Processions which are displayed by your owne Authours Noting in them the very fooleries of the Romane Pagans by your fond Pageants where Priests play their parts in representing the persons of Saints others of Queenes accompanied with Beares and Apes and many like profane and sportfull Inuentions and other Abuses which occasioned some of your owne more devout Professors to wish that this your Custome were abrogated Thinking that it may be omitted with profit to the Church both because it is but an Innovation and also for that it serveth most-what for ostentation and pompe rather than pious Devotion So they Lastly lest you may obiect as else where that a Negative Argument as this because Christ did not institute this Custome therefore it may not be allowed is of no effect we adde that the Argument negative if in any thing then must it prevaile in condemning that Practice which maintaineth any new End differing from that which was ordained by Christ Which made Origen and Cyprian argue Negatively in this Case the one saying Christ reserved it not till to-morrow and the other This bread is received and not reserved or put into a Boxe Which Conclusion we may hold in condemning of your publike Carrying of the Hoast in the streets and Market-places to the end only that it may be Adored aswell as of latter times your Pope Pius Quartus which your Congregation of Cardinals report did forbid a new-upstart Custome of Carrying the Sacrament to sicke people that they might adore it when as they were not able to eate it All these Premises doe inferre that your Custome of Circumgestation of the Sacrament in publike Procession onely for Adoration cannot justly be called Laudable except you meane thereby to have it termed a Laudable Noveltie and a Laudable profanation and Transgression against the Institution of Christ as now from your owne Confessions hath beene plainly evicted and as will be further manifested when wee are to speake of your Idolatrous Infatuation it selfe The Ninth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the Sence of the words following IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE SECT XI REmembrance is an act of Vnderstanding and therefore sheweth that Christ ordained the use of this Sacrament only for persons of Discretion and Vnderstanding saying DOE THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE The contrarie Canon of the Romane Masse in times past Your Iesuite Maldonate will be our Relater ingenuously confessing that in the dayes of Saint Augustine and Pope Innocent the first this opinion was of force in your Church For six hundred yeares together viz. that the Administration of the Eucharist is necessary for Infants Which opinion saith hee is now reiected by the Councell of Trent Determining that the Eucharist is not only not necessarie for Infants but also that is Indecent to give it unto them So he Of this more in the Challenge CHALLENGE IS not now this your Churches Reiecting of her former Practice a Confession that she hath a long time erred in Transgressing of the Institution of Christ How then shall your Trent-Fathers free your fore-father Pope Innocent and your former Romane Church from this taxation This they labour to doe but alas their miserie by collusion and cunning for the same Synod of Trent resolveth the point thus The holy Synod say they teacheth that Children being void of the use of Reason are not necessarily bound to the Sacramentall receiving of the Eucharist This wee call a collusion for by the same Reason wherewith they argue that Children are not necessarily bound to receive the Eucharist because they want reason they should have concluded that Therefore the Church is and was necessarily bound not to administer the Eucharist to Infants even because they wanted Reason Which the Councell doubtlesse knew but was desirous thus to cover her owne shame touching her former superstitious practice of Giving this Sacrament vnto Infants In excuse whereof your Councell of Trent adioyneth that the Church of Rome in those dayes was not condemnable but why Because saith your Councell Truly and without Controversie wee ought to beleeve that they did not give the Eucharist unto Infants as thinking it necessary to Salvation Which Answere your owne Doctors will prove to be a bold and a notorious vntruth because as your Iesuite sheweth They then beleeved that Infants baptized could not be saved except they should participate of the Eucharist taking their Argument from that Scripture of Iohn 6. Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne c. and therfore held they it necessarie to the salvation of Infants That this was the beleefe of Pope Innocent and of the Church of Rome vnder him your Parisian Doctor Espencaeus also proveth at large out of the expresse writings of Pope Innocent Yea and your greatly approved Binius in his Volumes of the Councels dedicated to Pope Paul the fift explaineth the same so exactly See the Marginall Citation that it will permit no Euasion And so much the rather because that which the Tridentine Fathers alledge for cause of Alteration doth confirme this unto us It is vndocent say they to give the Eucharist unto Infants This may perswade vs that Innocent held it necessary els would he not haue practized and patronized a thing so vtterly vndecent Wee dispute therefore If the Church of Rome in the dayes of Pope Innocent the first held it a doctrine of faith in the behalfe of Infants that they ought to receiue the Sacrament of the Eucharist the same Church of Rome in her Councell of Trent whose Decrees by the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth are all held to be beleeued vpon necessity of Salvation did decree contrarily that the participation of the Eucharist is not necessary no nor yet decent for Infants Say now did the Church of Rome not erre in the dayes of Pope Innocent then is she now in an error Or doth shee not now erre herein then did she formerly erre and consequently may erre hereafter in determinining a matter to be Necessary to Salvation which in it selfe is Superfluous and Vndecent Thus of the contrary custome of the Church of Rome in elder times The new contrary Opinion concerning the Romane Masse at this day Euen at this day also your Iesuite will haue vs to vnderstand the meaning of your Church to be that Infants are capable of the Sacrament of the Eucharist CHALLENGE VVHereunto wee oppose the Authority of the Councell of Carthage and of that which you call the Councell of Laterane which denyed as you know that the Eucharist should be delivered vnto Infants accounting them vncapable of divine and spirituall feeding without which say they the corporall profiteth nothing But we also summon against the â—ormer Assertion eight of your ancient Schoolemen who vpon the same Reasons made the like Conclusion with vs. And wee further as it were arresting you in the Kings name produce against you Christ his writ the Sacred Scripture
Transformation Trans-elementation and the like So your Lorichius Reader of Divinitie among you who by his vast and rash boldnes might as iustly have inferred from the like Phrases of the Apostle viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are transformed that every Regenerate Christian is Transubstantiated into Christ or from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is transfigured say that the Diuell is Transubstantiated into an Angell of light or from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is changed used by Cyrill urge that whosoever the Spirit of God doth Sanctifie is Transubstantiated into another thing or from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Nazianzene conclude that Every Person Baptized is Transubstantiated into Christ Will you have the world imagine that so many so excellent and so Ancient Fathers with all that Divine and Humane Learning wherewith they were so admirably accomplished could not in a Thousand yeares space finde out either the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Latine Transubstantiatio and apply them to this Change if they had once dreamed of this your Article of Faith Will you permit us to learne a point of wisedome in your Cardinal Liberty of devising new words saith he is a thing most dangerous because new words by little and little bâ—get new things So hee Therefore may wee iustly place this your new word among those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which St. Paul will have Christians by all means to avoid els so new and barbarous a name must needs ingender a novell and brutish opinion such as this Article it selfe will appeare to be As followeth The Novelty of the Article of Transubstantiation is examined and shewen not to have beene before the Councell of Laterane namely not untill 1215. yeares after Christ SECT III. THis Aricle hath beene decreed as you haue heard by your Church as a necessary Doctrine of Faith and therefore presumed to be Ancient CHALLENGE THe first Imposition of this Article as of Faith your Cardinall Bellarmine noteth to have beene in the dayes of Pope Gregory the VIIth viz. 1073. yeares after Christ But surely at that time this could be but a private opinion of some few for Peter Lombard living 67. yeares after this Pope and esteemed the Master of the Romish Schoole when he had laboured to give Resolution to all doubts especially in this very Question whether the Conversion were substantiall or not confesseth plainely saying Definire non sufficio I am not able to Determine So he Anno 1140. Hitherto therefore this Article was but in Conception onely which caused your learned and subtile Schoole-man Scotus to descend lower to find out the Birth thereof Affirming that the Article of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith before the Councell of Laterane under Pope Innocent III. viz. Anno 1215. whom therefore your Cardinall doth taxe for want of Reading But either were your Iesuite Coster and Cardinall Perron as ignorant of Antient Learning as Scotus or els they gave small Credit to that Councell cited by Bellarmine under Gregory the VIIth For your Iesuite saith in direct tearmes that The name of Transubstantiation was used in the Councell of Laterane for clearer declaration that Christians might understand the Change of Bread into the Body of Christ Can you say then that it was universally so vnderstood before But your Cardinall Perrâ—n more peremptorily concludeth that If it had not beene for the Councell of Laterane it might be now lawfull to impugne it So hee A plaine acknowledgement that it was no Doctrine of Faith before that Councell even as Scotus affirmed before But we pursue this Chase yet further to shew That the Article of Transubstantiation was not defined in the Councell of Laternae vnder Pope Innocentius the III. SECT IV. YOur owne learned Romish Priest a long time Prisoner did under the name of Widdrington produce many Historians viz. Platina Nauclerus Godfridus Monumetensis Matth. Paris and others to testifie as followeth That many things fell under Consultation in that Councell but nothing was openly defined the Pope dying at Perâ—sium Insomuch that some of these Authors sticke not to say that This Generall Councell which seemed to promise bigg and mighty matters did end in scorne and mockery performing nothing at all Wee might adde that the supposed Acts of this Councell were not published vntill more than two hundred yeares after No marvell then if some Schoole-men among whom were Scotus and Biel held Transubstantiation not to have beene very antient And another that It was but lately determined in the Church Nay M. Breerly if his opinion be of any Credit among you sticketh not to say that Transubstantiation compleat that is both for forme and matter was not determined vntill the last Councell of Trent that is to say not untill the yeare of our Lord 1560. Doe you not see how much licking this ougly Beare and Beast had before it came to be formed and yet it will appeare to be but a Monstrum horrendum take it at the best as it is now to to be proved by the full discouering of the palpable Falshood thereof CHAP. III. The Definition of Transubstantiation in the Church of Rome and of the Falshood thereof SECT I. THe Councell of Trent saith your Cardinall hath defined that this Conversion is of the whole Substance of Bread that is as well forme as matter into the Substance of Christ his Body Our First proofe of the Falshood of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation by the Contradictions of the Defenders thereof whereby they bewray their No-Beleefe of the Article THe Opinions of the Doctours of your Church concerning the nature of this Conversion are by you reduced into these two manners namely that it is either by Production out of the substance of Bread or els by Adduction of the Body of Christ unto the forme of Bread CHALLENGE VVHatsoever it is which you will seeme to professe never shall you perswade us that you doe indeed believe either of the pretended Formes of Transubstantiation First not by Production because as the same Cardinall truely argueth Conversion by Production is when the thing that is produced is not yet extant as when Christ converted water into wine wine was not Extant before it was Produced out of the substance of water But the Body of Christ is alwaies Extant therefore can it not be said to be Produced out of the substance of Bread So he Which Productive manner of Transubstantiation could not be beleeved by your Iesuites Vasquez and Suarez by both whom it hath beene confuted And if the Change be not by Production then it must follow that it is not by Transubstantiation which is demonstrable in it selfe because the next manner which they insist vpon cannot possibly serue your turne This Second manner they name to be by Adduction which your Cardinall defineth to be a Bringing of the Substance of that
