which are displayed by your owne Authours Noting in them the very fooleries of the Romane Pagans by your fond Pageants where Priests play their parts in representing the persons of Saints others of Queenes accompanied with Beares and Apes and many like profane and sportfull Inuentions and other Abuses which occasioned some of your owne more devout Professors to wish that this your Custome were abrogated Thinking that it may be omitted with profit to the Church both because it is but an Innovation and also for that it serveth most-what for ostentation and pompe rather than pious Devotion So they Lastly lest you may obiect as else where that a Negative Argument as this because Christ did not institute this Custome therefore it may not be allowed is of no effect we adde that the Argument negative if in any thing then must it prevaile in condemning that Practice which maintaineth any new End differing from that which was ordained by Christ Which made Origen and Cyprian argue Negatively in this Case the one saying Christ reserved it not till to-morrow and the other This bread is received and not reserved or put into a Boxe Which Conclusion we may hold in condemning of your publike Carrying of the Hoast in the streets and Market-places to the end only that it may be Adored aswell as of latter times your Pope Pius Quartus which your Congregation of Cardinals report did forbid a new-upstart Custome of Carrying the Sacrament to sicke people that they might adore it when as they were not able to eate it All these Premises doe inferre that your Custome of Circumgestation of the Sacrament in publike Procession onely for Adoration cannot justly be called Laudable except you meane thereby to have it termed a Laudable Noveltie and a Laudable profanation and Transgression against the Institution of Christ as now from your owne Confessions hath beene plainly evicted and as will be further manifested when wee are to speake of your Idolatrous Infatuation it selfe The Ninth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the Sence of the words following IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE SECT XI REmembrance is an act of Vnderstanding and therefore sheweth that Christ ordained the use of this Sacrament only for persons of Discretion and Vnderstanding saying DOE THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE The contrarie Canon of the Romane Masse in times past Your Iesuite Maldonate will be our Relater ingenuously confessing that in the dayes of Saint Augustine and Pope Innocent the first this opinion was of force in your Church For six hundred yeares together viz. that the Administration of the Eucharist is necessary for Infants Which opinion saith hee is now reiected by the Councell of Trent Determining that the Eucharist is not only not necessarie for Infants but also that is Indecent to give it unto them So he Of this more in the Challenge CHALLENGE IS not now this your Churches Reiecting of her former Practice a Confession that she hath a long time erred in Transgressing of the Institution of Christ How then shall your Trent-Fathers free your fore-father Pope Innocent and your former Romane Church from this taxation This they labour to doe but alas their miserie by collusion and cunning for the same Synod of Trent resolveth the point thus The holy Synod say they teacheth that Children being void of the use of Reason are not necessarily bound to the Sacramentall receiving of the Eucharist This wee call a collusion for by the same Reason wherewith they argue that Children are not necessarily bound to receive the Eucharist because they want reason they should have concluded that Therefore the Church is and was necessarily bound not to administer the Eucharist to Infants even because they wanted Reason Which the Councell doubtlesse knew but was desirous thus to cover her owne shame touching her former superstitious practice of Giving this Sacrament vnto Infants In excuse whereof your Councell of Trent adioyneth that the Church of Rome in those dayes was not condemnable but why Because saith your Councell Truly and without Controversie wee ought to beleeve that they did not give the Eucharist unto Infants as thinking it necessary to Salvation Which Answere your owne Doctors will prove to be a bold and a notorious vntruth because as your Iesuite sheweth They then beleeved that Infants baptized could not be saved except they should participate of the Eucharist taking their Argument from that Scripture of Iohn 6. Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne c. and therfore held they it necessarie to the salvation of Infants That this was the beleefe of Pope Innocent and of the Church of Rome vnder him your Parisian Doctor Espencaeus also proveth at large out of the expresse writings of Pope Innocent Yea and your greatly approved Binius in his Volumes of the Councels dedicated to Pope Paul the fift explaineth the same so exactly See the Marginall Citation that it will permit no Euasion And so much the rather because that which the Tridentine Fathers alledge for cause of Alteration doth confirme this unto us It is vndocent say they to give the Eucharist unto Infants This may perswade vs that Innocent held it necessary els would he not haue practized and patronized a thing so vtterly vndecent Wee dispute therefore If the Church of Rome in the dayes of Pope Innocent the first held it a doctrine of faith in the behalfe of Infants that they ought to receiue the Sacrament of the Eucharist the same Church of Rome in her Councell of Trent whose Decrees by the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth are all held to be beleeued vpon necessity of Salvation did decree contrarily that the participation of the Eucharist is not necessary no nor yet decent for Infants Say now did the Church of Rome not erre in the dayes of Pope Innocent then is she now in an error Or doth shee not now erre herein then did she formerly erre and consequently may erre hereafter in determinining a matter to be Necessary to Salvation which in it selfe is Superfluous and Vndecent Thus of the contrary custome of the Church of Rome in elder times The new contrary Opinion concerning the Romane Masse at this day Euen at this day also your Iesuite will haue vs to vnderstand the meaning of your Church to be that Infants are capable of the Sacrament of the Eucharist CHALLENGE VVHereunto wee oppose the Authority of the Councell of Carthage and of that which you call the Councell of Laterane which denyed as you know that the Eucharist should be delivered vnto Infants accounting them vncapable of divine and spirituall feeding without which say they the corporall profiteth nothing But we also summon against the â—ormer Assertion eight of your ancient Schoolemen who vpon the same Reasons made the like Conclusion with vs. And wee further as it were arresting you in the Kings name produce against you Christ his writ the Sacred Scripture
of all ancient Fathers and indeed as the saying is To put upon them the Foole. The like answere two of their Iesuites made to the Practice of the Apostles saying that your Church having the same spirit hath the same power to alter the Custome whereas wee have proved that the ground which the Apostles lay for their Custome was the Institution of Christ But that which the Romane Church alleageth is meerely a pretence of Plenitude of her owne Authoritie It is impossible therefore that in so great a Contradiction there should be the same Spirit And can there be a more intollerable Arrogancie than is this which this Romane spirit bewrayeth in both these Thirdly vpon the Consideration of this their Contempt of Apostolicall and primitive Antiquity in this Cause wee finde that your Romish Priests are to be condemned of manifest perjurie also For in the Forme of Oath for the profession of the Romish Faith every Priest and Ecclesiasticke is sworne To admit of all Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Traditions as also to hold what the Councell of Trent hath decreed But this Custome of administration of both kindes as hath beene acknowledged was an Apostolicall Custome and from them also remayned in an Ecclesiasticall profession and practice thorow-out a thousand yeares space which your Church of Rome notwithstanding in her Councell of Trent whereunto likewise you are sworne hath altered and perverted which doth evidently involve your Priests and Iesuites in a notorious and unavoydable Perjury Fourthly As for the note of Foolishnesse what more mad folly can there be seene in any than to take upon them a serious Defence of a Custome for satisfaction of all others and yet to be so unsatisfied among themselves so that both the Obiections urged by Protestants against that Abuse are fortified and also all your Reasons for it are refuted either by the direct Testimonies of your owne Doctors or by the Common Principles and Tenents of your Church or else by the absurdities of your Consequences issuing from your Reasons and Answeres divers of them being no lesse grosse then was your objecting the Antiquity and Generality of the particular Romane Church for lesse then three hundred yeares and to preferre it before the confessed Vniversall primitive Custome of above the Compasse of a Thousand yeares continuance before the other Fiftly the last is the note of Blasphemy for this name the contempt of Christ his last Will and Testament must needs deserve and what greater contempt can there be than contrary to Christ his Doe this concerning both kinds to professe that Sacrilegious dismembring of the holy Sacrament which Gelasius the Pope himselfe had anciently condemned or if this be not Blasphemous enough then supposing that Christ indeed had commanded Consecration in both kindes upon divine right yet notwithstanding to hold it very probable as saith your Iesuite Azorius that the authority of the Pope may dispense therewith But because Divine right was never yet dispensed with 1 saith hee would give my Counsell that it never may be O Iesuite thus to deale with Christ his Command If he or any other Iesuite had made as bold with the Pope as this doth with Christ himselfe saying unto him Any of your Decrees holy Father may be dispensed with by any Iesuite of our Societie yet because no Iesuite hath taken upon him hitherto so much my counsell is that none of your Decrees be euer dispensed withall The Pope wee suppose albeit he would thanke this man for his counsell for not Doing so yet doubtlesse would hee reward him with a welcome into the office of his holy Inquisition for his judgement to thinke it lawfull so to doe namely to leave it to the discretion of every Iesuite to dispense with his Papall Decrees And notwithstanding the Iesuites Suppose wee may depose that your Romish licence for but one kinde is a dispensing or rather a despising of the Ordinance of Christ Wee are already wearied with citing of the manifold vilde odious and irreligious Positions of your Disputers and Proctors for this your Cause yet one Pretence more may not be pretermitted least we might seeme to contemne the wit and zeale of your Iesuite Salmeron against the use of this Sacrament in both kindes The use of both kinds saith he is not to be allowed to Catholiques because they must be distinguished from Heretikes nor to Heretikes because bread is not to be given unto Dogges Now blessed be God! that we are esteemed as Heretikes and Dogges to be distinguished from them in this and other so many commanded Acts wherein they have distinguished themselves from all Primitive Fathers from the Apostles of Christ and from Christ himselfe An Appeale unto the ancient Popes and Church of Rome against the late Romish Popes and Church in Confutation of their former Transgressions of Christ his Institution SECT XIV THe ancient Popes and Church of Rome were as all the world will say in authority of Command in synceritie of judgement equall and in integrity of life Superiour unto the latter Popes of Rome and Church thereof yet the ancient held it as a matter of Conscience for the Church in all such Cases belonging to the Eucharist to be conformable to the Precept and Example of Christ and of the Apostles So you have heard Pope Calixtus An. Christi 218. requireth all persons present at the Masse to Communicate For which reason it was we thinke that Pope Gregory Anno 600. commanded every one present at the Masse and not purposing to Communicate to Depart There is an History related by Aeneas Sylvius after Pope Pius the Second which sheweth the reason why another Pope of Rome with his Consistory yeilded a liberty to the Sclavonians to have Divine Service in their Nationall Language and reporteth that it was thorow the sound of that voice which is written in the Psalmes Let every tongue prayse the Lord. Pope Iulius Anno 336. was much busied in repressing the sopping of bread in the Chalice and other like abuses of the Sacrament in his time and the reason which hee gaue was this Because quoth hee these Customes are not agreeable to Evangelicall and Apostolicall Doctrine and our Church of Rome doth the same Where he addeth concerning the manner of Communicating We reade saith hee that both the Bread and Cup were distinctly and severally delivered As if hee had meant with the same breath to have confuted your other Romish Transgression in distributing to the people the Sacrament but in one of Both And who can say but that Gregory and Leo both Popes observing the same use of Christ had the same Resolution Sure wee are that Pope Gelasius Anno 494. called the Abuse in dismembring of this Sacrament by receiving but in one kinde A Grand Sacrilege Wee reade of a Councell held at Toledo in Spaine under Pope Sergius stiled generall Anno 693. reproving those Priests who offered Bread in crusts and lumpes
severall Churches What shall we then further say concerning a Being of a Body in divers places at once Surely that which hath beene plentifully proved already that such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is egregiously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well in Divine as in naturall Philosophy because as this whole Discourse sheweth they have verified that saying of Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAP. VII Of the fourth Romish Contradiction against the words of Christ MY BODY by teaching it to be Organicall and not Organicall Divisible and Indivisible SECT I. THe Question is not now of the Mysticall presence of Christ his Body in the Sacrament which we with the Fathers especially Greg. Nyssen confesse to be whole as well in a part of Bread consecrated as in the whole loafe even as the Image of the King may be as perfect in a penny as in a shilling But neither hee nor any Father ever said that a little Hoast which boast you call Christ is equall with a great Hoast No for the Fathers in the Councell of Nice absolutely denyed this nor yet is Christ wholly represented in the least part of the Hoast as your Fathers of Trent have taught because no such part can resemble Totum Christum whole Christ Sacramentally which is not of sufficient bignes to be sensibly eaten in the nature of nourishment thereby to resemble the Spirituall nourishment of our Soules which is the Body of Christ So that all you have said maketh iust nothing for the Corporall and materiall Presence of Christs Body which we further impugne That it is necessary the Body of Christ wheresoever consist of distinct members and proportions of a Bodie SECT II. THe Body of Christ as we professe had perfect Dimensions and Distinctions of parts an head exposed to pricking with thornes a face to buffers a backe to scourges eyes to visible noddings and mockings eares to blasphemies hands and feet to piercing with nayles This is that Body which we confesse to be the Body of Christ and which we celebrate in the use of this Sacrament in Remembrance that he had a Body consisting of proportion of divers parts distinct one from another Two of your Cardinals doe both answere that Quantity magnitude proportion and extension of parts are unseparably united to the Body of Christ in this Sacrament or else saith one If the Nose should stand where the Eye is and the Eye where the Nose is it should be a confused Monster So they So necessary it is even in your owne faith that the Bodie of Christ consist of Organicall parts distinct one from another That the Romish Church hath decreed a doctrine of Corporall Presence of a Body of Christ withall the parts thereof in the least indivisible point of the Hoast SECT III. THe Canons of that Councell of Trent decreed as a Doctrine of Faith necessary to salvation to beleeve That the Body of Christ in this Sacrament is whole in every part of the Hoast whereby is meant saith your Iesuite The whole Body of Christ is in every albeit the least part of the Hoast So he But we demand how then shall the Body of Christ but want proportion of distinct parts which you say are Vnseparably united to a Body You distinguish that the Body of Christ being in this Sacrament hath extension of parts of a Body distinctly in it selfe but in respect of the Place or of the formes of Bread under which it is the whole Body is without distinction in every least Part and indivisible Point thereof CHALLENGE THis is the common Resolution of the now Church of Rome The exact discussion of this one point will in it selfe illuminate the eyes of any Reader to discerne betweene the Spirit of Truth and of Errour namely to know that there cannot be a greater Contradiction and consequently Impossibility than for a Body consisting of proportionable dimensions of Parts such as are Hands Legs Eyes and other Organicall members to have Being any where without Extension Commensuration and distinct Proportion of the same to the space wherein it is as the Propositions following will prove That the former Romish Tridentine Article is new and contrary to the nature of an Organicall and humane Body in the Iudgement of Romish Doctors of latter times SECT IV. ALbertus Scotus Aegidius are recounted amongst your learned and Ancient Schoolemen who as your Iesuite testifieth Thought it impossible that a Body that hath extension of parts should be contained in an indivisible point The same opinion is ascribed by your Iesuites as ancient unto Durand and Occham Now what greater iniury can there be than after that it was lawfull for a thousand and foure hundreth yeares since the Ascension of Christ for any Christian to professe with your ancient Schoole-men an Impossibility that The Body of Christ is whole in everie the least part of the Hoast to impose upon men's consciences as an Article of Faith so fond and so palpable a figment That which seemed to the above-named Durand and Occham such an Opinion whence as they thought it must needes follow that the Eyes must be where the Nose is the hand confounded with the legges which as your Cardinall Alan truly said were to make of the Body of Christ a confused Chaos and altogether monstrous That the Organicall parts of the Body of Christ must be proportionable to the Dimension of the places wherein they are is proved by the confessed Romish Principle it selfe SECT V. THe reason which your Cardinall layeth downe to prove it necessary that Christ his Body should have in it selfe according to the nature of a Body distinct parts of head and eyes and other Organs fit for the use of a reasonable Soule hee taketh from Magnitude which is an Extension of parts into their proportionable length bredth and depth this saith he is inseparably united to Christ his Body in its owne intrinsecall disposition in it selfe but not so saith he in regard of the place CHALLENGE THis your owne Reason may wee iustly retort upon your selves proving that if the naturall disposition of the Bodie of Christ be thus proportionably extended in it selfe it must be so likewise in respect of place and space because the three dimensions of the Body of Christ as you have confessed stand thus that one is an extension in Length another in Breadth the third in Depth and each of these three are distinct one from another Well then The arme must be here and thus farre longer than the foot the legge here and thus farre thicker than the finger the hand here and thus farre broader than the toe and accordingly distinctly in other parts But Hîc and Hucusque Heere and There thus farre and so farre being Relatives of space and place doe demonstratively shew that that Extension of distinct parts of the Body which they have in themselves divisibly the same they must necessarily have in respect of the Vbi place or
