now happen unto him but sine laesione that is without any hurt Wee answer that if hee should suffer nothing in his humanity passively to the Laesio corporis that is hurt of the Body yet should there be thereby in the opinion of men laesio dignitatis that is a lessening and obscuring of that his dignity which is set forth in Scripture and which our Article of faith concerning his Bodily sitting at the Right hand of God in Heaven teacheth us to be in all Celestiall glory and Maiestie This your Aquinas well saw when in regard of Indignity he iudged it An hainous wickednesse for any to thinke Christ should be inclosed in a Boxe appearing in his proper forme And what greater difference can it be for a Body to be Boxed under another forme more than when that one and the same Person is imprisoned whether open faced or covered whether in the day or in the night it mattereth not much for still the same person is shut up in Prison Againe if that these Circumstances now spoken of were not Arguments of Indignity why doe your Iesuites in a point of Opinion deny that Christ's Body is Transubstantiated into the flesh of the Communicant because of the Indignity against his Maiestie Come we to the point of Practice Let this be our lesson when there is Reverence in the use of a thing then there may be Irreverence and Indignity in the abuse thereof But your Church hath provided that the Priests be shaven and the Laicks abstaine from the Cup in a pretence of Reverence The first least some part of the Hoast which you beleeve to be the body of Christ should hang on the Priest's Beard the second least any whit of Christs Blood in the Cup should be split But how much more indignity must it needs be to be devoured of Mice Wormes and sometimes as your owne stories have related kept close in a Dunghill One word more If these seeme not sufficiently indigne because there is not Laesio corporis Hurt of the Body this being your onely Evasion what will you say of your framing a Christ unto your selves who as he 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 partie so maymed c. This is worse than your dirty imagination of placing him in a Dunghill THE GENERALL CHALLENGE THese above specified Sixe Contradictions so plainly and plentifully proved by such forceable Arguments as the light of Divine Scripture hath authorized the profession of Primitive Fathers testified Confessions of Romish Doctors acknowledged and the Principles of your owne Romish learning in most points confirmed your Abrenunciation of your so many Grosse Errours may be as necessary as your persisting therein will be damnable Before we can end we are to consult with the Fathers of the Councell of Nice especially seeing that aswell Romanists as Protestants will be knowne to appeale to that Councell CHAP. X. Of the Canon of the Councell of Nice obiected for proofe of a Corporall Prescnce of Christ in the Eucharist SECT I. THis as it is delivered by your Cardinall taken out as he saith of the Vatican Library standeth thus Let us not here in this divine Table be in humblenesse intent unto the Bread and Cup which is set before us but lifting up our minds let us understand by faith the Lambe of God set upon that Table The Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the World offered unbloodily of the Priest And we receiving truly his Body and Blood let us thinke these to be the Symbols of our Resurrection For this Cause doe we receive not much but little that wee may understand this is not to satisfie but to sanctifie So the Canon The Generall approbation of this Canon by Both sides SECT II. SCarce is there any one Romish Author handling this Controversie who doth not fasten upon this Canon of Nice for the countenancing of your Romish Masse Contrarily Protestants as they are set downe by our Zanchy and your Bellarmine in great numbers among whom are Luther and Calvin with ioynt consent approve of this Canon one of them Bucer by name subscribing unto it with his owne hand in these words So I thinke in the Lord and I wish to appeare in this minde before the Tribunall Seat of God So they The right Explication of this Canon will be worthy our paines The state of the Difference concerning this Canon SECT III. THis as is propounded by your Cardinall standeth thus All saith he by the Lambe understand Christ as he is distinguished from the Symbols and Signes upon the Altar Next But the Protestants thinke saith he that the Councell admonisheth not to seeke Christ on the Altar but to ascend up unto him in Heaven by faith as sitting at the right hand of God But we all say saith he that the Councell would have us to attend unto the holy Table meaning the Altar below yet so that we see in it not so much the outward Symbols and Signes as that which lyeth hid under them viz. The Body and Blood of Christ So hee The difference then betweene him and us is no lesse than the distance betweene Aloft and Vnder that is betweene Heaven above and Earth below Let us set forward in our progresse but with easie and even paces to the end you may better understand the strength of our Proofes and rottennesse of your Obiections That the Nicene Councell is marvellously preiudiciall to your Romish Defence proved by five Observations Three here SECT IV. FIve points are chiefly observable in this Canon First is the nomination of Bread Secondly the mention of two Tables Thirdly the admonition to lift up our minds Fourthly the expression of the Reason thereof Fiftly the Confirmation of the same Reason First That which the Councell would that men be not too intent unto they call Bread after Consecration for the Errour which they would have avoyded was either the too much abasing of this Sacrament according to your Cardinals Glosse and then was it after Consecration because they needed not to have perswaded any to have too meane an estimation of the Bread unconsecrated which you your selves hold to be a common and prophane thing or else the Errour must have beene as indeed it was too high a valuation of the outward Element of Bread which must needs be so because it was consecrated and notwithstanding it being so consecrated in the Canon it is called Bread which your Fathers of the Councell of Trent would not have endured especially seeing that we find that your Latine Church was offended with the late Greeke Church for calling the parts of the Eucharist by the termes of Bread and Wine after the pronunciation of these words This is my Body by you called the words of Consecration Besides they so call them Bread
of our Protestants profession concerning the Celebration of the Eucharist in comparison of your Romish How much more when you shall see discovered the Idolatry thereof which is our next Taske THE SEVENTH BOOKE Concerning the last Romish Consequence derived from the depraved sence of the words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY which is your Divine Adoration of the Sacrament contrary to these other words of Christ IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE CHAP. I. WEE have hitherto passed thorow many dangerous and pernicious Gulfes of Romish Doctrines which our instant haste will not suffer us to looke backe upon by any repetition of them But now are wee entring upon Asphaltites or Mare mortuum even the Dead Sea of Romish Idolatrie whereinto all their superstitious and sacrilegious Doctrines doe emptie themselves which how detestable it is we had rather prove than prejudge The State of the Question concerning Adoration of the Sacrament SECT I. IN the thirteenth Session of your Councell of Trent wee finde a Decree commanding thus Let the same divine honour that is due to the true God be giuen to this Sacrament After this warning-Peece they shoot of a great Canon of Anathema and Curse against everie one that shall not herein worship Christ namely as corporally present with Divine honour That is to say To adore with an absolute divine worship the whole visible Sacrament of Christ in the formes of bread and wine as your Iesuit expoundeth it A worship saith he far exceeding that which is to be given to the Crucifix Whereupon it is that your Priests are taught in your Romane Missall to elevate the Consecrated Hoast and to propound it to the people to be adored and adoring it themselves in thrice striking their breast to say O Lambe of God that takest away the sinnes of the world have mercy upon us So you But what doe they whom you call Sacramentaries judge of this kinde of worship can you tell All of them saith your Cardinall call it Idolatry But they whom you call Lutherans are they not of the same Iudgement say They call us because of this worship Artolaters that is Bread-worshippers and Idolaters saith your Iesuit As for our Church of England She accordingly saith that The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not reserved carried about lifted up or worshipped Our Method must now be to treat first of Christs Institution or Masse next of the Profession of Antient Fathers then of your Romish Masse in it selfe and lastly wee shall returne againe to our owne home to demonstrate the happie Securitie which our Church hath in her manner of worship So that these contradictorie Propositions This Sacrament is to be adored with divine worship and Is not to be adored with divine worship being the two different scales of this