Baptisme into the death of Christ He saith not we signifie his buriall but absolutely saith we are buried therfore hath he called the Sacrament or Signe of so great a thing by the name of the thing signified thereby So hee even the same Hee who will bee found like himselfe in the following passages of this and other books especially when wee shall handle the Manner of eating of Christs Body which Augustine will challenge to bee Figuratively meant âšœ Your Answerers are so puzzled with Saint Augustine his Testimonies that you may doubt whether rather to pity their perplexities or else to hate their perversenesse as you may see by another Testimony of the same Father which wee may not let passe * Aug. con Adimant cap. 12. Scriptum est sanguinem precoris animam ejus esse Possum interpretari praeceptum illud in signo esse positum non enim dubitavit Christus dicere Hoc est corpus meum cum signum dedit corporis sui Christ doubted not to say This is my Body when hee gave a Signe of his Body even as hee saith hee might interpret that Scripture * Deut. 12. The blood of the Beast is the life of the Beast The blood is a signe thereof Where his sole ayme is to expound the Verbe Est to bee no more than it Is a Signe or Signifieth But whether as your 16 Bell. l. 2. de Euch. cap. 24. in his two last as it were in his best Answeres Aug. intelligere non nudum signum sed cum re ipsa conjunctum nec corporis absentis ut sanguis signum non animae absentis 2. Sol. Signum corporis immolari in Cruce Cardinall fancieth it was a Signe of Christ's Body present in the Eucharist or rather as absent after on the Crosse Aug. regardeth not to mention but meerly to teach here which he doth more exactly else-where that wheresoever any thing is predicated and affirmed of another thing of a different nature as when the Signe is called by the name of the thing signified the speech is Figurative as Christ by the Apostle is called Rocke 17 August quaest super Levit. cap. 57. Non est dictum Petra significat Christum sed Petra erat Christus sic solet loqui Scriptura res significaÌ„tes tanquà m res quae significantur appellans Tract 77. It is not said saith Saint Augustine The Rocke signifieth Christ but the Rocke is Christ which is usuall saith he in Scripture which calleth signes of things by the names of the things themselves which are signified thereby It will not be impertinent to adjoyne hereunto your Iesuiticall Interpretation of these words of the Apostle The Rocke was Christ and after to compare it with this of Saint Augustine that thereby we may the better discerne Light from darkenesse 18 Iaâ— Gordon Ies lib. Controv. 3. cap. 7. num 21. Petra erat Christus 1. Cor. 10. Germanus literalis sensus non est iste Petra significat Christum ut putant Adversarij qui ex hoc loco contendunt probare verbum sub stantivâ—n Est aliquandò usurpari pro significat ut indè faciliùs ignâ—ris persuadeant verbum Est in verbis Christi idem valere quod significat The Literall and Proper Sense of these words saith hee is not that which our Adversaries meaning Protestants doe hold The Rocke signified Christ contending hereupon to prove that the Verbe EST is sometime used for SIGNIFIETH that thereby they may the more easily perswade that the word EST in Christs Speech is the same in Sense with SIGNIFIETH So hee What Heretike could have more confronted Saint Augustine than your Iesuite hath by denying the words The Rocke was Christ to bee in true Sense Did Signifie Christ Secondly that Est elsewhere is used in Scripture for Significat in both which Saint Augustine is as absolute an Adversarie and yet no more in these than indeed in the whole Cause concerning the Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament And the cause of Saint Augustines interpretation is plaine For Adimantus the Manichee objected to the Iewe 19 Aug. cont Adimant quo sap Adimantus Manichaeus â—it secundùm intellectum Iudaeorum qui dicunt sanguinem esse animam sequi c. That they understood by the other Text The blood of the Beast is the soule thereof not that it was conteined in the soule or joyned with the soule but that it is the soule it selfe This is that Literall interpretation which Augustine declineth and expoundeth the words as spoken Figuratively Signe for the thing signified as * See above at the letter u hee did in the speech of Christ saying of Bread This is my Body And doth not 20 Cyril Hier. Catech. Mistag 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril call Baptisme the Antitype of Christs Passion Saint Augustine desireth to have one word more 21 Aug. in lib. Sent. Prosperi De Consecrat Dist â—â— Cap. Hoc est quod dicimus sicut ergò coelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cum reverâ sit SacrameÌ„ u n corporis Christi illius videlicet quod visibile quod palpabile 〈◊〉 mortale in cruze positum est vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus sit Christi passio mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio The Heavenly Bread saith hee which is Christ's flesh is called after a maner the Body of Christ when as indeed it is the Sacrament of Christ's Body to wit of that Body which is visible palpable mortall and the Immolation of his flesh which is done by the hands of the Priest is called Christ's Passion Death and Crucifixion but not in the veritie of the thing but in a Significant mysterie So he Which words if they should need a Comment can have no better than is your owne publike privileged Romish Glosse upon them saying 22 Glâ—ssa in eum locum Coelestis Id est Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè unde dicitue suo modo non rel veritate sed signisicante mysterio ut sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est Significat The Heavenly Sacrament which truly representeth Christ's flesh is called the Body of Christ IMPROPERLY where it is said to be after a certaine maner the Bodie of Christ There are foure principall Observables in this one sentence of Saint Augustine I. Your Doctors have vilified our Sacrament because wee judging it to be Bread do but onely account it a Sacrament of Christ's Body Saint Augustine doth here reprove them as directly as if hee had said Though it be but a Sacrament of Christ's Body yet is it to be esteemed as Heavenly Bread II. As often as you reade of the Bread called Christ's Body you straine it to your owne sense as directly demonstrating Christ's Body Saint Augustine telleth you that it is in
clause of Salmeron Hoc id est Hoc opus I say onely that Opus erat Salmeroni medico Salemeron g Chavaus Ies Comment in formam juramenti fidei inscriptio libri est Professio verae fidei §. 49. pag. 468. Chavausius these last three being Iesuites to whom you may adde h In his booke of the Liturgie of the Masse pag. 138. Tract 2. Sect. 3. Master Brerely his Answere saying that these words Most evidently relate to Christs Body As evidently saith also your Iesuite i Nallouâ— his late Reply against Doctor Vâ—her pag 204. Malloun as one pointing at his Booke should say This is my Book CHALLENGE ARe not these Opinators in number many in name for the most part of great esteeme their Assertion in their owne opinion full of assurance and delivered to their Hearers as the onely Catholike Resolution And yet behold One whose name alone hath obtained an Authority equivalent to almost all theirs your Cardinall k Argumentum eorum qui volunt Pronomen Hoc demonstrate corpus est absurdum quòd in hujusmodi propositionibus quae significant id quod tunc fit cum dicitur Pronomina demonstrativa non demonstrare quod est sed quod erit Et ponunt Exempla ut si quis dum pingit lineam aut circulum dicat Haec est linea hic est Ciculus Quomodo etiam exponi debet Pronomen in illis verbis Domini Ioh. 25. Hoc est praeceptum meum Haec explicatio non videtur satisfacere propter duas causas Primò quià etsi Pronomen demoÌ„strativum demonstret rem futuram quandò nihil est praesens quod demonstretur ut in exemplis allatis tamen si quis digito aliquid ostendat dum pronomen essert valde absurdum videtur dicere pronomine illo non demoÌ„strari rem praesentem Atqui Dominus accepit panem illum porrigens ait Accipite Edite H. E. C. M. Videtur igitur demonstrasse panem Neque obstat quod propositio non significat nisi in fine totius prolationis Nam etsi ità est de propositione quae est ratio quaedam tamen Demonstrativa Pronomina mox indicant certum aliquid etiam antequam sequantur caeterae voces Et sane in illis verbis Bibite ex hoc omnes valdè durum est non demonstrari id quod erat sed id tantùm quod futurum erat Secundò si Pronomen Hoc demonstrat solùm Corpus verba speculativa erunt non practica Bellar lib. 1. de Euch cap. 11. §. Nota secundò 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 Meâ—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 bee sayd This is my Body âšœ With your Cardinall two other Iesuites take part ingenuously confessing that 1 Vasquez in 3. Thom. Disp 181. cap 12. Hoc non potest demonstrare nisi id quod est praesens And Iacob Gordonus Scotus Ies lib. controvers controver 4. cap. 1. num 4. 9. Si remâ—neret panis substantiâ— pronomen Hoc necessario demonstraret panis substantiam quae remanet ità ut sensus esset Hic panis est corpus meum nam pronomen Hoc non potest non demonstrare rem praesentem The Pronounce Hoc This in Christs words doth necessarily demonstrate a thing present A Reason pregnant enough in it selfe ratified by your publike Romane l Hujus vocis Hoc ea vis est ut rei praesentis substantiam demonstrer Catech. Conc. Trid. Decree cojussu pij Quinti Pontificis Edit ut in frontispicio libri cernitur Catechisme authorized by the then Pope Councel of Trent yet notwithstanding your fore-named Irish Iesuite hearing this Argument objected by Protestants rayleth downright calling it Accursed as judged by the Church Hereticall and indeed Abominable So he who with Others if they were of fit yeares might be thought to deserve the rod for forgetting their Generall Catechisme for defending an Exposition which even in common sense may be pronounced in your Cardinalls owne phrase very Absurd âšœ And that the Body of Christ is not the Thing present that can be demonstrated your Pope Innocent proveth Because Christ in pronouncing of the words This is my Body 2 Innocent 3. Papa lib. 3. de offic Missae cap. 26. Quaeritur quid demonstravit Christus cum dixisset Hoc est corpus meum non corpus quia nondum illa verba protulerat ad quam prolationem panem mutavit in corpus Did not as yet utter the words whereby the Bread was changed into his Body Absurd therfore must your former Interpretation needs be âšœ else shew us if you can but the least semblance of Truth for that Opinion Similitudes objected 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 m Bellar. See before at let k They in drawing a Line or a Circle should say in the making thereof This is a Line or this is a Circle or as if the Smith say n Haec locutio Hoc est corpus meum habet virtutem factivam conversionis panis in Corpus Christi ut aâ— Thomas Pro simili quod rudi intellectui satisfacere valeat dari potest ut si Faber accepto ferro clavum subito motu formans dicat Hic est Clavus Clavus non est cum profertur oratio sed fieri inter proferendum esse per prolationem verborum Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 13. pag. 81. Col. 1. Ex aliorum opinione Iansenius Concord cap. 130 ut faber clavum c. Others in making of a Nayle should say This is a Nayle So by Christ his saying This is my Body it was made presently the Body of Christ at the very pronuntiation of the last word of this Sentence This is my Body But most conceitedly your Iesuite Malloune and that not without scurrility o Master Malloune in his late Reply pag. 105. This is a Kâ—tle for my wife c. âšœ Egid. Conineks Ies de Sacram. qu. 75. Art 1. n. 36 Pronomen Hoc demonstratâ—d quod continetur sub speciebus abstrahendo ab eo quod sit panis aut corpus Christi ità tamen quòd non referatur ad illud instans in quo pronuntietur sed ad illud in quo propositio sit sufficienter pronuntiata quod est commune non solùm omnibus Propositionibus practicis quae significant quod efficiunt sed ijs etiam quae significant aliquid fieri faciemus diversas figuras Propriè dicitur Hic est
it selfe onely the Sacrament of his Bodie III. Yea but say your Doctors The Body of Christ herein is a Sacrament and â—gne of himselfe as he was on the Crosse Nay will S. Augustine say not so for the Body of Christ is Invisible and insensiblâ— unto us but the Sacrament is a thing representing unto us a visible palpable and mortall Body of Christ IV. Your men are still instant to interpret it of Christ's Body Corporally present therein and S. Augustine offereth to illuminate your understandings by the light of a Similitude saying The thing in the hands of the Priest is so called Christ's Flesh as his Immolation of Christ's Body heerein is called Christ's Passion and that it is not properly and lively so meant but Suo modo that is as your owne Glosse expoundeth it IMPROPERLY Can any thing be more repugnant to your Romish Doctrine of this Sacrament than this one Testimony of Saint Augustine is from point to point The Bp. Facundus who lived about the yeare 546. an Author much magnified by your 23 Iac. Sirmundus Ies Epist Dedic ante lib. Facundi Maximam Romanae sedis potestatem celebrat and Baron Ann. Chri. 546. num 24. Prudentissimus Ecclesiasticus Agonistes Facundus Iesuit as one who extolleth the Authority of the See of Rome and by your Cardinall as a most wise Champion of the Church must needs deserve of you so much credit as to think that he would write nothing concerning this Sacrament of Christ which hee judged not to be the received Catholike doctrine of that his Age. Hee thus 24 Facundus l. 9. defens Trin. Cap. 5. Sacramentum Adoptionis suscipere dignatus est Christus quandò circumcisus est quandò baptizatus potest Sacramentum Adoptionis Adoptio nuncupari sicut Sacramentum corporis sanguinis ejus quod est in pane poculo consecrato corpus ejus sanguinem dicimus non quòd propriè id Corpus ejus sit Panis poculum sanguis sed quod in se mysterium Corporis sanguinis continet The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ which is in the Bread and Cup wee call his Body and Blood not that it is properly his Body and Blood but because it containeth a mysterie of his Body and Blood Iust the dialect of Protestants Your Iesuit vainly labouring to rectifie this sentence by the sentences of other Fathers in the end is glad to perswade the Readers to pardon this Father Facundus If Peradventure 25 Idem Sirmundus Ies Annot. in locum istum Facundi pag. 404. Quod si durius hic fortasse obscurius quippiam locutus videatur dignus est veniâ qui à benigno interprete vicem officij recipiat quod alijs studisè quorum dicta notabantur non semel exhibuit saith hee hee hath spoken somewhat more harshly or obscurely as one who himselfe having interpreted other mens Sayings favourably may deserve the like Courtesie of others Thus that Iesuite But what Pardon can the Iesuite himselfe merit of his Reader in calling the Testimony Obscure and darke which the Father Facundus himselfe by a Similitude maketh as cleare as day Thus As Christ being Baptized received the Sacrament of Adoption the Sacrament of Adoption may be called Adoption even as the Sacrament of Christ's Body is called Christ's Body A saying which in your Church of Rome is now accounted a downe-right Heresie âšœ We shall take our Farewell of the Latine Fathers in the Testimony of Bish Isidore who will give you his owne Reason why Christ called Bread his Body * Isidor Hispalensis Panis quem frangimus corpus Christi est qui dicit Ego sum panis vivus c. Vinum autem sanguis ejus est hoc est quod scriptum est Ego sum vitis vera Sed Panis quià confirmat Corpus ideò corpus Christi nuncupatur Vinum autem quià sanguinem operatur in carne ideò ad sanguinem Christi resertut Haec autem sunt visibilia sanctificata tamen per spiritum Sanctum in Sacramentum divini corporis transeunt Lib. 1. de Offic. cap. 18. Bread saith he because it strengthneth the Body is therfore called the Body of Christ and Wine because it maketh Blood is therefore referred to Christ's Blood but these two being sanctified by the Holy Ghost are changed into a Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ So he âšœ A Cleare Glasse wherein the judgment of Antiquitie for a Figurative sense of Christ's words This is my Body may be infallibly discerned SECT X. POnder with your selves for Gods cause the accurate judgement of Ancient Fathers in their direct dilucidations and expressions of their understanding of Christ's meaning in calling Bread his Body in this sense viz. that It signifieth his Body as a Signe thereof The * Councel of Trùllo See above Sect 8. Councel of Trullo Bodie and Blood of Christ that is Bread and Wine Chrysostome a Greeke Father * Chrysost See above Sect. 6. Challenge 2. The faithfull are called his Bodie * Theodor. See ibid. Theodoret Hee gave the name of Bodie to Bread as elsewhere hee gave the name of Bread to his Bodie * Tertull. See above Sect. 9. let p. Tertullian This is my Bodie that is A figure thereof And againe 27 Tertull. advers Marcion l. 3. p. 180. Venite mittamus lignum in panem ejus Ier. 11. Vtique in corpus sic enim Deus in Evangelio panem corpus suum appellans Vt. hiac jam intelligas corporis sui figuram panem dedisse cujus retrò corpus in panem Propheta figuravit Christ gave his Bodie in a figure as his Body in the Prophet figured Bread * Cyprian See above Sect. 9 q Cvprian Things signifying and things signified are called by the same names * August See ibid. Augustine When hee said This is my Bodie hee gave a Signe of his Bodie And * See afterwards B. 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 5. Bread his Bodie as he called Baptisme a Buriall And yet againe As the Priest's Immolation is called Christ's Passion * Facundus Set above Sect. 9. Facundus Not that it is properly his Bodie and Blood but that it containeth a mysterie of them being called his Bodie and Blood as the Sacrament of Adoption meaning Baptisme is called Adoption * Isidor ibid. x. Isidore Called Christ's Body because turned into a Sacrament of his Bodie Chrysostome * See Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 14. Bread hath the name of Christ's Bodie albeit it remaine in nature the same And Ephraimius naming it Christ's Bodie which is received of the faithfull saith * See ibid. It loseth nothing of it's Sensible Substance Then Bread sure as followeth by his parallelling it with Baptisme And Baptisme being One representeth the propriety of its Sensible Substance of Water These are as direct as ever Bucer or Calvin could speake Somewhat more for Corroboration sake But yet by
Christ by Faith whereof first Saint Ambrose 1 Ambrosius in Luc. 24. Paulus docuit ubi te reperire possiâ—â—â— ubi ait Si consurrexistis cum Christo quae sursum sunt sapâ—â—e non super terram Ergo non quae supra terram nec in terra nec secundum carnem te quaerere debemus si volumus invenire Nunc enim secundum carnem jam non novimus Christum Denique Stephanus non supra terram quae 〈◊〉 qui stantem 〈◊〉 ad dextram Dei vidit Maria autem quae quaerebat in terra tangere non potuit Stephanus teâ—igit quia quaesivit in coelo Many saith hee sought Christ on Earth but could not touch him But Stephen touched him who sought him in Heaven Consonantly Saint Augustine who to this Question If Mary touched not Christ on Earth what mortall man shall touch him in Heaven Answereth 2 Aug. tom 10. de Temp. Serm. 152. Sin in torra positum Christum Maria non tangio in coelo sedentem quis mortalium possit tangere Sed ille tactus fidem significat Tangit Christaâ— qui credit in eum There is a Touch by Faith hee that believeth in Christ Toucheth him âšœ Thirdly you allege 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 * See above c. 1. Sect. 2. hath beene both proved and confessed a Reall and true participation of Christs Body aâ—d Blood spiritually without any Corporall Conjunction But it is added saith hee that These namely the Body and Blood of Christ are Symbols of our Resurrection which is by reason that our Bodies are joyned with the Body of Christ otherwise if our Conjunction 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 forâ—er For the word HAâ—C These which are called Symbols of our Resurrection may be referred either to the Body and Blood of Christ immediately spoken of and placed on the Table in Heaven which wee Commemorate also in the Celebration of this Sacrament and in that respect may be called Symbols of the Resurrection of our Bodies because * See below Booke 5. Cap. ◠§. 1. 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 maner of the Greekes to wit Bread and Cup on the first Table because as immediatly followeth they are these whereof not much but little is taken as you have heard Which other * See below Booke 5. Cap. ◠§. 1. Fathers will shew to be indeed Symbols of our Resurrection without any Consequence of Christs Bodily Conjunction with our Bodies more than there is by the Sacrament of Baptisme which they call the Earnest of our Resurrection as doth also your Jesuite m Ad futuram Resurrectionem per Baptismi Sacramentum jus pignus accepimus Coster institut Christ lib. 4. c. 4. See more in the Booke following c. 8. Sect. 6. Coster call it The pledge of our Resurrection But this our Conjunction with Christ is the Subject matter of the fift Booke Lastly how the Eucharist was called of the Fathers a Sacrifice is plentifully resolved in the * See Chap. 5. Sect. 4. 5. 6. sixt Booke THE FIFTH BOOKE Treating of the Third Romish Doctrinall Consequence arising from your depraved Sense of the words of Christs Institution THIS IS MY BODY concerning the maner of the present Vnion of Christs 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 the Inward which is Spiritual this Sacrament accordingly consisteth of two parts Earthly and Heavenly as Irenaeus spake of the bodily Elements of Bread Wine as the visible Signes and Objects 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 mans body in his Taking Eating Disgesting 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 Object of 〈◊〉 by an Vnion wrought by Gods Spirit and mans 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 * See below Ch. â— Sect. â— 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 wee first manifest our Protestant Defence of Vnion to be an Orthodox Truth Secondly to impugne your Romish Vnion as Capernaiticall that is Hereticall And thirdly to Determine the Point by comparing them both together Our Orthodox Truth will be found in the Propositions following That Protestants professe not onely a Figurative and Sacramentall Participation and Communion with Christ's Body but also a Spiritually-Reall SECT II. IN all the Bookes of our Adversaries written against Protestants they are most especially vehement violent and virulent in traducing them in the name of Sacramentaries as though wee professed no other maner of feeding and Vnion with Christ's Body than onely Sacramentall and Figurative For Confutation of which Calumnie it will be most requisite to propose the Apologie of a Calvin in hiâ—s libris viz. Consensio in re Sacramentariaâ— Diâ—ensio contra 〈◊〉 et Explicatio de vera participat coenae Dom. I. Fâ—teor me abhorrere ab hoc crasso commento localis praesentiae Substantiâ Christi animae nostrae pasâ—untur sed secundùm Virtutem non secundùm Substantiam II. Signum tantum pâ—â—rigi centies contrà Quasi vero cum Swinckâ—â—ldio quiâ—quam nobis commune III. In Catechismo disserui non solùm beneficiorum Christi significationem habemus in coena sed substantive participes in nam cum eo vitam coalescimus Figurata locutio fateor modò non tellatur rei veritas IV. Neque enim tantùm dico applicari merita sed ex ipso Christi corpore alimentum percipere animas non secùs ac terreno pane corpus vescitur Vim carnis suae vivisicans spiritus sui gratiâ in nos transs sundit Spiritualem dicimus non carnalem quamvâ—â— realem ut haec vox provera contra fallacem sumitur non secundùm substantiam quam vis ex ejus substantia vita in animas nostras prosâ—uit V. Ergò in coena miraculum agnoscimus quod naturae sines sensus nostri modum ex supoâ—at quod Christi caro
Sacrifica quia morteÌ„ Christi repraesentabant sed quia Immolatione Rei oblatae denotabant Deum authorem vitae mortis Vasquez will say for The acknoledgment of Gods Soveraigntie over life and death âšœ The Confirmation of the former Demonstration out of the Fathers first Explaining of themselves SECT V. SAint Ambrose setting forth two kinde of Offerings of Christ here on Earth and above in Heaven hee saith that a Ambr. Vmbra in Lege imago in Evangelio veritas in coelestibus antè agnus offerebatur nunc Christ offertur quasi Homo quasi recipiens passionem offert sese ipse quasi Sacérdos ut peccata nostra dimittat hîc in imagine ibi in veritate ubi apud Patrem pro nobis quasi Advocatus intervenit Lib. 1. de Offic. Cap. 48. Christ here is offered as one suffering and above hee himselfe Offereth himselfe an Advocate with the Father for us And this our offering of him hee calleth but an Image and that above hee calleth the Truth Clearly shewing that wee have in our Offering Christ's Body onely as it is Crucified which is the Object of our Commemoration But the same Body as it is now the personall subject of a present Time and Place they behold it in Heaven even the same Body which was once offered on the Crosse by his Passion now offered up by himselfe to God by Presentation in Heaven here in the Church onely by our Representation Sacramentally on earth Saint Augustine dealeth as plainly with us where distinguishing three States of Offerings up of Christ hee b August Hujus Sacrificij caro sanguis antè adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur in passione Domini per ipsam Veritatem post Ascensum per SacramentuÌ„ memoriae celebratur Cont. Faust lib. 20. cap. 21. Tom. 6. NoÌ„ne semel immolatus est Christus tamen in Sacramento quotidiè immolatur He addeth Nec tamen mentitur qui dicit Christum immolari si enim Sacramenta non haberent similitudinem rerum ipsarum quas repraesentant non essent Sacramenta Ex qua similitudine nomina eorum accipiunt Aug. lib. Epist 23. See of this above Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. And yet againe more plainely in his 20 Book against Faustâ—â— cap. 21. it followeth Vt Baptismus dicitur sepulchruÌ„ sic Hoc est corpus meum saith first that under the Law Christ was promised In the Similitude of their Sacrifices meaning his bloody death was prefigured by those bloody Sacrifices Secondly in the offering at his Passion hee was Delivered up in Truth or proper Sacrifice this was on the Crosse And Thirdly after his Ascension The memorie of Him is celebrated by a Sacrament or Sacramentall Representation So hee For although the Sacrifices of the Iewes were true Sacrifices yet were they not truly the Sacrificings of Christ Note you this Assertion Againe speaking of his owne Time when the Sacrament of the Eucharist was daily celebrated hee saith That Christ was once sacrificed namely upon the Crosse and is now daily sacrificed in the Sacrament nor shall hee lye saith hee that saith Christ is sacrificed So hee No holy Augustine shall hee not lye who saith that Christ as the personall Subject of this Sacrament is a Proper Sacrifice in the Literall Sense for whether Proper or Vnproper are the two Seales of this Controversie Now interpose your Catholike Resolution Say first why is it called a Sacrament tell us * See above Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 8. out of his Epist 23. ad Bonifacium If Sacraments had not a similitude of things which they represent they were no Sacraments from which similitude they have their Appellation and name of the things to wit The Sacrament of the Body of Christ is called his Body as Baptisme is called a Buriall Be so good as to explaine this by another which may illuminate every man in the point of Sacrifice also although otherwise blinded with prejudice c Epist 23. ad Bonifac Paulò ante verba superiora nempè Pascha appropinquante saepè dicimus crastinam Domini passionem cum ille ante multos annos passus sit nec omninö nisi semel ista passio facta sit nempè isto die dicimus Christus resurrexit cum ex quo resurrexit tot Anni transierunt cum nemo ita â—eptus sit qui nos ita Ioquentes arguat nos esse mentitos ut dicatur ipse Dies quia non est ipse sed similis none semel immolatus est Christus c. As when the day of Christs Passion saith hee being to morrow or the day of his Resurrection about to be the next day but one wee use to say of the former To morrow is Christ's Passio and of the other when it cometh it is Christ's Resurrection yet will none be so absurd as to say wee lye in so saying because wee speake it by way of Similitude even so when wee say this is sacrificed c. So Saint Augustine Who now seeth not that as the Buriall of Christ is not the Subject matter of Baptisme but onely the Representative Object thereof and as Good-Friday and Easter-day are not properly the dayes of Christ his Passion or Resurrection but Anniversarie and Represensative or Commemorative Resemblances of them So this Sacrifice is a Similitude of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse and not materially the same âšœ Lastly heare Augustine againe 2 Aug. lib. 1. Con. advers Leg. Proph. cap. 18. Mors Christi unum unicum verum Sacrificium The death of Christ saith hee is the onely true Sacrifice âšœ Wee omit Testimonies of other Fathers which are dispersed in other Sections Although this one Explanation might satisfie yet shall wee adjoyne others which may satiate even the greediest Appetite in the Demonstrations following The fourth Demonstration From the Fathers Explanation of their meaning by a kinde of Correction SECT VI. ANcient Fathers in good number call that which is represented in the Eucharist and which wee are said to offer The same Host not many the same Oblation no other the same Sacrifice and none but it but they adde by a Figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Correction of the excesse of their speech or rather for Caution-sake lest their Readers might conceive of the same Sacrifice herein as properly present saying in this maner Wee offer the same Sacrifice or rather the Remembrance thereof alluding sometime expresly to the Institution of Christ Do this in remembrance of mee The Fathers are these viz. a Chrys â—â— Heb. 10. â—om 17. pa. 1171. Christus semper suo sanguine intraâ— Ipse Sacrificium Sacerdos Hostia si hoc non esset multa oportebat etiam Sacrificia offerri saèpiùs oportebat crucifigi Eandem ipsam Hostiam quaÌ„ Christus immolabat offerimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel potiùs Recordationem ipsius c. Chrysostome b Theophylact in Heb. 10. pa. 885. 886. Nunc
Hyperbolized yea even in this very point of the Eucharist OB. II. Elswhere Senensis you say giveth us a caution against Chrysostome's Rhetâ—ricke in this point ANSW It is certaine that Senensis doth there most especially and by name note Chrysostome to Hyperbolize and his Caution being generall to take heed of his Hyperbole's may be justly applyed as wel to this as to that point there specified in Senensis according to the Law of Schooles where Generall rules are applyable to other examples besides that which is in the Author specified and adjoyned to the same Rule But this man had rather cavill inordinately by the example of Romish Adversaries than to be regulated by any rule of reason and moderation OB. III. Behold you mention Bellarmine saying that our senses are not deceived in their proper sensible objects But you forbeare to shew the many Limitations which hee giveth ANSW I never held it seasonable to shew a man any thing when he would not see it otherwise the Objector who hath sought into every corner of all my Sayings with purpose to traduce them could not but have found the same Limitations of Bellarmine punctually set downe Book 3. cap. 3. Sect. 7. The Fourteenth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 141. pag. 200. S. CHRYSOSTOME OB. TO the words of Chrysostome As in Baptisme Regeneration the thing Intelligible is given by water the thing Sensible you adde these words The Substance of Water remaining which are not in the Text whereof your Lordship is conscious and therfore most unsufferable ANSW I must first say mala mens malus animus or as it is in the English As you muse so you use else would not this Objector have accused mee to be Conscious of this whereas any might have thought that the words should have beene if the Printer had not mistaken in a different Character to distinguish them from the words of Chrysostome because in the Margin hee was directed to another place where the full Text of Chrysostome was perfectly alleged without that Addition now objected ANSW II. Yet there is no reasonable man pondering the words of Chrysostome but must justifie the Addition of those words of to be most consonant to the meaning of Chrysostome there speaking of the Water of Baptisme For is there any one of sound braines that will deny the Water of Baptisme after Consecration to remaine in Substance the same Besides there hath beene produced another Testimonie as out of Chrysostome that Bread even in the Sacrament of the Eucharist after Consecration remaineth in Substance the same These should the Objector have ruminated upon before hee layd downe this Accusation but that hee found they were not for his distemperate palate The Fifteenth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 14â— pag. 201. EVSEBIVS EMISSENVS OB. YOu referre vs to Master Brerely his Liturgie Tract 2. Sect. 2. Subd 2. in the Margin curtailing the words which should make for Transubstantiation and making him argue from these words Post verba Christi est Corpus Christi And putting upon him so weake an Argument when as hee doth there but onely mention the name of Eusebius referring us to a fuller Sentence which hee citeth out of Eusebius in some few pages following ANSW If the Objector had beene so curteous as to have lookt back to Master Brerely's Allegation of the said Testimony of Eusebius some few leaves before pag. 160. as hee was curious for Contention-sake to urge the words following in some pages after which hee saith are omitted and concerne Transubstantiation hee might have found that Allegation of Master Brerely as I delivered it Tract 2. Sect. 2. Subd 2. SVBSTANTIA PANIS POST VERBA CHRISTI EST CORPVS CHRISTI As for the words following which corcerne Conversion of Bread it was beyond the scope which I had then in hand which concerned onely the Enunciative Speeches of Christ namely of calling Bread his Body and not the maner of Change thereof which point notwithstanding is afterwards handled at full in the same Section Our Advantage from this mans Cavillation is this That hee calleth this maner of Arguing out of the Sentences of the Fathers Bread after Consecration is the Body of Christ Ergo it is meant to be really and Substantially Christs Body as it was in the Manger to be but a WEAK ARGVMENT to the Confutation and if the Person of the Objector were of sufficient Authority to the Confusion of all the Doctors of the Church of Rome who have held their Arguments taken from the words of Christ after his taking Bread saying THIS IS MY BODY to be the foundation of all their Arguments for proofe of Transubstantiation ANSW II. Yet I was much to blame I confesse in not Answering at all to the objected Testimony of that so bastardly a Book of Homilies attributed to Eusebius which the Romish Doctors themselves of best judgement and estimation could not untill this day tell upon whom to Father it All confessing that it was not the Book of that Euseb whose name it beareth Some affirming that the Author was Faustus the French-man Some Caesarius Some Eucherius And as for the Booke it selfe they have likewise put upon it the brands of two great Heresies Arianisme Pelagianisme Which taxation and hallucination of our Adversaries may be to themselves without our Answer their owne Satisfaction not to thinke it worthy of Answering The Sixteenth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 143. pag. 202. GREG. NYSSEN A Summary Answer to this Objection out of the Testimony of Gregory Nyssen Although Bellarmine doth not produce the words of Nyssen yet doth hee direct his Reader to Nyssens Treatise of Manna where the Sentence is which is alleged by others Nor can hee be excusable in that having read the Testimony now objected hee did not thereby perceive that the Fathers Sacramentall speeches are not to be taken in the rigidity of the words Our Advantage upon this occasion is that our Objectors referring us to the Arguments of Bellarmine out Greg. Nyssen it hath caused us to light upon and to examine this which followeth urged by your Cardinall for Transubstantiation where speaking of the Bread which came downe from heaven and was prepared for us without seed without tilling without mans worke Thâ—s saith Nyssen is signifyed in this Mysterie nor is this an uncorporeall and unbodily thing for how can a thing uncorporeall and without a Body be food unto a Body But that thing which is not uncorporeall is altogether a Body Now let us but trie the Romish Faith by this Lydian Stone and wee shall finde it to be meerely counterfeit and base For aske any of the Romish Disputers what it is which in this Sacrament is knowne to nourish whether man or mouse And they answer us that the Accidents of Bread voyd of the substance of Bread is that which is Nutritive But Greg. Nyssen saith just the â—lat Contrary NOTHING CAN NOVRISH A BODY BVT THAT WHICH IS A CORPOREAL
