de Euch. §. Nono p. 200 Etiam credebant Infantes tunc baptizatos nisi Eucharistiam perciperēt salvos esse non posse Idem Com. in Ioh. 6. 63. p. 717. sheweth They then beleeved that Infants baptised 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 therefore held they it necessarie to the salvation of Infants That this was the beleefe of Pope Innocent and of the Church of Rome under him your Parisian Doctor o Innocent 1. Rom. Pont. Epist 93. ad Conc. Milever con Pelag. respondebat quòd parvulos aeternae vitae praemiis etiam sine baptismatis gratia posse donari perfatuum est nisi n. manducaverint carnem filii hominis non habebunt vitam in semetipsis qui autem hanc eis sine regeneratione defendunt videntur etiam mihi Baptismum cassate velle cùm praedicant nos habere quod in eos creditur non nisi Baptismate conferendum Whence Espencaeus thus Mirum ejus temporis Pontifices ex Eucharistiae nececessitate Baptismi ejus praecursoris urgere necessitatem nisi idem ex eodem tùm loco tùm Innocentii argumento authoritate adversus eosdem hostes urgeret August Epist 106. cont Pelag. Contra Apostolicae sedis authoritatem ubi de hac ipsâ re cùm ageretur hoc testimonium exhibitum est Evangelicum ne Parvuli non baptizati vitam posse habere credantur Si autem credunt sedi Apostolicae vel potiùs ipsi Magistro Domino Apostolorum qui dicit non vitam habituros nisi manducaverint biberint c. Espenc de Adorat Euch. lib. 2. cap. 12. pag. 58. Afterwards he bringeth in many other testimonies of Saint Augustine and Ibid. pag. 59. he proveth that he did not retract his opinion Ejus haud dubiè sunt contra Iulianum libri quo valentiorem habuit Adversarium neminem in quem etiam scribendo mortuus est ac proinde sententiam non retractâsse videtur in quibus Iulianum obruit Majorum praejudicio ab Innocentio Rom. Pont. exorsus qui parvulos ait definivit nisi manducaverint carnem filii hominis vitam prorsus habere non posse Espenc Ibid. And a little after he sheweth the loosenesse of Aquinas his Solutions Albeit Saint Augustine was not constant in this opinion but as may be gathered out of Bedes Collectanies in 1. Cor. 10. Nulli aliquatenùs dubitandum c. that although the Child do not participate yet by Baptisme hee is made partaker of that which it signifieth 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 p Binius Tom. 1. Conc. ex Rescriptis innocentii Papae ad Conc. Millevet Epist 25. Illud vero c. Hinc Binius Hinc constat Innocenti sententia quae 600. circiter Annos viguit in Ecclesia quamque Augustinus secutus Eucharistiam Infantibus necessariam fuisse Conc. Trid. rectè decrevit eam non solum non necessariam Infantibus sed nè quidem decere ur eis distribuatur Quidam viri non vulgariter docti existimârunt Innocentium hunc locum Nisi manducaveritis c. in Baptismi sumptione interpretari Sed decepti sunt quòd vim argumenti quo Pontifex utitur non sunt assecuti Ille enim ut Pelagium qui docebat Baptismum Infantibus Parente fideli prognatis peccatum originale non contrahentibus necessarium non esse convinceret hâc Ratiocinatione est usus Quibus necessaria est Eucharistiae sumptio usdem Baptismi sumptio magis esse necessaria At infantibus omnibus esse necessariam Eucharistiae sumptionem probatur per verba Iohannis Nisi manducaveritis c. Quae expositio praxi Ecclesiae nunc repugnat De Augustini sententia lege ipsum Augustinum Epist 106. Col. 148. Edit Basil 1543. Haec Binius in Editione sua Colon. Ann. 1618. being omitted in his former Printed Volume Auno 1606. explaineth the same so exactly See the Marginall Citation that it will permit no evasion And so much the rather because that which the Tridentine Fathers allege for cause of Alteration doth confirme this unto us It is undecent say they to give the Eucharist unto Infants This may perswade us that Innocent held it necessary els would he not have practized and patronized a thing so utterly Vndecent ⚜ Besides one of your 14 Iac. Gordon Scorus lib. Contr. 8. c. 1. Prima abrogationis causa quia frequens communio Infantium fieri non poterat nisi indecorè cùm periculo profanationis tanti Sacramenti Secunda causa quià orta est Haeresis quorundam qui existimârunt hanc communionem esse prorsus ad salutem necessariam Infantibus pag. 111. Iesuites spareth not to make a double cause of the Alteration of that Custome one to avoid the Vndecencie and Prophanation of the Sacrament meaning by the casting it up againe and secondly because of the Heresie of those who thought the Reociving of this Sacrament necessarie for the Salvation of Infants Calling this opinion an Heresie ⚜ 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 receive 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 beleeved upon necessitie 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 shee now in an errour Or doth shee not now erre herein then did she formerly erre and consequently may erre hereafter not onely in determining a matter to be Necessary to Salvation which in it self is Superfluous and Vndecent but also in opinion Hereticall Thus of the contrary custome of the Church of Rome in elder times The now contrary Opinion concerning the Romane Masse at this day Even at this day also your Iesuite will have us to understand the meaning of your Church to be that r Non quòd Infantes sunt incapaces hujus Sacramenti sed quià hoc nunc magis expedit ad decentiam reverentiam quae aliquali utilitati parvulorum praeferenda est Suarez Tom. 3. Disp 62. Sect. 3. §. Quocirca Infants are capable of the Sacrament of the Eucharist ⚜ And not thus onely but as unreasonably altogether you hold that 14 Non quicunquè usu rationis carentes arcendi sunt à sumptione Eucharistiae sed hi qui nunquam habuerunt usum rationis Aquin. 〈◊〉 3. 〈◊〉 Qu. 80. Art 9 Mad-men when they are destitute of reason and discretion may notwithstanding be made Partakers of the same blessed
Alan witnesseth before the Councell of Laterane which was 1â— 15. yeares after Christ nor can you produce One Father Greeke or Latine for a Thousand yeares attributing any word equivalent in strict Sense unto the same word Transubstantiation untill the yeare 900 which is beyond the Compasse of due Antiquitie At what time you finde note and urge Theophylact who saith of the Bread that It is Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ. Which Phrase in what Sense hee used it you might best have learned from himselfe who in the very same place saith that Christ in a manner is h Theoph. in Ioh. 6. De Christo per sidem manducato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Trans-elementated into the Communicant which how unchristian a Paradox it were being taken in strict and proper Sense we permit to your owne judgements to determine Neither yet may you for the countenancing of the Noveltie of this word object the like use of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though it had beene in use before the Arian Controversie began because the Fathers of the Councell of Nice judged the Objection of the Noveltie of that word Calumnious for that the use of it had beene Ancient before their times as your Cardinall i Calumniam hanc Patres Antique aptissimè coÌ„tutârunt atque ostenderunt non inventum fuisse hoc nomen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Concilio Nicaeno sed fuisse antè in usu Patrum at illud jam vocabulum usurpari quo sui Majores usi fuissent Bellarm. quo supra c. 3. Bellarmine himselfe witnesseth You furthermore to prevent our Objection demanding why the Ancient Fathers never called your fancied Romish Change Transubstantiation if they had beene of your Romish Faith concerning the Substantiall Change of Bread into the Body of Christ have shaped us this Answer namely that k Ets veteres Ecclasiae Doctores non sint usi voce Tran substantrationis tamen usi sunt vocibus iceÌ„ significantibus ut Conversionis TraÌ„smutationis Transi tionis Transformationis Transelementationis siâ—â—libus 〈◊〉 Fortâ—â—it jâ—d Tract de Euchari §. Nota pro solouone Aâ—gumentorum sol 117. Although they used not the very word Transubstantiation yet have they words of the same signification to wit Conversion Transmutation Transition Transformation Trans-elementation and the like So your Lorichius Reader of Divinitie among you who by his vast and rash boldnesse might as justly have inferred from the like Phrases of the Apostle viz * 2. Cor. 3. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are transformed that every Regenerate Christian is Transubstantiated into Christ or from the word * 2. Cor. 1. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is transfigured say that the Divell is Transubstantiated into an Angel of light or from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is changed used by l Quiaquid Spiritus Sanctus tetigerit Sanctificat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Hieros 〈◊〉 5. Cyrill urge that whosoever the Spirit of God doth Sanctifie is Transubstantiated into another thing or from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz Orat. 40 pag. 943. Edit Paris Nazianzene conclude that Every person Baptized is Transubstantiated into Christ âšœ And one of your owne Doctors examining all the Phrases of the Greeke Fathers and comming to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth properly expresse the sense of the Latine word Transubstantiatio hee confesseth that 2 Quanvis Graeci Petres eo nomine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non utuntur sunt tamen Authores aborum no 〈◊〉 quibus eam quoac hert possit ap 〈◊〉 exprimunt ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Petrus Aread de concord Orient Occident Eccl. lib. 3 c. 2 Tract de Euch. They used it not And what the Greek Church thinketh thereof at this day you may learne from two Patriarchs of Constantinople the One not admitting the Other rejecting it as will bee showne in the second Chapter 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 from your Cardinall n Periculosa est vocum novarum Libertas in Ecclesia cum paulatim ex vocibus novis novae etiam res oriantor cùm cuique licet in tel us 〈◊〉 nomina singere Bell. lib. de Sacram. in Genere cap 7. §. Ex quibus Liberty of devising new wordes saith he is a thing most dangerous because new words by little and little beget new things So he Therefore may we justly place this your new word among those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Saint * 1. Tim. c. 20. Paul will have Christians by all meanes to avoid else so new and barbarous a Name must needs ingender a novel and brutish opinion such as this Article it selfe will appeare to be As followeth The Noveltie of the Article of Transubstantiation is examined and showne not to have beene before the Councel of Laterane namely not untill 1215. yeares after Christ SECT III. THis Article hath beene decreed as you have * See above Ch. 1. §. 2. 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 o Bellar. lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen Bellarmine noteth to have beene in the dayes of Pope Gregory the Seventh 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 p Si quaeratur qualis sit Conversio viz. Pants in Encharistia an formalis an substantialis an alterius generis definite non sufficio Quibusdum videtur esse substantialis dicentibus substantiam converti in substantiam Lombard Sent. lib. 4 Distinct 11 lit a. 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 School-man Scotus to descend lower to finde out the Birth thereof q Scotus dicit ante Concilium Lateranense non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantiationem Id ille dixit quia non legerat Conc. Rom. sub Gregorib 7. nec consensum Patrum quem nos produximus Bellarm. lib 3. de Eucharist cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen Affirming that the Article of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith
