before the Councel of Laterane under Pope Innocent the Third viz. Anno 1215 whom therefore your Cardinall doth taxe for want of reading But either were your Iesuite Coster and Cardinall Perron as ignorant of Ancient Learning as Scotus or else they gave small Credit to that Councel cited by Bellarmine under Gregory the Seventh For your Iesuite saith in direct tearmes that r Ante trecentos Annos in Concilio Lateranensi ad ifrius rei tam admirabilis clariorem explicarionem usurpatem fuit nomen Transubstantiationis ut intelligant Christiani substantiam Panis in substantiam corporis Christi converti Coster Ies Enchir. cap 8. §. De Transubstantitione The name of Transubstantiation was used in the Councel of Laterane for a clearer explication that Christians might understand the Change of Bread into the Body of Christ Can you say then that it was universally so understood before But your Cardinall Perron more peremptorily concludeth that s Si nihil planè ad Doctrinam Ecclesiasticam spectans in Concilio Lateranensi ex communi Patrum assensu decretum esset sequeretur posse ut falsum impugnari Articulum de Transubstantiatione Cardie Per. en sa Harangue an tiers Estat pag. 33. As witnesseth our P. Presloa alias Widdington Discuss Concib Latcran part 1. §. 1. pag. 12. If it had not beene for the Councel of Laterane it might be now lawfull to impugne it So he A plaine acknowledgement that it was no Doctrine of Faith before that Councel even as Scotus affirmed before But we pursue this Chase yet further to shew That the Article of Transubstantiation was not defined in the Councel of Laterane under Pope innocentius the Third SECT IV. YOur owne learned Romish t Venêre multa in Consultationem nec decerni quicquam tamen aptè potuit eò quòd Pontifex quo profectus est tollendae Discordiae gratiâ mortuus est Petusij Platina in vita innocentij Decerni nihil apertè potuit edita sunt quaedam c. Nauclerus An. 1215. meaning after the Councell Ad festum Sanctae Andreae protractum nihil dignum memoriâ actū nisi quod Orientalis Ecclesia c. God fridus Monumeter sis Math. paris Histor minor Concilium illud Generale quod primâ fronte grandia prae se tulit in risum scomma desijt in quo Papa omnes accedentes ludisicatus est illi enim cum nihil in eo Concilio geri cernerent redeundi veniam petierunt Thus farre out of Widdrington alias Preston in his Booke above cited Priest a long time Prisoner did under the name of Widdrington produce many Historians viz. Platina Nauclerus Godfridus Monumetensis Matthew Paris and others to testifie as followeth That many things fell under Consultation in that Councel but nothing was openly defined the Pope dying at Perusium Insomuch that some of these Authours sticke not to say that This Generall Councel which seemed to promise bigge and mighty matters did end in scorne and mockery performing nothing at all Wee might adde that the supposed Acts of this Councel were not published untill more than two hundred yeares after No marvell then if some u Scholastici quidam hanc Doctrinam de Transubstantiatione non valdè Antiquam esse dixerunt inter quos Scorus Gabriel Biel. Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disp 30. §. 1. Schoole-men among whom were Scotus and Biel held Transubstantiation not to have beene very ancient And another that x In Synaxi serò definivit Ecclesia Transubstantiationem diù satis erat Credere sivè sub pane sive sub quocunque modo adesse verum Corpus Christi Eras in 1. Cor. 7. pag. 373. It was but lately determined in the Church Nay Master Brerely if his opinion be of any Credit among you sticketh not to say that y Mr. Brerely in his Liturgie Tract 2. §. 11. pag. 158. Transubstantiation compleat that is both for forme and matter was not determined untill the last Councel of Trent that is to say not untill the yeare of our Lord 1560. Do you not see how much licking this ougly Beare had before it came to be formed and yet it will appeare to be but a Monstrum horrendum take it at the best as it is now to be proved by the full discovering of the paipable Falshood thereof CHAP. III. The Definition of Transubstantiation in the Church of Rome and of the Falshood thereof SECT I. THe Councel of Trent saith your a Concil Tridentinum dicit fieri Conversionem totius substantiae Panis id est tam formae quà m materiae in Substantiam Corporis Christi Bellarmia lib. 3. de Eucharist Cap. 18. §. Si objicias Concil Trident. Sess 13. Cap. 4. Cardinall hath defined that this Conversion is of the whole Substance of Bread that is aswell forme as matter into the Substance of Christ's Body Our First proofe of the Falshood of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation by the Contradictions of the Defenders thereof whereby they bewray their No-Beleefe of the Article THe Opinions of the Doctours of your Church concerning the nature of this Conversion are by you reduced into these two maners namely that it is either by Production out of the substance of Bread or else by Adduction of the Body of Christ unto the forme of Bread CHALLENGE VVHatsoever it is which you will seeme to professe never shall you perswade us that you do indeed believe either of the pretended Formes of Transubstant ation First not by Production because as the same b Productio est quando terminus ad quem non existat ideò vi Conversionis necessariò producitur ut aqua in vinum Adductiva autem c. Bellar. lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 18. §. Secundò notandum Productiva non est quia Corpas Domini praeexistit Idem ibid. §. Ex his Cardinall truly argueth Conversion by Production is when the thing that is produced is not yet extant as when Christ converted water into wine wine was not Extant before it was Produced out of the substance of water But the Body of Christ is alwaies Extant therefore can it not be said to be Produced out of the substance of Bread So he Which Productive maner of Transubstantiation could not be believed by your Iesuites c De ratione Transubstantiationis non est ut Substantia in quam dicitur fieri Transubstantirio producatur aut conservetur per illam imo qui hoc modo defendunt Transubstantiationem in Sacramento ad quoddam genus Philosophiae excogitatum potius quà m ad verum necessarium rem reducere videntur Vasq Ies Tom. 2. Disp 214. cap. 4. Vasquez and d Praeter Adductivam Conversionem evidenter refutavimus omnes modos Conversionis qui vel dici vel singi possunt Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Qu est 75. Disp 50. §. 5. §. Tertiò Principaliter Mr Fisher in his Rejòynder talketh fondly of a Reproduction as of Carcasses converted into men in which Change any One may
properly Mingling of Christ's Flesh with the flesh of him that Communicateth of this Sacrament and have beene Confuted by your owne Jesuites for the same Opinion judging it to be Rash Absurd and Repugnant to the Majestie of the Sacrament Your Aquinas as you have * See the former section heard held it an Hainous wickednesse for any man to thinke that Christ should be inclosed in a Boxe appearing in his proper forme Neverthelesse Master Fisher as the Cat that covereth her excrement with dust meant by this his former Answer to cover or at least-wise colour your Romish Barbarous Indignities in professing the * See Booke 5. cap. 7. Cleaving of Christs Bodie unto your guts the vomiting of it and a passable transmitting thereof unto the Seege and other the like execrable Romish Indignites against the Body of Christ so as the holy Fathers abhorred the very thought thereof But wee chose rather to confute Master Fisher by Master Fisher himselfe who in his Answer to Saint Augustine who called the Capernaiticall maner of Eating Christs Flesh Flagitious saith that Saint Augustine excluded the grosse imagination of Eating Christs Body in his proper Shape tearing it in pieces with their teeth Do you not heare The opinion of Tearing Christs Flesh with mens teeth in his Proper Shape he termed Grosse or Absurd Do you but now compare this his Confession with his former Assertion which was that wee are Rather to beleeve a doctrine because it seemeth Absurd and then try him when you please how hee will avoyd this Dilemma Either ought Master Fisher to beleeve the Eating of Christs Flesh in it's Proper Shape or he ought not If hee say hee ought then must hee turne Capernaite to beleeve the Body of Christ to be eaten with tearing it in pieces with mens teeth in it's Proper Shape which hee himselfe disliketh as Grosse and Absurd and Saint Augustine abhorred as Flagitious And if hee Answer that hee ought not then is his former Position both Flagitious Grosse and Absurd in affirming that A doctrine is the rather to be beleeved because it seemeth Impossible From these Generalls we passe to his Particulars and specialls to wit in his particular Exposition Reasons Inferences and Confirmations c. Master Fisher his Particular Exposition of Christs words This is my Body as the Foundation of the former seeming Romish Absurdities and Indignities Hee thinking to qualifie all the Absurdities and Indignities which necessarily follow upon your Romish Exposition of Christs words as being the foundation thereof in the First place insisteth upon Christs speech This is my Body Why should Catholikes feare saith hee any hard Sentence in respect of their prompt Credulity of Gods word taken in a plaine and proper Sense So he Our Reply revealing the Absurdities both of the Romish Exposition and of their Deduction of Transubstantiation from thence His Defence is that the Speech of Christ is to be interpreted in its plaine and proper Sense Now whatsoever Relation the word THIS hath in Christ's Speech it cannot without Absurdity be taken in a proper and literall Signification even by the Confession of your Romish Doctors themselves as hath beene * See Booke 2. cap. 1. plentifully proved For if as some of them affirme the Pronoune This 〈◊〉 be referred to Christ's Body as if Christ had sayd This my Body is my Body This Exposition hath bin exploded by some Romish Doctors of best note in your Church expressely calling it an Exposition very absurd in Tautologie And if the same This should betoken a Third thing named an Individuum vagum or confused Substance which is your Second Romish Exposition this likewise hath beene scornfully rejected by other of your Iesuits and Doctors as an Interpretation full of Absurdities And lastly if it shall be sayd to relate to Bread as to be sayd This Bread is my Body in a proper and literall Sense All your Romish Disputers with one Consent abandon this also as no lesse false than for to say a Man is an Asse or as one of them feared not to write to affirme Christ to be Iudas And were it that Christ's Speech This is my Body were taken properly yet the Doctrine of Transubstantiation which you doe erect upon this foundation would prove to be truly Absurd and Impossible even by the Confession of your owne Romish Doctors themselves who are in their patronizing of your Article of Transubstantiation distracted into two contrary Opinions some saying that the Change called Transubstantiation is made by Production of Christ's Body out of Bread Not so saith the other Partie holding this maner of Change as * See above Booke 3. Chap. ◠§. 1. Absurd as to affirme Christ's Body to have had any Existence before Christ had spoken these words The Second maner maintained by a later sort is a Change of Bread into Christ his Body by Adduction of the Body of Christ unto Bread No saith the Former Because this Change is but the changing of one Substance into the place of another and therefore a Translocation only and no Transubstantiation Now all these Three Interpretations and Three are all together with your Two maners of Change of Christ's Body thereby being thus utterly rejected by your owne Divines let us argue the Point with you upon these Premises Either all your other Doctors who have cashiered all the former Senses of Christ's Words even because of Absurdities had been Faithlesse or else your Iesuit Master Fisher which consequently followeth thereon in concluding that your Romish Doctors are Rather to be believed because they seeme to be Absurd was no better than Fantasticall Master Fisher his Particular Reason for Defence of his former Exposition as the Ground of Transubstantiation Numb 6. The Primitive Church saith hee preaching to Iewes and other Infidels the rest of the other Mysteries as of the Trinity and Incarnation yet kept secret as much as might be the Knowledge of the Mysteries of the Eucharist yea the Catechumenes and Novices before Baptisme were not fully instructed therein And their Reason was lest one should be scandalized and the other mocked This supposed I inferre c. Our Reply noting a double Errour in M r. Fisher's Reason His first Error is that hee supposeth that The Primitive Church did absolutely conceale the Eucharist from Pagans and Catechumenists and that more precisely than any other Mysteries each of which are * See Booke 7. cap. 3. proved to be false For neither could the Mystery of the Eucharist be sayd to have beene wholly concealed which the Fathers both preached in their Sermons and expressed in their publike Writings as is to be seene in the Bookes of Iustine Cyprian and other Fathers nor yet can it be truly affirmed that they more precisely kept secret this Sacrament than the other Mysteries seeing the same Primitive Fathers professed as strictly that They durst not reveale the Sacrament of Baptisme either to Pagans or Catechumenists as they did the Sacrament of the
acknowledged to have beene Apostolicall in their Resolutions the now Romish Church and her degenerate Profession must needs be judged Apostaticall Now 20 30 40 from the former Actuall we 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. Interpreation 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 a In scripture explicandà haeresis est manifesta sicut figurata propriè accipere ità quae sunt propriè dicta ad TropicaÌ„ locutionem detorquere nam in verbis Eunuchi sunt qui se castraÌ„t propter regnum coelorum c. Aug. and to the same purpose also lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ Saint Augustine saith of points of faith It is as manifest an Heresie in the interpretation of Scriptures to take figurative speeches properly as to take Proper speeches figuratively And such is the CAVEAT which b Hoc cavendum nisi in manifestum Haerescos scopulum impingere velimus Salm. Ies Tom. â— Proleg 12. pag. 227. Salmeron the Iesuite giveth you it will concerne both You and Vs as we will avoid the brand of Heresie to search exactly into the true sense 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 sense of these words will best appeare in the after-examination of the divers * See hereafter Booke 3. 4. 5. 6. Consequences of your owne Sense to wit your Doctrine of Transubstantiation Corporall and c Gratian Sacramenta Christi suscipiendo carnem ejus sanguinem materialiter significamus De consecrat dist 〈◊〉 Quà morte 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 literall sense then wee are to yeeld 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 do not so maintaine a Figurative sense 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 sense 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 three words which may be unto us as three keyes to unlocke the questioned Sense of Christs words wherof two are the Pronoune THIS and the Verbe IS not onely as they were then spoken by Christ himselfe but also as they are now pronounced by the Minister of Christ And the third key is the Pronoune MY whereof hereafter Wee begin with the word THIS The State of the Question about the word THIS When wee shall fully understand by your Church which a Conc. Trident. Sess 13. cap. 1. Verba illa à Christo commemorata à Divo Paulo repetita propriam significationem prae se ferunt holdeth a Proper and literall Signification what the Pronoune THIS doth demonstrate then shall wee truly inferre an infallible proofe of our figurative sense All Opinions concerning the Thing which the word THIS in the divers opinions of Authours pointeth at may be reduced to Three heads * âšœ Vasquez in 3. Thom. Disp 201. cap. 1. Omnes opiniones ad tres tantùm calsses reduci possunt nam quidam Hoc reserunt ad substantam panis alij ad aliquod commune quod statim post conversionem demonstret Denique nonnulli ad id solum quod in sine prolationis verborum quod est corpus as you likewise confesse namely to signifie either This Bread or This Body of Christ or else some Third thing different from them both Tell you us first what you hold to be the opinion of Protestants Lutherans and all Calvinists saith your b Lutherani omnes Calvinistae pronomen Hoc propane positum esse dicunt quià panem Christus in manu acceperat diâ—it Hoc est corpus meum Maâ—don Ies in Matth. 26. §. Hâ—c omnes Lutherus in verba Evangelistae Habent hunc sensum Hic panis est corpus meum Iesuite thinke that the Pronoune THIS pointeth out Bread But your Romane 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 wee 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 sense of Christ his Speech by the Confessions 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 pronunciation of the last syllable of this speech Hoc est corpus meum Because they are words * See hereafter let k. n. o. c. Practicall say they that is working that which they signifie namely The Body of Christ And this sense they call Most cleare and in their Iudgements there can be no better than this So your c Hoc designat corpus ut est in termino prolationis hic est sensus luculentissimus Stapleton Prompt Cath. serm Heb. sacra upon these words Hoc est corpus meum Stapleton d Hoc nihil aliud quà m corpus Christi demonstrat Sand. de visib Monarch Ad annum 1549 p. 629. Sanders together with e Demonstrat corpus ipsum in quod panis convertitur in sine propositionis nec est Tautologia quemadmodum neque in illo Hic est filius dilectus Bâ—rrad Ies de Inst Euch. c. 4. Barradius f Vrique pronomen Hoc quod attributi locum tenet necessariò spectat Hoc est inquit Christus corpus meum id est opus quod ego panem accipiens benedicens operor conficio corpus meum est Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 9. pag. 120. §. Ad hoc Of which last
