imperfecta dici potest integraliter sed non essentialiter Num. 19. Nec videtur necessario colligi quòd obligatur sacerdos consecrare vinum Num. 21. Fecit Christus in Emmaus cùm unicam speciem consecrârat fecit id quod absolutè praeceperat Perfect commemoration of Christs death by consecration of but one kinde and that Christ did not command the Consecration of Both as necessary This hee fetcheth from the former Example of Christ at Emmaus whom notwithstanding your Iesuite 5 Vasques les in 3. Thom. Disp 222. cap. 4. per totum Repraesentatio mortis Christi in ipsa consecratione hujus Sacramenti non debet corpus sinè sanguine consecrari Cele bratio hujus SacrameÌ„ti est imago quaedam Repraesentationis Christi Rat 1. Quià probaturhoc sacrisicium non in consecratione unius speciei sed utriusque fuisse à Christo institutum quià alioqui ubi duae essent Consecrationes duo essent sacrificia in Missa Altera quià per alterius tantum speciei consecrationem non potest mors Christ commodè repraesentati quià neutra species sola habet analogiam similitudinem aut pâ—oportionem cum â—orte Christi ptout contigit nempe perâ—effusionem sanguinis ex vulneribus Vndè rectè fequitur unae tantum speciei consecrationem pro sacrificio Christi cruento non fuisse à Christo institutam Vasquez if peradventure hee cannot reforme will surely refute even from your owne Romish Principle which teacheth that the Sacrifice of the Masse is an unbloudy Sacrifice in it selfe yet Commemorative and Representative of Christs death and Passion which was by the Effusion and Separation of Bloud from his Body But this saith he cannot be represented 〈◊〉 by one kinde And thereupon hee Concludeth that Christ instituted the Consecration of this Sacrament in Both kindes If then because Christ ministred it not in Both kindes in Emmaus it shall be lawfull for the Church to imitate him in that manner of Distribution of this Sacrament it must as equally follow that because hee is not found there to have Consecrated in both kindes it may be lawfull for your Consecrating Priest so to do not onely contrarie to your now Romane Custome but also in the judgement of the Councell of Trent conrary to the Command of Christ as * See above See also hereafter Sect. 6. hath beene confessed Twice miserable therefore is the darknesse of your Disputers First not to see the Inconsequence of this Objection and next not to remember that common Principle to wit Extraordinary Acts such as this was are not to be Rules for ordinary Duties âšœ Wherein that the Vnconscionablenesse of all your Objectors may be made more transparent We adde out of your Schooles that Christs Acts of Excellencie that is which are proper to his owne Soveraignty are neither Dispensable nor Imitable And such was this his abrupt not-dispensing of Both kinds unto his Disciples Say Father Vasquez is not this most true 6 Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom Disp 2â—3 cap. 3. Supremâ authoritate coram Discipulis in castello Emmäus alteraÌ„ tantùm speciem consecravit quod quidem eo tempore fieri maximè expedibat cùm stâ—tim in fractione panis agnis is est Non possit Pontifex hanc obligationem Sacerdotibus relaxare Christ saith this Iesuite now at Emmaus consecrated but in one kinde by his Supreme authority so proper to Christ that the Pope himselfe cannot dispence with any Priest that he should not consecrate in Both. So he With what Conscience then could your Objectors urge this Example of Christ for the Priests administring the Sacrament but in One kinde which they themselves did see could not justifie either your Priests or Popes consecrating but in One kinde A SECOND CHALLENGE VVEe conclude You have seene by the testimonies of Cyprian and Pope Iulius that it was good Divinity in their dayes to argue from the Example of Christ his Institution negatively by rejecting such Acts and accounting them as contrarie to the Institution of Christ which accord not with his Example and which are not comprized within the Canon of Christ his Hoc facite Which kinde of Reasoning at this day is hissed at in your Romish Schooles What need many words O tempora Our third Comparison is by conferring Apostolicall Practice with contrary Practice SECT IV. Saint Paul having more speciall occasion to handle this point than any other of the Apostles may worthily be admitted to resolve us in the name of all the Rest Hee Catechizing the Corinthians concerning the true use of the Eucharist recordeth the first Institution thus * 1. Cor. 11. 