in it selfe but in respect of the Place or of the formes of Bread under which it is the whole Body is without distinction in every least Part and Indivisible Point thereof CHALLENGE THis is the common Resolution of the now Church of Rome The exact discussion of this one point will in it selfe illumnate the Eyes of any Reader to discerne betweene the Spirit of Truth and of Errour namely to know that there cannot be a greater Contradiction and consequently Impossibility than for a Body consisting of proportionable dimensions of Parts such as are Hands Legs Eyes and other Organicall members to have Being any where without Extension Commensuration and distinct Proportion of the same to the space wherein it is as the Propositions following will prove That the former Romish Tridentine Article is new and contrary to the nature of an Organicall and Humane Body in the Iudgement of Romish Doctors of later times SECT IV. ALbertus Scotus Aegidius are recounted amongst your learned and ancient Schoolemen who as your a Totum Christi corpus in partibus indivisibilibus specierum panis esse negaâ—â—â— Albertus Scotus Aegidius quia videtur impossible in se corpus extensum magnae molis cum tota organizatione figura in puncto collocari Suarez quo supra pag. 683. Jesuite testifieth Though it impossible that a Body that hath Extension of parts should be contained in an indivisible point The same opinion is ascribed by your Jesuites as ancient unto b Opinio antiqua quae fuit Durandi dixit corpus Christi in Eucharistia non habere quantitatem Fundamentum hujus opinionis fuit quod essentia quantitatis est habere partes extra partes distinctas inter se sieri autem non possit ut si corpus Christi habeat partes distinctas in Euch. sit totum in qualibet parte Teste Maldonat Ies Tom. 1. de Euch cap. 8. Arg pag. 180. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5. Durand and c Occham alij dixerunt quidam esse magnitudinem corporis Christi in Eucharistia sed ita ut nulla sit figura nec distinctio partium Sic Occham Bellar. ibid §. â—t Occham Now what greater injury can there be than after that it was lawfull for a thousand and foure hundred yeares since the Ascension of Christ for any Christian to professe with your ancient Schoolemen an Impossibility that The Body of Christ is whole in every the least part of the Hoast to impose upon mens consciences as an Article of Faith so found and so palpable a figment That which seemed to the above-named Durand Occham and other 1 Suarez Ies in 3. Thom. disp 48. Sect. 1. De Distantis partium Nominales concedunt in corpore Christi existentem in Eucharistia pedem non distare magis à capite quam collum Ità Occham Ailliaco Nominals such an Opinion whence as they thought it must needs follow that the Eyes must be where the Nose is the hand confouded with the legs which as your Cardinal Alan truly said were to make of the Body of Christ a confused Chaos and altogether * See above in this Chapter Sect. 2. monstrous âšœ And it may be that divers of you are of the minde of that Doctor of the Seraphicall order who teacheth you to 2 Corpus Christi non est nisi sub specie Panis partibus ejus ipsum esse sub quolibet indivisibili ipsius Hostiae per se negandum est Magister de media villa Sâ—raph Ord. in 4. Sent. Tom. 4. Deny that the Body of Christ is in any indivisible part of the Hoast âšœ That the Organicall parts of the Body of Christ must be proportionable to the Dimension of the places wherein they are is proved by the confessed Romish Principle it selfe SECT V. THE reason which your * See above § 2. Cardinall layet downe to prove it necessary that Christ his Body should have in it selfe according to the nature of a Body distinct parts of head and eyes and other Organs fit for the use of a reasonable Soule he taketh from Magnitude which is an Extension of parts into their proportionable length breadth and depth This saith he is inseparably united to Christ his Body in it's owne intrinsecall disposition in it selfe but not so saith he in regard of the place CHALLENGE THis your owne Reason may wee justly retort upon your selves proving that if the naturall disposition of the Body of Christ be thus proportionably extended in it selfe it must be so likewise in respect of Place and Space because the three dimensions of the Body of Christ as you have confessed stand thus that one is an extension in Length another in Breadth the third in Depth and each of these three are distinct one from another Well then the Arme must be here and thus farre longer than the Foot the Legge here and thus farre thicker than the Finger the Hand here and thus farre broader than the Toe and accordingly distinctly in other parts But Hîc and Hucâ—sque Here and There thus farre and so farre being Relatives of Space and Place do demonstratively shew that that Extension of distinct parts of the Body which they have in themselves divisibly the same they must necessarily have in respect of the Vbi Place or Space wherein the Body is If therefore you will not Heretically teach a Mathematicall or Phantasticall Body oâ— Christ you must deny the Article of Trent untill you can beleeve and make good that a part of a divisible Body longer or shorter broader or narrower can be and that equally in one indivisible point This is confirmed by the Essence of Christ his glorified Body as you confesse it to be now in Heaven possessing a Reall place in the sayd proportion of Spaces of length and breadth as it had here upon earth which it doth by the naturall Magnitude or Quantity thereof But the sayd naturall Magnitude or quantity of the sayd Body of Christ is according to your wone generall Doctrine in this Sacrament Therefore must it have the same Commensuration of Space although not of the same Space which is one earth Wee should be loath to trouble your wits with these speculations if that the necessity of the Cause by reason of the Absurdities of your Romish profession did not inforce us hereunto Therefore must you suffer us a little to sport at your trifling seriousnesse who writing of this Divine Sacrament and seeing it to be round solid broken moulded in the one kind and liquid frozen and sowring in the other do attribute all these to Quantities and Qualities and Accidents without any other subject at all So then by the Romish Faith wee shall be constrained to beleeve in effect that the Cup is filled with Mathematicall lines the Mouse eating the Hoast is sed with colours and formes that it is Coldnesse that is frozen and Roundnesse which weigheth downe and falleth to the ground as if you should describe a Romish
Christ that is with the same Intention as Christ when hee said This of the Bread then in his hands the Priest saying This should intead and meane that This Bread whereof Christ spake and not that which is in his owne hands which now he intendeth to Consecrate and Consequently should he make no Consecration at all And what hereupon must become of your Romish Masse in your Transubstantiation Sacrifice and Adoration you may understand in the next Section The full Overthrow of the whole Doctrine of Transubstantiation Corporall Presence Personall Sacrifice and Adoration Consequently upon the former Confutation of your Romish Significative Pronunciation of Christ's words by the Priest SECT V. TRuly hath your Iesuite * See above in the Second Section Suarez expressed the Doctrine of your Church as followeth Except these words This is my Body be taken Significatively and formally they worke no Consecration nor can it be collected that that which is now in the hands of the Priest is the true Body of Christ So he alleging the Couâ—acel of Trent for his warrant But the words as they are pronounced by the Priest cannot possibly be taken Significatively but onely in the way of Rehearsing and Repeating them No one Iota in the Text or Context No one Testimonie of Antiquitie No one Reason or yet competent Example hath beene alleged by any of your Doctors for proofe of the Contrary This point needeth no more discussion onely for further Illustration-sake wee shall commend unto you a more proportionable Example than was any that hitherto your Sophisters have invented which because your Iesuites have affected the * See above in the first and second Sections Similitudes of Historicall and Comicall Representations wee shall likewise borrow from that Stage If therefore any Romish Priest should Act the part of Aäron in imitating an operative Speech of turning and Transubstantiating a Rod into a Serpent in saying to suppose Aäron to have said so This is my Serpent yet could not your Priest possibly deliver the same words Significatively as in the person of Aäron either in saying This because This Rod spoken of by the Priest is not the same Rod whereof Aäron said This nor yet in the word My because that wherof Aäron said My Serpent cannot possibly bee said accordingly My Serpent by the Priest as your selves well know And therefore doth this discover your Romish Intoxication in your Significative Exposition of these words This and My in the Speech of Christ THE THIRD BOOKE Treating of the First Romish Doctrinall Consequence pretended to arise from your former depraved Exposition of Christ's wordes This is my Body called TRANSVBSTANTIATION Your Doctrinall Romish Consequences are Five viz. the Corporall 1. Conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ called Transubstantiation in this Third Booke 2. Existence of the same Body of Christ in the Sacrament called Corporall Presence in the Fourth Booke 3. Receiving of the Body of Christ into the Bodies of the Communicants called Reall or Materiall Conjunction in the Fifth Booke 4. Sacrificing of Christ's Body by the hands of the Priest called a Propitiatory Sacrifice in the Sixth Booke 5. Worshipping with Divine Worship called Latria or Divine Adoration of the same Sacrament in the Seventh Booke After follow the Additionals in a Summary Discoverie of the Abominations of the Romish Masse and the Iniquities of the Defenders thereof in the Eighth Booke THese are the five Doctrinall Consequences which you teach and professe and which wee shall by God's assistance pursue according to our former Method of Brevity and Perspicuity and that by as good and undenyable Evidences and Confessions of your owne Authours in most points as either you can expect or the Cause it selfe require And because a Thing must have a Begetting before it have a manner of Being therefore before wee treate of the Corporall Presence wee must in the first place handle your Transubstantiation which is the manner as wee may so say of the Procreation thereof CHAP. I. The State of the Controversie concerning the Change and Conversion professed by Protestants which is Sacramentall And by the Papists defined to be Trans-substantiall First of the Sacramentall SECT I. THere lyeth a charge upon every Soule that shall communicate and participate of this Sacrament that herein hee Discerne the Lords Body which Office of Discerning according to the judgement of Protestants is not onely in the use but also in the Nature to distinguish the Object of Faith from the Object of Sense The First Object of Christian Faith is the Divine Alteration and Change of naturall Bread into a Sacrament of Christs Bodie This wee call a Divine Change because none but the same * See hereafter Chap. 4. §. 1. 2. Omnipotent power that made the Creature and Element of Bread can Change it into a Sacrament The Second Object of Faith is the Body of Christ it selfe Sacramentally represented and verily exhibited to the Faithfull Communicants There are then three Objects in all to be distinguished The First is before Consecration the Bread meerely Naturall Secondly After Consecration Bread Sacramentall Thirdly Christs owne Body which is the Spirituall and Supersubstantiall Bread truly exhibited by this Sacramentall to the nourishment of the soules of the Faithfull Secondly of the Romish Change which you call Transubstantiation SECT II. BVt your Change in the Councell of a Est conversio totius substantiae Panis in Corpus Christi totius substantiae Vini in sanguinem manentibus duntaxat speciebus Panis Vini quam quidem Conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissimè Transubstantiationem appellat Conc. Trid. Sess 13. Can. 2. Trent is thus defined Transubstantiation is a Change of the whole Substance of Bread into the Body of Christ and of Wine into his Blood Which by the Bull of b Ego N. N jurò hinc Conversionem fieri quam Catholica Ecclesia appellat Transubstantiationem Extrà quam fidem nemo salvus esse potest Bulla Pij 4. super formâ luram nit professionu Fidei Pius the Fourth then Pope is made an Article of Faith without which a man cannot bee saved Which Article of your Faith Protestants beleeve to bee a new and impious Figment and c Transubstantiationem Protestantes esse sceleratam Haeresin dicunt Bell. l. 3. de Euch. cap. 11. Heresie The Case thus standing it will concerne every Christian to build his Resolution upon a sound Foundation As for the Church of England shee professeth in her 28. Article saying of this Transubstantiation that It cannot bee proved by holy Writ but is repugnant to the plaine words of Scripture overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion unto MANY SVPERSTITIONS CHAP. II. The Question is to be examined by these grounds viz. I Scripture II. Antiquity III. Divine Reason IN all which wee shall make bold to borrow your owne Assertions and Confessions for the Confirmation of Truth The Romish Depravation of the Sense of Christ
shewed in the Third Booke III. Vpon the same Sacramentall and Analogicall reason they have used to say that wee See Touch Tast and Eat Christs Body albeit Improperly as hath beene plentifully declared and confessed in this Fift Booke IV. Because Eating produceth a Nourishing and Augmentation of the Body of the Eater by the thing Eaten they have attributed like Phrases of our Bodily Nourishment and Augmentation by Christs Body which you your selves have confessed to be most Improperly spoken in the same Booke V. Almost all the former Vnions Corporall of our Bodies with Christ have beene ascribed by the same Fathers unto the Sacrament of Baptisme wherein there cannot Properly be any Corporall Touch or Conjunction at all As for example in saying I. That Wee in Baptisme hold the feet of Christ II. Are Sprinkled with his Blood III. Do Eat his flesh have Vnion with him in Nature and not onely on Affection IV. Being made Bone of his Bone and Flesh of his Flesh V. Thereby have a Pledge of our Resurrection to Life And a Pledge as you have now heard is of that which is Absent Each one of these and many other the like are abundantly alleged in the Eighth Booke of this Treatise of the Masse The summe of all these Premises is that wee are to acknowledge in the Objected Testimonies of Fathers concerning the Symbol and Sacrament of Christs Body their Symbolicall and Sacramentall that is Figurative Meanings And lest you may Doubt of the reason hereof we adjoyne the Section following The Divine Contemplations which the Holy Fathers had in uttering their Phrases of our Naturall and Corporall Conjunction with Christs Body and Nourishment thereby to Immortality for the Elevating of our minds to a Spirituall apprehension of his Body and Blood SECT V. YOur Jesuites Bellarmine Tolet Suarez and Vasquez have already instructed you not to take such Sayings of the Fathers as they are uttered lest the Fathers might be held to be Absurd in themselves or Derogatory to the Dignity and Majesty of this Sacrament And they say well But it had beene better if they had furthermore unfolded unto us the Fathers true Mysticall meaning therein which wee must endeavour to do out of the premised Sentences of the same Fathers to the end that you and wee may make an holy and comfortable use of their Divine meditations upon this Sacrament They have sayd I. That Christ hath a Naturall Vnion by his Godhead with God the Father II. That this Godhead of Christ by his Incarnation is united Hypostatically into our Nature of Manhood in him whereby wee have with Christ our Naturall and Corporall Conjunction III. That by the same Hypostaticall Vnion of his Divine and Humane Nature together his Bodily Flesh is become the Flesh of God his Blood the Blood of God IV. That these being the Flesh and Blood of God are become thereby to be Vivificall that is giving Life Blisse and Immortality both to the Bodies and Soules of the Faithfull in Christ V. That the Faithfull by Reason of the Specificall Vnion of their Humane nature with the Humane Nature of Christ are made partakers the reby of his Divine Nature and of all the Infinite Vivification and power of grace in this world and of Glory and Immortality in the world to come wrought by his Death and Passion VI. Both by Baptisme and by the Eucharist wee have a Naturall and Corporall Vnion with the Body of Christ mystically in as much as the Sacrament of Bread and Wine the Choycest Refections of mans Bodily Life are Touched Tasted Eaten and Sensually mixed with our Flesh to the nourishing and augmenting the same untill it become of the Essence of our Bodily Substance unseparably Therfore hath this Sacrament most aptly beene called a Pledge of an unspeakable Vnion of Christs Body with ours unto Immortality and an Earnest of our Resurrection Lastly from this Sacrament there resulteth a Spirituall Vnion continuing in the Faithfull after the Receiving of this Sacrament even all their life long and notwithstanding called by the same Fathers Corporall and Naturall that is as they interpret themselves from the Nature of Faith by believing that Christ had truly a Naturall and Bodily flesh the same Specifically with ours Which Vnion your Jesuites have beene enforced to acknowledge to be in it selfe not Properly a Corporall and Naturall Vnion but Spirituall and Mysticall wrought onely in the Soule But how This indeed is worthy our knowledge as a matter full of Christian Comfort Thus then The Disposition of the Body in Christian Philosophy followeth the Disposition of the Soule For when the Soules of the Faithfull departing this life in the state of Grace and the Soules likewise of the Vngodly passing but from hence into the thraldome of Sin shall resume their owne Bodies by virtue of that Resumption shall be made possessors of Life and Blisse both in Body and Soule and the Wicked contrarily of Curse and Damnation in both according to that Generall Doome Come you Blessed unto the one c. and Goe you Cursed to the other c. Nor will your learned Suarez deny this 22 Suarez in 3. Tho. qu 79. Disp 64. §. 2. Gloria corporis respondet gloriae animae sicut beatitudo animae respondet gratiae charitati ut sicut hoc Sacramentum neque habet nequè haberé potest aliam efficaciam circa gloriam animae praeter eam quam habet circa gratiam charitatem itaque neque aliter pâ—â—est efficere gloriam corporis quam gloriam animae CoÌ„dudit Hoc Sacramentum non aliam conferre vitam immortalitatem corporis quam nutriendo conservando charitatem gratiam The Glory of the Body saith hee dependeth upon the Glory of the Soule and the Happinesse of the Soule dependeth upon Grace therein neither doth the Sacrament any otherwise conferre Immortality to the Body but by nourishing and preserving grace in the Soule Which is Divinely spoken And yet wee have a more Ancient than your Jesuite even Cyprian one of the Ancientest of the Primitive Fathers whose words may serve us for a Comment upon the former objected Sayings of other Fathers Hee in his Discourse of the Supper of the Lord the Blessed Sacrament of our Vnion which the Faithfull Communicants have in receiving it 23 Cyprian de Câ—na Dom. Potus Esus ad eandem pertinent rationem quibus sicut corporea nutritur substantia vivit â—â—colum 〈◊〉 perseâ—erat ita vita spiritus hoc propâ—io alimento nutritur quod est esâ—a 〈◊〉 hoc animae est fides quod cibus corporiâ— est verbum spiritui excellentiori virtute peragens aeternaliter quod agant alimenta carnalia temporaliter As by meat and drinke saith hee the Substance of our Bodies is nourished and liveth in health so the life of the Spirit is nourished with this Aliment For what Meat is to the Flesh that is Faith to the Soule and what Food is to the Body that
Cyprian Vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit Christus Epist 63. XII Clemens Alexand Benedixit vinum cum dixit Accipite Paedag. lib. 2. cap. 3. XIII Isidâ—r Panâ—s quia confirmat corpus ideò corpus Christi nuncupatur Lib. 1. de officijs cap. 18. Fathers pressing upon you Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Hierome Ambrose Augustine Cyril of Hierusalem Cyril of Alexandria Theodoret Gaudentius Cyprian Clemens of Alexandria and Isidore Thirteene to the dozen whose sayings wee may best know by their owne Idiome and Tenure of speech The first noting Christ to have confessed Bread to have beene his Body The second Christ to have called Bread his Body The third that Christ's speech was spoken of Bread The fourth that That which hee broke was bread The fift that It was Bread which he brake The sixt that It was Bread of the Lord and not Bread the Lord received of Iudas The seventh that the words My Body were spoken of the Bread The eighth that Christ saith of the Bread This is my Body And the same Father as if he had studied to take away all Scales of doubtfulnesse from the eyes of your mindes illustrateth the matter thus So saith hee did Christ call his Body Bread as else where he calleth his flesh a Grane of Wheate Except the Grane of Wheate die it bringeth forth no fruit The ninth that Christ gave to the Bread the name of his Body The tenth that Christ said of the Consecrated Bread This is my Body The eleventh that It was Wine which he called his Blood The twelfth that He blessed Wine when he said drinke And the last The Bread strengthning man's Body was therefore called the Body of Christ Yet need not this Father be reckoned for the Last if wee affected to be supersluous All these so Learned and Ancient Fathers sufficient Grammarians wee trow teaching the Pronoune This to demonstrate Bread do as absolutely confute your Romish Exposition to prove the speech Figurative â—s any Protestant in the world could do if hee were permitted to plead his owne Cause CHALLENGE WEe will try what a Syllogisme will do that after your Posall in Grammar wee may encounter you with Logike The Major No Bread can possibly be called a Body of flesh without a figure This Proposition hath had the Vniversall consent of all Schooles by virtue of that Maxime of Maximes * See above §. 4. Disparatum de Disparato c. The Minor But in these words This is my Body the Pronoune This doth demonstrate Bread This hath beene the generall Exposition of Fathers The Conclusion Therefore the words of Christ This is my Body are to be taken figuratively Except you will contradict both the Generall confession of your owne Schooles and Vniversall consent of Ancient Fathers besides the now cleare light of the words of Christ That it was Bread which Christ called his Body is proved manifestly from your owne Romish Positions and Principles SECT VII YOur first Position is this The word This must either point out Bread or the Body of Christ or that Third common Substance which you call Individuum vagum But to referre to word This unto the Body of Christ is as hath beene f See above §. 2. confessed Absurd And that the word This should signifie your Individuum vagum is an Exposition full of Absurdities as hath beene also t See above §. 3. acknowledged It remaineth therfore that the Pronoune This pointeth out precisely Bread A second Principle you have to wit That these words This is my Body are words of Consecration and Operative so that by This is meant that which is Consecrated and as your Councell u Concil Trident Sess 23. c. 4. Fit Conversio totius substantiae Panus in corpus Christi of Trent speaketh changed into the Body of Christ But by the Decree of the same Councell not the Body of Christ nor any Third thing but Bread only was then consecrated and changed into the Body of Christ Ergo the Pronoune THIS hath only Relation to the Bread âšœ We might adde for a third Principle the above ingenuous * See above Chap. 1. Sect. 2. Confession of your Iesuites granting that the Pronoune THIS in Christs words did designe That thing which was then present whereof Christ sayd This is my Body when as which hath likewise beene confessed That thing was neither Christs Body nor any third thing differing from Bread And therefore say we could betoken nothing but Bread CHALLENGE A New Syllogisme would bee had to put the matter out of question Major No Sense which is Impossible can be given properly to the words of Christ This is my Body This needeth no proofe Minor But to call Bread Christs Body properly is a Sense Impossible This hath beene your owne constant * See above § 4 profession Conclusion Therefore cannot this Sense be given properly to the Body of Christ How can you avoyd the necessity of this Consequence All arising from the nature of Predication in this Proposition wherein the Subject is Bread the Copula Is and Predicate Body of Christ Which because it cannot be properly predicated either of Bread determinate as to say This Bread in my hand is Christs Body or of Bread undeterminate which you cal vagum as to say This kind of Bread is the Body of Christ it demonstratively sheweth that your Doctors can have no greater Adversaries in this case than their owne Consciences which will appeare more fully in that which followeth âšœ A Confirmation that in the words Hoc est Corpus Meum This is my Body the Pronoune HOC THIS is expressely spoken of Bread by the Analogie it hath with the other Pronoune HOC THIS spoken of the Cup. SECT VIII AS all the motions of every wheele of a Watch have their activity from the spring so may We say that all the Controversies touching the Romish Masse in the Doctrinall parts thereof concerning Corporall Presence Transubstantiation Vnion and divine Adoration attributed to that which is in the hands of the Priest depend as on their of-spring upon the proper and Literall Sense of these words Hoc est corpus meum This is my Body and this their Interpretation resteth upon the proper signification of the Pronoune Hoc This as you have already heard Which if it betoken Literally Bread as all Protestants affirme then by Vniversall consent of even the Romish Doctors themselves the speech of Christ must as necessarily bee a Figurative and Tropicall speech as was that of Saint Paul saying The Rocke was Christ The Romish therfore to avoid this have devised other Interpretations of Christs words as you have heard Some for they are divided among themselves will have the Pronoune Hoc This to betoken Christs Body as if Christ had sayd This my Body is my Body The other Opinators holding the former to bee absurd say that by Hoc This is meant not this definite Bread it selfe but This Individuum vagum kinde of
surrexit à Coena accepit haec cum gratias egisset dixit Hoc meum est hoc videmus quod non aequale est neque simile non imagini in carne non invisibili deitati non lineamentis membrorum hoc enim rotundae formae est insensibile quantum ad potentiam voluit per gratiam dicere hoc meum est hoc nemo non fidem habet sermoni qui enim non credit ipsum esse verum excidit à gratia salute Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch cap. 20. words your Cardinall's b Cum docere vellet Epiphan hominem verè factum ad imaginem Dei licet non facile appâ—reat in quo consistat similitudo inter Deum et hominem cum Deus incorporalis sit immensus et dicit multa esse ejusmodi quae aliud sunt aliud videntur ponit exemplum de Eucharistia quae verè est corpus Christi tamen nihil minus est quam quod appareat exterius cum sit â—otundum et insensibile proinde validè dissimile corpori Christi Hic sanè locus omninò convinciâ— nam quod dicit oporet credere ipsum esse verum excludit Tropos praesertim cum addat excidere à Salute qui non credit quod etiam addit ciedendum esse licet sensus repugnent apertissime testatur non cum loqui de significatione sed de re ipsa words to be observed in the Greeke are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The last words shew that Insensible is taken according to power that is actively Objection and our Answer and then make your owne determination as you shall thinke good Man is said to be made after the Image of God Epiphanius not able to define what this Image consisted in whether it be man's soule or minde or virtue notwithstanding resolveth thatc All men have the Image of God in them but yet not according to nature namely that substantiall nature which is in God because God is Incomprehensible and infinite c. This is the maine point which Epiphanius will now illustrate but how By something saith your Cardinall which seemeth to be that which it is not And Epiphanius instanceth in the Eucharist wherein Christ taking into his hands those things which the Evangelists do mention he said of the one HOC This is mine viz. Body and of the other This is mine viz. Blood hereby understanding saith your Objector The Eucharist which is truely the Body of Christ although it seeme not to be so outwardly being of a round figure and Insensible or without sense and therefore farre unlike to be the Body of Christ So he Who thinking he hath overcome doth raise up his Iö and Triumph saying This argument is throughly convincent because Epiphanius addeth He who believeth not the words of Christ doth fall from Salvation adding further that they are to be beleeved although our senses gainesay it You have heard the Objection which seeming to so great a Champion so greatly Convincent you will give us licence to make a full Answer First by HOC ET HOC THIS AND THIS by the Interpretation of Epiphanius are meant The things which the Evangelist did mention and the Evangelist mentioned as you know Bread He tooke Bread He tooke the Cup meaning Wine in the Cup namely according to the * See above Chap. 1. §. 6. former generall Consent of the Fathers HOC signifyed Bread in one part of the Eucharist and Wine in the other But Bread neither in the Substance nor in the Accidents can be called Christs Body without a Trope as hath beene * See above Chap. 1. §. 4. Confessed which is our first confutation of your Cardinal who concludeth that Epiphanius excludeth all Tropes out of Christs Speech of HOC Secondly c Epiphanius in Ancorato Habent omnes id quod est secundùm Imaginem Dei sed non secundùm naturam non enim secundùm aequalitatem habent homines Deus enim mente incoÌ„ prehensibilis est cum spiritus sit super omnem spirituÌ„ All men saith Epiphanius have the Image of God although not according to nature or equality because God the Spirit of Spirits is Incomprehensible Then he seeketh a Similitude from the Eucharist an Image of a thing which seemeth to be that which in nature and equality it is not Now in the Eucharist there are two things to be distinguished the one is the Naturall the other is the Sacramentall Being thereof The Naturall Being of the Elements as of Bread and Wine cannot make this Similitude because whether they be taken as Substances or Accidents Hoc This hath no proportion with the word which is called Meum meaning Christs Body because the Hoc as Epiphanins saith is a Round figure But as Hoc and Hoc are Sacramentall Images representing Meum and Meum Christs Body and Blood the Bread broken to betoken his Body crucifyed and the Wine poured out a-part to signifie Christs Blood Shed so will the Similitude be most Harmonicall Even as Bread and Wine in the Eucharist although they differ in nature yet are they representative Signes and Images of the Body and Blood of Christ So the Image of God in man hath a resemblance of the Godhead although in respect of Nature and Equality it be as different as Finite and Infinite Comprehensible and Incomprehensible According to which Analogicall Mysticall and acramentall sense upon the hearing of these words of Epiphanius Whosoever will not believe Christs words as hee said falleth from grace wee willingly shall say Amen The rather because Epiphanius being an Adversarie to the Marcionites who denyed Christ to have a True Body but onely Phantasticall notwithstanding whatsoever proofe from mens senses who saw and felt them they could not digest the Faith of the Romish Church which teacheth that that which Epiphanius calleth Bread after Consecration should be contrary to the Demonstration of â—oure Senses as of Seeing Smelling Feeling and Tasting meere Accidents Thirdly a place as observable as any other He saith of this Hoc which is of a round figure and differing in nature and proportion from that Meum which is the Body of Christ that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Insensible But how Passively as not being able to be perceived No for then it could not be perceived to be Round But Actively as not able to perceive any thing in which respect hee opposeth it to Meum which is the Body of Christ Which againe manifestly contradicteth the abominable coÌ„mon doctrine of your Church as you have heard of Believing the Body of Christ as it is in this Sacrament to be unable either to see or heare or exercise any faculty of sense without a Miracle as is shewed Book 4. Chap. 9. Sect. 2. In the last place I require Iustice from your selves against a Proctor of yours The Case is this Bellarmine said quoth I that Epiphanius taught We are to believe these words of Christ although
