ceased to be Water And so must Bread cease to be Bread This being the State of the Question we undertake to give Good Proofes of the Existence and Continuance of Bread in the Eucharist the same in Substance after Consecration Our First Proofe is from Scripture 1. Cor. 10. Saint Paul calling it Bread SECT IV. IN the Apostle his Comment that I may so call his two Chapters to the Corinthians upon the Institution of Christ we reade of Eating the Bread and Drinking the Cup thrice all which by the consent of all sides are spoken of Eating Drinking after Consecration and yet hath he called the outward Element Bread You will say with some It was so called onely because it was made of Bread as Aarons Rod turned into a Serpent was notwithstanding called a Rod. But this Answere is not answerable unto the Similitude For first of the Bread the Apostle saith demonstratively This Bread and of the other This Cup But of Aaron's Rod turned into Serpent none could say This Rod. And secondly it is contrary to Christian Faith which will abhorre to say in a proper sence that Christ's Body was ever Bread Or else you will answere with others It is yet called Bread because it hath the Similitude of Bread as the Brazen Serpent was called a Serpent But neither this nor any other of your Imaginations can satisfie for we shall prove that the Apostle would never have called it Bread after Consecration but because it was Substantially still Bread Our Reason is He had now to deale against the Prophaners of this Sacrament in reproving such as used it as Common Bread Not discerning therein Sacramentally exhibited the Lord's Body It had therefore concerned him to have honoured the Sacrament with Divine Titles agreeable to the Body of Christ hypostatically united to his God-head and to have denied it absolutely to have beene Bread considering that by the name of Bread the glory of the same Body might seeme to be abased and Ecclipsed if in Truth and Veritie hee had not beleeved it to have beene then Bread This Reason we guesse you are bound to approve off who in your opinion of the Corporall Presence of Christ his Body and Absence of Bread would never suffer any of your Professors to call it after Consecration by the name of Bread Whereupon it was that the Greeke Archbishop Cabasila complained of the Romish Professors for reprehending the Greeke Liturgies why Because saith he after the words of Christ This is my Body wee call the Symbols and Signes Bread and Wine So hee Which bewrayeth that the very naming of the Sacrament Bread and Wine is in the iudgement of the Church of Rome preiudiciall to their Transubstantiation and that if Saint Paul himselfe should deliuer the same words he did at this day hee should by your Romish Inquisitors be taught to use his Termes in another stile What need many words except in the words of Christ the word Body be properly predicated and affirmed of Bread farewell Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ's Body But that it is Impossible the Body of Christ should be properly predicated upon Bread hath beene the Generall Confession of your owne Doctours and the Conclusion of our second Booke Our Second Proofe of the Continuance of the Substance of Bread is from the speech of Christ touching the Continuance of Wine after Consecration Matth. 26. 29. by the Interpretation of Antiquity SECT V. THe same is as fully verified by our Lord and Master Christ himselfe in thesecond Element of Wine calling it This fruit of the Vine that is Wine after Consecration where the Pronoune This hath relation to the Wine in the Cup. For the proof of this our Exposition of the words of Christ we have the Consent of these and thus many holy Fathers Origen Cyprian Chrysostome Augustine Hierome Epiphanius Euthymius Theophylact and Bede as witnesseth your Iesuite Maldonate no one Father produced by him to the contrary Then answering But I saith hee cannot be thus perswaded So he Marke this you great Boasters of Accordance with Antiquity and yet this manner of answering the Fathers is most familiar with this Iesuite But he proceedeth telling you that The Fathers notwithstanding did not call it Wine as thinking it to be Wine but even as Christ did when hee called his flesh Bread Iohn 6. Then he addeth They that will follow the Exposition of These Fathers are thus to interpret them And gives his Reason of this his Aduertisement Lest the other Exposition saith he may seeme to agree with the opinion of the Calvinists So he For which his Answere Calvinists are as much beholding to him as are the Ancient Fathers with whom he hath made bold not only to reiect their Authority but also to pervert the plaine and evident meaning of their Testimonies who declare that they understood Naturall and Substantiall Wine as the Marginals doe manifest so plainly as to affirme that It was Wine which then Christ dranke and that hereby the practices of the Heretiques Aquarij are confuted who would drinke nothing but Water in the Eucharist It was the Wine saith Augustine which was used in the mysteries of our Redemption Even that Wine which was blessed saith Clemens Alexandrinus and your owne Bishop Iansenius doth confesse that these words of Christ had reference to the Cup in the Eucharist and not as some say to the Cup of the Passeover Marke you furthermore the Errour of the Aquarij and the Confutation thereof they used only Water in the Eucharist in pretence of Sobriety which Cyprian confuted only upon this ground viz. that this Practice was not warranted by the Institution of Christ wherein Christ ordained Wine and not Onely Water and now tell us if that your Doctrine of Transubstantiation had beene an Article of Faith in those dayes whether it had not concerned Cyprian to have stood exactly upon it for the more just condemnation of those Aquarij to let them know that if they would needs use only Water than according to your Doctrine their Consecration should be void and consequently their Adoration if it had beene then in use should have beene like wise Idolatrous The former Proofe confirmed by Analogie betweene Bread and Christ's Body both Naturall and Mysticall SECT VI. IN 1. Cor. 10. 16 17. The Bread which we breake saith the Apostle is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ for we being many are one Bread and one Body in as much as wee all partake of one Bread In this Sentence the word Bread hath a double Relation the First to Christ his Body Naturall Thus the joynt Participation of the Bread is called the Communion of the Body of Christ. The Analogie in this respect is excellently expressed by Isidore Bread saith hee because it strengtheneth the Body is therefore called Christ's Body and Wine because it turneth into Blood is therefore called Christ's Blood These two are
Fathers who taught an Indivisible Vnion of mens soules with their Bodies naturally still subiect to corruption after the resurrection who can imagine that the holy Catholique Fathers would otherwise have judged of this your generall Tenet viz. to beleeve a Body of Christ now since his Glorification which is destitute of all power of naturall motion sence appetite or understanding otherwise than of a senslesse and Antichristian Deliration and Delusion Yea and that which is your only Reason you alleage to avoid our Objection of Impossibilities in such cases to wit The Omnipotencie of God the same was the Pretence of Heretiques of old in the like Assertions which occasioned the Antient Fathers to terme the Pretence of Omnipotencie The Sanctuary of Heretiques albeit the same Heretiques as well as you intended as a Father speaketh to magnifie God thereby namely in beleeving the Body of Christ after his Ascension to be wholly Spirituall To which Heretiques the same Father readily answered as wee may to you saying When you will so magnifie Christ you doe but accuse him of falshood not that wee doe any whit detract from the Omnipotencie of Christ farre be this Spirit of Blasphemy from us but that as you have beene instructed by Antient Fathers the not attributing an Impossibility to God in such Cases of Contradiction is not a diminishing but an ample advancing of the Omnipotencie of God BOOKE V. Your Orall Eating Gutturall Swallowing and Inward Digestion as you have taught of the Body of Christ into your Entrails hath beene proved out of the Fathers to be in each respect sufficiently Capernaiticall and termed by them a Sence both Pernicious and Flagitious Besides you have a Confutation of the Hereticall Manichees for their Opinion of Fastning Christ to mens guts and loosing him againe by their belchings Consonant to your Romish Profession both of Christ's Cleaving to the guts of your Communicants and Vomiting it up againe when you have done BOOKE VI. This is spent wholly in examining the Romish Doctrine of Masse-Sacrifice and in proving it to be Sacrilegiousnesse it selfe as you have seene in a former Synopsis BOOKE VII This containeth a Discoverie of your Masse-Idolatry not onely as being equall with the Doctrine of some Heretiques but in one respect exceeding the inâ—atuation of the very Pagans besides the Generall Doctrine of the power of your Priests Intention in consecrating hath beene yoaked by your owne Iesuite with the Heresies of the Donatists When you have beheld your owne faces in these divers Synopses as it were in so many glasses we pray to God that the sight of so many and so prodigious Abominations in your Romish Masse may draw you to a just Detestation of it and bring you to that true worship of God which is to be performed in Spirit and in Truth and to the saving of every one of your soules through his Grace in Christ Iesus AMEN ALL GLORY BE ONELY TO GOD. I. INDEX OF THE PRINCIPALL MATTERS Discussed thorow-out the eight Bookes of the whole former Treatise A ACcidents merely feed not Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 10. Nor inebriate c. Ibid. Not without Subject according to the ancient Fathers Ibid. See more in the words Bread Councell Cyrill Adoration of the Eucharist Romish Booke 7. Chap. 1. Sect. 1. Not from Christ's Institution Chap. 2. Nor from Antiquity Ibid. Sect. 1. Not by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 3. Romish Adoration Idolatrous by their owne Principles Booke 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 1. Eucharist forbid to be carried to the sicke for Adoration Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 10. Romish manner of Adoration of the Host Book 7. Chap. 7. Sect. 1. Coadoration may be Idolatrous Sect. 2. See the words Gesture Idolatry Invocation Reverence Altar unproperly used of the Fathers Book 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 13 15. Angels not possibly in two places at once Book 4. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Apparitions of Christ's flesh and blood in the Sacrament fictitious Booke 4. Chap. 2 c. See more in the word Miracles Application of Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice not yet resolved of Booke 6. Chap. 11. Sect. 1. Otherwise the Fathers Ibid. Sect. 2. Romish Application not sufficient for all in Purgatory Sect. 3. Application of Protestants Propitiously how justifiable Ib. Ch. 2. Sect. 1 2. B. BAptisme called a Sacrifice of the Fathers Book 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 15. Want of it in the Romish Priest inferreth Idolatry Booke 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 4. Paralleled with the Eucharist in most points Booke 8. Chap. 2. Sect. 2 3. Beast prostrate before the Host Objected Ridiculously for Adoration Booke 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 3. Blood of Christ not properly shed Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. Body of Christ not properly broken Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. That in the Eucharist not borne of the Virgin Mary Booke 4. Chap. 4 5. By Corporall Presence not one Ibid. Sect. 2. Infinite Ibid. Chap. 6. Not organicall Chap. 7. not perfect Chap. 8. nor glorious and subject to vile indignities Chap. 9. See more in Vnion Bread not duly broken in the Romish Masse Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. Remaining after Consecration Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 4 5. Proved by many Arguments Ibid. unto Sect. 9. Engendring Wormes Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 10. See Accidents Broken Body of Christ unproperly Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. and Booke 6. Chap. 1. Sect. 4. The word Broken in S. Luke signifies the Present Tense Booke 6. Chap. 2. Sect. 3. C CAnonization of Saints a Case doubtfull and dangerous Book 7. Ch. 7. Sect. 3. Capernaiticall conceit of eating Christ's flesh Bodily Booke 5. Chap. 4. Sect. 1. Such was the Romish and is Sect. 3. As also in swallowing and bodily mixture Ibid. Chap. 7 8. See Vnion Christ's Priesthood See Priest-hood Church of Rome hath erred in her opinion of administring the Eucharist to Infants Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 11. Her Doctrine made necessary to Salvation Book 8. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. Concomitance of Blood under the forme of Bread how Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 6. Consecration used of Christ by prayer Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. Now transgressed in the Romish Church Ibid. Sect. 4. Forme thereof not set downe either in Scripture or in ancient Tradition Book 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 4. Many Defects incident to make void the Act and to inferre Idolatry Book 7. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. Contradictions Romish VI. against these words of Christ My Body Booke 4. Ch. 4. Cup is to be administred to all the Communicants Book 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. By Christ's precept and example Sect. 2 3. By Apostolicall practice and Fathers c. Ibid. Custome of 300. yeares preferred by the Romish before a more ancient of a thousand Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 5. D. DEvouring Christ's flesh such is the Romish Swallowing of Christ Booke 5. Chap. 6. Sect. 1 2. and Chap. 9. Distinction of the Sacrifice of Christ's Body as Subjectively
