Death and Damnation to the Receiver in the receiving but Life and Salvation This virtue that Saint Augustine speaketh of is such that many do die in the receiving of it It remaineth then that by this virtue of the Sacrament is understood the Body of Christ which many by unworthy receiving do wickedly abuse and so receiving kill their soules and Die the Death that Iudas did See the Margin a false Allegation by depraving the latter part of the Sentence of Saint Augustine alleging them thus Nam multi hodie de Altari accipimus cibum visibilem Sed aliud est Sacramentum aliud Virtus Sacramenti quam multi accipiunt moriuntur that is Many now rèceive from the Altar the visible meate But the Sacrament is one thing and the Virtue of the Sacrament another thing which many eating die And thereupon taking a full Cariere in a large Discourse See the margin argueth thus By the word Virtue saith hee is meant the Body of Christ And by Dying is meant the death of the Soule But Saint Augustine affirmeth that the Wicked do eate of this Virtue or Body of Christ So hee Point-blanke Contrary to our Interpretation as can be not but that wee confesse that Saint Augustine by this word Virtue meant the Body of Christ and that by Dying is understood the Death of mens Soules but that his Assertion affirming Saint Augustine to teach herein That the Wicked Receivers that Dye in their Soules do eate the Virtue which is the Body of Christ is a plaine Imposture by a Grossely false Construction and Composition of Saint Augustines words thus Aliud est virtus Sacramenti Qudm multi c. wherein you see a full point as a deepe Ditch to sever virtus from the immediatly following word Quà m which your Doctor joyneth together whereby the word Virtus is Vitiously abused Then is he injurious to Quà m which being an Adverbe and carrying the Adverbiall Accent above-head as a Badge of Distinction hee notwithstanding turneth into a Pronoune-adjective Quam And thirdly He wrongeth the Construction of them both in matching as it were in marriage a little u in Virtus with a great Q in Quà m whereas every Grammarian by all the rules of Syntaxis would forbid the Banes Wee know you Romish Priests to be reasonable men and will therefore demand whether hee had not reason by some other Edition of Saint Augustine to justifie his Allegation and thereby his owne Conclusion as if Saint Augustine had meant That the wicked do Dye in their Soule by unworthy Eating of the Reall Body of Christ Wee answer no It is Impossible hee should evade by any such excuse and lest wee may seeme to speake partially wee shall offer unto you a witnesse hereof without all exception and that shall be the Author Saint Augustine himselfe the Expositor of his owne meaning in the very same Tractate and in his words a little after expresly concluding the Contrary saying that 13 Aug. Tom. 9. 〈◊〉 Ioh. Tract 26. Hic est panis qui de coelo descendit ut si quis manducaverit ex ipso non moriatur Sed quod pertinet ad virtutem Sacramenti non quod pertinet ad visibile Sacramentum Qui manducat intus non foris qui manducat in corde non qui premat dente Hee that eateth of this so farre as concerneth the virtue of the Sacrament cannot Dye albeit otherwise in respect of Eating onely the visible Sacrament he do dye Where you see that none that eate the Virtue which is as hath beene confessed the Body of the Lord dye the Death of the Soule And for better explanation hee distinguisheth affirming that the Maner of Eating of the virtue of this Sacrament is Eating it Intus corde Inwardly in the heart and the Eating of the other Sacrament it selfe is Eating outwardly and with the Teeth Now then that your Doctors Error is found to be so palpable and our Cause so Justifiable even by the Judgement of Saint Augustine will you as you are reasonable be also so Conscionable to permit us upon so great advantage to retort that Epiphonema wherewith your Doctor concludeth against us after his Discourse of this and other Testimonies of Saint Augustine already Answered viz. Thus have you received the minde of Saint Augustine as the Catholike Church teacheth and not as the malignant feigneth âšœ CHAP. III. Of the Capernaiticall Heresie concerning the Bodily Vnion with Christ by Eating What it was 1. That the Errour of the Capernaites Iohn 6. was an Opinion of the Corporall Eating of the Flesh of Christ SECT I. MAster Brerely the Author of the Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse lately published and largely applauded by all of your profession doth bestow a whole a Mr. Brerely Lituig Tract 2. §. 3. Section in explicating the Errour of the Capernaites so that it must wholly reflect forsooth upon the Protestants It is not needfull wee should deny that in this Chapter of Saint Iohn Christ doth speake of the Eucharist which if wee did wee might be assisted by your owne Bishop b Ionsen Concord in Ioh. 6. per totum Iansenius together with divers * There are recâ—oned by some these Authors Biel Cusanus Cajcian Tap per Hesselius to whom way be added peter Lombard l. 4. Dist 8. lit D others whom your Jesuite c Maldonat in Ioh. 6. vers 53. Scio Doctos scio Catholicos scio religiosos prohos viros sed impediunt nos quo minus in Haereticos acriter invehamur qui hoc capite de Eucharistra non agi contendunt Maldonate confesseth to have beene Learned Godly and Catholike yet fretteth not a little at them for so resolutely affirming that In this Chapter of Saint Iohn there was no speech of the Eucharist because by this their opposition hee was hindred as the c Maldonat in Ioh. 6. vers 53. Scio Doctos scio Catholicos scio religiosos prohos viros sed impediunt nos quo minus in Haereticos acriter invehamur qui hoc capite de Eucharistra non agi contendunt Jesuite himselfe saith That hee could not so sharpely and vehemently inveigh against Protestants Let it then be supposed as spoken with a relation to a Sacramentall Eating with the mouth as some of the Fathers thought but yet onely Sacramentally and not Properly as by them will be found true Wee returne to the Discourse of your Romish Priest * Above at a Christ having spoken saith hee of Eating his Flesh and the Capernà ites answering How can hee give us his Flesh to eate They understood eating with the mouth yet were a speciall observation never reproved of Christ for mistaking the meaning of his words a strong reason that they understood them rightly but for not beleeving them and Christ often repeating the eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood and requiring them to beleeve and when hee saith The flesh profiteth nothing it is the Spirit
ejus ex hoc mundo ad Patrem Tolet. Ies Com. in cum locum Tolet your Cardinall Jesuit When he came to the celebrating of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood that is at his last Supper But what was meant hereby namely Christ alluded unto the Iewish Passeover saith hee in signification of his owne passing over by death to his Father So he So also your Jesuit d August in Psalm 68. Cum Venit Dominus ad Sacranientum Sangoinis Corporis sui 〈…〉 venit ut 〈◊〉 ad Patrem dâ—mundo Qâ—bus veâ—bis expressâ—◠〈◊〉 Paschae Testepâ—rerio Ies in Exod. cap. 12 Disp 8. Pererius out of Augustine Secondarily to the Scripture objected 1. Cor. 5. Our Passeover is offered up Christ that is As the figurative paschall Lambe was offered up for the deliverance of the people of Israel out of Egypt so Christ was offered up to death for the Redemption of his people and so passed by his passion to his Father So your e 1. Cor. 6. Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus orgò epulemur Azymis 〈◊〉 veritatis Aquinas assignat 〈◊〉 quare fideles 〈◊〉 esse Azymi quae quidem Ratio sumituâ— ex mysterio Passionisâ— Sicut Agnus figuralis iâ—molaâ—us est 〈…〉 Israel ut populus liberaretur ità Christus occisus ab Israëlitis ut populus liberareâ—â—r à servitute Diaboli Christus enim per passionem transâ—it ex mundo ad patrem Ioh. 13. Haec Aquin. Com. in 1. Cor. 5. And Tollet in his Testimonie before cited So Becanus Ies Aquinus Our Passeover Namely By his Sacrifice in shedding his Blood on the Crosse So your Jesuit f Pascha nostrum 1. Cor. 5. Nempè per immolationem in cruce effusionem sanguinis illius liberatum est genus humanum Analog utriusque Testam cap. 13. pag. 313. Becanus And By this his Passeover on the Crosse was the Passeover of the Iewes fulfilled So your Bishop g Impleta erat figura Paschalis quando veruÌ„ nostruÌ„ Pascha est immolatus Christus Iesus hos per ejus sanguinem liberatâ—â—eramus Iâ—â—sen Concord Evang. cap. 13â— pag. 895. Iansenius as flat diameter to your Cardinalâ—s Objection as can be A third Scripture wee find Joh. 19. They broke not his legs that the Scripture might bee fulfilled which is written A bone of him shall not be broken which your h Ioh. 19. Crura non confregerant ut impleretur quod scriptum est Os non comminuetis ex eo Bellar. quo supra yet gaine saith with his Tamen c. §. Illud Cardinall himselfe confesseth to relate onely to Christ's Sacrifice on the Crosse and notwithstanding dare immediatly oppose saying Neverthelesse the Ceremony of the Paschall Lambe did more immediatly and properly prefigure the Eucharist than