cap. 8. § 1. Mee into Thee and Thee into Mee In all which Objections they do but verifie the Proverbe Qui nimis emungit elicit sanguinem Fiftly the like Vnconscionablenesse of your Romish Disputers is unmasked by laying open the Emphaticall Speeches of the Fathers concerning Baptisme answerable to their Sayings objected for proofe of Transubstantiation in the Eucharist SECT VIII COncerning Baptisme wee have * See above in this Chap. §. 3. c. heard already out of the Writings of Antiquity as efficacious Termes as you could object for the Eucharist First of the Party Baptized Changed into a new Creature Secondly that No sensible thing is delivered in Baptisme Thirdly that The Baptized is not the same but changed into Christ his flesh Fourthly to thinke that It is not the Priest but God that Baptizeth who holdeth thy head Lastly Baptisme saith the Councel of * Booke 8 Chà p 2. §. 1. Conc. Nicen. Baptisma non Corpotis sed mentis oculis consideraâ— dum Apud Binium lib 3. Decret Conc. Nic. de Baptismate Nice is to be considered not with the Eyes of the Body Of these already and hereafter much more in a Generall Synopsis reserved for the Eighth Booke A Briefe of the Collections of that judicious Inquisitor into Antiquities the thrice memorable * Notes extracted out of the above-mentioned M. S. of Mr. Isaac Casaubon by M. Mèiric Casaubon his sonne Master Isaac Casaubon for the better satisfaction of men of our owne Protestant Profession concerning the Iudgment of Antiquitie SECT IX THis famous learned Author telleth us of the Iudgement of Ancient * Verbis Christi adhae serunt Hoc est corpus meum â— illam locutionem retinuerunt quae nihil juvat hodierâ—os PoÌ„tificios quia aliud est usurpare loqâ—endi modum quo usus Christus aliud definire quomodò 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explicandus sit ille modus Fateor veteres Patres aliquandò videri tale quid in Sacramento agnoscere sed si verba eorum accuratè expendantur planè apparebit Praesentiam Christi eos agnovisse absque hoc mysterio Transubstantiationis Iustinus utitur exemplo Incarnationis sed nihil hoc ad Transub Nam Deus cùm assumpsit Carnem non est muratus in Carnem neque desijt esse quod erat Patres 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agnovisse sed variè exposâ—sse planè contra Rom. Ecclesiae sententiam Greg. Nyss Et alij Patres qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adstruunt utuntur exemplis quae Transubstantiationem destruunt ut aquae in Baptismo saxi in Altari Idiotae in Sacerdotem nostri in filios lucis qui eramus filij tenebrarum Accedant loca Patrum ubi disertè negatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Patres in Sacramento agnoverunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rem symbolis significatam quae cum Symbolis exhibetur per Symbola saepe igitur cum Christo loquuntur sed nunquam adjiciunt Interpretationem quae stabiliat doctrinam dâ— Transubst de Accidentibus sine substantiâ Patres perceptionem hujus mysterij tribuerunt fidei ità tamen ut os non excluderent proprer Symbola Sunt qui putent quoties inveniunt apud Patres sumi corpus Christi aut praesentem esse Christum aut ut loquitur Chrysost Tom. Front p. 43. Christum reliquisse nobis suum corpus id genus ipsissimam esse doctrinam Pontificiorum fed falluntur Observandum enim Patres studiose servà lle genus loquendi quo usus est Christus servavit Apost sed modum non exposuisse Patres de hoc mysterio ejus effectu cum sentirent augustissimè multi sunt in ejus commendatione suis illis hyperbolis hoc in argumento habenas suas laxârunt De effectu dixerunt Hominem fieri Deum per hoc Sacramentum Vide excerpta è Dionys Areop de scopo Sacramenti hujus ad Dionysium notata p. 33. De Sacramento Eucharistiae quod putabant esse causam Instrumentalem effectus pari magnificentia locutisunt Fathers I. Touching the Exposition of Christ's words This is my Body The Fathers saith he used the same forme of speech which Christ had done before them which doth no whit helpe the Papists because it is one thing to use the same phrase of speech and another thing to define how they are to be expounded They speake of a Transmutation and Change but so expound themselves that their words make plainly against the doctrine of the Church of Rome II. Vsing Examples which destroy Transubstantiation as namely the Change of Water in Baptisme of Laicks into the Priest III. They acknowledged the sensible Signe with the thing signified thereby But they never teach any thing whereby either Transubstantiation or the being of Accidents without their substance is established IV. They attributed the Participation of this Mysterie unto Faith yet so as not excluding the receiving by the Mouth in respect of the Symbols Somethinke when the Fathers say Christ is present And hee hath left us his Body and the like that thereby they meane the Doctrine of the Papists but they are deceived V. All the Fathers with one Consent teach that there is the same Change and Transmutation of Water in Baptisme which there is of Bread in the Eucharist VI. That the Hyperboles and Excessive speeches of the Fathers are not to be pressed no more than that of Dionysius Areopagita saying that Man by this Sacrament is made a God Thus farre that Orthodoxe and learned Author justifying in effect as much as hitherto by Vs hath beene avouched from Antiquity Sixtly the Vnconscionablenesse of the Romish Opposites doth betray it selfe by their alleging of Testimonies of the Fathers contrary to their owne Romish Principles SECT X. YOur Romish Positions and Principles are these one is this 20 Iosephus Angles Flor. Theolog. qu. 5. Art 1. Disp 3 Conclu 1. Panis fit corpus Christi est falsa positio quià non suscipit Corpus Christi formam panis Conclu 2. Panis mutatur in Corpus Christi falsa est propositio quià in hac conversione nullum subjectum manet nulla intervenit mutatio nempè Corporis Christi Sic ille Aquinas part 3. qu. 75. Art 8. in hoc Sacramento factâ conversiont aliquid idem manet sâ—ilicet Accidentia panis secundum quandam similitudinem harum locutionum aliquae possunt concedi scil quod de pane fit corpus Christi ut nomine panis non intelligatur substantia panis sed in universali Hoc quod sub speciebus panis continetur Et paulo post ad 1. Non tamen proprie dicitur quod panis fiat corpus Christi nisi secundùm aliquam similitudinem ut dicitur Vasquez in 3. Thom. qu. 75. Art 8. Disp 181. cap. 14. Verum cum jam à nobis notatum est verbum FIERI in praedictis propositionibus non sumi propriè
SVBSTANCE which being so spoken in respect of the Eucharist proveth infallibly that the Substance of Bread remaineth in this Sacrament after Consecration if so then in the universall judgement of all the Doctors of the Church of Rome there can be no Transubstantiation The Seventeenth Passage Book 4. * Edit 1. pag. 149. pag. 212. TERTVLLIAN OB. I. THe word Bread is added ANSW No but truly related and that by the Authority of Tertullian himselfe whose former words are Christ distributed PANEM BREAD to his Disciples faciens ILLVM that is making IT his BODY THAT IS A FIGVRE of his BODY There is no Schoole-boy that knoweth his Grammar which will not say that the Relative IT must be referred to the Antecedent BREAD And of this IT do depend all the words following OB. II. The words of Tertullian being these Christ sayd This is my Body that is a figure of my Body you put in IS saying That is It IS a figure of my Body which will be complayned of ANSW I answer therefore not to trouble his braines with Grammar-learning which teacheth the Particle IS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to agree with that which followeth but to deale with him by an example to make his fondnesse more palpable Can any man at the first sight of an Ivy-bush say This is a Taverne THAT IS A Signe of a Taverne and not meane that it IS A SIGNE of a Taverne OB. III. Your Adversaries will complaine of this seeing they are perswaded that this is not spoken of a figure actually present but perfectly past ANSW God send mee alwayes such Adversaries who in their greatest subtilties bewray their extremest â—oâ—tishnesse in complaining of my IS in the Present-â—ense and in requiring the sense of the time perfectly past as if Tertulliaâ— had said thus Christ sayd this is my Body THAT IS IT WAS a figure of my Body Here have wee just reason to reflect upon this Objector with that Saying Risum teneatis amici Yet the Objector lest we might thinke him not to Insanire cum ratione yieldeth this Reason why it should be meant of the time passed before the coming of Christ OB. IV. Because of the words immediatly following Figura autem non fuisset nisi esset veritatis corpus shew that the word Figure was not taken representatively but Typically ANSW When Tertullian spake onely narratively by repeating the words of Christ he must needs speak in the tense and time when Christ uttered them when hee sayd IT IS MY BODY THAT IS IS A FIGVRE OF MY BODY But after speaking Enunciatively with the Relation from his owne time when hee wrot to the time of Christs Speech which was the distance of three hundred yeares hee could not but use the time perfectly past saying It had not beene a figure namely when Christ called it his Body except c. The Argument of Tertullian taken from those words of Christ stands thus Christ in the Sacrament gave a figure of his Body But a figure is not a figure of a figure therefore Christ gave a figure of a True Body Let us consult againe with Tertullians words of Exposition IT HAD NOT BEENE A FIGVRE EXCEPT THERE HAD BEENE THE TRVTH OF HIS BODY But Christs Body had no TRVTH of BEING before his Incarnation and time of his existence in the Flesh and therfore FVISSET extended not unto any Type which had beene before Christs being on earth Wherefore this HAD of Tertullian I hope will put this Objector to his Non putabam or Had I wist Our Advantages occasioned by this Accusation are great and divers One is to discerne more clearly the then-Catholike Doctrine in the dayes of Tertullian Next to observe the stupid insatuation of our Romish Adversaries The Last will be to display an Heresie in the Article of the Church of Rome that teacheth an absolute absence of the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament For if it were condemned by Tertullian in the Marcionites to teach that Christ had no true but a Fantasticall Body notwithstanding all the Demonstrances of sense Eating Weeping Sleeping Bleeding and of the Apostles feeling him How shall not the Romish Doctrine of a No-Existence of Bread in the Eucharist notwithstanding the Contradiction of Smelling Seeing Feeling and Tasting it be a welcome Patronage and Skonce to the former Heresie of denying the Verity of Christs Body THE SEVENTH BOOKE Concerning the last Romish Consequence derived from the depraved sense of the words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY which is your Divine Adoration of the Sacrament contrary to these other words of Christ IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE CHAP. I. WEe have hitherto passed thorow many dangerous and pernicious Gulfes of Romish Doctrines which our instant haste will not suffer us to looke backe upon by any repetition of them But now are wee entring upon Asphaltites or Mare mortuum even the Dead Sea of Romish Idolatrie whereinto all their Superstitious and Sacrilegious Doctrines do empty themselves which how detestable it is wee had rather prove than prejudge The State of the Question concerning Adoration of the Sacrament SECT I. IN the thirteenth Session of your Councell of Trent wee finde a Decree commanding thus a Concil Trid. Cultum Latriae qui vero Deo debetur in veneratione huic Sacramento exhibeant Sess 13. cap. 5. Let the same divine honour that is due to the true God be given to this Sacrament After this warning Piece they shoot off a great b Si quis dixerit in hoc Sacramento unigenitum Dei filiuÌ„ cultu Latriae non esse adorandum Anathema sit Ibid. Can. 6. Canon of Anathemae and Curse against every one that shall not herein worship Christ namely as corporally present with Divine honour That is to say c Suarez Ies Adoratione Latriae absolutà perfectâ quâ per se adoratur Christus Non solùm ChristuÌ„ sub speciebus sed totum visibile Sacramentum unico Latriae cultu quia est unum constans ex Christo speciebus sicut vestis Magna est differentia inter has species cruceÌ„ quae reipsa disjuncta est à Christo In 3. Tho. q. 79. Disput 65. §. 1. 2. To adore with an absolute divine worship the whole visible Sacrament of Christ in the formes of Bread and Wine as your Iesuit expoundeth it A worship saith hee farre exceeding that which is to be given to the Crucifix Whereupon it is that your Priests are taught in your d Missale Rom. Sacerdos prolatis suis verbis Hoc est corpus meum c. hostiam elevat eamque adorat adorandamque ostendit post genu flexo ad terram usque ipsam veneratur Ritus celebrandi Missam Post genuflectu inclinatur Sacramento pectus ter percutiens dicit Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi miserere nobis c. Canon Missae Romane Missall to elevate the Consecrated Hoast and to propound it to the people to be adored and adoring it themselves in thrice
hee preaching unto his Africans a knowne Proverbe in the Punick tongue which I will render unto you in Latine because all of you do not understand Punick The Proverbe is this The Pestilence seeketh money So hee shewing that the Africans understood Latine better than Punick although this were their Nationall Language Farre otherwise your Glosser that the Latine was unknowne to the Africans because their native language was Panick Whereby hee bewrayeth a Proverbially so called Punick Faith Flatly contradicting S. Augustine 23 August lib. 1. Confess cap. 14. Latina didici inter etiam blandimenta Nurricum who furthermore confesseth of himselfe saying I learnt the Latine tongue from the fawning and flattering Speeches of my Nourses Our Conclusion by way of Censure of this mans Exposition of the Articles of the Church of England and of the Romish Authorizers of the same Treatise This one Point being the first of his Paraphrase that fell in our way concerning any doctrine appertaining to the Romish Masse wee have beene the more Copious in Confutation thereof that our Reader might take a just scantling of the judgement of this Paraphrazer in the rest and of those who were the Censurers Approvers and Authorizers of the same more principally Thomas Blacklous 24 Censura Thomae Blacklouse de Libellis de Articulis Confessionis Angl. Catholico animo conscriptis ut Errantes ad Christi caulam reditum inveniant who shewes to what end this Tractate was writ and approoved as he saith To bring those that wander out of the way unto the fold of Christ Meaning the Church of Rome So then wee perceive it was not as he seemeth to pretend in the behalfe of Protestants to free them from any of the former Censures and Anathema's or from the curses and cruelties of the Romish Church against them but onely to ensnare them if it may be in the same Babylonish thraldome of Superstition and Idolatry from whence by the marvailous and gracious providence of God they have beene delivered Therefore from these our Premises VVee Conclude Blacklous and his fellow Privilegers of this Booke to be guilty of all the above-manifested strange dealings in perverting of the senses of the Articles and Authors by him alleged Besides that which surmounteth the rest is the hainous Crime of wilfull Perjurie if they have taken the oath enjoyeth unto all Romish Priests by Pope Pius after the Councell of Trent swearing To expound no Text of Scripture without the unanimous consent of ancient Fathers yet now have allowed such an Exposition of the text of the Apostle concerning Prayer in an unknowne tongue which they were never able to justifie by any one Father of Primitive times for the space of 600 that wee say not a thousand yeares after Christ as hath beene sufficiently proved Before Wee end Wee should aske your Censurers what Church of Rome it is whose doctrine they would reduce Protestants unto Is it the old and primitive Religion of Rome Why this is that which Wee so constantly professe But meane they the Religion of the new Church of Rome in her new Creede of new Articles conformable to the Councel of Trent Wee must say then of your Doctrine as Christ said of Wine No man drinking the Old desireth the New for hee will say the Old is better Luc. 5. 39. The sixt Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the Sense of the next words of Christs Institution TAKE YEE SECT VIII THus said Christ to his Disciples by which words what is meant your Iesuite will expresse to wit that c Quia Apostoli non acciperent nisi quod ipse dabat verbum Dandi Translationem de manibus Christi in manus Discipalorum significat Sabneron les Tom. 9. Tractat. 18. pag. 126. Videtur quod Christus aut singulis in manus dederit partem à se sumendam aut patinam tradider it propinquioribus c. Iansen Episc Concord cap. 131. Because the Apostles tooke that which Christ gave the word GAVE doth signifie a Delivery out of Christ his hands into the hands of them that did take Here you see is Taking with hands especially seeing that Christ in giving the Cup said Drinke you all Matth. 26. one delivering it to another as it is said of the Paschall Cup Luc. 22. 17. as it is f Iansen Concord in eued locum Fracto pane in duodecim buccellas singulis in manus dederit Calicem propinquiores sequentibus tradiderunt sic enim dixit Accipite dividite inter vos confessed The contrary Canon in your now Romane Masse Concerning this It is to be noted say g Notandum est quòd laudabiliter Ecclesia prospexit ut ab isto modo olim licito nempè accipiendi proprijs manibus Sacramentum pro reverentia Eucharistiae abstineant Et rursus Olim ex patina suis quisque manibus sumpsit suam particulam ut moris fuit ad Sextam usque Synodum nempè Caesar-augustanam verum ob sacram hujus Mysterij singularem reverentiam Ecclesia instituit nè Laici nudâ manu Eucharistiam attingerent sed à Sacerdote in os sumentis mitteretur Salmeron quo supra Tract 12. pag. 78. 79. you that the Church of Rome hath judged it laudable that Lay-people abstaine from taking the Sacrament with their owne hands but that it be put into their mouthes by the Priest which is so ordained for a singular reverence So you CHALLENGE VVHat we may note of this your Notandum the h Apostoli primùm manibus suis panem sanctum acceperunt hujus ritus meminerunt veteres Patres Nam Tert. lib. ad uxorem inquit Eucharistiae Sacramentum nec de aliorum manibus quam praesidentium sumimus Et ex Cyprian Serm. de lapsis ob nonnulla exempla quae producit constat Eucharistiam in manibus Cōmunicantum Laicorum dari Vt constat ex Concil Teletano cap. 14. ex sexta Synodo in Trullo 101. ubi prohibentur fideles offerre vascula aurea argentea in quibus accipiant Eucharistiam ut per ea communicent sed proprijs manibus Idem colligitur ex Epistol Cornel. Papae quam refert Euseb lib. 6. Hist c. 35. ex Dionys Alex. ut refert Nicephor cap. 9. ex verbis Ambrosij Suarez les Tom. 3. In Tho. Disp 49. Sect. 6. initio Hoc intelligi potest ex Greg. Nazian Morom fuisse ut Christiani Eucharistiam quam accepissent ad os admoverent unde relictam esse credo Consuetudinem in multis locis quando non communicant dùm Eucharistia ostenditur manus tendant quasi gestientes manibus sumere Maldon Ies de Euch. §. Nova creatura pag. 283. Confessions of your owne Iesuites will shew first that the Practice of the Apostles and Primitive Church for above 500 yeares was according to Christs Institution to deliver the Bread into the hands of the Communicants Secondly that the same Order was observed at Rome as appeareth by the
de Euch. §. Nono p. 200 Etiam credebant Infantes tunc baptizatos nisi Eucharistiam perciperēt salvos esse non posse Idem Com. in Ioh. 6. 63. p. 717. sheweth They then beleeved that Infants baptised 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 therefore held they it necessarie to the salvation of Infants That this was the beleefe of Pope Innocent and of the Church of Rome under him your Parisian Doctor o Innocent 1. Rom. Pont. Epist 93. ad Conc. Milever con Pelag. respondebat quòd parvulos aeternae vitae praemiis etiam sine baptismatis gratia posse donari perfatuum est nisi n. manducaverint carnem filii hominis non habebunt vitam in semetipsis qui autem hanc eis sine regeneratione defendunt videntur etiam mihi Baptismum cassate velle cùm praedicant nos habere quod in eos creditur non nisi Baptismate conferendum Whence Espencaeus thus Mirum ejus temporis Pontifices ex Eucharistiae nececessitate Baptismi ejus praecursoris urgere necessitatem nisi idem ex eodem tùm loco tùm Innocentii argumento authoritate adversus eosdem hostes urgeret August Epist 106. cont Pelag. Contra Apostolicae sedis authoritatem ubi de hac ipsâ re cùm ageretur hoc testimonium exhibitum est Evangelicum ne Parvuli non baptizati vitam posse habere credantur Si autem credunt sedi Apostolicae vel potiùs ipsi Magistro Domino Apostolorum qui dicit non vitam habituros nisi manducaverint biberint c. Espenc de Adorat Euch. lib. 2. cap. 12. pag. 58. Afterwards he bringeth in many other testimonies of Saint Augustine and Ibid. pag. 59. he proveth that he did not retract his opinion Ejus haud dubiè sunt contra Iulianum libri quo valentiorem habuit Adversarium neminem in quem etiam scribendo mortuus est ac proinde sententiam non retractâsse videtur in quibus Iulianum obruit Majorum praejudicio ab Innocentio Rom. Pont. exorsus qui parvulos ait definivit nisi manducaverint carnem filii hominis vitam prorsus habere non posse Espenc Ibid. And a little after he sheweth the loosenesse of Aquinas his Solutions Albeit Saint Augustine was not constant in this opinion but as may be gathered out of Bedes Collectanies in 1. Cor. 10. Nulli aliquatenùs dubitandum c. that although the Child do not participate yet by Baptisme hee is made partaker of that which it signifieth 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 p Binius Tom. 1. Conc. ex Rescriptis innocentii Papae ad Conc. Millevet Epist 25. Illud vero c. Hinc Binius Hinc constat Innocenti sententia quae 600. circiter Annos viguit in Ecclesia quamque Augustinus secutus Eucharistiam Infantibus necessariam fuisse Conc. Trid. rectè decrevit eam non solum non necessariam Infantibus sed nè quidem decere ur eis distribuatur Quidam viri non vulgariter docti existimârunt Innocentium hunc locum Nisi manducaveritis c. in Baptismi sumptione interpretari Sed decepti sunt quòd vim argumenti quo Pontifex utitur non sunt assecuti Ille enim ut Pelagium qui docebat Baptismum Infantibus Parente fideli prognatis peccatum originale non contrahentibus necessarium non esse convinceret hâc Ratiocinatione est usus Quibus necessaria est Eucharistiae sumptio usdem Baptismi sumptio magis esse necessaria At infantibus omnibus esse necessariam Eucharistiae sumptionem probatur per verba Iohannis Nisi manducaveritis c. Quae expositio praxi Ecclesiae nunc repugnat De Augustini sententia lege ipsum Augustinum Epist 106. Col. 148. Edit Basil 1543. Haec Binius in Editione sua Colon. Ann. 1618. being omitted in his former Printed Volume Auno 1606. explaineth the same so exactly See the Marginall Citation that it will permit no evasion And so much the rather because that which the Tridentine Fathers allege for cause of Alteration doth confirme this unto us It is undecent say they to give the Eucharist unto Infants This may perswade us that Innocent held it necessary els would he not have practized and patronized a thing so utterly Vndecent ⚜ Besides one of your 14 Iac. Gordon Scorus lib. Contr. 8. c. 1. Prima abrogationis causa quia frequens communio Infantium fieri non poterat nisi indecorè cùm periculo profanationis tanti Sacramenti Secunda causa quià orta est Haeresis quorundam qui existimârunt hanc communionem esse prorsus ad salutem necessariam Infantibus pag. 111. Iesuites spareth not to make a double cause of the Alteration of that Custome one to avoid the Vndecencie and Prophanation of the Sacrament meaning by the casting it up againe and secondly because of the Heresie of those who thought the Reociving of this Sacrament necessarie for the Salvation of Infants Calling this opinion an Heresie ⚜ 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 receive 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 beleeved upon necessitie 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 shee now in an errour Or doth shee not now erre herein then did she formerly erre and consequently may erre hereafter not onely in determining a matter to be Necessary to Salvation which in it self is Superfluous and Vndecent but also in opinion Hereticall Thus of the contrary custome of the Church of Rome in elder times The now contrary Opinion concerning the Romane Masse at this day Even at this day also your Iesuite will have us to understand the meaning of your Church to be that r Non quòd Infantes sunt incapaces hujus Sacramenti sed quià hoc nunc magis expedit ad decentiam reverentiam quae aliquali utilitati parvulorum praeferenda est Suarez Tom. 3. Disp 62. Sect. 3. §. Quocirca Infants are capable of the Sacrament of the Eucharist ⚜ And not thus onely but as unreasonably altogether you hold that 14 Non quicunquè usu rationis carentes arcendi sunt à sumptione Eucharistiae sed hi qui nunquam habuerunt usum rationis Aquin. 〈◊〉 3. 〈◊〉 Qu. 80. Art 9 Mad-men when they are destitute of reason and discretion may notwithstanding be made Partakers of the same blessed
c. So he It is not to be denyed but that AND is often used in Scripture for Or but Master Brerely his notions as commonly else-where so here also are too confused by not distinguishing the divers use of AND namely in Precepts and Exhortations to an Act from AND in denunciation of judgement in case of Transgression As for example The Precept is Honour thy father And thy mother Exod. 20. here AND must needs be copulative because of the Obligation of Precept of honouring Both. But the denunciation against the Transgressour if it stood as Master 7 âšœ Mr. Brerely in his Lit. Tract 4. §. 7. Vsual it is in Scripture to use the Conjunctive ET And for the Disjunctive So it is sayd he that shall strike his Father and Mother shall die When as both the Originall the Roman Vulgar and our Translations have it OR âšœ Brerely objecteth feigning a false Text contrary both to the Originall and vulgar Latine Translation thus Hee that shall strike his father And mother shall die the particle AND must needs be taken disjunctively for Or as indeed it is expressed in the Text because the Transgression of either parts of a Commandement inferreth an obligation of guilt and judgement as any man of sense may perceive Against this albeit so evident a Truth your Doctors will have something to object or else it will go hard even forsooth the contrarie practice of the Apostles Act. 2. 42 where wee read of the faithfull assembled and Continuing together in fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers because there is but mention onely of one kinde which is Bread whence they inferre a no-necessity of using the Cup. So your b Act 2. Ita describitur com â—unicatio Eucharistiae EraÌ„t enim persevorantes in doctrinâ— Apostolorum communicatione fractionis panis Orationibus Quo in loco negari non potest quin agatur de Eucharistia Apostoli igitur in utraque specie consecrabant sed populis in una specie ministrabant Bellar. l. 4 de Euch. c. 24. p. 64. Cardinall Bellarmine And to answer that the ministration of the Cup is understood by a figure Synechdoche is an Answer onely imaginary and groundlesse saith Master * Liturg. Tract 4. §. 3. pag 403. Brerely But are they yet to learne that which every man knoweth and your owne Iesuites have taught that there is no Trope more familiar in Scripture than this Synechdoche of taking a part for the whole Or could they not discerne thus much in the same Chapter ver â—6 where it is sayd They brake bread through every house Wherein as your Iesuite c Existamo de Eucharistia non esse Sermonem quonium de illo superiùs paulò Sermo habitus est Lorin les in eund loc And Cajetan Card. Fâ—ebat distributio panis ita quod aceipiebant cibus erat Comment in â—und loc Lorinus reacheth there is not meant the Eucharist but common foode Whereby you cannot but understand implied in their breaking of bread their mutuall drinking together also And yet in the like words spoken of the Eucharist verse 42. They continued together in breaking of Bread you exclude the participation of the Cup. What shall wee say was your spirituall appetite weaker than your corporall in reading these two Texts wherein is mentioned onely Bread that you could discerne but halfe refection in the Eucharist and an whole in their bodily repast âšœ Not to trouble you with the repeating of Some * Matth. 16. The Disciples are accused for eating bread with unwashed hands Mark 3. They had no leisure to eate bread Luc. 12. Christ to the Pharisees house eate bread 2. Thess 3. We have not eaten our bread freely c. few Scriptures among many wherein the word Bread alone doth by a Senechdoche necessarily unply a perfect and full Refection else men you know should be clemmd who should have Bread onely without Drinke Besides any man may guesse what spirit it favoureth of that in paralleling the authority of your Church with the authority of the Apostles your Iesuites doe resolve that although the Apostles had constituted the Custome of Receiving in both kindes d Si daremus hunc ritum ab Apostolo fuisse traditum cum tamen merè positivus sit potuillet illum mutare quid Ecclesia habet euÌ„dem spiritum eandeÌ„ authoritatem cum Paulo Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9. Tract 34. p. 277. Eodem modo Vasquez les in 3. Thom. Disp 215. 216. Nihilo minus Ecclesia summus Pontifes poterit illud justis de causis abrogare licet concederemus praeceptum hoc fuisse Apostolicum Neverthelesse say they the Church of Rome and Pope thereof having the same authoritie with Saint Paul may abrogate it upon just Cause And yet hardly can you allege any Cause for abrogation of that Practice which Saint Paul might not have assumed in his time CHALLENGE O Frustrà susceptos Labores nostros may wee say for to what end is it for us to prove an Apostolicall Practice or Precept for Both kinds when your Objectors are ready with the onely names of Pope and Church of Rome to stoppe the mouthes not onely of Vs Heretikes as you call us but even of Saint Paul himselfe and of the other Apostles yea and of Saint Peter too By which Answere notwithstanding you may perceive how little Saint Paul doth favour your cause by whose Doctrine the Advocates for your Church are driven to these straits but more principally if you call to remembrance that our Argument is taken from the Apostles Doctrine and Practice as it was grounded by S t. Paul himselfe upon the Doctrine and Precept of Christ Thus when wee appeale unto the Apostles Tradidition you by opposing Thinke your selves wiser than the Apostles which Irenaeus will tell you was the very garbe of old e Cùm ad eam Traditionem quae ab Apostolis provocamus eos dicent se Apostolis existentes superiores sinceram ingenisse veâ—ita tem Iren. lib. 2. advers Haeres cap. 2. Heretikes Our fourth and fift Comparisons are of Primitive Custome with the contrary Custome in respect both of the Antiquitie and Vniversalitie thereof SECT V. BEfore wee shall say any thing our selves of the Primitive Custome in using Both kinds in the administration of this Sacrament and the extent thereof both in the longitude of Continuance and latitude of Vniversality wee are ready to heare how farre your owne Doctors will yeeld unto us in both these points touching the publike use of Both kinds Wherfore hearken but unto the Marginals and you shall finde your Iesuites with others uttering these voyces f Olim per multa secula sub utraque specie 〈◊〉 gebatur Laicis ut ex multorum Sanctorum scriptis didicimus Alfons à Castro in hac ipsa controversia â— pag. 158. Vsus utriusque speciei à primitiva Ecclesia comprobatus fuit in posteriori etiam Ecclesia multi Latini et Occidentales