quibus Divites comparantur cum depâ—â—â—â—â— grave in Sarciaâ—â—â— peccatorum totius corporis privitatem intrare possint per aâ—gustam portam As the Camels Beasts to whom the rich are resembled could passe through the straight gate of Hierusalem as soone as they were disburthened of their loads So Rich men casting off the load of their sins may enter in at the straight gate that leadeth unto life A Vindication of Truth against an Objected Testimony under the name of Pope Hilary for proofe of the Being of the whole Body of Christ in every part of the Hoast SECT VIII VVE are to insert in this place the forgotten Objected words which passe under the name of Pope Hilarie and recorded in your Papall decrees 10 Decret de Consecratione Dist 2. Vbi pars ex Hilario Papa Vbi pars est corporis est totum eadem est ratio in corpore Domini qâ—ae est in Manna quod in cjus figura praecessit de quo dicitum Qui plus collogerat ' non habuit amplius neque qui minus 〈◊〉 habâ—â—â— minus Non enim est quantites visibilis aestimanda in hoc mysterio sed virtus 〈◊〉 spiritualis 〈…〉 Non est quantitas aestimanda ut sub minori quantitate minus sic Corpus Christi sub 〈◊〉 where there is part of Christs Body in the Sacrament there is the whole there being the same reason of this as there was of Manna whereof it is written Hee that gathered much had no more than others and hee that gathered not so much had no whit lesse Which your Romish Glosse applyeth to the Sacrament to signifie that There is no lesse quantity of Christs Body under a lesse quantity of the Sacrament none greater under a greater Our Answer is Three-fold I. That your Doctors could never yet prove the writings which goe under the name of Popes * Legat qai velit nostri Roberti Coci Censuram Scriptorum Decret all Epistles to have beene truly theirs whereof many of themselves have doubted and which some also have denyed II. That the Comparison fighteth mainly against your professed Romane Faith in this very point which you contend for For you teach Body of Christ to be whole in the whole and in every the least imaginable part of the Hoast without all maner of situation therein so as not having the Head above and the Feete below This you cannot deny to be your owne positive Tridentine Sense But the Manna which was diminished and augmented in Quantity by Gods providence had notwithstanding a certaine determinate Quantitie expressely mentioned in the same Text Every man a Gomer according to their families namely every one an equall but yet a severall measure and Quantity for one mans Manna was not the same which another had This agreeth not with your Corporall eating of one and the same Body of Christ Next the Granes of the same Manna for it was like Coriander-seed had their severall situations and distinct places in every Gomer some lying above and some below some on the right side and some on the left side of the Measure which differences you absolutely deny to accord with the maner of Christs being in this Sacrament III. The Comparison will farre better suite with the Spirituall soules receiving of the Body of Christ Every Faithfull one indeed participating the same whole Christ by Faith whether in a Greater or lesser Hoast without all proportioning of his Bodily Dimensions âšœ CHALLENGE SHall not then the Novelty of your Romish Article which was no so much as beleeved of Romish Doctors of this last Age of Christianitie Shall not your Contradiction to your owne Romish Principle Shall not the expresse Testimony of Saint Augustine who as hee was universally acknowledged to be a Catholike Father so was hee 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 hath with damnable Heresies perswade you of the falsity of this your Romish Faith CHAP. IX 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 neede to impose any absurd Doctrine upon your Church the Absurdities which wee have already heard professed therin under the testifications of your owne Disputers having beene so marvellously and palpably absurd as hath beene shewne 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 glorified to be destitute of naturall and voluntary motion of Sense and of Vnderstanding SECT II. CAtholike Faith never conceived otherwise of the humane nature of Christ after the Resurrection but that hee 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 sense and motion according to the liberty of his owne will This Doctrine was above a thousand yeeres Catholike But your now Romane Faith is to beleeve as followeth in the Conclusions set downe by your Jesuite a Suarez Ies Dico secundò corpus Christi ut est in hoc Sacramento potest per se moveri localiter à Deo loquor de potentia Dei absoluta Nam juxta legem statutam suppono corpus Christi nunquam separari à speciebus nec moveri nisi motis illis neque in hac conclusione invenies Theologum ullum aperte contradicentem In tertiam Tho. qu. 76. Art 7. Disput 32. Conc. 2. Conclus 3. Corpus Christi ut est in hoc Sacramento non possit naturaliter moveri localiter ab intrinseco à propria anima interna virtute motiva naturall neque per se neque per accidens Loquor de naturali virtute non ut est instrumentum verbi operans per virtutem miraculorum effectricem Ratio quia non potest anima movere corpus suum nisi per membra organica quae habent extensionem in locum Sed membra corporis Christi non hoc modo existunt in hoc Sacramento multo minus potest movere species Sacramentales quas nec physice contingere possit neque ad motum voluntatis movere Ibid Conclus ult Potest ut est in hoc Sacramento virtue extrinseca moveri per Accidens quia possunt Sacramentales species moveri ut a Sacerdote Elevando Sect. 3. De sensibus exterioribus Nominales citati dicunt posse Christum ut est in hoc Sacramento ut Deum audire c. Alij hoc negant Sunt nonnulli qui negant id fieri posse de Potentiâ Dei absolutâ ut corpus in extensum à loco aut seipsum videat aut alia Dico non
corpus Christi absolute manducari sed manducator sub specie panis quae sententia significat species manducari visibiliter sensibiliter ac promde dertibus atteri Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euch. ca. 11. §. Respon Corpus The Body of Christ is not absolutely eaten but eaten under the formes of Bread and that is to say saith hee the formes of Bread are sensibly and visibly eaten So hee If this imported a literall maner of Eating then might your Cardinall have sayd as literally of himselfe My Clothes are torne therefore my Body is rent in pieces Not to trouble you with the Cardinall's Philosophy that talketh of Eating and Tearing of Colours But to the point If onely the Accidents of Bread be as hee saith sensibly eaten then was Pope Nicholas his Prescription of Eating Christs Body sensibly in your Cardinalls opinion not True And upon the same Ground it is that your Iesuit n Frangi metaphorica non propria locutio est colligitur ex Thoma qu. 77. Art 7. patet quia fractio proprie in rigore significat divisionem discontinuationem partium quae constat non fieri in partibus corporis Christi Suarez in Thom. qu. 75. Disp 47. Art 1. §. 4. Suarez out of Thomas and other Schoolemen affirmeth the word Broken to be 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 see in the former Section Canus hath concluded And your o Si propriè loqui velimus falsae sunt hae propositiones Corpus Christi manducatur a nobis Corpus Christi devoratur Corpus Christi frangitur quia ipsi modi qui his verbis significantur non conveniunt Copori Christi quod est in hoc Sacramento sed hae sunt verae Recipitur à nobis sumitur à nobis Maldon Ies Tom. 1. de Sacram. Tract de Euch. pag. 144. Verè sumitur sed non atteritur Ibid. pag. 143. 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 expressely sayd that to thinke the Body of Christ to be eaten torne or devoured properly taken is a Carnall Capernaiticall and as your owne p Nisi sanè intelligas verba Berengarij in majorem Haeresin incides quā Ipse fuerit Igitur omnia referas ad species ipsas c. Gloss apud Gratian. de Consecrat Dist 2. c. Ego Berengarius Glosse in Gratian concludeth an Hereticall opinion Will you have any more It is but the last day in respect when q Ob. Scoto-Britannus Apud Pontificios corpus Christi Cyclopum dentibus teri Resp Dansqueius Theolog. Canon in Scuto B. Mariae Aspricollis An verò mortales artus Corporis Christi dentibus teri ore blasphemo mente nequissimâ potes comprobare non magis id facias quà m Caiphas cùm tunicam à pectore laceravit one of your grave Criticks so much abhorred the conceit of proper Tearing Christs Body that hee called the Objecting hereof against your Church in his blind zeale Blasphemie and answereth that you do no more Teare Christs Flesh than Caiphas tore his when he rent his Clothes The case then is plaine enough for Confutation of your more ancient Romish Faith That the former Romish and Popish Faith for the Maner of receiving of the Body of Christ is at this day but somewhat altered yet miserably inconstant and Faithlesse SECT III. PRotestants may have in this place just matter of insultation 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 litterall and proper interpretation of the words of Christ when hee sayd Take eate this is my Body yet now are you compelled to say that Properly eaten is no proper but a false sense Your Second Doctrine is that the Judgement of a Romane Pope in a Romane Councell in a matter of Faith is Infallible Notwithstanding Pope Nicholas with his Romane Councel is found to have grossely erred in a tenor of Abjuration which of all others as hath beene confessed is most Literall and was therefore purposely devised against a Figurative Sense of the words of Christ and forth-with published throughout Italy 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 Judgement being now to reject such phrases taken in their proper Signification and in a maner to abrenounce Berengarius his Abrenunciation what is if this be not an Argument that either you say you care not or else you beleeve you know not what Let us goe on in pursuit of your Doctrine of the Corporall maner of Eating which you still maintaine and it will be found to be Capernaiticall enough And lest that you may evade by pretence of Not Chewing wee adde as followeth That the Orall Eating of the Sacrament was anciently by Chewing SECT IV. CHewing the Sacrament with the Teeth was the forme of Eating at the time of Christ his Institution as is proved by your owne * Suarez See above Booke 1. Cap. 1. Sect. 4. Confession in granting that the unleavened Bread which Christ used was Glutinosus that is gluish clammie and such as was to be cut with a knife But that the same maner of Eating by Chewing was altered in the Apostolicall or Primitive times is not read of by any Canon yea or yet Admonition of any one Father in the Church whether Greek or Latine among whom Saint Augustine called the maner of eating a * See above cap. 2. Sect. 9. Pressing the Sacrament with the Teeth That also Chewing continued in the Romish Church till a Thousand and fifty yeares after Christ is not obscurely implyed in the former tenor of the Recantation of Berengarius prescribed by the same Church which was to eat as you have heard By tearing it with teeth And lastly that this hath since continued the ordinary Custome of the same Church is as evident by your Cardinall Alan and Canus * See above in the former Section who have defended the maner of Eating by Tearing Nor was Swallowing prescribed by any untill that the queazie stomaches of your r Hostiam salivâ reverenter liquefactam in corpus dimittat non est enim dentibus terenda vel palato admovenda sed ante ablutionis sumptionem deglutienda Coster Ies Institut lib 1 cap. 5. Jesuites not enduring Chewing perswaded the Contrary Which kinds of Eating whether by Chewing or Swallowing of Christs Flesh being both Orall none can deny to have beene the opinion of the ſ Nimis carnaliter intelligebant Discipuli Capernaitae credentes ejus carnem comedi
these judged by Pope Gelasius to be Sacrilegious âšœ Hence was it that your Iesuite demanded 13 Nic. Causin Ies in his booke called the Holy Court pag. 539. How was it possible saith he that the Heresie of Eutyches being nousled under a false zeale of Reverence towards the person of the Sonne of God might not insnare the Empresse Pulcheria a woman 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 under the pretence of religious Reverence and sanctity In briefe It was the opinion of Reverence that made Saint 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 Reply of our Saviour doth declare If I wash not thy feete faith Christ thou hast no part with me c. Vpon which Text Saint Å¿ Discamus Christum prout vult venerari honorato namque jucundissimus est honor non quem nos putamus nam eum Petrus honorare putabat cùm sibi pedes eum lavare prohibuit sed non erat honor quem agebac sed contrarium Chrysost Hom. 60. ad pop Antioch Tom. 1. Chrysostome readeth unto you this Lecture Let us therefore learne saith he to honour and reverence Christ as he would and not as wee thinke meete And sure we are that he would that same which he commanded saying Do this Therefore our next Difference betweene our defence and yours is no other than obedient Reverence and irreverent or rather irreligious Disobedience As for your Pretence of manifesting hereby a t Si sic tanta esset degnitas Laicorum circà sumptionem corporis Christi quanta Clericorum Gerson Tract de utraque specie 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 Body and Blood an equall price of Redemption for all sorts would have the Sacrament of his Body and Blood equally administred to People as to Priests as you have heard the Fathers themselves professe The Third kinde of Romish Pretences which are more peculiar to their owne Church in two points First because a Movit Ecclesiam ad hunc usum stabiliendum lege firmandum quòd videret ab Haereticis et ex errore oppugnari Sacramentarij autem non credunt Concomitantiam sanguinis Domini cùm corpore in specie panis undè etiam ij Lutheranorum maximè urgent utramque speciem qui cum Sacramentarijs rident Concomitaâ—â—tiam Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 28. §. Secundò Heretikes saith Bellarmine and meaning Protestants do 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 use of the Eucharist in one kinde So he And this point of Concomitancse is that which b In his booke dedicated to K. Iames. Master Fisher and c In his Liturg. of the Masse pag. 396. Master Brerely most laboured for or rather laboured upon And albeit your Romane d Maximè omnium ad convellendam eorum haeresin qui negabant sub utraque specie corpus Christi contineri Catech. Rom. par 2. c. 4. nu 50. Catechisme judgeth this the principall Cause of inducing your Church to preferre one kinde yet wee whom you call Heretikes believe that the devout Communicant receiving Christ spiritually by faith is thereby possessed of whole Christ crucified in the inward act of the Soule and only deny that the Whole is received Sacramentally in this outward act under one onely part of this Sacrament which is the present Question And in this wee say no more than your Bishop Iansenius judged reasonable who hath rightly argued saying e Verùm non facilè apparet quomodò apertè exterior illa sumptio dici possit bibitio manducatio rectè dicitur quià sumitur aliquid ibi per modum cibi sed quomodò bibitio cùm nihil sumatur per modum potus non n. diceremus eum manducare et bibere qui panem tinctum vino sumeret quamvis sumat quod famem tollat et sitim Proindè secundùm horum sententiam videtur omninò dicendum cum dicitur manducare bibere non ratione actus exterioris qui manducationis tantùm speciem habet sed ratione actus interioris nempe ratione fidei Iansen Concord