23. I have received of the Lord that which I deliver unto you that the Lord Iesus c. And after his Recitall of the Institution of Christ hee himselfe addeth * Ibid. Vers 26. As often as you eate of this Bread and drinke of this Cup you shew the Lords death untill hee come againe * Ibid. Vers 28. Let therefore a man examine himselfe and so eate of this Bread and drinke of this Cup. From this wee seeke a Proofe both of the Apostolicall Practice in the use of Both kindes in this Sacrament and of our duty in observing the same But we may spare our paines of proving the use of Both kindes in the Church of Corinth because as your a Antiqua Consuctudo temporibus Apostolorum fuit in Ecclesia sub utraque specie communicandi In hac assertione nulla est Controversia Tolet. Ies in Ioh. 6. pag 602. So Ecchius Hom. 36. Nullum insiciari posse Paulum hoc praecipisse Corinthijs Cardinall Tolet confesseth There is no controversie thereof As for the Proofe of our necessary Conformity wee have the same Reasons wherewith the Apostle perswadeth thereunto That saith he which I have received of the Lord I deliver unto you that Iesus c. Thereby applying the Example of Christ his Institution for a Rule of their Practice which this conjunctive Particle of Eating AND Drinking To Eate AND Drinke five times so coupled in this Epistle do plainly declare But you tell us that in this place the Conjunctive AND is put for a Disjunctive Or thereby to teach the Church a liberty to choose whether they shall eate or Drinke notwithstanding you your selves have confessed that Christ spake absolutely and without Condition of the Bread Take Eate Do this And againe 1 Cor. 11. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in like manner the Cup. It is an AND Conjunctive questionlesse For seeing it cannot be denyed that the Apostles Practice was both Eating and Drinking conjunctively it is not likely or credible that the sense of his words should be discretive because this had beene in words to have contradicted his owne practice Master Brerely opposeth viz. The Apostle in the same Chapter saith v. 20 Hee that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgement also he saith vers 27. whosoever eateth this Bread and drinketh this Cup unworthily
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 of Christ not onely under a Signe or Signification but under a Seale of Confirmation also which inferreth a greater degree of reall Truth thereby represented unto us This might have bin the reason why Saint Augustine taught Christ to be g August Tract 50. in Ich. Habemus Christum in praesenti ad Baptismatis Sacramentum habemus in praesenti ad Altaris cibum potum Tom. 9. Present both in Baptisme and at receiving the Lord's Supper A fourth Reason to be observed herein as more speciall is Veritas Exhibitionis a Truth Exhibiting and delivering to the faithfull Communicants the thing signified and sealed which Christ expressed when he delivered it to his Disciples saying Take eate this is my Body given for you and this is my Blood shed for you Thus Christ by himselfe and so doth he to other faithfull Communicants whersoever to the ends of the World by his Ministers as by his hands through virtue of that Royall Command DOE THIS Vaine therefore is the Objection made by your h Athanas apud Theodoret. Dial. 2. pag. 330. Corpus est cui dicit Sede à dexteris meis per quod corpus Pontifex fuit dictus est per id quod tradidit mysterium dicens Hoc est corpus meum This was objected by Bellarmine lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 11. Cardinall in urging us with the testimony of Athanasius to prove that Christ his Body is exhibited to the Receivers As though there were not a Truth in a mysticall and Sacramentall deliverance of Christ his Body except it were by a corporall and materiall presence therof which is a transparent falsity as any may perceive by any Deed of Gift which by writing seale and delivery conveyeth any Land or Possession from man to man yet this farre more effectually as afterwards will appeare But first wee are to manifest That the Romish Disputers do Odiously Slanderously and Vnconscionably vilifie the Sacrament of the Eucharist as it is celebrated by PROTESTANTS SECT III. BEllarmine with others i Christus nihil est illis nisi frustum panis vini portiuncula Salmeron Ies in Epist pauli disput 11. §. Septimo EucharistiaÌ„ esse tantùm figuram haeresis est antiqua haec Calvini haeresis Bellar. de Not. Ecclesiae