Christ's passion wherein whether he will or no he must be an Adversary to himselfe For there is no Ceremony more principall in any Sacrifice than are these two viz. The matter of Sacrifice and the Sacrificing Act thereof Now the matter of the Sacrifice was a Lambe the Sacrificing Act was the killing thereof and offering it up killed unto God Whether therefore the Paschall Lambe did more principally prefigure the visible Body of Christ on the Crosse or your imagined Invisible in your Masse whether the slaine Paschall Lambe bleeding to death did more properly and immediatly prefigure and represent a living and perfect Body of Christ than that his Body wounded to death and blood-shed Common sense may stand for Judge The Ancient Fathers when they speake of the Sacrifice of Christ's passion in a precise proprietie of speech do declare themselves accordingly If in generall then as i Origen Sacrificium pro quo haec omnia Sacrificia in typo figura praecesserunt unum perfectum immolatus est Christus Hujus Sacrificij carnem quisquis tetigerit sanctificabitur In Levit. cap. 6. Hom. 4. Origen All those other Sacrifices saith hee were perfigurations of this our perfect Sacrifice If more particularly then as k Chrysostomus de 〈◊〉 Latrone 1. Cor. 5. Pascha â—ostrum immolatus est Christus sestivitas ergò c. Vide crucis intuitu porceptam laetitiam in cruce enim immolatus est Christus Vbi immolatiòtiò 〈◊〉 peccatorum ubi ampucatio peccatorum reconciliatio Domini novum Sacrificium nam ipse Sacrificium erat Sacerdos Sacrificium secundùm carnem Sacerdos secundùm Spiritum offerebat secundùm Spiritum offerebâ—tur secundùm carnem Altare Crux fuit Chrysost Tom. 3. pag. 826. Chrysostome from the objected Text of the Apostle 1. Cor. 5. Our Passeover is offered up Christ Let us therefore keepe our Feast c. Dost thou see saith hee in beholding the Crosse the joy which wee have from it for Christ is offered upon the Crosse and where there is an Immolation there is Reconciliation with God this was a new Sacrifice for in this the flesh of Christ was the thing sacrificed his Spirit the Priest and Sacrificer and the Crosse his Altar Insomuch that else-where hee teacheth every Christian how as a spirituall Priest hee may l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem Tom. 5. Ser. 88. Ediâ— Savil. pag. 602. Alwaies keepe the Passeover of Christ âšœ And yet againe the same Father as if hee had thought this point deserved to be got by heart of every Christian âšœ* Idem in Ioh. â— Homil. 13. Vt de passione incipiamus quid dicit figura Sacrificate Agnum Christus autem nihil hujusmodi praecipit sed ipse sactus est Sacrificium oblationem offereos seipsum âšœ That wee may speake of Christs Passion saith hee what saith the Figure Take unto you a Lambe but Christ commandeth no such thing for hee himselfe namely at his Passion offered up himselfe to the Father So hee âšœ What greater plainenesse can be desired and yet behold if it be possible a greater from m Socrat. Hist lib. 5. cap. 22. Origenes Doctor valdè sapiens cum animadverteret Legis Mosaicae praecepta ad literam non posse intelligi praeceptum de paschate ad divinam contemplationeÌ„ traducit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen calling the Sacrifice on the Crosse the Onely true Passeover Which saying his Reporter Socrates imbraceth as a Divine Contemplation âšœ That the third objected Typicall Scripture out of Exod. 24. The Blood of the Testament is not justly objected for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse SECT XI THis Text Exod. 24. speaking of the Sacrifice of the Old Testament This is the Blood of the Testament being so consonant to the words of Christ delivered in his Institution of the Eucharist This is the Blood of the New Testament in the Gospell seemeth to your Cardinall to be an Argument of great force and therefore doth hee dart it against us with all his strength of Arguing saying 15 Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 8. Terrium nostrum Argumentum sumitur ex Exod. 24. et Heb. Hic est
he saith There is not either any Scripture saith hee or Father shewing any such thing for such a maner of esteeming the fruit of Christ's Sacrifice So hee In the third place whiles wee are in this speculation wee heare one of you putting this Case If the Priest shall receive a stipend of Peter upon Condition that hee shall apply his Memento and Intention upon the soule of Iohn departed this life and hee notwithstanding doth apply it unto the good of the soule of Paul whether now the Priests Memento should worke for the good of the soule of Iohn according to the Priests Obligation upon the Condition made with Peter or else for the good of the soule of Paul according to the Priests immediate Intention Here although some of you stand for the justice of the d Inquiri potest an tenetur Sacerdos ex justitia applicare Sacrificium Petro ratione ab eo accepti stipenâ—ij nihilominus applicat Paulo vel cum jubetur offerre Sacrificium pro tali Defuncto offert pro se Quidam dicunt Sacrificium operari in hujusmodi casibus non secundùm voluntatem Ministri sed secundùm obligationem quâ tenetur pro hoc vel illo offerre Aliâ— volunt obligationem tenere Sed operatur secundùm intentionem Ministri quatenùs est Christi Minister Suarez quo supra But your Cardinall Sed injustè facere Alan quo supra cap. 35. pag. 640. Priests Obligation yet some others Resolution is that the Priests intention albeit unjust must stand for good Wee have done CHALLENGE VVHereas it is now evident that your Romish Masse serveth so well for your no small gaine by appropriating of a Priestly portion to be dispensed for some one or other soule for money as it were the Cookes fee and that but onely for the paines of a Spirituall intention yea though it be to the Injury of the Purchaser It can be no marvell that wee heare so often and as loud shouts for your magnifying of the Romane Masse as ever Demetrius and his fellow Craft-mates made for Diana the Goddesse of the Ephesians It remaineth that wee deliver unto you a Synopsis of the Abominations of your Romish Sacrifice which wee have reserved to be discovered in the eighth Booke Wee hasten to the last Examination which is of Proâ—estants CHAP. XII That the Protestants in their Celebration offer to God a Spirituall Sacrifice which is Propitiatory by way of Complacencie SECT I. CAll but to mind our former * See above Chap. 〈…〉 Distinction of a double kinde of Propitiousnesse one of Complacencie and Acceptation and the other of Merit and Equivulencie and ioyne hereunto your owne definition of Propitiousnesse by way of gracious acceptance when you confesse that Every religious Act whereby man in devotion adhereth intirely unto God in acknowledgement of his Soveraigntie mercie and bountie is propitious unto God Now then Protestants celebrating the Eucharist with Faith in the Sonne of God and offering up to God the Commemoration of his death and mans Redemption thereby a worke farre exceeding in worth the Creation if it so were of a thousand Thousand worlds and thereby powring out their whole spirit of Thankfulnesse unto God in which respect this Sacrament hath obtained a more singular name than any other to be called Eucharistia that is A Giving of Thankes and that most worthily forasmuch as the end and efficacie of Christ's Passion is no lesse than our Redemption from the eternall paines of hell and purchase of our everlasting salvation All these I say and other essentiall Duties of holy Devotion being performed not according to Mans Invention as yours but to that direct and expresse Prescript and ordinance of Christ himselfe Do this It is not possible but that their whole complementall Act of Celebration must needs be through Gods favour Propitious and well-pleasing in his sight Take unto you our last Proposition concerning the second kinde of Propitiousnesse That the Protestants may more truly be said to offer to God a meritoriously Propitiatory Sacrifice for Remission of Sinne than the Romish do SECT II. BEfore wee resolve any thing wee are willing to heare your Cardinals Determination The Death of Christ saith a Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 3. Mors Christi est Sacrificium prop iè dictum perfectissimum hee is a proper and most perfect Sacrifice So hee most Christianly But after noting the Profession of Protestants to hold that the same Most perfect Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse is the onely proper Sacrifice of Christian Religion hee denyeth this because saith b Bellarm. Ibid. cap. 20. §. Probatur Sublato Sacrificio Missae nullum restat in Ecclesia Sacrificium propriè dictum Nam si ullum esset id esset Sacrificium 〈◊〉 illud enim unum Adversarij assignant unicum esse Christianae religionis Sacrificium At hoc commune omnibus veris Religionibus sed semel poractum maneâ— quoad essectum virtutem hee This is common to all true Religions and being but once done ceaseth to be any more but onely in the virtue and efficacie thereof And all this hee doth for establishing of another properly Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Romish Masse by the hands of the Priest But wee believing that That Sacrifice of Christ's death was but once offered as according to our other distinction the onely subjective meritorious and properly Propitiatory Sacrifice therefore it ceaseth to be so any more but yet is still objectively perpetuall in the Church of God as the object of our Remembrance of his Death Representatively and Commemoratively both in our Acts of Celebration and in our Prayers and Praises offered up to God in the true apprehension of the Efficacie and Virtue thereof In which respect as Christian Beliefe professeth Christ is called * Apoc. 5. 