to turne their Wonderment against themselves saying Behold the providence of God! thus plainly to confound the wisdome of the Adversaries of his truth by themselves in their greatest subtilenesse Hitherto of the Comparison of the Ordinance of Christ with the Ordinance of the Romish Church Our second Comparison is of the Example of Christ with the contrarie Example SECT III. VVEre it that we had no Precept of Christ to Doe this but only the Example of his Doing it in the first Institution this should be a Rule for us to observe it punctually excepting in such Circumstances which only occasionally and accidentally hapned therein as hath beene proved and therefore not to dare to give a Non-obstante against the Example of Christ as your Councell of Constance hath done and which your Iesuite also teacheth as if the Example of Christ were no argument of proofe at all Which Doctrine wee are now to trie by the judgement of Antiquity Cyprian confuteth the Aquarij Heretikes that used only Water in the Chalice by the Example of Christ his Institution because Nothing is to be done of us in celebrating of this Mystery which was not done of Christ. So he In the dayes of Pope Iulius Anno 337. there arose many giddie spirits which violated the holy Institution of Christ in this Sacrament when as some consecrated Milke instead of Wine others sopped the bread in the Cup a third sort squiezed Grapes thereinto These and the like that holy Pope did condemne but how by pretence of Custome only no but by the obligation of Christ his Example and institution of this Sacrament in these words following Because these are contrary saith he to Evangelicall and Apostolicall doctrine and Ecclesiasticall Custome as is easily proved from the fountaine of truth from whence the Sacraments had their first ordinance for when our Master of Truth commended this to his Disciples he gave to none Milke but Bread only and the Cup. Nor doth the Gospell mention the sopping of bread but of giving Bread a-part and the Cup also a-part c. So Pope Iulius Those also that offered Bread and Cheese together in this Sacrament are confuted by the Institution of Christ who appointed Bread saith your Aquinas What can be more direct and absolute yet dare your men obiect to the contrarie The Romish Obiection answered At Emmaus Luke 24. Christ meeting with certaine Disciples taking bread and blessing it and thereby manifesting himselfe to them is said immediately after the Breaking of Bread to have vanished out of their sights Ergò it may be lawfull saith your Cardinall to use but one kind Because saith Master Brereley the Text sheweth that Christ vanished away not leaving any time for Benediction or Consecration of the Cup. CHALLENGE THis Argument is still inculcated almost by every Romanist in defence of the Romish Custome of but in one kind notwithstanding it be twice rotten First in the Root and Antecedent For although Christ here had begun the Celebration of the Eucharist yet doth it not appeare that he did now perfect it in distributing either kinde to his Disciples Nor is this likely saith your Iansenius And it is dead-rotten also in the branch and Consequence thereof because that this Act of Christ in Emmaus is not to be urged as an Example to be imitated in the Church which is demonstrable by an Acknowledgement of your Iesuite Valentia As for example The Councell of Trent hath defined that the Priest in Consecrating is commanded by Christ his Institution to consecrate in both kinds Because this saith your Iesuite both the nature of the Sacrifice and Sacrament doth exact but by what words of Command namely for so hee saith by these words Doe this Accordingly your Objectour Master Brereley as if he had meant purposely to confute and confound himselfe The reason why the Priest receiveth both kinds is because hee is to represent the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse But Bread cannot represent Christ dead without some signe of Bloud If then because Christ ministred it not in both kindes in Emmaus it shall be lawfull for the Church to imitate him in that manner of Distribution of this Sacrament it must as equally follow that because hee is not found there to have Consecrated in both kinds it may be lawfull for your Church so to doe not only contrary to your now Romane Custome but also in the judgement of the Councell of Trent contrary to the Command of Christ as hath beene confessed Twice miserable therefore is the darknesse of your Disputers First not to see the Inconsequence of this Obiection and next not to remember that common Principle to wit Extraordinary Acts are not to be Rules for ordinary Duties A SECOND CHALLENGE VVEe conclude You have seene by the testimonies of Cyprian and Pope Iulius that it was good Divinity in their dayes to argue from the Example of