Christ doth especially concurre with his owne Ordinance and therefore much rather where the forme of a Sacrament ordained and instituted by himselfe is observed then where it is as of you so notoriously perverted and contemned Yet because you may think we rest upon either our owne or yet of other your Doctors Iudgement in this Defence we shall produce to this purpose the consonaâ—â— Doctrine of ancient Fathers Our third proofe is taken from the manifold Reasons of ancient Fathers for Confirmation of the Necessity of the Communicating in Both kinds SECT IX FOr the proofe of the necessary use of Both kindes in the solemne and publike dispensation of this Sacrament the particular Testimonies of many ancient Fathers might be produced but your owne Authors will ease us of that labour by relating and g Satis compertum est universalem Christi Ecclesiam in hunc usque diem OccideÌ„talem autem seu Romanam mille ampliù à Christo annis in solenn prae fertim ordinaria hujus Sacramenti dispensatione Vtramque panis vini speciem omnibus Christi membris exhibuisse atque ut ità facerent inductos fuisse primò Instituto exemploque Christi qui hoc Sacramentum corporis sanguinis sui duobus hisce panis vini symbolis Discipulis suis fidelium Communicantium personam repraesentantibus prebuit â—um quià in Sacramento sanguinis peculrarem quaÌ„dam virtutem gratiam hoc vini symbolo significatam esse credebant tùm ob rationes mysticas hujus Instituti quae à veteribus variè adducuntur viz. ad repraesentandam memoriam Passioâ—is Christi in oblatione corporis sanguinis effusione juxta illud Pauli Quoâ—iescunque comederitis panem hunc Calicem Domini biberitis mortem Domâ—â— annunciatis donec venerit Item ad significandam integram â—ofectionem sive nutritionem quae cibo potu constat quomodò Christus inquit Caro mea verus est cibus et sanguis meus verus est potus Item ad designandam redemptionem tuitionem corporis animae ut corpus pro salute corporis sanguis pro salute animae quae in sanguine est dari intelligatur Ad significandum quoque Christum utramque naturam assumpsisse corporis animae ut utramque redimeret Cassand Consult Art 22. pag. 166. 167 Christus licet totus sub una specie tamen administrari voluit sub duplici primò ut totam naturam assumpsisse se ostenderet ut utramque redimeret panis enim ad corpus refertur vinum ad animam Si in altera tantùm sumeretur tum mortem suam ad alterius salutem valere significaretur Pet. Lombard 4. Dist 11. Hic Calix pari cuactis conditione sit traditus Theoph in 1. Cor. 11. In veteri Testamento quaedam Sacerdos quaedam populus comedebat nec poterat populus participare illis quorum Sacerdos particeps erat nunc autem omnibus unum corpus proponitur unum poculum Chrysost in 2. Cor. Hom. 18. Coena Domini omnibus debet esse communis quum ille Christus Discipulis suis omnibus qui aderant aequalitèr tradidit Sacramenta Hier. in Cor. 11. Quomodò ad martyrij poculum eos idoneos fecimus si non ad poculum Domini adâ—â—mus Cyprian Epist 54. ad Cornel. Episc Rom. de pace lapâ—â— danda Etiam Lombardus lib. 4. dist 11. ex Ambrosio ad 1. Cor. 11. Valet ad tuitionem corporis animae quod percipimus quià caro Christi pro salute corporis sanguis verò pro anima nostra offertur confessing as much in effect as we did intend to prove viz. That the ancient Fathers were induced to the Continuance of the Custome in Both kindes First by the Example and Institution of Christ Secondly by some particular Grace which they held to be signified by the Cup. Thirdly for the Representation that it had to the Passion of Christ distinctly and respectively to his Body and Blood Fourthly to resemble the Redemption which man hath in his Body by Christ's Body and by his Blood in the soule Fiftly To expresse by these Symbols the perfect spirituall Nourishments wee have by his Body and Blood Sixtly To understand that this Sacrament doth equally belong to People as well as to Priests which they with great earnestnesse enforce with joynt consent as a necessary Ius and Right belonging to both Seventhly that the Cup of the Eucharist doth animate soules to receive the Cup of bloody Martyrdome when the time should be âšœ Eightly by the Precept of Christ 10 Vasquez in 3. Thom. Qu. 801. Disp 216. cap. 6. Iustinus in 2. Apolog pro Christianis postquam descripsit communionem sub utraque specie subjungit Apostoli enim in Commentatiâ—s suis quae Evangelia dicuntur ità sibi Christum praecepisse tradiderunt Respondeo Nullum aliud praeceptum Domini Iustinum ibi agnovisse praeter Hoc facite in memoriam mei Very well and Hoc facite is as full a Command us Hoc manducate or Hoc bibite Iustine one of the most ancient Guides in Christs Church saying plainely that Christ commanded Both kindes to be received And the Commandement which Iustine meant your Iesuite attributeth to Christs saying DO THIS And Cyprian as directly as succinctly 11 Cyprian Serm. de Coena Dom. Evangelium praecâ—pit ut bibatur Resp Satis est si bibatur à Sacerdotibus licet non à Laicis But this is refuted by the Fathers who will admit of no Inequality among Christians in communicating of this sacred Banquet The Gospell commandeth the drinking of it yea and Saint Augustine was so peremptory for the Common use of the Cup that hee called Christian mens 12 Aug. Ser. 2. Feriae Paseâ—ae Simul hoc sumimus simul bibimus quià simul vivimus Teste Cassandro in Exposit Homilijs in Hymnum aquinatis Nec corpus sine sanguine nec sanguis sine corpore jure communicatur 〈◊〉 atque is communicandi ritus usquè ad Tho. Aquinâ—tis â—â—tatem amplius in Ecclesia Catholica obtinuerat tandem ista antiquà Distributio non ut anâ—eà necessaria sed ut licita tantum haberi coeperit Ibid. Bibere in this Sacrament to bee their Vivere and that lawfully the one cannot bee communicated without the other âšœ Whereunto may bee added the Constant profession of the h Graeci dicunt esse necessariò sub utraque specie panis scilicet vini communicandum adeo quidem ut qui sub una specie tantùm communicat etiamsi laicus sit peccate dicatur quod ut aiunt contra Christi Praeceptum agat qui sub utraque specie communicare praecepit Prateol Elench Haeret. lib. 7. tit Graeci âšœ For proofe that the Cause of Priest and people in the receiving of this Sâ—crament is equall we have these Sayings of Antiquity Dominica coena omnibus debet esse communis quià dabatur omnibus Discipulis qui aderant Hier. in 1. Cor. c. 11. Est
all the other Touches Your Objected Testimonies are either our of Cyrill talking of bringing our Earthly Bodies by participation of this Sacrament to a 1 Cyril Alex. lib. 4. in Ioh. cap. 14. Vnde ut hoc corpus 〈◊〉 cibo sibi cognato gustu tactu ad immortalitatem reducetur Objected by Bell. lib. 2. de Euchar c. 25. Kin-like Touch of Christ's Bodie or from Saint Chrysostome where speaking of this Sacrament 2 Chrysostome Multi desiderant Videre formam Christi Ipsum vides 〈◊〉 Objected by Doctor Heskins in his Parliament of Christ booke 3. c. 54. out of Chrysostomes Hom. 3 in Ephâ—â— tous Imputâ—s manibus ausus es ipsius Corpus attinge â— Many saith hee desire to see the forme of Christ and here Christ yeeldeth himselfe in this Sacrament not onely to be seene but also to be felt and Touched And this will your Doctors needs inforce upon us for proofe of a Corporall Touch and Consequently a Corporall presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist But do you not see in this Testimony the word See as well as the word Touch and are you now to learne that which you all teach that Christs Body as it is in this Sacrament is altogether Invisible beyond mans Imagination and not to be seene of men no nor yet to be discernd by the very Devills Besides that All mens eyes by Contemplation can avouch it to be nothing lesse than Seene So that the word Seene being so Vnproperly and Figuratively spoken might have given you reason to discerne that hee used the same Impropriety of Phrase in the other word Touch. Yea and Chrysostome himselfe will tell you that hath Rhetoricated as fully in the word Touch when in an Homily hee willed the People 3 Chrysost in Mart. 14 To people that were to be baptized Tenete pedes Salvatoâ—s To hold Christ our Saviour by the feet But what need many words your owne Doctor and Dictator of Romish Profession Aquinas affirmeth also 4 Aquinas part 3. quaest 76. Art 7. Corpus Christi à nullo in hoc Sacramento videri potest corporali oculo quia ibi est per modum substantiae neque accidentia Corporis Christi habent immediatam habitudinem ad hoc Sacramentum neque corpora quae circumstant eum ad modum substantiae quae non subjacet alicui sen sui sed nec etiam imagin itioni sed soli intellectus Imo nec Daemones possunt videre Christum per intellectum ut est in hoc Sacramento That the Body of Christ as it is in this Sacrament is not subject to any sense at all And more particularly for the sense of Touching your Vasquez speaking with Assurance 5 Vasquez Ies in 3. Tho quaest 76. Ant. 7 Disp 191. c. 3. Christus ut est in hoc Sacramento neque alium tangere neque ab allo tangi protest non incerta ratione dicimus Christ saith hee as hee is in this Sacrament can neither touch nor be touched of any thing And your* Schoole againe giveth reasons hereof Therefore can it be no lesse than a blind Boldnesse to urge the word Touch as Properly spoken by these Ancient Fathers which you have learned by your Fathers of the Romish Profession cannot properly agree with the Body of Christ What evasion have you now Forsooth 6 Idem Ibid. quaest 75. Art 2. Disp 180. cap. 9. Tangi dicitur sub pa nis speciebus remote sicut Christus Luc. 8. Quis me tetigit cum tamen nullus ipsum proxime sed tetigit vestem ejus The Cause saith the same Vasquez is as it was with Christ when he sayd Who Toucheth me when men touched him but not immediatly but by Touching his garment So he But soft Sir you your selfe have already affirmed That Christ cannot possibly either Touch or be Touched of any thing in this Sacrament according to the Doctrine of Aquinas who giveth this reason for * See the Testimonie of Aquinas here above cited at 4 That the sense of Touch hath no habitude at all to Christs Body herein not so much as by the Accidents or formes of Bread and Wine neither mediatly nor immediatly which sheweth the Dissimilitude of the Comparison taken from Touching Christs Vestment and thereby his sacred Body which was touched by the same Vestment immediatly and here Touching Christs Body by the Accidents of Bread which you grant do neither Touch Christs Body nor are Touched by it because Christs Body is therein Simply as a Substance without Accidents From the Manuall Touch by Handling wee proceed to the Orall by Eating âšœ CHAP. V. Of the Second Romish Bodily maner of Vnion with Christs Body by Eating That the Second Romish Bodily maner of Vnion with the Body of Christ which is by Orall Eating once professed in the Church of Rome was both Capernaitically-Hereticall and is also still no lesse in the Profession of divers in the same Church SECT I. THe first member wil appeare by the Faith of the Church of Rome in the Dayes of Pope Nicholas whose Faith about the yeare 1509. may be best known by the Oath which was prescribed by him unto Berengarius concerning the Eating of the Body of Christ in this Sacrament Which Oath as your a Baron An. 1059. num 11. Eodem Anno Concilium celebratum est sub Nicolao secundo Generale Romae in Laterano ad quod reus dicturus causam Berengarius Archidiaconus Andegavens praesente Nicolao coram centum tredecim Episcopis Confessionem jurejurando firmavit Quibus verbis conceptum fuit ejusmodi Berengarij jusjurandum cum in pleno CoÌ„cillo detestatus est errorem fidemque Catholicam professus Ego Berengarius ore corde profiteor me eam fidem tenere quam venerabilis Papa Nicolaus haec sancta Synodus tenendam tradidit Panem vinum post consecrationem non solùm Sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus sanguinem Domini nostri Iesu Christi esse sensualiter non solùm Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri Hoc jusjurandum ab Humbreto Episcopo â—aâ—d scriptum ab ipso Papa universoque Concilio recognitum atque approbatum antea fuerat Haec ex Lanfranco Nicolaus Papa scriptum Iusâ—irandum inisit per omnes urbes Italiae Galliae Germaniae ad quaecunque loca quo fama Berengariâ— pervenire potuit Hactenus Baronius Cardinall Baronius doth certifie you from the Stories of those times Pope Nicholas and a Generall Councel held at Rome revised approved and prescribed to Berengarius to take for the abjuration of his Errour concerning the maner of Eating the Body of Christ and the same Oath was after published by the Popes authority throughout all the Cities of Italy France and Germany and wheresoever the Report of Berengarius should come So hee You cannot now but expect such a forme of an Oath which must be as truly Romish as either Romane Pope or
esse hujus Authorem Editionis Spiritus Sancti mentem assequutum In omnibus igitur locis vult Concilium Eam haberi pro Authenticâ exceptis erroribus Typographorum Vt Iudic. cap. 11. pro altera Matre lectum fuisse adultera Matre ut quidam objiciunt Nam Concilium probavit veterem benè Typis impressam Post §. Porrò Nullo modo audiendi sunt ii qui post Concilium Tridentinum contendunt Editionem Vulgatam aliquibus in locis quod ad ipsam sententiam attinet emendari Quin potiùs Graeci Hebraici Codices siquidem dissideant à nostra sunt per eam corrigendi Valentia who thinke that Oath to be violated if the Vulgar Latine be rejected at all as lesse true than the Originals And your Spanish Inquisitors finding in one of your Romish Doctors the Rule of Hierome and Augustine urged which is that no Translation Latine or other be further allowed than as it agreeth with the Originals they faire and cleanly wipe it out saying that h Index Expurgatorius Hispanicus ad nomen Martinz Quamvis haec quae Hieronymus Augustinus docuerunt vera sunt tamen post Concilii Tridentini Decretum non licet Vulgatae Latinae Testimonia quovis praetextu rejicere prout in ipsius Concilii Decreto constitutum est fol. 145. Although that which Hierome and Augustine taught be true yet now since the Councel of Trent it is not lawfull to reject the same Translation upon any pretence whatsoever ⚜ Accordingly your Iesuite Lorinus in a matter concerning neither faith nor maners i Lorinus Ies Comment in Lib. Sap. ca. 12. Versq 6. §. Vatablus Non licet nobis discrepantem expositionem ab Editione nostra Vulgata jam correcta sequi It is not lawfull for us saith hee to follow an Exposition differing from the Vulgar Edition which is now corrected ⚜ So they And so farre unsatisfied are your Doctors in taking this Oath Wee are furthermore not destiture of matter for a large Confutation first of your assuming Saint Hierome as the Author of your Vulgar Latine Translation to manifest that it is no more the Translation of Hierome or yet of any one Author than the divers habits of a mans Body from head to foot can be called the worke of one singular work-man Secondly concerning the Authority thereof you professe it to be Authenticall that is as you have defined Conformable to the Originall Hebrew and Greeke although it may be as easily proved not to be that Ancient Vulgar which had continued as the Decree speaketh from divers ages than the Ship of Theseus which after some Ages had beene so thorowly battered and pierced that at last the keele and bottome therof did onely remaine which could be called the Same But passing by all further Dispute wee shall referre you to the judgement of the Patrones of the former Rule so insolently contemned by the Spanish Inquisitors as you have heard by one Instance which may be sufficient in it selfe for triall of the Case now in hand The Text of Scripture is Ephes 1. 14. in the Latine Translation even in that which is set forth by Pope i Clem. Octavus In perpetuam rei memoriam Textus accuratissime mendis purgatus Clement as The most accurate Edition thus k Ephes 1. 14. Lat. Vulg. Spiritu signati promissionis quae est pignus haereditatis Graecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in quem locum Hieronym Pignus Latinus interpres pro Arrhabone posuit Arrhabo futurae emptionis quasi quoddam testimonium obligamentum datur Pignus verò pro mutuâ pecuniâ ponitur cùm illa reddita fuerit reddenti debitum pignus à Creditore Aug. Serm. de visione Dei Tom. 10. pag. 1687. Accipis Codicem ab amico cui das pignus cum reddideris quod accopisti illc cui reddis habebit tu pignus accipies non enim habebit ambas res sed quando pretium paras dare pro ea re quam tenes bonae fidei contractu de ipso pretio das aliquid exit Arrha non pignus quod sit complendum non quod sit auferendum Sed si Deus charitatem dat tanquam pignus per spiritum suum cum eam rem ipsam reddiderit quâ promissa pignus dedit auferendum est à nobis Pignus Absit Sed quod dedit hoc implebit ideo melius Arrha quà m pignus hoc enim implebitur cum Arrha data est You are sealed with the spirit of promise which is the Pledge of your inheritance But in the Greeke it is You are sealed with the spirit of promise which is the Earnest of your inheritance The Question is whether of these is to be preferred and Hierome and Augustine are ready to resolve you herein both of them Correcting the Vulgar Translation in the word Pledge and one of them giving an Absit against this Sense of it The Reason of both is because hee that giveth a Pledge taketh it againe when the Thing for which it was pledged is received But hee that giveth an Earnest will have it continue with him to whom it was given And so God assuring his Chosen by his Spirit doth for their greater Confidence give it as an Earnest and not as a Pledge So they Therby advancing Gods gracious love towards man and mans faith in Gods love Here will be no corner of Pretence that this being an Errour of Print and not of Doctrine may be rejected by you without Prejudice to your Oath no for Errour of Print ariseth from some affinity of words as where these words This is a sound Reason being delivered to the Print was returned from the Presse thus This is a fond Reason But betweene Pignus and Arrhabo there is no more Symphonie than betweene an Horse and a Saddle Nor will it avayle you to say that the Originall Greeke was corrupted for it is the same Greeke word which Hierome himselfe who as you know used the perfectest Greeke Text doth here avow to be True II. Overture of Perjury in your Disputers is in swearing to the Romish Expositions of Scripture THe Tenour of the Oath in this respect is a Bulla eadem Sacram Scripturam admitto juxta eum sensum quem Tenuit Tenet Mater Ecclesia extra quam nemo salvus c. I admit the sacred Scriptures in that Sense which the Mother Church hath held and doth hold By Mother Church understanding the Church of Rome as without which there is no salvation which is expressed in the same Oath as another Article therein and which else-where wee have proved to be a GRAND IMPOSTVRE in a full Tractate from the Doctrine of the Apostles of Generall Councels of severall Catholike Churches and from such Primitive Fathers whose memories are at this day registred in the Romish Calender of Saints How then can the Oath for this point be taken without danger of Perjury But to come to the Article concerning the Expositions of
