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
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
Processions which are displayed by your owne Authours Noting in them the very fooleries of the Romane Pagans by your fond Pageants where Priests play their parts in representing the persons of Saints others of Queenes accompanied with Beares and Apes and many like profane and sportfull Inuentions and other Abuses which occasioned some of your owne more devout Professors to wish that this your Custome were abrogated Thinking that it may be omitted with profit to the Church both because it is but an Innovation and also for that it serveth most-what for ostentation and pompe rather than pious Devotion So they Lastly lest you may obiect as else where that a Negative Argument as this because Christ did not institute this Custome therefore it may not be allowed is of no effect we adde that the Argument negative if in any thing then must it prevaile in condemning that Practice which maintaineth any new End differing from that which was ordained by Christ Which made Origen and Cyprian argue Negatively in this Case the one saying Christ reserved it not till to-morrow and the other This bread is received and not reserved or put into a Boxe Which Conclusion we may hold in condemning of your publike Carrying of the Hoast in the streets and Market-places to the end only that it may be Adored aswell as of latter times your Pope Pius Quartus which your Congregation of Cardinals report did forbid a new-upstart Custome of Carrying the Sacrament to sicke people that they might adore it when as they were not able to eate it All these Premises doe inferre that your Custome of Circumgestation of the Sacrament in publike Procession onely for Adoration cannot justly be called Laudable except you meane thereby to have it termed a Laudable Noveltie and a Laudable profanation and Transgression against the Institution of Christ as now from your owne Confessions hath beene plainly evicted and as will be further manifested when wee are to speake of your Idolatrous Infatuation it selfe The Ninth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the Sence of the words following IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE SECT XI REmembrance is an act of Vnderstanding and therefore sheweth that Christ ordained the use of this Sacrament only for persons of Discretion and Vnderstanding saying DOE THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE The contrarie Canon of the Romane Masse in times past Your Iesuite Maldonate will be our Relater ingenuously confessing that in the dayes of Saint Augustine and Pope Innocent the first this opinion was of force in your Church For six hundred yeares together viz. that the Administration of the Eucharist is necessary for Infants Which opinion saith hee is now reiected by the Councell of Trent Determining that the Eucharist is not only not necessarie for Infants but also that is Indecent to give it unto them So he Of this more in the Challenge CHALLENGE IS not now this your Churches Reiecting of her former Practice a Confession that she hath a long time erred in Transgressing of the Institution of Christ How then shall your Trent-Fathers free your fore-father Pope Innocent and your former Romane Church from this taxation This they labour to doe but alas their miserie by collusion and cunning for the same Synod of Trent resolveth the point thus The holy Synod say they teacheth that Children being void of the use of Reason are not necessarily bound to the Sacramentall receiving of the Eucharist This wee call a collusion for by the same Reason wherewith they argue that Children are not necessarily bound to receive the Eucharist because they want reason they should have concluded that Therefore the Church is and was necessarily bound not to administer the Eucharist to Infants even because they wanted Reason Which the Councell doubtlesse knew but was desirous thus to cover her owne shame touching her former superstitious practice of Giving this Sacrament vnto Infants In excuse whereof your Councell of Trent adioyneth that the Church of Rome in those dayes was not condemnable but why Because saith your Councell Truly and without Controversie wee ought to beleeve that they did not give the Eucharist unto Infants as thinking it necessary to Salvation Which Answere your owne Doctors will prove to be a bold and a notorious vntruth because as your Iesuite sheweth They then beleeved that Infants baptized could not be saved except they should participate of the Eucharist taking their Argument from that Scripture of Iohn 6. Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne c. and therfore held they it necessarie to the salvation of Infants That this was the beleefe of Pope Innocent and of the Church of Rome vnder him your Parisian Doctor Espencaeus also proveth at large out of the expresse writings of Pope Innocent Yea and your greatly approved Binius in his Volumes of the Councels dedicated to Pope Paul the fift explaineth the same so exactly See the Marginall Citation that it will permit no Euasion And so much the rather because that which the Tridentine Fathers alledge for cause of Alteration doth confirme this unto us It is vndocent say they to give the Eucharist unto Infants This may perswade vs that Innocent held it necessary els would he not haue practized and patronized a thing so vtterly vndecent Wee dispute therefore If the Church of Rome in the dayes of Pope Innocent the first held it a doctrine of faith in the behalfe of Infants that they ought to receiue the Sacrament of the Eucharist the same Church of Rome in her Councell of Trent whose Decrees by the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth are all held to be beleeued vpon necessity of Salvation did decree contrarily that the participation of the Eucharist is not necessary