witnessed first that Christ brake the bread into twelve parts Secondly that this Act of breaking of bread is such a principall Act that the whole Celebration of this Sacrament hath had from thence this Appellation given to it by the Apostles to be called Breaking of Bread Thirdly that the Church of Christ alwayes observed the same Ceremonie of breaking the bread aswell in the Greeke as in the Latine and consequently the Romane Church Fourthly that this Breaking of the Bread is a Symbolicall Ceremonie betokening not only the crucifying of Christ's bodie vpon the Crosse but also in the common participation thereof representing the vnion of the mysticall bodie of Christ which is his Church Communicating together of one loafe that as many graines in one loafe so all faithfull Communicants are vnited to one Head Christ as the Apostle teacheth 1. Cor. 10. thus The bread which we breake is it not the Communion of the bodie of Christ for we being many are one bread We adde as a most speciall Reason that this Breaking it in the distribution thereof is to apply the representation of the Bodie crucified and the Bloud shed to the heart and soule of every Communicant That as the Bread is given broken to vs so was Christ crucified for vs. Yet neverthelesse your Church contrarily professing that although Christ did breake bread yet BEHOLD she doth not so what is it else but to starch her face and insolently to confront Christ his Command by her bold Countermand as you now see in effect saying But doe not this A SECOND CHALLENGE AS for that truly called Catholike Church you your-selves doe grant vnto vs that by Christ his first Institution by the Practice of the Apostles by the ancient and universall Custome of the whole Church of Christ aswell Greeke as Latine the Ceremonie of Breaking bread was continually observed Which may be vnto vs more than a probable Argument that the now Church of Rome doth falsly usurpe the Title of CATHOLIKE for the better countenancing and authorizing of her novell Customes although neuer so repugnant to the will of Christ and Custome of the truly called Catholike Church In the next place to your Pretence of Not-Breaking because of Reverence We say Hem scilicet Quanti est sapere As if Christ and his Apostles could not fore-see that your Necessitie namely that by the Distributing of the Bread and by Breaking it some little crummes must cleaue sometimes vnto the beards of the Communicants or else fall to the ground Or as though this Alteration were to be called Reverence and not rather Arrogance in making your-selves more wise than Christ who instituted or then all the Apostles or Fathers of primitiue times who continued the same Breaking of bread Therefore this your Contempt of Breaking what is it but a peremptorie breach of Christ his Institution neuer regarding what the Scripture saith Obedience is better then Sacrifice For indeed true Reverence is the mother of Obedience else is it not Devotion but a meere derision of that Command of Christ Doe this The third Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the sence of the next words of Christs Command viz. GAVE IT VNTO THEM SECT V. IT followeth in the Canon of Christ his Masse And hee gaue it vnto them euen to THEM to whom hee said Take yee eate yee By which pluralitie of persons is excluded all private Massing forasmuch as our High Priest Christ Iesus who in instituting and administring of this Sacrament would not be alone said hereof as of the other Circumstances Doe this The Contrarie Canon of the now Romane Masse This holy Synod saith your Councell of Trent doth approue and commend the Masses wherein the Priest doth Sacramentally communicate alone So your Church CHALLENGE BVt who shall iustifie that her Commendation of the alone-communicating of your Priest which we may iustly condemne by the liberall Confessions of your owne Doctors who grant first that this is not according to the Institution of Christ saying in the Plurall To them Secondly nor to the practice of the Apostles who were Communicating together in prayer and breaking of bread Act. 2. 46. that is say they aswell in the Eucharist as in Prayer Thirdly Nor to the ancient Custome of the whole Church both Greek and Romane Fourthly neither to Two Councels the one called Nanetense the other Papiense decreâ—ing against Priuate Masse Fiftly nor to the very names of the true Sacramentall Masse which by way of Excellencie was sometime called Synaxis signifying as S. Basil saith the Congregation of the faithfull somtimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communion or Communicating and sometimes the Prayers vsed in euery holy Masse were called Collectae Collects because the people vsed to be collected to the celebration of the Masse it selfe Sixtly Nor to the very Canon of the now Romane Masse saying in the Plurall Sumpsimus we haue receiued And thereupon seuenthly repugnant to the Complaints of your owne men against your Abuse who calling the ioynt Communion instituted by Christ the Legitimate Masse doe wonder how your Priests sole Communicating euer crept into the Church and also deplore the contempt which your priuate Masse hath brought vpon your Church Hitherto see the Marginals from your owne Confessions Let vs adde the absurditie of the Commendation of your Councell of Trent in saying We commend the Priest's communicating alone A man may indeed possibly talke alone fret alone play the Traytor alone but this Communicating alone without any other is no better Grammar than to say that a man can conferre alone conspire alone contend or Couenant alone Caluine saith indeed of spirituall Eating which may be without the Sacrament as you also confesse that a faithfull man may feede alone of the Body and Blood of Christ But our dispute is of the Sacramentall Communicating thereof A SECOND CHALLENGE Against the former Prevarication condemning this Romane Custome by the Romane Masse it selfe VVEe make bold yet againe to condemne your Custome of Priuate Masse and consequently the Commendation giuen thereof by the Councel of Trent For by the Canon of your owne Masse wherein there are Interlocutorie speeches betweene Priest and People at the Celebration of this Sacrament the Priest saying Dominus vobiscum The Lord be with you and the People answering the Priest and saying And with thy Spirit your Cl. Espencaeus sometimes a Parisian Doctor one commended by Genebrard for his Treatise vpon this same Subiect of the Priuate Masse albeit he agreeth with the execrable Execration and Anathema of the Councell of Trent against them that hold Solitarie Masses to be vnlawfull yet after the expence of much paper to prove that some private Masse must needs haue anciently beene because Primitiuely Masse was celebrated almost in all Churches euery day and that S. Chrysostome did complaine of the absence of the people yet comming to determine of the poynt This Reason
whereby hee requireth in all persons about to Communicate three principall Acts of Reason one is before and two are at the time of Receiuing The first is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let a man examine himselfe and so come c. The second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To discerne the Lords body The third is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To remember the Lords death vntill his Comming againe All which Three being acts of Iudgement how they may agree vnto Infants being persons void of iudgement iudge you And remember we pray you that wee speake of Sacrament all Eating and not of that vse before spoken of touching Eating it after the Celebration of the Sacrament which was for Consuming it and not for Communicating thereof CHAP. III. The Tenth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse by the now Church of Rome is in contradicting the Sence of the next words following concerning the second part of this Sacrament of receiuing the Cup HE LIKEWISE TOOKE THE CVP AND GAVE IT TO THEM SAYING DRINKE YEE ALL OF THIS And adding 1. Cor. 11. DOE THIS AS OFTEN AS YOV DOE IT IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE SECT I. BY which Words Like manner of Taking and Giving and Saying Drinke yee All of this we say that Christ ordained for his Guests as well the Sacramentall Rite of Drinking as of Eating and hath tied his Church Catholike in an equall obligation for performance of both in the administring of this Sacrament This Cause will require a just Treatise yet so that our Discourse insist only upon necessary points to the end that the extreme Insolencie Noveltie Folly and Obstinacie of the Romane Church in contradicting of this part of Christ his Canon may be plainly displayed that every conscience of man which is not strangely preoccupated with prejudice or transported with malice must needs see and detest it We have heard of the Canon of Christ his Masse The contrarie Canon of the Romish Church in her Masse Shee in her Councell of Constance decreed that Although Christ indeed and the Primive Church did administer the Eucharist in both kinds notwithstanding say they this Custome of but one kind is held for a law irreprovable Which Decree shee afterwards confirmed in her Councell of Trent requiring that the former Custome and Law of receiuing it but vnder one kinde be observed both by Laicks yea and also by those Priests who being present at Masse doe not the office of Consecrating Contrarily our Church of England in her thirtieth Article thus Both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandement ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike CHALLENGE BVt wee demand what Conscience should mooue your late Church of Rome to be guided by the authority of that former Councel of Constance which notwithstanding maketh no scruple to reiect the authority of the same Councell of Constance in another Decree thereof wherein it gain-sayeth the Antichristian usurpation of the Pope by Denying the authority of the Pope to be above a Councell and that as the Councell of Basil doth prooue from the authority of Christ his direction unto Peter to whom he said Tell the Church We returne to the State of the Question The full State of the Question All Protestants whether you call them Calvinists or Lutherans hold that in the publike and set celebration of the Eucharist the Communion in both kinds ought to be given to all sorts of Communicants that are capable of both The question thus stated will cut off a number of Impertinences which your Obiectors busie themselves withall as will appeare in due places Wee repeate it againe In publike Assemblies of all prepared and capable of the Communion The best Method that I could choose for the expedite and perspicuous handling of this great Controversie is by way of Comparison as namely First by comparing the Institution of Christ with the contrarie Ordination and Institution of the Romane Church Secondly Christ his Example with contrarie Examples Thirdly the Apostles Practice with the adverse Practice Fourthly the Primitive Custome of the Church Catholike with the after-contrarie Custome and the Latitude thereof together with latitude of the other Fiftly the Reasons thereof with Reasons Sixtly the divers manners of beginning of the one as also the Dispositions of men therein with the repugnant manner and Dispositions of men in continuing the other The discussing of all which points will present unto your view divers kinds of Oppositions In the first is the Conflict of Religion with Sacriledge In the second a soveraigne Presidence in Christ with Contempt In the third of Faithfulnesse with Faithlesnesse In the fourth of Antiquity with Noveltie In the fift of Vniversality with Paâ—city In the sixt of Wisdome with Folly as also of Charity with Iniustice and Impiety In the seventh of Knowledge with Ignorance as likewise of Devotion with Profanenesse And all these marching and warring together without any possibility of Reconciliation at all The first Comparison is of the Institution of Christ with the Contrarie proving the Precept of Christ for the vse of both kinds to all lawfull Communicants SECT II. THere is one word twice used in the tenour of Christ his Institution once concerning the Bread Hoc FACITE DOE THIS the second time touching the Cup Hoc FACITE QVOTIESCVNQVE DOE THIS AS OFTEN c. Both which whosoever should denie to have the Sound and Sence of a Precept might be confuted by your owne Iesuites Doctors Bishops and Cardinals among whom wee find your Barradas interpreting it Praecipit your Valentian Praeceptum your Iansenius Mandat your Alan Praeceptio your Bellarmine Iubet each one signifying a Command But of what this is our next Inquisition The Acts of Christ were some belonging to Consecration and some to Distribution Manducation and Drinking Such as concerned Consecration of both kinds being with common consent acknowledged to be under that Command of Hoc facite are the Taking Bread and Blessing it c. The other touching Administration of the Cup whereof it is said Hee tooke it and gave it to his Disciples whom after he had Commanded saying Drinke you all of this he added the other Command set downe by Saint Paul saying unto them Doe this as often as yee shall doe it in remembrance of Mee That by this Obligation he might charge them to communicate in both kinds A Precept then it must needs be But we are not ignorant of your Evasions Your first Evasion Although say you it be said to his Disciples Drinke you all and Doe this yet it is spoken to them as they were Priests And onely to the Apostles saith Master Brereley And againe The Apostles did represent the Priests CHALLENGE VVE answere that your owne Castro will not allow your Antecedent but is perswaded rather by the manifest Current of the Text that The Apostles were not Priests when the Cup was given unto them And although they were then
is but a Chimaera and as great a Solecisme as to say that the Body and Bones of Christ are dranke and his Blood eaten contrary to the Sacramentall representation in Receiving Bread and Wine as hath beene prooved 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 answere plainly and without Circumlocution that the Reason is Lest that your Church might seeme to have erred in her alteration of the ancient Custome And this your Cardinall Bellarmine and the Iesuite Valentian vse and vrge 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 vse Least that the Church saith he may seeme to have erred What can more sauour of an Hereticall and Antichristian spirit than this pretence doth For an Heretike will not seeme to have erred and Antichrist will professe himselfe one that cannot erre which Character of not personall erring was never assumed of any particular Church excepting onely the latter Church of Rome Our Assumption But the Church of Rome which will seeme that she cannot possibly erre in her not administring the Cup unto Laicks is knowne to have erred 600. yeares together in the abuse of the same Sacrament by administring it in an opinion of necessity vnto Infants as hath beene plentifully witnessed by eminent Doctors in your owne Church Hence therefore ariseth another difference betweene the profession of our Custome and yours which is betweene Christ and Antichrist All this while you doe not perceiue but that your opinion of Concomitancie will ruinate the foundation of your Doctrine of Transubstantiation whereof hereafter The seaventh Comparison is betweene the manner of Institution and manner of Alteration thereof SECT XI THe beginning of the Institution in both kindes is knowne and acknowledged to haue beene authorized by him who is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the new Testament even Christ our Lord by whom it was established and published among all his Disciples at his last Supper But your Custome of onely one kinde How we beseech you came it into your Church tell vs. It came not in by any precept but crept in by little and little by the Tacite and silent consent of the Bishops So your Bishop Roffensis and your Iesuite Costerus and Frier Castro This confessed vnknowne maner of Alteration of this your Custome as it doth vtterly refute your common Obiection viz. That every Doctrine and Custome must bee iudged ancient and Catholike the beginning whereof is not knowne so doth it more specially put your M. Breerly to his blush who durst make the same obiection in this very Case in defence of the vse of but One kinde to prove it to haue beene from the beginning because No first knowne beginning of our Catholike practice saith he can be instanced And yet behold here no certaine beginning of this Romish Custome yet notwithstanding confessed to be an Alteration different from the Custome which formerly for a thousand yeares was held a Catholike Custome Was not the Church of Rome then a wise and a worthy Mistris