Who so desireth more let him cast his eye upon the 10 Mr. Mâ—iric Casuubon Praehend Cantuar. Transcript Notarum Marginal M. S. Patris sui Isaaci in Bellar. now extant in the Kings Ma. Dibrary at S. Iames. Ab Bellar. Edit Paris 1608. pag. 111. C. D. Adversus implissimam hujus Capitis doctrinam memineris-veterem Ecclesiam â—â— Romana è diametro est hîc opposita nihil studiosiùs fecisse quà m ut in vernaculas linguas verterentur Biblia Gotthieae versionis menuo apud Sozom. p. 90. Dalmaticae Hier To 4. p. 79. Armenae Pachym in vita Chrysost De illa Armena lingua satis constat eam fuisse usurpatam in Ecclesia Vide locum Bellar. Tom. 6. p. 613. Scripturam sacram statim initio versam esse in omnes linguas testatur Euseb Demonst p. 88. De Liturgia in vernacula lingua in Mesopot locus Basil 277. Syr. AEgypt Indica Persica AEthiopiâ—â— Chrysost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ioh. Earudem Scythicae Sauromaticae Theodor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 81. ubi nota verba 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem clamat verbis penè eisdem Aug. lib. 2. deâ—dect Christ cap. 5. Adde in Iure oriental Bonifid p. 243. tractatur haec quaestio pronunciatur oporteâ—o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 linquaÌ„ Arab. inter Saâ—arenos Vide Iuris orient Leuncla p. 365. Vellem doctiss Bellar statum Quaestiones rectè concepisset initio hujus Cap. non enim quaeritur An lingua latina fuerit olim sub Imp. Rom in usuâ—â— sacris sed illud quaeritus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sacrae administrari populo proponi debeant eâ linguâ quâ—â—vel sit populo vernacula vel certò à populo intelligatur Probate possumus veteris Eccles opinionem fuisse 〈◊〉 populum intelligero mysteria Christianae religionis omnia impedimenta esse amovenda quâ de re exstat locus in Constit Iustini p. 1365 insignis p. 366 ex Paulo id ipsum probat Imperator Loquitur autem ibide sacra Eâ—â—aristia Baptismo Eodem referri potest quod Const 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 372. conceditur Iudaeis ut sacram Scrip 〈◊〉 Graecam 〈◊〉 guam vertant quamcunque aliam voluerint habuerint sibi notam aut etiam 〈…〉 Vult enim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Refer eodem locum aureum Chrysost 〈…〉 falsco Scripture obscuritatem legi non deberi quia scripta non Rom hon Heb. linguâ oliâ Casu Clem 〈…〉 same words of the Apostle Hee is a Barbarian aeprooveth 〈◊〉 philoso 〈◊〉 lib 〈◊〉 Marginals where hee may see the Transcript of a Patrizing Son of a most admirable Treasure of learning M r. Isaac Casaubon relating his Notes out of Antiquity to prove the generall Consent of Fathers both for the Translating of Scriptures into the Mother-tongues of most Nations as also the Liturgie or Church-service universally used in the vulgar languages of severall Countries âšœ And lest that this might not suffice wee have added the * See above in the beginning of the 6. Sect. letter 〈…〉 Edict of the Emperour Iustinian commanding a lowd voice in the Minister that the people may understand his words Next a Canon of a Councell requiring a * 〈…〉 Concordance both of voice and understanding in the singing of Psalmes as that which ought to be by that Doctrine of Scripture I will pray with my spirit and I will pray with my understanding Then a Decree of one Pope in his Councell that provision be made where people of divers Languages dwell in the same cities that their * Ibid at of the letter 〈◊〉 Servioe may be done according to their Different tongues After the Resolution of another Pope to grant unto the * Ibid. Sclavonians at their conversion to the Faith that Divine Service might be used in their owne tongue moved thereunto as by a voice from heaven sounding out that Scripture Let every tongue praise the Lord. And lastly a * Ibid Prohibition in the Primitive Church that None should speake in languages unknowne to the people âšœ And lest you may hereafter according to your maner scorne our zeale in requiring the joynt prayers and thankesgivings publikely in the Church by the voice of Men Women and Children know yee that 11 Basil Hixam Hom. 4. Immediately before the end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Quomodo non songe pulchliis est cùm in Ecclesia par 〈◊〉 sonitus qua 〈◊〉 jusdam littus percellentis undae virorum mulierum infantium ex orationibers ad Deum nostium refusat And in Reg. Contract Qu. 278. Linguâ ignorâ nihil utilitatis redit ad precantem Saint Basil delivering the judgement of Gods Church in his time held this an order decent and beautifull censuring an Vnknowne prayer to be unprofitable to them that pray âšœ When you have digested all these Premises concerning the Equity and Necessitie of knowne Prayers in the publike and Divine Service both in consideration of Gods worship and Mans manifold profit so amply confirmed by so many and uncontrolable testimonies then guesse if you can of what dye the face of your Doctor Stapleton was when hee shamed not to call this our Practice of knowne prayers d Quod autem omnia vernaculè siunt in Ecclesia planè profanum est Stapleton spec pravit Hae ret p. 580. Profanenesse and to number it among Hereticall pravities As for your owne People who preferre an unknowne worship what can wee say lesse than that all such Ignorants are but dumbe worshippers and because of their ignorance in praying they know not what they are to be sent to accompany Popinjayes and Iack-dawes accordingly as S. * See above Sect. 7. in the Challenge 3. Augustine formerly hath resembled them âšœ A SEAVENTH CHALLENGE For Vindication against Francis de Sancta Clara a late Reconciler of our English Articles with the Doctrine of the Romish Church A Romish professor at Doway published a Treatise this very yeare of our Lord 1634. VVhich hee calleth a Paraphrasticall Exposition of the Articles of the Church of England whose ayme is not to draw the Romish professors to the English but the English to the Romish and by his seeming Reconciliation to put upon our Church as wee use to say the Gull albeit his whole Paraphrase be indeed nothing but a Farrago of his selfe-fictions and Opinations whereof his Paraphrasis or Exposition upon this Article will give you a shrewd guesse if you shall have the patience to examine such stuffe Our English Article 12 Franciscus de S. Clara Professor Disac Exposit Artic. Confess Angl. Art 24 Linguâ populo non intellectâ preces peragere Sacramenta administrare verbo Dei primitivae Ecclesiae consuetudini planè repugnat saith that To pray or administer the Sacrament in an unknowne tongue is plainely repugnant to the Word of God and the Custome of the Primitive Church