Baptisme into the death of Christ He saith not we signifie his buriall but absolutely saith we are buried therfore hath he called the Sacrament or Signe of so great a thing by the name of the thing signified thereby So hee even the same Hee who will bee found like himselfe in the following passages of this and other books especially when wee shall handle the Manner of eating of Christs Body which Augustine will challenge to bee Figuratively meant âšœ Your Answerers are so puzzled with Saint Augustine his Testimonies that you may doubt whether rather to pity their perplexities or else to hate their perversenesse as you may see by another Testimony of the same Father which wee may not let passe * Aug. con Adimant cap. 12. Scriptum est sanguinem precoris animam ejus esse Possum interpretari praeceptum illud in signo esse positum non enim dubitavit Christus dicere Hoc est corpus meum cum signum dedit corporis sui Christ doubted not to say This is my Body when hee gave a Signe of his Body even as hee saith hee might interpret that Scripture * Deut. 12. The blood of the Beast is the life of the Beast The blood is a signe thereof Where his sole ayme is to expound the Verbe Est to bee no more than it Is a Signe or Signifieth But whether as your 16 Bell. l. 2. de Euch. cap. 24. in his two last as it were in his best Answeres Aug. intelligere non nudum signum sed cum re ipsa conjunctum nec corporis absentis ut sanguis signum non animae absentis 2. Sol. Signum corporis immolari in Cruce Cardinall fancieth it was a Signe of Christ's Body present in the Eucharist or rather as absent after on the Crosse Aug. regardeth not to mention but meerly to teach here which he doth more exactly else-where that wheresoever any thing is predicated and affirmed of another thing of a different nature as when the Signe is called by the name of the thing signified the speech is Figurative as Christ by the Apostle is called Rocke 17 August quaest super Levit. cap. 57. Non est dictum Petra significat Christum sed Petra erat Christus sic solet loqui Scriptura res significaÌ„tes tanquà m res quae significantur appellans Tract 77. It is not said saith Saint Augustine The Rocke signifieth Christ but the Rocke is Christ which is usuall saith he in Scripture which calleth signes of things by the names of the things themselves which are signified thereby It will not be impertinent to adjoyne hereunto your Iesuiticall Interpretation of these words of the Apostle The Rocke was Christ and after to compare it with this of Saint Augustine that thereby we may the better discerne Light from darkenesse 18 Iaâ— Gordon Ies lib. Controv. 3. cap. 7. num 21. Petra erat Christus 1. Cor. 10. Germanus literalis sensus non est iste Petra significat Christum ut putant Adversarij qui ex hoc loco contendunt probare verbum sub stantivâ—n Est aliquandò usurpari pro significat ut indè faciliùs ignâ—ris persuadeant verbum Est in verbis Christi idem valere quod significat The Literall and Proper Sense of these words saith hee is not that which our Adversaries meaning Protestants doe hold The Rocke signified Christ contending hereupon to prove that the Verbe EST is sometime used for SIGNIFIETH that thereby they may the more easily perswade that the word EST in Christs Speech is the same in Sense with SIGNIFIETH So hee What Heretike could have more confronted Saint Augustine than your Iesuite hath by denying the words The Rocke was Christ to bee in true Sense Did Signifie Christ Secondly that Est elsewhere is used in Scripture for Significat in both which Saint Augustine is as absolute an Adversarie and yet no more in these than indeed in the whole Cause concerning the Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament And the cause of Saint Augustines interpretation is plaine For Adimantus the Manichee objected to the Iewe 19 Aug. cont Adimant quo sap Adimantus Manichaeus â—it secundùm intellectum Iudaeorum qui dicunt sanguinem esse animam sequi c. That they understood by the other Text The blood of the Beast is the soule thereof not that it was conteined in the soule or joyned with the soule but that it is the soule it selfe This is that Literall interpretation which Augustine declineth and expoundeth the words as spoken Figuratively Signe for the thing signified as * See above at the letter u hee did in the speech of Christ saying of Bread This is my Body And doth not 20 Cyril Hier. Catech. Mistag 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril call Baptisme the Antitype of Christs Passion Saint Augustine desireth to have one word more 21 Aug. in lib. Sent. Prosperi De Consecrat Dist â—â— Cap. Hoc est quod dicimus sicut ergò coelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cum reverâ sit SacrameÌ„ u n corporis Christi illius videlicet quod visibile quod palpabile 〈◊〉 mortale in cruze positum est vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus sit Christi passio mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio The Heavenly Bread saith hee which is Christ's flesh is called after a maner the Body of Christ when as indeed it is the Sacrament of Christ's Body to wit of that Body which is visible palpable mortall and the Immolation of his flesh which is done by the hands of the Priest is called Christ's Passion Death and Crucifixion but not in the veritie of the thing but in a Significant mysterie So he Which words if they should need a Comment can have no better than is your owne publike privileged Romish Glosse upon them saying 22 Glâ—ssa in eum locum Coelestis Id est Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè unde dicitue suo modo non rel veritate sed signisicante mysterio ut sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est Significat The Heavenly Sacrament which truly representeth Christ's flesh is called the Body of Christ IMPROPERLY where it is said to be after a certaine maner the Bodie of Christ There are foure principall Observables in this one sentence of Saint Augustine I. Your Doctors have vilified our Sacrament because wee judging it to be Bread do but onely account it a Sacrament of Christ's Body Saint Augustine doth here reprove them as directly as if hee had said Though it be but a Sacrament of Christ's Body yet is it to be esteemed as Heavenly Bread II. As often as you reade of the Bread called Christ's Body you straine it to your owne sense as directly demonstrating Christ's Body Saint Augustine telleth you that it is in
it selfe onely the Sacrament of his Bodie III. Yea but say your Doctors The Body of Christ herein is a Sacrament and â—gne of himselfe as he was on the Crosse Nay will S. Augustine say not so for the Body of Christ is Invisible and insensiblâ— unto us but the Sacrament is a thing representing unto us a visible palpable and mortall Body of Christ IV. Your men are still instant to interpret it of Christ's Body Corporally present therein and S. Augustine offereth to illuminate your understandings by the light of a Similitude saying The thing in the hands of the Priest is so called Christ's Flesh as his Immolation of Christ's Body heerein is called Christ's Passion and that it is not properly and lively so meant but Suo modo that is as your owne Glosse expoundeth it IMPROPERLY Can any thing be more repugnant to your Romish Doctrine of this Sacrament than this one Testimony of Saint Augustine is from point to point The Bp. Facundus who lived about the yeare 546. an Author much magnified by your 23 Iac. Sirmundus Ies Epist Dedic ante lib. Facundi Maximam Romanae sedis potestatem celebrat and Baron Ann. Chri. 546. num 24. Prudentissimus Ecclesiasticus Agonistes Facundus Iesuit as one who extolleth the Authority of the See of Rome and by your Cardinall as a most wise Champion of the Church must needs deserve of you so much credit as to think that he would write nothing concerning this Sacrament of Christ which hee judged not to be the received Catholike doctrine of that his Age. Hee thus 24 Facundus l. 9. defens Trin. Cap. 5. Sacramentum Adoptionis suscipere dignatus est Christus quandò circumcisus est quandò baptizatus potest Sacramentum Adoptionis Adoptio nuncupari sicut Sacramentum corporis sanguinis ejus quod est in pane poculo consecrato corpus ejus sanguinem dicimus non quòd propriè id Corpus ejus sit Panis poculum sanguis sed quod in se mysterium Corporis sanguinis continet The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ which is in the Bread and Cup wee call his Body and Blood not that it is properly his Body and Blood but because it containeth a mysterie of his Body and Blood Iust the dialect of Protestants Your Iesuit vainly labouring to rectifie this sentence by the sentences of other Fathers in the end is glad to perswade the Readers to pardon this Father Facundus If Peradventure 25 Idem Sirmundus Ies Annot. in locum istum Facundi pag. 404. Quod si durius hic fortasse obscurius quippiam locutus videatur dignus est veniâ qui à benigno interprete vicem officij recipiat quod alijs studisè quorum dicta notabantur non semel exhibuit saith hee hee hath spoken somewhat more harshly or obscurely as one who himselfe having interpreted other mens Sayings favourably may deserve the like Courtesie of others Thus that Iesuite But what Pardon can the Iesuite himselfe merit of his Reader in calling the Testimony Obscure and darke which the Father Facundus himselfe by a Similitude maketh as cleare as day Thus As Christ being Baptized received the Sacrament of Adoption the Sacrament of Adoption may be called Adoption even as the Sacrament of Christ's Body is called Christ's Body A saying which in your Church of Rome is now accounted a downe-right Heresie âšœ We shall take our Farewell of the Latine Fathers in the Testimony of Bish Isidore who will give you his owne Reason why Christ called Bread his Body * Isidor Hispalensis Panis quem frangimus corpus Christi est qui dicit Ego sum panis vivus c. Vinum autem sanguis ejus est hoc est quod scriptum est Ego sum vitis vera Sed Panis quià confirmat Corpus ideò corpus Christi nuncupatur Vinum autem quià sanguinem operatur in carne ideò ad sanguinem Christi resertut Haec autem sunt visibilia sanctificata tamen per spiritum Sanctum in Sacramentum divini corporis transeunt Lib. 1. de Offic. cap. 18. Bread saith he because it strengthneth the Body is therfore 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 âšœ A Cleare Glasse wherein the judgment of Antiquitie for a Figurative sense of Christ's words This is my Body may be infallibly discerned SECT X. POnder with your selves for Gods cause the accurate judgement of Ancient Fathers in their direct dilucidations and expressions of their understanding of Christ's meaning in calling Bread his Body in this sense viz. that It signifieth his Body as a Signe thereof The * Councel of Trùllo See above Sect 8. Councel of Trullo Bodie and Blood of Christ that is Bread and Wine Chrysostome a Greeke Father * Chrysost See above Sect. 6. Challenge 2. The faithfull are called his Bodie * Theodor. See ibid. Theodoret Hee gave the name of Bodie to Bread as elsewhere hee gave the name of Bread to his Bodie * Tertull. See above Sect. 9. let p. Tertullian This is my Bodie that is A figure thereof And againe 27 Tertull. advers Marcion l. 3. p. 180. Venite mittamus lignum in panem ejus Ier. 11. Vtique in corpus sic enim Deus in Evangelio panem corpus suum appellans Vt. hiac jam intelligas corporis sui figuram panem dedisse cujus retrò corpus in panem Propheta figuravit Christ gave his Bodie in a figure as his Body in the Prophet figured Bread * Cyprian See above Sect. 9 q Cvprian Things signifying and things signified are called by the same names * August See ibid. Augustine When hee said This is my Bodie hee gave a Signe of his Bodie And * See afterwards B. 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 5. Bread his Bodie as he called Baptisme a Buriall And yet againe As the Priest's Immolation is called Christ's Passion * Facundus Set above Sect. 9. Facundus Not that it is properly his Bodie and Blood but that it containeth a mysterie of them being called his Bodie and Blood as the Sacrament of Adoption meaning Baptisme is called Adoption * Isidor ibid. x. Isidore Called Christ's Body because turned into a Sacrament of his Bodie Chrysostome * See Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 14. Bread hath the name of Christ's Bodie albeit it remaine in nature the same And Ephraimius naming it Christ's Bodie which is received of the faithfull saith * See ibid. It loseth nothing of it's Sensible Substance Then Bread sure as followeth by his parallelling it with Baptisme And Baptisme being One representeth the propriety of its Sensible Substance of Water These are as direct as ever Bucer or Calvin could speake Somewhat more for Corroboration sake But yet by
before the Councel of Laterane under Pope Innocent the Third viz. Anno 1215 whom therefore your Cardinall doth taxe for want of reading But either were your Iesuite Coster and Cardinall Perron as ignorant of Ancient Learning as Scotus or else they gave small Credit to that Councel cited by Bellarmine under Gregory the Seventh For your Iesuite saith in direct tearmes that r Ante trecentos Annos in Concilio Lateranensi ad ifrius rei tam admirabilis clariorem explicarionem usurpatem fuit nomen Transubstantiationis ut intelligant Christiani substantiam Panis in substantiam corporis Christi converti Coster Ies Enchir. cap 8. §. De Transubstantitione The name of Transubstantiation was used in the Councel of Laterane for a clearer explication that Christians might understand the Change of Bread into the Body of Christ Can you say then that it was universally so understood before But your Cardinall Perron more peremptorily concludeth that s Si nihil planè ad Doctrinam Ecclesiasticam spectans in Concilio Lateranensi ex communi Patrum assensu decretum esset sequeretur posse ut falsum impugnari Articulum de Transubstantiatione Cardie Per. en sa Harangue an tiers Estat pag. 33. As witnesseth our P. Presloa alias Widdington Discuss Concib Latcran part 1. §. 1. pag. 12. If it had not beene for the Councel of Laterane it might be now lawfull to impugne it So he A plaine acknowledgement that it was no Doctrine of Faith before that Councel even as Scotus affirmed before But we pursue this Chase yet further to shew That the Article of Transubstantiation was not defined in the Councel of Laterane under Pope innocentius the Third SECT IV. YOur owne learned Romish t Venêre multa in Consultationem nec decerni quicquam tamen aptè potuit eò quòd Pontifex quo profectus est tollendae Discordiae gratiâ mortuus est Petusij Platina in vita innocentij Decerni nihil apertè potuit edita sunt quaedam c. Nauclerus An. 1215. meaning after the Councell Ad festum Sanctae Andreae protractum nihil dignum memoriâ actū nisi quod Orientalis Ecclesia c. God fridus Monumeter sis Math. paris Histor minor Concilium illud Generale quod primâ fronte grandia prae se tulit in risum scomma desijt in quo Papa omnes accedentes ludisicatus est illi enim cum nihil in eo Concilio geri cernerent redeundi veniam petierunt Thus farre out of Widdrington alias Preston in his Booke above cited Priest a long time Prisoner did under the name of Widdrington produce many Historians viz. Platina Nauclerus Godfridus Monumetensis Matthew Paris and others to testifie as followeth That many things fell under Consultation in that Councel but nothing was openly defined the Pope dying at Perusium Insomuch that some of these Authours sticke not to say that This Generall Councel which seemed to promise bigge and mighty matters did end in scorne and mockery performing nothing at all Wee might adde that the supposed Acts of this Councel were not published untill more than two hundred yeares after No marvell then if some u Scholastici quidam hanc Doctrinam de Transubstantiatione non valdè Antiquam esse dixerunt inter quos Scorus Gabriel Biel. Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disp 30. §. 1. Schoole-men among whom were Scotus and Biel held Transubstantiation not to have beene very ancient And another that x In Synaxi serò definivit Ecclesia Transubstantiationem diù satis erat Credere sivè sub pane sive sub quocunque modo adesse verum Corpus Christi Eras in 1. Cor. 7. pag. 373. It was but lately determined in the Church Nay Master Brerely if his opinion be of any Credit among you sticketh not to say that y Mr. Brerely in his Liturgie Tract 2. §. 11. pag. 158. Transubstantiation compleat that is both for forme and matter was not determined untill the last Councel of Trent that is to say not untill the yeare of our Lord 1560. Do you not see how much licking this ougly Beare had before it came to be formed and yet it will appeare to be but a Monstrum horrendum take it at the best as it is now to be proved by the full discovering of the paipable Falshood thereof CHAP. III. The Definition of Transubstantiation in the Church of Rome and of the Falshood thereof SECT I. THe Councel of Trent saith your a Concil Tridentinum dicit fieri Conversionem totius substantiae Panis id est tam formae quà m materiae in Substantiam Corporis Christi Bellarmia lib. 3. de Eucharist Cap. 18. §. Si objicias Concil Trident. Sess 13. Cap. 4. Cardinall hath defined that this Conversion is of the whole Substance of Bread that is aswell forme as matter into the Substance of Christ's Body Our First proofe of the Falshood of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation by the Contradictions of the Defenders thereof whereby they bewray their No-Beleefe of the Article THe Opinions of the Doctours of your Church concerning the nature of this Conversion are by you reduced into these two maners namely that it is either by Production out of the substance of Bread or else by Adduction of the Body of Christ unto the forme of Bread CHALLENGE VVHatsoever it is which you will seeme to professe never shall you perswade us that you do indeed believe either of the pretended Formes of Transubstant ation First not by Production because as the same b Productio est quando terminus ad quem non existat ideò vi Conversionis necessariò producitur ut aqua in vinum Adductiva autem c. Bellar. lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 18. §. Secundò notandum Productiva non est quia Corpas Domini praeexistit Idem ibid. §. Ex his Cardinall truly argueth Conversion by Production is when the thing that is produced is not yet extant as when Christ converted water into wine wine was not Extant before it was Produced out of the substance of water But the Body of Christ is alwaies Extant therefore can it not be said to be Produced out of the substance of Bread So he Which Productive maner of Transubstantiation could not be believed by your Iesuites c De ratione Transubstantiationis non est ut Substantia in quam dicitur fieri Transubstantirio producatur aut conservetur per illam imo qui hoc modo defendunt Transubstantiationem in Sacramento ad quoddam genus Philosophiae excogitatum potius quà m ad verum necessarium rem reducere videntur Vasq Ies Tom. 2. Disp 214. cap. 4. Vasquez and d Praeter Adductivam Conversionem evidenter refutavimus omnes modos Conversionis qui vel dici vel singi possunt Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Qu est 75. Disp 50. §. 5. §. Tertiò Principaliter Mr Fisher in his Rejòynder talketh fondly of a Reproduction as of Carcasses converted into men in which Change any One may
to be absolutely for it in sound it being just the same Doctrine which Augustine Anselme and Bede * See hereafter Booke 5. Chap. 3. §. 1. 2. taught when they said that the faithfull among the Iewes Ate the same spirituall meate Christs Flesh in eating Manna and dranke the same spirituall drink that is the blood of Christ in drinking the water that issued out of the Rocke which Christians now doe And therefore meant not a Corporall eating of Christ but a Sacramentall So say wee Christ could aswell then turne Manna and Water of the Rocke into a Sacrament of his Body and Blood for the nourishing of the soules of God's people of those times as he doth now Convert Bread and Wine into the Sacraments of his Body and Blood for the comfort of us Christians This Answer preventeth the Iesuites Objection 10 In his Booke of Spectacles p. 142. The Time saith he when the people received Manna in the Desert Christ was not in his humane nature therefore could not Manna be changed into his Body nor Water into his Blood So he very truly indeed And therfore must AElfrick his speech be understood Sacramentally as hath beene said which because the Iesuite refuseth to do therefore is he at difference with AElfrick denying that Christ was able to convert Manna into his Body which AElfrick said in expresse termes hee was able to do namely thorow his divine power by a Sacramentall Conversion because Omnipotencie is as properly necessary for the making of a divine Sacrament as it was for the creating of the World But was it not then kindly done thinke you of your Iesuit to lend his Spectacles to another when he had the most need of them himselfe by the which he might have discerned that as Christ Sacramentally and therefore figuratively called Bread his Body and Wine his Blood so did evermore all the faithfull of Christ This Lesson * See Booke 2. C. 2. Sect. 10. hath beene manifested by many pregnant Examples in a full Section which being once got by heart would expedite all the like Difficulties To conclude the former Saxon doctrine is againe confirmed by Saint * See Booke 4. Chap. 4. §. 1. in the Challenge Augustine Wherefore wee may as truly say concerning this your Conversion that if it be by Transubstantiation from Bread then it is not the Body which was Borne of the Blessed Virgin as your owne Romish Glosse could say of the Predication * See above B. 2. Chap. 1. §. 4. If Bread be Christ's Body then something was Christ's Body which was not borne of the Virgin Mary And this wee are now furthermore to evince out of your Pope Innocent the Third against your Councel of Trent He See the Margent of the former Section taught that when the Conversion is of the forme with the substance then is the Change Into that which is now made and was not before as when the Rod was turned into a Serpent So he shewing that the Serpent by that Change was therefore Made of that Rod. But your Tridentine Fathers you know have defined the Conversion of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body to be aswell in Forme as in Matter whereupon by the Iudgement of your Pope Innocent it must follow that the Body of Christ in your Eucharist is made of Bread and if made of Bread then could it not possibly be of the flesh of the Virgin Because there cannot be a Substantiall Change of a Substance into Substance except that the Substance of that whereinto the Conversion is wrought have it's Originall and Making from the Substance of that which was converted and changed Nor could the Contrary be hitherto proved by any Romish Doctor from any Example out of any conversion either naturall or miraculous which hath beene road of from the beginning of Times Our third Reason is taken from the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration but First of the State of this Question SECT III. VVEe wonder not why your Fathers of the Councell of Trent were so fierce in casting their great Thunderbolt of m Si quis dixerit remaneâ—â— substâ—ntiam Panâ—s Anathema sit Conc. Trident. Sess 13. Can. 2. Anathema and Curse upon every man that should affirme Bread and Wine to remaine in this Sacrament after Consecration which they did to terrifie men from the doctrine of Protestants who do all affirme the Continuance of the substance of Bread in the Eucharist For right well did these Tridentines know that if the Substance of Bread or Wine doe remaine then is all Faith yea and Conceit of Transubstantiation but a feigned Chimaera and meere Fancie as your Cardinall doth confesse in granting that n Panis eâ—si non annihilâ—tur tamen manet niâ—â—l in se ut Aqua post Conversionem in Vinum Neqque obstat quòd fouè materia manserit nam materia 〈◊〉 est Aqua Prima â—Ì„oditio in vera Conversione est 〈◊〉 quod convertitur 〈◊〉 esse Bessur lio 3 de Euch. c 18 〈◊〉 cap. 24. §. Ad Alterum It is a necessary condition in every Transubstantiation that the thing which is converted cease any more to bee as it was in the Conversion of Water into Wine Water ceased to bee Water And so must Bread cease to bee Bread This being the State of the Question wee undertake to give Good Proofes of the Existence and Continuance of Bread in the Eucharist the same in Substance after Consecration Our first Proofe is from Scripture 1. Cor. 10. 11. Saint Paul calling it Bread SECT IV. IN the Apostle his Comment that I may so call his two * 1. Cor. 11. 26 27. 10. 16. Chapters to the Corinthians upon the Institution of Christ we reade of Eating the Bread and Drinking the Cup thrice all which by the consent of all sides are spoken of Eating and Drinking after Consecration and yet hath hee called the ourward Element Bread You will say with Some It was so called onely because it was made of Bread as Aärons Rod turned into a Serpent was notwithstanding called a Rod. But this Answer is not Answerable unto the Similitude For first of the Bread the Apostle saith demonstratively This bread and of the other This Cup But of Aärons Rod turned into a Serpent none could say This Rod. And secondly it is contrary to Christian Faith which will abhorre to say in a proper sense that Christs Body was ever Bread Or else you will answer with Others It is yet called Bread because it hath the Similitude of Bread as the Brazen Serpent was called a Serpent But neither this nor any other of your Imaginations can satisfie for we shall proove that the Apostle would never have called it Bread after Consecration but because it was Substantially still Bread Our Reason is He had now to deale against the Prophaners of this Sacrament in reproving such as used it as Common Bread * 1. Cor. 11. 22. Not
