Fathers have declared what could these holy Fathers have thought of your Barbarous or rather Brutish faith that teacheth such a Corporall Vnion by a bodily Touch and Eating whereby according to your owne Doctrine Rats Wormes and Dogges and whatsoever vile beast may be as reall partakers of the bodie of Christ as Peter or Iohn or whosoever the essentiall member of Christ Wherefore you must suffer us to reason aswell against your Corporall Coniunction by bodily Touch as Many of your Divines have done against bodily Vnion by coniunction and commixture but why even Because the Sacrament was not ordained for a bodily but for a spirituall Coniunction So they So that wee need say no more but fore-seeing what you will obiect we adde the Propositions following CHAP. III. That wicked Communicants albeit they eate not bodily Christ's Bodie yet are they Guilty of the Lords Bodie for not receiving it spiritually namely thorow their Contempt for not receiving the Blessing offered thereby SECT I. THe Apostle 1. Cor. 11. 27. Whosoever saith hee Eateth this Bread and Drinketh this Cup unworthily he shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord And Vers 29. eateth and drinketh Damnation to himselfe not discerning the Lord's Bodie Your Rhemish Professors men not the least zealous for your Romish Cause obiecting this against the Protestants call upon you saying first Hereupon marke well that ill men receive the Body and Blood of Christ be they Infidels or ill livers for else they could not be guilty of that which they receive not Secondly That it could not be so hainous an offence for any to receive a piece of bread or a cup of wine though they were a true Sacrament for it is a deadly sinne for any to receive any Sacrament with will and intention to continue in sinne or without repentance of former sinnes but yet by the unworthy receiving of no other Sacrament is man made guilty of Christ's Bodie and Blood but here where the unworthy Receiver as Saint Chrysostome saith doth villany to Christ's owne person as the Iewes and Gentiles did that crucified him Which invincibly proveth against the Heretikes that Christ is herein really present And guilty is he for not discerning the Lord's Body that is because hee putteth no difference betweene this high meate and others So your Rhemists Your Cardinall also as though he had found herein something for his purpose fastneth upon the sentence of Cyprian who accounted them that after their deniall of Christ presented themselves to this Communion without repentance to offer more iniurie to Christ by their polluted handes and mouthes than they did in denying Christ and besides he recordeth Examples of God's miraculous vengeance upon those who violated the body of Christ in this Sacrament So hee All these points are reducible unto three heads One is that ill men might not be held guiltie of the Body of Christ except they did receive it as being materially present in this Sacrament Next is the Guilt of prophaning this Sacrament which being more hainous than the abuse of any other Sacrament therefore the iniury is to be iudged more personall The last that the Examples of God's vindicative Iudgements for Contempt hereof have beene more extraordinary which may seeme to be a Confirmation of both the former Before we handle these points in order take our next Position for a Directory to that which shall be answered in the VI. Section That some Fathers understood the Apostles words 1. Cor. 10. spiritually namely as signifying the Eating of Christ's Flesh and drinking his Blood both in the Old Testament and in the Newe SECT II. VPon those words of the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. v. 4. They ate of the same spirituall meate c. The Iewes received the same spirituall meate saith S. Augustine Yea saith your Cardinall the Iewes received the same among themselves but not the same with us Christians So hee Albeit the words of Augustine are plainly thus The same which we eat so plainly that divers of your own side doe so directly and truely acknowledge it that your Iesuite Maldonate not able to gain-say this Trueth pleaseth himselfe notwithstanding in fancying that If August were alive in this Age he would think otherwise especially perceiving Hereticall Calvinists and Calvin himselfe to be of his opinion So hee Was it not great pitty that Augustine was not brought up in the Schoole of the Iesuites surely they would have taught him the Article of Transubstantiation of the Corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament and Corporall Vnion against all which there could not be a greater Adversarie than was Augustine whom Maldonate here noteth to have beene the Greatest Enemie to all Heretickes whom Bertram followed in the same Exposition and by your leave so did your Aquinas also The same saith he which wee eate Thus much by the way Wee goe on to our Answeres That the wicked Receivers are called Guiltie of Christ's Bodie not for Eating of his Body unworthily but for unworthily Eating the Sacrament thereof SECT III. THe Distinction used by St. Augustine hath bene alwayes as generally acknowledged as knowne wherein hee will have us to discerne in the Eucharist the Sacrament from the thing represented and exhibited thereby Of the Sacrament hee saith that It is received of some to life and of some to destruction but the thing it selfe saith hee is received of None but to Salvation So hee No Protestant could speake more directly or conclusively for proofe First That in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Body of Christ is as well tendred to the wicked as to the Godly Secondly that the wicked for want of a living Faith have no hand to receiue it Thirdly that their not preparing themselves to a due receiving of it is a Contempt of Christ his Body and Blood Fourthly and Consequently that it worketh the iudgement of Guiltines upon them All which both the Evidence of Scripture and consent of Antiquity doe notably confirme For the Text obiected doth clearely confute your Romish Consequence because S. Paul's words are not Hee that eateth the Body of Christ and drinketh his Blood unworthily is guilty of his Body and Blood but Hee that eateth the Bread and drinketh the Cupp of the Lord unworthily c. which we have proved throughout the 2. Booke to signifie Bread and Wine the signes and Sacraments of his Body and Blood after Consecration And to come to Antiquity All the Fathers above cited Ch. 1. § 6. who denyed that the wicked Communicants are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ albeit knowing as well as you that all such unworthy Receivers are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ have thereby sufficiently confuted your Consequence which was that because the wicked are Guilty of Christ's bodie Ergò his Body is Corporally present in them But we pursue you yet further That a Guiltines of Contempt of Christ's Body and
Custome of the Church Catholique and that without respect had to the due Honour of God in his worship or Comfort and Edification of his People And then is Superstition most bewitching when it is disguised under the feigned vizard of false Pretences which have beene many devised by the new Church of Rome in an opinion of her owne wisdome to the befooling and vilifying of the Antient Cathólique Church of Christ which never esteemed the same Reasons reasonable enough for making any Alteration but notwithstanding such imaginations precisely observed the Precept and Ordinance of Christ But that which exceedeth all height of Superstition is when upon the will-worship of man are stamped counterfeit Seales of forged Miracles as if they had beene authorized by the immediate hand of God whereof your Legendaries have obtruded upon their Readers Thirteene Examples to wit of Fictitious Apparitions of visible Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist which maketh your Superstition Blasphemous as if God should be brought in for the justifying of Falshood a Sinne abhorred by holy Iob saying to his Adversaries You are Forgers of Lies will you speake deceitfully for God And furthermore how Sacrilegious and Idolatrous your Romish Superstition is you may behold in the Sections following Of the Sacrilegiousnesse of the Romish Masse and Defence thereof in the point of Sacrifice comprized in this Synopsis SECT II. SAcrilege is whatsoever Violation of any sacred Person Place or Thing Now omitting to speake of your Dismembring the Eucharist by administring it but in One kinde which your Pope Gelasius condemned for Grand Sacrilege or of the like points formerly discovered we shall insist only in your Churches Doctrine of Sacrifice wherein your Sacrifice is found to be grossely Sacrilegious in the Tractate of the Sixth Booke I. By Creating a new Sacrifice as Proper and thereby assuming to her selfe that Excellencie of Prerogative which is proper to Christ alone the high Priest and Bishop of our Soules namely the power of ordaining Sacraments or if need were Sacrifices in his Church Which Guiltinesse we may call a Counterfeiting of the Seale of Christ II. By making this Sacrifice in her pretence Christian but but indeed Earthly and Iewish III. By dignifying it with a Divine property of Meritorious and Satisfactorie Propitiation IV. By professing another properly Satisfactorie and Propitiatory Sacrifice for Remission of sinnes besides that which Christ offered upon the Crosse As