Christ that is with the same Intention as Christ when hee said This of the Bread then in his hands the Priest saying This should intead and meane that This Bread whereof Christ spake and not that which is in his owne hands which now he intendeth to Consecrate and Consequently should he make no Consecration at all And what hereupon must become of your Romish Masse in your Transubstantiation Sacrifice and Adoration you may understand in the next Section The full Overthrow of the whole Doctrine of Transubstantiation Corporall Presence Personall Sacrifice and Adoration Consequently upon the former Confutation of your Romish Significative Pronunciation of Christ's words by the Priest SECT V. TRuly hath your Iesuite * See above in the Second Section Suarez expressed the Doctrine of your Church as followeth Except these words This is my Body be taken Significatively and formally they worke no Consecration nor can it be collected that that which is now in the hands of the Priest is the true Body of Christ So he alleging the Couâ—acel of Trent for his warrant But the words as they are pronounced by the Priest cannot possibly be taken Significatively but onely in the way of Rehearsing and Repeating them No one Iota in the Text or Context No one Testimonie of Antiquitie No one Reason or yet competent Example hath beene alleged by any of your Doctors for proofe of the Contrary This point needeth no more discussion onely for further Illustration-sake wee shall commend unto you a more proportionable Example than was any that hitherto your Sophisters have invented which because your Iesuites have affected the * See above in the first and second Sections Similitudes of Historicall and Comicall Representations wee shall likewise borrow from that Stage If therefore any Romish Priest should Act the part of Aäron in imitating an operative Speech of turning and Transubstantiating a Rod into a Serpent in saying to suppose Aäron to have said so This is my Serpent yet could not your Priest possibly deliver the same words Significatively as in the person of Aäron either in saying This because This Rod spoken of by the Priest is not the same Rod whereof Aäron said This nor yet in the word My because that wherof Aäron said My Serpent cannot possibly bee said accordingly My Serpent by the Priest as your selves well know And therefore doth this discover your Romish Intoxication in your Significative Exposition of these words This and My in the Speech of Christ THE THIRD BOOKE Treating of the First Romish Doctrinall Consequence pretended to arise from your former depraved Exposition of Christ's wordes This is my Body called TRANSVBSTANTIATION Your Doctrinall Romish Consequences are Five viz. the Corporall 1. Conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ called Transubstantiation in this Third Booke 2. Existence of the same Body of Christ in the Sacrament called Corporall Presence in the Fourth Booke 3. Receiving of the Body of Christ into the Bodies of the Communicants called Reall or Materiall Conjunction in the Fifth Booke 4. Sacrificing of Christ's Body by the hands of the Priest called a Propitiatory Sacrifice in the Sixth Booke 5. Worshipping with Divine Worship called Latria or Divine Adoration of the same Sacrament in the Seventh Booke After follow the Additionals in a Summary Discoverie of the Abominations of the Romish Masse and the Iniquities of the Defenders thereof in the Eighth Booke THese are the five Doctrinall Consequences which you teach and professe and which wee shall by God's assistance pursue according to our former Method of Brevity and Perspicuity and that by as good and undenyable Evidences and Confessions of your owne Authours in most points as either you can expect or the Cause it selfe require And because a Thing must have a Begetting before it have a manner of Being therefore before wee treate of the Corporall Presence wee must in the first place handle your Transubstantiation which is the manner as wee may so say of the Procreation thereof CHAP. I. The State of the Controversie concerning the Change and Conversion professed by Protestants which is Sacramentall And by the Papists defined to be Trans-substantiall First of the Sacramentall SECT I. THere lyeth a charge upon every Soule that shall communicate and participate of this Sacrament that herein hee Discerne the Lords Body which Office of Discerning according to the judgement of Protestants is not onely in the use but also in the Nature to distinguish the Object of Faith from the Object of Sense The First Object of Christian Faith is the Divine Alteration and Change of naturall Bread into a Sacrament of Christs Bodie This wee call a Divine Change because none but the same * See hereafter Chap. 4. §. 1. 2. Omnipotent power that made the Creature and Element of Bread can Change it into a Sacrament The Second Object of Faith is the Body of Christ it selfe Sacramentally represented and verily exhibited to the Faithfull Communicants There are then three Objects in all to be distinguished The First is before Consecration the Bread meerely Naturall Secondly After Consecration Bread Sacramentall Thirdly Christs owne Body which is the Spirituall and Supersubstantiall Bread truly exhibited by this Sacramentall to the nourishment of the soules of the Faithfull Secondly of the Romish Change which you call Transubstantiation SECT II. BVt your Change in the Councell of a Est conversio totius substantiae Panis in Corpus Christi totius substantiae Vini in sanguinem manentibus duntaxat speciebus Panis Vini quam quidem Conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissimè Transubstantiationem appellat Conc. Trid. Sess 13. Can. 2. Trent is thus defined Transubstantiation is a Change of the whole Substance of Bread into the Body of Christ and of Wine into his Blood Which by the Bull of b Ego N. N jurò hinc Conversionem fieri quam Catholica Ecclesia appellat Transubstantiationem Extrà quam fidem nemo salvus esse potest Bulla Pij 4. super formâ luram nit professionu Fidei Pius the Fourth then Pope is made an Article of Faith without which a man cannot bee saved Which Article of your Faith Protestants beleeve to bee a new and impious Figment and c Transubstantiationem Protestantes esse sceleratam Haeresin dicunt Bell. l. 3. de Euch. cap. 11. Heresie The Case thus standing it will concerne every Christian to build his Resolution upon a sound Foundation As for the Church of England shee professeth in her 28. Article saying of this Transubstantiation that It cannot bee proved by holy Writ but is repugnant to the plaine words of Scripture overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion unto MANY SVPERSTITIONS CHAP. II. The Question is to be examined by these grounds viz. I Scripture II. Antiquity III. Divine Reason IN all which wee shall make bold to borrow your owne Assertions and Confessions for the Confirmation of Truth The Romish Depravation of the Sense of Christ
before the Councel of Laterane under Pope Innocent the Third viz. Anno 1215 whom therefore your Cardinall doth taxe for want of reading But either were your Iesuite Coster and Cardinall Perron as ignorant of Ancient Learning as Scotus or else they gave small Credit to that Councel cited by Bellarmine under Gregory the Seventh For your Iesuite saith in direct tearmes that r Ante trecentos Annos in Concilio Lateranensi ad ifrius rei tam admirabilis clariorem explicarionem usurpatem fuit nomen Transubstantiationis ut intelligant Christiani substantiam Panis in substantiam corporis Christi converti Coster Ies Enchir. cap 8. §. De Transubstantitione The name of Transubstantiation was used in the Councel of Laterane for a clearer explication that Christians might understand the Change of Bread into the Body of Christ Can you say then that it was universally so understood before But your Cardinall Perron more peremptorily concludeth that s Si nihil planè ad Doctrinam Ecclesiasticam spectans in Concilio Lateranensi ex communi Patrum assensu decretum esset sequeretur posse ut falsum impugnari Articulum de Transubstantiatione Cardie Per. en sa Harangue an tiers Estat pag. 33. As witnesseth our P. Presloa alias Widdington Discuss Concib Latcran part 1. §. 1. pag. 12. If it had not beene for the Councel of Laterane it might be now lawfull to impugne it So he A plaine acknowledgement that it was no Doctrine of Faith before that Councel even as Scotus affirmed before But we pursue this Chase yet further to shew That the Article of Transubstantiation was not defined in the Councel of Laterane under Pope innocentius the Third SECT IV. YOur owne learned Romish t Venêre multa in Consultationem nec decerni quicquam tamen aptè potuit eò quòd Pontifex quo profectus est tollendae Discordiae gratiâ mortuus est Petusij Platina in vita innocentij Decerni nihil apertè potuit edita sunt quaedam c. Nauclerus An. 1215. meaning after the Councell Ad festum Sanctae Andreae protractum nihil dignum memoriâ actū nisi quod Orientalis Ecclesia c. God fridus Monumeter sis Math. paris Histor minor Concilium illud Generale quod primâ fronte grandia prae se tulit in risum scomma desijt in quo Papa omnes accedentes ludisicatus est illi enim cum nihil in eo Concilio geri cernerent redeundi veniam petierunt Thus farre out of Widdrington alias Preston in his Booke above cited Priest a long time Prisoner did under the name of Widdrington produce many Historians viz. Platina Nauclerus Godfridus Monumetensis Matthew Paris and others to testifie as followeth That many things fell under Consultation in that Councel but nothing was openly defined the Pope dying at Perusium Insomuch that some of these Authours sticke not to say that This Generall Councel which seemed to promise bigge and mighty matters did end in scorne and mockery performing nothing at all Wee might adde that the supposed Acts of this Councel were not published untill more than two hundred yeares after No marvell then if some u Scholastici quidam hanc Doctrinam de Transubstantiatione non valdè Antiquam esse dixerunt inter quos Scorus Gabriel Biel. Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disp 30. §. 1. Schoole-men among whom were Scotus and Biel held Transubstantiation not to have beene very ancient And another that x In Synaxi serò definivit Ecclesia Transubstantiationem diù satis erat Credere sivè sub pane sive sub quocunque modo adesse verum Corpus Christi Eras in 1. Cor. 7. pag. 373. It was but lately determined in the Church Nay Master Brerely if his opinion be of any Credit among you sticketh not to say that y Mr. Brerely in his Liturgie Tract 2. §. 11. pag. 158. Transubstantiation compleat that is both for forme and matter was not determined untill the last Councel of Trent that is to say not untill the yeare of our Lord 1560. Do you not see how much licking this ougly Beare had before it came to be formed and yet it will appeare to be but a Monstrum horrendum take it at the best as it is now to be proved by the full discovering of the paipable Falshood thereof CHAP. III. The Definition of Transubstantiation in the Church of Rome and of the Falshood thereof SECT I. THe Councel of Trent saith your a Concil Tridentinum dicit fieri Conversionem totius substantiae Panis id est tam formae quà m materiae in Substantiam Corporis Christi Bellarmia lib. 3. de Eucharist Cap. 18. §. Si objicias Concil Trident. Sess 13. Cap. 4. Cardinall hath defined that this Conversion is of the whole Substance of Bread that is aswell forme as matter into the Substance of Christ's Body Our First proofe of the Falshood of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation by the Contradictions of the Defenders thereof whereby they bewray their No-Beleefe of the Article THe Opinions of the Doctours of your Church concerning the nature of this Conversion are by you reduced into these two maners namely that it is either by Production out of the substance of Bread or else by Adduction of the Body of Christ unto the forme of Bread CHALLENGE VVHatsoever it is which you will seeme to professe never shall you perswade us that you do indeed believe either of the pretended Formes of Transubstant ation First not by Production because as the same b Productio est quando terminus ad quem non existat ideò vi Conversionis necessariò producitur ut aqua in vinum Adductiva autem c. Bellar. lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 18. §. Secundò notandum Productiva non est quia Corpas Domini praeexistit Idem ibid. §. Ex his Cardinall truly argueth Conversion by Production is when the thing that is produced is not yet extant as when Christ converted water into wine wine was not Extant before it was Produced out of the substance of water But the Body of Christ is alwaies Extant therefore can it not be said to be Produced out of the substance of Bread So he Which Productive maner of Transubstantiation could not be believed by your Iesuites c De ratione Transubstantiationis non est ut Substantia in quam dicitur fieri Transubstantirio producatur aut conservetur per illam imo qui hoc modo defendunt Transubstantiationem in Sacramento ad quoddam genus Philosophiae excogitatum potius quà m ad verum necessarium rem reducere videntur Vasq Ies Tom. 2. Disp 214. cap. 4. Vasquez and d Praeter Adductivam Conversionem evidenter refutavimus omnes modos Conversionis qui vel dici vel singi possunt Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Qu est 75. Disp 50. §. 5. §. Tertiò Principaliter Mr Fisher in his Rejòynder talketh fondly of a Reproduction as of Carcasses converted into men in which Change any One may
discerning therein Sacramentally exhibited the Lords Body It had therefore concerned him to have honored the Sacrament with Divine Titles agreeable to the Body of Christ hypostatically united to his Godhead and to have denied it absolutely to have beene Bread considering that by the name of Bread the glory of the same Body might seeme to be abased and Eclipsed if in Truth and Verity he had not beleeved it to have beene then properly Bread This Reason we guesse you are bound to approve off who in your opinion of the Corporall Presence of Christ his Body and Absence of Bread would never suffer any of your Professors to call it after Consecration by the name of Bread Whereupon it was that the Greeke o Archiâ—pisc Cabasila Latini nostros reprehendunt quòd post illa verba Hoc est Corpus meum Panem Vinum nominant c. Exposit Liturg. cap. 29. Archbishop of Cabasila complained of the Romish Professors for reprehending the Greeke Liturgies why Because saith he after the words of Christ This is my Body wee call the Symbols and Signes Bread and Wine So he Which bewrayeth that the very naming of the Sacrament Bread and Wine is in the judgement of the Church of Rome prejudiciall to their Transubstantiation and that if Saint Paul himselfe should deliver the same words he did at this day hee should by your Romish Inquisitors be taught to use his Termes in another stile What need many words except in the words of Christ the word Body be properly predicated and affirmed of Bread farewell Transubstantiation of Bread into Christs Body But that it is impossible the Body of Christ should bee properly predicated upon Bread hath beene the Generall Confession of your owne Doctors and the Conclusion of our second Booke âšœ Wee returne againe to the Text where the Apostle having named it Bread after Consecration expoundeth himselfe what Bread he meant saying Bread which we breake But never durst any of your Romanists say that the Body of Christ is truly Broken in this Sacrament and never any Father of Primitive times we are sure taught the Breaking of the Accidents of Bread And therefore it must follow that it was still substantially Bread The Apostle hath not yet done but 1 Cor. 17. sayth Because it is one Bread wee being many are one Body for wee all communicate of one Bread Which Chrysostome is well as other Fathers doth analogize thus * See above B. 2. â—â—ap 2. Sect. 6. Challeng 1. See also Cypriâ—â— and S. August Bâ—â—k 3. Chapt. 3. Sect. 9. That as oâ—â— loafe consisteth of many granes united together so are the faithfull Communicants joyned together So hee hereby teaching you the substantiall Materialls of the same Bread Many granes of Corne. And as though the Apostle had meant to muzzle the Adversaries of this truth with variety of proofes hee 1 Cor 10. 17. hath these words Wee participate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is De pane hoc Of this Bread thus called after Consecration And againe 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let him eate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of this Bread which manifesteth the Eating of a part of an whole loafe of Bread and not of the Body of Christ which even by the Romish faith is not nor cannot bee divided into parts Thus hath Saint Paul the Scholler of Christ concluded of Substantiall Bread agreeable to that which our Master Christ himselfe taught of the other sacred Substantiall part of Drinke after the Coâ—secration of this Sacrament as is proved in the next Section Our Second Proofe of the Continuance of the Substance of Bread is from the speech of Christ touching the Continuance of Wine after Consecration Matth. â— 29. by the Interpretation of Antiquity SECT V. THe same is as fully verified by our Lord and Master Christ himselfe in the second Element of Wine calling it * Matth. 26. 29. This fruit of the Vine that is Wine after Consecration where the Pronoune This hath relation to the matter in the Cup of the Eucharist For the proofe of this our Exposition of the words of Christ wee have the Consent of these and thus many holy Fathers Origen Cyprian Chrysostome Augustine Hierome Epiphanius Euthymius Theophylact and Bede as witnesseth your Iesuite p Origenes Cyprianus Chrysost August Hieron Epiphan Beda Euthymius Theophylact. Genimen Viâ—s ad Sanguinem Christi referunt Maldon Iâ—s Com. in cum locum where he addeth Persuadere mâ—hâ—non possum haec verba ad Sanguinem esse referenda Hoc Patres sed also sensu à Calvinistis qui dicunt Christum Vinum appellâsse quia Vinum erat sed Patres vocâ unt Sanguinem Vanum sicut Christus Carnem Iohan. 6. vocabat Panem Maldon in eundem locum Haec nè illi Calvinistatum errori affinis esse videatur Maldon ibid. Maldonate no one Father produced by him to the contrary Then answering But I saith hee cannot be thus perswaded So hee Marke this you great Boasters of Accordance with Antiquity and yet this maner of Answering the Fathers is most familiar with this Iesuite But hee proceedeth telling you that The Fathers notwithstanding did not call it Wine as thinking it to bee Wine but even as Christ did when he called his flesh Bread Iohn 6. Then hee addeth They that will follow the Exposition of These Fathers are thus to interpret them And gives his Reason of this his Advertisement Lest the other Exposition saith hee may seeme to agree with the erroneous opinion of the Calvinists So hee For which his Answer Calvinists are as much beholding to him as are the Ancient Fathers with whom he hath made bold not only to reject their Authority but also to pervert the plaine and evident meaning of their Testimonies who declare that they understood Naturall and Substantiall Wine as the q Novum promisit id est Novum quendam modum sumptionis in regno id est post resurrectionem quando Cibum sumpsit corporalem Theophyl in Matth. 26. Bibite ex hoc omnes Non bibam amodò c. quâ in parte invenimus Vinum fuisse quod Sanguinem suum dixit undè apparet Sanguinem Christi non offerti 〈◊〉 desit Vinum Calici Cyprian ad Cecil Epist 63. paulò ante medium Epiphan cont Encratit Qui aquam solùm adhibuerunt in Eucharistiaâ— ut dicant vino quoque utendum In hoc sermene Domini inquit redarguuntur Non bibam de fructu hujus Vitis Epiphan Tom. 2. lib. 2. Non bibam de genimine hujus Vitis Christus post resurrectionem nè putaretur Phantasia comedit undè Apostoli dixerunt Act. 10. Comedimus Bibimus cum eo Sed cujus re gratiâ non Aquam sed Vinum bibit ad perniciosam Haeresin radicitus evellendam eorum qui Aquâ in Mysterijs utuntur Idem In nuda Mysterij mensa Vino usus est Ex genimine Vitis Certè Vinum non Aquam producit Chrysost in eum locum Hom. 83. Marginals doe
beene * Vid Protestants Appeale Book 2. ch 2. §. 10. confuted for urging the former Objection notwithstanding concealing the Answer he blusheth not to regest the same albeit as one conscious to himselfe of the futility therof he leaveth it presently falling foule upon Theodoret as though that Father had beene in some distemper when he so writ d In his Liturgâ—â— of the Masse Tract 2. §. 2 subd 3. p. 254. saying first that Theodoret used that his Retortion in his * Not so for he was now not iâ—â—a personall Dispute but deliberately writing against thâ— Heresia of the Eutychiant heate of Dispute Then hee taketh part with the Heretike saying It is not likely that an Heretike should have urged against a Catholike sentence for Transubstantiation as for a point of Faith well knowne if the same Doctrine had beene then either unknowne or else condemned as False So hee who might aswell have reasoned in the behalfe of the Sadduces condemned by Christ saying It is not likely that they would so expressely have denyed that there aâ—e any Spirits in their Dispute against Christ if that Doctrine had beene then either unknowne or condemned as False by the Church of God among the Iewes And yet it is certaine that the Heresie of the Sadduces was judged execrable in that Church Now if the Eutychian Heretike finde such Patronage at the hands of your Priest alas what will become of the Father Theodoret Hearken Theodoret being an Orthodoxe Bishop saith hee could not have propounded the Heretikes Argument as grounded upon the Churches received Doctrine of Transubstantiation had the same beene then unknowne and reputed False So he who if hee had not lost his Logike would certainly have argued contrarily saying Theodoret being an Orthodoxe and Catholike Bishop would never have set downe an Objection for Transubstantiation in the name of a ranke Heretike and after himselfe impugned and confuted the same except he had knowne it to be flatly repugnant to the Catholike Church in his time Wherefore if you be men of Faith and not rather of Faction let the miserable perplexities of your Disputers discovered both here and throughout this whole Treatise move you to renounce them as men of prostituted Consciences and their Cause as forlorne of all Truth For a further Evidence take unto you an Answer of your Iesuite Valentia to this and the like Testimonies of Antiquity It is not to be held any marvell saith * Valent. Ies l. 2. de Transub c. 7. Dabimus aliud breve simplex sine ullo incommodo responsum Enimverò antequam quaestio ista de Transubstantiatione palà m in Ecclesia agitaretur minime mirûm est si unus aut alter aut etiam aliqui minùs considerarè rectè hac de re senserint scripserint maximè cum non tractarâ—nt ex instituto ipsam quaestionem he why some Ancients have writ and thought lesse considerately and truly before that Transubstantiation was handled publikely in the Church especially they not handling the same Question of purpose So hee and this hee calleth a Briefe and plaine Answer And so it is whereby in granting that Transubstantiation had not beene so Anciently handled in the Church he plainly confuteth your now Romane Church which judgeth it to have beene alwayes an Article of Faith And affirming that the same Fathers Handled not the point of purpose it is as plainly confuted by Theodoret who in this Dispute did not argue against the Heretike 〈◊〉 extemporall speech personally but deliberately and punâ—â—lly by writing and therefore of Purpose The Second Father expresly defending the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration is Pope GELASIVS SECT XIII THis Author have Protestants called Pope Gelasius and urged his Testimony Your Disputers civill First at the name of the Author calling Protestants e Non fuit hic Papa Gelasius ut Adversarij impudentèr jactant sed Gelasius Caesariensis Episcopus Bellar. lib. â— de Euch. c. 27. Impudent for stiling him Pope Gelasus But if hee were not that Pope Gelasiue what Gelasius might hee bee then Gelasius Bishop of Caesâ—rea saith your Cardinall Bellarmine Contrarily your f Baronius himselfe â—â—tendeth that it was not that Pope Gelasius Anno 496 num 123. c. yet comming to answer to the Sentence of Gelâ—siuâ— doth expound toe doubtful words there of by the phrases of Pope Gelasius ex Epist ad Pâ—â—enos Dardan Episc num 13. 14. which Epistles he before cited as the true Epistles of Pope Gelasius Anno 493. num 23. and Anno 494. num 2. And after Anno 496. num 17. telleth his Reader saying Vides Lector ex usu verborum Phrasiquè dâ—ceÌ„di Gelasij Papae alia ejus sententia perspicuâ— demonstratum esse c. Et Anâ—o 996 num 13. Gelâ— in Epist ad Picen est Peccato Originall substantiam hominis esse depravatâ—m eum tamen eadem substantia mansit Accidentia ut pote justitia originalis alia dona 〈◊〉 Cardinall Baronius contendeth that hee is a more ancient Gelasius Anno 47. namely Gelasius Cyzicenus yet so as confounding himselfe insomuch that hee is forced to expound the speeches of this Gelasius by the propriety of the speech as he confesseth of Gelasius â—ope of a Rome But what shall we answer for the Impudent Protestants as yoâ— Cardinall hath called them Surely nothing but wee 〈◊〉 more modesty in him who hath so called them considering that Protestants had no fewer Guides nor meane to follow than these g Gelasius Papa scripsit contra Eutycheâ—em Genad de scriptoribus Eccles c. 14. Anastas de vita 〈◊〉 Margarinus de la Bigat lib. 5. Biblioth Patrum pag. 467. Masson de Episc Rom. in vita â—elasij Aâ—pâ—onl lib. de naeres Tit. Christus haeres 3. in fine Onuphrius de Creat Pontif. Cardin Gelâ—sius 〈◊〉 scripsit volumen adversus Eutychetem Nessorium Fuisse Caesariensem Episcopum non posse jure affirmari videtur And proveth why not Historians viz. Genadius yea your Bibliothe carie Anastasiùs Alphonsus de Castro Onuphrius Massonius Margarinus la Bigne all which have intituled this Gelasius Pope of Rome Howsoever it is confessed on all sides that hee was an Orthodox Father and very Ancient Now then Gelasius sayd that h Gelasius lib. de duab natur cont Eutych Sacramenta certa 〈…〉 corporis sanguinis Christi divina res est propter quodper eadem divinae efficimur participes naturae tamen non definit esse substantia vel natura panis viaâ— certè imago similitudo corporis sanguinis Christin in Actione mysticâ celebratur And againe Permanent in proprietate naturae The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ being Divine things yet cease not to bee the nature and substance of Bread and Wine In Answer whereunto both your foresaid i Bellar. Baton quo supra At dicit Gelasius In Divinaru transcunt Spiritu sancto
107. De recipiente semen ut terra bonâ— Qui verbum recipit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Trans elementing in a sort of the word of God into the good Iearer Againe Theophylact is objected as saying x Theophyl in Math. 26. Panis ineffâ—bili modo transformatur Panis quidem apparet sed caro est Objected by Mr. Ererely Laturg Tract 2 §. 2. Sâ—bd As for est caro this Phrase 〈◊〉 beene already answered See above at s The Bread is after an ineffable maner Transformed It is true Hee saith so and so doth Hierome say that y Hier. in Marc. 14. Accepit Iesus Panem bâ—nedixit fregiâ— Transfigurans Corpus suum in Panem quod est Ecclesia praesens quae frangitur in passionibus Christ in breaking Bread did Transfigure or Transforme his Body into his Church broken with afflictions and Pope Leo sticketh not to say that 1 Leo. Non alia igitur participatio Corpous quà m ut mâ—id quâ—d summus transeamus De Passione Serm. 24 Wee Christians in communicating Transimus turne or are Changed into Christ his Body So these ancient Fathers Are you not yet out of breath with objecting Testimonies of Fathers Vnconscionably and imperâ—inently No for Master Brerely for a Close desireth to be heard and to try us with an Objection out of the Greeke Church these latter times as followeth a Mr. Brereley in his Apologie of the first Edition concerning the Faith of the ancient Greeke Church It appeareth by a Treatise published by the Protestant Divines at Wittenberge Anno Domini 1584. intituled Acta Theologorum Wittenbergensium Hieremiae Patriarchae Constantinop c. that the Greeke Church at this day although divided from the Latine professeth to beleeve Transubstantiation So he of the Patriarch Hieremâ—as which Patriarch if he were alive would very hardly containe himselfe from answering this your Brother with some indignation calling him both rash and precipitant seeing that the same Patriarch expresly said that b Hier. Patriarch Non enim hic nominus tantùm communicatio est sed rei identitas etenim verè Corpus Sanguis Christi mysteria sunt non quòd haec in corpus humanum transmutentur sed nos in illa melioribus praevalentibus Which is his Answer in this Poynt to the Doctors of Witâ—enbèrge The Body and Blood of Christ are indeed Mysteries which are not changed into humane flesh but wee into them So that Patriarch âšœ Neverthelesse another bold Romish 17 Franciscus de Sancta Clara. Exposit Artic. Confess Angi in Art 28 Orientalis Ocâ—identalis Ecclesia in hoc Articulo Transubstantiationis conveniunt Hieremus Patriarcha in sua Censura contra Lutherum idem fatetur Priest durst boast of your alliance in this doctrine of Transubstantiation not only with this forenamed Patriarch of Constantinople but also with the whole Easterne and Greeke Church But behold Cyril now Patriarch of Constantinople ready at hand to strangle this false bragge saying as he himselfe speaketh 18 Confâ—ssio fidei â— Reverendissima Cyrillo Patriarchia Constantiâ—op nomine omnium Ecclesiarum Orientalium Edit Anno 1632. In Eucharistiae Administratione Piaesentiam veram realem Christi consitemur prâ—fitemur at illam quam Fides nobis offert non autem quam excogitata docet Transubstantiatio In the name of the East and Greeke Churches Wee professe a true and reall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament but that which is offered by faith not that saith he which the devised Transubstantiation teacheth So he namely so as wee Protestants do likewise professe as will be declared in the next Booke at large And that the Grecians who were present at the Councell of Florence did not yield Assent to that Article of Transubstantiation although your Iesuite 19 Gordon Ies Controv. 4. cap. 4. num 25. Quod de Graecis in Concilio Florentino congregatis coÌ„miniscuntur Adversarij cos nimirum nègâsse Transubstantiationem apertum est Commentum Nam Disputatio tantùm erat quibus verbis fieret Transubstantiatio seu Consecratio Gordon would qualifie and mince the businesse yet Binius the Publisher of that Councell 20 Binius Tom. 4. Not. in Conc. Florent Sess 25. In vobis c. Cùm Pontifex egisset ut Graeci dicerent quid statuerent de Processione Spiritus de Purgatorio deque divina Transubstantiatione panis Cumque respondissent se admittere Purgatorium c. De Transubstantiatione verò Panis Suorum sententiae inhaesissent confesseth that they did therein Persist in the opinion of their owne Doctors Master Brerely would thinke it an injury done unto himselfe if we should pretermit his objected Authority of Pope Gregory for Doctor Humphrey saith hee doth charge Gregory the Great with Transubstantiation So Master Brerely who objected this in his Apologie many yeares agoe and had a full Answer in an * Appeale lib. 1. Chap. 2. §. 7. The testimony it self cited out of Greg. by Mâ— Brereley is answered in the first Book concerning EATING Appeale made purposely in confutation of his whole Apologie The Summe of that Answer is this Doctor Humphrey did not speake that as grounded upon any sentence of Gregory but onely upon the report of a Romish Legend supposing it to be true which in the â—udgement of Romish Doctors themselves whose Testimonies are there cited Is unworthy to report the memory of the fact being in it selfe fond filthy and frivolous the Author whereof may seeme to have a face of Iron and a heart of Lead and the Objector namely Master Brerely for grounding his Objection on a Legendary History A Falsisier of his owne promise This Answer was home one would thinke and might justly have provoked him to satisfie for himself if hee could have found any Errour therein yet notwithstanding for want of better service bringeth he in these Cole-worts twise sod CHALLENGE VVHat greater Vnconscionablenesse could your Disputers bewray than by so torturing the Hyperbolicall Figurative and Sacramentall Sayings of Ancient Fathers for proofe of the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ insomuch that they must bee consequently constrained by the force of some Phrases contrary both to the meaning of the same Fathers and to the Doctrine of your owne Romish Church to admit of three other Transubstantiations viz. First of Christ his Body into whatsoever the Appetite of the Communicant shall desire Secondly of Christ his Body into the Body of every Christian And Thirdly of the Body of every Christian into the Body of Christ As the Testimonies objected plainly pronounce âšœ Besides which you may adde a Fourth of Bread into the Deity of Christ And againe a Fift out of Chrysostome of the Wicked receivers turned into Wolves as you have heard As also for a Sixt from others of the Change of * Set the 9 §. following Dioâ—ysius Godly Receivers into God A Seaventh out of Saint Augustine of Changing saith he of Christ * See Booke 5.