12. The Lambe slaine from the beginning of the world so is hee the same still and ever will be untill the end thereof for which cause our Celebration is called of the Apostle A shewing of the Lords Death till hee come So that as by the Bodily Eye beholding the * Iohn 3. Serpent on a pole in the Wildernesse they that were stung with the deadly poyson of Fiery Serpents were healed even so All who by Faith the Eye of the soule behold the Sonne of God lift upon the Crosse shall not perish but have everlasting life But what is that Propitiousnesse of the Sacrifice of Christ's Body will you say which you Protestants will be said to offer more truly to God than that wee Romanists do and wherein doth the difference consist Be you as willing to heare as to aske and then know that first although the whole Act of our Celebration in Commemoration of Christ's Death as proceeding from us be a Sacrifice propitious as other holy Acts of Devotion onely by Gods Complacencie and Acceptance Yet the object of our Commemoration being the Death and Passion of Christ in his Body and Blood is to us
thing present to be a pledge of Christ's Body absent and also o Book 5. Chap. 9. Sect. 2. allowed such a Touch of his Body by Faith that whosoever so toucheth him is Sanctified Which Observations concerning our Fourth Generall Argument do minister unto us five particular Reasons which make our Defence to be Impreinable Fifthly forasmuch as you teach the Subject matter of the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ as a proper Sacrifice propitiatory wee upon due inquisition into the doctrine of Antiquity have p Booke 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. thorowout and elsewhere found the Ancient Fathers I. Nothing that which they called Sacrifice herein to be Bread and Wine saying thereupon that Melchisedech in that his Bread and Wine offered the Body and Blood of Christ II. Such a Subject which being taken in great Quantity doth q B 3. Chap. 13 Sect. 10 nourish and satiate mans Bodily Nature III. Such as needeth prayer to God that it may be r In this Booke 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Acceptable to God as was the Sacrifice of Abels sheepe IV. So naming it an Vnbloody Sacrifice as meaning thereby Å¿ Booke 6. thorowout more especially Chap. 5. Sect. 9 10. void of Blood which cannot agreed to the Body of Christ now risen from death V. So qualifying their other Exuberances and Excesse of speech wherein they named it The same Sacrifice of Christ once offered by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 correcting it thus t Booke 6. Cha. 5. Sect. 6. A Sacrifice or rather a Memoriall thereof VI. By placing the Sacrifice of Christ his Body as now Presentative onely in Heaven and the thing offered on Earth but a Signe VII In all your objected Testimonies for proofe of the same Body of Christ in the Eucharist which suffered on the Crosse they understood the same as the u Booke 6. Cha. 5. Sect. 1 2 3 4 c. Object of our Remembrance and not as the Subject of Offering which make up so many Arguments moe VIII By paralleâ—ing x In this Booke Chap. 2. Sect. 2 3. Baptisme with the Eucharist in like tenour of speech from point to point IX By praying God to be y Above in this Booke Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Propitious to that which is offered Sixthly upon the same Doctrine of Corporall Presence you have erected and fastned the roofe of all your Building which is Divine Adoration of the Host yet notwithstanding have you not beene able by the Testimonies of any ancient Father to free your selves from Formall Idolatry by any of your z Booke 7. thorowout Pretences devised for your excuse either of Good Intent Morall Certainty or of Habituall Condition especially seeing that the Fathers by that their universall Invitation Lift up your hearts abstracted still the thoughts of the Communicants from contemplating of any Subject present here Below that they might be drawne to the meditation of the Body of Christ as it is in Heaven Lastly in your owne Romish Masse praying after Consecration God to be propitious to the things offered as to Abels Sacrifice which was but a sacrificed Sheepe Compute all these Particulars and you shall finde about sixteene Arguments to prove you to be absolutely Idolaters Wee having thus reveiled these Three Principall and Fundamentall Abominations do now proceed to their Concomitants and Consequences which are Mixtures of Heresie in many Overture of Perjury in some and Obstinacie in all Wee begin at the last CHAP. II. Of the exceeding Obstinacie of the Romish Disputers made palpable by their owne Contradictions and of the Defence thereof as being Contradictory in it selfe SECT I. ALl your Disputers shew themselves in nothing more zealous than in maintenance of your Romish Masse which they contend for by objecting Scriptures Fathers and Reasons notwithstanding their Expositions of Scriptures their Inferences out of the Fathers their devised Reasons and almost all their Confutations are confuted rejected and contradicted by their owne fellowes as the Sections thorowout this whole Tractate do plainly demonstrate Wee cannot therefore otherwise judge but that as Prejudice is the chiefe Director so Obstinacie is the greatest Supporter of your Cause How much more when the Defence it selfe is found to consist upon meere Contradictories whereof you may take a Taste out of your Doctrine of Corporall Presence and of a proper Sacrifice In the first by obtruding on mens Consciences a Beliefe upon due Consequence of a Body of Christ Borne and not Borne of the Virgin Mary One and not one Finite and not Finite Divisible and not Divisible Perfect and not Perfect and also Glorious and not Glorious as hath beene a Booke 4. thorowout proved in each point II. In a point of properly Sacrificing of Christ's Body your Musicke stands upon the same kind of Discords of b See Booke 6. thorowout Teaching a Body Broken and not Broken a matter visible and not visible of Blood shed and not shed and of a suffering Destruction and not suffering Destruction Evident Arguments of Obstinacie one would thinke and yet behold a plainer if it may be One Example instead of many of a stupendious Obstinacie in urging the Iudgement of Antiquity for Defence of your Romish Masse in the chiefect parts thereof proved by instancing onely in their like Sayings concerning Baptisme SECT II. THree chiefe Iesuites besides others have beene as you may c Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 13. remember extremely urgent and important with Protestants to shew if they could the like Phrases of the Fathers in Baptisme as were used of them concerning the Eucharist in the question of Sacrifice as if the just paralleling of these Two might be a Satisfaction unto themselves concerning that one point Wee are to deale more liberally with them and whereas they assume unto themselves the suffrages of Antiquity 1. For a Literall Exposition of Christs words This is my Body 2. For a Change of Bread by Transubstantiation into his Body 3. For a Corporall Presence of the same Body in the Sacrament 4. For a Bodily Vnion with our Bodies 5. For a Proper Sacrifice of the Eucharist And lastly for a Divine Adoration thereof wee answer them from the Fathers in their like Sayings concerning Baptisme throughout every particular A Synopsis of the Speeches of Ancient Fathers objected throughout this whole Treatise for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist and assoyled and satisfied by the Parallels and like Equivalent Sayings of the same Fathers to the manifold and manifest Conviction of all Romish Deliration in this their Controversie of the Masse SECT III. WEe shall pursue your Objections and our Solutions according to the Order of the Bookes wherein they are cited BOOKE II. I. Kind of Romish Objections for proofe of the Corporall Presence of Christs Body OB. I. The Fathers call the Eucharist an Antitype of Christ Basil and others Ergo is Christ Corporally therein B. 2. c. 2. § 6. SOL. Nay for Baptisme is