also of the Authors Sinceritie and his Adversaries unconscionable Dealing in their Allegations of Authors Grace Peace and Truth in CHRIST JESVS AMong all the Controversies held against your Romish Religion none were ever more hott to draw Protestants violently into the fire than these two First the denying your Romane Church to bee The Catholike Church without which there is no Salvation Secondly the affirming the Romish Adoration of the Sacrament of the Altar to be Idolatrous Therefore have I especially undertaken the discussion of both these Questions that seeing as Saint Augustine truly said It is not the punishment but the Cause which maketh a Martyr it might fully appeare to the world whether Protestants enduring that fierie tryall for both Causes were indeed Heretikes or true Martyrs and consequently whether their Persecutors were just Executioners of persons then condemned and not rather damnable Murtherers of the faithfull Servants of Christ And I doubt not but as the first hath veverified the Title of that Booke to prove your Doctrine of the Necessitie of Salvation in your Romish Church to be a GRAND IMPOSTVRE So this second which I now according to my promise present unto you will make good by many Demonstrations that your Romish MASSE is a very Masse or rather a Gulfe of many Superstitious Sacrilegious and Idolatrous Positions and Practises And because the very name of ROMANE CHVRCH is commonly used as in it selfe a powerfull enchantment to stupifie everie Romish Disciple and to strike him deafe and dumbe at once that hee may neither heare nor utter any thing in Conference concerning the Masse or any other Controversie in Religion be the Protestants Defence never so Divine for Trueth or Ancient for Time or Vniversall for Consent or Necessarie for Beleefe I therefore held it requisite in the first place to discover the falshood of the former Article of your Church before I would publish the Abominations of the Masse to the end that for Iâ—â—latrie in Scripture is often termed spirituall Adulterie the Romish Church which playeth the Bawd in patronizing Idolatrie being once outted your Romish Masse as the Strumpet might the more easily either bee reformed or wholly abandoned This may satisfie you for the necessitie of this Tractate The next must bee to set before you your owne delusorie trickes in answering or not answering Bookes written against you especially such as have beene observed from mine owne experience One is to strangle a Booke in the very birth So dealt Master Brerely long since by a Letter writ unto mee to prevent the publishing of my Answere against the first Edition of his Apologie when hee sent mee a second Edition thereof to be answered which both might and ought to have beene sent a twelve moneth sooner but was purposely reserved not to bee delivered untill the very day after my * See the Protestants Appeale in the beginning Answere called An Appeale was published Of which his prevention I have therefore complained as of a most unconscionable Circumvention Another device you have to give out that the Booke whatsoever written against your Romish Tenents is in answering and that an Answere will come out shortly So dealt Master Parsons with mee * In his Sober Reckoning Certifying mee and all his credulous Readers of an Epistle which hee had received from a Scottish Doctor censuring my Latine Apologies to be both fond and false and promising that his Answere to them Printed at Gratz in Austria should be published before the Michaelmas next following whereas there have beene above twentie Michaelmasses sithence every one giving Master Parsons his promise the flatt lye A third Art is a voluntarie Concealement And thus Master Brerely who having had knowledge of the fore-mentioned Booke of Appeale manifesting his manifold Aberrations and Absursurdities in doctrine his ignorances and fraudes in the abuse of his Authors as in other passages throughout that Booke so more especially the parts concerning the Romish Masse yet since hath written a large Booke in defence of the Romish Liturgie or Masse urging all the same Proofes and Authorities of Fathers but wisely concealing that they had beene confuted and his Falshoods discovered Onely hee and Master Fisher singling out of my Appeale an Explanation which I gave of the Testimonie of Gelasius in condemning the Manichees concerning their opinion of not administring the Eucharist in both kindes did both of them divulge it in their Bookes and reports also in many parts of this Kingdome as making for the justification of their sacrilegious dismembring the holy Sacrament and for a foule Contradiction unto my selfe notwithstanding that this their scurrilous insultation as is * Boâ—ke 1. cap. 3. Sect. 7. heere proved serveth for nothing rather than to make themselves ridiculous The last but most base and devillish Gullerie is a false imputation of Falshoods in the alleging of Authors which was the fine sleight of Master Parsons a man as subtile for Invention as elegant for Expression for Observation as dextrous and acute and as politike and perswasive for Application as any of his time Hee in an Answere to some Treatises written against your Romish blacke Art of Aequivocation by mentall Reservation and other Positions fomenting Rebellion to wit in his Bookes of Mitigation and Sober Reâ—koning doeth commonly leave the principall Objections and reasons and falleth to his verball skirmishes concerning false Allegations and as turning that Ironicall Counsell into earnest Audacter fortiter calumniare c. hee chargeth mee with no lesse than fiftie Falsifications All which I spunged out in a Booke entituled an Encounter and retorted all the same Imputations of falshood upon himselfe with the interest discovering above forty more of his owne Which may seeme to verifie that Cognizance which your owne Brother-hood of Romish Priests in their Quodlibets have fastened on his sleeve calling him The Quintessence of Coggerie As for mine owne Integritie I have that which may justifie mee for howsoever any one or other Error may happen in mis-alleging any one Authour yet that I have not erred much or if at all yet never against my Conscience Heereof I have many Witnesses One within mee a witnesse most Domesticall yet least partiall and as good as Thousands mine owne Conscience a second is above mee GOD who is Greater than the Conscience A third sort of Witnesses are such as stand by mee even all they who have beene conversant with mee in the Perusall and Examination of Authours Testimonies by mee alleged men of singular Learning and Iudgement who can testifie how much they endeared them-selves unto mee when any of them happened to shew mee the least errour in any thing Hee that shall say Non possum errare must be no man and hee that will not say Nolo errare as hating to erre can be no Christian man The last Witnesse for my integritie may bee the Bookes of my greatest Adversaries Master Parsons and Master Brerely whose many scores of Falshoods have beene layd so
open and published for above sixteene yeares past in two Bookes one called An Encounter against the Foreman the other an Appeale against the Second yet hath not any one appeared out of your Romish Seminaries for the vindicating of them heerein âšœ Since this Part of this Advertisement thus given there have some of your Engineers sought to undermine the whole Structure of this Treatise by the odious Imputation of Falsification One was a L Baron and his Suggestor Another a notable Seducer in his Letters to a noble Peere of this Kingdome the Third a Romishly inspired Detractor who are in this Second Edition defeated by a Countermine of just Vindications against their False and frivolous Exceptions To say nothing of a late Hobgoblin his feigned Letter to a Ladie upbraiding mee with such Taxations of some Falsities which about six and twentie yeares since were falsly charged upon mee by Master Parsons as I proved in a Booke of Encounter By which your Practice is confirmed that which I have often averred That none may expect from you any Satisfactorie Confutation of this or the like Treatises seeing that instead of Shott you answere only with Squibs Goe on in the same Course to make mee thereby a true Prophet and by my Vindications against your Calumniations to occasion greater Advantage to our Cause and just Defence thereof âšœ By these Advertisements you may now easily conceive with what confidence I may procede in this Worke wherein is displayed and layd open in the discussing of these Eight Words of Christ his Institution of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist HEE BLESSED BRAKE GAVE TO THEM SAYING TAKE EATE DRINKE your ten Romish Prevarications and Transgressions Afterwards in the following Bookes are reveiled the stupendious Paradoxes Sacrilegiousnesse and Idolatrie of your MASSE together with the notorious Obstinacies some few Overtures of Perjuries out of that great Summe which may afterwards be manifested in your swearing to the other Articles of your new Romane Faith and the manifold Heresies in the Defenders thereof as also their indirect and sinister Objecting and Answering of the Testimonies of ancient Fathers throughout as if they contended neither from Conscience nor for Conscience-sake To Conclude Whosoever among you hath beene fascinated according to your Colliers Catechisme with that onely Article of an Implicite Faith let him be admonished to submit to that Duetie prescribed by the Spirit of God to Trie all things and to Hold that which is good And if any have a purpose to Rejoyne in Confutation either of the Booke of the Romish Imposture or of this which is against your Masse I do adjure him in the name of Christ whose truth wee seeke that avoyding all deceitfull Collusions hee procede materially from * Sed surdis canimus poynt to poynt and labour such an Answer which hee beleeveth hee may answere for before the Iudgement seat of Christ Our Lord Iesus preserve us to the glory of his saving Grace AMEN THO. DVRESME late of COVEN LICHF ¶ THe Additions in this second Edition are made more obvious to the Reader by two Parallel lines drawne along the Context at the beginning and ending thus marked âšœ And the Testimonies of Authors now added in the Margin are discernable from the other by being noted with Numerall figures as the Authorities in the First Edition were cited by the Letters of the Alphabet THE SVMMARIE or Generall Heades of the Eight Bookes of this ensuing Treatise wherein also the Principall Additions throughout the whole at the beginning and end thereof are thus denoted âšœ BOOKE FIRST Chap. I. THat the word Masse is vainly and falsly urged from it's Originall to signifie Oblation or Sacrifice and so confessed pag. 1 2. âšœ A Vindication against a Romish Suggester concerning the Mixture of water with wine in the Encharist pag. 5. 6. âšœ The two points of Christs Institution handled in this Controversie are 1. Practicall 2. Doctrinall Chap. II. Of the Practicall and Active points pag. 7. Ten Romish Transgressions against that one Command of Christ DOâ— THIS pag. 9. I. Romish Transgression contradicting the word BLESSED p. 9. âšœ The Testimonie of a Greeke Patriarke thereupon pag. 12. And a Vindication against the adverse conceits of some p. 14. c. âšœ II. Romish Transgress of Christ's word BRAKE for distribution therof p. 15. III. Romish Transgression of the word THEM in the plâ—rall number signifying a Communion against their private Masse pag. 17. âšœ The Testimonie of Pope Innocent 3. pag. 21. c. âšœ IV. Romish Transgr of Christ's words SAID VNTO THEM namely in an audible voice p. 22. c. V. Romish Transgression is against the same word SAID VNTO THEM to wit by a language not understood of the Communicants against the Custome of Antiguitie c. p. 25. âšœ A Vindication against Pr. de S. Clara for his miserable maner of reconciling our English Article with their contrary Romish Canon pa. 37. to p. 43. âšœ VI. Romish Transgression is against Christs words TAKE YEE by not Taking with their hands pag. 43. c. VII Romish Transgression is against Christs words EAT YEE by their approving of meere Gazers at the Celebration p. 45. c. VIII Romish Transgression is against the same word EAT by their other use than Eating as their carrying it about in publique Procession pag. 48. IX Romish Transgression is against these words IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE holding that Infants are capable of the Eucharist and Mad-men also pag. 51. Chap. III. X. Romish Transgressions of the Institution of Christ is against his words DRINKE YEE ALL OF THIS c. p. 54. âšœ Other Testimonies from the Divines of Colen pag. 60. The Councell of Braccara pag. 63. and of Trent pag. 64. Of the Jesuite Vasquez pag. 64 65. And of Pope Clement pag. 75. âšœ BOOKE II. OF the Doctrinall poynts in the Institution of the Eucharist pag. 90. Chap. I. Of the Exposition of Christs words THIS IS MY BODY in a figurative sense pag. 91. Proved from these three words THIS IS and MINE ibid. I. The Pronoune THIS properly betokeneth not Christs Body p. 92. âšœ The Testimony of Pope Innocent pa. 93. âšœ Nor signifieth it any Individuum Vagum confessed pag. 95. Nor can Bread properly be called Christ's Body confessed p. 99. But that it noteth Bread as representing Christ's Body prooved p. 100. c. âšœ A Confirmation hereof from the word Cup pa. 105. c. âšœ Chap. II. II. Is Which Verbe doth open the figurative sense to be as much as Signifieth pag. 107 Eight Figures being confessed to be in the words of Christs Institution p. 110. c. âšœ The Testimony of Vasquez Ies for confirmation thereof pag. 112. âšœ The Iudgement of the more ancient Church of Rome and of the Greeke Fathers heerein pag. 114 115. Romish Objections out of the Greeke Fathers answered pag. 115. to 122. And of the Latine Fathers p. 123. âšœ A Vindication of Tertullians Testimony pag. 124. Cardinall Bellarmine his
noted for Neotericks who have vainely laboured under the word MASSE falsely to impose upon their Readers an opinion of your Romish Sacrificing MASSE âšœ And left Any might object that the same Word MASSE as signifying the Dismission of the People had no good foundation because it was not at first prescribed by the Church but taken up of the People your Iesuite Gordon quitteth this saying 1 Iac. Gordonus Scotus lib. Controvers Controv. 9. cap. 6. Quamvis appellatio Missae originem accepit à populo tamen divinâ providentiâ factum est ut populus hanc appellationem huic mysterio tribueret vulgo enim dici solet quod vox populi sit vox Dei nec dubitamus quin Spiritus instinctu hoc factum sit Pag. 313. The voice of the People is the voice of God and that you are not to doubt but that it was infused into them by the instinct of the Spirit of God âšœ That the word MASSE in the Primitive Signification thereof doth properly belong unto the Protestants and justly condemneth the Romish manner of Masse SECT II. THe word MASSE by the c Missa à Missione dicta est quoniam Catechumeni eâ susceptaÌ„ foras de Ecclesia emitterentur ut in ritibus Paganorum dici consueverat Ilicet quod per Syncopen idem est ac Ire licet Sic nostrum verbum Missa Ite missa est Salmeron les in the place above cited pag. 390. 391. Sic accipitur in jure Canonico in Patribus etiam atque Conciliis Azor les Inst par 1. pag. 850. Gemina Missio prima Catechumenorum alia peractis sacris Missâ completâ Binius in the place afore cited Esse à dimissione per Ite missa est tenet Alcuin Amalar Fortunat. Durant quo supra And the other fore-named Authors who confesse the word to be Latine do hold that it commeth of Ite Missa est for Iubebantur exire Catechumeni Poenitentes ut qui nondum ad communicandum praeparaverant Cassand Consult Art 24. As also in his Tract de solit Missa pag. 217. with others See more hereafter Chap. 2. §. 5 where this point is discussed As for the disraissing of the whole Congregation after the receiving of the Sacrament by an Ite missa est it was used in the second place after the other See Binius above âšœ This crosseth not the distinction of Penances which were anciently in their degrees The first was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of teares and groanes 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of them who were admitted to heare instructions 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such as went out before Consecration somewhat after the Catechumeni 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this was indeed of those who were allowed to heare Masse at length but communicated not and this their presence for looking on was onely for Penance-sake to see themselves excluded from the Communion of the faithfull The last was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of them which were reconciled and communicated âšœ Confession of Iesuites and Others and that from the authoritie of Councels Fathers Canon-law Schoolmen and all Latine Liturgies is therfore so called from the Latine phrase Missa est especially because the company of the Catechumenists as they also which were not prepared to communicate at the celebrating of this Sacrament after the hearing of the Gospel or Sermons were Dismissed and not suffered to stay but commanded To depart Which furthermore your Ies Maldonate out of Isidore of most ancient authors and of all other the Liturgies is compelled to confesse to be the Most true meaning of Antiquity Which Custome of exempting all such persons being every where religiously taught and observed in all Protestant Churches and contrarily the greatest devotion of your Worshippers at this day being exercised onely in looking and gazing upon the Priests manner of celebrating your Romane Masse without communicating thereof contrary to the Institution of Christ contrary to the practise of Antiquity and contrary to the proper Vse of the Sacrament all which * See Chap. 2. Sect. 9. hereafter shall bee plentifully shewed it must therefore follow as followeth d Alij ut Isidorus de divin offic diverunt Missam appellatam esse quasi dimissionem à dimittendis Catechumenis antequam Sacrificium inchoaretur quam sententiam colligo esse verissimam ex antiquiss Authoribus Clambat enim Diaconus post Concionem Catechumeni exeunto qui communicate non possunt ut constat ex omnibus Liturgiis ubi non potest nomen Missae accipi pro Sacriâ—icio Maldon les lib. de 7. Sacram. Tract de Euch. §. Primum pag 335. CHALLENGE WHereas there is nothing more rife and frequent in your Speeches more ordinary in your Oathes 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 judged false and absurd But of this Transgression more * See below Cha. 2. Sect. 5. hereafter The Name of CHRIST his MASSE how farre it is to bee acknowledged by Protestants SECT III. THe Masters of your Romish Ceremonies and Others naming the Institution of Christ e Durand Ration lib 4. cap. 1. Durant de Ritib l. 2. cap. 3. So Christoph de Capite fontium Archicp Caesar var. Tract de Christi Missa pag 34. Liturgiae veteres partes Missae Christi exactè respondent Missa Christi Ecclesiae Missam declarat call it his Masse yea and as another 2 Dr. Heskins in his parlament Book 3. Chap. 33. saith Christ said Masse And how often doe we heare your vulgar people talking of Christ his Masse Which word MASSE in the proper Signification already specified could not possibly have beene so distastfull unto Vs if you had not abused it to your fained and as you now see false sense of your kind of Proper Oblation and Sacrifice Therefore was it a supersluous labour of M r. f Liturg. tract 1. § 1. Brerely to spend so many lines in proving the Antiquity of the word MASSE CHALLENGE FOr otherwise We according to the above-confessed proper Sense thereof shall together with other Protestants in the * Confess Aug. Cap. de Coena Domini Augustane Confession approve embrace it and that to the just Condemnation of your present Romane Church which in her Masse doth flatly and peremptorily contradict the proper Signification therof according to the Testimony of Micrologus saying g Microl. de Eccl. observat c. 1. Propter hoc certè dicitur Missa quoniam mittendi sunt forà s qui non participant Sacrificio vel communione Sanctà Teste Cassand Liturg. so 59. The Masse is therefore so called because they that communicate not are commanded to depart By all which it is evident that your Church hath forfeited the Title of Masse which shee hath appropriated to her selfe as
non ad ostentationem Cassand Consult At 22. Tit. de Circumgestatione pag. 174. 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 object 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 wee 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 i Christus non distulit nec servari jussit in crastinum Orig. Hom. 5. in Levit Panis iste recipitur non includitur Cyprian de Coena Dom. col 382. 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 wee 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 k Sic sanctiss Sacramentum ad infirmos deferendum est ut illud sumant non autem ut adorent tantùm sicubi fit in aliquibus locis quod Pius Quartus prohibuit Declaratio Rom. Cardinal in Concil Trid. Sess 13. Can. 6. Set forth by Ioh. Gallemart Academiae Duac Catechist pag. 115. 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 prophanation 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 * In the seventh booke Idolatrous Infatuation it selfe âšœ The onely one that offereth to stand in our way as objecting any Authority from Antiquity for Procession is your 13 Pamel in Tert. ad Vx. l. 2. c. 4. Si jejunia observanda sunt maritus nempè Etâ—nicus eâdem die convivium exerceat procedendum erit nunquam magis familiae occupatio adveniat Vnde Pamelius Processionum ceremonias antiquas esse vel ex hoc loco colligere potes Gabriel Episc Albispinae Lib. Obser vat Sac. Nùm illi homines ridiculi sunt qui ex hoc loco Processionum ritus deduci fabulantur quibus hominibus sc vix liceret in Ecclesià convenire eos volunt ceremonias suas vicatim et publicè exercuisse Quapropter procedere nihil aliud apud Authorem significat quà m domo exire alicujus officij exercendi causà partem ut aegrotos indigentes visicarent mox enim explicat se Tert. Quis enim inquit sinat uxorem suam visitandorum fratrum gratiâ vicatim aliena quidem pauperiora quaeque tuguria circuire Pamelius with whom wee neede not to contend because your owne French Bishop doth easily shoulder him out proving that the Testimonie of Tertullian speaking of his wifes Proceeding or going out of her house for visiting the sicke and poore is ridiculously mistaken for going in a publike Procession even then when it was scarce free for Christians to meete together in Churches for feare of persecution Wee proceede therefore to the next Transgression âšœ The Ninth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the Sense 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 Sacramenâ— onâ—ly for persons of Discretion and Vnderstanding saying Do THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE The Contrarie Canon of the Roman Church in former times Your Iesuite Maldonate will be our Relater ingenuously confessing that in the dayes of l Augustini Innocentâ— sententâ— erat quae sexcentos annos in Ecclesia viguit Eucharistiam etiam Infantibus necessariam esse quae ab Ecclesia jâ—m rejecta Concil Trid. statuente non solum non necessarium esse sed nè quidem decere Eucharistiam infantibus dari Mâ—ldanat Ies Comment in Iohan 6. 53. pag. 7191 Saint Augustine and Pope Innocent the first this opinion was of force in your Church For sixe hundred yeares together viz. that the administration of the Eucharist is necessary for Infants Which opinion saith hee is now rejected by the Councell of Trent Determining that the Eucharist is not onely not necessarie for Infants but also that it is Indecent to give it unto them So hee Of this more in the Challenge CHALLENGE IS not now this your Churches Rejecting 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 do but alas their miserie by collusion and cunning for the same Synod of m Sancta Synòdus docet Parvulos usu rationis carentes nullâ obligari necessitate ad Sacramentalem Eucharistiae communionem Neque ideò tamen damnanda est Antiquitas si cum morem aliquando in quibusdam locis servârunt quia certè eos nullâ salutis necessitate fecisse sine controversia credendum est Conc. Trident. Sess 2. ca. 4. 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 nessarily 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 unto Infants In excuse whereof your Councell of Trent adjoyneth that the Church of Rome in those dayes was not condemnable but why Because saith your * See the Testimony below of the letter r. Councell Truly and without Controversie wee ought to believe that they did not give the Eucharist unto Infants as thinking it necessarie to Salvation Which Answere your owne Doctors will prove to be a bold and a notorious untruth because as your Iesuite n Ecclesia tunc adducta fuit Eucharistiam Infantibus dare argumento sumpto ex verbis Christi Nisi manducaverius carnem filij hominis et biberitis sanguinem non habebitis vitam in vobis Maldon Ios Disp de Sacram. Tract
they be repugnant to our senses which last words Although they be repugnant to our senses said I No man of sense can find in Epiphanius This saith the Proctor is a false Taxation And I for my Iustification shall desire no other Advocate than Bellarmines owne words Hic locus Epiphanij omninò convincit quia addit etiam nimirum Epiphanius Hoc esse credendum licet sensus repugnent And now when you shal summ up the Premises you will easily judge how the Testimonie of Epiphanius will be held to be Convincent That the same Greeke Fathers have expresly unfolded their Meanings touching a Figurative Sense SECT VIII THe Iudgement of a whole Councel of Greek Fathers may well suffice for the manifestation of the Iudgement of that Church They in their Councel at Trullo alluding to these words of Christ This is my Body saying Let nothing be offered but the Body and Blood of Christ that is say n In sanctis nihil plus quà m corpus sanguis Christi offeratur ut ipse Dominus tradidit hoc est panis vinuÌ„ aquâ mixtum Concil ConstaÌ„t apud Binium which Canon was made against the Aquaâ—ij those who would use no Wine Can. 32. called Synodus quinisexta They Bread and Wine c. If we had not told you that this had been the speech of Greek Fathers in a Councel you would have conceived they had bin uttered by some Heretike as your Charity useth to call us Protestants Neither may the Authority of this Councel be rejected by you as unlawfull in the point of the Sacrament because your Binius in opposing against some things in this Councel yet never tooke any Exception against this Canon We may not let passe another Testimony used by the ancient Father o See above §. 6. at the Let. x Theodoret namely That Christ called the Bread his Body as he called his Body Bread Matth. 12. saying therof Except the grane of wheat die c. insomuch that interchangably in the one place He gave to the Signe the name of his Body and in the other He gave to his Body the name of the Signe So he As Protestantly as either Calvin or Beza could speak And you cannot deny but that when Christ called his Body Bread it was an improper and Figurative speech And therfore if you will believe Theodoret you are compellable to confesse that Christ in calling Bread his Body ment it not in a proper literal sense âšœ Wee were about to proceed but that your Doctor Heskins will needs crosse us in our way by objecting the Current of Oecumenius in his Exposition of those words of the Apostle Wee are all one Body inasmuch as wee are partakers of one Bread saying 11 Dr. Heskins in his Parliam of Christ Booke 3. C. 28. OecuÌ„ in 1. Cor. 11. Quid est panis Corpus Christi Quid efficiunturij qui participant Corpus sanè Christi quia ait Apostolus unus panis unum corpus sumus quia de uno pane participamus ex multis namque granis ut exempli gratia loquamur unus panis factus est nos multi ex uno pane participantes efficimur unum corpus Christi What is one Bread the Body of Christ and what are they made that partake of this one Bread The Body of Christ for this one Bread is made of many granes and we being many partakers of one Bread are made one Body Hence your Doctor In my judgement this needeth no explanation for asking a question what is Bread he answereth The Body of Christ Note then Reader he saith not it is a Signe of Christs Body but the Body of Christ VERILY where he speaketh both of the Bread partaken which he saith is Verily Christs Body and also of the Partakers who be made the mysticall Body of Christ wherein the Reader may see how rightly he confirmeth the Catholike faith So he And so wee thinke he doth but then must not your Popish be this Catholike faith because Oecumenmus calleth so Bread the Body of Christ Sacramentally as hee calleth the Partakers of the same Bread or Loafe the mysticall Body of Christ. But the Partakers and Communicants are Christs mysticall Body only Figuratively and by Analogy therfore the Bread is named the Naturall Body of Christ Figuratively and as the Symboll thereof as Christ himselfe calleth it by the Iudgement of Antiquitie throughout the Second Booke Which therfore the Apostle here calleth Bread after Consecration and as Oecumenius noteth such Bread as consisteth of many granes of Corne which must needs be Substantially Bread thereby to represent the people consisting of many Persons in one Communion â—o but Oecumenius saith your Doctor speaking of Bread called Christs Body nameth it VERILY Christs Body which is if it be lawfull to speake rudely a very-Lye For the words Verè Corpus Christi Verily Christs Body are attributed to the Partakers of the Bread which are the mysticall Body of Christ and not either to the Bread or Naturall Body of Christ Hitherto of the Greeke Fathers That the same Figurative Sense of Christs words is avouched by the Testimonies of the Latine Fathers more largely now insisted on SECT IX SOme of the Latine Fathers we confesse seeme in some places to deny all Figurative sense but this they doe even by a Figure called * As is afterwards many wheres discovered Hyperbole that is only in the excesse of Speech thereby to abstract the minds of sensuall men from fixing their thoughts upon externall Rites and to raise them up to a Sacramentall and Spirituall Contemplation of the Body and Blood of Christ But as for the direct and perspicuous Sentences of these Fathers they clearely and exactly teach a Figurative sense in the words of Christ to wit p Tertull. contra Marcion lib. 4. pag. 233. Edit Paris Profellus est Christus se concupivisle edere Pascha ut suum indignum enim ut aliquid alienum concupisceret Deus acceptum panem distributum Discipulis corpus suum fecit Hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est Figura corporis mei figura enim non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Caeterum vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non potest Tertullian whose words are as plaine as any glasse can be saying of Christ Hee distributed his Body that is a Signe of his Body âšœ The Fantastike Marcionites held that Christ had no essentiall Body but onely a figurative and Fantasticall These Heretikes Tertullian confuteth by Christ his Institution of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood as the * At the let p. Margin will shew you thus Nothing that is fantasticall is capable of a figure because this were to make a signe of a Signe or figure But Christ in this Sacrament gave a Signe of his Body Therefore Christ had namely in himselfe a Reall and Substantiall Body and not fantasticall That he gave a Figure of his
the way if wee shall consult with 18 Bertram de Corpore sanguine Domini after that he had cited Ambrose Hierome Austine Origen Fulgentius saith Animadvertat clarissimè Princeps sapientia vestra quod positis sanctarum â—rupturarum testimonijs sanctorum Patrum dictis evidentissimè monstratum est quod panis qui corpus Christi Calâ—s qui sanguis Christi appellatur figura sit quâ—à mysterium quod non parva differeâ—◠〈…〉 corpus quod per mysterium existit corpus quod passum est Quia hoc proptum Servatoris corpus â—st nec in eo aliqua figura est sed ipsa rei manifestatio At in isto quod per mysterium geritur figura est non solum proprij Christi corporis verumetiam credentis in Christum populi Bertram to know what he hath observed both out of Scriptures and Testimonies of Ancient Fathers by name Ambrose Augustine Hierome and Fulgentius he doth tell his Prince and Emperour that They demonstrate that the Bread which is called the Bodie of Christ is a figure because a Mysterie and that there is no small difference betweene the same Body which is the Mysterie and the Bodie which was crucified for that this is the proper Bodie of Christ and no figure but a manifestation But in that which is done by a Mysterie there is a figure both of the proper Bodie of Christ and also of the people that believe in him The same Orthodoxe Fathers of Primitive times thirteene in number have told us already that Christ called * See above B. 2. Chaâ— 1 Sect. 6. Bread his Body which hath beene the overthrow of your Romish Expositions of Christ's speech as you have heard Saint Cyprian saying that Christ created his owne Body thereby as your * â—yp ian See Book 3. 〈◊〉 4 Sect. 2. in 〈◊〉 second Ediâ—ion Cardinall confessed meaning Bread The Fathers of the Councel of Carthage forbidding any thing to be offered in this mysterie but Bread and Wine mixed with Water deliver their Canon thus 29 Conc. Carâ—â—ag Tempare Bontâ—â— Can 37. Or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lâ—tta apud Bin. Canon 4. In Sacramento corporis sanguinis Domini nihil amplius offeratur quà m quod Dominus prodidit hoc est Panis Vâ—num aquâ mixtum Which is a most corrupt Transtation and ought to bee thus Nihil amplius quà m corpus sanguis Domini id est Panis Vinum Which is recorded De Consecrat Cap. In Sacramento It can be no Answer to say that they meant the Layâ—â—ffering before Consecration becauâ—e they call that Offering now spoken of The Body and Blood of Christ which all know to bee spoken Sacerdotally before it was consecrated That nothing in those sacred mysteries be offered more than the Body and Blood of Christ as Christ himselfe hath ordained That is say they than the Bread and Wine Hereby plainly teaching that as they are called Christ's Bodie and Blood in their Sacramentall and Mysticall use and signification so are they Bread and Wine in their proper essence The foresaid Canon is registred among the Papall Decrees The Heretike Novatus binding some Receivers of the Eucharist to his part by saying 30 Euseb lib. 6. Cap. 35. Verba Novati Eucharistiam sumpturo Iura mihi per corpus sanguinem Domini te nunquà m me deserturum c. Whereupon Eusebius Miser ille homo non priùs degustavit Graec. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Here the Translator omitteth in his Translation the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bread Sweare to me by the Bodie and Blood of Christ not to depart from mee Hereupon Eusebius So the miserable man did not receive that Bread before he had said Amen that is given consent to the Motion of Novatus Where we finde Eusebius calling it Bread which had beene Consecrated by Novatus and named The Bodie of Christ This our Collection may be held so much the rather of some force because the Romish Translator which was Christoferson Bishop of Chichester according to his guise els-where did fairely leave out the word Bread but is a foule fault in a Translator of an History Will you have any more you may admit into the same Cuire these other Suffrages of Cyprian Hierome Eucherius and Primasius * See afterwards B. 6. C. 3. §. â— Melchizedech in his Oblation of Bread and Wine offered the Body and Blood of Christ Calling that the Body and Blood of Christ which then before Christ his incarnation in the flesh could bee essentially nothing but Bread and Wine because it was onely a Type of the Body and Blood of Christ to come And what will you say to the other * See afterwards B. 6. C. 5. §. 11. Fathers who affirmed hereof in as full an Emphasis that Christ is still Crucified bleeding and slaine in this Sacrament notwithstanding that our Christian Faith generally beleeved denyeth that this can happen to his glorified Body now after his Resurrection and therefore such Phrases were to be understood of the breaking of the Bread and powring out of Wine Sacramentally and Analogically that is Figuratively representing the Crucifying of his Body and Shedding of his Blood The Fathers who used this accent of speech were Alexander and Gregory both Popes of Rome Chrysostome Cyprian Hierome Cyrill of Hierusalem Hesychius Paschasius Eusebius Emissenus Enow one would thinke to silence all Oppositions of them who are instant in nothing more than in pressing the Improprieties of the speeches of Antiquitie in a literall sense and hereby verifying that Proverbe of Salomon Qui nimis emuâ—git elicit sanguinem Even so they who by the same Reason wherby they urge the sayings of Fathers literally for the proofe of an unbloody Sacrifice properly so called must be constrained likewise â—o admit against the Catholike faith of all Christians a Sacrifice properly slaine and bloodie therein The like will bee proved from their other Hyperboles and the Excessive termes of Antiquitie viz. of Tearing Christs Bodie and dying our teeth in his Blood and the like in the * Booke 5. thorow-out fifth Booke and from their checking their owne Phrase of offering the Sacrifice of his Bodie by recalling and correcting themselves immediatly thus Or rather a Memoriall thereof in the * Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 6. sixth Booke All these Observations are as demonstrable for the vindicating of the judgement of Ancient Fathers as any Child of the Catholike Church could have desired if the same holy Fathers had beene intreated to expound their owne meanings Wee returne to our former Argument Christ Instituting a Sacrament and in Taking Bread and Blessing Bread saying This is my Bodie must necessarily bee understood to have spoken Sacramentally that is Figuratively as hath beene prooved from Scripture as in all other Sacraments so likewise in the severall confessed Figurative words of Christ concerning this Sacrament by eight severall Instances in this second Booke This one Argument
