before his Resurrection the Heretique denying it and Theodoret proving it to be absolutely still the same in Substance and not whether the same only in Quantities and Accidents for these the Apostle teacheth to be alterable Corruption putting on Incorruption Mortality Immortality and shame Glory Therefore in the Protasis and first Proposition of that comparison of Theodoret which was this As the Bread remaineth the same in Figure Forme and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can have no other signification than Substance properly taken Secondly Ridiculously false because in reckoning Figure and Forme which are knowne to be Accidents and adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this necessarily is opposed to the former Two as Substance to Accidents Nor was there we suppose ever any so vnlearned who did adde the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Formes and Figures but hee thereby meant to distinguish it as a Substance from its Accidents Thirdly Heretically false for what was the Heresie of the Eâ—tychians tell us They say you held that Christ namely after his Resurrection had not an humane nature but only Divine Which word Humane Nature doth principally imply the Substantiall nature of Man and therefore in his comparison made for the illustration of that Heresie concerning Bread after Consecration in Figure Forme and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had the same signification of Substance as your Master Brereley afterwards is compelled to confesse who to the end hee may disgrace Theodoret rudely and wildly taketh upon him to iustifie the Heretiques speech to be Catholique for proofe of Transubstantiation Wherefore Theodoret in his Answere Retorting as he himselfe saith the Heretiques Comparison against him did by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 likewise understand Substance else had he not disputed ad Idem but by a shamefull Tergiversation had betraid his Catholique Cause unto that pernitious Heretique Much like as if one should use this comparison following As the Moone-shine in the water in the opinion of the Vulgar is truly of the same bignesse with the Moone in the Firmament so a feigned friend is equally as loving as is a Faithfull And another retorting the same should confute him saying Nay but as the Moon-shine in the water is not of the same bignesse with the Moone in the Firmament even so a feigned friend is not equally loving as is a Faithfull Here the word Love being taken for Loyall Affection by the Objectour if the sense thereof should be perverted by the Answerer and Retorter to signifie lust the Disputers might be held to be little better than those Two in Agellius where such an Obiectour is compared to a man milking an Hee-Goat or if you will a Bull and the Answerer to another holding under a Sive Here had wee fixed a Period but that wee againe espied one Master Brerely a Romish Priest comming against us with a full careere who after that he had beene confuted for urging the former Obiection notwithstanding concealing the Answere he blusheth not to regest the same albeit as one conscious to himselfe of the futility thereof he leaveth it presently falling foule upon Theodoret as though that Father had beene in some distemper when he so writ saying first that Theodoret used that his Retortion in his heate of Dispute Then hee taketh part with the Heretique saying It is not likely that an Heretique should have urged against a Catholique sentence for Transubstantiation as for a point of Faith well knowne if the same doctrine had beene then either unknowne or else condemned as False So hee who might as well have reasoned in the behalfe of the Sadduces condemned by Christ saying It is not likely that they would so expressely have denied that there are any Spirits in their Dispute against Christ if that Doctrine had beene then either unknowne or condemned as False by the Church of God among the Iewes And yet it is certaine that the Heresie of the Sadduces was iudged execrable in that Church Now if the Eutychian Heretique finde such Patronage at the hands of your Priest alas what will become of the Father Theodoret Hearken Theodoret being an Orthodoxe Bishop saith hee could not have propounded the Heretikes Argument as grounded upon the Churches received Doctrine of Transubstantiation had the same beene then unknowne and reputed False So hee who if he had not lost his Logique would certainly have argued contrarily saying Theodoret being an Orthodoxe and Catholique Bishop would never have set downe an Objection for Transubstantiation in the name of a ranke Heretique and after himselfe impugned and confuted the same except he had knowne it to be flatly repugnant to the Catholique Church in his time Wherefore if you be men of Faith and not rather of Faction let the miserable perplexities of your Disputers discovered both here and throughout this whole Treatise move you to renounce them as men of prostituted Consciences and their Cause as forlorne of all Truth For a further Evidence take unto you an Answere of your Iesuite Valenâ—ia to this and the like Testimonies of Antiquity It is not to be held any marvell saith he why some Ancients have writ and thought lesse considerately and truly before that Transubstantiation was handled publikely in the Church especially they not handling the same Question of purpose So he and this hee calleth a briefe and plaine Answere And so it is whereby in granting that