Eucharist as will be proved at large in the Seventh Booke His Second Absurdity is to be seene in his Comparison common to him with his fellowes reasoning thus that the Articles of the Trinity and of the Incarnation of Christ are above mans Capacity and Reason being onely to be apprehended by Faith and therefore ought men to inthrall their Reason to believe what the Romish Church teacheth concerning the Eucharist and not examine their Mysteries of Transubstantiation which implyeth an Absolute Absence in this Sacrament of the Substance of Bread and an Existence of the Naturall Body of Christ Whereas indeed there cannot bee a more absurd Comparison because the Mystery of the Trinity and maner of Hypostaticall Vnion of the God-head and Man-hood of Christ are Objects transcendently spirituall and matters of Infinitenesse in themselves but the matters of all Sacraments are Corporall Objects of Sense and therefore discernable thereby and subject to the Examen of Reason according to the Practice and * See Booke 3. Conclusions both of Primitive Fathers and Romish Doctors Among whom your Cardinall 1 Contarenus Cardinal Tractat. de officio Ep. lib. 1. Dei cognitionem Summam appellat scientiam divinae ignorationis Dei namque naturam longissimâ— distare ab omni eo quod intellectus noster cogitat necesse fuit quaedam de Deo credenda his proponi quae omnino mentis aciem superaret Contarenus teacheth you out of Dionysius Areopagita that our chiefe Knowledge of God is our Ignorance of him because the knowledge of those things which ought to be believed concerning God differ from the knowledge of all other things in this that they excede all aprehension of mans mind Master Fisher his Inference upon his former Supposition Numb 7. This being supposed saith he I inferre that the Seeming Absurdities of Catholike Reall Presence should incourage a true Christian mind to believe it as to that which was believed in the Primitive Church although accompanyed with so Seemingly Grosse Absurdities as being of things above our Imaginations So hee Our Reply noting the Absurdity of his Inference upon his false Supposition The Supposition having beene proved to be false concerning the Doctrine of Primitive Fathers his Inference from thence cannot be Really true which wee shall now confute by the Sayings of your owne Doctors For if Romish Doctrines concerning the Eucharist were therefore the Rather to be beleeved because that they were accompanyed with Seeming Absurdities then was it either Faithlesnesse or extreme Folly in your owne Romish Divines who reasoned Contrariwise to give you Five Examples instead of fivescore I. Gabriel Biel against the Motion of Christ's Body in the Eucharist from one place into another and so to East and West both at once which saith he were * See above Chap. â— Sect. â— Absurd and Ridiculous II. Your Iesuit Coninks against the Possibility of Christ's Body to move and to be still in the same Instant gain-sayth it * Ibid. cap. Because that is sayth hee altogether Vnconceivable III. Pope Innocent against the Possibility of Christs Body to be Mortall and Immortall at once * See Booke 4. Chap. â— Sect. â— Because saith hee it is Incredible And IV. as other of your * Ibid. See the Marginells Theologues in the same place do affirme Because it is Repugnant to the Vnderstanding of man V. Your Collius Declaming against pretended Miraculous Issues of Christ's Blood out of the Eucharist and sometime out of Images impugneth it saying * Booke 4. Ca. 2. Sect. 6. 7. Whose eares can abide to heare such a Copie and abundance of Blood of Christ to be separated out of his Veines now after his Resurrection yea who without horrour can thinke thereof He that beleeveth this let him heare that notable Saying of Solomon Hee that is sodaine or easie of Beliefe is of a light and unconstant heart Nor could such Copie of Blood issue out without some injurie to the Perfection of his Glorious Body So they Which Sentence of Solomon if Master Fisher had truely had by heart hee could never have held your Romish Doctrines to be the Rather Credible because of their Seeming Absurdities Master Fisher his particular Romish Instances of Seeming Absurdities Numb 8. As for Example I. That a Body so big should be in so little an Hoast II. That a Body so Glorious should be subject to such Indignities and Obscenities III. That the same Body should be in innumerable places at once IV. That Bread being converted into the Body of Christ the sole Accidents should remaine performing the office of the Substance even to the nutrition of mans Body These Difficulties scandalize Protestants and thereupon they hold the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to be Absurd and Ridiculous but wee must not depend upon our Senses So hee Our Reply especially out of the Fathers for Discovery of Master Fishers Falshood in pretending the Patronage of Antiquity for Defence of these Particular Romish Absurdities Master Fisher in his former Inference pretended the Beliefe of the Primitive Church as holding of Seeming Absurdities as being things above Imaginations and now insisteth upon your particular Romish Seeming Absurd Tenents if they should be judged by our Senses as though this had beene the Doctrine of Primitive Antiquity whereas indeed he could not have done a greater injurie to the Church Primitive which is ready to Contradict him in each Particular The First objected Seeming Absurdity of the whole Body of Christ in so little an Hoast or as your Tridentine Fathers said In every least part thereof was contradicted by Saint * Booke 4. cap. 8. Sect. 6. Augustine holding it Incredible as well as by some of your Schoolemen who judged it Monstrous and as much as to make the Nose of Christ to stand together with his Heele and so to make his Body a Confused * See Booke 4 c. 8. Sect. Chaos The Second That a Body so glorious should be subject to such Indignites and Obscenities was contradicted by all these holy * See Booke 5. throughout Fathers who have gain-sayd The Eating of Christ with Teeth The devouring with the Throate and abhorred the passing it downe through the Entrails into the Draught as vile and execrable Indignities The Third which is The being of the same Body of Christ in innumerable places at once A Doctrine unanimously contradicted by * See Booke 4. cap 6. Ancient Fathers teaching I. Circumscription to be Inseparable from a Bodie II. Proving thereby Christs Humanity to be a creature and not God because Circumscribed in one place And III. The Holy-Ghost to be God and no creature because not Circumscribed in one place The Fourth That Sole Accidents should remaine and nourish mans Body which one Instance followeth two falsehoods One is to beleeve that Sole Accidents do remaine without all Substance of Bread contradicted by * See Booke 3. cap 3 12. Theodoret your Pope Gelasius and by other holy Fathers The other Falshood is
sanguis Testamenti quod mandavit ad vos Deus De quo Marc. 14. Hic est sanguis Novi Testamenti Sic argumeÌ„tamur Sanguis Testamenti veteris erat sanguis victimae jam immolate et verè sacrificatae Exod. 24. Ergò sanguis novi Testamenti apud Christum est sanguis victimae verè propriè sacrificatae Est autem sanguis ille Christi ut ipse dicit Hic est sanguis meus Ergo ipse fuit victima in coena immolata et sacrificata The Blood of the Old Testament was the Blood of an Hoast truly sacrifised Therefore the Blood of the New Testament mentioned in the Eucharist whereof the other was a figure must needs be the Blood of Christ properly sacrifised therein So hee heaping up Reason upon Reason as it were to make a mountaine and presently after his much working and heaving cometh one of his owne family of the Iesuites Vasquez by name and kicketh all downe with his heeles as it had beene but a Mole-hill saying 16 Vasquez Ies in 3. Tho. Disp 190. num 15. Novum TestamentuÌ„ in sanguine meo apud Evangelistas Paulum in sanguine Christi prout est in hoc sacramento non convenit Nam quaÌ„vis sacramentum Eucharistiae sit sacramentum Novi Testamenti hac ratione dici posset Novi Testamenti tamen longè alio sensu dicitur Novi Testamenti aut Novum Testamentum quòd sit confirmatio consummatio Novi Testamenti hoc est gratiae quam Christus promeruit generi humano de quo Hebr. 9. Testamentum in mortuis confirmatum est hoc est morte Testatoris undè sequitur neque vetus Testamentum sine sanguine dedicatur iude colligit Novum sanguine Christi confirmari Et rursus ubi Testamentum ibi mors intercedat Testatoris necesse est tandem sic concludit Caput Apostolus sic Christus semel oblatus est ad multorum exhaurienda peccata constat igitur sanguinem Testamenti dici eatenus quatenus est effusus in confirmatione illius sicut hac ratione sanguis hircorum vitulorum essusus est Exod. 24. hic est sanguis Testamenti nam sacrificium incruentum in Eucharistia non erat causa universalis Redemptionis illud ergo Effundetur in Remissionem peccatorum significat futuram Effusionem in Passione That it is called The Blood of the New Testament by Christ not as it is in this Sacrament but as it referreth to the Sacrifice of Christes Passion Which hee confirmeth by the most Authenticall kinde of proofe even from the Scripture out of one Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrewes in severall places One from these words A Testament is confirmed in men dead The next Heb. 9. Where a Testament is there doth necessarily intervene the death of the Testator And againe Christ was once sacrifised to take away the death of many He might have added a fourth vers 15. Christ is the mediator of the New Testament that death coming betweene for Redemption c. Each one of these pointing out Christs Bloody Sacrifice on the Crosse teacheth us to deale with you by law of Retortion thus The Old Testament was confirmed by the Death and Blood-shed of the Creature sacrifised And so according to the Apostles Comparison was the New Testament confirmed by the Death and Blood-shed of Christ our Testator Therefore could not the Bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testament be a Figure of an Vn-bloody Sacrifice in the New That your Cardinall Bellarmine hath Contradicted the Doctrine of the Ancient Church of Rome taught by Pope Leo the First SECT XII POpe Leo is hee whom the Church of Rome will be thought to esteeme as equall with the best of Popes and therefore hath honoured him with the singular Title of Magnus Ob insignem sanctitatem doctrinam eloquentiam saith your Iesuit * Possevin Apparat Tit. Leo. Possevin who lived above a thousand yeares since Him doth your 17 Bellar Lib. 1. de Missa Cap. 7. Leo Sermone 7. de Passione Domini Vt umbrae cederent Corpori ceâ—â—arent imagines sub praesentia veritatis antiqua observantia novo tollitur Sacramento hostia in hostiam transit sanguinem sanguis excludit legalis festivitas dum mutatur Impletur 〈◊〉 infra de sacramenti institutione loquens vetus Testamentum consummabat Novum Pascha condebat Cardinall object for proofe of the Sacrifice of the Masse from the Signe of the Paschall Lambe in a Sentence which in it selfe is sufficient to tell us what was the Faith of the Church of Rome in his dayes and to direct you in the point now in Question in manifesting that your Cardinall hath egregiously abused his Testimony for proofe of an Vn-bloody Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Eucharist which Leo spake so evidently and expresly of the Sacrifice of his Passion that your Iesuite Vasquez was enforced to 18 Leo Papa de Passione Domini Serm. 7. In solemnitate Pasch li exercendi furoris sui Iudaei acciperent potestatem Opportebat enim ut manifesto implerentur effectu quae diu fuerant figurato promissa mysterio ut ovem significativam â—vis vera removeret ut uno explereâ—ur Sacrifiâ—ro varsarunt differentia victimarum Nam omnia illa quae de Immolatione agni diviniâ—us per Moysen fuerant praestituta Christum prophetarunt Christi occisionem propriè nunciarunt Vt ergo umbrae cederent corpori cessarent imagines sub praesentia veritatis antiqua observantia novo tollitur sacramento hostia in hostiam transit sanguinem sanguis excludit legalis festivitas dùm mutatur impletur Teste Vasquez Ies in 3. Tho. Disp 223. Quest 83. Cap. 6. Againe Solet ex Leone probari Missae sacrificium unicum esse ex Sermone 7. de Paschate Opportebat c. Verùm ibi loquitur de sacrificio cruento Christi subdit enim omnia illa Christi occisionem pronuneiârant per occisionem planè intelligit cruentum sacrificum Eadem ferè verba habâ—t Chrysostomus in Psalm 95. Lest the word Sacrament in the Sentence of Leo may move any to conceive that it is spoken of the Eucharist or yet of any other Sacrament of the Church of Rome It is to bee observed that nothing is more familiar with Leo than to call every Mysterie and Christian Article Sacramentum As for Example in the beginning of this Sermon hee calleth the Feast of Easter Sacramentum Salutis De Festo Nativitatis Serm. 2. Reparator nobis salutis nostrae annua revolutione Sacramentum Et Serm. 16. De voce Christi Transeat Calix iste quod non sit exaudita magna est Expositio Sacramenti confesse thus much even then when hee sought to defend the Romish Sacrifice of the Eucharist The words of Leo are generall All those things which were performed concerning the Sacrificing of the Lambe by Moyses from Gods command were prophesied of Christ and did properly declare the Slaying of Christ So hee
Hyperbolized yea even in this very point of the Eucharist OB. II. Elswhere Senensis you say giveth us a caution against Chrysostome's Rhetâ—ricke in this point ANSW It is certaine that Senensis doth there most especially and by name note Chrysostome to Hyperbolize and his Caution being generall to take heed of his Hyperbole's may be justly applyed as wel to this as to that point there specified in Senensis according to the Law of Schooles where Generall rules are applyable to other examples besides that which is in the Author specified and adjoyned to the same Rule But this man had rather cavill inordinately by the example of Romish Adversaries than to be regulated by any rule of reason and moderation OB. III. Behold you mention Bellarmine saying that our senses are not deceived in their proper sensible objects But you forbeare to shew the many Limitations which hee giveth ANSW I never held it seasonable to shew a man any thing when he would not see it otherwise the Objector who hath sought into every corner of all my Sayings with purpose to traduce them could not but have found the same Limitations of Bellarmine punctually set downe Book 3. cap. 3. Sect. 7. The Fourteenth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 141. pag. 200. S. CHRYSOSTOME OB. TO the words of Chrysostome As in Baptisme Regeneration the thing Intelligible is given by water the thing Sensible you adde these words The Substance of Water remaining which are not in the Text whereof your Lordship is conscious and therfore most unsufferable ANSW I must first say mala mens malus animus or as it is in the English As you muse so you use else would not this Objector have accused mee to be Conscious of this whereas any might have thought that the words should have beene if the Printer had not mistaken in a different Character to distinguish them from the words of Chrysostome because in the Margin hee was directed to another place where the full Text of Chrysostome was perfectly alleged without that Addition now objected ANSW II. Yet there is no reasonable man pondering the words of Chrysostome but must justifie the Addition of those words of to be most consonant to the meaning of Chrysostome there speaking of the Water of Baptisme For is there any one of sound braines that will deny the Water of Baptisme after Consecration to remaine in Substance the same Besides there hath beene produced another Testimonie as out of Chrysostome that Bread even in the Sacrament of the Eucharist after Consecration remaineth in Substance the same These should the Objector have ruminated upon before hee layd downe this Accusation but that hee found they were not for his distemperate palate The Fifteenth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 14â— pag. 201. EVSEBIVS EMISSENVS OB. YOu referre vs to Master Brerely his Liturgie Tract 2. Sect. 2. Subd 2. in the Margin curtailing the words which should make for Transubstantiation and making him argue from these words Post verba Christi est Corpus Christi And putting upon him so weake an Argument when as hee doth there but onely mention the name of Eusebius referring us to a fuller Sentence which hee citeth out of Eusebius in some few pages following ANSW If the Objector had beene so curteous as to have lookt back to Master Brerely's Allegation of the said Testimony of Eusebius some few leaves before pag. 160. as hee was curious for Contention-sake to urge the words following in some pages after which hee saith are omitted and concerne Transubstantiation hee might have found that Allegation of Master Brerely as I delivered it Tract 2. Sect. 2. Subd 2. SVBSTANTIA PANIS POST VERBA CHRISTI EST CORPVS CHRISTI As for the words following which corcerne Conversion of Bread it was beyond the scope which I had then in hand which concerned onely the Enunciative Speeches of Christ namely of calling Bread his Body and not the maner of Change thereof which point notwithstanding is afterwards handled at full in the same Section Our Advantage from this mans Cavillation is this That hee calleth this maner of Arguing out of the Sentences of the Fathers Bread after Consecration is the Body of Christ Ergo it is meant to be really and Substantially Christs Body as it was in the Manger to be but a WEAK ARGVMENT to the Confutation and if the Person of the Objector were of sufficient Authority to the Confusion of all the Doctors of the Church of Rome who have held their Arguments taken from the words of Christ after his taking Bread saying THIS IS MY BODY to be the foundation of all their Arguments for proofe of Transubstantiation ANSW II. Yet I was much to blame I confesse in not Answering at all to the objected Testimony of that so bastardly a Book of Homilies attributed to Eusebius which the Romish Doctors themselves of best judgement and estimation could not untill this day tell upon whom to Father it All confessing that it was not the Book of that Euseb whose name it beareth Some affirming that the Author was Faustus the French-man Some Caesarius Some Eucherius And as for the Booke it selfe they have likewise put upon it the brands of two great Heresies Arianisme Pelagianisme Which taxation and hallucination of our Adversaries may be to themselves without our Answer their owne Satisfaction not to thinke it worthy of Answering The Sixteenth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 143. pag. 202. GREG. NYSSEN A Summary Answer to this Objection out of the Testimony of Gregory Nyssen Although Bellarmine doth not produce the words of Nyssen yet doth hee direct his Reader to Nyssens Treatise of Manna where the Sentence is which is alleged by others Nor can hee be excusable in that having read the Testimony now objected hee did not thereby perceive that the Fathers Sacramentall speeches are not to be taken in the rigidity of the words Our Advantage upon this occasion is that our Objectors referring us to the Arguments of Bellarmine out Greg. Nyssen it hath caused us to light upon and to examine this which followeth urged by your Cardinall for Transubstantiation where speaking of the Bread which came downe from heaven and was prepared for us without seed without tilling without mans worke Thâ—s saith Nyssen is signifyed in this Mysterie nor is this an uncorporeall and unbodily thing for how can a thing uncorporeall and without a Body be food unto a Body But that thing which is not uncorporeall is altogether a Body Now let us but trie the Romish Faith by this Lydian Stone and wee shall finde it to be meerely counterfeit and base For aske any of the Romish Disputers what it is which in this Sacrament is knowne to nourish whether man or mouse And they answer us that the Accidents of Bread voyd of the substance of Bread is that which is Nutritive But Greg. Nyssen saith just the â—lat Contrary NOTHING CAN NOVRISH A BODY BVT THAT WHICH IS A CORPOREAL
esse hujus Authorem Editionis Spiritus Sancti mentem assequutum In omnibus igitur locis vult Concilium Eam haberi pro Authenticâ exceptis erroribus Typographorum Vt Iudic. cap. 11. pro altera Matre lectum fuisse adultera Matre ut quidam objiciunt Nam Concilium probavit veterem benè Typis impressam Post §. Porrò Nullo modo audiendi sunt ii qui post Concilium Tridentinum contendunt Editionem Vulgatam aliquibus in locis quod ad ipsam sententiam attinet emendari Quin potiùs Graeci Hebraici Codices siquidem dissideant à nostra sunt per eam corrigendi Valentia who thinke that Oath to be violated if the Vulgar Latine be rejected at all as lesse true than the Originals And your Spanish Inquisitors finding in one of your Romish Doctors the Rule of Hierome and Augustine urged which is that no Translation Latine or other be further allowed than as it agreeth with the Originals they faire and cleanly wipe it out saying that h Index Expurgatorius Hispanicus ad nomen Martinz Quamvis haec quae Hieronymus Augustinus docuerunt vera sunt tamen post Concilii Tridentini Decretum non licet Vulgatae Latinae Testimonia quovis praetextu rejicere prout in ipsius Concilii Decreto constitutum est fol. 145. Although that which Hierome and Augustine taught be true yet now since the Councel of Trent it is not lawfull to reject the same Translation upon any pretence whatsoever ⚜ Accordingly your Iesuite Lorinus in a matter concerning neither faith nor maners i Lorinus Ies Comment in Lib. Sap. ca. 12. Versq 6. §. Vatablus Non licet nobis discrepantem expositionem ab Editione nostra Vulgata jam correcta sequi It is not lawfull for us saith hee to follow an Exposition differing from the Vulgar Edition which is now corrected ⚜ So they And so farre unsatisfied are your Doctors in taking this Oath Wee are furthermore not destiture of matter for a large Confutation first of your assuming Saint 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 habits 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 Ancient 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 therof did onely 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 i Clem. Octavus In perpetuam rei memoriam Textus accuratissime mendis purgatus Clement as The most accurate Edition thus k Ephes 1. 14. Lat. Vulg. Spiritu signati promissionis quae est pignus haereditatis Graecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in quem locum Hieronym Pignus Latinus interpres pro Arrhabone posuit Arrhabo futurae emptionis quasi quoddam testimonium obligamentum datur Pignus verò pro mutuâ pecuniâ ponitur cùm illa reddita fuerit reddenti debitum pignus à Creditore Aug. Serm. de visione Dei Tom. 10. pag. 1687. Accipis Codicem ab amico cui das pignus cum reddideris quod accopisti illc cui reddis habebit tu pignus accipies non enim habebit ambas res sed quando pretium paras dare pro ea re quam tenes bonae fidei contractu de ipso pretio das aliquid exit Arrha non pignus quod sit complendum non quod sit auferendum Sed si Deus charitatem dat tanquam pignus per spiritum suum cum eam rem ipsam reddiderit quâ promissa pignus dedit auferendum est à nobis Pignus Absit Sed quod dedit hoc implebit ideo melius Arrha quà m pignus hoc enim implebitur cum Arrha data est 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 Absit against this Sense of it The Reason of both is because hee that giveth a Pledge taketh it againe when the Thing for which it was pledged is received But hee 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 Therby advancing Gods gracious love towards man and mans faith in Gods 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 Symphonie than betweene an Horse and a Saddle Nor will it avayle 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 a Bulla eadem Sacram Scripturam admitto juxta eum sensum quem Tenuit Tenet Mater Ecclesia extra quam nemo salvus c. 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 wee have proved to be a GRAND IMPOSTVRE in a full Tractate from the Doctrine of the Apostles of Generall Councels of severall Catholike 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
also of the Authors Sinceritie and his Adversaries unconscionable Dealing in their Allegations of Authors Grace Peace and Truth in CHRIST JESVS AMong all the Controversies held against your Romish Religion none were ever more hott to draw Protestants violently into the fire than these two First the denying your Romane Church to bee The Catholike Church without which there is no Salvation Secondly the affirming the Romish Adoration of the Sacrament of the Altar to be Idolatrous Therefore have I especially undertaken the discussion of both these Questions that seeing as Saint Augustine truly said It is not the punishment but the Cause which maketh a Martyr it might fully appeare to the world whether Protestants enduring that fierie tryall for both Causes were indeed Heretikes or true Martyrs and consequently whether their Persecutors were just Executioners of persons then condemned and not rather damnable Murtherers of the faithfull Servants of Christ And I doubt not but as the first hath veverified the Title of that Booke to prove your Doctrine of the Necessitie of Salvation in your Romish Church to be a GRAND IMPOSTVRE So this second which I now according to my promise present unto you will make good by many Demonstrations that your Romish MASSE is a very Masse or rather a Gulfe of many Superstitious Sacrilegious and Idolatrous Positions and Practises And because the very name of ROMANE CHVRCH is commonly used as in it selfe a powerfull enchantment to stupifie everie Romish Disciple and to strike him deafe and dumbe at once that hee may neither heare nor utter any thing in Conference concerning the Masse or any other Controversie in Religion be the Protestants Defence never so Divine for Trueth or Ancient for Time or Vniversall for Consent or Necessarie for Beleefe I therefore held it requisite in the first place to discover the falshood of the former Article of your Church before I would publish the Abominations of the Masse to the end that for Iâ—â—latrie in Scripture is often termed spirituall Adulterie the Romish Church which playeth the Bawd in patronizing Idolatrie being once outted your Romish Masse as the Strumpet might the more easily either bee reformed or wholly abandoned This may satisfie you for the necessitie of this Tractate The next must bee to set before you your owne delusorie trickes in answering or not answering Bookes written against you especially such as have beene observed from mine owne experience One is to strangle a Booke in the very birth So dealt Master Brerely long since by a Letter writ unto mee to prevent the publishing of my Answere against the first Edition of his Apologie when hee sent mee a second Edition thereof to be answered which both might and ought to have beene sent a twelve moneth sooner but was purposely reserved not to bee delivered untill the very day after my * See the Protestants Appeale in the beginning Answere called An Appeale was published Of which his prevention I have therefore complained as of a most unconscionable Circumvention Another device you have to give out that the Booke whatsoever written against your Romish Tenents is in answering and that an Answere will come out shortly So dealt Master Parsons with mee * In his Sober Reckoning Certifying mee and all his credulous Readers of an Epistle which hee had received from a Scottish Doctor censuring my Latine Apologies to be both fond and false and promising that his Answere to them Printed at Gratz in Austria should be published before the Michaelmas next following whereas there have beene above twentie Michaelmasses sithence every one giving Master Parsons his promise the flatt lye A third Art is a voluntarie Concealement And thus Master Brerely who having had knowledge of the fore-mentioned Booke of Appeale manifesting his manifold Aberrations and Absursurdities in doctrine his ignorances and fraudes in the abuse of his Authors as in other passages throughout that Booke so more especially the parts concerning the Romish Masse yet since hath written a large Booke in defence of the Romish Liturgie or Masse urging all the same Proofes and Authorities of Fathers but wisely concealing that they had beene confuted and his Falshoods discovered Onely hee and Master Fisher singling out of my Appeale an Explanation which I gave of the Testimonie of Gelasius in condemning the Manichees concerning their opinion of not administring the Eucharist in both kindes did both of them divulge it in their Bookes and reports also in many parts of this Kingdome as making for the justification of their sacrilegious dismembring the holy Sacrament and for a foule Contradiction unto my selfe notwithstanding that this their scurrilous insultation as is * Boâ—ke 1. cap. 3. Sect. 7. heere proved serveth for nothing rather than to make themselves ridiculous The last but most base and devillish Gullerie is a false imputation of Falshoods in the alleging of Authors which was the fine sleight of Master Parsons a man as subtile for Invention as elegant for Expression for Observation as dextrous and acute and as politike and perswasive for Application as any of his time Hee in an Answere to some Treatises written against your Romish blacke Art of Aequivocation by mentall Reservation and other Positions fomenting Rebellion to wit in his Bookes of Mitigation and Sober Reâ—koning doeth commonly leave the principall Objections and reasons and falleth to his verball skirmishes concerning false Allegations and as turning that Ironicall Counsell into earnest Audacter fortiter calumniare c. hee chargeth mee with no lesse than fiftie Falsifications All which I spunged out in a Booke entituled an Encounter and retorted all the same Imputations of falshood upon himselfe with the interest discovering above forty more of his owne Which may seeme to verifie that Cognizance which your owne Brother-hood of Romish Priests in their Quodlibets have fastened on his sleeve calling him The Quintessence of Coggerie As for mine owne Integritie I have that which may justifie mee for howsoever any one or other Error may happen in mis-alleging any one Authour yet that I have not erred much or if at all yet never against my Conscience Heereof I have many Witnesses One within mee a witnesse most Domesticall yet least partiall and as good as Thousands mine owne Conscience a second is above mee GOD who is Greater than the Conscience A third sort of Witnesses are such as stand by mee even all they who have beene conversant with mee in the Perusall and Examination of Authours Testimonies by mee alleged men of singular Learning and Iudgement who can testifie how much they endeared them-selves unto mee when any of them happened to shew mee the least errour in any thing Hee that shall say Non possum errare must be no man and hee that will not say Nolo errare as hating to erre can be no Christian man The last Witnesse for my integritie may bee the Bookes of my greatest Adversaries Master Parsons and Master Brerely whose many scores of Falshoods have beene layd so
Who so desireth more let him cast his eye upon the 10 Mr. Mâ—iric Casuubon Praehend Cantuar. Transcript Notarum Marginal M. S. Patris sui Isaaci in Bellar. now extant in the Kings Ma. Dibrary at S. Iames. Ab Bellar. Edit Paris 1608. pag. 111. C. D. Adversus implissimam hujus Capitis doctrinam memineris-veterem Ecclesiam â—â— Romana è diametro est hîc opposita nihil studiosiùs fecisse quà m ut in vernaculas linguas verterentur Biblia Gotthieae versionis menuo apud Sozom. p. 90. Dalmaticae Hier To 4. p. 79. Armenae Pachym in vita Chrysost De illa Armena lingua satis constat eam fuisse usurpatam in Ecclesia Vide locum Bellar. Tom. 6. p. 613. Scripturam sacram statim initio versam esse in omnes linguas testatur Euseb Demonst p. 88. De Liturgia in vernacula lingua in Mesopot locus Basil 277. Syr. AEgypt Indica Persica AEthiopiâ—â— Chrysost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ioh. Earudem Scythicae Sauromaticae Theodor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 81. ubi nota verba 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem clamat verbis penè eisdem Aug. lib. 2. deâ—dect Christ cap. 5. Adde in Iure oriental Bonifid p. 243. tractatur haec quaestio pronunciatur oporteâ—o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 linquaÌ„ Arab. inter Saâ—arenos Vide Iuris orient Leuncla p. 365. Vellem doctiss Bellar statum Quaestiones rectè concepisset initio hujus Cap. non enim quaeritur An lingua latina fuerit olim sub Imp. Rom in usuâ—â— sacris sed illud quaeritus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sacrae administrari populo proponi debeant eâ linguâ quâ—â—vel sit populo vernacula vel certò à populo intelligatur Probate possumus veteris Eccles opinionem fuisse 〈◊〉 populum intelligero mysteria Christianae religionis omnia impedimenta esse amovenda quâ de re exstat locus in Constit Iustini p. 1365 insignis p. 366 ex Paulo id ipsum probat Imperator Loquitur autem ibide sacra Eâ—â—aristia Baptismo Eodem referri potest quod Const 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 372. conceditur Iudaeis ut sacram Scrip 〈◊〉 Graecam 〈◊〉 guam vertant quamcunque aliam voluerint habuerint sibi notam aut etiam 〈…〉 Vult enim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Refer eodem locum aureum Chrysost 〈…〉 falsco Scripture obscuritatem legi non deberi quia scripta non Rom hon Heb. linguâ oliâ Casu Clem 〈…〉 same words of the Apostle Hee is a Barbarian aeprooveth 〈◊〉 philoso 〈◊〉 lib 〈◊〉 Marginals where hee may see the Transcript of a Patrizing Son of a most admirable Treasure of learning M r. Isaac Casaubon relating his Notes out of Antiquity to prove the generall Consent of Fathers both for the Translating of Scriptures into the Mother-tongues of most Nations as also the Liturgie or Church-service universally used in the vulgar languages of severall Countries âšœ And lest that this might not suffice wee have added the * See above in the beginning of the 6. Sect. letter 〈…〉 Edict of the Emperour Iustinian commanding a lowd voice in the Minister that the people may understand his words Next a Canon of a Councell requiring a * 〈…〉 Concordance both of voice and understanding in the singing of Psalmes as that which ought to be by that Doctrine of Scripture I will pray with my spirit and I will pray with my understanding Then a Decree of one Pope in his Councell that provision be made where people of divers Languages dwell in the same cities that their * Ibid at of the letter 〈◊〉 Servioe may be done according to their Different tongues After the Resolution of another Pope to grant unto the * Ibid. Sclavonians at their conversion to the Faith that Divine Service might be used in their owne tongue moved thereunto as by a voice from heaven sounding out that Scripture Let every tongue praise the Lord. And lastly a * Ibid Prohibition in the Primitive Church that None should speake in languages unknowne to the people âšœ And lest you may hereafter according to your maner scorne our zeale in requiring the joynt prayers and thankesgivings publikely in the Church by the voice of Men Women and Children know yee that 11 Basil Hixam Hom. 4. Immediately before the end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Quomodo non songe pulchliis est cùm in Ecclesia par 〈◊〉 sonitus qua 〈◊〉 jusdam littus percellentis undae virorum mulierum infantium ex orationibers ad Deum nostium refusat And in Reg. Contract Qu. 278. Linguâ ignorâ nihil utilitatis redit ad precantem Saint Basil delivering the judgement of Gods Church in his time held this an order decent and beautifull censuring an Vnknowne prayer to be unprofitable to them that pray âšœ When you have digested all these Premises concerning the Equity and Necessitie of knowne Prayers in the publike and Divine Service both in consideration of Gods worship and Mans manifold profit so amply confirmed by so many and uncontrolable testimonies then guesse if you can of what dye the face of your Doctor Stapleton was when hee shamed not to call this our Practice of knowne prayers d Quod autem omnia vernaculè siunt in Ecclesia planè profanum est Stapleton spec pravit Hae ret p. 580. Profanenesse and to number it among Hereticall pravities As for your owne People who preferre an unknowne worship what can wee say lesse than that all such Ignorants are but dumbe worshippers and because of their ignorance in praying they know not what they are to be sent to accompany Popinjayes and Iack-dawes accordingly as S. * See above Sect. 7. in the Challenge 3. Augustine formerly hath resembled them âšœ A SEAVENTH CHALLENGE For Vindication against Francis de Sancta Clara a late Reconciler of our English Articles with the Doctrine of the Romish Church A Romish professor at Doway published a Treatise this very yeare of our Lord 1634. VVhich hee calleth a Paraphrasticall Exposition of the Articles of the Church of England whose ayme is not to draw the Romish professors to the English but the English to the Romish and by his seeming Reconciliation to put upon our Church as wee use to say the Gull albeit his whole Paraphrase be indeed nothing but a Farrago of his selfe-fictions and Opinations whereof his Paraphrasis or Exposition upon this Article will give you a shrewd guesse if you shall have the patience to examine such stuffe Our English Article 12 Franciscus de S. Clara Professor Disac Exposit Artic. Confess Angl. Art 24 Linguâ populo non intellectâ preces peragere Sacramenta administrare verbo Dei primitivae Ecclesiae consuetudini planè repugnat saith that To pray or administer the Sacrament in an unknowne tongue is plainely repugnant to the Word of God and the Custome of the Primitive Church