necessitate Sacramenti Et haec posterior sententia sequenda videtur Ex qua consequenter sequitur Hoc praeceptum esse per Ecclesiam dispensabile Accordingly the Iesuite Vasquez using the same Reasons and Authorities In 3. Thom. qu. 54 Disp 177. Cap. 2. Concludeth Praecepto tamen solo humano non divino eam nos miscere debere vera sententia est Haec doctrina est caeterorum omnium Scholasticorum quos non est opus sigillatim referre id enim omnes expresse dixerunt ut supra notavi Iosephus Angles Flor. Theol. Qu. 1. Non est mixtio aquae ex necessitate Sacramenti quià solùm propter significationem unionis Christi cum populo Graeci autem verè conficiunt tamen aquam non miscent Idem Iosephus Part. 3. Tit. 4 Pag. 142. ex Aquin. part 3. qu. 74. Art 6. Conclu Debet aqua misceri probabiliter quidem creditur quod Dominus hoc Sacramentum instituerit in Vino aquâ permixto secundum morem istus terrae This point of mixture of water with wine was not commanded of Christ but afterwards enjoyned by the Church This being as Iesuites and others doe witnesse a Doctrine generally consented unto by your Schoolmen and they themselves giving their Amen thereunto as also alleaging for their owne better confirmation herein the judgement of two late Romish Councils Florence and Trent besides their dint of Reasons wherof one was the ground of my Assertion to wit Because if it had been commanded by Christ or ordained by necessity of a Precept of Christ it should be likewise of the necessity or Essence of the Sacrament which Necessitie the Church of Rome universally excludeth The Consequence therfore is evident for whatsoever was instituted as the matter of a Sacrament was ever held to bee of the necessitie of the Essence of the same Sacrament Wherefore wee may reckon this Mixture amongst those Circumstances of Christs Actions which were Occasionall by reason of the use and Custome of that Countrey of Iudaea at that time for the tempering and allaying of their Wine with Water 5 Iac. Gordon lib. Contr. 9. cap. 7. Praetereà in calida illa regione omnes solebant miscere aquam vino vinum autèm merum bibebat nemo pag. 320. That region being so hot saith your Iesuit that none dranke meere Wine but mixt with water âšœ The Poynts contained within the Canon of Christ his Masse and appertaining to our present Controversie are of two kindes viz. 1. Practicall 2. Doctrinall SECT V. PRacticall or Active is that part of the Canon which concerneth Administration Participation and Receiving of the holy Sacrament according to this Tenour Matth. 2◠〈◊〉 And Iesus tooke Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples and said Take eat c. And Luc. 2â— 19. â—â— Do this in remembrance of me Likewise also after Supper he tooke the Cup and gave thankes and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of this But the Points which are especially to be called Doctrinall are implied in these words of the Evangelists THIS IS MY BODY And THIS IS MY BLOOD of the new Testament which is shed for you and for many for remission of sinnes We begin with the Practicall CHAP. II. That all the proper Active and Practicall points to wit of Blessing Saying Giving Taking c. are strictly commanded by Christ in these words DOE THIS Luke 22. Matth. 26. 1. Cor. 11. SECT I. THere are but two outward materiall parts of this Sacrament the one concerning the element of Bread the other touching the Cap. The Acts concerning Both whether in Administring or Participating thereof are charged by Christ his Canon upon the Church Catholike unto the ends of the World The Tenour of his Precept or Command for the first part is Doe this and concerning the other likewise saying 1. Cor. 11. â—5 This doe ye as often c. Whereof your owne Doctors aswell Iesuites as Others have rightly a Hoc facite Alter sensus est Facite viz. quod feci Christus accepit panem gratias egit benedixit c. idipsumque praecepit Discipulis corumque successoribus Sacerdotibus Barrard Ies Tom. 4. lib. 3. cap â—6 pag. 82. col 2 which sense hee also embraceth although he excludeth not a second Illud Hoc facite posuit post datum Sacramentum ut intelligeremus jussisse Dominum ut sub c. Bellar. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 25. §. Resp mirab Idem Hoc facite illud jubet ut totam actionem Christi imitemur Ib. c. 13. §. Quod â—lla Pronomen Hoc non tantum ad sumptionem sed ad omnia quae mox Christus fecisse dicitur refertur mandat n. facere quod ipse fecit nempè Accipere panem gratias agere Iansen Episc Concord c. 131. pag. 903. Againe Bellar. Videtur tn sententia Iohannis à Lovanio valde probabilis qui docet verba Domini Hoc facite aâ—ud Lucam ad omnia referri id est ad id quod fecit Christus id quod egerunt Apostoli ut sit sensus Id quod nâ—nc agimus Ego dùm consecro porrigo yos dùm accipitls c. frequentate usque ad mundi consummationem Profert n. idem Author veteres Patres qui illa verba modò referunt ad Christi actionem Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 3 Damas l. 4. de fide c. 14. modò ad actionem Discipulorum ut Basil reg mor. 21. Cyril Alex. lib. 12. in Ioh. c. 58. Thus farre Bellar. lib. 4. de Euch. c. 25. §. Videtur Hoc facite Praeceptum hoc non potest referri ad ea quae verbis antecedentibus in ipsa narratione Institutionis habentur Viz. to those circumstances which goe before that He tooke bread c nam ea vis est Pronominis demonstrativi Hoc verbi Facite ut praeceptum quod his duobus verbis continetur ad eas tantum actiones referatur quas tum in praesentia Christus vel faciebat vel faciendas significabat quae quidem actiones continentur in ipsa narratione Institutionis quae incipit ab illis verbis Accipiens panem Greg. Valent. les Tract de usu alterius spec in Euch. c. 2 §. Id manifestè Hoc facite Ex tribus Evangelistis ex Paulo 1. Cor. 11. constat Christum sumptionem vini suo facto praeceptione Ecclesiae commendasse Alan Card. de Euch. c. 10. p. 255. Hoc facite Pertinet ad totam actionem Eucharisticam à Christo factam tà m à Presbyteris quà m à plebe faciendam Hoc probatur ex Cyrillo l. 12. in Ioh. c. 58. ex Basil moral reg 21 c. 3. Idem Alan ib. c. 36. p. 646. Hoc facite Idem habet Paulus 1. Cor. 11 qui naâ—rat id ipsum dici circa calicem ea omnia complectens quae dicuntur de poculo accipiendo c. Quod Lucas complexus est dicens Similiter calicem Iansen Concord c. 131. p. 905.
fol. 227. Non est quòd ex publicarum Missarum Monachis cùm interdictione colligamus Privatarum abâ—eis inventionem Ib. fol. 228. Monasteries yet not able to satisfie himself there he commeth at length to debate a Controversie wherewith many were then perplexed to wit how it could bee said by a Priest being alone The Lord be with you or Answer be made to and by the said Priest being then alone And with thy Spirit To this end he propoundeth many l Dominus vobiscum c. Qâ—arè salutatio non Cleri modò sed plebis fuit Ex horum verborum occasione mota olim jam tanta quaestio quâ non alia sit in hodiernis de religione controversijs gravior aut magis agitata Gratianus respondet prè credi Angelorum in Missa praesentiam et nobis orantibus assistentiam ad Angelos igitur cum deessent homines salucationem hîc videtur retulisse Ecquò enim aliò melius referret An vel ad lapides ut videtur ante illum Odo Cameracens Episc ad id Canonis Et omnium circumastantium cùm postea inquit mos inolevit solitarias Missas et maximè in coenobijs fieri ubi non habeant quam pluraliter Collectam salutent nec plures mutare possunt salutationes convertunt se ad Ecclesiam dicentes se Ecclesiam in Ecclesia salutare et in corpore totum corpus colloqui Excruerat et ante hos Cardinalium Decanum à fratribus Eremitis proposita quaestio utrum singulares in cellulis et oranâ—es juxta morem Ecclesiasticum sibimet dicere deberent Dominus vobiscum quando nemo sit qui respondeat quidam etiam inter se sic rationabantur Hoc lapidibus aut tabulis dicendum Respondet peculiari â—pusculo quod et ideò inscriptum Dominus vobiscum Ca. 4. In his docuit servandam Ecclesiae consuetudinem et hanc Sacerdotalem salutationem nec per traditionem permutari licere Ecclesia siquidem Christiana tanta charitatis inter se compage invicem connectitur ut in pluribus una et in singulis sit per mysterium tota et unaquaeque electa anima per Sacramenti mysterium plena esse credatur Ecclesiâ Thus farre Espen uo sup fol. 210. 213. Gers Tract Quaestion cum Resp Quià Sacerdos gerit vicem populi Answers which I referre to your Choice whether you will believe with Gratian that the words Dominus vobiscum The Lord be with you spoken by the Priest being alone may be thought to have been spoken to Angels or with â—ameracensis unto Stones or with the Heremites in their Celles unto Formes and Stooles or else with the Deane of the Cardinals teaching any Heremite being alone to say The Lord be with you as spoken to himselfe All which imaginarie fooleries are so unworthy the Conceptions of but reasonable men that wee may feare to be held inconsiderate If wee should indeavour to confute them Onely wee can say no lesse than that if the Apostle did condemne them who speak with strange languages in the publike assemblie although they that spake understood themselves because that in such a Case * 1. Cor. 14. 23. If saith hee there be none to interpret and there come in an Ignorant or Infidell observing this will hee not say you are mad how much more extreame Madnesse must wee judge this to be where men either talke to themselves or else as if they were metamorphosed into the things whereunto they speake unto formes stones stooles and the like For Conclusion heare the said Deane of the Romane Cardinals from whom a m Sacerdos dicit Pax omnibus vobis quoniam autem pro se-invicem precari est praeceptum Apostolicum propterea populus quoque ei ipsam pacem precatur dicens Et cùm spiritu tuo Nic. Cabas Arch. Thessal Ann. Dom. 1350. Exposit Liturg. cap. 25. Greeke Archbishop shall not dissent speake reason and withall tell you that the Correspondencie of speech used betwixt Priest and People was to unite the hearts of both Priest and People together Wee say with him to unite them not as you do to separate People from Priest by your solitary Masses and yet to confound their speech by your Dominus vobiscum And if this may not prevaile with you yet me-thinks the authoritie of Pope Gregorie sirnamed the Great might command your beliefe He upon the forme of the Romane service by an interchangeable speech betweene Priest and People concludeth that n Greg. Papa lib. Capitulari c. 7. Sacerdos Missam solus nequaquam celebret quià sicut isâ—a celebrari non potest sine salutatione Sacerdotis et responsione plebis ità nequaquà m ab uno debet celebrari esse n. debent qui ei circumstent quos ille salutet ad reducendum in memoriam illud Dominicum Vbicunque sunt duo aut tres congregati Teste Cassandio Liturg fol. 96. Therefore the Priest should not celebrate Masse alone And yet behold a Greater Pope than he even Soter more ancient by 400. yeares and also a Martyr o Soter B. of Rome An. 170. who suffered Martyrdome made this Decree for celebrating of Masse Vt nullus Presbyterorum praesumat nisi duobus praesentibus ipse tertius habeatur quià cùm pluraliter ibi dicitur Dominus vobiscum et illud in secretis Orate pro me apertissimè convenit ut ipsius respondeatur salutations Witnes M. Harding Art 1. Divis 2â— apud Iuellum decreeing as most convenient for Answer unto the Priest's vobiscum and Orate that there be two at least besides the Priest An * One that of late writ to a Popish Lady not discovering his name Anonymus not long since would needs perswade his Reader that by Vobiscum was meant the Clerke of the Parish But why was it then not said Dominus tecum The Lord be with thee O this forsooth was spoken to the Clerke in civility according to the ordinary Custome of entitling singular persons in the plurall number and this Answer hee called Salving of a Doubt But any may reply that if it were good manners in the Priest to call upon the Clerke with Vobiscum in the plurall number for civilitie sake it must then be rusticitie in youâ— Church to teach your Clerke to answer your Priest Et cum Spiritu tuo And with thy Spirit And againe the answer is impertinent for where the Priest is found thus parling with the Clerke hee cannot be said to be Alone And so the answer of this man must be indeed not Salving but as the rest of his manner of answering a Quack-salving rather and a meere Delusion âšœ Which also the end of the first Institution of these words The Lord be with you doth furthermore declare which was as is 7 Microlog Don inus vobiscum et cùm spiritu tuo c. Notandum ex his verbis semper deberi esse plures respondentes et unum salutantem Et Hugo de S. victore ait
Laicos sub altera specie in multis Ecclesijs communicate consuevisse ut docet S. Thom. in Ioh. his verbis Secundum antiquae Ecclesiae consuetudinem omnes sicut communicabant corpore ità sanguine quod etiam adhuc in quibusdam Ecclesijs servatur ubi etiam Ministri altaris continuò corpore sanguine communicabant Salmeron les Tom 9. Tract 35. §. Secundum cortum pag. 284. Salmeron It is certaine saith he that the Church for these three or two hunded yeares hath used to communicate to the Laity under one kinde So they CHALLENGE NOw after that wee have proved out of your owne Confessions the length of the Custome of Both kindes to have beene in the Continuance above a thousand yeares after the first Institution of this Sacrament and for largenesse thereof in an universall consent thereunto without any exception by any example ordinary publike and legitimate and that you have heard also even the Fathers of your Church opposing against it a contrarie custome not above the Compasse of three hundred yeares and yet to call it Diutissima A Custome of longest continuance what Tergiversation could be more shamelesse But enough of this point In the next place because the same your Councel hath told us that your contrary Custome was brought in Rationabiliter with good Reason wee are forth-with to discusse the Reasons thereof Our sixt Comparison is of Reasons for the Vse of Both kindes collated with Reasons objested to the contrary SECT VI. A Sacrament according to the common definition is a Visible signe of an invisible Grace and so farre is a Signe true and perfect as it doth fully represent the things that are ordained to be signified thereby Signification being the very proper nature and end of a Signe as well in sacred as in prophane Rites Come now and let us industriously and calmly debate this matter which wee have in hand both in respect of the thing signified which is the Sacrament or spirituall Object as of the party Communicating who is the Subject thereof Our first Reason is taken from the due Perfection of this Sacrament which must necessarily be in Both kindes The things Spirituall as all Christians professe are the Body and Blood of Christ which are signified in the Sacrament of Bread and wine These two then are not two Sacraments but one Sacrament formally as you * See afterwards at the letter m. know which therfore ought to be performed in Both or else the Act will be a Sacrilegious dismembring of the Sacrament of Christ This shall we easily prove from the Principles and Confessions of your owne Schooles Your Church professeth to celebrate the Eucharist both as it is a Sacrifice and as it is a Sacrament As you hold it to be a Sacrifice you generally teach that Both kinds are necessarily to be received of the Priest because they both belong to the Essence thereof So your l Sed nos nullam scimus Sacramenti mutilationem neque partem dimidiam Laicis esse substractam siquidem duae species requiruntur necessariò ad Sacrificium sed ad essentiam Sacramenti quaelibet ex duobus sufficit Proinde Sacramentum sub specle panis est verum integrum Sacramentum quandò sumitur per modum â—nius refectionis Bellar Apol. con Praefar Monit pag. 102. And Alfons à Castro de nac Controv. pag. 157. Sacerdos hac lege devinctus est ut quotiescunque celebret nec panem sine vino nec vinum absque pane consecrari faciat quoniam etsi integer Christus sub qualibet specie lateat non tamen quaelibet species totum Christum significat sed panis solâ—m carnem significat species vini solum sanguinem repraesentat illiusque solius memoriam gerit Cardinall Consult with your m Vnum dicitur quod est perfectum sic cùm dicitur una domus unus homo Est autem unum in perfectione ad cujus integritatem concurrunt omnia quae requiruntur Aqum part 3. qu. 73. Art 12. Ex parte Sacramentâ— convenit ut utrumque sumatur scilicet corpus sanguis quòd in utroque consistit perfectio Sacramenti Idem thid quaest 80. Art 2. Etenim obligatio perficiendi istud Sacramentum illi solùm ex natura rei id est spectâ—tâ Sacramenti dignitate incumbit qui illud etiam conficit debet enim is quando-quidem rem tam divinam facit non utcunque facere Itaque tenetur inprimis utramque speciem consecrare tùm ut huic Sacramento omnis perfectio sua substantialis etiam quoad rationem individuam constet Valent. les de usu Eucharistiae cap. 6. §. Etenim pag. 492. Respondendum est eam actionem esse illis ipsis imperatam per illa verba Hoc facite c. See above Sect. 3. at g where Vasquez the Iesult is cited in 3. Them Disput 215. Aquinas your Iesuites Valentia and Vasquez and they will say as much in behalfe of the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament their reason is Because both kindes making but one Sacrament ought to be celebrated perfectly and therefore is the Priest bound to consecrate this Sacrament in both kindes by that command of Christ saying Do this nor can this be omitted without Sacrilege So they If such be the necessity of consecrating in both kindes under the hand of the Priest then lieth the same obligation upon the Church likewise for distributing it in both kindes unto the people to whom it is to be administred in token of Christ his Passion for them applicatorily both in his Body and Bloud but the Bread only can no more represent the Blood of Christ in the mouthes of people in the eating thereof than it can by Consecrating it in the hands of the Priest and consequently the dismembring thereof as you do must necessarily condemne both Priest and People A Consequence which your figment of * See hereafterr Sect 8. Concomitancie cannot possibly avoid A Corroboration of the same Reason against the Sacrilegious dismembring of this Sacrament by the Testimony of Pope Gelasius and a Vindication of Doctor Morton from the Traducement of other your Priests and Iesuites SECT VII THe Hereticall Manichees forbare the use of the Cup in this Sacrament in an opinion that wine was not created by God but by some evill spirit whom Pope Gelasius did therefore condemne by his publike Decree which Hereticall opinion as once I n Appeal lib. 2. Chap. 1. pag. 140. said cannot justly be imputed unto the Church of Rome in her manner of abstaining from the Cup in the Eucharist This Saying o In his Answer to his Majestie Master Fisher the Iesuite of late thought good to pervert to his owne use thus The Crime wherewith some Protestants charge us that our receiving under the sole forme of Bread is to jump in the opinion of the Manichees wee may as Doctour Morton confesseth reject as injurious saying with him that it was not the Manichees
