Subiect matter Is it the Body of Christ then must you grant which wee with holy Fathers abhorre to thinke that the Body of Christ passeth into the Draught or is it Bread Then farewell Transubstantiation Nay will you say but they were Accidents And we Answer that it was never heard no not in your owne Schooles that meere Accidents were called which are Origen's words in this place either Meates or Materialls Yea and Origen that hee might bee knowne to understand Materiall Bread furthermore calleth it now after Consecration Matter of Bread S. Ambrose his Comparison is of like Consequence As one Baptized had beene an old Creature and was made a new one euen so speaking of the Bread and Wine after Consecration they being changed into another thing remaine that which they were before But hee you know that was baptized remaineth after Baptisme in Substance the same man although in respect of Spirituall Graces hee suffereth a Change Of which Testimone more hereafter Cyprian is a Father much alleadged and urged by you in defence of Transubstantiation but is now at hand to controll you Our Lord gave in this Banquet saith he Bread and Wine with his owne hands when hee pertaked thereof with his Apostles but on the Crosse hee delivered vp his Body to the Souldiers to be pierced with wounds to the end that sincere verity and true sincerity having an inward impression in the Apostles hee by them might manifest to the Gentiles how that Bread and wine is his Body and Blood and by what meanes there may be agreement betweene Causes and Effects and how different names and formes might be reduced to one Essence that things signifying and things signified might be called by the same names So hee A Catholique Father as all know whom if you aske what Consecrated thing it was which Christ had in his hands and gave to his Disciples hee answereth it was Bread and Wine and not absolutely that which hee gave up to be Crucified on the Crosse by Soldiers namely his Body and Blood If againe you demand of Cyprian why Christ called the Bread which hee had in his hand his Body he readily answereth saying The things signifying or Signes are called by the same names whereby the things signifyed are termed A Protestant of admirable learning unfolded unto you the Iudgement of Antiquity from the Testimonies of divers Fathers in saying of this Sacrament after Consecration that The bread by being divided is diminished that It is delivered by fragments that these are so little that they are to be called rather Bitts then Parts Thus they spake expressly of Bread Consecrated but to say that you eate bitts and Fragments of whitenes of Roundnes and other Accidents who is so absurd among your selves And to affirme the same of Christs body who is so impious Somewhat more of this when we shall appeale to the Canon of that famous Councell of Nice Another Inference we may take from Antiquity in her calling this Sacrament Pignus a Pledge so Hierome and Gaudentius of the Presence of Christ now departed from us A Perfect Argument of the Bodily Absence of Christ by virtue of the Relation betweene the Person and his Pledge The third and last Classis of Fathers may be viewed in the Section following A Confirmation of the same Iudgement of the Fathers acknowledging in expresse tearmes Bread to remaine after Consecration in Substance the same The First Father is THEODORET SECT XII THeodoret maketh a Dialogue or Conference betweene two Parties being in Controversie about the humane and bodily nature of Christ the one is named Eramstes upon whom is imposed the person of an Heretike for Defence of the Sect of the Eutychians who falsly held That the Body of Christ after his Ascension being glorified was swallowed up of his Deity and continued no more the same humane and Bodily Essence as before his Resurrectiit had beene The other Party and Disputer is named Orthodoxus signifying the Defender of the Truth of the Catholique Doctrine which Person Theodoret himselfe did sustaine in behalfe of the Catholique Church In this Dispute the Heretike is brought in for Defence of his Heresie arguing thus Even as Signes in the Eucharist after the words of Invocation or Consecration are not the same but are changed into the Body of Christ Even so after his Ascension was his Body changed into a Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaning Substance of a Divine Essence Which both your Romanists and Protestants confesse to have beene the Doctrine of these Heretikes This was that Heretike his Obiection The Orthodoxe or Catholique which was Theodoret himselfe commeth to answer promising to catch the Heretique as he saith in his owne Snare by retorting his Argument of Similitude against him thus Nay But as the mysticall Signes in the Eucharist after Sanctification depart not from their former nature but continue in their former Figure Forme and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Substance So the Body of Christ after the Resurrection remaineth in its former Figure Forme Circumscription and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Substance which it had before You may perceive that the Assertion set downe in the name of a grand Heretike is absolutely your Romish Profession for Transubstantiation at this day to wit Bread is changed after Consecration into the Substance of Christ's Body and that also the Assertion of Theodoret in the person of the Catholique Professor being flat contradictory is as absolutely the Doctrine of Protestants defending that Bread after Consecration remaineth in Substance the same Wherefore if ever it now concerneth your Disputers to free your Romish Article from Heresie which divers have undertaken to doe by their Answeres but alas so absurdly that any reasonable man must needs laugh at and so false as which any man of conscience must as necessarily detest them The Principall Answere is that which your Cardinall giveth that Theodoret in saying that Bread remayneth the same in Figure Forme and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meant not Substance properly understood but the essence of Accidents So hee An Answere by your leave notoriously ridiculously and heretically False First Notoriously false because the Argument of Theodoret being taken from a Similitude and every Similitude consisting of two Propositions the first called Protasis and the other Apodosis it is necessary by the Rule of Logique as you know that the words and termes betokening the same Similitude be used in the same signification in both Propositions But in the Apodosis of Theodoret which is this So the Body of Christ after the Resurrection remaineth the same in Figure Forme and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was meant properly Substance because this was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the maine point in Question betweene Theodoret and the Heretique viz. whether the Substance of Christ's Body continued the same which it had beene in time
Transformation Trans-elementation and the like So your Lorichius Reader of Divinitie among you who by his vast and rash boldnes might as iustly have inferred from the like Phrases of the Apostle viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are transformed that every Regenerate Christian is Transubstantiated into Christ or from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is transfigured say that the Diuell is Transubstantiated into an Angell of light or from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is changed used by Cyrill urge that whosoever the Spirit of God doth Sanctifie is Transubstantiated into another thing or from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Nazianzene conclude that Every Person Baptized is Transubstantiated into Christ Will you have the world imagine that so many so excellent and so Ancient Fathers with all that Divine and Humane Learning wherewith they were so admirably accomplished could not in a Thousand yeares space finde out either the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Latine Transubstantiatio and apply them to this Change if they had once dreamed of this your Article of Faith Will you permit us to learne a point of wisedome in your Cardinal Liberty of devising new words saith he is a thing most dangerous because new words by little and little bâ—get new things So hee Therefore may wee iustly place this your new word among those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which St. Paul will have Christians by all means to avoid els so new and barbarous a name must needs ingender a novell and brutish opinion such as this Article it selfe will appeare to be As followeth The Novelty of the Article of Transubstantiation is examined and shewen not to have beene before the Councell of Laterane namely not untill 1215. yeares after Christ SECT III. THis Aricle hath beene decreed as you haue heard by your Church as a necessary Doctrine of Faith and therefore presumed to be Ancient CHALLENGE THe first Imposition of this Article as of Faith your Cardinall Bellarmine noteth to have beene in the dayes of Pope Gregory the VIIth viz. 1073. yeares after Christ But surely at that time this could be but a private opinion of some few for Peter Lombard living 67. yeares after this Pope and esteemed the Master of the Romish Schoole when he had laboured to give Resolution to all doubts especially in this very Question whether the Conversion were substantiall or not confesseth plainely saying Definire non sufficio I am not able to Determine So he Anno 1140. Hitherto therefore this Article was but in Conception onely which caused your learned and subtile Schoole-man Scotus to descend lower to find out the Birth thereof Affirming that the Article of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith before the Councell of Laterane under Pope Innocent III. viz. Anno 1215. whom therefore your Cardinall doth taxe for want of Reading But either were your Iesuite Coster and Cardinall Perron as ignorant of Antient Learning as Scotus or els they gave small Credit to that Councell cited by Bellarmine under Gregory the VIIth For your Iesuite saith in direct tearmes that The name of Transubstantiation was used in the Councell of Laterane for clearer declaration that Christians might understand the Change of Bread into the Body of Christ Can you say then that it was universally so vnderstood before But your Cardinall Perrâ—n more peremptorily concludeth that If it had not beene for the Councell of Laterane it might be now lawfull to impugne it So hee A plaine acknowledgement that it was no Doctrine of Faith before that Councell even as Scotus affirmed before But we pursue this Chase yet further to shew That the Article of Transubstantiation was not defined in the Councell of Laternae vnder Pope Innocentius the III. SECT IV. YOur owne learned Romish Priest a long time Prisoner did under the name of Widdrington produce many Historians viz. Platina Nauclerus Godfridus Monumetensis Matth. Paris and others to testifie as followeth That many things fell under Consultation in that Councell but nothing was openly defined the Pope dying at Perâ—sium Insomuch that some of these Authors sticke not to say that This Generall Councell which seemed to promise bigg and mighty matters did end in scorne and mockery performing nothing at all Wee might adde that the supposed Acts of this Councell were not published vntill more than two hundred yeares after No marvell then if some Schoole-men among whom were Scotus and Biel held Transubstantiation not to have beene very antient And another that It was but lately determined in the Church Nay M. Breerly if his opinion be of any Credit among you sticketh not to say that Transubstantiation compleat that is both for forme and matter was not determined vntill the last Councell of Trent that is to say not untill the yeare of our Lord 1560. Doe you not see how much licking this ougly Beare and Beast had before it came to be formed and yet it will appeare to be but a Monstrum horrendum take it at the best as it is now to to be proved by the full discouering of the palpable Falshood thereof CHAP. III. The Definition of Transubstantiation in the Church of Rome and of the Falshood thereof SECT I. THe Councell of Trent saith your Cardinall hath defined that this Conversion is of the whole Substance of Bread that is as well forme as matter into the Substance of Christ his Body Our First proofe of the Falshood of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation by the Contradictions of the Defenders thereof whereby they bewray their No-Beleefe of the Article THe Opinions of the Doctours of your Church concerning the nature of this Conversion are by you reduced into these two manners namely that it is either by Production out of the substance of Bread or els by Adduction of the Body of Christ unto the forme of Bread CHALLENGE VVHatsoever it is which you will seeme to professe never shall you perswade us that you doe indeed believe either of the pretended Formes of Transubstantiation First not by Production because as the same Cardinall truely argueth Conversion by Production is when the thing that is produced is not yet extant as when Christ converted water into wine wine was not Extant before it was Produced out of the substance of water But the Body of Christ is alwaies Extant therefore can it not be said to be Produced out of the substance of Bread So he Which Productive manner of Transubstantiation could not be beleeved by your Iesuites Vasquez and Suarez by both whom it hath beene confuted And if the Change be not by Production then it must follow that it is not by Transubstantiation which is demonstrable in it selfe because the next manner which they insist vpon cannot possibly serue your turne This Second manner they name to be by Adduction which your Cardinall defineth to be a Bringing of the Substance of that
