Priests yet we answere that your Consequence viz. Ergò only Priests are enioyned to receive the Cup will appeare to be both fond in it selfe and to your owne selves pernicious First as fond as if one should argue thus It was at the first said only to the Apostles Goe and baptize all Nations Ergò none but the Apostles have Command to Baptize Next pernicious for say Wee pray you doe the words Drinke yee all of this command all Priests to drinke then must this condemne the contrary Practice of your now Church of Rome which alloweth the Cup to no Priest present but only to him that doth Consecrate which is directly confuted by the Example of Christ who administred the Cup unto all his Apostles by your doctrine Priests Againe Doe these words only command the Priest to receive the Cup then likewise doe you condemne your former Church of Rome which hath sometime permitted the Cup unto Laicks Yea and your Cardinall Alan doth not sticke to tell you out of the ancient Fathers that the Command Doe this declared by Saint Luke is applyed by Saint Paul to the receiving in both kinds aswell of People as of Priest And by virtue of the same Command of Christ The Greeke Church hath alwayes observed the use of both kinds unto this day So hee justifying our contrary Consequence euen as also your Cosmus Philiarchus defendeth and confirmeth the same by Aquinas and Scotus the two most eminent Doctors of your Church holding that Laicks are chargible to celebrate the Eucharist by virtue of the Command of Christ in the same words of Institution Doe this Your second Evasion Next although it were say you said And in like manner Christ tooke the Cup namely as he tooke Bread yet the word Similitèr Likewise hath Relation to his Taking not to his Giving CHALLENGE THis is flatly repugnant to the Gospell of Christ where these words of Saint Luke Likewise he tooke the Cup appeare by Saint Matthew to have relation aswell to Christ's Giuing as to his Taking of the Cup thus Iesus tooke the Cup and gave thankes and gave it vnto them saying Drinke you all of this Yea and in Saint Luke the text obiected is so cleare that it needeth no Comment He tooke the Bread and gave thankes and gave it unto them saying c. and likewise the Cup. Where the precedent word expressing Christ his Act is not Tooke but Gave the Cup. And if any should seeke a Comment upon these words hee could find none more direct than that of your learned Arias Montanus and B. Iansenius In like manner That saith they as he did with the bread so did he with the Cup he tooke it he gave thankes he gave it unto them All to drinke All which Saint Luke comprized in these words In like manner He tooke the Cup. So they Your third Evasion Although it be said of Drinking of the Cup Doe this in remembrance of Mee yet the words Doe this say you are spoken absolutely of the Bread and but Conditionally of the Cup namely As often as you shall drinke it And vpon this Conceit doe two Iesuites raise up their Insultation saying Behold here the wonderfull providence of God whereby is taken from Heretikes all colour of excuse So they of us Protestants CHALLENGE TO this we answere out of the Conclusions of your owne Doctors aswell of the new as of the old Schooles your Iesuite Vasquez for the new Concluding that the words This doe yee as often as you drinke it in remembrance of Mee as they command the end of the Celebration of this Sacrament in the remembrance of the Passion of Christ so doe they also command the Act and manner thereof which is by drinking of the Sacramentall Cup. Which hee holdeth to be so manifest a Truth that hee thinketh no man to be so blinde as not to discerne it saying Who seeth not this Accordingly he alleageth Soto for the old Schoole concluding that the words Drinke yee all of this as often c. Doe simply command the act of Drinking or else saith he the Church hath no ground for the Priest that consecrateth to celebrate in both kinds And this Obligation Cardinall Cusanus affirmeth to lie alwayes upon the Church Whereby your Master Brereley may see and acknowledge his double Errour And indeed the Evidence is so great that although all Romish Vniversities should withstand it we might herein appeale to common Sence for Christ having first commanded his Disciples saying in the Celebration of this Sacrament Drinke yee all of this this is the Act and adding further saying As often or whensoever as yee shall drinke it doe this in remembrance of mee Which is the End so commanded it doth equally imply command of the Act of Drinking aswell as of the End Now the Catholike Church did alwayes hold that there ought to be an Often Commemoration of the Passion of Christ even untill his comming againe as saith the Apostle by the Celebration of this Sacrament And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As often and when-soever yee receive c. being indefinite and assigning no certaine dayes or times giveth libertie to the Church to solemnize this Memoriall at her convenient times yet so that Whensoever the Church celebrateth this Sacrament shee doe it according to the forme of Christ his Institution