of it selfe hath beene termed by Master Calvin Murus ahaeneus that is a wall of brasse and so will it bee found more evidently to bee when you shall perceive the same * Booke 3. thorrow-out Fathers judging that which they call a Change into Christs Flesh to bee but a Change into the Sacrament of his Flesh bread still remaining the same in the third Booke âšœ And now wee are to withstand your paper-bullets wherewith you vainely attempt in your Objections following to batter our defence withall CHAP. III. The Romish Objections from Reasons against the Figurative Sense Answered The first Objection SECT I. NOthing useth to bee more properlie and simplie spoken say a Primum Argumentum sumitur à materiâ est enim materia de quâ hic agitur Pactum Sacramentum Testamentum Novum fuisse à Domino institutum pater ex illis verbis Hic est calix Novi Testamenti in sanguine meo Iam verò nihil solet magis propriè simplicitèr aut exquisitè explicaâ—â— quà m Testamentum nè viz. detur occasio litigandi Pacta seu toedera sunt etiam ex eodem genera quae exquisitissimè proprijs verbis explicantur nè locus ullus relinquatur cavillis Sacramentum hoc esse de quo agitur nemo negat Sacramentum autem solere à Deo institui proprijs verbis ut in corum usu non cretur Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch c. 9. §. Primùm §. Deindè §. Poriò â—acramentum A Testament must be alwayes taken in a reall and substantiall meaning M. Maloun the Ies in his Reply you than words of Testaments and Covenants Ergò this being a Testamentary Phrase must be taken in the literall Sense CHALLENGE VVHat is this are Figurative speeches never used in Covenants and Testamentarie Language or is there not therfore sufficient perspicuity in Figures This is your rash and lavish Assertion for you your selves doe teach that b In ipsâ Scriptura dicitur Testamentum Instrumentum Quia pacta Dei soedera inita nobiscum continent ut patet in pacto Circumcisionis cum Abrahamo Ante omnia praefamur S. Scripturam uti Metaphoris non solum ob utilitatem nostram sed etiam propter necessitatem à pluribus Patribus traditur Sacram scripturam de Deo de Trinitate de Patre Filio Spiritu sancto propriè loqui non passe Quandò sermo est de vità aeterâ pâ—aemio siliorum Dei â—laâ—is rebus comparatur per Tropos est explicandus ut August ait Nullo genere lâ—cutionis quod in consuetudine humanâ reperitur Scripturae non utuntur quia utiqué hominibus 〈◊〉 Salâ—â—er Iâ—s Proâ—â—g lib. 1. p. 3. 4. lib. 21. pag. 371. 227. 229. 231. 234. The Old and New Testament are both full fraught with multitude of Tropes and Figures and yet are called Testaments Secondly That the Scripture speaking of the Trinitie and some divine things cannot but speake Improperly and siguratively Thirdly That Sacramentall speeches as The Rocke was Christ and the like words re * See above Chap. 2. Sect 3. let c. Tropicall and Figurative Fourthly That even in the Testamentary Speech of Christ at his Institution of this Sacrament saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood there is a Figure in the very word c See above Chap. 2 Sect. 4. p. q. Testament So have you confessed and so have you consequently confuted your owne Objection Hereto might bee added the Testament of Iacob prophesying of his sonnes and saying * Gen. 49. Reuben is my strength Iudah a Lions Whelpe Issachar a strong Asse Dan an Adder in the way All figurative Allusions Nay no man in making his Testament can call it his Will or say that hee hath set his hand and Seale unto it without Figures Namely that hee hath given by writing a Signification of his Will that the Subscription was made by his Hand and that he added unto it the Print of his Seale These Three Will Hand Seale every word Figurative even in a Testament The second Romish Objection against the Figurative Sense SECT II. LAwes and Precepts say d Verba Legum Praeceptorum debent este propria Bellar lib 1 de Eucharist cap 9. §. Sequitur you should bee in plaine and proper words But in the Speech of Christ Take eate you c. are words of Command Ergò They may not bee held Figurative CHALLENGE CAn you be Ignorant of these Figurative Precepts viz. of Pulling out a mans owne eye of cutting off his hand Mat. 5. Or yee of a Penitents Renting of his heart Ioel 2. Or of not hardening his heart Psalme 95. and the like Christ commanded his Disciples to prepare for his keeping the Passeover with his Disciples and the Disciples prepared the Passeover as Iesus commanded them saith the * Luc. 22. 8. Evangelist In this Command is the word Passeover We demand The word Passeover which is taken for the Sacrament and Signe of the Passeover is it taken Figuratively You cannot deny it And can you deny that a Commandement may bee delivered under a Figurative Phrase You can both that is say and gaine-say any thing like false Merchants onely so farre as things may or may not make for your owne advantage But to catch you in your owne snare your Doctrine of Concomitancy is this viz. Bread being turned into Christs Body is joyntly turned into whole Christ and Wine being changed into his Blood is likewise turned into whole Christ both Flesh and Blood If then when Christ commanded his Disciples saying * Matth. 26. 27. Drinke you All of this that which was Drunke was the whole substantiall Body of Christ either must his Disciples be sayd to have Drunke Christs Body properly or else was the Command of Christ figuratively spoken To say the first contradicteth the universall expression of mans speech in all Languages for no man is sayd to drinke Bread or any solid thing And â—o grant the Second that the speech is Figurative contradicteth your owne Objection Againe Christ commanded to Eate his Body yet notwithstanding have Three e Seâ— above Ch. 2. §. 4. l. Iesuites already confessed that Christs Body cannot bee sayd to have beene properly Eaten but Figuratively onely What fascination then hath perverted your Iudgements that you cannot but still confound your selves by your contrary and thwarting Languages Your third Romish Objection SECT III. DOctrinall and Dogmaticall speeches say f Praecipua dogmata c Bellar. quo supra §. Denota you ought to be direct and literall But these words This is my Body are Doctrinall CHALLENGE A Man would marvaile to heare such seely and petty Reasons to bee propounded by those who are accounted great Clerkes and those who know full well that the speech of Christ concerning Castrating or gelding of a man's selfe is g Abulen in eum loâ—um Christus non laudat cos qui castâ—ârunt se sed
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 Catholike Church that Å¿ Sâ—praeceptiva locutio fâ—â—gitium aut facinus videtur iubere figurata est ut nisi manducaveritis carnem meam facinus videtur jubere ergo figura est praecipiens passioni Domini est communicandum suaviter ac utiliter recolendum in memoriâ quià pro nâ—bis caro ejus crucifixa vulnerata sit August de Doctrina Christ lib 3. cap. 16. 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 sense by observing the misery of your Disputers in contending for a Literall Exposition therof 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 Objections 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 t See the last Booke Chap. 2. §. the last 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 Subjectively All which are fully perswasive Inducements to inforce a figurative sense as the sundry Bookes following will clearely 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 flie 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 wee now orderly proceed after that wee have unfoulded your last Mysterie CHAP. IIII. âšœ A Confirmation of a Figurative Sense of Christs words THIS IS MY BODY opened unto us by a Third Key in the Pronoune MEVM as it is pronounced by the Romish Priest in his Consecration a Point as observable as any other SECT I. AN Objection there is which so much perplexeth your Doctors that both Repugnancie among themselves in Answering and Insufficiencie of Answers may justly seeme as good as their Prevaricating in the Cause It is objected that the Minister cannot pronounce these words of Christ This is my Body in the same proprietie of Speech wherein Christ himselfe spake them and therefore they cannot bee Consecrative words according to your Romane Faith as they are uttered by the Minister For hee must deliver them either Narratively by way of Repetition as they are read both in the Gospell and in your Romane Missall saying And Iesus tooke Bread and when hee had given thankes he brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying This is my Body And if so then the Minister in rehearsing of Christs word THIS should consecrate the Bread wherof Christ spake in his saying THIS at his Institution of this Sacrament and not this Bread which is now in the Ministers hand made visible to the People Or else he should pronounce the same words according to your owne terme Significatively that is so speaking them in the person of Christ as if Christ himselfe should now pronounce them And if so then in the Priests saying This is my Body the word MY should signifie the Body of the Priest and not the Body of Christ This is a shrewd Objection which so puzleth your Doctors See the 1 Bellarm. lib. 4. de Eucharist cap. 14. §. Objicitur Possunt verba duobus modis dici aut Narrativè ac Recitativè vel Significativè ut exempli gratia cùm ex Evangelio recitamus dixisse Iudaeos de Christo Hic blasphemat illa verba Hic blasphemat à rudaeis dicebantur significativè id enim volebant Christum esse Blasphemum à nobis autem non dicuntur Significativè sed tantum Narrativè non enim significare volumus Christum essè Blasphemum sed Iudaeos hoc dixisâ—e Hac distinctione positâ est hoc Argu nentum Verba illa Hoc est Corpus mean vel dicuntur à Sacerdotibus Recitativè vel Significativè sed neutro modo possunt esse forma Sacramenti igitur non suntâ—sta verba forma Sacramenti Probatur Assumptio Nam si ista verba dicerentur Recitativè primò sequeretur per illùd Hoc demonstrari Panem qui suit in manibus Christi non istum qui est in manâ—bus Sacerdotis ac proinde non consecraretur Panis qui consecrandus proponitur in Altari Secundò sequeretur non posse consecrari quidquam his verbis Nam verba consecrant dum faciunt quod significant ista autem nihil significant dum dicuntur materi liter tantùm non Significativè Si autem dicerentuâ— Significativè Primò illud Hoc est Corpus meum demonstraret corpus Sacerdotis non Christi ac dicere oportet Hoc est corpus Christi Respondeo verba illa dici utroque modo Recitativè Significativè in cujus rei gratia notanda sunt tria Primum Sacerdos quando confitetur peccata sua quando orat quando laudat Christum agit sine dubio personam suam non Christi quando dicit Hoc est Corpus meum agit personam Christi Secundum In hac actione longè aliter Sacerdotem agere personam Christi quà m in alijs Sacramentes nam in alijs agit ut Christi minister tamen loquitur in personâ suâ ut cùm dicit Ego te baptizo Ego te absolvo at in Consecratione Eucharistiae Sacerdos non solùm agit ut Christi minister sed induit omnino Christi personam ac loquitur ac si ipse esset Christus quomodò Exod. 3. Angelus dicit Ego sum Deus patris tui Tertium Sacerdotem in actione Liturgiae usque ad illa verba Qui pridiè quà m pateretur agere personam suam non Christi ut paret quia cousque orat vel laudat ab illis autem verbis usque ad finem Consecrationis agere personam suam Christi ideò Recitativè simul Significativè verba pronuncâ—are intendit enim recitare quâ—d Christus egerit dixerit simul omnia imitari in persona Christi ac si Christus per ipsius mysterium iterum omnia faceret diceret Vasquez in 3. Thom. Quaest 78. Artic. 4. Disput 200. cap. 1. Nonnulli
Christ that is with the same Intention as Christ when hee said This of the Bread then in his hands the Priest saying This should intead and meane that This Bread whereof Christ spake and not that which is in his owne hands which now he intendeth to Consecrate and Consequently should he make no Consecration at all And what hereupon must become of your Romish Masse in your Transubstantiation Sacrifice and Adoration you may understand in the next Section The full Overthrow of the whole Doctrine of Transubstantiation Corporall Presence Personall Sacrifice and Adoration Consequently upon the former Confutation of your Romish Significative Pronunciation of Christ's words by the Priest SECT V. TRuly hath your Iesuite * See above in the Second Section Suarez expressed the Doctrine of your Church as followeth Except these words This is my Body be taken Significatively and formally they worke no Consecration nor can it be collected that that which is now in the hands of the Priest is the true Body of Christ So he alleging the Couâ—acel of Trent for his warrant But the words as they are pronounced by the Priest cannot possibly be taken Significatively but onely in the way of Rehearsing and Repeating them No one Iota in the Text or Context No one Testimonie of Antiquitie No one Reason or yet competent Example hath beene alleged by any of your Doctors for proofe of the Contrary This point needeth no more discussion onely for further Illustration-sake wee shall commend unto you a more proportionable Example than was any that hitherto your Sophisters have invented which because your Iesuites have affected the * See above in the first and second Sections Similitudes of Historicall and Comicall Representations wee shall likewise borrow from that Stage If therefore any Romish Priest should Act the part of Aäron in imitating an operative Speech of turning and Transubstantiating a Rod into a Serpent in saying to suppose Aäron to have said so This is my Serpent yet could not your Priest possibly deliver the same words Significatively as in the person of Aäron either in saying This because This Rod spoken of by the Priest is not the same Rod whereof Aäron said This nor yet in the word My because that wherof Aäron said My Serpent cannot possibly bee said accordingly My Serpent by the Priest as your selves well know And therefore doth this discover your Romish Intoxication in your Significative Exposition of these words This and My in the Speech of Christ 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 Doctrinall 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 Corporall Presence in the Fourth Booke 3. Receiving of the Body of Christ into the Bodies of the Communicants called Reall or Materiall Conjunction 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 After follow the Additionals in a Summary Discoverie of the Abominations of the Romish Masse and the Iniquities of the Defenders thereof in the Eighth Booke THese are the five Doctrinall Consequences which you teach and professe and which wee 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 wee treate of the Corporall Presence wee 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 Controversie concerning the Change and Conversion professed by Protestants which is Sacramentall And by the Papists defined to be Trans-substantiall First of the Sacramentall SECT I. THere lyeth a charge upon every Soule that shall communicate and participate of this Sacrament that herein hee Discerne the Lords Body which Office of Discerning according to the judgement of Protestants is not onely in the use but also in the Nature to distinguish the Object of Faith from the Object of Sense The First Object of Christian Faith is the Divine Alteration and Change of naturall Bread into a Sacrament of Christs Bodie This wee call a Divine Change because none but the same * See hereafter Chap. 4. §. 1. 2. Omnipotent power that made the Creature and Element of Bread can Change it into a Sacrament The Second Object of Faith is the Body of Christ it selfe Sacramentally represented and verily exhibited to the Faithfull Communicants There are then three Objects in all to be distinguished The First is before Consecration the Bread meerely Naturall Secondly After Consecration Bread Sacramentall Thirdly Christs owne Body which is the Spirituall and Supersubstantiall Bread truly exhibited by this Sacramentall to the nourishment of the soules of the Faithfull Secondly of the Romish Change which you call Transubstantiation SECT II. BVt your Change in the Councell of a Est conversio totius substantiae Panis in Corpus Christi totius substantiae Vini in sanguinem manentibus duntaxat speciebus Panis Vini quam quidem Conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissimè Transubstantiationem appellat Conc. Trid. Sess 13. Can. 2. Trent is thus defined Transubstantiation is a Change of the whole Substance of Bread into the Body of Christ and of Wine into his Blood Which by the Bull of b Ego N. N jurò hinc Conversionem fieri quam Catholica Ecclesia appellat Transubstantiationem Extrà quam fidem nemo salvus esse potest Bulla Pij 4. super formâ luram nit professionu Fidei Pius the Fourth then Pope is made an Article of Faith without which a man cannot bee saved Which Article of your Faith Protestants beleeve to bee a new and impious Figment and c Transubstantiationem Protestantes esse sceleratam Haeresin dicunt Bell. l. 3. de Euch. cap. 11. Heresie The Case thus standing it will concerne every Christian to build his Resolution upon a sound Foundation As for the Church of England shee professeth in her 28. Article saying of this Transubstantiation that It cannot bee proved by holy Writ but is repugnant to the plaine words of Scripture overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion unto MANY SVPERSTITIONS CHAP. II. The Question is to be examined by these grounds viz. I Scripture II. Antiquity III. Divine Reason IN all which wee shall make bold to borrow your owne Assertions and Confessions for the Confirmation of Truth The Romish Depravation of the Sense of Christ
before the Councel of Laterane under Pope Innocent the Third viz. Anno 1215 whom therefore your Cardinall doth taxe for want of reading But either were your Iesuite Coster and Cardinall Perron as ignorant of Ancient Learning as Scotus or else they gave small Credit to that Councel cited by Bellarmine under Gregory the Seventh For your Iesuite saith in direct tearmes that r Ante trecentos Annos in Concilio Lateranensi ad ifrius rei tam admirabilis clariorem explicarionem usurpatem fuit nomen Transubstantiationis ut intelligant Christiani substantiam Panis in substantiam corporis Christi converti Coster Ies Enchir. cap 8. §. De Transubstantitione The name of Transubstantiation was used in the Councel of Laterane for a clearer explication that Christians might understand the Change of Bread into the Body of Christ Can you say then that it was universally so understood before But your Cardinall Perron more peremptorily concludeth that s Si nihil planè ad Doctrinam Ecclesiasticam spectans in Concilio Lateranensi ex communi Patrum assensu decretum esset sequeretur posse ut falsum impugnari Articulum de Transubstantiatione Cardie Per. en sa Harangue an tiers Estat pag. 33. As witnesseth our P. Presloa alias Widdington Discuss Concib Latcran part 1. §. 1. pag. 12. If it had not beene for the Councel of Laterane it might be now lawfull to impugne it So he A plaine acknowledgement that it was no Doctrine of Faith before that Councel even as Scotus affirmed before But we pursue this Chase yet further to shew That the Article of Transubstantiation was not defined in the Councel of Laterane under Pope innocentius the Third SECT IV. YOur owne learned Romish t Venêre multa in Consultationem nec decerni quicquam tamen aptè potuit eò quòd Pontifex quo profectus est tollendae Discordiae gratiâ mortuus est Petusij Platina in vita innocentij Decerni nihil apertè potuit edita sunt quaedam c. Nauclerus An. 1215. meaning after the Councell Ad festum Sanctae Andreae protractum nihil dignum memoriâ actū nisi quod Orientalis Ecclesia c. God fridus Monumeter sis Math. paris Histor minor Concilium illud Generale quod primâ fronte grandia prae se tulit in risum scomma desijt in quo Papa omnes accedentes ludisicatus est illi enim cum nihil in eo Concilio geri cernerent redeundi veniam petierunt Thus farre out of Widdrington alias Preston in his Booke above cited Priest a long time Prisoner did under the name of Widdrington produce many Historians viz. Platina Nauclerus Godfridus Monumetensis Matthew Paris and others to testifie as followeth That many things fell under Consultation in that Councel but nothing was openly defined the Pope dying at Perusium Insomuch that some of these Authours sticke not to say that This Generall Councel which seemed to promise bigge and mighty matters did end in scorne and mockery performing nothing at all Wee might adde that the supposed Acts of this Councel were not published untill more than two hundred yeares after No marvell then if some u Scholastici quidam hanc Doctrinam de Transubstantiatione non valdè Antiquam esse dixerunt inter quos Scorus Gabriel Biel. Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disp 30. §. 1. Schoole-men among whom were Scotus and Biel held Transubstantiation not to have beene very ancient And another that x In Synaxi serò definivit Ecclesia Transubstantiationem diù satis erat Credere sivè sub pane sive sub quocunque modo adesse verum Corpus Christi Eras in 1. Cor. 7. pag. 373. It was but lately determined in the Church Nay Master Brerely if his opinion be of any Credit among you sticketh not to say that y Mr. Brerely in his Liturgie Tract 2. §. 11. pag. 158. Transubstantiation compleat that is both for forme and matter was not determined untill the last Councel of Trent that is to say not untill the yeare of our Lord 1560. Do you not see how much licking this ougly Beare had before it came to be formed and yet it will appeare to be but a Monstrum horrendum take it at the best as it is now to be proved by the full discovering of the paipable Falshood thereof CHAP. III. The Definition of Transubstantiation in the Church of Rome and of the Falshood thereof SECT I. THe Councel of Trent saith your a Concil Tridentinum dicit fieri Conversionem totius substantiae Panis id est tam formae quà m materiae in Substantiam Corporis Christi Bellarmia lib. 3. de Eucharist Cap. 18. §. Si objicias Concil Trident. Sess 13. Cap. 4. Cardinall hath defined that this Conversion is of the whole Substance of Bread that is aswell forme as matter into the Substance of Christ's Body Our First proofe of the Falshood of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation by the Contradictions of the Defenders thereof whereby they bewray their No-Beleefe of the Article THe Opinions of the Doctours of your Church concerning the nature of this Conversion are by you reduced into these two maners namely that it is either by Production out of the substance of Bread or else by Adduction of the Body of Christ unto the forme of Bread CHALLENGE VVHatsoever it is which you will seeme to professe never shall you perswade us that you do indeed believe either of the pretended Formes of Transubstant ation First not by Production because as the same b Productio est quando terminus ad quem non existat ideò vi Conversionis necessariò producitur ut aqua in vinum Adductiva autem c. Bellar. lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 18. §. Secundò notandum Productiva non est quia Corpas Domini praeexistit Idem ibid. §. Ex his Cardinall truly argueth Conversion by Production is when the thing that is produced is not yet extant as when Christ converted water into wine wine was not Extant before it was Produced out of the substance of water But the Body of Christ is alwaies Extant therefore can it not be said to be Produced out of the substance of Bread So he Which Productive maner of Transubstantiation could not be believed by your Iesuites c De ratione Transubstantiationis non est ut Substantia in quam dicitur fieri Transubstantirio producatur aut conservetur per illam imo qui hoc modo defendunt Transubstantiationem in Sacramento ad quoddam genus Philosophiae excogitatum potius quà m ad verum necessarium rem reducere videntur Vasq Ies Tom. 2. Disp 214. cap. 4. Vasquez and d Praeter Adductivam Conversionem evidenter refutavimus omnes modos Conversionis qui vel dici vel singi possunt Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Qu est 75. Disp 50. §. 5. §. Tertiò Principaliter Mr Fisher in his Rejòynder talketh fondly of a Reproduction as of Carcasses converted into men in which Change any One may
Transubstantiation was hatched and which is contrary to his owne device of Conversion by Adduction wherein first he i Dicta Corpus Christi ex pane fieri non tanquà m ex materia sed tanquà m à Termino à quo ut mundus ex nihilo then confuting himselfe etiam sit ex aqua vinum that was not ex nihilo In praesenti negotio Conversio non est Productiva Panis enim convertitur in Corpus Christi praeexistens ergò Corpus Christi factum ex Pane ex Carne est idem Bell. l. 3. de Euc. c. 24. § Ad Tertium confoundeth himselfe and secondly his opinion hath beene scornfully rejected by your owne learned Doctors as being nothing lesse than Transubstantiation as you have heard Therefore may you make much of your Breaden Christ As for us Wee according to our Apostollicall Creec believe no Body of Christ but that which was Produced out of the Sanctified flesh of the Bl Virgin Mary for feare of k Alphonsus de Castro lib. 4 Tit. Christê° Haer. 2. Manichaei dixeruÌ„t Christum non ex utero Virginis prodijsse Et Apollinaris dixit Christum non assumpsisse carnem ex Virgine Item Chiliastae Democritae Melcluoritae ut Procli mitae pratcolus in Elench Haeret. in suic quique titulis Heresie This same Objection being made of late to a Iesuite of prime note received from him this Answer viz. God that was able to raise Children to Abraham out of stones can of Bread transubstantiate the same into that Body of Christ which was of the Virgin And hee againe received this Reply That the Children which should bee so raised out of stones howsoever they might bee Abraham's Children according to Faith yet could they not bee Children of Abraham according to the Flesh Therefore is there as great a Difference betweene that Body from Bread and the other from the Blessed Virgin as there must have beene betweene Children out of Stones and Children out of Flesh And this our Reason accordeth right well to the Ancient Faith professed within this Land in the dayes of Edgar a Saxon King as it is set out in an l Homily en Easter day pag. 35. Homily of that time which standeth thus Much is betweene the body that Christ suffered in and betweene the bodie of the hallowed Howsell The Body truly that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of the Virgin Mary with blood and with bone with skin and with sinewes in humane limbes and his Ghostly body which we call his Howsell is gathered of many Cornes without blood and bone without lâ—mbe and therefore nothing is to be understood heerein bodily but all is Ghostly to bee understood This was our then Saxons Faith wherein is plainly distinguished the Body of Christ borne of the blessed Virgin from the Sacramentall which is called Ghostly as is the Body of Flesh from the consecrated substance of Bread A Doctrine directly confirmed by * See Booke 4. cap. 4. §. 1. in the Challenge Saint Augustine Wherefore wee may as truly say concerning this your Conversion that if it be by Transubstantiation from Bread then it is not the Body which was borne of the Blessed Virgin as your owne Romish Glosse could say of the Predication * See above E. 2. Chap. 1. §. 4. If Bread bee Christ's Body then Something was Christs Body which was not borne of the Virgin Mary CHALLENGE I âšœ In vindication of the same Truth against the late Calumniation of a Iesuite THis Sentence I have seene lately canvassed by a Iesuite against a judicious and religious Knight S r. H. L. falsly imputing unto him divers Falsities pretending especially that the English Translation used by the Knight is differing from the Latine Which Exception of your Iesuite must needes have proceded either from ignorance if hee knew not that the Translation used by the Knight was taken out of the Originall Saxon-language and not out of the Latine or if he knew so much from downe-right boldnesse in charging him with a false Translation I omit his frivolous Cavillations upon words The maine question for the sense is whether in this sentence of the Saxons Faith the Body wherein Christ suffered and his Body celebrated in this Sacrament betoken not two kinde of Bodies essentially differing one from the other or but onely the two different manners of the Being of one Body Your Iesuite affirmeth them to signifie the same Body and he calleth the contrary opinion false His Reason For whereas it is said saith he that the spirituall flesh which is as much as to say our Saviour his flesh in the Sacrament according to the outward shew consisting of Granes of Corne hath no Bones nor Sinewes nor distinction of Parts Life or Motion Here the Iesuite cryeth out against falshood but why Because the Knight forsooth hath pretermitted saith he these words According to the outward shew consisting of granes Whereby he would have us believe the new â—â—mish Faith of a Subsistence of meere Accidents Who if he had meant to have dealt ingenuously he should have manifested that his Latine Translation to have accorded with the Originall Saxon Copie But to take him as wee finde him If his words According to the outward shew imply as it needs must if he will speake to any purpose that the Body of Christ in this Sacrament although in outward shew it be without Bones Sinewes Life and Motion yet it hath all these inwardly in it selfe as it is in this Sacrament then whilest he laboureth to confute one Protestant he contradicteth all his fellow Iesuites of the same Society * See Booke 4. Chap. â— Sect. 2. who deny all possibility of Motion of Christ's Body in this Sacrament by any naturall and voluntary Act without a miracle But to speake to the point This Body and That Body say wee do diversifie two Bodies the one Sacramentall of Bread called Spirituall because of the spirituall and mysticall Signification this Bread consisting of Granes And the other the Naturall Body of Christ consisting of Bones Sinewes c. In a word This and That in this Saxon narration accordeth with the Doctrine of * See Booke 4. Chap. 4. in the Challenge Bertram taken out of Saint Augustine namely That in heaven to differ as much from This on the Altar as did the Body borne of the Virgin Mary from the other which was not so borne But if this Homily will not advantage your Iesuite hee will wrest his prejudicate Conceite out of another Homily of AElfrick if it be possible where we reade thus As Christ before his Passion could convert the substance of Bread and Creature of Wine into his owne Body that suffered and into his Blood which afterwards was extant to be shed So also was he able in the Desert to Convert Manna and Water out of the Rock into his Blood So he citing a Testimonie as fully Opposite unto your Transubstantiation in sense as it seemeth
to be absolutely for it in sound it being just the same Doctrine which Augustine Anselme and Bede * See hereafter Booke 5. Chap. 3. §. 1. 2. taught when they said that the faithfull among the Iewes Ate the same spirituall meate Christs Flesh in eating Manna and dranke the same spirituall drink that is the blood of Christ in drinking the water that issued out of the Rocke which Christians now doe And therefore meant not a Corporall eating of Christ but a Sacramentall So say wee Christ could aswell then turne Manna and Water of the Rocke into a Sacrament of his Body and Blood for the nourishing of the soules of God's people of those times as he doth now Convert Bread and Wine into the Sacraments of his Body and Blood for the comfort of us Christians This Answer preventeth the Iesuites Objection 10 In his Booke of Spectacles p. 142. The Time saith he when the people received Manna in the Desert Christ was not in his humane nature therefore could not Manna be changed into his Body nor Water into his Blood So he very truly indeed And therfore must AElfrick his speech be understood Sacramentally as hath beene said which because the Iesuite refuseth to do therefore is he at difference with AElfrick denying that Christ was able to convert Manna into his Body which AElfrick said in expresse termes hee was able to do namely thorow his divine power by a Sacramentall Conversion because Omnipotencie is as properly necessary for the making of a divine Sacrament as it was for the creating of the World But was it not then kindly done thinke you of your Iesuit to lend his Spectacles to another when he had the most need of them himselfe by the which he might have discerned that as Christ Sacramentally and therefore figuratively called Bread his Body and Wine his Blood so did evermore all the faithfull of Christ This Lesson * See Booke 2. C. 2. Sect. 10. hath beene manifested by many pregnant Examples in a full Section which being once got by heart would expedite all the like Difficulties To conclude the former Saxon doctrine is againe confirmed by Saint * See Booke 4. Chap. 4. §. 1. in the Challenge Augustine Wherefore wee may as truly say concerning this your Conversion that if it be by Transubstantiation from Bread then it is not the Body which was Borne of the Blessed Virgin as your owne Romish Glosse could say of the Predication * See above B. 2. Chap. 1. §. 4. If Bread be Christ's Body then something was Christ's Body which was not borne of the Virgin Mary And this wee are now furthermore to evince out of your Pope Innocent the Third against your Councel of Trent He See the Margent of the former Section taught that when the Conversion is of the forme with the substance then is the Change Into that which is now made and was not before as when the Rod was turned into a Serpent So he shewing that the Serpent by that Change was therefore Made of that Rod. But your Tridentine Fathers you know have defined the Conversion of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body to be aswell in Forme as in Matter whereupon by the Iudgement of your Pope Innocent it must follow that the Body of Christ in your Eucharist is made of Bread and if made of Bread then could it not possibly be of the flesh of the Virgin Because there cannot be a Substantiall Change of a Substance into Substance except that the Substance of that whereinto the Conversion is wrought have it's Originall and Making from the Substance of that which was converted and changed Nor could the Contrary be hitherto proved by any Romish Doctor from any Example out of any conversion either naturall or miraculous which hath beene road of from the beginning of Times Our third Reason is taken from the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration but First of the State of this Question SECT III. VVEe wonder not why your Fathers of the Councell of Trent were so fierce in casting their great Thunderbolt of m Si quis dixerit remaneâ—â— substâ—ntiam Panâ—s Anathema sit Conc. Trident. Sess 13. Can. 2. Anathema and Curse upon every man that should affirme Bread and Wine to remaine in this Sacrament after Consecration which they did to terrifie men from the doctrine of Protestants who do all affirme the Continuance of the substance of Bread in the Eucharist For right well did these Tridentines know that if the Substance of Bread or Wine doe remaine then is all Faith yea and Conceit of Transubstantiation but a feigned Chimaera and meere Fancie as your Cardinall doth confesse in granting that n Panis eâ—si non annihilâ—tur tamen manet niâ—â—l in se ut Aqua post Conversionem in Vinum Neqque obstat quòd fouè materia manserit nam materia 〈◊〉 est Aqua Prima â—Ì„oditio in vera Conversione est 〈◊〉 quod convertitur 〈◊〉 esse Bessur lio 3 de Euch. c 18 〈◊〉 cap. 24. §. Ad Alterum It is a necessary condition in every Transubstantiation that the thing which is converted cease any more to bee as it was in the Conversion of Water into Wine Water ceased to bee Water And so must Bread cease to bee Bread This being the State of the Question wee undertake to give Good Proofes of the Existence and Continuance of Bread in the Eucharist the same in Substance after Consecration Our first Proofe is from Scripture 1. Cor. 10. 11. Saint Paul calling it Bread SECT IV. IN the Apostle his Comment that I may so call his two * 1. Cor. 11. 26 27. 10. 16. Chapters to the Corinthians upon the Institution of Christ we reade of Eating the Bread and Drinking the Cup thrice all which by the consent of all sides are spoken of Eating and Drinking after Consecration and yet hath hee called the ourward Element Bread You will say with Some It was so called onely because it was made of Bread as Aärons Rod turned into a Serpent was notwithstanding called a Rod. But this Answer is not Answerable unto the Similitude For first of the Bread the Apostle saith demonstratively This bread and of the other This Cup But of Aärons Rod turned into a Serpent none could say This Rod. And secondly it is contrary to Christian Faith which will abhorre to say in a proper sense that Christs Body was ever Bread Or else you will answer with Others It is yet called Bread because it hath the Similitude of Bread as the Brazen Serpent was called a Serpent But neither this nor any other of your Imaginations can satisfie for we shall proove that the Apostle would never have called it Bread after Consecration but because it was Substantially still Bread Our Reason is He had now to deale against the Prophaners of this Sacrament in reproving such as used it as Common Bread * 1. Cor. 11. 22. Not