Controversie the one will preponderate the other according to the weight of Arguments which shall be put into either of them Of the Institution of Christ shewing that there was therein neither Precept for this Adoration of the Sacrament nor Practice thereof SECT II. NO outward Adoration of the Sacrament was practised of the Disciples of Christ say we at the Institution thereof which you confesse with us and take upon you to give a reason thereof to wit that There was no need that the Apostles should use any outward signification of honour to the Sacrament because they had then Christ present and visible before them So your Iesuite which contradicteth your owne Objection of therefore adoring Christ in receiving the Sacrament because then he Commeth under the roofe of your mouthes for the neerer our approach is to any Majestie the greater useth to be our outward humiliation But well no Practice of outward Adoration by the Apostles at that time can appeare much lesse have you any Evidence of any Precept for it If there had beene in the words of Christ or in the volume of the new Testament any syllable thereof your Cardinall would not have roved so farre as to Deuteronomie in the old Testament to fetch his only defence out of these words of God Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God supposing that the Bread which is worshipped is indeed the Sonne of God which is as it were mere Canting being the basest kinde of Reasoning that can be and is therefore called of Logitians A begging of the point in Question We contrarily adhere to the Institution of Christ in all points necessarie and essentiall thereunto and knowing that the Apostle promised to deliver Whatsoever hee had received of the Lord concerning this Sacrament which you hold to be the principall part of your Romish Religion wee are perswaded that he in expressing the other Commands of Christ touching Consecration Administration and Communication of this Sacrament never taught that your Article of divine Adoration whereof hee gave not so much as the least intimation The Apostolicall times faile you We shall try if the next called the Primitive Age can any whit advantage your Cause which is our second Station CHAP. II. Of the Doctrine of Antiquity concerning the Adoration of the Eucharist SECT I. THE Iudgement of Antiquity is objected by you and the same is opposed by us against you Let both be put to the Triall First by answering of your Objections out of the Fathers against us and then by opposing their direct Testimonies against you Your Objections are partly Verball and partly Practicall the Verball are of three kinds two whereof are specified in the next Proposition That neither the objected manner of Invitation to come with feare nor of Association of Angels spoken of by the Fathers imply any Divine Adoration of the Eucharist SECT II. OVt of Chrysostome is objected his Exhortation that Christians in their approach to this Sacrament Doe come with horror feare and reverence Next is their talking of the Angels being present at this Celebration holding downe their heads and not daring to behold the excellency of the splendor c. and to deprecate the Lambe lying on the Altar These seeme to your Cardinall to be such invincible Testimonies to prove the Adoration of Christ as Corporally present that he is bold to say They never hitherto were answered nor yet possibly can be So he taking all Chrysostomes words in a literall sence whom notwithstanding your owne Senensis hath made to be the most Hyperbolizing Preacher of all the Fathers and therefore hath given unto all Divines a speciall Caution against his Rhetoricke in the point of this Sacrament lest we understand him literally Of which kinds you may have some Instances out of the very places Objected where Chrysostome saith indeed That we see that Lambe lying on the Altar And said he not also even in the same Oration We see here Christ lying in the Manger wrapped in his clouts a dreadfull and admirable spectacle So he But say doe you see herein either Cratch or Clothes or can you talke of Christ's
Consecration And that Then as we see now done among us it was Invocated upon even plainly after Consecration saith your Durantus also and indeed almost who not But doe you first if you please admire the wit of your Cardinall in so framing his Consequence and after abhor his will to decive you when you have done for he applyeth the words spoken by Basil of an Invocation before Consecration when as yet by your owne Doctrine Christ is not present as spoken of an Invocation of the Eucharist after Consecration for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ therein and the Divine Adoration thereof as will most evidently appeare For first it is not unknowne to you that the Greeke Church differeth from your Roman in the forme of Consecration at this day they consecrating in words of prayer and Invocation and you in the repetition of Christs words This is my Body wherein there is no Invocation at all And Basil was of the Greeke Church Secondly your Archbishop of Cesarea for proofe that Invocation by prayers was a forme of Consecration used primitively in the Greeke Church citeth the two most ancient Fathers Tertullian and Irenaeus and of the Greeke he alleageth Iustine Cyril Damascen Theophilus Alex. yea and by your leave Basil himselfe too and that Basil was an Orthodox Greeke Father you will not deny Thirdly therefore to come home unto you we shall be directed by the objected words of Basil himselfe appealing herein to your owne consciences For your Lindanus was in the estimation of your Church the strongest Champion in his time for your Roman Cause he to prove that the forme of Consecration of the Eucharist standeth not in any prescribed words in the Gospell but in words of Invocation by prayer as hath beene confirmed by a Torrent of Ancient Fathers saith That the same is illustrated by these words of Basil saying What Father hath left unto us in writing the words of Invocation when the Bread is shewne unto us adding That no man of sound Braines can require any more for the clearing of the point concerning the forme of Consecration So then Invocation was an Invocation by Prayer unto God for the Consecration of the Bread set before them and not an Invocation of Adoration unto the Eucharist as already consecrated which your Cardinall unconscionably we will not say unlearnedly hath enforced Looke upon the Text againe for your better satisfaction It speaketh expresly of an Invocation when Bread is shewne but you deny that Bread is Invocated upon untill after Consecration And Basil demanding What Father before us hath left in writing the words of Invocation is in true and genuine sence as if he had expresly said what Father before us hath left in writing the words of Invocating God by Prayer of Consecration of Bread to make it a Sacrament as both the Testimonies of Fathers above confessed manifest and your objected Greeke Missals doe ratifie unto us For in the Liturgie ascribed to Saint Iames the Apostle the Consecration is by Invocating and praying thus Holy Lord who dwellest in holiest c. The Liturgie of Chrysostome invocateth by praying We beseech thee O Lord to send thy Spirit upon these Gifts prepared before us c. The Liturgie under the name of Basil consecrateth by this Invocation when the Priest lifteth up the Bread Looke downe O Lord Iesu our God from thy holy habitation and vouchsafe c. All these therefore were according to the Example of Christ Invocations that is Prayers of Consecrating the Sacrament and therefore could not be Invocations and Adorations of the same Sacrament And as for any expresse or prescribed forme or prayer to be used of All well might Basil say Who hath set it downe in writing that is It was never delivered either in Scripture or in the Bookes of any Author of former Antiquity and this is that which is testified in your owne Bookes of Augustine out of Basil saying that No writing hath delivered in what words the forme of Consecration was made Now then guesse you what was in the braines of your Disputers in objecting this Testimony of Basil contrary to the evident Sence and accordingly judge of the weaknesse of your Cause which hath no better supports than such fond false and ridiculous Objections to relye upon Such as is also that your Cardinall his objecting the words of Origen concerning the receiving of this Sacrament saying Lord I am not worthy thou shouldest come under the roofe of my mouth which hath beene confuted as unworthy the mention in this case If you would have some Examples of Adoring Christ with divine worship in the Mystery of the Eucharist by celebrating the manner of his death as Hierom may be said to have adored at Ierusalem Christ in his Crach or as every Christian doth in the Mystery of Baptisme we could store you with multitudes but of Adoring the Eucharist with a proper Invocation of Christ himselfe therein we have not as yet received from you any one CHAP. IV. That the Divine Adoration of the Sacrament is thrice Repugnant to the Iudgement of Antiquity First by their Silence SECT I. YOV are not to require of us that we produce the expresse Sentences of ancient Fathers condemning the Ascribing of Divine honour to the Sacrament seeing that this Romish Doctrine was neither in Opinion nor Practice in their times