in Evang. pag. 457. It doth not easily appeare how the outward receiving of Christ under the forme of Bread should he 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 therfore and Eating are distinguished by Christ in the outward Act. So he even as your owne * Durand Rationale lib. 4. c. 54. Vna pars absque alia sumpta non est completum Sacramentum cùm panis corpus significat non potest sacramentaliter sumi sinè altera specie before him had truly concluded with whom Master * See Booke 2. Cap. 2. § 4. Brerely will beare a part Therefore your Concomitancie if wee respect the Sacramentall manner of Receiving is but a Chimaera and as great a Solecisme as to say that the Body and Bones of Christ are drunke and his Blood eaten contrary to the Sacramentall representation in receiving Bread and Wine as hath beene proved Next when wee aske you why onely your Church will not reforme and regulate her Custome according to the Institution of Christ and the long practice of the primitive Church you answer plainly and without Circumlocution that the Reason is Lest that your Church might seeme to have erred in her alteration if the ancient Custome And this your f Secunda ratio quià qui Concomitantiam negant ex alio pernitioso errore petunt utramque speciem quià nimirum existimant jure divino esse praeceptum propterea totam Ecclesiam longo tempore in hac re turpiter enâssè Bellar. quo sup §. Secundo Cardinall Bellarmine and the Iesuite g Rectissimè facit Ecclesia quod ipsa praxi contratiâ refutat eorum haeresin qui utramque speciem jure divino necessariam omnibus esse perperam contendunt Quae ratio jure optimo inter caetera cosiderata est in Conc. Constant contra Bohemos in Conc. Trident. contra recenâ—iores Sectarios Greg. de Valent. Ies Tract de usu Eucharist cap 10 §. Deindè pag 499. Valentian use and urge as a necessary Reason for confutation of Protestants who held the necessity of publike Communion in Both kindes Which Reason your owne Orator Gaspar Cardillo proclaimed as in a manner the sole cause of continuing your degenerated use h Ego existimo Patres
his words This is my Body for proofe of Transubstantiation SECT I. YOu pretend and that with no small Confidence as a Truth avouched by the Councell of a Vt definitur in Conc. Trid. Sess 13 Can. 4. Ex sola veritate verborum Hoc est Corpus meum vera ac propria Transubstantiatio colligitur Vasquez les Disp 176. c. 6 Verba tà m per se clara cogere possint hominem non proterâ—â— Transubstantitionem admittere Bell. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23. §. Secundò Trent that Transubstantiation is collected from the sole true and proper Signification of these words This is my Body So you CHALLENGE WHerein you shew your selves to bee men of great Faith or rather Credulity but of little Conscience teaching that to bee undoubtedly True whereof notwithstanding you your selves render many Causes of Doubting For first you b Scotus quem Cameracensis sequtur Dicunt non extare locuÌ„ in Scripturis tà m expressum ut fine declaratione Ecclesiae evidentes cogat Transubstantiationem admittere Atque hoc non est omninò improbabile quià an ità sit dubitari potest cum homines acutissimi doctissimi qualis inprimis Scotus fuit contrarium sentiant Bellar. quo supra Cajetanus aliqui vetustiores audiendi non sunt qui dicunt panem definere esse non tà m ex Evangelio quà m ex Ecclesiae authoritate constare Alan lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34 pag. 419. grant that besides Cardinall Caejetane and some other Ancient Schoolemen Scotus and Cameracensis men most Learned and Acute held that There is no one place of Scripture so expresse which without the Declaration of the Church can evidently compell any man to admit of Transubstantiation So they Which your Cardinall and our greatest Adversary faith c See in the former Allegation at b Is not altogether improbable and whereunto your Bishop d Corpus Christi fieri per consecrationem non probatur nudis Evangelij verbis sine pia interpretatione Ecclesiae Roffens Episc con Capt. Bab. cap. 9. pag. 99. Roffensis giveth his consent Secondly which is also confessed some other Doctors of your Church because they could not find so full Evidence for proofe of your Transubstantiation out of the words of Christ were driven to so hard shifts as to e Hoc est pro Transit Bonaventura decet Idem ferè habet Oceam Hol cott insinuat etiam Waldensis Volunt Propositionem illam non esse substantivè sed Transitive interpretandam sc ut sit sensus Hoc est Corpus id est Transit in Corpus Sed hoc corrumpit significationeÌ„ verbi Est quod si permittitur nulla est vis in hujus modi verbis ad probandam realem praesentiam nec substantiam Panis hic non manere Et ità potuit Haereticus exponere Hoc est id est Repraesentat Corpus Suarez Ies Tom. 3. qu 78. Disp 58. Sect. 7. Art 1. pag. 754. Change the Verbe Substantive Est into a Verbe Passive or Transitive Fit or Transit that is in stead of Is to say It 's Made or It passeth into the Body of Christ A Sense which your Iesuite Suarez cannot allow because as hee truly saith It is a Corrupting of the Text. Albeit indeed this word Transubstantiation importeth no more than the Fieri seu Transire of Making or Passing of one Substance into another So that still you see Transubstantiation cannot bee extracted out of the Text without violence to the words of Christ âšœ The like violence is used by your Iesuit I Iac. Gordon Scotus Ies lib. Controv. 4. cap 3. n. 15. Propositiones practicae proferuntur per verba praesentis temporis non futuri ut certi 〈◊〉 de effectuve borum Haec verba Hoc est corpus meum practica sunt efficiunt quod significant Manduâ—â—â— ex hoc Bibite ex hoc ubique demonstrat corpus Christi futurum vel sanguinem ejus futorum Similis statuitur verbis Consecrationis alioqui ista communio esset merè speculativa non practica Gordon who to make Christs Speech to be Practicall for working a TransubstaÌ„tiation doth inforce the words This is my Body and Eat yee this and Drinke yee this being all spoken in the Present tense to signifie the future Which although it were true all Grammarians know to be the figure Enallage From these Premisses it is most apparent that the Romish Doctors cast themselves necessarily upon the hornes of this DileÌ„ma thus Either have these words of Christ This is my Body a Sense Practicall to signifie that which they worke and then is the Sense Tropicall as you have now heard them against your Romish Literall Sense to betoken an operative power and effect of working Bread into the Body of Christ or else they are not Practicall and then they cannot implie your Transubstantiation at all Wee might in the third place adde hereunto that the true Sense of the words of Christ is Figurative as by Scriptures Fathers and by your owne confessed Grounds hath beene already plentifully * See the former Booke throughout proved as an insallible Truth So groundlesse is this chiefe Article of your Romish Faith whereof more will be said in the sixt Section following But yet by the way wee take leave to prevent your Objection You have told us that * See the former Booke throughout the words of Christ are Operative and worke that which they signifie so that upon the pronunciation of the words This is my Body it must infallibly follow that Bread is changed into Christs Body which wee shall beleeve assoone as you shall bee able to prove that upon the pronuntiation of the other words of Christ This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood Luke 22. 20. the Cup is changed into the Testament of Christs Blood or else into his Blood it selfe The Noveltie of Transubstantiation examined as well for the Name as for the Nature thereof SECT II. The Title and Name of Transubstantiation proved to be of a latter date YOu have imposed the very Title of Transubstantiation upon the Faith of Christians albeit the word Transubstantiation as you grant f Fateor neque Antiquos Patres usos esse hoc nomine Transubstantiationis Christoph de Capite fontium Archicpis Caesar lib. de reali praesen cap. 5. 9. Artic. 4. was not used of any Ancient Fathers and that your Romish Change had not it's Christendome or name among Christians to be called Transubstantiation as your Cardinall g Concilium Lateranense sub Innocentio Tertio coactum ut Haereticis os obthurarer Conversionem hanc novo valdè significance verbo dixit Transubstantiationem Alan lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34. pag. 422. As for that objected place out of Cyrill of Alexandria Epist ad Caelosyrium Convertens ea in veritatem Carnis It is answered by Vasquez the Iesuite non habetur illa Epistola inter opera Cyrilli Vasquez in 3. Thom. Tom. 3. num 24.
beene * Vid Protestants Appeale Book 2. ch 2. §. 10. confuted for urging the former Objection notwithstanding concealing the Answer he blusheth not to regest the same albeit as one conscious to himselfe of the futility therof he leaveth it presently falling foule upon Theodoret as though that Father had beene in some distemper when he so writ d In his Liturgâ—â— of the Masse Tract 2. §. 2 subd 3. p. 254. saying first that Theodoret used that his Retortion in his * Not so for he was now not iâ—â—a personall Dispute but deliberately writing against thâ— Heresia of the Eutychiant heate of Dispute Then hee taketh part with the Heretike saying It is not likely that an Heretike should have urged against a Catholike sentence for Transubstantiation as for a point of Faith well knowne if the same Doctrine had beene then either unknowne or else condemned as False So hee who might aswell have reasoned in the behalfe of the Sadduces condemned by Christ saying It is not likely that they would so expressely have denyed that there aâ—e any Spirits in their Dispute against Christ if that Doctrine had beene then either unknowne or condemned as False by the Church of God among the Iewes And yet it is certaine that the Heresie of the Sadduces was judged execrable in that Church Now if the Eutychian Heretike finde such Patronage at the hands of your Priest alas what will become of the Father Theodoret Hearken Theodoret being an Orthodoxe Bishop saith hee could not have propounded the Heretikes Argument as grounded upon the Churches received Doctrine of Transubstantiation had the same beene then unknowne and reputed False So he who if hee had not lost his Logike would certainly have argued contrarily saying Theodoret being an Orthodoxe and Catholike Bishop would never have set downe an Objection for Transubstantiation in the name of a ranke Heretike and after himselfe impugned and confuted the same except he had knowne it to be flatly repugnant to the Catholike Church in his time Wherefore if you be men of Faith and not rather of Faction let the miserable perplexities of your Disputers discovered both here and throughout this whole Treatise move you to renounce them as men of prostituted Consciences and their Cause as forlorne of all Truth For a further Evidence take unto you an Answer of your Iesuite Valentia to this and the like Testimonies of Antiquity It is not to be held any marvell saith * Valent. Ies l. 2. de Transub c. 7. Dabimus aliud breve simplex sine ullo incommodo responsum Enimverò antequam quaestio ista de Transubstantiatione palà m in Ecclesia agitaretur minime mirûm est si unus aut alter aut etiam aliqui minùs considerarè rectè hac de re senserint scripserint maximè cum non tractarâ—nt ex instituto ipsam quaestionem he why some Ancients have writ and thought lesse considerately and truly before that Transubstantiation was handled publikely in the Church especially they not handling the same Question of purpose So hee and this hee calleth a Briefe and plaine Answer And so it is whereby in granting that Transubstantiation had not beene so Anciently handled in the Church he plainly confuteth your now Romane Church which judgeth it to have beene alwayes an Article of Faith And affirming that the same Fathers Handled not the point of purpose it is as plainly confuted by Theodoret who in this Dispute did not argue against the Heretike 〈◊〉 extemporall speech personally but deliberately and punâ—â—lly by writing and therefore of Purpose The Second Father expresly defending the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration is Pope GELASIVS SECT XIII THis Author have Protestants called Pope Gelasius and urged his Testimony Your Disputers civill First at the name of the Author calling Protestants e Non fuit hic Papa Gelasius ut Adversarij impudentèr jactant sed Gelasius Caesariensis Episcopus Bellar. lib. â— de Euch. c. 27. Impudent for stiling him Pope Gelasus But if hee were not that Pope Gelasiue what Gelasius might hee bee then Gelasius Bishop of Caesâ—rea saith your Cardinall Bellarmine Contrarily your f Baronius himselfe â—â—tendeth that it was not that Pope Gelasius Anno 496 num 123. c. yet comming to answer to the Sentence of Gelâ—siuâ— doth expound toe doubtful words there of by the phrases of Pope Gelasius ex Epist ad Pâ—â—enos Dardan Episc num 13. 14. which Epistles he before cited as the true Epistles of Pope Gelasius Anno 493. num 23. and Anno 494. num 2. And after Anno 496. num 17. telleth his Reader saying Vides Lector ex usu verborum Phrasiquè dâ—ceÌ„di Gelasij Papae alia ejus sententia perspicuâ— demonstratum esse c. Et Anâ—o 996 num 13. Gelâ— in Epist ad Picen est Peccato Originall substantiam hominis esse depravatâ—m eum tamen eadem substantia mansit Accidentia ut pote justitia originalis alia dona 〈◊〉 Cardinall Baronius contendeth that hee is a more ancient Gelasius Anno 47. namely Gelasius Cyzicenus yet so as confounding himselfe insomuch that hee is forced to expound the speeches of this Gelasius by the propriety of the speech as he confesseth of Gelasius â—ope of a Rome But what shall we answer for the Impudent Protestants as yoâ— Cardinall hath called them Surely nothing but wee 〈◊〉 more modesty in him who hath so called them considering that Protestants had no fewer Guides nor meane to follow than these g Gelasius Papa scripsit contra Eutycheâ—em Genad de scriptoribus Eccles c. 14. Anastas de vita 〈◊〉 Margarinus de la Bigat lib. 5. Biblioth Patrum pag. 467. Masson de Episc Rom. in vita â—elasij Aâ—pâ—onl lib. de naeres Tit. Christus haeres 3. in fine Onuphrius de Creat Pontif. Cardin Gelâ—sius 〈◊〉 scripsit volumen adversus Eutychetem Nessorium Fuisse Caesariensem Episcopum non posse jure affirmari videtur And proveth why not Historians viz. Genadius yea your Bibliothe carie Anastasiùs Alphonsus de Castro Onuphrius Massonius Margarinus la Bigne all which have intituled this Gelasius Pope of Rome Howsoever it is confessed on all sides that hee was an Orthodox Father and very Ancient Now then Gelasius sayd that h Gelasius lib. de duab natur cont Eutych Sacramenta certa 〈…〉 corporis sanguinis Christi divina res est propter quodper eadem divinae efficimur participes naturae tamen non definit esse substantia vel natura panis viaâ— certè imago similitudo corporis sanguinis Christin in Actione mysticâ celebratur And againe Permanent in proprietate naturae The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ being Divine things yet cease not to bee the nature and substance of Bread and Wine In Answer whereunto both your foresaid i Bellar. Baton quo supra At dicit Gelasius In Divinaru transcunt Spiritu sancto