clause of Salmeron Hoc id est Hoc opus I say onely that Opus erat Salmeroni medico Salemeron g Chavaus Ies Comment in formam juramenti fidei inscriptio libri est Professio verae fidei §. 49. pag. 468. Chavausius these last three being Iesuites to whom you may adde h In his booke of the Liturgie of the Masse pag. 138. Tract 2. Sect. 3. Master Brerely his Answere saying that these words Most evidently relate to Christs Body As evidently saith also your Iesuite i Nallouâ— his late Reply against Doctor Vâ—her pag 204. Malloun as one pointing at his Booke should say This is my Book CHALLENGE ARe not these Opinators in number many in name for the most part of great esteeme their Assertion in their owne opinion full of assurance and delivered to their Hearers as the onely Catholike Resolution And yet behold One whose name alone hath obtained an Authority equivalent to almost all theirs your Cardinall k Argumentum eorum qui volunt Pronomen Hoc demonstrate corpus est absurdum quòd in hujusmodi propositionibus quae significant id quod tunc fit cum dicitur Pronomina demonstrativa non demonstrare quod est sed quod erit Et ponunt Exempla ut si quis dum pingit lineam aut circulum dicat Haec est linea hic est Ciculus Quomodo etiam exponi debet Pronomen in illis verbis Domini Ioh. 25. Hoc est praeceptum meum Haec explicatio non videtur satisfacere propter duas causas Primò quià etsi Pronomen demoÌ„strativum demonstret rem futuram quandò nihil est praesens quod demonstretur ut in exemplis allatis tamen si quis digito aliquid ostendat dum pronomen essert valde absurdum videtur dicere pronomine illo non demoÌ„strari rem praesentem Atqui Dominus accepit panem illum porrigens ait Accipite Edite H. E. C. M. Videtur igitur demonstrasse panem Neque obstat quod propositio non significat nisi in fine totius prolationis Nam etsi ità est de propositione quae est ratio quaedam tamen Demonstrativa Pronomina mox indicant certum aliquid etiam antequam sequantur caeterae voces Et sane in illis verbis Bibite ex hoc omnes valdè durum est non demonstrari id quod erat sed id tantùm quod futurum erat Secundò si Pronomen Hoc demonstrat solùm Corpus verba speculativa erunt non practica Bellar lib. 1. de Euch cap. 11. §. Nota secundò 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 Meâ—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 bee sayd This is my Body âšœ With your Cardinall two other Iesuites take part ingenuously confessing that 1 Vasquez in 3. Thom. Disp 181. cap 12. Hoc non potest demonstrare nisi id quod est praesens And Iacob Gordonus Scotus Ies lib. controvers controver 4. cap. 1. num 4. 9. Si remâ—neret panis substantiâ— pronomen Hoc necessario demonstraret panis substantiam quae remanet ità ut sensus esset Hic panis est corpus meum nam pronomen Hoc non potest non demonstrare rem praesentem The Pronounce Hoc This in Christs words doth necessarily demonstrate a thing present A Reason pregnant enough in it selfe ratified by your publike Romane l Hujus vocis Hoc ea vis est ut rei praesentis substantiam demonstrer Catech. Conc. Trid. Decree cojussu pij Quinti Pontificis Edit ut in frontispicio libri cernitur Catechisme authorized by the then Pope Councel of Trent yet notwithstanding your fore-named Irish Iesuite hearing this Argument objected by Protestants rayleth downright calling it Accursed as judged by the Church Hereticall and indeed Abominable So he who with Others if they were of fit yeares might be thought to deserve the rod for forgetting their Generall Catechisme for defending an Exposition which even in common sense may be pronounced in your Cardinalls owne phrase very Absurd âšœ And that the Body of Christ is not the Thing present that can be demonstrated your Pope Innocent proveth Because Christ in pronouncing of the words This is my Body 2 Innocent 3. Papa lib. 3. de offic Missae cap. 26. Quaeritur quid demonstravit Christus cum dixisset Hoc est corpus meum non corpus quia nondum illa verba protulerat ad quam prolationem panem mutavit in corpus Did not as yet utter the words whereby the Bread was changed into his Body Absurd therfore must your former Interpretation needs be âšœ else shew us if you can but the least semblance of Truth for that Opinion Similitudes objected 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 m Bellar. See before at let k They in drawing a Line or a Circle should say in the making thereof This is a Line or this is a Circle or as if the Smith say n Haec locutio Hoc est corpus meum habet virtutem factivam conversionis panis in Corpus Christi ut aâ— Thomas Pro simili quod rudi intellectui satisfacere valeat dari potest ut si Faber accepto ferro clavum subito motu formans dicat Hic est Clavus Clavus non est cum profertur oratio sed fieri inter proferendum esse per prolationem verborum Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 13. pag. 81. Col. 1. Ex aliorum opinione Iansenius Concord cap. 130 ut faber clavum c. Others in making of a Nayle should say This is a Nayle So by Christ his saying This is my Body it was made presently the Body of Christ at the very pronuntiation of the last word of this Sentence This is my Body But most conceitedly your Iesuite Malloune and that not without scurrility o Master Malloune in his late Reply pag. 105. This is a Kâ—tle for my wife c. âšœ Egid. Conineks Ies de Sacram. qu. 75. Art 1. n. 36 Pronomen Hoc demonstratâ—d quod continetur sub speciebus abstrahendo ab eo quod sit panis aut corpus Christi ità tamen quòd non referatur ad illud instans in quo pronuntietur sed ad illud in quo propositio sit sufficienter pronuntiata quod est commune non solùm omnibus Propositionibus practicis quae significant quod efficiunt sed ijs etiam quae significant aliquid fieri faciemus diversas figuras Propriè dicitur Hic est
see that as much as is Produced is not Extant for Dust is not Flesh But since hee cannot apply this Reproduction to Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ his Answeâ—â—â— impertinent and hee may be produced for an idle Disputer 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 maner which they insist upon cannot possibly serve your turne This Sècond maner they name to bee by Adduction which your e Si terminus ad quem Corpus Christi existat sed non in eo loco ubi Terminus à quo id est Panis tum vi Con versionis adducetur ad eum locum Inde vocatur Conversio adductiva nam corpus Christi praeexistit 〈◊〉 Conversionem sed non sub speciebus Panis Con versio igitur non fecit ut corpus Christi simpliciter esse incipiat sed ut incipiat esse sub speciebus non quod per motum localem è Coelo Adducatur sed solùm quia per hanc conversionem fit ut quod ante erat solùm in Coelo jam sit sub speciabus Panis Nec haec accidentalis conversio sed substantialis dicta est quia substantia Panis desinit esse substantia corporis Christi succedit Pani Proindè Substantia in Substantiam transit Talis est Conversio Cibi in hominem per nutritionem nam anima non producitur sed tantùm per nutritionem sit ut incipiat esse in ea materia ubi antea erat forma Cibi Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 18. 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 and therefore called Substastiall because the Substance of Bread ceaseth to have any Being â—â—en 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 Councel of Trent which defined a Change of the whole substance of Bread into the Body of Christ So that Councel 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 farre from 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 onely the Outward Accidents and formes of Bread Yet had this Figment some Favourers in your f Fuerunt hujus sententiae Alens Bonavent Marsil Dicunt per hanc Conversionem Corpus non accipere esse sed accipere esse hîc nec multum discordat Thomas Denique moderni subscribentes contra Haereticos libenter hanc sententiam amplectuntur quia facilitatem quandam prae se fert ut videre licet apud Iob. Hessels Claud. Gud. Paris Bellar. As witnesseth Suarez quo suppra Disp 50 §. 44. pag. 635. Cum Panis substantialiter mutetur ita ut desinat esse haec Conversio est Substantialis non Accidentalis 2. Corpus Christi est substantia quae succedit Pani proinde Substantia transit in Substantiam dicunt conversionem Adductivam esse quando quod adducitur acquirit esse sub speciebus Panis Bellar. quo supr §. Respondeo 1. Cedere Corpori in ratione existendi est propriè converti in ipsum per Conscquens fit vera in Carnem Transmutatio Alan lib. 1. de Eucharist cap. 34. Schooles No Marvell therefore if there arose some out of your owne Church who did impugne this delusion calling it as your g Dixi Conversionem Panis in corpas Christi esse Adductivam quod dictum video à nonnullis esse perperà m acceptum qui inde non Transubstantiarionem sed Translocationem colligunt Sed dixi corpus Christi non deseruisse locum suum in Coelo neque incipere esse sub speciebus ut in loco sed ut Substantia sub Accidentibus remotâ tamen inhurentia Bellarmia Recog in lib. 3. de Eucharist pag. 81. Cardinall himselfe witnesseth of them a Translocation onely and not a Transubstantiation and that truly 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 substantiall 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 to speake from your selves 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 Conjunction of the Substance of one Body with the Accidents of another Which kinde of meere Succession of a Substance your Iesuite Suarez will allow to bee no more than a h Per solum Adductiram actionem reverà non explicatur vera conversio Substantialis Transubstantiatio sed tantùm Translocatio quaedam quando una Substantia succedit loco alterius non potest propriè diâ—â— unam converti in aliam Suarez Ies loco citato pag. 639. Translocation âšœ And that justly as Any may easily perceive because in every true Transubstantiation there is a Change of a Substance into a Substance as into that which is the Terming of the Change but in this your Adduction there is said to be onely Terminus praesentiae of the Praesence of Christ's Body instead of the Presence of Bread Therefore it is flatly Translocation onely A word more Transubstantiation saith your Councel of Trent is collected out of these words of Christ This is my Body But by sole Adduction saith your 3 AEgidius Coniax Ies de Sacram. Quaest 75. Art 4. Dubit 4. num 142. Ex quo pater refutar sententiam eam quae docet corpus Christi adesse posse per solam Adductionem quia hoc non potest colligi conversio Panis in corpus ex verbis Christi Iesuite Coninx cannot be collected a Conversion of Bread into Christ's Body out of the words of Christ 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 believe a Doctrine so absolutely repugnant to your owne knowledge âšœ This last figment being discarded ponder wee pray you the Weight of this Argument Every true and proper Transubstantiation is a Change into a substance that was not extant before But the Body of Christ was and is alwaies
Transubstantiation was hatched and which is contrary to his owne device of Conversion by Adduction wherein first he i Dicta Corpus Christi ex pane fieri non tanquà m ex materia sed tanquà m à Termino à quo ut mundus ex nihilo then confuting himselfe etiam sit ex aqua vinum that was not ex nihilo In praesenti negotio Conversio non est Productiva Panis enim convertitur in Corpus Christi praeexistens ergò Corpus Christi factum ex Pane ex Carne est idem Bell. l. 3. de Euc. c. 24. § Ad Tertium confoundeth himselfe and secondly his opinion hath beene scornfully rejected 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 us Wee according to our Apostollicall Creec believe no Body of Christ but that which was Produced out of the Sanctified flesh of the Bl Virgin Mary for feare of k Alphonsus de Castro lib. 4 Tit. Christê° Haer. 2. Manichaei dixeruÌ„t Christum non ex utero Virginis prodijsse Et Apollinaris dixit Christum non assumpsisse carnem ex Virgine Item Chiliastae Democritae Melcluoritae ut Procli mitae pratcolus in Elench Haeret. in suic quique titulis Heresie This same Objection being made of late to a Iesuite of prime note received from him this Answer viz. God that was able to raise Children to Abraham out of stones can of Bread transubstantiate the same into that Body of Christ which was of the Virgin And hee againe received this Reply That the Children which should bee so raised out of stones howsoever they might bee Abraham's Children according to Faith yet could they not bee 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 our 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 l Homily en Easter day pag. 35. Homily of that time which standeth thus Much is betweene the body that Christ suffered in and betweene the bodie 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 lâ—mbe and therefore nothing is to be understood heerein bodily but all is Ghostly to bee understood This was our then Saxons Faith wherein is plainly 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 * See Booke 4. cap. 4. §. 1. in the Challenge Saint Augustine Wherefore wee may as truly say concerning this your Conversion that if it be by Transubstantiation from Bread then it is not the Body which was borne of the Blessed Virgin as your owne Romish Glosse could say of the Predication * See above E. 2. Chap. 1. §. 4. If Bread bee Christ's Body then Something was Christs Body which was not borne of the Virgin Mary CHALLENGE I âšœ In vindication of the same Truth against the late Calumniation of a Iesuite THis Sentence I have seene lately canvassed by a Iesuite against a judicious and religious Knight S r. H. L. falsly imputing unto him divers Falsities pretending especially that the English Translation used by the Knight is differing from the Latine Which Exception of your Iesuite must needes have proceded either from ignorance if hee knew not that the Translation used by the Knight was taken out of the Originall Saxon-language and not out of the Latine or if he knew so much from downe-right boldnesse in charging him with a false Translation I omit his frivolous Cavillations upon words The maine question for the sense is whether in this sentence of the Saxons Faith the Body wherein Christ suffered and his Body celebrated in this Sacrament betoken not two kinde of Bodies essentially differing one from the other or but onely the two different manners of the Being of one Body Your Iesuite affirmeth them to signifie the same Body and he calleth the contrary opinion false His Reason For whereas it is said saith he that the spirituall flesh which is as much as to say our Saviour his flesh in the Sacrament according to the outward shew consisting of Granes of Corne hath no Bones nor Sinewes nor distinction of Parts Life or Motion Here the Iesuite cryeth out against falshood but why Because the Knight forsooth hath pretermitted saith he these words According to the outward shew consisting of granes Whereby he would have us believe the new â—â—mish Faith of a Subsistence of meere Accidents Who if he had meant to have dealt ingenuously he should have manifested that his Latine Translation to have accorded with the Originall Saxon Copie But to take him as wee finde him If his words According to the outward shew imply as it needs must if he will speake to any purpose that the Body of Christ in this Sacrament although in outward shew it be without Bones Sinewes Life and Motion yet it hath all these inwardly in it selfe as it is in this Sacrament then whilest he laboureth to confute one Protestant he contradicteth all his fellow Iesuites of the same Society * See Booke 4. Chap. â— Sect. 2. who deny all possibility of Motion of Christ's Body in this Sacrament by any naturall and voluntary Act without a miracle But to speake to the point This Body and That Body say wee do diversifie two Bodies the one Sacramentall of Bread called Spirituall because of the spirituall and mysticall Signification this Bread consisting of Granes And the other the Naturall Body of Christ consisting of Bones Sinewes c. In a word This and That in this Saxon narration accordeth with the Doctrine of * See Booke 4. Chap. 4. in the Challenge Bertram taken out of Saint Augustine namely That in heaven to differ as much from This on the Altar as did the Body borne of the Virgin Mary from the other which was not so borne But if this Homily will not advantage your Iesuite hee will wrest his prejudicate Conceite out of another Homily of AElfrick if it be possible where we reade thus As Christ before his Passion could convert the substance of Bread and Creature of Wine into his owne Body that suffered and into his Blood which afterwards was extant to be shed So also was he able in the Desert to Convert Manna and Water out of the Rock into his Blood So he citing a Testimonie as fully Opposite unto your Transubstantiation in sense as it seemeth
discerning therein Sacramentally exhibited the Lords Body It had therefore concerned him to have honored the Sacrament with Divine Titles agreeable to the Body of Christ hypostatically united to his Godhead 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 Eclipsed if in Truth and Verity he had not beleeved it to have beene then properly 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 o Archiâ—pisc Cabasila Latini nostros reprehendunt quòd post illa verba Hoc est Corpus meum Panem Vinum nominant c. Exposit Liturg. cap. 29. Archbishop of 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 he Which bewrayeth that the very naming of the Sacrament Bread and Wine is in the judgement of the Church of Rome prejudiciall to their Transubstantiation and that if Saint Paul himselfe should deliver 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 Christs Body But that it is impossible the Body of Christ should bee properly predicated upon Bread hath beene the Generall Confession of your owne Doctors and the Conclusion of our second Booke âšœ Wee returne againe to the Text where the Apostle having named it Bread after Consecration expoundeth himselfe what Bread he meant saying Bread which we breake But never durst any of your Romanists say that the Body of Christ is truly Broken in this Sacrament and never any Father of Primitive times we are sure taught the Breaking of the Accidents of Bread And therefore it must follow that it was still substantially Bread The Apostle hath not yet done but 1 Cor. 17. sayth Because it is one Bread wee being many are one Body for wee all communicate of one Bread Which Chrysostome is well as other Fathers doth analogize thus * See above B. 2. â—â—ap 2. Sect. 6. Challeng 1. See also Cypriâ—â— and S. August Bâ—â—k 3. Chapt. 3. Sect. 9. That as oâ—â— loafe consisteth of many granes united together so are the faithfull Communicants joyned together So hee hereby teaching you the substantiall Materialls of the same Bread Many granes of Corne. And as though the Apostle had meant to muzzle the Adversaries of this truth with variety of proofes hee 1 Cor 10. 17. hath these words Wee participate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is De pane hoc Of this Bread thus called after Consecration And againe 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let him eate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of this Bread which manifesteth the Eating of a part of an whole loafe of Bread and not of the Body of Christ which even by the Romish faith is not nor cannot bee divided into parts Thus hath Saint Paul the Scholler of Christ concluded of Substantiall Bread agreeable to that which our Master Christ himselfe taught of the other sacred Substantiall part of Drinke after the Coâ—secration of this Sacrament as is proved in the next Section 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. â— 29. by the Interpretation of Antiquity SECT V. THe same is as fully verified by our Lord and Master Christ himselfe in the second Element of Wine calling it * Matth. 26. 29. This fruit of the Vine that is Wine after Consecration where the Pronoune This hath relation to the matter in the Cup of the Eucharist For the proofe of this our Exposition of the words of Christ wee have the Consent of these and thus many holy Fathers Origen Cyprian Chrysostome Augustine Hierome Epiphanius Euthymius Theophylact and Bede as witnesseth your Iesuite p Origenes Cyprianus Chrysost August Hieron Epiphan Beda Euthymius Theophylact. Genimen Viâ—s ad Sanguinem Christi referunt Maldon Iâ—s Com. in cum locum where he addeth Persuadere mâ—hâ—non possum haec verba ad Sanguinem esse referenda Hoc Patres sed also sensu à Calvinistis qui dicunt Christum Vinum appellâsse quia Vinum erat sed Patres vocâ unt Sanguinem Vanum sicut Christus Carnem Iohan. 6. vocabat Panem Maldon in eundem locum Haec nè illi Calvinistatum errori affinis esse videatur Maldon ibid. Maldonate no one Father produced by him to the contrary Then answering But I saith hee cannot be thus perswaded So hee Marke this you great Boasters of Accordance with Antiquity and yet this maner of Answering the Fathers is most familiar with this Iesuite But hee proceedeth telling you that The Fathers notwithstanding did not call it Wine as thinking it to bee Wine but even as Christ did when he called his flesh Bread Iohn 6. Then hee addeth They that will follow the Exposition of These Fathers are thus to interpret them And gives his Reason of this his Advertisement Lest the other Exposition saith hee may seeme to agree with the erroneous opinion of the Calvinists So hee For which his Answer Calvinists are as much beholding to him as are the Ancient Fathers with whom he hath made bold not only to reject 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 q Novum promisit id est Novum quendam modum sumptionis in regno id est post resurrectionem quando Cibum sumpsit corporalem Theophyl in Matth. 26. Bibite ex hoc omnes Non bibam amodò c. quâ in parte invenimus Vinum fuisse quod Sanguinem suum dixit undè apparet Sanguinem Christi non offerti 〈◊〉 desit Vinum Calici Cyprian ad Cecil Epist 63. paulò ante medium Epiphan cont Encratit Qui aquam solùm adhibuerunt in Eucharistiaâ— ut dicant vino quoque utendum In hoc sermene Domini inquit redarguuntur Non bibam de fructu hujus Vitis Epiphan Tom. 2. lib. 2. Non bibam de genimine hujus Vitis Christus post resurrectionem nè putaretur Phantasia comedit undè Apostoli dixerunt Act. 10. Comedimus Bibimus cum eo Sed cujus re gratiâ non Aquam sed Vinum bibit ad perniciosam Haeresin radicitus evellendam eorum qui Aquâ in Mysterijs utuntur Idem In nuda Mysterij mensa Vino usus est Ex genimine Vitis Certè Vinum non Aquam producit Chrysost in eum locum Hom. 83. Marginals doe