Christ his Institution negatively by rejecting such Acts and accounting them as contrarie to the Institution of Christ which accord not with his Example and which are not comprized within the Canon of Christ his Hoc facite which kinde of Reasoning at this day is â—issed at in your Romish Schooles What need many words O tempora Our third Comparison is by conferring Apostolicall Practice with contrary Practice SECT IV. SAint Paul having more speciall occasion to handle this point than any other of the Apostles may worthily be admitted to resolve us in the name of all the Rest Hee Catechizing the Corinthians concerning the true use of the Eucharist recordeth the first Institution thus I have received of the Lord that which I deliver unto you that the Lord Iesus c. And after his Recitall of the Institution of Christ hee himselfe addeth As often as you eate of this Bread and drinke of this Cup you shew the Lords death untill he come againe Let therefore a man examine himselfe and so eate of this Bread and drinke of this Cup. From this wee seeke a Proofe both of the Apostolicall Practice in the use of both kindes in this Sacrament and of our duety in observing the same But wee may spare our paines of prooving the use of both kindes in the Church of Corinth because as your Cardinall Tolet confesseth There is no controversie thereof As for the proofe of our necessary Conformity wee have the same Reasons wherewith the Apostle perswadeth thereunto That saith he which I have received of the Lord I deliver vnto you that Iesus c. Thereby applying the Example of Christ his Institution for a Rule of their Practice which this coniunctive Particle of Eating AND Drinking To Eate AND Drinke five times so coupled in this Epistle doe plainly declare But you tell vs that in this place the Coniunctive AND is is put for a disiunctive Or thereby to teach the Church a liberty to choose whether they shall Eate or Drinke
are the Rites of the old Law called Shadowes in respect of the Sacraments of the Gospell according to the which difference Saint Iohn the Baptist was called by Christ a Prophet in that hee foretold Christ as now to come but he was called more then a Prophet as demonstrating and pointing him out to be now come Which Contemplation occasioned divers Fathers to speake so Hyperbolically of the Sacrament of the Eucharist in comparison of the Sacraments of the old Testament as if the Truth were in these and not in them as Origen did Besides the former two there is Veritas Obsignationis a Truth sealed which maketh this Sacrament more than a Signe even a Seale of Gods promises in Christ for so the Apostle called Circumcision albeit a Sacrament of the old Law the Seale of Faith But yet the print of that Seale was but dimme in comparison of the Evangelicall Sacraments which because they confirme unto the faithfull the Truth which they present are called by other ancient Fathers as well as by Saint Augustine visible Seales of divine things So that now we have in this Sacrament the Body of Christ not only 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 beene the reason why Saint Augustine taught Christ to be 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 wheresoever 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 Obiection made by your 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 thereof 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 we are to manifest That the Romish Disputers doe odiously slanderously and unconscionably vilifie the Sacrament of the Eucharist as it is celebrated by PROTESTANTS SECT III. BEllarmine with others obiect against Protestants saying that Their Sacrament is nothing else but a crust of Bread and pittance of Wine And againe A morsell 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 only 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 Although the Body of Christ be still in Heaven yet is it received in this Sacrament first Sacramentally by Bodily mouthes in receiuing 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 Calvin himselfe as would make any Romish Adversary blush at your former Calumnies who hath not abandoned shamefastnesse it selfe CHALLENGE THus may you see that we have not hitherto so pleaded for the Existence of the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration as thereby to exclude all Presence of Christ his body nor so maintained the proprietie of a Signe or Figure as not to beleeve the thing signified to be exhibited unto us as you have heard With what blacke spot of malignity and falshood then were the Consciences of those your Doctors defiled thinke you who have imputed to Protestants a Profession of using onely bare Bread which they notwithstanding teach and beleeve to be a Sacred Signe of the true Body of Christ in opposition to Heretikes an Evangelicall