The Article of the Church of Rome Contrarily 13 Concil Trid. Sess 22. Can. 9. Si quis dixerit tantùm linguâ vulgari Missam celebrari debere Anathema sit Hee that shall say that the Masse ought to be Celebrated onely in the vulgar tongue let him be Anathema that is Accursed The English Article hath two points 1. That Prayer in a tongue unknowne to the People that pray is Repugnant to the Word of God 2. That it is also plainely Repugnant to the Custome of Primitive Antiquity First of the Repugnance to the word of God The Romish Expositor Paraphrasing upon these words Repugnant to the word of God supposeth in the first place that thereby is meant the Doctrine of the Apostle 1. Cor. 14. concerning Prayer in a Tongue not understood of him that prayeth and then for answere thereunto repeateth onely their old Crambe to wit that by Prayers there spoken off are not meant the publike prayers in the set and solemne service of the Church of Corinth but other their 14 Paraph Crediderim Sanctum Paulum vel de privatis conventibus vel de privatis colloquiis post omnia officia habitis ibi agree Private Convents and Colloquies And whereas the Apostle requireth of the Idiote that is Private or Lay-man as wee call him that hee understand his Prayer so as to be able to give consent thereunto in publike saying Amen he 15 Paraph. Idiota apud Apostolum i. e. Ille cui incumbit respondere expoundeth this as understood of Him who by office answereth Amen for the rest of the People whom wee name the Parish-Clerke Both which have beene * See the Challenges above thorowout Confuted by your owne Schoolemen and the Latter more especially by Bellarmine himselfe in our former Sections as you have seene A second devise of qualifying these words of our Article Repugnant to the word of God is his owne but thus 16 Paraph. Decrevit igitur Articulus esse Repugnans Scripturis id est non Doctrinae Scripturae sed Scriptioni seu Traditioni Scripturae quae fuit Corinthijs in Lingua communi The Article decreeth it to be repugnant to the Scriptures that is saith hee not to the Doctrine of Scripture but to the Scription or tradition of Scripture which among these Corinthians was in praying in a common tongue Here you have a dainty Distinction betweene the word Scripture and Scription the word Scripture to signifie the Doctrine of Scripture and the word Scription to betoken Tradition of Scripture So hee by an elegant Figure which wee forbeare to name but wish there were some sense in it For was it ever heard off that there was a Scripture without Scription that is to say a Writ without writing or when as all Divines ever distinguished of Traditions into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Written which are the Scriptures themselves and Vnwritten which are without the same written word of God Was it possible for them to conceive of a Tradition in Scripture which was not Scripture or word of God If so then whereas all Creatures are distinguished into Sensible and Insensible it shall be possible to point out a Sensible Creature void of Sense His third Crotchet 17 Idem Dum. dicit esse Repugnans verbo Dei intelligi deberent Institutioni D. Pauli non Christi cujus scripta sub nomine verbi Dei comprehenduntur omnia tamen ab Apostolis demandata non sunt mandata Christi ut ab omnibus concessum est When the Article saith Repugnant to the word of God It is to be understood as meaning Repugnant to the Institution and Ordinance of Saint Paul not of Christ Saint Pauls writings being comprehended under the name of Gods word although all that are commanded by the Apostles are not therefore the commands of Christ as all do confesse So hee That there are in Scripture Apostolicall Constitutions namely such as are fitted to the Churches according to the Conveniences of the times distinguished from Divine Constitutions which are enjoyned the Church as necessary for all times it is true But that both which this Paraphrase affirmeth either S t. Paul in requiring a Knowno Prayer delivered not therein the Doctrine of Christ necessary for all times or that our English Composers of this their Article in affirming the Institution of Vnknowne Prayers to be Repugnant to the word of God did not thereby understand the word and Commandement of Christ in his Authenticall Scripture are two as strange exorbitancies as your Glosser could make For the Apostle to shew that hee taught a Doctrine which concerned all the Churches of Christ and at all times useth Similitudes to Illustrate his meaning universally fitting all ages and Congregations of Christians in their solemne prayers If a Trumpet saith hee or a Pipe give an uncertaine sound who shall prepare himselfe either to the Battell or to the daunce applying those Similitudes as well to praying as to preaching in an Vnknowne tongue But every one of you will grant that the same Scripture for necessitie of preaching in a knowne tongue is the Divine Institution of Christ and not onely an Apostolique Constitution Therefore except you will separate that which Christ by his Apostle hath joyned together you must confesse the same necessitie of the Command of Christ for knowne Prayer Besides his Conclusion How shall hee that understandeth not say Amen being as true of all Prayers in all subsequent ages of the World as it could be to the Church of Corinth it prooveth the truth of the Divine Ordinance of Christ therein Thus farre of the meaning of S. Paul now to returne to our Article Whereas you and all that ever read Protestant Bookes know that whensoever they affirme any thing to be Repugnant to the word of God they meane to the Scripture as it is the expresse Command and Ordinance of God and of Christ and that notwithstanding your Glosser should dare to tell us that the meaning of our Articling An unknowne Prayer to be Repugnant to the Word of God must signifie not Repugnant to Scripture or to the Institution of Christ but to Scription and Apostolicall Tradition must needs argue in your Professor some ecclipse of judgement by the which also hee venteth out his Inference following A fourth straine he hath in his Inference from our English Article as followeth 18 Idem Vi hujus verbi probabiliter inferri potest debere Ecclesiae officia apud nos hodiè celebrari in lingua Latina quià per se loquendo est lingua communis communites intellecta solùm autem asseritur in Articulo Preces publicae fiant linguâ à populo intellectâ quod sine dubio debet intelligi de lingua per se communi non per Accidens loquendo The Article affirmeth saith hee that Prayers ought to be used in a tongue knowne to the people therefore wee properly inferre that Prayers in our Church may be in
Latine because it is a language commonly knowne So hee speaking of your Romish Latine prayers not knowne of your owne people As if one should argue saying Because the kingdome of England holdeth it necessary that the pleading of her lawes be used in English in a tongue knowne and understood of her Subjects therefore may it be thence Concluded that the Pleas of other kingdomes may be exercised in Latine a common language although not understood of the people of any Nation Who seeth not in his Inference an extreme want of Logicke A more full Confutation of the Glossers Qualification of the words of our English Article viz. Prayer unknowne is Repugnant to the words of God by his interpreting it as not meant strictly of the doctrine of Christ but of the Tradition of the Apostle himselfe It is most notoriously knowne to you all that The same Article against Vnknowne Prayers is common to all the Churches of Protestants in a full Accordance to condemne the contrary Profession and practice of the Romane Church which justifieth her Custome of praying in a Language unknowne to the people as not Repugnant to the Law of God And reciprocally you are not ignorant that your Councell of Trent in her Anathema and Curse cast upon all that should say That the Masse ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue intended thereby to accuse all Protestants for condemning the Custome of the Church of Rome as a transgression of the word and Commandement of God in holy Scripture Now this your Paraphrazer by his Moderation and qualification indeavouring to reconcile these Two Contradictorie Intentions namely of your Romish in condemning our English Article and of our English Article in condemning your Romish Canon What it is but to affirme that one Church hath opposed against the other for Causes they know not what Of the second part of the English Article The Article Prayer in an unknowne tongue is likewise Repugnant to the Custome of the Primitive Church The Glosser opposeth against this HIS FIRST INSTANCE 19 Paraph. Graeci apud omnes Iurisdictioni Patriarchae Constantinopolitani subditos licèt Graeci non sint officia Idiomate Graeco celebrant SOme whose vulgar language is not Greeke yet being under the Greeke Patriarch of Constantinople pray in the Greeke Idiome So hee for proofe of the lawfulnesse of the peoples praying in a language unknowne But the Instance is lame of the right legge it sheweth indeed and wee confesse that many whose native language is not Greeke pray notwithstanding in the Greeke Idiome but that they understand and not these Greeke prayers which is the onely point in question it prooveth no more than Tenterton-steeple proveth Goodwin-sands For we have * See above Sect. 7 thorow-out manifested the contrary in a full Section namely that all such People who being not Greekes and prayed in the Greeke Idiome did notwithstanding understand that Greeke language wherein they prayed Was your Paraphrazer in good tune thinke you when hee would not see this his marke that he might speake to the purpose and matter in question Next he being destitute of any other Instance in the Greeke Church seeketh some other advantage in the Latine Church in the dayes of Antiquity from Saint Cyprian and S. Augustine 20 Paraph. In Africa ut testatur Cyprianus in orat Domin Et Augustinus de bono perseverant cap. 13. Missas reliqua faciebant Latinè licèt lingua vulgaris erat Punica Latina ab inferiori plebe non intellecta They both witnesse saith he that their people in Africke said their Masse and other services in Latine albeit their owne language was the Punicke and that the meaner people were ignorant of the Latine tongue So hee joyning his witnesse together but wee will take them apart to avoid Confusion for the better confuting of your Paraphraser if hee will yet thinke himselfe confuted Cyprian is alleged to have said as is premised in his Exposition upon the Lords prayer where there is not one syllable of mention of the people of Africke saying of Masse or of their vulgar Punicke Language or of their Ignorance of the Latine tongue If this be not foule dealing to produce a dumbe witnesse and to father Sayings upon him which hee never uttered then will you thinke it farre more ougly if the witnesse being heard to speake himselfe shall avouch the Contrary Hearken then unto Cyprian in the same Exposition of the Lords Prayer instructing his Punicks and Africans as followeth 21 Cypr. Sect. 22. Expos in Orat. Dom. Quandò stamus ad orationem Fratres dilectissimi vigilare incumbere ad preces toto corde debemus nè quicquam tunc animus quà m id solum cogiter quod precatur Dearely beloved Brethren when wee pray wee ought to be watchfull and attend our Prayers with our hearts lest our mindes in praying thinke of any other thing than on that which is prayed So hee Ergo say Wee The Africans albeit their vulgar Idiome was Punicke yet did they understand those Latine Prayers which you your selves must likewise confesse except any of your Priests could accordingly instruct your rude people ignorant of the Latine tongue wherein they pray by saying unto them Beloved Brethren We that is you and I ought to attend to our prayers and not thinke of any thing but that which is prayed If any of you should so exhort your seely people to attend to that they understand not might they not interpret that his Exhortation to be no better than meere Mockerie and as plaine an exprobration as if hee should entreate a bald man to combe his head or a blind man to thred a needle Wee adde furthermore that this Latine Exposition of the Lords Prayer was one of the Sermons of Saint Cyprian and so stiled in the same place Sermo sextus his sixt Sermon preached promiscuously to all his people of Africke then assembled Which is a demonstrable Argument that this people of Africke understood the Latine tongue you your selves professing that Preaching ought alwaies to be used in a Language which the people do understand Saint Augustine is his second Witnesse but for what namely that The Africans albeit their Nationall Language was the Punick yet did they pray in the Latine tongue whereof they were ignorant So he And Wee answer that in the place alleged which is his Booke de Bono perseverantiae cap. 13. there is no more mention of Punick tongue or Latine Language than there is of Welsh or Irish It may be that Saint Augustine hath something hereof in some other place and so indeed he hath for in a Sermon of his unto the Africans he speaketh hereof as plainely as if in direct termes hee had given this your Paraphraser the word of disgrace 22 Aug. de Verbis Apostoli Serm. 24. Proverbium notum est Punicum quod quidem Latinè vobis dicam quia Punicè non omnes nôstis Nummum quaerit pestilentia There is saith
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 Catholicke with the after-contrarie Custome and the Latitude thereof together with the 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 Sacrilege 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 Paucity In the sixt of Wisedome with Folly as also of Charity with Injustice and Impiety In the seaventh of Knowledge with Ignorance as likewise of Devotion with Prophanenesse 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 Contrary 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 DO THIS the second time touching the Cup * 1. Cor. 11. 25. HOC FACITE QVOTIESCVNQVE DO THIS AS OFTEN c. Both which whosoever should denie to have the Sound and Sense of a Precept might be confuted by your owne Iesuites Doctors Bishops and Cardinalls among * See all this above Chap. 2. Sect. 1. in the Margent whom we 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 And it is found that All of them acknowledge Christs Praecept simply for the Bread and Some of them onely but conditionally of the Cup whereof we are now to speake 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 ackowledged to be under that Command of Hoc facite are the Taking Bread and blessing it c. To the other touching Administration of the Cup whereof it is sayd He tooke it and gave it to his Disciples whom after he had Commanded saying Drinke you all of this hee 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 hee might charge them to communicate in both kinds A Precept then it must needs bee But wee are not ignorant of your Evasions Your first Evasion Although say e Bellar. lib. 1. de Eucharistilia cap. 25. §. Tertuâ— you it be said to his Disciples Drinke you all and Doe this yet it is spoken to them as they were Priest And only to the Apostles saith Master * M. Brereley Liturg Tract 4. §. 7. after the letter y and after g. Brerely And againe The Apostles did represent the Priests CHALLENGE VVEe answere that your owne f Quorundam opinio est Apostolos factos sacerdotes per illa verba Hoc facite Sed de his verbis non constat facta consecratione facta consecratione immediatè ea dixisse anrequà m Euchristiam ub utraque specie dedit vel post Quod si verba ista Christus post datam Eucharistiam illam dixit manifestum est illum non Sacerdotibus hinc dedisse quod mihi ex literae decursu magis probatur Alfon. de Castro con Heres T it Eucharist pag. 158. 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 Priests yet we answere that your Consequence viz. Ergò onely Priests are enjoyned to receive the Cup will appeare to be both fond in it selfe and to your owne selves pernicious First as fond as if one should argue thus It was at the first said only to the Apostles Goe and baptize all Nations Ergò none but the Apostles have Command to Baptize which office you permit aswell to women Laicke as to men Next pernicious for say Wee pray you doe the words Drinke yee all of this command all Priests to drinke then must this condemne the contrary * See above in this Chapter at the letter b. Practice of your now Church of Rome which alloweth the Cup to no Priest present but onely to him that doth Consecrate which is directly confuted by the Example of Christ who administred the Cup unto all his Apostles by your doctrine Priests Againe Do these words onely command the Priest to receive the Cup then likewise do you condemne your former Church of Rome which hath sometime permitted the Cup unto Laike Yea and your Cardinall Alan g Hoc facite Quod cùm pertineat maxime ad potestatem sacerdotalem circa consecrandum sacrificandum tamen Apostolus 1. Cor. 11. resert quoque ad sumptionem sive Laicorum sive Sacerdotum Quod Cyrillus facit in Iohan. lib. 12. cap. 38. Et Basil in Moral Reg. 21. cap. 3. ut Hoc facite pertineat ad totam actionem Eucharisticam à Christo factam tà m à Presbyteris quà m a plebe posteà faciendam Eodemque verbo imprimis potestas consecrandi offerendi deinde etiam mandatum sumendi tà m Sacerdotibus quà m alijs fidelibus detur cùm utrumque suo modo licet prius exactius Sacrificium quà m sumptio memoriam mortis Dominicae â—ontineat Alan lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 37. pag. 646. doth not sticke to tell you out of the ancient Fathers that the Command Doe this declared by Saint Luke is applyed by Saint Paul to the receiving in both kinds aswell of People as of Priest And by virtue of the same Command of Christ The Greeke Church hath alwayes observed the use of both kinds unto this day So hee justifying our contrary Consequence even as also your * Laici adulti tenentur ex institutione Christi communicare jure divino hoc thomas probat ex Luc. 22. Hoc facite in commemoretionem mei quae habent vim praecepti non tantùm de celebrando ait Scotus sed etiam de administrando Sacramentum populo Cosmus Phil. de offic Sacerdot Tom. 1. de Sacrific Missae l. 2. c. 2. Cosmus Philiarchus defendeth and confirmeth the same by Aquinas and Scotus the two most eminent Doctors of your Church holding that Laicks are chargible to receive the Eucharist by virtue of the Command of Christ in the same words of Institution Do this âšœ And
the Masse standeth so much upon the no command of Christ for the use of boto kinds that he justifieth an ancient Romane Custome as he calleth it of the Priest himselfe receiving on Good Friday only under one kind Tract 4. Sect. 4. pag 407. And Tra. 4. Sect. 7. pag. 421 As often not signifying the necessitie of Drinking Brerely may see and acknowledge his double Errour And indeed the Evidence is so great that although all Romish Vniversities should withstand it we might herein appeale to common Sense for Christ having first commanded his Disciples saying in the Celebration of this Sacrament Drinke yee all of this this is the Act and adding further saying As often or whensoever as yee shall drinke it do this in remembrance of mee which is the End so commanded it doth equally imply a command of the Act of Drinking aswell as of the End Now the Catholike Church did alwayes hold that there ought to be an Often Commemoration of the Passion of Christ even untill his comming againe as saith the Apostle by the Celebration of this Sacrament And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As often or whensoever yee receive c. being indefinite and assigning no certaine dayes or times giveth libertie to the Church to solemnize this Memoriall at her convenient times yet so that Whensoever the Church celebrateth this Sacrament shee do it according to the forme of Christ his Institution by communicating in both kinds âšœ Yet is not this all but if you desire an Argument of Gods wonderfull Providence you may see it in this in delivering up your owne Cardinals to that Stupidity as to be caught in their owne subtilty by the cleare light of the Text well discerned by your Divines of 2 Enchirid. Coloniâ—nse de Sacramen Euch. verb Hujus Divus Paulus apeâ—tius reliquis habet Quotiescunque manducaveritis hunc panem poculum hoc bibâ—tis mortem Domini annuntiabitis 1. Cor. 11. 26. Colen in these words of Saint Paul As often as you do eate this Bread and drinke this Cup. Do you marke the Quotiescunque is applyed equally to both The eating of the one and Drinking of the other If then their Consequence were good that the Church by virtue of that Quotiescunque had a libertie to abstaine from the Cup it would follow that against the universall doctrine of both sides the Church might celebrate the Communion without distribution of either of both whereof more in the next Section If the Pope sitting in the Assembly of his Cardinals delivering unto each of them a Ring to put upon their thumbes should say Do this as often as you come before mee in testimonie of my love Wee demand Are they not as often as they come into the presence of that Pope chargeable to put on each one his Ring upon his thumbe by virtue of the Popes Command Do this who seeth not this that doth not wilfully blind-fold and stupifie his wits Shall wee conclude As your owne Doctors inferre from these words of Christ Do this that Laicks who be of yeares are bound by the Law of God to communicate by the same Text may wee conclude that they are likewise obliged to participate of the Cup. âšœ And although our Argument taken from the words of Christ Do this as often seeme to be hereunto of no force with your two Cardinals who spy therein a wonderfull gappe of libertie for a non-use of the Cup in the celebration of this Sacrament yet your Councell of Trent pronounceth that * See afterwards Sect. 4. at the letter a and Sect. 6. at m The Priest by these words Do this as often as c. is commanded to consecrate in both kinds Which indeed ought to be unto us an Argument of the singular Providence of God to see the Adversaries of his Truth to be Babylonishly Confounded by the Contrarietie of their owne tongues THE CHALLENGE In Generall DO this are as you have heard words Commandatorie and being spoken of Both kinds aswell for Consecration as for Distribution do oblige the Church of Christ to performe both kinds so that it must needs follow that the neglect of the Act is a Transgression of the Precept of Christ And so much the rather ought you to be perswaded hereof because your choicest and most subtile Objecters when seeking to defend your Alteration it became them to reason discreetly concerning this Sacrament which the Fathers call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Cup of Sobriety yet do argue so intemperatly as though they had beene over-taken with some other Cup insomuch that they are confuted by their owne learned fellowes by evident texts of the Evangelists and by common sense Which giveth us just cause to turne their Wonderment against themselves saying Behold the Providence of God! thus plainely to confound the wisedome of the Adversaries of his truth by themselves in their greatest subtilnesse 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 contrary Example SECT III. WEre it that wee had no Precept of Christ to Doe this but onely the Example of his Doing it in the first Institution this should bee a Rule for us to observe it punctually excepting in such Circumstances which onely occasionally and accidentally happened therein as * See above Sect 2. hath beene prooved and therefore not to dare to give a Non-obstante against the Example of Christ as your * See above in this Chapter Sect. 1. lit a. Councell of Constance hath done and which p Rectè docent Iurisconsulti non exemplis sed legibus judicandum Quae ab exemplis ducuntur argumenta per locum sunt à simili quae non tà m ad aliquid firmandum quà m ad id quod firmatur illustrandum à Dialecticis esse traduntur Salmeron les Tom. 9. Tract 34. 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 q Cyprian con Aquarios Epist 63. Admonitos nos scias ut in Calice offerendo traditio observetur neque aliquid fiat à nobis quà m quod pro nobis Dominus prior fecerit And some-what after A divino Magisterio non recedamus Cyprian confuteth the Aquarij Heretikes that used onely Water in the Chalice by the Example of Christ his Institution because Nothing is to bee done of us in celebrating of this Mystery which was not done of Christ So hee 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
ubi nihil dissert Sacerdoâ— Ã subdito ut in tremendis Christi mysterijs non sicut in veteri lege partem Sacerdos partem populus tunc non licebat populo participare eorum quorum particeps erat Sacerdos Verùm nunc omnibus unum Corpus proponitur unum poculum Chrysâ—st in 1. Cor. Hom. 27. Ille corpus aequaliter dedit Tu autem quod commune est non communicae etenim pro omnibus pariter factum est 〈◊〉 portione distributum Cyprian de Coena Dom. Haec mensa omnibus ex aequo proponitur Theodoret. in 1. Cor. 11. Hic Calix pari cunctis conditione traditus Theoph. 〈◊〉 1. Cor. 11. Greeke Church in obeying the Canon of Christ and holding it necessarily to be observed of the people also by receiving in Both kindes and that otherwise wee transgresse against the Institution of Christ All these Testimonies of Primitive Fathers under the Confession of your owne Doctors besides our other Collections are so many Arguments of the Consonant Doctrine of Antiquity for proofe of an Obligation of Precept upon the Churches of Christ whatsoever for the preservation of the perfect forme of Christs Ordinance in the administring of the Sacrament in Both kindes Vpon this evidence may you justly call your fellow-Priest M r. Brerely to account for his bold Assumption saying that * Liturg. Tract 4. §. 9. pag. 425. aâ— Eighthly No Doctor speaking of ancient Fathers can bee produced either expressely or else by necessary Consequence affirming the necessitie of the Laicks receiving under Both kindes Your selves perceiving now not onely One but many ancient Doctors to have expressed not only One but Many Necessities inferring the same And then you may furthermore question him for his next as lavish Assertion affirming in his fift Answer that The Authorities objected for the necessity of Both kinds speake not of a Sacramentall but onely of a spirituall Receiving with the mouth of their hearts When shall we find conscionable dealing at this man's hands Having thus finished our Assumption wee shall more expeditely satisfie such your Reasons or rather Pretences which you bring to disguise your sacrilegious Abuse The Romish Pretences for their Innovation and Alteration of Christ his Institution by the publique use of but One kind SECT X. WEe heare the * Concil Trid. Sess 21. Cap. 2. Gravibus et justis de Causis Councel of Trent pretending as they say Iust reasons of altering the primitive Custome and use of both kindes but naming none which we may well thinke was because they deserved not the mention surely such they were that your Iesuite had rather that you should beleeve them then try and examine them It being your part as i Porrò causas quae Ecclesiam moverunt ut consuetudineÌ„ communicandi sub altera probaret atque etiam pro lege observanda esse decerneret non tà m nostrum est discutere aut inquireie quà m ipsi Decreto simpliciter obtemperare existimaréque omninò eas fuisse justas ut rectissimè ex Conc. Trid. definitum est Greg. Volent Ies delegit usu Sacr. Euch c. 10. §. Porrò p. 499. hee saith Rather to thinke them just then to discusse them But wee are not bound to your Rules of blinde Obedience God will have us to use the sight which hee hath given us lest If the blinde leade the blinde both fall into the Ditch And whether the Reasons which are given by your Doctors be not blinde Seducements wee are now to try Some of your Reasons are taken from extraordinary Cases some Instances are common to all other Churches Christian and some are made as being peculiar to the Church of Rome The first kind of Romish Pretences from extraordinary Cases The first pretence is thus alleaged k Ob inopiam vini cujus in plerisque Christianitatis partibus magna penuria Valent. ibid. Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 34. §. Ad quintum pag. 279. And Rossens in like manner Bellar. also addeth another Reason to this Movit Ecclesiam uniformitas ut Concordia populi Christiani in Sacramento hoc percipiendo quod est Sacramentum pacis unjtatis propter eos apud quos vinum inveniri non potest ut sunt aliquae provinciae boreales ubi vinum non invenitur qui existimarent se Christo curae non fuisse aut non ità ut alias provincias quandò Sacramentum instituit Lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 28. Many Northerne Countries are destitute of Wine and therfore one kind is to be used for Concord and Vniformity-sake Will you be answered from your selves Aquinas making the same Objection of want of Wine and Wheare in forreine Countries l Licet non in omnibus terris nascitur vinum aut triticum tamen ad omnes terras facilè deferri potest quantum sufficit ad usum hujus Sacramenti Aquin part 3 qu. 74. Art 1. Sufficit quòd Balsamum potest ad omnia loca transfetri Idem ibid. qu. 72. Art 2. Resolveth that Notwithstanding Wheate and Wine may be transported easily to all parts Accordingly doth he resolve of the want of Balsame used in your Consecration and yet it is farre more scarce than Wine or Wheate Yet what Northerne Country almost can you name that hath not abundance of Wine for many persons even unto riot and can they not as well have it in moderate measure for a sacred Rite But what talke you of Vniformity and Concord in this Case of Alteration which are your two next Pretences wherein notwithstanding the Church of Rome is dissenting from the Greeke and all other Christian Churches in the World Or if this were a necessary Cause why did not your Church allow the use of Both kindes to the Church of Bohemia but twice raised a fierce warre against them for which your Iesuite m Bis Princepes Germaniae ad Bohemos quòd Communionem sub utraque specie communicarent debellandos arma sumpâ—â—cre hortatore Cardinale Iuliano S. Angeli Apostolicae sedis Legato doctissimo paritèt et rerum gerendarum prudentiâ ornatissimo viro quanquà m bellum non satis felicitèr successit Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 36 pag. 284. Salmeron seemeth to be full sorry marrie it was because that warre had not his wished successe Is their Concord in Hostility Againe because you thirdly pretend Vniformity also why then do your consecrating Priests onely receive both kindes sacramentally and all the other Priests in Communicating participate but in one or how is it that you allow a privilege to * See a little after at p. Popes Cardinals Monkes and noble Personages to receive in both kindes and deny this liberty to Others Is there likewise Vniformity in Disparity Your fourth Pretence is because divers are n Multi sunt abstemiâ— qui vinum non ferunt Bellar. lib. 4. de Eucharist cap. 28. Abstemious and have an Antipathy against Wine and some sickly persons also can hardly receive without Irreverent casting it up againe
non solùm nullam legitimam causà m essè sed neque fingi posse cur de consensu vestro Laici calicem bibant neque pati ullo modo velitis à more vestro quempiam decedere latum unguem Inprimis quoniam Ecclesia illud praecepit ut alteram tantùm speciem Laicis porrigamus cut meritò nobis obtemperandum est quià nihil agit sine magna ratione neque in hujusmodi legibus ferendis errare potest Denique si latam legem nullâ evidenti necessitate convellatis Patres suspicari multis in mentem veniet aut vos illam temerè aulloque consilio tulisse olim suscipisseque aut susceptam cùm ratione servatam diutissimè in Christiana Republica nulla vel causa vel ratione pro nihilo ducere quo nihil sieri potest gravirate vestrâ aut hujus amplissimi ordinis majestate indignius Gâ—spar Cardillo Villalpand Orat. apud Act. Conc. Trid. pag. 219 221. 222. Lest that the Church saith hee may seeme to have erred What can more savour 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 only the latter Church of Rome Our Assumption But the Church of Rome which will seeme that shee cannot possibly erre in her not administring the Cup unto Laickes is knowne to have erred 600. yeares together in the abuse of the same Sacrament by administring it in an opinion of Necessity unto Infants as hath beene plentifully * See above Chap. 2. Sect. 11. witnessed by eminent Doctors in your owne Church Hence therfore ariseth another difference betweene the profession of our Custome and yours which is betweene Christ and Antichrist All this while you do not perceive that your opinion of Concomitancie will ruinate the foundation of your Doctrine of Transubstantiation But hereof * In the third Book hereafter The seventh Comparison is betweene the maner of Institution and manner of Alteration thereof SECT XI THe beginning of the Institution in Both kindes is knowne and acknowledged to have 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 only One kinde How wee beseech you came it into your Church tell us i Nullâ praeceptorum vi sed consensu quodam tacito tà m populi quà m Cleri sensim irrepsit dicta consuetudo Roffens con Cap Babyl Tract de utraque Specie f. 28. Estque hoc diligenter notandum alterius speciei communionem non tam Episcoporum mandato quà m populi usu facto conniventibus tamen praesulibus irrepsi le populus enim ob varia incommoda paulatim à Calice abstinebat Episcopi propter varia effusionis sanguinis aliaque pericula tacendo hanc abstinentiam comprobabant quae abstinentra à calice cùm tempore Constantiensis Concilij ferè per Europam universalis esset non erat damnanda sed contra Haereticos insurgentes defendenda Coster Ies Enchirid. Tract de Commun sub utraque specie pag 359. Credere par est ex communi fidelium populorum Orthodoxorum Praesulum tacito consensu receptam quando autem primum inceperit mihi non constar Alfons de Castro l. 6. Tit. Eucharistia Haer. ult It came not in by any precept but crept in by little and little by the abstinence of the people and by the Tacite and silent consent of the Bishops So your Bishop Roffensis and your Iesuite Costerus and Fryer Castro This confessed unknowne manner of Alteration of this your Custome as it doth utterly refute your common Objection viz. That every Doctrine and Custome must beejudged ancient and Catholike the beginning whereof is not knowne so doth it more especially put your Master Brerely to his blush who durst make the same Objection in this very Case in defence of the use of but One kinde to proove it to have beene from the beginning because No first knowne beginning of our Catholike practice * Liturg Tract 4. §. 9. at the ead thereof saith he can bee 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 selfe to be guided by the humour of People in a matter of this nature what other difference can this make betweene our Custome and yours but that which is betweene divine Ordinance and popular negligence or as betweene a publike Professor and a Theevish Creeper Heresie is certainly a disease but wore you what the * 2. Tim. 2. 15. Apostle noteth it to be a Cancer or Gangrene which is a disease Creeping by little and little from joynt to joynt untill it have eaten up 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 rejecting Both kindes SECT XII THe comparison betweene the divers Dispositions of Professors none will be more willing to shew than your Iesuite l Quod verò atrinet ad tempora triplicem in coetu Christiano statum Nicolaus de Cusano Cardinalis expendit ferventis nimirùm calidae frigentis Initio enim fuit Ecclesia ad fundendum pro Christo sanguinem fervens tunc data est illi utraque species ut sanguinem Domini bibens sanguinem suum pro illo libenter effunderet In sequenti statu Ecclesia fuit calida licèt non ità fervens tunc non dabatur bina species sed panis tantùm sanguine infusus ut ex quibusdam veterum Patrum sententiis Concilijisque colligi potest Tertius status est Ecclesiae frigentis ac tepidae in ea tantùm altera species panis scilicet sine infusione sanguinis Laicis dispensatur Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 34. §. Quod verò pag. 277. 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 he 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 joyntly partakers of Both in one But in the third state of Coldnes the people were allowed the Sacrament only under one kinde So he CHALLENGE IF now Truth may be