abstinence from wâ—ne but the reason of their forbearance that was judged Hereticall So hee But this mans march is but slow Master Brerely p In his Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse Tract 4. §. 4. pag. 407. a Romish Priest one well esteemed among you for his exceeding labour and paines in defending the Romish Cause to his power by his many Bookes almost in every particular commeth on more roundly as followeth Doctor Morton himselfe saith he shall plead in our behalfe who saith that the Manichees did heretically celebrate the Eucharist onely in one kind in an opinion that wine was not created by God but by some evill spirit and were therefore anciently condemned for Heretiques but the Romanists are not to bee accused of this heresie of the Manichees in their not distributing of both elements of bread and wine And to object this against that Church were an accusation injurious for it was not the Manichees abstinence from wine but their reason thereof which made them hereticall said hee So your Priest yet what of all this So clearely doth Doctor Morton saith hee cleare us from the foule and false imputation urged against us by Doctor Whitaker who noted the Administration but in one kind now used by the Romish Church to have had it's originall from the Manichees and so clearely doth hee contradict both Master Whitaker and himselfe in one place accusing us in another excusing us in one and the same Respect of which foule fault of Contradiction in so great a Rabbin when he cleareth himselfe instead of being Bishop of Litchfield hee shall bee unto mee ever Magnus Apollo Thus farre Master Brerely Alas what will become of the Doctor being as you see thus fiercely assaulted by two at once one a Iesuite the other a Romish Priest both conspiring together to make the Doctor ridiculous CHALLENGE IT is now about twenty yeeres since the sayd Doctor in Confutation of a booke of Master Brerelyes intituled an Apologie published a Treatise called the Protestants Appeale wherein were discovered many hundred of Master Brerelyes Ignorances Falsities and Absurdities who ever since hath had Master Parson 's itch as hee himselfe called his owne humour which received a Salve that might have cured him of that itch to bee medling with the same Doctor Yet the only Exception which hath since come to this Doctor 's eares from your side is this now objected point concerning the Manichees whereupon you have heard them both so urgently and boastingly insist and not so onely but they have also divulged this pretended Contradiction in many Counties of this Kingdome to his reproach Will you be so kinde as but to heare an Answer and then either wonder at or hisse or applaude or him or them as you shall find just Cause Two things there were condemnable in the Manichees one was their Act and Practice in dismembring the Sacrament by not communicating in Both kinds the other was their Opinion which they held for so doing which was as you have heard an Hereticall Conceit that Wine was the Creature of the Devill Concerning this Hereticall opinion no Protestant sayd q Protestants Appeale lib. 2. chap. 4. Sect. 3. Doctor Morton doth charge the Church of Rome but as for the Act of not Communicating in Both kinds r In the same Appeale lib. 4. chap. 22. Sect. 10. he called it Sacrilegious and concluded the Church of Rome in this respect to bee as guilty of dismembring the Sacrament as were the Manichees And both these hee hath done by the Authority of Pope Å¿ Comperimus quòd quidam sumptâ tantummodò corporis sacri portione à Calice sacri cruoris abstineante qui proculdubiò quoniam nescio qua supersticione docentur astringi aut Sacramenta integra percipiant aut ab integris arceantur quià divisio unius ejusdemque mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire Gelasâ—apud Gratian de Consecrat cap. Comperâ—mus D. 2. Gelasius who decreed in condemning the Manichees First against their Opinion saying Illi nescio quâ superstitione docentur astringi c. That is They are intangled in a kinde of Superstition Then for the Act of refusing the Cup Because saith hee the diving of the same Mystery cannot be done without grievous sacrilege therefore let these Manichees either receive the whole Sacrament or else let them be wholly excluded from receiving So Gelasius Seeing then Doctor Morton and all Protestants cleare the Church of Rome from the imputation of the Heresie of the Manichees in respect of their opinion and yet condemne them of the Manichean Sacrilege in respect of the Act of dismembring the Sacrament with what spectacles thinke you did your Priest and Iesuite reade that Answere of Doctor Morton to collect from thence either your Churches Iustification from a foule fault of Sacrilege or else the Doctors foule Contradiction to himselfe and that clearely forsooth in the same respect who themselves are now found to have beene so subtilly witlesse as not to discerne Heresie from Sacrilege an opinion from a fact or a no-imputation of that whereof neither Doctor Whitaker nor any other Protestant ever accused them from a practice condemned by a Roman Pope himselfe Take unto you a Similitude A man being apprehended in the company of Traytors upon suspicion of Fellony is fully and effectually prosecuted for Fellony onely if one should say of him that he was not convicted or condemned of Treason but of Fellony were this either a Contradiction in the party speaking or a full Iustification of the party spoken of You are by this time wee thinke ashamed of your Proctors and of their scornefull insultation upon the Doctor in the ridiculous tearmes of Rabbin and Magnus Apollo who willingly forbeareth upon this Advantage to recompence them with like scurrility being desirous to be onely Great in that which is called Magna est Veritas praevalet By which Truth also is fully discovered the vanity of the Answer both of M r. Fisher of your Cardinall saying that Gelasius condemned only the Opinion of the Manichees which is so transparant a falshood as any one that hath but a glympse of Reason may see throught it by the sentence it selfe as hath been proved Our second Reason is in respect of the perfect Spirituall Refection represented by this Sacrament SECT VIII ANother Object represented in this Sacrament is the food of mans soule in his faithfull receiving of the Bodie and Blood of Christ which because it is a perfect spirituall Refection Christ would have it to be expressed both in Eating and Drinking wherein consisteth the perfection of man's bodily sustenance and therefore are both necessarily to be used by law of Analogie betweene the outward Signe and the thing Signified thereby Two of your a Nam in alterutra 〈◊〉 sive panis sive vinâ— significatur sufficienter refectâ—â— animae Bellar. lib. 4. de Eucharist cap. 20. §. Vtranuc pag. 639. Est etiam in specie quod 〈◊〉
If the particular reason which o Dicendum quòd vinum modicè sumptum non potest multum aegrotanti nocere Aquinas part 3. quaest 74. Art 1. Aquinas giveth saying That Wine moderately taken of such can do no hurt may not satisfie yet this being also a Cause accidentall and extraordinary you ought to be regulated by this generall Rule That extraordinary Cases ought not to justle out ordinary Lawes and Customes For that Command of Christ to his Apostles Go preach to every Creature stood good in the generall albeit many men happened to be deafe Saint Peter requireth of every Christian of sit yeares that he be prepared to give an answer of his faith to every one that asketh which precept was not therefore alterable because of multitudes of many that were dumbe Finally to close up with you he that by the rule of Hospitality is to cheere up his guests doth not prescribe that because some mens stomackes are queasie and not able to endure Wine or else some meates therefore all others should be kept fasting from all meates and Drinkes and the Eucharist you know is called by Saint Paul The Supper of the Lord and by ancient Fathers an holy * See above Chap. 2. Sect. 9. in the Châ—ll Banquet The second kind of Romish Pretences is of Such which might have beene common to other Churches The other Causes above-mentioned were common to the primitive Church of Christ wherein the use of Both kindes was notwithstanding preserved and continued except that you will say no Northerne Nations were Christians in those times and that no stomackes of Christians were dis-affected to wine in loathing it c. But two other Pretences you have which you thinke to be of more speciall-force to forbid the use of this Sacrament in Both kindes One is Because saith your m Primò movet Ecclesiam consuetudo recepta approbata consensu Gentium Populorum Bellar. quo sup Cardinall such is the now-received and approved Custome of Nations and People So he But first to argue that your Church did therefore forbid the use of both kindes because she had approved the contrary Custome is a meere Nugacitie and Tautologie and as much as to say Shee would forbid it because shee would forbid it Secondly saying that the Vse of but One kinde had indefinitely the Consent of Nations and People is a flat falsity because as hath beene confessed The Greeke Church not to mention AEthiopians AEgyptians Armenians and Others have alwayes held the Contrary Custome Lastly to justifie your Churches Innovation in consenting to the humour of People of latter times what can you censure it lesse than a grosse and absurd Indulgence The other Motive which the n Mover Eccleclesiam quidem vehementer Irreverentia profanationes tanti Sacramenti quae vix evitari possent in tanta fidelium multitudine si omnibus daretur sub utraque specie Bellar. ibid. Cardinall calleth a Vehement presumption and which all your Objectors most earnestly urge is the Cause of Irreverence lest the blood might be spilt especially in such a multitude of faithfull Communicants and also lest any particle of the Hoast fall to the ground saith Master * Liturg. tract 4. §. 6. Brerely We have but foure Answers to this mighty Objection First that this was not held a Reason to Christ or his Apostles or to the Church of Christ for many ages when notwithstanding the multitudes of Communicants were innumerable Secondly that The Casuall spilling of the Cup saith your o Vtriusque speciei usum illicitum esse atque sacrilegium aitfalsum est quòd usui Calicis annexum sic peccatum vel sacrilegium propter periculum effusionis nam si haberet adjunctum peccatum neque Christus Dominus neque Apostoli in primitiva Ecclesia nec Orientales modo nec Occidentales ante Conc. Constantiense neque denique Sacerdotes celebrantes eo uterentur ritu Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 37. §. Deinde p 308. Salmeron is no sinne else would not Christ have instituted the use of the Cup nor would the Apostles or Primitive Church aswell in the West as in the East in their communicating nor yet the Priest in consecrating have used it So he We might adde by the same reason should people be forbid the other part also lest as your Priest said any particle thereof should fall to the ground Furthermore for the avoiding of Spilling you as your Cardinall Alan p Cernuntur hodiè ex antiquitate relictae quaedam fistulae argenteae aureae velut canales calicibus vetustioribus adjunctae ut per eas sine effusione hauriri posset sanguis è calice quarum in Ordinario Rom. sit mentio Et adhuc in Missa solenni Pontificis adhibentur ubi ministri Cardinales aut illustriores personae communicant sub utraque specie posteriorem speciem fistulà haurieÌ„tes sed ista instrumenta non fuisse in usu apud plebem in parochialibus Ecclesijs planè existimo sed tantum in sacris Cardinalium Canonicorum et Monachorum Conventibus Alan lib. 1. de Euch cap 47. p. 495. relateth have provided Pipes of silver which are used by Popes Cardinals Monkes and some other Illustrious lay-Personages Surely there being no respect of persons with God as said Saint Peter we thinke that he who will be Saint Peter's Successor should have taken out with Saint Peter that lesson of Christ of loving the whole flocke of Christ aswell Lambes as Sheepe not to provide Pipes or Tunnels for himselfe alone and his Grandes for receiving this part of the Sacrament and to neglect all other Christians albeit never so true members of Christ For this wee all know that q 1. Cor. 11. Itaque fratres mei cum conveneritis invicem expectate Dominus ex aequo Tibi pauperi mensam proprij corporis poculum sanguinis tradidit Teste Salmeron les Tom. 14. Disp 19. pag. 153. Our Lord Christ prepared his table aswell for the poore as the Rich according to the Apostles Doctrine by your owne construction answerable to the Doctrine of ancient Fathers And that the Pretence of Reverence cannot be a sufficient Reason of altering the ordinance of Christ we may learne from ancient Histories which evidently declare that the opinion of Reverence hath often beene the Damme and Nourse of manifold Superstitions As for example The Heretikes called * See §. 9. Discalceati in pretence of more humility thought that they ought to goe bare-foote The * See above Sect. 8. g Encratitae in pretence of more sanctity abhorred marriage The r Aquarij solam aquam apponendam asserebant sobeietatis conservandae causâ vinum vitantes Alsons à Caflto cont Id ere 's Tit. Eucharistia Har. 6. Aquarij in pretence of more sobriety used water in this Sacrament The Manichees wanted not their pretence of not drinking wine in the Eucharist because they thought it was created by an evill Spirit And yet were