your severall Churches What shall we then further say concerning a Being of a Body in divers places at once Surely that which hath beene plentifully proved already that such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is egregiously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well in Divine as in naturall Philosophy because as this whole Discourse sheweth they have verified that saying of Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAP. VII Of the fourth Romish Contradiction against the words of Christ MY BODY by teaching it to be Organicall and not Organicall Divisible and Indivisible SECT I. THe Question is not now of the Mysticall presence of Christ his Body in the Sacrament which we with the Fathers especially Greg. Nyssen confesse to be whole as well in a part of Bread consecrated as in the whole loafe even as the Image of the King may be as perfect in a penny as in a shilling But neither hee nor any Father ever said that a little Hoast which boast you call Christ is equall with a great Hoast No for the Fathers in the Councell of Nice absolutely denyed this nor yet is Christ wholly represented in the least part of the Hoast as your Fathers of Trent have taught because no such part can resemble Totum Christum whole Christ Sacramentally which is not of sufficient bignes to be sensibly eaten in the nature of nourishment thereby to resemble the Spirituall nourishment of our Soules which is the Body of Christ So that all you have said maketh iust nothing for the Corporall and materiall Presence of Christs Body which we further impugne That it is necessary the Body of Christ wheresoever consist of distinct members and proportions of a Bodie SECT II. THe Body of Christ as we professe had perfect Dimensions and Distinctions of parts an head exposed to pricking with thornes a face to buffers a backe to scourges eyes to visible noddings and mockings eares to blasphemies hands and feet to piercing with nayles This is that Body which we confesse to be the Body of Christ and which we celebrate in the use of this Sacrament in Remembrance that he had a Body consisting of proportion of divers parts distinct one from another Two of your Cardinals doe both answere that Quantity magnitude proportion and extension of parts are unseparably united to the Body of Christ in this Sacrament or else saith one If the Nose should stand where the Eye is and the Eye where the Nose is it should be a confused Monster So they So necessary it is even in your owne faith that the Bodie of Christ consist of Organicall parts distinct one from another That the Romish Church hath decreed a doctrine of Corporall Presence of a Body of Christ withall the parts thereof in the least indivisible point of the Hoast SECT III. THe Canons of that Councell of Trent decreed as a Doctrine of Faith necessary to salvation to beleeve That the Body of Christ in this Sacrament is whole in every part of the Hoast whereby is meant saith your Iesuite The whole Body of Christ is in every albeit the least part of the Hoast So he But we demand how then shall the Body of Christ but want proportion of distinct parts which you say are Vnseparably united to a Body You distinguish that the Body of Christ being in this Sacrament hath extension of parts of a Body distinctly in it selfe but in respect of the Place or of the formes of Bread under which it is the whole Body is without distinction in every least Part and indivisible Point thereof CHALLENGE THis is the common Resolution of the now Church of Rome The exact discussion of this one point will in it selfe illuminate the eyes of any Reader to discerne betweene the Spirit of Truth and of Errour namely to know that there cannot be a greater Contradiction and consequently Impossibility than for a Body consisting of proportionable dimensions of Parts such as are Hands Legs Eyes and other Organicall members to have Being any where without Extension Commensuration and distinct Proportion of the same to the space wherein it is as the Propositions following will prove That the former Romish Tridentine Article is new and contrary to the nature of an Organicall and humane Body in the Iudgement of Romish Doctors of latter times SECT IV. ALbertus Scotus Aegidius are recounted amongst your learned and Ancient Schoolemen who as your Iesuite testifieth Thought it impossible that a Body that hath extension of parts should be contained in an indivisible point The same opinion is ascribed by your Iesuites as ancient unto Durand and Occham Now what greater iniury can there be than after that it was lawfull for a thousand and foure hundreth yeares since the Ascension of Christ for any Christian to professe with your ancient Schoole-men an Impossibility that The Body of Christ is whole in everie the least part of the Hoast to impose upon men's consciences as an Article of Faith so fond and so palpable a figment That which seemed to the above-named Durand and Occham such an Opinion whence as they thought it must needes follow that the Eyes must be where the Nose is the hand confounded with the legges which as your Cardinall Alan truly said were to make of the Body of Christ a confused Chaos and altogether monstrous That the Organicall parts of the Body of Christ must be proportionable to the Dimension of the places wherein they are is proved by the confessed Romish Principle it selfe SECT V. THe reason which your Cardinall layeth downe to prove it necessary that Christ his Body should have in it selfe according to the nature of a Body distinct parts of head and eyes and other Organs fit for the use of a reasonable Soule hee taketh from Magnitude which is an Extension of parts into their proportionable length bredth and depth this saith he is inseparably united to Christ his Body in its owne intrinsecall disposition in it selfe but not so saith he in regard of the place CHALLENGE THis your owne Reason may wee iustly retort upon your selves proving that if the naturall disposition of the Bodie of Christ be thus proportionably extended in it selfe it must be so likewise in respect of place and space because the three dimensions of the Body of Christ as you have confessed stand thus that one is an extension in Length another in Breadth the third in Depth and each of these three are distinct one from another Well then The arme must be here and thus farre longer than the foot the legge here and thus farre thicker than the finger the hand here and thus farre broader than the toe and accordingly distinctly in other parts But Hîc and Hucusque Heere and There thus farre and so farre being Relatives of space and place doe demonstratively shew that that Extension of distinct parts of the Body which they have in themselves divisibly the same they must necessarily have in respect of the Vbi place
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
Papall Decrees and the Body of these Decrees hath beene lately ratified by the Bull of P. Gregory the thirteenth The same Faith was embraced afterwards of some Schoole-men who without any distinction vsed the same phrase of Tearing with Teeth Secondly of after-times your Canus asseverantly inferreth of the Body of Christ that If it be eaten then certainly it is broken and torne with the teeth But most emphatically your Cardinall Alan It is said saith he to be torne with the teeth of the faithfull no lesse properly than if it should be said so of the Bread if it were eaten Yea and your Cardinall Bellarmine for proofe of Transubstantiation hath recourse unto the same Roman Councell which he stileth Generall and noteth the thing defined to have beene the iudgement of the Church and that the same Iudgement was delivered under the Censure of an Anathema and Curse against the Gain-sayers and therefore he with his Disciple Mr. Fisher who also alleageth the same are challengeable to hold it according to the literall sence therof because it will not admit of any qualification by any Trope or figure that can be devised First because the words are purposely set downe as a forme of Recantation and Abiuration of Heresie but as you confesse There are no formes of speech more exact and proper in phrase concerning the matter of faith than such as are used by them that abiure Heresie And Secondly for that this forme of words of Tearing with the teeth the flesh of Christ was also made purposely for Abiuration and abandoning all figurative Sence for the defence of the literall Exposition of the words of Christ This my Body c. therefore was it taken literally But what thinke you will Cavin say to this your then Romish forme of Profession in the literall sence A man should rather wish to die an hundred times saith he than once to intangle himselfe in a Doctrine so monstrously sacrilegious Which Censure of his wee now endeavour to make good That the former Romane Faith of Properly Eating the Body of Christ is Capernaitically-Hereticall at this day as is proved by some of your owne Doctors of the now Romane Church SECT II. YOu have heard of Berengarius his Abrenunciation of Heresie according to the faith of the then Romane Church in Breaking the Body of Christ and tearing it sensibly with their teeth Hearken now a little and you shall heare in a manner an Abrenunciation of that then Romane faith by denying it to be either properly Broken or yet really Torne even by the Iesuites themselves Reall Eating saith your Salmeron requireth a reall touch and tearing of the thing which is eaten but the Body of Christ is not torne with the teeth or touched by them that eate him because he is herein impartible So he Your Iesuite and Cardinall Bellarmine is as it were in a maze saying and gain-saying as you may perceive yet notwithstanding whether he will or no must perforce confesse no lesse when he saith that The Body of Christ is not absolutely eaten but eaten vnder the formes of Bread and that is to say saith he the formes of Bread are sensibly and visibly eaten So hee If this imported a literall manner of eating then might your Cardinall have said as literally of himselfe My clothes are torne therefore my body is rent in pieces Not to trouble you with the Cardinal's Philosophie that talketh of Eating and tearing of Colours But to the point If onely the Accidents of Bread be as he saith Sensibly eaten then was Pope Nicolas his Prescription of Eating Christ's body sensibly in your Cardinal's opinion not true And upon the same ground it is that your Iesuite Suarez out of Thomas and other Schoole-men affirmeth the word Broken to bee a Metaphoricall phrase not properly belonging to the body of Christ because it requireth that there should be a Separation of the parts of that which is properly broken So hee as also your Canus hath concluded And your Iesuite Maldonate is so bold as to tell you that these Propositions The Body of Christ is eaten is Broken Torne with the Teeth or Devoured of us properly taken are false Thus your Iesuites as if they had expressly said that to thinke the Body of Christ to be eaten torne or devoured properly taken is a carnall Capernaiticall and as your owne Glosse in Gratian concludeth an Hereticall opinion Will your have any more It is but the last day in respect when one of your grave Criticks so much abhorred the conceit of proper Tearing Christ's Bodie that he called the Obiecting thereof against your Church in his blinde zeale Blasphemie and answereth that you doe no more Teare Christ's flesh than Caiphas tore his when he rent his clothes The Case then is plaine That the former Romish and Popish Faith for the manner of of receiving of the Body of Christ is but somewhat altered yet miserably inconstant and faithlesse SECT III. PRotestants may have in this place iust matter of insulation against your Romish Professors to prove their infidelity in that which they seeme to professe As first that the ground of your Doctrine of Corporall presence is the literall and proper interpretation of the words of Christ when he said Take eate this is my Body yet now are you compelled to say that Properly eaten is no proper but a false sence Your Second Doctrine is that the iudgement of a Romane Pope in a Romane Councell in a matter of faith is Infallible Notwithstanding Pope Nicolas with his Romane Councell is found to haue grossly erred in a tenor of Abiuration which of all others as hath beene confessed is most literall and was therefore purposely devised against a figurative sence of the words of Christ and forthwith published throughout Italie France Germany c. to direct men in the faith of sensuall eating breaking and tearing the flesh of Christ with their teeth yet notwithstanding your common Iudgement being now to reiect such phrases taken in their proper signification and in a manner to abrenounce Berengarius his Abrenunciation what is if this be not an argument that either you say you care not or else beleeve you know not what Let us goe on in pursuite of your Doctrine of the Corporall manner of eating which you still maintaine and it will be found to be Capernaiticall enough CHAP. V. That the now Romish manner of Eating and bodily receiving of the Body of Christ is sufficiently Capernaiticall in three kindes TEll vs not that no Doctrine of your Church can be called Hereticall before that it be so iudged by some generall Councell no for Rectum est Index sui obliqui and therefore an evident Truth written in the word of God doth sufficiently condemne the contrary of Heresie as well as light doth discover and dispell Darknes And this is manifest by the example which we have now in