of Churches trow you to suffer her Priests to be guided by the People in a matter of this nature what other difference can this make between our Custome and yours but that which is between divine Ordinance popular negligence or as between a publique Professor a Theeâ—ish Creeper Heresie is certainly a disease but wote you what the Apostle noteth it to be a Cancer or Gangrene which is a disease Creeping by little and little from ioynt to ioynt untill it have eaten vp the vitall parts such a Cancer was this your Custome if you shall stand to your owne former Confessions Our last Comparison is betweene the Contrary dispositions of Professors one in continuing and distinguishing a second in mixing the third in reiecting both kindes SECT XII THe Comparison betweene the divers dispositions of Professors none will be more willing to shew than your Iesuite Salmeron who will have you out of Cardinall Cusanus to observe three States of the Church The first is in her Fervencie The second in her Warmnes The third in her Coldnes In the first state of her Fervencie when the Christians affected Martyrdome for the Gospell of Christ then did the People saith hee communicate in both kindes In the second state which was in her Warmnes though not so hot boyling as before They then used to dip the Hoast into the Chalice and so were made ioyntly partakers of both in one But in the third state of Coldnes the people were allowed the Sacrament onely vnder one kinde So hee CHALLENGE IF now Truth may be iudged by the different dispositions of Professors then may this former Confession witnes for us that there is as much difference betweene the Primitive and the now Romish Custome as there is betweene lively Fervencie and sencelesse Numnes and Coldnes that is to say Godly zeale and Godlesse indevotion and negligence yet a negligence not only approved which is impious but that which is the height of impiety even applauded also by your Priests among whom the above-said Gaspar Cardillo in the Councell of Trent with exultation told their Father-hoods as being a matter of great ioy that they who are under the Iurisdiction of the Church of Rome in Germany doe not so much as desire the Cup of life So hee A GENERALL CHALLENGE Concerning this last Transgression of Christ his Masse SECT XIII IN this we are to make an open discovery of the odious Vncharitablenesse the intolerable Arrogancie the vile Perjury the extreame Madnesse and Folly together with a note of plaine Blasphemie of your Romish Disputers in Defence of this one Romane Custome of forbidding the Cup to faithfull Communicants For what Vncharitablenesse can be more odious than when they cannot but confesse that there is more spirituall grace in the receiving of the Communion in both kinds doe notwithstanding boast even in the open Councell of Trent of some of their Professors who in obedience to the Church of Rome doe not only their owne words not desire the Cup of life but also dare not so much as desire it Which Vaunt we thinke besides the Impiety thereof inferreth a note of prophane Tyranny Secondly when wee compare these Fathers of Trent with the Fathers of most primitive Antiquity they answere Although the primitive Church say they did exceed ours in Zeale Wisdome and Charity neverthelesse it falleth out sometimes that the wiser may in some things be lesse wise then another Which answere if we consider the many Reasons which you have heard the Fathers give for the use of both kinds and their consonant practice thereof what is it but a vilifying of the authority
Transformation Trans-elementation and the like So your Lorichius Reader of Divinitie among you who by his vast and rash boldnes might as iustly have inferred from the like Phrases of the Apostle viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are transformed that every Regenerate Christian is Transubstantiated into Christ or from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is transfigured say that the Diuell is Transubstantiated into an Angell of light or from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is changed used by Cyrill urge that whosoever the Spirit of God doth Sanctifie is Transubstantiated into another thing or from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Nazianzene conclude that Every Person Baptized is Transubstantiated into Christ Will you have the world imagine that so many so excellent and so Ancient Fathers with all that Divine and Humane Learning wherewith they were so admirably accomplished could not in a Thousand yeares space finde out either the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Latine Transubstantiatio and apply them to this Change if they had once dreamed of this your Article of Faith Will you permit us to learne a point of wisedome in your Cardinal Liberty of devising new words saith he is a thing most dangerous because new words by little and little bâ—get new things So hee Therefore may wee iustly place this your new word among those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which St. Paul will have Christians by all means to avoid els so new and barbarous a name must needs ingender a novell and brutish opinion such as this Article it selfe will appeare to be As followeth The Novelty of the Article of Transubstantiation is examined and shewen not to have beene before the Councell of Laterane namely not untill 1215. yeares after Christ SECT III. THis Aricle hath beene decreed as you haue heard by your Church as a necessary Doctrine of Faith and therefore presumed to be Ancient CHALLENGE THe first Imposition of this Article as of Faith your Cardinall Bellarmine noteth to have beene in the dayes of Pope Gregory the VIIth viz. 1073. yeares after Christ But surely at that time this could be but a private opinion of some few for Peter Lombard living 67. yeares after this Pope and esteemed the Master of the Romish Schoole when he had laboured to give Resolution to all doubts especially in this very Question whether the Conversion were substantiall or not confesseth plainely saying Definire non sufficio I am not able to Determine So he Anno 1140. Hitherto therefore this Article was but in Conception onely which caused your learned and subtile Schoole-man Scotus to descend lower to find out the Birth thereof Affirming that the Article of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith before the Councell of Laterane under Pope Innocent III. viz. Anno 1215. whom therefore your Cardinall doth taxe for want of Reading But either were your Iesuite Coster and Cardinall Perron as ignorant of Antient Learning as Scotus or els they gave small Credit to that Councell cited by Bellarmine under Gregory the VIIth For your Iesuite saith in direct tearmes that The name of Transubstantiation was used in the Councell of Laterane for clearer declaration that Christians might understand the Change of Bread into the Body of Christ Can you say then that it was universally so vnderstood before But your Cardinall Perrâ—n more peremptorily concludeth that If it had not beene for the Councell of Laterane it might be now lawfull to impugne it So hee A plaine acknowledgement that it was no Doctrine of Faith before that Councell even as Scotus affirmed before But we pursue this Chase yet further to shew That the Article of Transubstantiation was not defined in the Councell of Laternae vnder Pope Innocentius the III. SECT IV. YOur owne learned Romish Priest a long time Prisoner did under the name of Widdrington produce many Historians viz. Platina Nauclerus Godfridus Monumetensis Matth. Paris and others to testifie as followeth That many things fell under Consultation in that Councell but nothing was openly defined the Pope dying at Perâ—sium Insomuch that some of these Authors sticke not to say that This Generall Councell which seemed to promise bigg and mighty matters did end in scorne and mockery performing nothing at all Wee might adde that the supposed Acts of this Councell were not published vntill more than two hundred yeares after No marvell then if some Schoole-men among whom were Scotus and Biel held Transubstantiation not to have beene very antient And another that It was but lately determined in the Church Nay M. Breerly if his opinion be of any Credit among you sticketh not to say that Transubstantiation compleat that is both for forme and matter was not determined vntill the last Councell of Trent that is to say not untill the yeare of our Lord 1560. Doe you not see how much licking this ougly Beare and Beast had before it came to be formed and yet it will appeare to be but a Monstrum horrendum take it at the best as it is now to to be proved by the full discouering of the palpable Falshood thereof CHAP. III. The Definition of Transubstantiation in the Church of Rome and of the Falshood thereof SECT I. THe Councell of Trent saith your Cardinall hath defined that this Conversion is of the whole Substance of Bread that is as well forme as matter into the Substance of Christ his Body Our First proofe of the Falshood of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation by the Contradictions of the Defenders thereof whereby they bewray their No-Beleefe of the Article THe Opinions of the Doctours of your Church concerning the nature of this Conversion are by you reduced into these two manners namely that it is either by Production out of the substance of Bread or els by Adduction of the Body of Christ unto the forme of Bread CHALLENGE VVHatsoever it is which you will seeme to professe never shall you perswade us that you doe indeed believe either of the pretended Formes of Transubstantiation First not by Production because as the same Cardinall truely argueth Conversion by Production is when the thing that is produced is not yet extant as when Christ converted water into wine wine was not Extant before it was Produced out of the substance of water But the Body of Christ is alwaies Extant therefore can it not be said to be Produced out of the substance of Bread So he Which Productive manner of Transubstantiation could not be beleeved by your Iesuites Vasquez and Suarez by both whom it hath beene confuted And if the Change be not by Production then it must follow that it is not by Transubstantiation which is demonstrable in it selfe because the next manner which they insist vpon cannot possibly serue your turne This Second manner they name to be by Adduction which your Cardinall defineth to be a Bringing of the Substance of that
the Virtue of her Sacrifice of the Masse for remission of sinnes or Punishment SECT I. NEver can there be any true Application of the Passion of Christ for remission of sinnes say we which is not absolute but onely partiall Your Iesuit Ribera seemeth to come on roundly towards us and friendly to joyne hands with us in this point of Application of an absolute Remission of sinnes pretending that this was Decreed in the Councell of Trent as indeed it seemeth to have beene and that from the Authority of Scripture and he addeth that Protestants whom he is pleased to grace with the name of Heretikes doe not deny this manifest Truth So he Doe you marke a Truth a manifest Truth a Truth said to be confirmed by your last Councell and a Truth consented unto by the Heretikes as being a manifest Truth Who would not now looke for a Truth universally professed in your Church without all exception But behold even since that Councell of Trent your greatly approved Melchior Canus steppeth forth with a peremptory Contradiction saying that to hold All mortall sinnes to be remitted by the Application of the Sacrifice in the Masse is false except all Divines be deceived So he speaking of the Divines of the Romish Church Your Iesuit Valentia noteth among you another sort of Doctors maintaining that your Masse-Application serveth onely for Remission of such temporall punishment the guilt whereof was formerly pardoned So he CHALLENGE IF any shall but recollect the Contradictions of your owne Doctors thorowout out all these former points of Controversie already handled he will thinke himselfe to be among the people called Andabatae who first blind-folding themselves fell a buffeting one another not knowing whom they hitt therefore wee leave them in their broiles and our selves will consult with Antiquity That the Ancient Fathers never taught any Application of Christ's Passion but that which is for a Plenary Remission of sinnes SECT II. CArdinall Alan hath put into our hands a consent of some Fathers for proofe of an Application for remission of all sinnes for which Christ died The Fathers whom he produceth are these Chrysostome Theophylact Cyprian and Origen If these will not suffice you may take unto you these other Iulius Pope of Rome Iustin Martyr Augustine Cyril and Basil Doe you require any more What needeth it seeing that the same Cardinall further saith There is found no Father to the contrary Thus much of the Application which is to be made by this Sacrament the next is For whom That the Romish Vse of a singular Application of the Sacrifice of the Masse to Non-Communicants because of their present Attendance is repugnant to the Doctrine of Antiquity SECT III. THE Greeke and Latine Churches anciently made up the whole Catholike Church The Greeke pronounced an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Be-gone to all Non-Communicants the Latine Church also ordained that the Deacon should proclaime all Not-Communicants to Depart From which Custome afterwards the word Masse had it's Orginall namely from the words Ite missa est as hath beene confessed But now the Case is so altered that if any Non-Communicant being present shall in Devotion apply himselfe to your Romish Masse your Canon of the Masse prouideth that Application of your Sacrifice be made unto him for Remission of sinnes And that as your Iesuit teacheth The fruit of the Sacrifice Ex opere operato redoundeth unto him and not this only but also to be Spiritually refreshed by the mouth of the Priest Be you therefore intreated to lend your Attention but for an Instant of time and then tell us whether we speake Reason unto you or no. All Antiquity Catholike as hath beene generally confessed by your selves never admitted to that part of the Masse which you call a Sacrifice any but such as were prepared to Communicate in receiving the Sacrament but shut all others out of Doores which we say they neither would nor could lawfully have done if they had beene of your now Romish faith to beleeve that it is a Sacrifice Propitiatory for all such as devontly attend to behold it For wheresoever there was a Sacrifice of Expiation among the Iewes under the Law all persons had liberty to partake thereof We thinke that this Argument sticketh fast in the Bowels of this Cause That the Romish Church lesseneth the due estimation of Christ's Passion in her Applying of it to others for the increasing of falsly-devised and unjust Gaine in behalfe of the Priest without all warrant of Antiquity SECT IV. HItherto we have expected some Reasons which might move your Church so to lessen the proportion of Christ's Passion in the Application thereof for remission either of sinnes or punishments And now at length your Iesuit Salmeron commeth to resolve us saying If the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood were of infinite value then one Masse being said for all the soules in the Dungeon of Purgatory would evacuate and empty the whole place and then should it be in vaine to say many Masses for one soule So he We may not so farre digresse as to enter into this Controversie of Purgatory because we are to finish that which wee have now in hand Else were it easie to shew that the infinite gaine which your Alchemists worke out of your forge of Purgatory-fire hath occasioned this Heterodoxe and gracelesse Doctrine of disannulling the infinite efficacy of Christ's Blood which is so utterly forlorne of all approbation from Antiquity that your Disputers have not alleaged so much as one Iota out of any Father for warrant thereof Next in the Sacrifice of your Masse there is say you a Portion thereof appropriated to the Priest alone which is a power to apply by his Memento the same Sacrifice to whom he will so farre forth that he extend his Memento upon any one to whom he shall be pleased to intend it upon Condition to receive money therfore in so much that It will be more availeable for that one than if it were extended to many So you Very well but by what Law came your Priests to this peculiar power of dispensing a Portion for their owne advantage Cardinall Alan your Advocate is ready to answer for you and we are attentive to heare what he saith There is not either any Scripture saith he or Father shewing any such thing for such a manner of esteeming the fruit of Christ's Sacrifice So he In the third place whiles we are in this speculation we heare one of you putting this Case If the Priest shall receive a stipend of Peter upon Condition that he shall apply his Memento and Intention upon the soule of Iohn departed this life and he notwithstanding doth apply it unto the good of the soule of Paul whether now the Priests Memento should worke for the good of the soule of Iohn according to the Priest's Obligation upon the Condition made with Peter or else for