puto probabilius verius esse ut dixi juris esse divini ut Sacerdos in duplici specie sacrificet Et nihilominùs existimo valdè probabile authoritate Pontificiâ ob publicam urgentem necessitatem praedictum jus divinum relaxari posse Sed quia nunquà m est relaxatum ego consilium darem ut nunquà m relaxaretur Azorius Iesuit Tom. 1. Iustit Moral lib. 10. cap. 19. §. Tertium pag. 857. Azorius that the authority of the Pope may dispense therewith But because Divine right was never yet dispensed with I saith hee would give my Councel that it never may be O Iesuite thus to deale with Christ his Command If hee or any other Iesuite had made as bold with the Pope * âšœ Extravag de verbo signific Tit. 14. Cap. 4. Gâ—ossa Dominum Deum nostrum Papam insituled in your publike Glosse OVR LORD GOD THE POPE as this doth with Christ himselfe saying unto him Any of your decrees holy Father may be dispenced with by any Iesuite of our Societie yet because no Iesuite hath taken upon him hitherto so much my councell is that none of your Deerees be ever dispensed withall The Pope wee suppose albeit he would thanke this man for his councell for not Doing so yet doubtlesse would he reward him with a welcome into the office of his holy Inquisition for his judgement to thinke it lawfull so to do 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 dispencing or rather a despising of the Ordinance of Christ âšœ And this the Iesuites themselves do thinke * See above in this Chapter Sect. 3. in the Chal. 1. which may appeare in that Conclusion which your Iesuite Vasquez gave concerning Christ Consecrating the Eucharist but in one kinde before his Disciples at Emmaus Where he resolved that This was an act of Christs Supreme authority not imitable by the Church And that the necessary Obligation of Consecrating in Both kindes is not dispensable by the Pope So hee Wherfore the Act of Christ being equally an Administration in only one kinde and Both these equally done by the same Supreme Excellencie and authority of Christ the determination and Resolution must necessarily be this That the Administration and Consecration in only One kinde are equally Indispensable We 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 r Dispensandus non est utriusque speciei usus Hereticis quia non sunt danda sancta Canibus nec Catholicis quia debent distingui ab Haereticis qui communicant sub duabus Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 37. 5. His potius pag. 411. he is not to bee allowed to Catholikes because they must bee distinguished from Heretikes nor to Heretikes because holy things are not to bee 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 and in sincerity of judgement equall and in integrity of life Superiour unto the latter Popes of Rome and Church therof 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 a P. Calixtus See above Chap. 2. Sect. 9. Pope Calixtus Anno Christi 218. requiring all persons present at the Masse to Communicate For which reason it was wee thinke that Pope b P. Greg. Ibid. at â— Gregory Anno 60â— 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 c See above Chap 2. Sect 7. Chall 6. 21 Pope of Rome with his Consistory yeelded 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 praise the Lord. d P. Iulius See above Chap. 3. Sect. 3. 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 he gave was this Because quoth he 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 e Ibid. Wee reade saith hee that both the Bread and Cup were distinctly and severally delivered As if he 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 f See above Chap. 3. Sect. 5. observing the same use of Christ had the same Resolution Sure we are that Pope g P. Gelasius See above Chap. 3. Sect. 3. r. Gelasius Anno 404 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 h Synod Tolet. 16. Conc. Generale sub Sergio Papa Baron ad An. 693. This Councel cap 6 saith Quontam quidaÌ„ non panes mundos atque integros sed crussulâ—m particulam offerunt quod nequaquam in sacrae authoritatis historia gestum perpenditur ubi legitur Christum benedixisse dedisse panem c Apud Bâ—nium Tom 3. And this being by Baroniâ—â— a Generall Councel could not conclude without the Popes consent in your judgements Generall Anno 69â— reproving those Priests who offered Bread in crusts and lumps But with what reason were they reprehended Because saith the Councell that fashion is not found 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
surrexit à Coena accepit haec cum gratias egisset dixit Hoc meum est hoc videmus quod non aequale est neque simile non imagini in carne non invisibili deitati non lineamentis membrorum hoc enim rotundae formae est insensibile quantum ad potentiam voluit per gratiam dicere hoc meum est hoc nemo non fidem habet sermoni qui enim non credit ipsum esse verum excidit à gratia salute Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch cap. 20. words your Cardinall's b Cum docere vellet Epiphan hominem verè factum ad imaginem Dei licet non facile appâ—reat in quo consistat similitudo inter Deum et hominem cum Deus incorporalis sit immensus et dicit multa esse ejusmodi quae aliud sunt aliud videntur ponit exemplum de Eucharistia quae verè est corpus Christi tamen nihil minus est quam quod appareat exterius cum sit â—otundum et insensibile proinde validè dissimile corpori Christi Hic sanè locus omninò convinciâ— nam quod dicit oporet credere ipsum esse verum excludit Tropos praesertim cum addat excidere à Salute qui non credit quod etiam addit ciedendum esse licet sensus repugnent apertissime testatur non cum loqui de significatione sed de re ipsa words to be observed in the Greeke are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The last words shew that Insensible is taken according to power that is actively Objection and our Answer and then make your owne determination as you shall thinke good Man is said to be made after the Image of God Epiphanius not able to define what this Image consisted in whether it be man's soule or minde or virtue notwithstanding resolveth thatc All men have the Image of God in them but yet not according to nature namely that substantiall nature which is in God because God is Incomprehensible and infinite c. This is the maine point which Epiphanius will now illustrate but how By something saith your Cardinall which seemeth to be that which it is not And Epiphanius instanceth in the Eucharist wherein Christ taking into his hands those things which the Evangelists do mention he said of the one HOC This is mine viz. Body and of the other This is mine viz. Blood hereby understanding saith your Objector The Eucharist which is truely the Body of Christ although it seeme not to be so outwardly being of a round figure and Insensible or without sense and therefore farre unlike to be the Body of Christ So he Who thinking he hath overcome doth raise up his Iö and Triumph saying This argument is throughly convincent because Epiphanius addeth He who believeth not the words of Christ doth fall from Salvation adding further that they are to be beleeved although our senses gainesay it You have heard the Objection which seeming to so great a Champion so greatly Convincent you will give us licence to make a full Answer First by HOC ET HOC THIS AND THIS by the Interpretation of Epiphanius are meant The things which the Evangelist did mention and the Evangelist mentioned as you know Bread He tooke Bread He tooke the Cup meaning Wine in the Cup namely according to the * See above Chap. 1. §. 6. former generall Consent of the Fathers HOC signifyed Bread in one part of the Eucharist and Wine in the other But Bread neither in the Substance nor in the Accidents can be called Christs Body without a Trope as hath beene * See above Chap. 1. §. 4. Confessed which is our first confutation of your Cardinal who concludeth that Epiphanius excludeth all Tropes out of Christs Speech of HOC Secondly c Epiphanius in Ancorato Habent omnes id quod est secundùm Imaginem Dei sed non secundùm naturam non enim secundùm aequalitatem habent homines Deus enim mente incoÌ„ prehensibilis est cum spiritus sit super omnem spirituÌ„ All men saith Epiphanius have the Image of God although not according to nature or equality because God the Spirit of Spirits is Incomprehensible Then he seeketh a Similitude from the Eucharist an Image of a thing which seemeth to be that which in nature and equality it is not Now in the Eucharist there are two things to be distinguished the one is the Naturall the other is the Sacramentall Being thereof The Naturall Being of the Elements as of Bread and Wine cannot make this Similitude because whether they be taken as Substances or Accidents Hoc This hath no proportion with the word which is called Meum meaning Christs Body because the Hoc as Epiphanins saith is a Round figure But as Hoc and Hoc are Sacramentall Images representing Meum and Meum Christs Body and Blood the Bread broken to betoken his Body crucifyed and the Wine poured out a-part to signifie Christs Blood Shed so will the Similitude be most Harmonicall Even as Bread and Wine in the Eucharist although they differ in nature yet are they representative Signes and Images of the Body and Blood of Christ So the Image of God in man hath a resemblance of the Godhead although in respect of Nature and Equality it be as different as Finite and Infinite Comprehensible and Incomprehensible According to which Analogicall Mysticall and acramentall sense upon the hearing of these words of Epiphanius Whosoever will not believe Christs words as hee said falleth from grace wee willingly shall say Amen The rather because Epiphanius being an Adversarie to the Marcionites who denyed Christ to have a True Body but onely Phantasticall notwithstanding whatsoever proofe from mens senses who saw and felt them they could not digest the Faith of the Romish Church which teacheth that that which Epiphanius calleth Bread after Consecration should be contrary to the Demonstration of â—oure Senses as of Seeing Smelling Feeling and Tasting meere Accidents Thirdly a place as observable as any other He saith of this Hoc which is of a round figure and differing in nature and proportion from that Meum which is the Body of Christ that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Insensible But how Passively as not being able to be perceived No for then it could not be perceived to be Round But Actively as not able to perceive any thing in which respect hee opposeth it to Meum which is the Body of Christ Which againe manifestly contradicteth the abominable coÌ„mon doctrine of your Church as you have heard of Believing the Body of Christ as it is in this Sacrament to be unable either to see or heare or exercise any faculty of sense without a Miracle as is shewed Book 4. Chap. 9. Sect. 2. In the last place I require Iustice from your selves against a Proctor of yours The Case is this Bellarmine said quoth I that Epiphanius taught We are to believe these words of Christ although
Body hee proveth out of the Gospel where hee is found desirous to eate his owne Passeover with his Disciples when taking Bread he made it his Body saying This is my Body that is a figure of my Body So he as Protestantly as can be spoken Which our Collection your miserable shift how to ridde your selves of it doth rather confirme unto us 12 Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 7. Illud Tertulliani Hoc est corpus meum Id est non significat panem Eucharisâ—â—ae esse siguram corporis Domini sed quod fuit olim figura in Testamento veteri nunc in veritatem corporis mutatum esse Conjungitur enim figura corporis mei cùm hoc ut sit sensus Hoc Id est Panis qui olim fuit figura corporis mei The Sense is this saith your Cardinall THIS that is This Bread which was once namely in the old Testament a signe of my Body So he O the profundity of this Answer Is a Signe saith Tertullian that is Was a Signe saith your Cardinall If one saying of the Sun-rising It is in the East and your Cardinall should comment saying that is It was in the East would you believe him And that Tertullian meant directly that the Bread which he now spoke of signified not the Bread of the Old Testament but the Bread of the Eucharist as it was a Signe then representing the Body of Christ two reasons may perswade us First because Tertullian observeth that Christ concerning the participating of the Eucharist said That hee desired to eate his owne Passeover meaning the Eucharist as distinct from the Iewish Passeover Next because he confuteth the Heretikes who denyed that Christ had a true Body by this Sacrament because Bread herein was a figure of a Body And Christ's figures were not of things only imaginary but also reall and essentiall And this is confessed by your Iesuite 13 Maldon Ies de sacra Euchar. §. 13. Conjectura pag. 295. Dicet aliquis cur Tertullianus figuram vocavit potiùs quà m veritatem Respons Id propositam quaellionem postulasse volebat enim probare contra Marcionitas Christum habuisse verum corpus quia illi negare non poterant fuisse Eucharistâ—am figuram corporis Si autem fuit sigura fuit veritas quia fantasma siguram non caperet Maldonate to have beene the Argument of Tertullian who once againe 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 sense These are so directly repugnant to your Romish doctrine that one of your Church in his Admonition before the words of Tertullian seemes to impute unto Tertullian the Heresie which you commonly lay to the charge of us Protestants 14 Beat. Rheâ—â—n Admonit ante lib. Tertull. Error putantium corpus Christi esse tantùm sub sigura condemnatur est Of thinking the Body of Christ to be onely in a figure in this Sacrament of the Eucharist Next Cyprian thus q Cyprian Serm. de Vact. Et significantia significata ijsdem vocabuliscenserentur Things signifying and signified are called by the same words Vpon the which ground he made bold to say that Christ's Body is Created in this Sacrament by Body understanding Bread saith your Cardinall Bellarmine Hierome r Hier. cont Iovia Typus sanguinis Wine the Type of Christ his Blood Gelasius s Gelas cont Eutych Quod in ejus imagine profitemur Apud Bibliothec. Patrum Tom. 5. p. 475. Bread the image of his Body Ambrose t Ambros de Inst mister cap 9. Post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur Et 1 Cor. 11. Mysterium esse Typum sanguinis After consecration Christ his Body is signified âšœ Whereupon we are compelled to complaine against your Cardinall Bellarmine who even there where he professedly laboureth to extract out of the Fathers your Romish sense from the words of Christ This is my Body for a proofe of the literall exposition thereof as they sound This is my Body and not as Protestants teach This signifieth my Body misallegeth the words of Saint Ambrose to his owne purpose thus Before the Benediction of Christ's words This is my Body one kinde of thing is named and after Consecration It is the Body of Christ insteed of these words After the Consecration 15 Bellar. lib 4. de Eucharist cap 13. §. Gregor Nyssen Explicat Ambrosius lib 4. de Sacrament cap. 4. quae sint verba Domini in quibus Sacramentum conficitur recitans illa Hoc est c. Et in lib. de Init. Myster cap. 9. Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus meum ante benedictionem verborum coelestium alia species nominatur post consecraticnem corpus Christi est the Body of Christ is signified Iust Protestantwise as can be Do but now tell us how you wish wee should censure this Errour whether as a wilfull Falsity and then should you eclipse his Credit and Authority or else only as a Temeritie and then ought you to Censure as indifferently of such escapes if any such happen of Protestants according to the Law of Equitie Veniam petimusque Damusque vicissim Saint Augustine whom one of your profession hath of late more choicely singled out for a Patron of your Romish defence hath unanswerably impugned your Romish Faith in this very point proving other Sacraments to agree with this in like of Predication and that herein the Eucharist hath not Prerogative above the rest u Aug. lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ Figurata locutio Idem cont Adimant Manich cap. 12. Non dubitavit dicere Hoc est corpus meum cum signuÌ„ daret corporis sui Idem Epist 23. ad Bonifac. Tom 9. Sacramenta propter similitudinem earum rerum quas repraesentant plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Sicut ergò secundùm quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi et Sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi ità Sacramentum fidei sides est Sicut de ipso Baptismo ait Consepulti sumus per baptismum in mortem Christi non dicit sepulturam significamus sed prorsus ait Consepulti sumus Sacramentum igitur tantae rei non nisi ejusdam rei vocabulo nuncupavit And intripreting that which he called Fidei Sacramentum hee sa 〈◊〉 Respondetur Parvulum baptizatum credere propter fidei Sacramentum Sacraments saith he for the very Similitude and likenesse wihich they have with the things wherof they are Sacraments do often take the names of those things which they do signific 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
his words This is my Body for proofe of Transubstantiation SECT I. YOu pretend and that with no small Confidence as a Truth avouched by the Councell of a Vt definitur in Conc. Trid. Sess 13 Can. 4. Ex sola veritate verborum Hoc est Corpus meum vera ac propria Transubstantiatio colligitur Vasquez les Disp 176. c. 6 Verba tà m per se clara cogere possint hominem non proterâ—â— Transubstantitionem admittere Bell. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23. §. Secundò Trent that Transubstantiation is collected from the sole true and proper Signification of these words This is my Body So you CHALLENGE WHerein you shew your selves to bee men of great Faith or rather Credulity but of little Conscience teaching that to bee undoubtedly True whereof notwithstanding you your selves render many Causes of Doubting For first you b Scotus quem Cameracensis sequtur Dicunt non extare locuÌ„ in Scripturis tà m expressum ut fine declaratione Ecclesiae evidentes cogat Transubstantiationem admittere Atque hoc non est omninò improbabile quià an ità sit dubitari potest cum homines acutissimi doctissimi qualis inprimis Scotus fuit contrarium sentiant Bellar. quo supra Cajetanus aliqui vetustiores audiendi non sunt qui dicunt panem definere esse non tà m ex Evangelio quà m ex Ecclesiae authoritate constare Alan lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34 pag. 419. grant that besides Cardinall Caejetane and some other Ancient Schoolemen Scotus and Cameracensis men most Learned and Acute held that There is no one place of Scripture so expresse which without the Declaration of the Church can evidently compell any man to admit of Transubstantiation So they Which your Cardinall and our greatest Adversary faith c See in the former Allegation at b Is not altogether improbable and whereunto your Bishop d Corpus Christi fieri per consecrationem non probatur nudis Evangelij verbis sine pia interpretatione Ecclesiae Roffens Episc con Capt. Bab. cap. 9. pag. 99. Roffensis giveth his consent Secondly which is also confessed some other Doctors of your Church because they could not find so full Evidence for proofe of your Transubstantiation out of the words of Christ were driven to so hard shifts as to e Hoc est pro Transit Bonaventura decet Idem ferè habet Oceam Hol cott insinuat etiam Waldensis Volunt Propositionem illam non esse substantivè sed Transitive interpretandam sc ut sit sensus Hoc est Corpus id est Transit in Corpus Sed hoc corrumpit significationeÌ„ verbi Est quod si permittitur nulla est vis in hujus modi verbis ad probandam realem praesentiam nec substantiam Panis hic non manere Et ità potuit Haereticus exponere Hoc est id est Repraesentat Corpus Suarez Ies Tom. 3. qu 78. Disp 58. Sect. 7. Art 1. pag. 754. Change the Verbe Substantive Est into a Verbe Passive or Transitive Fit or Transit that is in stead of Is to say It 's Made or It passeth into the Body of Christ A Sense which your Iesuite Suarez cannot allow because as hee truly saith It is a Corrupting of the Text. Albeit indeed this word Transubstantiation importeth no more than the Fieri seu Transire of Making or Passing of one Substance into another So that still you see Transubstantiation cannot bee extracted out of the Text without violence to the words of Christ âšœ The like violence is used by your Iesuit I Iac. Gordon Scotus Ies lib. Controv. 4. cap 3. n. 15. Propositiones practicae proferuntur per verba praesentis temporis non futuri ut certi 〈◊〉 de effectuve borum Haec verba Hoc est corpus meum practica sunt efficiunt quod significant Manduâ—â—â— ex hoc Bibite ex hoc ubique demonstrat corpus Christi futurum vel sanguinem ejus futorum Similis statuitur verbis Consecrationis alioqui ista communio esset merè speculativa non practica Gordon who to make Christs Speech to be Practicall for working a TransubstaÌ„tiation doth inforce the words This is my Body and Eat yee this and Drinke yee this being all spoken in the Present tense to signifie the future Which although it were true all Grammarians know to be the figure Enallage From these Premisses it is most apparent that the Romish Doctors cast themselves necessarily upon the hornes of this DileÌ„ma thus Either have these words of Christ This is my Body a Sense Practicall to signifie that which they worke and then is the Sense Tropicall as you have now heard them against your Romish Literall Sense to betoken an operative power and effect of working Bread into the Body of Christ or else they are not Practicall and then they cannot implie your Transubstantiation at all Wee might in the third place adde hereunto that the true Sense of the words of Christ is Figurative as by Scriptures Fathers and by your owne confessed Grounds hath beene already plentifully * See the former Booke throughout proved as an insallible Truth So groundlesse is this chiefe Article of your Romish Faith whereof more will be said in the sixt Section following But yet by the way wee take leave to prevent your Objection You have told us that * See the former Booke throughout the words of Christ are Operative and worke that which they signifie so that upon the pronunciation of the words This is my Body it must infallibly follow that Bread is changed into Christs Body which wee shall beleeve assoone as you shall bee able to prove that upon the pronuntiation of the other words of Christ This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood Luke 22. 20. the Cup is changed into the Testament of Christs Blood or else into his Blood it selfe The Noveltie of Transubstantiation examined as well for the Name as for the Nature thereof SECT II. The Title and Name of Transubstantiation proved to be of a latter date YOu have imposed the very Title of Transubstantiation upon the Faith of Christians albeit the word Transubstantiation as you grant f Fateor neque Antiquos Patres usos esse hoc nomine Transubstantiationis Christoph de Capite fontium Archicpis Caesar lib. de reali praesen cap. 5. 9. Artic. 4. was not used of any Ancient Fathers and that your Romish Change had not it's Christendome or name among Christians to be called Transubstantiation as your Cardinall g Concilium Lateranense sub Innocentio Tertio coactum ut Haereticis os obthurarer Conversionem hanc novo valdè significance verbo dixit Transubstantiationem Alan lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34. pag. 422. As for that objected place out of Cyrill of Alexandria Epist ad Caelosyrium Convertens ea in veritatem Carnis It is answered by Vasquez the Iesuite non habetur illa Epistola inter opera Cyrilli Vasquez in 3. Thom. Tom. 3. num 24.
extant before the words of Consecration be used Therefore is there no true and proper Change by Transubstantiation into the Body of Christ Observe by the way that they who gain-say the Productive and teach the Adductive yet do all deny Locall mutation à Termino ad Terminum A Paradoxe which wee leave to your wisedomes to contemplate upon ⚜ The next Contradiction is to be seene between your Romish Popes their Councels one against another for your Pope Innocent 3. whom your Doctors have so earnestly objected as an high Patron of Transubstantiation in the Councel of Laterane Anno 1560. defined 4 Innocent 3. Papa lib. 3. de Offic. Missae cap. 29. Substantia convertitur in id quod fit non erat ut virga in colubrum tunc forma convertitur cum substantia quandoque convertitur in id quod erat non sit ut Panis in Eucharistia tunc substantia convertitur sine forma Transubstantiation in the Eucharist to be in matter and not in the substantiall forme And your Pope Iulius the Second in the Councel of Trent as you have * See above at the Letter a heard even now defined Transubstantiation in the Eucharist to be both in Matter and Forme This Contradiction is somewhat to the matter in hand Wee thinke to prove a spirit of Contradiction to be in your Romane Church CHALLENGE II. ⚜ In confutation of both the pretended Romish manners of Transubstantiation joyntly VVHether you defend Transubstantiation by Production or by Adduction you are equally confutable in both even by your owne Principles who hold that if the Bread which is to bee Transubstantiated and changed into Christ's Body bee annihilated and brought to meere nothing it cannot bee said to bee Transubstantiated at all Now whether you thinke the Bread after consecration to be Annihilated we desire to know from your selves Say then but speak out without lisping or stammering we pray you that we may heare and understand you 5 Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. Cap. 24. Nego Panem annihilari nam etsi Panis nihil sit tamen id in quod ipse conversus ēst non est nihil nec nullū nec nusquam Although Bread after Consecration bee nothing saith Bellarmine yet it is not annihilated that is brought to nothing 6 Lessius Ies Opusc lib. 12. cap. 16. Circa substantiam Panis Vini primū miraculum est quòd hae substantiae vi Cō secrationis funditus pereant veluti annihilentur quamvis non solemus dicere eas annthilari eò quod haec desitio ex intentione divinâ non sistat in nihilo sed dirigatur ad positionem Corporis Christi verum hoc ad modum loquendi spectat nam quod ad rem attinet nihil omninò substantiae panis manet non forma non materia non existentia non gradus aliquis sed totum ità funditùs perit acsi prorsus in nihilum redactum esset nullo positivo succedēte nam quod aliud succedat non est ex vi illius desitio nis substantifico influxu subtracto necesse est Rem in nihilum relabi And the substance of Bread and Wine saith your Iesuit Lessius doe utterly perish and are as it were Annihilated So they calling this a being Nothing and yet not Annihilated this not annihilated and yet utterly perishing naming also this maner to bee Miraculous which we hold worthy rather to be esteemed Monstrous the speech is altogether so contradictory in it selfe Wherefore wee desire the foresaid Iesuite to play the Oedipus in unfolding this Riddle Our saying saith hee that Bread and Wine are not annihilated belongeth to the formalitie of speech for as concerning the thing it selfe there is nothing of the Bread remaining either in forme or matter So he But that say we which is nothing either in forme or matter is surely annihilated and therfore Bread becomming to be nothing before Christ's Body be present cannot possibly bee said to bee Changed into Christ's Body absent And that the rather because as one of your 7 Ioh. Pallanterius de Castro sacrae Theologiae Doctor Lectiones Aureae Nec materia nec forma panis manent in se vel in Corpore Christi post conversionem quià vere annihilantur Doctors more ingenuously confesseth Bread not remaining either in matter or forme is truly Annihilated To this Argument in our Apprehension Insoluble wee can receive from your great Dictator no better Answer than that 8 Bellar. quo suprà Pani sucredit Corpus Christi corrumpitur interit quicquid definit esse at non annihilatur nisi ità desinat esse ut nihil ea succedit ità ut ejus desitio terminetur in nihil Because the substance of Bread ceaseth to bee and the substance of Christ's Body succeedeth Therefore the substance of Bread is said to be changed into Christ's Body So he Which his crotchet of Change by Succeeding hath been already exploded as being but a Translocation by his owne * See above at g Societie And yet againe if it may bee more plainly your Iesuit Vasquez 9 Vasquez in 3. Thom. qu 75. Art 8. Disp 181. Cap. 2. Panis in conveersione desinit esse cùm dicitur panem desinere in corpus Christi non probat ipsam desitionem terminari formaliter ad positivum in quod fit conversio Quocirca modus ille loquendi non formaliter sed caus liter debet intelligi quis enim dicat defitionem alicujus rei formaliter in aliquid termanari Ità ut ipsa Productio seu Adductio non sit formaliter Conversio sed causa illius Est igitur Conversio formaliter Denominatio quaedam ordinis per modum Actus in eo quod definit relata ad id quod fuit causa desition◠Aliquam 〈…〉 Haea duo quae diximus sunt necessaria sufficiunt ut Panis Vinum hoc ipso quod desinant dicantur converti in corpus est sanguinem Christi Neither Production nor Adduction are formally this Conversion Our Second Proofe of the Falshood of the Article of Transubstantiation is from the Article of our Christian Creed BORNE OF THE VIRGIN MARY SECT II. T Ransubstantiation as hath beene defined by your Councell of Trent is a Conversion of the substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body Now in every such Substantiall Change there are Two Termes one is the Substance from which the other is the Substance whereinto the Substantiall Change is made as it was in Christ his miraculous Change of Water into Wine But this was by producing the Substance of Wine out of the Substance of Water as the matter from which the Conversion was made Therefore must it be by Production of the Substance of Christ's Body out of the Substance of Bread Your Cardinall hath no Evasion but by denying the Conversion to be by Production which notwithstanding was formerly the Generall Tenet of the Romish Schoole ever since the Doctrine of
and formes might be reduced to one Essence that things signifying and things signified might be called by the same names So hee A Catholike Father as all know whom if you aske what Consecrated thing it was which Christ had in his hands and gave to his Disciples hee answereth it was Bread and Wine and not absolutely that which he gave up to be Crucified on the Crosse by Souldiers namely his Body and Blood If againe you demand of Cyprian why Christ called the Bread which he had in his hand his Body he readily answereth saying The things signifying or Signes are called by the same names whereby the things signified are termed âšœ The Marcian Heretike held Bread and Wine to bee uncleane Creatures Tertullian confuteth them But how even by the Bread and Wine used of Christ in the Eucharist Because Christ saith he did not reject his Creature wherewith hee represented his owne Body In which Testimonie the word Representeth being spoken of the Eucharist it must needs note it as a thing Consecrated else could it not be said to Represent the Body of Christ And by calling this a Creature representing Christ's Body he distinguisheth it from Christ's Body And lastly the Heretike teaching the Substance and not the Accidents of the same Creature Bread to be uncleane and Tertullian disproving him by the Sacramentall Bread must as necessarily have meant a continuing of the Substance of Bread as all the Lawes of Arguing do proclame which teach all Answerers and Confuters to speake ad Idem âšœ A x Casaubon Exercit ad Baronij Annal c. 38. Ignatius Epist ad Epâ—es 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ad Philadelph de Eucharistia loqueas Panis inquit omnibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comminutus est Vox haec propriè de ijs usurpatur quae iâ— mâ—nutas partes comminuuntur Sunt qui eas micas vocant August in Epist 59. ad Paulinum Cum illud ait quod est in Domini mensâ benedicitur Sanctificatur ad distribuendum comminuitur Idem Casaub qua supra cap. 50. Olim in Ecclesia partes divisas vocabant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potiùs quà m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Patres in Synod Nicaen Can. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yea and Baronius himselfe Anno 57. num 149. Euchristiae partes Tert. de Monog Buccellas August ac Alij Particulas vocant Cyrillas in Ioh. l. 4. c. 14. Chrstus dedit fragmenta Panis Cyprianus de Coena Buccellam de manu Domini accipere And Aug. Burcella See 〈◊〉 5. c. 3. §. 2. Protestant of admirable learning unfolded unto you the Iudgement of Antiquitie from the Testimonies of divers Fathers in saying of this Sacrament after Consecration that The Bread by being divided is diminished that It is delivered by fragments that these are so little that they are to be called rather Bitts than Parts Thus they spake expressely of Bread Consecrated but to say that you eate Bitts and Fragments of whitenesse of Roundnesse and other Accidents who is so absurd among your selves and to affirme the same of Christ's Body who is so impious âšœ Onely it will be our duety to Answer the Objection of Doctor Heskins for proofe of the Corporall presence of Christ his Body who produceth the Cautions which Pope Clement in his second Epistle gave to the Priests and Deacons concerning the Fragments and pieces of that which he calleth Fragments of the Lords Body Charging them 22 Dr. Heskins in his Parliament of Christ That no Mice-dung may be seene among the Fragments of the Lords Portion Nor that they be Suffered to remaine rotten through their negligence We Answer First by the words Fragments of Christ's Portion are to be understood either meere Accidents and then are your Disputers unconscionable to argue from Fragments of meere Accidents for a Substantiall Existence of the Body of Christ Or else thereby you must believe they meant properly Christ's Body and then should you be altogether blasphemous to teach a Body of Christ rent into Fragments and Portions and the same pieces of the same Body to be in themselves subject unto the pollution of Mice-dung Putrification and Rottennesse Here indeed were there some use of the admirable * Below in the fourth Booke 〈◊〉 Nose of Ioane Martlesse above mentioned by your Iesuite to smell out the Abomination of this your Romish Doctrine Somewhat more of this Point when wee shall appeale to the Canon of that famous Councel of * See 〈…〉 c. 2. §. 10. in the Collenge Nice In the Interim wee may well thinke that that Primitive Church which abhorred to think the Body of Christ should be Devoured or passe into the Draught would never have consented as* Shee did to the Burying of the Sacrament which remained after the Communion if they had conceived it to bee Really the Body of Christ Another Inference wee may take from Antiquity in her calling this Sacrament Pignus a Pledge so y Hierom. in 1. Cor. 11. Dominus passionis suae ultimam nobis Commemorationem memoriam reliquit queÌ„admodùm siquis peregre proficiscens aliquod pignus ei quem diligit derelinquat ut possit eius amicitias beneficia commemorare Hierome and z Gaudent Tract 20. Christus crucifigendus istud haereditarium munus Testamenti ejus Novi tanquà m Pignus suae Praesentiae dereliquit Gaudentius of the Presence of Christ now departed from us A perfect Argument of the Bodily Absence of Christ by virtue of the Relation betweene the Person and his Pledge And so doth also * Primasius See-Booke 5. Chap. 9. §. 〈◊〉 Primasius The third and last Classis of Fathers may be viewed in the Section following A Confirmation of the same Iudgement of the Fathers acknowledging in expresse termes Bread to remaine after Consecration in Substance the same The First Father is THEODORET SECT XII THeodoret maketh a Dialogue or Conference betweene two Parties being in Controversie about the humane and bodily nature of Christ the one is named Eranistes upon whom is imposed the person of an Heretike for Defence of the Sect of the Eutychians who falsly held That the Body of Christ after his Ascension being glorified was swallowed up of his Deitie and continued no more the same humane and Bodily Essence as before his Resurrection it had beene The other Party and Disputer is named Orthodoxus signifying the Defender of the Truth of the Catholike Doctrine which Person Theodoret himselfe did sustaine in behalfe of the Catholike Church In this Dispute the Heretike is brought in for Defence of his Heresie arguing thus Even as Signes in the Eucharist after the words of Invocation or Consecration are not the same but are changed into the Body of Christ even so after his Ascension was his Body changed into a Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaning Substance of a Divine Essence Which both your Romanistes and Protestants confesse to have beene the Doctrine of these Heretikes This was that