beene * Vid Protestants Appeale Book 2. ch 2. §. 10. confuted for urging the former Objection notwithstanding concealing the Answer he blusheth not to regest the same albeit as one conscious to himselfe of the futility therof he leaveth it presently falling foule upon Theodoret as though that Father had beene in some distemper when he so writ d In his Liturgâ—â— of the Masse Tract 2. §. 2 subd 3. p. 254. saying first that Theodoret used that his Retortion in his * Not so for he was now not iâ—â—a personall Dispute but deliberately writing against thâ— Heresia of the Eutychiant heate of Dispute Then hee taketh part with the Heretike saying It is not likely that an Heretike should have urged against a Catholike sentence for Transubstantiation as for a point of Faith well knowne if the same Doctrine had beene then either unknowne or else condemned as False So hee who might aswell have reasoned in the behalfe of the Sadduces condemned by Christ saying It is not likely that they would so expressely have denyed that there aâ—e any Spirits in their Dispute against Christ if that Doctrine had beene then either unknowne or condemned as False by the Church of God among the Iewes And yet it is certaine that the Heresie of the Sadduces was judged execrable in that Church Now if the Eutychian Heretike finde such Patronage at the hands of your Priest alas what will become of the Father Theodoret Hearken Theodoret being an Orthodoxe Bishop saith hee could not have propounded the Heretikes Argument as grounded upon the Churches received Doctrine of Transubstantiation had the same beene then unknowne and reputed False So he who if hee had not lost his Logike would certainly have argued contrarily saying Theodoret being an Orthodoxe and Catholike Bishop would never have set downe an Objection for Transubstantiation in the name of a ranke Heretike and after himselfe impugned and confuted the same except he had knowne it to be flatly repugnant to the Catholike Church in his time Wherefore if you be men of Faith and not rather of Faction let the miserable perplexities of your Disputers discovered both here and throughout this whole Treatise move you to renounce them as men of prostituted Consciences and their Cause as forlorne of all Truth For a further Evidence take unto you an Answer of your Iesuite Valentia to this and the like Testimonies of Antiquity It is not to be held any marvell saith * Valent. Ies l. 2. de Transub c. 7. Dabimus aliud breve simplex sine ullo incommodo responsum Enimverò antequam quaestio ista de Transubstantiatione palà m in Ecclesia agitaretur minime mirûm est si unus aut alter aut etiam aliqui minùs considerarè rectè hac de re senserint scripserint maximè cum non tractarâ—nt ex instituto ipsam quaestionem he why some Ancients have writ and thought lesse considerately and truly before that Transubstantiation was handled publikely in the Church especially they not handling the same Question of purpose So hee and this hee calleth a Briefe and plaine Answer And so it is whereby in granting that Transubstantiation had not beene so Anciently handled in the Church he plainly confuteth your now Romane Church which judgeth it to have beene alwayes an Article of Faith And affirming that the same Fathers Handled not the point of purpose it is as plainly confuted by Theodoret who in this Dispute did not argue against the Heretike 〈◊〉 extemporall speech personally but deliberately and punâ—â—lly by writing and therefore of Purpose The Second Father expresly defending the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration is Pope GELASIVS SECT XIII THis Author have Protestants called Pope Gelasius and urged his Testimony Your Disputers civill First at the name of the Author calling Protestants e Non fuit hic Papa Gelasius ut Adversarij impudentèr jactant sed Gelasius Caesariensis Episcopus Bellar. lib. â— de Euch. c. 27. Impudent for stiling him Pope Gelasus But if hee were not that Pope Gelasiue what Gelasius might hee bee then Gelasius Bishop of Caesâ—rea saith your Cardinall Bellarmine Contrarily your f Baronius himselfe â—â—tendeth that it was not that Pope Gelasius Anno 496 num 123. c. yet comming to answer to the Sentence of Gelâ—siuâ— doth expound toe doubtful words there of by the phrases of Pope Gelasius ex Epist ad Pâ—â—enos Dardan Episc num 13. 14. which Epistles he before cited as the true Epistles of Pope Gelasius Anno 493. num 23. and Anno 494. num 2. And after Anno 496. num 17. telleth his Reader saying Vides Lector ex usu verborum Phrasiquè dâ—ceÌ„di Gelasij Papae alia ejus sententia perspicuâ— demonstratum esse c. Et Anâ—o 996 num 13. Gelâ— in Epist ad Picen est Peccato Originall substantiam hominis esse depravatâ—m eum tamen eadem substantia mansit Accidentia ut pote justitia originalis alia dona 〈◊〉 Cardinall Baronius contendeth that hee is a more ancient Gelasius Anno 47. namely Gelasius Cyzicenus yet so as confounding himselfe insomuch that hee is forced to expound the speeches of this Gelasius by the propriety of the speech as he confesseth of Gelasius â—ope of a Rome But what shall we answer for the Impudent Protestants as yoâ— Cardinall hath called them Surely nothing but wee 〈◊〉 more modesty in him who hath so called them considering that Protestants had no fewer Guides nor meane to follow than these g Gelasius Papa scripsit contra Eutycheâ—em Genad de scriptoribus Eccles c. 14. Anastas de vita 〈◊〉 Margarinus de la Bigat lib. 5. Biblioth Patrum pag. 467. Masson de Episc Rom. in vita â—elasij Aâ—pâ—onl lib. de naeres Tit. Christus haeres 3. in fine Onuphrius de Creat Pontif. Cardin Gelâ—sius 〈◊〉 scripsit volumen adversus Eutychetem Nessorium Fuisse Caesariensem Episcopum non posse jure affirmari videtur And proveth why not Historians viz. Genadius yea your Bibliothe carie Anastasiùs Alphonsus de Castro Onuphrius Massonius Margarinus la Bigne all which have intituled this Gelasius Pope of Rome Howsoever it is confessed on all sides that hee was an Orthodox Father and very Ancient Now then Gelasius sayd that h Gelasius lib. de duab natur cont Eutych Sacramenta certa 〈…〉 corporis sanguinis Christi divina res est propter quodper eadem divinae efficimur participes naturae tamen non definit esse substantia vel natura panis viaâ— certè imago similitudo corporis sanguinis Christin in Actione mysticâ celebratur And againe Permanent in proprietate naturae The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ being Divine things yet cease not to bee the nature and substance of Bread and Wine In Answer whereunto both your foresaid i Bellar. Baton quo supra At dicit Gelasius In Divinaru transcunt Spiritu sancto
perficiente substantiam permanent tamen suâ proâ—â—etate naturae By this it may bee seene indeed that this Gelasius was a Latine Author but what is this to the Greeke Theodoret when the Latine Language was not so perfect and that he did use the word equivocallâ— but yet so that the matter it selfe doth challenge a proper use thereo when hee speaketh of the Substancè of Bread for confutation of the same heresie Cardinalls here as before by Substance interpret Accidents one of them labouring to prove that Gelasius somewhere else called Accidents Substances Were this granted yet the Argument which Gelasius hath in hand will compell the understanding Reader to acknowledge in this his Sentence a proper signification of Substance For where as the Heretike Eutyches taught that Christ his Body was changed into the Substance of his Divinity after the Resurrection and that the substance of his Body remained no more the same Gelasius confuteth him by a Similitude and Comparison viz. That as the Substance of Bread remaineth after Consecration So Christ his Bodily Substance remained after the Resurrection Wherein if the word Substance bee not in both places taken properly Gelasius should have made but a mad Reason as any reasonable man will confesse For albeit Similitudes doe not amble alwayes on foure feet yet if they halt upon the right foot which is the matter in Question they are to be accounted perfit Dissimilitudes Master k Master Brereley Liturg. Tract 2. §. 2. Subd 3. pag. 259. Brerely would have you to know that this Gelasius whosoever he were writeth against the same Eutychian Heresie that Theodoret did and thereupon useth accordingly to his like advantage the words Substance and Nature in the same sense as did Theodoret. So he And he saith true and therefore must wee assure our selves of the consent of this Gelasius with us untill you shall be able to free your selves from our former Interpretation of Theodoret. But Master Brerely opposeth against us another sentence of Gelasius from whence he concludeth that Gelasius held Transubstantiation so that Gelasius must rather contradict himselfe than that he shall not consent to the Romish Tenet Whereas indeed he saith no more than in a mysticall sense any Protestant must and will allow viz. that The Sacrament is a Divine thing and that whosoever eate spiritually the Body of Christ are by it made partakers of the blessing of his Divine Nature which dwelleth in Christ bodily saith the Apostle So Gelasius Whereof copiously throughout the fift Booke To which Saying of Gelasius touching the Eucharist is answerable a like Saying of Gregory Nyssen concerning Baptisme calling it a l Greg Nyssen A quam per benedictionem sic mutari ut divinum Lavacrum sit à quo mirabiles existunt effectus Orat. de Baptismo Divine Laver working miraculous effects Yea and Dionysius the m Dionys Hierarch Eccles cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 §. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Areopagite bestowed the same Attribute viz. Divine upon the Altar the Symbols the Priest the People and the Bread it selfe in the Eucharist If therefore the Epithet Divine must argue a Corporall Change what a number of Transubstantiations must you bee inforced to allow whereas by naming it Divine Bread as hee did terme Priest Divine People Divine it proveth that hee meant no Substantiall Change Fie upon blind boldnesse This mans falsity in alleging Chemnitius I let passe It is further worthy your Reflection to observe your Disputers how earnest they have beene to prove that this Author was not Pope Gelasius contrary to the acknowledgement of your owne Historians May we not therefore suspect that the Testimony in an extemporall speech personally but deliberatly and punally by writing and therefore of Purpose The Second Father expresly defending the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration is Pope GELASIVS SECT XIII THis Author have Protestants called Pope Gelasius and urged his Testimony Your Disputers cavill First at the name of the Author calling Protestants e Non suit hic Papa Gelasius 〈…〉 Adversarij impudentèr jactant sed Gelasius Caesariensis Episcopus Bellar. lib. â— de Euâ—h c. 27. Impudent for stiling him Pope Gelasius But if hee were not that Pope Gelasiue what Gelasius might hee bee then Gelasiue Bishop of Caesarea saith your Cardinall Bellarmine Conâ—rarily your f Baronius himselfe contendeth that it was not that Pope Gelasius Anno 496 num 123. c. yet comming to answer to the Sentence of Gelasiuâ— dâ—th expound the doubtful words there of by the Phrases of Pope Gelasius ex Epist ad Picenos Dardan Episc num 13. 14. which Epistles he before cited as the true Epistles of Pope Gelasius Anno 493. num 23. and Anno 494. num 2. And after Anno 496. num 17. telleth his Reader saying Vides Lector ex usu verborum Phrasiquè dâ—ceÌ„di Gelasiâ— Papae alia ejus sententia perspicuâ— demanstâ—â—tum esse c. Et Anâ—o â—96 num 13. Gel. 〈◊〉 Epist ad Pice◠〈◊〉 Peccato Origiâ—all substantiam hominis esse depravatâ—â—m cum tamen eadem substantiam hominis esse depravatam cum tamen eadem substantia mansit Accidentia ut pote justitia originalis alia dona erant 〈◊〉 Cardinall Baronius contendeth that hee is a more ancient Gelasius Anno 47. namely Gelasius Cyzicenus yet so as confounding himselfe insomuch that hee is forced to expound the speeches of this Gelasius by the propriety of the speech as he confesieth of Gelasius Pope of Rome But what shall we answer for the Impudent Protestants as your Cardinall hath called them Surely nothing but wee 〈◊〉 more modesty in him who hath so called them considering that Protestants had no fewer Guides nor meaner to follow than these g Gelasius Papa scripsit contra Eutychetem Genaâ— de scriptoribus Eccles c. 14. Anastas de vita Gelasij Margariâ—us de la Bigaâ— lib. 5. Bibliâ—th Patâ—um pag. 467. Masson de Episc Rom. in vita Gelasij Alpâ—â—s lib. 〈◊〉 Daeres Tit. Christus â—aeres 3. in fine Onâ—plarius de Creat Pâ—nti◠〈◊〉 Cardin Gelasius 〈…〉 scripsit volumen adversus Eutychetem Nestorium Fuisse Caesariensem Episcopum non posse jure affirmaâ— videâ—ur And proveth why not Heslorians viz. Genadius yea your 〈◊〉 the carie Anastasius Alphonsus de Castro Onuphrius Massonius Margarinus la Bigne all which have intituled this Gelasius Pope of Rome Howsoever it is confessed on all sides that hee was an Orthodox Father and very Ancient Now then Gelasius sayd that h Gelasius lib. de duab natur cont Eutych Sacramenta certa qua suâ—â—us corporis sanguinis Christi divina res est propter quod per eadem divinae efficimur participes naturae tamen non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis vâ—â— certè imago similitudo corporis â—â—nguinis Christi in Actione mysticâ celebratur And againe Permanent in proprietate naturae The Sacraments of the Body and
Blood of Christ being Divine things yet cease not to bee the nature and substance of Bread and Wine In Answer whereunto â—oth your foresaid i Bellar. Baâ—on quo supra At dicit Gelasius In Divinaâ—u transeunt Spiritu sancto perficiente substantiam permanent tamen suâ propâ—ietate naturae By this it may bee seene indeed that this Gelasius was a Latine Author but what 〈◊〉 this to the Greeke Theodoret when the Latine Language was not sâ— perfect and that he did use the word equivocallâ— but yet so that the matter it selfe doth challenge a proper use thereâ— when hee speaketh of the Substaâ— of Bread for confutation of the same heresie Cardinalls here as before by Substance interpret Accidents one of them labouring to prove that Gelasius somewhere else called Accidents Substances Were this granted yet the Argument which Gelasius hath in hand will compell the understanding Reader to acknowledge in this his Sentence a proper signification of Substance For where as the Heretike Eutyches taught that Christ his Body was changed into the Substance of his Divinity after the Resurrection and that the Substance of his Body remained no more the same Gelasius confuteth him 〈…〉 That as the Substance of 〈…〉 Christ his Bodily Substâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 â—herein if the word Su 〈…〉 perly Gelasius should 〈…〉 reasonable man wi 〈…〉 amble alwayes on 〈…〉 t foot which is the 〈…〉 d perfit Dissimili 〈…〉 Master 〈…〉 s Gelasius k Master Brereley Liturg. Tract 2. §. 2. Subd 3. pag. 259. whosoeâ—◠〈…〉 â—â—â—â—â—â—ian Heresie that 〈…〉 ly to his like advantâ—â—◠〈…〉 me sense as did Theod 〈…〉 ore must wee assure 〈…〉 us untill you shal 〈…〉 er Interpretation o◠〈…〉 against us another ser 〈…〉 deth that Gelasius he 〈…〉 st rather contradict 〈…〉 Romish Tenet W 〈…〉 mysticall sense any 〈…〉 e Sacrament is a T 〈…〉 ally the Body of Châ—â—◠〈…〉 his Divine Natâ—â—◠〈…〉 Apostle So Gelas 〈…〉 ooke To wh 〈…〉 st is answerable a 〈…〉 Baptisme calling it a l Greg Nyssen A quam per benedictionem sic mutari ut divinum Lavacrum sit à quo mirabiles existunt effectus Orat. de Baptismo Yea and Dionysius the m Dionys Hierarch Eccles cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Areopagite bestowed the same Attribute viz. Divine upon the Altar the Symbols the Priest the People and the Bread it selfe in the Eucharist If therefore the Epithet Divine must argue a Corporall Change what a number of Transubstantiations must you bee inforced to allow whereas by naming it Divine Bread as hee did terme Priest Divine it proveth that hee meant no Substantiall Change Fie upon blind boldnesse This mans falsity in alleging Chemnitius I let passe It is further worthy your Reflection to observe your Disputers how earnest they have beene to prove that this Author was not Pope Gelasius contrary to the acknowledgement of your owne Historians May we not therefore suspect that the Testimony objected was distastfull unto them when they so greatly feared lest this Witnesse should be thought to have beene a Pope and Supreme Pastor of your Church Two other Testimonies from Antiquity for the expresse acknowledgement of the Existence of Bread after Consecration in the Sacrament Chrysostome and Bertram to whom is added Ephraimius SECT XIIII C Hrysostome his words are these that n Chrysost Ante Consecrationem Panem vocamus Divinâ verò gratiâ Sacerdotis ministerio sanctificatur digna appellatione Dominici Corporis habetur etsi natura Panis in ipso permansit Epist ad Caesar See of this Doct. Vsher ad Ann. 400. in his Answer to the Iesuits Challenge pag. 64 Bread after Consecration is freed from the name of Bread being accounted worthy of the name of the Body of Christ albeit the nature of it remaineth therein still Your Exception is that this Epistle is not extant among the workes of Chrysostome This your Answer might satisfie us were it not that it was extant sometime in the Libraries of o So our Peter Martyr Florence and p So your Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester lib. 2. de Euch. as he is cited Canterbury To whom may bee adjoyned the Author of that Vnperfect worke still standing under the name of Chrysostome and by you upon any occasion objected against us wherein it is expresly sayd that q Author operis imperfecti in Matth. Hom. 11. Si ergò haec vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre sit periculosum in quibus non est Corpus Christi sed Mysterium Corporis ejus continetur quantò magis vasa Corporis nostri quae sibi Deus ad habitandum praeparavit The True Body of Christ is not contained within these sanctified Vessels but the mysterie of his Body It seemeth that your later Parisian Divines were offended with others who would have these words utterly dashed out of their last Editions which were published in the former as you have beene admonished by one r Dr. Iames in his Specimen Corruptelarum c. Haec veba habentur in editione Antwerâ—â—◠â Anno 1537. Apua Ioh. Steelsium iâ— Parisiensi An. 1543. Apud Ioh. Roydwey ut in Parisiensi aliâ apud Andraeam Parvum Ann. 1557. most worthy and able to advertise in this kind Bertram is our next witnesse from Antiquity being about 800. yeeres agoe and never noted of Errour anciently untill these later times of Booke-butchery that we may so call your Index Expurgatorius s Bertramus Gallus circa Annum Domini 810. de Corpore Sanguine Christi Prohibitum est omninò à Clmente octavo in postremo Indice librorum prohibitorum Possevin Apparat. Tit. Bertram denying altogether all liberty to all men of reading this Booke But why what saith he He maintaineth saith your t Bertramus vult Eucharistiam esse Panis Vini substantianâ— quae figuram similitudâ—nem appellationem Sanguinis Christi gerit Senens Biblioth lib. 6. Anno 196. Senensis that the Eucharist is the substance of Bread and Wine And indeed so hee doth in his u Bertramus Secundùm Creaturarum substantiam quod fuerant ante Consecrationem hoc posteà consâ—â—unt Panis Vinum priùs extitêre in qua etiam specie consecrata sunt permanere videntur de Corpore Domini pag. 38. Booke dedicated to the Emperour Carolus Calvus which also hee affirmeth to bee written x Animadvertat Clarissime Princeps sapientia vestra quod positis Scripturarum sacrarum testimonijs Patium dictis c. Idem pag. 65. According to the truth of Scriptures and judgement of Ancient Fathers before him This Author undergoeth also the Censure of the Vniversity of Doway which confessing him to have beene a Catholike Priest framed divers Answers whereby they meant to prevent all Objections which Protestants might peradventure urge under the Authority of this Author Bertram But how Marke this Romiâ—h Profession of answering Protestanâ—s as often as they shall iâ—iâ—t in the sestmonies of
ancient Writers y Iulicium Vnivâ—sitâ—tâ—s Duâ—censis Bertrâ—m Catholicus Presâ—yter Monachus Corvinensis â—a Câ—hoâ—cis vereâ—bas â—â—â—larimos 〈◊〉 errores extenaemus excuâ—emus excogitâ—to Commenâ—â—â—aepè negemus câ—nmodum eâ—s sensum assingamas duâ—nâ—obâ—â—â—acur 〈◊〉 Dispâ—â—aâ—â—onibus cum Adâ—ersâ—â—js Index Exâ—urg juxta Conc. Trideâ—t Decret 2. Philippi 2. Reg. Hispan Jussu Anno 1571. Let us say they in Dâ—sputation with our Adversaries objecting ancient Authors tolerate many of their Errours extenuate and excuse them yea and oftentimes by some devised Comment or shift deny them as also by feigning to apply some apt sense unto them So that Vniversiâ—ie This being the guise and professed Art of your Schooles to use all their wits how to delude their Opposites in Disputation what great confidence shall any have of their sincerity in answering Let us leave Bertram under the Testification and Commendation of Abbot z Bertramus Presbyter qui in divinis Scriptuâ—s valdè peritus non mâ—â—ùs vitâ quà m doctrinâ iâ—signis multa scripsit praeclara Opuâ—cula de quibus ad meam notiâ—â—m pauca pervenerunt Ad Câ—rolum Regem fratrem Lotharij Imperaroris scripsit Commendabâ—le opus de Praedestinatione libruâ— uâ—uâ—â—e Corpore Sanguine Dâ—nâ—i Trithem Abbas Trithemius for his Excellent Learning in Scripture his godly life his worthy Books and by name this now-mentioned written expresly of the Body and Blood of Christ âšœ Ephraimius Bishop of Antioch of primitive Antiquity whose Sentence is recorded by Photius standeth thus 24 Photius Bibliothec ex Ephrâ—mio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 415. Edit Augustâ—ae Vindelic 1601. The Body of Christ which is received by the faithfull loseth nothing of it's sensible substance nor is it separable from grace as Baptisme which is spirituall being intirely one in it selfe preserveth the property of it's sensible substance I meane water and loseth not that which it was So hee Expresly reveiling unto us in what Sense Antiquity called Bread the Bodie of Christ namely as other Fathers in good number have already unfolded because it is a Sacrament representing Christs Body For hee clearly speaketh of that which loseth nothing of it's sensible substance no more than water in Baptisme doth lose ought of it's sensible substance Which Analogie of the Eucharist with Baptisme will in the last * Booke in a full Synopsis give an upshot to the whole Cause concerning the generall Iudgement of the Fathers from point to point See the like Argument of Cyrill of Ierusalem afterwards Chap. 4. Sect. 4. CHAP. IV. Answers to the Objections of Romish Doctours taken from the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers for Transubstantiation Or an Antidote to expell all their poysonsome Pretences in that behalfe SECT I. THis our Antidote is compounded of five Ingredients used for the Discovery of the Vnconscionablenesse of your Disputers in their Objecting the Testimonies of Fathers under false Pretences First upon their terming the mysticall Act A Worke of Omnipotencie Secondly their denying of the Eucharist to bee Naked and Bare Bread Thirdly in forbidding the Communicants to rely upon the Iudgement of their Senses Fourthly in their mentioning the Change of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament and calling it Transmutation Transition and the like Fiftly and lastly in forcing of the speeches of Fathers which may seeme to make for Transubstantiation as absolutely spoken of the Sacrament of the Eucharist which the same Fathers do apply as well to the Sacrament of Baptisme and also to other sacred Rites wherein you beleeve there is not any Substantiall Change at all The First Vnconscionablenesse of your Romish Disputers in objecting the Fathers speeches of an Omnipotent Worke in this Sacrament for proofe of Transubstantiation SECT II. A Worke of Omnipotencie is attributed by divers Fathers to the Change which is made in this Sacrament which we likewise confesse a Ambros Sermo Christâ— qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant c. De myster iâ—tianâ— c. 9. At omnipotentia non requiritur ad faciendum ut res aliquid significet Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 14. Ambrosius ostendit multis miraculis in Eucharistia non esse id quod natura formavit sed quod Benedictio consecravit Idem ibid. c. 24. §. Posterior Aug lib. 3. de Trinitate cap. 4. Ambrose compareth the Change by Benediction made in this Sacrament unto many miraculous Works of God yea even to the worke of Creation b Ex Cyprian de Coena Dâ—mini §. Secundum Panis iste non effigie sed naturâ mutatus omnipotentiâ verbi factus est Caro. Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas apparebat latebat Divinitas ità Sacramento visibili divina â—â—effundit essentia Ob. Bellaâ— lib 2 de Euch. cap. 9. Whereas Naturâ mutatus signifieth not the Substance but the Condition Et factus Caro is no more than a Sacramentall and mysticall Being of the Body of Christ as all other places of Cyprian sheweâ— Cyprian speaketh of a Change in nature by Divine Omnipotencie c Aug. de Trinitate lib. 3. Non sanctificat ut sit magnum Sacramentum nisi operante spiritu Dei quae per illos cum haec omnia Corporales motùs sint Deus operatur Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 24. §. Sed Paulo Augustine reckoning it among God's miracles saith that This Sacrament is wrought by the Spirit of God Accordingly we heare d Chrysost hom 83 Non sunt humanae vâ—tutis haec opera quae tunc in idâ Coeâ—â confecit ipse nunc quoque operatur ipse perficit ministrorum nos crdinem tenemus qui vera â—aec sanctificat atque transmutat ipse est This is objected by Mr. Brerely Tract 2. §. 2. Subd a. pag. 111. Liturg. Chrysostome proclaiming that These are not workes of humane power Hee that changeth and transmuteth now is the same that hee was in his last Supper Each one of these Testimonies are principally alleged by your Disputers as the strongest fortresses for defence of your Article of Transubstantiation and being taken altogether they are esteemed as a Bulwarke impregnable but why e See above in his objecting of Ambrose Because saith your Cardinall Omnipotencie is not required to make a thing to be a Signe Significant So he Wee answer first from your owne Confessions and then from the Fathers themselves There are two workes observable in every Sacrament one is to be a Signe of an Invisible grace promised by God the other to be a Seale and Pledge therof as all Protestants hold and as your most opposed f Calvia Semper memoriâ repetendum est Sacramenta nihil quà m â—ustrumentales esse confetendae nobis gratiae Causas Antid in Conc. Trid. Sess 7 Can. 5. Calvin teacheth an Instrumentall cause of conferring grace to the partakers of the Sacraments In both which Respects there is required an Omnipotencie of a
Divine work without which the Element cannot be changed into a Sacrament either to signifie or yet to seale much lesse to convey any grace of God unto man And that wee may take you along with us It is the Doctrine of your Church with common consent saith your Romane g Solus Deus communi Consensu instituere Sacramenta ex authoritate potest quae gratiam efficiunt aut etiam infallibiliter significant Bellar. l. 1. de Sacram. in Gen. cap. 23. Cardinall that God onely can by his Authority institute a Sacrament because hee onely can give them power of conferring grace and of Infallible signification thereof So hee Well then aswell infallible Signification of Grace as the efficacious conveyance of Grace is the worke of the same Omnipocencie To this purpose more plainly your English Cardinall Alan speaking as hee saith from the judgement of Divines h Card. Alan de Sacram. in Gen. c. 17. 18. Sacramenti Institutionem neque ad Pontificem neque ad ullam Creaturam pertinere nec hoc solum sed etiam c propter solam significationem Gratiae quam Sacramentis omnibus Communem diximus dâ—bebant etiam vetera Sacramenta determinari per applicationem mortis Christi quia licet quidem in Creaturis ad signationem effectuum spiritualium aptitudo quaedam sit tamen ista aptitudo non nisi a divinâ institutione determinaâ—ur ad peculiarem effectum Habet enim Aqua ex natura sua ut munditiem significet at ut determinatè purgationem animae à peccato originali significet hominis sanctificationem repraesentet divinae tantùm institutionis est per quam elevatur Creatura haec supra naturae consuetudinem non solùm quoad vim operandi sed etiam significandi Non potest Sacramentum nisi à solo Deo Ordinari quià habent Sacramenta Supernaturalem Effectum ut in veteri lege quae debant munditiem legalem These hee saith that he speaketh Ex Theologorum Sententia telleth you that Although there be an aptnesse in every Creature to beare a signification of some spirituall effect yet cannot the aptnesse be determinatly applyed unto any peculiar effect no not so much as to signifie the outward Cleannesse of mans Body Sacramentally without a Divine Institution much lesse to represent mans sanctification but being so determinated and ordained of God the Creature saith hee is elevated above the Custome of nature not only in respect of the worke of sanctification but even of signification also So hee and that as well as wee could wish for this Omnipotent Change of a Creature into a Sacrament and this Iustrumentall Cause of conferring Sanctifying Grace to the Faithfull Communicant is the Generall Doctrine of all Protestants But what Change shall we thinke Of the Substance of Bread into the Substance of Christs Body as you teach No but as * Booke 2. Chap. 3. §. 6. before Isidore sayd The Change of visible things by the spirit of God into a Sacrament of Christs Body So hee This being a Change from a Property naturall into a Property Supernaturall which Change is Divine albeit but Accidentall whereunto accordeth that objected place of * See above at the letter c Augustine that This is sanctified by the Spirit of God to bee a Sacrament Seeing then that both Divine power and authority is required in every Sacrament to make it either infallibly significant or else efficaciously profitable to man and that it is by the same Divine power that the Element is Changed by being Elevated from a common unto a spirituall and divine property of a Sacramentall Signification as one of your Cardinalls hath sayd What an unconscionablenesse is it then in your Disputers from the termes of Omnipotencie and Divine working which is necessarily in all Sacraments to conclude a Change of the Element of Bread by Transubstantiation as you have heard But much more transparent will their Vnconscionablenesse bee if we consult with the Objected Fathers themselves For first Ambrose who observeth an Omnipotencie in the Change of this Sacrament explaineth himselfe what kind of Efficacy hee meant viz. such that i Ambros lib. 4 de Sac. am c. 4. Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini ut incipianâ— ess quae non erant quantò magis Operatorius est ut sint quae erant â—t in alâ—d convertantur Tu ipse eras verâ—â—s homo postquà m consecratus eras no vus homo esse coepisti The things changed into a divine Sacrament are still the same which they were before namely according to their natural property Which one Clause doth so strangle all conceit of Transubstantiation that it may seeme you have some reason to wipe this Testimony of S. Ambrose out of your new k These words ut sint quae erant are wanting in the Roman and Paris Editions Anno 1603 as Bishop Vsher 〈◊〉 nesseth in his Answer to the Tesuit Editions notwithstanding by Gods providence so much of Ambrose his tongue is preserved even in the same place as will convince your Objectors of wilfull Falshood telling you by a Similitude that the Change of Bread in this Sacrament is like to the Change whereby a Christian Regenerate l See above at 1 of an old Creature is made a new Creature which is as every Christian knoweth not a change in the substantiall nature of man but in the Accidentall properties So this Bread of a common bodily Food is made Sacramentall And the same Father who said of a man that by Baptisme hee is made a new Creature saith also of this Sacrament that m Per 〈…〉 â—or Explicatiâ—e Corpus significatur By Benediction Bread is made another nature namely of an Elementall become Sacramentall as you have heard and as his owne words import After Consecration the Body of Christ is Signified and that which was Wine Is called Blood In the Testimony of Cyprian you applaud your selves for to your Lindan n Lâ—ndan Aâ—ea 〈…〉 Cypriâ—ni vâ—â—o â—ie 〈…〉 advâ—gilate Evangâ—â—â— Dâ—vum Cypâ—anum orbâ—s totius Doctorem imòâ—n râ—culum judicem incorruptâ—â—lâ—m 〈◊〉 lib. 4 cap 6. The words of Cyprian appeare Goldenâ— and hee must needs provoke forsooth all Gospellers to hearken unto them which also seemeth to your o Hoâ— Testimonâ—um nullam admitâ—◠〈…〉 lib 2 〈…〉 c. 9. § 〈…〉 Cardinall To admit no solution Our Answer first unto the Author is to deny it to bee the Testimony of Cyprian may we noâ— This Sermon of the Supper of the Lord is by us saith your Master p Mr. 〈◊〉 Litâ—rg Praef. §. 14. pag 51. Brerely attributed to Cyprian Whom of your Side he mean by Vs you may bee pleased to aske him sure wee are your Cardinall doth tell us that q Author illius de Coena Domiâ—â—t non est Cyprianus â—ed aliquis post cum Bellar. â—â— 2. de Eâ—ch cap 9. §. Extet The Author of this Booke is not Cyprian but some other