of their owne so distinct and different Nations For the which cause they can finde no better entertainment with your Iesuites than to admonish you that You are not to be moued with the example of such barbarous people O Iesuiticall superciliousnes to contemne them as Barbarous in an example of praying in a knowne tongue the contrarie whereunto as namely praying in an vnknowne tongue the Apostle condemneth as Barbarousnes it â—elfe With the same modestie might you scoffe at and reproach other more ancient Nations and Christians commended by primitiue Fathers for celebrating their Oblations Prayers and Psalmes in their Nationall tongues so that one repeating the words first the whole people with ioynt voyce and heart accorded in â—inging Among whom are recorded the converted Iewes the Syrians and All as well Greekes as Romanes praying in their owne tongue and with â—armonicall consent singing of Psalmes in the publike worship as also the Grecians Egyptians Thebaeans Palestinians Arabians Phoenicians and Syrians This from the Testimonies of holy Fathers Whether therefore the tongue we pray in be barbarous or learned it is not respected of God but whether it be knowne or vnknowne is the point In which respect wee may vsurpe the Similitude which St. Augustine hath What availeth a golden Key if it cannot open that which should be opened or what hurâ—eth a wooden Key if it be able to open seeing that wee desire nothing but that the thing shut may be opened By this time you see your Noveltie in your Romish practice Behold in the next place the Iniquitie and prophanenesse thereof and how after the death of Pope Gregory the first which was abouâ— 608. yeares after Christ your Romane Church degenerated as much from the then Romane truth in this point as shee did from her Romane tongue and Language it selfe Wee are here constrained to pleade the whole cause for the defence of a necessity of a knowne worship in respect of God of Man and of Both. A SECOND CHALLENGE Shewing the Iniquitie of Seruice in an vnknowne tongue And first of the Iniury done by the fore-said Romane Decree vnto the soules of Men. THe former Decree of your Councell for vnknowne Seruice how iniurious it is unto man we may learne by the Confessions of Iesuites and others granting that The Apostles in their times required a knowne Language Greeke in the Greeke Churches and Latine in the Latine Churches because that first this made for the Edification and Consolation of Christians Secondly that Man gaineth more both in mind and affection who knoweth what he prayeth As for him that is Ignorant you say He is not edified in asmuch as he knoweth not in particular although in generall he doth vnderstand Thirdly that the Apostle commandeth that all things be done to edification Fourthly that the knowne Service is fitter for Deuotion and thereupon some of you haue furthermore Concluded that It were better that the Service were used in a Language knowne both to the Clergie and People And againe that People profit no whit by praying in a strange language So your owne Writers as you may obserue in the Marginals Now what more extreame and intolerable Iniurie could you doe to the soules of Gods people than by imposing a strange language upon them thereby according to your owne Confessions to depriue them and that wittingly of Edification Consolation and Devotion the three chiefe Benefits that man's soule is capable off in the seruice of God Thus in respect of your Iniurie against Man A THIRD CHALLENGE Touching the Iniurie done by the same Decree against God himselfe YEt all this notwithstanding you are bent to cozen Christian people with palpable Sophistry by your Cardinall who confesseth that the Psalmes in the dayes of the Primitiue-Church were sung ioyntly of the people Because they were ordayned for instruction consolation of the people as the chiefe end But as for the Diuine Service The Principall end of it saith hee is not the instruction and consolation of the people but the worship of God So hee Whom when we aske why the people then did all ioyne together both in Singing of Psalmes and Answering the Minister in Diuine Service and Prayer Hee saith it was because of the Pauscitie of people and rarenesse of the Assembly Whereby it seemeth he meant to maintaine Your Degenerate Romish Worship with Paradoxes First As if Psalmes publiquely sung in the Church to Gods glorie were not Divine duties and service Secondly As if the Primitive Church using both Psalmes and other Prayers in a knowne tongue as he confesseth did not bold a necessitie of the Common knowledge of both for Instruction and Consolation Thirdly As if the Assemblies of Christians were of such a Paucitie in the dayes of Tertullian when those Psalmes ordained for Instruction and Consolation were in use And fourthly as if People now adayes had not asmuch need of Instruction and Consolation as they that lived in Primitive-times yea and more especially such People who being led blind-fold by an Implicite Faith have reason to crave Instruction and having their Consciences tortured and perplexed with multiplicities of Ceremoniall Lawes have as just cause also to desire Consolation As for your obiecting the Worship of God by vnknowne prayers that may be sufficient which your owne Catechisme authorized by the Councel of Trent teacheth you where answering to that question why God although hee know our wants before wee pray yet will be sollicited by our prayers it saith that hee doth this to the end that Praying more confidently wee may be more inflamed with love towards God and so being possessed with more joy may bee exercised to a â—ervent worship of God So your publike and generall Romane Catechisme The case then is plaine From more Edification there ariseth more Consolation from more Consolation there issueth more Devotion from all these proceeds more filiall Loue and dutifull Worship of God Which was long since shadowed as Philo Iudaeus allegorizeth witnessing your Iesuite by Moses and Miriam singing unto the Lord Moses signifying the understanding part and Miriam betokening the Affection both notifying that we are to sing Hymnes both affectionately and understandingly unto God Therefore if you be men of Conscience recant that your now objected Barbarous Paradoxe Which contrarie to all anciently-professed Divinity and expresse Scripture saying I will pray with my spirit I will pray with my understanding also doth thrust man's Vnderstanding out of God's worship to the vtter abolishing of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is his Reasonable worshipping of God by making man as Saint Augustine noteth no better than Oâ—zells Parrots Ravens and Mag-pies all which learne to prate they know not what THE FOVRTH CHALLENGE Against the said Romish Decree as ioyntly injurious both to God and Man from the Text of the Apostle 1. Cor. 14. IN the fourth place VVee are to speake of the Iniquitie of your vnknowne language
that came vnprepared and as not intending to Communicate they commanded them to be gone and to be packing out of doores To this purpose your owne Relator telleth you from other Authors of the practice of Antiquity and of other succeeding Churches in not suffering any to be present but such as did Communicate and of removing and expelling them that did not Nor can the Church of Rome iustly take exception at this seing that in the Roman Church also in the daies of P. Greg. the first which was 600. yeares after Christ the office of the Deacon at the time of the celebration of the Eucharist was to crie alowde saying If any doe not communicate let him give place Where wee see the religious wisdome of that ancient Church of Rome which could not suffer a Sacrifice to devoure a publike Sacrament and to exclude a Communion Whereunto the Scriptures gave the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Gathering together and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Communion as also of The Supper of the Lord. Yea and Calixtus a Pope more ancient than Gregorie required that persons present should Communicate Because saith he the Apostles had so ordained and our Church of Rome obserueth the same But what haue We said have Wee called this Sacrament the Supper of our Lord so we thought were we taught by the Apostle 1. Cor. 11. before wee heard your Iesuite Maldonate denying this and bitterly inveying against Protestants terming them Blind men for want of judgement for so calling it But he must pardon vs if we though wee should suspect our owne sight yeild to the ancient Fathers of Primitive times as to men farre more cleare-sighted than that Iesuite could be who as both your Romane Catechisme with Lindan instructeth and as your Cardinall Baronius confesseth following the authority of the Apostles used to call the sacred Eucharist the Lord's Supper distinct from the Paschall Supper which went before it amongst whom you have Dionysius Areopagita with Chrysostome Cyprian Augustine Hierome Anselme Bernard Whereupon with some of them we enioyne a Necessity of a ioynt Communion with those that are present Will you suffer a Golden mouth to be Moderator in this Controuersie thus then Whosoever thou art saith Chrysostome that being fit to participate of this Sacrament shalt stand only looking on and not eate thou doest no lesse Contumely and reproach to the Sacrament than a man invited to a Feast who will not taste thereof doth unto the Lord that invited him to bee a Guest So hee And to shew that it cannot be sufficient to behold it only as a proper Sacrifice as you pretend the same Father as you know saith against such By-standers Why doe we waite at the Altar offering meaning unproperly a Sacrifice when as there is none to communicate And why dost thou impudent fellow stand here still not being one of them that participate thereof But enough This then you perceiue is a matter of no small importance even by reason of the nature of this Sacrament which is a Divine Banquet being also enioyned upon the Catholike Church by that Command of Christ DOE THIS Therefore the Command and Precept comming maketh you Transgressors for not Eating even as by the first Command given unto man-kind of Eate not our first Parents became Transgressors for Eating So justly doth our Church require that Gazers who comunicate not should depart We forbeare to repeate that which we have formerly prooved to wit that you by not dismissing the non-Communicants from beholding the Celebration this Sacrament are condemned by the word Masse whereof you have so long boasted untill that now your Glorie is become your shame The Eight Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse by a second Contradiction of the Sence of the former words EATE YEE SECT X. THis is the last Act of Christ concerning the use of the first Element viz. Bread saying EATE YEE even as he said of the other Drinke yee and of both hee gave this his joynt Command Doe this Wherefore this Act of Eating being thus prescribed as the only bodily outward end of this Sacrament it doth exclude all other bodily Vses of man's inuention Accordingly our Church of England Article 25. saith Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be carried about but to be duely used The contrarie Canon of the Romane Masse The holy Synod of Trent saith your Iesuite hath ordained that this Sacrament be preserved carried abroad and publikely proposed to the people in Procession with solemne Pompe and Worship Which is a laudable Custome CHALLENGE VVE doe not dispute against all manner of Reseruation of the Eucharist for wee acknowledge some to be ancient but wee inquire into the religious use and end of Reseruation which we say was not for any publike Profession or Adoration but only for a Sacramentall Eating thereof And how vniustly you call this your Procession only for publike Adoration Laudable wee are provided to demonstrate by the Confessions of your owne Iesuites and others out of Cyprian and other Fathers who consulting first about Antiquitie grant that after the Celebration of the Eucharist anciently The Remainders which were left lest they should corrupt and putrifie were usually either given to children under age yet not to be received Sacramentally but only to be consumed by them or were burnt in the fire or else eaten reverently in the Vestrie called the Pastophorium Which was likewise the Custome of Rome in the primitive age as Pope Clement witnesseth And although in the times of extreme persecution Christians were permitted to take the Eucharist and carrie it home to their houses yet it was as you grant to no other end but that they might eate it and this only in the time of Persecution After which time the same Custome was abrogated So you How then can you call the Reservation of the Hoast for publike Procession and not for Eating Laudable which hath beene thus checked and gain-sayed by so syncere Antiquitie Secondly when you please to reveile unto us the first Birth of your owne Romane Custome you grant that it was not untill a Thousand foure hundred yeares after Christ And must it then be called a Laudable Custome whereby that we may so speake beardlesse noveltie doth take place of sage and gray-headed Antiquitie Thirdly in discussing the end which was destinated by our Saviour Christ you further grant that The primitive and principall end prescribed by Christ is for Sacramentall eating and that the Sacrament is to be given for this as it 's primary effect And yet notwithstanding for you to bring in a Pompous ostentation of not Eating and to call it a Laudable Custome argueth what little Congruitie there is betweene your Practice and Christ's Institution And how much lesse Laudable will this appeare to be when we consider the grosse and intollerable Abuses of your Processions
to turne their Wonderment against themselves saying Behold the providence of God! thus plainly to confound the wisdome of the Adversaries of his truth by themselves in their greatest subtilenesse Hitherto of the Comparison of the Ordinance of Christ with the Ordinance of the Romish Church Our second Comparison is of the Example of Christ with the contrarie Example SECT III. VVEre it that we had no Precept of Christ to Doe this but only the Example of his Doing it in the first Institution this should be a Rule for us to observe it punctually excepting in such Circumstances which only occasionally and accidentally hapned therein as hath beene proved and therefore not to dare to give a Non-obstante against the Example of Christ as your Councell of Constance hath done and which your Iesuite also teacheth as if the Example of Christ were no argument of proofe at all Which Doctrine wee are now to trie by the judgement of Antiquity Cyprian confuteth the Aquarij Heretikes that used only Water in the Chalice by the Example of Christ his Institution because Nothing is to be done of us in celebrating of this Mystery which was not done of Christ. So he In the dayes of Pope Iulius Anno 337. there arose many giddie spirits which violated the holy Institution of Christ in this Sacrament when as some consecrated Milke instead of Wine others sopped the bread in the Cup a third sort squiezed Grapes thereinto These and the like that holy Pope did condemne but how by pretence of Custome only no but by the obligation of Christ his Example and institution of this Sacrament in these words following Because these are contrary saith he to Evangelicall and Apostolicall doctrine and Ecclesiasticall Custome as is easily proved from the fountaine of truth from whence the Sacraments had their first ordinance for when our Master of Truth commended this to his Disciples he gave to none Milke but Bread only and the Cup. Nor doth the Gospell mention the sopping of bread but of giving Bread a-part and the Cup also a-part c. So Pope Iulius Those also that offered Bread and Cheese together in this Sacrament are confuted by the Institution of Christ who appointed Bread saith your Aquinas What can be more direct and absolute yet dare your men obiect to the contrarie The Romish Obiection answered At Emmaus Luke 24. Christ meeting with certaine Disciples taking bread and blessing it and thereby manifesting himselfe to them is said immediately after the Breaking of Bread to have vanished out of their sights Ergò it may be lawfull saith your Cardinall to use but one kind Because saith Master Brereley the Text sheweth that Christ vanished away not leaving any time for Benediction or Consecration of the Cup. CHALLENGE THis Argument is still inculcated almost by every Romanist in defence of the Romish Custome of but in one kind notwithstanding it be twice rotten First in the Root and Antecedent For although Christ here had begun the Celebration of the Eucharist yet doth it not appeare that he did now perfect it in distributing either kinde to his Disciples Nor is this likely saith your Iansenius And it is dead-rotten also in the branch and Consequence thereof because that this Act of Christ in Emmaus is not to be urged as an Example to be imitated in the Church which is demonstrable by an Acknowledgement of your Iesuite Valentia As for example The Councell of Trent hath defined that the Priest in Consecrating is commanded by Christ his Institution to consecrate in both kinds Because this saith your Iesuite both the nature of the Sacrifice and Sacrament doth exact but by what words of Command namely for so hee saith by these words Doe this Accordingly your Objectour Master Brereley as if he had meant purposely to confute and confound himselfe The reason why the Priest receiveth both kinds is because hee is to represent the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse But Bread cannot represent Christ dead without some signe of Bloud If then because Christ ministred it not in both kindes in Emmaus it shall be lawfull for the Church to imitate him in that manner of Distribution of this Sacrament it must as equally follow that because hee is not found there to have Consecrated in both kinds it may be lawfull for your Church so to doe not only contrary to your now Romane Custome but also in the judgement of the Councell of Trent contrary to the Command of Christ as hath beene confessed Twice miserable therefore is the darknesse of your Disputers First not to see the Inconsequence of this Obiection and next not to remember that common Principle to wit Extraordinary Acts are not to be Rules for ordinary Duties A SECOND CHALLENGE VVEe conclude You have seene by the testimonies of Cyprian and Pope Iulius that it was good Divinity in their dayes to argue from the Example of Christ his Institution negatively by rejecting such Acts and accounting them as contrarie to the Institution of Christ which accord not with his Example and which are not comprized within the Canon of Christ his Hoc facite which kinde of Reasoning at this day is â—issed at in your Romish Schooles What need many words O tempora Our third Comparison is by conferring Apostolicall Practice with contrary Practice SECT IV. SAint Paul having more speciall occasion to handle this point than any other of the Apostles may worthily be admitted to resolve us in the name of all the Rest Hee Catechizing the Corinthians concerning the true use of the Eucharist recordeth the first Institution thus I have received of the Lord that which I deliver unto you that the Lord Iesus c. And after his Recitall of the Institution of Christ hee himselfe addeth As often as you eate of this Bread and drinke of this Cup you shew the Lords death untill he come againe Let therefore a man examine himselfe and so eate of this Bread and drinke of this Cup. From this wee seeke a Proofe both of the Apostolicall Practice in the use of both kindes in this Sacrament and of our duety in observing the same But wee may spare our paines of prooving the use of both kindes in the Church of Corinth because as your Cardinall Tolet confesseth There is no controversie thereof As for the proofe of our necessary Conformity wee have the same Reasons wherewith the Apostle perswadeth thereunto That saith he which I have received of the Lord I deliver vnto you that Iesus c. Thereby applying the Example of Christ his Institution for a Rule of their Practice which this coniunctive Particle of Eating AND Drinking To Eate AND Drinke five times so coupled in this Epistle doe plainly declare But you tell vs that in this place the Coniunctive AND is is put for a disiunctive Or thereby to teach the Church a liberty to choose whether they shall Eate or Drinke