c. 9. §. Quorundam Malè cocta bâ—ccella mysterium carnale nihil divini portentat Refigit inquiunt in memoriam Christi meritum ejusque generi nostrò collata beneficia Augustum sanè I nihil deterius ipsa praesta oculis nostris inspecta imago Crucifixi Westen de 3. hominis offic c. 16 Purus putus panis pistorius merum meracum sive vinum cauponarium Espenc de Adorat lib. 5. cap. 9. p. 188. object against Protestants saying that Their Sacrament is nothing else but a crust of Bread and pittance of Wine And againe A morsel of Bread ill baked by which the Protestants represent unto their memories the death of Christ and the benefits thereof A goodly matter so doth a Crucifix and to make the Sacrament onely a Signe is an ancient Heresie So they But have you not heard the Doctrine of the Protestants teaching the Eucharisticall Bread to be more than Bare Bread a Sacramentall Signe more an Evangelicall Signe more a Sacred Seale yet more an Exhibiting Instrument of the Body of Christ therein to the devout Receiver And have not these outragious Spirits read your owne Cardinall witnessing that the Protestants teach that k Docet Calvinus Symbola corpus Christi licet loco inter se plurimùm distenâ— tamen conjuncta esse non solum ratione signi quià unum est signum alterius sed quià per signum Deus verè nobis exhibet ipsum corpus verum sanguinem quo animae nostrae verè alantur Bellar. l. 1. de Euc. c. 1. â—it Calvinus affirmat saepiùs Christi corpus esse praesens in Sacramento quatenus ibi animis nostris verè unitur communicatur substantialiter sic enim loquitur secundum substantiam non modò secundum effectum Et Fortunatus Calvinista dicit in Sacramento corpus Christi versari realissimeque percipi Valent. Ies Tom. 4. disp 6. quaest 3. punct 1. §. 7. p. 9. Idem Sadael Beza sentiunt Idem ibid Haec est eorum sententia licet Christi corpus corporaliter essentialiter sit in coelo nihilominus duplici modo in hoc Sacramento verè percipi spiritualiter sacramentaliter spiritualiter quidem ore mentis non dentis id est per fidem coÌ„junctionem virtute Spiritus Sancti in animo communicantis sacramentaliter etiam ore quidem corporis sumendo non ipsum quidem corpus ejus sed signum corporis ejus panem vinum quae dicit esse sigilla certa quibus promissio redemptionis in corpore sanguine Christi fidelibus obsignatur Valent. quo supra Although the Body of Christ be still in Heaven yet is it received in this Sacrament first Sacramentally by Bodily mouthes in receiving the Bread the signe of Christ his Body and by which God doth truly albeit Sacramentally deliver unto the faithfull the reall Body of Christ and secondly spiritually to the mouth of the soule by Faith and so they truly and really participate of the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ So Bellarmine concerning Protestants which is so plainly professed by l Calvin in his Booke intituted Defensio Carvini de Sacramento Augustana Confessio In sacra Coenâ verè dari cum Pane Vino ipsum Corpus Christi Sanguinem Huic consenâ—um nostrum praebemus Absit verò ut nos vel Coenae Symbolo suam auferamus veritatem vel plus animas tanto privemus beneficio Defens pag. 28. Hujus rei non fallacem oculis figuram proponi dicimus sed pignus nobis porrigi cui res ipsa veritas conjuncta est quòd scilicet Christi Carne Sanguine animae nostrae pascantur Ibid. pag. 44 Sacram unitatem quam nos habemus cum Christo sensui carnis incomprehensibilem fatemur esse Ibid. 45. Spiritualem cùm dicimus fremunt quasi hac voce realem ut vulgò vocant tollamus Nos verò si reale pro vero accipiant ac fallaci imaginatio opponunt Barbare loqui mallemus quà m pugnis materiam praebere Scimus enim quà m non deceant logomachiae Christi servos Ibid. pag. 46. Quasi verò nobis cum Swinkfeldio quicquam sit commune qui nudum signum docuit Ibid. Defens 2. pag. 35. Figuraram esse locutionem fatemur modò non tollatur figurae veritas hoc est modò res quoque ipsa adlit Ibid. pag. 43. Substantiâ Corporis Christi animas nostras bene pasci fateor tamen substantialem praesentiam quam imaginantur repudio Ibid. pag. 55. Nec aliter sanctae memoriae Bucerum sensisse luculentissimis testimonijs probare mihi semper prompum erit Ibid. pag. 61. In veteri Testamento nondum carnem induerat filius
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