after him But not to disclaime your Author all that he saith is that r Cyprian de Coena Dâ—n Paâ—s â—ste natuâ—à muâ—â—tus omâ—â—potentia veâ—bâ— factus est Câ—ro c. Bread is changed by Gods Omnipotency not in Figure but in Nature This is ill And all this hath beene but even now quitted by your owâ—e Confessions granting a power of Omnipotency in every Sacramentall Change where the naturall Element is altered from it's common habitude into the nature of a Spirituall Instrument and use both signifying and exhibiting Divine Grace and so the word Nature doth import The Schooles distinguiâ—hing the Nature of Accidents from the Nature of Subjects shew that there is an Accidentall Nature as well as a Substantiall Theology teaching that * Ephes 2. 3. August Ipsam naturam aâ—â—ter dicem cum propâ—â—è loquimuâ— naturam homâ—â—s incalpâ—biâ—s factus est By nature wee are the children of wrath wherein Nature signifieth onely a vitious Quality This saying viz. Indifferent things in fact Change their nature when they are commanded Master * Lituâ—g Tract 4. § 6. Brerely alloweth of as for example a Surplesse being commanded by lawfull Authority the use thereof becometh necessary so that the nature therof is Changed yet not in the Substance of the thing but in the legall necessity of the use âšœ And what will you thinke of that of Saint Hilarie saying of all persons Regenerate that 1 Hilar de Trin. lib 8 Per naturam sidei unum sumus renati ad innocentiam immortalitatem regenerati in umus AEternitatis naturam By the nature of faith they are changed into Immortality and into one nature of Eternity In both which the Proprieties and qualities of things are called the Natures thereof In which respect we embrace the saying of Saint Ambrose when hee affirmeth the 2 Ambros de jis qui initiantur myster cap. ult Major benedictionis omnis virtus quà m naturae quià benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur Nature of Bread to bee changed in this Sacrament Certainly even as it is in all other Mysteries wherin as Saint Augustine speaketh 3 Aug. Tom. 9. in Seâ—m de Cataclysmo Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum As much as to say the Element as Bread is Changed into a Sacrament as * See above Booke 2. cap. 2. §. 16. Isidore spake which is called the Body of Christ because of the Sacramentall property of speech calling the Signe by the name of the thing signified as the same * Father with divers Others hath amply declared âšœ But to come neerer Answer us but this one Question Wheras all learning alloweth this saying that in Baptisme the nature of the Element and the nature of the Sacrament are different whereupon it is sayd The word coming to the Element maketh it a Sacrament when wee shall say of the water in Baptisme that the Nature of it as of a Sacrament is more excellent than is the nature of it as it is a meere Element whether doth not the word Nature attributed to the Sacrament justly accord unto the Phrase of Cyprian in the case of the Eucharist and so much the rather because that Cyprian in the words immediatly following the Testimony objected doth fully confute Transubstantiation by a Similitude comparing the Humanity and Deity of Christ with the Naturall and Spirituall parts of this Sacrament to wit Å¿ Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebat Divinitas ità Sacramento visibili ineffabilitèr divina se effundit essentia Author Coenae Ibid. §. Quarto As in Christ himselfe true humanitie appeared in his flesh and his Deity was hid This was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and first part of this Similitude the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and next part followeth Even so into this visible Sacrament the Divine Essence infuseth it selfe So hee which by the law of a Similitude must stand thus Even so Bread in this Sacrament is seene and the Spirituall operation of Gods power therein to the Faithfull is Invisible Like as we may say of the preaching of the Word of God to the Faithfull The words are audible and sensible but because of the inward working of Gods Spirit for the Conversion of Mans soule it is called * Rom. 1. 16. The power of God unto salvation as likewise Baptisme is made the Lavacrâ— of Regeneration whereof Gregory Nyssen affirmeth that t Greg. Nyssen erat de Baptism Divinum LavacruÌ„ magnum quid operatur per Benedictionem mirabiles producit Effectus It worketh marvellously by benediction and produceth marvellous Effects As for Augustine and Chrysostome not to bee superfluous every Protestant doth both beleeve and professe namely a Divine Operation of God both by changing the Element into a Sacrament and working by that Sacrament Spirituall Effects to the good of Mans soule âšœ A Vindication of divers Testimonies of Saint Cyprian by Romish Torturers forced for proofe of Transubstantiation BVt you have not done with Cyprian he is found saying concerning this Sacrament that 4 Cyprian de Coena Dom. Christus usquè hodie verissimum Sanctissimum suum Corpus creat sanctificat benedicit piè sumentibus dividit Objected by Dr. Heskins Parl. Booke 2. Chap. 8. Christ daily Createth his most true and most holy Body sanctifieth and blesseth it This in the Opinion of your Objector must needs prove a proper Existence of Christ in the Eucharist because Christ createth not an imaginary Body but that which is called a most true Body Which words notwithstanding in true sense make nothing against our Defence but against your Romish Tenets as much as any Protestant can require This is soone tryed The words of Cyprian are that Christ doth Create his most true Body the onely Question is of the word Create whereunto it is to be referred properly This must be either to Bread or to Christ's Body and your Cardinall abhorring to say that Christ's Body is properly created in this Sacrament 5 Bell. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 9. In verbis Cypriani illa Creas sanctisicas benedicis referuntur ad materiam unde consicitur Corpus Christi agimus enim gratias quod per Christum primò panem crëet deindè per eundem sanctificat benedicat convertendo in Corpus suum Quod autem Cyprianus loquitur de vero Corpore suo non de signo patet ex eo quòd veracissimum illud appellat Wee grant that Christ spake of his true body for this Sacrament wee say is a figure not of a fantasticall but of a substantiall Body Answereth that the words Create Sanctifie and Blesse are to be referred to Bread which is first Created saith he before it is converted into Christ's Body If then Cyprian by the words Christ's Body meant Bread which is the Signe of his Body is it not a wilfull blindnesse in your Disputers to conclude from a Signe the reall presence of a
used by that Father betweene The Flesh of Christ crucified and therfore Borne of the Virgin and the Sacrament of Christs Body whereof Christ sayd This is my Body CHAP. V. The second Romish Contradiction to the overthrowing of that which Christ called MY BODIE by making one Body of Christ not One but Many SECT I. YOur Profession standeth thus g Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. The Body of Christ albeit now in Heaven yet is say you substantially in many places here on earth even whersoever the Hoast is Consecrated So you Next your Master h Mr. Brerely in his Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse pag. 150. Because Calvin Institut 4. cap. 17. §. 10. saith Etsi incredibile videtur ut in tanta locorum distantia penetrare ad nos possit Christi caro ut sit nobis in cibum c. Brerely laboureth earnestly to draw Calvin to professe a Possibility of Christ's Bodily Presence in divers places at once contrary to M. Calvins plaine and expresse profession in the same Chapter where he directly confuteth this Romish Doctrine of Madnesse saying thus i The same Calvin in the same Chap 17. §. 24. Cur inquiunt non faciat Deus ut caro eadem diversa loca occupet ut nullo loco contineatur ut modo specie careat Insane quid à Deo postulas ut carnem simul faciat esse non carnem perinde ac si instes ut lucem simul lucem faciat ac tenebras Ibid. §. 26. Corpus Christi ex quo resurrexit non Aristoteles sed Spiritus Sanctus finitum esse tradit coelo contineri usque ad ultimum diem Et. §. 30. Cujus ergô amentiae est coelum terrae potius miscere quà m non extrahere Christi corpus è coelesti Sanctuario To seeke that Christ his Body should be in many places at once is no lesse madnesse than to require that God should make his Body to be flesh and not to be flesh at one time whereas not Aristotle but the Spirit of God saith he hath taught us that this his Body is to bee contained in Heaven untill the last day Afterwards Calvin inveigheth against the folly of your Church which will not acknowledge any presence of Christ in this Sacrament except it bee locall on earth As if saith hee shee would pull Christ out of his Sanctuary of Heaven And at last after that he had said k As for the objected sentence he explicateth himself §. 32. Christus illis presens non est nisi ad nos descendat quâ—si verò si nos ad se evehat non aequè ejus potiamur praesentiâ E◠§. 36. Vt Christum illie ritè apprehendant piae animae in coelum erigantur necelle est As untruly also doth hee allege Bucer Beza and Farel pag. 237. who had the same sense with Carvin Mr. Foxe sayd that Christ if hee list might be on earth but he sayd not so of and in the same time Christ his Body is united to the Soule of the Communicant hee so explaineth himselfe that hee meant a spirituall Vnion so that it doth fully appeare that Master Brerely in this point as usually in many others allegeth Calvins testimony against Calvins sense and his owne conscience It is irkesome to see the fury wherewith your Disputers are carried against Protestants amongst whom wee see againe your Master l See in the former Allegâ—ition Brerely imposing upon Beza the same opinion of the Presence of Christ's Body in Heaven and on Earth at one time Although notwithstanding m Fiâ—ri posse ut Christi corpus possit esse in pluâ—ibus locis simul praetâ—r hunc Apostatum nemo inficiatus est quod cum credere nâ—luit tollit ab omnipotenti virtute Salmer Ies tom 9. tract 23. p. 173. your Iesuite Salmeron as bitterly taxeth Beza for contrarily holding it Impossible for one Body to be in two places at once whom therefore he calleth an Apostata and whom n Beza cum Adversarijs congressus ubi Calvini mysteria non posset defendere in eam prorupit Blasphemiam ut Deum neget omnipotentem disertè enim scribit Deum non posse officere ut Corpus aliquod manente substantiâ sit absque loco vel in pluribus locis simul Illud enim Angeli axioma apud Deum nihil est impossibile non sine exâ— pâ—ione accipiendum esse quod factum fieri nequit infectum O argutos Philosophos qui Dei Majestatem ad suas Physicas regulas non erubâ—scunt revocare Frateol Elench Haeres lib. 2. Tit. Bezanitae another termeth for the same cause Blasphemous as if this were indeed to deny the Omnipotencie of God Whereas according to our former Proposition it is rather to defend it because God is the God of Truth which is but one and truth is without that Contradiction which is necessarily implyed in your Doctrine of the Locall presence of any one Body in many places at once as in the next place is to be evinced That the same Second Romish Contradiction holding the Presence of one Body in many places at once is proved by the nature of Being in distinct places at one time to be a making One not One. SECT II. IN the first place hearken to your Aquinas the chiefest Doctor that ever possessed the Romish Schoole o Catholici isti cum Thoma in quartum distinct 14. art 2. hanc rationem cut non possit corpus Christi localiter esse c. Quod si verò non postic corpus Christi localiter esse in diversis locis quâ—à divideretur à seipso profectò nec possit Sacramentaliter esse eadem ratione qui licet dicat hoc non esse per loci occupationem tamen dicit per realem veram praesentiam in plariribus Hostijs sive Altaribus quae realis praesentia in tot Altaribus non locâ— intermedijs non minùs tollere videretur indivisionem rei Bel. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. pag. 491. Quidam Catholici atque in eis Sanctus Thomas existimant non posse unum corpus esse simul in diversis locis localiter quià â—mquiunt unum est illâ—d quod indivisum 〈◊〉 quocunque alio Bellar. quò suprà it is not possible by any Miracle that the Body of Christ be locally in many places at once because it includeth a Contradictio by making it not one for one is that which is not divided from it selfe So hee together with others whom you call Catholikes who conclude it Impossible for the Body of Christ to be locally in divers places at once âšœ Besides that his other Sentence wherein hee holdeth this 2 Aquin. in Supplem in 3. part qu. 83. Art 3. ad 4. Dicendum quod corpus Christi localiter in diversis locis non potest fieri der miraculum quia esse in pluribus locis simul repugnat individuo ratione ejus quod est Enâ— individuum in
se includit Contradictionem sicut quòd Homo careat ratione Et qu. 8â— Art 2. ad 1. Corpus non potest actu esse in pluribus locis simul hoc enim est solius Dei Possibility as proper only to God Which though hee speake concerning the locall maner of Being yet his Reason as * See the former testimony your Cardinall confesseth doth as well concerne your Sacramentall maner of being on earth to deny the Body of Christ to be really in many Hoasts and on many Altars at once And Aquinas his reason being this Vnum One saith he is that which is not divided from it selfe but to be in divers places at once doth divide one from it selfe and consequently maketh it not to be One which being a Contradiction doth inferre an Impossbility So hee âšœ Accordingly your Iesuite Conincks 3 AEgid Conincks Ies de Sacram. qu. 75. Art 4. Dub. 3. Thomas in 4. Dist 44. qu. 2. Art â—â— ait Per miraculum fieri non posse ut corpus sit simul in duobus locis sc modo quantirativo Quià esse in pluribus locis repugnat Individuo ratione ejus quod est esse indivisum per sc Sanè haec ratio si absolutè nâ— sonat intelligatur corpus Christi non potest esse simul in coelo in hoc Sacramento If as Thomas saith saith he a Body cannot be in two places at once Quantitaetively no not by any Miracle of God because the thing should so be divided from it selfe then the words being taken as they sound cannot Christ's Body be at once locally in heaven and on earth in this Sacrament So he Thus is the maine Article of your Romish Faith concerning the Corporall Presence of Christ in many places at once wholly overthrowne by the judgement of Thomas Aquinas the Oracle of your Romish Shooles But when as Protestants argue accordingly as you have done your Ies 4 Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom. Disp 189 Cap 7. Ratio quae ab Haereticis affertur est Corpus idem si in diversis locis collocetur esse divisum à se Vasquez spareth not to call it the Reason of Heretikes Which bewrayeth the distorted and squint-eyed sight of our Romish Adversaries who knowing the same Argument to be used by your owne Aquinas as well as by Protestants do notwithstanding honor the one with the Title of Angelicall and upbraid the other with the black marke of Hereticall Earnestly have wee sought for some Answer to this insoluble Argument as wee thinke and your greatest Doctor hath nothing to say but that the p Duplex est divisio una intrinseca in se altera extrinseca accidentalis in respectu loci Itaque cum corpus est in diversis locis non tollitur indivisio in se sed extrinseca in respectu loci ut cùm Deus sit unus est in diversis locis anima rationalis est in diversis partibus corporis una Bellar. ibid. Being in a place is not the essentiall property of a thing and therefore can be no more said to divide the Body from it selfe than it can be said to divide God who is every where or the soule of man which is one in every part or member of the Body So he Wee throughout this whole Tractate wherein wee dispute of the Existence of a Body in a Place do not tye our selves every where to the precise Acception of place as it is defined to be Superficies c. but as it signifieth one space or distinct Vbi from another which wee call here and there We returne to your Cardinals Answer CHALLENGE AN answer you have heard from your Cardinall unworthy any man of Iudgement because of a Triple falsity therein First in the Antecedent and Assertion saying that Being in a Place or space is not inseparable from a Body Secondly in the Ground of that because Place is not of the Essence of a Body Thirdly in his Instances which hee insisteth upon for Example-sake which are both Heterogenies Contrary to this Assertion wee have already proved the necessity of the Locall Being of a Body wheresoever it is and now wee confirme it by the Assertion of One than whom the latter Age of the World hath not acknowledged any more accurate and accomplished with Philosophicall learning even q Si dicas corpus est hîc ibi idem ipsum quidem distrahas in diversa principio ptimo per se immediato prohibetur corpus esse in pluribus ubi est autem continuitas affectus consequens immediate unitatem Contradictiones enim sunt Iulius Scalliger Exercit. 5. quaest 6. For how can there hee Continuity in that 5. the Termiâ—i whereof are separated by divers places Iulius Scaliger by name a Professed Romanist who hath concluded as a Principle infallible that Continuity being an immediate affection and property of Vnity One Body cannot be said to be in two places as here and there without dividing it selfe from it selfe So hee Certainly because Place being the Terminus to wit that which doth confine the Body that is in it it is no more possible for the Body to be in many places at once than it is for an Vnity to be a multitude or many Which truth if that you should need any further proofe may seeme to be confirmed in this that your Disputers are driven to so miserable Straits as that they are not able to instance in any one thing in the world to exemplifie a Possibility of the being of a Body in divers places at once but onely Man's soule which is a spirit and God himselfe the Spirit of Spirits of both which * See below Ch ◠§. 2. 〈◊〉 §. 2. hereafter Onely you are to observe that the Cardinals Argument in proving Space to be separable from a Body because it is not of the Essence of a Body is in it selfe a Non sequitur as may appeare in the Adjunct of Time which although it be not of the Essence of any thing yet is it impossible for any thing to be without Time or yet to be in two different Times together âšœ And for the better discovery of the weakenesse of this their common Objection Wee adde that although Vbi Place or Space be not of the essence of a Body to constitute it one yet may it be sufficient to demonstrate it to be but one Body because of Contradiction as well as all proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or properties as Risibility in a man or else as Quantity to a Body and Circumscription to Quantity which although they be after their Substances in nature yet are they joyntly and inseparably with them in Times But that wee may argue from the very termes of Contradiction Your asserting the same Body of Christ to be Locall according to the dimensions of Place and not Locall according to the dimensions of Place at one time implies a Contradiction But you teach the same Body of Christ to be
Place Which being joyned with the former Confession of Suarez already cited affirming it to be a Doctrine Contrary to all Divines to teach the Body of Christ to be any where but only in heaven excepting the mysterie of the Eucharist It will be easie to discerne how little credit is to be given to the Stories which are alleged by Bellarmine of bodily Apparitions without the Sacrament âšœ That the Opinion of the Being of a Body in many places at once implyeth a Contradiction is Secondly proved by the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers thereby distinguishing Christ his two Natures Godhead and Manhood one from another by Circumscription and Incircumscription SECT V. ANcient Fathers judged it Impossible for a Body to be without Determination in one only place at one time yea say you they did so but meaning Impossible according to the course of nature but not absolutely Impossible as if by Divine Miracle a Body might not be in many places at once This is your onely Answer and the Answer of every one of your Answerers whereat wee should wonder but that they have given us so often experience what little conscience they make how true their Answers be so that they may be knowne to have answered otherwise they well know that the Fathers meant an absolute Impossibility and that this is most evident by the Heresie which they did impugne and also by their maner of confuting the same The Eutychian Heretikes you a Alfons de Cast cont haeres Eutych know confounded the Properties of Christs humane nature with his Godhead pretending as you do the Omnipotencie of Christ for the patronizing of their Heresie As thinking thereby thus saith b Theod. Dial. 2. Dicunt Christi carnem spiritualem alterius substantiae quà m sit nostra caro imaginantur se per haec Deum magnifacere cum tamen falsi veritatem accusant Theodoret out of Amphilochius to magnifie the Lord Christ whereas this was indeed as the same Father saith to accuse Truth of falshood You may heare the same voice sound out of the Romane Chaire Pope c Leo Papa Ep. 13. quae est ad Pulcher. Aug. Subrepsisse intelligo spiritum falsitatis ut dum affirmat se religiosiùs de filij Dei majestate sentire si ei naturae nostrae veritatem inesse non dicat c. Leo speaking of Eutyches the Author of that Heresie saith that Hee affirmed that thereby he did more religiously conceive of the Majesty of Christ by denying his humane nature whom therefore that holy Pope censureth to have beene seduced by the Spirit of falsity Therfore it cannot be but that the Fathers in confuting an Heresie founded upon a pretence of Omnipotency did hold that doctrine absolutely impossible which they withstood as will now more lively appeare by the Testimonies of themselves Theodoret against this Heretike argueth thus d Theod. Dial. 3. lib. 3. ex Euseb Emis Contra eos qui dicunt Corpus Christi in Divinitate mutatum esse post resurrectionem Hos dicere necesse est vel divinae naturae manus pedes alias corporis partes tributas esse vel fateri corpus manfisse in suae naturae finibus Atqui divina natura simplex est incomposita corpus autem compositum in multas partes divisum non est ergo mutatum in naturam divinitatis quidem immortale â—actum divinà naturâ plenum sed tamen corpus quod propriam habet Câ—cumscriptionem The Body of Christ being a compounded thing cannot be changed into a divine nature because it hath Circumscription This had bin no good reasoning except his CANNOT had imported an absolute Impossibility âšœ And this 11 Eranistes Heret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ex lob Theod. opponit Exâ—mplum impossibilium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret Dial. 3. Cap 4. Et paulò post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret himselfe doth furthermore make good who in the same Dialogue where to the Heretikes Objection out of Iob saying I know thou canst doe all things nothing is impossible with thee he answereth by instancing in examples of Impossibility because of Contradiction saying It is impossible for eternity to be in time or a thing created to be uncreated or finite to be infinite So he âšœ c Vizil lib. 4 cont Eutych Circumscribitur loco per naturam carnis suae loco non capitur per nâ—turam divinitatis suae Haec fides est confessio Catholica quam Apostoli tradiderunt Martyres roboraverunt fideles nunc usque custodiunt Et paulò superius Quia nunc in Coelo est non est utique in terra Vigilius anciently Bishop of Trent might have read a Lesson to the late Bishops at Trent who against the same Heretike distinguishing the two natures of Christ his Humane nature by being Circumscribed in one place the Divine by being unlocable doubted not to inferre saying of his Bodily nature It being now in heaven is not at all on earth And lest that any might thinke this was but his owne private opinion hee averreth saying This is the Catholike profession taught by the Apostles confirmed by Martyrs and hitherto held of the Faithfull So Fulgentius upon the same Distinction maketh the same Conclusion saying of his Bodily substance that therefore f Fulgent de persona Christi ad Trasimund lib. 2. cap 5. Vnus idemque homo localis ex homâ—ne qui est Deus immensus ex Patie Vnus idemque secundùm humanâ—m substantiam absens caelo cum esset in terra derelinquens terram cùm ascendisset in coelum Being on Earth it was absent from Heaven and going to Heaven it left the Earth Damascea had to deale with the forenamed Heretike and professing to deliver the substantiall difference of both Natures hee differenceth them by these contrary Characters g Damascen de fide Orthodoxi lib 3. cap. 3. Eâ—rum naturarum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 astâ—umus salvari nam câ—eatum mansit creatum increatâ—â— increatum morrale â—manebâ—t mortale immortale immortale 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 âšœ Paulo suâ—erius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Created not Created Capable of mortalitie and not Capable of mortalitie Circumscribed and not Circumscribed and Invisible in it selfe and Visible which notwithstanding is in the Eucharist by your doctrine noâ— Capable of Circumscription because whole in the whole Hoast and in every part thereof and to the very Angels of God Invisible âšœ And yet againe that you may further know that Damiscen is as professedly ours in this point as any Protestant can be hee in confutation of the same Heretike addeth saying How can one and the same Nature be capable at once of two essentiall contrary Differences for how is it possible for the same Nature according to the same to be created and uncreated mortall and immorall circumscribed and uncircumscribed Where by the way you may observe that Circumscription of a Body is accounted
by Damascen to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Essentiall to a Body In like maner Ephraemius in Photâ—us sticketh to the same Argument of difference of natures by reason of Contradiction saying concerning the two distinct natures of Christ That none that hath wit can say that the same Nature is both palpable and impalpable visible and Invisible âšœ Let us ascend hither to the more primitive Ages to inquire of Fathers who had conflict also with Heretikes who gainesaid the Truth of either Nature Athanasius urged Christ his Ascension into Heaven 〈◊〉 prove that hee was as truly man as God because his God head was never out of Heaven being h Athanas 〈◊〉 2. Adversus eos q. trullum nos miraculum 〈◊〉 eo quod carâ—em negant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vndâ—â—rminate in place and uncircumscribed even then when it was Hyphstatically united with the Body being on earthâ— Therefore it was his Body that ascended into Heaven from Earth His Argument is taken from Circumscription even as I l Nazian Epist 1. id Cledâ—â— Hominem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianzen also doth Characterize them Cyril of Alaxandria is a Father whose Patronage your Disputers would be thought often to rely upon hee is now about to deliver his Iudgement so freely and plainly as if hee had meant to stop the mouthes of all our Opposiâ—es in the same Answer which hee maketh against certaine Heretikes who held that God's nature is a Substance which can received vision and partition If God saith m Cyril Alex Tom. 2. lib. de T. inir Si verè Sâ— chohem Partitionem Divini naturâ— ut 〈◊〉 dicunt reciperet intelligeretur ut corpus si autem hoc in loco omâ—â—nò li quanta facta esset non effugeret Circumscripâ—â— fol. 89. Cyril should be divisible as a Body then should it be contained in place and then should it have Quantity and having Quantity it could not but be Circumscribed Will you now say which hitherto hath beene your onely Answer to other Fathers that Cyril meant not that it was absolutely Impossible that Quantity should be without Circumscription but onely according to the Course of nature then might the Heretikes whom Cyril confuted have made the same Answer and consequently Cyril's Consequence and Confutation together with the Arguments of the Fathers above-mentioned had beene of no force What shall wee say must still the ancient Fathers be made no better than Asses in arguing that your Romish Masters forsooth may be deemed the onely Doctors even then when they prepare the same Evasion for Heretikes which they devise for themselves but you must pardon us if wee believe that Cyril seeing he durst say that God himselfe if hee were a Body must be in a place as a thing having Quantity and Circumscribed would have abhorred your now Romish Faith of believing * See hereafter Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Christ's Body consisting of Quantitie albeit not Circumscribed in place âšœ The Arguments which wee receive from these Fathers in Confutation of your Romish Faith of believing the same Humane Body of Christ Circumscribed in Heaven and Vncircumscribed on your Altars on Earth are Two The first is their denying the Possibility of Christ's Body to be Vncircumscribed and that upon two grounds One because Circumscription is Essentiall and as Proper to Christ's Body as Vncircumscription is Proper to his Divine Nature without which Difference there should follow a Confusion of his two Different natures which was the very same Heresie which they impugned Their second ground is from the infallible Rule of Contradiction being the extremest Degree of Impossibilitie that can be imagined namely For the same â—ody to be at the same time mortall and immortall palpable and impalpable And yet your Fathers of the Councell of Trent in their wisedomes have Canonized it for an Article of your Faith by teaching a palpable and Circumscriptive Body of Christ in Heaven and impalpable and Vncircumscriptive on Earth It might be held a kind of Impiety not to consult with Saint Augustine in a Question of this moment The Iudgement of Saint Augustine stiled by learned Doctors The Mallet of Heretikes to knocke out their Braines First giving this Caution viz. 13 Aug. Epist 57. ad Dardan where after this Coveat Cavendum ne ità Divinitatem affirmamus ut corporis veritatem auferamus hee hath these words Spatia locotum tolle corpotibus nusquaÌ„ erunt quià nusquam erunt nec erunt Idem Tract 31. in toh Homo secundùm corpus in loco est de loco migrat cum ad alium locum venerit in eo loco unde venit non est Deus autem implet omnia ubique totus nec secundùm spatia tenetur locis erat tamen Christus secundùm visibilem carnem iâ— terra secundùm invisibilem majestatem in coelo in terra To take heed lest wee sâ— establish Christs Deity that wee destroy not the truth of his Body Hee afterwards concludeth against the Impossibilitie of a Body uncircumscribed saying Take away Space of Place from Bodies and then shall they be no-where and if they be no-where then must they be no-what having no Being at all Secondly where hee concludeth that Christ according to his Visible flesh was on earth when according to his Invisible Majesty Hee was both in Heaven and Earth hee layd this Ground thereof to wit that A Body removing from one place to another is not in that place from whence it came But our Catholike Article of Faith saith that Hee ascended from Earth to Heaven And therefore by Saint Augustine his Argument Hee was not then on Earth In the third place Discussing the Difference of the two Natures of Christ more fully in respect of Presence in Place for the reconciling of a Seeming Contradiction of Christs words saying in one place I am with you unto the Ends of the World and another place saying You shall not have me alwayes with you he assoyleth the Difficultie by Differencing Christs Natures 14 Aug. Tract 50. in â—oh Pauperes semper habebitis vobiscuÌ„ me autem non semper habebitis Potest sic intelligi Accipiant hoc boni sed non sint soliciti loquebatur emiâ— de praesentia corpoâ—â—s sui Nam secunduÌ„ majestatem suam secundùm providenuam secundùm inessabilem invisibilem gratiam impletur ab eo quod dâ—ctum est Ecce ego vobiscum sum usquè ad consummationem seculi secundùm autem â—d quod de Virgine natus est quodque in Resurrectione maniâ—estatus est non semper habebitis vobiscum Quare Quoniâ—m conversatus secundâ— corporis pâ—aesentiam quadraginta diebus cum discipuliâ— suis eis videntibus ascendit in coesum non est hîc Ibi est enim sedet ad dextrim Patris hic est non enim recesâ—â—â— praesentia majestatis Secundùm praesentiam carnis Ec. lesia modo side tenâ—â— oculis
