of Christ's Body that were Impious not a part of Accidents that were absurd what meaneth the childish Fabling trow wee but that if they should speake out they should betray their Cause in calling that little part a part of Bread as your objected Dionysius spake And when all is said wee heare no proofe of Divine Adoration of the Host But we leave you to take your Answer from your Salmeron who hath told you that * See above B. 1. Chap 3. Sect. 10. in Answer to the second pretence Casuall spilling of the Cup is no sinne âšœ Howbeit wee aske you whether it were a Veniall sin in your Cardinall to allege the words of Tertullian as spoken of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist which by the judgement of your owne 5 Gabriel Episâ— Albisp lib. 2. Observat 35. in lib. Tert. ad uxorem Calicis panis nostrialiquid in terram decuti anxiè patimur Pameliusin eum locum Quod addit inquit panis nostri facit ad distinctionem Bucharistiae Sacramenti in quo non calix panis communis proponuâ—tur And the Bishop himselfe Tertul. laudat aetatis suae morem quo aegrè ferebant si casu communis panis vini aliquid in terram exciderit Authors were spoken of Common and ordinary Bread and Wine It were well that this kind of oversight both in Cardinall Bellarmine and Master Brerely were not in them a fault Common and ordinarie Howsoever wee could tell you that if the hazard were so great as your Objections imply namely that any subject matter of Adoration had been believed to be in it than was the holy Bishop Exuperius whom notwithstanding Saint Hierome commendeth much blameable for 6 Hier. ad Rustic cap. 4. commending the Bp. Exuperius Nihil de illo dicimus qui corpus in canistro sanguinem portabat in vitro Carrying it in a Glasse And much more condemnable should that godly Pope Zephyrinus have beene 7 De Consec D. 1. C. Vasa Zepherinus Episcopus patenis vitrcis Missas celebrare constituit Who ordained that the Masse should be celebrated in Chalices of Glasse which the more brittle they were the more solidly they confirme unto us this Truth that Antiquity harboured not your beliefe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament âšœ Only we must againe insist in the former Observation to wit the frequent speeches of the Fathers telling â—s of Crums Fragments little parts of this Sacrament and of Burning them into ashes after the Celebration ended Now answer us in good sadnesse was it ever heard of we say not of ancient Fathers but of any professing Christianity were the Catholikes or Heretikes who would not have judged it most execrible for any to say or thinke that A crum or little part of Christ's Body falleth or that by a dash of the Cup the Blood of our Lord is spilt or that the Primitive Fathers in the Remainder of the Sacrament Burned their Saviour Yet these must they both have thought and said if as you speake of Eating Swallowing feeding Corporally on Christ's Body the Body of Christ were the proper Subject of these accidentall Events That the Objection taken from any Gesture used in the daies of Antiquity doth not prove a Divine Adoration of the Eucharist SECT III. GEsture is one of the points which you object as more observable than the former but how because Chrysostome will have the Communicant take it with a Chrysost in Liturg Posteà similiter Sacerdos sumit sanctum panem inclinato capite ante sacram mensam orans Inclining his head downe before the holy Table Cyril by b Cyril Hieros Mystag 5. Accede ad calicem sanguinis illius pronus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bowing after the maner of Adoring You will be still like your selves insisting upon Hâ—terogenies and Arguments which conclude not ad idem For first the Examples objected speake not of Bowing downe to the Sacrament but of our Bowing downe our heads to the ground in signification of our Vnworthinesse which may be done in Adoring Christ with a Sursum corda that is Listing up our hearts to Christ above And this may become every Christian to use and may be done without Divine Adoration of the thing before us Nay and that no Gesture either Standing Sitting or Kneeling is necessary for such an Adoration your greatest Advocate doth shew out of Antiquity and affirmeth this as a Point as c Espencaeus Nec disputatio super Adorandi gestu cum de Adorationis substantia inter omnes semper convenerit ac etiamnum convenit stantes aut sedentes proni aut supini erecti aut geniculati Christum in Eucharistia praesentissimum adoremus per se non refert cùm Adoratio non tam in externo cultu quà m intimo mentis affectu cernitur Lib. 2. de Adorat cap. 16. initio he saith agreed on by all adding that Divine Adoration consisteth not in the outward Gesture but in the Intention of the mind For indeed there is no one kind of outward Gesture which as you have confessed is not also communicable to man so that although that were true which is set down in that Rubrick of * The Latine is Inclinantes Altari but since I finde it in the Greeke before Consecration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so thrice the like After Consecration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Behinde the Table bowing downe his head And againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostomes Liturgie that the Ministers did use to Incline their Bodies to the holy Table yet none can be so simple to thinke that they did yield Divine honour unto the Table Nay your owne great Master of Ceremonies d Durant Peractâ thurificatione Sacerdos leviteâ— incurvescit ante Altare dum autem inclinat Sacerdos humilitatem Christi significat Sacerdos reflexus ad Altare cum paratur Consecratio Lib. 2. de Ritib cap. 25. Durantus hath observed the like Bewing downe of the Priest in the preparation of this Sacrament even Before Consecration and one of your Iesuites witnesseth that the objected e Vasquez Ies Graecâ— Ecclesia antè Consecrationem reverenter adorat etiaÌ„ si non sit ibi Christus De Adorat lib. 2. c. 11. Falsly commenting that this was Divine honour and iust Greek Church at this day doth Reverently adore before Consecration of the Bread and Wine albeit Christ be not therein And lest you may thinke your Posture of Kneeling to be absolutely necessarie wee referre you for your ample satisfaction to your owne learned French Bishop * Gabriel Episc Albisp Observat sacr lib. 1. Observ 12. professedly discussing this Point This being knowne how can you in any credibility conclude as you have done a Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament after Consecration from a Reverence which hath been yielded to the same Sacrament before it was consecrated In which consideration your Disputers stand so much the more condemnable because whereas
these judged by Pope Gelasius to be Sacrilegious âšœ Hence was it that your Iesuite demanded 13 Nic. Causin Ies in his booke called the Holy Court pag. 539. How was it possible saith he that the Heresie of Eutyches being nousled under a false zeale of Reverence towards the person of the Sonne of God might not insnare the Empresse Pulcheria a woman Yea and what greater defence had the Pharisees for all their Superstitions than that of Reverence whom notwithstanding Christ did pierce thorow with so many Vae's for annulling of the Precepts of God by their Traditions under the pretence of religious Reverence and sanctity In briefe It was the opinion of Reverence that made Saint Peter to contradict our Lords Command when he said Thou shalt never wash my feete yet how dangerous it had beene for Peter to have persisted in opposition the Reply of our Saviour doth declare If I wash not thy feete faith Christ thou hast no part with me c. Vpon which Text Saint Å¿ Discamus Christum prout vult venerari honorato namque jucundissimus est honor non quem nos putamus nam eum Petrus honorare putabat cùm sibi pedes eum lavare prohibuit sed non erat honor quem agebac sed contrarium Chrysost Hom. 60. ad pop Antioch Tom. 1. Chrysostome readeth unto you this Lecture Let us therefore learne saith he to honour and reverence Christ as he would and not as wee thinke meete And sure we are that he would that same which he commanded saying Do this Therefore our next Difference betweene our defence and yours is no other than obedient Reverence and irreverent or rather irreligious Disobedience As for your Pretence of manifesting hereby a t Si sic tanta esset degnitas Laicorum circà sumptionem corporis Christi quanta Clericorum Gerson Tract de utraque specie Greater dignity of Priests than of Laicks it is too phantasticall for the singularity too harsh for the noveltie and too gracelesse for the impietie thereof seeing that Christ who gave his Body and Blood an equall price of Redemption for all sorts would have the Sacrament of his Body and Blood equally administred to People as to Priests as you have heard the Fathers themselves professe The Third kinde of Romish Pretences which are more peculiar to their owne Church in two points First because a Movit Ecclesiam ad hunc usum stabiliendum lege firmandum quòd videret ab Haereticis et ex errore oppugnari Sacramentarij autem non credunt Concomitantiam sanguinis Domini cùm corpore in specie panis undè etiam ij Lutheranorum maximè urgent utramque speciem qui cum Sacramentarijs rident Concomitaâ—â—tiam Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 28. §. Secundò Heretikes saith Bellarmine and meaning Protestants do not believe Concomitancie that is to say that the blood of Christ is received under the forme of bread but for this Concomitancie the Church was moved to prescribe the use of the Eucharist in one kinde So he And this point of Concomitancse is that which b In his booke dedicated to K. Iames. Master Fisher and c In his Liturg. of the Masse pag. 396. Master Brerely most laboured for or rather laboured upon And albeit your Romane d Maximè omnium ad convellendam eorum haeresin qui negabant sub utraque specie corpus Christi contineri Catech. Rom. par 2. c. 4. nu 50. Catechisme judgeth this the principall Cause of inducing your Church to preferre one kinde yet wee whom you call Heretikes believe that the devout Communicant receiving Christ spiritually by faith is thereby possessed of whole Christ crucified in the inward act of the Soule and only deny that the Whole is received Sacramentally in this outward act under one onely part of this Sacrament which is the present Question And in this wee say no more than your Bishop Iansenius judged reasonable who hath rightly argued saying e Verùm non facilè apparet quomodò apertè exterior illa sumptio dici possit bibitio manducatio rectè dicitur quià sumitur aliquid ibi per modum cibi sed quomodò bibitio cùm nihil sumatur per modum potus non n. diceremus eum manducare et bibere qui panem tinctum vino sumeret quamvis sumat quod famem tollat et sitim Proindè secundùm horum sententiam videtur omninò dicendum cum dicitur manducare bibere non ratione actus exterioris qui manducationis tantùm speciem habet sed ratione actus interioris nempe ratione fidei Iansen Concord in Evang. pag. 457. It doth not easily appeare how the outward receiving of Christ under the forme of Bread should he called Drinking but onely Eating being received after the manner of meates as that is called Drinking onely which is received after the manner of drinke Drinking therfore and Eating are distinguished by Christ in the outward Act. So he even as your owne * Durand Rationale lib. 4. c. 54. Vna pars absque alia sumpta non est completum Sacramentum cùm panis corpus significat non potest sacramentaliter sumi sinè altera specie before him had truly concluded with whom Master * See Booke 2. Cap. 2. § 4. Brerely will beare a part Therefore your Concomitancie if wee respect the Sacramentall manner of Receiving is but a Chimaera and as great a Solecisme as to say that the Body and Bones of Christ are drunke and his Blood eaten contrary to the Sacramentall representation in receiving Bread and Wine as hath beene proved Next when wee aske you why onely your Church will not reforme and regulate her Custome according to the Institution of Christ and the long practice of the primitive Church you answer plainly and without Circumlocution that the Reason is Lest that your Church might seeme to have erred in her alteration if the ancient Custome And this your f Secunda ratio quià qui Concomitantiam negant ex alio pernitioso errore petunt utramque speciem quià nimirum existimant jure divino esse praeceptum propterea totam Ecclesiam longo tempore in hac re turpiter enâssè Bellar. quo sup §. Secundo Cardinall Bellarmine and the Iesuite g Rectissimè facit Ecclesia quod ipsa praxi contratiâ refutat eorum haeresin qui utramque speciem jure divino necessariam omnibus esse perperam contendunt Quae ratio jure optimo inter caetera cosiderata est in Conc. Constant contra Bohemos in Conc. Trident. contra recenâ—iores Sectarios Greg. de Valent. Ies Tract de usu Eucharist cap 10 §. Deindè pag 499. Valentian use and urge as a necessary Reason for confutation of Protestants who held the necessity of publike Communion in Both kindes Which Reason your owne Orator Gaspar Cardillo proclaimed as in a manner the sole cause of continuing your degenerated use h Ego existimo Patres
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
his words This is my Body for proofe of Transubstantiation SECT I. YOu pretend and that with no small Confidence as a Truth avouched by the Councell of a Vt definitur in Conc. Trid. Sess 13 Can. 4. Ex sola veritate verborum Hoc est Corpus meum vera ac propria Transubstantiatio colligitur Vasquez les Disp 176. c. 6 Verba tà m per se clara cogere possint hominem non proterâ—â— Transubstantitionem admittere Bell. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23. §. Secundò Trent that Transubstantiation is collected from the sole true and proper Signification of these words This is my Body So you CHALLENGE WHerein you shew your selves to bee men of great Faith or rather Credulity but of little Conscience teaching that to bee undoubtedly True whereof notwithstanding you your selves render many Causes of Doubting For first you b Scotus quem Cameracensis sequtur Dicunt non extare locuÌ„ in Scripturis tà m expressum ut fine declaratione Ecclesiae evidentes cogat Transubstantiationem admittere Atque hoc non est omninò improbabile quià an ità sit dubitari potest cum homines acutissimi doctissimi qualis inprimis Scotus fuit contrarium sentiant Bellar. quo supra Cajetanus aliqui vetustiores audiendi non sunt qui dicunt panem definere esse non tà m ex Evangelio quà m ex Ecclesiae authoritate constare Alan lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34 pag. 419. grant that besides Cardinall Caejetane and some other Ancient Schoolemen Scotus and Cameracensis men most Learned and Acute held that There is no one place of Scripture so expresse which without the Declaration of the Church can evidently compell any man to admit of Transubstantiation So they Which your Cardinall and our greatest Adversary faith c See in the former Allegation at b Is not altogether improbable and whereunto your Bishop d Corpus Christi fieri per consecrationem non probatur nudis Evangelij verbis sine pia interpretatione Ecclesiae Roffens Episc con Capt. Bab. cap. 9. pag. 99. Roffensis giveth his consent Secondly which is also confessed some other Doctors of your Church because they could not find so full Evidence for proofe of your Transubstantiation out of the words of Christ were driven to so hard shifts as to e Hoc est pro Transit Bonaventura decet Idem ferè habet Oceam Hol cott insinuat etiam Waldensis Volunt Propositionem illam non esse substantivè sed Transitive interpretandam sc ut sit sensus Hoc est Corpus id est Transit in Corpus Sed hoc corrumpit significationeÌ„ verbi Est quod si permittitur nulla est vis in hujus modi verbis ad probandam realem praesentiam nec substantiam Panis hic non manere Et ità potuit Haereticus exponere Hoc est id est Repraesentat Corpus Suarez Ies Tom. 3. qu 78. Disp 58. Sect. 7. Art 1. pag. 754. Change the Verbe Substantive Est into a Verbe Passive or Transitive Fit or Transit that is in stead of Is to say It 's Made or It passeth into the Body of Christ A Sense which your Iesuite Suarez cannot allow because as hee truly saith It is a Corrupting of the Text. Albeit indeed this word Transubstantiation importeth no more than the Fieri seu Transire of Making or Passing of one Substance into another So that still you see Transubstantiation cannot bee extracted out of the Text without violence to the words of Christ âšœ The like violence is used by your Iesuit I Iac. Gordon Scotus Ies lib. Controv. 4. cap 3. n. 15. Propositiones practicae proferuntur per verba praesentis temporis non futuri ut certi 〈◊〉 de effectuve borum Haec verba Hoc est corpus meum practica sunt efficiunt quod significant Manduâ—â—â— ex hoc Bibite ex hoc ubique demonstrat corpus Christi futurum vel sanguinem ejus futorum Similis statuitur verbis Consecrationis alioqui ista communio esset merè speculativa non practica Gordon who to make Christs Speech to be Practicall for working a TransubstaÌ„tiation doth inforce the words This is my Body and Eat yee this and Drinke yee this being all spoken in the Present tense to signifie the future Which although it were true all Grammarians know to be the figure Enallage From these Premisses it is most apparent that the Romish Doctors cast themselves necessarily upon the hornes of this DileÌ„ma thus Either have these words of Christ This is my Body a Sense Practicall to signifie that which they worke and then is the Sense Tropicall as you have now heard them against your Romish Literall Sense to betoken an operative power and effect of working Bread into the Body of Christ or else they are not Practicall and then they cannot implie your Transubstantiation at all Wee might in the third place adde hereunto that the true Sense of the words of Christ is Figurative as by Scriptures Fathers and by your owne confessed Grounds hath beene already plentifully * See the former Booke throughout proved as an insallible Truth So groundlesse is this chiefe Article of your Romish Faith whereof more will be said in the sixt Section following But yet by the way wee take leave to prevent your Objection You have told us that * See the former Booke throughout the words of Christ are Operative and worke that which they signifie so that upon the pronunciation of the words This is my Body it must infallibly follow that Bread is changed into Christs Body which wee shall beleeve assoone as you shall bee able to prove that upon the pronuntiation of the other words of Christ This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood Luke 22. 20. the Cup is changed into the Testament of Christs Blood or else into his Blood it selfe The Noveltie of Transubstantiation examined as well for the Name as for the Nature thereof SECT II. The Title and Name of Transubstantiation proved to be of a latter date YOu have imposed the very Title of Transubstantiation upon the Faith of Christians albeit the word Transubstantiation as you grant f Fateor neque Antiquos Patres usos esse hoc nomine Transubstantiationis Christoph de Capite fontium Archicpis Caesar lib. de reali praesen cap. 5. 9. Artic. 4. was not used of any Ancient Fathers and that your Romish Change had not it's Christendome or name among Christians to be called Transubstantiation as your Cardinall g Concilium Lateranense sub Innocentio Tertio coactum ut Haereticis os obthurarer Conversionem hanc novo valdè significance verbo dixit Transubstantiationem Alan lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34. pag. 422. As for that objected place out of Cyrill of Alexandria Epist ad Caelosyrium Convertens ea in veritatem Carnis It is answered by Vasquez the Iesuite non habetur illa Epistola inter opera Cyrilli Vasquez in 3. Thom. Tom. 3. num 24.