ancient Writers y Iulicium Vnivâ—sitâ—tâ—s Duâ—censis Bertrâ—m Catholicus Presâ—yter Monachus Corvinensis â—a Câ—hoâ—cis vereâ—bas â—â—â—larimos 〈◊〉 errores extenaemus excuâ—emus excogitâ—to Commenâ—â—â—aepè negemus câ—nmodum eâ—s sensum assingamas duâ—nâ—obâ—â—â—acur 〈◊〉 Dispâ—â—aâ—â—onibus cum Adâ—ersâ—â—js Index Exâ—urg juxta Conc. Trideâ—t Decret 2. Philippi 2. Reg. Hispan Jussu Anno 1571. Let us say they in Dâ—sputation with our Adversaries objecting ancient Authors tolerate many of their Errours extenuate and excuse them yea and oftentimes by some devised Comment or shift deny them as also by feigning to apply some apt sense unto them So that Vniversiâ—ie This being the guise and professed Art of your Schooles to use all their wits how to delude their Opposites in Disputation what great confidence shall any have of their sincerity in answering Let us leave Bertram under the Testification and Commendation of Abbot z Bertramus Presbyter qui in divinis Scriptuâ—s valdè peritus non mâ—â—ùs vitâ quà m doctrinâ iâ—signis multa scripsit praeclara Opuâ—cula de quibus ad meam notiâ—â—m pauca pervenerunt Ad Câ—rolum Regem fratrem Lotharij Imperaroris scripsit Commendabâ—le opus de Praedestinatione libruâ— uâ—uâ—â—e Corpore Sanguine Dâ—nâ—i Trithem Abbas Trithemius for his Excellent Learning in Scripture his godly life his worthy Books and by name this now-mentioned written expresly of the Body and Blood of Christ âšœ Ephraimius Bishop of Antioch of primitive Antiquity whose Sentence is recorded by Photius standeth thus 24 Photius Bibliothec ex Ephrâ—mio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 415. Edit Augustâ—ae Vindelic 1601. The Body of Christ which is received by the faithfull loseth nothing of it's sensible substance nor is it separable from grace as Baptisme which is spirituall being intirely one in it selfe preserveth the property of it's sensible substance I meane water and loseth not that which it was So hee Expresly reveiling unto us in what Sense Antiquity called Bread the Bodie of Christ namely as other Fathers in good number have already unfolded because it is a Sacrament representing Christs Body For hee clearly speaketh of that which loseth nothing of it's sensible substance no more than water in Baptisme doth lose ought of it's sensible substance Which Analogie of the Eucharist with Baptisme will in the last * Booke in a full Synopsis give an upshot to the whole Cause concerning the generall Iudgement of the Fathers from point to point See the like Argument of Cyrill of Ierusalem afterwards Chap. 4. Sect. 4. CHAP. IV. Answers to the Objections of Romish Doctours taken from the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers for Transubstantiation Or an Antidote to expell all their poysonsome Pretences in that behalfe SECT I. THis our Antidote is compounded of five Ingredients used for the Discovery of the Vnconscionablenesse of your Disputers in their Objecting the Testimonies of Fathers under false Pretences First upon their terming the mysticall Act A Worke of Omnipotencie Secondly their denying of the Eucharist to bee Naked and Bare Bread Thirdly in forbidding the Communicants to rely upon the Iudgement of their Senses Fourthly in their mentioning the Change of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament and calling it Transmutation Transition and the like Fiftly and lastly in forcing of the speeches of Fathers which may seeme to make for Transubstantiation as absolutely spoken of the Sacrament of the Eucharist which the same Fathers do apply as well to the Sacrament of Baptisme and also to other sacred Rites wherein you beleeve there is not any Substantiall Change at all The First Vnconscionablenesse of your Romish Disputers in objecting the Fathers speeches of an Omnipotent Worke in this Sacrament for proofe of Transubstantiation SECT II. A Worke of Omnipotencie is attributed by divers Fathers to the Change which is made in this Sacrament which we likewise confesse a Ambros Sermo Christâ— qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant c. De myster iâ—tianâ— c. 9. At omnipotentia non requiritur ad faciendum ut res aliquid significet Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 14. Ambrosius ostendit multis miraculis in Eucharistia non esse id quod natura formavit sed quod Benedictio consecravit Idem ibid. c. 24. §. Posterior Aug lib. 3. de Trinitate cap. 4. Ambrose compareth the Change by Benediction made in this Sacrament unto many miraculous Works of God yea even to the worke of Creation b Ex Cyprian de Coena Dâ—mini §. Secundum Panis iste non effigie sed naturâ mutatus omnipotentiâ verbi factus est Caro. Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas apparebat latebat Divinitas ità Sacramento visibili divina â—â—effundit essentia Ob. Bellaâ— lib 2 de Euch. cap. 9. Whereas Naturâ mutatus signifieth not the Substance but the Condition Et factus Caro is no more than a Sacramentall and mysticall Being of the Body of Christ as all other places of Cyprian sheweâ— Cyprian speaketh of a Change in nature by Divine Omnipotencie c Aug. de Trinitate lib. 3. Non sanctificat ut sit magnum Sacramentum nisi operante spiritu Dei quae per illos cum haec omnia Corporales motùs sint Deus operatur Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 24. §. Sed Paulo Augustine reckoning it among God's miracles saith that This Sacrament is wrought by the Spirit of God Accordingly we heare d Chrysost hom 83 Non sunt humanae vâ—tutis haec opera quae tunc in idâ Coeâ—â confecit ipse nunc quoque operatur ipse perficit ministrorum nos crdinem tenemus qui vera â—aec sanctificat atque transmutat ipse est This is objected by Mr. Brerely Tract 2. §. 2. Subd a. pag. 111. Liturg. Chrysostome proclaiming that These are not workes of humane power Hee that changeth and transmuteth now is the same that hee was in his last Supper Each one of these Testimonies are principally alleged by your Disputers as the strongest fortresses for defence of your Article of Transubstantiation and being taken altogether they are esteemed as a Bulwarke impregnable but why e See above in his objecting of Ambrose Because saith your Cardinall Omnipotencie is not required to make a thing to be a Signe Significant So he Wee answer first from your owne Confessions and then from the Fathers themselves There are two workes observable in every Sacrament one is to be a Signe of an Invisible grace promised by God the other to be a Seale and Pledge therof as all Protestants hold and as your most opposed f Calvia Semper memoriâ repetendum est Sacramenta nihil quà m â—ustrumentales esse confetendae nobis gratiae Causas Antid in Conc. Trid. Sess 7 Can. 5. Calvin teacheth an Instrumentall cause of conferring grace to the partakers of the Sacraments In both which Respects there is required an Omnipotencie of a
after him But not to disclaime your Author all that he saith is that r Cyprian de Coena Dâ—n Paâ—s â—ste natuâ—à muâ—â—tus omâ—â—potentia veâ—bâ— factus est Câ—ro c. Bread is changed by Gods Omnipotency not in Figure but in Nature This is ill And all this hath beene but even now quitted by your owâ—e Confessions granting a power of Omnipotency in every Sacramentall Change where the naturall Element is altered from it's common habitude into the nature of a Spirituall Instrument and use both signifying and exhibiting Divine Grace and so the word Nature doth import The Schooles distinguiâ—hing the Nature of Accidents from the Nature of Subjects shew that there is an Accidentall Nature as well as a Substantiall Theology teaching that * Ephes 2. 3. August Ipsam naturam aâ—â—ter dicem cum propâ—â—è loquimuâ— naturam homâ—â—s incalpâ—biâ—s factus est By nature wee are the children of wrath wherein Nature signifieth onely a vitious Quality This saying viz. Indifferent things in fact Change their nature when they are commanded Master * Lituâ—g Tract 4. § 6. Brerely alloweth of as for example a Surplesse being commanded by lawfull Authority the use thereof becometh necessary so that the nature therof is Changed yet not in the Substance of the thing but in the legall necessity of the use âšœ And what will you thinke of that of Saint Hilarie saying of all persons Regenerate that 1 Hilar de Trin. lib 8 Per naturam sidei unum sumus renati ad innocentiam immortalitatem regenerati in umus AEternitatis naturam By the nature of faith they are changed into Immortality and into one nature of Eternity In both which the Proprieties and qualities of things are called the Natures thereof In which respect we embrace the saying of Saint Ambrose when hee affirmeth the 2 Ambros de jis qui initiantur myster cap. ult Major benedictionis omnis virtus quà m naturae quià benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur Nature of Bread to bee changed in this Sacrament Certainly even as it is in all other Mysteries wherin as Saint Augustine speaketh 3 Aug. Tom. 9. in Seâ—m de Cataclysmo Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum As much as to say the Element as Bread is Changed into a Sacrament as * See above Booke 2. cap. 2. §. 16. Isidore spake which is called the Body of Christ because of the Sacramentall property of speech calling the Signe by the name of the thing signified as the same * Father with divers Others hath amply declared âšœ But to come neerer Answer us but this one Question Wheras all learning alloweth this saying that in Baptisme the nature of the Element and the nature of the Sacrament are different whereupon it is sayd The word coming to the Element maketh it a Sacrament when wee shall say of the water in Baptisme that the Nature of it as of a Sacrament is more excellent than is the nature of it as it is a meere Element whether doth not the word Nature attributed to the Sacrament justly accord unto the Phrase of Cyprian in the case of the Eucharist and so much the rather because that Cyprian in the words immediatly following the Testimony objected doth fully confute Transubstantiation by a Similitude comparing the Humanity and Deity of Christ with the Naturall and Spirituall parts of this Sacrament to wit Å¿ Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebat Divinitas ità Sacramento visibili ineffabilitèr divina se effundit essentia Author Coenae Ibid. §. Quarto As in Christ himselfe true humanitie appeared in his flesh and his Deity was hid This was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and first part of this Similitude the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and next part followeth Even so into this visible Sacrament the Divine Essence infuseth it selfe So hee which by the law of a Similitude must stand thus Even so Bread in this Sacrament is seene and the Spirituall operation of Gods power therein to the Faithfull is Invisible Like as we may say of the preaching of the Word of God to the Faithfull The words are audible and sensible but because of the inward working of Gods Spirit for the Conversion of Mans soule it is called * Rom. 1. 16. The power of God unto salvation as likewise Baptisme is made the Lavacrâ— of Regeneration whereof Gregory Nyssen affirmeth that t Greg. Nyssen erat de Baptism Divinum LavacruÌ„ magnum quid operatur per Benedictionem mirabiles producit Effectus It worketh marvellously by benediction and produceth marvellous Effects As for Augustine and Chrysostome not to bee superfluous every Protestant doth both beleeve and professe namely a Divine Operation of God both by changing the Element into a Sacrament and working by that Sacrament Spirituall Effects to the good of Mans soule âšœ A Vindication of divers Testimonies of Saint Cyprian by Romish Torturers forced for proofe of Transubstantiation BVt you have not done with Cyprian he is found saying concerning this Sacrament that 4 Cyprian de Coena Dom. Christus usquè hodie verissimum Sanctissimum suum Corpus creat sanctificat benedicit piè sumentibus dividit Objected by Dr. Heskins Parl. Booke 2. Chap. 8. Christ daily Createth his most true and most holy Body sanctifieth and blesseth it This in the Opinion of your Objector must needs prove a proper Existence of Christ in the Eucharist because Christ createth not an imaginary Body but that which is called a most true Body Which words notwithstanding in true sense make nothing against our Defence but against your Romish Tenets as much as any Protestant can require This is soone tryed The words of Cyprian are that Christ doth Create his most true Body the onely Question is of the word Create whereunto it is to be referred properly This must be either to Bread or to Christ's Body and your Cardinall abhorring to say that Christ's Body is properly created in this Sacrament 5 Bell. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 9. In verbis Cypriani illa Creas sanctisicas benedicis referuntur ad materiam unde consicitur Corpus Christi agimus enim gratias quod per Christum primò panem crëet deindè per eundem sanctificat benedicat convertendo in Corpus suum Quod autem Cyprianus loquitur de vero Corpore suo non de signo patet ex eo quòd veracissimum illud appellat Wee grant that Christ spake of his true body for this Sacrament wee say is a figure not of a fantasticall but of a substantiall Body Answereth that the words Create Sanctifie and Blesse are to be referred to Bread which is first Created saith he before it is converted into Christ's Body If then Cyprian by the words Christ's Body meant Bread which is the Signe of his Body is it not a wilfull blindnesse in your Disputers to conclude from a Signe the reall presence of a
Fathers in their Sermons do use to declame Hyperbolically he doth instance most specially and by name in Chrysostome âšœ And albeit that Wee object plaine places of Chrysostome and such wherein every word may be taken in a proper Sense as for Example where hee reproveth those that are onely Gazers and not Communicants at the Celebration of the Eucharist It is better saith hee not to be present than not to participate yet can wee receive no better Answer or other satisfaction from your Cardinall than thus 9 Quod dicit Chrysostomus melius esse non interesse Sacrificio quà m interesse non communicaâ—â— Dâ—co Chrysostomum ut quaedam alia per excessum esse locuâ—um Bellar. lib. 2. de Missa Cap. 10. §. Ad illud Chrysostome here as else where spake in an excesse âšœ Thirdly that the Excessive Phrases of Chrysostome upon this Sacrament do verifie as much viz. to tell his people that u Dentes Carnl suae insigere Chrys Homil. 45. in Iohan. Lingua cruentatur hoc admirabili Senguine Hom. 83. in Matth. Turbam circumsusam rubificri Lib 3. de Sacerdotio Their Teeth are fixed in the flesh of Christ that Their tongues are bloodied with his Blood and that The Assembly of the people are made red therewith Fourthly that hee is as Hyperbolicall in denying in the Celebration of this Sacrament the judgement of Senses saying x Num vides Panem num Vinum nè putetis Corpus accipere ab homine sed ex ipso Seraphin forcipe ignem Idem Tom. 3 de Eucharist in Encaenijs Do wee see Bread or Wine which is spoken in as great an exuberancie of speech as are the next words immediately following saying Thinke not that you receive the Body from a man but Fire from a Scraphin or Angel with a paire of Tongs You will thinke notwithstanding those kinde of Phrases that Chrysostome thought he saw aswell Bread and Wine in this Sacrament as he could discerne either Man from a Seraphin or Spirit or his owne Fingers from a paire of Tongs Fiftly that the Sentence objected against us is adorned with the same figure Hyperbole when he saith that No sensible thing is delivered unto us in this Sacrament and that our senses herein may be deceived Words sore pressed by you yet twice unconscionably both because every Sacrament by your owne Church is defined to be y Sacramentum est invisibilis gratâ—ae signum visibile Magister Sentent lib 4. dist 1. Sacramentum est â—es sensibus objecta Catech. Trid. Teste Bellar. lib. 1. de Sacram cap 11. A Sensible Signe and also for that you your selves confesse that z Sensus non fallitur â—â—cà proprium objectum Sententia vera Bellarm. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 24. Our senses cannot be deceived in their proper sensible Objects Sixtly that Chrysostome himselfe well knew he did Hyperbolize herein who after that hee had sayd No sensible thing is delivered unto us in this Sacrament notwithstanding hee addeth immediately saying of this Sacrament that In things Sensible things Intelligible are given unto us Thus farre of the Rhetorike of Chrysostome Now are wee to shew his Theologie and Catholike meaning as it were the Kernel of his Speech Hee in the same Sentence will have us understand Man to consist of Body and Soule and accordingly in this Sacrament Sensible things are ministred to the Body as Symbols of spirituall things which are for the Soule to feed upon So that a Christian in receiving this Sacrament is not wholly to exercise his minde upon the bodily Object as if that were onely or principally the thing offered unto us No for then indeed our Senses would deceive our Soules of their spirituall Benefit As for Transubstantiation and Absence of Bread Chrysostome in true Sense maketh wholly against it by explaining himselfe and paralleling this Sacrament with Baptisme As in Baptisme saith a Sicut in Baptismo c. Chrysost See above §. 5. at r. he Regeneration the thing intelligible is given by water the thing sensible the Substance of water remaining Which proportion between the Eucharist and Baptisme is held commonly by ancient * See hereafter at large in the 8. Book Fathers to the utter overthrow of Transubstantiation And that Chrysostome believed the Existence of Bread after Consecration * See above Chap 3. §. 13. hath beene already expressely showne and is here now further proved For he saith of Bread after Consecration that b Nos per hunc Panem unione conjuâ—gimur Chrysost in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. Wee are joyned together one with another by this Bread âšœ And yet furthermore the same Chrysostome hath already delivered his mind touching the infallibility of the sense of Touching declaring in a plaine and literall Sense as from the mouth of Christ * That man's sense of Touch could not be deceived âšœ And now that you see the Nut cracked you may observe how your Disputers have swallowed the Shell of Hyperbolicall Phrases and left the kernel of Theologicall Sense for us to content our selves withall Furthermore for this is not to be omitted the other Testimony of Chrysostome is spun and woven with the same Art which saith of Consecrating this Sacrament that c Chrysost Hom 50 in Matth. juxta Edit Graec. Nè existmes Sacerdotem esse qui hoc facit sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then followeth of Baptisme Ibid. Ille non te Baptizat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Man is not to thinke it is the hand of the Priest but of Christ himselfe that reacheth it unto him seeing immediately after as it were with the same breath it is added It is not the Minister but God that Baptizeth thee and holdeth thy head âšœ Words you see as Hyperbolicall as could be uttered and notwithstanding urged by your Doctor Heskins calling it a 9 Dr. Heskins in his partiam of Christ Book 2. Chapt. 55. objecteth Plaine place for proof of a proper Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament But will this rellish with you also All this is to prove unto you that you are not to exact an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more than when the Apostle said of the faithfull in respect of Christ * See above c. 3. §. 7. Thus farre concerning the Iudgement of Senses which hath beene formerly proved at large both by * Ibid. in the Chapters following Scriptures and * Fathers Wee draw neerer our marke which is the word Transubstantiation it selfe Fourthly the Vnconscionablenesse of your Disputers in urging other Figurative Sayings and Phrases of the Fathers of Bread Changed Transmuted c. into the Body of Christ for proofe of a Transubstantiation thereof in a Proper Sense SECT VII SVch words as these Bread is the Body of Christ It is made the Body of Christ It is Changed Translated Trans-muted Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ are Phrases of the highest Emphasis that you can finde in the Volumes of Antity
handled of Communicants on earth than hee doth say of the Priest and People Communicating ô Miracle that They do not consist or stay on earth but are transported into Heaven And againe a little after the words objected The Priest saith hee is here present not carrying the fire but the Holy Ghost These and the like Sayings of Chrysostome do verifie the Censure of your * See Booke 3. Chap. 4. §. 6. Senensis upon him that hee was most frequent in figurative Amplifications and Hyperbole's Another Objection is commonly made out of t Chrysost ad â—â—ulum Antioch hom 2. Helisaeus Mâ—â—lotem accepit Heliae erat posthaâ—c duplex Elias sursum Eliais deorsum Elias Then applying this to the Sacrament Helias nempe melotem Discipulis â—uis reliquit filius autem Dei ascendens nobis carnem 〈◊〉 sed Elias quidem exâ—tus Christus autem ipsam nobis reliquits ipsam ascendens habuit 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 Answer unlesse you will have Chrysostome to have properly conceited as a Double Elias so Consequently a Double Christ âšœ And if you be not yet sufficiently acquainted with the style of Chrysostome take unto you another Saying of his wherein hee introduceth Christ as speaking to every good Christian and saying 18 Chrysost ad pop Antioch Hom. 55 Manduca me te sursum haben deorsum tibi connector Eate thou mee I have thee heere above and am annexed to thee there below So hee Do you understand those words as you did his former Speeches literally then must you as necessarily conclude from hence that the Christian Communicant Eating Christ's Body here on earth is corporally present with Christ in Heaven But do you grant it to be figuratively meant then must you confesse that the Conjunction spoken of by Chrysostome is not Corporall but a Spirituall and a Mysticall Communication So then Chrysostome speaking of a Sacrament used a Sacramentall style to call the Sacrament of Christ's Body the Body or flesh of Christ even as Christ according to the Interpretation of Ancient Fathers called Bread his Body as being a Signe and Sacrament of his Body after the usall terme of Scripture in other Sacraments also All which have beene largely showne throughout the Second Booke No marvell therefore if granting that Christ taking his Flesh Personally with him into Heaven which hee left Sacramentally heere on Earth you deny notwithstanding that Elias by leaving his Mantle left not himselfe because his Mantle was not a Sacrament of himselfe âšœ As for the next Testimonie it is no more than which every Christian must confesse namely that it is the same whole and undivided Christ which is spiritually received of all Christians wheresoever and whensoever throughout the world the same wee say Objectively although not Subjectively as the Sixt Booke Chap. 6. and Sect. 3. will demonstrate âšœ And furthermore understand that the Fathers speaking of the Eucharist and calling it The Body of Christ and of the Fragments Bitts and Pieces thereof yet in your owne construction do meane Sacramentally that is Figuratively Your Iesuite 19 Mâ— Fisher Ies â— his Answer to K Iames in huâ— tract of Transubstant §. 4. in â—ish Whites Reply Greg. Nyster Orat. de Paschate Sicut Divinitas replet mundum tamen una estatà mâ—umerabilibus locis of fertur et tamen unum corpus est And the same is objected by Mr. Brerely Tract of the Masse 1. §. 4. Subd 1. pag 149. Master Fisher would thinke it a sleighting of him if his Testimony might not be heard What marvaile saith hee that Imagination fayle us to apprehend the multiplied presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament which is Spirituall Angelicall Supernaturall comparable with the Divine whereof Gregory Nyssen sticketh not to say As Deity filleth the World and yet is One so the Body of Christ is but One and is offered in all places So hee Our Answer in briefe is that Master Fisher sticketh not to abuse both the Credulity of his Reader to make him believe that which is not and his owne Conscience to seeme to believe that which hee believeth not namely that there is an Omnipresencie of Christ's Body as also his Adversaries patience to occasion him to seeke that which is not to be found in the place alleged or yet in any of the Orations of Gregory Nyssene de Paschate If any such Sentence had beene extant in any Booke of Gregory Nyssene or else of any Primitive Father ô how every one of your Romish Disputers would have embraced it and still harped upon it especially it making so evidently for that which your Iesuite urgeth The multiplyed Presence of Christ's Body But it is no newes with us to be dealt with deceiptfully and unconscionably by your Romish Dispuputers âšœ That your most plausible Objection taken out of Augustine concerning Christ his Carrying himselfe in his owne hands is but Sophisticall SECT VII AVgustine in expounding the 33. Psalme and falling upon a Translation where the words 1. Sam 21. are these by interpretation Hee carryed himselfe in his owne hands a Aug. Tom. 8. in Psal 33. Conc. 1. Esserebatur in manibus ejus Hoc quomodò possit fieri in homine quis intelligat manibus alienis portatur quis suis autem nemo portatur Quomodò intelligatur de Davide secundùm literam non invenimus in Christo autem invenimus quando commendans ipsum corpus suum ait Hoc est corpus meum ferebat enim corpus in manibus suis c. saith that these words could not be understood of David or yet of any other man literally for Quomodo fieri potest saith hee How could that be c. And therefore expoundeth them as meant of Christ at what time hee said of the Eucharist This is my Body This is the Testimonie which not onely your b Obijcit Bellar. Vox Quodammodo Signi non propriâ spetie sed alienâ nec modo usitato sed extraordinariè satis est quod non figuratè significatur Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 24. Cardinall but all other your Disputers upon this subject do so ostentatively embrace and as it were hugge in their Armes as a witnesse 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 wee complaine of the Romish Disputers against this their fastidious and perverse importunitie in urging a testimony which they themselves could as easily have answered as objected
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 onely 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 c Tâ—status Abulensis Et collabe batur inter manus eorum Nempè ad modum hominis furiosi ostendebat se ut insanum Cor. in â—um locum 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 objected Sentence upon divine Scripture even in your owne judgement 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 carryed in his owne hands in a literall sense then could not Christ as man be carryed in his owne hands and if it doe 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 Sense THE THIRD CHALLENGE Shewing that Augustine in another word following to wit QVODAMMODO doth answer Saint Augustine himselfe to his owne formerly objected word QVOMODO SAint Augustine after hee had sayd Quomodo How a word seeming to signifie an Impossibility lest that it being taken absolutely might imply a direct carrying of himselfe in his hands at his Supper he qualifieth that his speech somewhat after saying Quodammodò c. that is After a certaine maner Christ carried himselfe in his owne hands Which is a Modification and indeed a Correction of his former sentence Our next labour must be to find out the meaning of his Quodammodo and what this maner of Christ's carrying himselfe was in the judgement of Saint Augustine Whatsoever it is that a man hath really in his hands were it a loafe of Bread it were ridiculous to say that hee carrieth a loafe of Bread After a sort in his hands if the same were Properly carried therein as will appeare most plainly in the fift Challenge THE FOVRTH CHALLENGE Shewing Saint Augustine to be an utter enemie to the Romish Cause in all their other conceited Maners concerning Christ in this Sacrament AGainst your maner of interpreting the words of Christ HOC EST CORPVS MEVM properly you have heard Augustine often pleading for a Figurative Sense Secondly against your maner 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 maner of properly Eating Christs Body Corporally hee will * See the fift Booke Chap. 5. Sect. 5. and Chap. 6. Sect. 3. renounce hereafter as an execrable Imagination Wherefore Augustine holding 〈◊〉 Impossible for Christs Body to have any Corporall Existence in this Sacrament it is Incredible hee could have 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 Maner which the Protestants doe teach by the acknowledgement of some Romanists DOe you then seeke after the maner 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 * August Sicut secundùm quendam moduÌ„ Sacramentum Corporis Corpus Christi est ita Sacramentum Fidei Fides est See above § 8. at a. As Baptisme the Sacrament of Faith is called Faith And if you have not the leisure to looke for Augustine judgment in his writings you might have found it in your owne Booke of Decrees set out by b Decret part 3. de Consecr distinct 2. C. Hoc est Sicut ergo coelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi illius viz. quod c. vocaturque immolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus fit Christi Passio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio Observe that in the words coelestis panis qui caro Christi est the word Caro is by the Glosse in Gratian interpreted Species panis at the letter f Caro id est Species panis to avoid the absurdity of interpreting Christ's Flesh to be the Body of Christ Gratian where Augustine is alleged to say that This holy Bread is after it's maner called the Body of Christ as the offering thereof by the hands of the Priest is called Christs Passion Dare you say that the Priest's Oblation is properly and literally in strict sense the Passion of Christ or that Augustine meant any such Maner Surely hee did not and therefore may wee most aptly expound Saint Augustines Quodammodo by this Saint Augustine his Suo modo which is clearely and evidently explained by your owne Romish c Glossa ibid. Coeleste c. Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem Christi caro vocatuâ— unde dicitur suo modo non rei veritate sed significante mysterio â—it sit sensus vocatur Christi coâ—pus id est Significat Glosse where it saith The heavenly Sacrament which representeth the Flesh of Christ is called Christ's Flesh so sayd Suo modo after it's maner not in the Truth of the thing but in a significant mysterie as meaning It is called Christ's Body that is it signifieth his Body So the Glosse âšœ To conclude Wee are in good hope that you will give credit to that which Many of your owne Doctors shall confesse and that with the approbation of your Iesuite Suarez 20 Suar. Ies in 3. Thom. Disp 47. § 4 Quae coveniunt coâ—pori Christi secundùm le non possunt dici de speciebus nisi valdè metaphoricè impropriè eo modo quo nomen rei significatae tribuitur
properly Mingling of Christ's Flesh with the flesh of him that Communicateth of this Sacrament and have beene Confuted by your owne Jesuites for the same Opinion judging it to be Rash Absurd and Repugnant to the Majestie of the Sacrament Your Aquinas as you have * See the former section heard held it an Hainous wickednesse for any man to thinke that Christ should be inclosed in a Boxe appearing in his proper forme Neverthelesse Master Fisher as the Cat that covereth her excrement with dust meant by this his former Answer to cover or at least-wise colour your Romish Barbarous Indignities in professing the * See Booke 5. cap. 7. Cleaving of Christs Bodie unto your guts the vomiting of it and a passable transmitting thereof unto the Seege and other the like execrable Romish Indignites against the Body of Christ so as the holy Fathers abhorred the very thought thereof But wee chose rather to confute Master Fisher by Master Fisher himselfe who in his Answer to Saint Augustine who called the Capernaiticall maner of Eating Christs Flesh Flagitious saith that Saint Augustine excluded the grosse imagination of Eating Christs Body in his proper Shape tearing it in pieces with their teeth Do you not heare The opinion of Tearing Christs Flesh with mens teeth in his Proper Shape he termed Grosse or Absurd Do you but now compare this his Confession with his former Assertion which was that wee are Rather to beleeve a doctrine because it seemeth Absurd and then try him when you please how hee will avoyd this Dilemma Either ought Master Fisher to beleeve the Eating of Christs Flesh in it's Proper Shape or he ought not If hee say hee ought then must hee turne Capernaite to beleeve the Body of Christ to be eaten with tearing it in pieces with mens teeth in it's Proper Shape which hee himselfe disliketh as Grosse and Absurd and Saint Augustine abhorred as Flagitious And if hee Answer that hee ought not then is his former Position both Flagitious Grosse and Absurd in affirming that A doctrine is the rather to be beleeved because it seemeth Impossible From these Generalls we passe to his Particulars and specialls to wit in his particular Exposition Reasons Inferences and Confirmations c. Master Fisher his Particular Exposition of Christs words This is my Body as the Foundation of the former seeming Romish Absurdities and Indignities Hee thinking to qualifie all the Absurdities and Indignities which necessarily follow upon your Romish Exposition of Christs words as being the foundation thereof in the First place insisteth upon Christs speech This is my Body Why should Catholikes feare saith hee any hard Sentence in respect of their prompt Credulity of Gods word taken in a plaine and proper Sense So he Our Reply revealing the Absurdities both of the Romish Exposition and of their Deduction of Transubstantiation from thence His Defence is that the Speech of Christ is to be interpreted in its plaine and proper Sense Now whatsoever Relation the word THIS hath in Christ's Speech it cannot without Absurdity be taken in a proper and literall Signification even by the Confession of your Romish Doctors themselves as hath beene * See Booke 2. cap. 1. plentifully proved For if as some of them affirme the Pronoune This 〈◊〉 be referred to Christ's Body as if Christ had sayd This my Body is my Body This Exposition hath bin exploded by some Romish Doctors of best note in your Church expressely calling it an Exposition very absurd in Tautologie And if the same This should betoken a Third thing named an Individuum vagum or confused Substance which is your Second Romish Exposition this likewise hath beene scornfully rejected by other of your Iesuits and Doctors as an Interpretation full of Absurdities And lastly if it shall be sayd to relate to Bread as to be sayd This Bread is my Body in a proper and literall Sense All your Romish Disputers with one Consent abandon this also as no lesse false than for to say a Man is an Asse or as one of them feared not to write to affirme Christ to be Iudas And were it that Christ's Speech This is my Body were taken properly yet the Doctrine of Transubstantiation which you doe erect upon this foundation would prove to be truly Absurd and Impossible even by the Confession of your owne Romish Doctors themselves who are in their patronizing of your Article of Transubstantiation distracted into two contrary Opinions some saying that the Change called Transubstantiation is made by Production of Christ's Body out of Bread Not so saith the other Partie holding this maner of Change as * See above Booke 3. Chap. ◠§. 1. Absurd as to affirme Christ's Body to have had any Existence before Christ had spoken these words The Second maner maintained by a later sort is a Change of Bread into Christ his Body by Adduction of the Body of Christ unto Bread No saith the Former Because this Change is but the changing of one Substance into the place of another and therefore a Translocation only and no Transubstantiation Now all these Three Interpretations and Three are all together with your Two maners of Change of Christ's Body thereby being thus utterly rejected by your owne Divines let us argue the Point with you upon these Premises Either all your other Doctors who have cashiered all the former Senses of Christ's Words even because of Absurdities had been Faithlesse or else your Iesuit Master Fisher which consequently followeth thereon in concluding that your Romish Doctors are Rather to be believed because they seeme to be Absurd was no better than Fantasticall Master Fisher his Particular Reason for Defence of his former Exposition as the Ground of Transubstantiation Numb 6. The Primitive Church saith hee preaching to Iewes and other Infidels the rest of the other Mysteries as of the Trinity and Incarnation yet kept secret as much as might be the Knowledge of the Mysteries of the Eucharist yea the Catechumenes and Novices before Baptisme were not fully instructed therein And their Reason was lest one should be scandalized and the other mocked This supposed I inferre c. Our Reply noting a double Errour in M r. Fisher's Reason His first Error is that hee supposeth that The Primitive Church did absolutely conceale the Eucharist from Pagans and Catechumenists and that more precisely than any other Mysteries each of which are * See Booke 7. cap. 3. proved to be false For neither could the Mystery of the Eucharist be sayd to have beene wholly concealed which the Fathers both preached in their Sermons and expressed in their publike Writings as is to be seene in the Bookes of Iustine Cyprian and other Fathers nor yet can it be truly affirmed that they more precisely kept secret this Sacrament than the other Mysteries seeing the same Primitive Fathers professed as strictly that They durst not reveale the Sacrament of Baptisme either to Pagans or Catechumenists as they did the Sacrament of the