shewed in the Third Booke III. Vpon the same Sacramentall and Analogicall reason they have used to say that wee See Touch Tast and Eat Christs Body albeit Improperly as hath beene plentifully declared and confessed in this Fift Booke IV. Because Eating produceth a Nourishing and Augmentation of the Body of the Eater by the thing Eaten they have attributed like Phrases of our Bodily Nourishment and Augmentation by Christs Body which you your selves have confessed to be most Improperly spoken in the same Booke V. Almost all the former Vnions Corporall of our Bodies with Christ have beene ascribed by the same Fathers unto the Sacrament of Baptisme wherein there cannot Properly be any Corporall Touch or Conjunction at all As for example in saying I. That Wee in Baptisme hold the feet of Christ II. Are Sprinkled with his Blood III. Do Eat his flesh have Vnion with him in Nature and not onely on Affection IV. Being made Bone of his Bone and Flesh of his Flesh V. Thereby have a Pledge of our Resurrection to Life And a Pledge as you have now heard is of that which is Absent Each one of these and many other the like are abundantly alleged in the Eighth Booke of this Treatise of the Masse The summe of all these Premises is that wee are to acknowledge in the Objected Testimonies of Fathers concerning the Symbol and Sacrament of Christs Body their Symbolicall and Sacramentall that is Figurative Meanings And lest you may Doubt of the reason hereof we adjoyne the Section following The Divine Contemplations which the Holy Fathers had in uttering their Phrases of our Naturall and Corporall Conjunction with Christs Body and Nourishment thereby to Immortality for the Elevating of our minds to a Spirituall apprehension of his Body and Blood SECT V. YOur Jesuites Bellarmine Tolet Suarez and Vasquez have already instructed you not to take such Sayings of the Fathers as they are uttered lest the Fathers might be held to be Absurd in themselves or Derogatory to the Dignity and Majesty of this Sacrament And they say well But it had beene better if they had furthermore unfolded unto us the Fathers true Mysticall meaning therein which wee must endeavour to do out of the premised Sentences of the same Fathers to the end that you and wee may make an holy and comfortable use of their Divine meditations upon this Sacrament They have sayd I. That Christ hath a Naturall Vnion by his Godhead with God the Father II. That this Godhead of Christ by his Incarnation is united Hypostatically into our Nature of Manhood in him whereby wee have with Christ our Naturall and Corporall Conjunction III. That by the same Hypostaticall Vnion of his Divine and Humane Nature together his Bodily Flesh is become the Flesh of God his Blood the Blood of God IV. That these being the Flesh and Blood of God are become thereby to be Vivificall that is giving Life Blisse and Immortality both to the Bodies and Soules of the Faithfull in Christ V. That the Faithfull by Reason of the Specificall Vnion of their Humane nature with the Humane Nature of Christ are made partakers the reby of his Divine Nature and of all the Infinite Vivification and power of grace in this world and of Glory and Immortality in the world to come wrought by his Death and Passion VI. Both by Baptisme and by the Eucharist wee have a Naturall and Corporall Vnion with the Body of Christ mystically in as much as the Sacrament of Bread and Wine the Choycest Refections of mans Bodily Life are Touched Tasted Eaten and Sensually mixed with our Flesh to the nourishing and augmenting the same untill it become of the Essence of our Bodily Substance unseparably Therfore hath this Sacrament most aptly beene called a Pledge of an unspeakable Vnion of Christs Body with ours unto Immortality and an Earnest of our Resurrection Lastly from this Sacrament there resulteth a Spirituall Vnion continuing in the Faithfull after the Receiving of this Sacrament even all their life long and notwithstanding called by the same Fathers Corporall and Naturall that is as they interpret themselves from the Nature of Faith by believing that Christ had truly a Naturall and Bodily flesh the same Specifically with ours Which Vnion your Jesuites have beene enforced to acknowledge to be in it selfe not Properly a Corporall and Naturall Vnion but Spirituall and Mysticall wrought onely in the Soule But how This indeed is worthy our knowledge as a matter full of Christian Comfort Thus then The Disposition of the Body in Christian Philosophy followeth the Disposition of the Soule For when the Soules of the Faithfull departing this life in the state of Grace and the Soules likewise of the Vngodly passing but from hence into the thraldome of Sin shall resume their owne Bodies by virtue of that Resumption shall be made possessors of Life and Blisse both in Body and Soule and the Wicked contrarily of Curse and Damnation in both according to that Generall Doome Come you Blessed unto the one c. and Goe you Cursed to the other c. Nor will your learned Suarez deny this 22 Suarez in 3. Tho. qu 79. Disp 64. §. 