this Case and tell us whether any Protestant could have beene more opposite to your Doctrine than was Tertullian in his Defence of this Truth whereby hee also defendeth the Catholike Doctrine of the Resurrection of Christ and was never hereof questioned by any Catholike in or since his dayes Let none of you object that of the Disciples in their way to Emmaus with Christ of whom it is sayd that * Luc. 24. 16. They could not know him for the same Text giveth this Cause that their eyes were holden lest they should see him and after * Ibid. vers 31. Their eyes were opened and they saw him So the Evangelist which is so farre from infringing any thing that hath beene sayd for the Infallibilitie of Sense rightly constituted and disposed that this thereby is notably confirmed Wee call upon Hierome to witnesse saying * Hieron ad Pammach contra Errores Iohan. Ierusal Episc Scias errorem fuisse non corporis Domini sed oculorum fuisse clausorum nam aperti sunt oculi eorum videbant The Error of not discerning Christ when hee was in the midst betweene them was not in Christ's Body but in their eyes because they were closed that they could not see Apply wee this unto the Eucharist Dare any Papist say that the Cause why any of you cannot see Christ in this Sacrament is not in his Body which you beleeve to bee in it selfe invisible but in your Eyes as being shut up when notwithstanding you will bee knowne that these are open enough for discerning Colours and formes of Bread and Wine âšœ It can bee but a matter of merriment to acquaint you with that which Master Malloune a Iesuite reporteth in good sadnes as thus 17 Mr. Malloun in his Reply pag. 305. A devout Mayde of the Vulgar sort by name Ioane Martlesse a thing most admirable saith hee was able to finde out one only consecrated Host among a thousand unconsecrated not onely by Divine revelation but also by her naturall Senses So your Iesuite as hee saith out of Waldensis Although wee will not trifle the time by asking how shee could smell out that one Host among a thousand or whether the Priest infused some smellable virtue into it to give it a Sent yet must wee tell you that when afterwards in the seventh Booke it shall bee discovered unto you that there are incident to the Action of your Priest in Conscrating above five hundred possible Defects which may nullifie his whole Act so that the thing remaine still Bread notwithstanding whatsoever his maner of Consecrating by him performed You will then know how happy it were for your Church that every Priest at Masse had the use of the Nose of Ioane Martlesse to trie whether there bee any Hosb truly consecrated as being according to your Doctrine substantially Christ's Body lest that otherwise you fall into Idolatry by worshipping Bread instead of Christ himselfe See the seventh Booke âšœ Our Fourth Proofe that the Substance of Bread remaineth after Consecration is taken from the Confessed Sensible Effects SECT X. THe Effects which you n I. II. Hostia magna quantitate sumpta verè nutrire potest Aquin. part 3. qu. 77. art 6. Etiam Apostolus 1. Cor. 11. Alius Ebrius quidam esurit ubi Glossa notat eos qui post Consecrationem oblationes suas vendicantes inebriarentur Aquin. ibid. III. Archiepiscopus Eboracensis hausto in ipso Calice ut aiunt veneno obijt Matth. Paris Anno 1154. in vita Steph. Item Victor Tertius veneno Callci primae Missae mixto perist Maâ—msâ—â—r lib. 3. cap. 39. Volater lib. 23. Henricus Lucelburg Imp. cùm Eucharistiam acciperet à Fratre ordinis Praedicatorum Bernardo à Florentinis à Siciliae rege subornato illicò caepit aegretâ—re ferebatur Monachus sub unguibus venenum habuisse quo Calicem Hostiam infecerat mox obiâ—t Imperator Beneventi animain Deo reddidit Anno 1313. Cuspinian Volater lib. 23. ut resert Zuingerus IV. Quod vermes generantur ex Sacramento dubium non est cùm experimentis constet Difficultas ergo circa modum est Suarez Ies Tom. 3. qu. 77. Art 5. Disp 57. pag. 427. Alij ex aëre vermes generari dicunt Thomas refert hanc opinionem sed dicit eam esse contrariam ei quod ad sensum apparet quod reverà ita est satisque ab ipso quatuor rationibus confirmatur Suarez ibid. V Generatio Nutritio fit ex quantitate Panis quae divinitùs locum tenet materiae Panis ut Thomas explicat Greg. de Valent. Ies lib. 2. Exam. myâ—tag Calvin p. 446. Nullam esse necessariam materiam sed solam quantitatem sufficere ut substet formae substantiali advenienti sive de potentia ejus educatur sive per nutritionem varietur Sic Thomas alij Fundamentum hujus opinionis est quià convenienter hic modus est sine noviâ— Miraculis Haec opinio videtur falsa mihi omninò incredibilis Dicendum est necessariam esse omninò aliquam materiam ex qua Generatio siat quià de ratione essentiali hujus Compositi est substantialis materia propter quod Aristoteles dicit Impossibile esse Substantiam componi à non substantiâ Ergo impossibile est ut Quantitas aleretur ad proprium munus Materiae substantialem Causalitatem ejus Suarez quo supra Disp 57. Art 8. §. 3. p. 733. Algerus Guitmundus Waldensis dicunt ex speciebus nutritionem generationem fieri non posse Suarez ibid. Vtrùm materia generationis sit eadem quae fuit antèa sub speciebus Panis vel alia Thomas eandem esse negat ne multiplicetur miraculum sinè necessitate VI. Mihi tamen videtur eandem numero esse Etiam juxtâ quorundam veterum Sententiam Alens Bonavent Innocent nec majus est miraculum sive eandem sivè materiam novam facere Suarez ibid. your selves have discerned to be sometimes in this Sacrament are these First That the Cup doth inebriate or make drunke Secondly The Hoast taken in great Quantity doth nourish Thirdly That it being poysoned it paysoneth Fourthly That having beene long reserved it engendereth wormes which are bred out of it and are also fed of the same Fiftly That their matter of Generation and nourishment is Substantiall and that the Contrary Opinion is false and Incredible Sixtly That this matter whereof wormes are bred and fed is the same Bread which was taken before Consecration So your owne prime Schoole-men Historians and Iesuites respectively If then the Bread now ingendring wormes be the Same that was taken to be Consecrated how say you that being Consecrated it is not still the same our Senses giving Testimony thereunto THE FIRST CHALLENGE HEre you have nothing to answer but that the Bread wherof new wormes are bred whether it bee the Same that was or not yet being Bread it is wrought either by a o Quomodò fiat haec materia
Thomistae liquot dicunt per Conversionem aliquam in 〈◊〉 sum Panem Aâ—â— iterùm Creaâ—â— hoc verius â—uareâ—â— quo supra âšœ Vâ—â—quâ—z in 3 Tho. qu. 76. Art 8. Disp 184. c. 5. Probabilior sententia est à solo Deo per creationeÌ„ produci âšœ Miraculous Conversion or by a New Creation What you who every where teach that none are to conceipt of any Miracle in this Sacrament without necessary Cause can you possibly be perswaded that there is or can be any necessary Cause why God should worke a Miracle either of Conversion into or of New Creation of Bread for Breeding or Feeding of wormes or of Wine for making such men Drunke as should taste too largely of the Cup yea or else to poyson your Enemy were hee p See above at 〈◊〉 num 3. Emperour or q Platina in vita Victoris Henrici Regisfraude ut Martinus scribit venend in Calicem injecto dum sacrificat necatur See also above at n num 3. Pope Nay can it bee lesse than Blasphemy to say that God worketh Miracles for the accomplishment of vaine wicked and mischievous effects Farre be it from us to imagine that the Blessed Body of our Lord Christ who by his Touch cured so many diseases in the time of his mortality should now being glorified miraculously poyson his Guests whosoever they bee Beleeve if you can that if God wrought as you say a Miracle to convert Accidents into Bread to engender or nourish vile wormes that he would not much rather worke a miracle if any such miracle were herein to bee expected to hinder the poysoning of his faithfull Communicants In all this we appeale againe to true Antiquitie and require of you to shew we say not some expresse Testimony of Primitive Fathers but so much as any intimation or insinuation were it but by way of a Dreame of a Miraculous Conversion of the Consecrated Host when it beginneth to putrifie by being changed againe into Bread or of Mice eating the Body of Christ or that being putrified it should bread wormes seeing it were a miracle they should not bee so bred or any such kind of Romish Fancies and delusions or otherwise to confesse your Objectours to be miserable Proctours of a vile and desperate Cause Yet lest any of you may thinke that One coming into a Cellar full of new Wine and made Drunke with the smell thereof therefore meere Accidents doe Inebriate your Iesuite will deny this and tell you that it is the * In Cella Viâ—â—ria novis vinis â—â—plerà solus Accodore infectus meâ—â—t Cost Ies Christian Institut lib. 1. cap. 8. Ayre infected with the odour which maketh men Drunke âšœ And that no Incorporall thing can bee nourishment to a corporall Bodily Substance * See below in this Booke Chap. 4. Sect. 7. Gregory Nyssen doth make good and your 18 Fra. Marin Marsen ord Minim Com. in Gen. cap. 1. v. 1. pag. 464. Angelos nullam substantiam creâ—re posse Scâ—tus probat nisi virtue primi Agentis quia eorum volitio intellectio potentia sunt Accidents At impossibile est Accidens osse principium formale producendi substantiam quamcunque quia Substantia est nobilior quovis Accidentè A SECOND CHALLENGE with a Caution YOur Common and most plausible Objection to dementate vulgar people is to perswade them that you cannot attribute Credit to your Senses in this case without much derogation from Faith Therefore for Caution-sake be it knowne unto you that wee have not pleaded for the Truth of Senses as holding nothing credible but that which may be proved by the Testimony of Senses This wee utterly abhorre as the Gulfe of Infidelity proper to the Athean Sect for wee accord to that saying of an holy Father Fides non habet meritum ubi Ratio aut Sensus habet experimentum and also to that other of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iustin Exposit Fidei Iustine In which respect we condemne the Incredulity of Thomas in that he would not beleeve except hee should See yet notwithstanding wee with our Saviour approve in Thomas that by Seeing he did beleeve For this is a true Tenet in Divinity Faith may be Supra above right Reason or Sense but never Contra against either It was never read that God required of any man a beliefe of any Sensible thing which was Contrary to the exact judgement of his Senses And therefore your opposition in this Case as it is Sensles so it is indeed Faithlesse as wee have already learned from Scripture and Fathers by whom the Iudgement of Sense hath beene acknowledged to bee in Sensible Objects a notable Ground of Faith All this while wee have said nothing of your professed maner of Existence of Accidents which you may reade in the Challenge following âšœ A THIRD CHALLENGE Touching the Accidents of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament COncerning the Accidents of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament after Consecration some are such as were before Consecration inherent in them as to bee Visible Savory Solid c. And some are Accessory Impressions and Alterations which accrew afterwards as if it shall happen to bee after Consecration Hot Cold Sweet or Sower or the like Wee demand what thing you do judge that to be which so hapneth to bee hot or sweet after Consecration None can deny but this must be either Quality or Quantity or some materiall Substance Wee consulting with two of your owne Iesuites heare the one maintaining that these two Accidents have 19 Bellarm. lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 24. §. Respondeo tractantur Si mutatio in Pane Eucharistiae sit sola alteratio ut calefactio coÌ„densatio tum non requiritur materia aut substantia pro subjecto nam AccideÌ„tia omnia pro subjecto habent Quantitatem quae in Sacramento maneat unde Hostia consecrata dicitur alba sapida rotunda parva Haec enim omnia denominant Quantitatem alioqui non possit fieri denominatio non enim Accidentia de seipsis dicunsuâ— in Concreto sed solùm de Subjecto exceptà Quanâ—â—tate quae dicitur Quantitas Quanta Quantity for their Subject and the other 20 Lessius Ies Opusc de Perfectionibus divinis lib. 12. cap. 16. num 112. Alterum Miraculum est circa species quòd ita Passiones Impressiones suscipiant aliarum quantitatum perindè ac si Materiae Panis Vini remaâ—â—rent calescunt enim Species atque frigeseunt similesque mutationes subeunt Quidam putant Quantitatem solâ—â— esse immediate Subjectâ—â—h omnium Accidentinum quod difficile est creditu quid enim Quantitatis indoli cum illis Qualitatibus non enim Quantitas haber ullam propensionem ad calorem frigus saporem 〈◊〉 similia neque enim illa dicuntur calescere frigescere aut benè maleve olere Confuting this Because Hotnesse Sweetnesse and such like Qualities have no affection to Quantity meaning that we cannot call any Quantity Cold Hot
or Sweet Whereunto we willingly subscribe As for the sayd Qualities which the latter Iusuite answereth to be 21 Ibiden Mihi semper verius est visum non solùm Quantitatem sed alias Qualitates hîc per se existere nullique Subjecto niti ac proinde calorem frigus similes Impressiones extrinsecùs immissas non recipi in Speciebus tanquam in Subjecto proprio sed penetrativè mutuo nexu commisceâ—i mingled with the other Accidents which were inherent in the Host before Consecration the former Iesuit gaine sayeth it because Accidents are not predicated of themselves in the Concrete to wit wee say not of Coldnesse it is cold or of Sweetnesse it is sweet but these are spoken of their Subjects which wee call either Sweet or Gold And this wee likewise approve Seeing then that no Accident can bee predicated but of some Subject and this Subject of Coldnesse Hotnesse Sweetnesse Sowernesse and of other the like Accidents hapning to the same Sacrament after Consecration cannot bee so called either in respect of Quantity or Quality it remaineth that the Subject of them must bee a materiall substance which as you your selves we know will sweare cannot bee the Body of Christ for you dare not say of it that it in your touch or tast is either Cold Sweet or Sower You must therefore give us leave to beleeve it to bee still the Substance of Bread And this our Argument taketh away your Fancy of Accidents without a Subject else must you affirme that he or shee whosoever shall make the Host after it bee Consecrated either Hote Sweet or Sowre doth in so doing make so many Miracles of Accidents which are void of their Subjects which unnecessary multiplication of Miracles both your old and new Schooles have ever controlled âšœ Our First Proofe that Bread remaineth Bread in Substance after Consecration in this Sacrament is by the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers First from due Inferences SECT XI TEstimonies of Ancient Fathers inferre a necessary Consequence for proofe of the Existence of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament as might bee proved partly by the repetition of many Arguments premised and partly by intimation of other Arguments afterwards expressed But wee shall be content with those few which do more properly appertaine to this present Dispute concerning the nature of a Body First Irenaeus speaking of the Eucharist after Consecration as being not now common Bread sayd that r Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. Sicut Panis qui est à tetrâ jam non Communis Panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terren à coelesti Sic Corpora nostra participantia Eucharistiam jam non sunt Corruptibilia sed spem Resurrectionis habentia It consisteth of an earthly part and an heavenly how even as the Bodies of the Communicants saith hee are no more corruptible having an hope of the Resurrection to come Scan these words by the Law of Similitude and it must infallibly follow that as our Bodies albeit substantially Earthly are notwithstanding called Incorruptible in respect of the Glory and Immortality in which through â—ope it hath an Interest Even so the Earthly substance of this Sacrament being Bread is neverthelesse indued with a sacred and Divine property of a Sacramentall Representation of Christ's Body Which Sacrament Origen calling Sanctified meat saith that the Å¿ Origen in Matth. 15. Ille Cibus qui sanstificatur per Verbum Dei Orationem juxtà id quod habet materiable in secessum emittitur And after hee calleth this Mâ—teriale Materia Panis super quem dictus est sermo ibid. Materiall part thereof goeth into the Draught or seege which no sanctified heart can conceive of Christ's Body whereof the Fathers often pronounce that It goeth not into the Draught But what is meant by Materiall in this place thinke you M. * Liturg. Tract 2. §. 11. Subd 3. Brerely namely Magnitude and other Sensible Accidents which in regard of their Significations are materialls So hee Very learnedly answered forsooth If Magnitudo that is Greatnesse bee a Materiall thing bee you so good as tell us what is the matter thereof for whatsoever is Materiall hath that appellation from it's Subject matter Is is the Body of Christ then must you grant which wee with the holy Fathers abhorre to thinke that the Body of Christ passeth into the Draught or is it Bread Then farewell Transubstantiation Nay will you say but they are meere Accidents And we Answer that it was never heard no not in your owne Schooles that meere Accidents were called which are Origen's words in this place either Meats or Materialls Yea and Origen that he might be knowne to understaud Materiall Bread furthermore calleth it now after Consecration Matter of Bread not of Accidents of Bread or yet Accidents signifying Bread for what Papist will say that the Formes of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament after Consecration are Symbols or Signes signifying Bread and Wine and not Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ S. Ambrose his Comparison is of like Consequence t Ambros lib. 4. de Sacrament cap. 4. Quanto magis est operatorius Sermo Christi ut sint quae erant in aliud convertantur Tu eras vetus Creatura postquam consecratus nova Creatura esse coepisti As one Baptized had beene an old Creature and was made a new one even so speaking of the Bread and VVine after Consecration they being changed into another thing remaine that which they were before But hee you know that was baptized remaineth after Baptisme in Substance the same man although in respect of Spirituall Graces he suffereth a Change Of which Testimony more * See below ch 4. Sect. 2. at the let 〈◊〉 hereafter Cyprian is a Father much alleaged and urged by you in defence of Transubstantiation but is now at hand to controll you u Cyprias lib. de Vnctione Dedit Dominus noster in Mensâ in qua ultimum Convivium cum Apostolis participavit propris manibus Panem Vinum in Cruce verò manibus miliâ—um corpus tradidiâ— vâ—â—â—tandum ut 〈◊〉 Apostolis secretiùs impressa sincera veritas vera sinceritâ—s exponeret Gentibus quomodò Panis Vinum Caro ejus essent Sanguiâ— quibus rationibus Causae effectis conrenirent diversa nomina vel species ad unam reducerentur essentiam ut significantia significata eisdem vocabulis conferentur Our Lord gave in this Banquet saith he Bread and VVine with his owne hands when hee partaked thereof with his Apostles but on the Crosse hee delivered up his Body to the Souldiers to be pierced with wounds to the end that sincere verity and true sincerity having an inward impression in the Apostles hee by them might manifest to the Gentiles how that Bread and wine is his Body and Blood and by what meanes there may be agreement betweene Causes and Effects and how different names
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