of Christs Flesh must have meant that they Eate it not worthily But this Distinction cannot possibly accord with your owne Romish Faith which teacheth a Bodily Eating with a Bodily Touch by a Bodily Vnion of the Eater with the Body of Christ common as well to Iudas as to Peter to the Prophanest miscreant as to the Godliest Saint yea to the very Beasts as really as to Men. If this had beene the ancient Catholike Faith then could not these Fathers so peremptorily and precisely have denyed that any Wicked is joyned and united with Christs Body and especially when they mention in expresse termes a Naturall and Corporall Conjunction of Christs Body with the Bodies of the Communicants by this Sacrament which you your selves interpret to be spoken of your Corporall Vnion by a Bodily Touch nor would Origen give this his absolute Non posse The Wicked cannot saith he be partakers of the flesh of Christ which is implyed in the Sayings of the rest of the Fathers when they speake so universally of the True Eater of Christs Body * See above in this Sect. n. 11. c. That every such are joyned with him to Immortality Whereof somewhat more hereafter But our Protestant Distinction for reconciliation-sake is that the Fathers in affirming The Wicked to eat the Body of Christ spake onely Symbolically to wit as they called the Sacrament of Christs Body the Body of Christ Sacramentally and Figuratively as hath beene * See Booke 2. thorowout copiously and convincingly proved So do they affirme the Body of Christ to be Eaten of the Wicked that is to say Symbolically by eating onely the Sacrament of his Body But in affirming that the Godly onely eat Christs flesh they spake of the Spiritually-Real Eating by Faith which was the maner and meanes Spirituall of being truly Vnited to Christs flesh and so to his person God and man and so as his lively members made Capable of Immortality it selfe as well in Body as in Soule This our Distinction wee have received from Saint Augustine for whom both you and wee strive as for the Homer of his age and Patron of our Faith in this Point which is to be tryed in the Section following In the Interim you who so earnestly plead against this privilege of the Godly to be partakers of Christs Body by making the Wicked to be as Capable thereof as any Sanctifyed member of Christ can be thinke but with your selves how that Satan is sayd to have entred into the heart of Iudas after his receiving of this Sacrament and then tell us if the Wicked be really partakers of Christs Body and not to Contradict that Scripture which denyeth that there can be any Communion with Christ and Beliall yet will you inferre in Iudas a Communion betweene Christ and Satan That Saint Augustine to whom both sides appeale is a Direct Patron of our Protestant Cause for proofe that the Wicked eat not the Body of Christ And Consequently an Adversary to the Romish Faith of a Corporall Presence in this Sacrament noting also an egregious Depravation of a Testimony of Saint Augustine by a Romish Doctor SECT IX YOu allege and wee as willingly acknowledge that Saint Augustine said that the Wicked and among others even Iudas doe eat the Body of Christ which hee meant say wee Metonymically and Figuratively in as full a sense as if hee had flatly sayd The Wicked eat onely the Sacramentall Signe of his Body because hee spake so onely Sacramento tenus that is Sacramentally Which Distinction as oft as it is seriously used by us is as scornfully rejected by you and therefore it will be requisite that wee produce some Author hereof who may be beyond all exception And none thinke wee rather than Saint Augustine himselfe especially seeing that your Disputers do collect Testimonies out of him in prejudice of this our defence which is that Saint Augustine denyed that the Wicked receive the Body of Christ properly but onely the Sacrament thereof There were Prophane Spirits in the dayes of Saint Augustine who pampering themselves in their vices notwithstanding presumed of Salvation because of their professing of the Catholike Faith and of their being the Members of Christs mysticall Body which is his Church and Concluded thereupon That they in communicating of this Sacrament eat not onely the Sacrament but indeed the Body of Christ These Saint 8 Aug. lib. 21. de Civitate Dei cap. 25. Respondemus ijs qui salutem promittunt ijs qui Baptismate abluti corporis sanguinis Christi participes facti quomodolibet vixerint in quacun que haeresi impietate â—uerint Respondendum est etiam ijs qui hanc liberationem polli centur solis Catholicis quamvis malè viventibus qui non solo inquiunt Sacramento sed reipsa manducaverunt corpus Christi in ipso scilicer eius corpore constituti de quo dicunt Apostoli unus panis unum corpus multi sumus At the end of the Chapter hee concludeth against these from the nature of Truly Eating this Sacrament Nec ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt quia non possunt esse membra Christi membra meretricis Christus dicit Qui manducat meam â—arnem bibit meum sanguineÌ„ in me maneâ— ego in eo Ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus sed revera manducare Corpus Christi manducare hoc est in Christo manere non autem in eo manet qui non est membrum Christi Augustine confuteth at large instancing in the Eating of Christs Body saith First that They cannot be sayd to eat the Body of Christ who are not to be reputed the members of Christ But are then the Wicked to be esteemed by Saint Augustine the Members of Christs mysticall Body Saint Augustine himselfe saith no and proveth as much from the Apostles words You cannot be the members of Christ and the members of an Harlot How then are they sayd in the beginning of that Chapter of Saint Augustine To eat and now in the end thereof Not to eat Christs Body This Hovv is the very Birds eye let therefore our ayme and levell be at this Those foresayd Prophane livers tooke to themselves this presumption for their Pillow to leane and sleepe upon in indulging themselves in their wickednesse Wee say they do eat no onely the Sacrament but indeed wee eat Christs Body it selfe because wee are members of his mysticall Body S. Augustine answereth directly that Christ by saying Hee that eateth my flesh abideth in mee sheweth what it is to Eat Christs Body non Sacramento tenus that is Not onely as concerning the Sacrament but Indeed So hee Where wee have a flat opposition betweene that which is called Revera a Reall eating against Eating onely Sacramentally So that the Antithesis falling betweene these Termes of Eating Christs Body Revera Indeed by the Godly and of Eating it onely Sacramento tenus
meant not to say that Christs flesh is eaten Tropically inrespect of an Essentiall Eating wherein is required onely that True meat be let downe from the mouth into the stomacke by vitall Instruments but called it a Tropicall Eating in respect of your ordinary and proper maner of Eating by a visible dividing of Christs flesh into parts and morsells and that it be sod and not raw But Christs flesh in the Eucharist is received whole invisibly and without any hurt by which maner of Eating wee represent the Passion of Christ which is thus proved because First It is no hainous sinne to eat Christs flesh Spiritually and without hurting it and Secondly because Saint Auigustine understandeth by an Hainous offence the Capernaiticall maner of eating thereof namely by Tearing it in pieces So hee Wee must take this whole Answer in pieces for Confutation of each particular point lest otherwise a Generall and Briefe Answer might breed Obscurity Your Cardinall thinketh to evade by multiplicity of Distinctions Ob. 1. Hee meant not Eating with Teeth but a passing of it from the Mouth into the Stomacke Sol. This is False because the Apostles in their receiving of it did use Chewing your owne Jesuite Suarez confessing that the Sacramentall Bread in Christ's time was * See Booke 1. cap. 2. §. 2. Glutinosus And that this maner of Tearing with Teeth had beene continued many Ages in the Church of Rome as also used among some of your Church at this day as hath beene * See above Cap. 5. Sect. 4. proved And lastly that Saint Augustine himselfe meant Eating by Tearing with Teeth who as the 4 Bellar lib. 1. de Euch. Cap. 7. Qui manducat corde non qui premit dente c. Vbi de Sacramento loquitur non qui premit dente nimirùm solo Cardinall himselfe confesseth mentioneth the * See above Cap 5. Sect. 5. Pressing of the Sacrament with Teeth Secondly Ob. But the maner of Tearing saith hee is not essentiall to eating but onely the pressing of it downe into the Stomacke So hee Sol. Notwithstanding Pope Nicolas in his Romane Councell expresly required the Sensible Tearing of Christs flesh as hath beene shewed * See above Cap. 5. Sect. 5. whereof you have also heard your Iesuite * See above Cap. 5. Sect. 2. Salmeron confesse saying that Proper Eating requireth a Proper Tearing even as your Cardinall himselfe calling Eating by Dividing into Parts a Proper maner of Eating Ob. 3. Augustine spoke of a visible Eating of Christ and not as ours is Invisible Sol. As if a blinde man could not eat meat as perfectly as he that seeth Ob. 4. But Saint Augustine understood Christs flesh Sod and not Raw. Sol. As though the Eating of mans flesh Raw or Sod could distinguish a Canniball Ob. 5. But Saint Augustine spake of Eating Christs flesh with hurting him which appeareth by this that hee called the maner of Eating which hee spake of an Hainous offence Sol. As though your * See above Booke 4. Cap. 10 Sect. 5. Aquinas had not as well judged it an Hainous offence to put Christ in a Boxe appearing in his visible shape notwithstanding Christs No-sensible-heart thereby Ob. 6. But he spake against the Capernaiticall maner of Eating which was Tearing it in pieces and requireth a Spirituall order in eating and ours is Spirituall Sol. First as if your Eating were not Capernaiticall in any degree which is False Because as the Capernaites interpreted Christs words in a literall sense of Eating it perfectly so did they also conceive a Reall Swallowing of it after it had beene Eaten And doth not your Cardinall plead here wholly for Swallowing of Christs Body or hath not also your Iesuite Coster defined Devouring to be a Swallowing of meat without Mastication or Tearing Or can you deny but the Primitive * See before in this Chap. 6. Fathers Detested the very conceipt of Devouring Christs flesh And Secondly where Saint Augustine opposeth Carnal maner of Eating to the Spirituall could hee possibly meane your Romish kind which you professe to be a taking it into your Mouths and by your Corporall Swallowing and Transmitting through the Throat into your Stomack whether Visibly or Invisibly whether Sod or Raw No no nothing lesse but the flat Contrary a meere Spirituall maner of Communicating of Christs passion saith hee and by * See 〈…〉 Sweetly recording in our memories his flesh once crucifyed for us Establishing this latter Eating with Minde and Heart that hee might exclude the other of Eating with Mouth and Teeth âšœ CHAP. VII The Fourth Corporall maner of Vnion of Christ his Body by a Bodily Mixture with the Bodies of the Communicants professed by some Romanists at this day is Capernaiticall SECT I. WEe heare your Iesuit reporting that a Multi Catholici his temporibus in odium Haeresis veram praesentiam corporis Christ in hoc Sacramento Sumptione ejus fieri unionem inter Corpus Christi suscipientem quam realâ—m naturalem substantâ—dem atquè eâ—am corporalem vocant Sic Algerus Turrecremata Rossensis Hosius Turrianus Bellarminus Alanus Suarez Ies Tom 3 qu. 79. Disp 64. Sect. 3. Many latter Divines in your Church have beene authorized in these dayes to write labouring to bring the Romane Faith to so high a pitch as to perswade a b Denique Recentiores omnes qui de hoc Sacramento contra Haereticos scribunt hoc fere modo loquuntur Suarez in 3. Tho. Disp 64. §. 3. pag. 822. Reall Naturall Corporall and Substantiall Vnion of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants even almost all of late saith hee who have written against Heretickes So hee Among others wee find your Cardinall c Card. Alan Cùm comedimus Eucharistiam corpore Christi vere vescimur ex qua manducatione per naturae instrumenta realâ—â—â— recipitur intra nos atque substantiae nostrae permiscetur sicut caeteri cibi nisi quod mutationem in carnem nostram non patiatur De Euch. lib. 1. cap. 28. Alan who will have it â—eally mingled with our flesh as other meats Transubstantiation onely excepted as did also Cardinall d Feâ—tur Mendozam Cardinalem Burgensem in lib. quem de unione scripsit docuisse Christum Sacramentaliter manduâ—atum non solum fieri praesentem in loco quem species possent Sacramentaliter occupare sed quod immodo duâ—â—undi per totum corpus hominis ut toti illi in omnibus ejus partibus uniatur seque illis immisceat sed haec cogitatio non solum improbabilis sed etiam absurda plusquam temeraria est Suarez quo supr pag. 822. Mendoza And what else can that sound which wee have heard out of your Roman * See above Chap. 6. §. 2. Missall praying that the Body of Christ eaten may cleave unto your Guts just Manichean-wise as you have heard even now out of Saint Augustine âšœ And it may be you have Faith also to believe
The Atribute of Viaticum is next which having so great Consanguinity with the Communion by feeding may afford us the same Reason of Retorting the same Argument borrowed from the same word upon your Objectors themselves which wee permit to your owne wits to examine that with more Brevity wee may descend to the last Adjunct which is a Pledge of our Resurrection to Immortality which hath beene applyed by your Cardinall as peculiar to the Eucharist to prove a Corporall presence of Christ therein It being a Terme taken from the mouth of the Father Optatus whom wee have answered out of two Fathers Basil and Theodoret who have as well given the same word Pledge of our Resurrection to Immortality unto the Sacrament of Baptisme From whom it may be your * Costerus See above Booke 4. ca. 10. §. 5. Jesuite Coster borrowed his Assertion where hee also nameth Baptisme the Pledge of our Resurrection to life everlasting which one word Pledge now Objected by you will prove as good as Bellerophon's Letters to confute your selves and to vanquish your Romish Defence even from the nature of a Pledge as it is applyed to the Sacrament of the Eucharist by three Fathers I. Hierome 13 Hieron See above Booke 3. Ca. 3. §. 11. Christ saith he left this his last memoriall of his Passion like as one that is travailing into a strange Country leaveth a Pledge with his friend for a memorandum of his benefits II. Gaudentius thus 14 Gaudent See above Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 1â— at â— Christ saith hee being about to be Crucifyed left that Hereditary gift of the new Testament as a Pledge of his Presence And III. Primasius concerning the Institution of this Sacrament saith that 15 Primas in 1. Cor. 11. Salvator Deus exemplum dedit ut quotiescunquè hoc facimus in mente habeamus quod Christus pro nobis mortuus est ideo nobis dicitur Corpus Christi ut cum hoc recordati fuerimus non simus ingrati gratiae ejus Quemadmodum si quis moriens relinquat ei quem diligit aliquod pignus quod ille post mortem ejus quandocunque viderit nunquid potest lachrymas continere si perfectè dilexerit Christ left us an example that as often as wee celebrate this wee should call to remembrance that Christ dyed for us And therfore is it called the Body of Christ saith hee that as often as wee remember wee be not ingrate and unthankfull to his gratiousnesse like as when one Dying leaveth a Pledge of remembrance unto his friend All these holy Fathers you see interpret this Sacrament to be unto us as a Present Pledge of a Friend Absent whether hee be a living Travailer or one departed this life Primasius his Observation of the Pledge is very remarkable when hee saith of this Sacrament thus called a Pledge that It is Therefore called the Body of Christ giving the name of the Thing to the Token thereof than which Similtude what can be more pregnant and pertinent for the Confuting of your Tridentine Faith concerning the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist Seeing now that the Ancient Fathers have shewne themselves Patrons and Favourers of our Cause it will become us as true Children to do them right To which purpose wee adde and shew That the Seeming Contradictory Sayings of the Fathers are Reconcilable in themselves and yet Repugnant to the Romish Profession SECT III. FOr our making good of this Section it will be required that wee performe it so that the Doctrine of the Fathers notwithstanding this Reconciliation may appeare to be both Adverse to the Romish Corporall Conjunction and also agreeable to our Protestant sense as well in respect of the Sacramentall as of the Spirituall Conjunction which the Receiver of this Sacrament hath with the Body of Christ The Repugnancie of the Fathers to the Romish Corporall Conjunction Sometimes the Fathers are found in this Sacrament to speake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Exactly and precisely and sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Improperly When they speake of a Corporall Conjunction with Christs Body Exactly and simply so taken so often they appeare to deny it absolutely from point to point As I. by their 16 Ambros Serm. 58. in illud Christi ad Magdalen Noli me tangere Ergò eum non super terram nec in terra nec secundum carnem debemus quaerere Salvatorem No Bodily Toucâ— of Christ after his Resurrection So Ambrose II. 17 Aug. Non dentis cibus Idem Serm. 33. de verbis Dom. Nolite parare fances sed cor No meâ—t for Teeth So Augustine Nor For the Iawes So the same Father III. 18 Attalas Martyr See above Not to be devoured with Throat So Attalas the Martyr IV. 19 Cyprian de Coena Dom. Non ventris cibus Not for the Belly So Cyprian V. 20 Idem de Coena Dom De unione nostra cum Christo in hoc Sacramento Ad participationem spiritus non usque ad Consubstantialitatem nostra ipsius conjunction non miscet personas neque unit substantias sed affectus consociat confoederat voluntates Not for Bodily Conjunction of Persons nor for Vnion of Substances So also the same Father VI. 21 Cyril Hierosol See above Booke 4. cap. 10 § 3. Not to be cast into the Draught So Cyrill of Hierusalem Whereunto you may adde as the Complexion and Comprehension of all the rest that of Chrysostome concerning this Sacrament * Chrysost See above 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Having no fleshly thing nor yet that hath any Natural Consequence thereof namely of fleshly Vnion In w ch you have all as â—â—at Negatives to your Romish Corporall Vnion by your Bodily Touch whether by Hand Mouth or Belly as the Ancient Fathers could have given if they had concluded their Judgements in a Synod But how then will you say did they speake so expressely of an Vnion by Touching Eating Tearing and of your Corporall Conjunction even unto the Feeding thereby This is the next Doubt which wee are now to assoyle in the next Section The meaning of the words of the Ancient Fathers is fully Consonant to the Doctrine of Protestants SECT IV. THe Sacramentall Vnion which Protestants teach besides that which they call Spirituall consisteth wholly in the Resemblance which is betweene the Body of Christ and the Substance of Bread and Wine and this is Analogicall which was the Ground of all the Fathers former Speeches concerning a Bodily Vnion with Christs Body in every Degree First then the Fathers in their Symbolicall language have called Bread the Body of Christ onely Sacramentally because it is a Sacrament and Signe of Christs Body which was the Conclusion of our Second Booke II. They have not spared to call the Change of Bread into our Bodies a Change of Christs Body into ours in a like Sacramentall signification as hath beene
names of the Things signifyed thereby whereof you have heard a Memorable example out of * See above Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. Homer where even as Christ sayd of Consecrated Bread This is my Body So those Heathen in Sacrifising of Lambes for Ratification of their Oaths and Covenants called those Sacrifices their Oaths And that nothing was more familiar among the Heathen you may know by that Proverbiall speech Sine Cerere Libero friget Venus without Ceres and Bacchus Lust doth languish where they give to Bread the name of the Goddesse Ceres and the name of God Bacchus to Wine Secondly and more especially may this appeare out of Iustine immediatly after the place now objected thus 15 Iustin Loco supracitat Hoc est sanguis meus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ saith Iustine receiving Bread saith This is my Body and taking the Cup sayd This is my Blood and delivered them onely in those words the which also even the wicked Devils by Imitation have taught to be done in the Mysteries of their Mithra namely for that Bread and a Pot of Water is put in the Sacrifices of him that is initiated unto their Communion in the Sacrifices by Addition of certaine words as you either know or might have knowne So Iustine To the Heathen Emperour Do you not see how the Devils in their Sacrifices and Mysteries as 16 Tertul. de Corâ—na 〈…〉 Agnoseamus ingenia 〈◊〉 ideuco quaedam de divims assectantis ut nos de suoruâ— fide confundat et â—udâ—cet Idem de Praesâ—ription Ipsus res Sacramentorum devinorum in Idol â—rum mysterâ—â—s aemulatur Tiâ—git ipse quosdam celebrat et panis oblationem et imaginem Resurrectionis inducit Tertullian witnesseth affect Divine Rites And by Imitation play Christs Apes as other Fathers use to speake And that not onely in their Materiall Ceremonies such as are Bread and Cup but also in their Verball by Addition of words as Iustine sheweth Where you may perceive how Iustine argued with those Heathen out of their owne Mysteries and that wee may so call them Sacraments even as Saint Paul did with the Athenians out of the Inscription of their owne Altar It happened not above a quarter of a yeare after that had set downe this Observation that in reading a Booke of that never too worthily Commended Mirrour of Learning Master Isaac Casaubone I found this my Opinion fortifyed and as it were animated with his most acurate Judgement shewing out of his most exquisite Reading that 17 Isaac Casaub in 〈◊〉 exercitat 16. Iustinus in Apologia altera narrat malos Daemonas in Mithâ—ae mysterijs S. Eacharâ—â—liae aemulationem quandam tradidisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecce panem et poculum sed aquae ut dixi non vin◠〈◊〉 verba solemnia super Symbolis proferri solita id enim significat isto in loco vox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qâ—d super dicta qua voce utuntur Iuris consulti Etiam Arrianus loco paulo ante indicato sacras mysteriorum voces commemorat quas magnà cum reverentiâ excipi solitas ostendit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum Eucharistia et sit et dâ—catur Communio sicut ante est expositum inâ—â—dem Mithrâ—â— mysterijs Communio quae est omnibus animantibus inter se miro Symbolorum genere expriâ—â—baâ—ur The Devils did in aemulation of Christians use in their Mysteries of Mythra Symbols of Bread and Cup adding solemne Mysticall words Hee furthermore sheweth out of Porphyrie that in their Religious Communion they had certaine Aenigmaticall expressions Calling their Communicants if Men Lions if Women Hyenas and if Ministers Crowes Still as you see using Mysticall and Figurative Appellations in their Ceremoniall Rites Vpon which evidence wee may easily encounter your Cardinalls Dilemma with this that followeth Either the Emperour and the Heathen people did perceive that the words of Christ now published by Iustine were spoken Figuratively signifying the Outward Eating of his Body Bodily in a Signe onely or they did not If they did know so much then could they not be offended with Orthodoxe Christians or Scandalized thereby And if they did not know that they were Figuratively and Mystically to be understood then would not those Emperours have absolved Christians from all blame as you see they did but punished them for Sacrificing of Infants which Act among these Heathen was held to be Criminall and Capitall And that Iustine did not Praevaricate by concealing his Figurative sense of Christs words it is as manifest by that he Instructed them therein out of their own Phrases used in their Ceremonies of their God Mithra The Impossibility that any Heathen could be offended at the former words of Justine SECT VI. NO Heathen that heard of the Catholike Faith of Christians concerning the Body of Christ in those Primitive times published by Ancient Fathers and by Iustine himselfe could except it were against their Consciences impute unto Christians a Corporall Eating of the Body of Christ For first the Articles of Christian Faith for which so many Armies of Martyrs conquered the Infidelity of the world by Martyrdome being this that Christ the Saviour of the world God and Man ascended into Heaven and there now reigneth in the Kingdome of everlasting Blessednesse adored of all Christians with Divine worship Another Article Vniversally held of those Catholike Fathers as hath been * See Book 4. c. 5. §. 5. proved that the Body of Christ was ever notwithstanding his Resurrection and Ascension Circumscribed in one place And thirdly All knowing that this Principle was universally and infallibly believed of all the Heathen namely To thinke it Impossible for one Body to be in many places at once Therefore was it Impossible for the Heathen to conceive that the Christians taught a Corporall Eating of that Body on Earth which they believed was Circumscribed and conteined in Heaven Fourthly That this was the Faith which the same Ancient Father Iustine did professe and publish at that time is now to be tryed out of the Bookes of Iustine himselfe That Iustine himselfe did accordingly argue against the Possibility of Christs Bodily Presence on Earth And that Attalas objected condemneth the Romish Capernaiticall Swallowing of Christs Body SECT VII IVstine in the same Apologie now objected and by him directed unto the Heathen Emperor Antoninus sirnamed the Godly before his words of Eating Christs flesh setteth down the Christian Article of his Ascension into Heaven saying 18 Iustin in Apologia secund pag. 64. Deus Christum post Resurrectionem illaturus coelo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. adversantes Daemones percutiat et bonorum numerum expleatur propter quos nondum extremum Decretum et consummationem fecit that God the Father assumed Christ after his death into Heaven there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is To detaine him untill hee vanquished the Devils and filled up the number of the Godly An
Valent Ies lib. 1. de Sacrif Missa c. 4. §. Fatentur p. 519. Eam vim habet verbum Faciendi ut cum Poeta dicit Cùm faciam Vitulà c. Salmer Ies Tim. 9. Tract 27. pag. 205. §. Septiâ—â— Iesuites themselves of your Bellarmines owne Society who in like maner have consulted with the Poet Virgil about his Calfe but as wisely according to our Proverb as Walton's Calfe which went c. For the matter Subject of the Poets Sacrifice is there expressed to have beene Vitula a Calfe You have failed in your first Objection That a Proper Sacrifice cannot be collected out of any of these words of Christs Institution Is GIVEN Is BROKEN Is SHED SECT II. THe Text is Luc. 22. 20. Which Is broken Is given Is shed in the Present Tense and This Is the Cup of the new Testament in my Blood wherein according to the Greeke there is a varying of the Case whereupon your Disputers as if they had cryed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are commonly more Instant in this Objection than in any other some of them spending eight full leaves in pressing this Text by two Arguments one in respect of the Case and another in regard of the Time Of the Grammer point concerning the Case This is the new Testament in my Blood â— Now what of this a Bellarm. de Missa lib. 3. cap. 12. In Graeco Textu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicit Calix qui funditur non hic est sanguis qui funditur itaque indicant sanguinem fundi ut erat in Calice It is not said saith your Cardinall This is the Blood shed for you but This is the Cup shed for you Therefore is hereby meant The Blood which was in the Chalice because wine could not be said to bee shed for us for remission of sinnes But how gather you this Because in the b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greeke saith M. c M. Breerly Liturg. tract â— c. 3. subd 2. Brerely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Cup shed for you varieth the Case from the word Sanguine and the Genus from the word Testamentum and agreeth evidently with Calix so that the Cup being said to be shed proveth the Blood spoken of to bee shed verily in the Cup which drives Beza unto a strange Answer saying that this is a Soloe cophanes or Incongruity of speech So he which Objection he learned peradventure of the d Rhemists Annot. upon Luc. 22. 20. Rhemists who are vehement in pressing the same their Conclusion is This proveth the Sacrifice of Christ's blood in the Chalice as also your Iesuite 2 Gordonus Scotus Ies l. 1. Controvers 3. c. 12. nu 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est nominativi casus necessariò referenduÌ„ ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non dativi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut pertineatad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gordon hath done In which one Collection they labour upon many ignorances 1. As if a Soloecophanes were a prophanation of Scripture by Incongruity of speech which as one e Rodolph Goclenius Professor Marpurg Problem Gram. lib â— Demosthenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cic. 2. de Orat. Bene dicere antem quod est perite loqui non habet definitam aliquam regidnem cujus terminis septa teneatur Voâ— Septa non congruit cum â—â— Bene dicete sed referenda est ad voccm Eloquentiae Ne observeth the like in Plato Virgil Homer pag. 232 233 261 262. Protestant hath proved is used as an Elegancie of speech by the two Princes of Orators Demosthenes for the Greeke and Tully for the Latine and by the two Parents of Poets among the Greeks Homer and by Virgil among the Latines 2. As though these our Adversaries were fit men to upbraid Beza with one Soloecophanes which is but a Seeming Incongruity like a Seeming Limping who themselves confesse f Sixtus Senensis Biblioth lib. 8. pag. ult Nos ingenuè fatemur nonnullas mendas in hac nostra editlona inveniri etiam Soloecismos Barbarismos hyperbata c. Ingenuously that in their Vulgar Latine Translation which is decreed by the Councell of Trent to be Authenticall there are meere Solecismes and Barbarismes and other faults which wee may call in point of Grammar downe right halting 3. As if a Truth might not be delivered in a Barbarous speech or that this could be denied by them who defend Solecismes and Barbarismes which had crept into the Translation of Scriptures saying that g Rhemists Preface before the New Testament Ancient Fathers and Doctors have had such a religious care of former Translations that they would not change their Barbarisines of the Vulgar Latine Text as unbent unbentur and the like 4. As if there were not the like Soloecophanes of Relatives not agreeing with their Antecedents in case whereof you have received from h D. Fulke against Greg. Martin D. Fulke divers * Apoc. l. 4 8. 9. 3. 12 c. Examples 5. As if this Soloecophanes now objected were not justifiable which is defended by the Mirrour of Grammarians i Ioseph Sciligeri Nota in novum Testamentum Luc. 22. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mera est Antiptósis pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza rectè exponit ait duplicem esse Metonymiam Ioseph Scaliger by a figure Antiptôsis and Beza saith hee doth truly expound it Besides it is explained anciently by k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil Reg. Moral 21. Basil a perfect Greek Father referring the Participle Shed unto the word Blood and not unto the Chalice which marteth your Market quite And that this is an undeniable Truth will appeare in our Answer to the next Objection of Time for if by Given Broken and Shed is meant the time future then these words Shed for you for remission of sinnes flatly conclude that hereby is not meant any proper Sacrifice of Christs Blood in the Cup but on the Crosse âšœ Lastly if wee shall answer that the Cup indeed is taken for the Liquor in the Cup which is called Christs Blood per Metonymiain that is Figuratively the signo for the name of the thing Signified whereof you have heard plentifull examples thorowout the second Book you shall never be able to make any Reply One word more Seeing that it is the universall Confession of all your Doctors yea even of the Objectors themselves that * See Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. and in this Sect. in their owne words Christs blood is not perfectly shed in the Eucharist how then can it stand with common modesty to pretenda Proper Sacrifice in the word Shed âšœ Let us proceed therefore to that point that you may know that Beza needed not a Soloecophanes to assoile this doubt Of the Time signified by the Participles Given Broken Shed These words being of the Present time Therefore it plainly followeth that Breaking Giving Christs Body and shedding his Bloud is in the Supper
from his Body which you believe to be in this Sacrament can no more possibly represent the Separation and Shedding of Christ's Blood from his Body which all Christians believe to have beene in his Sacrifice on the Crosse than Crookednesse can resemble Straightnesse or Light Darknesse Therefore is not the Romish Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ Representative of his Body and Blood on the Crosse notwithstanding that as hath beene confessed this Representation be the end of the Celebration of the Eucharist ⚜ The Sixth Demonstration Of the No-Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist because divers Epithets objected as given by Fathers to this Sacrifice are used also by them where there is no Proper Sacrifice SECT VIII IT is objected by your Cardinall that Ancient Fathers gave certaine Epithets and Attributes to the Eucharist I. Some calling it a Full Pure II. Some Terrible Sacrifice III. Some termed it in the Plurall number Sacrifices and Victimes His Argument in the Margin is this If the Fathers had held the Sacrifice of the Eucharist to be but onely Representative They would not have called them in the Plurall number Sacrifices So hee a Bellar. lib. 1. de Miss cap 15. §. Quintò Patres ad nomen Sacrificij Epitheta saepè addunt quae soli vero Sacrificio conveniunt quae ineptè dicerent de sola repraesentatione Cyp. l. 2. Epist 3. Plenum verum Sacrificium Chrysost Hom. ad Pop. Antioch et omnes Graeci Passim terribile Sacrificium horroris plenum Aug. lib. 10. de Civit. Dei cap. 20. Summum verumque Sacrificium Euseb lib. 1. Demonst Evang cap. ult Sacrificium Deo plenum This last is not undoubtedly spoken of the Eucharist Ibid. §. Secondo Si Patres putâssent Sacrificium Eucharistiae non esse Sacrificium nisi epraesentativum nunquam dixissent in numero multitudims offeri Deo Victimas Sacrificia concluding from each of these that they meant thereby a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist Wee encounter all these foure kinde of Instances with like Epithets given by the same b August de Civit Dei lib. 10. cap. 6 Verum Sacrificium omne opus bonum ut Deo adhaereamus factum Tertull. In omni loco Sacrificium mundum gloriae scilicet rogatio benedicto laus hymni Lib. 3. advers Marcionem Rursus Sacrificium mundum oratio simplex de purâ Conscientiâ Ibid. lib. 4. paulò post initium Iustin Dialog cum Tryphon Preces Gratiarum actiones 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fathers to other Things in your owne judgement Improperly called Sacrifices as namely to Prayers Praises Giving Thankes and Hymnes instiled True Pure and Cleane and the onely perfect Sacrifices by Primitive Fathers Secondly they are as zealous concerning the second c Cyril Apol. Lectio Scripturarum terribilium Testae Iewello art 17. Chrysost in 1. Corinth Hom. 40 De Baptismate paulò post initium Post pronunciationem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Point in terming holy Scriptures Terrible the Rules touching Baptisme Terrible Words and Horrible Canons and the Christian duly considering the nature of Baptisme One compassed about with Horror and Astonishment Whereof more * See Booke 7. Chap. 2. Sect. 1. hereafter And indeed what is there whereby wee have any apprehension of Gods Majesty and Divine Attributes which doth not worke a holy Dread in the hearts of the Godly And the third Instance is as idle as any of the rest because the holy d Euseb lib. 1. Demonst Evang. cap. 10. Porrò has rursus incorporeas intelligentia praeditas hostias prophetica nunciant oracula Immola Deo Sacrificium laudis Orationes sanctas c. Iust Martyr Dialog cum Triphon pag. 269. Suppicationes gratiarum actiones solas esse charas Victimas Deo Fathers named Prayers Giving of Thankes and other holy Actions and Commemorations themselves Sacrifices and Hoasts in the Plurall number And is not there in the Eucharist Prayers Hymnes and Thanksgivings Nay but know that inasmuch as the Fathers have called the Eucharist in the Plurall number Hoasts and Sacrifices it proveth that they were not of your Romish Beliefe of Concomitancie to thinke with you that Bread being changed into Christ's Body and Wine into his Blood make but one Sacrifice for there can be no Identity in Plurality ⚜ A Vindication of the Truth of an Answer concerning the objected Testimonie of Eusebius against a Romish Seducer EVsebius is objected in the Margin as naming the Eucharist Sacrificium Deo plenum My Answer there is that these three words Are not undoubtedly spoken of the Eucharist Which a Romish Seducer of late traduced as untruly answered but yet giveth no Reason of his Exception but as blindly as bluntly telleth mee that my Answer is False But if I be mistaken then hath Eusebius himselfe seduced mee who before the same words speaketh of Hostias incorporeas intelligentiâ praeditas specifying the Sacrifice of a contrite heart and Sacrifice of Prayse And againe immediately after At Sacrificium Deo spiritus contritus Then after this hee adjoyneth Memoriam magni illius Sacrificij The Memoriall of that great Sacrifice Meaning the Eucharisticall Commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Crosse as any that looketh not a-squint upon the place will easily perceive Besides all the Sacrifices of the New Testament by him mentioned hee calleth Incorporeall and indued with Vnderstanding But you do as truly grant the Eucharist to be a Corporall Substance as you wickedly * See above Booke 4. c. 9. §. 2 say that Christ's Body therein is Without Vnderstanding A Second Vindication of the Truth of our Answers to the former objected * See above in this 8. Sect. Epithets out of Ancient Fathers against the said late Calumnious Romish Seducer His words are these Bellarmine lib. 1. de Missa Cap. 15. To prove that the Fathers when they called the Eucharist a Sacrifice meant a Proper Sacrifice useth eight usuall Epithets which the Fathers in this Case give to the word Sacrifice My * Treatise of the Masse Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 8. Lord of Durham undertakes to encounter him with the like given to the word Sacrifice when they manifestly speake of improper Sacrifices This hee undertakes but performes nothing for hee allegeth no saying of any Father where any thing of this nature is called Sacrificium Terribile Plenum Horroris Sacrificium Summum Sacrificium Verissimum Sacrificium Singulare Sacrificium Deo Plenum So hee That which should have been performed by mee in this Treatise was to shew that there were none of these Attributes which Bellarmine collected out of the Fathers as proper to your Romish Sacrifice of the Masse but have beene as effectually applyed by Ancient Fathers unto Prayers Praises Baptisme and other the like holy and pious Actions Which the same your Bellarmine himselfe confesseth to be No proper Sacrifice Notwithstanding have I lately beene Challenged by one who saith as becomes an egregious