no nor yet decent for Infants Say now did the Church of Rome not erre in the dayes of Pope Innocent then is she now in an error Or doth shee not now erre herein then did she formerly erre and consequently may erre hereafter in determinining a matter to be Necessary to Salvation which in it selfe is Superfluous and Vndecent Thus of the contrary custome of the Church of Rome in elder times The new contrary Opinion concerning the Romane Masse at this day Euen at this day also your Iesuite will haue vs to vnderstand the meaning of your Church to be that Infants are capable of the Sacrament of the Eucharist CHALLENGE VVHereunto wee oppose the Authority of the Councell of Carthage and of that which you call the Councell of Laterane which denyed as you know that the Eucharist should be delivered vnto Infants accounting them vncapable of divine and spirituall feeding without which say they the corporall profiteth nothing But we also summon against the â—ormer Assertion eight of your ancient Schoolemen who vpon the same Reasons made the like Conclusion with vs. And wee further as it were arresting you in the Kings name produce against you Christ his writ the Sacred Scripture
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
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
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
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
as their Eucharist and therefore could not reflect upon any Christian and Sacramentall communicating of Christ his flesh in the Eucharist wherein the Bodie represented according to our Christian profession is not of a Child but of a man of more than thirty yeares of age I say it could no more reflâ—ct on them than that other heathenish Lie that Christians did worship an Asse or Asses head for their God So childishly hath your Priest vaunted in calling his Obiection An evident Argument which will afterwards be encountred with an Argument against your Romish Sacrifice from the Answere of Cyril of Alexandria unto the Emperour Iulian the Apostate in defence of Christian Religion farre more Evident than yours was from the Apologie of Iustine to the other Infidell Emperour A SECOND CHALLENGE Against the Insufficiencie of the Reasons collected out of Iustine SECT III. THe Consequences deduced out of Iustine Martyr have beene answered in effect alreadie First Hee calleth the Eucharist Not common Bread and so doth every Christian speake of every sacred and consecrated thing you Papists will be offended to heare even your Holy Water no Sacrament to be called Common-water Secondly Iustine said As Christ was made flesh by incarnation so is the Eucharist by Prayer It were an Iniurie to Iustine for any man to thinke him so absurd as dealing with an Infidell to prove unto him one obscure mysterie of Christianitie by another And the calling of the Eucharist Flesh Sacramentally as being a Signe of Flesh could be no matter of Scandall to the Pagans who themselves in their Sacramentalls usually called the Signe by the name of the Thing signified one instance whereof you have heard out of Homer calling the Lambe sacrificed whereby they swore for Ratification of their Covenants their faithfull oathes Againe the generall Profession of Christians so well knowne to beleeve that Christ once crucifiedâ— ac cording to the Christian Creed set at the right hand of God in highest Maiestie might quite free them from all heathenish suspition of Corporall Eating the flesh of Christ Thirdly that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is The meate blessed by giving of Thankes Iustine calleth Christ's flesh namely Improperly which who shall affirme properly without a Figure by the Censure of your owne Iesuites must bee iudged Absurde THE THIRD CHALLENGE Against the Vnluckinesse of the Obiectors by their urging that which maketh against them SECT IV. FOr first they have told us of the Martyr Attalius that hee upbraided his heathenish persecutors who put him to death calling them Devourers of mens flesh and avouching in behalfe of all true Christians that they Devoure not man's flesh which no Romish Professor at this day can affirme this Profession that you swallow and transmit that flesh of Christ into the stomacke this having beene confessed by your owne Iesuite to be a Devouring So that the Doctrine of that primitive Age as you now see was as different from your Romish Noveltie as are Corporall and not Corporall Eating of the same Bodie of Christ Finally All our premised Sections throughout this Fift Booke doe clearely make up this Conclusion that the Bodie of Christ which Protestants doe feed upon as their soules food is the Bodie of Christ once Crucified and now sitting in glorious maiestie in Heaven and that Bodie of Christ beleeved by you is of Corporall Eating in deed and in truth of Bread as hath beene proued and will be further discovered in a generall Synopsis Wherefore let every Christian studie with syncere conscience To eate the flesh of Christ with a spirituall appetite as his Soules food thereby to have a Spirituall Vnion with him proper to the Faithfull not subiect to Vomitings or Corruption and not common to wicked men and vile beasts but alwayes working to the salvation of the true Receiver so shall he abhorre all your Capernatticall fancies Thus much of the Romish Consequence concerning Vnion the next toucheth the Sacrificing of the Body of Christ whereunto we proceed not doubting but that we shall find your Disputers the same men as hitherto wee have done peremptorie in their Assertions Vnconscionable in wresting of the Fathers and vaine fantasticall and absurd in their Inferences and Conclusions THE SIXTH BOOKE Entreating of the fourth Romish Consequence which concerneth the pretended proper Propitiatorie Sacrifice in the Romish Masse arising from the depraved Sence of the former