Divine work without which the Element cannot be changed into a Sacrament either to signifie or yet to seale much lesse to convey any grace of God unto man And that wee may take you along with us It is the Doctrine of your Church with common consent saith your Romane g Solus Deus communi Consensu instituere Sacramenta ex authoritate potest quae gratiam efficiunt aut etiam infallibiliter significant Bellar. l. 1. de Sacram. in Gen. cap. 23. Cardinall that God onely can by his Authority institute a Sacrament because hee onely can give them power of conferring grace and of Infallible signification thereof So hee Well then aswell infallible Signification of Grace as the efficacious conveyance of Grace is the worke of the same Omnipocencie To this purpose more plainly your English Cardinall Alan speaking as hee saith from the judgement of Divines h Card. Alan de Sacram. in Gen. c. 17. 18. Sacramenti Institutionem neque ad Pontificem neque ad ullam Creaturam pertinere nec hoc solum sed etiam c propter solam significationem Gratiae quam Sacramentis omnibus Communem diximus dâ—bebant etiam vetera Sacramenta determinari per applicationem mortis Christi quia licet quidem in Creaturis ad signationem effectuum spiritualium aptitudo quaedam sit tamen ista aptitudo non nisi a divinâ institutione determinaâ—ur ad peculiarem effectum Habet enim Aqua ex natura sua ut munditiem significet at ut determinatè purgationem animae à peccato originali significet hominis sanctificationem repraesentet divinae tantùm institutionis est per quam elevatur Creatura haec supra naturae consuetudinem non solùm quoad vim operandi sed etiam significandi Non potest Sacramentum nisi à solo Deo Ordinari quià habent Sacramenta Supernaturalem Effectum ut in veteri lege quae debant munditiem legalem These hee saith that he speaketh Ex Theologorum Sententia telleth you that Although there be an aptnesse in every Creature to beare a signification of some spirituall effect yet cannot the aptnesse be determinatly applyed unto any peculiar effect no not so much as to signifie the outward Cleannesse of mans Body Sacramentally without a Divine Institution much lesse to represent mans sanctification but being so determinated and ordained of God the Creature saith hee is elevated above the Custome of nature not only in respect of the worke of sanctification but even of signification also So hee and that as well as wee could wish for this Omnipotent Change of a Creature into a Sacrament and this Iustrumentall Cause of conferring Sanctifying Grace to the Faithfull Communicant is the Generall Doctrine of all Protestants But what Change shall we thinke Of the Substance of Bread into the Substance of Christs Body as you teach No but as * Booke 2. Chap. 3. §. 6. before Isidore sayd The Change of visible things by the spirit of God into a Sacrament of Christs Body So hee This being a Change from a Property naturall into a Property Supernaturall which Change is Divine albeit but Accidentall whereunto accordeth that objected place of * See above at the letter c Augustine that This is sanctified by the Spirit of God to bee a Sacrament Seeing then that both Divine power and authority is required in every Sacrament to make it either infallibly significant or else efficaciously profitable to man and that it is by the same Divine power that the Element is Changed by being Elevated from a common unto a spirituall and divine property of a Sacramentall Signification as one of your Cardinalls hath sayd What an unconscionablenesse is it then in your Disputers from the termes of Omnipotencie and Divine working which is necessarily in all Sacraments to conclude a Change of the Element of Bread by Transubstantiation as you have heard But much more transparent will their Vnconscionablenesse bee if we consult with the Objected Fathers themselves For first Ambrose who observeth an Omnipotencie in the Change of this Sacrament explaineth himselfe what kind of Efficacy hee meant viz. such that i Ambros lib. 4 de Sac. am c. 4. Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini ut incipianâ— ess quae non erant quantò magis Operatorius est ut sint quae erant â—t in alâ—d convertantur Tu ipse eras verâ—â—s homo postquà m consecratus eras no vus homo esse coepisti The things changed into a divine Sacrament are still the same which they were before namely according to their natural property Which one Clause doth so strangle all conceit of Transubstantiation that it may seeme you have some reason to wipe this Testimony of S. Ambrose out of your new k These words ut sint quae erant are wanting in the Roman and Paris Editions Anno 1603 as Bishop Vsher 〈◊〉 nesseth in his Answer to the Tesuit Editions notwithstanding by Gods providence so much of Ambrose his tongue is preserved even in the same place as will convince your Objectors of wilfull Falshood telling you by a Similitude that the Change of Bread in this Sacrament is like to the Change whereby a Christian Regenerate l See above at 1 of an old Creature is made a new Creature which is as every Christian knoweth not a change in the substantiall nature of man but in the Accidentall properties So this Bread of a common bodily Food is made Sacramentall And the same Father who said of a man that by Baptisme hee is made a new Creature saith also of this Sacrament that m Per 〈…〉 â—or Explicatiâ—e Corpus significatur By Benediction Bread is made another nature namely of an Elementall become Sacramentall as you have heard and as his owne words import After Consecration the Body of Christ is Signified and that which was Wine Is called Blood In the Testimony of Cyprian you applaud your selves for to your Lindan n Lâ—ndan Aâ—ea 〈…〉 Cypriâ—ni vâ—â—o â—ie 〈…〉 advâ—gilate Evangâ—â—â— Dâ—vum Cypâ—anum orbâ—s totius Doctorem imòâ—n râ—culum judicem incorruptâ—â—lâ—m 〈◊〉 lib. 4 cap 6. The words of Cyprian appeare Goldenâ— and hee must needs provoke forsooth all Gospellers to hearken unto them which also seemeth to your o Hoâ— Testimonâ—um nullam admitâ—◠〈…〉 lib 2 〈…〉 c. 9. § 〈…〉 Cardinall To admit no solution Our Answer first unto the Author is to deny it to bee the Testimony of Cyprian may we noâ— This Sermon of the Supper of the Lord is by us saith your Master p Mr. 〈◊〉 Litâ—rg Praef. §. 14. pag 51. Brerely attributed to Cyprian Whom of your Side he mean by Vs you may bee pleased to aske him sure wee are your Cardinall doth tell us that q Author illius de Coena Domiâ—â—t non est Cyprianus â—ed aliquis post cum Bellar. â—â— 2. de Eâ—ch cap 9. §. Extet The Author of this Booke is not Cyprian but some other
Body especially from this Father S. Cyprian who teacheth every Christian how to interpret the sense of Christ's words in calling Bread his Body and Wine his Blood viz. 6 Cyprian de Vnctione Dedit Dominus in mensa in qua ultimum cum Apostolis participavit Convivium proprijs manibus Panem Vinum in Cruce vero manibus militum corpus tradidit vulnerandum ut in Apostolis exponeret quomodo Vinum Panis corpus esset sanguis Christi quibus rationibus causae cum effectibus convenirent diversa nomina vel species ad unam reducerentur essentiam significata significantia eisdem â—ocabulis censerentur Things signifying as Signes and things signified are called by the same termes or names What is if this be not our Protestant Doctrine And were it that Cyprian could possibly have meant a Creating of Christ's Body in this Sacrament properly yet could not such our Opposers have bewrayed more stupiditie or else obstinacie than by urging this Sentence whereby two Articles of your Councel of Trent are absolutely strangled The first is Transubstantiation which as you confesse is of Something Pre-existent Whereas Creation as all know is from a meere Nothing The second Tridentine Article is that the Body of Christ as it is in this Sacrament is whole in the whole Host and in every part thereof But Cyprian saith of that Body which hee calleth Created that It is divided Wee have light upon another sentence of Cyprian objected out of the same place and as vehemently pressed as any other out of Cyprian 7 Cyprian de Coenae Dom. in the place objected Ineffabiliter Sacramento visibili divina se infundit essentia ut esset Religioni circa Sacramenta devotio ut ad veritatem cujus corpus sanguis Sacramenta sunt syncerior paâ—eret accessus Objected by Dr. Heskins in his Parliament of Christ The Divine essence saith Cyprian infuseth it selfe into this Sacrament that wee should have a religious devotion towards it that a more sincere addresse may be had to be the Truth whereof the Body and Blood are Sacraments So he Now that you may know our willingnesse to go along with you in the exposition of this Sentence so farre as either the sense of the words will beare or Cyprian his owne direction will permit Wee grant first that the Divine Essence which is the divine power of Christ is exercised in every Sacrament by making it effectuall to the salvation of the Communicants Secondly that by the word Verity or Truth is meant the Reality of his Body and Blood And Thirdly that every one that approacheth to this Sacrament ought to come with a Religious Devotion and sincere affection The onely difference is how Christ's Body and Blood are said to bee Sacraments of the Reality of his Body and Blood here mentioned and your onely Answer is that Christ is a figure and signe of himselfe as hee is in this Sacrament which figment is easily confuted by a Catholike and universall doctrine of all Christian Churches which is that every Sacrament is a visible Signe of an invisible Grace But in this Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ properly taken are nothing lesse than Visible by your owne Confessions who teach them to bee so Invisible herein that they cannot bee discerned either by Angel or the Bodily eyes of Christ himselfe You perceive by this that your Boast of this Place of Cyprian is but a vaine blast Wherefore wee expound the words thus Christ's Body and Blood that is the outward Symbols carrying the names of his Body and Blood are Sacraments and Seales of that Verity of the same Body which was crucifyed and of the same Blood which was shed upon the Crosse for man's Redemption and are here Sacramentally exhibited to the soules of the Faithfull But you will aske who will warrant this our Exposition of the words of Cyprian and wee Answer that wee shall need no other Interpreter than Cyprian himselfe already alleged saying * See before at num 6. in the Morgin that Things signifying are called by the names of Things signifyed So he there and therefore so here are Bread and Wine called the Body and Blood of Christ being in themselves onely Sacraments and Signes whereof you have had example in his Saying that Christ herein created his Body by Body meaning Bread as your Cardinall hath confessed Which may give you a true Patterne of the genuine Idiome of the Fathers as often as they call the Bread Christ's Body or Wine his Blood and that all such Speeches are not more yours in sound than they are ours in true and Orthodox Sense The second Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Disputers for abuse of the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers is seene in objecting their deniall of Common and Bare Bread in this Sacrament for an Argument of Transubstantiation SECT III. TO this purpose Irenaeus saying that a Irenaeus lib. 4. contra Haer cap. 34. Non est Panis Communis Bellar. Obijcit lib. 2. de Euch. per totum It is not Common Bread Ergo say you not to be properly judged by Sense Vnconscionably knowing that b Sol. Chrysost in Psal 22. hom 16. De aqua Baptismi Non est aqua Communis Chrysostome and also other Fathers whom you moreover object saith likewise of the Sacrament of Baptisme * See in this Section liâ— c. h. Wee are to behold it not as common water The second is Iustine Martyr saying d Bellamin Oblustin Mart. lib 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Sol. Ratio quia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Eucharisticatus sivè sanctificatus Cibus Wee receive these not as Common Bread or Common Drinke Therefore say you we may not judge them by Sense Vnconscionably knowing that Iustine Martyr in the same place sheweth his Reason why it is not to be called Common even because saith he it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Sanctified meat And so Water in Baptisme is Sanctified as you know The third is Cyrill of Ierusalem saying e Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 13. Ob. Cyril Hieros Catech. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sol. Iâ—em Catech 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consider these not as Common Bread and Wine Ergo say you not to bee judged by Sense Vâ—conscionably knowing that the same Cyrill in the same place saith the same of the water of Baptisme It is not simple Water Yea but hee further saith say f Oh. Cyrill mystag 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you Thinke not of it as of bare Bread adding but the Body of Christ Ergo say you not to bee judged otherwise by Sense Vnconscionably knowing that the same Father in the same place for explanation sake saith likewise of g â—ot Sequiturs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem Catech. Mystag 3 Sacred Oyle viz. Even so that holy Oyle is not bare and simple Oyle Adding but the gift of Grace And that your Authours
Vnconscionablenesse may bee the more notorious in their Wresting of the Catholike meaning of the Fathers in this kind wee must tell you that there is no speech more familiar unto ancient Fathers than to esteeme as they ought all Sacramentall Signes Sacred and therefore no more Common or bare Elements Inso much that Gregory Nyssen speaking of a Ceremony inferior to this Sacrament which is the Altar or Table of the Lord hee saith that h Greg. Nysson Altare hoc sanctum cui adsistimus lâ—pis est naturâ Communis nihil differenâ— ab alijs crustis lapideâ—s ex quibus pavimenta nostra exornantur Sed quoniam Dei cultui consecratur dâ—dicatur benedictionem accepâ—t meÌ„sa facta Altare immaculatum est Orat de Sancto Baptismo Et nè contemnas divinum Lavacrum neque id Commune putes c. Although by nature it bee but as other stone wherewith the Pavements are garnished and adorned yet being Consecrated to Gods Service by Benediction it is an holy Table and Altar Adding also of Baptisme and saying The Divine Water is not to bee contemned nor to bee held as Common Yea and what lesse doth your Church say of your hallowed Balsome Beads and Bells and the like all which you distinguish from Common and bare Oyles and Metals because of their different use and service without Opinion of any Change of Substance at all The third Vnconscionablenes of your Disputers in urging for proofe of Transubstantiation the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers forbidding men to Discerne of this Sacrament by their Senses And first of their abusing the Testimony of Cyril by two egregious Falsifications SECT IV. VVEe may not easily passe over your Objection taken out of Cyrill being in the opinion of your Cardinall so impregnable Let us first here your Objector i Cyrilli Testimonium vel solum sufficere deberet est enim hujus Sancti antiquissimi ex opere ejus indubitâ—to clarissiâ—uâ— apertissimum ut nullo modo perverti possit est in Catechesi in quâ solent omnia propriè simplicâ—â—er explicari deniquè nemo unquam reprehendit Cyrillum erroris alicujas circa Eucharistiam Bâ—â—llâ—r lib 2. de Euch. cap. 13. This Testimony of Cyrill alone ought to suffice being the Sentence of an holy man and most ancient out of a worke which unquestionably was his yea and most cleare and plaine as that it cannot be perverted Besides it is in his Catechisme wherein the use of all things is delivered simply properly and plainly Nor was this Father Cyrill ever reproved of Error in his doctrine of the Eucharist Thus farre your Cardinall you see with as accurate an Oratory of Amplification as could bee invented What Protestant would not now if ever expect a deadly blow from this Father to our Catholike Cause but attend to the Issue First k Cyril Pro certissimo habeas Panem hunc qui videtur à nobis Panem non esse etiamsi gustus Panem esse senserit sed esse Corpus Christi Rursus Christus cui credamus Panem in Corpus Transmutavit Nam sub specie Panis datur tibi corpus sub specie Vini datur tibi sanguis Catech. Mystag 4. Cyril will not allow a man to credit his Taste but although Taste saith it is Bread yet undoubtedly to beleeve it to be the Body of Christ whereinto the bread is changed And he is brought in by your l Cyrillus apertè ponit Transmutationem Panis in corpus Christi solas species Panis remanere post Transmutationem quià dicit Corpus Domini sub specie Panis sumâ— distinguens Corpus à Pane. Bellar lib. 2 de Euch cap. 13. adding Hoc est Apertissimum Argumentum Cardinall to averre furthermore that The Body of Christ is given under the forme of Bread And so the Sentence seemeth to bee most manifest saith he But for what wee pray you That first forsooth the Change is the same with Transubstantiation and secondly that there is no more Substance of Bread but Accidents under the forme of Bread So he and Master * Liturg. Tractat 2. §. 2. Subd 4. pag. 116. Brerely from him as followeth Cyril saith under the forme of Bread his Body is given c. and then dancing in the same triumph addeth Can any Catholike of this Age write more plainely So he And we answer could any Iugglers deale more falsely For upon due examination it will appeare to be a manifest Delusion by a false Translation of Cyrils words The Body of Christ is given as your Cardinall doth render it sub specie Panis in or under the forme of Bread whereas it is in the Greeke m Cyril 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cateâ—â— Mystag 4. Russus Mystag 5. Non existimetis vos gustare Panem Vinum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnder the Type of Bread even as he saith afterwards Thinke not that you taste bread but the Antitype of Christ's Body In both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Type and Antitype not Forme or Figure of Bread Now there is a maine and manifest difference betweene Forme and Type For Accidentall Formes are things Reall and the determinate Objects of Sense but Types or Antitypes are onely Relatives and as such no Objects of Sense but of Reason and understanding onely As for example when a Iudge is set in his Scarlet upon the Bench the Eye seeth nothing but the colour and the fashion of the Gowne and outward figurature of his Face and so may every Child see him for these are Outward and Visible Accidents But to see that man as he hath upon him the person of a Iudge ordained to trie Causes betweene Parties is a sight of the minde which looketh upon his Office to discerne him by his Habit from common Subjects Even so is it in this Sacrament As the Bread and Wine are Round and White and Sweet in Taste our Bodily Senses perceive them but as they are Types and Antitypes that is Signes of the Body and Blood of Christ so are they spiritually discerned with our understanding onely As therefore it followeth not that the Scarlet Gowne of the Iudge because it is an Ensigne of his Office should be onely Colour and Fashion without the matter and Substance of the Cloth no more can any conclude from Cyril that because the Sacrament is a Type therefore this Type was onely Forme and outward Accidents without all Substance of Bread And thus your Cardinall his first Apertissimum Argumentum for proofe of Accidents without the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament is proved to be Apertissimum Figmentum void of all substance or almost shadow of Truth His next Observation is the Change by Transubstantiation and the errour of Sense in judging it to be Bread Wee call upon Cyril to decide this Controversie who is best able to interpret himselfe Hee therefore that said of the Eucharist after
Dei modus igitur edendi Patribus à nostro diversus quia Substantialis hodiè manducatio quae tunc esse non potuit nempe dum carne pro nobis immolatâ Christus nos pascit ut vitam ab ejus substantia hauriamus Ibid. pag. 83. Calvin himselfe as would make any Romish Adversary blush at your former Calumnies who hath not abandoned shamefastnesse it selfe ⚜ As that your Doctor must needs have done 1 Dr. Heskins in his Parliam of Christ Book 3. cap. 48. who therefore upbraided Protestants with their Common Bread onely because they denyed it to be Transubstantiated into Christ's Body even in the same his Booke wherein notwithstanding he confesseth the Shew-Bread delivered to David by Abimelech to have beene no Common Bread Which because it was before Christ incarnate in the flesh you your selves will sweare was not Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ and yet notwithstanding was it no Common Bread CHALLENGE THus may you see that wee have not hitherto so pleaded for the Existence of the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration as thereby to exclude all Presence of Christ his Body nor so maintained the proprietie of a Signe or Figure as not to beleeve the thing signified to be exhibited unto us as you have heard With what blacke spot of malignity and falshood then were the Consciences of those your Doctors defiled thinke you who have imputed to Protestants a Profession of using onely bare Bread which they notwithstanding teach and beleeve to bee a Sacred Signe of the true Body of Christ in opposition to Heretikes an Evangelicall Signe of the Body of the Messias crucified against all Iewish conceit yea a Seale of Ratification yea and also a Sacramentall Instrument of conveying of the same precious Body of Christ to the soules of the faithfull by an happy and ineffable Conjunction whereof more hereafter in the * In the fift Book throughout Booke following where the consonant doctrine of the Church of England will likewise appeare And as your Disputers are convinced of a malicious Detraction by the confessed positions of Protestants so are they much more by your owne Instance of a Crucifix◠for which of you would not hold it a great derogation from Christ that any one seeing a Crucifix of wood now waxen old should in disdaine thereof call it a wooden or rotten Blocke and not account them irreligious in so calling it but why onely because it is a signe of Christ crucified Notwithstanding were the Crucifix as glorious as either Art could fashion or Devotion affect or Superstition adore yet is it but a signe invented by man And therefore how infinitely more honourable in all Christian estimation must a Sacramentall Signe be which onely the God of Heaven and Earth could institute and Christ hath ordained to his Church farre exceeding the property of a bare signe as you have heard A Father delivering by politike assurances under hand and seale a portion of Land although an hundred miles distant and conveying it to his Sonne by Deed if the Sonne in scorne should terme the same Deed or writing blacke Inke the Seale greasie Waxe and the whole Act but a bare signe were he not worthy not only to loose this fatherly Benefit but also to be deprived of all other the temporall Blessings of a Father which hee might otherwise hope to enjoy yet such like have beene your Calumnies and opprobrious Reproaches against our celebration of the Sacrament of Christ The Lord lay not them to your Charge Now you who so oppose against the Truth of the Mysticall Presence will not conceale from us that Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ which your Church doth so extremely dote on CHAP. II. The Romish professed maner of Presence of Christs Body in this Sacrament SECT I. OVr Methode requireth to consult in the first place in all Questions with the words of Christ his Institution but seeing that you can allege nothing for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament but only a literall Exposition of Christ's words This is my Body which by Scriptures Fathers your owne Principles and by unanswerable Reasons hath beene * Booke 2. proved to be most grosly false wee shall not need to insist further upon that only wee shall but put you in mind of Saint Pauls words in teaching the use and end of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament to wit The shewing of Christ's death untill his coming againe meaning corporally at the last day Which word VNTILL being spoken of a last day doth exclude your coming againe of Christ in his Corporall Presence every day for the Apostles word is absolutely spoken of his Bodily Coming and not of the maner therof albeit other Scripture teach that his Coming must be in all glorious Visibility We goe on In the Eucharist saith your m Si quis negaverit in sanctissima Eucharistia contineri verè realiter substantialiter corpus sanguinem Christi Anathema sit Concil Trid. Sess 13. Can. 1. Nos dicimus Dominum Christum corporalitèr sub specie panis conemeri Gre. Valent. Tom. 4. disp 6. qu. 3. pag 1. Councell of Trent is contained truly really and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ and they account him Accursed whosoever shall not beleeve this By all which is signified a Corporall maner of presence excepting onely Relation to place which we say is in many respects impossible as wee shall prove but first wee are to remove two Mil-stones for so you esteeme your Objections which you cast in our way of Demonstration of a Corporall Presence First de facto from as you say Miracles manifesting the same And the Second is your Pretence of Omnipotencie for the effectuating that Presence The pretended principall Romish Demonstration of a Corporall Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in this Sacrament taken from pretended n Supremus Iorus detur miraculis veluti testimonis 〈◊〉 Dei Bozius de finis Eccles lib 14. cap. 7. pag. 170. Miraculous Apparitions of visible Flesh and Blood revealed to the World SECT II. TRue Miracles wee shall hold as Gods Seales of Divine Truth if therefore you shall allege any such for proofe of a Corporall Presence see they be true else shall wee judge them not to be Gods Seales but the Devills Counterfaits Your Bozius one of the number of the Congregation of the Oratory in Rome professedly studied in historicall learning and appointed to extract out of all Authors whatsoever may make for defence of all Romish Causes after his diligent search into all ancient Records as it were into the Ware-houses of all sorts of stuffes having collected a packet of Apparences useth his best Eloquence to set forth his merchandize to sale telling us by the way of Preface o Hic ea tantummodò referemus quibus est palam factum divinitus in Eucharistia verum corpus esse oculi humani viderunt quod est omnium
Communicant to be a creature clothed with Shadowes armed with Idaea's fed with Abstracts augmented with Fancies second Intentions and Individuall Vagues and consisting wholly of Chimaera's That your Romish Doctrine is contrary to the Iudgement of ancient Fathers SECT VI. IF this your profession had beene a Catholike Doctrine doubtlesse S. Augustine who is so devout in his fervent Meditations upon this holy mystery would not have oppugned it as hee did when unto that Question of Volusianus whether the Bodie of Christ before his Birth did fill the Body of the Blessed Virgin hee answered d Aug. Nullum corpus potest esse ubique totum quantumcunque corpus vel quantulumcunque corpusculum loci occupet spacium eundemquè locum sic occupet ut in nulla ejus parte sit totum necesse est longè alia natura est animae quà m corporis quanto magis Dei Lib. 1. Ep. 3. ad Volusian Whose question to S. Augustine was Vtrum Christus intemeratae foeminae corpus impleverit That every Body be it greater or lesse wheresoever it is must needs fill that space wherein it is so that the same Body cannot be the whole in any part thereof So hee which is directly Contradictory to your Article of Trent for here is expresse mention of Relation to Place and Space And whereas for usuall colour of a Possibility that the whole Body of Christ is in every part of the Hoast you have objected the Example of Man's Soule which is sayd to be whole in every member and part of the Body Saint Augustine as if hee had fore-seene your mystery of Errour pre-occupateth saying a In eo quod dicitur Deus ubique carnali cogitationi resistendum est mens acorporis sensibus amorenda ne quasi spaciosa magnitudine opinemur Deum per cuncta diffundi ut aër aut lux omnis enim hujusmodi magnitudo minor in sua parte quà in toto sed ita potius ut est magna sapientia etiam in homme cujus corpus est parvum Nâ—m si duo sint homines aequalâ—er sapientes quorum alter est corpore grandiâ—r non plus sapiunt ambo quam singuli sic in minore corpore non minor est sani tas cum minora majora corpora tam sanâ— sine Dispâ—r est profecto in membroruÌ„ molibus quantitas sed par est in disparatis sanitas quae non quantitas sed qualitas est Non potâ—â—t ergo obtinere quantitas corporis quod qualitas Aug. Epist 57. ad Dardan The nature of a Soule is farre different from the nature of a Body And againe the same holy Father seeking to find out some Similitude whereby wholly to resemble the Existence of God in respect of Place in the end saith that Quality hath a prerogative to make some Similitude hereof and hee doth instance in Wisedome which saith hee is as great in a little man as in a great man but denyeth that Quantity hath any such Privilege for speaking of Quantity and Magnitude In all such Quantity or Magnitude saith hee there is lesse in the part than there is in the whole And by this same Maxime concerning Whole in respect of Place hee distinguisheth the God-head from the Man-hood by which you have confounded them And yet againe else-where as though hee thought this your delusion could never be sufficiently contradicted or rather derided hee will further have you not to be so Childish as not to know that b Idem Minor est unus digitus quam tota manus minor est digitus unus quam duo alibi est iste digitus alibi ille alibi coetera manus Nec solùm immobilibus corporis articulis sed etiam aëris partes suos implent locos Lucisque pars alia infunditur per hanc fenestram alta per aliam major per majorem per minorem autem minor Idem Tom 6. 〈◊〉 fundament cap. 1â— The little finger is lesse than the whole hand and one finger is lesse than two and that one finger is one where and the other another where Vpon which where and where being notes of distinct places wee may aske where are your Disputers now Nay yet furthermore passing from grosser Bodies he saith as much of Ayre yea and of the most subtill of subtills the light of the Sunne one part whereof saith hee cometh in at one window another at another window yet so that the lesse passeth through the lesse and the greater through the greater Moreover if Saint Gregory once Bishop of Rome had beleeved that Christ his Body is whole in every least indivisible part of the Hoast hee would never have condemned the Eutychian Heretike for beleeving c Auâ—ungebat Haeretious omne illud quod in Domino 〈◊〉 potuit post resurrectionem in soâ—â—itatem aliquam esse redactam Greg. Exposit Moral lib. 14. cap. 31. The Body of Christ to have bin brought into such a subtilty that it cannot be felt But a greater subtilty there cannot be than for a divisible Body to be enclosed in every the least indivisible point Show us this Doctrine taught by any Catholike Doctor in the Church within the compasse of the twelve hundred yeares after Christ and then shall wee conceive better of your Cause And lest you may talke as you use of one Body penetrating another wee lay unto you as Damascen sayd unto his Reader that d Damasien l. 1. de Orthodox 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is impossible but that either the one or the other must be divided asunder Wee say furthermore that though this were granted yet would you your selves deny that the other must follow as you may discerne in Angels who are Spirits and moe of them may be naturally in one singular place yet no one can be naturally in two places at once That the Romish Objections against our former Tenet taken from Miraculous Penetrations are feeble and vaine SECT VII IT is ordinarily in the mouthes of every one of you to object the Miraculous entrance of Christ into the house the doores being shut his coming out of the grave when it was covered with a stoâ—e as some thinke his Birth from his mother her wombe being shut besides the miraculous passing of a Camell through the eye of a needle spoken of by Christ all Miraculous indeed as wee with many holy * Chrysost Nazianâ—â— Aug. Ambros Fathers do willingly Confesse What therefore Therefore say you the Body of Christ did passe through the substantiall dimensions of the Body of the Doores Stone and wombe and consequently confuteth all this which hath beene spoken of the Organicall proportions of a Body in respect of Space or Place So you Wee grant unto you as much as these Fathers speake in noting each of these to have beene the Acts and workes of Omnipotencie but yet without any penetration of Dimensions at all or yet Alteration of the just proportion of Christs Body Which penetration of