beene * Vid Protestants Appeale Book 2. ch 2. §. 10. confuted for urging the former Objection notwithstanding concealing the Answer he blusheth not to regest the same albeit as one conscious to himselfe of the futility therof he leaveth it presently falling foule upon Theodoret as though that Father had beene in some distemper when he so writ d In his Liturgâ—â— of the Masse Tract 2. §. 2 subd 3. p. 254. saying first that Theodoret used that his Retortion in his * Not so for he was now not iâ—â—a personall Dispute but deliberately writing against thâ— Heresia of the Eutychiant heate of Dispute Then hee taketh part with the Heretike saying It is not likely that an Heretike should have urged against a Catholike 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 aswell have reasoned in the behalfe of the Sadduces condemned by Christ saying It is not likely that they would so expressely have denyed that there aâ—e 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 judged execrable in that Church Now if the Eutychian Heretike 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 he who if hee had not lost his Logike would certainly have argued contrarily saying Theodoret being an Orthodoxe and Catholike Bishop would never have set downe an Objection for Transubstantiation in the name of a ranke Heretike and after himselfe impugned and confuted the same except he had knowne it to be flatly repugnant to the Catholike 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 Answer of your Iesuite Valentia to this and the like Testimonies of Antiquity It is not to be held any marvell saith * Valent. Ies l. 2. de Transub c. 7. Dabimus aliud breve simplex sine ullo incommodo responsum Enimverò antequam quaestio ista de Transubstantiatione palà m in Ecclesia agitaretur minime mirûm est si unus aut alter aut etiam aliqui minùs considerarè rectè hac de re senserint scripserint maximè cum non tractarâ—nt ex instituto ipsam quaestionem 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 hee and this hee calleth a Briefe and plaine Answer And so it is whereby in granting that Transubstantiation had not beene so Anciently handled in the Church he plainly confuteth your now Romane Church which judgeth 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 Heretike 〈◊〉 extemporall speech personally but deliberately and punâ—â—lly 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 Author have Protestants called Pope Gelasius and urged his Testimony Your Disputers civill First at the name of the Author calling Protestants e Non fuit hic Papa Gelasius ut Adversarij impudentèr jactant sed Gelasius Caesariensis Episcopus Bellar. lib. â— de Euch. c. 27. Impudent for stiling him Pope Gelasus But if hee were not that Pope Gelasiue what Gelasius might hee bee then Gelasius Bishop of Caesâ—rea saith your Cardinall Bellarmine Contrarily your f Baronius himselfe â—â—tendeth that it was not that Pope Gelasius Anno 496 num 123. c. yet comming to answer to the Sentence of Gelâ—siuâ— doth expound toe doubtful words there of by the phrases of Pope Gelasius ex Epist ad Pâ—â—enos Dardan Episc num 13. 14. which Epistles he before cited as the true Epistles of Pope Gelasius Anno 493. num 23. and Anno 494. num 2. And after Anno 496. num 17. telleth his Reader saying Vides Lector ex usu verborum Phrasiquè dâ—ceÌ„di Gelasij Papae alia ejus sententia perspicuâ— demonstratum esse c. Et Anâ—o 996 num 13. Gelâ— in Epist ad Picen est Peccato Originall substantiam hominis esse depravatâ—m eum tamen eadem substantia mansit Accidentia ut pote justitia originalis alia dona 〈◊〉 Cardinall Baronius contendeth that hee is a more ancient Gelasius Anno 47. namely Gelasius Cyzicenus 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 â—ope of a Rome But what shall we answer for the Impudent Protestants as yoâ— Cardinall hath called them Surely nothing but wee 〈◊〉 more modesty in him who hath so called them considering that Protestants had no fewer Guides nor meane to follow than these g Gelasius Papa scripsit contra Eutycheâ—em Genad de scriptoribus Eccles c. 14. Anastas de vita 〈◊〉 Margarinus de la Bigat lib. 5. Biblioth Patrum pag. 467. Masson de Episc Rom. in vita â—elasij Aâ—pâ—onl lib. de naeres Tit. Christus haeres 3. in fine Onuphrius de Creat Pontif. Cardin Gelâ—sius 〈◊〉 scripsit volumen adversus Eutychetem Nessorium Fuisse Caesariensem Episcopum non posse jure affirmari videtur And proveth why not Historians viz. Genadius yea your Bibliothe carie Anastasiùs Alphonsus de Castro Onuphrius Massonius Margarinus la Bigne all which have intituled this Gelasius Pope of Rome Howsoever it is confessed on all sides that hee was an Orthodox Father and very Ancient Now then Gelasius sayd that h Gelasius lib. de duab natur cont Eutych Sacramenta certa 〈…〉 corporis sanguinis Christi divina res est propter quodper eadem divinae efficimur participes naturae tamen non definit esse substantia vel natura panis viaâ— certè imago similitudo corporis sanguinis Christin in Actione mysticâ celebratur And againe Permanent in proprietate naturae The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ being Divine things yet cease not to bee the nature and substance of Bread and Wine In Answer whereunto both your foresaid i Bellar. Baton quo supra At dicit Gelasius In Divinaru transcunt Spiritu sancto