words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY and confuted by the true Sense of the words following IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE The State of the Controversie WHosoever shall deny it say your Fathers of Trent to be a true and proper Sacrifice or that it is Propitiatorie Let him be Anathema or Accursed Which one Canon hath begot two Controversies as you know One Whether the Sacrifice in the Masse be a proper Sacrifice 2. Whether it be truly Propitiatorie Your Trent-Synode hath affirmed both Protestants deny both so that Proper and Improper are the distinct Borders of both Controversies And now whether the Affirmers or Denyers that is the Cursers or the parties so Cursed deserve rather the Curse of God we are forthwith to examine We begin with the Sacrifice as it is called Proper This Examination hath foure Trials 1. By the Scripture 2. By the Iudgement of Antient Fathers 3. By Romish Principles and 4. By Comparison betweene this your Masse and the Protestants Sacrifice in the Celebration of the holy Eucharist CHAP. I. Our Examination by Scripture SCriptures alleaged by your Disputers for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice are partly out of the new Testament and partly out of the old In the new some Objections are collected out of the Gospell of Christ and some out of other places Wee beginning at the Gospell assuredly affirme that if there were in it any note of a Proper Sacrifice it must necessarily appeare either from some speciall word or else from some Sacrificing Act of Christ at the first Institution First of Christs words That there is no one word in Christ his first Institution which can probably inferre a Proper Sacrifice not the first and principall words of Luc. 22. HOC FACITF DOE THIS SECT I. WHen we call upon you for a Proofe by the words of Christ wee exact not the verie word Offering or Sacrifice in the same Syllables but shall bee content with any Phrase of equivalencie amounting to the sense or meaning of a Sacrifice In the first place you object those words of Christ Hoc facite Doe this from which your Councell of Trent hath collected the Sacrificing of the Body of Christ which your Cardinall avoucheth with his Certum est as a Truth without all exception as if Doe this in the literall sense were all one with Doe you Sacrifice But why because forsooth the same word in the Hebrew Originall and in the Greeke Translation is so used Levit. 15. for Doe or Make spoken of the Turtle-dove prepared for an Holocaust or Sacrifice and 1
of our Protestants profession concerning the Celebration of the Eucharist in comparison of your Romish How much more when you shall see discovered the Idolatry thereof which is our next Taske THE SEVENTH BOOKE Concerning the last Romish Consequence derived from the depraved sence of the words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY which is your Divine Adoration of the Sacrament contrary to these other words of Christ IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE CHAP. I. WEE have hitherto passed thorow many dangerous and pernicious Gulfes of Romish Doctrines which our instant haste will not suffer us to looke backe upon by any repetition of them But now are wee entring upon Asphaltites or Mare mortuum even the Dead Sea of Romish Idolatrie whereinto all their superstitious and sacrilegious Doctrines doe emptie themselves which how detestable it is we had rather prove than prejudge The State of the Question concerning Adoration of the Sacrament SECT I. IN the thirteenth Session of your Councell of Trent wee finde a Decree commanding thus Let the same divine honour that is due to the true God be giuen to this Sacrament After this warning-Peece they shoot of a great Canon of Anathema and Curse against everie one that shall not herein worship Christ namely as corporally present with Divine honour That is to say To adore with an absolute divine worship the whole visible Sacrament of Christ in the formes of bread and wine as your Iesuit expoundeth it A worship saith he far exceeding that which is to be given to the Crucifix Whereupon it is that your Priests are taught in your Romane Missall to elevate the Consecrated Hoast and to propound it to the people to be adored and adoring it themselves in thrice striking their breast to say O Lambe of God that takest away the sinnes of the world have mercy upon us So you But what doe they whom you call Sacramentaries judge of this kinde of worship can you tell All of them saith your Cardinall call it Idolatry But they whom you call Lutherans are they not of the same Iudgement say They call us because of this worship Artolaters that is Bread-worshippers and Idolaters saith your Iesuit As for our Church of England She accordingly saith that The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not reserved carried about lifted up or worshipped Our Method must now be to treat first of Christs Institution or Masse next of the Profession of Antient Fathers then of your Romish Masse in it selfe and lastly wee shall returne againe to our owne home to demonstrate the happie Securitie which our Church hath in her manner of worship So that these contradictorie Propositions This Sacrament is to be adored with divine worship and Is not to be adored with divine worship being the two different scales of this Controversie the one will preponderate the other according to the weight of Arguments which shall be put into either of them Of the Institution of Christ shewing that there was therein neither Precept for this Adoration of the Sacrament nor Practice thereof SECT II. NO outward Adoration of the Sacrament was practised of the Disciples of Christ say we at the Institution thereof which you confesse with us and take upon you to give a reason thereof to wit that There was no need that the Apostles should use any outward signification of honour