if after one hath paid the Debts of many at once upon condition that such of those Debters should be discharged whosever submissively acknowledging those Debts to be due should also professe the favour of their Redeemer It cannot but be extreme folly for any to thinke that the money once paid should be tendred and offered againe as often as One or Other of the Debters should make such an acknowledgement the Surety having once sufficiently satisfied for all So Christ having once for all satisfied the justice of God by the price of his blood in the behalfe of all penitent Sinners who in Contrition of heart and a living Faith apprehend the Truth of that his Redemption it cannot but be both injurious to the justice of God and to the merit of Christ that the same satisfactory Sacrifice as it were a new payment ought againe by way of Satisfaction be personally performed and tendred unto God V. By detracting from the absolute Function of Christ his Priesthood now eminent and permanent before God in Heaven and thereupon stupifying the mindes of Communicants and as it were pinioning their thoughts by teaching them so to gaze and meditate on the matter in the hands of the Priest that they cannot as becommeth Spirituall Eagles soare alost and contemplate upon the Body of Christ where it 's infallible Residence is in that his heavenly Kingdome VI. By transforming as much as they can the Sacrament ordained for Christians to eat with their owne mouthes into a Theatricall Sacrifice wherein to be fed with the mouth of the Priest VII By abasing the true value of Christ his Blood infinitely exceeding all valuation in making it but finite whereas Christ being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and Man in one person every propitiatory worke of his must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore of an infinite price and power VIII By denying the Effect of his Propiâ—iation for Sinne to be plenary in the Application thereof IX There hath beene noted by the way the Portion appropriated to the Priest out of your Sacrifice and to be applyed to some particular Soule for money being an Invention as hath beene confessed voyd of all Warrant either by Scripture or by Antient Tradition To say nothing of your fine Art of cheating mens Soules by Priestly Fraud whereof as also of the Rest wee have discoursed at large A New Instance for proofe of Romish Sacrilegiousnesse in the Prayer set downe in the Liturgie of their Masse SECT III. IN your Missall after Consecration it is prayed thus Wee offer unto thy Majesty O Lord this immaculate Host this holy Bread of eternall life this Cup of everlasting salvation upon which vouchsafe to looke with a propitious and favourable Countenance as thou didst accept the gifts of thy holy servant Abel and command these to be caried up into thy celestiall Altar c. So the Canon of your Masse Some Protestants in their zeale to the glory of Christ impute unto you hereupon a Sacrilegious Profanenesse whilest you beleeving That Host and That Cup to be the very Body and Blood of Christ and a Propitiatory Sacrifice in it selfe yet doe so pray God to be propitious unto it and to accept it as hee did the Sacrifice of Abel yeelding thereby no more estimation to Christ than to a vile sheepe which was offered by Abel At the hearing of this your Cardinall See the Margent 1. Prefaceth 2. Answereth 3. Illustrateth 4. Reasoneth First of his Preface The Answer saith he is easie As if that Objection which seemeth to us a huge logg in your way were so little an obstacle that any might skip over it But have you never seene men in trusting too much to their nimblenesse to over-reach themselves in their leape stumble fall and breake their limbes Sembably he in his Answer which is the second point The meaning of our Church saith he is not to pray for Christs reconciliátion who was alwayes well pleasing to God but in respect of the infirmity of the Priest and people that the offering may be accepted from them So he But whatsoever the meaning of the Priest in his praying is sure we are this cannot be the meaning of the Prayer for the matter prayed for is set downe to be Holy Bread of life and Cup of Salvation which you interpret to be substantially the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament and the tenour of prayer expressely is Vpon which Lord looke propitiously wee say
upon which not upon whom which point is confirmed in that which followeth Thirdly therefore he illustrateth The Comparison saith he is not absolutely betweene the Sacrifice of Abel and of Christ but in respect of the faith and devotion of the Priest and people that they with like faith may offer as Abel did But this piece of Answer is that which is called in Musicke Discantus contra punctum for the prayer is directly Looke downe propitiously upon these as thou didst upon the gifts of Abel The Comparison then is distinctly betweene the Gifts and not betweene the Givers Yea but not absolutely so meant saith he be it so yet if it be so meant but in part that Christ who is Propitiation it selfe shall be prayed for to be propitiously and favourably looked upon by God the prayer is Sacrilegious in an high degree Fourthly his Reason It is knowen saith he that the Sacrifices of sheepe and Oxen had nothing in themselves whereby to pacifie or please God the Scripture saying that Abel offered a better Sacrifice than Cain And againe God had respect to Abel and to his Gifts So he Which is the very Reason that perswadeth Protestants to call that your Prayer most Sacrilegious because whereas the Gifts of Abel were but Sheepe c. you notwithstanding compare them with the offering up of Christ saying As thou didst the Gifts of Abel For although it be true that the Gift of Abel was accepted for the faith of the Giver and not the Giver for his Gift yet if you shall apply this to the point in Question then your Gift in your Opinion being Christ and your Givers but simply men whom you have called Priest People it must follow that Christ is accepted for the faith of the Priest and People and not the Priest and People for Christ which maketh your Prayer far more abominably Sacrilegious And not much lesse is that which followeth praying God to command his Angell to cary if the Gift be He Christ into heaven contrary to the Article of our Catholique Faith which teacheth us to beleeve his perpetuall Residence in heaven at the right hand of the Father Hee answereth It is not meant that God would command his Angell to cary Christs Body but our prayers and desires by their intercession unto God for us So he Which is as truly a false Glosse as the former for in the Tenour of your Masse the Subject of your prayer is Holy Bread of life and Cup of salvation The prayer is plainly thus Vpon which O Lord looke propitiously and immediately after Command These to be caried by thy Angell Marke These viz. That Bread of life and Cup of salvation even that which you call The Body and Blood of Christ as corporally Present which maketh your prayer to be Sacrilegious still and your Expositors that we may so say miserably Ridiculous That the former Romish Prayer as it was Antient doth in the then true meaning thereof condemne the now Romish Church of the former Sacrilegious Innovation SECT IV. FOR to thinke that it should be prayed that God would be propitious to Christ were an Execrable opinion even in the Iudgement of our Adversaries themselves who for avoidance thereof have obtruded an Exposition as farre differing from the Text as doth This from That or Christ from the Priest as you have heard But whither will hee now Your Cardinall telleth you that the words of your Romish Canon are antient such as are found in the Missalls of S. Iames of Clement Pope of Rome of Basil of Chrysostome and of Ambrose You will hold it requisite that wee consult with these Liturgies set out by your selves for the better understanding of the Tenour of your Romish Masse The Principall Quaere will be whether Antiquity in her Liturgies by praying to God for a propitious Acceptation and admittance into his celestiall Altar meant as your Cardinall answered Propitiousnesse towards Priest and People in respect of their faith and devotion and not towards the Things offered distinctly in themselves In the pretended Liturgie of S. Iames before Consecration the prayer to God is To accept the Gifts into his celestiall Altar even the Gifts which he called The fruits of the earth And then after for the Parties as well Priest as People To sanctifie their soules In the Liturgie of Basil before Consecration it is prayed to God that the Receiving the Gifts into his celestiall Altar would also concerning the Parties send his Graâ—e and Spirit upon them And no lesse plainly Pope Clemens teaching before Consecration to pray God who received the Gifts of Abel gratiously to behold these Gifts propounded to the honour of his Sonne Christ expressely differenceth this Sacrifice done in honour of Christ from Christ himselfe who is honoured thereby And after Consecration to Beseech God through Christ to accept the Gift offered to him and to take it into his Celestiall Altar where the prayer to God is not to accept of Christ but of the Gift for Christ's sake and to the honour of Christ in whom God is Propitious unto us wee say againe the Gift for Christ and not Christ for the Gift what can be more plaine against all Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament and to receive it into his Celestiall Altar but how by intercession of Angells No but expressely thus By Christ the Mediatour In the Liturgie of Chrysostome before Consecration God is prayed unto and supplicated thus We beseech thee to send thy Spirit upon us and upon the Gifts set before us Even as Ambrose explaineth his Supplication after Consecration for God To accept this Oblation namely that which hee called Holy Bread and Cup. If therefore these former Formes may interpret your Romane Liturgie as it was Antient the prayer therein to God desiring him to be Propitious must have relation to the things above specified called Holy Bread of life and Cup of Salvation as distinguished from Priest and People Wherefore your Romane Missalls being so Antient in this one point in praying God after Consecration to be Propitious to that which is called the Bread of life eternall and Cup of everlasting salvation lest it might carry a Sacrilegious Sence to wit that the Body of Christ is here the proper Subject of the Eucharist and consequently to need a Propitiation to God by virtue of mens prayers thereby greatly derogating from the meritorious Satisfaction of Christ you ought to reduce this your Romane Canon to the Orthodox meaning of Antient Liturgies above mentioned and to understand it Sacramentally only namely our Objective Representation Commemoration and Application thereof by us which is our Act of Celebration To the former vast heape of Sacrilegious Positions and Practices wee may adde your other many vile and impious Indignities offered to the all-glorious Sonne of God in making his sacred Body in your owne opinions obnoxious to the Imprisoning in Boxes Tearing with mens Teeth Devouring
to turne their Wonderment against themselves saying Behold the providence of God! thus plainly to confound the wisdome of the Adversaries of his truth by themselves in their greatest subtilenesse Hitherto of the Comparison of the Ordinance of Christ with the Ordinance of the Romish Church Our second Comparison is of the Example of Christ with the contrarie Example SECT III. VVEre it that we had no Precept of Christ to Doe this but only the Example of his Doing it in the first Institution this should be a Rule for us to observe it punctually excepting in such Circumstances which only occasionally and accidentally hapned therein as hath beene proved and therefore not to dare to give a Non-obstante against the Example of Christ as your Councell of Constance hath done and which your Iesuite also teacheth as if the Example of Christ were no argument of proofe at all Which Doctrine wee are now to trie by the judgement of Antiquity Cyprian confuteth the Aquarij Heretikes that used only Water in the Chalice by the Example of Christ his Institution because Nothing is to be done of us in celebrating of this Mystery which was not done of Christ. So he In the dayes of Pope Iulius Anno 337. there arose many giddie spirits which violated the holy Institution of Christ in this Sacrament when as some consecrated Milke instead of Wine others sopped the bread in the Cup a third sort squiezed Grapes thereinto These and the like that holy Pope did condemne but how by pretence of Custome only no but by the obligation of Christ his Example and institution of this Sacrament in these words following Because these are contrary saith he to Evangelicall and Apostolicall doctrine and Ecclesiasticall Custome as is easily proved from the fountaine of truth from whence the Sacraments had their first ordinance for when our Master of Truth commended this to his Disciples he gave to none Milke but Bread only and the Cup. Nor doth the Gospell mention the sopping of bread but of giving Bread a-part and the Cup also a-part c. So Pope Iulius Those also that offered Bread and Cheese together in this Sacrament are confuted by the Institution of Christ who appointed Bread saith your Aquinas What can be more direct and absolute yet dare your men obiect to the contrarie The Romish Obiection answered At Emmaus Luke 24. Christ meeting with certaine Disciples taking bread and blessing it and thereby manifesting himselfe to them is said immediately after the Breaking of Bread to have vanished out of their sights Ergò it may be lawfull saith your Cardinall to use but one kind Because saith Master Brereley the Text sheweth that Christ vanished away not leaving any time for Benediction or Consecration of the Cup. CHALLENGE THis Argument is still inculcated almost by every Romanist in defence of the Romish Custome of but in one kind notwithstanding it be twice rotten First in the Root and Antecedent For although Christ here had begun the Celebration of the Eucharist yet doth it not appeare that he did now perfect it in distributing either kinde to his Disciples Nor is this likely saith your Iansenius And it is dead-rotten also in the branch and Consequence thereof because that this Act of Christ in Emmaus is not to be urged as an Example to be imitated in the Church which is demonstrable by an Acknowledgement of your Iesuite Valentia As for example The Councell of Trent hath defined that the Priest in Consecrating is commanded by Christ his Institution to consecrate in both kinds Because this saith your Iesuite both the nature of the Sacrifice and Sacrament doth exact but by what words of Command namely for so hee saith by these words Doe this Accordingly your Objectour Master Brereley as if he had meant purposely to confute and confound himselfe The reason why the Priest receiveth both kinds is because hee is to represent the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse But Bread cannot represent Christ dead without some signe of Bloud If then because Christ ministred it not in both kindes in Emmaus it shall be lawfull for the Church to imitate him in that manner of Distribution of this Sacrament it must as equally follow that because hee is not found there to have Consecrated in both kinds it may be lawfull for your Church so to doe not only contrary to your now Romane Custome but also in the judgement of the Councell of Trent contrary to the Command of Christ as hath beene confessed Twice miserable therefore is the darknesse of your Disputers First not to see the Inconsequence of this Obiection and next not to remember that common Principle to wit Extraordinary Acts are not to be Rules for ordinary Duties A SECOND CHALLENGE VVEe conclude You have seene by the testimonies of Cyprian and Pope Iulius that it was good Divinity in their dayes to argue from the Example of Christ his Institution negatively by rejecting such Acts and accounting them as contrarie to the Institution of Christ which accord not with his Example and which are not comprized within the Canon of Christ his Hoc facite which kinde of Reasoning at this day is â—issed at in your Romish Schooles What need many words O tempora Our third Comparison is by conferring Apostolicall Practice with contrary Practice SECT IV. SAint Paul having more speciall occasion to handle this point than any other of the Apostles may worthily be admitted to resolve us in the name of all the Rest Hee Catechizing the Corinthians concerning the true use of the Eucharist recordeth the first Institution thus I have received of the Lord that which I deliver unto you that the Lord Iesus c. And after his Recitall of the Institution of Christ hee himselfe addeth As often as you eate of this Bread and drinke of this Cup you shew the Lords death untill he come againe Let therefore a man examine himselfe and so eate of this Bread and drinke of this Cup. From this wee seeke a Proofe both of the Apostolicall Practice in the use of both kindes in this Sacrament and of our duety in observing the same But wee may spare our paines of prooving the use of both kindes in the Church of Corinth because as your Cardinall Tolet confesseth There is no controversie thereof As for the proofe of our necessary Conformity wee have the same Reasons wherewith the Apostle perswadeth thereunto That saith he which I have received of the Lord I deliver vnto you that Iesus c. Thereby applying the Example of Christ his Institution for a Rule of their Practice which this coniunctive Particle of Eating AND Drinking To Eate AND Drinke five times so coupled in this Epistle doe plainly declare But you tell vs that in this place the Coniunctive AND is is put for a disiunctive Or thereby to teach the Church a liberty to choose whether they shall Eate or Drinke