which if they were literally meant according to your Romish Sense 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 wee have just Cause to taxe your Disputers of as great Vnconscionablenesse if not of more in this as in any other For whensoever they finde in any Father as in c Eusebias Emiss Adest Substantia Panis sed post verba Christi est Corpus Christi Hom. 5. Objected by Mr. Brerely Liturg. Tract 2. §. 2. Subd 2. âšœ And Damasc lib. 4. de Orthod side cap. 14. Panem corpus suum facere Objected by Dr. Heskins in his Parliament Booke 2. Chap. 20. âšœ Eusebius these words The Bread is the Body of Christ they object it for Transubstantiation but Vnconscionably First seeing that the Fathers do but herein imitate our Lord and Master Christ who said of the Bread This is my Body which hath beene * See above B. 2. throughout proved by Scriptures and Fathers to be a Figurative and unproper speech Secondly seeing that they use the same Dialect in other things as Cyril of Sacred Oyle saying this is Charisma the Gift of Grace as hee called also the Holy Kisse a d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyrill sup Reconciliation and Others the like as you have heard Thirdly seeing that you your selves have renounced all proper Sense 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 wee can say An Egge is a Stone as you have * See above Booke 2. cap. 1. §. 4. confessed Againe Some Fathers say Bread is made Flesh as Saint c Ambros De Pane Fit Corpus caro Christi Ob by Bellarmine lib. 2. de Euchar cap. 14. and by others Ambrose objected but Vnconscionably knowing First that you your selves 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 Chrysostome saying that f Chrysost Nos secum Christus munam ut ità dicam massam reducit neque id fide tantùm sed reipsâ nos Corpus suum effecit In Matt 26. hom 83. Objecâ—â— by Mr. Brerely Liturg Tract 2. §. 2. Subd 2. Christ hath made us his owne Body not onely in Faith but in Deed also And Augustine saying that g Aug. Ipsi Christiani cum Capite suo quod ascendit in coeâ—um unus est Christus Enarrat in Psal 127. Et in Psal 26. Titulus Psalmi Omnes â— illo Christi Christus sumus Christians themselves with their Head which ascended into heaven are one Christ yea and Pope h Leo De homine Regenerato per Baptismum Vt susceptu à Christo suscipiens Christum non idem sit post Lavacrum quod ante Baptismum fuit sed ut corpus Regenerati fiat caro Crucifixi Serm. de passione 14. Leo saying of the party Baptized that Hee is not the same that hee was before Baptisme by which saith he the Body of the party Regenerate is made the Flesh of Christ crucified Yea and our Venerable Bede saith i Beda in 1. Cor 10. Num nos ipsius Corpus facti sumus quod accipimus nos sumus 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 neerer to the Scope Wee may not deny but that the Fathers sometimes extend their voyces higher unto the Preposition Trans as k See above c. 4. §. 7. Transit Transmutatur signifying a Change and Trans-mutation into the Body of Christ Every such Instance is in the opinion of your Doctors a full demonstration of Transubstantiation it selfe and all the wits of men cannot saith one Assoyle such Objections Wherein they shew themselves altogether Vnconscionable as hath beene partly declared in Answering your Objected Sayings of l See above c. 4. §. 2. Ambrose In aliud Convertuntur of m Ibid. at the Letter r Cyprian his Panis naturà mutatus of Cyrils Trans-mutavit and as now in this Section is to be manifested in answering your other Objections to the full The Father o Gregor Nyssen Quicquid assuâ—â—enu conveniens est expertrum sit ut Apostolus vult qui hanâ— mensam nobis pâ—apaâ—vit in id commutatur infirmorbus olus Infantibus Lac c. Lib. de vita Mosis pag. 509. Gregory Nyssen comparing the Body of Christ with Manna which satisfied every man's Taste 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 objected by your Cardinall to prove Transubstantiation but First Vnconscionably because it is in it selfe being literally understood even in your owne judgements 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 the Spirituall and heavenly desire thereof Wee say the Soule and not the bodily appetite as your selves well know and the Councell of * â—certne Councell of Niâ—â— L. 4. c. 11. §. 3. Nice doth teach us to professe Secondly Vnconscionably objected because the same Father expresseth his Hyperbolicall maner of Speech likewise saying that p Greg. Niss Corpus illud Christi in Corpus nostrum ingrediens totu nâ—in se transfert Ob. by Bellar. l. 2. c. 10. §. Idem Greg. Christ's Body doth change our bodies into it selfe which in the Literall Sense according to your arguing would prove a Transubstantiation of Mens Bodies into Christ âšœ Were it for these are his two Instances into Milke or Colewoorts But what now 10 Bellar lib. 2. de Euch. ca. 6. Idem Gregorius in Oratione Catechetica cap. 37. multa habet expressè de veritate hujus hic locus ab Euthymio Dicit corpus Christi immortale cum nostro corpore mortali conjungi immortale per illud reddi quod in corpus nostrum ingrediens terum in se transfert commutat Deinde se explicat Dicit hoc fieri divinâ virtute explicat seipsum dicit enim nunc Panem mutart in Carnem Christi quemadmodum dum adhuc in terris esset mutabatur Panis quo ipse vescebatur in Carnem ipsius Quae â—am sunt perspicua ut non fuerit ausus ullus Adversariorum quòd sciam vel ad haec â—oca respondere vel aliquid ex hoc authore nobis objicere The same Gregory Nyssen saith your Cardinall in his Catechetica hatâ— such plaine places for the changing of Bread into the substance of Christ's Flesh as
nobis sit com nuuis nobis in alimentum datuâ— Modus incomprehensibilis VI. Si nos in consesu quem continet Augustana confessio complexos esse dixi non est quod quis me astutiae insimuleâ— Verbulum in ea Confessione qualis Ratisbonae edita fuit non extat doctrinae nostrae con trarium De Philippo Melancthone ejus Authore viro spectatae pietatis dico non magis me à Philippo quà m à proprijs visceribus divelli posse Et quidem non aliter sanctae memoriae Bucerum sensisse luculentis testimonijs probare mihi semper promptum erit Lutherus meae sententiae non ignarus propriâ tamen manu non gravatus est me salutare Quum Marpurgi essem diconciliatio facta est ab eo conventu digressus affirmat codem quo ante loco Oecolampadium Zuinglium habere quos illic fratrum loco posthà c fore sancte pollicitus est Hactenâ—â— Calvinus Him who hath beene most opposed and traduced by your Disputers in this Cause to shew first what hee held not and then what hee held If you shall aske Calvin what he liked not hee will answer you I. I do abhorre your grosse Doctrine of Corporall Presence And II. I have an hundred times disclamed the receiving onely of a Figure in this Sacrament What then did hee hold III. Our Catehisme teacheth saith hee not onely 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 maintaining onely a Figurative perception wee have nothing to do If you further demand what is the Feeding whereby wee are united to Christ's Body in this Sacrament hee tells you IV. that it is Not Carnall but Spirituall and Reall and so Reall that the Soule is as truely 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 maner hee acknowledgeth it to be V. above Reason If further you desire to understand whether hee were not Singular in this opinion hee hath avouched the judgement of other Protestants professing not to dissent one syllable from the VI. Augustane Confession as agreeing with him in judgement herein Accordingly our Church of England in the 28 Article saith that To such as worthily with faith receive this Sacrament The Bread which wee breake is a partaking of the Body of Christ which Body is given taken and eaten in the Supper onely after a spirituall and heavenly maner the meane whereby as Faith That the Body of Christ by this Sacrament was ordayned onely for food to the Christian man's Soule SECT III. WHat need wee seeke into the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers which are many in this Point of Dispute having before us the judgement of your b Summus Salvâ—tor hoc Sacramentum voluit esse tanquam spiritualem animarum cibum quo alamur confortemur viventes vita illius quo dixit Qui mand ucat me c. Concil Trid. Sess 13. ca. 2. Fathers of the Councell of Trent and of your c Sacramento utendum ad alendam animam Catech. Trid. de Euch. num 29. 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 d Decret ex Ambros de mysterijs Corpus Christi est Corpus Spirituale Disâ— 2. ca. In illo Decree The Consonant Doctrine of the Fathers will be found in the last Chapter and last Section of this Fift Booke That the Spirituall feeding and Vnion with Christ's Body is more excellent and Reall than the Corporall Conjunction can be SECT IV. THe soule of man being the most Essentiall and Substantiall part of man because a Spirit immortall and the flesh of Christ being the most Substantiall of all food and theréfore called as of ancient e Ambros lib. 5. de Sacram. cap. 4. Fathers even so by your Fathers of f Conc. Trident. Panem illum supersubstantialé frequenter accipiant Sess 13. ca. 8. Trent Supersubstantiall Bread it must necessarily follow that as it is named by Christ * Ioh. 6. 32. The true Bread and the Life thereby which is the Effect of the Spirituall eating thereof is the most true and Reall Life because Everlasting So the Vnion Spirituall which a Christian hath in his soules feeding is the most Reall and true Vnion as may sufficiently appeare by Analogie To wit that Bread and Wine being the most vitall nourishments for the conservation of man's bodily Essence are therefore chosen as the Fathers teach to represent and exhibit unto him although in themselves but Signes and Symbals the very Body and Blood of Christ Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ are our Reall nourishments in this Sacrament And such as is our food such must be our Vnion by feeding thereon which wee say is by Faith in this Sacrament and you may not gain-say it who to comfort your Disciples are g Alanus alij ex citatis Authoribus dicunt quando reipsa non potest suscipi hoc Sacramentum ad perficiendam hanc unionem sufficere quod hoc Sacramentum in voto suscipiatur quia hoc satis est ut homo fiat membrum Christi vivum uniatur illi Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disp 64. §. 3. p. 824. Satis est si spiritualiter manducatur in voto etiamsi non Sacramentaliter Acoâ—â—a Ies de Indorum Salute lib. 6. cap. 7. Vere Spiritualiter sumunt qui fide tenent sub iltis speciâ—bus verum esse corpus Christi simul ipsum desiderio recipendi ardeant Tolet. Ies Instruct Sacerd. lib. 21 cap. 29. taught to instruct them that even without this Sacrament the Spirituall Vnion may be presented to the Soule of man with the Body of Christ and that as a sufficient meanes of uniting him to Christ by a Spirituall maner of Eating And this you say is To receive Christ his Body truely albeit this be to receive him onely by faith and desire So you Whence you perceive our Inference viz. If our Spirituall Vnion with Christ his Body may be really and truly made by Faith and Desire without this Sacrament then in our Sacramentall Eating thereof may the Communicant be much more made partaker thereof by Faith and ardent Desire the Sacrament it selfe being a Sâ—â—le of this our Christian Faith CHAP. II. That onely the Godly-faithfull Communicants are Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ and thereby united to Christ in the judgement of Protestants SECT I. OVr Church of England in her 28. and 29. Article saith thus The Body of Christ is given to be eaten in this Sacrament onely after a Spirituall maner even by faith wherein the wicked and such as are voyd
corpus Christi absolute manducari sed manducator sub specie panis quae sententia significat species manducari visibiliter sensibiliter ac promde dertibus atteri Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euch. ca. 11. §. Respon Corpus The Body of Christ is not absolutely eaten but eaten under the formes of Bread and that is to say saith hee the formes of Bread are sensibly and visibly eaten So hee If this imported a literall maner of Eating then might your Cardinall have sayd as literally of himselfe My Clothes are torne therefore my Body is rent in pieces Not to trouble you with the Cardinall's Philosophy that talketh of Eating and Tearing of Colours But to the point If onely the Accidents of Bread be as hee saith sensibly eaten then was Pope Nicholas his Prescription of Eating Christs Body sensibly in your Cardinalls opinion not True And upon the same Ground it is that your Iesuit n Frangi metaphorica non propria locutio est colligitur ex Thoma qu. 77. Art 7. patet quia fractio proprie in rigore significat divisionem discontinuationem partium quae constat non fieri in partibus corporis Christi Suarez in Thom. qu. 75. Disp 47. Art 1. §. 4. Suarez out of Thomas and other Schoolemen affirmeth the word Broken to be 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 see in the former Section Canus hath concluded And your o Si propriè loqui velimus falsae sunt hae propositiones Corpus Christi manducatur a nobis Corpus Christi devoratur Corpus Christi frangitur quia ipsi modi qui his verbis significantur non conveniunt Copori Christi quod est in hoc Sacramento sed hae sunt verae Recipitur à nobis sumitur à nobis Maldon Ies Tom. 1. de Sacram. Tract de Euch. pag. 144. Verè sumitur sed non atteritur Ibid. pag. 143. 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 expressely sayd that to thinke the Body of Christ to be eaten torne or devoured properly taken is a Carnall Capernaiticall and as your owne p Nisi sanè intelligas verba Berengarij in majorem Haeresin incides quā Ipse fuerit Igitur omnia referas ad species ipsas c. Gloss apud Gratian. de Consecrat Dist 2. c. Ego Berengarius Glosse in Gratian concludeth an Hereticall opinion Will you have any more It is but the last day in respect when q Ob. Scoto-Britannus Apud Pontificios corpus Christi Cyclopum dentibus teri Resp Dansqueius Theolog. Canon in Scuto B. Mariae Aspricollis An verò mortales artus Corporis Christi dentibus teri ore blasphemo mente nequissimâ potes comprobare non magis id facias quà m Caiphas cùm tunicam à pectore laceravit one of your grave Criticks so much abhorred the conceit of proper Tearing Christs Body that hee called the Objecting hereof against your Church in his blind zeale Blasphemie and answereth that you do no more Teare Christs Flesh than Caiphas tore his when he rent his Clothes The case then is plaine enough for Confutation of your more ancient Romish Faith That the former Romish and Popish Faith for the Maner of receiving of the Body of Christ is at this day but somewhat altered yet miserably inconstant and Faithlesse SECT III. PRotestants may have in this place just matter of insultation 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 litterall and proper interpretation of the words of Christ when hee sayd Take eate this is my Body yet now are you compelled to say that Properly eaten is no proper but a false sense Your Second Doctrine is that the Judgement of a Romane Pope in a Romane Councell in a matter of Faith is Infallible Notwithstanding Pope Nicholas with his Romane Councel is found to have grossely erred in a tenor of Abjuration which of all others as hath beene confessed is most Literall and was therefore purposely devised against a Figurative Sense of the words of Christ and forth-with published throughout Italy 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 Judgement being now to reject such phrases taken in their proper Signification and in a maner to abrenounce Berengarius his Abrenunciation what is if this be not an Argument that either you say you care not or else you beleeve you know not what Let us goe on in pursuit of your Doctrine of the Corporall maner of Eating which you still maintaine and it will be found to be Capernaiticall enough And lest that you may evade by pretence of Not Chewing wee adde as followeth That the Orall Eating of the Sacrament was anciently by Chewing SECT IV. CHewing the Sacrament with the Teeth was the forme of Eating at the time of Christ his Institution as is proved by your owne * Suarez See above Booke 1. Cap. 1. Sect. 4. Confession in granting that the unleavened Bread which Christ used was Glutinosus that is gluish clammie and such as was to be cut with a knife But that the same maner of Eating by Chewing was altered in the Apostolicall or Primitive times is not read of by any Canon yea or yet Admonition of any one Father in the Church whether Greek or Latine among whom Saint Augustine called the maner of eating a * See above cap. 2. Sect. 9. Pressing the Sacrament with the Teeth That also Chewing continued in the Romish Church till a Thousand and fifty yeares after Christ is not obscurely implyed in the former tenor of the Recantation of Berengarius prescribed by the same Church which was to eat as you have heard By tearing it with teeth And lastly that this hath since continued the ordinary Custome of the same Church is as evident by your Cardinall Alan and Canus * See above in the former Section who have defended the maner of Eating by Tearing Nor was Swallowing prescribed by any untill that the queazie stomaches of your r Hostiam salivâ reverenter liquefactam in corpus dimittat non est enim dentibus terenda vel palato admovenda sed ante ablutionis sumptionem deglutienda Coster Ies Institut lib 1 cap. 5. Jesuites not enduring Chewing perswaded the Contrary Which kinds of Eating whether by Chewing or Swallowing of Christs Flesh being both Orall none can deny to have beene the opinion of the ſ Nimis carnaliter intelligebant Discipuli Capernaitae credentes ejus carnem comedi
§. 4. Dansqueius See above Booke 5. Cap. 4. Sect. 2. Dicere immortales artus Corporis Christi dentibus teri oris Blasphemi est mentis nequissimae Dansqueluâ— pag. 2. 〈◊〉 Respectively I. Of Taste Wee cannot say that one doth Taste of Christs Body properly but by a Figure II. Of Dividing Christ in this Sacrament is whole in every part thereof and cannot be Divided because hee is impartible III. Of Broken Christs Body is not sayd to be Broken in it selfe but onely in the Sacrament of Bread and to say that Christs Body is properly Broken were a false speech and not agreeable to Christs Body IV. Of Tearing Christs Bodie say they cannot be sayd to be Torne but onely Tropically because it is not Divisible and to say that your Church of Rome holds that Christs Body is Torne with the teeth of the Communicants is Blasphemous V. Of Eating The Body of Christ is not absolutely Eaten because if absolutely Eaten then should it be torne with the Teeth and if so then also divided into parts It is therefore sayd to be torne by a Figure because the formes of Bread are torne with the Teeth Of the VI and VII Sprinkling and Powring out of Blood Those are not to be attributed to Christs Blood in the Sacrament because these betoken a Shedding thereof which is a Separation of it from his Body which was never but once on the Crosse nor is it properly Drunken So they That is to say So have they Objected the Sentences of the Fathers and So have they answered and consequently So have also confuted themselves âšœ CHAP. VI. The Third Romish Corporall Vnion of the Bodie of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants is with Swallowing it downe SECT I. YOur Generall Tenet is That the Body of Christ is present in the Bodies of the Receivers So long as the formes of Bread and Wine do continne Nex that a Satis est ut transmissio fiat in stomachum deglutiendo Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euc. cap. 11. It is swallowed downe and transmitted unto the Stomach Yet further that your Priest in your Romane Masse is injoyned to pray saying b Missale Roman authoritate Concilij Tridentini Papa Pij Quarti Ordinarium Missae Corpus tuum Domine quod sumpsi sanguis quem potavi adhaereat visceribus meis O Lord let thy Body which I have taken and Blood which I have drunke cleave unto my Guts or Entrails And a lesse c Missale par 〈◊〉 pro Sacerdotibuâ— in Anglia Iussu Pauls Quintâ— Papae editum Deus qui humani generis utramque substantiam praesentium munerum alimento vegetas renovas Sacramento tribue quaesuâ—us ut 〈◊〉 corporibus nostris subsidium non desit mentibus Missall but yet of equall Authority teacheth all you English Priests to pray saying O God who refreshest both our Substances with this food grant that the supply and helpe hereof may not be awanting either to our Bodies or Soules âšœ Insomuch that your Aquinas concludeth 1 Aquinâ— in 3. qu. 7â— Art 6. ed 3. Subst 〈◊〉 Corporis Christi non desinit esse sub speciebus paâ—is quamdiâ— spâ—cieâ— illa manet That the Body of Christ ceaseth not to be in this Sacrament so long as the forme of Bread continueth in the Eater thereof So hee Not excepting any Eater whether it be Man or Beast thereby embracing this Opinion namely 2 Iosephus Angles Quest de Susâ—â—ption Euch. Art â— Dist Contraria Opinio est Communis Conclusio Brutum comedens Sacramentum verum Corpus Christi divotat fuit expressè definita per Gregorium undecimum Testo nostro Rivâ—to Pictavio in Academ Battaviae Prosessore in lib. Orthodox Cathol Tract 3. qu. 18. That a Beast eating this Sacrament thereby doth Devoure the true Body of Christ which you call The Common Opinion of your Church taught and defined by Pope Gregory the Eleventh âšœ That this former Doctrine is fully and filthily Capernaiticall SECT II. IN this Romish Profession every one may see in your Corporall presence two most vile and ugly Assumptions One is of your Devouring of Christ and feeding bodily on him The other is a Possibility of saying your presence passing him downeward Into the Draught and Seege that being as ill this peradventure worse than any Capernaiticall Infatuation for which cause it was that your Jesuite Maldonate although granting that you do Corporally receive it into your stomachs yet * See above cha 4. §. 2. denyed for shame that you are Devourers thereof But I beseech you what then meaneth that which your Romish Instructions Decrees and Missals as wee have * Ibid. §. 1. heard do teach you to do with the Hoast in case that any either through Infirmity or by Surfet and Drunkennesse shall cast up the same Hoast out of his stomach Wee demand may your Communicants be Vomitores to cast it up againe and can you deny but that they must first have beene Voratores to have devoured that which they do so Disgorge Will you beleeve your Jesuire f 〈◊〉 Ies Tom. 2. Cont. 2. in Ioh. ◠〈◊〉 mea veâ—os est cibus c. votare est â—ine masticatione glutire Osorius To Devoure a thing saith he is to swallow it downe by Chewing Say now do you Swallow the Sacrament by Chewing it then are you Capernaiticall Tearers of Christs Body But do you Swallow it without Chewing then are you Capernaiticall Devourers thereof Say not that because the Bodie of Christ suffereth no hurt therefore he cannot be said by Corporall Swallowing to be Devoured for his Body was not corrupted in the Gâ—ave and yet was it truly Buried and his Type thereof even Ionas without Mastication was Swallowed up into the Belly of the Whale and yet had no hurt Notwithstanding he was first caught and devoured who was afterward cast up and vomited That the same Romish maner of Receiving it downe into the Belly is proved to be Capernaiticall by the Iudgement of Antiquity SECT III. TTheophylact g Theoph. in Ioh. 6. p. 304. Capernaitae putabant quod Christus cogeret eos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voratores carnis suae esse nos hic spiritualiter intelligimus neque carnium voratores sumus noted the Capernaites Opinion to have bin that the Receivers of the Body of Christ are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Devourers of flesh where as the words of Christ saith he are to be understood Spiritually and so will it be knowne that wee Christians what are not Devourers of Christ So he But that Swallowing properly taken is a Devouring hath beene proved and if Devoured then why not also that which is the Basest of all Basenesse passed downe by Egestion into the Seege whereof the Antient Fathers have thus Determined Origen that h Origen in Matth. ca. 15 Quod si quicquid in os ingreditur in ventrem abit in secessum eijcitur Et ille cibus sanctificatus