But with what reason were they reprehended Because saith the Councell that fashion iâ— not â—ound in the sacred Storie of the Evangelists All those ancient Popes who held the Example of Christ in his Institution and Apostolicall Customes to be necessary Directions of Christ his Church in such points concerning the ministration of this Sacrament being so utterly repugnant to your now Romish opinions and Practices it must follow that those former Popes being admitted for Iudges whom all Christians acknowledged to have beene Apostolicall in their Resolutions the now Romish Church and her degenerate Profession must needs be judged Apostaticall Now from the former Actuall wee proceed to the Doctrinall points THE SECOND BOOKE Concerning the first Doctrinall Point which is the Interpretation of the words of Christ's Institution THIS IS MY BODY THIS IS MY BLOOD LVKE 22. The Doctrinall and Dogmaticall points are to be distinguished into your Romish 1. Interpretation of the words of Christ his Institution This is my Body c. 2. Consequences deduced from such your Expositions such as are Transubstantiation Corporall Presence and the rest CHAP. I. Of the Exposition of the words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY The State of the Question in Generall BEcause as Saint Augustine saith of points of faith It is as manifest an Heresie in the interpertation of Scriptures to take figurative speechees properly as to take proper speeches figuratively And such is the CAVEAT which Salmeron the Iesuite giveth you it will concerne both You and Vs as wee will avoide the brand of Heresie to search exactly into the true sence of these words of Christ especially seeing wee are herein to deale with the Inscription of the Seale of our Lord IESVS even the Sacrament of his Body and Blood In the which Disquisition besides the Authority of Ancient Fathers wee shall insist much upon the Ingenuity of your owne Romish Authours And what Necessitie there is to enquire into the true sence of these words will best appeare in the after-Examination of the divers Consequences of your owne Sence to wit your Doctrine of Transubstantiation Corporall and Materiall Presence Propitiatory Sacrifice and proper Adoration All which are Dependants upon your Romish Exposition of the former wordes of Christ The issue then will be this that if the words be certainly true in a Proper and litterall sence then we are to yeild to you the whole Cause But if it be necessarily Figurative then the ground of all these your Doctrines being but sandy the whole Structure and Fabricke which you erect thereupon must needs ruine and vanish But yet know withall that we doe not so maintaine a figurative Sence of Christ his Speech concerning his Body as to exclude the Truth of his Body or yet the truly-Receiving thereof as the Third and Fourth Bookes following will declare That a Figurative sence of Christ his Speech THIS IS MY BODY c. is evinced out of the words themselves from the Principles of the Romish Schooles SECT I. THere are two words which may be unto us as two keyes to unlock the questioned sence of Christ's words viz. the Pronoune THIS and the Verbe IS We begin with the former The State of the Question about the word THIS When wee shall fully vnderstand by your Church which holdeth a Proper and litterall Signification what the Pronoune THIS doth demonstrate then shall We truly inferre an infallible proofe of our figurative sence All Opinions concerning the Thing which the word THIS in the divers opinions of Authours pointeth at may be reduced to Three heads namely to signifie either This Bread or This Bodie of Christ or else some Third Thing different from them both Tell you vs first what you hold to be the opinion of Protestants Lutherans and all Calvinists saith your Iesuite thinke that the Pronoune THIS pointeth out Bread But your Roman Doctors are at oddes among themselves and divided into two principall Opinions Some of them referre the word THIS to Christ's Body Some to a Third thing which you call Individuum vagum In the first place we are to confute both these your Expositions and after to confirme our owne That the first Exposition of Romish Doctors of great learning referring the word THIS properly to Christ his Body perverteth the sence of Christ his Speech by the Consessions of Romish Doctors SECT II. DIvers of your Romish Divines of speciall note as well Iesuites as others interpret the word This to note the Body of Christ as it is present in this Sacrament at the pronuntiation of the last syllable of this speech Hoc est corpus meum Because they are words Practicall say they that is working that which they signifie namely The Body of Christ And this sence they call Most cleare and in their Iudgements there can be no better then this So your Stapleton Sanders together with Barradius Salmeron Chavausius these last three being Iesuites to whome you may adde Master Brereley his Answere saying that these words Most evidently relate to Christ's Body As evidently saith also your Iesuite Malloun as one pointing at his Booke should say This is my Booke CHALLENGE ARe not these Opinators in number many in name for the most part of great esteeme their Assertion in their own opinion full of assurance and delivered to their Hearers as the onely Catholique Resolution And yet behold one whose name alone hath obtained an Authority equivalent to almost all theirs your Cardinall Bellarmine who speaking of the same opinion of referring the word This to the Body of Christ doth in flat tearmes call it ABSVRD but not without good and solid reason and that according to the Principles of Romish Schooles to wit because before the last syllable of the last word Me-um be pronounced the Body of Christ is not yet present and the word This cannot demonstrate a thing Absent and therefore can it not be said This body is my body A Reason pregnant enough in it selfe and ratified by your publique Romane Catechisme authorised by the then Pope and Councell of Trent yet notwithstanding your fore-named Irish Iesuite hearing this Argument obiected by Protestants rayleth downe right calling it Accursed as iudged by the Church Hereticall and indeed Abhominable So hee who with Others if they were of fit yeares might be thought to deserve the rod for forgetting their Generall Catechisme and for defending an Exposition which even in common sense may be pronounced in your Cardinal 's owne phrase very Absurde else shew vs if you can but the least semblance of Truth for that Opinion Similitudes obiected for defence of their former Exposition and confuted by their owne fellowes The Similitudes which are urged to illustrate your former Practicall and operative sense are of these kinds to wit Even as if one say They in drawing a Line or a Circle should say in the making thereof This is a Line or This
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
Body of Christ continuing still in heaven to be notwithstanding at the same time under the shapes of Bread on the Altar therfore called Substantiall but the Substance of Bread ceaseth to haue any Being when the Body of Christ succeedeth to be under the outward shapes of Bread So he And this is of late crept into the opinion of some few whereby you have created a new faith flat contrary to the faith of the Councell of Trent which defined a Change of the whole substance of Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ. So that Councell as you have heard Now by the Change of Substance into Substance as when Common Bread eaten is turned into the Substance of Man's flesh the matter of Bread is made the matter of Flesh But this your adduction is so far frō bringing in the Substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body that it professeth to bring the Body of Christ not so much as unto the Bread but to be under only the Outward Accidents formes of Bread Yet had this Figment some Favourers in your Schooles No Marvell therefore if there arose some out of your owne Church who did impugne this delusion calling it as your Cardinall himselfe witnesseth of them a Translocation onely and not a Transubstantiation and that truely if they should not have called it a Trans-accession or Trans-succession rather For who will say if he put on his hand a Glove made of a Lamb-skin which Lambe was long since dead and consequently ceasing to be that therefore his hand is Transubstantiated into the Body of the Lambe yet is there in this example a more substantial Change by much than can be imagined to be by your Adduction of a Body under onely the Formes and Accidents of the matter of Bread because there is in that a Materiall Touch betweene the Substance of the hand and the Lamb-skin but in this other there is onely a Coniunction of the Substance of one Body with the Accidents of another Which kind of meere Succession of a Substance your Iesuite Suarez will allow to be no more than a Translocation Wee Conclude that seeing Conversion whether by Production or by Adduction are so plainly proved by your selves to be contrary to Truth therefore it is not possible for you to beleeve a Doctrine so absolutely repugnant to your owne knowledge Observe by the way that they who gain-say the Productive and teach the Adductive yet doe all deny Locall mutation à Termino ad Terminum a Paradox which wee leave to your wisdomes to contemplate vpon Our Second Proofe of the Falshood of the Article of Transubstantiation is from the Article of our Christian Creed BORNE OF THE VIRGIN MARY SECT II. TRansubstantiation as hath beene defined by your Councell of Trent is a Conversion of the substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body Now in every such Substantiall Change there are Two Tearmes one is the Substance from which the other is the Substance whereinto the Substantiall Change is made as it was in Christ his miraculous Change of Water into Wine But this was by producing the Substance of Wine out of the Substance of Water as the matter from which the Conversion was made Therefore must it it be by Production of the Substance of Christ's Body out of the Substance of Bread Your Cardinall hath no Evasion but by denying the Conversion to be by Production which notwithstanding was formerly the Generall Tenet of the Romish Schoole ever since the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was hatched and which is contrary to his owne device of Conversion by Adduction wherein first he confoundeth himselfe and secondly his opinion hath beene scornfully reiected by your owne learned Doctors as being nothing lesse than Transubstantiation as you have heard Therefore may you make much of your breaden Christ As for vs We according to our Apostolicall Creed beleeve no Body of Christ but that which was Produced out of the Sanctified flesh of the blessed Virgin Mary for feare of Heresie This same Obiection being made of late to a Iesuite of prime note received from him this Answer viz. God that was ableto raise Children to Abraham out of stones can of bread transubstantiate the same into that Body of Christ which was of the Virgin And he againe received this Reply That the Children which should be so raised out of Stones