Praise and Thanksgiving to be a Sacrifice Eucharisticall And also to use the words of Calvin Latreuticall and Sebasticall that is a Sacrifice of Worship and Veneration which every Christian may and must professe who hath either eyes in his head or faith in his heart the Celebration of this Sacrament in Remembrance of his absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption being the Service of all Services that we can performe to God Now wherein and in what respect we may furthermore be said to offer to God a Sacrifice propitiatory improperly will after appeare when we consider Christ's Body as the Object herein That Protestants in their Commemoration offer up the same Body and Blood of Christ which was Sacrificed on the Crosse as the Object of Remembrance and most absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption SECT IV. NOw we are come to the last most true and necessary point which is the Body and Blood as the Object of our Commemoration Still still doe you urge the saying of Fathers where they affirme that we offer unto God The same Body and Blood of Christ on this Altar even the same which was sacrificed on the Crosse which therefore you interpret as being the same subject matter of our Commemoration As is a King acting himselfe upon a Stage as hath beene shewen We as instantly and more truly proclaime that we offer Commemoratively the same undoubtedly the very same Body and Blood of Christ his All sufficient Sacrifice on the Crosse although not as the subject of his proper Sacrifice but yet as the only adequate Object of our Commemoration as when the same murther of the Emperour Mauritius is represented in a Stage-play in some manner of Resemblance wherein we cannot possibly erre having Truth it selfe for our Guide who said Doe this in remembrance of me namely of the same Mee meaning Christ as crucified on the Crosse as the Apostle commenteth saying Hereby you shew the Lords Death till he come even the Same Body as the Same Death whereunto beare all the Fathers witnesse thorowout this Treatise Whereby it will be easie for us to discerne the subject Sacrifice of Christ from ours his being the Reall Sacrifice on the Crosse ours only the Sacramentall Representation Commemoration and Application thereof CHAP. VIII Of the Second Principall part of this Controversie which concerneth the Romish Sacrifice is as it is called Properly Propitiatory THis part is divided into an 1. Explication of that which you call Propitiatory 2. Application thereof for Remission of Sinnes The State of the Question of Propitiatory what it is SECT I. THe whole Difference standeth upon this whether the subject matter of our Representation in the hands of the Priest be properly a Propitiatory Sacrifice or no. Now Propitiatory is either that which pacifieth the wrath of God and pleaseth him by it's owne virtue and efficacy which as all confesse is only the Sacrifice of Christ in his owne selfe or else a thing is said to be Propitiatory and pleasing to God by God's gracious acceptance and indulgence The Romish professe the Sacrifice of their Masse to be such in the proper Virtue of that which the Priest handleth For the Tridentine faith concerning your Propitiatory Sacrifice is this viz. It is that whereby God being pacified doth pardon sinnes And least that there might be any ambiguity how it doth pacifie God whether by his gracious Acceptance or the Efficacie of offering your generall Romane Catechisme authorized both by your Councell of Trent and the then Pope Pius the fourth for the direction of your whole Church instructeth you all concerning your Sacrifice of the Masse that As it is a Sacrifice it hath an Efficacy and Virtue not onely of merit but also of satisfaction So they as truly setting downe the true nature of a Propitiatory Sacrifice as they doe falsly assume and apply it unto the Sacrifice of your Masse which Protestants abhor and impugne as a Doctrine most Sacrilegious and only grant the Celebration to be Propitiatory Improperly by God's Complacency and favourable acceptance wherewith he vouchsafeth to admit of the holy Actions and Affections of his faithfull Triall of all this is to be made by Scriptures Fathers by your owne Romish Principles and by the Doctrine of Protestants In the Interim be it knowne that our Church of England in her 31. Article faith of your Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Masse as it is taught by you that it is A Blasphemous Fable and Dangerous Deceit That the Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice hath no foundation in the Institution of Christ SECT II. YOur onely Objection is that Christ in the words of his first Institution said Take this is the new Testament in my Blood shed for you and for many for the Remission of sinnes Heare your Cardinall These words doe most evidently teach that Christ now in his Supper offered up his Blood for the sinnes of his Apostles So he But if this his Exposition of Christ's words be most evident alas what a number of other blinde Guides of great estimation among you hath your Church favoured pampered privileged and authorized who could see nothing in the words of Christ but the flat contrary namely that they were spoken in the Present Tense Tropically for the future not that it was then shed but that it was to be shed on the Crosse immediatly after among whom have beene reckoned Gregory de Valentia Salmeron Barradas three prime Iesuits your Bishop Iansenius yea and the Author of your Vulgar Translation And that you may the better discerne how hard the foreheads of your Cardinall of your Rhemists of Mr. Breerley and of such others are who have made that Objection you have beene likewise advertized that in the very tenor of your owne Romish Masse it selfe the word is expresly Effundetur It shall be shed We say in the Tenor of your Romish Masse published by the Authority of Pope Pius the fifth repeated by every one of your selves you being Romish Priests and accordingly beleeved of all the Professors of your Romish Religion Which Interpretation was furthermore confirmed by Fathers and by Scripture in the places objected and by a Reason taken from your owne Confession granting that Christ his Blood was not really shed in his last Supper This is that which we had to oppose unto that your Cardinal 's Most evident Argument as Sun-shine to Moone-light That many things are said to pacifie and please God which are not properly Propitiatorie by their owne Virtue according to Scriptures and your owne Confessions SECT III. IN Scripture our Mortification of the flesh is called a Sacrifice well-pleasing to God Rom. 12. 1. Almes Workes of Charity are likewise called Sacrifices wherewith God is delighted Heb. 13. 16. Comforting and cherishing the Ministers of God is called A Sacrifice acceptable and well pleasing to God Phil. 4. 18. So the Scripture And that Spirituall Sacrifices are more pleasing unto God than all the Hecatombs of Corporals could be is
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
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
stand you still confuted by your owne domesticall witnesses Wee may adde this Reason why there could be no Resemblances of Truth because all the personall Apparitions are said to be of an Infant and of the Childe Iesus albeit Christ at his ascension out of this world was 34. yeares of age and yet now behold Christ an Infant 34. yeares old as if your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had beheld Christ with the Magi in Bethlehem at the time of his birth and not in Bethaven with his Disciples at the instant of his Ascension Of the Suggesters of such Apparitions and of their Complices SECT V. THe first Apparition of flesh above-mentioned was not before the dayes of the Emperour Arcadius which was about the yeare 395. The second not untill 700. yeares after Christ nor is it read of any like Apparition in all the dayes of Antiquity within the compasse of so long a time excepting that of one Marcus recorded by Irenaeus who faigned to Make the mixed wine in the Cup through his Invocation to seeme redd that it might be thought that grace had infused Blood into the Cup which the same Father noteth to have beene done by Magicke at what time there were dayly Proselytes and new Converts to the Christian Religion and on the other side divers Rankes of Heretiques as namely Valentinians Manichees Marcionites and others who all denyed that Christ had any corporall or Bodily Substance at all Were it not then a strange thing that so many Apparitions should be had in after-times in Churches established in Christian Religion and no such one heard of in these dayes of Antiquity when there seemed to be a farre more necessary use of them both for confirming Proselytes in the faith and reducing Heretiques from their Errour that Apparition onely of Marcus excepted which the Church of Christ did impute to the Diabolicall Art of Magicke As for the Reporters much need not to be said of them Simon Metaphrastes is the first who was of that small Credit with your Cardinall that in Answere to an Obiection from the same Author hee said I am not much moved with what Metaphrastes saith And if the Fore-man of the inquest be of no better esteeme what shall one then thinke of the whole Packe As for the testimony under the name of Amphilochius obiected by your Coccius writing the life of Basil and mentioning the like Apparitions of Flesh we make no more account of it then doe your two Cardinals by whom it is reiected as Supposititious and Bastardly But the Suggesters of these Apparitions what were they a matter observable ordinarily Priests together with either old men weomen and sometimes young Girles who wheresoever superstition raigneth are knowne to be most prone thereunto That we say nothing of the lewde Iugglings of your Priâ—sts who in other kinds have beene often discovered amongst us and in other Countries We conclude A true Miracle for Confirmation of Religion we are sure is Divinum opus the Infidell Magicians being enforced to confesse as much saying Digitus Dei hic est And as sure are we that a fained miracle although it be in behalfe of Religion is impious and blasphemous against God who being the God of Truth neither will nor can be glorified by a lie Hath God need of a Lye saith holy Iob. Wee right willingly acknowledge that diuers Miracles have beene wrought for verifying the Eucharist to be a Divine Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ but to be it selfe the true and substantiall flesh of Christ not one When a Iew that had beene once Baptized by one Bishop betooke himselfe to another Bishop to be againe Baptized of him in hope of profiâ— The Water in the Font presently vanished away S. Augustine telleth of a Physitian who was vexed extreamly with the Gout and at his Baptisme was freed from all paine and so continued all his life long Baronius reporteth another of a Child fallen into a little well prepared for men of age to be Baptized in and after that it was held for drowned in the opinion of all by-standers at the prayer of Damascus it arose from the bottome as whole and sound as it was before These Miracles happened not for the dignifying of the matter which was the water of Baptisme but of the nature of the Sacrament it selfe albeit voyd of the Corporall presence of Christ Not to tell you which your Durantus will have you to know of Miracles wrought by the Booke of the Gospell for the extinguishing of Fiers This first Obstacle being removed out of the way our passage will be so much the more easier in the following Discourse CHAP. III. That the Romish manner of the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament is manifoldly Impossible SECT I. NO sooner doe you heare Protestants talke of the Impossibility of your manner of Presence which your Church prescribeth but you presently cry out upon them as vpon Blasphemous Detractors from the Omnipotencie of God as if they meant To tie God to the Rules of Nature as your Authors are pleased to suggest Wee hold it necessary therefore to remoue this scandall thus cast in the way for simple people to stumble upon before wee can conveniently proceed to the maine matter and this wee shall endeavor to doe by certaine Propositions That by the Iudgement of ancient Fathers some things by reason of Contradiction in them may be called Impossible without the impeachment of the Omnipotencie of God yea with th great advancement thereof SECT II. THis Proposition accordeth to the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers shewing that God cannot doe something even because he is omnipotent as not die not sinne not lye because such Acts proceed not from power but from impotencie and infirmity So the Fathers It is not long since you have beene taught by an exceeding worthy Scholler that in such Cases as imply Contradiction the ancient Fathers noted the pretence of Gods omnipotencie to have beene anciently The Sanctuary of Heretiques And they give an instance in the Arrians who denying Christ to have beene God eternall beleeved him to have beene created God in time as if it were possible there should be a made God whose property is to be eternall Their onely pretence was Gods Omnipotencie to make false things true wherein they proved themselves the greatest Lyars Take unto you a second Proposition II. That the Doctrine of the same Impossibility by reason of Contradiction doth magnifie the power of God by the universall consent of Romish Doctors and their divers examples of Impossibility concerning a Bodie SECT III. YOur owne Iesuites doe lay this for a ground All Divines affirme say they that God is omnipotent because hee can doe any thing that implyeth not contradiction for that Contradiction both affirmeth and denyeth the same thing making it to be and not to be that it is But God who is Being in himselfe cannot
be felt and seene whereas every Priests hands and eyes can testifie the Contrary For what that Christ his Body in passing through the Doore should not alwayes have beene palpable in it selfe The Fathers of the Generall Councell at Ephesus would have protested against this whose Resolution is that The Body which Christ united to his God head is palpable but you will aske then how could it passe through either Stones or Doores without penetration of Dimensions or els by an extreame tenuity of the Body it selfe Wee answere the divine power constrained the Stone and Doores to yeeld a passage the Thicknes of his Body continuing the same We have Ierome for the first part teaching The Creature saith hee yeelded to the Creatour and ancient Iustine for the second saying that The passage of Christ through the Doores was by his Divine power above nature in his vnaltred Body which Body consisteth of thick parts Hee proceedeth shewing how even as was his walking upon the Water by divine power working upon the water without any Alteration of his Body more than was of the Body of Peter who was enabled by the same power to tread the water Each of which sayings of the Fathers professing a Body of Christ palpable whether Thinne with Chrysostome or Thicke with Iustine doe confute your Tridentine Faith in beleeving a Body of Christ whole in the whole and whole in every least part of the Hoast as unpalpable to man as you have said it is invisible to the Angels themselves which is to bring it to such a Subtilty as will draw you whether you will or no into a kindred with the Eutychian Heretiques who as your Aquinas will have you know held the Body of Christ to have beene as subtill as the ayre and as the winde impalpable as did also the Eunomians and were therefore condemned by Pope Gregory surnamed the Great Some more difficulty you suppose to be in the manner of Christ his Birth whereunto when we answer that Christ in his Birth opened the wombe of his Mother although without violation of her sacred vessell wee are therefore presently branded by your Disputers with the blacke marke of the Heresie of those wicked Spirits who taught the Corruption of her Virginitie Which obiection nothing but personall malice could make or Impudency defend as the Obiecters themselves well knew one of them confessing that divers Fathers in interpreting that Scripture which is by the Evangelist applyed to the Virgin Mary and Birth of Christ viz. Every Male child