esse hujus Authorem Editionis Spiritus Sancti mentem assequutum In omnibus igitur locis vult Concilium Eam haberi pro Authenticâ exceptis erroribus Typographorum Vt Iudic. cap. 11. pro altera Matre lectum fuisse adultera Matre ut quidam objiciunt Nam Concilium probavit veterem benè Typis impressam Post §. Porrò Nullo modo audiendi sunt ii qui post Concilium Tridentinum contendunt Editionem Vulgatam aliquibus in locis quod ad ipsam sententiam attinet emendari Quin potiùs Graeci Hebraici Codices siquidem dissideant à nostra sunt per eam corrigendi Valentia who thinke that Oath to be violated if the Vulgar Latine be rejected at all as lesse true than the Originals And your Spanish Inquisitors finding in one of your Romish Doctors the Rule of Hierome and Augustine urged which is that no Translation Latine or other be further allowed than as it agreeth with the Originals they faire and cleanly wipe it out saying that h Index Expurgatorius Hispanicus ad nomen Martinz Quamvis haec quae Hieronymus Augustinus docuerunt vera sunt tamen post Concilii Tridentini Decretum non licet Vulgatae Latinae Testimonia quovis praetextu rejicere prout in ipsius Concilii Decreto constitutum est fol. 145. Although that which Hierome and Augustine taught be true yet now since the Councel of Trent it is not lawfull to reject the same Translation upon any pretence whatsoever ⚜ Accordingly your Iesuite Lorinus in a matter concerning neither faith nor maners i Lorinus Ies Comment in Lib. Sap. ca. 12. Versq 6. §. Vatablus Non licet nobis discrepantem expositionem ab Editione nostra Vulgata jam correcta sequi It is not lawfull for us saith hee to follow an Exposition differing from the Vulgar Edition which is now corrected ⚜ So they And so farre unsatisfied are your Doctors in taking this Oath Wee are furthermore not destiture of matter for a large Confutation first of your assuming Saint Hierome as the Author of your Vulgar Latine Translation to manifest that it is no more the Translation of Hierome or yet of any one Author than the divers habits of a mans Body from head to foot can be called the worke of one singular work-man Secondly concerning the Authority thereof you professe it to be Authenticall that is as you have defined Conformable to the Originall Hebrew and Greeke although it may be as easily proved not to be that Ancient Vulgar which had continued as the Decree speaketh from divers ages than the Ship of Theseus which after some Ages had beene so thorowly battered and pierced that at last the keele and bottome therof did onely remaine which could be called the Same But passing by all further Dispute wee shall referre you to the judgement of the Patrones of the former Rule so insolently contemned by the Spanish Inquisitors as you have heard by one Instance which may be sufficient in it selfe for triall of the Case now in hand The Text of Scripture is Ephes 1. 14. in the Latine Translation even in that which is set forth by Pope i Clem. Octavus In perpetuam rei memoriam Textus accuratissime mendis purgatus Clement as The most accurate Edition thus k Ephes 1. 14. Lat. Vulg. Spiritu signati promissionis quae est pignus haereditatis Graecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in quem locum Hieronym Pignus Latinus interpres pro Arrhabone posuit Arrhabo futurae emptionis quasi quoddam testimonium obligamentum datur Pignus verò pro mutuâ pecuniâ ponitur cùm illa reddita fuerit reddenti debitum pignus à Creditore Aug. Serm. de visione Dei Tom. 10. pag. 1687. Accipis Codicem ab amico cui das pignus cum reddideris quod accopisti illc cui reddis habebit tu pignus accipies non enim habebit ambas res sed quando pretium paras dare pro ea re quam tenes bonae fidei contractu de ipso pretio das aliquid exit Arrha non pignus quod sit complendum non quod sit auferendum Sed si Deus charitatem dat tanquam pignus per spiritum suum cum eam rem ipsam reddiderit quâ promissa pignus dedit auferendum est à nobis Pignus Absit Sed quod dedit hoc implebit ideo melius Arrha quà m pignus hoc enim implebitur cum Arrha data est You are sealed with the spirit of promise which is the Pledge of your inheritance But in the Greeke it is You are sealed with the spirit of promise which is the Earnest of your inheritance The Question is whether of these is to be preferred and Hierome and Augustine are ready to resolve you herein both of them Correcting the Vulgar Translation in the word Pledge and one of them giving an Absit against this Sense of it The Reason of both is because hee that giveth a Pledge taketh it againe when the Thing for which it was pledged is received But hee 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 Therby advancing Gods gracious love towards man and mans faith in Gods 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 Symphonie than betweene an Horse and a Saddle Nor will it avayle 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 a Bulla eadem Sacram Scripturam admitto juxta eum sensum quem Tenuit Tenet Mater Ecclesia extra quam nemo salvus c. 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 wee have proved to be a GRAND IMPOSTVRE in a full Tractate from the Doctrine of the Apostles of Generall Councels of severall Catholike 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