howsoever they might be Abraham's Children according to Faith yet could they not be Children of Abraham according to the Flesh Therefore is there as great a Difference betweene that Body from Bread and the other from the Blessed Virgin as there must have beene betweene Children out of Stones and Children out of Flesh And this out Reason accordeth right well to the Ancient Faith professed within this Land in the dayes of Edgar a Saxon King as it is set out in an Homily of that time which being published standeth thus Much is betweene the body that Christ sufferedin and betweene the body of the hallowed Howsell The body truly that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of the Virgin Mary with blood and with bone with skin and with sinewes in humane limbes and his Ghostly body which we call his Howsell is gathered of many Cornes without blood and bone without limbe and therefore nothing is to be understood herein bodily but all is Ghostly to be understood This was our then Saxon's Faith wherein is plainely distinguished the Body of Christ borne of the blessed Virgin from the Sacramentall which is called Ghostly as is the Body of flesh from the Consecrated Substance of Bread A Doctrine directly confirmed by Saint Augustine Wherefore we may as truly say concerning this your Conversion that if it be by Transubstantiation from bread then it is not the Body which was borne of the blessed Virgin as your owne Romish Glosse could say of the Predication If Bread be Christ's Body then something was Christ's body which was not borne of the Virgin Mary Our Third Reason is taken from the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration But first of the State of this Question SECT III. VVE wonder not why your Fathers of the Councell of Trent were so fierce in casting their great Thunderbolt of Anathema and Curse upon every man that should affirme Bread and Wine to remayne in this Sacrament after Consecration which they did to terrifie men from the Doctrine of Protestants who doe all affirme the Continuance of the Substance of Bread in the Eucharist For right well did these Tridentines know that if the Substance of Bread or Wine doe remayne then is all Faith yea and Conceit of Transubstantiation but a feigned Chimaera and meere Fancy as your Cardinall doth confesse in granting that It is a necessarie Condition in every Transubstantiation that the thing which is Converted cease any more to be as it was in the Conversion of Water into Wine Water
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
mans infirmity to descend raw through the Body into the Draught which in other meates is knowne sometime to be certaine you falling into this speculation tell us concerning the Egestion that it is held Probable that the Body of Christ doth not passe with the formes into the Draught in that Case So you affirming this to be but onely Probable whereas whosoever shall teach that the Body of Christ is not severed from the forme of Bread so long as it is uncorrupt which is your generall Tenet they must hold that the same Body in the like case of mans bodily infirmity doth passe by Egestion in like sort into the seege For if as you do also say the same Body of Christ hath beene once hidden in a Dunghill why may you not as wickedly beleeve that it may passe into the Draught That the Romish foresaid Indignities are contrary to holy Scriptures and iudgement of Ancient Fathers SECT III. HOly Writ teacheth us that there is as great difference betweene the humiliation of Christ when he was on earth and his now Exaltation in glory in Heauen as there is betweene Shame and Glory it being now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Body of Glory Now for you to believe and professe the personall burning devouring regorging yea and the hiding of that glorious Body of Christ in a dung hill and the like are such execrable speeches as that we stand astonished with horrour to heare them thinking that we have heard in these the scoffes reproaches and blasphemies of some Pagans against Christian Religion rather than the opinion of any that take to themselves one syllable of the name of Christians If this had beene the ancient Faith some Fathers doubtlesse upon some occasion by some one sentence or other would have revealed their Iudgement therein from whose diuerse and copious Volumes neither doe you alleage nor we reade any one word of mans spewing up or Mice eating or so much as the winde blowing away the Body of Christ much lesse of the other basenesse spoken of But contrariwise Origen and Cyrill distinguishing betweene the spirituall Bread which is the Reall Body of Christ and the Bread Sacramentall say That not that Body but this Bread goeth into the Draught Which to affirme of Christs Body were an Assertion abhominable That the Romish Answeres for defence of this their vile and beastly Opinion are but false and fond SECT IV. IT was said of Philosophers of old that nothing was so absurd but some one or other of them would take in hand to defend it the like may be said of our Romish Opposites whereof wee have given you divers Instances throughout this whole Treatise as in the most particulars so for the point now in Question And although many of your Disputers have for modesties sake passed by it yet have two among you as it were putting on Vizards on their faces come in with two fanaticall Answeres Both which are taken from the condition of Christ his humane Body whilest he was in the world Many saith your Cardinall can scarce endure to heare that Christ is included in a Boxe fallen to the earth burnt or eaten of beasts as though we doe not read that Christ was included in the wombe of the Virgin lay upon the earth and might without any miracle have beene eaten of beasts why may not such things now happen unto him but sine laesione without any hurt at all So he Ioyne with this the Determination of your Schoole That the substance of Christ his Body remaineth still although the Hoast be eaten with Dogs But Master Brerely more cunningly that he might not disguise your opinions but also make Protestants odious if it might be for their exceptions against them doth readily tell us that Pagans Iewes and Heretiques conceived Indignities against some mysteries of Christian Religion as against Christ his Incarnation and his Crucifying So he Both which Answeres are but meere tergiversations by confounding the two most different conditions of Christ That then in the state of his humiliation with This which is Now in the highest exaltation of Glory Wee therefore reioyne as followeth Your Disputers have so answered as if Christ his Incarnation in the wombe of a Virgin his Conversation upon earth and his Passion upon the Crosse were not obiects of Indignity notwithstanding the Spirit of God hath blazed them to the world to have beene the Indignities of all Indignities Thus Who being in the forme of God and thinking it no robbery to be equall with God yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made himselfe of no reputation but tooke upon him the forme of a servant such was his Incarnation and became obedient to death even spoken for aggravating the Indignity thereof The shamefull death of the Crosse Than which never any thing could make more either for the magnifying of Gods grace and mercy or for the dignifying of Christ his merit for man as it is written God so loved the world that he sent his Sonne namely to suffer that whosoever should believe in him should not perish but have life everlasting How could your Answerers but know that it was not the observation of the indignities which Christ suffered that wrought to the condemnation of Pagans Iewes and Heretikes but their faithlessenesse in taking such scandall thereat as to deprive themselves by their Infidelitie of all hope of life by Christ crucified Hearken furthermore That the state of Christ his Humanity cannot be now obnoxious to bodily Indignities and that the comparing both the Estates in your answering is unworthy the learning of very Catechumenists and Petties in Christian Religion SECT V. THis Disproportion betweene Christ his estate in the dayes of his flesh in this world and his now present Condition at the right hand of God is as extreamely disproportionable as is Mortality and Immortality Shame and Glory Misery and Blessednes Earth and Heaven that being his state of humiliation and this contrariwise of his exaltation as all Christians know and professe And although the Body of Christ now in eternall Maiesty be not obnoxious to Corporall iniuries yet may Morall and Spirituall abasements be offered unto Christ as well in the Opinion as in the Practice of men Of the opinion wee have an Example in the Capernaites concerning Christ whensoever he should give his flesh to be eaten carnally for the Practice you may set before you the Corinthians who abusing the Sacrament of the Lord did thereby contemne him and were made guilty of high Prophanation against the glorious Body of Christ And what else soundeth that Relative iniury against Christ by murthering his Saints on earth complained off by his voice from Heaven Saul Saul why persecutest thou me Your Cardinall in answere to the Obiection of Indignity offered to Christ by putting him in a Boxe and of being Eaten with Wormes and the like opposed as you have heard saying Why may not such things
sacrificed by the hands of the Priest Here to wit on the Table below representatively as hereafter the Catholique Fathers themselves will shew And these two may easily consist without any necessity of the Priest reaching his hands as farre as the highest Heavens as your Cardinall pleasantly obiecteth Thirdly you alleage Wee are said to partake truly of the Body of Christ As though there were not a Truth in a Sacramentall that is Figurative Receiving and more especially which hath beene both proved and confessed a Reall and true participation of Christ's Body and Blood spiritually without any Corporall Coniunction But it is added saith he that These namely the Body and Blood of Christ are Symbols of our Resurrection which is by reason that our Bodies are ioyned with the Body of Christ otherwise if our Coniunction were onely of our soules onely the Resurrection of our soules should be signified thereby So hee that 's to say as successesly as in the former For the word HAEC These which are called Symbols of our Resurrection may be referred either to the Body and Blood of Christ immediatly spoken of and placed on the Table in Heaven which we Commemorate also in the Celebration of this Sacrament and in that respect may be called Symbols of the Resurrection of our Bodies because If Christ be risen then must they that are Christs also rise againe Or else the word These may have relation to the more remote after the manner of the Greekes to wit Bread and Cup on the first Table because as immediately followeth they are these whereof not much but little is taken as you have heard Which other Fathers will shew to be indeed Symbols of our Resurrection without any Consequence of Christ's Bodily Coniunction with our Bodies more than there is by the Sacrament of Baptisme which they call the Earnest of our Resurrection as doth also your Iesuite Coster call it The Pledge of our Resurrection But this our Coniunction with Christ is the subiect matter of the Fift Booke Lastly how the Eucharist was called of the Fathers a Sacrifice is plentifully resolved in the Sixt Booke THE FIFTH BOOKE Treating of the third Romish Doctrinall Consequence arising from your depraved Sence of the Words of Christs Institution THIS IS MY BODY concerning the manner of the present Vnion of his Body with the bodies of the Receivers by Eating c. CHAP. I. The state of the Question SECT I. A Christian man consisting of two men the Outward or bodily and the Inward which is Spirituall this Sacrament accordingly consisteth of two parts Earthly and Heavenly as Irenaeus spake of the bodily Elements of Bread and Wine as the visible Signes and Obiects of Sense and of the Body and Blood of Christ which is the Spirituall part Answerable to both these is the double nourishment and Vnion of a Christian the one Sacramentall by communicating of the outward Elements of Bread and Wine united to man's body in his Taking Eating digesting till at length it be transubstantiated into him by being substantially incorporated in his flesh The other which is the Spirituall and Soules food is the Body and Blood of the Lord therefore called Spirituall because it is the Obiect of Faith by an Vnion wrought by God's Spirit and man's faith which as hath beene professed by Protestants is most Reall and Ineffable But your Church of Rome teacheth such a Reall