Bigne all which have intituled this Gelasius Pope of Rome Howsoever it is confessed on all sides that he was an Orthodoxe Father and very Ancient Now then Gelasius said that The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ being Divine things yet cease not to be the nature and substance of Bread and Wine In Answere whereunto both your foresaid Cardinals 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 whereas the Heretique 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 be 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 Brereley would have you to know that this Gelasius whosoever hee were writeth against the same Eutychian Heresie that Theodoret did and thereupon useth accordingly to his like aduantage the words Substance and Nature in the same sence 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 Mr. Brerely opposeth against us another sentence of Gelasius from whence he concludeth that Gelasius held Transubstantiation so that Gelasius must rather contradict himself then that he shal not consent to the Romish Tenet Whereas indeed hee saith no more than in a mysticall sence 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 To which saying of Gelasius touching the Eucharist is answerable a like saying of Gregory Nyssen concerning Baptisme calling it a Divine Laver working miraculous effects Yea and Dionysius the 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 be inforced to allow Fie upon blind boldnesse This mans falsity in alledging Chemnitius I let passe It is further worthy your Reflection to observe your Disputers how earnest they have bin to prove that this Author was not Pope Gelasius contrary to the acknowledgement of your owne Historians May wee not therefore suspect that the Testimony obiected was distastfull unto them when they so greatly feared lest this Witnesse should be thought to have beene a Pope and Supreame Paster 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 SECT XIIII CHrysostome his words are these that 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 Answer might satisfie us were it not that it was extant sometime in the Libraries of Florence and Canterbury To whom may be adioyned the Authour of that Vnperfect worke still standing under the name of Chrysostome and by you upon any occasion obiected against vs wherein it is expressly said that The True Body of Christ is not contained within these sanctified Vessels 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 most worthy and able to advertise in this kind Bertram is our next witnesse from Antiquity being about 800. yeares agoe and never noted of Errour antiently untill these later times of Booke-butchery that wee may so call your Index Expurgatorius denying altogether all liberty to all men of reading this Booke But why what saith he Hee maintaineth saith your Senensis that the Eucharist is the substance of Bread and Wine And indeed so he doth in his Booke dedicated to the Emperour Carolus Calvus which also he affirmeth to be written According to the truth of Scriptures and iudgement of Ancient Fathers before him This Author undergoeth also the Censure of the Vniversity of Doway which confessing him to have beene a Catholique Priest framed divers Answers whereby they meant to prevent all obiections which Protestants might peradventure urge vnder the Authority of this Author Bertram But how Marke this Romish Profession of answering Protestants as often as they shall insist in the Testimonies of antient Writers Let us say they in Disputation with our Adversaries obiecting ancient Authors tolerate many of their Errours extenuate and excuse them yea and oftentimes by some devised Comment deny them as also by feigning to apply some apt sence unto them So that Vniuersitie 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 Trithemius for his Excellent Learning in Scripture his godly life his worthy Books and by name this now mentioned written expressly Of the Body and Blood of Christ CHAP. IV. Answeres to the Obiections of Romish Doctours taken from the Testimonies of Antient 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 vsed for the Discovery of the Vnconscionablenes of your Disputers in their Obiecting 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 be Naked and Bare Bread Thirdly in forbidding the Communicants to rely vpon 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 doe apply as well to the Sacrament of Baptisme and
condemned in divers who sopped the Bread in the Chalice and squeezed Grapes in the Cup and so received them even as did the Artoryritae in mingling Bread with Cheese censured for Heretiques by your Aquinas In which Comparison your Aberration from Christ's Example is so much greater than theirs as you are found Guilty in defending 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 Greatly Sacrilegious notwithstanding your Church authorizeth the same Custome of forbidding the Administration of the Cup to fit Communicants 3. As you pretend Reverence for withdrawing the Cup so did the Aquarii forbeare wine and used only Water under a pretence of Sobriety 4. Sometime there may be a Reason to doe a thing when as yet there is no right nor Authority for him that doth it Wee therefore exact of you an Autority for altering the Apostles Customes and Constitutions and are answered that your Church hath Authority over the Apostles Precepts Iumpe with them who being asked why they stood not unto the Apostles Traditions replyed that 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 literally and why you urge his other saying Except yoâ—… eat my flesh 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 entrâ—ils because forsooth the words of Christ are Doctrinall And have you not heard of one Nicodemus who hearing Christ teach that every man must be Borne againe who shall be partaker of God's Kingdome and that hee expounding them in a Literall Sence conceited a new Entrance into his Mothers wombe when as nothing wanted to turne that his Errour into an Heresie but only Obstinacie But of the strong and strange Obstinacies of your Disputers you have received a full Synopsis BOOKE III. After followeth your Article of Transubstantiation I. Your direct profession is indeed to beleeve no Body of Christ but that which was Borne of the Virgin Mary But this your Article of Transubstantiation of Bread into Christs Body generally held according to the proper nature of Transubstantion to be by Production of Christs Body out of the Substance of Bread it necessarrly inferreth a Body called and beleeved to be Christ's which is not Borne of the Blessed Virgin as S. Augustine hath plainly 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 Body not Borne of the Virgin Mary Secondly you exclude all judgement of Senses in discerning Bread to be trâ—… Bread as did the Manichees in discerning Christ's Body 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 Eâ—charist after Consecration in confutation of the same Errour in the Marcioniâ—es 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 Eâ—tychian Heretique and instantly condemned by Theodoret and as fully abandoned by Pope Gelasâ—… BOOKE IV. Catholique 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 Eâ—tychians and Eâ—nomians all of them diversly oppugning the Integrity of Christ's Body sometime in direct tearmes and sometime by irrefragrable Consequences whether it were by gaine-saying the Finitenesse or Solidity or else the compleat Perfection thereof wherein â—ow farre yee may challenge affinity or kindred with them be you pleased to examine by this which followeth 1. The Heretiques who undermined the property of Christ's Bodily Finitenesse said that it was in divers places at once as is confessed even as your Church doth now attribute unto the same Body of Christ both in Heaven and in Earth yea and in Millions of distant Altars at the same time and consequently in all places whatsoever Now whether this Doctrine of Christ's Bodily Presence in many places at once was held of the Catholique Fathers for Hereticall it may best be seene by their Doctrine of the Existence of Christ's Body in one only place not only Definitively but also Circumspectively both which doe teach an absolute Impossibility of the Existence of the same in divers places at once And they were as zealous in professing the Article of the manner of Christ's Bodily Being in place as they are in instructing men of the Article of Christ's Bodily Being lest that the deniall of it's Bodily manner of being might destroy the nature of his Body To which end they have concluded it to be absolutely but in one place sometime in a Circumspective Finitenesse thereby distinguishing them from all created Spirits and sometime by a Definitive Termination which they set downe first by Exemplifications thus If Christ his Body be on Earth then it is absent from Heaven and thus Being in the Sunne it could not be in the Moone Secondly by divers Comparisons for comparing the Creature with the Creator God they conclude that The Creature is not God because it is determinated in one place and comparing the humane and divine Nature of Christ together they conclude that they are herein different because the humane and Bodily Nature of Christ is necessarily included in one place and laâ—tly comparing Creatures with the Holy Ghost they conclude a difference by the the same Argument because the Holy Ghost is in many places at once and all these in confutation of divers Heretiques A thing so well knowen to your elder Romish Schoole that it confessed the Doctrine of Existence of a Body in divers places at once in the judgement of Antiquity to be Hereticall 2. The property of a Solidity likewise was patronized by Antient Fathers in confutation of Heretiques by teaching Christ's Body to be necessarily Palpable against their Impalpabilitie and to have a Thicknesse against their feigned subtile Body as the Aire and furthermore controlling these opinions following which are also your Crotchets of a Bodies Being whole in the whole space and in every part thereof and of Christ's Body taking the Right hand or left of it selfe 3. The property of Perfection of the Body of Christ wheresoever in the highest Degree of Absolutenesse This one would thinke everie Christian heart should assent unto at the first hearing wherefore if that they were judged Heretiques by Antient
whereof more hereafter In the Interim we shall desire each one of you to hearken to the Exhortation of your owne Waldensis saying ATTEND and obserue the Masse OF CHRIST Of the CANON OF CHRIST his MASSE and at what wordes it beginneth SECT IV. CHrist his Masse by your owne confession beginneth at these words of the Gospell concerning Christ's Institution of the Eucharist Math. 26. Luc. 22. And Iesus tooke bread c. which also we doe as absolutely professe What Circumstances by ioynt consent on both sides are to bee exempted out of this Canon of Christ his Masse or the wordes of his Institution It is no lesse Christian wisedome and Charitie to cut off vnnecessary Controversies than it is a serpentine malice to engender them and therefore we exempt those points which are not included within this Canon of Christ beginning at these wordes And Iesus tooke bread c. To know that all other circumstances which at the Institution of Christ his Supper fell out accidentally or but occasionally because of the then Iewish Passeouer which Christ was at that time to finish or else by reason of the custome of Iudaea doe not come within this our dispute touching Christ his Masse whether it be that they concerne Place for it was instituted in a priuate house or Time which was at night or Sexe which were onely men or Gesture which was a kind of lying downe or Vesture which was wee know not what no nor yet whether the Bread were vnleauened or the Wine mixed with water two poynts which as you know Protestants and your selues giant not to be of the essence of the Sacrament but in their owne nature Indifferent and onely so farre to bee observed as the Church wherein the Christian Communicants are shall for Order and Decencie-sake prescribe the use thereof The Points contained within the Canon of Christ his Masse and appertaining to our present Controuersie are of two kindes viz. 1. Practicall 2. Doctrinall SECT V. PRacticall or Active is that part of the Canon which concerneth Administration Participation and Receiuing of the holy Sacrament according to this Tenor Math. 26. 26. And Iesus tooke Bread and blessed it and brake it and gaue it to his Disciples and said Take eate c. And Luc. 22. 19 20. Doe this in remembrance of mee Likewise also after Supper be tooke the Cup and gaue thankes and gaue it to them saying Drinke yee all of this But the points which are especially to bee called Doctrinall are implied in these words of the Euangelists This is my Bodie And This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many for remission of sinnes We begin with the Practicall CHAP. II. That all the proper Active and Practicall points to wit of Blessing Saying Giving Taking c. are strictly commanded by Christ in these words DOE THIS Luc. 22. Matth. 26. 1. Cor. 11. SECT I. THere are but two outward materiall parts of this Sacrament the one concerning the element of Bread the other touching the Cup. The Acts concerning both whether in Administring or Participating thereof are charged by Christ his Canon vpon the Church Catholike vnto the ends of the World The Tenour of his Precept or command for the first part is Doe this and concerning the other likewise saying 1. Cor. 11. 25. This doe yee as often c. Whereof your owne Doctors aswell Iesuites as thers haue rightly determined with a large consent that the wordes DOE THIS haue relation to all the aforesaid Acts euen according to the iâ—dgement of ancient Fathers excepting only the Time of the Celebration which was at Supper and which together with us you say were put in not for example but only by occasion of the Passeouer then commanded to be observed Thus you CHALLENGE THis Command of Christ being thus directly and copiously acknowledged by the best Diuines in the Romane Church must needs challenge on both sides an answerable performance Vpon examination whereof it will appeare vnto euery Conscience of man which Professors namely whether Protestants or Romanists are the true and Catholike Executors and Obseruers of the last will and Testament of our Testator Iesus because that Church must necessarily bee esteemed the more loyall and legitimate Spouse of Christ which doth more precisely obey the Command of the celestiall Bride-groome Wee to this purpose apply our selues to our busines by enquiring what are the Actiue Particulars which Christ hath giuen in charge vnto his Church by these his expresse wordes Doe this All which wee are to discouer and discusse from point to point TEN TRANSGRESSIONS And Preuarications against the Command of Christ DOE THIS practised by the Church of Rome at this day in her Romane Masse SECT II. VVEe list not to quarrell with your Church for lighter matters albeit your owne Cassander forbeareth not to complaine that your Bread is of such extreame thinnesse and lightnesse that it may seeme vnworthy the name of Bread Whereas Christ vsed Solid and tough bread Glutinosus saith your Iesuit which was to be broken with hands or cut with knife Neuerthelesse because there is in yours the substance of Bread therefore we will not contend about Accidents and shadowes but wee insist vpon the words of his Institution The first Transgression of the now Church of Rome in contradicting Christ his Canon is collected out of these words AND HE BLESSED IT which concerne the Consecration of this Sacrament SECT III. FIrst of the Bread the Text saith He blessed it next of the Cup it is said When he had giuen thanks Which words in your owne iudgements are all one as if it should be said Hee blessed it with giuing of thankes By the which word Blessing he doth imply a Consecration of this Sacrament So you The contrary Canon of the now Romane Masse wherein shee in her Exposition hath changed Christ's manner of Consecration The Canon of the Romish Masse attributeth the property and power of Consecration of this Sacrament only vnto the repetition of these words of Christ This is my body and This my blood c. and that from the iudgement as Some say of your Councell of Florence and Trent Moreouer you also alleage for this purpose your publique Catechisme and Romane Missall both which were authorized by the Councell of Trent and command of Pius Quintus then Pope See the Marginals Whereupon it is that you vse to attribute such efficacie to the very words pronounced with a Priestly intention as to change all the Bread in the Bakers shop and wine in the Vintners Cellar into the body and blood of Christ As your Summa Angelica speaketh more largely concerning the Bread CHALLENGE BVt Christopherus your own Arch-bishop of Caesarea in his Booke dedicated to Pope Sixtus Quintus and written professedly vpon this Subject commeth in compassed about with a clowd of witnesses and Reasons to proue that the Consecration