It ought to satisfie you that your owne most zealous indefatigable subtill and skilfull Miners digging and searching into all the Volumes of Antiquity which have beene extant in the Christian world for the space of six or seven hundred yeares after Christ yet have not beene able to extract from them any proofe of a Divine honour as due to this Sacrament either in expresse words or practice insomuch that you are enforced to obtrude onely such Sentences and Acts which equally extend to the honouring of the Sacrament of Baptisme and other sacred things whereunto even according to your owne Romish Profession Divine honour cannot be attributed without grosse Idolatry and never ther the lesse have your Disputers not spared to call such their Objections Cleare Arguments piercing and unsoluble We therefore make bold hereupon to knocke at the Consistory dore of the conscience of every man indued with any small glimpse of Reason and to entreat him for Christ's sake whose Cause it is to judge betweene Rome and Vs after he hath heard the case which standeth thus Divine Adoration of the Host is held to be in the Romish Profession the principall practique part of Christian Religion Next the ancient Fathers of the Church were the faithfull Registers of Catholike Truth in all necessary points of Christian Faith and Divine Worship They in their writings manifoldly instructed their Readers by Exhortations Admonitions Perswasions Precepts how they are to demeane themselves in the receiving of this Sacrament not omitting any Act whereby to set forth the true Dignity and Reverence
Reason saith hee is onely probable but not euident for although they affirme a dayly celebration of the Masse yet doe they not denie a daily Communion Afterwards he seeketh the Originall and beginning of priuate Masse out of priuate Monasteries yet not able to satisfie himselfe there he commeth at length to debate a Controversie wherewith many were then perplexed to wit how it could bee said by a Priest being alone The Lord be with you or Answere be made to and by the said Priest being then alone And with thy Spirit To this end he propoundeth many Answeres which I referre to your Choice whether you will beleeue with Gratian that the words Dominus vobiscum The Lord be with you spoken by the Priest being alone may be thought to haue beene spoken to Angels or with Cameracensis vnto Stones or with the Heremites in their Celles vnto formes and Stooles or else with the Deane of the Cardinals teaching any Heremite being alone to say The Lord be with you as spoken to himselfe All which imaginarie fooleries are so vnworthy the Conceptions of but reasonable men that we may feare to be held inconsiderate if we should indeavor to confute them Only we can say no lesse than that if the Apostle did condemne them who speake with strange languages in the publike assemblie although they that spake vnderstood themselues because that in such a Case If saith hee there be none to interpret and there come in an Ignorant or Infidel obseruing this will hee not say you are madde how much more extreame Madnes must wee iudge this to be where men either talke to themselues or els as if they were metamorphosed into the things whereunto they speake vnto formes stones stooles and the like For Conclusion heare the said Deane of the Romane Cardinals from whom a Greeke Archbishop shall not dissent speake reason and withall tell you that the Correspondencie of speech vsed betwixt Priest and People was to vnite the hearts of both Priest and People together Wee say with him to vnite them not as you doe to separate People from Priest by your solitarie Masses and yet to confound their speech by your Dominus vobiscum And if this may not preuaile with you yet me thinkes the authoritie of Pope Gregorie sirnamed the Great may command your beleefe He vpon the forme of the Romane service by an interchangeable speech betweene Priest and People concludeth that Therefore the Priest should not celebrate Masse alone And yet behold a Greater Pope than hee euen Soter more ancient by 400. yeares and also a Martyr decreeing as most conuenient for Answere vnto the Priest's Vobiscum and Orate that there be two at least besides the Priest An Anonymus not long since would needs perswade his Reader that by Vobiscum was meant the Clerke of the Parish But why was it then not said Dominus tecum The Lord be with thee O this forsooth was spoken to the Clerke in civility according to the ordinary Custome of intitling singular persons in the plurall number and this Answere hee called Saluing of a doubt But any may replie that if it were good manners in the Priest to call vpon the Clerke with Vobiscum in the plurall number for Civility-sake it must then be rusticitie in your Church to teach your Clerke to answere your Priest Et cum Spiritu tuo And with thy Spirit And againe the Answere is impertinent for where the Priest is found thus parling with the Clerke he cannot be said to be Alone And so the Answere of this man must be indeed not Saluing but as the rest of his manner of answering a Quack-saluing rather and a meere Delusion A THIRD CHALLENGE Against the same Custome A Custome Commendable say your Fathers of Trent Condemnable say wee euen from your owne Consciences because you were neuer hitherto able to produce either any Commendable yea or Tollerable example expresly recorded within the many Volumes of Antiquitie of any celebration of the Eucharist without a Communion no not in that only obiected place of Chrysostome whose Speech is not a Grant that absolutely All were absent from his administration of the Eucharist but certainly it is a vehement Invective against all wilfull Absents So farre was he from allowing much more from Commending Communicating alone who else-where against such as neglected to Communicate with the poore taking his Argument from the example of Christ That Supper saith he was common to All. The very Argument of Saint Hierome saying yet more obligatorily The Lord's Supper ought to bee common to All. Such Reverencers were the Primitive Fathers of the Ordinances of Christ And as touching Nemo No man in the testimonie of Chrysostome it is knowne to be taken restrainedly for Few and so acknowledged by your selves in the place objected The fourth Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the sence of the next words SAID VNTO THEM SECT VI. IN the aforesaid Canon of Christ his Masse it followeth And he said vnto Them Christ Saying or speaking to his Disciples by commanding them to Take c. did doubtlesse so speake that they might heare his Command to wit in an audible voice Which done he further commanded concerning this same Circumstance ioyntly with the rest saying Doe this The contrarie Canon of the Romane Masse But your late Councell of Trent pronounceth him Anathema who shall condemne her Custome of the Priest uttering the words of Consecration in a lowe voice Whereby saith your Iesuite it forbiddeth the words of Consecration to be deliuered in a lowd and audible voice So they CHALLENGE DOe you see what your Church doth professe See also wee pray you notwithstanding what your owne Doctours are brought to confesse namely first that The Example of Christ and his Apostles is against this uttering those words in a lowe and inaudible voice Secondly that The same Custome was controlled by the practice of the whole Church of Christ both in the East part thereof from the testimonies of ancient Liturgies and Fathers and in the ancient Romane Church by the witnessing of two Popes in whose time the People hearing the words of Consecration pronounced did answere thereunto AMEN Thirdly that the same Innovation was much misliked by the Emperour Iustinian who severely commanded by his Edict as you know that The Priest should pronounce the words with a cleare voice that they may be heard of the people Whose authority you peremptorily contemne as though it did not belong to an Emperour to make Lawes in this kind But forasmuch as the King of Kings and the High Priest of Priests the Sonne of God hath said of this as of the other such Circumstances Doe this who are you that you should dare to contradict this Injunction by the practice of any Priest saying and speaking yet not as Christ did vnto Them but only to himselfe without so much as any pretence of