Transubstantiation had not beene so Anciently handled in the Church hee plainly confuteth your now Romane Church which iudgeth it to have beene alwayes an Article of Faith And affirming that the same Fathers Handled not the point of purpose it is as plainly confuted by Theodoret who in this Dispute did not argue against the Heretique in an extemporall speech personally but deliberately and punctually by writing and therefore of Purpose The Second Father expresly defending the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration is Pope GELASIVS SECT XIII THis Authour haue Protestants called Pope Gelasius and urged his Testimony Your Disputers cavill First at the name of the Authour calling Protestants Impudent for stiling him Pope Gelasius But if he were not that Pope Gelasius what Gelasius might hee be then Gelasius Bishop of Caesarea saith your Cardinall Bellarmine Contrarily your Cardinall Baronius contendeth that he is a more ancient Gelasius Anno 476. namely Gelasius Citizenus yet so as confounding himselfe insomuch that hee is forced to expound the speeches of this Gelasius by the propriety of the speech as he confesseth of Gelasius Pope of Rome But what shall we answere for the Impudent Protestants as your Cardinall hath called them Surely nothing but wee require more modesty in him who hath so called them considering that Protestants had no fewer Guides nor meaner to follow than these Historians viz. Genadius yea your Bibliothecarie Anastasius Alphonsus de Castro Onuphrius Massonius Margarinus la
herein both of them correcting the Vulgar Translation in the word Pledge and one of them giving an Absitâ—l against this Sence of it The Reason of both is because he that giveth a Pledge taketh it againe when the Thing for which it was pledged is received But he that giveth an Earnest will have it continue with him to whom it was given And so God assuring his Chosen by his Spirit doth for their greater Confidence give it as an Earnest and not as a Pledge So they Thereby advancing Gods gracious love towards man and man's faith in God's love Here will be no corner of Pretence that this being an Errour of Print and not of Doctrine may be rejected by you without Prejudice to your Oath no for Errour of Print ariseth from some affinity of words as where these words This is a sound reason being delivered to the print was returned from the Presse thus This is a fond reason But betweene Pignus and Arrhabo there is no more Symphony than betweene an Horse and a Saddle Nor will it availe you to say that the Originall Greeke was corrupted for it is the same Greeke word which Hierome himselfe who as you know used the perfectest Greeke Text doth here avow to be True II. Overture of Perjury in your Disputers is in swearing to the Romish Expositions of Scripture THe Tenour of the Oath in this respect is I admit the sacred Scriptures in that Sense which the Mother Church hath held and doth hold By Mother Church understanding the Church of Rome as without which there is no salvation which is expressed in the same Oath as another Article therein and which else-where we have proved to be a GRAND IMPOSTVRE in a full Tractate from the Doctrine of the Apostles of Generall Councells of severall Catholique Churches and from such Primitive Fathers whose memories are at this day registred in the Romish Calender of Saints How then can the Oath for this point be taken without danger of Perjury But to come to the Article concerning the Expositions of Scriptures According to the sence of the Church of Rome which would thereby be thought to Hold no Sence of Scripture now which she had not Held in more Antient Times We for Triall hereof shall for this present seeke after no other Instances than such as in this Treatise have been discussed and for brevity-sake single out of many but only Three A first is in that Scripture Ioh. 6. Except you eat the flesh of the Sonne of man you cannot have life The word Except was extended unto Infants in the dayes of Pope Innocent the First continuing as hath beene confessed six hundred yeares together when the Church of Rome thereupon Held it necessary for Infants to receive the Eucharist Contrarily the now Romane Church Holdeth it Inexpedient to administer the Eucharist unto Infants as you have heard Secondly Luc. 22. Take Eat c. Your Church of Rome in the dayes of Pope Nicolas in a Councell at Rome Held that by the word Eate was meant an Eating by Tearing the Body of Christ sensually with men's teeth in a Literall sence Which your now Romane Church if we may beleeve your Iesuites doth not Hold as hath appeared Thirdly the Tenour of the Institution of Christ concerning the Cup was Held in the dayes of Pope Gelasius to be peremptory for the administration thereof to prove that the Eucharist ought to be administred in both kindes to all Communicants and judging the dismembring of them a Grand Sacrilege as you have heard whereas now your Romish Church Holdeth it not only lawfull but also religious to withhold the Cup from all but only consecrating Priests Vpon these omitting other Scriptures which you your selves may observe at your best leasure we conclude You therefore in taking that Oath swearing to admit all Interpretations of Scripture both which the Church of Rome once Held and now Holdeth the Proverbe must needs be verified upon you viz. You hold a Wolfe by the eare which howsoever you Hold you are sure to be Oath-bit either in Holding TENVIT by TENET or in Holding TENET by