somthing els is to be added Another may be your Cardinall his owne Assertion which he once made as a snare to catch himselfe in for in your Romish Masse the Priest hauing the Hoast in his hand prayeth thus Receive holy father This immaculate Hoast If you shall aske him what in this prayer the Pronowne This doth demonstrate hee telleth you readily and asseverantly saying Certainly it demonstrateth unto sence that which the Priest hath in his hand which is Bread So hee Now why there should not be the like certainty of Relation of the Pronounc This to Bread in the speech of Christ as it hath in the prayer of the Priest none of you we thinke shall ever be able to shew Lastly we challenge you to shew within the space of a Thousand three hundreth yeares after Christ out of all the Ancient Fathers any one Testimony that ever affirmed the Pronoune Hoc This to betoken any Individuum vagum or Common Substance or els to confesse that this your doctrine is new extravagant and Adulterate Nor yet can the Defenders thereof say that this is all one as to say This that is that which is contained vnder the forme of Bread because this is like as when one shewing his purse shall say This is money meaning that which is in his purse which is a knowne figure Metonymia Yet were it granted that Hoc betokened an Indiuiduum vagum as to use your owne Similitude when one saith of an herb in his hand This hearb groweth in my garden so Christ should have said of bread in his hand This that is the like kind of bread is my Body yet would not this make the Speech of Christ proper or not figurative because Christ's Body could no more be properly predicated of the kind of wheat Bread then it could be of that bread of wheate then in his hand as Christ himselfe hath taught vs and as we are to prove vnto you For speaking of his Body he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grane of wheate Ioh. 12. 24. not This grane yet Christ's flesh is equally called improperly The grane as This grane of wheate whereof the ancient Father Theodoret will read you all a Lesson in the sixt Section following And now this so open and extreame civill war among your selues in confuting your owne Expositions will further and confirme peace among us in that one Exposition which we are in the next place to defend as followeth The Third Proposition which is according to the iudgement of Protestants that there is a Tropicall and vnproper sence in the Pronoune THIS VVEe reason first Hypothetically If the Pronoune This demonstrate Bread then the words of Christ are necessarily to be taken improperly and figuratively But the Pronoune This doth demonstrate Bread Our Conclusion will be Therefore the words of Christ necessarily are to be taken figuratively All this will be proved confirmed and avouched by Reasons Authorities and Confessions which will admit no Contradiction Wee begin at our proofe of the Consequence of the Proposition That it is impossible for Bread to be called the Body of Christ or Wine his Blood without a Figure SECT IV. THe common Dictate of naturall Reason imprinted by God in man's heart is a Maxime and hath in it an universall Veritie which neither man nor Divell can gain-say and is Confessed by yourselves viz. Disparatum de disparato non propriè praedicatur That is nothing can be properly and literally affirmed ioyntly of another thing which is of a different nature viz. It is impossible to say properly that an Egge is a Stone or to take your owne example we cannot call A man an horse without a Trope or Figure because their natures are repugnant So Salmeron And this hee holdeth necessary Or thus God who is perfect Truth will never make those Propositions to be true at the same time viz. that the Wife of Lot is Salt or Water is Wine or an Asse a man So your Archbishop Yea to come nearer to the point We cannot say that this wine is blood or that this blood is wine but by a Similitude or Representation because they differ in nature So Bellarmine Adding furthermore that it is Impossible the Proposition should be true wherein the Subiect is Bread and the Predicate is taken for the Body of Christ And Bread and Christ's body saith your Sanders cannot be properly affirmed one of another And indeed it is as Impossible Bread should be properly a body of flesh as a body of flesh to be bread which is grounded upon our first Maxime which your Iesuite Salmeron expresseth thus As often as the Verbe EST IS ioyneth things of divers natures together we are necessarily to have recourse to a Trope and Figure Will you be content that your Glosse as the tongue of your Church may have the last word Then hearken to it If bread be Christ's body then something is Christ's body which is not borne of the Virgin Mary and then also the same body must be said to be liuing and not liuing both at once So your Glosse confessing hereby an Impossibilitie of this Predication Bread is Christs Body in a proper and literall sence Our Proposition then standeth firme and infallible our Assumption will be found as true That the Pronoune THIS doth as verily notifie Bread in the words of Christ as if hee had expressly said This Bread is my Body proved first by Scripture SECT V. THe Text of the Evangelist Luc. 22. is light sufficient in it selfe Iesus tooke bread blessed it brake it and gave it to them saying Take Eate THIS namely which they Tooke and they tooke THIS which he Gave and he gave THIS which he Brake and hee Brake THIS which hee Blessed and blessed THIS which hee himselfe Tooke and THIS which hee tooke was Bread Iesus tooke Bread Wee appeale to your owne Consciences who never hitherto could say that in all these sayings of Christ there was made any Change or alteration of THIS which he tooke till the last word pronounced by the Priest which is Meum nor yet can you deny but that he tooke that which was properly and substantially Bread At the writing of this Sorites we light vpon an Answere from one Mr. Maloune encountring it with another but a false Sorites invented by himselfe to the discountenancing of this true one onely wee intreat you that at the reading thereof you will not laugh at his foolery See the Margin Your Grammaticall Obiection is Childish Cardinall Bellarmine your chiefe Master and also your Schoole-fellow M. Breerly as if they would put Protestants to Schoole tell them that Hoc taken for a Substantive neuter cannot agree with Panis it being a Thing then seene and knowne and not being of the neuter gender no more than for a man to say De Patre Hoc est Pater meus A strange thing that great Clerkes when they take upon them to
having power sensibly to perceive which betokening Bread or the Accidents of bread as you see it doth confirmeth unto us the Tropicall speech of Christ in calling Bread his Body and consequently overthroweth your whole Cause Fourthly the Similitude of Epiphanius must stand thus That which is said to be after the Image of God is such which hath a substantiall being yet so that it be like but not the same in nature And so is Bread having a Sacramentall Analogie to Christ's Body the first as the substantiall meate of man's Body and the other as the supersubstantiall food of Man's Soule Which Conclusion namely that Bread as the signe of Christ's Body is not the same in nature with Christ's Body doth dash out the braines of the Monster Transubstantiation by the which Bread as your Tridentine Faith teacheth is wholly changed into the substantiall nature of Christ's Body As if you would have Epiphanius to have said The Image of God in man is God in nature Thus doe you find the Testimony of Epiphanius to be Convincent indeed but against your Romish Doctrine of Errour and against your Cardinall of a foule falsity who saith that Epiphanius will have us to believe something herein although it be repugnant to our Sences which word no man of Sence can find in Epiphanius He saith indeed that every man is bound upon his Salvation to believe the Truth of Christ his Speech which say wee none but an Infidell can deny because Christ being Truth it selfe therefore all the words of Christ whether spoken Literally or Tropically they are still the Truth of Christ That the same Greeke Fathers have expresly vnfolded their meanings touching a Figurative Sence SECT VIII THe Iudgement of a whole Councell of Greeke Fathers may well suffice for the manifestation of the Iudgement of that Church They in Constantinople at Trullo alluding to these words of Christ This is my Body saying Let nothing be offered but the Body and Blood of Christ that is say They Bread and Wine c. If we had not told you that this had been the speech of Greeke Fathers in a Councell you would have conceived they had beene uttered by some Heretique as your Charity useth to cal us Protestants Neither may the Authority of this Councell be rejected by you as unlawfull in the point of the Sacrament both because it is objected by your selves to prove it an vnbloody Sacrifice whereunto you are answered as also for that your Binius in opposing against some things in this Councell yet neuer tooke any Exception against this Canon We may not let passe another Testimony used by the Antient Father Theodoret namely That Christ called the Bread his Body as he called his Body Bread Matth. 12. saying thereof Except the grane of wheat die c. insomuch that Interchangeably in the one place He gave to the Signe the name of his Body and in the other He gave to his Body the name of the Signe So hee As Protestantly as either Calvin or Beza could speake And you cannot deny but that when Christ called his Body Bread it was an improper and figurative speech And therefore if you will believe Theodoret you are compellable to confesse that Christ in calling Bread his Body meant it not in a proper and literall sence Hitherto of the Greeke Fathers That the same Figurative sence of Christ's words is avouched by the Latine Fathers SECT IX SOme of the Latine Fathers we confesse seeme in some places to deny all Figurative sence but this they doe even by a figure called Hyperbole that is onely in the excesse of Speech thereby to abstract the minds of sensuall men from fixing their thoughts upon externall Rites and to rayse them up to a Sacramentall and Spirituall Contemplation of the Body and Blood of Christ But as for the direct and perspicuous Sentences of these Fathers they cleerely and exactly teach a figurative sence in the words of Christ to wit Tertullian This is my Body That is a figure thereof Cyprian Things signifying and signified are called by the same word Hierom. Wine the type of Christ his Blood Gelasius Bread the image of his Body Ambrose After consecration Christ his Body is signified Saint Augustine in many places may be unto Vs instar multorum To eate the flesh of Christ saith he is a figurative speech Againe In the banquet Christ gave to his Disciples the signe of his Body And yet againe Christ doubted not to say This is my Body when he gave a signe of his Body Lastly unanswerably proving other Sacraments to agree with this in this point and that herein the Eucharist hath no Prerogative above the rest Sacraments saith he for the very Similitude and likenesse which they have with the things whereof they are Sacraments doe often take the names of those things which they doe signifie as when the Sacrament of Christ's Body saith he is after a certaine manner called the Body of Christ But how Hee addeth as if hee had meant to stop the mouthes of all Opposites As it is said by the Apostle of Baptisme we are buried by Baptisme into the death of Christ He saith not wee signifie his buriall but absolutely saith Wee are buried therefore hath he called the Sacrament or Signe of so great a Thing by the name of the Thing signified thereby So he even the same He who will be found like himselfe in the following passages of this Booke especially when we shall handle the manner of Eating of Christ's body which Augustine will Challenge to be figuratively meant We shall take our farewell of the Latine Fathers in the Testimony of Bishop Isidore who will give you his owne Reason why Christ called Bread his Body Bread saith he because it strengtheneth the body is therefore called the body of Christ and Wine because it maketh Blood is therefore referred to Christ's Blood but these two being sanctified by the Holy Ghost are changed into a Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ So he and so say we Accordingly Tertullian but least any may Cavill as some doe at his sentence above-cited wee adde his other sentence wherein he sheweth that Christ called Bread his Body in saying This is my body as the Prophet Ieremy called his Body Bread in saying Let us put wood upon his Bread meaning his Body So Tertullian shewing them both to be spoken equally in a figurative Sence CHALLENGE THese Sentences of these holy Fathers are so fully Consonant to the Doctrine of Protestans as that if the names of these Fathers had beene concealed our Reader might thinke that hee heard Bucer Calvin or Beza speake Goe you now and proclaime that all Ancient Fathers teach your Litterall sence of Christ his words and perswade your selves if you can that any man of Conscience and Iudgement can be seduced to believe you They say indeed that Bread is the Body of Christ