107. De recipiente semen ut terra bonâ— Qui verbum recipit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Trans elementing in a sort of the word of God into the good Iearer Againe Theophylact is objected as saying x Theophyl in Math. 26. Panis ineffâ—bili modo transformatur Panis quidem apparet sed caro est Objected by Mr. Ererely Laturg Tract 2 §. 2. Sâ—bd As for est caro this Phrase 〈◊〉 beene already answered See above at s The Bread is after an ineffable maner Transformed It is true Hee saith so and so doth Hierome say that y Hier. in Marc. 14. Accepit Iesus Panem bâ—nedixit fregiâ— Transfigurans Corpus suum in Panem quod est Ecclesia praesens quae frangitur in passionibus Christ in breaking Bread did Transfigure or Transforme his Body into his Church broken with afflictions and Pope Leo sticketh not to say that 1 Leo. Non alia igitur participatio Corpous quà m ut mâ—id quâ—d summus transeamus De Passione Serm. 24 Wee Christians in communicating Transimus turne or are Changed into Christ his Body So these ancient Fathers Are you not yet out of breath with objecting Testimonies of Fathers Vnconscionably and imperâ—inently No for Master Brerely for a Close desireth to be heard and to try us with an Objection out of the Greeke Church these latter times as followeth a Mr. Brereley in his Apologie of the first Edition concerning the Faith of the ancient Greeke Church It appeareth by a Treatise published by the Protestant Divines at Wittenberge Anno Domini 1584. intituled Acta Theologorum Wittenbergensium Hieremiae Patriarchae Constantinop c. that the Greeke Church at this day although divided from the Latine professeth to beleeve Transubstantiation So he of the Patriarch Hieremâ—as which Patriarch if he were alive would very hardly containe himselfe from answering this your Brother with some indignation calling him both rash and precipitant seeing that the same Patriarch expresly said that b Hier. Patriarch Non enim hic nominus tantùm communicatio est sed rei identitas etenim verè Corpus Sanguis Christi mysteria sunt non quòd haec in corpus humanum transmutentur sed nos in illa melioribus praevalentibus Which is his Answer in this Poynt to the Doctors of Witâ—enbèrge The Body and Blood of Christ are indeed Mysteries which are not changed into humane flesh but wee into them So that Patriarch âšœ Neverthelesse another bold Romish 17 Franciscus de Sancta Clara. Exposit Artic. Confess Angi in Art 28 Orientalis Ocâ—identalis Ecclesia in hoc Articulo Transubstantiationis conveniunt Hieremus Patriarcha in sua Censura contra Lutherum idem fatetur Priest durst boast of your alliance in this doctrine of Transubstantiation not only with this forenamed Patriarch of Constantinople but also with the whole Easterne and Greeke Church But behold Cyril now Patriarch of Constantinople ready at hand to strangle this false bragge saying as he himselfe speaketh 18 Confâ—ssio fidei â— Reverendissima Cyrillo Patriarchia Constantiâ—op nomine omnium Ecclesiarum Orientalium Edit Anno 1632. In Eucharistiae Administratione Piaesentiam veram realem Christi consitemur prâ—fitemur at illam quam Fides nobis offert non autem quam excogitata docet Transubstantiatio In the name of the East and Greeke Churches Wee professe a true and reall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament but that which is offered by faith not that saith he which the devised Transubstantiation teacheth So he namely so as wee Protestants do likewise professe as will be declared in the next Booke at large And that the Grecians who were present at the Councell of Florence did not yield Assent to that Article of Transubstantiation although your Iesuite 19 Gordon Ies Controv. 4. cap. 4. num 25. Quod de Graecis in Concilio Florentino congregatis coÌ„miniscuntur Adversarij cos nimirum nègâsse Transubstantiationem apertum est Commentum Nam Disputatio tantùm erat quibus verbis fieret Transubstantiatio seu Consecratio Gordon would qualifie and mince the businesse yet Binius the Publisher of that Councell 20 Binius Tom. 4. Not. in Conc. Florent Sess 25. In vobis c. Cùm Pontifex egisset ut Graeci dicerent quid statuerent de Processione Spiritus de Purgatorio deque divina Transubstantiatione panis Cumque respondissent se admittere Purgatorium c. De Transubstantiatione verò Panis Suorum sententiae inhaesissent confesseth that they did therein Persist in the opinion of their owne Doctors Master Brerely would thinke it an injury done unto himselfe if we should pretermit his objected Authority of Pope Gregory for Doctor Humphrey saith hee doth charge Gregory the Great with Transubstantiation So Master Brerely who objected this in his Apologie many yeares agoe and had a full Answer in an * Appeale lib. 1. Chap. 2. §. 7. The testimony it self cited out of Greg. by Mâ— Brereley is answered in the first Book concerning EATING Appeale made purposely in confutation of his whole Apologie The Summe of that Answer is this Doctor Humphrey did not speake that as grounded upon any sentence of Gregory but onely upon the report of a Romish Legend supposing it to be true which in the â—udgement of Romish Doctors themselves whose Testimonies are there cited Is unworthy to report the memory of the fact being in it selfe fond filthy and frivolous the Author whereof may seeme to have a face of Iron and a heart of Lead and the Objector namely Master Brerely for grounding his Objection on a Legendary History A Falsisier of his owne promise This Answer was home one would thinke and might justly have provoked him to satisfie for himself if hee could have found any Errour therein yet notwithstanding for want of better service bringeth he in these Cole-worts twise sod CHALLENGE VVHat greater Vnconscionablenesse could your Disputers bewray than by so torturing the Hyperbolicall Figurative and Sacramentall Sayings of Ancient Fathers for proofe of the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ insomuch that they must bee consequently constrained by the force of some Phrases contrary both to the meaning of the same Fathers and to the Doctrine of your owne Romish Church to admit of three other Transubstantiations viz. First of Christ his Body into whatsoever the Appetite of the Communicant shall desire Secondly of Christ his Body into the Body of every Christian And Thirdly of the Body of every Christian into the Body of Christ As the Testimonies objected plainly pronounce âšœ Besides which you may adde a Fourth of Bread into the Deity of Christ And againe a Fift out of Chrysostome of the Wicked receivers turned into Wolves as you have heard As also for a Sixt from others of the Change of * Set the 9 §. following Dioâ—ysius Godly Receivers into God A Seaventh out of Saint Augustine of Changing saith he of Christ * See Booke 5.
in a Boxe appearing in his owne forme Thirdly Because Christs Blood to issue and sprinkle out of his veines who can easily beleeve yea and your Iesuite Coster with some Others spare not to professe as well as wee that * See the fixt Booke Chap. 1. §. 4. Shedding of Christs Blood out of his Body was onely on the Crosse Fourthly Because it were Vndecencie to reserve such Reliques experience teaching that they do putrifie Thus your owne Schoole-men produced and approved by Suarez the Iesuite whose Conclusion and Resolution is that The flesh thus appearing is not only not the flesh of Christ but even no true flesh at all but onely a colour and signe thereof âšœ Fiftly You have here before you in the Margin your Iesuite Vasquez denying those to bee the Apparitions of true Flesh and as though none but simple people were deceived with such Apparitions he holdeth it sufficient that 3 Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom. Quaest 76. Art 8 Disput 193. Cap. 2. Respondeo Neque apparere carnem Christi neque alterius quae reverà caro sit sed carnis solùm effigieÌ„ Quod autem simplices decipiantur credant ibi esse carnem Christi divisibili cruento modo parum refert haec enim deceptio instructione verâ Doctorum Pastorum corrigendus est Their Deception herein may bee corrected by the true instruction of the Learned How will your Bozius Coccius Bellarmine and your many other Doctors together with their Beleevers disgest this to bee thus ranked by this your Iesuite among the Simple and Ignorant people in this their deliration concerning such fictitious Apparitions âšœ Do you not then see the different faith of your owne Historians and of your owne Divines namely that those Historians as uncleane Beasts swallow downe at the first whatsoever cometh into their mouthes but those your Divines like more Cleane creatures do ruminate and distinguish truth from falsehood by sound reason and judgement and prove the Authors of such Apparitions flat lyars the Reporters uncredible Writers and the Beleevers of them starke Fooles That the Romish Answer to free their former pretended Miraculous Apparitions from suspicion of Figments or Illusions is Vnsufficient SECT IV. ALbeit in these Apparitions there be not true flesh say m Quamvis non fiat ut vera caro Christi vel reverà vera caro ut respondent Thomistae sed tantum color figura ejus tamen quòd sit externa species sive imago divinitùs facta sufficiens est ad confirmationem veritatis Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disput 55. Sect. 2. some of your Doctors yet such Apparitions being miraculously wrought are sufficient Demonstrations that Christs Flesh is in the Eucharist But why should not wee yeeld more credit to those Schoole-men who say n Alens Gabriel Palacius dicunt quòd miracula siunt veris non apparentibus signis figuris Asserunt talem apparitionem non esse factam virtute Dei sed Daemonis Suarez Ibid. Where hee addeth Hoc ab ijs gratis dictum est True miracles use to bee made in true signes and not in such as seeme onely so to bee because seeming signes are wrought by the Art of the Devill And wee take it from the Assurance which your Iesuite giveth us that o Potest Daemon repraesentare figuras quarum libet rerum ut argenti auti epul rum quemadmodum perâ—ssimi Sculprores Pictores vâ—tias foâ—mas figurâ— rerum ità finguam ut interdum verae esse videantur Sed verè propriè miraculum id dicitur opus quod omnis â—aturae creatae vum atque potentiam excedit Et una differentia quâ vera miracula possunt à falsis discerni haec est quòd falsa sunt phaÌ„tastica simulata ideoque non diturna vel sunt planè inutilia Perer. Ies in Exâ— 7 Disp 4. Num. 34. D. 5. N. 36 38. Tertia ratio sum potest ad confirmandam veritatem Corporis ex dignitatâ— personae corpus assumentis quae cum sit veritas non decuit ut in ejus opere aliqua sictio insit Aquin. part 3. qu. 5. Ait 2 Devils and Painters can make such semblances and Similitudes and that true Miracles are to bee discerned from false in that false Miracles carry onely a likenesse of things and are unprofitable Furthermore yourp Aquinas proveth against the Heretikes from Sense that Christ had a true Body Because it could not agree with the dignity of his person who is Truth that there should be any fiction in any worke of his Thus 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 bee of an Infant and of the Child Iesus albeit Christ at his Ascension out of this World * Baron Aâ—n 34. 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 Bethelehem 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 Antiquitie within the compasse of so long a time excepting that of one Marcus recorded by p Irenaeus adversus Haereses lib. 1. c. 9. Marcus purpureum rubicundum apparere facit ut puraretur ea gratia sanguinem stillare in Calicem per invocationem per maguâ— illum Irenaeus who faigned to Make the mixed Wine in the Cup through his Invocation to seeme red that it might bee 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 Heretikes 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 concerning the truth of Christs Body and no such one heard of in these dayes of Antiquity when there seemed to bee a farre more necessary use of them both for confirming Proselytes in the faith and reducing Heretikes from their Errour that Apparition only 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 Answer to an Objection from the same Author he sayd q Bellar. lib. 2. de Pont. c.