to the Sacrament because they had then Christ present and visible before them So your Iesuite which contradicteth your owne Objection of therefore adoring Christ in receiving the Sacrament because then he Commeth under the roofe of your mouthes for the neerer our approach is to any Majestie the greater useth to be our outward humiliation But well no Practice of outward Adoration by the Apostles at that time can appeare much lesse have you any Evidence of any Precept for it If there had beene in the words of Christ or in the volume of the new Testament any syllable thereof your Cardinall would not have roved so farre as to Deuteronomie in the old Testament to fetch his only defence out of these words of God Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God supposing that the Bread which is worshipped is indeed the Sonne of God which is as it were mere Canting being the basest kinde of Reasoning that can be and is therefore called of Logitians A begging of the point in Question We contrarily adhere to the Institution of Christ in all points necessarie and essentiall thereunto and knowing that the Apostle promised to deliver Whatsoever hee had received of the Lord concerning this Sacrament which you hold to be the principall part of your Romish Religion wee are perswaded that he in expressing the other Commands of Christ touching Consecration Administration and Communication of this Sacrament never taught that your Article of divine Adoration whereof hee gave not so much as the least intimation The Apostolicall times faile you We shall try if the next called the Primitive Age can any whit advantage your Cause which is our second Station CHAP. II. Of the Doctrine of Antiquity concerning the Adoration of the Eucharist SECT I. THE Iudgement of Antiquity is objected by you and the same is opposed by us against you Let both be put to the Triall First by answering of your Objections out of the Fathers against us and then by opposing their direct Testimonies against you Your Objections are partly Verball and partly Practicall the Verball are of three kinds two whereof are specified in the next Proposition That neither the objected manner of Invitation to come with feare nor of Association of Angels spoken of by the Fathers imply any Divine Adoration of the Eucharist SECT II. OVt of Chrysostome is objected his Exhortation that Christians in their approach to this Sacrament Doe come with horror feare and reverence Next is their talking of the Angels being present at this Celebration holding downe their heads and not daring to behold the excellency of the splendor c. and to deprecate the Lambe lying on the Altar These seeme to your Cardinall to be such invincible Testimonies to prove the Adoration of Christ as Corporally present that he is bold to say They never hitherto were answered nor yet possibly can be So he taking all Chrysostomes words in a literall sence whom notwithstanding your owne Senensis hath made to be the most Hyperbolizing Preacher of all the Fathers and therefore hath given unto all Divines a speciall Caution against his Rhetoricke in the point of this Sacrament lest we understand him literally Of which kinds you may have some Instances out of the very places Objected where Chrysostome saith indeed That we see that Lambe lying on the Altar And said he not also even in the same Oration We see here Christ lying in the Manger wrapped in his clouts a dreadfull and admirable spectacle So he But say doe you see herein either Cratch or Clothes or can you talke of Christ's
Consecration And that Then as we see now done among us it was Invocated upon even plainly after Consecration saith your Durantus also and indeed almost who not But doe you first if you please admire the wit of your Cardinall in so framing his Consequence and after abhor his will to decive you when you have done for he applyeth the words spoken by Basil of an Invocation before Consecration when as yet by your owne Doctrine Christ is not present as spoken of an Invocation of the Eucharist after Consecration for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ therein and the Divine Adoration thereof as will most evidently appeare For first it is not unknowne to you that the Greeke Church differeth from your Roman in the forme of Consecration at this day they consecrating in words of prayer and Invocation and you in the repetition of Christs words This is my Body wherein there is no Invocation at all And Basil was of the Greeke Church Secondly your Archbishop of Cesarea for proofe that Invocation by prayers was a forme of Consecration used primitively in the Greeke Church citeth the two most ancient Fathers Tertullian and Irenaeus and of the Greeke he alleageth Iustine Cyril Damascen Theophilus Alex. yea and by your leave Basil himselfe too and that Basil was an Orthodox Greeke Father you will not deny Thirdly therefore to come home unto you we shall be directed by the objected words of Basil himselfe appealing herein to your owne consciences For your Lindanus was in the estimation of your Church the strongest Champion in his time for your Roman Cause he to prove that the forme of Consecration of the Eucharist standeth not in any prescribed words in the Gospell but in words of Invocation by prayer as hath beene confirmed by a Torrent of Ancient Fathers saith That the same is illustrated by these words of Basil saying What Father hath left unto us in writing the words of Invocation when the Bread is shewne unto us adding That no man of sound Braines can require any more for the clearing of the point concerning the forme of Consecration So then Invocation was an Invocation by Prayer unto God for the Consecration of the Bread set before them and not an Invocation of Adoration unto the Eucharist as already consecrated which your Cardinall unconscionably we will not say unlearnedly hath enforced Looke