of it selfe hath beene termed by Master Calvin Murus ahaeneus that is a wall of brasse and so will it bee found more evidently to bee when you shall perceive the same * Booke 3. thorrow-out Fathers judging that which they call a Change into Christs Flesh to bee but a Change into the Sacrament of his Flesh bread still remaining the same in the third Booke âšœ And now wee are to withstand your paper-bullets wherewith you vainely attempt in your Objections following to batter our defence withall CHAP. III. The Romish Objections from Reasons against the Figurative Sense Answered The first Objection SECT I. NOthing useth to bee more properlie and simplie spoken say a Primum Argumentum sumitur à materiâ est enim materia de quâ hic agitur Pactum Sacramentum Testamentum Novum fuisse à Domino institutum pater ex illis verbis Hic est calix Novi Testamenti in sanguine meo Iam verò nihil solet magis propriè simplicitèr aut exquisitè explicaâ—â— quà m Testamentum nè viz. detur occasio litigandi Pacta seu toedera sunt etiam ex eodem genera quae exquisitissimè proprijs verbis explicantur nè locus ullus relinquatur cavillis Sacramentum hoc esse de quo agitur nemo negat Sacramentum autem solere à Deo institui proprijs verbis ut in corum usu non cretur Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch c. 9. §. Primùm §. Deindè §. Poriò â—acramentum A Testament must be alwayes taken in a reall and substantiall meaning M. Maloun the Ies in his Reply you than words of Testaments and Covenants Ergò this being a Testamentary Phrase must be taken in the literall Sense CHALLENGE VVHat is this are Figurative speeches never used in Covenants and Testamentarie Language or is there not therfore sufficient perspicuity in Figures This is your rash and lavish Assertion for you your selves doe teach that b In ipsâ Scriptura dicitur Testamentum Instrumentum Quia pacta Dei soedera inita nobiscum continent ut patet in pacto Circumcisionis cum Abrahamo Ante omnia praefamur S. Scripturam uti Metaphoris non solum ob utilitatem nostram sed etiam propter necessitatem à pluribus Patribus traditur Sacram scripturam de Deo de Trinitate de Patre Filio Spiritu sancto propriè loqui non passe Quandò sermo est de vità aeterâ pâ—aemio siliorum Dei â—laâ—is rebus comparatur per Tropos est explicandus ut August ait Nullo genere lâ—cutionis quod in consuetudine humanâ reperitur Scripturae non utuntur quia utiqué hominibus 〈◊〉 Salâ—â—er Iâ—s Proâ—â—g lib. 1. p. 3. 4. lib. 21. pag. 371. 227. 229. 231. 234. The Old and New Testament are both full fraught with multitude of Tropes and Figures and yet are called Testaments Secondly That the Scripture speaking of the Trinitie and some divine things cannot but speake Improperly and siguratively Thirdly That Sacramentall speeches as The Rocke was Christ and the like words re * See above Chap. 2. Sect 3. let c. Tropicall and Figurative Fourthly That even in the Testamentary Speech of Christ at his Institution of this Sacrament saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood there is a Figure in the very word c See above Chap. 2 Sect. 4. p. q. Testament So have you confessed and so have you consequently confuted your owne Objection Hereto might bee added the Testament of Iacob prophesying of his sonnes and saying * Gen. 49. Reuben is my strength Iudah a Lions Whelpe Issachar a strong Asse Dan an Adder in the way All figurative Allusions Nay no man in making his Testament can call it his Will or say that hee hath set his hand and Seale unto it without Figures Namely that hee hath given by writing a Signification of his Will that the Subscription was made by his Hand and that he added unto it the Print of his Seale These Three Will Hand Seale every word Figurative even in a Testament The second Romish Objection against the Figurative Sense SECT II. LAwes and Precepts say d Verba Legum Praeceptorum debent este propria Bellar lib 1 de Eucharist cap 9. §. Sequitur you should bee in plaine and proper words But in the Speech of Christ Take eate you c. are words of Command Ergò They may not bee held Figurative CHALLENGE CAn you be Ignorant of these Figurative Precepts viz. of Pulling out a mans owne eye of cutting off his hand Mat. 5. Or yee of a Penitents Renting of his heart Ioel 2. Or of not hardening his heart Psalme 95. and the like Christ commanded his Disciples to prepare for his keeping the Passeover with his Disciples and the Disciples prepared the Passeover as Iesus commanded them saith the * Luc. 22. 8. Evangelist In this Command is the word Passeover We demand The word Passeover which is taken for the Sacrament and Signe of the Passeover is it taken Figuratively You cannot deny it And can you deny that a Commandement may bee delivered under a Figurative Phrase You can both that is say and gaine-say any thing like false Merchants onely so farre as things may or may not make for your owne advantage But to catch you in your owne snare your Doctrine of Concomitancy is this viz. Bread being turned into Christs Body is joyntly turned into whole Christ and Wine being changed into his Blood is likewise turned into whole Christ both Flesh and Blood If then when Christ commanded his Disciples saying * Matth. 26. 27. Drinke you All of this that which was Drunke was the whole substantiall Body of Christ either must his Disciples be sayd to have Drunke Christs Body properly or else was the Command of Christ figuratively spoken To say the first contradicteth the universall expression of mans speech in all Languages for no man is sayd to drinke Bread or any solid thing And â—o grant the Second that the speech is Figurative contradicteth your owne Objection Againe Christ commanded to Eate his Body yet notwithstanding have Three e Seâ— above Ch. 2. §. 4. l. Iesuites already confessed that Christs Body cannot bee sayd to have beene properly Eaten but Figuratively onely What fascination then hath perverted your Iudgements that you cannot but still confound your selves by your contrary and thwarting Languages Your third Romish Objection SECT III. DOctrinall and Dogmaticall speeches say f Praecipua dogmata c Bellar. quo supra §. Denota you ought to be direct and literall But these words This is my Body are Doctrinall CHALLENGE A Man would marvaile to heare such seely and petty Reasons to bee propounded by those who are accounted great Clerkes and those who know full well that the speech of Christ concerning Castrating or gelding of a man's selfe is g Abulen in eum loâ—um Christus non laudat cos qui castâ—ârunt se sed
to be absolutely for it in sound it being just the same Doctrine which Augustine Anselme and Bede * See hereafter Booke 5. Chap. 3. §. 1. 2. taught when they said that the faithfull among the Iewes Ate the same spirituall meate Christs Flesh in eating Manna and dranke the same spirituall drink that is the blood of Christ in drinking the water that issued out of the Rocke which Christians now doe And therefore meant not a Corporall eating of Christ but a Sacramentall So say wee Christ could aswell then turne Manna and Water of the Rocke into a Sacrament of his Body and Blood for the nourishing of the soules of God's people of those times as he doth now Convert Bread and Wine into the Sacraments of his Body and Blood for the comfort of us Christians This Answer preventeth the Iesuites Objection 10 In his Booke of Spectacles p. 142. The Time saith he when the people received Manna in the Desert Christ was not in his humane nature therefore could not Manna be changed into his Body nor Water into his Blood So he very truly indeed And therfore must AElfrick his speech be understood Sacramentally as hath beene said which because the Iesuite refuseth to do therefore is he at difference with AElfrick denying that Christ was able to convert Manna into his Body which AElfrick said in expresse termes hee was able to do namely thorow his divine power by a Sacramentall Conversion because Omnipotencie is as properly necessary for the making of a divine Sacrament as it was for the creating of the World But was it not then kindly done thinke you of your Iesuit to lend his Spectacles to another when he had the most need of them himselfe by the which he might have discerned that as Christ Sacramentally and therefore figuratively called Bread his Body and Wine his Blood so did evermore all the faithfull of Christ This Lesson * See Booke 2. C. 2. Sect. 10. hath beene manifested by many pregnant Examples in a full Section which being once got by heart would expedite all the like Difficulties To conclude the former Saxon doctrine is againe confirmed by Saint * See Booke 4. Chap. 4. §. 1. in the Challenge Augustine Wherefore wee may as truly say concerning this your Conversion that if it be by Transubstantiation from Bread then it is not the Body which was Borne of the Blessed Virgin as your owne Romish Glosse could say of the Predication * See above B. 2. Chap. 1. §. 4. If Bread be Christ's Body then something was Christ's Body which was not borne of the Virgin Mary And this wee are now furthermore to evince out of your Pope Innocent the Third against your Councel of Trent He See the Margent of the former Section taught that when the Conversion is of the forme with the substance then is the Change Into that which is now made and was not before as when the Rod was turned into a Serpent So he shewing that the Serpent by that Change was therefore Made of that Rod. But your Tridentine Fathers you know have defined the Conversion of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body to be aswell in Forme as in Matter whereupon by the Iudgement of your Pope Innocent it must follow that the Body of Christ in your Eucharist is made of Bread and if made of Bread then could it not possibly be of the flesh of the Virgin Because there cannot be a Substantiall Change of a Substance into Substance except that the Substance of that whereinto the Conversion is wrought have it's Originall and Making from the Substance of that which was converted and changed Nor could the Contrary be hitherto proved by any Romish Doctor from any Example out of any conversion either naturall or miraculous which hath beene road of from the beginning of Times Our third Reason is taken from the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration but First of the State of this Question SECT III. VVEe wonder not why your Fathers of the Councell of Trent were so fierce in casting their great Thunderbolt of m Si quis dixerit remaneâ—â— substâ—ntiam Panâ—s Anathema sit Conc. Trident. Sess 13. Can. 2. Anathema and Curse upon every man that should affirme Bread and Wine to remaine in this Sacrament after Consecration which they did to terrifie men from the doctrine of Protestants who do all affirme the Continuance of the substance of Bread in the Eucharist For right well did these Tridentines know that if the Substance of Bread or Wine doe remaine then is all Faith yea and Conceit of Transubstantiation but a feigned Chimaera and meere Fancie as your Cardinall doth confesse in granting that n Panis eâ—si non annihilâ—tur tamen manet niâ—â—l in se ut Aqua post Conversionem in Vinum Neqque obstat quòd fouè materia manserit nam materia 〈◊〉 est Aqua Prima â—Ì„oditio in vera Conversione est 〈◊〉 quod convertitur 〈◊〉 esse Bessur lio 3 de Euch. c 18 〈◊〉 cap. 24. §. Ad Alterum It is a necessary condition in every Transubstantiation that the thing which is converted cease any more to bee as it was in the Conversion of Water into Wine Water ceased to bee Water And so must Bread cease to bee Bread This being the State of the Question wee undertake to give Good Proofes of the Existence and Continuance of Bread in the Eucharist the same in Substance after Consecration Our first Proofe is from Scripture 1. Cor. 10. 11. Saint Paul calling it Bread SECT IV. IN the Apostle his Comment that I may so call his two * 1. Cor. 11. 26 27. 10. 16. Chapters to the Corinthians upon the Institution of Christ we reade of Eating the Bread and Drinking the Cup thrice all which by the consent of all sides are spoken of Eating and Drinking after Consecration and yet hath hee called the ourward Element Bread You will say with Some It was so called onely because it was made of Bread as Aärons Rod turned into a Serpent was notwithstanding called a Rod. But this Answer is not Answerable unto the Similitude For first of the Bread the Apostle saith demonstratively This bread and of the other This Cup But of Aärons Rod turned into a Serpent none could say This Rod. And secondly it is contrary to Christian Faith which will abhorre to say in a proper sense that Christs Body was ever Bread Or else you will answer with Others It is yet called Bread because it hath the Similitude of Bread as the Brazen Serpent was called a Serpent But neither this nor any other of your Imaginations can satisfie for we shall proove that the Apostle would never have called it Bread after Consecration but because it was Substantially still Bread Our Reason is He had now to deale against the Prophaners of this Sacrament in reproving such as used it as Common Bread * 1. Cor. 11. 22. Not
in Plinie that could paint Grapes so to life as to deceive Birds which came to feed on them But they are the onely Sophisticall Doctours that offer in the Eucharist onely Accidents as painted Colours in stead of naturall because where there is not a Sacramentall Analogie there is no Sacrament You may not say that the Analogie consisteth in the matter before Consecration because every Sacramentall Analogie is betweene the Sacrament and the Thing Signified but it is no Sacrament before it be Consecrated CHALLENGE SAy now what Better Authour is there than Christ What better Disciple and Scholler than the Apostle of Christ or what better Commentary upon the words of Christ and his Apostle than the Sentences of Ancient Fathers calling the one part Wine the other Bread after Consecration as you have heard Our Third Proofe that the Substance of Bread remaineth after Consecration in the Sacrament is taken from the Iudgement of Sense necessarily First by the Authority of Scripture SECT VII ALthough man's Sense may be deceived through the inconvenient Disposition of the Medium thorow which hee seeth as it hapneth in judging a strait Staffe to bee Crooked which standeth in the Water and in thinking a White Object to bee Greene in it selfe which is seene thorow a Greene glasse or Secondly by the unequall Distance of place as by concelving the Sunne to bee but two feete in breadth or Thirdly by some defect in the Organ or Instrument of seeing which is the Eye whereby it cometh to passe that wee take One to bee Two or mistake a Shadow for a Substance Yet notwithstanding when our Eyes that see are of good Constitution and Temper the Medium whereby wee see is perfectly disposed the Distance of the Object which wee see is indifferent then say we the judgement of Sense being free is True and the Concurrence and joynt consent of divers Senses in one arbitrement is infallible This Reason taken from Sense you peradventure will judge to bee but Naturall and Carnall as those Termes are opposed to a true and Christian maner of Reasoning We defend the Contrary being warranted by the Argument which Christ himselfe used to his Disciples Luke 24. 39. Handle mee and see Your Cardinall although hee grant that this Reason of Christ was available to prove that his owne Body was no Spirit or Fancy but a true Body even by the onely Argument from the sense of Touching b Consequentia Christi affirmativè sumpta Hoc palpatur hoc videtur Ergo est Corpus optuâ—a fuit quià sensus non fallitur circa proprium Objectum â—taque necessariò quod videtur tangitur Corporale est At negativè hoc non palpatur nec videtur Ergò non est corpus Dominus non fecit mala est Non falluntur Sensus nostri cum nos album quid rotundum solidum sentire arbitramur quae sunt propria objècta Sed cùm Panis Substantiam sub illis Accidentibus â—atere denunciant falluntur Dominus solùm probare voluit se non esse inane spectrum seu Phantasma sed verum Corpus id quod ex Testimonio sensus Tangendi optimè probavit Illud autem Corpus esse humanum idem quod anteà suerat non probavit Dominus hoc solo Argumento ex Tangendi sensu desumpto quod sine dubio non erat sufficiens sed multis alijs modis loquendo manducando testimonio Angelorum miraculo Piscium allegatione Scripturarum Bellar. l. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Respondeo Yet saith hee was it not sufficient in it selfe without other Arguments to confirme it and to prove it to have bin a human body and the very same which it was So he Which Answer of your Cardinall wee wish were but onely false and not also greatly irreligious for Christ demonstrated hereby not onely that hee had a Body as your Cardinall speaketh but also that it was his owne same Humane Body now risen which before had beene Crucified and wounded to Death and buried according to that of Luke That it is even I Luke 24 39. Now because * 1. Cor. 15. It is not a Resurrection of a Body except it bee the Same Body Therefore would Christ have Thomas to * Ioh. 20. 27. thrust his hands into his sides and feele the print of his wounds to manifest the Same Body as Two of your Iesuites do also observe the One with an c Optimè Origenes Ostendit se Christus in vero Corpore suo resuscitatum Tolet. les in Ioh. c. 20. pag. 534. Optimè the Other with a d Probatum est Christum idem Corpus numero demonstraÌ„sse Silarez Ies Tom. 2. qu. 54. §. 1. Probatum est Accordingly the Apostle Saint Paul laid this Argument taken from Sense as the Foundation of a Fundamentall Article of Faith even the Resurrection of the Same Body of Christ from the dead for how often doth hee repeate and inculcate this * 1. Cor. 15. 5. Hee was seene c. And againe thrice more Hee was seene c. And Saint Iohn argueth to the same purpose from the Concurrence of three Senses * 1. Ioh. 1. 1. That which wee have heard which wee have seene and our hands have handled declare wee unto you The validity of this Reason was proved by the Effect as Christ averreth * 1. Ioh. 20. 29. Thomas because thou hast seene that is perceived both by Eye and hand thou hast beleeved The Validity of the Iudgement of Sense in THOMAS and the other Disciples confirmed in the second place by your owne Doctors SECT VIII PErerius a Iesuit confidently pleadeth for the Sense of Touch c Illud sine dubitatione dicere non verebor non polle ab ullo Dâ—mone formari corpus corpus adeò simile humano ut siquis cum curà animi attentione id tangeret non facilè dignosceret ipsum non esse corpus humanum Itaque non poterit Daemon similitudine corporis humani oculos fallere Tactus autem sensum fallere omninò non potest quod quatuor Argumentis confirmabo Hoc verissimum esse patet ex eo quod Christus dixit discipulis suis Palpate videte Thomae After digitum c. Perer Ies in Gen. 6. num 78. pag. 2. I feare not saith hee to say that the Evidence of Sense is so strong an Argument to prove without all doubt an humane Body that the Devill himselfe cannot herein delude the touch of man that is of understanding and consideration As for the unbeleeving Disciples Christ his Handle me c. saith your Iesuite f Si Discipuli Christi non potuissent Christi vera osta carnes discernere mollitiem duritiem eorum non dixisset ijs Palpate videte ac si diceret Palpate Percipite veras carnes ossa Vasquez Ies Tom. 2. qu. 51. Art 2. disp 184. cap. 2. pag. 487. Thomas dicit singula Argumenta non fuisse per se sufficientia