non videt In that Christ sayd saith hee You shall not have mee alwayes with you hee spake it of the Presence of his Body But in saying I am with you untill the Consummation of the World hee spake it of his Divine Majesty Providence and Invisible grace But according to that nature which was borne of the Virgin and after was manifested in the Resurrection You shall not have me alwayes with you So hee Your sole Answer in the Iudgement of your choycest Divines delivered by your Cardinall is this 15 Bellarm. l. 1. de Euchdr cap. 14. §. Denique Augustinus intelligit corporis Christi praesentiam visibilem more humano inter homines conversantis atquè ita se explicat Quare quia conversatus est secundùm corporis praesentiam quadraginta dies ipsis videnâ—ibus modo side renet oâ—ulis non videt that S. Augustine in denying that Christ is alwayes with us according to the presence of his Bodie understood a visible presence thereof after an humane Conversation with men which hee collecteth from that which followeth in the speech of Saint Augustine That Christ was seene of the Apostles in his Bodily presence after his Resurrection and as his Assension But now saith S. Augustine Wee see him by Faith and not with our eyes So your Cardinall Which is as raw and extravagant a Collection and repugnant to the meaning of Saint Augustine as can be Because the whole scope of Saint Augustine is to shew the Excellency of Christs Divine Nature in respect of the Humane in regard of Presence it selfe and not in respect of visibilitie or any maner of Presence Because the Divine nature by it's Omnipresency is alwayes with us but the other which was seene after his Visible Conversation upon Earth was seene to ascend into Heaven Hee inforceth directly from hence therefore It is not here on Earth Thus It ascended into Heaven and is not here for hee there sitteth at the right hand of God But as for the Presence of his Majesty which signifieth his Deity It is here saith Saint Augustine and not departed from us which is a manifest Distinguishing of the Deity and Humanity of Christ meerely in respect of Hic est Non hic est that is Presence of the one and Not-Presence of the other As also betweene Recessit Non-Recessit in like Difference whereas if according to the Popish Faith the Distinction held onely in respect of the Visibilitie or Invisibilitie of Presence you alwayes teaching that Christs Body is substantially Present on Earth Invisibly in the Eucharist then in respect of the maner of Presence by * Because Saint Aug. calleth the presence of his majestie and grace Invisible â—re the Testimony above cited Invisibilitie there should be no Prerogative of Difference betweene Chists Divine and Bodily Being on Earth against the Conclusive Determination of Saint Augustine in this place Which is also confirmed by that which is further objected in opposition against us out of the last words of Saint Augustine The Church saith hee Seeth not him with her eyes but holdeth him by Faith namely by believing the Presence of his Body But where to wit Sitting at the right hand of God saith hee but not in the Pix or on the Altar The next Testimony of this Father may be that his Malling and braining of the Hereticall Manichees who held a Bodily Presence of Christ both in the Sunne and Moone at once He making a flat Contrary Conclusion 16 Aug. contra Faust Manich. l. 20. cap. 11. Secundum praesentiam spirituasem nullo modo 〈◊〉 pari posset secundùm vero praesentiam corporalem simul in sole in luna in quâ—â— esse non posset Christs Bodily Presence could not saith hee be in the Sunne and Moone at once Yes will the Romish Answer Miraculously it may God a mercy Papist would the Heretike have sayd for I likewise when I sayd it was in the Sunne and Moone at once was not such a Lunatick as to thinke it could be naturally so and without a Miracle The same holy Father that hee might shew himselfe constant to his owne Teneâ— explaining the words of Christ You have heard that I sayd I goe and come unto you â—wirdâ— Hee went away saith hee according to that wherein hee was man in one place and hee remained with them as God and in all places still opposing the Nature of Man and God according to the Different Presences of One-where and All-wheres More Testimonies for proofe of this one point there needs not âšœ CHALLENGE THese so many and manifest proofes of the ancient Fathers concluding an Impossibility of Existence of a Body without Determination in one place may be unto us a full Demonstration that they were Adversaries to your Romish Doctrine of Corporall Presence and that all your Objections out of them are but so many forged and forced Illusions âšœ Onely be it knowne unto you that in this whole Discourse the word Circumscription in place is used in a large Acception for every limitation of a Body in a space or Vbi adequate unto the thing Circumscribed âšœ Wee conclude If Christ himselfe gave a Caveat not to believe such Spirits as should say of his Bodily presence in this world after his Resurrection * Mat. 24 23. Behold heere is Christ and behold there is Christ then doubtlesse much lesse credit is to be given to your Church which teacheth and professeth an Here is Christ and a There is Christ in the same instant as wee shall furthermore confirme by like verdict of Antiquitie when wee shall heare the Fathers prove both that * See Cap. 6. §. 3. Angels and all Created Spirits are finite Creatures and not Gods even because they are contained in one place and also that the * Chap 6. §. 2. Holy Ghost is God and no finite Creature because it is in divers places at once But wee must handle our matters in order That the Romish Doctors in their Objections have no solid proofe of the Existence of one Body in divers places at once from the Iuagement of Antiquitie SECT VI. IT is a kinde of Morosity and Perversnesse in our Opposites to object those Testimonies which have their Answers as it were tongues in their mouthes ready to confute their Objections For Å¿ Chrysost li 3. de Sacerdoâ—â— O miraculum O Dei benignitatem qui cum patre suâ—â—tâ— sedet eodem tempore omniuÌ„ manibus pertractatur Obijcit Bellar lib 2. le Euch. cap. 22 Not considering what went before 〈◊〉 words in the sauâ—e place where â—hrysostâ—â— will not have his heart beleeve that the Priest and people â—â—â—taking doe noâ— in tertis consiâ—st sed ponus in coelum transferrâ— then followeth O miraculâ—â— c. adâ—st enim Sacerdos non ignem gestans sed Spiritum Sanctum Chrysostome saith not more plainly ô Miracle that Christ at one and the same time sitting with his Father in Heaven is heere
your framing a Christ unto your selves who as hee is in this Sacrament Is you say without power of motion of sense and of understanding Why my Masters can there be Lamenesse Blindnesse Deafenesse and Impotencie it selfe without Hurt of the same party so maymed c. This is worse than your dirty imagination of placing him in a Dunghill âšœ A Vindication of the former Truth against the palpably-Absurd albeit amongst you most plausible Defence of your seeming Romish Absurdities in Master Fishers Answer to KING JAMES of Blessed and ever surviving Memory SECT VI. HIs Tractate upon Transubstantiation so greatly magnified of the Romish Professors is very large wee shall draw his principall Points into a Compendium which consisteth of two Generalls and of divers Particulars His two Generalls are his Position and Supposition Master Fisher his Generall Position for Defence of Romish Absurdities the Consequences of your Transubstantiation Numb 1. A Christian Catholike saith he Seeing in the doctrine of Transubstantiation many seeming Absurdities that presse carnall Imaginations to the ground growes more and more strong to believe them imbracing these difficulties as signes of that doctrine which was believed of the Primitive Church And againe The seeming Absurdities should rather incline a Christian to beleeve this mystery Our Reply in Generall to prove that his former Assertion may truly be termed FISHERS FOLLIE For if the Absurder a thing be it shall deserve a more beliefe then the Pagans of whom Tully could say There is nothing so Absurd which is not taught of some Philosopher even to the affirming of Snow to be Blacke should be held to be more faithfull than the best of Christians and Heretikes who have turned their Phantasticall dreames into Articles of Faith should be judged to be more true Beleevers than are true Catholikes And sure wee are that by this Position the Jewish Rabbins who taught the people to beleeve in an implicit Faith all their Doctrines albeit it were to hold his Left hand was his Right should bee esteemed no lesse Faithfull than the Papist who by like Doctrine of blind Obedience have professed that Christ his Bodie being in divers Hoasts taketh the Right hand and left hand of it selfe And by the same Assertion shall Master Fisher thinke himselfe to be a better Catholike than were any of the ancient Fathers or yet any Romish Doctor yea or than is M. Fisher himselfe as will appeare in the sequele of our Reply The second Generall is Master Fisher his Supposition Numb 2. Master Fisher his Supposition is That although the Absurdities which are imputed by Protestants to your Doctrine of Transubstantiation seeme to be such Because they are not apprehensible by reason yet are they therefore saith he the rather to be beleeved notwithstanding whatsoever Impossibilities that can be pretended So hee Our Confutation must be accordingly two-fold The first in respect of Impossibilities and the next of Indignities Our Reply displaying the Absurditie of Master Fishers Supposition in respect of Impossibilities by the Generall Doctrine of Fathers Consent of Romish Divines and by his owne particular Praevarication First the Ancient Fathers of the Primitive age have unanimously professed a Doctrine of an Absolute Impossibility in all such things which imply any Contradiction as you have * See above in this B. 4. cap. 3. Sect. 2. 3. heard and maintaining this Doctrine of granting an Impossibilitie in such Cases to be a Truth greatly magnifying the Omnipotencie and Almighty power of God even by reason of Contradiction in them which is an affirming and denying of the same thing Concluding furthermore that gain-saying of Impossibilitie in things contradictory hath beene anciently The Sanctuary of Heretikes So the holy Fathers Secondly all the Doctors of the Romish Schooles of whatsoever Age Sect Society or Denomination have subscribed to the judgement of those Ancient Fathers in the same point of Impossibilitie but why Impossibility Because say they that such things are unconceivible in mans reason and that they seeme Absurd because of Contradiction And hereupon have concluded of many Impossibilities touching a Body as for example * See above c. 3. Impossible for a Body to be produced in divers places at once Impossible for a quantitie of a Bodie not to possesse a place Impossible for Christs Body as in this Sacrament to goe from one place to another Impossible for the same Bodie to be equall with a greater quantity and many other more Impossibilities have they reckoned upon the same ground that the Reason of man could apprehend nothing in such points but an implication of Contradiction And now all these great pillars of Christianity as well in the Vniversall Church Primitive as in the now Romish must by Master Fishers former Assertion be held to have beene no better than underminers of the Christian Faith in that they did not Rather beleeve those things to be possible even because they seemed Impossible by reason of Contradiction Lastly to come to Master Fisher his owne Praevarication * Mr. Fisher in his Answere to the 〈◊〉 upon the seventh point which is the â—ommunion in both kinds How can the Body of Christ saith hee be without either Blood or Soule unlesse it were dead and so should Christ be massacred in this Sacrament and that Eucharist be a Bloody Sacrifice and Christ glorious in Heaven cannot say truly that a Body voyd of Soule Blood and Sense is his Body Yea as Calvin himselfe confesseth It is an Absurd maner of speech to terme Christ the meere Bodie of Christ So hee Whereupon hee will be found so implicated within the horâ—es of a Dilemma that hee cannot expedite himselfe For say good Master Fisher should a Christian man as you have sayd the rather beleeve a Doctrine because it seemeth to be Absurd wee speake of sensible Objects why then do you not beleeve these Absurdities which you your selfe now do so utterly therefore condemne But do you indeed condemne them because they seeme impossible and Absurd why then have you broached a Doctrine of Rather beleeving things because of their seeming Impossiblities So easie it is for a Patron of Absurdities to prove himselfe notably Absurd Master Fisher his Generall Supposition in respect of Seeming Indignities happening to the Bodie of Christ from the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Numb 3. As hee sayd of Absurdities in respect of Impossibilitie so doth hee also argue from Seeming Indignities condemning Protestants for arguing against Transubstantiation because of Seeming Indignities As in not conceiving Christs Bodie saith hee to be combined unto the Consecrated formes of Bread and not to be polluted with such Indignities and Obscenities So he Our Reply As though no other Indignities might be imputed to Romish Doctrine except it were in such like Cases wherein the Bodie of Christ should receive some Corporall hurt or pollution There were and are amongst the Romish * See Booke 5. cap. 7. Sect. 1. Professors and that no small Babes who have taught a
nobis sit com nuuis nobis in alimentum datuâ— Modus incomprehensibilis VI. Si nos in consesu quem continet Augustana confessio complexos esse dixi non est quod quis me astutiae insimuleâ— Verbulum in ea Confessione qualis Ratisbonae edita fuit non extat doctrinae nostrae con trarium De Philippo Melancthone ejus Authore viro spectatae pietatis dico non magis me à Philippo quà m à proprijs visceribus divelli posse Et quidem non aliter sanctae memoriae Bucerum sensisse luculentis testimonijs probare mihi semper promptum erit Lutherus meae sententiae non ignarus propriâ tamen manu non gravatus est me salutare Quum Marpurgi essem diconciliatio facta est ab eo conventu digressus affirmat codem quo ante loco Oecolampadium Zuinglium habere quos illic fratrum loco posthà c fore sancte pollicitus est Hactenâ—â— Calvinus Him who hath beene most opposed and traduced by your Disputers in this Cause to shew first what hee held not and then what hee held If you shall aske Calvin what he liked not hee will answer you I. I do abhorre your grosse Doctrine of Corporall Presence And II. I have an hundred times disclamed the receiving onely of a Figure in this Sacrament What then did hee hold III. Our Catehisme teacheth saith hee not onely 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 maintaining onely a Figurative perception wee have nothing to do If you further demand what is the Feeding whereby wee are united to Christ's Body in this Sacrament hee tells you IV. that it is Not Carnall but Spirituall and Reall and so Reall that the Soule is as truely 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 maner hee acknowledgeth it to be V. above Reason If further you desire to understand whether hee were not Singular in this opinion hee hath avouched the judgement of other Protestants professing not to dissent one syllable from the VI. Augustane Confession as agreeing with him in judgement herein Accordingly our Church of England in the 28 Article saith that To such as worthily with faith receive this Sacrament The Bread which wee breake is a partaking of the Body of Christ which Body is given taken and eaten in the Supper onely after a spirituall and heavenly maner the meane whereby as Faith That the Body of Christ by this Sacrament was ordayned onely for food to the Christian man's Soule SECT III. WHat need wee seeke into the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers which are many in this Point of Dispute having before us the judgement of your b Summus Salvâ—tor hoc Sacramentum voluit esse tanquam spiritualem animarum cibum quo alamur confortemur viventes vita illius quo dixit Qui mand ucat me c. Concil Trid. Sess 13. ca. 2. Fathers of the Councell of Trent and of your c Sacramento utendum ad alendam animam Catech. Trid. de Euch. num 29. 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 d Decret ex Ambros de mysterijs Corpus Christi est Corpus Spirituale Disâ— 2. ca. In illo Decree The Consonant Doctrine of the Fathers will be found in the last Chapter and last Section of this Fift Booke That the Spirituall feeding and Vnion with Christ's Body is more excellent and Reall than the Corporall Conjunction 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 theréfore called as of ancient e Ambros lib. 5. de Sacram. cap. 4. Fathers even so by your Fathers of f Conc. Trident. Panem illum supersubstantialé frequenter accipiant Sess 13. ca. 8. Trent Supersubstantiall Bread it must necessarily follow that as it is named by Christ * Ioh. 6. 32. 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 Symbals 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 g Alanus alij ex citatis Authoribus dicunt quando reipsa non potest suscipi hoc Sacramentum ad perficiendam hanc unionem sufficere quod hoc Sacramentum in voto suscipiatur quia hoc satis est ut homo fiat membrum Christi vivum uniatur illi Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disp 64. §. 3. p. 824. Satis est si spiritualiter manducatur in voto etiamsi non Sacramentaliter Acoâ—â—a Ies de Indorum Salute lib. 6. cap. 7. Vere Spiritualiter sumunt qui fide tenent sub iltis speciâ—bus verum esse corpus Christi simul ipsum desiderio recipendi ardeant Tolet. Ies Instruct Sacerd. lib. 21 cap. 29. 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 maner of Eating And this you say is To receive Christ his Body truely albeit this be to receive him onely 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 Sâ—â—le of this our Christian Faith CHAP. II. That onely the Godly-faithfull Communicants are Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ and thereby united to Christ in the judgement 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 onely after a Spirituall maner even by faith wherein the wicked and such as are voyd