Vnion of Christ his Body and Blood with the Bodies of the Communicants as is Corporall which you call Per contactum by Bodily touch so long as the formes of Bread and Wine remaine uncorrupt in the bodies of the Receivers Our Method requireth that we first manifest our Protestant Defence of Vnion to be an Orthodoxe truth Secondly to impugne your Romish Vnion as Capernaiticall that is Hereticall And thirdly to determine the Point by comparing them both together Our Orthodoxe Truth will be found in the Preparations following That Protestants prosesse not only a Figurative and Sacramentall Participation and Communion with Christ's Body but also a spiritually Reall SECT II. ALl the Bookes of the Adversaries to Protestants are most especially vehement violent and virulent in traducing them in the name of Sacramentaries as though we professed no other manner of feeding and Vnion with Christ's body than only Sacramentall and Figurative For Confutation of which Calumny it will be most requisite to oppose the Apologie of Him who hath beene most opposed and traduced by your Disputers in this Cause to shew first what he held not and then what he held If you shall aske Calvin what he liked not he will answere you I doe abhorre your grosse Doctrine of Corporall Presence And I have an hundred times disclaimed the receiuing only of a Figure in this Sacrament What then did hee hold Our Catechisme teacheth saith hee not only a signification of the Benefits of Christ to be had herein but also a participation of the substance of Christ's flesh in our soules And with Swinckfeldius maintayning only a Figurative perception we have nothing to doe If you further demand what is the Feeding whereby we are united to Christ's body in this Sacrament hee tels you that it is IV. Not carnall but Spirituall and Reall and so Reall that the soule is as truly replenished with the lively virtue of his flesh by the powerfull worke of the Spirit of God as the body is nourished with the corporall Element of Bread in this Sacrament If you exact an Expression of this spirituall Vnion to know the manner hee acknowledgeth it to be above Reason If further you desire to understand whether he were not Singular in this opinion he hath avouched the iudgement of other Protestants professing not to dissent one Syllable from the Augustane Confession as agreeing with him in iudgement herein Accordingly our Church of England in the 28. Article saith that To such as worthily and with faith receive this Sacrament The Bread which we breake is a partaking of the Body of Christ which Body is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after a spirituall and heavenly manner the meane whereby is Faith That the Body of Christ by this Sacrament was ordained only for food to the Christian man's Soule SECT III. VVHat need wee seeke into the Testimonies of ancient Fathers which are many in this point of Dispute having before us the Iudgement of your Fathers of the Councell of Trent and of your Romane Catechisme authorized by the same Councell both which affirme that Christ ordained this Sacrament to be the spirituall food of man's soule In which respect the Body of Christ is called Spirituall in your Popes Decree That the Spirituall feeding and Vnion with Christs Body is more excellent and Reall than the Corporall Coniunction can be SECT IV. THe soule of man being the most essentiall and substantiall part of man because a Spirit immortall and the flesh
Papall Decrees and the Body of these Decrees hath beene lately ratified by the Bull of P. Gregory the thirteenth The same Faith was embraced afterwards of some Schoole-men who without any distinction vsed the same phrase of Tearing with Teeth Secondly of after-times your Canus asseverantly inferreth of the Body of Christ that If it be eaten then certainly it is broken and torne with the teeth But most emphatically your Cardinall Alan It is said saith he to be torne with the teeth of the faithfull no lesse properly than if it should be said so of the Bread if it were eaten Yea and your Cardinall Bellarmine for proofe of Transubstantiation hath recourse unto the same Roman Councell which he stileth Generall and noteth the thing defined to have beene the iudgement of the Church and that the same Iudgement was delivered under the Censure of an Anathema and Curse against the Gain-sayers and therefore he with his Disciple Mr. Fisher who also alleageth the same are challengeable to hold it according to the literall sence therof because it will not admit of any qualification by any Trope or figure that can be devised First because the words are purposely set downe as a forme of Recantation and Abiuration of Heresie but as you confesse There are no formes of speech more exact and proper in phrase concerning the matter of faith than such as are used by them that abiure Heresie And Secondly for that this forme of words of Tearing with the teeth the flesh of Christ was also made purposely for Abiuration and abandoning all figurative Sence for the defence of the literall Exposition of the words of Christ This my Body c. therefore was it taken literally But what thinke you will Cavin say to this your then Romish forme of Profession in the literall sence A man should rather wish to die an hundred times saith he than once to intangle himselfe in a Doctrine so monstrously sacrilegious Which Censure of his wee now endeavour to make good That the former Romane Faith of Properly Eating the Body of Christ is Capernaitically-Hereticall at this day as is proved by some of your owne Doctors of the now Romane Church SECT II. YOu have heard of Berengarius his Abrenunciation of Heresie according to the faith of the then Romane Church in Breaking the Body of Christ and tearing it sensibly with their teeth Hearken now a little and you shall heare in a manner an Abrenunciation of that then Romane faith by denying it to be either properly Broken or yet really Torne even by the Iesuites themselves Reall Eating saith your Salmeron requireth a reall touch and tearing of the thing which is eaten but the Body of Christ is not torne with the teeth or touched by them that eate him because he is herein impartible So he Your Iesuite and Cardinall Bellarmine is as it were in a maze saying and gain-saying as you may perceive yet notwithstanding whether he will or no must perforce confesse no lesse when he saith that The Body of Christ is not absolutely eaten but eaten vnder the formes of Bread and that is to say saith he the formes of Bread are sensibly and visibly eaten So hee If this imported a literall manner of eating then might your Cardinall have said as literally of himselfe My clothes are torne therefore my body is rent in pieces Not to trouble you with the Cardinal's Philosophie that talketh of Eating and tearing of Colours But to the point If onely the Accidents of Bread be as he saith Sensibly eaten then was Pope Nicolas his Prescription of Eating Christ's body sensibly in your Cardinal's opinion not true And upon the same ground it is that your Iesuite Suarez out of Thomas and other Schoole-men affirmeth the word Broken to bee a Metaphoricall phrase not properly belonging to the body of Christ because it requireth that there should be a Separation of the parts of that which is properly broken So hee as also your Canus hath concluded And your Iesuite Maldonate is so bold as to tell you that these Propositions The Body of Christ is eaten is Broken Torne with the Teeth or Devoured of us properly taken are false Thus your Iesuites as if they had expressly said that to thinke the Body of Christ to be eaten torne or devoured properly taken is a carnall Capernaiticall and as your owne Glosse in Gratian concludeth an Hereticall opinion Will your have any more It is but the last day in respect when one of your grave Criticks so much abhorred the conceit of proper Tearing Christ's Bodie that he called the Obiecting thereof against your Church in his blinde zeale Blasphemie and answereth that you doe no more Teare Christ's flesh than Caiphas tore his when he rent his clothes The Case then is plaine That the former Romish and Popish Faith for the manner of of receiving of the Body of Christ is but somewhat altered yet miserably inconstant and faithlesse SECT III. PRotestants may have in this place iust matter of insulation against your Romish Professors to prove their infidelity in that which they seeme to professe As first that the ground of your Doctrine of Corporall presence is the literall and proper interpretation of the words of Christ when he said Take eate this is my Body yet now are you compelled to say that Properly eaten is no proper but a false sence Your Second Doctrine is that the iudgement of a Romane Pope in a Romane Councell in a matter of faith is Infallible Notwithstanding Pope Nicolas with his Romane Councell is found to haue grossly erred in a tenor of Abiuration which of all others as hath beene confessed is most literall and was therefore purposely devised against a figurative sence of the words of Christ and forthwith published throughout Italie France Germany c. to direct men in the faith of sensuall eating breaking and tearing the flesh of Christ with their teeth yet notwithstanding your common Iudgement being now to reiect such phrases taken in their proper signification and in a manner to abrenounce Berengarius his Abrenunciation what is if this be not an argument that either you say you care not or else beleeve you know not what Let us goe on in pursuite of your Doctrine of the Corporall manner of eating which you still maintaine and it will be found to be Capernaiticall enough CHAP. V. That the now Romish manner of Eating and bodily receiving of the Body of Christ is sufficiently Capernaiticall in three kindes TEll vs not that no Doctrine of your Church can be called Hereticall before that it be so iudged by some generall Councell no for Rectum est Index sui obliqui and therefore an evident Truth written in the word of God doth sufficiently condemne the contrary of Heresie as well as light doth discover and dispell Darknes And this is manifest by the example which we have now in
of the same his Body and Blood as they were on the Crosse Like as a King who having gotten a victory in battell should represent himselfe in a Stage-Play as in a fight So They. But without any Sentence of any Father for countenancing so egregious a figment so farre were those Greeke Fathers from urging that counterfeit Testimony which passeth vnder the name of S. Augustine as if hee had said The flesh of Christ is a Sacrament of his flesh and inferring from hence that The Body of Christ as it is in this Sacrament is a Signe of it selfe as it was upon the Crosse And they are no small Babes who vent out this proofe by name Billius Gardiner Bishop of Winchester Claudius Sainctes one of name in the Councell of Trent Fisher Bishop of Rochester and Hessell But how prove They this Out of any of the works of Augustine No where then Wee are required to seeke it in Prosper where againe it is not to be found Whither next forsooth it is so cited by Peter Lombard and there it appeareth that Peter Lombard had it out of his supposed Brother Gratian wee say Gratian whose bookes have beene lately reproved and condemned by one of your Arch-bishops for many False allegations of Testimonies of Fathers And when all is done if either Peter-Lombard or Gratian who are the Relators may be admitted to be the Interpreters of that coyned Sentence they will say that the word Flesh there specified is taken for the Shape of flesh and the word Blood for the outward forme of Blood which spoyleth your Play quite wherein you will have the Flesh of Christ under the outward formes and shape in this Sacrament and not the outward formes and shape themselves to be the Signe of the same Body on the Crosse So easie it is for Hunters to pursue their Game with loud cries upon a false sent Wee returne to your Cardinall and to Suarez who invented the Similitvde of the Stage-Play for their Answere which is indeed rather a Childish Playing then Theologicall reasoning yet it is but a mad sport to argue against Conscience as this your Cardinall must needs have done who confessing that the Greeke Fathers did therefore call Sacraments Antitypes because of the great Similitude they have with the things they represent yet now adventureth to say that the Body of Christ as it is in the Eucharist is a Signe of the same Body of Christ as it was upon the Crosse notwithstanding the Body of Christ as it is in the Sacrament according to your owne faith is so Invisible that it cannot be seene of Angels so Indivisible that it cannot be parted or divided and so Vnbloody that