perversion of a Testimony in Saint Ambrose pag. 125. With a Supply of other Latine Fathers as of Tertullian pag. 124. Saint Augustine pag. 126 127. And of Facundus pag. 128. Together with a cleare Myrror wherein to discerne the Iudgement of Antiquity for a Figurative sense of Christs words pag. 129. âšœ Chap. III. Romish Objections against the Literall sense Answered pag. 132. thorow-out Chap. IV. âšœ The Pronoune Possessive MY Added as the third Key for opening of the Figurative sense of Christs words THIS IS MY BODY pag. 138. Whether it be taken Narratively or Significatively pag. 139. âšœ BOOKE III. OF the first Romish Consequence arising from the depraved sense of Christs words which is called TRANS-SVESTANTIATION pag. 145. Chap. I. Conversion held by Protestants is Sacramentall but that which is defended by the Romanists is Trans-substantiall c. pag. 146. thorow-out Chap. II. Romish Transsubstantiation not absolutely proved by Scripture it selfe as is Confessed p. 147. It is an Innovation both in Name and in the Article it selfe pag. 151 c. Chap. III. Romish maner of Transsubstantiation whether by Adduction or Production both confuted by Romish Doctors as Absurd pag. 153 c. âšœ The Testimonies of two Popes contradicting one another about Formall Transsubstantiation p. 155. And a Confutation of both maners of Conversion by their owne principles pag. 156. With a Vindication against a late Calumniator concerning the ancient Saxons faith in the Doctrine of the Eucharist pag. 158 c. And a Confirmation thereof from Christs speech pag. 163. And of Pope Innocent the third pag. 164. And from other Testimonies of Antiquity pag. 169 170. The Iesuite Mallounes Instance in Ioane Martlesse her nose for her admirable faculty of smelling pag. 873. And from the existence of some new Accidents after Consecration pag. 176. Further adding to the Testimonies of Antiquity that of Tertullian p. 178. and an Objected Testimony of Pope Clement pag. 179. and out of Athanasius what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is pag. 182. Together with the Testimony of Euphraimius Bishop of Antioch pag. pag. 187. âšœ Chap. IV. The Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Doctors in Objecting for Transsubstantiation the Fathers there calling it a Change by Omnipotentie pag. 188. âšœ The Testimony of Hilarie pag. 191 And a Vindication of Cyprian's Saying Christs Body is created herein p. 192. and of another of his Infusing Divine essence pag. 193 c. âšœ Their further Vnconscionablenesse in alleging the Fathers as denying it to be Common Bread pag. 194 c. Their forbidding us to judge it by Sense pag. 195 c. âšœ The Iudgement of Master Isaac Casaubon concerning Saint Cyril pag. 197 198. âšœ Their other Objections out of other Fathers anew pag. 198 201 c. âšœ Two Testimonies of Gregory Nyssen pag. 203. And of Cyrill the moderne Patriarch of Constantinople against Transubstantiation pag. 205. With Master Isaac Casaubon his Iudgement concerning the Doctrine of Antiquity for this point pag. 209 c. âšœ BOOKE IV. OF the Second Consequence of the Romish Depravid Exposition of Christs words THIS IS MY BODY viz. The Corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist p. 210. Chap. I. The Difference of Opinions De modo of Christs Being in the Eucharist pag. 210. âšœ A double question concerning the Quomodoâ— p. 211. âšœ Chap. II. Twelve miraculous Apparitions of True Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist by Popish Historians related and judicially proved by their owne Doctors to be but so many Illusions pag. 217. unto pag. 227. âšœ The Iesuite Malloun's vaunt of such like Miracles pag. 221. And the Opinion of Vasquez the Iesuite to the Contrary p. 222 c. With a Digression for the Discussion of the miraculous separation of Christs Blood from his Body out of a Romish Doctor Collius p. 225 c. And of Blood issuing out of Christs Images from the same Author pag. 227 c. âšœ Chap. III. Of the Impossibility of the Romish Corporall Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist by reason of Contradiction pag. 228. âšœ The Testimonies of Theophylact and Iustine Martyr for that purpose pag 229. âšœ Confessed by Romish Doctors pag. 230 c. Of Sixe Contradictions implyed in the Romish Profession of the Corporall Presence p. 231 c. Chap. IV. I. Romish Contradiction is to make the same Body to be Borne and not Borne of the B. Virgin Mary pag. 232 c. Chap. V. II. Romish Contradiction is to make One Body not One by teaching it to be in diverse places at once pag. 234. âšœ The Confession of Conincks the Iesuite pag. 235 c. And the Profession of Saint Augustine in this point pag. 244 245. And that the Romish Objections out of Antiquity are frivolous 247. Adding another Testimony out of Chrysostome pag. 248. And Greg. Nyssen Ibid. Saint Augustines Quodammodo expounded by Suarez pag. 251 c. With a Comparison that Christs Body cannot be above nor below it selfe p. 254. The Testimony of Vasquez in this point p. 256. And of the Iesuite Conincks Ibid. Chap. VI. Romish Objections and Preâ—ences for proofe of a Body in divers places at once from Colour and Voice Confuted pag. 258 to 264. âšœ The Sentence of Pope Innocent pag. 258. âšœ Chap. VII III. Romish Contradiction in making Christs Body Finite to be Infinite pag. 264. âšœ The Testimony of Hilarie pag. 266. and of Athanasius Ibid. And the Enthymeme of the Fathers pag. 287. And the Doctrine of the Lutherans Ibid. And the Infatuation of the Iesuite Lessius framing an Army of but One man p. 268 c. âšœ Chap. VIII IV. Romish Contradiction by teaching Christs Organicall Body not to be Organicall pag. 269. Contrary to the Iudgement of Antiquity pag. 273 c. âšœ Chrysostomes Testimony for Demonstration of Christs Body by Touch. pag. 276. And Cyrill of Alexandria Ibid. And the Testimony of the Iesuite Lessius according thereunto pag. 277. And of the Camels passing through the Needles eye in the Iudgement of Hierome pag. 279. And a Vindication of the Testimony under Pope Hilaries name for proofe of an whole Body in every part of the Host p. 279 c. Chap. IX V. Romish Contradiction is in making Christs Perfect Body Vnperfect pag. 281. By their vile Doctrine of a Body of Christ in the Sacrament voyd of all power of Motion Sense and Vnderstanding Ibid. âšœ The Testimonies of other Iesuites pag. 282 283. And that this is both Contrary to Scriptures and Fathers p. 283. 285. âšœ Chap. X. VI. Romish Contradiction is in making Christs Glorious Body Inglorious pag. 286 c. âšœ A pertinent Question pag. 287. And a Vindication of Truth against Master Fisher a Iesuite his Defence of all Romish Seeming Indignities and Absurdities which by their Doctrine of Christs Bodily Presence do Consequently ensue pag. 291 to 300. And the Testimonies of the Fathers against Bellarmines jeere and scoffe pag. 306 c. âšœ BOOKE V. Of the Third Romish Consequence of their depraved sense of Christs