upon the Text againe for your better satisfaction It speaketh expresly of an Invocation when Bread is shewne but you deny that Bread is Invocated upon untill after Consecration And Basil demanding What Father before us hath left in writing the words of Invocation is in true and genuine sence as if he had expresly said what Father before us hath left in writing the words of Invocating God by Prayer of Consecration of Bread to make it a Sacrament as both the Testimonies of Fathers above confessed manifest and your objected Greeke Missals doe ratifie unto us For in the Liturgie ascribed to Saint Iames the Apostle the Consecration is by Invocating and praying thus Holy Lord who dwellest in holiest c. The Liturgie of Chrysostome invocateth by praying We beseech thee O Lord to send thy Spirit upon these Gifts prepared before us c. The Liturgie under the name of Basil consecrateth by this Invocation when the Priest lifteth up the Bread Looke downe O Lord Iesu our God from thy holy habitation and vouchsafe c. All these therefore were according to the Example of Christ Invocations that is Prayers of Consecrating the Sacrament and therefore could not be Invocations and Adorations of the same Sacrament And as for any expresse or prescribed forme or prayer to be used of All well might Basil say Who hath set it downe in writing that is It was never delivered either in Scripture or in the Bookes of any Author of former Antiquity and this is that which is testified in your owne Bookes of Augustine out of Basil saying that No writing hath delivered in what words the forme of Consecration was made Now then guesse you what was in the braines of your Disputers in objecting this Testimony of Basil contrary to the evident Sence and accordingly judge of the weaknesse of your Cause which hath no better supports than such fond false and ridiculous Objections to relye upon Such as is also that your Cardinall his objecting the words of Origen concerning the receiving of this Sacrament saying Lord I am not worthy thou shouldest come under the roofe of my mouth which hath beene confuted as unworthy the mention in this case If you would have some Examples of Adoring Christ with divine worship in the Mystery of the Eucharist by celebrating the manner of his death as Hierom may be said to have adored at Ierusalem Christ in his Crach or as every Christian doth in the Mystery of Baptisme we could store you with multitudes but of Adoring the Eucharist with a proper Invocation of Christ himselfe therein we have not as yet received from you any one CHAP. IV. That the Divine Adoration of the Sacrament is thrice Repugnant to the Iudgement of Antiquity First by their Silence SECT I. YOV are not to require of us that we produce the expresse Sentences of ancient Fathers condemning the Ascribing of Divine honour to the Sacrament seeing that this Romish Doctrine was neither in Opinion nor Practice in their times It ought to satisfie you that your owne most zealous indefatigable subtill and skilfull Miners digging and searching into all the Volumes of Antiquity which have beene extant in the Christian world for the space of six or seven hundred yeares after Christ yet have not beene able to extract from them any proofe of a Divine honour as due to this Sacrament either in expresse words or practice insomuch that you are enforced to obtrude onely such Sentences and Acts which equally extend to the honouring of the Sacrament of Baptisme and other sacred things whereunto even according to your owne Romish Profession Divine honour cannot be attributed without grosse Idolatry and never ther the lesse have your Disputers not spared to call such their Objections Cleare Arguments piercing and unsoluble We therefore make bold hereupon to knocke at the Consistory dore of the conscience of every man indued with any small glimpse of Reason and to entreat him for Christ's sake whose Cause it is to judge betweene Rome and Vs after he hath heard the case which standeth thus Divine Adoration of the Host is held to be in the Romish Profession the principall practique part of Christian Religion Next the ancient Fathers of the Church were the faithfull Registers of Catholike Truth in all necessary points of Christian Faith and Divine Worship They in their writings manifoldly instructed their Readers by Exhortations Admonitions Perswasions Precepts how they are to demeane themselves in the receiving of this Sacrament not omitting any Act whereby to set forth the true Dignity and Reverence
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
Objectively Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Of Propitiousnesse B. 6. Ch. 8. Sect. 1. Divine Sacrament so called of the Fathers without any inference of a Corporall Presence B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 13. Dominus Vobiscum in the Romish Masse condemneth their private Masse Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 5. E. EAting and drinking spiritually are all one but not Sacramentally B. 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 8. Elevation not ancient B. 6. Ch. 1. Sect. 5. Proveth not Adoration B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. Eucharist anciently called the Lord's Supper Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. Forbid to be carried to the sicke for Adoration Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 10. In both kindes proved by Christ's precept B. 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 1. See Cup. Exposition of Scripture by the Romish Church sworne unto but not without Perjury in a Synopsis B. 7. Ch. 2. Sect. 5. G. GAzers excluded from the Sacrament anciently Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 9. Gesture of bowing objected for Adoration of the Host vainly Booke 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 3. God's Presence in many places objected fondly for proofe of the possibility of a Body in divers places at once Book 4. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. Holy Ghost proved to be infinite and God by it's being in divers places at once by the Iudgement of Antiquity Booke 4. Chap. 6. Sect. 2. Guilty of the Lords Bodie Words objected for proofe of Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist vainly Book 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 1 5. H. HAbituall Condition no sufficient Pretence to free the Romish from Idolatry Booke 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 3 4. A matter of great perplexity in the Romish worship Ibid. Chap. 9. Sect. 7. Hands not taking the Sacrament therewith an Innovation against the Institution of Christ B. 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 8. Heresie the Defence of the Romish Masse fraught with many B. 8. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. Hoc facite Absurdly objected for proofe of a Sacrifice Booke 6. Chap. 1. Sect. 1. Hoc in the words Hoc est corpus meum doth not point out properly either Christ's Body or Individuum vagum Booke 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 2 c. I. IDolatry materiall in the Romish Masse possible almost infinitely Booke 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 1 c. Yea and Formall notwithstanding any Pretence to the Contrary Ib. Chap. 6. Sect. 1. No warrant for such Pretences from Antiquity Ibid. Sect. 5. A Synopsis of this Booke 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 5. Idolatry an errour in the understanding Booke 7. Chap. 7. Sect. 1. The Romish as Idolatrous as the Heathen Ibid. Chap. 8. Sect. 1. And in one respect worse B. 7. Chap. 8. Sect. 2. Impossibility acknowledged in things contradictory even with the Advancement of God's â—mpotencie Book 4. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. See Contradiction Omnipotencie Infants made partakers of the Eucharist erroneously B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 11. Institution of Christ transgressed by the Romish Church by ten Prevarications B. 1. Ch. 2. Intent good cannot free one from Formall Idolatry B. 7. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. Intention of the Priest if not right occasioneth Idolatry B. 7. Ch. 5. Sect. 4. A matter of extreme perplexity Ibid. Ch. 9. Sect. 5. Invocation upon the Sacrament can never be proved out of the Fathers B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 1. Romish manner of Invocating the Host Ibid. Chap. 7. Sect. 1. L. LIft up your hearts used anciciently maketh against Adoration of the Eucharist Book 7. Chap. 4. Sect. 2. Liturgies or Missals ancient praying God to accept this as Abel's Sacrifice B. 8. Ch. 8. Sect. 4. M. MAsse the word B. 1. Ch. 1. The Romish hath ten Innovations contrary to Christ his Institution B. 1. Ch. 2. The Superstitiousnesse thereof Book 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 1. Sacrilegiousnesse thereof Ibid. Sect. 2. Idolatrousnesse Booke 7. thorowout B. 8. Ch. 1. Sect. 5. Melchizedech his Priesthood and Sacrifice objected and discussed Booke 6. Chap. 3. Miraculous Apparitions thirteene of true flesh and blood in the Eucharist falsly pretended for proofe of a Corporall Presence Booke 4. Chap. 2. Sect 1 c. Miraculous birth of Christ thorow the wombe of the Blessed Virgin ob and his entrance thorow the doores and passing thorow the Tombe and a Camels passing thorow a needles eye Booke 4. Chap. 7. Sect. 7. Morall Certainty no sufficient Pretence to excuse from formall Idolatry B. 7. Ch. 6. Sect. 2. A matter of great perplexity in Romish worship Book 7. Ch. 9. Sect. 4. D. Morton vindicated from two Romish Adversaries in the point of the Maniches opinion imputed to the Romish Church B. 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 7. O. OBstinacies of the Defenders of the Romish Masse discovered in a Synopsis B. 8. Ch. 2. Sect. 1 c. Omnipotencie spoken of the Fathers and objected for a Corporall presence of Christ's body and for Transubstantiation vainly B. 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 2. God's Omnipotencie nothing impeached by the acknowledgement of Impossibilities by Contradiction B. 4. Chap. 3. Sect. 2 c. Omnipotencie pretended by Heretikes Ibid. Chap. 4. Sect. 5. See Impossibility and see Contradiction Ordination awanting in the Romish Priest causeth Idolatry in their Masse Booke 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 6. P. PAsseovâ—s no Type of a proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist Booke 6. Chap. 3. Sect. 10. Pastophorium what it signifieth B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 10. B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. Perjuries of the Romish Disputants in Defence of their Masse in a Synopsis Book 8. Ch. 2. Sect. 4. Perplexities wherewith the Romish are intangled in their Adoration and from which Protestants are free B. 7. Ch. 9. Place One Body in many places impossible proved by Contradictions in it selfe Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 2 c. By Confession Scripture and Fathers Ibid. Sect. 3 c. By Reasons Sect. 9. Objections to the contrary answered B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 1 c. Ob. Sol. Chap. 5. Sect. 4. The Fathers prove the Holy Ghost God by it's being in divâ—…s places at once B. 4. Ch. 6. Sect. 2. See Angels Pledge of Resurrection is the Eucharist called of the Fathers vainly objected for proofe of a Corporall Presence B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 6. B. 4. Ch. 10. Sect. 5. See also B. 〈◊〉 Ch. 3. Sect. 11. Popes Consecration a matter doubtfull and dangerous B. 7. Ch. 7. Sect. 4. Popes made wiser than the Apostles Book 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 4. Christ's Divine Precept held to be by the Pope dispensable Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 13. Presence of Christ's Body wherein the Difference de modo 〈◊〉 necessary Booke 4. Ch. 1 c. Romish manner Capernaiticall Chap. 2. Sect. 1. Impossible Chap. 3. Sect. 1. Priesthood Romish not after the order of Melchizedech B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. Word Priest uproperly used of the Fathers B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 15. Christs Priesthood now performed in heaven B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 7. Confirmed by antiquity Sect. 8. Private Masse See Masse Procession with the Sacrament an Innovation Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 10. Pronuntiation of the words of Consecration a matter of