woman shall breake the Serpents head Is not the latter part of the Article altogether Figurative yet signifying this Doctrinall point even the vanquishing of the power of Satan Your Fourth Romish Obiection SECT IV. THe Apostles saith your Cardinall were rude and simple Therefore needed to be Instructed by Christ in plaine tearmes without Figures So he CHALLENGE ANd yet Christ you know did often speake Figuratively unto them talking of Bread Leaven Seed c. And stiling them the Salt of the earth yea even in this Sacrament as hath beene confessed in the words Eate Shed Testament Another Iesuite witnesseth that The Apostles were illuminated and instructed by Christ that they might receive this Sacrament with all Reverence So he Therefore are they but rudely by you tearmed Rude and the rather because They who being commanded to prepare the Passeover perceived that by Passeover was figuratively vnderstood the Paschall Lambe and thereupon prepared the Passeover according to the Lord's Command could not be ignorant that in this like Sacramentall speech This is my body the Pronoune THIS did literally point out bread and figuratively signifie Christ's bodie Doubtlesse if the manner of Christ's speech in the Eucharist had not beene like the other in the Passeover they would have desired Christ to explaine his meaning as they did sollicitously in other doubts Their last Romish Obiection SECT V. VVE are never to let passe the Literall Sence saith your Cardinall except we be compelled thereunto by some Scripture or by some Article of Faith or by some common Interpretation of the whole Church So he CHALLENGE SVrely nor we without some one of these but that you may know the grounds of our perswasion to be more than one or yet all These And how bountifully we shall deale with you we shall shew in the Proposition following Ten Reasons for proofe of the Necessity of interpreting the wordâ— of Christ Figuratively SECT VI. FIrst We have beene compellable to allow a Figurative Sence by the consessed Analogie of Scripture in all such Sacramentall Speeches of both Testaments concerning Circumcision Rocke Baptisme as also that speech of Christ Ioh. 6. Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man as you have heard Secondly We are Challengable hereunto by our Article of Faith which teacheth but one naturall Body of Christ and the same to Remayne now in Heaven Thirdly We are inforced for feare of such Heresies as have followed in other Cases upon the literall sence for it was not the Figurative but the literall and proper sence of being borne againe by Baptisme lob 3. that begat the errour of Nicodemus and the like literall sence of God's Eyes Hands Feet c. brought forth the Anthropomorphites And so was it the literall sence of those words in the Canticles Tell me where thou lyest at noone which deluded the Donatists and of Origen you have heard that hee by the literall sense of these wordes Some there be that castrate themselves c. did fondly wrong himselfe Fourthly Wee are necessarily mooved to reject your literall sence by a confessed Impossibility taught by that Vniversall Maxime Disparatum de disparato c. shewing that Bread being of a different nature from flesh can no more possibly be called the flesh or Body of Christ literally than Lead can be called Wood. Fiftly We are perswaded hereunto by the former alleadged Interpretation of the Ancient Fathers both of the Greeke and Latine Church calling the Sacrament a Figure and expounding This is by This signifieth Sixtly Wee are urged by the Rule set downe by Saint Augustine for the direction of the whole Catholique Church that Whensoever the precept saith he seemeth to command that which is hainous as to eate the flesh of Christ it is figurative And of this Sacrament doth not Christ say Take Eate This is my body Seventhly A Motive it must needs be to any reasonable man to defend the figurative sence by observing the misery of your Disputers in contending for a literall Exposition thereof because their Objections have beene confuted by your owne Doctors and by Truth it selfe even the holy Scriptures Eightly your owne Vnreasonablenesse may perswade somewhat who have not beene able hitherto to confirme any one of your five former Obiections to the contrary by any one Father of the Church Ninthly For that the literall Interpretation of Christ's wordes was the foundation of the Heresie of the Capernaites and hath affinitie with divers other Ancient Heresies condemned by Antiquitie Tenthly Our last perswasion is the consent of Antiquity against the literall conversion of Bread into Christ's body which you call Transubstantiation against the Literall Corporall Presence against Literall Corporall Eating and Vnion and against a proper Sacrifice of Christ's body Subiectively All which are fully perswasive Inducements to inforce a figurative sence as the sundry Bookes following will cleerely demonstrate from point to point CHALLENGE YOu may not passe over the consideration of these points by calling them Schoole-subtilties and Logicall Differences as Master Fisher lately hath done thinking by this his slie Sophistrie craftily to draw the mindes of Romish Professors from the due discovery of your Romish false literall Exposition of Christ's words THIS IS MY BODY the very foundation of your manifold monstrously-erroneous Superstitious Hereticall and Idolatrous Consequences issuing from thence whereunto we now orderly proceed 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 Doctrinal 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 Reall Presence in the Fourth Booke 3. Receiving of the Body of Christ into the Bodies of the Communicants called Reall or Materiall Coniunction 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 6. The Additionals in a Summary Discovery of of the Abhominations of the Romish Masse and Iniquities of the Defenders thereof in the Eight Booke THese are the Doctrinall Consequences which you teach and professe and which we 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 we treate of the Corporall Presence we 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 Controuersie concerning the Change and Conversion professed
when he was in the midst betweene them was not in Christ's Body but in their eyes because they were closed that they could not see Apply wee this unto the Eucharist Dare any Papist say that the Cause why any of you cannot see Christ in this Sacrament is not in his Bodie which you beleeve to be in it selfe invisible but in your Eyes as being shut vp when notwithstanding you will be knowne that these are open enough for discerning Colours and formes of Bread and Wine Our Fourth Proofe that the Substance of Bread remaineth after Consecration is taken from the Confessed Sensible Effects SECT X. THe Effects which you your selves have discerned to be sometimes in this Sacrament are these First That the Cup doth inebriate or make drunke Secondly The Hoast taken in great Quantity doth nourish Thirdly That it being poysoned it poysoneth Fourthly That having beene long reserved It engendreth wormes which are bred out of it and are also fed of the same Fiftly That their matter of Generation and nourishment is Substantiall and that the Contrary Opinion is false and Incredible Sixtly That this matter whereof wormes are bred and fed is the same Bread which was taken before Consecration So your owne prime Schoole-men Historians and Iesuites respectively If then the Bread now ingendring wormes be the Same that was taken to be Consecrated How say you that being Consecrated it is not still the same our Senses giving Testimony thereunto THE FIRST CHALLENGE HEre you have nothing to answer but that the Bread whereof new wormes are Bred whether it be the same that was or not yet being Bread it is wrought either by a Miraculous Conversion or by a New Creation What you who every where teach that none are to conceipt of any Miracle in this Sacrament without necessary Cause can you possibly be perswaded that there is or can be any necessary Cause why God should worke a Miracle either of Conversion into or of New Creation of Bread for Breeding or Feeding of wormes or of Wine for making such men Drunke as should tast too largely of the Cup yea or els to poyson our Enemy were hee Emperour or Pope Nay can it be lesse than Blasphemy to say that God worketh Miracles for the accomplishment of vaine wicked and mischievous effects But farre be it from vs to imagine that the Blessed Body of our Lord Christ who by his Touch cured so many diseases in the time of his mortality should now being glorified miraculously poyson his Guests whosoeuer they be Beleeve if you can that if God wrought as you say a Miracle to convert Accidents into Bread to engender or nourish vile wormes that hee would not much rather worke a miracle if any such miracle were herein to be expected to hinder the poysoning of his faithfull Communicants In all this wee appeale againe to true Antiquity and require of you to shew we say not some expresse Testimony of Primitive Fathers but so much as any intimation or insinuation were it but by way of a Dreame of a Miraculous Conversion of the Consecrated Host when it beginneth to putrifie by being changed againe into Bread or of Mice eating the Body of Christ or that being putrified it should breed wormes seeing it were rather a miracle they should not be so bred or any such kinde of Romish Fancies and delusions or otherwise to confesse your Obiectours to be miserable Proctours of a vile and desperate Cause Yet lest any of your may thinke that One comming into a Cellar full of new Wine and made drunke with the smell thereof therefore meere Accidents doe Inebriate your Iesuite will deny this and tell you that it is the Ayre infected with the odour which maketh man Drunke A SECOND CHALLENGE with a Caution YOur Common and most plausible Obiection to dementate vulgar people is to perswade them that you cannot attribute Credit to your Senses in this case without much derogation from Faith Therfore for Caution-sake be it knowne vnto you that we have not pleaded for the Truth of Senses as holding nothing Credible but that which may be proved by the Testimony of Senses This we vtterly abhorre as the Gulfe of Infidelity proper to the Athean Sect for wee accord to that saying of an holy Father Fides non habet meritum vbi Ratio aut Sensus habet experimentum and also to that other of Iustine In which respect we condemne the Incredulity of Thomas in that he would not beleeve except he should See yet notwithstanding we with our Saviour approve in Thomas that by Seeing he did beleeve For this is a true Tenet in Divinity Faith may be Supra above right reason or sence but never Contra against either It was never read that God required of any man a beleefe of any Sensible thing which was Contrary to the exact iudgement of his Senses And therefore your opposition in this Case as it is Sensles so it is indeed Faithlesse as we have already learned from Scripture and Fathers by whom the Iudgement of Sense hath beene acknowledged to be in Sensible Obiects a notable Ground of Faith Our Fift Proofe that Bread remaineth Bread in Substance after Consecration in this Sacrament is by the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers First from due Inferences SECT II. TEstimonies of Ancient Fathers inferre a necessary Consequence for proofe of the Existence of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament as might be proved partly by the repetition of many Arguments premised and partly by intimation of other Arguments afterwards expressed But wee shall be content with those few which doe more properly appertaine to this present Dispute concerning the nature of a Body First Irenaeus speaking of the Eucharist after Consecration as being not now common Bread said that It consisteth of an earthly part and an heavenly how even as the Bodies of the Communicants saith hee are no more corruptible having an hope of the Resurrection to come Scan these words by the Law of Similitude and it must infallibly follow that as our Bodies albeit substantially Earthly are notwithstanding called Incorruptible in respect of the Glory and Immortality in which through hope it hath an Interest Even so the Earthly Substance of this Sacrament being Bread is neverthelesse indued with a sacred and Divine property of a Sacramentall Representation of Christ's Body Which Sacrament Origen calling Sanctified meate saith that the Materiall part thereof goeth into the Draught or seege which no sanctified heart can conceive of Christ's Body whereof the Fathers often pronounce that It goeth not into the Draught But what is meant by Materiall in this place thinke you M. Breerly namely Magnitude and other Sensible Accidents which in regard of their Significations are materialls So hee Very learnedly answered forsooth If Magnitudo that is Greatnes be a Materiall thing be you so good as tell us what is the matter thereof for whatsoever is Materiall hath that appellation from it's
before his Resurrection the Heretique denying it and Theodoret proving it to be absolutely still the same in Substance and not whether the same only in Quantities and Accidents for these the Apostle teacheth to be alterable Corruption putting on Incorruption Mortality Immortality and shame Glory Therefore in the Protasis and first Proposition of that comparison of Theodoret which was this As the Bread remaineth the same in Figure Forme and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can have no other signification than Substance properly taken Secondly Ridiculously false because in reckoning Figure and Forme which are knowne to be Accidents and adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this necessarily is opposed to the former Two as Substance to Accidents Nor was there we suppose ever any so vnlearned who did adde the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Formes and Figures but hee thereby meant to distinguish it as a Substance from its Accidents Thirdly Heretically false for what was the Heresie of the Eâ—tychians tell us They say you held that Christ namely after his Resurrection had not an humane nature but only Divine Which word Humane Nature doth principally imply the Substantiall nature of Man and therefore in his comparison made for the illustration of that Heresie concerning Bread after Consecration in Figure Forme and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had the same signification of Substance as your Master Brereley afterwards is compelled to confesse who to the end hee may disgrace Theodoret rudely and wildly taketh upon him to iustifie the Heretiques speech to be Catholique for proofe of Transubstantiation Wherefore Theodoret in his Answere Retorting as he himselfe saith the Heretiques Comparison against him did by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 likewise understand Substance else had he not disputed ad Idem but by a shamefull Tergiversation had betraid his Catholique Cause unto that pernitious Heretique Much like as if one should use this comparison following As the Moone-shine in the water in the opinion of the Vulgar is truly of the same bignesse with the Moone in the Firmament so a feigned friend is equally as loving as is a Faithfull And another retorting the same should confute him saying Nay but as the Moon-shine in the water is not of the same bignesse with the Moone in the Firmament even so a feigned friend is not equally loving as is a Faithfull Here the word Love being taken for Loyall Affection by the Objectour if the sense thereof should be perverted by the Answerer and Retorter to signifie lust the Disputers