there is not the least tincture of blood to be discerned therein Wherfore to perswade your Disciples that those grave Fathers ever taught that the Invisible Indivisible and Vnbloody Body of Christ as in this Sacrament was or could be the Signe of his visible torne crucified and bloody Body vpon the Crosse and so to note an Antitype which is as you call it the Greatest Similitude is all one as to find out the greatest Similitude in the greatest Dissimilitude which yet is the more intollerable because it is against the Confessed Common opinion of your owne Divines who haue taught that The Sacrament of the Eucharist is called Type and Antitype because of the formes of Bread and Wine So your Billius Ma◠you not now discerne the notable perversnesse of your Disputers and that they devised this Stage-Play ad faciendum Populum to please and delude their Readers thereby to fit themselves the better for the Pageant whereof we shall be occasioned to say more in the sixt Booke That the onely Obiection out of the Greeke Fathers concerning the Pronoune HOC in the Testimony of Epiphanius advantageth not the Romish Cause SECT VII COmpare but Epiphanius his owne words your Cardinal's Obiection and our Answere and then make your owne determination as you shall thinke good Man is said to be made after the Image of God Epiphanius not able to define what this Image consisted in whether it be man's soule or minde or virtue notwithstanding resolveth that c All men haue the image of God in them but yet not according to nature namely that substantiall nature which is in God because God is Incomprehensible and infinite c. This is the maine point which Epiphanius will now illustrate but how By something saith your Cardinall which seemeth to be that which it is not And Epiphanius instanceth in the Eucharist wherein Christ taking into his hands those things which the Evangelists doe mention he said of the one HOC This is mine viz. Body and of the other This is mine viz. Blood hereby understanding saith your Obiector The Eucharist which is truely the Body of Christ although it seeme not to be so outwardly being of a round figure and Insensible and therfore farre vnlike to be the Body of Christ So he who thinking he hath overcome doth raise up his Iō and Triumph saying This argument is throughly convincent because Epiphanius addeth He who believeth not the words of Christ doth fall from Saluation adding further that they are to be believed although our senses gain-say it You have heard the Obiection which seeming to so great a Champion so greatly Convincent you will give us licence to make a full Answere First by HOC ET HOC THIS AND THIS by the Interpretation of Epiphanius are meant The things which the Evangelist did mention and the Evangelist mentioned as you know Bread He tooke Bread Hee tooke the Cup meaning Wine in the Cup namely according to the former generall Consent of the Fathers HOC signified Bread in one part of the Eucharist and Wine in the other But Bread neither in the Substance nor in the Accidents can be called Christ's Bodie without a Trope as hath beene Confessed which is our first confutation of your Cardinall who concludeth that Epiphanius excludeth all Tropes out of Christ's speech of HOC Secondly THIS in the words of Christ hath neither equality of Proportion nor yet similitude of forme or figure being round with the body of Christ as Epiphanius willeth us to observe Which confuteth the Assumption of your Cardinall affirming that Epiphanius sought in the Eucharist a similitude of a Thing which seemed to be that which it is not Albeit Epiphanius expresly sheweth that there is no outward similitude betweene This and This spoken of that is to say Bread and Wine and that which is called Mine and Mine namely The Body and Blood of Christ Thirdly This spoken of by Christ in the Iudgement of Epiphanius as it is Round in figure so is it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Insensible but not passively as not perceiveable by sence for then it could not be said to be Round which with other outward Accidents are sensible to your selves but actively Insensible as not
and Wine in this Sacrament as he could discerne either Man from a Seraphin or Spirit or his own Fingers from a paire of Tongs Fiftly that the Sentence obiected against us is adorned with the same figure Hyperbole when he saith that No sensible thing is delivered unto us in this Sacrament and that our Senses herein may be deceived Words sore pressed by you yet twice unconscionably both because every Sacrament by your owne Church is defined to be A Sensible Signe and also for that you your selves confesse that Our senses cannot be deceived in their proper sensible Obiects Sixtly that Chrysostome himselfe well knew he did Hyperbolize herein who after that he had said No sensible thing is delivered unto us in this Sacrament notwithstanding he addeth immediately saying of this Sacrament that In things Sensible things Intelligible are given unto us Thus farre of the Rhetorique of Chrysostome Now are we to shew his Theologie and Catholique meaning as it were the Kernell of his speech Hee in the same Sentence will have us understand Man to consist of Body and Soule and accordingly in this Sacrament Sensible things are ministred to the Body as Symbols of Spirituall things which are for the Soule to feed upon So that a Christian in receiving this Sacrament is not wholly to exercise his mind upon the bodily Obiect as if that were onely or principally the thing offered unto us No for then indeed our Senses would deceive our Soules of their spirituall Benefit As for Transubstantiation and Absence of Bread Chrysostome in true Sence maketh wholly against it by explaining himselfe and paralleling this Sacrament with Baptisme As in Baptisme saith hee Regeneration the thing intelligible is given by water the thing sensible the Substance of water remaining Which proportion betweene the Eucharist and Baptisme is held commonly by ancient Fathers to the utter overthrow of Transubstantiation And that Chrysostome beleeved the Existence of Bread after Consecration hath beene already expressly shewne and is here now further proved For he saith of Bread after Consecration that Wee are ioyned together one with another by this Bread And now that you see the Nut cracked you may observe how your Disputers have swallowed the shell of Hyperbolicall Phrases and left the kernell of Theologicall Sence for us to content our selves withall Furthermore for this is not to be omitted the other Testimony of Chrysostome is spun and woven with the same Art which saith of Consecrating this Sacrament that Man is not to thinke it is the hand of the Priest but of Christ himselfe that reacheth it unto him seeing immediately after as it were with the same breath it is added It is not the Minister but God that Baptizeth thee and holdeth thy head Thus farre concerning the Iudgement of Sences which hath beene formerly proved at large both by Scriptures and Fathers wee draw nearer our marke which is your Transubstantiation Fourthly the Vnconscionablenes of your Disputers in urging other Figurative Sayings and Phrases of the Fathers of Bread Changed Transmuted c. into the Body of Christ for proofe of a Transubstantiation thereof in a Proper Sence SECT VII SVch words as these Bread is the Body of Christ It is made the Body of Christ It is Changed Translated Trans-muted Transelementated into the Body of Christ are Phrases of the highest Emphasis that you can find in the Volumes of Antiquity which if they were literally meant according to your Romish Sence there ought to be no further Dispute But if it may evidently appeare by the Idiome of speech of the same Fathers that such their sayings are Tropicall and sometimes Hyperbolicall then shall we have iust Cause to taxe your Disputers of as great Vnconscionablenes if not of more in this as in any other For whensoever they find in any Father as in Eusebius these words The Bread is the Body of Christ they obiect it for Transubstantiation but Vnconscionably First seeing that the Fathers doe but herein imitate our Lord and Master Christ who said of the Bread This is my Body which hath beene proved by Scriptures and Fathers to be a Figurative and unproper speech Secondly seeing that they use the same Dialect in other things as Cyrill of Sacred Oyle saying this is Charisma the Gift of Grace as hee called also the Holy Kisse a Reconciliation and others the like as you have heard Thirdly seeing that you your selves have renounced all proper Sence of all such Speeches because things of different natures cannot possibly be affirmed one of another for no more can it be properly said Bread is man's Body than we can say An Egg is a Stone as you have confessed Againe Some Fathers say Bread is made Flesh as S. Ambrose obiected but Vnconscionably knowing First that you your selues are brought now at length to deny the Body of Christ to be Produced out of Bread Secondly knowing the like Idiome of Fathers in their other speeches Chrysost saying that Christ hath made us his owne Body not only in Faith but in deed also And Augustine saying that Christians themselves with their Head which ascended into heaven are one Christ yea and Pope Leo saying of the party Baptized that Hee is not the same that he was before Baptisme by which saith he the Body of the party Regenerate is made the Flesh of Christ crucified Finally Venerable Bede saith Wee are made that Body which we receive In all which the word Made you know is farre from that high straine of Transubstantiation Wee draw yet nearer to the Scope Wee may not deny but that the Fathers sometimes extend their voyces higher unto the Praeposition Trans as Transit Transmutatur signifying a Change and Trans-mutation into the Body of Christ Every such Instance is in the opinion of your Doctours a full demonstration of Transubstantiation it selfe and all the wits of men cannot saith one Assoyle such Obiections Wherein they shew themselves altogether Vnconscionable as hath beene partly declared in Answering your Obiected Sayings of Ambrose In aliud Convertuntur of Cyprian his Panis naturâ mutatus of Cyrils Trans-mutavit and as now in this Section is to be manifested in answering your other Obiections to the full The Father Greg. Nyssen comparing the Body of Christ with Manna which satisfied every man's tast that received it saith that The Body of Christ in this Sacrament is changed into whatsoever seemeth to the Receivers appetite convenient and desired This is obiected by your Cardinall to prove Transubstantiation but First Vnconscionably because it is in it selfe being literally understood euen in your owne iudgements incredible For what Christian will say that the Body of Christ is Transubstantiated into any other thing much lesse into whatsoever thing the appetite of the Receiver shall desire No. But as Manna did satisfie the bodily Appetite so Christ's Body to the Faithfull is food satisfying the Soule in