non differant quid aliud quam ordinem Sapientiae pervertis eadem est carnis conditio ut in uno certo loco sit sua dimensione constet Calv. Instit lib. 4. c. 17. §. 24. item Beza adversus Hesshufiuâ— We saith he are not so addicted to naturall reason as to attribute nothing to the power of God which exceedeth the order of nature for wee confesse that our soules are fed with the flesh of Christ spiritually above all Physicall or naturall understanding but that one should bee in divers places at once and not contained in any is no lesse Absurdity than to call light darkenesse God indeed can when he will turne light into darkenesse but to say light is darkenesse is a perverting of the order of Gods wisedome So Calvin and Beza accordingly with him And so say wee that it is possible for Christ as God if hee were so pleased to make of Bread an humane Body as easily as of stones to raise up Children to Abraham for there is involved no Contradiction in this But to make Bread to be flesh while it is Bread is a Contradiction in it selfe and as much as to say Bread is no Bread and therefore to the honor of the Omnipotency of Christ we judge this Saying properly taken to be Impossible âšœ This Consequence hath beene as you have heard the Vniversall Asseveration of your Doctors to whom for Conclusion sake Wee will adde the determination of another Iesuite 4 AEgid Coâ—incks Ies de Sacram qu 76 Art 3. num 50 Satis est ad hoc ostendendum non negâ—ndum esse quâ—n Deo sit possibile quiâ—vis modo ostendamus non pâ—sse coÌ„trà eâ—â—pertâ—m adferri Contradictionem It will be sufficient saith he for the teaching of Gods Omnipotency that wee deny not but that every thing is possible to him wherein an evident Contradiction cannot be shewne So he In the Interim you may not let slip the Contradiction of your Doctors in this very place who confessing it to be no impeachment of Gods Omnipotency to hold Every thing Impossible wherein any Contradiction is implyed have notwithstanding inveighed against Calvin and Beza for denying of a Possibilitie of a Corporall Presence only because of a Contradiction therein And so in making others seeme Blasphemous have shewne themselves slanderous as wee are now to prove in our confutation of the principall Article of your Romish Church The Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist by reason of six more Contradictions involved therein âšœ CHAP. IV. That the Romish Doctrine of the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament doth against that which Christ called CORPVS MEVM MY BODY imply six Contradictions The first Romish Contradiction in making it Borne and not borne of a Virgin SECT I. THE Catholike Faith hath alwayes taught 20 30 concerning the Body of Christ That it was borne of the Virgin Mary Secondly that this so borne was and is but One. Thirdly that this One is Finite Fourthly that this Finite is Organicall and consisting of distinct parts Fiftly that this Organicall is now Perfect and endued with all Absolutenesse that ever any humane body can be capable of Sixtly that this Perfect is now also Glorious and no more subject to Vilification or indignitie here on earth But your now Romish Doctrine touching Corporall Presence in this Sacrament doth imply Contradictions touching each of these as now wee are to manifest beginning at the first Our Apostolicall Article concerning the Body of Christ is expresly this Hee was borne of the Virgin Mary which is the ancientest Article of Faith concerning Christ that is read of in the Booke of God The seed of the Woman c. Genes 3. to shew that it was by propagation But your Romane Article of bringing the Body of Christ into this Sacrament is that The substance of Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Body which inferreth a Body made of the substance of Bread as we have already * See above Book 3. Chap. 3. §. 2. 〈◊〉 proved and as all substantiall Conversions doe shew whether they bee naturall or miraculous When the substance of Ayre is naturally changed into the substance of Water this water is made of Ayre when the substance of Water was miraculously changed into Wine the substance of the Wine was produced out of the substance of water when the Body of Lots Wife was turned into a pillar of salt the substance of that salt was made of the substance of her Bodily flesh CHALLENGE DOe you then beleeve your Doctrine of Transubstantiation that it is the substantiall Change by the operative words of Consecration of Bread into a Body which you call the Body of Christ then is this Body not borne but made nor by Propagation from the Blessed Virgin but by Production and Transubstantiation from Bread which differences Borne of the Virgin Mary and not borne of the Virgin Mary are plainly Contradictory which was the cause that Augustine as f Bartam de corpore Domini pag. 61. Ponâ—mus unum testimonium Augustini quod dictorum sidem nostrorum ponat in sermone ad populum potest inquit animo cujuspiam cogitatio talis oboriri Dominus noster Iesus Christus accepit carnem de Virgine Maria lactarus est Iufans c. Quomodo panis corpus â—ius calix sanguiâ— Ista fratres ideò dicuntu Sacramenta quia in eis aliud videtur aliud intelligitur quod videtur speciâ—m habet corporilem quod intelligitur fructum habet spiritualem Ista venerabilis Author dicens instruit nos quid de proprio Domini Corpore quod de Maria natum est nunc sedet ad dextram Patris quid de isto quod supra Altare ponitur sentire debemus Illud integrum est neque ulla sectione dividitur Hoc autem figura quia Sacramentum Bertram sheweth distinguished betweene the Body borne of the Virgin and that which is on the Altar as betweene Aliud and Aliud one and another thing And this Argument hath beene fortified * Lib. 3. Chap. 3. §. 2. before and is furthermore confirmed by Saint Augustine * Lib. 4. Chap. 7. §. 6. afterwards âšœ Yet for this present the same Author out of Saint Ambrose to the same purpose 1 Bertram ibid ex Ambrosio Vera utique caro Christi quae crucifixa est verè ergo carnis illius Sacramentum est Ipse claâ—at Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus meum Hinc Bertram Quà m diligenter quà m prudenter facta dictinctiâ— de carne Christi quae crucifixa est vera itaque caro Christi At de illa quae sumitur in Sacramento verè illus carnis sacramentum est Distinguens Sacramentum carnis à veritate carnis quam sumpserat de Virgine diceret cum crucifixum Quod verò nunc agitur in Ecclesia mysterium verè illius carnis in quae crucidixus est diceret esse Sacramentum observeth a distinction
in it selfe but in respect of the Place or of the formes of Bread under which it is the whole Body is without distinction in every least Part and Indivisible Point thereof CHALLENGE THis is the common Resolution of the now Church of Rome The exact discussion of this one point will in it selfe illumnate the Eyes of any Reader to discerne betweene the Spirit of Truth and of Errour namely to know that there cannot be a greater Contradiction and consequently Impossibility than for a Body consisting of proportionable dimensions of Parts such as are Hands Legs Eyes and other Organicall members to have Being any where without Extension Commensuration and distinct Proportion of the same to the space wherein it is as the Propositions following will prove That the former Romish Tridentine Article is new and contrary to the nature of an Organicall and Humane Body in the Iudgement of Romish Doctors of later times SECT IV. ALbertus Scotus Aegidius are recounted amongst your learned and ancient Schoolemen who as your a Totum Christi corpus in partibus indivisibilibus specierum panis esse negaâ—â—â— Albertus Scotus Aegidius quia videtur impossible in se corpus extensum magnae molis cum tota organizatione figura in puncto collocari Suarez quo supra pag. 683. Jesuite testifieth Though it impossible that a Body that hath Extension of parts should be contained in an indivisible point The same opinion is ascribed by your Jesuites as ancient unto b Opinio antiqua quae fuit Durandi dixit corpus Christi in Eucharistia non habere quantitatem Fundamentum hujus opinionis fuit quod essentia quantitatis est habere partes extra partes distinctas inter se sieri autem non possit ut si corpus Christi habeat partes distinctas in Euch. sit totum in qualibet parte Teste Maldonat Ies Tom. 1. de Euch cap. 8. Arg pag. 180. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5. Durand and c Occham alij dixerunt quidam esse magnitudinem corporis Christi in Eucharistia sed ita ut nulla sit figura nec distinctio partium Sic Occham Bellar. ibid §. â—t Occham Now what greater injury can there be than after that it was lawfull for a thousand and foure hundred yeares since the Ascension of Christ for any Christian to professe with your ancient Schoolemen an Impossibility that The Body of Christ is whole in every the least part of the Hoast to impose upon mens consciences as an Article of Faith so found and so palpable a figment That which seemed to the above-named Durand Occham and other 1 Suarez Ies in 3. Thom. disp 48. Sect. 1. De Distantis partium Nominales concedunt in corpore Christi existentem in Eucharistia pedem non distare magis à capite quam collum Ità Occham Ailliaco Nominals such an Opinion whence as they thought it must needs follow that the Eyes must be where the Nose is the hand confouded with the legs which as your Cardinal Alan truly said were to make of the Body of Christ a confused Chaos and altogether * See above in this Chapter Sect. 2. monstrous âšœ And it may be that divers of you are of the minde of that Doctor of the Seraphicall order who teacheth you to 2 Corpus Christi non est nisi sub specie Panis partibus ejus ipsum esse sub quolibet indivisibili ipsius Hostiae per se negandum est Magister de media villa Sâ—raph Ord. in 4. Sent. Tom. 4. Deny that the Body of Christ is in any indivisible part of the Hoast âšœ That the Organicall parts of the Body of Christ must be proportionable to the Dimension of the places wherein they are is proved by the confessed Romish Principle it selfe SECT V. THE reason which your * See above § 2. Cardinall layet downe to prove it necessary that Christ his Body should have in it selfe according to the nature of a Body distinct parts of head and eyes and other Organs fit for the use of a reasonable Soule he taketh from Magnitude which is an Extension of parts into their proportionable length breadth and depth This saith he is inseparably united to Christ his Body in it's owne intrinsecall disposition in it selfe but not so saith he in regard of the place CHALLENGE THis your owne Reason may wee justly retort upon your selves proving that if the naturall disposition of the Body of Christ be thus proportionably extended in it selfe it must be so likewise in respect of Place and Space because the three dimensions of the Body of Christ as you have confessed stand thus that one is an extension in Length another in Breadth the third in Depth and each of these three are distinct one from another Well then the Arme must be here and thus farre longer than the Foot the Legge here and thus farre thicker than the Finger the Hand here and thus farre broader than the Toe and accordingly distinctly in other parts But Hîc and Hucâ—sque Here and There thus farre and so farre being Relatives of Space and Place do demonstratively shew that that Extension of distinct parts of the Body which they have in themselves divisibly the same they must necessarily have in respect of the Vbi Place or Space wherein the Body is If therefore you will not Heretically teach a Mathematicall or Phantasticall Body oâ— Christ you must deny the Article of Trent untill you can beleeve and make good that a part of a divisible Body longer or shorter broader or narrower can be and that equally in one indivisible point This is confirmed by the Essence of Christ his glorified Body as you confesse it to be now in Heaven possessing a Reall place in the sayd proportion of Spaces of length and breadth as it had here upon earth which it doth by the naturall Magnitude or Quantity thereof But the sayd naturall Magnitude or quantity of the sayd Body of Christ is according to your wone generall Doctrine in this Sacrament Therefore must it have the same Commensuration of Space although not of the same Space which is one earth Wee should be loath to trouble your wits with these speculations if that the necessity of the Cause by reason of the Absurdities of your Romish profession did not inforce us hereunto Therefore must you suffer us a little to sport at your trifling seriousnesse who writing of this Divine Sacrament and seeing it to be round solid broken moulded in the one kind and liquid frozen and sowring in the other do attribute all these to Quantities and Qualities and Accidents without any other subject at all So then by the Romish Faith wee shall be constrained to beleeve in effect that the Cup is filled with Mathematicall lines the Mouse eating the Hoast is sed with colours and formes that it is Coldnesse that is frozen and Roundnesse which weigheth downe and falleth to the ground as if you should describe a Romish
Communicant to be a creature clothed with Shadowes armed with Idaea's fed with Abstracts augmented with Fancies second Intentions and Individuall Vagues and consisting wholly of Chimaera's That your Romish Doctrine is contrary to the Iudgement of ancient Fathers SECT VI. IF this your profession had beene a Catholike Doctrine doubtlesse S. Augustine who is so devout in his fervent Meditations upon this holy mystery would not have oppugned it as hee did when unto that Question of Volusianus whether the Bodie of Christ before his Birth did fill the Body of the Blessed Virgin hee answered d Aug. Nullum corpus potest esse ubique totum quantumcunque corpus vel quantulumcunque corpusculum loci occupet spacium eundemquè locum sic occupet ut in nulla ejus parte sit totum necesse est longè alia natura est animae quà m corporis quanto magis Dei Lib. 1. Ep. 3. ad Volusian Whose question to S. Augustine was Vtrum Christus intemeratae foeminae corpus impleverit That every Body be it greater or lesse wheresoever it is must needs fill that space wherein it is so that the same Body cannot be the whole in any part thereof So hee which is directly Contradictory to your Article of Trent for here is expresse mention of Relation to Place and Space And whereas for usuall colour of a Possibility that the whole Body of Christ is in every part of the Hoast you have objected the Example of Man's Soule which is sayd to be whole in every member and part of the Body Saint Augustine as if hee had fore-seene your mystery of Errour pre-occupateth saying a In eo quod dicitur Deus ubique carnali cogitationi resistendum est mens acorporis sensibus amorenda ne quasi spaciosa magnitudine opinemur Deum per cuncta diffundi ut aër aut lux omnis enim hujusmodi magnitudo minor in sua parte quà in toto sed ita potius ut est magna sapientia etiam in homme cujus corpus est parvum Nâ—m si duo sint homines aequalâ—er sapientes quorum alter est corpore grandiâ—r non plus sapiunt ambo quam singuli sic in minore corpore non minor est sani tas cum minora majora corpora tam sanâ— sine Dispâ—r est profecto in membroruÌ„ molibus quantitas sed par est in disparatis sanitas quae non quantitas sed qualitas est Non potâ—â—t ergo obtinere quantitas corporis quod qualitas Aug. Epist 57. ad Dardan The nature of a Soule is farre different from the nature of a Body And againe the same holy Father seeking to find out some Similitude whereby wholly to resemble the Existence of God in respect of Place in the end saith that Quality hath a prerogative to make some Similitude hereof and hee doth instance in Wisedome which saith hee is as great in a little man as in a great man but denyeth that Quantity hath any such Privilege for speaking of Quantity and Magnitude In all such Quantity or Magnitude saith hee there is lesse in the part than there is in the whole And by this same Maxime concerning Whole in respect of Place hee distinguisheth the God-head from the Man-hood by which you have confounded them And yet againe else-where as though hee thought this your delusion could never be sufficiently contradicted or rather derided hee will further have you not to be so Childish as not to know that b Idem Minor est unus digitus quam tota manus minor est digitus unus quam duo alibi est iste digitus alibi ille alibi coetera manus Nec solùm immobilibus corporis articulis sed etiam aëris partes suos implent locos Lucisque pars alia infunditur per hanc fenestram alta per aliam major per majorem per minorem autem minor Idem Tom 6. 〈◊〉 fundament cap. 1â— The little finger is lesse than the whole hand and one finger is lesse than two and that one finger is one where and the other another where Vpon which where and where being notes of distinct places wee may aske where are your Disputers now Nay yet furthermore passing from grosser Bodies he saith as much of Ayre yea and of the most subtill of subtills the light of the Sunne one part whereof saith hee cometh in at one window another at another window yet so that the lesse passeth through the lesse and the greater through the greater Moreover if Saint Gregory once Bishop of Rome had beleeved that Christ his Body is whole in every least indivisible part of the Hoast hee would never have condemned the Eutychian Heretike for beleeving c Auâ—ungebat Haeretious omne illud quod in Domino 〈◊〉 potuit post resurrectionem in soâ—â—itatem aliquam esse redactam Greg. Exposit Moral lib. 14. cap. 31. The Body of Christ to have bin brought into such a subtilty that it cannot be felt But a greater subtilty there cannot be than for a divisible Body to be enclosed in every the least indivisible point Show us this Doctrine taught by any Catholike Doctor in the Church within the compasse of the twelve hundred yeares after Christ and then shall wee conceive better of your Cause And lest you may talke as you use of one Body penetrating another wee lay unto you as Damascen sayd unto his Reader that d Damasien l. 1. de Orthodox 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is impossible but that either the one or the other must be divided asunder Wee say furthermore that though this were granted yet would you your selves deny that the other must follow as you may discerne in Angels who are Spirits and moe of them may be naturally in one singular place yet no one can be naturally in two places at once That the Romish Objections against our former Tenet taken from Miraculous Penetrations are feeble and vaine SECT VII IT is ordinarily in the mouthes of every one of you to object the Miraculous entrance of Christ into the house the doores being shut his coming out of the grave when it was covered with a stoâ—e as some thinke his Birth from his mother her wombe being shut besides the miraculous passing of a Camell through the eye of a needle spoken of by Christ all Miraculous indeed as wee with many holy * Chrysost Nazianâ—â— Aug. Ambros Fathers do willingly Confesse What therefore Therefore say you the Body of Christ did passe through the substantiall dimensions of the Body of the Doores Stone and wombe and consequently confuteth all this which hath beene spoken of the Organicall proportions of a Body in respect of Space or Place So you Wee grant unto you as much as these Fathers speake in noting each of these to have beene the Acts and workes of Omnipotencie but yet without any penetration of Dimensions at all or yet Alteration of the just proportion of Christs Body Which penetration of
your professing that Sole Accidents do nourish the Bodies whether of Man or Mouse as you teach But expresly contradicted by the Ancient Father Gregory Nyssen who held it Impossible for any thing which is not a Substance to nourish a Substance Lastly to his Additionall That wee are not in the discerning of the matter of this Sacrament to depend upon our Senses which is most Contradictory to the Doctrine of Antiquity For the Fathers besides these their Assertions * See Booke 3. throughout that we see Bread and Wine the Bread which consisteth of granes of Corne and Wine of Grapes have justified the Judgement of our Senses in sensible Objects and not this onely but by the same Argument taken from our Senses have furthermore confuted and confounded both the Heathen Academicks and Hereticall Marcionites Manichees Eunomians Eutychians and others the most grosly Absurd Heretikes of those Primitive Ages So that now you must conclude that either those Ancient Fathers ought to have submitted their Faith to those Absurd and damned Heretikes or else Master Fisher ought to recant this his pernicious and Hereticall Paradox of Beleeving Doctrines the Rather because they seeme to be Absurd Master-Fisher his Particular Confirmation of one of his Former Instances of a Body being in divers places at once by a quaint example of his owne Numb 9. The Bodie of Christ saith hee being glorious is as swift in operation as any Thought but a mans Thought is so quicke that one may be by Thought in two disjoyned places at once for example in London and at Rome Our Reply detecting the Stupidity of this Objection Wee to omit that which is more * He useth the Common Objection of Man's soule and God himselfe which hath beene confuted formerly See above cap. 6. Sect. 2. common note in Master Fisher now Objecting his owne fancy not so much a Seeming Absurdity as a palpable Stupidity in this his exemplifying the Possibility of the Being of a Body in divers places at once as namely at London and at Rome If Master Fisher thinking of Rome at his being in London should say that even then his Thought was Really at Rome it were easie for any man to guesse in what place of London hee himselfe was because that every Sober man will beleeve that Master Fisher in thinking of Rome had his Thought then in his owne Braine and not at Rome And though it should be possible for him to thinke both of Rome and London at once yet could not this any way exemplifie the Possibility of the Being of one and the same Body in two places in one moment For his Thought of London and of Rome are not one and the same Thought but as distinct and different about the subject matters of his Thoughts as namely the plotting of Treason in Rome and practising and exequuting the same in London should be Master Fisher his Particular Confirmation of the Possibility of Accidents to nourish a Substance from a rare example of his owne Numb 10. It seemeth difficult saith hee to conceive that Accidents can performe the office of any Substance as to nourish a man But wee should perchance find as great a difficultie to beleeve did wee not see it Glasse to be made of Ashes A Bird to be bred out of the rotten Barke of a Tree c. Our Reply manifesting his Absurd Exemplification This his Comparison of Likenesse as any one may discerne at the first sight consisteth meerely of unlikelihoods and Dissimilitudes for he laboureth to prove it to be an equall Difficulty for an Accident to nourish a Substance as it is in his Examples as for a Substance to nourish a Substance The Absurditie whereof is no lesse than for any to argue that because the Body of a man doth beget a Body So the shadow thereof can also beget a Body It is irkesome unto us to have stayd so long in Master Fishers Absurdities wee hasten to our Generall Challenge âšœ THE GENERALL CHALLENGE THese above specified Sixe Contradictions so plainly and plentifully proved by such forceable Arguments as the light of Divine Scripture hath authorized the profession of Primitive Fathers testified Confessions of Romish Doctors acknowledged and the Principles of your owne Romish learning in most points confirmed your Abrenunciation of your so many Grosse Errours may be as necessary as your persisting therein will be damnable Before we can end wee are to consult with the Fathers of the Councel of Nice especially seeing that as well Romanists as Protestants will be knowne to appeale to that Councel CHAP. XI Of the Canon of the Councell of Nice objected for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and against it SECT I. THis as it is delivered by your a Concilij verba Iterùm etiam hic in divina mensa nè humiliter intenti simus ad propositum panem calicem sed attollentes mentem fide intelligamus situm in sacra illa mensa agnum illum Dei tollentem peccata mundi incruentè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à Sacerdotibus immolatum et pretiosum ejus corpus sanguinem verè nos sumenâ—es credamus haec esse nostrae resurrectionis symbola Propâ—er hoc enim neque multum accipimus sed parum ut sciamus non ad saâ—iâ—tatem sed ad sanctificationem offerri Vt refert Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 10. Cardinall taken out as he saith of the Vatican Library standeth thus Let us not heere in this Divine Table bend our thoughts downewards upon the Bread and the Cup which is set before Vs but lifting up our minds let us understand by faith the Lambe of God set upon that Table The Lambe of God which taketh away the sins of the World offered unbloodily of the Priest And we receiving truly his Body and Blood let us thinke these to be the Symbols of our Resurrection For this cause do wee receive not much but little that wee may understand this is not to satisfie but to Sanctifie So the Canon The Generall approbation of this Canon by Both sides SECT II. SCarce is there any one Romish Author handling this Controversie who doth not fasten upon this Canon of Nice for the countenancing of your Romish Masse Contrarily Protestants as they are set downe by our b Hunc cano nem Conc. Niceni probatum fuisse Marpurgi Luthero alijs Martinus Bucerus dixit Ità in Domino senrio in hac sententia opto venire ad Tribunal Dei Manu meâ scripsi Teste Hier. Zanchio Miscell de Coena Domini pag. 152. He himselfe assenting unto the same Zanchy and your c Hoc testimonium Niceni Conc. primi in actis ejusdem Conc. in Vaticana Bibliotheca his verbis c. Hoc testimonium agnoscunt etiam Adversarij ut Oecolampadius Calvin Instit lib. 4. cap 17. §. 36. Petrus Boquinus Klebitius nituntur hoc testimonio ad gravissimam suam haeresin stabiliendam â— c. Bellar. ibid âšœ â—â— Greeke