might be held to be little better than those Two in Agellius where such an Obiectour is compared to a man milking an Hee-Goat or if you will a Bull and the Answerer to another holding under a Sive Here had wee fixed a Period but that wee againe espied one Master Brerely a Romish Priest comming against us with a full careere who after that he had beene confuted for urging the former Obiection notwithstanding concealing the Answere he blusheth not to regest the same albeit as one conscious to himselfe of the futility thereof he leaveth it presently falling foule upon Theodoret as though that Father had beene in some distemper when he so writ saying first that Theodoret used that his Retortion in his heate of Dispute Then hee taketh part with the Heretique saying It is not likely that an Heretique should have urged against a Catholique sentence for Transubstantiation as for a point of Faith well knowne if the same doctrine had beene then either unknowne or else condemned as False So hee who might as well have reasoned in the behalfe of the Sadduces condemned by Christ saying It is not likely that they would so expressely have denied that there are any Spirits in their Dispute against Christ if that Doctrine had beene then either unknowne or condemned as False by the Church of God among the Iewes And yet it is certaine that the Heresie of the Sadduces was iudged execrable in that Church Now if the Eutychian Heretique finde such Patronage at the hands of your Priest alas what will become of the Father Theodoret Hearken Theodoret being an Orthodoxe Bishop saith hee could not have propounded the Heretikes Argument as grounded upon the Churches received Doctrine of Transubstantiation had the same beene then unknowne and reputed False So hee who if he had not lost his Logique would certainly have argued contrarily saying Theodoret being an Orthodoxe and Catholique Bishop would never have set downe an Objection for Transubstantiation in the name of a ranke Heretique and after himselfe impugned and confuted the same except he had knowne it to be flatly repugnant to the Catholique Church in his time Wherefore if you be men of Faith and not rather of Faction let the miserable perplexities of your Disputers discovered both here and throughout this whole Treatise move you to renounce them as men of prostituted Consciences and their Cause as forlorne of all Truth For a further Evidence take unto you an Answere of your Iesuite Valenâ—ia to this and the like Testimonies of Antiquity It is not to be held any marvell saith he why some Ancients have writ and thought lesse considerately and truly before that Transubstantiation was handled publikely in the Church especially they not handling the same Question of purpose So he and this hee calleth a briefe and plaine Answere And so it is whereby in granting that Transubstantiation had not beene so Anciently handled in the Church hee plainly confuteth your now Romane Church which iudgeth it to have beene alwayes an Article of Faith And affirming that the same Fathers Handled not the point of purpose it is as plainly confuted by Theodoret who in this Dispute did not argue against the Heretique in an extemporall speech personally but deliberately and punctually by writing and therefore of Purpose The Second Father expresly defending the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration is Pope GELASIVS SECT XIII THis Authour haue Protestants called Pope Gelasius and urged his Testimony Your Disputers cavill First at the name of the Authour calling Protestants Impudent for stiling him Pope Gelasius But if he were not that Pope Gelasius what Gelasius might hee be then Gelasius Bishop of Caesarea saith your Cardinall Bellarmine Contrarily your Cardinall Baronius contendeth that he is a more ancient Gelasius Anno 476. namely Gelasius Citizenus yet so as confounding himselfe insomuch that hee is forced to expound the speeches of this Gelasius by the propriety of the speech as he confesseth of Gelasius Pope of Rome But what shall we answere for the Impudent Protestants as your Cardinall hath called them Surely nothing but wee require more modesty in him who hath so called them considering that Protestants had no fewer Guides nor meaner to follow than these Historians viz. Genadius yea your Bibliothecarie Anastasius Alphonsus de Castro Onuphrius Massonius Margarinus la
also to other sacred Rites wherein you beleeve there is not any Substantiall Change at all The First Vnconscionablenes of your Romish Disputers in obiecting the Fathers speeches ofâ—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 wee likewise confesse Ambrose compareth the Change by Benediction made in this Sacrament unto many miraculous workes of God yea even to the worke of Creation Cyprian speaketh of a Change in nature by divine Omnipotencie Augustine reckoning it among God's miracles saith that This Sacrament is wrought by the Spirit of God Accordingly we heare Chrysostome proclaiming that These are not workes of humane power He that changeth and transmuteth now is the same that he was in his last Supper Each one of these Testimonies are principally alleaged 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 Because saith your Cardinall Omnipotencie is not required to make a thing to be a Signe Significant Se he We answer first from your owne Confessions and then from the Fathers themselues There are two workes observable in every Sacrament one is to be not onely a Signe of an Invisible grace promised by God but also both a Seale and Pledge thereof as all Protestants hold and as your most opposed 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 vs It is the Doctrine of your Church with common consent saith your Romane Cardinall that God only can by his Authority institute a Sacrament because he onely can give them power of conferring grace and of infallible signification thereof So hee Well then as well infallible Signification of Grace as the efficacious conveyance of Grace is the worke of the same Omnipotencie To this purpose more plainly your English Cardinall Alan speaking as he saith from the iudgement of Divines telleth you that Although there be an apt nes in every Creature to beare a signification of some spiritall effect yet cannot the aptnes be determinately applyed vnto any peculiar effect nâ— not so much as to signifie the outward Cleannes of man's Body Sacramentally without a Divine Institution much lesse to represent man's sanctification but being so determinated and ordained of God the Creature saith hee is elevated above the Custome of nature not onely in respect of the worke of sanctification but even of signification also So hee And that as well as we could wish for this Omnipotent Change of a Creature into a Sacrament and this Instrumentall Cause of conferring Sanctifying Grace to the Faithfull Communicant is the Generall Doctrine of all Protestants But what Change shall wee thinke Of the Substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body as you teach No but as before Isidore said The Change of visible things by the spirit of God into a Sacrament of Christ's Body Seeing then that both Divine power and authority is required in every Sacrament to make it either infallibly significant or els efficaciously profitable to man and that it is by the same Divine power that the Element is Changed by being Elevated from a common vnto a spirituall and divine property of a Sacramentall Signification as one of your Cardinals hath said What an unconscionablenes is it then in your Disputers from the termes of Omnipotencie and Divine working which is necessary 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 be if we consult with the Obiected Fathers themselves For first Ambrose who observeth an Omnipotency in the Change of this Sacrament explaineth himselfe what kind of Efficacy he meant viz. such that The things changed into a divine Sacrament are still the same which they were before namely according to their naturall property Which one Clause doth so strangle all conceit of Transubstantiation that it may seeme you have some reason to wipe this Testimony of Saint Ambrose out of your new Editions notwithstanding by Gods providence so much of Ambrose his tongue is preserved even in the same place as will convince your Obiectors 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 of an old Creature is made a new Creature which is as euery Christian knoweth not a change in the substantiall nature of man but in the Accidentall properties So this Bread of 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 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 applaude your selves for to your Lindan The wordes of Cyprian appeare Golden and hee must needs provoke forsooth all Gospellers to hearken unto them which also seemeth to your Cardinall To admit no solution Our Answere first unto the Authour is to deny it to be the Testimony of Cyprian may we not This Sermon of the Supper of the Lord is by us saith your Master Brerely attributed to Cyprian Whom of your Side he meant by Vs you may be pleased to aske him sure we are your Cardinall doth tell us that The Authour of this Booke is not Cyprian but some other after him But not to disclaime your Authour all that he saith is that Bread is changed by God's Omnipotency not in Figure but in Nature This is all And all this hath beene but even now quitted by your owne 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 distinguishing the Nature of Accidents from the Nature of Subiects shew that there is an Accidentall Nature as well as a Substantiall Theology teaching that By nature we 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 Brerely alloweth of as for example a Surplesse being commanded by lawfull Authority the use thereof becommeth necessary so that the
nature thereof is Changed yet not in the Substance of the thing but in the legall necessitie of the use But to come nearer Answer us but this one Question Whereas all learning alloweth this saying that in Baptisme the nature of the Element and the nature of the Sacrament are different whereupon it is said The word comming to the Element maketh it a Sacrament when we 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 iustly accord unto the Phrase of Cyprian in the case of the Eucharist and so much the rather because that Cyprian in the words of immediatly following the Testimony obiected 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 As in Christ himselfe true humanity 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 in 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 God's 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 God's Spirit for the Conversion of Man's soule it is called The Power of God unto salvation as likewise Baptisme is made the Lavacre of Regeneration whereof Greg. Nyssen affirmeth that It worketh marvellously by benediction and produceth marvellous Effects As for Augustine and Chrysostome not to be 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 Man's soule The second Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Disputers in abuse of the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers is seene in objecting their deniall of Common and Bare Bread in this Sacrament for an Argument of Transubstantiation SECT III. TO this purpose Irenaeus saying that It is not Common Bread Ergo say you not to be properly iudged by Sense Vnconscionably knowing that Chrysostome and also all other Fathers whom you moreover obiect saith likewise of the Sacrament of Baptisme Wee are to behold it not as common water The second i◠Iustine Martyr saying We receive these not as Common Bread or Common Drinke Therefore say you we may not iudge them by Sence Vnconscionably knowing that Iustine Martyr in the same place sheweth his Reason why it is not to be called Common euen because saith he it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Sanctified meate And so Water in Baptisme is Sanctified as you know The third is Cyril of Ierusalem saying Consider these not as Common Bread and Wine Ergò say you not to be iudged by Sense Vnconscionably knowing that the same Cyril in the same place saith the same of the water of Baptisme It is not simple Water Yea but he further saith say you Thinke not of it as of bare Bread adding but the body of Christ Ergò say you not to be iudged otherwise by Sense Vnconscionably knowing that the same Father in the same place for explanation sake saith likewise of Sacred Oyle viz. Even so that holy Oyle is not bare and simple Oyle Adding but the gift of Grace And that your Authours Vnconscionablenesse may be the more notorious in their wresting of the Catholique meaning of the Fathers in this kind wee must tell you that there is no speech more familiar unto ancient Fathers than to esteeme as they ought all Sacramentall Signes Sacred and therefore no more Common or bare Elements Insomuch that Gregory Nyssen speaking of a Ceremony inferiour to this Sacrament which is the Altar or Table of the Lord he saith that Although by nature it be but as other stone wherewith the Pavements are garnished and adorned yet being Consecrated to God's Service by Benediction it is an holy Table and Altar Yea and what lesse doth your Church say of your hallowed Balsome Beads and Bels and the like all which you distinguish from Common and bare Oyles and Metalls because of their different use and service without Opinion of any Change of Substance at all The third Vnconscionablenesse of your Disputers in urging for proofe of Transubstantiation the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers forbidding men to Discerne of this Sacrament by their Senses And first of their abusing the Testimony of Cyril by two egregious Falsifications SECT IV. VVE may not easily passe over your Obiection taken out of Cyril being in the opinion of your Cardinall so impregnable Let us first heare your Obiector This Testimony of Cyril alone ought to suffice being the Sentence of an holy man and most ancient out of a worke which unquestionably was his yea and most cleare and plaine as that it cannot be perverted Besides it is in his Catechisme wherein the use of all things is delivered simply properly and plainly Nor was this Father Cyril ever reproved of Errour in his doctrine of the Eucharist Thus farre your Cardinall you see with as accurate an oratory of Amplification as could be invented What Protestant would not now if ever expect a deadly blow from this Father to our Catholique Cause but attend to the Issue First Cyril will not allow a man to credit his Taste but although Tast saith it is Bread yet undoubtedly to believe it to be the Body of Christ whereinto the Bread is changed And hee is brought in by your Cardinall to averre furthermore that The Body of Christ is given under the forme of Bread And so the Sentence seemeth to be most manifest saith he But for what wee pray you That first forsooth the Change is the same with Transubstantiation and