perversion of a Testimony in Saint Ambrose pag. 125. With a Supply of other Latine Fathers as of Tertullian pag. 124. Saint Augustine pag. 126 127. And of Facundus pag. 128. Together with a cleare Myrror wherein to discerne the Iudgement of Antiquity for a Figurative sense of Christs words pag. 129. âšœ Chap. III. Romish Objections against the Literall sense Answered pag. 132. thorow-out Chap. IV. âšœ The Pronoune Possessive MY Added as the third Key for opening of the Figurative sense of Christs words THIS IS MY BODY pag. 138. Whether it be taken Narratively or Significatively pag. 139. âšœ BOOKE III. OF the first Romish Consequence arising from the depraved sense of Christs words which is called TRANS-SVESTANTIATION pag. 145. Chap. I. Conversion held by Protestants is Sacramentall but that which is defended by the Romanists is Trans-substantiall c. pag. 146. thorow-out Chap. II. Romish Transsubstantiation not absolutely proved by Scripture it selfe as is Confessed p. 147. It is an Innovation both in Name and in the Article it selfe pag. 151 c. Chap. III. Romish maner of Transsubstantiation whether by Adduction or Production both confuted by Romish Doctors as Absurd pag. 153 c. âšœ The Testimonies of two Popes contradicting one another about Formall Transsubstantiation p. 155. And a Confutation of both maners of Conversion by their owne principles pag. 156. With a Vindication against a late Calumniator concerning the ancient Saxons faith in the Doctrine of the Eucharist pag. 158 c. And a Confirmation thereof from Christs speech pag. 163. And of Pope Innocent the third pag. 164. And from other Testimonies of Antiquity pag. 169 170. The Iesuite Mallounes Instance in Ioane Martlesse her nose for her admirable faculty of smelling pag. 873. And from the existence of some new Accidents after Consecration pag. 176. Further adding to the Testimonies of Antiquity that of Tertullian p. 178. and an Objected Testimony of Pope Clement pag. 179. and out of Athanasius what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is pag. 182. Together with the Testimony of Euphraimius Bishop of Antioch pag. pag. 187. âšœ Chap. IV. The Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Doctors in Objecting for Transsubstantiation the Fathers there calling it a Change by Omnipotentie pag. 188. âšœ The Testimony of Hilarie pag. 191 And a Vindication of Cyprian's Saying Christs Body is created herein p. 192. and of another of his Infusing Divine essence pag. 193 c. âšœ Their further Vnconscionablenesse in alleging the Fathers as denying it to be Common Bread pag. 194 c. Their forbidding us to judge it by Sense pag. 195 c. âšœ The Iudgement of Master Isaac Casaubon concerning Saint Cyril pag. 197 198. âšœ Their other Objections out of other Fathers anew pag. 198 201 c. âšœ Two Testimonies of Gregory Nyssen pag. 203. And of Cyrill the moderne Patriarch of Constantinople against Transubstantiation pag. 205. With Master Isaac Casaubon his Iudgement concerning the Doctrine of Antiquity for this point pag. 209 c. âšœ BOOKE IV. OF the Second Consequence of the Romish Depravid Exposition of Christs words THIS IS MY BODY viz. The Corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist p. 210. Chap. I. The Difference of Opinions De modo of Christs Being in the Eucharist pag. 210. âšœ A double question concerning the Quomodoâ— p. 211. âšœ Chap. II. Twelve miraculous Apparitions of True Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist by Popish Historians related and judicially proved by their owne Doctors to be but so many Illusions pag. 217. unto pag. 227. âšœ The Iesuite Malloun's vaunt of such like Miracles pag. 221. And the Opinion of Vasquez the Iesuite to the Contrary p. 222 c. With a Digression for the Discussion of the miraculous separation of Christs Blood from his Body out of a Romish Doctor Collius p. 225 c. And of Blood issuing out of Christs Images from the same Author pag. 227 c. âšœ Chap. III. Of the Impossibility of the Romish Corporall Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist by reason of Contradiction pag. 228. âšœ The Testimonies of Theophylact and Iustine Martyr for that purpose pag 229. âšœ Confessed by Romish Doctors pag. 230 c. Of Sixe Contradictions implyed in the Romish Profession of the Corporall Presence p. 231 c. Chap. IV. I. Romish Contradiction is to make the same Body to be Borne and not Borne of the B. Virgin Mary pag. 232 c. Chap. V. II. Romish Contradiction is to make One Body not One by teaching it to be in diverse places at once pag. 234. âšœ The Confession of Conincks the Iesuite pag. 235 c. And the Profession of Saint Augustine in this point pag. 244 245. And that the Romish Objections out of Antiquity are frivolous 247. Adding another Testimony out of Chrysostome pag. 248. And Greg. Nyssen Ibid. Saint Augustines Quodammodo expounded by Suarez pag. 251 c. With a Comparison that Christs Body cannot be above nor below it selfe p. 254. The Testimony of Vasquez in this point p. 256. And of the Iesuite Conincks Ibid. Chap. VI. Romish Objections and Preâ—ences for proofe of a Body in divers places at once from Colour and Voice Confuted pag. 258 to 264. âšœ The Sentence of Pope Innocent pag. 258. âšœ Chap. VII III. Romish Contradiction in making Christs Body Finite to be Infinite pag. 264. âšœ The Testimony of Hilarie pag. 266. and of Athanasius Ibid. And the Enthymeme of the Fathers pag. 287. And the Doctrine of the Lutherans Ibid. And the Infatuation of the Iesuite Lessius framing an Army of but One man p. 268 c. âšœ Chap. VIII IV. Romish Contradiction by teaching Christs Organicall Body not to be Organicall pag. 269. Contrary to the Iudgement of Antiquity pag. 273 c. âšœ Chrysostomes Testimony for Demonstration of Christs Body by Touch. pag. 276. And Cyrill of Alexandria Ibid. And the Testimony of the Iesuite Lessius according thereunto pag. 277. And of the Camels passing through the Needles eye in the Iudgement of Hierome pag. 279. And a Vindication of the Testimony under Pope Hilaries name for proofe of an whole Body in every part of the Host p. 279 c. Chap. IX V. Romish Contradiction is in making Christs Perfect Body Vnperfect pag. 281. By their vile Doctrine of a Body of Christ in the Sacrament voyd of all power of Motion Sense and Vnderstanding Ibid. âšœ The Testimonies of other Iesuites pag. 282 283. And that this is both Contrary to Scriptures and Fathers p. 283. 285. âšœ Chap. X. VI. Romish Contradiction is in making Christs Glorious Body Inglorious pag. 286 c. âšœ A pertinent Question pag. 287. And a Vindication of Truth against Master Fisher a Iesuite his Defence of all Romish Seeming Indignities and Absurdities which by their Doctrine of Christs Bodily Presence do Consequently ensue pag. 291 to 300. And the Testimonies of the Fathers against Bellarmines jeere and scoffe pag. 306 c. âšœ BOOKE V. Of the Third Romish Consequence of their depraved sense of Christs
non solùm nullam legitimam causà m essè sed neque fingi posse cur de consensu vestro Laici calicem bibant neque pati ullo modo velitis à more vestro quempiam decedere latum unguem Inprimis quoniam Ecclesia illud praecepit ut alteram tantùm speciem Laicis porrigamus cut meritò nobis obtemperandum est quià nihil agit sine magna ratione neque in hujusmodi legibus ferendis errare potest Denique si latam legem nullâ evidenti necessitate convellatis Patres suspicari multis in mentem veniet aut vos illam temerè aulloque consilio tulisse olim suscipisseque aut susceptam cùm ratione servatam diutissimè in Christiana Republica nulla vel causa vel ratione pro nihilo ducere quo nihil sieri potest gravirate vestrâ aut hujus amplissimi ordinis majestate indignius Gâ—spar Cardillo Villalpand Orat. apud Act. Conc. Trid. pag. 219 221. 222. Lest that the Church saith hee may seeme to have erred What can more savour of an Hereticall and Antichristian spirit than this pretence doth For an Heretike will not seeme to have erred and Antichrist will professe himselfe one that cannot erre which Character of not personall erring was never assumed of any particular Church excepting only the latter Church of Rome Our Assumption But the Church of Rome which will seeme that shee cannot possibly erre in her not administring the Cup unto Laickes is knowne to have erred 600. yeares together in the abuse of the same Sacrament by administring it in an opinion of Necessity unto Infants as hath beene plentifully * See above Chap. 2. Sect. 11. witnessed by eminent Doctors in your owne Church Hence therfore ariseth another difference betweene the profession of our Custome and yours which is betweene Christ and Antichrist All this while you do not perceive that your opinion of Concomitancie will ruinate the foundation of your Doctrine of Transubstantiation But hereof * In the third Book hereafter The seventh Comparison is betweene the maner of Institution and manner of Alteration thereof SECT XI THe beginning of the Institution in Both kindes is knowne and acknowledged to have beene authorized by him who is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the new Testament even Christ our Lord by whom it was established and published among all his Disciples at his last Supper But your Custome of only One kinde How wee beseech you came it into your Church tell us i Nullâ praeceptorum vi sed consensu quodam tacito tà m populi quà m Cleri sensim irrepsit dicta consuetudo Roffens con Cap Babyl Tract de utraque Specie f. 28. Estque hoc diligenter notandum alterius speciei communionem non tam Episcoporum mandato quà m populi usu facto conniventibus tamen praesulibus irrepsi le populus enim ob varia incommoda paulatim à Calice abstinebat Episcopi propter varia effusionis sanguinis aliaque pericula tacendo hanc abstinentiam comprobabant quae abstinentra à calice cùm tempore Constantiensis Concilij ferè per Europam universalis esset non erat damnanda sed contra Haereticos insurgentes defendenda Coster Ies Enchirid. Tract de Commun sub utraque specie pag 359. Credere par est ex communi fidelium populorum Orthodoxorum Praesulum tacito consensu receptam quando autem primum inceperit mihi non constar Alfons de Castro l. 6. Tit. Eucharistia Haer. ult It came not in by any precept but crept in by little and little by the abstinence of the people and by the Tacite and silent consent of the Bishops So your Bishop Roffensis and your Iesuite Costerus and Fryer Castro This confessed unknowne manner of Alteration of this your Custome as it doth utterly refute your common Objection viz. That every Doctrine and Custome must beejudged ancient and Catholike the beginning whereof is not knowne so doth it more especially put your Master Brerely to his blush who durst make the same Objection in this very Case in defence of the use of but One kinde to proove it to have beene from the beginning because No first knowne beginning of our Catholike practice * Liturg Tract 4. §. 9. at the ead thereof saith he can bee instanced And yet behold here no certaine beginning of this Romish Custome yet notwithstanding confessed to be an Alteration different from the Custome which formerly for a thousand yeares was held a Catholike Custome Was not the Church of Rome then a wise and a worthy Mistris of Churches trow you to suffer her selfe to be guided by the humour of People in a matter of this nature what other difference can this make betweene our Custome and yours but that which is betweene divine Ordinance and popular negligence or as betweene a publike Professor and a Theevish Creeper Heresie is certainly a disease but wore you what the * 2. Tim. 2. 15. Apostle noteth it to be a Cancer or Gangrene which is a disease Creeping by little and little from joynt to joynt untill it have eaten up the vitall parts such a Cancer was this your Custome if you shall stand to your owne former Confessions Our last Comparison is betweene the Contrary Dispositions of Professors one in continuing and distinguishing a second in mixing the third in rejecting Both kindes SECT XII THe comparison betweene the divers Dispositions of Professors none will be more willing to shew than your Iesuite l Quod verò atrinet ad tempora triplicem in coetu Christiano statum Nicolaus de Cusano Cardinalis expendit ferventis nimirùm calidae frigentis Initio enim fuit Ecclesia ad fundendum pro Christo sanguinem fervens tunc data est illi utraque species ut sanguinem Domini bibens sanguinem suum pro illo libenter effunderet In sequenti statu Ecclesia fuit calida licèt non ità fervens tunc non dabatur bina species sed panis tantùm sanguine infusus ut ex quibusdam veterum Patrum sententiis Concilijisque colligi potest Tertius status est Ecclesiae frigentis ac tepidae in ea tantùm altera species panis scilicet sine infusione sanguinis Laicis dispensatur Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 34. §. Quod verò pag. 277. Salmeron who will have you out of Cardinall Cusanus to observe three States of the Church The first is in her Fervencie The second in her Warmnes The third in her Coldnes In the first state of her Fervencie when the Christians affected Martyrdome for the Gospell of Christ then did the People saith he communicate in both kindes In the second state which was in her Warmnes though not so hot boyling as before They then used to dip the Hoast into the Chalice and so were made joyntly partakers of Both in one But in the third state of Coldnes the people were allowed the Sacrament only under one kinde So he CHALLENGE IF now Truth may be
Alan witnesseth before the Councell of Laterane which was 1â— 15. yeares after Christ nor can you produce One Father Greeke or Latine for a Thousand yeares attributing any word equivalent in strict Sense unto the same word Transubstantiation untill the yeare 900 which is beyond the Compasse of due Antiquitie At what time you finde note and urge Theophylact who saith of the Bread that It is Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ. Which Phrase in what Sense hee used it you might best have learned from himselfe who in the very same place saith that Christ in a manner is h Theoph. in Ioh. 6. De Christo per sidem manducato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Trans-elementated into the Communicant which how unchristian a Paradox it were being taken in strict and proper Sense we permit to your owne judgements to determine Neither yet may you for the countenancing of the Noveltie of this word object the like use of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though it had beene in use before the Arian Controversie began because the Fathers of the Councell of Nice judged the Objection of the Noveltie of that word Calumnious for that the use of it had beene Ancient before their times as your Cardinall i Calumniam hanc Patres Antique aptissimè coÌ„tutârunt atque ostenderunt non inventum fuisse hoc nomen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Concilio Nicaeno sed fuisse antè in usu Patrum at illud jam vocabulum usurpari quo sui Majores usi fuissent Bellarm. quo supra c. 3. Bellarmine himselfe witnesseth You furthermore to prevent our Objection demanding why the Ancient Fathers never called your fancied Romish Change Transubstantiation if they had beene of your Romish Faith concerning the Substantiall Change of Bread into the Body of Christ have shaped us this Answer namely that k Ets veteres Ecclasiae Doctores non sint usi voce Tran substantrationis tamen usi sunt vocibus iceÌ„ significantibus ut Conversionis TraÌ„smutationis Transi tionis Transformationis Transelementationis siâ—â—libus 〈◊〉 Fortâ—â—it jâ—d Tract de Euchari §. Nota pro solouone Aâ—gumentorum sol 117. Although they used not the very word Transubstantiation yet have they words of the same signification to wit Conversion Transmutation Transition Transformation Trans-elementation and the like So your Lorichius Reader of Divinitie among you who by his vast and rash boldnesse might as justly have inferred from the like Phrases of the Apostle viz * 2. Cor. 3. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are transformed that every Regenerate Christian is Transubstantiated into Christ or from the word * 2. Cor. 1. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is transfigured say that the Divell is Transubstantiated into an Angel of light or from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is changed used by l Quiaquid Spiritus Sanctus tetigerit Sanctificat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Hieros 〈◊〉 5. Cyrill urge that whosoever the Spirit of God doth Sanctifie is Transubstantiated into another thing or from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz Orat. 40 pag. 943. Edit Paris Nazianzene conclude that Every person Baptized is Transubstantiated into Christ âšœ And one of your owne Doctors examining all the Phrases of the Greeke Fathers and comming to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth properly expresse the sense of the Latine word Transubstantiatio hee confesseth that 2 Quanvis Graeci Petres eo nomine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non utuntur sunt tamen Authores aborum no 〈◊〉 quibus eam quoac hert possit ap 〈◊〉 exprimunt ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Petrus Aread de concord Orient Occident Eccl. lib. 3 c. 2 Tract de Euch. They used it not And what the Greek Church thinketh thereof at this day you may learne from two Patriarchs of Constantinople the One not admitting the Other rejecting it as will bee showne in the second Chapter 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 from your Cardinall n Periculosa est vocum novarum Libertas in Ecclesia cum paulatim ex vocibus novis novae etiam res oriantor cùm cuique licet in tel us 〈◊〉 nomina singere Bell. lib. de Sacram. in Genere cap 7. §. Ex quibus Liberty of devising new wordes saith he is a thing most dangerous because new words by little and little beget new things So he Therefore may we justly place this your new word among those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Saint * 1. Tim. c. 20. Paul will have Christians by all meanes to avoid else so new and barbarous a Name must needs ingender a novel and brutish opinion such as this Article it selfe will appeare to be As followeth The Noveltie of the Article of Transubstantiation is examined and showne not to have beene before the Councel of Laterane namely not untill 1215. yeares after Christ SECT III. THis Article hath beene decreed as you have * See above Ch. 1. §. 2. 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 o Bellar. lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen Bellarmine noteth to have beene in the dayes of Pope Gregory the Seventh 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 p Si quaeratur qualis sit Conversio viz. Pants in Encharistia an formalis an substantialis an alterius generis definite non sufficio Quibusdum videtur esse substantialis dicentibus substantiam converti in substantiam Lombard Sent. lib. 4 Distinct 11 lit a. 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 School-man Scotus to descend lower to finde out the Birth thereof q Scotus dicit ante Concilium Lateranense non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantiationem Id ille dixit quia non legerat Conc. Rom. sub Gregorib 7. nec consensum Patrum quem nos produximus Bellarm. lib 3. de Eucharist cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen Affirming that the Article of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith
after him But not to disclaime your Author all that he saith is that r Cyprian de Coena Dâ—n Paâ—s â—ste natuâ—à muâ—â—tus omâ—â—potentia veâ—bâ— factus est Câ—ro c. Bread is changed by Gods Omnipotency not in Figure but in Nature This is ill And all this hath beene but even now quitted by your owâ—e Confessions granting a power of Omnipotency in every Sacramentall Change where the naturall Element is altered from it's common habitude into the nature of a Spirituall Instrument and use both signifying and exhibiting Divine Grace and so the word Nature doth import The Schooles distinguiâ—hing the Nature of Accidents from the Nature of Subjects shew that there is an Accidentall Nature as well as a Substantiall Theology teaching that * Ephes 2. 3. August Ipsam naturam aâ—â—ter dicem cum propâ—â—è loquimuâ— naturam homâ—â—s incalpâ—biâ—s factus est By nature wee are the children of wrath wherein Nature signifieth onely a vitious Quality This saying viz. Indifferent things in fact Change their nature when they are commanded Master * Lituâ—g Tract 4. § 6. Brerely alloweth of as for example a Surplesse being commanded by lawfull Authority the use thereof becometh necessary so that the nature therof is Changed yet not in the Substance of the thing but in the legall necessity of the use âšœ And what will you thinke of that of Saint Hilarie saying of all persons Regenerate that 1 Hilar de Trin. lib 8 Per naturam sidei unum sumus renati ad innocentiam immortalitatem regenerati in umus AEternitatis naturam By the nature of faith they are changed into Immortality and into one nature of Eternity In both which the Proprieties and qualities of things are called the Natures thereof In which respect we embrace the saying of Saint Ambrose when hee affirmeth the 2 Ambros de jis qui initiantur myster cap. ult Major benedictionis omnis virtus quà m naturae quià benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur Nature of Bread to bee changed in this Sacrament Certainly even as it is in all other Mysteries wherin as Saint Augustine speaketh 3 Aug. Tom. 9. in Seâ—m de Cataclysmo Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum As much as to say the Element as Bread is Changed into a Sacrament as * See above Booke 2. cap. 2. §. 16. Isidore spake which is called the Body of Christ because of the Sacramentall property of speech calling the Signe by the name of the thing signified as the same * Father with divers Others hath amply declared âšœ But to come neerer Answer us but this one Question Wheras all learning alloweth this saying that in Baptisme the nature of the Element and the nature of the Sacrament are different whereupon it is sayd The word coming to the Element maketh it a Sacrament when wee shall say of the water in Baptisme that the Nature of it as of a Sacrament is more excellent than is the nature of it as it is a meere Element whether doth not the word Nature attributed to the Sacrament justly accord unto the Phrase of Cyprian in the case of the Eucharist and so much the rather because that Cyprian in the words immediatly following the Testimony objected doth fully confute Transubstantiation by a Similitude comparing the Humanity and Deity of Christ with the Naturall and Spirituall parts of this Sacrament to wit Å¿ Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebat Divinitas ità Sacramento visibili ineffabilitèr divina se effundit essentia Author Coenae Ibid. §. Quarto As in Christ himselfe true humanitie appeared in his flesh and his Deity was hid This was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and first part of this Similitude the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and next part followeth Even so into this visible Sacrament the Divine Essence infuseth it selfe So hee which by the law of a Similitude must stand thus Even so Bread in this Sacrament is seene and the Spirituall operation of Gods power therein to the Faithfull is Invisible Like as we may say of the preaching of the Word of God to the Faithfull The words are audible and sensible but because of the inward working of Gods Spirit for the Conversion of Mans soule it is called * Rom. 1. 16. The power of God unto salvation as likewise Baptisme is made the Lavacrâ— of Regeneration whereof Gregory Nyssen affirmeth that t Greg. Nyssen erat de Baptism Divinum LavacruÌ„ magnum quid operatur per Benedictionem mirabiles producit Effectus It worketh marvellously by benediction and produceth marvellous Effects As for Augustine and Chrysostome not to bee superfluous every Protestant doth both beleeve and professe namely a Divine Operation of God both by changing the Element into a Sacrament and working by that Sacrament Spirituall Effects to the good of Mans soule âšœ A Vindication of divers Testimonies of Saint Cyprian by Romish Torturers forced for proofe of Transubstantiation BVt you have not done with Cyprian he is found saying concerning this Sacrament that 4 Cyprian de Coena Dom. Christus usquè hodie verissimum Sanctissimum suum Corpus creat sanctificat benedicit piè sumentibus dividit Objected by Dr. Heskins Parl. Booke 2. Chap. 8. Christ daily Createth his most true and most holy Body sanctifieth and blesseth it This in the Opinion of your Objector must needs prove a proper Existence of Christ in the Eucharist because Christ createth not an imaginary Body but that which is called a most true Body Which words notwithstanding in true sense make nothing against our Defence but against your Romish Tenets as much as any Protestant can require This is soone tryed The words of Cyprian are that Christ doth Create his most true Body the onely Question is of the word Create whereunto it is to be referred properly This must be either to Bread or to Christ's Body and your Cardinall abhorring to say that Christ's Body is properly created in this Sacrament 5 Bell. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 9. In verbis Cypriani illa Creas sanctisicas benedicis referuntur ad materiam unde consicitur Corpus Christi agimus enim gratias quod per Christum primò panem crëet deindè per eundem sanctificat benedicat convertendo in Corpus suum Quod autem Cyprianus loquitur de vero Corpore suo non de signo patet ex eo quòd veracissimum illud appellat Wee grant that Christ spake of his true body for this Sacrament wee say is a figure not of a fantasticall but of a substantiall Body Answereth that the words Create Sanctifie and Blesse are to be referred to Bread which is first Created saith he before it is converted into Christ's Body If then Cyprian by the words Christ's Body meant Bread which is the Signe of his Body is it not a wilfull blindnesse in your Disputers to conclude from a Signe the reall presence of a
Vnconscionablenesse may bee the more notorious in their Wresting of the Catholike meaning of the Fathers in this kind wee must tell you that there is no speech more familiar unto ancient Fathers than to esteeme as they ought all Sacramentall Signes Sacred and therefore no more Common or bare Elements Inso much that Gregory Nyssen speaking of a Ceremony inferior to this Sacrament which is the Altar or Table of the Lord hee saith that h Greg. Nysson Altare hoc sanctum cui adsistimus lâ—pis est naturâ Communis nihil differenâ— ab alijs crustis lapideâ—s ex quibus pavimenta nostra exornantur Sed quoniam Dei cultui consecratur dâ—dicatur benedictionem accepâ—t meÌ„sa facta Altare immaculatum est Orat de Sancto Baptismo Et nè contemnas divinum Lavacrum neque id Commune putes c. Although by nature it bee but as other stone wherewith the Pavements are garnished and adorned yet being Consecrated to Gods Service by Benediction it is an holy Table and Altar Adding also of Baptisme and saying The Divine Water is not to bee contemned nor to bee held as Common Yea and what lesse doth your Church say of your hallowed Balsome Beads and Bells and the like all which you distinguish from Common and bare Oyles and Metals because of their different use and service without Opinion of any Change of Substance at all The third Vnconscionablenes of your Disputers in urging for proofe of Transubstantiation the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers forbidding men to Discerne of this Sacrament by their Senses And first of their abusing the Testimony of Cyril by two egregious Falsifications SECT IV. VVEe may not easily passe over your Objection taken out of Cyrill being in the opinion of your Cardinall so impregnable Let us first here your Objector i Cyrilli Testimonium vel solum sufficere deberet est enim hujus Sancti antiquissimi ex opere ejus indubitâ—to clarissiâ—uâ— apertissimum ut nullo modo perverti possit est in Catechesi in quâ solent omnia propriè simplicâ—â—er explicari deniquè nemo unquam reprehendit Cyrillum erroris alicujas circa Eucharistiam Bâ—â—llâ—r lib 2. de Euch. cap. 13. This Testimony of Cyrill alone ought to suffice being the Sentence of an holy man and most ancient out of a worke which unquestionably was his yea and most cleare and plaine as that it cannot be perverted Besides it is in his Catechisme wherein the use of all things is delivered simply properly and plainly Nor was this Father Cyrill ever reproved of Error in his doctrine of the Eucharist Thus farre your Cardinall you see with as accurate an Oratory of Amplification as could bee invented What Protestant would not now if ever expect a deadly blow from this Father to our Catholike Cause but attend to the Issue First k Cyril Pro certissimo habeas Panem hunc qui videtur à nobis Panem non esse etiamsi gustus Panem esse senserit sed esse Corpus Christi Rursus Christus cui credamus Panem in Corpus Transmutavit Nam sub specie Panis datur tibi corpus sub specie Vini datur tibi sanguis Catech. Mystag 4. Cyril will not allow a man to credit his Taste but although Taste saith it is Bread yet undoubtedly to beleeve it to be the Body of Christ whereinto the bread is changed And he is brought in by your l Cyrillus apertè ponit Transmutationem Panis in corpus Christi solas species Panis remanere post Transmutationem quià dicit Corpus Domini sub specie Panis sumâ— distinguens Corpus à Pane. Bellar lib. 2 de Euch cap. 13. adding Hoc est Apertissimum Argumentum Cardinall to averre furthermore that The Body of Christ is given under the forme of Bread And so the Sentence seemeth to bee most manifest saith he But for what wee pray you That first forsooth the Change is the same with Transubstantiation and secondly that there is no more Substance of Bread but Accidents under the forme of Bread So he and Master * Liturg. Tractat 2. §. 2. Subd 4. pag. 116. Brerely from him as followeth Cyril saith under the forme of Bread his Body is given c. and then dancing in the same triumph addeth Can any Catholike of this Age write more plainely So he And we answer could any Iugglers deale more falsely For upon due examination it will appeare to be a manifest Delusion by a false Translation of Cyrils words The Body of Christ is given as your Cardinall doth render it sub specie Panis in or under the forme of Bread whereas it is in the Greeke m Cyril 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cateâ—â— Mystag 4. Russus Mystag 5. Non existimetis vos gustare Panem Vinum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnder the Type of Bread even as he saith afterwards Thinke not that you taste bread but the Antitype of Christ's Body In both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Type and Antitype not Forme or Figure of Bread Now there is a maine and manifest difference betweene Forme and Type For Accidentall Formes are things Reall and the determinate Objects of Sense but Types or Antitypes are onely Relatives and as such no Objects of Sense but of Reason and understanding onely As for example when a Iudge is set in his Scarlet upon the Bench the Eye seeth nothing but the colour and the fashion of the Gowne and outward figurature of his Face and so may every Child see him for these are Outward and Visible Accidents But to see that man as he hath upon him the person of a Iudge ordained to trie Causes betweene Parties is a sight of the minde which looketh upon his Office to discerne him by his Habit from common Subjects Even so is it in this Sacrament As the Bread and Wine are Round and White and Sweet in Taste our Bodily Senses perceive them but as they are Types and Antitypes that is Signes of the Body and Blood of Christ so are they spiritually discerned with our understanding onely As therefore it followeth not that the Scarlet Gowne of the Iudge because it is an Ensigne of his Office should be onely Colour and Fashion without the matter and Substance of the Cloth no more can any conclude from Cyril that because the Sacrament is a Type therefore this Type was onely Forme and outward Accidents without all Substance of Bread And thus your Cardinall his first Apertissimum Argumentum for proofe of Accidents without the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament is proved to be Apertissimum Figmentum void of all substance or almost shadow of Truth His next Observation is the Change by Transubstantiation and the errour of Sense in judging it to be Bread Wee call upon Cyril to decide this Controversie who is best able to interpret himselfe Hee therefore that said of the Eucharist after
107. De recipiente semen ut terra bonâ— Qui verbum recipit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Trans elementing in a sort of the word of God into the good Iearer Againe Theophylact is objected as saying x Theophyl in Math. 26. Panis ineffâ—bili modo transformatur Panis quidem apparet sed caro est Objected by Mr. Ererely Laturg Tract 2 §. 2. Sâ—bd As for est caro this Phrase 〈◊〉 beene already answered See above at s The Bread is after an ineffable maner Transformed It is true Hee saith so and so doth Hierome say that y Hier. in Marc. 14. Accepit Iesus Panem bâ—nedixit fregiâ— Transfigurans Corpus suum in Panem quod est Ecclesia praesens quae frangitur in passionibus Christ in breaking Bread did Transfigure or Transforme his Body into his Church broken with afflictions and Pope Leo sticketh not to say that 1 Leo. Non alia igitur participatio Corpous quà m ut mâ—id quâ—d summus transeamus De Passione Serm. 24 Wee Christians in communicating Transimus turne or are Changed into Christ his Body So these ancient Fathers Are you not yet out of breath with objecting Testimonies of Fathers Vnconscionably and imperâ—inently No for Master Brerely for a Close desireth to be heard and to try us with an Objection out of the Greeke Church these latter times as followeth a Mr. Brereley in his Apologie of the first Edition concerning the Faith of the ancient Greeke Church It appeareth by a Treatise published by the Protestant Divines at Wittenberge Anno Domini 1584. intituled Acta Theologorum Wittenbergensium Hieremiae Patriarchae Constantinop c. that the Greeke Church at this day although divided from the Latine professeth to beleeve Transubstantiation So he of the Patriarch Hieremâ—as which Patriarch if he were alive would very hardly containe himselfe from answering this your Brother with some indignation calling him both rash and precipitant seeing that the same Patriarch expresly said that b Hier. Patriarch Non enim hic nominus tantùm communicatio est sed rei identitas etenim verè Corpus Sanguis Christi mysteria sunt non quòd haec in corpus humanum transmutentur sed nos in illa melioribus praevalentibus Which is his Answer in this Poynt to the Doctors of Witâ—enbèrge The Body and Blood of Christ are indeed Mysteries which are not changed into humane flesh but wee into them So that Patriarch âšœ Neverthelesse another bold Romish 17 Franciscus de Sancta Clara. Exposit Artic. Confess Angi in Art 28 Orientalis Ocâ—identalis Ecclesia in hoc Articulo Transubstantiationis conveniunt Hieremus Patriarcha in sua Censura contra Lutherum idem fatetur Priest durst boast of your alliance in this doctrine of Transubstantiation not only with this forenamed Patriarch of Constantinople but also with the whole Easterne and Greeke Church But behold Cyril now Patriarch of Constantinople ready at hand to strangle this false bragge saying as he himselfe speaketh 18 Confâ—ssio fidei â— Reverendissima Cyrillo Patriarchia Constantiâ—op nomine omnium Ecclesiarum Orientalium Edit Anno 1632. In Eucharistiae Administratione Piaesentiam veram realem Christi consitemur prâ—fitemur at illam quam Fides nobis offert non autem quam excogitata docet Transubstantiatio In the name of the East and Greeke Churches Wee professe a true and reall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament but that which is offered by faith not that saith he which the devised Transubstantiation teacheth So he namely so as wee Protestants do likewise professe as will be declared in the next Booke at large And that the Grecians who were present at the Councell of Florence did not yield Assent to that Article of Transubstantiation although your Iesuite 19 Gordon Ies Controv. 4. cap. 4. num 25. Quod de Graecis in Concilio Florentino congregatis coÌ„miniscuntur Adversarij cos nimirum nègâsse Transubstantiationem apertum est Commentum Nam Disputatio tantùm erat quibus verbis fieret Transubstantiatio seu Consecratio Gordon would qualifie and mince the businesse yet Binius the Publisher of that Councell 20 Binius Tom. 4. Not. in Conc. Florent Sess 25. In vobis c. Cùm Pontifex egisset ut Graeci dicerent quid statuerent de Processione Spiritus de Purgatorio deque divina Transubstantiatione panis Cumque respondissent se admittere Purgatorium c. De Transubstantiatione verò Panis Suorum sententiae inhaesissent confesseth that they did therein Persist in the opinion of their owne Doctors Master Brerely would thinke it an injury done unto himselfe if we should pretermit his objected Authority of Pope Gregory for Doctor Humphrey saith hee doth charge Gregory the Great with Transubstantiation So Master Brerely who objected this in his Apologie many yeares agoe and had a full Answer in an * Appeale lib. 1. Chap. 2. §. 7. The testimony it self cited out of Greg. by Mâ— Brereley is answered in the first Book concerning EATING Appeale made purposely in confutation of his whole Apologie The Summe of that Answer is this Doctor Humphrey did not speake that as grounded upon any sentence of Gregory but onely upon the report of a Romish Legend supposing it to be true which in the â—udgement of Romish Doctors themselves whose Testimonies are there cited Is unworthy to report the memory of the fact being in it selfe fond filthy and frivolous the Author whereof may seeme to have a face of Iron and a heart of Lead and the Objector namely Master Brerely for grounding his Objection on a Legendary History A Falsisier of his owne promise This Answer was home one would thinke and might justly have provoked him to satisfie for himself if hee could have found any Errour therein yet notwithstanding for want of better service bringeth he in these Cole-worts twise sod CHALLENGE VVHat greater Vnconscionablenesse could your Disputers bewray than by so torturing the Hyperbolicall Figurative and Sacramentall Sayings of Ancient Fathers for proofe of the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ insomuch that they must bee consequently constrained by the force of some Phrases contrary both to the meaning of the same Fathers and to the Doctrine of your owne Romish Church to admit of three other Transubstantiations viz. First of Christ his Body into whatsoever the Appetite of the Communicant shall desire Secondly of Christ his Body into the Body of every Christian And Thirdly of the Body of every Christian into the Body of Christ As the Testimonies objected plainly pronounce âšœ Besides which you may adde a Fourth of Bread into the Deity of Christ And againe a Fift out of Chrysostome of the Wicked receivers turned into Wolves as you have heard As also for a Sixt from others of the Change of * Set the 9 §. following Dioâ—ysius Godly Receivers into God A Seaventh out of Saint Augustine of Changing saith he of Christ * See Booke 5.