of faith eat it not although they do visibly presse with their teeth the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ yet are they in no wise Partakers thereof But your Romish Church flatly otherwise as you all know and therefore hath your Sympresbyter Master h Mr. Brerely Tract 2. §. 5. Sub 2. Brerely endeavoured to assume some Protestants to be on your side whom hee hath alleged with like faithfulnesse as hee hath cited Master Calvin than whom hee could not have in this case a greater Adversary For although Calvin grant with all Protestants that the wicked and faithlesse receive truly by way of Sacrament the Body of Christ yet doth hee deny that they have in their Bodies any Corporall Conjunction or Vnion with Christ because the Vnion which wee have i Calvin Epist 372. yet in the same Epistie hee saith of Papists Damnantur qui dicunt non minus corporis Christi participem fuisse Iudam quam Petrum In his Institut lib. 4. cap. 17. Non alia quam fidei manducatio Sect. 8. Cordis sinum tantùm protendant quo praesentem amplexentur §. 12 Vinculum con junctionis est spiritus Christi §. 13. Non 〈◊〉 §. 16. Non contactu §. 33. Impij scelerati non edunt Christi corpus qui sunt ab eo alieni quia ipsa caro Christi in mysterio coenae non ramus spiritulis res est quà m salus aeterna Vnde colligimus quod quicunque vacui sunt spiritu Christi carnem Christi non posâ—e edere magis quam vinum bibere cui non conjunctus est Sapor Aliud tamen est offerri aliud recipi Spiritualem â—ibum omnibus porrigit Christus etiam indignis at non absquè fide recipitur §. 34. Saepius fateor occurrit apud Augustinum ista loquendi forma Comedi Corpus Christi ab infidelibus sed seipsum explicat c. Haec Calvinus saith hee is Onely Spirituall onely with the soule onely with the heart onely by faith and although it be offered to the wicked to be really received yet do they not receive it because they are Carnall Their onely Receiving therfore is but Sacramentall So Master Calvin It had beene good that your Priest had suspected his owne Iudgement and as well in this case as others by doubting his owne eye-sight had borrowed your k Sextum eorum pronunciatum est Improbos non suscipere Corpus Christi licet Symbola suscipiant Calvin Instit lib. 4. cap. 17. §. 33. Beza Teste Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 1. §. Porro Cardinall his Spectacles then would hee have clearly perceived that together with other Protestants Calvin held that The wicked although they receive the Symbols and outward Signes of Christ's body yet the Body it selfe they doe not receive So your Cardinall of the Doctrine of Protestants For although indeed Calvin sayd that The wicked eat the Body of Christ yet explayning himselfe hee added these two words In Sacramento that is Sacramentally which in Calvin's style is taken for Symbolically onely As for the Consent of Protestants herein wee put it to your great Cardinall and Champion their greatest Adversary to expresse l Ex Vbi quitistarum opinione sequitur corpus Christi non posse vere manducari ore corporali sed solum ore spirituali per fidem est ipsisima sententia Sacramentariorum Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 17. §. Secundo ex Hee joyneth Lutherans to the Calvinists in one Consent for denying the Orall and Corporall Eating thereof and for believing the Eating of it Onely by Faith Yet lest any may say that in receiving the same Sacrament hee doth not receive the thing signifyed thereby you may have a Similitude to illustrate your Judgements as thus The same outward word concerning Justification by Christ cometh to the eares of both Vnbelievers and Believers But the Believers onely are capable of Justification That the wicked Communicants albeit they eat not bodily Christ's Body yet are they Guilty of the Lord's Body for not receiving Spiritually namely through their Contempt in not receiving the Blessing offered thereby SECT II. THe Apostle 1. Cor. 11. 27. Whosoever saith hee Eateth this Bread and Drinketh this Cup unworthily hee shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. And vers 29. eateth and drinketh Damnation to himselfe not discerning the Lords Body Your Remish Professours men not the least zealous for your Romish Cause objecting this against the Protestants call upon you saying first m Rhemists Annot in 1. Cor. 11. vers 27. Here upon marke well that ill men receive the Body and Blood of Christ be they Infidels or ill livers for else they could not be guilty of that which they receive not Secondly That it could not be so hainous an offence for any to receive a piece of Bread or a Cup of Wine though they were a true Sacrament for it is a deadly sinne for any to receive any Sacrament with will and intention to continue in sinne or without repentance of former sinnes but yet by the unworthy receiving of no other Sacrament is man made guilty of Christs Body and Blood but here where the unworthy Receiver as Saint n Chrysost Hom 60. 61. ad Pop. Antioch Chrysostome saith do vill any to Christs owne Person as the Iewes and Gentiles did that crucified him Which invincibly proveth against the Heretikes that Christ is herein really present And guilty is hee for not dâ—scerning the Lords Body that is because hee putteth no difference betweene this high meat and others So your Rhemists Your Cardinall also as though hee had found herein something for his purpose o Bellar. Obijcit Cyprian Sterm de Lapsis de ijs qui post negatum Christum sine poenitententia accedunt plus cos jam manibus atquè ore delinquere quam cum Dominum negâ—runt Deinde Cyprianum recensere miracula facta in vindictam eorum qui corpus Christi tantum violant Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 9. See this answered in the 7. Sectioâ— following fasteneth upon the sentence of Cyprian who accounted them that after their denyall of Christ presented themselves to this Communion without repentance to offer more injurie to Christ by their polluted hands and mouthes than they did in denying Christ and besides hee recordeth Examples of Gods miraculous vengeance upon those who violated the Body of Christ in this Sacrament So hee All these points are reducible unto three heads One is that Ill men might not be held guilty of the Body of Christ except they did receive it as being materially present in this Sacrament Next is the Guilt of prophaning this Sacrament which being more hainous than the abuse of any other Sacrament therfore the injury is to be judged more personall The last that the Examples of Gods vindicative Iudgemeuts for Contempt hereof have beene more extraordinary which may seeme to be a Confirmation of both the former Before wee
handle these points in order take our next Position for a Directory to that which shall be answered in the sixt Section That some Fathers understood the Apostles words 1. Corinth 10. Spiritually namely as signifying the Eating of Christs Flesh and drinking his Blood both in the Old Testament and in the New SECT III. VPon those words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. verse 4. They ate of the same Spirituall meate c. The Iewes received the same Spirituall meate p Aug. Tract 26. in Ioh. sup illa verba Apostoli 1. Cor. 20. de fidelibus Iudaeis Omnes candem spiritualem escam in Manna edebant bibebant eundem potum spiritualem c. Corporalem escam diversam illi Manna nos aliud spiritualem sed candem aliud illi aliud nos bibimus sed aliud specie visibili idem autem significante virtute Item Eandem quam nos escam sed Patres nostri nèmpè fideles non Patres illorum Aug. Ibid. saith Saint Augustine namely they who were faithfull Yea saith your q At eandem inter se non nobis cum candem Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Quia Cardinall the Iewes received the same among themselves but not the same with us Christians So hee Albeit the words of Augustine are plainly thus The same which wee eate so plainely that divers on your owne side doe so directly and truly acknowledge it that your Jesuit r Iudaeos candem escam spiritualem edisse nobiscum exposuit hunc locum de Manna Augustinus qui eum secuti sunt multi ut Beda Strabo Author Glossae ordinariae reprobatum hoc esse a posterioribus Ego persuasum habeo Augustinum si nostra aetate fuisset longè aliter sensurum fuisse omni genti Hereticorum inimicissimum cum videret Calvinistas ad eundèm ferè modum hunc locum interpretari Maldon Ies in Ioh. 6. vers 50. col 706. Maldonate not able to gain-say this Truth pleaseth himselfe notwithstanding in fancying that If Augustine were alive in this Age hee would thinke otherwise especially perceiving Hereticall Calvinists and Å¿ Calvin Instit lib. 4. Cap. 14. Sect. 23. Eandem nobiscum contra Scholasticorum dogma quo docent veteri lege tantum adumbrari gratiam novâ praesentem conferri Calvin himselfe to be of his opinion So hee Was it not great pity that Augustine was not brought up in the Schoole of the Jesuites surely they would have taught him the Article of Transubstantiation of the Corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament and Corporall Vnion against all which there could not be a greater Adversary than was Augustine whom Maldonate here noteth to have beene the Greatest enemy to all Heretikes whom t Bertram de Corp. Dom. pag. 20. Quaeres fortasse quam eandem nimirum ipsam quam hodie populus credentium in Ecclesia manducat Non enim licet diversa intelligi quoniam unus idemque Christus qui populum in mare baptizatum carne suâ pavit eundem que potum in Petra Christum sui sanguinis 〈◊〉 populo praebuisse Vide nondum passum Christum esse etiam tamen sui corporis sanguinis mysterium operatum fuisse non enim putamus ullum fidelium dubitare panem illum Christi corpus fuisse effectum quod discipulis Dominus dicit Hoc est Corpus meum Bertram followed in the same Exposition and by your leave so did your u Eandem escam spiritualem id est Corpus Christi in signo spiritualiter intellecto idem quod nos sed aliam escam corporalem quam nos Aquinas in 1. Cor. 10. Aquinas also The same saith hee which wee eate Yea and Anselme imbraceth the same exposition in the very words of Saint Augustine The same which wee eat Thus much by the way Wee goe on to our Answers That the wicked Receivers are called Guilty of Christs Body not by properly Eating of his Body unworthily but for unworthily Eating the Sacrament thereof Symbolically SECT IV. THE Distinction used by Saint Augustine who is still a resolute Patron of our Cause hath beene alwayes as generally acknowledged as knowne wherein hee will have us to discerne in the Eucharist the Sacrament from the thing represented and exhibited thereby Of the Sacrament hee saith that * Aùg in Ioh. Tract 26. Sacramentum â—umitur a quiâ—â—â—dam ad vitâ—â—m 〈◊〉 quibuâ—dam 〈◊〉 exitium Reâ— vero ipsa cujus est Sacramenttum omni homini ad vitam null◠〈◊〉 mortem quicunquè ejus particips â—uerâ—â— It is received of some to Life and of some to destruction but the thing it selfe saith hee is received of None but to Salvation So hee No Protestant could speake more directly or Conclusively for proofe First That in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Body of Christ is as well tendred to the Wicked as to the Godly Secondly That the Wicked for want of a living faith have no Hand to receive it Thirdly That their not preparing themselves to a due receiving of it is a Contempt of Christ his Body and Blood Fourthly and Consequently that it worketh the judgement of Guiltinesse upon them âšœ If it shall be proved that the like judgement followeth upon the Wicked for absenting himselfe from receiving of this Sacrament in Contempt thereof as well as it doth upon the unworthy Receiver it Determinateth the Point in question to prove the inconsequence of your reason wherof you conclude that the Guiltinesse of Judgement ariseth from unworthy Corporall participation of Christs Body Now Saint Augustines words are that 1 Aug de Necessitate poeniâ—eâ—tiae Tom 10. Hom. 50. Verset ante oculos Imago futuri Iudiciâ— ut cum alij aâ—cedunt ad aliare Dei quô ipse non accedit conâ—â—git quà m sit contremiscenda illa poena qua percipiâ—ntibus alijs vitam aeternam alij in mortem praecipitentur aeternam Item 〈◊〉 Tom 6. contra 〈◊〉 Manichaeum lib. 13 c. 6. Qui autem manducaâ—â— contemnit non habet in se vitam ideo non pervenâ—â—t ad vitam aeteâ—nam Hee that contenineth to eate this hath no life in him and shall be deprived of life eternall Which is by his Contempt not in the Receiving but in the Not-Receiving thereof All which both the Evidence of Scripture and Consent of Antiquity do notably confirme For the Text objected doth clearely confute your Romish Consequence because Saint Pauls words are not Hee that eateth the Body of Christ and drinketh his Blood unworthily is guilty of his Body and Blood but Hee that enteth the Bread and drinketh the Cup of the Lord unworthily c Which wee have proved throughout the second Booke to signifie Bread and Wine the Signes and Sacraments of his Body and Blood after Consecration And to come to Antiquity All the Fathers hereafter cited who deny that the wicked Communicants are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ albeit knowing as well as you that all such unworthy Receivers are
of Guiltinesse hath beene taken from the Executions of Gods punishments Wee therefore rejoyne That the Examples of Gods Vindicative Justice have appeared against the Contemners of many holy things without respect to the Corporall presence of Christ therein SECT VI. COme wee to the open judgements and punishments of God upon the Contemners of this Sacrament The visible Testimonies of his Justice and Arguments of the preciousnesse and holinesse of this Mysterie These wee beleeve to be true And the Apostle hath made it manifest where speaking of the great plague which fell upon the Corinthians who had prophaned this Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ hee pointeth this out as their sinne saying * 1. Cor. 11. vers â—0 Ob hanc causam For this cause are many sicke among you and many sleepe c. Yet was not this for no Discerning the Body of Christ to be Corporally in the Eucharist as your Disputers pretend but to use Saint g Hier. in 1. Cor. 11. Reus erit Corporis sanguinis Christi qui tanti mysterij Sacramentum pro vili despeâ—etit Hieromes words They were guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ because they despised the Sacrament of so great a Mysterie namely by their prophane behaviour at their receiving thereof as if they had beene at the Heathenish Bacchanalls or as Primasius yeeldeth the Cause h Primas in â—und locum Quia acciperent quasi cibum communem For that they tooke it as homely as their common bread âšœ And why should you conceive that to be singular in this one Sacrament which Saint Hierome teacheth to be common in all other 2 Hier. Com. in Malach. c. 1. Dum Sacramenta violantur ipse cujus sunt violatur When the Sacraments saith hee are violated hee whose Sacraments they be is violated and vilified âšœ All can point at the dolefull Example of Gods vengeance upon Iudas the first unworthy Receiver and therefore the subject of the first Document of Gods judgement notwithstanding that hee received but the Sacrament onely and not the very Body of Christ as Saint Augustine observed saying * See after in Sect. 10. Hee received not the Bread the Lord but the Bread of the Lord. And how justly may wee thinke did God punish certaine k Optatus lib. 2. Donatists who casting the holy Sacrament to Dogs were themselves devoured of Dogs Neither have these kindes of Gods judgements beene proper to the Abuse of this Sacrament onely as you have instructed men to believe for looke into the sacred story and you shall find the men of * 1. Sam. 5. Ashdod for modling with the Arke of God afflicted with Emrods the men of * 1. Sam. 6. Bethshemesh smitten with a great slaughter for but peeping into Gods Arke Also * 2 Sam. 6. Vzzah no Priest doth but touch the same Arke albeit with a good intent to support it and hee is suddainly strucke dead * Levit. 10. Nadab and Abihâ— prophaned the Altar of the Lord with offering stâ—aâ—ge fire thereon and both of them were immediately burnt with fire from Heaven and perished * Dan. 5. Belshazzar will needs carouze in the sacred boles of Gods Temple in the Contempt of God and of his Law and behold a Writing upon the wall signifying that his Dayes were at an end as it came to passe And yet was there not any peculiar existence of God in these Things * 2 King 2. Boyes are mocking Gods â—rophet in Bethel by noting him for a Bald pate and are devoâ—red by Beares Thâ— * Numb 11. People loathing Manna are choaked with Quailâ—â— If sacred stories will not prevaile peradventure your owne Legends will rellish better with you so theâ— your l Quidam qui sancti Anthonij Imaginem abolere cupiebant non tulerunt illud scelus impune sed è vestigio peste illa quae dicitâ—o Antonij correpti interierunt Bozius de signis Eccles lib. 15. c. 12. ex Lindano Bozius will tell you of them who were suddainly strucke with the plague called Saint Anthonies plague one by for seeking to pull downe and demolish Saint Anthonies Image Have you faith to believe this and can you not conceive a like right Judgement against the Prophaners of the Sacramentall Image of Christ himselfe Be it therefore furthermore knowne unto you that the Sacrament which is celebrated by Protestants although it conteine no Corporall Vnion of the Body of Christ yet is it not so Bare Bread as your Doctors have calumniously suggested unto you but that God hath manifested his Curses upon prophane Communicants and Contemners of this holy Mystery which hath in it a Sacramentall Vnion of the Body and Blood of Christ One example whereof wee reade is of one that being afflicted in Conscience for his abuse of the Sacrament in receiving it but in one kind m Manlius locorum Communium Collect. Minister cujusdam Sartoris Lipsiae Anno 1553. Ob temeratam institutionem divinam quâ praecipitur species utraque administretur unicam tantum recipiens conscientiae crimine oppressus exclamavit ô inquit Ego sum c. Did cast himselfe head-long out of a window and so dyed The other is that which hee who now writeth these things saw and can testifie viz. n Sir Booth of S. Iohn's Coll. in Cambridge A Bachelour of Arts being Popishly affected at the time of the Communion tooke the Consecrated Bread and forbearing to eat it conveyed and kept it closely for a time and afterwards threw it over the walls of the College but a short time after not induring the torment of his guilty Conscience hee threw himselfe head-long over the Battlements of the Chappell and some few houres after ended his Life That onely the Godly Christians are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ and thereby Vnited unto him is not Contrary to the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers as is Objected SECT VII YOur Doctor hath performed great diligence in collecting Sentences of Ancient Fathers sounding to the Contrary out of 3 Dr Heskias in his Parlia of Christ Book 3. cap. 48. fâ—l 367. out of Chrysostome Hom. 30. de proditione Iudae Chrysostome Speaking saith hee of the traytor Iudas his Receiving Christs Body and what satisfaction saith Chrysostome shall wee give if after wee have beene nourished with this Lambe wee shall be turned into Wolves And againe 4 B. 2. c. 55. Out of his Hom 51. upon Marc. 14. B. 3. c 46 out of the Hom. in Matth. 26. I will suffer rather than deliver Christs Body to the unworthy Receiver Thirdly 5 â—ooke 3. c. 54. out of Hom. 3. in Ephs Thou art bold with uncleane hands and lips to touch the Body of Christ thou wouldest not kisse the King with a stinking breath Fourthly out of Basil 6 Book 3. c. 47. out of Basil The ungodly handleth the Body of Christ Fiftly out of Theodoret 7 Book 3. c. 52.