2. Gloria corporis respondet gloriae animae sicut beatitudo animae respondet gratiae charitati ut sicut hoc Sacramentum neque habet nequè haberé potest aliam efficaciam circa gloriam animae praeter eam quam habet circa gratiam charitatem itaque neque aliter pâ—â—est efficere gloriam corporis quam gloriam animae CoÌ„dudit Hoc Sacramentum non aliam conferre vitam immortalitatem corporis quam nutriendo conservando charitatem gratiam The Glory of the Body saith hee dependeth upon the Glory of the Soule and the Happinesse of the Soule dependeth upon Grace therein neither doth the Sacrament any otherwise conferre Immortality to the Body but by nourishing and preserving grace in the Soule Which is Divinely spoken And yet wee have a more Ancient than your Jesuite even Cyprian one of the Ancientest of the Primitive Fathers whose words may serve us for a Comment upon the former objected Sayings of other Fathers Hee in his Discourse of the Supper of the Lord the Blessed Sacrament of our Vnion which the Faithfull Communicants have in receiving it 23 Cyprian de Câ—na Dom. Potus Esus ad eandem pertinent rationem quibus sicut corporea nutritur substantia vivit â—â—colum 〈◊〉 perseâ—erat ita vita spiritus hoc propâ—io alimento nutritur quod est esâ—a 〈◊〉 hoc animae est fides quod cibus corporiâ— est verbum spiritui excellentiori virtute peragens aeternaliter quod agant alimenta carnalia temporaliter As by meat and drinke saith hee the Substance of our Bodies is nourished and liveth in health so the life of the Spirit is nourished with this Aliment For what Meat is to the Flesh that is Faith to the Soule and what Food is to the Body that
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
instrumentis neque locis in quibus ipse quidem est Pontifex ut mansuetudo pationtia c. Sacrificium laudis justitiae spiritus contribulati Reasonable Service saith hee is that which is performed with the minde without Bodily helpe âšœ The which Athanasius attributeth to Baptisme 13 Athanas cont Macedon Dial. 1. de Baptismo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This saith hee is a Reasonable and living Worship whereof the Apostle saith Yield up your Bodies an holy lively Sacrifice c. âšœ Thirdly The Vnbloody Sacrifice is called Spirituall as you heare how shall this be properly applyed to the Body of Christ You will say not in it's naturall Essence but in the maner of being Invisible Impalpable and the like But wee demand the same head of a mans Body is it more Spirituall in the darke than in the light Lastly all these termes in these Liturgies of Vnbloody Sacrifice Reasonable Service and Spirituall are spoken before Consecration when the Body of Christ even in your owne Faith as yet can have no being in the Eucharist and therefore cannot be the Vnbloody Sacrifice here meant by you Will you have the full substance of all these Reasons The word Vnbloody whether it point out Bread and Wine or the Act of outward Worship in this celebration called a Reasonable Service and Spirituall Sacrifice it must betoken a thing void of Blood which no Christian Professor dare attribute to the Body of Christ Wee proceed Eusebius saith indeed g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Caesar lib. 4. De Vita Constant cap. 45. de Euchar. Alij sacras literas interpretantur Alij 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mysticis consecrationibus divinum numen placabant supplices preces pro communi pace offerebant Et Demonst Lib. 1. Cap. 6. Sacrificium mundum Wee offer an Vnbloody Sacrifice but what hee meant thereby hee doth not expresse whether the Signes of Bread and Wine which hee elsewhere with others as you have heard called Sacrifices or whether as Basil and Chrysostome have done hee understood together the Publike Service in celebrating the Memory of Christ's Death This then concludeth not for an Existence of the Body of Christ as of the Vnbloody Subject herein But whereas furthermore your may observe that Eusebius objected calleth h Non per cruores sed per quas actiones summo Deo offerendas After there followeth an Oration of Constantine