sacrificed by the hands of the Priest Here to wit on the Table below representatively as hereafter the Catholique Fathers themselves will shew And these two may easily consist without any necessity of the Priest reaching his hands as farre as the highest Heavens as your Cardinall pleasantly obiecteth Thirdly you alleage Wee are said to partake truly of the Body of Christ As though there were not a Truth in a Sacramentall that is Figurative Receiving and more especially which hath beene both proved and confessed a Reall and true participation of Christ's Body and Blood spiritually without any Corporall Coniunction But it is added saith he that These namely the Body and Blood of Christ are Symbols of our Resurrection which is by reason that our Bodies are ioyned with the Body of Christ otherwise if our Coniunction were onely of our soules onely the Resurrection of our soules should be signified thereby So hee that 's to say as successesly as in the former For the word HAEC These which are called Symbols of our Resurrection may be referred either to the Body and Blood of Christ immediatly spoken of and placed on the Table in Heaven which we Commemorate also in the Celebration of this Sacrament and in that respect may be called Symbols of the Resurrection of our Bodies because If Christ be risen then must they that are Christs also rise againe Or else the word These may have relation to the more remote after the manner of the Greekes to wit Bread and Cup on the first Table because as immediately followeth they are these whereof not much but little is taken as you have heard Which other Fathers will shew to be indeed Symbols of our Resurrection without any Consequence of Christ's Bodily Coniunction with our Bodies more than there is by the Sacrament of Baptisme which they call the Earnest of our Resurrection as doth also your Iesuite Coster call it The Pledge of our Resurrection But this our Coniunction with Christ is the subiect matter of the Fift Booke Lastly how the Eucharist was called of the Fathers a Sacrifice is plentifully resolved in the Sixt Booke THE FIFTH BOOKE Treating of the third Romish Doctrinall Consequence arising from your depraved Sence of the Words of Christs Institution THIS IS MY BODY concerning the manner of the present Vnion of his Body with the bodies of the Receivers by Eating c. CHAP. I. The state of the Question SECT I. A Christian man consisting of two men the Outward or bodily and the Inward which is Spirituall this Sacrament accordingly consisteth of two parts Earthly and Heavenly as Irenaeus spake of the bodily Elements of Bread and Wine as the visible Signes and Obiects of Sense and of the Body and Blood of Christ which is the Spirituall part Answerable to both these is the double nourishment and Vnion of a Christian the one Sacramentall by communicating of the outward Elements of Bread and Wine united to man's body in his Taking Eating digesting till at length it be transubstantiated into him by being substantially incorporated in his flesh The other which is the Spirituall and Soules food is the Body and Blood of the Lord therefore called Spirituall because it is the Obiect of Faith by an Vnion wrought by God's Spirit and man's faith which as hath beene professed by Protestants is most Reall and Ineffable But your Church of Rome teacheth such a Reall Vnion of Christ his Body and Blood with the Bodies of the Communicants as is Corporall which you call Per contactum by Bodily touch so long as the formes of Bread and Wine remaine uncorrupt in the bodies of the Receivers Our Method requireth that we first manifest our Protestant Defence of Vnion to be an Orthodoxe truth Secondly to impugne your Romish Vnion as Capernaiticall that is Hereticall And thirdly to determine the Point by comparing them both together Our Orthodoxe Truth will be found in the Preparations following That Protestants prosesse not only a Figurative and Sacramentall Participation and Communion with Christ's Body but also a spiritually Reall SECT II. ALl the Bookes of the Adversaries to Protestants are most especially vehement violent and virulent in traducing them in the name of Sacramentaries as though we professed no other manner of feeding and Vnion with Christ's body than only Sacramentall and Figurative For Confutation of which Calumny it will be most requisite to oppose the Apologie of Him who hath beene most opposed and traduced by your Disputers in this Cause to shew first what he held not and then what he held If you shall aske Calvin what he liked not he will answere you I doe abhorre your grosse Doctrine of Corporall Presence And I have an hundred times disclaimed the receiuing only of a Figure in this Sacrament What then did hee hold Our Catechisme teacheth saith hee not only a signification of the Benefits of Christ to be had herein but also a participation of the substance of Christ's flesh in our soules And with Swinckfeldius maintayning only a Figurative perception we have nothing to doe If you further demand what is the Feeding whereby we are united to Christ's body in this Sacrament hee tels you that it is IV. Not carnall but Spirituall and Reall and so Reall that the soule is as truly replenished with the lively virtue of his flesh by the powerfull worke of the Spirit of God as the body is nourished with the corporall Element of Bread in this Sacrament If you exact an Expression of this spirituall Vnion to know the manner hee acknowledgeth it to be above Reason If further you desire to understand whether he were not Singular in this opinion he hath avouched the iudgement of other Protestants professing not to dissent one Syllable from the Augustane Confession as agreeing with him in iudgement herein Accordingly our Church of England in the 28. Article saith that To such as worthily and with faith receive this Sacrament The Bread which we breake is a partaking of the Body of Christ which Body is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after a spirituall and heavenly manner the meane whereby is Faith That the Body of Christ by this Sacrament was ordained only for food to the Christian man's Soule SECT III. VVHat need wee seeke into the Testimonies of ancient Fathers which are many in this point of Dispute having before us the Iudgement of your Fathers of the Councell of Trent and of your Romane Catechisme authorized by the same Councell both which affirme that Christ ordained this Sacrament to be the spirituall food of man's soule In which respect the Body of Christ is called Spirituall in your Popes Decree That the Spirituall feeding and Vnion with Christs Body is more excellent and Reall than the Corporall Coniunction can be SECT IV. THe soule of man being the most essentiall and substantiall part of man because a Spirit immortall and the flesh
of Christ being the most substantiall of all food and therefore called as of ancient Fathers so even by your Fathers of Trent Supersubstantiall Bread it must necessarily follow that as it is named by Christ The true Bread and the Life thereby which is the effect of the spirituall Eating thereof is the most true and Reall Life because Everlasting So the Vnion spirituall which a Christian hath in his soules-feeding is the most Reall and true Vnion as may sufficiently appeare by Analogie To wit that Bread and Wine being the most vitall nourishments for the conservation of man's bodily essence are therefore chosen as the Fathers teach to represent and exhibit unto him although in themselves but Signes and Symbols the very Body and Blood of Christ Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ are our Reall nourishments in this Sacrament And such as is our food such must be our Vnion by feeding thereon which wee say is by Faith in this Sacrament and you may not gain-say it who to comfort your Disciples are taught to instruct them that even without this Sacrament the spirituall Vnion may be presented to the soule of man with the Body of Christ and that as a sufficient meanes of uniting him to Christ by a spirituall manner of Eating And this you say is To receive Christ his Body truly albeit this be to receive him only by faith and desire So you Whence you perceive our Inference viz. If our spirituall Vnion with Christ his Body may be really and truly made by Faith and Desire without this Sacrament then in our Sacramentall eating thereof may the Communicant be much more made partaker thereof by Faith and ardent Desire the Sacrament it selfe being a Seale of this our Christian Faith CHAP. II. That only the Godly faithfull Communicants are Partakers of the Bodie and Blood of Christ and thereby united to Christ in the iudgement of Protestants SECT I. OVr Church of England in her 28. and 29. Article saith thus The Body of Christ is given to be eaten in this Sacrament only after a spirituall manner even by faith wherein the wicked and such as are void of faith eate it not although they doe visibly presse with their teeth the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ yet are they in no wise Partakers thereof But your Romish Church flatly otherwise as you all know and therefore hath your Sympresbyter Master Brereley endevoured to assume some Protestants to be on your side whom he hath alleaged with like faithfulnesse as he hath cited Master Calvin then whom he could not have in this case a greater Adversary For although Calvin grant with all Protestants that the wicked and faithlesse receive truly by way of Sacrament the Body of Christ yet doth he deny that they have in their bodies any Corporall coniunction or Vnion with Christ because the Vnion which we have saith he is Only spirituall only with the soule onely with the heart onely by faith and although it be offered to the wicked to be really received yet doe they not receive it because they are Carnall Their onely Receiving therefore is but Sacramentall So Mr. Calvin It had beene good that your Priest had suspected his Iudgement and as well in this Case as in others by doubting his owne eye-sight had borrowed your Cardinall his Spectacles then would hee have clearly perceived that together with other Protestants Calvin held that The wicked although they receive the Symbols and outward Signes of Christ's body yet the body it selfe they doe not receive So your Cardinall of the Doctrine of Protestants For although indeed Calvin said that The wicked eate the Body of Christ yet