Sacrament Which is proper to those who as the Apostle teacheth are to Examine themselves to Remember thereby the death of Christ and Sacramentally to Discerne the Lords Body âšœ CHALLENGE VVHereunto wee oppose the Authority of the Å¿ Conc Carthag 3. Eucharistiam Catechumenis mortuis dari prohibet et consequenter pueris qui utrique sunt divini illius cibi incapaces ut quidam ratiocinantur quià tales non possint accipere nec comedere Et Lateranens Conc. sub Innoc. 3. praecipit ut tantùm cùm ad annos discretionis pervenerint Eucharistiam accipiant Quià verò spiritualis manducatio et bibitio est sine qua Sacramentalis non prodest frustrà pueris Sacramentum et cùm periculo porrigeretur Non igitur satis est quòd puer possit naturaliter edere quia hoc possit trinus et quatrimus praestare sed opus est ut possit Sacramentaliter edere 1. cognoscere ibi esse Christum et discernere ab aliis cibis Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 11. in illa verba Dedit Discipulis pag. 78. Councell of Carthage and of that which you call the Councell of Laterane which denyed as you know that the Eucharist should be delivered unto Infants accounting them uncapable of divine and spirituall feeding without which say they the corporall profiteth nothing But wee also summon against the former assertion eight of your ancient t And of this opinion were Mayor Petrus Soto Paludanus Alensis Gubriel Catharinus Dom. Soto Ration eorum saith the same Ies quiâ hoc Sacramentum est cibus spiritualis Ergò accommodatum eis solummodò qui possint actus spiritualis vitae exercere quod parvuli non possunt Suarez Ies quo sup And to the former Schoole-men to make them even wee may adde also Summa Angel Tit. Eucharistia Schoolemen who upon the same Reasons made the like Conclusion with us And wee further as it were â—resting you in the Kings name produce against you Christ his Writ the Sacred Scripture whereby he requireth in all persons about to Communicate three principall Acts of Reason one is before and two are at the time of receiving The first is * 1. Cor. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let a man examine himselfe and so come c. The second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To discerne the Lords body The third is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To remember the Lords death untill his coming againe All which Three being Acts of Iudgement how they may agree unto Infants being persons void of Iudgement judge you And remember wee pray you that wee speake of Sacramentall Eating and not of that use * See above Sect. 10 before spoken of touching Eating it after the Celebration of the Sacrament which was for Consuming it and not for Communicating thereof CHAP. III. The Tenth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse by the now Church of Rome is in contradicting the Sense of the next words following concerning the second part of this Sacrament of receiving the Cup HE LIKEVVISE TOOKE THE CVP AND GAVE IT TO THEM SAYING DRINKE YEE ALL OF THIS And adding 1. Cor. 11. DO THIS AS OFTEN AS YOV DO IT IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE SECT I. BY which words Like maner of Taking and Giving and Saying Drinke yee All of this wee say that Christ ordained for his Guests as well the Sacramentall Rite of Drinking as of Eating and hath tied his Church Catholike in an equall obligation for performance of both in the administring of this Sacrament This Cause will require a just Treatise yet so that our Discourse insist only upon necessary points to the end that the extreme Insolencie Noveltie Folly and Obstinacie of the Romane Church in contradicting of this part of Christ his Canon may be plainely displayed that every conscience of man which is not strangely preoccupated with prejudice or transported with malice must needs see and detest it Wee have heard of the Canon of Christ his Masse The contrary Canon of the Romish Church in her Masse Shee in her Councel of Constance decreed that a Christus sub utraque â—pecie Discipulis administravit Licet in primitivâ Ecclesiâ sub utraque specie hoc Sacramentum reciperetur tamen haec consuerudo ut à Laicis sub specie pâ—nis tantùm reciperetur habenda est pro lege quam non licet reprobare Conc. Constant Sess 13. Although Christ indeed and the Primitive Church did administer the Eucharist in both kindes notwithstanding say they this Custome of but one kinde is held for a law irreproveable Which Decree she afterwards confirmed in her b Ipsa Synodus à Spiritu Sancto edocta ipsius Ecclesiae judicium consuetudinem secuta declarat docet nullo divino jure Laicos Clericos non consecrantes obligari ad Eucharistiae Sacramentum sub utraque specie sumendum Etsi Christus venerabile hoc Sacramentum sub utraque instituit Apostolis tradidit Concil Trident. Sess 〈◊〉 1. cap. 1. Councel of Trent requiring that the former Custome and Law of receiving it but under one kind be observed both by Laicks yea and also by all those Priests who being present at Masse do not the office of Consecrating Contrarily our Church of England in her thirtieth Article thus Both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs Ordinance and Commandement ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike CHALLENGE BVtwee demand what Conscience should moove your late Church of Rome to be guided by the authority of that former Councell of Constance which notwithstanding maketh no scruple to reject the authority of the same c Respondeo Fuit reprobatum Conc. CoÌ„â—antiens Martino Pont. quantum ad eam partem quâ statuit Concilium fuisse suprà Papam Bellar. lib. 1. de Conc. cap. 7. §. Quintum Councell of Constance in another Decree thereof wherein it gain-sayeth the Antichristian usurpation of the Pope by Denying the authority of the Pope to be above a Councell and that as the d Dixit Petro Christus Cum frater in te pâ—ccaverit si te non audiat Dic Ecclesiae Ergo Ecclesiam Papae Iudicem constitut Conc. Basil apud AEneanâ—i Sylvium de gest ejusdem Concilij Councell of Basil doth prove from the authority of Christ his direction unto Peter to whom he said Tell the Church We returne to the State of the Question The full State of the Question All Protestants whether you call them Calvinists or Lutherans hold that in the publike and set celebration of the Eucharist the Communion in both kinds ought to be given to all sorts of Communicants that are capable of both The question thus stated will cut off a number of Impertinences which your Objectors busie themselves withall as will appeare in due places Wee repeate it againe In publike Assemblies of all prepared and capable of the Communion The best Method that I could choose for the expedite and perspicuous handling of this great
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
Baptisme into the death of Christ He saith not we signifie his buriall but absolutely saith we are buried therfore hath he called the Sacrament or Signe of so great a thing by the name of the thing signified thereby So hee even the same Hee who will bee found like himselfe in the following passages of this and other books especially when wee shall handle the Manner of eating of Christs Body which Augustine will challenge to bee Figuratively meant âšœ Your Answerers are so puzzled with Saint Augustine his Testimonies that you may doubt whether rather to pity their perplexities or else to hate their perversenesse as you may see by another Testimony of the same Father which wee may not let passe * Aug. con Adimant cap. 12. Scriptum est sanguinem precoris animam ejus esse Possum interpretari praeceptum illud in signo esse positum non enim dubitavit Christus dicere Hoc est corpus meum cum signum dedit corporis sui Christ doubted not to say This is my Body when hee gave a Signe of his Body even as hee saith hee might interpret that Scripture * Deut. 12. The blood of the Beast is the life of the Beast The blood is a signe thereof Where his sole ayme is to expound the Verbe Est to bee no more than it Is a Signe or Signifieth But whether as your 16 Bell. l. 2. de Euch. cap. 24. in his two last as it were in his best Answeres Aug. intelligere non nudum signum sed cum re ipsa conjunctum nec corporis absentis ut sanguis signum non animae absentis 2. Sol. Signum corporis immolari in Cruce Cardinall fancieth it was a Signe of Christ's Body present in the Eucharist or rather as absent after on the Crosse Aug. regardeth not to mention but meerly to teach here which he doth more exactly else-where that wheresoever any thing is predicated and affirmed of another thing of a different nature as when the Signe is called by the name of the thing signified the speech is Figurative as Christ by the Apostle is called Rocke 17 August quaest super Levit. cap. 57. Non est dictum Petra significat Christum sed Petra erat Christus sic solet loqui Scriptura res significaÌ„tes tanquà m res quae significantur appellans Tract 77. It is not said saith Saint Augustine The Rocke signifieth Christ but the Rocke is Christ which is usuall saith he in Scripture which calleth signes of things by the names of the things themselves which are signified thereby It will not be impertinent to adjoyne hereunto your Iesuiticall Interpretation of these words of the Apostle The Rocke was Christ and after to compare it with this of Saint Augustine that thereby we may the better discerne Light from darkenesse 18 Iaâ— Gordon Ies lib. Controv. 