that openeth the wombe shall be holy unto the Lord did teach that Christ alone did properly open the wombe of a woman who onely found it shut He reckoneth for this opinion these holy Fathers Origen Tertullian Ambrose Gregory Nyssen Epiphanius Hierome Theophylact Eusebius So hee A faire company of fellow Heretiques with Protestants wee trowe to whom the same Iesuite ioyneth divers Doctors of your Romish Church whom he calleth Docti Catholici Thus your owne spirit of Contradiction whereas two words might have quit the Heresie maintained the Miracle and defended the Integritie of that sanctified wombe of the Blessed Virgin to witt that the Virginall cell might be said to open it selfe which was shut in respect of other women who necessarily suffer violent rupture by the birth being preserued from all hurtfull violence either from within or from without which could not be without a Miracle Furthermore hearken to the answere of some other Doctors of your Church and you shall finde your owne Doctrine to smell ranke of the Heresie of the Marcionites in the opinion of the fore-cited ancient Fathers for your fore-named Iesuite telleth you of some Doctors in your Church whom hee himselfe approveth who taught that The Fathers who said that Christ did open the Matrix of his Mother speake it in the heat of Dispute against the Hereticall Marcionites who denyed that Christ had any true Body because that els the said Fathers should seeme to make Christ his Body to be no better than an Incorporeall and onely imaginary thing So they Which proveth that in the iudgement of those Ancient Fathers all your defence in this Case is at least Phantasticall Let Isiodore Pelusiota his suffrage be added to the rest who in an Epistle calmly and as it were in a coole blood teacheth that Christ is the only he who by his birth opened his Mothers wombe and left it shut sealed up againe And maketh bold to tearme them vnlearned that thinke the contrary who living above a thousand yeares agoe is therefore so much the more competent a witnes of the Catholike truth As for the entrance of the Camell which is said of Christ to passe through the eye of a needle the subtilty of your Obiection is not so needle-sharpe but that it may be easily blunted for Christ spake by way of comparison and implyed as well an Impossibility as a Possibility Thus as it is simply Impossible for a Camell be it Rope or be it Beast to passe through the eye of a Needle retaining the same dimension and property so is it Impossible for a Rich-man so long as he hath on him a great Bunch or grossnes of confidence in his riches and wordly affections to enter into the Kingdome of God Although otherwise as it is possible for God by his miraculous power so to contract the Camell that it may passe through the Needles eye so is it as possible by his omnipotent power of Grace to abate the swelling Bunch of worldly Confidence in the heart of the Rich-man that hee being truely mortified may repose his whole trust in God himselfe and at length enter into the Kingdome of Heaven CHALLENGE SHall not then the novelty of your Romish Article which was not so much as beleeved of Romish Doctors of this last Age of Christianity Shall not your Contradiction to your owne Romish Principle Shall not the expresse Testimony of S. Augustine who as he was universally acknowledged to be a Catholike Father so was he never condemned by any other Catholike Father for this his Doctrine concerning the Existence of Bodily Parts according to proportionable dimensions of Space Finally shall not the affinity which your opinion bath with damnable heresies perswade you of the falsity of this your Romish Faith CHAP. VIII Of the fift Romish Contradiction against the words of Christ MY BODY as the same Body is now considered to be most perfect by making it most Imperfect SECT I. NOne will thinke we need to impose any absurd Doctrine upon your Church the Absurdities which we have already heard professed therein under the testifications of your own Disputers having beene so marvailously and palpably absurd as hath beene shewen Among which wee may reckon this that followeth as not the least prodigious Consequence of your Romish Corporall Presence to wit That your Church of Rome alloweth a Doctrine teaching a Body of Christ now glorifyed
sacrificed by the hands of the Priest Here to wit on the Table below representatively as hereafter the Catholique Fathers themselves will shew And these two may easily consist without any necessity of the Priest reaching his hands as farre as the highest Heavens as your Cardinall pleasantly obiecteth Thirdly you alleage Wee are said to partake truly of the Body of Christ As though there were not a Truth in a Sacramentall that is Figurative Receiving and more especially which hath beene both proved and confessed a Reall and true participation of Christ's Body and Blood spiritually without any Corporall Coniunction But it is added saith he that These namely the Body and Blood of Christ are Symbols of our Resurrection which is by reason that our Bodies are ioyned with the Body of Christ otherwise if our Coniunction were onely of our soules onely the Resurrection of our soules should be signified thereby So hee that 's to say as successesly as in the former For the word HAEC These which are called Symbols of our Resurrection may be referred either to the Body and Blood of Christ immediatly spoken of and placed on the Table in Heaven which we Commemorate also in the Celebration of this Sacrament and in that respect may be called Symbols of the Resurrection of our Bodies because If Christ be risen then must they that are Christs also rise againe Or else the word These may have relation to the more remote after the manner of the Greekes to wit Bread and Cup on the first Table because as immediately followeth they are these whereof not much but little is taken as you have heard Which other Fathers will shew to be indeed Symbols of our Resurrection without any Consequence of Christ's Bodily Coniunction with our Bodies more than there is by the Sacrament of Baptisme which they call the Earnest of our Resurrection as doth also your Iesuite Coster call it The Pledge of our Resurrection But this our Coniunction with Christ is the subiect matter of the Fift Booke Lastly how the Eucharist was called of the Fathers a Sacrifice is plentifully resolved in the Sixt Booke THE FIFTH BOOKE Treating of the third Romish Doctrinall Consequence arising from your depraved Sence of the Words of Christs Institution THIS IS MY BODY concerning the manner of the present Vnion of his Body with the bodies of the Receivers by Eating c. CHAP. I. The state of the Question SECT I. A Christian man consisting of two men the Outward or bodily and the Inward which is Spirituall this Sacrament accordingly consisteth of two parts Earthly and Heavenly as Irenaeus spake of the bodily Elements of Bread and Wine as the visible Signes and Obiects of Sense and of the Body and Blood of Christ which is the Spirituall part Answerable to both these is the double nourishment and Vnion of a Christian the one Sacramentall by communicating of the outward Elements of Bread and Wine united to man's body in his Taking Eating digesting till at length it be transubstantiated into him by being substantially incorporated in his flesh The other which is the Spirituall and Soules food is the Body and Blood of the Lord therefore called Spirituall because it is the Obiect of Faith by an Vnion wrought by God's Spirit and man's faith which as hath beene professed by Protestants is most Reall and Ineffable But your Church of Rome teacheth such a Reall Vnion of Christ his Body and Blood with the Bodies of the Communicants as is Corporall which you call Per contactum by Bodily touch so long as the formes of Bread and Wine remaine uncorrupt in the bodies of the Receivers Our Method requireth that we first manifest our Protestant Defence of Vnion to be an Orthodoxe truth Secondly to impugne your Romish Vnion as Capernaiticall that is Hereticall And thirdly to determine the Point by comparing them both together Our Orthodoxe Truth will be found in the Preparations following That Protestants prosesse not only a Figurative and Sacramentall Participation and Communion with Christ's Body but also a spiritually Reall SECT II. ALl the Bookes of the Adversaries to Protestants are most especially vehement violent and virulent in traducing them in the name of Sacramentaries as though we professed no other manner of feeding and Vnion with Christ's body than only Sacramentall and Figurative For Confutation of which Calumny it will be most requisite to oppose the Apologie of Him who hath beene most opposed and traduced by your Disputers in this Cause to shew first what he held not and then what he held If you shall aske Calvin what he liked not he will answere you I doe abhorre your grosse Doctrine of Corporall Presence And I have an hundred times disclaimed the receiuing only of a Figure in this Sacrament What then did hee hold Our Catechisme teacheth saith hee not only a signification of the Benefits of Christ to be had herein but also a participation of the substance of Christ's flesh in our soules And with Swinckfeldius maintayning only a Figurative perception we have nothing to doe If you further demand what is the Feeding whereby we are united to Christ's body in this Sacrament hee tels you that it is IV. Not carnall but Spirituall and Reall and so Reall that the soule is as truly replenished with the lively virtue of his flesh by the powerfull worke of the Spirit of God as the body is nourished with the corporall Element of Bread in this Sacrament If you exact an Expression of this spirituall Vnion to know the manner hee acknowledgeth it to be above Reason If further you desire to understand whether he were not Singular in this opinion he hath avouched the iudgement of other Protestants professing not to dissent one Syllable from the Augustane Confession as agreeing with him in iudgement herein Accordingly our Church of England in the 28. Article saith that To such as worthily and with faith receive this Sacrament The Bread which we breake is a partaking of the Body of Christ which Body is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after a spirituall and heavenly manner the meane whereby is Faith That the Body of Christ by this Sacrament was ordained only for food to the Christian man's Soule SECT III. VVHat need wee seeke into the Testimonies of ancient Fathers which are many in this point of Dispute having before us the Iudgement of your Fathers of the Councell of Trent and of your Romane Catechisme authorized by the same Councell both which affirme that Christ ordained this Sacrament to be the spirituall food of man's soule In which respect the Body of Christ is called Spirituall in your Popes Decree That the Spirituall feeding and Vnion with Christs Body is more excellent and Reall than the Corporall Coniunction can be SECT IV. THe soule of man being the most essentiall and substantiall part of man because a Spirit immortall and the flesh
of Christ being the most substantiall of all food and therefore called as of ancient Fathers so even by your Fathers of Trent Supersubstantiall Bread it must necessarily follow that as it is named by Christ The true Bread and the Life thereby which is the effect of the spirituall Eating thereof is the most true and Reall Life because Everlasting So the Vnion spirituall which a Christian hath in his soules-feeding is the most Reall and true Vnion as may sufficiently appeare by Analogie To wit that Bread and Wine being the most vitall nourishments for the conservation of man's bodily essence are therefore chosen as the Fathers teach to represent and exhibit unto him although in themselves but Signes and Symbols the very Body and Blood of Christ Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ are our Reall nourishments in this Sacrament And such as is our food such must be our Vnion by feeding thereon which wee say is by Faith in this Sacrament and you may not gain-say it who to comfort your Disciples are taught to instruct them that even without this Sacrament the spirituall Vnion may be presented to the soule of man with the Body of Christ and that as a sufficient meanes of uniting him to Christ by a spirituall manner of Eating And this you say is To receive Christ his Body truly albeit this be to receive him only by faith and desire So you Whence you perceive our Inference viz. If our spirituall Vnion with Christ his Body may be really and truly made by Faith and Desire without this Sacrament then in our Sacramentall eating thereof may the Communicant be much more made partaker thereof by Faith and ardent Desire the Sacrament it selfe being a Seale of this our Christian Faith CHAP. II. That only the Godly faithfull Communicants are Partakers of the Bodie and Blood of Christ and thereby united to Christ in the iudgement of Protestants SECT I. OVr Church of England in her 28. and 29. Article saith thus The Body of Christ is given to be eaten in this Sacrament only after a spirituall manner even by faith wherein the wicked and such as are void of faith eate it not although they doe visibly presse with their teeth the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ yet are they in no wise Partakers thereof But your Romish Church flatly otherwise as you all know and therefore hath your Sympresbyter Master Brereley endevoured to assume some Protestants to be on your side whom he hath alleaged with like faithfulnesse as he hath cited Master Calvin then whom he could not have in this case a greater Adversary For although Calvin grant with all Protestants that the wicked and faithlesse receive truly by way of Sacrament the Body of Christ yet doth he deny that they have in their bodies any Corporall coniunction or Vnion with Christ because the Vnion which we have saith he is Only spirituall only with the soule onely with the heart onely by faith and although it be offered to the wicked to be really received yet doe they not receive it because they are Carnall Their onely Receiving therefore is but Sacramentall So Mr. Calvin It had beene good that your Priest had suspected his Iudgement and as well in this Case as in others by doubting his owne eye-sight had borrowed your Cardinall his Spectacles then would hee have clearly perceived that together with other Protestants Calvin held that The wicked although they receive the Symbols and outward Signes of Christ's body yet the body it selfe they doe not receive So your Cardinall of the Doctrine of Protestants For although indeed Calvin said that The wicked eate the Body of Christ yet explaining himselfe he added these two words In Sacramento that is Sacramentally which in Calvins stile is alwayes taken for Symbolically only As for the consent of Protestants herein we put it to your great Cardinall and Champion their greatest Adversary to expresse He ioyneth Lutherans to the Calvinists in one consent for denying the Orall and Corporall Eating thereof and for believing the Eating of it to be Only by Faith Yet left any may say that in receiving the same Sacrament he doth not receive the thing signified thereby you may haue a Similitude to illustrate your iudgments as thus The same outward word concerning Iustification by Christ commeth to the eares of both Vnbeleevers and Beleevers But the Beleevers only are capable of Iustification That only the Godly-faithfull are Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ and thereby Vnited unto him in the iudgement of Ancient Fathers SECT II. CHrist speaking of that which is the most Reall Eating saith Ioh. 6. He that eateth me remaineth in me and shall live for ever Vpon which Text Saint Hierome concludeth The men that live in pleasure neither eate the flesh of Christ nor drinke his Blood Next Origen inferreth that No wicked man can eat Christ his flesh And Saint Augustine most peremptorily Without doubt saith he they doe not spiritually eate the flesh of Christ nor drinke his blood although that they doe visibly and carnally presse the Sacrament thereof with their teeth and notwithstanding eate their condemnation So he thereby distinguishing the inward soules Eating Spirituall from the outward and Sacramentall Eating as he doth man's Spirit from his Teeth In which respect he as verily denied that Indas ate his Lord the bread as hee affirmed him to have eaten The bread of the Lord. Therefore the Bread Sacramentall was not the Bread the Lord. Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria teacheth that whosoever doth truly receive the body of Christ Is in Christ and Christ in him both so ioyned one with the other as waxe melted with waxe is united together All these so evident Testimonies of so ancient Fathers doe inferre this Conclusioâ— against you that none doe really eate the Body of Christ who receive him but only Sacramentally And afterwards other Fathers will be found to ioyne their Consent hereunto where they teach that none eate his flesh with whom Christ hath not a perpetuall vnion Now for you to answere that their meaning is not that the ungodly eate it not really but that they eate it unworthily and therefore unprofitably for their salvation is but recoyling and giving backe when you want a shield for your defence For the Testimonies alleaged which deny that the faithlesse and godlesse men Eate Christ's Body speake directly of the Act of spirituall Eating and not only of the Effect as you fancie Peruse you their Testimonies and be you our Iudges That by Spirituall Eating your Romish Corporall Vnion through Sacramentall Eating is excluded SECT III. SAcramentall Eating and Vnion professed by your Church is as you may remember said to be Corporall by Christ's bodily Touch of the body of the Receiver but seeing the godly and faithfull man only can be partaker of the body and blood of Christ and be really united unto it as the
6. vers 38. Christ being the Oracle of Truth which descended from Heaven to reueale the will of his Father might iustly exact beliefe that whatsoever he spake to the sonnes of men was most true as it is written The will of God is that whosoever beleeveth in me c. Vers 40. vz. That they must eate his flesh But his hearers could not understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what was the true sence of these words which caused them to say This is an hard saying Therefore like Schollers of preposterous wits would they not beleeve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 namely That they were True hence it was that Christ reproued them for not Beleeving only vers 64. and not for not understanding Because it was as lawfull for Christ's Disciples to be ignorant of his darke Sayings and Parables which were therefore so spoken that his Schollers might more earnestly labour to know them as it was after lawfull for them to seeke of their Master whose precept is to Seeke and promise to Find how to understand them As it is written His Disciples said unto him Declare unto us the Parable of the seed and Christ answered them He that soweth c. That admirable Doctour of Gods Church Saint Augustine will shew himselfe herein an understanding Scholler of Christ See his Testimonie requiring of all the Disciples of Christ in the first place Beliefe of Christ's words that they are True before they did understand what was the Truth thereof confirming his Rule by that Scripture Except you beleeve you shall not understand O but the Capernaites saith Master Brereley did understand Christ's wordes right well And Saint Augustine contrary to Master Brerely expresly answereth They did not understand the Truth of Christ his speech but apprehended it foolishly and literally nor was there ever any Father or Authour no not in your owne Romish Church wee thinke before one Master Breerley that thought otherwise His second Assertion touching that speech of Christ The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit that quickeneth That it was not spoken by Christ to Qualifie his former termes of Eating his flesh is very like also to be his owne being flatly contrary to the same Father whom he avouched for Saint Augustine saith that Christ by these wordes taught the Capernaites to understand his other words of Eating spiritually a Truth which Master Brerely's owne great Master Cardinall Bellarmine hath published alleaging for proofe thereof the Testimonies of other Fathers saying Chrysostome Theophylact Euthemius and also Origen so expoundeth it So hee Master Breerly his third Inference is Therefore the words speaking of Eating his Flesh are not Figurative which indeed is the maine Controversie for never any but an Infidell denied the speech of Christ to be true nor yet did ever any but an Orthodoxe understand the Truth of the speech what it was that 's to say whether the Truth be according to a Litterall Sence as Master Brereley would have it or else in a Figurative which hath beene our defence and proofe throughout the Second Booke from all kinde of Evidences of Truth Here therefore we are onely to deale with Master Breerly and with his pretended witnesse Saint Augustine to whom hee would seeme to adhere Notwithstanding that wee may beleeve Master Brereley himselfe If wee should attend to the propriety of speech Christ's blood is not properly drunke So he albeit Christ his speech was as expresly for drinking his Blood as for Eating his Bodie And every Schoole-boy will tell him that every speech which is unproper is figurative As for Saint Augustine hee standeth as a sworne witnesse against the proper and literall sence of Eating Christ's flesh calling it Flagitious Besides rather than we should want witnesses to aver this Truth divers Iesuites will be ready in the following Chapter to tell Master Brereley flatly that if hee say the words Eating Christs flesh are properly spoken he speaketh false CHALLENGE Proving the obiected Saint Augustine to contradict the Romish Doctrine of Corporall Presence as Protestantly as can be desired MAster Brereley his Conclusion taken from Christ's speech of Eating is to inferre a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament But Saint Augustine cited above in the Margent thus Christ to them that thought hee was not to give his Body to be eaten said that hee himselfe was to ascend up into Heaven and then indeed they were to know that he meant not to give his Body to be eaten after that manner which they conceived which was carnall by tearing and renting it in peeces Wherein you may plainly discerne the Argument of Saint Augustine to be that Christ by his Bodily Ascension would shew to the world that he being bodily absent from the Earth his flesh could not be here eaten by Bodily Tearing asunder Thus he against the Capernaits which must as necessarily confute the Romanists Corporall Eating his flesh whether it be by Chewing or Swallowing whether visibly or invisibly it mattereth not because it being the same Body that ascended were it visibly or invisibly it is equally absent from Earth We have no list after so plaine a discoverie of Master Brereley his manifold ignorances to play upon his Person but rather doe pray that at the sight of his Errours he may be reduced unto the Truth now after his fondly miscalled Strong Reasoning to the contrarie CHAP. IV. That the manner of Eating the Body of Christ once professed in the Church of Rome was both Capernaitically-Hereticall and is also still no lesse in the profession of divers in the same Church SECT I. THe first member will appeare by the faith of the Church of Rome in the dayes of Pope Nicolas whose faith about the yeare 1059. may be best knowne by the Oath which was prescribed by him unto Berengarius concerning the Eating of the body of Christ in this Sacrament Which oath as your Cardinall Baronius doth certifie you from the stories of those times Pope Nicholas and a Generall Councell held at Rome revised approved and prescribed to Berengarius to take for the abiuration of his errour concerning the manner of eating the body of Christ and the same Oath was after published by the Popes authoritie throughout all the Cities of Italy France and Germanie and wheresoever the report of Berengarius should come So he You cannot now but expect such a forme of an Oath which must be as truely Romish as either Romane Pope or Romane Councel could devise Marke then the enioyned tenor of the Oath I Berengarius Archdeacon c. doe firmely professe that I hold that Faith which the Reverend P. Nicholas and this holy Synod hath commanded me to hold to wit That the body of Christ is in this Sacrament not onely as a Sacrament but even in trueth is sensibly handled with the hands of the Priest and broken and torne with the teeth of the faithfull So the Oath The same forme of Abiuration is registred in the publique
Manichâ—es had of their Corporall bread As for example that Christ should be Fastened or tied to mens guts by eating and let loose againe by their belching Which Hereticall Doctrine how shall it not accord with your Romish which hath affirmed a passage and Entrance of Christs body into and Cleaving unto mens Guts by eating and a Repasse againe by Vomitting albeit the matter so fast and loose in the iudgement of St. Augustine be Bread still after Consecration The Second Calumniation against the true Professours was by others who testified that Catholikes in the Eucharist adored Ceres and Bacchus after the manner of the Paganes What answere doe you thinke would a Romish Professor have made in this Case doubtles according to your doctrine of Corporall presence by saying thus Whereas some affirme that we adore Bread and Wine in this Sacrament yet the truth is wee adore that whereinto Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated to wit the Bodie and blood of Christ the sonne of God But S. Augustine as one fancying nothing lesse Wee saith he are farre from the Gods of the Pagans for we embrace the Sacrament of Bread and wine This is all and all this he spake after Consecration Whereupon we are occasioned to admonish our Christian Reader to take heed of the fraudulent practice of the Romish Sect because of their abusing of the Writings of ancient Fathers Whereof take unto you this present example The Paris Edition An. 1555. hath the Sentence of S. Augustine thus Noster Panis Mysticus fit nobis non nascitur But the last Paris Edition Ann. 1614. hath foisted in and inserted Corpus Christi albeit the sence be full without this Addition to signifie that Common Bread is by Consecration made Mysticall or Sacramentall according to S. Augustine his owne exposition saying that Wee embrace the Sacrament of Bread and Cup and also the Phrase of Panis fit corpus Christi Bread is made Christs Bodie be repugnant to a common Principle of all Christianity which never beleeved a Body of Christ made of Bread So that the foresaid Addition is not a correcting but a Corrupting of the Text. CHALLENGE HOw might it concerne you upon these premises if there be in you any spirit of Christianity to suffer S. Augustine to be your Moderator in this whole Cause who upon the speech of Christ Except you eate my flesh giveth this generall Rule That whensoever we fiâ—d in Scripture any speech of commanding some â—eynous Act or forbidding some laudable thing there to hold the speech to be figurative even as this is of eating the flesh of Christ So hee And what this figurative speech signifieth this holy Father declareth in the next words It Commandeth saith hee that wee doe Communicate of the passion of Christ and sweetly and profitably keepe in memory that his flesh was crucified for us Thus you see hee excludeth the Corporall Sensuall and Carnall Eating that hee might establish the spirituall of mind and Memory If St. Augustine by this his counsell might have prevailed with your Disputers and Doctors they never had fallen upon so many Rocks and Paradoxes nor sunke into such puddles of so nastie and beastly Absurdites as have beene now discovered which by your Doctrine of Corporall Presence you are plunged into CHAP. VII The Third Corporall manner of Vnion of Christ his Body by a Bodily mixture with the Bodies of the Communicants professed by some Romanists at this day is Capernaiticall SECT I. WEe heare your Iesuite reporting that Many latter Divines in your Church have beene authorized in these daies to write labouring to bring the Romane Faith to so high a pitch as to perswade a Reall naturall corporall and substantiall Vnion of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants even almost all of late saith he who have written against Heretiques So hee Among others we find your Cardinall Alan who will have it Really mingled with our flesh as other meates Transubstantiation onely excepted as did also Cardinall Mendoza And what else can that sound which we have heard out of your Roman Missal praying that The Bodie of Christ eaten may cleave unto your gutts iust Manichean-wise as you have heard even now out of St. Augustine CHALLENGE Confuting and dispelling this foggie myst of Errour by your owne more common confessions THis first opinion of mingling the Body of