But with what reason were they reprehended Because saith the Councell that fashion iâ— not â—ound in the sacred Storie of the Evangelists All those ancient Popes who held the Example of Christ in his Institution and Apostolicall Customes to be necessary Directions of Christ his Church in such points concerning the ministration of this Sacrament being so utterly repugnant to your now Romish opinions and Practices it must follow that those former Popes being admitted for Iudges whom all Christians acknowledged to have beene Apostolicall in their Resolutions the now Romish Church and her degenerate Profession must needs be judged Apostaticall Now from the former Actuall wee proceed to the Doctrinall points THE SECOND BOOKE Concerning the first Doctrinall Point which is the Interpretation of the words of Christ's Institution THIS IS MY BODY THIS IS MY BLOOD LVKE 22. The Doctrinall and Dogmaticall points are to be distinguished into your Romish 1. Interpretation of the words of Christ his Institution This is my Body c. 2. Consequences deduced from such your Expositions such as are Transubstantiation Corporall Presence and the rest CHAP. I. Of the Exposition of the words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY The State of the Question in Generall BEcause as Saint Augustine saith of points of faith It is as manifest an Heresie in the interpertation of Scriptures to take figurative speechees properly as to take proper speeches figuratively And such is the CAVEAT which Salmeron the Iesuite giveth you it will concerne both You and Vs as wee will avoide the brand of Heresie to search exactly into the true sence of these words of Christ especially seeing wee are herein to deale with the Inscription of the Seale of our Lord IESVS even the Sacrament of his Body and Blood In the which Disquisition besides the Authority of Ancient Fathers wee shall insist much upon the Ingenuity of your owne Romish Authours And what Necessitie there is to enquire into the true sence of these words will best appeare in the after-Examination of the divers Consequences of your owne Sence to wit your Doctrine of Transubstantiation Corporall and Materiall Presence Propitiatory Sacrifice and proper Adoration All which are Dependants upon your Romish Exposition of the former wordes of Christ The issue then will be this that if the words be certainly true in a Proper and litterall sence then we are to yeild to you the whole Cause But if it be necessarily Figurative then the ground of all these your Doctrines being but sandy the whole Structure and Fabricke which you erect thereupon must needs ruine and vanish But yet know withall that we doe not so maintaine a figurative Sence of Christ his Speech concerning his Body as to exclude the Truth of his Body or yet the truly-Receiving thereof as the Third and Fourth Bookes following will declare That a Figurative sence of Christ his Speech THIS IS MY BODY c. is evinced out of the words themselves from the Principles of the Romish Schooles SECT I. THere are two words which may be unto us as two keyes to unlock the questioned sence of Christ's words viz. the Pronoune THIS and the Verbe IS We begin with the former The State of the Question about the word THIS When wee shall fully vnderstand by your Church which holdeth a Proper and litterall Signification what the Pronoune THIS doth demonstrate then shall We truly inferre an infallible proofe of our figurative sence All Opinions concerning the Thing which the word THIS in the divers opinions of Authours pointeth at may be reduced to Three heads namely to signifie either This Bread or This Bodie of Christ or else some Third Thing different from them both Tell you vs first what you hold to be the opinion of Protestants Lutherans and all Calvinists saith your Iesuite thinke that the Pronoune THIS pointeth out Bread But your Roman Doctors are at oddes among themselves and divided into two principall Opinions Some of them referre the word THIS to Christ's Body Some to a Third thing which you call Individuum vagum In the first place we are to confute both these your Expositions and after to confirme our owne That the first Exposition of Romish Doctors of great learning referring the word THIS properly to Christ his Body perverteth the sence of Christ his Speech by the Consessions of Romish Doctors SECT II. DIvers of your Romish Divines of speciall note as well Iesuites as others interpret the word This to note the Body of Christ as it is present in this Sacrament at the pronuntiation of the last syllable of this speech Hoc est corpus meum Because they are words Practicall say they that is working that which they signifie namely The Body of Christ And this sence they call Most cleare and in their Iudgements there can be no better then this So your Stapleton Sanders together with Barradius Salmeron Chavausius these last three being Iesuites to whome you may adde Master Brereley his Answere saying that these words Most evidently relate to Christ's Body As evidently saith also your Iesuite Malloun as one pointing at his Booke should say This is my Booke CHALLENGE ARe not these Opinators in number many in name for the most part of great esteeme their Assertion in their own opinion full of assurance and delivered to their Hearers as the onely Catholique Resolution And yet behold one whose name alone hath obtained an Authority equivalent to almost all theirs your Cardinall Bellarmine who speaking of the same opinion of referring the word This to the Body of Christ doth in flat tearmes call it ABSVRD but not without good and solid reason and that according to the Principles of Romish Schooles to wit because before the last syllable of the last word Me-um be pronounced the Body of Christ is not yet present and the word This cannot demonstrate a thing Absent and therefore can it not be said This body is my body A Reason pregnant enough in it selfe and ratified by your publique Romane Catechisme authorised by the then Pope and Councell of Trent yet notwithstanding your fore-named Irish Iesuite hearing this Argument obiected by Protestants rayleth downe right calling it Accursed as iudged by the Church Hereticall and indeed Abhominable So hee who with Others if they were of fit yeares might be thought to deserve the rod for forgetting their Generall Catechisme and for defending an Exposition which even in common sense may be pronounced in your Cardinal 's owne phrase very Absurde else shew vs if you can but the least semblance of Truth for that Opinion Similitudes obiected for defence of their former Exposition and confuted by their owne fellowes The Similitudes which are urged to illustrate your former Practicall and operative sense are of these kinds to wit Even as if one say They in drawing a Line or a Circle should say in the making thereof This is a Line or This
having power sensibly to perceive which betokening Bread or the Accidents of bread as you see it doth confirmeth unto us the Tropicall speech of Christ in calling Bread his Body and consequently overthroweth your whole Cause Fourthly the Similitude of Epiphanius must stand thus That which is said to be after the Image of God is such which hath a substantiall being yet so that it be like but not the same in nature And so is Bread having a Sacramentall Analogie to Christ's Body the first as the substantiall meate of man's Body and the other as the supersubstantiall food of Man's Soule Which Conclusion namely that Bread as the signe of Christ's Body is not the same in nature with Christ's Body doth dash out the braines of the Monster Transubstantiation by the which Bread as your Tridentine Faith teacheth is wholly changed into the substantiall nature of Christ's Body As if you would have Epiphanius to have said The Image of God in man is God in nature Thus doe you find the Testimony of Epiphanius to be Convincent indeed but against your Romish Doctrine of Errour and against your Cardinall of a foule falsity who saith that Epiphanius will have us to believe something herein although it be repugnant to our Sences which word no man of Sence can find in Epiphanius He saith indeed that every man is bound upon his Salvation to believe the Truth of Christ his Speech which say wee none but an Infidell can deny because Christ being Truth it selfe therefore all the words of Christ whether spoken Literally or Tropically they are still the Truth of Christ That the same Greeke Fathers have expresly vnfolded their meanings touching a Figurative Sence SECT VIII THe Iudgement of a whole Councell of Greeke Fathers may well suffice for the manifestation of the Iudgement of that Church They in Constantinople at Trullo alluding to these words of Christ This is my Body saying Let nothing be offered but the Body and Blood of Christ that is say They Bread and Wine c. If we had not told you that this had been the speech of Greeke Fathers in a Councell you would have conceived they had beene uttered by some Heretique as your Charity useth to cal us Protestants Neither may the Authority of this Councell be rejected by you as unlawfull in the point of the Sacrament both because it is objected by your selves to prove it an vnbloody Sacrifice whereunto you are answered as also for that your Binius in opposing against some things in this Councell yet neuer tooke any Exception against this Canon We may not let passe another Testimony used by the Antient Father Theodoret namely That Christ called the Bread his Body as he called his Body Bread Matth. 12. saying thereof Except the grane of wheat die c. insomuch that Interchangeably in the one place He gave to the Signe the name of his Body and in the other He gave to his Body the name of the Signe So hee As Protestantly as either Calvin or Beza could speake And you cannot deny but that when Christ called his Body Bread it was an improper and figurative speech And therefore if you will believe Theodoret you are compellable to confesse that Christ in calling Bread his Body meant it not in a proper and literall sence Hitherto of the Greeke Fathers That the same Figurative sence of Christ's words is avouched by the Latine Fathers SECT IX SOme of the Latine Fathers we confesse seeme in some places to deny all Figurative sence but this they doe even by a figure called Hyperbole that is onely in the excesse of Speech thereby to abstract the minds of sensuall men from fixing their thoughts upon externall Rites and to rayse them up to a Sacramentall and Spirituall Contemplation of the Body and Blood of Christ But as for the direct and perspicuous Sentences of these Fathers they cleerely and exactly teach a figurative sence in the words of Christ to wit Tertullian This is my Body That is a figure thereof Cyprian Things signifying and signified are called by the same word Hierom. Wine the type of Christ his Blood Gelasius Bread the image of his Body Ambrose After consecration Christ his Body is signified Saint Augustine in many places may be unto Vs instar multorum To eate the flesh of Christ saith he is a figurative speech Againe In the banquet Christ gave to his Disciples the signe of his Body And yet againe Christ doubted not to say This is my Body when he gave a signe of his Body Lastly unanswerably proving other Sacraments to agree with this in this point and that herein the Eucharist hath no Prerogative above the rest Sacraments saith he for the very Similitude and likenesse which they have with the things whereof they are Sacraments doe often take the names of those things which they doe signifie as when the Sacrament of Christ's Body saith he is after a certaine manner called the Body of Christ But how Hee addeth as if hee had meant to stop the mouthes of all Opposites As it is said by the Apostle of Baptisme we are buried by Baptisme into the death of Christ He saith not wee signifie his buriall but absolutely saith Wee are buried therefore hath he called the Sacrament or Signe of so great a Thing by the name of the Thing signified thereby So he even the same He who will be found like himselfe in the following passages of this Booke especially when we shall handle the manner of Eating of Christ's body which Augustine will Challenge to be figuratively meant We shall take our farewell of the Latine Fathers in the Testimony of Bishop Isidore who will give you his owne Reason why Christ called Bread his Body Bread saith he because it strengtheneth the body is therefore called the body of Christ and Wine because it maketh Blood is therefore referred to Christ's Blood but these two being sanctified by the Holy Ghost are changed into a Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ So he and so say we Accordingly Tertullian but least any may Cavill as some doe at his sentence above-cited wee adde his other sentence wherein he sheweth that Christ called Bread his Body in saying This is my body as the Prophet Ieremy called his Body Bread in saying Let us put wood upon his Bread meaning his Body So Tertullian shewing them both to be spoken equally in a figurative Sence CHALLENGE THese Sentences of these holy Fathers are so fully Consonant to the Doctrine of Protestans as that if the names of these Fathers had beene concealed our Reader might thinke that hee heard Bucer Calvin or Beza speake Goe you now and proclaime that all Ancient Fathers teach your Litterall sence of Christ his words and perswade your selves if you can that any man of Conscience and Iudgement can be seduced to believe you They say indeed that Bread is the Body of Christ
now happen unto him but sine laesione that is without any hurt Wee answer that if hee should suffer nothing in his humanity passively to the Laesio corporis that is hurt of the Body yet should there be thereby in the opinion of men laesio dignitatis that is a lessening and obscuring of that his dignity which is set forth in Scripture and which our Article of faith concerning his Bodily sitting at the Right hand of God in Heaven teacheth us to be in all Celestiall glory and Maiestie This your Aquinas well saw when in regard of Indignity he iudged it An hainous wickednesse for any to thinke Christ should be inclosed in a Boxe appearing in his proper forme And what greater difference can it be for a Body to be Boxed under another forme more than when that one and the same Person is imprisoned whether open faced or covered whether in the day or in the night it mattereth not much for still the same person is shut up in Prison Againe if that these Circumstances now spoken of were not Arguments of Indignity why doe your Iesuites in a point of Opinion deny that Christ's Body is Transubstantiated into the flesh of the Communicant because of the Indignity against his Maiestie Come we to the point of Practice Let this be our lesson when there is Reverence in the use of a thing then there may be Irreverence and Indignity in the abuse thereof But your Church hath provided that the Priests be shaven and the Laicks abstaine from the Cup in a pretence of Reverence The first least some part of the Hoast which you beleeve to be the body of Christ should hang on the Priest's Beard the second least any whit of Christs Blood in the Cup should be split But how much more indignity must it needs be to be devoured of Mice Wormes and sometimes as your owne stories have related kept close in a Dunghill One word more If these seeme not sufficiently indigne because there is not Laesio corporis Hurt of the Body this being your onely Evasion what will you say of your framing a Christ unto your selves who as he is in this Sacrament Is you say without power of motion of sense and of understanding Why my Masters can there be Lamenesse Blindnesse Deafenesse and Impotencie it selfe without Hurt of the same partie so maymed c. This is worse than your dirty imagination of placing him in a Dunghill THE GENERALL CHALLENGE THese above specified Sixe Contradictions so plainly and plentifully proved by such forceable Arguments as the light of Divine Scripture hath authorized the profession of Primitive Fathers testified Confessions of Romish Doctors acknowledged and the Principles of your owne Romish learning in most points confirmed your Abrenunciation of your so many Grosse Errours may be as necessary as your persisting therein will be damnable Before we can end we are to consult with the Fathers of the Councell of Nice especially seeing that aswell Romanists as Protestants will be knowne to appeale to that Councell CHAP. X. Of the Canon of the Councell of Nice obiected for proofe of a Corporall Prescnce of Christ in the Eucharist SECT I. THis as it is delivered by your Cardinall taken out as he saith of the Vatican Library standeth thus Let us not here in this divine Table be in humblenesse intent unto the Bread and Cup which is set before us but lifting up our minds let us understand by faith the Lambe of God set upon that Table The Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the World offered unbloodily of the Priest And we receiving truly his Body and Blood let us thinke these to be the Symbols of our Resurrection For this Cause doe we receive not much but little that wee may understand this is not to satisfie but to sanctifie So the Canon The Generall approbation of this Canon by Both sides SECT II. SCarce is there any one Romish Author handling this Controversie who doth not fasten upon this Canon of Nice for the countenancing of your Romish Masse Contrarily Protestants as they are set downe by our Zanchy and your Bellarmine in great numbers among whom are Luther and Calvin with ioynt consent approve of this Canon one of them Bucer by name subscribing unto it with his owne hand in these words So I thinke in the Lord and I wish to appeare in this minde before the Tribunall Seat of God So they The right Explication of this Canon will be worthy our paines The state of the Difference concerning this Canon SECT III. THis as is propounded by your Cardinall standeth thus All saith he by the Lambe understand Christ as he is distinguished from the Symbols and Signes upon the Altar Next But the Protestants thinke saith he that the Councell admonisheth not to seeke Christ on the Altar but to ascend up unto him in Heaven by faith as sitting at the right hand of God But we all say saith he that the Councell would have us to attend unto the holy Table meaning the Altar below yet so that we see in it not so much the outward Symbols and Signes as that which lyeth hid under them viz. The Body and Blood of Christ So hee The difference then betweene him and us is no lesse than the distance betweene Aloft and Vnder that is betweene Heaven above and Earth below Let us set forward in our progresse but with easie and even paces to the end you may better understand the strength of our Proofes and rottennesse of your Obiections That the Nicene Councell is marvellously preiudiciall to your Romish Defence proved by five Observations Three here SECT IV. FIve points are chiefly observable in this Canon First is the nomination of Bread Secondly the mention of two Tables Thirdly the admonition to lift up our minds Fourthly the expression of the Reason thereof Fiftly the Confirmation of the same Reason First That which the Councell would that men be not too intent unto they call Bread after Consecration for the Errour which they would have avoyded was either the too much abasing of this Sacrament according to your Cardinals Glosse and then was it after Consecration because they needed not to have perswaded any to have too meane an estimation of the Bread unconsecrated which you your selves hold to be a common and prophane thing or else the Errour must have beene as indeed it was too high a valuation of the outward Element of Bread which must needs be so because it was consecrated and notwithstanding it being so consecrated in the Canon it is called Bread which your Fathers of the Councell of Trent would not have endured especially seeing that we find that your Latine Church was offended with the late Greeke Church for calling the parts of the Eucharist by the termes of Bread and Wine after the pronunciation of these words This is my Body by you called the words of Consecration Besides they so call them Bread