without some iujury to that perfection of his glorious Body And therefore Hee that shall beleeve that let him heare that notable saying of Solomon Hee that is of a sodaine Beliefe hath a light and inconstant heart By occasion of this Question thus prosecuted they start as it were another Hare questioning whether it bee a matter of Faith to beleeve the Blood so appearing to be the Blood of Christ One side affirming it to be grounding themselves as they thought upon Bulls of the Popes of Rome upon a pretended Testimonie of Athanasius and upon the Divine Revelations of Saint Bridget On the contrary side your Doctor qualifieth the Approbations of Popes excepteth against the pretended Testimony of Athanasius and justly as counterfeit and denieth that the Revelation of Saint Bridget can be sufficient to prove it to be Impious and irreligious not to beleeve the contrary III. As for the third point of the Blood of Christ shed at his Passion wee leave them 8 Id. Disp 9. cap. 2. An portio aliquas de sanguine effuso in passione relicta fuerit in orbe tertarum Affirmo Nihil ejus sanguinis tunc effusi extra Dominici corporis venas remanfisse Silvester contrariè colligit ex Thoma Aliquid sanguinis in passione effusi remansisse apud mortales Ac Vasquez in 3. Thom. Qu. 5. Disp 36. cap. 8. Assero aliquam partem sanguinis Christi retaansisse nec in Resurrectione totum resumptum fuisse skirmishing together One side affirming and the other denying any part of that Blood to have beene at any time remaining in the world since the time of his Passion All this our Relation hath no other Ayme than to shew the Vnconscionablenesse of your Disputers in requiring Faith of Others to beleeve such and such Apparitions of Christs Blood which they themselves by their owne Reasons Contradictions and Conclusions have made uncredible CHAP. III. That the Romish manser of the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament is manifoldly Impossible SECT I. NO sooner do you heare Protestants talke of the Impossibility 20 30 of your maner of Presence which your Church prescribeth but you presently cry out upon them as upon Blasphemous Detractors from the Omnipotencie of God as if they meant x Absit â—ut fidelis quispiam aurem accommodet impijs Sacramentarijs qui excaecatâ mente omnipotentiam Christi in hoc Sacramento vel comprehendere detrectant quòd tanquam pestem lethalem vitae intellectum nostrum in obsequium Christi cap tivare debemus Theologi Colon. in Provinc Cont. Tract de Sacram. Euch. fol. 92. To tie God to the rules of Nature as your Authors are pleased to suggest We hold it necessary therefore to remove this Scandall thus cast in the way for simple people to stumble upon before we can conveniently proceed to the maine matter and this wee shall endeavour to do by certaine Propositions I. That by the Iudgement of ancient Fathers some things by reason of Contradiction in them may be called Impossible without the impeachment of the Omnipotency of God yea with the great advancement thereof SECT II. THis Proposition accordeth to the judgement of ancient Fathers shewing that y Aug. de Civit. lib. 5. cap. 10. Dicitur Deus omnipotens faciendo quod vult non faciendo quod non vult quod si accideret nequâ—quam esset omnipotens unde proptereà quaedam non potest quia est omnipotens non potest mori non peccare non falli Ambros lib. 6. Epist 37. ad Chromaâ— Non posse mori non infirmitatis est sed virtutis Chrysost in â—ohan Nihil impotentius quà m hoc posse Adâ—e hereuâ—to Theodoret Dial. 3. cap. 4. Impossibilia sunt Omnipotenti Deo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sic posse esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz Orat. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God cannot doe something even because he is Omnipotent as not dye not sinne not lye because such Acts proceed not from power but from impotencie and infirmitie âšœ Theophylact will explaine this Point in answering this Question Can God make that which is once done to have beene not done 1 Theophylact. in Marc. 10. Nuâ—quid autem dicunt Deum factum infectum facere non posse Dicimus Deum esse veracem factum autem infectum facere mendacium est Quo pacto quaeso verax mendacium fecerit prius enim perderet naturam suam Et ideò qui sic loquuntur perindè loquuntur ac si quaeâ—ant Num potest Deus non esse Deus vides igitur quam ridicula sit quaestio God is true of his words saith hee but to make that not to be done which hath beene done is a Lie How then can hee that is true Lie He should sooner lose his Divine nature They therefore that speake so talke as if they should aske whether God can be God whence their question appeareth to bee ridiculous So he The ancient Father Iustine Iustiâ— Martyr Quaest Grec Const qu. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 distinguisheth of Impossibilities One simple and absolute which hee calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the other which hee saith is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giving for his example in the first Impossibility a Diameter-line in a Figure to bee equall unto the sides thereof Of the further judgement of the Fathers hereafter âšœ So the Fathers It is not long since you have beene taught by an exceeding worthy Scholler that in such Cases as imply Contradiction the ancient Fathers noted the pretence of Gods omnipotencie to have beene anciently z Casaub Exerâ—t 3. ad Baron An 91 Num. 91. Scituâ— est piorum Patrum Oâ—nipotentiam esse Asâ—lum Haereticorum quo se recipiant ubi â—arionibus fuerint victi Gregor Nazianz. Orat. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sic Ariani ab Orthodoxis convicti Christum Deum non esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eò confugâ—iebant ut dâ—cerent per omnipotentiam Dei hoc esse factum qui error confutatur ab Augustino qu 79. Vet. Novi Testâ—â— Potentia inquiunt Dei haeâ— est vt falsa sint vera mendacis est ut falsum dicat verum quod Dâ—o nâ—â— competit The Sanctuary of Heretikes And they give an instance in the Arians who denying Christ to have beene God eternall beleeved him to have beene created God in time as if it were possible there should be a made God whose property is to be eternall Their only pretence was Gods Omnipotencie to make false things true wherein they proved themselves the greatest Lyars Take unto you a second Proposition II. That the Doâ—trine of the same Impossibiity by reason of Contradiction doth magnifie the Power of God by the Universall consent of Romish Doctors and their divers Examples of Impossibility concerning a Body SECT III. YOur owne Iesuites doe lay this for a ground a Dicendum Deum omnia posse facere quae ullo modo fiant Omnes Theologi dicunt Deum esse
se includit Contradictionem sicut quòd Homo careat ratione Et qu. 8â— Art 2. ad 1. Corpus non potest actu esse in pluribus locis simul hoc enim est solius Dei Possibility as proper only to God Which though hee speake concerning the locall maner of Being yet his Reason as * See the former testimony your Cardinall confesseth doth as well concerne your Sacramentall maner of being on earth to deny the Body of Christ to be really in many Hoasts and on many Altars at once And Aquinas his reason being this Vnum One saith he is that which is not divided from it selfe but to be in divers places at once doth divide one from it selfe and consequently maketh it not to be One which being a Contradiction doth inferre an Impossbility So hee âšœ Accordingly your Iesuite Conincks 3 AEgid Conincks Ies de Sacram. qu. 75. Art 4. Dub. 3. Thomas in 4. Dist 44. qu. 2. Art â—â— ait Per miraculum fieri non posse ut corpus sit simul in duobus locis sc modo quantirativo Quià esse in pluribus locis repugnat Individuo ratione ejus quod est esse indivisum per sc Sanè haec ratio si absolutè nâ— sonat intelligatur corpus Christi non potest esse simul in coelo in hoc Sacramento If as Thomas saith saith he a Body cannot be in two places at once Quantitaetively no not by any Miracle of God because the thing should so be divided from it selfe then the words being taken as they sound cannot Christ's Body be at once locally in heaven and on earth in this Sacrament So he Thus is the maine Article of your Romish Faith concerning the Corporall Presence of Christ in many places at once wholly overthrowne by the judgement of Thomas Aquinas the Oracle of your Romish Shooles But when as Protestants argue accordingly as you have done your Ies 4 Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom. Disp 189 Cap 7. Ratio quae ab Haereticis affertur est Corpus idem si in diversis locis collocetur esse divisum à se Vasquez spareth not to call it the Reason of Heretikes Which bewrayeth the distorted and squint-eyed sight of our Romish Adversaries who knowing the same Argument to be used by your owne Aquinas as well as by Protestants do notwithstanding honor the one with the Title of Angelicall and upbraid the other with the black marke of Hereticall Earnestly have wee sought for some Answer to this insoluble Argument as wee thinke and your greatest Doctor hath nothing to say but that the p Duplex est divisio una intrinseca in se altera extrinseca accidentalis in respectu loci Itaque cum corpus est in diversis locis non tollitur indivisio in se sed extrinseca in respectu loci ut cùm Deus sit unus est in diversis locis anima rationalis est in diversis partibus corporis una Bellar. ibid. Being in a place is not the essentiall property of a thing and therefore can be no more said to divide the Body from it selfe than it can be said to divide God who is every where or the soule of man which is one in every part or member of the Body So he Wee throughout this whole Tractate wherein wee dispute of the Existence of a Body in a Place do not tye our selves every where to the precise Acception of place as it is defined to be Superficies c. but as it signifieth one space or distinct Vbi from another which wee call here and there We returne to your Cardinals Answer CHALLENGE AN answer you have heard from your Cardinall unworthy any man of Iudgement because of a Triple falsity therein First in the Antecedent and Assertion saying that Being in a Place or space is not inseparable from a Body Secondly in the Ground of that because Place is not of the Essence of a Body Thirdly in his Instances which hee insisteth upon for Example-sake which are both Heterogenies Contrary to this Assertion wee have already proved the necessity of the Locall Being of a Body wheresoever it is and now wee confirme it by the Assertion of One than whom the latter Age of the World hath not acknowledged any more accurate and accomplished with Philosophicall learning even q Si dicas corpus est hîc ibi idem ipsum quidem distrahas in diversa principio ptimo per se immediato prohibetur corpus esse in pluribus ubi est autem continuitas affectus consequens immediate unitatem Contradictiones enim sunt Iulius Scalliger Exercit. 5. quaest 6. For how can there hee Continuity in that 5. the Termiâ—i whereof are separated by divers places Iulius Scaliger by name a Professed Romanist who hath concluded as a Principle infallible that Continuity being an immediate affection and property of Vnity One Body cannot be said to be in two places as here and there without dividing it selfe from it selfe So hee Certainly because Place being the Terminus to wit that which doth confine the Body that is in it it is no more possible for the Body to be in many places at once than it is for an Vnity to be a multitude or many Which truth if that you should need any further proofe may seeme to be confirmed in this that your Disputers are driven to so miserable Straits as that they are not able to instance in any one thing in the world to exemplifie a Possibility of the being of a Body in divers places at once but onely Man's soule which is a spirit and God himselfe the Spirit of Spirits of both which * See below Ch ◠§. 2. 〈◊〉 §. 2. hereafter Onely you are to observe that the Cardinals Argument in proving Space to be separable from a Body because it is not of the Essence of a Body is in it selfe a Non sequitur as may appeare in the Adjunct of Time which although it be not of the Essence of any thing yet is it impossible for any thing to be without Time or yet to be in two different Times together âšœ And for the better discovery of the weakenesse of this their common Objection Wee adde that although Vbi Place or Space be not of the essence of a Body to constitute it one yet may it be sufficient to demonstrate it to be but one Body because of Contradiction as well as all proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or properties as Risibility in a man or else as Quantity to a Body and Circumscription to Quantity which although they be after their Substances in nature yet are they joyntly and inseparably with them in Times But that wee may argue from the very termes of Contradiction Your asserting the same Body of Christ to be Locall according to the dimensions of Place and not Locall according to the dimensions of Place at one time implies a Contradiction But you teach the same Body of Christ to be
at once as â—n heaven Locall according to the dimensions of Place and as on the Altar not Locall according to the dimensions of Place Therfore is your Romish Doctrine Contradictorie to it selfe Yet shall wee be content that you may call this a Sophisticall Argument except the Ancient Fathers shall establish the same Conclusion For this present take unto you a Reason as wee think Impregnable Nothing can possibly be Extrà se without it selfe but for a Body being heere to be at the same time separated from Heere by a Space where it is not as on this Altar and on the other Altar and yet not to be in the Space betweene is to be without it selfe and Consequently divideth it selfe from it selfe which no man will affirme that is not beside himselfe The same Second Romish Contradiction manifested in Scripture by an Argument Angelicall SECT III. M Atth. 28. 6. The Angell speaking to the woman that sought Christ in the grave said Hee is not heere for he is risen and gone into Galilee which is as much as to have said hee could not be in Both places at once an Argument Angelicall But you Answer that it was spoken Morally How wee beseech you as if one should say saith your r Loquitur ad mentem sanctarum illarum mulierum Sed optima est solutio moraliter intel ligi ut si quis dicat talis homo non sedet ad mensam coenatus est enim Bellar. li. 3. de Eu h. c. 4. Cardinall Such a man sitteth not at table for he hath supped What fond trifling is this and wilfull perverting the Truth of God for this your Argument A man sitteth not at table for hee hath supped is scarce a probable Consequence that a man is risen from the table as soone as hee hath supped Contrarily the Angel's Logike is not by a Peradventure but necessary not imaginary but historicall not conjecturall but dogmaticall and Demonstrative âšœ And so Saint 5 Chrysost Venite inspicite ubi positus erat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the words of the Evangelist âšœ Chrysostome doth call it For better explanation whereof wee may turne the Causall word FOR into an Illative THEREFORE because it is all one as you know to say hee is not here in the Grave For â—hee is risen out of the Grave And to say Hee is risen out of the Grave Therefore hee is not heere in the Grave Vnderstand then first that the matter subject of this Argument being no morall arbritrary Act of man's will but the omnipotent Resurrection of Christ from the dead which is a fundamentall Article of Christian Faith yea and as it were the foundation of all other Articles without which as the Apostle saith * 1 Cor. 15. 14. Our Faith were vaine the Angell must necessarily be thought to have concluded dogmatically which is the reason that he is so instant and so urgent saying to the woman Come and see the place where the Lord was laid Which hee addeth saith your Å¿ Videli ad Comprobandum dictum Non est hîc Salmer Ies Tom. 11. Tract 9. pag. 72. Iesuite for confirmation of that which hee had said Hee is not heere Seeking by their sight saith also another 6 Maldonat Ies in eum locum Nunc experientia confirmat ipso visu nititur fidem facere Iesuite to make them believe âšœ And as much as if hee had said saith t Quasi dicat si verbo non credatis vacuo sepulchro credatis Anselm Anselme If you believe not my word give credit to the emptie Sepulchre in satisfying your owne sight Therefore was it demonstrative And againe the Angell putting them to make use both of his Saving and their owne Seeing Go yee saith hee and tell his Disciples And they went saith the Text to bring his Disciples word Therefore was his Argument Doctrinall such whereby he thought so fully to perswade them that they might informe others in an Infallible Truth âšœ One of your Doctors of Lovain published a Booke intituled A Confutation of Cavillations wherein hee 7 Marcus Constant Theol. Lovan lib. qui inscribitur Confutatio Cavillationum quibus Sacramentum Euâ—h impeti solet Ad ob 6. Surrexit non est hîc Respondet Catholicus quae est haec Consecutio non est hîc ergo non est in Sacramento adeonè illi inepti ut id colligant non est hîc ergo non potest hîc esse Arundimea sunt haec flaccida tela quae librata non pertingant quo intenduntur propoundeth the Argument of Protestants as if it stood simply thus The Angell sayd of Christ now risen out of the grave Hee is risen hee is not heere Therefore hee cannot be heere And thereupon calleth them Absurd when-as they argue from the Angels owne Logicall terme For in the Text Matth. 28. 6. Hee is not heere For hee is risen Implying the Consequence which you have heard that he could not be both Risen out of the Grave and In the Grave at the same time of the Angels speech But the Causall word For your Doctor omitted quite that hee might more easily impose upon them an Absurdity of his owne devising Thus have you beene confuted by an Argument both Angelicall and Evangelicall âšœ That the Romish Objection out of that Scripture Act. 9. is frivolous SECT IV. CHrist Act. 9. appeared to Saint Paul then Saul when hee was in his way to Damascus c. whence your Cardinall a Simul in summo 〈◊〉 in â—eÌ„re vieuâ— terrae Bellarâ—ll 3. de Eâ—ch c. 3. §. Secundum c. laboureth to prove a double presence of Christ at one instant to wit in Heaven with the Saints and in the Ayre unto Saul First because the light in the Ayre Strucke Saul blinde Secondly because others in the company of Saul heard not the same voice of Christ which hee heard Thirdly because Saul asked saying Lord who art thou and heard and understood the voice Fourthly Because Saul was thereby made a witnesse of seeing Christ risen from the dead And therefore saith hee was this Apparition in the Ayre Every objection may receive it's opposition To the first thus Did none of you ever know a mans eyes so dazled with the brightnesse of the Sun-beames on earth that hee could not see for a while and yet did not the Sun remove any whit from his Sphere So might the glorious shine of the person of Christ in Heaven worke upon Saul on earth To the second thus Have you not read of a voice from Heaven Iohn 12. 29. which some heard articulately and said An Angell speaketh and the common people said It thundreth because as your b Tolet. Ies in cum locum Iesuit confesseth they heard it but confusedly To the third thus Men heare and heare not so farre as God is pleased to reveale or not to reveale himselfe or his word and voyce yea or any sight unto them for Saint Stephen saw