TENVIT III. Overture of Perjury in your Disputers is in swearing to the pretended Consent of Fathers in their Expositions of Scriptures HEare your Oath Neither will I ever interpret any Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of Fathers Here the word Fathers cannot betoken Bishops and Fathers assembled in a Councell where the major part of voices conclude the lesse for Councell never writ Commentaries upon Scriptures but from Scriptures collect their Conclusions And although the word Vnanimous doth literally signifie the universall Consent which would inferre an Impossibility because that all Fathers have not expounded any one Scripture and very few All yet that you may know we presse not too violently upon you we shall be content to take this word Morally with this Diminution For the most part and hereupon make bold to averre that your Iuror by this Oath is sworne to a flat Falsity because you cannot deny but that the Fathers in their Expositions dissent among themselves sometimes a Greater part from the lesse insomuch that you your selves are at difference among your selves which part to side with With the greater saith Valentia nay but sometime with the Lesser saith Canus Can you dreame of an Vnanimity in Disparity Sometime there is a Non-Constat what is the Iudgement of the Fathers in some points which you call matter of Faith What then Then saith your Iesuite the Authority of the Pope is to take place who being guided by other rules may propound what is the Sence Behold here the very ground of that which we call Popery which is devising and obtruding upon the Church of Christ new Articles of Faith unknowen for ought you know to Ancient Fathers And is it possible to finde an Vnanimity of Consent in an Individuall Vnity or rather a Nullity for what else is an ignorance what the Sence of the Fathers is whether so or so Next that it may appeare that this Article touching the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers is a meere Ostentation and gullery and no better than that Challenge made by the wise man of Athens of all the Ships that entred into the Road to be his owne as if you should say All the Fathers doe patronize your Romish Cause We shall give you one or two Examples among your Iesuites as patternes of the Disposition of others in neglecting sleighting and rejecting the more Generall Consent of Fathers in their Expositions of Scriptures One Instance may be given in your Cardinall who in his Commentaries upon the Psalmes dedicated to the then Pope professeth himselfe to have composed them Rather by his owne meditation than by reading of many bookes whereas he that will seeke for Vnanimous Consent of Fathers must have a perusall of them all In the second place hearken unto the Accents of your Iesuite Maldonate in his
is but a Chimaera and as great a Solecisme as to say that the Body and Bones of Christ are dranke and his Blood eaten contrary to the Sacramentall representation in Receiving Bread and Wine as hath beene prooved Next when wee aske you why onely your Church will not reforme and regulate her Custome according to the Institution of Christ and the long practice of the primitive Church you answere plainly and without Circumlocution that the Reason is Lest that your Church might seeme to have erred in her alteration of the ancient Custome And this your Cardinall Bellarmine and the Iesuite Valentian vse and vrge as a necessary Reason for confutation of Protestants who held the necessity of publike Communion in both kindes Which Reason your owne Orator Gaspar Cardillo proclaimed as in a manner the sole cause of continuing your degenerated vse Least that the Church saith he may seeme to have erred What can more sauour of an Hereticall and Antichristian spirit than this pretence doth For an Heretike will not seeme to have erred and Antichrist will professe himselfe one that cannot erre which Character of not personall erring was never assumed of any particular Church excepting onely the latter Church of Rome Our Assumption But the Church of Rome which will seeme that she cannot possibly erre in her not administring the Cup unto Laicks is knowne to have erred 600. yeares together in the abuse of the same Sacrament by administring it in an opinion of necessity vnto Infants as hath beene plentifully witnessed by eminent Doctors in your owne Church Hence therefore ariseth another difference betweene the profession of our Custome and yours which is betweene Christ and Antichrist All this while you doe not perceiue but that your opinion of Concomitancie will ruinate the foundation of your Doctrine of Transubstantiation whereof hereafter The seaventh Comparison is betweene the manner of Institution and manner of Alteration thereof SECT XI THe beginning of the Institution in both kindes is knowne and acknowledged to haue beene authorized by him who is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the new Testament even Christ our Lord by whom it was established and published among all his Disciples at his last Supper But your Custome of onely one kinde How we beseech you came it into your Church tell vs. It came not in by any precept but crept in by little and little by the Tacite and silent consent of the Bishops So your Bishop Roffensis and your Iesuite Costerus and Frier Castro This confessed vnknowne maner of Alteration of this your Custome as it doth vtterly refute your common Obiection viz. That every Doctrine and Custome must bee iudged ancient and