all the other Touches Your Objected Testimonies are either our of Cyrill talking of bringing our Earthly Bodies by participation of this Sacrament to a 1 Cyril Alex. lib. 4. in Ioh. cap. 14. Vnde ut hoc corpus 〈◊〉 cibo sibi cognato gustu tactu ad immortalitatem reducetur Objected by Bell. lib. 2. de Euchar c. 25. Kin-like Touch of Christ's Bodie or from Saint Chrysostome where speaking of this Sacrament 2 Chrysostome Multi desiderant Videre formam Christi Ipsum vides 〈◊〉 Objected by Doctor Heskins in his Parliament of Christ booke 3. c. 54. out of Chrysostomes Hom. 3 in Ephâ—â— tous Imputâ—s manibus ausus es ipsius Corpus attinge â— Many saith hee desire to see the forme of Christ and here Christ yeeldeth himselfe in this Sacrament not onely to be seene but also to be felt and Touched And this will your Doctors needs inforce upon us for proofe of a Corporall Touch and Consequently a Corporall presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist But do you not see in this Testimony the word See as well as the word Touch and are you now to learne that which you all teach that Christs Body as it is in this Sacrament is altogether Invisible beyond mans Imagination and not to be seene of men no nor yet to be discernd by the very Devills Besides that All mens eyes by Contemplation can avouch it to be nothing lesse than Seene So that the word Seene being so Vnproperly and Figuratively spoken might have given you reason to discerne that hee used the same Impropriety of Phrase in the other word Touch. Yea and Chrysostome himselfe will tell you that hath Rhetoricated as fully in the word Touch when in an Homily hee willed the People 3 Chrysost in Mart. 14 To people that were to be baptized Tenete pedes Salvatoâ—s To hold Christ our Saviour by the feet But what need many words your owne Doctor and Dictator of Romish Profession Aquinas affirmeth also 4 Aquinas part 3. quaest 76. Art 7. Corpus Christi à nullo in hoc Sacramento videri potest corporali oculo quia ibi est per modum substantiae neque accidentia Corporis Christi habent immediatam habitudinem ad hoc Sacramentum neque corpora quae circumstant eum ad modum substantiae quae non subjacet alicui sen sui sed nec etiam imagin itioni sed soli intellectus Imo nec Daemones possunt videre Christum per intellectum ut est in hoc Sacramento That the Body of Christ as it is in this Sacrament is not subject to any sense at all And more particularly for the sense of Touching your Vasquez speaking with Assurance 5 Vasquez Ies in 3. Tho quaest 76. Ant. 7 Disp 191. c. 3. Christus ut est in hoc Sacramento neque alium tangere neque ab allo tangi protest non incerta ratione dicimus Christ saith hee as hee is in this Sacrament can neither touch nor be touched of any thing And your* Schoole againe giveth reasons hereof Therefore can it be no lesse than a blind Boldnesse to urge the word Touch as Properly spoken by these Ancient Fathers which you have learned by your Fathers of the Romish Profession cannot properly agree with the Body of Christ What evasion have you now Forsooth 6 Idem Ibid. quaest 75. Art 2. Disp 180. cap. 9. Tangi dicitur sub pa nis speciebus remote sicut Christus Luc. 8. Quis me tetigit cum tamen nullus ipsum proxime sed tetigit vestem ejus The Cause saith the same Vasquez is as it was with Christ when he sayd Who Toucheth me when men touched him but not immediatly but by Touching his garment So he But soft Sir you your selfe have already affirmed That Christ cannot possibly either Touch or be Touched of any thing in this Sacrament according to the Doctrine of Aquinas who giveth this reason for * See the Testimonie of Aquinas here above cited at 4 That the sense of Touch hath no habitude at all to Christs Body herein not so much as by the Accidents or formes of Bread and Wine neither mediatly nor immediatly which sheweth the Dissimilitude of the Comparison taken from Touching Christs Vestment and thereby his sacred Body which was touched by the same Vestment immediatly and here Touching Christs Body by the Accidents of Bread which you grant do neither Touch Christs Body nor are Touched by it because Christs Body is therein Simply as a Substance without Accidents From the Manuall Touch by Handling wee proceed to the Orall by Eating âšœ CHAP. V. Of the Second Romish Bodily maner of Vnion with Christs Body by Eating That the Second Romish Bodily maner of Vnion with the Body of Christ which is by Orall Eating 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 wil appeare by the Faith of the Church of Rome in the Dayes of Pope Nicholas whose Faith about the yeare 1509. may be best known 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 a Baron An. 1059. num 11. Eodem Anno Concilium celebratum est sub Nicolao secundo Generale Romae in Laterano ad quod reus dicturus causam Berengarius Archidiaconus Andegavens praesente Nicolao coram centum tredecim Episcopis Confessionem jurejurando firmavit Quibus verbis conceptum fuit ejusmodi Berengarij jusjurandum cum in pleno CoÌ„cillo detestatus est errorem fidemque Catholicam professus Ego Berengarius ore corde profiteor me eam fidem tenere quam venerabilis Papa Nicolaus haec sancta Synodus tenendam tradidit Panem vinum post consecrationem non solùm Sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus sanguinem Domini nostri Iesu Christi esse sensualiter non solùm Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri Hoc jusjurandum ab Humbreto Episcopo â—aâ—d scriptum ab ipso Papa universoque Concilio recognitum atque approbatum antea fuerat Haec ex Lanfranco Nicolaus Papa scriptum Iusâ—irandum inisit per omnes urbes Italiae Galliae Germaniae ad quaecunque loca quo fama Berengariâ— pervenire potuit Hactenus Baronius Cardinall Baronius doth certifie you from the Stories of those times Pope Nicholas and a Generall Councel held at Rome revised approved and prescribed to Berengarius to take for the abjuration of his Errour concerning the maner of Eating the Body of Christ and the same Oath was after published by the Popes authority throughout all the Cities of Italy France and Germany and wheresoever the Report of Berengarius should come So hee You cannot now but expect such a forme of an Oath which must be as truly Romish as either Romane Pope or
Romane Councel could devise Marke then the enjoyned tenour of the Oath I Berengarius Archdeacon c. do firmely professe that I hold that Faith which the Reverend P. Nicholas and this holy Synod hath commanded mee to hold to wit That the Body of Christ is in this Sacrament not onely as a Sacrament but even in truth 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 Abjuration is registred in the publike Papall b Ad perpetuam rei memoriam c. Bulla P. ante Gratian. Extat in Decret de Consecrat Dist 2. C. Ego Berengarius Decrees and the Body of these Decrees hath beene lately ratifyed by the Bull of Pope Gregory the thirteenth The same Faith was imbraced afterwarâ—â—â—ds of some c Waldensis Ruardus Scotus sine ulla distinctione has locutiones protulerunt nempe ita contrectari manibus frangi dentibus teri propriè dici de Corpoit Christi dicere visi sunt Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disp 47. Sect. 4. §. Prima quae Schoolemen who without any Distinction used the same Phrase of Tearing with Teeth Secondly of aftertimes your d Quod si corpus Christi in Eucharistia editur certe frangitur dentibusque fidelium teritur utrumque enim cibo quem edimus conjunctum proprium Can. loc Theol. lib. 5. ca. ult sub finem 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 e Tam miro modo corpus Christi connectitur speciebus ut unum ex ambobus fiat Sacramentum Ex hoc sequitur sicut antea per eadem panis ita nunc corpus Christi à nobis contrectari manducari carni nostrae immisceri dentibusque teri hoc vel illo loco vase collocari Quae omnia sive per se sive peâ— Accidens corpori Christi in Sacramento competaÌ„t nihil refert modo certa fide credamus haec tam vere propriae fieri ac dici circa corpus Christi quam si in propria specie esset non minus quam si in ipso panc fiâ—rent non minus quaÌ„ Crucifixio c. attribuuntur Domino Deo in Scriptura propter conjunctam humanitatem in eadeÌ„ Hypostasi Alan Cardin lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 37. pag. 435. Alan It is sayd saith he to be torne with the teeth of the faithfull no lesse properly than if it should be sayd so of the Bread if it were eaten âšœ Flat Contradictory to the Determination of your owne Pope Innocent the third teaching that 1 Innocent lib. 3. de offic Missae cap. 21. Dicamus ergo quod forma panis frangitur â—atteritur sed corpus Christi sumitur comeditur Ea quae notant corruptionem referentes ad formam panis ea vero quae notant acceptionem ad Corpus Christi Not the Body of Christ but the formes of Bread are sayd to be broken because this notifyeth a Corruption meaning of that which seemeth to be Broken and Torne âšœ Yea and your Cardinall g Hoc Concilium Generale fuit Et haec Abjuratio apertissime significat rem à Concilio definitam sub Anathemate nec anathematizantur nisi Haereses damnatae ab Ecclesia Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 21. §. Primum Bellarmine for proofe of Transubstantiation hath recourse unto the same Romane Councel which hee styleth 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 Cursâ— against the Gain-sayers and therefore Hee with his Disciple Master h In his Rejoynd pag. 270. Fisher who also allegeth the same are Challengeable to hold it according to the literall sense thereof because it will not admit 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 Abjuration of Heresie but as i Nullae sunt exactiores formulae loquendi in materia fidei quam eae quibus utuntur ij qui Haeresin abiurant Bellar. lib. 2. de Imag. Sanct. cap. 21. §. Secundo nulla 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 abjure Heresie And Secondly for that this Forme of words of Tearing with the teeth the flesh of Christ was also made purposely for Abjuration and abandoning all Figurative sense for the Defence of the literall Exposition of the words of Christ This is my Body c. therefore was it taken literally But what thinke you will Calvin say to this your then Romish forme of Profession in the literall sense k Calvin lib. 2. Defens Sacram. Nonne centum potius mortes prae optandae sunt quam ut quis tanti Sacrificij monstro se implicet pag. 25. A man should rather wish to die on hundred times saith hee than once to intangle himselfe in a Doctrine so monstrously sacrilegious Which Censure of his wee now endeavour to make good That the foresayd Romane Faith of Properly Eating the Body of Christ is Capernaitically-Hereticall as is proved by some of your owne Doctors of the now Romish Church SECT II. YOu have heard of Berengarius his Abrenuntiation 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 maner an Abrenuntiation of that then Romane faith by denying it to be either properly Broken or yet really Torne even by the Jesuites themselves l Caro Christi dum in hoc Sacramento manducatur non dentibus atteritur quia tangi nequit estque immortalis impartibilis Manducatio autem realis requirit contactum rei edendae ut possit dividi transmutari Quod hic de Corpore Christi fieri nequit Salmeâ—on Ies Tom. 9. Tract 20. pag. 136 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 teeth or touched by them that eat him because hee is herein impartible So hee Your Jesuite and Cardinall Bellarmine is as it were in a maze saying and gain-saying as you may perceive yet notwithstanding whether hee will or no must perforce confesse no lesse when hee saith that m Si de ratione manducâ—tionis esset attritio dentibus facta Dico Christi corpus vere proprie manducati etiam corpore in Eucharistia non quod attritio est necessaria ad manducationem satis est enim transmissio in stomachum deglutâ—endo Sin verò attritio dentibus facta sit de ratione manducationis Dico Christi Corpus proprie manducari non tropice non enim dicimus