propter varias ejus existentias simul mortalem immortalem passibilem impassibilem se repraesentare Alij huic se sententiae opposuêre tempore Berengarij quià viderunt maximè intelligentiae repugnare ut idem corpus sit simul mortale immortale Alan Card. de Euchar. Sacram lib. 1. pag. 451. denying that the same Body in respect of divers places can be sayd to be Mortall and Immortall Passible and Impassible expresseth this Reason which saith hee was used of old Because these sayings are most repugnant to the understanding of man âšœ Lastly and most largely your 25 Aegid Conincks Ies de Sacram. qu. 75. Art 4 Dub. 3. num 110. Possibile esse corpus habere diversa accidentia ut movere in uno quiescere in alio aut contrario motu moveri videtur omninò inconceptibile quià quiescere dicit expressè negationem motus atque ità moveri quiescere sunt contradictoria Vel responderi potest haec dici de eodem ratione diversorum ubiâ— quod nullo modo dicendum quia frigere calere non conveniunt subjecto raiione loci sed ratione sui Confirmatur 1. quia album dum movetur semper secundum aliud aliud esse album 2. quia diversa ubi cùm sint mera Accidentia non magis multiplicant subjectum secundum se quà m alia Accidentia 3. quia diversa ubi sunt sibi mutuò modi repugnantes non minus quà m calor frigus Vnde sequeretur ut si homo qui hoc mundo positus esset in diversis locis virtute naturali non posset moveri nisi utrinque locum amittat desinat esse in diversis locis 4. quia haec sententia non potest deduci ex rebus naturali lumine notis Iesuit Conincks denying the Possibity of any thing to both Move and be still at once because this is Inconceivable by reason of Contradiction which is not saith hee to be avoyded by respect of the diversity of Places Confirming his Conclusion by other Reasons specified in the Margin one is that Divers Vbi's or Places are as Repugnant as are Heat and Gold and the like But enough now âšœ CHALLENGE WEE have in these your Premises received as true Assertions as sufficient Reasons and as absolute Confessions as can be desired which will be as so many Ponyards sticking fast in the bowels of your Romish Cause to give it a deadly wound As first this * See in this Book Chap. 9. § 2. c. you teach that Christ as he is in this Sacrament hath no naturall faculty either of Motion of Sense of Appetite or of Vnderstanding things past all which notwithstanding hee hath in all perfection in Heaven But to understand and not to understand to have and not to have an Appetite you will confesse to be as absolute Qualities and Acts Contradictorie as free from respect to Place as are those which you have allowed to wit Grieve and not Grieve love and not love alive and not alive because man hath an Appetite and Desire an Act of understanding in himselfe not as hee is in one Place more than in another âšœ A Parisian Doctor will give you his Determination saying that 25 Liber qui inscribitur Olim incognitur Carmelita Doctor paris in 4. Sent. Cùm esuries sit appetitus calidi sicci ille autem vel est naturalis vel voluntarius vel sensitivus velle comedere sive sic sive sic Dico quòd si appetitus satiaretur in uno loco statim cessaret in alio loco de cibo sumpto If the Appetite be satisfied in one Place it doth not desire meate at the same time in another Place So hee How much more must this hold in the Vnderstanding part of things passed which because they are Things passed cannot be sayd to have Relation to any present place no more than To freeze and to be hot âšœ Seeing therefore you have beene enforced by infallible Principles of sound learning to hold it Impossible for one to love and hate and to have contrary passions together because they are Contradictories and would inferre that one man should be and not be himselfe Therefore are you become necessarily Contradictory to your selves Can there be a stronger Argument than this to perswade Christians that your Doctors are men delivered up to strong delusions to beleeve lyes of which kind this of teaching a Body to be in divers places at once is not the least notwithstanding any Objection by you made to the contrary as shall be shewne CHAP. VI. A Confutation of the first Romish Reason obtruded for proofe of a Possibilitie of Existence or a Body in divers places at once taken from the nature either of a Voyce or Colour SECT I. MAster a In his Booke of the Liturgie of the Mâ—sse where he hath other as idle reasons as this Brerely thus The difficulty may be better conceived rather than directly proved by an example of the same word the which being once uttered is thereupon at one instant in the severall hearing of sundry persons and that not as a distinct noyse confusedly multiplyed in the Ayre but as one and the same peculiar word distinguished by the selfe-same syllables wherein it was uttered So hee and your Doctor Wright b In his Booke of the Reall Presence Tract 2. §. 4. Subd 1. pag. 149. before him âšœ And one before them both Pope Innocent the third 1 Innocent 3. de Offic. Missae l. 4. c. 2. Et nô â—iratis quòd verbum simul est in aurjbus diversorum Sic ergò Christus in singulis locis est unus sicut in singulis partibus est totus As the word saith hee in the eares of divers at once even so is Christ's Body in divers places at once Your Lovain Doctor 2 Ioh Gâ—rretius Docto. Lov in de Praesent Corp. Christi in Eucharist pag. 70. ex Guitmundo Eadem vox ad mille aures tota peâ—â—ingit Ex Thoma Graeco pag. 97. Sicut una voâ—â— penerrat ad multorum aures Et pag. 102. Ex Nicela Acoâ—inat Quâ—mâ—dmodum una vox eadem manet in ere existeâ—s tota auribus omnium infunditur integra quâ—mvis ipsa corpus sit nihil enim est aliud quà m 〈◊〉 â—â—cussus nemine eorum qui audiunt plus minusvè recipiente Et pag. 105. Ex Samonas Episc Gazensi Quisquis habet speculum in multa fragmenta comminutum in singulis tamen fragmentis umbram sui salvam videre possit Et verbum idem multis auditum non est diversum sed integrum Et pag. 122. ex Lodulpho Carthusiand Christus est totus in qualibet parte ut in fracto speculo sit unius ejusdem formae numero integrae ad quamlibet speculi frâ—cturam reflexio Garretius citeth divers Others objecting both the manifold receiving of the same Voice in the eares of Thousands at once and of the same Image of a
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
your framing a Christ unto your selves who as hee is in this Sacrament Is you say without power of motion of sense and of understanding Why my Masters can there be Lamenesse Blindnesse Deafenesse and Impotencie it selfe without Hurt of the same party so maymed c. This is worse than your dirty imagination of placing him in a Dunghill âšœ A Vindication of the former Truth against the palpably-Absurd albeit amongst you most plausible Defence of your seeming Romish Absurdities in Master Fishers Answer to KING JAMES of Blessed and ever surviving Memory SECT VI. HIs Tractate upon Transubstantiation so greatly magnified of the Romish Professors is very large wee shall draw his principall Points into a Compendium which consisteth of two Generalls and of divers Particulars His two Generalls are his Position and Supposition Master Fisher his Generall Position for Defence of Romish Absurdities the Consequences of your Transubstantiation Numb 1. A Christian Catholike saith he Seeing in the doctrine of Transubstantiation many seeming Absurdities that presse carnall Imaginations to the ground growes more and more strong to believe them imbracing these difficulties as signes of that doctrine which was believed of the Primitive Church And againe The seeming Absurdities should rather incline a Christian to beleeve this mystery Our Reply in Generall to prove that his former Assertion may truly be termed FISHERS FOLLIE For if the Absurder a thing be it shall deserve a more beliefe then the Pagans of whom Tully could say There is nothing so Absurd which is not taught of some Philosopher even to the affirming of Snow to be Blacke should be held to be more faithfull than the best of Christians and Heretikes who have turned their Phantasticall dreames into Articles of Faith should be judged to be more true Beleevers than are true Catholikes And sure wee are that by this Position the Jewish Rabbins who taught the people to beleeve in an implicit Faith all their Doctrines albeit it were to hold his Left hand was his Right should bee esteemed no lesse Faithfull than the Papist who by like Doctrine of blind Obedience have professed that Christ his Bodie being in divers Hoasts taketh the Right hand and left hand of it selfe And by the same Assertion shall Master Fisher thinke himselfe to be a better Catholike than were any of the ancient Fathers or yet any Romish Doctor yea or than is M. Fisher himselfe as will appeare in the sequele of our Reply The second Generall is Master Fisher his Supposition Numb 2. Master Fisher his Supposition is That although the Absurdities which are imputed by Protestants to your Doctrine of Transubstantiation seeme to be such Because they are not apprehensible by reason yet are they therefore saith he the rather to be beleeved notwithstanding whatsoever Impossibilities that can be pretended So hee Our Confutation must be accordingly two-fold The first in respect of Impossibilities and the next of Indignities Our Reply displaying the Absurditie of Master Fishers Supposition in respect of Impossibilities by the Generall Doctrine of Fathers Consent of Romish Divines and by his owne particular Praevarication First the Ancient Fathers of the Primitive age have unanimously professed a Doctrine of an Absolute Impossibility in all such things which imply any Contradiction as you have * See above in this B. 4. cap. 3. Sect. 2. 3. heard and maintaining this Doctrine of granting an Impossibilitie in such Cases to be a Truth greatly magnifying the Omnipotencie and Almighty power of God even by reason of Contradiction in them which is an affirming and denying of the same thing Concluding furthermore that gain-saying of Impossibilitie in things contradictory hath beene anciently The Sanctuary of Heretikes So the holy Fathers Secondly all the Doctors of the Romish Schooles of whatsoever Age Sect Society or Denomination have subscribed to the judgement of those Ancient Fathers in the same point of Impossibilitie but why Impossibility Because say they that such things are unconceivible in mans reason and that they seeme Absurd because of Contradiction And hereupon have concluded of many Impossibilities touching a Body as for example * See above c. 3. Impossible for a Body to be produced in divers places at once Impossible for a quantitie of a Bodie not to possesse a place Impossible for Christs Body as in this Sacrament to goe from one place to another Impossible for the same Bodie to be equall with a greater quantity and many other more Impossibilities have they reckoned upon the same ground that the Reason of man could apprehend nothing in such points but an implication of Contradiction And now all these great pillars of Christianity as well in the Vniversall Church Primitive as in the now Romish must by Master Fishers former Assertion be held to have beene no better than underminers of the Christian Faith in that they did not Rather beleeve those things to be possible even because they seemed Impossible by reason of Contradiction Lastly to come to Master Fisher his owne Praevarication * Mr. Fisher in his Answere to the 〈◊〉 upon the seventh point which is the â—ommunion in both kinds How can the Body of Christ saith hee be without either Blood or Soule unlesse it were dead and so should Christ be massacred in this Sacrament and that Eucharist be a Bloody Sacrifice and Christ glorious in Heaven cannot say truly that a Body voyd of Soule Blood and Sense is his Body Yea as Calvin himselfe confesseth It is an Absurd maner of speech to terme Christ the meere Bodie of Christ So hee Whereupon hee will be found so implicated within the horâ—es of a Dilemma that hee cannot expedite himselfe For say good Master Fisher should a Christian man as you have sayd the rather beleeve a Doctrine because it seemeth to be Absurd wee speake of sensible Objects why then do you not beleeve these Absurdities which you your selfe now do so utterly therefore condemne But do you indeed condemne them because they seeme impossible and Absurd why then have you broached a Doctrine of Rather beleeving things because of their seeming Impossiblities So easie it is for a Patron of Absurdities to prove himselfe notably Absurd Master Fisher his Generall Supposition in respect of Seeming Indignities happening to the Bodie of Christ from the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Numb 3. As hee sayd of Absurdities in respect of Impossibilitie so doth hee also argue from Seeming Indignities condemning Protestants for arguing against Transubstantiation because of Seeming Indignities As in not conceiving Christs Bodie saith hee to be combined unto the Consecrated formes of Bread and not to be polluted with such Indignities and Obscenities So he Our Reply As though no other Indignities might be imputed to Romish Doctrine except it were in such like Cases wherein the Bodie of Christ should receive some Corporall hurt or pollution There were and are amongst the Romish * See Booke 5. cap. 7. Sect. 1. Professors and that no small Babes who have taught a
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
shewed in the Third Booke III. Vpon the same Sacramentall and Analogicall reason they have used to say that wee See Touch Tast and Eat Christs Body albeit Improperly as hath beene plentifully declared and confessed in this Fift Booke IV. Because Eating produceth a Nourishing and Augmentation of the Body of the Eater by the thing Eaten they have attributed like Phrases of our Bodily Nourishment and Augmentation by Christs Body which you your selves have confessed to be most Improperly spoken in the same Booke V. Almost all the former Vnions Corporall of our Bodies with Christ have beene ascribed by the same Fathers unto the Sacrament of Baptisme wherein there cannot Properly be any Corporall Touch or Conjunction at all As for example in saying I. That Wee in Baptisme hold the feet of Christ II. Are Sprinkled with his Blood III. Do Eat his flesh have Vnion with him in Nature and not onely on Affection IV. Being made Bone of his Bone and Flesh of his Flesh V. Thereby have a Pledge of our Resurrection to Life And a Pledge as you have now heard is of that which is Absent Each one of these and many other the like are abundantly alleged in the Eighth Booke of this Treatise of the Masse The summe of all these Premises is that wee are to acknowledge in the Objected Testimonies of Fathers concerning the Symbol and Sacrament of Christs Body their Symbolicall and Sacramentall that is Figurative Meanings And lest you may Doubt of the reason hereof we adjoyne the Section following The Divine Contemplations which the Holy Fathers had in uttering their Phrases of our Naturall and Corporall Conjunction with Christs Body and Nourishment thereby to Immortality for the Elevating of our minds to a Spirituall apprehension of his Body and Blood SECT V. YOur Jesuites Bellarmine Tolet Suarez and Vasquez have already instructed you not to take such Sayings of the Fathers as they are uttered lest the Fathers might be held to be Absurd in themselves or Derogatory to the Dignity and Majesty of this Sacrament And they say well But it had beene better if they had furthermore unfolded unto us the Fathers true Mysticall meaning therein which wee must endeavour to do out of the premised Sentences of the same Fathers to the end that you and wee may make an holy and comfortable use of their Divine meditations upon this Sacrament They have sayd I. That Christ hath a Naturall Vnion by his Godhead with God the Father II. That this Godhead of Christ by his Incarnation is united Hypostatically into our Nature of Manhood in him whereby wee have with Christ our Naturall and Corporall Conjunction III. That by the same Hypostaticall Vnion of his Divine and Humane Nature together his Bodily Flesh is become the Flesh of God his Blood the Blood of God IV. That these being the Flesh and Blood of God are become thereby to be Vivificall that is giving Life Blisse and Immortality both to the Bodies and Soules of the Faithfull in Christ V. That the Faithfull by Reason of the Specificall Vnion of their Humane nature with the Humane Nature of Christ are made partakers the reby of his Divine Nature and of all the Infinite Vivification and power of grace in this world and of Glory and Immortality in the world to come wrought by his Death and Passion VI. Both by Baptisme and by the Eucharist wee have a Naturall and Corporall Vnion with the Body of Christ mystically in as much as the Sacrament of Bread and Wine the Choycest Refections of mans Bodily Life are Touched Tasted Eaten and Sensually mixed with our Flesh to the nourishing and augmenting the same untill it become of the Essence of our Bodily Substance unseparably Therfore hath this Sacrament most aptly beene called a Pledge of an unspeakable Vnion of Christs Body with ours unto Immortality and an Earnest of our Resurrection Lastly from this Sacrament there resulteth a Spirituall Vnion continuing in the Faithfull after the Receiving of this Sacrament even all their life long and notwithstanding called by the same Fathers Corporall and Naturall that is as they interpret themselves from the Nature of Faith by believing that Christ had truly a Naturall and Bodily flesh the same Specifically with ours Which Vnion your Jesuites have beene enforced to acknowledge to be in it selfe not Properly a Corporall and Naturall Vnion but Spirituall and Mysticall wrought onely in the Soule But how This indeed is worthy our knowledge as a matter full of Christian Comfort Thus then The Disposition of the Body in Christian Philosophy followeth the Disposition of the Soule For when the Soules of the Faithfull departing this life in the state of Grace and the Soules likewise of the Vngodly passing but from hence into the thraldome of Sin shall resume their owne Bodies by virtue of that Resumption shall be made possessors of Life and Blisse both in Body and Soule and the Wicked contrarily of Curse and Damnation in both according to that Generall Doome Come you Blessed unto the one c. and Goe you Cursed to the other c. Nor will your learned Suarez deny this 22 Suarez in 3. Tho. qu 79. Disp 64. §. 2. Gloria corporis respondet gloriae animae sicut beatitudo animae respondet gratiae charitati ut sicut hoc Sacramentum neque habet nequè haberé potest aliam efficaciam circa gloriam animae praeter eam quam habet circa gratiam charitatem itaque neque aliter pâ—â—est efficere gloriam corporis quam gloriam animae CoÌ„dudit Hoc Sacramentum non aliam conferre vitam immortalitatem corporis quam nutriendo conservando charitatem gratiam The Glory of the Body saith hee dependeth upon the Glory of the Soule and the Happinesse of the Soule dependeth upon Grace therein neither doth the Sacrament any otherwise conferre Immortality to the Body but by nourishing and preserving grace in the Soule Which is Divinely spoken And yet wee have a more Ancient than your Jesuite even Cyprian one of the Ancientest of the Primitive Fathers whose words may serve us for a Comment upon the former objected Sayings of other Fathers Hee in his Discourse of the Supper of the Lord the Blessed Sacrament of our Vnion which the Faithfull Communicants have in receiving it 23 Cyprian de Câ—na Dom. Potus Esus ad eandem pertinent rationem quibus sicut corporea nutritur substantia vivit â—â—colum 〈◊〉 perseâ—erat ita vita spiritus hoc propâ—io alimento nutritur quod est esâ—a 〈◊〉 hoc animae est fides quod cibus corporiâ— est verbum spiritui excellentiori virtute peragens aeternaliter quod agant alimenta carnalia temporaliter As by meat and drinke saith hee the Substance of our Bodies is nourished and liveth in health so the life of the Spirit is nourished with this Aliment For what Meat is to the Flesh that is Faith to the Soule and what Food is to the Body that