Papall Decrees and the Body of these Decrees hath beene lately ratified by the Bull of P. Gregory the thirteenth The same Faith was embraced afterwards of some Schoole-men who without any distinction vsed the same phrase of Tearing with Teeth Secondly of after-times your Canus asseverantly inferreth of the Body of Christ that If it be eaten then certainly it is broken and torne with the teeth But most emphatically your Cardinall Alan It is said saith he to be torne with the teeth of the faithfull no lesse properly than if it should be said so of the Bread if it were eaten Yea and your Cardinall Bellarmine for proofe of Transubstantiation hath recourse unto the same Roman Councell which he stileth Generall and noteth the thing defined to have beene the iudgement of the Church and that the same Iudgement was delivered under the Censure of an Anathema and Curse against the Gain-sayers and therefore he with his Disciple Mr. Fisher who also alleageth the same are challengeable to hold it according to the literall sence therof because it will not admit of any qualification by any Trope or figure that can be devised First because the words are purposely set downe as a forme of Recantation and Abiuration of Heresie but as you confesse There are no formes of speech more exact and proper in phrase concerning the matter of faith than such as are used by them that abiure Heresie And Secondly for that this forme of words of Tearing with the teeth the flesh of Christ was also made purposely for Abiuration and abandoning all figurative Sence for the defence of the literall Exposition of the words of Christ This my Body c. therefore was it taken literally But what thinke you will Cavin say to this your then Romish forme of Profession in the literall sence A man should rather wish to die an hundred times saith he than once to intangle himselfe in a Doctrine so monstrously sacrilegious Which Censure of his wee now endeavour to make good That the former Romane Faith of Properly Eating the Body of Christ is Capernaitically-Hereticall at this day as is proved by some of your owne Doctors of the now Romane Church SECT II. YOu have heard of Berengarius his Abrenunciation of Heresie according to the faith of the then Romane Church in Breaking the Body of Christ and tearing it sensibly with their teeth Hearken now a little and you shall heare in a manner an Abrenunciation of that then Romane faith by denying it to be either properly Broken or yet really Torne even by the Iesuites themselves Reall Eating saith your Salmeron requireth a reall touch and tearing of the thing which is eaten but the Body of Christ is not torne with the teeth or touched by them that eate him because he is herein impartible So he Your Iesuite and Cardinall Bellarmine is as it were in a maze saying and gain-saying as you may perceive yet notwithstanding whether he will or no must perforce confesse no lesse when he saith that The Body of Christ is not absolutely eaten but eaten vnder the formes of Bread and that is to say saith he the formes of Bread are sensibly and visibly eaten So hee If this imported a literall manner of eating then might your Cardinall have said as literally of himselfe My clothes are torne therefore my body is rent in pieces Not to trouble you with the Cardinal's Philosophie that talketh of Eating and tearing of Colours But to the point If onely the Accidents of Bread be as he saith Sensibly eaten then was Pope Nicolas his Prescription of Eating Christ's body sensibly in your Cardinal's opinion not true And upon the same ground it is that your Iesuite Suarez out of Thomas and other Schoole-men affirmeth the word Broken to bee a Metaphoricall phrase not properly belonging to the body of Christ because it requireth that there should be a Separation of the parts of that which is properly broken So hee as also your Canus hath concluded And your Iesuite Maldonate is so bold as to tell you that these Propositions The Body of Christ is eaten is Broken Torne with the Teeth or Devoured of us properly taken are false Thus your Iesuites as if they had expressly said that to thinke the Body of Christ to be eaten torne or devoured properly taken is a carnall Capernaiticall and as your owne Glosse in Gratian concludeth an Hereticall opinion Will your have any more It is but the last day in respect when one of your grave Criticks so much abhorred the conceit of proper Tearing Christ's Bodie that he called the Obiecting thereof against your Church in his blinde zeale Blasphemie and answereth that you doe no more Teare Christ's flesh than Caiphas tore his when he rent his clothes The Case then is plaine That the former Romish and Popish Faith for the manner of of receiving of the Body of Christ is but somewhat altered yet miserably inconstant and faithlesse SECT III. PRotestants may have in this place iust matter of insulation against your Romish Professors to prove their infidelity in that which they seeme to professe As first that the ground of your Doctrine of Corporall presence is the literall and proper interpretation of the words of Christ when he said Take eate this is my Body yet now are you compelled to say that Properly eaten is no proper but a false sence Your Second Doctrine is that the iudgement of a Romane Pope in a Romane Councell in a matter of faith is Infallible Notwithstanding Pope Nicolas with his Romane Councell is found to haue grossly erred in a tenor of Abiuration which of all others as hath beene confessed is most literall and was therefore purposely devised against a figurative sence of the words of Christ and forthwith published throughout Italie France Germany c. to direct men in the faith of sensuall eating breaking and tearing the flesh of Christ with their teeth yet notwithstanding your common Iudgement being now to reiect such phrases taken in their proper signification and in a manner to abrenounce Berengarius his Abrenunciation what is if this be not an argument that either you say you care not or else beleeve you know not what Let us goe on in pursuite of your Doctrine of the Corporall manner of eating which you still maintaine and it will be found to be Capernaiticall enough CHAP. V. That the now Romish manner of Eating and bodily receiving of the Body of Christ is sufficiently Capernaiticall in three kindes TEll vs not that no Doctrine of your Church can be called Hereticall before that it be so iudged by some generall Councell no for Rectum est Index sui obliqui and therefore an evident Truth written in the word of God doth sufficiently condemne the contrary of Heresie as well as light doth discover and dispell Darknes And this is manifest by the example which we have now in
consent of Antient Fathers SECT III. AS for our selves we before all other Reasons and against all opposition whatsoever take our light from the same Scripture immediately after the Text objected wherein it is said of Iudas He that betrayeth me and againe Christ of himselfe I goe my way both in the Present Tense but both betokening the Future because neither Iudas at that instant practised any thing nor did Christ move any whit out of his place Lastly if ancient Fathers may be held for indifferent and competent Expositors we have Origen Tertullian Athanasius Basil Ambrose Theodoret Isidore Pope Alexander and Chrysostome All for the Future Tense by their Confringetur Tradetur Effundetur What my Masters is there no learning but under your Romish caps That the objected words of Christ and the whole Text doe utterly overthrow the pretended Sacrifice in the Romish Masse SECT IV. AMong the words of Institution the first which offereth it selfe to our use is the formerly-objected word BROKEN which word said your Iesuite Suares is taken unproperly because in the proper and exact acception it should signifie a dividing of the body of Christ into parts So he and that truly Else why wee pray you is it that your Roman Church hath left out of her Masse the same word Broken used by Christ in the words which you terme words of Consecration Although you peradventure would be silent yet your Bishop Iansenius will not forbeare to tell us that It was left out lest that any man might conceive so fondly as to thinke the body of Christ to be truly broken So hee It is well The word Shed is the next which properly signifieth the issuing of blood out of the veines of Christ But That Blood of Christ saith your Cardinall speaking of the first Institution did not passe out of his Body Even as Aquinas had said before him But most emphatically your Alphonsus Christ his Bloud was once shed upon the Crosse never to be shed againe after his resurrection which cannot be perfectly separated from his Body And accordingly your Iesuite Coster The true effusion of his Blood which is by separating it from the Body was only on the Crosse So they Hearken now These words Blood shed and Body broken were spoken then by Christ and are now recited by your Priest either in the proper sence of shedding or they are not If in a proper sence then is it properly separated from his Body against your former Confession and Profession of all Christians But if it be said to be shed unproperly then are your Objectors of a proper Sence of Christ his words to be properly called deceitfull Sophisters as men who speake not from conscience but for contention who being defeated in their first skirmish about Christs words doe flie for refuge to his Acts and Deeds whither wee further pursue them That there was no Sacrificing Act in the whole Institution of Christ which the Romish Church can justly pretend for defence of her Proper Sacrifice proved by your owne Confessions SECT V. THere are six Acts of Christ which your Proctors who plead for a proper Sacrifice do pretend for proofe thereof as being ascribable to the Institution of Christ and are as readily and roundly confuted by their owne fellowes as they were by others frequently and diligently fought out or vehemently objected which the Marginals will manifest unto you in everie particular to be no essentiall Acts of a proper Sacrifice 1. Not Elevation because it was not instituted by Christ 2. Not the Breaking of Bread because you say it is not necessarie 3. Not Consecration although it be held by your Cardinall Alan The only essentiall Act yet as Some thinke Is it not of the Essence of a Sacrifice And why should not they so judge say wee for many things are Sacrata that is Consecrated which are not Sacrificata that is Sacrificed Else what will you say of Water in Baptisme yea of your Holy-water-sprinckle of your Pots Bells Vestments which being held by you as Sacred are notwithstanding not so much as Sacramentals Besides if Consecration made the Sacrifice then Bread being only consecrated it alone should be the Sacrifice in your Masse 4. Not Oblation whether before or after Consecration 5. Not dipping of the Hoast in the Chalice 6. Although your Cardinall preferred this before all others Not the Consumption of the Hoast by the Priests eating it Which your Iesuite Salmeron and Cardinall Alan together with your Iesuite Suarez accompanied with with seven other of your Schoole-men doe gaine-say because this is Rather proper to a Sacrament than to a Sacrifice And for that also if it were essentiall the People might be held Sacrificers aswell as Priests So they of these Particulars whereof some are more largely discussed afterwards CHALLENGE COnsider now wee pray you that as you All confesse The whole Essence of a Sacrifice dependeth upon the Institution of Christ And that It is not in the power of the Church to ordaine a Sacrifice Next that if any Sacrifice had beene instituted it must have appeared either by some word or Act of Christ neither of which can be found or yet any shaddow thereof What then we pray you can make more both for the justifying of your owne Bishop of Bitontum who feared not to publish in your Councell of Trent before all their Father-hoods That Christ in his last Supper did not offer up any proper Sacrifice As also for the condemning of your owne Romish Church for a Sacrilegious Depravation of the Sacrament of Christ Vpon this their Exigence whither will they now To other Scriptures of the new Testament and then of the old Out of the new are the two that follow CHAP. II. That the other objected Scriptures out of the new Testament make not for any Proper Sacrifice among Christians to witt not Acts 13. 2. of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 SECT I. ACTS 13. 2. S. Luke reporting the publike Ministerie wherein the Apostles with other devout Christians were â—ow exercised saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which two of your Cardinalls translate They sacrificing But why Sacrificing say we and not some other ministeriall Function as preaching or administring the Sacrament seeing that the words may beare it They answer us because 1. This Ministerie is said to be done To the Lord so is not Preaching 2. For that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whensoever it is applyed to sacred Ministerie and used absolutely it is alwayes taken for the Act of Sacrificing So they When we should have answered this Objection wee found our selves prevented by one who for Greeke-learning hath scaâ—… had his equall in this our age namely that Phenix M. Isaac Casaubon Looke upon the Margent where you may finde the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have been used Ecclesiastically for whatsoever religious ministration even
Explaining of themselves SECT V. SAint Ambrose setting forth two kinde of Offerings of Christ here on earth and above in Heaven he saith that Christ here is offered as one suffering and above he himselfe Offereth himselfe an Advocate with the Father for us And this our offering of him he calleth but an Image and that above he calleth the Truth Clearly shewing that we have in our Offering Christ's Body only as it is Crucified which is the Object of our Commemoration But the same Body as it is now the personall subject of a present Time and Place they behold it in Heaven even the same Body which was once offered on the Crosse by his Passion now offered up by himselfe to God by Presentation in Heaven here in the Church only by our Representation Sacramentally on earth Saint Augustine dealeth as plainly with us where distinguishing three States of Offerings up to Christ he saith first that under the Law Christ was promised In the similitude of their Sacrifices meaning his bloody death was prefigured by those bloody Sacrifices Secondly in the offering at his Passion he was Delivered up in truth or proper Sacrifice this was on the Crosse And thirdly after his Ascension The memory of Him is celebrated by a Sacrament or Sacramentall Representation So he For although the Sacrifices of the Iewes were true Sacrifices yet were they not truly the Sacrificings of Christ Note you this Assertion Againe speaking of his owne Time when the Sacrament of the Eucharist was daily celebrated he saith That Christ was once sacrified namely upon the Crosse and Is now daily sacrificed in the Sacrament nor shall he lie saith he that saith Christ is sacrificed So he No holy Augustine shall he not lye who saith that Christ as the personall Subject of this Sacrament is a proper Sacrifice in the literall Sense for whether Proper or Vnproper are the two Seales of this Controversie Now interpose your Catholike Resolution Say first why is it called a Sacrament tell us If Sacraments had not a similitude of things which they represent they were no Sacraments from which similitude they have their Appellation and name of the things to wit The Sacrament of the Body of Christ is called his Body as Baptisme is called a Buriall Be so good as to explaine this by another which may illuminate even a man in the point of Sacrifice also although otherwise blinded with prejudice As when the day of Christ's Passion faith he being to morrow or the day of his Resurrection about to be the next day but one we use to say of the former To morrow is Christ's Passion and of the other when it commeth it is Christ's Resurrection yet will none be so absurd as to say we lye in so saying because we speake it by way of Similitude even so when we say this is sacrificed c. So Saint Augustine Who now seeth not that as the Buriall of Christ is not the Subject matter of Baptisme but only the Representative Object thereof and as Good Fryday and Easter-day are not properly the daies of Christ his Passion or Resurrection but Anniversary and Represensative or Commemorative Resemblances of them So this Sacrifice is a Similitude of the Sacrifice of Christ's on the Crosse and not materially the same We omit Testimonies of other Fathers which are dispersed in this and other Sections Although this one Explanation might satisfie yet shall we adjoyne others which may satiate even the greediest Appetite The fourth