by Communicating in both kinds If the Pope sitting in the Assembly of his Cardinals delivering unto each of them a Ring to put upon their thumbes should say Doe this as often as you come before mee in testimonie of my love We demand Are they not as often as they come into the presence of that Pope chargeable to put on each one his Ring upon his thumbe by vertue of the Popes Command Doe this who seeth not this that doth not wilfully blind-fold and stupifie his wits Shall we conclude As your owne Doctors inferre from these words of Christ Doe this that Laicks who be of yeares are bound by the Law of God to communicate By the same Text may wee conclude that they are likewise obliged to participate of the Cup. THE CHALLENGE In Generall DOe this are as you haue heard words Commandatorie and being spoken of both kinds aswell for Consecration as for Distribution doe oblige the Church of Christ to performe both kinds so that it must needs follow that the neglect of the Act is a Transgression of the Precept of Christ And so much the rather ought you to be perswaded hereof because your choicest and most subtile Objecters when seeking to defend your Alteration it became them to reason discreetly concerning this Sacrament which the Fathers call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Cup of Sobrietie yet doe argue so intemperately as though they had beene over-taken with some other Cup insomuch that they are confuted by their owne learned fellowes by evident texts of the Evangelists and by common sence which giveth us just cause
notwithstanding you your selves have confessed that Christ spake absolutely and without Condition of the Bread Take Eate Doe this And againe 1. Cor. 11. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in like maner the cup. It is an AND Coniunctive questionlesse But seeing it cannot be denyed that the Apostles practice was both Eating and Drinking coniunctively it is not likely or credible that the sence of his words should be discretiue because this had bene in wordes to have contradicted his owne practice M. Breerly opposeth viz. The Apostle in the same Chapter saith v. 26. He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh Iudgement also hee saith v. 27. whosoever eateth this Bread and drinketh this Cup vnworthily c. So hee It is not to be denyed but that AND is often vsed in Scripture for Or but M. Brearly his notions as commonly so here also are too confused by not distinguishing the divers use of AND in Precepts and Exhortations to an Act in denunciation of iudgement in case of Transgression As for example The Precept is Honour thy father and thy mother Exod. 20. here AND must needs be copulative because of the Obligation of precept of honouring both But the denunciation against the Transgressour if it stood as M. Breerly obiecteth feigning a false Text contrary both to the Originall and vulgar Latine Translation thus Hee that shall strike his father and mother shall die the particle AND must needs be taken disiunctively for Or as indeed it is expressed in the Text because the Transgression of either parts of a Commandement inferreth an obligation of guilt and iudgement as any man of sense may perceive Against this albeit so euident a Truth your Doctors will have something to obect or else it will goe hard even forsooth the contrary practice of the Apostles Act. 2. 42. where wee read of the faithfull assembled and Continuing together in fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers because there is but mention only of one kinde which is Bread whence they inferre a no-necessity of vsing the Cup. So your Cardinall Bellarmine And to answere that the ministration of the Cup is vnderstood by a figure Synecdoche is an answere onely imaginary and groundles saith Mr. Breerely But are they yet to learne that which every man knoweth and your owne Iesuites have taught that there is no Trope more familiar in Scripture than this Syâ—echdoche of taking a part for the whole Or could they not discerne thus much in the same Chap. 〈◊〉 46. where it is said They brake bread through every house Wherein as your Iesuite Lorinus teacheth there is not meant the Eucharist but common foode Whereby you cannot but vnderstaâ—d implied in their breaking of bread their mutuall drinking together also And yet in the like words spoken of the Eucharist v. 42. They continued together in breaking of Bread you exclude the participation of the Cup. What shall wee say was your spirituall appetite weaker than your corporall in reading these two Texts wherein is mentioned onely Bread that you could discerne but halfe refection in the Eucharist and an whole in their bodily repast Besides any man may guesse what spirit it savoureth of that in paralleling the authoritie of your Church with the authoritie of the Apostles your Iesuites doe resolue that although the Apostles had constituted the custome of Receiving in both kinds Nevertheles say they the Church of Rome and Pope thereof hauing the same authority with S. Paul may abrogate it upon iust Cause And yet hardly can you alleage any Cause for abrogation