secondly that there is no more Substance of Bread but Accidents under the forme of Bread So hee and Master Brerely from him as followeth Cyril saith under the forme of Bread his Body is given c. and then dancing in the same triumph addeth Can any Catholique of this Age write more plainly So he And we answere could any Iugglers deale more falsly For upon due examination it will appeare to be a manifest Delusion by a false Translation of Cyril's words The Body of Christ is given as your Cardinall doth render it sub specie Panis under the forme of Bread whereas it is in the Greeke Vnder the Type of Bread even as hee saith afterwards Thinke not that you taste Bread but the Antitype of Christ's Body In both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Eutychian Heretikes you know confounded the properties of Christs humane nature with his Godhead pretending as you doe the Omnipotencie of Christ for the patronizing of their heresie As thinking thereby thus saith Theodoret out of Amphilochius To magnifie the Lord Christ whereas this was indeed as the same Father saith to accuse God of falshood You may heare the same voice sound out of the Romane Chaire Pope Leo speaking of Eutyches the Authour of that heresie saith that Hee affirmed that thereby hee did more religiously conceive of the Maiestie of Christ by denying his humane nature whom therefore that holy Pope censureth to have beene seduced by the spirit of falsity Therefore it cannot be but that the Fathers in confuting an heresie founded upon a pretence of Omnipotencie 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 The Body of Christ being a compounded thing cannot be changed into a divine nature because it hath Circumscription This had beene no good reasoning except his CANNOT had imported an absolute Impossibility Vigilius anciently Bishop of Trent might have read a Lesson to the late Bishops at Trent who against the same Heretique 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 least that any might thinke this was but his owne private opinion he averreth saying This is the Catholique 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 Being on Earth it was absent from Heaven and going to Heaven it left the Earth Damascen had to deale with the fore-named Heretique and professing to deliver the substantiall difference of both natures hee differenceth them by these contrary Charters 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 not Capable of Circumscription because whole in the whole hoast and in every part thereof and to the very Angels of God Invisible Let vs ascend hither to the more primitive Ages to inquire of Fathers who had conflicts also with Heretiques who gaine-said the Truth of either nature Athanasius urged Christ his Ascention into Heaven to prove that he was truely man as God because his God-head was never out of Heaven being Vndeterminate in place and uncircumscribed even then when it was Hypostatically united with the Body being on earth Therefore it was his Body that ascended into Heaven from Earth His Argument is taken from Circumscription even as Nazianzene also doth Characterize them Augustine falling upon such Heretiques as taught a Bodily presence of Christ in the Sunne and in the Moone at once which you your selves will confesse could not be imagined to be according to the Course of nature giveth them first this Caueat You may not saith hee so defend the Deity of Christ as to defraud the Truth of his humanity then he addeth as if none could faine a presence of a Body without determination in space or place Bodies cannot be without space And againe A Bodie cannot be at one time in places distinct one from another And what els doth that saying of Ambrose imply spoken as to Christ Stephen saith he who saw thee in Heaven sought thee not upon earth Cyrill of Alexandria is a Father whose Patronage your Disputers would bee thought often to rely vpon hee is now about to deliver his Iudgement so freely and plainly as if he had meant to stop the mouthes of all our Opposites in the same Answere which he maketh against certaine Heretiques who held that God's nature is a Substance which can receive division and partition If God saith Cyrill should be divisible as a Bodie 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 Answere to other Fathers that Cyrill meant not that it was absolutely Impossible that Quantity should be without Circumscription but onely according to the Course of nature then might the Heretiques whom Cyrill confuted have made the same Answere and consequently Cyril's Consequence and confutation had beene of no force What shall wee say must still the antient Fathers be made no better than Asses in arguing that your Romish Masters forsooth may be deemed the only Doctors even then when they prepare the same Evasion for Heretiques which they devise for themselves but you must pardon us if wee beleeue that Cyrill seeing hee durst say that God himselfe if hee were a Body must be in a place as a thing having Quantitie and Circumscribed would have abhorred your now Romish Faith of beleeving Christ's Bodie consisting of Quantity albeit not Circumscribed in place 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 Obiections out of them are but so many forged and forced Illusions Wee conclude If Christ himselfe gave a Caveat not to beleeve such Spirits as should say of his Bodily presence in this world after his Resurrection Behold here 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 further more confirme by like verdict of Antiquity when wee shall heare the Fathers proue both that Angels and all created Spirits are finite Creatures and not Gods even because they are contained in one place and also that the holy Ghost is God and no finite Creature because it is in divers places at once But we must handle our matters in order That the Romish Doctors in their Obiections have no solid proofe of the Existence of one Body in divers places at once from the Iudgement of Antiquitie SECT VII IT is a kind of Morosity and Perversnes in our Opposites to obiect those testimonies which have their Answeres as it were tongues in their mouthes ready to confute their Obiections For Chrysostome saith not more plainly that Christ at one and the same time sitting with his Father in Heaven is here handled of Communicants on earth than hee doth say of the Priest and People communicating that They doe not consist or stay on earth but are transported into Heaven And againe a little after the words obiected The Priest saith
possibility of the other Six Defects neither man nor woman can deny every one concluding a Materiall Idolatry That there are manifold confessed possible Defects disabling the person of the Priest to consecrate in respect of his no-due Ordination whereby is occasioned a Materiall Idolatry SECT V. YOV have furthermore confessed that for want of due Ordination of the Priest the Sacrament remaineth in his former nature only of Bread and Wine as if he be an Incruder and not ordained at all or else of the forme of Ordination viz. Accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificium Et Accipe Spiritum Sanctum quorum peccata remiseris remissa c. As if it hath beene corrupted by missing so much as one Syllable or letter by Addition Detraction or any of the six Errors before rehearsed as Accipe Spiritu Sancto for Spiritum Sanctum or Accipe potestatem ferendi Sacrificium for Offerendi or the like That there are many hundred confessed Defects which may nullisic the Consecration to make the Romish Adoration Idolatrous in respect of Insufficiencies which might be incident unto the Prae-ordainers of that Priest whosoever he be that now consecrateth for causing a Materiall Idolatry SECT VI. IF the Bishop that ordained this Priest which now consecrateth were not a true Priest himselfe truly ordained or duly baptized or else the next Bishop before him or yet any one in the same line of Ordainers untill you come to Saint Peter for the space now of a thousand six hundred yeares whereof your Iesuit saith The Defect of Ordination is seene in many Cases wherein Progredi possumus fere in Infinition that is we may proceed almost infinitely So he Thinking belike that if we should in this number of yeares allow unto every Bishop ordaining the continuance of twenty yeares Bishop upward to Saint Peter the number of them all would amount to fourescore Bishops among whom if any one were an Intruder or Vnordained then this Priest faileth in his Priest-hood Now of these kinds your Historians afford us Examples of your Popes some dissolving the Ordinations of their Predecessors even to the cutting off of one Popes fingers wherewith he had used to consecrate Yet is not this all for unto these are to be added the other Defects to wit want of Baptisme whether for want of due Intention being three or undue Pronunciation being six or the Errors either of Intention or Pronunciation in Ordination all which make eighteene and these being multiplied by fourescore which is the number of Bishop-ordainers from this Bishop to Saint Peter the totall we suppose will amount unto a Thousand possible Defects each one whereof if it happen doth quite frustrate and annull the Consecration of this Priest whosoever he be that now saith Masse and leaveth to the people nothing but the substance of the Creatures of Bread and Wine to be Adored in stead of Christ Iesus the Sonne of God And yet in this Summe are not reckoned the foresaid Defects concerning the Matter or Forme of Consecration or of the Priests Intention therein or else of his possible Intrusion into this Function of Consecrating of this one Priest now supposed to be ordained every Defect being of force in it selfe to infer necessarily a Materiall Idolatry in your Romish Masse Now rather than you shall call these our Instances odious or malicious you must accuse your owne Romish Church because we have alleaged no Testimony but out of your owne publike Romish Missall Cardinal's Iesuites and other Authors privileged in your Church We are now in the high point of Christian Religion even the principall part of God's Royalty Divine Adoration not to be trifled withall Therefore now if ever shew your selves conscionable Divines by freeing your Romish Masse from a Formall Idolatry in these forenam'd Respects concerning your confessed Materiall Idolatry and doe it by some grounds of Truth or else abandon your Profession as most damnably Idolatrous CHAP. VI. That the Romish Masse-worship is a Formall Idolatry notwithstanding any Pretence that by your Romish Doctors hath beene made to the Contrary The State of the Question SECT I. VPon this occasion ôh how your Summists Theologues and Casuists doe bestirre themselves for the vindicating of your Church from the guilt of formall Idolatry The Briefe of your Defence is this Although say they in the Margent there be no true Consecration by reason of divers Defects yet in him who upon a Morall certainty with a sincere minde and good intention doth adore Bread it is but Materiall and no Formall Idolatry so that he have an habituall condition as being so disposed in his minde not to give a divine honour unto it if he knew it to be but Bread As for Example He that giveth an Almes to a Rich man being probably perswaded that he is not rich the Act proceedeth from a pious Intention And As it was no sinne in Iacob to lie with Leah because he thought her to be his wife so in this case it is no formall Idolatry to worship Bread being morally perswaded that it is Christ Thus they Your Pretences then are three Morall Certainty Good Intent and at least Habituall Condition But alas all this is but sowing Fig-leaves together which will never be able to cover your foule shame of grosse Idolatry To begin first with that which you call Morall Certainty That the Pretence of Morall Certainty of worshipping of Bread instead of Christ cannot free the Romish Church from Formall Idolatry SECT II. OVR Confutation is grounded upon divers impregnable Reasons one whereof is taken from the Iealouzie of God in his worship the second from the Faith required in a true worshipper the third from the nature of an Oath and the last from the Vncertainty of that which you call Morall Certainty First then although Morall and Conjecturall perswasions might excuse men's Actions in divers Cases yet in an Object of Divine Worship it is utterly condemnable even because of the Iealousie of the Almighty who expresseth himselfe to be a Iealous God Exod. 20. signifying as you know that He will not indure any confort in his worship his Motto being this I am and there is no Other even as in the Case of mortall Majesty when as a subject building upon a morall Certainty onely shall question the Title and Right of his Soveraigne established in his Throne he becommeth guilty of High Treason Secondly all Divine Worship must be performed with a Divine Faith which is an Infallible perswasion of the God-head of that which we honour as God as it is written He that commeth to God must beleeve that God is Heb. 11. 6. and againe You must aske in faith nothing doubting Iac. 1. because this is the nature of Faith as the Apostle describeth it Faith is the Hypostaâ—is of things not seene Heb. 11. That is to take your owne Comment Faith maketh those things which are beleeved no lesse certaine than if they did subsist whereby we