Place Which being joyned with the former Confession of Suarez already cited affirming it to be a Doctrine Contrary to all Divines to teach the Body of Christ to be any where but only in heaven excepting the mysterie of the Eucharist It will be easie to discerne how little credit is to be given to the Stories which are alleged by Bellarmine of bodily Apparitions without the Sacrament âšœ That the Opinion of the Being of a Body in many places at once implyeth a Contradiction is Secondly proved by the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers thereby distinguishing Christ his two Natures Godhead and Manhood one from another by Circumscription and Incircumscription SECT V. ANcient Fathers judged it Impossible for a Body to be without Determination in one only place at one time yea say you they did so but meaning Impossible according to the course of nature but not absolutely Impossible as if by Divine Miracle a Body might not be in many places at once This is your onely Answer and the Answer of every one of your Answerers whereat wee should wonder but that they have given us so often experience what little conscience they make how true their Answers be so that they may be knowne to have answered otherwise they well know that the Fathers meant an absolute Impossibility and that this is most evident by the Heresie which they did impugne and also by their maner of confuting the same The Eutychian Heretikes you a Alfons de Cast cont haeres Eutych know confounded the Properties of Christs humane nature with his Godhead pretending as you do the Omnipotencie of Christ for the patronizing of their Heresie As thinking thereby thus saith b Theod. Dial. 2. Dicunt Christi carnem spiritualem alterius substantiae quà m sit nostra caro imaginantur se per haec Deum magnifacere cum tamen falsi veritatem accusant Theodoret out of Amphilochius to magnifie the Lord Christ whereas this was indeed as the same Father saith to accuse Truth of falshood You may heare the same voice sound out of the Romane Chaire Pope c Leo Papa Ep. 13. quae est ad Pulcher. Aug. Subrepsisse intelligo spiritum falsitatis ut dum affirmat se religiosiùs de filij Dei majestate sentire si ei naturae nostrae veritatem inesse non dicat c. Leo speaking of Eutyches the Author of that Heresie saith that Hee affirmed that thereby he did more religiously conceive of the Majesty of Christ by denying his humane nature whom therefore that holy Pope censureth to have beene seduced by the Spirit of falsity Therfore it cannot be but that the Fathers in confuting an Heresie founded upon a pretence of Omnipotency did hold that doctrine absolutely impossible which they withstood as will now more lively appeare by the Testimonies of themselves Theodoret against this Heretike argueth thus d Theod. Dial. 3. lib. 3. ex Euseb Emis Contra eos qui dicunt Corpus Christi in Divinitate mutatum esse post resurrectionem Hos dicere necesse est vel divinae naturae manus pedes alias corporis partes tributas esse vel fateri corpus manfisse in suae naturae finibus Atqui divina natura simplex est incomposita corpus autem compositum in multas partes divisum non est ergo mutatum in naturam divinitatis quidem immortale â—actum divinà naturâ plenum sed tamen corpus quod propriam habet Câ—cumscriptionem The Body of Christ being a compounded thing cannot be changed into a divine nature because it hath Circumscription This had bin no good reasoning except his CANNOT had imported an absolute Impossibility âšœ And this 11 Eranistes Heret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ex lob Theod. opponit Exâ—mplum impossibilium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret Dial. 3. Cap 4. Et paulò post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret himselfe doth furthermore make good who in the same Dialogue where to the Heretikes Objection out of Iob saying I know thou canst doe all things nothing is impossible with thee he answereth by instancing in examples of Impossibility because of Contradiction saying It is impossible for eternity to be in time or a thing created to be uncreated or finite to be infinite So he âšœ c Vizil lib. 4 cont Eutych Circumscribitur loco per naturam carnis suae loco non capitur per nâ—turam divinitatis suae Haec fides est confessio Catholica quam Apostoli tradiderunt Martyres roboraverunt fideles nunc usque custodiunt Et paulò superius Quia nunc in Coelo est non est utique in terra Vigilius anciently Bishop of Trent might have read a Lesson to the late Bishops at Trent who against the same Heretike distinguishing the two natures of Christ his Humane nature by being Circumscribed in one place the Divine by being unlocable doubted not to inferre saying of his Bodily nature It being now in heaven is not at all on earth And lest that any might thinke this was but his owne private opinion hee averreth saying This is the Catholike profession taught by the Apostles confirmed by Martyrs and hitherto held of the Faithfull So Fulgentius upon the same Distinction maketh the same Conclusion saying of his Bodily substance that therefore f Fulgent de persona Christi ad Trasimund lib. 2. cap 5. Vnus idemque homo localis ex homâ—ne qui est Deus immensus ex Patie Vnus idemque secundùm humanâ—m substantiam absens caelo cum esset in terra derelinquens terram cùm ascendisset in coelum Being on Earth it was absent from Heaven and going to Heaven it left the Earth Damascea had to deale with the forenamed Heretike and professing to deliver the substantiall difference of both Natures hee differenceth them by these contrary Characters g Damascen de fide Orthodoxi lib 3. cap. 3. Eâ—rum naturarum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 astâ—umus salvari nam câ—eatum mansit creatum increatâ—â— increatum morrale â—manebâ—t mortale immortale immortale 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 âšœ Paulo suâ—erius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Created not Created Capable of mortalitie and not Capable of mortalitie Circumscribed and not Circumscribed and Invisible in it selfe and Visible which notwithstanding is in the Eucharist by your doctrine noâ— Capable of Circumscription because whole in the whole Hoast and in every part thereof and to the very Angels of God Invisible âšœ And yet againe that you may further know that Damiscen is as professedly ours in this point as any Protestant can be hee in confutation of the same Heretike addeth saying How can one and the same Nature be capable at once of two essentiall contrary Differences for how is it possible for the same Nature according to the same to be created and uncreated mortall and immorall circumscribed and uncircumscribed Where by the way you may observe that Circumscription of a Body is accounted
in it selfe but in respect of the Place or of the formes of Bread under which it is the whole Body is without distinction in every least Part and Indivisible Point thereof CHALLENGE THis is the common Resolution of the now Church of Rome The exact discussion of this one point will in it selfe illumnate the Eyes of any Reader to discerne betweene the Spirit of Truth and of Errour namely to know that there cannot be a greater Contradiction and consequently Impossibility than for a Body consisting of proportionable dimensions of Parts such as are Hands Legs Eyes and other Organicall members to have Being any where without Extension Commensuration and distinct Proportion of the same to the space wherein it is as the Propositions following will prove That the former Romish Tridentine Article is new and contrary to the nature of an Organicall and Humane Body in the Iudgement of Romish Doctors of later times SECT IV. ALbertus Scotus Aegidius are recounted amongst your learned and ancient Schoolemen who as your a Totum Christi corpus in partibus indivisibilibus specierum panis esse negaâ—â—â— Albertus Scotus Aegidius quia videtur impossible in se corpus extensum magnae molis cum tota organizatione figura in puncto collocari Suarez quo supra pag. 683. Jesuite testifieth Though it impossible that a Body that hath Extension of parts should be contained in an indivisible point The same opinion is ascribed by your Jesuites as ancient unto b Opinio antiqua quae fuit Durandi dixit corpus Christi in Eucharistia non habere quantitatem Fundamentum hujus opinionis fuit quod essentia quantitatis est habere partes extra partes distinctas inter se sieri autem non possit ut si corpus Christi habeat partes distinctas in Euch. sit totum in qualibet parte Teste Maldonat Ies Tom. 1. de Euch cap. 8. Arg pag. 180. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5. Durand and c Occham alij dixerunt quidam esse magnitudinem corporis Christi in Eucharistia sed ita ut nulla sit figura nec distinctio partium Sic Occham Bellar. ibid §. â—t Occham Now what greater injury can there be than after that it was lawfull for a thousand and foure hundred yeares since the Ascension of Christ for any Christian to professe with your ancient Schoolemen an Impossibility that The Body of Christ is whole in every the least part of the Hoast to impose upon mens consciences as an Article of Faith so found and so palpable a figment That which seemed to the above-named Durand Occham and other 1 Suarez Ies in 3. Thom. disp 48. Sect. 1. De Distantis partium Nominales concedunt in corpore Christi existentem in Eucharistia pedem non distare magis à capite quam collum Ità Occham Ailliaco Nominals such an Opinion whence as they thought it must needs follow that the Eyes must be where the Nose is the hand confouded with the legs which as your Cardinal Alan truly said were to make of the Body of Christ a confused Chaos and altogether * See above in this Chapter Sect. 2. monstrous âšœ And it may be that divers of you are of the minde of that Doctor of the Seraphicall order who teacheth you to 2 Corpus Christi non est nisi sub specie Panis partibus ejus ipsum esse sub quolibet indivisibili ipsius Hostiae per se negandum est Magister de media villa Sâ—raph Ord. in 4. Sent. Tom. 4. Deny that the Body of Christ is in any indivisible part of the Hoast âšœ That the Organicall parts of the Body of Christ must be proportionable to the Dimension of the places wherein they are is proved by the confessed Romish Principle it selfe SECT V. THE reason which your * See above § 2. Cardinall layet downe to prove it necessary that Christ his Body should have in it selfe according to the nature of a Body distinct parts of head and eyes and other Organs fit for the use of a reasonable Soule he taketh from Magnitude which is an Extension of parts into their proportionable length breadth and depth This saith he is inseparably united to Christ his Body in it's owne intrinsecall disposition in it selfe but not so saith he in regard of the place CHALLENGE THis your owne Reason may wee justly retort upon your selves proving that if the naturall disposition of the Body of Christ be thus proportionably extended in it selfe it must be so likewise in respect of Place and Space because the three dimensions of the Body of Christ as you have confessed stand thus that one is an extension in Length another in Breadth the third in Depth and each of these three are distinct one from another Well then the Arme must be here and thus farre longer than the Foot the Legge here and thus farre thicker than the Finger the Hand here and thus farre broader than the Toe and accordingly distinctly in other parts But Hîc and Hucâ—sque Here and There thus farre and so farre being Relatives of Space and Place do demonstratively shew that that Extension of distinct parts of the Body which they have in themselves divisibly the same they must necessarily have in respect of the Vbi Place or Space wherein the Body is If therefore you will not Heretically teach a Mathematicall or Phantasticall Body oâ— Christ you must deny the Article of Trent untill you can beleeve and make good that a part of a divisible Body longer or shorter broader or narrower can be and that equally in one indivisible point This is confirmed by the Essence of Christ his glorified Body as you confesse it to be now in Heaven possessing a Reall place in the sayd proportion of Spaces of length and breadth as it had here upon earth which it doth by the naturall Magnitude or Quantity thereof But the sayd naturall Magnitude or quantity of the sayd Body of Christ is according to your wone generall Doctrine in this Sacrament Therefore must it have the same Commensuration of Space although not of the same Space which is one earth Wee should be loath to trouble your wits with these speculations if that the necessity of the Cause by reason of the Absurdities of your Romish profession did not inforce us hereunto Therefore must you suffer us a little to sport at your trifling seriousnesse who writing of this Divine Sacrament and seeing it to be round solid broken moulded in the one kind and liquid frozen and sowring in the other do attribute all these to Quantities and Qualities and Accidents without any other subject at all So then by the Romish Faith wee shall be constrained to beleeve in effect that the Cup is filled with Mathematicall lines the Mouse eating the Hoast is sed with colours and formes that it is Coldnesse that is frozen and Roundnesse which weigheth downe and falleth to the ground as if you should describe a Romish
Infirmities Wee returne to the written word of God When the Apostle for the magnifying of the perfection of Christs glorious Resurrection as the Head by Analogy with the promised Corporall Glory of faithfull Christians as his Members by the virtue of Christs owne Resurrection saith of these Phil. 3. Hee shall transforme our vile Bodies and make them conformable to his owne glorious Body namely according to those Celestiall Dotes and Indowments set downe 1. Cor. 11. Incorruption Immortalitie Glory Power By all which the excellencie of the Corporall state of the Saints is delineated whereby to excite all the faithfull to possesse their bodies in sanctity and to prepare them to Martyrdome for the hope-sake of the glory whereof it is said The afflictions of this life are not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed Wee suppose the Apostle could not then dreame of a Body of Christ without facultie of Sense or power of Motion âšœ You must therefore derive this from him whom Christ calleth the Father of lyes Wee shall give you good reason for this our Declamation That this Romish Doctrine is Blasphemously Derogatory from the Majesticall Body of Christ SECT IV. WHat is this which we have heard Christ his humanity after his Resurection not to have so much Capacity as a Child which is as hee is here to understand or imagine any thing done not the power of a Moale or Mouse which is to heare or see not the faculty of a little Ant so as to move it selfe as if this were not an Antichristian Blasphemy against that all-Majesticall Body and humane nature of Christ which being once * 1. Cor. 15. 44 Sowen in Infirmitie is as the Scripture saith since risen in power Do you heare In power saith the Spirit of God shewing that Infirmitie is changed into Potencie in the Body of every Christian and you have turned Power into infirmity even in Christ himselfe whom you have now transformed into an * Psal 116. Idoll having eyes and seeth not eares and heareth not feete and walketh not heart and imagineth not and yet this you professe to adore as the person of the Sonne of God O the strength of Satanicall Delusion That this Romish Doctrine contradicteth your owne Principle SECT V. REmember your * See above 〈…〉 former generall Principle which wee acknowledged to be sound and true viz. All such Actions and Qualities which are reall in any Body without any relation to Place cannot be sayd to be multiplyed in respect of divers places wherein a Body is supposed to be As for example The Body of Christ cannot be cold in one Altar and hot in another wounded and whole in joy and griefe dead and alive at the same time The reason These are impossible say you because of Contradiction for that the same thing should be capable of such Contrarieties it is repugnant to the understanding of man So you which is an infallible Truth when the Modus or Maner of a thing is compared to it selfe and not to any thing else it is necessary that at one and the same time the Modus be onely one the same Jesuit cannot be sicke in Iapan and sound and in health at Rome in the same instant âšœ Take you for a Conclusion the Confession of your much approved Doctor who doubteth not to call the opinion which holdeth that The Body of Christ is imperfect to be 4 Petrus Arcad. Corcyren de Concord Eccles Occid Orient Anno 1626. Approbantibus Episcopo Bargi Episc Zacinth Andraea Eudâ—emone Ioh. Doctoribus Facult Parisien Tract de Eucharistia Dicere corpus Christi esse quandoque imperfectum est mira blasphemia Blasphemous Nor may you deny the Disabilitie of Motion in Christs Body to be an Imperfection seeing that as the Head of your Church taught that which all Christian Churches ever professed to wit 5 Innocent 3. Papa de offic Mâ—ssae lib 3. cap. 22. Quatuor sunt corporis glorificati propriae qualitates Claritas subtilitas Agilitas Impassibilitas Agility is a proper 〈…〉 of every glorified Bodie wheresoever it is And you may call to minde the Conclusion of your Iesuite Conincks above-mentioned Cap. 4. Sect. 10. Shewing that for the Same Body to be sayd to move in one place and stand still in another is as flat a Contradiction as to say It is frozen and warme both at once Which hee confirmed in the Margin with severall Reasons which do accordingly confute your Doctrine of Possibility of the voluntary Motion of Christs Body in Heaven and the Impossibilitie thereof as it is in this Sacrament âšœ CHALLENGE NOw say wee beseech you is there not the like Contradiction to make the same Christ at the same time as hee is in Heaven Intelligent and Sensitive and as on earth Ignorant and Senslesse Or Powerfull to move of himselfe on the Throne of Majestie and absolutely Impotent as hee is on the Altar Because these Attributes of Christ being Intelligent and Potent equally have no Relation to Place Notwithstanding all which you shame not to professe a senslesse ignorant and feeble Christ O come out of Babylon and be no more bewitched by such her Sorceries CHAP. X. The sixt kind of Romish Contradiction against these words Of Christ MY BODY as it is now most Glorious by making it most Inglorious SECT I. BEfore we proceed in discovering the ouglinesse of the Romish Doctrine in this point wee are willing to heare your a In his booke of the Liturgie of the Masse Tract 2. §. 4. Subd 1. M. Brerely his preface in your defence The carnall maâ— saith he is not for all this satisfied but standeth still offended at sundry pretended absurd and undecent indignities Calvin saying That hee rejected them as unworthy of the Majesty of Christ And Doctor Willet saith That they are unseemely and against the dignity of the glorious and impassible Body of Christ So hee at once relating and rejecting their opinions That the Indignities whereunto the Body of Christ is made subject by the Romish Doctrine are most vile and derogatory to the Majesty of Christ SECT II. ALl Christian Creeds tell us that Christ our Saviour sitteth at the right hand of God that is in perfection of glory But your Jesuite Suarez delivereth it in the generall Doctrine of the Romish Divines d Suarez Ies Dicendum tamdiu conservaâ—i Christum praesentem sub speciebus quamdiu species illae ibi ita permanent ut sub ijs possit substantia panis vini conservari Haec conclusio fere colligitur ex omnibus Theologis Catholicis Scriptoribus D. Thoma c. Sequitur falsam esse sententiam illorum qui dicunt corpus Christi recedere si in lutum cadant species In tertiam Tho. quaest 75. Art 1. Disp 46. §. Dicendum Sect. 8. Rursus q 76. Disp 54. §. 2. Christus non receditx hoc Sacramento donec in Accidentibus talis fiat Alteâ—atio quae ad corrumpendum panem