of that Practice which S. Paul might not have assumed in his time CHALLENGE OFrustrà susceptos Labores nostros may we say for to what end is it for vs to prove an Apostolicall Practice or Precept for both kinds when your Obiectors are ready with the onely names of Pope and Church of Rome to stoppe the mouthes not onely of vs Heretikes as you call vs but even of S. Paul himselfe and of the other Apostles yea and of S. Peter too By which Answere notwithstanding you may perceive how little S. Paul doth favour your cause by whose Doctrine the Advocates for your Church are driven to these straits but more principally if you call to remembrance that our Argument is taken from the Apostles Doctrine and Practice as it was grounded by St. Paul himselfe vpon the Doctrine and Precept of Christ Thus when we appeale vnto the Apostles Tradition you by opposing Thinke your selves wiser than the Apostles which Irenaeus will tell you was the very garbe of old Heretickes Our fourth and fift Comparisons are of Primitiue Custome with the contrary Custome in respect both of the Antiquitie and Vniversalitie thereof SECT V. BEfore wee shall say any thing our selues of the Primitive Custome in vsing both kindes in the administration of this Sacrament and the extent thereof both in the longitude of Continuance and latitude of Vniversalitie we are ready to heare how farre your owne Doctors will yeeld vnto vs in both these points touching the publike vse of both kindes Hearken but vnto the Marginals and you shall finde your Iesuites with others vttering these voyces Wee must confesse Wee doe confesse yea Wee doe ingenuously confesse a Custome of both kindes aswell to the Laicks as Priests to have beene in the Primitive Church most frequent and generall as is prooved by the ancient Fathers both Greeke and Latine among whom are Leo and Gregorie both Popes of Rome yea and universall also for a long time continuing a thousand yeares in the Church of Rome and in the Greeke Church vnto this day So they where we see both Antiquity and Vniversality thereof to the full which it were easie for vs to have shewne Gradatim descending downe from the first Age unto the twelfth but that when wee haue as much confessed as neede be proved it might be iudged to be but an importunate diligence and Curiositie to labour any further Neverthelesse if peradventure any should desire to see one or two Testimonies for the last Age he may satisfie himselfe in the Margent at the first sight The Romish Obiections concerning Primitive Custome Divers Obiections are vrged on your side to abate something of the Vniuersalitie of the Custome of Both kindes which we defend but if they shall not seeke to decline the Question and to rove about as it were at vnset markes their Arguments are but as so many Bolts shot altogether in vaine For our defence is onely this that in the publike solemnization and Celebration of this Sacrament in an Assembly of Christians freely met to communicate no one example can be shewen in all Antiquity throughout the Catholique Church of Christ for the space of a thousand yeares inhibiting either Priest or Laick from Communicating in both kindes who was duly prepared to receive the Sacrament As for the examples which you vsually obiect they are of no force at all being proved to be
in Prayer joyntly against both God and Man because that without the vnderstanding of the Prayer it is impossible for a man being of discretion to pray vnto or to praise God as hee ought and consequently to obtaine any blessing by prayer from God according to that Apostolicall Doctrine 1. Cor. 14. where he saith of the man ignorant of the language of prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How shall he say Amen at thy giving of thankes seeing he knoweth not what thou sayest To which Argument of the Apostles taken from the Impossibility your Eckius and some Others answere that the Apostle speaketh of Preaching and not of Praying What not of Praying Eckius May it not bee said of this your great Doctor and Antagonist to Luther that this man could not see the River for water for as your Cardinall confesseth in the text it selfe the Apostle vseth these three words Pray sing and give thankes Will you now seeke an Evasion from Mr. Brereley Pr. collecting as he saith the Contrarie in the Apostle as affirming that not the whole vulgar but some one was especially appointed to supply the place of the vnlearned to say Amen Which Reason he may seeme to have borrowed from your Senensis who saith that The Apostle by him That occupieth the place of the vnlearned meant the Clarke of the Parish and not the vulgar people But this is thought of your Bellarmine and others to be but an vnlearned Answere because that In the dayes of the Apostle saith he There was not any such office ordained as is the Clarke of the Parish and if there had beene any such yet the Greeke phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would not admit of any such interpretation So hee Lastly it can be no lesse than an extreme Infatuation to appose as doe your Iesuite Salmeron Eckius and the Rhemists the example of Children because the Children crying Hosanna and not understanding their prayers were notwithstanding say they accepted of Christ. Ergò the Priest Monkes and Nunnes in praysing God may be gratefull to God although they vnderstand not that which they pray So they An Obiection taken as you see from Children or rather as it might seeme made by Children it is altogether so Childish For the Apostle as it were fore-seeing that this might possibly be fancied by some fond and obstinate Opposers to the Spirit of Truth doth in the very same Chapter 1. Cor. 14. 