3. cap. 7. num 21. Petra erat Christus 1. Cor. 10. Germanus literalis sensus non est iste Petra significat Christum ut putant Adversarij qui ex hoc loco contendunt probare verbum sub stantivâ—n Est aliquandò usurpari pro significat ut indè faciliùs ignâ—ris persuadeant verbum Est in verbis Christi idem valere quod significat The Literall and Proper Sense of these words saith hee is not that which our Adversaries meaning Protestants doe hold The Rocke signified Christ contending hereupon to prove that the Verbe EST is sometime used for SIGNIFIETH that thereby they may the more easily perswade that the word EST in Christs Speech is the same in Sense with SIGNIFIETH So hee What Heretike could have more confronted Saint Augustine than your Iesuite hath by denying the words The Rocke was Christ to bee in true Sense Did Signifie Christ Secondly that Est elsewhere is used in Scripture for Significat in both which Saint Augustine is as absolute an Adversarie and yet no more in these than indeed in the whole Cause concerning the Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament And the cause of Saint Augustines interpretation is plaine For Adimantus the Manichee objected to the Iewe 19 Aug. cont Adimant quo sap Adimantus Manichaeus â—it secundùm intellectum Iudaeorum qui dicunt sanguinem esse animam sequi c. That they understood by the other Text The blood of the Beast is the soule thereof not that it was conteined in the soule or joyned with the soule but that it is the soule it selfe This is that Literall interpretation which Augustine declineth and expoundeth the words as spoken Figuratively Signe for the thing signified as * See above at the letter u hee did in the speech of Christ saying of Bread This is my Body And doth not 20 Cyril Hier. Catech. Mistag 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril call Baptisme the Antitype of Christs Passion Saint Augustine desireth to have one word more 21 Aug. in lib. Sent. Prosperi De Consecrat Dist â—â— Cap. Hoc est quod dicimus sicut ergò coelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cum reverâ sit SacrameÌ„ u n corporis Christi illius videlicet quod visibile quod palpabile 〈◊〉 mortale in cruze positum est vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus sit Christi passio mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio The Heavenly Bread saith hee which is Christ's flesh is called after a maner the Body of Christ when as indeed it is the Sacrament of Christ's Body to wit of that Body which is visible palpable mortall and the Immolation of his flesh which is done by the hands of the Priest is called Christ's Passion Death and Crucifixion but not in the veritie of the thing but in a Significant mysterie So he Which words if they should need a Comment can have no better than is your owne publike privileged Romish Glosse upon them saying 22 Glâ—ssa in eum locum Coelestis Id est Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè unde dicitue suo modo non rel veritate sed signisicante mysterio ut sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est Significat The Heavenly Sacrament which truly representeth Christ's flesh is called the Body of Christ IMPROPERLY where it is said to be after a certaine maner the Bodie of Christ There are foure principall Observables in this one sentence of Saint Augustine I. Your Doctors have vilified our Sacrament because wee judging it to be Bread do but onely account it a Sacrament of Christ's Body Saint Augustine doth here reprove them as directly as if hee had said Though it be but a Sacrament of Christ's Body yet is it to be esteemed as Heavenly Bread II. As often as you reade of the Bread called Christ's Body you straine it to your owne sense as directly demonstrating Christ's Body Saint Augustine telleth you that it is in
in Plinie that could paint Grapes so to life as to deceive Birds which came to feed on them But they are the onely Sophisticall Doctours that offer in the Eucharist onely Accidents as painted Colours in stead of naturall because where there is not a Sacramentall Analogie there is no Sacrament You may not say that the Analogie consisteth in the matter before Consecration because every Sacramentall Analogie is betweene the Sacrament and the Thing Signified but it is no Sacrament before it be Consecrated CHALLENGE SAy now what Better Authour is there than Christ What better Disciple and Scholler than the Apostle of Christ or what better Commentary upon the words of Christ and his Apostle than the Sentences of Ancient Fathers calling the one part Wine the other Bread after Consecration as you have heard Our Third Proofe that the Substance of Bread remaineth after Consecration in the Sacrament is taken from the Iudgement of Sense necessarily First by the Authority of Scripture SECT VII ALthough man's Sense may be deceived through the inconvenient Disposition of the Medium thorow which hee seeth as it hapneth in judging a strait Staffe to bee Crooked which standeth in the Water and in thinking a White Object to bee Greene in it selfe which is seene thorow a Greene glasse or Secondly by the unequall Distance of place as by concelving the Sunne to bee but two feete in breadth or Thirdly by some defect in the Organ or Instrument of seeing which is the Eye whereby it cometh to passe that wee take One to bee Two or mistake a Shadow for a Substance Yet notwithstanding when our Eyes that see are of good Constitution and Temper the Medium whereby wee see is perfectly disposed the Distance of the Object which wee see is indifferent then say we the judgement of Sense being free is True and the Concurrence and joynt consent of divers Senses in one arbitrement is infallible This Reason taken from Sense you peradventure will judge to bee but Naturall and Carnall as those Termes are opposed to a true and Christian maner of Reasoning We defend the Contrary being warranted by the Argument which Christ himselfe used to his Disciples Luke 24. 39. Handle mee and see Your Cardinall although hee grant that this Reason of Christ was available to prove that his owne Body was no Spirit or Fancy but a true Body even by the onely Argument from the sense of Touching b Consequentia Christi affirmativè sumpta Hoc palpatur hoc videtur Ergo est Corpus optuâ—a fuit quià sensus non fallitur circa proprium Objectum â—taque necessariò quod videtur tangitur Corporale est At negativè hoc non palpatur nec videtur Ergò non est corpus Dominus non fecit mala est Non falluntur Sensus nostri cum nos album quid rotundum solidum sentire arbitramur quae sunt propria objècta Sed cùm Panis Substantiam sub illis Accidentibus â—atere denunciant falluntur Dominus solùm probare voluit se non esse inane spectrum seu Phantasma sed verum Corpus id quod ex Testimonio sensus Tangendi optimè probavit Illud autem Corpus esse humanum idem quod anteà suerat non probavit Dominus hoc solo Argumento ex Tangendi sensu desumpto quod sine dubio non erat sufficiens sed multis alijs modis loquendo manducando testimonio Angelorum miraculo Piscium allegatione Scripturarum Bellar. l. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Respondeo Yet saith hee was it not sufficient in it selfe without other Arguments to confirme it and to prove it to have bin a human body and the very same which it was So he Which Answer of your Cardinall wee wish were but onely false and not also greatly irreligious for Christ demonstrated hereby not onely that hee had a Body as your Cardinall speaketh but also that it was his owne same Humane Body now risen which before had beene Crucified and wounded to Death and buried according to that of Luke That it is even I Luke 24 39. Now because * 1. Cor. 15. It is not a Resurrection of a Body except it bee the Same Body Therefore would Christ have Thomas to * Ioh. 20. 27. thrust his hands into his sides and feele the print of his wounds to manifest the Same Body as Two of your Iesuites do also observe the One with an c Optimè Origenes Ostendit se Christus in vero Corpore suo resuscitatum Tolet. les in Ioh. c. 20. pag. 534. Optimè the Other with a d Probatum est Christum idem Corpus numero demonstraÌ„sse Silarez Ies Tom. 2. qu. 54. §. 1. Probatum est Accordingly the Apostle Saint Paul laid this Argument taken from Sense as the Foundation of a Fundamentall Article of Faith even the Resurrection of the Same Body of Christ from the dead for how often doth hee repeate and inculcate this * 1. Cor. 15. 5. Hee was seene c. And againe thrice more Hee was seene c. And Saint Iohn argueth to the same purpose from the Concurrence of three Senses * 1. Ioh. 1. 1. That which wee have heard which wee have seene and our hands have handled declare wee unto you The validity of this Reason was proved by the Effect as Christ averreth * 1. Ioh. 20. 29. Thomas because thou hast seene that is perceived both by Eye and hand thou hast beleeved The Validity of the Iudgement of Sense in THOMAS and the other Disciples confirmed in the second place by your owne Doctors SECT VIII PErerius a Iesuit confidently pleadeth for the Sense of Touch c Illud sine dubitatione dicere non verebor non polle ab ullo Dâ—mone formari corpus corpus adeò simile humano ut siquis cum curà animi attentione id tangeret non facilè dignosceret ipsum non esse corpus humanum Itaque non poterit Daemon similitudine corporis humani oculos fallere Tactus autem sensum fallere omninò non potest quod quatuor Argumentis confirmabo Hoc verissimum esse patet ex eo quod Christus dixit discipulis suis Palpate videte Thomae After digitum c. Perer Ies in Gen. 6. num 78. pag. 2. I feare not saith hee to say that the Evidence of Sense is so strong an Argument to prove without all doubt an humane Body that the Devill himselfe cannot herein delude the touch of man that is of understanding and consideration As for the unbeleeving Disciples Christ his Handle me c. saith your Iesuite f Si Discipuli Christi non potuissent Christi vera osta carnes discernere mollitiem duritiem eorum non dixisset ijs Palpate videte ac si diceret Palpate Percipite veras carnes ossa Vasquez Ies Tom. 2. qu. 51. Art 2. disp 184. cap. 2. pag. 487. Thomas dicit singula Argumenta non fuisse per se sufficientia
