è Coelo Adducatur sed solùm quià per hanc coÌ„versioneÌ„ fit ut quod ante erat solùm in Coelo iam fit sub speciebus Panis Nec haec Accidentalis Conversio sed substantialis dicta est