20. purposely prevent it saying Brethren be not children in understanding For although when a Childe asketh his Fathers blessing only with clapping his hands together or uttering halfe syllables it joyeth the Father because his Childe now expresseth his duty according to the Capacitie of a Childe yet if the same Childe after hee is come to the perfect yeares of discretion should performe that duty in no better manner than by childish babling would the Father hold this to be Reverence and not rather plaine Mocquerie So is the Case betwixt us and God who accepteth every one according to that which he hath and not according to that which he hath not A Childe in the capacity of a Childe but a man according to to the apprehension of a man In which consideration the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 13. 11. When I was a childe I spake as a childe but being a man I put away childishnesse Away therefore with this your more than Childish Obiection VVee returne to the Impossibilitie of praying duely in an vnknowne tongue which the Apostle illustrateth by two Similitudes the one taken from an Instrument of peace Verse 7. He that knoweth not the distinct sound of the Pipe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How shall he know what is piped that is it is impossible for him to apply himselfe to the daunce The other from an Instrument of warre Verse 8. If the Trumpet give an vncertaine sound who shall prepare himselfe to battell As if hee would haue said It is impossible to know when to to march forward or when to retraite So it is said of vnknowne Prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How shall he that is ignorant of the language say Amen that is to say by the interpretation of your â—esuite How shall people ignorant of the tongue answere Amen that is yeild consent unto the Prayer seeing that they who dissent among themselves after a Babylonish confusion cannot consent in minde and affection So he Or as your Aquinas How shall he say Amen who vnderstandeth not what good words thou speakest but only knoweth that thou blessest Thus in one Transgression you commit a double Sacrilege to wit by Robbing God of his due Honour and Men of their spirituall graces and Comforts To conclude These Premises doe prove that among many thousands of your people assembled at a Romane Masse and being ignorant of their Service not any such an one a miserable Case can justly be held to be a true Worshipper of God who requireth of his VVorshippers the Calves of their lips and not as now they make themselves the lips of Calves THE FIFT CHALLENGE Out of the Doctrine of the Apostle 1. Cor. 14. more copiously in confutation of your divers Objections IT were an easie matter to bee superfluous in the prosecuting of this Argument by proving the truth of this Doctrine out of the Testimonies of ancient Fathers if it were imaginable that any Reply could be made to that which is alreadie said But yet behold an Anonymus having had notice of most of these points hath formed such Objections and Answeres as his prejudicated and purblinde Conceit could reach vnto First in answere to the places objected out of 1. Cor. 14. affirming out of the Rhemish Annotations That the Apostle speakes not of the publike and set prayers of the Church but of extraordinarie and spirituall exercises of Exhortations and suddaine Prayors So he Wherein the man contradicteth your owne Schoolemen but especially the Apostle his direct saying Verse 23. If the whole Congregation meete together c. what more publike than that Assembly of the whole Congregation And to suppose that they were extraordinarie Prayers what is more consectarie and Consequent than that if the Apostle note it for an Abuse to practice such extraordinarie Exercises of Preaching and Praying in a tongue vnknowne even because the Hearers are not thereby Edified doubtlesse the same Abuse practiced in publike and ordinarie Service being more notorious and Common must needs be so much the more condemnable as witnesse both Ancient Fathers and your owne Brethren who have taught the vse of a knowne Tongue in all publique and ordinarie service of God from this Text of Scripture which as you say speaketh of Prayers extraordinarie Yea but It is sufficient saith he that the vulgar people know in generall although they vnderstand not the Prayers in particular VVhich againe Contradicteth the Apostle who in the sixteenth Verse will have the Private or Vulgar man to be able to