Argument as Athanasius and Augustine observeth which was used by Christ himselfe as that which ought to have perswaded the very Capernaites that Christ was not to be Bodily Eaten upon Earth as hath beene * See above B. 5. cap. 3. Sect. 2. proved The same Iustine in his Resolution of Questions made by Orthodoxe Christians shewed that Christ denyed to have a Continuall Conversation with men after his Resurrection which hee had before his Passion Namely that 19 Iustin Quaest Resp ad Orthodoxâ—â— pag. 327. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adding that after his Resurâ—ection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hee would by little and little disuse and unaccustome them with his sight and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Presence Do you heare his withdrawing his Presence That is will you say his Visible Presence Nay but whatsomever Locall Presence which hee had among them formerly whether saith Iustine of Being Seene or of Not being Seene among them This is plaine Of Averroes his Imputing to Christians the Devouring of their God SECT VIII WEe are not ignorant what some of you would Reply by Instancing in Averroes his upbrayding of Christians with Devouring of their God which wee may justly conceive hee spake in the spirit of Malignancie and against his owne knowledge as the Premises have proved and against the expresse Profession of Ancient Fathers detesting the same Conceipt of Devouring Christs flesh as you have formerly heard Just like as our Romish Adversaries deale with us who as often as they labour to confute our Doctrine of Iustification onely by Faith do inveigh against Protestants as professing a Iustifying Faith without Good works and Repentance And notwithstanding the same Objectors themselves expressing the very words of Protestants confesse that their Iustifying Faith which they teach is a Living Faith alwayes joyned with Contrition of heart for sinne and purpose of Amendment of Life and that this Iustification by Faith can be no more separated from Sanctification of Life than can the Light in the Fire from the Heart thereof How be it the Observation of some other is very probable to wit that Averragës understanding of the Decree of Pope Nicolas above 20 Pope Nicolas the Second living Ann. 1059. Averroes ut aâ—t Possevinus Biblioth lib 13. c. 23. fuit à Nativitate Christi anno 1150. discussed in his Romane Synod and imposed upon the Faith of all Christians within his Romish Jurisdiction teaching them to believe that The Body of Christ is sensually Eaten and Torne with the Teeth of all the Communicants of this Sacrament Which tenour of Speech hath beene abandoned by your owne Doctors some censuring it as harsh and false and some as Hereticall It can be no marvaile say wee that Averroâ—s hearing of this Then professed by Papall Christians did deride and detest all such Eaters of their God and that most Justly Because that Devouring as hath beene confessed by your Jesuite is nothing else but a Transmitting without mastication or Tearing into the stomack else could not Scriputre have sayd that Ionas was devoured of the Whale Which your Corporall Swallowing of Christs Body if it had beene held Christian in the Dayes of Antiquity then could not Attalas as hath beene objected have upbraided the Heathenish Persecutors at the time of his Martyrdome saying * See above Sect. 1. This your persecuting of Christians to death is a Devouring of men Wee Christians do not Devoure men Such is the Vnluckinesse of your Objectors to urge most vehemently and eagerly still that which maketh most against them And indeed the Romish must needs be sayd to Devoure that which they professe to Eat Swallow and sometime to passe into their Bellies and after into the Draught CHAP. XI Of the Fift Last and Basest Romish maner of Vnion with Christs Body in the Inferiour parts of your Communicants HItherto have your Romish Disputers laboured to bring the Body of Christ into your Bellies and Entrailes Now as if they thought this not a sufficient Vilfication of the Blessed Bodie of Christ they proceede to depresse it lower into the Basest place of Baseness which is the Draught and Seege it selfe so vile that the very Inke may seeme to blush in setting downe the Sordidity thereof which in respect of other Readers than your selves who teach this wee may not further adventure to mention without Preface of Reverence under our Readers patience therefore wee proceed as followeth Shewing the Romish Doctrine of an Vnion of Christs Body with the Basest parts of Mans Body to be more Beastly than the Carnall and Capernaiticall conceipt of Eating Christs Body is read of ever to have descended unto SECT I. CApernaites when they were offended at Christs words concerning the receiving of Christs flesh are not read to have proceeded further in the grosenesse of their Imagination than to a Proper Eating thereof Our Saviour shewing the Ordinary Course of meat in the superfluity thereof above that which is turned into nourishment and changed in the Substantiall parts of mans Body saith that Coming into the Belly it descendeth into the Draught A Saying which holdeth true as well in meat Sacramentall as Naturall as Manna for example called Angels food and the Paschall Lambe neither of both were privileged from the ordinary course of Nature And as for the materiall part of this Sacrament Origen saith as much of it that * Origen See B. 4. cap. 9. § 3. B. 3. cap. 3. § â—1 B. 5. cap. 6. §. 3. Going into the Belly it passeth into the Draught But what now is your Romish Doctrine The generall learning of your Schooles is that The Body of Christ is under the formes of Bread wheresoever so long as they remaine uncorrupt Which is so verily your Romane Faith that one of your Cardinalls in his Catechisme telleth his Catechumenist that 21 Contarenus Cardinal Catechests Christiana Interrog 14. Remanetne corpus Christi sanguis in Eucharistia donec species illae remanent Resp Quis sanus mente posset de hoc ambigere Vis enim Consecrationis durat semper donec res consecrata duraverit No man that hath his wits can doubt thereof This Ground being thus layd wee propound unto you the Consequences hereof as wee finde them divulged in print by your owne Authors and in their privileged Books Antoninus was as 22 Anton Possetia Apparat. Tit. Antoninus Antoninus Florentinus deinceps Archiepiscopus Patriae suae in Sanctorum numerum à Pontifice Clemente Septimo relatus you know an Arch-Bishop living and being dead Canonized a Saint by Pope Nicolas Hee shall be our Relater of the Doctrine of Paludanus whom your Jesuite 23 Possevin Apparat. Tit. Petrus de Palude Inter Theologos celebris postea Patriarcha Constantinopolitanus commendeth for a Famous Divine and sometime a Patriarch This Petrus Paludanus from your former Generall Principle argued saying that 24 Antonini Summae parte tertia Tit. 13. cap. 6. §. 3. de Defectibus
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
ipsi sine sanguine immolamus Ita quideÌ„ Sed Christi tunc reminiscimur obitus una nobis est immolatio non multae quandoquideÌ„ ille semel immolatus est EundeÌ„ sempeâ— offerimus quin potiùs Oblationis illius memoriam facimus perinde aâ—si esset hoc tempore immolatus Quocirca unum esse hoc nostruÌ„ Sacrificium constar Vnicum est semel oblatum nam unus est sanguis semel fusus Theophylact c Theod. in Heb cap. 8. Cum essecit ut alia Sacrificia non essent necessaria cur novi Testamenti Sacerdotes mysticam Liturgâ—â—m seu Sacrificium peragant sed clarum est ijs qui sunt in rebus divinis cruditi nos non aliud Sacrificium offerre sed unius illius salutaris memoriam peragere Dixit enim Hoc facite in memoriam mei Theodoret d Ambros in Hebr. â—0 Osterimus quidem sed Recordationem salutaris mortis ejus una haec Hostia non multae Ambrose e Euseb Demonst Evangelic lib. 1 cap. 10. Sacrificamus incendimus aliâs autem magni Sacrificij illius memoriam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius and f Primasius in Heb. cap. 10. Quod Deus c. Offerunt quidem Sâ—cerdotes nostâ—i sed ad recordationem mortis ejus sicut ipse dixit Hoc facite in Commemorationem mei Vna hostia non multae Corpus unum cum illo quod suscepit in utero virginali non autem multa Corpora nec nunc quidem aliud magnum aliud minus Primasius Your onely Answer is that their Exception here used was not to note that it is not the same Body of Christ here Corporally present which was offered upon the Crosse but that it is not offered in the