non videt In that Christ sayd saith hee You shall not have mee alwayes with you hee spake it of the Presence of his Body But in saying I am with you untill the Consummation of the World hee spake it of his Divine Majesty Providence and Invisible grace But according to that nature which was borne of the Virgin and after was manifested in the Resurrection You shall not have me alwayes with you So hee Your sole Answer in the Iudgement of your choycest Divines delivered by your Cardinall is this 15 Bellarm. l. 1. de Euchdr cap. 14. §. Denique Augustinus intelligit corporis Christi praesentiam visibilem more humano inter homines conversantis atquè ita se explicat Quare quia conversatus est secundùm corporis praesentiam quadraginta dies ipsis videnâ—ibus modo side renet oâ—ulis non videt that S. Augustine in denying that Christ is alwayes with us according to the presence of his Bodie understood a visible presence thereof after an humane Conversation with men which hee collecteth from that which followeth in the speech of Saint Augustine That Christ was seene of the Apostles in his Bodily presence after his Resurrection and as his Assension But now saith S. Augustine Wee see him by Faith and not with our eyes So your Cardinall Which is as raw and extravagant a Collection and repugnant to the meaning of Saint Augustine as can be Because the whole scope of Saint Augustine is to shew the Excellency of Christs Divine Nature in respect of the Humane in regard of Presence it selfe and not in respect of visibilitie or any maner of Presence Because the Divine nature by it's Omnipresency is alwayes with us but the other which was seene after his Visible Conversation upon Earth was seene to ascend into Heaven Hee inforceth directly from hence therefore It is not here on Earth Thus It ascended into Heaven and is not here for hee there sitteth at the right hand of God But as for the Presence of his Majesty which signifieth his Deity It is here saith Saint Augustine and not departed from us which is a manifest Distinguishing of the Deity and Humanity of Christ meerely in respect of Hic est Non hic est that is Presence of the one and Not-Presence of the other As also betweene Recessit Non-Recessit in like Difference whereas if according to the Popish Faith the Distinction held onely in respect of the Visibilitie or Invisibilitie of Presence you alwayes teaching that Christs Body is substantially Present on Earth Invisibly in the Eucharist then in respect of the maner of Presence by * Because Saint Aug. calleth the presence of his majestie and grace Invisible â—re the Testimony above cited Invisibilitie there should be no Prerogative of Difference betweene Chists Divine and Bodily Being on Earth against the Conclusive Determination of Saint Augustine in this place Which is also confirmed by that which is further objected in opposition against us out of the last words of Saint Augustine The Church saith hee Seeth not him with her eyes but holdeth him by Faith namely by believing the Presence of his Body But where to wit Sitting at the right hand of God saith hee but not in the Pix or on the Altar The next Testimony of this Father may be that his Malling and braining of the Hereticall Manichees who held a Bodily Presence of Christ both in the Sunne and Moone at once He making a flat Contrary Conclusion 16 Aug. contra Faust Manich. l. 20. cap. 11. Secundum praesentiam spirituasem nullo modo 〈◊〉 pari posset secundùm vero praesentiam corporalem simul in sole in luna in quâ—â— esse non posset Christs Bodily Presence could not saith hee be in the Sunne and Moone at once Yes will the Romish Answer Miraculously it may God a mercy Papist would the Heretike have sayd for I likewise when I sayd it was in the Sunne and Moone at once was not such a Lunatick as to thinke it could be naturally so and without a Miracle The same holy Father that hee might shew himselfe constant to his owne Teneâ— explaining the words of Christ You have heard that I sayd I goe and come unto you â—wirdâ— Hee went away saith hee according to that wherein hee was man in one place and hee remained with them as God and in all places still opposing the Nature of Man and God according to the Different Presences of One-where and All-wheres More Testimonies for proofe of this one point there needs not âšœ CHALLENGE THese so many and manifest proofes of the ancient Fathers concluding an Impossibility of Existence of a Body without Determination in one place may be unto us a full Demonstration that they were Adversaries to your Romish Doctrine of Corporall Presence and that all your Objections out of them are but so many forged and forced Illusions âšœ Onely be it knowne unto you that in this whole Discourse the word Circumscription in place is used in a large Acception for every limitation of a Body in a space or Vbi adequate unto the thing Circumscribed âšœ Wee conclude If Christ himselfe gave a Caveat not to believe such Spirits as should say of his Bodily presence in this world after his Resurrection * Mat. 24 23. Behold heere is Christ and behold there is Christ then doubtlesse much lesse credit is to be given to your Church which teacheth and professeth an Here is Christ and a There is Christ in the same instant as wee shall furthermore confirme by like verdict of Antiquitie when wee shall heare the Fathers prove both that * See Cap. 6. §. 3. Angels and all Created Spirits are finite Creatures and not Gods even because they are contained in one place and also that the * Chap 6. §. 2. Holy Ghost is God and no finite Creature because it is in divers places at once But wee must handle our matters in order That the Romish Doctors in their Objections have no solid proofe of the Existence of one Body in divers places at once from the Iuagement of Antiquitie SECT VI. IT is a kinde of Morosity and Perversnesse in our Opposites to object those Testimonies which have their Answers as it were tongues in their mouthes ready to confute their Objections For Å¿ Chrysost li 3. de Sacerdoâ—â— O miraculum O Dei benignitatem qui cum patre suâ—â—tâ— sedet eodem tempore omniuÌ„ manibus pertractatur Obijcit Bellar lib 2. le Euch. cap. 22 Not considering what went before 〈◊〉 words in the sauâ—e place where â—hrysostâ—â— will not have his heart beleeve that the Priest and people â—â—â—taking doe noâ— in tertis consiâ—st sed ponus in coelum transferrâ— then followeth O miraculâ—â— c. adâ—st enim Sacerdos non ignem gestans sed Spiritum Sanctum Chrysostome saith not more plainly ô Miracle that Christ at one and the same time sitting with his Father in Heaven is heere
to a Body and therefore separable from a Body so that a man may be in two places at once And you may as well say that because Time is not of the essence of a man some man may have a Being without any time or else in two times at once But enough of this hath beene answered in the sixt Section Finally this your Subtilty would have beene judged a palpable absurdity by ancient Fathers among whom Theodoret taught this Philosophie to hold true in Divinitie to wit that whosoever hath properly one thing on the right hand of it and another thing on the left it is Circumscribed in place Whereby hee demonstrateth the Truth of Christ's Body because it is Circumscribed and that it is circumscribed because it is written of him that f Theod Dial. 2. cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Sheepe shall stand on his right hand and the â—oates on the left Nor do you your-selves teach nor yet can you imagine his Body to want either his right hand or his left as hee is present in this Sacrament One word more The * See above â—◠§. 5. Fathers who were many that distinguished the nature of Christs manhood from his God-head because the first is Circumscribed and the other is not circumscribed would never yield to either of both that it is both Circumscribed and not Circumscribed as you do to Christ's Body teaching it to be at the same time Circumscribed in Heaven when it is Vncircumscribed as it is on many Altars upon earth Divers other your Contradictorie Relations you may finde in the Sections following in this Fourth Booke That fourthly a Contradiction and consequently an Impossibility of the Being of a Body in two places at once is proved by absolute Qualities and Actions which are voyd of Relation to Place SECT IX VVEre it possible that Actions and Qualities which have respect to Place might avoid the Contradiction yet of such Actions and Qualities as have no Relation to place it will be beyond your imaginations to conceive so as will appeare by your owne Resolutions For your Cardinall and your Iesuite Suarez with divers others have thus g Corpus Christi in diversis locis positum habet unum substantiale quae sunt absoluta in eo non multiplicantur respectu diversorum locorum unde quae recipluntuâ— Ã corpore sive Actiones sint sive Qualitates sive quae unque alia non multiplicaÌ„tur Ratio quà corpus unum est non multa ut si corpus Christi in uno loco calefiat in alio erit calidum si in uno loco vulneretur in altero erit vulnerarum Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 4. Actus contrarij ut amoris odij assensus dissensus non possunt competere uno subjecto in diversis locis quia vitales actiones proficiscuntur ex potentiae naturali ut à principio agente eadem potentia non habet vim naturalem ad efficiendum actus contrarios Ratio inter actus cortrarios tantam esse repugnantiam ut etiam per potentiam Dei absolutam non possint esse in eodem subjecto loco quià sese omninò destruunt ex parte objecti Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disp â—8 Sect. ◠§. Atque determined that Such Actions and Qualities as are reall in a Body without any relation to place may not bee sayd to bee multiplied in respect of divers places wherein the same Body is supposed to be As for example the same Body to be hot in some Country and cold in another at the same time wounded and not wounded passible and not passible And the like may be sayd of Love and Hatred which are vitall Actions proceeding naturally from the Subject So that the Body which in one place is affected with love cannot possibly but be so affected in what place soever So your Disputers âšœ Who might have added one of the Oracles of your Church Pope Innocent the third where hee writes of your Romane Masse saying that 23 Innoc. 3. de offic Missae lib. 3. cap. 22. Sed cùm incredibile judicatur ut secundùm eandem naturam simul esset mortalis immortalis It is judged a thing incredible that Christ should be both mortall and Immortall according to the same nature On whom your Iesuite 24 Vasquez in 3. Thom. Quaest 76 Art 6. Disput 189. cap. 4. Qualitates quae pendent à loco ut telatae quales sunt motus actio in subjectum passio ab Agente c. At omnia absoluta à loco ita enunciantur de corpore absoluto à loco ut eorum enunciatio non limitetur Verbi gratiâ Si Petro convenit esse album enunciabitur de illo sive filium habet sive non eò quòd albedo non convenit ei respectu filij Sequitur perinde esse dicere si semel Petrus supponatur esse albus in uno loco absolutè albus erit in omni lâ—co Idem dici porest de aegritudine sanitate c. Vasquez will waite holding the Generall Tenent that whatsoever Quality it is that hath no dependance of place it cannot be limited in respect of place Among these hee reckoneth Blacknesse and Whitenesse âšœ But have they any reason for these Points Yes they have See the Margin For your Cardinall denying that the same Body in respect of divers places may be hot and not hot at the same time giveth us this reason Because saith hee it is one Body and not many So hee A reason Infallible Your Iesuite Suarez also denying that the same party can love and hate consent and dissent at the same time in respect of divers places yeeldeth this reason Because saith hee these repugnant affections belonging to one subject cannot by the Omnipotency of God be together in the same because they destroy one another So Aquinas and other h Quicquid pertinet ad Christum secundùm quod in se est id potest ei tribui in propriâ specie in hoc Sacramento existenti ut vivere mori dolere animatum esse Aquia part 3. qu. 81. art 4. Cum Thoma consentiunt Scotus Altisidorus Aegidius Petrus à Soto huic favet Innocentius Suar. quo sup p. 602. Schoolemen denying that the same Body can be sayd to grieve and not to grieve both at once in respect of divers places of being propoundeth the like Reason Because Griefe being in the same man as hee is a man cannot be sayd to be together with not Grieving in him lest wee should make a man not to be himselfe âšœ Well hath your Iesuit * See the precedent numb 24. Vasquez resolved of Blacknesse health sicknesse and the like that they are not limited by any respect of place As for example If being in one place Peter be Blacke he shall be sayd to be blacke in whatsoever place hee doth consist âšœ Cardinall Alan 1 Putatur à quibusdam vetustioribus Theologis Christum
propter varias ejus existentias simul mortalem immortalem passibilem impassibilem se repraesentare Alij huic se sententiae opposuêre tempore Berengarij quià viderunt maximè intelligentiae repugnare ut idem corpus sit simul mortale immortale Alan Card. de Euchar. Sacram lib. 1. pag. 451. denying that the same Body in respect of divers places can be sayd to be Mortall and Immortall Passible and Impassible expresseth this Reason which saith hee was used of old Because these sayings are most repugnant to the understanding of man âšœ Lastly and most largely your 25 Aegid Conincks Ies de Sacram. qu. 75. Art 4 Dub. 3. num 110. Possibile esse corpus habere diversa accidentia ut movere in uno quiescere in alio aut contrario motu moveri videtur omninò inconceptibile quià quiescere dicit expressè negationem motus atque ità moveri quiescere sunt contradictoria Vel responderi potest haec dici de eodem ratione diversorum ubiâ— quod nullo modo dicendum quia frigere calere non conveniunt subjecto raiione loci sed ratione sui Confirmatur 1. quia album dum movetur semper secundum aliud aliud esse album 2. quia diversa ubi cùm sint mera Accidentia non magis multiplicant subjectum secundum se quà m alia Accidentia 3. quia diversa ubi sunt sibi mutuò modi repugnantes non minus quà m calor frigus Vnde sequeretur ut si homo qui hoc mundo positus esset in diversis locis virtute naturali non posset moveri nisi utrinque locum amittat desinat esse in diversis locis 4. quia haec sententia non potest deduci ex rebus naturali lumine notis Iesuit Conincks denying the Possibity of any thing to both Move and be still at once because this is Inconceivable by reason of Contradiction which is not saith hee to be avoyded by respect of the diversity of Places Confirming his Conclusion by other Reasons specified in the Margin one is that Divers Vbi's or Places are as Repugnant as are Heat and Gold and the like But enough now âšœ CHALLENGE WEE have in these your Premises received as true Assertions as sufficient Reasons and as absolute Confessions as can be desired which will be as so many Ponyards sticking fast in the bowels of your Romish Cause to give it a deadly wound As first this * See in this Book Chap. 9. § 2. c. you teach that Christ as he is in this Sacrament hath no naturall faculty either of Motion of Sense of Appetite or of Vnderstanding things past all which notwithstanding hee hath in all perfection in Heaven But to understand and not to understand to have and not to have an Appetite you will confesse to be as absolute Qualities and Acts Contradictorie as free from respect to Place as are those which you have allowed to wit Grieve and not Grieve love and not love alive and not alive because man hath an Appetite and Desire an Act of understanding in himselfe not as hee is in one Place more than in another âšœ A Parisian Doctor will give you his Determination saying that 25 Liber qui inscribitur Olim incognitur Carmelita Doctor paris in 4. Sent. Cùm esuries sit appetitus calidi sicci ille autem vel est naturalis vel voluntarius vel sensitivus velle comedere sive sic sive sic Dico quòd si appetitus satiaretur in uno loco statim cessaret in alio loco de cibo sumpto If the Appetite be satisfied in one Place it doth not desire meate at the same time in another Place So hee How much more must this hold in the Vnderstanding part of things passed which because they are Things passed cannot be sayd to have Relation to any present place no more than To freeze and to be hot âšœ Seeing therefore you have beene enforced by infallible Principles of sound learning to hold it Impossible for one to love and hate and to have contrary passions together because they are Contradictories and would inferre that one man should be and not be himselfe Therefore are you become necessarily Contradictory to your selves Can there be a stronger Argument than this to perswade Christians that your Doctors are men delivered up to strong delusions to beleeve lyes of which kind this of teaching a Body to be in divers places at once is not the least notwithstanding any Objection by you made to the contrary as shall be shewne CHAP. VI. A Confutation of the first Romish Reason obtruded for proofe of a Possibilitie of Existence or a Body in divers places at once taken from the nature either of a Voyce or Colour SECT I. MAster a In his Booke of the Liturgie of the Mâ—sse where he hath other as idle reasons as this Brerely thus The difficulty may be better conceived rather than directly proved by an example of the same word the which being once uttered is thereupon at one instant in the severall hearing of sundry persons and that not as a distinct noyse confusedly multiplyed in the Ayre but as one and the same peculiar word distinguished by the selfe-same syllables wherein it was uttered So hee and your Doctor Wright b In his Booke of the Reall Presence Tract 2. §. 4. Subd 1. pag. 149. before him âšœ And one before them both Pope Innocent the third 1 Innocent 3. de Offic. Missae l. 4. c. 2. Et nô â—iratis quòd verbum simul est in aurjbus diversorum Sic ergò Christus in singulis locis est unus sicut in singulis partibus est totus As the word saith hee in the eares of divers at once even so is Christ's Body in divers places at once Your Lovain Doctor 2 Ioh Gâ—rretius Docto. Lov in de Praesent Corp. Christi in Eucharist pag. 70. ex Guitmundo Eadem vox ad mille aures tota peâ—â—ingit Ex Thoma Graeco pag. 97. Sicut una voâ—â— penerrat ad multorum aures Et pag. 102. Ex Nicela Acoâ—inat Quâ—mâ—dmodum una vox eadem manet in ere existeâ—s tota auribus omnium infunditur integra quâ—mvis ipsa corpus sit nihil enim est aliud quà m 〈◊〉 â—â—cussus nemine eorum qui audiunt plus minusvè recipiente Et pag. 105. Ex Samonas Episc Gazensi Quisquis habet speculum in multa fragmenta comminutum in singulis tamen fragmentis umbram sui salvam videre possit Et verbum idem multis auditum non est diversum sed integrum Et pag. 122. ex Lodulpho Carthusiand Christus est totus in qualibet parte ut in fracto speculo sit unius ejusdem formae numero integrae ad quamlibet speculi frâ—cturam reflexio Garretius citeth divers Others objecting both the manifold receiving of the same Voice in the eares of Thousands at once and of the same Image of a
and in Hell at once As for the Being of God in divers places at once which was your Cardinalls instance for proofe of a Possibility of the Being of Christ's Body in many places without Contradiction of making One not One by dividing it from it selfe wee know not whether rather to censure it egregiously absurd or extremely impious seeing that the Being of God in divers places at once without Contradiction ariseth from the very nature of Gods Infinitenesse of Being in whatsoever place which is as your owne Schoole might have taught him so as p Aquinas 1â— quaest 52. Art 2. Containing all places and not contained in any which the Fathers have as fully declared in making Being in all places as filling them with his presence to be the property of his Deity Such then is the impiety of your arguing by labouring to defend the maner of the Being of a Body by the maner of Being of a Soule or Spirit denyed by q Nazian Orat 51. cont Apollinar Obijcientem Duo perfecta non continebat Christus vz. divinitatem et humanitatem Resp 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut vas unius modij non duos modios continet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Nazianzene and maner of the Being of a Creature by the maner of the Being of God the Creator exceedeth all Absurdities that can be named The holy Fathers will have something more to * Below Chap. 7. Sect. 2. 4. say to you but first wee are willing to heare what you can say for your selves A Confutation of the Third Romish Pretence why they need not yeeld to these Reasons whereby their Doctrine is proved to be so grossely Vnreasonable SECT IV. MYsteries of Faith saith your r Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. Argumentum sumitur à mysterijs c. Cardinall which exceed man's understanding are onely to be apprehended by Faith Such as are the Articles of the Trinity of Christ his Incarnation of the Resurrection of the Creation and of Eternity it selfe and so ought this concerning the Presence of Christ his Body notwithstanding any Objection from Reason So you Wee answer Some of these former Mysteries wee confesse to be such as exceed man's understanding yet such againe they are as are not contrary to understanding though above it that is to say such and this you will confesse with us as admit not Contradiction in themselves for it is no Contradiction to say of the Trinitie there is One God and Three Persons because the Essence of the God-head is common to each person or to say in the Incarnation there is one Person and two natures no more than to say that in one man there is one person and two essentiall parts one his Body the other his Spirit or in the Resurrection to beleeve the same that was created might be restored to life more than to beleeve that one grane of Corne dying might revive againe or in the Creation to beleeve that something may be made of nothing than to say that a blinde man was made to see As for the last Objection saying that Å¿ Aeternitas est instans Darationis Bellar. ibid. §. Quintum Eternity is the instant of Duration it is a Paradox for t Aeternitas est duratio immutabilis principio fine carens Lessias Ies Opusâ— Var. de Perfect devia l 4 c. 1. yet is it true that Aeternitas est nunc stans non nunc volans ut tempus Cap. 3. Eternitie is Duration it selfe without beginning or ending which is conceived without Contradiction In all these your former Pretences nothing is more considerable than the miserable Exigence whereunto your Disputers are brought whilest they are constrained for avoiding of Contradictions in things subject to the determination of Sense to pose us with Spiritual Mysteries which are Objects onely of Faith by reason of the Infinitenesse of their properties and therefore may well exceed the reach of mans wit and apprehension without any prejudice unto Truth by Contradiction as if they meant to teach men to put out their eyes and never any more to discerne any sensible things by sensible meanes By which maner of reasoning all the Arguments used by the Apostles against Infidels for proofe of the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ's Body all the Reasons of Fathers against Heretikes in distinguishing of the Properties of the Divine and Humane nature of Christ in himselfe and their former Testimonies in discerning Bodies from Spirits by Circumscription and Spirits from God by Determination in one place and lastly your owne Consequences of many confessed Impossibities concerning Place as the Impossibilitie that God should be contained in Place as for one Body having Qantity to be incapable of a Place and the like are all utterly made voyd For to what end were any of these if your Pretences have in them any shadow of Truth âšœ You other Cardinall Contarenus observed more solidly out of Dionysius Areopagita that the * Set hereafter Chap. 10. Sect. 6. nu 6. God-head differeth from all other things in that it exceedeth all apprehension of man âšœ CHAP. VII The third Romish Contradiction against the words of Christ MY BODIE is by making a Body Finite to be a Body not finite SECT I. IF as you have said the Body of Christ is or may be at one time in so many places then may it bee in moe and consequently every-where at one instant This Consequence your ancient Schoolemen taught and your Iesuite a Quasi non possit creatura esse ubique hoc inquam non obstat nam omnipotentiam illi intellexerunt prorsus naturalem quia si non alienâ virtute sed suapte naturâ res existat ubique praesens haec reverà nulli creaturae convenit At nos altero modo non nisi per absolutam Dei potentiam ubiquitatem creaturae arbitramur Valent. Ies lib. 1. de vera Christi praesent in Euch. cap. 12. §. Quae sanè pag. 241. Valentia doth seeme to avow saying What hindereth that a Body may be Vbique every-where at once not by it's naturall power but by the Omnipotencie of God So hee This wee say is to make a Finite Infinite and your old Schoole-Doctors are hereunto witnesses who have judged it b Veterum Theologorum apud D. 〈◊〉 ratio 〈◊〉 est si idem corpus â—ssit esse in â—â—â—â—bus locis simul potest in â—luribus atque 〈◊〉 ubique Et qua â—um eodem Thoma dicunt Haereticum esse affirâ—â—â—â—e corpus Christi esse 〈◊〉 in duobus locis simul quia ubiquâ— esse est pâ—oprium Deo Peste Suâ—rez tom 3. qu 7â— Artic. 1. disput 48. Sect. 4. Hereticall to say That the Body of Christ can be in divers places at once because then he may be in infinite So they And heare you what your Cardinall Bellarmine hath publikely taught To say c Dicere corpus Christi esse vel esse posse in insinitis locis â—â—nul immensitatem divinam