quibus Divites comparantur cum depâ—â—â—â—â— grave in Sarciaâ—â—â— peccatorum totius corporis privitatem intrare possint per aâ—gustam portam As the Camels Beasts to whom the rich are resembled could passe through the straight gate of Hierusalem as soone as they were disburthened of their loads So Rich men casting off the load of their sins may enter in at the straight gate that leadeth unto life A Vindication of Truth against an Objected Testimony under the name of Pope Hilary for proofe of the Being of the whole Body of Christ in every part of the Hoast SECT VIII VVE are to insert in this place the forgotten Objected words which passe under the name of Pope Hilarie and recorded in your Papall decrees 10 Decret de Consecratione Dist 2. Vbi pars ex Hilario Papa Vbi pars est corporis est totum eadem est ratio in corpore Domini qâ—ae est in Manna quod in cjus figura praecessit de quo dicitum Qui plus collogerat ' non habuit amplius neque qui minus 〈◊〉 habâ—â—â— minus Non enim est quantites visibilis aestimanda in hoc mysterio sed virtus 〈◊〉 spiritualis 〈…〉 Non est quantitas aestimanda ut sub minori quantitate minus sic Corpus Christi sub 〈◊〉 where there is part of Christs Body in the Sacrament there is the whole there being the same reason of this as there was of Manna whereof it is written Hee that gathered much had no more than others and hee that gathered not so much had no whit lesse Which your Romish Glosse applyeth to the Sacrament to signifie that There is no lesse quantity of Christs Body under a lesse quantity of the Sacrament none greater under a greater Our Answer is Three-fold I. That your Doctors could never yet prove the writings which goe under the name of Popes * Legat qai velit nostri Roberti Coci Censuram Scriptorum Decret all Epistles to have beene truly theirs whereof many of themselves have doubted and which some also have denyed II. That the Comparison fighteth mainly against your professed Romane Faith in this very point which you contend for For you teach Body of Christ to be whole in the whole and in every the least imaginable part of the Hoast without all maner of situation therein so as not having the Head above and the Feete below This you cannot deny to be your owne positive Tridentine Sense But the Manna which was diminished and augmented in Quantity by Gods providence had notwithstanding a certaine determinate Quantitie expressely mentioned in the same Text Every man a Gomer according to their families namely every one an equall but yet a severall measure and Quantity for one mans Manna was not the same which another had This agreeth not with your Corporall eating of one and the same Body of Christ Next the Granes of the same Manna for it was like Coriander-seed had their severall situations and distinct places in every Gomer some lying above and some below some on the right side and some on the left side of the Measure which differences you absolutely deny to accord with the maner of Christs being in this Sacrament III. The Comparison will farre better suite with the Spirituall soules receiving of the Body of Christ Every Faithfull one indeed participating the same whole Christ by Faith whether in a Greater or lesser Hoast without all proportioning of his Bodily Dimensions âšœ CHALLENGE SHall not then the Novelty of your Romish Article which was no so much as beleeved of Romish Doctors of this last Age of Christianitie Shall not your Contradiction to your owne Romish Principle Shall not the expresse Testimony of Saint Augustine who as hee was universally acknowledged to be a Catholike Father so was hee never condemned by any other Catholike Father for this his Doctrine concerning the Existence of Bodily parts according to proportionable Dimensions of Space Finally shall not the affinity which your opinion hath with damnable Heresies perswade you of the falsity of this your Romish Faith CHAP. IX Of the fift Romish Contradiction against the words of Christ MY BODY as the same Body is now considered to be most perfect by making it most Imperfect SECT I NOne will thinke we neede to impose any absurd Doctrine upon your Church the Absurdities which wee have already heard professed therin under the testifications of your owne Disputers having beene so marvellously and palpably absurd as hath beene shewne Among which wee may reckon this that followeth as not the least prodigious Consequence of your Romish Corporall Presence to wit That your Church of Rome alloweth a Doctrine teaching a Body of Christ now glorified to be destitute of naturall and voluntary motion of Sense and of Vnderstanding SECT II. CAtholike Faith never conceived otherwise of the humane nature of Christ after the Resurrection but that hee was able naturally of himselfe as hee was man to performe the perfect Acts which other men can who are of right constitution of Body and of sound understanding such as are the functions of Iudgement and reason and of appetite sense and motion according to the liberty of his owne will This Doctrine was above a thousand yeeres Catholike But your now Romane Faith is to beleeve as followeth in the Conclusions set downe by your Jesuite a Suarez Ies Dico secundò corpus Christi ut est in hoc Sacramento potest per se moveri localiter à Deo loquor de potentia Dei absoluta Nam juxta legem statutam suppono corpus Christi nunquam separari à speciebus nec moveri nisi motis illis neque in hac conclusione invenies Theologum ullum aperte contradicentem In tertiam Tho. qu. 76. Art 7. Disput 32. Conc. 2. Conclus 3. Corpus Christi ut est in hoc Sacramento non possit naturaliter moveri localiter ab intrinseco à propria anima interna virtute motiva naturall neque per se neque per accidens Loquor de naturali virtute non ut est instrumentum verbi operans per virtutem miraculorum effectricem Ratio quia non potest anima movere corpus suum nisi per membra organica quae habent extensionem in locum Sed membra corporis Christi non hoc modo existunt in hoc Sacramento multo minus potest movere species Sacramentales quas nec physice contingere possit neque ad motum voluntatis movere Ibid Conclus ult Potest ut est in hoc Sacramento virtue extrinseca moveri per Accidens quia possunt Sacramentales species moveri ut a Sacerdote Elevando Sect. 3. De sensibus exterioribus Nominales citati dicunt posse Christum ut est in hoc Sacramento ut Deum audire c. Alij hoc negant Sunt nonnulli qui negant id fieri posse de Potentiâ Dei absolutâ ut corpus in extensum à loco aut seipsum videat aut alia Dico non
your framing a Christ unto your selves who as hee 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 party so maymed c. This is worse than your dirty imagination of placing him in a Dunghill âšœ A Vindication of the former Truth against the palpably-Absurd albeit amongst you most plausible Defence of your seeming Romish Absurdities in Master Fishers Answer to KING JAMES of Blessed and ever surviving Memory SECT VI. HIs Tractate upon Transubstantiation so greatly magnified of the Romish Professors is very large wee shall draw his principall Points into a Compendium which consisteth of two Generalls and of divers Particulars His two Generalls are his Position and Supposition Master Fisher his Generall Position for Defence of Romish Absurdities the Consequences of your Transubstantiation Numb 1. A Christian Catholike saith he Seeing in the doctrine of Transubstantiation many seeming Absurdities that presse carnall Imaginations to the ground growes more and more strong to believe them imbracing these difficulties as signes of that doctrine which was believed of the Primitive Church And againe The seeming Absurdities should rather incline a Christian to beleeve this mystery Our Reply in Generall to prove that his former Assertion may truly be termed FISHERS FOLLIE For if the Absurder a thing be it shall deserve a more beliefe then the Pagans of whom Tully could say There is nothing so Absurd which is not taught of some Philosopher even to the affirming of Snow to be Blacke should be held to be more faithfull than the best of Christians and Heretikes who have turned their Phantasticall dreames into Articles of Faith should be judged to be more true Beleevers than are true Catholikes And sure wee are that by this Position the Jewish Rabbins who taught the people to beleeve in an implicit Faith all their Doctrines albeit it were to hold his Left hand was his Right should bee esteemed no lesse Faithfull than the Papist who by like Doctrine of blind Obedience have professed that Christ his Bodie being in divers Hoasts taketh the Right hand and left hand of it selfe And by the same Assertion shall Master Fisher thinke himselfe to be a better Catholike than were any of the ancient Fathers or yet any Romish Doctor yea or than is M. Fisher himselfe as will appeare in the sequele of our Reply The second Generall is Master Fisher his Supposition Numb 2. Master Fisher his Supposition is That although the Absurdities which are imputed by Protestants to your Doctrine of Transubstantiation seeme to be such Because they are not apprehensible by reason yet are they therefore saith he the rather to be beleeved notwithstanding whatsoever Impossibilities that can be pretended So hee Our Confutation must be accordingly two-fold The first in respect of Impossibilities and the next of Indignities Our Reply displaying the Absurditie of Master Fishers Supposition in respect of Impossibilities by the Generall Doctrine of Fathers Consent of Romish Divines and by his owne particular Praevarication First the Ancient Fathers of the Primitive age have unanimously professed a Doctrine of an Absolute Impossibility in all such things which imply any Contradiction as you have * See above in this B. 4. cap. 3. Sect. 2. 3. heard and maintaining this Doctrine of granting an Impossibilitie in such Cases to be a Truth greatly magnifying the Omnipotencie and Almighty power of God even by reason of Contradiction in them which is an affirming and denying of the same thing Concluding furthermore that gain-saying of Impossibilitie in things contradictory hath beene anciently The Sanctuary of Heretikes So the holy Fathers Secondly all the Doctors of the Romish Schooles of whatsoever Age Sect Society or Denomination have subscribed to the judgement of those Ancient Fathers in the same point of Impossibilitie but why Impossibility Because say they that such things are unconceivible in mans reason and that they seeme Absurd because of Contradiction And hereupon have concluded of many Impossibilities touching a Body as for example * See above c. 3. Impossible for a Body to be produced in divers places at once Impossible for a quantitie of a Bodie not to possesse a place Impossible for Christs Body as in this Sacrament to goe from one place to another Impossible for the same Bodie to be equall with a greater quantity and many other more Impossibilities have they reckoned upon the same ground that the Reason of man could apprehend nothing in such points but an implication of Contradiction And now all these great pillars of Christianity as well in the Vniversall Church Primitive as in the now Romish must by Master Fishers former Assertion be held to have beene no better than underminers of the Christian Faith in that they did not Rather beleeve those things to be possible even because they seemed Impossible by reason of Contradiction Lastly to come to Master Fisher his owne Praevarication * Mr. Fisher in his Answere to the 〈◊〉 upon the seventh point which is the â—ommunion in both kinds How can the Body of Christ saith hee be without either Blood or Soule unlesse it were dead and so should Christ be massacred in this Sacrament and that Eucharist be a Bloody Sacrifice and Christ glorious in Heaven cannot say truly that a Body voyd of Soule Blood and Sense is his Body Yea as Calvin himselfe confesseth It is an Absurd maner of speech to terme Christ the meere Bodie of Christ So hee Whereupon hee will be found so implicated within the horâ—es of a Dilemma that hee cannot expedite himselfe For say good Master Fisher should a Christian man as you have sayd the rather beleeve a Doctrine because it seemeth to be Absurd wee speake of sensible Objects why then do you not beleeve these Absurdities which you your selfe now do so utterly therefore condemne But do you indeed condemne them because they seeme impossible and Absurd why then have you broached a Doctrine of Rather beleeving things because of their seeming Impossiblities So easie it is for a Patron of Absurdities to prove himselfe notably Absurd Master Fisher his Generall Supposition in respect of Seeming Indignities happening to the Bodie of Christ from the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Numb 3. As hee sayd of Absurdities in respect of Impossibilitie so doth hee also argue from Seeming Indignities condemning Protestants for arguing against Transubstantiation because of Seeming Indignities As in not conceiving Christs Bodie saith hee to be combined unto the Consecrated formes of Bread and not to be polluted with such Indignities and Obscenities So he Our Reply As though no other Indignities might be imputed to Romish Doctrine except it were in such like Cases wherein the Bodie of Christ should receive some Corporall hurt or pollution There were and are amongst the Romish * See Booke 5. cap. 7. Sect. 1. Professors and that no small Babes who have taught a
have balked Tertullian where speaking of these Carnall Hearers hee saith that 2 Tert. de Resurr Quia durum intoler abilem sermonem ejus exisâ—imarunt quasi verè carnem suam illis edendam determinasset subjunxit Caro nihil prodest sed ad vivisicandum exequitur quod velit intelligi spiritum verba quae locutus sum sunt spiritus vita They thought that speech of Christ to be hard and intollerable as if Christ had determined to deliver his flesh to be Marke truly Eaten therefore Christ added saying The flesh profiteth nothing But for giving of Life is required the Spirit The words which I speake are Spirit and Life What can be more plaine to prove that the Truly proper Eating must needs signify an Eating Carnall and Capernaiticall âšœ Master Brerely his third Inference is Therefore the words speaking of Eating his flesh are not Figurative which indeed is the maine Controversie for never any but an Infidell denyed the speech of Christ to be true nor yet did ever any but an Orthodoxe understand the Truth of the speech what it was that 's to say whether the Truth be according to a Literall sense as Master Brerely would have it or else in a Figurative which hath beene our defence and proofe throughout the Second Booke from all kind of Evidences of Truth Here therefore wee are onely to deale with Master Brerely and with his pretended witnesse Saint Augustine to whom hee would seeme to adhere Notwithstanding that wee may beleeve Master Brerely himselfe h Mr. Brerely Liturg Booke 4. §. â— at Fourthly If wee should attend to the properiety of Speech Christs Blood is not properly drunke So hee albeit Christ his speech was as expresly for drinking his Blood as for Eating his Body And hee wee suppose will confesse that every speech which is Vnproper is Figurative As for Saint Augustine hee standeth as a sworne witnesse against the proper and literall sense of Eating Christs Flesh calling it * See afterwards Chap 6. § 3. in the Challenge Flagitious Besides rather than wee should want witnesses to averre this Truth Divers Jesuites will be ready in the * See afterward c. 5. Sect. 2. following Chapter to tell Master Brerely flatly that if hee say the words Eating Christs Flesh are properly spoken he speaketh False II. Proving the Objected Saint Augustine to Contradict the Romish Doctrine of Corporall Presence as Protestantly as can be SECT II. MAster Brerely his Conclusion taken from Christs speech of Eating is to inferre a Corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament âšœ But Saint Augustine upon these words of Christ Iohn 6. 3 Aug Tract 27 〈◊〉 Ioh. Si ergo videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius quid est â—oc◠〈◊〉 sol vit quod illos moverat hinc aperuit unde fuerant Scandalizati Hinc planè 〈◊〉 inâ—lligerâ—nt Illi enim puâ—abant cum erogaturum corpus suum Ille autem dixit se ascensurum in coelum utiquè integâ—â—â— Cum 〈…〉 hominis ascendentem ubi erat pâ—ius cerâ—è vel tunc videbitis qui non eo modo quo puâ—atatis 〈◊〉 corpâ—s suum certò vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia ejus non consumitur 〈…〉 When you shall see the Sonne of man ascending into Heaven where hee was first saith that Christ by those words Assoyleth the doubt which troubled and scandalized the Capernaites who thought that Christ should give them his Flesh to eate by saying that he was to ascend into heaven doubtlesse with his perfect Body and that therefore they were not to thinke that his Body was to be given unto them in the maner which they conceived by eating it by Bits and Morsels âšœ Wherein you may plainly discerne the Argument of Saint Augustine to be that Christ by his Bodily Ascension would shew to the world that hee being Bodily absent from the Earth his Flesh could not be here Eaten by Bodily Tearing asunder Thus hee against the Capernaites which must as necessarily Confute the Romanists Corporall Eating his Flesh whether it be by Chewing or Swallowing whether Visibly or Invisibly it mattereth not because it being the same Body that ascended were it Visibly or Invisibly it is equally absent from Earth âšœ As for the Remainders of that which is eaten of in the Sacrament the * See above Booke 3. c. 3. §. 11. Fathers as wee have heard have called them Fragments and Bits And that which Iudas received from the hand of Christ Saint Augustine himselfe calleth 4 Aug. Tract 26. in Iob. 6. Nonne Buccella Dominica venenum fuit Iudae tamen accepit sed non quia male sed quia male malus Buccella a Morsell If then by the judgement of Saint Augustine Christ his Bodily Ascension into Heaven proved that hee was not to be Eaten by Morsels here on Earth then must it thereupon necessarily follow that the Sacrament of the Eucharist given to Iudas which Saint Augustine calleth a Morsell was not the Body and Flesh of Christ âšœ Wee have no list after so plaine a discovery of Master Brerely his manifold ignorances to play upon his Person but rather do pray that at the sight of his Errors hee may be reduced unto the Truth now after his fondly miscalled Strong Reasoning to the Contrary CHAP. IV. That the now Romish maner of Vnion and Bodily receiving of the Body of Christ is sufficiently Capernaiticall in Five kinds SECT I. TEll us not that no Doctrine of your Church can be called Hereticall before that it be so judged 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 Darkenesse And this is manifest by the example which wee have now in hand of the Capernaites old Heretikes as all know even because they are set downe in Scripture to have perverted the sense of Christ his words of Eating his Flesh and thereupon to have departed from Christ Iohn 6. Your Romish particular maner of Corporall Receiving of the Body of Christ in this Sacrament is Five-fould to wit in the 1. Hand by Touch for Eating 2. Mouth by Eating 3. Throat by Swallowing 4. Belly by Commixture 5. By Vnion in the Inferiour parts unworthy to be named âšœ That the First maner of Romish Corporall Vnion of Christs Bodie with the Bodies of the Communicants by Bodily Touch is Capernaiticall and the Testimonies of the Fathers are unconscionably urged to the Contrary SECT II. VNion of Christ his Body by a Bodily Touch in generall is the Adequate and Proper Subject of this whole Question concerning Christ his Conjunction with the Bodies of the Receivers in this our present Discourse whether it be Touch by Hand or Mouth or Throat c. and therefore wee begin with the First degree of Touch as it were by Hand which in the generalitie thereof may imply
Romane Councel could devise Marke then the enjoyned tenour of the Oath I Berengarius Archdeacon c. do firmely professe that I hold that Faith which the Reverend P. Nicholas and this holy Synod hath commanded mee to hold to wit That the Body of Christ is in this Sacrament not onely as a Sacrament but even in truth is sensibly handled with the hands of the Priest and broken and torne with the Teeth of the faithfull So the Oath The same forme of Abjuration is registred in the publike Papall b Ad perpetuam rei memoriam c. Bulla P. ante Gratian. Extat in Decret de Consecrat Dist 2. C. Ego Berengarius Decrees and the Body of these Decrees hath beene lately ratifyed by the Bull of Pope Gregory the thirteenth The same Faith was imbraced afterwarâ—â—â—ds of some c Waldensis Ruardus Scotus sine ulla distinctione has locutiones protulerunt nempe ita contrectari manibus frangi dentibus teri propriè dici de Corpoit Christi dicere visi sunt Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disp 47. Sect. 4. §. Prima quae Schoolemen who without any Distinction used the same Phrase of Tearing with Teeth Secondly of aftertimes your d Quod si corpus Christi in Eucharistia editur certe frangitur dentibusque fidelium teritur utrumque enim cibo quem edimus conjunctum proprium Can. loc Theol. lib. 5. ca. ult sub finem 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 e Tam miro modo corpus Christi connectitur speciebus ut unum ex ambobus fiat Sacramentum Ex hoc sequitur sicut antea per eadem panis ita nunc corpus Christi à nobis contrectari manducari carni nostrae immisceri dentibusque teri hoc vel illo loco vase collocari Quae omnia sive per se sive peâ— Accidens corpori Christi in Sacramento competaÌ„t nihil refert modo certa fide credamus haec tam vere propriae fieri ac dici circa corpus Christi quam si in propria specie esset non minus quam si in ipso panc fiâ—rent non minus quaÌ„ Crucifixio c. attribuuntur Domino Deo in Scriptura propter conjunctam humanitatem in eadeÌ„ Hypostasi Alan Cardin lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 37. pag. 435. Alan It is sayd saith he to be torne with the teeth of the faithfull no lesse properly than if it should be sayd so of the Bread if it were eaten âšœ Flat Contradictory to the Determination of your owne Pope Innocent the third teaching that 1 Innocent lib. 3. de offic Missae cap. 21. Dicamus ergo quod forma panis frangitur â—atteritur sed corpus Christi sumitur comeditur Ea quae notant corruptionem referentes ad formam panis ea vero quae notant acceptionem ad Corpus Christi Not the Body of Christ but the formes of Bread are sayd to be broken because this notifyeth a Corruption meaning of that which seemeth to be Broken and Torne âšœ Yea and your Cardinall g Hoc Concilium Generale fuit Et haec Abjuratio apertissime significat rem à Concilio definitam sub Anathemate nec anathematizantur nisi Haereses damnatae ab Ecclesia Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 21. §. Primum Bellarmine for proofe of Transubstantiation hath recourse unto the same Romane Councel which hee styleth 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 Cursâ— against the Gain-sayers and therefore Hee with his Disciple Master h In his Rejoynd pag. 270. Fisher who also allegeth the same are Challengeable to hold it according to the literall sense thereof because it will not admit 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 Abjuration of Heresie but as i Nullae sunt exactiores formulae loquendi in materia fidei quam eae quibus utuntur ij qui Haeresin abiurant Bellar. lib. 2. de Imag. Sanct. cap. 21. §. Secundo nulla 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 abjure Heresie And Secondly for that this Forme of words of Tearing with the teeth the flesh of Christ was also made purposely for Abjuration and abandoning all Figurative sense for the Defence of the literall Exposition of the words of Christ This is my Body c. therefore was it taken literally But what thinke you will Calvin say to this your then Romish forme of Profession in the literall sense k Calvin lib. 2. Defens Sacram. Nonne centum potius mortes prae optandae sunt quam ut quis tanti Sacrificij monstro se implicet pag. 25. A man should rather wish to die on hundred times saith hee than once to intangle himselfe in a Doctrine so monstrously sacrilegious Which Censure of his wee now endeavour to make good That the foresayd Romane Faith of Properly Eating the Body of Christ is Capernaitically-Hereticall as is proved by some of your owne Doctors of the now Romish Church SECT II. YOu have heard of Berengarius his Abrenuntiation 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 maner an Abrenuntiation of that then Romane faith by denying it to be either properly Broken or yet really Torne even by the Jesuites themselves l Caro Christi dum in hoc Sacramento manducatur non dentibus atteritur quia tangi nequit estque immortalis impartibilis Manducatio autem realis requirit contactum rei edendae ut possit dividi transmutari Quod hic de Corpore Christi fieri nequit Salmeâ—on Ies Tom. 9. Tract 20. pag. 136 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 teeth or touched by them that eat him because hee is herein impartible So hee Your Jesuite and Cardinall Bellarmine is as it were in a maze saying and gain-saying as you may perceive yet notwithstanding whether hee will or no must perforce confesse no lesse when hee saith that m Si de ratione manducâ—tionis esset attritio dentibus facta Dico Christi corpus vere proprie manducati etiam corpore in Eucharistia non quod attritio est necessaria ad manducationem satis est enim transmissio in stomachum deglutâ—endo Sin verò attritio dentibus facta sit de ratione manducationis Dico Christi Corpus proprie manducari non tropice non enim dicimus
Benedicts in their names Can there be then any Analogie betweene your High Romane Priest and Christ the Prototype to Melchisedech in so manifold Repugnancies yet notwithstanding every one of you must be forsooth a Priest after the order of Melchisedech Nay but not to multiply many words the Novelty of your Pretence doth bewray it selfe from k Lambard de Ordinat Presb. Accipiunt etiam calicem cum vino patinam cum Hostijs ut sciant se accepisse potestatem placabiles Deo hostias offerendi Hic ordo à filijs Aaron sumpsit initium c. Lib. 4. Distinct 24. 〈◊〉 I. Peter Lombard Master of the Romish Schoole who Anno 1145. taught how truly looke you to that that every Priest at his Ordination in taking the Chalice with Wine and Platter with the Hoast should understand that his power of Sacrificing was from the order of Aaron Nor may you thinke that this was his private opinion for Hee saith your l Pet. Lombardus collegit sententias Theologoorum Magister Theologotum scholasticorum dici meruit Lib. de Script Eccles Tit. Petrus Lombardus Cardinall of him collected the Sentences of Divines and deserved to be called the Master of Schoolemen Thus farre of the Person of Christ as Priest in the next place wee are to enquire into his Priestly Function Of the Function of Christ his Priesthood now after his Ascension into Heaven and your Cardinall his Doctrine Sacrilegiously detracting from it SECT VII BY the Doctrine of your Cardinall in the name of your Church a Bellar. Crucis Sacrificium non est perpetuum sed effectum ejus nec dicitur aeternuÌ„ quod non jugiter sacrificatur non in caelis jam Sacerdos per solam orationeÌ„ nec mediante oblatione Victimae quià tun necesse est eum semper offerre Ergo Eucharistia Sacrificium quod jugiter offertur Oblatio in coelis non est propriè dictum Sacrificium Ergò non est verè ac propriè Sacerdos cùm verum ac proprium Sacrificium offerre non potest Lib. 1. de Missa c. 6 sparsim And Christus non sacrificat nunc per se visibiliter nisi in Eucharistia Bell. ibid c. 25. § Quod autem And Sacrificium câ—â—cis respectu Christianorum â—b c. 20. And Per Ministros suos perpetuò sacrificat seipsum in Eucharistia hoc enim solummodo perpetuum habet Sacerdotium Bellar. ibid. cap. eod ad finem The old Priesthood of Aaron was translated into the Priesthood of Christ Every Priest saith the Apostle must have something to offer else hee were no Priest Thus his Priesthood is called Eternall and must have a perpetuall offering which was not that upon the Crosse Nor can that suffice which the Protestants say That his Priesthood is perpetuall because of the perpetuall virtue of his Sacrifice upon the Crosse or bicause of his perpetuall Act of Intercession as Priest in Heaven or of presenting his passion to his Father in Heaven whither his Priesthood was translated No but it is certaine that Christ cannot now properly sacrifice by himselfe Hee doth it by his Ministers in the Eucharist Because the Sacrifice of the Crosse in respect of Christians is now invisible and seene onely by Faith which although it be a more true Sacrifice yet it is not as our Adversaries say the only Sacrifice of Christian Religion nor sufficient for the Conservation thereof And againe His sacrificing of himselfe in the Sacrament by his Ministers is that by which onely hee is said to have a perpetuall Priesthood Accordingly your Cardinall b Alan Christus in 〈◊〉 coelo 〈◊〉 aliquid Sacerdotalâ— facit nisi respectu nostri Sacramenti quod ipse per nostruÌ„ ministerium efficit continuò offert Lib. 2. â— Euchar. ca. 8 §. Reliqua Alan Christ saith hee performeth no Priestly Function in Heaven but with relation to our Ministery here on earth whereby hee offereth So they for the dignifying of their Romish Masse as did also c Rhemists Christ his Priesthood consisteth in the perpetuall offring of Christ his Body and Blood in the Church Annot. in Heb. 7. 17. your Rhemists but with what Ecclipse of Iudgement and good Conscience is now to be declared If wee take the Sacrifice of Christ for the proper Act of Sacrificing which is destructive so was Christ his Sacrifice but One and Once Heb. 7. and 8. But understanding it as the subject matter of the same Sacrifice once so offered to God upon the Crosse and after his Ascension entred into Heaven and so is it a perpetuall Sacrifice presentative before God For as the High-Priest of the Law after the Sacrifice was killed entred into the Holy place once a yeare but not without Blood Heb. 9. 7. so Christ having purchased an eternall redemption by his Death upon the Crosse went into the Holy place of Heaven with the same his owne Blood Vers 12. To what end Alwayes living to make supplication for us Chapt. 7. Vers 3. and 25. Hence followeth the continuall use which the soules of the faithfull have of his immediate Function in Heaven Having a perpetuall Priesthood hee is able continually to save them that come to God by him Vers 24 25. Whence issueth our boldnesse and all-confidence alwayes to addresse our prayers to him or by him unto God Wee having an High-Priest over the house of God let us draw nere with a true heart in full assurance of faith having our hearts sprinckled from an evill Conscience Chap. 10. 22. The evidence of these Scriptures hath drawne from your Iesuite Ribera even then when hee professeth himselfe an earnest defender of your Romane Masse these Acknowledgements following d Ribera Ies in his Comment upon the places alleged Chap. 7. 23. Chap. 8. 2. 3. Chap. 9. 23. His Book is familitar with you where you may peruse the places viz. upon the Chap. 7. 23. That Christ is a true Priest and all other do partake of his Priesthood in offering Sacrifice only in remembrance of his Sacrifice And that hee did not performe the office of Priesthood onely upon earth but even now also in heaven which Function hee now dischargeth by the virtue of his Sacrifice upon the Crosse Hee proceedeth No man saith hee will deny this Position namely that Christ now ever exerciseth the office of a Priest by presenting himselfe for us So hee Another Theologicall Professour of Bellarmines owne Society in the place where hee noteth Bellarmine to walke in his owne opinion alone procedeth further 8 Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom Disp 225. c. 2. Nullus quic em ex Doctoribus quos recentiores Theologi pro hac sententia allegarunt praeter nostrum Bellarminum qui expressè asserit Christum esse principalem offerentem in hoc Sacramento Dicunt Patres Cyprian Ambros alij Nos Sacrificia offerre vice Christi Signifitant nos esse Christi Ministros in hoc Sacrificio non quod Christus hoc Sacramentum offerat
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. a Synod Trid. Sacrificium verè propitiatorium Hujus oblatione placatur Deus gratiam donum poenitentiae concedens dimittit peccata una enim eademque hostia est idem nam offerens Sacerdotum ministerio qui seipsum in cruce obtulit Sess 22. cap. 2. 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 Chatechisme authorized both by your Councell of Trent and the then Pope Pius the fift for the direction of your whole Church instructeth you all concerning your Sacrifice of the Masse that b Catechis Rom. Jussu Conc. Trident. Pij Quinti Pont. editus Vt Sacrificium est non solum merendi sed satisfaciendi quoque efficaciam habet De Euch. num 55. Oserius Ies Conc. Tom. 4. de Missae Sacrificio in Psalm 4. Sacrificare Sacrificium Vnicum hoc SacrificiuÌ„ est Sacrificium laudis gratiarum actionis expiatorium satisfactorium pro peccatis impetratorium pro vivis defunctis Ita tradit Conc. Trid. As it is a Sacrifice it hath an Efficacie 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 do falsly assume and apply it unto the Sacrifice of your Masse which Protestants abhorre and impugne as a Doctrine most Sacrilegious and onely grant the Celebration to be Propitiatory Improperly by God's Complacencie and favourable acceptance wherewith hee vouchsafeth to admit of the holy Actions and Affections of his faithfull Tryall of all this is to be made by Scriptures and 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 saith 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 a Bellarm. Secundum ArgumentuÌ„ sumitur ex his verbis Institutionis quae apertissimè docent Christum obtulisse in coena pro peccatis Apostolorum Lib. 2. de Missa cap. 2. §. Secundum These words do most evidently teach that Christ now in his Supper offered up his Blood for the sinnes of his Apostles So hee But if this his Exposition of Christ's word 's 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 immediately after among whom have * See above Chap. 1. Sect. 2. beene reckoned Gregory de Valentia Salmeron Barradas Vasquez and Suarez five prime Iesuites your Bishop Iansenius yea and the Author of your Vulgar Translation and the Authorizers thereof And that you may the better discerne how hard the foreheads heads of your Cardinall of your Rhemists of Master Brerely and of such others are who have made that Objection you have beene likewise advertised that in the very tenour of your owne Romish Masse it selfe the word is expresly * In the 〈◊〉 place Effundetur It shall be shed Wee say in the Tenour of your Romish Masse published by the Authority of Pope Pius the fift repeated by every one of your selves you being Romish Priests and accordingly believed of all the Professors of your Romish Religion Which Interpretation was furthermore confirmed by * See above 1. Sect. 3. Fathers and by Scripture in the places objected and by a Reason taken from your owne Generall Confession granting that Christ his Blood was not Really shed in his last Supper This is that which wee had to oppose unto that your Cardinals Most evident Argument as Sun-shine to Moone-light That many things are said to pacifie and please God which are not properly Propitiatory by their owne Virtue according to criptures 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 a Confession which wee will take from the quill of Valentia the Jesuite saying that a Valent. Omnes actiones rectae rectè propitiare Deum aliquâ ratione censeri debent Lib. 2 de Missa cap. 5. Idem Peculiari ratione Precibus propitiandi vis in Scriptura tribuitur quatenê° beneficia divina ex misericordia Dei per illas impetramus Ibid. All right and just Actions may be said in some sort to bee Propitiatory and to pacifie God As likewise of Prayer Scripture saith hee attributeth a Propitiatory force unto Prayers so farre forth as wee obtaine many Blessings of God through his mercie by them So hee Which confirmeth our former Distinction of Propitiatory by the mercifull Acceptation of God distinct from your Propitiatory which is of meritorious Satisfaction by its owne virtue which meere man must let alone for ever Thus of our Examination from Scripture The Doctrine of Ancient Fathers concerning a Propitiatory Sacrifice SECT IV. ALbeit our Premises in the former part of this Controversie touching Sacrifice and proving both by Scripture and ancient Fathers that the Eucharist is not properly a Sacrifice might give a Supersedeas to all your further contending by their Authority for Defence of a Sacrifice properly Propitiatory because that which is not properly a Sacrifice can no more be a Sacrifice properly Propitiatory than that which is not properly a stone can be properly called a Mil-stone Notwithstanding wee would be loath to be indebted unto you for an Answer to your objected Fathers in this Point also The Objections which you use and urge are of two kindes some wherein there is no mention of the Body and Blood of Christ at all and the other sort such wherein they both are named and expressed CHAP. IX That the objected Testimonies of Ancient Fathers might well be understood to call the Celebration of