Catholike the beginning whereof is not knowne so doth it more specially put your M. Breerly to his blush who durst make the same obiection in this very Case in defence of the vse of but One kinde to prove it to haue beene from the beginning because No first knowne beginning of our Catholike practice saith he can be instanced And yet behold here no certaine beginning of this Romish Custome yet notwithstanding confessed to be an Alteration different from the Custome which formerly for a thousand yeares was held a Catholike Custome Was not the Church of Rome then a wise and a worthy Mistris of Churches trow you to suffer her Priests to be guided by the People in a matter of this nature what other difference can this make between our Custome and yours but that which is between divine Ordinance popular negligence or as between a publique Professor a Theeâ—ish Creeper Heresie is certainly a disease but wote you what the Apostle noteth it to be a Cancer or Gangrene which is a disease Creeping by little and little from ioynt to ioynt untill it have eaten vp the vitall parts such a Cancer was this your Custome if you shall stand to your owne former Confessions Our last Comparison is betweene the Contrary dispositions of Professors one in continuing and distinguishing a second in mixing the third in reiecting both kindes SECT XII THe Comparison betweene the divers dispositions of Professors none will be more willing to shew than your Iesuite Salmeron who will have you out of Cardinall Cusanus to observe three States of the Church The first is in her Fervencie The second in her Warmnes The third in her Coldnes In the first state of her Fervencie when the Christians affected Martyrdome for the Gospell of Christ then did the People saith hee communicate in both kindes In the second state which was in her Warmnes though not so hot boyling as before They then used to dip the Hoast into the Chalice and so were made ioyntly partakers of both in one But in the third state of Coldnes the people were allowed the Sacrament onely vnder one kinde So hee CHALLENGE IF now Truth may be iudged by the different dispositions of Professors then may this former Confession witnes for us that there is as much difference betweene the Primitive and the now Romish Custome as there is betweene lively Fervencie and sencelesse Numnes and Coldnes that is to say Godly zeale and Godlesse indevotion and negligence yet a negligence not only approved which is impious but that which is the height of impiety even applauded also by your Priests among whom the above-said Gaspar Cardillo in the Councell of Trent with exultation told their Father-hoods as being a matter of great ioy that they who are under the Iurisdiction of the Church of Rome in Germany doe not so much as desire the Cup of life So hee A GENERALL CHALLENGE Concerning this last Transgression of Christ his Masse SECT XIII IN this we are to make an open discovery of the odious Vncharitablenesse the intolerable Arrogancie the vile Perjury the extreame Madnesse and Folly together with a note of plaine Blasphemie of your Romish Disputers in Defence of this one Romane Custome of forbidding the Cup to faithfull Communicants For what Vncharitablenesse can be more odious than when they cannot but confesse that there is more spirituall grace in the receiving of the Communion in both kinds doe notwithstanding boast even in the open Councell of Trent of some of their Professors who in obedience to the Church of Rome doe not only their owne words not desire the Cup of life but also dare not so much as desire it Which Vaunt we thinke besides the Impiety thereof inferreth a note of prophane Tyranny Secondly when wee compare these Fathers of Trent with the Fathers of most primitive Antiquity they answere Although the primitive Church say they did exceed ours in Zeale Wisdome and Charity neverthelesse it falleth out sometimes that the wiser may in some things be lesse wise then another Which answere if we consider the many Reasons which you have heard the Fathers give for the use of both kinds and their consonant practice thereof what is it but a vilifying of the
But with what reason were they reprehended Because saith the Councell that fashion iâ— not â—ound in the sacred Storie of the Evangelists All those ancient Popes who held the Example of Christ in his Institution and Apostolicall Customes to be necessary Directions of Christ his Church in such points concerning the ministration of this Sacrament being so utterly repugnant to your now Romish opinions and Practices it must follow that those former Popes being admitted for Iudges whom all Christians acknowledged to have beene Apostolicall in their Resolutions the now Romish Church and her degenerate Profession must needs be judged Apostaticall Now from the former Actuall wee proceed to the Doctrinall points THE SECOND BOOKE Concerning the first Doctrinall Point which is the Interpretation of the words of Christ's Institution THIS IS MY BODY THIS IS MY BLOOD LVKE 22. The Doctrinall and Dogmaticall points are to be distinguished into your Romish 1. Interpretation of the words of Christ his Institution This is my Body c. 2. Consequences deduced from such your Expositions such as are Transubstantiation Corporall Presence and the rest CHAP. I. Of the Exposition of the words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY The State of the Question in Generall BEcause as Saint Augustine saith of points of faith It is as manifest an