non solùm nullam legitimam causà m essè sed neque fingi posse cur de consensu vestro Laici calicem bibant neque pati ullo modo velitis à more vestro quempiam decedere latum unguem Inprimis quoniam Ecclesia illud praecepit ut alteram tantùm speciem Laicis porrigamus cut meritò nobis obtemperandum est quià nihil agit sine magna ratione neque in hujusmodi legibus ferendis errare potest Denique si latam legem nullâ evidenti necessitate convellatis Patres suspicari multis in mentem veniet aut vos illam temerè aulloque consilio tulisse olim suscipisseque aut susceptam cùm ratione servatam diutissimè in Christiana Republica nulla vel causa vel ratione pro nihilo ducere quo nihil sieri potest gravirate vestrâ aut hujus amplissimi ordinis majestate indignius Gâ—spar Cardillo Villalpand Orat. apud Act. Conc. Trid. pag. 219 221. 222. Lest that the Church saith hee may seeme to have erred What can more savour 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 only the latter Church of Rome Our Assumption But the Church of Rome which will seeme that shee cannot possibly erre in her not administring the Cup unto Laickes is knowne to have erred 600. yeares together in the abuse of the same Sacrament by administring it in an opinion of Necessity unto Infants as hath beene plentifully * See above Chap. 2. Sect. 11. witnessed by eminent Doctors in your owne Church Hence therfore ariseth another difference betweene the profession of our Custome and yours which is betweene Christ and Antichrist All this while you do not perceive that your opinion of Concomitancie will ruinate the foundation of your Doctrine of Transubstantiation But hereof * In the third Book hereafter The seventh Comparison is betweene the maner of Institution and manner of Alteration thereof SECT XI THe beginning of the Institution in Both kindes is knowne and acknowledged to have 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 only One kinde How wee beseech you came it into your Church tell us i Nullâ praeceptorum vi sed consensu quodam tacito tà m populi quà m Cleri sensim irrepsit dicta consuetudo Roffens con Cap Babyl Tract de utraque Specie f. 28. Estque hoc diligenter notandum alterius speciei communionem non tam Episcoporum mandato quà m populi usu facto conniventibus tamen praesulibus irrepsi le populus enim ob varia incommoda paulatim à Calice abstinebat Episcopi propter varia effusionis sanguinis aliaque pericula tacendo hanc abstinentiam comprobabant quae abstinentra à calice cùm tempore Constantiensis Concilij ferè per Europam universalis esset non erat damnanda sed contra Haereticos insurgentes defendenda Coster Ies Enchirid. Tract de Commun sub utraque specie pag 359. Credere par est ex communi fidelium populorum Orthodoxorum Praesulum tacito consensu receptam quando autem primum inceperit mihi non constar Alfons de Castro l. 6. Tit. Eucharistia Haer. ult It came not in by any precept but crept in by little and little by the abstinence of the people and by the Tacite and silent consent of the Bishops So your Bishop Roffensis and your Iesuite Costerus and Fryer Castro This confessed unknowne manner of Alteration of this your Custome as it doth utterly refute your common Objection viz. That every Doctrine and Custome must beejudged ancient and Catholike the beginning whereof is not knowne so doth it more especially put your Master Brerely to his blush who durst make the same Objection in this very Case in defence of the use of but One kinde to proove it to have beene from the beginning because No first knowne beginning of our Catholike practice * Liturg Tract 4. §. 9. at the ead thereof saith he can bee 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 selfe to be guided by the humour of People in a matter of this nature what other difference can this make betweene our Custome and yours but that which is betweene divine Ordinance and popular negligence or as betweene a publike Professor and a Theevish Creeper Heresie is certainly a disease but wore you what the * 2. Tim. 2. 15. Apostle noteth it to be a Cancer or Gangrene which is a disease Creeping by little and little from joynt to joynt untill it have eaten up 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 rejecting Both kindes SECT XII THe comparison betweene the divers Dispositions of Professors none will be more willing to shew than your Iesuite l Quod verò atrinet ad tempora triplicem in coetu Christiano statum Nicolaus de Cusano Cardinalis expendit ferventis nimirùm calidae frigentis Initio enim fuit Ecclesia ad fundendum pro Christo sanguinem fervens tunc data est illi utraque species ut sanguinem Domini bibens sanguinem suum pro illo libenter effunderet In sequenti statu Ecclesia fuit calida licèt non ità fervens tunc non dabatur bina species sed panis tantùm sanguine infusus ut ex quibusdam veterum Patrum sententiis Concilijisque colligi potest Tertius status est Ecclesiae frigentis ac tepidae in ea tantùm altera species panis scilicet sine infusione sanguinis Laicis dispensatur Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 34. §. Quod verò pag. 277. 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 he 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 joyntly partakers of Both in one But in the third state of Coldnes the people were allowed the Sacrament only under one kinde So he CHALLENGE IF now Truth may be