severall Churches What shall we then further say concerning a Being of a Body in divers places at once Surely that which hath beene plentifully proved already that such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is egregiously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well in Divine as in naturall Philosophy because as this whole Discourse sheweth they have verified that saying of Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAP. VII Of the fourth Romish Contradiction against the words of Christ MY BODY by teaching it to be Organicall and not Organicall Divisible and Indivisible SECT I. THe Question is not now of the Mysticall presence of Christ his Body in the Sacrament which we with the Fathers especially Greg. Nyssen confesse to be whole as well in a part of Bread consecrated as in the whole loafe even as the Image of the King may be as perfect in a penny as in a shilling But neither hee nor any Father ever said that a little Hoast which boast you call Christ is equall with a great Hoast No for the Fathers in the Councell of Nice absolutely denyed this nor yet is Christ wholly represented in the least part of the Hoast as your Fathers of Trent have taught because no such part can resemble Totum Christum whole Christ Sacramentally which is not of sufficient bignes to be sensibly eaten in the nature of nourishment thereby to resemble the Spirituall nourishment of our Soules which is the Body of Christ So that all you have said maketh iust nothing for the Corporall and materiall Presence of Christs Body which we further impugne That it is necessary the Body of Christ wheresoever consist of distinct members and proportions of a Bodie SECT II. THe Body of Christ as we professe had perfect Dimensions and Distinctions of parts an head exposed to pricking with thornes a face to buffers a backe to scourges eyes to visible noddings and mockings eares to blasphemies hands and feet to piercing with nayles This is that Body which we confesse to be the Body of Christ and which we celebrate in the use of this Sacrament in Remembrance that he had a Body consisting of proportion of divers parts distinct one from another Two of your Cardinals doe both answere that Quantity magnitude proportion and extension of parts are unseparably united to the Body of Christ in this Sacrament or else saith one If the Nose should stand where the Eye is and the Eye where the Nose is it should be a confused Monster So they So necessary it is even in your owne faith that the Bodie of Christ consist of Organicall parts distinct one from another That the Romish Church hath decreed a doctrine of Corporall Presence of a Body of Christ withall the parts thereof in the least indivisible point of the Hoast SECT III. THe Canons of that Councell of Trent decreed as a Doctrine of Faith necessary to salvation to beleeve That the Body of Christ in this Sacrament is whole in every part of the Hoast whereby is meant saith your Iesuite The whole Body of Christ is in every albeit the least part of the Hoast So he But we demand how then shall the Body of Christ but want proportion of distinct parts which you say are Vnseparably united to a Body You distinguish that the Body of Christ being in this Sacrament hath extension of parts of a Body distinctly in it selfe but in respect of the Place or of the formes of Bread under which it is the whole Body is without distinction in every least Part and indivisible Point thereof CHALLENGE THis is the common Resolution of the now Church of Rome The exact discussion of this one point will in it selfe illuminate the eyes of any Reader to discerne betweene the Spirit of Truth and of Errour namely to know that there cannot be a greater Contradiction and consequently Impossibility than for a Body consisting of proportionable dimensions of Parts such as are Hands Legs Eyes and other Organicall members to have Being any where without Extension Commensuration and distinct Proportion of the same to the space wherein it is as the Propositions following will prove That the former Romish Tridentine Article is new and contrary to the nature of an Organicall and humane Body in the Iudgement of Romish Doctors of latter times SECT IV. ALbertus Scotus Aegidius are recounted amongst your learned and Ancient Schoolemen who as your Iesuite testifieth Thought it impossible that a Body that hath extension of parts should be contained in an indivisible point The same opinion is ascribed by your Iesuites as ancient unto Durand and Occham Now what greater iniury can there be than after that it was lawfull for a thousand and foure hundreth yeares since the Ascension of Christ for any Christian to professe with your ancient Schoole-men an Impossibility that The Body of Christ is whole in everie the least part of the Hoast to impose upon men's consciences as an Article of Faith so fond and so palpable a figment That which seemed to the above-named Durand and Occham such an Opinion whence as they thought it must needes follow that the Eyes must be where the Nose is the hand confounded with the legges which as your Cardinall Alan truly said were to make of the Body of Christ a confused Chaos and altogether monstrous That the Organicall parts of the Body of Christ must be proportionable to the Dimension of the places wherein they are is proved by the confessed Romish Principle it selfe SECT V. THe reason which your Cardinall layeth downe to prove it necessary that Christ his Body should have in it selfe according to the nature of a Body distinct parts of head and eyes and other Organs fit for the use of a reasonable Soule hee taketh from Magnitude which is an Extension of parts into their proportionable length bredth and depth this saith he is inseparably united to Christ his Body in its owne intrinsecall disposition in it selfe but not so saith he in regard of the place CHALLENGE THis your owne Reason may wee iustly retort upon your selves proving that if the naturall disposition of the Bodie of Christ be thus proportionably extended in it selfe it must be so likewise in respect of place and space because the three dimensions of the Body of Christ as you have confessed stand thus that one is an extension in Length another in Breadth the third in Depth and each of these three are distinct one from another Well then The arme must be here and thus farre longer than the foot the legge here and thus farre thicker than the finger the hand here and thus farre broader than the toe and accordingly distinctly in other parts But Hîc and Hucusque Heere and There thus farre and so farre being Relatives of space and place doe demonstratively shew that that Extension of distinct parts of the Body which they have in themselves divisibly the same they must necessarily have in respect of the Vbi place or
to be destitute of naturall and voluntary motion of Sence and of Vnderstanding SECT II. CAtholique Faith never conceived otherwise of the humane nature of Christ after the Resurrection but that he was able naturally of himselfe as hee was man to performe the perfect Acts which other men can who are of right constitution of Body and of sound understanding such as are the functions of Iudgement and reason and of appetite sence motion according to the liberty of his own will This Doctrine was above 1000. yeers Catholike But your now Romane faith is to beleeve as followeth in the conclusions set down by your Iesuite Suarez without as he saith the contradiction of any Divine in your Church First that Christ as he is in this Sacrament hath no power naturally of himselfe to move himselfe And this your owne daily experience hath brought you vnto whilst beleeuing Christs Corporall presence in the Hoast you shut him vp in a Boxe where you still find the same lying as destitute of power of motion as any other unconsecrated Bread which being put together with it lyeth so long untill they both equally waxe mouldy putrifye and ingender wormes Secondly that Christ in himselfe as being in this Sacrament hath no naturall faculty of sence nor ability without a miracle to heare or see c. Thirdly That he is voyd of all sensible appetite Lastly that without some miraculous power he cannot possibly apprehend in his vnderstanding any thing present nor yet remember any notions past So he That this is a new brutish and barbarous Doctrine destitute of all ancient Patronage either of written or of unwritten Tradition SECT III. HAve you any Text yea or yet pretext either of Scripture or humane Tradition for countenancing this so prodigious and monstrous a conception Certainly Scripture telleth us that Christ his Body by Resurrection is perfected in sense and Agility and his soule in Iudgement and Capacity Nor can you shew any Father in the Church of Christ within the Circumference of 1400. years after Christ who held this your doctrine so much as in a Dreame or who hath not esteemed the Body of Christ to be of the most absolute perfection we say no one Father or Teacher of the Evangelicall Truth once fancied this unchristian and false faith You must therefore derive this from him whom Christ calleth the Father of lies VVe shall give you good reason for this our Declamation That this Romish Doctrine is blasphemously Derogatory from the Maiesticall Body of Christ SECT IV. VVHat is this which we have heard Christ his humanity after his Resurrection not to have so much Capacity as a Child which is as he is here to vnderstand or imagine any thing done not thè power of a Moale or Mouse which is to heare or see not the faculty of a little Aut so as to move it selfe as if this were not an Antichristian blasphemy against that all-Maiesticall Body humane nature of Christ which being once sowen in infirmity is as the Scripture saith since risen in power Doe you heare In power saith the spirit of God shewing that Infirmity is changed into Potencie in the Body of every Christian and you have turned power into infirmitie even in Christ himselfe whom you have now transformed into an Idoll having eyes and seeth not eares and heareth not feete and walketh not heart and imagineth not and yet this you professe to adore as the person of the Sonne of God O the strength of Satanicall Delusion That this Romish Doctrine contradicteth your owne Principle SECT V. REmember your former generall Principle which wee acknowledged to be sound and true viz. All such Actions and Qualities which are reall in any Body without any relation to place cannot be said to be multiplied in respect of divers places wherein a Body is supposed to be As for Example The Body of Christ cannot be cold in one Altar and hot in another wounded and whole in ioy and griefe dead and alive at the same time The reason These are impossible say you because of Contradiction for that the same thing should be capable of such contrarieties it is repugnant to the understanding of man So you which is an infallible Truth when the Modus or Manner of a thing is compared to it selfe and not to any thing else it is necessary that at one and the same time the Modus be onely one the same Iesuite cannot be sicke in Iapan and sound and in health at Rome in the same instant CHALLENGE NOw say we beseech you is there not the like Contradiction to make the same Christ at the same time as hee is in Heaven intelligent and sensitive and as on earth ignorant and senslâ—sse Or powerfull to move of himselfe on the throne of Maiestie and absolutely Impotent as hee is on the Altar because these Attributes of Christ being Intelligent and potent equally have no Relation to place Notwithstanding all which you shame not to professe a senslesse ignorant and feeble Christ O come out of Babylon and be no more be witched by such her Sorceries CHAP. IX The sixt kind of Romish Contradiction against these words of Christ MY BODY as it is now most Glorious by making it most Inglorious SECT I. BEfore we proceed in discovering the ouglinesse of the Romish Doctrine in this point wee are willing to heare your Master Brerely his preface in your defence The carnall man saith hee is not for all this satisfied but standeth still offended at sundry pretended absurd and undecent indignities Calvin saying That he reiected them as unworthy of the Maiestie of Christ And Doctor Willet saith That they are unseemely and against the dignity of the glorious and impassible Body of Christ So he at once relating and reiecting their opinions That the Indignities whereunto the Body of Christ is made subiect by the Romish Doctrine are most uile and derogatory to the Maiestie of Christ SECT II. ALl Christian Creeds tell us that Christ our Saviour sitteth at the right hand of God that is in perfection of glory But your Iesuite Suarez delivereth it in the generall Doctrine of the Romish Divines That the Body of Christ remaineth so long under the formes of Bread and wine wheresoever untill they be corrupted And this he calleth a Generall Principle in your Romish profession Insomuch that the Body of Christ is moved wheresoever the formes of Bread are moved be it into the dirt or into the Dunghill Secondly that according to your Romish Decrees and publique Missals the same Body of Christ is vomited up by the Communicant yea and you have Cases about the vomiting of it whether vpon weaknes of Sâ—omacke or of Drunkennes Next that it is devoured of Mice and blowne away with wind for wee read of your Church Cases also for these in your Missals VVee thirdly demand whether you thinke it possible for meate that is undigested by reason of