But with what reason were they reprehended Because saith the Councell that fashion iâ— not â—ound in the sacred Storie of the Evangelists All those ancient Popes who held the Example of Christ in his Institution and Apostolicall Customes to be necessary Directions of Christ his Church in such points concerning the ministration of this Sacrament being so utterly repugnant to your now Romish opinions and Practices it must follow that those former Popes being admitted for Iudges whom all Christians acknowledged to have beene Apostolicall in their Resolutions the now Romish Church and her degenerate Profession must needs be judged Apostaticall Now from the former Actuall wee proceed to the Doctrinall points THE SECOND BOOKE Concerning the first Doctrinall Point which is the Interpretation of the words of Christ's Institution THIS IS MY BODY THIS IS MY BLOOD LVKE 22. The Doctrinall and Dogmaticall points are to be distinguished into your Romish 1. Interpretation of the words of Christ his Institution This is my Body c. 2. Consequences deduced from such your Expositions such as are Transubstantiation Corporall Presence and the rest CHAP. I. Of the Exposition of the words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY The State of the Question in Generall BEcause as Saint Augustine saith of points of faith It is as manifest an Heresie in the interpertation of Scriptures to take figurative speechees properly as to take proper speeches figuratively And such is the CAVEAT which Salmeron the Iesuite giveth you it will concerne both You and Vs as wee will avoide the brand of Heresie to search exactly into the true sence of these words of Christ especially seeing wee are herein to deale with the Inscription of the Seale of our Lord IESVS even the Sacrament of his Body and Blood In the which Disquisition besides the Authority of Ancient Fathers wee shall insist much upon the Ingenuity of your owne Romish Authours And what Necessitie there is to enquire into the true sence of these words will best appeare in the after-Examination of the divers Consequences of your owne Sence to wit your Doctrine of Transubstantiation Corporall and Materiall Presence Propitiatory Sacrifice and proper Adoration All which are Dependants upon your Romish Exposition of the former wordes of Christ The issue then will be this that if the words be certainly true in a Proper and litterall sence then we are to yeild to you the whole Cause But if it be necessarily Figurative then the ground of all these your Doctrines being but sandy the whole Structure and Fabricke which you erect thereupon must needs ruine and vanish But yet know withall that we doe not so maintaine a figurative Sence of Christ his Speech concerning his Body as to exclude the Truth of his Body or yet the truly-Receiving thereof as the Third and Fourth Bookes following will declare That a Figurative sence of Christ his Speech THIS IS MY BODY c. is evinced out of the words themselves from the Principles of the Romish Schooles SECT I. THere are two words which may be unto us as two keyes to unlock the questioned sence of Christ's words viz. the Pronoune THIS and the Verbe IS We begin with the former The State of the Question about the word THIS When wee shall fully vnderstand by your Church which holdeth a Proper and litterall Signification what the Pronoune THIS doth demonstrate then shall We truly inferre an infallible proofe of our figurative sence All Opinions concerning the Thing which the word THIS in the divers opinions of Authours pointeth at may be reduced to Three heads namely to signifie either This Bread or This Bodie of Christ or else some Third Thing different from them both Tell you vs first what you hold to be the opinion of Protestants Lutherans and all Calvinists saith your Iesuite thinke that the Pronoune THIS pointeth out Bread But your Roman Doctors are at oddes among themselves and divided into two principall Opinions Some of them referre the word THIS to Christ's Body Some to a Third thing which you call Individuum vagum In the first place we are to confute both these your Expositions and after to confirme our owne That the first Exposition of Romish Doctors of great learning referring the word THIS properly to Christ his Body perverteth the sence of Christ his Speech by the Consessions of Romish Doctors SECT II. DIvers of your Romish Divines of speciall note as well Iesuites as others interpret the word This to note the Body of Christ as it is present in this Sacrament at the pronuntiation of the last syllable of this speech Hoc est corpus meum Because they are words Practicall say they that is working that which they signifie namely The Body of Christ And this sence they call Most cleare and in their Iudgements there can be no better then this So your Stapleton Sanders together with Barradius Salmeron Chavausius these last three being Iesuites to whome you may adde Master Brereley his Answere saying that these words Most evidently relate to Christ's Body As evidently saith also your Iesuite Malloun as one pointing at his Booke should say This is my Booke CHALLENGE ARe not these Opinators in number many in name for the most part of great esteeme their Assertion in their own opinion full of assurance and delivered to their Hearers as the onely Catholique Resolution And yet behold one whose name alone hath obtained an Authority equivalent to almost all theirs your Cardinall Bellarmine who speaking of the same opinion of referring the word This to the Body of Christ doth in flat tearmes call it ABSVRD but not without good and solid reason and that according to the Principles of Romish Schooles to wit because before the last syllable of the last word Me-um be pronounced the Body of Christ is not yet present and the word This cannot demonstrate a thing Absent and therefore can it not be said This body is my body A Reason pregnant enough in it selfe and ratified by your publique Romane Catechisme authorised by the then Pope and Councell of Trent yet notwithstanding your fore-named Irish Iesuite hearing this Argument obiected by Protestants rayleth downe right calling it Accursed as iudged by the Church Hereticall and indeed Abhominable So hee who with Others if they were of fit yeares might be thought to deserve the rod for forgetting their Generall Catechisme and for defending an Exposition which even in common sense may be pronounced in your Cardinal 's owne phrase very Absurde else shew vs if you can but the least semblance of Truth for that Opinion Similitudes obiected for defence of their former Exposition and confuted by their owne fellowes The Similitudes which are urged to illustrate your former Practicall and operative sense are of these kinds to wit Even as if one say They in drawing a Line or a Circle should say in the making thereof This is a Line or This
and Wine in this Sacrament as he could discerne either Man from a Seraphin or Spirit or his own Fingers from a paire of Tongs Fiftly that the Sentence obiected against us is adorned with the same figure Hyperbole when he saith that No sensible thing is delivered unto us in this Sacrament and that our Senses herein may be deceived Words sore pressed by you yet twice unconscionably both because every Sacrament by your owne Church is defined to be A Sensible Signe and also for that you your selves confesse that Our senses cannot be deceived in their proper sensible Obiects Sixtly that Chrysostome himselfe well knew he did Hyperbolize herein who after that he had said No sensible thing is delivered unto us in this Sacrament notwithstanding he addeth immediately saying of this Sacrament that In things Sensible things Intelligible are given unto us Thus farre of the Rhetorique of Chrysostome Now are we to shew his Theologie and Catholique meaning as it were the Kernell of his speech Hee in the same Sentence will have us understand Man to consist of Body and Soule and accordingly in this Sacrament Sensible things are ministred to the Body as Symbols of Spirituall things which are for the Soule to feed upon So that a Christian in receiving this Sacrament is not wholly to exercise his mind upon the bodily Obiect as if that were onely or principally the thing offered unto us No for then indeed our Senses would deceive our Soules of their spirituall Benefit As for Transubstantiation and Absence of Bread Chrysostome in true Sence maketh wholly against it by explaining himselfe and paralleling this Sacrament with Baptisme As in Baptisme saith hee Regeneration the thing intelligible is given by water the thing sensible the Substance of water remaining Which proportion betweene the Eucharist and Baptisme is held commonly by ancient Fathers to the utter overthrow of Transubstantiation And that Chrysostome beleeved the Existence of Bread after Consecration hath beene already expressly shewne and is here now further proved For he saith of Bread after Consecration that Wee are ioyned together one with another by this Bread And now that you see the Nut cracked you may observe how your Disputers have swallowed the shell of Hyperbolicall Phrases and left the kernell of Theologicall Sence for us to content our selves withall Furthermore for this is not to be omitted the other Testimony of Chrysostome is spun and woven with the same Art which saith of Consecrating this Sacrament that Man is not to thinke it is the hand of the Priest but of Christ himselfe that reacheth it unto him seeing immediately after as it were with the same breath it is added It is not the Minister but God that Baptizeth thee and holdeth thy head Thus farre concerning the Iudgement of Sences which hath beene formerly proved at large both by Scriptures and Fathers wee draw nearer our marke which is your Transubstantiation Fourthly the Vnconscionablenes of your Disputers in urging other Figurative Sayings and Phrases of the Fathers of Bread Changed Transmuted c. into the Body of Christ for proofe of a Transubstantiation thereof in a Proper Sence SECT VII SVch words as these Bread is the Body of Christ It is made the Body of Christ It is Changed Translated Trans-muted Transelementated into the Body of Christ are Phrases of the highest Emphasis that you can find in the Volumes of Antiquity which if they were literally meant according to your Romish Sence there ought to be no further Dispute But if it may evidently