Christ corporally with man's Bodily parts what thinke you of it your Iesuite calleth it Improbable and as repugnant to the dignity and maiesty of this Sacrament Rash and absurd Iustly because if this Doctrine were true you must likewise grant that the same Bodie of Christ which you say is eaten of myce and Rats is mingled within their guts and entrails and so such vile Creatures should be as really capable of Communion with Christ's Body as the most sanctified among Christians can be for which the Beasts themselues if they could speake would as the Asse unto Balâ—am condemne the foolishnes of your Prophets namely those of whom you have heard your Iesuite confessing that this is the Doctrine of Almost all late Diuines which is to adde one Capernaiticall Absurdity to another It onely remaineth to know with what Spirits these your New Divines have thus written your Suarez telleth vs saying That they speake so in hatred of Heretiques meaning Protestants against whom they writ Who would not now magnifie the Profession of Protestants to observe their Adversaries to be so farre transported with the Spirit of malignity and giddines against them that by the iust Iudgement of God they are become so starke blind in themselves as that they fall into opinions not onely as is confessed Rash and Absurd but also Capernaitically-Hereticall And indeed they who imagined a Corporall Eating how should they not aswell have conceived a Corporall fleshly Commixtion CHAP. VIII Of the Romish Obiections out of the Fathers for proofe of Corporall Presence and Corporall vnion with the Bodies of the Communicants SECT I. IT cannot be denyed but that many antient Fathers are frequent in these kind of Phrases Our Bodies are nourished and augmented by the flesh of Christ and his Body is mingled with our flesh as melted waxe with waxe yea we have a corporall and naturall vnion with him These kind of sayings of the Holy Fathers have beene obiected not onely by your new Divines for proofe of a Corporall Coniunction of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants but also by your Cardinall and all other like Romish Professors for defence of a Corporall Presence of the Body of Christ in this Sacrament but with what coloured Consciences white or blacke they have beene so obiected commeth now to be scanned by iust Processe That the obiected Sentences of Fathers doe not intend a Corporall Coniunction so properly called even by the Confession of Romish Divines of best esteeme SECT II. ALl your Obiectors produce the Testimonies of Fathers for proofe
of Christ in the Eucharist In this Rancke wee reckon the Testimonies of Cyprian Hierome Eusebius and Eucherius saying that Melchisedech himselfe offered up the Body and Blood of Christ in this Sacrifice which Body and Blood of Christ you will All sweare we dare say was not the proper Subject matter of the Sacrifice of Melchisedech who performed his Sacrifice many thousands of yeares before our Lord Christ was incarnate in the flesh to take unto him either Body or Blood And therefore could not the Fathers understand by the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood any thing but the Type of Christ his Body and Blood these being then the Object of Melchisedech's faith as the cited Sentences of Hierome and Eusebius doe declare Which is a second proofe of the unconscionable dealing of your Disputers by inforcing Testimonies against common sence But will you see furthermore the Vnluckinesse of your game and that three manner of wayes First your ordinarie guize is to object the word Sacrifice out of the Fathers as properly used whereas your Allegations tell us that they used it in a greater latitude and at libertie Secondly and more principally wheresoever you heare the Fathers naming Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Christ ô then behold Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ his Body and behold it 's Corporall presence and that most evidently this is your common shout And yet behold in your owne objected Sentences of Fathers that which was most really Bread and Wine of Melchisedech was notwithstanding by the fore-named Fathers called the Body and Blood of Christ A most evident Argument that the Fathers understood Christ's words in calling Bread his Body figuratively That the Apostle to the Hebrewes in comparing Melchisedech with Christ did not intimate any Analogie betweene the Sacrifice of Melchisedech and of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist SECT III. BVt you pre-occupate viz. The Apostle speaking of Melchisedech saith Of whom I had much to say and that which is uninterpretable because you are dull of hearing Chap. 5. vers 11. Whence it may seeme saith vour Cardinall a thing undeniable that the Apostle meant thereby the mysterie of the Eucharist because it was above their capacitie and therefore hee purposely forbare to mention either Bread or Wine So your Answerer To whom you may take for a Reply as in our behalfe the Confession of your much-esteemed Iesuite Ribera who telleth you that The Apostle naming it a thing Inexplicable and calling them Dull meant not thereby to conceale the matter implyed which was so pertinent to that hee had in hand from them because of the want of their Capacitie but did in so saying rather excite them to a greater Attention shewing thereby that he did not dispaire but that they were capable of that which hee would say at least the learned among them by whom others might have learned by little and little So hee proving the same out of those words of the Apostle Passing by the Rudiments c. Let us goe on unto perfection that is saith he Doe your diligence in hearing that you may attaine unto the understanding of these things which are delivered unto those that are perfect This is the Briefe of his large Comment hereupon Notwithstanding what our Opposites faile of in the point of Sacrifice They intend to gaine from the Title of Priesthood Of the Priesthood of Melchisedech as it is compared with the pretended Romish Priesthood out of the Epistle to the Hebrewes SECT IV. The State of the Question Aarons Priesthood said your Cardinall is translaâ—ed into the Priesthood of Melchizedech and this into the Priesthood of Christ A Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedech which because it is perpetuall and eternall cannot be performed properly by Christ himselfe and therefore must be executed by his Ministers â—s Vicars on earth So he accordingly as your Councell of Trent hath decreed Insomuch that M. Sanders will have the whole Ministerie of the new Testament to issue Originally from Melchizedech This is a matter of great moment as will appeare which we shall resolve by oâ—rtaine Positions The foundation of all the Doctrine concerning Christ and Melchizedech is set downe in the Epistle to the Hebrewes That the Analogie betweene Melchizedech his Priesthood and the eternall Priesthood of Christ in himselfe is most perfect and so declared to be Heb. 5 6 7 Chapp SECT V. THe holy Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrewes comparing the Type Melchizedech with the Arch-Type Christ Iesus in one order of Priesthood sheweth betweene Both an absolute Analogie although not in equalitie of Excellence yet in similitude of qualities and offices As first in Royaltie Melchizedech is called The King of Iustice and Peace So Christ but infinitely more is called Our Iustice and Peace Secondly Melchizedech in respect of Generation was without Generation from Father or Mother according to the formalitie of Sacred Storie so Christ according to the veritie of his Humanitie without Father and in his divine nature without Mother of whom also it is written Who shall declare his Generation Thirdly in Time Melchizedech a Priest for ever having neither beginning nor end of Dayes according to the same Historicall Tenure so Christ an eternall Priest Chap. 5 6. Fourthly in Number only One who had no Predecessor nor Successor So Christ who acknowledged no such Priest before him nor shall finde any other after him for ever Fifthly Christ was Vniversally King and Priest as the Apostle noted Chap. 7. 4. saying That the Priesthood was changed from Aaron and Levi to Christ in Iuda That is that Christ's Power might be both Regall and Sacerdotall saith Chrysostome which was a singular dignity as your Iesuite well observeth That the nature of everie other Priesthood be it of your Romish High-Priest dissenteth as much from the Priesthood of Melchizdech as the Priesthood of Melchizedech agreeth with the Priest-hood of Christ SECT VI. IF Comparison might be made of Priesthood whom would you rather that we should instance in than in your intituled Summus Pontifex that is the High Priest your Pope who notwithstanding cannot be said to be a King as Melchizedech much lesse as Christ Everlasting Secondly Much lesse a King of Peace who hath beene reproved by Antiquitie for being A Troubler of the Peace of Christ's Church And generally complained of by others as being Nothing lesse than the Vicar of the God of Peace because of his raising hostile wars against Princes of the same Nation Blood and Faith And for Distracting the Estates of Princedome and Priestdome Thirdly not King of Iustice because some Popes have excited Subjects and Sonnes to rebell against their Leige Soveraignes and Parents Fourthly not Originally without Generation by either Father or Mother some of them having beene borne in lawfull wedlocke and of knowne honest Parents albeit of other-some the mothers side hath beene much the surer It will
death But the Fathers doe no where call Baptisme a Sacrifice So he Another Cardinall thus Who can so much as suspect that the Fathers spake abusively in calling the Eucharist a Sacrifice seeing this is the only Sacrament which they call a Sacrifice and no other Next take your learned'st Iesuit with you who would be loth to come behind any in vehemency and boldnesse thus Antient Fathers never called Baptisme or the Ministry thereof a Sacrifice albeit they might have so called it Metaphorically which we note saith he because of the Heretikes who pervert the speeches of the Fathers as if they had called the Eucharist a Sacrifice Metaphorically and improperly So they to omit Others Now then if there be any sap or sense in these your Objectors it is as much as if they had reasoned against us thus If you Heretikes for so they call Protestants could sâ—ew that the Antient Fathers did any where name the Sacrament of Baptisme a Sacrifice which we confesse to be only a Representation of Christ's death then should we need no other Reason to perswade us that the Fathers called the Sacrament of the Eucharist a Sacrifice also Improperly only because it representeth the Body and Blood of Christ Sacrificed on the Crossè Thus for the Consequence confessed by your chiefest Advocates The Assumption lyeth upon us to prove to wit that the Fathers called Baptisme a Sacrifice even from the words of the Apostle Heb. 10. 20. where speaking of Baptisme he saith To them that sinne voluntarily there remaineth no Sacrifice for sinne Saint Augustine testifieth of the Doctors of the Church Catholike before his time that They who more diligently handled this Text understood it of the Sacrifice of Christ's Passion which every one then offereth when he is baptized into the faith of Christ So that holy Father who is a Witnesse without all Exception yet if peradventure we should need any testimony out of your owne Schooles the witnesse of your Canus may be sufficient confessing and saving That most of the Fathers by Sacrifice in this place understood Baptisme which they so called Metaphorically because by it the Sacrifice of the â—rosse is applied unto us So he Is not this enough for the understanding of the Dialect and of the speech of Antient Fathers both in calling Baptisme a Sacrifice and of the Reason thereof to wit for Representation sake onely and Consequently that the Body and Blood of Christ are not the representing Subject but the represented Object of his Sacrifice What better satisfaction can the greatest Adversary desire than to be as now your Disputers are answered according to their owne Demands The tenth Demonstration Because the Fathers called the Eucharist a Sacrifice in respect of divers such Acts as are excluded by the Romish Doctors out of the Definition of a Proper Sacrifice SECT XIV THE Acts excluded by your Cardinall out of the number of Proper Sacrifices are Oblations or Offerings of any thing thing that is not Consecrated by the Priest such as is the Offerings of Bread and Wine by the People before it be Consecrated Next All workes of Vertue are unproperly called Sacrifices All workes which consist in Action being transient as bowing singing of Psalmes or the sole Commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Crosse together with all such Acts performed to God which otherwise are yeelded to man as the Gesture of Vncovering the head in Gods service Bowing the knee and all outward signes of Reverence yea and all inward and invisible Acts of man in his will and understanding All these spirituall Acts are esteemed by him to be unproperly called Sacrifices But that all these kindes of Acts so farre forth as they are exercised in the holy worship of God are called Sacrifices by the Ancient Fathers can never be denyed by any that ever was acquainted with their Writings Now our Demonstration is this that most of these Acts which are here confessed to be Vnproper Sacrifices being used in the Celebration of the Supper of our Lord occasioned the Fathers to call the Eucharist it selfe a Sacrifice and therefore they meant thereby no Proper Sacrifice As first by your owne Confession that the Fathers called The oblations of Bread and Wine made by the people before Consecration Sacrifices the Almes and Collections for the poore Sacrifices Our Praises and Thanksgiving to God whereof the Eucharist hath it's name Sacrifice and that many other Circumstantiall Acts are called Sacrifices even the Sole Act of our Commemoration as will appeare in our last Examination concerning the Doctrine of Protestants Our Eleventh Demonstration because the Relatives of Sacrifice which are Altar and Priest objected as properly taken are used Vnproperly of Antient Fathers SECT XV. YOur Cardinall his Objection is this that Priest Altar and Sacrifice are Relatives and have mutuall and unseparable Dependance one of each other So he and truly But you ought to take with you a necessary Caution observed by the same Cardinall that An unproper Sacrifice cannot infer a proper Priest-hood nor an unproper Priest-hood a proper Sacrifice c. otherwise your Iesuit can tell you of a Sacrifice without an Altar and your Bishop can point you out an Altar without a Sacrifice Now to take one of these improperly and the other properly were as wilde Sophistrie as from a woodden leg to infer a Body of Flesh Now what if we shall say of this point of Appellations that It was not so from the beginning Hereunto we claime but your owne common Confessions viz. That the Apostles did willingly abstaine from the words of Sacrifice Priest and Altar So your Cardinall and Durantus the great Advocates for your Romane Masse whereby they have condemned not only other your Romish Disputers who have sought a proofe of a proper Sacrifice in your Masse from the word Altar used by the Apostle Paul Heb. 13. but also themselves who from Saint Luke Act. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concluded a proper Sacrifice As if the Apostles had both abstained and not abstained from the words of Priest and Sacrifice But the Apostles did indeed forbeare such termes in their speeches concerning Christian worship whereof these your forenamed Disputers can give us a Reason Least that say they the Iewish Priest-hood being as yet in force Christians might seeme by using Iewish Termes to innovate Iewish rites Which is enough to shew you are perswaded they abstained from the use of these words for some reason Yet that this could not be the Reason you may be sufficiently instructed in the word Baptisme this being as fully Iewish as was either the word Priest Altar or Temple and yet used of the Apostle without danger of Innovation of Iewish manner of Baptismes yea and if the Apostles had thought the Altar Priest Sacrifices to be essentiall parts of Christian Religion they neither would nor ought to have concealed the words and names least