Seducer that I have performed hereof nothing at all Do you heare Flatly Nothing at all Meaning that none of the Epithets above-mentioned by Bellarmine out of the Fathers were at any time attributed by them to any other thing but to your Sacrifice of the Masse But what Nothing at all I. Not the Epithet Terrible False For I proved that the Fathers called Baptisme a 5 Treatise of the Masse Booke 6. Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 3. Sacrifice and inscribed it 6 Ibid. Sect. 8. Terible II. Not the Epithet Summum that is Chiefe False For the Father 7 See Booke 6. Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Pelusiota is alleged naming a Pure mind and chaste Body the Best Sacrifice III. Not the Epithet Truest False For there is produced Saint 8 August See Booke 6. cha 7. Sect. 2 Augustine not onely enstiling Every pious worke a True Sacrifice Vero nihil verius saith the Philosopher but also nothing that Where God saith I will have Mercie and not Sacrifice Mercie saith hee is a Sacrifice most Excellent and whereof the other are but Signes IV. Not the Epithet Deo Plenum False For it was proved effectually enough in that the Preaching of the word which is called of the Apostle The Power of God unto Salvation is termed of 9 Chrysost See oke 6. Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Bo Chrysostome a Pure and immortall Sacrifice And what would you say to your Divines of Collen 10 Enchiridion Coloniens fol. 107. Hic Ecclesia quae Corpus Christi mysticum est se totam Deo consecrat adeò ut Cyprianus tale Sacrificium verum et plenum Sacrifiâ—um non dubitaverit appellare who will have you observe Cyprian naming the Church of Christ as his Mysticall Body consecrated to God a pure and full Sacrifice Lastly Not the last Epithet which is Singulare Sacrificium whereof your Romish Seducer boastingly saith as followeth Singular Sacrificium a Singular Sacrifice which is the most convincing Epithet of all the rest proveth the Eucharist not onely to be a Sacrifice but also to be the onely Sacrifice of the Church whereas there be many improper Sacrifices This the Lord Bishop passeth over with Silence and shutteth out for a Wrangler So hee Who might thinke it hapned well to himselfe if hee should be but onely Shut out for a Wrangler and not called in Question for a false and presumptuous Traducer and Seducer for denying that to be performed at all which I did discharge with an Advantage alleging that Ancient Father 11 See Booke 6 Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Iustine naming Prayers and Thanksgivings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The perfect and onely Sacrifices well pleasing unto God Can there be any thing more Singular than that which is Onely The voice of Saint Augustine is full as loud for the Sacrifice of Christ's Passion The Death of Christ saith 12 August See 〈◊〉 Chap. 5. Sect. 5. hee is the onely Sacrifice which being the onely true Sacrifice must necessarily exclude the Hoast in your Masse from the property of a true Sacrifice If therefore this Epithet be an Argument most convincing above all the rest as is here objected then must it follow that Bellarmine thus amply confuted in this one is in effect convinced of Rashnesse and Weaknesse in his arguing aswell as this Seducer is of Falshood and Malice in his detracting in all the Rest âšœ The Seventh Demonstration Of No-Proper Sacrifice in the Euchrist Because the Principall Epithet of Vnbloody Sacrifice used by the Fathers and most urgently objected by your Doctors for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice doth evince the Contrarie SECT IX IT hath beene some paines unto us to collect the objected Testimonies of Fathers for this Point out of your divers Writers which you may peruse now in the Margin with more ease and presently perceive both what maketh not for you and what against you but certainly for you just nothing at all For what can it helpe your cause that the Celebration of the Eucharist is often called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is An unbloody Sacrifice a Reasonable and unbloody Service or Worship In the first place three b Basil in his Masse ob by Salmeron Tom. 9. Tractat. 30. §. Sed confutans and by Lindanuâ— Panop lib. 4. cap. 53. Nos appropinquantes Altari tuo suscipere dignissimos offerre hanc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lindanus non carnis sed mentis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Salmeron Ies Absque sanguine hostiam admittee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And not till long after the words of Consecration beginning at Respice Domine Missa Chrysost Ob. ab eisdem quo supra Hanc nostram supplicationem tanquaÌ„ ad altare admittere non recuses fac nos idoneos qui Tibi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nostris pro peccatis offerimus Idem Salmeron Offetimus Tibi rationabile incruentum obsequium Which words are in the body of your Liturgies put before the words of Consecration Edit Antuerp ex officiâ—a Plantin 1560. cum pri vilegio Regis but which Lindan will have to be set after Consecration The Liturgie of S. Iames Pro oblatis sanctisicatis pretiosis immaculatis donis divinis oremus Dominum acceptis eis in supercoeleste mentale spirituale Altare in odorem spiritualis frâ—grantiae c. Paulo post Deus Pater qui oblata tibi dona mera frugum oblationes accepisti in odorem suavitatis And after follow the words of Consecration Sancto qui in Sanctis c. Suscipe incorruptum Hymnum in sanctis incruentis Sacrificijs tuis Liturgies or if you will Missals are objected to prove that by Vnbloody Sacrifice and Reasonable and unbloody Worship is betokened the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood in the Masse one of Basil another of Chrysostome and by some others the Masse of Saint Iames of Ierusalem In which Epithet of Vnbloody say wee could not be signified Christ's Body Our Reasons because as the Margin sheweth the word Vnbloody hath sometime Relation unto the Bread and Wine both unbloody before Consecration called in Saint Iames his Liturgie Gods gifts of the first fruit of the Ground who also reckoneth Hymnes among Vnbloody Sacrifices But Christ's Body is the fruit of the Wombe or else sometime it is referred to the Acts of Celebration in Supplication Thanksgiving and Worship of God all Vnbloody naming that A Reasonable and Vnbloody Service which they had termed an Vnbloody Sacrifice as Lindan your Parisian Doctor hath truly observed Which Chrysostome also stiled Spirituall marke you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Service or Worship Was ever Christ called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is himselfe rather the Person to be worshipped Secondly Reasonable could this point out Christ's Body in the Sense of the objected Fathers Suffer Chrysostome to resolve us c Chrysost Hom. 11. Quid est rationabile obsequium quod per animam quod secundùm Spiritum offertur quicquid non indiget corpore quicquid non indiget
as a perfect Sacrifice of Christ But how to wit saith hee as slaine His Reason for a Body having life saith hee cannot be fit to be eaten So hee Than which nothing can make more against your Eating of Christs Body as Corporally Present or yet against a Proper Sacrifice therein âšœ What thinke you of such Sayings Can Christ be said properly to be Dead in this Sacrament b Quis unquà m Catholicê° dixit Christum rursùs mori Ribera Ies Com. in Heb. 10. num 25. Never any Catholike said so saith your Iesuite Ribera What then could be the meaning of such words If you should be ignorant your Cardinall Alan would teach you he would have you c Observandum est Christum licet modo impassibili existat in Sacramento tamen dici à Patribus mortalem imomortuum passum in Sacramento eatenus quidem quatenùs ox modo Consecrationis ipsaque vi significationis Sacramentalis mors passio Domini commemorantus atque repraesentantur Alan Card. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 38. sub finem Observe what hee saith Christ is said by the Fathers to suffer saith hee and to dye in this Sacrament onely so farre as his Death and Passion is commemorated and represented herein And so speaketh also your Romane d Glossa de Consecrat Dist â— Quid fit Hoc est ejus Mors repraesentatur Glosse What now hindreth but that whensoever wee heare the same Fathers affirming that the same Body and Blood of Christ are Sacrificed in the Eucharist wee understand them in the same impropriety of Speech that they meant onely Representatively especially when as wee see your other Grand Cardinall coming somewhat home towards us and to confesse as followeth e Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 29. §. Respondeo si c. Si Catholici dicerent in Sacrificio Missae vere Christum mori argumentum Calvini haberet aliquid virum sed cum dicunt omnes eum non mori nisi in Sacramento signo repraesentante mortem ejus quam uliquando obijâ— tantùm abest ut Missa oblâ—â—eret Christi mortem ut potiùs efficiat ut nunquam obliteretur If Catholikes should say that Christ doth truly dye in this Sacrament this Argument might be of some force but they say hee dyeth not but in Sacrament and Signe representing So hee which yet alas is too little a crevase for so great a Doctor to creepe out at First because there is aswell a Figurative as there is a Literall Truth for If I should say of Easter day said * See above Chap. 5. Sect. 5. Augustine it is the day of Christ's Resurrection I should not lye and yet it is but the Anniversarie day betokening the other When Christ said of one part of this Sacrament This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood hee spake by a double Figure said your Iesuite * Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. Salmeron yet truly Secondly Christ who is Truth it selfe in saying of Bread This is my Body or Flesh spake a Truth as you all professe and was it not likewise a Truth when hee called his Flesh Bread yea and also * Ioh. 6. The true Bread Thirdly the Fathers as they said that Christ is Dead and suffereth as you now object in this Sacrament in a Mysterie so have they also said of his Body in respect of the Eucharist It is Sacrificed in an * Ambrose Aug. above Chap. 5. Sect. 5. Image in a Sacrament or Mysterie according to that their generall Qualification saying It is the same Sacrifice which Christ offered or * Above Chap. 5. Sect. 6. rather a Remembrance thereof And Lastly the Fathers who named Baptisme a Sacrifice aswell as the Eucharist doubted not to stretch Baptisme up to as high a note as they have done the Eucharist saying f Chrysost in Epist ad Heb. Hom. 16. Baptismus est passio Christi Baptisme is the Passion of Christ and g Ambros de Poenitent lib. 2. cap. 1. In Baptismo crucifigimus in nobis filium Dei In Baptisme wee crucifie Christ To signifie that the Body of Christ is the Represented Object and not the Representative Subject of this Sacrament An Elucidation of the Premises by a Similitude of a Stage-play manifesting how the same Vnproper Sacrifice might furthermore have beene called both Bloody and Vnbloody by Ancient Fathers SECT XII A Similitude for explanation-sake would be had give us leave to borrow one from the Stage-Play for manifesting a Truth aswell as * Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. and Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 7. you have done another from thence for palliating a Falshood You may recognize with us that Tragicall end of the Emperour Mauritius by the command of one Phocaâ— once his Slave that Grand Patrone of the Popedome by Privileging the Church of Rome to be the Head of all Churches as divers of your owne Historians do relate But to the Point By the commandement of this Phocas as you * See Baron Anno 602. c. know were slaine two of Mauritius his Sons three Daughters and his Wife and all these before his owne eyes and at last the Emperour Mauritius himselfe was also murthered Were now this dolefull Spectacle acted on a Stage might not any Spectator say at the horrid sight thereof This is a Bloody Tragedie namely in respect of the Object represented herein And might hee not also say as truly This is an Vnbloody Tragedie to wit in respect of the Representative Subject Action and Commemoration it selfe seeing that there is not here shed any one drop of mans Blood And from the same Evidence it will be easie to perceive that the Greeke Fathers used to terme the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latines Tremendum that is a Terrible and Dreadfull Sacrifice namely for the Semblance-sake and Analogie it hath with Christ's Death even as one would call the Act representing the cruell Butchering of the Emperour Mauritius an Horrible and Lamentable Spectacle This is a cleare Glasse wherein any may discerne the open visage of Truth from the feigned Vizard of Errour The ninth Demonstration Because Ancient Fathers likewise called the Sacrament of Baptisme a Sacrifice for the Representation-sake which it hath of Christ's Death which is Argumentum à paribus SECT XIII WEe shall not urge the Antecedent of this Argument taken from Baptisme before that wee have made knowne the force of the Consequence thereof First one of your Cardinals thus a Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 15. Si Patres existimarunt Eucharistiam solùm esse Sacramentum non etiam Sacrificium nulla esset causa cur aliter loquerentur de Eucharistia quà m de Baptismo Nusquam autem Patres Baptismum vocant Sacrificium nec dicunt Baptizare esse Sacrificare vel immolare Quo modo igitur possibile est Patres in modo loquendi nobiscum in sententia cum Adversarijs convenisse §. Hic igitur
and reasonable Sacrifice unto thee Next a Sacrifice Eucharisticall saying Wee desire thy fatherly goodnesse mercifully to accept of our Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving And why may wee not with the Scripture call this a Sacrifice seeing that your Bishop Iansenius held it for an Argument of proving Christ to have offered a Sacrifice even b Iansen ChristuÌ„ in coena Sacrificium obtuliâ—â—e primuÌ„ quidem satis est significatum cum dicitur Gratias egisse Gratiarum enim actio est quoddam Sacrificium à qua Christi actione Sacramentum corporis sanguinis Domini nomen illud ab initio Ecclesia accepit Concord cap. 131. Because hee gave Thanks giving of Thanks being a kinde of Sacrifice So hee Thirdly a Sacrifice Latreuticall that is of Divine worship saying And although wee be unworthy to offer up any Sacrifice yet wee beseech thee to accept of our bounden duty and service c. This performance of our Bounden Service is that which * See above Chap. 3. Sect. 5 Ancient Fathers called an Vnbloody Sacrifice Nor is our Church of England alone in this Profession this Truth wee referre unto the Report of your c Bellarm. Melancthon Eucharistiam Sacrificium esse vult Calvinus non solùm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse vult sed etiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. §. Ac primum §. Expendamus Cardinall and of d Canus Lutherani in Apologia Augustana perperam Sacrificium definiebant esse opus à nobis Deo redditum ut cum honore afficiamus Loc. Theolog. lib. 12. ca. 12. §. Quibus rebus Bellar. Melancthon dicit Missam dici posse Sacrificium quaetenùs sumptio Eucharistiae fieri potest ad laudem Dei sicut caetera bona opera Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. §. Ac primum Et Calvinus dicit Sacrificium generaliter acceptum complectitur quicquid Deo offertur Ibid. §. Expendamus Kemnitius dicit Sacrificium à Patribus dici Oblationem Immolationem Sacrificium quia est commemoratio repraesentatio veri Sacrificij Christi Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 15. §. Alter modus Canus by whom you may understand the agreement betweene them whom you name Lutherans in their Augustane Confession and of Calvin by acknowledging not some one Act but the whole worke of this Celebration according to the Institution of Christ both in Communication Commemoration and Representation of his Death with Praise and Thanksgiving to be a Sacrifice Eucharisticall And also to use the words of Calvin Latreuticall and Sebasticall that is a Sacrifice of Worship and Veneration which every Christian may and must professe who hath either eyes in his head or faith in his heart the Celebration of this Sacrament in Remembrance of his absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption being the Service of all Services that wee can performe to God Now wherein and in what respect wee may furthermore be said to offer to God a Sacrifice propitiatory improperly will after appeare when wee consider Christ's Body as the Object heerein That Protestants in their Commemoration offer up the same Body and Blood of Christ which was Sacrificed on the Crosse as the Object of Remembrance and most absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption which is partly justified by the Romish Masse it selfe SECT IV. NOw wee are come to the last most true and necessary Point which is the Body and Blood as the Object of our Commemoration Still still do you urge the Sayings of Fathers where they affirme that wee offer unto God The same Body and Blood of Christ on this Altar even the same which was sacrificed on the Crosse which therefore you interpret as being the same subject matter of our Commemoration As is a King acting himselfe upon a Stage as hath beene * See above Chap. 5. Sect. 7. shewen Wee as instantly and more truly proclame that wee offer Commemoratively the same undoubtedly the very same Body and Blood of Christ his All-sufficient Sacrifice on the Crosse although not as the Subject of his Proper Sacrifice but yet as the only adequate Object of our Commemoration as the Emperour Mauritius is sayd to be represented in a Stage-play wherein wee cannot possibly erre having Truth it selfe for our Guide who said Do this in remembrance of mee namely of the same Mee meaning Christ as crucified on the Crosse as the Apostle commenteth saying Hereby you shew the Lords Death till hee come even the Same Body as the Same Death whereunto beare all the Fathers witnesse throughout this Treatise Wee say againe for your better Observation the Same Body as the Same Death but it cannot be the Same Death but objectively onely Ergò can it not be the Same Body but onely Objectively Whereby it will be easie for us to discerne the subject Sacrifice of Christ from ours his being the Reall Sacrifice on the Crosse ours onely the Sacramentall Representation Commemoration and Application thereof âšœ For your better satisfaction Wee exhibit unto you the ancient Practise of your Romish Church in the Service of the Masse celebrated every Saturday in the Passion-weeke wherein as your 2 Bellar. Recog Librorum de Missa Feriâ sextâ majoris hebdomadae non celebratur Missae sacrificium quaÌ„vis in illa Actione dicat Sacerdos Orate Fratres ut et meum et vestruÌ„ Sacrificium c. Et paulò antè Sic fiat Sacrificium nostruÌ„ in conspectu tuo ut placeat Tibi Domine Deus In his duobus lotis vox SacrificiuÌ„ non videtur propriè accipienda sed largo modo pro tota ista Actione Et quòd in ista feria Missa non propriè celebretur legimus in Ordine Romano antiquissimo c. Cardinall doth certifie you and us the Priest in your Missall Prayeth twice to God to receive His Sacrifice although it be properly but onely a Sacrament the whole Action thereof being called a Sacrifice So hee even as directly for our purpose as wee could wish hereby justifying our Calling the Whole Celebration of the Eucharist albeit Properly a Sacrament onely a Sacrifice in a Large and qualified Sense according to the Practise of ancient Fathers as wee have proved throughout the whole Sixt Booke by Eleven Demonstrations âšœ CHAP. VIII Of the Second Principall part of this Controversie which concerneth the Romish Sacrifice is as it is called Properly Propitiatory THis part is divided into an 1. Explication of that which you call Propitiatory 2. Application thereof for Remission of Sinnes The State of the Question of Propitiatory what it is SECT I. THe whole Difference standeth upon this whether the subject matter of our Representation in the hands of the Priest be Properly a Propitiatory Sacrifice or no. Now Propitiatory is either that which pacifieth the wrath of God and pleaseth him by it's owne virtue and efficacie which as all confesse is onely the Sacrifice of Christ in his owne selfe or else a thing is said
by the efficacie therof a truly and properly propitiatory Sacrifice and Satisfaction for a perfect Remission of all sinnes Thus concerning Protestants As for you if wee consider your owne outward Acts of Celebration wherein in Ten Circumstances wee â—inde Ten Transgressions of the Institution of Christ and therefore provocatory to stir up Gods displeasure wee thinke not that it can be Propitiatory so much as by way of Gods Acceptance Next when we dive into the mysterie of your Masse to seeke out the subject matter of your Sacrifice in the hands of your Priest which according to the faith of your Church is called a Proper propitiatory Sacrifice in it selfe it hath beene found besides our Proofes from Scriptures and your owne Principles by * See a Syâ—opsis hereof Booke 8. Ten Demonstrations out of Ancient Fathers to be Sacramentall Bread and Wine and not the Body and Blood of Christ Wherefore the Subject of your Sacrifice can be no more properly that is Satisfactorily in it selfe Propitiatory than substantiall Bread can be Christ Lastly in examining the End of the Propitiation by the Masse Wee perceive your Doctors in suspense among themselves whether you be capable of Propitiation for Remission of sinnes or else of Temporall Punishments due to such Sinners or if of Sins whether of Mortall sinnes or else of Veniall sinnes only to wit such as you thinke may be washed away by your owne Holy-water-sprinckle Marke now wee pray you these three First what you offer namely not Christ but his Sacrament Secondly by what Acts of Celebration to wit most whereof are not Acts of Obedience but of Transgression Thirdly to what End viz not for a Faithfull but for a doubtfull not for an absolute but for a partiall Remission and that also you know not whether of sinnes or of punishments and then must you necessarily acknowledge the happinesse 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 A Vindication of certaine Testimonies alleged in the II. III. IV. and V. Bookes of the preceding Treatise against the Vnjust Imputations of one whosoever Popishly inspired To the greater Disadvantage of the Romish Cause wherein hee hath so much laboured THese kinde of Vindications ought not to seeme unnecessary to any Reader who would wish either estimation to the Author or just advantage to the Cause when he shal perceive extreme diligence joined with an unstanchable malignancie in sifting every corner and weighing every grane Howbeit that these Exceptions such as they are may worke both for the Correction of the Print where it is requisite and further Confutation of Romish Cavillers yet I must say unto this Objector as unto others of his kin Etiamsi gratiae causâ nihil facis omnia tamen grata sunt quae facis Only I wish these his Exceptions had come in due time to my hands before the fift and part of the sixt Booke had beene reprinted in this second Edition that my Answers unto them might have bene inserted in their proper places But now to the objected Testimonies of which that in Epiphanius being altered in this second * Pag. 121. Edition Wee will take the rest in due order The first Passage concerneth a Testimony of S. EPIPHANIVS Alleged in the * Edit 1. pag. 92. Pag. 120. of this second Edition TO leave the Objectors verball Exceptions because now satisfyed in the second Edition and to try that which hee thinketh materiall His OB. Bellarmine cannot be guilty of that falsity which you impute unto him of adding to Epiphanius and making him say This is to be believed although it be repugnant to our Senses for these words Although they be repugnant to our Senses hee allegeth not as the words of Epiphanius because hee hath them in a different Character ANSW It will be sufficient to set downe the words of Bellarmine his owne thus ETIAM ADDIT Epiph. ID ESSâ— CREDENDVM LICET SENSVS REPVGNENT that is HEE speaking of Epiphanius ALSO ADDETH THAT IT IS TO BE BELIEVED ALTHOVGH IT BE REPVGNANT TO OVR SENSES How then can it be denyed that Bellarmine delivered those words REPVGNANT TO OVR SENSES as the words of Epiphanius hearing Bellarmine himselfe affirming that they were ADDED by Epiphanius If I had denyed this I would have given my Objector leave to say I had beene out of my Senses The Second Passage Book 2. * Edit 1. pag. 95. Pag. 129. TERTVLLIAN OB. I. THe words of Tertullian are these Christum corporis sui figuram panis dedisse you instead of Panis have Panem for your Advantage contrary to the faith of that Edition which you follow of Laur. de la Barre pag. 180. ANSVV. A sore Taxation which pincheth upon my Fidelity I shall then give a summarie Answer after that I have received my full Charge Oâ— II. Bellar. lib. 2. de Enchar cap. 7. argueth against Protestants for the words of Tertullian thus Those words saith hee do not signifie that Christ gave a Signe of his Body and not his Body it selfe otherwise he would not have said that Christ Corporis sui figuram panis dedisse How then should it have beene I pray you OB. III. It should have beene Panis or rather Pani as Pamelius upon that place hath it ANSVV. So then the Objector hath chosen Pamelius a learned Commentator upon the same words of Tertullian and Romishly professed for his Arbitrator and I shall not gain-say his owne choice Pamelius therefore in the very * Edit Paris 1580. Edition and page cited by the Objector ingenuously confesseth saying TERTVLLIANVS DICENS CHRISTVM CORPORIS SVI FIGVRAM PANIS DEDISSE SVBAVDIT MORE SVO ACCVSATIVUM By which words of Pamelius wee have gained fowre Advantages I. A Iustification of the sense of the Accusative PANEM as Pamelius sheweth II. A Condemnation of the Objector his Falsehood who said that Pamelius had it PANI III. A Consutation of Bellarmine who because the word was PANIS and not PANEM would needs inferre that Christ gave not onely a Signe of his Body but the Body it selfe whereas Tertullian saith Pamelius used the Genitive-case PANIS instead of the Accusative PANEM how MORE SVO that is AS TERTVLLIAN VSED To Do which plainly sheweth that Bellarmine was either ignorant of the style of Tertullian or rather if hee knew it guilty of Dissimulation herein namely More suo The Last is a Manifestation of an egregious fondnesse in them Both by insisting upon Tertullian's style so rigidly in the Genitive-case which in English must needs stand thus Christ to have given a Signe of his owne Body of Bread which is plainly a Non-sense as any may perceive so that I may well conclude ô felix error of changing the word PANIS into PANEM although it were but by chance and onely to make true Latine according to ordinary Construction By occasion whereof so much Ignorance
and Perversnesse of the Adversary hath beene displayed The Third Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 107. pag. 151. CARD BELLARMINE IT was affirmed that the first Imposition that Bellarmine could find of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation as a matter of Faith was about the yeare 1073. by Pope Gregory the Seventh OB. Bellarmine said that he would prove against Scotus that the Fathers taught the same Doctrine ANSVV. Were his proofe as faisible as I hold it Impossible yet was my Assertion notwithstanding most true because I onely spake of the Imposition of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation as an Article of Faith upon mens Consciences not to have beene before that forenamed Pope Gregory the Seventh The Contrary whereof neither hee nor any for him can shew out of any Ancient Father The Advantage hee giveth us is the bewraying of his owne Precipitancie The Fourth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 113. Pag. 162. N. CABASILAS THe Greeke Archbishop Cabasilas hath told us that the Latines of the Romish Church would not indure the Greeks to call the Eucharist after the Romish Consecration Bread The OB. Romane Catholikes do commonly allow that it be called Bread after Consecration ANSVV. I proved from Cabasilas that they will not indure it hee telleth mee without any proofe at all they do But if hee should eat no bread untill hee could finde in Romish writers the Commonly naming of the Eucharist Bread after their Consecration thereof hee within a short time would be found felo de se After this the Objector telleth me which I had taught him before in the first Booke that Cabasilas and the Greekes hold that the words of Christs Institution to wit HOC EST CORPVS MEVM are not words of Consecration and therfore called the Romish Eucharist Bread and Conâ—ludeth OB. Therefore doth not Cabasila's Testimonie availe you ANSW It proveth as much as I there assumed to prove That the Romish would not allow their Eucharist to be called Bread after their Consecration Our Advantage is to observe your pronesse to quarrell you know not for what The Fifth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 125. pag. 177. IRENAEVS OB. I. YOu translate it Even as to make it a Similitude ANSW When I was but a Boy I then learned to translate SICVT SIC which are the words of Irenaeus EVEN As So. OB. II. But the Similitude is onely for the Change and not for the maner of the Change ANSW Can there be a Change with a SICVT EVEN As without a maner of Similitude of Change One Advantage herein may be this our further Observation that Irenaeus as hee said of the BREAD Consecrated that it is NO MORE A COMMON THING BVT CHANGED INTO AN EVCHARIST a Sacrament saith likewise of the other part of the Similitude that THE BODIES OF THE COMMVNICANTS ARE INCORRVPTIBLE IN HOPE OF RESVRRECTION meaning that they are therefore not to be esteemed of in the common Condition of naturall Bodies Our other Advantage will be to learne the language of the Fathers as here of Irenaeus calling the Bodies of the Faithfull INCORRVPTIBLE even here in this life but meaning because of the hope of their future Resurrection when they shall be changed indeed yet not in Substance but onely in Qualities from Incorruptibility and Basenesse Even as hee meant of the change of this Sacrament consisting of an Earthly and an Heavenly part the Earthly being the Bread Naturall and the Heavenly being the same Sacramentall as betokening and signifying the Body of Christ The Sixth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 124. pag. 178. S. AMBROSE OB. I. IN citing of Ambrose you joyne both his Sentences in one ANSW Which is no more Advantage to my Cause than if I should give this Objector two Sixpences for one Shilling OB. II. You adde Even as to make it a Similitude ANSW This needed not to have beene added because Ambrose his words cannot be understood of any Reader but as implying a Similitude OB. III. Bat your Translation is this Things changed remaine what they were before whereas they should have been rendered verbatim thus That those things which were be still and changed into another thing ANSW I call for an Oedipus to unriddle this to say that there is a differencet sense betweene THE THINGS THAT WERE BE STILL AND THEY BE STILL THAT WHICH THEY WERE BEFORE ALTHOVGH CHANGED INTO ANOTHER THING That is to say Of Common Elements made Sacred and Sacramentall The Seventh Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 134. pag. 190 S. AMBROSE OB. ETiam A word of great Asseveration omitted ANSW What needed any more Asseveration than the words set downe IPSA NATVRA MVTATVR which I understand to be as asseverantly spoken as if hee had sworne them OB. II. You say that Ambrose interpreteth his naming of Bread Christ's Body by saying afterwards Corpus Christi Significatur which is long after ANSW It is in the same Chapter and not long after neither But this man is as good an Objector as hee is an Observer who doth not know that which is common to all Writers that what the Author hath spoken somewhat more obscurely before hee explaineth it with words more intelligible albeit long after OB. III. But Ambrose said elswhere Panis dicitur sed Corpus appellatur It is said to be Bread but it is called the Body of Christ So saith hee here Before Consecration it is named Bread but after Consecration the Body of Christ is signified here Significatur is the same with Nuncupatur Signified is the same with named or called ANSW NAMED AND CALLED are onely Appellations of the outward words whereas SIGNIFICATA alwayes import the sense of the same words whether spoken or read so that I shal need for Confutation no more but to appeale unto the Objector himself to distinguish the office of his cares eyes whereby hee apprehendeth onely words from the Function of his Brain-pan in judging of their sense and signification A further Advantage upon this occasion may be had first from another Allegation of the Objector himselfe out of Saint Ambrose lib. 5. de Sacrament cap. 4. Dixi ante verba Christi panis dicitur post deprompta Christi verba non panis dicitur sed corpus appellatur Wee heare that Saint Ambrose proveth that that which is called the Body of Christ was before Consecration that which was called Bread so that Hoc in Christ's speech must signifie Bread which marreth and dasheth your Romiâ—h and literall Exposition of Christ's words the foundation of all your other errours concerning Corporall Presence to note in Saint Ambrose his Iudgement that Hoc in Christ's speech betokened Bread which in the universall Iudgement of all Romish Doctors cannot be attributed to Christ's Body in a literall sense And Secondly to recognize the Art of Bellarmine See Book 2. pag. 125. in his misalleging the same words of Ambrose thus Post Consecrationem corpus Christi est instead of CORPVS