vinum sueceret §. Dico secundò Rursus Quòd Christus recedat statim ut Species deglutiantur antequam alterentur ffist contra generale principium §. Tertio That the Body of Christ remaineth so long under the formes of Bread and Wine whersoever as the same formes remaine in the same plight as that the same formes of Bread and Wine might be preserved And this hee 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 e Potest corpus Christi per accidens moveri ab eo qui potest especies consecratas secundùm locum mutare Suarez Tom. 3. quaest 76. Disp 2. Art 7. And Ad motum specierum movetur Christus Bellar. lib 3. de Euch. c. 19. Si per negligentiam aliquid de sanguine stillaverit in terram c. Decret D. 2. Cap. Si per negligentiam Nunquid cadente Sacramento cadit corpus Christi Dic quod sit Glossa ibid And Bozius lib. 14. de signis Eccles cap. 7. telleth of a woman that hid it in a Dunghill See above Chap. 1. Sect. 2. Romish Decrees and publike Missals the same Body of Christ is vomited up by the Communicant yea and you have f A Nauseabundis expuituir Suarez quo supra Si quis stomacho evomit illas species corpus Christi evomit si species possint discernab alijs debent cum reverentia sumi cremari cineres juxta Altare recondi Gloss Decret quo supra Summa Angel Tit. Eucharistia n. 5. pag. 147. Cases about the vomiting of it whether upon weakenesse of g Si fiatâ— usea Sacerdâ—â— pâ—r mâ—scam â—ciden em si aliquid venenâ—sum â—â—â—deret in calicem vel quod provocaset vomitum tum c. Missal Rom. Decreto jussâ— PijV. Pont. edit in instruct ante Missâ—m pag. 35. In hac parte distinctionis ponitur poenitentia corpus Christi vomentibus Decret de Conseâ—rat quo supra Stomacke or of h Si quis per ebrictatem vel voracitatem Eucharistiam evomuerit 40. diebus poeniteat Decret ibid. Dicunt isti quod corpus Christi non intrat ventrem quod falsum est cum species intrant quamdiu enim species manenâ— Christus latet integer sub ijs sic potest evomi Drunkennesse Next that it is devoured of i A muribus comâ—ditur quia Denominâ—tiones qua tanâ—ùm indicant motum localem perterminum ejus propriè tribuuntur corpori Christi à quocunque fiant huju smodi est commestio Suarez Tom. 3. qâ—aest 76. Disp 54. pag 706. Mice and blowne away with Wind for we read of your Church-Cases also for these in your * Si hostia consecrata dispareaâ— vel casu aliquo vel vento vel à mure accepta ut nequeat reperiri altera consecretur Missal Rom. quo supra pag. 32. Missals Nor are you satisfied with these but as if you had some hoggish Appetite delighted with dirt you will have it knowne that as you have * See above in this Booke Chap. â— Sect 2. found the Body of Christ Hid for many yeeres in a Dunghill so will you * See Booke 5. Chap. 11. Sect. 1. hereafter prove it to be found in Mans Seege and Draught That the Romish fore-sayd Indignities are contrary to holy Scriptures and Iudgement of Ancient Fathers SECT III. HOly Writ teacheth us that there is as great differerence betweene the Humiliation of Christ when hee was on Earth and his now Exaltation in glory in Heaven as there is betweene shame and Glory it being now * 1. Cor. 15. Philip. 2. 8. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Body of Glory Now for you to beleeve and professe the personall burning devouring regorging yea and the hiding of that glorious Body of Christ in a dunghill and the like are such execrable speeches as that wee stand astonished with horrour to heare them thinking that wee 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 Judgement therein from whose diuerse and copious Volumes neither do you allege nor we read any one word of mans spewing up or Mice eating or so much as the Wind blowing away the Body of Christ much lesse of the other basenesse spoken of But contrariwise l Origen in Matth. 15. 27. Id quod materiale est in ventrem abit in secessum suum eijcâ—tur Origen and * Cyril Hier. Catech. Mystag 5. pag. 542. Panis hic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysost Hom. de Euch. in Lucam Num vides panem num vides vinum sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt absit sic ne cogites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 abominable âšœ Suffer us to aske you a question When in the dayes of old as you * See above Booke â— Chap 2. §. 10. in the Challenge know the Remainders of the Sacrament were committed to the fire tell us what that was which was burned was it onely Bread and Wine or yet the Accidents of them only This you cannot say whose Vniversall Doctrine is that so long as the Formes of Bread and Wine are uncorrupt the Body and Blood of Christ are Existent under them Or eâ—se was it the Body and Blood of Christ which was cast into the fire who will not abhorre to conceive such an Abomination to have beene willingly committed by Sacred and Primitive Antiquity and Consequently you ought to execrate all beliefe of a Corporall Existence of Christs Body in the Sacrament within the â—â—â—â—â—dents thereof âšœ That the Romish Answeres for defence of this their vile and beastly Opinion are but false and fond SECT IV. IT was sayd 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 sayd of our Romish Opposites whereof wee haue 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 Visards on their faces come in with two fanaticall m Card. Bellar. and Master Brereley in places above-cited Answers Both which are taken from the condition of Christ his humane Body whilest he was in the World n Noâ—nulli vix ferre possunt ChristuÌ„ quoquo modo
includi in paâ—vâ pixide cadere in terram coÌ„mburi rodi à bestâ—a Annon credunt Christum parvulum inclusum in angustissimo utero eundem potuisse in via caâ— ere humi jacuisse remoto miraculo à bestia morderi combuâ—i potuisse si ita pati potuit in propria specie cur miâ—um videtur si illa sine laesione in specie aliena eidem accidere posse dicamus Bellar. l. 3 de Euc. cap. 10. §. Deniquè 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 wee 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 hee Joyne with this the Determination of your o Aquinas Etiamsi caâ—is hostiam consecratam manducet substantia corporis Christi non definit esse sub speciebus part 3. quaest 80. art 3. Schoole That the Substance of Christ his Body remaineth still although the Hoast be eaten with Dogs But Master Brerely more cunningly that hee might not only 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 Heretikes conceived Indignities against some mysteries of Christian Religion as against Christ his Incarnation and his Crucifying So he Both which Answers 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 rejoyne 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 objects of Indignity notwithstanding the Spirit of God hath blazed them to the world to have beene the Indignities of all Indignities Thus * Philip. 2. 6. Who being in the forme of God and thinking it no robbery to be equall wiâ—h 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 * Ioh. 3. 16. 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 Aâ—swerers 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 Infidelity 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 * 1. Cor. 15. Mortality and Immortality Shame and Glory Misery and Blessednesse Earth and Heaven that being his state of Humaliation and this Contrariwise of his Exaltation as all Christians know and professe And although the Body of Christ now in eternall Majesty be not obnoxious to Corporall injuries yet may Morall and Spirituall abasements be offered unto Christ as well in the Opinion as in the Practise of men Of the Opinion we have an Example in the Capernaites concerning Christ whensoever hee should give his Flesh to be eaten carnally for the Practice you may 〈◊〉 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 injury against Christ by murthering his Saints on earth complained off by his voice from Heaven * Act. 9. 4. Saul Saul why persecutest thou mee Your Cardinall in answer to the Objection 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 now happen unto him but sine laesione that is without any hurt Wee answer that if he 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 Majesty This your Aquinas well saw when in regard of Indignity hee judged it a Nesas nunc esset Christum in propriâ specie in pixiâ—le includi putare A. quin. part 3. quaest 76. art 8. An hainous wickednes 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 knowne to be 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 do your Jesuites in a point of Opinion deny that Christs Body is Transubstantiated into the flesh of the Communicant because of the * See hereafter Booke 5. Chap. 7. §. â— Indignity against his Majesty Come wee 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 Beards be shaven and that the Laicks abstaine from the Cup in a pretence of Reverence The first lest some part of the Hoast which you beleeve to be the Body of Christ should hang on the Priest's Beard the second lest any whit of Christs Blood in the Cup should be spilt But how much more Indignity must it needs be to be devoured of Mice Wormes and sometimes as your owne * See above in this Book C. 2. Sect. 2. stories have related kept close in a Dunghill One word more If these seeme not sufficiently indigne because there is not Laesio corporis Hurt to the Body this being your onely Evasion what will you say of
handle these points in order take our next Position for a Directory to that which shall be answered in the sixt Section That some Fathers understood the Apostles words 1. Corinth 10. Spiritually namely as signifying the Eating of Christs Flesh and drinking his Blood both in the Old Testament and in the New SECT III. VPon those words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. verse 4. They ate of the same Spirituall meate c. The Iewes received the same Spirituall meate p Aug. Tract 26. in Ioh. sup illa verba Apostoli 1. Cor. 20. de fidelibus Iudaeis Omnes candem spiritualem escam in Manna edebant bibebant eundem potum spiritualem c. Corporalem escam diversam illi Manna nos aliud spiritualem sed candem aliud illi aliud nos bibimus sed aliud specie visibili idem autem significante virtute Item Eandem quam nos escam sed Patres nostri nèmpè fideles non Patres illorum Aug. Ibid. saith Saint Augustine namely they who were faithfull Yea saith your q At eandem inter se non nobis cum candem Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Quia Cardinall the Iewes received the same among themselves but not the same with us Christians So hee Albeit the words of Augustine are plainly thus The same which wee eate so plainely that divers on your owne side doe so directly and truly acknowledge it that your Jesuit r Iudaeos candem escam spiritualem edisse nobiscum exposuit hunc locum de Manna Augustinus qui eum secuti sunt multi ut Beda Strabo Author Glossae ordinariae reprobatum hoc esse a posterioribus Ego persuasum habeo Augustinum si nostra aetate fuisset longè aliter sensurum fuisse omni genti Hereticorum inimicissimum cum videret Calvinistas ad eundèm ferè modum hunc locum interpretari Maldon Ies in Ioh. 6. vers 50. col 706. Maldonate not able to gain-say this Truth pleaseth himselfe notwithstanding in fancying that If Augustine were alive in this Age hee would thinke otherwise especially perceiving Hereticall Calvinists and Å¿ Calvin Instit lib. 4. Cap. 14. Sect. 23. Eandem nobiscum contra Scholasticorum dogma quo docent veteri lege tantum adumbrari gratiam novâ praesentem conferri Calvin himselfe to be of his opinion So hee Was it not great pity that Augustine was not brought up in the Schoole of the Jesuites surely they would have taught him the Article of Transubstantiation of the Corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament and Corporall Vnion against all which there could not be a greater Adversary than was Augustine whom Maldonate here noteth to have beene the Greatest enemy to all Heretikes whom t Bertram de Corp. Dom. pag. 20. Quaeres fortasse quam eandem nimirum ipsam quam hodie populus credentium in Ecclesia manducat Non enim licet diversa intelligi quoniam unus idemque Christus qui populum in mare baptizatum carne suâ pavit eundem que potum in Petra Christum sui sanguinis 〈◊〉 populo praebuisse Vide nondum passum Christum esse etiam tamen sui corporis sanguinis mysterium operatum fuisse non enim putamus ullum fidelium dubitare panem illum Christi corpus fuisse effectum quod discipulis Dominus dicit Hoc est Corpus meum Bertram followed in the same Exposition and by your leave so did your u Eandem escam spiritualem id est Corpus Christi in signo spiritualiter intellecto idem quod nos sed aliam escam corporalem quam nos Aquinas in 1. Cor. 10. Aquinas also The same saith hee which wee eate Yea and Anselme imbraceth the same exposition in the very words of Saint Augustine The same which wee eat Thus much by the way Wee goe on to our Answers That the wicked Receivers are called Guilty of Christs Body not by properly Eating of his Body unworthily but for unworthily Eating the Sacrament thereof Symbolically SECT IV. THE Distinction used by Saint Augustine who is still a resolute Patron of our Cause hath beene alwayes as generally acknowledged as knowne wherein hee will have us to discerne in the Eucharist the Sacrament from the thing represented and exhibited thereby Of the Sacrament hee saith that * Aùg in Ioh. Tract 26. Sacramentum â—umitur a quiâ—â—â—dam ad vitâ—â—m 〈◊〉 quibuâ—dam 〈◊〉 exitium Reâ— vero ipsa cujus est Sacramenttum omni homini ad vitam null◠〈◊〉 mortem quicunquè ejus particips â—uerâ—â— It is received of some to Life and of some to destruction but the thing it selfe saith hee is received of None but to Salvation So hee No Protestant could speake more directly or Conclusively for proofe First That in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Body of Christ is as well tendred to the Wicked as to the Godly Secondly That the Wicked for want of a living faith have no Hand to receive it Thirdly That their not preparing themselves to a due receiving of it is a Contempt of Christ his Body and Blood Fourthly and Consequently that it worketh the judgement of Guiltinesse upon them âšœ If it shall be proved that the like judgement followeth upon the Wicked for absenting himselfe from receiving of this Sacrament in Contempt thereof as well as it doth upon the unworthy Receiver it Determinateth the Point in question to prove the inconsequence of your reason wherof you conclude that the Guiltinesse of Judgement ariseth from unworthy Corporall participation of Christs Body Now Saint Augustines words are that 1 Aug de Necessitate poeniâ—eâ—tiae Tom 10. Hom. 50. Verset ante oculos Imago futuri Iudiciâ— ut cum alij aâ—cedunt ad aliare Dei quô ipse non accedit conâ—â—git quà m sit contremiscenda illa poena qua percipiâ—ntibus alijs vitam aeternam alij in mortem praecipitentur aeternam Item 〈◊〉 Tom 6. contra 〈◊〉 Manichaeum lib. 13 c. 6. Qui autem manducaâ—â— contemnit non habet in se vitam ideo non pervenâ—â—t ad vitam aeteâ—nam Hee that contenineth to eate this hath no life in him and shall be deprived of life eternall Which is by his Contempt not in the Receiving but in the Not-Receiving thereof All which both the Evidence of Scripture and Consent of Antiquity do notably confirme For the Text objected doth clearely confute your Romish Consequence because Saint Pauls words are not Hee that eateth the Body of Christ and drinketh his Blood unworthily is guilty of his Body and Blood but Hee that enteth the Bread and drinketh the Cup of the Lord unworthily c Which wee have proved throughout the second Booke to signifie Bread and Wine the Signes and Sacraments of his Body and Blood after Consecration And to come to Antiquity All the Fathers hereafter cited who deny that the wicked Communicants are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ albeit knowing as well as you that all such unworthy Receivers are
Eucharist in the dayes of S. Augustine both which that holy Father did utterly explode The first was by the Manichees who teaching that o August◠〈…〉 ib. 20. cap 1â— Ex fabula vestâ—â de Sp. Sancto cerra concipiens gignâ—t patibâ—â—em Iesum qui est salus omnium hominum suspensus ex ligno c Cap. 12. Cui non totum 〈◊〉 unus Christus si propter unam substantiam 〈◊〉 in aâ—borâ—bus Christus in persecutione Iudae orum Christus in sole in luna Christus c. Cap. 13. In uva agnoscunt Deum suum in cupâ— nolunt quasi aliquid eos caleatus inclusus offenderit noster autem panis calix non quilibet quasi propter Christum in 〈◊〉 sarmentis ligatum sicut Illi desipiunt sed cerâ—â consecratione mysticuâ—â— fit nobis non nascitur proinde quin ita fit quamvis sit panis caliâ— alimentum refectionis est non Sacramentum religionis nisi quod beâ—â—dicimuâ— gratiasque agimus Domine in omni munâ—re ejus non solum spirituali yerum etiam corpotali Vobis autem per fabulam vestram in eâ—â—is omnibus Christus ligatus opponitur adhuc ligandus vestris visceribus solvendusquè ructatibus nam 〈◊〉 manducatis Dei vâ—stri defectione vos reficitis cum digeritis illius refectione deficiâ—tis Quomodo ergo comparas panem calicem nostum parem religionem dicis â—rrorem loâ—ge 〈◊〉 veritate discretum pejus enim decipimus quam nonnulli qui nos propter panem calicem Cererem Liberum colere existimant Sicut enim a Cerere Libero Paganorum Dijs longe absumus quamvis panis calicis Sacramentum quod ita laud 〈◊〉 ut in eo nobis pares esse volueritis â—itu nostro amplectamur c. Edit Paâ—iâ—ijs Anno. 1555. Christ was Hanged on every tree and tyed unto all meates which they eate would needes have their Religion to be somewhat agreeable to the Catholike Profession An Imputation which Saint Augustine did abhorre namely that it should be thought that there was the same reason concerning Christs Body of the opinion of Mysticall Bread among the Orthodox which the Manâ—chees had of their Corporall Bread As for example that Christ should be fastned or tyed 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 * See Chap. 7. Sect. 1. Guts by eating and a Repasse againe by Vomiting albeit the matter so fast and so loose be in the judgement of Saint Augustine Bread still after Consecration The Second Calumniation aginst the True Professours was by others who testifyed that Catholikes in the Eucharist adored Ceres and Bacchus after the maner of the Pagans What answer do you thinke would a Romish Professour have made in this Case doubtlesse according to your Doctrine of Corporall Presence by saying thus Whereas some affirme that wee do adore Bread and Wine in this Sacrament yet the truth is wee adore that whereunto Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated to wit the Body and Blood of Christ the sonne of God But Saint Augustine as one fancying nothing lesse Wee saith hee are farre from the gods of the Pagans for â—ee embrace the Sacrament of Bread and Wine This is all and all this hee spake after Consecration Whereupon wee 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 p Editio Paris Anno 1614 Noster panis mysticus fit nobis Corpus Christi non nascitui Whereas the direct sense is that Bread Consecrated is not naturally bread as it were the spicae that is Eareâ— of Corne spoken of by the Mani chees but made My sticall and Sacramentall by CoÌ„secration Example The Paris Edition An. 1555. hath the Sentence of Saint Augustine thus Noster panis Mysticus fit nobis non nascitur But the last Paris Edition Ann. 1614. hath foisted in and inserted Corpus Christ albeit the sense be full without this Addition to signifie that Common Bread is by Consecration made Mysticall or Sacramentall according to Saint Augustines 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 Body be repugnant to a common Principle of all Christianity which never believed a Body of Christ made of Bread So that the aforesayd Addition is not a Correcting but a Corrupting of the Text. âšœ The miserable straights of Romish Disputers in answering the Definitive Sentence of Saint Augustine concerning Christs words of Eating his flesh and of the Romish Shift in saying they do but Swallow it SECT IV. SAint q Aug. de Doctr Christ lib. 3. cap. 16. Si praeceptiva locutâ—o flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere figurata est ut Nisi mandâ—â— averitis caâ—nem meam facinus videtur jubere Ergo figura est praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum suaviter utiliter recondendum in memora quia pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa vulneata sit Augustines Determination is set downe in that his one famous Sentence for the expounding of those words of Christ Except you eat the flesh of the Sonne of man c. Ioh. 6. thus Whensoever wee find in Scripture any speech seeming to forbid any laudable good thing or to command any haynous evill Act the speech is Figurative Vt cum aicitur Nisi manducaveritis that is As when it is sayd Except you eat my flesh which seemeth to command some hainous Sinne therefore it is Figurative commanding us to communicate with Christs passion and sweetly and profitably record in our memory that his flesh was crucifyed and slaine for us So Saint Augustine which one Sentence hath beene alwayes held of Protestants to be convincent for strangling of your Romish Cause Which your Cardinall seeing as it were gasping hasteneth to give it some short breath r Bellar. lib. 1 de Euch. cap. 7. Non vult Augustinus dicere carnem Christi Tropice manducari si essentiam manducationis spectemus quae solum requirit ut verus cibus ab ore traijciatur in stomachum per instrumenta vitalia sed vult dicere Tropice manducari quoad modum nam Ordinanus proprius modus manducandi est ut caro visibiliter secetur in partes particulatim sumatur cocta non creda Caro autem Christi sumitur integra invisibiliter et sine ulla laesione sui qua manducatione figurate significamus representamus passionem Christi 1. probatur quia non est scelus carnem Christi spirituali modo sine fuilaesione sumere 2. quia per scelus intelligâ—â— modum edendi Capernaiticum nempe tatnem lanâ—ando Augustine saith hee