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
Secundo Respondeo Wherein also hee expoundeth the like words of Iustin Non est novum apud Itenaeum Hilarium Nyssenum Cyrillum alios ut Eu charistia dicatur alere corpora nostra sed non intelligunt Patres cum hoc dicunt Eucharistiâ nutriri vel augeri mortalem substantiam corporis nostri sic enim facerent Eucharistiam cibum ventris non mentis quâ— nihil absurdius fingi possit It is ordinary saith hee with these Fathers to wit Irenaeus Hilarie Nyssen Cyril and others to say that the Eucharist nourisheth our Bodies But they did not understand a Substantiall nutrition or augmentation of our Bodies for so they should make it to be meat for the Belly and not for the soule than which nothing could be feigned more Absurd So hee Cardinall Tolet is the Second wee desire to heare his Judgement 6 Tolet. in Ioh. cap. 6. Annot. 29. Cum dicunt Hilar Cyril nostra corpora habere unionem corporalem naturalem cum corpore Christ Doctores â—i non sunt ita intelligendi ut velinâ— ex Christo sumpto sumenâ—e fieri unuÌ„ Ens naturale indigna est illis Doctrina sed hoc dicere voluerunt praeter unionem quae ratione charitatis fidei sit adesse intra nos ipsos verè realiter Christum ipsuÌ„ qui causa est fidei ejusdem These Fathers saith hee Cyril and Hilarie when they tell us that wee have a Corporall and Naturall Vnion with Christs Body in the Sacrament are not to be understood as if our Bodies and Christs Body were made one in Entity this were a Doctrine unworthy of them but they meant of the Vnion of Faith and Affection Christ being within us Really as the Cause thereof So he Observe that Cardinall Tolet noteth the Fathers to have sayd that the Bodies of the Communicants and the Body of Christ by this Sacrament have One naturall Being because of their other Sayings that by eating of this Sacrament our Bodies are Nourished and Augmented by Christs Body All which are spoken in a Sacramentall tenour of speech and not properly as you heare Francis Suarez his Course is next 7 Suarez in 3. Tho. qu. 79. Disp 64. Sect. 3. Nihilominus haec sententia improbabilis aliena dignitate majestate hujus SacrameÌ„ti quod non propter corporalem conjunctionem sed propter spiritualem institutum est dicente Christo Mea verba spiritus sunt vita Ioh. 6. See above Chap. 7. Sect. 2. at the letter f. Suarez Damascen lib. 4 cap. 14. Hoc Sacramento nos Christi concorporei existimus animo voluntate copulamur Cyril Hierosol Catechis 4. Mystag Sumpto corpore sanguine Christi efficimur comparticipes corporis sanguinis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum ejus sanguinem corpus in nostra membra receperimus arquè ita ut B. Peâ—ius dicit Divinae naturae consortes efficimur Hinc Suarez Vbi propter Sacramentalem susceptionem non agnoscit aliam unionem praeter spiritualem per gratiam c. In 3. Tho. qu. 79. Disp 64. quo supra I say saith he that Cardinall Mendoza is reported to have taught namely as out of the Fathers that Christ's Body is so united with our Bodies that they are both joyntly mingled in parts one with another Which is an Opinion Improbable and unworthy of the Majesty and Dignity of the Sacrament which was instituted by Christ not for a Corporall but for a Spirituall Conjunction and the other Conjunction is False and Absurd So he Gabriell Vasquez is now to take his turne first to make his Preface and then to deliver his Opinion 8 Vasquez in 3. Thom. quaest 79. Art 2. Disp 204. cap. 2. Tametsi Antiqui Ecclesiae Patres in exponendis mysterijs nostrae fidei insolita paâ—um in Scholis usitata ratione dicendi interdum utantur ita tamen eorum verba sententias accipere debemus ut licet primo aspectu aliquid Absurdi continere videantur nihil tamen contra ipsos nisi maturo consilio examine aliorumque patrum aut conciliorum testimonijs nixi pronunciemus Ibid. cap. 3. Aliqui omnia Patrum Testimonia quae allegavimus per figuram Hyperbolen interpretantur ut ita Patres virtutem jujus Sacramenti eximiè commendare viderentur non quôd revera fieret ita Ex Haereticis hoc modo testimonia Hilarij Cyrilli interpretatus est Calvinus Neque defuerunt Complutenses aliqui qui eodem modo per Hyperbolen illa explicarent Ibid. cap. 4. Quidam putarunt si sine Hyperbole explicarentur sequi ut caro Christi per omnem partem corporis nostri dissunderetur ut cera cerae lique facta at non sic dissunditur Cyrillus usus est hac similitudine ad ostendendam veram realem mixtionem corporis nostri cum corpore Christi non tamen quoad dissusionem eam similitudimen locum habere putabat Nec enim est Physics unio carnis nostrae cum carne Christi sicut ex duabus ceris neque fieri unam carnâ—m per conversionem unius in alteram sicut fit in nutritione animalis naturali neque id ullus sanae mentis ullo modo assereret Although the Ancient Fathers in expounding these mysteries of Faith use words not so usuall in our Schooles yet ought wee to interpret their speeches so that although at the first sight they containe some Absurdity yet not to take them contrary to their meaning without due advise and that relying upon Testimonies of Antiquity So hee And for Instances hee bringeth divers and more particularly that Similitude of Conjunction already objected out of Cyrâ—l As waxe with waxe melted are joyned together And this if it be taken in the Rigidity of the words hee denyeth to note either Diffusion of Christs Body into the parts of mans Body or else a Substantiall Conversion into them All these acknowledgements being so plaine and ingenuous and delivered with so full an Assurance and Resolution of your owne Doctors of most exquisite judgement above Others in your Church do minister unto us matter of Astonishment to wonder with what Consciences they could urge us with these Sentences of the Fathers as they goe under a Literall habit and propriety of Speech seeing that now after some Deliberation they find the same to be so glowing hot that they themselves not daring to touch them with their bare fingers take hold of them with a Distinction as it were with a paire of Tongs saying that 9 Suarez in 3. Thom. qu. 79. Art 8. Disp 64. Sect. 3. Existimo omnino certum praeter contactum corporis nostri Christi medijs speciebus Sacramentalibus non intervenire materialem aliquam unionem physicam veram Because there is no Naturall Conjunction between Christs Body and ours excepting onely a Touch of the one by the other under formes of Bread The Vnion spoken of by the Fathers is not Physicall or
the Word is to the Spirit working by a more excellent power for Eternity than can our Carnall Nutriments for our Temporall life and Being So hee Nothing now remaineth but the last exercise of Faith which is by Application in Speciall taught by our Saviour in saying to his Disciples Take ye Eat this is my Body given for you and This is my Blood of the New Testament shed for you Hereby although it be spoken as hath beene proved Sacramentally and Figuratively to instruct every of his Disciples in taking thereof to apply those words Body given for you c. as verily spoken to himselfe as if hee had sayd Take thou Iohn and Take thou Peter My Body given for thee Iohn and for thee Peter c. in a Sacramentall Analogie So then as my Bodily hand taketh the Sacramentall Bread the Signe of Christs Body and my Bodily mouth eateth and my Bodily stomacke digesteth and turneth it as nourishment into my flesh so my Soule saith that I believe that the Body of my Saviour was Crucifyed and his Blood shed for mee whole man Body and Soule And that thereby I have an Interest in the power of his Passion both for Redemption and for Everlasting Salvation whereof I have a Sacramentall Pledge by the converting of Bread into the Substance of mine owne Flesh According to the Consonant Doctrine of Antiquity set downe in the last Chapter of this Fift Booke âšœ CHAP. X. Of the Romish Historicall Objections Chiefely insisted upon out of Iustine concerning the Slander raysed against Christians of Eating mans flesh sprung as is pretended from the Catholike Doctrine of Eating Christs Body in the Eucharist which is their First Argument SECT I. MAny leaves are spent by M. a Mr. Brerely in his Liturgie Tra. 2. §. 2. Subd 4. p. 121. Where in his Margin hee citeth Vadian whom hee nameth a Zuinglian And if so how farâ—e hee was from confessing a Corporall Presence the Romish Authors who condemne him for the contrary opinion doe prove See above Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Brerely in pressing this Objection the strength of his Inforcement standeth thus Iustine Martyr in the yeare 130. writing an Apologie to the Heathen Emperour when he was in discourse of the Eucharist The reported Doctrine whereof concerning the Reall Presence was the true and confessed Cause of this Slander and when hee should have removed the suspicion thereof did notwithstanding call the Eucharist No common Bread but after Consecration the food wherewith our Flesh and Blood is fed c. Then hee proceedeth in urging his other Argument as followeth borrowed from the b Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4. Cardinall to wit Iustine his comparing the Change in the Eucharist to be a worke of Omnipotencie and for his not expounding the words of Christ Figuratively Then is brought in * In the Margin of Master Berely Ibid. Attalas the Martyr whilest he was under the Tortures and Torments of his Persecutors saying Behold your Doing Hoc est homines devorare This is a Devouring of men wee Christians do not Devoure men To whom is joyned Tertullian making mention of the same Clamour of Sacrifising a Childe and Eating his flesh Ad nostrae Doctrinae notam To the infamie of our Profession At length Master Brerely concludeth as followeth So evidently doth this Slander thus given forth by the Iewes argue sufficiently the Doctrine of Reall presence and Sacrifice and for as much as the Slander went so generally of all Christians it is probable that it did not arise from any sort of one or other Christian in particular So hee âšœ And so long before him Doctor Heskins 1 Heâ—kins in his Parliament B. 2. Cap. 42. fol. 156. This fame among the Infidels being grounded upon the same faith of Christians proveth the Presence Meaning the Corporall Presence and Existence of Christs Body in the Eucharist That the Romish Objection is in it selfe most Slanderous against the Historicall Truth taught by the Ancient Fathers and Confessed by the Romish Doctors themselves SECT II. VVHat That the Catholike Doctrine of Ancient times concerning our Eating of Christ's Body in this Sacrament should have beene the Cause yea or yet the Occasion to the Heathen and Iewes of imputing to the Christians a Capernaiticall Eating of Man's flesh This is the first Argument which your Objectors from Historicall Relations use for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist out of this Ancient Father Iustine Martyr In Confutation whereof wee produce see the Margin the Testimonies of these Ancient Fathers 2 Aug. Haeres 26. Cataphryges Sacramenta perhibentur funesâ—a habere Nam de infanti anniculi sanguine quem de toto ejus corpore minutis punctionum vulneribus extorquent quasi Eucharistiam suam conficere perhibentur miscentes eum fariâ—ae panemquê inde facientes qui pâ—er si mortuus fuerit habent illum pro Martyre sin vivus pro Magno Saceâ—dote Augustine 3 Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 24. Gentes videntes quae sunt illorum Haereticorum omnes nos blasphemant avertunt aures a praeconio veritatis Irenaeus 4 Terâ—ull ad uxorem Non sciet Maritus quid secreto ante cibum gustes Agapae verò non nisi Vespere Tertul. Apolog. 16. Alij Asini caput per ludibrium Christiani appellabantur Asinarij c. Tertullian 5 Epiphan Haeres 26. Foelum jam natum detractum pistillo â—undunt omnes contusi pueri participes facti esu peracto c. Epiphanius and 6 Origen testatur opera Iudaeorum has calumâ—ias adversus Christianâ—s diâ—â—igatus lib. 1. contra Celsum 〈…〉 Origen together with the Confessions of your owne Romish Authors 7 Maâ—donat lib. 7. de Sacramentis Tom. de Eucharislia §. Sexta Questio Montanistae Peputiani ut Author est August lib. de Haeres c. 27. Epiph. in Haeres 49. Infantem conspersum farinâ solebant compungere sanguinem ab illa expressum miscere farinâ ex eo panem conficere ad Eucharistiam Vnde credo natam fuisse illam notam quam Gentiles inurebant Christianis quod infantes occiderent Maldonat 8 Baronius Anno 120. num 22. usque ad numerum 36. Quae Gnostici agebant in occulto palam facta coÌ„vertebant in Christianos nam Epiphanius Haeres 26. Foetum jam natum detractum pistillo tundunt omnes contusi pueri participes facti esu peracto c. Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 24. Gentes videntes quae sunt illorum Haereticorum omnes nos blasphemant averâ—unt aures a praeconio veritatis Origenes testatur opera Iudaeorum has calumnias adversus Christianos divulgatas lib. 1. con Celsum Caecilius Ethnicus apud Minutium Felicem obijcit in Octavium Baronius locis supra notatis Sic jam de initiandis tyronibus fabula tam detestanda quam nota est c. Lorinus Ies in Sap. cap. 12. v. 5. Striges Magi nostri puerorum sanguinem
Vt Christus verè dicatur Sacerdos secundùm ordinem Melchisedech non indiget Sacrificio usque ad finem mundi siquidem post mundi finem remanebit Sacerdos tamen nullum propriè dictum sactificum habebit affirming that Christ needeth not a Sacrifice to continue to the ends of the world to the intent hee should become a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech because hee is to continue a Priest for ever even after the end of the world when hee shall not have any proper Sacrifice at all Yet lest this Iesuite might seeme but to lispe it by mentioning an Eternity of the Priesthood of Christ onely in respect of his person your Iesuite Estius cometh off roundly 9 Estius Ies Com. in Heb. cap. 7. vers 17. Ex quibus omnibus intelligitur Christum vocari Sacerdotem in Aeternum ratione Personae ratione Officij ratione Effectus Personae quidem ratione quoniam nullus ei Successurus Officij ratione quià semper in coelis interpellat pro nobis quod est Sacerdotis Officium Nec caret hoc Sacrificium sua oblatione qulà seipsum hominem vulnerum signa quae passus est exhibet offert Patri pro salute Electorum Denique ratione Effectus quià per Sacrificium pro nobis oblatum factus est nobis Causa redemptionis salutis aeternae confessing a Priesthood of Christ both in Person Office and Effect from the Concurrence of the Text as followeth From all these wee may understand saith he that Christ is called a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech First in respect of his Person because there is none to succede him Secondly in respect of his Office by making supplication in heaven for us Nor doth hee want an Oblation which is the presenting of his Body that suffered to the Father for our Salvation And thirdly in respect of the Effect being made for us by his Sacrifice of the Crosse the cause of our Redemption So hee as just Protestantiall as can be âšœ This is still Christs Function of Priesthood whereunto this Apostle exhorteth all Christians at all times of need to make their addresse which Saint Iohn propoundeth as the onely Anchor-hold of Faith in his Propitiation 1. Iohn 2. If any sinne wee have an Advocate with the Father Iesus Christ the righteous and hee is what The Propitiation for our sinnes The which every faithfull Christian doth apply by faith unto himselfe as often as hee prayeth to God in Christs name for the remission of sinnes saying Through Iesus Christ our Lord. How therefore can this his Function of Priesthood without extreme sacrilege be held Insufficient to his Church for obtaining pardon immediatly from God who seeth not As for other your ordinary Objections taken from two sentences of the Apostle speaking of the Examples of things celestiall and of Purging sinnes now with better Sacrifices you should not have troubled us with them knowing them to be satisfyed by your owne Authors e Ribera Ies Thomas Expositionem alteram praefert nempè per Coelestia appellari ipsum coelum cujus â—igura erat tabernaculum Et emundari dicitur quia homines per Christum emundati sunt qui in illud ingredientur Thomam sequutus est Lyranus Mihi etsi Emundatio ista non placet placet tamen Coelestia appellari coelum ipsum quià ita Vocabulum propriè accipitur Et cogit quod sequitur Non enim in manufacta sancta Iesus est ingressus sed in exemplaria verorum nempè Coeli quod cap. 8. dicitur Tabernaculum verum quod Deus fixit non homo Etiam coelum polluebatur ab hominibus In eum locum Ribera and f Aquinas Melioribus hostijs Id est meliori sanguine Ob. Illa erat una hostia Resp Licet non sit in se tamen pluribus hostijs veteris Legis â—igurabatur In Heb. 9. 〈◊〉 that the Apostle used the Plurall number because he was now in Speech of Multitudes of Sacrifices Aquinas long-agoe That the former Romish Sacrilegious Derogation from Christs Priestly Function in Heaven is contradicted by ancient Fathers first in respect of Place or Altar and Function SECT VIII THeodoret is a Theod. in Psal 109. Sacerdos nunc est Christus non ipse aliquid offerens sed vocatur Caput Offerentium quandoquidèm corpus suum Ecclesiam vocaâ— Objected by Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 6. alleged by you as denying that Christ now offereth any thing by himselfe but onely in the Church albeit hee saith not so simply but that hee offereth not in the Church personally which all confesse for otherwise Theodoret presently after b His words immediately following are these Et propterea Sacerdotio fuâ—gitur ut homo recipit autem ea quae offeruntur ut Deus Offert autem Ecclesia Corporis ejus sanguinis symbola So Theod. expresseth that Christ exerciseth his Priesthood still as man As for the Church his words are not that Shee offereth the Body and Blood of Christ in Sacrifice but The Symbols of his Body and Blood Therfore is this his Testimony unworthily and unconscionably objected But wee will consult with the direct speeches of Antiquity First if you aske the Offering Ambrose answereth you that c Ambros Nunc Christus offertur hî◠in Imagine ibi in veritate ubi apud Patrem Advocatus pro Nobis Lib. 1 de offic cap. 48. sub finem The offering of Christ here below is but in an image but his offering with the Father is in truth If of the Priest Augustine telleth you d Aug. in Psal 94. Imponimus in aâ—a Sacrificium quando Deum laudamusâ— at verò Sacerdotem si requiras super coelos est inter pellat pro te qui in terris mortuus est pro te The Priest is to be sought for in heaven even Hee who on earth suffered Death for thee There is some difference then sure As little reason have your Disputers to object that one and onely Testimony of Augustine f Aug. lib. 20. de Civit. cap. 10. Episcopi Presbyteri inquit sunt propriè Sacerdotes Bellarm. obijcit lib. 1. de Missa cap 17. Sed erunt omnes Sacerdotes Dei Christi regnabunt cum eo mille annis Apoc. 20. Non utique de solis Episcopis Presbyteris dictum qui propriè jam Vocantur Sacerdotes sed sicut omnes Christianos dicimus propter mysticum Chrisma sic omnes Sacerdotes quoniam membra sunt unius illius Sacerdotis Presbyteri propriè Sacerdotes which hee spake not absolutely but comparatively namely in respect of Lay-Christians who in Scripture are otherwise called Priests As your owne * Duplex Sacerdotium alterum Interius omnium fidelium qui aquâ salutari abluti sunt Apoc. 1. 16. alterum Exterius tantùm eorum qui externo Sacramento ordinis ad aliquod proprium sacrumque ministerium ascribuntur Catechis Rom. par 2. de