appeare by the Idiome of speech of the same Fathers that such their sayings are Tropicall and sometimes Hyperbolicall then shall we have iust Cause to taxe your Disputers of as great Vnconscionablenes if not of more in this as in any other For whensoever they find in any Father as in Eusebius these words The Bread is the Body of Christ they obiect it for Transubstantiation but Vnconscionably First seeing that the Fathers doe but herein imitate our Lord and Master Christ who said of the Bread This is my Body which hath beene proved by Scriptures and Fathers to be a Figurative and unproper speech Secondly seeing that they use the same Dialect in other things as Cyrill of Sacred Oyle saying this is Charisma the Gift of Grace as hee called also the Holy Kisse a Reconciliation and others the like as you have heard Thirdly seeing that you your selves have renounced all proper Sence of all such Speeches because things of different natures cannot possibly be affirmed one of another for no more can it be properly said Bread is man's Body than we can say An Egg is a Stone as you have confessed Againe Some Fathers say Bread is made Flesh as S. Ambrose obiected but Vnconscionably knowing First that you your selues are brought now at length to deny the Body of Christ to be Produced out of Bread Secondly knowing the like Idiome of Fathers in their other speeches Chrysost saying that Christ hath made us his owne Body not only in Faith but in deed also And Augustine saying that Christians themselves with their Head which ascended into heaven are one Christ yea and Pope Leo saying of the party Baptized that Hee is not the same that he was before Baptisme by which saith he the Body of the party Regenerate is made the Flesh of Christ crucified Finally Venerable Bede saith Wee are made that Body which we receive In all which the word Made you know is farre from that high straine of Transubstantiation Wee draw yet nearer to the Scope Wee may not deny but that the Fathers sometimes extend their voyces higher unto the Praeposition Trans as Transit Transmutatur signifying a Change and Trans-mutation into the Body of Christ Every such Instance is in the opinion of your Doctours a full demonstration of Transubstantiation it selfe and all the wits of men cannot saith one Assoyle such Obiections Wherein they shew themselves altogether Vnconscionable as hath beene partly declared in Answering your Obiected Sayings of Ambrose In aliud Convertuntur of Cyprian his Panis naturâ mutatus of Cyrils Trans-mutavit and as now in this Section is to be manifested in answering your other Obiections to the full The Father Greg. Nyssen comparing the Body of Christ with Manna which satisfied every man's tast that received it saith that The Body of Christ in this Sacrament is changed into whatsoever seemeth to the Receivers appetite convenient and desired This is obiected by your Cardinall to prove Transubstantiation but First Vnconscionably because it is in it selfe being literally understood euen in your owne iudgements incredible For what Christian will say that the Body of Christ is Transubstantiated into any other thing much lesse into whatsoever thing the appetite of the Receiver shall desire No. But as Manna did satisfie the bodily Appetite so Christ's Body to the Faithfull is food satisfying the Soule
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
a literall Sence against the evident Expressions of the same Fathers to the contrary I. Origen say you will have the Communicant to thinke himselfe Vnworthy that the Lord should enter under the roofe of his mouth Right hee saith so but in the same sence wherein he equivalently said that Hee who entertaineth a Bishop and Spirituall Pastor must know that now Christ entreth under his roofe namely Christ figuratively II. Chrysostome who speaketh in the highest straine saith that We see touch eate and teare with our teeth the flesh of Christ True but to note that hee spake it in a Rhetoricall and figurative Sence he equiualently saith also in the same place Our tongues are made red with his blood And else-where to put all out of question These saith he are spirituall and containe no Carnall thing Yet what need you our Comment Your Iesuite Maldonate would gladly prevent us The words of Chrysostome saith he of tearing the flesh of Christ cannot be otherwise understood than Sacramentally Even he which concluded but now that to say we Eate Christs flesh properly is a false proposition III. Gaudentius say you saith Wee receive the bodie which Christ reacheth We grant he said so but he interpreteth himselfe saying Christ would have our soules sanctified by the Image of his Passion IV. But Augustine teacheth that Wee receive the body of Christ both with heart and mouth Which your Obiector noteth as being very notable for the Orall Receiving Corporally albeit the same Saint Augustine immediatly expresseth that this and all other such Speeches are to be vnderstood figuratively and unproperly V. But Pope Leo is brought in saying Gustamus We taste with our flesh the flesh of Christ Nay but you have corrupted his Saying for his word is Gestamus Wee beare or carrie it namely by being baptized as there is expressed whereof the Apostle said You have put on Christ VI. But Pope Gregorie say you saith The blood of Christ is sprinkled upon both postes when we receive it both with heart and mouth Which wee say he spake with the same Improprietie of speech wherein hee addeth equivalently that The blood of Christ is sprinkled upon the upper postes when wee carry in our fore-heads by Baptisme the signe of the Crosse VII But Nonâ— receiveth saith Hesychius save hee that perceiveth the truth of his blood But how even as hee himselfe there addeth By receiving the memorie of his Passion VIII But Optatus tels us that The members of Christ are upon the Altar and that The Altar is the seate of his Body and Blood and that it is an hainous thing to breake the Chalices of the Blood of Christ c. Wee grant these to be the Phrases of Optatus indeed which you have obiected but alas my Masters will you never learne the Dialect of the Ancient Fathers after so many Examples as it were lights to illuminate your iudgements Wherein as other Fathers have done Optatus will instruct you for his owne language who in this Booke inveighing against the madnesse of the Donatists for their iniuring of the Ministers of Christ Now saith he doe you imitate the Iewes they laid hands vpon Christ and Christ is now beaten by you on the Altar So hee by the same Hyperbole making as well the Priest that ministreth at the Altar Christ as he did the Signes and Symboles of the parts of Christ which are his Body and Blood the members of Christ even as Christ himselfe said to Saul the Persecutor of the Faithfull Saul Saul why persecutest thou me The great Oratour Chrysostome is further obiected flowing in his Rhetorike and saying of this Sacrament that Wee see him on the Altar and that He is held in the hands of the Priest namely in the same Rhetoricall sence wherewith Augustine said of all the faithfull Christian Communicants You are on the Table you are in the Cup. Or as Chrysostome himselfe required of persons baptized in their perfect age saying Hold you the feet of our Saviour Yet one more Augustine doubted not to say of this visible word the Sacrament of Christ that The Lord's blood is powred out into the mouthes of the faithfull And Hierome is as bold to say of the audible word of God that when it is preached The blood of Christ by it is powred into the eares of the Hearers Master Brereley would thinke much not to be suffered to put in his Vie iu the name of Cyprian Wee are anointed with his blood not only outwardly but also inwardly our soules are fortified with the sprinkling thereof So Cyprian What meaneth this not onely outwardly meaning in Body saith Master Brereley and addeth which convinceth our Bodily receiving thereof So hee From the same Cyprian who in the same place saith in the same stile We cleave to his Crosse sucke his blood and fixe our tongues within the wounds of our Redeemer which are all Sacramentall Allegoricall and Tropolasticall Phrases as Cyprian will clearely expresse himselfe in respect of our outward man and spiritually of the inward CHALLENGE BY this this time it may appeare that all your so serious and exquisite Collections out of the Fathers for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament and Vnion with the Partakers thereof doe appeare by this Encounter of iust Parallels to be indeed the idle Imaginations of your Teachers and the â—rroneous Intoxications of all their Disciples who yeeld assent unto them For to interpret the figurative speeches of the Fathers literally is all one as to sticke Goose-feathers in their Caps and plainly to befoole them by making them of all others the most egregiously absurd as you have already heard and no lesse fond in the outward letter then are these others that follow to wit of Gaudentius We are commanded to eate the head of Christ's Deity with the feet of his Incarnation Or the saying of Saint Hierome When Christ said Hee that drinketh my blood although it may be understood in a Mystery yet the truer blood saith hee is the word of Scripture Or as before him Origen We drinke the blood of Christ saith he not only by the rite of a Sacrament but also in receiving his word whereof it is said My words are spirit and life So they And so iust cause have we to complaine of the Vnconscionablenesse of your Obiecters by their so often abusing the Testimonies of these holy Fathers insomuch that you had need of the often Admonition of your owne Senensis I have often given warning saith he that the sayings of Fathers be not urged in the rigidnesse of their words because they use to speake many times HYPERBOLICALLY and in excesse being either transported by the vehemencie of their Affections or carried with the Câ—rrenâ— of their speech So hee CHAP. VI. The Second Romish Corporall Vnion of the Body of Christ with the Bodies