Consecration And that Then as we see now done among us it was Invocated upon even plainly after Consecration saith your Durantus also and indeed almost who not But doe you first if you please admire the wit of your Cardinall in so framing his Consequence and after abhor his will to decive you when you have done for he applyeth the words spoken by Basil of an Invocation before Consecration when as yet by your owne Doctrine Christ is not present as spoken of an Invocation of the Eucharist after Consecration for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ therein and the Divine Adoration thereof as will most evidently appeare For first it is not unknowne to you that the Greeke Church differeth from your Roman in the forme of Consecration at this day they consecrating in words of prayer and Invocation and you in the repetition of Christs words This is my Body wherein there is no Invocation at all And Basil was of the Greeke Church Secondly your Archbishop of Cesarea for proofe that Invocation by prayers was a forme of Consecration used primitively in the Greeke Church citeth the two most ancient Fathers Tertullian and Irenaeus and of the Greeke he alleageth Iustine Cyril Damascen Theophilus Alex. yea and by your leave Basil himselfe too and that Basil was an Orthodox Greeke Father you will not deny Thirdly therefore to come home unto you we shall be directed by the objected words of Basil himselfe appealing herein to your owne consciences For your Lindanus was in the estimation of your Church the strongest Champion in his time for your Roman Cause he to prove that the forme of Consecration of the Eucharist standeth not in any prescribed words in the Gospell but in words of Invocation by prayer as hath beene confirmed by a Torrent of Ancient Fathers saith That the same is illustrated by these words of Basil saying What Father hath left unto us in writing the words of Invocation when the Bread is shewne unto us adding That no man of sound Braines can require any more for the clearing of the point concerning the forme of Consecration So then Invocation was an Invocation by Prayer unto God for the Consecration of the Bread set before them and not an Invocation of Adoration unto the Eucharist as already consecrated which your Cardinall unconscionably we will not say unlearnedly hath enforced Looke upon the Text againe for your better satisfaction It speaketh expresly of an Invocation when Bread is shewne but you deny that Bread is Invocated upon untill after Consecration And Basil demanding What Father before us hath left in writing the words of Invocation is in true and genuine sence as if he had expresly said what Father before us hath left in writing the words of Invocating God by Prayer of Consecration of Bread to make it a Sacrament as both the Testimonies of Fathers above confessed manifest and your objected Greeke Missals doe ratifie unto us For in the Liturgie ascribed to Saint Iames the Apostle the Consecration is by Invocating and praying thus Holy Lord who dwellest in holiest c. The Liturgie of Chrysostome invocateth by praying We beseech thee O Lord to send thy Spirit upon these Gifts prepared before us c. The Liturgie under the name of Basil consecrateth by this Invocation when the Priest lifteth up the Bread Looke downe O Lord Iesu our God from thy holy habitation and vouchsafe c. All these therefore were according to the Example of Christ Invocations that is Prayers of Consecrating the Sacrament and therefore could not be Invocations and Adorations of the same Sacrament And as for any expresse or prescribed forme or prayer to be used of All well might Basil say Who hath set it downe in writing that is It was never delivered either in Scripture or in the Bookes of any Author of former Antiquity and this is that which is testified in your owne Bookes of Augustine out of Basil saying that No writing hath delivered in what words the forme of Consecration was made Now then guesse you what was in the braines of your Disputers in objecting this Testimony of Basil contrary to the evident Sence and accordingly judge of the weaknesse of your Cause which hath no better supports than such fond false and ridiculous Objections to relye upon Such as is also that your Cardinall his objecting the words of Origen concerning the receiving of this Sacrament saying Lord I am not worthy thou shouldest come under the roofe of my mouth which hath beene confuted as unworthy the mention in this case If you would have some Examples of Adoring Christ with divine worship in the Mystery of the Eucharist by celebrating the manner of his death as Hierom may be said to have adored at Ierusalem Christ in his Crach or as every Christian doth in the Mystery of Baptisme we could store you with multitudes but of Adoring the Eucharist with a proper Invocation of Christ himselfe therein we have not as yet received from you any one CHAP. IV. That the Divine Adoration of the Sacrament is thrice Repugnant to the Iudgement of Antiquity First by their Silence SECT I. YOV are not to require of us that we produce the expresse Sentences of ancient Fathers condemning the Ascribing of Divine honour to the Sacrament seeing that this Romish Doctrine was neither in Opinion nor Practice in their times It ought to satisfie you that your owne most zealous indefatigable subtill and skilfull Miners digging and searching into all the Volumes of Antiquity which have beene extant in the Christian world for the space of six or seven hundred yeares after Christ yet have not beene able to extract from them any proofe of a Divine honour as due to this Sacrament either in expresse words or practice insomuch that you are enforced to obtrude onely such Sentences and Acts which equally extend to the honouring of the Sacrament of Baptisme and other sacred things whereunto even according to your owne Romish Profession Divine honour cannot be attributed without grosse Idolatry and never ther the lesse have your Disputers not spared to call such their Objections Cleare Arguments piercing and unsoluble We therefore make bold hereupon to knocke at the Consistory dore of the conscience of every man indued with any small glimpse of Reason and to entreat him for Christ's sake whose Cause it is to judge betweene Rome and Vs after he hath heard the case which standeth thus Divine Adoration of the Host is held to be in the Romish Profession the principall practique part of Christian Religion Next the ancient Fathers of the Church were the faithfull Registers of Catholike Truth in all necessary points of Christian Faith and Divine Worship They in their writings manifoldly instructed their Readers by Exhortations Admonitions Perswasions Precepts how they are to demeane themselves in the receiving of this Sacrament not omitting any Act whereby to set forth the true Dignity and Reverence
possibility of the other Six Defects neither man nor woman can deny every one concluding a Materiall Idolatry That there are manifold confessed possible Defects disabling the person of the Priest to consecrate in respect of his no-due Ordination whereby is occasioned a Materiall Idolatry SECT V. YOV have furthermore confessed that for want of due Ordination of the Priest the Sacrament remaineth in his former nature only of Bread and Wine as if he be an Incruder and not ordained at all or else of the forme of Ordination viz. Accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificium Et Accipe Spiritum Sanctum quorum peccata remiseris remissa c. As if it hath beene corrupted by missing so much as one Syllable or letter by Addition Detraction or any of the six Errors before rehearsed as Accipe Spiritu Sancto for Spiritum Sanctum or Accipe potestatem ferendi Sacrificium for Offerendi or the like That there are many hundred confessed Defects which may nullisic the Consecration to make the Romish Adoration Idolatrous in respect of Insufficiencies which might be incident unto the Prae-ordainers of that Priest whosoever he be that now consecrateth for causing a Materiall Idolatry SECT VI. IF the Bishop that ordained this Priest which now consecrateth were not a true Priest himselfe truly ordained or duly baptized or else the next Bishop before him or yet any one in the same line of Ordainers untill you come to Saint Peter for the space now of a thousand six hundred yeares whereof your Iesuit saith The Defect of Ordination is seene in many Cases wherein Progredi possumus fere in Infinition that is we may proceed almost infinitely So he Thinking belike that if we should in this number of yeares allow unto every Bishop ordaining the continuance of twenty yeares Bishop upward to Saint Peter the number of them all would amount to fourescore Bishops among whom if any one were an Intruder or Vnordained then this Priest faileth in his Priest-hood Now of these kinds your Historians afford us Examples of your Popes some dissolving the Ordinations of their Predecessors even to the cutting off of one Popes fingers wherewith he had used to consecrate Yet is not this all for unto these are to be added the other Defects to wit want of Baptisme whether for want of due Intention being three or undue Pronunciation being six or the Errors either of Intention or Pronunciation in Ordination all which make eighteene and these being multiplied by fourescore which is the number of Bishop-ordainers from this Bishop to Saint Peter the totall we suppose will amount unto a Thousand possible Defects each one whereof if it happen doth quite frustrate and annull the Consecration of this Priest whosoever he be that now saith Masse and leaveth to the people nothing but the substance of the Creatures of Bread and Wine to be Adored in stead of Christ Iesus the Sonne of God And yet in this Summe are not reckoned the foresaid Defects concerning the Matter or Forme of Consecration or of the Priests Intention therein or else of his possible Intrusion into this Function of Consecrating of this one Priest now supposed to be ordained every Defect being of force in it selfe to infer necessarily a Materiall Idolatry in your Romish Masse Now rather than you shall call these our Instances odious or malicious you must accuse your owne Romish Church because we have alleaged no Testimony but out of your owne publike Romish Missall Cardinal's Iesuites and other Authors privileged in your Church We are now in the high point of Christian Religion even the principall part of God's Royalty Divine Adoration not to be trifled withall Therefore now if ever shew your selves conscionable Divines by freeing your Romish Masse from a Formall Idolatry in these forenam'd Respects concerning your confessed Materiall Idolatry and doe it by some grounds of Truth or else abandon your Profession as most damnably Idolatrous CHAP. VI. That the Romish Masse-worship is a Formall Idolatry notwithstanding any Pretence that by your Romish Doctors hath beene made to the Contrary The State of the Question SECT I. VPon this occasion ôh how your Summists Theologues and Casuists doe bestirre themselves for the vindicating of your Church from the guilt of formall Idolatry The Briefe of your Defence is this Although say they in the Margent there be no true Consecration by reason of divers Defects yet in him who upon a Morall certainty with a sincere minde and good intention doth adore Bread it is but Materiall and no Formall Idolatry so that he have an habituall condition as being so disposed in his minde not to give a divine honour unto it if he knew it to be but Bread As for Example He that giveth an Almes to a Rich man being probably perswaded that he is not rich the Act proceedeth from a pious Intention And As it was no sinne in Iacob to lie with Leah because he thought her to be his wife so in this case it is no formall Idolatry to worship Bread being morally perswaded that it is Christ Thus they Your Pretences then are three Morall Certainty Good Intent and at least Habituall Condition But alas all this is but sowing Fig-leaves together which will never be able to cover your foule shame of grosse Idolatry To begin first with that which you call Morall Certainty That the Pretence of Morall Certainty of worshipping of Bread instead of Christ cannot free the Romish Church from Formall Idolatry SECT II. OVR Confutation is grounded upon divers impregnable Reasons one whereof is taken from the Iealouzie of God in his worship the second from the Faith required in a true worshipper the third from the nature of an Oath and the last from the Vncertainty of that which you call Morall Certainty First then although Morall and Conjecturall perswasions might excuse men's Actions in divers Cases yet in an Object of Divine Worship it is utterly condemnable even because of the Iealousie of the Almighty who expresseth himselfe to be a Iealous God Exod. 20. signifying as you know that He will not indure any confort in his worship his Motto being this I am and there is no Other even as in the Case of mortall Majesty when as a subject building upon a morall Certainty onely shall question the Title and Right of his Soveraigne established in his Throne he becommeth guilty of High Treason Secondly all Divine Worship must be performed with a Divine Faith which is an Infallible perswasion of the God-head of that which we honour as God as it is written He that commeth to God must beleeve that God is Heb. 11. 6. and againe You must aske in faith nothing doubting Iac. 1. because this is the nature of Faith as the Apostle describeth it Faith is the Hypostaâ—is of things not seene Heb. 11. That is to take your owne Comment Faith maketh those things which are beleeved no lesse certaine than if they did subsist whereby we are