acknowledged to have beene Apostolicall in their Resolutions the now Romish Church and her degenerate Profession must needs be judged Apostaticall Now 20 30 40 from the former Actuall we 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. Interpreation 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 a In scripture explicandà haeresis est manifesta sicut figurata propriè accipere ità quae sunt propriè dicta ad TropicaÌ„ locutionem detorquere nam in verbis Eunuchi sunt qui se castraÌ„t propter regnum coelorum c. Aug. and to the same purpose also lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ Saint Augustine saith of points of faith It is as manifest an Heresie in the interpretation of Scriptures to take figurative speeches properly as to take Proper speeches figuratively And such is the CAVEAT which b Hoc cavendum nisi in manifestum Haerescos scopulum impingere velimus Salm. Ies Tom. â— Proleg 12. pag. 227. Salmeron the Iesuite giveth you it will concerne both You and Vs as we will avoid the brand of Heresie to search exactly into the true sense 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 sense of these words will best appeare in the after-examination of the divers * See hereafter Booke 3. 4. 5. 6. Consequences of your owne Sense to wit your Doctrine of Transubstantiation Corporall and c Gratian Sacramenta Christi suscipiendo carnem ejus sanguinem materialiter significamus De consecrat dist 〈◊〉 Quà morte 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 literall sense then wee are to yeeld 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 do not so maintaine a Figurative sense 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 sense 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 three words which may be unto us as three keyes to unlocke the questioned Sense of Christs words wherof two are the Pronoune THIS and the Verbe IS not onely as they were then spoken by Christ himselfe but also as they are now pronounced by the Minister of Christ And the third key is the Pronoune MY whereof hereafter Wee begin with the word THIS The State of the Question about the word THIS When wee shall fully understand by your Church which a Conc. Trident. Sess 13. cap. 1. Verba illa à Christo commemorata à Divo Paulo repetita propriam significationem prae se ferunt holdeth a Proper and literall Signification what the Pronoune THIS doth demonstrate then shall wee truly inferre an infallible proofe of our figurative sense All Opinions concerning the Thing which the word THIS in the divers opinions of Authours pointeth at may be reduced to Three heads * âšœ Vasquez in 3. Thom. Disp 201. cap. 1. Omnes opiniones ad tres tantùm calsses reduci possunt nam quidam Hoc reserunt ad substantam panis alij ad aliquod commune quod statim post conversionem demonstret Denique nonnulli ad id solum quod in sine prolationis verborum quod est corpus as you likewise confesse namely to signifie either This Bread or This Body of Christ or else some Third thing different from them both Tell you us first what you hold to be the opinion of Protestants Lutherans and all Calvinists saith your b Lutherani omnes Calvinistae pronomen Hoc propane positum esse dicunt quià panem Christus in manu acceperat diâ—it Hoc est corpus meum Maâ—don Ies in Matth. 26. §. Hâ—c omnes Lutherus in verba Evangelistae Habent hunc sensum Hic panis est corpus meum Iesuite thinke that the Pronoune THIS pointeth out Bread But your Romane 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 wee 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 sense of Christ his Speech by the Confessions 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 pronunciation of the last syllable of this speech Hoc est corpus meum Because they are words * See hereafter let k. n. o. c. Practicall say they that is working that which they signifie namely The Body of Christ And this sense they call Most cleare and in their Iudgements there can be no better than this So your c Hoc designat corpus ut est in termino prolationis hic est sensus luculentissimus Stapleton Prompt Cath. serm Heb. sacra upon these words Hoc est corpus meum Stapleton d Hoc nihil aliud quà m corpus Christi demonstrat Sand. de visib Monarch Ad annum 1549 p. 629. Sanders together with e Demonstrat corpus ipsum in quod panis convertitur in sine propositionis nec est Tautologia quemadmodum neque in illo Hic est filius dilectus Bâ—rrad Ies de Inst Euch. c. 4. Barradius f Vrique pronomen Hoc quod attributi locum tenet necessariò spectat Hoc est inquit Christus corpus meum id est opus quod ego panem accipiens benedicens operor conficio corpus meum est Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 9. pag. 120. §. Ad hoc Of which last
Girculus dùm tamen non est haec sigura dùm dico Hic As a Taylor making a Kirtle and saying wee shall change onely his last word This is a Kirtle for my Mistris CONCVBINA So they CHALLENGE THese kind of Subtilties are frequent in the mouthes of most Romish Priests as often as they are compelled to shew what is demonstrated by the Pronouâ—e This. But that these your Similitudes of making Circles Lines and Nayles are no better than Iugling and Gypsie-trickes of fast or loose and fond devises forged in the braines of idle Sophisters and uttered by your Circulary Priests your owne Authours are ready to manifest for in these Examples of the Painters touching a Line or a Circle as your a Bellar. See before at the letter k Bellarmine sheweth making and saying This is a Circle Is no true Proposition untill the Circle be made And then it is a figurative speech and not a proper using the present Tense Is for the future Shall be So he In like manner your Iesuite b Profectò propesitio non est vera nisi postquà m factus est Cuculus Sed oratio accipitur pro verâ quia id quod futurum est accipitur pro jam facto per Tropum non juxta Proprietatem fermo nis in quem sensum Christus plerunque praesens pro futuro usurpavit ut Matth 26. Apud te facio Pascha cum Discipulis meis id est confestim facio Pasâ—lta