Secundo Respondeo Wherein also hee expoundeth the like words of Iustin Non est novum apud Itenaeum Hilarium Nyssenum Cyrillum alios ut Eu charistia dicatur alere corpora nostra sed non intelligunt Patres cum hoc dicunt Eucharistiâ nutriri vel augeri mortalem substantiam corporis nostri sic enim facerent Eucharistiam cibum ventris non mentis quâ— nihil absurdius fingi possit It is ordinary saith hee with these Fathers to wit Irenaeus Hilarie Nyssen Cyril and others to say that the Eucharist nourisheth our Bodies But they did not understand a Substantiall nutrition or augmentation of our Bodies for so they should make it to be meat for the Belly and not for the soule than which nothing could be feigned more Absurd So hee Cardinall Tolet is the Second wee desire to heare his Judgement 6 Tolet. in Ioh. cap. 6. Annot. 29. Cum dicunt Hilar Cyril nostra corpora habere unionem corporalem naturalem cum corpore Christ Doctores â—i non sunt ita intelligendi ut velinâ— ex Christo sumpto sumenâ—e fieri unuÌ„ Ens naturale indigna est illis Doctrina sed hoc dicere voluerunt praeter unionem quae ratione charitatis fidei sit adesse intra nos ipsos verè realiter Christum ipsuÌ„ qui causa est fidei ejusdem These Fathers saith hee Cyril and Hilarie when they tell us that wee have a Corporall and Naturall Vnion with Christs Body in the Sacrament are not to be understood as if our Bodies and Christs Body were made one in Entity this were a Doctrine unworthy of them but they meant of the Vnion of Faith and Affection Christ being within us Really as the Cause thereof So he Observe that Cardinall Tolet noteth the Fathers to have sayd that the Bodies of the Communicants and the Body of Christ by this Sacrament have One naturall Being because of their other Sayings that by eating of this Sacrament our Bodies are Nourished and Augmented by Christs Body All which are spoken in a Sacramentall tenour of speech and not properly as you heare Francis Suarez his Course is next 7 Suarez in 3. Tho. qu. 79. Disp 64. Sect. 3. Nihilominus haec sententia improbabilis aliena dignitate majestate hujus SacrameÌ„ti quod non propter corporalem conjunctionem sed propter spiritualem institutum est dicente Christo Mea verba spiritus sunt vita Ioh. 6. See above Chap. 7. Sect. 2. at the letter f. Suarez Damascen lib. 4 cap. 14. Hoc Sacramento nos Christi concorporei existimus animo voluntate copulamur Cyril Hierosol Catechis 4. Mystag Sumpto corpore sanguine Christi efficimur comparticipes corporis sanguinis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum ejus sanguinem corpus in nostra membra receperimus arquè ita ut B. Peâ—ius dicit Divinae naturae consortes efficimur Hinc Suarez Vbi propter Sacramentalem susceptionem non agnoscit aliam unionem praeter spiritualem per gratiam c. In 3. Tho. qu. 79. Disp 64. quo supra I say saith he that Cardinall Mendoza is reported to have taught namely as out of the Fathers that Christ's Body is so united with our Bodies that they are both joyntly mingled in parts one with another Which is an Opinion Improbable and unworthy of the Majesty and Dignity of the Sacrament which was instituted by Christ not for a Corporall but for a Spirituall Conjunction and the other Conjunction is False and Absurd So he Gabriell Vasquez is now to take his turne first to make his Preface and then to deliver his Opinion 8 Vasquez in 3. Thom. quaest 79. Art 2. Disp 204. cap. 2. Tametsi Antiqui Ecclesiae Patres in exponendis mysterijs nostrae fidei insolita paâ—um in Scholis usitata ratione dicendi interdum utantur ita tamen eorum verba sententias accipere debemus ut licet primo aspectu aliquid Absurdi continere videantur nihil tamen contra ipsos nisi maturo consilio examine aliorumque patrum aut conciliorum testimonijs nixi pronunciemus Ibid. cap. 3. Aliqui omnia Patrum Testimonia quae allegavimus per figuram Hyperbolen interpretantur ut ita Patres virtutem jujus Sacramenti eximiè commendare viderentur non quôd revera fieret ita Ex Haereticis hoc modo testimonia Hilarij Cyrilli interpretatus est Calvinus Neque defuerunt Complutenses aliqui qui eodem modo per Hyperbolen illa explicarent Ibid. cap. 4. Quidam putarunt si sine Hyperbole explicarentur sequi ut caro Christi per omnem partem corporis nostri dissunderetur ut cera cerae lique facta at non sic dissunditur Cyrillus usus est hac similitudine ad ostendendam veram realem mixtionem corporis nostri cum corpore Christi non tamen quoad dissusionem eam similitudimen locum habere putabat Nec enim est Physics unio carnis nostrae cum carne Christi sicut ex duabus ceris neque fieri unam carnâ—m per conversionem unius in alteram sicut fit in nutritione animalis naturali neque id ullus sanae mentis ullo modo assereret Although the Ancient Fathers in expounding these mysteries of Faith use words not so usuall in our Schooles yet ought wee to interpret their speeches so that although at the first sight they containe some Absurdity yet not to take them contrary to their meaning without due advise and that relying upon Testimonies of Antiquity So hee And for Instances hee bringeth divers and more particularly that Similitude of Conjunction already objected out of Cyrâ—l As waxe with waxe melted are joyned together And this if it be taken in the Rigidity of the words hee denyeth to note either Diffusion of Christs Body into the parts of mans Body or else a Substantiall Conversion into them All these acknowledgements being so plaine and ingenuous and delivered with so full an Assurance and Resolution of your owne Doctors of most exquisite judgement above Others in your Church do minister unto us matter of Astonishment to wonder with what Consciences they could urge us with these Sentences of the Fathers as they goe under a Literall habit and propriety of Speech seeing that now after some Deliberation they find the same to be so glowing hot that they themselves not daring to touch them with their bare fingers take hold of them with a Distinction as it were with a paire of Tongs saying that 9 Suarez in 3. Thom. qu. 79. Art 8. Disp 64. Sect. 3. Existimo omnino certum praeter contactum corporis nostri Christi medijs speciebus Sacramentalibus non intervenire materialem aliquam unionem physicam veram Because there is no Naturall Conjunction between Christs Body and ours excepting onely a Touch of the one by the other under formes of Bread The Vnion spoken of by the Fathers is not Physicall or
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 Angels No but expresly thus By Christ the Mediatour In the Liturgie of e Missa Chrysostomi antè Consecrationem Adhuc offerimus tibi rationabile incruentuÌ„ hoc obsequium Deposcimus ut mittas Spiritum sanctum super nos et super apposita munera Sequitur Consecratio Fac Panem istum preciosum Corpus c. Post Consecrationem Adhuc offerimus tibi rationabile hoc obsequium pro fideliter doâ—mientibê° c. Post Dominum deprecemur ut qui suscepit ea in sancto et coelesti Altari suo mittat nobis proprerea gratiam et donuÌ„ Spiritus sancti Chrysostome before Consecration God is prayed unto and supplicated thus Wee beseech thee to send thy Spirit upon us and upon the Gifts set before us Even as f Ambros de Sacram lib 4. cap. 6. post Consecrationem Offerimus tibi hunc Papem sanctum et Calicem et perimus ut hanc OblationeÌ„ suscipias in sublimi Altari tuo per manus Angelorum sicut accipere dignatus es munera pueri tui Abel c. 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 Ancient 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 Missals being so Ancient 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 Sense 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 Ancient Liturgies above mentioned and to understand it Sacramentally onely 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 g Booke 5. thorowout 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 Vomiting it by the Communicants and the Transmittance into your guts yea and into the parts inferior together with the Eating and Feeding thereupon by Dogs Mice Wormes and which transcendeth if it may be all your other Absurdities to be deprived of all naturall power of Motion Sense and Vnderstanding O Abominable Abominable A Synopsis of the Idolatrousnesse of the Romish Masse and Defence thereof by many Evidences from Antiquity SECT V. OVr first Argument is against the foundation thereof which is your Interpretation of the Article HOC by denying it to have Relation to Bread contrary to the verdict of an Inquest of Ancient Fathers shewing that the same pointeth out Bread as you have a Booke 2. Cha. 1. Sect. 6. heard whereby the monstrous Conception of Transubstantiation is strangled in the very wombe Insomuch that sometimes they expressely * Ibid. interpret it thus Christs Body and Blood that is say they The Bread and Wine Item Hee gave the name of the Signe to the thing signified Item Bread the Signe of his Body And lastly Bread is called Christs Body because it signifieth his Body Secondly in the point of Transubstantiation it selfe They calling the Eucharist which you dare not b Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 5. 11. Sect. 14. in Chrysost and by Cyprian his Confutation of the Aquarii ibid. Sect. 5. Book 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 3. Bread and c Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 5. Wine after Consecration and naming them * Ibid. Sect. 13. Earthly materialls and Matter of Bread and also as you have heard out of the Ancient Liturgies d Above in this Booke Ch. 1. Sect. 4. Fruits of the Earth and yet more plainely by way of Periphrasis describing them to consist of e Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. Divers granes and Divers grapes After by approving the Suffrage and judgement of our f Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 8 9 c. Senses in discerning all Sensible things and in speciall the Eucharist it selfe and at length affirming that there remaineth therein the g Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 11. Substance of Bread and Wine which are the Subject matter of your Divine Adoration All which are other Three Demonstrations of their meanings every singular point being avouched by the Suffrages of Antiquity Thirdly against your Faith concerning the maner of Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because so farre were the Fathers from beleeving that the Body of Christ could be in h Booke 4. thorowout divers places as you say in Millions at one time that by this property of Being in many places at once they have discerned Angells to be Finite Spirits and not God They have distinguished the Godhead of Christ from his Manhood and they have proved the Holy Ghost to be God and no Creature by the same Reason Than which Three Arguments none can be more Convincent Whereunto you may adde the Fathers speeches contradicting your Dreame of a Body whole in every part in whatsoever space or place by judging it Impossible and also concluding Christ his Ascension into Heaven to argue his Absence from Earth all which have i Ibid. Chap. 7. Sect 6. and Booke 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beene discussed from point to point Our Fourth Generall Argument is that whereas your Corporall Presence must needs inferre Corporall Eating thereof by the Communicants notwithstanding you have heard the contrary Sentences of Ancient Fathers against k Booke 5. thorowout Tearing and Swallowing of Christ's Body and Bodily Egestion Next concerning the Eaters that onely the Godly faithfull are partakers thereof insomuch that even the Godly under the old Testament did eat the same Then of the Remainders of the Consecrated Hosts that they were l Booke 1. Cha. 2. Sect. 10. Earen by the ordinance of the Church by Schoole-boyes and sometimes Burnt in the fire Besides they called them m Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. and Booke 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. Bits and Fragments of Bread broken after Consecration and diminished And lastly in respect of the End of Eating n Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. They held the
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 Catholike Fathers for Hereticall it may best be seene by their Doctrine of the Existence of Christ's Body in one onely place not onely Definitively but also Circumscriptively both which do 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 maner of Christs Bodily Being in place as they are in instructing men of the Article of Christ's Bodily Being lest that the deniall of its Bodily maner of being might destroy the nature of his Body âšœ So farre that the Ancient Father Vigilius * Vigilius B. 4. C. 5. §. 5. testifieth that to believe The Body of Christ wheresoever it was to be Circumscribed in one place was the Ancient Catholike Doctrine of those Ages âšœ To which end they have concluded it to be absolutely but in one place sometime in a x Chap. 4 thorowout Circumscriptive Finitenesse thereby distinguishing them from all created Spirits and sometime by a Definitive Termination which they set downe first by Exemplications thus y Ibid. Sect. â— 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 a Ibid. 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 b Cha. 4. Sect. â— conclude that they are herein different because the humane and Bodily Nature of Christ is necessarily included in one place and lastly comparing Creatures with the Holy Ghost they c Cha. â— Sect â— conclude a difference by the same Argument because the Holy Ghost is in many places at once and all these in confutation of divers Heretikes A thing so well knowne 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 d Ibid. Hereticall âšœ Yea and so Hereticall that it openeth a Sluce for the old raucid Heresie of the Ariomanitae by interpretation Maddish-Arians to â—low in upon us who denied the Holy Ghost to be God as not being every where whom the Primitive Fathers did Confute * See B. 4. C. 7. §. 2. Seven in number by proving the Holy Ghost to be every where and therefore God because Hee is in divers places at once Which was likewise * B. 4. â— 6. §. 3. Tertullians Argument to prove the Godhead of Christ II. The property of a Solidity likewise was patronized by Ancient Fathers in confutation of Heretikes by teaching e Chap. 7. Sect. 6. Christs Body to be necessarily Palpable against their Impalpabilitie and to have a Thicknesse against their feigned subtile Body as the Aire âšœ A whole * Booke 4. c. 8. §. â— Generall Councel of Ephesus determining that The Body of Christ is palpable wheresoever it is âšœ and furthermore controlling these opinions following which are also your Crotchets of a Bodies f Cha. 7. Sect. 6. Being whole in the whole space and in every part thereof and of Christ's Body g Cha. 4 Sect. 9 taking the Right hand or left of it selfe III The property of Perfection of the Body of Christ wheresoever in the highest Degree of Absolutenesse This one would thinke every Christian heart should assent unto at the first hearing wherefore if that they were judged Heretickes by Ancient Fathers who h Prateol Elench haeres Tit. Philoponus Alexandrinus Statuit mortuorum resurrectionem esse viz. rationalium animarum cum corruptibili corpore indissolubilem unionem taught an Indivisible Vnion of mens soules with their Bodies naturally still subject to corruption after the resurrection who can imagine that the holy Catholicke 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 sense appetite or understanding otherwise than of a senselesse and Antichristian Deliration and Delusion âšœ Fie no! for they believed no Body of Christ after his Resurrection but such as is * Booke 4. Cha. 9. §. 3. void of all infirmity and in all integrity most perfect âšœ Yea and that which is your onely Reason you allege to avoid our Objection of Impossibilities in such cases to wit i Booke 4. Ch. 5. Sect. â— The Omnipotencie of God the same was the Pretence of Heretikes of old in the like Assertions which occasioned the Ancient Fathers to terme the Pretence of Omnipotencie k Ibid. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. The Sanctuary of Heretikes albeit the same Heretikes as well as you intended as a Father speaketh to magnifie God thereby namely inbeleeving the Body of Christ after his Ascension to be wholly Spirituall To which Heretikes the same Father readily answered as wee may to you saying l Chap. 4. Sect. â— at b c. When you will so magnifie Christ you do but accuse him of falshood not that wee do any whit detract from the Omnipotencie of Christ farre be this Spirit of Blasphemy from us but that as you have beene instructed by Ancient Fathers the attributing an Impossibility to God in such Cases of Contradiction is not a diminishing but an ample advancing of the m Ibid. Omnipotencie of God BOOKE V. Your Orall Eating Gutturall Swallowing and Inward Digestion as you have n Booke â— thorowout taught of the Body of Christ into your Entrails and from thence into the Draught hath beene proved out of the Fathers to be in each respect sufficiently Capernaiticall and termed by them a Sense both o Booke 5. Cha. 6. Sect. 4 Pernicious and Flagitious Besides you have a Confutation of the Hereticall Manichees for their p Booke 5. Ch. 6. Sect. 3. Opinion of Fastning Christ to mens guts and loosing him againe by their belchings Consonant to your Romish Profession both of Christ's q Booke 5. Ch. 6. Sect. 1. Cleaving to the guts of your Communicants and r Booke 5. Cha. 6. Sect. 2. Vomiting it up againe when you have done âšœ Besides the same Fathers condemned the Heresie of the same Capernaites * See Booke 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 5. Chap. 3. â— 2. Ch 8. §. 2. for not discerning Christs words after his speaking of Eating his flesh Hee made mention of his Ascension into Heaven saying When you shall see the Sonne of man ascending where hee first was they did not understand that they therefore could not Eate him on Earth as they imagined because hee should ascend to Heaven âšœ BOOKE VI. This is spent wholly in examining the Romish Doctrine of Masse-Sacrifice and in proving it to be