explaining himselfe he added these two words In Sacramento that is Sacramentally which in Calvins stile is alwayes taken for Symbolically only As for the consent of Protestants herein we put it to your great Cardinall and Champion their greatest Adversary to expresse He ioyneth Lutherans to the Calvinists in one consent for denying the Orall and Corporall Eating thereof and for believing the Eating of it to be Only by Faith Yet left any may say that in receiving the same Sacrament he doth not receive the thing signified thereby you may haue a Similitude to illustrate your iudgments as thus The same outward word concerning Iustification by Christ commeth to the eares of both Vnbeleevers and Beleevers But the Beleevers only are capable of Iustification That only the Godly-faithfull are Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ and thereby Vnited unto him in the iudgement of Ancient Fathers SECT II. CHrist speaking of that which is the most Reall Eating saith Ioh. 6. He that eateth me remaineth in me and shall live for ever Vpon which Text Saint Hierome concludeth The men that live in pleasure neither eate the flesh of Christ nor drinke his Blood Next Origen inferreth that No wicked man can eat Christ his flesh And Saint Augustine most peremptorily Without doubt saith he they doe not spiritually eate the flesh of Christ nor drinke his blood although that they doe visibly and carnally presse the Sacrament thereof with their teeth and notwithstanding eate their condemnation So he thereby distinguishing the inward soules Eating Spirituall from the outward and Sacramentall Eating as he doth man's Spirit from his Teeth In which respect he as verily denied that Indas ate his Lord the bread as hee affirmed him to have eaten The bread of the Lord. Therefore the Bread Sacramentall was not the Bread the Lord. Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria teacheth that whosoever doth truly receive the body of Christ Is in Christ and Christ in him both so ioyned one with the other as waxe melted with waxe is united together All these so evident Testimonies of so ancient Fathers doe inferre this Conclusioâ— against you that none doe really eate the Body of Christ who receive him but only Sacramentally And afterwards other Fathers will be found to ioyne their Consent hereunto where they teach that none eate his flesh with whom Christ hath not a perpetuall vnion Now for you to answere that their meaning is not that the ungodly eate it not really but that they eate it unworthily and therefore unprofitably for their salvation is but recoyling and giving backe when you want a shield for your defence For the Testimonies alleaged which deny that the faithlesse and godlesse men Eate Christ's Body speake directly of the Act of spirituall Eating and not only of the Effect as you fancie Peruse you their Testimonies and be you our Iudges That by Spirituall Eating your Romish Corporall Vnion through Sacramentall Eating is excluded SECT III. SAcramentall Eating and Vnion professed by your Church is as you may remember said to be Corporall by Christ's bodily Touch of the body of the Receiver but seeing the godly and faithfull man only can be partaker of the body and blood of Christ and be really united unto it as the
blood is to be acknowledged in all prophane Neglect by whatsoever person capable of this Blessed Sacrament SECT IV. GVilty of the Lords Body that is Guilty of the Contempt thereof as you well know Now because Contempt of a good thing is as well seene in a wilfull refusing to receive as in a contemptuous manner of receiving the Guiltines by the same Contempt must needs be against the thing offered whether it be Corporall or Spirituall and consequently against the Giver himselfe In which respect Christ compareth the Refusers of the promises of the Gospell of Salvation vnto beastly Hogs which trample under their feet pearles of highest price even because they would not beleeve them Beleeving being our spirituall Receiving From the same guilt of Contempt followeth the Obnoxiousnes to punishment denounced by our Saviour To shake of the dâ—st of their feeâ—â— for a testimonie against them in not receiving the Gospell of peace Therefore is that saying of Hierome common to every Sacrament Contempt of a Sacrament saith he is the contempt of him whose Sacrament it is As also that other of Rupertus saying The not receiving of the Eucharist if it be in contempt doth separate the Contemner from the societie of the members of Christ Hence it was that whereas Chrysostome called man's Indevotion in receiving the Eucharist Dangerous hee named the Contempt of not participating thereof Pestilence and death it selfe But not to presse you further with other such like speeches of the Fathers wee shall referr you to your Divines of Collen who in their Councell censured those who Contemptuously refused to communicate of this Sacrament to be but onely in name Christians worse say they than the Capernaites offering contumely marke we pray you against your Rhemists to the Body and Blood of Christ and are made thereby obnoxious to the terrible iudgement of God A Conclusion whereby is satisfied from your owne Doctors your owne maine Obiection even in Terminis Terminantibus as the Schoole speaketh professing both a guiltines of Christ's Body in not receiuing it and an obnoxiousnes thereupon unto Gods Iudgement As for your obiected speech of St. Cyprian it is of easie disgestion because Comparisons of Magis and Minus as learning teacheth are altered upon all different respects Some in persecution denyed Christ in the extremity of their feare and some in their wilfulnes profaned the Sacrament of the Eucharist instituted by Christ this latter is the greater sinner before God who iudgeth sinne not onely secundùm actum aut effectum according to the wicked deed done but secundum Affectum that is but much more according to the depraved Affection and Disposition of the mind of the Doer In which respect wee may well thinke that Iudas his traiterous and scornefull kisse was more hainous than Peters periury Have you not read what the Apostle hath written against such as Apostate from their Faith and vow of Baptisme saying They crucifie unto themselves the sonne of God which is much more than Cyprian spake of the Guiltie Receiver of the Eucharist yet dare not you conclude that therefore there is a Corporall Presence of Christ in the water of Baptisme And as in the Guilt of sinne so is it in the Guilt of punishment also which followeth sinne as a shadow doth a Body In which consideration Aâ—gâ—stine doth parallell Baptisme and the Eucharist together saying As he that drinketh the Blood of the Lord unworthily drinketh his owne iudgement so doth he who receiveth Baptisme unworthily By these Premisses you will furthermore easily discerne that your other Romish Doctors have beene no lesse ignorant than they were arrogant in concluding it to be an Infallible Consequence that because Christ receiveth an iniurie in his body and blood by the abuse of the Sacrament of the Eucharist therefore his Body and blood is carnally present therein As if they would teach by the like Inference that because the Empresse Eâ—docia was as is confessed reproached by the Citizens of Antiâ—ch in their despight wrought upon her image therefore was she personally present in the same Image You seeme to be zealously bent against all unworthy usage of this holy Sacrament it is well yet were it better that you saw your owne guiltines herein to repentance For inasmuch as every one is an unworthy Receiver in the iudgement of S. Ambrose who doth celebrate it otherwise than was appointed by Christ himselfe your Ten Transgressions of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament discovered in the first Booke convinceth you of a ten-fold Guiltines of the Vnworthy Receiving of this Mistery Your last obiection of Guiltines is taken from the Executions of Gods punishments Wee therefore reioyne That the Examples of Gods vindicative Iustice have appeared against the Contemners of many holy things without respect to the Corporall Presence of Christ therein SECT V. COme wee to the open iudgements and punishments of God upon the Contemners of this Sacrament the visible Testimonies of his Iustice and Arguments of the pretiousnesse and holinesse of this mystery These we beleeve to be true and the Apostle hath made it manifest where speaking of the great plague which fell upon the Corinthians who had prophaned this Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ he pointeth this out as their sinne saying Ob hanc causam For this cause are many sicke among you and many sleepe c. Yet was not this for not Discerning the body of Christ to be corporally in the Eucharist as your Disputers pretend but to use Saint Hierome's words They were guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ because they despised the Sacrament of so great a mystery namely by their prophane behaviour at their receiving thereof as if they had beene at the Heathenish Bacchanals or as Primasius yeeldeth the Cause For that they tooke it as homely as their common bread All can point at the dolefull Example of God's vengeance upon Iudas the first unworthy Receiver and therefore the subiect of the first Document of Gods iudgement notwithstanding that hee received but the Sacrament only and not the very body of Christ as Saint Augustine observed saying Hee received not the bread the Lord but the bread of the Lord. And how iustly may we thinke did God punish certaine Donatists who casting the holy Sacrament to Dogges were themselves devoured of Dogges Neither have these kind of God's iudgements beene proper to the Abuse of this Sacrament only as you have instructed men to beleeve for looke into the sacred story and you shall find the men of Ashdod for medling with the Arke of God Afflicted with Emrods the men of Bethshemesh smitten with a great slaughter for but peeping into God's Arke Also Vzzah no Priest doth but touch the same Arke albeit with a good intent to support it and he is suddainly strucke dead Nadab and Abihu prophaned the Altar of the Lord with offering strange