Salmeron Iesuit Tom. 9. Traclat 13 §. Secunda Si Est propriè accipiatur pro existere durum est ut uniat subjectum cum praedicato pro futuro tempore quia falsa esset propositio non solùm in orationibus speculativis significativis sed etiam in practicis factivis ut si quis volens facere Circulum rogatus quid est Hoc respondeatque Hic est Circulus Profesiò propositio non est statim vera c. Salmer Ibid. pag. 83. Salmeron affirmeth with a PROFECTÃ’ and full asseveration that the speech of him who in drawing a Circle doth say This is a Circle cannot without a Trope or Figure be judged true So he And furthermore who knoweth not that every Operative speech doth signifie not the Being of a thing but the Making therof and bringing of it unto being For although the Painter be so nimble in drawing a Circle that his hand may go before his tongue yet when the Operative virtue consisteth not in working by the agility of the hand but in the orderly pronouncing of the words of a speech with the tongue so that the Truth therof dependeth upon the utterance of the last syllable it is impossible but the Priest in uttering distinctly these words Hoc est corpus meum must say This is before he come to the last syllable of Meâ—um and consequently in his sense notifie This to be Christ's Body before according to his owne judgement the Body of Christ can have there any being at all By this is discovered the notable Vertigo and dizzinesse of your Iesuite Maldonate Hee to prove that the Pronoune This doth relate to Christ's Body standeth upon the like Operative speculation God saith c Quum Deus ex limo terrae hominem finxit tectè verèque dicere potuiller sumpto in manus luno Hic est Homo Et cum ex costa mulierem fabricavit sumpta costâ dicere potait Haec est Mulier quamvis cum pronunciasset Pronomen Haec nondum fuisset mulier ac significâsset cùm ita locutus fuisset limum non esse hominem costam mulierem sed limum in hominem costam in mulierem converti Sic cùm Christus dicit Hoc est corpus meum significat panem mucari in corpus suum Quemadmodum si in Cana Galileae cùm aquam in vinum c. Maldon Iesuit in Matth. 26. Ita cùm Christus dicit accepto pane Hoc est corpus meum quamvis illud corpus nondum ille esset sed futurum erat illud eo pronomine demonstrat nee significat panem quem acceperat esse corpus suum sed mutari in corpus suum Idem in Matth. 26. pag. 635. he in creating man of the slime of the earth might have truly said thereof This is man Or in framing Woman of the Rib of man might have rightly said This is Woman or Christ in working his miracle in Cana of Galilee might have said shewing the water This is Wine So he When notwithstanding he is inforced in every one to alter the Verbe Is thus Slime is changed into man Rib is converted into Woman Water is made Wine as he himselfe confesseth expounding the words This is my Body thus Not that it was then his Body saith he which as yet it was not but was about to be nor that he signified the Bread to be his Body but to be changed into his Body So he As if any thing could be said properly to be that which as yet it Is not âšœ No and therfore your Iesuite Gordon 3 Gordonus Scotus Ies Controvers 4. cap 3. num 15. Hoc demonstrat corpus futurum And your Angles saith directly The Pronoune THIS demonstrateth the Body which is about to be As much as to say This Is shal be Another of your owne Divines will tell you that 4 Si Hoc demonstrat corpus sub ratione corporis Propositio speculativa esset non Practica Ies Angles flor Theol. quaest Art 10. Concl. 4. Which was also the Argument of Bellarmine See above at the letter k. If the Pronoune THIS demonstrate Christ's Body then cannot the speech of Christ be practicall that is to effectuate that which it signifieth and this will marre your doctrine of Transubstantiation quite âšœ Hitherto of your first Interpretation That the second Romish Exposition referring the Pronoune THIS to demonstrate a Third thing called Individuum vagum or Indeterminate substance perverteth the sense of Christ his speech THIS IS MY BODY proved by the Confession of Romish Doctors SECT III. A Third thing differing both from Bread and the Body of Christ which Romish Sophisters have lately invented is that which they call Individuum vagum by which is meant a substance confusedly taken as when one to use your owne example having an Hearb in his hand shall say This hearb groweth in my garden in which speech the word Hearb which is demonstrated by the Pronoune This is not taken determinately for that singular Hearb in his hand for that doth not now grow in his garden but is taken vagè and confusedly for the common Species nature or kind of that hearb And this opinion is defended by a,b Sententia haec est Pronomine illo designari aliquid commune Substantiae panis corporis Christi Commune inquam non secundùm Rem illud enim nullum esse potest sed secundùm rationem seu denominationem viz. sub ratione contenti sub his accidentibus continetur corpus meum Ita Guitmandus
properly Mingling of Christ's Flesh with the flesh of him that Communicateth of this Sacrament and have beene Confuted by your owne Jesuites for the same Opinion judging it to be Rash Absurd and Repugnant to the Majestie of the Sacrament Your Aquinas as you have * See the former section heard held it an Hainous wickednesse for any man to thinke that Christ should be inclosed in a Boxe appearing in his proper forme Neverthelesse Master Fisher as the Cat that covereth her excrement with dust meant by this his former Answer to cover or at least-wise colour your Romish Barbarous Indignities in professing the * See Booke 5. cap. 7. Cleaving of Christs Bodie unto your guts the vomiting of it and a passable transmitting thereof unto the Seege and other the like execrable Romish Indignites against the Body of Christ so as the holy Fathers abhorred the very thought thereof But wee chose rather to confute Master Fisher by Master Fisher himselfe who in