Church 1 Cor. 15. and Galath 1. and drawing both men and women to Death Act. 22. 4. And all this not maliciously but as you heare himselfe say Ignorantly 1. Tim. 1. 13. and with a good Conscience Act. 23. 1. and in zeale Phil. 3. 6. A fairer expression of a Good Intent in a wicked practice cannot be than this was and as much may be said for his Habituall Condition namely that if he had then as afterwards knowne Christ to have beene the Lord of life and those murthered Christians to have beene his mysticall members he would rather have exposed himselfe to Martyrdome than to have martyred those Saints of God This Consequence directly appeareth first by his Answer in his miraculous Conversion saying Who are thou Lord next by his detestation of his fact I am unworthy to be called an Apostle because I persecuted the Church c. then by his Acknowledgement of God's especiall mercy But God had mercy on me Afterwards by his labour for winning soules to the Faith I have laboured more abundantly than they all And lastly in that he was one of those Actors of whom Christ himselfe foretold saying They shall draw you before Iudgement seats and when they shall persecute you they will thinke that they doe God good service Which also plainly argueth that their and his perswasion of so doing proceeded from a Morall Certainty From these Members let us ascend to our Head Christ the Lord of Glory what thinke you of the Iewes of whom Saint Peter said You have murthered the Prince of life Act. 3. 15. But did they this Voluntarily and Knowingly as understanding him to have beene the Redâ—…er of the world and indeed the Prince of life they did not for the same Apostle testifieth in their behalfe saying I know you did it ignorantly as did also your Rulers Act. 3. 17. If this be not sufficient heare the voice of the person that was slaine Christ himselfe who did so farre acquit them saying They know not what they doe Luk. 23. 34. Ignorantly then in a Conjecturall Certainty but yet with Good Intent of whom Saint Paul witnesseth in these words I beare them witnesse that they have the Zeale of God but not according to knowledge Rom. 10. But what for habituall Condition were they not bent in their owne mindes if they had understood what Christ was to have abhorred that so heinous a guilt of the death of the Sonne of God questionles for so saith the Apostle If they had knowne they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory 1. Cor. 2. 8. We Conclude seeing these Iewes notwithstanding their Morall Certainty being seduced by their Priests or else their Good Intent of doing God good service therein or yet their habituall Condition not to have crucified Christ if they had truly knowen him were neverthelesse by S. Peter condemned yea and of themselves as formall and verily Murtherers of Christ then ô you Romish worshippers of the Hoast must it necessarily follow that in your Masses you are equally all formally Idolaters notwithstanding any of the same three Pretences to the contrary Wherefore as Salomon speaketh of an Adulterous woman She eateth and wipeth her month saying I have done no wickednesse so may we say of Idolatrous Worshippers and their Proctours for what else are these your three Romish Pretences but like such mouth-wipers or as Anodyna and stupifying Medicines which take away the Sence of the diseased person but doe not cure the disease So doe you delude miserable people with false Pretences lest they discerning the grossenesse and ouglinesse of your Idolatry might abhor that worship and abandon your Romish worshippers That the former Romish Pretences have no warrant from Antiquity SECT V. THe number of Ancient Fathers whose workes are yet extant who liv'd within Six and Seven hundred yeares after Christ are recorded to have beene about 200. out of whose monuments of Christian learning your chiefest Disputers could never hitherto produce any one that justified your Romish worship by so much as in distinguishing of Materiall and formall Idolatry nor yet by qualifying any Idolatry under pretence of either Morall Certainty or Good Intent or yet Habituall Condition and therefore must we judge that they never gave Assent to this your Sorcery For we may not be so injurious to the memory of so many so famously learned and Catholike Doctors of the Church of Christ that they could not or of persons so holy and zealous of Gods honour and of mens Salvation that they would not satisfie mens Consciences to free them out of thus many and miserable perplexities wherewith your now Romish Profession of Adoration of the Host is so Almost infinitly intangled CHAP. VII That the Romish Adoration notwithstanding your former Pretences is formally Idolatrous proved by foure Grounds of Romish Profession The first is your Definition of Idolatry SECT I. DIvine honour saith your Iesuit Valentia is whatsoever word or outward office that a man doth performe whereby he doth intend to beget in others such an estimation of God unto that which he honoureth which is proper unto the Majestie of God So that Idolatry is an Error in the understanding saith your Iesuit Tolet in yeelding divine worship to that which is not God whether by praising invocating sacrificing or prostrating our selves to that which is not God In a word Idolatry comprehendeth all religious superstition saith your Iesuit Lorinus in worshipping of any thing as God which is not God So they most Theologically and truly CHALLENGE NOw apply you these points of your Distinction unto your Host in the hand of the Priest which by your owne Confessions may possibly be and by our proofes cannot possibly but be after Consecration Bread still whereunto notwithstanding he prostrateth himselfe sweareth by and invocateth upon as being in it selfe the person of Christ the Priest himselfe saying O holy Host c. O Lambe of God c. whereby also according to your Definition of Idolatry you your selves doe seeke to professe and thereby to beget in others an opinion of a God-head in the Sacrament as whereunto Divine honour doth properly belong How then can you free your selves from the Crime of formall Idolatry by pretence of Ignorance and error of true knowledge of the thing falsely adored seeing that Idolatry as you your selves have also defined is an Error and Ignorance in the judgement of the worshipper This were as if one defining a disease to be a Distemperature of Humours should notwithstanding therefore deny a man to be sicke because his humours are distempered II. That Romish Worship is proved to be formally Idolatrous by Consequence taken from a Romish Principle concerning Coadoration or joynt-worship of Christ with Bread SECT II. COadoration is when any thing is worshipped joyntly with God in a Divine Worship which worship by the Law of God which saith Thou shalt have no other Gods but me is perfectly Idolatry by your
owne Confessions and for feare of this kinde of Idolatry your Claudius Sainctes taught that The signes in the Eucharist are not to be adored with the same honour as Christ is And that therefore Bread is not to be adored in the Sacrament with Christ's Body least that the People being not able to distinguish the Body of Christ from Bread should fall into Idolatry And the person communicating orally as you say the Body of Christ now in his mouth is not to be adored Regularly but why Because say you man being capable of honour it might fall out by little and little that he should be honoured as God So your owne Iesuits and Others Yet not to doe you wrong in this Contemplation Christ by reason of the Hypostaticall Vnion of his God-head being no meere Creature is wholly excepted whom we are taught by the Fathers of a Generall Councell to adore not in both his distinct natures but whole Christ CHALLENGE WEE suppose that there is not any of your owne Romish Sect albeit most superstitious who would worship with Divine Worship either the Signes or the Appearance of flesh or the Priest whiles the Sacrament is in his mouth without at least a Morall Perswasion viz. that he may so doe nor without a Good intent viz. that it is well done nor without habituall Condition viz. not to doe so if he knew they were but Signes Apparance of flesh or hee meerely a Priest If therefore there be any Idolatry in adoring any of these things with Christ then certainly much rather which is your Case is it Idolatry to worship with Divine Honour Bread it being without Christ III. That the Romish Worship is proved to be formally Idolatrous in your Masse by a Consequence from Romish Doctrine touching Canonization of Saints SECT III. COncerning your Popes Canonizing of Saints see the Marginals you shall finde that the Common opinion of your Church directeth you to thinke that your Church cannot erre in this function and that all Christians are bound to beleeve the same but how upon a Morall and Conjecturall perswasion onely No upon a Divine and infallible Certitude and why Because say they if one Saint may be doubted of then might also the Canonization of others be called into Question so that it would be dangerous to worship any Saint lest that we should worship a dead and a rotten instead of a lively member of Christ which were an Error pernicious seeing that every lye figment and falshood in religious worship must needs be abominable unto God So your Arch-bishop with others You will aske what maketh all this to the Question in hand give us leave to tell you CHALLENGE THE same Arch-Bishop Catharinus deduceth a necessity of an infallible assurance of the Canonization of every Saint from the Infallibility which ought to be had concerning the Consecration of the Eucharist Thus If the Worshipper may be deceived in adoring the Host by mistaking Bread for the Body of Christ then should it be I dolatry saith he as well in the Heathen who adored Heaven in stead of God So he Doe you marke as well Idolatry as that of the Heathen whom neither Morall Certainty nor Good Intent or habituall Condition could ever free from a formall Idolatry Our Argument from your owne Confessions will be this Whosoever may be mistaken in adoring Bread in stead of Christ's Body may therein be held as Formall an Idolater as any Heathen This is your Bishops Proposition The Assumption But any man may manifoldly be deceived in taking Bread for Christ's Body Which hath beene your generall Confession Our Conclusion must be Therefore any of you may be a Formall Idolater IV. That the Romish Worship is proved to be a Formall Idolatry by the Consequence used from the Consecration of your Popes SECT IV. SAlmeron a Iesuite of prime note in your Church endevoureth to prove that all men are bound to beleeve the new Pope whensoever he is consecrated to be the true Pope not only with a Morall or Humane Assurance but with a Divine and infallible faith as were the Iewes bound to beleeve Christ Iesus at his comming to be the true Messias that is saith he with a faith that cannot possibly be deceived We have nothing to doe with your Iesuits Position in this place concerning the Infallibity of Beleefe of the Consecration and Election of your Popes which we have else where proved to be a Grosse Imposture But we are to argue from his Supposition as for Example CHALLENGE YOur Iesuite grounded his Assertion of an Infallible faith due to be had touching the Consecration of your Popes upon a Supposition and his Conclusion upon the like infallible Beliefe which men ought to have concerning the Consecration of the Eucharist wherein saith he if there should be any Vncertainty so that our faith should depend upon the Intention of the Priest in like manner might every one doubt whether he may adore the Sacrament as being not truly consecrated as also make doubt of the Priest himselfe as being not rightly ordained So he who therefore in all these requireth a faith infallible All these forecited Confessions of your owne Divines as first concerning your Definition of Idolatry next in the point of Coadoration of the Creature together with the Creator Thirdly in your Beleefe of the â—anonization of Saints and lastly in the Consecration of the Pope which are but humane Institutions doe enforce much more a necessity of Infallibility in every Adoration instituted by God Now among all the Schismes of Anti-Popes sometimes of two sometimes of three at once and that for forty or fifty yeares space together if any one of those Popes in his time had heard any Papist saying to him you may not be offended although I hold your Adversary as for example Vrbane to be the true Pope and yeeld to him all Fealtie and Obedience for I doe this to a Good Intent in a Morall Certainty that he is truly elected Pope and in an habituall Condition not to acknowledge him if I knew him not to be Pope wherein if I erre it is but a Materiall Disloyalty would not the Pope notwithstanding all these Pretenses judge this man to be formally an Anti-Papist and pierce him with his Thunder-bolt of Anathema as Popes have often dealt with Cardinals Princes and Emperours in like Case yet what is this Glo-wormes slimy shine to the glory of Divine Majesty CHAP. VIII Of the Romish manner of Adoration in Comparison with the Heathen That the Romish Adoration by your former Pretences justifieth the vilest kinde of Idolatry among the Heathen SECT I. THere is a double kinde of Worship the one is Direct and terminate which pitcheth immediatly upon the Creature without Relation to the Creator whereof your Cardinall Alan hath resolved saying The terminating and fixing of Divine Honour upon any Creature is a notorious Idolatry The second kinde is Relative Honour having
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