Signe of the Body of the Messias crucified against all Iewish conceit yea a Seale of Ratification yea and also a Sacramentall Instrument of conveying of the same precious Body of Christ to the soules of the faithfull by an happy and ineffable Coniunction whereof more hereafter in the Booke following where the consonant Doctrine of the Church of England will likewise appeare And as your Disputers are convinced of a malitious Detraction by the confessed positions of Protestants so are they much more by your owne instance of a Crucifix for which of you would not hold it a great derogation from Christ that any one seeing a Crucifix of wood now waxen old should in disdaine thereof call it a wooden or rotten Blocke and not account them irreligious in so calling it but why onely because it is a signe of Christ crucified Notwithstanding were the Crucifix as glorious as either Art could fashion or Devotion affect or Superstition adore yet is it but a signe invented by man And therefore how infinitely more honourable in all Christian estimation must a Sacramentall Signe be which onely the God of Heaven and Earth could institute and Christ hath ordained to his Church farre exceeding the property of a bare signe as you have heard A Father deliuering by politique assurances under hand and seale a portion of Land although an hundred miles distant and convaying it to his sonne by Deed if the sonne in scorne should terme the same Deed or writing blacke Inke the Seale greasie Waxe and the whole Act but a bare signe were he not worthy not onely to loose this fatherly benefit but also to be deprived of all other the temporall Blessings of a Father which hee might otherwise hope to enioy yet such like have beene your Calumnies and opprobrious Reproaches against our celebration of the Sacrament of Christ The Lord lay not them to your Charge Now you who so oppose against the Truth of the mysticall Presence will not conceale from us that Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ which your Church doth so extremely dote on CHAP. II. The Romish professed manner of Presence of Christ's Body in this Sacrament SECT I. OVr Methode requireth to consult in the first
unbloody Service or Worship In the first place three Liturgies or if you will Masses are objected to prove that by unbloody Sacrifice and Reasonable and unbloody worship is betokened the Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood in the Masse one of Basil another of Chrysostome and by some others the Masse of Saint Iames of Ierusalem In which Epithet of Vnbloody say we could not be signified Christ's body Our reasons because as the Margent sheweth the word Vnbloody hath sometime Relation unto the Bread and Wine both unbloody before Consecration called in Saint Iames his Liturgy Gods gifts of the first fruit of the ground who also reckoneth Hymnes among unbloody Sacrifices But Christ's Body is the fruit of the wombe or else sometime is it referred to the Acts of Celebration in Supplication Thanksgiving and Worship of God all unbloody naming that Areasonable and unbloody Service which they had termed an unbloody Sacrifice as Lindan your Parisian Doctor hath truly observed Which Chrysostome also stiled Spirituall marke you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Service or Worship Was ever Christ called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is himselfe rather the person to be worshipped Secondly Reasonable could this point out Christ's Body in the sence of the objected Fathers suffer Chrysostome to resolve us Reasonable Service saith he is that which is performed with the minde without Bodily helpe 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 manner of being Invisible Impalpable and the like But we 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 We proceed Eusebius saith indeed We offer an unbloody Sacrifice but what he meant thereby he doth not expresse whether the Signes of Bread Wine which he elsewhere with others as you have heard called Sacrifices or whether as Basil and Chrysostome have done he 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 you may observe that Eusebius objected calleth Godly Actions a pure Sacrifice and opposeth this against Bloody Sacrifices and also termeth Holy Prayers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is without Materiall Substance as he did the Celebration of the Sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Vnbloody 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 Roman Oblation of Body and Blood to the very heart Nazianzene objected is as directly opposite to your Masse as East is to West and will strike the matter dead calling it The unbloody Sacrifice whereby saith he we communicate with Christ Flatly differencing the unbloody Sacrifice whereby from Christ himselfe with whom the Faithfull doe communicate in this Sacrament Ambrose objected prayeth to God To accept of this immaculate and unbloody Hoast which are the very words of your Roman Masse and which your Cardinall seeketh to justifie by S. Ambrose But this he cannot doe 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 Cardinall it is said Receive holy Father this immaculate Hoast where the Pronoune This saith he doth demo astrate Bread and Wine because spoken before Consecration So he And the Body and Blood of Christ you know are not Bread and Wine Let Athanasius put Perâ—od to this Section who saith that Melchizedech in giving â—read and Wine was the first Type of an unbloody Sacrifice But Melchizedech's was Vnbloody negatively having no Blood at all in it So was never the Body of Christ since his Resurrection according to our Christian Beleefe CHALLENGE WHat a faire peece of service doe you thinke have these Objecters done for the patronizing of your Romane Sacrifice out of the Sentences of Ancient Fathers whilest they alleaging 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 apparant 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 thing Distinguished from Christ instead of Christ in the Testimony of Nazianzene But especiaily because in the most of the Sentences the word Vnbloody must needs be taken negatively for want or absence of of Blood and so you may bid your Corporall Presence adiâ—u All which may be strong Arguments unto us both of the deplorable Consciences of your Doctors and of the desperatenesse of your Cause Other Testimonies wherein there is mention of Christ's Body and Blood come now to be discussed A Confirmation of the former Demonstration from the use of the word Vnbloody in the objected Sentences wherein the Fathers make mention of the Body and Blood of Christ SECT X. THis Objection seemeth to be of better moment than the former but only seemeth Clemens Bishop of Rome the first of that name calleth indeed the Eucharisticall Celebration 〈◊〉 unbloody Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ In which sentence the Vnbloody Sacrifice is plainly distinguished from the Body and Blood whereof it is a Sacrifice even as both the Act and Service of Commemoration have beene oftentimes above and are hereafter called of the Fathers a Sacrifice in respect of the Object thereof which is the Body and Blood of Christ on the Crosse This is manifest by two especiall Reasons the first because that which he calleth Vnbloody he termeth also a Reasonable Service Secondly Clemens calleth the same Vnbloody Sacrifice the Signe and Type of Christ's Body and Blood thereby distinguishing them from that Body and Blood whereof they are but Types You will then aske what is this Body and Blood whereof they are said to be Types Yea marry
Church 1 Cor. 15. and Galath 1. and drawing both men and women to Death Act. 22. 4. And all this not maliciously but as you heare himselfe say Ignorantly 1. Tim. 1. 13. and with a good Conscience Act. 23. 1. and in zeale Phil. 3. 6. A fairer expression of a Good Intent in a wicked practice cannot be than this was and as much may be said for his Habituall Condition namely that if he had then as afterwards knowne Christ to have beene the Lord of life and those murthered Christians to have beene his mysticall members he would rather have exposed himselfe to Martyrdome than to have martyred those Saints of God This Consequence directly appeareth first by his Answer in his miraculous Conversion saying Who are thou Lord next by his detestation of his fact I am unworthy to be called an Apostle because I persecuted the Church c. then by his Acknowledgement of God's especiall mercy But God had mercy on me Afterwards by his labour for winning soules to the Faith I have laboured more abundantly than they all And lastly in that he was one of those Actors of whom Christ himselfe foretold saying They shall draw you before Iudgement seats and when they shall persecute you they will thinke that they doe God good service Which also plainly argueth that their and his perswasion of so doing proceeded from a Morall Certainty From these Members let us ascend to our Head Christ the Lord of Glory what thinke you of the Iewes of whom Saint Peter said You have murthered the Prince of life Act. 3. 15. But did they this Voluntarily and Knowingly as understanding him to have beene the Redâ—…er of the world and indeed the Prince of life they did not for the same Apostle testifieth in their behalfe saying I know you did it ignorantly as did also your Rulers Act. 3. 17. If this be not sufficient heare the voice of the person that was slaine Christ himselfe who did so farre acquit them saying They know not what they doe Luk. 23. 