lambunt carnem devorant Euchitae Gnostici olim hoc factitârunt ea etiam ab Ethnicis in Catholicos derivata calumnia est ut Apologiarum pro Christianis meminerunt Scriptores Baronius and 9 Lorinus men of chiefest note in your Church witnessing concerning that lowd and lewd Slander cast upon Catholike Christians by both Iewes and Gentiles that it was occasioned by Hereticall and Fanaticall Christians in the Primitive Age of the Church such as were the Montanists the Cataphryges and Gnosticks who did indeed and Really eate Humane flesh So they But most especially is this Romish Figment confuted by the Storie it selfe which by the Relation of the foresaid Fathers Confessions of the former Romanists and Tenor of the Histories themselves was The Eating of a Child or Infant which maketh the falshood of your Objections to seeme in a maner palpable unto us because Christ being crucified by both Jewes and Gentiles when hee was above thirty yeares of Age and the whole Church of Christ professing as much it was not possible that the Eating of an Infant onely should produce an opinion of Eating a Man of growth much lesse could it be credible that they imputed the Eating thereof in the Eucharist if as your French 10 Gabriel Episcop Albispin lib. 1. Observat 18 Eucharistia non nisi mane sumebatur Teâ—t ad uxor Non sciet Maritus quid secreto ante cibum gustes Agapae non nisi vespere Item quae de Convivio quod Gentiles infamabant habent Patres cum ea omnia de Agapis non de Euchatistia accipienda sunt ut in Apologet. Tertâ—l cap. 7. 8. 9. in fine quod non animadvertentes plerique perperam de Eucharistia explicarunt Similiter apud Minutium de inhumanis cibus de infante farte contecto quod coeunt solenni die quae hisce objectionibus respondet Minutius de Agapis intelligere necesse est eo apud Euseb Imper. Iustin Gretzerus Ies de cruce lib. 1. cap. 51. Ethnici aliqui mentiebantur Christianos A sinum pro Deo colete Bishop teacheth This their Eating the flesh of a Child was not practised in the Feast of the Lord's Supper but at their Love-Feasts called Agapae So hee And consequently so sandie and boggie is this foundation of your maine Objection for proofe of the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist The Second Romish Argument out of Justine termed Insoluble before all others is because when hee called the Eating of the Eucharist the Eating of the Body of Christ hee wrot to an Heathen Emperour SECT III. IVstine writeth an Apologie unto Antoninus Pius an Heathen Emperour at what time the Slander of Eating Humane flesh fell upon the Orthodoxe Christians Originally from the impious Practice of Hereticall Christians as you have heard and now are you to heare the Insoluble Argument forsooth which your Cardinall Bellarmine extracteth from thence 11 Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4. Insolubiâ—e manet hoc Dilemma Aut poterat Iustinus vere dicere carnem Christi a Christianis solum in signo manducari aut non poterat si poterat Pâ—aevaricator fuit causae Christianae Nam odiosissimam reddidit fidem auxit criminum supicionem cum posset unto verbo fidem probabilem facere crimen diluere Si non poterat certè id eo non poterat quia verè non in signo tantum datur nobis comedenda Christi caro This Dilemma saith hee remaineth Insoluble Either could Iustine truly have sayd that the flesh of Christ is Eaten of Christians onely in a Signe or hee could not have so sayd If hee could then did hee play the Praevaricator in betraying the Christian cause by making the Christian Profession most odious to the increasing of the suspicion when as in one word hee might have made it probable and so have blotted out the Infamy conceived against Christians And if hee could not say that Christ is Eaten in the Eucharist onely as in a Signe doubtlesse the reason why hee could not must have beene because the flesh of Christ is not given to be Eaten therein as in a Signe onely So he Ostentatively of his owne Argument insigned by himselfe Insoluble as you see Notwithstanding this may admit divers and sundry Solutions That the Hornes of your Cardinals Dilemma are easily blunted by a Three-fold Solution The Firs is by shewing the Cause to be Impertinent SECT IV. IVstine 12 Iustin Apolog 2. Refert praescriptum Antonini Imperatoris ad populos A siae Sententiam corum Christianorum veâ—uti impiorum nullorum Deorum sugillatis et alia quaedam obiâ—citis crimina quae non potestis probate shewed to the same Emperour that no Impiety at all upon any Inquisition formerly made could be layd to the charge of Orthodoxe Christians in this Case by good proofes First Iustine propoundeth the Letters of the Emperour Adrian Father to Antoninus who upon experience of the extreme malice of his Heathen people against Christians required that his Officers should not prosecute against any Christian without proofe of some Impiety As also the Epistle of Marcus Emperour before his Father who became both a Patron to justifie the Case of Christians in respect of such Crimes objected against them and a Protector of their Persons commanding that whosoever should accuse a Christian 13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Onely for being a Christian that is for his Profession sake onely should be burnt Quicke And should not the Sacrifising of Infants if any such had beene practised by the Christians have beene held Capitall Crimes with those Emperours trow yee Besides this Iustine allegeth unto this Emperour Antoninus himselfe his owne Epistle whereby he testifyed in the Behalfe of Christians 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that None of those Crimes and Impieties whereof they were accused could be proved against them which proveth that notwithstanding all the Inquisition that Malice it selfe could make into the Mysteries of Christians concerning the Eucharist either in Word or in Act was not held offensive unto those Emperors upon any Information made by their Adversaries against them The Second Solution to prove their Dilemma Insufficient SECT V. OVr next Reason of the Insufficiencie meeteth with the Cardinalls Reason enforced by the First Horne of his Dilemma thus * See above Sect. 3. If Iustine saith hee could have sayd that Christs flesh is eaten in the Eucharist onely in a Signe then did hee praevaricate in the Case of Christians and make their faith most odious in increasing the Suspicion of the Crime objected against them Wee Answer that although hee might have sayd that Christs flesh is eaten Bodily onely in a Signe yet was not this necessary for the freeing of the Christian Faith from that Suspicion of Eating a Child One Reason may be Because nothing was more familiar even unto the Heathen themselves than to use the like language in calling their Sacramentall and Mysticall Signes by the
the Ancient Fathers can never be denyed by any that ever was acquainted with their Writings Now our Demonstration is this that most of these Acts which are here confessed to be Vnproper Sacrifices being used in the Celebration of the Supper of our Lord occasioned the Fathers to call the Eucharist it selfe a Sacrifice and therefore they meant thereby no Proper Sacrifice As first by your owne c Cassand Liturg cap. 22. Ordo celebrandi Missam secundùm Romanos celebrante Pontifice extractus ex varijs libellis Ibid. cap. 27. Populus dat Eleemosynas suas id est Panem vinum tam masculi quà m foeminae Ibid. De veteri ritu oblationis panis vini I Euch. cap. 14. Who can so much as suspect that the Fathers spake abusively in calling the Eucharist a Sacrifice seeing this is the onely Sacrament which they call a Sacrifice and no other Next take your learned'st Iesuite with you who would be loth to come behinde any in vehemencie and boldnesse thus c Suarez Ies In multis Conc. vocatur hoc Sacrificium incruentum Solum est observandum propter Haereticos qt Isidorus dictum quasi sacrum factum quia prece mysticâ consecratur Cassand ibid. Non ignoramus veteres Theologos appellâsse Eucharistiam Sacrificium laudis Moldonat lib. de 7. Sacrament Tom. 1. part 3. §. Praeter haec pag. 322. Confession that the Fathers called The Oblations of Bread and Wine made by the People before Consecration Sacrifices the Almes and Collections for the poore Sacrifices Our Praises and Thanksgiving to God whereof the Eucharist hath it's name Sacrifice and that many other Circumstantiall Acts are called Sacrifices even the Sole Act of our Commemoration as will appeare in our last Examination concerning the Doctrine of Protestants ⚜ But yet some of you among others your Pamelius are so greedie of a Sacrifice in the Masse that they will force Tertullian to speake for it even where as is confessed and proved hee speaketh of such Offerings which belonged to the 15 Gabriel Episcop Albispin Not. in Tertull. lib. ad Vxorem cap. 9. Sacrificia sine serupùlo c. Pamelius exponit de Missae Sacrificio At patiantur me liberè dicere haec ad Sacrificium Missae non pertinere sed de his mielligi quae in Ecclesia sive in Pauperum sive in Sacerdotum alimenta cum enim Vxores sine consensu Maritorum non possunt erogare ait maritatam Christiano sine scrupulo liberalem esse posse quòd maribus illud concedat Reliefe of the poore and which was to be ministred by a Woman the Wife of a Christian ⚜ Our Eleventh Demonstration Because the Relatives of Sacrifice which are Altar and Priest Objected as Properly taken are used Vnproperly of Ancient Fathers SECT XV. YOur Cardinall his Objection is this that Priest Altar and Sacrifice are Relatives and have mutuall and unseparable Dependance one of each other So hee and truly But you ought to take with you a necessary Caution observed by the same a Bellarm. Sunt Relata ità ut Sacrificium propriè dictum Sacerdotio propriè dicto Sacrificio impropriè dicto impropriè dictum sacerdotium respondeant Lib. 1. de Missa ca. 2. §. Quintum Cardinall that An unproper Sacrifice cannot inferre a proper Priest-hood nor an unproper Priest-hood a proper Sacrifice c. otherwise your Iesuite can tell you of a b Maldonat Ies Serpens aeneus suit Sacrificium commemorativum futuri Sacrificij Christi sed tamen non habuit altare Lib. de 7. Sacrā Tom. 1. de Euch. §. Quintum genus Sacrifice without an Altar and your c Abulens in Ios 22. Altare hoc non fuerat ad Sacrificium offerendum Quaest 9. Bishop can point you out an Altar without a Sacrifice Wherefore to take one of these improperly and the other properly were as wilde Sophistrie as from a wooden Leg to inferre a body of Flesh Now what if wee shall say of this Point of Appellations that It was not so from the Beginning Hereunto wee claime but your owne common Confessions viz d Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 17. § Neque Neque obstat quod Ministri Ecclesiastici non dicebantur Sacerdotes aut utebantur nominibus templi sacrificij Altaris similib quia tempore Apostolorū vigebat Sacerdotium Iudaicum ideò abstinebant abijsdem vocibus ne viderentur eosdem illos ritus innovare That the Apostles did willingly abstaine from the words of Sacrifice Sacerdos and Altar So your Cardinall and e Eodem modo Durantus de Ritibus lib. 1. cap. 1. num 7. Durantus the great Advocates for your Romane Masse whereby they have condemned not onely other your Romish Disputers who * See above Cha. 3. Sect. 8. have sought a Proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in your Masse from the word Altar used by the Apostle Paul Heb. 13. but also themselves who from Saint Luke Act. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * See above Chap. 2. Sect. 1. concluded a Proper Sacrifice As if the Apostles had both abstained and not abstained from the words of Priest and Sacrifice ⚜ And againe your Iesuite Lorinus 16 Lorin Ies in Act. 14. 22. de Sacerdote Ab hoc abstinet novum Testamentum ut magis proprio antiqui legis Sacrificij vel Idolorum concedo The New Testament saith hee abstained from the word * Graecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacerdos as from that which is more Proper to the Old Testament So hee Wherefore this and the English word Priest having a different Relation one to a Sacrificing Minister which is proper to the Old Testament the other as it is derived from the word * Graecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyter in the New Testament which is Senior and hath no Relation to any Sacrificing Function It must follow that your Disputers seeking to urge the Signification of a Sacrificing Office proper to the Old Testament for Proofe of a Sacrificing Act proper to the New performe as fond and fruitlesse a labour as is the patching of old Vestments with new pieces whereby the rent is made worse ⚜ But the Apostles did indeed forbeare such termes in their speeches concerning Christian worship whereof these your forenamed Disputers can give us a Reason f See the former Testimony at d. Lest that say they the Iewish Priest-hood being as yet in force Christians might seeme by using Iewish Termes to innovate Iewish Rites Which is enough to shew that you are perswaded they abstained from the use of these words for some Reason Yet that this could not be the Reason you may be sufficiently instructed in the word Baptisme this being as fully Iewish as was either the word Priest Altar or Temple and yet used of the Apostle without danger of Innovation of the Iewish maner of Baptismes Yea and if the Apostles had thought the Altar Priest Sacrifices to be essentiall parts of Christian Religion they