of it selfe Your Tridentine Fathers to this purpose say that a Concil Trident. Christum reliquisse Sacrificium Ecclesiae suae visibile quo cruentum istud in Cruce peragendum repraesentaretur Ses 22. ca. 1. Christ left this visible Sacrifice to his Church whereby his Body sacrificed on the Crosse should be represented So they From whom it may seeme your Rhemists learned that Lesson which they taught others that b Rhemists Annot. in Luc. 22. Christs Body once visibly sacrificed upon the Crosse In and By the selfe same Body is immolated and Sacrificed under the shapes of Bread and Wine and is most perfectly thereby resembled and therefore is most properly Commemorative being called the same Sacrifice by the Ancient Fathers And againe This neerely and lively resembleth that So they But this wee utterly deny because although a thing may in some sort be represented by it selfe yet say wee there is no Representative quality of any Body and Blood of Christ as it is said by you to be in the Eucharist of his Body and Blood sacrificed upon the Crosse And upon the Truth or Vntruth of this our Assertion dependeth the gaining or losing of the whole Cause concerning the Question of Sacrifice now controverted betweene Vs. Two of your Iesuites have undertaken to manifest your Representation by a more fit example than do your Rhemists thus c Barradas Ies En tibi stupendam Dei adinventionem notam facimus Animo concipiamus Regem aliquem post reportatam de Hostibus Victoriam c. Sic Christi corpus veluti in scena personatur id est speciebus panis vini velatur c. Tom. 4. Concord Evang lib. 3. cap. 13. §. Optimus And Bellarmine Even as a King say they having got a victory should represent himselfe after his warre in a Stage-play in fight c. ⚜ Or as your Cardinall Peron is said to have fancied As David might have represented his owne Combate with Goliah in a Theater ⚜ So they even in earnest which hath beene as earnestly yet easily confuted by us * See above Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. there answered Corpus sanguis Domini sub specie panis vini signa sunt corporis ejus passi sanguinis effusi c. See above also in the same place Chap. 3. already although indeed the Play deserveth but laughter And that so much the rather because the Representative part as your Councell of * See hereafter Chap. 6. Sect. 1. Trent hath defined is in your Masse a visible Sacrifice whereby the Bloody Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse might be represented as you have heard ⚜ For here is no visibly-represented person but the Priest no visily-represented or crucified Body but the Bread Broken But no more is the Bread Christ's Body than the Breaking thereof is his Crucifying or yet the Priest Christ ⚜ CHALLENGE Displaying furthermore the Stollidity of this your onely Romish Defence concerning an Vnbloody Representative Sacrifice of Christ's Body sacrificed on the Crosse from another Romish Principle and from the Absurdity of the Defence it selfe ALl Christians be they Protestants or Romanists whensoever they allow of the name of Sacrifice whether in a large and common or in a strict and proper Sense they evermore professe it to be the Representative and Commemorative of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse But how it is Representative is become the maine hinge of the whole Controversie Protestants hold and teach this to consist onely in the Analogie betweene the Consecrated Elements of Bread and Wine and the use thereof in the Eucharist and the Body and Blood of Christ on the Crosse But you Romish maintaine a Representation of Christs Sacrifice on the Crosse by Analogie with his Body and Blood as it is in this Sacrament The Analogie of Representation held by Protestants is such as your owne Doctors will grant to be true in every part and point First for the End of the Celebration of the Eucharist it is confessed that 4 Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom. Disp 220. Vt finis Sacrificij veteris legis erat repraesentare Sacrificium Crucis ut futurum sic finis est Sacrificij Eucharistiae repraesentare Sacrificium Crucis up praeteritum The end thereof is to represent the Sacrifice on the Crosse Secondly Nor will any of you deny but the formes of Bread and Wine do Represent the Body and Blood of Christ Nor thirdly will you gaine-say that the Separation of Bread from the Wine in the Eucharist doth represent the Separation of Christ's Body and Blood on the Crosse Which are the three Summarie Points of Representation held by Vs contrarie to your professed Representation made as you have said by Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist of the same his Body and Blood separated on the Crosse as it were in a Stage-play ⚜ You therefore except you will be Players and not Disputers must tell us where ever it was seene or heard of a King as Conquerour or yet of any other of what condition soever acting himselfe and that Visibly Perfectly and Truly as you have said yea or else any way semblably Representing himselfe when as yet the same King or party was to all the Spectators altogether Invisible If You can then shew where this was Acted whether it were not in Vtopia And who was the Actor if not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of what Disposition the Spectators were whether not like the Man of Argos who is said daily to have frequented the Theater and Stage alone void of all Actors yet seeming to himselfe to see all Varieties of Actions occasioning him to laugh and applaud at that which hee saw represented to himselfe onely in his owne phantasticall Braine Now have you nothing else to Answer but which you have already said that The Body and Blood in the Eucharist are visible by the visible shapes of Bread and Wine Whereas it had beene much better you had answered indeed nothing at all rather than not onely to contradict that which was said by your Fathers of Trent decreeing the Representation to be made By the Sacrifice on the Altar it selfe and more expressely by your * See above at ◠Rhemists In and by the same Body in the Eucharist but also to expose your selves to the reproofe of your Adversaries and Scorne of any man of common Sense as if you would perswade him his money is Visible to any that will use his eyes which hee hath therefore locked close up in his Coffer lest any man might see it ⚜ Besides this your Romish Principle and Doctrine of Concomitancie is not unknowne unto you which is that notwithstanding whatsoever Consecration of Bread severally from the Wine yet the Body and Blood of Christ are continually in the Eucharist as Veseparably united together his Blood being in the veines of the same Body as verily as it was before his Passion Hence wee argue that this Inseparation of Christ's Blood
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
enim non putrescit cor si levetur ad Deum Teste Pamel Tom. 1. Missal in Missa Aug. 〈◊〉 pag. 527. Augustine interpret this Admonition to be A lifting up of hearts to heaven Whom as you have * See above B. 6. Chap. 3. Sect. 8. heard leaving our Eucharisticall Sacrifice on this Altar so would hee have us to seeke for our Priest in heaven namely as Origen more expresly said Not on earth but in heaven accordingly Oecumenius placing the Host and Sacrifice where Christs Invisible Temple is even in heaven âšœ Agreeable to this are the words of Hierome whom notwithstanding your owne 1 Dr. Heskins Parliam Booke 2. Ch. 53. out of Hier. Epist ad Hebdib qu. 2. Doctor hath objected as a Patron for defence of your Romish Masse 2 Hier ad Hebdib cap. 2. Ascendamus igitur cum Domino ad coenaculum magnum stratum accipâ—amus ab eo sursum Calâ—cem Novi Testamenti Ibique cùm eo Pascha celebrantes inebriemur ab eo Vino sobrietatis Let us ascend with our Lord into the great Chamber prepared and made cleane and let us receive of him the Cup of the new Testament and there keeping the Passeover with him let us be made drunke with the wine of Sobriety All as plaine as plainnesse it selfe âšœ Will you suffer one whom the world knoweth to have been as excellently versed in Antiquity as any other to determine this Point Hee will come home unto you h Tempore veters Ecclesiae Romanae populus non cursitabat ad videndum id quod Sacerdos ostendit sed prostratis humi corporibus animis in coelum erectis gratias agebant Redemptori Eras lib. de amab Eccles Concord In the time of the ancient Church of Rome saith hee the people did not run hither and thither to behold that which the Priest doth shew but prostrating their Bodies on the ground they lift up their minds to heaven giving thanks to their Redeemer So hee Thus may wee justly appeale as in all other Causes of moment so in this from this degenerate Church of Rome to the sincere Church of Rome in the Primitive times like as one is reported to have Appealed from Caesar sleeping to Caesar waking Our difference then can be no other than was that betweene Mary and Stephen noted by Ambrose i Ambros in Luc. cap. 24. Maria quae quaerebat Christum in terra â—angere non potuit Stephanus tetigit qui quaesivit in coelo Mary because shee sought to touch Christ on earth could not but Stephen touched him who sought him in heaven A third Argument followeth That the ancient Fathers cendemned the Romish worship by their Descriptions of Divine Adoration SECT III. ALl Divine Adoration of a meere Creature is Idolatry hereunto accord these sayings of k Aug Tom. 2 Epist 44. ad Maxim Christianis Catholicis nihil ut numen adoratur quod conditum est a Deo IdeÌ„ Tom. 8. in Psalm 98. Timeo terram adorare ne me damnet qui fecit coelum terram Nazianz. Orat 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antiquity No Catholike Christian doth worship as a Divine Power that which is created of God Or thus I feare to worship earth lest hee condemne mee who created both Heaven and earth Or thus If I should worship a Creature I could not be named a Christian It were a tedious superfluity in a matter so universally confessed by your selves and all Christians to use Witnesses unnecessarily Wee adde the Assumption But the Romish Adoration of the Sacrament is an attributing of Divine Honour to a meere Creature the Consecrated Bread For that it is still Bread you shall find to have beene the Doctrine of Primitive Fathers if you shall but have the patience to stay untill wee deliver unto you a * See Booke 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Synopsis of their Catholike Iudgement herein after that wee have duly examined your Romish Doctrine by your owne Principles which is the next point CHAP. V. An Examination of the Romish Adoration of the Sacrament in the Masse to prove it Idolatrous by discussing your owne Principles The State of the Question IDolatry by the Distinction of your Iesuites is either Materiall or Formall The Materiall you call that when the Worshipper adoreth something in stead of God in a wrong perswasion that it is God otherwise you judge the Worship to be a Formall Idolatry Now because many of your seduced Romanists are perswaded that your Romish worship in your Masse cannot be subject either to Materiall or Formall Idolatry it concerneth us in Conscience both for the honour of God and safety of all that feare God to prove Both. Wee begin at that which you confesse to be a Materiall Idolatry That the Romish Adoration of the Host in the hand of the Priest is necessarily a Materiall Idolatry by reason of many hundred confessed Defects whereof Seven concerne the Matter of the Sacrament SECT I. IT is a point unquestionable among you that if the thing in the hand of the Priest be not duly Consecrated then the Matter Adored is but a meere Creature and your Adoration must needs be at the least a Materiall Idolatry The Seven defects set downe in your Romane a Missal Rom. pag. 31. Vbi debita materia deficit non conficitur Sacramentum Si non sit panis triticeus vel si alioqui corruptus Et pag. 32. Si Vinum sit factum acetum vel penitùs putidum vel de uvis acerbis non maturis expressum vel admixtum aquae ut sit corruptum non conficitur Sacramentum Missall and by your b Dico species consecratae perfectè misceri possunt cum liquore specie distincto tum non manet sub eis sanguis Christi Ità Thomas Teste Suar. Ies in 3. Thom. Disp 67 Sect. 4. § Dico Et Durand Si plus apponatur Aquae quà m Vini erit irritum Sacramentum Lib. 4. cap. 42. Iesuite are these First If the Bread be not of Wheat or secondly Be corrupt or thirdly the Wine be turned Vinegar or fourthly of sowre or fifthly unripe Grapes or sixthly be stinking or imperfectly mixt with any liquor of any other kinde the Consecration is void so that neither Body or Blood of Christ can be there present seventhly yea and if there be more Water than Wine So you All which Defects how easily they may happen beyond the understanding of every Consecrating Priest let Bakers and Vintners judge That there are Sixe other c Missal Roman in Can. Missâ—e Sex modis contingere potest formae variatio nunâ—rùm per Additionem detractionem alicujus vocis mutationem vel si una ponâ—tur loco alterius corruptionem vocis alicujus detrahendo vel mutando syllabam aliquam transpositioneÌ„ id est ordinis dictionum variatione ac deinde per interruptionem ut pronunciando unaÌ„ partem formae ac quicscendo per aliquod spacium vel loquendo aliquid
may sweare by any thing as God which hee dare not sweare is God But your Romish Professors in your Masse Invocate this Sacrament thus d Sacerdos inclinatus Sacramento junctis manibus ter pectus percutiens dicit Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi miserere nobis Et rursus Agnus Dei c. Missal Rom. pag. 24. Rursus Inclinato capite versus Sacramentum dicit intelligibili voce Da nobis pacem Et rursus secretè Domine Iesu Christe c. Missal Rom. ibid O Lambe of God which takest away the Sins of the world have mercie upon us And what Romish Professor is there who sweareth not By the Masse meaning the Consecrated Host as by Christ himselfe Notwithstanding no one of your Romish Priests by reason of the manifold Defects incident thereunto as you have heard durst ever sweare that this which is now Consecrated by him on the Altar is not substantially Bread or that it is the Body of Christ It must therefore follow that your Adoration having no better Certainty than as you have confessed to adore it with an If it be Christ is a faithlesse prophanation of the name of the Son of God and of his Worship This Point concerning Faith in every Worshipper will be confessed * Thorow-out the 7. Chapter afterwards In the last place that wee may ruinate the very foundation of your Excuse your Pretence of Morall Certainty cometh to be examined which you have exemplified by one giving an Almes to a poore man who peradventure hath no need and of Iacobs lying ignorantly with her that was not his wife These say wee are Cases farre different from this which wee have in hand because Gods Almoner you know is not bound to enquire of a man whom hee seeth to appeare to be miserable and poore whether hee be a Counterfeit or no for Charity is not suspicious saith the Apostle Saint Paul Iacob indeed was bound to know onely his owne wife but if hee had had any probable or Morall Cause of doubt would that holy Patriarke thinke you have beene so deluded or over-reached a second and a third time to defile his body by an unchaste Bed But the Causes of your Doubtings are see forth and numbred by threes Sixes Twenties Hundreds untill you come to a Thousand and as your Iesuite hath said Almost infinite Defects For indeed if there be as appeareth a Thousand hazards in every Masse of any one Priest then in two Priests as many more and so forward so that if one should heare in his time the Masses of Ten and Twenty Priests what multitudes of Thousands of Defects would the reckoning make But wee need say no more than hath already been confessed of Almost infinite and consequently as many Doubts of an Idolatrous worship wherein there cannot be so much Morall Certainty as that in any one generation of men from Christ's time each one of that off-spring hath beene chastly borne whereunto what Christian is there that dare be sworne CHALLENGE COnsider wee beseech you for Gods Cause for wee are now in the Cause of God whether our God who will be knowne to be transcendently Iealous of his owne Honour would ever ordaine such a worship of a Sacrament whereby men must needs be still more obnoxious to that which you call a Materiall Idolatry by many hundred-fold than possibly any can be to any materiall Parricide or materiall Murther or materiall Adultery or any other hainous and materiall Transgression that can be named under the Sun Thus much of your first Pretence for this present untill wee come to receive the * See Chap. 7. thorowout Confessions of your owne Doctors in this very point That the Second Romish Pretence which is of a Good Intent cannot free your Adoration of the Host from Formall Idolatry SECT III. LEt us heare your Cardinall a Bellar. Sicut is qui panem non consecratum injuriâ afficeret c. See above Sect. 1. a Honour saith hee dependeth upon the Intention so that as hee who should contemptuously abuse the unconsecrated Bread thinking it to be Consecrated should grievously offend Christ contrariwise hee who certainly beleeving the Bread to be Christs Body shall Adore the same doth principally and formally Adore Christ and not the Bread So hee even with the same Sophistry from onely such a seeming Contrariety wherewith you use to pleade for Merits to wit if evill workes deserve damnation then good workes deserve eternall life But will you be pleased to heare the same Cardinall speake in earnest from the Principles of true Logike b Mâ—la intentio vittat opus sed perperaÌ„ inde colligitur opera mala ex intentione bona justificari Nam opus bonum nascitur ex integra causâ malum autem ex quovis defectu oriti potest Bellar. de amiss Grat. lib. 2. cap. 4. §. Pâ—â—mum enim Although an evill Intention doth 〈◊〉 and corruptiun Act otherwise good yet it followeth not that a good Intent should justisie an evill Act because no Act is good except all the Causes thereof be good but any Act is evill upon any one Defect So hee which his Conclusion is held as universally true in all Schooles whether Christian or Heathen as any point of Morality can be Wherefore it followeth not that because a man doth something to the contempt of Christ in abusing that which hee thinketh to be Christ that therefore the honour which hee doth to that which hee falsly believeth to be Christ should be an Adoration of Christ as all Heathenish Idolatry in worshipping stocks and stones in an opinion of adoring the true God do witnesse to the world as your owne * Chap. 7 and 8. Confessions will confirme âšœ It may not seeme a thing superfluous to apply to our former Answer the Testimony of your Iesuite Lessius judging it 1 Incredibile videtur Deum tanti aestimare amorem quo eum amo quanti peccatum quo eum offendo quis enim eum qui Principi facit injuriam vel ejus legem violavit ità ut mereatur mortem dicat satisfacere ex aequo si illum amet doleat de suo facto promittat emendationem quis dicat ex natura rei tanti debere aestimare dolorem illum ex amore profectuÌ„ quanti injuriam legis violationem nec jure posse Principem injuriam retinere pro meritis punire hoc ipso enim quod quis meritus est amittere vicam bona sua omnia etiamsi millies amet millies doleat emendationem promittat censebitur ullo modo aequivalens offerre quod mereatur condonationem multò minùs possit homo compensationem Deo reddere Lessius Ies Opusc lib. 13. de Iustic cap. 27. A thing incredible for God to equall mans love unto him in the good as hee would do Sin wherewith hee is offended for who will say saith hee that a man injuring his Prince and violating his Lawes so as