same maner by effusion of Blood as that was which is indeed a Part but not the whole Truth For survey the Marginalls and then tell us If that your Sacrifice were the same Body of Christ Corporally present why should Theophylact apply his qualification not to the maner whether Bloody or Vnbloody but to the person of Christ saying Wee offer the same Christ who was once offered or rather a Memoriall of his Oblation And Theodoret applying it directly to the thing Non aliud Wee offer not another Sacrifice but a memoriall therof Why Eusebius Wee offer a Memoriall in stead of a Sacrifice Why Chrysostome The same Sacrifice or rather a Commemoration of it every one directly requiring that the Thing which wee offer be the same crucifyed Bloody Sacrifice of Christs Death which S. Augustine but even now named The onely true Sacrifice of Christ in the former Section but that they plainly notifyed unto us that they meant the same very Body which was the Subject of the Sacrifice on the Crosse to be the now proper Object of our Remembrance in the Eucharist but not the Subject therein Which agreeth with that which in the former Section was said by Ambrose Our offering up of Christ in an Image and Augustine his celebrating of this Sacrament of Remembrance Semblably as Hierome speakes of the Priest who is said to take the Person of Christ in this Sacrament so that He saith g Hier. Tom. 5. lib. 13. Com. in Ezec. cap. 44. Qui offerat Deo Sacrificium ita ut verus Sacerdos sit imò Imitator ejus qui est Sacerdos secundùm ordineÌ„ Melchisedech Idem Tom. 9. lib. 4. cap. 26. in Matth. Sicut Melchisedech panem vinum offerens ipse quoque veritateÌ„ corporis sanguinis sui repraesentat Hierome be a true Priest or rather an Imitator of him But a Priest and an Imitator is not Identically the same that is represented Master Brerely is not Christ âšœ Yea and Saint Hierome will speake as directly of the Differences of the two Sacrifices as hee doth of the two Priests for distinguishing betweene them 3 Hier. in Levit. extat in Decret de Consec dist 2. Can. De hac De hac quidem hostia quae in Christi commemorationem mirabiliter fit edere licet de illa verò quam Christus in ara crucis obtulit secundùm se nulli edere licet In this Sacrifice saith hee which is marveilously done in commemoration of Christ one may eat but that which hee offered of himself upon the Crosse no man may eat Where hee noteth two Sacrifices One Here and another on the Crosse the first offered by Another and the second by Himselfe And hee separateth them in respect of the Subject as THIS from THAT which if they were subjectively really and personally the same then the Eating of the one should be the Eating of the other which S. Hierome denyeth Of THIS one may eat saith hee but not of THAT âšœ Lastly The same said * See the former Marginalls at the letter f. Primasius in all places which was born of the Virgin not now great now lesse So he But have wee not heard you number your many Hosts on one Altar at one Time and yet the Fathers say Wee offer not many but the same which must needs be the same one as Object else shew us where ever any Father denyed but that upon diverse Altars were diverse Breads or that but according to their outward Dimensions they were now greater now lesse which no way agreeth with the Body of Christ as hath beene proved in discussing the * See above B. 4. Chap â—â— Sect. 5. Canon of the Councell of Nice The fifth Demonstration Because the Body and Blood of Christ as they are pretended by the Romish Church to be in this Sacrament cannot be the Representative Sacrifice spoken of by Ancient Fathers against your vaine Instance in a Stage-play being the last refuge of your desperate Disputers wherein their whole Defense consisteth SECT VII THat the Subject matter of this Sacrament by you called the same Sacrifice which Christ offered up upon the Crosse ought to be Representative and fit to resemble the same Sacrifice of his Passion is a matter unquestionable among all In which respect the Fathers have so often called it a Sacrifice of Commemoration Representation and Remembrance and that the thing to be represented is his Body crucifyed and his Blood shed in that Sacrifice of his Passion is a point as questionlesse which accordeth both to the words of Christ his Institution Do this in remembrance of mee and to the Exposition of Saint Paul to be a shewing forth of the Lords death untill hee come yea and is also consonant to the last mentioned Doctrine of the Fathers calling it A Sacrifice of Christ or rather a Remembrance thereof The onely Question will be how This which you call The same Sacrifice meaning the Body of Christ subjectively in the Eucharist being invisible can be said to represent figure and resemble the same Body as it was the Sacrifice on the Crosse Wee yielding unto you a possibility that one thing in some respects may be a Representation
and reasonable Sacrifice unto thee Next a Sacrifice Eucharisticall saying Wee desire thy fatherly goodnesse mercifully to accept of our Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving And why may wee not with the Scripture call this a Sacrifice seeing that your Bishop Iansenius held it for an Argument of proving Christ to have offered a Sacrifice even b Iansen ChristuÌ„ in coena Sacrificium obtuliâ—â—e primuÌ„ quidem satis est significatum cum dicitur Gratias egisse Gratiarum enim actio est quoddam Sacrificium à qua Christi actione Sacramentum corporis sanguinis Domini nomen illud ab initio Ecclesia accepit Concord cap. 131. Because hee gave Thanks giving of Thanks being a kinde of Sacrifice So hee Thirdly a Sacrifice Latreuticall that is of Divine worship saying And although wee be unworthy to offer up any Sacrifice yet wee beseech thee to accept of our bounden duty and service c. This performance of our Bounden Service is that which * See above Chap. 3. Sect. 5 Ancient Fathers called an Vnbloody Sacrifice Nor is our Church of England alone in this Profession this Truth wee referre unto the Report of your c Bellarm. Melancthon Eucharistiam Sacrificium esse vult Calvinus non solùm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse vult sed etiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. §. Ac primum §. Expendamus Cardinall and of d Canus Lutherani in Apologia Augustana perperam Sacrificium definiebant esse opus à nobis Deo redditum ut cum honore afficiamus Loc. Theolog. lib. 12. ca. 12. §. Quibus rebus Bellar. Melancthon dicit Missam dici posse Sacrificium quaetenùs sumptio Eucharistiae fieri potest ad laudem Dei sicut caetera bona opera Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. §. Ac primum Et Calvinus dicit Sacrificium generaliter acceptum complectitur quicquid Deo offertur Ibid. §. Expendamus Kemnitius dicit Sacrificium à Patribus dici Oblationem Immolationem Sacrificium quia est commemoratio repraesentatio veri Sacrificij Christi Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 15. §. Alter modus Canus by whom you may understand the agreement betweene them whom you name Lutherans in their Augustane Confession and of Calvin by acknowledging not some one Act but the whole worke of this Celebration according to the Institution of Christ both in Communication Commemoration and Representation of his Death with Praise and Thanksgiving to be a Sacrifice Eucharisticall And also to use the words of Calvin Latreuticall and Sebasticall that is a Sacrifice of Worship and Veneration which every Christian may and must professe who hath either eyes in his head or faith in his heart the Celebration of this Sacrament in Remembrance of his absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption being the Service of all Services that wee can performe to God Now wherein and in what respect wee may furthermore be said to offer to God a Sacrifice propitiatory improperly will after appeare when wee consider Christ's Body as the Object heerein That Protestants in their Commemoration offer up the same Body and Blood of Christ which was Sacrificed on the Crosse as the Object of Remembrance and most absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption which is partly justified by the Romish Masse it selfe SECT IV. NOw wee are come to the last most true and necessary Point which is the Body and Blood as the Object of our Commemoration Still still do you urge the Sayings of Fathers where they affirme that wee offer unto God The same Body and Blood of Christ on this Altar even the same which was sacrificed on the Crosse which therefore you interpret as being the same subject matter of our Commemoration As is a King acting himselfe upon a Stage as hath beene * See above Chap. 5. Sect. 7. shewen Wee as instantly and more truly proclame that wee offer Commemoratively the same undoubtedly the very same Body and Blood of Christ his All-sufficient Sacrifice on the Crosse although not as the Subject of his Proper Sacrifice but yet as the only adequate Object of our Commemoration as the Emperour Mauritius is sayd to be represented in a Stage-play wherein wee cannot possibly erre having Truth it selfe for our Guide who said Do this in remembrance of mee namely of the same Mee meaning Christ as crucified on the Crosse as the Apostle commenteth saying Hereby you shew the Lords Death till hee come even the Same Body as the Same Death whereunto beare all the Fathers witnesse throughout this Treatise Wee say againe for your better Observation the Same Body as the Same Death but it cannot be the Same Death but objectively onely Ergò can it not be the Same Body but onely Objectively Whereby it will be easie for us to discerne the subject Sacrifice of Christ from ours his being the Reall Sacrifice on the Crosse ours onely the Sacramentall Representation Commemoration and Application thereof âšœ For your better satisfaction Wee exhibit unto you the ancient Practise of your Romish Church in the Service of the Masse celebrated every Saturday in the Passion-weeke wherein as your 2 Bellar. Recog Librorum de Missa Feriâ sextâ majoris hebdomadae non celebratur Missae sacrificium quaÌ„vis in illa Actione dicat Sacerdos Orate Fratres ut et meum et vestruÌ„ Sacrificium c. Et paulò antè Sic fiat Sacrificium nostruÌ„ in conspectu tuo ut placeat Tibi Domine Deus In his duobus lotis vox SacrificiuÌ„ non videtur propriè accipienda sed largo modo pro tota ista Actione Et quòd in ista feria Missa non propriè celebretur legimus in Ordine Romano antiquissimo c. Cardinall doth certifie you and us the Priest in your Missall Prayeth twice to God to receive His Sacrifice although it be properly but onely a Sacrament the whole Action thereof being called a Sacrifice So hee even as directly for our purpose as wee could wish hereby justifying our Calling the Whole Celebration of the Eucharist albeit Properly a Sacrament onely a Sacrifice in a Large and qualified Sense according to the Practise of ancient Fathers as wee have proved throughout the whole Sixt Booke by Eleven Demonstrations âšœ CHAP. VIII Of the Second Principall part of this Controversie which concerneth the Romish Sacrifice is as it is called Properly Propitiatory THis part is divided into an 1. Explication of that which you call Propitiatory 2. Application thereof for Remission of Sinnes The State of the Question of Propitiatory what it is SECT I. THe whole Difference standeth upon this whether the subject matter of our Representation in the hands of the Priest be Properly a Propitiatory Sacrifice or no. Now Propitiatory is either that which pacifieth the wrath of God and pleaseth him by it's owne virtue and efficacie which as all confesse is onely the Sacrifice of Christ in his owne selfe or else a thing is said
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
as much as to say Not indeed by the Wicked It must necessarily follow that the Wicked do not eat Indeed the Body of Christ and Consequently that there is not Indeed in this Sacrament the Corporall Presence of Christ which your Profession teacheth to be Eaten as well of a Wicked man or of vile Myce as it can be of the most Faithfull member of Christ Againe Saint Augustine once told us That the Sacrament is called the Body of Christ not in the Truth of the thing but in a Significant mystery which your owne Romish Glosse expoundeth to meane that It is called Christs Body Improperly The Second Assertion of Saint Augustine will accord to our former Conclusion 9 Aug. Tract 26. in Ioh. Qui manducat carnem meam in me manet Qui non manet in Christo proculdubio non maÌ„ducat Spritualiter carnem Christi nec bibit ejus sanguinem 〈◊〉 carnaliter visibiliter prem at dentsbus Sacramentum corporis Tantae rei Sacramentum ad judicium sibi manducat Hee that abideth not in Christ saith hee although hee presse with his Teeth the Sacrament of Christs flesh yet doth hee not Eat the Spirituall flesh of Christ The Observable is that hee saith not They eat not Spiritually the flesh of Christ But They eat not the Spirituall flesh of Christ therefore called Spirituall because it is Hypostatically united unto his Deity So then that which they properly Eat is not Christ Body but onely the Sacrament thereof allowing no Corporall Touch with the Teeth but onely of the Sacrament it selfe Compare wee now this Doctrine of Saint Augustine of Pressing onely the Sacrament of Christs Body and not Christs Body it selfe with your Pope Nicholas his Profession of Tearing of Christs Body with mens Teeth * See below Ch. 5. Sect. 1. above mentioned and then will it be easie for any man of but ordinary Capacity to collect that Pope Nicholas by his Affirmation meant as directly to proclame your Romish Article of the Corporall Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament as S. Augustine by his Denyall meant utterly to disclame and abandon it In the thire place Saint Augustine for your better instruction and apprehension of his meaning exemplifyeth it by two notable Instances and Comparisons the First between two different kinds of Communicants at our Lords owne Table namely Christs faithfull Apostles and the Reprobate Iudas saying 10 Aug. Tract 59. in Ioh. Illi manducarunt panem Dominum Iudas autem panem Domini They received the Bread the Lord meaning the Body of Christ But Iudas What Hee received but the Bread of the Lord which was but the Sacramentall Bread The onely Answer which your i Resp Bellarm. lib. 1. de Eucharistâ— cap. 13. Iudas inutiliter edebat sicut qui comedit et rejicit â—â—â—sus dicitur non comedere Cardinall vouchsafeth is that Saint Augustine spake so because Iudas ate the Bode of Christ Vnprofitably as if the Difference of Eating and Not Eating Christs Body had beene betweene the Different effects Eating Profitably and Not Profitably which you call Spiritually and not Spiritually which is the Evasion of others when as indeed the Comparision is expresly betweene the divers Subject matters of Eating The one being Bread the Lord which is Christs Body the other being the Bread of the Lord which is the Sacramentall Bread as any 〈◊〉 but an Halfe-eyed man may easily discerne Another Comparision remayneth whereabout wee are to have 〈◊〉 Conflict with your Doctor Heskins A Vindication of a Speciall Testimony of Saint Augustine in the same point against the notorious Falsification of his words by Doctor Heskins SECT X. DOctor Heskins before that he deliver the Sentence it selfe as a man but about to put on his Harnesse and yet sounding a Triumph before the victory prefaceth saying This place of Saint Augustine presseth our Adversaries so hard that they have no refuge So hee The words of Saint Austine speaking of Moses and other Faithfull in the Old Testament who in eating Manna ate Christ Spiritually and therefore although they died in Body yet died not Spiritually in their soules are these 11 Aug. To. 9. Tract 26. in Ioh. Illi manducaverunt Manna morâ—â— non sunt Quare quia visibilem cibum spiritualiter intellexerunt nam hodiè visibilem cibum accipimus Sed aliud est Sacramentum Aliud virtus Sacramenti Quà m multi de Altari accipiunt moriuntur unde dicit Apostolus judicium sibi manducant Multi manducaverunt Manna mortui non sunt Quare quia visibilem cibum Spiritualiter acceperunt nam hodiè visibilem cibum accipimus sed aliud est Sacramentum Aliud virtus Sacramenti Quà m multi de Altari accipiunt moriuntur That is Many of them the Jewes ate Manna and died not namely in Soule But why Because they understood it Spiritually For wee also at this day do receive the visible meat But the Sacrament is one thing and the Virtue of the Sacrament another thing How many do receive from the Altar and do die and eate damnation to themselves So hee Namely say wee Because they ate onely the Sacrament as the visible meat and not the Virute that is the Bodie of Christ signified thereby And by this our Paraphrasis Saint Augustine is fully Protestant professing with us that the Wicked Communicants do not eate the Body of Christ Your Doctor to make Saint Augustine as flatly a Papist as himselfe hath framed 12 Dr Heskins in his parliament of Christ Booke 3. c. 48. fol. 368. 369. The place of Saint Augustine presseth our Adversaries so strictly that they have no refuge Saying Manducaverunt multi qui Domino placuerunt mortui non sunt Quare quia visibilem cibum spiritualiter intellexerunt Nam hodie nos accipimus visibilem cibum Scd aliud est Sacramentum aliud virtus Sacramenti quam multi de Altari accipiunt mòriuntur Note here saith he the Distinction that Saint Augustine maketh betwixt the Sacrament and the virtue of the Sacrament Saying that the Sacrament is one thing and the virtue of the Sacrament another Then of the virtue of the Sacrament he saith that many doe receive it at the Altar and do die Meaning according to the Saying of the Apostle that receiving it unworthily they Die in the Soule eating and drinking their owne Damnation Now would it be learned of the Adversary how hee will understand Saint Augustine in this word Virtue First certaine it is that it is not taken for the Sacramentall Bread For that is the other member of the Distinction Then must it either be taken for the virtue of the Passion of Christ or for the Body of Christ it selfe For in the Sacrament be no more but these three to be received The Sacrament The Body of Christ and the virtue of his Passion It cannot be taken for the virtue of Christ's Passion for that is not nor cannot be