they shew some Examples of a Bodily Inclining to the Sacrament done before Consecration yet after Consecration they have not produced any one But what newes now We blush in your behalfe to repeat the Instance which you have out of your Legends of a f Mr. Brerely Liturg. Tract 2. §. 9. Subd 3. Out of Bellarm and Bellar. out of Antoninus When not unlike to the reproofe which God miraculously gave to Balaam by the speech of an Asse a bruit-beast for our instruction did prostrate himselfe in reverence before the blessed Sacrament Brute Beast prostrating it selfe before the Host and doing Reverence unto it Wee would have concealed this but that you seeme to glory herein as being for your Instruction like to the reproofe given miraculously to Balaam by his Asse Well might this Legend have become that latter time of darknesse wherein it was first hatched but not these cleare daies wherein your mysteries of Delusions have beene so often revealed and when all Christians almost in all Countries have taken knowledge of an * BANKS HIS HORSE according to his Masters owne Relation Horse taught by Art to kneele to any person at his Masters command and once in France when by the Suggestion and Instigation of Romish Priests his Master was called into question for Sorcerie hee for vindication of his credit with them commanded his Horse to kneele before a Crucifix and therby freed himselfe from suspition of Diabolicall familiarity according to the Principles of their owne superstition And for any one to conclude this to have bin Gods miraculous work in that Horse as the other was in that Asse would seeme to be the reason of an unreasonable man because all Miracles alwaies exceed all power both of Art and Nature else were they no Miracles at all Thus to your fourth Objection from outward Acts we passe on to Examples That no Example of Invocation objected out of Antiquity can inferre the Divine Honour of the Sacrament as is pretended SECT IV. YOur Instances are Three the principall in Gorgonia the Sister of Gregory Nazianzen in whose Oration at her Funerall we find that a Greg. Nazian Orat. 11 de Gorgonia Soror Gorgonia adversà corporis valetudine laborabat eratque prodigiosum morbi genus quod nec medicorum arte nec parentum lachrymis nec publicis precibus sanari potuit desperatis omnibus alijs auxilijs intempestà nocte captatâ ad Altare cum side procumbit eumque qui super isto honoratur ingenti clamore invocans cum caput suuÌ„ part cum clamore Altari admovisset deinde hoc pharmaco i.e. Lachrymarum ut exponit Elias Cretensis perfudisset si quid uspiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 AntityporuÌ„ preciosi Corporis Sanguinis manu recondrderat ad lachrymis admiscursset ô rem admirandam statim se morbo liberatam sentit She having been troubled with a prodigious disease after that neither the Art of Physick nor teares of her Parents nor the publike Prayers of the Church could procure her any health went and cast her selfe downe at the Altar Invocating Christ who is honoured on the Altar saying that she would not remove her head from the Altar untill shee had received her health when Oh admiable event she was presently freed from her dâ—sease This is the Story set downe by Gregory Nazianâ—en Hence your Cardinall concludeth that Gorgonia invocated the Sacrament as being the very Body and Blood of Christ and calleth this An hot and stinging Argument and so indeed it may be named yet onely in respect of them whose consciences are scorched or stung with their owne guiltinesse of in forcing and injuring the Story as will now appeare For first why should wee thinke that she invocated the Sacrament Because saith your b Bellar. Procumbens ante Altare coraÌ„ venerabili Sacramento Quid autem super altare colatur dubium esse non potest cum nihil ibi ponatur nisi Panis Vinum mutanda in corpus sanguinem Christi Petium MartyreÌ„ valdè ussit pupugitque hic locus Lib. 2. de Euch cap 14 Cardinall she prostrated her selfe at the Altar before the Sacrament which words Before the Sacrament are of his owne coyning and no part of the Story His next reason Because she is said to have invocated him who is honored on the Altar As though every Christian praying at the Table of the Lord to Christ may not be justly said to Invocate him who is used to be Honoured by the Priest celebrating the memory of Christ thereon Nay and were it granted that the Sacramentall Symbols had beene then on the Altar yet would it not follow that she invocated the Sacrament as betokening a Corporall presence of Christ as your Disputers have fancied no more than if the said godly woman upon the same occasion presenting her selfe at the sacred Font wherin she had beene baptized could be thought to have invocated the water therein because she was said to have invocated him who is honoured in the Administration of Baptisme And furthermore it is certaine that the Remainders of the Sacrament in those daies were kept in their Pastophorium a * See above Book 4. Chap. 1. Sect. 10. As further also appeareth in the Liturgie of pope Clement Accipiant Diacont reliquias portent in Pastophoria Doubtlesse from the Altar to a place remote Teste pamelio Tom 1 Missal Patrion Latin pag 118. place severed from the Altar especially at this time of her being there which was in the Night as the Story speaketh O! but she was cured of her disease at the Altar And so were other miraculous Cures wrought also at the Font of * See above Book 4. Chap. â— Sect. 5. Baptisme But for a Conclusion wee shal willingly admit of Gregory Nazianzen to be Vmpier betweene us He in relating the Story saith of the Sacrament of the Eucharist 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 11. quo supra If shee at the time of her invocating had laid up any part of the Antitypes or Symbols of the precious Body and Blood of Christ that shee mingled with her teares So hee calling the consecrated Sacrament Antitypes or Signes of Christ's Body therby signifying that the Sacrament is not the Body and Blood of Christ as hath been * Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. proved unto you at large out of Nazianzen and other Greeke Fathers Whereas if indeed he had meant that the Body and Blood of Christ had beene there corporally present as that which was Invocated then now if ever it had concerned this holy Father to have expresly delivered his supposition thus viz. If she had at that time of her Invocating laid up any whit of the precious Body and Blood of Christ Wee say of the Body and Blood of Christ and not as hee said of the Antitypes or Signes of his Body and Blood Thus is your hot and stinging Reason become chilly cold and altogether dronish Your second Instance is
Divine for direction to all Posterity to adore the Sacrament with Divine honour even as it is taught in the Church of Rome at this day and to have confirmed the same by some Practice not of one or other private man or woman but by their publike forme of Prayer and Invocation in their solemne Masses or else to confesse that Antiquity never fancied any Divine Adoration of the Eucharist Yet two words more You presse the point of the Invocation of the Sacrament more urgently and vehemently than any other and wee indeed believe that the ancient Fathers if they had held according to the now Romane Church a Corporall presence of Christ would never have celebrated any Masse without an expresse Invocation of the Sacrament as in your now-Romane Masse wee finde it done saying O Lambe of God c. or some other like forme Yet know now that your owne learned Pamelius hath published two large Tomes of all the Masses in the Latine Church from Pope Clemens downe to Pope Gregory containing the compasse of six hundred yeares wee say Latine Missals above forty in number in all which upon our once reading wee presume to say that there is not one such tenour of Invocation at all This our first Reason taken from so universall a silence of ancient Fathers in a case of so necessary a moment may be wee thinke satisfactory in it selfe to any man of ordinary Reason Our second Objection out of the Fathers followeth That the Ancient Fathers gain-sayd the Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament and the Adoration therof by their Preface in their presenting the Host saying Lift up your Hearts SECT II. IT was the generall Preface of Antiquity used in the Celebration of this Sacrament for the Minister to say Lift up your Hearts and the People to answer Wee lift them up unto the Lord. This Sursum Corda Calvin a Calvin Instit lib. 2. c. 17. §. 36. Nec alia cauâ—â in antiqua Ecclesia fuisse institutum ut antè mysteriotum celebrationeÌ„ diceretur Sursùm corda hath objected against you and your Cardinall confessing that this Preface b In omnibus Liturgiis Graecis Iacobi Basilij Chrysost et omnibus Latinis habetur id quod etiam hoc tempore nos facimus Bellar lib. 1. de Euch. ca. 14. §. Respondeo si was in use in all Liturgies of Antiquity aswell Greeke as Latine and continued in the Church of Rome unto this day Then answereth that c Respondeo Sursùm corda non significare elevationem ad locum corporalem sed elevationem à rebus terrenis curis hujus vitae ad Deum res aeternas Non respondetur Habemus ad firmamentum sed Habemus ad Dominum Et certè qui Christum quaerebant in praesepi in templo in sepulchro Sursùm corda habebant quia illum quaerebant qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in secula Et fieri potest ut qui terram intuetur cor deor um Sic qui in Eucharistia Christum quaerunt venerantur cor sursum habent si de ipso Christo non de negotiis hujus vitae interim cogitent Bellarm Ibid. Hee that seeketh Christ in the Eucharist and worshippeth him if hee thinke of Christ and not of the Cares of earthly things hee hath his heart above So hee As though the word Above meant as the Subject the person of Christ in the Eucharist and not his place of residence in the highest Heavens contrary to the word in the Greeke * Liturg. Graec. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Liturgies which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Above wherein the Church alludeth to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Apostle Coloss 3. 1. Seeke the things that are above where Christ is at the right hand of God as your owne d Monet ergo Sacerdos populum Sursùm i. e. super seipsum elevare corda ad Dominum juxtà exhortationem Apostoli Col. 3. Quae sursùm sunt quaerite non quae super terram Durand Ration lib. 4. cap. 33. Durandus the Expositor of the Romish Masse doth acknowledge Saint Augustine saying e Aug. in Psal 148. Laudate Dominum in excelsis Primò de coelo dicit posteà de terris laudatur enim Deus qui fecit coelum terram Nos adhuc in imo sumus sed cum cogitamus quomodo illic laudetur Deus cor ibi habeamus non sine causa audimus Sursùm corda It is not without Cause that it is said Lift up your hearts Hee sheweth the Cause to be that wee who are here at the Bottome might according to that of the Psalmist Praise God in the highest This one would thinke is plaine enough but that is much more which wee have already proved out of the Fathers by their Antithesis and Opposition betweene the Altar on Earth and the other in Heaven where wee have heard * See above Booke 6. Chap. 3. Sect. 8. c. Chrysostome distinguishing them that fasten their thoughts upon this Below from Them that seeke Christ in Heaven as hee doth Choughs from Eagles Ambrose as they that behold the Image from them that contemplate upon the Truth * Ibid. Nazianzen as they that looke upon the Signes from them that see the Things and to contemplate upon the Better Altar in Heaven And the Councel of * Booke 4. Chap. 11. Sect. 4. Nice as they that stoope downe from them that looke up aloft And wee may not forget the Observation which * Booke 5. Chap. 5. Sect. â— Athanasius made of Christ in his discourse of Eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood purposely making mention of his Ascension into Heaven thereby to draw their thoughts from earthly Imaginations and to consider him as being in Heaven as did also Saint * Aug. See above B. 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. Augustine Cyril of Hierusalem is a Father whom you have often sollicited to speake for your Cause in other Cases but all in vaine shall wee hearken to him in this Hee interpreting these words Lift up your Hearts will not have it onely to signifie a sequestring of your thoughts from earthly Cares to spirituall and heavenly which you say was the meaning of the Councel of Nice as if that Lifting up their Hearts had beene onely an exercising of their thoughts upon that in the hands of the Priest or on the Altar beneath No but hee saith that it is f Cyril Hier. Catech. Mystag 5. Ob hanc causam clamat Sacerdos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quià oportet sursùm habere cor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non ad terrena negotia deprimere Paulò post 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To have our hearts in heaven with God the lover of man-kind even as did also Saint g Aug. in Psal 85. Certè rectè admonet ut Sursùm corda habeant audiant igitur faciant levent ad coelum quod malè est in terratiâ—i
the onely perfect Sacrifice p. 445. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Calumniously objected p. 496. K KNEELING Confessed by Romanists not to be Absolutely necessary in Reverence performed at the Receiving of the Eucharist pag. 515. Which cannot conclude it not to be expedient with us Ibid. L LIFT VP YOVR HEARTS used of the Councell of Nice p. 303. Vsed also of the Fathers against the Conceipt of Corporall Presence p. 525. LITVRGIES Anciently against the Romish Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist in the Masse p. 46 c. They Confute the Romish Sacrilegiousnesse in their Masse p. 562 563. S. Iames S. Basil S. Chrysostome Pope Clement Ibid. LVTHERANS Opinion touching Christs Presence in the Eucharist agreeth with the Augustane Confession p. 310. See Augustane Confession M MACARIVS His Opinion concerning the word Antitype p. 116. MADE Wee are made the same Body which wee receive So Chrysost and Bede pag. 202. MAD-MEN made Capable of the Eucharist is a Romish Innovation pag. 53 c. MALACH 5. In every place shall Sacrifice be offered in my name Objected for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse but upon a false foundation p. 429 430 c. It maketh against the Romish Sacrifice by the Exposition of the Fathers p. 434. Other Propheticall Scriptures constrainedly applyed to the Masse p. 435 c. MANNA A Spirituall meat to the Iewes p. 159. It is compared with the Eucharist p. 426 427. MANER Although the Controversie be onely De modo of Christs Presence in the Eucharist yet may the Romish Doctrine be Hereticall pag. 210 211. There is a double Quomodo the one Prudentiae the other Infidelitatis p. 211. MASSE The word Masse is derived from the Latine word Missa est pag. 2. It Confuteth the Romish practice of Non-communicants seeing Masse p. 3. Private Masse a Transgression of Christs Institution pag. 17. Against Antiquity p. 19. The Romish Masse is destitute of whatsoever is pretended to be Properly a Sacrificing Act therein p. 466. MELCHIZEDECH his ministring of Bread and Wine to Abraham not justly Objected for proofe of a Type of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse pag. 404 c. Fathers forcedly Objected for that purpose See Priesthood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not used of the Greekes concerning the Change in the Eucharist pag. 150. MEVM in Christs words Hoc est corpus meum as uttered by the Priest is Figurative pag. 138. That they cannot be Consecratory and Operative words as they are uttered by the Priest Ibid. See Figurative MIRACVLOVS Penetrations of Christs Body Objected p. 275. Thirteene miraculous Apparitions of the true Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist falsly pretended for proofe of a Corporall Presence p. 218 219 220 c. MORAL CERTAINTY No sufficient excuse against the Imputation of Formall Idolatry in the Romish Masse pag. 534 535 c. Protestants security in this respect p. 553 N NATVRE IS CHANGED This Phrase cannot inferre a Corporall Change in the Eucharist pag. 191. Christs two different Natures pag. 242 243 c. NAZIANZEN by his calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype yieldes to a Figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body p. 115. Hee noteth something to be Impossible even to the Advancement of Gods Omnipotencie p. 229. Hee holdeth it as a Doctrine of Faith that Every Angell hath allotted unto him a prescript place or space p. 261. His Answer to Apollinarius denying Christ to be God and man for then two Natures should be in one The reason saith hee of two being in one and of God-head and Man-hood in one are not Comparable p. 263. Hee is Objected for the Penetration of the Doores by Christs Body pag. 275. One place is not Capable of many Bodies pag. 259. Hee called the Eucharist a Viand pag. 366. His saying I have another Altar in Heaven whereof these are but signes pag. 417. His saying The Legall Passeover is a more obscure figure than the Eucharist p. 427. Hee calls the Eucharist an Vnbloody Sacrifice pag. 453. Hee differenceth the Altar below from the Altar in Heaven as the Lesse and more acceptable to God pag. 463. His saying Angels are present at Baptisme pag. 507. His Oration of Gorgonia vainly Objected for proofe of Divine Adoration of the Euchrist p. 517. His saying of Gorgonia That she mingled her teares with the Antitypes of Christs body and blood Ibid. His Pastophorie Ibid. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 518. His saying of ô Pascha Vindicated as spoken of the Feast of Easter and not of the Eucharist pag. 521 522 c. NORTHERN People not utterly destitute of Wine pag. 78. NICETAS is an Expounder of the words of Nazianzen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 522. GREG. NYSSEN is Objected in his Catech. Oration saying The Body of Christ is changed into whatsoever the Receiver will And Christs Body doth change our Bodies into it selfe pag. 202. Hee saith No Incorporcall thing can be Meate to a Corporall thing pag. 305. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seemeth nothing for Transubstantiation pag. 208. He calleth Baptisme a Divine Lavar working merveilous effects pag. 185. And Divine not common Water pag. 195. Hee is objected for Corporall Presence in diverse places at once but unconscionably pag. 248. Hee affirmes the Blessed Virgins opening of her Cell at Christs Birth pag. 277. Hee is Objected unconscionably for Corporall Vnion of Christ by Bodily nourishing our Bodies pag. 362. Confessed that hee spake of a Permanent Vnion pag. 365. That hee speaking of the nourishment of mens Bodies by this Sacrament meant not any Substantiall nourishment thereby which were Absurd as is Confessed Ibid. pag. 362. Hee is againe Objected pag. 500. Hee saith that Christ offered himselfe to his Disciples but was first slaine pag. 456. All such Sayings as this are Confessed to meane Commemoratively and Representatively onely and in a Sacrament or Mystery Ibid. Suffering in a Mystery Ergò Eaten in a Mystery Present in a Mystery Hee called Baptisme Blood in a Mystery Ibid. O OBSTINACY of Romish Disputers made Palpable in a full Synopsis p. 568 569 c. OECVMENIVS wrongfully Objected for a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse from the Act of Melchisedech pag. 404. Hee disclaiming all Properly called Altar Priesthood and Sacrifice p. 417. OMNIPOTENCY is required in making a Sacrament pag. 188 189 c. Omnipotencie attributed of the Fathers to the Eucharist no Argument of Transubstantiation pag. 188. Calvin and Beza Vujustly charged with Denying God's Omnipotencie pag. 231. Omnipotencie Falsely pretended for Defence of the Eutychian Heresie pag. 267. 277. OMNIPRESENCY of God impudently Objected to proove a Possibility of a Bodily Presence in diverse places at once pag. 260 261. Confuted by Ancient Fathors pag. 262. OPTATâ—S his Saying The Mâ—mbers of Christ are upon the Altar And the Altar is the Seate of Christs Body And it is an haynous thing c. Vnworthily Objected pag. 344. And his Saying of the Eucharist that It is a Pledge of our Salvation