CHRISTI SIGNIFICATVR If that there were no more force in the word SIGNIFICATVR than in NOMINATVR why did your Cardinall bogle and startle at it and utterly dash it out The Eighth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 135. pag. 191. S. CYPRIAN OB. NOn effigie sed is not set downe in the Latine sentence of Cyprian and Caro Factus est is left out in the English both of purpose as will be thought ANSW Neither I dare sweare on purpose because both of them are alleged the first NON EFFIGIE SED translated in the English and CARO FACTVS EST expressed in the Latine Our Advantage now is this to call to our Readers Remembrance that hee must interpret these words of Cyprian by that his other Saying namely that Things signifying are called by the same names by which things signified are called The Ninth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 135. pag. 191. M. BRERELY CYprian said Things Indifferent change their nature after they be commanded OB. Hee meant not simply but after a sort as the Testimonies shew which hee alleged ANSW He meant as simply as any Protestant can do saying a little before the words A thing of Indifferencie being determinated by the Church if it be violated is a sinne What is if this be not a Change of the Nature to become by reason of the Churches Decree of a thing Indifferent and not sinfull a thing sinfull and therefore not Indifferent The Tenth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 136. pag. 194. IVSTINE MARTYR OB. YOu make Iustine say that hee called the Eucharist therefore no common Bread because it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Sanctified meate ANSW And that I say millions of Popish Doctors at the first hearing would sweare to wit that the Church of Rome accounteth the matter of the Eucharist COMMON BREAD and WINE before it be Consecrated Our Advantage is that the Objector hath brought an whole house the Church of Rome it selfe which you call the house of God upon his head by this Exception The Eleventh Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 136. pag. 195. S. CYRIL of HIERVSALEM OB. BEllarmine is taxed of Vnconscionablenesse for concluding out of Cyril that the Sacrament is not to be judged by sense when as the words of Cyril in the same place are expressely saying It is the Body of Christ although thy sense tell thee not so yet let thy faith confirme thee c. ANSW I have taxed him most justly not for any mistaking of the words of Cyril but for wresting and abusing his meaning Bellarmine believing it was so sayd of Cyril as absolutely denying that there can be any tryall of the naturall Substance of Bread after Consecration by the verdict of any of mans senses whereas Cyril spake onely of the Sacramentall nature thereof This was evidently proved out of Cyril who affirming Sacred Oile to be no more Bare Oile after Consecration as he said of the Eucharist It was no more meere Wine after it be Consecrated thereby taught us to judge of both alike Even as wee may say upon the same reason that the water of Baptisme is during the use thereof no meere Water But why even because it is Sacramentall and that accordingly wee are not to beleeve our Senses when wee are in Contemplation of this Sacrament to thinke it now to be mere Water but beleeve it to be of another nature else our naturall eyes and senses shall deceive our Spirituall sight of Faith in discerning the Spirituall and Mysticall meanings thereof Yea and in this respect I might have taxed Bellarmine for inferring from such speeches an absolute denying of the tryall by sense of the natural part of the Sacrament because hee might have beene instructed By the * See Booke 2. cap. 1. Sect. 7. Councell of Nice of the meaning of such speeches of the Fathers that Councell saying as much of Baptisme thus Baptisme is not to be considered with the eyes of our Bodies but of our Mindes All which is to abstract the thoughts of Christian men from all Earthly conceipts when they are conversant in the Celebration of such sacred Mysteries This wee have noted Book 3. pag. 207. This also hath occasioned another Advantage against your Romane Faith by observing in the same place of Cyril another Sentence concerning this Sacrament Coelestiall Bread saith hee sanctifying both Body and Soule But how both it followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As the Bread is congruous to the Body so is the word meaning Christ in his Body convenient for the soule What other can be meant hereby but that calling the Sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after Consecration hee acknowledged not any Substantiall change thereof and more demonstrably because of the Comparison hee hath of the Sacramentall applying of the Body of Christ to the food of the Soule as hee doth the Sacramentall Bread to the nutriment of the Body and Sanctification thereof in hope of Resurrection to life as the Fathers have Commented The Twelfth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag 132. pag. 298. S. CHRYSOSTOME OB. CHrysostome is said to be placed in the front of the host of Bellarmines Fathers whereas Bellarmine in his Catalogue of Fathers De Euchar. lib. 2. citeth twenty Fathers before him ANSW If Bellarmine have had other Treatises in his Controversies against K. IAMES of blessed memory wherein Chrysostome was made the Champion was this fondnesse in mee to say as I have sayd and not rather rashnesse in this Objector in thus gain-saying OB. II. But you have furthermore omitted the words of Chrysostome which in English should be these Although these things exceed our sense and reason yet let us hold them without doubting ANSW Hee telleth mee what was omitted looking directly upon that but forgot to acknowledge what was expressed out of Chrysostome looking askew and asquint at it My Translation out of Chrysostome delivered his words in the first part thus ALTHOVGH THE SPEECH OF CHRIST MAY 〈◊〉 STRANGE TO SENSE AND REASON which is 〈◊〉 to that which is omitted Christ's speech exceeds our sense and reason In the other part was set downe these words of Chrysostome YET LET VS BELIEVE HIS WORDS Fully equivalent with those which were omitted YET LET VS RECEIVE CHRIST'S WORDS WITHOVT DOVBTING except the Papists will thinke us to be of their degenerate Faith Of Believing with doubting Where you may perceive that your Objector considered not how easie it had been for me by not omitting some words to have beene superfluous The Thirteenth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 140. pag. 199. SIXTVS SENENSIS OB. IT is alleged out of Senensis that hee maketh Chrysostome to have beene the most frequent in Hyperbolizing of all the Fathers But Senensis onely saith that Chrysostome did Interdum use Hyperbole's ANSW And I say Aliquando seu INTERDVM dormitat Homerus Esto igitur INTERDVM Although I made it good in the same Section that hee often
Hyperbolizing Preacher of all the Fathers and therefore hath given unto all Divines a speciall Caution against his Rhetorick in the point of this Sacrament lest wee understand him literally Of which kinds you may have some Instances out of the very places objected where b Chrys Orat. in Philogon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem paulò superius Chrysostome saith indeed That wee see that Lambe lying on the Altar And said hee not also even in the same Oration Wee see here Christ lying in the Manger wrapped in his clouts a dreadfull and admirable spectacle So hee But say do you see herein either Cratch or Clothes or can you talke of Christ's lying on this Altar who teach that as hee is in this Sacrament hee hath no locall Site Posture or Position at all It is also true of the Angels hee said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they stand in dread and the sight is fearefull And hee saith no lesse of the Festivall day of Christ's Nativity that It is most venerable and terrible and the very Metropolis of all others Yet doth not this argue any Corporall Presence of Christ in respect of the day This Answer taken from Chrysostome may satisfie for Chrysostome Wee grant furthermore to your c Bellar. lib 2 de Missa 〈◊〉 15. § Quinto Omnes Graeci Patres passim vocant terribile Sacrificium horroris plenum Cardinall That all the Greeke Fathers call the Eucharist terrible and full of dread But what As therefore implying a Corporall presence of Christ and Divine Adoration thereupon This is your Cardinals scope but to prove him an ill marke-man take unto you an answer from your selves * See above Booke 5. Cha. 2. Sect. 4. who teach with the Apostle that All prophane comers to this Sacrament make themselves guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ in which respect wee do acknowledge it to be Dreadfull indeed especially to the 〈◊〉 yet making no more for a Corporall presence than the contempt of Baptisme whereby a man maketh himselfe obnoxious to Gods judgements as * See above B. 5. Chap 2. Sect 3 Augustine hath compared them can 〈◊〉 same Another answer you may receive from Ancient Fathers who together with the Eucharist have * See above B. 6. Chap 5 Sect 8. called the reading of Scriptures Terrible and so were the Canons of Baptisme called Terrible even by * Ibidem Chrysostome himselfe As for your objected assistance of Angels at the Celebration of the Eucharist it is no such a Prerogative but that the Prayers of the Faithfull and Baptisme will plead for the same honour your Durandus granting of the first that d Durand Angeli adâ—uur semper nobis orantibus Lib. 7. cap. 12. The Angels of God are present with us in our Prayers and for the second Divine Nazianzen teacheth that e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 40 de Baptismo The Angels are present at Baptisme and do magnifie or honour it with their presence and observance notwithstanding none of you ever defended either Corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Baptisme or yet any Adoration of the consecrated Element of Water therein If these two may not serve take unto you this Saying of Augustine spoken of persons baptized f August de meritis de 〈…〉 Christum portantur They saith hee with feare are brought unto Christ their Physician that is for so hee expoundeth himselfe unto the Sacrament of eternall Salvation Which one Saying of so Orthodox a Father doth instruâ— us how to interpret all your objected Testimonies to wit that Whosoever come to the receiving of the Sacrament of Christ they ought to come with feare as if they were in the presence of Christ And thus is your unanswerable Objection answered so that this your Cable rope being untwisted is become no better than loose towe Now to your third Objection That the most earnestly-objected Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Adoration used of the Fathers doth not necessarily inferre any Divine Worship of the Eucharist SECT III. WEe find not your Disputers more pressing and urgent in any Argument than in objecting the word Reverence Honour and especially Adoration for proofe that Divine Honour is due to the Eucharist as to Christ himselfe whensoever they finde the use of that Phrase applyed by Antiquity unto this Sacrament Our answer is first in generall That the words Reverence Honour and Adoration simply in themselves without the Adjunct and Additament Divine cannot conclude the Divine worship proper to God To this purpose wee desire you not to hearken unto us but to heare your selves speake a Mr. Brerely Pontificales vestes calices coeperunt esse honorandi Sacramenti causâ Liturg. Tract 2. §. 8. Subd 2. The Pontificall Vestments Chalices and the like are to be honoured say you but how with divine honour you will nor say it nor will you hold our ancient Bede worthy of Divine worship albeit you entitle him Venerable in a Religious respect Yea under the degree of Divine worship wee our selves yield as much to the Eucharist as b August Epist 164. Baptismum Christi ubique veneramur Augustine did to Baptisme when hee said Wee reverence Baptisme wheresoever Accordingly of the word Adoration your Cardinall and other Iesuites are bold to say that c Ribera Ies in Apoc. 19. Item Viegas Ies in eundem locum Nec nos moveat verbum hoc Adorare cum vulgatum sit hoc creaturis tribui ut Loth cum vidisset Angelos surrexit adoravit eos pronus in terram 3. Reg. 1. Inclinabat se adorabat Bersheba Regem prona in terram Rectè igitur Iohannes adoravit Angelum laeta nunciantem Cur Angelus recusavit Gregor Hom. 8. in Evan. Angelos antè adventura Christi adoraton post assumptam humanitatem adorationem recusasse Eodem modo Glossa Hugo Rupertus alij nonnulli c. So Suarez Tom. 1. Disp 54. Bellarm. Hieronymus non ignorabat Adorationis multa genera aliam soli Deo aliam rebus deberi sacris Apol. c. 1. § PrimuÌ„ And hereckoneth Adoration of Reliques Tombes of Martyrs c. It is sometimes used also in Scriptures for an honour common to Creatures as to Angels to Kings to Martyrs and to their Tombes And although your Disputers should conceale this Truth yet would the Fathers themselves informe us in what a Latitude they used the same word Adoration Among the Latine Fathers one who knew the propriety of that Language as well as any viz. Tertullian saying d Adoro plenitudinem Scripturarum Adversus Hermog post medium pag. 350. I adore the plenitude of Scriptures and Gregory Nazianzene among the Greeke for his excellencie in divine knowledge e Greg. Nazian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 40. sirnamed the Divine and therefore may not be thought to apply words belonging to Divine worship preposterously or improperly instructed the party baptized to say thus to
they shew some Examples of a Bodily Inclining to the Sacrament done before Consecration yet after Consecration they have not produced any one But what newes now We blush in your behalfe to repeat the Instance which you have out of your Legends of a f Mr. Brerely Liturg. Tract 2. §. 9. Subd 3. Out of Bellarm and Bellar. out of Antoninus When not unlike to the reproofe which God miraculously gave to Balaam by the speech of an Asse a bruit-beast for our instruction did prostrate himselfe in reverence before the blessed Sacrament Brute Beast prostrating it selfe before the Host and doing Reverence unto it Wee would have concealed this but that you seeme to glory herein as being for your Instruction like to the reproofe given miraculously to Balaam by his Asse Well might this Legend have become that latter time of darknesse wherein it was first hatched but not these cleare daies wherein your mysteries of Delusions have beene so often revealed and when all Christians almost in all Countries have taken knowledge of an * BANKS HIS HORSE according to his Masters owne Relation Horse taught by Art to kneele to any person at his Masters command and once in France when by the Suggestion and Instigation of Romish Priests his Master was called into question for Sorcerie hee for vindication of his credit with them commanded his Horse to kneele before a Crucifix and therby freed himselfe from suspition of Diabolicall familiarity according to the Principles of their owne superstition And for any one to conclude this to have bin Gods miraculous work in that Horse as the other was in that Asse would seeme to be the reason of an unreasonable man because all Miracles alwaies exceed all power both of Art and Nature else were they no Miracles at all Thus to your fourth Objection from outward Acts we passe on to Examples That no Example of Invocation objected out of Antiquity can inferre the Divine Honour of the Sacrament as is pretended SECT IV. YOur Instances are Three the principall in Gorgonia the Sister of Gregory Nazianzen in whose Oration at her Funerall we find that a Greg. Nazian Orat. 11 de Gorgonia Soror Gorgonia adversà corporis valetudine laborabat eratque prodigiosum morbi genus quod nec medicorum arte nec parentum lachrymis nec publicis precibus sanari potuit desperatis omnibus alijs auxilijs intempestà nocte captatâ ad Altare cum side procumbit eumque qui super isto honoratur ingenti clamore invocans cum caput suuÌ„ part cum clamore Altari admovisset deinde hoc pharmaco i.e. Lachrymarum ut exponit Elias Cretensis perfudisset si quid uspiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 AntityporuÌ„ preciosi Corporis Sanguinis manu recondrderat ad lachrymis admiscursset ô rem admirandam statim se morbo liberatam sentit She having been troubled with a prodigious disease after that neither the Art of Physick nor teares of her Parents nor the publike Prayers of the Church could procure her any health went and cast her selfe downe at the Altar Invocating Christ who is honoured on the Altar saying that she would not remove her head from the Altar untill shee had received her health when Oh admiable event she was presently freed from her dâ—sease This is the Story set downe by Gregory Nazianâ—en Hence your Cardinall concludeth that Gorgonia invocated the Sacrament as being the very Body and Blood of Christ and calleth this An hot and stinging Argument and so indeed it may be named yet onely in respect of them whose consciences are scorched or stung with their owne guiltinesse of in forcing and injuring the Story as will now appeare For first why should wee thinke that she invocated the Sacrament Because saith your b Bellar. Procumbens ante Altare coraÌ„ venerabili Sacramento Quid autem super altare colatur dubium esse non potest cum nihil ibi ponatur nisi Panis Vinum mutanda in corpus sanguinem Christi Petium MartyreÌ„ valdè ussit pupugitque hic locus Lib. 2. de Euch cap 14 Cardinall she prostrated her selfe at the Altar before the Sacrament which words Before the Sacrament are of his owne coyning and no part of the Story His next reason Because she is said to have invocated him who is honored on the Altar As though every Christian praying at the Table of the Lord to Christ may not be justly said to Invocate him who is used to be Honoured by the Priest celebrating the memory of Christ thereon Nay and were it granted that the Sacramentall Symbols had beene then on the Altar yet would it not follow that she invocated the Sacrament as betokening a Corporall presence of Christ as your Disputers have fancied no more than if the said godly woman upon the same occasion presenting her selfe at the sacred Font wherin she had beene baptized could be thought to have invocated the water therein because she was said to have invocated him who is honoured in the Administration of Baptisme And furthermore it is certaine that the Remainders of the Sacrament in those daies were kept in their Pastophorium a * See above Book 4. Chap. 1. Sect. 10. As further also appeareth in the Liturgie of pope Clement Accipiant Diacont reliquias portent in Pastophoria Doubtlesse from the Altar to a place remote Teste pamelio Tom 1 Missal Patrion Latin pag 118. place severed from the Altar especially at this time of her being there which was in the Night as the Story speaketh O! but she was cured of her disease at the Altar And so were other miraculous Cures wrought also at the Font of * See above Book 4. Chap. â— Sect. 5. Baptisme But for a Conclusion wee shal willingly admit of Gregory Nazianzen to be Vmpier betweene us He in relating the Story saith of the Sacrament of the Eucharist 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 11. quo supra If shee at the time of her invocating had laid up any part of the Antitypes or Symbols of the precious Body and Blood of Christ that shee mingled with her teares So hee calling the consecrated Sacrament Antitypes or Signes of Christ's Body therby signifying that the Sacrament is not the Body and Blood of Christ as hath been * Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. proved unto you at large out of Nazianzen and other Greeke Fathers Whereas if indeed he had meant that the Body and Blood of Christ had beene there corporally present as that which was Invocated then now if ever it had concerned this holy Father to have expresly delivered his supposition thus viz. If she had at that time of her Invocating laid up any whit of the precious Body and Blood of Christ Wee say of the Body and Blood of Christ and not as hee said of the Antitypes or Signes of his Body and Blood Thus is your hot and stinging Reason become chilly cold and altogether dronish Your second Instance is
Tertullian and Irenaeus and of the Greeke he allegeth Iustine Cyril Damascen Theophilus Alex. yea and by your leave Basil himselfe too and that Basil was an Orthodoxe Greeke Father you will not deny Thirdly therfore to come home unto you wee 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 Romane Cause he to prove that the forme of Consecratio of the Eucharist standeth not in any prescribed words in the Gospel but in words of Invocation by prayer as * See Booke 1. Chap. 2. hath been confirmed by a Torrent of Ancient Fathers saith m Paulus non tradidit formaÌ„ Consecrationis quod Basilius ità illustrat ut sano capiti nihil ad haec sit ullo modo requirendum amplius cap. 42. de Spir. sancto Verba dùm ostenditur panis inquit poculum benedictionis quis SanctoruÌ„ nobis reliquit Lindan Panop lib. 4. cap. 41. That the same is illustrated by these words of Basil saying What Father hath left unto us iâ— 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 concerningâ—th forme of Consecration So then Invocation was an Invocation by Prayer unto God for the Consecration of the Bread let before them and not an Invocation of Adoration unto the Eucharist as already consecrated which your Cardinal unconscionably wee 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 Basils demanding What Father before us hath left in writing the words of Invocation is in true and genuine sense as if hee 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 do ratifie unto us For in the Liturgie ascribed to Saint n Liturg. Iac. Sancte Domine c. Iames the Apostle the Consecration is by Invocating and praying thus Holy Lord who dwellest in holiest c. The Liturgie of o Liturg. Chrysost Adhuc offerimus mitte Spiritum c. Chrysâ—stome Invocateth by praying Wee beseech thee O Lord to send thy Spirit upon these Gifts prepared before us c. The Liturgie under the name of p Liturg. Basil Respice Domine 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 of Adoration of the same Sacrament âšœ Which Invocation in Consecrating by Prayer 10 Cyril Hiero. sol Mystag Catech. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril calleth an Invocation of the holy Trinity âšœ 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 q Decret part 1. cap. 11. Ecclesiasticorum Aug. ex Basilio Quae scripta nobis quibus verbis sit Consecratio commendavit 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 Sense 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 r 〈…〉 Bellar. lib 2. de Euch. cap 8. §. Altâ—rum Cardinall his objecting the words of 〈◊〉 concerning the receiving of this Sacrament saying Lord I am not worthy thou shouldest come under the roose of my mouth which hath beene confuted as unworthy the * See above B. 5. Chap 5. Sect. 6. mention in this case If you would have some Examples of Adoring Christ with Divine worship in the Mysterie of the Eucharist by celebrating the maner of his death as Hierome may be said to have adored at Ierusalem Christ in his Cratch or as every Christian doth in the Mysterie of Baptisme wee could store you with multitudes but of Adoring the Eucharist with a proper Invocation of Christ himselfe wee have not as yet received from you any one âšœ A Vindication of the Testimonies of Dionysius Pachymeres and Nazianzen against the late vaine Calumniations of a Romish Seducer SECT V. IN the former Section was objected the Testimonie of Dionysius saying of the Eucharist ô Divine Sacrament as if it had beene spoken to the Sacrament by invocating of it and implying therein a Divine Adoration because of that Corporall presence of Christ under the Formers of Bread and Wine The Insufficiencie of this Consequence was manifested besides divers other Instances by the Testimonie of Pachymâ—res your Greeke Expositour of Dionysius referring us to Nazianzen his like words when hee sayd ô great and holy Pascha A late Romish Seducer to omit his verball wranglings which are now removed in this second Edition falleth foule upon mee in an invective Conclusion saying So wee see that Bellarmine Dionysius Pachymeres and Nazianzen all agree and that onely my Lord of Durham hath dealt injuriously with them all So hee Even so as it became an egregious Seducer to say as will now appeare The parties which are said to be injured are no lesse than fower Bellarmine the Objector of Dionysius Dionysius the Author objected Pachymeres the Expositor of the same Dionysius referring us to the like Saying in Nazianzen and lastly Nazianzen himselfe unto whose sentence wee were so referred Whose words are these ô great and holy Pascha which words sayd I were spoken to the Feast of Easter and not to the Eucharist and consequently not to Christ as Corporally present therein Nay saith the Seducer by Pascha was not meant the Feast of Easter but the Eucharist and that by ô great and holy Pascha Nazianzen declareth his Invocation of Christ therein So hee As soone then as wee shall understand the words of Nazianzen aright wee shall easily discerne the Exposition of Pachymeres and by him the meaning of Dionysius and consequently the meere Sophistry as I called it of your Cardinall Bellarmine The words of Nazianzen truly translated are these But ô Pascha the great and holy the purification of the world for I will speake unto thee as to that which as it were hath Life The last words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will assoile the whole
accept of Christ but of the Gift for Christ's sake and to the honour of Christ in whom God is Propitious unto us wee say againe the Gift for Christ and not Christ for the Gift what can be more plaine against all Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament and to receive it into his Celestiall Altar but how by intercession of Angels No but expresly thus By Christ the Mediatour In the Liturgie of e Missa Chrysostomi antè Consecrationem Adhuc offerimus tibi rationabile incruentuÌ„ hoc obsequium Deposcimus ut mittas Spiritum sanctum super nos et super apposita munera Sequitur Consecratio Fac Panem istum preciosum Corpus c. Post Consecrationem Adhuc offerimus tibi rationabile hoc obsequium pro fideliter doâ—mientibê° c. Post Dominum deprecemur ut qui suscepit ea in sancto et coelesti Altari suo mittat nobis proprerea gratiam et donuÌ„ Spiritus sancti Chrysostome before Consecration God is prayed unto and supplicated thus Wee beseech thee to send thy Spirit upon us and upon the Gifts set before us Even as f Ambros de Sacram lib 4. cap. 6. post Consecrationem Offerimus tibi hunc Papem sanctum et Calicem et perimus ut hanc OblationeÌ„ suscipias in sublimi Altari tuo per manus Angelorum sicut accipere dignatus es munera pueri tui Abel c. Ambrose explaineth his Supplication after Consecration for God To accept this Oblation namely that which hee called Holy Bread and Cup. If therefore these former Formes may interpret your Romane Liturgie as it was Ancient the prayer therein to God desiring him to be Propitious must have relation to the things above specified called Holy Bread of life and Cup of Salvation as distinguished from Priest and People Wherefore your Romane Missals being so Ancient in this one point in praying God after Consecration to be Propitious to that which is called the Bread of life eternall and Cup of everlasting salvation lest it might carry a Sacrilegious Sense to wit that the Body of Christ is here the proper Subject of the Eucharist and consequently to need a Propitiation to God by virtue of mens prayers thereby greatly derogating from the meritorious Satisfaction of Christ you ought to reduce this your Romane Canon to the Orthodox meaning of Ancient Liturgies above mentioned and to understand it Sacramentally onely namely our Objective Representation Commemoration and Application thereof by us which is our Act of Celebration To the former vast heape of Sacrilegious Positions and Practices wee may adde your other many vile and impious g Booke 5. thorowout Indignities offered to the all-glorious Sonne of God in making his sacred Body in your owne opinions obnoxious to the Imprisoning in Boxes Tearing with mens Teeth Devouring Vomiting it by the Communicants and the Transmittance into your guts yea and into the parts inferior together with the Eating and Feeding thereupon by Dogs Mice Wormes and which transcendeth if it may be all your other Absurdities to be deprived of all naturall power of Motion Sense and Vnderstanding O Abominable Abominable A Synopsis of the Idolatrousnesse of the Romish Masse and Defence thereof by many Evidences from Antiquity SECT V. OVr first Argument is against the foundation thereof which is your Interpretation of the Article HOC by denying it to have Relation to Bread contrary to the verdict of an Inquest of Ancient Fathers shewing that the same pointeth out Bread as you have a Booke 2. Cha. 1. Sect. 6. heard whereby the monstrous Conception of Transubstantiation is strangled in the very wombe Insomuch that sometimes they expressely * Ibid. interpret it thus Christs Body and Blood that is say they The Bread and Wine Item Hee gave the name of the Signe to the thing signified Item Bread the Signe of his Body And lastly Bread is called Christs Body because it signifieth his Body Secondly in the point of Transubstantiation it selfe They calling the Eucharist which you dare not b Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 5. 11. Sect. 14. in Chrysost and by Cyprian his Confutation of the Aquarii ibid. Sect. 5. Book 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 3. Bread and c Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 5. Wine after Consecration and naming them * Ibid. Sect. 13. Earthly materialls and Matter of Bread and also as you have heard out of the Ancient Liturgies d Above in this Booke Ch. 1. Sect. 4. Fruits of the Earth and yet more plainely by way of Periphrasis describing them to consist of e Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. Divers granes and Divers grapes After by approving the Suffrage and judgement of our f Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 8 9 c. Senses in discerning all Sensible things and in speciall the Eucharist it selfe and at length affirming that there remaineth therein the g Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 11. Substance of Bread and Wine which are the Subject matter of your Divine Adoration All which are other Three Demonstrations of their meanings every singular point being avouched by the Suffrages of Antiquity Thirdly against your Faith concerning the maner of Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because so farre were the Fathers from beleeving that the Body of Christ could be in h Booke 4. thorowout divers places as you say in Millions at one time that by this property of Being in many places at once they have discerned Angells to be Finite Spirits and not God They have distinguished the Godhead of Christ from his Manhood and they have proved the Holy Ghost to be God and no Creature by the same Reason Than which Three Arguments none can be more Convincent Whereunto you may adde the Fathers speeches contradicting your Dreame of a Body whole in every part in whatsoever space or place by judging it Impossible and also concluding Christ his Ascension into Heaven to argue his Absence from Earth all which have i Ibid. Chap. 7. Sect 6. and Booke 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beene discussed from point to point Our Fourth Generall Argument is that whereas your Corporall Presence must needs inferre Corporall Eating thereof by the Communicants notwithstanding you have heard the contrary Sentences of Ancient Fathers against k Booke 5. thorowout Tearing and Swallowing of Christ's Body and Bodily Egestion Next concerning the Eaters that onely the Godly faithfull are partakers thereof insomuch that even the Godly under the old Testament did eat the same Then of the Remainders of the Consecrated Hosts that they were l Booke 1. Cha. 2. Sect. 10. Earen by the ordinance of the Church by Schoole-boyes and sometimes Burnt in the fire Besides they called them m Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. and Booke 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. Bits and Fragments of Bread broken after Consecration and diminished And lastly in respect of the End of Eating n Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. They held the
the Antitype of Christ's Passion Cyril Ibid. OB. II. The Fathers call Bread the Body of Christ Cyprian and others Ergo they understood his Corporall Presence therein B. 2. c. 2. § 9. SOL. Nay for as Baptisme is called by the Apostle a Buriall So is the Sacrament of his Body called his Body Augustine And Baptisme the Sacrament of Adoption is called Adoption Facundus Ibid. BOOKE III. II. Kind of Objections for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist are found in this third Booke OB. I. THe Fathers say of the Eucharist that It is no Common Bread Irenaeus and Iustin Martyr c. B. 3. c. 4. § 3. SOL. Nor is Water in Baptisme Bare Water Cyril Ibid. OB. II. Wee must not judge hereof by sense for no sensible thing is herein given unto us Chrysostome B. 3. c. 4. § 5. Ergo. c. SOL. In Baptisme no sensible thing is delivered Chrysost Ibid. Nor are wee to consider Baptisme with the eyes of the Body Councell of Nice B. 3. c. 4. Sect. 8. OB. III. By Divine working is Bread made Christ's Body Ambrose Ergo It is present B. 3. c. 4. Sect. 7. SOL. Nay for by Baptisme is man made a new Creature Ambrose By which the Baptized is made the flesh of Christ P. Leo Ibid. OB. IV. Bread is changed into Christ's Body Greg. Nyssen B. 3. c. 4. Sect. 7. Ergo c. SOL. Not so for of the Eucharist so as of Baptisme It preserveth the propriety of its sensible Substance Ephraimius Booke 3. c. 3. Sect. 14. BOOKE IV. III. Kind of Romish Objections for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist are found in this Fourth Booke OB. I. CHrist is present in the Sacrament So Fathers Booke 4. Ergo c. SOL. Wee have Christ present in Baptisme Aug. B. 4. c. 1. Sect. 2. OB. II. Thinke not that the Priest but Christ reacheth it unto thee Chrysostome Ergo c. Booke 3. c. 4. Sect. 6. SOL. Even as it is said of Baptisme It is not the Minister but God that Baptizeth and holdeth the head of the person Baptized Chrysost B. 3. c. 4. Sect. 6. OB. III. Miracles have beene wrought by this divine Sacrament of the Eucharist Socrates Ergo c. B. 4. cap. 2. Sect. 5. SOL. Miracles have beene wrought at the Font. August Booke 4. cap. 2. Sect. 5. And The Divine Water of Baptisme produceth marveilous effects Greg. Nyssen Booke 3. cap. 3. Sect. 13. BOOKE V. IV. Kind of Romish Objections for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist are found in this Fifth Booke I. By Tovc◠OB. I. VVEe touch him and hee is held by the hand of the Priest Chrysost Ergo c. Booke 5. cap. 4. Sect. 2 SOL. As well is it said by him of parties Baptized that They hold the feete of our Saviour Chrysost Ibid. OB. II By the Eucharist Christ's Blood is sprinkled upon us when hee is received both with mouth and heart Pope Gregory Ergo c. B. 5. c. 5. § 6. in the Margin SOL. Accordingly of Baptisme Christ's Blood is sprinkled on the Foreheads of the Baptized Pope Gregory Ibid. II. BY EATING OB. I. Wee eate Christ's flesh in the Eucharist Divers Fathers Ergo c. B. 5. c. 5. Sect. 2. SOL. And Infants are partakers of his flesh by being Baptized August B. 5. c. 8. Sect. 1. OB. II. Our Tongues in receiving the Eucharist are made red with his Blood Chrysost Ergo c. Booke 5. cap. 5. Sect. 6. SOL And Baptisme is red with his Blood August Ibid. Sect. 6. III. By our manner of Vnion with Christ's body through this Sacrament OB. I. Wee have a naturall Vnion with Christ hereby and not onely in affection Cyril and Hilarie Ergo c. Booke 5. cap. 8. Sect. 2. SOL. So likewise Christians by Baptisme are made one with Christ not onely in affection but also in nature Hilarie Ibid. Wee are incorporate in Christ Aug. Ibid. Sect. 1. Made Bone of his Bone and flesh of his flesh Chrysost Ibid. OB. II. Wee are Christophers or Carriers of Christ hereby Cyril Ergo. B. 5. c. 8. Sect. 3. SOL. So also by Baptisme Wee put on Christ Pope Leo. B. 5. c. 5. § 6. IV. By the Effects which are ascribed to the Eucharist OB. I. The wicked eating are made guilty of the Lords Body and doe injury to Christ Cyprian Ergo. B. 5. c. 9. § 1. SOL. Hee that receiveth Baptisme unworthily is guilty of judgement August B. 5. c. 2. § 5. And when any Sacrament is violated the author thereof is violated Hierome Ibid. Sect. 6. OB. II. The Eucharist is our Viaticum in our way to Heaven Fathers in their Liturgies Ergo. B. 5. cap. 9. Sect. 1. SOL. And Baptisme is our Viaticum Basil and Nazianzen Ibid. OB. III. The Eucharist is a Token and Pledge unto us of our Resurrection Primasius and Gaudentius Ergo. Booke 5. cap. 4. Sect. ◠SOL. Well And Baptisme is an Earnest of our Resurrection to life Theod. Basil Ibid. OB. IV. By the Eucharist wee are nourished unto Immortalitie Cyril Ergo. B. 5. c. 8. Sect. 2. SOL. So likewise of Baptisme By it wee are made alive as being no more earthly Athanasius Ibid. BOOKE VI. V. Kind is in the point of Sacrifice whereof in this Sixt Book throughout OB. I. THe Fathers call the Eucharist a Sacrifice of Christ Chrysostome and others B. 6. throughout Ergo. SOL. And what of Baptisme It is the Sacrifice of Christ's Passion and every one offereth when hee is Baptized in the faith of Christ as others before us saith S. August have taught B. 6. c. 5. Sect. 13. OB. II. The Eucharist is an unbloody Sacrifice and a reasonable service of God The Fathers Ergo. B. 6. c. 5. Sect. 9. SOL. Baptisme is our reasonable worship of God Athanas B. 6. c. 5. Sect. 9. BOOKE VII VI. Kind of Romish Objections for proof of Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist arise from this their Pretense that the Fathers gave Divine Adoration unto it OB. I. THis Sacrament of the Eucharist is dreadfull whereunto men should come with feare Chrysost Ergo to be Adored with divine worship Booke 7. cap. 2. Sect. 2. SOL. So the Canons of Baptisme are terrible words Chrysost B. 6. c. 5. § 8. And Wee are to be brought with feare and horrour to Baptisme August Booke 7. cap. 2. Sect. 1. OB. II. Angels of God are present at the Eucharist Chrysost Ergo c. B. 7. c. 2. Sect. 2. SOL. And The Angels magnifie Baptisme by their presence Greg. Nazian Ibid. OB. III. The mysterie of the Eucharist is to be kept secret from Infidels and Catechumenists And Only fideles nôrunt August and Others Ergo c. Booke 7. cap. 3. Sect. 1. SOL. Let none but perfect Christians see the signes of Baptisme Dionys Areop and Only fideles nôrunt August Ibid. OB. IV. None eateth the flesh of Christ before hee adore August Ergo c.