meant not to say that Christs flesh is eaten Tropically inrespect of an Essentiall Eating wherein is required onely that True meat be let downe from the mouth into the stomacke by vitall Instruments but called it a Tropicall Eating in respect of your ordinary and proper maner of Eating by a visible dividing of Christs flesh into parts and morsells and that it be sod and not raw But Christs flesh in the Eucharist is received whole invisibly and without any hurt by which maner of Eating wee represent the Passion of Christ which is thus proved because First It is no hainous sinne to eat Christs flesh Spiritually and without hurting it and Secondly because Saint Auigustine understandeth by an Hainous offence the Capernaiticall maner of eating thereof namely by Tearing it in pieces So hee Wee must take this whole Answer in pieces for Confutation of each particular point lest otherwise a Generall and Briefe Answer might breed Obscurity Your Cardinall thinketh to evade by multiplicity of Distinctions Ob. 1. Hee meant not Eating with Teeth but a passing of it from the Mouth into the Stomacke Sol. This is False because the Apostles in their receiving of it did use Chewing your owne Jesuite Suarez confessing that the Sacramentall Bread in Christ's time was * See Booke 1. cap. 2. §. 2. Glutinosus And that this maner of Tearing with Teeth had beene continued many Ages in the Church of Rome as also used among some of your Church at this day as hath beene * See above Cap. 5. Sect. 4. proved And lastly that Saint Augustine himselfe meant Eating by Tearing with Teeth who as the 4 Bellar lib. 1. de Euch. Cap. 7. Qui manducat corde non qui premit dente c. Vbi de Sacramento loquitur non qui premit dente nimirùm solo Cardinall himselfe confesseth mentioneth the * See above Cap 5. Sect. 5. Pressing of the Sacrament with Teeth Secondly Ob. But the maner of Tearing saith hee is not essentiall to eating but onely the pressing of it downe into the Stomacke So hee Sol. Notwithstanding Pope Nicolas in his Romane Councell expresly required the Sensible Tearing of Christs flesh as hath beene shewed * See above Cap. 5. Sect. 5. whereof you have also heard your Iesuite * See above Cap. 5. Sect. 2. Salmeron confesse saying that Proper Eating requireth a Proper Tearing even as your Cardinall himselfe calling Eating by Dividing into Parts a Proper maner of Eating Ob. 3. Augustine spoke of a visible Eating of Christ and not as ours is Invisible Sol. As if a blinde man could not eat meat as perfectly as he that seeth Ob. 4. But Saint Augustine understood Christs flesh Sod and not Raw. Sol. As though the Eating of mans flesh Raw or Sod could distinguish a Canniball Ob. 5. But Saint Augustine spake of Eating Christs flesh with hurting him which appeareth by this that hee called the maner of Eating which hee spake of an Hainous offence Sol. As though your * See above Booke 4. Cap. 10 Sect. 5. Aquinas had not as well judged it an Hainous offence to put Christ in a Boxe appearing in his visible shape notwithstanding Christs No-sensible-heart thereby Ob. 6. But he spake against the Capernaiticall maner of Eating which was Tearing it in pieces and requireth a Spirituall order in eating and ours is Spirituall Sol. First as if your Eating were not Capernaiticall in any degree which is False Because as the Capernaites interpreted Christs words in a literall sense of Eating it perfectly so did they also conceive a Reall Swallowing of it after it had beene Eaten And doth not your Cardinall plead here wholly for Swallowing of Christs Body or hath not also your Iesuite Coster defined Devouring to be a Swallowing of meat without Mastication or Tearing Or can you deny but the Primitive * See before in this Chap. 6. Fathers Detested the very conceipt of Devouring Christs flesh And Secondly where Saint Augustine opposeth Carnal maner of Eating to the Spirituall could hee possibly meane your Romish kind which you professe to be a taking it into your Mouths and by your Corporall Swallowing and Transmitting through the Throat into your Stomack whether Visibly or Invisibly whether Sod or Raw No no nothing lesse but the flat Contrary a meere Spirituall maner of Communicating of Christs passion saith hee and by * See 〈…〉 Sweetly recording in our memories his flesh once crucifyed for us Establishing this latter Eating with Minde and Heart that hee might exclude the other of Eating with Mouth and Teeth âšœ CHAP. VII The Fourth Corporall maner 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 Iesuit reporting that a Multi Catholici his temporibus in odium Haeresis veram praesentiam corporis Christ in hoc Sacramento Sumptione ejus fieri unionem inter Corpus Christi suscipientem quam realâ—m naturalem substantâ—dem atquè eâ—am corporalem vocant Sic Algerus Turrecremata Rossensis Hosius Turrianus Bellarminus Alanus Suarez Ies Tom 3 qu. 79. Disp 64. Sect. 3. Many latter Divines in your Church have beene authorized in these dayes to write labouring to bring the Romane Faith to so high a pitch as to perswade a b Denique Recentiores omnes qui de hoc Sacramento contra Haereticos scribunt hoc fere modo loquuntur Suarez in 3. Tho. Disp 64. §. 3. pag. 822. Reall Naturall Corporall and Substantiall Vnion of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants even almost all of late saith hee who have written against Heretickes So hee Among others wee find your Cardinall c Card. Alan Cùm comedimus Eucharistiam corpore Christi vere vescimur ex qua manducatione per naturae instrumenta realâ—â—â— recipitur intra nos atque substantiae nostrae permiscetur sicut caeteri cibi nisi quod mutationem in carnem nostram non patiatur De Euch. lib. 1. cap. 28. Alan who will have it â—eally mingled with our flesh as other meats Transubstantiation onely excepted as did also Cardinall d Feâ—tur Mendozam Cardinalem Burgensem in lib. quem de unione scripsit docuisse Christum Sacramentaliter manduâ—atum non solum fieri praesentem in loco quem species possent Sacramentaliter occupare sed quod immodo duâ—â—undi per totum corpus hominis ut toti illi in omnibus ejus partibus uniatur seque illis immisceat sed haec cogitatio non solum improbabilis sed etiam absurda plusquam temeraria est Suarez quo supr pag. 822. Mendoza And what else can that sound which wee have heard out of your Roman * See above Chap. 6. §. 2. Missall praying that the Body of Christ eaten may cleave unto your Guts just Manichean-wise as you have heard even now out of Saint Augustine âšœ And it may be you have Faith also to believe
doubt which are spoken onely by way of a Metaphoricall Similitude thus As to that which as it were hath Life thereby implying that it is in it selfe without Life as both your Billius the Translator of Nazianzen and Nicetas his Commentator and Expositor and lastly Nazianzen himselfe will manifest I. Billius being hee whom the Romish Seducer himselfe hath attested and whom wee now assume for our Proctor translateth Nazianzen's words thus 11 Billius in Orat. 42. Nazianz. To enim quasi vitâ praeditum alloquar For I will speake unto thee even as having Life or to that which as it were hath Life Wee demand then would any but an Anti-Christian say of Christ that he is but a Quasi one who as it were hath Life Secondly Nicetas Metropolitane of Heraclea is a professed and privileged Expositor of Nazianzen him wee desire to be our Advocate in this Cause 12 Nicetas in locum ipsum Nazianz. O Pascha magnum sacrum Pascha c. Haec verba Nazianzeni ad Festum ipsum perinde ac vitâ praeditum refert These words of Nazianzen ô great Pascha I say ô sacred Pascha Nazianzen saith hee referreth unto the Feast it selfe as if it were indued with Life So hee Do you not see how the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is As it were having Life compelled this learned Bishop to expound the words of Nazianzen as meant properly of The Feast it selfe called in Greeke and Latine Pascha and by us Pace or Easter and not to the Eucharist which was that my Conclusion against which the Romish Seducer hath revelled and thereupon in a maner reviled me to make me a Falsificator like himselfe Lastly Nazianzen is hee whom wee reserve for our Patron in this Cause The subject matter of the whole Oration of Nazianzen now mentioned is as all know that have read it the Celebration of the Great and holy Feast of Easter of the which Feast some few lines after his entrance into his Oration hee hath these words Pascha of the Lord Pascha and in honour of the Trinity I say the third time Pascha This is the Feast of Feasts and Celebrity of Celebrities expresly speaking not of Christ the Lord nor of the Eucharist but of that which hee calleth The Feast of Feasts namely that which hee as expresly named The Pascha of the Lord which words in the beginning of Nazianzen's Oration most harmoniously accord unto his words now controverted in the end of the same Oration with Ecchoing as it were to the Former saith ô great and holy Pascha namely in respect of the same Pascha the Feast of Feasts and Celebritie of Celebrities But this Romish Seducer never considering these Premises peremptorily posteth on objecting onely the words of Nazianzen immediately following which unto a Cursory Reader might seeme to make for him some shew of Confutation for thus hee proceeds ô word of God and Light and Life and Wisedome and Power for I am delighted with all thy names c. Which words we confesse are spoken of Christ and not of the Feast whereupon your Seducer concludeth that the former words ô Pascha refer likewise to Christ Which his Erroneous conceipt hath beene long since confuted by the forenamed Bishop Nicetas expresly affirming of these words that They were spoken of the * See above a◠12 Feast and these last words ô Word of God and Light c. are spoken indeed to Christ the spirituall Pascha But how by Invocation no but by Acclamation saith hee nothing being more Familiar to Orators than to use Apostrophe's by Transition from the Signe to the Thing signified as here from the Signe which was Christ's day of Resurrection to the Contemplation of the person risen againe Notwithstanding were it that this had beene an Invocation of Christ yet except it had beene an Invocation of him as hee was then in the Eucharist it maketh nothing at all for Bellarmines Conclusion which was thus Ergò Christ is corporally is this Sacrament and to be Divinely adored therin By all which you may clearly discern the true meaning of the first objected Author Dionysius from his Expositor Pachymeres II. The Iudgement of Pachymeres by his Reference to the Sentence of Gregory Nazianzen III. The exact Vnderstanding of Gregory Nazianzen by the Commentarie of the Bishop Nicetas And IV. the truth of that Commentarie by the Tenor of Nazianzen's Oration it selfe as you have heard and consequently that there is still just Cause for us to exclaime both against the Sophistry of your Bellarmine and rashnesse and impotencie if not impudencie rather of this frivolous Seducer and Calumniator ⚜ CHAP. IV. That the Divine Adoration of the Sacrament is thrice Repugnant to the Iudgement of Antiquity First by their Silence SECT I. YOu are not to require of us that wee 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 subtile and skilfull Miners digging and searching into all the Volumes of Antiquity which have beene extant in the Christian world for the space of sixe 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 neverthelesse have your Disputers not spared to call such their Objections Cleare Arguments piercing and unsoluble Wee therfore make bold hereupon to knocke at the Consistory doore of the Conscience of every man indued with any small glimpse of Reason and to entreat him for Christs sake whose Cause it is to judge betweene Rome and Vs after hee hath heard the case which standeth thus Divine Adoration of the Host is held to be in the Romish Profession the principall practicke 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 and 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 belonging unto it many of the same Holy Fathers sealing that their Christian profession with their Blood It is now referred to the Iudgement of every man whether it can fall within his capacity to thinke it Credible that those Fathers if they had beene of the now Romish Faith would not have expresly delivered concerning the due Worship of this Sacrament this one word consisting but of two syllables viz.
peccâsset in Christum sicetiam contra qui panem eundem adorat quòd certo credat non este panem sed ChristuÌ„ is propriè formaliter Christum adorat non panem Lib. 4 de Euchar. cap. 30. Vbi quis simpliciter adorans SacramentuÌ„ non consecratum est actus Latriae actus moraliter bonus procedens ex motivo honesto Sicut quando quis dat Eleemosynam homini petenti nomine Christi ex misericordia infusa operatur si prudenter existimaverit illum esse pauperem quamvis speculativè decipi contingat Suarez Ies Tom. 3. qu. 79. Art 8. Disp 65. pag. 829. col 1. Omnis fidelis rectè adorans hostiam consecratam adorat sub eâ conditione si perfecta sunt circa ipsam ea quae ad Consecrationem sunt necessaria secundùm divinam institutionem sic nunquam decipitur neque errat Bonavent in 3. Dist 24. Art 1. quaest â— ad ult Teste Suarez quo supra pag. 828. And in them who require it Actuall albeit Tacitam Azor. Ies reckoneth from Gabriel in Can. Missae Thom. Bonavent Albert. Richard yea and Canonistas Theologos excepting Cajetan Hassel Claud. Sainctes qui simpliciter sine conditione adorandum monent Azor. Instit Tom. 1. lib. 9. cap. 9. §. Decimo Dicendum est quod per se loquendo ac seclusis specialibus circumstantijs per Accidens occurrentibus absolutè adorandum esse hoc Sacramentum nullâ in actu appositâ conditione Ita sentit D. Thom. in 3. Dist 9. quaest 1. Art 2. q. 6. ad 2. ubi solùm dicit non requiri conditionem explicitam sed satis esse si habitu retineatur Habitu autem illam retineri nihil aliud esse videtur nisi mente animo habere intentionem adorandi verum Christum verumque Sacramentum non adhibendi adorationem nisi cum hac pendenti existimatione In eadem sententia est Richardus ubi inquit licet fides credit Christum esse sub speciebus sub conditione si omnia sunt facta quae ad consecrandum sunt necessaria tamen ad adorandum non oportere ut fideles hanc conditionem adhibeant in actuali cogitatione Idem Gabriel Marsil communiter Summistae verbo Adoratio Ità Suarez Tom. 3. quaest 79. Art 8. Disp 6â— pag. 828. col 2. Nihil obfuit Iacob cum Laban sibi ignoranti pro Rachel in concubitu substituerit Leam quia bonâ fide se cum propria uxore dormire putaret Ita non est Artolatra qui adorat Christum in pane non consecrato quem bonâ fide putat consecratum c. Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 33. pag. 181. Although say they in the Margin there be no true Consecration by reason of divers Defects yet in him who upon a Morall certainty with a sincere mind and good intention doth adore Bread it is but Materiall and no Formall Idolatry so that hee have an Habituall condition as being so disposed in his mind not to give a Divine honour unto it if hee knew it to be but Bread As for Example Hee that giveth an Almes to a Rich man being probably perswaded that hee is not rich the Act proceedeth from a pious Intention And As it was no Sin in Iacob to lye with Leah because hee 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 herein 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 Iealousie 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 mens 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 b Ego sum Deus tuus fortis zelôtes Exod. 20. 5. Dicitur Deus Zelôtes id est zelum tenens zelus autem est amor privatus nolens habere consortium in amato Et sic viri dicuntur habere zelum de uxoribus suis quia volunt quòd uxores suae solos illos ament solis illis copulentur Sic etiam Deus volebat quòd Idaei eam solum colerent eum ut Deum cognoscerent quando alius coleretur ut Deus dolebat tanquam si vir videat uxorem suam amantem alium virum Et sicut cùm mulier alteri quà m viro suo copulatur fornicari dicitur ita qui alterum quà m verum Deum colebat fornicari dicebatur in Scriptura cum Dijs alienis Abulens in Exod. 20. pag. 273 col 2. you know that Hee will not indure any consort 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 hee becometh 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 wee honour as God as it is written Hee that cometh to God must believe 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 Hypostasis of things not seene Heb. 11. That is to take your c Graeci optimè interpretantur Hypostasin per substantiam quia fides essicit ut ea quae credit non minùs certa habeamus quà m si subsisterent Ribera Ies Com. in Heb. 11. pag. 514. owne Comment Faith â—aketh those things which are believed no lesse certaine than if they did subsist whereby wee are taught both the nature and necessitie of Faith in Divine Worship But Morall and Conjecturall Certainty is not an Hypostasis which implieth an Infallibilitie of Truth but an Hypothesis and supposition of that which may be otherwise and hath in it nothing but Vncertainty at all of which more * Chap. 9. Sect. 4. hereafter Thirdly God himselfe commandeth his People by his Prophet saying Thou shalt worship mee and in * Septuagiots Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shalt sweare by my Name Swearing then is an Adoration by Invocating of God and his owne peculiar Prerogative Hearken now By this Law of God none