Vomiting it by the Communicants and the Transmittance into your guts together with the Eating and Feeding thereupon by Dogs Mice Wormes and which transcendeth if it may be all your other Absurdities to be deprived of all naturall power of Motion Sence and Vnderstanding O Abominable Abominable A Synopsis of the Idolatrousnesse of the Romish Masse and Defence thereof by many Evidences from Antiquity SECT V. OVR first Argument is against the foundation thereof which is your Interpretation of the Article HOC by denying it to have Relation to Bread contrary to the verdict of an Inquest of Antient Fathers shewing that the same pointeth out Bread as you have heard whereby the monstrous Conception of Transubstantiation is strangled in the very wombe Insomuch that sometimes they expressely interpret it thus Christs Body and Blood that is say they The Bread and Wine Item Hee gave the name of the Signe to the thing signified Item Bread the Signe of his Body And lastly Bread is called Christs Body because it signifieth his Body Secondly in the point of Transubstantiation it selfe they calling the Eucharist which you dare not Bread and Wine after Consecration and naming them Earthly materialls and Matter of Bread and also as you have heard out of the Antient Liturgies Fruits of the Earth and yet more plainly by way of Periphrasis describing them to consist of Divers graines and Divers grapes After by approving the Suffrage and judgement of our Senses in discerning all Sensible things and in speciall the Eucharist it selfe and at length affirming that there remaineth therein the Substance of Bread and Wine which are the Subject matter of your Divine Adoration All which are other Three Demonstrations of their meanings every singular point being avouched by the Suffrages of Antiquity Thirdly against your Faith concerning the manner of Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because so farre were the Fathers from beleeving that the Body of Christ could be in divers places as you say in Millions at one time that by this property of Being in many places at once they have discerned Angells to be Finite Spirits and not God They have distinguished the Godhead of Christ from his Manhood and they have proved the Holy Ghost to be God and no Creature by the same Reason Than which Three Arguments none can be more Convincent Whereunto you may adde the Fathers speeches contradicting your Dreame of a Body whole in every part in whatsoever space or place by judging it Impossible and also concluding Christ his Ascension into Heaven to argue his Absencâ— from Earth all which have been discussed from point to point Our Fourth Generall Argument is that whereas your Corporall Presence must needs inferre Corporall Eating thereof by the Communicants notwithstanding you have heard the contrary Sentences of Antient Fathers against Tearing and Swallowing of Christ's Body and Bodily Egestion next concerning the Eaters that only the Godly faithfull are partakers thereof insomuch that even the Godly under the old Testament did eat the same Then of the Remainders of the Consecrated Hosts that they were Eaten by the ordinance of the Church by Schoole-boyes and sometimes Burnt in the fire besides they called them Bits and Fragments of Bread broken after Consecration and diminished and lastly in respect of the End of Eating They held the thing present to be a pledge of Christ's Body absent and also allowed such a Touch of his Body by Faith that whosoever so toucheth him is Sanctified Which Observations concerning our Fourth Generall Argument doe minister unto us five particular Reasons which make our Defence to be Impregnable 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 found the Antient Fathers 1. Noting that which they called Sacrifice herein to be Bread and Wine saying thereupon that Melchizedech in that his Bread and Wine offered the Body and Blood of Christ 2. Such a Subject which being taken in great Quantity doth nourish and satiate mans Bodily Nature 3. Such as needeth prayer to God that it may be Acceptable to God as was the Sacrifice of Abels sheepe 4. Sonaming it an Vnbloâ—dy Sacrifice as meaning thereby void of Blood which cannot agree to the Body of Christ now risen from death 5. 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 A Sacrifice or rather a Memoriall thereof 6. By placing the Sacrifice of Christ his Body as now Presentative only in Heaven and the thing offered on Earth but a Signe 7. 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 Object of our Remembrance and not as the Subject of Offering which make up so many Arguments moe 8. By paralleling Baptisme with the Eucharist in like tenour of speech from point to point 9. By praying God to be Propitious to that which is offered Sixthly upon the same Doctrine of Corporall Presence you have erected and fastened 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 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 drawen 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 thing offered as to Abel's 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 revealed these Three Principall and Fundamentall Abominations doe now proceed to their Concomitants and Consequences which are Mixtures of Heresie in many Overture of Perjury in some and Obstinacie in all We begin at the last CHAP. II. Of the stupendious 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 Reasons notwithstanding their Expositions of Scriptures their Inferences out of the Fathers their devised Reasons and almost all their Confutations are confuted rejected contradicted by their owne fellowes as the Sections thorowout this whole Tractate doth plainly demonstrate We 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 mere 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 Beleefe 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 proved in each point 2. In a point of properly Sacrificing of Christ's Body your Musicke stands upon the same kinde of Discords of Teaching a Body Broken and not Broken a matter visible 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 in stead of many of a stupendious Obstinacie in urging the Iudgement of Antiquity for Defence of your Romish Masse in the chiefest parts thereof proved by instancing only in their like Sayings concerning Baptisme SECT II. THree chiefe Iesuites besides others have beene as you may 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 Christ's 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 thorowout every particular A Synopsis of the Speeches of Fathers objected in the Defence of the Masse-points and paralleled and consequently satisfied by the like Equivalent speeches of the Fathers touching Baptisme SECT III. THe two Proper Sacraments as the two Seales of the new Testament Baptisme and the Eucharist use to goe in equipage in the writings of Antiquity The Parallel doth consist in these two your Objections in urging the Fathers Phrases and wresting them to your Romish Literall Sence concerning the Eucharist and our Solutions by the equivalent Termes of the same Fathers given unto Baptisme and thereby instructing us of their Sacramentall and Figurative Interpretation OB. 1. The Fathers say you called the Eucharist an Antitype because an Antitype is not every Signe but that which differeth almost nothing from the Truth Ergò the word Antitype doth not prove a figurative Sence And againe they call Bread The Body of Christ SOL. The Fathers accordingly call Baptisme The Antitype of Christ's Passion And againe they observe that S. Paul calleth it a Buriall Ergo neither of both make for a Literall Sence OB. 2. You contend by the Fathers to prove a Corporall Change of Bread into Christ's Body because they say of it after Consecration It is not now Common Bread Nor are wee to consider it as Bare Bread yea no sensible thing is delivered herein And it is changed by Divine Omnipotencie into another nature Ergo they meant a Corporall Presence of Christ SOL. Your Consequence is lame and out of joynt in every part because the Fathers speaking of Baptisme have said as much to wit We are not to behold this as common Water Nor is it simple Water Nor to be discerned with our eyes but with our mindes Wherein no Sensible thing is given seeing the Water by benediction is made a Divine Laver working miraculous effects whereby the party baptized is made a new Creature and his Body made the Flesh of Christ crucified OB. 3. You labour to prove a Corporall Presence out of the Fathers where they say Christ is herein without mention of Presence and where they adde saying Thinke not it is the Priest but Christ that reacheth it unto â—hee SOL. As though such Phrases of the Fathers were still Literally meant or that you are ignorant of their like sayings in behalfe of Baptisme viz. Wee have Christ Present at the Sacrament of Baptisme where Not the Minister but God holdeth the head of the party baptized OB. 4. To evince a Corporall Participation of Christ in communicating of the Eucharist and consequently the Bodily Presence are alleaged the speeches of the Fathers of our Touching Christ's Body and Eating Christ's flesh of Naturall union with his Body and that the Eucharist is our Viaticum and Pledge of our Resurrection whereunto is added that Contemptuous Communicants doe more injury to Christ than they that denied him Eating and drinking their owne judgement SOL. And what of Baptisme concerning Touching the Fathers teach that wee Take hold of the feet of Christ concerning Eating that the partie Baptized may be said to Eat the Flesh of Christ in respect of the thing it selfe concerning Vnion with Christ they adde We are hereby One with him not only by assent of will but even naturally and Incorporate in him made thereby bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh Even The flesh of Christ crucified Concerning the Effect they hold that Baptisme is our Viaticum and the Earnest of our Resurrection and salvation whereunto is added out of the Apostle concerning the Contemners of their vow of Baptisme that They crucifie unto themselves the Sonne of God And he that receiveth Baptisme unworthily is guilty of judgement OB. 5. To beget an opinion of the proper Sacrifice of the Eucharist and consequently a Corpor all Presence of Christ herein you insist upon such Phrases of the Fathers as call it a Sacrifice still exacting of Protestants to shew if ever any Father said as much of Baptisme to name it a Sacrifice or the Celebration thereof The Immolation of Christ SOL. And you have beene plentifully satisfied in both out of the Testimonies of Antiquity often calling Baptisme a Sacrifice and sometimes also the Passion of Christ OB. 6. Your last and worst Contention is in Defence of a Divine Adoration of the Eucharist and consequently a Corporall Presence of Christ in the same as from the judgement of Antient Fathers by manifold Arguments wherein you may be pleased for Brevity sake to let your Ob. for the Eucharist and our Sol. for Baptisme wrastle and grapple together Your first Ob. is taken from their Reverend Silence for they instruct Communtcants not to speake of the Eucharist before Catechumenists or Insidels
5. Sect. 3. Opp. Angels cannot be in divers places at once B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. jet Ob. for Christ's presence in divers places at once Vnconscionably B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 7. Clemens Alexandrinus opp calling Bread Christ's body B. 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 6. and calling Bread and Wine Antitypes after Consecration Ibid. Naming it a Sacrifice of Christs body Clemens Bishop of Rome See Pope Councell of Collen opp that contemptuous Refusers to communicate are guilty of the body of Christ B. 5. Chap. 3. Sect. 4. Of Constance ob for Communion in one kinde B. 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. Of Ephesus opp for a palpable Body of Christ B. 4. Ch. 7. Sect. 7. Of Lateran 4. ob for Transubstantiation B. 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. Of Naunts opp against private Masse Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. Of Nice Lambe of God on the Table ob unconscionably for a corporall presence and proper Sacrifice B. 4. Ch. 10. Sect. 3. And for calling the Eucharist a Pledge of the Resurrection B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 6. opp the same Councell against both corporall presence and proper Sacrifice Booke 4. Ch. 10. and against sole Accidents Ibid. Sect. 2. Of Toledo and Trullo opp for receiving the Sacrament with hands Book 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. And of Toledo against Innovating in the Eucharist Booke 1. Ch. 3. Sect. ult And against Transubstantiation and Corporall Eating Booke 4. Chap. 10. Sect. 3. and against sole Accidents Ibid. Chap. 10. Sect. 2. And of Trullo to prove that which is called Body to be Bread B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 8. Of Trent opp for reporting the Errour of the Romish Church about ministring the Eucharist to Infants B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 11. Cyprian calling it a worke of omnipotency ob Booke 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 2. and Bread changed in nature Ibid. Figurative Sence of Christ's words This is c. Opp. B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. and calling Bread Christ's body B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. Against Reservation of the Sacrament B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 10. Ob. Wicked men guilty of Christ's body B. 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. and Wee are anoynted with his blood inwardly B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. Opp. calling it a True and Pure Sacrifice Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 8. Cyril Alexand. Opp. Godly only partakers of Christ his Body B. 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. ob that wee have a naturall conjunction hereby with Christ B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 8. and Ob. his Similitude As Wax melted Ibid. Ch. 8. Sect. 3. And Christ dwelleth in us Ibid. Opp. Body as well circumscribed in one place as God uncircumscribed B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. Cyril Hierosol ob Thinke not thou takest bread unconscionably B. 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 4. and under the forme of bread for proofe of only Accidents fraudulently and Species for Typus Ibid. and Chrisma for Charisma Ibid. and Sacrifice of Christ's Body B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 10. and Bowing for Adoration B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 3. Opp. against Christs body going into the draught B. 4. Ch. 9. Sect. 3. Damascen opp that Angels cannot possibly be but in one place B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. Circumscription of a Body necessary Ib. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. and against penetration of Bodies Chap. 7. Sect. 6. And for teaching the word Antitype to have beene used only before Consecration falsly Yet ob B. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. And for naming Elevation is ob for Adoration unconscionably Book 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. and for his O Divine Sacrament unconscionably Ib. Sect. 4. Dionysius Areopag opp Calling the Sacrament Antitype after Consecration Booke 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. Didymus Alexand. opp Proving the Holy Ghost God by it's being in divers places at once Book 4. Ch. 6. Sect. 2. Epiphanius his Hoc est meum Hoc objected B. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 7. Eusebius ob his saying It is Christ's body unconscionably B. 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 7. Opp. his correcting of his speech saying Or rather a Memoriall of a Sacrifice B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 6. Ob. naming the Sacrament a bloody Sacrifice unconscionably B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 9. Fulgentius opp For necessary circumscription of a Body Book 4. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. Gaudentius opp calling that which is present A pledge of Christ's body absent Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 11. and calling Bread Christ's body Book 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 6. His saying ob Body which Christ reacheth Book 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Gelasius See Pope Gregory Nazian opp against the possibility of the being of one Body in divers places at once B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 1. and also of the Angels Ibid. Sect. 3. and that Christ's Priestly Function is in heaven B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. Ob. his naming the Eucharist a Bloody Sacrifice unconscionably Chap. 5. Sect. 9. Opp. against Proper Sacrifice he saith that This is not so acceptable as that in heaven Ibid. Sect. 9 15. and calleth the Symbols after Consecration Antitypes B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. Ob. hâ—s sister Gorgonia for Adoration unconscionably Book 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. Gregory Nyssen ob his saying It is changed into whatsoever c. unconscionably Book 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 7. as also these other words Christ's body when it is within ours c. B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 3. Againe One body divided to thousands and undivided B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 7. Gregory the Great See Pope Hesychius ob for Praying Perceiving the truth of blood B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. unconscionably Hierome opp that the words of Christ This is my body are figurative B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. and calling the Sacrament present a Pledge of his Body absent B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. and that only the Godly are partakers of Christ's body Book 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. Hilary ob for saying Wee are nourished in our bodies by Christ's body B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 2. unconscionably As also ob That Christ is naturally within us Ibid. Sect. 3. Irenaeus opp For the remaining of Bread after Consecration B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. Ob. For denying the Sacrament to be common bread Ibid. Chap. 4. Sect. 3. unconscionably And that our bodies are nourished with his body B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 2. and for his saying that our Bodies are not now corruptible Ibid. Sect. 6. Opp. his saying that it was Bread which was called Christs body B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. Isidore Hispal opp For a figurative Sence of Christ's words This is my Body B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. Opp. against Conversion by Transubstantiation Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 6. and for the Sence of the word Masse B. 1. Ch. 1. Sect. 2. and for calling the thing sacrificed after the order of Melchizedech Bread and Wine B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. and calling it Bread changed into a Sacrament after Consecration B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. and against Prayer in an unknowen tongue B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 7. Isidore Pelus opp that Christ spake from heaven to Saul B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 5. and for
teach others their Grammer should be so far over-taken as to need to be put in mind of their Accidence if ever they learned it which telleth them that The neuter gender will agree with any thing that hath no life whether seene or not seene In which respect there might be a difference betweene Hoc de Patre and Hoc de Pane for although Priscian would cry out if hee heard one saying Hoc lana or Hoc lapis wherein Hoc is taken adiectively yet if a Question being raised concerning the lightnes and heavines of Wool and of Stone one shewing the Wool in his hand should say Hoc est leve the other pointing at the Stone should say Hoc est grave will any thinke that Priscian would be offended for Hoc in Latine more then others would be for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not to trouble you with that in your Summa Angelica wherein Hoc neutrally taken is made to agree with Cibus And although Protestants be so inexpert in the rudiments of learning yet will you not thinke that they whom you call Catholiques could be so deceived who as your Iesuite witnesseth were Many that taught that Hoc in the words of Christ put substantively may without any Inconvenience agree with Panis in This meaning This which I give you Are you not yet ashamed of your Rashnesse then must we now put you unto it In your owne vulgar Latin Translation it is said of Evah the the wife of Adam Hoc est os Gen. 2. what Insobriety then is this in your Disputers so eagerly to reach that blow unto the Protestants wherewith they must as necessarily buffe◠their owne Mother-Church by which the same Translation is made Authentique and wound their owne Consciences being themselves bound by Oath to defend it in all their disputations Away then with these Puerilities especially now being busied in a matter of so great importance wherein consisteth the foundation of all the maine Controversies concerning the Roman Masse For if the Pronoune This have Relation to Bread there needs no further dispute about the figurative sence of Christ's speech Wee returne to the Schoole of Christ the holy Scripture to consult about Christ's meaning with his Disciple Saint Paul where he professeth to deliver nothing concerning Christ his Institution of this Sacrament but that which hee had Received of the Lord. Him we desire to expound vnto vs the words of Christ delivered by Three Evangelists and to tell what hee gave unto them and what he called his Body and he telleth vs plainly saying The bread which we breake is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ alluding to those words of the Evangelists He brake it and that was Bread And that you may know that this was Catholique Doctrine in the dayes of Antiquity wee adioyne the next Proposition That it was Bread and Wine which Christ called his Body and Blood in the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers SECT VI. FOr proofe hereof behold a Torrent of Ancient Fathers pressing upon you Iraeneus Tertullian Origen Hierome Ambrose Augustine Cyrill of Hiernsalem Cyrill of Alexandria Theodoret Gaudentius Cyprian Clemens of Alexandria and Isidore Thirteene to the dozen whose sayings we may best know by their owne Idiome and Tenure of speech The first noting Christ to haue 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. The seventh that the words My Body were spoken of the bread The eight 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 hee calleth his flesh a Graine of Wheate Except the Graine 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 eleuenth that It was Wine which hee called his blood The twelfth that He blessed Wine when he said drinke And the last The bread strengthening man's body was therefore called the body of Christ All these so Learned and Ancient Fathers sufficient Grammarians we trow teaching the Pronoune This to demonstrate Bread doe as absolutely confute your Romish Exposition to prove the speech Figurative as any Protestant in the world could doe if hee were permitted to plead his owne Cause CHALLENGE VVE will try what a Syllogisme will doe that after your Posall in Grammar we may encounter you with Logique The Maior 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 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 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 the word This unto the Body of Christ is as hath beene confessed Absurde And that the word This should signifie your Individuum vagum is an Exposition fall of Absurdities as hath beene also acknowledged It remaineth therefore that the Pronoune This pointeth out precisely Bread A second Principle you have to wit That these words This is my Body are wordes of Consecration and Operative so that by This is meant that which is Consecrated and as your Councell 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 onely was then consecrated and changed into the Body of Christ Ergo the Pronoune THIS hath onely Relation to the Bread CHALLENGE A New Syllogisme would be had to put the matter out of question Maior No Sence which is Impossible can be given properly to the wordes of Christ This is my Body This needeth no proofe Minor But to call Bread Christ's Body properly is a Sence Impossible This hath beene your owne constant profession Conclusion Therefore cannot this Sence be given properly to the Body of Christ.
How can you auoid the necessity of this Consequence All arising from the nature of Predication in this Proposition wherein the Subiect 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 Christ's Body or of Bread undeterminate which you call vagum as to say This kind of bread is the Body of Christ it demonstrately sheweth that your Doctors can have no greater Aduersaries in this case than their owne Consciences which will appeare as fully in that which followeth CHAP. II. The Second key in Christ's Words Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body opening the Figurative Sence thereof is the Verbe EST IS FOr that Est in these words hath the same sence as Signifieth as if Christ had said expresly of the Bread This signifieth my Body and accordingly of the Wine This signifieth my Blood may be proued by three Propositions infringible Our first Proposition The Verbe EST being ioyned with a thing that is a Signe is alwayes figurative and the very same with this word SIGNIFIETH SECT I. FOr although the Verbe Est be indeed so absolutely simple in it's owne nature that it cannot be resolved into any other word as all other Verbes may be in like Case yet doth it albeit accidentally necessarily inferre a figurative Sence and is as much as Signifieth or Representeth whensoever it ioyneth the Signe and the Thing signified together As for Example A man pointing at a signe hanging before an Inne and saying This is S. George on horse-backe the Verbe Is can inferre no other Sence than Signifieth Why even because the thing whereof it speaketh is a Signe signifying Saint George And Bread in this Sacrament is in all Catholique Divinity a Signe of Christ's Body Therefore the Verbe Is can have no other sence than Signifieth The former Proposition confirmed by all like Speeches whether Artificiall Politique or Mysticall SECT II. YOur owne Iesuits and common Experience it selfe will verifie this Truth First in things Artificiall as To say of the Picture of Hercules This is Hercules is a figure Secondly In things Politique as when a Legacie given by Will and Testament is called the man's Will So they And indeed what is more Common than for a man to say of his Testament This is my Will Of his name subscribed This is my hand And of the waxe sealed This is my Seale When as his Will properly taken is in his heart his hand is affixed to his Arme And his seale may be in his pocket Thirdly In Mysticall and Divine Rites as in Sacrifice even among the Heathen according to that Example out of Homer which is notable The Greekes and Troians when they entred into a league which was to be ratified by a Sacrifice of Lambs upon which both sides were to take their Oathes this their Act is thus expressed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is They brought with them two Lambes their faithfull Oathes Where Lambes the rituall signes of their faithfull Swearing are called Oathes An Example I say even among the Heathen which is as appo e to our purpose and opposite against your defence as can be Our Second Proposition answerable to the first All the like Sacramentall Speeches in Scripture are figuratively understood SECT III. IN all such like Sacramentall Speeches both in the old and new Testament wherein the Signe is coupled with the Thing signified the Speech is ever unproper and Figurative and the Verbe Est hath no other force than Signifieth This Truth is confirmed aboundantly by the Testimonies of your owne Iesuites and others who come fraught with Examples First concerning the old Testament Noting that the Sacrifice of the Paschall Lambe being but a signe was called the Passeover or passing over Secondly that The Rocke being but a signe of Christ was called Christ Thirdly that Circumcision being but a signe of the Covenant was called the Covenant So likewise in the new Testament both concerning Baptisme which in Christ his Speech to Nicodemus being but a signe of Regeneration is called Regeneration And Baptizing which being a Signe of the Buriall of Christ in the speech of Saint Paul is called Buriall Finally that the most proper Interpretation of the Verbe Est Is in such like speeches importeth no more than Significat your Iesuite Salmeron will testifie for us In these speeches saith he The seed is the Word I am the Doore The Rocke was Christ the Verbe Is and WAS must be interpreted for SIGNIFIETH or figureth not of it's owne nature but because the word Rocke cannot be otherwise ioyned with Christ than by a figure or signe So he Even as Master Sanders also is compelled to confesse in a like Case CHALLENGE THus have we argued from Induction and Enumeration of Texts of Scripture in all like Sacramentall Speeches which Exposition by Analogy of Scriptures was ever held of all Divines the most absolute and infallible manner of expounding the Scripture that can be The Truth whereof arieseth essentially out of the Definition of a Sacrament which as well the whole Catholique Church as your Romish hath defined to be a visible Signe But no visible Signe can be ioyned to any thing signified thereby in like Predication without a Figure as hath beene both copiously proved and confessed Our third Proposition viz. Many Figurative Speeches are used by Christ even in his Words of Institution of this Sacrament by your owne Confessions SECT IV. FIrst your Iesuites who otherwise shame not to call Protestants in scorne Tropists because they defend a Tropicall and Figurative sence in the speech of Christ are notwithstanding constrained to acknowledge many figures in other words of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament Lest that otherwise as Maldonate and Suarez confesse the Speeches of Christ should be false as for example When the body of Christ is said to be broken or eaten if they should be taken properly and without a figure called Metaphora So they And so in the words following Body given for you that is which shall be offered for you on the Crosse So your Iesuite Valentia Next The blood is shed for you Matth. 26. It is not denied saith your Iesuite Salmeron but that it is the manner of Scripture to speake of a thing as now done which is after to be done as in this place Is shed because very shortly after it was to be shed upon the Crosse Which is the figure Enallage Againe This Cup is the new Testament in my bloud Hearken to your Bishop These words cannot be taken properly whether the Cup be taken for the vessell used for drinking which was a temporall thing and therefore could not be the Testament of Christ which is eternall or else whether you take it for the matter within the Cup which is the figure Synecdoche for it being the blood of the new