Heresie in the interpertation of Scriptures to take figurative speechees properly as to take proper speeches figuratively And such is the CAVEAT which Salmeron the Iesuite giveth you it will concerne both You and Vs as wee will avoide the brand of Heresie to search exactly into the true sence of these words of Christ especially seeing wee are herein to deale with the Inscription of the Seale of our Lord IESVS even the Sacrament of his Body and Blood In the which Disquisition besides the Authority of Ancient Fathers wee shall insist much upon the Ingenuity of your owne Romish Authours And what Necessitie there is to enquire into the true sence of these words will best appeare in the after-Examination of the divers Consequences of your owne Sence to wit your Doctrine of Transubstantiation Corporall and Materiall Presence Propitiatory Sacrifice and proper Adoration All which are Dependants upon your Romish Exposition of the former wordes of Christ The issue then will be this that if the words be certainly true in a Proper and litterall sence then we are to yeild to you the whole Cause But if it be necessarily Figurative then the ground of all these your Doctrines being but sandy the whole Structure and Fabricke which you erect thereupon must needs ruine and vanish But yet know withall that we doe not so maintaine a figurative Sence of Christ his Speech concerning his Body as to exclude the Truth of his Body or yet the truly-Receiving thereof as the Third and Fourth Bookes following will declare That a Figurative sence of Christ his Speech THIS IS MY BODY c. is evinced out of the words themselves from the Principles of the Romish Schooles SECT I. THere are two words which may be unto us as two keyes to unlock the questioned sence of Christ's words viz. the Pronoune THIS and the Verbe IS We begin with the former The State of the Question about the word THIS When wee shall fully vnderstand by your Church which holdeth a Proper and litterall Signification what the Pronoune THIS doth demonstrate then shall We truly inferre an infallible proofe of our figurative sence All Opinions concerning the Thing which the word THIS in the divers opinions of Authours pointeth at may be reduced to Three heads namely to signifie either This Bread or This Bodie of Christ or else some Third Thing different from them both Tell you vs first what you hold to be the opinion of Protestants Lutherans and all Calvinists saith your Iesuite thinke that the Pronoune THIS pointeth out Bread But your Roman Doctors are at oddes among themselves and divided into two principall Opinions Some of them referre the word THIS to Christ's Body Some to a Third thing which you call Individuum vagum In the first place we are to confute both these your Expositions and after to confirme our owne That the first Exposition of Romish Doctors of great learning referring the word THIS properly to Christ his Body perverteth the sence of Christ his Speech by the Consessions of Romish Doctors SECT II. DIvers of your Romish Divines of speciall note as well Iesuites as others interpret the word This to note the Body of Christ as it is present in this Sacrament at the pronuntiation of the last syllable of this speech Hoc est corpus meum Because they are words Practicall say they that is working that which they signifie namely The Body of Christ And this sence they call Most cleare and in their Iudgements there can be no better then this So your Stapleton Sanders together with Barradius Salmeron Chavausius these last three being Iesuites to whome you may adde Master Brereley his Answere saying that these words Most evidently relate to Christ's Body As evidently saith also your Iesuite Malloun as one pointing at his Booke should say This is my Booke CHALLENGE ARe not these Opinators in number many in name for the most part of great esteeme their Assertion in their own opinion full of assurance and delivered to their Hearers as the onely Catholique Resolution And yet behold one whose name alone hath obtained an Authority equivalent to almost all theirs your Cardinall Bellarmine who speaking of the same opinion of referring the word This to the Body of Christ doth in flat tearmes call it ABSVRD but not without good and solid reason and that according to the Principles of Romish Schooles to wit because before the last syllable of the last word Me-um be pronounced the Body of Christ is not yet present and the word This cannot demonstrate a thing Absent and therefore can it not be said This body is my body A Reason pregnant enough in it selfe and ratified by your publique Romane Catechisme authorised by the then Pope and Councell of Trent yet notwithstanding your fore-named Irish Iesuite hearing this Argument obiected by Protestants rayleth downe right calling it Accursed as iudged by the Church Hereticall and indeed Abhominable So hee who with Others if they were of fit yeares might be thought to deserve the rod for forgetting their Generall Catechisme and for defending an Exposition which even in common sense may be pronounced in your Cardinal 's owne phrase very Absurde else shew vs if you can but the least semblance of Truth for that Opinion Similitudes obiected for defence of their former Exposition and confuted by their owne fellowes The Similitudes which are urged to illustrate your former Practicall and operative sense are of these kinds to wit Even as if one say They in drawing a Line or a Circle should say in the making thereof This is a Line or This