the Godly onely are partakers of Christs Body p. 320 321. that Our Tongues are made red with his Blood pag. 342. and Wee teare him with our teeth Ibid. His frequent Hyperbolicall speeches confessed Ibid. Hee is objected for Christs bodily nourishing of our bodies pag. 356. 357. And for Corporall union by Mixture with the bodies of the Communicants Ibid. By Baptisme wee are made Bone of his Bone Ibid. And Christ received first himselfe of the Passeover to induce others to take it with a quiet mind pag. 367. His saying To understand Christs words carnally is to understand them literally p. 368. Hee is urged for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse from the act of Melchisedeth pag 404. That Christ transmitted not his Priesthood to any Successor 411. But exerciseth it now in Heaven 417. Not to play the Iay. Ibid. That all the Lambs sacrificed under the Law prefigured the death of Christ p. 426. The Passeover was a signe of Christs Passion p. 424. Hee is objected for the Romish Exposition of the word Sacrifice in Malachie 5. pag. 431. Confuteth their Objections pag. 433. Hee nameth the Eucharist the same Sacrifice with this Correction or rather a Remembrance thereof pag. 443. Ob. Hee saith of the Eucharist a Terrible Sacrifice Sol. So of Baptisme Terrible Baptisme pag 448. Hee cals it an unbloody Sacrifice p. 452. Ob. That Christ's Body is an unbloody Sacrifice yet slaine on the Crosse pag. 455. Sol. Baptisme is is Christ's Passion p. 457. His saying Wee see Christ lying on the Altar Objected and Answered pag. 506. And his calling of the Sacrament Dreadfull Ibid. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Objected p. 512. Answered by the like saying of Baptisme Ibid. His saying that The Priest did take a little piece and held it up a little p. 513. His saying of the Priests inclining towards the Eucharist p. 515. His Liturgie to receive propitiously the Guift 562. 563. c. CHVRCH of Rome long time in an errour of Administring the Eucharist to Infants p. 51. Her Authority contradicted by the now Romish Ibid. CIRCVMSCRIPTION and Vncircumscription the distinct differences of the God-head and Man-hood of Christ 243 244. c. CLEMENS ALEX. Against Prayer in an unknowne tongue p. 36. He expoundeth the fruit of the Vine Matth. 26. 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine p. 164. c. CLARKE of the Parish was no office in the Apostles times p. 30. CLOVD in the Sea compared with Baptisme p. 427. CO-ADORATION is Idolatrous p. 541. 542 p. 543. 544. COLOVR The Nature hereof to be perceived in divers places at once Objected by the Romish and confuted by themselves 258. COMMEMORATIVE Sacrifice used by Protestants how p 440. 441. c. COMMVNICANTS onely were anciently admitted to the Eucharist and Gazers on excluded p. 45. 46 c. COMMVNION in both kinds commanded by Christ both to all Priests and People that are present at the Communion p. 56. Evasion Romish against the perpetuall custome of the Greeke Church p. 57. Against the precept of Christ p. 56. Against the Example of Christ pag. 62. Against Apostolicall Practice p 65 Against Primitive Custome p. 68. Against Theologicall Reasons p. 70 71 c. Against the ancient Fathers pag. 76. Ob. from Christ at Emmaus Answered p. 65. Romish Pretence of Alteration answered pag. 78 79. A Comparison betweene the Alterations and Observations and betweene the Alterers and Observers p. 83. More Perfection more Spirituall Grace and Refection is obtayned by Receiving in both Kinds p. 75. CONCEALEMENT of the words of Christs Institution by the Fathers from the Catechumenists and Pagans Objected for Corporall Presence pag. 511. And Fideles norunt the same sayd they of Baptisme 512 c. COVNCEL OF AQVISGR Against Prayer in an Vnknowne Tongue p. 35. of BRACARA Against any Alteration of the Institution of Christ in the Eucharist p. 63. of CARTHAGE Against Administring the Eucharist to Infants pag. 53. Which expoundeth the words of Christ in the Eucharist to be taken Tropically 130. The words of the same Councel corruptly translated by Binius Ibid. of COLON saith that Contempt in not Receiving of this Sacrament offereth violence to Christ p. 316. of CONSTANCE Against Communion in both kindes p. 55. of EPHESVS The Body which Christ united to his Godhead as palpable and unpalpable pag. 276. Holds that we have expiation in the Eucharist by the Blood of Christ as remembred herein that is Objectively p. 478. of LATERAN The first that invented the word Transubstantiation p. 149. As also the Article it selfe as is Confessed p. 151. It taught only a Transubstantiation in Matter and not Forme The Councel of Trent both p. 153. of NANATENS Against Private Masse p. 18. of NICE Baptisme is not to be beholden with the eyes of our Body p. 207. This Councel is objected by both Protestants and Papists for the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist p. 301. Calling the thing Eaten Bread after Consecration pag. 302. and the Place a Table Ibid. Much of the Sacrament would satiate and presse downe An Argument that the Substance of Bread remaineth after Consecration pag. 304. It useth Lift up your hearts aloft pag. 202. Romish Objections Answered p. 203 204 c. It calleth the Eucharist Viand pag. 366 c. of PAPIENS Against Private Masse pag. 18. of TOLEDO is for the Receiving of the Eucharist with Hands pag. 44. Forbiddeth Innovations in receiving of the Eucharist which are repugnant to the Institution of Christ. p. 89. Take a little not much les t the Belly be overcharged that it may be food for thy Soule p. 305 of TRENT Against Christ his Institution of the Eucharist in Forme of Consecration p. 9. And in Private Masse p. 17. And in muttering the words of Christ. pag. 22. And in prescribing of a strange Tongue p. 24. And in Inviting Non-Communicants to gaze vpon the Eucharist p. 45. And in reserving the Eucharist for Procession p. 48. And in Administring the Eucharist to Infants p. 51. And in with-drawing the cup from the Communicants p. 55 c. It defineth a Proper Sense of Christs words This is my Body p. 95. Falsly imposed Transubstantiation as collected out of these words This is my Body pag. 147. Transubstantiation compleat was not defined before the Councel of Trent p. 152. And that the same Councel of Trent held Transubstantiation contrary to the Councel of Laterane Ibid. It Defined the whole Body of Christ to be in every least part of the Hoast p. 270. Which is confuted by Romish Doctors p. 271 272. And by Saint Angustine p. 274. Eucharist is food for the Soule p. 310. In Expounding 1. Cor. 10. 18. turneth a Table into an Altar p. 402. of TRVLLO is for receiving the Eucharist with Hands pag. 44. It interpreteth Christs words This is my Body Tropically pag. 122. CONCOMITANCIE The pretence hereof no just cause to with-hold the Cup from the Laity pag. 81. 82. This Romish Conceit spoyleth
Body of Christ in the Eucharist p. 283. His saying Gustamus Carnem Christi Corruply alleged for Gestamus p. 343. He is Objected for Corporall Vnion of Christs Bodily nourishing our Bodies pag. 356. And that hee spake of a Permanent Vnion pag. 365. His saying By Baptisme the Regenerate is made the Body of Christ crucifyed pag. 357. Hee is also Objected to proove the Paschall Lambe to have prefigured Christ in the Masse and therein egregiously abused pag. 425. POPE NICHOLAS his Decree and Romish Doctrine of Eating Christs flesh Corporally by Tearing it with Teeth the Occasion of Averroes his imputing to Christians the Devouring of their God p. 381. PO. PIVS the Fourth forbad the Eucharist to be carried to the Sicke only for Adoration-sake p. 50. POPE ZePHERINUS Ordayned that the Chalices should be Glasses pag. 514. PRAYER in an Vnknown Tongue Condemned by Antiquity pag. 24 25 26 c. The Practice of Vnknowne Prayer in Divine Service in the Romish Masse is Sacrilegiously derogatory to the Dignity of Christ pag. 558 559 c. Their Praying for Propitiousnesse towards Christ as towards a Sheep p. 560 561 c. PRECEPT Words of Precept may be Figurative p. 133. PRESENCE How Christs Body may be sayd to be present in the Eucharist of Protestants in a foure-fold Truth pag. 212 213. That the Presence of Christs Body Corporally is the Romish maner p. 217. PRETENCE of Reverence is often cause of Disobedience pag 80 81. See Reverence PRIESTS bring present at the Communion ought to Communicate pag. 57 58 c. A Priest hath no more Privilege for the use of the Cup by the Iudgement of Antiquity than any other Faithfull Communicant Ibid. The word Priest as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not used of the Apostle as is Confessed pag. 461. And that Priest as from Presbyter cannot relate to a Proper Sacrifice Ibid. And that Sacerdos is more proper to the Old Testament Ibid. PRIESTHOOD of Melchisedech is agreeable to the Priesthood of Christ pag. 409. And as Disagreeable to the Romish Priesthood pag. 410 411 c. It is denyed to be now exercised in Heaven which is Confuted by Scripture pag. 412 413. Bellarmine his Sacrilegious detracting from it Ibid. Proved by Ancient Fathers pag. 415. The Priesthood of Christ for ever Confessed by a learned Iesuite out of the Fathers pag. 418. See Melchisedech PRIMASIVS by terming the Eucharist a Pledge held a Continuance of Bread therein pag. 180. Hee is fondly Objected for calling the Eucharist a Pledge pag. 369. Hee saith that Christ as Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine that is his Body and Blood pag. 404. His expounding of 1. Cor. 10. 18 Partakers of Devills pag. 401. Hee nameth the Eucharist The same Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse with this Correction or rather Remembrance thereof pag. 442. And that which was borne of the Virgin not now great and now lesse Ibid. PRIVATE MASSE is a Transgression of Christs Command pag. 17 18. And repugnant to Antiquity p. 19 c. PROCESSION with the Sacrament for Adoration is Contrary to Antiquity pag. 48 49 c. And defended by Pamelius out of Tertullian pag. 50. PRODVCTION pretended to be the sole maner of Transubstantiation by divers Romanists and Confuted as Absurd by some others of them pag. 153 154 155 c. PROPITIATORY Sacrifice cannot be properly Attributedâ— to the Eucharistâ— pag. 474 475 c. Our Distinction Ibid. The Romish Sacrifice hath no foundation in Christs Institution pag. 475. Divers Acts unproperly called Propitiatory pag. 476. That it is Propitiatory because of the Remembrance of the bloody Sacrifice and by Application of that Confessed pag. 480. Not Propitiatorie without Relation unto the Crosse pag. 481. That onely Bloody is Propitiatory Ibid. The Romanists Propitiatory of Finite Virtue Ibid. 482. The Church of Rome not yet resolved of the value of their Propitiatory Sacrifice pag. 483. The Romish Application for lucre-sake pag. 486. The Priests Portion therein Ibid. Protestants Application for a Propitiatory Sacrifice more true pag. 487. And absolute pag. 488. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word not justly objected for Divine Adoration of the Eucharist pag. 507. 508. c. PROTESTANTS doe all agree with the Augustane Confession in the point of Vnion of Christs Flesh with the Bodies of the Receivers pag. 310. Their Security from the Romish Perplexities in Adoration of the Eucharist pag. 550. PROVIDENCE of God admired by two Cardinals in these words Quotiescunque Biberitis p. 56. 57. c. Their three Evasions which are by Gods Providence confounded by the contrariety of their owne tongues Ibid. PSALMES vulgarly sung in the publicke worship of God Primitively p. 28. 29. c. PVNICK Tongue not so well knowne to Punicks as the Latine p 42. PVRGATORIE The place of Romish Purgatorie lest it should be evacuated they devised the Sacrifice of Christ to be but of a finite virtue in the Masse p. 486. Q QVANTITIE can be no Similitude for resembling the Being of God in Place but Quantity p. 255. QVOMODO There is a double Quomodo the one Prudentiae the other Infidelitatis pag. 211. 250. R RABBINS of the Iewes wrongfully urged for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse from the Act of Melchisedech p. 404. REASON Romish Objections against our Naturall Reasons in Confutation of the Romish Corporall Presence of Christs Body Answered pag. 263. REASONABLE Service in the Liturgies what it signifieth p. 451. Reasonable Sacrifice attributed to the Eucharist objected for a proper Sacrifice although ascribed by other Fathers to unproper Sacrifices by Chrysostome of Prayses by Athanasius to Baptisme p. 452. RELATIONS Contrary Relations fondly attributed to the same body of Christ as to be above and below it selfe 245. although denied by others Ibid. REMAINDERS of the Eucharist were anciently burnt p. 514. Confessed REMEMBRANCE and Discretion required in the Communicant p. 51. REPRESENTATIVE Sacrifice of the old Law how p. 442. The Eucharist onely Representative Ibid. The Romish after a manner of a Stage-play p. 445. See Commemorative RESERVATION of the Eucharist for Romish Procession contradicted by Antiquity p. 48. With whom the end of Reservation was still to be eaten Ibid. REVERENCE most due to Christ is our Obedience p. 81. c. That it is no sufficieÌ„t Reason to with-hold the Cup from the Laity Ibid. What Reverence is lawfull in receiving the Eucharist pag. 551. The reverence of Kneeling justifiable Ibid. ROMISH Doctors divided about the word Masse p. 3 And about Consecration that it was by Prayer p. 9. In the ancient Romane Church Consecration was by Prayer Ibid. And did Brâ—ake Bread Ibid. They gaine-said Private Masse pag. 17. 18. c. And the uttering of Christs words in an unaudible voice pag. 22. 23. c. That a knowne Tongue was used in Gods Service pag. 24. Their Objections for the Communion but in one kind from Antiquity Answered pag. 68. That there is a more spirituall grace and refection
of Virginity at the Birth of Christ Objected against Antiquity p. 272. VNBLOODY Sacrifice Objected as attributed to the Eucharist by Ancient Fathers pag. 451. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for void of Blood by Antiquitie to the Confutation of the Objectors Ibid. The Fathers calling things utterly void of Blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is unbloody Ibid. Basil and Eusebius call Godly Actions a Sacrifice and oppose them to Bloody pag. 452. Nazian calleth the Eucharist an Vnbloody Sacrifice not which is Christ but whereby wee communicate with Christ pag. 453. Ambrose called Bread and Wine an Vnbloody Sacrifice Ibid. and Athanasius Bread and Wine of Melchisedech were a signe of an Vnbloody Sacrifice Ibid. and Cyrilâ— Alex. calleth them Vnbloody Spirituall pag. 464. VNIFORMITIE is no reason of withholding the Cup from the Laity p 78. VNION Romish of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants pag. 308. Romish Objections for this Vnconscionably alleaged pag. 358. The Romish Sophistry discovered pag. 365 366 c. The same Vnconscionablenesse discovered from their owne Confessions Ibid. The Objected Testimonies are proved to make against them pag. 367. Vnion with Christs Body by Touch is Capernaiticall pag. 333. And by Swallowing also Ibid. pag. 347. That the same Vnion in mens Bellies is Capernaiticall pag. 349. The Romish Vnion by Commixture with mens Bodies is also Capernaiticall pag. 354. And the Romish Objected Sentences of the Fathers Answered pag. 356. Out of their Similitudes pag. 366. The basest Maner of Romish Vnion of Christs Body in the Inferiour parts of mans Body by egestion into the Draught pag. 382. The Abominablenesse thereof pag. 384. VOMITERS of Christs Body such are the Romish p. 348. VOICE Not audible in uttering Christs words of Consecration is in the Romish Church a Transgression against Christs Institution pag. 22. The nature of a Voice to be perceived in divers places at once Objected by the Romish and confuted by themselves p. 258. VVLGAR Translation against Fundetur in the future tense confuteth the Romish Objection of the Present tense in a proper signification pag. 392. The Vulgar latine Translation corrupted leaving out the word Incense pag. 430. Condemned by the different Translations of other Fathers Ibid. The Objected Fathers confute the Romish Exposition of Malachie 5. Ibid. The vulgar Translation perjuriously sworne unto and rejected by Romish Disputers pag. 574. A speciall Instance out of the Fathers to confute the Vulgar Translation in the words of the Apostle Ephes 1. 14. which rendreth the Greeke word Arrhabo in Latine Pignus but according to the Originall should be translated in Latine Arra that is Earnest p. 576. W WATER mixed with the Wine in the Eucharist was not commanded by Christ p. 5. WINE may be had for a Sacramentall use in all Countries which is confessed pag. 78. WORMES ingendred in the Hâ—ast pag. 174. FINIS AN INDEX Of the Principall places of Scripture Opposed by Vs and Objected against us throughout this whole Controversie PSALM 72. 16. There shall be an handful of Corne. Object to prove the Romish Sacrifice pag. 4 3. MALAC. 5. 1. In every place shall Sacrifice and Oblation be offered in my name Ob. for a proper Sacrifice but vainely pag. 429 c. MATTH 19. 14. It is Easier for a Camel to passe through the eye of a Needle c. Ob. for the maner of Christs Presence pag. 275. MATTH 26. 26. LVC 22. 19 20. And hee Blessed it Op. p. 9. Brake it Op. pag. 15. And gave it to them Opp. pa. 17. And said unto them Opp. p. 22 And againe Opp. pag. 24. Take ye Opp. pag. 43. Eat yee Opp. pa. 45 And againe Opp. p. 48. In Remembrance of me p. 51. Drinke yee All of this p. 54. In like maner hee tooke the Cup. Ibid. 1. COR. 11. 25. As often as you shall doe it Ibid. THIS IS MY BODY The word This pag. 91. The Verbe Est Is. p. 107. That they are Figurative doe not make for Transsubstantiation p. 146. My Body Is farre different from that which is in the hands of the Priest p. 210. DO THIS Ob. for Sacrifice pag. 390. Is shed Is broken Is given Ob. for Sacrifice p. 392. Both unreasonably Ibid. Shed for remission of sinnes Ob. for a Sacrifice Propitiatory pag. 475. MATTH 26. 29. Fruit of the Vine Opp. against Transubstantiation pag. 163. MATTH 28. 6. Hee is not heere for hee is risen Opp. against Being in two places at once pag. 237. LVK. 24. 16. Their eyes were holden pag. 172. Knowne at Emmäus by Breaking of Bread p. 63. IO. 6. 54. Who so eateth my flesh Opp. pag. 339. And vers 63. It is the Spirit that quickeneth p. 340. And vers 53. Except you eat the flesh c. p. 352. IOH. 19. 33. They brake not his legs p. 394 423. ACT. 2. 42. They continued in fellowship Breaking of Bread pag. 66 67. ACT. 9. 3. Concerning Christs Apparance to Saul Ob. p. 239. ACT. 13. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ob. p. 400. 1. COR. 5. 7. Our Passeover is Sacrificed Ob. p. 422. 1. COR. 10. 4. The same Spirituall meat Opp. pag. 314. Ib. And that Rocke was CHRIST pag. 126. And verse 16. The Bread which we break Opp. Against Transubstantiation pag. 165 166. Ibid. vers 18. They which eat of the Sacrifices are Partakers of the Altar Ob. pag. 401. for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice 1. COR. 11. 25. Quotiescunque biberitis p. 54. 56. And vers 27. Whosoever eateth or drinketh unworthily c. p. 320. And vers 28. So let him eat of this Bread and drinke of this Cup. Opp. Against Communion but in one kinde pag. 65. And Opp. for proofe that it remaineth Bread after Consecration p. 161. And 1. COR. 14. 16. How shall he say Amen Opp. against Vnknowne Prayer p. 22 23. HEBR. 5. Concerning Melchisedech Ob. for Sacrifice p. 404. And Chap. 9. 22. Without shedding of Blood Opp. pag. 481. And Chap. 13. 10. Wee have an Altar c. Ob. 413 461. FINIS FAVLTS escaped in this Second Edition thorow the absence of the R. Author The Corrector's Negligence and the Printers Precipitancie PAg. 15. lin 13. Reade SECT IV. Pag. 53. lin 28. in the Margin Reade Aquin. part 3. Qu. 80. Art 9. Conclus Pag. 54. lin 6. Reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 61. at * in the Marg. R. See the next Sect. 3. at the letter x. Pag. 64. lin 29. Reade be represented by without the vvord but. Pag. 67. lin 24. Reade Synechdoche Pag. 81. lin 4 5. Reade used onely water Pag. 83 lin 27. R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 115. lin 29. in the Margin R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 120. lin last but 3. in the Marg. R. Epiphanius his words to be P. 123. l. 30. R. â—nd not to either the P. 124. lin 3. for Glosse R. Glosse P. 159. lin 30. in Marg. R. Chap. 4. Sect. 1. P. 180. lin 10. in the Marg. R. Chap. 9. Sect. 2. P. 200. lin 47. in the Marg. R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 209. lin 19 R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 288. l. 10. instead of Antecedents R. Accidents P. 295. l. 40. R. had not any existence P. 302. in the Marg. lit c. lin ult R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 343. l. 45. For Isychius Read Hesychius whose Testimonies in the Index ought to be under one title of Hesychius P. 360. l. 27. R. of their Bodies P. 361. Marg. at num 4. lin 3. R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 377. l. 24. For Cause R. Case P. 426. lin 2. R of a bloody Sacrifice P. 443. in the Marg. at let c lin 2. R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Other Errours Typographicall which have got into the small and obscurer Character of the Margin the Greeke especially an Ingenuous Reader however otherwise affected may equally pardon and correct as they shall come to his view
thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 âšœ Bellarmine in great numbers among whom are Luther and Calvin with joynt consent approve of this Canon one of them Bucer by name subscribing unto it with his owne hand in these words So I thinke in the Lord and I wish to appeare in this minde before the Tribunall seat of God So they The right Explication of this Canon will be worthy our paines âšœ Where any man may discerne an Allusion of the Fathers to the words of Saint Paul Colos 3. Seeke those things that are above and not on Earth and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 referreth to things on Earth and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the things above in Heaven and that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoke of the Table opposite to that Table whereof it was sayd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as much as There to Here. âšœ The state of the Difference concerning this Canon SECT III. THis as is propounded by your Cardinall standeth thus d Per Agnum omnes intelligunt Christum ut distinguitut contra symbo la Bellar. quo supra Illi Protestantes quasi admoneaÌ„t nè quaerendum Christum in Altarâ— lapideo Sed monte conscendamus ad coelum in coelo sisum Agnum At vult Concilium ut ad sacram ipsam mensam attendamus sed in ipsa non tam Symbola quà m quae sub illis latent consideremus Ibidem per totum All saith hee by the Lambe understand Christ as hee is distinguished from the Symbols and Signes upon the Altar Next But the Protestants thinke saith hee that the Councel admonisheth not to seeke Christ on the Altar but to ascend up unto him in Heaven by faith as sitting at the Right hand of God But wee all say saith hee that the Councel would have us to attend unto the holy Table meaning the Altar below yet so that wee see in it not so much the outward Symbols and Signes as that which lyeth hid under them viz. The Body and Blood of Christ So hee The difference then betweene him and us is no lesse than the distance betweene Aloft and Vnder that is between Heaven above and Earth below Let us set forward in our progresse but with easie and even paces to the end you may better understand the strength of our Proofes and rottennesse of your Objections That the Nicene Councell is marveilously prejudiciall to your Romish Defence proved by divers Observations Three heere SECT IV. FIve Points are chiefly observable in this Canon First is the nomination of Bread Secondly the mention of two Tables Thirdly the admonition to lift up our minds Fourthly the expression of the Reason thereof Fiftly the Confirmation of the same Reason First That which the Councel would that men be not too intent unto they call Bread after Consecration for the Errour which they would have avoyded was either the too much abasing of this Sacrament according to your Cardinals e Iubet Concilium ut non inhaereamus speciebus panis vini quasi ibi nihil sit nisi quod oculi renuntiant Bellarm quo supra Glosse and then was it after Consecration because they needed not to have perswaded any to have too meane an estimation of the Bread unconsecrated w ch you your selves hold to be a common and prophane thing or else the Errour must have been as indeed it was too high a valuation of the outward Element of Bread which must needs be so because it was Consecrated and notwithstanding it being so Consecrated in the Canon it is called Bread Which your Fathers of the Councel of Trent would not have indured especially seeing that wee find that your f Nic. Cabasâ—las Latini dicunt eos qui panem vinum nominant tanquam nondum sanctificatis precantur sanctificationem post illa verba Hoc est Corpus meum rem supervacuam facere Expos Liturg. c. 29. Latine Church was offended with the late Greeke Church for calling the parts of the Eucharist by the termes of Bread and Wine after the pronunciation of these words This is my Body by you called the words of Consecration Besides they so call them Bread and Wine as they name them Symbols and Signes which properly they could not be untill after Consecration Secondly the g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Nicen Canon expresly noteth and distinguisheth two Tables in respect of place the one as Here being as much as to say The Table and the other opposed hereunto is instiled That Table I say And now be it knowne that The Table here which is not to be represented by the Antithesis of But that Table must necessarily inferre two distinct Tables as Here and There doe prove two distinct Places except one can make congruitie of these words That Table Here. Which I note in Confutation of a vaine and crotchetive Objector And of this Table Here the Councel forbiddeth Christians to looke Too attentively to the thing set before us But contrarily concerning That other Table they command men to Lift up their minds aloft And not thus only but they also distinguish them in respect of their different Objects The Object of the First Table Here they name Bread and the Cup the Objects of Sense And the other Object opposed to this is that on the other Table expressed to be the Lambe God the Object of our mindes Thirdly the Admonition or Caution which the Councel giveth concerning the Bread is not to be too intent to it but touching the Lambe Christ they command us to lift up our mindes aloft for so the world h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie not to be used wee thinke for an inward looking into the sublimiy of the mystery of the matter before us as your Cardinall fancieth but for looking up aloft unto the Lambe of God in Heaven according to the Catholike Sense of those words * See hereafter Book 7. Chap. 4. §. 2. SVRSVM CGRDA The next two Proofes out of the same Canon of Nice to manifest our Protestant profession touching the Question in hand SECT V. OVr next two Proofes out of the Canon are these First is their Reason of the former Caution The Second the Confirmation of that Reason Both are expresly set downe in the Canon it selfe Why then did those holy Fathers admonish us not to be too intent to the Bread and Wine set before us It followeth Because they are not ordained to satisfie our Naturall man namely by a full Eating and Drinking but for a Sacramentall participation of the Body and Blood of Christ to the sanctifying of our Soules whereas your Church doth attribute to that which you eat in this Sacrament a power of sanctifying the Body by it's Bodily touch But much more will the next Proofe undermine your Defence To confirme their Reason why the Sacrament was not ordayned for the satisfying of the
naturall man they adde saying For this canse wee receive not much but little Which one Clause most evidently proveth it to be spoken of Bread and Wine and not of the Body and Blood of Christ as your generall Romane Catechisme if you have not already learned it will now teach you to believe saying that i Catechis Rom. Christum Dominum esse in hoc Scramento non dicimus ut parvus aut magnus est sed ut substantia est Tract de Euchaâ— num 36. Christ is not great or small in this Sacrament And indeed none ever said of the Eucharist that hee ate a little of Christ Body or a little Christ but yet the Sacrament eaten is sometimes more sometime lesse Nor this onely but the Canon furthermore speaketh of taking a little of that whereof if much were taken saith it it might satiate the naturall man So the Canon But that the outward Sacrament can truely satisfie the naturall man you your selves will testifie in your Booke-Cases and Missals * See Book 3. chap. 3. §. 10. Chap 6. §. 1. 2. acknowledging men Drunke with the Sacrament even unto vomiting with the one part thereof and also making mention of Men and Mice being fed and nourished with the other So then the natuturall man may be satiated with this Sacrament but with what therein The Body and Blood of Christ you abhorre to thinke that with Accidents You may be ashamed to affirme it as from the Jâ—dgement of Antiquity seeing you were never able hitherto justly to produce one Father for proofe of the Existence of Accidents without their Subjects or of nourishing a Substance by meere Accidents Wherefore untill you can prove some one of all these give us leave to beleeve that all were of the mind of that one k Gregor Nyssen Quomodò enim res incorporea corpori cibus fiat In Orat. de vita Mosiâ— p. 509. Father who held it Impossible for an Incorporeall or not-Bodily thing to be food to a Bodily substance And so much the rather because the Fathers have manifoldly * See above Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 7. 10. c. acknowledged in this Sacrament after Consecration the substance of Bread Wherefore the Reasoning of the Councel touching the Eucharist was like as if one should say of Baptisme Wee take not too much but little lest it might be thought to have beene ordained not for a Sacramentall meanes of sanctifying the Soule but for the clensing of the Flesh None is so stupid as not to understand by Much and Little the substance of water and not onely the Accidents thereof And if you shall need a further Explication of the same sentence of the Fathers of Nice you may fetch it from the Fathers in another Councel held at Toledo in Spaine Anno 693. who shew this Reason why they l Conc. Tolet 16 Anno 693 Can 6. Integrum panem esse sumendum neque grande aliquid sed modica tantum oblata secundum id quod Ecclesiastica consuetudo retentat cujus reliquiae aut ad conservandum modico loculo absque aliqua injuria Sacrificijs confecrotur aut si sumendum fuerit necessarium non ventrem illius qui sumpserit gravis farciminis onere premat nec quid indigesticè vadat sed animum alimoniâ spirituali resiciat Take little portions of the Hoast namely say they lest otherwise the belly of him that taketh this Sacrament may be stuffed and over charged and lest it may passe into the Draught but that it may be nourishment for the Soule Hereby plainly teaching concerning the consecrated matter that were it so much as could burthen the belly it would through the supersluity thereof goe into the Draught whereas if Lesse it would serve as wel or better for a Sacramentall use to the replenishing of our soules in the spiritually receiving of the Body of Christ But never was any of the Primitive Age so farre bereft of his wits as to imagine that Much which stuffeth and after passeth into the Draught to be Christ's Bodie and you may sweare that the Fathers meant not meere * See above Book 3. Chap. 3 §. â—â— Accidents For meere Accidents have not the property of Substance through the Muchnesse thereof either to satiate the naturall appetite in feeding or to overcharge the belly by weight in prossing it downe to the Draught Never did any Father father such an Imagination What can be if this be not true reasoning and consequently a full confutation of your Romane Faith Therefore this one Canon of Nice being thus undoubtedly gained concerning he not seeking Christ Here on this Table is sufficient of it selfe to batter downe your Assertion by a five-fold force First by proofe of no Transubstantiation of Bread Secondly no Corporall Presence of Christs Body Thirdly no Corporall Conjunction with the Bodies of the Communicants and consequently Fourthly no Proper Sacrifice thereof and Lastly no Divine Adoration due unto it Therefore ought you to bid all these your Romish Doctrines and Delusions avaunt Your Objections from the former Canon answered SECT VI. FIrst you m Ob. 1. Cum dicit agnum Dei situÌ„ esse in sacra mensa eundem agnum opponit symbolis declarat agnum proprié esse in mensa non solùm ut per symbola reprae sentatur 2. Agnus dicitur à Sacerdotum manibus immolari quod non fit in coelo neque enim tà m longas manus habent Sacerdotes ut ad coelum pertingant 3. Dicimur verè sumere corpus Christi quòd non solùm corde sed corpore sumitur probatur quia corpus sanguis Domâ—ni dicuntur esse nostrae resurrectionis symbola quia cùm nostris corporibus conjunguntur Si autem solâ— esset animorum conjunctio solus animus resurrecturus signific 〈◊〉 Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 10. Object that The Lambe is said to be placed on the Table mistaking what Table is meant for the Canon specifying two Tables one Here which is of the Eucharist and another That Table namely in Heaven saith that Christ is placed on That Table according to our Faith of his sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven Secondly hee is said say you to be Sacrifised by the hands of the Priest which cannot be done as hee is in Heaven The words of the Canon truly resolved to cashiere this Objection as thus The Lambe of God set as that Table namely in Heaven is sacrifised by the hands of the Priest Here to wit on the Table below representatively as hereafter the Catholike Fathers themselves will shew And these two may easily consist without any necessitie of the Priest reaching his hands as farre as the highest Heavens as your Cardinall objecteth âšœ The Priest saith hee hath not so long hands as to reach it in Heaven So hee delicately and like a Romish Cardinall carnally conceiting onely a Touch by the Finger of Flesh never regarding the Primitive Doctrine of Touching
for proofe of a Divine Adoration although you have * Suarez See above Book 6. Ch. 1. Sect. 5. at a. confessed that this was not of prime Antiquity But supposing Elevation to have been so ancient yet was it not to the end it should be adored no more than was the Booke of the Gospel in the Roman Church when it was according to the Rite then a Durant de Ritib lib. â— cap. 23 num 7 In ordine Romano Diaconus osculans Evangelium levat in manus codscem partem ejus in dextro humero ponens vadit ad Ambonem Lift up by the hands of the Deacon and carried on his right shoulder What else will you say of the Priests elevation you would perswade in the b Idem de Ritibus l. 2. cap. 40. in Psal 71. In capite montium hoc est ait Rabbi Ionathan Sacrificium in capitibus Sacerdotum Durand Rational lib. 4. cap. 42 num 54. Elevatuâ— ut populus congreslus consecrationem factam esse Christum super Altare venisse reverenter prosternatur in terram illum ore adóret Et Durant quo supr Adorationis ergo Eucharistiam in altum attolli Durandus Ivo asserunt Probabile est Margin by some that the Priest lifting the Hoast over his head was prophesied of by the Psalmist And that the Rite of holding the Hoast up was chiefly that the people knowing it to be now consecrated should understand that Christ is on the Altar whom they are to adore by falling downe on the ground Whereof albeit some of you speak more confidently yet the most principall searcher into Antiquity dare say no more than onely This is probable Wee contrarily conceive 1. that that Rabbinish interpretation can be no good ground to rest upon which * See above B. 3. hath bin rejected by Bellarmine as being idle and frivolous 2. That the Ceremony of Elevation as hath * See above B. 6. Chap. 4. Sect. 5. beene confessed was neither instituted by Christ nor yet alwaies in use in Christ's Church 3. That the same Elevation albeit used after Consecration doth not so much as Probably prove it was for Adoration-sake because it was aswell in use in your lifting up of the Hoast before Consecration as your objected c Missals published by Claudius Sanctes a Parisian Doctor before Consecration in the Missal of S. Iames Attollens In the Masse of Basil Exaltans panem Missals of Saint Iames and Basil do manifest Lastly that where Elevation was practised after Consecration the objected Authors confute your Assertion for in Chrysostome if wee should grant unto you the whole Liturgie to be his which the best learned Grecians at this day do * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. deny it is read d After Consecration in the Masse of Chrysostome Modicum attollens Sacerdos dicit Sancta sanctis That the Priest did take a portion out of the dish and held it up but a little this is not lifting it over the head or very high as your reason for Adoration would require And in your objected S. e In Dionys Areoprelating the forme of their Mosse objected by Durantus de Ritib lib. 2. cap. 40. Mysteria quae ante laudaverat Sacerdos venerandis operta 〈◊〉 in conspectum agit divinaque munera reverenter ostendens ad sacram Communionem convertitur Wherein there is no one word of Venerandis or Reverenter but this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Dionys Areopag cap. 3. Denis there is no more but that The sacred celebrated Symbols were brought into light which after Consecration hee termeth Vncovered Bread divided of the Priest into many parts Bread wee say broken after Consecration which is the break-necke of your whole Defence âšœ And why may not wee thinke the Elevation for Adoration of the Host to be an after-Invention aswell as was the Elevation of the Chalice for the same end whereof it is confessed by your owne Ritualist that 3 Barthol Gavant Com. in Rubr. Missae Tunc se erigens Sacerdos quanâ—â—â— commode potest in altum elevat intentus in eum oculis populo reverenter ostendit adorandum Rubrica Missae Sacerdos genuflectens reverenter adoret calicem disco opertam cum sanguine elevet erectum quantum potest ostendet populo adorandum Hinc Author Non autem sub praecepto haec Blevatio calicis ante Sanct. Thomam ex Soto in 4. Dist 13. Quaest 2. Art 5. Vnde neque Thomas meminit illius ubi minute omnes ritus Missae ponit part 2. Tit. 8. pag. 108. The elevation of the Chalice that the people might adore it was not commanded untill after the daies of Thomas Aquinas So hee and that you know was a thousand and some hundreth of yeares after Christ his Institution of this Sacrament It were strange if the Romish Faith had then been that the Blood of Christ beeing Corporally in the Sacrament and Consequently adored of the people that the Primitive Church should not have used an Elevation of the Cup for better Accommodation-sake aswell as your new Romish Church hath ordained so many Ages since Not to tell you of the Church under Prester-Iohn which as is 4 Cassand in Liturg cap. 11. Sacerdos sublevet Id ipsum quoque facit in Calice sed non elevat confessed used no Elevation âšœ Your third Objection is the diligent Caution given by Ancient Fathers to take heed f Tertull. in lib. de Corona milit Calicis aut panis aliquid in terram discuti anxiè paâ—mur Ob. by Mr. Brerely Litâ—â—g Tract 2. Sect. 8. Sub. 4. pag. 286. And out of Origen Hom. 5. in Levit. Take heed no little crumme fall to the ground Tract 4. Sect. â— And Pius Bishop of Rome ordained that the conseâ—rated Bread and Wine falling to the ground should be left to the Sacrificer and the rest remaining should be burnt with fire unto ashes So great a Reverence was then prescribed Ibid. Tract 2. Sect 8. Subd 4. âšœ Bell. li. 2. de Euch. ca 7. Tertul. de corona milit inter alios Christianos ritus ponit summam cautionem quam adhibebant Christiani ne aliquid Eucharistiae in terram caderet Calicis inquit aut Panis nostri alquid in terram decuti anxiè patimur âšœ Lest that any Crum should fall to the ground and if any little part thereof should fall it should be left to the Priest and the Remainder of the Sacrament after the Masse say you should be burnt to ashes and the ashes laid up So you Pharaoh his Butler and Baker we are sure would have been loath to miscarry in spilling or letting fall any part of their carriage when they were to present their service unto their King much more carefully ought every Christian in executing his sacred Function to observe the Lawes of Decorum Marke we by the way Master Brerely durst not call the part falling any thing but a Part not A part