to deserve death shall equally satisfie it after hee shall be sorry for his offence and love him and promise amendment will any affirme if the nature of the thing bee duly considered that the Prince is bound to be aswell pleased with the griefe of that man for his offence proceeding from love as hee was offended at the injurie and that hee ought not to punish him nay but the man hath deserved to lose both Land and Life although hee be a thousand times sorry for his offence much lesse possible is it for man to returne an equall Compensation unto God So hee which sheweth sufficiently that there is a Disproportion of Contraries in their divers respects ⚜ CHALLENGE DO you not perceive what a patched Cloake of Sophistry your Cardinall cast upon your Good Intent in your Adoration to cover the filthinesse thereof if it might be and how by another Position hee rent the same in pieces when hee had done Againe you stand thus farre furthermore condemnable in your selves in this Point whilest as you seeke to free your Adoration from Idolatry by Pretence of a Good Intent and notwithstanding hold a Good Intention not to be sufficient thereunto except it be qualified and formed with an Habituall Condition which is your Third and last Pretence as fond and false as either of the former whereof hereafter That the Third Romish Pretence of an Habituall Condition in the Worshipper excuseth him not from formall Idolatry proved first by Scripture SECT IV. HAbituall Condition you have interpreted to stand thus * See above Sect. 1. at the letter a ad finem If hee that chanceth to worship onely Bread be in that Act so disposed in himselfe that hee would not worship the same Bread as Christ if hee knew it were but Bread and not Christ and by this you teach that the Act which you call a Materiall Idolatry is made not onely excusable but your * Ibid. owne words honest and commendable also So you What execrable Doctrine is this that wee heare which cannot be justifiable except you will justifie the Murtherers of the members of Christ and of Christ himselfe First of the members of Christ wee reade of one Saul afterwards Paul breathing out threatnings and slanders against them Act. 9. 1. and persecuting the Church 1. Cor. 15. 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 hee had then as afterwards knowne Christ to have beene the Lord of life and those murthered Christians to have beene his mysticall Members hee 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 * Acts 9. 5. Who are thou Lord next by his detestation of his Fact * 1. Cor. 15 9. I am unworthy to be called an Apostle because I persecuted the Church c. then by his Acknowledgement of Gods especiall mercie * 2. Tim. 1. 13. But God had mercie on mee Afterwards by his Labour for winning soules to the Faith I have laboured more abundantly than they all And lastly in that hee was one of those Actors of whom Christ himselfe foretold saying * Ioh. 16. 2. They shall draw you before Iudgement seats and when they shall persecute you they will thinke that they do God good service Which also plainly argueth that their and his perswasion of so doing proceded from a Morall Certainty Good Intent and Habituall Condition From these Members let us ascend to our Head Christ the Lord of Glory what thinke you of the Iewes of whom Saint Peter sayd You have murthered the Prince of life Act. 3. 15. But did they this Voluntarily and knowingly as understanding him to have beene the Redeemer of the world and indeed the Prince of life they did not for the same Apostle testifyeth 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 do Luk. 23. 24. 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 minds if they had understood what Christ was to have abhorred that so heinous a guilt of the death of the Sonne of God questionlesse for so saith the Apostle If they had knowne they would not have crucifyed the Lord of Glory 1. Cor. 2. 8. Wee 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 knowne him were neverthelesse by Saint Peter condemned yea and of themselves as Formall and verily Murtherers of Christ then ô you Romish worshippers of the Host 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 * Prov. 30. 20. Shee eateth and wipeth her mouth saying I have done no wickednesse so may wee say of Idolatrous Worshippers and their Proctors for what else are these your three Romish Pretences but like such mouth-wipes or as Anodyna and stupifying Medicines which take away the Sense of the diseased person but do not cure the disease So do you delude miserable people with false Pretences lest they discerning the grosnesse and ouglinesse of your Idolatry might abhorre 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 lived within Six or 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 anyone 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 wee judge that they never gave Assent to this your Sorcery For wee 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
Scriptures According to the sense of the Church of Rome which would thereby be thought to Hold no Sense of Scripture now which shee had not Held in more Ancient Times Wee for Triall hereof shall for this present seeke after no other Instances than such as in this Treatise have beene discussed and for brevity-sake single out of many but onely Three A first is in that Scripture Ioh. 6. Except you eate the flesh of the Son 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 b Booke 1. Ch. 2. Sect. â—1 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 Luk. 22. Take Eate c. Your Church of Rome in the dayes of Pope Nicholas in a Councel at Rome Held that by the word Eate was meant an c Booke 3. Chap. 5. Sect. 1. Eating by Tearing the Body of Christ sensually with mens teeth in a Literall sense Which your now Romane Church if wee may believe 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 d Booke 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 7. 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 onely lawfull but also religious to with-hold the Cup from all but onely Consecrating Priests Vpon these omitting other Scriptures which you your selves may observe at your best leasure wee 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 Woolfe 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 a Bulla ead Nec Scripturam ullam nisi juxtà unanimem Consensum Patrum interpretabor 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 Councel where the major part of voices conclude the lesse for Councel 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 wee presse not too violently upon you wee 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 insomuch that you your selves are at difference among your selves which part to side with b Valent. Ies Anal. lib. 8. cap. 8. Patet nobis via urgendi unum aut alterum Doctorem authoritate reliquorum With the greater saith Valentia nay but sometime with the c Canus Ioc. Theol. lib. 7. cap. 3. num 8. Plurium Sanctorum authoritas reliquis licet paucioribus reclamantibus firma Argumenta sufficere praestare non valet 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 d Valent. quo supra Quod si per Sententiam Doctorum aliqua fidei controversia non satis commodè componi posset eo quod de eorum consensu non satis constaret sua tunc constet Authoritas Pontifici ut consultis aliis ad definiendum regulis de quibus est dictum Ecclesiae proponat quid sit sentiendum Iesuite the Authority of the Pope is to take place who being guided by other rules may propound what is the Sense Behold here the very ground of that which wee call Popery which is devising and obtruding upon the Church of Christ new Articles of Faith unknowne for ought you know to Ancient Fathers And is it possible to find an Vnanimity of Consent in an Individuall Vnity or rather a Nullity for what else is an Ignorance what the Sense 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 do patronize your Romish Cause Wee 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 e Bellar. Epist Dedic Paulo Quinto entè CoÌ„ment in Psal Psalmorum ego tractationeÌ„ magis propriâ meditatione quam mulâ—â librorum lectione composui Rather by his owne meditation than by reading of many Bookes whereas hee 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 rejecting the Expositions of the Fathers as for Example f Maldon Ies in Matth. 20. Existimant Patres filios Zebedaei temerè respondisse ego vero credo eos verè esse locutos Item in Mat. 16. 18. Non praevalebunt Quorum verborum sensus non videtur mihi esse queÌ„ omnes praeter Hilarium quos legisse memini Authores putant IteÌ„ in Mat. 11. 11. Variae sunt PatruÌ„ opiniones sed ut liberè fatear in nulla earum aquiesco Item in Matth. 11. 13. Prophetae lex Omnes fere veteres ita exponunt sed non est apta satis interpretatio Item in Mat. 19. 11. Non omnes capiunt i e non omnes capimus Sic omnes fere veteres exponunt quibus equidem non assentior Item in Ioh. 6. 62. Sic quidem expono licet Expositionis hujus Autorem nullum habeo hanc tamen magis probo quaÌ„ illam Augustini caeterorumque alioqui probabilissimam quia hoc cum CALVINISTARUM sensu magis pugnat So indeed said the Fathers but I believe the Contrary Item This
by Prayer pag. 10. He is against the Romish Custome of Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist pag. 46. His calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype noteth a Figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body pag. 115. His naming the Eucharist Divine Sacrament as hee did Divine Altar Divine Bread Divine Table c. pag. 185. Is against the Comparison of the Inapprehensiblenesse of other things in respect of the nature of God pag. 297. His Testimonie for Veneration at Elevation notably corrupted by Dâ—â—â—ntus pag. 513. His O Divine Sacrament reveale unto us c. properly objected for proofe of Divine Adoration of the Eucharist p. 518. DISPENCE the blasphemous Romish Dispensation against Christs command of Communion in both kinds pag. 87. DISTINCTION of Consecration one of Ordination and another of Benediction pag 14. A Distinction of the Presence of Christs Body as a Sacrifice namely as an Object and not as a Subject of the Celebration pag. 440. DIVINE This word applyed anciently by Dionys the Areop to divine and consecrative things p. 185. pag. 518. DOCTRINALL words may be Figurative pag. 134. DOMINVS VOBISCVM in the Romish Masse condemneth the now Romish Private Masse p. 19. DRAVGHT That which is eaten if it enter into the Mouth it is said to passe into the Draught by the Councell of Nice and Toledo pag. 305. By Origen pag. 287. 340. But the Body of Christ is denied to passe into the Draught by Chrysostome and Cyril of Alex pag. 287. 349. 350. Ambros Not into the Belly Ibid. pag. 350. DRINKE YOV ALL OF THIS not spoken of the Priest onely pag. 54. Drinke in Christs words of Institution to be taken Tropically as meant of his Blood pag. 111. E EATERS onely and not Gazers were Anciently admitted to the Eucharist pag. 46. 47. Eating and Drinking are both required of all Communicants for a Sacramentall Refection Confessed against Communicating in one kind pag. 74. 75. Eate in Christs speech of Institution taken Figuratively pag. 111. Eating Christs flesh onely in Vow and Desire pag. 311. in the judgement of Protestants Ibid. Onely Godly and Faithfull are Partakers of Christs Flesh pag. 311. 312. They of the Old Testament ate Christs Flesh pag. 314. Eating onely is Capernaiticall pag. 328. How the wicked Communicants are Guilty pag. 315. Eating with the Mouth delivered in the Church of Rome in the dayes of Poge Nicholas was professedly Capernaiticall pag. 335. Eating Christs Body properly taken is condemned of ancient Fathers p. 349. Eating it Capernaitically by tearing with teeth was taught as an Article of Faith by Pope Nicholas pag. 335. which is yet defended by some Romanists Ibid. Which is against the Faith taught by Pope Innocent pag. 336. That Pope Nicholas his doctrine is Capernaitically haereticall 337. That the maner of the eating of Christs Body in the Church of Rome is yet as faithlesse amongst themselves p. 336. 337. Romish Objections out of the Fathers most unconscionably urged for proofe of a corporall eating as is proved by the Fathers themselves pag 349. 350. 351. And out of other confessions of the Romish Disputers themselves pag. 352. Against either Presence Touching Tasting Breaking Eating of Christs flesh or sprinkling of his Blood p. 353. Vnion with Christs Body by a bodily commixture is Capernaitically Romish pag. 355. See Vnion See Orall See Capernaits See Swallowing ELEVATION of the Hoast objected for adoration of it p. 513. Confessed not to have bin Instituted by Christ and not to have bin alwayes in use p. 513 Elevation of the Chalice not before the dayes of Tho. Aquinas Ibid. EVPHRAIMIVS proveth first that Bread is called Christs Body figuratively and that the Substance of Bread remaineth p 187. EPIPHANIVS Objected most impertinently for the proper sense of Christs speech Hoc est Corpus p. 120. And againe p. 491. Hee expoundeth the fruit of the Vine to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine p. 163. He standeth for Christs bodily opening the Cell of the Blessed Virgin at his birth 277. EPITHETS of Sacrifice attributed by the Fathers to the Eucharist Objected although ascribed to things that are not properly called Sacrifices p. 448. 449. c. ERROVR Pretense of Not-erring the cause of the Romish Errour in continuing the witholding the Cup from the Laity pag. 78. 79. c. EST in the speech of Christ Hoc est Corpus See Figurative EVCHARIST The Remainders hereof after the Consecration were anciently given to Children p. 48. 49. c. Called anciently the Supper of the Lord. p. 47. Anciently burned p. 48 287. They are Symbols of our Resurrection p. 307. It is food onely for the soule pag. 309. 310. 311. c. EVCHERIVS Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine that is the Body and Blood of Christ p. 405. EVSEEIVS by calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype yeeldeth to a Figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body pag. 115. His words Bread is the Body of Christ Objected pag. 201. Hee taught the blessed Virgins opening her Cell and is against Heretikes that denied the truth of his body p. 278. Hee is objected for the Romish Exposition of the word Sacrifice Malachie 5. and confuteth the Objector p. 432. His saying The same Sacrifice with this correction or rather a Remebrance thereof p. 443. His saying A Sacrifice full of God objected pag. 448. and Vindicated 449 Holy Prayers are Incorporeall Vnderstanding Sacrifices 449. and calling Actions that are Godly a pure Sacrifice and opposeth them to a Bloody Sacrifice p. 453. That wee have Expiation here in the Eucharist by the Blood of Christ as remembred herein p. 478. which is objectively EVSEBIVS EMISSENVS saith that Christs Body is a bloody Sacrifice and slaine in the Eucharist p. 445. Hee is calumniously objected pag. 449. That Melchisedech as Christ offered Bread and Wine p. 405. EVTHYMIVS expoundeth the fruit of the Vine Matth. 26. 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine pag. 163. EXPOSITIONS of Scripture according to the unanimous consent of ancient Fathers falsely pretended and perjuriously transgressed by Romish Disputers p. 576. 577. c. Exposition of Scripture according to the Tenet of the Church of Rome perjuriously sworne unto Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Iuge Sacrificium not rightly applied to the Romish Masse pag. 418. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 22. 20. The word objected and discussed p. 363. c. F FACVNDVS teacheth a Figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body as plainely as any Protestant p. 128. FAITH Infallible required in every divine worship p. 535. c. FIGVRATIVE speech of Christ in the word Hoc which without absurditie can neither referre to Christs Body as is confessed p. 93. Nor to any Individuum vagum p. 96. The same Pronoune Hoc as demonstrating Bread cannot possibly be without a Figure Confessed p. 99. That Hoc demonstrateth Bread is proved by the Text and is to be taken Neutrally according to Grammar p. 100. 101. c. Proved to