now happen unto him but sine laesione that is without any hurt Wee answer that if hee should suffer nothing in his humanity passively to the Laesio corporis that is hurt of the Body yet should there be thereby in the opinion of men laesio dignitatis that is a lessening and obscuring of that his dignity which is set forth in Scripture and which our Article of faith concerning his Bodily sitting at the Right hand of God in Heaven teacheth us to be in all Celestiall glory and Maiestie This your Aquinas well saw when in regard of Indignity he iudged it An hainous wickednesse for any to thinke Christ should be inclosed in a Boxe appearing in his proper forme And what greater difference can it be for a Body to be Boxed under another forme more than when that one and the same Person is imprisoned whether open faced or covered whether in the day or in the night it mattereth not much for still the same person is shut up in Prison Againe if that these Circumstances now spoken of were not Arguments of Indignity why doe your Iesuites in a point of Opinion deny that Christ's Body is Transubstantiated into the flesh of the Communicant because of the Indignity against his Maiestie Come we to the point of Practice Let this be our lesson when there is Reverence in the use of a thing then there may be Irreverence and Indignity in the abuse thereof But your Church hath provided that the Priests be shaven and the Laicks abstaine from the Cup in a pretence of Reverence The first least some part of the Hoast which you beleeve to be the body of Christ should hang on the Priest's Beard the second least any whit of Christs Blood in the Cup should be split But how much more indignity must it needs be to be devoured of Mice Wormes and sometimes as your owne stories have related kept close in a Dunghill One word more If these seeme not sufficiently indigne because there is not Laesio corporis Hurt of the Body this being your onely Evasion what will you say of your framing a Christ unto your selves who as he is in this Sacrament Is you say without power of motion of sense and of understanding Why my Masters can there be Lamenesse Blindnesse Deafenesse and Impotencie it selfe without Hurt of the same partie so maymed c. This is worse than your dirty imagination of placing him in a Dunghill THE GENERALL CHALLENGE THese above specified Sixe Contradictions so plainly and plentifully proved by such forceable Arguments as the light of Divine Scripture hath authorized the profession of Primitive Fathers testified Confessions of Romish Doctors acknowledged and the Principles of your owne Romish learning in most points confirmed your Abrenunciation of your so many Grosse Errours may be as necessary as your persisting therein will be damnable Before we can end we are to consult with the Fathers of the Councell of Nice especially seeing that aswell Romanists as Protestants will be knowne to appeale to that Councell CHAP. X. Of the Canon of the Councell of Nice obiected for proofe of a Corporall Prescnce of Christ in the Eucharist SECT I. THis as it is delivered by your Cardinall taken out as he saith of the Vatican Library standeth thus Let us not here in this divine Table be in humblenesse intent unto the Bread and Cup which is set before us but lifting up our minds let us understand by faith the Lambe of God set upon that Table The Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the World offered unbloodily of the Priest And we receiving truly his Body and Blood let us thinke these to be the Symbols of our Resurrection For this Cause doe we receive not much but little that wee may understand this is not to satisfie but to sanctifie So the Canon The Generall approbation of this Canon by Both sides SECT II. SCarce is there any one Romish Author handling this Controversie who doth not fasten upon this Canon of Nice for the countenancing of your Romish Masse Contrarily Protestants as they are set downe by our Zanchy and your Bellarmine in great numbers among whom are Luther and Calvin with ioynt consent approve of this Canon one of them Bucer by name subscribing unto it with his owne hand in these words So I thinke in the Lord and I wish to appeare in this minde before the Tribunall Seat of God So they The right Explication of this Canon will be worthy our paines The state of the Difference concerning this Canon SECT III. THis as is propounded by your Cardinall standeth thus All saith he by the Lambe understand Christ as he is distinguished from the Symbols and Signes upon the Altar Next But the Protestants thinke saith he that the Councell admonisheth not to seeke Christ on the Altar but to ascend up unto him in Heaven by faith as sitting at the right hand of God But we all say saith he that the Councell would have us to attend unto the holy Table meaning the Altar below yet so that we see in it not so much the outward Symbols and Signes as that which lyeth hid under them viz. The Body and Blood of Christ So hee The difference then betweene him and us is no lesse than the distance betweene Aloft and Vnder that is betweene Heaven above and Earth below Let us set forward in our progresse but with easie and even paces to the end you may better understand the strength of our Proofes and rottennesse of your Obiections That the Nicene Councell is marvellously preiudiciall to your Romish Defence proved by five Observations Three here SECT IV. FIve points are chiefly observable in this Canon First is the nomination of Bread Secondly the mention of two Tables Thirdly the admonition to lift up our minds Fourthly the expression of the Reason thereof Fiftly the Confirmation of the same Reason First That which the Councell would that men be not too intent unto they call Bread after Consecration for the Errour which they would have avoyded was either the too much abasing of this Sacrament according to your Cardinals Glosse and then was it after Consecration because they needed not to have perswaded any to have too meane an estimation of the Bread unconsecrated which you your selves hold to be a common and prophane thing or else the Errour must have beene as indeed it was too high a valuation of the outward Element of Bread which must needs be so because it was consecrated and notwithstanding it being so consecrated in the Canon it is called Bread which your Fathers of the Councell of Trent would not have endured especially seeing that we find that your Latine Church was offended with the late Greeke Church for calling the parts of the Eucharist by the termes of Bread and Wine after the pronunciation of these words This is my Body by you called the words of Consecration Besides they so call them Bread
fire thereon and both of them were immediatly burnt with fire from Heaven and perished Belshazzar will needs carouze in the sacred bowles of Gods Temple in the contempt of God and of his Law and behold a writing upon the wall signifyng that his dayes were at an end as it came to passe And yet was there not any peculiar existence of God in these Things Boyes are mocking God's Prophet in Bethel by noting him for a Bald-pate and are devoured by Beares The People loathing Manna are choaked with Quailes If sacred stories will not preuaile peradventure your owne Legends will rellish better with you so then your Bozius will tell you of them Who were suddainly strucke with the plague called Saint Anthonies plague only for seeking to pull downe and demolish Saint Anthonies Image Have you faith to beleeve this and can you not conceive a like right of Iudgement against the Prophaners of the Sacramentall Image of Christ himselfe Be it therefore furthermore knowne unto you that the Sacrament which is celebrated by Protestants although it containe no Corporall Vnion of the body of Christ yet is it not so bare Bread as your Doctors have calumniously suggested unto you but that God hath manifested his Curses upon prophane Communicants and Contemners of this holy Mysterie which hath in it a Sacramentall Vnion of the Bodie and Blood of Christ One example whereof we reade is of one that being afflicted in Conscience for his Abuse of the Sacrament in receiving it but in one kind Did cast himselfe head-long out of a window and so died The other is that which he who now writeth these things saw and can testifie viz. A Batchelour of Arts being Popishly affected at the time of the Communion tooke the Consecrated Bread and forbearing to eate it convayed and kept it closely for a time and afterwards threw it over the wall of the Colledge but a short time after not induring the torment of his guilty Conscience he threw himselfe head-long over the Battlements of the Chappell and some few houres after ended his life Thus farre of this Subiect concerning an Vnion with Christ as it is professed in our Church A Confutation of the Romish professed Corporall Coniunction of Christ his Bodie with the Bodies of the Communicants SECT VI. I. That the Errour of the Capernaites Ioh. 6. was an opinion of the Corporall Eating of the flesh of Christ MAster Brerely the Author of the Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse lately published and largely applauded by all of your profession doth bestow a whole Section in explicating the Errour of the Capernaites so that it must wholy reflect forsooth upon the Protestants It is not needfull we should deny that in this Chapter of Saint Iohn Christ doth speake of the Eucharist which if we did we might be assisted by your owne Bishop Iansenius together with divers others whom your Iesuite Maldonate confesseth to have beene Learned Godly and Catholique yet fretteth not a little at them for so resolutely affirming that in this Chapter of Saint Iohn there was no speech of the Eucharist because by this their opposition hee was hindred as the c Iesuite himselfe saith That he could not so sharply and vehemently inueigh against Protestants Let it then be supposed as spoken of Sacramentall eating with the mouth as some of the Fathers thought but yet only Sacramentally and not properly as by them will be found true We returne to the Discourse of your Romish Priest Christ having spoken saith he of eating his flesh and the Capernaites answering How can he give us his flesh to eate They undorstood eating with the mouth yet were a speciall observation never reproved of Christ for mistaking the meaning of his words a strong reason that they understood them rightly but for not believing them and Christ often repeating the eating of his flesh and drinking of his Blood and requiring them to beleeve and when he saith The flesh profiteth nothing it is the Spirit that quickeneth it is not spoken to exclude the Reall Presence or to qualifie his former sayings but to admonish them not to iudge things by carnall reason and yet more euidently in the words following There are some of you that beleeve not He said not saith Saint Augustine there be some among you that understand not So plainly did hee hereby instruct them not how to understand but to beleeve for had he for their better understanding intended hereby to have qualified or corrected his former sayings as to be meant Eating spiritually by Faith he would have explained himselfe in plaine tearmes and so have satisfied the Iewes Vpon which premises I doe conclude that because our Sauiour did reprove his sorupulous hearers not for want of understanding but for want of beleefe it doth from thence and other premises abundantly follow that his fore-said promise was not obscure and figurative but plaine and literall for our reciving of him without out our bodily mouthes Thus farre your celebrious Priest namely so as in almost all other his Collections not understanding the Truth of the matter His Inferences stand thus First Christ reprehended the Capernaites for not Beleeving his words concerning Eating his Flesh but not for not for understanding them Therefore it followeth that they understood his words of Eating his flesh right well Secondly They understood his speech Therefore Christ in saying The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit that quickneth did not thereby qualifie his former speech to instruct their understanding Thirdly They needed no instruction for their understanding Therefore Christs words of Eating his flesh were not figurative Fourthly these his words were not figurative Therefore his words of Eating his flesh teach a Corporall Presence thereof in the Sacrament Each of these Consequences are delivered as ignorantly as confidently For common learning teacheth that there is a double consideration of Truth in every True speech the one is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is True the second is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is the Truth or true sence thereof To the apprehending of the first is required Beliefe whereupon Aristotle gave that Rule to every Scholler that intendeth to learne the principles of any Art to wit Oportet discentem credere A Scholler is bound to beleeve The other point touching the Truth or true sence what it is is the obiect of man's understanding so that there is a great difference betweene both These in the case of a Reprehension As for example the Master teaching the definition of Logicke saying It is an Art of disputing rightly may iustly reproue his Scholler for his not beleeving it because his not beleeving is wilfull so can hee not for his not understanding it for that hee therefore learneth because hee doth not understand except it be that being taught he either through carelesse negligence or else affected ignorance will not understand This agreeth with the Current of Scripture Ioh.