Dimensions seemed to your e Durand Disp 14 quâ— 6. Whom you therefore reject Tesâ—e Suâ—rez Tom. 2. Disp 48. quaest 54. Art 4. §. 5. Durand as incredible as unto us and is 3 Impossibilâ—m etiam 〈◊〉 hac putat esse opinionem probibilem Teste Loâ—ino 〈◊〉 in Act. 5. 19. Impossible The principal Testimony which is insisted upon concerning the passing of Christ through the Doores is the saying of Chrysostom viz. f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Hom. â—7 in Ioh. 21. but according to the Latine Edition Hom. 86. super Ioh. 20. This testimony was objected against P. Marâ—â— in the Disp at Oxoâ— fol. 60. Christs Body was thinne or small changed from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is it 's thicknesse impalpable unto mortall mans hand but only by Divine permission and dispensation So hee And this is alleged for proofe of a Possibility of his now Corporall Presence in the Sacrament voyd of Palpabilitie never considering the Ordinary and confessed Hyperboles wherewith Chrysostome embellisheth his Sermons insomuch that wee may oppose Chrysostome against Chrysostome even in the point in question who else-where speaking of this Sacrament saith that Christ herein * Booke 3. cap. â— Sect. 6. Giveth his Body both to be felt and seene wheras every Priests hands and eyes can testifie the contrary âšœ Would ye understand the judgement of 4 Chrysost de Resurrect Hom. 9. Non est meum ludificare meos phantalmate c. See this Testimony above Book 3. Chap. 3. §. 9. Chrysostome indeed then leaving his Amphibologies consult with him in his plaine and direct Assertions where hee doubteth not to say that If Christ at his Resurrection had offered his Disciples only an Image of his Body to the deceiving of their eyes it had beene a Delusion Next that Howsoever the sight of his Disciples might have beene deceived yet their touch could not erre in discerning a true Body And is it not then a marvellous Infatuation in your Professors who whilest they Tast See and Touch Bread in the Sacrament beleeve contrary to their senses that they are meere Accidents Thirdly in Conclusion hee saith that his Passing thorow the Doore was not in his Humane Substance alone but by his Divine virtue What can this meane but that the Penetration made was not by extenuation of his Body but by the Omnipotent power constraining the place to make a passage to his Bodily Substance âšœ For what that Christ his Body in passing through the Doore should not alwayes have beene palpable in it selfe The Fathers of the Generall Councell at Ephesus would have protested against this whose Resolution is that g Conc. Ephes Tom. 5. Cap. 1. Anathem 3. Non alienâ—u esse ab illo corpus quod sibi univit quod ubique palpabile aspectabile existit The Body which Christ united to his God head is palpable but you will aske then how could it passe through either Stones or Doores without penetration of Dimensions or els by an extreame tenuity of the Body it selfe Wee answer that the Divine power constrained the Stone and Doores to yeeld a passage the Thicknesse of his Body continuing the same Wee have Hierome for the first part teaching h Hier. Creatura cessit Creatori The Creature saith hee yeelded to the Creator and ancient Iustine for the second most aptly and exactly i Iustin Martyr quaest ad Orthodox Quest 117. pag 363. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. As Christ did tread the Water not by changing his Body into Spirit but by his Divine power So hee passed thorow both Doores and Sepulchre being shut by his Divine power above nature in his unaltered Body Hee proceedeth shewing how even as was his walking by his Divine power working upon the water without any Alteration of his Body more than was of the Body of Peter who was enabled by the same power to tread the water âšœ The Alteration then was not in his Body but in the other things such as were the Doores thorow which hee passed 5 Cyriâ— Alexandr in Iohan. lib. 12. cap. 53. Clausis foribus Dominius omnipotentiâ suâ superatâ naturâ rerum intravit The nature of things being overcome by Christs Omnipotencie hee made his entrance as saith Cyrill of Alexandria And why should not the Creature yeeld 〈…〉 Creator rather than the Creator to the Creature Will you give you Jesuite Lessius licence to interpose his judgement who maintaining a Possibility of a maner of Penetration of a Body by a Body yet discussing the maner How will tell you that 6 〈…〉 Ex quibus patet juxta hanc senâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 penetr 〈◊〉 ponere in ipâ—s beatis nisi potentam quindam morâ—â—â— quae in eo consistiâ— quod Deus 〈◊〉 ipsis volentibus assistere ad hunc effectum Lib. 7. cap 9. It is done not by the Quality whether naturall or Supernaturall in a glorified Body but by Gods immediate Assistance and that the Saints themselves who are sayd to penetrate other bodies with their bodies have no other power than that which may be called morall which is to be willing to passe thorow any body and God according to their wils assiteth to worke the effect âšœ Each of which Sayings of the Fathers professing a Body of Christ palpable whether Thinne with Chrysostome or Thicke with Iustine doe confute your Tridentine Faith in beleeving a Body of Christ whole in the whole and whole in every least part of the Hoast as unpalpable to man as you have sayd it is invisible to the Angels themselves which is to bring it to such a Subtilty as will draw you whether you will or no into a kindred with the Eutychian Heretikes who as your k Aquinas par 3. quaest 54. art 2. Respondeo Vide corpus Christi non habuisse partes corpoâ—â—s naturales pertinet id errorem Eutychij qui dicebat corpus nostruÌ„ in illa resurrectionis gloria impalpabile ventis â—eque subtilius et quòd Dominus post confirmata corda Discipalorum palpantrum omne illud quod in eo palpari potuit in aliquam subtilitatem redegit ut Greg. exponit Morâ—â— lib. 14â— â—ap 31. Aquinas will have you know held the Body of Christ to have beene as subtill as the Ayre and as the winde impalpable as did also the l Pratent Eâ—ench Haeret. Tit. Eunomiani Diceb in corpus nostrum post Resurrectionem impaâ—â—â—bile esse invisible imò aëre vento subtilius de qua heraesi Gregorius Eutychium convincit Eunomians and were therefore condemned by Pope Gregory surnamed the Great Some more difficulty you suppose to be in the maner of Christ his Birth whereunto when wee answer that Christ in his Birth opened the Wombe of his Mother although without violation of her Sacred Vessel wee are therefore presently branded by your m Bellar. lib de notis Eccles cap. 9. Sander de visib Monarch lib. 7. pag. 321. Maâ—don Ies Com. 〈◊〉
quibus Divites comparantur cum depâ—â—â—â—â— grave in Sarciaâ—â—â— peccatorum totius corporis privitatem intrare possint per aâ—gustam portam As the Camels Beasts to whom the rich are resembled could passe through the straight gate of Hierusalem as soone as they were disburthened of their loads So Rich men casting off the load of their sins may enter in at the straight gate that leadeth unto life A Vindication of Truth against an Objected Testimony under the name of Pope Hilary for proofe of the Being of the whole Body of Christ in every part of the Hoast SECT VIII VVE are to insert in this place the forgotten Objected words which passe under the name of Pope Hilarie and recorded in your Papall decrees 10 Decret de Consecratione Dist 2. Vbi pars ex Hilario Papa Vbi pars est corporis est totum eadem est ratio in corpore Domini qâ—ae est in Manna quod in cjus figura praecessit de quo dicitum Qui plus collogerat ' non habuit amplius neque qui minus 〈◊〉 habâ—â—â— minus Non enim est quantites visibilis aestimanda in hoc mysterio sed virtus 〈◊〉 spiritualis 〈…〉 Non est quantitas aestimanda ut sub minori quantitate minus sic Corpus Christi sub 〈◊〉 where there is part of Christs Body in the Sacrament there is the whole there being the same reason of this as there was of Manna whereof it is written Hee that gathered much had no more than others and hee that gathered not so much had no whit lesse Which your Romish Glosse applyeth to the Sacrament to signifie that There is no lesse quantity of Christs Body under a lesse quantity of the Sacrament none greater under a greater Our Answer is Three-fold I. That your Doctors could never yet prove the writings which goe under the name of Popes * Legat qai velit nostri Roberti Coci Censuram Scriptorum Decret all Epistles to have beene truly theirs whereof many of themselves have doubted and which some also have denyed II. That the Comparison fighteth mainly against your professed Romane Faith in this very point which you contend for For you teach Body of Christ to be whole in the whole and in every the least imaginable part of the Hoast without all maner of situation therein so as not having the Head above and the Feete below This you cannot deny to be your owne positive Tridentine Sense But the Manna which was diminished and augmented in Quantity by Gods providence had notwithstanding a certaine determinate Quantitie expressely mentioned in the same Text Every man a Gomer according to their families namely every one an equall but yet a severall measure and Quantity for one mans Manna was not the same which another had This agreeth not with your Corporall eating of one and the same Body of Christ Next the Granes of the same Manna for it was like Coriander-seed had their severall situations and distinct places in every Gomer some lying above and some below some on the right side and some on the left side of the Measure which differences you absolutely deny to accord with the maner of Christs being in this Sacrament III. The Comparison will farre better suite with the Spirituall soules receiving of the Body of Christ Every Faithfull one indeed participating the same whole Christ by Faith whether in a Greater or lesser Hoast without all proportioning of his Bodily Dimensions âšœ CHALLENGE SHall not then the Novelty of your Romish Article which was no so much as beleeved of Romish Doctors of this last Age of Christianitie Shall not your Contradiction to your owne Romish Principle Shall not the expresse Testimony of Saint Augustine who as hee was universally acknowledged to be a Catholike Father so was hee never condemned by any other Catholike Father for this his Doctrine concerning the Existence of Bodily parts according to proportionable Dimensions of Space Finally shall not the affinity which your opinion hath with damnable Heresies perswade you of the falsity of this your Romish Faith CHAP. IX Of the fift Romish Contradiction against the words of Christ MY BODY as the same Body is now considered to be most perfect by making it most Imperfect SECT I NOne will thinke we neede to impose any absurd Doctrine upon your Church the Absurdities which wee have already heard professed therin under the testifications of your owne Disputers having beene so marvellously and palpably absurd as hath beene shewne Among which wee may reckon this that followeth as not the least prodigious Consequence of your Romish Corporall Presence to wit That your Church of Rome alloweth a Doctrine teaching a Body of Christ now glorified to be destitute of naturall and voluntary motion of Sense and of Vnderstanding SECT II. CAtholike Faith never conceived otherwise of the humane nature of Christ after the Resurrection but that hee was able naturally of himselfe as hee was man to performe the perfect Acts which other men can who are of right constitution of Body and of sound understanding such as are the functions of Iudgement and reason and of appetite sense and motion according to the liberty of his owne will This Doctrine was above a thousand yeeres Catholike But your now Romane Faith is to beleeve as followeth in the Conclusions set downe by your Jesuite a Suarez Ies Dico secundò corpus Christi ut est in hoc Sacramento potest per se moveri localiter à Deo loquor de potentia Dei absoluta Nam juxta legem statutam suppono corpus Christi nunquam separari à speciebus nec moveri nisi motis illis neque in hac conclusione invenies Theologum ullum aperte contradicentem In tertiam Tho. qu. 76. Art 7. Disput 32. Conc. 2. Conclus 3. Corpus Christi ut est in hoc Sacramento non possit naturaliter moveri localiter ab intrinseco à propria anima interna virtute motiva naturall neque per se neque per accidens Loquor de naturali virtute non ut est instrumentum verbi operans per virtutem miraculorum effectricem Ratio quia non potest anima movere corpus suum nisi per membra organica quae habent extensionem in locum Sed membra corporis Christi non hoc modo existunt in hoc Sacramento multo minus potest movere species Sacramentales quas nec physice contingere possit neque ad motum voluntatis movere Ibid Conclus ult Potest ut est in hoc Sacramento virtue extrinseca moveri per Accidens quia possunt Sacramentales species moveri ut a Sacerdote Elevando Sect. 3. De sensibus exterioribus Nominales citati dicunt posse Christum ut est in hoc Sacramento ut Deum audire c. Alij hoc negant Sunt nonnulli qui negant id fieri posse de Potentiâ Dei absolutâ ut corpus in extensum à loco aut seipsum videat aut alia Dico non
Infirmities Wee returne to the written word of God When the Apostle for the magnifying of the perfection of Christs glorious Resurrection as the Head by Analogy with the promised Corporall Glory of faithfull Christians as his Members by the virtue of Christs owne Resurrection saith of these Phil. 3. Hee shall transforme our vile Bodies and make them conformable to his owne glorious Body namely according to those Celestiall Dotes and Indowments set downe 1. Cor. 11. Incorruption Immortalitie Glory Power By all which the excellencie of the Corporall state of the Saints is delineated whereby to excite all the faithfull to possesse their bodies in sanctity and to prepare them to Martyrdome for the hope-sake of the glory whereof it is said The afflictions of this life are not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed Wee suppose the Apostle could not then dreame of a Body of Christ without facultie of Sense or power of Motion âšœ You must therefore derive this from him whom Christ calleth the Father of lyes Wee shall give you good reason for this our Declamation That this Romish Doctrine is Blasphemously Derogatory from the Majesticall Body of Christ SECT IV. WHat is this which we have heard Christ his humanity after his Resurection not to have so much Capacity as a Child which is as hee is here to understand or imagine any thing done not the power of a Moale or Mouse which is to heare or see not the faculty of a little Ant so as to move it selfe as if this were not an Antichristian Blasphemy against that all-Majesticall Body and humane nature of Christ which being once * 1. Cor. 15. 44 Sowen in Infirmitie is as the Scripture saith since risen in power Do you heare In power saith the Spirit of God shewing that Infirmitie is changed into Potencie in the Body of every Christian and you have turned Power into infirmity even in Christ himselfe whom you have now transformed into an * Psal 116. Idoll having eyes and seeth not eares and heareth not feete and walketh not heart and imagineth not and yet this you professe to adore as the person of the Sonne of God O the strength of Satanicall Delusion That this Romish Doctrine contradicteth your owne Principle SECT V. REmember your * See above 〈…〉 former generall Principle which wee acknowledged to be sound and true viz. All such Actions and Qualities which are reall in any Body without any relation to Place cannot be sayd to be multiplyed in respect of divers places wherein a Body is supposed to be As for example The Body of Christ cannot be cold in one Altar and hot in another wounded and whole in joy and griefe dead and alive at the same time The reason These are impossible say you because of Contradiction for that the same thing should be capable of such Contrarieties it is repugnant to the understanding of man So you which is an infallible Truth when the Modus or Maner of a thing is compared to it selfe and not to any thing else it is necessary that at one and the same time the Modus be onely one the same Jesuit cannot be sicke in Iapan and sound and in health at Rome in the same instant âšœ Take you for a Conclusion the Confession of your much approved Doctor who doubteth not to call the opinion which holdeth that The Body of Christ is imperfect to be 4 Petrus Arcad. Corcyren de Concord Eccles Occid Orient Anno 1626. Approbantibus Episcopo Bargi Episc Zacinth Andraea Eudâ—emone Ioh. Doctoribus Facult Parisien Tract de Eucharistia Dicere corpus Christi esse quandoque imperfectum est mira blasphemia Blasphemous Nor may you deny the Disabilitie of Motion in Christs Body to be an Imperfection seeing that as the Head of your Church taught that which all Christian Churches ever professed to wit 5 Innocent 3. Papa de offic Mâ—ssae lib 3. cap. 22. Quatuor sunt corporis glorificati propriae qualitates Claritas subtilitas Agilitas Impassibilitas Agility is a proper 〈…〉 of every glorified Bodie wheresoever it is And you may call to minde the Conclusion of your Iesuite Conincks above-mentioned Cap. 4. Sect. 10. Shewing that for the Same Body to be sayd to move in one place and stand still in another is as flat a Contradiction as to say It is frozen and warme both at once Which hee confirmed in the Margin with severall Reasons which do accordingly confute your Doctrine of Possibility of the voluntary Motion of Christs Body in Heaven and the Impossibilitie thereof as it is in this Sacrament âšœ CHALLENGE NOw say wee beseech you is there not the like Contradiction to make the same Christ at the same time as hee is in Heaven Intelligent and Sensitive and as on earth Ignorant and Senslesse Or Powerfull to move of himselfe on the Throne of Majestie and absolutely Impotent as hee is on the Altar Because these Attributes of Christ being Intelligent and Potent equally have no Relation to Place Notwithstanding all which you shame not to professe a senslesse ignorant and feeble Christ O come out of Babylon and be no more bewitched by such her Sorceries CHAP. X. The sixt kind of Romish Contradiction against these words Of Christ MY BODY as it is now most Glorious by making it most Inglorious SECT I. BEfore we proceed in discovering the ouglinesse of the Romish Doctrine in this point wee are willing to heare your a In his booke of the Liturgie of the Masse Tract 2. §. 4. Subd 1. M. Brerely his preface in your defence The carnall maâ— saith he is not for all this satisfied but standeth still offended at sundry pretended absurd and undecent indignities Calvin saying That hee rejected them as unworthy of the Majesty of Christ And Doctor Willet saith That they are unseemely and against the dignity of the glorious and impassible Body of Christ So hee at once relating and rejecting their opinions That the Indignities whereunto the Body of Christ is made subject by the Romish Doctrine are most vile and derogatory to the Majesty of Christ SECT II. ALl Christian Creeds tell us that Christ our Saviour sitteth at the right hand of God that is in perfection of glory But your Jesuite Suarez delivereth it in the generall Doctrine of the Romish Divines d Suarez Ies Dicendum tamdiu conservaâ—i Christum praesentem sub speciebus quamdiu species illae ibi ita permanent ut sub ijs possit substantia panis vini conservari Haec conclusio fere colligitur ex omnibus Theologis Catholicis Scriptoribus D. Thoma c. Sequitur falsam esse sententiam illorum qui dicunt corpus Christi recedere si in lutum cadant species In tertiam Tho. quaest 75. Art 1. Disp 46. §. Dicendum Sect. 8. Rursus q 76. Disp 54. §. 2. Christus non receditx hoc Sacramento donec in Accidentibus talis fiat Alteâ—atio quae ad corrumpendum panem
permisceat ita qui carnem sanguinem Domini recipiat cum eo ita conjungitur ut Christus in ipso ipse in Christo inveniatur Hilarius in Psal 137. Tollit etiam stultissi nam eorum temeritatem qui frustrato falsoque corpore Domini in carne visum esse contendunt non recordantes post resurrectionem corporis spiritum se videre credentibus palpate videre dicitur si corpus Christi incircumscriptum simul in multis locis emitteretur Lib. 8. de Trin. Panis qui de coelo descendit non nisi ab eo accipitur qui Christi membrum est Idem lib. 8. de Trin. Quomodo in his non naturalem intelligis unitatem qui per naturam unius fidei unum sunt omnes enim renati sunt ad innocentiam immortalitatem cessat in his ascensus unitas qui unum sint in ejusdem regeneratione naturae Docet enim Apostolus ex natura Sacramentorum esse hanc fidelium Dei unitatem Quotquot inquit Baptizati estis Christum induistis quod unum sunt in tanta gentium sexuum diversitate numquid ex assensu voluntatis est aut ex Sacramenti unitate quia his Baptisma unum est unum Christum indati sunt Itaquè qui per rem eandem unum sunt natura etiam unum sunt non tantum voluntate Cum dicit Christus ut sin◠illi unum sicut ego tu Pater unum sumus quaero ut rumne per naturae veritatem hodie Christus in nobis sit an per concordiam voluntatis si enim vere verbum caro factum est nos vere verbum carnem cibo dominico sumimus quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est qui naturam carnis nostrae inseparabilem sibi assumpsit nos qui vere sub mysterio carnem sumimus per hoc unum erimus De veritate carnis non est ambigendi locus nunc enim ex Domini nostri professione fide nostra vere earo est vere sanguis et haec accepta et haec exhausta nobis Id efficiunt ut nos in Christo Christus in nobis sit Est ergo in nobis per carnem sumus in eo dum secum hoc quod nos sumus in Deo est quod autem in eo per Sacramentum communicatae carnis sanguinis sumus ipse testatur dicens ego in patre meo vos in me ego in vobis non tantum voluntatis unitatem intelligit sed ut ille in Patre per naturam Divinitatis esset nos autem in eo per corporalem ejus nativitatem ille contra in nobis per Sacramentorum in esse mysterium crederetur ut nos in eo naturaliter in essemus ipso in nobis permanente Fathers as being in your Choice More speciall because that all your Disputers whensoever they produce them for proofe of your Romish Doctrine of Corporal Vnion they esteeme them Insoluble above all others Insomuch that one of your Doctors after hee had objected the Sentences of Irenaeus Greg. Nyssen Damascen Leo and Saint Augustine no sooner nameth the Sentence of Hilarie but prefaceth of it saying This is a more notable Place Another concludeth the Doctrine of Cyril to be so absolutely Romish that he accounteth Protestants no better than Men sold over to the Devill for not assenting to your Common Interpretation of him But this Flash of your Doctor will appeare to be but an Ignis fatuus or a Blind Zeale without knowledge when wee come to this Particular In the Interim that you may know wee meane to deale clearely wee First grant unto you the Scope of either of these two Fathers in their Discourses Hilarius sought to confute the Arian Heretikes by defending a Naturall Vnion of the Godhead of Christ the sonne of God with God the Father Cyril intended to convince the Nestorian Heretikes for proofe of an Hypostaticall Vnion of the two Natures Godhead and Manhood in one person of Christ Secondly wee grant that both the Fathers together with that Generall Councel at Ephesus call the Flesh of Christ which Christians participate in this Sacrament Vivificatricem that is Vivificall or giving life to the Receivers even unto Immortality Thirdly wee grant that they name our Conjunction of Christ by this Sacrament to be not onely an Vnion in Affection and Concord but also a Naturall and Corporall Conjunction of the Body of Christ with the Bodie of the Communicants And Lastly wee grant that one of them addeth a Similitude of the Vnion of Waxemelted with Waxe And yet notwithstanding all these our Acknowledgements and Grants wee presume to affirme that all these Testimonies teach indeed a Mysticall not your Romish Missaticall Vnion by a properly Corporall Touch of Christs owne naturall Body with the Bodies of the Receivers Our ground is the same which wee have often layd in our former Confutations to wit by paralleling this Vnion of the Eucharist as it is to be seene in the Margin with other Vnions mentioned by both these same Fathers in as Aequivalent and Equipollent termes equally named by them both Naturall and Corporall albeit voyd of any Corporall Touch of the Body of Christ as you your selves will grant For the Instances used by these Fathers are divers Some consist onely in Relation and some in Application also The Instance given in the Relative onely is in respect of the Incarnation of Christ when hee tooke the same nature of our flesh upon him which Relation of a Christian mans flesh with the Humane flesh of Christ is universally in all persons at all times even without this Sacrament called by Hilarie Vnio Corporalis Nativitatis Christi that is an Vnion wrought by Christ his Incarnation in our flesh being the same Specifically with his and notwithstanding it is called by him an Vnion Naturall and Corporall and not onely the Vnion of Will and Affection albeit voyd of all Bodily Touch. Next of the Vnions made by Application some are Spiritually onely and some are Sacramentall also Of the Spirituall Vnion which is also free from all Bodily Touch they say of Christ and of True Christians that they are Vnited by the Vnity of Faith which notwithstanding is likewise called by him a Corporall Vnion and not onely in Will and Affection I come to the Sacramentall Vnion Some of this kind are found in other Sacraments and some in the Eucharist it selfe Of others it is indefinitely here sayd that Christians are united by the Sacraments and namely as is confessed The Regenerat by Baptisme have an Vnion Corporall with Christ and not onely in Affection and Concord albeit this also be as you know exempted from all Bodily Touch. Accordingly of the Vnions made by the Eucharist Some are of Christians among themselves and some of Christ with us Of the former the Vnion of the faithfull Communicants as the Members of Christ is named by them a Naturall and Corporall Vnion and not
onely in Concord although as you know this can be no coincident Corporall Touch of their Body reciprocally Thus these holy Fathers And now that you may understand from them Foure several Vnions One Relative Another Spirituall A third Sacramentall in Generall And a Fourth as I may say Eucharisticall peculiar onely to the Sacrament of the Eucharist all of them equally named of these Fathers Corporall and Naturall Vnions and not Vnions of Affection and Concordonely notwithstanding each one of the former Three exclude all Bodily Touch. Wee demand therefore why all these Foure being named Naturall and Corporall Improperly onely the last should inferre a Reall Corporall Touch of Christs Body by the virtue of the same words Naturall or Corporall Your Cardinall giveth his maine reason 2 Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 12. Aliud esse apud Hilarium aliqua esse unum naturaliter aliud autem unum esse in alio naturaliter Nam ut aliqua sint unum naturaliter satis est si verè participent naturam ipsius rei in qua sunt unum hoc modo dicit ipse omnes fideles esse unum naturaliter per fidem sed ut unum sit in alio naturaliter necesse est ut natura unius merè sit in alio hoc modo Christum esse in nobis per carnem naturaliter quia natura carnis ejus nobis vere unitur per Eucharistiam It is not the same thing with Hilarie saith hee Some things to be one Naturally and to be one in another Naturally For things to be one Naturally it is sufficient if both of them partake truly of the Nature of the thing wherein they are one and so hee calleth all Christians one Naturally by Faith But to be one Naturally In another it is necessary that the Nature of the one be meerely within the Nature of the other and so in the meaning of Hilarie is Christs Body sayd to be Naturally within ours by the Eucharist This is your Cardinalls Ground of Assoilement whereupon hee relyeth as on a Rocke immoveable which will instantly prove as wavering as a Reed both False and Fond as you may finde in the Marginalls For Hilarie speaking of one of the other Vnions which hee calleth Naturall by reason of Christs Incarnation in taking our nature of Flesh upon him saith that wee are In him Therefore is your Cardinalls Distinction False Next of the very Sacramentall Vnion whereof it is sayd that Christ is Naturally In us it is also as expressely sayd that wee are likewise Naturally In Christ But none can affirme that Wee in true propriety of speech are Naturally in the Body of Christ Therefore is his Answer most Absurd But you will aske how then can this stand with the scope of the same Fathers for the Confuting of the two former Divers Heresies by an Onely Symbolicall and Mysticall Conjunction with the Body of Christ First thus By our Eating and Drinking in this Sacrament according to Christs Institution is professed a Vivificall flesh of Christ giving eternall life unto the world which as these Fathers truly teach it could not do if it were the Flesh of a meere man And therefore he is by Nature God one with God the Father Ergò Avant Thou Arian-Heretike The Second thus The same Humane flesh of Christ would not have the same divine Vivifical power and virtue except it were perfectly Vnited to his Godhead and therefore is Christ both God and Man and that not by Relation of two different Persons onely but by an Hypostaticall Vnion of two Natures Ergo thou Nestorian Heretike Recant The meaning of these holy Fathers is transparent enough by their owne Sentences as is now proved which if it needed any further Illustration might be manifested by the like Testimonies of that Great Athanasius who from this Article of Christ his Incarnation onely whereby his Godhead assumed our nature of flesh spared not to say 3 Athanasius Tom. 1. Orat. 4. Contra Arianos pag 487. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that By his flesh thus assumed of the word God wee men are Deifyed and made Gods So hee without any Relation to the Sacrament at all And againe when he spake of the same Article of Christs Incarnation he hath Relation to a Sacrament and saith as much of Baptisme as either Hilarie or Cyril did of the Eucharist 4 Ibidem pag. 486. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wee saith hee being borne againe of water and the holy Ghost are all made alive by Christ and our flesh is no more Earthly but now by that word God Wordifyed and made the same by him that for us was made flesh So hee And so according to the Romish presumption of Arguing from the like words of the Fathers concerning the Eucharist Athanasius must be sayd to have judged of Baptisme I. That the Substance of water is changed II. That by it there is a Corporall Vnion properly with the Bodies of the Baptized III. That by the same the Flesh of the Baptized is made the Word God Which nothing but Stupidity could conceive or Impudencie utter or else Obstinacie defend The miserable Vnconscionablenesse of the Romish Objecturs made clearely Discernable by their owne Confessions in granting that the Formerly alleged Testimonies of the Fathers are Not to be taken in a Literall Sense SECT III. ALl the Questions betweene your Romish Disputers and Vs concerning the Speeches of the Fathers objected by them through the whole Treatise of the Masse for proofe of a Bodily Presence is whether they are to be taken Literally and Properly as they sound to the eare or Improperly and Figuratively as they are to be apprehended by our understandings in a qualifyed Sacramentall and Mystical Signification And whether you can conclude from them a Properly so called Corporall Vnion with his sacred Body whether by a Corporall Touch and Tast Mixture or Nutrition and Augmentation thereby or no. You have heard your Doctors object against Vs the naked and Symbolicall Phrases of the Fathers will you be so good as heare them againe both relating the Expositions which the Protestants make of the words of the Fathers objected and afterwards enforced by good evidence to interpret the Fathers accordingly These you Doctors certifie you see the Margin that Calvin indeed Expoundeth each phrase as spoken by an excesse and exuberancie of speech for extolling and commending the Dignity of the Sacrament So hee of Calvin Likewise of your owne Romish Doctors saith your Vasquez Some of the Vniversity of Complutum in Spaine did interpret the words of the Fathers as spoken Hyperbolically And if you shall reject these as the meaner Some wee shall enquire into other Some of better eminencie As namely your Bellarmine and Tolet both Cardinalls your Suarez and even Vasquez himselfe all Iesuits in their Times Let them wee pray you make their owne Answers in order as they have beene Cited First Bellarmine 5 Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4 §.