the same your Oath made to damne others doth serve chiefly to make the Swearers themselves most damnable If peradventure any of you shall oppose saying that none of you within this Kingdome which never admitted of the Councel of Trent nor of the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth are yet bound to that Oath let him know that although this may excuse him from an Actuall Perjury yet can it not free him from the Habituall which is that hee is disposed in himselfe to take it whensoever it shall be offered unto him in any Kingdome that doth imbrace and professe the same Our last Advertisement followeth Of the Mixture of many old Heresies with the former Defence of the Romish Masse SECT V. THe more odious the Title of this Section may seëme to be the more studious ought you to shew your selves in examining the proofes thereof that so you may either confute or confesse them and accordingly re-assume or renounce your Romish Defence Heresie hath a double aspect One is when it is direct having the expresse termes of Heresie the Other is oblique and by consequence when the Defence doth inferre or imply necessarily the same Hereticall Sense even as it may be said of Treason For to say that Caesar is not King is a Treasonable speech Directly in a plaine Sense and to say that Tribute money is not due to Caesar is as Treasonable in the Consequence Thus much being premised wee are now to recognize such Errours wherin your Disputers may seeme to have accordance with old Heretikes which point wee shall pursue according to the order of the Bookes BOOKE I. Wherein your Church is found altering almost the whole forme of Christ his Institution and the Custome of the Catholike Church descended from the Apostles which Presumption Pope a Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 3. Iulius condemned in divers who sopped the Bread in the Chalice and squeezed Grapes in the Cup and so received them even as did the * Ibid Artotyritae in mingling Bread with Cheese censured for Heretickes by your Aquinas In which Comparison your Aberration from Christs example is so much greater than theirs as you are found Guilty in defending b Booke 1. thorowout 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 c Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 7. Greatly Sacrilegious notwithstanding your d Ibid. Church authorizeth the same Custome of forbidding the Administration of the Cup to fit Communicants 3. As c Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 10. you pretend Reverence for withdrawing the Cup so did the f Ibid. Sect. 10. Aquarij forbeare wine and used onely Water under a pretence of Sobriety 4. Sometime there may be a Reason to do a thing when as yet there is no right nor Authority for him that doth it Wee therefore exact of you an Authority for altering the Apostles Customes and Constitutions and are answered that g Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 4. your Church hath Authority over the Apostles Precepts Iump with them who being asked why they stood not unto the Apostles Traditions replyed that h Ibid. 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 i Booke 2. Cha. 3. thorowout literally and why you urge his other Saying Except you eate my flesh k Ibid. 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 Entrails because forsooth the words of Christ are l Booke 2. Cha. 3. Sect. 2. Doctrinall And have you not heard of one Nicodemus who hearing Christ teach that every man must be * Ioh. 3. Borne againe who shall be partaker of Gods Kingdome and that hee expounding them in a Literall Sense conceited a new Entrance into his Mothers wombe when as nothing wanted to turne that his Errour into an Heresie but onely Obstinacie But of the strong and strange Obstinacies of your Disputers you have received a full m See above in this Booke Chap. 2. Sect. 3. Synopsis BOOKE III. After followeth your Article of Transubstantiation I. Your direct profession is indeed to believe no Body of Christ but that which was Borne of the Virgin Mary But this your Article of Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ's Body generally held according to the proper nature of Transubstantiation to be by n Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. Production of Christs Body out of the Substance of Bread it necessarily inferreth a Body called and believed to be Christs which is not Borne of the Blessed Virgin as Saint Augustine hath plainly o Booke 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 1. 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 p Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 2 Body not Borne of the Virgin Mary Secondly You exclude all judgement of q Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 9. Senses in discerning Bread to be truly Bread as did the r Manichaei dicebant Christum non esse verum hominem sed phantasma quoddam Prâ—teol Elench Haeret. Manichees in discerning Christ's Body when hee was heere alive 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 Eucharist after Consecration in Confutation of the same Errour in the Marcionites 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 Eutychian Heretike and instantly coudemned by Å¿ Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 12. Theodoret and as fully abandoned by Pope t Ibid. Sect. 13. Gelasius BOOKE IV. Catholike 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 Eutychians and Eunomians all of them diversly oppugning the Integrity of Christ's Body sometime in direct termes and sometime by irrefragrable Consequences whether it were by gaine-saying the Finitenesse or Solidity or else the compleat Perfection thereof wherein how farre yee may challenge affinity or kindred with them be you pleased to examine by this which followeth I. The Heretikes who undermined the property of Christ's Bodily Finitenesse said that it was in divers places at once as is u Book 4. Chap. 4. Sect. â— Chap. â— Sect. 3. Chap. 6. Sect. 1. confessed even as your Church doth now attribute unto the same Body of Christ both in Heaven and in Earth
shewed in the Third Booke III. Vpon the same Sacramentall and Analogicall reason they have used to say that wee See Touch Tast and Eat Christs Body albeit Improperly as hath beene plentifully declared and confessed in this Fift Booke IV. Because Eating produceth a Nourishing and Augmentation of the Body of the Eater by the thing Eaten they have attributed like Phrases of our Bodily Nourishment and Augmentation by Christs Body which you your selves have confessed to be most Improperly spoken in the same Booke V. Almost all the former Vnions Corporall of our Bodies with Christ have beene ascribed by the same Fathers unto the Sacrament of Baptisme wherein there cannot Properly be any Corporall Touch or Conjunction at all As for example in saying I. That Wee in Baptisme hold the feet of Christ II. Are Sprinkled with his Blood III. Do Eat his flesh have Vnion with him in Nature and not onely on Affection IV. Being made Bone of his Bone and Flesh of his Flesh V. Thereby have a Pledge of our Resurrection to Life And a Pledge as you have now heard is of that which is Absent Each one of these and many other the like are abundantly alleged in the Eighth Booke of this Treatise of the Masse The summe of all these Premises is that wee are to acknowledge in the Objected Testimonies of Fathers concerning the Symbol and Sacrament of Christs Body their Symbolicall and Sacramentall that is Figurative Meanings And lest you may Doubt of the reason hereof we adjoyne the Section following The Divine Contemplations which the Holy Fathers had in uttering their Phrases of our Naturall and Corporall Conjunction with Christs Body and Nourishment thereby to Immortality for the Elevating of our minds to a Spirituall apprehension of his Body and Blood SECT V. YOur Jesuites Bellarmine Tolet Suarez and Vasquez have already instructed you not to take such Sayings of the Fathers as they are uttered lest the Fathers might be held to be Absurd in themselves or Derogatory to the Dignity and Majesty of this Sacrament And they say well But it had beene better if they had furthermore unfolded unto us the Fathers true Mysticall meaning therein which wee must endeavour to do out of the premised Sentences of the same Fathers to the end that you and wee may make an holy and comfortable use of their Divine meditations upon this Sacrament They have sayd I. That Christ hath a Naturall Vnion by his Godhead with God the Father II. That this Godhead of Christ by his Incarnation is united Hypostatically into our Nature of Manhood in him whereby wee have with Christ our Naturall and Corporall Conjunction III. That by the same Hypostaticall Vnion of his Divine and Humane Nature together his Bodily Flesh is become the Flesh of God his Blood the Blood of God IV. That these being the Flesh and Blood of God are become thereby to be Vivificall that is giving Life Blisse and Immortality both to the Bodies and Soules of the Faithfull in Christ V. That the Faithfull by Reason of the Specificall Vnion of their Humane nature with the Humane Nature of Christ are made partakers the reby of his Divine Nature and of all the Infinite Vivification and power of grace in this world and of Glory and Immortality in the world to come wrought by his Death and Passion VI. Both by Baptisme and by the Eucharist wee have a Naturall and Corporall Vnion with the Body of Christ mystically in as much as the Sacrament of Bread and Wine the Choycest Refections of mans Bodily Life are Touched Tasted Eaten and Sensually mixed with our Flesh to the nourishing and augmenting the same untill it become of the Essence of our Bodily Substance unseparably Therfore hath this Sacrament most aptly beene called a Pledge of an unspeakable Vnion of Christs Body with ours unto Immortality and an Earnest of our Resurrection Lastly from this Sacrament there resulteth a Spirituall Vnion continuing in the Faithfull after the Receiving of this Sacrament even all their life long and notwithstanding called by the same Fathers Corporall and Naturall that is as they interpret themselves from the Nature of Faith by believing that Christ had truly a Naturall and Bodily flesh the same Specifically with ours Which Vnion your Jesuites have beene enforced to acknowledge to be in it selfe not Properly a Corporall and Naturall Vnion but Spirituall and Mysticall wrought onely in the Soule But how This indeed is worthy our knowledge as a matter full of Christian Comfort Thus then The Disposition of the Body in Christian Philosophy followeth the Disposition of the Soule For when the Soules of the Faithfull departing this life in the state of Grace and the Soules likewise of the Vngodly passing but from hence into the thraldome of Sin shall resume their owne Bodies by virtue of that Resumption shall be made possessors of Life and Blisse both in Body and Soule and the Wicked contrarily of Curse and Damnation in both according to that Generall Doome Come you Blessed unto the one c. and Goe you Cursed to the other c. Nor will your learned Suarez deny this 22 Suarez in 3. Tho. qu 79. Disp 64. §. 2. Gloria corporis respondet gloriae animae sicut beatitudo animae respondet gratiae charitati ut sicut hoc Sacramentum neque habet nequè haberé potest aliam efficaciam circa gloriam animae praeter eam quam habet circa gratiam charitatem itaque neque aliter pâ—â—est efficere gloriam corporis quam gloriam animae CoÌ„dudit Hoc Sacramentum non aliam conferre vitam immortalitatem corporis quam nutriendo conservando charitatem gratiam The Glory of the Body saith hee dependeth upon the Glory of the Soule and the Happinesse of the Soule dependeth upon Grace therein neither doth the Sacrament any otherwise conferre Immortality to the Body but by nourishing and preserving grace in the Soule Which is Divinely spoken And yet wee have a more Ancient than your Jesuite even Cyprian one of the Ancientest of the Primitive Fathers whose words may serve us for a Comment upon the former objected Sayings of other Fathers Hee in his Discourse of the Supper of the Lord the Blessed Sacrament of our Vnion which the Faithfull Communicants have in receiving it 23 Cyprian de Câ—na Dom. Potus Esus ad eandem pertinent rationem quibus sicut corporea nutritur substantia vivit â—â—colum 〈◊〉 perseâ—erat ita vita spiritus hoc propâ—io alimento nutritur quod est esâ—a 〈◊〉 hoc animae est fides quod cibus corporiâ— est verbum spiritui excellentiori virtute peragens aeternaliter quod agant alimenta carnalia temporaliter As by meat and drinke saith hee the Substance of our Bodies is nourished and liveth in health so the life of the Spirit is nourished with this Aliment For what Meat is to the Flesh that is Faith to the Soule and what Food is to the Body that
lambunt carnem devorant Euchitae Gnostici olim hoc factitârunt ea etiam ab Ethnicis in Catholicos derivata calumnia est ut Apologiarum pro Christianis meminerunt Scriptores Baronius and 9 Lorinus men of chiefest note in your Church witnessing concerning that lowd and lewd Slander cast upon Catholike Christians by both Iewes and Gentiles that it was occasioned by Hereticall and Fanaticall Christians in the Primitive Age of the Church such as were the Montanists the Cataphryges and Gnosticks who did indeed and Really eate Humane flesh So they But most especially is this Romish Figment confuted by the Storie it selfe which by the Relation of the foresaid Fathers Confessions of the former Romanists and Tenor of the Histories themselves was The Eating of a Child or Infant which maketh the falshood of your Objections to seeme in a maner palpable unto us because Christ being crucified by both Jewes and Gentiles when hee was above thirty yeares of Age and the whole Church of Christ professing as much it was not possible that the Eating of an Infant onely should produce an opinion of Eating a Man of growth much lesse could it be credible that they imputed the Eating thereof in the Eucharist if as your French 10 Gabriel Episcop Albispin lib. 1. Observat 18 Eucharistia non nisi mane sumebatur Teâ—t ad uxor Non sciet Maritus quid secreto ante cibum gustes Agapae non nisi vespere Item quae de Convivio quod Gentiles infamabant habent Patres cum ea omnia de Agapis non de Euchatistia accipienda sunt ut in Apologet. Tertâ—l cap. 7. 8. 9. in fine quod non animadvertentes plerique perperam de Eucharistia explicarunt Similiter apud Minutium de inhumanis cibus de infante farte contecto quod coeunt solenni die quae hisce objectionibus respondet Minutius de Agapis intelligere necesse est eo apud Euseb Imper. Iustin Gretzerus Ies de cruce lib. 1. cap. 51. Ethnici aliqui mentiebantur Christianos A sinum pro Deo colete Bishop teacheth This their Eating the flesh of a Child was not practised in the Feast of the Lord's Supper but at their Love-Feasts called Agapae So hee And consequently so sandie and boggie is this foundation of your maine Objection for proofe of the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist The Second Romish Argument out of Justine termed Insoluble before all others is because when hee called the Eating of the Eucharist the Eating of the Body of Christ hee wrot to an Heathen Emperour SECT III. IVstine writeth an Apologie unto Antoninus Pius an Heathen Emperour at what time the Slander of Eating Humane flesh fell upon the Orthodoxe Christians Originally from the impious Practice of Hereticall Christians as you have heard and now are you to heare the Insoluble Argument forsooth which your Cardinall Bellarmine extracteth from thence 11 Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4. Insolubiâ—e manet hoc Dilemma Aut poterat Iustinus vere dicere carnem Christi a Christianis solum in signo manducari aut non poterat si poterat Pâ—aevaricator fuit causae Christianae Nam odiosissimam reddidit fidem auxit criminum supicionem cum posset unto verbo fidem probabilem facere crimen diluere Si non poterat certè id eo non poterat quia verè non in signo tantum datur nobis comedenda Christi caro This Dilemma saith hee remaineth Insoluble Either could Iustine truly have sayd that the flesh of Christ is Eaten of Christians onely in a Signe or hee could not have so sayd If hee could then did hee play the Praevaricator in betraying the Christian cause by making the Christian Profession most odious to the increasing of the suspicion when as in one word hee might have made it probable and so have blotted out the Infamy conceived against Christians And if hee could not say that Christ is Eaten in the Eucharist onely as in a Signe doubtlesse the reason why hee could not must have beene because the flesh of Christ is not given to be Eaten therein as in a Signe onely So he Ostentatively of his owne Argument insigned by himselfe Insoluble as you see Notwithstanding this may admit divers and sundry Solutions That the Hornes of your Cardinals Dilemma are easily blunted by a Three-fold Solution The Firs is by shewing the Cause to be Impertinent SECT IV. IVstine 12 Iustin Apolog 2. Refert praescriptum Antonini Imperatoris ad populos A siae Sententiam corum Christianorum veâ—uti impiorum nullorum Deorum sugillatis et alia quaedam obiâ—citis crimina quae non potestis probate shewed to the same Emperour that no Impiety at all upon any Inquisition formerly made could be layd to the charge of Orthodoxe Christians in this Case by good proofes First Iustine propoundeth the Letters of the Emperour Adrian Father to Antoninus who upon experience of the extreme malice of his Heathen people against Christians required that his Officers should not prosecute against any Christian without proofe of some Impiety As also the Epistle of Marcus Emperour before his Father who became both a Patron to justifie the Case of Christians in respect of such Crimes objected against them and a Protector of their Persons commanding that whosoever should accuse a Christian 13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Onely for being a Christian that is for his Profession sake onely should be burnt Quicke And should not the Sacrifising of Infants if any such had beene practised by the Christians have beene held Capitall Crimes with those Emperours trow yee Besides this Iustine allegeth unto this Emperour Antoninus himselfe his owne Epistle whereby he testifyed in the Behalfe of Christians 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that None of those Crimes and Impieties whereof they were accused could be proved against them which proveth that notwithstanding all the Inquisition that Malice it selfe could make into the Mysteries of Christians concerning the Eucharist either in Word or in Act was not held offensive unto those Emperors upon any Information made by their Adversaries against them The Second Solution to prove their Dilemma Insufficient SECT V. OVr next Reason of the Insufficiencie meeteth with the Cardinalls Reason enforced by the First Horne of his Dilemma thus * See above Sect. 3. If Iustine saith hee could have sayd that Christs flesh is eaten in the Eucharist onely in a Signe then did hee praevaricate in the Case of Christians and make their faith most odious in increasing the Suspicion of the Crime objected against them Wee Answer that although hee might have sayd that Christs flesh is eaten Bodily onely in a Signe yet was not this necessary for the freeing of the Christian Faith from that Suspicion of Eating a Child One Reason may be Because nothing was more familiar even unto the Heathen themselves than to use the like language in calling their Sacramentall and Mysticall Signes by the
â—um non pâ—enitentiâ placatum iâ—i Idem docet Iraeneus lib. 4. c. 33. In Hos 6. num 24. Ribera confirmeth both by the Constitutions of Pope Clement and also by this Testimony of Irenaeus A Truth so evident to your Divines of Collen that they presume h Antididag Colon. Tract de Sacrif Missae §. De Consecratione Quis ignorat vetera Patrum Sacrificia quae Christum sigurabant vel ob id quod Deus ea praecepisset per se munda fuisse Nihilominus tamen frequentius immunda vocantur in Scripturis non ratione sui sed propter malam voluntatem offerentium None to be ignorant that the Sacrifices of the old Testament were all cleane and pure because God hath ordained them and they became impure by the wicked hearts of the Offerers And Tertullian giveth the same Observation for the Reason why God in rejecting them said i Tetull li. 3. advers Maâ—cion Sacrificia rejecta quià non secundùm Dei religionem celebranda sua jam non Dei secerant pag. 160. And Sacrifica spiritualia accepta which he nameth above Cor contribulatum laudem c. Lib. adversus Iudaeos I will no more of your Sacrifice and not of my Sacrifice But you will say Some of the Fathers spake directly of the Proper Sacrifice of the new Testament Wee answer that as they apply it to the Eucharist they meant no proper Sacrifice as the Subject but onely as the Object therein which was that of the Crosse In which respect k Chrysost objected in Psal 95. Ex hostia prima mensa mystica coeleste Sacrificium summéque venerandum Est auteÌ„ in nobis varia differentia Lex multas habet Hostias Gratia nova unam Vis scire Victimas quas Ecclesia habet quando fit Sacrificium mundum immaculatum audi Scripturam Tibi palà m exponentem hanc differentiam Et Sacrificium quod antea dixi spirituale illud mysticum donum in quo Apostolus Ephes 5. Christus tradidit se ipsum pro Nobis Deo Sacrificium Chrysostome objected calleth it that Sacrifice whereof Saint Paul writeth saying Christ gave himselfe up a Sacrifice for his Church Ephes 5. Lastly Cyprian objected calleth it the l Cypr. object ex â—ib 1. cont Iudaeos cap. 16. Novum Sacrificium Sacrificium Laudis New Sacrifice of Praise which is you know a Spirituall and no Corporall or Proper Sacrifice The second Propheticall Text as is pretended is Psal 72. 16. concerning a Handfull of Corne in the Top of the Mountaines objected to prove a Sacrifice in the Romish Masse but yet as very Romishly as were the rest SECT IV. OF this Corne your a Psal 7â— juxta Heb. Et erit pugillus frumenti in summitatibus montium vulg Lat Et erit fitmamentuÌ„ in terra in summis Montium Galatinus de Arcaniâ— Cath. Veritatis li. 10. cap. 5. Hoc est dicit Chaldae a Translatio Rabbi Ionathae Et erit sacrificium panis in summis montium Cum ergo ait Erit placenta frumenti in terra in capite montium vult dicere quod placenta panis â—â—et Sacrificium in capitibus Sacerdotum qui sunt Ecclesia Haec ibi Nec mirum de sapientibus an iquis Judaeorum Messiam placentam frumentï frustum panis futurum dixisse The same hath Cocciuâ— Thesaur Cath. lib. 6. Art 4. pag. 679. He addeth other Authors to wit P. Galatinus Claud. Sanctesius Genebrard in hunc Psal Coccius ibid Art 16. pa. 763. Disputers Coccius Duraeus Sanctesius Genebrard out of Galatinus and Hee out of the Chaldee Translation and other his supposed Iewish Rabbins have observed a Cake on the top of the Mountaines But what of this This Cake forsooth was by their Doctrine a Propheticall prediction of the Romish Wafer-Cake which is heaved up over the head of the Priest for a Sacrifice And this is called by Master Brerely b Master Brerely in his Protestants Apol. noting Duraeus the Iesuit to have urged the same out of Galatinus A most strong Argument in behalfe of the said Doctrine âšœ Yea and your Jesuite 1 Suarez in 3. Thom. Disp 74. § 2. Adduci solent verba illa Psalmi 71 ut in Hebr. erit Placenta qui Psalmus fine dubio de Messia scriptus est Suarez seemeth to like this Cake for hee also will needs have a licke at it âšœ But wee must tell you that your Galatinus is too credulous and that his Rabbinicall Abstracts are no better than the Gibeonites old torne Shooes and mouldy Bread seeming to have come from farre even from old Rabbins when as they were invented and brought from their latter Rabbins and Glozers as it were from the next bordering Countries because your Author Galatinus who produceth the foresaid Rabbinish prediction of that Cake is branded for such like his Conceipts with the marke of a Vaine man by your judicious c Senensis Biblioth lib. 2. §. Traditiones Non possum satis mirari studium Petri Galatini qui in eam Vanitatem devenit ut doceret opera Thalmudica in Latinum verâ—i opoâ—â—â—re publicâ— in Scholis Christianorum explicaâ—i Senensis And the Chaldee Paraphrase which talketh of your Sacrificed Cake is rejected as being a Corrupt Puddle of Iewish Fables and fabulous in this very Point by your great Romane Dictator d Bellar. in Psal 71. ver 16. Scio quod Paulus Burgensis ex Paraphrasi Chaldaica adferat ad probandum hoc in loco Sacrificium Missae sed scio etiam quaÌ„ multis fabulis Iudaicis Pharaphrasis illa scateat ideò piget ex lacunis ExpositionuÌ„ Iudaicarum haurire c. Bellarmine Which wee speake not as being offended to heare any Rabbi calling that which is in the hand of your Priest and above his head A Cake which in your Romish Phrase is called a Wafer-Cake for if it be indeed and truly a Cake then is not it Accidents onely but hath still in it the Substance of Bread And so farewell your Helena of Trent called Transubstantiation Now because the Sacrifice can be no better than the matter thereof will permit it it followeth that the Sacrifice is not Properly the Body of Christ but the Element of Bread And thus your Authors after their laborious kneading and moulding their greedy longing and their sweetly chewing hereof are at length in a maner choaked with their owne Cake CHALLENGE âšœ By way of Vindication of the truth of our Allegation of the words of Master Brerely against a late slanderous Romish Traducer SECT V. A Bold Romanist of late as it seemeth not well disgesting this Cake hath in his dispersed * As I received it from a Right Honourable Person the Lord Câ—â— Papers divulged me in this maner MY Lord of Durham saith of the former Reason that it is called of Master Brerely a Most strong Argument but is most untruly said as will appeare to any one that reades the Protestants Apology Pag.
156. So hee Flatly and sharply as you see charging mee with a palpable untruth and for Tryall referring himselfe to the Booke it selfe and I Subscribe saying Sit Liber Iudex The Booke is Master Brerely his Apology in his Treatise 1. Sect. 4. Subd 12. Pag. as the Romish Seducer himselfe hath truly quoted it 156. where Master Brereley his words for I hope they are not flowne out of the Booke since are expressely these This therefore so plaine foresaid Prediction made by the ancient Rabbins before Christs time in behalfe of Catholike Doctrine concerning Reall presence demonstrating it selfe so evidently to have proceeded not from any Secondary cause but onely from a Divine instinct yeeldeth hereby a MOST STRONG ARGVMENT in behalfe of the said Doctrines So hee Therefore do not I know what to impute unto this Romanist because of his denyall of these words A most strong Argument rather than the spirit of a Strong Delusion issuing from the worst kinde of malice whereof the Adage speaketh Veritas Odium parit Yet shall this piece of Falshood be accounted scarce a Venial Sin among you being spoken to the disgrace of a Protestant and in Defence of a Romish Priest The best is that the Seducer seemeth to be ashamed of the Absurdity of this your Rabbinish Objection which hee was so loath to acknowledge A Second Vindication against another Sinister Romish Detraction shewing that the other Scriptures which are said to be Propheticall are not Iudicially objected by your Cardinall SECT VI. YOur Cardinall hath 2 Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 9. In 1. Reg. cap. 2. Sacrificium successurum Aäronico interpretatur Sacerdotio Sacrificio Christianorum Prov. 9. Sapientia posuit hostias miscuit Vinum De Sacrificio Domini Isaiae 19. Aegyptij colent Deum in hostijs id est Gentiles vero Deo Sacrificia offerent Isaiae 66. Assumam ex eis Sacerdotes Levitas de Sacerdotibus Christianis Iere. 33. De Sacerdotibus Levitis Dan. 8. 12. Vbi Antichristus tollet juge Sacrificium de Antiocho ut gerebat figuram Antichristi qui Apoc. 13. Kemnitius respond Intelligi posse de Sacrificio Spirituall praedicatione verbi administratione Sacramentorum Sed ista omnia vanissima sunt Scriptura nusquà m appellat Sacrificium absolutè praesertim in numero singulari quod non est propriè dictum Sacrificium Quarè Daniel cum vocat Iuge Sacrificium loquitur de vero propriè dicto Sacrificio collected divers Texts of the Old Testament which the Fathers apply to the Eucharist under the name of Sacrifice thereby concluding that they judged the Encharist to be a Proper Sacrifice These places have beene thought to an importunate Romanist worthy the Answering which I purposely passed by as superfluous and such as were effectually enough satisfied in the Confutation of your other Objections made out of the Figure and Type of Melchisedeth and Prophecie of Malachy Now our Taske must be to shew the Injudiciousnesse of your Cardinall in urging such Testimonies of the Fathers as if they were necessarily Concludent for a Proper Sacrifice who considered not that most of such like Applications used by the Fathers as Proper Interpretations were no other than Allegoricall Allusions and Assimulations Wherein wee durst Appeale to your Cardinall himselfe who if hee had thought these kinds of Applications to be Argumentative might have made five moe Chapters of the like Allusions This our Answer may be exemplified and illustrated by the like liberty and liberality of Speech used by the same Fathers in their Witty and Elegant Allusions to Baptisme whereof your owne Lauretus 3 Hieron Lauretus Sylva Allegoriarum Tit. Aqua Citeth ten Fathers Aquae Marah quae per Lignum factae sunt dulces Exod. 15. Baptismus Aquae usque talos Ezek. 47. Baptismus mundans 〈◊〉 Aqua in pelvi Iud. 6. Baptismi gratia Aqua contradictionis Psalm 80. Est Baptismus ijs qui fictè accedunt Aqua in quam missi sunt pulveres vituli Exod. 32. Est Baptismus ubi omne peccatum conteritur Potest etiam Aqua significare Baptismum Spiritualia dona gratiae And he citeth above 40. Texts in the old Testament giveth you divers Instances from the testimonies of Ten Fathers applying the Water of Marah Exod. 15. The Water which tooke men up to the Anckles Ezek. 24. The Water in a Bason Iud. 6. The Waters of Contradiction Psalm 80. The Waters wherin the dust of the Golden Calfe was throwne Exod. 32. Each one of which Waters they apply unto Baptisme And being not contented with these hee referreth you unto above Forty places moe of the Old Testament which may have the like Relation to Baptisme none whereof can be properly called a Literall Explication but onely an Allegoricall Application of Scriptures The Second Argument of his Injudiciousnesse is discernable in this that all that is alleged proveth no more than that which Protestants confesse to wit that the Eucharist may be called a Sacrifice either Eucharisticall or Latreuticall in a Spirituall Sense as the Fathers do after expound themselves Thirdly to come to that wherein your Cardinall is most peremptory saying that the Iuge Sacrificium that is Continuall Sacrifice prophecied of should be taken away by Antichrist cannot meane any Spirituall and improper Sacrifice but the Reall and Proper Sacrifice of the Masse But wee say that the Fathers understood it of the proper Spirituall worship of Christians Now whom would you wish to be Moderator betweene us Wee guesse some Romish Doctor should be the man and above all some one out of the Schoole of the Iesuites and of these such an one must be most fit who is knowne to be of a more moderate Temper than the most of them Behold the man even your Iesuite 4 Pererius Ies in Dan. 12. Anti-Christus tollet Iuge Sacrificium vel ut est Graecè Endelechismum quod vocabulum sonat Continuitatem nimirum Divini cultus qui in Ecclesia Dei omni tempore exhibetur sic enim interpretatur Hieronymus Theodoretus Et hunc Dei continuum cultuÌ„ appellavit Angelus Iuge Sacrificium QVANQVAM id nominis praecipuè refersi potest ad sanctissimum Missae Sacrificium hoc râ—tè nominatur Sacrificium juge Nam non uno duntaxat in loco nec bis tantum per singulos dies manè vesperi ut illud Iudaicum sed in omni loco omni tempore Deo offertur Idem Lib. 9 in Dan. Cap. 8. Gregorius tricesimo Moralium Cap. 12. Omnia verba de Antiocho explicamus de Anti-Christo Iuge Sacrificium tollit quià studium sanctae conversationis Ecclesiae in eis quos caeperit interrumpit Pererius who coming to explaine this Iuge Sacrificium out of the Fathers granteth that indeed these Fathers Hierome and Theodoret understood thereby the Divine worship of Christians in generall And that Pope Gregory expoundeth it of the Christian Conversation of Life which shall be interrupted by
you will a transformed Devill yet the seed being Gods it may be fruitfull whatsoever the Seed-man be if the ground that receiveth it be capable Therefore here might wee take occasion to compare the Ordination Romish and English and to shew ours so farre as it consenteth with yours to be the same and wherein it differeth to be farre more justifiable than yours can be if it were lawfull upon so long travelling to transgresse by wandring into by-pathes Our last Securitie from the Romish Perplexity of Habituall Condition SECT VII HAbituall or virtuall Condition as it is conceived by your Professors standeth thus I adore this which is in the hands of the Priest as Christ if it be Christ being otherwise not â—illing so to do if it be not Christ What my Masters Iffs and And 's in divine worship These can be no better in your Church than leakes in a ship threatning a certaine perishing if they be not stopped which hitherto none of your best Artificers were ever able to do For as touching your profane Lecturer c Suarez Ies Simpliciter adorandus est Christus in Eucharistia aliud exigere ex iis esset superstitiosum vanis scrupulis superstitionibus exposituÌ„ neque enim est consentaneum ibi trepidare ubi non est vel probabilis ratio timendi sed potiùs periculum nè dubitatione devotio animi minuatur Tom. 3. qu. 79. Art 8. Disp 65. Sect. 2. Suarez labouring to perswade you to Adore Christ in the Eucharist simply without all scrupulizing saying It is not fit to feare where no feare is When as hee himselfe as you have heard hath told us that there are possibly incident * See above Chap. 5. Sect. 6. at a Almost Infinite Defects and consequently as many Causes of doubting which may disannull the âšœ whole Act of Consecration âšœ Every Morall Certaintie as your other i Lessius Ies Opusc Tract de Praescien condit cap. 21. §. Sed contra Moralis certitudo non est absoluta sed secundùm quid qualis nimiùm per conjecturas possit haberi ex signis cum quibus non necessariò conjungitur veritas rei signatae Iesuit and you all confesse being but conjecturall âšœ Therefore there needeth none other Confutation than this of his owne shamelesse Contradiction which as you may see is palpably grosse So impossible it is for any of you to allay the detestable stench of plaine Idolatry Certainely if S. Augustine had heard that a Worship of Latria which hee every-where teacheth to be proper to God were performed to Bread and Wine as the matter of Divine Adoration hee neither would nor could have said in defence thereof as hee did of the Celebration of the Eucharist in his owne time viz. d Aug. contr Faust Manich. lib. 20 cap. 21. Nos à Cerere Libero Paganorum Diis longè absumus Wee are farre from your Paganish worshipping of Ceres and Bacchus But as for us Protestants wee professe no Divine worship of God but with a Divine that is an Infallible Faith that * ⎠* it is God whom wee worship who will not be worshipped but in spirit and truth What furthermore wee have to say against your Romish Masse will be discovered in the Booke following THE EIGHTH BOOKE Of the Additionalls by a Summary Discovery of the manifold Abominations of the Romish Masse and of the Iniquities of the Defenders thereof THese may be distinguished into Principals which are Three the Romish Superstitiousnesse Sacrilegiousnesse and Idolatrousnesse of your Masse and Accessories which are These Obstinacies manifold Overtures of Perjuries Mixture of many ancient Heresies in the Defenders thereof CHAP. I. Of the peremptory Superstitiousnesse of the Romish Masse in a Synopsis SECT I. MAny words shall not need for this first point Superstition is described by the Apostle in this one word * Coloss 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Mans will-worship as it is opposite to the worship revealed by the will of God What the will of Christ is concerning the Celebration of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood wee have learned by his last Will and Testament expresly charging his Church and saying Do THIS pointing out thereby such proper Acts which concerned either the Administring or the Participating of the same holy Sacrament But now cometh in Mans will-worship ordained in the Church of Rome as flatly contradictory to the same Command of Christ by Ten notorious Transgressions as if it had beene in direct Termes countermanded thus Do not This as hath been * Booke 1. thorowout proved notwithstanding the former direct Injunction of Christ or conformable Observation of the holy Apostles or Consent and Custome of the Church Catholike and that without respect had to the due Honour of God in his worship or Comfort and Edification of his People And then is Superstition most bewitching when it is disguized under the feigned vizard of false Pretences which have bin many devised by the new Church of Rome in an opinion of her own wisdome to the befooling vilifying of the Ancient Catholike Church of Christ which never esteemed the same Reasons reasonaable enough for making any Alteration but notwithstanding such imaginations precisely observed the Precept and Ordinance of Christ But that which excedeth all height of Superstition is when upon the will-worship of man are stamped counterfeit Seales of forged Miracles as if they had beene authorized by the immediate hand of God whereof your Legendaries have obtruded upon their Readers * Booke 4. Ca. 2 〈◊〉 Thirteene Examples to wit of Fictitious Apparitions of visible Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist which maketh your Superstition Blasphemous as if God should be brought in for the justifying of Falshood a Sin abhorred by holy Iob saying to his Adversaries * Iob 13. 4 7 You are Forgers of Lies will you speake deceitfully for God And furthermore how Sacrilegious and Idolatrous your Romish Superstition is you may behold in the Sections following Of the Sacrilegiousnesse of the Romish Masse and Defence thereof in the point of Sacrifice comprized in this Synopsis SECT II. SAcrilege is whatsoever Violation of any sacred Person Place or Thing Now omitting to speake of your Dismembring the Eucharist by administring it but in One kinde which your Pope a Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 7. in the Challenge Gelasius condemned for a Grand Sacrilege or of the like points formerly discovered in the first Booke wee shall insist onely in your Churches Doctrine of Sacrifice wherein your Sacrifice is found to be grossely Sacrilegious in the Tractate of the Sixth Booke I. By Creating a new Sacrifice as Proper and thereby assuming to her selfe that b Booke â— Cha. â— Sect. â— Excellencie of Prerogative which is proper to Christ alone the High Priest and Bishop of our Soules namely the power of ordaining Sacraments or if need were Sacrifices in his Church Which Guiltinesse wee may call a
Counterfeiting of the Seale of Christ II. By making this Sacrifice in her pretence Christian but indeed c Booke 6. Cha. 5. Sect. 1. Earthly and Iewish III. By dignifying it with a Divine property of d Ibid. Chap. 10. Meritorious and Satisfactorie Propitiation IV. By professing another properly Satisfactory and c Ibid. and after c. Propitiatory Sacrifice for Remission of Sins besides that which Christ offered upon the Crosse As if after one hath paid the Debts of many at once upon condition that such of those Debters should be discharged whosoever submissively acknowledging those Debts to be due should also professe the favour of their Redeemer It cannot but be extreme folly for any to thinke that the money once paid should be tendred and offered againe as often as One or Other of the Debters should make such an acknowledgment the Surety having once sufficiently satisfied for all So Christ having once for all satisfied the justice of God by the price of his Blood in the behalfe of all penitent Sinners who in Contrition of heart and a living Faith apprehend the Truth of that his Redemption it cannot but be both injurious to the justice of God and to the merit of Christ that the same satisfactory Sacrifice as it were a new payment ought againe by way of Satisfaction be personally performed and tendred unto God V. By detracting from the absolute Function of Christ his f B. â—â— Chap. 3. Sect. 7. Priesthood now eminent and permanent before God in Heaven and thereupon stupifying the mindes of Communicants and as it were pinioning their thoughts by teaching them so to gaze and meditate on the matter in the hands of the Priest that they cannot as becometh Spirituall Eagles soare aloft and contemplate upon the Body of Christ where it 's infallible Residence is in that his heavenly Kingdome VI. By transforming as much as they can the Sacrament ordained for Christians to eat with their owne mouthes into a g Ibid. Theatricall Sacrifice wherein to be fed with the mouth of the Priest VII By abasing the true value of Christ his Blood infinitely exceeding all valuation in making it but h Ibid. Chap. 10. Sect. 4. finite whereas Christ being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and Man in one person every propitiatory worke of his must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore of a infinite price and power VIII By denying the Effect of his * Ibid. Chap. 11. Propitiation for sinne to be plenary in the Application thereof IX There hath beene noted by the way the Portion appropriated to the Priest out of your Sacrifice and to be applyed to some particular Soule for money being an Invention as hath beene confessed void of all i Ibid. Chap. 11. Sect. 4. Warrant either by Scripture or by Ancient Tradition To say nothing of your fine Art of cheating mens Soules by Priestly Fraud whereof as also of the Rest wee have discoursed at k Booke 6. thorowout large A New Instance for proofe of Romish Sacrilegiousnesse in the Prayer set downe in the Liturgie of their Masse SECT III. IN your Missall after Consecration it is prayed thus a Missal Rom. Offerimus Majestati tuae Domine immaculatam Hostiam sanctum panem vitae aeternae Calicem salutis perpetuae supra quae propitio vultu respicere digneris sicut dignatus es munera justi pueri tui Abel And in the next place Iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli in sublime Altare tuum coeleste Wee offer unto thy Majestie O Lord this immaculate Host this holy Bread of eternall life this Cup of everlasting salvation upon which vouchsafe to looke with a propitious and favourable Countenance as thou didst accept the gifts of thy holy servant Abel and command these to be carried up into thy celestiall Altar c. So the Canon of your Masse Some Protestants in their zeale to the glory of Christ impute unto you hereupon a Sacrilegious Profanenesse whilest you beleeving That Host and That Cup to be the very Body and Blood of Christ and a Propitiatory Sacrifice in it selfe yet do so pray God to be propitious unto it and to accept it as hee did the Sacrifice of Abel yeelding thereby no more estimation to Christ than to a vile sheepe which was offered by Abel At the hearing of this your Cardinall See the b Bellarm. lib. 2. de Missa cap. 24. Facilis est responsio Non petimus pro Christi reconciliatione apud Patrem sed pro nostra infirmitate etsi enim oblatio consecrata ex parte rei quae offertur ex parte Christi principalis offerentis semper Deo placebat tamen ex parte Ministri populi astantis qui simul etiam offerunt fieri potest ut non place at Paulò post Comparatio non est inter Sacrificium nostrum Sacrificium Abelis sed tantùm ratione fidei devotionis offerentium ut nimirùm tantâ fide offerant quantâ Abel quod Sacrificium Abelis non haberet in se quod Deo placere eumque placare possit quaâ—e dicitur Heb. 11. per fidem obtulit Abel Deo Sacrificium melius Ratio Gen 4. Respexit Deus ad Abel Sacrificium post §. Porrò Deferii Sacrificium per manus Angeli nihil aliud est quà m intercessione Angeli commendari Deo nostrum obsequium cultum So also Suarez Tom. 3. Disp 83. Art 4. Iube haec id est Vota nostra Et Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 32. sub finem Margin 1. Prefaceth 2. Answereth 3. Illustrateth 4. Reasoneth First of his Preface The Answer saith hee is easie As if that Objection which seemeth to us a huge logg in your way were so little an obstacle that any might skip over it But have you never seene men in trusting too much to their nimblenesse to over-reach themselves in their leape stumble fall and breake their limbes Semblably hee in his Answer which is the second point The meaning of our Church saith hee is not to pray for Christs reconciliation who was alwayes well pleasing to God but in respect of the infirmity of the Priest and people that the offering may be accepted from them So hee But whatsoever the meaning of the Priest in his praying is sure wee are this cannot be the meaning of the Prayer for the matter prayed for is set downe to be Holy Bread of life and Cup of Salvation which you interpret to be Substantially the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament and the tenour of prayer expressely is Vpon which Lord looke propitiously wee say upon which not upon whom which point is confirmed in that which followeth Thirdly therefore hee illustrateth The Comparison saith hee is not absolutely betweene the Sacrifice of Abel and of Christ but in respect of the faitb and devotion of the Priest and people that they with like faith may offer as Abel did But this piece of Answer is