Demonstration from the Fathers Explanation of their meaning by a kinde of Correction SECT VI. ANcient Fathers in good number call that which is represented in the Eucharist and which we are said to offer The same Host not many the same Oblation no other the same Sacrifice and none but it but they adde by a Figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Correction of the excesse of their speech or rather for Caution-sake least their Readers might conceive of the same Sacrifice herein as properly presâ—nt saying in this manner We offer the same Sacrifice or Rather the Remembrance thereof alluding sometime expresly to the Institution of Christ Doe this in remembrance of me The Fathers are these viz. Chrysostome Theophylact Thodoret Ambrose Eusebius and Primasius Your only Answer is that their Exception here used was not to note that it is not the same Body of Christ here Corporally present which was offered upon the Crosse but that it is not offered in the same manner by effusion of Blood as that was which is indeed a Part but not the whole Truth For survay the Marginals and then tell us If that your Sacrifice were the same Body of Christ Corporally present why should Theophylact apply hâ—s qualification not to the manner whether Bloody or Vnbloody but to the person of Christ saying We offer the same Christ who was once offered or rather a Memoriall of his Oblation And Theodoret applying it directly to the thing Non aliud We offer not another Sacrifice but a memoriall thereof why Eusebius Wee offer a Memoriall in stead of a Sacrifice plainly notifying unto tis that they meant the same very Body which was the Subject of the Sacrifice on the Crosse to be the now proper Object of our Remembrance in the Eucharist but not the Subject therein Which agreeth with that which in the former Section was said by Ambrose Our offering up of Christ in an Image and Augustine his celebrating of this Sacrament of Remembrance Semblably as Hierome speakes of the Priest who is said to take the Person of Christ in this Sacrament so that He saith Hierome be a a true Priest or rather an Imitator of him But a Priest and an Imitator is not Identically the same that is represented Master Breeley is not Christ Lastly The same said Primasius in all places which was borne of the Virgin and not now great and now lesse So he But have we not heard you number your many Hoasts on one Altar at one Time and yet the Fathers say We offer not many but the same which must needs be the same one as Object else shew us where ever any Father denied but that upon divers Altars were divers Breads or that but according to their outward Demensions they were now greater now lesse which no way agreeth with the Body of Christ as hath beene proved in discussing the Canon of the Councell of Nice The fifth Demonstration Because the Body and Blood of Christ as they are pretended by the Romish Church to be in this Sacrament cannot be the Representative Sacrifice spoken of by Ancient Fathers against your vaine Instance in a Stage-play SECT VII THat the Subject matter of this Sacrament by you called the same Sacrifice which Christ offered up upon the Crosse ought to be Representative and fit to resemble the same Sacrifice of his Passion is a matter unquestionable among all In which respect the
Praise and Thanksgiving to be a Sacrifice Eucharisticall And also to use the words of Calvin Latreuticall and Sebasticall that is a Sacrifice of Worship and Veneration which every Christian may and must professe who hath either eyes in his head or faith in his heart the Celebration of this Sacrament in Remembrance of his absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption being the Service of all Services that we can performe to God Now wherein and in what respect we may furthermore be said to offer to God a Sacrifice propitiatory improperly will after appeare when we consider Christ's Body as the Object herein That Protestants in their Commemoration offer up the same Body and Blood of Christ which was Sacrificed on the Crosse as the Object of Remembrance and most absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption SECT IV. NOw we are come to the last most true and necessary point which is the Body and Blood as the Object of our Commemoration Still still doe you urge the saying of Fathers where they affirme that we offer unto God The same Body and Blood of Christ on this Altar even the same which was sacrificed on the Crosse which therefore you interpret as being the same subject matter of our Commemoration As is a King acting himselfe upon a Stage as hath beene shewen We as instantly and more truly proclaime that we offer Commemoratively the same undoubtedly the very same Body and Blood of Christ his All sufficient Sacrifice on the Crosse although not as the subject of his proper Sacrifice but yet as the only adequate Object of our Commemoration as when the same murther of the Emperour Mauritius is represented in a Stage-play in some manner of Resemblance wherein we cannot possibly erre having Truth it selfe for our Guide who said Doe this in remembrance of me namely of the same Mee meaning Christ as crucified on the Crosse as the Apostle commenteth saying Hereby you shew the Lords Death till he come even the Same Body as the Same Death whereunto beare all the Fathers witnesse thorowout this Treatise Whereby it will be easie for us to discerne the subject Sacrifice of Christ from ours his being the Reall Sacrifice on the Crosse ours only the Sacramentall Representation Commemoration and Application thereof CHAP. VIII Of the Second Principall part of this Controversie which concerneth the Romish Sacrifice is as it is called Properly Propitiatory THis part is divided into an 1. Explication of that which you call Propitiatory 2. Application thereof for Remission of Sinnes The State of the Question of Propitiatory what it is SECT I. THe whole Difference standeth upon this whether the subject matter of our Representation in the hands of the Priest be properly a Propitiatory Sacrifice or no. Now Propitiatory is either that which pacifieth the wrath of God and pleaseth him by it's owne virtue and efficacy which as all confesse is only the Sacrifice of Christ in his owne selfe or else a thing is said to be Propitiatory and pleasing to God by God's gracious acceptance and indulgence The Romish professe the Sacrifice of their Masse to be such in the proper Virtue of that which the Priest handleth For the Tridentine faith concerning your Propitiatory Sacrifice is this viz. It is that whereby God being pacified doth pardon sinnes And least that there might be any ambiguity how it doth pacifie God whether by his gracious Acceptance or the Efficacie of offering your generall Romane Catechisme authorized both by your Councell of Trent and the then Pope Pius the fourth for the direction of your whole Church instructeth you all concerning your Sacrifice of the Masse that As it is a Sacrifice it hath an Efficacy and Virtue not onely of merit but also of satisfaction So they as truly setting downe the true nature of a Propitiatory Sacrifice as they doe falsly assume and apply it unto the Sacrifice of your Masse which Protestants abhor and impugne as a Doctrine most Sacrilegious and only grant the Celebration to be Propitiatory Improperly by God's Complacency and favourable acceptance wherewith he vouchsafeth to admit of the holy Actions and Affections of his faithfull Triall of all this is to be made by Scriptures Fathers by your owne Romish Principles and by the Doctrine of Protestants In the Interim be it knowne that our Church of England in her 31. Article faith of your Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Masse as it is taught by you that it is A Blasphemous Fable and Dangerous Deceit That the Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice hath no foundation in the Institution of Christ SECT II. YOur onely Objection is that Christ in the words of his first Institution said Take this is the new Testament in my Blood shed for you and for many for the Remission of sinnes Heare your Cardinall These words doe most evidently teach that Christ now in his Supper offered up his Blood for the sinnes of his Apostles So he But if this his Exposition of Christ's words be most evident alas what a number of other blinde Guides of great estimation among you hath your Church favoured pampered privileged and authorized who could see nothing in the words of Christ but the flat contrary namely that they were spoken in the Present Tense Tropically for the future not that it was then shed but that it was to be shed on the Crosse immediatly after among whom have beene reckoned Gregory de Valentia Salmeron Barradas three prime Iesuits your Bishop Iansenius yea and the Author of your Vulgar Translation And that you may the better discerne how hard the foreheads of your Cardinall of your Rhemists of Mr. Breerley and of such others are who have made that Objection you have beene likewise advertized that in the very tenor of your owne Romish Masse it selfe the word is expresly Effundetur It shall be shed We say in the Tenor of your Romish Masse published by the Authority of Pope Pius the fifth repeated by every one of your selves you being Romish Priests and accordingly beleeved of all the Professors of your Romish Religion Which Interpretation was furthermore confirmed by Fathers and by Scripture in the places objected and by a Reason taken from your owne Confession granting that Christ his Blood was not really shed in his last Supper This is that which we had to oppose unto that your Cardinal 's Most evident Argument as Sun-shine to Moone-light That many things are said to pacifie and please God which are not properly Propitiatorie by their owne Virtue according to Scriptures and your owne Confessions SECT III. IN Scripture our Mortification of the flesh is called a Sacrifice well-pleasing to God Rom. 12. 1. Almes Workes of Charity are likewise called Sacrifices wherewith God is delighted Heb. 13. 16. Comforting and cherishing the Ministers of God is called A Sacrifice acceptable and well pleasing to God Phil. 4. 18. So the Scripture And that Spirituall Sacrifices are more pleasing unto God than all the Hecatombs of Corporals could be is
THE first is the Imperfection of the Sacrificer The next the no proper Destruction of the thing sacrificed The third the Vnbloodinesse of the same And the last the but finite Virtue and value which you attribute unto it I. Confutation from the confessed Imperfection of the Sacrifice SECT I. FIrst the Reason why you account your Propitiatory Sacrifice to be but of finite Virtue is Because it is not immediatly offered up by Christ himselfe as that was of the Crosse but by his Minister And the Reason of this you say is Because the Vniversall Cause worketh according to the limitation of the second Causes So you Vnderstanding by Sacrifice not the Object of your Remembrance which is the Body of Christ as crucified but the subject matter in the hand of the Priest From whence this Consequence must issue whether you will or no namely that Perfection of the Sacrifice being a necessary property of a true Propitiatory Virtue and efficacy in prevailing with God for man it is impossible for any of your Priests because All are imperfect to offer up properly a Propitiatory Sacrifice unto God None may hereupon oppose unto us the Propitiatory Sacrifices under the Law because they also were twice imperfect once in respect of the Sacrificer who was but a mere man and secondly in respect of the matter of Sacrifice it selfe which was some unreasonable beast and had no Virtue of Propitiation in it selfe for remission either of guilt or of the eternall punishment of sinne as hath beene Confessed and therefore not properly Propitiatory but fiuratively only as Types of the Sacrifice of Christ II. Confutation from the Romish Definition of a Propitiatory Sacrifice SECT II. SEcondly in your Romish definition it is required that the Thing propitiatorily sacrificed suffer a Reall Destruction so that it cease to be in the substance thereof and a Bodily Consumption Notwithstanding you are absolutely free from the Blasphemy to say that Christ his Body doth in the Eucharist suffer properly a reall Destruction Ergo say we by your owne Principle there cannot be herein a Sacrifice properly Propitiatory III. Confutation from the Apostle's Position against the Vnbloodinesse thereof SECT III. THe Apostles Position is this that Without the shedding of Blood there is no Remission Heb. 9. 22. Your Romish Assumption is The Sacrifice of the Romish Masse is unbloody Our Conclusion necessarily followeth which is this Ergo say we your Masse-Sacrifice cannot be properly Propitiatory Your Cardinall in Answering first that the Apostle spake this of the Sacrifice of the old Law onely standeth twice convicted of a foule Tergiversation first by the Apostles Explication of himselfe who although he spake from the observation of the old Testament Heb. 9. 22. yet doth he apply it to the state of the new Testament in the same Chapter vers 13 14. But much more by his owne Conscience who having spent some Chapters in proving that the Sacrifices of the Law were Types of the Sacrifice in the Masse doth now deny that this Proposition of No Remission of sinnes without shedding of Blood is to be applyed to the Eucharist He is glad therefore to adde a second Answer given by your Maldodonate who finding no security in the former Refuge betaketh himselfe to another saying that Remission of sinnes is not now for any present effusion of Blood but for that effusion which had beene Which Answer if we may so interpret it is a plaine Prevarication The Reason may be this first because there was never Bloody Sacrifice Christ on the Crosse excepted which only was of infinite virtue as well to times past as to come but it was alwaies actually by the effusion of Blood at the time of Sacrificing These kinds of so ordinary Doubtings and Turnings which your Disputers use as men in a maze doe plainly Demonstrate either their irresolute Iudgements or else their dissolute Consciences and in either of both their desperate Cause We have not done yet but give you further to understand that as you could finde no proper Sacrificing Act to make your Masse properly a Sacrifice so neither can ye shew any propitiating Act to make it properly a Sacrifice propitiatory This we prove out of your Councell of Colen which Concludeth that your Masse-Sacrifice cannot be called Propitiatory in respect of any Act of Oblation of the Priest or accommodation of the Communicants or yet of the Church but onely of the Oblation once made by Christ himselfe on the Crosse Which oblation how absent it is who seeth not that is present with himselfe Thus were those Divines driven to an Objective Act of Oblation IV. Confutation from the Romish Disvaluation of that which they call Christ's Sacrifice SECT IV. THe last is in respect of the value for Christ's Sacrifice on the Crosse you doe Christianly esteeme to have beene of Infinite merit and Satisfaction because it was offered by himselfe and that otherwise He could not have made Satisfaction to an Infinite and Divine Majestie So you But of the Sacrifice of the Masse what The common opinion of our Church saith your Cardinall is that it is but of finite value So he Notwithstanding it be impossible for any thing of finite virtue to have power in it selfe of remission of an infinite guilt against an infinite Majesty CHALLENGE A More palpable betraying therefore of a Cause there cannot be than as you have hitherto done by defending Positions repugnant to your owne Definition and by obtruding things as proper which are void of all due Properties This being all one as if you in the Case of Miracles would deliver unto us a Iannes and Iambres instead of Moses in Art Sophistrie for Logique in Commerce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is adulterate Coine for current and in warlike stratagems instead of a naturall a Trojane Horse Oh what a misery it is to reason with such unreasonable to speake mildly men Thus much of your Romish Sacrifice according to your owne Explanations thereof CHAP. XI Of the Romish Application of their Sacrifice The State of the Question THat the Eucharist was ordained of Christ for the Application of remission of sinnes Sacramentally to all Communicants is the profession of all Protestants That the Sacrifice of Christ's Crosse is therein offered up Objectively by Commemoration and Supplication for all Conditions of men hath an universall Consent among them without Exception But that any substantiall Body as subjectively contained in the Masse can be the Sacrifice of applying the merits of Christ for remission of sinnes which is your Tridentine faith hath beene hitherto impugned and infringed thorowout our whole former Dispute Furthermore our present Opposition is threefold first concerning the sinnes that are said to be remitted Secondly touching the parties who have Remission Thirdly in regard of your Priests by whom Application of Remission of sinne is made I. That the Church of Rome is not yet resolved of the Extent of