Ad Sanctorum coetum Tale SacrificiuÌ„ peragitur vacuum sanguine ab omni violentiâ As 〈◊〉 Dadraeus Doctor Parisâ— translateth it Godly Actions a pure Sacrifice and opposeth this against Bloody Sacrifices and also termeth i Againe Demonst Evang. li. 1. ca. 10 Has rursus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. materiae expertia Sacrificia intelligeÌ„â—â—â praeditas hostias Prophetica nuntiant â—racula Immola Deo Sacrificium laudis Hymnos sanctâ—â— Orationes celebrantes And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eâ—od lib. Holy Prayers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Without Materiall Substance as hee did the Celebration of the Sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Vnbloody And yet againe of this Sacrament A Memoriall saith hee instead of a Sacrifice These shew that Eusebius meant a Sacrifice void of Blood which neither the word of God will permit us nor your Councell of Trent will suffer you to impute to the Body of Christ and therefore must needs wound your Romane Oblation of Body and Blood to the very heart Nazianzen objected is as directly opposite to your Masse as East is to West and will strike the matter dead calling it k Nazian Invect 1. advers Iulian. ante med 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Vt ab incruento Sacrificio manê° elueret per quod nos Christo ipsiusque passionibus divinitate coÌ„municamus Marke IncruentuÌ„ per quod is distinguished from Christo therfore was not Christ the Incruentum objected by the Rhemists Angotat in Luc. 22. 19. The unbloody Sacrifice whereby saith hee wee Communicate with Christ Flatly differencing the unbloody Sacrifice whereby from Christ himselfe with whom the Faithfull docommunicate in this Sacrament Ambrose objected prayeth to God l Ambr. lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 6. Sacerdos dicit Ergo memores gloriosissimae ejus passions offerimÌ„us Tibi immaculatam hanc hostiam incruentani hunc panem sanctum hanc oblationem salutis aeternae To accept of this immaculate and unbloody Hoast which are the very words of your Romane m Suscipias in sublimi Altariâ—uo perimentis 〈◊〉 lorum sicut accipere dignatus es munera Abel c. To be expounded as Bellarmine doth 〈◊〉 the same words in the Roman Masse Masse and which your Cardinall seeketh to justifie by Saint Ambrose But this hee cannot do except their meaning be both the same Let then your Cardinall but tell us the meaning of the Canon of your Masse and you will soone apprehend the Iudgement of Saint Ambrose In our Masse saith your n Accipiendo sacrificium pro re quae sacrificatur negari non 〈…〉 〈…〉 in Missa offerri ac proinde pertinere ad rem quae sacrificatur Nam cùm autè Constrationem dicimus Suscipe Pater haue immacuâ—â—tam Hostiam certè Pronomen Hanc demonstrat ad sensum id quod manibus tenemus id autem panis 〈◊〉 Bellarm. 〈…〉 de Missa cap. 27. §. Respondeo it Because the Cardinall doth often in this and other Chapters justifie the Romane terme of Masse by the 〈◊〉 in Ambrasâ—â— Cardinall it is sayd Receive holy Father this immaculate Hoast where the Pronounce This saith hee doth domonstrate Bread and Wine because spoken before Consecration So hee And the Body and Blood of Christ you know are not Bread and Wine Let Athanasius put a Period to this Section who saith that o 〈◊〉 Melchisedech dedit Abrahamo vinum meracum addito panis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frusto hic typus fuit offerendi Sacrificium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 incruentum sanctam oblationem Hist de Melchizedech ad sinem Tom. 2. Melchisedech in giving Bread and Wine was the first Type of an unbloudy Sacrifice But Melahisedechs was Vnbloody negatively having no Blood at all in it So was never the Body of Christ since his Resurrection according to our Christian Beliefe CHALLENGE WHat a faire piece of service do you thinke have these Objectors done for the patronizing of your Romane Sacrifice out of the Sentences of Ancient Fathers whilest they alleging their words citing their Bookes and quoting their Chapters have so handled the matter as if they had meant by prevaricating in their owne Cause to betray it seeing that it is apparent that they have delivered unto us the worship in stead of the thing worshipped out of the Councell of Ephesus Basil Chrysostome and Eusebius Next by the word Vnbloody being spoken before Consecration and therefore concerneth not the Vnbloody Body of Christ they have obtruded the