consent of Antient Fathers SECT III. AS for our selves we before all other Reasons and against all opposition whatsoever take our light from the same Scripture immediately after the Text objected wherein it is said of Iudas He that betrayeth me and againe Christ of himselfe I goe my way both in the Present Tense but both betokening the Future because neither Iudas at that instant practised any thing nor did Christ move any whit out of his place Lastly if ancient Fathers may be held for indifferent and competent Expositors we have Origen Tertullian Athanasius Basil Ambrose Theodoret Isidore Pope Alexander and Chrysostome All for the Future Tense by their Confringetur Tradetur Effundetur What my Masters is there no learning but under your Romish caps That the objected words of Christ and the whole Text doe utterly overthrow the pretended Sacrifice in the Romish Masse SECT IV. AMong the words of Institution the first which offereth it selfe to our use is the formerly-objected word BROKEN which word said your Iesuite Suares is taken unproperly because in the proper and exact acception it should signifie a dividing of the body of Christ into parts So he and that truly Else why wee pray you is it that your Roman Church hath left out of her Masse the same word Broken used by Christ in the words which you terme words of Consecration Although you peradventure would be silent yet your Bishop Iansenius will not forbeare to tell us that It was left out lest that any man might conceive so fondly as to thinke the body of Christ to be truly broken So hee It is well The word Shed is the next which properly signifieth the issuing of blood out of the veines of Christ But That Blood of Christ saith your Cardinall speaking of the first Institution did not passe out of his Body Even as Aquinas had said before him But most emphatically your Alphonsus Christ his Bloud was once shed upon the Crosse never to be shed againe after his resurrection which cannot be perfectly separated from his Body And accordingly your Iesuite Coster The true effusion of his Blood which is by separating it from the Body was only on the Crosse So they Hearken now These words Blood shed and Body broken were spoken then by Christ and are now recited by your Priest either in the proper sence of shedding or they are not If in a proper sence then is it properly separated from his Body against your former Confession and Profession of all Christians But if it be said to be shed unproperly then are your Objectors of a proper Sence of Christ his words to be properly called deceitfull Sophisters as men who speake not from conscience but for contention who being defeated in their first skirmish about Christs words doe flie for refuge to his Acts and Deeds whither wee further pursue them That there was no Sacrificing Act in the whole Institution of Christ which the Romish Church can justly pretend for defence of her Proper Sacrifice proved by your owne Confessions SECT V. THere are six Acts of Christ which your Proctors who plead for a proper Sacrifice do pretend for proofe thereof as being ascribable to the Institution of Christ and are as readily and roundly confuted by their owne fellowes as they were by others frequently and diligently fought out or vehemently objected which the Marginals will manifest unto you in everie particular to be no essentiall Acts of a proper Sacrifice 1. Not Elevation because it was not instituted by Christ 2. Not the Breaking of Bread because you say it is not necessarie 3. Not Consecration although it be held by your Cardinall Alan The only essentiall Act yet as Some thinke Is it not of the Essence of a Sacrifice And why should not they so judge say wee for many things are Sacrata that is Consecrated which are not Sacrificata that is Sacrificed Else what will you say of Water in Baptisme yea of your Holy-water-sprinckle of your Pots Bells Vestments which being held by you as Sacred are notwithstanding not so much as Sacramentals Besides if Consecration made the Sacrifice then Bread being only consecrated it alone should be the Sacrifice in your Masse 4. Not Oblation whether before or after Consecration 5. Not dipping of the Hoast in the Chalice 6. Although your Cardinall preferred this before all others Not the Consumption of the Hoast by the Priests eating it Which your Iesuite Salmeron and Cardinall Alan together with your Iesuite Suarez accompanied with with seven other of your Schoole-men doe gaine-say because this is Rather proper to a Sacrament than to a Sacrifice And for that also if it were essentiall the People might be held Sacrificers aswell as Priests So they of these Particulars whereof some are more largely discussed afterwards CHALLENGE COnsider now wee pray you that as you All confesse The whole Essence of a Sacrifice dependeth upon the Institution of Christ And that It is not in the power of the Church to ordaine a Sacrifice Next that if any Sacrifice had beene instituted it must have appeared either by some word or Act of Christ neither of which can be found or yet any shaddow thereof What then we pray you can make more both for the justifying of your owne Bishop of Bitontum who feared not to publish in your Councell of Trent before all their Father-hoods That Christ in his last Supper did not offer up any proper Sacrifice As also for the condemning of your owne Romish Church for a Sacrilegious Depravation of the Sacrament of Christ Vpon this their Exigence whither will they now To other Scriptures of the new Testament and then of the old Out of the new are the two that follow CHAP. II. That the other objected Scriptures out of the new Testament make not for any Proper Sacrifice among Christians to witt not Acts 13. 2. of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 SECT I. ACTS 13. 2. S. Luke reporting the publike Ministerie wherein the Apostles with other devout Christians were â—ow exercised saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which two of your Cardinalls translate They sacrificing But why Sacrificing say we and not some other ministeriall Function as preaching or administring the Sacrament seeing that the words may beare it They answer us because 1. This Ministerie is said to be done To the Lord so is not Preaching 2. For that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whensoever it is applyed to sacred Ministerie and used absolutely it is alwayes taken for the Act of Sacrificing So they When we should have answered this Objection wee found our selves prevented by one who for Greeke-learning hath scaâ—… had his equall in this our age namely that Phenix M. Isaac Casaubon Looke upon the Margent where you may finde the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have been used Ecclesiastically for whatsoever religious ministration even
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
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
thereby they might have seemed to have abhorred the proper Characters of our Christian Profession We descend to the Fathers It is not unknowne unto you how the Fathers delighted themselves in all their Treatises with Iewish Ceremoniall Termes onely by Allegoricall allusions as they did with the word Synagogue applying it to any Christian assembly as Arke to the Church Holocaust to Mortification Levite to Deacons Incense to Prayers and Praises and the word Pascha to the day of the Resurrection of Christ But if any should say that these Fathers used any of these words in a proper signification he should wrong both the common sense of these Fathers and his owne Conscience It were superfluous to urge many Instances where one will serve The word Altar applyed to the Table of the Lord which anciently stood in the Middest of the Chancell so that they might compasse it round was farre more rarely called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greekes or Altare of the Latines than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Mensa that is Table which they would not have done if Altar had carried in it the true and absolute property of an Altar no but they used therein the like liberty as they used to doe in applying the name Altar to Gods people and to a Christian man's Faith and Heart Will you suffer us to come home to you The Father Gregory Nazianzen for his soundnesse of Iudgement surnamed the Divine comparing this Inferiour Altar and Sacrifice on earth with the Body of Christ seated in Heaven saith that the Sacrifices which he offereth in his Contemplation at the Altar in Heaven are More acceptable than the Sacrifices which are offered at the Altar below as much as Truth is more excellent than the Shadow So