giue consent to the publique Prayer in saying Amen And therefore requireth the Minister Verse 7. as the Harper to yeild in particular a Distinction of tunes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Verse 8. as a Trumpetter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give a certaine knowne sound that which your owne Doctors have also confessed A third Instance is taken out of Bellarmine who saith that The Apostle reprehendeth not an vnknowne Prayer but preferreth a knowne Prayer before the other saying Verse 7. Thou indeed prayest well but another is not edified Flatly contradictorie to the whole scope of the Apostle throughout the Chapter as your owne Iesuite is forced to proclaime The Apostle saith he would have the people to be edified because then all things ought to have beene done to the Edification and Consolation of the Assembly and therefore he would not have any Publike Prayer vsed among the Hebrewes but in the Hebrew-language nor among the Grecians but in Greeke nor yet among the Latines but in the Latine tongue The meaning then is Thou indeed namely who art the Minister and knowest the prayer so far doâ—t well but in respect of others which cannot understand Not well because They are not edified His fourth Obiection he wresteth out of the fourth Verse If I pray with my tongue my spirit prayeth but my vnderstanding is without fruit So he As though that strange Tongue here spoken off were not vnderstood by him that prayed Which contradicteth the Apostle Verse 4. He that speaketh with the tongue doth edifie himselfe for never did any denie that he who had the miraculous gift of Speech in a strange tongue did understand himselfe although sometimes he wanted the gift of interpreting it for the vnderstanding of all others Therefore saith the Apostle Verse 13. He that speaketh with the tongue let him pray that he may interprete it Fiftly by the word Spirit your Cardinall would have understood the Affection as if Affection without understanding did profit him that prayeth which is fully contrarie to the Apostles Doctrine as witnesseth your Salmeron in plaine termes shewing that the word Spirit thorow-out this whole Chapter signifieth not the Affection but the miraculous Spirituall gift of speaking in Strange tongues as also the Fathers expound it In the next place the afore-said Anonymus contendeth by Reason but such as others reached unto him Fathers say saith hee the words of Consecration should be kept secret True to them that were not capable of this Sacrament but never to the licenced Communicants because that Christ and his Apostles yea and the Vniversall Church primitive consecrated in an audible voice and knowne language as hath beene confessed Yet furthermore The Church saith he used the said Hebrew word Allelujah unknowne to the people What then know you not that in all Churches of whatsoeuer language is used also the Hebrew word Amen and if people doe not learne one or two words of a strange tongue it is not for that they are witlesse but because they are wilfull and carelesse Their last Reason Some languages as for example that in Italie were Romane and corupted by invasion of Enemies of divers languages and in the end became Italian c. yet the publike Service was not altered but continued Romane as before This Argument is à facto ad jus all one with that Reasoning à Baculo ad angulum Like as if some should Conclude that because Stewes are allowed at Rome they are therefore justly licenced But wee demand are men made for languages or rather languages for men if the first then all men were bound to learne all languages If the latter then is that language to be used which is knowne to serve best for the Edification and Consolation of God's people in his worship A SIXT CHALLENGE Out of the Doctrine of Antiquitie ALthough it were preposterous to exact of vs a proofe from Antiquitie of condemning the Service in a strange tongue seeing as hath beene confessed the Primitive practice is wholly for vs and therefore no Abuse in those times could occasion any such Reproofe yet shall we for your better illumination offer unto you some more expresse Suffrages of the ancient Fathers after that wee shall have satisfied your Obiections pretended to make for your Defence Saint Augustine saith of the People that their Safetie consisteth not in the vigour of their understanding but in their simplicitie of believing So indeed doth Augustine forewarne the people who although they knew the single words of the prayers of Heretickes yet might possibly be deluded with the obscuritie of their Hereticall Sences The Difference is extreme For Saint Augustine's people vnderstood the language of those prayers in the obscure and inuolued Sence whereof they were vnwillingly ignoâ—ant But your Popish people are wilfully ignorant both of the Words and Sence The oddes therefore is no lesse than this they were simply yours are sottishly ignorant and Augustine wisheth that their Simplicitie were corrected you hold your Peoples blindnesse worthy to be commended Secondly Origen saith that when Christians are exercised in reading of holy Scripture albeit some words be not vnderstood yet is that reading profitable This Sentence also is alleaged for countenancing of Prayer in an unknowne tongue notwithstanding that in a man's Reading of Scripture God is said to speake unto man but in Praying man is said to speake unto God So that it may be both lawfull and profitable to the Reader to find some particular Scriptures which God would have to excell the Capacitie of the most learned to humble them to the admiration of his excellent wisdome as the Fathers teach Whereas contrarily an unknowne Prayer wittingly used is both vnprofitable and vnlawfull as hath beene copiously confessed by your owne Divines from the Doctrine of the Apostle More Obiections out of the Fathers you have not We will trie whether we can recompence your Nominalities that wee may so call your impertinent Obiections with Realities and soliâ— Proofs Cast but your eyes vpon the Marginals consisting partly of the Relation of your owne Cassander and partly of our Collections and you shall finde among the Fathers Ambrose denying that He who is the person ignorant of the Prayer can give consent vnto it by saying Amen and thereupon inferreth that only Such things should be spoken in the publike Congregation which the Hearers vnderstand Chrysostome noting a Man Ignorant of the Prayer to be no better then a Barbarian to himselfe not in respect of the nature of the voyce but of his owne ignorance and declaring Prayers in an vnknowne tongue to be contrary to the Apostles Doctrine who requireth that All things be done to edification Isiodore peremptorily affirming an Oportet and duety that All may be able to Pray in publike places of prayer Theophylact noting that The giuing of thankes to God is unprofitable where the edification of the people is neglected Augustine
Eucharist you know is called by Saint Paul The supper of the Lord and by ancient Fathers an holy Banquet The second kind of Romish Pretences is of such which might have beene common to other Churches The other Causes above-mentioned were common to the primitive Church of Christ wherein the use of both kinds was notwithstanding preserved and continued except that you will say no Northerne Nations were Christians in those times and that no stomacks of Christians were disaffected to wine in loathing it c. But two other Pretences you have which you thinke to be of more speciall force to forbid the use of this Sacrament in both kinds One is Because saith your Cardinall Such is the now-received and approved custome of Nations and People So hee But first to argue that your Church did therefore forbid the use of both kinds because shee had approued the contrary Custome is a meere Nugacitie and Tautologie and as much as to say Shee would forbid it because shee would forbid it Secondly saying that the Vse of but One kinde had indefinitely the Consent of Nations and People is a flat falsity because as hath beene confessed The Greeke Church not to mention Aethiopians Aegyptians Armenians and Others have alwayes held the Contrarie Custome Lastly to justifie your Churches Innouation in consenting to the humour of People of later times what can you censure it lesse than a grosse and absurd Indulgence The other Motive which the Cardinall calleth a Vehement presumption and which all your Obiectors most earnestly urge is the Cause of Irreverence lest the blood might be split especially in such a multitude of faithfull Communicants and also least any particle of the Hoast fall to the ground saith Master Brereley We have but foure Answeres to this mightie Obiection First that this was not held a Reason to Christ or his Apostles or to the Church of Christ for many ages when notwithstanding the multitudes of Communicants were innumerable Secondly that The Casuall spilling of the Cup saith your Salmeron is no sinne else would not Christ have instituted the use of the Cup nor would the Apostles or primitive Church aswell in the West as in the East in their communicating nor yet the Priest in consecrating have vsed it So hee Wee might adde by the same reason should people be forbid the other part also left as your Priest said any particle thereof should fall to the ground Furthermore for the avoiding of Spilling you as your Cardinall Alan relateth have provided Pipes of silver which are used by Popes Cardinals Monks and some other Illustrious lay-Personages Surely there being no respect of persons with God as said S. Peter we thinke that he who will be S. Peter's Successor should have taken out with S. Peter that lesson of Christ of loving the whole flocke of Christ aswell Lambes as Sheepe not to provide Pipes or Tunnels for himselfe alone his Grandes for receiuing this part of the Sacrament and to neglect all other Christians albeit never so true members of Christ For this wee all know that Our Lord Christ prepared his table aswell for the poore as the Rich according to the Apostles Doctrine by your owne construction answerable to the Doctrine of ancient Fathers And that the pretence of Reverence cannot be a sufficient Reason of altering the ordinance of Christ wee may learne from ancient