Naturall but Spirituall So Suarez Not Physicall or Naturall but Metaphoricall So Vasquez But yet how Mysticall it is this will be handled in the next Section Can there then be any thing more Odious or Vnjust than for your Disputers to proclame their Adversaries Heretikes for expounding the aforesayd Sentences of the Fathers in an unproper Sense which liberty They themselves both now have practised and also instructed Others to doe the like by their owne words and examples wherein as they are generally found Contradictory to themselves so are they more particularly one to another For Doctor Heskins objecting the Sayings of Chrysostome and Cyril concerning the Conjunction of Christs Body with ours to be like as when Waxe is melted with waxe in one Vnion Hee himselfe waxed wroth with Protestants so farre as to iudge them Men given over to the Devill because they did not believe them according to the outward letter Notwithstanding your owne Vasquez as you have heard taught that the same words cannot be admitted in the strictnesse of the Termes as also your Suarez and Tolet in saying that to Interpret them Literally were to detract from the Wisdome of those Fathers and from the Dignity and Majesty of the Sacrament itselfe Lastly albeit your * Vide Bellar. quo supra de Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 13. supra citat Bellarmine presseth much this Testimony of Cyril wherein the Christian Communicants are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Cariers of Christ yet your Suarez expounding this and that other of Damascen calling them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Ioynt Bodies with Christ and so partakers of the Divine Nature alloweth no more in the Continuance of this Carying of Christs Body and Vnion therewith but onely a Spirituall that is of Grace and Affection That the Former Objected Testimonies of the Fathers make flatly against the Romish Faith of a proper Corporall Conjunction and Mixture of Christs Body with the Bodies of the Communicants in two more especiall Points SECT IV. ALl the Bodily Conjunction of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants which your Romish â—aith teacheth consisteth onely in a Mutuall Contactus or Touch of his Body with theirs as your Iesuites every where teach Our Observables hereupon at this present are especially two One in respect of the Time of Continuance of the same Vnion The other in respect of the Persons united together Of the former you professe by your 10 Vasquez in 3. Tho. qu 7â— Art 2. cap 4 Disp 204 Christus tamdiu est in nobis quamdiu speciâ—s in nobis incorruptae perseverant atque extra eas non est antequam corrumpantur Jesuite that Christ is but onely so long in the Bodies of the Receivers as the formes of Bread and Wine do continue uncorrupt And concerning the Persons you hold of this your Bodily Vnion as your 11 Suarez in 3. Tho qu. 79. Art 8. Disp 64. Sect. 3. Quoad hoc unio haec coÌ„munis est peccatoribus indignè manducanâ—ibus Corpus Christi Suarez relateth that It is common to the wicked and to the faithfull Communicants of the Body of Christ So you And now O you great pretenders of Antiquity behold a Torrent of Ancient Fathers against you both in respect of Continuance of Time and of the Difference of Persons to wit Irenaeus Origen Chrysostome Hierome Ambrose Augustine Hilarie Cyril of Alexandria under the Confession of your forenamed Jesuites to whom wee may adjoyne both Basil and Theodoret acknowledging that whereas the Vnion which you believe to have with Christs Body in this Sacrament onely by Bodily Touch is Transient during 12 Suarez quo supra Sancti Patres non loquuntur de unione Transeunte ut sic dicam cum speciebus SacrameÌ„talibus sed permanente Durabili no longer than the formes of Bread and Wine eaten and transmitted into the stomacke of the Eater are uncorrupt this Conjunction being indeed momentary They I say do contrarily teach a Conjunction absolutely Permanent even to Immortality it selfe And againe your Romish Conjunction being Common to the wickedest of men and this Conjunction spoken of by the Fathers being 13 Vasquez in 3. Tho qu. 79. Art 2. Disp 204. cap 3. Vnio quam Patres constituunt inter nostram carnem carnem Christi tamdiu manet quamdiu a Charitate Christi non separamur Proper onely to the Godly and Faithfull who are joyned together in Faith with Christ and in Charity with all Christians which therefore you your selves call a 14 Suarez quo supra Non est haec unio corporalis aut Physica sed spiritualis Mystica Et Vasquez quo supra Neque aliam quam moralem mysticam Paties inter carnem nostram carnem Christi intelligi voluerunt Morall and Mysticall Vnion It followeth in both these Respects that you may easily deserne in your Romish Faith notable degeneration from the Judgement of Antiquity The seeming Contradictions of the former Speeches of the Fathers will be reconciled in the next Chapter and the Third Section CHAP. IX Of the Second kind of Objections out of the Fathers from their Similitudes especially insisted upon by Romish Sophisters because of their calling Christ both Feast and Guest and the Eucharist Viands and Pledge Confuted by the like language of the same Fathers in respect of other things SECT I. LEt us looke downe to the Idiome and language of the Fathers and compare their Sayings together and wee shall finde these Testimonies no lesse vehemently than violently and unconscionably objected 1 Hier Epist 15. ad Hebdidiam objected by Bellar. l. 2. de Euch. cap. 23. and Doctor Heskins cap. 53. and others Dominus Iesus ipse est conviva convivium ipse comedens qui comeditur illius bibimus sanguinem sine illo potare non possimus quotidie in Sacrificijs ejus ex genimine verae vitis vineae Soreâ— quae interpretatur electa rubentia musta calcamus novum ex ijs bibimus vinum in ecclesia quod regnum patris est Hierome is alleged as calling Christ both Feast and Guest namely by giving this Sacrament to be Eaten of others and Eating it himselfe which you for proofe of his Corporall Presence in the Eucharist Interpret to be Properly understood But wee say not Properly but Figuratively and Vnproperly even as well as are his words following where hee nameth our Drinking Christs Blood the Pressing out with the feet the elect and chosen Vines as also in calling the Church of Christ the Kingdome of the Father Might not these his latter Improper Phrases of Speech have beene cleare Spectales unto you to Diserne the like Impropriety in the former The same Answer may be given to the like objected speech of Chrysostome concerning Christs 2 And Chrysostome also by Doctor Heskins See in the Section following Eating himselfe which is together with the former to be Discussed in the next Section following In the
Argument as Athanasius and Augustine observeth which was used by Christ himselfe as that which ought to have perswaded the very Capernaites that Christ was not to be Bodily Eaten upon Earth as hath beene * See above B. 5. cap. 3. Sect. 2. proved The same Iustine in his Resolution of Questions made by Orthodoxe Christians shewed that Christ denyed to have a Continuall Conversation with men after his Resurrection which hee had before his Passion Namely that 19 Iustin Quaest Resp ad Orthodoxâ—â— pag. 327. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adding that after his Resurâ—ection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hee would by little and little disuse and unaccustome them with his sight and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Presence Do you heare his withdrawing his Presence That is will you say his Visible Presence Nay but whatsomever Locall Presence which hee had among them formerly whether saith Iustine of Being Seene or of Not being Seene among them This is plaine Of Averroes his Imputing to Christians the Devouring of their God SECT VIII WEe are not ignorant what some of you would Reply by Instancing in Averroes his upbrayding of Christians with Devouring of their God which wee may justly conceive hee spake in the spirit of Malignancie and against his owne knowledge as the Premises have proved and against the expresse Profession of Ancient Fathers detesting the same Conceipt of Devouring Christs flesh as you have formerly heard Just like as our Romish Adversaries deale with us who as often as they labour to confute our Doctrine of Iustification onely by Faith do inveigh against Protestants as professing a Iustifying Faith without Good works and Repentance And notwithstanding the same Objectors themselves expressing the very words of Protestants confesse that their Iustifying Faith which they teach is a Living Faith alwayes joyned with Contrition of heart for sinne and purpose of Amendment of Life and that this Iustification by Faith can be no more separated from Sanctification of Life than can the Light in the Fire from the Heart thereof How be it the Observation of some other is very probable to wit that Averragës understanding of the Decree of Pope Nicolas above 20 Pope Nicolas the Second living Ann. 1059. Averroes ut aâ—t Possevinus Biblioth lib 13. c. 23. fuit à Nativitate Christi anno 1150. discussed in his Romane Synod and imposed upon the Faith of all Christians within his Romish Jurisdiction teaching them to believe that The Body of Christ is sensually Eaten and Torne with the Teeth of all the Communicants of this Sacrament Which tenour of Speech hath beene abandoned by your owne Doctors some censuring it as harsh and false and some as Hereticall It can be no marvaile say wee that Averroâ—s hearing of this Then professed by Papall Christians did deride and detest all such Eaters of their God and that most Justly Because that Devouring as hath beene confessed by your Jesuite is nothing else but a Transmitting without mastication or Tearing into the stomack else could not Scriputre have sayd that Ionas was devoured of the Whale Which your Corporall Swallowing of Christs Body if it had beene held Christian in the Dayes of Antiquity then could not Attalas as hath beene objected have upbraided the Heathenish Persecutors at the time of his Martyrdome saying * See above Sect. 1. This your persecuting of Christians to death is a Devouring of men Wee Christians do not Devoure men Such is the Vnluckinesse of your Objectors to urge most vehemently and eagerly still that which maketh most against them And indeed the Romish must needs be sayd to Devoure that which they professe to Eat Swallow and sometime to passe into their Bellies and after into the Draught CHAP. XI Of the Fift Last and Basest Romish maner of Vnion with Christs Body in the Inferiour parts of your Communicants HItherto have your Romish Disputers laboured to bring the Body of Christ into your Bellies and Entrailes Now as if they thought this not a sufficient Vilfication of the Blessed Bodie of Christ they proceede to depresse it lower into the Basest place of Baseness which is the Draught and Seege it selfe so vile that the very Inke may seeme to blush in setting downe the Sordidity thereof which in respect of other Readers than your selves who teach this wee may not further adventure to mention without Preface of Reverence under our Readers patience therefore wee proceed as followeth Shewing the Romish Doctrine of an Vnion of Christs Body with the Basest parts of Mans Body to be more Beastly than the Carnall and Capernaiticall conceipt of Eating Christs Body is read of ever to have descended unto SECT I. CApernaites when they were offended at Christs words concerning the receiving of Christs flesh are not read to have proceeded further in the grosenesse of their Imagination than to a Proper Eating thereof Our Saviour shewing the Ordinary Course of meat in the superfluity thereof above that which is turned into nourishment and changed in the Substantiall parts of mans Body saith that Coming into the Belly it descendeth into the Draught A Saying which holdeth true as well in meat Sacramentall as Naturall as Manna for example called Angels food and the Paschall Lambe neither of both were privileged from the ordinary course of Nature And as for the materiall part of this Sacrament Origen saith as much of it that * Origen See B. 4. cap. 9. § 3. B. 3. cap. 3. § â—1 B. 5. cap. 6. §. 3. Going into the Belly it passeth into the Draught But what now is your Romish Doctrine The generall learning of your Schooles is that The Body of Christ is under the formes of Bread wheresoever so long as they remaine uncorrupt Which is so verily your Romane Faith that one of your Cardinalls in his Catechisme telleth his Catechumenist that 21 Contarenus Cardinal Catechests Christiana Interrog 14. Remanetne corpus Christi sanguis in Eucharistia donec species illae remanent Resp Quis sanus mente posset de hoc ambigere Vis enim Consecrationis durat semper donec res consecrata duraverit No man that hath his wits can doubt thereof This Ground being thus layd wee propound unto you the Consequences hereof as wee finde them divulged in print by your owne Authors and in their privileged Books Antoninus was as 22 Anton Possetia Apparat. Tit. Antoninus Antoninus Florentinus deinceps Archiepiscopus Patriae suae in Sanctorum numerum à Pontifice Clemente Septimo relatus you know an Arch-Bishop living and being dead Canonized a Saint by Pope Nicolas Hee shall be our Relater of the Doctrine of Paludanus whom your Jesuite 23 Possevin Apparat. Tit. Petrus de Palude Inter Theologos celebris postea Patriarcha Constantinopolitanus commendeth for a Famous Divine and sometime a Patriarch This Petrus Paludanus from your former Generall Principle argued saying that 24 Antonini Summae parte tertia Tit. 13. cap. 6. §. 3. de Defectibus
thing present to be a pledge of Christ's Body absent and also o Book 5. Chap. 9. Sect. 2. allowed such a Touch of his Body by Faith that whosoever so toucheth him is Sanctified Which Observations concerning our Fourth Generall Argument do minister unto us five particular Reasons which make our Defence to be Impreinable Fifthly forasmuch as you teach the Subject matter of the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ as a proper Sacrifice propitiatory wee upon due inquisition into the doctrine of Antiquity have p Booke 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. thorowout and elsewhere found the Ancient Fathers I. Nothing that which they called Sacrifice herein to be Bread and Wine saying thereupon that Melchisedech in that his Bread and Wine offered the Body and Blood of Christ II. Such a Subject which being taken in great Quantity doth q B 3. Chap. 13 Sect. 10 nourish and satiate mans Bodily Nature III. Such as needeth prayer to God that it may be r In this Booke 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Acceptable to God as was the Sacrifice of Abels sheepe IV. So naming it an Vnbloody Sacrifice as meaning thereby Å¿ Booke 6. thorowout more especially Chap. 5. Sect. 9 10. void of Blood which cannot agreed to the Body of Christ now risen from death V. So qualifying their other Exuberances and Excesse of speech wherein they named it The same Sacrifice of Christ once offered by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 correcting it thus t Booke 6. Cha. 5. Sect. 6. A Sacrifice or rather a Memoriall thereof VI. By placing the Sacrifice of Christ his Body as now Presentative onely in Heaven and the thing offered on Earth but a Signe VII In all your objected Testimonies for proofe of the same Body of Christ in the Eucharist which suffered on the Crosse they understood the same as the u Booke 6. Cha. 5. Sect. 1 2 3 4 c. Object of our Remembrance and not as the Subject of Offering which make up so many Arguments moe VIII By paralleâ—ing x In this Booke Chap. 2. Sect. 2 3. Baptisme with the Eucharist in like tenour of speech from point to point IX By praying God to be y Above in this Booke Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Propitious to that which is offered Sixthly upon the same Doctrine of Corporall Presence you have erected and fastned the roofe of all your Building which is Divine Adoration of the Host yet notwithstanding have you not beene able by the Testimonies of any ancient Father to free your selves from Formall Idolatry by any of your z Booke 7. thorowout Pretences devised for your excuse either of Good Intent Morall Certainty or of Habituall Condition especially seeing that the Fathers by that their universall Invitation Lift up your hearts abstracted still the thoughts of the Communicants from contemplating of any Subject present here Below that they might be drawne to the meditation of the Body of Christ as it is in Heaven Lastly in your owne Romish Masse praying after Consecration God to be propitious to the things offered as to Abels Sacrifice which was but a sacrificed Sheepe Compute all these Particulars and you shall finde about sixteene Arguments to prove you to be absolutely Idolaters Wee having thus reveiled these Three Principall and Fundamentall Abominations do now proceed to their Concomitants and Consequences which are Mixtures of Heresie in many Overture of Perjury in some and Obstinacie in all Wee begin at the last CHAP. II. Of the exceeding Obstinacie of the Romish Disputers made palpable by their owne Contradictions and of the Defence thereof as being Contradictory in it selfe SECT I. ALl your Disputers shew themselves in nothing more zealous than in maintenance of your Romish Masse which they contend for by objecting Scriptures Fathers and Reasons notwithstanding their Expositions of Scriptures their Inferences out of the Fathers their devised Reasons and almost all their Confutations are confuted rejected and contradicted by their owne fellowes as the Sections thorowout this whole Tractate do plainly demonstrate Wee cannot therefore otherwise judge but that as Prejudice is the chiefe Director so Obstinacie is the greatest Supporter of your Cause How much more when the Defence it selfe is found to consist upon meere Contradictories whereof you may take a Taste out of your Doctrine of Corporall Presence and of a proper Sacrifice In the first by obtruding on mens Consciences a Beliefe upon due Consequence of a Body of Christ Borne and not Borne of the Virgin Mary One and not one Finite and not Finite Divisible and not Divisible Perfect and not Perfect and also Glorious and not Glorious as hath beene a Booke 4. thorowout proved in each point II. In a point of properly Sacrificing of Christ's Body your Musicke stands upon the same kind of Discords of b See Booke 6. thorowout Teaching a Body Broken and not Broken a matter visible and not visible of Blood shed and not shed and of a suffering Destruction and not suffering Destruction Evident Arguments of Obstinacie one would thinke and yet behold a plainer if it may be One Example instead of many of a stupendious Obstinacie in urging the Iudgement of Antiquity for Defence of your Romish Masse in the chiefect parts thereof proved by instancing onely in their like Sayings concerning Baptisme SECT II. THree chiefe Iesuites besides others have beene as you may c Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 13. remember extremely urgent and important with Protestants to shew if they could the like Phrases of the Fathers in Baptisme as were used of them concerning the Eucharist in the question of Sacrifice as if the just paralleling of these Two might be a Satisfaction unto themselves concerning that one point Wee are to deale more liberally with them and whereas they assume unto themselves the suffrages of Antiquity 1. For a Literall Exposition of Christs words This is my Body 2. For a Change of Bread by Transubstantiation into his Body 3. For a Corporall Presence of the same Body in the Sacrament 4. For a Bodily Vnion with our Bodies 5. For a Proper Sacrifice of the Eucharist And lastly for a Divine Adoration thereof wee answer them from the Fathers in their like Sayings concerning Baptisme throughout every particular A Synopsis of the Speeches of Ancient Fathers objected throughout this whole Treatise for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist and assoyled and satisfied by the Parallels and like Equivalent Sayings of the same Fathers to the manifold and manifest Conviction of all Romish Deliration in this their Controversie of the Masse SECT III. WEe shall pursue your Objections and our Solutions according to the Order of the Bookes wherein they are cited BOOKE II. I. Kind of Romish Objections for proofe of the Corporall Presence of Christs Body OB. I. The Fathers call the Eucharist an Antitype of Christ Basil and others Ergo is Christ Corporally therein B. 2. c. 2. § 6. SOL. Nay for Baptisme is
the same your Oath made to damne others doth serve chiefly to make the Swearers themselves most damnable If peradventure any of you shall oppose saying that none of you within this Kingdome which never admitted of the Councel of Trent nor of the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth are yet bound to that Oath let him know that although this may excuse him from an Actuall Perjury yet can it not free him from the Habituall which is that hee is disposed in himselfe to take it whensoever it shall be offered unto him in any Kingdome that doth imbrace and professe the same Our last Advertisement followeth Of the Mixture of many old Heresies with the former Defence of the Romish Masse SECT V. THe more odious the Title of this Section may seëme to be the more studious ought you to shew your selves in examining the proofes thereof that so you may either confute or confesse them and accordingly re-assume or renounce your Romish Defence Heresie hath a double aspect One is when it is direct having the expresse termes of Heresie the Other is oblique and by consequence when the Defence doth inferre or imply necessarily the same Hereticall Sense even as it may be said of Treason For to say that Caesar is not King is a Treasonable speech Directly in a plaine Sense and to say that Tribute money is not due to Caesar is as Treasonable in the Consequence Thus much being premised wee are now to recognize such Errours wherin your Disputers may seeme to have accordance with old Heretikes which point wee shall pursue according to the order of the Bookes BOOKE I. Wherein your Church is found altering almost the whole forme of Christ his Institution and the Custome of the Catholike Church descended from the Apostles which Presumption Pope a Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 3. Iulius condemned in divers who sopped the Bread in the Chalice and squeezed Grapes in the Cup and so received them even as did the * Ibid Artotyritae in mingling Bread with Cheese censured for Heretickes by your Aquinas In which Comparison your Aberration from Christs example is so much greater than theirs as you are found Guilty in defending b Booke 1. thorowout Ten Innovations for one 2. Your Pope Gelasius condemned the Hereticall Manichees for thinking it lawfull not to receive the Cup in the Administration of the Eucharist judging it to be c Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 7. Greatly Sacrilegious notwithstanding your d Ibid. Church authorizeth the same Custome of forbidding the Administration of the Cup to fit Communicants 3. As c Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 10. you pretend Reverence for withdrawing the Cup so did the f Ibid. Sect. 10. Aquarij forbeare wine and used onely Water under a pretence of Sobriety 4. Sometime there may be a Reason to do a thing when as yet there is no right nor Authority for him that doth it Wee therefore exact of you an Authority for altering the Apostles Customes and Constitutions and are answered that g Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 4. your Church hath Authority over the Apostles Precepts Iump with them who being asked why they stood not unto the Apostles Traditions replyed that h Ibid. They were herein above the Apostles whom therefore Irenaeus reckoneth among the Heretikes of his Time BOOKE II. It is not nothing which hath beene observed therein to wit your Reasoning why you ought not to interpret the words of Christ This is my Body i Booke 2. Cha. 3. thorowout literally and why you urge his other Saying Except you eate my flesh k Ibid. for proofe of Bodily Eating so that your Priest may literally say in your Masse that The Body of Christ passeth into your Bellies and Entrails because forsooth the words of Christ are l Booke 2. Cha. 3. Sect. 2. Doctrinall And have you not heard of one Nicodemus who hearing Christ teach that every man must be * Ioh. 3. Borne againe who shall be partaker of Gods Kingdome and that hee expounding them in a Literall Sense conceited a new Entrance into his Mothers wombe when as nothing wanted to turne that his Errour into an Heresie but onely Obstinacie But of the strong and strange Obstinacies of your Disputers you have received a full m See above in this Booke Chap. 2. Sect. 3. Synopsis BOOKE III. After followeth your Article of Transubstantiation I. Your direct profession is indeed to believe no Body of Christ but that which was Borne of the Virgin Mary But this your Article of Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ's Body generally held according to the proper nature of Transubstantiation to be by n Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. Production of Christs Body out of the Substance of Bread it necessarily inferreth a Body called and believed to be Christs which is not Borne of the Blessed Virgin as Saint Augustine hath plainly o Booke 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 1. taught diversifying the Bodily thing on the Altar from the Body of Christ borne of the Virgin Therefore your Defence symbolizeth with the Heresie of Apollinaris who taught a p Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 2 Body not Borne of the Virgin Mary Secondly You exclude all judgement of q Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 9. Senses in discerning Bread to be truly Bread as did the r Manichaei dicebant Christum non esse verum hominem sed phantasma quoddam Prâ—teol Elench Haeret. Manichees in discerning Christ's Body when hee was heere alive which they thereupon held not to have beene a True but a Phantasticall Body Tertullian also challengeth the Verity of Sense in judging of Wine in the Eucharist after Consecration in Confutation of the same Errour in the Marcionites Thirdly for Defence of Christ his invisible Bodily Presence you professe that after Consecration Bread is no more the same but changed into the Body of Christ which Doctrine in very expresse words was bolted out by an Eutychian Heretike and instantly coudemned by Å¿ Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 12. Theodoret and as fully abandoned by Pope t Ibid. Sect. 13. Gelasius BOOKE IV. Catholike Fathers were in nothing more zealous than in defending the distinct properties of the two natures of Christ his Deity and Humanity against the pernicious Heresies of the Manichees Marcionites Eutychians and Eunomians all of them diversly oppugning the Integrity of Christ's Body sometime in direct termes and sometime by irrefragrable Consequences whether it were by gaine-saying the Finitenesse or Solidity or else the compleat Perfection thereof wherein how farre yee may challenge affinity or kindred with them be you pleased to examine by this which followeth I. The Heretikes who undermined the property of Christ's Bodily Finitenesse said that it was in divers places at once as is u Book 4. Chap. 4. Sect. â— Chap. â— Sect. 3. Chap. 6. Sect. 1. confessed even as your Church doth now attribute unto the same Body of Christ both in Heaven and in Earth
Sacrilegiousnesse it selfe as you have seene in a former ſ See above in this Booke Chap. 1. Sect. 2. Synopsis BOOKE VII This containeth a Discoverie of your Masse-Idolatry not onely as being equall with the Doctrine of some Heretikes but in one respect exceeding the infatuation of the very t Booke 7. Ch. 8. Sect. 2. Pagans besides the Generall Doctrine of the power of your Priests u Cha. 5. Sect. 3. Intention in consecrating hath beene yoaked by your owne Jesuite with the Heresies of the * Cha. 9. Sect. 5. Donatists When you have beheld your owne faces in these divers Synopses as it were in so many glasses wee pray to God that the sight of so many and so prodigious Abominations in your Romish Masse may draw you to a just Detestation of it and bring you to that true worship of God which is to be performed in Spirit and in Truth and to the saving of every one of your soules through his Grace in Christ Iesus AMEN * ⎠* ALL GLORY BE ONELY TO GOD. AN INDEX Of the Matters contained in the Eight precedent Bookes against the ROMISH MASSE A ABSTEMIOVSNES No sufficient reason for Altering Christs Ordinance in the use of the Cup. pag. 79. ABSVRD to hold with many Romish Doctors Production to be the means of Transubstantiation p. 153. Absurdities expostulated by Master Brerely p. 286. Absurdities of the Romish Doctrine concerning Transubstantiation and the Bodily Being of Christ in the Eucharist with the palpable Absurdities of the Iesuites defence thereof p. 291. unto p. 301. ACCIDENTS No Substance ingendred out of meere Accidents Confessed p. 174. Not Accidents but Aire maketh drunke pag. 175. Accidents newly happening to the Sacrament cannot be without their Subjects p. 178. 179. This Figment never dreamed off by Ancient Fathers Book 3. chap. 3. throughout Accidents nourishing Substance absurdly confirmed by the Iesuite Fisher from Substances nourishing Substances p. 296. num 6. ADDVCTION pretended to be the sole maner of Transubstantiation by some Iesuites and confuted as false by others pag. 153. unto p. 156. ADORATION Divine Adoration of the Sacrament is the Romish Profession pag. 504. Not proved by Christs Institution p. 505. Nor by Antiquity either in their objected Verball speeches p. 506. unto p. 511 Nor in their Reall Objected Practices Ibid. c 3. throughout p. 511. unto pag. 524. Nay it is repugnant to Antiquity pag 524. unto pag. 528. Proved by their owne Principles to be Materially Idolatrous pag. 528. unto p. 533. Because of the many hundred defects in their Consecration in sixe Sections that it is Formally Idolatrous pag. 533. 534. Notwithstanding their Three Pretences p. 534. unto 539. The Impious Iesuiticall Evasion and Delusion to make the Romish worship seeme tollerable p. 539. Which is as ill as any Heathen p. 540. In one respect worse p. 541. Divine Adoration ought toprocede from an Infallible Faith in the God-head of him whom wee Invocate contrary to the Romish Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist Ibid. AELFRICK King his Faith objected for Transubstantiation untruly pag. 160. AETERNITIE What it is p. 263. ALTAR called Table by the Councell of Nice p. 303. Altar Priest Sacrifice and Temple properly so called on Earth all dissolved by Ancient Fathers pag. 415. unto pag. 418. Our Altar in Heaven pag. 418. The word Altar in the Masse not used with the Apostles p 461. 462. confessed Ibid. Allusions of Fathers in their termes Pascha c. Ibid. It is properly a Table Ibid. throughout the Sections AMBROSE Against Prayer in an unknowne Tongue p. 35. He teacheth that Hoc in Christs speech demonstrateth Bread p. 103. and a Figurative sense therein 125. Corruptly objected by Bellarmine for proofe of a proper sense therein Ibid. His sayings Ob. Of Bread is made Christs Body p. 202. Item They are the same that they were p. 178. Ob. Worke of Omnipotencie pag. 188. Ob. Nature is Changed pag. 190. Ambrose corrupted in some Romish Editions Ibid. Hee granteth something to bee Impossible to God even to the advancement of Gods Omnipotencie pag. 229. Proveth the Holy Ghost to be God by its being in divers places at once 239. 262 Holds that Christ at his Birth opened the Coll of the Blessed Virgin p. 278. And that Angels have their definite place and space 262. Hee is objected for penetration of the doores by Christs Body 275. Apparitions of some in two places at once Objected and Answered p. 262. Of Christs Bodily Presence onely in Heaven p. 306. That the Eucharist is nourishment for the soule 310. 385. Holdeth that the Godly onely are Partakers of Christs Body p. 321. See Guilty Hee is wrongfully urged for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse pag. 404. He granteth Christs exercising of his Priesthood now in heaven 415. He disclaimeth all properly called Altars Priesthood and Sacrifice here on earth p. 417. The Sacrifice on the Crosse our Iuge Sacrificium pag. 419. That Christ is only offered in an Image here but in Heaven in Truth p 441. Hee nameth the Eucharist a Sacrifice of Christ or rather a Remembrance thereof p. 443. Hee called the Bread before Consecration an Vnbloody Sacrifice 453. and calleth Baptisme a Sacrifice p. 457. His words Here Christ offereth himself Objected 479. And Wee adore in these mysteries the flesh of Christ as the footstoole of his Deity p. 508. To reverence him whose Body wee come to eate Objected Ibid. His Liturgie for praying God propitiously to receive the Gift 563. Calumniously objected 494. See Guilty ANGELS cannot possibly be in divers places at once by the Iudgement of Antiquity pag. 261. 262. Their objected Association at the receiving the Eucharist is no Argument of Divine Adoration thereof 506. 507. Angels present also at Baptisme Nazian Ibid. p. 507. ANNIHILATION of Bread is a necessary Consequence of the Romish manner of Transubstantiation pag. 156. ANSELME his saying Iewes ate the same spirituall meate with Christians p. 314. ANCIENT Fathers their wisedome contemned professedly by Romish Disputers in respect of their owne pag. 85. 86. ANTITYPE used of the Greeke Fathers concerning the Eucharist proveth Christs speech to be Figurative pag. 115 The use of this word Antitype pag 454. 455 APOSTLES not made Priests by those words of Christ Hoc Facite p. 57 Apostolicall authority contemned in respect of the now Papall by Romish Doctors pag 86 87 They are rudely called Rude pag. 135. APPARITIONS of Christ unto Peter out of Egesippus and other Fathers Objected and Answered by your Iesuite Vasquez p 240 241. Apparitions of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist manifoldly objected by the Romish Disputers for proofe of a Corporal Presence therein p. 218 219 220. Acknowledged by their owne Schoole-men to be no True flesh or Blood but feigned p. 221. 222. The Suggesters thereof of what disposition they were p. 223 224. APPLICATION of the Sacrifice of Christ in the Romish Partiall p. 483.