he Therefore say we the Sacrifice of Christ his Body and Blood are subjectively in Heaven but objectively here in the Eucharist here Representative only as in a shadow but in Heaven presentatively in his bodily presence So vainly your Disputers hitherto whilst that we required Materials have objected against us bare words phrases and very shadowes Lastly Cyril of Alexandria made an Answer to the Objections then published by Iulian the Apostate against the Truth of Christian Religion By this conflict betweene these two wits as it were by the clashing of a Stone and Steele together such a flash of lightning will appeare as may sufficiently illuminate every Reader for the understanding of the judgement of Antiquity thorowout the whole Clause concerning Bodily Sacrifice The Apostate objecteth See the Margent as an exception against Christians that they are not Circumcised that they use no Azymes nor keepe the Passeover of the Iewes albeit Gain Abel and Abraham before the Law and the Israelites under the Law and Heathenish Grecians alwaies without that Law offered Sacrifices unto God But they saith Iulian writing of Christians erect no Altars unto God offer no such Sacrifices as were of old nor invent any new but say that Christ was once offered for them This Objection you see is pertinent to our Cause in hand and as consonant will the Answer of the holy Patriarch Cyril be who to the other points held it Satisfaction enough to say see againe the Marginals That we Christians have the spirituall Circumcision of the heart That we observe the Spirituall Azymes of Syncerity and Truth And as for the Passeover Christ our Passeover was offered up namely upon the Crosse for so is it answerable to the words objected by Iulian. And to the Objection of not erecting Altars Cyril saith not a word But what for the point of Sacrifice Hearken we pray you Although saith he the Iewes Sacrificed to fulfill God's precepts in shadowes yet we doing that which is right meaning the Truth opposite to Shadowes performe a spirituall and mentall worship as namely Honesty and an holy Conversation And againe The Iewes offered in Sacrifice Bulls and Sheepe first fruits of the Earth Cakes and Frankincense but wee offer that which is spirituall to wit Faith Hope Charity and Praises because an unbodily Sacrifice is fit for God And yet againe We Sacrifice to God spiritually and mentally the perfumes of vertues This is the Summe of Saint Cyril his Answer void of all mention of any Offering of the Body of Christ as either Corporally present in the Eucharist to be Sacrificed by the Priest or yet of any Corporall Touch thereof by eating with the Bodies of Communicants no nor any intimation of any Proper Sacrifice professed by Christians Here will be no place for your Answer to tell us that the Question was of Bloody and not of Vnbloody Sacrifices No for Cyril in his Answer handleth as well the unbloody Sacrifice of Cain as the bloody Oblation of Abel and expresseth as fully the unbloody Sacrifice of Cakes and Frankincense as he doth the Bloody of Sheepe and Oxen. Neverthelesse we should confute our selves by objecting this Testimony seeing that the Custome of the Primitive Church being then professedly not to reveale the Mystery of the Sacrament of Baptisme or of the Eucharist either to Infidels or Catechumenists and therefore this silence of Cyril in not so much as mentioning the Sacrifice of the Masse might seeme to have beene purposely done to conceale it from both Iulian the Patron of Heathenish worship and all Infidels So indeed we should have thought but that then Iulian and Cyril both would as readily confute us Iulian because he himselfe had beene more than a Catechumenist in the Church of Christ even as namely Gregory Nazienzene witnesseth once A Reader of Scriptures to the people not thinking it any Derogation unto him so to doe therefore was he not ignorant of the then Christian Doctrine concerning the Eucharist And which is a point as observable when he objecteth against Christians want of Sacrifices by and by as if Christians had nothing to say for themselves but that Christ gave up himselfe once he expresseth this their Answer as that which hee held not to be sufficient And Cyril also would controll us who in his whole Answer opposing Spirituall to Corporall defendeth no Sacrifice at all among Christians but that which he calleth Spirituall and mentall as for example Godly Conversation Faith Hope Charity Praises c. All which are excluded out of your Definition of Proper Sacrifice The Case then is plaine If that the now Romish Doctrine of a Proper Bodily Sacrifice of Christ's Body offered up in the hands of the Priest by an Elevation and after in Consummating the same by eating it with his mouth which you call a Sacrificing Act had beene Catholike learning in that Age then assuredly could neither Iulian have challenged Christians for no Sacrifice nor Cyril have defended them by confessing indeed no Sacrifice among Christians but only Spirituall and Mentall CHAP. VI. Our third Examination which concerneth your Profession of the Romish Masse by your Romish Principles The State of the Question WELL have you discerned
having power sensibly to perceive which betokening Bread or the Accidents of bread as you see it doth confirmeth unto us the Tropicall speech of Christ in calling Bread his Body and consequently overthroweth your whole Cause Fourthly the Similitude of Epiphanius must stand thus That which is said to be after the Image of God is such which hath a substantiall being yet so that it be like but not the same in nature And so is Bread having a Sacramentall Analogie to Christ's Body the first as the substantiall meate of man's Body and the other as the supersubstantiall food of Man's Soule Which Conclusion namely that Bread as the signe of Christ's Body is not the same in nature with Christ's Body doth dash out the braines of the Monster Transubstantiation by the which Bread as your Tridentine Faith teacheth is wholly changed into the substantiall nature of Christ's Body As if you would have Epiphanius to have said The Image of God in man is God in nature Thus doe you find the Testimony of Epiphanius to be Convincent indeed but against your Romish Doctrine of Errour and against your Cardinall of a foule falsity who saith that Epiphanius will have us to believe something herein although it be repugnant to our Sences which word no man of Sence can find in Epiphanius He saith indeed that every man is bound upon his Salvation to believe the Truth of Christ his Speech which say wee none but an Infidell can deny because Christ being Truth it selfe therefore all the words of Christ whether spoken Literally or Tropically they are still the Truth of Christ That the same Greeke Fathers have expresly vnfolded their meanings touching a Figurative Sence SECT VIII THe Iudgement of a whole Councell of Greeke Fathers may well suffice for the manifestation of the Iudgement of that Church They in Constantinople at Trullo alluding to these words of Christ This is my Body saying Let nothing be offered but the Body and Blood of Christ that is say They Bread and Wine c. If we had not told you that this had been the speech of Greeke Fathers in a Councell you would have conceived they had beene uttered by some Heretique as your Charity useth to cal us Protestants Neither may the Authority of this Councell be rejected by you as unlawfull in the point of the Sacrament both because it is objected by your selves to prove it an vnbloody Sacrifice whereunto you are answered as also for that your Binius in opposing against some things in this Councell yet neuer tooke any Exception against this Canon We may not let passe another Testimony used by the Antient Father Theodoret namely That Christ called the Bread his Body as he called his Body Bread Matth. 12. saying thereof Except the grane of wheat die c. insomuch that Interchangeably in the one place He gave to the Signe the name of his Body and in the other He gave to his Body the name of the Signe So hee As Protestantly as either Calvin or Beza could speake And you cannot deny but that when Christ called his Body Bread it was an improper and figurative speech And therefore if you will believe Theodoret you are compellable to confesse that Christ in calling Bread his Body meant it not in a proper and literall sence Hitherto of the Greeke Fathers That the same Figurative sence of Christ's words is avouched by the Latine Fathers SECT IX SOme of the Latine Fathers we confesse seeme in some places to deny all Figurative sence but this they doe even by a figure called Hyperbole that is onely in the excesse of Speech thereby to abstract the minds of sensuall men from fixing their thoughts upon externall Rites and to rayse them up to a Sacramentall and Spirituall Contemplation of the Body and Blood of Christ But as for the direct and perspicuous Sentences of these Fathers they cleerely and exactly teach a figurative sence in the words of Christ to wit Tertullian This is my Body That is a figure thereof Cyprian Things signifying and signified are called by the same word Hierom. Wine the type of Christ his Blood Gelasius Bread the image of his Body Ambrose After consecration Christ his Body is signified Saint Augustine in many places may be unto Vs instar multorum To eate the flesh