34. Ignorantly then in a Conjecturall Certainty but yet with Good Intent of whom Saint Paul witnesseth in these words I beare them witnesse that they have the Zeale of God but not according to knowledge Rom. 10. But what for habituall Condition were they not bent in their owne mindes if they had understood what Christ was to have abhorred that so heinous a guilt of the death of the Sonne of God questionles for so saith the Apostle If they had knowne they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory 1. Cor. 2. 8. We Conclude seeing these Iewes notwithstanding their Morall Certainty being seduced by their Priests or else their Good Intent of doing God good service therein or yet their habituall Condition not to have crucified Christ if they had truly knowen him were neverthelesse by S. Peter condemned yea and of themselves as formall and verily Murtherers of Christ then ô you Romish worshippers of the Hoast must it necessarily follow that in your Masses you are equally all formally Idolaters notwithstanding any of the same three Pretences to the contrary Wherefore as Salomon speaketh of an Adulterous woman She eateth and wipeth her month saying I have done no wickednesse so may we say of Idolatrous Worshippers and their Proctours for what else are these your three Romish Pretences but like such mouth-wipers or as Anodyna and stupifying Medicines which take away the Sence of the diseased person but doe not cure the disease So doe you delude miserable people with false Pretences lest they discerning the grossenesse and ouglinesse of your Idolatry might abhor that worship and abandon your Romish worshippers That the former Romish Pretences have no warrant from Antiquity SECT V. THe number of Ancient Fathers whose workes are yet extant who liv'd within Six and Seven hundred yeares after Christ are recorded to have beene about 200. out of whose monuments of Christian learning your chiefest Disputers could never hitherto produce any one that justified your Romish worship by so much as in distinguishing of Materiall and formall Idolatry nor yet by qualifying any Idolatry under pretence of either Morall Certainty or Good Intent or yet Habituall Condition and therefore must we judge that they never gave Assent to this your Sorcery For we may not be so injurious to the memory of so many so famously learned and Catholike Doctors of the Church of Christ that they could not or of persons so holy and zealous of Gods honour and of mens Salvation that they would not satisfie mens Consciences to free them out of thus many and miserable perplexities wherewith your now Romish Profession of Adoration of the Host is so Almost infinitly intangled CHAP. VII That the Romish Adoration notwithstanding your former Pretences is formally Idolatrous proved by foure Grounds of Romish Profession The first is your Definition of Idolatry SECT I. DIvine honour saith your Iesuit Valentia is whatsoever word or outward office that a man doth performe whereby he doth intend to beget in others such an estimation of God unto that which he honoureth which is proper unto the Majestie of God So that Idolatry is an Error in the understanding saith your Iesuit Tolet in yeelding divine worship to that which is not God whether by praising invocating sacrificing or prostrating our selves to that which is not God In a word Idolatry comprehendeth all religious superstition saith your Iesuit Lorinus in worshipping of any thing as God which is not God So they most Theologically and truly CHALLENGE NOw apply you these points of your Distinction unto your Host in the hand of the Priest which by your owne Confessions may possibly be and by our proofes cannot possibly but be after Consecration Bread still whereunto notwithstanding he prostrateth himselfe sweareth by and invocateth upon as being in it selfe the person of Christ the Priest himselfe saying O holy Host c. O Lambe of God c. whereby also according to your Definition of Idolatry you your selves doe seeke to professe and thereby to beget in others an opinion of a God-head in the Sacrament as whereunto Divine honour doth properly belong How then can you free your selves from the Crime of formall Idolatry by pretence of Ignorance and error of true knowledge of the thing falsely adored seeing that Idolatry as you your selves have also defined is an Error and Ignorance in the judgement of the worshipper This were as if one defining a disease to be a Distemperature of Humours should notwithstanding therefore deny a man to be sicke because his humours are distempered II. That Romish Worship is proved to be formally Idolatrous by Consequence taken from a Romish Principle concerning Coadoration or joynt-worship of Christ with Bread SECT II. COadoration is when any thing is worshipped joyntly with God in a Divine Worship which worship by the Law of God which saith Thou shalt have no other Gods but me is perfectly Idolatry by