for sole Praying where there is no note or occasion of Sacrifice and he instanceth in the Fathers mentioning the Morning and Evening 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Church But you will not say wee thinke that there was any proper Evening Sacrifice in use in those times What can you say for your Cardinall his former lavish assertion who is thus largely confuted Nay how shall you justifie your selves who are bound by Oath not to gain-say in your Disputations the Vulgar Latine Translation which hath rendred the same Greeke words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministrantibus eis that is They ministring and not They sacrificing which might be said as well of preaching praying administring the Sacrament all which to meâ—t with your other Objection being done according to the will of God and belonging to his worship and service might be properly said to have beene done unto God That the Second objected place out of the new Testament to witt 1 Cor. 10. cannot inferre any Proper Sacrifice SECT II. 1. Cor. 10. 18. BEhold Israel are not they who cat of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar then vers 20 21 22. But that which the Gentiles offer they offer to Devills and not unto God and I would not have you partakers with Devills yee cannot drinke of the Cup of the Lord and the cup of Devills you cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord and the table of Devills Hence Bellarmine Here saith hee the Table of the Lord is compared with the Altar of the Gentiles Therefore is the Table of the Lord certainly an Altar and therefore it hath a Sacrifice 2. Because the Eucharist is so offered as were the Sacrifices of the Iewes And 3. Because he that eateth the Eucharist is said so to be partaker of the Lord's Altar as the Heathen of things sacrificed to Idolls are said to be partakers of the Idolls Altar So hee following only his owne sence and not regarding the voyce or judgement of any other If we should say in Answer to his first Objection that your Cardinall wanted his spectacles in reading of the Text when hee said that the Apostle compareth the Table of the Lord whereon the Eucharist is placed with the Altar of the Gentiles which was the Altar of Devills it were a friendly answer in his behalfe for the words of the Text expressely relate a Comparison of the Table of the Lord with the Table of Gentiles and Devills and not with their Altar And although the Heathen had their Altars yet which crosseth all the former Objections their common Eating of things sacrificed unto Idolls was not upon Altars but upon Tables in feasting and partaking of the Idolothytes and not in Sacrificing as did also the Gentiles The whole scope of the Apostle is to dehort all Christians from communicating with the Heathen in their Idoll Solemnities whatsoever and the summe of his Argument is that whosoever is Partaker of any Ceremony made essentiall to any worship professed hee maketh himselfe a partaker of the profession it selfe whether it be Christian vers 16. or Iewish vers 18. or Heathenish and Devillish vers 20. And againe the Apostle's Argument doth aswell agree with a Religious Table as with an Altar with a Sacrament as with a Sacrifice and so it seemeth your Aquinas thought who paraphraseth thus upon the Text You cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord in respect of the Sacrament of the Lords Body and of the table of Devills To an Objector who avoucheth no Father for his Assertion it may be sufficient for us to oppose albeit but any one Primasius therefore expounding this Scripture maketh the Comparison to stand thus As our Saviour said Hee that eateth my flesh abideth in mee so the eating of the Bread of Idols is to be partakers of the Devills But this participation of Devills must needs be spirituall and not corporall you know the Consequence CHAP. III. That no Scripture in the old Testament hath been justly produced for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist THe Places of Scripture selected by your Disputers are partly Typicall and partly Propheticall That the first objected Typicall Scripture concerning Melchisedech maketh not for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist SECT I. The State of the Question WEE are loth to trouble you with Dispute about the end of Melchisedech his ministring Bread and Wine to Abraham and his Company whether it were as a matter of Sacrifice unto God or as Divers have thought only of refreshing the wearie Souldiers of Abraham because the Question is brought to be tried by the judgement of such Fathers who have called it a Sacrifice Wherefore we yeeld unto you the full scope and suppose with your Cardinall that the Bread and Wine brought forth had beene sacrificed by Melchisedech to God and not as a Sacrifice administred by him to his Guests Now because whatsoever shal be objected will concerne either the matter of Sacrifice or else the Priest-hood office of the Sacrificer we are orderly to handle them both That the Testimonies of the Fathers for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist from the Type of Melchisedech's Sacrifice are Sophistically and unconscionably objected out of Psalm 110. and Heb. 5. SECT II. SOme of the objected Testimonies See the Margent comparing the Sacrifice of Melchisedech to the Eucharist in the name of a Sacrifice doe relate no further than Bread and Wine calling these Materials The Sacrifice of Christians such are the Testimonies of Ambrose Augustine Chrysostome Theophylact Oâ—cumenius and Cassiodore together with two Iewish Rabbins promising that at the comming of Christ all Sacrifices should cease Except the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist This is your first Collection for proofe that the Eucharist is a Proper Visible Sacrifice But first Vnconscionably knowing and confessing it to be no better than a Iewish Conceit to thinke the Bread and Wine to be properly a Sacrifice of the new Testament Wherefore to labour to prove a Proper Sacrifice in that which you know and acknowledge to be no Proper Sacrifice doe you not blush How much better had it becomne you to have understood the Fathers to have used the word Sacrifice in a large sence as it might signifie any sacred ministration as Isidore doth instruct you Who if you aske what it is which Christâ—ans doe now offer after the order of Melchisedech he will say that it is Bread and Wine That is saith he the Sacrament of the Body and Blood Even as Ierome long before him Melchisedech in Bread and Wine did dedicate the Sacrament of Christ distinguishing both the Sacrament from a Proper Sacrifice and naming the thing that is said in a sort to be offered Not to be the Body and Blood of Christ but the Sacrament of both Your second kinde of objected Sentences of Fathers doe indeed compare the Bread and Wine of Melchisedech with the Body and Blood
of Christ in the Eucharist In this Rancke wee reckon the Testimonies of Cyprian Hierome Eusebius and Eucherius saying that Melchisedech himselfe offered up the Body and Blood of Christ in this Sacrifice which Body and Blood of Christ you will All sweare we dare say was not the proper Subject matter of the Sacrifice of Melchisedech who performed his Sacrifice many thousands of yeares before our Lord Christ was incarnate in the flesh to take unto him either Body or Blood And therefore could not the Fathers understand by the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood any thing but the Type of Christ his Body and Blood these being then the Object of Melchisedech's faith as the cited Sentences of Hierome and Eusebius doe declare Which is a second proofe of the unconscionable dealing of your Disputers by inforcing Testimonies against common sence But will you see furthermore the Vnluckinesse of your game and that three manner of wayes First your ordinarie guize is to object the word Sacrifice out of the Fathers as properly used whereas your Allegations tell us that they used it in a greater latitude and at libertie Secondly and more principally wheresoever you heare the Fathers naming Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Christ ô then behold Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ his Body and behold it 's Corporall presence and that most evidently this is your common shout And yet behold in your owne objected Sentences of Fathers that which was most really Bread and Wine of Melchisedech was notwithstanding by the fore-named Fathers called the Body and Blood of Christ A most evident Argument that the Fathers understood Christ's words in calling Bread his Body figuratively That the Apostle to the Hebrewes in comparing Melchisedech with Christ did not intimate any Analogie betweene the Sacrifice of Melchisedech and of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist SECT III. BVt you pre-occupate viz. The Apostle speaking of Melchisedech saith Of whom I had much to say and that which is uninterpretable because you are dull of hearing Chap. 5. vers 11. Whence it may seeme saith vour Cardinall a thing undeniable that the Apostle meant thereby the mysterie of the Eucharist because it was above their capacitie and therefore hee purposely forbare to mention either Bread or Wine So your Answerer To whom you may take for a Reply as in our behalfe the Confession of your much-esteemed Iesuite Ribera who telleth you that The Apostle naming it a thing Inexplicable and calling them Dull meant not thereby to conceale the matter implyed which was so pertinent to that hee had in hand from them because of the want of their Capacitie but did in so saying rather excite them to a greater Attention shewing thereby that he did not dispaire but that they were capable of that which hee would say at least the learned among them by whom others might have learned by little and little So hee proving the same out of those words of the Apostle Passing by the Rudiments c. Let us goe on unto perfection that is saith he Doe your diligence in hearing that you may attaine unto the understanding of these things which are delivered unto those that are perfect This is the Briefe of his large Comment hereupon Notwithstanding what our Opposites faile of in the point of Sacrifice They intend to gaine from the Title of Priesthood Of the Priesthood of Melchisedech as it is compared with the pretended Romish Priesthood out of the Epistle to the Hebrewes SECT IV. The State of the Question Aarons Priesthood said your Cardinall is translaâ—ed into the Priesthood of Melchizedech and this into the Priesthood of Christ A Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedech which because it is perpetuall and eternall cannot be performed properly by Christ himselfe and therefore must be executed by his Ministers â—s Vicars on earth So he accordingly as your Councell of Trent hath decreed Insomuch that M. Sanders will have the whole Ministerie of the new Testament to issue Originally from Melchizedech This is a matter of great moment as will appeare which we shall resolve by oâ—rtaine Positions The foundation of all the Doctrine concerning Christ and Melchizedech is set downe in the Epistle to the Hebrewes That the Analogie betweene Melchizedech his Priesthood and the eternall Priesthood of Christ in himselfe is most perfect and so declared to be Heb. 5 6 7 Chapp SECT V. THe holy Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrewes comparing the Type Melchizedech with the Arch-Type Christ Iesus in one order of Priesthood sheweth betweene Both an absolute Analogie although not in equalitie of Excellence yet in similitude of qualities and offices As first in Royaltie Melchizedech is called The King of Iustice and Peace So Christ but infinitely more is called Our Iustice and Peace Secondly Melchizedech in respect of Generation was without Generation from Father or Mother according to the formalitie of Sacred Storie so Christ according to the veritie of his Humanitie without Father and in his divine nature without Mother of whom also it is written Who shall declare his Generation Thirdly in Time Melchizedech a Priest for ever having neither beginning nor end of Dayes according to the same Historicall Tenure so Christ an eternall Priest Chap. 5 6. Fourthly in Number only One who had no Predecessor nor Successor So Christ who acknowledged no such Priest before him nor shall finde any other after him for ever Fifthly Christ was Vniversally King and Priest as the Apostle noted Chap. 7. 4. saying That the Priesthood was changed from Aaron and Levi to Christ in Iuda That is that Christ's Power might be both Regall and Sacerdotall saith Chrysostome which was a singular dignity as your Iesuite well observeth That the nature of everie other Priesthood be it of your Romish High-Priest dissenteth as much from the Priesthood of Melchizdech as the Priesthood of Melchizedech agreeth with the Priest-hood of Christ SECT VI. IF Comparison might be made of Priesthood whom would you rather that we should instance in than in your intituled Summus Pontifex that is the High Priest your Pope who notwithstanding cannot be said to be a King as Melchizedech much lesse as Christ Everlasting Secondly Much lesse a King of Peace who hath beene reproved by Antiquitie for being A Troubler of the Peace of Christ's Church And generally complained of by others as being Nothing lesse than the Vicar of the God of Peace because of his raising hostile wars against Princes of the same Nation Blood and Faith And for Distracting the Estates of Princedome and Priestdome Thirdly not King of Iustice because some Popes have excited Subjects and Sonnes to rebell against their Leige Soveraignes and Parents Fourthly not Originally without Generation by either Father or Mother some of them having beene borne in lawfull wedlocke and of knowne honest Parents albeit of other-some the mothers side hath beene much the surer It will
Fathers have so often called it a Sacrifice of Commemoration Representation and Remembrance and that the thing to be represented is his Body crucified and his Blood shed in that Sacrifice of his Passion is a point as questionlesse which accordeth both to the words of Christ his Institution Doe this in remembrance of me and to the Exposition of Saint Paul to be a shewing foâ—th of the Lords death untill he come yea and is also consonant to the last mentioned Doctrine of the Fathers calling it A Sacrifice of Christ or rather a Remembrance thereof The only Question will be how This which you call The same Sacrifice meaning the Body of Christ subjectively in the Eucharist being invisible can be said to represent figure and resemble the same Body as it was the Sacrifice on the Crosse We yeelding unto you a possibility that one thing in some respects may be a Representation of it selfe Your Tridentine Fathers to this purpose say that Christ left this visible Sacrifice to his Church whereby his Body sacrified upon the Crosse should be represented So they From whom it may seeme your Rhemists learned that lesson which they taught Others that Christ's Body once visibly sacrificed upon the Crosse In and By the selfe same Body is immolated and sacrificed under the shapes of Bread Wine and is most perfectly thereby resembled and therefore iâ— most properly Commemorative being called the same Sacrifice by the Ancient Fathers And againe This nearely and lively resembleth that So they But this we utterly deny because although a thing may in some sort be represented by it selfe yet say we there is no Representative quality of any Body and Blood of Christ as it is said by you to be in the Eucharist of his Body and Blood Sacrificed upon the Crosse And upon the Truth or Vntruth of this our Assertion dependeth the gaining or losing of the whole Cause concerning the Question of Sacrifice now controverted betweene us Two of yout Iesuits have undertaken to manifest your Representation by a more fit example than doe your Rhemists thus Even as a King say They having got a Victory should represent himselfe after his warre in a Stage-play in sight c. So they even in earnest which hath beene as earnestly yet easily confuted by us already although indeed the Play deserveth but laughter and that so much the rather because the Representative part as your Councell of Trent hath defined is in your Masse a visible Sacrifice whereby the Bloody Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse might be represented as you have heard CHALLENGE YOu except you will be Players and not Disputers must tell us where ever it was seene or heard of a King as Conquerour or yet of any other of what condition soever acting himselfe and that visibly perfectly and truly as you have said yea or else any way semblably representing himselfe when as yet the same King or party was to all the Spectators altogether Invisible If you can then shew where this was acted whether it were not in Vtopia and who was the Actor if not 〈◊〉 and of what disposition the Spectators were whether not like the man of Argos who is said daily to have frequented the Theater and Stage alone void of all Actors yet seeming to himselfe to see all Varieties of Actions occasioning him to laugh and applaud at that which he saw represented to himselfe onely in his owne phantasticall braine Now have you nothing else to answer but which you have already said that The Body and Blood in the Eucharist are visible by the visible shapes of Bread and Wine Whereas it had beene much better you had answered indeed nothing at all rather than not only to contradict that which was said by your Fathers of Trent decreeing the Representation to be made By the Sacrifice on the Altar it selfe and more expresly by your Rhemists In and by the same Body in the Eucharist but also to expose your selves to the reproofe of your Adversaries and Scorne of any man of Common sence as if you would perswade him his money is Visible to any that will use his eyes which he hath therefore locked up close in his Coffer least any man might see it But this we have discussed sufficiently in the 2. Booke and 2. Chapter § 6. The sixth Demonstration of the no Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist because divers Epithets objected as given by Fathers to this Sacrifice are used also by them where there is no Proper Sacrifice SECT VIII IT is objected by your Cardinall that Ancient Fathers gave certaine Epithets and Attributes to the Eucharist 1. Some calling it a Full and pure 2. some terrible Service 3. some termed it in the plurall number Sacrifices and Victimes and 4. some Anunbloody Sacrifice So hee concluding from each of these that they meant thereby a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist We encounter all these foure kinde of Instances with like Epithets given by the same Fathers to other Things in your owne judgement improperly called Sacrifices as namely to Prayers Praises giving Thankes and Hymnes instiled True Pure and Cleane and the only perfect Sacrifices by Primitive Fathers Secondly they are as zealous concerning the second point in terming holy Scriptures Terrible the Rules touching Baptisme Terrible words and Horrible Canons and the Christian duly considering the nature of Baptisme One compassed about with Horror and Astonishment Whereof more hereafter And indeed what is there whereby we have any apprehension of Gods Majesty and Divine Attributes which doth not worke a holy Dread in the hearts of the Godly And the third Instance is as idle as any of the rest because the holy Fathers named Prayers Giving of Thankes and other holy Actions Sacrifices and Hoasts in the plurall number And is not there in the Eucharist Prayers Hymnes and Thanksgivings nay but know that in as much as the Fathers have called the Eucharist in the plurall number Hoasts and Sacrifices it proveth that they were not of your Romish Beleefe of Concomitancy to thinke with you that Bread being changed into Christ's Body and Wine into his Blood make but one Sacrifice for there can be no Identity in Plurality The Answer to the fourth Epithete followeth The seventh Demonstration of no Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist Because the principall Epithet of Vnbloody Sacrifice used by the Fathers and most urgently objected by your Doctors for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice doth evince the Contrary SECT IX IT hath beene some paines unto us to collect the objected Testimonies of Fathers for this point out of your divers Writers which you may peruse now in the Margent with more ease and presently percelve both what maketh not for you and what against you but certainly for you just nothing at all For what can it helpe your cause that the Celebration of the Eucharist is often called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is An unbloody Sacrifice a Reasonable
used after Consecration doth not so much as Probably prove it was for Adoration-sake because it was as well in use in your lifting up of the Host before Consecration as your objected Missal's of Saint Iames and Basil doe manifest Lastly that where Elevation was practised after Consecration the objected Authors confute your Assertion for in Chrysostome it is read That the Priest did take a portion out of the dish and held it up but a little this is not lifting it over the Head or very high as your reason for Adoration would require And in your objected Saint Denis there is no more but that The sacred celebrated Symbols were brought into light which after Consecration he termeth Vncovered Bread divided of the Priest into many parts Bread we say broken after Consecration which is the break-necke of your whole Defence Your third Objection is the diligent Caution given by Ancient Fathers to take heed Lest that any Crum should fall to the ground and if any little part thereof should fall it should be left to the Priest and the Remainder of the Sacrament after the Masse say you should be burnt to ashes and the ashes laid up So you Pharoah his Butler and â—aker we are sure would have beene loth to miscarry in spilling or letting fall any part of their carriage when they were to present their service unto their King much more carefully ought every Christian in executing his sacred Function to observe the Lawes of Decorum Marke we by the way Master Breerly durst not call the part falling any thing but a Part not A part of Christ's Body that were Impious not a part of Accidents that were absurd what meaneth this childish Fabling trow we but that if they should speake out they should betray their Cause in calling that little part a part of Bread as your objected Dionysius spake And when all is said we heare no proofe of Divine Adoration of the Hoast But we leave you to take your Answer from your Cardinall who hath told you that Casuall spilling of the Cup is no sinne Only we must againe insist in the former Observation to wit the frequent speeches of the Fathers telling us of Crums Fragments little parts of this Sacrament and of Burning them into ashes after the Celebration ended Now answer us in good sadnesse was it ever heard of we say not of ancient Fathers but of any professing Christianity were they Catholikes or Heretikes who would not have judged it most execrable for any to say or thinke that A crum or little part of Christ's body falleth or that by a dash of the Cup the blood of our Lord is spilt or that the Primitive Fathers in the Remainder of the Sacrament Burned their Saviour Yet these must they both have thought and said if as you speake of Eating Swallowing feeding Corporally of Christ's Body the Body of Christ were the proper Subject of these accidentall Events That the Objection taken from any Gesture used in the daies of Antiquity doth not prove a Divine Adoration of the Eucharist SECT III. GEsture is one of the points which you object as more observable than the former but how Because Chrysostome will have the Communicant take it with Inclining hit head downe before the holy Table Cyril by Bowing after the manner of Adoring You will be still like your selves insisting upon Heterogenies and Arguments which conclude not ad idem For first the Examples objected speake not of Bowing downe to the Sacrament but of our Bowing downe our heads to the ground in signification of our Vnworthinesse which may be done in Adoring Christ with a Sursum corda that is Lifting up our hearts to Christ above And this may become every Christian to use and may be done without divine Adoration of the thing before us Nay and that no Gesture either standing sitting or kneeling is necessary for such an Adoration your greatest Advocate doth shew out of Antiquitie and affirmeth this as a Point as he saith agreed on by all adding that Divine Adoration consisteth not in the outward Gesture but in the Intention of the minde For indeed there is no one kinde of outward Gesture which as you have confessed is not also communicable to man so that although that were true which is set downe in the Rubricke of Chrysostomes Liturgie that the Ministers did use to Incline their Bodies to the Altar yet none can be so simple to thinke that they did yeeld divine honour unto an Altar Nay your owne great Master of Ceremonies Durantus hath observed the like Bowing downe of the Priest in the preparation of this Sacrament even Before consecration and one of your Iesuits reporteth your objected Greeke Church at this day to Adore the Bread and Wine unconsecrated albeit they beleeve no Presence of Christ herein This being knowne how can you in any credibility conclude as you have done a Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament after Consecration from a Reverence which hath beene yeelded to the same Sacrament before it was consecrated In which consideration your Disputers stand so much the more condemnable because whereas they shew some Examples of a Bodily Inclining to the Sacrament done before Consecration yet after Consecration they have not produced any one But what newes now We blush in your behalfe to repeat the Instance which you have out of your Legends of a Brute Beast prostrating it selfe before the Host and doing Reverence unto it We would have concealed this but that you seeme to glory herein as being for your Instruction like to the reproofe given miraculously to Balaam by his Asse Well might this Legend have become that latter time of darknesse wherein it was first hatched but not these cleare daies wherein your mysteries of Delusions have beene so often revealed and when all Christians almost in all Countries have taken knowledge of an Horse taught by Art to kneele to any person at his Masters command and once in France when by the Suggestion and Instigation of Romish Priests his Master was called into question for Sorcery he for vindication of his credit with them commanded his horse to kneele before a Crucifix and thereby freed himselfe from suspition of Diabolicall familiarity according to the Principles of their owne superstition And for any one to conclude this to have been God's miraculous worke in that Horse as the other was in that Asse would seeme to be the Reason of an unreasonable man because all Miracles alwaies exceed all power both of Art and Nature else were they no Miracles at all Thus to your fourth Objection from outward Acts we passe on to Examples That no Example of Invocation objected out of Antiquity can infer the Divine Honour of the Sacrament as is pretended SECT IV. YOur Instances are Three the principall in Gorgonia the Sister of Gregory Nazianzen in whose Oration at her funerall we finde that She having beene troubled