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
ullam nisi juxtà unanimem Consensum Patrum interpretabor b Valent. Ies Anal. lâ—b 8. cap. 8. Patet nobis via urgendi unum aut alrerum Doctorem authoritate reliquorum c Canus loâ— theol lib. 7. cap. 3. num 8. Plurium Sanctorum authoritas reliquis licet paucioribus reclamantibus firma Argumenta sufficere praestare non valet d Valent. quo supra Quod si per Sententiam Doctorum aliqua fidei controversia non satis commodè componi posset co quòd de corum consensu non satis constaret sua tunc constet Autoritas PoÌ„tifici ut consult is aliis ad definiendum reguliâ— de quibus est dictâ—m Ecclesiae proponat quid sit sentiendum e Bellarm. Epist Dedic Paulo Quints antè Comment in Psal Psalmorum ego tractationem magis propriâ meditatione quaÌ„ multa librorum lectione composui f Maldon Ies in Matth. 20. Existimant Patres filios Zebedaei temerè respondisse ego vero credo eos verè esse locutos Item in Matth. 16. 18. Non praevalebunt Quorum verborum sensus non videtur mihi esse quem omnes praeter Hilarium quos legisse memini Authores putant Item in Matth. 11. 11. Variae sunt Patrum opiniones sed ut liberè fatear in nul a carum aquiesco Item in Matth. 11. 13. Prophetae lex Omnes fere veâ—eres ita exponunt sed non est apta satis interpretatio Item Matth. 19. 11. Non omnes capiunt i. e. non omnes capimus Sic omnes fere veteres exponunt quibus equidem non assentior Item in Iob. 6. 62 Sic quidem expono licet Expositionis hujus Autorem nullum habeo hanc tamen magis probo quam illam Augustini caeterarumque alioqui probabilissimaâ—â— quia hoc cum CALVINISTARUM sensu magis pugnat g Canus loc Theol. lib. 7. cap. 3. Sancti omnes qui in ejus rei mentionem incidêre uno ore asseruerunt B. Virginem in originali peccato conceptam fuisse And then hee reckoneth adding Et si nullus contravenet it infirmum tamen cx omnium autoritate ArgumentuÌ„ h Salmeron Ies in Rom. 5. Disp 49. In quo omnes peccaverunt Mariam conceptam in originali peccato eâ—siâ— non siâ— haeresis daninata nempè tamâ—… ad fidem spectat Item Disp 51. A qua multitudine Patrum locum ab autoritate infirmum Pauperis est numerare pecus Exod. 13. In judicio plurimorum non acquiesces sententiae ut à vero demas multitudinem multitudini opponimus At Devoti erga D. Virg. Resp Totam Devotionem eâ—ga illam non consisteâ—e in Patribus ut in Bernardo c. At Antiqui Resp Quilibet senex laudator temporis acti sed illud asserimus quo juniores eo perspicaciores Doctores esse After hee wrangleth and wresteth some savings of Fathers to his part In celeberrimâ Parisiensium Academiâ nullus in theologia titulo Doctoris dignus habetur qui non primum jusjurandi religione se adstrinxerit ad hoc Virginis privilegium tuendum i Bernard Epist 174. Hanc prolis praerogativam B. Mariae tribuere non est honorare Virginem sed honori detrahâ—re Et Paulò ante Nunquid patribus doctiores aut devotiores sumus * Booke 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 1. k Booke 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 6. and Chap. 2. Sect. 6 7. l Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. See also Booke 3. Chap. 3. in the words The fruit of the Vine Sect. 5. a See above in this Sect. 4. initio at the letter a b Synod Trident. Sess 1â— c Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 11. * Ibid. Sect. 5. Sect. 10. d Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 9. e Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. f See Booke 4. a Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 3. * Ibid. b Booke 1. thorow-out c Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 7. d Ibid. e Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 10. f Ibid. Sect. 10. g Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 4. h Ibid. i Booke 2. Chap. 3. thorowout k Ibid. l Booke 2. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. * Iohn 3. m See above in this Booke Chap. 2. Sect. 3. n Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. o Booke 4. Chap. 4. Sect. 〈◊〉 p Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. q Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 9. r Manichaei dicebant Christum 〈◊〉 esse verum hominem sed phantasma quoddam Prâ—…l Eleâ—ch Haret s Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 12. Ibid. Sect. 13. u Booke 4. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Chap. 6. Sect. 1. x Chap. 4. thorowout y Ibid. Sect. 6. a Ibid. b Chap. 4. Sect. 〈◊〉 c Chap. 6. Sect. 〈◊〉 d Ibid. e Chap. 7. Sect. 6. f Chap. 7. Sect. 6. g Chap. 4. Sect. 9. h Prateol Elâ—nch â—â—res Tit. Philoponus Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 Statuit morâ—…m resurrectionem esse viz. ratâ—onalium animaruÌ„ cum corruptibili corpore indissolubilem unionem i Booke 4. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. k Ibid. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. l Chap. 4. Sect. 6. at b c m Ibid. n Booke 5. thorowout o Chap. 5. Sect. 2. p Booke 5. Chap. 6. Sect. 3. q Booke 5. Chap. 7. Sect. 4. r Booke 5. Chap. 7. Sect. 1. s See above in this Booke Chap. 1. Sect. 2. t Booke 7. Chap. 8. Sect. 2. u Chap. 5. Sect. 3. x Chap. 9. Sect. 5.