expounding them of all sins adding also Ego verâ— nunquam invenio hujus Sacrificij usum à Patribus ad pauciora restringi peccata quam ipsa immolatio crucis Ibid. pag. 626. 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 hee produceth are these Chrysostome Theophylact Cyprian and Origen If these will not suffise you may take unto you these b Calix sive medicamentum holocaustum ad sanandas infirmitates purgandas iniquitates Cyprian de Coena Domini Vt cum Deo acceptum fuerit peccata dimittantur August de Civiâ— lib. 20. cap. 25. Omnis nocumenti est reparatio omnis sortis purgatio Damasc lib. 4. de â—ide cap. 14. Omne crimen Iuâ— Papa apuâ— Gratian de Consecrat Dist 2. Vt peccata nostra dimittat Ambros lib. 1. de Oâ—â—ic cap. 48. There might be added â—ustine Martyr Dial. cum Triphone Chrysost Hom. 13. in Ephes Orig. Hom. 13. in Levit. besides the Liturgies of Basil and others that are extant other Iulius Pope of Rome Iustine Martyr Augustine Cyril and Basil Do 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 Proclame all Not-Communicants to Depart From which Custome afterwards the word Masse had it's Originall namely from the words Ite missa est as * See above Booke 1. Chap. â— Sect. â— â— 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 c Canon Missae De Applicatione omnium Circumstantium quorum tibi fides cognita est nota devotio pro quibus Tibi offerimus c. Canon of the Masse provideth that Application of your Sacrifice be made unto him for Remission of sinnes And that as your Iesuite teacheth d Hinc Suarez Ies Quia oblatio hujus Sacrificij est fructuosa ex opere operato ergò rationi consentaneum est ut omnes qui ad illum verè concurrunt vel per proprium actum seu concursum moralem participent hujusmodi fructum talis oblationis In 3. Thom. qu. 83. Art 1. Disp 79. §. â— The Fruit of the Sacrifice Ex opere operato redoundeth unto him and not this onely but also to be e Costerus Christian Institut lib. 1. cap 8 de sacro Missae officio quotidiâ— audiendo Quotquot adsunt dignè se paraÌ„t spiritualiter corpore Domini reficiuntur per os Sacerdotis 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 wee speake Reason unto you or no. All Antiquity Catholike as hath beene generally * See Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 9. 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 by receiving the Sacrament but shut all others out of Doores which wee say they neither would nor could lawfully have done if they had beene of your now Romish Faith to believe that it is a Sacrifice Propitiatory for all such as devoutly 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 Wee 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 wee have expected some Reasons which might move your Church so to lessen the proportion of Christ's Passion in the Application therof for Remission either of sinnes or punishments And now at length your Iesuite Salmeron cometh to resolve us saying a Salmeron Ies Si hoc esset infiniti valoris celebrata esset Missa pro redemptione omniuÌ„ animarum quae in expiatorio carcere contiuentur totum evacuaret Purgatorium quod non est credendum quia frustrà tot Missae prâ—o uno defuncto celebrarentur Tom. 9. Tract 33. pa. 268. De Missis privatis 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 hee Wee may not so farre digresse as to enter into this Controversie of Purgatory because wee 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 graceles Doctrine of disannulling the infinite efficacie of Christ's Blood which is so utterly forlorne of all Approbation from Antiquity that your Disputers have not alleged so much as one Iota out of any Father for warrant thereof Next in the Sacrifice of your Masse there is say b Valent. Ies Quaedam portio remissionis competit Sacerdoti ministranti quaedam ei cui Sacerdos vult peculiari intentione applicare Quae intentio non tantum valet pro pluribus ac si pro uno solo celebretur Lib. 1. de Missa cap. ult §. Ac primum Et Alan lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 34. Vt qui Sacrificium pro Petro oâ—â—eit ratione stipendij Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disp 79. §. 9. pag. 1021. you a Portion thereof appropriated to the Priest alone which is a power to apply by his Memento the same Sacrifice to whom hee will so farre forth that hee extend his Memento upon any one to whom hee shall be pleased to intend it upon Condition to receive money therefore insomuch 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 c Alan In certarum personarum Causis certam Sacrificij aestimationem â—c fructus quantitatem desinire non tam certa loquimur quia ad ista particularia nec Scripturae nec Patres quicquam conferunt Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 34. pag. 635. Alan your Advocate is ready to answer for you and wee are attentive to heare what
in Dionysius the Areopagite who writing of the Sacrament c Bellar. Dionys Areop Hier. cap. 3. part 3. O divinissimum sacrosanctum Sacramentum obducta tibi significancium signorum operimenta aperi c. Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 3. Item ipsum invocat Sacramentum petit ab ipso quae à solo Deo rectè peti possunt And Durant de Rit ib. lib. 2. cap. 11. Aud indeed who not said O must divine Sacrament reveale union us the mysterie of thy signes c. which in the eares of your Disputers ringeth a flat Invocation of the Sacrament âšœ And that 10 Mallon Ies in his Reply Nothing could be said more plainly âšœ Contrariwise wee confidently affirme that your Teachers have taken a figure Prosopopoeia for Invocation like men who take Moon-shine for Day-light as wee shall manifest by Examples Confessions yea and the very Instance of Dionysius himselfe Prosopopoeia then is a figure when one calleth upon that which hath no sense as if it had sense as when in Scripture the Prophet said Heare ô Heavens and hearken ô Earth Isa 1. In like maner among the Ancient Fathers one called upon his owne Church Anastasia whence he was to depart and saying thus d Nazian Orat. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oh Anastasia which hast restored our Doctrine when it was despised Others of the Element of Baptisme thus Oh water that hath washed our Saviour and deserved to be a Sacrament or thus e Ambros in Luc. lib. 10. cap. 22. O aqua tu aspersum sanguine Christum lavisti Sacramentum Christi esse meruisti c. Oh water which once purged the world yea as another and naming it f Optat. lib. 6. cont ParmeÌ„ O aqua quae purum feceras orbeÌ„ terraÌ„ lavisti Greg. Nyssen DivinuÌ„ lavacrum See above Booke 3. C. 3. §. 13. A Divine Lavacre c. Nay you your selves can sing chant it to the Crosse g O salve Crux spes unica auge piis justitiaÌ„ c. Est Prosopopoeia Vasquez Ies lib. 2. de Adorat Disp 9. cap. 4. pag. 445. Oh Crosse our only hope c. and in expounding the same allow no more than a Prosopopoeia and figurative speech lest that otherwise your Invocation may be judged Idolatrous And wheras in another Romish Anthem it is sung of the Eucharist Oh holy Feast This Saying saith another h O sacrum coÌ„vivium quod omni Sacramento convenit Tolet. Ies Instruct Sacerd. lib. 2. cap. 15. pag. 366. Iesuite agreeth to every Sacrament Thus have you heard both from Fathers and from your selves the like Tenour of Invocation Oh Church Oh Water Oh Crosse Oh Feast nothing differing from Dionysius his Oh Divine Sacrament yet each one without any proper Invocation at all And that you may further understand that this Dionysius his OH is as in voyce so in sense the same which we judge it to be what better Interpreter can you require of this Greeke Author Dionysius than was his Greeke Scholiast Pachymeres who hath given his Iudgement of this very speech directly saying that i Pachym in locum Dionys 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ex Orat. 42. It was spoken as of a thing having life and that fitly as did Nazianzen saith he O great and holy Pascha c. And how should this be otherwise seeing Dionysius at the writing hereof was not in any Church or place where the Eucharist was celebrated but privately contemplating in his mind upon this holy Mysterie The due consideration of these your former so frivolous and so false Objections provoketh us to cry out saying Oh Sophistry Sophistry when wilt thou cease to delude the soules of men In which maner of speech notwithstanding wee do not Invocate but rather detest and abominate your Romish Sophistry And lest any of you should stumble upon the Attribute which Dionysius giveth to the Eucharist in calling it a Divine Sacrament as if it should imply a Corporall Presence therein reade but one Chapter of the same Author and hee will teach you to say as much of many other things wherein you will not believe any Corporall Existence of Christ we are sure for there he equally nameth the place of Celebration * See above Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect 13. Divine Altar the Sacramental Signes Divine Symbols the Minister Divine Priest the Communicants Divine People yea and which may muzzle every Opponent the matter of this Sacrament Divine Bread In the third place is objected this saying of Basil When the Bread is shewne what holy Father hath left in writing the words of Invocation Thus that Father whence your Father Bellarmine thus k Basiâ—i de Spir. sanct cap. 2â— Verba Invocationis cùm ostenditur quis Sanctorum in scripto nobis reliquit Hunc habemus morem veteris Ecclesiae ut post consecrationeÌ„ ostenderetur populo Eucharistia quod nunc fieri videmus conceptis verbis invocaretur Ob. Bellar. lib. 2 de Euch. cap. 25 §. Alterum And Durant de Ritib lib 2. cap. 11. Planè ab ipsis Ecclesiae incunabilis post Consecrationem Eucharistiam in altum tollere Dionys Basil de Spiritu Sancto cap. 27 c. Hence know we the Custome of the ancient Church namely that the Eucharist is shewne to the people after Consecration And that Then as we see now done among us it was Invocated upon even plainly after Consecration saith your Durantus also and indeed almost who not But do you first if you please admire the wit of your Cardinall in so framing his Consequence and after abhor his will to deceive you when you have done for he applieth the words spoken by Basil of an Invocation before Consâ—cration when as yet by your owne Doctrine Christ is not present as spoken of an Invocation of the Eucharist after Consecration for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ therein and the Divine Adoration thereof as will most evidently appeare For first it is not unknown to you that the Greeke Church differeth from your Roman in the forme of Consecration at this day they consecrating in words of prayer and Invocation and you in the repetition of Christ's words This is my Body wherein there is * Broved above Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. in the Challenge no Invocation at all And Basil was of the Greeke Church Secondly your l Archiep. Caesariens seu Christoph de Capite fontium Tractat var. Sacerdos invocando Deum paneÌ„ consecravit Hanc alij ut Tertull. Iren. Iustin Gratiarum actioneÌ„ hujusmodi Invocationem seu benedictionem vocant pag. 34. Alicubi Theodoret Basil Cyril Hierosol Iren. Damascen Theoph. Alex vocant Eucharistiae formam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Invocationem Ibid. pag. 33. And hee allegeth your Lindanus for a Suffragator in this point Archbishop of Caesarea for proofe that Invocation by prayers was a forme of Consecration used primitively in the Greeke Church citeth the two most ancient Fathers
which is transcendently Religious and Spirituall And the Outward is common to each Degree three onely outward Acts excepted Sacrificing Vowing unto and Swearing by Homages appropriated to the Majestie of God Sacrifice to betoken his Soveraignty Vowing to testifie his Providence and Swearing for the acknowledging of his Wisedome in discerning Iustice in condemning and Omnipotencie in revenging all Perjury be it never so secret That the Reverence used by Protestants in receiving this Sacrament is Christianly Religious SECT II. THeir Inward is their religious Estimation of this Sacrament in accounting the Consecrated Elements to be in themselves Symbols and Signes of the precious Body and Blood of Christ a Memoriall of his death which is the price of mans Redemption and to the Faithfull a Token of their spirituall Vnion with all the Members of Christ and by the incorporation of them in their flesh a Pledge of their Resurrection unto life Secondly their outward Application for testifying their inward estimation consisteth not essentially in any one peculiar Gesture in it selfe as you will a Conc. Carth. 6. Can. 20. Quoniam sunt quidam qui die Dominico slectunt genua in diebus Pentecostes placuit sanctae magnae Synodo cunctos stantes Deum orare debere Durant de Ritib lib. 3. cap. 2. num 21. Hoc ipsum diebus quinquaginta à Pascha usque ad Pentecosten observari consuetum veteres Patres testantur Ratio ex Ambrosio Serm. 21. de Pentecoste quia Resurrectionem Domini celebremus ut Hieron Proem in Epist ad Ephes Non â—lectimus genua non cuâ—vamur in terra sed cum Domino surgentes ad alta sustollimus confesse from Antiquity whether it be in Standing Bowing Kneeling or the like even because the Gestures of Vncovering Bowing and Kneeling are outward behaviours communicable to other persons besides God according to their Naturall Morall Politike and Religious respects Howbeit any of these outward Gestures which carry in them a greater respect of Reverence may be injoyned by the Church whereunto obedience is due according to the just occasions inducing thereunto And where there is no such necessary occasion there the publike observation of the Rites of Communicating commanded by Christ in his first Institution performed namely by Supplications and Praises is a plaine profession of Reverence and more especially that Invitation used in most Churches Christian of the Priest to the People Lift up your hearts and their answerable Conclamation Wee lift them up unto the Lord. It will be objected by Some who pretend to have some Patronage from Calvin that Kneeling at the receiving of the Communion is Vnlawful Every such One is to be intreated to be better acquainted with Calvin where speaking of the Reverence of kneeling hee saith b Calvin Institut lib. 4. §. 37. Iam verò longius prolapsi sunt viz. Papistae ritus enim excogitârunt prorsùs extranâ—os in hoc ut signum divinis honoribus afficiant At Christo inquiunt hanc venerationem deferimus Primùm si in coena hoc fieret dicerem eam esse adorationem legitimam quae non in signo residet sed ad ChristuÌ„ in coelo sedentem dirigitur It is lawfull if it be directed not to the Signe but to Christ himselfe in Heaven which is the resolute profession of our English Church in the use of this Gesture âšœ And the use of Bowing towards the Lords Table hath in it no other nature or meaning than Daniel his Kneeling with his face towards Ierusalem and the Temple For as this was a Testification of his joynt-Society in that religious worship which had beene exercised in the Temple and Altar thereof at Hierusalem so ours is a Symbol of our union in profession with them who do faithfully Communicate at the Table of the Lord. âšœ But to returne unto you who thinke it no Reverence which is not given by Divine Adoration of this Sacrament wee aske Do not you use the Sacrament of Baptisme Reverently you do yet do you not adore the water with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you yield unto the Eucharist All this notwithstanding Calvin his estimation of this Sacrament seemeth but prophane to many of you but the Reason is you would rather condemne him than judge him lest that his Doctrine if it come to examination might condemne you For albeit hee abhorre your Divine Adoration of the Host yet doth he also c Calvin deâ—ens Sanct. Doctâ— advers Westphal Sive utilitas nostra spectetur sive dignitas reverentia quam Sacramento deferri par est pag. 25. Rursus Profani quià sacrae coÌ„municationis pignus quod reverenter suscipere decebat non mirum si corporis sanguinis Christi rei censeantur Ibid pag. 39. condemne every Prophane man who shall partake thereof in the state of Impenitencie To be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ Your next Question will be after this our Discovery of the manifold Perplexities wherein you by your Romish Doctrine are so miserably plunged how Protestants can avoid in many of them the like Intanglements That Protestants in their Profession and Practice stand secure from the first two Romish Perplexities in respect of Preparation of the Elements and undue Pronunciation of the words of Consecration SECT III. OVr Church commandeth that the best Bread and Wine be provided for this best of Banquets the Supper of our Lord yet doth it beleeve that Christ the Ordainer thereof will not deprive the soules of his guests of their desired spirituall Blessings for the negligence of his steward in being defective to provide the Materiall Elements if so be that there be therein according to Christ his Institution the substance of Bread and Wine As for Pronunciation you know Protestants make their Celebration in a tongue knowen unto all the people communicating and in a loud voice according to the universall Practice of the Church of Christ in primitive times as * See above Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. 7. hath beene confessed So that the Peoples eares may be their owne witnesses whether the words of Consecration either by Prayer or together with the forme of Repetition of the words of Institution be truly delivered which freeth them from your Romish perplexity of not knowing whether the Priest hath truly Consecrated by his muttering of the words in an unaudible voice The Protestants Security in respect of the third Romish Perplexity of Adoring in a Morall Certaintie SECT IV. OVr Profession is to adore Christ with an infallible faith and not with a conjecturall Credulity or Probability as wee are taught by the holy Scripture the Canonicall foundation of Christian faith defining Faith to be an * Heb. 11. 1. Evidence of things not seene namely a more infallible apprehension of the minde than any perception of sight can be a faith required of every one which shall approach in supplication to God * Heb. 11. 6. Hee that cometh to God must beleeve that God
seemeth not to me to be the Sense of this place which All whom I have read except Hilarie do thinke Item Their Opinions are divers I rest upon of them all Item All Ancients almost do so expound this Text but this is no fit Interpretation Item Thus I expound this Scripture and albeit I have no Author of this Exposition yet I do approve it rather than that of Augustine or of Others although otherwise most probable even because it is repugnant to the Sense and Exposition of the CALVINISTS So hee and that usually O dura ilia With what Stomach could this man swallow that Oath Salmeron the Iesuite may stand for the Third upon that Text Rom. 5. In whom all have sinned which teacheth the universall Guilt of Originall Sin of mankinde What the Sense of the Fathers was from this Text your Canus will certifie you g Canus 〈◊〉 Theol lib. 7. cap. 3. Sanct omnes qui in ejus rei mentionem incidôre uno ore asseruerunt B. Virginem in originali peccato conceptam fuisse And then hee rechoneth adding Et si nullos contravenerit infirmum tamen ex omnium autoritate ArgumentuÌ„ All they saith hee who have formerly fallen upon this subject matter have confessed as it were with one mouth that the Virgin Mary was conceived in Originall sin no one contrarying this Opinion So hee of the Iudgement of Antiquity which notwithstanding hee durst contradict But wee returne to your Iesuite who premising that this Question doth belong to Faith propoundeth h Saloteron Ies in Rom 5. Disp 49. In quo omnes peccaverunt Mariam conceptam in originali peccato etsi non sit haeresis damnata nempè tamen ad fidem spectat Item Disp 51. A qua multitudine Patrum locum ab autoritate infirmum Pauperis est numerare pecus Exod. 13. In judicio plurimorum non acquitsces sententiae ut à vero demas multitudinem multitudini opponimus At Devoti erga D. Virg. Resp Totam Devotionem erga illam non consistere in Patribus ut in Bernardo c. At Antiqui Resp Quilibet senex laudator temporis actiâ—sed illud asserimus quo juniores eo perspicactores Doctores esse After hee wrangleth and wresteth some sayings of Fathers to his part In celeberrimâ Pansiensium Academâ nullus in Theologia titolo Doctoris dignus habetur qui non primum jusjurandi religione se adstrinxerit ad hoc Virginis privilegium tuendum Objections made out of the Fathers for proofe that the Virgin Mary hath the same Originall defect in her owne naturall Generation and shapeth Answers full of regret and reluctancie For first To this Objection The Fathers did consent Hee answereth thus The Argument from Authority is infirme II. To this The Fathers were Ancient Thus The younger Divines are more quicke of understanding III. To this The Fathers were many Hee answereth Hee is but a poore man that can number his Cattell And againe confronting the Ancient Fathers and preferring novell Divines hee saith Wee oppose multitude to multitude IV. But The Fathers were Devout hee answereth Yet all Devotion towards the Blessed Virgin resteth not in the Fathers And when one of the Devoutest of them Bernard by name is objected who had said of the point now in Question i Bernard Epist 174. Hanc prolis praerogaâ—ivam B. Mariae tribuere non est honorate Virginem sed honori detrahere Et Paulò antè Nunquid Patribus doctiores aut devotiores simus To ascribe the prerogative of the Son to the Blessed Virgin is not an honouring but a dishonouring her wherein the same holy Bernard appealeth to Antiquity saying Are wee either more Learned or more Devout than the Fathers Your Iesuite answering to him by name casteth him off with the Rest Here wee see an Oath exacting a Consent to the Vnanimous Expositions of Fathers and heare notwithstanding as plaine a Dissent of your Iesuites opposition unto Vnanimous Consent of Fathers which is the ordinary guise of your Disputers in their expounding of Scriptures and yet behold you forsooth the native children and heires of the Doctrine of Ancient Fathers Your Fathers of the Councel of Trent have set it downe for a Canon whereunto you are also sworne that the words of Christ his Institution concerning the giving of his Body and Blood * Booke 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 1. Have a plaine and proper signification without Tropes which notwithstanding the same words of Christ have beene evinced to be Figurative not onely by the Vnanimous Consent of k Booke 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. and Chap. 2. Sect. 6. 7. Antiquity but also by the expresse l Booke 2. Cha. 2. Sect. 4. See also B. 3. Ch. 3. in the words The fruit of the Vine Sect. 5. Confessions of your owne Iesuites in the words Eate Breake Cup c. and wherin your selves have acknowledged divers Tropes Besides the whole former Treatise is but a displaying of your unconscionable wresting of the Testimonies of ancient Fathers Ponder you these Observations with your selves and then judge whether your Swearing be not Perjury it selfe IV. Overture of Perjury in the Defenders of the Romish Masse is in respect of the pretended Necessity of their Doctrine IN the last Clause of the Oath prescribed in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth you are sworne that every Article therein is the a See above in this Sect. 4. Initio at the letter a. True Catholike Faith without which none can be saved among which is the Article already mentioned swearing to whatsoever was declared in the Councel of Trent by which Councel your now Romane b Synod Trident Sess 15. Missall or Masse-booke is approved Now take a Taste of your Oath in every Epithet First True and hereby are you sworne that in the dayes of Pope Innocentius the third the Administration of the Eucharist to Infants was not held necessary which your owne Authors have c Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 11. confessed and proved to be false Secondly that the presence of them who at the administration of the Eucharist do not communicate is * Ibid. Sect. 5. Sect. 10. Commendable and held a Doctrine Catholike that is anciently Vniversall which was generally condemned by Ancient Fathers and even in the Church of Rome it selfe abandoned by two d Booke 1. Cha. 2. Sect. 9. Popes Lastly in the point of Necessity to salvation To sweare that whosoever believeth not that one may be said to c Booke 1. Cha. 2. Sect. 5. Communicate alone is damned that whosoever believeth not that the Priest in the Masse being alone can duly say The Lord be with you hee is damned or that the f See Booke 4. Body of Christ may not be run away with Mice and be blowne away with the wind hee is damned and a number other like extreme foolish Crotchets set downe in your Missals which wee willingly omit The Summe of all these is that
their Stage-play of Representing Christs Body on the Crosse by his Body in the Masse pag. 447. CONSECRASION of the Eucharist was anciently by Prayer p. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. c. Romish Prevarications herein Ibid. A Distinction of Consecration the one by Ordination the other by Benediction p. 14. Consecration of both kinds by the Priest confessed to be necessary pag. 62 63 64 c. Consecrative and Operative words viz. these This is my Body cannot be as they are pronounced by the Priest by reason of the Pronoune Meum p. 138. Words of consecration of the Eucharist are not delivered by any ancient Father saith S. Basil of the Primitive times p. 520. Words of Consecration in the Greeke Liturgies are by prayer to God Ibid. called of Cyril of Ierusa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. And Augustine confirming the same out of Basil Ibid. Consecration of Popes not Infallible pag. 530. The Romish consecration made frustrate by seven defects concerning the matter of the Eucharist p. 528. Six moe by not consecrating p. 529. Fower in the Intention pag. 530. Six moe for want of due Baptisme and Ordination pag. 530 531 532 c. CONTEMPT of the Eucharist and holy things revenged by God Examples thereof p. 318. 319. CONTRADICTION is an absolute Argument of Impossibility p. 229. 230. Six Romish Contradictions in the defence of the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist pag. 232 c. First is in making one not one but many 235. Second is in contradictory Relations of one Body being on the right side and left side of it selfe 252. Third by making Christs body finite and not finite pag. 264. Fourth in absolute Qualities having no Relation to place as to have Vnderstanding and not Vnderstanding p. 255. c. Fift by making it perfect and imperfect p. 281. Sixth by making it glorious and inglorius 282. CVP. Ioynt use of the Cup both in the Priest and people necessary by the precept of Christs practice Iudgement of Apostles and primitive Fathers notwithstanding any Romish pretence p. 54. 55. 56. c. The word Cup in Christs speech taken Figuratively p. 112. See Communion in both kinds See Innovation CVSTOME of 300. yeares preferred by the Romish before a more ancient of a thousand p. 68. 69. CYPRIAN is against Reservation of the Eucharist by the example of Christ. p. 50. Against the Alteration of the Institution p. 62. He is against Communion but in one kind p. 77. Christ commandeth drinking Ibid. Hee teacheth that Hoc in Christs speech Hoc est corpus demonstrateth Bread p. 103. And a Figurative sense in Christs speech This is my Body p. 125. Hee interpreteth Christs words Matth. 26. 29. of the fruit of the Vine p. 163. His saying Bread changed by Nature Objected p. 202. And againe calumniously objected p. 495 His calling the Bread Christs Body after Consecration the Bread which is collected into one of many graines pag. 170. His saying Christ doth create his more holy Body now pag. 192 As his humanity was flesh p. 188. Things signifying and signified p. 193. Change in Nature by Omnipotencie p. 188. Objected As also Divine Essence infuseth it selfe p. 193. Christ at the Table gave Bread and Wine to his Disciples but on the Crosse hee gave his Body to the Souldiers to be wounded p. 178. Ob. Wee make bits of it pag. 179. Ob. That the Godlesse Communicants are partakers of Christs Body p. 313. Ob. Wee are joyned with Christ inwardly in soule and outwardly pag 344. albeit hee standeth for the onely Soule-eating Ibid. Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine that is the Body and Blood of Christ pag. 405. Of the word Sacrifice Malachie 5. pag. 433. A pure and full Sacrifice pag. 450. Of Christs bloody Sacrifice slaine in the Eucharist p. 456. meant of the Passion of the Crosse Confessed p. 479. c. CYRIL ALEX. Objected for the proper sense of Christs word This is my Body p. 116. defendeth Circumcision in one place to distinguish Christs Man-hood from his Godhead pag. 243. saying If God were a Body hee should be circumscribed Ibid. Hee proveth the Holy Ghost to be God because in divers places at once Ibid. Against Penetration of the doores by Christs Body p. 176. Objected unconscionably for corporall Vnion by Christs bodily nourishing of our bodies p. 363. And at large for a corporall conjunction of Christ with our bodies as Waxe with Waxe Ibid. Confessed to be abused Ibid. His Answer to Iulian the Apostate who upbraided Christians with the want of al Sacrifice as well as want of Circumcision and how hee called the Eucharist unbloody p. 464. CYRIL HIER Teacheth that Hoc in Christs speech Hoc est corpus demonstrateth Bread p. 103. Calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype yeeldeth to a Figurative sense of Christs words pag. 116. His saying that Christians received the spirit when they received onely the Operation thereof Ibid. His saying Although it tast Bread yet beleeve it to be the body of Christ under the formes of Bread egregiously abused by Bellarmine p. 195. c. This is againe calumniously objected pag. 496. His calling the Bread Christs body as hee calleth holy Oyle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Guift of grace p. 197. His not bare Oyle and Wine Objected 195. Bread remaineth in the Eucharist after consecration proved from him p. 196. The body of Christ goeth not into the Draught 370. His Wee are carriers of Christ 363. His calling the Eucharist spirituall and unbloody Sacrifice p. 455. And Christs body is a bloody Sacrifice and slaine in the Eucharist Ibid. His Bowing before the Eucharist Objected and Answered p. 520. CYRIL of CONSTANTINOP This CYRIL now Patriarch of Constantinople in the name of the whole East and Greeke Churches saith thus Wee professe not Transubstantiation p. 205. D DAMASCEN his errour upon the use of the word Antitype p. 116. He defendeth Circumscription in one place to distinguish Christs Manhood from his God-head pag. 243. And that every Angell hath its prescript place or space p. 261. That they cannot possibly be in moe than one place at once p. 262. Is likewise against Penetration of bodies pag. 275. His saying It is mingled with our soules p. 357. DEVOVRERS of Christs body by Swallowing such are the Romish p. 347. who say that Beasts devoure it pag. 348. Who if by Chewing are made capernaiticall Tearers Ibid. Devouring of their God imputed to Christians by Averroes was occasioned by the then Romish Doctrine of tearing Christ with their teeth in the Eucharist from the dayes of Pope Nicholas p. 381. Attalas the Martyr denied all Devouring of Christ p. 382. DIDYMVSALâ—X proveth the Godhead of the Holy Ghost by its being in divers places at once pag. 267. DILEMMA of Bellarmine to prove Iustine to have held a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament pag. 377. His Insoluble Dilemma answered and requited with two other Dilemma's p. 377. 378 379. c. DIONYSIVS AREOP Standeth for Consecration
by Prayer pag. 10. He is against the Romish Custome of Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist pag. 46. His calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype noteth a Figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body pag. 115. His naming the Eucharist Divine Sacrament as hee did Divine Altar Divine Bread Divine Table c. pag. 185. Is against the Comparison of the Inapprehensiblenesse of other things in respect of the nature of God pag. 297. His Testimonie for Veneration at Elevation notably corrupted by Dâ—â—â—ntus pag. 513. His O Divine Sacrament reveale unto us c. properly objected for proofe of Divine Adoration of the Eucharist p. 518. DISPENCE the blasphemous Romish Dispensation against Christs command of Communion in both kinds pag. 87. DISTINCTION of Consecration one of Ordination and another of Benediction pag 14. A Distinction of the Presence of Christs Body as a Sacrifice namely as an Object and not as a Subject of the Celebration pag. 440. DIVINE This word applyed anciently by Dionys the Areop to divine and consecrative things p. 185. pag. 518. DOCTRINALL words may be Figurative pag. 134. DOMINVS VOBISCVM in the Romish Masse condemneth the now Romish Private Masse p. 19. DRAVGHT That which is eaten if it enter into the Mouth it is said to passe into the Draught by the Councell of Nice and Toledo pag. 305. By Origen pag. 287. 340. But the Body of Christ is denied to passe into the Draught by Chrysostome and Cyril of Alex pag. 287. 349. 350. Ambros Not into the Belly Ibid. pag. 350. DRINKE YOV ALL OF THIS not spoken of the Priest onely pag. 54. Drinke in Christs words of Institution to be taken Tropically as meant of his Blood pag. 111. E EATERS onely and not Gazers were Anciently admitted to the Eucharist pag. 46. 47. Eating and Drinking are both required of all Communicants for a Sacramentall Refection Confessed against Communicating in one kind pag. 74. 75. Eate in Christs speech of Institution taken Figuratively pag. 111. Eating Christs flesh onely in Vow and Desire pag. 311. in the judgement of Protestants Ibid. Onely Godly and Faithfull are Partakers of Christs Flesh pag. 311. 312. They of the Old Testament ate Christs Flesh pag. 314. Eating onely is Capernaiticall pag. 328. How the wicked Communicants are Guilty pag. 315. Eating with the Mouth delivered in the Church of Rome in the dayes of Poge Nicholas was professedly Capernaiticall pag. 335. Eating Christs Body properly taken is condemned of ancient Fathers p. 349. Eating it Capernaitically by tearing with teeth was taught as an Article of Faith by Pope Nicholas pag. 335. which is yet defended by some Romanists Ibid. Which is against the Faith taught by Pope Innocent pag. 336. That Pope Nicholas his doctrine is Capernaitically haereticall 337. That the maner of the eating of Christs Body in the Church of Rome is yet as faithlesse amongst themselves p. 336. 337. Romish Objections out of the Fathers most unconscionably urged for proofe of a corporall eating as is proved by the Fathers themselves pag 349. 350. 351. And out of other confessions of the Romish Disputers themselves pag. 352. Against either Presence Touching Tasting Breaking Eating of Christs flesh or sprinkling of his Blood p. 353. Vnion with Christs Body by a bodily commixture is Capernaitically Romish pag. 355. See Vnion See Orall See Capernaits See Swallowing ELEVATION of the Hoast objected for adoration of it p. 513. Confessed not to have bin Instituted by Christ and not to have bin alwayes in use p. 513 Elevation of the Chalice not before the dayes of Tho. Aquinas Ibid. EVPHRAIMIVS proveth first that Bread is called Christs Body figuratively and that the Substance of Bread remaineth p 187. EPIPHANIVS Objected most impertinently for the proper sense of Christs speech Hoc est Corpus p. 120. And againe p. 491. Hee expoundeth the fruit of the Vine to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine p. 163. He standeth for Christs bodily opening the Cell of the Blessed Virgin at his birth 277. EPITHETS of Sacrifice attributed by the Fathers to the Eucharist Objected although ascribed to things that are not properly called Sacrifices p. 448. 449. c. ERROVR Pretense of Not-erring the cause of the Romish Errour in continuing the witholding the Cup from the Laity pag. 78. 79. c. EST in the speech of Christ Hoc est Corpus See Figurative EVCHARIST The Remainders hereof after the Consecration were anciently given to Children p. 48. 49. c. Called anciently the Supper of the Lord. p. 47. Anciently burned p. 48 287. They are Symbols of our Resurrection p. 307. It is food onely for the soule pag. 309. 310. 311. c. EVCHERIVS Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine that is the Body and Blood of Christ p. 405. EVSEEIVS by calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype yeeldeth to a Figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body pag. 115. His words Bread is the Body of Christ Objected pag. 201. Hee taught the blessed Virgins opening her Cell and is against Heretikes that denied the truth of his body p. 278. Hee is objected for the Romish Exposition of the word Sacrifice Malachie 5. and confuteth the Objector p. 432. His saying The same Sacrifice with this correction or rather a Remebrance thereof p. 443. His saying A Sacrifice full of God objected pag. 448. and Vindicated 449 Holy Prayers are Incorporeall Vnderstanding Sacrifices 449. and calling Actions that are Godly a pure Sacrifice and opposeth them to a Bloody Sacrifice p. 453. That wee have Expiation here in the Eucharist by the Blood of Christ as remembred herein p. 478. which is objectively EVSEBIVS EMISSENVS saith that Christs Body is a bloody Sacrifice and slaine in the Eucharist p. 445. Hee is calumniously objected pag. 449. That Melchisedech as Christ offered Bread and Wine p. 405. EVTHYMIVS expoundeth the fruit of the Vine Matth. 26. 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine pag. 163. EXPOSITIONS of Scripture according to the unanimous consent of ancient Fathers falsely pretended and perjuriously transgressed by Romish Disputers p. 576. 577. c. Exposition of Scripture according to the Tenet of the Church of Rome perjuriously sworne unto Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Iuge Sacrificium not rightly applied to the Romish Masse pag. 418. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 22. 20. The word objected and discussed p. 363. c. F FACVNDVS teacheth a Figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body as plainely as any Protestant p. 128. FAITH Infallible required in every divine worship p. 535. c. FIGVRATIVE speech of Christ in the word Hoc which without absurditie can neither referre to Christs Body as is confessed p. 93. Nor to any Individuum vagum p. 96. The same Pronoune Hoc as demonstrating Bread cannot possibly be without a Figure Confessed p. 99. That Hoc demonstrateth Bread is proved by the Text and is to be taken Neutrally according to Grammar p. 100. 101. c. Proved to