Histories which euidently declare that the opinion of Reverence hath often beene the Damme and Nource of manifold Superstitions As for example The Heretikes called Discalceati in pretence of more humilitie thought that they ought to goe bare-foote The Encratitae in pretence of more sanctitity abhorred marriage The Aquarij in pretence of more sobriety used water in this Sacrament The Manichees wanted not their pretence of not drinking wine in the Eucharist because they thought it was created by an evill Spirit And yet were these iudged by Pope Gelasius to be Sacrilegious Yea and what greater defence had the Pharisees for all their Superstitions than that of Reverence whom notwithstanding Christ did pierce thorow with so many Vae's for annulling of the Precepts of God by their Traditions vnder the pretence of religious Reverence and sanctity In briefe It was the opinion of Reverence that made S. Peter to contradict our Lords command when he said Thou shalt never wash my feete yet how dangerous it had beene for Peter to have persisted in opposition the Replie of our Saviour doth declare If I wash not thy feete saith Christ thou hast no part with me c. Vpon which Text S. Chrysost readeth vnto you this Lecture Let us therefore learne saith he to honour and reverence Christ as he would and not as we thinke meete And sure wee are that he would that same which he commanded saying Doe this Therefore our next Difference betweene our defence and yours is no other than obedient Reverence and reverent or rather irreligious Disobedience As for your Pretence of manifesting hereby a Greater dignity of Priests than of Laicks it is too phantasticall for the singularity too harsh for the noveltie and too gracelesse for the impietie thereof seeing that Christ who gave his Bodie and Blood an equall price of Redemption for all sorts would have the Sacrament of his Body and Blood equally administred to People as Priests as you have heard the Fathers themselves professe The three Romish Pretences which are more peculiar to their owne Church in two points First because Heretikes saith Bellarmine and meaning Protestants doe not believe Concomitancie that is to say that the blood of Christ is received under the forme of bread but for this Concomitancie the Church was moved to prescribe the vse of the Eucharist in one kinde So he And this point of Concomitancie is that which M. Fisher and M. Breerly most laboured for or rather laboured vpon And albeit your Romane Catechisme iudgeth this the principall Cause of inducing your Church to preferre one kinde yet wee whom you call Heretikes beleeve that the deuout Communicant receiving Christ spiritually by faith is thereby possessed of whole Christ crucified in the inward act of the Soule and onely deny that the whole is received Sacramentally in this outward act vnder one onely part of this Sacrament which is the present question And in this wee say no more than your Bishop Iansenius iudged reasonable who hath rightly argued saying It doth not easily appeare how the outward receiving of Christ under the forme of Bread should be called Drinking but onely Eating being received after the manner of meates as that is called Drinking onely which is received after the manner of Drinke Drinking therefore and Eating are distinguished by Christ in the outward Act. So hee even as your owne Durand before him had truely concluded with whom M. Breerly will beare a part Therefore your Concomitancie if wee respect the Sacramentall manner of Receiving
to be destitute of naturall and voluntary motion of Sence and of Vnderstanding SECT II. CAtholique Faith never conceived otherwise of the humane nature of Christ after the Resurrection but that he was able naturally of himselfe as hee was man to performe the perfect Acts which other men can who are of right constitution of Body and of sound understanding such as are the functions of Iudgement and reason and of appetite sence motion according to the liberty of his own will This Doctrine was above 1000. yeers Catholike But your now Romane faith is to beleeve as followeth in the conclusions set down by your Iesuite Suarez without as he saith the contradiction of any Divine in your Church First that Christ as he is in this Sacrament hath no power naturally of himselfe to move himselfe And this your owne daily experience hath brought you vnto whilst beleeuing Christs Corporall presence in the Hoast you shut him vp in a Boxe where you still find the same lying as destitute of power of motion as any other unconsecrated Bread which being put together with it lyeth so long untill they both equally waxe mouldy putrifye and ingender wormes Secondly that Christ in himselfe as being in this Sacrament hath no naturall faculty of sence nor ability without a miracle to heare or see c. Thirdly That he is voyd of all sensible appetite Lastly that without some miraculous power he cannot possibly apprehend in his vnderstanding any thing present nor yet remember any notions past So he That this is a new brutish and barbarous Doctrine destitute of all ancient Patronage either of written