which you see namely that which then was visible when Christ was in the world This one Testimony of Augustine may satisfie for the present untill another shall be delivered fom him absolutely confuting your Tridentine Faith of the Divine worship of the Host to prove it Idolatrous Theodoret seemeth unto you to come off roundly saying That Symbols and Signes are beleeved and adored whereby he most evidently teacheth the presence of Christ's flesh as saith your Cardinall even so as commonly he useth to doe in alleaging of other Testimonies both unconscionably against his knowledge and unluckily against his Cause For with what Conscience can he urge the word Adoration here as most evidently noting a Divine worship of the Sacrament seeing that he hath before confessed the same word Adore to be used of the Fathers sometimes for worship communicable to Angels and Saints and to their Tombs yea and when as also Theodoret which proveth your Cardinal's Objection lucklesse doth expresly say that The substance of bread remaineth meaning absolutely the proper substance of Bread as hath beene copiously proved whereunto no Divine worship can be lawfully given not only in the Faith of all other Catholike Fathers but even in the beleefe of the Roman Church at this day And although the Symbols and Signes as you fancy were meere Accidents yet dare not you your selves say that they are to be properly adored with Divine Worship Hitherto have we insisted upon the words objected out of the Fathers by you with more eageâ—nesse than either with good Iudgement or Conscience Your next Objections are taken from the Acts whereunto we addresse our Answers CHAP. III. That no objected Act out of the Fathers for proofe of an Invocation by Divine Adoration of the Eucharist is conscionably alleaged not the first which is their prescribed Concealment of this Mystery SECT I. ACTS insisted upon by you for proofe of Adoration are these The Fathers injoyning a Concealment of this Mystery from some others their Elevation of the Host after Consecration their Cautelousnesse in administring it without letting any part thereof fall to the ground their Bodily Gesture in token of Humiliation and their pretended Invocating on it We acknowledge that we may begin with the first how strictly the Ancient Fathers generally prescribed to others which they observed themselves that this Mystery should be kept secret from all persons who were not initiated by Baptisme and incorporated thereby into the visible Church of Christ were they Infidels or Catechumenists that is unbaptized Christians Vpon this our Confession as the Base hearken what a discant your Doctors can chant saying as followeth The Fathers said of this mystery of the Eucharist that only Fideles norunt the faithfull know it and therefore we must be perswaded they understood a Corporall Presence of Christ herein and consequently a Divine Adoration due unto it Master Breerly swelleth big in amplifying this Objection take a briefe of the whole The Fathers professing to write more circumspectly of this Sacrament so as not daring to explaine it as Theodoret Origen Augustine Chrysostome this were causlesse if the Fathers had thought Christ's words figurative nor had it beene more necessary in this than in Baptisme had the Fathers acknowledged no other presence in this than in Baptisme c. So he Well then by your owne judgement if it may be found that the Fathers observed alike Circumspection in the manner of uttering and Cautelousnesse in concealing the Sacrament of Baptisme from Infidels and Catechumenists then must you confesse that this your Argument maketh no more for proofe of a Corporall Presence in the Eucharist as you would have it than in Baptisme where you confesse it is not And now behold the Fathers are as precise in conclealing the Mystery of Baptisme from all Persons unbaptized even in as expresse termes as was spoken of in the Eucharist Chrysostome saying against such Persons The faithfull know this And againe entring into a discourse of Baptisme he prefaceth saying I would indeed speake this plainly but I dare not because of them that are not initiated or Baptized And Dionysius the supposed Areopagite Let none that is not a perfect Christian be admitted to the sight of the signes of Baptisme even as the Councell Arausicanum also decreed Which Cautions are long since antiquated by disuse in Churches Christian because all are now baptized that come to behold this Sacrament If hereupon any Protestant shall infer a Corporall presence of Christ in Baptisme and consequently an Adoration of Christ in the same Sacrament you your selves we know would but hisse at him in detestation of his Consequence as judging it Idolatrous But doe you aske why then the Fathers did teach Christians not to speake of these Mysteries in the hearing of the Catechumenists Saint Augustine himselfe whom your Cardinall hath brought in for defence of Corporall presence will resolve us and witnesse against him telling him that the reason was not the sublimity of the matter as though they could not apprehend it but because The more honourably the Sacraments are concealed speaking in generall the more ardently they would be coveted and desired As for their not revealing them unto Infidels the reason is evident Infidelity is a mocker and they meant to preserve Christ's Sacrament from contempt Thus your most specious Objection serveth for nothing more than to prove your Disputers to be wonderfully precipitant in their Arguing That the objected Elevation or lifting up of the Host and preserving of it from falling are no Arguments of Adoration SECT II. SEcondly the Elevation of the Hoast over the head of the Priest is your ordinary Objection for proofe of a Divine Adoration although you have confessed that this was not of prime Antiquity But supposing Elevation to have beene so ancient yet was it not to the end it should be adored no more than was the Booke of the Gospell in the Roman Church when it was according to the Rite then Lift up by the hands of the Deacon and carried on hiâ— right shoulder What else will you say of the Priest's Elevation you would perswade in the Margent by some that the Priest lifting the Host over his head was prophesied of by the Psalmist And that the Rite of holding the Host 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 speake more confidently yet the most principall searcher into Antiquity daâ—e say no more than only This is probable We contrarily conceive that that Rabbinish interpretation can be no good ground to rest upon which hath bin rejected by Bellarmine as being Idle and Frivolous 2. That the Ceremony of Elevation as hath beene confessed was neither instituted by Christ nor yet alwaies in use in Christ's Church 3. That the same Elevation albeit
saying The faithfull know it pretending that the like Circumspection cannot be shewed of Baptisme Sol. Even as upon the same Consideration they forbid speech of Baptisme expressely saying The faithfull know it and Inhibiting All except the Baptized to see it A second Note of Reverence is taken from the Efâ—ects Ob. Miracles were wrought by the Eucharist and at it Sol. They shew miracles wrought about Baptisme also A Third Ob. is grounded upon Reverence done by Angells because they are said to be Present and attendant at the Celebration of the Eucharist Sol. Namely as they are likewise said to be Present at Baptisme and to honour it with their Presence A fourth Ob. â—o come to the Communicants themselves ariseth from danger of Contempt even Such as to eat and drinke judgement to themselves Sol. So they who receive Baptisme unworthily receive their owne judgement A Fifth Ob. is for danger begetteth Dread from feare where with they are moved to approach to the Eucharist which therefore the Fathers call a Dreadfull Sacrament and causing horrour Sol. To wit as they call the words of Baptisime Terrible and it's Canons Dreadfull whereunto the Baptized are brought with feare Ob. 6. But none say the Fathers Communicateth of the Eucharist before he Adore And They first adore Christ say they speaking of men of yeares who are to be Baptized in his name Ob. 7. But the Fathers tell us They reverence the Eucharist Sol. True even as they say We reverence Baptisme wheresoever it is Ob. 8. Lastly they use a forme of Invocation upon the Eucharist thus Ob Divine Sacrament reveale unto us c. Sol. They doe so but in the same figurative manner of speech called Prosopapoeia wherein they as well use the same forme concerning Baptisme as thus Ob Water which hast washed our Saviour when hee was imbrâ—… blood c. CHALLENGE SO many Testimonies of Fathers so mainly insisted upon by vour Doctors for warrant of such Erroneous Superstitious Sacrilegious and Idolatrous Romish Doctrines and each one not more vehemently objected in the Question concerning the Eucharist than easily retorted and confuted by instancing in Baptisme what greater Evidence can any desire to be made of a wiâ—full Obstinacy that we say not madnes than this of your Disputers appeareth to be how much more if we should point at the other manifold Instances which we have prosecuted at large thorowout this whole Volume wherein their Vnconscionablenesse hath beene manifested in all passages to the Conscience of every indifferent Reader Yet were this their Guilt not so hainous it such their Obstinacie were not infected with some contagion of Perjury A Synopsis of manifold Overtures of Perjuries in Defence of the Romish Masse SECT IV. EVery Perjury presupposeth an Oath which you have in the Bull of Pope Pius IV. imposed upon every Ecclesiasticke subject to the Sea of Rome for the ratifying of the Beleefe of the many new Romish Articles contained therein as True Catholique and without which none can be saved The due proofe that the same Oath almost in each new Article maketh the Swearer obnoxious to Perjury is a Subject which would require a full Treatise for the which we are not altogether unprovided But we are to confine our selves to the Observations promised in our former Discourse in foure speciall points I. Overture of Perjury is in Swearing unto that which it called The Vulgar Latine Translation THis is decreed in the Councell of Trent to be Authenticall and not to be rejected upon any Pretence whatsoever Whereunto together with all other Decrees and Declarations of the same Councell you are sworne by the forme of Oath set downe in the foresaid Bull of the Pope The same Vulgar Translation professed by you to be Authenticall and that as you expound it it is Consonant unto the Originall the Hebrew and Greeke Texts hath notwithstanding beene rejected by your Cardinall and the Greek Translation urged for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice Even as it hath beene frequently excepted against by other learned Doctors in your Church after the Councell of Trent noting Errours therein not only by fault of Print but also such as happened by the Negligence or Ignorance of the Author thereof as is confessed notwithstanding that Inhibition in that Decree viz. Not to reject it upon any Pretence whatsoever Who to free themselves from Perjury make this Comment upon it that this restraint of Not rejecting it is only in matter of Faith good manners Which is also your Cardinall his Evasion but is no better than a lurking hole and so seemeth it to be to your two Iesuites Azorius and Valentia who thinke that Oath to be violated if the Vulgar Latine be rejected at all as lesse true than the Originalls And your Spanish Inquisitors finding urged in one of your Romish Doctors the Rule of Hierome and Augustine which is that no Translation Latine or other be further allowed than as it agreeth with the Originalls they faire and cleanly wipe it out saying that Although that which Hierome and Augustine taught be true yet now since the Councell of Trent it is not lawfull to reject the same Translation upon any pretence whatsoever So they And so farre unsatisfied are your Doctors in taking this Oath We are furthermore not destitute of matter for a large Consutation first of your assuming S. Hierome as the Author of your Vulgar Latine Translation to manifest that it is no more the Translation of Hierome or yet of any one Author than the divers cloathes of a mans body from head to foot can be called the worke of one singular work-man Secondly concerning the Authority thereof you professe it to be Authenticall that is as you have defined Conformable to the Originall Hebrew and Greeke although it may be as easily proved not to be that Antient Vulgar which had continued as the Decree speaketh from divers ages than the Ship of Theseus which after some ages had beene so thorowly battered and pierced that at last the keele and bottome thereof did only remaine which could be called the Same But passing by all further Dispute wee shall referre you to the judgement of the Patrones of the former Rule so insolently contemned by the Spanish Inquisitors as you have heard by one Instance which may be sufficient in it selfe for triall of the Case now in hand The Text of Scripture is Ephes 1. 14. in the Latine Translation even in that which is set forth by Pope Clement as The most accurate Edition thus You are sealed with the spirit of promise which is the Pledge of your inheritance But in the Greeke it is You are sealed with the spirit of promise which is the Earnest of your inheritance The Question is whether of these is to be preferred and Hierome and Augustine are ready to resolve you
herein both of them correcting the Vulgar Translation in the word Pledge and one of them giving an Absitâ—l against this Sence of it The Reason of both is because he that giveth a Pledge taketh it againe when the Thing for which it was pledged is received But he that giveth an Earnest will have it continue with him to whom it was given And so God assuring his Chosen by his Spirit doth for their greater Confidence give it as an Earnest and not as a Pledge So they Thereby advancing Gods gracious love towards man and man's faith in God's love Here will be no corner of Pretence that this being an Errour of Print and not of Doctrine may be rejected by you without Prejudice to your Oath no for Errour of Print ariseth from some affinity of words as where these words This is a sound reason being delivered to the print was returned from the Presse thus This is a fond reason But betweene Pignus and Arrhabo there is no more Symphony than betweene an Horse and a Saddle Nor will it availe you to say that the Originall Greeke was corrupted for it is the same Greeke word which Hierome himselfe who as you know used the perfectest Greeke Text doth here avow to be True II. Overture of Perjury in your Disputers is in swearing to the Romish Expositions of Scripture THe Tenour of the Oath in this respect is I admit the sacred Scriptures in that Sense which the Mother Church hath held and doth hold By Mother Church understanding the Church of Rome as without which there is no salvation which is expressed in the same Oath as another Article therein and which else-where we have proved to be a GRAND IMPOSTVRE in a full Tractate from the Doctrine of the Apostles of Generall Councells of severall Catholique Churches and from such Primitive Fathers whose memories are at this day registred in the Romish Calender of Saints How then can the Oath for this point be taken without danger of Perjury But to come to the Article concerning the Expositions of Scriptures According to the sence of the Church of Rome which would thereby be thought to Hold no Sence of Scripture now which she had not Held in more Antient Times We for Triall hereof shall for this present seeke after no other Instances than such as in this Treatise have been discussed and for brevity-sake single out of many but only Three A first is in that Scripture Ioh. 6. Except you eat the flesh of the Sonne of man you cannot have life The word Except was extended unto Infants in the dayes of Pope Innocent the First continuing as hath beene confessed six hundred yeares together when the Church of Rome thereupon Held it necessary for Infants to receive the Eucharist Contrarily the now Romane Church Holdeth it Inexpedient to administer the Eucharist unto Infants as you have heard Secondly Luc. 22. Take Eat c. Your Church of Rome in the dayes of Pope Nicolas in a Councell at Rome Held that by the word Eate was meant an Eating by Tearing the Body of Christ sensually with men's teeth in a Literall sence Which your now Romane Church if we may beleeve your Iesuites doth not Hold as hath appeared Thirdly the Tenour of the Institution of Christ concerning the Cup was Held in the dayes of Pope Gelasius to be peremptory for the administration thereof to prove that the Eucharist ought to be administred in both kindes to all Communicants and judging the dismembring of them a Grand Sacrilege as you have heard whereas now your Romish Church Holdeth it not only lawfull but also religious to withhold the Cup from all but only consecrating Priests Vpon these omitting other Scriptures which you your selves may observe at your best leasure we conclude You therefore in taking that Oath swearing to admit all Interpretations of Scripture both which the Church of Rome once Held and now Holdeth the Proverbe must needs be verified upon you viz. You hold a Wolfe by the eare which howsoever you Hold you are sure to be Oath-bit either in Holding TENVIT by TENET or in Holding TENET by TENVIT III. Overture of Perjury in your Disputers is in swearing to the pretended Consent of Fathers in their Expositions of Scriptures HEare your Oath Neither will I ever interpret any Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of Fathers Here the word Fathers cannot betoken Bishops and Fathers assembled in a Councell where the major part of voices conclude the lesse for Councell never writ Commentaries upon Scriptures but from Scriptures collect their Conclusions And although the word Vnanimous doth literally signifie the universall Consent which would inferre an Impossibility because that all Fathers have not expounded any one Scripture and very few All yet that you may know we presse not too violently upon you we shall be content to take this word Morally with this Diminution For the most part and hereupon make bold to averre that your Iuror by this Oath is sworne to a flat Falsity because you cannot deny but that the Fathers in their Expositions dissent among themselves sometimes a Greater part from the lesse insomuch that you your selves are at difference among your selves which part to side with With the greater saith Valentia nay but sometime with the Lesser saith Canus Can you dreame of an Vnanimity in Disparity Sometime there is a Non-Constat what is the Iudgement of the Fathers in some points which you call matter of Faith What then Then saith your Iesuite the Authority of the Pope is to take place who being guided by other rules may propound what is the Sence Behold here the very ground of that which we call Popery which is devising and obtruding upon the Church of Christ new Articles of Faith unknowen for ought you know to Ancient Fathers And is it possible to finde an Vnanimity of Consent in an Individuall Vnity or rather a Nullity for what else is an ignorance what the Sence of the Fathers is whether so or so Next that it may appeare that this Article touching the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers is a meere Ostentation and gullery and no better than that Challenge made by the wise man of Athens of all the Ships that entred into the Road to be his owne as if you should say All the Fathers doe patronize your Romish Cause We shall give you one or two Examples among your Iesuites as patternes of the Disposition of others in neglecting sleighting and rejecting the more Generall Consent of Fathers in their Expositions of Scriptures One Instance may be given in your Cardinall who in his Commentaries upon the Psalmes dedicated to the then Pope professeth himselfe to have composed them Rather by his owne meditation than by reading of many bookes whereas he that will seeke for Vnanimous Consent of Fathers must have a perusall of them all In the second place hearken unto the Accents of your Iesuite Maldonate in his