his Answer to Saint Augustine who called the Capernaiticall maner of Eating Christs Flesh Flagitious saith that Saint Augustine excluded the grosse imagination of Eating Christs Body in his proper Shape tearing it in pieces with their teeth Do you not heare The opinion of Tearing Christs Flesh with mens teeth in his Proper Shape he termed Grosse or Absurd Do you but now compare this his Confession with his former Assertion which was that wee are Rather to beleeve a doctrine because it seemeth Absurd and then try him when you please how hee will avoyd this Dilemma Either ought Master Fisher to beleeve the Eating of Christs Flesh in it's Proper Shape or he ought not If hee say hee ought then must hee turne Capernaite to beleeve the Body of Christ to be eaten with tearing it in pieces with mens teeth in it's Proper Shape which hee himselfe disliketh as Grosse and Absurd and Saint Augustine abhorred as Flagitious And if hee Answer that hee ought not then is his former Position both Flagitious Grosse and Absurd in affirming that A doctrine is the rather to be beleeved because it seemeth Impossible From these Generalls we passe to his Particulars and specialls to wit in his particular Exposition Reasons Inferences and Confirmations c. Master Fisher his Particular Exposition of Christs words This is my Body as the Foundation of the former seeming Romish Absurdities and Indignities Hee thinking to qualifie all the Absurdities and Indignities which necessarily follow upon your Romish Exposition of Christs words as being the foundation thereof in the First place insisteth upon Christs speech This is my Body Why should Catholikes feare saith hee any hard Sentence in respect of their prompt Credulity of Gods word taken in a plaine and proper Sense So he Our Reply revealing the Absurdities both of the Romish Exposition and of their Deduction of Transubstantiation from thence His Defence is that the Speech of Christ is to be interpreted in its plaine and proper Sense Now whatsoever Relation the word THIS hath in Christ's Speech it cannot without Absurdity be taken in a proper and literall Signification even by the Confession of your Romish Doctors themselves as hath beene * See Booke 2. cap. 1. plentifully proved For if as some of them affirme the Pronoune This 〈◊〉 be referred to Christ's Body as if Christ had sayd This my Body is my Body This Exposition hath bin exploded by some Romish Doctors of best note in your Church expressely calling it an Exposition very absurd in Tautologie And if the same This should betoken a Third thing named an Individuum vagum or confused Substance which is your Second Romish Exposition this likewise hath beene scornfully rejected by other of your Iesuits and Doctors as an Interpretation full of Absurdities And lastly if it shall be sayd to relate to Bread as to be sayd This Bread is my Body in a proper and literall Sense All your Romish Disputers with one Consent abandon this also as no lesse false than for to say a Man is an Asse or as one of them feared not to write to affirme Christ to be Iudas And were it that Christ's Speech This is my Body were taken properly yet the Doctrine of Transubstantiation which you doe erect upon this foundation would prove to be truly Absurd and Impossible even by the Confession of your owne Romish Doctors themselves who are in their patronizing of your Article of Transubstantiation distracted into two contrary Opinions some saying that the Change called Transubstantiation is made by Production of Christ's Body out of Bread Not so saith the other Partie holding this maner of Change as * See above Booke 3. Chap. ◠§. 1. Absurd as to affirme Christ's Body to have had any Existence before Christ had spoken these words The Second maner maintained by a later sort is a Change of Bread into Christ his Body by Adduction of the Body of Christ unto Bread No saith the Former Because this Change is but the changing of one Substance into the place of another and therefore a Translocation only and no Transubstantiation Now all these Three Interpretations and Three are all together with your Two maners of Change of Christ's Body thereby being thus utterly rejected by your owne Divines let us argue the Point with you upon these Premises Either all your other Doctors who have cashiered all the former Senses of Christ's Words even because of Absurdities had been Faithlesse or else your Iesuit Master Fisher which consequently followeth thereon in concluding that your Romish Doctors are Rather to be believed because they seeme to be Absurd was no better than Fantasticall Master Fisher his Particular Reason for Defence of his former Exposition as the Ground of Transubstantiation Numb 6. The Primitive Church saith hee preaching to Iewes and other Infidels the rest of the other Mysteries as of the Trinity and Incarnation yet kept secret as much as might be the Knowledge of the Mysteries of the Eucharist yea the Catechumenes and Novices before Baptisme were not fully instructed therein And their Reason was lest one should be scandalized and the other mocked This supposed I inferre c. Our Reply noting a double Errour in M r. Fisher's Reason His first Error is that hee supposeth that The Primitive Church did absolutely conceale the Eucharist from Pagans and Catechumenists and that more precisely than any other Mysteries each of which are * See Booke 7. cap. 3. proved to be false For neither could the Mystery of the Eucharist be sayd to have beene wholly concealed which the Fathers both preached in their Sermons and expressed in their publike Writings as is to be seene in the Bookes of Iustine Cyprian and other Fathers nor yet can it be truly affirmed that they more precisely kept secret this Sacrament than the other Mysteries seeing the same Primitive Fathers professed as strictly that They durst not reveale the Sacrament of Baptisme either to Pagans or Catechumenists as they did the Sacrament of the