or of unwritten Tradition SECT III. HAve you any Text yea or yet pretext either of Scripture or humane Tradition for countenancing this so prodigious and monstrous a conception Certainly Scripture telleth us that Christ his Body by Resurrection is perfected in sense and Agility and his soule in Iudgement and Capacity Nor can you shew any Father in the Church of Christ within the Circumference of 1400. years after Christ who held this your doctrine so much as in a Dreame or who hath not esteemed the Body of Christ to be of the most absolute perfection we say no one Father or Teacher of the Evangelicall Truth once fancied this unchristian and false faith You must therefore derive this from him whom Christ calleth the Father of lies VVe shall give you good reason for this our Declamation That this Romish Doctrine is blasphemously Derogatory from the Maiesticall Body of Christ SECT IV. VVHat is this which we have heard Christ his humanity after his Resurrection not to have so much Capacity as a Child which is as he is here to vnderstand or imagine any thing done not thè power of a Moale or Mouse which is to heare or see not the faculty of a little Aut so as to move it selfe as if this were not an Antichristian blasphemy against that all-Maiesticall Body humane nature of Christ which being once sowen in infirmity is as the Scripture saith since risen in power Doe you heare In power saith the spirit of God shewing that Infirmity is changed into Potencie in the Body of every Christian and you have turned power into infirmitie even in Christ himselfe whom you have now transformed into an Idoll having eyes and seeth not eares and heareth not feete and walketh not heart and imagineth not and yet this you professe to adore as the person of the Sonne of God O the strength of Satanicall Delusion That this Romish Doctrine contradicteth your owne Principle SECT V. REmember your former generall Principle which wee acknowledged to be sound and true viz. All such Actions and Qualities which are reall in any Body without any relation to place cannot be said to be multiplied in respect of divers places wherein a Body is supposed to be As for Example The Body of Christ cannot be cold in one Altar and hot in another wounded and whole in ioy and griefe dead and alive at the same time The reason These are impossible say you because of Contradiction for that the same thing should be capable of such contrarieties it is repugnant to the understanding of man So you which is an infallible Truth when the Modus or Manner of a thing is compared to it selfe and not to any thing else it is necessary that at one and the same time the Modus be onely one the same Iesuite cannot be sicke in Iapan and sound and in health at Rome in the same instant CHALLENGE NOw say we beseech you is there not the like Contradiction to make the same Christ at the same time as hee is in Heaven intelligent and sensitive and as on earth ignorant and senslâ—sse Or powerfull to move of himselfe on the throne of Maiestie and absolutely Impotent as hee is on the Altar because these Attributes of Christ being Intelligent and potent equally have no Relation to place Notwithstanding all which you shame not to professe a senslesse ignorant and feeble Christ O come out of Babylon and be no more be witched by such her Sorceries CHAP. IX The sixt kind of Romish Contradiction against these words of Christ MY BODY as it is now most Glorious by making it most Inglorious SECT I. BEfore we proceed in discovering the ouglinesse of the Romish Doctrine in this point wee are willing to heare your Master Brerely his preface in your defence The carnall man saith hee is not for all this satisfied but standeth still offended at sundry pretended absurd and undecent indignities Calvin saying That he reiected them as unworthy of the Maiestie of Christ And Doctor Willet saith That they are unseemely and against the dignity of the glorious and impassible Body of Christ So he at once relating and reiecting their opinions That the Indignities whereunto the Body of Christ is made subiect by the Romish Doctrine are most uile and derogatory to the Maiestie of Christ SECT II. ALl Christian Creeds tell us that Christ our Saviour sitteth at the right hand of God that is in perfection of glory But your Iesuite Suarez delivereth it in the generall Doctrine of the Romish Divines That the Body of Christ remaineth so long under the formes of Bread and wine wheresoever untill they be corrupted And this he calleth a Generall Principle in your Romish profession Insomuch that the Body of Christ is moved wheresoever the formes of Bread are moved be it into the dirt or into the Dunghill Secondly that according to your Romish Decrees and publique Missals the same Body of Christ is vomited up by the Communicant yea and you have Cases about the vomiting of it whether vpon weaknes of Sâ—omacke or of Drunkennes Next that it is devoured of Mice and blowne away with wind for wee read of your Church Cases also for these in your Missals VVee thirdly demand whether you thinke it possible for meate that is undigested by reason of