Manichâ—es had of their Corporall bread As for example that Christ should be Fastened or tied to mens guts by eating and let loose againe by their belching Which Hereticall Doctrine how shall it not accord with your Romish which hath affirmed a passage and Entrance of Christs body into and Cleaving unto mens Guts by eating and a Repasse againe by Vomitting albeit the matter so fast and loose in the iudgement of St. Augustine be Bread still after Consecration The Second Calumniation against the true Professours was by others who testified that Catholikes in the Eucharist adored Ceres and Bacchus after the manner of the Paganes What answere doe you thinke would a Romish Professor have made in this Case doubtles according to your doctrine of Corporall presence by saying thus Whereas some affirme that we adore Bread and Wine in this Sacrament yet the truth is wee adore that whereinto Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated to wit the Bodie and blood of Christ the sonne of God But S. Augustine as one fancying nothing lesse Wee saith he are farre from the Gods of the Pagans for we embrace the Sacrament of Bread and wine This is all and all this he spake after Consecration Whereupon we are occasioned to admonish our Christian Reader to take heed of the fraudulent practice of the Romish Sect because of their abusing of the Writings of ancient Fathers Whereof take unto you this present example The Paris Edition An. 1555. hath the Sentence of S. Augustine thus Noster Panis Mysticus fit nobis non nascitur But the last Paris Edition Ann. 1614. hath foisted in and inserted Corpus Christi albeit the sence be full without this Addition to signifie that Common Bread is by Consecration made Mysticall or Sacramentall according to S. Augustine his owne exposition saying that Wee embrace the Sacrament of Bread and Cup and also the Phrase of Panis fit corpus Christi Bread is made Christs Bodie be repugnant to a common Principle of all Christianity which never beleeved a Body of Christ made of Bread So that the foresaid Addition is not a correcting but a Corrupting of the Text. CHALLENGE HOw might it concerne you upon these premises if there be in you any spirit of Christianity to suffer S. Augustine to be your Moderator in this whole Cause who upon the speech of Christ Except you eate my flesh giveth this generall Rule That whensoever we fiâ—d in Scripture any speech of commanding some â—eynous Act or forbidding some laudable thing there to hold the speech to be figurative even as this is of eating the flesh of Christ So hee And what this figurative speech signifieth this holy Father declareth in the next words It Commandeth saith hee that wee doe Communicate of the passion of Christ and sweetly and profitably keepe in memory that his flesh was crucified for us Thus you see hee excludeth the Corporall Sensuall and Carnall Eating that hee might establish the spirituall of mind and Memory If St. Augustine by this his counsell might have prevailed with your Disputers and Doctors they never had fallen upon so many Rocks and Paradoxes nor sunke into such puddles of so nastie and beastly Absurdites as have beene now discovered which by your Doctrine of Corporall Presence you are plunged into CHAP. VII The Third Corporall manner of Vnion of Christ his Body by a Bodily mixture with the Bodies of the Communicants professed by some Romanists at this day is Capernaiticall SECT I. WEe heare your Iesuite reporting that Many latter Divines in your Church have beene authorized in these daies to write labouring to bring the Romane Faith to so high a pitch as to perswade a Reall naturall corporall and substantiall Vnion of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants even almost all of late saith he who have written against Heretiques So hee Among others we find your Cardinall Alan who will have it Really mingled with our flesh as other meates Transubstantiation onely excepted as did also Cardinall Mendoza And what else can that sound which we have heard out of your Roman Missal praying that The Bodie of Christ eaten may cleave unto your gutts iust Manichean-wise as you have heard even now out of St. Augustine CHALLENGE Confuting and dispelling this foggie myst of Errour by your owne more common confessions THis first opinion of mingling the Body of Christ corporally with man's Bodily parts what thinke you of it your Iesuite calleth it Improbable and as repugnant to the dignity and maiesty of this Sacrament Rash and absurd Iustly because if this Doctrine were true you must likewise grant that the same Bodie of Christ which you say is eaten of myce and Rats is mingled within their guts and entrails and so such vile Creatures should be as really capable of Communion with Christ's Body as the most sanctified among Christians can be for which the Beasts themselues if they could speake would as the Asse unto Balâ—am condemne the foolishnes of your Prophets namely those of whom you have heard your Iesuite confessing that this is the Doctrine of Almost all late Diuines which is to adde one Capernaiticall Absurdity to another It onely remaineth to know with what Spirits these your New Divines have thus written your Suarez telleth vs saying That they speake so in hatred of Heretiques meaning Protestants against whom they writ Who would not now magnifie the Profession of Protestants to observe their Adversaries to be so farre transported with the Spirit of malignity and giddines against them that by the iust Iudgement of God they are become so starke blind in themselves as that they fall into opinions not onely as is confessed Rash and Absurd but also Capernaitically-Hereticall And indeed they who imagined a Corporall Eating how should they not aswell have conceived a Corporall fleshly Commixtion CHAP. VIII Of the Romish Obiections out of the Fathers for proofe of Corporall Presence and Corporall vnion with the Bodies of the Communicants SECT I. IT cannot be denyed but that many antient Fathers are frequent in these kind of Phrases Our Bodies are nourished and augmented by the flesh of Christ and his Body is mingled with our flesh as melted waxe with waxe yea we have a corporall and naturall vnion with him These kind of sayings of the Holy Fathers have beene obiected not onely by your new Divines for proofe of a Corporall Coniunction of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants but also by your Cardinall and all other like Romish Professors for defence of a Corporall Presence of the Body of Christ in this Sacrament but with what coloured Consciences white or blacke they have beene so obiected commeth now to be scanned by iust Processe That the obiected Sentences of Fathers doe not intend a Corporall Coniunction so properly called even by the Confession of Romish Divines of best esteeme SECT II. ALl your Obiectors produce the Testimonies of Fathers for proofe
upon which not upon whom which point is confirmed in that which followeth Thirdly therefore he illustrateth The Comparison saith he is not absolutely betweene the Sacrifice of Abel and of Christ but in respect of the faith and devotion of the Priest and people that they with like faith may offer as Abel did But this piece of Answer is that which is called in Musicke Discantus contra punctum for the prayer is directly Looke downe propitiously upon these as thou didst upon the gifts of Abel The Comparison then is distinctly betweene the Gifts and not betweene the Givers Yea but not absolutely so meant saith he be it so yet if it be so meant but in part that Christ who is Propitiation it selfe shall be prayed for to be propitiously and favourably looked upon by God the prayer is Sacrilegious in an high degree Fourthly his Reason It is knowen saith he that the Sacrifices of sheepe and Oxen had nothing in themselves whereby to pacifie or please God the Scripture saying that Abel offered a better Sacrifice than Cain And againe God had respect to Abel and to his Gifts So he Which is the very Reason that perswadeth Protestants to call that your Prayer most Sacrilegious because whereas the Gifts of Abel were but Sheepe c. you notwithstanding compare them with the offering up of Christ saying As thou didst the Gifts of Abel For although it be true that the Gift of Abel was accepted for the faith of the Giver and not the Giver for his Gift yet if you shall apply this to the point in Question then your Gift in your Opinion being Christ and your Givers but simply men whom you have called Priest People it must follow that Christ is accepted for the faith of the Priest and People and not the Priest and People for Christ which maketh your Prayer far more abominably Sacrilegious And not much lesse is that which followeth praying God to command his Angell to cary if the Gift be He Christ into heaven contrary to the Article of our Catholique Faith which teacheth us to beleeve his perpetuall Residence in heaven at the right hand of the Father Hee answereth It is not meant that God would command his Angell to cary Christs Body but our prayers and desires by their intercession unto God for us So he Which is as truly a false Glosse as the former for in the Tenour of your Masse the Subject of your prayer is Holy Bread of life and Cup of salvation The prayer is plainly thus Vpon which O Lord looke propitiously and immediately after Command These to be caried by thy Angell Marke These viz. That Bread of life and Cup of salvation even that which you call The Body and Blood of Christ as corporally Present which maketh your prayer to be Sacrilegious still and your Expositors that we may so say miserably Ridiculous That the former Romish Prayer as it was Antient doth in the then true meaning thereof condemne the now Romish Church of the former Sacrilegious Innovation SECT IV. FOR to thinke that it should be prayed that God would be propitious to Christ were an Execrable opinion even in the Iudgement of our Adversaries themselves who for avoidance thereof have obtruded an Exposition as farre differing from the Text as doth This from That or Christ from the Priest as you have heard But whither will hee now Your Cardinall telleth you that the words of your Romish Canon are antient such as are found in the Missalls of S. Iames of Clement Pope of Rome of Basil of Chrysostome and of Ambrose You will hold it requisite that wee consult with these Liturgies set out by your selves for the better understanding of the Tenour of your Romish Masse The Principall Quaere will be whether Antiquity in her Liturgies by praying to God for a propitious Acceptation and admittance into his celestiall Altar meant as your Cardinall answered Propitiousnesse towards Priest and People in respect of their faith and devotion and not towards the Things offered distinctly in themselves In the pretended Liturgie of S. Iames before Consecration the prayer to God is To accept the Gifts into his celestiall Altar even the Gifts which he called The fruits of the earth And then after for the Parties as well Priest as People To sanctifie their soules In the Liturgie of Basil before Consecration it is prayed to God that the Receiving the Gifts into his celestiall Altar would also concerning the Parties send his Graâ—e and Spirit upon them And no lesse plainly Pope Clemens teaching before Consecration to pray God who received the Gifts of Abel gratiously to behold these Gifts propounded to the honour of his Sonne Christ expressely differenceth this Sacrifice done in honour of Christ from Christ himselfe who is honoured thereby And after Consecration to Beseech God through Christ to accept the Gift offered to him and to take it into his Celestiall Altar where the prayer to God is not to accept of Christ but of the Gift for Christ's sake and to the honour of Christ in whom God is Propitious unto us wee say againe the Gift for Christ and not Christ for the Gift what can be more plaine against all Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament and to receive it into his Celestiall Altar but how by intercession of Angells No but expressely thus By Christ the Mediatour In the Liturgie of Chrysostome before Consecration God is prayed unto and supplicated thus We beseech thee to send thy Spirit upon us and upon the Gifts set before us Even as Ambrose explaineth his Supplication after Consecration for God To accept this Oblation namely that which hee called Holy Bread and Cup. If therefore these former Formes may interpret your Romane Liturgie as it was Antient the prayer therein to God desiring him to be Propitious must have relation to the things above specified called Holy Bread of life and Cup of Salvation as distinguished from Priest and People Wherefore your Romane Missalls being so Antient in this one point in praying God after Consecration to be Propitious to that which is called the Bread of life eternall and Cup of everlasting salvation lest it might carry a Sacrilegious Sence to wit that the Body of Christ is here the proper Subject of the Eucharist and consequently to need a Propitiation to God by virtue of mens prayers thereby greatly derogating from the meritorious Satisfaction of Christ you ought to reduce this your Romane Canon to the Orthodox meaning of Antient Liturgies above mentioned and to understand it Sacramentally only namely our Objective Representation Commemoration and Application thereof by us which is our Act of Celebration To the former vast heape of Sacrilegious Positions and Practices wee may adde your other many vile and impious Indignities offered to the all-glorious Sonne of God in making his sacred Body in your owne opinions obnoxious to the Imprisoning in Boxes Tearing with mens Teeth Devouring
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