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
vsed by our Sauiour was performed by that his Blessing by Prayer which preceded the pronouncing of those words Hoc est corpus meum This is my bodie c. To this purpose hee is bold to averre that Thomas Aquinas and all Catholikes before Caietane have confessed that Christ did consecrate in that his Benedixit that is He blessed it And that Saint Iames and Dionyse the Areopagite did not Consecrate only in the other words but by Prayer Then he assureth vs that the Greeke Churches maintained that Consecration consisteth in Benediction by Prayer and not in the only repetition of the words afore-said After this hee produceth your subtilest Schooleman Scotus accompanied with divers others Who Derided those that attributed such a supernaturall vertue to the other forme of words After steppeth in your Lindan who avoucheth Iustin one of the ancientest of Fathers as Denying that the Apostles consecrated the Eucharist in those words Hoc est c. and affirming that Consecration could not be without Prayer Be you but pleased to peruse the Marginals and you shall further find alleadged the Testimonies of Pope Gregorie Hierome Ambrose Bernard and to ascend higher the Liturgies of Clement Basil Chrysostome and of the Romane Church it selfe in gain-saying of the Consecration by the only words of Institution as you pretend And in the end he draweth in two Popes contradicting one the other in this point and hath no other meanes to stint their iarre but whereas the authoritie of both is equall to thinke it iust to yeild rather to the better learned of them both Whosoever requireth more may be satisfied by reading of the Booke itselfe It will not suffice to say that you also vse Prayer in the Romish Liturgie for the question is not meerely of Praying but wherein the forme of Benediction and Consecration properly doth consist Now none can say that he consecrateth by that Prayer which he belieueth is not ordained for Consecration We may furthermore take hold by the way of the Testification of Mr. Brereley a Romish Priest who out of Basil and Chrysostome calling one part Calix benedictione sacratus alloweth Benediction to haue beene the Consecration thereof All this Armie of Witnesses were no better than Meteors or imaginarie figures of battailes in the aire if that the Answere of Bellarmine may goe for warrant to wit that the only Pronuntiation of these words Hoc est corpus meum imply in them as hee saith an Invocation or Prayer Which words as any man may perceiue Christ spake not supplicatorily vnto God but declaratiuely vnto his Apostles accordingly as the Text speaketh Hee said unto them as is also well observed by your fore-said Arch-bishop of Caesarea out of Saint Hierome But none of you we presume will dare to say that Christ did Invocate his Disciples These words therefore are of Declaration and not of Invocation Which now Romish Doctrine of Consecrating by reciting these words This is my bodie c. your Divines of Colen haue iudged to be a Fierce madnesse as being repugnant both to the Easterne and Westerne Churches But we haue heard divers Westerne Authours speake giue leave to an Easterne Archbishop to deliuer his minde No Apostle or Doctor is knowne to affirme saith hee those sole words of Christ to haue beene sufficient for Consecration So he three hundred yeares since satisfying also the Testimonie of Chrysostome obiected to the contrarie As miserable and more intolerable is the Answere of others who said that the Evangelists haue not observed the right order of Christ his actions as if hee had first said This is my bodie by way of Consecration and after commanded them to Take and eat Which Answere your owne Iesuite hath branded with the note of Falsitie yea so false that as it is further avouched all ancient Liturgies aswell Greeke as Latine constantly held that in the order of the tenour of Christ his Institution it was first said Takâ— yee before that he said This is my Bodie Lastly your other lurking-hole is as shameful as the former where when the iudgement of Antiquitie is obiected against you requiring that Consecration be done directly by Prayer vnto God you answere that some Fathers did use such speeches in their Sermons to the people but in their secret instraction of Priests did teach otherwise Which Answere besides the falsitie thereof Wee take to be no better than a reproach against Antiquitie and all one as to say that those venerable Witnesses of Truth would professe one thing in the Cellar and proclaime the contrarie on the house-top It were to be wished that when you frame your Answeres to direct other men's Consciences you would first satisfie your owne especially being occupied in soule's-businesses We conclude Seeing that Forme as all learning teacheth giveth being vnto all things therefore your Church albeit shee vse Prayer yet erring in her iudgement concerning the perfect manner and Forme of Consecration of this Sacrament how shall shee be credited in the Materialls wherein she will be found aswell as in this to haue Transgressed the same Iniunction of Christ DOE THIS Neuerthelesse this our Conclusion is not so bee interpreted as hearken Mr. Brereley to exclude out of the words of this Celebration the Repetition and pronunciation of these words This is my Bodie and This is my Bloud of the new Testament Farre be this from vs because wee hold them to be essentially belonging to the Narration of the Institution of Christ and are vsed in the Liturgie of our Church for although they be not words of Blessing and Consecration because not of Petition but of Repetition yet are they Words of Direction and withall Significations and Testifications of the mysticall effects thereof Your Obiection out of the Fathers is answered The second Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse is in their Contradicting the sence of the next words of Institution HE BRAKE IT SECT IV. HE brake it So all the Evangelists doe relate Which Act of Christ plainly noteth that hee Brake the Bread for distributing of the same vnto his Disciples And his Command is manifest in saying as well in behalfe of this as of the rest Doe this Your Priest indeed Breaketh one Hoast into three parts vpon the Consecration thereof but our Question is of Fraction or Breaking for Distribution to the People The Contrarie Canon of the now Romane Masse BEHOLD say you Christ brake it but the Catholike Church meaning the Romane now doth not breake it but giueth it whole And this you pretend to doe for Reverence-sake Lest as your Iesuite saith some crummes of Bread may fall to the ground Neither is there any Direction to your Priest to Breake the Bread either before or after Consecration in your Romane Masse especially that which is distributed to the people CHALLENGE BVt now see wee pray you the absolute Confession of your owne Doctors whereby is
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