Recantation p. 335. BERTRAM his saying The Body of Christ in Heaven differeth from that on the Altar as much as that which was borne of the Virgin Mary and that which was not pag 159. His saying Bread remaineth in the Eucharist after Consecration pag. 186. The Romish Profession is to delude the Testimonies of Antiquity Ibid. pag. 187. His saying Iewes ate the same Spirituall meat with Christians p. 314. Bâ—ZA unjustly charged with denying Gods Omnipotencie p 231. BLASPHEMIE of a Romish Iesuite Teaching the Pope to dispence with the expresse Command of Christ pag. 87 BLESSED IT was Christs Consecration p. 9. BLOOD A Discourse of Fr. Collius a Romish Doctor of the miraculous Issuings of Christs Blood in the Eucharist p. 225 c. Blood of the Testament Exo. 24. objected for the Sacrifice of the Masse and Confuted by their owne Iesuite 424. Not infused in the Eucharist pag. 469. How the Fathers call the Eucharist both a Bloody and Vâ—bloody Sacrifice p. 455 456 457 c. BODY of Christ changed into whatsoever the Receiver desireth vainely Objected out of Greg. Nyssen pag. 202. Hee saith So doth Christs Body change our Bodies into it self Ibid. And Chrysost Christ hath made us his owne Body not by Faith but in deed also Ibid. An Objected Possibility of a Bodies being in diverse places at once from the like existence of Voice and Colour and of the soule of a man in the parts of his Body p. 259 260 261. Romish Objections against our using of Naturall reason to disprove the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist p. 263. A Body cannot take the right hand and left hand of it selfe pag. 254. The entrance of Christs Body miraculously through the doores p. 275 c. The Body of Christ opened the Cell of the Blessed Virgin p. 2777punc 278. In the Body of Christ by Popish Doctrine his head is not distant from his feet pag. 272. Body of Christ is held by the Romish Sect to be voyd of all sense and understanding as hee is in this Sacrament p 282. Christs Body is the Spirituall and Supersubstantiall food of the Soule p. 310. Eaten in vow and desire Ibid. Christs Body united to the Bodies of the Communicants See VNION See EATE Christs Body not suffering Destruction 467. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. BREAD Sacramentall albeit Bread is dignifyed by Saint Augustine with the name of Celestiall p 127. That Bread remaineth after CoÌ„secration is proved by Scripture p. 162. Consisting of Graines p. 163. Proved by Antiquity p. 163 164. By Sense 169. By the Analogie of Bread consisting of multitudes of Graines of Corne. Ibid. 165. Bread remaineth the same in Substance by the Iudgemen of Antiquity p. 169 Proved by the Councel of Nice p. 303. Bread and Wine called a Sacrifice by Ancient Fathers but Improperly p. 404 405 c. BREAKING of Bread used by Antiquity Contrary to the now Romish Practice pag 15. Breaking in Christs speech is Tropicall Ibid. Broken in the Present tense for proof of a Sacrifice and yet confessed by the Romish to betâ—ken the future pag. 397. C CABASILAS Gr Archb for the forme of Romish Consecration calumniously Objected 493. CAKE upon the Mountaines Objected out of the Psalmes and confuted by Popish Doctors pag. 433. CALVIN unjustly charged with denying Gods Omnipotencie pag. 231. CANON of the Masse Dominus vobiscum contradicteth the Private Masse p. 19. CANONIZATION of Saints fallibly is the ground of Superstitiousnesse p. 542. 543. CAPERNAITICAL Eating of Christs flesh 329. c. The Romish Eating of Christs Body is Capernaiticall p. 335. 336. c. See Vnion See Eating See Swallowing Mr. CASAVBON his large discourse teaching the universall practise of Antiquity to understand the tongue wherein they prayed p. 36. His Satisfaction to the Objected Testimonies of Antiquitie for Transubstantiation and Corporall Presence p. 207. His Iudgement upon the Fathers in the point of Fragments p 179. And upon the Objected Testimonie of Cyrill of Ierusalem pag. 177. His Answere to the Obcted Testimonie of â—ustine concerning the Sacrifice to Mithra among the Heathen pag. 379. His Exposition upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 400. CASSIODORE wrongfully urged for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse from the act of Melchisedech p. 406. That Melchisedech as Christ offered Bread and Wine Ibid. CATECHISME of TRENT saying All Baptized are Sacerdotes and so August p. 314. CAVTION of Antiquity in not suffering any part of the Eucharist in solid or liquid to fall to the ground Objected and Answered pag. 514. CHâ—VVING the Continuall maner of Eating of the Sacrament p. 339. CHRIST'S Acts of Excellency not to be imitated of any such as was his not compleat Sacramentall communicating in Emmaus pag. 63. 64. c. CHRYSOSTOME against Prayer in an unknowne tongue pag. 35. Hee is vainely objected for the Private Masse of the alone Communicating Priest pag. 21. Hee is for Consecration by Prayer p. 14. Hee is vehement against the Romish Custome of Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist pag. 47. Reverence to Christ is our Obedience pag. 81. Hee is against the Communicating but in one kind p. 77. Hee is for the Figurative sense in Christs words This is my Body and for the Continuance of Bread after Consecration p. 116. 117. c. His Question What is Bread The Body of Christ as the faithfull Communicants are the Body of Christ pag. 117. Hee expoundeth the fruit of the Vine Matth. 26. 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine pag. 163. 164. Hee saith If Christ had given onely an Image of his Body at his Resurrection hee had deluded his Disciples p. 169. And that in things sensible the Substance remaineth p. 198. And that Christ hath made us his owne Body not onely in faith but in deed also p. 202. Ob Thinke not that it is the Priest that reacheth it but God Sol. Not the Priest but God holdeth the head of the Baptized p. 200. Bread unworthy of the name of Christ's Body albeit the Nature of Bread remaineth still pag. 186. His Testimony blotted out by the Parisian Doctors p. 186 Changed by Divine power 189. Our senses may be deceived wee are altogether to believe it 198. His Hyperbolicall maner of speech confessed 199. Hee saith Something is Impossible to God even to the advancement of Gods Omnipotencie p. 229. Hee is objected for Christs Corporall Presence both in Heaven and in Earth unconscionably pag. 247. Answered Ibid. His Hyperbolicall speeches Ibid. Ob. Hee left his flesh as Elias his Mantle Ibid. Hee holdeth that Angels have allotted unto them a prescript place or space p. 261. Hee is objected for the Romish Penetration of the Doores by Christ's Body Vnconscionably 275. Hee is against the Impalpability of Christs Body p. 276. and against the Passing of Christ's Body into the Seege p. 287. Hee is objected that Godlesse Communicants partake of Christs Body pag. 313. Yet saith that
their Stage-play of Representing Christs Body on the Crosse by his Body in the Masse pag. 447. CONSECRASION of the Eucharist was anciently by Prayer p. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. c. Romish Prevarications herein Ibid. A Distinction of Consecration the one by Ordination the other by Benediction p. 14. Consecration of both kinds by the Priest confessed to be necessary pag. 62 63 64 c. Consecrative and Operative words viz. these This is my Body cannot be as they are pronounced by the Priest by reason of the Pronoune Meum p. 138. Words of consecration of the Eucharist are not delivered by any ancient Father saith S. Basil of the Primitive times p. 520. Words of Consecration in the Greeke Liturgies are by prayer to God Ibid. called of Cyril of Ierusa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. And Augustine confirming the same out of Basil Ibid. Consecration of Popes not Infallible pag. 530. The Romish consecration made frustrate by seven defects concerning the matter of the Eucharist p. 528. Six moe by not consecrating p. 529. Fower in the Intention pag. 530. Six moe for want of due Baptisme and Ordination pag. 530 531 532 c. CONTEMPT of the Eucharist and holy things revenged by God Examples thereof p. 318. 319. CONTRADICTION is an absolute Argument of Impossibility p. 229. 230. Six Romish Contradictions in the defence of the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist pag. 232 c. First is in making one not one but many 235. Second is in contradictory Relations of one Body being on the right side and left side of it selfe 252. Third by making Christs body finite and not finite pag. 264. Fourth in absolute Qualities having no Relation to place as to have Vnderstanding and not Vnderstanding p. 255. c. Fift by making it perfect and imperfect p. 281. Sixth by making it glorious and inglorius 282. CVP. Ioynt use of the Cup both in the Priest and people necessary by the precept of Christs practice Iudgement of Apostles and primitive Fathers notwithstanding any Romish pretence p. 54. 55. 56. c. The word Cup in Christs speech taken Figuratively p. 112. See Communion in both kinds See Innovation CVSTOME of 300. yeares preferred by the Romish before a more ancient of a thousand p. 68. 69. CYPRIAN is against Reservation of the Eucharist by the example of Christ. p. 50. Against the Alteration of the Institution p. 62. He is against Communion but in one kind p. 77. Christ commandeth drinking Ibid. Hee teacheth that Hoc in Christs speech Hoc est corpus demonstrateth Bread p. 103. And a Figurative sense in Christs speech This is my Body p. 125. Hee interpreteth Christs words Matth. 26. 29. of the fruit of the Vine p. 163. His saying Bread changed by Nature Objected p. 202. And againe calumniously objected p. 495 His calling the Bread Christs Body after Consecration the Bread which is collected into one of many graines pag. 170. His saying Christ doth create his more holy Body now pag. 192 As his humanity was flesh p. 188. Things signifying and signified p. 193. Change in Nature by Omnipotencie p. 188. Objected As also Divine Essence infuseth it selfe p. 193. Christ at the Table gave Bread and Wine to his Disciples but on the Crosse hee gave his Body to the Souldiers to be wounded p. 178. Ob. Wee make bits of it pag. 179. Ob. That the Godlesse Communicants are partakers of Christs Body p. 313. Ob. Wee are joyned with Christ inwardly in soule and outwardly pag 344. albeit hee standeth for the onely Soule-eating Ibid. Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine that is the Body and Blood of Christ pag. 405. Of the word Sacrifice Malachie 5. pag. 433. A pure and full Sacrifice pag. 450. Of Christs bloody Sacrifice slaine in the Eucharist p. 456. meant of the Passion of the Crosse Confessed p. 479. c. CYRIL ALEX. Objected for the proper sense of Christs word This is my Body p. 116. defendeth Circumcision in one place to distinguish Christs Man-hood from his Godhead pag. 243. saying If God were a Body hee should be circumscribed Ibid. Hee proveth the Holy Ghost to be God because in divers places at once Ibid. Against Penetration of the doores by Christs Body p. 176. Objected unconscionably for corporall Vnion by Christs bodily nourishing of our bodies p. 363. And at large for a corporall conjunction of Christ with our bodies as Waxe with Waxe Ibid. Confessed to be abused Ibid. His Answer to Iulian the Apostate who upbraided Christians with the want of al Sacrifice as well as want of Circumcision and how hee called the Eucharist unbloody p. 464. CYRIL HIER Teacheth that Hoc in Christs speech Hoc est corpus demonstrateth Bread p. 103. Calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype yeeldeth to a Figurative sense of Christs words pag. 116. His saying that Christians received the spirit when they received onely the Operation thereof Ibid. His saying Although it tast Bread yet beleeve it to be the body of Christ under the formes of Bread egregiously abused by Bellarmine p. 195. c. This is againe calumniously objected pag. 496. His calling the Bread Christs body as hee calleth holy Oyle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Guift of grace p. 197. His not bare Oyle and Wine Objected 195. Bread remaineth in the Eucharist after consecration proved from him p. 196. The body of Christ goeth not into the Draught 370. His Wee are carriers of Christ 363. His calling the Eucharist spirituall and unbloody Sacrifice p. 455. And Christs body is a bloody Sacrifice and slaine in the Eucharist Ibid. His Bowing before the Eucharist Objected and Answered p. 520. CYRIL of CONSTANTINOP This CYRIL now Patriarch of Constantinople in the name of the whole East and Greeke Churches saith thus Wee professe not Transubstantiation p. 205. D DAMASCEN his errour upon the use of the word Antitype p. 116. He defendeth Circumscription in one place to distinguish Christs Manhood from his God-head pag. 243. And that every Angell hath its prescript place or space p. 261. That they cannot possibly be in moe than one place at once p. 262. Is likewise against Penetration of bodies pag. 275. His saying It is mingled with our soules p. 357. DEVOVRERS of Christs body by Swallowing such are the Romish p. 347. who say that Beasts devoure it pag. 348. Who if by Chewing are made capernaiticall Tearers Ibid. Devouring of their God imputed to Christians by Averroes was occasioned by the then Romish Doctrine of tearing Christ with their teeth in the Eucharist from the dayes of Pope Nicholas p. 381. Attalas the Martyr denied all Devouring of Christ p. 382. DIDYMVSALâ—X proveth the Godhead of the Holy Ghost by its being in divers places at once pag. 267. DILEMMA of Bellarmine to prove Iustine to have held a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament pag. 377. His Insoluble Dilemma answered and requited with two other Dilemma's p. 377. 378 379. c. DIONYSIVS AREOP Standeth for Consecration
by Prayer pag. 10. He is against the Romish Custome of Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist pag. 46. His calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype noteth a Figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body pag. 115. His naming the Eucharist Divine Sacrament as hee did Divine Altar Divine Bread Divine Table c. pag. 185. Is against the Comparison of the Inapprehensiblenesse of other things in respect of the nature of God pag. 297. His Testimonie for Veneration at Elevation notably corrupted by Dâ—â—â—ntus pag. 513. His O Divine Sacrament reveale unto us c. properly objected for proofe of Divine Adoration of the Eucharist p. 518. DISPENCE the blasphemous Romish Dispensation against Christs command of Communion in both kinds pag. 87. DISTINCTION of Consecration one of Ordination and another of Benediction pag 14. A Distinction of the Presence of Christs Body as a Sacrifice namely as an Object and not as a Subject of the Celebration pag. 440. DIVINE This word applyed anciently by Dionys the Areop to divine and consecrative things p. 185. pag. 518. DOCTRINALL words may be Figurative pag. 134. DOMINVS VOBISCVM in the Romish Masse condemneth the now Romish Private Masse p. 19. DRAVGHT That which is eaten if it enter into the Mouth it is said to passe into the Draught by the Councell of Nice and Toledo pag. 305. By Origen pag. 287. 340. But the Body of Christ is denied to passe into the Draught by Chrysostome and Cyril of Alex pag. 287. 349. 350. Ambros Not into the Belly Ibid. pag. 350. DRINKE YOV ALL OF THIS not spoken of the Priest onely pag. 54. Drinke in Christs words of Institution to be taken Tropically as meant of his Blood pag. 111. E EATERS onely and not Gazers were Anciently admitted to the Eucharist pag. 46. 47. Eating and Drinking are both required of all Communicants for a Sacramentall Refection Confessed against Communicating in one kind pag. 74. 75. Eate in Christs speech of Institution taken Figuratively pag. 111. Eating Christs flesh onely in Vow and Desire pag. 311. in the judgement of Protestants Ibid. Onely Godly and Faithfull are Partakers of Christs Flesh pag. 311. 312. They of the Old Testament ate Christs Flesh pag. 314. Eating onely is Capernaiticall pag. 328. How the wicked Communicants are Guilty pag. 315. Eating with the Mouth delivered in the Church of Rome in the dayes of Poge Nicholas was professedly Capernaiticall pag. 335. Eating Christs Body properly taken is condemned of ancient Fathers p. 349. Eating it Capernaitically by tearing with teeth was taught as an Article of Faith by Pope Nicholas pag. 335. which is yet defended by some Romanists Ibid. Which is against the Faith taught by Pope Innocent pag. 336. That Pope Nicholas his doctrine is Capernaitically haereticall 337. That the maner of the eating of Christs Body in the Church of Rome is yet as faithlesse amongst themselves p. 336. 337. Romish Objections out of the Fathers most unconscionably urged for proofe of a corporall eating as is proved by the Fathers themselves pag 349. 350. 351. And out of other confessions of the Romish Disputers themselves pag. 352. Against either Presence Touching Tasting Breaking Eating of Christs flesh or sprinkling of his Blood p. 353. Vnion with Christs Body by a bodily commixture is Capernaitically Romish pag. 355. See Vnion See Orall See Capernaits See Swallowing ELEVATION of the Hoast objected for adoration of it p. 513. Confessed not to have bin Instituted by Christ and not to have bin alwayes in use p. 513 Elevation of the Chalice not before the dayes of Tho. Aquinas Ibid. EVPHRAIMIVS proveth first that Bread is called Christs Body figuratively and that the Substance of Bread remaineth p 187. EPIPHANIVS Objected most impertinently for the proper sense of Christs speech Hoc est Corpus p. 120. And againe p. 491. Hee expoundeth the fruit of the Vine to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine p. 163. He standeth for Christs bodily opening the Cell of the Blessed Virgin at his birth 277. EPITHETS of Sacrifice attributed by the Fathers to the Eucharist Objected although ascribed to things that are not properly called Sacrifices p. 448. 449. c. ERROVR Pretense of Not-erring the cause of the Romish Errour in continuing the witholding the Cup from the Laity pag. 78. 79. c. EST in the speech of Christ Hoc est Corpus See Figurative EVCHARIST The Remainders hereof after the Consecration were anciently given to Children p. 48. 49. c. Called anciently the Supper of the Lord. p. 47. Anciently burned p. 48 287. They are Symbols of our Resurrection p. 307. It is food onely for the soule pag. 309. 310. 311. c. EVCHERIVS Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine that is the Body and Blood of Christ p. 405. EVSEEIVS by calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype yeeldeth to a Figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body pag. 115. His words Bread is the Body of Christ Objected pag. 201. Hee taught the blessed Virgins opening her Cell and is against Heretikes that denied the truth of his body p. 278. Hee is objected for the Romish Exposition of the word Sacrifice Malachie 5. and confuteth the Objector p. 432. His saying The same Sacrifice with this correction or rather a Remebrance thereof p. 443. His saying A Sacrifice full of God objected pag. 448. and Vindicated 449 Holy Prayers are Incorporeall Vnderstanding Sacrifices 449. and calling Actions that are Godly a pure Sacrifice and opposeth them to a Bloody Sacrifice p. 453. That wee have Expiation here in the Eucharist by the Blood of Christ as remembred herein p. 478. which is objectively EVSEBIVS EMISSENVS saith that Christs Body is a bloody Sacrifice and slaine in the Eucharist p. 445. Hee is calumniously objected pag. 449. That Melchisedech as Christ offered Bread and Wine p. 405. EVTHYMIVS expoundeth the fruit of the Vine Matth. 26. 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine pag. 163. EXPOSITIONS of Scripture according to the unanimous consent of ancient Fathers falsely pretended and perjuriously transgressed by Romish Disputers p. 576. 577. c. Exposition of Scripture according to the Tenet of the Church of Rome perjuriously sworne unto Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Iuge Sacrificium not rightly applied to the Romish Masse pag. 418. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 22. 20. The word objected and discussed p. 363. c. F FACVNDVS teacheth a Figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body as plainely as any Protestant p. 128. FAITH Infallible required in every divine worship p. 535. c. FIGVRATIVE speech of Christ in the word Hoc which without absurditie can neither referre to Christs Body as is confessed p. 93. Nor to any Individuum vagum p. 96. The same Pronoune Hoc as demonstrating Bread cannot possibly be without a Figure Confessed p. 99. That Hoc demonstrateth Bread is proved by the Text and is to be taken Neutrally according to Grammar p. 100. 101. c. Proved to
point out Bread by an Inquest of ancient Fathers pag. 103. and by a Romish Principle p. 104 The same is confirmed by the other This expresly spoken of the Cup which demonstrateth the very Cup and not Christs Blood p. 105. 106. That the Verbe Est hath the sense of Signifieth p. 107. A Figurative speech in other Sacramentall words in Scripture p. 108. Eight words Tropically understood in the very speech of Christs Institution p. 110. 111. 112. c. A Glasse or Synopsis of the Exposition of the Fathers upon the words of Christ This is my Body to prove them to be Tropicall p. 129. c. Romish Objections for a proper sense of Christs words answered by Reason p. 132. That Testamentary words may be Figurative Ibid. Words of Precept Figurative p. 133. Words Doctrinall Figurative p. 134. When the Figurative sense is to be held p. 135. Ten Reasons for the Figurative sense of Christs words p. 136. Third Key for opening the Figurative sense in the Pronoune Adjective Meum as it is pronounced by the Priest pag. 138. Figures of the old Testament objected to be better than the signes or Sacraments in the new for proofe of a materiall Presence of Christ but is confuted pag. 426. c. The Cloud in the Sea compared with Baptisme and Manna with the Eucharist Ibid. FINITE and Infinite doe diversiâ—ie the two Natures of Christ p. 204. 205. 206 c. FRAGMENTS and Bits of the Eucharist p. 179. FRANCIS DE St. CLARA his Paraphrasticall Reconciliation is but Phantasticall p. 37. 38. 39. c. FVLGENTIVS proveth the God-head of the Holy Ghost to be in divers places at once p. 266. Hee defendeth Circumscription in one place to distinguish Christs Man-hood from his God-head p. 243. G GAVDENTIVS teacheth Hoc in Christs speech to demonstrate Bread p. 103. His saying Christ reacheth his Body unconscionably objected p. 343. Answered p. 345. Objected calling the Eucharist a pledge p. 369 GAZERS onely at the Eucharist were commanded anciently to depart p. 46. 47. GESTVRE of the Body used in the dayes of Antiquity proveth not a divine Adoration of the Eucharist p. 515. GHOST The Holy Ghost proved to be God by Antiquity from its being in divers places at once p. 266. 267. Against Heretikes that denied the God-head of Christ Ibid. GIVEN in Christs speech of Institution taken Figuratively p. 11. It is objected to be in the Present tense for proofe of a Sacrifice and yet confessed by themselves to betoken the Future p. 393. 394. 395. c. A GLASSE wherein to discerne the Consonant Iudgement of Antiquity for a Figurative sense in Christs words This is my Body p. 129. 130. c. GLASSE-CVPS used anciently in the Eucharist p. 514. GLOSSE in the Popes Decrees granteth that This is my Body is in sense This signifieth my Body 114. GODLY onely Partakers of Christs Body so Protestants p. 311. 312 Wicked notwithstanding guilty of the Lords Body p. 313. That the Godly onely are Partakers in the Iudgement of Antiquity 320. And not the Wicked p. 321. S. Augustine accordeth hereunto p. 323. GORGONIA her Example idely objected for Divine Adoration p. 517. GRAMMAR in the Particle Hoc Neutrally with Panis and the like pag. 100. GREEKE FATHERS for the Consecration by Prayer p. 12. 13. GVEST and FEAST Christ is so called anciently p. 366. c. GVILTY of the Lords body not by receiving it but by contemptuous receiving of the Sacrament thereof pag. 313. yea and Guiltinesse of Contempt even by not receiving it p. 316. Guilty of Gods Vindicative Iudgement in all contempts of holy things pag. 318. and Fathers opposed p. 319. 320. c. H HABITVALL CONDITION cannot free the Romish Adoration of the Hoast from formall Idolatry p. 538. The Protestants security herein pag. 555. HERESIES in great number mingled with the doctrine of the Romish Masse in their Affinity and sometimes Consanguinity with ancient Heresies p. 581. c. HANDS Anciently the Eucharist was received with Hands p. 43. HEGESIPPVS objected for Apparitions of some in two places at once pag. 241. and answered by Vasquez Ibid. HESYCHIVS calleth the Eucharist a bloody Sacrifice and the slaying of Christ p. 455. HIEREMIE Patriarch of Constantinople denying Transubstantiation said These Mysteries are not changed into a humane body p. 205. S. HIEROME against the pretended priviledging of the Romish Priest in his onely participating in both kinds pag. 76. Teaching Hoc in Christs words to demonstrate Bread p. 103. And the Figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body p. 125. Hee expoundeth the fruit of the Vine Matth. 26. 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine p. 163. Hee is against the Romish manner of Christs passage through the Doores pag. 276. Hee standeth for Christs bodily Opening the Cell of the blessed Virgin at his Birth p. 278. Interpreteth the Camells passing through the needles eye 279. That the wicked are not partakers of Christs body pag. 321. His calling Christ Feast and Guest unconscionably objected for a Corporal union pag. 366. His calling the Eucharist a Pledge p. 369. Hee said that Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine that is the Body Blood of Christ p. 404. Hee is objected for the Romish Exposition of the word Sacrifice Malachie 5. and confuteth the Objector pag. 432. Hee is against the Romish sense of Iuge Sacrificium p. 435. To shew that this on the Altar is not the same subjectively with that on the Crosse saith that Of this one may eate but not of that p. 444. Of the Minister a true Priest or rather an Imitator Ibid. Hee is objected that Christs Body is a bloudy Sacrifice and slaine in the Eucharist pag. 455. That anciently they carried the Blood in a Glasse 514. That the Cup was a Glasse Ibid. Hee saith Let us keep our Passover above with Christ p. 527. HILARIE proveth the Holy Ghost to be God because it is proved in Scripture to be in diverse places at once p. 266. He is Vnconscionably Objected for a Corporall Vnion by Christs Bodily nourishing our Bodies p. 359. That he spake of a permanent Vnion p. 365. Objected to say We are made one with Christ not onely in affection but also in nature He saith the very same of Baptisme Wee are one with Christ not only in affection but also in nature p. 356. That hee speaking of the nourishment of mens Bodies by the Sacrament meant not any Substantiall nourishment thereby where were Absurd as is Confessed p. 362. Objected at large for Naturall and Corporall Conjunction of Christs Body with the Bodies of the Communicants p. 359. Hoc in Christs words Hoc est Corpus is Figurative p. 99. See the word Figurative Hoc FACITE Doe this No proofe of Romish Sacrifice pag. 390. c. HOLY-GHOST See the word Ghost HOLY things contemned See Contempt HYPERBOLES of Chrysostome pag. 199. and of other Fathers p. 342. 343. I IACOB his taking Leah for Rachael objected prophanely and absurdly for
of Virginity at the Birth of Christ Objected against Antiquity p. 272. VNBLOODY Sacrifice Objected as attributed to the Eucharist by Ancient Fathers pag. 451. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for void of Blood by Antiquitie to the Confutation of the Objectors Ibid. The Fathers calling things utterly void of Blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is unbloody Ibid. Basil and Eusebius call Godly Actions a Sacrifice and oppose them to Bloody pag. 452. Nazian calleth the Eucharist an Vnbloody Sacrifice not which is Christ but whereby wee communicate with Christ pag. 453. Ambrose called Bread and Wine an Vnbloody Sacrifice Ibid. and Athanasius Bread and Wine of Melchisedech were a signe of an Vnbloody Sacrifice Ibid. and Cyrilâ— Alex. calleth them Vnbloody Spirituall pag. 464. VNIFORMITIE is no reason of withholding the Cup from the Laity p 78. VNION Romish of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants pag. 308. Romish Objections for this Vnconscionably alleaged pag. 358. The Romish Sophistry discovered pag. 365 366 c. The same Vnconscionablenesse discovered from their owne Confessions Ibid. The Objected Testimonies are proved to make against them pag. 367. Vnion with Christs Body by Touch is Capernaiticall pag. 333. And by Swallowing also Ibid. pag. 347. That the same Vnion in mens Bellies is Capernaiticall pag. 349. The Romish Vnion by Commixture with mens Bodies is also Capernaiticall pag. 354. And the Romish Objected Sentences of the Fathers Answered pag. 356. Out of their Similitudes pag. 366. The basest Maner of Romish Vnion of Christs Body in the Inferiour parts of mans Body by egestion into the Draught pag. 382. The Abominablenesse thereof pag. 384. VOMITERS of Christs Body such are the Romish p. 348. VOICE Not audible in uttering Christs words of Consecration is in the Romish Church a Transgression against Christs Institution pag. 22. The nature of a Voice to be perceived in divers places at once Objected by the Romish and confuted by themselves p. 258. VVLGAR Translation against Fundetur in the future tense confuteth the Romish Objection of the Present tense in a proper signification pag. 392. The Vulgar latine Translation corrupted leaving out the word Incense pag. 430. Condemned by the different Translations of other Fathers Ibid. The Objected Fathers confute the Romish Exposition of Malachie 5. Ibid. The vulgar Translation perjuriously sworne unto and rejected by Romish Disputers pag. 574. A speciall Instance out of the Fathers to confute the Vulgar Translation in the words of the Apostle Ephes 1. 14. which rendreth the Greeke word Arrhabo in Latine Pignus but according to the Originall should be translated in Latine Arra that is Earnest p. 576. W WATER mixed with the Wine in the Eucharist was not commanded by Christ p. 5. WINE may be had for a Sacramentall use in all Countries which is confessed pag. 78. WORMES ingendred in the Hâ—ast pag. 174. FINIS AN INDEX Of the Principall places of Scripture Opposed by Vs and Objected against us throughout this whole Controversie PSALM 72. 16. There shall be an handful of Corne. Object to prove the Romish Sacrifice pag. 4 3. MALAC. 5. 1. In every place shall Sacrifice and Oblation be offered in my name Ob. for a proper Sacrifice but vainely pag. 429 c. MATTH 19. 14. It is Easier for a Camel to passe through the eye of a Needle c. Ob. for the maner of Christs Presence pag. 275. MATTH 26. 26. LVC 22. 19 20. And hee Blessed it Op. p. 9. Brake it Op. pag. 15. And gave it to them Opp. pa. 17. And said unto them Opp. p. 22 And againe Opp. pag. 24. Take ye Opp. pag. 43. Eat yee Opp. pa. 45 And againe Opp. p. 48. In Remembrance of me p. 51. Drinke yee All of this p. 54. In like maner hee tooke the Cup. Ibid. 1. COR. 11. 25. As often as you shall doe it Ibid. THIS IS MY BODY The word This pag. 91. The Verbe Est Is. p. 107. That they are Figurative doe not make for Transsubstantiation p. 146. My Body Is farre different from that which is in the hands of the Priest p. 210. DO THIS Ob. for Sacrifice pag. 390. Is shed Is broken Is given Ob. for Sacrifice p. 392. Both unreasonably Ibid. Shed for remission of sinnes Ob. for a Sacrifice Propitiatory pag. 475. MATTH 26. 29. Fruit of the Vine Opp. against Transubstantiation pag. 163. MATTH 28. 6. Hee is not heere for hee is risen Opp. against Being in two places at once pag. 237. LVK. 24. 16. Their eyes were holden pag. 172. Knowne at Emmäus by Breaking of Bread p. 63. IO. 6. 54. Who so eateth my flesh Opp. pag. 339. And vers 63. It is the Spirit that quickeneth p. 340. And vers 53. Except you eat the flesh c. p. 352. IOH. 19. 33. They brake not his legs p. 394 423. ACT. 2. 42. They continued in fellowship Breaking of Bread pag. 66 67. ACT. 9. 3. Concerning Christs Apparance to Saul Ob. p. 239. ACT. 13. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ob. p. 400. 1. COR. 5. 7. Our Passeover is Sacrificed Ob. p. 422. 1. COR. 10. 4. The same Spirituall meat Opp. pag. 314. Ib. And that Rocke was CHRIST pag. 126. And verse 16. The Bread which we break Opp. Against Transubstantiation pag. 165 166. Ibid. vers 18. They which eat of the Sacrifices are Partakers of the Altar Ob. pag. 401. for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice 1. COR. 11. 25. Quotiescunque biberitis p. 54. 56. And vers 27. Whosoever eateth or drinketh unworthily c. p. 320. And vers 28. So let him eat of this Bread and drinke of this Cup. Opp. Against Communion but in one kinde pag. 65. And Opp. for proofe that it remaineth Bread after Consecration p. 161. And 1. COR. 14. 16. How shall he say Amen Opp. against Vnknowne Prayer p. 22 23. HEBR. 5. Concerning Melchisedech Ob. for Sacrifice p. 404. And Chap. 9. 22. Without shedding of Blood Opp. pag. 481. And Chap. 13. 10. Wee have an Altar c. Ob. 413 461. FINIS FAVLTS escaped in this Second Edition thorow the absence of the R. Author The Corrector's Negligence and the Printers Precipitancie PAg. 15. lin 13. Reade SECT IV. Pag. 53. lin 28. in the Margin Reade Aquin. part 3. Qu. 80. Art 9. Conclus Pag. 54. lin 6. Reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 61. at * in the Marg. R. See the next Sect. 3. at the letter x. Pag. 64. lin 29. Reade be represented by without the vvord but. Pag. 67. lin 24. Reade Synechdoche Pag. 81. lin 4 5. Reade used onely water Pag. 83 lin 27. R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 115. lin 29. in the Margin R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 120. lin last but 3. in the Marg. R. Epiphanius his words to be P. 123. l. 30. R. â—nd not to either the P. 124. lin 3. for Glosse R. Glosse P. 159. lin 30. in Marg. R. Chap. 4. Sect. 1. P. 180. lin 10. in the Marg. R. Chap. 9. Sect. 2. P. 200. lin 47. in the Marg. R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 209. lin 19 R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 288. l. 10. instead of Antecedents R. Accidents P. 295. l. 40. R. had not any existence P. 302. in the Marg. lit c. lin ult R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 343. l. 45. For Isychius Read Hesychius whose Testimonies in the Index ought to be under one title of Hesychius P. 360. l. 27. R. of their Bodies P. 361. Marg. at num 4. lin 3. R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 377. l. 24. For Cause R. Case P. 426. lin 2. R of a bloody Sacrifice P. 443. in the Marg. at let c lin 2. R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Other Errours Typographicall which have got into the small and obscurer Character of the Margin the Greeke especially an Ingenuous Reader however otherwise affected may equally pardon and correct as they shall come to his view