of Christ saith he is a figurative speech Againe In the banquet Christ gave to his Disciples the signe of his Body And yet againe Christ doubted not to say This is my Body when he gave a signe of his Body Lastly unanswerably proving other Sacraments to agree with this in this point and that herein the Eucharist hath no Prerogative above the rest Sacraments saith he for the very Similitude and likenesse which they have with the things whereof they are Sacraments doe often take the names of those things which they doe signifie as when the Sacrament of Christ's Body saith he is after a certaine manner called the Body of Christ But how Hee addeth as if hee had meant to stop the mouthes of all Opposites As it is said by the Apostle of Baptisme we are buried by Baptisme into the death of Christ He saith not wee signifie his buriall but absolutely saith Wee are buried therefore hath he called the Sacrament or Signe of so great a Thing by the name of the Thing signified thereby So he even the same He who will be found like himselfe in the following passages of this Booke especially when we shall handle the manner of Eating of Christ's body which Augustine will Challenge to be figuratively meant We shall take our farewell of the Latine Fathers in the Testimony of Bishop Isidore who will give you his owne Reason why Christ called Bread his Body Bread saith he because it strengtheneth the body is therefore called the body of Christ and Wine because it maketh Blood is therefore referred to Christ's Blood but these two being sanctified by the Holy Ghost are changed into a Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ So he and so say we Accordingly Tertullian but least any may Cavill as some doe at his sentence above-cited wee adde his other sentence wherein he sheweth that Christ called Bread his Body in saying This is my body as the Prophet Ieremy called his Body Bread in saying Let us put wood upon his Bread meaning his Body So Tertullian shewing them both to be spoken equally in a figurative Sence CHALLENGE THese Sentences of these holy Fathers are so fully Consonant to the Doctrine of Protestans as that if the names of these Fathers had beene concealed our Reader might thinke that hee heard Bucer Calvin or Beza speake Goe you now and proclaime that all Ancient Fathers teach your Litterall sence of Christ his words and perswade your selves if you can that any man of Conscience and Iudgement can be seduced to believe you They say indeed that Bread is the Body of Christ
and why might they not use the same Tenure of Speech which our Lord Christ used before them But they say also that Bread is therefore called his Body as being an outward Sacrament Signe and Figure of his Body seeing that every Sacrament being a Signe or Figure the Sacramentall Speech must necessarily be Figurative as hath beene proved by Scripture as in all other Sacraments so likewise in the severall confessed Figurative words of Christ concerning this Sacrament in six severall Instances This one Argument of it selfe hath beene tearmed by Master Calvin Murus ahaeneus that is a brazen Wall and so will it be found more evidently to be when you shall perceive the same Fathers judging that which they call Change into Christ's flesh to be but a Change into the Sacrament of his flesh Bread still remayning the same and teaching that Melchisedech offered in his Sacrifice the Body and Blood of Christ when he offered onely the Types of both in the Sixt Booke And now we are to with-stand your Paper-bullets wherewith you vainely attempt in your Objections following to batter our Defence withal CHAP. III. The Romish Obiections against the Figurative Sence Answered The first Obiection SECT I. NOthing useth to be more properly and simply spoken say you than words of Testaments and Covenants Ergò this being a Testamentary Phrase must be taken in the literall Sence CHALLENGE WHat is this are Figurative speeches never used in Covenants and Testamentary Language or is there not therefore sufficient perspicuity in Figures This is your rash and lavish Assertion for you your selves doe teach that The Old and New Testament are both full fraught with multitude of Tropes and Figures and yet are called Testaments Secondly That the Scripture speaking of the Trinity and some divine things cannot but speake improperly and figuratively Thirdly That Sacramentall speeches as The Rocke was Christ and the like words are Tropicall and Figurative Fourthly That even in the Testamentary Speech of Christ at his Institution of this Sacrament saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood there is a Figure in the very word Testament So have you confessed and so have you consequently confuted your owne Obiection Hereto might be added the Testament of Iacob prophesying of his sonnes and saying Reuben is my strength Iudah a Lions Whelpe Issachar a strong Asse Danan Adder in the way All figurative Allusions Nay no man in making his Testament can call it his Will or say that he hath set his hand and Seale unto it without Figures Namely that he hath given by writing a Signification of his Will that the Subscription was made by his Hand and that he added unto it the Print of his Seale These Three Will Hand Seale every word Figuratiue even in a Testament The Second Romish Obiection against the Figurative Sence SECT II. LAwes and Precepts say you should be in plaine and proper words But in the Speech of Christ Take eate you c. are words of Command Ergò They may not be held Figurative CHALLENGE CAn you be Ignorant of these Figurative Precepts viz. of Pulling out a man 's owne eye of cutting off his hand Matth. 5. Or yet of a Penitents Renting of his heart Ioel 2. Or of not hardening his heart Psal 95. and the like Christ commanded his Disciples to prepare for his keeping the Passeover with his Disciples and the Disciples prepared the Passeover as Iesus commanded them saith the Evangelist In this Command is the word Passeover We demand The word Passeover which is taken for the Sacrament and Signe of the Passeover is it taken figuratively You cannot deny it And can you deny that a Commandement may be delivered under a Figurative Phrase You can both that is say and gaine-say any thing like false Merchants onely so farre as things may or may not make for your owne Advantage But to catch you in your owne snare your Doctrine of Concomitancy is this viz. Bread being turned into Christ's Body is ioyntly turned into whole Christ and Wine being changed into his blood is likewise turned into whole Christ both flesh and blood If then when Christ commanded his Disciples saying Drinke you All of this that which was Drunke was the whole substantiall Body of Christ either must his Disciples be said to have Drunke Christ's Body properly or else was the Command of Christ figuratively spoken To say the first contradicteth the universall expression of man's speech in all Languages for no man is said to drinke Bread or any solid thing And to grant the Second that the speech is Figurative contradicteth your owne Objection Againe Christ commanded to Eate his Body yet notwithstanding have Three Iesuites already confessed that Christ's Body cannot be said to have beene properly Eaten but figuratively onely What fascination then hath perverted your Iudgements that you cannot but still confound your selves by your contrary and thwarting languages Your Third Romish Obiection SECT III. DOctrinall and Dogmaticall speeches say you ought to be direct and literall But these words This is my Body are Doctrinall CHALLENGE A Man would maruaile to heare such silly and petty Reasons to be propounded by those who are accounted great Clerkes and those who know full well that the speech of Christ concerning Castrating or gelding of a man's selfe is Doctrinall and teacheth Mortification and yet is not literally to be understood as you all know by the literall errour of Origen who did really Castrate himselfe And the same Origen who thus wounded himselfe by that literall Exposition in his youth Hee in his Age expounding the words of Christ concerning the Eating of his flesh said of the literall sence thereof that It killeth Secondly these words This is the New Testament in my blood they are wordes as Doctrinall as the other This is my body and yet figurative by your owne Confession Thirdly the words of Christ Ioh. 6. of Eating his flesh are Doctrinall and yet by your owne Construction are not to be properly vnderstood but as Christ afterwards expounds himselfe Spiritually Fourthly where Christ thus said The bread which I shall give is my flesh Ioh. 6. 51. he saith also of his Body that it is True bread Verse 32. and bread of life Verse 48. and living bread whereof whosoever eateth liveth eternally Verse 51. All Divine and Doctrinall Assertions yet was his body figuratively called bread Fiftly that in those words of Christ to Peter Matth. 16. Vpon this Rocke will I build my Church And To thee will I give the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven And Ioh. 21. Feed my Sheepe In which texts of Scripture you place although most falsly your Doctrinall foundation of Popedome it selfe yet know you all these to be Tropicall Speeches Yea and what say you to the first Doctrinall Article and foundation of Christian Doctrine delivered by God unto man in the beginning The seed of